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



Nor need I stop to remind the Tribunal of the position which has been 

 consistently and persistently maintained by tlie Government of the 

 Queen in relation to these two sets of questions: rights and regula- 

 tions. Our position from the first lias been, and is now, an absolute 

 and complete denial of any exclusive right of property, jurisdiction, or 

 protection; but, while that is our position, we have from the first 

 expressed our desire to approach the consideration of the question of 

 Regulations in a fair, just, and equitable spirit, to api)roach it upon the 

 basis that this question of fur-sealing is one in which there is a common 

 interest of mankind, and which is not the exclusive appurtenance of any 

 one Power. 



ISfow, Mr. President, my learned friends, the learned Counsel for the 

 United States, have occupied some twelve days in presenting their views 

 to this Tribunal: not an hour too long in view of the importance of the 

 questions, if it shall be found, upon consideration and examination of 

 their argument, that that time has been devoted to topics relevant and 

 apposite to the questions with which you have to deal. Upon that sub- 

 ject I must have a good deal to say; but 1 may be permitted for myself, 

 and for my learned colleagues, to join in the congratuhitions of a com- 

 plimentary kind exju'essed by the I'resident upon the arguments of my 

 learned friends. They were learned, they were erudite, they were full 

 of what Mr. Coudert well said in reference to the argument of Iiis learned 

 colleague who preceded him, but which 1 may with equal propriety also 

 say of the argument of Mr. Oondert himself, they were arguments full 

 of "intellectual allurements". "Allurements" is a good word. I shall 

 have to submit to this Tribunal that a great many of those arguments 

 were remote indeed from any of the legal questions which you have to 

 decide: that they have taken us very far afield: that, in this 19th Cen- 

 tury of Christian civilization, after the world has existed I know not 

 how many years, it is astounding that it should be thought necessary 

 to dig, as my learned friend Mr. Carter did, down to the foundations of 

 human society in order to try and discover those upon which the insti- 

 tution of property rest. 



Nor can 1 think that at this stage of the world's existence, when we are 

 discussing, as is admitted, questions of law, — questions of right to be 

 determined according to law, — a Tribunal such as this can derive much 

 assistance from courageous ascents into the mists and clouds of meta- 

 physical and ethical discussion, such as my learned friend has made. 

 The world has lived very long; society has, through all the ages, been 

 struggling to evolve rules for itself, for its security, for its good order, 

 for peace among men: rules which have been found to suit the conven- 

 ience of society, which have been found to be conducive to the good 

 order of society, and which have found authoritative expression in the 

 tribunals of all civilized countries. 



We cannot but think (we are of course taking the advocate's view of 

 the question) that, in truth, my learned friends have been but 

 725 making a gallant defence of positions which, in point of law, are 

 utterly indefensible. 



Now I may assume, I think, that this Tribunal has made itself con- 

 versant with a large part, at least, of that mass of literature with which 

 each side has burdened the Tribunal ; and I think, if I am well founded 

 in that belief, that the Arbitrators cannot fail to have marked the change 

 of front in some very important points which has taken place on the 

 part of those who are re])i esenting the interests of tlie Uidted States. 

 This change of front appears when you contrast their arguments to day 

 with the position taken up in the diplomatic correspondence which 



