ORAL AKGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. l05 



killed ii certain number of seals and other fur-bearing- animals; in the 

 Avaters of Alaska, contrary to the provisions of section 1D5G of the 

 Eevised Statutes. He then proceeds to say that it is the duty of the 

 Court to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the facts, and that 

 it is their duty to find the facts. Then he proceeds to say: 



For the purpose of aiding yoii in yonr deliberations, I will define to you the west- 

 ern bouudury line of Alaska as designated and set forth in the treaty of March 30, 1867. 



He refers to that Treaty, and then he proceeds. 



All the waters within the boundary set fortii in this Treaty to the western end of 

 the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of islands are to be considered as comprised 

 within the waters of Alaska, and 4^11 the penalties prescribed by law against tbe 

 killing of fur bearing animals must therefore attach against any violation of law 

 witliiii the limits before descriltcd. 



If, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants by themselves, 

 or in conjunction with others, did, on or about the time charged in the iuforuuition 

 kill any otter, mink, marten, sable or fur-seal, or other fur bearing animal or animals 

 on the shores of Alaska, or in Bchriug Sea, east of the one hundred and ninety third 

 degree of west longitude, the jury should find defendants guilty. 



Then I skip one passage, and proceed. 



The jury are further instructed, as a matter of international law, that it makes 

 no difference that one or both of the accused parties may be subjects of Great liritain. 



Russia had claimed and exercised jurisdiction over all that portion of Beh- 

 846 ring Sea embraced within the boundary lines set forth in the Treaty, and that 



claim had been tacitly recognized and acquiesced in by the other maritime 

 powers of the world for a long series of years prior to the Treaty of March 30th, 1867. 



Then he proceeds to set out, a little more fully, the terms of that 

 Treaty, and then goes on to say that thereby America acquired absolute 

 control and dominion over all the rivers, and so forth; and finally, 



And British vessels manned by British subjects had no right to navigate the waters 

 before described for the purpose of killing any of the furbearing animals heretofore 

 designated. 



Then the Jury are further instructed that on the 3rd of August the 

 Act of Congress of 1870 was passed, that the lease was made, and so 

 forth ; and then the question of lact which is left to the jury is one with 

 M^hich he might have hardly troubled them, whether or not they were 

 engaged in sealing to the east of what has been, for brevity, called the 

 line of demarcation. So much for the judgment of 18S(>. The judg- 

 ment of 1887 is on page 115, and the material parts of it, at least, must 

 be read, and I will, therefore, with your j)ermission, ask my learned 

 friend to read it. 



Sir liiciiAKD Webster. — 1 will read it shortly. It is in the case of 

 four ships, the '' Dolphin", the "Anna Beck", the "Grace", and the 

 "Ada". 



The libel of information in the case of the schooner "Dolphin" is similar to the 

 informations filed against tlie other schooners named, and alleges that on the 12th 

 day of .July, 1887, the conuuandiiigoihcer of the United States revenue cutter "Rush" 

 seized the schooner "Dolphin'' in that portion of Behring Sea which was ceded to 

 the United States by Russia in the Treaty of March, 1867. That said schooner was 

 violating section 1956 of the Revised Statutes in relation to the protection of seal life 

 in the waters of Alaska. To the libel of information the Queen's counsel of British 

 C(dumbia filed a demurrer, alleging that the district court of Alaska had no juris- 

 diction over the subject matter of the action, for the reason that the schooner was 

 more than one marine league from the shore when seized, and that the Act of Congress 

 of July 27tb, 1868, is unconstitutional, in that it restricts free navigation of the Beh- 

 ring Sea for sealing purposes. Astipulation, signed by the Queen's counsel Mr. M. W. 

 T. Drake, upon the part of the Britisli owners, and Mr. A. K. Delaney upon the part 

 of the United States, was filed, in which it was agreed and conceded that the masters 

 of the vessels named were taking fur-seals in that portion of Behring Sea which is 

 claimed by the United States under the Treaty with Russia of March, 1867. 



