ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q . C. M. P. 75 



certain implication, and to meet that by evidence of historical docu- 

 ments, to show that implication is not correct. 



Mr. Carter. — In other words, yon j)ropose to put it in evidence. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Certainly. 



The President. — Mr. Phelps, do you object to that? 



Mr. Phelps. — We do not care to object to this paper, Sir. The 

 whole of it of course goes in, so that we will have the opportunity to 

 refer to it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I have not the slightest doubt that my 

 learned friend is in possession of all these papers. I hope he is. 



Mr. Phelps. — Of course we are not to be understood as waiving the 

 ground upon which we have stood all along, that new evidence is not 

 admissible at this time; but we do not care to raise the objection to 

 this paper. 



Sir Charles Russell. — This must be unarguable. It is not new 

 evidence, I submit with great deference. It is in reference to a state- 

 ment of my learned friend from which he wishes the Tribunal to draw 

 a certain inference, which is in fact incorrect, but which we had no 

 opportunity of meeting because it appears in the argument. 



Mr. Carter. — It certainly is new evidence; but we do not care to 

 raise any objection on that score. We do not agree that new evidence 

 is generally admissible. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I first of all call attention to this fact (I 

 am not going to read it in detail; my learned friend will do so) that 

 when in 1893 the seizures by Russia had taken phice, we called ujion 

 the representative of the Russiaii Government for an explanation in 

 the letter of the 2;jth of January, 1S93, from Sir Robert Morier to Lord 

 Rosebery, page 5 of the correspondence; 



His Excellency stated incideutally that he believed that in the case of the sealers 

 captured last season it wonld be found that none of them had been taken illegally, 

 for if they had been seized outside of the territorial waters, it was after the clearest 

 proof that they had just emerged therefrom. 



In other words, they say: None of our seizures were against the 

 rules of international law as to territory, because they were either 

 within the three miles limit or had just emerged from it, having com- 

 mitted an oft( nee within it. 



Finally this correspondence takes the shape of negociation between 

 Russia and Great Britain for a Modus vivencU; and that Modus vivendi 

 stated shortly thus: It is now finally agreed that the zone from the 

 Russian coast shall be 10 miles and around the Russian seal islands 

 30 miles; this agreement be it understood being entirely j^rovisional, 

 each party standing upon its own rights and in no wise aft'ected in its 

 possession by this provisional or temporary agreement. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — How long was the Modus to last? 



Sir Charles Russell. — One year. Each Government standing 

 upon its own rights and the Russian Government perfectly aware of the 

 position assumed by the United States, reserving its right to say that 

 it might extend its territorial jurisdiction for the purpose of putting 

 sealing down, etc. . . those contentions, of course, being traversed on 

 the part of Great Britain, but each party standing on its rights. But 

 the value of the correspondence is this: Tliat there is an entire absence 

 of that v/hicli has been the great — up to a certain point — argument of 

 my learned friends of a claim to property in the seal collectively or indi- 

 vidually, or in respect to the industry founded upon the seal, or that 

 pelagic sealing was an invasion of that right or industry. Next that 

 they have recognized that in the circumstances of the case a zone of 



