ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 183 



this nieaiiiug, becanse tlie Tribunal iiuist be good enough to bear in 

 mind, — 1 Ijave in all conscience recurred to it often enough, and I am 

 afraid, so as to weary the Tribunal. — that my contention is this, that 

 the whole case of the United States actually presented in the diplo- 

 matic corresiiondence ivas a case fonnded primarily upon territorial 

 dominion and jurisdiction in the eastern part of Beliring Sea. The case 

 based upon their municipal legislation — the case advanced iu the Courts, 

 inferior and superior — the case based on the Executive action — based 

 on the instinctions and argument of their counsel — based on the rea- 

 so!iS on which they invoked the authority of their municipal Tribu- 

 nals — based on the arguments presented to the Snpreme Court — based 

 on the judgments of those Supreme Courts, was a case founded upon 

 this territorial dominion. I am not saying that there is not in the Case 



and Counter-Case put forward by the United States Counsel a 

 939 different interpretation. 1 am dealing with the Treaty, with the 



conduct of the United States and their advisers, and with the 

 diplomatic correspondence up to tlie date of the Treaty. And now I 

 turn to that correspondence for one moment, though not at any great 

 length. I begin with an important letter of Mr. Blaine, frequently 

 referred to, of the 17th Dec, 1890, which is at page 263 of the large 

 volume of the United States correspondence. I am not going to trouble 

 the Tribunal with the whole of that letter. 



On the 2nd of August 1S90, the Marquis of Salisbury had written to 

 Sir Jnlian Pauncefote the letter of that date, to which I do not think I 

 need refer, in which the Marquis of Salisbury says as you well recollect, 

 Sir : 



You will state that her Majesty's Governmeut have no desire whatever to refuse 

 to the United States any jurisdiction in Behriug Sea which was conceded by 

 Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the i^reseut possessors of 

 Alaslva 



and so on. 



Now on the 17th December Mr. Blaine's letter is written, in which 

 tliat passage occurs to the effect that: If Behriug Sea was included in 

 the phrase Pacific Ocean, then there is no ground of complaint; and 

 towards the end of which he invokes some general considerations based 

 upon, I think, Mr. Phelps' letter of September 1888. But the part I am 

 now upou is this. He says iu that letter — I am reading from page 285 

 of volume I of the Appendix to the United States Case: 



It will mean something tangible, iu the President's opinion, if G.reat Britain will 

 consent to arl)itr;ite the real questions which have been under discussion between 

 the two Governments for the last four years. 1 shall endeavour to state what, iu tlie 

 judgment of tlie President, tliose issues are. 



And then he formulates a number of questions. Then he says, in the 

 preceding paragraph to the one I have just read: 



The second offer of Lord Salisbury to arbitrate, amounts simply to a submission 

 of tlie question whether any country has a right to extend its jurisdiction more 

 than 1 marine league from the shore. 



Then lie says : 



Her exception placed an obstacle in the highway between continents. -The United 

 States, in protecting the seal fisheries, will not interfere Avith a single sail of com- 

 merce on any sea of tbe globe. 



Then he proposes questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, all of which deal, as it is 

 conceded, with the questions of exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive 

 rights, and then he proceeds: 



Fifth. Wliat are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in 

 the waters of the Bchring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether 



