JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS IN BERING SEA. 2G1 



Tliat this ukase is not acted upon, and tliat instructions liave been long ago sent 

 by the Russian Government to their cruisers in the Pacific to suspend the execution 

 of its provisions, is true, but a jirivato disavowal of a published claim is no security 

 against the revival of that claim. The suspension of the execution of a principle 

 may be perfectly compatible with the continued maintenance of the principle itself, 

 and when we have seen in the course of this negotiation that the Russian claim to 

 the possession of the coast of America down to latitude 59^ rests, in fact, on no other 

 ground than the presumed acquiescence of the nations of Europe in the provisions 

 (»f a ukase publislied by the Emperor Paul in the year 1800, against which it is 

 affirmed that no public remonstrance was made, it becomes us to be exceedingly 

 careful that we do not, l)y a similar neglect on the present occasion, allow a similar 

 liresnmptiou to be raised as to an acquiescence in the nkase of 1821. 



The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the Pacific can not 

 be held as matter of iudulgence from any power. Having once been publicly ques- 

 tioned, it must be publicly acknowledged. 



We do not desire that aiiy distinct reference should be made to the ukase of 1821, 

 but we do feel it necessary that the statement of our right should be clear and posi- 

 tive, and that it should stand forth in the convention in the place which properly 

 belongs to it as a plain and substantive stipulation, and not be brought in as an 

 incidental consequence of otlier arrangenieuts to which we attach comparatively 

 little importance. 



This stipnlation stands in the front of the conventiou concluded between Russia 

 and the United States of America, and we see no reason why, upon similar claims, 

 we should not obtain exactly the like satisfaction. 



For reasons of the same nature we can not consent that the liberty of navigation 

 through Bering's Straits should be stated in the treaty as a boon from Russia. 



TJie tendency of such a statement would be to give conntenance to those claims of 

 exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own behalf and on that of the whole 

 civilized world, protcist. 



No specification of this sort is found in the convention with the United States of 

 America; and yet it can not be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as 

 secured in the right of navigating Behriug Straits and the sea beyond them. 



It can not be expected that England should receive as a boon that; which the United 

 St;ites hold as a right so unquestionable as not to be worth recording. 



Perhaps the simplest course, after all, will be to substitute, for all tliat part of the 

 " Projet " and " Contre-Projet " which relates to maritime rights, and to navigation, 

 the first two articles of the convention already concluded by the court of St. Peters- 

 burg with the United States of America, in the order in which they stand in that 

 ccnvention. 



Russia can not mean to give to the United States of America what she withholds 

 from us, nor to withhold from us anything that she has consented to give to the 

 United States. 



The uniformity of stipulation m pari materia gives clearness and force to both 

 arrangements, arid will establish that footing of equality between the several con- 

 tracting parties which it is most desirable should exist between three powers whose 

 interests come so nearly in contact with each other in a part of the globe in which 

 no other power is concerned. 



This, therefore, is what I am to instruct you to propose at once to the Russian min- 

 ister as cutting short an otherwise inconvenient discussion. 



This expedient will dispose of Article i of the " Projet," and of Articles V and vi 

 of the " Contre-Projet." 



The next articles relate to the territorial demarcation. 



With regard to the port of Sitka, or New Arch.angel, the offer came originally from 

 Russia, but we are not disposed to object to the restriction which she now applies 

 to it. 



We are content that the port shall be open to us for ten years, provided only that 

 if any other nation obtains a more extended term, the like term shall be extended to 

 us also. 



We are content also to assign the period of ten years for the reciprocal liberty of 

 access and commerce with each other's territories, which stipulation may be best 

 stated precisely in the terms of Article iv of the American convention. 



These, I think, are the only points in which alterations are required by Russia, 

 and we have no other to propose. 



A ''Projet," such as it will stand according the observations of this disjiatch, is 

 inclosed, which you will understand as furnished to you as a guide for the drawing 

 ii]i of the convention ; but not as prescribing the precise form of words, nor fettering 

 your discretion as to any alterations, not varying from the substance of these iu 

 sti'uctions. 



