150 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. rilELPS. 



]en£>ed? Yon will observe, Sir — you have not failed to observe I am 

 sure in what has been derived from this correspondence — that the 

 inclusion of the Bchring Sea in the result of this correspondence is 

 altogetlier by inference; and — I am speaking now of the American 

 negetiation — with respect to the American negotiation the controversy 

 was entirely in regard to what is called "the lun-th-western coast" in 

 this controversy, as it would seem to be, in contradistinction to what I 

 have called the " north-eastern coast". The controversy was altog^ether 

 in regard to tlie actual rights and occupation of the United States on 

 the north western coast, and the boundary line; and we only bring 

 Behring Sea into that controversy by assuming that the general lan- 

 guage which is employed speaking of the the northwest coast wovld 

 include it — not that it did include it in the estinnition of the parties, 

 because the use they were making of the language shewed that it was 

 not included at all. 



This runs through the correspondence. I could cite much more, if I 

 cared to read over again, what has been read; but my eye now falls 

 upon the passage I alluded to a little while ago. It is in Mr. Middle- 

 ton's letter at page 136 of the first volume of tlie United States Apj^en- 

 dix, where Mr. Middletou writes to Mr. Adams how this strong 

 language of the Ukase of 1821 came to be emj^loyed. He says: 



For some time past I began to perceive that the provisions of the Ukase would 

 not be persisted in. It appears to have been signed by tlie Emperor without suffi- 

 cient exaiiiiuation, and may be fairly considered as having l)e('n surreptitiously 

 obtained. There can be no doubt therefore that with a little patience and man- 

 agement it will be moulded into a less objectionable shape. 



You see then. Sir, in approaching this subject, first how little prob- 

 able it was that Eussia would have readily given away this valuable 

 industry; secondly, that it was not intending to give it away; that 

 the United States never had sought to interfere with it in any way, but 

 confined its remonstrance to other points; so that when you come to 

 read the article of the Treaty which was very readily agreed on, the 

 longer this correspondence proceeded the plainer it became that it 

 was a controversy over words and not over rights — that Russia never 

 intended the full meaning of the words of the Ukase of 1821 — it dis- 

 claimed it from the outset; it was only bringing the parties together, 

 and if it had been done, as I have said, directly, instead of through the 

 convolutions of a long correspondence, with the embarrassments that 

 always attend such correspondence that must be made public, it would 

 have been done even still more readily than it was; and when you 

 come to the actual concurrence between Eussia and the United States 

 there really was no difficulty at all, and all the discussion that had 

 taken place was as to the claims which were made in terms, and not 

 intended to be made or to be insisted upon in reality. 



Then comes this Treaty. You, Sir, I am sure (whose diplomatic 

 experience has suggested to you the extreme difficulty that attends 

 even the reducing to form of a Treaty which has substantially been 

 agreed upon), will have been surprised to see how easily this negoti- 

 ation between Eussia and the United States resulted in the Treaty of 

 1824 — how neither party gave away anything that it had insisted upon 

 in reality — how Mr. Adams, having stated his objection, was met at 

 once by the explanation from Eussia — "Well, but we never meant 

 that: we did not mean to insist upon that; what we meant was so and 

 so." "Well, so and so", rejoins Mr. Adams, "we have no quarrel 

 about: we have made no point about. This is what we claim — the 

 adjustment of the boundary, and that our legitimate trade on the coast 



