ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 557 



sold for a breach of the revenue laws. I say no man who has ever 

 considered that matter would consider that that court was acting as a 

 prize court. 



Senator Morgan. — That depends on the nature of the statute under 

 which the court was acting. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I am entitled to say, where is the statute 

 which suggests it was a prize jurisdiction! I appeal to Mr. Justice 

 Harlan. It is so foreign to anything that is in these statutes that it is 

 impossible for an English lawyer, at any rate, to understand how such 

 a question could have been raised. The court may have a prize juris- 

 diction. The court may have an admiralty jurisdiction. For all I 

 know, it might have a small debt jurisdiction. It may have a divorce 

 jurisdiction. It may have a cliancery jurisdiction, or any number of 

 jurisdictions. But because it has got the jurisdiction, it does not make 

 it act as a divorce court when it is trying maritime cases, or as a pro- 

 bate court when it is trying divorce eases. And so in the same way, 

 the fact that a ship is condemned under this statute does not make 

 that court a prize court; and to those who advocate this theory, I 

 would place my learned friends Mr. Carter and Mr. Phelps, in this 

 dilemmii — 



Mr. Phelps. — What theory do you understand us to argue? 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I was only assuming for the moment that 

 you would argue the theory submitted by the learned Senator. That 

 is all, Mr. Phelps. I will say nothing more than that; and you will 

 not think it wrong, I am sure, to put it in this way. 



Mr. Phelps.— Not at all. 



The President. — I hope you will not understand the opinion of an 

 Arbitrator, whoever he may be, and whatever may be his nationality, 

 to be on the side of any of the parties here. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I think you misunderstood me, Mr. Presi- 

 dent. I am doing nothing, with great deference, either irregular or 

 improper. 



The President. — I do not mean to say you are doing anything 

 improper. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I am assuming that Mr. Phelps contends 

 that the court of Alaska is to be presumed to act as a prize court in 

 condemning these vessels. I am assuming that my first question would 

 be, if an American ship is condemned because engaged in shooting 

 seals in the waters of Behring Sea, by the Court of Alaska, will my 

 learned friend contend before this Court, and assume the responsibility 

 for the advocacy of this position, that that Court was acting as a prize 

 Court? 



Mr. Phelps. — It may possibly help my learned friend if I say in a 

 word that I conceive that no question whatever in regard to the validity 

 of those seizures, and no question whatever in respect of the right of 

 the United States to seize any vessel hereafter, is submitted under this 

 Treaty to the Tribunal, so far as I am concerned. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Of course, in one sense, it relieves me, but 

 it is in no sense any assistance to the particular point that was under 

 discussion. To say that my learned friend does not agree that any 

 such matter is submitted to the Tribunal, is one thing. That is not the 

 point. The point is whether the view which was submitted for my con- 

 sideration by a member of the Court, that the Alaskan tribunal is to be 

 assumed to be acting as a prize court, is correct. 



The President. — I believe one of our colleagues put an inquiry to 

 you in order to elucidate the matter, for the advantage and profit of the 



