ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 163 



In considering the expediency of admitting or rejecting the proposed alterations, 

 it will be convenient to follow the Articles of the Treaty in the order in which they 

 stand in the English projct. 



You will observe, iu the first place, that it is proposed by the Russian Plenipoten- 

 tiaries entirely to change that order, and to transfer to the latter part of the instru- 

 ment the Article which has hitherto stood first in the jivojet. 



To that transposition we cannot agree, for the very reason which Count Nessel- 

 rode alleges in favor of it, namely, that the " ^couoniie" or arrangement of the 

 Treaty ought to have reference to the history of the n«^gotiation. 



The whole negotiation grows out of the Ukase of 1821. 



So entirely and absolutely true is this proposition, that the settlement of the limits 

 of the respective possessions of Great Britain and Russia on the north-west coast of 

 America was proposed by us only as a mode of facilitating tbe adjustment of the 

 ditference arising from the Ukase by en;ibling the Court of Russia, under cover of 

 the more comprehensive arrangement, to withdraw, with less appearance of conces- 

 sion, the offensive pretensions of that Edict. 



It is comparatively indilierent to us whether we hasten or postpone all questions 

 respecting the limits of territorial possession on the Continent of America, but the 

 pretensions of the Russian Ukase of 1821 to exclusive dominion over the Pacitic could 

 not continue longer unrepealed without compelling us to take some measure of public 

 and eflfectual remonstrance against it. 



Yon will therefore take care, in the first instance, to repress any attempt to give 



this change to the character of the negotiation, and will declare without reserve 



that the point to which alone the solicitude of the British Government and the 



915 jealousy of the British nation attach any great importance is the doing away 



(in a manner as little disagreeable to Russia as possible) of the etfect of the 



Ukase of 1821. 



That this Ukase is not acted upon, and that instructions have been long ago^nt 

 by the Russian Government to their criiizers in the Pacific to susi)end the execuiiun 

 of its provisions, is true ; but a private disavowal of a published claim is no security 

 against the revival of that claim. 



And so forth. 



The Tribunal will forgive me if I ask permission to read one or two 

 more passages, because I feel I ought to apologize for labouring this 

 point, which we submit is absolutely clear; but, as the Tribunal have 

 not thought fit to make any intimation, nor my learned friends either, 

 of course I can leave no ground uutouched which demonstrates beyond 

 question the position we assume. The concluding sentences are as 

 follows : 



The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the Pacific cannot 

 be held as matter of indulgence from any Power. Having ouce been publicly ques- 

 tioned, it must be publicly acknowledged. 



We do not desire that auy distinct reference should be made to the Ukase of 1821; 

 but we do feel it necessary that the statement of our right should be clear and posi- 

 tive, and that it should stand forth in the convention in the place. which properly 

 belongs to it " — that is, the first Article, — " as a plain and substantive stipulation, 

 and not be brought in as an incidental consequence of other arrangements to which 

 we attach comparatively little importauce. 



Now, I beg attention to the remainder of this. 



This stipulation stands in the front of the Convention concluded between Russia 

 and the United States of America; and we see no reason why upon similar claims we 

 should obtain exactly the like satisfaction. 



The word " not " is left out there. The sentence which follows is 

 particularly significant. 



For reasons of the same nature, we cannot consent that the liberty of navigation 

 through Behriug Straits should be stated in the Treaty as a boon from Russia. 



Of course, if there was to be navigation through Behring Straits, 

 there must be navigation through Behriug Sea, which leads to Behriug 

 Straits. 



The tendency of such a statement would be to give countenance to those claims 

 of exclusive jurisdiction against which we, ou our own behalf, and on that of the 

 whole civilized world, protest. 



