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



bearing animals; and then the summary to which Mr. Elliott's referred 

 in his passage, — and which it was suggested by the United States 

 Counter Case to be an inaccurate reference, — is iu these words. 



Mr. President, I now conclude this examination. From a review of tlie origin of 

 the Treaty, and the general considerations with regard to it, we have passed to an 

 examination of the possessions under difi'erent heads, in order to arrive at a knowl- 

 edge of their character and value ; and here we have noticed the existing Government 

 wliicli was found to be nothing but a Fur Company, whose only object is tnide; then the 

 population, where a very few Russians and Creoles are a scanty fringe to the aboriginal 

 races; then the climate, a ruling induence, with its thermal current of ocean and its 

 eccentric isothermal line, by which the rigours of that coast are tempered to a 

 mildness unknown in the same latitude on the Atlantic side; then the vejzetable 

 products, so far as known chief among which are forests of pine and fir waiting for 

 the axe; then the mineral products among which are coal and copper, if not iron, 

 silver, lead, and gold, besides the two great products of New England "granite and 

 ice"; then the furs including precious skins of the black fox and sea-otter, which 

 originally tempted the settlement, and have remained to this day the exclusive 

 object of pursuit; and lastly, the fisheries, which, in waters superabundant with 

 animal life beyond any of the globe, seem to promise a new commerce to the country. 

 All these I have presented plainly and impartially exhibiting my authorities as I 

 proceeded. I have done little more than hold the scales. If these have inclined on 

 either side it is because reason or testimony on that side was the weightier. 



I ask for no stronger testimony in refutation of the allegation that 

 the principal thing that influenced the United States in paying the 

 7,000,000 of dollars was the fur industry, than that passage from Mr. Sum- 

 ner, who was advocating the purchase before Congress; and to any 

 impartial mind — I lay stress on the observation and I ask criticism upon 

 it — is it not clear that Mr Sumner was expatiating ui)ou the fisheries, 

 upon the mineral products, upon timber, upon trade and commerce and, if 

 you like, upon trade in sea-otter and the other animals mentioned, 

 the black fox, and things of that kind? No candid statesman, as Mr. 

 Sumner was, if he meant to say "You are to pay $7,000,000, because the 

 seals from these little dots of Pribiloff Islands are worth it all" — if that 

 had been the main inducement, would have left it out. I was only 

 induced to follow this up, because of the somewhat extravagant allega- 

 gatious in the Case and Counter Case of the United States. I say, let 

 the United States have the benefit of it, only do not let them parade 

 before the Tribunal that they are being deprived of anything for which 

 they paid so many dollars. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — On page 79 of that document you will see 

 Mr. Sumner goes into details of all the other kinds of animals, stating, 

 among other things: "That from 1787 to 1817 for only a part of which 

 time the Company existed, this Unalaska district yielded upwards of 

 2,500,000 seal skins". Near the top of page 81, you see he does refer to 

 the seals. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I never said the contrary. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I know. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — My point is that neither the value to Rus- 

 sia, nor the value to the United States of that trade or industry, is sug- 

 gested or referred to. The fact of that strengthens my point. If I 

 might be permitted simply to argue what seems to me to be the fair 

 result of what you have been good enough to put to me, it strenghens 

 my point; it shows that the kuowledge of the capture of those seals 

 was in the mind of Mr. Sumner, whatever extent it was, but that as an 

 element of value to the United States it is not enumerated when he is 

 speaking in a suminary of what the objects of value were. I might say 

 that the Foreign Committee about which Senator Morgan asked, seems 

 to have been the Foreign Committee of the House of Eepresentatives 

 in 1876. 



