ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 7 



already referred; namely, the contemplation of a scheme to wliich not 

 only the United States and Great Britain should be parties, bat to 

 which, among others, Russia should be party, and to which it was hoped 

 that Japan might be a party; and it was in that view, and that view 

 only, that a comprehensive scheme embracing the whole subject-matter 

 of nationals of all Powers as to whom it could probably be predicated 

 they would or might embark in pelagic sealing, it was in that connec- 

 tion that that wider reference of his was made. 



But, in justilicatiou of what I am submitting, there is one passage, 

 and one i)assage only, to which I must refer. It is a short passage, but 

 an imi)ortant one. I will not refer to the original source from which 

 the i)assage is taken, but I will read it from the place in which it 

 appears in my Argument addressed to this question. It is at page 

 9-A0-947; and it is the communication of Mr. Wharton. It is a letter 

 of the 4th of June, 1891, and is to be found at page 306 of the United 

 States Appendix, Volume I: 



The fonrtli clause of the proposal of Her Ma.iesty's Government, limiting the 

 taking effect of the modus vireiidi npon the assent of Rnssia, presents what seems 

 to the President an insujierable difficulty, as adherence to that suggestion by Her 

 Majesty's Government will, in his opinion, prevent the conclusion of any agreement, 

 and will inevitably cause such a delay, 



and then I observe that the object of Sir Julian Pauncefote was, by 

 including Russia, to have an extension of the modus vivendi so as to 

 proliibit the killing in other parts of the Behring Sea westward of the 

 line of demarcation; and this is the way that suggestion is met by Mr. 

 Wharton, and this is the passage in the letter : 



I am also directed to remind you that the contention between the United States 

 and Great Britain has been limited to that part of Behring's Sea eastwar<l of the 

 line of demarcation described in our Convention with Russia, to which reference 

 has already been made, and that Rnssia has never asserted any rights in these 

 waters affecting the subject-matter of (his contention, and cannot, therefore, be a 

 necessary party to these negotiations, if they are not now improperly expanded. 

 Under the Statutes of the United States, the President is authorized to prohibit 

 sealing in the Behring's Sea within the limits described in our Convention with 

 Russia, and to restrict the killing of seals on the islands of the United States; but 

 no authority is conferred npon him to prohibit or make penal the taking of seals in 

 the waters of Behring's Sea westward of the line referred to or upon any of the 

 shores or islands thereof. 



Now, I beg your respectful attention to this concluding passage: 



It was never supposed by any one representing the Government of the United 

 States in this correspondence or by the President, that an agreement for a modus 

 viceiidi could be broader than the subject of contention stated in the correspondence 

 of the respective Governments. 



I need not say that the subject of that correspondence was exclu- 

 sively the eastern waters of Behring Sea. There is another passage 

 in that letter, a little lower down, on the same page in the book in 

 which the letter is set out in extenso, which runs thus : 



This he would very much regret, 



(that is to say, regret that the matter should go off) 



and he confidently hopes that a reconsideration will enable Lord Salisbury to waive 



(I repeat the word waive) 



the suggestion of Russia's participation in the Agreement, and the inclusion of 

 other waters than those to which the contention between the United States and 

 Great Britain relates. 



Senator Morgan.— What is the date of that letter? 

 Sir Charles Russell.— June the 4th, 1891; the Treaty itself being 

 concluded in February, 1892, — the Treaty itself was signed on the 18th 



