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



Now I think I liave come to the eud of the citation of authorities, 

 and T wish to i^nt the points tinally as they come up for adjudication 

 by this Tribunal. 



First, as to the seizures, I have argued the question whether or not 

 those seizures could be justified upon any princi])le recognized by inter- 

 national law and 1 have endeavoured to establish — I hope I have suc- 

 cessfully established — that they cannot be so defended. It is a fact to 

 which i have not previously called the attention of the Tribunal that 

 when in their Counter Case the United States are called upon to justify 

 those seizures, they justify them upon one ground, and upon one 

 ground only. 



If you, Mr. President, will be good enough to turn to page 130 of 

 the Counter Case you will see what I mean. On the previous page 129, 

 they have admitted the seizures as to some vessels, and the orders of 

 expulsion from Behring Sea in prohibition of sealing as regards other 

 vessels, and in the next page they proceed to justify those seizures, 

 the marginal note being " Seasons why seizures made". 



The United States charge that each and all of the A'^essels when so seized were 

 engaged in the hunting of fur-seals in the waters of Behring Sea in violation of the 

 statutes of the United States, and that such seizures were made in accordance with 

 the laws of the United States enacted for the protection of their property interest 

 in the fur-seals which frequent Behring Sea and biieed only upon the Pribilof Islands, 

 which Islands are part of the territory of the united States, and that the acts of 

 the crews if permitted would exterminate the Alaskan seal herd and thereby destroy 

 an article of commerce valuable to all civilized nations. 



You will see therefoie that in their Counter Case there is no sugges- 

 tion of that contention, which I may have to say a final word or two 

 about, that these provisions, although theie is no justification for 

 them, as Mr. Carter admitted, as a statute, may yet be treated as 



defensive regulations. 

 1193 That is an idea which is attributable to the ingenuity of my 

 learned friends and which appears developed for the first time 

 in the printed Argument, but does not appear in the Case, or, as I have 

 said, even in the Counter Case. 



iSTow, Senator Morgan yesterday made a suggestion to the efi'ect that 

 these were mere acts in defence of property; but I would point out that 

 the acts complained of were of three kinds ; first, as regards vessels 

 engaged in sealing, next as regards vessels that had been engaged in 

 sealing, an.d, lastly, as regards vessels equipped for the purpose of 

 being engaged in sealing. 



And I have to point out that while, if the fur-seal is to be treated as 

 an article of property, there is, the right to defend it in the high sea, if 

 it is attacked,— while I concede that, what lies upon my learned friends 

 to show is that even if there is such property right, the consent of 

 nations has been given, and that international law has sanctioned, any 

 other than the ordinary right of defence of possession which belongs to 

 an individual owner o±^ property; and if it be objected that, in the case 

 of the fur-seal, the property is of so volatile a kind that that mere right 

 of defence of possession would be inadequate, I answer, first, that the 

 very circumstance of it being of so volatile a character goes some way to 

 show how impossible it is to conceive the idea of property in it. But, 

 in the next place, I have to say that the volatile character of the prop- 

 erty cannot alter the rights, internationally recognized, in regard to it; 

 any more than in the case of a great frontier or an extended coast 

 which needed to be defended by an adequate Police-force in order to 

 prevent a violation of its Eevenue Laws, — any more than in such a 

 case it would be admissible for the Power possessing that frontier, and 



