298 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q C. 



I need scarcely reminfl you that your investigation should be carried on with strict 

 impartiality, that you should neglect no sources of information which maybe likely 

 to assist yuii in arriving at a sound conclusion, and that great care should be taken 

 to sift the evidence that is brought before you. 



Now, tliey certainly liad no n^\\t to inisapprehend their dnty. They 

 were expressly directed to conduct this investigation with great impar- 

 tiality. The charge is that they have conducted it with nothing but 

 partiality, have left out of consideration every duty which imi)artiality 

 made incumbent upon them, and have been guided only by their bias 

 and partiality. 



Then I do not know that there is anything else, except that in their 

 report they say their main object was to en(]uire what international 

 arrangements were necessary, and describe the course they took and 

 Avhat they did. 



Now let us see what it is they reported upon. Having been directed 

 to go to the Islands, and the United States having concurred in that, 

 and having offered all facilities for theii' making that investigation, we 

 must assume that they came to their conclusions either honestly or dis- 

 honestly. If in their Judgment, as is the fact, they found the methods 

 pursued on the islands were defective, and were, to a large extent, 

 accountable for the present defective or injurious state of the seal herd, 

 were they to say so, or were they not. Would it have been consistent 

 with their duty if, having enquired and found certain defects, they 

 omitted to report them? If for example, they came to the conclusion 

 (and, as my learned friend put it to you, it was the sim])lest thing in the 

 world) all you have to do is to stop killing on the islands or improve 

 your methods there, or stop pelagic sealing on the other hand, and then 

 the seals will not be destroyed, they might have said that after this 

 investigation, or indeed without any investigation at all; but was that 

 their duty? When they found you could kill on the islands with dis- 

 crimination was it their duty to say, and is it incomprehensible that 

 they should not say at once: "As they discriminate on the islands, and 

 can kill with care what they choose to kill, you should, therefore, take 

 away such rights as have been exercised from time immemorial to kill 

 at sea." If not, they have performed the exact duty they were sent to 

 perform. As thecommissioners have in another place said, undoubtedly 

 the best remedy would be to i)rohibit all killing; but they were aware 

 of the existence of these rival interests, and that it was that which led 

 to this enquiry, and they could not but be aware that the object of their 

 being sent to make the investigation was, as a matter of fact, that these 

 rival interests had come to a certain extent in collision, and the diffi- 

 culty was to reconcile them. 



For that purpose they had to enquire into these matters, and report 

 the conclusion they had arrived at. I do not desire to say more than to 

 ask the Tribunal to refer to, as I have no doubt they will, and read the 

 respective reports, on both sides. I desire the Commissioners to be 

 judged, not by what any person may say or think of them. I do not 

 speak of their character, because personal knowledge and personal feel- 

 ing might influence what one might say; but I speak of their work as 

 it is presented to this Tribunal, and I ask the Tribunal to judge of 

 them by their work. 1 will venture to say this. 1 am glad indeed that 

 on our side there has been no such tone adopted or charges made. I 

 am willing to say that I think we should not have been justified in mak- 

 ing them; but I assert that we have, at least, as much justification for 

 making such charges against the United States Commissioners as they 

 have for making them against the Commissioners of Great Britain; and 



