JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS IN BERING SEA. 279 



In the interview between the American Secretary of State and the 

 Kussiau Minister, in December, 1824, it is worth noting- that Mr. Adams 

 believed tliat the application made by Baron Tnyl had its origin "in 

 the apprehension of the Court of Kussia wliich had been caused by an 

 interest not very friendly to the good understanding between the 

 United States and Eussia." I presume no one need be told that the 

 reference here made by Mr, Adams was to the Government of Great 

 Britain; that the obvious effort of the British Government at that time 

 was designed to make it certain that the United States should not have 

 the power in the waters and on the shores of Behring Sea which, Lord 

 tialisbury now argues^ had undouhteMy been given both to the tlnited 

 States and Great Britain Jiy the treaties. 



It is to be remembered that Mr. Adams's entire argument was to quiet 

 Baron Tuyl with the assurance that the treaty alre>\dy negotiated was, 

 in effect, just what the Russian Government desired it to be by the in- 

 cori3oration of the "explanatory note" of which r>aron Tuyl was the 

 bearer. Mr. Adams was not a man to seize an advantage merely by 

 cunning construction of language, which might have two meanings. 

 He was determined to remove the hesitation and distrust entertained 

 for the moment by Russia. He went so far, indeed, as to give an as- 

 surance that American ships would not go above 57° north latitude 

 (Sitka), and he did not want the text of the treaty so changed as to 

 mention the facts contained in tbe explanatory note, because, speaking 

 of the hunters and the fishermen, it " was wisest not to put such fancies 

 into their heads." 



]t is still further noticeable that Mr. Adams, in his sententious ex- 

 pression, spoke of the treaty in his interview with Baron Tuyl as "the 

 Northwest Coast convention." This closely descriptive phrase was 

 enough to satisfy Baron Tuyl that Mr. Adams liad not taken a false 

 view of the true limits of the treaty and had not attempted to extend 

 the privileges granted to the United States a single inch beyond their 

 plain and honorable intent. 



The three most confident assertions made by Lord Salisbury, and 

 regarded by him as unanswerable, are, in his own language, the fol- 

 lowing: 



(1) Tliat England refused to admit any pru't of the Russian claim asserted by the 

 ukase of 1821 of a maritime jurisdiction and exclusive right of fishing throughout 

 the whole extent of that claim, from Behring Straits to the fifty-first parallel. 



(2) That the convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renunciation on 

 the part of Russia of that claim in its entirety. 



(3) That, though Behring Straits were known and specifically provided for, Behr- 

 ing Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as a part of the I'acifio 

 Ocean. 



The explanatory note of the Russian Government disproves and de- 

 nies in detail these three assertions of Lord Salisbury. I think they 

 are completely disproved by the facts recited in this dispatch, but the 

 explanatory note is a specific contradiction of each one of them. 



The "inclosures" which accompanied Lord Salisbury's dispatch, and 

 which are quoted to strengthen his arguments, seem to me to sustain, 

 in a remarkable manner, the position of the United States. The first 

 inclosure is a dispatch from Lord Londonderry to Count Lieven, Rus- 

 sian minister at London, dated Foreign Office, January 18, 1822. The 

 first paragraph of this dispatch is as follows: 



The undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the note addressed to him by Bar 

 de Nicolai of the 12th of September last, covering a copy of a ukase issued by 1 



on 

 hia 



