612 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



Now, if tliey thought that there was no illegitimate slaughter outside 

 Behriug Sea, the United States have learned long ago, or some years 

 ago at all events, that this was a mistake, — and how it is possible many 

 people could have thought so, it is difficult to see if they knew any- 

 thing of the habits of the seals then. If they believed that it was 

 their duty to other Nations and to the civilised World to put down and 

 punish the perpetrators of this crime, why did not they put it down 

 and punish it outside Behring Sea? I understand why; because this 

 kind of language and argument was not in their minds. Their Legis- 

 lation was intended, as the Legislation of all nations has been intended, 

 not in the interest of the feelings of animals ferce naturce, but in 

 their own material interest and for their own benefit. Let me see what 

 answer is given by my learned friend, Mr. Carter, when in the course 

 of his argument. It was pointed out that they had the power, because 

 they can prevent their nationals committing this crime against nature 

 any where, and — if they are hostes humani generis all over the world, 

 why do you say they must not be so in a portion of the world only^ 

 namely inside Behring Sea? 



The answer was, 



Of course, it might be said by Congressmen, if all the world is to be permitted to 

 go up there and take the seals, we might as well let our own nationals go. We will 

 not protect the seals against attacks by our own citizens if other people are to be 

 allowed to attack them. — 



In other words, and the President has put that very strongly in 

 reference to the suggestion made by us, if they were correct in their 

 argument, they should have prevented it everywhere, — I ask are those 

 positions consistent? Is my learned friend really saying that one of 

 the Members of their Congress might say. 



This is barbarous and inhuman, and an act which every civilised nation is bound 

 to put down; but if other nations are going to carry it on, then we will let our own 

 people carry it on with them? 



What my learned friend says is, it might be said by Congressmen; 

 or, in other words, it might be said by the Members of a Parliament of 

 a civilised Nation, that. 



Other Nations are guilty of this barbarity; why should not our nationals share in 

 it, till other Nations choose to put down such enormities? 



I am really treating this matter in a reasonable spirit, I venture to 

 submit, and in the spirit in which only it can be approached with any 

 reason. 



I am saying nothing invidious here, because I have no charge to 

 make against the people of the United States which I believe does not 

 lie against every other nation of the world. But it is true, and we 

 might as well look that in the face, that neither law nor legislation of 

 civilised nations up to this time have ever been prompted or influenced 

 by the feelings of animals ferw naluree, to any extent whatever; they 

 have been dealt with as best suited what were supposed to be the 

 material interests of the Nations. 



Take the case of the Buffalo, which we all know. I have extracts here 

 from Mr. Allen, a man vouched for by the United States as a man of 

 high character and attainments; who has published a monogram on 

 the Buffalo, warning the United States that they were being destroyed, 

 and calling upon them to save them. Those animals, both in the United 

 States and Canada, — this affects both Nations, — were slaughtered reck- 

 lessly and ruthlessly, without regard to time, or place, to sex or age. 

 They were slaughtered by thousands, and left lying on the Prairies, 



