68 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



The {irf^uments between these diplomatists kept varying, all along 

 during this correspondence, sometimes dealing Avitli the real questions 

 in the controversy, and sometimes discussing the question which party 

 was responsible for the delays and difficulties which attended the prog- 

 ress of the negotiations. A letter of the latter character, found on 

 page 240, I will next notice. 



This is a letter from Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote, and is 

 designed to be an answer to Lord Salisbury's note which I have hereto- 

 fore read, in which he endeavored to throw oft" from the shoulders of 

 Great Britain the responsibility for the delays which had occurred in 

 the negotiation and which succeeded the abortive attempt between Mr. 

 Phelps and Lord Salisbury. I am not going to read that letter either. 



The President. You mean the failure of the draft convention? 



Mr. Carter. No: I mean the general failure from the beginning. 

 You will remember that Mr. Blaine had written a note to Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote marked by something of acerbity, in which he complained 

 of the delays and ditiiculties attending the settlement of this question 

 chargeable upon the conduct of Great Britain, and mainly occasioned 

 by the fact that Great Britain was constantly governing her action 

 according to the views and wishes of Canada. Of course whatever may 

 be the necessities, the difficulties, attending the settlement of a diplo- 

 matic controversy on thei)art of a power like Great Britain — and I can 

 easily see that there are very serious difficulties attending such a settle- 

 ment — another i)ower linding that the Government Avith which it is 

 dealing is governed in its own action by the wishes, real or sup])osed, 

 of one of its dependencies, will naturally come to feel some uneasiness: 

 and that was the feeling in which Mr. Blaine had written his letter; 

 and he had again referred to the period when Mr. Phelps communicated 

 his original pro])()sition to Lord Salisbury, which was promptly accepted 

 by Lord Salisbury under circumstances which led the Government of 

 the United States to supi^ose that the linal determination of the con- 

 troversy was at hand. He had referred to the fact that the negotia- 

 tions were first interrupted, then suspended for along time, then finally 

 retired from in consecjuence of the action of the Canadian Government. 

 Lord Salisbury undertook to defend the British Government from those 

 charges. This is the re])ly of Mr. Blaine designed to show that that 

 defence was not a sufticient one, and that his original complaints of 

 delays were well founded. 



On the second of August, 1892 (page 242 of the American Appen- 

 dix), Lord Salisbury having succeeded in drawing Mr. Blaine into a con- 

 troversy respecting these Eussian pretensions and the ertect of the 

 Treaties of 1824 and 1825 respecting them, and having received Mr. 

 Blaine's argument upon that point, replies to it at great length. The 

 re])ly commences on page 242 and extends with its notes to page 2G3. 

 Of course it is wholly impracticable to read it here, and all I can do, 

 and all it is necessary to do, is to briefly summarize it. 



Lord Salisbury's argument is this: that the ])ublication of the ukase 

 of 1821 was the first notice which Great Britain had ever received, or 

 other Governments had ever received, of any ]n'etensions by Russia 

 over the waters of Bering Sea and over the Northwest Coast. He 

 states that the pretentions of Bussia made by that ukase were to a 

 sovereignty over the waters from Bering Straits down to latitude 51° 

 on the American shore, and down t<> latitude 47° on the Asiatic shore, 

 thus asserting a sovereignty, not only over Bering Sea, but over a large 

 ])art of the ocean south of that sea: and he insists that the princi[)al 

 point of the objection of Great Britain to this j)retention on the part of 



