100 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



contra honos mores — a pursuit which of necessity involves a serions and 

 permanent injury to the rights of the (iovernment and people of the 

 United States. 



To establish this ground, it is not necessary to argue the question 

 of the extent and nature of the sovereignty of this Governnieut over 

 the waters of the Behriug 8ea; it is not necessary to explain, cer- 

 tainly not to deliue, the powers and privileges ceded by His Imperial 

 Majesty the Emperor of Russia in the Treaty, by which the Alaskan 

 Territory was transferred to the United States. The* weighty consid- 

 eration growing out of the acquisition of that territory, with all the 

 rights on land and sea inseparably connected therewith, may lie 

 safely left out of view while the grounds are set forth upon which 

 this Government rests its justitication for the action complained of by 

 Her Majesty's Government. . . . 



He argues that the practice of pelagic sealing insures the 

 extennination of the species, and continues : 



Ibid., p. .^QS. lu the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea is not law- 



lessness. Nor can the law of the sea and the liberty which it confers 

 and ■which it protects be perverted to justify acts which are immoral 

 in themselves, which inevitably tend to result against the iuterest and 

 against the welfare of mankind. One step beyond that which ^ter 

 Majesty's Government has taken in this contention, and pi-acy finds 

 its justification. 



BEHKING SKA NOT INCLUDED IN PACIFIC OCEAN IN THKATIES OF 1824 



AND 182.5. 



On the 17th December, 1890, Mr, Blaine again >vrote to 

 Sir Julian Pauncefote : 



Bine Book, Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently complicated, are often 



"United Slates found, after prolonged discussion, to depend on the settlement of a 



37° 38*^^s' e' A^ single point. Such, in the judgment of the President, is the ]>ositiou 



pendix, vol. iii.^* in '^^tiich the United States and Great Britain find themselves in the 



pending controversy touching the true construction of the Russo 



American and Anglo-Russian Treaties of 1824 and 182.5. Great Britain 



contends that the phrase "Pacilic Ocean," as used in the 



131 Treaties, was intended to include, and does include, the body of 



water which is now known as the Behriug Sea. The United 



States contends that the Behriug Sea was not mentioned, or even 



referred to, in either Treaty, and was in no sense included in the 



])hrase "Pacific Ocean." If Great Jiritain can maintain her position 



that the Behring Sea at the time of the Treaties with Russia of 1824 



and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean, the Government of the 



United States has no well-grounded complaint against her. If, on the 



other hand, this Governnieut can jirove beyond all doubt that the 



Behring Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood by the three 



Signatory Powers to be a separate body of water, and was not included 



in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," then the American Case against Great 



Britain is complete and undeniable. . 



DISAVOWAL OF MARE CLAUSUM. 



Bluo Book, In the same note Mr. Blaine disavows tlie contention that 



N^T*a89it*'''*p'^ the Behring Henis mare claiiKHm, but claims that the Ulcase, 



5?- Se( .Ai>pen-vv]ii(;h asscrtcd cxclusive Jurisdiction ovcr 100 miles from 



ti.\, ^o .111. ^^^^ coast in that Sea, Avas never annulled by llussia. He 



had in this note previouslj'- argued " that Great Britain and 



Ibid, i>. II. ^\^Q United States recogni/ed, lespected, and obeyed the 



authority of llussia in the Behring Sea" for more than forty 



yeais after the Treaties with Itussia. In conclusion, lie 



claims lor the United States the right to hold Ibia specitic 



purpose a "comparatively restricted area of water." 



