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



arose out of tlie passage in the Counter Case and tbe Case to whicli 1 

 called attention, where the Treaty of 1867 was dealt with; and, prac- 

 tically speaking, I am almost in a position to pass to question 5. 



One topic only I wish to notice before doing so. It is suggested more 

 than once, in the United States Case and Counter Case, that whatever 

 may have been the rights on the legal position with regard to these lirst 

 four questions, the United States in purchasing Alaska had the seal 

 industry in view, had the Pribilof Islands in view, and that induced 

 them to give the sum of seven million dollars for that territory. 



Sir, I desire to make a perfectly frank admission — that from the point 

 of view of the legal rights of the United States, it makes no difference 

 at all whether they knew of the Pribilof Islands, or did not; whether 

 they knew of the fur-industry, or did not; and I admit their rights are 

 as great and as large — that it strengthens my argument in no respect 

 to show that they were ignorant either of the Pribilof Islands, the 

 value of the fur-industry, or anything else. But it is at any rate right 

 that I should, in a very few sentences, point out to this Tribunal, that 

 the allegations contained in the United States Case, and the Counter 

 Case, are not well founded, because it then removes from tbe claim of 

 the United States what I may call some cause of equitable complaint, 

 which otherwise might be supposed to be allowed to be invoked in tiieir 

 favor. The first of the two passages to which I refer will be found on 

 page 74 of the Case of the United States speaking of the Pribiloff Islands 

 and the fur trade, in these words: 



Their value was well known to the American negotiators of the Treatj' of 1867, 

 and while it must he admitted that political considerations entered into the negotia- 

 tions to a certain extent, yet so far as revenue to the Government and immediate 

 profits to its people were concerned, it will appear from a careful study of the inci- 

 dents attending the transfer of sovereignty that it was the fur industry more than all 

 other considerations which decided the United States to pay the sum of seven mil- 

 lion two hundred thousand dollars required by Russia for the cession and transfer 

 of her sovereign rights and property. 



Well, Sir, whoever is responsible for the framing of this Case — I must 

 not, of course, speculate — all I can say is, it would have been more sat- 

 isfactory to the Tribunal — perhaps, a little fairer to those who had to 

 argue on the other side — if the incidents attending the transfer (the 

 careful study of which will show that it was the value of the fur- indus- 

 try that induced the United States to pay this price) had been stated. 

 As far as we can gather from the evidence before the Tribunal the 

 incidents are all the other way. I will in a moment call attention to 

 what the evidence is, but in the Counter Case when the whole matter 

 had been discussed by Great Britain in their Case (as I shall show 

 directly) they repeat the allegation in these words. 



It is to be found at page 30 of the Counter Case of the United States : 



First. That soon after the discovery by Russia of the Alaskan regions, and at a 

 very early period in her occupancy thereof, she established a fur-seal industry on the 

 Pribilof Islands and annually killed a portion of the herd frequenting those islands 

 for her own profit and for the purposes of commerce with the world ; that she car- 

 ried on, cherished, and protected this industry by all necessary means, whether on 

 land or atsea, throughoutthe wholeperiod of her occupancy and down to the cession 

 to the United States in 1867; and that the acquisition of it* was one of the principal 

 motives which animated the United States in making the purchase of Alaska. 



Mr. President, for a few moments, and for a few moments only, I will 

 show you upon the evidence that neither of those allegations" is well 

 founded, and from the point of view of equitable claim to have the 

 so-called industry protected on the ground of their having considered 

 it in the price, the evidence does not support the contention of the 



