34 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



the term "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaties, was intended to 

 include the body of water now known as Bering Sea. If it were true, 

 as Lord Salisbury contended, that Bering: Sea was thus included, then 

 it would follow that the pretensions made by Eussia in the ukase of 

 1821, so far as they were surrendered by the treaties above referred to, 

 were surrendered as well in respect to Bering Sea as in respect to the 

 Pacific Ocean south of that sea. If, on the other hand, as Mr. Blaine 

 contended, Bering Sea was not intended to be embraced by the term 

 "Pacific Ocean," it would follow that the assertions of jurisdiction in 

 Bering Sea made by the ukase of 1821 had received a very large meas- 

 ure of acquiescence both from Great Britain and the United States. 



But, in the opinion of the undersigned, the point, though not wholly 

 irrelevant, is, comparatively speaking, unimportant. It was never put 

 forward by the United States as the sole ground, or as the principal 

 ground, upon which that Government rested its claims. Notwithstand- 

 ing the large space devoted to it in the diplomatic discussions, it came 

 in incidentally only. It is not at all improbable that Lord Salisbury 

 preferred to draw the discussion as much as possible away from the 

 question of property interests, and. away from the charge that pelagic 

 sealing was a practice which threatened a useful race of animals with 

 extermination, and was wholly destitute of support upon any grounds 

 of reason. It may be true also that Mr. Blaine in some measure mag- 

 nified the effect which might How from the pretensions made by Russia 

 in the ukase of 1821, so far as they were acquiesced in by Great Britain 

 and the United States. 



But what is absolutely certain is that the original attitude taken by 

 the United States, as already mentioned, followed up and reasserted in 

 more than one diplomatic communication, was never, at any time, in 

 the slightest degree abandoned or changed, and this is conclusively 

 evidenced by the last communication of Mr. Blaine, already referred to. 

 Near the close of that note 1 he says: 



In the judgment of the President, nothing of importance would be 

 settled by proving that Great Britain conceded no jurisdiction to 

 Russia over the seal fisheries of the Bering Sea. It might as well be 

 proved that Russia conceded no jurisdiction to England over the river 

 Thames. By doing nothing in each case, everything is conceded. In 

 neither case is anything asked of the other. "Concession," as used 

 here, means simply acquiescence in the rightfulness of the title, and 

 that is the only form of concession which Russia asked of Great 

 Britain or which Great Britain gave to Russia. 



'Case of the United States, Appendix, Vol. I, p. 285. 



