ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 201 



Tlio I'lncsiDKNT. — Tlicy are not contrary. 



Mr. Cartei!.— t)h no, international law rests npou natural law, and natural law is 

 all moral. 

 'I'liL' law of nature is all moral, and it is the great part of international law. 



OGO Here we get back to that same fallacy which I have endeavoured 



to expose in a lew sentences, and to which I must recur at a later 

 period a little more fully — that fallacy which lies at the basis of these 

 proposals — that if you can make out to your private satisfaction that a 

 thiuji; is against morals, or against the law of nature (whatever the law 

 of nature means in the connection in which it is used) it is therefore 

 against international law: it is therefore to be reprehended. With 

 great deference to this Tribunal the distinction is justly, accurately, 

 and truly drawn, in that observation of the learned President in which 

 he said, " Moral and international law are two fields of discussion, but 

 they may often join", which is to affirm in another way the proposition 

 to whicli I invited, without any fear of the result, the assent of this 

 Tribunal, namely that while moral law enters largely into the concep- 

 tion of international law — largely tends to the formation of international 

 law — yet only so much of moral law as international law has taken up 

 into and embodied in itself can be referred to in a discussion of law- 

 j^ers and of judges as forming international law at all. But I do not 

 end this discussion here. ]\Iy friend Mr. Carter, then proceeds, it hav- 

 ing been pointed out to him l3y Lord Hannen that the mode of hunting 

 jiursued by the natives was not confined merely to their sustenance, 

 but that they were the suppliers, in the first instance, of the skins of 

 these wild animals — fur-seals and others included. 

 Mr. Carter quite candidly says: 



That is true. They were the original traders, and they were made use of by the 

 purposes of commerce, but what I mean to say is, that was commerce. 



Lord Hannex. — Yes, carried on by the natives. 



Mr. Cakter. — I know, hut that was commerce. They were supplying the com- 

 merce ol' the world. They were not supplying themselves with clothing — thej^ were 

 not furnishing themselves with seals for food. 



The Pkesident. — That you would consider was legal at the time, but would not be 

 legal now. 



Mr. Caktkr. — Before the Russians discovered these regions they were inhabit d 

 by Indians, and these Indians did pursue seals in tliat way. It is a pursuit without 

 method — without making any effort to preserve the stock; destructive, of course, in 

 its character, but not of sufficient extent to endanger the existence of the race of 

 the animal. 



Then on the next page, page 477, my friend said: 



The distinction which I mean to draw is a distinction of a resort to the seals for 

 the purpose of the yx^t'sonal use of the people, such as they were in the habit of 

 making before they were discovered by civilized men — the distinction between that 

 pursuit and that which is promoted by civilized men for the purpose of supplying 

 the world with these skins. That is the distinction. The first pursuit which is 

 confined to the barbarians is not destruTitive of the stock. Nor is the other, as long 

 as it is limited to certain very narrow projjortions and conditions. 



Well, the whole legal proposition is given away in this discussion. 

 Then my friend continues: 



But when it is increased then it does threaten the stock. What must you do 

 then? You must adopt those measures which are necessary to i)reserve the 

 961 stock; and what are the measures which society always employs for that pur- 

 pose? I have detailed that already — it is to award the institution of property. 



Now, did ever an able man present so inconsequential an argument 

 as that to a Tribunal of intelligent judges'? It is said: "The Indians 

 had a right to pelagic sealing: They had a right to it, and they cai^ied 

 it on even for the purxioses of commerce: Civilized men carried it on, 



