584 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
of exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own behalf, and on that of the 
whole civilized world, protest. 
No specification of this sort is found in the Convention with the United States of 
America; and yet it cannot be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as 
secured in the right of navigating Behring’s Straits and the sea beyond them. 
It cannot be expected that England should receive as a boon that which the 
United States hold as a right so unquestionable as not to be worth recording. 
Perhaps the simplest course, after all, will be to substitute, for all that part of the 
“Projet” and ‘Contre-Projet” which relates to maritime rights, and to navigation, 
the first two Articles of the Convention already concluded by the Court of St. Peters- 
burgh with the United States of America, in the order in which they stand in that 
Convention. . 
Russia cannot mean to give to the United States of America what she withholds 
from us, nor to withhold from us anything that she has consented to give to the 
United States. 
The uniformity of stipulations in pari materia gives clearness and force to both 
arrangements, and will establish that footing of equality between the several Con- 
tracting Parties which it is most desirable should exist between three Powers whose 
interests come so nearly in contact with each other in a part of the globe in which 
no other Power is concerned. 
This, therefore, is what I am to instruct you to propose at once to the Russian 
Minister as cutting short an otherwise inconvenient discussion. 
This expedient will dispose of Article I of the ‘‘ Projet,” and of Articles V and VI 
of the ‘ Contre-Projet.” 
The next Articles relate to the territorial demarcation. 
® * ¥ * * * * 
With regard to the port of Sitka or New Archangel, the offer came originally from 
Russia, but we are not disposed to object to the restriction which she now applies 
to it. 
We are content that the port shall be open to us for ten years, provided only that 
if any other nation obtains a more extended term, the like term shall be extended 
to us also. 
We are content also to assign the period of ten years for the reciprocal liberty of 
access and commerce with each other’s territories, which stipulation may be best 
stated precisely in the terms of Article IV of the American Convention. 
These, I think, are the only points in which alterations are required by Russia, 
and we have no other to propose. 
A “ Projet,” such as it will stand according to the observations of this despatch is 
inclosed, which you will understand as furnished to you as a guide for the drawing 
up of the Convention; but not as prescribing the precise form of words, nor fetter- 
ing your discretion as to any alterations, not varying from the substance of these 
instructions. 
It will, of course, strike the Russian Plenipotentiaries that by the adoption of 
the American Article respecting navigation, &c., the provision for an exclusive 
fishery of two leagues from the coasts of our respective possessions falls to the 
round. 
. But the omission is, in truth, immaterial. The law of nations assigns the exclu- 
Sive sovereignty of one league to each Power off its own coasts, without any specific 
stipulation, and though Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to sign the Convention 
with the specific stipulation of two leagues, in ignorance of what had been decided 
in the American Convention at the time, yet, after that Convention has been some 
months before the world, and after the opportunity of reconsideration has been 
forced upon us by the act of Russia herself, we cannot now consent, in negotiating de 
novo, to a stipulation which, while it is absolutely unimportant to any practical 
good, would appear to establish a contract between the United States and us to our 
disadvantage. 
Count Nesselrode himself has frankly admitted that it was natural that we should 
expect, andreasonable that we should receive, at the hands of Russia, equal measure, 
in all respects, with the United States of America. 
It remains only, in recapitulation, to remind you of the origin and principles of 
this whole negotiation. 
532 It is not, on our part, essentially a negotiation about limits. It isa demand 
of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arrogation of exclusive juris- 
diction over an ocean of unmeasured extent; but ademand, qualified and mitigated 
in its manner, in order that its justice may be acknowledged and satisfied without 
soreness or humiliation on the part of Russia. 
We negotiate about territory to cover the remonstrance upon principle. 
But any attempt to take undue advantage of this voluntary facility we must 
oppose. 
