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



Sir Richard Webster. — That really is involved in Avhat I said, and 

 Lord Hanuen lias, piactically speaking, pointed it by the observation 

 he was good euongh to make. 



In their Connter Case they say this. I am reading from page 19. 



The distinction between the right of exclusive territorial .inrisdiction over Beh- 

 ring Sea, on the one hand, and the right of a nation on the other hand, to preserve 

 for the use of citizens its interests ou land by the adoption of all necessarj' even 

 though they be somewhat unusual measures, whether on laud or at sea, is so broad 

 as to require no further exposition. 



It is a very convenient tiling to say that a thing is so broad that it 

 requires no further exposition. I remember in one part of the case they 

 say that something is much easier felt than expressed. But if you have 

 not got a thing it is very much easier to feel it than to express it — I 

 shall have to call attention to that on the question of property: but 

 here they say the most simple minds can feel it, and therefore it is so 

 broad as to require no further exposition. Then the passage proceeds : 



It is the latter right, not the former, that the United States contend to have been 

 exercised, first by Russia, and later by themselves. 



Now, Mr. President, in order that you may understand the fullness of 

 my meaning, I would adopt any form of words with regard to '-asser- 

 tion" which would commend itself to this Tribunal upon consideration. 

 I care not for my purpose whether the assertion amounted to an asser- 

 tion of right to close Behring Sea — 1 care not for my purpose whether 

 it meant only an assertion to exclude vessels within 100 miles from the 

 shore — it is equally immaterial, because whatever it was, was con- 

 tained in a written document, namely, the Ukase of 1821. The action 

 under that Ukase was never persisted in, on the contrary: — I do not 

 think you want me to go again through the Duke of Wellington's 

 letters and those other letters which show that it was not acted upon. 



The President. — No it is not necessary. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I am sure they are quite present to your 

 mind and I submit that the so-called surrender was not a surrender 

 of anything — it was an acknowledgment of the withdrawal of an 

 assertion which Kussia had thought fit to make according to the 

 influences then controlling her, and no doubt as the Attorney General 

 pointed out influences largely controlled and dictated by the Company. 



The President. — Whether it is a surrender or a withdrawal makes 

 no practical difference. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — What you mean to say is that whatever, 

 in the Ukase of 1821, was inconsistent with the Treaty of 1825, was 

 annulled. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Now the second question is: How far 

 were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and 

 conceded by Great Britain °? That is the next contention. 



Senator Morgan. — Before you get to that I would like to suggest 

 this to you: That the common law of England (which is adopted also 

 and practised in the United States; at least, adopted as a measure of 

 right in the United States in regard to a great many privileges and 

 powers and rights of property) contains a doctrine of title by prescrip- 

 tion — 20 years title by prescription. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I have heard of it, Sir. 



Senator Morgan. — Under which the Courts will presume the exist- 

 ence of a statute, will, grant, or deed, or anything, in order to secure 

 the repose of society, and a quieting of litigation. Now with that as 

 the origin or basis of the axiplication of the doctrine of prescrij)tion, 



