ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 483 



United States. Of course, one obvious comment arises at once, and 

 that is this: it is a remarkable thing, if they had this knowledge, that 

 for a year and a half if not for two years, they permitted the wholesale 

 slaughter which, according to their own statement, and perfectly fair 

 statement, to day, was extremely detrimental to the United States. 

 But I am not going to rely upon negative matters at all. I am going 

 to rely upon positive and affirmative testimony with regard to this mat- 

 ter. I will call attention first, Mr President, to page 70 of the British 

 Counter Case. The United States without mentioning any date had 

 referred at pages 75 and 76 of their Case to a Congressional Commit- 

 tee which sat in the year 1888. They do not mention the date, but it 

 is the fact that it sat in the year 1888. 



Mr. Justice Harlan.— 1888? 



Sir Richard Webster.— 1888; and that Committee is referred to as 

 if it was of a much earlier date, but I have no doubt that was by inad- 

 vertence. The report of that Committee will be found on page 86. 



General Foster. — It states the date. There is no inadvertence 

 about it. 



Sir Richard Webster.— With deference, it does not. 



General Foster.— At the bottom of page 77, it says it was the 50th 

 Congress. 



Sir Richard Webster.— I beg General Foster's pardon. I have 

 not such an intimate acquaintance as General Foster with these dates, 

 and I do not suppose many members of the Tribunal have. 



The President. — What date would that be? 



Sir Richard Webster.— 1888, but I merely make the observation 

 in passing, that to anybody reading the Case there is nothing to show 

 that the transition at the bottom of page 75 from the period of 1867, 

 refers to as late a date as 1888. Ou page 75 they refer to it in this 

 way, after referring to Mr. Sumner's speech in 1867. 



The Congressional Committee, after making various quotations from official and 

 other sources, further states: It seems to the committee to have been taken for 

 granted that by the purchase of Alaska — 



The Tribunal will kindly note this. 



the United States would acquire exclusive ownership of and jurisdiction over Beh- 

 ring Sea, including its products. 



If that is anything, that is mare clausum. Then it goes on: 



The fur-seal, sea-otter, walrus, whale, codfish, salmon, and other fisheries; for it 

 is on account of these valuable 2)roducts that the appropriation of the purchase 

 money was urged. 



Will you kindly note that the Congressional Committee so far even, 

 from its report in 1888, sui^porting the statement that it was principally 

 the fur-seals, say that it was : 



Exclusive ownership of and jurisdiction over Behriug Sea, including its products — 

 the fur-seal, sea otter, walrus, whale, codfish, salmon, and other fisheries. 



Then it goes on : 



The extracts above quoted in reference to these products are emphasized by the 

 fact that the fur-seal fisheries alone have already yielded to the Government a return 

 greatertban the entire cost of the territory. 



It seems clear to the committee that if the waters of Behring Sea were the "high 

 seas" these products were as free to our fishermen and seal hunters as the Russians, 

 and there was, therelbre, no reason on that account for the purchase. But it waa 

 well understood that Russia controlled these waters; that her ships of war patrolled 

 them, and seized and confiscated foreign vessels which violated the regulations she 

 had prescribed concerning tliem; and the argument in favor of the purchase was 

 that by the transfer of the mniuland, islands, and waters of Alaska we would acquire, 

 these valuable products and the right to jirotect them. 



