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



rightly of opinion that the United States would be doing" no wrong if 

 they killed every seal on these islands, and in law they have the right 

 to kill every seal if they can, and when they have killed all the seals 

 they will have the property in them — my learned friend, Mr. Carter, to 

 support his most ingenious argument says that no possessor of j^roperty 

 has an absolute title, but only the usufruct is given him. You will find 

 it in print at page 59. 



The title is further limited. These things are not given him, but only the usu- 

 fruct or increase. 



Then my learned friend, Mr. Coudert, sides with Mr. Phelps. Mr. 

 Coudert thinks they might have killed every seal also without breaking 

 any law. I was much interested iu this discussion, though not as a 

 lawyer; and I looked through all the authorities so courteously sent me 

 by Mr. Carter, and I find this doctrine of man only having the usufruct, 

 and only being allowed to enjoy the income and not touch the principal 

 — only allowed to take the increase and not diminish the stock, has no 

 place in law whatever. It only finds a place in the writings of political 

 economists who speak of the gain there would be to the community at 

 large by a man only using a portion of his wealth, that is to say not 

 spending every thing he has, but only living out of the fruit of his 

 property. 



Lord Hannen. — But what practical bearing has that, whether they 

 would be entitled to do some thing which they never intended to do? 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — Mr. President, I should, perhaps not as 

 crisply as my Lord, have made that comment, and I only point out it is 

 used by my learned friend, Mr. Carter, as ekeing out the claim to iDrop- 

 erty by the United States. It is suggested by Mr. Carter that the 

 property is to be given to them, I suppose on legal principles, because 

 there has been that exemption. Well, perhaps J may be permitted to 

 say I have looked through every law-book I could get, both Englisli 

 and American that we have, to see if there was any foundation for this 

 rule according to the law of any of these countries, and certainly there 

 is not, and it is extremely well dealt with by the French Code by 

 Article 544. It puts it iu a way I cannot improve upon. 



Property is the right of enjoying and disposing of things in the most absolute 

 manner, provided one does not make a use of them prohibited by laws or regulations. 



So that unless, in other words, the law has said, you shall not kill an 

 animal at a certain time of the year, for some reason or other, there is 

 no principle of law that confines the property in any animal to simply 

 enjoying and using the annual produce of it. 



Now where is this principle of property to stop if my learned friends 

 are correct in this contention? I have taken some interest in natural 

 history for many years, and I would only remind you of the number of 

 instances which are analogous in which, according to the law of all 

 nations no property is given, and I do not propose a better one than 

 that of migratory birds. If it was a question of natural history dis- 

 cussion, I could give many instances of cases in which particular breeds 

 of birds breed in two or three places which are known. Every member 

 of the families of birds could be destroyed by the owners of these par- 

 ticular i)laces. Their eggs could be taken : their young could be taken, 

 and the race in a very few years exterminated ; and I say that it is idle 

 to endeavour to apply this principle to one particular class of animals 

 which have no feature which in law creates any distinction. These 

 Pribilof Islands happen to be a very remarkable instance. On them 

 there are myriads of birds that frequent year by year the islands, come 



