108 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
claim was made to apply, went on to say that it was expected before 
any act which should define the boundary between the territories of the 
United States and Russia, that the same would have been arranged by 
Treaty between the parties, and that “to exclude the vessels of Ameri- 
can citizens from the shore beyond the ordinary distance to which terri- 
torial jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise;” and Mr. 
Adams asked whether the Russian Minister was authorized to give 
explanations of the “‘ grounds of right, upon principles generally recog- 
nized by the laws and. usages of nations, which can warrant the claims 
and Regulations.” 
90 The Russian Minister, in his reply, dated the 28th February, 
after explaining how Russia had acquired her possessions in North 
America, said: 
“‘T ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, Sir, that the 
Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean extend on the north- west coast 
of America from Behring’s Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude, 
and on the opposite side of Asia and the islands adjacent from the same 
Strait to the 45th degree. Theextent 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 advantage of localities.” 
On the 30th March Mr. Adams replied to the explanations given by 
the Russian Minister. He stated that, with respect to the pr retension 
advanced in regard to territory, it must be considered not only with 
reference to the question of territorial rights, but also to that prohibi- 
tion to the vessels of other nations, including those of the United 
States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. That from 
the period of the existence of the United States as an independent 
nation their vessels had freely navigated these seas, the right to navi- 
gate them being a part of that independence; and 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 its American and Asiatic shores,’ it may 
suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore on this sea, in lati- 
tude 51° north, is not less than ninety degrees of longitude, or 4,000 
miles.” Mr. Adams concluded as follows: ‘“‘The President is persuaded 
that the citizens of this Union will remain unmolested in the prose- 
eution of their lawful commerce, and that no effect will be given to an 
interdiction manifestly incompatible with their rights.” 
The Convention between the United States of America and Russia 
of the 17th April, 1824, put an end to any further pretension on the 
part of Russia to restrict navigation or fishing in Behring’s Sea so far 
as American citizens were concerned ; for by “Article I it was 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 neither be disturbed nor restrained, either in 
navigation or fishing, saving certain restrictions which are not material 
to the present issue; and a similar stipulation in the Convention 
between this country and Russia in the following year (15th May, 1825) 
put anend, as regarded British subjects, to the pretensions of Russia 
to which I have referred, and which had been entirely repudiated by 
Her Majesty’s Government in correspondence with the Russian Gov- 
ernment in 1821 and 1822, which for your more particular information 
I inclose herein. 
