ORAL ARGLMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 173 



Mr. PnELPS. — •' Tbrou.aLout the whole extent, as well north as 

 south", and so on, and the words "comprehending Behriug Sea" or 

 any similar words are omitted. 



Sir Chaeles Eussell. — "And that they will enjoy the right of 

 fishing in the high sea". 



Mr. Phelps. — "And that they will enjoy the right of fishing in the 

 high sea", and so forth. But I speak of the omissiou in that statement 

 of the words contained in the British proposal. That would have set 

 this question at rest. In other words. Article V is substantially the 

 same as Article lof the British contention. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Would you read Article VI — of the right 

 to navigate Behring Straits. 



Mr. Phelps. — I will read that. 



The President. — How do you construe these words, Mr. Phelps — 

 "as well in the north as iu the south"? Where do you ])nt the north 

 and south as of interest between Russia and England'? 



Mr. Phelps. — That is only introducing another ambiguity. They 

 introduce words there that are more ambiguous than the terms 

 employed before; they relieve an ambiguity by a worse ambiguity; but 

 they decline to put in the plain and simple words that would have set- 

 tled the point. 



The President. — Perhaps the Eussian policy had particular views 

 about that at the time. 



Mr. Phelps. — Exactly, Sir; that is the very reason. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — My learned friend w ill surely be glad to be 

 assisted on this. The words in the Frojet are not " Behring Sea" but 

 " comprehending the sea within Behring Straits". And that is 

 treated by Count Lieven in the memorandum on page 65 as being a 

 claim to navigate the seas in the Arctic Ocean, which he says is a new 

 proposition. It is not a question of Behring Sea. 



Mr. Phelps. — I quite understand that and will come to it in a 

 moment. I have not overlooked any word in this correspondence, and 

 I shall not^fail to allude to it. What I am upon now is — and I think I 

 shall be able to make myself understood, that on this single and only 

 question with which we are concerned, whether or not Behring Sr-a 

 was intended by these parties and understood to be comprised within - 

 the term "Pacific Ocean" — the British negociators, I repeat, put into 

 their draft words which would have settled that question and deter- 

 mined it. The Eussians declined to accept it, and left them out, and 

 the British executed the treaty without them. That is the point. 



Lord Hannen. — But Sir Charles' suggestion, Mr. Phelps, is that the 

 words are eiiuivalent. You will have to deal with that. 



Mr. Phelps. — We will consider that ])resently. Why, if Eussia 

 meant to include Behring Sea, did she strike them out? What reason 

 can be given for striking out from the draft of the Treaty those plain 

 words Avhich, ui)ou the theory of my learned friend, both parties under- 

 stood to be there? Why emi^loy equivalent words unless you can 

 employ better ones? Why sui)ply the ])lace of those plain words with 

 the ambiguous words to which the President just now alluded — "north 

 and south". The Eussians did not supi^ose, as we learn from the Baron 

 de Tuyll's communication to Mr. Adams that they were throwing opeu 

 the fur seal i)ursuits of Behring Sea to countries that did not ask for 

 them. We see plainly that Eussia did not so understand it, and we see 

 why it was they struck out these plain words and substituted words 

 which are not equivalent to them, because they do not add anything to 



