ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 65 



his corres|iondence with the British Goveniment on this subject — at 

 least so far as I am advised it is so — he hiid aside the question of the 

 merits of seal fishing and seal hunting. All those questions about 

 Behring Sea, and right of property, he set aside, with a view of dis- 

 cussing and settling with Lord Salisbnry the question of Regulations. 

 I do not remember that he ever took up the subject of the alleged 

 rights of the respective parties, and dealt with that as an independent 

 topic in his diplomatic correspondence. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Sir, we are taking time, too literally, by 

 the forelock. We have not got to the portion of the correspondence 

 where that appears. 1 shall come to that in a few moments. 1 am 

 dealing with events as they appeared in January 1887: you. Sir, are 

 referring to events as they appeared in August 1887. I will come to 



them in due course. 

 797 Senator Morgan. — I am referring to the same period as you 



are referring to Sir Charles, in whicli you were stating, as I 

 understand, that Mr. Bayard should have made an objection at that 

 time to the action of his Government if he had dissented from it, or 

 aflirmed it if he approved it. 



Sir Charles Russell.— I do not say that he should have dissented 

 from the action of his Government at all, because it was, as I take it, 

 his own action to a certain extent. 



Senator Morgan. — I am speaking of the Judges. 



Sir Charles Russell. — He was a member of the Government. 

 What I am pointing out is, that if there had been any conception of 

 the existence of such legal rights as are now invoked in justification 

 of his conduct, one would have expected to find from Mr. Secretary 

 Bayard, or from some other executive officer, some foreshadowing of 

 these grounds. 



Senator Morgan. — Certainly, if he was dealing with that phase of 

 the question, but I do not think that he was. 



Sir Charles Russell. — His Government is charged as distinctly as 

 a Government can be charged, in the very long despatch from Lord 

 Iddesleigh that I have read, with a most grave ottence against inter- 

 national law. His answer is: — I have released the vessels because I 

 consider it too doubtful whether we were entitled to hold them. 



Senator Morgan. — I do not think he said that. 



Sir Charles Russell. — At present, the state of the case is, that I 

 cannot affirm that he said it. I do not affirm that he said it, for I do 

 not know. All I know is, that it is published that he said it, and that 

 so far as I know up to this moment there has been no contradiction of 

 the fact. 



Lord Hannen. — Does it appear when the record of the proceedings 

 in the Alaskan Court was received at Washington. 



Sir Charles Russell. — It was, in fact, received in April 1887. I 

 am now coming to it in the order of time, and Senator Morgan will find 

 that I shall omit nothing which I conceive to be important as throwing 

 light on what w^ere the motives and state of opinion of the Executive 

 at this time. 



On the 12th April Mr. Bayard writes to Sir Sackville West iu these 

 terms. 



Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of the 4th instant relative to 

 the fisheries in Behring Sea, and inquiring whether tlie documents referred to in my 

 note of the 3rd Fel)ruary relating to the cases of seizure in those waters of vessels 

 charged with violating the laws of the United States regulating the killing of fur- 

 seals, had been received. The records of the judicial proceedings in the cases in 

 the District Court in Alaska referred to were only received at this departmeiit oij 

 Saturday last and are now under examinatiuji. 



B S, PT XIII 5 



