60 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



67 NO EVIDENCE IS OFFERED THAT ANY FOREIGN 



SHIP WAS EXPELLED BY RUSSIA. 



But even if the preservation of fur-seals or fur-seal fish- 

 eries bad been specially mentioned as the object of these 

 instructions, it is denied that they could have any weight 

 as evidence for the purjiose for which they are quoted in 

 the United States Case, unless it could be shown that they 

 were acted upon in practice by the expulsion of a foreign 

 shiii. Of this, however, no evidence is offered, and it is 

 confidently asserted that no such evidence exists. 

 TTnited states At p. 07 of tlic United States Case, the following extract 

 ^TFor'rlJvi.spdis quoted from the letter from the Chief Manager of the 

 translation, so^Russiau Colouics to Bcnzemau, dated 20th June, 1861: 



Ai)peDaix, vol. i, ' ' 



p. 41.) 9. It has come to my knowledge that in the present year two 



whaling-vessels have sailed from San Francisco for the purpose of 

 trading-^ou the Pril)ilof Islands [oi: of tiuxtixg in th eir vicinity.] 

 Consequently, I would suggest that during your i)resence in those 

 waters you will exercise the duties of an armed cruiser, [to frkvent 



ANY UNLAWFUL ACTS ON THE PART N O T ONLY OF THESE TWO VES- 

 SELS, BUT OF ANY OTHERS WHICH YOU MAY I-"INL> IN IJEKING Ska]. 



It will be seen that the passages printed in brackets are 

 not to be found in the original Russian, while the " instruc- 

 tions herewith inclosed, which have been approved by the 

 Emperor" (see paragraph 9, revised translation), have not 

 been produced by the United States, although they are 

 essential to the correct appreciation of the despatch in 

 which they were inclosed. 

 uritert states The proclamation issued at Sitka in 1864 is similarly 

 ^Tf <^r'^^ievised iwS'C^^ to scrve as cvideuce in the United States Case, by 

 tran»iatioii, see thc iiisertiou of the words ^^or waters.'''' No such words 

 p.iiiT'^^^' ^°'''' occur in the original, which is merely a notice to quit Rus- 

 sian territory. 



CONCLUSIONS. 



From the considerations referred to in this Chapter, it 

 is submitted that the conclusions claimed to have been es- 

 tablished in the British Case, as stated at p. 90, are fully 

 sui^ported; and that the further evidence which has 

 been adduced clearly shows that, with the growth of com- 

 merce and increase of trade subsequently to the year 



68 1821, vessels of Jiations other than Russia without 

 let or hindrance frequented, traded, and fished in 



the waters of Behring Sea; and that no attempt was ever 

 made during the whole period to restrict the use of those 

 waters to vessels carrying the Russian flag. 



