576 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



can be found one syllable in the correspondence followinjif the Ukase — 

 following the claim — iollowing the denial of the claim — which tends to 

 shew that either Great Britain or the United States withdrew any 

 part of their exi)licit and comprehensive denial, or that Russia reserved 

 to herself any part of the rights she asserted by the Ukase, it has 

 escaped my attention after several very careful readings; and I do not 

 think there can be any object in my pursuing it further, because the 

 Tribunal will have in their minds all the different correspondence 

 which has been called to their attention on both sides. I think there 

 are numerous expressions, and they are all to be found set out in our 

 case, in which, so far from there being any change of the meaning or 

 intention on the part of linssia or on the part of either Great Britain 

 or the United States to be found, there are several letters which show 

 quite plainly that both of those Powers were always adhering to their 

 original denial, and that Great Britain and the United States consid- 

 ered that Eussia had relinquished all that she claimed. And again I 

 submit the test which was submitted by the Attorney General : Can 

 anyone, j'eading that correspondence with care, point to any one time 

 during the negotiations, when, if Kussia had said either to the United 

 States or to Great Britain, we will give up all our claim except Behring 

 Sea, her condition would have been even listened to for one moment. 

 If not, then there is an end of that question; and I am content to 

 leave it there. 



With regard to the question of maritime claim as distinguished from 

 territorial claim, I think it may be said with truth that to both the 

 United States and to Great Britain the more essential object was the 

 maritime claim; but that perhaps there is some slight difference in 

 this respect — that the United States, as would be natural, possibly 

 attached some little more importance to the territorial claim than 

 Great Britain did, because Great Britain evidently thought nothing 

 whatever about it. 



I was struck with one letter, which I do not think has been referred 

 to in the course of this discussion, which impressed itself on my mind, 

 and which is to be found in the second volume of the Appendix to the 

 British Case at page 54. This letter was written in March 1824, and 

 Sir Charles Bagot then represented Great Britain. They were then 

 negotiating about the territorial question, which it was found ditticult 

 to settle, and all the negotiations were suspended. 



Sir Charles Bagot said to Count ISlesselrode that; 



If a territorial arrangement perfectly satisfactory to botli parties could not now 

 be made it mis^lit possibly be thoiigbt hy my Government that our respective pre- 

 tensions miglit still remain without any serious inconvenience in the state in which 

 they had beibre stood, and that it would only be necessary for the present to con- 

 fine their attention to the adjustment of the more urgent point of the maritime 

 pretension, a point which would not admit of equal postponement. 



In reply to this observ^ation Count Nesselrode stated, to my extreme surprise, that 

 if the territorial arrangement was not coni])leted, he did not see the necessity of 

 making any agreement respecting the maritime question; and I found myself most 

 unexpectedly under the necessity of again explaining very distinctly, both to him 

 and to M. Poletica, that the maritime pretension of Russia was one which, violating 

 as it did the first and most established principles of all public maritime law, admit- 

 ted neither of explanation nor modification, and that my Government considered 

 themselves possessed of a clear engagement on the part of Russia to retract in some 

 way or other a pretension which could neither be justified nor enforced. 



ISIow that struck me perhaps as the most emphatic piece of evidence 

 pointing out the position taken by Great Britain. The territorial claim 

 may wait; but when it is suggested by Russia, if we cannot settle the 

 territorial claim there is no object in going on with the maritime claim 



