ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 519 



back every year in regular succession, and breed there and produce 

 their young there; if the principle is worth anything it must be sug- 

 gested that property in them should be given, because the breasts of 

 those birds could be plucked for the adornment of ladies' hats, or the 

 stuffing of cushions or quilts or making of warm coats for iieople, out 

 of which a most useful industry has sprung. 



The President. — Do they not regularly get the eggs of those birds. 



Sir Richard Webster. — They do, but I put it higher than the 

 eggs — where the birds were most useful for the benefit of mankind. 

 That is to say that you actually want tlie animal or the bird itself — it 

 might be the plumage of the Eider duck; but it is not confined to that 

 by any means — there are numbers of other birds whose plumage is 

 of value and much more a blessing to mankind than the seal skins over 

 which my learned friend Mr. Carter shed tears; but I put it to you if 

 this suggested law is worth anything it must apply to persons whose 

 birds breed in his cliffs and on his land, and go out to feed at sea 10 or 

 15 or 20 miles away, and which have been slaughtered by United States 

 citizens and other persons without let or hindrance all over the world, 

 because there is no property. I entirely deny that there is any dis- 

 tinction between fish and birds : perhaps I may take an opijortunity 

 next week of saying a word as to the fallacy which underlies my 

 learned friend Mr. Carter's argument in the matter of fish. But as I 

 have not time to do that to-day, I might tell you some of the instances 

 of fish which would give as great a claim to property. On many of 

 the rivers of the east coast of Scotland the fish of the river are as 

 distinct as they can be. There are two rivers that run into the Moray 

 Firth: the Ness and the Beauly. They are Salmon rivers and they 

 have perfectly distinct Salmon. No Ness salmon are ever seen in the 

 Beanly, and no Beauly Salmon are ever seen in the Ness. They go 

 out and feed in the Ocean and are caught promiscuously there and if 

 the owners of those rivers did not exercise the abstinence that my 

 learned friend talks about they could be killed to such an extent that in 

 a few years no fish would be left. 



The Pr-esident. — Are there not laws relating to that? 



Sir Richard Webster. — None except a close time, and a provision 

 that the nets shall not be i)ut in more than a certain number of hours 

 a week. There are local laws that in every week nets must be left off 

 for 48 hours, or 24 hours as the case may be, so that the fish can get up 

 and down again, but that is entirely by municipal legislation. So far 

 as actual property is concerned in these fish tliere is no distinction. 

 They can be identified when caught as to which river they have come 

 from, and they are, as a matter of fact, though I am anticipating, arti- 

 ficially hatched and bred largely to increase the stock in a great number 

 of places: a form of industry which is impossible according to our 

 present knowledge of seals, and yet in this case property in the fish has 

 not been recognized. 



The President. — Are they ever fished in the open sea? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes. 



The President. — There is no municipal law against that? 



Sir Richard Webster. — No; there is no municipal law against 

 that, except on some of the foreshores there are certain privileges of 

 setting nets; but that is a privilege given to certain persons under 

 Royal franchise, and has nothing to do with the open sea. 



Senator Morgan. — In your studies of Natural History, Sir Richard, 

 which seem to be very broad and very exact, have you found an animal, 



