inal natives on the north-west coast beyond the degree of 54° 40′ north latitude. This proposition, if established, is unquestionably fatal to the pretensions of the master and owners of the "Loriot." It bears, however, an aspect so detrimental to the interests of his countrymen, and to their attributes as an independent Power, is so inconsistent with the past policy and principles of the American Cabinets, and is withal of such minor importance to the prosperity and greatness of Russia, that the Undersigned trusts its want of solid foundation will, on further reflection, be apparent and confessed.

The avowed objects of the Convention between the United States and His Imperial Majesty were "to cement the bonds of amity which unite them, and to secure between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect concord. The means of attaining these invaluable ends were embodied in its Articles. There is first a mutual and permanent agreement, declaratory of their respective rights, without disturbance or restraint, to navigate and fish in any part of the Pacific Ocean, and to resort to its coasts upon points which may not already have been occupied, in order to trade with the natives. These rights pre-existed in each, and were not fresh liberties resulting from the stipulation. To navigate, to fish, and to coast, as described, were rights of equal certainty, springing from the same source, and attached to the same quality of nationality. Their exercise, however, was subjected to certain restrictions and conditions, to the effect that the citizens and subjects of the Contracting Sovereignties should not resort to points where establishments existed without obtaining permission; that no future establishments should be formed by one party north, nor by the other party south, of 54° 40′ north latitude, but that, nevertheless, both might, for a term of ten years, without regard to whether an establishment existed or not, without obtaining permission, without any hindrance whatever, frequent the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks, to fish and trade with the natives. This short analysis leaves, on the question at issue, no room for construction.

15

The view taken by his Excellency Count Nesselrode rests upon the provision last referred to, contained in the IVth Article of the Convention. Of this it is essential to fix the true character. Does its limitation of ten years apply to the broad national right of resorting to unoccupied points of the coast? If it do not, the position taken is untenable. That it does not would seem to be a conclusion of the gravest as of the lightest scrutiny.

The renunciation of a prerogative so high and important, if designed, would not have been left to mere inference from a disjointed paragraph, but would have been distinctly expressed in immediate connection with its first statement. No motive can possibly be assigned for permitting an intended abandonment of such a right, formally declared in the Ist Article, to lurk unseen in the varied language of the IVth Article.

The power of resorting to unoccupied points of the coast existed in perpetuity by the laws of nations, and is so enunciated in the Ist Article. To declare it afterwards to exist for ten years would be to insert a clause idle and without effect, providing for the temporary enjoyment of what had been previously pronounced permanent. But the interpretation of every instrument must be such as will, if possible, give substance and utility to each of its parts. Applied to points of the coast already occupied, the IVth Article takes effect as a temporary exception to the perpetual prohibition of the IInd Article, and the only consequence of the expiration of the term to which it is limited is the revival and continued operation of that prohibition.

In employing, in the IVth Article, the descriptive words "interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks," there is a departure from the comprehensive phraseology of the Ist Article, which is only to be explained by the fact that another idea was to be expressed. Nor is it difficult to understand what was really meant. The bonds of amity and perfect concord, which it was so desirable to cement and invariably maintain, would have been endangered, in peculiar localities, as to which doubts might naturally arise whether they were embraced in the Ist or the IInd Article. If, however, at their openings, or upon their commanding highlands, or on their shores, an occupied point or establishment existed, it was thought expedient to let them take character from that incident, without any nice measurement of its range or influence, at the expiration of ten years; and, accordingly, the IVth Article, avoid ing too sudden a check of the actual account of trade, put a limit of time upon the liberty to frequent such places.

The Undersigned submits that in no sense can the IVth Article be understood as implying an acknowledgment on the part of the United States of the right of Russia to the possession of the coast above the latitude of 54° 40' north. It must, of course, be taken in connection with the other Articles, and they have, in fact, no reference whatever to the question of the right of possession of the unoccupied parts. To prevent future collisions it was agreed that no new establishment should be formed by the respective parties to the north or south of the parallel mentioned; but the question of the right of possession beyond the existing establishments, as it stood previous to, or at the time of, the Convention, was left untouched.

