580 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



Avriting near the time, and having studied the question, will be found 

 the more accurate of the two. 



Then, if we are now to proceed to discuss in this general way the 

 property claim advanced by the United States, the first tiling that one 

 finds some difficulty in — at least, that I have found some difficulty in — 

 is to ascertain exactly what form or what branch of their claim it is to 

 which they attach the most importance, or maiuly desire to stand upon, 

 and by what law it is that they mainly desire to be governed. If I 

 understand their claim, they claim a property first in the seals, if not 

 in the seals then in the herd, if not in the herd, then in the indus- 

 try; and they say that this claim is supported to all of these different 

 subjects of claim by municipal law, and if not by municipal law, then 

 by international law. For exami^le, at page 132-3, in a portion of Mr. 

 Phelps' argument, he says that upon the ordinary principles of munic- 

 ipal law, they claim to be supi)orted, and upon the broader principles 

 of international law it becomes much more clear; and while they say 

 that international law must govern, and while they admit that the 

 municipal law of both countries may well be referred to, and may have 

 great weight in deciding what international law is, they yet say that it 

 must be remembered that the case is not necessarily to be governed by 

 the municipal law of either nation, but by international law. I think, 

 therefore, it will be well for me, without attempting to draw that dis- 

 tinction more accurately, because it seems to me to be difficult, and 

 would only complicate and i>rolong the argument, it will be better to 

 turn to their claim as they state it generally, and see how it is put by 

 them. 



The Tribunal will find their propositions at pages 47, 50, 91 and 132 

 of the printed argument. I refer to their printed argument, I may say, 

 for the remarks I wish to make,, because so far as I know their written 

 argument is not in any substantial respect departed from or added to 

 by the oral argument. Of course it is very much amplified and illus- 

 trated, but I do not think it is varied in any respect, added to in any 

 respect or departed from in any way ; and therefore, as it is perhaps 

 more convenient for reference, I desire to refer to the written argument 

 of the United States. At the pages 1 have mentioned, you find the 

 propositions which they say they have established, and upon which 

 their claim of property rests. In the first place, they say that it is an 

 easy thing, clear and intelligible to any ordinary mind, to appreciate 

 the distinction between a property in the herd and a i)roperty in the 

 seals. Well, I have only to admit with my learned friends my own 

 utter incapacity to understand how that claim can be supported. It 

 they do not owji each individual seal in the herd, how can they possi- 

 bly own the herd? I do not think it was an exaggerated or an unrea- 

 sonable analogy which the Attorney General suggested, to a fleet of 

 ships. A fleet is a number of ships, just as a herd is a number of seals; 

 and I do not understand that any different i^rinciple of law applies, 

 whether the herd consists of a hundred seals or a hundred thousand 

 seals, or as to a fleet whether it consists of ten ships or a hundred 

 ships; and is it possible that a nation could say as regards her fleet 

 precisely what they say as regards their seals : " It may be you may 

 destroy in any distant part of the world one of our jolly boats, or a small 

 vessel, and we would have no claim against you; but we claim that you 

 must not injure our fleet in any way or incapacitate it in any way so as 

 to, make it inefficient for the purpose for whfch it was designed. Surelj'' 

 it would be absurd even to state that; and why is it more intelligible 

 when you endeavor to apx)ly the same principle to a herd of wild 

 animals. 



