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



tory, because nobody can affect or control or limit tlie disposition of the 



Russian Government, or Legislature if tliere be one, as regards all 



within the territorial sovereignty; but, when you come to the question 



of the sea, the Treaty says tlie subjects of both Powers shall have 



894 unrestricted rights of lishing in the South Sea, without any 

 restriction or limitation, and, though I listen with the greatest 



deference to any suggestion coming fi'om the Arbitrators, I tail to see 

 what the ditficulty is that really presses on the learned Senator's mind. 

 We never contended that that Treaty gave the right of fishing in the 

 open sea; we never contended that it conferred a right, but merely, by 

 the recognition of the right, withdrew an unjust pretension which woul^ 

 have limited the right of the public to fish in the Sea. 



It is clear that Baron Tuyll's objection went only to the extent of a 

 limitation of the right of hunting and fishing within the distance of two 

 marine leagues; and the use of the word "hunting" in that connexion 

 clearly shows that he, at all events, was using "hunting" in a sense 

 applicable to the sea, because " within two marine leagues of the shore" 

 could of course, only be upon the sea; and all he was saying was: 

 " You must not come and hunt or fish" — whatever the right phrase 

 maybe — "within two marine leagues". But that was not quite all. 

 Mr. Adams, as one would expect from a statesman of his known ability, 

 said " You need not be uneasy" — (and 1 think that answers the ques- 

 tion which the learned President was good enough to put a minute or 

 two ago) — " If you talk of these northern regions, you will be drawing 

 the attention of our people to it. There is no great interest for them to 

 go at present — it is not worth while making a point of it." But he says: 

 "The Senate will agree to this Treaty. We have no power to depart 

 from the Treaty. The Treaty must speak according to its natural effect, 

 and therefore, to put it plainly and tersely, you must take it or leave it". 



The Russian Government was anxious to take it, because they were 

 then securing for the first time a recognition on the part of Great Britain 

 and the United States of a distinct territorial sovereignty over a pre- 

 viously disputed territory, and therefore the Treaty passed, and is to be 

 interpreted according to its meaning and the natural import of the 

 words which are used in the Treaty itself. 



I say therefore that so far from that Baron deTuyl incident furnishing 

 an argument against our contention, it is a circumstance most strongly 

 significant of the fact that the American Company were taking the very 

 view of the construction of the Treaty of 1824 which is the construction 

 which we are now saying is the clear and indubitable one. 



The British Treaty of 1825. 



I pass now to the Treaty of 1825, and with regard to that Treaty I 

 must begin by observing that if I have made my ground good as regards 

 the Treaty of 1824, I stand in a position certainly as strong, probably 

 stronger, when I come to consider the Treaty of 1825 ; because from begin- 

 ning to end of the correspondence it will be found that that part of the 

 assertion of Russia to which Great Britain most strongly objected 



895 was the right of affecting and controlling free navigation and free 

 rights in the open sea; and as will appear in the correspondence to 



which I will now call attention, the Government of Great Britain was 

 not concerned about pressing the question of delimitation of territory 

 upon the coast nearly so much as in pressing a settlement of the preten- 

 sions as regards maritime jurisdiction. 



I ought indeed to have said in connection with the other subject, 

 particularly the meaning of the north-west coast, that the position of 



