It is evident, therefore, without further statement, that neither the vessels of the United States nor of Great Britain nor of any other power than Russia had traded on the shores of Behring Sea prior to the negotiations of these treaties. No more convincing proof could be adduced that these treaties had reference solely to the waters and coasts of the continent south of the Alaskan peninsula-simply the "Pacific Ocean" and the "northwest coast" named in the treaties.

The third article of the British treaty, as printed in the British State papers, is as follows:

The line of demarkation between the possessions of the high contracting parties, upon the coast of the continent, and the islands of America to the northwest, shall be drawn in the manner following:

Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40′ north latitude, and between the one hundred and thirty-first and the one hundred and thirty-third degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the fiftysixth degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarkation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection the said meridian line of the one hundred and forty-first degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and the British possessions on the continent of America to the north west.

It will be observed that this article explicitly delimits the boundary between British America and the Russian possessions. This delimitation is in minute detail from 54° 40′ to the northern terminus of the coast known as the northwest coast. When the boundary line reaches that point (opposite 60° north latitude) where it intersects the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude, all particularity of description ceases. From that point it is projected directly northward for 600 or 700 miles without any reference to coast line, without any reference to points of discovery or occupation (for there were none in that interior country), but simply on a longitudinal line as far north as the Frozen or Arctic Ocean.

What more striking interpretation of the treaty could there be than this boundary line itself? It could not be clearer if the British negotiators had been recorded as saying to the Russian negotiators:

"Here is the northwest coast to which we have disputed your claimsfrom the fifty-first to the sixtieth degree of north latitude. We will not, in any event, admit your right south of 54° 40'. From 54° 40′ to the point of junction with the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude we will agree to your possession of the coast. That will cover the dispute between us. As to the body of the continent above the point of intersection at the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude, we know nothing, nor do you. It is a vast unexplored wilderness. We have no settlements there, and you have none. have, therefore, no conflicting interests with your Government. The simplest division of that territory is to accept the prolongation of the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude to the Arctic Ocean as the boundary. East of it the territory shall be British. West of it the territory shall be Russian."

And it was so finally settled.

Article 4 of the Anglo-Russian treaty is as follows:

We

With reference to the line of demarkation laid down in the preceding article it is understood:

First. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.

Second. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by "a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom."

The evident design of this article was to make certain and definite the boundary line along the line of coast, should there be any doubt as to that line as laid down in article 3. It provided that the boundary line, following the windings of the coast, should never be more than ten marine leagues therefrom.

The fifth article of the treaty between Great Britain and Russia reads thus:

It is moreover agreed, that no establishment shall be formed by either of the two parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding articles to the possessions of the other. Consequently, British subjects shall not form any establishment either upon the coast, or upon the border of the continent, comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions, as designated in the two preceding articles; and, in like manner, no establishment shall be formed by Russian subjects beyond the said limits.

The plain meaning of this article is that neither party shall make settlements within the limits assigned by the third and fourth articles to the possession of the other. Consequently, the third and fourth articles are of supreme importance as making the actual delimitations between the two countries and forbidding each to form any establishments within the limits of the other.

The sixth article of Russia's treaty with Great Britain is as follows: It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall forever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course toward the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarkation upon the line of coast described in article 3 of the present convention.

The meaning of this article is not obscure. The subjects of Great Britain, whether arriving from the interior of the continent or from the ocean, shall enjoy the right of navigating freely all the rivers and streams which, in their course to the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarkation upon the line of coast described in article three. As is plainly apparent, the coast referred to in article three is the coast south of the point of junction already described. Nothing is clearer than the reason for this provision. A strip of land, at no point wider than ten marine leagues, running along the Pacific Ocean from 54° 40′ to 60° (320 miles by geographical line, by the windings of the coast three times that distance) was assigned to Russia by the third article. Directly to the east of this strip of land, or, as might be said, behind it, lay the British possessions. To shut out the inhabitants of the British possessions from the sea by this strip of land would have been not only unreasonable, but intolerable, to Great Britain. Russia promptly conceded the privilege, and gave to Great Britain the right of navigating all rivers crossing that strip of land from 54° 40' to the point of intersection with the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude. Without this concession the treaty could not have been made. I do not understand that Lord Salisbury dissents from this obvious construction of the sixth article, for, in his dispatch, he says that the article has a "restricted bearing," and refers only to "the line of coast described in article three" (the italics are his own)-and the only line of coast described in article three is the coast from 54° 40′ to 60°. There is no

description of the coast above that point stretching along the Behring Sea from latitude 600 to the straits of Behring.

