ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 77 



hands it clown to posterity in his despatch, with whicli I am now deal- 

 ing. In introducing' it, he says the United States does not claim that 

 Behring Sea is a mare olausum; but he goes on to say 



At tho same time the United States does not lack abnndant anthority, according to 

 the ablest exponents of international law, for holding a small section of the Beh- 

 ring Sea for the protection of the fnr-seals. 



What he means by that phrase, I do not know; I cannot even guess. 

 Does he mean that the section from the line of demarcation from 

 Behring Straits traced upon both of the maps, running west of the 

 Pribilolf Islands and between the Commander Islands and the western 

 end of the Aleutian Chain, — does he mean that that is a small section 

 of Behring Sea? I do not know what he means ; I do not know whether 

 he had any real conception in his own mind of what he mer. t; but we 

 have had no explanation. Then he proceeds: 



Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for that one specific 

 812 pnrpose is by no means the equivalent of declaring the sea, or any part thereof, 

 mare claustim. 



Lord Hannen. — May that not be connected with the proposition 

 made in the previous paragraph, as to a circuit drawn round the island 

 like that which was drawn with reference to Napoleon at St. Helena. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That, probably, is the idea, my Lord. 



Lord Hannen. — It follows it immediately afterwards. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am obliged, my Lord; that probably is 

 the idea; but I have, however, to observe that it is inconsistent with 

 the entire argument in the earlier part of his despatch. 



Lord Hannen. — Yes. It is a fresh proposal. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I was going to say, my Lord, it was a fresh 

 proposal, probably in reference to the suggestion of the concurrence of 

 Great Britain in Regulations. That may be the explanation of it. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The paragraph marked " " is one of the 

 original six questions. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes; that is probably the explanation. 



Then he proceeds to give this quotation from Mr. Phelps' letter, as to 

 which I am doing no discredit to the arguments which are advanced in 

 the printed argument before you when I say, that upon examination 

 that part of it which particularly refers to the supposed claim of prop- 

 erty in the industry, and jirotection which it is claimed is a right 

 incident to that property in the industry — that that argument is but 

 an amplification of this passage from Mr. Phelps' letter. 



Now, I have said that that argument, anqjlified in the printed paper 

 before the Tribunal, I will deal with, of course, in the appropriate 

 order. I am not now upon it; but, before I leave it, I wish to ask the 

 Members of the Tribunal to turn back to page 55: about 20 lines from 

 the bottom of that page, where this sentence occurs: 



It will mean something tangible, in the President's opinion, if Great Britain will 

 consent to arbritrate tlie real questions Avhich have been under discussion between 

 the two Governments for the last four years. 



Then he comes to an enumeration practically, if not exactly, in the 

 form in which they stand in the Treaty of Arbitration, of the five ques- 

 tions being those that we have agreed to call, and properly to call, 

 questions of exclusive right and jurisdiction. 



Now, I pass from the correspondence; and I am glad to relieve the 

 Tribunal f^om the necessity for any further reference at this stage 

 to it. 



