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



Sir Charles Kussell. — In the beginnin fj of liis article, wliicli is on 

 page 02 of the first volume of the Appendix to the Case of Great 

 Britain, he says: 



Alaska ia now furnishing us with two international qnestions of some interest and 

 consequence. The lirst concerns our riglit (freely exercised of late under orders of 

 our Treasury Deiiartment) to seize foreign vessels engaged in catching fur-bearing 

 seals in BelJiring Sea, many miles away from land, and to send them into port for 

 condemnation and forfeiture. 



Mr. Phelps. — Will you kindly give the date of the article. 

 769 Sir Charles Eussell. — November 1889. Then he says: 



The second concerns the determination of the boundary between Alaska and British 

 America. 



The President and the other members of the Tribunal will appreciate 

 "what that means. You recollect. Sir, that the southern portion of what 

 is now called "Alaska" merely consists of a strip, or lisiere, of the land 

 along the coast, running in front of the British territory. The question 

 of the actual boundary was left more or less in doubt according to the 

 somewhat vague terms of the Treaty of 1825. That is not at all in 

 question in this case, and I merely mention it to explain the second 

 question that he here refers to. Then Mr. Angell x>roceeds in this 

 article to show what will be found to have a much wider importance 

 than at first sight may appear, that so far back as 1881, Mr. French, 

 the acting Secretary of the Treasury, writing on the 12th March in that 

 year says: 



All the waters within that boundary to the "Western end of the Aleutian Archipel- 

 ago and chain of islands are considered as comprised within tlie waters of Alaska 

 Territory. All the penalties prescribed bylaw agaiust the killing of fur- bearing 

 animals would therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits before 

 described. 



That is territorial jurisdiction, carrying with it the right of legislation 

 as for territory. Then, after stating the legislation upon the subject, 

 he proceeds to say, on page 93 : 



The question is whether for this laudable purpose of preserving the fur-bearing 

 seals from extinction, and maintaining our undisputed right to control the taking 

 of these animals on the Pribilof Islands, we may rightfully board, search, and seize 

 foreign vessels in BehriuGC Sea more than 3 miles away from land. 



The equal right of all nations to use the high seas for any lawful purpose of 

 commerce, navigation, fishing, or hunting is now so universally recognized; the 

 United States have been so constantly the strong defender of tliis right; we have 

 so vigorously opposed all attempts of Great Britain to search our vessels in time of 

 peace ; we have claimed so vehemently the right of fishing in Canadian waters sharply 

 up to 3-mile line from shore, that obviously we must show some very plain and 

 cogent reasons to justify our course in Behring Sea. What reasons have been or can 

 be given f 



Our Government has given, so far as is known, no other formal statement than 

 that of Acting Secretary French (above quoted in part) to inform either our citizens 

 or foreign Powers of the precise grounds on which the seizure of British sealers is to 

 be justified. No defence of our action by Secretary Bayard, nor up to the time of 

 this writing, by Secretary Blaine, or Secretary Windom, has been published. 



But in our own newspapers editorial writers or contributors have suggested lines 

 of defence of our action. The ground that they have generally taken as the strongest 

 is that Russia exercised exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea, and that by the cession 

 of Alaska she transferred to us the right to exercise the same jurisdiction. 



Then he proceeds to discuss that question, and he arrives at the 

 conclusion that the Treaties will not support the claim to any exclusive, 

 jurisdiction in Behring Sea. He further cites a passage from Goveruoi 

 Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury in 1872 in which he said : 



I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or power to drive 

 off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such an attempt within 

 t» marine league of the shore. 



