ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 353 



Kow our statement in reference to it is at page 44 of the British 

 Argument. 



The Seal FisLery Act, 1889, 42 Vict., cap. 1, established a close time for seals, and 

 prohibits the killing of "cats" [immature seals] in order more efBciently to preserve 

 this close time. Steamers are not allowed to leave port before a certain day. 



The Seal Fishery Act, 1892, provides more stringent regulations for the observance 

 of the close time, and heavier penalties for leaving port before a certain day. 



Seals killed in breach of the close time are not to be brought into any port of the 

 Colony or its dependencies under a jienalty of 4,000 dollars. 



1143 Steamers are forbidden from going on a second trip in any one year, and if 

 they shall engage at any time in killing seals at any place within the jurisdic- 

 tion of the Snpreme Court of Newfoundland after returning from the first trip they 

 shall be deemed to have started on a second trip. 



From these Statutes the following conclusions are drawn in the United States 

 Case : 



1. That Great Britain and its dependencies do not limit their Governmental pro- 

 tection to the fur-seal ; it is extended to all varieties of seals wherever they resort 

 to British territorial waters. 



2. And they have thrown about them iipon the high seas the guardianship of 

 British Statutes. 



It is admitted that the principle of providing a close time for seals has been 

 adopted by British legislation as essential to the preservation of seal life. 



It is denied that anj^ country has the power to enforce such close-time regulations 

 beyond the territorial Avaters against subjects of a foreign nation, though it may do 

 so as regards its own subjects; and neither Great Britain nor her Colonies have ever 

 departed or attempted to depart from this principle. 



It is denied that the inferences drawn by the United States in respect of the legis- 

 lation of some of the Colonies already considered are warranted. The principles of 

 English law show conclusively that such inferences are unsound; it has already 

 been shown that they are not in accordance with the facts ; and no evidence has been 

 adduced by the United States to support them. 



Now I have one word further to say in relation to this statute. It 

 has been objected by my friend, Mr. Plielps, in his Argument, and 

 pointed to also by JMr. Coudert, that it was absurd to suppose that, 

 where there was a valuable fishery carried on in the neighbourhood of 

 the territory of a particular Power, that Power could put up with a 

 state of things in which its own subjects there were to be prohibited 

 during certain seasons from fishing, and yet that foreigners would not 

 come under that regulation. That was the case that my friend Mr. 

 Coudert put very forcibly. The answer to it is this: That where the 

 fishing is carried on in the neighbourhood of a territory, that peculiar 

 and special advantages accrue, from that fact to the subjects or citizens 

 of the territory: they have a base of operation which foreigners have 

 not; and foreigners resorting to those fisheries (speaking as a general 

 rule), must come within the territorial jurisdiction of that particular 

 Power for some purpose or the other connected with their pursuit of 

 fishing; and, once they come within the limits of that territory, they 

 thereupon become subject to the laws of that territory; and in tliis case 

 you will see (and in some other cases to which I shall call attention), 

 that the colonial Legislature or other legislative power, imposes, and 

 within its constitutional rights imposes, certain conditions on those 

 ships that come into its ports: for instance, that they shall not be 

 allowed to go out before a certain day, or they shall not be allowed to 

 go out unless they comply with this, that or the other condition ; and 

 thus it is that by means of the operation of local law, against all who 

 come within the area of local law, j^lus the natural advantages which 

 proximity to the fishing grounds presents, speaking generally, the fish- 

 ery is more valuable to the subjects or citizens of the territory who are 

 conriccted with it, than it is to those who being foreigners are 



1144 not connected with it. The statute upon which they rely is set 

 out at page 444 of the first volume of the Appendix to the Case 



B S, PT XIII 23 



