470 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. T\T. P. 



itself; bnt, as he has said, even assmninji: they have no right in tlie seal, 

 no rigiit in the seal herd, only a right to carry on the trade on land, he 

 contends, in accordance with principles that we think erroneous, that 

 he has a right to defend that interest by certain acts on the high seas 

 which he endeavours to justify. 



But in answer to your question 1 do not hesitate to put before you 

 and I do not hesitate to submit to your judgment that an assertion and 

 exercise of rights upon land, an assertion and exercise of rights in 

 territorial waters, cannot detract one iota from the rights of other 

 people upon the high seas. 



Senator Morgan. — I admit that. 



Sir Richard Webster. — You can test it in a moment. Supposing 

 the Indian fishermen or the native Americans had been catching these 

 seals at sea, and it was desired to stop them. The United States could 

 not stop them on the ground of prescription. There is no greater pre- 

 scription against the pelagic sealer than there was against the Indian. 

 Stop them by legislation, possibly; stop them because they are United 

 States citizens, possibly; stop them upon the ground that you have a 

 right to interfere with their action within certain distances from the 

 shore, possibly: these would be the exercise of sovereign dominion. 

 But upon the point of view of prescription — I do not hesitate to say 

 that a claim based upon prescription or upon an assertion that exercise 

 on land gives foundation to a claim upon the high seas, not only will 

 not bear investigation or examination, but it is fair to my learned friends 

 to say that you do not find any trace of that contention in their argu- 

 ments, written or oral. 1 confess I think it would have required very 

 considerable boldness for any lawyer to stand up and contend that a 

 right exercised upon the Pribilof Islands or in the territorial waters of 

 the Pribilof Islands could by prescripti(m give a right to the seal off 

 Vancouver, or off Cape Flattery, or four thousand miles off in the 

 Pacific Ocean. I shall endeavour to meet, of course, the arguments 

 upon which that claim of projierty is attemi)ted to be justified when 

 I deal with question five. 



My answer, Mr. Senator Morgan, has been a little longer than I 

 desired it to be, but I wished, out of respect for you, to indicate an 

 argument which should answer the suggestion you made. 



I come back to the point upon which your question was founded, the 

 second question, or rather to the point at which I was speaking when 

 you interposed your question. 



How far were these claims as to the jurisdiction of the seal fisheries 

 recognized and conceded by Great Britain? A man cannot recognize 

 and concede that which another person does not do. You cannot 

 recognize and concede a right of which you have no knowledge. This 

 recognition and concession must mean recognition and concession of a 

 right to exclude a British ship, recognition and concession of a right 

 to stop pelagic sealing, recognition and concession of a right of prop- 

 erty in the seals claimed by the United States. Sir, there is not from 

 beginning to the end of this long chapter even a suggestion by my 

 learned friends of a recognition of any right in that sense. Kecog- 

 nitiori that the islands belonged to Russia, yes. Recognition that the 

 territorial waters belonged to Eussia, yes. Eecognition that those 

 same rights of territory and waters belonged to the United States, 

 unquestionably. But that we have recognized what was intended to 

 be claimed here under the first question — what I submit to this Tri- 

 bunal is that there is no evidence of either recognition or concession 

 by Great Britain in any legal or — I was going to say — any moral sense 



