APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. «1 
bays, including the Kamschatkan or Behring Sea, no protest was made against this 
assertion of authority by Russia, and none has ever been made since by any civilized 
Power until last year. 
2. That the claim made by the United States about this period related to the North 
Pacific Ocean only, and that the United States never, in all the correspondence 
between the years 1822 and 1824, made the slightest reference to or asked for any 
rights or privileges in the Behring Sea. 
What are the facts? A translation of the Ukase of 1821 is published in ‘ British 
and Foreign State Papers,” vol. ix, p. 472. It distinctly sets out that ‘the pursuits 
of commerce, Whaling, and fishery, and of all other industry on all islands, ports, 
and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of Aicrica, beginning from 
Behring Strait (the northern boundary of Behring Sea) to the 51st degree of north- 
ern latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well 
as along the Kurile Islands, from Behring Strait to the south cape of the Island of 
Urup, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects,” and foreign vessels are interdicted 
from appronuching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and islands named under 
penalty of confiscation. Having this Ukase before him, John Quincy Adams, Secre- 
tary of State, on the 25th February, 1822, wrote to M. Poletica, the Russian Minis- 
ter, as follows (the letter is printed in the same volume of State Papers, p. 483): 
“Tam directed by the President of the United States to inform you that he has seen 
with surprise in this Edict the assertion ofa territorial claim on the part of Russia, 
extending to the 51st degree of north latitude on this continent, and a Regulation 
interdicting to all commercial vessels other than Russian, upon the penalty of seiz- 
ure and confiscation, the approach upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the 
shores to which the claim is made to apply.” Mr. Adams adds: ‘‘ To exclude the 
vessels of our citizens from the shores beyond the ordinary distance to which the 
territorial jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise,” and he closes by 
asking an explanation. 
M. Poletica replied, on the 28th February, 1822 (p. 487): ‘‘ The Russian possessions 
in the Pacific Ocean extend on the north-west coast of America from Behring Strait 
to the 51st degree of north latitude and on the opposite side of Asia to the islands 
adjacent from the same strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea of which these 
possessions form the limit comprehends all the conditions which are ordinarily 
attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées’), and the Russian Government might conse- 
quently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of sovereiguty, 
and especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners. But it pre- 
ferred only asserting its essential rights without taking any advantage of localities.” 
It is interesting to look at the Map and see what the Russian claim really was. 
Latitude north 51° takes in the southern boundary of the Aleutian Islands to the 
Sea of Okhotsk. Mr. Adams, in his reply to M. Poletica (same volume, p. 488), says: 
“With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified 
the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea because it claims 
territory both on the American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the dis- 
tance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 51° north is not less than 90° 
60 of longitude, or 4,000 miles.” He ends by saying the President is persuaded the 
citizens of the United States will remain unmolested in their lawful commerce, 
and that no effect will be given to an interdiction manifestly incompatible with their 
rights. This controversy was ended between the United States and Russia by a Con- 
vention signed at St. Petersburgh on the 17th April, 1824, in which it was agreed that 
in no part of the great ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, should 
the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting Powers be disturbed or 
restrained, either in navigation or fishing, or resorting to the coast for the purpose 
of trading with the natives. Great Britain concluded a similar Treaty in 1825. This 
Treaty of 1824 remained substantially in force until the cession of Alaska to the 
United States by Russia. 
The claim that Behring Sea is a “landlocked sea” with a ‘firm line pelagic 
boundary,” advanced by Mr. Elliott, is manifestly absurd, in view of the fact that it 
is about 900 miles from the Aleutian Islands to the Asiatie coast of Russia. But, 
even assuming that it could have been treated as a Jand-locked sea at the time of the 
Ukase of 1821 by virtue of the possession by one Power of land on both sides, that 
condition ceased when Russia parted with her territory on one side, just as Great 
Britain was obliged to abandon her claim to territorial jurisdiction over the Bay of 
Fundy because the United States owned simply a headland on the other side from 
her possessions. 
The Sea of Okhotsk is one of the seas distinctly referred to in the Ukase of 1821, 
which called out Adams’ protest. Up to 1868, when Russiasold the Kurile Islands to 
Japan, this was practically a ‘‘land-locked sea, having a firm pelagic boundary.” as 
erroneously claimed by Mr. Elliott in regard to the Behring Sea. Yet in ‘‘ Diplo- 
matic Correspondence,” 1868, p. 462, there is a letter addressed by Secretary of State 
William H. Seward to Cassius M. Clay, our Minister to Russia, dated the 23rd 
