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



do not think I need trouble the Tribunal at all to refer to that. As 

 regards wild animals, I will give a definite reference to authorities. A 

 wild animal in a natural state of Ireedom belongs to no one. It is res 

 nullius; the method of acquiring a right of property over it is by taking 

 possession ; and the reference to that is Aubry and Kau, Droit Civil, 

 Vol. 2, paragraph 201. 



The President. — That is the acknowledged principle of our French 

 law. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes. The things which are recognized by 

 French law as res nullius include these c-ategories: Things which can 

 never be the private pro})erty of any one: Things such as air, light, the 

 high sea, and so on: Things which do not actually belong to anyone, 

 but which, by their nature, become the object of a personal api^ropria- 

 tion by possession. Such are wild animals, the fish of the sea, and so 

 forth. As regards the products of the sea, such as amber, coral, and so 

 on, a distinction might be made, which is a distinction made in Italian 

 law also: If the things are taken from the bottom of the sea or caught 

 upon the waves, they are the p^roperty of the lirst taker. If, on the other 

 hand, they are sim])ly found on the sands,' a part belongs to the finder 

 and a part to the State. And the authority for that is Eusson, " Des 

 Etablissements de Peche", page 17. 



The President. — The State is the legal owner of the shore, but a 

 part of the find belongs to the finder as a general rule. The shore of 

 the sea is considered as belonging to the State as it would to any pri- 

 vate man. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Quite so, but as to the sea, everyone has 

 an equal right to gather the riches which it contains, for these riches, 

 up to the time of their being taken possession of by the individual are 

 common to all; for Avhich the authority is also Busson, " Des Etablisse- 

 ments de Peche". Then I need not refer to an account which is inter- 

 esting, but not directly ad rem, as to restrictions which in former times 

 existed upon the pursuit of hunting* and the way in which those rights 

 were exercised. 



The President. — Perhaps you would kindly give us the authorities 

 about it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Certainly I will read the whole authority. 

 Hunting, says in effect the Court of Cassation, includes the whole 

 series of operations which begin with the search for any wild animal 

 for the purpose of ultimately effecting its capture. Hunting being the 

 means of capturing and appropriating to oneself wild animals, 

 1032 it follows that hunting is only the exercise of a natural right. 

 Nevertheless this natural right has been for a long time appro- 

 priated in France by the feudal law to the profit of the Sovereign. 



It was considered as a royal right. The Nobles alone had the power 

 to hunt, but they did not exercise it even on their own lands except by 

 royal license. 



Then a reference is made to the royal Ordinance of Louis XIV in 

 which Articles XIV aud XXVIII are as follows : 



We permit all Lords, Gentlemen, and Nobles to hunt iu noble fashion with dogs 

 and birds in tlieir forests, thickets, warrens, and plains, provided that they keep a 

 league distance from our plesaunces for buck and betes noires to a distance of 3 

 leagues. 



Then Article XXVIII is: 



"We prohibit Merchants, Artizans, Commoners, aud Inhabitants of towns, bor- 

 oughs, parishes, villages, hamlets, peasants and yeomen of whatever condition and 

 quality they may be, not possessing fiefs, lordships, and haute justice froni hunting in 



