The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-05-11
British Counsel Say American Follow
ed Fancy not Facts.
OPENING OF THE OTHER SIDE IN
THE BEHRING SEA CASE.
Sir Charles Russell the First Speaker of
the Counsel for Great Britain-The
First Installlnent of His Remarks
Largely a Criticism of the Speeches on
the American side-He Compliments
His Adversaries.


Charles Russell of counsel. for Great
Britain before the Behring sea tribunal
of arbitration, began his address today
in behalf of the British case. Sir Charles
began by bestowing generous praise on
the arguments of Messrs. Carter and
Coudert of counsel for the United States
as full of intellectual allurements. He
thought Mr.. Carter's line of argument
had taken him into the clouds of meta
physical and ethical discussion, which
had no bearing upon the case. He had
also built strongholds legally indefensi-
BILE. Sir Charles remarked on the change
of front in the various parts of the
American argument. The courage, not
to say audacity. with which the Ameri-
can counsel propounded as propositions
of law, propositions which had no legal
foundation, had greatly interested him.
For instance, the theory that foreign YES
sells could be seized in time of peace, that
pelagic sealing was criminal, that seals,
although wild, were American Nproperty
because they possessed animum reverten-
di, displayed remarkable confusi on of
ideas. Seals, Sir Charles declared. were
like game which a land owner had a
right to kill, although only on his land.
Anihnum revertendi conferred property
in wild animals only when wild animals
were induced by artificial means, such
as feeding, to return to particular
place. Neither international nor muni-
cipal law would confer property in seals
Il. 30 I1Ix
stead of between nations.
On some points, Sir Charles stated that
he agreed with the American counsel
because they drew right conclusions
based on wrong premises. Sir Charles
admitted that the legal questions for de-
cision by the tribunal contained in
article six should be submitted to the
arbitrators as jurists. This implied that
the tribunal of arbitration must declare
what the law is, not attempt to make
| law. He commented on what he called
| Mr.. Carriers remarkable contention that
| moral and natural law were interchange
| able terms for international law. Sir
| Charles's conception of international
law was that it did not depend on moral
considerations, but on the consent of
nations. Sir Charles quoted the past
history of privateering and the slave
| trade to prove that actions in themselves
wrong might not be offences against
| international law. Sir Charles agreed
with the Americans that it was prefer
able that the seals should be extermin-
ated rather than that the tribunal swerve
from the straight line of the law. The
| whole question had been exaggerated by
| the American counsel. They spoke of
sealskins as though the disappearance of
| the animals furnishing sealskins would
cause rude shock to the progress of
civilization. Sir Charles would not as
| sert that sealskins were not necessary to
happiness in this world or the next, but
he pointed out that it was only about
| 1850 that the method of preparing the
| skins was discovered which brought
| them into the market as articles of lux
ury. The counsel for the United States
had dwelt upon the cost of Alaska and
] the value of that territory to the United
States on account of the seals. At the
time of the purchase of Alaska, the
United States did not take the seals un-
der consideration.
This statement by Sir Charles led to a
| lengthy discussion as to the correctness
| of the assertion. Baron de Courcel,
president of the council, American Arbi-
traitors Harlan and Morgan and Hon. E.
J. Phelps, of counsel for the United
States, took part in the discussion which
brought out the various points relating
| to the purchase of Alaska.