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



That is to say, saving the rights incidental to territorial ownership. 



To qiiestiou three. Tliat Beliriug Sea was included iu "Pacific Ocean" in the 

 Treaty of l!->25; that Russia neither held nor exclusively exercised any rights in Keh- 

 ring Sea after the Treaty of 1825, save only such territorial rights as were allowed 

 to lier by international law. 



To question four. That no rights as to jurisdiction or as to the seal fisheries in 

 Behring Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between the United States and 

 Russia of the 30th March 1867, passed to the United States under that Treaty, 

 except such as were incidental to the islands and other territory ceded. 



Those are the answers which we say we have by the argument that I 

 have submitted established as the correct answers to be given to each of 

 these four questions. 



Senator Morgan. — There are seven or eight answers there to four 

 questions, as I understand it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — As a matter of fact there are four answers 

 to four questions. There is the i^recise number of answers to the pre- 

 cise number of questions. 



Now, sir, I have, I am happy to say, got to the end of that; and I 

 really feel — or I did feel until my friend's interposition — that I ought 

 to olier an apology for taking so long to demonstrate what we humbly 

 submit is very easily inade clear. 



The President. — We will come next to the iifth question. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes, Sir. 



The Tribunal here adjourned for a short time. 



THE FIFTH QUESTION. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Mr. President, I now proceed to address 

 myself to the consideration of what the answer of the Tribunal ought 

 to be to the ath question of Article VI: and in order to assist the Tri- 

 bunal iu formulating that answer, it is obviously necessary, in the first 

 1)1 ace, as I have thought it necessary in the case of the first four ques- 

 tions, to endeavour to fix what is the meaning of the question itself, 

 because, unless the question itself is clearly understood, it cannot be 

 seen what is the proper and definite answer to the question. Now, in 

 order to convey to the Tribunal the meaning which I submit is the cor- 

 rect one, I have to call your attention to what I understand to be the 

 general suggestion or lueaning put upon it by my learned friends on the 

 other side, and I wish to state to the Tribunal how I iH'opose to deal 

 with the matter. I propose in the first place to state and to justify, if 

 I can, the meaning which I attach to the question. 



I cannot, of course, venture to assume that that is the construc- 

 936 tion which the Tribunal will attach to it; and, therefore, I shall 

 j)roceed to consider what ought to be the answer assuming that 

 my construction is wrong, and that put by the other side is right. Now, 

 speaking broadly, the construction put by the other side is this, that 

 the Tribunal is asked to say what right of protection or of property of 

 any kind, the United States possesses in respect to seals frequenting 

 the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are 

 found outside the ordinary three-mile hmit. They put their inter^jre- 

 tation in various ways: first, what right is there in the individual fur- 

 seal? although they say it is not necessary for them to put the right so 

 high as that: secondly, if they have not property in the individual fur- 

 seal, what right of property is there in what they are j)leased to call the 

 fur-seal herd ? and, again, they say it may not be necessary to put it even 

 so high as that. And, finally, if they have no property in the individual 



