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



The 4 marine leagues for the two i)urposes mentioned I do not admit; 

 nor for the latter purpose, without the qualification which I have more 

 than once given. 



"Article 611. Sea fishing is free, but in the territorial seas the right of fishing is 

 enjoyed only by Chilean citizens or domiciled foreigners." 



Now the next case given is the Argentine Republic and that was 

 mentioned in the Case, but is not again mentioned I think I only need 

 read what is said in the British Argument, p. 48. 



" The laws of the Republic are not set out in the United States Appendix. The 

 statement in the United States Case is merely that protection is given to the fur- 

 seals resorting to the coasts; it is not stated that the regulations are extra-territo- 

 rial, or that they apply to foreigners." 



1154 The next case is Japan. This also appeared in the United States 

 Case, but it does not appear in the Argument. It is dealt with 

 at page 92 of the British Counter Case. 



It is also stated that ''the Japanese Government has taken steps toward the res- 

 toration and preservation of the fnr-seala at the Kurile Islands". The extract from 

 Regulations of 1885 referred to by way of verification, and set forth in the Appendix, 

 relates to islands within the territory of Japan, and no other law is set forth or men- 

 tioned; nor is it alleged in the Case that any of the Japanese laws relating to seal 

 fisheries have an exterritorial operation. Further, the Regulations of 1885 do not 

 appear to be now in force, for the full official Memorandum supplied ou the 14th 

 December, 1891, by the courtesy of the Japanese Government, in answer to a circular 

 asking for " copies of any printed documents or Reports referring to the fur-seal 

 fisheries" sets forth "the several Regulations in force at the present time", among 

 which those of 1885 are not given; and it states that there are no means of checking 

 " foreign poachers" " outside the line of territorial limit fixed by international law." 



Now, SO far, I think I have dealt with every case cited on this point: 

 and on page 49 of our Argument is stated the conclusion to which I 

 think the Tribunal is justified in coming upon an examination in detail 

 of these instances. 



None of the countries above specified profess to control the killing of seals by extra- 

 territorial provisions, or by interfering with foreigners on the high seas, or in any 

 other way than in accordance with the principles already established; nor do they 

 profess to claim a property in or a right of protection of seals in the high sea. 



The first contention of the United States, that seal life is protected by extra-terri- 

 torial laws of other countries applicable to foreigners, is therefore shown to be with- 

 out foundation. 



I now come to the next branch of this argument. 



A further contention of the United States is that, not seal-fisheries only, but other 

 fisheries, are protected by extra-territorial laws of other nations, and that they are 

 extended to foreigners. 



Then there are the Irish oyster fisheries, the Scotch herring fisheries, 

 the Ceylon pearl fisheries, the Queensland and West Australian fish- 

 eries, which may be called British examples: and the foreign examples 

 are France, Algeria, Italy, Norwegian, Columbia, and Mexico. These 

 I will examine in order. 



The subject of the Irish oyster fisheries which comes first in order is 

 referred to on page 166 of the United States Argument. It says: 



Oyster beds in the open sea have been made the subject of similar legislation in 

 Great Britain. 



A section of the British "Sea Fisheries Act, 1868", conferred upon the Crown the 

 right by orders in council to restrict and regulate dredging for oysters on any oyster 

 bed within twenty miles of a straight line drawn between two specified points on the 

 coast of Ireland, "outside of the exclusive fishery limits of the British Isles." The 

 act extends to all boats specified in the order, whether British or foreign. 



Now so far (and I should like the Tribunal to follow this a little closely) 

 it states, and states correctly, that this British " Sea Fisheries Act 



