484 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



In employing, in tlie IVtli Article, the descriptive words "interior 

 seas, gulfs, liarbours, and creeks," there is a departure from the com- 

 preheusive phraseology of the 1st Article, which is ouly to be explained 

 by the fact that another idea was to be expressed. Nor is it difticult 

 to uuderstaud what was really meant. The bonds of amity and i)er- 

 fect concord, which it was so desirable to cement and invariably main- 

 tain, would have been endangered, in peculiar localities, as to which 

 doubts might naturally arise whether they were embraced in the 1st 

 or the llnd Article. If, however, at their openings, or upon their com- 

 mjanding highlands, or on their shores, an occupied point or establish- 

 ment existed, it was thought expedient to let them take character from 

 that incident, without any nice measurement of its range or influence, 

 at the expiration of t€u years; and, accordingly, the IVth Article, avoid- 

 ing too sudden a check of the actual account of trade, put a limit of 

 time upon the liberty to frequent such places. 



The Undersigned submits that in no sense caa the IVth Article be 

 understood as implying an acknowledgment on the part of the United 

 States of the right of liussia to the ])ossession of the coast above the 

 latitude of 54° 40' north. It must, of course, be taken in connection 

 with the other Articles, and they have, in fact, no reference whatever 

 to the question of the right of possession of the unoccupied parts. To 

 prevent future collisions it was agreed that no new establishment should 

 be formed by the respective parties to the north or south of the par- 

 allel mentioned; but the question of the right of possession beyond 

 the existing establishments, as it stood previous to, or at the time of, 

 the Convention, was left untouched. 



By agreeing not to form new establishments north of latitude 54° 

 40', the United States made no acknowledgment of the right of Eussia 

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

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

 equally acknowledged the right of the I nited states to the the terri- 

 tory south of the imrallel. But that Eussia did not so understand the 

 Article is conclusively proved by her having entered into a similar 

 agreement in her subsequent Treaty of 1825 with Great Britain, and 

 having in that instrument acknowledged the right of possession of the 

 same territory by Great Britain. 



The United States can only be considered inferentially as having 

 acknowledged the right of Eussia to acquire, above tlie designated 

 meridian, by actual occupation, a just claim to unoccupied lands. Until 

 that actual occupation be taken, the 1st Article of the Convention 

 recognizes the American right to navigate, fish, and trade, as prior to 

 its negotiation. Such is esteemed the true construction of the Con- 

 vention, the construction which both nations are interested in aftixing, 

 as the benefits are equal and mutual, and the great object is secured of 

 removing the exercise of a common right from the danger of becoming 

 a dispute about exclusive privileges. 



At the hazard of proving tedious, the Undersigned has thus endeav- 

 oured to convey to his Excellency Count Eesselrode the views sug- 

 gested by his recent communication. 



The Government of the United States is ardent and uniform in its 

 anxiety to cherish with that of Eussia the most friendly relations; in 

 the reciprocation of this sentiment the fullest confidence is felt. The 

 citizens and subjects of the two countries, meeting only with feelings 

 of cordiality and for purposes of mutual advantage, are rapidly reaping 

 the fruits of a wise and beneficent international policy. Every year 

 enlarges the sphere of their commercial intercourse, discloses the identity 



