294 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



to say strictures absolutely and utterly uufounded. I do not know that 

 it would be possible to speak in terms more severe of Gentlemen pre- 

 tending to any character in the scientitic world, or to make charges 

 which, if true, would be more certain to ruin their reputation and 

 standing there. 



Now, let us see if I am justified in saying that? In the first place, I 

 refer to the United iStates Argument, at pages 72 to 75, concerning the 

 Reports of the Commissioners; but I do not desire to read more than 

 is necessary; and I will, therefore, only read from page 74. 



Sncli being the view which the Commissioners of Great Britain took of their own 

 functions, their report should be regarded as partaking of tlie same character, and 

 such it appears to be upon inspectidu. There is in no part of it any purpose dis- 

 cernible to discover and reveal the true cause which is ojieratiug to dimiiiish the 

 numbers of the fur-seal, and to indicate the remedy, if any, which science points out. 

 It is apparent throughout the report that its authors conceived themselves to be 

 charged witli, the defense of the Canadian interest in pelagic sealing; and it conse- 

 quently openly exhibits the character of a labored apology for that interest, par- 

 ticularly designed to minimize its destructive tendency, and to support a claim for 

 its continued prosecution. This being its distinguishing feature, it is, with great 

 respect, submitted that any weight to be allowed to it as evidence should be con- 

 iined to the statements of facts which fell under the observation of its authors, that 

 these should be regarded as the utterances of unimjieachable witnesses of the highest 

 character, testifying, however, under a strong bias ; and that the opinions and reason- 

 ings set forth in it should be treated with the attention which is usually accorded to 

 the arguments of counsel, but as having no value whatever as evidence. 



Then, at page 206 of the same Argument, they are spoken of in these 

 terms : 



The Commissioners of Great Britain have in their report studiously avoided the 

 real problem which it was their business to solve. That problem, according to their 

 own view, was to devise some scheme of pelagic sealing which would preserve that 

 pursuit, and at the same time not be fatally destructive to the herd of seals. 



Then it proceeds to say to what they should have done; and then : 



The fundamental error of the Commissioners of Great Britain, as of all who either 

 deceive themselves or attempt to deceive others, with the illusion that it is possible 

 to permit in any degree the indiscriminate pursuit of a species of animals like the 

 seals, so eagerly sought, so slow in increase and so defenseless against attack, and 

 at the same time to preserve the race, consists in assuming that the teachings of 

 nature can be replaced by the cheap devices of man. The first and only business of 

 those who, like the Commissioners, were charged with the duty of ascertaining and 

 declaring what measures were necessary for the preservation of this animal, was to 

 calmly inquire what the laws of nature were, and conform to them unhesitatingly. 

 It would then have been seen by them that no cajdure whatever of such animals should 

 be allowed except capture regulated iu conformity with natural laws; and that all 

 unregulated capture was necessarily destructive, and a crime. 



Then they go on to say : 



This error is not imputable to ignorance on the part of the Commissioners. It does 

 not arise from any failure to take notice of the nature and habits of the animal. 

 There is, indeed, in their report an avoirlance, which appears to be industrious, of 

 any special inquiry into the nature and habits of seals, with the view of ascertaining 

 and reporting for the information of this Tribunal whether they really belong to that 

 class of animals which are the tit subjects of property, or that of which ownership 

 cannot be predicated, and \yhich can consequently be protected against excessive 

 sacrifice only by the rough and ineffective expedient of game laws; but, neverthe- 

 less, they fully admit that jierfectly effective regulation of capture is easily possible 

 at the breeding places and there alone. 



They say : 



It is, moreover, equally clear from the known facts, that efficient protection is 

 much more easily afforded on the breeding islands than at sea. The control of the 

 number of seals killed on shore might easily be made absolute, and, as the area of 

 the breeding islands is small, it should not be difticult to completely safeguard these 

 from raiding by outsiders and from other illegal acts. 