By agreeing not to form new establishments north of latitude 54° 40', the United States made no acknowledgment of the right of Russia to the territory above that line. If such an admission had been made, Russia, by the same construction of the Article referred to, must have equally acknowledged the right of the United States to the the territory south of the parallel. But that Russia did not so understand the Article is conclusively proved by her having entered into a similar agreement in her subsequent Treaty of 1825 with Great Britain, and having in that instrument acknowledged the right of possession of the same territory by Great Britain.

The United States can only be considered inferentially as having acknowledged the right of Russia to acquire, above the designated meridian, by actual occupation, a just claim to unoccupied lands. Until that actual occupation be taken, the Ist Article of the Convention recognizes the American right to navigate, fish, and trade, as prior to its negotiation. Such is esteemed the true construction of the Convention, the construction which both nations are interested in affixing, as the benefits are equal and mutual, and the great object is secured of removing the exercise of a common right from the danger of becoming a dispute about exclusive privileges.

At the hazard of proving tedious, the Undersigned has thus endeav oured to convey to his Excellency Count Nesselrode the views suggested by his recent communication.

The Government of the United States is ardent and uniform in its anxiety to cherish with that of Russia the most friendly relations; in the reciprocation of this sentiment the fullest confidence is felt. The citizens and subjects of the two countries, meeting only with feelings. of cordiality and for purposes of mutual advantage, are rapidly reaping the fruits of a wise and beneficent international policy. Every year enlarges the sphere of their commercial intercourse, discloses the identity

of their interests, and strengthens their ties of amity. In the persuasion that the enlightened councils of His Imperial Majesty will join with the American authorities in every effort consistent with the honour and rights of their respective nations to rescue this condition of things from all danger of interruption, the Undersigned earnestly invites a reconsideration of the ground upon which the claim of the owners of the "Loriot" has been dismissed.

With a consoling hope as to the result, he begs, &c.

16

(Signed)

No. 12.

G. M. DALLAS.

Mr. Seward to Mr. Clay.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 24, 1868. SIR: I recur on this occasion to my despatch No. 273, which related to alleged hostile demonstrations of a Russian armed vessel against a United States whaling vessel in the Sea of Okhotsk. That communication was grounded upon mere rumour, which furnished no details, and was supported by no evidence. Prince Gortchacow, in his reply, answered substantially that the Russian Government had no information of the alleged conflict, and had given no orders or directions under which any hostile demonstrations could have been made.

At last I have received details, which, however, are very limited, and testimony which is very incomplete. This subsequent information is contained in a despatch of Morgan L. Smith, Esq., United States Consul at Honolulu, which is accompanied by a deposition made by Manuel Enos, master of the American bark "Java."* In brief, Mr. Enos' statement presents the following facts, namely, that on the 27th July, while he was cruizing for whales in Shantar Bay, and standing towards Silas Richard's bluff, a Russian armed vessel came towards him, apparently under full steam, hoisted its flag, and threw open its ports. An officer from that Russian vessel went on board of the "Java," and ordered Captain Enos immediately on board the Russian steamer. The Russian Commander demanded to know the business of the United States vessel there. Captain Enos answered that his business was whaling, whereupon the Russian Commander ordered Captain Enos to leave the bay within twenty-four hours, under a threat of taking Captain Enos with his vessel to Nicolawasky, or blowing him out of the water, as the Russian Captain should think proper. Captain Enos replied that he had whaled in those bays for the last seventeen years, and had never heard of any one being driven out, or of any purpose of excluding whalers. Captain Enos thereupon immediately left Shantar Bay.

Captain Enos further says that he afterwards learned from some of the crew of the American bark "Endeavour" that they, knowing nothing of the trouble, went into the same place (Shantar Bay) a few days afterwards, and that their boats were fired into by the same vessel before mentioned, and that they were commanded to leave the bays by threats to the same effect with those which had been made against Captain Enos. The Consul transmitting this statement says that he has been unable to procure the name of either the Russian vessel or her Com

* For these papers, see Diplomatic Correspondence, 1868, p. 468.

mander; that he is informed by the master of the English bark "Cobang" that some Finns, subjects of the Czar, have a whaling-station there, keeping two schooners in the bay, and having their trying works on shore. If we were at liberty to assume these special statements to be true, and if we were not assured by the Russian Government that the transactions complained of occurred not only without its knowledge, but without any authority, we should in that case have reason for profound concern.

