ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 577 



it can wait too, Great Britain says, not for a momeiit; that must be 

 utterly withdrawn; it can neither be modified or explained — it admits 

 neither of explanation nor modification; and some where, I cannot 

 myself at this moment remember what the letter is, but there is a letter 

 which Mr. George Canning wrote on the subject in which he says, I 

 take it for granted the maritime claim by Russia will be altogether 

 withdrawn. 



On the 8th of December, 1824, in the British Case at page 46, you 

 will find a letter showing also the attitude taken by Great Britain; but 

 that has been referred to before: 



It is coiiipar;itively indift'erent to us whether we hasten or postpone all questions 

 respecting the limits of territorial possession on the continent of America, but the 

 pretensions of the Russian Ukase of 1821 to exclusive dominion over the Pacific 

 could not continue lonji;er unrepealed without compelling us to take some measure 

 of public and effectual remonstrance against it. 



The expression of Mr. Canning I have not at this moment before me, 

 but it is of very little importance. 



Now, you will not find, I believe, in this correspondence, which has 

 been all gone over, and some of it repeated, anything api)roaching to 

 a distinction drawn, on the part of Eussia, in words, between Behring 

 Sea and the rest of the Pacific Ocean. 



Then, as to the claims of Russia by early discovery prior to the issu- 

 ing of that Ukase and prior to the conclusion of these Treaties; 1 have 

 only one word to say about that, because I think to some slight extent 

 it has been a little misunderstood. I submit that it will be found, if 

 you examine the papers, so far as it may become of any importance — 

 and probably, in the view of the case I have suggested, it would hardly 

 be worth while to mention it, — that Russia, by 18-}], had not estab- 

 lished any claim which she could successfully maintain against other 

 nations north of the Alaska Peninsula. 



If other nations had pushed their trade north of that Peninsula as 

 they had at that time pushed it to the south, I submit anyone reading 

 this correspondence will say that it would have been extremely difficult 

 for Russia to resist their progress. All that there was at that time was 

 one settlement, which was to be found on Bristol Bay, immediately 

 north of the Alaskan Peninsula, in which (if I recollect rightly) the 

 number of Whites was five; and that was a settlement formed in 1819 

 by Kossarovski. I find it difflcult to reconcile the view taken by Mr. 

 Blaine in one of his despatches of the early title of Russia with that 

 taken by Mr. Adams at the time of these negotiations. At all events, 

 there can be no question as to what the United States then thought of 

 it, and while I say the United States thought comparatively little of 

 the territorial title, though possibly they attached slightly more impor- 

 tance to it than Great Britain, I say that for this reason: if you refer 

 again to our Appendix, Volume II, part 2, page 4, you will find that 

 Mr. Adams there says: 



I inclose herewith the North American Review for October 1822, No. 37, which 

 contains an article (page 370) written by a person fully master of the subject, 



If you will look at the J^ortk American Review, which is given in our 

 Appendix, volume I, page 33, you will find what is the view taken there, 

 which Mr. Adams atiirms to be, as I should understand, the correct 

 view, because he says it is an article written by a person thoroughly 

 master of the subject. What the writer says is: 



We readily concede to Russia priority of discovery, first occuijatiou, and are by 

 no means disposed to disturb her "peaceable possession", 



B S, PT XIII 37 



