COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 57 



PROPOSALS FOR RENEWAL OF COMPANY'S CHARTER IN 

 1865 AND 18(36 DO NOT SUGGEST EXCLUSION OF FOR- 

 EIGNERS. 



1. lu the proposals for tlie renewal of the Company's 

 Charter in 1865 and 1866, there is no suggestion that pow- 

 ers slionld be granted to exclude foreigners, such as had 

 been granted by tlie Charter of 18121, and subsequently 

 abandoned in the Charters of 1829 and 1844. 



2. The letter of the Minister of Finance, dated the 19th nifted"' states 

 June, 1865, affords further confirmation of the fact that case, Appendix, 

 the Kussian Government was unaware of the existence of^"'^'^'' ' 

 any such special jurisdiction over the Avaters of Behring 



Sea as is now claimed by the TTnited States as the succes- 

 sors of that Government. 



EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES TO BE GRANTED TO COMPANY 

 ONLY RELATE TO LAND (NOT SEA). 



The Minister proposed, in paragraph 15, to reserve to 

 the Company the ex(;lusive right of engagiug in the fur- 

 trade as defined within the following limits: 



Ou the jjeniiisula of Alaska, reckoning as its northern limit a Mne 

 drawn from Cape Donglass, in Kenia Bay, to the head of Lake Inii- 

 amna; on all the islands lyinj;' along the coast of that peninsula; on 

 the Aleutian, Commander, and Kurile Islands and those lying in 

 Bering's Sea, and also along the whole western * coast of Bering's Sea. 



REVOCATION OF PRIVILEGES ON EASTERN COAST OF 



BEHRING SEA. 



But to revoke— 



64 in the district to the north-east oft the jieninsula of Alaska Revised trans- 

 along the whole coast to the boundary of the British posses- 'jl'^""', 4 1^1' !J'^" 

 sions, also on the islands lying along this coast, including in that nnm- ' '^' ^° ' '' ^' "' 

 her Sitka and the whole Koloshian archipelago, and also, on land, to 

 the northern extremitj/ of tlie American Continent, the privilege granted 

 to the Company of the exclusive prosecution of the said industry 

 and traffic. 



This is described in the United States Case as a deci- 

 sion — 



to extend the Company's privileges only to the region about Bering Tjjjjfe,! states 

 Sea. Case, p. 68. 



It is supposed, apparently, that it contains evidence of 

 the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdictiou over Behring 

 Sea which is claimed in the United States Case; but, in 

 fact, it furnishes evidence to the contrary, and can only 

 be made to bear the construction tlms placed upon it by 

 an unfounded suggestion that, Avhen the writer mentioned 

 the western shore, he meant to refer to tlie eastern. The 



*The foot-note. United States Appendix, vol. i, p. 77, is obviously 

 erroneous. The passage as it stands deals, in due course, with all the 

 shores of the Russian possessions. But the proposed substitution of 

 "eastern" for "western" involves the omission of all reference to the 

 Asiatic shores, and renders meaningless the subsequent words " ou 

 land to the northern extremity of the American Continent." 



tTlie exact translation of the Russian text is " from." 



