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



operation, as they maybe obliged to do; tliey are controlled by the 

 local law re<;ulating days of departure, or other conditions of departure; 

 and it may further be, as Count Yenosta has been good enough to sug- 

 gest, that Ivussia may think that it has a claim to the Gulf of Meseusk 

 upon another and different ground as being a gulf largely enclosed by 

 territory. But it does not seem to me necessary to consider that: and 

 both Governments recognize, that what Marquis Venosta has been good 

 enough to suggest is possible. 



I have already dealt with Behring Sea, and the Sea of Okhotsk, on 

 page 47. 



Then as regards the Caspian Sea, at the bottom of page 47 of the 

 British Argument, it is said : 



The fisliing and sealing indnstries in the Caspian Sea are also dealt with by law, 

 which expressly declares that the catchinfr of lish and killing of seals in the waters 

 of the Caspian iuclnded in the Russian Empire are free to all who desire to engage 

 in the same, except in certain specitied localities, under observance of the established 

 rules. A close time is appointed. 



Of course the Caspian Sea stands in an entirely different category 

 from any we have been discussing. The Caspian is a land-locked sea 

 included within tlie territorial dominions of Kussia and Persia, and I 

 need not say that that being the fact, those Powers have absolutely the 

 right to exclude all whom they please from access to those territories, 

 because the access can only be obtained, in the one case through Rus- 

 sian, and in the other case through Persian territory: because it is an 

 admitted right of sovereignty to deny access through their territory to 

 any person they please. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you know, Sir Charles, whether Persia has 

 coincided with Eussia in its enactments? 

 1152 Sir Charles Eussell. — I am unable to say, Sir; and it is 

 enough to say that one need only look at the map to see that the 

 Caspian Sea is entirely surrounded by land — Persian on the one side 

 and Eussian on the other — but the case affords no aid to this Tribunal 

 at all on the question we are discussing, and presents no analogy. 



Now the next case is that of Uruguay; and as to this, I have to say 

 that although this is referred to in the Case of the United States, it is 

 answered in the British Counter Case at page 90, and after that answer 

 has been given, it is not thereafter adverted to in the printed Argument 

 of the United States; and therefore I content myself with saying tliat 

 the answer has been given in the British Counter-Case, and to this 

 there has been no rejoinder. 



The statement is this. It is, in effect, the statement at page 48 of 

 the British Argument : 



The laws of Uruguay which regulate the taking of seals upon the Lobos Islands do 

 not extend beyond the ordinary territorial jurisdiction, and have no application to 

 pelagic sealing beyond that limit. Seals are taken on the islands, and the State — 



this is part of the enactment 



does not permit vessels of any kind to anchor off any of the said islands, and does 

 not allow any works to be constructed that might frighten the seals away. 



That is the whole story. 



So as to Chile; that is referred to in the Case of the United States, 

 but is not reproduced in the Argument of my learned friend. 



Mr. Phelps. — At the bottom of page 1G8, in the Argument, you will 

 find a reference to Uruguay. 



