ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 491 



able to find it at the Foreijjn Office; and it by no means follows that it 

 would have come back. We should ouly have such jjapers as he sent 

 back. 



Mr. Justice Haelan. — Would it be in the British Museum? 



Mr. TUPPER. — No, this was uot. We were unable to identify it. 



Mr. Justice Haklan. — From wUat source was that memorandum 

 obtained on page 100, N" 98"? You give there a list of maps. 



Sir liiCHARD Webster. — That I have no doubt can be obtained. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — That is the one I am enquiring about. 



Sir EicHARD Webster. — But there is notliing to identify it with 

 the map referred to in Sir Charles Bagot's letter. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — No; butitis the one in j^our list nearest to the 

 date of his letter; that is all. There is one there of 1818; and those 

 maps together might be of some value. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — It seems to me, but it is entirely for you 

 to say, there are many other Arrowsmith's maps that would quite as 

 nearly correspond. The coincidence of the da^e is a very small matter 

 indeed ; because the one you referred to of l"'^ o has additions up to 1823. 

 This letter was written in August, 1823- and it by no means follows 

 that the publication was before this ' cCer. I only submit it for your 

 judgment. After all, it is very up'.iustworthy. It is corrected up to 

 1823, but that may be the end of 1823. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — And it may be the map of 1818 of Asia by 

 Arrowsmith, 



Sir EicHARD Webster. — Or the large Chart of the Pacific Ocean, 

 N° 40, published in 1810. You know that when these corrections come 

 home, they have to be plotted out and printed, and it by no means fol- 

 lows that corrections to 1823 would be published in that year; more 

 probably, it would not be so. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You may be right about that. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Anyhow, I am not able to give you further 

 assistance. 



The President. — If that map of 1822 was used, would it not be in 

 your favour? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I was not considering the effect of my 

 answer one way or the other; I was endeavouring to give the Judge the 

 information he wanted. I do not think my argument depends on any 

 particular map; but I trust I made clear to the Tribunal yesterday that 

 between the Contracting Parties there was no doubt about what they 

 meant either by reference to "Pacific Ocean" or "North-west coast." 



When Mr. Justice Harlan was good enough to put those questions to 

 me, I was passing on the oth question in the Treaty, and I will indicate 

 to the Tribunal the course I propose to adopt. I propose to examine 

 Mr. Carter's and Mr. Phelps's argument with reference to the question 

 of the right of i^roperty. I propose to examine Mr. Phelps's argument 

 as to the right of protection, for he has more pointedly dealt with that 

 matter — though it is quite fair to Mr. Carter to say that he has used 

 arguments in his able speech incorporating the main features of Mr. 

 Phelps's argument; and therefore I do not consider that there is any 

 distinction between Mr. Carter and Mr. Plielps in that respect. Then 

 I should propose to say a word or two on a suggestion which fell from 

 Senator Morgan, and which has arisen incidentally more than once in 

 the course of this discussion as to what the function of this Tribunal 

 is in answering Question 5. 



There are minor differences between Mr. Phelps and Mr. Carter as to 

 whether the United States have got the right to kill all the seals on 



