24 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



any dominion over Behring Sea, disprove that allegation, 

 and show clearly that all they desired or contemplated was 

 to protect the trading on the coast. 



FOREIGNERS FREQUENTED BEHRING SEA IN NUMBERS. 



When the position of the persons by whom these let- 

 ters were written, and to whom they were addressed, is 

 remembered, it becomes clear not only that foreigners fre- 

 quented Behring Sea in considerable numbers, but also that 

 Eussia and the Kussian- American Company recognized that 

 their presence there was unavoidable, and that interference 

 with them must be strictly limited to the ordinary terri- 

 torial jurisdiction. 



Neither is any trace to be found of any action having 

 been taken under the instructions issued by the Board of 

 the Company with the view to excluding foreigners from 

 trading in Behring Sea. 



BEFORE 1821, RUSSIA ASSERTED NO EXCLUSIVE JURIS- 

 DICTION IN BEHRING SEA. 



Tt is submitted that the propositions that were formu- 

 lated on p. 30 of the British Case with reference to the user 

 of the waters of Behring Sea up to the year 1821, and sup- 

 ported by the evidence cited therein, have not been dis- 

 placed by any facts or arguments produced in the Case of 

 the United States; but, on the contrary, that the further 

 examination of the subject establishes that, down to the 

 year 1821, Kussia neither asserted nor exercised in the non- 

 territorial waters of the North Pacific, including the body 

 of water now known as Behring Sea, any rights to the 

 exclusion of other nations. 



