ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 473 



Fosrter may claiiu a great part of the merit of the Case. But tbere is 

 almost an amusing incident in connection with this fourth question. 



The fourth question is wlietlier the riglits of Hussia pass unimpaired 

 to the United States; "Did not all tlie rights of Russia as to jurisdic- 

 tion of the seal fisheries in Behring Sea' east of the water boundary in 

 the Treaty pass unimpaired to the United States"?" Of course they did. 

 There is no doubt about it, Sir. But that is not the way in which the 

 question is attempted to be interpreted by my learned friends when 

 they framed their case. As Lord Salisbury pointed out, and as they 

 in their case remind us, Lord Salisbury said it was no part of Great 

 Britain's contention that tlie United States did not get all the rights 

 that Eussia had. The question was what right had Eussia asserted 

 and exercised. But that is not sufficient for the United States. True 

 to their instincts they desire to press it a little further; and on page 

 70 of the United States Case occurs a very remarkable statement: 



On March 30, 1867, tbe Governments of tlie United States and Russia celebrated 

 a treaty whereby all the possessions of Russia on the American continent and in the 

 "waters of Behring Sea were ceded and transferred to the United States. This treaty, 

 which, prior to its final consummation, had been discussed in the Senate of the 

 United States and by the press, was an assertion by two great nations that Russia 

 had heretofore claimed the ownership of Behring Sea, and that she had. now ceded 

 a portion of it to the United States; and to this assertion no objection is ever known 

 to have been made. 



Sir, there is a very great deal of meaning in that word "ownership". 

 I cannot help thinking that the very clever gentleman who drew this 

 Case, thought that it might be prudent even still to keep open the 

 question of mare clausum. The occasion might arise when the question 

 of the position of the waters would be important. But what does 

 "ownership" mean; because 1 am entitled to look at this, as matter 

 of substance. The argument is this. Sir : The great nations, two of 

 the greatest on earth, the United States and Russia, are making a bar- 

 gain. That bargain is declaratory of some rights, and among others, 

 the ownership in Behring Sea, and you, the other nations of the earth, — 

 have objected to it. You have to come and make your objection, or 

 otherwise it will be treated against you as a public assertion that 

 Eussia claimed the ownership of Behring Sea. What does it mean ? 

 I think, Mr. President, with your known experience in diplomatic mat- 

 ters, if you had had your attention called to that clause before I read 

 it, you would have been a little startled, if you had been the represent- 

 ative of France, of your nation, or if the Marquis, as the representative 

 of Italy, or Mr. Gram had happened to be the representative of l!^orway, 

 and had been told that you had conceded the ownership of Behring Sea 

 to Eussia, and through Eussia, of a portion of it to the United States, 

 because you did not object to the Treaty. I may be wrong. It may be 

 an accidental statement; but I confess, knowing what was passing, 

 knowing some of the other paragraphs in this Case, it was meant to be 

 used as an admission of ownership, in the sense of a right to the waters, 

 on the sea as well as territorial. It is very curious that on page 72 they 

 make use in this connection of Lord Salisbury's very candid statement: 



The conclusion is irresistible fi'om a mere reading of this instrument that all the 

 rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the sealeries in Behring Sea east of 

 the water boundary fixed by the treaty of March 30, 1867, passed unimpaired to the 

 United States under that treaty. In fact, the British Government has announced 

 iis readiness to accept this conclusion without dispute. 



That is perfectly true, and I do not go back from that in any way. I 

 should not be entitled to, and I do not; but that is a very diflerent 

 thing to a statement made that the two nations were asserting owner- 

 ship in Behring Sea, and that the world is bound by it. 



