138 ORAL A^raiMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



from the Case, so that no allusion miiilit be made to them. They never 

 at any time were a source of any evidence very important to us, nor did 

 they constitute any means of any considerable weight in establishing 

 any portion of our Case. We therefore wholly withdrew them. It is 

 unnecessary to say anything further in regard to them. What motive 

 this individual may have had in thus im]tosing upon us, it is difficult 

 for me to say. His avowed motive was that he wanted to recommend 

 Limself to us by showing that he had found in these Russian documents, 

 "which were a mystery to everj'body else, something very much in our 

 favor. It is unnecessary to comment upon that. That explanation has 

 never been wholly satisfactory to us; and we have never been able to 

 explain the ground upon Avhich such a fraud as this was attempted. 



I have now concluded what I have to say in reference to the inter- 

 pretation of this treaty; and I submit, upon the views that I have pre- 

 sented, that the interpretation of Mr. Blaine, which limits the meaning 

 of the Pa(;iflc Ocean or South Sea, to so much of the Great Pacific Ocean 

 as is south of the Alaskan Peninsula, and of the Aleutian chain of 

 Islands, is the correct one. What part does that play in our present 

 pretensions here'? Does it demonstrate our claim completely? Not at 

 all. Suppose we failed in establishing our interpretation, and the 

 Government of Great Britain should succeed in establishing theirs to 

 the satisfaction of this body, would it establish their part of the case? 

 Not at all. It has only a remote connection, but still a not wholly 

 unimportant one. It operates in a manner to confirm by the evidence 

 of long possession and long acquiescence those rights to the seal fishery 

 in the Bering Sea which had been asserted at a very early period, and 

 to substantiate our claim in regard to them; and the use we mal^e of 

 the Russian pretensiotis and our acquisition of Russian rights in our 

 argument is substantially this: 



First. The sealing industry on the Pribilof Islands, having been 

 established prior to 1821, was one of the industries to which Russia by 

 the Ukase in question asserted an exclusive right, and to defend which 

 she claimed the right to exercise authority over a part of the high seas 

 adjoining her shores. 



Second. These rights were not abandoned, displaced or modified by 

 the treaties of 1824 or 1825, and not being abandoned or modified 

 by those treaties, are fairly to be regarded as having been then, and 

 by those treaties, assented to by the United States and Great Britain. 



Third. The subsequent abstention by Great Britain, the United 

 States, and all other nations, and of the citizens of otlier nations from 

 any attempts to disturb Russia or her successor, the United States, in 

 the enjoyment of this sealing industry, down to tlie year 1883, a period 

 of more than sixty years, is additional and satisfactory evidence of 

 such acquiescence. 



Fourth. After an acquiescence of this character for so long ax)eriod, 

 it is not competent for Great Britain to deny the existence of the 

 right, or the propriety of the defensive regulations necessary to its 

 preservation. 



The Arbitrators will perceive, therefore, that the use which the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States makes of these transactions begins at 

 the time of tlie Ukase, proceeds upon the assertion that Russia assnmed 

 an exclusive right to this industry at that time: that that right, so far 

 as it related to Bering Sea, and of course to the Pribilof Islands, was 

 not disturbed or displaced by the treaties of 1824 and 1825, and not 

 being displaced, was, inferentially, and by a very strong implication, 

 acceded to and acquiesced in. Next, that implied acquiescence thus 



