478 ORAL ARGUMENT OP SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — What if it does or not? I am not suffi- 

 ciently acquainted with the facts to say if the inference you draw is 

 correct but 1 do say there is nothing in it which militates against my 

 argument. 



Senator Morgan. — Perhaps not. I wanted to bring it forward as a 

 division between two nations who claimed the soil on both sides of the 

 Strait. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I do not happen to have before me what 

 you said with regard to the existence of this Treaty, but I desire 

 to point out this, that if the United States were claiming that the 1867 

 Treaty was to be regarded as being a division between the United 

 States and Russia of the waters of Behring Sea in the same sense you 

 were contending, it is possible there might be some analogy on the 

 ground that those two nations meant to make it territorial waters; but 

 unless the meaning is to be imputed to that word "ownership" on page 

 70 which the United States Case seems to indicate it would not be a 

 parallel case. 



Senator Morgan. — I only cite it with the view of showing that this 

 assumed doctrine of the 3 mile territorial limit said to be laid down and 

 established by the law of nations is a doctrine which has been buffeted 

 and kicked about by all the nations of this world according to their con- 

 venience. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Well, Sir, I do not know whether that argu- 

 ment finds favour with my learned friends, but I respectfully submit to 

 you that the fact that a Treaty has been made varying the 3 mile limit 

 as between themselves is neither a "buffet" nor a "kick" nor a "pour- 

 ing of contempt or scorn" upon it; on the contrary, it is a recognition 

 of there being a rule of that kind for the variation of it is to be by 

 Treaty, and, so far from it affording an argument against me, it is an 

 argument in mj^ favour, because it was necessary that there should be a 

 contractual arrangement between Great Britain and the United States 

 to get rid of the disputed doctrine. 



I hope I have not done wrong in calling attention to that matter 

 because it seems to me to afford if anything an argument in our favour 

 and not in favour of my learned friends. 



Senator Morgan. — Personally I feel very much obliged to you for 

 your suggestion. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I am glad to be able to say except with 

 regard to one or two general considerations affecting tlaese first four 

 questions, I believe I have substantially finished what I have to say 

 about the first four questions, and I shall be able to devote myself soon 

 alter the commencement of the proceedings to-morrow to the considera- 

 tion of the fifth question. 



[The Tribunal then adjourned till to-morrow at 11.30.] 



