380 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
the waters of Alaska, The positions held by Mr. Felton led the “Argonaut” to say 
of him that he is thoroughly conversant with the subject, a belief probably shared 
by many who are themselves ignorant of if, and who will therefore accept his ‘‘state- 
ment of the facts” as reliable and perfectly conelusive. 
There are, however, others, and they are not few in number, whose investigations 
of this question have proved to them that the facts connected therewith are diamet- 
rically opposed to those alleged by Mr. Felton, and who have consequently arrived 
at an entirely different conclusion. 
Mr. Felton’s plea is not new in itself, and it does not gain by his wayof stating it, 
which is confused and often unintelligible. The line of argumentation followed is 
that now forced upon the special pleaders in vindication of these seizures, by the 
fact that the theory originally advanced, of Behring’s Sea being by international 
law a closed sea, has been too thoroughly exploded to leave it available any longer. 
They therefore try to argue thatif itis nota closed sea by international law, it isa closed 
sea by international acquiescence! And then, remembering the showman’s hint that, 
though a leopard cannot change his spots, you can do it for him with a brush and a 
little paint, they set to work to manufacture corroborative evidence. By dint of 
judicious suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, they get up a semblance of proof, well 
calculated to impose upon the public, a good enough Morgan until after exposure. 
Meanwhile the one end, never lost sight of, is gained. ‘The seizures go on, foreign 
competition is as least checked, and the Alaska Commercial Company is “‘ protected” 
as far as possible. 
In order that your readers may clearly understand the points at issue between the 
defenders of the seizures and those who condemn them, let me summarize these 
points. 
The hypothesis of the defenders is, that in settling the controversy arising out of 
Russia’s pretensions of 1821, a discrimination was made between Pacific Ocean and 
Behring’s Sea; that while the high seas (all outside of the customary 3-mile shore 
belt) of the Pacific were declared free to all the contestants, the high seas of Behring’s 
Sea were acknowledged to be under Russia’s ‘“‘exclusive dominion;” that this exclu- 
sive dominion was never denied nor questioned by any Power, was always maintained 
by Russia, and finally was made over by her to us, so far as it concerned our part of 
Behring’s Sea; that consequently our title to such dominion is unimpeachable. 
The argument of the opponents of seizures, on the other hand, is that there was 
no discrimination made between the Pacific and Behring’s Sea, and that there was 
no cail nor excuse for any, as they are identical in all that constitutes either an 
346 open or a closed sea, the only two kinds of sea which international usage and 
law recognize; that the absence of the term ‘‘ Behring’s Sea” from all the docu- 
ments is perfectly natural, because that name is of more modern origin than the date 
of those papers, and because the parties to the controversy followed the safe and well- 
established custom of using only the common nomenclature of the times, which did 
not include the name “ Behring’s Sea;” that all the waters of the present Behring’s 
Sea were then, and now are, considered by all authorities on geography as belonging 
to, and forming part of, the Pacific Ocean; that consequently the stipulations of the 
Treaties of 1824 and 1825, declaring freedom of navigation and fishery in any part 
of the Pacific, apply to every part of Behring’s Sea, and are binding on all the nations 
which signed these Treaties; that Russia never after the date of these Treaties 
asserted or claimed any jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea, and never afterwards inter- 
fered with the fishing by the vessels of other nations in its waters; and last, but not 
least, that Russia never ceded nor pretended to cede to us any sea or dominion of any kind 
over any sea whatsoever. 
The defenders of the seizures do not produce, or even allege that there exists, any 
direct documentary proof of the pretended discrimination between Pacific Ocean and 
Behring’s Sea, or of any acknowledgment, in express terms, of Russia’s exclusive 
dominion. Neither do they offer any reason for this discrimination—this making 
fish of one and fowl of the other,—nor do they show any object that was to be 
gained by us by this abandonment of our_rights under international law to the free 
use of Behring’s Sea. Per contra, the opponents do bring ample proof, drawn from 
official documents, in support of every point in their arguments, as will now be 
shown. A collection of these documents, in convenient form, has recently been pub- 
lished, as Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 106, 50, C. 2'S., from which I will quote. (In support of 
the assertion that the question of navigation and fishery was treated as concerning 
the whole of the Pacific, without discrimination between its different parts. ) 
(P. 210.) Secretary Adams’ letter, July 22, 1823, to our Minister at St. Peters- 
burgh, summarizes the Russian claim as extending to ‘‘an exclusive territorial juris- 
diction from the 45th degree of north latitude, on the Adriatic coast, to the latitude 
of 51° north, on the western coast of the American Continent; and they assume the 
right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all other nations to the extent 
of 100 miles from the whole of that coast.” 
“The United States can admit no part of these claims.” 
