ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 137 



Lord Hats^nen. Would yon say that, Mr. Carter, if the correspondence 

 between the English Government and the Knssian (Tovernment showed 

 a diilerent interpretation had been put upon the words "Pacitic Ocean"? 



Mr. Carter. I beg your Lordship's pardon. 



Lord Hatn^nen. I say, would you say that the English Government 

 was bound by the interpietation which you say had been put upon it 

 by the Knssian and the American Governments, if the correspondence 

 between the English Government and the Knssian Government showed 

 that they understood the words "Pacific Ocean" in a different sense? 



Mr. Carter. No, my Lord, I would not. 



Lord Hannen. You would not in that event? 



Mr. Carter, l^o; I would not. If there were evidence here tending 

 to show that the Russian Government and the Government of Great 

 Britain in the course of that negotiation put an interpretation upon 

 these very terms different from what Kussia and the United States had 

 put upon them, then I shoukl say that they must be interpreted accord- 

 ing to the significance in which they were understood by the Govern- 

 ments of Great Britain and Kussia: but I have not myself discovered 

 any evidence here tending to show that the terms of the Treaty were 

 understood by the Knssian Government and the Government of Great 

 Britain differently from what they were understood by the Government 

 of the United States and the Government of Kussia. 



Something lias been said here to the effect that the language of this 

 treaty as contained in the French original and in the English original 

 is different. It may be so. What I mean is that one cannot be claimed 

 to have any superiority over the other in establishing any particular 

 interpretation. The Treaty was drawn up in both languages, and signed 

 in both languages; and if the American is to be regarded as a transla- 

 tion of the French, it is a translation which is incoutestible as between 

 the parties, as being a correct one, because it bears the signatures of 

 both ; and, speaking on the subject of translation, it brings to my mind — 



Sir Charles Kussell. 1 do not think there is any material differ- 

 ence between them. 



Mr. Carter. Perhaps not. Speaking upon the subject of transla- 

 tions, it brings to my mind a matter which heretofore has not been made 

 the subject of discussion at all; and that is the erroneous translations 

 of Knssian documents which were originally incorporated into the 

 American Case. The learned Arbitrators have observed that I have 

 in no part of my argument made the slightest reference to them, or 

 made any use of them whatever. It is for this reason: when we first 

 discovered, to our infinite surprise, that we had been imposed upon in 

 some inexplicable manner by a ])erson whom we had employed to trans- 

 late these documents, and who had made translations of them, indis- 

 putably fraudulent, because there were interpolations contained in them 

 for which there was no corresponding language in the original, the 

 question arose, what are we to do with these i)apers? They must be 

 corrected in some form. Very fortunately for us — although 1 know my 

 learned friends would not suppose that we were in any manner charge- 

 able with such fraudulent translations — but I say very fortunately for 

 the United States, they had incorporated into the same book, that is, 

 their original Case, which contained these erroneous translations, photo- 

 graphs of the original Kussian documents; and of course we had put 

 it into the power of our adversary to convict us of any misinterpreta- 

 tion, or mistranslation, which mighthavebeen given to those documents. 

 We were scarcely the less mortified on that account; and conceived it 

 to be the best course on the whole to absolutely withdraw the papers 



