20 PERIOD PRECEDING THE TREATIES. 



Protests against a clear distinction is intended to be drawn be- 



nkase, and result- . 



in g treaties. tween the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and 

 that by formally withdrawing the operation of 

 the ukase as to the Pacific Ocean, but not as to 

 Bering Sea, a recognition of its continued opera- 

 tion over the latter body of water was necessa- 

 rily implied. The chief evidence, aside from that 

 contained in the treaties themselves, upon which 

 the United States rely to establish this conclusion, 

 is the seventh paragraph of the conference report 

 of the Russian imperial committee, appointed in 

 1824, which report is referred to at page 54 of their 

 Case. 1 



p Case of the At pages 57 and 73 of the British Case an 

 incident arising out of a voyage of the American 

 brig Pearl is cited to prove that, in the year fol- 

 lowing the promulgation of the ukase, Russia 

 acknowledged the maritime jurisdiction claimed 

 therein to be without warrant as to any of the 

 waters to which it related. The facts of the case 

 are not, however, susceptible of such an inter- 

 pretation, as will appear from the following: 



(1) The Pearl was in the year 1822 suddenly 

 ordered out of the harbor of New Archangel, 

 where she had been lying for nearly a month. 2 



(2) The day following she was boarded by the 



1 The revised translation of this report appears in the Appendix 

 to the Counter Case, p. 157, and should be consulted. 

 « Post, p. 175. 



