762 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction us to the seal fisheries recognized and 
conceded by Great Britain? 
3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase 
“ Pacifie Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, 
and what rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea were held and exclusively exercised by 
Russia after said Treaty? 
2 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fish- 
eries in the Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between 
the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United 
States under that Treaty ? 
5. Has the United States any rights, and, if so, what right, of protection or prop- 
erty in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring’s Sea 
when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit? 
6. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such 
position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing Regula- 
tions for the killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters of Behring’s Sea, ‘then 
it shall be further “determined (1) how far, if at all, outside the ordinary territorial 
limits it is necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive 5 urisdiction 
in order to protect the seal for the time living upon the islands of the United States, 
and feeding therefrom? (2) whether a close season (during which the killing of seals 
in the waters of Behring’s Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be pro- 
hibited) is necessary to save the seal-fishing industry, so valuable and important to 
mankind, from deterioration or destruction; and, if so, (3) what months or parts of 
months should be included in such season, and over what waters it should extend? 
The President does not object to the additional question respecting alleged dam- 
ages to English ships proposed by Lord Salisbury, if one condition can be added, 
namely, that after the issues of the arbitration are joined, if the United States shall 
prevail, all the seals taken by Canadian vessels during the period shall be paid for 
at the ordinary price for which skins aresold. ‘This seems to the President to be the 
complement of Lord Salisbury’s proposition, and he doubts not that it will secure 
his Lordship’s assent. In the first paragraph of Lord Salisbury’s despatch of the 
21st February he makes the following declaration: 
“Tt is now quite clear that the advisers of the President do not claim Behring’s 
Sea as mare clausum, and, indeed, that they repudiate that contention in express 
terms.” 
Lord Salisbury’s expression is put in such form as to imply (whether he so 
intended I know not) that the United States had hitherto been resting its conten- 
tion upon the fact that the Behring’s Sea was mare clausum. If that was his inten- 
tion, it would have been well for his Lordship to specify wherein the United States 
ever made the assertion. The emphatic denial in my despatch of the 17th Decem- 
ber last was intended to put an end to the iteration of the charge, aid to eliminate 
it from the current discussion. 
Lord Salisbury complains that I did not deal with certain protests, written by 
Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington in 1822, which he had before quoted. 
If he will recur to the 26th and 27th pages of my despatch of the 17th December, he 
will observe that I specially dealt with these; that I maintained, and, I think, 
proved from the text that there was not a single word in those protests referring to 
the Behring’s Sea, but that they referred, in the language of the Duke of Welling- 
ton of the 17th October, 1822, only to the lands ‘‘extending along the shores of the 
Pacific Ocean from latitude 49° to latitude 60° north. In the first paragraph of 
Lord Londonderry’s protest of the 18th January, 1822, addressed to Count Lieven, 
of Russia, he alluded to the matters in dispute as ‘especially connected with the 
territorial rights of the Russian Crown on the north-west coast of America border- 
ing on the Pacific Ocean, and the commerce and navigation of His Imperial Majesty’s 
subjects in the seas adjacent thereto.” From those and other pertinent facts it is 
evident that the protests of Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington had 
nothing whatever to do with the points now in issue between the American and 
British Governments concerning the waters of the Behring’s Sea. ‘They both referred 
in different, but substantially identical phrases, to the fterritor y south of the Alas- 
kan Peninsula bordering on the Pacific, and geographically shut out from the Beh- 
ring’s Sea. I regret that my arguments on a “point which Lord Salisbury considers 
of ereat importance should have Pescaped his Lordship’s notice. In Lord Salisbury’s 
judgment the contention of the United States now rests wholly upon the Ukase of 
1821 by the Emperor Alexander J of Russia. The United States has at no time 
rested its arguments solely on the ground mentioned, and this Government regrets 
that Lord Salisbury should have so misapprehended the American position as to 
limit its basis of right in the Behring’s Sea to the Ukase of 1821. The United 
States has, among other grounds, insisted, without recurring to any of its inherited 
and superior rights i in Alaska, that this Gov ernment has as full authority for going 
beyond the 3- mile line in case of proved necessity as Great Brifain possesses. 
