ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 85 



vision which I do not myself appreciate. I shouhl suppose it was 

 always in the competence of the Legislature, by a subsequent provision, 

 to repeal them. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I can tell you briefly the history of those 

 words in our Statutes. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — It would be interesting, Sir, no doubt. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.^ — Our Constitution says that no State shall pass 

 a law impairing the obligation of contracts, but these provisions are not 

 applicable to Acts of Congress. The words referred to by Counsel were 

 inserted to avoid any question of the Legislature divesting vested 

 rights. Charters frequently reserve the riglit to alter or amend, to pre- 

 vent any question being raised that subsequent legislation deprived a 

 party of vested rights. 



Sir Charles Kl ssbll. — The next section became law on the 5th 

 March, 1872, and that is section 1973. 



Mr. Gram. — When was section 1972 made law? 



Sir Charles Russell. — That became law in 1870. By section 1973 

 the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint one agent and 

 three assistant agents; aud by section 1974, also passed in 1872, they 

 are to receive a certain amount of pay. By section 1975 the agents are 

 not to be interested in any lease, and by section 1976 they are empow- 

 ered to administer oaths. All those sections were passed in 1872, but 

 they are not very material. 



Now the next legislative Act is Chapter 64, on page 99 of this volume. 

 It became law on the 24th March 1874, and it provides that 



An Act to amend the Act intituled "an Act to prevent the extermination of fur- 

 bearing animals in Alaska", approved July 1st 1870, is hereby amended, so as 

 822 to authorize the secretary of the Treasury, and he is hereby authorized to 

 designate the mouths in which fur seals may be taken for their skins on the 

 Islands of St. Paul and St. George in Alaska, aud in the waters adjacent thereto, 

 aud the number to be taken on or about each island respectively. 



Now up to this time the Tribunal will perceive that two expressions 

 have been used. So far as regards water, which is the point in ques- 

 tion, in describing the extent of the application of the legislation in 

 the Statute of 1868, the laws relating to commerce and to navigation — 

 I do not stop to observe upon the consequences of this extension of the 

 laws of commerce — are extended among other things over all the 

 mainland, islands and waters of the territory ceded. That is one 

 expression; but in every subsequent enactment down to 1889, which I 

 have not yet touched upon, the words are "and waters adjacent thereto". 

 It stands thus: "the law is to extend to the mainland, islands and 

 waters of the territory ceded"; and the alternative expression is 

 "waters adjacent thereto". 



Now, in 1889, an important Act was passed; and, before I call atten- 

 tion to this legislation, I ask permission for one moment, because it is 

 matter of interest and, I think, not without imiiortance, to show what was 

 the state of opinion in America among its most distinguished and influen- 

 tial citizens and legislators upon this subject of public fishing rigjits in 

 waters adjoining a particular territory. I mention it here, as I always 

 try to do, in the order of time. We have got now to the eve of the legisla- 

 tion of 1889. There was then existing another dispute between Great 

 Britain and the United States. Of course, there is an 

 eastern as well as a western coast of America, and the ^^^^^^^ °^ ^^^^• 

 (luestion arose as to what were the rights of the United States to fish in 

 the waters adjoining Canadian territory, Newfoundland, and so forth; 

 and there was a certain amount of friction existing between the two 



