ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 299 



I will endeavor to justify that by a Comparison of the two reports. 

 What have our Commissioners reported"? They have gone there and 

 examined, and rejjorted not only the facts they uelieved to be true, 

 but the evidence upon which they came to those conclusions; and when 

 they found it impossible to come to a positive conclusion, I think the 

 Tribunal will bear me out in saying, they have indicated those matters 

 upon which, in their judgment, the evidence is yet so incomplete that 

 doubt must remain. 



Now what is it that the United States Commissioners have done? 

 As a matter of fact our Commissioners spent more time in the enquiry, 

 and paid three visits to the islands, and visited the Commander Islands, 

 and, on the whole, made a longer investigation, though whether it was 

 more thorough or not must depeiul on the judgment of those who read 

 the detailed Report of what they did given by each body; but the 

 United States Commissioners, having investigated, have expressed 

 positive opinions on almost every thing, and positive opinions on noth- 

 ing in a direction that is not in favor of the United States. I do not 

 charge them with being blinded by bias, patriotism, or prejudice, I 

 simply point to facts. They say, for example, in the United States 

 Case, page 362 : 



The assumption that driving is seriously injurioiis to the reproductive powers of 

 the male is doubtless unfounded, being quite contrary to the declared belief of 

 Captain Webster and other sealers of long experience. Against every assertion 

 of this kind it is only necessary to put the fact that there is no evidence of a lack 

 of virility on the rookeries, 



and so on. 



Now then I ask — you have heard all the evidence — is that a Eeport 

 that carries value in the eyes of an impartial Tribunal ? What becomes 

 of the statement of Messrs. Lavender, Elliott, Palmer and Goft", who all 

 state to the contrary from personal observation. I do not deny there 

 are others who differ from them; I simply say that is a fact upon which 

 there is the strongest body of evidence in favor of the contrary con- 

 clusion, which the United States Commissioners utterly ignore, when 

 they say that any idea of that sort is doubtless unfounded, and that 

 the United States, or rather their lessees on the island, are not in any 

 way in fault. Our Commissioners having investigated for themselves, 

 and being supported by the evidence of these United States officials, 

 come to the contrary conclusion, and I venture to submit they are more 

 supported by the weiglit of evidence. 



Now the United States Commissioners in another place say that to 

 propose a radius of ten, thirty, or even fifty miles gives you the impres- 

 sion that such a proposition was not intended to be seriously considered. 

 Now is that a reasonable, fair, unprejudiced statemoit, when we know 

 that this idea began by the proposition of a zone from the United States — 

 and when we know it is supported by the adoption of a zone on the 

 part of Russia, which probably has the best information in the world 

 on the subject? Is it reasonable or sensible to say — is it unprejudiced 

 to say — that such a proposition, when made, could not have been 

 intended to have been seriously treated*? 1 do not care whether it is 

 adopted or not — I say the pvox)osition when made is entitled to the 

 serious consideration of any reasonable unprejudiced man, and I say 

 nothing more. Then they say that if there is not to be a repetition 

 with regard to these rookeries of what has happened with the rookeries 

 of the Southern Ocean and of other localities where seals once tiour- 

 ished, measures adequate to the existing evil, heroic if need be, must 

 be adopted. Now I venture to say they knew very little, or they would 



