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



them — wliat tliey call tlie " Pacific Oceau", and Belirino- Sea) — but tlie 

 Treaty did not, and therefore, you, Great Britain acqniesced in the 

 claim of Russia in Behring Sea". Is that true, or is it not, Mr. Presi- 

 dent? I do not wiwsh to do an injustice, if I can avoid it, to my friend. 

 1 will read two passages from the Counter Case and Argument which 

 make this clear. 

 At page 19 of the Counter Case they say this : 



The Ukase of 1831 evoked strong protests, and the cliaracter of these protests is 

 explained at pages 50 and 51 of the Case of the United States. It is further pointed 

 out at pages 52 and 53 that in the treaties resulting from these protests a clear dis- 

 tinction is intended to be drawn between the Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea, and 

 that by formally withdrawing the operation of the Ukase as to the Pacific Ocean, 

 but not as to Behring Sea, a recognition of its continued operation over the latter 

 body of water was necessarily implied. 



Now there is nothing much stronger than this assertion which they 

 have attempted to prove — that inasmuch as the Treaties themselves, 

 either on their face or by looking at documents which Great Britain 

 could not deny — either from the Treaties and those documents, " Pacific 

 Ocean" does not include "Behring Sea"; " North- West Coast" does 

 not go further north than 60°. Therefore there is an ample recognition 

 of the continued operation of the Ukase of 1821 over Behring Sea and 

 over the ISTorth-West Coast, north of 60°. 



Now Mr. President, I must address myself to this point, having full 

 regard to the nature of this Tribunal, and not being able to dismiss it 

 in the summary way that I should in an ordinary Court of Justice in 

 our Country. Mr. Carter tells me that the United States Counsel are 

 not quite in the same position as we are, but that the opinion of United 

 States Counsel is supposed to give validity to arguments; therefore 

 they also vouch them, and therefore I must deal with this matter. I 

 find at page 36 of the United States Argument, this statement: 



In the view of the undersigned, Mr. Blaine was entirely successful in establishing 

 his contention that the assertion by Russia of an exceptional authority over the 

 seas, including an interdiction of the approach of any foreign vessel within 100 

 miles of certain designated shores, while abandoned by her treaty with Great 

 Britain in 1825 — 



I ask the Tribunal to notice this — 



as to all the northwest coast south of the 60th parallel of north latitude, was, so far 

 as respects Behring Sea, and the islands thereof, and the coast south of the 60th 

 parallel, — 



that is a mis-print, it is ^hiorth of the 60th parallel" — 



never abandoned by her, but was acquiesced in by Great Britain. 



It would have been more satisfactory to us (and I think it would 

 have been more satisfactory to the Tribunal), if inasmuch as a definite 

 finding in favor of the United States is asked on this point, Mr. Carter 

 had found it possible to have indicated to us what the arguments were 

 in support of that complete success of Mr. Blaine; but inasmuch as I 

 am determined, at any rate, that the Tribunal shall know the exact 

 position, will they give me their kind attention for a few moments 

 while I endeavour without one Avord of colour of my own, to show that 

 the confidence in the success of Mr. Blaine was not such as Mr. Carter 

 has thought fit to indicate at page 36; and I will ask the Tribunal (if 

 I am not unduly trespassing on them), to turn to Appendix II to the 

 British Case, because the few documents I have to refer to happen to 

 be set out verbatim there. 



