Behring Sea. But Lord Salisbury refused to accept the proposal unless the President should "forthwith accept a formal arbitration which his Lordship prescribes. The President's request was made in the hope that it might lead to a friendly basis of agreement, and he cannot think that Lord Salisbury's proposition is responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the answer comes so late that it would be impossible now to proceed this season with the negotiation the President had desired. An agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration. The United States is perhaps more fully committed to that form of international adjustment than any other Power, but it cannot consent that the form in which arbitration shall be undertaken shall be decided without full consultation and conference between the two Governments. I beg further to say that you must have misapprehended what I said touching British claims for injuries and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon British vessels in the Behring Sea by agents of the United States. My declaration was that arbitration would logically and necessarily include that point. It is not to be conceded, but decided with other issues of far greater weight. Sir J. Pauncefote. I have, &c., JAMES G. BLAINE. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received MY LORD, August 25.) Magnolia, August 14, 1890. I HAD the honour to receive on the 11th instant your Lordship's despatch of the 2nd of this month, relating to the Behring Sea controversy, and I now beg to inclose herewith a copy of the note with which, in accordance with the instructions contained in that despatch, I forwarded a copy of the same to the Secretary of State. I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury. SIR, JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. (Inclosure.)-Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine. Magnolia, August 12, 1890. I TRANSMITTED without delay to the Marquess of Salisbury a copy of your note of the 30th June relating to the Behring Sea controversy, and in which you comment upon a despatch from his Lordship, dated the 22nd May, of which I had the honour to leave a copy with you. I have now received a despatch from Lord Salisbury, dated the 2nd August, in reply to those comments, and, in accordance with his Lordship's instructions, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of it and of its inclosures. You will observe that in the last paragraph, I am directed to state that Her Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring Sea which was conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or of the law of nations; and that if the United States' Government, after examination of the evidence and arguments which are produced in that despatch, still differ from them as to the legality of the recent captures in that sea, Her Majesty's Government are ready to agree that the question, with the issues that depend on it, should be referred to impartial arbitration. In that case I am authorized to consider, in concert with you, the method of procedure to be followed. J. G. Blaine, Esq. I have, &c., JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received MY LORD, December 30.) Washington, December 19, 1890. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith a printed copy of a note which I received on the 17th instant from the Secretary of State. It contains the reply of the United States' Government to your Lordship's despatch of the 2nd August last, offering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to submit to arbitration the question of the legality of the recent seizures of British sealing-vessels in the Behring Sea by United States' revenue cruisers. The voluminous character of this note precludes any attempt to give even a brief abstract of its contents within the limits of a despatch. Its main feature, however, is that while the United States' Government decline to submit to arbitration the real question in controversy, namely, the legality of the seizures of British vessels in the Behring Sea outside of territorial waters, they express their willingness to submit to arbitration certain historical and political questions which, in my humble opinion, would raise false issues, however pertinent they may be as supplying materials for argument in support of the American contention. For, even if all those questions were decided in favour of the United States, it would not follow that the seizures were justified, or that the claim of the United States to the control of any part of the Behring Sea outside of territorial waters could be supported by international law. I have, &c., The Marquess of Salisbury. JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. SIR, (Inclosure.)—Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote. Department of State, Washington, December 17, 1890. YOUR note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the 1st September, inclosed a copy of a despatch from the Marquess of Salisbury, dated the 2nd August, in reply to my note of the 30th June. The considerations 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 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 judgment 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 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 complete and undeniable. The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase "north-west coast," or "north-west coast of America." Lord Salisbury assumes that the "north-west 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 "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 "north-west 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 seventy-five 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 "northwest 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 1. 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. Article I in the American Treaty is as follows:— [See Vol. XII, page 597.] Article I in the British Treaty is as follows: [See Vol. XII, page 39.] Lord Salisbury contends that "The Russian Government had no idea of any distinction between Behring Sea and the Pacific Ocean, which latter they considered as * 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 (49°) to Cape Elizabeth (60°) is designated as the "Nörd West Kuste." † For map, see Parliamentary Paper C. 6253, 1891. reaching southward from Behring Straits. Nor throughout the whole of the subsequent correspondence is there any reference whatever on either side to any distinctive name for Behring 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 Sea, and for the very simple reason which I have already indicated, that the negotiation had no reference whatever to the Behring 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 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 Captain Cook." Twenty years before Captain Cook's Map 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 expedition of Shestakoff in 1739 (who, even before Behring, sighted the land of the American continent), published the sea as bearing the name of Kamschatka. 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 90 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 Sea was plainly distinguished by a name separate from the Pacific Ocean. On the great majority it is named the Sea of Kam |