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



Arbitrators, of wliatcver nationality they be, and not at all to interfere 

 with the pleading of the case, and not to take the point of view of one 

 of the parties. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I was not suggesting the contrary for a 

 moment. 1 was merely saying that if it was part of my learned friends' 

 argument to contend that the Alaskan Court sat as a ])rize Court, I 

 should immediately^ ask to be told the statute of the United States 

 which makes the killing of a seal in the high seas of Alaska an offence 

 cognizable in a prize court, and to be adjudicated upon by a prize court? 



The President. — You are relieved of that by the answer of Mr. 

 Phelps. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I should doubt it, Mr. President. 



The President. — But perhaps you wish to put your own case and 

 advocate your own views. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I have not made my meaning clear to you, 

 Mr. President. Many days ago, when the question arose about these 

 courts having a prize jurisdiction, Mr. Phelps was good enough to inter- 

 pose and say that the Alaskan courts had got prize jurisdiction by stat- 

 ute, and it was with reference to that that Lord Hannen put the ques- 

 tion to him but a few moments ago, could he, without inconvenience, 

 tell us where this statute giving prize jurisdiction was to be found. 

 But I am entitled, Mr. President, to press u])on the Court that the only 

 condemnation possible is the condemnation under municipal law, and 

 that if it be condemnation under municipal law, that that will not be 

 cognizable by a prize court, and that if it be an offence under municipal 

 law, then it cannot, for the reasons which I have already given to you this 

 afternoon be extended to the high seas; and further, that on the broad- 

 est view of a municipal statute, it can only be put in force against a 

 vessel which either has recently broken the law within the territorial 

 limits, or is intending to go and break the law within territorial limits. 

 Not one of those arguments would apjjly to the case if we were dealing 

 with a jirize court. 



Senator Morgan. — I understood you to say. Sir Richard, that a prize 

 court could have no jurisdiction except in a case of belligerency. 



Sir Richard Webster. — As a prize court. 



Senator Morgan. — I am speaking now of the power of a Government 

 to confer upon its courts prize jurisdiction in any other cases than in 

 case of war. 



Sir Richard Webster. — One must be accurate in one's terms. If 

 you mean confer upon its x^rize courts jurisdiction to act sometimes as 

 prize courts, sometimes to administer the revenue laws, and sometimes 

 to administer the laws of admiralty and divorce, of course the Govern- 

 ment have got the power to do it. 



Senator Morgan. — Excei^t as to the question of divorce, that is 

 exactly a description of the jurisdiction of the United States District 

 Court. 



Sir Richard Webster. — But, Mr. Senator, that does not make the 

 court act as a prize court when it is adjudicating between plaintiff and 

 defendant in a small debt. 



Senator Morgan. — If the statute says so, that does make it act in 

 that way. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That, of course, is an assertion. I must 

 not meet it by counter assertion. I should have thought it extremely 

 doubtful that in that case as against another nation it could make it a 

 prize court. I should be very glad indeed, now that this case has 

 assumed sufficient importance to be put to me b^ a member of the Tfi- 



