Images de page
PDF
ePub

Article V of the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia reads

thus:

[See Vol. XII, page 41.]

The plain meaning of this Article is that neither party shall make Settlements within the limits assigned by Articles III and IV to the possession of the other. Consequently, Articles III and IV are of supreme importance as making the actual delimitations between the two countries, and forbidding each to form any estab lishments within the limits of the other.

Article VI of Russia's Treaty with Great Britain is as follows:

[See Vol. XII, page 41.]

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 demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III. As is plainly apparent, the coast referred to in Article III 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 Article III. 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 141st 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 Article VI, for in his despatch he says that the Article has a "restricted bearing," and refers only to "the line of coast described in Article III" (the italics are his own), and the only line of coast described in Article III is the const from 54° 40′ to 60°. There is no description of the coast above that point stretching along the Behring Sea from latitude 60° to the Straits of Behring.

Article VII of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, whose provisions have led to the principal contention between the United States and Great Britain, is as follows:

[See Vol. XII, page 41.]

[ocr errors]

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, &c., on the coast mentioned in Article III, 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 141st degree of west longitude; that, therefore, British subjects. were not granted the right of frequenting the Behring Sea.

Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says:

[ocr errors]

"I must further dissent from Mr. Blaine's interpretation of Article VII 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 coasts mentioned in Article III, for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives.' The expression coast mentioned in Article III' can only refer to the first words of the Article, the line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west shall be drawn,' &c., that is to say, it included all the possessions of the two Powers on the north-west 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 VI, which has a more restricted bearing, speaks only of the subjects of His Britannic Majesty' and ofthe line of coast described in Article III.'"

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 Article VI to the subjects of Great Britain are limited to "the coast described in Article III of the Treaty." But when he reaches Article VII, where the privileges granted are limited to "the coast mentioned in Article III of the Treaty," his Lordship maintains that the two references do not mean the same coast at all. The coast described in Article III and the coast mentioned in Article III are, therefore, in his Lordship's judgment, entirely different. The "coast described in Article III" is limited, he admits, by the intersection of the boundary-line with the 141st degree of longitude, but the "coast mentioned in Article III" stretches to the Straits of Behring.

Article III is, indeed, a very plain one, and its meaning cannot be obscured. Observe that the "line of demarcation" 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 141st 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 III was this strip of land south of 60° or 59° 30'.

The preamble closes by saying that the line of demarcation 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 const as far as their intersection with the 141st degree of longitude After having described this line of demarcation between the pessessions 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 demarcation 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 Articles VII and III, but to destroy their logical connection with the other Articles. In fact, Lord Salisbury's attempt to make two coasts out of the one coast referred to in Article III 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 (III, IV, V, VI, and VII) 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 1 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 Articles III and IV 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:

[See Vol. XII, page 598.]

It will be noted that in the British Treaty four Articles, with critical expression of terms, take the place of Articles III and IV 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 "north-west coast of America," as referred to in Articles III and IV. 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 III might, by construction adverse to Russia, include the Behring Sea among the seas and gulfs mentioned in Article IV. 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' diary, the 6th December, 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 North-West Coast Convention concluded last June by Mr. Middleton, were extremely dissatisfied (a jeté de hauts eris'), and, by means of their influence, had prevailed upon his Government to send him these instructions upon two points. One was that be 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 north-west 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:

[blocks in formation]

"Explanatory note to be presented to the Goverument 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 north-west coast of America to 59° 30′ of north latitude are positively excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing, and com merce stipulated in favour of citizens of the United States for ten 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 Iey Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in Article I of the Convention of the th April, 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 huut within the distance of two marine leagues. This will not prevent the reception of foreign vessels which have been damaged or beaten by storm."

« PrécédentContinuer »