ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 419 



I am with the permission of the Tribunal, directing their attention to 

 the period before 1821. I am not upon the period of 1821 at all. Two 

 matters were prominently brought forward in the United States case 

 during this period as bearing upon the assertion and exercise by Russia 

 of certain rights; and I call the attention of the Tribunal to page 42 of 

 the United States Case. You will see in a moment, Mr. President, when 

 I read this language, the importance that they attach to the exercise 

 by Russia as distinguished from the assertion; and on page 42 of their 

 Case, which still stands not Avithdrawn, there occur these Avords. I 

 believe that the Tribunal have seen the copy that Mr. Foster Avas good 

 enough to agree upon with me, shoAving what wascut out from the United 

 States Case, and therefore I need not at any time refer to anything that 

 has been cut out. But this paragraph still stands: 



The oflficlal Russian records show that after the ukase or charter of 1799, granting 

 to the Russian American Company certain exclusive control of trade and coloniza- 

 tion, its authorities, acting under the sanction of the Russian Government, did not 

 permit foreign vessels to visit Behring Sea. 



Now you will observe the importance of it, Mr. President in a moment. 

 They were desirous of proving that Russia had exercised more or less 

 jurisdiction in Behring Sea. What the character of the jurisdiction 

 she asserted was I shall discuss later on. I si>eak subject to correction 

 when my friend Mr. Phelps comes to reply, or at any time, if he wishes 

 to correct me; but I am not now aware of any document, official or 

 otherwise, that supports the allegation to the slightest degree that the 

 Russian Company or Russia did not permit foreign vessels to visit 

 Behring Sea after 1799. On the contrary as I shall show you in a very 

 few moments on the face of the original documents it is quite clear that 

 foreign ships were visiting and Avere trading in Behring Sea between 

 1799 and 1821; but that I may keep strictly to the order of the dates, 

 I must again remind the Tribunal, . . for it seems to have been forgotten 

 by my learned friends. . . how it was that the Ukase of 1799 came to be 

 made. It is stated at page 15 of the Counter Case of the United States 

 that the Ukase of 1799 was directed against foreigners. I ask the 

 attention of the Court to this matter; because this is after the with- 

 drawal of the documents which the United States most properly and 

 frankly withdrew. They repeat their statement that the Ukase of 1799 

 was directed against foreigners. That is to be found on page 15 of the 

 United States Counter Case. Upon this point a quotation is giA^en from 

 a letter from the Russian American Company to the Russian Minister 

 of Finance, under date of June 12th, 1824. I ask the attention of the 

 Tribunal to that date, not 1799 or about that date, but June 12, 1824. 

 The quotation is a follows: 



The exclusive right granted to the Company in the year 1799 imposed the prohibi- 

 tion to trade in those regions not only upon foreigners but also upon Russian sub- 

 jects not belonging to the Company. This prohibition was again affirmed and more 

 clearly defined in the new privileges granted in the year 1821 and in the regulations 

 concerning the limits of navigation. 



Therefore you will observe, Sir, that both in their Case they assert 

 that official documents will show, and in their Counter Case they allege, 

 again referring not to a contemporaneous document but to one of 1824, 

 that the Ukase of 1799 was an executive act intended to operate against 

 foreigners. 



"What are the facts? I wish to take this as briefly as possible, because 

 if I call the attention of the Tribunal to it they Avill be good enough, I 

 have no doubt, to note it as being of importance. At page 22 of the 

 British Case Avill be found the history of the Ukase of 1799. I will 



