ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 161 



did not, and I should have been surprised if he had, lay any stress upon 

 it so far as the document itself is concerned, for the position of things 

 is this: it is a record of a private meeting- of a number of distinguished 

 persons. It records certain views and opinions as to the Treaty, which 

 views are exi)ressed to have been not the unanimous views of the 

 members of the conference, but a majority of the conference. The 

 document was never comnmnicated to the United States. It was 

 never communicated to Great Britain. It lay buried and forgotten, 

 until when examining the records with a view to this controversy it was 

 disentombed. But as far as eitlier the United States, or Great Britain 

 is concerned, neither the documents, nor the results of that conference, 

 were communicated to either one or other of the Powers; and it is 

 entirely out of place, therefore, in the consideration of what the con- 

 struction of the United States Treaty in fact is. I have dealt with 

 that, and will not recur to it. Mr. Adams took the position which was 

 tlie only position he could take. We have entered into a definite Treaty: 

 the construction of that Treaty is not for me. We stand by it, what- 

 ever its purport and effect are. As regards the English negotiations, I 

 do not require to recur to them again to mention the suggested limita- 

 tion, but if there is anything in the mind of the Court whicLi I could 

 help to explain, I should be glad to, because I desire that my argument 

 should at least be cleat ly apprehended by every member of the Tri- 

 bunal. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The President was asking me when the 

 Senate ratified the Treaty. I do not laiow the exact date, but it was 

 between December 0th, 1824, and the 11th January, 1825. 



The President. — I asked because it would seem that he might still 

 have been at liberty to alter it, as it was not ratified by the Senate. I 

 mean it might have been altered if he had not insisted on his inter- 

 pretation of it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I should like to say this, especially in ref- 

 erence to an observation that Mr. Senator Morgan has made more than 

 once in this matter, that no executive minister of the United States, 

 even in the name of the Executive, could alter the Treaty. There is 

 no power to do that. 



The President. — But it had not i)assed the Senate, and he was not 

 bound. He was free to go on negotiating. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes, but before it reached the point to 

 which it had then attained there must have been some means, I 

 913 should apprehend, of obtaining the views of the Senate u))on it, 

 because the Treaty was agreed to by the United States, and all 

 that was required was the formal ratification and exchange of formal 

 documents, and ratification implies the assent of the Senate. It is not 

 to be supposed that the United States Government, not having the 

 ])ower to make a treaty which would be binding, would proceed to those 

 lengths without having first ascertained what the views of the Senate 

 Avould be. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The Senate does not know anything about a 

 Treaty under our system, until it is concluded by the Executive Depart- 

 ment and submitted to that body. 



Sir Charles Eussell, — That is very likely correct, but I do not 

 suggest anything inconsistent with that. 



Lord Hannen. — My impression is that the ratification is something 

 difilerent from the assent. It would be treated as a formality. 



Sir Charles Russell. — So I understand. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — That is true. 

 B s, PT xm 11 