The seventh article of the Anglo-Russian treaty, whose provisions have led to the principal contention between the United States and Great Britain, is as follows:

It is also understood, that for the space of ten years from the signature of the present convention the vessels of the two powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in article 3, for the purposes of fishing and of trading with the natives.

In the judgment of the President the meaning of this article is altogether plain and clear. It provides that for the space of ten years the vessels of the two powers should mutually be at liberty to frequent all the inland seas, etc., "on the coast mentioned in article 3, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives." Following out the line of my argument and the language of the article, I have already maintained that this privilege could only refer to the coast from 54° 40' to the point of intersection with the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude; that, therefore, British subjects were not granted the right of frequenting the Behring Sea.

Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says:

I must further dissent from Mr. Blaine's interpretation of article 7 of the latter treaty (British). That article gives to the vessels of the two powers "liberty to frequent all the inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in article 3, for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives." The expression "coast mentioned in article 3" can only refer to the first words of the article, "the line of demarkation between the possessions of the high contracting parties upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the northwest shall be drawn," etc.; that is to say, it included all the possessions of the two powers on the Northwest coast of America. For there would have been no sense whatever in stipulating that Russian vessels should have freedom of access to the small portion of coast which, by a later part of the article, is to belong to Russia. And, as bearing on this point, it will be noticed that article 6, which has a more restricted bearing, speaks only of "the subjects of His Britannic Majesty" and of "the line of coast described in article 3." It is curious to note the embarrassing intricacies of His Lordship's language and the erroneous assumption upon which his argument is based. He admits that the privileges granted in the sixth article to the subjects of Great Britain are limited to "the coast described in article 3 of the treaty." But when he reaches the seventh article, where the privileges granted are limited to "the coast mentioned in article 3 of the treaty," His Lordship maintains that the two references do not mean the same coast at all. The coast described in article 3 and the coast mentioned in article 3 are therefore, in His Lordship's judgment, entirely different. The "coast described in article 3" is limited, he admits, by the intersection of the boundary line with the one hundred and fortyfirst degree of longitude, but the "coast mentioned in article 3" stretches to the straits of Behring.

The third article is, indeed, a very plain one, and its meaning can not be obscured. Observe that the "line of demarkation" is between the possessions of both parties on the coast of the continent. Great Britain had no possessions on the coast-line above the point of junction with the one hundred and forty-first degree, nor had she any settlements above 60° north latitude. South of 60° north latitude was the only place where Great Britain had possessions on the coast-line. North of that point her territory had no connection whatever with the coast either of the Pacific Ocean or the Behring Sea. It is thus evident that the only coast referred to in article 3 was this strip of land south of 60° or 59° 30′. The preamble closes by saying that the line of demarkation between the possessions on the coast "shall be drawn in the manner following,"

viz: From Prince of Wales Island, in 54° 40′, along Portland Channel and the summit of the mountains parallel to the coast as far as their intersection with the one hundred and forty-first degree of longitude. After having described this line of demarkation between the possessions of both parties on the coast, the remaining sentence of the article shows that, "finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on the continent of America." South of the point of intersection the article describes a line of demarkation between possessions on the coast; north of that point of intersection the article designates a meridian line as the limit between possessions on the continent. The argument of Lord Salisbury appears to this Government not only to contradict the obvious meaning of the seventh and third articles, but to destroy their logical connection with the other articles. In fact, Lord Salisbury's at tempt to make two coasts out of the one coast referred to in the third article is not only out of harmony, with the plain provisions of the Anglo-Russian treaty, but is inconsistent with the preceding part of his own argument.

These five articles in the British treaty (the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh) are expressed with an exactness of meaning which no argument can change or pervert. In a later part of my note I shall be able, I think, to explain why the Russian Government elaborated the treaty with Great Britain with greater precision and at greater length than was employed in framing the treaty with the United States. It will be remembered that between the two treaties there was an interval of more than ten months-the treaty with the United States being negotiated in April, 1824, and that with Great Britain in February, 1825. During that interval something occurred which made Russia more careful and more exacting in her negotiations with Great Britain than she had been with the United States. What was it?

