ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 93 



tection that has been afforded to the seal in the various countries, — all 

 the countries I beheve in which it is now to be found, and the conse- 

 quence of the want of it in those countries in which it formerly existed 

 and from which it is now gone. 



The first instances I shall allude to are under the Imperial Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain, but in force in its Colonies. In the 1st United 

 Stares Appendix, at i);iges 43(5 and 437 will be found tlie Act for the 

 protection of seals in ^ew Zealand — an abstract run ninrj through pages 

 438, 439 and 440, and a Map. It is said by my learned friends in regard 

 to the map, and I think they are right in this criti( ism, that as drawn 

 it carries an erroneous impression of the etfect of the Act fixing- the 

 boundary of the Province of New Zealand; that while the map is cor- 

 rect in giving the limits of latitude and longitude which are described 

 as constituting the Colony, that it was not the intention of the Act to 

 assert such a jurisdiction over all the intermediate sea, but only to 

 make that a boundary so as to include within it all tlie land and islands 

 with the usual territorial limits. Certainly that was not the intentiori 

 of tlie gentleman who prei)ared this map; but I think the observation 

 of my friend is well founded. Neither is it in the least material to our 

 purpose, because as I believe I remarked this morning, nothing can be 

 clearer than that the jurisdiction upon the high seas of a country can- 

 not be arbitrarily extended to geographical limits, aside from any 

 special necessity that would justify it, by a Statute of that country. 

 So that if it were true that the Legislature of New Zealand had under- 

 taken to assert that several thousand miles of sea, irrespective of a"ny 

 particular purpose, should beregardedas the territory of New Zealand, 

 that would no more make it so than it would have followed if they had 

 passed no such act whatever. But the point is the ch)se protection, 

 the very special protection given by these acts, and under which, on 

 the face of the act, any vessel, boat or crew are made liable if found 

 within the waters where the seals are. That is the point to which we 

 have intended to invite attention by reference to these Statutes and 

 the construction of the map. 



Section 4 of the act of 1887 provides : 



If any person shall be foniul iu the possession of any seal, or the iinniannfaotnrecl 

 product of any seal, dnrin.o- the close season, such possession shall, for the purjtosea 

 of the said act and this act, be deemed to he, in the absence of satisfactory evidence 

 to the contrary, suflicient proof, and so on. 



Then section 5 is : 



Any vessel or boat the crew of which, or any part of the crew of which, shall bo 

 engaged in illesally takini^ seals, and any vessel or boat on board of which any seals 

 so illeijjally taken, or tlie skin oil, blubber, or other product of a seal so illegally 

 taken, shall be found, shall, together with the boats, furniture, and appurtenances 

 of such vessel or boat be forfeited to Her Majesty, and shall he disposed of as the 

 Commissioner may think lit. 



There are other very stringent provisions. There is one in section 7 

 that provides in effect that any officer of that Government shall have 

 ])ower to enter upon and search any vessel within the jurisdiction of 

 the Government of the Colony of New Zealand for aiiy seal or the 

 product of any seal. I need not go through with the details of this 

 protection; it is enough to say that they are such measures as are very 

 .properly and intelligently adopted by that Government for the protec- 

 tion of tlie seal, and whether they are greater or less, or right or wrong, 

 in themselves, does not affcf.t the principle. 



Here again the same observation which I have had occasion to make 

 before is applicable. During all this period and through all these Acts, 



