APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 477 



Tlie 1st Article of that iu.struuieiit is ouly declaratory of a rij^lit 

 which the parties to it possessed, under theUiAvof nations, without Con- 

 ventioniil stipulations, to Avit, to navi,i4ate and Ush in the ocean upon an 

 unoccujiied coast, and to resort to such coast for the purpose of trading 



with the natives. 

 11 The llnd Article prohibits the one party from resorting to 



points occupied by the other Avithout i)eruiission. 



The 11 Ird Article preAents each party from occupying new points 

 Avithiu certain limits. 



The IVtli Article giants i)ermission to either party to frequent, for a 

 specified t<n'm, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the 

 Avhole north Avest coast of America, Avithout regard to limits or occu- 

 })ation, for the purpose of tishing and of trading Avith the natives of 

 the country. 



The question is as to the meaning and object of this last-mentioned 

 Article. Is it to be interpreted as an agreement by either of the ])arties 

 to abandon, after a specified term, the right to resort to any X)art of the 

 coast Avliich is uuoccu])ied"? 



If the IVth Aiticle is to be considered as ai)i)liciible to ports of the 

 coasts unoccupied, then it merely provides for the temporary enjoy- 

 ment of a i>rivilege which existed in ]ier]tetuity, under the law of nations, 

 and which has been expressly declared so to exist by a juevious Article 

 of the Convention. Containing no prcnision, therefore, not end)raced 

 in the ])receding Article, it would l)e useless, and of no etfect. But the 

 rule in regard to the construction ol' an instrument, of Avhatever kind, 

 is that it shall be so construed, if possil»le, as that every part may 

 stand. 



If the Article be construed to include points of the coast already 

 occupied, it then takes etfect, thus far, as a tem|)oi'ary exception to a 

 perpetual ])rohibitioii, and the only conseipUMice of an expiration of the 

 term to Avliich it is limited would be the immediate and continued oi)er- 

 ation of the i>rohibition. 



It is still more reasonable to understand it, however, as intended to 

 grant permission to enter interior bays, \c., ;it the mouths of Avhich 

 there ndght be establishiiieiits, or the sliores (tt whicli might be in part, 

 but not Avholly, occupied by such estjiblislimeiils, thus providing for a 

 case Avhich Avould otherAvise admit of (baibl, ;is without the l\'th Article 

 it would be questionable whether the bays, «S:c., described in it belong 

 to the 1st or llnd Article. 



In no sense can it be understood as implying an acknowledgment on 

 the part of the United States of the right of Jvussia to the possession 

 of- the coast above the latitude of ol^ 40' north. It must be taken in 

 connection Avitli the other Articles of the Convention, Avliich have, in 

 fact, no reference Avhatever to the (juestion of the right of possession 

 of the unoccupied parts of the coast. In a spirit of conquomise, and 

 to ]>reA'ent future collisions or difticulties, it Avas agreed that no ncAv 

 establishments should be formed by the respective parties to the north 

 or south of a certain i)arallel of latitude, after the conclusicuvof the 

 Agreement; but the question of the right of possession beyond the 

 existing establishments, as it subsistfsd previously to, or at the time of, 

 the conclusion of the Convention, was left untouched. The United 

 States, in agreeing not to form new establishments to the north of lati- 

 tude 54° 40' north, made no acknowledgment of the right of Russia to 

 the territory above that line. If such an admission had been made, 

 Russia, by the same construction of the Article referred to, must have 

 ackuoAvledged the right of the United States to the territory south of 



