ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 189 



Sir Charles Russell. — I should with ^reat deference have said, 

 when Article VII began with the words "If the determination of the 

 foregoing- questions", which you will observe are all put with a note of 

 interrogation at the end of them, that Article VII pointedly, clearly, 

 and distinctly referred to the foregoing tive questions, and I think I am 

 right in saying, subject to correction on that point, that there was not 

 any difference in the argument of my learned friend and that which I 

 now submit. 



Senator MoRaAN. — I am aware of that fact, but, of course, we have 

 our own views. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Naturally, and I do not suggest the con- 

 trary. Now I think I have only to refer to two other letters. On the 

 22nd March there is a letter from Mr. Wharton to Sir Julian Pauncefote 

 at page 301 : 



For it lunst not be forgotten that if Her Majesty's Government proceeds during 

 this sealing season upon the basis of its contention as to the right of the Canadian 

 sealers, no choice is left to this Government but to proceed on the basis of its confident 

 contention that pelagic sealing in the Behring Sea is an infraction of its jurisdiction 

 and property rights. 



Finally, on page 363, Sir Julian Pauncefote writes to Mr. Wharton 

 thus : 



As an alternate course, Her Majesty's Government are also willing, after the ratifi- 

 cation of the Treaty, to prohibit sealing in the disputed waters, if vessels be excepted 

 from the prohibition which produce a certificate that they have given security for 

 such damages as the Arbitrators may assess in case of a decision adverse 



and so on. 

 Then there is a letter on page 364: 



With reference to my previous note of this date, and to the discussions which have 

 taken place regarding the claims of our respective Governments to compensation in 

 relation to the fur-seal fishery in Behring Sea, I have been instructed by the Marquis 

 of Salisbury, 



and so on. Then he says this: 



That in case the Arbitrators shall decide in favour of the British Government, that 

 Government may ask them further to decide whether the United States Government 

 has since 1885 taken any action in Behring Sea directly inflicting a wrongful loss on 

 the United States or its lessees, and if so, to assess the damage incurred thereby. 



Senator Morgan. — But that feature did not get into the Treaty. 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is the feature which did get into 

 Article V of the Modua Vivendi, which is a part of this Treaty. 



Senator Morgan. — Yes. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Then there is one passage which I wish to 

 emphasize before I go on, in the letter of the 4th of June, 1891; it is at 

 the foot of page 306 : 



The fourth clause of the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, limiting the 

 947 taking effect of the viodiis viveudi upon the assent of Russia, presents what 

 seems to the President an insuperable difficulty, as an adherence to that sug- 

 gestion by Her Majesty's Governmeut will, in his opinion, prevent the conclusion of 

 any Agreement and will inevitably cause such a delay. 



and so on : 



That I have already read. You observe that the object of Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote was, by including Russia, to have the extension of the 

 Modus Vivendi so as to prohibit the killing in other x^arts of the 

 Behring Sea westward of the line of demarcation; and this is the way 

 in which that suggestion is met by Mr. Wharton. 



I am also directed to remind you that the contention between the United States 

 and Great Britain has been limited to that part of Behring Sea eastward of the line 



