ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 75 



no case in the range of the law where those facts have not operated in 

 mnnicipal hiw, to give a title. There is no snch case where a right of 

 property has not been deduced and protected by the law; and when 

 you find on the other hanil the cases of the wild game that are put in 

 the other class, you find animals which are the subject of sport, where 

 the animal returning cannot be identified, where when he goes on to 

 the neighbour's land, he gets from that neighbour exactly what he gets 

 at home, so that the pheasant or partridge that goes from my estate to 

 the estate of my friend owes nothing more to me than he owes to him. 



Now when you come to apply those considerations to the case of the 

 far-seal, it will be found that in every respect and i)articular the case is 

 much stronger than that of any wild animal to which a property was 

 ever attached in any system of law. You see their great intelligence. 

 You see that this soil is not merely a casual place which they could 

 exchange for another to-morrow, but is necessary for their existence. 

 You see that this animus revettendi which constitutes a part, and but 

 a part of our possession, is continued and virtually created by the care 

 and protection that they receive; and you see the husbandry which the 

 proprietors — it is the Government in this case — have built up and 

 maintained, without which there would be no such animal for them or 

 for the world. 



If it is convenient for you to stop here, Sir, I will continue my argu- 

 ment to-morrow. 



[The Tribunal thereupon adjourned until Wednesday, the 28th June, 

 1893, at 11.30 a. m.j 



