234 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



quite suggestively tliat naine is given to the C(>i!i[»any by Lord Salisbury 

 in the dispatcli to wliich I am ie])lyiiig. While, tlieief'oie, there may 

 have been a large amount of lawful whaling and lishiiig in the Uehring 

 Sea, the taking of furs by foreigners was always and under all circum- 

 stances illicit. 



Eighteen years after the treaty of 1825 (in 1843) Great Britain made 

 a commercial treaty with liussia, based on the principle of reciprocity 

 of advantages, but the rights of the Russian American Company, Avhicli 

 under both ukases included the sovereignty over the sea to the extent 

 of 100 miles from the shores, were reserved by special clause, in a sep- 

 arate and special article, signed after the principal articles of the treaty 

 had been concluded and signed. Although British rights were enlarged 

 with nearly all other parts of the Eussian Emi)ire, her relations with 

 the Russian possessions and with the Behring Sea remained at precisely 

 the same point Avhere the treaty of 1825 had placed them. 



Again in 1859 Great Britain still further enlarged her commercial re- 

 lations with the Empire of Russia, and again the " possessions " and 

 the Behring Sea were held firmly in their relations to the Eussian 

 American (Jompauy as they had been held in the treaty of 1843. 



It is especially notable that both in the treaty of 1843 and the treaty 

 of 1859 it is declared that " in regard to commerce and navigation in the 

 Rnsshin possessions on thelsTorthwestOoast of America the convention 

 concluded at St. I'etersburg, February 10, 1825, shall continue in force." 

 The same distinction and the same restrictions which Mr. Adams made 

 in regard to the Northwest Coast of America were still observed, and 

 Great Britain's access from or to the interior of the continent was still 

 limited to that part of the coast between 54 40 and a point near Mount 

 Saint Elias. The language of the three Russo British tieaties of 1825, 

 1843, and 1859 correspond with that employed in Mr. Adams's dispatch to 

 Mr, Middleton, to which reference has so frequently been made. This 

 shows that the true meaning of Mr. Adams's paragraph is the key, and 

 indeed the only key by which the treaties can be correctly interpreted 

 and by which expressions api^arently contradictory or unintelligible can 

 be readily harmonized. 



Immediately following the partial quotation of Mr. Adams's dispatch, 

 Lord Salisbury quotes the case of the United Stivtes brig Loriot as 

 having some bearing on the question relating to the Behring Sea. The 

 ease happened on the 15th of September, 1836, and Mr. Forsyth, Sec- 

 retary of St^te, in a dispatch to the United States minister at St. 

 Petersburg, declared the course of the Russians in arresting the vessel 

 to be a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States. He 

 claimed that the citizens of the United States had the right immemo- 

 rially as well as by the stipulations of the treaty of 1824 to fish in those 

 waters. 



Lord Salisbury's understanding of the case differs entirely from that 

 held by the Government of the United States. The Loriot was not ar- 

 rested in Behring Sea at all, nor was she engaged in taking furs. She 

 was arrested, as Mr. Forsyth in his dispatch says, in latitude 54 55, 

 more than GO miles south of Sitka, on the " Northwest Coast," to wliich, 

 and to which only, the treaty of 1824 referred. Russia upheld its ac- 

 tion on the ground that the ten-year term provided in the fourth article 

 of the treaty had clo.ied two years before. The case was made the 

 basis of an ai)i>lic:ition on the part of the United States Government 

 for a riMiewal of tiiat article. This apidication was pressed for several 

 years, but finally and absolutely refused by the Russian Government. 



