Vereinigte

Sir, || Your note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the Ist Nr. 10362. September, inclosed a copy of a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, dated Staaten. the 2nd August, in reply to my note of the 30th June. || The consideration 17. Dec. 1890. advanced by his Lordship have received the careful attention of the President, and I am instructed to insist upon the correctness and validity of the position which has been earnestly advocated by the Government of the United States in defence of American rights in the Behring's Sea. || Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently complicated, are often found, after prolonged discussion, to depend on the settlement of a single point. Such, in the judg ment of the President, is the position in which the United States and Great Britain find themselves in the pending controversy touching the true construction of the Russo-American and Anglo-Russian Treaties of 1824 and 1825. 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's Sea. The United States contends, that the Behring's 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's 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's 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 com

*) Vgl. Bd. 52 Nr. 10132 bis Nr. 10188. Die nachfolgenden Documente sind entnommen den englischen Blaubüchern, United States Nr. 1 und 2 (1891), Nr. 2 (1892) und anderen Parlamentspapieren.

Staatsarchiv LVI.

1

Nr. 10362. plete and undeniable. The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the Vereinigte Staaten. phrase "north-west coast," or "north-west coast of America." Lord Salisbury 17.Dec. 1880. assumes, that the "north-west coast" has but one meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching northward to the Behring's Straits. The contention of this Government is, that by long prescription the "north-west coast" means the coast of the Pacific Ocean, south of the Alaskan Peninsula, or south of the 60th 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 42° to 60° north latitude. The Russian authorities for a long time assumed, that 59° 30' was the exact point of latitude; but subsequent adjustments fixed it at 60°. The phrase "northwest coast," or "north-west coast of America," has been well known and widely recognized in popular usage in England and America from the date of the first trading to that coast, about 1784*. So absolute has been this prescription, that the distinguished historian Hubert Howe Bancroft has written an accurate history of the north-west coast, which at different times, during a period of seventyfive years, was the scene of important contests between at least four Great Powers. To render the understanding explicit, Mr. Bancroft has illustrated the north-west coast by a carefully prepared Map. The Map will be found to include precisely the area which has been steadily maintained by this Government in the pending discussion.

The phrase "north-west coast of America" has not infrequently been used simply as the synonym of the "north-west coast"; but it has also been used in another sense as including the American coast of the Russian possessions as far northward as the Straits of Behring. Confusion has sometimes arisen in the use of the phrase "north-west coast of America"; but the true meaning can always be determined by reference to the context. || The Treaty between the United States and Russia was concluded on the 17th April, 1824, and that between Great Britain and Russia was concluded on the 28th February, 1825. The full and accurate text of both Treaties will be found in Inclosure (A). The Treaty between the United States and Russia is first in the order of time; but I shall consider both Treaties together. I quote the first Articles of each Treaty, for, to all intents and purposes, they are identical in meaning, though differing somewhat in phrase.

The Ist Article in the American Treaty is as follows:

"Article I. It is agreed, that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean or the South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained,

*The same designation obtained in Europe. As early as 1803, in a Map published by the Geographic Institute at Weimar, the coast from Columbia River (49o) to Cape Elizabeth (60°) is designated as the "Nord West Küste."

either in navigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, Nr. 10362. Vereinigte upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of Staaten. trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions and conditions deter- 17. Dec. 1890. mined by the following Articles."

The Ist Article in the British Treaty is as follows:

"Article I. It is agreed, that the respective subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested, in any part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives, under the restrictions. specified in the following Articles."

Lord Salisbury contends, that

"The Russian Government had no idea of any distinction between Behring's Sea and the Pacific Ocean, which latter they considered as reaching southward from Behring's Straits. Nor throughout the whole of the subsequent correspondence is there any reference whatever on either side to any distinctive name for Behring's Sea, or any intimation that it could be considered otherwise than as forming an integral part of the Pacific Ocean."

The Government of the United States cordially agrees with Lord Salisbury's statement, that throughout the whole correspondence connected with the formation of the Treaties there was no reference whatever by either side to any distinctive name for Behring's Sea, and for the very simple reason which I have already indicated, that the negotiation had no reference whatever to the Behring's Sea, but was entirely confined to a "strip of land" on the north-west coast and the waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent thereto. For future reference I call special attention to the phrase "strip of land." || I venture to remind Lord Salisbury of the fact that Behring's Sea was, at the time referred to, the recognized name in some quarters, and so appeared on many authentic Maps several years before the Treaties were negotiated. But, as I mentioned in my note of the 30th June, the same sea had been presented as a body of water separate from the Pacific Ocean for a long period prior to 1825. Many names had been applied to it; but the one most frequently used and most widely recognized was the Sea of Kamschatka. English statesmen of the period when the Treaties were negotiated had complete knowledge of all the geographical points involved. They knew, that on the Map published in 1784 to illustrate the voyages of the most eminent English navigator of the eighteenth century the "Sea of Kamschatka" appeared in absolute contradistinction to the "Great South Sea" or the Pacific Ocean. And the Map, as shown by the words on its margin, was "prepared by Lieutenant Henry Roberts under the immediate inspection of Capitain Cook." Twenty years before Capitain Cook's Maps appeared, the "London Magazine" contained a Map on which the Sea of Kamschatka was conspicuously engraved. At a still earlier date-even as far back as 1732-Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Russian

Vereinigte

Staaten.

