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



statement of counsel to wLicb I have previously adverted, that after 

 stating their case founded upon the assumption of territory, basing 

 the assumption of that territory upon the derivative title from Russia, 

 their argument and libel conclude with the emphatic words: 



Such is our uuderstanding of the ]<aw, such is the record; upon them the United 

 States are prepared to abide the judgment of the Cuurt and the oiiinion of the civil- 

 ized world. 



I have only in this connection one other concluding remark 1o make — 

 it touclies a subject to which I have previously frequently adverted. 

 It is to point out that no instance can be cited, which I am aware 

 1195 of, in which the provisions of a municipal statute intended to 

 oi)erate — avowedly intended to operate — as a statutory authority 

 and a statutory authority only, has ever been treated as a self defen- 

 sive, or as a selfpreservative, regulation. Indeed, when you come to 

 consider the principle to which I have just adverted — the principle of 

 sudden danger and emergency, leaving no opportunity for considera- 

 tion or device of means — you cannot iail to determine that the notion 

 of an elaborate and carefully prepared Code of punishments is incon- 

 sistent with the notion of what a Nation may do in its sudden emer- 

 gency: and it is, as Mr. Webster well put it, that very consideration 

 which lies at the basis of this whole doctrine of what a nation may 

 resort to in the case of sudden emergency. 



Now, I have done with this, and I leave the subject; but I wish to 

 paint out that, except as regards what has taken place, namely the 

 seizures, this question is of no future practicaj importance for the 

 reason which I will make apparent in a moment. It is necessary to 

 consider it in relation to the question of the unwarrantable character 

 of the seizures; but, if this Court were to affirm a right in the United 

 States in relation to the fur-seals, I need not tell this Tribunal that the 

 question of what international rights of protection the United States 

 jiossess, would become practically immaterial, because Great Britain 

 would be bound, in good faith, to resx)e('t the affirmation of any right 

 which this Tribunal declared to exist, and to enjoin upon its nationals 

 the avoidance of any disturbance of that right. Therefore, except 

 as regards the past seizures the question is one of relatively small 

 importance. 



1 have thought it right to argue this question of what are the rights 

 of protection even on the assumption that there was a right to protect; 

 but, of course, I have but ill-succeeded in my task if I have not con- 

 veyed to this Tribunal that the main stress and burden of my arguinent 

 has been addressed to the denial of any such right in whatever form 

 that right is suggested. In connection, therefore, with the seizures, I 

 have, with the assistance of my learned friends, framed the questions 

 of fact which we submit this Tribunal may properly he called upon to 

 answer in the manner which I am now about to take the liberty of 

 suggesting. They have been shown to my learned friend Mr. Pliclps, 

 and although his opportunity of consideritig them was limited, and I 

 do not consider him debarred in any way from criticising them when 

 he has more time for deliberation, I think I am justified in saying that 

 so far as he has read them they do not deal with anything except facts 

 which are not in dispute. 



Mr. Phelps. — I ought to say, perhaps, in justice to Sir Charles, that 

 I made an observation that quite justifies what he has just said in 

 respect of these statements. On another perusal, I think that perhaps 

 one of these statements may be open to criticism, and therefore it is 



