COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 51 



By the Treaties, Russia did surrender lier paper claim to tlie exclusive control of 



trade in Behring Sea. The Charters afterwards granted to the Russian-American 



' Company, like that which had been granted in 1799, only purported to give this 



Company privileges to the exclusion of other Russian subjects. No Charter but 



that of 1821 atiects to exclude foreigners. 



The great source of that Company's wealth was not the fur-seal, which was formerly 

 of less value than the otter. 



There is no evidence of the exclusion of foreign ships from Behring Sea, or from seal 

 hunting therein, and the only evidence adduced that Russia directed such an 

 exclusion consists of the interpolations, now withdrawn, of a translator in con- 

 temporary documents. 



CONTENTION THAT RUSSIA EXERCISED JURISDICTION IN BEH- 

 RING SEA FOR PROTECTION OF SEALS. 



The above cited contentions on behalf of the United (.^^f\% ^^^^^^ 

 States, assert in effect tliat the jurisdiction of Eussia over 

 Behring- Sea was consistently and specilically exercised for 

 the i)rotection of the fur-seal tisbery; and tbat the object 

 of the Kussian Government in the alleged exclusion of 

 Behring Sea from the effect of tbe Treaties of 1821 and iwd.p.sg. 

 1825, was the protection of the fur industry. 



The British Case has already dealt with the alleged ^^J^'^^"'' '^'^^^' 

 exercise of jurisdiction by Russia over Behring Sea, as a ' 

 matter of fact, and as regards the alleged object of that 

 jurisdiction, viz., the protection of tlie fur industry. Eef- 

 erence must be made to the documents mentioned in Chap- 

 ter II of the British Case, where it is shown that the purpose 

 of the Ukase of 1821 was to prevent illicit trading, and 

 interference with the trade of the Russian-American Com- 

 pany; as well as to the facts fully set out in Chapter IV of 

 the British Case, which show that, both before and after 

 the date of the Treaties of 1824 and 1825, foreign vessels 

 habitually frequented Behring Sea for the purpose of 

 exploration, trading, and fishing. 



The instructions sent out by the Russian Foreign Office iwd., pp. 84,85. 

 in the year 1846, are alone sufficient to negative conclu- 

 sively the jiresent contention of the United States upon 

 this point. Not only Avas the limit of 100 miles, which it 

 had been endeavoured to establish by the Ukase, 

 57 not enforced; but, as api^ears by the instructions, it 

 was not contemplated to prohibit the approach of 

 foreign vessels, or to interfere with them in any way, beyond 

 the recognized limit of 3 miles from the shores. 



It is further asserted, on behalf of the United States, ca^e.'pp. sflT 

 that "the reason why the limit of 100 miles was chosen in 

 1821," was that this limit Avould "secure to the Russian- iw^i - I'-i*)- 

 American Fur Company the monopoly of the very lucrative 

 l>rotit*" carried on by them. It is argued tbat, as the 

 Bribyloff" Islands are situated less than 200 Italian miles 

 from the Aleutian chain on the south, a sufficient portion 

 of the eastern half of Behring Sea Avas covered by the 

 terms of the Ukase to enable Russia to protect the fur-seal ^^'^■' p*^' 

 fishery. 



* A misprint for " tra0ic." See United States Case, Appendix, vol. i, 

 p. 35. 



