ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 151 



shall not be interfered with." "That, we never intended to interfere 

 with", says Enssia, and the Treaty of 1824 results, without the least 

 compromise. Russia gives away nothing, except, as Mr. Middleton 

 points out, the unfortunate phraseology which went a great deal too 

 far. Mr, Adams obtained all he claimed. I should modify that obser- 

 vation by saying- that the only thing in this Treaty which was any- 

 thing else than an explanation, was the provision that for 10 years the 

 shijjs of neither party should be interfered with in certain trading 

 rights which are not material to this i)oint. 

 Now the Treaty of 1824 proceeds thus : 



It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific 

 Ocean, or South iSea, the respective citizens or subjects of the W\'^h Contracting 

 Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in tishiug, 

 or in the power of resortiug to the coasts, upon points which may not already have 

 l)een occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the 

 restrictions and conditions determined by the following Articles". 



Senator Morgan.— That is the 4th Article? 



Mr. Phelps. — No, that is the 1st Article. The 4tli Article is this: 



It is nevertheless understood that during a term of 10 years, counting from the 

 signature of the present convention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong to 

 their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any liiu- 

 drance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks, upon the coast men- 

 tioned in the jireceding article, for the purpose of fishing, and tradiug with the 

 natives of the country. 



Senator Morgan. — Why did they limit the right of fishing and trad- 

 ing with the natives for a period of 10 years, and make it reciprocal, if 

 those rights were surrendered by Russia into the hands of the other 

 two Governments? 



Mr. Phelps. — Because the provisions of Article 10 refer to a liberty 

 that the respective nations should have, to go to the shores of each 

 other and Article 1 undertakes to define what those shores are. 



Senator Morgan. — And it seems to relate also to the right of fishing 

 as well as resorting to the shore. 



Mr. Phelps. — Certainly it does. Article I provides that both shall 

 have the right — that is to say that neither shall be distuibed, or 

 restrain the other — neither in ten years nor in any other time. That 

 is only a difference of phraseology from saying both sides sliall have 

 the right "in that part of the Great Ocean." 



Whether that includes Behring Sea is the question I am coming 

 to. Then it says that for 10 years neither party shall be restrained 

 from visiting the interior seas. That is article 4. Of course, I should 

 refer to article 3 which gives the boundary line, and that makes the 

 two intelligible. I read the 1st article first, and then article 4, with- 

 out reading article 3. Article 3 says this: 



It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the citizens 

 of the United States, or under the authority of the said states, any establishment 

 upon the north west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent, to the 

 north of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of north latitude; and that, in the 

 same manner, there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under authority of 

 Russia, south of the same parallel. 



Senator Morgan. — The difficulty in ray mind is this. If the rights 

 in article I and Article IV are identical, why should these two Govern- 

 ments first agree that they should be surrendered absolutely and for- 

 ever, and then afterwards agree that a limit of ten years should be put 

 on them. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Article IV applies to territorial waters — 

 "interior seas, gulfs, harbors, creeks, and so on." 



