ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 135 



the right of sovereignty, aud especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of 

 foreigners. But it preferred only asserting its essential rights, without taking any 

 advantage of localities. 



That is he says in effect: — This is a shut sea: We are entitled to 



treat it as a shut sea: We are entitled to treat the whole expanse of 



Behriug Sea as a territory in the sense of excluding from that 



881 every person whom we choose not to admit; but we limit our 

 practical assertion to 100 Italian miles from the coast ". 



Now how is this met? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Does he mean to apply the phrase "shut seas" 

 only to Behring Sea? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not affirm that he does. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I thought you said Behring Sea just now. 

 That was the reason I asked you. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think he extends it even more widely than 

 to Behring Sea. That makes my position, of course a stronger one. I 

 think you are right, Sir. 



How does Mr. Adams meet this? I turn to page 134, at the third 

 paragraph, after stating the nature of the pretension he says: 



This pretension is to be considered not only with reference to the question of terri- 

 torial right, but also to that prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including 

 those of the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. From 

 the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation, their ves- 

 sels have freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate them is a part of that 

 indep( udence. 



With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified 

 the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it claims 

 territory botli on its American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the 

 distance from shore to shore oif this sea, in latitude 51^^ north, is not less than 90° of 

 longitude, or 4,000 miles. 



There, no doubt, Mr. Adams was speaking of a wider expanse of the 

 ocean. 



As little can the United States accede to the justice of the reason assigned for the 

 prohibition above mentioned. The right of the citizens of the United States to hold 

 commerce with the aboriginal natives of the northwest coast of America — 



I beg attention to this adoption of this phrase*" northwest coast". 

 We have seen how the phrase was used by M. de Poletica. Mr. Adams 

 is adopting it, and he says: 



The right of the citizens of the United States to hold commerce with the aboriginal 

 natives of the Northwest Coast of America without the territorial jurisdiction of 

 other nations — 



That means outside the territorial jurisdiction — 



even in arms and munitions of war, is as clear and indisputable as that of navigating 

 the sens, etc. 

 That right has never been exercised in a spirit unfriendly to Russia, etc. 



On the next page, M. de Poletica replies : 



In the same manner the great extent of the Pacific Ocean at the fifty-first degree of 

 latitude can not invalidate the right which Russia may have of considering that part 

 of the ocean as close. But as the Imperial Government has not thought fit to take 

 advantage of that right, all further discussion on this subject would be idle. 



Then I do not think I need trouble you with that. But after that 

 comes a very important communication from Mr. jMiddleton,who 



882 was the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburgh, to Mr. 

 Adams, Secretary of State at Wasliington: and it will be seen 



that once this bold assertion on the part of Russia was met face to face, 

 the operation — if I may use it in relation to a great Power of whom I 



