ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 65 



the two Governments in respect to tlie necessity of a measure so 

 stringent as that for the preservation of the fur-seals; and that, owing 

 to the remoteness of the region from which information was obtainable, 

 a long period of time had necessarily elapsed in tlie elTbrt to gain 

 information upon which the government could iutelhgeutly act. He 

 intimates, besides, that some delay, at least, was chargeable to political 

 emergencies in the United States, meaning, I suppose, the change of 

 administration from that of President Cleveland to that of President 

 Harrison. That is, I believe, a fair statement of the i)oints sought to 

 be made by Lord Salisbury in this note. 



The next feature in this stage of the controversy to which I call the 

 attention of the Trfbunal is the letter of Mr. r>laine to Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote of June oOth, 1800, which is found on page 224 of the 

 American Appendix. This letter of Mr, Blaine is important, inasmuch 

 as it takes up the argument upon the questions in dispute, as that 

 argument was left by Lord Salisbury's reply to Mr. Blaine's letter, in 

 which he fully set forth the i)()sition of the United States. The Arbi- 

 trators will remember that I read Lord Salisbury's reply and briefly 

 commented upon it, pointing out, what appeared upon the face of it, 

 that it was rather an attempt to avoid the ground taken by Mr. Blaine 

 than to really answer it; to pass over the ground of Mr. Blaine and 

 again rely upon the attitude taken by the United States in 1822, pro- 

 testing against the pretensions of Russia to an exceptional marine 

 jurisdiction in Bering Sea. The disposition of Lord Salisbury, I 

 remarked, seemed to me to be to draw away the discussion from the 

 substantial ground taken by Mr. Blaine, that of inlierent and essential 

 right, and to engage him in a discussion in lefeience to the validity of 

 Eussian pretensions in Behriug Sea. 



If 1 were permitted, and if it were worth while, to criticise the ])osi- 

 tion of Mr. Blaine as a controversionalist, or a negotiator, I should say 

 that he took an unwise step in responding to this suggestion of Lord 

 Salisbury and suffering himself to be drawn away from the impreg- 

 nable attitude on which he stood — imju'egnable, as it seems to me— and 

 which Lord. Salisbury had undertaken, as I think, to avoid — and pass 

 over to that region of controversy to which Lord Salisbury had invited 

 him. That was an imprudent step, as it seems to me. The wiser 

 course would have been to have said to Lord Saliabury: "I do not 

 think you have answered the positions which 1 have taken; and the 

 positions which I have taken are the grounds, the main grounds, upon 

 which the United States bases its contentions; and [shall expect a 

 further and more satisfactory answer to them if it can be made". But 

 he did accept the invitation of Lord Salisbury, and he took up this 

 question of the Russian assumptions of authority in Behring Sea and 

 wrote a long letter in relation to it. 



That letter, again, is too long to be read, and not of sufficient impor- 

 tance to be read. The only importance that it has in the aspect of the 

 controversy which 1 am now i)resenting to the Tribunal is that it 

 exhibits a stage in the discussion of this question of liussian i)reten- 

 sions in Behring Sea. It is the answer on the ])art of the United 

 States Governnient, and the tirst answer that the United States Gov- 

 ernment ever made, to the argument of Great Britain that Ilussia had 

 originally made pretensions similar to the one then made by the United 

 States: and that these pretensions, when nuxde by Russia in 1821, were 

 resisted by the United States Government upon the same grounds 

 upon which Great Britain was now resisting the i)retensions of the 

 United States. That was the argument of Lord Salisbury, and Mr. 

 Blaine makes an answer to it here. 

 B S, PT XII 5 



