ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 437 



Sir Richard Webster. — I have not the smallest objection to meet 

 any argument of that kind. 



The President. — Let me point out this: I am struck with it. The 

 Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of Karaschatka or North- 

 ern Ocean. If they are washed by the Sea of Kainschatka or Northern 

 Ocean I suppose that means Behring Sea. They are washed on the 

 southern Side by the Pacific on that Coast, and the Sea of Karaschatka 

 or Northern Ocean on that coa.st. That is what we call Beliriug Sea. 

 I do not understand any other possible construction of this passage. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I do not know what was in the mind of the 

 person who framed tliis note which was never communicated to Great 

 Britain (that is j)roved to demonstration). I am not considering whether 

 tbe arguments in this note were well or ill founded, — I am not consid- 

 ering whether Northern Ocean meant Behring Sea or was another name 

 for the North Pacific Ocean, but I point this out that it is conclusive 

 against Mr. Carter's contention. 



The President. — The Northern Sea is used in opposition to the 

 South Sea. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I am not so sure. 



The President. — It is a strange wording. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I will accept it, but it does not touch my 

 point. 



Mr. Carter has told you that in his ox)inion he is satisfied that Mr. 

 Blaine was successful in the contention tliat the Pacific Ocean was 

 excluded, and he further told you that for the pur])ose of this Treaty 

 North West Coast was to be confined from latitude 00° down to 54° 40' — 

 the lisiere: I need not mention that again. My point is that Baron de 

 Tuyll's document is conclusive against that, because to tell us that these 

 great nations were fighting about 30 miles of country was childish, — 

 nobody with any knowledge of diplomacy could suggest it. The posi- 

 tion is that the Russian Company were seeking to get the 10 years per- 

 mission stopped at 59° 30', not saying the words limited it, not saying 

 the clause did not give the United States the right, but trying to get 

 the 10 years clause stopped at that point, because the lisiere discussion 

 had arisen in between the time of the Treaty being agreed to in April 

 1824 and the date on which Baron de Tuyll's letter was written. 



The President. — Will you allow me to state that I do not think 

 that it is fair to consider as a principal of International law that there 

 is any right (at least to-day and I do not think it ever Was previously) 

 of landing upon an unoccupied portion of any coast which belongs to 

 another nation. There may be a question between occupation and 

 possession. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That is the ground of it. 



The President. — But where there is possession if there is not actual 

 occupation, the Sovereign nation who has that possession has the right 

 of doing whatever she likes with it. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I think for the last 20 years that certainly 

 has been the rule; but there are plenty of indications that up till 20 or 

 30 years ago it was not so clearly understood. 



Lord Hannen. — And even then you will find it was based on posses- 

 sion. 



The Tribunal then adjourned till tomorrow at 11.30, 



