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



rely for tlieir siibsistonce in taking from shrubs and llowers near the hives, and in 

 carrying tliitlier the substances that they have ^atin red. 



1036 Considering- also that these essential difficulties make it impossible to class 

 bees in the category of domestic animals. 



That is the sliort decision. 



Senator Morgan. — Was tbat before the statute to whicb you 

 referred ? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes I Lave said so. Tlie decision was in 

 1876 and the Statute was passed in 1S89. 



Lord Hannen. — It was a codification of tlie principles embodied iu 

 that decision. 



Sir Charles Eussell.— Yes. 



There is another decision also referred to of the Cour de Limoges to 

 the same effect. 



Mr. Phelps. — These have not been quoted in your previous argu- 

 ment, and we have had no access to them or opportunity to see them. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I do not wish to say anything that would 

 be at all irritating, but it is to be borne iu mind that my learned friend 

 Mr. Carter very early before commencing his argument deplored the 

 loss of certain French authorities which he hoped to be able to recover 

 or replace, and therefore my learned friend's mind, which was no doubt 

 laboriously engaged in this matter, was addressed to the subject of 

 French authorities, and indeed it was that which suggested to us that 

 we should explore the same region with the result that I have put before 

 the Court. 



The President. — It is an argument of analogy. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes: I claim to have shown that the laws 

 of France, the United States, and Great Britain, all concur; and so far 

 as I krow, but it is not safe to generalize, the municipal law of no 

 country can be invoked in favour of the claim to property in the seals; 

 and thus rauni(i])al law cannot be invoked in favour of this claim of 

 the United States to property. Now I have dealt with the general 

 propositions. 



The President. — May I remind you with regard to what you said 

 as to the Eussian law, that the Eussian law did not admit of res nullius. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — 1 did say so. 



The President. — Yes. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I do not think that contravenes the propo- 

 sition I am now upon. 



The President. — I merely remind you of what you have stated — 

 the seal iu Eussia would not be res nullius. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — The law would not give it to the proprietor 

 of the laud on which it was found. If it did not belong to the pro- 

 prietor, it would belong to the State. L suppose that is the result of 

 tlie Eussian law. 



The President. — What you stated this morning was quite novel to 

 me, and I cannot form an ox^inion from a law I do not know. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — 1 have seen it somewhere stated. I know 

 that Eussian law does form an exception to the general law of 



1037 other countries iu that regard, that nothing is said to be accord- 

 ing to the Eussian law without an owner, and if there is no 



private owner the State claims to be the owner. I thought it right to 

 say that, because I had seen it, but the authority for it I do not recall. 



The President. — It may be said that is one of the objects that are 

 capable of appropriation. 



Sir Charles Eitssell. — Yes, matters which are capable of being 

 the subjects of property; and, as regards animals /era^ natiirce, there is 



