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



not, the Award will give it no greater sanction — that all men are equal 

 on the high sea and have the right to take from it the products of the 

 high sea according to the measure of their opportunity and their will. 

 Thus the whole question of the respective rights will have been deter- 

 mined. But if I should not be right in that, the Tribunal will them- 

 selves judge, and they will frame their answers so as to cover the view 

 which has been suggested by Senator Morgan. I content myself, there- 

 fore, with reminding the Tribunal that at page 26 of the printed Argu- 

 ment, we have formulated the answers which we conceive the facts and 

 the law justify us in calling upon this Tribunal to make. These relate 

 to the first four of the questions. 

 First : 



That Russia exercised no exclusive jurisdiction in Behriug Sea prior to 1867; that, 

 in 1821 only, Russia asserted exclusive jurisdiction over a part of Behring Sea along 

 its coasts, but that she withdrew the assertion, and never afterwards asserted or 

 exercised such jurisdiction. 



That Russia exercised no exclusive rights in the seal fisheries in Behring Sea prior 

 to 1867; that in 1821 only, Russia claimed exclusive rights, as included in her claim 

 of jurisdiction extending to 100 miles from the coast, hut that she withdrew the 

 assertion, and never afterwards asserted or exercised such rights. 



The only exclusive right which Russia subsequently exercised was the right inci- 

 dental to her territorial ownership. 



Then as to question 2 : 



That Great Britain neither recognized nor conceded any claims of Russia of juris- 

 diction as to the seal fisheries, i. e., either (a) of exclusive jurisdiction in Behring 

 Sea, or(&) exclusive rights in the fisheries in Behring Sea, save as already mentioued. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.— What do you mean by " exclusive rights in 



fisheries in Behring Sea?" You do not include the business 



1200 conducted on the Islands, do you? Do you mean that Great 



Britain did not concede Eussia's exclusive right on the Islands? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — iSot at all; we are not dealing with the 

 rights ratione soli: those are not in dispute. We deny the existence of 

 any exclusive rights outside territorial limits. Our contention is that 

 the only rights which Eussia had or exercised were such rights as were 

 incidental to her territorial ownership. 



Lord Hannen. — The words are, " save as already mentioned ". 



Sir Charles Eussell.— That is so. The form of the Treaty is curi- 

 ous. It may have escaped notice that the first question in Article VI 

 deals with exclusive rights in the seal fisheries, and therefore we have 

 adopted the language of the question; whereas question N". 5 alters 

 the phraseology and says "protection or property in the fur-seals". 

 The answer, therefore, is adapted to the phraseology of the question. 



Now for the third answer, (which Mr. Blaine told us would be decisive 

 of the matter), we contend that the answer should be: 



That Behring Sea was included in " Pacific Ocean " in the Treaty of 1825. 



That Russia neither held nor exclusively exercised any rights in Behriug Sea after 

 the Trealy of 1825, save only such territorial rights as were allowed to her by inter- 

 national law. 



Then the answer we suggest to question 4 is : 



That no rights as to jurisdiction or as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the 

 water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th 

 March, 1867, passed to the United States under that Treaty, except such as were 

 incidental to the islands and other territory ceded. 



In other words, that no more passed (and it is not contended that 

 more did pass to the United States) than Eussia possessed, and that 

 Eussia's rights were the rights of a territorial owner and no more. 



