ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 231 



by my learned friend as a kind of formula for the purpose of 



996 meeting the case of the fur-seals. It was this : That only the 

 usufruct of property is recognized by law, and that there is no 



right exercisable in respect of wild animals, generally speaking, (because 

 he said there were some which were quite inexhaustible, and therefore 

 people might in that case do what they x^leased), unless in the exercise 

 of your right you take only the superfluous males, and in that way do 

 not interfere with the stock. 



Mr. Carter. — I made no such argument. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Oh, really, Mr. Carter, did you not main- 

 tain thatf If not, I of course withdraw it. 



Lord ilANNEN. — What page and what edition? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am afraid I shall have to give you a good 

 many pages. But 1 will come to it to-morrow morning and justify 

 myself by reference to the actual pages. I certainly wish to make this 

 quite clear before I go away to-night. Did not my learned friend say 

 that he was afdrming only a right of usufruct of property, and that 

 there was no such thing as absolute property? 



Mr. Carter. — I said by the law of nature that was all that was given 

 to man. 



Sir Charles Russell. — But the law of nature is the same thing 

 as international law, according to my friends, and it is international law 

 that he is here invoking. 



Mr. Carter. — If you are determined not to understand my argument 

 I cannot help it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I assure you I am not in that position at 

 all. I really am not; but to avoid any discussion, I will pass that. 



Mr. Carter. — I will not interrupt you again. 



Sir Charles Russell. — ISTot at all; it is not the least interruption 

 in the world. I will pass that as a disputed j)roposition, and I will 

 come to it to-morrow morning and read the pages. 



One topic I can deal with, I think, without any risk of being inter- 

 rupted. My learned friends have expended a great deal of their elo- 

 quence in the printed argument, and in the oral argument, upon the 

 M'asteful character of pelagic sealing. They have denounced it as a 

 crime, a moral wrong, an indefensible wrong, and have 

 used various other strong epithets. And now I want to ask, peilgfc^kUHng^i^^ 

 and I expect that an attempt will be made to answer it at leiovant to rfeci- 

 some later stage. What is the relevance of that argu- tio" of property! 

 ment to the case of the United States? Is it because the 

 mode i^ursued by the Canadian sealers in killing seals is wasteful that 

 they have no right: but that the United States have a right, an exclu- 

 sive right, because their method is not wasteful? I want to know. 

 Does their right depend upon, or is it stronger or weaker according to 

 whether our mode of killing is wasteful or not wasteful? In other 

 words, if we could discrimiiuite while shooting at sea, between the 

 males and females, if we could only shoot barren females, if we could 

 only shoot young males, do they admit we have the right to shoot 



997 them? Do they, if we have the means of shooting them in a 

 manner, to use their formula, which is not wasteful, do they admit 



we have the right to shoot them? 



The President. — That argument would perhaps affect rather the 

 question of regulations. 



Sir Charles Russell. — You are anticipating exactly the point to 

 which I am coining. But it is used in relation to property. 



The President. — The other side have argued both questions at the 

 same time, in one argument. 



