510 ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



animal /era? naturae^ tbey do, in the otber part of their judgment, refer 

 to the fact that rooks are not usually of an article of food. If you will 

 be good enough to look at the full report of that case, you will find 

 some five or six out of the eight pages of the Judgment proceed entirely 

 on the ground I have been mentioning to you, that there is no property 

 in a wild animal simply because it returns and lives in my trees or my 

 ground; and not being an article of food comes in entirely at the end 

 of the Judgment, and is not made the subject of the Judgment. 



Senator Morgan. — It might not do to assume, accepting your dis- 

 tinction to be correct between migratory instincts and animus rever- 

 tendi, that the seals that occupy Eehring Sea periodically are drawn to 

 those Islands by simply migratory instincts. For instance, a nursing- 

 mother, that goes out to find food in order to nourish herself to be able 

 to feed her young could not be said to return under a migratory instinct, 

 but an animus revertendi. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I was not attempting to deal with any 

 specific difference which may be drawn between particular seals or 

 classes of seals. 



Senator Morgan. — But the princiide, unless it applies clearly all 

 through, does not apply at all. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — If you say so and give judgment, then I 

 must bow. 



Senator Morgan. — No, I do not say so, and I do not give judgment^ 

 I make a suggestion for you to argue. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I can scarcely conceive, Senator, if persons 

 were in a position to establish ownership in any particular animal, that 

 that would carry with it those animals to which none of those principles 

 applied. 



Senator Morgan. — It might not. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — But your assumption was that, if the prin- 

 ciple applied, it applied all through. 



Senator Morgan. — No; I make no assumption, I simply put a ques- 

 tion. If it is applied at all, should it not be applied throughout? And 

 I think that is a fair question for you to answer. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I agree; and I do not shrink from it; you 

 have to see what the principle is; and it is this, not that the animal is 

 property during a given month, or during a certain number of weeks, 

 but always property, and this property for which my learned friend con- 

 tended is proi)erty in the seals when they are thousands of miles away 

 at all times of the year. It has been put by Mr. Carter and Mr. Coudert 

 orally, and in writing by Mr. Phelps, that that property follows the ani- 

 mal wherever it is; and it might be impossible to justify a claim upon 

 the limited view or application of the principle which I am referring to. 

 But, if I might again respectfnlly put my point, 1 will then pass from 

 it, that there is no greater property in the pup than there is in the 

 mother, or in the two combined; and I say, with great respect, that, 

 until possession has been taken, the true doctrine of animus revertendi 

 does not apply. If you will remember, I was protesting against the 

 idea that migratory instincts, speaking of the herd as a whole, can be 

 turned into animus revertendi, but my main proposition, which I enun- 

 ciated a few moments ago, is, that, until possession has been taken in 

 the sense that that animal has been in such circumstances that the man 

 has actually captured it, the doctrine of animus revertendi has no appli- 

 cation of any sort or kind. 



The wild deer that is in the park, and that never has been tamed or 

 reclaimed at all equally has the animus revertendi to return to feed, per- 



