6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



tliose who instruct tliem profess in tliis matter, tliere would be, I take 

 leave to say uotliing; cleroj^atory to the i)osition of tlie United States — 

 nothing', at least, unworthy of its gTeat position and authority in sub- 

 nutting as part of a great scheme the qnestion of Regulations upon 

 the Islands as well as the question of Ivegulations at sea. 



Great Britain has not thought it unbecoming, the United States has 

 not thought it unbecoming its importance and dignity to submit to 

 this Tribunal the regulation of important rights in the open sea; and 

 I could see, therefore, nothing derogatory to the United States in their 

 submitting also to an impartial Tribunal an adjustment of this ques- 

 tion which should embrace the Islands also. I admit, because I wnsh, 

 at least, that my argument should be clear, that there is no authority 

 under this Treaty in this Tribunal to enjoin, as authoritative relations, 

 any scliCme or system of management upon the Islands themselves as 

 what I may call a directly enforcible act of this Tribunal. I sliall 

 presently, however, have to submit in another connection, while tliey 

 have not that power directly, they have the power indirectly; and I 

 shall submit reasons why that indirect power should be exercised. 



Senator Morgan. — I do not sup])ose that anybody contends that 

 there is any self-executing power submitted to this Tribunal for estab- 

 lishment or decision? It must be done by the assistance of some Gov- 

 ernment? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Quite so; no doubt, that is a consideration 

 I shall, of course, deal with when I come to the suggestion at a later 

 stage. 



With that preliminary statement, I come back to the question; Is 

 the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as to Regulations restricted to the area 

 in dispute, namely the eastern part of Behring Sea? 



Now, Mr. President, you will recollect that, in my former argument 

 upon the question of right, I respectfully insisted upon, in argument, 

 the meaning which I conceived was to be given or ought to be given to 

 Question 5 of Article VI. You will recollect that I then insisted that 

 that was not only, as Article VII showed it to be, a question of exclu- 

 sive jurisdiction claimed by the United States, but I endeavoured to 

 show that it was a question of exclusive jurisdiction of the same char- 

 acter as was put forward in the preceding four Questions, namely a 

 question of exclusive jurisdiction in the eastern waters of Behring Sea, 

 founded upon the contention that those eastern waters were part of the 

 territory ceded by Russia. I am not going to repeat that argument 

 because it would be but a mere repetition of the argument that I then 

 addressed, that would be equally apidicable to the subject-matter that 

 I am now speaking about; and I will content myself by asking the 

 Members of the Tribunal to take a note of the ftict that that argument 

 is to be f(mnd beginning on page 945 and between that page and page 

 i)o() of the Print of the argument. That is my oral argument. 



Now, there is no doubt in the world that Lord Salisbury, as I have 

 already intimated, in some of his correspondance was contemplating 

 and was, I may add, recognising the advisability of the consideration 

 of Regulations outside Behring Sea; or, perhaps, to put it more cor- 

 rectly, not limited to the eastern waters of Beliring Sea. I am not 

 going, for the reasons I have given because I speak of the thing without 

 going into minute details, to refer the Tribunal to the correspondence; 

 that will be dwelt upon by minds coming freshly to the consideration 

 of this question, my learned friends, Sir Richard Webster and Mr. 

 Robinson. But I wish to say, though that is so, it will also be found 

 that that was in connection with the subject-matter to which I have 



