1G6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



I have pointed out on those two points; — the fur-seal is not named, and 

 Behring Sea is not named between Enssia and the United States. 



Then wlien the Treaty is drawn up, and while it is before the Senate 

 for ratification, the linssian American Oom])any taking fright at the 

 language employed, which they perceived was vague and might receive 

 different constructions — made a representation to the IJussian Govern- 

 ment; " you are giving away and throwing open to the United States 

 of America our fur and other industries in Behring -Sea". That 

 awakened the attention of Eussia to the fact that the language em 

 ployed in this Treaty might at some time be claimed to be broader 

 than was meant — a second case of using language unadvisedly. Baron 

 de Tuyll, the Eussian minister, was instructed by the Eussian Govern- 

 ment to do what? To go and recall that Treaty? It was not too late. 

 It was before the Senate. It was not ratified. If the Senate passed it, 

 it was still for Eussia to decline the ratification, if it found it was going 

 to receive a construction it did not expect. Did they recall it ? jSTo. 

 They go to Mr. Adams, and point out the ambiguity that might be sup- 

 posed to attach to this language. 



Is there any doubt ihat he and his government were acting in perfect 

 good faith in doing that? Was he not there on a perfectly sincere and 

 proper errand to say to Mr. Adams, "of course you do not claim a con- 

 struction that neither of us expected?" 



IIow is he met? How was he bound to be met if the United States 

 claimed any such thing? Did ]\Lr. Adams say to him, "Sir, I am sur- 

 l)rised to hear that having entered into a Treaty, the language of which 

 is plain, you are here now to infonn us that the Eussian Government 

 does not mean what it says, and that, on signing a Treaty witli us that 

 says one thiTig, you notify us you are going to claim that it means 

 another"? Did Mr. Adams meet him by saying, " Sir, you propose to 

 take back one of the very important points on which we are insisting 

 in this discussion. Xow that we have the Treaty you propose to rob us 

 of one of the principal fruits of the Treaty ". That is what Mr. Adams 

 would have said, and he was bound to say it, unless he and his Gov- 

 ernment were attempting to entangle a nation with whom they were in 

 friendly relations, and just about to sign a Treaty, in an agreement 

 which they did not understand they were making. That is not to be 

 attributed to any Government. It is not to be attiibuted to any states- 

 man. iSTeither party is open to such a charge as that: only upon con- 

 clusive evidence would any person permit himself to make such a charge 

 as that against any sovereign power, or against any representative of a 

 sovereign power. 



Mr. Adams meets that by saying, in effect : " There is no necessity for 

 saying a word about it. We never had any idea of 'going up there. 

 Why do you suggest to our people a thought that comes for the first 

 time from you." That is the language of a gentleman who, we are told 

 by my learned friend, had been carefully negotiating to get the very 

 access to these industries to which Baron de Tuyll objects and which 

 he rei)udiates, and he says to Baron de Tuyll: "If you raise these 

 questions you will affect the ratification of this Treaty. You know a 

 Treaty has to be ratified by two thirds of the Senate of the United 

 States." Baron de Tuyll sees the sense of that. He accepts it and 

 permits the Treaty to be ratified, and then, upon Mr. Adams' sug- 

 gestion, he files this docirment which shows the understanding of the 

 language which Eussia had, and it is accepted by the United States 

 Government without reply. 



