ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 79 



tliat tliat clearly conteinplated tliat if the (Jommissiouers who were to 

 be appointed to frame that scheme of Kegulatioiis agreed in fraiuiug 

 that scheme of Eegulatioiis, tliat that was to be binding. 1 perfectly 

 agree; but does my learned friend suggest (1 did not understand him 

 to suggest) that that was the only matter that was in the view of the 

 Government at that time? IsTot at all. There was in the view of both 

 Governments at that time strongly, and always insisted upon by the 

 Government of Great Britain, that the questions of right must be setiiedj 

 that the question of damages to be paid by the United States if they 

 were wrong. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you mean property right f 



Sir Charles Kussell. — I do not say property right merely^ hut ques- 

 tions of right, — I say, Sir, questions of right. 1 do not limit it to one 

 question or another. I say questions of right should be settled, and at 

 that very time as my learned friend must know because I presume he 

 is familiar with the negotiations that had been going on and that were 

 continued after the Government of Great Britain were insisting- upon 

 their claim for compensation in respect of what they contended was the 

 wrong committed upon the ships of their subjects by their, as th(^y con- 

 tended, wrongful seizure in Behring Sea. Throughout it cannot be 

 doubted that this has been the position taken up by the Government of 

 the Queen, a ])ositi()n from which I am not departing now and from 

 which the Government has never departed. They deny to-day, they have 

 ahvays denied, each and every part of the rights claimed as rights by the 

 United States exclusive of others. They have always demanded com- 

 pensation in respect of the seizures which they contend were illegal; 

 but the question of right settled, they have always professed, and they prof ess 

 today, their readiness to consider any fair question of Regulations, always 

 bearing in mind that that question of Eegulatio7is is to be approached upon 

 the assumption that outside its territory, that outside the additional limita- 

 tions of water boundary conceded by International Law, the United States 

 have different rights from the riglits of the rest of the World frequenting 

 those waters. 



Senator Morgan. — Approached by whom? — That that question must 

 be approached, in the way you indicated, by whom"? By the Tribunal 

 or by the United States'? 



Sir Charles Russell. — What I have been stating, if you have done 

 me the honour to follow me. Sir, is what the position of Her Majesty's 

 Government on this question was. 



Senator Morgan. — I understand that. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — That tliat question of Eegulations is to be 

 approached on the basis of no rights on the part of the United States 

 except such as belong- to her by reason of her territory rights, as we 

 contend, well and accurately defined by International Law; and her 

 position, therefore, has always been that it is impossible to a[)proach 

 this question of Kegulatioiis till you have« j?norideteiiiiined the ques- 

 tion, whether there is or is not any exclusive or si)ecial right on the part 

 of the United States. Once that question is got out of the way, then 

 the ground is clear for the establishment of llegulations Just, exi)edient, 

 comenient in the interest of all who are concerned in tlie question. I 

 was stating the position which I, re])]-eseiiting- the Governmeiit of the 

 (i)ueeii, take up; which position is consistent with the attitude that the 

 Government of the Queen has constantly maintained. 



Senator Morgan. — / perfeefly comprehended that point; but I did not 

 understand if Counsel insisted that the question was to be approached by 

 the United States or by the Tribunal in the manner indicated. 



