OltAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 273 



United States may legally, if tliey can and choose, kill all the seals that 

 come to the land ; that tbeie is no law which prevents such a slaughter; 

 that they are not in any way bound to refrain. 



Now on page 136 we come to the enunciation of a precise and definite 

 proposition. The second sentence from the top proceeds thus: 



The case of the Unitocl States has thus far proceeded upon the ground of a national 

 property iu the seal lierd itself. Let it now be assumed for the ])ur})08es of the argu- 

 ment, that no such right of proi)erty is to be admitted, and that tlie seals are to be 

 regarded, outside of territorial waters, as /era; naturw in the full sense of that term. 

 Let them be likened, — 



My friend is logical, and does not shrink from this inevitable result; 



Let them be likened, if that be possible, to the fish Avhose birthplace and home are 

 in the ojien sea, and which only approach tlie shores for the purpose of food at certain 

 seasons, in such numbers as to render the fishing there productive. 



That is my friend's proposition; and then he proceeds to argue that, 

 under such circumstances, there is an industry, the legal right to which 

 is invaded (because of course, that is what he must affirm), by seal- 

 ing on the high seas. To that proposition, of course, I must come 



back. 

 1047 Now, on page 138, in the third sentence from the top, the char- 

 acter of pelagic sealing is referred to. I have already dealt with 

 it, and do not recur to it; but, in the last sentence, he refers to the 

 existence, in civilized countries, of laws (during the breeding season), 

 protective of wild animals; in other words, he refers to the game laws. 



Now, I must point out — I think I have already done so more than 

 once, and, tlierefore, I will not dwell upon it, — I must point out that 

 there could be nothing more significant to show that there is no prop- 

 erty in game than the very existence of those game laws. The law 

 steps iu, and, in the interests of all who have a right to attempt to cap- 

 ture game, says that, during certain seasons, no attempt at capture shall 

 be made. It in no sense affects property, — does not pretend to affect 

 property. It simply says tliat that general right of taking animals 

 fercc natura', — which is the equal right of all mankind, of all the sub- 

 jects of the realm, Avith the difference, only, that there is greater oppor- 

 tunity for exercising the right where a man is the owner of land, — shall 

 not be exercised during certain seasons of the year, shortly called 

 "close time". 



Now, at the bottom of page 139, my friend states what he calls the 

 " inevitable conclusion " from the facts that he has mentioned. 



The Inevitable conclusion from these facts is, that there is an absolute necessity 

 for the repression of killing seals in the water in the seas near the Pribilof Islands, 

 if the herd is to be preserved from extinction. No middle course is practicable 

 consistently with its preservation. 



I do not discuss that point in this connection. My friends have 

 thought it right to mix up the two things, — claims of property right 

 and llegulations. I do not. That is an assertion which my friend will 

 be entitled to urge with such force as belongs to it when the question 

 of Regulations is being discussed by him. It is not relevant to the 

 question of property. 



Then, on page IIU, in the last sentence, there is a statement in these 

 words. 



Such was the view of the United States Supreme Court in the Say ward Case, in 

 respect to the operation of the Acts of Congress before referred to, for the protection 

 of the seal in Behriug Sea. In that case a Canadian vessel had been captured on 

 the higli sea by a United States cruiser, and condemned by decree of the United 

 States District conit, for viohitiou of the regulations prescrilied in those acts; and 



B S, PT XIII 18 



