ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 73 



Flacuitne gentibus? Do the nations of tlie world agree tliat this is a 

 thing to be treated as contra ho)ws mores, and to be visited with their 

 condemnation? Then he iiroceeds. 



Fur-se;ils are indisputiibly animals /erfc naturw, and these have universally been 

 regarded by jurists ixa res mtHitis until they are caught. No person, therefore, can 

 have property in them until he has actually reduced tlieiii into possession by cajiture. 

 It requires something more than a mere declaration tiiat the Government or citizens 

 of the United States, or even other countries interested in the seal trade, are losers 

 by a certain course of proceeding, to render that course an immoral one. 



And so on. And then he conies to the second argument, as regards 

 Russia and as the argument which is there set out, and set out very 

 well, is one which 1 must refer to myself in some detail, I will spare the 

 Tribunal the reading of it at this stage. Finally, he deals with the 

 question of Avhether the effect of pelagic sealing is to be treated as a 

 fact beyond denial or doubt — that the taking of seals in the open sea 

 will lead to their extinction; and expresses his view upon a ])oint which 

 deals, not with question of property or property right, but of regula- 

 tions; and he deals with it upon the information then before him. 

 807 He says in that regard : 



The negotiations, now being carried on at Washington, prove the readiness of 

 Her Majesty's Government to consider whether any special international agreement 

 is necessary for the protection of the fur-sealing industry. In its al)seure (that is, 

 of international agreement) they are uual>le to admit that the case put forward on 

 behalf of the United States affords any sufticient justification for the forcible action 

 already taken by them against peaceable subjects of Her Majesty engaged in lawful 

 operations on the high seas. 



So that there is the position; and this is the last observation I take 

 leave to make to day; the position from the first taken up and consist- 

 ently maintained by Great Britain is this "A denial of yoitr right; an 

 utter inability on your part to justify by legal argument, or upon legal 

 grounds, your claim of property, or property right or property interest; 

 an inability on your part, even if you had such right, to justify what 

 you have done in protection of that right. But, at the same time, 

 while your right is denied, while your action, even if the riglit existed, 

 is unwarranted, still the Government of Great Britain is anxious, is 

 willing, is ready, to join in dealing with this matter by international 

 arrangement, which shall recognise that this is not a inatter of exclusive 

 interest in the United States, but a matter of interest to the world." 



The Tribunal adjourned till to morrow morning, the 12th of May, at 

 11-30 o'clock. 



