sions, was used in a territorial sense, and not in a geographical sense. He was drawing the distinction between the territory of "America" and the territory of the "Russian possessions." Mr. Adams did not intend to assert that these territorial rights of Russia had no existence on the continent of North America. He meant that they did not exist as the ukase of the Emperor Alexander had attempted to establish them—southward of the Aleutian peninsula and on that distinctive part of the continent claimed as the territory of the United States. "America" and the "United States were then, as they are now, commonly used as synonymous.

The Government of the United States has steadily maintained that in neither of these treaties with Russia was there any attempt at regulating or controlling, or even asserting an interest in, the Russian Possessions and the Behring Sea, which lie far to the north and west of the territory which formed the basis of the contention.

These treaties were therefore a practical renunciation, both on the part of England and the United States, of any rights in the waters of Behring Sea during the period of Russia's sovereignty. They left the Behring Sea and all its coasts and islands precisely as the ukase of Alexander in 1821 left them, that is, with a prohibition against any vessel approaching nearer to the coast than one hundred Italian miles, under danger of confiscation. The original ukase of Alexander (1821) claimed as far south as the fifty-first degree of north latitude, with the inhibition of one hundred miles from the coast applying to the whole.

But the one-hundred-mile restriction performed the function for which it was specially designed in preventing foreign nations from molesting, disturbing, or by any possibility sharing in the fur trade. The fur trade formed the principal, almost the sole, employment of the Russian-American Company.

It only remains to say that whatever duty Great Britain owed to Alaska as a Russian province, whatever she agreed to do, or to refrain from doing, touching Alaska and the Behring Sea, was not changed by the mere fact of the transfer to the United States. It was explicitly declared, in the sixth article of the treaty by which the territory was ceded by Russia, that "the cession hereby made conveys all the rights,

franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominions and appurtenances thereto." Neither by the treaty with Russia of 1825, nor by its renewal in 1843, nor by its second renewal in 1859, did Great Britain gain any right to take seals in Behring Sea. Foreign Relations, 1890, PP. 439, 440.

1890, Aug. 2.

PRIME-MINISTER SALISBURY TO MINISTER

PAUNCEFOTE.

You will state that Her Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring's Sea which was conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present possessors of Alaska in virtue of treaties or the law of nations; and that if the United States Government, after examination of the evidence and arguments which I have produced, still differ from them as to the legality of the recent captures in that sea, they are ready to agree that the question, with the issues that depend upon it, should be referred to impartial arbitration.-Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 465.

1890, Dec. 17. SECRETARY BLAINE TO MINISTER

PAUNCEFOTE.

Great Britain contends that the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaties, was intended to include, and does include, the body of water which is now known as the Behring Sea: The United States contends that the Behring Sea was not mentioned, or even referred to, in either treaty, and was in no sense included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean." If Great Britain can maintain her position that the Behring Sea at the time of the treaties with Russia of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean, the Government of the United States has no well-grounded complaint against her. If, on the other hand, this Government can prove beyond all doubt that the Behring Sea, at the date of the treaties, was understood by the three signatory Powers to be a separate body of water, and was not included in the phrase Pacific Ocean," then the American case against Great Britain is great and undeniable.

The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase "northwest coast," or "northwest coast of America." Lord

Salisbury assumes that the "northwest coast" has but one meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching northward to the Behring Straits. The contention of this Government is that by long prescription the "northwest coast" means the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of the Alaska Peninsula, or south of the sixtieth parallel of north latitude; or, to define it still more accurately, the coast from the northern border of the Spanish possessions, ceded to the United States in 1819, to the point where the Spanish claims met the claims of Russia, viz., from 420 to 60° north latitude. . . . Russia practically withdrew the operation of the ukase of 1821 from the waters of the northwest coast of the Pacific Ocean, but the proof is conclusive that it was left in full force over the waters of the Behring Sea. . . . It is easy to prove from other sources that in the treaty between the United States and Russia the coast referred to was that which I have defined as the "northwest coast" of the Pacific Ocean south of 60° north latitude, or, as the Russians for a long time believed it, 59° 30'. We have in the Department of State the originals of the protocols between our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. Henry Middleton, and Count Nesselrode, of Russia, who negotiated the treaty of 1824. . . . We feel justified in asking His Lordship if the Government of Great Britain has uniformly illustrated these precepts by example, or whether she has not established at least one notable precedent which would justify us in making greater demands upon Her Majesty's Government touching the Behring Sea than either our necessities or our desires have ever suggested. . . . Napoleon was promptly sent by Great Britain to the island of St. Helena as a prisoner for life. Six months after he reached St. Helena the British Parliament enacted a special and extraordinary law for the purpose of making his detention more secure. . . . The statute forbids them to "hover within eight leagues of the coast of the island." The penalty for hovering within eight leagues of the coast is the forfeiture of the ship to His Majesty the King of Great Britain, on trial to be had in London, and the offenses to be the same as if committed in the county of Middlesex.

...

The repeated assertions that the Government of the United States demands that the Behring Sea be pronounced mare

clausum, are without foundation. The Government has never claimed it and never desired it. It expressly disavows it. At the same time the United States does not lack abundant authority, according to the ablest exponents of International law, for holding a small section of the Behring Sea for the protection of the fur-seals. Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for the one specific purpose is by no means the equivalent of declaring the sea, or any part thereof, mare clausum. Nor is it by any means so serious an obstruction as Great Britain assumed to make in the South Atlantic, nor so groundless an interference with the common law of the sea as is maintained by British authority to-day in the Indian Ocean. -Foreign Relations, 1890, pp. 477, 480, 484, 496, 500. 1891, June 15. MODUS VIVENDI BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

1. Her Majesty's Government will prohibit, until May next, seal killing in that part of Behring Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in Article No. 1 of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, "and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects and vessels."

2. The United States Government will prohibit seal killing for the same period in the same part of Behring Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof, the property of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters of Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States, may be seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties for the same. . . .

4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty's Government may desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the case of that Government before arbitrators,

and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration may be arrived at, it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal islands during the present sealing season for that purpose.—Senate Executive Documents, 52 Cong., 1 Sess., No. 55, p. 46.

1892, Feb. 29. DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES IN THE SAYWARD CASE.

The record . . . shows that officers of the United States, acting under the advice of their Government, seized this vessel engaged in catching seal. . .

How did it happen that the officers received such orders? It must be admitted that they were given in the assertion on the part of this Government of territorial jurisdiction over Behring Sea to an extent exceeding fifty-nine miles from the shores of Alaska; that this territorial jurisdiction in the enforcement of the laws protecting seal fisheries was asserted by actual seizures during the seasons of 1886, 1887, and 1889 of a number of British vessels; that the Government persistently maintains that such jurisdiction belongs to it, based not only on the peculiar nature of the seal fisheries and the property of the Government in them, but also upon the position that this jurisdiction was asserted by Russia for more than ninety years, and by that Government transferred to the United States; and that investigations are pending upon the subject. . . .

In this case Her Britannic Majesty's attorney-general of Canada has presented, with the knowledge and approval of the · Imperial Government of Great Britain, a suggestion on behalf of the claimant. . . . We are not insensible to the courtesy implied in the willingness thus manifested that this court should proceed to a decision on the main question argued for the petitioner; . . . but it is very clear that, presented as a political question merely, it could not fall within our province to determine it.-Ex parte Cooper, 12 Supreme Court Reporter, 459,461. 1892, Feb. 29. AGREEMENT FOR AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN.

ARTICLE VI. In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators, it is agreed that the following five points shall be