382 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
Article III refers to the rights of the inhabitants. 
Article IV refers to the appointment of agents for the transfer of the territory and 
property ceded. 
Article V refers to the exchange of ratification. 
Article VI says . . . the cession of territory and dominion herein ‘‘ made 
is hereby declared to be free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, 
franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated Companies, whether corporate or 
incorporate, Russian or any other, or by any parties, except merely private indi- 
vidual property-holders; and the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, fran- 
chises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion, and 
appurtenances thereto.” 
No sea or dominion over any sea is among the things enumerated as ceded. No 
dominion over an open sea like Behring’s Sea could be claimed as a right ceded under 
Article VI, because Russia has limited these rights to such as belong to her, in the 
said territory or dominion and appurtenances thereto, and dominion over an open sea is 
not a right attaching to territory, nor is such a sea an appurtenance to territory. 
Mr. Felton tells us that it had been understood that the waters of Behring’s Sea 
and its ‘‘marine life were free to the ‘fishermen of all nations including ours’ [sic], 
there could have been no incentive on the part of our Government for its purchase 
at the price of oF 200,000 dollars. In any other view of the case, it would have been 
absurd. . 
That is, of course, a matter of opinion, and on it some may prefer the judgment of 
men like ‘Secretary Seward and Senator Sumner to that of Mr. Felton. But what is 
sure is, that these gentlemen would have left nothing at loose ends. They were the 
prime movers on our side in the transaction, and if they had thought that our bar- 
gain “‘ineluded exclusive dominion over Behring’s Sea,” they would have had express 
stipulations to that effet inserted in the Treaty, just as Secretary Seward is known 
tu have insisted on the insertion of the clause in Article VI (cited above) that ‘‘the 
territory was free and unencumbered,” &c. 
Now let me say a few words in support of my charges against Mr. Felton and his 
fellow-advocates of the seizures of manufacture of evidence, of suppressio veri, 
348 and suggestio falsi. I repeat that every allegation concerning important facts 
is more or less untrue, and every essential quotation more or less twisted and 
perverted. To expose all of these sins here is, of course, impossible, so I confine 
myself to a few examples. 
Take the opening assertion in Mr. Felton’s article: 
“The title of the United States to Alaska and the Behring’s Sea was acquired from 
Russia by the Treaty of Cession of 1868 [misprint for 1867], § in which she ceded and 
conveyed all the rights, franchises, [and] privileges now belonging to Russia in the 
ceded territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto;’ the same being contained 
within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:” followed by the description 
of them, as quoted by me above. Here a straightfor ward and honest quotation of 
Article I of the Treaty would at once have exposed the fallacy of the above assertion 
as regards Behring’s Sea, and so a little game of selecting and arranging suitable 
passages is resorted to. The most essential part of the par rticulars given in Article 
I, the enumeration of the territory and dominion ceded, is suppressed. For it is 
substituted something cut off from the end of Article VI the general covenants of 
secondary importance, usual in conveyances, which can be correctly interpreted only 
by reference to a preceding enumeration, and then comes the rest of Article I, the 
description of the geographical limits. The effect aimed at, and probably attained 
in the case of most readers, is to hide the true import of Article I, the simple state- 
ment that everything ceded was included within certain geographical limits, and to 
create instead the false impression that everything embraced within these limits 
was ceded; to create the false impression that as a large part of Behring’s Sea was 
situate w ithin these limits, such part of this sea was consequently also ceded and 
conveyed. 
In like manner Mr. Felton’s mere reference to, without proper quotations from 
our protests against Russia’s pretensions, destroys the emphasis, belittles and belies 
the scope of Secretary Adams’ categorical and all-embracing, ‘‘can admit no part of 
these claims.” 
Again, Mr. Felton’s assertion ‘‘that Russia, from her discovery of Behring’s Sea 
down to the cession to the United States, has controlled the navigation of its waters 
and the taking of its marine life. To this end her navy has patrolled it, and, in 
pursuance of her laws, taken, confiscated, and burned marauding vessels; she has 
since and is now pursuing the same policy on her part of Behring’s Sea,” is simply a 
glaring untruth. 
Mr. Felton does not, of course, cite any case of such confiscation, and none oc- 
curred; for since the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 Russia never interfered with foreign 
vessels ‘fishing i in those waters, though foreign whalers frequented them during the 
whole of the time referred to, and literally swarmed there by hundreds during the 
a 
