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



session of, a certain number. In that certain number their property 

 becomes absolute. They have killed them and taken possession of them 

 just in the same way as the man who shoots a rabbit and jjuts it in his 

 pocket or in his hunting bag has taken possession of that rabbit; the 

 property is his, unless, according- to English and according to American 

 law, he has shot it upon land in the character of a trespasser, in which 

 case lie does not get the property even then — wherein the English munic- 

 ipal law and the American municipal law, as one of your body will tell 

 you, differs from the civil law. According to the Eoman law — which is 

 a little stronger illustration of the wild animal being no one's property 

 nutil possession is taken of it — according to the civil law, it I shoot a 

 rabbit upon another man's land, although I am committing a tresjiass 

 on the land in the act of shooting, yet the property in that rabbit will 

 be in me whereas according to English law the property would not be 

 in the trespasser, but would be in the owner of the land. The French 

 law is the same, as I shall hereafter have the opportunity of showing to 

 the Tribunal. 



I wish now to come — because I am not relieved from any part of this 

 task — to a little closer examination of the ]>osition. If I am right in 

 saying that this animal originally is pro])erly described as an animal 

 ferce naturw, it lies upon my learned friends to bring him out of that 

 category, to show that he belongs to a different category as a reclaimed 

 animal. I have ventured to suggest there is not a scintilla of evidence 

 to justify the claim of reclamation. The onus is upon my learned friends 

 by some authority, ujjon some principle of law, to show that in such cir- 

 cumstances tliey have a claim to property in that 9,nimal on the high sea, 

 or wherever it is outside their domain. I have pointed out they have 

 not the property even when it is on the Island. They have the right 

 to kill it. They have the right to j)revent anybody else killing it; but 

 that is not property. It is a mere right to kill; nothing more. 



My learned friend is met with this difficulty: He asks himself the 

 question. By what law, in view of what law, am I to consider this ques- 

 tion? and knowing, as he does, that the municipal law of Great Britain 

 is the same as the municipal law of the United States, my learned friend 

 says that this is not a matter to be determined by municipal law, but a 

 matter to be determined by international law. I dispute that proposi- 

 tion. What has ir.ternational law to do with it? 



Am I not well founded in saying that by the municipal law of every 

 country in the world, the right to property in things must be made out 

 according to the municipal law of the place where the property is situ- 

 ated, subject always to certain rules as to devolution, etc., with w^hich 

 we are not now concerned, founded upon the principle that mohilia 

 991 seqtiuntur personam. They must have their right of title by 

 municipal law. Does the United States municipal law give them 

 property? No. The legislation even of the United States has not 

 affected to give property. The United States legislation has proceeded 

 upon the principle which I have so often adverted to, of the assertion 

 of territorial dominion over a given area, and the application of what I 

 may call game laws to that area; but it has not in its Statutes nor by 

 any executive act, nor by lease, nor in any other mode, affected to claim 

 for itself the property as such, nor to give to the lessees the property as 

 such. The}' give to the lessees no more than they had themselves: a 

 right, namely, a license to kill within certain limits as to number. 



Senator Morgan. — I was about to inquire whether all game laws 

 were not predicated upon the uitimate ownership of the property in the 

 sovereign'? 



