!>m 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-S) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 ■^itt IIIIIM 
 I m 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 w 
 
 ^r 
 
 
 /A 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 iV 
 
 ^ 
 
 <v 
 
 ,1>^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 o^ 
 
 
 %^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.V 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4S0J 
 
<° MP. 
 
 '^\y 
 
 ^ 
 
 xP 
 
 C/j 
 
 <^ 
 
 <<,• 
 
 <^ 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproiJuctions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be biMiographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 □ 
 
 P 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the tcixt. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted Irom filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 filmdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentdires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vje bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 n 
 
 v/ 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolordes, tachetees ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages d6tach§es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 r~~] Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Quality in6gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition av&ilable/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont dt6 film^es d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce it la 
 g67i6rosit6 de: 
 
 Douglas Library 
 Queen's University 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are flimcd 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or Illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la netteti de l'exemplaire filmi, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 fllmage. 
 
 Les exemplalres originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimte sont fiim6s en commengant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film^s an commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, 11 est film6 A partir 
 de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 i: 1 : 
 
 2. 
 
 i 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
^m^vtan 
 
 mi\tt& 
 
 COLONIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 ALBERT BUSHNELL HART and EDWARD CHANNING, 
 
 OF Harvard University. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 A. LOVELL & CO. 
 
 Published Bi- Monthly. Annual Subscription , y:> cents. 
 
 Entered at the New York Postoffice as second-class matter. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 November, 1892. 
 
 Price, 5 Cents. 
 
 Copyright, 1893, by A. Lovell & Co. 
 EXTRACTS FROM 
 
 OFFICIAL PAPERS RELATING 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BERING SEA CONTROVERSY. 
 1790-1892. 
 
 Four serious international controversies have arisen out of the rival 
 claims of Russia, Great Britain, Spain, and the United States to the shores 
 and waters of the northwest coast of the continent of North America. 
 The first of these was in consequence of an attempt of the Spanish Gov- 
 ernment, in 1 790, to prevent the British from trading with the natives of 
 that coast. It was settled by the Nootka Sound Convention of October 
 28, 1790, by which the subjects of both powers enjoyed equal privileges 
 of trade to all points not already occupied. 
 
 The second controversy was the result of an attempt of Russia in 1821 
 to prohibit England and the United States from trading anywhere north 
 of the fifty-first parallel, or to approach within one hundred Italian miles 
 of the coast. Both governments energetically protested and secured 
 treaties in 1824 and 1825, by which they retained the right of fishing and 
 of landing on unoccupied points of that coast. 
 
 The third controversy was as to the division of the coast between 
 Great Britain and the United States, Spain having by the treaties of 
 1824 and 1825 accepted the parallel of 54° 40' as her southern boundary. 
 The rival claims of the two remaining powers, after long diplomatic dis- 
 
 l 
 
cussion, were settled by the treaty of July 17, 1846, according to which 
 the parallel of 49° was made the dividing line. 
 
 By the treaty of March 30, 1867, with Russia, all the dominions and 
 claims of that country on the continent of North America and the outly- 
 ing islands thereof were transferred to the United States. A further, and 
 still pending, controversy arose in 1886 through the seizure by United 
 States vessels of Canadian vessels engaged in the taking of seals in waters 
 not far distant from the Aleutian Islands. The claim of the United States 
 was that it had acquired from Russia exclusive rights in Behring Sea, at 
 least with regard to seal fishing. The British Government representing 
 the Canadians denied that there could be ajiy exclusive rights outside 
 three miles off shore. .By an agreement of February 29, 1892, the ques- 
 tion has been submitted to arbitration. 
 
 The principal authorities on this subject are : Charles B. Elliott, The 
 United States and Northwestern Fisheries, Minneapolis, 1887; Stephen 
 B. Stanton, The Behring Sea Controversy, New York, 1892 ; the official 
 correspondence to be found in connection with the following messages 
 of the President: — April 15, 1822, American State Papers, Foreign Rela- 
 tions, IV., 851-864, — December 13, 1824, American State Papers, Foreign 
 Relations, V., 432--471, — February 12, 1889, Senate Executive Documents, 
 joth Congress, sa Session, No. 106, and also Foreign Relations for 1888, — 
 June 23, 1890, House Executive Doctunents, ^ist Congress, ist Session, 
 No. 450, and also Foreign Relations for i8go, — June 6, 1891, House 
 Executive Documents, jist Congress, 2d Session, No. 144, — March 8, 
 1892, Senate Executive Documents, J2d Congress, jst Session, No. 55, — 
 March 23, 1892 {pamphlet). 
 
 I 
 
 1790, Oct. 28. 
 
