ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 443 



The President. — Do you believe by that article that the United 

 States forfeited the right to settle on the more southern Islands of the 

 Aleutian group? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly. 



The President. — Yet they are not north of 54°. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That is exactly what I desire to bring out. 

 They were dealing with the coast line and they were saying "There 

 shall be a line drawn upon that coast at 54^40'. They meant the United 

 States settlement to stop at 54° 40' and the Russian settlement to stop 

 at the same line. That was the dividing point for them. 



The President. — They speak of the Islands on that coast. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That is the observation I had in my mind. 

 However, it is unimportant — that is why 54° 40' came in. 



The President. — It is not quite so uuin)portant, because your inter- 

 pretation of this Article has to be taken together with your interpreta- 

 tion of what you said yesterday about the 59° 80' parallel, when you 

 said it could not certainly apply to the 30 miles remaining between 59° 

 30' and 00°. 



Sir Richard Webster. — No. 



The President. — I believe in the same way as you said to day, that 

 the people who made these Treaties were thinking of the coast line, and 

 considered that going, say, from San Francisco all along the coast to 

 Kadiak and theUnalaskan part they went on going north as it maybe 

 that they meant when they spoke of doing notliing above 59° 30'. 



Sir Richard Webster. — They may not have remembered that this 

 peak came down so far. We do not really know whether the max) was 

 correctly i)lotted at that time. 



The President, — That is how you interpret both caseat 



Sir Richard Webster. — Certainly. 



The President. — And the one you mentioned yesterday. 



Sir Richard Webster. — But surely, if I maybe allowed to say so — 

 I do not want to justify myself — it is the strongest argument in support 

 of what I said yesterday, that it was ridiculous, of course, to suggest 

 that they drew any distinction between 59° 40' and 60' for this i)urpose. 

 59° 40' and 60° for the ])urpo&e of a dividing line were practically the 

 same from the point of view of the coast line. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Does it anywhere appear from the correspond- 

 ence of either of the three Governments, that either Great Britain or 

 America disputed the right of Russia to the Aleutian Islands or to 

 any parts of the coast north of 59° 30' or 60' ? 



Sir Richard Webster. — I do not think it does except in this sense, 

 Judge — that I think that in all probability there was not the amount of 

 agreement as to what possession had, in fact, been taken by Russia; 

 but I agree with the Attorney General that, from the British i)oint of 

 view, they were content to stop at 54° 40' in the sense of 54° 40' used 

 by the President but a few moments ago. 



The President. — You would not interpret all this Treaty as a delim- 

 itation of territory actually occu[)ied, but rather of what you call today 

 the sphere of influence. — that is the right ot taking possession. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes, I ought to say, if I was concerned to 

 discuss it, in the beginning of the negotiation Mr. Adams distinctly, 

 disputed it; but I was rather looking at the ultimate result of the nego- 

 tiations than the preliminary discussion which seemed of less impor- 

 tance. 



Now, I desire to call the attention of the Tribunal to Article IV. 



It is, nevertheless, understood that, during a term of ten years, counting from the 

 aignature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong to 



