52 COUNTER-CASE OP GREAT BRITAIN. 



IN 1822, THE SEA-OTTER WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN 



THE FUR-SEAL. 



It is true that in the conversation with the Governor- 

 General of Siberia, quoted at p. iO of the United States 

 Case, reference is roade to the " very lucrative traffic" car- 

 ried on by the Eussian- American Fur Company; but it 

 must be noted that the trade in fur-seal skins was not the 

 sole, or even the most considerable, item in that traffic. 

 The sea-otter was still the chief object of the hunters and 

 traders at this date, and had continuously been so from the 

 first. It commanded a far higher i)rice in the market than 

 any other skin. The traffic also included foxes, martens, 

 beavers, bears, and other fur-bearing animals; while the 

 fur-seal skins, though obtainable in large numbers, com- 

 manded only a small price. 



Cook writes of the Eussians met with by him in 1778: 



Cook's " Voy- Their great object is the sea-beaver or otter. I never hear them 

 fSes," vol. 11, p. inquire alter any other animal; though those, whose skins are of 

 inferior value, are also made part of their cargoes. 



Referring to a later date, contemporaneous with that of 

 the Anglo-Russian Treaty, Bancroft writes: 



Alaska, His- In 1825 fur-seal skins were bartered in the Sandwich Islands by the 

 tory ot, p. 538. captain of one of the Company's ships on the basis of 1 dol. 75 c. per 

 skin. This seems an extravagant price, when, as will be remem- 

 bered, the price at Kiakhta was only 5 to 7 roubles in scrip 

 58 (1 dollar to 1 dol. 40 c.) ; but it was the usual rate at which furs 

 were exchanged at Novo Arkhangelsk with American and Eng- 

 lish skippers. 



See ante, p. 57 It fhus appears that the quotation at p. 40 of the United 

 States Case does not support the inference which is sought 

 to be drawn from it, that the limit of 100 miles was specially 

 chosen for the protection of the fur-seals. 



This limit, moreover, goes much further than was neces- 

 sary if the protection of fur-seals had been the object of 

 the Russian Government. The enforcement of the 100-mile 

 limit would have absolutely precluded foreign vessels from 

 navigating, for any purpose, in any part of Behring Strait, 

 Behring Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and a large area of ocean 

 south of the Aleutian Chain and along the coasts of both 

 continents. 

 iTnited States An attempt is made in the United States Case, in one of 

 ase, p. 57. ^^^ passagcs sct out at the head of this Chapter, to explain 

 the undoubted fact, relied upon by Great Britain, that no 

 restraint was ever placed by Russia upon the free entrance 

 of foreign vessels into Behring Sea for the purposes of 

 navigation, and especially for the prosecution of the whale 

 fishery. 



RUSSIA'S ALLEGED SPECIAL RESERVATION OF FUR-SEAL 

 FISHING, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO SEAMEN. 



• 



No sufficient It is plain that, in the absence of any public notiflca- 



Behriiip-"soa tetioii, tlic alleged spccial reservation in respect of fur-seals, 



give e«wt to the (assuming that it ever had any existence in fact, or any 



legal validity,) never could have come to the knowledge of 



