ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 317 



Senator Morgan. — That does not follow, 



Mr. Robinson. — It follows, with great deference, if the right be lawful. 



Senator Morgan. — A lawful right of pasturage does not imply that 

 a man owns the land upon which cattle graze. 



Mr. Robinson. — Nobody says he owns the land. I am talking of the 

 right to catch — of a certain right on the high seas which we are entitled 

 to assert. The one is an easement as much as the other. I do not desire 

 to spend time in trying to answer suggestions that you make in that 

 respect, because the argument has been so exhausted that I think it 

 cannot be added to, except by mj- saying this — that the argument is 

 proceeding now on the assumi)tion of the exercise of pelagic sealing as 

 the exercise of a lawful right. 



Senator Morgan. — If you will allow me. I am merely suggesting 

 on my part that the exercise of it as a lawful riglit is not an unlimited 

 right, the exercise of it is according to the safety of any country or 

 people — it must be restrained according to the rights and interests of 

 other people in other situations. 



Mr. Robinson. — I will only say I know of no law or principle of any 

 sort which affirms that. I can say nothing more. If I am told the 

 law must be so, I can only say I have examined the law to the best of 

 my ability, and I do not find any such law anywhere. I am not able 

 to say that I have seen anywhere any law which restricts the right of 

 those to whom the high sea is open, in the exercise of their rights there 

 just as they think proper. 



Senator Morgan. — Then, of course, you are going back to the same 

 position which has been taken several times in this case, of the right 

 of the pelagic hunter to put a cord round the Pribilof Islands, and 

 destroy the seals as they come and go across the three mile limit. 



Mr. Robinson. — I have referred to that before. I remember your 

 asking me some question before about it. I say you can find no law 

 to check or prevent it. It could be stopped by convention, but it is 

 impossible to find any laAv which prevents it. The present argument 

 proceeds on the assumption that we have rights that we are entitled to, 

 and the question of regulations is in connection with that assumption. 

 I am not going back to argue over again whether we have rights — the 

 rights will be defined by your Award. We must proceed in this argu- 

 ment on regulations on the assumption that the rights which they have 

 claimed are held not to exist, and that pelagic sealing is held to be a 

 right, which it always was, from the beginning. If so it is impossible 

 that it can be put down or abolished wholly in favor of another right, 

 and wholly in favor of an unreasonable, or excessive, exercise of that 

 right — if it could be so, as I have said, and as is absolutely clear, there 

 is only one regulation which could be made; and our friends in that 

 are logical. Instead of assisting us to make regulations, they have 

 taken precisely that position. 



Lord Hannen. — Is it not a summary of your argument to say that 

 under a power of regulation you cannot prohibit? 



Mr. Robinson. — Certainly. 



Lord Hannen. — I ventured to suggest that that was a summary of 

 your argument. 



Mr. Robinson. — It is a summary of my argument. Your Lordship 

 is perfectly right. It is another way, so to sjieak, of i;)utting the argu- 

 nuMit. If we are to proceed to that, it is impossible under a power to 

 regulate the pursuit of a certain industry to regulate it out of existence. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You must regulate so as to preserve must not 

 you? 



