596 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



States upon the Islands for the purpose of keepin": men out of their 

 sight, and of not going near them, not frightening them, not terrifying 

 them; they will not allow men to smoke; they will not allow them to 

 whistle; they will not allow a noise; they will not allow dogs — every 

 possible precaution is taken to avoid frightening the seals or acting upon 

 their peculiar sensibility and timidity. 



In addition to that, how can you call an animal a domestic animal 

 when it is beyond all question that for eight months of the year it dis- 

 appears altogether; its master cannot follow it, or identify it; its master 

 does not know where it is; and it would die if it remained with him"? 

 If they, here again, insist on the animus revertendi at the end of that 

 time, I would say, what probably I should have better put in its proper 

 place, there is no instance I know of in which the migratory instinct 

 of returning to any place has been relied upon as animus reveriendi 

 tending to enable a person to acquire the right of property, or where it 

 has been called the animus revertendi to which the law applies. If there 

 be animus revertendi, what has puzzled me in this case, and I should 

 like very much to see if it can be answered satisfactorily, is, who has 

 the best right to claim the animus revertendi. The nations who are all 

 interested in the Pacific Ocean may say they have the animus revertendi 

 to the Ocean, imperious and unchangeable, — more imperious and more 

 unchangeable than to the Pribilof Islands, for this reason: if the Pri- 

 bilof Islands were submerged the seals would find another place, — I do 

 not think anybody doubts that, though in my learned friends' Case it 

 may be doubted, — but I do not doubt that if the Pribilof islands were 

 tomorrow submerged these seals would find some other place to haul 

 up and breed on, while if anything happened to the Pacific Ocean those 

 seals must die. They must feed; they must go out to the sea and can- 

 not remain on the Islands. Then I put myself in the position of a 

 person interested in pelagic sealing in the Pacific Ocean, or a nation 

 interested, — all rights being equal among us. They say " when those 

 seals leave us they must come back to the Ocean by the imperious 

 instincts of their nature, and not only that but all the food they get 

 they get in the Ocean, and not only that but they would die if they did 

 not come back to the Ocean. If animus revertendi has any application 

 at all, why cannot it be claimed as much at one end as at the other?" 



Take the ducks, take the geese, the northern ducks, as we know 

 being bred, many of them, within the Arctic Circle. They have the 

 animus revertendi there, and the Esquimaux may claim them because 

 they come there to breed and have the animus revertendi. 



The President. — Would you not make any dift'erence between the 

 animus revertendi to a j)lace which is the property of a nation and 

 the animus revertendi to the ocean, which belongs to nobody? 



Mr. Robinson. — ]^one that I can see. I had thought of that, Mr. 

 President, but there is not — I speak, of course, subject to correction it 

 any difference should occur to you — I am not aware that there is any- 

 thing that can make any difference in the principle. The learned 

 President of course understands what I mean. I mean for the pur- 

 pose of giving property I am not able to see any difference. There is 

 a distinction, not a difference. 



The President. — I merely inquired what was in your mind. 



Mr. Robinson. — There is a distinction; but is it a distinction which 

 makes a difference in legal principle? I have not been able to see that 

 it can do so. 



ISo, then, the animus revertendi, I submit, is out of the (jucstion. We 

 now come to another subject. 1 have endeavored so far as 1 am able 