 ' 1 
 
 ■ \ 
 
 V 
 
 y ' ■ 
 
 NooTKA Sound Convention between 
 England and Spain. 
 
 Article III. . . . Between the two contracting parties it is 
 agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed nor 
 molested, either in navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the 
 Pacific Ocean, or in the South Seas, or in landing on the coasts 
 of those seas, in places not already occupied, for the purpose of 
 carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, or 
 of making settlements there : the whole subject, nevertheless, 
 to the restrictions and provisions specified in the three follow- 
 ing articles : 
 
 Article IV. His Britannic majesty engages to take the 
 most effectual measures to prevent the navigation and fishery 
 of his subjects in the Pacific Ocean, or in the South Seas, from 
 being made a pretext for iUicit trade with the Spanish settle- 
 ments ; and, with this view, it is moreover expressly stipulated, 
 that British subjects shall not navigate or carry on their fishery 
 
in the said seas within the space of ten sea leagues from any 
 part of the coasts already occupied by Spain. — Annual Hegis- 
 ter, 1790, p. 304. 
 
 1793, Nov. 8. 
 
 Secretary Jefferson 
 French Minister. 
 
 TO Mr. Genet, 
 
 The greatest distance to which any respectable assent among 
 nations has been at any time given, has been the extent of the 
 human sight, estimated at upwards of twenty miles ; and the 
 smallest dista ce, I believe, claimed by any nation whatever, 
 is the utmost range of a cannon-ball^ usually stated at one sea 
 league. — \^h3X\.on, I)igest of the Ijtternational Law of the U. S., 
 I. § 32, p. 100. 
 
 1796, Sept. 2. 
 
 Secretary Pickering to the Governor 
 OF Virginia. 
 
 Our jurisdiction has been fixed (at least for the purpose of 
 regulating the conduct of the Government in regard to any 
 events arising out of the present European war) to extend 
 three geographical miles (or nearly three and a half English 
 miles) from our shores, with the exception of any waters or 
 bays which are so land-locked as to be unquestionably within 
 the jurisdiction of the United States, be their extent what they 
 may. — Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the U. S.j 
 I. §32, p. 100. 
 
 1799. Ukase of Emperor Paul of Russia. 
 
 [The text has not been found in the correspondence. The 
 Marquis of Salisbury, in a dispatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote 
 of Aug. 2, i8qo, says of it:] 
 
 It appears ir-jm the published papers that in 1799 the Em- 
 peror Paul I. granted by charter to the Russian-American 
 Company the exclusive right of hunting, trade, industries, and 
 discoveries of new land on the northwest coast of America, 
 from Behring's Strait to the fifty-fifth degree of north latitude, 
 with permission to the company to extend their discoveries to 
 the south and to form establishments there provided they did 
 not encroach upon the territory occupied by other powers. 
 
 Jhe southern limit thus provisionally assigned to the cpn)- 
 
pany Cx,.xesponds, within twenty or thirty miles, with that 
 which was eventually agreed upon as the boundary between 
 the British and Russian possessions. It comprises not only 
 the whole American coast of Behring's Sea, but a long reach 
 of coast line to the south of the Alaskan peninsula as far as 
 the level of the southern portion of Prince of Wales Island. 
 
 The charter, which was issued at the time of the great 
 European excitement, attracted apparently little attention at 
 the moment and gave rise to no remonstrance. It made no 
 claim to exclusive jurisdiction over the sea, nor do any meas- 
 ures appear to have been taken under it to restrict the com- 
 merce, navigation, or fishery of the subjects of foreign nations. 
 — Foreign Relations^ 1890, p. 456. 
 
 1 82 1, Sept. 4. Ukase of Emperor Alexander I. of 
 
 Russia. 
 
 (American Translation.) 
 
 Section I. The transaction of commerce, and the pursuit 
 of whaling and fishing, or any other industry on the islands, in 
 the harbors and inlets, and, in general, all along the north- 
 western coast of America from Behring Strait to the fifty-first 
 parallel of northern latitude, and likewise on the Aleutian Isl- 
 ands and along the eastern coast of Siberia, and on the Kurile 
 Islands ; that is, from Behring Strait to the southern promon- 
 tory of the island of Urup, viz., as far south as latitude forty- 
 five degrees and fifty minutes north, are exclusively reserved 
 to subjects of the Russian Empire. 
 
 Section II. Accordingly, no foreign vessel shall be al- 
 lowed either to put to shore at any of the coasts and islands 
 under Russian dominion as specified in the preceding section, 
 or even to approach the same to within a distance of less than 
 one hundred ItaUan miles. Any vessel contravening this pro- 
 vision shall be subject to confiscation with her whole cargo. — 
 Foreign Relations^ 1890, p. 439. 
 
