78 OllAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



HISTORY OP UNITED STATES LEGISLATION DEALING WITH ALASKA. 



I must now call the attention of tLe Tribunal to the history of United 



States lej^islatiou upon this question so far as it relates to tliis matter 



of the fur-seals, and in endeavouring to lix uj)on the book which 



813 will save the members of the Tribunal from endless shifting about 

 of references, I find that the 1st volume of the A])pendix of the 



Case of the United States Avill be found to contain all of it. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Do you mean at page 1)2? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I meant page Do, and I refer to page 95 for 

 this reason — because from page 95 there are set out the Revised Stat- 

 utes, some of which are previously set out in the earlier in\rt. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — 1 may explain to yon, Sir Charles, that in 1873 

 went iuto effect what are called the Ifevised Statutes of the United 

 States, the main object of which was to put, in the form of a revision 

 tlie substance of the statutes already in force on the same general 

 subjects. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — So I understand. I am very mucli obliged 

 The Eevisod Stat ^^^ the explanation, Sir. It was indeed on that under- 

 ntes of Alaska, sec! Standing that I dcsire to refer to page 95, and 1 have taken 

 ^^^^- the trouble to examine and to note, and I will give the 



date, when each of these enactments was origiimlly passed. I will give 

 the date when the particular provision originally became law. 



Now section 1954 became law on the 27th July 1868, and if I might 

 respectfully suggest, it would not be unimportant if the date were noted 

 opposite each of these jjaragraphs. Now these are the words of 

 section 1951: 



The laws of the United States relatiupj to customs, commerce, and navigation, are 

 extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of tlie territory ceded to 

 the United States by the Emperor of Russia, by Treaty concluded at Washington on 

 the 30th day of ISLirch, A. D. one thousand, eight hundred and sixty seven, so far as 

 the same may be applicable thereto. 



Now, no lawyer will doubt that that standing by itself is strictly a 

 territorial statute, that that statute is one which no judge or no lawyer 

 would construe as applying outside the limits of territorial sovereignty 

 of the State which enacted it. Nobody will doubt that. What is 

 doubtful on the construction of the statute itself is what is meant by 

 " the waters of the territories ceded"; and it will be found in all these 

 provisions, (whether by accident or design I know not), that there lurks 

 a grave uncertainty, even down to the very last enactment of 1889, 

 after the questions in controversy between the two Powers have arisen. 

 But I am now submitting, as a lawyer to lawyers, as a matter of con- 

 struction, that if this came to be construed, as to its api)lication to 

 foreigners not subject to the laws of the United States, no lawyer and 

 no judge would construe it as havingett'ectoutside the territorial limits 

 of the State, Those territorial limits of the State might, of course, 

 include i)ortions of Avater, and in some cases very considerable portions 

 of water; but as regards territory abutting on the open sea, they could, 

 according to international law, only extend to the marginal belt now 

 fixed by common consent of nations at three miles. 



Senator Morgan. — I do not desire, Sir Charles, to disturb you in your 

 argument, but may 1 call your attention to the fact that in 1816, 



814 1 think it was. Great Britain and the United States divided the 

 straits of Juan de Fuca, which were the open sea, and part ot the 



North Pacific Ocean, and a sea, by the way, iu which the seal herds 

 were found, and where fishing for seal was first started — they divided it 



