ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 417 



the whole of the vessels trading along the coast. There was no rea- 

 son as is observed in the British Commissioners' report and in the 

 Case for the vessels registering their names — there was no reason for 

 their names being known. I do not suppose that ports of registry- 

 existed on this coast, at any rate there was very little indeed to lead 

 these vessels to record the places that they called at when trading with 

 the nation, but even with the limited means of information that we have 

 we are able to show that when Knssia began to make her complaint the 

 position was that there had been substantial navigation, substantial 

 trading and substantial interference with the rights which she very 

 properly desired to protect far away to the north of the point which 

 according to my learned friend Mr. Carter's argument was the only 

 point the parties cared about. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Did the contest between Great Britain and 

 Eussia at that time embrace any settlement on either side of what is 

 now called Behring Sea. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I do not think so. 



Lord Hannen. — As a matter of fact Captain Cook took possession 

 of certain jiortions in the Behring Sea. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I should have said with reference to Mr. 

 Justice Harlan's point I think it is obvious that at that time the parties 

 were not relying strictly and solely upon their right of first possession 

 because Great Britain had, if it had beeu a contest as to territory, prob- 

 ably an earlier claim to parts in Behring Sea than Russia, but that 

 brings out the point to which the Attorney General called the attention 

 of the Tribunal many days ago, that Great Britain cared very little 

 about the coast — in fact it was comparatively immaterial provided the 

 right of free navigation and free fishing was not interfered with and 

 was enjoyed by her subjects after the year 1821 as they had been before. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Your argument is that the North- West coast 

 extended all around there to these different points visited by the British 

 vessels. 



Sir Richard Webster. — 1 say the JTorth-West Coast extended right 

 up to Behring Straits. I say tliat of this contention of Mr. Carter's, for 

 the pur^iose of the Treaty in 1825, that that is the North- West Coast, 

 there is not a trace to be found in any original document or contention. 

 This is not to dejiend on the assertion of counsel. If the document 

 exists showing the word North West Coast at that time was understood 

 to mean that, that document would have been produced ; and, of course, 

 when it is produced I will deal with it. I am prepared to refer if neces- 

 sary to any documents to which my learned friend can call attention. 



I shall refer pointedly to one, which is the Baron de Tuyll's commu- 

 nication, which shows that the Company tried to get a limit put, notou 

 the words North West Coast, but on the right to visit during 10 years. 

 I assert, and I beg the Tribunal to take it as my recollection of the 

 reading, that from beginning to end of this correspondence there is not 

 a document indicating that North West Coast was understood by Russia, 

 the United States, or Great Britain, as stopping at any point whatever 

 north of 54° 40'. It went from whatever the southern boundary was — 

 55° at one time in the days of 1799 — right away up through Behring 

 Sea; and it is the sim])le fact, and you will find it of great importance, 

 that between the United States and Russia there was no contention 

 whatever as to the northern boundary of Russia. The whole point was, 

 how far south can we stop Russia coming tol And as between Great 

 Britain and Russia you will find, — except to ascertain the point of 

 departure where that line running north was to go up so that Russia 

 B S, PT XIII 27 



