ORAL ARGUMENT OP CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 591 



tonied to get from me, then I can point to that animus revertendi as 

 evidence to show that I have reclaimed that animal, and that it has 

 passed from the category of wild animals into that of tame. 



But, in order to pass from one class into another, there must be a 

 change in the animal's nature; — that is the whole story. There must 

 be a change in the nature of the animal, a change to the nature of a 

 domestic animal; and that change must have been wrought in it by 

 man. Now, let us apply that to the seals. Can anyone pretend to say 

 for an instant that any change in the nature of these seals, good, bad 

 or indiil'erent, of any sort or kind has been produced by man ? In what 

 respect do the seals frequenting an uninhabited Island, — an island never 

 yet discovered, or an island discovered, say, a week ago or a month 

 ago, — in what respect do the habits and nature of those seals differ 

 from the nature of the seals on the Pribilof Islands? 



Unless it can be pointed out that there is some change in the nature 

 of the animal which attaches and belongs to the seals of the Pribilof 

 Islands, as opposed to the seals of the otber islands that I have referred 

 to, then it cannot be said that there is any change, or that the United 

 States have produced any change; and the animal remains just as it 

 was, a wild animal. 



Senator Morgan. — But you would not insist, I suppose, that the 

 change in the nature of the animal from domestic to wild, when brought 

 about by the interference of man, would give a right of property to any 

 one who might capture it, as res nullius', as, for instance, if a man has 

 a colt on his laud, and by harsh treatment or in some other way alarms 

 it so that it becomes as wild as a deer, he still would not have lost his 

 property. 



Mr. EoBiNSON. — If I were to attempt, with deference, to answer that 

 question, I should have to go back into speculation with reference to 

 the nature and habits of animals which are hardly worth reverting to. 

 I believe one great writer has said that all animals originally were 

 domestic, and that those that are wild have been rendered so simj)ly 

 by the brutality of man. 



Senator Morgan. — But if you are right that a wild animal can be 

 tamed, and becomes property because you have rendered it tame by 

 kindness, cannot you turn a tame animal into an animal ferae naturae 

 by reason of your harsh treatment? 



Mr. KoBiNSON. — I must confess that I have never thought of consid- 

 ering that question as it could not possibly arise. At the same time I 

 do not believe that I can make my cow a wild animal by any amount of 

 brutality. 



Senator Morgan. — I should think not myself. 



Mr. EoBiNSON. — And, further, I do not believe that any law can be 

 found to say so; but I can make a wild animal a tame animal, and there 

 is abundant law for that. There are many cases where we find the law 

 laid down as unquestionable, or at all events where it has not been 

 questioned, and in such cases I do not trouble myself to hunt out 

 whether the converse is true, or upon what the law stands, because I 

 know that is the law. 



Senator Morgan. — If the dominion over it is the same without culti- 

 vation as with, it seems to me it makes no difference. 



Mr. Robinson. — Yes, but I understand that what you suggest is a 

 speculative view. You certainly can make a wild animal a tame one; 

 but with reference to making a tame one wild, I can ouly say that the 

 law does not allow it. I never heard of a law that allows it, and never 



