578 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



that is quoting an expression used by M. de Poletica, in which he 

 states that Kussia's title was by occupancy, early discovery and iiidis- 

 puted possession. 



We readily concede to Russia priority of discovery, first occupation, and are by 

 no means disposed to disturb her "peaceable possession" of the Aleutian Islands 

 and adjacent coast, including Cook's River, Prince William's Sound, and Bebriug 

 Bay. 



You observe all that is south of the Peninsula, and includes Cook's 

 Eiver, Prince William's Sound and Behring Bay. 



We are not remarkably disinterested in making this concession, for, to all prac- 

 tical ]nirposes, we would as soon contend for one of the floating icebergs that are 

 annuallj" detached from the polar masses. 



That is the estimate and value which the United States then put 

 upon that Country, and it was a natural estimate, no doubt, to form of 

 it at that time. 



In a territorial point of view, it is of little importance whether those distant 

 regions are inhabited by the aboriginal savage or the Siberian convict. 



And then they go on to say, as I understand (but I will not detain 

 the Tribunal by referring to it) that the title by which Eussia claims 

 that territory, described by them as so worthless, is by no means clear 

 and is subject to doubt. 



Now Mr, Adams' view of the Russian title by early discovery and 

 everything else at that time is to be found in the same letter to which 

 I have already referred iu our Api3endix, vol. 2, part 2, page 4. That is 

 a letter of Mr. Adams, of which we did not give all, and for the rest I 

 am about to refer to the Appendix to the American Case, vol.1, page 

 146. That is the letter of July 22nd, the same letter: but I do not find 

 this passage in our version of the letter in our Appendix. My learned 

 friend tells me it is in our Counter Case; but iu page 146 of the Ameri- 

 can Appendix, vol. 1 of the Case of the United States, Mr. Adams there 

 says: 



When Mr. Poletica, the late Eussian minister here was called upon to set forth the 

 grounds of right conformable to the laws of nations which authorized the issuing of 

 this decree, be answered in his letters of February 28th and Ai^ril 2, 1822, by alleg- 

 ing first discovery, occupancy, and uninterrvipted possession. 



It appears upon examination that these claims have no foundation in fact. The 

 right of discovery on this contiuent. claimable by Russia, is reduced to the proba- 

 bility that, in 1741, Captain Tchirikolf saw from the sea the mountain called St. 

 Ellas, in about the fifty-ninth degree of north latitude. The Spanish navigators, as 

 early as 1582, had discovered as far north as 57° 30'. 



As to occupancy, Captain Cook, in 1779, had the express declaration of Mr. Ismae- 

 lolf, the chief of the Russian settlement at Unalaska, that they knew nothing of the 

 continent in America. 



I will not pursue this subject. I have only cited that to show what 

 Mr. Adams' view was of the claim then advanced by Eussia, if they 

 had thought it worth while to contest it or thought the territory of any 

 value. Tlie view which I submit to the Tribunal is simply this : If it had 

 become a question between Eussia claiming under the discoveries ot 

 Behring and Tchirikofif and England claiming under the discovery 

 of Captain Cook in 1748, it would have been, to say the least of it, 

 doubtful whether England had not a better claim, as Captain Cook had 

 not only discovered the coast, but had lauded aud taken possession; 

 while Tchirikoff had simj^ly seen the coast at a distance and lauded on 

 an island; and Mr. Adams' goes on to say that landing on an island 

 has never been considered to give a claim to the continent adjacent to 

 it. I say that I find it difficult to reconcile his with Mr. Blaine's des- 

 patch of oOth June ISilO. to be found in the 3rd volume of the Appcn 

 dix to the British Case at page 498. 



