ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 517 



in this way, without deviation. My position is that there is nothing to 

 the contrary. Yon are asli;c(l to invent this law for the benefit of the 

 United States. The learned Senator put to me just a niouient ago the 

 question, supposing the wild bees light in your tree, yon have got 

 the dominion over that tree and consequently the property in that 

 swarm. 



Senator Morgan. — I mean if they build their nest inside the tree, 

 go inside and make a hive there, if it is a hollow tree, without your 

 assistance. 



Sir Richard Webster. — "Though a swarm light upon my tree, I 

 have no property in them until 1 have hived them any more than I have 

 in the birds which make their nests there". 



Senator Morgan. — That may be true. But suppose they hive them- 

 selves in that hollow tree withont your assistance; then whose property 

 are they? 



Sir EiOHARD Webster. — They are simply nobody's property at all. 

 My submission is that the man into whose tree they have gone has 

 no property in them wliatever, except in the sense that he has a greater 

 right and power of taking them than anybody else. There is no book, 

 and I think no case which, when examined, suggests the contrary for 

 a single moment. I cannot do more, Sir, than answer your question, 

 because 1 think that will be exhaustive of the matter. 



Senator Morgan. — I had running in my mind an incident that hap- 

 pened to pass under my observation. 1 suppose you will pardon me 

 for stating it. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly. 



Senator Morgan. — On the Tennessee River, a few miles below Chat- 

 tanooga a cave has existed for many years, and has been occupied by 

 bees, which have made many tons of honey there; and I think it has 

 never been doubted that the bees and honey, and everything there 

 belonged to the owner of the soil. He had no agency in them, and no 

 inducements for the bees to return to it. It has been going on there in 

 that way for a great many years. 



Sir Richard Webster. — There is no casein the books in which any 

 such question has ever been raised and decided ; and most unquestion- 

 ably in the case in which it has been raised, it has been put upon the 

 right, ratione soli, of taking possession of the animals that have come 

 there by their natural instinct, and have not come there by any act of 

 man. 



I apologise to you, Mr. President, and the other members of the Tri- 

 bunal, for dealing with a matter which was so fully dealt with by my 

 learned friend, the Attorney-General; but I hope the Tribunal will not 

 think that in endeavouring to make this question of the supposed anal- 

 ogy between bees, seals and jjigeons clear, I have unduly occupied the 

 time of the Court; because if there be a lingering doubt in the mind 

 of the Court, I prefer, at any rate, that our case shall be presented, and 

 that no member of the Tribunal shall say that we have endeavored to 

 shrink from any point or to avoid any point which any member of the 

 Tribunal thought it important to make. 



The President. — I thiuk your observations were very useful, Sir 

 Richard. 



iSTow I desire, Mr. President, to answer if I can of another of the prop- 

 ositions which we think, as I said, involves a fallacy. I am bound to 

 say that here I can rely a little bit on the difference between Mr. Phelps 

 and Mr. Carter. I will not ask them before the Court to settle their 

 little differences, but Mr. Phelps is of opinion, and I shall submit 



