ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 127 



the assertion of maritime dominion contained in tlie Ukase of 1821, 

 wliile the United States made a formal objection to it, it did not malie 

 any considerable tignre in the discussion. It was nnder those circum- 

 stances and with those views on the part of the United States and on 

 the i)art of llussia that the Treaty of 1824 was concluded, and the 

 question now is as to the interpretation of that Treaty. Its provisions 

 Avill be found on page 36, of the first volume of the Appendix to the 

 American Case (quoting) : 



Art. I. It is agreed that, iu any part of the Great Ocean, couimouly called the 

 Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the high" contracting 

 Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either iu navigation or iu fishing, 

 or iu the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already have 

 been occui)ied, for the [lurpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restric- 

 tions and couditions determined by the following articles. 



Art. II. With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exer- 

 cised upon the Great Ocean by the citizeus and subjects of the high contracting 

 Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizeus 

 of the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establish- 

 ment, -without the permission of the governor or commander; and that, reciprocally, 

 the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any establislimeut of 

 the United States upon the Northwest coast. 



That is the important part of the Treaty of 1824, so fiir as the lires- 

 ent discussion is concerned; and the question is, whether the terms 

 "Pacific Ocean" or "South Sea" include Bering Sea or exclude it. It 

 is insisted on the part of Great Britain that they include it; it is insisted 

 on the part of the United States that they do not; and we have to 

 inquire which is the more reasonable inter] )retation under the circum- 

 stances of the case, and in view of all the lights which are thrown by 

 the evidence concerning the understanding of the parties. Now, it is 

 apparent at the start that that article of the Treaty admits of either 

 interpretation upon its fiice. "Pacific Ocean" or "South Sea" may 

 include the whole of Bering Sea, as is insisted upon by Great Britain; 

 and, on the other hand, it may exclude it, as is insisted upon by the 

 United States. What is the consequence of accepting the interpreta- 

 tion insisted upon by Great Britain? It would be that the United 

 States is, by the terms of that Treaty, permitted to land on all the 

 coasts of the Pacific Ocean, including Bering Sea, under the dominion 

 of Eussia, including the whole of the coast of Siberia, the coast of 

 Alaska and the islands in the Bering Sea: tViat is the consequence of 

 this interpretation. On the other hand, if the interpretation insisted 

 upon by the United States is correct, "Pacific Ocean" only applies to 

 that part of the Pacific Ocean which is south of the Aleutian Islands, 

 and which, therefore, washes only this disputed territory along here 

 (pointing to the map). Its application on the other side of the Pacific, 

 would be extremely limited. 



Well now, we have to say that the interpretation insisted upon by 

 Great Britain is in a high degree improbable and unreasonable. Why ? 

 Because it gives up at once to the United States what the United 

 States never asked for, and that is a right to resort to the coasts of 

 Bering Sea and the islands in Bering Sea. It surrenders the preten- 

 sion on the part of Kussia which had never prior to that time been 

 challenged; and it gives and surrenders that important right to the 

 United States without any consideration, so far as I am able to see. 

 Why should we suppose that Eussia intended in these negotiations to 

 give to the United States a right to resort to her coasts and her islands 

 which the United States never asked for? Why should we suppose 

 that there was on the part of Eussia a design to abandon a pretension 

 which the United States never denied? My first point is that the 

 interpretation insisted upon by Great Britain is unreasonable upon its 



