ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 123 



Therefore, tbe Cliief Justice appreciates it in the same sense; he 

 could not do otherwise. 



That the government persistently maintains that such jurisdiction belongs to it, 

 based not only on the peculiar nature of the seal tishcries and the property of the 

 government in them, but also ujion the position that this jurisdiction was asserted 

 by Russia for more than ninety years. 



The President. — What does he mean by "extending 59 miles", that 

 is where the seizure was, I suppose? 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Yes As regards the technical ground of 

 the Judgment he says on page L'S : 



Upon the face of the libel and findings, if the jurisdiction did not extend beyond 

 three miles from the shore, the legal inference is that the offence and seizure were 

 "Within that limit. 



That is the technical ground, but not the broader ground which I am 

 at present upou. 



Now if it were, as it is apparent it must be, the true meaning that 

 the jurisdiction exercised by Russia was territorial dominion, then I 

 have to show that the United States admit now at this stage of the con- 

 troversy that the question must be answered in the sense for which 

 Great Britain contends. Now I proceed to justify that state- 

 867 ment, and for that purpose I refer to the Case of the United 

 States. Now in order to bring this out, in order to contrast the 

 different aspects of their contention, it is enough to say that in the 

 original Case their propositions were these. I am reading now from 

 the "Conclusions" at page 297: 



That prior to the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and from a 

 date as early as 1799, down to the cession to the United States in 1867, Russia pro- 

 hibited the killing of seals in any of the waters of Behring Sea, and exercised such 

 control therein as was necessary to enforce such prohibition. 



Fifth. That Behring Sea was not included in the phrase Pacific Ocean, as used iu 

 the Treaty of 1825, and that said Treaty recognized the rightfulness of the control 

 exercised by Russia in Beliring Sea for the protection of seals. 



Sixth. That all the rights of Russia as to tlie protection of the Alaskan seal herd 

 passed unimpaired to the United States by the Treaty of 1867 — 



and so on. 

 Then the final conclusions, at the bottom of page 301, are these: 



In conclusion the United States invoke the judgment of this High Tribunal to the 

 effect : 



First. That prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States, 

 Russia asserted and exercised an exclusive right to the seal fisheries in the waters of 

 Behring Sea, and also asserted and exercised tlaroughout that sea the right to prevent 

 by the employment, when necessary, of reasonable force any invasion of such exclu- 

 sive right. 



That Great Britain, not having at any time resisted or objected to such assertions 

 of exclusive right, or to such exercise of power, is to be deemed as having recognized 

 and assented to the same. 



Then in another form is repeated the Behring Sea and Pacific Ocean 

 question ; and then finally it is stated that the rights of Russia passed 

 to the United States. 



Now their present position is stated briefly on page 19 of their Coun- 

 ter-Case. The marginal note to that column is this : " No exclusive ter- 

 ritorial jurisdiction claimed; " and the statement in the body is in these 

 words: 



The distinction between the right of exclusive territorial jurisdiction over Beh- 

 ring Sea, on the one liand, and the riglit of a nation, on the other hand, to preserve 

 for the use of its citizens its interests on laud by the adoption of all necessary, even 

 though they be somewhat unusual, measures, whether on land or at sea, is so broad 



