320 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



known, because there are several sucli facts, and very material facts. 

 In the first place, let me ask, what would you desire to know in order 

 to enable you to decide what regulations are reasonable? We have not 

 the least idea at this moment, with anything approaching to certainty, 

 what is certainly one very essential condition : How far do the females 

 go for food, or do they go for food at all? We are told by the United 

 iStates Commissioners as a matter of positive opinion, that they go long 

 distances. 1 think some people say they go 100 or 150 miles. Those 

 who ought to know best, as the result of long examination, say that 

 they think protection for 30 miles would be sufficient. Is there any 

 sufficient knowledge then upon that subject? 



Have we any knowledge whatever as to the age of these animals, to 

 what age they live, either male or female? We are absolutely without 

 any knowledge whatever. Have we any knowledge as to how long the 

 females live, or how long they continue to breed? Absolutely none 

 whatever. On tliose subjects we are in utter ignorance, — just the same 

 ignorance as we were in before these Commissioners went up. 



Then as to the date of weaning. We do not know that or how long, 

 in other words, the jjups are dependent u])on their mother, which is a 

 very material thing. They differ about that. I^^ot only they differ, but 

 the evidence which they are trying to come to a conclusion upon differs. 

 It is impossible to say. It has got to be ascertained by some years of 

 careful observation. 



Then how long do these bulls remain on the rookeries? ^N"© human 

 being knows. Tliat is a most essential, perhajis the most essential, 

 thing to ascertain with regard to any regulations of the killing. Then, 

 when does the female resume her feeding? All that we know nothing 

 about. 



Now, those are perhaps the most essential facts which require to be 

 known, in order to enable anyone to decide what conditions are reason- 

 able. If we have not those facts then we have to consider what sort of 

 conditions it is safe to make without knowing more 



Is it safe to make anything in the shape of permanent regulations, or 

 is it desirable to attach any sort of conditions to the regulations wliich 

 you make? It has been doubted whether — I cannot say doubted, for I 

 do not know; at all events the question has been asked — you have a 

 right matter to make regulations with the condition attached that 

 either side at a certain time may denounce them? I venture to sug- 

 gest that that can hardly admit of doubt. I cannot imagine that it 

 was intended that you should make regulations here lasting for all 

 time, when they might turn out next year to be radically wrong. 

 Added to that, they are regulations which, in the very nature of 

 things, must require from time to time, almost certainly, revision and 

 modification. Was it intended that you should make regulations of 

 a kind suitable or unsuitable, which within two or three years may 

 fail to answer the purpose, or which may be totally inefficient? The 

 only answer I have heard suggested to that is that this is to be accepted 

 as a final settlement of the matter. That, though I may perhaps have 

 taken too much the view of a lawyer in that resjiect, never occurred to 

 me as meaning more than that this must be a final settlement in the 

 sense that nobody has a right to appeal against it, or to re-open the 

 matter; but whatever you choose to make as your settlement, whatever 

 regulations you choose to prescribe, that is tiual in this case, and both 

 parties are to accept it. But if you choose to say, We will make no 

 regulations, or if you choose to say, " We will make regulations which 

 shall extend for one year or ten years," or anything else, that is a final 