As the matter stands, with the possibility that similar armed hostile demonstrations may be made on the same quarter, there is reason to apprehend that discontent will arise, and perhaps conflict may occur between citizens of the United States and the subjects of Russia in the Sea of Okhotsk. Nothing could be more inconvenient than such difficulties at the present moment, as I am well assured nothing could be more sincerely deprecated by the Russian Government.

You will give a copy of this communication to Prince Gortchacow, and of its accompaniments, Consul Smith's despatch and Captain Enos' deposition, and invite Prince Gortchacow to give his attention to the same at his reasonable convenience.

I am, &c.,

(Signed)

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

No. 13.

Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Hoffman.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, March 7, 1882.

SIR: I inclose copies of letters from the Treasury, and a copy of a letter from Messrs. Lynde and Hough, of San Francisco, to the Secretary of the Treasury, touching the Pacific coast fisheries. This latter communication states that, according to late news, "foreign vessels must receive an order from the Governor of Siberia, besides paying duties of 10 dollars per ton on all fish caught in Russian waters," which they say would be ruinous to their business. In view of the above, I have to ask that you will make immediate inquiry on this subject, and report the facts. If a brief telegram will furnish information of value to our fishermen in this regard, you can send one.

17

I am, &c.

(Signed)

FREDK. T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 13.]

Mr. Folger to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 2, 1882.

SIR: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd ultimo, transmitting a copy of a despatch of the 21st November last from the Minister of the United States at Tokió, Japan, with its inclosure, relative to the Notice given by the Russian Consul at Yokohama in reference to the licensing of foreign vessels trading, hunting, or hing on the Asiatic coast of Russia.

I have to inform you that this Department has issued Circular instructions to Collectors of Customs and others at every port throughout the country, to which the Russian Consul's Notice is subjoined, dated the 30th January, 1882, and I inclose herewith six copies of the Circular.

Very respectfully,

(Signed)

CHAS. J. FOLGER.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 13.]

CIRCULAR TO UNITED STATES COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.

Permit required for Hunting, Trading, and Fishing on Russian Coasts of the Okhotsk and Behring Seas.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

To Collectors of Customs and others:

Washington, D. C., January 30, 1882.

The subjoined Notice by the Russian Consul at Yokohama, that American vessels are not allowed, without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, "to carry on hunting, trading, fishing, &c., on the Russian coasts, or islands in the Okhotsk or Behring Seas, or on the north-eastern coast of Asia, or within the sea-boundary line," is published by the Department for the information of American ship-masters interested.

It will be observed that the Russian Order took effect on the 1st January, 1882. CHAS. J. FOLGER, Secretary

(Signed)

[Inclosure 3 in No. 13.]

Notice issued by Russian Consul at Yokohama.

At the request of the local authorities of Behring and other islands, the Undersigned hereby notifies that the Russian Imperial Government publishes, for general knowledge, the following:

1. Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c., on the Russian coast or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring Seas, or on the northeastern coast of Asia, or within their sea-boundary line.

2. For such permits or licences, foreign vessels should apply to Vladivostok, exclusively.

3. In the port of Petropaulovsk, though being the only port of entry in Kamtchatka, such permits or licences shall not be issued.

4. No permits or licences whatever shall be issued for hunting, fishing, or trading at or on the Commodore and Robben Islands.

5. Foreign vessels found trading, fishing, hunting, &c., in Russian waters, without a licence or permit from the Governor-General, and also those possessing a licence or permit who may infringe the existing bye-laws on hunting, shall be confiscated, both vessels and cargoes, for the benefit of the Government. This enactment shall be enforced henceforth, commencing with A. D. 1882.

6. The enforcement of the above will be intrusted to Russian men-of-war, and also to Russian merchant-vessels, which, for that purpose, will carry military detachments and be provided with proper instructions.

(Signed)

A. PELIKAN,
His Imperial Russian Majesty's Consul.

18

YOKOHAMA, November 15, 1881.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 13.]

Mr. Folger to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, February 24, 1882. SIR: I have the honour to inclose herewith, for such action in the case as you may deem proper, a letter from Messrs. Lynde and Hough, of San Francisco, California, stating that they are extensively engaged in the Pacific coast cod fisheries, and that they will fit out their vessels to sail about the 1st May next in that enterprise, in which they have never been molested; but they now learn that foreign vessels must receive an order from the Governor of Siberia, besides pay a duty of 10 dollars per ton on all fish caught in Russian waters, which, if sustained, will be ruinous.

Very respectfully,