474 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



No. 7. 



Mr. Dallas to Mr. Forsyth. 



American Legation, 

 St. Pctcrshiir()h, Awjiist 16, 1837, 



Sir: 



******* 



Among the special duties assigned to me in the instructions from the 

 Department are those relating to tlie renewal of the IVth Article of 

 tiie Treaty of 18L*4, by youi- despatch No. 2, and those arising out of tlie 

 case of tlie American brig " Loriot," llichard 1). Bliun, master, by your 

 desjjatch No. 3. I have been anxious to address myself to tlie Imperial 

 Ministry on both tliese topics, the mutual connection of wliicli is ai)par- 

 ent; but anticipating at tbe outset much difficulty in accomplishing 

 any purpose opposed by the Fur Company, prndence impels me to 

 acquire, if possible, with more accuracy than I now possess it, infor- 

 mation as to the extent of the Eussian establishments on the north- 

 western coast, and the periods of their respective commencements. 

 My efforts in London to ascertain the positions of i\\& two harbours 

 referred to by Captain Blinn, Tuckessan and Tatcskey, and tlieir real 

 character, were abortive, the geographer on whom 1 principally relied 

 writing to me, the evening before I left the British metropolis, tliat his 

 searches proved unproductive. An inquiry, to be cautiously conducted, 

 has been set on foot since my arrival here, in the hope that some of the 

 ofiticers of the Eussian navy, or some communicative member of the 

 Fur Company itself, may possess the facts 1 want, and may enable me 

 to move with less doubt and less danger of mistake. Although from 

 the language of Captain Blinn's protest I am led to believe that Eussian 

 establishments have been made at the places where he experienced the 

 interference of which he complains, it would not seem politic to begin 

 the negotiation by an admission whicli, thougli it might leave the 

 unfriendliness of tlie proceeding for comment, must weaken, if not 

 wholly destroy, his claim for redress. As soon as the inquiry instituted 

 shall either succeed or fail, the subject will be open to Count Nessel- 

 rode, and I cannot anticii)ate more than one or two weeks of additional 

 delay. 



Permit me, while on this topic, to remark that I cannot help foresee- 

 ing some perplexity from the construction which will be urged by the 

 Eussian Ministry for the Treaty of the 17th AprO, 1824. The 1st 

 Article asserts for both countries general and permanent rights of 

 navigation, fishing, and trading with the natives upon ])oints not occu- 

 pied by either, north or south of the agreed parallel of latitude, subject 

 to enumerated restrictions, anu)ng which is the IVth Article, limiting, 

 as it would seem, the exercise of certain of these very rights to a term 

 of ten years. Onr negotiator, Mr. Middleton, as he ex]»lained in a sub- 

 sequent desj)atch to the Department of State, contempliited no abiindon- 

 ment of their rights either in principle or as a compiomise, in the present 

 or future time, but on the contrary repelled a clause proposed to him 

 expressly for that jmrpose, iuid regarded the J V^th Article as eidarging, 

 not restricting, the ])iivileges provided for in the 1st. My conviction, 

 however, arising from the hinguage of the Eussiiin [jreciiutionary record 

 or Proto('(d (which Mi'. Middleton rather avoidt'd thiui rejected), is that 

 Count Nesselrode will deem himself and M. Poletica to have attained 

 by this IVth Article, though with the use of other words, the substance 

 oi' the clause to which Mr. Middleton objected, and that he will con- 



