3G4 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



Penalties are imi)ose(l on any person infriiijiiug the provisions of the Act. 



Stiivss is i;iid in the United States Case on the words "any person;" and the state- 

 ment is made that " tlie Act is not confined in its operations to British subjects." 



Tliis statement is at variance with the principles of English legislation and the 

 practice of the English Courts in interpreting Statutes. 



"Any person" is a term commonly used in English Statutes dealing with oflences, 

 and it is invariably applied to such persons only as owe a duty of obedience to the 

 British Parliament. 



That is to say, so far as their extraterritorial application is con- 

 cerned. But I cannot help thinking that with regard to all this class 

 of cases, it helps the Tribunal very, very little, if at all; because, sup- 

 liosing it were to be made clear that there was a case in which a Legis- 

 lature had affected to bind foreigners outside territorial limits, that is 

 either a good law or a bad law. It does not make it international law 

 because a particular Power has affected to usurp a power which inter- 

 national law does not warrant it in assuming. I shall later have to 

 call attention to cases illustrating this i)rinciple of the construction of 

 British Statutes which 1 have been referring to, namely, that if the 

 words of a Statute are general in its ai)pli(;ation to all jiersous, the nni- 

 form rule of construction is that, extra-territorially, it applies only to 

 those who are subject to the laws of Great Britain. 



Now, the next case cited is the Ceylon Pearl Fishery, and I may say 

 in passing that this is a subject which may be referred to under a dif- 

 ferent head of claim. The erudition of the members of the Tribunal 

 may be possibly able to supplement my scant information on the sub- 

 ject, but, as far as I know, these fisheries of Ceylon and Bahrem stand 

 in a position perfectly unique. How old they are, I do not know. 

 Some of my learned friends have said that they are old enough to be 

 mentioned in Herodotus. I do not know how the fact is, I have not 

 been able to verify it; but these facts are undoubted that for many 

 generations the owners of the territory of Ceylon have, with the acqui- 

 escence of all other Powers of the World, been allowed to claim to 

 exercise dominion in respect of these Fisheries which are contiguous to 

 the coast but which extend beyond the three miles of the territorial 

 zone or belt. Those facts are undoubted, and I care not whether the 

 title is without a flaw; it is a title which has been recognised for a great 

 many years; has been acquiesced in; and as to which, as far as I know, 

 no dispute has ever occurred. There is also the consideration whether 

 this case may not be referable to a different consideration; it may, pos- 

 sibly be founded upon exclusive possession, from their coiitiguity 

 1157 to the shore and from the manner in which the fisheries are them- 

 selves carried on. My learned fiiend Mr. Carter was very pow- 

 erful in relation to the suggestion that the claim to the Ceylon Fisheries 

 was defended npon the ground that you could occupy i^ortions of the 

 sea away from the land; and he then proceeded to say that, if that was 

 so, then all that a Nation had to do was to discover where there was a 

 valuable feeding bank for some valuable race of fish, and buoy it out 

 where you could get a bottom sufficient at all events, to plant your 

 leads upon the ground, — to buoy out 100 square miles, or 200 square 

 miles, leave the buoys, and say "That is our territory." 



I must ask the Tribunal, is that an argument which is to be treated 

 seriously*? Is there any analogy between that case and the occupation 

 of a very small portion of the bottom of the sea contiguous to admitted 

 territory, and the pursuit there of this particular fishing? I submit that 

 the analogy does not exist, and the illustration is one that is very 

 strained. There is undoubtedly some warrant for thedistinction between 

 the case of these fisheries, w hether they are i)earl, or whether they are 



