ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 17 



became a sovereign Power, and it claimed tliat as it liad borne its part 

 when a colony in acquiring these rights and in exercising these rights, 

 it was entitled, as an independent Power, to a continuance of those 

 rights which as a colony it had previously enjoyed. The contention on 

 the part of Great Britain was that it had lost its right by what it was 

 pleased to call its act of rebellion, and tliat it had no right to share in 

 those rights at all; and that matter xt-as ultimately arranged by Trea- 

 ties, only one of which you have referred to, but which I will have to 

 discuss at a later stage. 



Senator Morgan. — The question in my mind was this. Sir Charles: 

 whether or not Great Britain and the United States had not in this 

 Treaty of peace established the jjroposition that there was such a thing 

 as ownership) in the fisheries that were 50 to 100 miles away from the 

 land, which became the subject of division of property between the 

 mother government and the colony when the independence of the col- 

 ony was accomplished? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Absolutely no assertion of property in 

 fishes or in any other animals whatever. There was, I agree, an asser- 

 tion of rights of exclusive property undoubtedly, which is a very differ- 

 ent matter. I do not need to tell the Tribunal that nations have 

 740 many times — and no two countries perhaps more prominently 

 than Spain and Great Britain — claimed exclusive control of large 

 stretches of the sea; but they have never, so far as I know, claimed 

 the proyjerty in free swimming animals in that area, or that they were 

 the ijroperty of either Government, or of any individual subjects of that 

 Government. 



However, that is going rather far afield. But I am upon a question 

 which I desire to try to follow with some closeness of reasoning. 1 am 

 now dealing with the exaggerated importance given to this question; 

 and I assume, as the President said, that this question of the fur-seals 

 may have been one amongst many others considered in the United 

 States, but as far as I see not pre eminently in the minds of the United 

 States advisers, upon the acquisition of Alaska. Their main motiv^es 

 undoubtedly were the motives which were set out in that Keport of 1868, 

 that it was opening a large field for new enterj)rise, an extent of com- 

 merce and new pursuits to a rapidly extending and growing population. 

 But what followed the acquisition, what immediately followed and what 

 my learned friends have themselves dwelt on as immediately following 

 the acquisition of Alaska, shows how little conscious they were of the 

 value, as they now conceive it to be, of these islands. What happened ? 

 In the year following the acquisition, 242,000 seals were killed upon the 

 islands, and that not by the representatives of the United States or by 

 persons authorized by them. In the following year, 18G0, 150,000. In 

 the following year, 1870, 87,000: making a total in three years of close 

 upon five hundred thousand. 



Mr. Foster. — 1870 was under the lease. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1870 was under the lease; perhaps so. 

 These are figures with which I have no doubt Mr. Foster is familiar. 

 They are taken from the published authentic accounts of the United 

 States, the Tenth Census Report, and certain executive documents 

 which are referred to. 



Mr. Foster. — We have disputed those figures in our case. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Well, I do not know what you have not 

 dis])uted ; but since it is put in that way, I had better give the reference. 



The President. — The general purport is admitted, 1 believe. 



Mr. Foster. — I would not have interrupted except that Sir Charles 

 referred to my knowledge of the figures, 

 B s, PT xm 2 



