448 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



original propositiou the Russian Plenipotentiaries cannot reasonably 

 refuse to adliere to it. 



Where the mountains are the boundary, we are content to take the 

 summit instead of the ''seaward base" as the line of demarcation. 



I omitted in my last instructions to Sir Charles Bagot, though I had 

 signified to Count Lievou, that I intended to require a small extension 

 of the line of demarcation from tlie point where thelisiere on the coast 

 terminates in latitude 59 to the northward. The extension required is 

 from 139° to 141° west longitude, the latter being the i>arallel which 

 falls more directly on jMount Elias, 



With regard to the port of Sitka, or TsTew-Archangel, the offer came 

 originally from Russia, but we are not disposed to object to the restric- 

 tion which she now applies to it. 



We are content that the port shall be open to us for ten years, pro- 

 vided only that if any other nation obtains a more extended term, the 

 like term shall be extended to us also. 



We are content also to assign the period of ten years for the reciprocal 

 liberty of access and commerce with each other's territories, which stip- 

 ulation maybe best stated precisely in the terms of Article 4 of the 

 American Convention. 



These, 1 think, are the only points in which alterations are required 

 by Russia. And we have no other to propose. 



A "projet" such as it will stand according to the observations 

 75 of this despatch is inclosed, which you will understand as fur- 

 nished to you as a guide for the drawing up of the Convention, 

 but not as prescribing the precise form of words, nor fettering your 

 discretion as to any alterations, not varying from the substance of these 

 instructions. 



It will of course strike the Russian Plenipotentiaries that by the adop- 

 tion of the American Article respecting navigation, &c., the provision 

 for an exclusive fishery of 2 leagues from the coasts of our respective 

 possessions frills to the ground. 



But the omission is in truth immaterial. 



The law of nations assigns the exclusive sovereignty of 1 league to 

 each Power on its own coasts, without any specific stipulation, and 

 though Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to sign the Convention with 

 the specific stipulation of 2 leagues, in ignorance of what had been 

 decided in the American Convention, at the time, yet, after that Con- 

 vention has been some months before the world, and after the opi)()r- 

 tunity of consideration has been forced upon us by the act of Russia 

 herself, we cannot now consent, in negotiating de novo, to a sti])ulation 

 which, while it is absolutely unimportant to any in-actical good, would 

 ap])ear to establish a contract between tlie United States and us to our 

 disadvantage. 



Count Nesselrode himself has frankly admitted that it was natural 

 that we slumld expect, ami reasonable that we should receive, at the 

 hands of Russia, ecpial measure, in all resi)ccts, with the United States 

 of America. 



It remains only in reca])itulation, to remind you of the origin and 

 principles of this whole negotiation. 



It is 7iot on our pait, essentially a negotiation about limits. 



It is a denmnd of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arroga- 

 tion of exchisive jurisdiction over- an ocean of unnu'asured extent; but 

 a demand qualified and mitigated in its maiiiu'r, in order that its justice 

 may be acknowledged and satisfied without soreness qv hunuUatiou ou 

 the part of Russia. 



