ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 127 



Now tliis is the chief passage which I desire to read in order to show 

 »vhat the purport of the article was; it is in the middle of article 10. 



And other companies which may have been formed will not be allowed to con- 

 tinue their bnsiness unless they unite with the present company with their free 

 consent; but such private companies or traders as have their vessels in those regions 

 can either sell their property, or, with the company's consent remain, until they 

 have obtained a cargo — 



and so on. Then further on it says : 



And after that nobody will have any privileges but this one Company, which will 

 be protected iu the enjoyment of all the advantages mentioned. 



That therefore was the creation of a Russian Monopoly Company, 

 which should have all rights of trade in the territories which Russia 

 either possessed or was claiming to possess by its right of discovery. 

 It applied to all other Russian subjects — excluded all other Russian 

 subjects; but there is not a word about foreigners in it from beginning 

 to end. But that is not tlie most important part. The Tribunal will 

 observe that there is not one syllable about the sea in it, and not one 

 word about exclusive rights of fishing in Behring Sea. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Sir Charles, will you let me remind you here 

 that in tlie British Counter-Case it is said that the translation you have 

 just read is incorrect, and you gave another translation of it which you 

 say is the correct literal one. I want to ask you, is there any material 

 dilference. 



Sir Charles Russell. — None, sir, I believe. 



Lord Hannen. — Oidy in one phrase I think, in which the word 

 " dominion " is used. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The differences are indicated in the Counter- 

 Case by italics. 1 do not know whether there is any proof in the docu- 

 ments as to which is the correct translation. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It arose in this Avay. This transla- 

 872 tion was simidy taken from Bancroft's History of Alaska. The 

 original Ukase had never been translated till after the British 

 Case was deposited, and then it was translated for greater accuracy, 

 and that more correct translation was printed. As the Attorney Gen- 

 eral said, there are no substantial differences which require any notice. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 think it will be found that is so. As I 

 have already observed, it is domestic in its character, and indeed affirms 

 a strong domestic monopoly which could successfully contend with 

 other rivals, and in that sense undoubtedly with foreign rivals, if they 

 appeared; and it relates solely to land. It has no reference to the 

 question of sea rights, or of interlereiice with sea rights. It is entirely 

 domestic in its character, and there is no suggestion of a notification to 

 any foreign Power. 



it will be seen, at the bottom of page 28 of the Case, that the view I 

 am suggesting is the view which prevailed in 1824 in the United States. 

 Referring to the Ukase of 1799, Mr. Middleton, writing to Mr. John 

 Quincy Adams, says: 



The confusion prevailing in Europe in 1799 permitted Russia (who alone seems to 

 have kept her attention tix(id upon this interest during that period) to take a decided 

 step towards the mono|)idy of this trade, by the Ukase of that date, which tres- 

 passed upon the acknowledged rights of Spain. 



That is as regards territory, you will recollect. 



But at that moment the Emperor Paul had declared war against that country as 

 being an ally of France. Tliis Ukase, which is. in its form, an act purely domestic, 

 i7 as never notitjcd to any foreign State with injunction to respect its provisions. 



