278 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



tljo ]irovisioDS wliieli tlie Eussian note was desij^ned to supply. From 

 that time until Alaska, with all its rights of land and water, was trans- 

 ferred to tlie United States — a- period of forty-three years — no act or 

 word on the part of either goverunient ever impeached the full validity 

 of the treaty as it was understood both by Mr. Adams and by Baron 

 Tnyl at the time it was formally proclaimed. 



While these important matters were transpiring in Washington, 

 negotiations between liussia and England (ending in the treaty of 1825) 

 were in progress in St, Petersbnrg. The instructions to Baron Tuyl 

 concerning the Ivussian-American treaty were fully reflected in the care 

 Avith which the Anglo-Russian treaty was constructed, a fact to which 

 I have already adverted in full. There was, indeed, a possibility that 

 the true meaning of the treaty with the United States might be misun- 

 derstood, and it was therefore the evident purpose of the Russian Gov- 

 ernment to make the treaty with England so plain and so clear as to 

 leave no room for doubt and to baffle all attempts at misconstruction. 

 The Government of the United States finds the full advantage to it in 

 the caution taken by Russia in 1825, and can therefore quote the Anglo- 

 Russian treaty, witli the utmost confidence that its meaning can not be 

 changed from that clear, unmistakable text, which, throughout all the 

 articles, sustains the American contention. 



The " explanatory note " filed with this Government by Baron Tuyl 

 is so plain in its text that, after the lapse of sixty-six years, the exact 

 meaning can neither be misapprehended nor misrepresented. It draws 

 the distinction between the Pacific Ocean and the waters now known as 

 the Behring Sea vso particularly and so perspicuously that no answer 

 can be matle to it. It will bear the closest analysis in every i)articular. 

 '' It is not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the 

 Pacific Ocean!" 11iis frank and explicit statement shows with what 

 entire good faith Russia had withdrawn, in both treaties, the offensive 

 ukase of Alexander, so far as the Pacific Ocean was made subject to it. 

 Another avowal is equally explicit, viz, that " the coast of Siberia, t>he 

 Northwest Coast of America to 59^ 30' of north latitude [that is, down 

 to 59° 30', the explanatory note reckoning from north to south], and the 

 Aleutian Islands are positively excepted from the liberty of hunting, 

 fishing, and commerce stipulated in favor of citizens of the United 

 States for ten years." The reason given for this exclusion is most sig- 

 nificant in connection with the pending discussion, namely, that the 

 coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kam- 

 chatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by the "South Sea" [Pacific Ocean] 

 mentioned in the first article of the convention of April 5-17, 1824. The 

 Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of Kamchatka, or North- 

 ern Ocean (Northern Ocean being used in contradistinction to South" 

 Sea or Pacific Ocean). The liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce, 

 mentioned in the treaties, was therefore confined to the coast of the 

 Pacific Ocean south of 5d° 30' both to the United States and Great Brit- 

 ain. It must certainly be apparent now to Lord Salisbury that Russia 

 never intended to include the Behring Sea in the phrase " Pacific 

 Ocean." The American argument on that question has been signally 

 vindicated by the ofHcial declaration of the Russian Government. 



In addition to the foregoing, Russia claimed jurisdiction of two marine 

 leagues from the shore in the Pacific Ocean, a point not finally insisted 

 upon in either treaty. The protocols, however, show that Great Britai 

 was willing to agree to the two marine leagues, but the United States 

 was not; and, after the concession Mas made to the United States, Mr. 

 G. Canning insisted upon its being made to Great Britain also. 