It is only necessary to quote the third and fourth articles of the American treaty to prove that less attention was given to their consideration than was given to the formation of the British treaty with Russia. The two articles in the American treaty are as follows:

ARTICLE III.-It is moreover agreed that, hereafter there shall not be formed by the citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any establishment upon the northwest coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent, to the north of 54° 40' of north latitude; and that, in the same manner, there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.

ART. IV.—It is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, counting from the signature of the present convention, the ships of both powers, or which belong to their citizens or subjects, respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned in the preceding article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country.

It will be noted that in the British treaty four articles, with critical expression of terms, take the place of the third and fourth articles of the American treaty, which were evidently drafted with an absence of the caution on the part of Russia which marked the work of the Russian plenipotentiaries in the British negotiation.

From some cause, not fully explained, great uneasiness was felt in certain Russian circles, and especially among the members of the Russian American Company, when the treaty between Russia and the United States was made public. The facts leading to the uneasiness were not accurately known, and from that cause they were exaggerated.

The Russians who were to be affected by the treaty were in doubt as to the possible extent implied by the phrase "northwest coast of America," as referred to in the third and fourth articles. The phrase, as I have before said, was used in two senses, and they feared it might have such a construction as would carry the American privilege to the straits of Behring. They feared, moreover, that the uncertainty of the coast referred to in article 3 might, by construction adverse to Russia, include the Behring Sea among the seas and gulfs mentioned in article four. If that construction should prevail, not only the American coast, but the coast of Siberia and the Aleutian coasts might also be thrown open to the ingress of American fishermen. So great and genuine was their fright that they were able to induce the Russian Government to demand a fresh discussion of the treaty before they would consent to exchange ratifications.

It is easy, therefore, to discern the facts which caused the difference in precision between the American and British treaties with Russia, and which at the same time give conclusive force to the argument steadily maintained by the Government of the United States. These facts have thus far only been hinted at, and I have the right to presume that they have not yet fallen under the observation of Lord Salisbury. The President hopes that after the facts are presented the American contention will no longer be denied or resisted by Her Majesty's Government.

Nearly eight months after the Russo-American treaty was negotiated, and before the exchange of ratifications had yet taken place, there was a remarkable interview between Secretary Adams and the Russian minister. I quote from Mr. Adams's diary, December 6, 1824:

6th, Monday.-Baron Tuyl, the Russian minister, wrote me a note requesting an immediate interview, in consequence of instructions received yesterday from his Court. He came, and, after intimating that he was under some embarrassment in executing his instructions, said that the Russian-American Company, upon learning the purport of the northwest coast convention concluded last June by Mr. Middleton, were extremely dissatisfied (a jeté de hauts cris), and, by means of their influence, had prevailed upon his Government to send him these instructions upon two points. One was that he should deliver, upon the exchange of the ratifications of the convention, an explanatory note purporting that the Russian Government did not understand that the convention would give liberty to the citizens of the United States to trade on the coast of Siberia and the Aleutian Islands. The other was to propose a modification of the convention, by which our vessels should be prohibited from trading on the northwest coast north of latitude 57°. With regard to the former of these points he left with me a minute in writing.

With this preliminary statement Baron Tuyl, in accordance with instructions from his Government, submitted to Mr. Adams the following note:

EXPLANATORY NOTE FROM RUSSIA.

Explanatory note to be presented to the Government of the United States at the time of the exchange of ratifications, with a view to removing with more certainty all occasion for future discussions; by means of which note it will be seen that the Aleutian Islands, the coasts of Siberia, and the Russian Possessions in general on the northwest coast of America to 59° 30′ of north latitude are positively excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipulated in favor of citizens of the United States for ter years.

This seems to be only a natural consequence of the stipulations agreed upon, for the coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the first article of the convention of April 5-17 [1824]. The Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka, or Northern Ocean.

It is not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean. 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 foreign vessel can approach her coasts and her islands, nor fish or hunt within the dis tance of two marine leagues. This will not prevent the reception of foreign vessels which have been damaged or beaten by storm.