os 
APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 53 
First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Russia. After Russia, 
at the instance of the “Russian American Fur Company, claimed in 182 
the pursuits of conmerce, whaling, and fishing from Behring’s Straits 
to the 51st degree of north latitude, and not only prohibited all foreign 
vessels from landing on the coasts and islands of the above w aters, 
but also prevented them from approaching within 100 miles thereof, 
Mr. Quincy Adams wrote as follows to the United States Minister in 
Russia: 
The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation and 
fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times through- 
out the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary exceptions 
and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions. 
That the right of fishing thus asserted included the right of killing 
fur-bearing animals is shown by the case of the United States brig 
“Loriot.”. That vessel proceeded to the waters over which Russia 
claimed exclusive jurisdiction tor the purpose of hunting the sea-otter, 
the killing of which is now prohibited by the United States Statutes 
applicable to the fur-seal, and was forced to abandon her voyage and 
leave the waters in eso by an armed vessel of the Russian navy. 
Mr. Forsyth, writing on the case to the American Minister at St. Peters- 
burgh on the 4th May, 1857, said: 
It is a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States, immemorially 
exercised and secured to them as well by the law of nations as by the stipulations 
of the Ist Article of the Convention of 1824, to fish in those seas, and to resort to 
the coast for the prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already 
occupied, 
From the speech of Mr. Sumner when introducing the question of 
the purchase of Alaska to Congress, it is equally clear that the United 
States Government did not regard themselves as purchasing a monop- 
oly. Having dealt with fur-bearing animals, he went on to treat of 
fisheries, and, atter alluding to the presence of different species of 
whales in the vicinity of the Aleutians, said: ““No sea is now mare 
clausum; all of these may be pursued by a ship under any flag, except 
directly on the coast or within its territorial limit.” 
I now come to the statement that from 1867 to 1886 the possession 
was enjoyed by the United States with no interruption and no intru- 
sion from any source. Her Majesty’s Government cannot but think 
that Mr. Blaine has been misinformed as to the history of the opera- 
tions in Behring’s Sea during that period. 
The instances recorded in Inclosure 1 in this despatch are 
464 sufficient to prove, from official United States sources, that from 
1867 to 1886 British vessels were engaged at intervals in the 
fur-seal fisheries, with the cognizance of the United States Govern- 
ment. I will here, by way of example, quote but one. 
In 1872 Collector Phelps reported the fitting-out of expeditions in 
Australia and Victoria for the purpose of taking seals in Behring’s 
Sea, while passing to and from their rookeries on St. Paul and St. 
George Islands, and recommended that a steam-cutter should be sent 
to the region of Ounimak Pass and the Islands of St. Paul and St. 
George. 
Mr. Secretary Boutwell informed him, in reply, that he did not con- 
sider it expedient to send a cutter to interfere with the operations of 
foreigners, and stated, ‘In addition, I do not see that the United 
States would have the jurisdiction or power to drive off parties going 
up there for that purpose, unless they made such attempt within a 
marine league of the shore.” 
BS, PT V——s3 
