THIRTY-FIRST DAY, JUNE i^^, 1893. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Mr. President, I wish as briefly as possible 

 to conclude what I have to say on this question of the Treaties. Per- 

 haps I ou<;ht not to pass on without saying one word more about Baron 

 de Tuyll's note. It has nothing but a historical interest in this case; 

 absolutely notliing, as it is not suggested that it was ever coiuniunicated 

 to Great Britain ; and I shall show you in a moment that that is placed 

 on record at the time. But that there must have been some mistake in 

 the language of the note to which you called my attention yesterday, is 

 obvious if you regard the genesis and history of the document. If I 

 am not trespassing too much on your kindness, I will ask you to turn 

 to page 34 of the 1st volume of the Appendix to the British Counter 

 Case, where you will find, what I may call, the genesis or original 

 beginning of this document. May I remind you what had happened? 



The Treaty of 1824, that is the United States Treaty, had been agreed 

 to, but not ratified, in April 1824; it was ratified actually in January 

 1825. A copy of it was sent to the Company, — the Russian American 

 Company; and it gave rise to a Conference which was held in July 

 1824, at which Count JSTesselrode was present, and it was out of this 

 Conference or from the proceedings at it that Baron de Tuyll's note 

 ultimately sprung. The note was mentioned first in December 1824, 

 and delivered in January 1825, in consequence of the discussion which 

 had arisen at this Conference. 



Now, Mr. President, if you will look at page 34, paragraph 7, taking 

 the corrected and revised translation supplied us by the United States, 

 you will see the origin of the sentence wliich ultimately found its way 

 into Baron de Tuyll's memorandum ; and it shows what very little care 

 had been taken in preparing that memorandum, and how, practically 

 speaking, it was a document to which no substantial attention was 

 paid. The end of paragraph 7, you will notice, reads in this way. 



Moreover, the coast of Siberia and the Aleutian Ishinds are not washed by the 

 Southern Sea, of which alone mention is made in the 1st article of the Treaty, but 

 by the Northern Ocean and the seas of Kamchatka and Okhotsk, which form no part 

 of the Southern Sea on any known Map or in any Geoj^raphy. 



It is quite clear that what they were speaking of there as the North- 

 ern Ocean is the Mer glaciale above the Behriug Straits; but when the 

 '^note explicative" came to be prepared, on the face of it it is very diffi- 

 cult to understand exactly what it means, but it is quite clear the 

 person who prepared it had not followed the actual directions of this 

 representation from the Conference, but prepared a note embodying, as 

 he thought, practically that which was what I may call the suggestion 

 made by the Dignitaries. 



It is curious, Mr. President, to note that in the original translation 



sent us by the United States, if you will kindly look at the end of 



paragraph as it originally stood, it had been translated as "Arctic 



Ocean" and not "Northern Ocean." If your eye goes across the page 



438 



