86 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CRARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



nations on the subject, and a clistin,i>uislied English Statesman, Mr. 

 Chamberlain, was (lesi)at('lied in 1888 upon a paciiie mission to America. 

 The matter linally resolved itself into a very small and tine point. The 

 general rule as to the three miles from the shore as an international 

 principle was hardly in question; but the iioiiit arose how it was to be 

 api)lied in the case of embayed waters. On the part of Canada, it was 

 claimed tliat, where the bay ran to a considerable extent into the terri- 

 tory of Canada, that the Canadians should have exclusive rights even 

 if the mouth of the bay w^as more than G miles wide, that is to say if it 

 was of greater width than it could be protected by the vis armorum — 

 three miles on each side. They contended for a wider application. That 

 w-as resisted bj^ the United States; they claimed that they had the right 

 to enter any bay which was wider at its mouth than six miles, and had 

 the right to fish up to within 3 miles of the coast of that bay, following 

 from point to point the sinuosities of the bays; and, finally, the majority 

 of the Senate recomnu'nded, for the settlement of the differences, that 



the limits should be fixed at 10 miles; that is to say, that wher- 

 823 ever at the mouth of the bay the land approached m' itliin 10 miles, 



the exclusive right should be considered as belonging to the 

 Power owning the territory. The matter came to be discussed in 

 Committee, and among the influential Members of the Conimittee was 

 one of your distinguished body; and he, with three other gentlemen, 

 signed a minority report. The signatures are those of John T. Morgan, 

 Eli Salisbury, Joseph E. Brown, and H. B. Payne; and their argument 

 was a very sensible one; they did not want this restricted limit. I am 

 reading from the Senate "Miscellaneous documents", 1st session, oOth 

 Congress, Volun.ie 2, page ()5. The gentlemen who formed this minor- 

 ity had very wisely in their minds the fact that I have mentioned, that 

 this great Power, the United States, has interests on both sides, west 

 and east; and this is the language they use in. their Eeport: 



A vast extent of the coast of the Pacific reaching to the Arctic Circle, and dea- 

 tined to become a more important fishing gronnd than the Atlantic coasts, nnist be 

 aii'ected by the V)iiu€iples of international law which the United States shall assert 

 as defining the limits seaward from the coast of oiir exclnsive right to fish for seals 

 and sea otters and whales, and the many varieties of food fishes that swarm along 

 the coast of JBehring Sea and the Straits. We might find in that qnarter a very 

 inconvenient application of the doctrine that by the law of nations the three mile 

 limit of the exclusive right to fishery is to follow and be measured from the sinuos- 

 ities of the coasts of the bays, creeks and harbours that exceed six miles in width at 

 the entrance, and an equally inconvenient application of our claim for full commer- 

 cial privileges in Canadian Ports for our fishermen when applied to British Columbian 

 fishermen in our Pacific Ports, which are nearer to them than to our fisheries in 

 Alaska. 



There is a great deal of weight, I need not say, looking to the source 

 from which it comes, in that statement; but I call attention to it in 

 view of the broad suggestion which is now propounded, that at the 

 very time that these statesmen were considering this matter in 1888, 

 the United States asserted that she had, first of all, under her title 

 from Russia, and next as inherent in her right of territorial dominion, 

 the right of stretching out its arm of authority over the whole of 

 Behring Sea and to exclude others from the pursuit of seals and sea- 

 otters and whales, — and I do not see why it should stop at fur-seals or 

 at the many varieties of food fishes that swarm along the coast of 

 Behring Sea and the Straits, — I say this is very strong evidence, indeed, 

 that that principle of international law to which we have adverted 

 was a principle recognized by the public men of authority in the United 

 States; but that what this minority was struggling against, — and in 

 the point of view of international interests I do not complain of their 

 struggling against it — was a limitation in the application of principle 



