ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 359 



She was condemoed by a Commission sitting on the Imperial corvette " RasboT- 

 nik", composed of the officers thereof. In tliis respect, the case, is precisely like 

 that of the '' Henrietta", mentioned in my last preceding dispatch N^ 95, and of 

 this date. 



It will be noticed that Mr. Spooner, the owner of the "Eliza", in his statement 

 of his claim, declares that the "Eliza "was on a trading voyage, engaged in barter- 

 ing with the natives, and catching walrus, and as such did not come under the 

 Notice of the Russian Government, which was directed against the capture of seals 

 on Copper, Robbius, and Behring Islands. 



It will be seen that Mr. Spooner either refers to an Order of the Russian Govern- 

 ment different from the one mentioned by the Imperial Foreign Office, or he under- 

 stood the letter in a very different sense. 



I may add that the Russian Code of Prize Law of 1869, Article 21, and now in 

 force, limits the jurisdictional waters of Russia to 3 miles from the shore. 



I think that is all. 



The communication from General Ylaiigaly to Mr. Lothrop appears 

 to corroborate the statement of Mr. Lothrop, that it was not a question 

 of fishing, but a question of the '■ Eliza" being engaged in an illicit 

 trade. 



The second part of that letter is to this effect: 



This information is in substance to the effect that the "Eliza" was confiscated 

 not for the fact of seal hunting, but by virtue of an Administrative Regulation pro- 

 hibiting, from the beginning of the year 1882, every kind of commercial act, of 

 hunting, and of fishing on our coasts of the Pacific, without a special authorization 

 from the Governor-General, and carrying with it, against those disregarding it, the 

 penalty of the seizure of the ship as well as of the cargo. 



Then a little lower down he says : 



The crew of the "Eliza" was engaged not only hunting walrus on our coast of 

 Kamschatka, and in commercial transactions with the natives, but traded there with 

 illicit articles such as arms and strong liquors. 



I think it will also be found that at a later stage, although emulating 

 to some extent, but a lirtle way behind the United States, some seizures 

 have been made by Russia; it will be found that they allege that those 

 seizures were made within territorial waters and that they required the 

 captains seized to sign statements that in j^oint of fact they were 

 illegally engaged within the limits of the territorial waters; but this is 

 a matter with respect to which I do not wish at present to be diverted. 

 I think you will see. Sir, that I have answered satisfactorily the point 



which is made here. 

 1151 Marquis Venosta. — Do you not think that the Eussian Gov- 

 ernment has perhaps considered the Gulf of Mesensk as a gulf, 

 the waters of which are territorial waters? I do not know, I ask you. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That I am just coming to Sir. 



Marquis Venosta. — Because a nation may recognize the general rule 

 of the cannon-shot on the open sea, and may have some peculiar claim, 

 more or less plausible, in regard to a gulf. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I am just coming to that: it is the next 

 item of that argument. At the bottom of page 4G it says: 



The Russian law dealing with the Ustinsk sealing industry in the White Sea is set 

 out in the United States case. 



The industry is carried on in the Gulf of Mesensk in the White Sea; the gulf is 53 

 miles wide. 



The principal provisions of the law are the appointing certain days of departure 

 to the fisheries, and prohibiting the lighting of fires to wiudward of the groups or 

 hauling-grounds of the seals. 



The law is not directly or indirectly applied to foreigners. 



In this law again, you see an example of the control that possessioii 

 of territory gives over foreigners if they come within the sjihere of its 



