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



The President. — Of course, a great deal of the fish on the North- 

 west Coast goes to support this enormous family of seals. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Of course; and as I understand on Wash- 

 ington territory, Columbian territory and in Alaska from the North 

 there is great promise from the great salmon rivers. 



On page 19, the Commissioners discuss the "principles involved" in 

 the paragraph so headed. They j)oint out the necessity for protection 

 both on shore and at sea. They point out, in paragraph 118 which 

 excited my friend Mr. Carter's wrath, I think, the less danger at sea. 



They say: 



lu sealing at sea the conditions are categorically different, for it is evident that 

 by reason of the very method of hunting the profits must decrease, other things heing 

 equal, in a ratio much greater than that of any decrease in the number of sealis, aii(L 

 that there is therefore inherent an automatic principle of regulation sufticieut to 

 prevent the possible destruction of the industry if practised only at sea. 



And, finally, they refer to some other reasons. In paragraph 111), 

 they say : 



It Is, therefore, abundantly evident, if we judge by actual experience — 



(that is historically true, I submit) 



control of seal life beginning and ending with protection at sea, either partial or 

 absolute, can do no more than palliate, and certainly cannot materially lessen, the 

 danger to seal life as a whole, unless such control be devised and adopted in close 

 co-operation with agreed-upon equivalent measures on the breeding islands. 



The President. — I suppose that is one of the points upon which 

 the American Commissioners differed and dissented from the British 

 Commissioners. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I have no doubt they would have differed. 



The President. — They have not stated it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — They have not gone into it at all. I say 

 that that is historically true, because we do know that pelagic sealiug, 

 by itself, has never seriously threatened seal life in any quarter of the 

 globe. 



We know, on the other hand, that uncontrolled, or, as Senator Mor- 

 gan preferred to call it, "indiscriminate slaughter" on land, has been 

 the cause; and if it be answered by the United States, as it may be 

 answered, that they are wise men who will not kill the goose that lays 

 the golden egg — that self-interest will suggest their doing the proper 

 thing on the island — our answer is that their self-interest was as great 

 20 years ago — 10 years ago, as it is to-day, and yet — in face of that we 

 have this — if you accept the report of Professor Elliott which I have 

 endeavored to justify, without going into the details upon it — (it will be 

 gone into in fully hereafter) — that they have pursued upon the island 

 the most pernicious and most destructive system indicting a very 

 grievous injury upon the seal life, from which it may be long before it 

 ultimately and completely recovers. Therefore we have no such pro- 

 tection merely resting upon their motives of self-interest; they must 

 continue, whatever their own personal desires may be, to vary that 

 course of dealing if they would make it a source of revenue to a great 

 and prosperous community. I believe it is supposed that they have so 

 much money in their treasury as to know not quite what to do with it, 

 but if they continue to let the Islands to the sealers those lessees will 

 pursue their own personal ends, looking to the limited interest they 

 have got in the subject matter, however stringent Regulations may be 

 devised for their control. 



Now on page 21 the British Commissioners mention a fact which will 

 become important, which I mention now in j)assing. It is paragraph 



