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



He was holding up the book from which he was coTiducting his argu- 

 ment. Sir, it is not saying too much to point out that this proposition, 

 stated over and over again by Mr. Coudert, stated also, though not so 

 l)ositively I admit, by Mr. Carter; because Mr. Carter did refer to the 

 distinctiou between the right of killing ratione soli, and the right of 

 property — I say that that proposition, stated over and over again by 

 my learned friend Mr. Coudert as being so plain as not to require argu- 

 ment, is radically unsound. 



My learned friend, Mr. Phelps, in his written argument at page 132 

 states it, I admit, not quite so distinctly as Mr. Coudert, but still in all 

 probability meaning to maintain the same proposition. This passage 

 occurs — in his Argument having the same meaning, at page 132: 



The complete right of property in the Government, while the animals are upon the 

 shore or within the cannon-shot range which marks the limit of territorial waters 

 cannot be denied. 



Of course, if my learned friend, Mr. Phelps was then putting com- 

 pendiously that which other writers have put, that the exclusive right 

 of killing wild animals upon your oven laud gives you a qualified right 

 of property ratione soli, meaning thereby an exclusive right to kill — if 

 that is all Mr. Phelps meant, there is no necessity to discuss it any 

 more; but if the proposition is of any value at all it means this, that 

 the wild animals, so long as they happen to be on the Pribilof Islands 

 or in territorial waters are the property of the United States; and they 

 cannot draw any distinction between the United States and the lessees, 

 and therefore for this purpose they mean to allege that they are the 

 property of the lessees, that they have the right of killing them, and 

 they alone can exercise this ri^ht of killing, hunting, or shooting, or 

 whatever it may be. 



Senator Morgan. — As to the lessees, they cannot have a property in 

 any of the seals except such as they kill. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I contend that. 



Senator Morgan. — The United States possess the right to all the 

 seals, and that gives them the privilege of killing some. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I must be permitted to reserve my state- 

 ment, because I could not assent to that statement or allow it to pass 

 as being supposed that I agree the United States have the right of 

 pro|)erty in these seals, because I contend most distinctly they have not. 



Senator Morgan. — I meant to characterize it as the assertion of the 

 other side. It is not even an expression of my own opinion. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, but as I read the legislation of the 

 United States, it does not claim the property in these wild animals. I 

 agree with an observation which fell from Lord Hannen. He was desir- 

 ing to keep us close to the point when he asked Sir Charles Russell, 

 whether it would make any difTerence for the purpose of this discus- 

 sion, if the United States Statute purported to give right of property 

 in these seals. It would make no difference; and I will not argue any 

 false point, but I must not be understood by my learned friend as 

 conceding that in construing those Statutes of the United States as 

 between the Government and the lessees, or as between the Govern- 

 ment and a trespasser, they would have been able to lay the property 

 (to use a technical expression) in the United States. In two sentences 

 I will state my view. By the earliest legislation, the United States 

 created the Islands a Government reserve, not unknown in other parts 

 of America, not unknown in Canada: theyreserved the Islands, and that 

 enabled the United Sts^tes to grant licenses and to prevent other people 

 going to utilize those islands, or dealing with them in any way, except 



