CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 59 



Behriug Sea, or Sea of Kamchatka, is that part of the North Pacific Lippincotfs 

 Oceau between the Aleutian Islands in latitude 55'^ north and Behring w^^'ii^'^pTl** M*^ 

 Strait in latitude 66° north, by whicli latter it communicates with pi^j^ I'ggo. 

 the Arctic Ocean. 



l^eringsstrasse. Meerenge dasnordiistlichste Eismeer mit dem Stil- Ritter'8 "Geo- 

 len Ocean verbindend. ,,^^^ I^,^i,„„ „ sf t'LeS^fNIsl: 



Behring's Strait, cc necting the North Pacific with the Arctic Ocean. Blackie's "Mod- 

 ern Cyclopiedia/' 

 vol . i, London, 1889 edition. 



Behring's Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamchatka, is that por- 

 tion of the North Pacitic Oceau lying between the Aleutian Islands 

 and Behring's Strait. 



75 VIEWS OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN JURISTS. 



Finally, a fe^v passages may be quoted from English and 

 American publicists of ack-uowledged eminence, to show 

 the manner in which the general question has been viewed 

 by them. 



Dr. T. D. Woolsey, President of Yale College, "Intro- ^^^^^If^y-^;,'!^: 

 duction to the Study of International Law," 3rd edition, tern ationai 

 New York, 1872, p. 83 : ^^_jk| Yo'k,' 



Russia, finally, at a more recent date, based an exclusive claim to "' 

 the Pacific, north of the 51st degree, upon the ground that this part 

 of the ocean was a passage to shores lying exclusively within her 

 jurisdiction. But this claim was resisted by our government, and 

 withdrawn in the temporary convention of 1824. A treaty of the same 

 empire with Great Britain in 1825 contains similar concessions. 



In referring to the Eussian Ukase of 1821, Wharton, gJ^^^t^^^J™; 

 "Digest of International Law of the United States,'' Wash- tionai Law," 

 ington, 1880, vol. i, section 32, p. 3, speaks of liussia — S86,^voL"i"^*sec'- 



Having asserted in 1822 to 1824 ay exclusive jurisdiction over the '"'^ . P- • • 

 norih-west coast and waters of America from Behring Strait to the fifty- 

 first degree of north latitude. 



Mr. Davis, Assistant Professor of Law at the U^^ted j.^D.^visj^'jOut- 

 States Military Academy, "Outlines of International Law," national Law/" 

 New York, 1887, p. 41 T p.']I.^°^^' ^^^'^• 



Russia, in 1822, laid claim to exclusive jurisdiction over that part 

 of the Pacific Ocean lying north of the Slst degree of north latitude, 

 on the ground that it possessed the shores of that sea on both con- 

 tinents beyond that limit, and so had the right to restrict comuierce 

 to the coast inhabitants. 



A recent United States writer, Professor J. B. Angell, 

 discussing this subject, says: 



The Treaty of 1824 secured to us the right of navigation and fishing Jas.B. Angell, 

 in any part of the great ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, or in the "Forum," 

 South Sea, and (in Article IV) for ten years that of frequenting the^'^^T e7i cTn 

 interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast for the pur- i^jahtg jn Behr- 

 pose of fishing and trading. At the expiration of ten years Russia ingSea." 

 refused to renew this last provision, and it never was formally renewed, g^^ Appendix 

 But, for nearly fifty years at least, Americap vessels have been engaged vol. i. Xo. 8. ' 

 in taking whales in Behring Sea without being disturbed l)y the Rus- 

 sian Government. Long before the cession of Alaska to us, hundreds 

 of our whaling vessels annually visited the Arctic Oceau and Behriug 

 Sea, and brought home rich cargoes. It would seem, therefore, that 

 Russia regarded Beliring Sea as a part of tiie Pacific Ocean, and not 

 as one of the "interior seas," access to which was forbidden by the 

 termination of the IVth Article of the Treaty. 



76 Sir P.Phillimore, in the 2nd edition of " Commen- Phiiiimore 



taries upon International Law," vol. i, p. 211 , remarks : Law,"^\ud ^*ed1- 

 In 1822 Russia laid claim to a sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean [.^^JJ'''«Jj-jj'jP;241. 

 north of the 51st degree of latitude; but the Government of thet/go]. ' 



United States of America resisted this claim as contrary to the prin- 

 ciples of international law. 



