COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 35 



BARON TUYLL, WHILE ARGUING THAT EEHRING SEA WAS 

 UNAFFECTED BY TREATY, IMPLIEDLY ADMITS IT OPEN 

 TO THE WORLD. 



In any case, neither here, nor in the oouversation with 

 Mr. Adams above referred to, did Biii on Tuyll suggest tliat 

 Behring- Sea was closed, or that his llovernment chiimed a 

 margin of 100 miles from the shores. His argument was 

 that the TreaUj did not ai)]!ly to that sea, and tliat the 

 United States ^vere remitted there to the ordinary rights 

 of iudependent nations on the high seas. What he says 

 as to the reception of ships in distress assumes that ships 

 will be passing-; and the 2 leagues is treated as the limit ot 

 territorial jurisdiction. 



To the above may be added the account of the same trans- 

 action which is given by the Russian writer, Tikhmenieii": 



As the Couveiitioii hiul not vet been r;itified, the Emperor, on the l^ritiSli Case, 

 representation ol" the Company that they wouhl he injnred by that j^'.^''^'""'^' ' 



part of the Convention to Avhieh we have referred, ordered inquiry to " " 

 be ma le into the matter by a ►S})ecial Commission. In the Protocol of 

 the Commission, which was approved by the Emj^eror, it was declared, 

 inter alia, that the provision of the Convention granting to the citizens 

 of the United States tlie right to fish in the waters of the Colony, and 

 to trade with the inhabitants of the co,;sfc, must not be understood as 

 giving them a right to api)roach the coast of Eastern Siberia, and 

 the Aleutian and Kurile Islands, which had long been recognized by 

 the other Powers as l)eing under the exclusive dominion of Russia, 

 and that that provision only aiiplied to the disputed territory on the 

 north-west coast of America, between 54° 40' and 57"^. 



In consequence of this declaration the Head of the Foreign Office 

 and the Commission were of oiiiniou that in order to safeguard the 

 rights of the Company, and to obviate tlie possibility of the Conven- 

 tion being wrongly interpreted, the Rsissiau Minister to the United. 

 States should be instructed to make a formal explanatory declaration 

 on the occasion of the exchange of the vatiiications of the Convention* 

 The Minister reported that he did not see his way to carrying out these 

 instructions, and that the only way in which he could explain the pro- 

 vision in question to the Vv^asliingtou Cabinet v/as by a verbal note; 

 he added that a formal declaratiou might give rise to serious disputes, 

 prevent the ratification of the Convention, and produce an effect which 

 was not intended, by arousing suspicions which would otherwise never 

 be entertained. The Convention was accordingly ratified. 



39 Upon the subject of the Report of the Committee, 



and the attempt at negotiation which resulted from 

 it, the following observations arise: 



1. That the Russian-American Company were oidy anx- 

 ious about trade and fishing on the coast, and were not 

 concerned about Behring Sea. 



2. That Baron Tuyll did not claim for Russia jurisdiction 

 of any kind over Behring Sea; for he states in his draft 

 note that Russia would be satisiied with a limit of 2 marine 

 leagues to the north of 59^ 30'. 



3. That the interpretation of the words " Pacific Ocean 

 or South Sea," in Article I of the Convention, ujjon whicli 

 the Go^■ernment of tlie United States now base their argu- 

 ment, was first suggested after tlie conclusion of the Con- 

 vention, and with the express purpose of reconciling the 

 Directors of the Russian American Company to the terms 

 of that Article. 



4. That Mr. Adams declined the overtures of Baron 

 Tuyll and the interpretation desired to be put upon the 



