ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 289 



Sir Richard Webster. — Except that I understood tbat the Presi- 

 dent rather comphiiued of my statement that they were not before the 

 Court. I thought they were on the table or I wouhl have waited. I 

 do not wish to read the hist page. It is the same thing, and, again, 

 any passage in the papers will be at the disposal of my learned friends. 

 There is nothing to qualify w^hat I said in any way. 



The President. — Now, Mr. Robinson, will you proceed? 



Mr. RoiuNSON. — Sir, there is one matter as to which I wish to give a 

 reference in order to clear up what has been a misconcei)tion. There 

 h;Ks been a misapprehension with regard to a letter of Mr. Tupjier, to 

 which Mr, Coudert referred at pages 092 and 093, and he founded an 

 argument upon it, and read it with considerable emphasis as against my 

 learned friend. He spoke of it as the Couroune de VEdifice., but he read 

 only a letter at pages 90 and 91 of K*^* 3 (1892), volume 3 of the Appen- 

 dix to the Britisli Case. He was asked to read a letter at page 105, and 

 he said he would do so if he had time. Unfortunately, it escaped his 

 attention, and he did not read it. That shows exactly what was Mr. 

 Tupper's meaning, and does not at all bear the construction which my 

 learned friend, Avith considerable triumph, pointed to as bearing against 

 the view that we were advancing on a question that was i^ractically more 

 a matter of damages than anything else. 



The Government is of the opinion that The total cessation of sealing in Behnng's 

 Sea will greatly enh.'iuce the value of the produce of the coast fishery, and does not 

 anticipate that British sealers will suffer to any great extent by exclusion from 

 Behring's Sea. 



Xow, if you will turn to page 105 of that same part, in the same 

 Appendix, you will see that in a letter by Mr. Tup[)er of the 19th of 

 September some eight days later, to the Victoria Sealers' Association, 

 he says: 



I will, however, repeat that Her Majesty's Government has intimated that, while 

 they incline to the Itelief that tlie closiue of Behring's Sea to all scaling operations 

 both on land and at. xea will so enhance the value of tlie catch that the prices realized 

 will compensate the sealers for their loss of the Behring's Sea catch, they will be 

 prepared to consider claims to recompense where it can be shown that actual loss has 

 accrued by reason of the legislation under review. 



This shows that the cessation Mr. Tui)per was referring to was the 

 cessation on the Islands and elsewhere, and not the cessation merely at 

 sea; and that the argument assumed to be founded on his letter is not 

 well founded. 



I have done now with all the matters of detail connected with this 

 question of Regulations which I desired to refer to, and I wish only to 

 refer to two other general matters before proceeding to those fewremarks 

 which I desire to make with regard to the subject of Regulations in 

 general. These are tlie conduct of Canada in this matter, and the 

 conduct of the Commissioners. 



The conduct of (3anada has been made the subject of very severe 

 stricture by my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, in the United States Argu- 

 ment on pages 177 to 179; and you will also tind that Mr. Blaine in his 

 despatch of the 29th of May, 1890, volume I, Apjiendix to the United 

 States Case, page 212, and in the same volume at i)age 218, complains 

 I may almost say bitterly of the conduct of Great Britain, practically 

 because Great Britain had taken the advice of Canada and consulted 

 the interests of Canada in this matter, and had not concluded an 

 arrangement for a close time, as to which there was some misunder- 

 standing between my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, and Lord Salisbury. 

 B s, PT XIV 19 



