CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 115 



Turkey, that sea mi^ht, witli propriety, be considered as a mare 

 dausum; aud there seemed no reason to question the right of the 

 Ottoman Porte to exclude other nations from navigating the passage 

 which connects it with the Mediterranean, both shores of this passage 

 being also portions of the Turkisli territory. But when Turkey lost 

 a part of her possessions bordering upon this sea, and Russia had 

 formed her commercial estaVdisliments on the shores of the Euxine, 

 both that Emi)ire and other Maritime Powers became entitled to par- 

 ticipate in the commerce of the Black Sea, aud consequently to the 

 free navigation of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. This right 

 was expressly recognized by the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829. 



22. The great inland lakes, and their navigable outlets, are con- 

 sidered as subject to the same rule as inland seas; where inclosed 

 within the limits of a single State, they are regarded as belonging to 

 the territory of that State; but if difterent nations occupy their 

 borders, the rule of mare clansmn cannot be applied to the navigation 

 and use of their waters. 



151 The view expressed by the above authorities has 



been ofhcially adoi^ted by an accredited Representa- 

 tive of the United States, sothat it is perhaps unnecessary 

 to insist further upon it in this connection. 



MR. HOFFMAN. 



On the 14tli March, 1882, Mr. Hoft'inaii wrote from the 

 Legation of the United States at St. Petersburg to Mr. 

 Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, in a letter already 

 quoted : 



In the time wiieu Russia owned the whole of these islands her Rep- Mr. Hoffman to 

 resentatives in Siberia claimed that the Sea of Okliotsk was a mare^^- ^-^^^^^^^^7,' 

 cJaitsum, for that Russian jurisdiction extended from islan<l to island jgg2 5oth^ Con- 

 and over 2 marine leagues of intermediate sea from .Japan to gress, 2nd Sesa., 

 Kamtchatka. Senate Ex. Doc. 



But about five years ago Russia ceded th<^ southern group of these ^^- ^^^' P- ^60. 

 islands to .Ja])an in return for the half of the Island of Saghalien, '^^^ jj 'p'^^" j^' 

 which belonged to tiiat Power. No. 13' 



As soon as this was done, it became impossible for the Siberian 

 authorities to maintain their claim. My informant was not aware 

 that this claim had ever been seriously made at St. Petersburg. 



And on the 27th March, 1882, he further wrote: 



I do not think that Russia claims that the Sea of Okhotsk is a mare Mr.Hoffmanto 



claufinm, over which she has exclusive iurisdiction. If she does, her '^^'"- \'i.*^''"|f'^nX' 



, . . , . , , . ,, "'. ,. i .- .ti c ^\ sen. March 27- 



claim IS not a tenable one, since the cession oi part ot the group oi the igg2. 50th Cou 



Kurile Islands to Japan, if it ever were tenable at any time. gress, 2n(l Scsa.i 



Senate E.x. Doc. 



PROF. AN-GEO.. I:e'%^.n& 



vol. ii, Part II. 



Professor James B. Angell, one of the United States ^'o. u. 

 Plenipotentiaries in the negotiation of the Fisheries Treaty 

 at Washington in 1888, and an eminent jurist, in an article Sce Appendix, 

 entitled "American Eights hi Behring Sea," iu "The^"'' 

 Forum" for November, 1889, wrote: 



Can we sustain a claim that Behring Sea is a closed s(%a, and so sub- 

 ject to our control? It is, perhaps, impossible to frame a definition 

 of a closed sea which the publicists of all nations will accept. V^at- 

 tel's closed sea is one "entirely inclosed by the land of a nation, with 

 only a communication with the ocean by a channel of wbiclithat nation 

 may take possessiou. Hautefeuille substantially adopts this state- 

 ment, asserting more specifically, however, that the channel must be 

 narrow enough to be defended from the shores. Perels, one of the 

 more eminent of the later German writers, practically accepts Hante- 

 feuille's definition. But so narrow a channel or opening as that indi- 



