COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 27 



the wliole of the negotiations prior to 1824 and 1825, no 

 reference is made by any distinctive name to Behring Sea, 

 strongly supports tlie contention of Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment. The reason is obvious. The whole area affected by 

 the Ukase was the subject of discussion, and no distinc- 

 tion was drawn between the part of the Paciflc Ocean north 

 and that south of the Aleutian Islands. Had any such dis- 

 tinction been intended, it must have been repeatedly men- 

 tioned; and had it been desired to deal with the waters of 

 Behring Sea in an excei^tionnl manner, an express provi- 

 sion to that end nurst have been inserted. 



With reference to this point, attention is invited to Chap- British case, 

 ter II of the British Case, and the coriespondence set outp2'Jtg'^^!^^;^'^J■"' 

 in the Appendix thereto. 



The Ukase of the -Ith September, 1821, which led to the 

 protests, negotiations, and Treaties, claimed the exclusive 

 right to the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing 

 on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of 

 the north-west coast of America from Behring Strait to 

 the 51st degree of the northern latitude and the Aleutian 

 Islands. 



PACIFIC OCEAN EXTENDS ON NORTH-WEST COAST FROM 

 BEHRINO STRAIT TO LATITUDE 51° NORTH. 



M. de Poletica, in his letter to Mr. Adams of the 28th ibid., Part ii, 

 February, 1822, claims — p-^- 



that the Bussian possei^siovs in the Facific Ocean extend on the north-west -p,y.{^{^\^ Case 

 coast of America from Behring Strait to the 51st degree of north lati- pp. 48, 40. ' 



tude, and on the opposite side of Asia and the islands adjacent from United States 

 tlie same Strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea of which these Ca«e, Appendix, 

 possessions form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are ^^ " '' ^'' 

 ordinarily attached to shut seas ('-niers fermces"), and the Russian 

 Government might consequently judge itself authorized to exercise 

 upon this sea the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely 

 interdicting the entrance of foreigners. But it preferred only assert- 

 ing its essential rights, without taking any advantage of localities. 



28 The extent of waters thus limited he claims as "shut 



seas ('mers fermees')." The same limits are either 

 expressly or impliedly referred to throughout the corre- 

 spondence.* 



* See particularly in the correspondence hetween Russia and the United States 

 United States : Case, Appendix, 



M. de Poletica to Mr. Adams, 2nd April, 1822. """'■ '' P" ^"^• 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Middletou, 22nd July, 1823. Britisli Case, 



Appendix, vol. ii, 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, 22nd .July, 1823. "^iWd.^'p'e!' 



Memorial by Mr. Middletou, 1st Decemher, 1823. II)id.ip. 7. 



In the correspondence between Great Britain and Russia: 



Baron Nicolav to the Marquis of Londonderry, 3l8t October, 1821. l''''bi Appen- 



^ ■" ' dix, vol. ii, Part J[, 



p.l. 

 Count Nesselrode to Count Lieven, 7th October, 1821. Ibid., p. 3. 



Messrs. F. Euderbv and Mellish to Board of Trade, 27th November, Ibiil., p. 13. 

 1821. 

 Mr. G. Canning to the Duke of Wellington, 27th September, 1822. ^^'"^■' P- 21- 

 Ship-owners' Societv to Mr. G. Canning, 11th .June, 1823. Ibid., p. 36. 



Mr. Euderby to the 'Board of Trade, 7th February, 1824. Ibid., p. 52. 



And in the correspondence of tlie Russian-American Company: 



Minister of Finance to Russian-American Company, 18th July, 1822. United States 



^ *'' "" Case, Appendix, 



vol. i. p. 62. 



Count Nesselrode to N. S. Mordvinof, 11th April, 1824. ^^'^•' P- "• 



