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

 That does not further their view at all. Then it proceeds: 



The Regulations iu force in tbis Colony are of tbe character which appears from 

 the Glovernment Notice which is printed in the Appendix to the British Commis- 

 sioners' Report. By this Notice all persons are prohibited "from disturbing tbe 

 seals on the said island" [in Mossel Bay] and are warned from trespassing there. 



Tbe Government Agent states that there is practically no pursuit of the animals 

 in the water on these coasts. The system of killing tbe seals is the same throughout 

 all the colonial islands, namely, with "clubs", by men landing in boats. 



Then the explanation further proceeds: 



As a matter of fact, the legislation at the Cape of Good Hope is entirely confined 

 to the protection of seals on the islands. 



There is no allegation of any assertion of any right inconsistent with 

 that explanation which 1 have now read. 



Now the case of Canada, again, is not referred to in the printed Argu- 

 ment of my learned friends, and I will pursue in relation to that the 

 same course. Whether I am entitled to assume that the explanation 

 given in our Counter Case was satisfactory or not, I do not know. I 

 am entitled to say that the explanation was given of what the actual 

 facts were in our Counter Case, and after that explanation is given, the 

 matter is not again referred to or apparently relied upon in the United 

 States Argument. It is referred to iu the British Counter-Case, at 

 page 89 : 



Turning from tbe fur-seal to the other varieties of seals, it is allegedin the United 

 States Case that, as regards the hair-seal iu the North Atlantic — 



"They have thrown about them upon the high seas the guardianship of British 

 statutes. . . Canadian statutes prohibit all persons, without prescribing any marine 

 limit, from disturbing or injuring all sedentary seal fisheries during the time of 

 fishing for seals, or from hindering or frightening the shoals of seals as they enter 

 the fishery." 



The only Canadian Statute referred to is the Fisheries Act of 1886, which undoubt- 

 edly aftects Canadian subjects upon the high seas, and all persons within the terri- 

 torial waters of Canada/but asserts no jurisdiction over foreign subjects outside 

 those waters. 



Senator Morgan. — That is the statement from your Counter Case. 

 Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes, which is not challenged in the 

 1140 printed Argument subsequently delivered by the United States, 

 and is the fact. I mean it states what the fact is. I am entitled 

 to assunie that in all these cases, unless the confrary is shown, that no 

 case can be adduced of any assertion of a right outside the territorial 

 waters. If my learned friends could have produced instances of such 

 assertion outside territorial Avaters affecting other than British sub- 

 jects, it would have been something to the point — it would have been 

 at least the argumentum ad hominem; but it is not even that in the 

 absence of any such evidence. They give an extract from the Canadian 

 Statute which givesno justification whatever for the statement which is 

 found in their Case; and the Tribunal will be good enough to bear in 

 mind — I will refer to it later so as not to repeat myself— the paragraph 

 which I have already explained as to colonial legislation, namely, that 

 the power to legislate which is conceded to Colonies which have a repre- 

 sentative system of Government — a constitutional Government, as it is 

 shortly called— that that being a delegated power by the Imperial Parlia- 

 ment, it gives to the Colonial Legislature absolutely no power, even if 

 it affected to exercise it, which it has not done, to legislate one inch 

 beyond the actual territory. I shall point to some remarkable decisions 

 of the Privy C<mncil, which is the Appellate Court from the Colonies, 

 which have given effect to that view of the powers of Colonial Legisla- 

 tures, 



