ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 441 



exchaTiged were really for the private understanding? of certain points 

 between different members of tlie Tribunal. I myself was in doubt as 

 to certain questions of fact, and I enquiied from my neighbors what 

 they thought of the two translations. Perhaps, Sir Kichard, you will 

 proceed. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I understood, in the answers that I gave 

 to the learned Judge's question, tliat he was asking me as to what I 

 may call the geography of the matter, — as to whether I meant to draw 

 any distitiction between " the part of the Ocean commonly called the 

 Pacific Ocean" and, "the part of the Great Ocean commonly called the 

 Pacific Ocean or South Sea" in the 1st Article of the United States 

 Treaty. It was in that sense, and in that sense only, that I answered 

 tlie question. If there was something behind, that I do not under- 

 stand, I am quite sure that the learned Jmige will let me know. That 

 is how 1 understood the question put, and that is how I answered it. 



Now 1 will ask the Tribunal to look at the Treaty. I care not whether 

 I work by the French or the English text myself; but I think I had 

 better take the English so that all the Members of the Tribunal will 

 follow me more easily. If they will be kind enough to look at page 52 

 of the British Case, there they will see an English version of the United 

 States Treaty sufficiently accurate for my purpose, — at any rate, suffi- 

 ciently accurate to enable my point to be made clear. On the next 

 page, you will find the British Treaty. It is a mistake to suppose that 

 either Nation thought they were getting any grant under Article I, — 

 and I am confining my observations now^ to the United States Treaty: 

 whether it be international law^ or not, now, both Nations in the years 

 1824 and 1825 were contending, and contended for long after that time, 

 tiiat by international law the right existed to land on unoccupied coasts; 

 and it is not necessary to go further with the language of this Article 1 

 to enable one to see it. It says: 



It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, 

 or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the Ifigh Contracting Powers 

 shall be neitlier disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in tisliing, or in the 

 power of resorting to the coasts, tipon points which may not already have been 

 occui)ied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions 

 and conditions determined by the following Articles. 



That was an agreement that the interference attempted by Russia 

 over the whole area as to which it had been attempted, should be with- 

 drawn and should be no longer persisted in. It was no grant; it was 

 no permission — it was, in favor of the United States, a withdrawal of 

 the claims of liussia put forward by the Ukase of 1821, objected to by 

 the protest of the United States, no longer continued after the year 

 1824. 



Now Mr. President will you look at the words of the next Article. 



The President. — Do you believe that this first Article implied that 

 Eus.sia had a property on the inhabited coasts? 



Sir Kichard Webster. — I think the first Article implied that the 

 United States did not care to dispute Russia's title to the coasts, because 

 you will observe if I may say so — I am a little anticipating — that by the 

 third Article they agreed to make no settlement north of 50° 40'. Of 

 course the United States knew perfectly well that they could not deter- 

 mine the question between Russia and other nations; but so far as the 

 United States were concerned they did not care about raising the ques- 

 tion of whether Russia's rights to the coast above 54° 40' could be dis- 

 puted. That is what my understanding of the Articles is. 



