Justification of all nations to be declared incompetent to prevent wrongs so obvious and so destructive? seizures. Lord Salisbury again introduces ukase. "In the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea is not lawlessness. Nor can the law of the sea, and the liberty which it confers, and which it protects, be perverted to justify acts which are immoral in themselves, which inevitably tend to results against the interests and against the welfare of mankind."1 These were the questions involved, according to the view of the Government of the United States. But, notwithstanding the clear manner in which they were presented, and the explicit statement of Mr. Blaine that the right of the United States to protect the seal does not depend upon the nature of their sovereignty over the waters of Bering Sea, Lord Salisbury in his note of May 22, 1890,2 again recurs to that subject by quoting Mr. Adams's protest against the ukase of 1821, relying thereon to establish the right of British subjects to fish and hunt throughout Bering Sea outside the three-mile limit, which right, granting it to exist, Mr. Blaine had already stated, would not afford the requisite justification.3 1 Appendix to Case of the United States, Vol. I, p. 200. sought interna It thus appears that at the inception of this United States controversy the United States asserted no right tional agreement. to sovereignty over Bering Sea, but sought the concurrence of Great Britain in an international agreement for the protection of the seals, and that it was not until after this effort had failed, on account of the opposition of the Canadian Government,' that the Government of the United States undertook a reply to Lord Salisbury's assertion that the treaties of 1824 and 1825 with Russia precluded it from protecting the seals in Bering Sea beyond the three-mile limit. It was in this manner that the first four questions stated in the Treaty of Arbitration were raised. It is not intended to say that they did not occupy a prominent place in the diplomatic correspondence, but only to point out that, long before they had arisen, the other and more important issues submitted to this Tribunal had been the subject of elaborate discussion between the two Governments. THE ERRONEOUS TRANSLATIONS OF CERTAIN RUSSIAN DOCUMENTS. ticed upon United Sometime after the United States Govern- Imposition pracment had delivered its Case to the Agent of Her States GovernBritannic Majesty, it learned that an imposition 1 Appendix to Case of the United States, Vol. I, pp. 215, 216, 218. ment. Imposition prac- had been practiced upon it by a faithless official, ticed upon United ment. States Govern- and that it had relied on certain translations of Russian documents made by him, appearing in the first volume of the Appendix to its Case, which translations had in reality been falsified to a considerable extent. Notice of this was immediately given to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty, and as soon as possible he was furnished with specifications of the false translations and with revised translations of those documents which the United States now retain as a part of their Case.1 Copies of the revised translations and of the notes sent by the Agent of the United States to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty in connection with this matter have already been delivered to each of the Arbitrators. Partial restatement of its Case necessary. Some evidence which the United States Government had relied on, to prove that for many years prior to the time of the cession of Alaska Russia had prohibited the killing of fur-seals in the waters frequented by them in Bering Sea, thus turns out to be untrue; and it now becomes necessary for the United States to restate, in part, their position in respect to some of the questions submitted to this Tribunal. In so doing they will at the same time introduce such criticisms upon, or rebutting evidence to, the British Case as may seem to be called for. 1 Post, pp. 151-174. THE SITUATION ABOUT BERING SEA AND ON THE 1824-'5. nial system. Russia appears to have first definitely asserted Russia s coloher rights to the territory surrounding Bering Sea, and to the Northwest Coast of America bordering upon the Pacific Ocean, in the ukase of 1799. It was clearly the intention of the Russian Government, as manifested both by this ukase and by its subsequent action down to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States, to maintain a strict colonial system in the regions above mentioned. And the records show that down to a period as late as 1867, the year of the cession of Alaska, Russia persisted in this policy, although the control she exercised over those distant regions was not always vigilant enough to prevent a certain amount of unlawful trade with the natives from being carried on there in disregard of her prohibition. The ukase of 1799 was directed against for- Ukase of 1799. eigners. Upon this point a quotation is given from a letter from the Russian American Company to the Russian Minister of Finance under date of June 12, 1824, as follows: "The exclusive right granted to the Company in the 1799 imposed the prohibition to trade in those year 1 A facsimile of this document was delivered to the British Government on November 12, 1892. Ukase of 1799. regions, not only upon foreigners but also upon Russian subjects not belonging to the Company. Chapter I of British Case. Distinction be tween Bering Sea This prohibition was again affirmed and more clearly defined in the new privileges granted in the year 1821, and in the regulations concerning the limits of navigation." This interpretation of the ukase of 1799 is sustained by the subsequent history of those same regions. In Chapter I of the British Case an endeavor is made, however, to show that under the ukase of 1799 Russia reserved to the Russian American Company no exclusive rights as against foreigners, and that for many years prior to 1821 the waters affected by the ukase had been freely used for all purposes by vessels of all nations. This is sought to be made out by treating the waters of Bering Sea and those adjoining the Northwest Coast of America as a single area;1 and numerous instances are referred to in which portions of this area, namely, the shores and waters of the American coast east and south of Kadiak, were visited by foreigners for trade with the natives. The territories and waters which the British region and Pacific Case thus confounds the United States have Ocean. carefully distinguished, and they take issue with Her Majesty's Government upon the point that 1 British Case, p. 13. |