APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 347 



tliat the Pacific south of tlie 55tl] parallel was an open sea, but that the 

 part uorth of it formed a closed sea, over which she had exclusive 

 jurisdiction? 



It may be worthy of notice that, altliough the Eussians sought to 

 exclude foreigners from witliin 100 miles of the coast, they did not abso- 

 lutely base their action on the claim tliat tile North Pacific was a closed 

 sea. AfiBrmiug that the conditions might justify such a claim and abso- 

 lute interdiction of the entrance of foreigners, tliey chose to set forth 

 as the ground of the Edict the necessity of i^reventing illicit trade. 

 But Mr. Adams thought it worth while to deny explicitly that they 

 could maintain with any justice the claim that the North Pacific was a 

 closed sea even if tliey had wished to do so. 



The Treaty of 1824 secured to us the right of navigation and fishing 

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

 Sonth Sea," and (in Article IV) for ten years that of frequenting the 

 interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast for the purpose 

 of lishing and trading. At the expiration of the ten years Kussia 

 refhsed to renew this last provision, and it never was formally renewed. 

 But, for nearly fifty years at least, American vessels have been engaged 

 in taking whales in I>eiiring Sea without being disturbed by the Kus- 

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

 of our whaling vessels annually visited the Arciic Ocean and Behring 

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

 Kussia regarded Behring Sea as a i^art of the Pacific Ocean, and not as 

 one of the "interior seas," access to which Avas forbidden by the termi- 

 nation of the IVth Article of the Treaty. U. E. IJancrolt, in his "His- 

 tory of Alaska," says that in 1842 the Russian ^Minister of Foreign 

 Afl'airs explicitly refused to send crnizers to interfere with our whalemen 

 in that sea on the ground that the Treaty gave us the riglit of fishing- 

 over the whole extent of the Pacific. Whether, therefore, we have 

 regard to Mr. Adams' arguments or to the treatment of our whalers by 

 Bnssia, it seems that we must find some other justili<^ation of our seiz- 

 ures of British sealers than the possession of the right through the 

 cession of Alaska by Russia. 



Can we sustain a claim that Behring Sea is a closed Sea and so sub- 

 ject to our control? It is, i)erhai»s, impossible to frame a definition of a 

 closed sea which the i)ublicists of all nations will accept. Vattel's closed 

 sea is one "entirely inclosed by the land of a nation, with only a com- 

 munication with the ocean by a channel, of which that nation may take 

 possession." Hauteleuille substantially adopts this statement, assert- 

 ing 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 Hautefeuille's definition. But 

 so narrow a channel or opening as that indicated by the eminent French 

 writer can hardly be insisted on. Probably most authorities will regard 

 it as a reasonable requirement tlutt the entrance to the sea shcmld be 

 narrow enough to make the naval occupation of it easy or practicable. 

 We, at least, may be expected to prescribe no definition which would 

 make the Gulf of St. Lawrence a closed sea. 



Behring Sea is not inclosed wholly by our territory. From the most 

 western island in our possession to the nearest point on the Asiatic 

 shore is more than 300 miles. From our most western island, Attou, 

 to the nearest Russian island, (Jopi)er Island, is 183 miles. The sea 

 from east to west measures about 1,100 miles, and from north to south 

 fully 800 miles, Tiie area of the sea must be at least two-thirds as 

 great as that of the Mediterranean, and more tlian twice that of the 