 1822, Feb. 25. Secretary Adams to Russian Minister 
 
 POLETICA. 
 
 I am directed by the President of the United States to in- 
 form you that he has seen with surprise, in this edict, the as- 
 ^^rtipn pf ^ territorial claim on the part of Russia, extending 
 
 
5 
 
 to the fifty-first degree of north latitude on this continent, and 
 a regulation interdicting to all commercial vessels other than 
 Russian, upon the penalty of seizure and confiscation, the ap- 
 proach upon the high seas within one hundred Italian miles 
 of the shores to which that claim is made to apply. ... It 
 was expected before any act which should define the bound- 
 aries between the United States and Russia on this continent, 
 that the same would have been arranged by treaty between 
 the parties. To exclude the vessels of our citizens from the 
 shore, beyond the ordinary distance to which the territorial 
 jurisdiction extt. ids, has excited still greater surprise. — Ameri- 
 can State Papers, Foreign Relations, IV. 871. 
 
 1822, Feb. 28. 
 
 Russian Minister Poletica to Secretary 
 Adams. 
 
 I shall be more succinct, sir, in the exposition of the motives 
 which determined the Imperial Government to prohibit foreign 
 vessels from approaching the northwest coast of America be- 
 longing to Russia within the distance of at least one hundred 
 Italian miles. This measure, however severe it may at first 
 view appear, is, after all, but a measure of prevention. It is 
 exclusively directed against the culpable enterprises of foreign 
 adventurers, who, not content with exercising upon the coasts 
 above mentioned an illicit trade very prejudicial to the rights 
 reserved entirely to the Russian- American Company, take upon 
 them besides to furnish arms and ammunition to the natives 
 in the Russian possessions in America, exciting them like- 
 wise in every manner to resistance and revolt against the 
 authorities there established. . . . Pacific means not having 
 brought any alleviation to the just grievances of the Russian- 
 American Company against foreign navigators in the waters 
 which environ their establishments on the northwest coast of 
 America, the Imperial Government saw itself under the ne- 
 cessity of having recourse to the means of coercion, and of 
 measuring the rigor according to the inveterate character of 
 the evil to which it is wished to put a stop. . . . 
 
 I ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, sir, 
 that the Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean extend, on 
 the northwest coast of America, from Behring Strait to the 
 fifty-first degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side of 
 Asia, and the islands adjacent, from the same strait to the forty- 
 

 6 
 
 fifth degree. The extent of sea, of which these possessions 
 form the limits, comprehends all the conditions which are or- 
 dinarily attached to shut seas {tners fermees), and the Russian 
 Government might consequently judge itself authorized to 
 exercise upon this sea the right of sovereignty, and especially 
 that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners. But 
 it preferred only asserting its essential rights, without taking 
 any advantage of localities. — American State Papers, Foreign 
 Relations, IV. 862. 
 
 1822, Mar. 30. 
 
 Secretary Adams to Russian Minister 
 poletica. 
 
 i 
 
 This pretension is to be considered not only with reference 
 to the question of territorial right, but also to that prohibition 
 to the vessels of other nations, including those of the United 
 States, to approach within one hundred Italian miles of the 
 coasts. From the period of the existence of the United States 
 as an independent nation, their vessels have freely navigated 
 those seas, and the right to navigate them is a part of that in- 
 dependence. 
 
 With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government 
 might have exercised the right of sovereignty over the Pacific 
 Ocean as a close sea, because it claims territory both on its 
 American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the 
 distance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitude 51° 
 north, is not less than ninety degrees of longitude, or four 
 thousand miles. 
 
 As little can the United States accede to the justice of the 
 reason assigned for the prohibition above mentioned. The 
 :ght of the citizens of the United States to hold commerce 
 with the aboriginal natives of the northwest coast of America, 
 without the territorial jurisdiction of other nations, even in 
 arms and munitions of war, is as clear and indisputable as that 
 of navigating the seas. — American State Papers, Foreign Re- 
 lations, IV. 863. 
 
 1822, Nov. I. Secretary Adams on the Russian Claim. 
 
 I received a dispatch from H. Middleton, our minister at 
 St. Petersburg, dated 20th August, relating entirely to the 
 
7 
 
 Northwest Coast controversy. The Baron de Tuyl is coming 
 out as minister from Russia, charged with a proposal for ne- 
 gotiating on the subject. Speransky, now Governor-General 
 of Siberia, told Middleton that they had at first thought of 
 declaring the Northern Pacific Ocean a " mare clausum,'' but 
 afterward took the one hundred Italian miles from the thirty 
 leagues in the Treaty of Utrecht, which is an exclusion only 
 from a fishery, and not from navigi^ion. — John Quincy Adams, 
 Memoirs, VI. 93. 
 
