ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 495 



with the permission of the Government of the United States. And 

 as to wild animals, as the King, according to English law in years gone 

 by, in certain royal forests and royal parks could restrain people from 

 killing game, so the United States could restrain tbe citizens of the 

 United States from killing or catching anything or even from working 

 any minerals upon the Pribilof Islands, as they were a Government 

 reserve. 



But the lawyers who framed those Statutes had too much knowledge 

 of law to endeavour to claim, even for the Government, property in 

 seals. If they have the pro])erty in seals they have the property in 

 birds, they have the property in fish which live in the waters, tbey have 

 the property in cod which come into the territorial waters. It is not a 

 question of seals only; the United States by its legislation, written in 

 the English language, as far as we can understand that legislation, 

 does not even purport to claim the property in the wild animal. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — What in your judgment could the United 

 States have done by statute which would have been regarded by you 

 as an assertion of right and property. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — They could have said that, as between 

 themselves and their citizens, the property in all the game, and in all 

 the seals if you like in the Pribilof Islands, should be vested in a public 

 ofiScial or should be vested in the State. If they had said that, the 

 result would be, if the seals were killed, proceedings might be taken 

 by the United States for the value of the body, and a penalty might be 

 inflicted. 



Lord Hannen. — Some people have asked that the property in game 

 should be given to the land owner. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, and I would point out according to 

 our game laws, as they have now existed for centuries there is no 

 ground for the suggestion that the property in game is in the Crown — 

 whatever may have been the origin of the Game laws, there has not 

 been for years any foundation for that suggestion. 



But, Mr. President, having made my respectful protest, let me say 

 to the members of the Tribunal, while I am supposed to concede that 

 even as between a citizen of the United States and the Government of 

 the United States the property of the seals may be in the Government, 

 I equally admit that from the point in view that we are considering it 

 is absolutely immaterial, because we are dealing with the right to cap- 

 ture and take these animals and the proporty in these animals when 

 they are upon the high seas. 



I go back to the point which I was considering when the question 

 was j)ut to me and I repeat that so far as I know, the law of no civil- 

 ized nation has given the property in wild animals to the owner of the 

 soil on the ground that those wild animals are temporarily upon the 

 soil, being found here to-day and there to-morrow. I have examined 

 with care the law of the United States. I have examined with care the 

 law of Great Britain, and refreshed my memory upon it, in so far as I 

 may have forgotten points which I ought to know. I have examined 

 as thoroughly and exhaustively as I could the French law; and I have 

 placed at the disposal of my learned friend Mr. Phelps the full text of 

 the report upon the French law by a gentleman of great learning and 

 eminence, Maitre Clunet, obtained in case my own research in these 

 matters should not be sufficient, I say — speaking subject to correction 

 l)y the President, — that there is not the sliadow of a pretence of saying 

 that by the law of France the property in Avild animals is given to the 

 owner of the soil simply because they happen to be there j that in the 



