ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 513 



man's land simply by virtue of its going there; that he has only got 

 a right of killing it and capturing it and treating it as his keejjiug 

 other persons off his land. 



That animal runs away, swims away, or flies away from the man's 

 land. How can the fact that the animal intends by natural instincts 

 to return to that same piece of land give the man a greater property 

 than he has when the animal is on the land. If I have not made my 

 point clear though I hope I have, let me repeat myself. The animal 

 comes on to my land. I assume for the i^urpose of my argument that 

 I have shown you that according to the law of all civilized nations I 

 have no property in that wild animal. The animal leaves the land, 

 meaning to come back the next year, if it has any intention at all by 

 natural instinct to come back to the land. AVhen it is off the laud 

 in the sea how can the animus rcvertendi in that sense, the instinct to 

 return, give me when the animal is off" my land, a greater property 

 than I had when the animal Avas on it. Sir, I submit to this Tribunal 

 that the more this question of property is examined the more impos- 

 sible — I will not nse any word which my friends may think not suffi- 

 ciently respectful to their position — the more impossible their position 

 becomes. It may be said that I have not correctly stated the law as 

 to these cases where the animus revertendi continues property — not 

 gives it, please. It never does anything but continue property. The 

 animus revertendi only continues the property which has been created 

 by some previous act. 



The President. — I do not believe the contrary was argued, Sir 

 Eichard. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I do not know that, Sir. I have no right 

 to assume it. 



The President. — I believe the question was about possession. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Would you be good enough to look, Mr. 

 President, at page 109 of the United States Argument, where in a book 

 of the higiiest authority, cited by everybody with approval, cited by 

 my learned friends as supporting their proposition — I mean the second 

 book of Bracton — the language is: 



In the first place, throusli the first takiug of those things which belong to no 

 person, and which now belong to the King by civil right, and are not common as 

 of olden time, such, for instance, as wild beasts, birds, and fish, and all animals 

 which are born on the earth, or in the sea, or in the sky, or in the air; wherever 

 they may be captured aud wherever they shall have been captured, they begin to 

 be mine because they are coerced under my keeping, and by the same reason, if 

 they escape from my keeping, and recover their natural liberty they cease to be 

 mine, and again belong to the first taker. 



Can anybody have the hardihood to suggest that the seals do not 

 recover their natural liberty? 



The President. — I thought you argued that they had never lost it. 



Sir RiOHABD Webster. — Certainly. 



Senator Morgan. — The first question is, what is their natural lib- 

 erty? Is natural liberty feeding in the sea or existing and being born 

 upon the land. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — Senator, with very great deference, it does 

 not touch my point the least in the world. I care not what view you 

 take, whether they are upon the land and get all their food upon it and 

 do not go out into the sea at all. My position is, you do not get any 

 property, according to the law of all civilized nations, until possession 

 has been taken. 



Senator Morgan. — That is, provided they are animals ferce naturce? 



Sir Eichard Websti:r. — Certainly j but we must not have the ques- 

 tion shifted every moment. 

 B s, PT xni 33 



