tt 
APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 607 
by certain passages in Mr. John Quincy Adams’ despatches relating to 
the Russian Ukase of 1821, which do not appear in the correspondence 
on the subject laid before Congress in 1889, but which seem to me to 
confirm in a remarkable way the views expressed in your Lordship’s 
despatch of the 2nd August. 
Tam, &e. 
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. 
{Inclosure in No. 12.] 
Note on Mr. Blaine’s Interpretation of Mr. J. Quincy Adams’ Despatch to Mr. Middleton 
of July 22, 1823. 
Mr. Blaine, in his note of the 30th June, 1890, argues at great length to show that 
Mr. Adams, in his despatch to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1823, did not dispute 
the claim of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction over that part of the Pacific Ocean now 
known as Behring’s Sea, but that he only protested against the Imperial Ukase of 
1821 so far as it related to the claim of Russia to territorial dominion on the con- 
tinent of America south of the 55th parallel, and to exclusive maritime jurisdiction 
south of the Aleutian Islands. : 
It is to be regretted that in the printed correspondence relating to the Imperial 
Ukase of 1821, presented to Congress in i889, certain passages trom Mr. Adams’ 
despatches should have been omitted, as they are absolutely fatal to Mr. Blaine’s 
contention. 
In the first place, in a paper accompanying Mr. Adams’ instructions to Mr. Middle- 
ton (but which paper does not appear in the printed correspondence above referred 
to), the following passage occurs with reference to Russia’s claim of maritime juris- 
diction from Behring’s Strait to 45°50’ on the Asiatic coast and to 51 on the American 
coast: 
“The right of navigation and of fishing in the Pacific Ocean, even on the Asiatic 
coast north of latitude 45°, can as little be interdicted to the United States as that 
of traffic with the natives of North America.” 
President Angell, whocites the above passage in his article inthe Forumof Novem- 
ber 1889, makes the following comment upon it: 
“ After reading such language from Mr. Adams, can any one doubt what his answer 
would have been to a proposition by Russia to concede that the Pacific south 
16 of the 55th parallel was an open sea, but that the part north of it formed a 
close sea over which she had exclusive jurisdiction ? ” 
An equally important passage is also omitted in the correspondence presented to 
Cougress. It is to be found in the despatch addressed by Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush, 
the United States Minister in London, inclosing copies of his instructions to Mr. 
Middleton, and directing him to confer freely on the subject with the British Gov- 
ernment, both Governments being united against the Imperial Ukase of 1821. This 
despatch, which is of even date with the instructions to Mr. Middleton (22nd July, 
1823), is referred to by Dr. Dana at p. 97 of his 8th edition of Wheaton’s ‘ Inter- 
national Law” (note on the Monroe doctrine appended to section 67), for the purpose 
of showing that the paternity of the Monroe doctrine belongs to Mr. Adams. But 
it has an important bearing on the point raised by Mr. Blaine, as it contains a clear 
and contemporaneous exposition by Mr. Adams himself of his views in relation to 
the freedom of navigation of the Pacific Ocean in its entirety. 
In this despatch Mr. Adams, after contending that the entire continent was closed 
to any new establishment by any European Power, proceeds as follows: 
“A necessary consequence of this state of things will be that the American Con- 
tinents henceforth will no longer be subject to colonization. Occupied by civilized 
nations, they will be accessible to Europeans and each other on that footing alone, 
and the Pacific Ocean, in every part of it, will remain open to the navigation of all 
nations in like manner with the Atlantic.” 
Mr, Blaine, in his note of the 30th June, observes that Mr. Adams, at an interview 
with Baron Tuylin July 1823, had foreshadowed the doctrine which four months 
later was asserted by President Monroe, in his Annual Message to Congress. But he 
makes no allusion to the passage above cited from Mr. Adams’ despatch to Mr. Rush, 
probably because it is omitted from the text of the despatch, as printed at p. 212 of 
the Correspondence presented to Congress. It appears to me to confirm in a remark- 
able way the view of historians and jurists, that the purpose of Mr, Adams’ despatch 
to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1823, was not only to oppose the territorial claim 
of Russia, but to vindicate the freedom of navigation of the Pacific Ocean ‘in every 
