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



Sir Charles Russell. — In one sense yes, and in auotlier sense no. 

 The President. — I say if nnder question five in Article Yl we are 

 to understand nothing but rights of jurisdiction- 

 Has the United States iiuy right, etc. . . 



that would be just exactly the same as question four. 



Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdictiou pass unimpaired to the United 



States? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I quite agree, Sir; practically, yes. That 

 is what I am arguing. I have argued this question five, and my mean- 

 ing is the same when I have been discussing the first four questions, 

 except with this difference: that articles one, two, three and four deal 

 solely with derivative rights from Russia, and in article five the ques- 

 tion is, what rights has the United States as a matter inherent in its 

 own possession of territory. 



The President. — The authors of the Treaty must have anticipated 

 something different from what was in the preceding questions. 



Sir Charles Russell. — It does not necessarily mean that it sliould 

 be something different. It contemplates the possibility of its being 

 something ditierent; but it merely contemplates the possibility m this 

 sense: "We assert that Russia asserted certain exclusive claims of 

 jurisdiction; we also assert that we have certain exclusive claims of 

 jurisdiction". 



In each case, if my contention is right, it is limited to a claim of 

 territorial dominion. 



The President. — I believe, as we understand the case of the IJnited 

 States, they understood that this question five meant also derivative 

 rights. They did not argue that they had new rights which originated 

 in the cession of territory in their hands only, but that the same rights 

 were vested in Russia. 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is what I venture to say; and tliat 

 is the reason I said that in arguing what rights Russia asserted and 

 exercised, I was also really arguing question five. You see the dis- 

 tinction is that questions one, two, tliree and four, were directed to 

 what riglits were asserted and exercised. Question five may have a 

 more restricted or a more enlarged meaning — what rights in fact the 

 United States have. But I' was about to say that I could deal with 

 this matter very briefly because I have shown, if my interpretation of 

 the question is right, that that is not the nature of the right which the 

 United States ar§ claiming for themselves; because 1 take it that 

 although this is a statement that the- latter right, and not the 

 953 former, is the right which the United States contend was exer- 

 cised first by Russia and later by themselves, that they embrace 

 not only their own derivative claim under Russia, but their own claim, 

 whatever it is, as inherent in their territorial possessions. 



The President. — Their argnment is that they have peculiar rights. 

 Your argument is that this question five merely limits the right of 

 jurisdictiou, like the preceding questions? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Unquestionably, sir, although it is conceiv- 

 able that there may have been a right which the United States i)ossessed 

 that Russia neither asserted nor exercised. It is conceivable. That 

 is all. 



The President. — You think it is upon that hypothesis that the 

 question has been brought in? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I can only judge by the terms of the ques- 

 tion itself. 'l take the language in Avhich Mr. Wharton, the Acting 



