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



thing else which explains its meaning- or puts a different meaning on 

 it, I shall always be willing to read it; but really to make this a foun- 

 dation for stating that the United States had impugned the accuracy 

 of our quotations, 1 must say, is absurd. 



General Foster. — I understood Counsel just now to remark that he 

 has read an authoritative declaration from the Eussiau Minister. He 

 will find that he read it from a historian. 



The President. — That is quoted from the Foreign Office. It is in 

 inverted commas. 



&ir Charles Russell. — I beg General Foster's pardon. It may be 

 my fault, but I thought I read " Tikhmenieft' thus describes the result 

 of these representations"; and then he proceeds to say: "The exact 

 words of the letter from the Foreign Office were as follows ". Then the 

 words are given in inverted commas. Then on the next page — I have 

 no doubt I was not expressing myself with sufficient clearness — he goes 

 on in inverted commas to say " The Foreign Office expressly stated as 

 follows in reply : 



We have no right to exclude forei<;tn ships from that part of the Great Ocean 

 which separates the eastern shore of Siberia from the north-western shore of Amer- 

 ica, or to make the payment of a sum of money a condition to allowing them to take 

 whales. 



Lord Hannen. — Have you got "Bancroft" here? I do not mean in 

 the room, but for reference. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — We have. It is quite available, and I can 

 send for it at any moment. 



Now, I am loth to make a reference to a subject not pleasant to 

 either of us, and 1 will content myself with saying that certain of 

 those falsified documents relate to the period after the Treaties, 

 926 and consist, in large part, of interpolations suggesting that there 

 had been interference by Eussia, which would have been incon- 

 sistent with its true action as we now know it to be. I content 

 myself with saying that. They begin at page 60 of the original Case, 

 and go on. I do not enlarge upon it. 



Then there is one other thing I must say in this connection, and I 

 think it brings this matter practically to a conclusion. After the Ukase 

 of 1821, there were two confirmatory Charters granted to the Eussian- 

 American Company, and the significant change in the language of those 

 Charters, compared with the original Charter under the Ukase of 1821, 

 is itself significant and conclusive ui3ou the point upon which I am 

 addressing you. 



In order that this point may be appreciated, let me invite your atten- 

 tion to volume I of the United States Appendix, at page 16, to look at 

 what the terms of the original Ukase were. 



The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all other industry on all 

 islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the northwest coast of America, 

 beginning from Behring Straits to the 51*^ of northern latitude, also from the Aleutian 

 Islands to the eastern coast of Sil)eria, as well as along the Kurile Islands from 

 Behring's Straits to the South cape of the Islaud of Urup, namely, to the 45° 50' 

 northern latitude, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects. 



That is the 4th of September, 1821. There are provisions, as you 

 will recollect, for the confiscation of vessels that come within the limits 

 there set out. The Charter of 1821 is on page 24, and it concedes to 

 the Company the privilege of hunting and fishing, to the exclusion of 

 all other Eussian or foreign subjects, throughout the territories long 

 since in the possession of Eussia, and then it describes the extent of 

 those territories in much the same language. Now, if you turn to 



