Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-11
GREAT BRITAIN's CASE.
Sir Charles Russell Opens With Compli-
ments to the Americans.


ments to the Americans.
Attorney General Sir Charles Russell Of coun-
sci for Great Britain before the Boring sea tri-
bunal Of arbitration began his address yester-
Gay at Paris in behalf Of the British case. The
court room was thronged with English and
American residents Of Paris and with visitors
from abroad.
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 arguments.
Nevertheless, Sir Charles went on to say. he
thought that Mr.. Carriers line Of argument had
taken him into the misty clouds of metaphysical
and ethical discussion, which had no bearing
upon the case. He had also built strongholds
which were legally indefensible.
CHANGE OF FRONT.
Sir Charles remarked on the change Of front
in various parts of the American argument.
The courage, not to say audacity, with which
American counsel bad propounded as PROPOSE
tions Of law propositions which had no legal
foundation had greatly interested him.
For instance, the theory that foreign vessels
could be seized in time Of peace. that pelagic
sealing was criminal and that seals, although
wild, were nevertheless American property be-
cause they possessed the .'animum revertendi,"
displayed a remarkable confusion Of ideas.
Seals. Sir Charles declared, were like game
which the land owner had the right to kill,
although only when on his land The .'an1mum
revertendl conferred property in wild animals
only when the wild animals were induced by
artificial means such as feeding them to re-
turn to a particular place. Neither interna-
tional nor municipal law would confer prop
erty In seals, were the dispute between per-
sons instead of nations.
WHERE HE AGREED WITH HIM.
On some points Sir Charles stated he agreed
with the American counsel. because they drew
right conclusions based on wrong premises.
Sir Charles admitted that the legal question for
decision by the tribunal contained in article
vi should be submitted to the arbitrators as
lurlsts- This, however. implied that the tri-
bunal OF arbitration must declare what the
law Is. and not attempt to make the law.
Sir Charles Russell commented on what he
called Mr.. Carriers remarkable contention that
moral and natural law an interchangeable
term for the international law. His (Sir Charles
Russells) 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 the
privateering and the slave trade to prove
that actions in themselves wrong are not neces-
sarily offenses against international law Sir
Charles agreed with the Americans that it was
preferable that the seals should be exter-
rdtner imam the tribunal should SWerye
from the straight line of the law.
AN EXAGGERATED MATTER.
The whole question had been exaggerated
The American counsel spoke of sealskins as
though the disappearance of the animals fur
nishing the sealskins would cause a rude shock
to the progress Of civilization.
Sir Charles would not assert that sealskins
we're not necessary to happiness in this world or
the next. but he pointed out that it was
only about the year 1850 that method of pre-
pairing the skins was discovered which brought
them into the market as articles of luxury.
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, but at the time of the purchase of Alaska
the United States did not take the seals into
consideration.
This statement by Sir Charles Russell led to
a lengthy discussion as to the correctness Of the
assertion, Baron De Courcel president of the
tribunal, American Arbitrators Harlan and
Morgan and MIR. E. j. Phelps Of counsel for
the Inited States taking part in the discussion,
and various points were brought out relating to
the purchase Of Alaska.
PELAGIC SEALING AGAIN.
Sir Charles Russell, continuing urged that
the method Of sealing on the Pribyloff Islands
was more destructive and more cruel than
pelagic sealing. He ridiculed the profession Of
the United States that they were acting in this
matter In a spirit of humanity
Pelagic sealing. he said was due to the enor-
nous tax imposed by the United States upon
the lessees of the seal islands. He meant no Of
Tense to his friends on the other side Of the
case. but he asked that all the members Of the
tribunal rid their minds of cant and face the
question without lofty talk of philanthropy.
Referring to Canada's Intervention in the
Boring sea negotiations. Sir Charles remarked
that as the American colonists were not silent
imperial measures affecting them
selves when Lord North was the Salisbury of
the period. but vigorously asserted the col
proach Canada when she acted similarly He
Indignantly repudiated the charges impugning
the impartiality Of the British COMMISSIONER