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



of those statutes when it is not to be gathered from the statutes them- 

 selves. But, Sir, it is sufficient for my purpose to point out witlj refer- 

 ence to the observation you have made that when we refer to the 

 principles upon which the law of property in the United States, Great 

 Britain, and other civilized nations is based, we do not find any author- 

 ity for the suggestion that the presence of the animal upon the land or 

 within territorial waters gives anything more than a greater right and 

 opportunity of killing, because you can keep other people from coming 

 there. It does not increase your property in the animal one iota. It 

 is equally so whether the animal has an animus revertendi or whether 

 it has not. If you can catch it there, you can take possession of it, 

 and when you have taken possession of it, it is your property, and not 

 till then, and only as long as you can keep it in your jiossession and no 

 longer. 



Now, Sir, when you were good enough to indicate that you were fol- 

 lowing what I ventured to put before you, by making that observation, 

 I was pointing out that, feeling their i:)osition, they claimed to have this 

 property by what they are pleased to call an application of the doctrine 

 of animus revertendi. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you contend that the United States Govern- 

 ment, Sir Eichard, have not forbidden its citizens to acquire the private 

 ownership of fur-seals on the islands? 



Sir Richard Webster. — I think the United States has permitted its 

 citizens to acquire private ownership with their license. 



Senator Morgan. — The lessees you mean? 



Sir Richard Webster. — The lessees ; yes, Sir. 



Senator Morgan. — I am speaking of private citizens that are not 

 lessees. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Only because they have not got the right 

 to go there. That is all. 



Senator Morgan. — I am speaking of private citizens who have the 

 right to go there? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly. Only because the Government 

 had said that: "None of our citizens shall kill seals on the Pribilof 

 Islands except with our leave." 



They have not altered the law of property at all. The lessee has no 

 property in those seals until he has killed them. Mr. Senator, I address 

 you as a lawyer upon this matter, and I ask you to consider my argu- 

 ment simply and solely in that position; and I submit to you that the 

 lessee has no property in anyone of those seals until he has killed it, 

 and that the law of the United States has not given that lessee any 

 property in the seal ur.til it is killed. 



Senator Morgan. — I should suppose he would have property in the 

 seal from the time he commenced di iving it to the shambles to be killed. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I beg your pardon. He has no property 

 until he has succeeded in capturing it. I admit that he would have 

 evinced the intention of taking possession of it, just in the same way as 

 when I point my gun at a wild pheasant or a wild duck I evince my inten- 

 tion of shooting it if I can, and of taking possession of it and making 

 it my own; but I may miss with the gun, and the man may not succeed 

 in driving the seal to the place where he can knock it upon the head. 

 It is not the intention to drive that seal that gives property. 



Senator Morgan. — What becomes, then, of the part of the statutes 

 that ]n'ohibits hunting by citizens of the United States. 



Sir RiciTARD Webster. — That has the effect of saying that nobody 

 else may go there and try to take possession. 



