10 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



The Ukase of 1799 purported to grant the Russian-American Company rights exclusive 

 of other Russian subjects, but not of foreigners ; such exclusive rights were only 

 exercisable on laud; no exclusion of foreign vessels from Behriug .Sea, or from 

 fur-hunting there, is shown; and the only evidence adduced of the sanction of 

 the Russian Government to any such course, consists in the interpolations, since 

 withdrawn, of a translator in contemporary documei)ts. 



The Ukase of 1799 was not notified to foreign Powers, and had no operation as 

 against foreigners. 



The only assertion by Russia of exclusive rights in Behriug Sea was in 1821, and 

 that on paper merely. 



CONTENTION THAT RUSSIAN TITLE TO EASTERN SHORES OF 

 BEHRING SEA WAS UNDISPUTED. 



NO DISTINCTION IN RUSSIA'S TITLE AT LATITUDE 00°. 



The first three contentions, of which, save for tlie mention 

 of latitnde 60° in the third, the second and third are for 

 the present purpose substantially identical, maybe dealt 

 with together 5 i)remising tliat, prior to the year 1821, no 

 distinction, as regards the title of Eussia, had been drawn 

 between coasts north and south of that latitude; nor will 

 any hint of such distinction be found throughout the evi- 

 dence which relates to the period now in question. 



NO EVIDENCE OF RECOGNITION OF HER TITLE. 



There is, prior to 1824, no evidence of recognition by any 

 nation of the claim of Russia to the eastern shores of Beh- 

 ring yea. Their outlines were unknown to geographers 

 before the explorations of Cook in 1778 and 1779, aud there 

 is practically no evidence of any assertion of "right of 

 dominion" over them by Russia prior to the Ukase of 1799, 

 which apparently bases this right on ''discovery by Rus- 

 sian navigators in remote times.'' The translation of that 

 Ukase in the British and United States Cases, which was 

 taken from Bancroft's "History of Alaska," alleges "right 

 of possession" by Russia; but these words are wanting in 

 See post, p. 11. the original, of which a correct translation is given in the 



present Counter-Case. 



United States The authority of Captain Cook is invoked as proving the 



Case, p. 24. existcnce of "Russian influence and customs" upon the 



eastern shores of Behring iSea. Even if he had found 



instances of Russian "influence and customs,"' this would 



not prove Russian occupation or possession of this very 



extensive line of coast. But his narrative, on the 



8 contrary, shows that along the whole coast-line he 



met with no Russians or other civilized people, but 



only with tribes of the native inhabitants. Captain Cook 



vS^ffp.Ige!^"^^' further states that the Russians he met at Unalaska were — 



strangers to every part of the American coast, except what lies oppo- 

 site this island. 



ibid.,p.499. At Samganoodha, on the Island of Unalaska, Captain 

 Cook met a Russian named Eraflm Gregorioff Sin Ismyloff, 

 whom he describes as the principal person amongst his 



