ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 533 



in adopting that line, be understood disxtinctly as reserving my position. 

 1 do not pass from it in consequence of wliat my learned friend, Mr. 

 Phelps, has said in regard to this matter, because he has, with defer- 

 ence, endeavoured to pnt us in a position that we have never assumed, 

 and which we ought not to be supposed to have taken. 



So far as I am concerned, if the Tribunal prefer that the matter should 

 be discussed at a later stage, it does not bear directly on the point 1 am 

 now arguing. There is abundant evidence without this, before the Tri- 

 bunal, to enable them to come to the conclusion to which I invite them. 



The President. — Then, Sir Eichard, you are willing to pass over 

 these facts till you come to Kegulations? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly, Sir. 



The President. — Very well. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Then there is one argument to which, for 

 obvious reasons, the Tribunal will not expect me to refer at any length; 

 and that is, the question of the fertilisation of the female at sea. All I 

 desire to say is that I hope they will be good enough to take a note of 

 pages 33 and 34 of the British Counter Case, Appendix 2, where will be 

 found evidence of between 20 and 30 witnesses. The fact, for what it 

 is worth, is abundantly proved. There is this further matter to which 

 I ask the particular attention of the Tribunal, that, upon the evidence 

 on both sides, the United States and ours, there is no evidence of virgin 

 cows ev^er having been seen on the Island at all, and it has a remarkable 

 bearing on this branch of the case. But, of course, for obvious reasons, 

 I do not desire to elaborate that matter further now; I may have to call 

 attention to it later on. 



Sir, Mr. Coudert told you that the branding of these pups was a matter 

 of perfect ease, could be done without the slightest difficulty, and that 

 that fact was strong evidence of the property rights of the United States. 

 Mr. President, I do not doubt that this Tribunal have read many pas- 

 sages in these affidavits, so that they have a very intimate knowledge of 

 the evidence; and I am willing to put this in the broadest possible way. 

 It has never been done, except in the instance of the hundred seals that 

 had their ears cut in order to see whether they would come back to 

 the same rookeries, with the result, as the Attorney General reminded 

 you, that none came to the same rookery: some were found in different 

 parts of the Island, and some were found on the other Island of St. 

 George. When you remember the evidence as to the timidity of these 

 animals, that, if the rookeries are disturbed, the seals go with such 

 haste (this is on the evidence of both sides) to the sea, that they trample 

 over the young pups and kill them, — when you know that the evidence 

 is that, upon any person alarming them, they immediately take to the 

 water and no longer remain upon the land; when you further find that 

 upon the evidence of Mr. Stanley Brown for the United States and the 

 evidence of Mr. Macoun and other witnesses, to whom later on I shall 

 have to call attention, the pups in 3 or 4 weeks from their birth spread 

 themselves over miles of these Islands, I think the suggestion made to 

 you that a ground for awarding property is that these seals might be 

 branded is somewhat extravagant. I use, and desire to use, no stronger 

 expression than that. 



Now, I would point out that if they were marked or branded, it would 

 make no difference on the question of property. If I mark my pheasants, 

 those actually hatched by me, and reared by me, and fed by me, and 

 they fly out to other people's land, they have a perfect right to shoot 

 them. Suppose I should mark every young rabbit that could be caught 

 in the same way. If a rabbit went out on my neighbour's property, he 



