1G8 ORAL ARGUMENT OF KON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



Mr. PiiELPS. — I see no language in article V that extends the appli- 

 cation of the Treaty. 



The President. — Might not the Treaty be construed in such a way 

 that Article III and Article IV are the only Articles that refer to the 

 American "tSTorth-west Coast, and the other Articjles of the Treaty 

 applied to Behring Sea as well, and 1 might say even to tlie coast of 

 Siberia^ 



Mr. Phelps. — If you refer to Article V I do not know that there is 

 anything in the language of that Article to extend it, neither would 

 it be material, as it seems to me, to tlie present controversy whether it 

 was extended or not. The first Article, which is the dominant one 

 as to territory, raises this very question whether the Behring Sea is 

 included in the Pacific Ocean. If it is, the Treaty refers to it; if it 

 is not, the Treaty does not refer to it. 



The President. — I would not say Article I refers to territory, 

 Article III refers to territory. 



Mr. Phelps. — I do not think Article I refers to territory. 



The President. — May I beg your attention to the very general 

 purport of the introduction of this Treaty. 



The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of 

 all the Russias wishing to cement the bonds of amity which unite them and to 

 secure between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect concord. 



These words as you are well aware are generally employed for Trea- 

 ties of a very general application, for Treaties M'hicli relate to all the 

 possible connections and relations between two different nations or two 

 different States. 



If this Treaty, and of course, I do not express my view, I put the 

 point as it migiit be argued against you, applies only to a question of 

 boundary and navigation and fishing, and so forth along the coast, or 

 in front of the coast, then do you tliink they would use such a general 

 expression as this, "Wishing to cement the bonds of amity which unite 

 them, and to secure between them the invariable maintenance of a per- 

 fect concord" '? That is a very general expression for merely a bound- 

 ary Treaty. 



Mr. Phelps. — It is. The expression shows that the Treaty is one 

 of a general character. 



The President. — I should think so. 



Mr. Phelps. — But I respectfully submit that those words do not 

 enlarge the specific provisions of the Treaty. It will be observed that 

 the condition of things then was very difi'erent from what it is now. 

 This was Eussia [pointing on the map] as well as tJiis. Alaska was 

 then Eussia. All this territory and coast, and a good deal more was 

 claimed or had been claimed by Eussia up to that time, but in the very 

 settlement that they made this was Eussia down on the one side until 

 we get to near Japan, and this also was Eussia, so that international 

 relations did not begin between these two countries till you get down 

 to 54° 40', or whatever may be the disputed line. 



Now the Treaty was a good deal more than to settle that line. That 

 was one object of it; and I quite agree that such words might or might 

 not be used. It depends a good deal on the fertility of those who were 

 writing. If the whole country was new, and the right of other coun- 

 tries to make settlements, and discovery and occui)ation was still open 

 to dispute, Eussia's claims to come down as far as it did, were, as Mr. 

 Adams pointed out, only supported by some settlements — some very 

 few, sparse settlements — I believe there was one at Archangel, which 

 was the same as Sitka. Mr. Adams points out, that it no longer had the 



