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



atteutiou to tliia as a question, and only as a question, whether that 

 exact subject is not provided for in Article I, instead of in the oth point 

 in Article VI. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — No; with great deference, I think not, 

 because question I, as you yourself very early in the discussion pointed 

 out, is entirely conversant with what exclusive jurisdiction and what 

 exclusive rights Kussia asserted and exercised. 



Senator Morgan. — I spoke of article I of the Treaty. 

 Sir Charles RusfeELL. — Oh, I beg your pardon. 



945 Senator Morgan. — I think when they came to formulate the 

 Treaty, and drew up the tiual agreement, the question you have 



been considering and reading an extract from was included in the first 

 question submitted in Article I of the Treaty. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I was about to refer to that Article, 

 strangely enough, in an entirely different sense, to show that that 

 supports, as I submit, the contention I am upon. 



Senator Morgan. — It may do so. 



Sir Charles Russell. — The thread of that contention on the part 

 of the United States runs all through the assertion of exclusive juris- 

 diction in a defined area, and I submit it is borne out by the language 

 of Article I. 



The questions which have arisen hetween the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty and the Government of the United States concerning — 



what? 



the jurisdictiouai rights of the United States in the waters of theBehring Sea and 

 concerning also the presei'vatiou of the fur-seal. 



Jurisdictional rights to be determined as a matter of right: the pres- 

 ervation of the fur-seal to be determined as a matter of regulations. 



Senator Morgan. — The questions submitted seem to be presented in 

 Article I, while the five suggestions or enquiries in Article YI are called 

 points — five points which very properly may be included within the 

 questions for consideration. The question submitted to the Arbitration 

 seems to me to be worthy of consideration, whether the questions are 

 not the ones to which the Award must respond. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 should have thought, with deference, that 

 the questions are formulated, and if there be anything outside these 

 questions mentioned in Articles VI and VII which the Tribunal should 

 thiuk ought to be answered, of course they are to be answered; but I 

 take Articles VI and VII as intended, whether they have been effective 

 or not is another question, to formulate for the assistance of the Tri- 

 bunal the precise questions which would settle the controversy between 

 the parties. The way in which the matter is put is this: 



In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators it is agreed that the following 

 five points shall bo submitted to them, iu order that their award shall embrace a 

 distinct decision upon each of the said five points, to wit 



and then Article VII very properly treats those as questions. 



If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of 

 the United States shall leave the subject in such a position that the concurrence of 

 Great Britain is necessary 



then there are to be Regulations. 



Senator Morgan. — That brings us up to the point whether or not the 

 word "questions" in article VII does not refer to the three ques- 



946 tions which are propounded in the first Article of the submission, 

 and not to the five points mentioned in Article VI. 