 1823, July 17.' Secretary Adams to Baron Tuvl, Rus- 
 sian Minister. 
 
 Baron Tuyl came, ... I told h"m especially that we should 
 contest the right of Russia to any territorial establishment on 
 this continent, and that we should assume distinctly the princi- 
 ple that the American continents are no longer subjects for 
 any new European colonial establishmenU, We had a con- 
 versation of an hour or more, at the close of which he said 
 that although there would be difficulties in the negotiation, he 
 did not foresee that they would be insurmountable. — ^John 
 Quincy Adams, Memoirs, VI. 163. 
 
 1823, July 22. Secretary Adams to Minister Rush. 
 
 Mr. Paletica answered by alleging first discovery, occu- 
 pancy, and uninterrupted /<^i"i'<?j"^/^//. 
 
 It appears upon examination that these claims have no 
 foundation on fact. ... 
 
 As yet, however, the only useful purpose to which the north- 
 west coast of America has been or can be made subservient 
 to the settlements of civilized men are the fisheries on its ad- 
 joining seas and trade with the aboriginal inhabitants of the 
 country. These have hitherto been enjoyed in common by 
 the people of the United States, and by the British and Rus- 
 sian nations. The Spanish, Portuguese, and French nations 
 have also participated in them hitherto, without other annoy- 
 ance than that which resulted from the exclusive territorial 
 claims of Spain, so long as they were insisted on by her. 
 
 The United States and Great Britain have both protested 
 
8 
 
 against the Russian Imperial Ukase of September 4 (i6th), 
 182 [. — Aiiirncan State Papers, Foreii^n Relations^ V. 446, 447. 
 
 1823, July 22. 
 
 Secretary Adams to Minister 
 
 MiDDLETON. 
 
 From the tenor of the ukase, the pretensions of the Impe- 
 rial Government extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction 
 from the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, on the Asiatic 
 coast, to the latitude of fifty-one north on the western coast of 
 the American continent ; and they assume the right of inter- 
 dicting the navigation and the fishery of all other nations to 
 the extent of one hundred miles from the whole of the coast. 
 
 The United States can admit no part of these claims. 
 Their right of navigation and of fishing is perfect, and has 
 been in constant exercise trcMn the earliest times, after the 
 peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the Southern 
 Ocean, subject only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions 
 of the territorial jurisdictions, which, so far as Russian rights 
 are concerned, are confined to certain islands north of the 
 fifty-fifth degree of latitude, and have no existence on the 
 continent of America. — American State Papers, Foreign Re- 
 lations, V. 436. 
 
 Vi ■ 
 
 1824, April 17. Treaty between the United States 
 
 AND Russia.* 
 
 * Official translation from the original, which is in the French language. 
 
 Article I. It is agreed that in any part of the Great 
 Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, the 
 respective citizens or subjects of the high contracting Powers 
 shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation 
 or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon 
 points which may not already have been occupied, for the pur- 
 pose of trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions 
 and conditions determined by the following articles. 
 
 Article II. With a view of preventing the rights of navi- 
 gation and of fishing exercised upon the Great Ocean by the 
 citizens and subjects of the high contracting Powers from be- 
 coming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the 
 
citizens of the United States shall not resort to any point 
 where there is a Russian establishment, without the permis- 
 sion of the governor or commander ; and that, reciprocally, the 
 subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any 
 establishment of the United States upon the northwest coast. 
 
 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 ad- 
 jacent, to the north of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes of 
 north latitude ; and that, in the same manner, there shall be 
 none formed by Russian subjects, or nnder the authority of 
 Russia, south of the same parallel. 
 
 Article IV. It is, nevertheless, urdcrstood that during a 
 term of ten years, counting from th signature of the present 
 convention, the ships of both Powers, or uhich belong to 
 thvii- citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally fre- 
 quent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, 
 harbors, and creeks, upon the coast mentioned in the pieced- 
 ing article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the 
 natives of the country. — Treaties and Conventions of the Ufiited 
 States, ed. of 1889, pp. 431, 432. 
 
 1824, Dec. 8. George Canning to Stratford C iNning. 
 
 The pretensions of the Russian ukase of 1821, to exclusive 
 dominion over the Pacific, could not continue longer unre- 
 pealed without compelling us to take some measure of public 
 and effectual remonstrance against it. 
 
 The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely 
 in the Pacific cannot be held as a matter of indulgence from 
 any power. Having once been publicly questioned it must 
 be publicly acknowledged. — Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 464. 
 
 1825, Feb. 28/16. Convention between Great 
 Britain and Russia. 
 
