ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C, M. P. 399 



is required by Article V to give damages on the basis of a limited catch 

 or catches which might have been taken in Behring Sea — in all the cir- 

 cumstances of the case Great Britain does not desire to press that view 

 upon the Tribunal, and therefore, will ask for no finding for damages 

 upon and under that 5th article of the modus viiiendi; but it probably 

 will be convenient in the Award which the Arbitrators may think 

 proper to make, to state upon its face that both the United States and 

 Great Britain have abandoned any claim for damages under that head. 



The President. — You are agreed also as to that, Mr. Phelx^s. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes. 



The President. — I am not quite sure, speaking for myself, that the 

 question of compensation was referred to the Arbitrators. I am not 

 quite sure that Article V is to be construed in that way as to compen- 

 sation. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — If we agree to relieve you of it, Sir, it is 

 unnecessary to discuss it. 



The President. — Of course, it is more easy to agree about a difficult 

 question than to have it decided by us. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Kow, Sir, I come to the important questions 

 in the case. As regards those questions, my respect for Senator Morgan 

 induces me to say one word. Senator Morgan has more than once, as I 

 understood, suggested that the answers to the five points, as they are 

 set out in Article VI, do not exhaust the duty and functions of this 

 Tribunal as to the questions in dispute submitted to this Tribunal for 

 adjudication. Well, if that be so, — if Senator Morgan be right in 

 that — I need not say it would be the duty of this Tribunal to consider 

 any question referred to them under the whole Treaty if it is not found 

 to be de'^At with, and met by, the answers to those five points. But, as 

 I submit respectfully to Senator Morgan, they are adequately dealt with 

 as the result, or by the result of the answers of the Tribunal to each of 

 those questions. For instance. Senator Morgan was good enough to 

 refer me to the introduction to the Treaty, and to the first Article of 

 the Treaty which repeats the introduction; namely, that, amongst the 

 questions which have arisen between the two Governments, there are 

 some which concern the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the 

 waters of Behring Sea; others which concern the preservation of the 

 fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said Sea; and others 

 1199 again which concern the rights of the citizens and subjects of 

 either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in or habitually 

 resorting to the Behring Sea. 



Now I think, if the learned Senator will consider, he will see that 

 every one of those questions will be in fact dealt with by the answers 

 to one or other of those five questions. For instance, in determining 

 what the exclusive jurisdiction if any Russia had, what recognition 

 there was of this exclusive jurisdiction by Great Britain, whether 

 Behring Sea was included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean", and the effect 

 of the cession of the rights of Russia to the United States — the deter- 

 mination of these matters will dispose of the class of questions which 

 have been grouped together as jurisdictional or territorial questions. 



And then as to the question of the right of the United States as to 

 property or protection in the fur-seal: equally the answer to that ques- 

 tion would seem to me to dispose of the question, What were the rights 

 of the respective nationals? because if the United States citizens have 

 no exclusive or exceptional right, then the great and broad princiide 

 remains — we care not whether it is stated on the face of the Award or 



