ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 35 



I couteut myself with saying therefore, that as regards the area covered 

 by their Report they would have failed in tlieir duty if they had not 

 dealt with all the subjects tliataredealt with in their Keport, and when 

 an attack is made upon them because forsooth they do not " run-a-muck", 

 if I may use that vulgarism, against pelagic sealing — abused because 

 they suggest that a combined system of zone and close time and 

 licence will answer all reasonable purposes of protection of tlie seal 

 species — my friend forgets that Mr. Blaine thought that a 00 mile zone 

 round the islands without any close time would have been an ade(iuate 

 protection of the interests that were at stake; and that my friend Mr. 

 Phelps, whether intentionally or accidentally, I do not know, in his 

 printed argument states that the claim which the United States is 

 advancing is this. Having argued the question of protection, interest, 

 and property, at page 139 my friend says: 



The inevitable concbisioa from tlieso facts is, that there is an absohite necessity 

 for the repression of killing seals in the water in the seas near the Pribilof Islands, 

 if the herd is to be preserved from extinction. No middle course is practicable con- 

 sistently with its preservation. 



Therefore if no middle course is possible, the extreme course that my 

 learned friend suggests is that thei e is an absolute necessity to [u-event 

 the killing of seals in the waters near the Pribilof Islands if tlie herd 

 is to be preserved from extinction. I therefore think that the attack 

 upon the learned commissioners is not merited, not justified; and I can 

 say in relation to Mr. Elliott's report, that it is not possible to read 

 that report, as I have read it, and as I have read Mr. Elliott's — every 

 line of them — without seeing that there is a painfully conscientious 

 effort upon the part of Sir (Jeorge Baden-Powell, and Dr. Dawson to 

 put the j^ro.s' and conSj the considerations in favor of, and considerations 

 against ])articular views impartially and fully before the Tribunal by 

 whom it is to be used. 



Now, I may have to come back to that again for one moment, but I 

 proceed to the consideration of the general conditions which I submit 

 ought to be observed in relation to regulations. Mr. President, I begin 

 by adniitting that according to the terms of the treaty there is no 

 authority in this Tribunal to enjoin rules to be observed upon the islands; 

 that is to say, this Tribunal has no legislative authority, if I may use 

 that word, to legislate directly for the islands; because I must admit 

 that the Article VII which deals with regulations, limits the question 

 of regulations for your arbitrament to regulations outside the territorial 

 limits of the respective governments. But while I admit that, I am as 

 far as possible from admitting that it thereby follows that you cannot 

 make regulations which shall be conditional upon the observance of 

 certain rules upon the islands, which is a very different thing; and I 

 hope to make it apparent that not only can you do so, but that you 

 would be failing in giving effect to the prime object of the treaty itself 

 if you did not do so. 



Let me illustrate it at once. Mr. Elliott says in his report that a 

 period of absolute rest is necessary — not of pelagic sealing merely, but 

 a period of absolute rest on the islands. He says that witliout that rest 

 the seal race may not be saved from extermination. Your rules are to 

 be aimed at that preservation; and let me ask you — because it is an 

 absolute test of the soundness of the proposition I am advancing; I do 

 not say whether Prof. Elliott is right or wrong in that — but assuming 

 you should be of opinion that he is right, and that absolute ces;-^.ation of 

 killing on the islands is a condition of the preservation of the fur seal 

 species, am I to be told that you could make no condition in your regu- 



