ORAL AEGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 575 



The extent of sea of which these possessions form the limits comprehends all the 

 conditions which are ordinarily attached to shut seas (mers fermccs). 



and so on. I need not read the sentence again. 

 Then Mr. Adams answers that by saying: P. 49. 



With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified 

 the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a ch)se sea, because it claims 

 territory both on its American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the 

 distance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitude 51"^ north, is not less than 90"^ of 

 longitude, or 4,000 miles. 



Now that applies to Behring Sea again, because it is only there that 

 these territories belonging to Kussia exist — I mean that the American 

 and Asiatic shores are to be found opposite. 



Then on the 22ud July (after some previous correspondence which 

 it is not necessary to refer to), Mr. Adams writes in these terms: P. 50. 



From the tenour of the Ukase, the pretensions of the Imperial Government extend 

 to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction from the 45tli degree of north latitude, on 

 the Asiatic coast, to the latitude of 51 north on the western coast of the American 

 Continent. 



Is there and possibility of doubt as to what Mr. Adams understood 

 to be the claim which was asserted on the part of Eussia? He defines 

 it in the words of the Ukase, and puts it in words which can admit of 

 only one meaning, because from the 45th degree of north latitude, 

 on the Asiatic coast, to the latitude of 51 north on the western coast 

 of the American Continent, is practically going rouud in a semi-circle, 

 so to sj)eak. Then his letter continues: 



And they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all 

 other nations to the extent of 100 miles from the whole of that coast. 

 The United States can admit no part of these claims. 



That will be found at page 50 of the British Case. Is it possible to 

 state the claim more clearly, or to make the denial which followed more 

 explicit, and comprehensive; could you have the assertion on the one 

 hand and the denial on the other, and the issue which is joined between 

 the two parties, more clear and distinct? 



There we have the issue thus joined. The negociations then went on 

 from that time, as you know, for a year in one case — for more than a 

 year in the other: that is to say, the Treaty with the United States 

 was made in 1824, and the Treaty with Great Britain in 1825. Both 

 Treaties are to be found at page 59, worded in almost precisely the 

 same way. The attitude assumed by Russia as the result of all these 

 negociations is found in the Treaty signed by her. Article I of the 

 Convention between Russia and the United States is as folloAvs: 



It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called tlie Pacific 

 Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting 

 Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing, 

 or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already have 

 been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the 

 restrictions and couditions determed by the following articles. 



There was, therefore, a clear renunciation of any exclusive rights in 

 the Pacific Ocean. ]S^ow I venture to say that at least this is clear: 

 Unless you can find in the correspondence somewhfere some change 

 from the meaning of the words put upon them in the Ukase— put upon 

 them by M. de Poletica in his construction — put upon them by Mr. 

 Adams in his denial of claim, all doubt is at an end. I do not desire 

 to i)ursue that further, because it has been gone into by the learned 

 Attorney General very much in detail, and carefully. 



It has been touched upon also by ray learned friend Sir Richard 

 Webster] and all that I ventui'e to say upon that is this: that if there 



