ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 125 



question is answered in tlie sense for which we contend, namely, that 

 Beliring Sea was inchided in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" in tlie trea- 

 ties, then all the first fonr qnestions are answered in the sense 

 869 favorable to Great Britain; because if, by the operation of the 

 Treaties, Knssia did in fact recognize, without qualification, rioiits 

 of fishing in Behrijig Sea, then it cannot be said that she asserted and 

 exercised exclusive rights, when by the Treaties she had disclaimed 

 them. I hoi)e the Tribunal follows this point. If the elfect of the 

 Treaties is to recognize the right of Great Britain and its nationals, as 

 well indeed as of other Powers of the world, to navigate and fish with- 

 out limitation in Behring Sea, then of course Russia cannot be said to 

 have asserted and exercised a right which is inconsistent with that 

 recognition. 



Now with those observations I pass to the consideration of the mat- 

 ter a little more closely. In considering these qiiestions I do not forget 

 the observation ''cutely" made, if I may respectfully say so, by Senator 

 Morgan, a good many days ago, namely that it is not a question what 

 rights Russia had in fact, but that it is what rights Russia asserted and 

 exercised. That is quite true ; but, of course, in considering what riglits 

 Russia did, in fact, assert and exercise, it is not unimportant to con- 

 sider, in a very general way, what would have been the effect and the 

 character of the assertion of any such right, and what was the extent 

 of the locality, the extent of the area, in which those rights of an exclu- 

 sive kind were said to have been exercised. Now upon this part of the 

 case I can be very brief. I will not trouble the Tribunal to refer to the 

 documents for the moment. It will not be found to be necessary even 

 to supplement in any way the admirable, graphic, picturesque, intro- 

 ductory historical sketch which my friend, Mr. Carter, gave the Tri- 

 bunal in his argument — a very interesting part indeed of his argument. 



There were some statements in the course of that narration with 

 which we do not agree, but there is nothing essential to Description of 

 the question between us. The Behriug Sea is the north- Behiiugsea. 

 ern part of the Pacific Ocean; it washes the north-west portion of the 

 coast of America and changes its name at the sea of Okhotsk. In the 

 extreme west it washes the north-eastern part of Asia. 



It is the sea that connects the broad Pacific Ocean with the Arctic 

 Ocean by the Behring Straits, some 48 miles in width. From east to 

 west that sesi — it is before your eyes upon the map — has an extreme 

 width of 1,2G0 miles. From north to south it extends over 14 degrees of 

 latitude, exceeding 800 miles; and the area of that sea is stated in the 

 United States Case (and I have no doubt quite correctly) to amount to 

 nearly 900,000 square miles. That is the character of the sea. Prior to 

 1799 it is perfectly true to say that it was one of the vast and partially 

 unexplored seas of the world. It had begun to be navigated by all 

 nations, but not to a very large extent. There had been Russian, Amer- 

 ican, English and French travellers over various parts of the bordering 

 country. The general descrii>tion of these expeditions is to be found 

 in the historical outline which is presented in the British Case from 

 pages 14 to 21. 



1 do not stop to read them, because it is not important, but by the 

 beginning of the 19th century undoubtedly, the regions in this 

 870 neighbourhood, and the regions of land beyond — in the almost 

 practically unknown Arctic ocean, — had excited the interest and 

 the desire for exploration in the adventurous among men : omne ir/notnin 

 pro magnifico. Eyes were turned on these undiscovered regions. The 

 country both south and east of Behriug Sea being very sparsely popu- 



