ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 21 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That I do not know. We find that there is 

 legislation in the case of Denmark, I am not sure about the other case, 

 bur, I will enquire as to that. 



Senator Morgan. — Is any of that legislation in force now? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I have just said that I ara not sure wlietlier 

 it was followed by legislation. 



Then as regards Iceland this is the note: 



The attention of the Legislative AsseniLly was not specially directed to this matter 

 of protecting the fisheries, nor were laws vnarted on this snbject before 1885; and 

 the present laws are in many instances primitive, imperfect, and inconvenient, accord- 

 ing to the conditions of the country. One of the worst features is that in regard to 

 seals, which are so injurious to the salmon fisheries. This is contained in section 4 

 of the following statute. The defective point about this bit of legislation is tliatin 

 all salmon rivers (with one excejition) and their mouths, where there are seals there 

 are also seal-catching places, so that the law is of little or no benefit to the saluion, as 

 it is forbidden to disturb the seals in the places where they are at all easily accessible. 



Section 4 referred to is as follows: 



Section 4: In rivers and their mouths where there are salmon, it is allowed to shoot 

 or frighten seals, with the restriction that the inviolability of breeding and seal- 

 catching places, which are tlius especially proclaimed, must not be infringed upon, 

 except with the penalty of full damages, according to the estimate of good men nomi- 

 nated by the judge and sworn in court. 



Then as to Denmark there is this: 



. Owing to rewards now granted by the Fishing Society of Denmark, amounting to 

 3 kroners for each seal killed, according to the Copenhagen correspondent of our con- 

 temporary, "Industries" the extermination of seals is now being energetically pur- 

 sued in Danish waters. It appears that in those localities where the fisliery industry 

 has been pursued with least success the seals most abound. A seal is seldom seen in 

 tlie neighborhood of Middlefart, in the Little Belt, as the fishermen in that neigh- 

 borhood are very active in fishing and seal hunting. 



An contraire, on the small island of Hosselo, north of Zealand, one man sent in the 

 heads of no less than 120 seals, while another man sent in 40 within the last ten 

 months. Daring this jieriod 810 seals have been killed. 



745 And, finally, there is a citation on the same page, taken from 



a United States paper of February of 1892. ' 



The T)ay fishing in Essex County, Massachusetts, has been so seriously injured by 

 the alleged depredations of seals that the authorities offered a bounty of 1 dollar 

 each for killing them. During 1891 the fishermen killed forty-four on tJhe coast, and 

 in the rivers of the county. 



I do not find there was any difference made between males and 

 females; or that the laws of IS'atnre, so strictly insisted upon by my 

 friend Mr. Carter, were regarded as standing in the way of what was a 

 necessary attempt to protect a very valuable industry. I leave this 

 subject with only one concluding suggestion. All the members of the 

 Tribunal may not be aware — many of them I know are aware — that 

 along the coast of Washington in United States territory, and along 

 the coast of British Columbia, (and I think growing industries of the 

 same kind are springing up farther north), are to be found great salmon 

 fisheries, and great canning industries carried on in connection with 

 those industries. I luive myself seen them on the Willamette Eiver: 

 they are on the Columbia Eiver: they are on the Iradis Eiver — they are 

 on several other rivers along that coast. Now can it be doubted — is it 

 possible even to suggest it? — that if it were found that those seals 

 were, in a serious degree, interfering with these canning industries, 

 either upon the British Columbian Coast or uiion the Alaskan Coast, 

 that it would not be perfectly within the right of those who were inter- 

 ested, by all legitimate means, by all means in their power, short of 

 means which would do injury to the rights of some one else or cause 

 unnecessary or malicious injury to any one else, to do what they pleased 

 to exterminate these animals which were preying upon <ind injuring 

 what they regarded as an important and valuable' industry? 



