132 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



out presentiug his note, and reserve for future consideratiou whether to present it 

 shortly afterwards or to inform his Court of what'hc has done and ask their further 

 iustriictious upon what lie shall definitely do on the suhject. 



Sir Charles Kussell. There is a passage following tbat— the pas- 

 sage is this (reading): 



He therefore requested me to consider what had now passed between us as if it 

 had not taken place ('non aYenu'),to which I readily assented, assuring' him, as I 

 had done heretofore, that the President had the highest persoual eoniidence in him, 

 and in his exertions to foster the harmony between the two countries. I reported 

 immediately to the President the substance of tliis conversation, and he concurred 

 in the propriety of the Baron's final determination. 



Mr. Garter. At the close of page 277 these extracts that I have 

 read are embraced in a letter of Mr. Blaiue, and after giving them, he 

 says this: 



As Baron Tuyl surrendered his opinions to the superior judgment of Mr. Adams, 

 the ratifications of the treaty Avere exchanged on the lltli day of .January, and on 

 the following day the treaty was formally proclaimed. A fortnight later, on Jan- 

 uary 25, 1825, Baron Tuyl, following the instructions of his (government, filed his 

 note in the Department of .State. 



Sir Charles Russell. Is there any evidence ot that? 



Mr. Carter. Yes, we have it; that is a copy of the IsTote as it stands 

 on the files of the Department. Now that is a pretty important trans- 

 action bearing upon the interpretation of the Treaty. What is the sab- 

 stance of this transaction? It means that members of the Knssian- 

 American Company had an apprehension that it might be contended 

 that some of their exclusive rights were thrown open to citizens of the 

 United States, and they remonstrated to their Government. The view 

 which the liussian Government took in regard to that remonstrance 

 appears to have been that the provisions of the treaty did not affect 

 Bering Sea and the exclusive rights which the Company had there, 

 and they instructed their ^linister in Washington to make representa- 

 tions to the United States Government. Baron Tuyll states to the 

 American Secretary the apprehensions on the part of the Russian 

 Government, and he exhibits to him a note which he proposed to deliver 

 and wdiich asserted as the proper interpretation of the Treaty thac the 

 phrase "Pacific Ocean" does not include Bering Sea. What is the 

 reply of Mr. Adams to the Minister of liussia? That that interpreta- 

 tion was ill-founded? Does he contest it at all? No; nothing of the 

 S(nT. He says that the question of the interpretation of that Treaty 

 must, according to American law, be determined by another Depart- 

 ment of the (Tovernment — the Judicial Department, it being a judicial 

 question. He does not state what his own interpretation is, for, if he 

 did, it would have to go before the Senate, and it might raise embar- 

 rassing questions there. He says in substance "the i)oint is of no 

 practical consequence, for our people will never go there; there is no 

 danger of that; and if you say anything about it, the effect would be 

 to put fancies into their heads w^hich otlierwise they would not enter- 

 tain. The best tiling is to say nothing about it, and let this Treaty be 

 ratified as it stands. If, after that, your Government insists upon 

 doing anything further, let them do it. But my answer to that note, 

 if you lodge it with me, must be that it raises a question as to the 

 interpretation of the Treaty — a question which must be settled by the 

 Judicial Department of the American Government." Now I cannot 

 help thinking that Mr. Adams and the American Government would 

 be open to the charge of bad faith if they had made such an answer 

 as that, and should afterwards assert any different interpretalion of 

 the Treaty than that which Baron Tuyll suggested. I do not think 



