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



I am not sure, my Lord, tbat in terms the Ukase of 1799 proliil^itetl 

 foreign trade; but it is not material for my jnirpose. I would assume 

 that the general effect of it may have been to give foreign trade, as far 

 as Eussia could, to the particular company. But the point that I 

 desire to bring out is that there is absolutely no evidence of any exer- 

 cise of the right of exclusion by Eussia. On the contrary, when you 

 come to look at the documents, it is clear that there had been extensive 

 interference with their foreign trade, which the company objected to. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Whatever rights were given by that Ukase 

 were given exclusively to this company 1 



Sir EiCHAKD Webster. — Certainly. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.— Whether they extended to the whole ocean 

 or only to the coasts or islands'? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — So far as Eussia was concerned, whatever 

 she gave, she gave it exclusively to the company. It is quite clear that 

 the United States view in 1821 was that it had no operation against 

 foreigners, and I submit it would have no operation against foreigners. 

 Its object was to consolidate the many rival companies. That is stated 

 also in Bancroft's book, quoted in the British Case, but I do not go back 

 upon that. 



Now, Mr. President, if you will turn over to page 20 of our Counter 

 Case, you will find there the letter from the Governor-General of 

 Siberia : 



We are familiar with the complaints made iy the American Company in regard to the 

 bartering carried on iy citizens of the United States at their establishments, and in 

 regard to their supplying the natives with fire-arms. These complaints are well 

 founded, hut nothing can he done in the matter. It would be useless to apply to the 

 United States Government to stop the trading: the commercial rules of the United 

 States do not allow such interference on the part of their Government. The only 

 thing to he done is for the Company to endeavour to strengthen the defences of the 

 principal places in the Colonies, and for the Government, at least, not to favour this 

 foreign trade. But the establishment of a whale fishery on the eastern shores of 

 Siberia would undoubtedly favour it in a high degree. Tlie establishment of a whale 

 fishery would be a pretext for, and an encouragement to, foreign trade. 



Later down in the same letter : 



Mr. Eiccord — 



He was the Superintendent of Kamschatka — 



says, in his letter, that, owing to the smallness of our forces in that part of the world, 

 we cannot prevent foreigners from whaling. In the first place, we may not be so weak 

 as he supposes. The occasional appearance of a single properly armed ship may be 

 BufiQcient to keep quiet and disperse all these whalers. 



Then on the 28th of February, 1822, you will find that the object 

 which was recognized there was to get a footing for this purpose— for 

 the purpose of collecting furs on the Aleutian Islands, 



or on the northern islands situated in the direction of Behring Strait, that he made 

 his proposal, of which you have already been informed, with regard to whaling and 

 fishing for the benefit of Kamtchatka and Okhotsk. 



In the face of that, Mr. President, it is not too much to say, I submit, 

 that regarded from the point of view of information and facl s gathered 

 from every source, there is not the slightest shred of evidence beyond 

 the withdrawn documents, now admitted to be untrustworthy and not to 

 be relied upon, of any exercise by Eussia at all prior to 1821. 



Now I come to 1821 ; and I must be permitted to make a few observa- 

 tions with regard to the Ukase of 1821. I read to you, Mr. President, 

 before we adjourned, at the suggestion of my learned friend, Sir Charles 

 Eussell, from page 38, 1 think, if I remember right, of the British Case, 



