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



gested itself to the persons havings charg^e of it that it would be well to 

 examine the contents of those documents, whereupon this man Petroff 

 was employed to translate them. 



The President. — But you do not suppose that Mr. Blaine, m hen he 

 originated his suggestion, which had as a conclusion the insertion of 

 the article in the Treaty, relied upon these. 



Mr. Foster. — It is not a matter of supposition. It is a fact tluxt Mr. 

 Blaine did not know what were the contents of the documents now 

 under discussion. 



Tlie President. — Sir Charles, do you not think that would be of 

 some importance for your argument; because, as you are going- on 

 about these interpolated documents, and they are practically with- 

 drawn, if they are in themselves quite independent, that is to say, if 

 they are not material for the framing of Article 6 — well, I leave that to 

 you to judge, of course. You know best. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am pursuing this — I did not intend to 

 pursue it at great length — for two reasons: first, to show what was the 

 real meaning of the " exclusive jurisdiction " and the "rights" men- 

 tioned in the first question of Article 6; to show that that meant an 

 exclusive right of territorial sovereignty assumed by Russia, and con- 

 ceded to Russia — that is my main point: and that at the time this Case 

 was prepared it was the great strength of the case that the United 

 States were prepared to put forward; that that is shown in the way in 

 which it is elaborated here; and, lastly, that excluding these Russian 

 interpolations or forgeries, nothing remains to support the claim based 

 upon Russian assertions, excepting the Ukase and the Treaties in 

 relation to the Ukase. 



The President. — So you suppose that, as concerns Mr. Blaine, and 

 when he originated these questions, you suppose he relied exclusively 

 upon these documents, but not upon these interpolations. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I accept, of course, what Mr. Foster says, 

 speaking from his own experience, that Mr. Blaine did not know of these 

 documents at the time, and that therefore he was relying upon the view 

 that he took of the Treaties. There are references in his correspondence 

 which I will not now refer to, which I find a little difficulty in account- 

 ing for except by reference to some of these documents — I mean as to 

 acts of assertion by Russia, which I do not find vouched for anywhere 



else except in these documents. 

 862 Mr. Carter. — Can you point to anything in Mr, Blaine's letter 



indicating that he knew of the contents of these documents'? 



Sir Charles Russell. — No; I do not say these documents. I do 

 not doubt Mr. Foster's statement in the least upon the subject; but Mr. 

 Blaine must have had some idea that there were in existence documents 

 which would support the statements that there were acts of assertion 

 by Russia which could be relied upon. 



Mr. Foster. — Why did he not produce them at the time? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think you will find, if you read his letter, 

 that he speaks again and again of acts of authority by Russia, assented 

 to by Great Britain. 



May I be i)ermitted to make one suggestion which would, I think, 

 have the very desirable result of cutting short my argument upon this 

 part of the case. You see, the United States have withdrawn the forged 

 documents, and presented re-translations. They have not altered the 

 Case as it was originally jjresented. I have had enclosed for me in red 

 brackets the interpolated passages in the Case, and if it Avonld be per- 

 missible I can get that done as regards each of the Cases of the Arbi- 



