ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q, C. M. P. 57 



eastern part of Behring: Sea; and tliat that consideration makes it 

 impossible to treat that legislation as a protective executive act, because 

 tlie riglit of protection, it^ it is a right, of defence of possession, of pro- 

 tection of property, is a right which follows that property wherever it 

 is, and cannot be detined or controlled within defined limits. It 



787 will be found hrter, if it should seem to the Tribunal that in this 

 connection 1 am somewhat elaborating the point, that this will 



have a most important bearing upon the area of the dispute between 

 the United States and Great Britain referred to this Tribunal; and a 

 most important beaiing also upon what is the limit and extent of the 

 jurisdiction of this Tribunal both as to questions of alleged right and 

 as to questions of regulations. 



With that statement I proceed to the facts. I have in preparing my 

 notes for this purpose endeavored to see to which of the many printed 

 documents I could refer with the least inconvenience to the Tribunal; 

 and 1 find that with hardly an exception all the documents to which I 

 shall have to refer are to be found in the large volume, Volume III of 

 the Appendix to the Case of Great Britain. 



It will be found that very frequent references will not be required to 

 the text, because I intend to state the facts in a narrative form, as they 

 do not appear in that volume according to the order of date. The 

 earlier part of my statement will be found on pages CI and 62, and a 

 little later on pages 22 and 23. Later still it will be found at page 40. 

 Then we have to pass on to pages 334 and 335. There is then a passing 

 reference to the Appendix at page 209, But within those pages practi- 

 cally will be found all to which I am going to reler. 



These are the facts, and my friends will no doubt give them the atten- 

 tion they deserve; I think it will be found that I state them correctly. 



The Canadian schooners, the " Thornton", "Onward " and "Carohua" 

 were seized by the United States revenne steamer " Corwin " on the 

 first of August 1886. They were towed to Unalaska. I do not stop to 

 point out where they were seized, whether at 30, 40, 50 or 00 miles from 

 the islands. I consider that unimportant because it is admitted that in 

 each case they were seized far beyond the ordinary marginal belt of 

 sea — the three mile limit. The crews of the "Thornton" and "Caro- 

 lina", with the exception of one man and the captain on each vessel, who 

 were detained at Unalaska, were sent by steamer to San Francisco. 

 They were there turned adrift, while the men of the "Onward" were 

 kept at Unalaska. The schooners and the seals found on board of 

 them were also detained by the United States authorities. The master 

 and mate of the "Thornton" were tried before Judge Dawson of the 

 United States Court at Sitka on the 30th of August, 1886, and were 

 sentenced, the captain, to a fine 'Of $500 and the mate $300, and each 

 was sentenced to be imprisoned for thirty days. In the next month, 

 that is in September, 1886, the masters and mates of the "Carolina" 

 and the " Onward " were condemned to undergo similar fines and similar 

 imprisonment. 



There is a painful incident in connection with the master of the "Caro- 

 lina", who was an old man, and who appears to have been allowed tem- 

 porary freedom and to have been found dead in some wood to which he 

 wandered. I do not suggest that that was attributable to the direct 

 action of the executive authorities. It is simply a lamentable event in 

 connection with the story. 



788 The other masters remaining were imprisoned for some time 

 and finally were turned adrift, not furnished with funds, and left 



to find their way as best they could to their homes, some 1,500 miles 

 distant. 