 Article I. It is agreed ihat the respective subjects of the 
 high contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested, in 
 any part of the ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean, 
 either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing 
 
10 
 
 [{} 
 
 m I 
 
 at such parts of the coast as shall not have been already oc- 
 cupied, in orde' to trade with the natives, under the restric- 
 tions and conditions specified in the following articles. 
 
 Article II. In order to prevent the right of navigating and 
 fishing, exercised upon the ocean by the subjects of the high 
 contracting Parties, from becoming the pretext for an illicit 
 commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannic 
 Majesty shall not land at any place where there may be a 
 Russian establishment on the Northwest coast. 
 
 Article III. The hne of demarkation between the pos- 
 sessions 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. — Foreign Relations^ 1890, 
 
 P- 503- 
 
 1863, Aug. 10. Secretary Seward to Mr. Taessara, 
 Spanish Representative. 
 
 The undersigned would observe, in the first place, that 
 there are two principles bearing on the subject which are uni- 
 versally admitted, namely, first, that the sea is open to all 
 nations, and secondly, that there is a portion of the sea adja- 
 cent to every nation over which the sovereignty of that nation 
 extends to the exclusion of every other political authority. 
 
 A third principle bearing on the subject is also well estab- 
 lished, namely, that this exclusive sovereignty of a nation, 
 thus abridging the universal liberty of the seas, extends no 
 farther than the power of the nation to maintain it by force, 
 stationed on the coast, extends. This principle is tersely 
 expressed in the maxim Terrce dominium finitur ubi finitur 
 armarum vis. — Wharton, Digest of the International Laiv of 
 the U. S., I. § 32, p. 102. 
 
 1867, Mar. 30. 
 
 Treaty with Russia for the Cession 
 OF Alaska. 
 
 Article I. His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias 
 agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, im- 
 mediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all 
 the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty 
 on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the 
 
same being contained within the geographical h'mits herein 
 set forth, to wit : The eastern limit is the line of demarcation 
 between the Russian and the British possessions in North 
 America, as established by the convention between Russia 
 and Great Britain, of February 28/16, 1825. . . . 
 
 The western limit within which the territories and dominion 
 conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring's 
 Straits on the parallel of sixty-five degrees thirty minutes 
 north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes 
 midway between the islands of Krusenstern or Ignalook, and 
 the island of Ratmanoff, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due 
 north, without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. The 
 same western Hmit, beginning at the same initial point, pro- 
 ceeds thence in a course nearly southwest, through Behring's 
 Straits and Behring's Sea, so as to pass midway between the 
 northwest point of the island of St. Lawrence and the south- 
 east point of Cape Choukotski, to the meridian of one hun- 
 dred and seventy-two west longitude ; thence from the inter- 
 section of that meridian in a southwesterly direction, so as to 
 pass midway between the island of Attou and the Copper 
 Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North 
 Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety- 
 three degrees west longitude, so as to include in the territory 
 conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that 
 meridian. . . . 
 
 Article VI. The cession of territory and dominion herein 
 made is hereby declared to be free and unincumbered by any 
 reservations, privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions, by 
 any associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate, 
 Russian or any other, or by any parties except merely private 
 individual property-holders ; and the cession hereby made 
 conveys all the rights, franchises, and pri\ ileges now belong- 
 ing to Russia in the said territory or dominion, and appurte- 
 nances thereto. — Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 
 ed. of 1889, pp. 939-941. 
 
 1870, July I. Act of Congress on Seal Fishing. 
 
 That it shall be unlawful to kill any fur-seal upon the islands 
 of St. Paul and St, George, or in the waters adjacent thereto, 
 
12 
 
 J' ' 
 
 except during the months of June, July, September, and Oc- 
 tober in each year ; and it shall be unlawful to kill such seals 
 at any time by the use of fire-arms, or use of other means 
 tepding to drive the seals away from the said islands : J^o- 
 vided^ That the natives of said islands shall have the privilege 
 of killing such young seals as may be necessary for their own 
 food and clothing during other months. . . . The Secretary of 
 the Treasury shall lease, for the rental mentioned in Section 
 six of this act, to proper and responsible parties, to the best 
 advantage of the United States, having due regard to the in- 
 terests of the Government, the native inhabitants, the parties 
 heretofore engaged in trade, and the protection to the seal 
 fisheries, for a term of twenty years from the first day of May, 
 eighteen hundred and seventy, the right to engage in the 
 business ot taking fur-seals on the islands of St. Paul and St. 
 George. — United States Statutes at Large, XVI. i8o, i8i. 
 
 1872, Apr. 19. 
 
 Secr^^'^ary Boutwell to Collector 
 Phelps. 
 
