608 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
part of it.” Thus, Calvo states that the result of the Treaty of 1824, between Russia 
and the United States, was to secure freedom of navigation and fishery ‘‘dans toute 
Vétendue de Océan Pacifique” (vol. i, p. 415, 4th edit.). The United States Govern- 
ment cannot seriously contend that Behring’s Sea was not a part of the Pacific Ocean in 
the contemplation of Mr. Adams, for not only was the term ‘‘ Behring Sea” unknown 
at the time of the Treaty of 1824, but even in the Treaty of Cessionof Alaska of the 
20th June, 1867, the Island of Attou and Copper Island (of the Kormandorski group) 
are described as being in the ‘‘North Pacific Ocean.” Moreover, in 1842, Russia 
refused to interfere with the operations of American whalers in Behring’s Sea when 
pressed to do so by the Russian American Company, 6n the ground that the Treaty 
of 1824 gave to American citizens the right of fishing ‘‘over the whole extent of the 
Pacific Ocean.”* Indeed, since the Treaty of 1824, and that with Great Britain of 
1825, Russia has never attempted to exercise maritime jurisdiction over foreign ves- 
sels in Behring’s Sea outside of the territorial waters. This alone should dispose of 
the claim of the United States to exercise such jurisdiction within 100 miles of the 
coast of Alaska, for it purports to have been derived from Russia in 1867, while it 
was renounced by Russia herself in 1824. 
As regards the right of fishery which flows from the right of navigation, Calvo, in 
his work on International Law (4th edition, § 357), cites the claim of Denmark to the 
Greenland fisheries, based on long usage and on recognition by Treaties. Although 
she reduced her claim to seventy-five miles from the coast the other nations refused 
to admit her pretentions, on the ground that as no nition can acquire by usage or by 
Treaty any property in the high seas, therefore no nation can extend the limits of its 
territorial waters. Calvo adds: 
‘Si de pareilles dérogations aux principes universellement reconnus ont lieu, c’est 
quwelles sont dictées par un intérét maritime de premier ordre, notamment l’exploi- 
tation de péches cOtiéres d’une nature exceptionnelle, des banes d’huitres ou autres 
coquillages; il faut qu’elles se renferment dans la limite de Vobjet spécial qui les a 
fait adopter; et elles ont besoin pour devenir obligatoires, Wétre sanctionnées par des 
Conventions expresses et écrites.” 
J.P. 
IN No. 13. 
Admiralty to Foreign Ofjice.—( Received October 7.) 
ADMIRALTY, October 4, 1890. 
Sir: Tam commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty 
to transmit, for the perusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, an extract of a letter from the Commander-in-chief on the 
Pacific Station, dated the LOth September, reporting the return of the 
sealing-schooners from Behring’s Sea. 
My Lords desire me to call particular attention to paragraph 6 of 
Rear-Admiral Hotham’s letter, in which it is stated that two-thirds of 
the catch consisted of female seals, showing the necessity of some 
agreement to prevent the extermination of a valuable fishery. 
Tam, &c. 
(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR. 
[Inclosure in No 13.—Extract.] 
Rear-Adniral Hotham to Admiralty. 
“WARSPITE,” AT ESQUIMALT, September 10, 1890. 
? ? ep , 
I have to request you will bring to the notice of the Lords Commissioners of the 
Admiralty this letter with reference to my telegram of the 8th instant. 
I personally saw the masters of the sealing-schooners named below, and obtained 
from them the information herein reported: 
Captain C. Cox, schooner “ Sapphire.” 
* Bancroft’s ‘‘ History of the Pacific States,” vol. xxviii, p. 583. 
