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



take them, and so forth, with which I am not now troubling you — the 

 editor adds this paragraph : 



The recent controversy between Great Britain and the United States, involving 

 the right of British subjects to catch seals in North Pacific waters, appears to be an 

 attempted revival oltliese old claims to jurisdiction over broad stretches of sea. That 

 an international agreement establishing a rational close season for the fur seal is 

 Avise and necessary, no one will dis])ute. But to prevent foreigners from sealing on 

 the high sea, or within the Kamschatkan sea (which is not even enclosed by Amer- 

 ican territory, its west and north west shores being Russian) is as unwarranted as if 

 England should warn fishermen of other nationalities oft" the Newfoundland banks. 



I say it is creditable to the j)ublicists of America that they should 

 take this true juridical and legal view of the contention put forward by 

 the United States. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Sir Charles, the Marquis Veuosta asks me 

 whether that passage was in the origiual book of "Woolsey, or is it a 

 passage added by his son? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I said that it was added by the present 

 editor. The original author is dead. 



TLie President. — What is the date of the edition? 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1892. It is the Gth edition. 



Now, so far as I know, (I do not, of course, venture to speak on the 

 matter with certainty) only one publication has appeared — I am not 

 talking of newspaper articles and things of that kind, I aui talking of 

 persons who write under their own names with some sense of responsi- 

 bility and with some knowledge of the legal considerations which affect 

 the matter — the only publication which so far has appeared is one the 

 publication of which in its present form, I am told, we owe to the sug- 

 gestion of one of the Arbitrators, Judge Harlan — I do not know whether 

 that is correct or not. It is an address delivered to the students by 

 Mr. James C. Welling of the Columbian University, professor of the 

 International Law School of the University-; and this book, like the 

 others, is at the disposition of any member of the Tribunal who desires 

 to see it. 



I will only say, summarising the effect of it, that his whole argument 

 as I have appreciated it, depends upon the correctness of an analogy 

 which he draws between the case of bees and seals; and depends fur- 

 ther upon whether he has or has not rightly appreciated certain 

 772 well known authorities upon the subject of bees; but I conceive 

 (I am not to be deflected from my line of argument to justify 

 myself at this moment) that he is mistaken in both respects. But his 

 argument, of course, is entitled to be treated with respect, and I am 

 entitled to combat his view and the analogy upon which he bases that 

 view when I come to the question of property. At present the Tribunal 

 understands that I am calling attention to the fact that there is nobody 

 of respectable authority that I know of, legal or juridical, to support 

 even at this moment and even in the heat of this controversy, the case 

 which is put forward upon the part of the United States. 



Now I have ended the discussion of these matters, which are more or 

 less of a general character, and I end it with this one observation: My 

 aim has been to reduce this question, so far as it is a matter of money 

 interest, to something like what I con(;eive to be its just proportions. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Before you leave that, what is your statement 

 about being indebted to me for that address? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not know how it has reached me, but 

 the statement was that the author had shewn you the paper and that 

 you thought it was worth publication. 



