APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 379 
“T congratulate you upon this brilliant achievement, which adds so vast a terri- 
tory to our Union, whose ports, whose mines, whose waters, whose furs, whose 
fisheries are of untold value, and whose fields will produce many grains (even 
wheat), and become thereafter, in time, the seat of a hearty white population.” 
Again, in November 1867, the American Minister at St. Petersburgh, giving a 
description of Russian America, says, in reference to the Aleutian Islands: 
“The Aleutian Islands may attract transient traders, but no permanent settlers. 
To inhabit them one must be an Aleut, and if it were not for the sea surrounding 
the islands, this country, owing to its unfavourable climatic conditions and the 
sterility of its ground, would have never been inhabited at all.” 
From the first extract, it will be observed that the American Government exer- 
cised caution before concluding the Treaty, and awaited the expression ef European 
sentiments in reference to the same. Its acts were open and free to criticism, and 
the last quotation is conclusive on the point that our Government fully comprehended 
the value of the waters of Behring’s Sea, and for this reason mainly was the pur- 
chase made. 
Had it been understood that the waters of Behring’s Sea and its marine life were 
free to the fishermen of all nations, including ours, there could have been no incentive 
on the part of our Government for its purchase at the price of 7,200,000 dollars. In 
any other view of the case it would have been absurd, but, on the contrary, it was 
known that Russia did, from the time of its discovery, control these waters, and 
that she had ever asserted her title and maintained her dominion by causing her 
ships of war to patrol them. 
It is admitted on all sides that whatever title Russia had at the date of the transfer 
of the territory we acquired and still possess, and the United States being in pos- 
session and claiming ownership, our right must be conceded until it is established 
that our grantor, Russia, had no title to this territory, or that she did not maintain 
dominion over it, which, I apprehend, cannot be successfully accomplished. 
There was no concealment of this Treaty or its purpose. Russia divided her pos- 
sessions of Behring’s Sea with us in the presence of all nations, to which there was 
no remonstrance on the part of any of them. 
By an Act of Congress, approved as early as the 27th July, 1868, it is provided: 
“The Laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation are 
extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of the territory ceded to 
the United States by the Emperor of Russia.” It also provides that (see Revised 
Statutes, section 1956) ‘‘no person shall kill any fur-seal or other fur-bearing animals 
within the limits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof.” 
In 1881, it coming to the knowledge of the United States Government for the first 
time that unauthorized persons were illegally taking seals in Alaskan waters, the 
Secretary of the Treasury caused to be published a notice to all that the Law pro- 
hibiting the killing of seals in Alaskan waters would be enforced against all 
345 comers, and its penalties be inflicted (Congress having made provision to equip 
the vessels of the Revenue Marine for that purpose); since which time this 
notice has been yearly published, and to-day, both this and the Russian Govern- 
ments are protecting their respective dominions in the waters of Behring’s Sea, as 
they ever have done, from all unauthorized comers. 
It might be interesting to continue the history of the legislation of Congress on 
this subject, and ascertain upon what facts it based its late action, the necessity for 
such action, and to speculate upon its probable results, bat my time and your space 
will not permit. Suffice it to say, Congress had entire confidence in our title, the 
justice of our cause, our ability to maintain our rights, and believed that not to 
have maintained those rights would have been unwise, beneath the dignity of the 
nation, and even craven. 
{Inclosure 2 in No. 245.] 
Extract from the ‘‘ New York Evening Post” of October 18, 1889. 
Tur BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION. 
(A REPLY TO CONGRESSMAN FELTON.) 
SALEM, MaAss., October 6. 
To the Editor of the ‘‘ Evening Post.” 
Sir: The Honourable Charles N. Felton published in the San Francisco ‘‘Argo- 
naut” of the 12th August last an attempt at a vindication of our seizures of foreign 
sealing-vessels in that part of the Pacific called Behzing’s Sea, and he says of it that 
it is a statement of the facts. Mr. Felton was a member of the last Congress, and 
also a member of the Conference Committee which had to compromise the difference 
between Senate and House over our last very sapient piece of legislation concerning 
