ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 113 



question of Russia's assertions of riglit; the next deals with the ques- 

 tion of Great Britain's recognition of, concession of, those rights ; the 

 third deals with the question of whether the Behring Sea was included 

 in the phrase " Pacific Ocean" in the Treaty of 18U5; and the fourth 

 deals with the transmission by cession of whatever rights Eussia had 

 to the United States. 



They naturally, therefore, hang together. The first comment I have 

 to make, Mr. President, is this: In view of the present state of this 

 controversy, it must strike you as odd why these questions have been 

 formulated at all; why you should be troubled with the decision of 

 questions which the learned counsel for the United States tell us have 

 no real importance or value at all. Why do I say that? Because they 

 tell us that it does not matter what rights Russia exercised or w^hat 

 rights were conceded to Eussia by Great Britain; the right they are 

 standing upon is a right which they have inherent in their territorial 

 dominion; attached to their rights of i^roperty interest in tlie fur-seals 

 or in the industry founded upon the fur-seals; dependent upon no prior 

 action, controlled by no prior action, but simply a right inherent. 



But I have first to ask the Tribunal to determine whether that is the 

 question of right at all ; it obviously is not one which is referred to in 

 the first of these questions. We are told by my learned friends now, 

 that Russia was not exercising general rights of jurisdiction and sov- 

 ereingty, but was only protecting by regnlations her industry and her 

 property rights. But; that is not the question- which is raised, and that 

 was not the true character of the claim of Russia at all. Let me just 

 examine that case, for it is necessary in order that the Tribunal should 

 give the correct answer. What is the question? The question is, 

 What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring Sea, 

 and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein Russia asserted 

 and exercised. It is clear, for the reason that I have given, that it 

 cannot be a right in respect of property or property interest which is 

 adverted to, because, as I have more than once pointed out, such a 

 right in relation to property or property interest as is claimed is not a 

 right which has any legal circumscription at all. It is a right which 

 exists wherever the property is. It is the right of defence of the 

 possession of i)roperty against any man who attacks that property 

 Avherever that property is, and wherever, therefore, it neecls to be 



defended. 

 856 That, therefore, is not the kind of right referred to as the 



"exclusive jurisdiction" of the United States. What then does 

 it mean? It means. What sovereign authority, exclusive of all other 

 Powers, and in a defined and definite area, was exercised by Russia. 



In other words, what sovereign authority, exclusive of all other 

 Powers was exercised by Russia in the Behring Sea? That is the 

 character of the question contemplated and pvit in question one, the 

 first question of Article VI. Exclusive jurisdiction in the Behring Sea : 

 Territorial .sovereignty which brooked no rival in that sea. Exclusive 

 in the same sense that there is exclusive territorial dominion on the 

 land. And I must refer to some documents which have not yet, I 

 think, been adverted to, as showing that that was what was meant 

 when this case was originally presented by the United States. I do 

 not know whether any of you gentlemen have ever compared this 

 original Case of the United States as regards the questions put, and 

 the space devoted to the consideration of those questions relatively 

 compared with the space they liave assumed in the written argument 

 B S, PT XIII 8 