 Your letter of the 25th ultimo was duly received, calling 
 the attention of the Department to certain rumors circulating 
 in San Francisco, to the effect that expeditions are to start 
 from Australia and the Hawaiian Islands, to take fur-seals on 
 their annual migration to the islands of St. Paul and St. George 
 through the narrow pass of Oonimak. You recommend, to 
 cut off the possibility of evil resulting to the interests of the 
 United States from these expeditions, that a revenue cutter 
 be sent to the region of Oonimak Pass, by the 15th of May 
 next. ... I do not see that the United States would have 
 the jurisdiction or power to drive off parties going up there for 
 that purpose, unless they made such attempt within a marine 
 league of the shore. — Senate Executive Documents, 50 Cong., 
 2 Sess., No. 106, pp. 139, 140. 
 
 r H 
 
 1875, Jan. 22. 
 
 Secretary Fish to British Minister 
 Thornton. 
 
 We have always understood and asserted that, pursuant to 
 public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea 
 
13 
 
 beyond a marine league from its coast. — Wharton, Digest of 
 the International Law of the U. S., § 32, p. 105. 
 
 1875, Dec. I. Secretary Fish to Mr. Boker. 
 
 There was reason to hope that the practice which formerly 
 prevailed with powerful nations regarding seas and bays usu- 
 ally of large extent near their coast as closed ::o any foreign 
 commerce or fishery not specially licensed by them, was, 
 without exception, a pretension of the past, and that no nation 
 would claim exemption from the general rule of public law 
 which limits its maritime jurisdiction to a marine league from 
 its coast. We should particularly regret if Russia should in- 
 sist on any such pretension. — Wharton, Digest of the Inter- 
 national Law of the U. S., I. § 32, p. 106. 
 
 1881, Mar. 12. 
 
 Acting Secretary French to Mr. 
 D'Ancona. 
 
 You inquire into the interpretation of the terms "waters 
 thereof " and " waters adjacent thereto," as used in the law, 
 and how far the jurisdiction of the United States is to be un- 
 derstood as extending. 
 
 Presuming your inquiry to relate more especially to the 
 waters of western Alaska, you are informed that the treaty 
 with Russia of March 30, 1870, by which the Territory of 
 Alaska was ceded to the United States, defines the boundary 
 of the Territory so ceded. This treaty is found on pages 671 
 to 673 of the volume of treaties of the Revised Statutes. It 
 will be seen therefrom that the limit of the cession extends 
 from a line starting from the Arctic Ocean and running through 
 Behring Strait to the north of St. Lawrence Islands. The line 
 runs thence in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway 
 between the island of Attou and Copper Island of the Kroman- 
 boski couplet or group in the North Pacific Ocean, to merid- 
 ian of 193 of west longitude. All the waters within that 
 boundary to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and 
 chain of islands are considered as comprised within the waters 
 of Alaska Territory. — Senate Executive Documents, 50 Con^., 
 2 Sess. f No. 106, p. 281. 
 
I s 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 !i I 
 
 
 1,1 
 
 V: 
 
 1886, May 28. 
 
 H 
 
 Secretary Bayard to Secretary 
 
 Manning. 
 
 We may, therefore, regard it as settled, that so far as con- 
 cerns the eastern coast of North America, the position of this 
 Department has uniformly been that the sovereignty of the 
 shore does not, so far as territorial authority is concerned, 
 extend beyond three miles from low-water mark, and that the 
 seaward boundary of this zone of territorial waters follows the 
 coast of the mainland, extending where there are islands so 
 as to place round such islands the same belt. This necessarily 
 excludes the position that the seaward boundary is to be drawn 
 from headland to headland, and makes it follow closely, at a 
 distance of three miles, the boundary of the shore of the con- 
 tinent or of adjacent islands belonging to the continental 
 sovereign. — Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the 
 U. S., § 32, pp. 107, 108. 
 
 1886, Oct. 4. Judge Dawson's Charge in the " Onward " 
 
 Case. 
 
 All the waters within the boundary set forth in this treaty 
 to the western end of tlie Aleutian archipelago and the chain 
 of islands are to be considered as comprised within the waters 
 of Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by law against the 
 killing of fur-bearing animals must therefore attach against 
 any violation of Hw within the limits heretofore described. 
 
 If, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the 
 defendants by themselves or in conjunction with others did, on 
 or about the time charged in the information, kill any otter, 
 mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal or 
 animals, on the shores of Alaska or in the Behring Sea, east of 
 the 193d degree of west longitude, the jury should find the 
 defendants guilty. — Stanton, The Behring Sea Controversy^ 7. 
 
 1886, Oct. 21. Minister West to Secretary Bayard. 
 
