606 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



not believe anybody else knows. It is an indeterminate sometliing; 

 nobody can tell what it means anywhere, and it is certain that it means 

 something different in every nation of the world. 



Senator Morgan. — Might it not be called Divine Law, in the sense 

 that it is used in the Scriptures? 



Mr. Robinson. — Well, I did not wish to touch on Divine Law; but as 

 that has been referred to, I would say this: the only instance I know 

 of where property has been taken from a man on the ground that he had 

 not made good use of it, except on the ground that he was a lunatic, is in 

 the parable of the ten talents. 1 have never heard of it since, and I 

 do not believe that anybody has been encouraged by that instance to 

 endeavour to embody those principles in any code of laws as a propo- 

 sition of law. 



Now you have asked me if the law of descent and distribution is not 

 part of the law of nature? I ask, is it part of the French nature, or 

 British nature, or American nature? 



Senator Morgan. — Well, it depends on the nature. 



Mr. Robinson. — I agree, it depends on the nature; but I do not 

 understand a law which varies according to the nature of different indi- 

 viduals or different nations. If so, it means nothing, and I really 

 believe it does mean nothing, I do not believe the law of nature means 

 anj^thing except in some elementary particulars. You may say that 

 the law of nature teaches affection for children and offspring, and things 

 of that sort. 



Senator Morgan. — Well, it has been so much written about, that I 

 supposed it to exist. 



Mr. Robinson. — Yes; there has been a good deal written about it; 

 and, if you refer to two references given to the Tribunal by the learned 

 Attorney General, you will find the highest authorities known in that 

 branch of jurisprudence say it i^ractically means that it is an indeter- 

 minate something which i)eople refer to without knowing what they 

 mean, and being utterly unable to tell what the law to which they refer 

 ordains or directs. 



I venture to submit, again, that the illustration I have suggested is 

 absolutely conclusive. If this property between nations is to be deter- 

 mined upon these propositions, which were asserted to be reasonable 

 propositions, they are ])ropositions which ought to be found in some 

 system of law. If they are new discoveries are they propositions which 

 by their reason would recommend themselves to any Legislature or to 

 any country which was invited to embody them in their system of law? 

 As a matter of fact, anybody who has a child's knowledge of human 

 nature must know that it would be absurd to attempt to embody them 

 in any practical system of law, or to enforce them. You can not make 

 people trustees for mankind of their property. You may say to people, 

 "You should not waste your property; the principal does not belong to 

 you. You are only entitled to the interest". I am aware that many 

 things are spoken of as rights which are simply rights in the ordinary 

 sense of ethical rights or wrongs and moral duties. You may say 

 that a man has no right to waste his substance and leave his family 

 penniless. That is practically true; but in what sense? It is absolutely 

 impossible to say that he has no legal right to do it, because he has, and 

 no law can prevent it if the man is sane. Again, you may say that no 

 man has a right to lose his temper, and make claarges against people 

 without just grounds. No more he has; but can you imagine any law 

 that would attempt to prevent it? You may also say that a man is bound 

 to be careful of what he has got, and to make the most of it; and, in a 



