The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-05-13
THE BEHRING SEA COURT.
Sir Charles Russell Continues
His Argument.
ANOTHER WARM DEBATE.
The Rights Of Russia in the Behring
Sea Discussed.
Reference to the Forged Interpretations
in the American Case Which Were
Withdrawn Afterwards, Causes
n Bitter Debate.

PARIS, May 12.-Sir Charles Russell
continued his address in behalf Of the
British case before the Behring sea tri-
bunal OF arbitration to-day. Sir Charles
discussed the rights OF Russia in the
Behring sea under treaties between
Russia and the United States and between
Russia and Great Britain. Sir Charles
contended that the treaties in question
recognized merely territorial rights. He
next referred to forged interpretations In
the American case as originally presented
and argued that when the torgerles were
extracted from the case nothing remained
which was claimed to have been derived
from Russia.
American Agent John W. Foster ex-
planned that the contents of the docu-
ments we're unknown until the American
case had been prepared, and as soon as
the forgery was discovered the documents
were withdrawn.
Sir Charles replied that while the doc
uments were withdrawn, the formal case
depending on the documents had not ma
terially changed.
Hon. E. j. Phelps, of American coun-
sci, retorted that the American case had
OcSH IeSbdL6u III The Counter CASE
The discussion was of an acrid charac-
acler, the proceedings, since Sir Charles
began, having been characterized by more
heat and temper than at any time since
the opening of the tribunal.
Sir Charles Russell contended today
that the American statutes were not in
tended originally to treat the Behring
sea as a mare clausum, but American
courts so interpreted them at the instance
of the American government. in
proof of this assertion he cited the
country breef for the United States
in which the doctrine of. mare clausum
was the only one of relief.
By Counsel Phelps-We dispute the
authenticity of that copy.
RUSSELL am prepared forthwith TO
submit TO proof my authenticity. If the
correctn ess of the copy is really ques-
toned why was not the original produced
long since? Continuing his argument, Sir
Charles said the court which condemned
the vessels seized in Behring sea sat as q
municipal court Interpreting American
law as a prize conrt administering inter
national law. This proved beyond dis
pute that the seizures were made on the
ground that the whole Behrlng sea was
United States territory, and not on the
ground of those novel principles of inter
national law enunciated by the United
States counsel at the opening OF the arbi-
tratron.
In conclusion, Sir Charles demanded
that the tribunal pronounce Illegal the
seizures made by the United States IN the
Behring sea.
Senator Morgan-If seizures can be JUS
titled on other principles than those adj
yanced at the hearing of the case, is it not
open to the United States to raise them2
Sir Charles - No, the United States
seized ships on certain grounds. The
judge punished the men in accordance
herewith and great nation cannot shift
and change her position. Moreover the
reasons now advanced even il admitted
do not justify the fneing and imprison-
ing of sailors.