ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES 0. CARTER, ESQ. 69 



Enssia was, not the matter of sovereignty on the Northwest Coas 

 -which Mr. Blaine conceived it to be, bnt the assertion of maritime 

 dominion over the high seas. He insists that that was the i)riucii)al 

 point comphiined of by Great Britain; and lie says that that was 

 squarely abandoned by the treaty eon chided between Russia and Great 

 Britain in 1825; that the principal assertion was one of complete 

 dominion over the sea, and that that assertion was abandoned by the 

 express terms of the treaty. I now read from the first article of the 

 treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1825, which is found on 

 page 39 of the first volume of the Api>endix to the American Case, for 

 the purpose of showing what the argument of Lord Salisbury was. 

 That first article is: 



I. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the high Contracting Parties shall 

 not be troubled or molested, in any part of the ocean, coninionly called the Pacitic 

 Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts 

 of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the 

 natives, under the restrictions and conditions specihed in the following articles. 



Mr. Blaine's argument lip.d been that tjie words "Pacific Ocean" as 

 used in that first article of the treaty did not include Bering Sea, but 

 only the ocean South of that sea. Lord Salisbury's argument now is 

 that " Pacific Ocean" did include the whole of Bering Sea; and the 

 controversy between those two diplomatists, now became substantially 

 confined to that particular i)oint, whether the term "Pacific Ocean", as 

 used in the first article of the treaty between Russia and Great Britain, 

 and the similar term of the first article of the treaty between Russia 

 and the United States, was really intended to embrace Bering Sea, or 

 only the waters south of that sea. This debate upon the question of 

 the pretentions of Russia came finally to concentrate itself very much 

 upon that particular point, and Lord Salisbury's argument was a very 

 full one, designed to show that " Pacific Ocean" was intended to include 

 the whole of Bering Sea. 



The President. Mr. Carter, I must call your attention to this fact, 

 that the original text is a French text and that what you read was the 

 English verson, which is not of an ofiicial character. There is a certain 

 difference which I remark in the French text and in the English text, or 

 in the English version which you have read. 



Mr. Carter. When I come to the discussion of the question. — 



The President. You do not discuss that at present? 



Mr. Carter. No. When I come to discuss the merits of the question 

 I will say something as to the text of the treaty which we must accept 

 in our discussions. At this point, unless the learned President thinks 

 there is something particularly material about it, I will not discuss it. 



The President. Your translation bears only on the ocean commonly 

 called the Pacitic Ocean. I think that would be quite material. 



Mr. Carter. Those considerations have relation to the merits of the 

 controversy: and when I come to discuss the merits I will say some- 

 thing upon that point; but I will not discuss it now. I wish now to 

 speak of this letter of Mr. Blaine to Lord Salisbury on the 17th of 

 December, 1890. It will be found at page 263. He re-iterated his posi- 

 tions there in a very long letter, a letter written with very great ability 

 sustaining his contention that the term "Pacific Ocean "did not include 

 the Bering Sea. At this time Mr. Blaine, gradually becoming more 

 and more interested in this discussion, and giving, I suppose, more and 

 more attention to it, became more and more convinced of the solidity 

 of the ground upon which he stood, and seemed to be almost ready to 

 surrender every other ground in the case and put the issue of the con- 



