ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 537 



examined in writing- in the Counter Case; and in tlie Argument, the 

 defect in the United States assumption in their original Case had been 

 pointed out; notwithstanding that, in the exercise of his discretion, my 

 learned friend Mr. Phelps adheres, and told us orally he adhered, to 

 the contention which is put forward in his written Argument, namely, 

 that these authorities show or aflbrd some analogy of the justification 

 of the United States n])on the ground that these protective or defen- 

 sive measures are supposed to be legitimate. 



Now, how is that put forward? I desire to read three paragraphs in' 

 order that you may thoroughly ap])reciate the particular ijart of .the 

 argument to which I am going to address myself this afternoon. The- 

 first one is at page 130 of the United States Counter Case. This is, of 

 course, after the British Case had been seen, and the Argument of the: 

 British Case considered. 



The United States charge that each and all of the vessels when so seized -n-ere' 

 engaged in the hunting of fnr-seals in the waters of Behring Sea in violation of the 

 statutes of the United States, and that such seizures were made in accordance with 

 the laws of the United States enacted for the protection of their property interest. 

 in the fur-seals which frequent Behring Sea and breed only upon the Pribilof Islands, . 

 which Islands are part of the territory of the United States ; and that the acts of the 

 crews and owners of these vessels in hunting and catching seals were such as, if 

 permitted, would exterminate the Alaskan seal herd and thereby destroy an article- 

 of commerce valuable to all civilized nations. 



Sir, to take the Argument of my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, from 

 which I will read a passage in a moment, I certainly should have 

 thought that that meant to assert that the United States Government 

 had got the right of making these laws, so that they would extend over 

 the waters in which the British vessels were actually sealing. But, to 

 be perfectly fair, I think that that would be scarcely just after the very 

 pointed way in which the case is put by my learned friend, Mr. Phelps. 

 If you will be good enough to refer to two passages in the United 

 States Argument, particularly at pages 170 and 171, you will see the 

 way in which my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, proposes to avoid the dif- 

 ficulty which would arise if the language of page 130 which I have just 

 read were taken according to its natural meaning. 



An effort is made in the British Counter Case to diminish the force of the Tarious 

 statutes, regulations and decrees above cited, by the suggestions that they only take 

 effect within the municipal jurisdiction of the countries where they are promul- 

 gated, and upon the citizens of those countries outside the territorial limits of such 

 jurisdiction. In their strictly legal character as statutes, this is true. Np authority- 

 need have been produced on that point. But the distinction has already been 

 pointed out, whicii attends the operation of such enactments for such purposes. 

 Within the territory where they prevail, and upon its subjects, they are binding as 

 statutes, whether reasonable and necessary or not. Without, they become defensive 

 regulations, which if they are reasonable and necessary for the defence of a national 

 interest or right, will be submitted to by other nations, and if not, may be enforced 

 by the Government at its discretion. 



If the words 



" will be submitted to by other nations" 



meant other nations may assent to them and then they become part of 

 international law so far as those nations are concerned, I could have 

 understood it; but I gathered, and it is really necessary for my learned 

 friend Mr. Phelps' argument, that his contention is that the Statute, 

 though municipal and though operating as a Statute upon the subjects 

 or citizens of the country who owe allegiance to that State, is to be 

 regarded as a defensive Kegulation and may be enforced by the Gov- 

 ernment at its discretion against foreigners. 



