ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 41 



Mr. Phelps. — Can you give us a copy of that? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — It is very distressing that I should be 

 obliged to furnish this American literature to my friends, but I will 

 with the greatest pleasure. 



General Foster. — Is that cited in your case? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not know, and, with great deference 

 to Mr. Foster, I do not care. 



General Foster. — We might have searched for it if you had cited it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — The first Edition was published in 1891. 

 The second was published in 1892. This gentleman examines the ques- 

 tion, and examines it from the only point of view in which up to the 

 time of this litigation, if I may so call it, it was presented on the part of 

 the executive authority of the United States: namely, as a question 

 whether or not the United States had by right ot sovereignty a 

 768 right to apply its municipal legislation to the eastern part of Beh- 

 ring Sea, and to base that right upon a derivative title from 

 Russia. And when he comes to examine the question of those exclu- 

 sive rights he arrives at the conclusion, which the Tribunal I think will 

 not be surprised at, that it is impossible in view of the attitude of the 

 United States itself in 1824, and in view of the attitude of Russia 

 towards Great Britain as evidenced by the treaty of 1825, to assert, or 

 rather, I would say, to substantiate or to supjiort, any claim to exclusive 

 jurisdiction in any part of the Behring Sea. Then he goes on to argue 

 the question from another standpoint. He deals with the i)lea which 

 my friend Mr. Phelps puts forward, and he argues strongly in favor of 

 insisting on regulations dealing with this particular interest. I do not 

 quarrel with his argument upon that point. I am not using it, nor is 

 it ad rem to the i)oint I am now upon — but I wish to state the full efl'ect 

 of it. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Does he not recommend prohibition with 

 regard to X)elagic sealing? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not think he does. I do not think he 

 says so in terms so far as I recollect. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — That is my recollection. I have a copy of the 

 book and I think he does. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will not be certain. I think what he does 

 say, undoubtedly, is, that whatever is necessary to protect the fur-seals 

 should be done, and very likely the inclination of his opinion is in the 

 direction indicated by the learned Arbitrator. Of that I am not at all 

 sure, but the point he makes is, I think, that as a matter of legal right 

 what should be done cannot be done upon the sole authority of one 

 nation. But, as I say, I am not citing it in that connection for the 

 moment. 



Next, there is the article in a magazine called the "Forum" by Pro- 

 fessor James Angell : published in November, 1889. 



General Foster. — He is an American citizen whose name we have 

 heard before. He is a gentleman of eminence, and President of the 

 University of Michigan. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am very glad to have had that high tes- 

 timony in his favor. 



General Foster. — But he is not a lawyer. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — He is the same gentleman who was on the 

 Commission relating to the Fisheries on the Newfoundland coast. 



