ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 189 



VI established tbe meaning- of the huiffnti ge in Article V. The question 

 whether England was willing to accept that navigation as a boon from 

 anybody is another question, and stands quite by itself. 



Lord Hannen. — What I meant was, here we have almost contempo- 

 raneous documents — one lending to the Treaty; and what I was saying 

 was, it strikes me — (and I confess you have not removed the impression 

 from my mind yet) — that it can be ascertained from that, with certainty, 

 that liussia when she spoke of the Pacific Ocean intended to include 

 the Behring Sea. 



Mr. Phelps. — And the concluding clause of this very Article V whicli 

 limits the right to the distance of two marine leagues from the posses- 

 sions of both sides, shows that the protective quality of the Ukase so 

 far as might be necessary, was not intended to be withdrawn. 



Lord Hannen. — It shrunk from loO miles to two leagues. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes, it shrunk from 100 miles to two leagues. 



Senator Morgan. — But still it did not shrink within the three mile 

 limit? 



Mr. Phelps. — But still it did not shrink within the three mile limit — 

 it was two leagues. 



Senator Morgan. — Now, Mr. Phelps, if you will allow me to sug- 

 gest this far — I do not wish to disturb the line of your argument. 



Mr. Phelps. — It does not in the least interrupt me. Sir. 



Senator Morgan. — The proposition of Great Britain, as I under- 

 stand it, was to concede to llussia the right to prohibit all ships within 

 two leagues of the coast — that was a moditication of the 100 mile limit. 

 The 100 mile limit, and the proposition of Great Britain were both for 

 the same purpose — for the protection of the industry, their commerce, 

 and fur-seal hunting within Behring Sea as I understand it. Now the 

 100 mile limit was adopted by Eussia in the Ukase of 1831 in conse- 

 quence of facts set forth in the British Case. What are they*? At page 

 22 of the British Case, they say: 



Bancroft sums up the situation about 1791 and 1792 in the following words: 



Affairs were assuming a serious aspect. Not only were the fehelikof men excluded 

 from the greater part of the inlet [Cook Inlet], but they were opposed in their 

 advance round Prince William Sound, which was also claimed by the Lebedef fac- 

 tion, though the Oiekhof and other Comjiauies were hunting there. . . 



Thus the history of Cook Inlet during the last decade of the eighteenth century is 

 re])lete with romantic incidents — midnight raids, ambuscades, and open warfare — 

 resembling the doings of mediieval raubrittvrs, rather than the exjiloits of peaceable 

 traders. . . 



Robbery and brutal outrages continued to be the order of the day, though now 

 committed chiefly for the purpose of obtaining sole control of the inlet, to the neglect 

 of legitimate pursuits. 



Again, in another place, the same anthor writes, with regard especially to the 

 position of Baranoff, Governor of Sitka, when he took charge of the Shelikof Colony 

 of Kadiak: 



Thus, on every side, rival establishments and traders were draining the country of 

 the valuable staple upon which rested the very existence of the scheme of coloniza- 

 tion. To the east and north there were Riiseians, but to the south-east the ships of 

 Englishmen, Americans, and Frenchmen were already traversing the tortuous chan- 

 nels of the Alexander Archipelago, rea]>iug rich harvests of sea-otter skins, in the 

 very region where Baranoff had decided to extend Russian dominion in connection 

 with Company sway. 



Then on page 29 of the same Volume it says : 



In 1801, there were at least thirteen United States vessels on the north-west coast. 

 Tiiese vessels exchanged with tiie natives of the coast for fins, parts of their cargoes, 

 and, proceeding to China, returned to their respective countries with cargoes of 

 teas, etc. Upwards of 18,000 sea-otter skins, besides other furs, were in 1801 col- 

 lected by United States traders alone for the China market. 



In 1802, the Russian EstrtiilislinnMit at Sitka was destroyed, and nearly all the 

 Russians there were massacred by the natives. According to Lisiausky, the natives 



