ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSiU^L, Q. C. M. P. 345 



The President. — I believe tliat answers Senator Morgan's qnes- 

 tion. 

 Sir Charles Russell. — I think it does. I intended it to be an 

 answer, and I think the Senator so understood. 



1133 Senator Morgan. — I understand this: that without the dis- 

 sent of the Queen or the Government of Great Britain, in the 



case of Crown Colonies, their Statutes stand as if they had been enacted 

 by Parliament, and that that is the same rule also in regard to what 

 you call the constitutional Colonies: there being no dissent, the law is 

 as if enacted by Parliament in legal effect, of course. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Now I wish if I may to conclude this case 

 of the Falkland Islands, before the Court rises, and I will not repeat 

 my observations which were more or less in the natnre of a complaint: 

 but this is what we say in our Counter Case, which I understand my 

 learned friend had before him when his Argument was prepared. This 

 is on page 87. 



In order to suggest that the provisions of this Ordinance are extended to nouter- 

 ritorial waters, Captain Bndington, a navigator and seal-hunter, is quoted as an 

 authority for the statement "under oath" that this Ordinance is enforced outside 

 the 3-raiie limit. 



It will be found, however, on reference to his affidavit, that Captain Budington 

 only swears as to what was his "understanding" of the Ordinance; and as to any 

 instance of the enforcement of tliis law against foreigners outside the ordinary limit 

 of jurisdiction, he olfers no evidence whatever. 



The Ordinance, with reference to the close season thereby established, enacts : 



And it repeats the section, which is confined in its operation to "the 

 limits of this Colony and its dependencies ". 



This is the statement put in our Counter Case and before the Argu- 

 ment was prepared. 



The terms of the Ordinance are expressly confined to the limits of the Colony and 

 at no time since the Falkland Islands have belonged to Great Britain, whether before 

 or after the making of the Ordinance in question, has any attempt been made to 

 interfere with the capture of seals outside the ordinary territorial waters. This fact 

 is noted in the British Commissioners' Report. 



There is a distinct statement. First of all, our position is this, that 

 the law itself is in fact strictly limited territorially; and secondly, 

 that, in fact, it has never been asserted or put in force against a 

 foreigner outside the 3-mile limit. 



Senator Morgan. — In regard to these colonial Acts in regard to 

 seals, do any of them make leases of the right to take seals? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am not aware that they do. They grant 

 what might be called hunting licenses. 



Senator Morgan. — Yes. 



Lord Hannen. — What is the page of the British Commissioner's 

 Report? 



Sir Richard Webster. — It is referred to on page 87, my Lord, of 

 the Counter Case, and it is quoted at page 156. 



Lord Hannen. — But what is the passage at page 156 of the British 

 Commissioners' Report that it is referred to? 



The President. — Are you sure that it is the Behring Sea Commis- 

 sioners ? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes, I will give you the passage. 



1134 Mr. Justice Harlan. — I suppose it is in reply to what Felton 

 says in answer to question 3. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, I think it is. 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is, of course, a statement of fact that 

 can be challenged if not correct. 



