ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 143 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 am not able to say that tbey bad it 

 officially. 



The President. — At all eveuts they had the documeut in their 

 hands. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes, they had thedocument in their hands. 



Senator Morgan. — Those documents came over to the United States, 

 I take it, to be deposited among the archives with reference to the 

 Alaskan rejiions. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I should judge the case to be this: that 

 when the cession of 18G7 was effected all the documents that related to 

 the Alaskan territory were handed over as being necessary for the 

 archives; and I should say that that was the probable explanation. 



The Pkesiden'J'. — Yes. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Now let me make one other comment before 

 I pass from this Treaty. 



The Tribunal will observe that neither in the Ukase, nor in the 

 Charter under the Ukase, is any special reference made to any i)artic- 

 ular kind of fishing beyond the statement as to whaling, which word is 

 used in Section 1 of the Ukase: "pursuits of commerce, whaling and fish- 

 ery and of all other industry in all islands", and so forth. There is no 

 indication therefore of any special kind of fisliing. 



Theie is nothing for instance about sea otters or fur-seals, nor any 

 other kind of animal or any special kind of fish. The only one is whal- 

 ing, which I presume was a matter of more or less importance. And 

 therefore, when in Article 1 of the Treaty it is said in express terms 

 that the subjects of neither Contracting Party shall be disturbed or 

 restrained in navigation or in fishing or in resorting to the coast, and 

 so on, I need not say that that is a recognition of the mutual rigiits 

 as to fishing, without any limitation of any kind or character either as 

 to the mode of fishing or the objects to which that fishing is addressed. 

 It is absolute and unqualified. 



Now one other word: A distinction of course is to be drawn between 



different parts of this Treaty. The United States will not say, 



891 they have not said, they cannot correctly say, that Article 1 gave 



them a right. That is not the position so far as the general rights 



of navigation and fishing in the open sea are concerned. 



The Treaty of 1824 did not confer that right on the United States. 

 It recognized a right. The position of the United States in the lan- 

 guage of Mr. Quincy Adams was this: — We can admit rtojMr^ of the 

 claim of Russia, and therefore the true position is this, that Article 1 

 of the Treaty of 1824, just as in the Treaty of 1825, at which I have not 

 yet arrived, does not confer the right, but is merely the recognition of 

 the right; and therefore withdraws all the pretensions inconsistent 

 with that right which were advanced in the Ukase and by the Charter. 



When we come to Article IV, the case is different; because as regards 

 Article IV something is given which is not a right, apart from Tr« aty, 

 either of the United States on the one hand or of Russia on the other, 

 because it gives the right of frequenting the interior seas, gulfs, har- 

 bours, and creeks on the coasts mentioned, all those pointing to terri- 

 torial waters which neither Russia nor America could frequent in the 

 territories of the other as of right. 



Now, I leave that Treaty altogether, with one small exception, namely 

 the argumentwhich my learned friend, Mr. Carter, greatly to my surprise, 

 based upon the conversation between Baron de Tuyll and The Baron de 

 Mr. Adams on the eve of the signature of the Treaty. I T"yii incident. 

 say whjiik my learned friend advanced greatly to my surprise; I sup- 



