ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 157 



Baron de Tiiyll had been informed by Mr. Adams, that he had "no 

 power to construe the Treaty; it must speak for itself" Obviously 

 some suggestion of the same kind had been made by Count Lieven to 

 Mr. George Canning, to see whether in the English treaty, which was 

 not then at the same stage of completion, some modification of the same 

 sort c(mld not be introduced: and Avhen the American treaty comes to 

 hand, Mr. George Canning reads it, and thereupon, on the liath of Octo- 

 ber, meets and meets successfully Count Lieven's i)oint. On the 28th 

 October, 18i:4, page 72, he says : 



My Dkar Cot'NT Lieven: I cannot refrain from sending to your Excellency the 

 inclosed extract from an American ne\vsi)aper, by -which yon will see that I diil not 

 ex:igg<rate what I stated to you, as the American construction of the Convention 

 signed at St. Petersburgh. 



Count Lieven had obviously been trying to effect the same thing with 

 England that Baron de Tuyll had tried to efl'ect with the United States. 



It is to this construction that I referred, when I claimed for England (as justly 

 quoted by Count Nesselrode) whatever was granted to other nations. 

 No limitation here ot59 degrees. 



Believe me, etc. Geohge Canning. 



Yet, says my learned friend, Mr. Carter, we inherited this secret 

 meaning which was put by Kussia upon th<^ 1824 Treaty with Amer- 

 ica: I do not think he said, but rather suggested, that it was accei)ted 

 by the United States. Aiter that, he says, comes the treaty w ith Great 

 Britain; and tlierefore, as you find the one clause borrowed from the 

 other, you must give it the same meaning in each. Tliereiore you are 

 to put upon the second the meaning which Baron de Tuyll suggested, 

 even if no modification were made, might be put upon tlie first, althougii 

 that secret meaning, or a suggestion of it, was never conveyed to Great 

 Britain. 



Mr. Justice Hat?lan. — What does he mean there by "No limitation 

 here of 59 degrees'?" 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Do you not see. Judge, that Baron de Tuyll's 

 memorandum was directed to getting an admission that the right to visit 

 the interior seas, creeks, harbors, etc., did not apply to Russian posses- 

 sions north of 59 degrees? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Yes; but his memorandum was after that 

 letter. The Baron de Tuyll memorandum in Mr. Adams' diary, was 

 after the date of the (canning letter. 



Sir Charles Kussell.— No; on the contrary, I have just been 

 stating the opposite. 



Mr. -lustice Harlan. — The quotation from Mr. Adams' diary is under 

 date of December 28, 1884, and this letter you are reading from is dated 



October 25, 1824. 

 908 Sir Charles Eussell. — 1 think, Sir, there must be some mis- 



take. 



Mr, Justice Harlan. — That was the reason I asked you. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — It was quite a proi)er reason. Sir. I think 

 that date should have been July 24th, instead of December 24th, because 

 by December 24th the Treaty had already been signed and ratified. It 

 was all past and gone. It was in April of 1824, and therefore that must 

 be a mistake in date. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I think it is a mistake in Mr. Blaine's letter. 

 I will trace it out. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think. Sir, it is clear that the date of 

 December 24th, as the date on which the conversation took place, must 

 be inaccurate, for the reason I ha\'3 given j because the American 



