640 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
The Protocols, however, show that Great Britain was willing to agree to the 2 
marine leagues, but the United States was not; and, after the concession was made 
to the United States, Mr. G. Canning insisted upon its being made to Great Britain 
also. 
In the interview between the American Secretary -of State and the Russian Minis- 
ter, in December 1824, it is worth noting that Mr. Adams believed that the applica- 
tion made by Baron Tuyl had its origin ‘‘in the apprehension of the Court of Russia 
which had been caused by an interest not very friendly to the good understanding 
between the United States and Russia.” I presume no one need be told that the 
reference here made by Mr. Adams was to the Government of Great Britain; that 
the obvious effort of the British Government at that time was designed to make it 
certain that the United States should not have the power in the waters and on the 
shores of Behring’s Sea which, Lord Salisbury now argues, had undoubtedly been given 
both to the United States and Great Britain by the Treaties. 
It is to be remembered that Mr. Adams’ entire argument was to quiet Baron Tuyl 
with the assurance that the Treaty already negotiated was, in effect, just what the 
Russian Government desired it to be by the incorporation of the ‘explanatory note” of 
which Baron Tuyl was the bearer. Mr. Adams was not a man to seize an advantage 
merely by cunning construction of language which might have two meanings. He 
was determined to remove the hesitation and distrust entertained for the moment 
by Russia. He went so far, indeed, as to give an assurance that American ships 
would not go above 57° north latitude (Sitka), and he did not want the text of the 
Treaty so changed as to mention the facts contained in the explanatory note, because, 
speaking of the hunters and the fishermen, it ‘‘ was wisest not to put such fancies 
into their heads.” 
It is still further noticeable that Mr. Adams, in his sententious expression, spoke 
of the Treaty in his interview with Baron Tuyl as ‘the North-West Coast Conven- 
tion.” This closely descriptive phrase was enough to satisfy Baron Tuy] that Mr. 
Adams had not takgn a false view of the true limits of the Treaty, and had not 
attempted to extend the privileges granted to the United States a singleinch beyond 
their plain and honourable intent. 
The three most confident assertions made by Lord Salisbury, and regarded by him 
as unanswerable, are, in his own lauguage, the following: 
1. That England refused to admit any part of the Russian claim asserted by the 
Ukase of 1821 of a maritime jurisdiction and exclusive right of fishing throughout 
the whole extent of that claim, from Behring’s Straits to the 51st parallel. 
2. That the Convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renunciation on 
the part of Russia of that claim in its entirety. 
3. That, though Behring’s Straits were known and specifically provided for, Beh- 
Ting’s Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as a part of the Pacific 
Ocean. 
The explanatory note of the Russian Government disproves and denies in detail 
these three assertions of Lord Salisbury. I think they are completely dis- 
51 proved by the facts récited in this despatch, but the explanatory note is a 
specific contradiction of each one of them. 
The inclosures whick accompanied Lord Salisbury’s despatch, and which are 
quoted to strengthen his arguments, seem to me to sustain, in a remarkable manner, 
the position of the United States. The first inclosure is a despatch from Lord Lon- 
donderry to Count Lieven, Russian Minister at London, dated Foreign Office, the 
18th January, 1822. The first paragraph of this despatch is as follows: 
“The undersigned has the honour to acknowledge the note addressed to him by 
Baron de Nicolai of the 12th September last, covering a copy of a Ukase issued by 
his Imperial Master, Emperor of all the Russias, bearing date the 4th September, 
1821, for various purposes therein set forth, especially connected with the territorial 
rights of his Crown on the north-west coast of America bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and 
he commence and navigation of His Imperial Majesty’s subjects in the seas adjacent 
thereto.’ 
It is altogether apparent that this despatch is limited to the withdrawal of the 
provisions of the Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander, especially connected with 
the territorial rights on the north-west coast bordering on the Pacific Ocean. Evidently 
Lord Londonderry makes no reference, direct or indirect, to the Behring’s Sea. The 
whole scope of his contention, as defined by himself, lies outside of the field of the 
present dispute between the British and American Governments. This Government 
heartily agrees with Lord LGondonderry’s form of stating the question. 
‘The Duke of Wellington was England’s Representative i in the Congress of Verona, 
for which place he set “out i in the autumn of 1822. His instructions from Mr. G. Can- 
ning, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, followed the precise line indicated by 
