1G2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — But I did not understand what was tlie 

 position of the Senate in December; and though I cannot think it 

 important, I confess, I do not know where Mr. Justice Harlan finds that 

 the adoption by the Senate was after December? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Because the date in Mr. Adams' diary is 

 December 0th, 1824, and the proclamation of the President is the 11th 

 January 1825. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Quite so; that is a mere formal business. 

 The point is, when was the assent of the Senate given? 



The President. — He says on the 6th December — " I added the Con- 

 vention would be submitted immediately to the Senate." That is in the 

 diary which you read yesterday, and that shows that the Executive was 

 at liberty to continue negotiations, but in reality they insisted on their 

 view. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Yes, that would appear to be so. Then it 

 stands thus: ISTeither party being bound, there was the opportunity, if 

 the Senate desired, to fall in with the views of negotiating the Treaty 

 upon different lines and submitting it upon different lines to the Senate 

 for its approval. But Mr. Adams says : — No, the Treaty is the Treaty 

 as it stands, and as it stands it has to be submitted to the Senate, it 

 does not matter, as far as the strength of the argument is concerned, 

 what is the state of things as regards the United States and as regards 

 Great Britain. The suggestion emanating, as far as we can judge, from 

 that Conference of Dignitaries, appears in the 3rd article of the contre- 

 projet that I referred to yesterday. It is an attempt to limit the right 

 of visitation in the gulfs, harbours and creeks. That is enclosed and 

 sent by Sir Charles Bagot to Mr. Canning in the letter which immedi- 

 ately precedes it of the 12th August 1824. 



Now how was that suggestion met? I pass to page 72 of that same 

 volume and there you will lind a letter from Mr. George Canning, 

 914 Foreign Minister in London, to Mr. Stratford Canning, who was 

 then at St. Petersburg, of the 8th December 1824. 



Meanwhile, in the mouth of October previously, information had 

 reached Mr. Canning through the public channels of information what 

 the terms of the Treaty as between the United States and Eussia were, 

 and accordingly Mr. George Canning in October writes the short letter, 

 that you now understand and appreciate, to Count Lieven, the impor- 

 tant words of which are, after calling attention to the terms of the 

 American Treaty : 



No limitation here of 59°. 



He says the proposed limitation is out of the question. There is 

 nothing of the sort in the American Treaty, and he will not have it in 

 the English Treaty. 



That is the purport of it. Now comes the formal detailed answer 

 from Mr. George Canning in London in reference to the contre-projet. 



He says: 



I inclose to you a copy (1) of the projet which Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to 

 conclude and sign some months ago, and which we had every reason to expect would 

 have been entirely satisfactory to the Russian Government. 



(2) Of a contre-projet drawn up by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and presented to 

 Sir Charles Bagot at their last meeting before Sir Charles Bagot's departure from St. 

 Petersburgh. 



(3) Of a despatch from Count Nesselrode, accompanying the transmission of the 

 contre-projet to Count Lieven. 



Then he goes on : 



lu tli:it di^spatcli, and in certain marginal annotations upon the copy of t\i(i projet, 

 are assigned the reasons of the alterations jjroijosed by the Russian Plenipotentiaries. 