 I have the honor to inform you that I am now instructed 
 by the Earl of Iddesleigh, Her Majesty's principal secretary 
 of state for foreign affairs, to protest in the name of Her 
 Majesty's Government against such seizure, and to reserve all 
 rights to compensation. — Foreign Relations^ 1888, p. 1746, 
 
»5 
 
 1887, Jan. 26. Attorney-General Garland to Judge 
 
 Dawson. 
 
 I .am directed by the President to instruct you to discon- 
 tinue any further proceedings in the matter of the seizure of 
 the British vessels Carolena, Onward, and Thornton, and dis- 
 charge all vessels now held under such seizure and release all 
 persons that may be under arrest in connection therewith. — 
 Foreign Relations, 1888, p. 1801. 
 
 1887, Sept. 15. Canadian Minister Foster's Report. 
 
 It is respectfully submitted that this condition of affairs is 
 in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of Canada, 
 and should not be permitted to continue. For nearly two 
 years Canadian vessels have been exposed to arbitrary seizure 
 and confiscation in the pursuit of a lawful occupation upon the 
 high seas, and Canadian citizens subjected to imprisonment 
 and serious financial loss, while an important and remunera- 
 tive Canadian industry has been threatened with absolute ruin. 
 This course of action has been pursued by United States 
 officers in opposition to the contention in the past of their 
 Government in regard to the waters in which these seizures 
 have taken place, in violation of the i)lainest dictates of in- 
 ternational law and in the face of vigorous protests of both 
 the Canadian and British Governments. — Foreign Fehitiofis, 
 
 1888, p. 1800. 
 
 1889, Mar. 2. Act of Congress on Territorial 
 
 Jurisdiction. 
 
 Section 3. That section nineteen hundred and fifty-six of 
 the Revised Statules of the United States is hereby declared 
 tw include and apply to all the dominion of the United States 
 in the waters of Behring Sea ; and it shall be the duty of the 
 President, at a timely season in each year, to issue his procla- 
 mation and cause the same to be published for one month in 
 at least one newspaper, if any such there be published, at each 
 United States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all 
 persons against entering saiv' waters for the purpose of violat- 
 ing the provisions of said section ; and he shall also cause 
 one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruise 
 

 t6 
 
 said waters and arrfxsf oii 
 
 to be, or to have iZn e^J^'T'''' ^"^ «^'^e all vessels fn, ^ 
 
 ^He United Stater:;;;Sfl^^^-«^^^ ofTeto 
 
 '«9o, Jan. ... Secretary Bla.nk to b. 
 
 Pauncefote "'""" Minister 
 
 -e.t,&jyHe P M .^^ CaT,ad,a„ vesse. a. 
 suit that was in itself .^ /^^"""g bea were enea^ed m o 
 
 of the extent !„d natur 'of heT'"''-"' ''^Sue the q^istL 
 ■nem over the waters of the BehnWr*"'^ "' '^is ^ove™? 
 
 attat-^ ti:5nf °™ ^^^^^^ 
 
 fhe acquisition of thJ?!/ ^^"^^^^rations growing nV f 
 
 ment rests its justMcation for thl » , "P°" "'''<='' 'his govern 
 Majesty's Government. "^ ^""'" complained of by He^ 
 
 one ofTeto's t "lua Je" so°urt^ ^'^""^'^ ^--^-ent that 
 
 =S^: et:^?^^ -~:^^ -: a^j!;: 
 -Tar ^re^er''^'"'"'' -' »^^^^^^^^^^ r"'^' 
 
 any source. vlZZ)T ""''""P^'O" and noUrusiST™' 
 ^^1 had a,.ays abstained froJ^^S^l^^l^^^^ 
 those w^t^^rfhT^'i!''''^^"^^ o^ all attemnts fo . u r 
 
17 
 
 ernment. It has also been the recognition of a fact now held 
 beyond denial or doubt that the taking of seals in the open 
 sea rapidly leads to their extinction. This is not only the 
 well-known opinion of experts, both British and American, 
 based upon prolonged observation and investigation, but the 
 fact has also been demonstrated in a wide sense by the well- 
 nigh total destruction of all seal fisheries except the one in the 
 Behring Sea, which the Government of the United States is 
 now striving to preserve, not altogether for the use of the 
 American people, but for the use of the world at large. . . . 
 
 Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 
 1886 that which they had refrained from doing for more than 
 ninety years ? Upon what grounds did Her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the 
 Behring Sea which she had carefully avoided evei since the dis- 
 covery of that sea ? By what reasoning did Her Majesty's 
 Government conclude that an act may be committed with 
 impunity against the rights of the United States which had 
 never been attempted against the Sc me rights when held by 
 the Russian Empire ? . . . 
 
