69 CHAPTER V. 



Head (E.) — What Eights passed to the United States under the Treaty 

 of Cession of the 30th March, 1867 f 



The United States Contentions. 



(1.) United States Case, p. 70— 



"This treaty, which, prior to itsfiualconsiimmatiou, had been discussed in the Sen- 

 ate of the United .States and by the press, was an assertion by two great nations 

 that Russia had heretofore claimed the ownership of Behrin.u' Sea, and that she 

 had now ceded a portion of it to the United States; and to this assertion no 

 objection is ever known to nave been made." 



(2.) United States Case, p. 74— 



"Their value [tlie fur-seals] was well known to the American negotiators of the 

 treaty of 1867, and Avhile it must be admitted that political considerations entered 

 into the negotiations to a certain extent, yet so far as revenue to the liovernment 

 and immediate profit to its people were concerned, it will appear from a careful 

 study of the incidents attending the transfer of sovereignty that it was the fur 

 industry more than all other considerations which decided the United States to 

 pay the sum of 7, 200,000 dollars required by Russia for the cession and tranfer 

 of her sovereign rights and iiroperty." 



(3.) United States Case, ji. 85^ 



" The understanding which existed in the United States, at the time of the pur- 

 chase and cession of Alaska, as to the scope and effect of the jurisdiction exer- 

 cised by Russia over the Avaters of Bering Sea, and the enhanced value which 

 was thereby placed upon the fur-seal herd of the Pribiloff Islands." 



Summary of British Reply. 



The Treaty of 1867 only assigns territory, not sea. 



The value of the fur-seal herd was not taken into account in the purchase by the 

 United States. 



CONTENTION THAT TREATY OF 1867 WAS ASSERTION OF OWNER- 

 SHIP OF BEHRING SEA. 



With reference to the contention first quoted above, it is ^"it«i ^tat^a 

 to be observed that neither the Treaty of 1807, nor any '^'■^°" 

 other document published or communicated to foreign 

 nations in connection tlierewith, asserted any claim to the 

 ownership of Behriiig Sea. (Jpon this point, attention is 

 invited to the observations contained in Chapter V of the British Caso, 

 British Case. pp. 91-102. 



70 The extracts from the debates in Congress, and 



the negotiations which took place prior to the com- 

 pletion of the Treaty, show conclusively that it was not 

 supposed by the advisers of the United States, or by any 

 person on their behalf, that any exchisive dominion over 

 Behring Sea was being accptired. 



' 61 



