ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 415 



boundary of Russia; the sole question was at what point the lisiere 

 should break away, so to speak, and give Russia the whole of the con- 

 tinent to the North-West. When I presently show its application you 

 will find this is of extreme importance, and, I may venture to repeat 

 myself, between the United States and Russia there was a discussion 

 whether the boundary should be 51°. I only put this figure hypothetic- 

 ally. It makes no dilference whether it is at 51°.50, or 54°.40, or at one 

 time, as the United States said, as high as 57° or 58°. It makes no 

 difference to my purpose. From beginning to end of the whole con- 

 troversy during the years 1821 to 1825, no question ever arose between 

 the United States and Russia as to whether the northern boundary 

 should be up at 60° or at Behring Straits, or at Nushagak, or at any 

 other point, in fact the discussion whicli has attempted to be imported 

 into this controversy by my learned friend Mr. Carter, who has gone, if 

 he will forgive me saying, the extraordinary length of saying that the 

 United States and Russia agreed that the North-West Coast, for the 

 purpose of the Treaty, meant that little bit, the lisiere — that after the 

 southern point was fixed when in the Treaty of 1824 they talk of the 

 North West Coast, they meant the lisiere — he has gone the length of 

 saying that although Great Britain had no knowledge of it, yet Great 

 Britain inherited as a sort of heir-loom, a damnosa hccreditas, if I may 

 use the expression, a construction of the clause which upon its face 

 the words will not bear, from the United States, because the language 

 of a particular article was originally taken from the American Treaty. 



I cannot help reminding you. Sir, that when pressed by a question 

 from the Tribunal, "should you, Mr. Carter, say that if in the corre- 

 spondence between Great Britain and Russia it was clear that the words 

 had been used in another sense? " Mr. Carter, with a frankness I should 

 have expected, and which we all should have expected from him, said 

 at once, "No, I should not". Then, said the Member of the Tribunal, 

 the question is, what was the meaning which had been put upon those 

 words in the correspondence between, not the United States and Russia, 

 though that for this purpose would not make any difference, but 

 between Great Britain and Russia. Upon that we did not hear one 

 single word of argument from Mr. Carter or from Mr. Coudert in follow- 

 ing him. 



Now let me take you to the earliest period of time, so far as it is 

 material. Is it the fact that when the parties began to assert their 

 claims and rights respectively, they were between themselves, so to 

 speak only referring to the North- West Coast, meaning thereby nothing 

 north of 60°*? I will not involve the question again by trying to fix a 

 southern boundary; that is immaterial for my purpose, were they 

 speaking of a coast which was to have nothing on it north of 60*^ or of 

 an ocean which was not to go north of the Aleutian Islands. I have 

 ventured to put upon a map, — I will hand you a copy and lend one to 

 my learned friends, and i)erhaps they will be good enough to lend it to 

 the Court afterwards — it is my own work and therefore I will take the 

 responsibility for any faults that there are — I have put what was the 

 state of things so far as the case shows prior to the year 1821. The 

 whole of this is taken from the British Case, and it shows, I think at a 

 glance, that the statement made that all that the people knew about 

 or cared about in connection with the North- West Coast was south of 

 latitude 60° is not accurate. 



You will observe what has been done, I will not take it in order of 

 date; it would occui)y a little time, but I will take it in the order that 

 the information is given on the map. If you start at Sitka, I have 



