ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 143 



Question 2 is in other words this question. 

 How far were the claims of Russia affected by the Treaties of 1824 and 1825? 



That is the second question, because Great Britain and the United 

 States recognized the chiinis of Eussia just as far as they were included 

 in that Treaty, and no further. Just so far as the original claims of 

 Eussia were taken back, diminished, modified, altered by the Treaties 

 of 1824 and 1825, so far those countries declined to recognize what 

 Eussia had previously asserted. Just so far, on the other hand as by 

 the provisions of those Treaties the original pretensions of Eussia were 

 left undisturbed, just so far both those countries recognized and acceded 

 to it. Nothing can be plainer than that. So that the actual reading 

 of Question JST" 2 is what I have stated — how far were the original 

 claims of Eussia in res])ect to these seal fisheries withdrawn or modi- 

 fied by the Treaties of 1824 and 1825? 



Then the third question — and I go through with these in order to 

 make clear what I desire to say, that all these four questions resolve 

 themselves into a very simple enquiry, as far as the purpose of this 

 case is concerned, which is, whether the body of water now known as 

 Behring Sea was included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" as used in 

 the Treaty of 1825. That is the same question that I just stated, over 

 again, in a different form and having reference to some of the actual 

 contentions in the negotiation. Question 3 states over again Question 2. 



How far were the pretensions of Eussia withdrawn, or modified, and 

 how far were they acceded to? The controlling enquiry, putting it in 

 otlier words, and coming to the actual terms of the negotiation, is, was 

 Behring Sea included or was it not? If it was included, then it is not 

 to be denied that Eussia's original pretensions were more or less con- 

 siderably modified. If it was not included, then it is plain that any 

 original assertion of Eussia on the subject of this seal fishery never 

 was affected at all by anything that took place between the countries, 

 and I respectfully submit that this conclusion will be found to be inevi- 

 table. 



The fourth question, as to whether the rights of Eussia as to jurisdic- 

 tion passed to the United States, is no question, because both parties 

 concur that, whatever rights Eussia had, passed to us by the Cession. 

 That would be very i)lain without admission; but it has been admitted 

 by Lord Salisbury, and has been admitted by my learned friends. We 

 are not at issue about the fourth question, but the question is " What 

 rights did Eussia possess!" and that depends first on the claims she 

 had asserted originally and maintained by her possession, secondly, 

 upon the question how far, if at all, were those claims affected by the 

 remonstrances of Great Britian and the United States and the modifi- 

 cation, if there is a modification, that is contained in the Treaties of 

 1824 and 1825. 



Then you see, if I am correct in what appears to me very plain, when 

 we come to analyse those questions and to deal with them in the light 

 of the controversy in this case and the great question that has to be 

 decided, you must state these questions again in another form, and 

 still they remain the same in effect. Did or did not Eussia throw open 

 to Great Britain and to the United States, by the operation of these 

 Treaties, the right to this seal industry and pursuit which she had 

 formerly possessed? Because it is not open to question that these 

 Islands were discovered by Eussia, a discovery, as you will remember, 

 u}X)n a voyage that was undertaken, or rather the last of a succession 

 of yoyages tiiat were undertaken for the purpose of discovering the 



