OEAL ARGUMENT OF SIB RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 431 



I may tell you, Judge, that I am very much oblig:ed to you for point- 

 ing it out to me — it tits in exactly with the point I was going to have 

 urged to you later on. At tliis time it was a recognized principle — 

 when I say recognized it was a principle of international law — I do not 

 really know that it does not prevail up to the present time — but at this 

 time it was a recognized principle of international law that you might 

 land on unoccupied coasts, in the course of general rights of fisliing 

 and navigation. Woukl you kindly look again at that book. I am 

 going to read from page 10 of the 2nd part of the same book with refer- 

 ence to Mr. Justice Harlan's point which he was good enough to put to 

 me. This is a letter from Mr. Forsyth who was Secretary of State. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The letter is from Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of 

 State to Mr. Dal his. 



Sir Richard Webster. — The second paragraph of the letter is this 

 (See Appen II B. 0. part 2 p. 10) : 



The Ist article of that instrument is only declaratory of a right which the parties 

 to it possessed, under the law of nations, without conventional stipulations, to wit, 

 to navigate and tish in the ocean upon an unoccupied coast, and to resort to such 

 coast for the purpose of trading with the natives. 



I do not know, Judge, whether you know that the same claim was 

 made by the United States much later in connection with the Falkland 

 Islands. It was at this time-^I do not know that it is not still — snp- 

 posed by international law that you could land upon an unoccupied 

 coast, and without any grant or iJermission for the purpose of trading 

 with the natives; and speaking of that, Mr. Wheaton at page 171 

 referring to this very trading says: 



Admitting that this inference was just and was in contemplation of the parties to 

 the convention — 



That is about the ten years: 



it would not follow that the United States ever intended to ahandon the just right 

 acknowledged hy the first article to helong to them under the law of nations i. e. 

 to frequent any part of the unoccupied coasts of North America, for the purpose of 

 fishing, or trading with the natives. 



Now, my answer to you, Mr. Justice Harlan, is this; — That Mr. 

 Adams, when he wrote on the 22nd of July, said : we cannot admit your 

 territorial claims down to latitude 51°; we cannot admit your right to 

 prevent us from navigating and fishing, for the only possessions that 

 you have occupied are certain Islands north of the 55° of latitude, and 

 therefore he was again referring to what he believed to be the true view 

 of international law, that, if the Russians had got no occupation, they 

 could not prevent other jiations from landing. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — 1 do not think you quite appreciated ray object 

 in asking that question. Sir Richard. In the paragraph before, Mr. 

 Adams describes the protection of territorial jurisdiction "from the 

 45th degree of North latitude on the Asiatic coast to the latitude of 

 51° North on the Western coast". 



Sir Richard Webster. — You will observe. Judge, that no Northern 

 limit is mentioned. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Yes. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It goes up to Behring's Straits. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — 



And they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all 

 other nations to the extent of 100 miles from the whole of that coast. 



Then he proceeds to announce what he understands to be the prin- 

 cipal rights of navigation and fishing of the citizens of the United 

 States throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean. 



