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



boundary of tbe Alaskan Peninsula there described as Cape Douglas, 

 ■which is in Kcnia Bay, Avhich is just about the northern end ol'Kadiak 

 Island, and the other Bay is over towards Bristol Bay. 



Therefore, it proceeded to withdraw from the monopoly the eastern 

 side of Behring Sea, and to retain to them the western. 



^ow, this is a conclusive argument against the United States con- 

 tention, and how do they deal with it. 1 am afraid I must trouble you 

 to look at page 77, volume I, United States Appendix, paragraph 15. 

 This is the proposal for renewal in the year I860. They proposed to 

 reserve — 



to tbe Russian Auiei'ican Company until January 1st, 1882, the exclusive right o^ 

 engaging in the t'lir trade within the following limits only: On the peninsula 

 of Alaska, taking for its northern boundary tbe line from Cape Douglas, in the 

 Bay of Kenai, to tbe upper shore of lliamna Lake; upon all tlie islands situated 

 along the coast of that peninsula, namely, tbe Aleutian Islands, the Conmiander 

 Islands, tbe Kurile Islands, as well as upon tlie islands situated in Behring Sea, 

 and along the whole western shore of Behring Sea. 



And then, with a boldness to which in other Courts I might give a 

 stronger name — but 1 will not before this Tribunal use any other word 

 than boldness — they put a foot note, 



it is clear from the context that it is intended to refer to the eastern shore of 

 Behring Sea. 



There is not the slightest warrant for it, if you will read on what 

 they were goiug to withdraw: 



As regards tbe region stretching northeast of the Alaska Peninsula, along the 

 whole of the coast up to the boundary line contiguous with the possessions of Great 

 Britain, and on tbe islands situated along that coast, including Sitka and the whole 

 of the Koloshiau archipelago, and likewise, on the continent of the northern part of 

 America— 



That was the eastern part of Behring Sea — as to which the privilege 

 is to be abolished. Therefore, Mr. President, the stress of the argu- 

 ment leads the United States to this position, that they are obliged to 

 rely upon a contention for which there is no affirmative support in the 

 whole of the original documents, from the year 1820 up till the year 

 1805, and they are obliged to alter and change a word in an original 

 Kussian document, so as to make it meaningless, or otherwise their 

 contention about the North West Coast falls to the ground. I submit 

 that when a contention requires such arguments as that it is not one 

 that will receive judicial support. 



Now I will assume, for the purpose of my argument that I have 

 satisfied you that Behring Sea was included in the words "Pacific 

 Ocean" in the Treaties of 1824 and 1825, and that the only assertion of 

 right which was made by Eussia was the right contained in the Ukase 

 of 1821 to prohibit the access of ships within 100 miles of her coasts 

 on both eastern and western shores of Behring Sea as well as further 

 down upon the coast. 



Let me for a few moments remind you of the questions I have been 

 examining before I pass on. The first Question as you know by heart 

 is this : 



What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring Sea and what 

 exclusive right in the seal fisheries therein did Russia assert — 



It is not too much to say that Eussia asserted nothing except that 

 which is contained in the Ukase of 1821. That is the ouly assertion 

 to which my learned friends are able to point — 



— "and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein did Russia assert and 

 exercise?" 



