08 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



The grant is one thing, the measure is another. Mere presence there is a 

 violation. Now, I have said that upon the face of this Ukase it does not 

 purport to assume dominion over any part of the sea; it purports only to 

 establish a defensive and self-protecting regulation which is to operate 

 over one hundred miles of the sea. And let me say right here, as it 

 appears to be interesting the Arbitrators, that such things were 

 extremely common and are found at the present day. For instance, 

 every nation has its custom laws, and there are often carried on opera- 

 tions in violation of tliose laws; and one manner of doing this is for a 

 vessel having a cargo of goods on board to come and hover on the 

 coast of a nation until another vessel comes out and transships her 

 cargo. Now, a nation must have the privilege of preventing this in 

 some way; and if a nation were not permitted to exclude the smuggler 

 for more than three miles from the coast, she would be almost defence- 

 less against it. And therefore nations must have some manner of pre- 

 venting vessels from coming within sight of the shore. 



Justice Harlan. Is your argument to the first and third points of 

 the Articles of the Treaty! 



Mr. Carter. My point is confined to an explanation of the real 

 nature of this prohibition contained in the Russian Ukase of 1821. 



Justice Harlan. I am speaking of the first point of Article VI of 

 the Treaty ; it does not require attention from the Arbitrators, because 

 it relates to Russia. 



Mr. Carter. Well, it is a part of my argument not only to show 

 that Russia did assert the exercise of a self defensive power, ))ut also 

 the rightfulness of the assertion. It is not important to urge it, but it 

 is a fair part of the discussion. It may be well contended that not 

 only did Russia make this assertion, but that it was a rightful one. 

 For the purpose of showing that, let me speak of the hovering acts. 

 The laws and statutes of Great Britain — 



Mr. Phelps. And France. 



Mr. Carter. And France as well, for the prevention of smuggling, 

 forbid a vessel from hovering on the coast. 



They prohibited any vessel, foreign or other, from hovering there; 

 and the penalty for hovering within four miles is capture and con- 

 fiscation. 



Sir Charles Russell. Four leagues. 



Mr. Carter. Four leagues — the penalty is capture and confisca- 

 tion. It is the universal penalty. So, also, there are quarantine laws, 

 which under certain circumstances require vessels at certain times to 

 come to at a distance from the shore much further out than three miles, 

 and nwait a boarding vessel there; and the penalty for a violation 

 of such enactments is always capture and confiscation. 



So that this instance of an exercise of authority by Russia operative 

 over a belt of the sea beyond the limits of three miles is not an excep- 

 tional exercise of authority, but one commonly resorted to, and always 

 resorted to when there is the necessity for a defensive and protective 

 measure of that character. 



I will not go any further into that discussion at this time. What I 

 have thus far said goes to show that that is the natui'e of this regula 

 tion on the face of it. 



I have now to i^oint out to the learned Arbitrators that that was the 

 view taken of it by Russia at the time; for when it was protested 

 against by Mr. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State of the 

 United States, this was the exiilaiuition, or ]»art of the explanation, 

 given by the Russian Government. I read from the note of M. de 