Nr. 10362. expedition of Shestakoff in 1730 (who, even before Behring, sighted the land of the American continent), published the sea as bearing the name of Kam17. Dec. 1890. schatka. Muller, who was Historian and Geographer of the second expedition of Behring in 1741, designated it as the Sea of Kamschatka in his Map published in 1761. || I inclose a list of a large proportion of the most authentic Maps published during the ninety years prior to 1825 in Great Britain, in the United States, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Germany and Russiain all 105 Maps-on every one of which the body of water now known as Behring's Sea was plainly distinguished by a name separate from the Pacific Ocean. On the great majority it is named the Sea of Kamschatka, a few use the name of Behring, while several other designations are used. The whole number, aggregating, as they did, the opinion of a large part of the civilized world, distinguished the sea, no matter under what name, as altogether separate from the Pacific Ocean. (See Inclosure B.) || Is it possible, that with this great cloud of witnesses before the eyes of Mr. Adams and Mr. George Canning, attesting the existence of the Sea of Kamschatka, they would simply include it in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," and make no allusion whatever to it as a separate sea, when it was known by almost every educated man in Europe and America to have been so designated numberless times? Is it possible, that Mr. Canning and Mr. Adams, both educated in the common law, could believe that they were acquiring for the United States and Great Britain the enormous rights inherent in the Sea of Kamschatka without the slightest reference to that sea, or without any description of its metes and bounds, when neither of them would have paid for a village house lot unless the deed for it should recite every fact and feature necessary for the identification of the lot against any other piece of ground on the surface of the globe? When we contemplate the minute particularity, the tedious verbiage, the duplications and the reduplications employed to secure unmistakable plainness in framing Treaties, it is impossible to conceive that a fact of this great magnitude could have been omitted from the instructions written by Mr. Adams and Mr. G. Canning as Secretaries for Foreign Affairs in their respective countries-impossible that such a fact could have escaped the notice of Mr. Middleton and Count Nesselrode, of Mr. Stratford Canning and M. Poletica, who were the negotiators of the two Treaties. It is impossible, that, in the Anglo-Russian Treaty, Count Nesselrode, Mr. Stratford Canning and M. Poletica could have taken sixteen lines to recite the titles and honours they had received from their respective Sovereigns, and not even suggest the insertion of one line, or even word, to secure so valuable a grant to England as the full freedom of the Behring's Sea.

There is another argument of great weight against the assumption of Lord Salisbury that the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the Ist Article of both the American and British Treaties, was intended to include the waters

Vereinigte

of the Behring's Sea. It is true, that, by the Treaties with the United States Nr. 10362. and Great Britain, Russia practically withdrew the operation of the Ukase Staaten. of 1821 from the waters of the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean; but 17. Dec. 1890. the proof is conclusive, that it was left in full force over the waters of the Behring's Sea. Lord Salisbury cannot have ascertained the value of the Behring's Sea to Russia when he assumed that, in the Treaties of 1824 and 1825, the Imperial Government had, by mere inclusion in another phrase, with apparent carelessness, thrown open all the resources and all the wealth of those waters to the citizens of the United States and to the subjects of Great Britain.

Lord Salisbury has, perhaps, not thought it worth while to make any examination of the money value of Alaska and the waters of the Behring's Sea at the time the Treaties were negotiated and in the succeeding years. The first period of the Russian-American Company's operations had closed before the Ukase of 1821 was issued. Its affairs were kept secret for a long time, but are now accurately known. The money advanced for the capital stock of the Company at its opening in 1799 amounted to 1,238,746 roubles. The gross sales of furs and skins by the Company at Kodiak and Canton from that date up to 1820 amounted to 20,024,698 roubles. The net profit was 7,685,000 roubles for the twenty-one years-over 620 per cent. for the whole period, or nearly 30 per cent. per annum. || Reviewing these facts, Bancroft, in his "History of Alaska," a standard work of exhaustive research, says: "We find this powerful monopoly firmly established in the favour of the Imperial Government, many Nobles of high rank and several members of the Royal Family being among the shareholders."

And yet Lord Salisbury evidently supposes, that a large amount of wealth was carelessly thrown away by the Royal Family, the Nobles, the courtiers the capitalists and the speculators of St. Petersburgh in a phrase which merged the Behring's Sea in the Pacific Ocean. That it was not thrown away is shown by the transactions of the Company for the next twenty years. The second period of the Russian-American Company began in 1821 and ended in 1841. Within that time the gross revenues of the Company exceeded 61,000,000 roubles. Besides paying all expenses and all taxes, the Company largely increased the original capital, and divided 8,500,000 roubles among the shareholders. These dividends and the increase of the stock showed a profit on the original capital of 55 per cent. per annum for the whole twenty years-a great increase over the first period. It must not be forgotten, that, during sixteen of these twenty years of constantly increasing profits, the Treaties which, according to Lord Salisbury, gave to Great Britain and the United States equal rights with Russia in the Behring's Sea, were in full force. The proceedings which took place when the second period of the Russian-American Company was at an end are thus described in Bancroft's "History of Alaska":