584 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



ence that if pelagic sealing had been attempted there she would have 

 stopped it also — then I think it could be argued with some show of 

 reason that other Powers had acquiesced in her right to prevent it. If 

 when they came to get what they thought was the only thing worth 

 going for at that time, namely, whales, she had said we have jurisdic- 

 tion here to prevent your coming and you must not come here to whale; 

 under those circumstances I should have thought it would have been 

 open to them to argue that as Russia had prevented whaling she might 

 endeavour to prevent such operations as pelagic sealing — that is, it 

 might be argued because she has prevented other nations from taking 

 whales, it stands to reason if they had attemi)ted to take seals she 

 would have prevented that also. There would be then some ground to 

 argTie that she did exercise as to Behring Sea a sort of jurisdiction 

 which neither she nor other "nations exercised over other high seas of 

 the world. 



As a matter of fact, beyond all doubt or question, no single act of 

 Russia can be pointed to, done by her with regard to Behring Sea, 

 which was not done by all other nations with regard to all other oceans 

 of the world. In other words, she permitted precisely the same rights 

 in that sea as were open to other nations and exercised by other nations 

 in otherseas, and I do not understand how the doctrine of acquiescence, 

 therefore, can have any application. Of course, before this Tribunal, 

 I need not go into elementary doctrines with regard to acquiescence, 

 such as that it implies knowledge, and you cannot acquiesce in a thing 

 unless you know it is done. You inight as well talk about a person 

 acquiescing in the running of an electric railway, at a time when they 

 were not known. There was no possibility of acquiescence in jjelagic 

 sealing, because it was perfectly unknown. 



The President. — There was no prohibition against any sealing or 

 whaling, or sea-faring industry, before the Treaty. 



Mr. Robinson. — None whatever. 



The President, — Before or after. 



Mr. Robinson. — I cannot put it more strongly, or express it more 

 emphatically, than to ask my learned friends, and indeed to challenge 

 them, with respect to this point, to show anything that Russia did in 

 Behring Sea which showed any peculiar or exclusive rights asserted by 

 her over that sea. 



Lord Hannen. — There was a prohibition of trading with natives. 



Mr. Robinson. — That was on the shore. I confine myself to mari- 

 time jurisdiction. There was a prohibition of trading with the natives, 

 but that was what she intended to prevent, and what nations thought 

 at that time they had a right to prevent. 



The President. — There is no pi'ohibition of navigation in the open 

 sea. 



Mr. Robinson — There is no prohibition of navigation in the open sea, 

 and no prohibition of whaling or fishing of any kind. 



The President. — There was a prohibition of navigating in territo- 

 rial waters. 



Mr. Robinson. — Yes, by the Ukase, but that was withdrawn. I am 

 speaking now of the time after the Ukase. Between 1821 and 1867 

 there was no action of Russia prohibiting any action of any kind by 

 any nation of the world in Behring Sea. 



Senator Morgan. — Except trading with the natives. 



Mr. Robinson. — Except trading with the natives. 



I do not like to repeat myself; but you will understand I am talking 

 of trading on the high seas and maritime jurisdiction. Trading with 



