ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 23 



Article VI. 



". . . . The cession of territory and dominion herein mafle is 

 hereby declared to be free, .... and tl)e cession hereby made 

 conveys all the rifjhts, franchises, and privileges now belonging to 

 Rnssia in the said territory or domiinon, and appurtenances thereto." 



In this translation the expression (twice nsed) "Le terri- 

 toire avec droit de sonverainete" is translated ''the terri- 

 tory and dominion.''' 

 24 The accurate translation is, "The territory, to- 



gether with the right of sovereignty." 



It expresses not merely a grant of territory, but also of 

 the sovereign rights over such territory. It says nothing 

 of sovereign rights or dominion over the sea. The west- 

 ern boundary -line is drawn not to include as territory or 

 dominion the waters to the east of it, but to show that the 

 islands and territory to the east of it pass to the United 

 States by the cession. 



In this translation also the expression " territoires cedes" 

 is translated "the territories and dominion ceded." 



Such translation is only permissible as a free rendering 

 of the French, and as incorporating the same dominion or 

 sovereignty which is alluded to in Article I, i. e,, sover- 

 eignty over the ceded territories. 



In the Vlth Article the expression "le dit territoire et sea 

 dependances" is translated "the said territory or dominion 

 and appurtenances thereto." 



The accnrrate translation is, "The said territory and its 

 dependencies." 



UNITED STATES ARGUMENT AND JUDGMENTS BASED ON 

 SUCH ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION AND CONSTRUCTION. 



On these mistranslations of the Treaty of Cession, are c^"^p '79' 

 founded the United States argument and certain judicial 

 decisions, to the effect that the waters referred to in the 

 Statutes were included in the dominion ceded by Russia, 

 and include all Behring Sea to the east of the boundary- 

 line. 



Further, the inference drawn by the United States, and 

 submitted to the Arbitration Tribunal, is that up to the 

 time of the cession Russia continued to claim dominion over 

 Behring Sea, relinquishing part of it to the United States; 

 that this dominion so claimed forty years after the Treaties 

 of 1824-25 is evidence of British acquiescence in such 

 claim; and that therefore the United States are entitled to 

 have Question 3, and all other questions depending on 

 it, answered in favour of the United States. 



A reference to the language of the Treaty of 1867 shows 

 that both arguments and inference are unfounded. 



There is nothing to warrant any larger meaning being 

 given to " waters thereof" than the usual meaning, i. e., 3 

 miles of territorial waters. 



Drawing an imaginary boundary-line through the high 

 sea for the purpose of delimitation of territories on either 

 side of it does not warrant the inference that dominion 



