ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 167 



Now I go to Article VII. Article VI grants a j)erpetual right. Arti- 

 cle VII is limited to a definite j)eriod. It says: 



It is also understood that, for the space of ten years from the sijxnature of the present 

 Convention, the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respective 

 subjects shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, Avithout any hindrance whatever, 

 all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens and creeks on the coasts mentioned in Article III, 

 for the ijurposes of fishing and of trading with the natives. 



Therefore under that Article there is for a limited period of time a 

 right given (even as to waters which would be according to law territo- 

 rial waters) of user of such waters, and that extends along the whole 

 of the coast mentioned in Article III. Really I feel that I should be 

 wrong in dwelling too long on this matter; but there are one or two 

 other things to which I must call attention. 



The Tribunal will ask the question: — What jjosition after this Treaty, 

 and before the concession to the United States, did Russia in fact 

 assume? Because of course the conduct of Russia will throw light upon 

 its view of its obligations and its rights so far as they were based on that 

 Treaty, or so far as they are affected by that Treaty, or so far as they 

 existed according to general law. For that purpose I will refer the 

 Tribunal to the British Case, and I would begin, (although I do not 

 intend to read it all) at page 77, which gives a history of the various 

 records, so far as we have got them, of tradings, which, up to 1824-1825 

 unquestionably were almost entirely south of the Aleutian peninsula. 

 But I pass on, and I ask the Tribunal to follow the position taken up by 

 the United States in the first instance in 1840 in the case 

 of the " Loriot". This vessel undoubtedly was seized or by "unfted^strt^s 

 interfered with in a position south of the Aleutians, and in the case of 

 somewhere in the neighbourhood of Sitka. But we have """* ' 



got the views taken, at that time, by Mr. Forsyth (who was then 

 920 the Secretary of State), of the effect of the Treaty of 1824. At 

 page 80 an excerpt is given from a letter to Mr. Dallas. It is in 

 these words : 



On the other hand, should there prove to be no Russian Establishments at the 

 places mentioned, this outrage of the " Loriot " assumes a still graver aspect. It is 

 a violation of the right of the citizens of the United States, immemorially exercised, 

 and secured to them as well by the law of nations as by the stipulations of the 1st 

 article of the convention of 1824, to fish in those seas and to resort to the coast, for 

 the prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already occupied. As 

 such it is the President's wish, that yon should remonstrate in an earnest and respect- 

 ful tone against this groundless assumption of the Russian Fur Company, and claim 

 from His Imperial Majesty's Government for the owners of the brig ''Loriot", for 

 their losses and for the damages they have sustained, such indemnification as may, 

 on an investigation of the case, be found to be justly due to them. 



Mr. Dallas himself, wrote on the 16th August in these terms: 



The 1st article asserts for both countries general and permanent rights of naviga- 

 tion, fishing, and trading with the natives, upon points not occupied by either north 

 or south of the agreed parallel of latitude 



without any limitation at all. 



Then Mr. Forsyth writes to Mr. Dallas on the 3rd November, referring 

 to the same Article. He says : 



The 1st Article of that instrument is only declaratory of a right which the parties 

 to it possessed under the law of nations, without conventional stipulations, to wit, 

 to navigate and fish in the Ocean upon an unoccupied coast, and to resort to such 

 coast for the purpose of trading with the natives. 



The United States, in agreeing not to form new establishments to the north of 

 latitude of 54° 40' N., made no acknoAvledgment of the right of Russia to the terri- 

 tory above that line. 



