ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 499 



Senator Morgan. — I mean outside the three mile limit, anywhere in 

 Behriiig Sea? 



Sir Richard Webster. — That is simply and solely that the United 

 States has said that in the interest of its revenue it will prevent its 

 citizens from killing seals — I mean assuming that to be the construction; 

 of course I do not want to argue again that was not the original con- 

 struction — but assume that there was a statute that no person should 

 kill any seal in Behring Sea east of that line in distinct terms, in so 

 many words: the result of that would be not that the United States 

 would claim any property, not that the United States statute would 

 give any property, but that in the interest of itself, of its lessees, of any 

 person who desired ultimately to kill seals on the islands and reduce 

 them into possession, the United States thought lit to make that game 

 law. 



Senator Morgan. — But would it not be entirely clear that the person 

 who should kill seals in Behring Sea outside the three mile limit, he 

 being a citizen of the United States, could not acquire any property in 

 that animal? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It would not be so at all. Senator. That 

 would be entirely dependent upon whether or not by the United States 

 law the property in game killed by a person unlawfully did or did not 

 remain in him — a perfectly academic question, from the point of view 

 we are considering. I really do not know, I never have inquired, 

 whether by the United States law — if. a man goes on to the land of a 

 third person and unlawfully kills game, when that game is killed it 

 belongs to the owner of the land upon which it falls or whether it belongs 

 to the trespasser; but from the point of view which I am considering, 

 it makes no difference, because no property is acquired by anybody 

 until the thing is shot. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Game killed under those circumstances be- 

 longs to the owner of the laud, I think, by our law. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That is the law of England, but I did not 

 know whether any statute of the United States altered the law on that 

 subject. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — There is no statute on that subject. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I am much obliged, Sir. My answer to the 

 Senator, and the answer upon which I am prepared to stand, is that 

 there would be no property in anybody at all until that game was shot. 



Senator Morgan. — And that nobody in the United States had any 

 property in them ! 



Sir Richard Webster. — No; not in these seals. 



Senator Morgan. — Then how could anybody acquire property under 

 such circumstances ratione solif 



Sir Richard Webster. — It depends upon what you mean by ratione 

 soli. Ratione soli is the privilege to kill. I will put the case to you, Sir. 

 There was nothing to prevent the United States Government from say- 

 ing: We will by law prohibit every one of our citizens from killing 

 seals unless they take a license from the Government. 



There is nothing to prevent it. That practice exists in England to- 

 day. I cannot kill a partridge or I cannot kill certain wild birds on my 

 own land even without the license of my Government. I presume — I 

 do not really know — that the game laws of the United States are simi- 

 lar. I do not care for the i)urposes of my argument whether they are 

 or not; but nobody has ever pretended that that license to kill gives a 

 property in the game. 



