282 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



In the same Treaty it is also provided that "the subjects of His 

 Britannic Majesty, frOni whatever quarter they may arrive, whether 

 from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall /or ever enjoy 

 the right of navigating freely and without any hindrance whatever all 

 the rivers and streams which, in their course toward the Pacific Ocean, 

 may cross the line of demarcation." [Ibid.) 



Afterwards a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Eussia 

 and Great Britain was signed at St. Petersburgh on the 11th January, 

 1813, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the expi- 

 ration of ten years, in which it is provided that "in regard to commerce 

 and navigation in the Eussian ])ossessious on the north west coast of 

 America the Convention of the 28th February, 1825, continues in 

 force." {Ihid., vol. vi, p. 707.) 



Then ensued the Crimean war between Eussia and Great Britain, 

 effacing or suspending Treaties. Afterwards another Treaty of Com- 

 merce and Navigation was signed at St. Petersburgh on the 12th Jan- 

 uary, 1859, subject to be terminated on notice from either party at the 

 expiration of ten years, which repeats the last provision. {Ibid., vol. 

 X, p. 1063.) 



Thus we have three different stipulations on the part of Eussia: one 

 opening seas, gulfs, and havens on the Eussian coast to British subjects 

 for fishing and trading with the natives; the second making Sitka a 

 free port to British subjects; and the third making British rivers which 

 flow through the Eussian possessions for ever free to British naviga- 

 tion. Do the United States succeed to these stii^ulations? 



Among these I make a distinction in lavour of the last, which by its 

 language is declared to be " for ever," and may have been in the nature 

 of an equivalent at the settlement of the boundaries between the two 

 Powers. But whatever may be its terms or its origin it is obvious that 

 it is nothing but a declaration ot public law as it has always been 

 expounded by the United States and is now recognized on the Continent 

 of Europe. While pleading with Great Britain in 1826 for the free 

 navigation of the St. Lawrence, Mr. Clay, who was at the time Secretary 

 of State, said that "the American Government did not mean to contend 

 for any principle the benefit of which, in analogous circumstances, it 

 would deny to Great Britain." ( Wheaton's " Elements of International 

 Law," Part II, cap. 4.) During the same yea.i- Mr. Gallatin, our Minister 

 in London, when negotiating with Great Britain for the adjustment of 

 our boundaries on the Pacific, proposed that "if the line should cross 

 any of the branches of the Columbia at points from which they are 

 navigable by boats to the main stream the navigation of both branches 

 and of the main stream sliould be perjietually free and common to the 

 people of botli nations." At an earlier day the United States made the 

 same claim with regard to the Mississii)pi, and asserted as a general 

 principle that "if the right of the upper inhabitants to descend the 

 stream was in any case obstructed it was an act by a stronger society 

 against a weaker, condemned by the judgment of mankind." {Ibid.) 

 By these admissions our country is estopped, even if the public; law of 

 the I<Airo])ean Continent, first declared at Vienna with regard to the 

 Eliine, did not offer an example which we cannot aiford to reject. I 

 rejoice to believe that on this occasion we shall apply to Great Britain 

 tl)e generous rule which from the beginning we have claimed for our- 

 selves. 



The two other stipulations are different in character. They are not 

 declared to be "for ever," and do not stand on any ])rin('iple of public 

 law. Even if subsisting now they cannot be onerous. I doubt much 



