680 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 
Mediterranean Sea; and yetin most Maps it will be found that to those 
portions of the larger sea a separate designation has been given. The 
question whether by the words “ Pacific Ocean” the negotiators meant 
to include or to exclude Behring’s Sea depends upon which locution 
was esteemed to be the correct usage at the time. The date is nota 
distant one, and there is no ground for suggesting that the usage has 
changed since the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 was signed. The 
determination of this point will be most satisfactorily ascertained by 
consulting the ordinary books of reference. I append to this despatch 
a list of some thirty works of this class, of various dates from 1795 
downwards, and printed in various countries, which combine to show 
that, in customary parlance, the words “ Pacific Ocean” do include 
Behring’s Sea. 
If, then, in ordinary language, the Pacific Ocean is used as a phrase 
including the whole sea from Behring’s Straits to the Antarctic Circle, it 
follows that the Ist Article of the Treaty of 1825 did secure to Great 
Britain in the fullest manner the freedom of navigation and fishing in 
Behring’s Sea. In that case no inference, however indirect or cir- 
cuitous, can be drawn from any omission in the language of that instru- 
ment to show that Great Britain acquiesced in the usurpation which 
the Ukase of 1821 had attempted. The other documents which I have 
quoted sufficiently establish that she not only did not acquiesce in it, 
but repudiated it more than once in plain and unequivocal terms; and 
as the claim made by the Ukase has no strength or validity except what 
it might derive from the assent of any Power whom it might affect, it 
results that Russia has never acquired by the Ukase any right to cur- 
tail the natural liberty of Her Majesty’s subjects to navigate or fish in 
these seas anywhere outside territorial waters. And what Russia did 
not herself possess she was not able to transmit to the United States. 
Her Majesty’s Government have, in view of these considerations, no 
doubt whatever that British subjects enjoy the same rights in Behring’s 
Sea which belong to them in every other portion of the open ocean; 
but it is, nevertheless, a matter of sincere satisfaction that the Presi- 
dent is willing to refer to arbitration what he conceives to be the mat- 
ters which have been under discussion between the two Governments 
for the last four years. In regard to the questions as they are proposed 
by Mr. Blaine, I should say that as to the first and second, no objection 
will be offered by Her Majesty’s Government. They are as follows: 
1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and 
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise 
prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States? 
2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and 
conceded by Great Britain? 
The third question is expressed in the following terms: ‘‘ Was the 
body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase 
‘Pacific Ocean,’ as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain 
and Russia; and what rights (if any) in the Behring’s Sea were given 
or conceded to Great Britain by the said Treaty?” 
Her Majesty’s Government would have no objection to referring to 
arbitration the first part of that question, if it should be thought desir- 
able to do so; but they would give that consent with the reservation 
that they do not admit that the decision of it can conclude the larger 
questions which the Arbitrator would have to determine. ‘To the latter 
part of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception: 
What rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain 
by the said Treaty? 
