342 ORAL AEGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 

 This is the expert in law — 



— an experienced navigator and seal hunter in southern waters, visited that region 

 in January, 1892, and he states, under oath, that the ordinance of 1881 is enforced 

 in the sea surrounding those islands outside the three-mile limit, and that it would 

 be deemed a violation of the law to take seals duriug the close season between the 

 Falkland Islands and Beauchene Island, twenty-eight miles distant. 



When you read the affidavit, if you will bear in mind the words I 

 have just read, I think you will find that it has been put a little too 

 strongly in the Case; because Budington's affidavit, which is in another 

 volume — Volume 2 of the Appendix, page 593 — says, under the head 

 of the Falkland Islands: 



At one time these islands were very abundant in seal life, but excessive and indis- 

 criminate killing has nearly annihilated them. 



That is not the fact I am upon. 



This fact was recognized by the Government of the islands, which passed an ordi- 

 nance in 1881 establishiug a close season from October to April for the islauds and 

 the seas adjacent thereto. My understandiug of this ordinance was that the Gov- 

 ernment would seize any vessel taking seals close to or within 15 or 20 miles of the 

 islands. 



So we have got this gentleman, who may be a good mariner, but 

 hardly an expert in law, to say that his "understanding of this ordi- 

 nance was that the Government would seize any vessel taking seals 

 close to or within 15 or 20 miles of the ishiuds." 



Mr. Foster. — The affidavit shows he was a seal hunter returned 

 from the South Seas. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — And he may go back to the South Seas, so 

 far as I am concerned. 1 am dealing with him as an authority on this 

 subject, as a lawyer. 1 am pointing out that what he says in 

 1130 this affidavit is not that he was ever stopped, not that he heard 

 of anybody that ever was stopped, not that he heard anybody 

 said that anybody ever was stopped, but tliat this hunter, who had 

 returned from the South Seas — what recommendation that is to him, I 

 do not know — says : 



My understanding of this ordinance was that the Government would seize any 

 vessel taking seals close to or within 15 or 20 miles of the islands. I understood thia 

 ordinance was passed on the ground that the seal resorting to these islands was the 

 property of the Government and therefore it had a right to protect them every where. 



The Government, however, gave licences to certain parties to take seals during 



the close season. 



Senator Morgan. — Sir Charles, are all of those legislative acts of 

 the colonies repealable by the Parliament of Great Britain? 



Sir Charles Russell. — The machinery is this. The assent of the 

 Crown is absolutely necessary to give effect to any act in the nature of 

 a legislative act by a Colony, whether it is a colony with a constitution 

 or a Crown Colony. That is the way it stands. It would be quite 

 within the powers of Parliament to pass legislation which should gain- 

 say this, if it chose to do so. 



Senator Morgan. — Of any act of the Canadian Parliament, for 

 instance? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Oh certainly, if it chose to do so. The 

 Imperial Parliament, which, it should be borne in mind, has created 

 the Legislature of Canada, for instance, has the power to modify that 

 creation, and if necessary to undo it. 



Senator Morgan. — We have a system somewhat akin to it in the 

 United States. The acts of the territorial Legislatures are considered 

 as Acts of Congress, unless Congress intervenes to repeal or modify 



