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



And then ajjaiii: La cote nord-ouest de VAmcrlque, depuis le detroit de 

 Behriud jusqu'au 51 de latitude septentrionale — a I'uitlier reference to the 

 Pacific Ocean. Therefore, in the docnments which open tlie diplomatic 

 negotiations these words are used, and used in the only sense in which 

 they could be used, as meaning the whole "Xorth-West Coast", the 

 whole of the "Pacific Ocean ". Is there less good faith between nations 

 than between individuals'? I am to be followed by one wliom 1 know 

 to be a great lawyer and advocate and diplomatist. Will my friend, 

 Mr. Phelps, suggest — I know he will not — that good faith between peo- 

 ple who are negotiating, between nations, is less than between individ- 

 uals? If anything — if there could be such a difference of standard — it 

 should be higher; but at any rate it should be as high. 



Now, Sir, the position of things is this — that had this been an ordi- 

 nary contract between individuals and you wanted to turn round and 

 say: It is quite true that we began the negotiation understanding 

 what we meant by " Northwest coast": it is quite true that we began 

 the negotiation understanding what we meant by "Pacific Ocean", but 

 in the course of the negotiations those words acquired a different mean- 

 ing: "North- West coast" no longer meant what we called it "from 

 Behring Straits to 51°", it only meant "from 00° to 54°". "Pacific 

 Ocean " no longer meant what we called it, it only meant " that part of 

 the Pacific Ocean which is south of the Aleutian Islands". 



I will appeal to any judge — to anyone who has any judicial or legal 

 experience. Assuming that a negotiation between individuals starts 

 with both parties understanding "Pacific Ocean", and " North- West 

 Coast," as meaning what I have said, and one of the jiarties after the 

 contract turns round and says : " Oh no, when I made the contract with 

 you I meant something quite different by those two expressions", what 

 is the first thing a judge would say? It is: " Where, in the course of 

 the negotiations did you ever call the attention of the other party " to 

 the fact that you were using the expressions in a different meaning? I 

 hope I have made my point clear to your mind, Mr. President — I do not 

 wish to repeat myself — I say, starting in October 1821, through the 

 whole course of these books (and all the original documents are here), 

 there is not a trace of the suggestion of a change of meaning in either 

 " North-West Coast " or " Pacific Ocean ", so that the point which Mr. 

 Senator Morgan was good enough to put to me for my consideration 

 tells in my favour, because they were using words in a meaning per- 

 fectly well known to the parties. But is there anything the other way? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Will you let me ask you, Sir Eichard, if it will 

 not interrupt you, what do you think Mr. Adams meant in his letter to 

 Mr. Middleton of July 22nd when he said "the Southern Ocean"? 



Sir Richard Webster. — To what page are you referring. Judge? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — To page 141 of vol. I of the Appendix to the 

 Case of the United States. 



Sir Richard Webster. — To what passage, Judge, might I ask? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The third paragraph. 



Sir Richard Webster. — The paragraph commencing: "The United 

 States can admit no part of these claims"? 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Yes. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It says : 



The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their right of navioration 

 and of fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times 

 after the peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject 

 only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions, which 

 so far as Russian rights are concerned are confined to certain islands north of the 

 fifty-fifth degree of latitude, and have no existence on the continent of America. 



