APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 483 



inal natives on the north-west coast beyond the degree of 54° 40'. north 

 latitude. This proposition, if established, is unquestionably fatal to 

 the pretensions of the master and owners of the "Loriot." It bears, 

 however, an aspect so detrimental to the interests of his countrymen, 

 and to their attributes as an independent Power, is so inconsistent with 

 the past policy and principles of the American Cabinets, and is withal 

 of such minor importance to the prosperity and greatness of Eussia, 

 that the Undersigned trusts its want of solid foundation will, on further 

 reflection, be apparent and confessed. 



The avowed objects of the Convention between the United States 

 and His Imperial Majesty were " to cement the bonds of amity which 

 unite them, and to secure between them the invariable maintenance of 

 a perfect concord. The means of attaining these invaluable ends were 

 embodied in its Articles. There is first a mutual and ])ermanent agree- 

 ment, declaratory of their respective rights, without disturbance or 

 restraint, to navigate and fish in any part of the Pacific Ocean, and to 

 resort to its coasts upon points \vhi(;h may not already have been occu- 

 l)ied^ in order to trade with the natives. These rights i^re-existed in 

 each, and were not fresh liberties resulting from the stipulation. To 

 navigate, to fish, and to coast, as described, were rights of equal cer- 

 tainty, springing from the same source, and attached to the same quality 

 of nationality. Their exercise, however, was subjected to certain restric- 

 tions and conditions, to the effect that the citizens and subjects of the 

 Contracting Sovereignties should not resort to points where establish- 

 ments existed without obtaining permission ; that no future establish- 

 ments should be formed by one i>arty north, nor by the other party 

 south, of 54° 40' north latitude, but that, nevertheless, both might, for 

 a term of ten years, without regard to whether an establishment existed 

 or not, without obtaining permission, without any hindrance whatever, 

 frequent the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks, to fish and trade 

 with the natives. This short analysis leaves, on the question at issue, 



no room for construction. 

 15 The view taken by his Excellency Count Nesselrode rests upon 



the provision last referred to, contained in the IVth Article of 

 the Convention. Of this it is essential to fix the true character. Does 

 its limitation of ten years apply to the broad national right of resort- 

 ing to unoccupied points of the coast? If it do not, the position taken 

 is untenable. That it does not would seem to be a conclusion of the 

 gravest as of the lightest scrutiny. 



The renunciation of a prerogative so high and important, if designed, 

 would not have been left to mere inference from a disjointed paragrai)h, 

 but would have been distinctly expressed in immediate connection with 

 its first statement. No motive can possibly be assigned for permitting 

 an intended abandonment of such a right, formally declared in the 1st 

 Article, to lurk unseen in the varied language of the IVth Article. 



The power of resorting to unoccupied points of the coast existed in 

 perpetuity by the laws of nations, and is so enuncnited in the 1st 

 Article. To declare it afterwards to exist for ten years would be to 

 insert a clause idle and without efiect, providing for the temporary 

 enjoyment of what had been previously pronounced permanent. But 

 the interpretation of every instrument must be such as will, if possible, 

 give substance and utility to each of its parts. Applied to j)oints of 

 the coast already occupied, the IVth Article takes effect as a temporary 

 exception to the perpetual prohibition of the Ilnd Article, and the 

 only consequence of the expiration of the term to which it is limited is 

 the revival and continued operation of that prohibition. 



