ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 349 



I*Jow, here is what the United States say with regard to this legisla- 

 tion of New Zealand. 



The area designated as "the colony" is taken to mean the area specified in the Act 

 [26 & 27 Vict., cap. 23, sec. 2] creating the Colony, which defines its bonndaries as 

 coincident with parallels 33° and 53'^ south latitude, and 162° east and 173° west 

 longitnde. 



The definition in the Act [The Fisheries Conservation Act, 1884] of the term "waters" 

 indicates that it applies to the entire area of the Colony, of which the southeastern 

 corner is over 700 miles from the coast of New Zealand, although a few smaller 

 islands intervene. 



Then the Argument proceeds — 



In the Map [which I Avill not stop to refer to, the Tribunal can refer to it for them- 

 selves] in the United States Case an area coloured pink is shown, comprising the 

 waters between the limits of latitude and longitude, to found the contention that 

 these waters are included within the colonial limits. 



The words of the Imperial Statute 26 & 27 Vict., cap. 23, sec. 2, above referred to, 

 nevertheless, are clear and explicit, and are not capable of being misunderstood. 



The designation of the Colony in that Statute is as follows: 



The Colony of New T'lealand shall, for the purposes of the said Act and for all other 

 purposes whatever, be deemed to comprise all territories, islands, and countries h/ing 

 between 162° east longitude and 173° west longitude, and between the 33rd and 53rd. 

 parallels of south latitude. 



Only the territories, islands, and countries lying between these limits of latitude 

 and longitude are thus seen to be included within the Colony. 



In other words, in interpreting this Statute, the United States rep- 

 resentatives have fallen into what we conceive to be precisely the same 

 mistake which they fell into in construing their own Treaty of Cession 

 of 1867 between themselves and Russia: that misconception being that 

 because that Treaty of 1867 described a certain line drawn from Behring 

 Straits south-westwards beyond the Aleutian Chain, that thereby there 

 was a cession as of territory of all the waters that lay to the east of 

 that line. 



All that is said here is that within those limits whatever is territory 

 is part of the Colony, no more than that, just as the words used in the 

 Treaty of 1867 were quite apt words to describe the cession to America 

 of all that was territory lying within those degrees of latitude and of 

 longitude. These facts were stated in the British Counter Case and 

 yet the argument is repeated in the print by the United States as if the 

 explanation had not been made. 



Now the Cape of Good Hope comes next in order, on page 43, and I 

 notice that the printed Argument of my learned friend does not refer 

 to this case of the Cape of Good Hope. If I am to assume that that is 

 given ui> by my learned friends, I will pass it without any notice, but 

 unless my learned friend gives me that intimation I must of course 

 notice it. It is mentioned by them in their Case. It is not referred to 

 in their Argument, but we have in our Counter Case, at page 89, 

 1139 dealt with it and ex]>laiiied what the facts were, and that has 

 not been answered. I will read the exislanation which is shortly 

 put in page 89. 



It proceeds thus : 



It is stated in the United States Case that "in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope 

 sealing is prohibited at the rookeries and in the waters adjacent thereto, except 

 under stringent regulations". 



The evidence ottered in support of these allegations consists of the following 

 statements: 



W. C. B. Stamp: who says: I am told, although I know nothing about it, that 

 regulations of some kind have been made in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. 



G. Comer: who says: The rookeries "are in the possession or control of a com- 

 pany, as I was then informed, wliich has the exclusive riglitto take seals there. We 

 did not dare to go to those rookeries because sealing was prohibited, and we would 

 not have been allowed to take them in tl^e waters adjacent thereto." 



