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



Sir Richard Webster. — I must make my answer clear to yon, Sir. 

 I assert that before 1821 there is no instance of exercise at all; nor, for 

 the matter of tliat, is there any assertion at all. 



The President. — I think we know about what went on at that time; 

 that is as to the facts with which you are concerned, I mean. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I call your attention to the fact that from 

 1799 right away up to 1821 British vessels and American vessels were 

 navigating- and were trading in the waters aflected by the Ukase; and 

 more than that I called attention yesterday to the fact that Russia 

 justified the making of the Ukase on the ground that the trade of the 

 Russian-American Company was interfered with by foreign traders. 

 I need only to remind you of it, Mr. President. My contention is that 

 before 1821 there was neither assertion nor exercise by Russia; that in 

 1821 there was assertion, withdrawn in 1821-25 at the instance of the 

 two countries, evidenced by the signing of the Treaties; that after 1821 

 there never was an exercise by Russia at any time. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You mean to say there was an assertion in 

 1812 to the extent of 100 Italian miles from the coast? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Or further, if it means further: it is not 

 for me to say whether it means that or not — the learned President has 

 been good enough to point out to me that the 100 miles might be merely 

 a limit of their rights. It may be treated as an assertion of a still 

 greater right; but for my purpose it is sufficient to say that there was 

 an assertion of whatever the Ukase contained. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.— I think the printed documents in both cases 

 agree in fact that it did not assert in 1821 jurisdiction over the open 

 seas, outside of the 100 mile limit. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I am bound to say that M. Poletica in his 

 letter says in so many words that the character of the coast and w^aters 

 is such as to justify them in making it a shut sea and rather puts it as 

 a matter of favour they did not extend their right. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — He stated that they could assert it if they 

 cared to do so, but that they did not care to do it. 



Sir Richard Webster. — That only involves the meaning of the 

 word "assert" and what may have been meant by it. 



I ask your attention for one moment only to make this concluding 

 observation upon this. Supj)osing that ten years afterwards, we will 

 say, in the year 1831, Russia had been minded to close Behring Sea or 

 to close it down to latitude 51°, on the ground that it was a shut sea. I 

 do not think that, assuming there was no Treaty, what M. Poletica said 

 would be any bar to their attempting to close the sea at that time. I 

 do not think that such a contention as this could be advanced on behalf 

 of either great Great Britain or the United States — "You indicated 

 that you were only going to enforce your rights to 100 miles, and that 

 prevents you from enforcing them further." Had there been no Treaty, 

 to use the language of a lawyer, Russia would not have been estopped 

 ft'om again setting up the case of mer fermee. I hope I have answered 

 the question put to me. I have endeavored to do so, but I do not know 

 that I have brought my meaning clearly to the minds of the Court. 



The President. — You have done so with great clearness. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I thank you. I need not argue again on 

 question 3, "Was the body of water known as Behring Sea included in 

 the phrase 'Pacific Ocean'". I have argued that at length. 



But I must say a word upon question 4. I confess, Mr. President, 

 that I admire the courage of those who framed this Case and Counter 

 Case. I must not distribute the merit too much ; but I think General 



