ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 551 



found in tlie cliaractor of the crime which is but robbery and murder at 

 worst, meaning thereby I presume that the shooting of seals at sea is 

 worse than robbery and even worse than murder. 



But tliis is not Mr. Phelps alone. 



Mr. Phelps. — It is certainly not me. I said no such thing. 



Lord Hannen. — No. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I assure you I am only too glad to take 

 any correction but if my learned friend will permit me to call attention 

 to page 214 there it is in black and white signed by the distinguished 

 name of Mr. Carter. This is of the pelagic sealer alone: 



To prevent and punisli it is as distinctly the duty of all civilized nations as it is 

 to prevent ;ind ]>unish the crime of piracy. The pelagic sealer is hostis humani generis, 

 just as the i>irate is, though with a less measure of enormity and horror. 



Lord Hannen. — There it is a "less measure". 



Sir Richard Webster. — Well, I will construe that in the sense that 

 Mr. Carter desired to say there is a less measure; but the principle that 

 Mr. Carter is advocating there is distinct. Surely I am not saying 

 that which is unnecessary when I point out that the argument of the 

 United States drives them into this i)osition, that unless they can 

 establish to your satisfaction that i)elagic sealing is to be placed in the 

 category of piracy, half — nay, more than half, practically the whole of 

 their authorities are cut away. Sir, what is the idea of this compari- 

 son of piracy"? I do not know whether the Tribunal remembers it. Of 

 course, it has a ludicrous side for this Tribunal, but there was nothing 

 ludicrous in the Court of Alaska when those poor captains and sailors 

 were before the Judge and were told that they were pirates and it was 

 said that they were to be treated as pirates. 



Lord Hannen. — They Avere told that they w^ere to be treated as 

 havijig violated the municipal law. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I am speaking of that which was said of 

 them by the Judge. I am not in any way suggesting that the United 

 States would willingly for a moment use language to these men in that 

 respect, but all I mean is, that in order to strengthen this case, the 

 United States peoide have found it necessary to endeavour to bring 

 pelagic sealing within the category of piracy, and why"? My Lord as 

 well as the other members of the Tribunal will remember that over and 

 over again. Lord Stowell, Mr. Justice Story and Chief Justice Marshall 

 have said that the only case in which they knew that in time of peace 

 the right of search of vessels existed, was in the case of piracy. 



The one case in which it is admitted that a right, which may be said 

 to be a belligerent right under ordiiiary circumstances, did exist in time 

 of peace was in case of Piracy. The passage was read by the Attorney 

 General; it was said by Lord Stowell in the case of the '■'■Le Louis''^ 

 reported in the 2nd Dodson, and cited in the United States Argument 

 at page 100, and also cited in support of the existence of the right of 

 search, at the bottom of the page. 



Upon the same i)rinciple has been maintained the right of visitation and search, 

 as against every private vessel on the high seas, by the armed ships of any other 

 nationality. Though this vexatious and injurious claim has been much questioned, 

 it is firmly established in time of war, at least, as against all neutrals. Says Sir 

 William Scott, in the case of Le Louis (2 Dodson, page 244): This riglit (of search) 

 incommodious as its exercise may occasionally be, has been fully established in the 

 legal practice of nations, having for its foundation the necessities of self-defence. 



Yes; but what, in that Judgment, does he say at pages 244 and 245? 

 He says : 



Except against pirates, no right of visitation and search exists on the 

 high seas save on the belligerent claim- 



