552 OKAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



Now, you will see why it was necessary for the arfjument of Mr. 

 Phelps, and also that of Mv. Carter, to endeavour to get the Tribunal 

 to acc;ept the view that pelagic sealers were to be regarded and treated 

 in the light of pirates by this Tribunal. I accept the correction of Lord 

 Hannen, which is a correction I ouglit not to overlook; namely, that it 

 is not just to say that they were ever charged in fact in the United 

 States Court with any other offence than that of breaking the munici- 

 pal Statute; but my observations were directed, not to the formal pro- 

 ceedings, but to the attempt that has been made to colour this act for 

 the purpose of the case now presented to this Tribunal. 



'Now, the next line of argument adopted by my learned friend Mr. 

 Phelps is based on the laws of quarantine referred to at page 159. I 

 have said that the rules of evidence are lax enough, and all kinds of 

 evidence have been introduced by both sides; I draw no distinction 

 between the two parties in this respect, — hearsay, opinion, and all 

 classes of evidence have been introduced; but, when it is suggested by 

 my learned friend in his Argument that the Quarantine Laws have been 

 used to interfere, or are intended to interfere with vessels upon the higli 

 seas, it is not asking too much to say, "Will you be good enough to tell 

 the Tribunal by what nation and at .what time any attempt to interfere 

 with vessels, passing through the high seas, under the Quarantine Laws 

 has ever been known or has ever been made?" 



Mr. President, what is quarantine? Quarantine is a local municipal 

 regulation ; that, when a vessel is coming to your ports and to your 

 harbours from an infected place, she should not be allowed to come into 

 your ports without a clean bill of health. If she has not got a clean 

 bill of health, she has to be put into a certain position and be disin- 

 fected for a certain time. Now, where is the quarantine iierformed? 

 Everybody acquainted with these matters knows that tlie quarantine is 

 performed in the country where the vessel intends to unload its cargo 

 or disembark its passengers. 



The Attorney General, put a case to the Court; and I should wish to 

 enforce it. Take a vessel bound to France, Germany, or Belgium or 

 Russia passing through the English Channel. Has anyone ever heard 

 of an attempt by Great Britain to stop such a vessel and say she is to 

 be subjected to penalties because of the quarantine laws? The mere 

 statement of the case, I submit, is conclusive. When a ship is going 

 or a person is going to visit a territory, it is a part of the prerogative 

 right of the Crown, and I suppose in the United States of the Presi- 

 dent, but I will not venture on surmise in that matter, but someone has 

 the poAver, to make laws or lay down rules under which foreigners shall 

 visit the country. We, by our legislation, of course, prescribe the con- 

 ditions under which foreign ships shall visit our shores, and among 

 them are the (Quarantine Acts. 



We have told you and I am permitted to say it with the authority of 

 the Public Department for which I have no longer the right to speak, 

 but my learned friend the Attorney General has, that such an instance 

 in Great Britain is nnheard of, that no attempt has been made, or could 

 be made; and on principle as I have said, when you remember the pro- 

 cess called Quarantine is to be done in the country which the ship is 

 going to visit, it is obvious it can have no application quite apart from 

 the terms of the Municipal Act to vessels merely passing through the 

 high seas. When these Acts were under consideration by the Court of 

 Queen's Bench in that judgment so often relied upon by my learned 

 friend, Mr. Carter the Queen v. Kei/n the true ground of the Quarantine 

 Acts was considered. They are put by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn 

 at page 89 : 



