TWENTY-SECOND DAY, MAY 12'^", 1893. 



Mr. TUPPER. — Mr. President, I would like to sny that the ronson 

 "wliy none of the proofs of the last day's arguments a])pear upon the 

 table of the Tribunal this morning" is that, yesterday bein.i;" a Public 

 Holiday, the printers were not at work; but yesterday's report and the 

 report of today's argument will be sent to each Member of the Tribunal 

 on Saturday. 



Sir Charles Russell. — The Tribunal Avill remember that the letter 

 of Lord Salisbury of the 22nd of May, 1890, at page 402 of Volume III 

 of Appendix to the British Case, to which I yesterday referred, and to 

 which I intend to make no further detailed reference, took up the three 

 grounds set forth in the argumentative letter of the Secretary of State, 

 Mr. Blaine, of the 22nd of January. It dealt with the question whether 

 the pursuit of fur-seals by pelagic sealing was contra honos mores, and 

 it went to the heart of the question, by putting the single point: Can 

 you say that, in the point of view of international morality, interna- 

 tional law has ever declared that it was contra honos mores: your asser- 

 tion does not make it so? 



He then proceeds to deal with the derivative claim under Russia; 

 and, lastly, he deals with the question of fact, as to which he expresses 

 his disagreement, upon the evidence before him, from the view of Mr. 

 Blaine as to the effects of pelagic sealing. 



ISTow, I stated in commenting on that letter that Mr. Blaine's reply, 

 to which I am now going to call attention, und which you will find at 

 page 497 of the same volume, does not make even an attempt to grapple 

 with any except one of the points dealt with in the pre- 

 to'^/oM''saU8jfry''^ vious dcspatcli of Lord Salisbury, to which it purjiorted 

 answer to the con- to bc a reply. My learned friend, Mr. Carter, speaking 

 spatchT* "''"''* **" almost in a tone of apology for Mr. Blaine, said that he 

 had innocently — I think my learned friend used the word 

 "innocently" — that he had innocently allowed himself to be diverted 

 from the true ground upon which the case of the United States ought 

 to have been based; that he followed the scent of the herring drawn 

 across the track by this astute statesnmn. Lord Salisburj^; and that he 

 did, in his answer to Lord Salisbury's despatch, omit the cardinal point 

 of what is now said to be the United States case. 



Now this despatch, which is to be found, as I think I have said, in 



page 457 of the same book, is one of ap])alling length. It extends from 



page 457 to page 500 ! I follow the example of ray learned friend 



809 Mr. Carter in declining to read it, and lor this reason: I may 



describe it, and describe it with perfect accuracy, as being an 



elaborate and very ingenious argument upon the construction of the 



Treaties of 1824 and 1825; an argument by which jMr. Blaine proves to 



his own satisfaction that the Ukase of 1821, by which Russia claimed 



the right to exclude all persons or all ships of other citizens from within 



100 miles of the coast, was not affected by the Treaties of 1824 or 1825 



at all: that those Treaties operated south of the Aleutian chain; but 



that the Ukase was recognized and continued to be acted upon, and 



acquiesced in, so far as Behring Sea was concerned. 



74 



