ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 213 



wildly away, wholly regardless of the consequences to itself, from the 

 attenqit of control of man, is not manifesting timidity in the presence 

 of man seems to me very difficult to understand and appreciate. I may 

 not understand this statement rightly. If I do not understand it rightly, 

 the judgment of the Tribunal will set me right, or my learned friend 

 Mr. Phelps, when his time conies; but I can myself suggest nothing 

 which more strongly points to the timidity of the animal, and its fear 

 of man, than the fact that in its endeavor to escape it will attempt to 

 perform acts such as these, which it must be apparent, even to its lim- 

 ited intelligence, are fraught with personal injury and danger to them- 

 selves. He says seven of them were killed, he cannot tell how many 

 more, for they may have been so injured that death may have resulted 

 as a consequence. 



Is there anything else, when you come to facts, which shows any 

 capacitj^ to control or domesticate the seals'? I know of nothing; but 

 not only that, I know of a fact which renders conijdete domesticity 

 impossible, and that is that if you attempted to keep these animals under 

 control and on the land, they would inevitably die. Therefore the case 

 is stronger than that of most wild animals; because, as regards many 

 wild animals, you may keep them under such close continement, and in 

 such close custody, and under such close physical control on the land, 

 as to preserve the opportunity of knocking them on the head or 

 975 cutting their throats whenever you like; but you cannot do that 

 in the case of these seals, because if you con line them or even 

 attempt to keep them under your control on the land, where alone you 

 have any means of exercising power over their motions or their direc- 

 tions, you kill them It is by the "imperious necessity of their nature" 

 that they must go to sea. 



So far as I have yet gone, it seems to me that all these facts that I 

 have dwelt upon are common ground; that there is really no difference 

 about the facts, so far as I have dealt with them; and that, in my judg- 

 ment, for the reasons I shall presently give, they are conclusive upon 

 the question of property. But there are one or two other ,j,^^ ^ ^. 

 fiicts which I think it is important to ask the Tribunal to of interminKfiuyo^ 

 regard, which I cannot say are admitted facts, but as to ti^e "iierds". 

 which I can only say that there is a body of evidence in regard to them. 

 The first that I refer to is the question of intermingling of the seals 

 frequenting the Pribilof Islands with other seals from dilieient places. 

 That is established principally by reference to the character of the 

 skins of these animals; and I wish to point out how the evidence stands 

 in relation to this question of pelage. 



The consignments of the Commander and Copper skins, which are 

 from the Eussiau Islands, come by different routes to those who deal 

 with them in the way of commerce in London. The consignments from 

 the Pribilof Islands, equally, are ai separate consignment, and reach the 

 market as a separate consignment. And thirdly, there is the North- 

 west catch, which is the name used to describe the pelagic catch. That 

 again finds its way to the market by a different route, through different 

 agencies, and as a sei)arate consignment. It appears to be undoubted 

 that the Alaskan fur seal skin has attained a higher reputation in the 

 market than any other fur-seal skin. Whether that is partly owing to 

 the fact that it is the oldest fur-seal known in the market, or whether 

 it is that the name has become attached to a skin of a particular quality, 

 or partly one and partly the other, I do not quite know; but if I am 

 able to show that in each of these consignments there will be found to 

 be a mixture : in the Alaskan consignment an admixture of Copper and 



