90 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



though I agree it is an extension of municipal law. That was a point I 

 endeavoured to argue before you, and I hope made clear, some few 

 days ago. 



From beginning to end of these transactions there is no foundation 

 for the statement made in the argument that Eussia was exercising 

 these rights in support of the same principles as the United States were 

 claiming in 1886 down to 1892 — they had certaiidy as strong a case as 

 to original jurisdiction. If the United States had a good case up to 

 that boundary line to the east of it, Kussia had the same case to the 

 Avest of it, but we know from this and from everything that has gone 

 before that no such case was made by them. But I ask you. Sir, not to 

 forget when I come later on to discuss this question of zone that with 

 the fullest knowledge of the matter and investigation upon their Islands 

 Russia has come to the conclusion a 30 mile zone is sutlficient and is 

 only required in consequence of special circumstances and tliat a female 

 seal when actually at the Islands are never to i)e found tar from the 

 islands and even in cases in which it is evident the Russians think 

 during a certain portion of that time they go for food — it is obvious 

 that the opinion of the Russian otficials is that during a portion of the 

 time the female seals go out for food, so that I am justified from an 

 impartial view in one sense, and on the other hand an interested view — 

 on looking at the matter fairly — in saying that an arrangement has 

 been come to which is a corroboration of the case the Attorney General 

 pointed to this morning I pass from that incident. The real importance 

 of it was that the Tribunal should have the real facts; and as, inter- 

 locutorily, my friend Mr. Carter spoke of us introducing fresh evi- 

 dence, I do not agree that that is the right view of the matter. The 

 Tribunal wislies to have the real facts and from those real facts it will 

 be seen we submit that the assumption or inference drawn by the 

 United States as to Russia's action was not well founded. 



Now, Mr. President, I desire to supplement what has been said by 

 the learned Attorney General with regard to the question of area as 

 brieily as I possibly can. I must not, I am afraid, pass over the sub- 

 ject altogether because as I indicated to you it is an important ques- 

 tion. While it is for this Tribunal to decide the ambit of its own 

 jurisdiction and the terms of the Treaty, it yet is of extreme impor- 

 tance (having regard to what may be said hereafter as to the conduct 

 of the two nations in dealing with this matter) that this question of area 

 should be fully and clearly (but I hope not at too great length), dis- 

 cussed before the Tribunal. My friends remind me that I had not read 

 the telegram received from the Foreign Office this morning; but the 

 learned Attorney General read it. 



Mr. Carter. — Yes, and he read it without giving us the opportunity 

 to object to it which we regretted. But we do object to it and do not 

 consider it in. 



The President. — I consider you may make use of whatever ]»ublic 

 documents you have, because those we all know. You cannot use them 

 as evidence, but as general information ; but as to documents which are 

 not public I think you cannot use them unless they have been inspected 

 by the other side. 



Sir Richard Webster. — The objection of my friend (I say it in all 

 seriousness), if he will only think for a moment, does not amount to 

 anything. It is not a question of what may be called public docu- 

 ments, although it will be a public document before twenty-four, or 

 forty-eight hours have passed. 



Mr. Carter. — It is a telegram. 



