ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q, C. 609 



agents, the principle is admitted to be good. The property— I will not say is cou- 

 cejed— but is proved to be theirs on the islands; and if pelagix; sealing is destruc- 

 tive, the fact that we must do our sealing on the islands cannot be disputed. Sup- 

 pose these seals were under the control of the United States, as well as the islands, 

 would that make any difference, and would anybody say t'lat we had less right to 

 protect seals at sea because they were not treated well on the shore? 



In other words, it is precisely their argument in answer to ns. They 

 say what business is it to you how we treat the seals on the islands'? 



That may be a sound argument on the question of Regulations, with 

 which I have nothing to do at present. I deal simply with the legal 

 question as to the right of property or the right to protect the indus- 

 try. The truth is it has no bearing upon it. It cannot aflect it in any 

 way, and why it was introduced except for the same reason as the 

 charges of cruelty we are at a loss to understand. 



Now I pass to the charge of cruelty, which is made against us as an 

 ofience. I wish to deal with that for this simple reason. I am sup- 

 posed probably to represent more particularly that portion of the 

 Empire which is especially interested in this industry. 



I do not desire to speak of the interest of Canada or British Columbia 

 in this question at present, though it is very vital. I do not desire to 

 do so now, for the reason that what we are discussing here is the ques- 

 tion of legal rights. The law has to prevail; the law has to be obeyed ; 

 and it could make no difference whatever even if British Columbia 

 lived exclusively on this industry; if she claimed to do so without 

 legal right she must give it up and take the consequences. I agree 

 that on the question of Kegulations those considerations may have a 

 different weight and be entitled to a different intiuence. Here I speak 

 of this charge of cruelty because the charges are made against citizens 

 of British Columbia, and my learned friends will not be offended at 

 what I say, because they charge their own citizens in the same way 

 with committing a crime which every civilized nation is bound by the 

 law of nature and by their obligations to civilized society to put down 

 and i)unish. 



Pelagic sealers are described as hostes humani generis, and I think it 

 is very difficult to express too strongly the atrocious character which 

 they assign to what we think is a perfectly justifiable and proi;)er indus- 

 try in which we and their own citizens are concerned. 



They tell us that it is abhorrent to the law of nations, and that the 

 law of nations is founded on the law of nature. I might have said at an 

 earlier portion of my argument, but I venture to say it now as not alto- 

 gether inappropriate, that my learned friends have this formidable diffi- 

 culty to contend with: that the law of nations, which is founded on 

 the law of nature, does not interfere with but permits slavery. I 

 should like to know how they can call upon that law to put down 

 pelagic sealing. Is it j^ossible that the great principles of morality 

 upon which that law is founded, but which, nevertheless, through that 

 law, permit slavery with all its horrors to continue — is it seriously 

 arguable that the same i^rinciples of morality must nevertheless put 

 down pelagic sealing? That, at all events, is the proposition which my 

 learned friends have to contend with, which they have seen that they have 

 to contend with, and which they answer only by saying that perhaps, if 

 the question should come up again it might now be decided differently. 

 It could not now be decided differently by that most eminent judge, or 

 by any other judge acting on principles of international law, unless it 

 could be shown that nations in the meantime had assented to make the 

 prohibition of slavery a part of international law. The question woultL 

 B S, PT XIII o9 



