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



is SO iiitiodnced because it is found in the Treaty of 18G7. I beg leave 

 to observe, with great deference to the learned Senator, that when I 

 come to deal with that Treaty of 1867 it will be found that there is no 

 such word in it as "dominion", that it has been changed in the trans- 

 lation, and that "rights of sovereignty," wiiich is the expression in the 

 treaty, has been incorrectly interpreted in the English version into the 

 word " dominion." 



Senator Morgan. — I never heard that, as to the word "dominion", 

 there was a mistranslation of the treaty. I understand the Treaty was 

 drawn up in English and French. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — I think not, sir, with great deference. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Yes. Here it is in French on page 76. 



Mr. Foster. — It is in English and in French. The United States 

 Government never makes a Treaty in a foreign language. 



Senator Morgan. — The word "dominion" was used. 



Sir Charles Russell. — In my jndgment the point is not a material 

 one, but as matter of fact when I come to deal with that Treaty I will 

 point out the construction that is erroneously i)laced upon some words 

 in that Treaty, judged at least by the French original. I do not myself 

 consider that the word is one of importance. It is a mere matter of 

 translation. 



My point upon this Statute of 1885, of course, is that it is a piece of 

 ex post facto legislation, which purports to extead tlie operation of the 

 earlier Acts. It is declaratory of the meaning of those earlier 

 828 Acts, but it substitutes words uuich wider in their scope and 

 capable of being interpreted to mean, and I think what I have 

 read shows they were intended to mean, the assertion of dominion, of 

 territorial sovereignty, over the waters of Behring Sea within the limits 

 of the Treaty of cession of 1867; therefore, the particular question to 

 which Senator Morgan has been good enough to draw my attention 

 w^onld not in that connection be material. 



So much for the statutes. Now still pursuing the same line to which 

 I am closely adhering, and demonstrating to this Tribunal that as against 

 British subjects the municipal law alone was invoked and put into opera- 

 tion, I have to say that there was no suggestion at any jjlace, or at any 

 time, or by any person, of that which one w^ould have expected, if such 

 a case had been in the minds of the Executive, and which must have 

 been put forward in the simplest form thus: We are proceeding against 

 your subjects for violation not of our municipal law, but merely in pur- 

 suance of that inherent right which we have to protect our property 

 and our interests, wherever that i^roperty or those interests may be inju- 

 riously affected. 



Now I wish to make this matter clear beyond all possibility of doubt; 

 and one therefore naturally turns to see what were the grounds upon 

 which those representing the United States l^xecutive invoked the 

 authority of their municipal courts and claimed sentence of imi)rison- 

 ment, fine and confiscation. For that purpose, of course, one natui"ally 

 turns to the pleadings in the case. 



Proceedings in the Alaskan Court. 



The case is presented to the Court, and it must be dealt with by the 

 Court secundum allef/ata et probata. Accordingly I turn to page 65 of 

 Volume III of the Apxjendix to the British Case. On that page will 

 be found the libel : 



