434 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEI5STER, Q. C. M. P. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Let me put this to you in tliat connection, if 

 I am not inteiiui)ting'. I understand botli sides to contend, or to admit 

 tliat Russia did not intend, by the ukase of 1821, to ch)se Behring Sea, 

 and that slie was not so understood by either side at the time as intend- 

 inw to close Behring Sea, although Mr. Canning suggested that a limit 

 should be put. 



Sir RicuARD Webster. — You must exclude Behring Straits, Judge. 

 It would have closed it on the Il^orth. I am speaking of closing it from 

 the South. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I understand that. Mr. Canning said the 

 application of that 100-mile limit would close Behring's Straits. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — And, therefore, would keep British vessels out 

 of the Arctic Sea. Now. if Russia did not intend to close Beliring Sea 

 or interfere with navigation in it anywhere outside of the 100 itiilian 

 mile limit, and neither side understood her as doing more than that, 

 why shouki they have had in mind any terms in the difierent projets or 

 in the Treaty towards securing equality of rights in Behring Seaf 



Sir Richard Webster. — For two reasons. In the first place, 

 because, whether it closes Behring Sea or not, the IdO mile limit would 

 have j)ractically excluded ships from a vast portion of Behring Sea, as 

 to which the Duke of Wellington and others objected most strenuously, 

 and the United States too. It was not a question of closing the Sea 

 only, but a vast portion of Behring Sea. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — But neither the United States nor Great 

 Britain had any settlements on the Behring Sea coast. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It was not a question of settlements. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Or any trade. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I do not at all agree that they had not 

 any trade — it is not a question of settlements. I have read to you, in 

 answer to your question, a few moments ago, the statement made by 

 the United States official, that at that time the right of navigation, was 

 considered by international law as giving you the right to trade with 

 natives where there was no occupation of the coast by the dominant 

 Power. I read Mr. Forsyth's letter, and I read from Wheaton; and I 

 could find you many traces of that in the other diplomatic corre- 

 spondence. 



Senator Morgan. — Has that rule or principle of international law 

 gone out of use? 



Sir Richard Webster. — I referred to that a few moments ago. Sir. 

 With regard to the Falkland Islands in 1835 certainly the United 

 States contended that they, as far as the Falkland Islands were con 

 cerned, — I am not so sure that it has absolutely gone out of use — 



General Foster. — In that case it is not the fact that the United 

 States admitted that it was no mans land — not as to Falkland Islands. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I beg General Foster's pardon. The 

 United States said, (I will refer to the Case) that even if it l^elonged 

 to the Argentine Republic we have by international law a right of 

 fishing in the high seas a!id the right of landing at unoccupied places 

 on the Coast. I must call attention to it, but I must keep myself to 

 my point. I do not at all complain of the interruption. 



Senator Morgan. — My point was that it seemed to me from the 

 argument here on both sides that international law, by which we are 

 supposed to be compelled to be governed, has a formative growth and 

 decay accordingly as it adapts itself to the necessities of mankind. 



Sir Richard Webster. — By the assent of Nations undoubtedly. 



