ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 93 



aiKl the criticism is on this ground made by the learned Counsel for 

 Great Britain in their Case that it was a concession only in favor of 

 certain Eussian subjects, and was not leveled against other nations, 

 and therefore no evidence of an exclusive right against other nations. 

 But that seems not to be a correct view. It was on the face of it an 

 assumption of i^roperty and complete dominion by Kussia over the whole 

 region. The act would have had no significance unless Eussia had 

 entertained the view that she was the sole proprietor, against all other 

 nations, of that region and of those products. And, except upon that 

 view, it would have operated, not in favor of Eussian citizens, as it was 

 designed to operate, but against them. If it were allowed that it was 

 simply designed as a concession in favor of certain Eussian subjects to 

 the exclusion of others, its effect would have been to extend the privi- 

 lege to all nations and relieve them very largely of Eussian competition. 

 Of course, such could not have been its intention. The design was, 

 not to prompt other nations to interfere with that trade, but to secure 

 the whole of it for the benefit of Eussia alone. That, I think, is very 

 clearly the proper interpretation of that Act. And it is to be observed, 

 in the next place, that part of its design proceeded upon the notion 

 that the products of this region were few, limited, and exhaustible, 

 and that therefore it was not wise that there should continue to be, 

 even among Eussian subjects, a disastrous competition for the purpose 

 of rea])ing the benefits of that region. A trade of this nature, if 

 engaged in by many Eussian subjects, would be a source of loss, and ' 

 it was better to confine it to one proprietor. These were the motives 

 upon which the Charter of 1799 was based. In order to show the view 

 entertained by Eussia at this time, I may read a quotation which 

 appears on page 15 of our Counter-Case, from a letter from the Eussian- 

 American Company to the Eussian Minister of Finance (quoting): 



The exclusive right granted to the Company iu the year 1799 imposed the prohiln- 

 tiou to trade in those regions, not ouly iii)0u foreigners, but also upon Russian sub- 

 jects not belonging to the company. This prohibition was again affirmed and more 

 clearly defined in the new privileges granted iu the year lb21, and iu the regulations 

 concerning the limits of navigation. 



Now the next public act of Eussia in relation to this region was the 

 celebrated Ukase of 1821, which cuts such a figure in this controversy. 

 This Ukase was of a different character in one particular: it purported 

 to be levelled against other nations and to prohibit their interference 

 with this trade. It will be found on page 16 of the first volume of the 

 Appendix to the American Case. The substance of it consists of rules 

 relating to the navigaticm and trade of these northern regions, and the 

 first three sections of those rules are the ones which more nearly concern 

 us. They are as follows : 



Sec. 1. — The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all other industry 

 on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the northwest coast of America, 

 beginning from Behring's Straits to the 51"^ of northern latitude, also from the Aleu- 

 tian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands from 

 Behring"s Straits to the South Cape of the Island of Urup, viz., to the 45^^ 50' northern 

 latitude, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects. 



Sec. 2. — It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the 

 coasts and islands belonging to Russia as stated above, but also to approach them 

 within less than a hundred Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is subject to 

 confiscation along with the whole cargo. 



Sec. 3. — An exception to this rule is to be made in favor of vessels carried thither 

 by heavy gales or real want of provisions, and unable to make any other shore but 

 Buch as belongs to Russia. In these cases they are obliged to produce convincing 

 j>roofs of actual reasim for such an excei)tion. Ships of friendly governments merely 

 on discoveries are likewise exemjit from the foregoing rule (Sec. 2). 



In this case, however, they must previously be provided with passports from tin 

 Kussiau Minister of the Navy. 



