684 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
Baron Tuy] grounded this construction of the Treaty on the argument that “the 
coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and 
the Icey Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the Ist Article of the Conven- 
tion,” and that ‘‘the Aleutian Islands were also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka 
or Northern Ocean. 
He added that ‘‘it was not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation 
of the Pacific Ocean, and that she would be satisfied with causing to be recognized, 
as well understood and placed beyond all manner of doubt, the principle that beyond 
59° 30’ no vessel could approach her coasts and islands, nor fish or hunt within the 
distance of 2 marine leagues.”’* 
Mr. Adams, on being shown the draft of the note, stated to Baron Tuy] that, if it 
were presented, he should return an answer to the effect that ‘‘the construction of 
Treaties depending here upon the Judiciary Tribunals, the Executive Government, 
even if disposed to acquiesce in that of the Russian Government, as announced by 
him (Baron Tuyl), could not be [? make it] binding upon the Courts or upon this 
nation.” He went on to say that it would be much better not to present the note, 
as the United States merchants would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of 
Siberia or north of the 57th degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such 
fancies into their heads. 
The incident, therefore, shows nothing material to the present issue except that 
the Russian Minister attempted in a note, which has hitherto been kept secret, to 
argue that Behring’s Sea was not a part of the South Sea (a term which is not 
employed in the British Treaty), and that Mr. Adams stated that, even if the United 
States Government were disposed to acquiesce in this view, they could not bind the 
nation or the Courts to it. 
On the other hand, the Regulations of 1881, under which the American schooners 
“liza” and ‘‘ Henrietta” were seized by the Russian authorities, are headed: 
“Notice of Order relative to Commerce on Russian Pacific Coast: 
“Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, 
foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c., on the 
Russian coasts or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring’s Seas, or on the north-eastern 
coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary-line.” 
(Memorandum in Mr. Lothrop’s despatch to Mr. Bayard of the 7th March, 1882. 
Exec. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 271.) 
M. de Giers, in his subsequent note of the 8th May, 1882, speaks of these Regula- 
tions as ‘‘a notice published by our Consul at Yokohama relative to fishing, hunting, 
and to trade in the Russian waters of the Pacific.” (Ibid., p. 262.) 
Mr. Frelinghuysen also speaks of the matter as ‘‘touching the Pacific coast fisher- 
ies.” (Ibid., p. 258.) 
*Tt does not appear, however, that the proposed limit of 2 leagues was observed 
or enforced, for in 1868 the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, explaining the 
treatment of theAmerican sealer ‘‘ Java” in the Sea of Okhotsk, writes: 
“Considering that foreign sealers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the 
Russian gulfs and bays at a distance less than 3 miles -from the shore.” (M. West- 
mann to Mr. Clay, 3lst July, 1868, Ex. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, 
p. 253.) 
