48 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT: BRITAIN. 
The jury found the prisoners guilty, and the master of the ‘‘Thornton” was sen- 
tenced to thirty days’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500 dollars, while the mate 
was sentenced to a like term of imprisonment and to pay a fine of 300 dollars. It 
appears from a telegraphic despatch of the i8th September last that the masters and 
mates of the ‘‘Onward” and ‘‘Caroline” have since also been tried, and sentenced 
to undergo penalties similar to those inflicted on the master and mate of the 
“Thornton.” 
The Sub-Committee do not here propose to comment on the enlarged construction 
placed by Judge Dawson on the words ‘‘adjacent waters” in the clauses of the 
Revised Statutes above referred to, further than to remark in passing that its effect 
would be to convert a purely municipal prohibition into an international obligation, 
and to claim for the United States a jurisdiction which their Government have in 
the past not only declined themselves to assert, but which they have strenuously 
resisted when claimed by another Power. 
The following brief instance will illustrate the position taken by the United States 
Government in the recent past: 
As late as the 19th April, 1872, Mr. Boutwell, then Secretary of the United States 
Treasury, in answer to a request made to him that a Revenue cutter should be sent 
to the region of Minnak Pass to prevent Australian and Hawaiian vessels from taking 
seals on their annual migration to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, declined to 
accede to the request, and added: 
“In addition, I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or 
power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such 
attempts within a marine league of the shore.” 
Going further back in date, the Sub-Committee find that in 1822 a claim to sov- 
ereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude was put forward 
by Russia. An Imperial Ukase, issued on the 4th (16th) September, 1821, regulating 
commerce, whaling, and fishing along the eastern coast of Siberia, the north-western 
coast of North America, and the Aleutian and other islands, and prohibiting all for- 
eign vessels from landing on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, or approach- 
ing them within less than 100 Italian miles, was communicated to the American 
Government on the 11th February, 1822 (C of Appendix). 
The Honourable John Quincy Adams, at that time United States Secretary of 
State, wrote on the 25th of the same month to M. de Poletica, the Russian Minister 
Plenipotentiary, expressing the surprise of the President of the United States at 
the assertion of a territorial claim by Russia extending to the 51st degree of north 
latitude on this continent; stating that the exclusion of American vessels from the 
shore beyond the ordinary distance to which the territorial jurisdiction extends had 
excited still greater surprise; and requesting an explanation of the grounds of 
right, upon principles generally recognized by the laws and usages of nations, which 
could warrant such claims. 
M. de Poletica, in a despatch dated the 16th (28th) February, 1882, defends the 
prohibition as designed to suppress the furnishing by foreigners of arms and ammu- 
nition to the natives of Russian America. He adds, however: 
“The extent of sea of which these possessions form the limits comprehends all 
the conditions which are ordinarily attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées”), and the 
Russian Government might, consequently, judge itself authorized to exercise upon 
this sea the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the 
entrance of foreigners. But it preferred only asserting its essential rights, without 
taking any advantage of localities.” 
Mr. Adams deemed it a sufficient answer to this claim to point out the fact that 
the “‘distance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 51° north, is not less than 
90° of longitude, or 4,000 miles.” (State Papers, vol. ix, p. 471 et seq.) 
A writer in the ‘‘North American Review,” in an article published a few months 
later, says, with respect to Mr. Adams’ answer, ‘‘A volume on the subject could not 
have placed the absurdity of the pretensions more glaringly before us.” (‘North 
American Review,” vol. xv, p.389.) 
32 The position was relinquished by Russia after much negotiation and corre- 
spondence (see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. v, p. 432), and on 
the 17th April, 1824, a Convention was concluded between the United States and 
that country which was ratified at Washington on the 12th January, 1825, and of 
which the Ist Article is as follows: 
“T. Itis agreed that in any part of the great ocean, commonly called the Pacific 
Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting 
Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing, 
or in the power of resorting to the coasts upon points which may not already have 
been occupied for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restric- 
tions and conditions determined by the following Articles.” (State Papers, vol. xii, 
p. 595.) 
The conditions and restrictions relate chiefly to the prevention of illicit trade in 
spirituous liquors, fire-arms, &e. 
