ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 445 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — And you observe, from the point of vieAv 

 of the dividing- line, it equally applies north and south of 54° 40'. 59° 

 30' or 60° does not enter into this Treaty at all, and there is not one 

 word on which my learned friends can haiig their point. 



I am glad to think that my points come out clearly as I go along, and 

 not at too great length. 



The President. — Might I beg to ask incidentally, what is the posi- 

 tion of the United States as to the double translatiou of these documents 

 published in the hrst Appendix to the British Counter Case? You see 

 there are two translations. 



Sir EjCHARD Webster. — The first was the original one sent us by 

 the United States. The revised translation is also sent us by the United 

 States. You Avdl disregard the lefthand column altogether. 



General Foster. — Of course, Mr. President, you must disregard it, 

 because it is not now in the Case. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — We were obliged to do it— the United 

 States admit we were, — to call attention to the inaccurate translatiou. 

 We could not help doing it; but we printed them, so that the eye might 

 see where the inaccuracy occurred, — both the original and the revised. 



Now, would you be good enough to turn back to page 11 (App. I B. 

 CO.) of that Appendix, and you will there fiud the explanation. 



The lefthand column cout.ains the translations originallj^ furnished by the United 

 States Government in Volume I of the Appendix to their Case. In the righthaud 

 column revised translations are given. N"^. 1 to 10, 12 to 15 having been withdrawn 

 by the United States, the revised translations of these documents have been made 

 for Her Majesty's Government from the fac-simUes of the original Russian text 

 annexed to the Case of the United States. Of the remainder, namely N^^. 11, 13, 14, 

 and 16 to 31, the amended versions, recently supidied by the United States, have 

 been adopted. Where any material differences between the original and revised 

 translations occur the passages have been underlined, with the addition of brackets 

 in the case of interpolations. 



For my purpose, I accept the position taken by my learned friends; 

 and I refer entirely to their revised translation. 



Now, Sir, may I resume the thread of my observations; that, with 

 reference to the Treaty itself, there is not a word in it upon which the 

 contention of the United States now made can be founded. But it may 

 be said, though that may be perfectly true. Great Britain understood 

 it differently, — that Great Britain understood "Northwest coast" in 

 the limited sense that the United States are contending for, "and 

 therefore, we shall rely upon what Great Britain thought". 



Here I would remind the Tribunal of my learned friend Mr. Carter's 

 answer to Lord Hannen to be found at page 359 of the revised note. I 

 need not trouble the Tribunal to look at it because I mentioned it yes- 

 terday. Mr. Carter was arguing, that because we had adopted the 

 language of the 1st Article of the American Treaty, we must be taken 

 to have inherited its limited meaning; and Lord Hannen i)uts this to 

 Mr. Carter: 



Would you say the English Government was bound by the interpretation which 

 you say had been put upon it by the Russian and American Governijients if the cor- 

 respondence between the English Government and the Russian Government shewed 

 that they understood the words " Pacific Ocean" in a different sense? 



And my learned friend, Mr. Carter says: 



No, my Lord, I would not in that case. 



And, of course, one would have expected Mr. Carter to have made that 

 answer. 



Now I will complete what I have to say about these Treaties by show- 

 ing that beyond all question the British Government did not under- 



