566 OKAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 

 Now look at the couclusions: 



The following conclnsioiis, from the premises laid clown are inevitahle: 



1 That the right of the United States to the ocean fishery and in tlie bays, arms 

 of the sea, gulls and other inlets inca])ab]e of being fortified, is ]ierfeet and entire. 



2 That tlie right of the oeean witiiin a marine leagne of the shore, where the 

 approach cannot be injurions to the sovereign of the country — as it cannot be on 

 uninhal)ited regions, or such as are occupied altogether by savages — is equally 

 peii'ect. 



;^ That the shores of such regions can be used as freely as the waters: a right 

 arising from tht; same princi2)le. 



That a constant and uninterrupted use of tlie shores for the purposes of a fishery, 

 would give the right, perfect and entire, although settlements on such shores should 

 be subsequently formed or established. 



Mr. Presideut, you expressed an opinion, wliicli I have no right to 

 criticise, some days ago that it must not be taken as recognized inter- 

 national law that this right of landing on unoccupied coasts certainly 

 is recognised at the present day. I need scarcely remind you that I 

 respectfully agreed, as far as an advocate was entitled to agree with 

 that expression of opinion; but I pointed out that at the time of which 

 we were speaking it was a common thing for Nations to contend that 

 there was such a right. 



The President. — It was a question of sovereignty. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — But, from the i)oint of view of argument 

 in this case, if General Foster's contention were correct, it would only 

 strengthen my position; because the claim made by the United States, 

 to catch whales, and to visit inhabited coasts, was put simply and 

 solely as a branch of the right of tishing on the high seas. 



General Foster. — It was that the vessel was seized for taking seals 

 on land. 



Sir Richard Webster. — With great deference (General Foster will 

 pardon me for saying it) there is no necessity for that interruption, 

 because I refer to what the United States said with regard to the 

 threats of Buenos- Ayres to stop the vessels whaling and as to the ques- 

 tion that had arisen independently of a particular ship. You cannot 

 exclude or cut away from the utterances of a Nation in this way. It 

 suits the United States to endeavour to belittle the statements made 

 by their liepresentatives in 1832, and it has suited them in many other 

 points in this case to endeavour to do away with the effect of utter- 

 ances previously made by United States Statesmen of great eminence; 

 but my submission in replj^'to the interlocutory observation of General 

 Foster is, that when you read these documents, whatever claim was 

 asserted was asserted as flowing from the right of all nations to fish 

 upon the high seas; and the only effect of adopting General Foster's 

 criticism would be that that right would be cut down in so far as it did 

 not give Nations the right of touching or of landing upon uninhabited 

 coasts. 



Sir, I submit to this Tribunal that so far from the strength of that 

 quotation, which is of equal point whether the Statesmau was of 

 the United States, or Eussian, or French, or of any other Power, — the 

 strength of that citation is in no Avay removed by the documents to 

 which I have called attention. On the contrary, they support to the 

 letter and in full the arguments we founded upon them when our Case 

 was framed. 



But, Sir, quite apart from authority, quite apart from the utterances 

 of any Statesman in the ]>ast, will you consider for a moment what the 

 end of this, and the result of this United States claim, must be? 



Feeling i^ressed by the distinction or by the argument which would 

 be used iu connection with such fish as salmon, in connection with such 



