ORAL ARGU^MENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 595 



seal? I think the answer would be without question that it is a marine 

 animal, a free swimmiu.^ auimal of the Oceau, aud the property of any- 

 body who can take it. 



But if we ask my learned friends here what is the Alaskan fur-seal, 

 the answer is that the Alaskan fur-seal is a terrestrial domestic animal 

 and belongs to the Government of the United States. 



Now for what reason or on what ground is it that the fur-seal of 

 Alaska difters from all other fur seals of the world which have yet been 

 discovered, because that is the result of the definition now assigned to 

 them, that they are terrestrial and domestic animals and the property 

 of the United States, the ordinary far-seals and hair seals all over the 

 world being marine animals according to the classification of all Natu- 

 ralists, and animals /{grfe natnrcv belonging to nobody? 



While I am at that point I may ask — a question which has always 

 been to me one of doubt and per]>lexity. It is not of great importance, 

 and my learned friends may therefore — perhaps I shonld not say " there- 

 fore", because I believe they would do so wliether it was of great 

 importance or not — endeavour to clear it up for me. I find in the United 

 States Case at pages 295 and 29(5 as one of the propositions which they 

 say they have established, that it never mingles with other herds. At 

 page 295 they say that the Alaskan fur-seal is essentially a land animal, 

 and then I fiiul on the next page it is said it never mingles Avith any other 

 herd, and the identity of each individual seal when in the water can be 

 established with certainty. I really do not know what is the meaning 

 of that assertion. I have seen seals in the water, and how it is possible 

 for anybody to say that at all times, when in the water, the identity of 

 each individual seal can be established with certainty, I have been 

 unable to understand. I do not think it is of great importance what is 

 meant by it, but how the statement came into the case, and how it is to 

 be supported, I do not know. 



If you knew each seal, as the President once suggested, as the shep- 

 herd knows his sheep, in the millions, it would be impossible to tell 

 them individually, even if you were alongside of them, and I do not 

 know why that allegation is put in or what is the meaning of it. I 

 thought it meant the identity of each seal-herd ; but even then it would 

 be wrong, unless it means that it can be established with certainty by 

 reason of its position and locality. If they mean to say the identity 

 of each seal-herd can be established, because you only find one herd on 

 the eastern coast and the other on the west. 



Lord Hannen. — That is the meaning of it, I think. It says it never 

 mingles with any other herd. 



Mr. EoBiNSON. — That probably may be so. 



Lord Hannen. — It means the identity of seals belonging to each 

 herd. 



Mr. Robinson. — Yes, that is the only construction that can be put 

 upon it; but it is certainly not put i)lainly. I know it has struck others 

 besides myself, and I mention it, because I have not known what was 

 intended by it. 



Then, further, with regard to its domestic nature, one thing is abso- 

 lutely certain, if you look at our Counter Case, I do not delay to read 

 extracts, but at page 113, there are numerous extracts which show that 

 the seal is an animal very easily frightened and terrified, and is subject 

 to what we call stampedes. There are numerous extracts given there 

 which show it is a timid animal. 



I need not stop to read the extracts, nor to insist upon the proof, 

 for we have it in evidence that all precautions are taken by the United 



