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



No specification of this sort is found in the Convention with the United States of 

 America, and yet it cannot be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as 

 secured in the'right of navigating Bebring Straits and the sea beyond them. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — May I ask you, Sir Charles, whether you con- 

 tend that the Ukase of 1821 was intended to close the open waters of 

 Behring Sea, outside of the 100 miles, to navigation? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I certainly most distinctly say that that 

 was its effect, whatever the intention was: it was the assertion of a 

 right to do it. 



The language of M. de Poletica is distinct. He says : 



We have a right to treat it as a shut sea; it fulfils all the conditions of a shut sea; 



916 He was asserting that there was only an intention to exercise 

 territorial jurisdiction 100 miles from the land, apparently igno- 

 rant of the fact that the assertion of 100 miles from the land would 

 make Behring Sea a closed sea. There can be no question about it, I 

 think. It was so treated by the King's Advocate: it was so treated by 

 Lord Stowell, whose authority of course is great. Both these lawyers 

 treated it as an assertion of territorial dominion practically closing 

 Behring Sea, and assuming dominion over Behring Sea. In fact, M. 

 Poletica's explanation is clear. He says: — That is the extent of our 

 right, but we do not intend to exercise it beyond 100 miles from the 

 shore. 



The President. — The language of M. de Poletica, and of the Min- 

 ister of Foreign Affairs, Count Nesselrode, which you read yesterday, 

 is very significant uj)on the point — that Eussia asserted a right whicli 

 they did not intend perhaps, to exercise, or press; but they asserted it, 

 and were very eager in these Treaties not to bring into the discussion 

 any question of principle. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — There is no other part of that letter which 

 I think is important. There is however one letter I should like to call 

 attention to in the United States correspondence relative to the Eng- 

 lish Treaty. It is on page 152 of Volume 1 of the Appendix to the 

 United States Case. Mr. Middleton is writing from St. Petersburgh, 

 and he is giving his views of the Treaty, which he knows has just then 

 been concluded between Great Britain and Eussia. He says: 



I have the honor to acquaint you that a convention was signed yesterday by the 

 Russian and British Plenipotentiaries relative to navigation, fisheries, and com- 

 merce in the Great Ocean, and to territorial demarcation upon the northwest coast 

 of America. In a conversation held this day with Mr. Stratford Canning, I have 

 learned this Treaty is modelled in a degree upon that which was signed by me in 

 the month of April last, and that its provisions are as follows, to wit: 



The freedom of navigation and fishery throughout the great Ocean, and upon all 

 its coasts; the privilege of lauding at all unoccupied points; that of trading with 

 the natives; and the special privileges of reciprocal trade and navigation secured 

 for 10 years upon the northwest coast of America, together with the mutual restric- 

 tions prohibiting the tradiug in fire arms. 



And so on. There is the view which Mr. Middleton expresses of the 

 British Treaty. 



Now let me emphasize this matter before I come to the Treaty itself, 

 which, if it were not for the introduction of an enormous mass of col- 

 lateral, and to a large extent irrelevant topics, I should, in the ordinary" 

 course, have gone to straight. But let me, before I come to the Treaty, 

 briefly emphasize one or two points. It is, clear, first, that the United 

 States, by the mouth of Mr. Adams, traversed the whole claim set up 

 by Eussia: — We can admit no part of this claim. That claim was an 

 assertion of territorial right from the Behring Strait, along the coast 

 south to 55 degrees of north latitude. 



