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



tbirty miles around tbe islands, or being nnder the impression also that 

 breeding females do go to feed and urging, as you will see from the cor- 

 respondence, when it is read, that even a sirmller zone may be adequate 

 to the purpose, yet that thirty miles would be adequate to cover the 

 extent to which females would go during the nursing season for the pur- 

 pose of feeding. 



And lastly this is the concluding point to which I have to call the 

 attention of the Tribunal that in the case of the seizures I give you the 

 names of the vessels, tbe Marie, tbe liosie Olson, and the Vancouver. 

 Russia claims that those were lawfully captured because they had com- 

 mitted an offence within the territory of Russia, within the three miles 

 limit, some there captured, or if not there captured, ijursued, having 

 offended, within the three miles limit. 



But as regards two other vessels, the McGowan and the Ariel, they 

 have undertaken to pay damages in respect to the seizure of those ves- 

 sels, because while they allege that they believe it to have been morally 

 certain that they had been sealing within the three mile limit, they 

 have not sufficient evidence to justify it, and therefore they are xiayiug 

 damages in respect to tbe seizure of those two vessels. 



Mr. PiiBLPS, — Is that in the correspondence. Sir Charles "? 



Sir Charles Russell. — It is not in the correspondence. 



Mr. Carter. — Where isiti 



Sir Charles Russell. — It is in a telegraphic communication received 

 from St. Petersburgh, a copy of which will be handed to you. 



Mr. Carter. — And which we object to the reception of. 



Mr. Phelps. — Of course. We have no means of refuting it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Why do you, if you are not prepared for 

 the consequences, make a statement in which you seek to imply before 

 this Tribunal that Russia is making assertions which Russia is not in 

 fact making? 



Mr. Carter. — We make that upon evidence. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Where is the evidence? There is not a 

 particle of evidence to justify it. On the contrary I have pointed out 

 the statement appearing in the argument of my friend Mr. Phelps, and 

 it is not supported by any evidence to befouud in the Case or Counter 

 Case. 



Mr. Carter. — Then you do not require any new evidence to refute it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not stop to bandy words at this 

 moment witli my friend. 



I had forgotten to mention, — my friend Mr. Robinson very properly 

 reminds me — tbat one of the stipulations that Russia did not consider 

 unworthy of its dignity was to reduce the number of seals taken on tliese 

 seal islands to thirty thousand. That appears in the correspondence; 

 and also they agree to the presence of an agent of Great Britain on the 

 islands with reference to this modus vivencli. 



Mr. Phelps. — Perhaps my friend Avill allow me to ask his attention 

 to the debate in the House of Lords on one of the days of last week, 

 reported in the London Times, in wbich Lord Roscbery made a state- 

 ment in regard to this, which to my recollection contains nothing about 

 damages. 



Sir Charles Russell. — No; you are perfectly right; it does not. 

 But I am stating upon direct information from the Foreign Office what 

 is the actual state of things to-day. I have no objection to my friend 

 referring to tbe debate at all — not the least. 



Tbere was only one other matter I bave to mention. It has nothing 

 to do with the regulations. You recollect the question of the find- 



