ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 103 



under what section the vessels in question are seized, these vessels 

 being- the "Anna Beck", the "Dolpliin", the "Grace" and the "W.P. 

 Say ward". Keferring then to tlie statutes (with which I do not trouble 

 the Tribunal), he then refers, in the next paragraph, to the " Rights of 

 Great Britain and the United States ", respectively. He next passes to 

 the consideration of" A Treaty with Russia"; next to " Russia's Claims "; 

 next to the "Authorities quoted", dealing actually with the authorities 

 cited; then he deals with "Mr. Secretary Seward's views", which you 

 will recollect my friend read at some length; and, finally on page 102, 

 he sums up the matter, and gives his short answer to it very clearly, 

 and, as I think, also very concisely. He says: 



It also appears that the United States, in claiming sovereignty over the Behring 

 Sea, is claiming something beyond the well recognized law of nations, and bases her 

 claim upon the pretentions of Knssia which was successfully repudiated by both 

 Great Britain and the United States. 



A Treaty is valid and binding between the parties to it, but it cannot affect others 

 who are not parties to it. It is an agreement between nations, and would be con- 

 strued by law as an agreement between individuals. Groat Britain was no party to 

 it, and therefore was not bound by its terms. 



It is therefore contended tbat the proceedings taken against the present defendants 

 are ultra vires and without jurisdiction. But in order to press the mutter further, it 

 may be necessary to discuss the act itself under w^hich the alleged jurisdiction is 

 assumed. 



Thereupon he proceeds to point out, very much on the lines I have 

 been submitting to the Court, that there is nothing in the words of the 

 statutes which necessarily include foreigners, and that according to 

 proper j)rinciples of construction they ought not to be construed as apply- 

 ing to foreigners outside the territorial limits. He then concludes in 

 these words : 



So here it is submitted that a decree of yonr Honour's Court will not give any 

 validity to the seizures here made, and the defendants, in tiling their demurrer and 

 submitting this argument, do not thereby waive their rights, or submit to the juris- 

 diction of the Court. 



Now finally 1 have to say that, as it has been so cited in the original 

 Case, and set out at length in the documents which form part of the 

 Ajipendix to the Case, it comes upon me a little by surprise, it is a little 

 remarkable, that at this late stage of the controversy this contradiction 

 should be suggested. I quite understand Avhy my friends feel pinched 

 by it, because the position is one absolutely impossible, if not ridicu- 

 lous, for a great Power which has formulated its grounds of jus- 

 844 tification, and said : Upon these grounds I abide by the judgment 

 of the Court, and by the judgment of that greater Court, the 

 opinion of the civilized world : for it then to say : These are not the true 

 grounds at all; the real grounds were something entirely different from 

 these. 



Although up to this moment the Tribunal will not have seen any trace 

 of the affirmation of this simple ground, if it were present in tlie minds 

 of any of the ingenious and well iearned advisers of the United States, 

 that all this reference to Statute law was \vholly beside the question : 

 We were but exercising our inherent rights of protection of property 

 and ])roj)erty interests given to us by the consent of the civilized 

 world — in other words, given to us by the law of nations. 



Well, but let us see what was the ground upon which the judgments 

 proceeded. 



Senator Morgan. — If both grounds had been stated in the libellant's 

 case there would have been no repugnance between them. 



Sir Chaeles Russell. — Repugnance as to what? 



