ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 67 



the United States, and you again asked when the record of the judicial proceedings 

 might be expected. Mr. Bayard informed you, in reply (12th April), that the papers 

 referred to had reached him and were being examined; that there had been unavoid- 

 able delay in framing appropriate Regulations and issuing orders to United States 

 vessels to police the Alaskan waters; that the Revised Statutes relating to Alaska, 

 Sections 19r)6 and 1971, contained the laws of the United States in relation to the 

 matter; and that the Regulations were being considered, and he would inform you 

 at the earliest day possible what had been decided, so that British and other vessels 

 might govern themselves accordingly. 



In view of the statements made by Mr. Bayard in his note of the 3rd February, to 

 which I have referred above, Her Majesty's Government assumed that, pending a 

 conclusion of the discussion between the two Governments on the general question 

 involved, no further similar seizures of British vessels would be made by order of 

 the United States Government. They learn, however, from the contents of Mr. 

 Bayard's note of the 13th August last, inclosed in your despatch of the 15th August, 

 that such was not the meaning which he intended should be attached to his com- 

 munication of the 3rd February; and they deeply regret to find a proof of their 

 misinterpretation of the intentions of the United States Government from an 

 announcement recently received from the Commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval 

 forces in the Pacific, that several more British vessels engaged in seal-hunting in 

 Behring's Sea have been seized when a long distance from land by an American 

 Revenue vessel. 



Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the transcript of record of 

 the judicial proceedings in the United States District Court in the several cases of 

 the schooners "Carolina", "Onward" and "Thornton" which were communicated to 

 you in July, and were transmitted to me in your despatch of the 12th of that month, 

 and they cannot find in them any justification for the condemnation of those vessels. 



The libels of information allege that they were seized for killing fur seal within 

 the limits of Alaskan Territory, and in the waters thereof, in violation of section 

 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; and the United States Naval 

 Commander Abbey certainly affirmed that the vessels were seized within the waters 

 of Alaska and the Territory of Alaska; but according to his own evidence they were 

 seized 75, 115, and 70 miles respectively south-south-east of St. Georges Island." 



It is not disputed, therefore, that the seizures in question were effected at a dis- 

 tance from land far in excess of the limit of maritime jurisdictiou which any nation 

 can claim by international law, and it is hardly necessary to add that such limit 

 cannot be enlarged by any municipal law. 



The claim thus set up appears to be founded on the exceptional title said to have 

 been conveyed to the United States by Russia at the time of the cession of the 

 Alaska Territory. The pretension which the Russian Government at one time put 

 forward to exclusive jurisdiction over the whole of Behring Sea was, however, never 

 admitted either by this country or by the United States of America. On the con- 

 trary, it was strenuously resisted, as I shall presently show, and the American 

 Government can hardly claim to have received from Russia rights which they 

 declared to be inadmissible Avhen asserted by the Russian Governuient. Nor does 

 it appear from the text of the Treaty of 1867 that Russia either intended or pur- 

 ported to make any such grant; for, by Article I of that instrument, Russia agreed 

 to cede to the United States all the territory and dominion then posessed by 

 800 Russia on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands Avithiu certain 

 geographical limits described, and no mention was made of any exclusive 

 right over the waters of Behring Sea. 



Moreover, whatever rights as regards their respective subjects and citizens may 

 be reciprocally conferred on the Russian and American Governments by treaty stipu- 

 lation, the subjects of Her Majesty cannot be thereby affected, except by special 

 arrangement with this country. 



With regard to the exclusive claims advanced in times past by Russia, I transmit 

 to you documents communicated to the United States Congress by President Monroe 

 in 1822, which show the view taken by the American Government of these pretensions. 



In 1821 the Emperor of Russia had issued an edict establishing Rules for the limits 

 of navigation and order of communication along the coast of the eastern Siberia, the 

 north-Avestern coast of America, and the Aleutian Kurile and other islands. 



The first section of that edict said: The pursuit of commerce Avhaliug and fishery, 

 and of all other industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the 

 north-west coast of America, beginning from Behring's Straits to the 51st degree of 

 nori hern latitude; also from Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well 

 as aloug the Kurile Islands from Behring's Straits to the south Cape of the Island of 

 Urup, viz., to 45° 50' of northern latitude, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects ; 

 and section II stated: It is, therefore, prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to 

 hind on the coast land islands Ixdonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to 

 a]ii)roach them within less thau 100 Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is sub- 

 ject to confiscation, along with the whole cargo. 



