138 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
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. 
6¢¢ ARTICLE II. 
““¢ With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exercised 
upon the great ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting Powers 
from becoming the pretext of an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens of 
119 the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian estab- 
lishment without the permission of the Governor or Commander, and that 
reciprocally the subjects of Russia shall not resort without permission to any estab- 
lishment of the United States upon the north-west coast. 
66 CARTICLE ILi. 
‘¢ ‘Tt is, moreover, agreed that hereafter there shall not be formed by the citizens 
of the United States, or under authority of the said States, any establishment upon 
the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent to the north of 
54° 40/ north latitude, and that in the same manner there shall be none formed by 
the Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel. 
(6 CARTICLE LV. 
‘¢ (Tt is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, counting from 
the signatures of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong 
to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any 
hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast 
mentioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the 
natives of the country.’ (Wheaton’s ‘International Law,’ vol. i, pp. 2-112.) 
“‘The Treaty between Russia and Great Britain contains substantially the same 
provisions. Neither in the Treaties nor in the correspondence is any reference made. 
to Russia’s claim of dominion over the Behring’s Sea. If in the diplomatic corre- 
spondence leading up to the Treaty any challenge as to the jurisdiction of Behring’s 
Sea had been made, why was it not settled by the Treaties? Did the High Con- 
tracting Powers to these Treaties enter into a discussion lasting nearly two years as 
to one matter and make adjustment by Treaty as to other matters? 
“<The Convention between Russia and Great Britain, aside from disposing of the 
question of Russia’s asserted sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean and fixing the 
southern limit of her possession on the western coast of North America, also estab- 
lished the dividing line of their respective North American possessions from 54 40 
north to the frozen ocean, which boundary-line is incorporated verbatim into the 
Treaty of Cession of 1867 from Russia to the United States. (Treaty of 1867, 
Article I.) 
“If differences existed as to the dominion of the Behring’s Sea, why were they not 
also settled, as that manifestly would be a part of the object of holding the Conven- 
tion? 
‘‘ RUSSIA’S JURISDICTION. 
“Tt cannot be successfully maintained that by such terms as the ‘Great Ocean,’ 
the ‘Pacific Ocean,’ or the ‘South Sea,’ the High Contracting Powers referred to the 
Behring’s Sea. Aside from this, it is stipulated in both Treaties that the ships, citi- 
zens, and subjects of either Power may reciprocally frequent the interior seas, gulfs, 
harbours, and creeks of the other on the North American coast for a period of ten 
years. The only interior sea on the North American coast was the Behring’s Sea held 
by Russia. If that was a part of the ‘Pacific Ocean,’ or the ‘Great Ocean,’ or the 
‘South Sea,’ or belonged to the high seas under the law of nations, why the term 
‘interior sea,’ and why should the United States and Great Britain accept a ten years’ 
limit of the right of navigation, fishing, and trading in an interior sea if they had 
the unconditional right to frequent those waters under the law of nations? 
‘‘This section of the Treaty, therefore, really concedes Russia’s dominion over 
Behring’s Sea. Chancellor Kent alludes to this subject as the ‘claim of Russia to 
sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude.’ (Kent, vol. 
i, p. 28.) 
‘A summary of results following the discussions and Conventions as to the Royal 
Ordinance of 1821 is the abandonment by Russia of her claim to sovereignty over the 
Pacific Ocean; a surrender of her claim to the North American coast south of 54° 
40’; a settlement by Russia and Great Britain as to the boundary-line of their pos- 
sessions in North America; agreements as to settlements upon each other’s territory 
and navigation of each other’s waters, but no surrender of Russia’s jurisdiction over 
the Behring’s Sea. 
