594 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



Mr. Robinson.— Yes. Ton probably know this, that there is rejjnlar 

 navigation between Victoria and Vancouver, and tliat is Inland Waters. 

 It is an archii)elago of Islands. I have been there, and can speak to 

 that. If you turn and look on the Map, you will see it in a moment. 



Senator Morgan. — Those waters lie between the Islands and the 

 main Continents, and are navigable waters? 



Mr. Robinson. — Oh ! yes, I think so. 



Mr. TUPPER. — It is a Steamer route. 



Mr. Robinson. — It is the popular tourist route from Victoria and 

 San Francisco. In point of fact it runs along that archii>ela<>o, and 

 that forms the attraction of the route. It is one of the peculiaiities of 

 that coast from Vancouver to San Francisco, if I am not mistaken, that 

 it is an open coast devoid of islands or harbours, but from Vancouver 

 north it is a continual archipelago. It would make no difference in my 

 argument whether the seals come into the interior waters to get the 

 salmon as they are preparing to pass up the Fraser or into the ocean — 

 I had, perhaps, better take the Skena in British Columbia, which I 

 believe passes into open water. I have not siwken of it before, and I 

 do not speak of it positively, but I know a canning industry is carried 

 on, and that the salmon brought from the Skena — which is another 

 illustration of some interesting statistics that my friends have stated — 

 is said to be of a finer character than the salmon that come from the 

 lower waters. When si;)eaking of canned salmon I have heard it said, 

 "Get it from the Skena." Then take that river. Suppose the seals 

 collected there to prey on the salmon, and seriously to interfere with 

 the canning industry, as they will do if your view, sir, should be sus- 

 tained, as it may be in a short time — probably in our time and before 

 very long — that those fisheries will become of immense importance: on 

 that day those seals will be doomed. They will have no friends. Public 

 opinion will be against them, and they will be exterminated. Is it 

 possible that an animal as to which that can be said with truth can be 

 the property of an individual so that he can own it wherever it goes 

 and be entitled to protect it? 



When we add to that what is not improbable — for we know, that 

 sealskins, which are an article of luxury and taste, may diminish in 

 value, that the taste for them may diminish, and that tlie seal industry 

 would then be of little importance and yield little return, and might 

 not be worth carrying on, while the industry connected with the food 

 fish must be of increasing importance, and of enormous value, and of 

 absolute necessity to the population as a means of subsistence — when 

 we say that that may happen, how is it possible to talk of protecting 

 the seals, not now, but for all time, by giving them as property to any 

 particular nation or individuals. Tlie thing is impossible, because it 

 would be contrary to every interest of the world, and to every reason- 

 able principle. 



Therefore I say that that forms another reason why this claim of 

 property is not possible on reasonable grounds. I am not going now 

 into nice principles of law or citations of authority. I am talking to 

 reasonable men; and on reasonable principles I ask is it possible to 

 assign any property in these animals that will give a right to protect 

 them irrespective of the circumstances, as they may change from time 

 to time, and as the interest of the world may require them to change? 

 If not, it is not possible to assign property in these seals to any par- 

 ticular nation or to any particular individual. 



If I were to ask any oidinary jierson what the seal is — and I am 

 recurring for a moment to its character in natural History — what is a 



