ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 87 



on the east coast of America which might conflict with some interests 

 they wouhl feel bound to assert or feel justified in asserting on the 

 other coast. 



Senator Morgan. That treaty was rejected by the Senate. 



Sir Charles Eussell. It was, quite true, as I am glad to be 

 reminded by the Senator. They took the narrow line. They were 

 for close and strict limitation. 



824 Now, before I call the attention of the Tribunal to this Statute 

 of 1889, as to which I must make some comment, I Avish to give 



its history. It is not long, and if the Tribunal will turn to tlie original 

 Case of Great Britain, the history there begins on page 123. I hope I 

 need not remind the Tribunal of the point to which all this discussion 

 IS tending. 1 am upon the question of seizures, and I am pointing out 

 that the seizures were based upon municipal legislation and upon 

 municipal legislation alone; and I want to demonstrate only that the 

 theory which is now i)ut forward was never dreamt of until at a later 

 stage of the discussion some ingenious mind suggested it. 



In 1889, what was the state of things, to begin with? The state of 

 things was this; that three years before, namely in 1886, vessels of 

 subjects of the Queen had been seized for fur-sealing in Behring Sea; 

 that those seizures had been repeated in 1887; that there had been no 

 seizures in 1888; I think that seizures were further repeated in 1889. 

 Now that was the state of the case; and you have seen from the dip- 

 lomatic correspondence up to that time what was the attitude and the 

 justification of the United States. I will read from the Case, p. 123. 



During the fiftieth session of the House of Representatives, in 1889, the Committee 

 on Marine and Fisheries was directed "to fully investigate and report upon tlie 

 nature and extent of the rights and interests of the United States in the fur-seals 

 and other fisheries in the Behring Sea in Alaska, whether and to what extent the 

 same had been violated, and by whom; and what, if any, legislation is necessary 

 for the better protection and preservation of the same ! " 



The Committee reported, upholding the claim of the United States to jurisdictiou 

 over all waters and laud included in the geographical limits stated in the Treaty of 

 Cession by Russia to tlie United States. — 



Senator Morgan. — That was a House Committee, was it not? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes; it is called a Committee of the House 

 of Eepresentatives. I need not stop to point out that that was an 

 assertion of territorial dominion over that area. 



The Coumiittee reported, upholding the claim of the United States to jurisdiction 

 over all waters and land included in the geographical limits stated in the Treaty of 

 Cession by Russia to the United States, and construing different Acts of Congress aa 

 perfecting the claim of national territorial rights over the open waters of liehring 

 Sea everywhere within the above-mentioned limits. 



The report states : 



The territory of Alaska consists of land and water. Exclusive of its lakes, rivers, 

 harbours, and inlets, there is a large area of marine territory which lies outside of 

 the three-mile limit from the shore, but is within the boundary -lines of the territory 

 transferred by Russia to the United States. 



And the Eeport concludes thus : 



That the chief object of the purchase of Alaska was the acquisition of the valu- 

 able products of Behring Sea. 



I need not ])oint out that the fur-seal is not the only valuable product 

 of the Behring Sea, and that that is an assertion of territorial 



825 dominion and sovereignty, which, of course, carries with it, if 

 well founded, the exclusive right to take the products, whatever 



they are, of that Sea. 



That at the date of the cession of Alaska to the United States, Russia's title to 

 Behring Sea was perfect and indisputed. 



