ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 469 



Connter Case you will see that map referred to. It is page 93, num- 

 ber 4: 



Chart of the North West coast of America and the North East Coast of Asia explored 

 in the years 1778 aud 1779. Prepared by lieutenaut Roberts under the immediate 

 inspection of Captain Cook, published by W. Faden, Charing Cross, July 24th, 1784. 



That is the map, Mr. Blaine refers to. Now, if you will be good 

 enough to turn over to page 94 you will find Mr. Blaine has overlooked 

 the fact that 10 years later the ^ud edition of that map was published 

 also prepared by Mr. Eoberts [No. 15] and also published by Faden in 

 which distinctive use of the name has disappeared altogether. May I 

 ask you to look at page 93, No. 4 where you find the words "Behring 

 Sea named Sea of Kamchatka" and if you look 10 years later the next 

 edition of that map 1794 to which no reference is made by Mr. Blaine. 



The main body of Behring Sea, ■which in the first edition was styled Sea of Kam- 

 chatka, here appears without any distinctive name, Sea of Kamchatka is written on 

 the waters immediately adjacent to the peninsula. 



So that you will observe that the whole point of Mr. Blaine's argu- 

 ment disappears if you look at the second edition of that map published 

 in 1794. He is referring to the edition of 1784. 



This was called to my attention during the adjournment, and I men- 

 tion this for the purpose of enforcing the fact. Unless you have the 

 maps before you and see how the words are used, no inference can be 

 drawn from them; whereas, in the statement in the "Gazetteer", you 

 have the specific statement made on the authority of the Geographer, 

 whoever it is, telling you exactly what is meant, though, of course, it 

 depends on your knowledge of the man as to the amount of authority 

 to be attached to the statement. 



Now, when the Tribunal adjourned, I was about to call attention to 

 other uses of the Northwest Coast which are consistent only with our 

 view and inconsistent with that of the United States; and I desire, if 

 I possibly can, to put it as shortly as possible, and I will a little vary 

 the order of my observations. 



1 will ask the Tribunal to take before them pages 40 and 41 of the 

 1st Volume of the Appendix to the British Case, which will enable me 

 to give them several references without turning from one volume to 

 another. 



I am now upon the period subsequent to the Treaties of 1824 and 

 1825. I am reading from the historical review of the formation of the 

 Eussian American Company by Tikhmeuieff, published in St. Peters- 

 burgh in 1863. You will observe that the year 1842 is referred to; and 

 you will observe there that reference is made to reports by Governor 

 Etolin of the continuous appearance of American whalers in the neigh- 

 bourhood of the Harbours and Coasts of the Colony; and you will find 

 that a statement is made that in the year 1841 there had been whalers 

 to the number of 50, and that large quantities of whales had been 

 secured; and you will find that the Foreign Ofiice, in reply to ener- 

 getic representations made by the company, had replied : 



The claim to a mare clausum, if we wished to advance such a claim in respect to 

 the northern part of the Pacific Ocean, could not be theoretically justified. Under 

 Article I of the Convention of 1824 between Russia and the United States, which is 

 still in force American citizens have a right to fish in all parts of the Pacific Ocean. 

 But under Article IV of the same Convention, the ten years' period mentioned in 

 that Article having expired, we have power to forbid American vessels to visit 

 inland seas, gulfs, harbours, and bays for the purposes of fishing and trading with 

 the natives. That is the limit of our rights, and we have no power to prevent Amer- 

 ican ships from taking whales in the open sea. 



Then : 



