ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 171 



in which, referring to the very passages I have been reading, they make 

 this conimeut 



Later, however, especially in the years following 1840, Behring Sea "was actually 

 visited, as poiuted out at pages 83 to 90 of tbe British Case, by numerous vessels, 

 mostly whalers, but it is shown by Bancroft, the author so frequently quoted by the 

 British Government, that the whaling industry was not for the Russians a profit- 

 able one. 



And this is their comment: 



General Foster. — Would it be convenient for you to read page 255. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will, if you like. 



General Foster. — I should be glad if you would, in view of the 

 President's enquiry, because it shows that we contradict distinctly the 

 quotations, made. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will read it if you wish. It says here: 



But it is shown by Bancroft, the author so frequently quoted by the British Gov- 

 ernment, that the whaling industry was not, for the Russians, a profitable oue, and 

 there appears to have been no motive for protecting that industry by the imi^erial 

 Ukase of the colonial government. 



That is all the comment that is made so far. Then it goes on: 



Bancroft is also referred to in the British Case (pp. 83 and 84) to show that in 1842 

 the Russian Government refused Etholin's request that Behring Sea be protected 

 against invasions of foreign wlialers, on the ground that the Treaty of 1824 between 

 Russia and the United States gave to American citizens the right to engage in fish- 

 ing over the whole extent of the Pacific Ocean. From what is said, however, by this 

 same author immediately following the above citation, it appears that, through the 

 endeavours of Etholin the Government at length referred the matter to a committee 

 composed of officials of the navy department, who reported that the cost of fitting 

 out a cruiser for the protection of Behring Sea against foreign whalers would be 

 200,000 roubles in silver, and the cost of maintaining such a craft 85,000 roubles a 

 year. To this a recommendation was added that, if the company were willing to 

 assume the expenditure, a cruiser should at once be placed at their disposal. Hence, 

 according to Bancroft, the failure to protect Behring Sea can not be traced to the 

 fact that the Russian Government considered it had lost the right to do so by the 

 treaties of 1824 and 1825. 



General Foster. — It was a question of money, not of right. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Could any thing be more absurd than this 

 comment, which is gravely referred to as a comment impugning the 

 accuracy of the excerpts from these official accounts'? Where is the 

 suggestion that these accounts are not accurate? What there is here 

 is a suggestion that the failure to protect Russian rights was 

 925 owing to the fact that it would be too expensive to do it. That 

 is the only suggestion that is made on this page. 



General Foster. — Bancroft says so. 



Sir Charles Russell. — If he said so, it is cited in your case. 



General Foster. — Quoting from your own author. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 think there must be a limit to these inter- 

 ruptions. I have gratified you so far, and have been pleased to be able 

 to gratify you, because it is a strong point in favour of what I have 

 been addressing the Tribunal upon. I have read the pages from the 

 letters of the Foreign Minister in which he said: We have no right to 

 do it: it will re-open the question between the British Government and 

 the Government of America if we attempt to do it. 



The President. — Is that all. General Foster, you wish to be read 

 from the Counter-Case under the present circumstances! 



General Foster. — As it appears the interruption is unwelcome, I 

 will reserve it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I assure you, it is not unwelcome — my 

 friend is quite wrong. If I ara reading anything, and there is any- 



