ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 177 



course by eaoli nation with all the settlements of the other on the north-west coast 

 of America and (2) a stipulation that no new settlements shall l)e formed by Russia, 

 south, or by the United States, north, of latitude 54° 40'. 



Tluit is the summary of this Treaty as derived by Mr. Addiiigton 

 from Mr. Adams. 



The question of the mare clniifium, the sovereijjnty over wliicl'. was asserted by the 

 Emperor of Russia in his celebrated Ukase of 1821, but virtually, if not expressly, 

 renounced by a subsequent declaration of that Sovereig^n, has, Mr. Adams assures 

 me, not been touched upon in the above-mentioned Treaty. 



Not been touched upon. That is precisely what I say. 



This assertion which they read, and the language authorized them to 

 read, as an attempt to exercise an exclusive sovereignty over Behriug 

 Sea, to shut it up and preclude navigation, and therefore to shut up 

 the Behring Straits, was completely abandoned; was so withdrawn, 

 was so explained away as sonietliing not intended to be ast^rted, and 

 certainly not intended to be enforced, that the parties were content to 

 let the matter drop, and, as in the letters I read you yesterday, Mr, 

 Canning instructs the Minister at St. Petersburg as follows: 



We do not want to insist upon anything that humiliates Russia by calling upon 

 her in a Treaty to formally renounce what she has asserted. All that we want is to 

 get rid of any such claim as that. That answers our purpose, and tiierefore when 

 that is assured, the main object that we have in this negotiation is disposed of. The 

 territorial line is altogether a secondary consideration. 



That is the reason why language is adopted in the Treaty that does 

 not in terms refer to the right of navigating there — does not refer to 

 Behring Sea at all, but only to the right of navigating the Pacific. But 

 we are here concerned with the question whether anything more than 

 that was needed, in order to meet the requirements of the case. My 

 learned friends have to contend that Behring Sea, including the seal 

 fisheries that centred at Pribilof Islands, and I believe also on the 

 Commander Islands was thrown open to the world, and not merely the 

 right to navigate. I will read the last clause which I am reminded I 

 have omitted to do. 



Mr. Adams seemed to consider any formal stipulation regarding that renunciation 

 as unnecessary and supererogatory. 



The President.— Might I ask you what you think Mr. Adams and 

 Mr. Addington alluded to when he quoted this subsequent declaration 

 of renouncement by Bussia? What is this declaration: 



The question of the mare clausum, tlie sovereignty over which was asserted by the 

 Emperor of Russia in his celebrated Ukase of 182i, but virtually, if not expressly 

 renounced by a subsequent declaration of that sovereign. — 



Mr. Phelps. — It is the <leclaration made by M. de Poletica, and the 

 declaration made to the British Plenipotentiaries. I have read the 

 declaration by the Bepresentatives that they never intended to submit 

 such a claim or to maintain it. That is the declaration he refers to, not 

 the provisions in the Treaty, because he says it is omitted. 



The President. — You mean the despatch in which M. de Poletica 

 said that Bussia might assert Behring Sea was a inare clausiim, but did 

 not intend asserting it just then. 



Mr. Phelps. — That is one, ;iiid throughout that correspondence it 

 will be found that Russia continued to occupy more distinctly that atti- 

 tude, and you will find, as I read just now, the assurance given to the 

 British negotiators on the part of Russia, which Mr. Stratford Canning 

 communicates to his Government, that there was no intention of assert- 

 ing an exclusive claim — perhaj^s I had better refer again to that. One 

 of these passages is the one I have read at page 80. 

 B s, PT xv 12 



