ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 9 



nary territorial zone of three miles, and deprived of tbe general right 

 of tishmg which we claimed as belonging to all mankind without reser- 

 vation — my learned friends upon the supposition that the concurrence 

 of Great Britain is necessary in Regulations, and that therefore Great 

 Britain has rights involved propose a scheme of Regulations which 

 practically mean very much worse for British interests or the interests 

 of Canadian sealers than if we had never entered into any contest or 

 treaty at all upon the question of right. 



Let me point out and assume that Great Britain had chosen to say, 

 '< Well, we will not trouble to contest whether Russia did or did not 

 assert and exercise rights prior to the time of the cession of Alaska — 

 we will not trouble to discuss whether those rights were recognized or 

 conceded by Great Britain— we will not trouble to discuss whether the 

 phrase "Behring Sea" was included in the Pacific Ocean — we will not 

 trouble to discuss whether all the rights that Russia had did not pass 

 unimpaired to you— we will not trouble to discuss if you had rights giving 

 you property or protection in fur seals frequenting Behring Sea: let 

 the whole thing go by the board; can any body doubt what the result 

 would be! It would be simply and solely an assertion of the terri- 

 torial jurisdiction in Behring Sea, not exceeding one inch outside the 

 three-mile limit. Therefore the proposition is now advanced, as I 

 understand from my hasty hearing of it— it is one which puts Great 

 Britain and her colonists in an infinitely worse position than the one 

 they would have been in if the question of right had not been raised 

 at all. 



Now, reserving to my learned friends the right to enforce by further 

 arguments this important point, I pass now, and I assume, contrary to 

 my submission which I hojje will be seriously and gravely canvassed 

 by the Members of the Tribunal— without admitting for the purpose of 

 what I am about to say that the Tribunal has — only for the purpose of 

 argument do I admit it — authority outside as well as inside Behring 

 Sea — upon that hypothesis the question will then arise, which is the 

 second question to which I adverted, what Regulations ought in fair- 

 ness to be made and to what extent and in what manner, with what 

 limitations, and on what conditions ought that jurisdiction of the Tri- 

 bunal to be exercised both inside and outside Behring Sea. 



Again I say that this question is to be approached as I suggested I 

 was endeavoring to approach it upon the basis that except rights as 

 territorial owners of the Islands the United States or its lessees or its 

 nationals have no right differing in kind or degree from the rights of 

 the nationals of Great Britain, in other words the Canadian Colonists 

 or indeed the nationalists of any other Power. In that condition of 

 things simply the sense and spirit of equity in each member of the 

 Tribunal will go with me in saying that if that be the true and just 

 basis upon which to regulate, the rules to be laid down must be just 

 rules, marked by considerations of equity and must have regard to the 

 fact that there are rights equal in degree and of the same character — 

 rights of fishing in the open sea — possessed by the subjects of Great 

 Britain, just as they are possessed by Citizens of the United States. 



Now, Mr. President, when I come a little closer to the consideration 

 of what the Regulations ought to be, I find myself under this difficulty. 

 I find that such a cloud of prejudice has been sought to be raised upon this 

 subject of pelagic sealing that it is very difficult for this Tribunal until 

 it is sought at least to dispel some ])ortion of that prejudice to approach 

 the consideration of the question of Regulations with unprejiidiced 

 and impartial minds, and indeed apart altogether from any prejudice 



