ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 263 



Then I could refer if need be, and I must refer to it in another con- 

 nection, thouj^h 1 may mention it here as it is under my eye at this 

 moment, to cases which are constantly occurring, where the interests of 

 countries separated by water or contiguous by laud are concerned: 

 thus boundary questions have arisen between France and England as 

 to fisheries, where France has seen the utility of admitting certain 

 limitations and certain rights claimed by Great Britain, and Great Brit- 

 ain, on the other hand, has seen the equity and utility of conceding to 



France, and Belgium and other Powers, the same limitations, — I 

 1035 must say something on this at some later period, probably at 



greater length; but all this goes to show that these Conventions 

 or Agreements for mutual accommodation are effecting that which 

 international law cannot effect, because it does not provide for it. 

 They are outside the domain of that law; they are dealt with upon 

 principles of mutual give and take and mutual convenience; and even 

 in these cases, I need not say, the Conventions so made and the legis- 

 lation of the respective countries intending to give effect to these Con- 

 ventions only bind the respective nationals, and bind no outside Powers 

 and the nationals of no outside Power whatever, and, therefore, it does 

 not fall within the scope of international law. 



Now I will only make one further reference, and that is to say that 

 the law as to bees is the same as that which I have been already deal- 

 ing with and there is a case decided by the Cour d'Appel de Toulouse 

 as late as May 1876, where the principles are laid down by that Court 

 in strict conformity with the authorities which I have already been 

 citing: 



Wlieu bees are in a wild state, they are res nullius and become the property of 

 the lirst taker. If they have taken up their abode in the hives they are susceptible 

 of private property. The recent law of the 4th April 1889 of tlie Rural Code in 

 Article 7 indicates in what manner the property in bees ceases when the bees located 

 on any land abandon it. 



These are the words of the law of 1889 : 



The proprietor of a swarm has the right to retake it, and repossess himself of it 

 as long as he has not given up its pursuit; otherwise the swarm belongs to the 

 proi^rietor of the ground upon which it has settled. 



He has the right to take it. 



Senator Morgan. — Is that a Statute? 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Yes, the Eural Code of 1889. 



Lord Hannen. — There have been some decisions on that. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — This decision could not have been on that; 

 but it was on a similar law. This is in 1889, and it conforms to the 

 previous decision of the Cour d'Ai)pel de Toulouse, delivered in 1876. 



Lord Hannen. — There is a case somewhere with reference to silk- 

 worms. Have you got that? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — 'No, I have not got that case. The reasons 

 given in the Cour d'Appel de Toulouse I might read. 



Considering that according to the tests furnished both by principles and by juris- 

 prudence, domestic animals are those which associate with man, live about him in 

 his house, are nourished and bred by his care; that the bees still retain, after being 

 taken possession of by man, their wild nature which the Roman law recognized; 

 that they do not live near man and under his roof, and they are separated from his 

 habitation by reason of the inconvenience and danger which their proximity 

 involves; that the bees familiarize themselves so little with man that one is obliged 

 to take precautions in approaching their hives and removing their honey, which the 

 labour of these insects has stored in cells; 



Considering further that if in a certain measure the surveillance and care of the 

 proprietor is employed in the preservation and nourishment of the bees, that they 



