ORAL ARGUMENT OP CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 5<^3 



is very little sealing done there — in fnct, none at all, my learned friend 

 says, who knows the details more intimately than I do, thongh I have 

 read them at various times. If that were done, all 1 can say is that I 

 know of no legal x)rinciple which would prevent it; and I do not believe 

 any lawyer could point me to any legal principle which would prevent 

 it; but I have no doubt in the world — and that is the true answer to all 

 these impossible suggestions — that it would be stopped by convention 

 and by treaty. It would not be to the interest of either party or either 

 nation to do such a thing, and it would be stopped in that way. 



Senator Morgan. — You think it could not be done under the powers 

 conferred on this Tribunal"? 



Mr. KoBiNSON. — No; I think not except under regulations. Do not 

 misunderstand me. I mean you cannot declare the law to be. 



Senator Morgan. — A regulation when- declared by the Tribunal has 

 the effect of a law. 



Mr. Robinson. — I have nothing to say against that. I am coming 

 to regulations afterwards, if you will permit me to follow the line of my 

 argument. 



Seimtor Morgan. — I am not trying to interrupt you, but I am merely 

 saying that a regulation between these parties would be a law. 



Mr. Robinson. — I quite understand that. Regulations might go to 

 such an extent as to change the law. I am not at present arguing that 

 question; but they would change the law to the extent to which they 

 afiect any rights which the law gives. 



The President. — You mean the law between the parties? 



Mr. Robinson. — The law between the parties; that is all, of course. 



Senator Morgan. — That is the law I was referring to, the law 

 between the parties. 



Mr. Robinson. — Yes. 



The Tribunal here adjourned for a short time. 



Mr. Robinson. — I find that with regard to the four questions there 

 was one point as to which I intended to say a word, and unintention- 

 ally omitted it, as to the second question. How far were these claims 

 of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great 

 Britain? With regard to the doctrine of acquiescence I p.ubmit it is 

 im]iossible to see how it can have any application in this case. A 

 nation or an individual cannot acquiesce in any act until it is done, and 

 it is utterly out of the question, and inconsistent with all the facts, to 

 say that as far as Pelagic sealing is concerned Great Britain acquiesced 

 in anything. There was no pelagic sealing before 1867, and there was 

 nothing therefore for Russia to prevent. What we say is, and what the 

 facts will show beyond all question is, that Russia, after those treaties, 

 treated Behring Sea precisely as she and all the other Powers treated 

 all the other high seas of the world. She did not assert or exercise 

 any jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing anything that was not 

 prevented by other powers in any of the high seas of the world. There 

 was a question as to whaling, and when that was objected to, and her 

 Authorities were referred to, they said it would be inconsistent with 

 the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 on their part to attempt to prevent it. 



In short, what other I^ations desired to do, in exercise of the well 

 understood rights of nations on the high seas, they were allowed to do 

 in Behring Sea just the same as the other nations of the world did 

 elsewhere. Russia never interfered to prevent it. 



I admit this, for I think it would be reasonable: If it could be shown 

 that Russia with regard to Behring Sea exercised a jurisdiction and 

 prevented certain things being done which showed by irresistible infer- 



