68 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



A copy of these regulations was officially communicated to tlio American Secretary 

 of State by the Russian Minister at Washington on the 11th February 1822; where- 

 upon Mr. Quiucy Adams, on tlie 25rh of that month, after informing him that 

 the l*resident of the United States had seen with surprise the assertion of a territorial 

 claim on the part of Russia, extending tu the 51st degree of north latitude on the 

 American Continent and a Regulation interdicting to all commercial vessels other 

 than Russian, upon the penalty of seizure and confiscation, the approach upon the 

 high seas within 100 Italian miles of the shores to which that claim was made to 

 apply, went on to say that it was expected before any act which should define the 

 boundary betwceu the territories of the United States and Russia, that the same 

 would have been arranged by Treaty between the parties, and that to exclude the 

 vessels of American citizens from the shore beijoiid the ordinary distance to which 

 territorial jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise; and Mr. Adams 

 asked whether the Russian Minister was authorized to give explanations of the 

 grounds of right, upon principles generally recognized by the laws and usages of 

 nations, which can warrant the claims and Regulations. 



The Russian Minister in his reply, dated the 28th February, after explaining how 

 Russia had acquired her possessions in North America said: 



" I ought in last place to request you to consider, sir, that the Russian possessions 

 in the Pacitio Ocean extend on tlie north-west coast of America from Behring's strait 

 to the 51st degree of north latitude and on the opposite side of Asia and the islands 

 adjacent from the same Strait to the 45th degree. The extent of Sea of which these 

 possessions form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are ordinarily 

 attached to shut seas (mersferniees), and the Russian Government mighb consequently 

 judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of sovereignty, and espe- 

 cially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners; but it preferred only 

 asserting its essential rights without taking advantage of localities." 



On the 30th March Mr. Adams replied to the explanations given by the Russian 

 Minister. He stated that, Avith respect to the pretension advanced in regard to 

 territory, it must be considered not. only with reference to the question of territorial 

 rights, but also to that prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including those of 

 the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. That from 

 the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation 

 801 their vessels had freely navigated these seas, the right to navigate them being 

 apart of that independence; and with regard to the suggestion that '"'the 

 Russian Government might have justified the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific 

 Ocean as a close sea "because it claims territory both on its American and Asiatic 

 shores", it may suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore on this sea, iu 

 latitude 51° north, it is not less tlian 90 degrees of longitude, or 4,000 miles. Mr. 

 Adams concluded as follows: " The President is pursuaded that the citizens of this 

 Union will remain unmolested iu the prosecution of their lawful commerce, and 

 that no effect will be given to an interdiction manifestly incompatible with their 

 rights." 



The convention between the United States of America and Russia of the 17th April 

 1824, put an end to any further pretension on the part of Russia to restrict naviga- 

 tion or fishing in Behring Sea so far as American citizens were concerned; for by 

 article 1 it was agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, coiruuonly called the 

 Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the i-espective citizens or subjects of the High Contract- 

 ing Powers shall neither be disturbed nor restrained, eitlier in navigation or fishing, 

 saving certain restrictions Avhich are not material to the present issue; and a similar 

 stipulation in the Convention between this country and Russia in the following year 

 (15th May, 1825) put an end, as regarded British subjects, to the jtretensions of 

 Russia to which I have referred, and which had been entirely repudiated by Her 

 Majesty's Government in correspondence with the Russian Government in 1821 and 

 1822, which for your more particular information I inclose herein. 



Her Majesty's Government feel sure that, in view of the considerations which I 

 have set forth in this despatch, which you will communicate to Mr. liayard, the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States will admit that the seizure and condemnation of these 

 British vessels, and the imjirisonment of their masters and crews, were not war- 

 ranted by the circumstances, and that they will be readj^ to afford reasonable compen- 

 sation to those who have suffered iu consequence, and issue immediate instructions 

 to their naval officers which will prevent a recurrence of these regrettable incidents. 

 I am, etc., 



Salisbury. 



Sir Charles E-ussell. — Kow the Tribunal will observe that Lord 

 Salisbury is there answering- the only case which was put forward, 

 namely the judgment of Mr. Justice Dawson, which resulted iu the 

 couflscation of these shii^s — which resulted, of course, in altering tU© 

 property iu these ships j and the surprising thing is— r 



