346 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Our Goverimieut lias given, so far as is known, no other formal state- 

 ment than that of Acting Secretary French (above qnoted in part), to 

 inform either our citizens or foreign Powers of the precise grounds on 

 which the seizure of British sealers is to be justified. i!»[o defence of 

 our action by Secretary Bayard, nor up to tlie time of this writing by 

 Secretary Blaine or Secretary Windom, has been published. 



But in our newspapers editorial wiiters or contributors have sug- 

 gested lines of defence of our action. The ground they have generally 

 taken as the strongest is that Russia exercised exclusive jurisdiction 

 in Behring Sea, and that by the cession of Alaska she transferred to us 

 the right to exercise the same jurisdiction. Undoubtedly, by the Edict 

 of ISUl, the Czar claimed the right to exclude foreign vessels from nav- 

 igating that sea within 100 miles of the shore for any jmrpose; but 

 through the pen of John (^uiucy Adams, Secretary of State, we stoutly 

 and successfully resisted that claim. The first two sections of the 

 Edict read as follows : 



Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and of all other indus- 

 try, on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of 

 America, beginning from Behring Strait to the 51st degree of northern latitude; also 

 from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberi«a, as well as along the Kurile 

 Islands from Beliriiig Strait to the south cape of the Island of Urup, viz., to 45"^ 50' 

 northern latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian suljjects. 



Section 2. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the 

 coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approacli theiri 

 within 100 Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is subject to confiscation along 

 with the whole cargo. 



Mr, Adams, replying to the note in which M. Poletica, the Russian 

 Minister at Washington, communicated this Edi(;t, said (25tli February, 

 182'2) that the President had seen with surprise this assertion of a ter- 

 ritorial claim by Russia down to the olst degree of latitude on our 

 continent, and added: "To exclude the vessels of our citizens from the 

 shore beyond the ordinary distance to wliich the territorial jurisdiction 

 extends has excited still greater surprise." 



It has been said by some that the controversy between us and Russia 

 did not pertain to JJehiing Sea, and so that Mr. Adams' contention can- 

 not be pleaded against a claim to jurisdiction by us now over that sea. 

 It is true that the action of Russia in issuing the Edict was chiefiy 

 directed against alleged illicit trading by our citizens on the coasts 

 below the Aleutian Islands. There was then little or no trade above 

 them. But the language of the Edict plainly a])plies to what we call 

 Behring Sea as well as toother parts of the Northern Pacific, although 

 the name Behring Sea was tlien rarely, if ever, used to designate the 

 waters which we know by that name. Mr. Adnnis, in sending instruc- 

 tions to Mr. Middleton, our Minister at Sf, Petersburgii, to guide him 

 in negotiating the Treaty of 1824, wrote (22nd July, 1823) as follows: 



From the tenonr of the TIkase the pretensions of the Imi)erial Government extend to 

 an exclusive territorial jurisdiction fi-om tlie Mtli degree of north latitude on the 



Asiatic coast to th(! latitude of ol^nortli on the western coast of the American 

 94 continent; and they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the 



fishery of all other nations to the <ixtent of 100 miles from the whole of that 

 coast. TJie IJnitcsd States can admit no ])art of tliese claims. 



And again, in a pa])er accompanying the above instructions, he said: 



The right of na\ igat ion and of fishing in the Pacific Ocean, even upon the Asiatic 

 coast north of latitude 4.'')" , can as litthi be interdicted to the United States as that 

 of traflic with the natives of North America. 



After reading such language from Mr. Adams, can any one doubt 

 what his answer would ha\'«^ been to a ])roposition by RMissia to concede 



