ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 351 



Senator Morgan. — WLat was the penalty imi)osed iu tlie Canadian 

 Act ui)ou the taking- of hair-seals. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — I will tell you, Sir, in one moment. I have 

 not got it iu my mind at present. 

 Mr. Justice Harlan. — It is at page 441. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I think that for hunting or killing whales, 

 seals or porpoises, and so on, it is a penalty not exceeding $300, or 

 imprisonment not exceeding six months. Everyone who Avith a boat or 

 vessel knowingly disturbs, etc. a seal fishery is to be liable to a penalty 

 not exceeding $60, or in default one month, and is liable to pay such 

 damages as are assessed by the Fishery Oi^icer or Justice of the Peace. 

 The Statutes are set out page 441 of the Appendix, vol. 1, of the Case 

 of the United States. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The first section relates to rockets and explo- 

 sive instruments, and the next to sedentary seal fisheries. I believe 

 none of the provisions relate directly to seal hunting. 

 Sir Charles Eussell. — No. 

 Senator Morgan. — Not to fur-seal hunting. 



Lord Hannen. — It was included at any rate in the general description. 

 Sir Charles Eussell. — I am informed by Mr. Tupper that these 

 Statutes apply to the shore fishery. 

 Senator Morgan. — They relate to hair-seals and not fur-seals. 

 Sir Charles Eussell. — I should not say it related to hair-seals 

 only, if there are such things as fur-seals in that neighbourhood, 



because the phrase is "seals" generally. 

 1141 Lord Hannen. — It would include both classes of seals. 



Senator Morgan. — There are no fur-seals in the Atlantic. 

 Lord Hannen. — 1 dare say. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Very likely; that probably is so. 

 In reference to Mr. Justice Harlan's reference to the use of any explo- 

 sive weapons for the purpose of fishing, I am reminded a propos of an 

 entirely different matter by Mr. Tui)per, which Mr. Phelps will be able 

 to correct if erroneous, — it is rather in reference to the illustration 

 given by Mr. Phelps as to whether it would be a defensible act to use 

 dynamite at sea to kill fish, — Mr. Tupper informs me that, by concert 

 betM^een the United States and Canada, each of these communities has 

 passed regulations against the use of dynamite. 

 Mr. Tupper. — No. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — No, that is not so. I am now told that 

 they, foreseeing the possible danger that might ensue to interests 

 which are interests not only of one country but of both, have concerted 

 measures by their own legislation to deal with the use of anything of 

 that kind. 



Senator Morgan. — Can Mr. Tupper cite the Tribunal to the arrange- 

 ment or regulation between the United States and Canada on the sub- 

 ject of mackerel fishing? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Well, this is not in reference to what I am 

 talking about; but by all means, if you wish to ask Mr. Tupper, do so. 

 Sir. It is rather an interruption of my argument. 



Mr. Tupper. — The position of that matter is shortly this. The 

 United States have legislated touching the taking of fish iu their 

 waters by purse-seining, and have prohibited the catching of mackerel 

 in the United States waters during the spawning period of the mack- 

 erel season. Canada has prohibited the use of liurse-seines in Canadian 

 waters for the whole year; that is from Januaiy till Pecember; and, 



