ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 341 



2. As to the means for remedying snch causes, i. e., as to the purport of such 

 legislation. 



This follows from the fundamental principle on which the law of nations rests, 

 viz., consent of nations. 



This subject has already heen dealt with, but it is necessary to examine categor- 

 ically the examples of extra-territovial legislation adduced by the United States in 

 order to show that they utterly fail to support the argument for which they are 

 cited. 



The first citations are in support of the proposition that seal life is 

 protected by extra-territorial law of other countries. The. instances 

 given are the Falkland Islands, New Zealand, Cape of Good Hope, 

 Canada and ISfewfoundland. 



Those are British territories. These are followed by Sweden and Nor- 

 way, Eussia, Germany and Holland, with reference to the Greenland 

 or Jan Mayen fisheries ; the other countries cited are Eussia, Uruguay, 

 Chile, Argentine Eepublic and Japan. 



I cannot do better than quote in substance what is said here. 



You will observe, Mr. President, that in some of these i^assages some 

 of the words are printed in Italics. I think it will be found in some of 

 these cases that they are so printed in the United States Case or Counter 

 Case or in the Appendix. Now as regards the Falkland Islands: 



The Act providing a close time for seals is No. 4 of 1881. It recites that the seal 

 fishery of the islands was once a source of prolit to the colonists, but has been 

 exhausted by indiscriminate and wasteful fishing, and that it is desirable to revive 

 and protect this industry by the establishment of a close time xvithin the limits of 

 this Colony and its dependencies. 



The Statute then enacts that a close time shall be observed within the limits of 

 this Colony and its dependencies from the 1st October to the Ist April. 



The words italicised have a special meaning. 



And here I call attention to a principle which you will at once rec- 

 ognize, the difference between the powers of legislation of what may 

 be called a supreme body, and the powers of legislation which may be 

 exercised by a subordinate Legislature, which is the creation of a 

 supreme Legislature. For instance, the Parliament of Westminster can 

 legislate for the whole of the Queen's dominions, even for those portions 

 of the dominions to which the Queen has given constitutional Govern- 

 ment, and which has its own powers of legislation; and it can also 



legislate for the subjects of the Queen all the world over. But 

 1129 colonial Legislatures can legislate effectively only for and within 



the limit of their own actual territory. They cannot extend the 

 effect of their legislation beyond that territory, or even to bind the sub- 

 jects of the Queen beyond that territory. 



This illustration from the Falkland Islands is referred to on page 

 168 of the United States Argument, the third paragraph from the top: 



An ordinance of the Falkland Islands, passed in 1881, established a close season 

 for the islands and the surrounding waters, from October to April in each year. 

 Two of the islands lie 28 miles apart, and this regulation is enforced in the open sea 

 lying between them. 



You will observe that after that statement my learned friend gives, 

 as it were, authorities for the statement, ''Eeport of U. S. Fish Com- 

 mission" — I do not know what that is, or where it is — "affidavit of 

 Capt. Budington; Case of the United States, Appendix, Vol. 1, p. 435"; 

 but for my purpose I will read from page 221 of the United States 

 Case. Having set out this ordinance at the bottom of that page, they 

 go on to say : 



Capt. Budingtoa 



