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



and it repeats tlie course of tlie line of clemarcatiou in the Treaty 

 between Great Britain and Eussia; and then, in section 3, it provides: 



In all places annexed to Russia by the above-mentioned delimitation there is 

 granted to the Coni])any the right to carry on the fur and fishing industries to the 

 exclusion of all Russian subjects. 



I do not think there is anything else in that which it is important to 

 draw attention to. 



Now, I have practically dealt with both branches of Article I. The 

 Tribunal will observe that it contains two divisions: first, what exclu- 

 sive jurisdiction in the sea known as Beliring Sea did Russia 

 928 assert and exercise, and what exclusivei'ights in the seal-fisher- 

 ies did Eussia assert and exercise? I have incidentally, of course, 

 addressed myself to both questions. I want to say one word, however, 

 about the question of the exclusive right in the seal fisheries. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Before you go to that. Sir Charles, let me make 

 one enquiry so that I may ge^j your view fully. 



We are required in the first question to answer what exclusive juris- 

 diction Eussia asserted and exercised. If I remember rightly, both M. 

 de Poletica in his letter to Mr. Adams, and Baron Nicolay in his letter 

 to Lord Londonderry or Count Lieven, said that Eussia, if it deemed 

 proper, could declare the whole of the Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, mare 

 clausum ; but they did not intend by such Ukase to assert any such 

 right, but only limited their declaration to particular localities. Now, 

 do you contend that in answering that question we should regard this 

 announcement of Eussia of its right, if it thought proper, to exercise 

 this exclusive jurisdiction over these waters, as an assertion within the 

 meaning of the Treaty? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Certainly, an assertion. 



Lord Hannen. — But not an exercise ? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — But not an exercise. I will formulate in 

 precise language what we submit ought to be the answers to each of 

 these four questions. 



I was saying a word about what exclusive rights in the seal-fisheries 

 did Eussia assert and exercise. Upon this there does not seem to be 

 any room for question. Eussia was the territorial owner 

 ciSvT nVM ''i^' of t^^^ Pribilof Islands. Eussia exercised the rights of 

 the seal fisheries territorial owuership upon those Islands, and had the 

 RusJia.'^^*^ ^^ rights, whether she exercised them or not I know not and 

 care not, but the right to exercise them exclusively of all 

 other persons and Powers, not only on the Islands, but within 3 miles 

 of the coast of the Islands. There is no suggestion that Eussia, as 

 regards the seal fisheries, made at any time any assertion greater than 

 or different from the assertion which she would be justified in making 

 as territorial owner. I find none. My learned friends would answer 

 that, and, as I conceive, quite rightly, by saying that there was no need 

 for her to assert any right outside, because pelagic sealing had not got 

 to such dimensions as to call for her interference. That I do not propose 

 to deal with at this stage of the argument at all, because it would 

 embrace the more wide and general question of what right she could 

 have asserted in point of fact, which is not the point touched by ques- 

 tion 1. It is not the question of what right she had in fact, it is what 

 right she asserted and exercised. I will consider whether she could 

 have any right. Of course, the Tribunal knows I assert that she could 

 not, except the rights that belong to her as territorial owner, — rights 

 raiione soli; the exclusive right to take what was upon her territory, 

 the right to exclude anybody else Irom that territory; and a similar 



