ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 439 



to the bottom of the original paragraph 7 as sent to us, the translation 

 there was — 



But by the Arctic Ocean and seas of Kamschatka and Okhotsk. 



And I should think it extremely probable that the Russian word 

 would admit of either translation. But it makes no difference for my 

 purpose. 1 am calling attention to the fact that this document (never 

 communicated to Great Britain) an attempted protest by the liussiau 

 Company to try and get a restriction upon the ten years licence, 

 assumed the form that not unnaturally caused you, Sir, a little doubt as 

 to its meaning from the i)erson who prepared it not having followed the 

 actual language of the rei)resentation. As it reads in the French or 

 the extract, I read from Mr. Blaine yesterday at page 227, a full stop is 

 put after the words 1824 and the sentence begins. 



The Aleutian Islands are also washed by the sea of Kamchatka or Northern Ocean. 



I pass from it with this concluding observation which is 1 am afraid 

 a repetition, that the document formed no i»art whatever of the nego- 

 tiations between Great Britain and Russia, and so far as the United 

 States are concerned it is a distinct confirmation of what was the mean- 

 ing of the language of the Treaty as it was originally understood. For 

 this document was intended to be, and was, an attem])t by the Company 

 to get a limited and restricted meaning put upon clause IV. 



Now there are otdy a few matters in this connection to which I need 

 call attention, and I do so in deference to a question put to me yester- 

 day by Mr. Justice Harlan. I will ask the Tribunal to be good enough 

 to look at the two Treaties as they are together at page 52 of the British 

 Case. It is the most convenient form because they can then be com- 

 pared without the trouble of referring to more than one book. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Before you leave that may I ask whether it 

 appears in the Case that the terms of the Treaty of 1824 were known to 

 Great Britain when the treaty of 1825 was made. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, known and adoi)ted by Great Britain 

 as being a conclusive answer to the attempt that was being made by 

 Russia to get her to agree to other terms. After the 1824 Treaty had 

 been agreed to Russia tried to induce Great Britain to limit her right 

 of visiting during the term of ten years to the lisiere. Russia tried, as 

 I will show you, by two documents, to get Great Britain to accept a less 

 right of visiting than the United States had acquired. While that 

 negotiation was going on the British Ministers received the American 

 Treaty, upon which they put identically the same construction which 

 eveiy body else, up till this argument, has put upon it: namely that it 

 did not limit the North W^est Coast to 59.30; and, in consequence, upon 

 the ground that Great Britain could not be forced to accept less than 

 the United States, they adopted that language without a suggestion 

 made, or a single scintilla of a suggestion, that these rights were 

 limited, and Great Britain was only getting a right to the North West 

 Coast, as they are now pleased to call it, up to latitude 60, or anything 

 else. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — One other question. The United States 

 Treaty describes it as " the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific 

 Ocean or South Sea". 



Sir Richard Weester. — Quite right. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — The British Treaty describes it as "any part 

 of the Ocean commoidy called the Pacific Ocean". The French of that 

 Treaty has the word "Grand" in it. 



