COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 19 



55", where the Ukase was iutended to have the same oper- 

 ation as in Behriug- Sea itself. 



DISALLOWANCE OF RICCORD-PIGOTT CONTRACT INVOLVED 

 NO MARITIME JURISDICTION. 



On the other hand, the solitary instance in which it is Tjnited states 

 alleged on the part of the United States that Eussia actu- ^^^*'- !'• *^- 

 ally asserted exclusive rights over Behriiig Sea prior to 

 ISlil, is the case of the Kiccord-Pigott contract in 1819, 

 Three letters (dated 10th April, 1820, 23rd April, 1820, and Appendix, vol. 

 and 31st March, 1821) are relied upon as— V^' ^^' ^*'' '"'^ 



illnstrating the complete control which Russia claimed and actually United States 

 exercised over Behring Sea prior to 1821. ^^^^' P- ^^• 



From the facts alluded to in these letters, it appears that Letter, April 23, 

 Riccord, the Superintendent of Kamtchatka, had made an 

 agreement with Pigott, an Englishman, for ten years, Irom laUon'^^Vppen- 



1819 — dix, vol. i, p. 17. 



with reference to fishing for whales and extracting oil from these and 

 other marine animals on the shores of Kamtchatka and on those of 

 all Eastern Siberia, in the harbours and bays and amongst the islands. 



This contract was undoubtedly disapproved by the Eus- 

 sian Government, Avhich, having granted to a Eussian 

 Company a monoply of trade in these regions, to the exclu- 

 sion of all other Eussian subjects, was naturally unwilling 

 to allow any part of this monopoly to be enjoyed by for- ig^olplra'^TlpVL 

 eigners. The Eussian-American Company was therefore 

 instructed to turn its attention to the whale fishery, and ^ . . ^ 



. , ,..„,. ,, . 1 • Revised trans- 



to employ a ship in nshmg, the reason given being, asiation, Appen- 

 appears from the following quotation, that — ^^^' ^"^' '■ p- ^^• 



the whale-fishing industry may be of use as a means of assisting the 

 inhabitants of Kamtchatka a^nd Okhotsk when the other fisheries fail. 



The Government further ordered that no foreigner i^id. para- 

 should be allowed to enter a merchant guild, or to settle ^'^^^ 

 at Kamtchatka or Okhotsk, and that no foreign merchant- Revised trans- 

 vessel should be permitted— ^fj«°^j j ^pp™- 



to trade at those places under any circumstances, or to enter the ports 

 of Eastern Siberia except in tase of distress Further- 

 more, the Englishman Davis at Okhotsk, and Dobello's agent in Kamt- 

 chatka are to be informed .... that the Government refuses 

 them permission to remain at those places, or to bnild houses or hold 

 real property there; the local authorities shall afford them all proper 

 facilities for disposal of their property and leaving the country. 



These instructions have been quoted because 

 19 they show clearly that the Eussian Government 

 exercised in this instance no jurisdiction other than 

 the ordinary territorial jurisdiction which attaches to every 

 nation in right of its possession of the soil, and that they 

 made no attempt to exclude foreign vessels from navigating 

 the ocean. 



The rest of the correspondence concerning this matter 

 has, since the presentation of the United States Case been 

 produced by the United States, in reply to a notice by the 

 British Agent under Article lY of tlie Treaty of the 29th 

 February, 1892. It is given in the Appendix to this Conn- Appendix, vol. 

 ter-Case, and it is submitted that it clearly proves that'-pp-^*^-^^- 



