ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 139 



Ocean we consider as unquestionable"? Was not that strip of lanr? in 

 the mind of Mr. Adams ? 



Sir Charles Kussell. — I do not myself see, Sir, that in this con- 

 nection it would have any effect at all. 



Sir Kichard Webster. — The area from latitude 42° to 49°, is that 

 enclosed piece (indicating it on the map). 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — He was contending that the United States 

 had the right unquestionably to go to 49 *? 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Yes. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — When he submitted along with that letter 

 this draft of a Treaty; the question I was directing the attention of 

 counsel to was whether, when speaking of the Northwest Coast of 

 America, he is not relerring to the part which the United States 

 claimed. 



Sir Charles Russell. — No Sir. Why should he be referring to 

 that "? He is stating, so far as that part is concerned, what is the terri- 

 torial limit of the coast claimed by the United States. So far as the 

 United States were concerned, as between them and Great Britain, the 

 northern boundary of their possessions on that northwest coast 

 886 had not been fixed. You, of course, Sir, are aware of that. It 

 was a matter in dispute how far, in succession to the rights of 

 Spain, the American title went along that northwest coast. That was 

 a bit of the northwest coast, I admit. All that coast right up to the 

 Behriug Straits is a part of the northwest coast of the continent of 

 America; but there is no limitation; and that meaning I think is made 

 clear by the Article 2. It is in effect saying, "So far as there are Kus- 

 sian possessions, the Americans shall not land where there are estab- 

 lishments; and so far as there are American possessions on that north- 

 west coast, Russians shall not laud where there are American establish- 

 ments." That is what the effect of it is, evidently. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Do you remember what the evidence says — I 

 have forgotten — upon the question as to what country had possessions 

 on the eastern shore of Behring Sea at that time and in what is now 

 Alaska "? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Undoubtedly, only some Russian settle- 

 ments. 



Lord Hannen. — Only one Russian settlement, where there were three 

 men and four women, or something of that kind. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — There were no settlements, then, practically, 

 by any country on that shore. 



Sir Charles Russell. — No. 



Senator Morgan. — How many settlements on the Siberian coast were 

 there at that time ? 



Sir Charles Russell. — We have no evidence, of course, as to that. 

 Siberia, as 1 pointed out the other day, stood in a different position to 

 Russia from Alaska. Siberia was part of the realm of Russia. The 

 persons who were there were Russians. There may have been an 

 aboriginal population there, so far as I know. 1 do not know. So far 

 as Alaska was concerned, it was treated as a colony of Russia. 



The Tribunal here adjourned for a short while. 



Sir Charles Russell. — In reference to the question of Russian 

 settlements north of the Aleutians, I would refer the Tribunal to page 

 42 of vol. I of the A p])endix to the British Case. I do not think it is 

 necessary to trouble the Tribunal now to do more than take a note of it. 

 I simi)ly make this observation. It will be there found that the only 



