ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 605 



I now leave that subject, and proceed to the other two or three prop- 

 ositions which I find hiid down by my learned friend as facts, by 

 which they can settle the question whether tliis property does belong 

 to the Uuited States or not. The Tribunal will find that for about 20 

 pages, I think beginning at page 50, the attention of the Tribunal is 

 invited to a somewhat careful enquiry into the original causes of the 

 institution of ino])erty and the principles upon which it stands; and 

 having discussed the origin of that institution, and the principles upon 

 which it stands, for some 20 pages, we find it said at page 68 that. 



The foregoing discnssiou concerning 1-he origin, fouiuiation, extent, form and lim- 

 itations of the institution of property will, it is believed, be found to furnish, in 

 addition to the doctrines of municipal law, decisive tests for the determination of 

 the principal question, whether the United States have a property in the seal herds 

 of Alaska; but it may serve the purposes of convenience to present, before proceed- 

 ing to apply the conclusions thus reached, a summary of them in concise form. 



I do not think it is necessary to read the first two or three proposi- 

 tions. The ones with which I am mainly concerned are to be found at 

 page 69. 



The extent of the dominion which, by the law of nature, is conferred upon partic- 

 ular nations over the things of the earth, is limited in two ways : 



1. They are not made the absolute owners. Their title is coupled with a trust for 

 the benefit of mankind. Tlie human race is entitled to participate in the enjoyment. 



2. As a corollary or part the last foregoing proposition, the things themselves are 

 not given; but only the increase or usufruct thereof. 



'Now it is said those are the principles upon which this contest as to 

 the property between these two nations is to be decided. In the first 

 place I venture to say that those principles are not found in any sys- 

 tem of law of any nation in the world, never have been part of any 

 system of law, as we understand the term '' law ", never will be part, 

 and in the nature of things never could be part of it. Is it really 

 seriously asked that this question of i)roperty between two nations is to 

 be decided upon principles which never formed part of the law of any 

 nation in the world"? 1 mean by "law" a system which declares and 

 enforces legal rights. 



I think the simplest test of that is this: Let anyone go to Congress 

 or to the Parliament of Great Britain and ask them to embody in an 

 Act of Parliament these provisions: first of all, that people are trustees 

 for mankind of the property which they possess; in the next place, 

 that they are not the absolute owners, and that the things themselves 

 are not owned by them, but only the increase or usufruct thereof. 

 What would be said to any such proposition? What would be said in 

 either country would cei'tainly be, that a man bringing forward such 

 propositions could know very little of human nature^ and yet it is said 

 this is the law of nature, and that such j^ropositions are to govern this 

 case. Is that an unreasonable test or a reasonable one? Would any 

 man be listened to as a man of ordinary practical intelligence, fit to 

 deal with the afiairs of human life, if he were to propose that either of 

 those two propositions sliould be embodied in any system of law on the 

 ground that they were following the law of nature? Would not the 

 answer be, the man that brings forward those propositions as desiring 

 them to form part of practical law must be utterly unacquainted with 

 human nature? 



Senator Morgan. — Does not the law of descent and distribution all 

 depend on the fact that it is part of the law of nature? 



Mr. Robinson. — I should have thought very distinctly not, if you 

 avsk me; but I must first ask, though I do not ask it from any feeling of 

 presumption — I first ask .>^ome one to tell me what nature has enacted. 

 I have not the slightest idea of what the law of nature is, and 1 do 



