ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 131 



lation tliat the United States have put forward themselves. I am 

 reminded by my learned friend that we have put forward one which 

 agrees with it. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Exactly. Both Governments have presented 

 the same translation in the present case. 



Sir Charles Russell. — So I understand. 



I was calling attention to section 3, which shows there is no doubt 

 about what was meant in section 1 ; namely, the power of excluding 

 every body from the area in sections 1 and 2, because in section 3 an 

 exception is made. 



In favour of vessels carried thither by heavy gales or real want of provisions, and 

 unable to make any other shore but such as beloui^s to Russia. In tliese cases they 

 are obliged to produce convincing jiroofs of actual reason for such an exception. 

 Ships of friendly governments merely on disco vericB are likewise exempt from the 

 foregoing rule. 



Then section 14, on page 18 : 



It is likewise interdicted to foreign ships to carry on any traffic or barter with the 

 natives of the islands, and of the northwest coast of America, in the whole extent 

 hereabove mentioned. A ship convicted of this trade shall be confiscated. 



Then, section 25 I do not know that that is very important to trouble 

 you with; but it is: 



In case a ship of the Russian Imperial Navy, or one belonging to the Russiail 

 American Company, meet a foreign vessel on the above-stated coasts, in harbours, or 

 roads, witiiin the before-mentioned limits, and the Commander find grounds by the 

 present regulation that the ship be liable to seizure, he is to act as follows — 



And then there are indications as to how he is to act. Then I pass 

 over several pages, and in section 60 more or less elaborate provisions 

 are made for dealing with the proceeds of confiscated propert3',vessels 

 and cargo, as to which four-fiftlis are to go, after certain deductions, to 

 the American Company. The President will recollect that the Ameri- 

 can Company was not an American Company with American citizens 

 in it; it was so called from its trading partly in America; and so far 

 from being an American Company, the papers state, and I think it is 

 correct, tliat a number of distinguished jiersons in Russian political 

 life, including members of the Royal Family, were interested in that 

 Company. 



Tliere can be no question, Mr. President, between us as to what 

 877 that Ukase means. It means an assertion of exclusive territorial 

 dominion in the territory mentioned to the extent mentioned and 

 in the seas mentioned, so as to prohibit navigation within 100 miles 

 from the coast. That is a very different thing from the charter of 1799, 

 which was not communicated to any foreign Power. This Ukase was — 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You say " to the extent mentioned." Do you 

 mean over the whole of Behring Sea, or for 100 miles'? 



Sir Charles Russell. — So far as territorial jurisdiction is con- 

 cerned, 100 miles from the land and the islands, of course. But as I 

 have pointed out this would have closed tbe entrance to Behring Sea. 

 The Charter of 1821 you will find on page 24. It is not necessary that 

 I should trouble you with it beyond reading sections 1 and 2. The 

 Ukase was an act of imperial legislation. The Charter is the act by 

 which, upon the basis and under the protection of that imperial legisla- 

 tion, the rights are given to the chartered Company. 



The Company established for carrying on industries and trade on the mainland 

 of north-west America, on the Aleutian, and on the Kurile Islands, remains as here- 

 tofore under the highest protection of His Imperial Majesty. 



