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



but carried it on only to a small extent, and tliey had a right to earry 

 it on to a small extent so long as it did not affect the stock: But wlien 

 it begins to affect the stock then rights change — that which was a right 

 the day before ceases to be a right the day after that event begins to 

 happen "; and this Tribnnal is asked to do what? — Not to declare what 

 the jjroperty rights had been and were, but is (to use the language of 

 my ineud), to aicard the institution of iiropcrtii. I say that it is not 

 the function of this Tribunal — it is a misconception of the function of 

 this Tribunal to address any such argument to it. 



Mr. Carter. — I observe you did not read the whole. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I did not, indeed; there are a great many 

 hundred pages of it. If there is any furtlier passage you desire to be 

 read, I will read it with pleasure. 



Mr. Carter. — 1 said you did not read the whole of what you were 

 upon. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — The whole of that sentence? It is this; 



It is, to award the institntion of property. Now, must society withhold its 

 effort, — must it forbear to employ those bonntiea — 



Mr. Carter. — "Agencies" would be a better word. 

 Sir Charles Eussell. — Very well. 



because here are a few hundreds of Indians in existence who may have some rijjhts 

 in reference to them? Mo, they are not to be considered, surely. We can not ;iilow 

 this herd of seals to be extinguished just for the purjiose of accommodating a few 

 hundred Indians upon that coast, — surely not. 



Then, if I go on, I shall have to go on for some distance. Is there 

 anything more you want me to read? 



Mr. Cartp:r. — I do not wish you to read anything; but when you 

 do undertake to do it, I would read the whole of it if I were you. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — 1 will read to the end of the page, because 

 I think the subject there ceases. 



The President. — It may be that the civilized fishermen may not be more than a 

 few hundred also. The number of men employed is not absolutely a foundation of 

 legal discrimination, — a legal duty. 



Mr. Carter. — You mean those employed on the Pribilof Islands may be a few 

 hundreds? 



That was really not the point of the question. 



The President. — I mean, the pelagic sealing may be carried on by a few hundred 

 Indians, but that is no matter. The difference that you make is whether they are 



Indians or civilized. 

 962 Mr. Carter.— Yes. 



The President. — Suppose Indians make commerce, selling or bartering 

 their skins, — you allow that also? 



Mr. Carter. — Where it is not destructive. 



The President. — It is a question of proportion, — of measure with you. 



Mr. Carter. — If it is destructive, then itJs not to be allowed. They have no 

 right to destroy the race of animals. 



Tlie President. — In order to give you satisfaction, the question would be to know 

 within what limits pelagic sealing may be carried on without being destructive. 



Mr. Carter. — Yes, that is practically the question. If you say pelagic sealing 

 can be carried on without being destructive. 



The President. — By ludians, at any rate? 



Mr. Carter. — By Indians in their canoes in the way in which it was originally 

 carried on. That does not threaten the existence of the herd. 



The President. — That is a natural limitation. 



Mr. Carter. — But it is possible to do this. It would be possible for those who 

 are now engaged in pelagic sealing: for instance, to say: "The Indians are per- 

 mitted to carry on pelagic sealing; we are prevented from doing it. We will just 

 employ those Indians". 



The President. — That is the difficult point which I just hinted at. 