 The ground upon which Her Majesty's Government jus- 
 tifies, or at least defends, the course of the Canadian vessels, 
 rests upon the fact that they are committing their acts of 
 destruction on the high seas, viz., more than three marine miles 
 from the shore line. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty's 
 Government would abide by this rule if the attempt were made 
 to interfere with the pearl fisheries of Ceylon, which extend 
 more than twenty miles from the shore line and have been 
 enjoyed by England without molestation ever since their 
 acquisition. So well recognized is the British ownership of 
 those fisheries, regardless of the hmit of the three-mile line, 
 that Her Majesty's Government feels authorized to sell the 
 pearl-fishing right from year to year to the highest bidder. 
 Nor is it credible that modes of fishing on the Grand Banks, 
 altogether practicable but highly destructive, would be justified 
 or even permitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious 
 acts were committed more than three miles from shore. 
 
 There are, according to scientific authority, " great colonies 
 of fish" on the "Newfoundland banks." These colonies 
 resemble the seats of great population on land. They remain 
 
m 
 
 i8 
 
 'I • 
 t '. 
 
 i'i 
 
 m 
 
 stationary, having a limited range of water in which to live 
 and die. In these great " colonies " it is, according to expert 
 judgment, comparatively easy to explode dynamite or giant 
 powder in such a way as to kill vast quantities of fish, and at 
 the same time destroy countless numbers of eggs. Stringent 
 laws have been necessary to prevent the taking of fish by the 
 use of dynamite in many of the rivers and lakes of the United 
 States. The same mode of fishing could readily be adopted 
 with effect on the more shallow parts of the banks, but the 
 destruction of fish in proportion to the catch, says a high 
 authority, might be as great as ten thousand to one. Would 
 Her Majesty's Government think that so wicked an act could 
 not be prevented and its perpetrators punished simply because 
 it had been committed outside of the three-mile line ? 
 
 Why are not the two cases parallel ? . . . 
 
 In this contention the Government of the United States 
 has no occasion and no desire to withdraw or modify the 
 positions which it has at any time maintained against the 
 claims of the Imperial Government of Russia. The United 
 States will not withhold from any nation the privileges which 
 it demanded for itself when Alaska was part of the Russian 
 Empire. — Foreign Relations, 1890, pp. 366-370. 
 
 1890, May 22. Prime-Minister Salisbury to Minister 
 
 Pauncefote. 
 
 It is an axiom of international maritime law that such action 
 is only admissible in the case of piracy or in the pursuance of 
 special international agreement. The principle has been uni- 
 versally admitted by jurists, and was very distinctly laid down 
 by President Tyler in his special message to Congress, dated 
 the 27th of February, 1843, when, after acknowledging the 
 right to detain and search a vessel on suspicion of piracy, he 
 goes on to say : " With this single exception, no nation has, 
 in time of peace, any authority to detain the ships of another 
 upon the high seas, on any pretext whatever, outside of the 
 territorial jurisdiction." 
 
 Now, the pursuit of seals in the open sea, under whatever 
 circumstances, has never hitherto been considered as piracy 
 by any civihzed state. Nor, even if the United States had 
 gone so far as to make the killing of fur-seals piracy by their 
 
19 
 
 municipal law, would this have justified them in punishing 
 offenses against such law committed by any persons other than 
 their own citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the case of the slave trade, a practice which the civilized 
 world has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the right of 
 arresting the vessels of another country is exercised only by 
 special international agreement, and no one government has 
 been allowed that general control of morals in this respect 
 which Mr. Blaine claims on behalf of the United States in 
 regard to seal-hunting. 
 
 But Her Majesty's Government must question whether this 
 pursuit can of itself be regarded as contra Iwnos mores, unless 
 and until, for special reasons, it has been agreed by an inter- 
 national arrangement to forbid it. Fur-seals are indisputably 
 animals feroe natune, and these have universally been regarded 
 by jurists as res nullius until they are caught ; no person, 
 therefore, can have property in them until he has actually 
 reduced them into possession by capture. . . . 
 
 First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Russia. After 
 Russia, at the instance of the Russian-American Fur Com- 
 pany, claimed in 1821 the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and 
 fishing from Behring Straits to the fifty-first degree of north 
 latitude, and not only prohibited all foreign vessels from land- 
 ing on the coasts and islands of the above waters, but also 
 prevented them from approaching within one hundred miles 
 thereof, Mr. Quincy Adams wrote as follows to the United 
 States minister in Russia : 
 
 " The United States can admit no part of these claims ; their 
 right of navigation and fishing is perfect, and has been in con- 
 stant exercise from the earhest times throughout the whole 
 extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary 
 exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions." 
 
 I now come to the statement that from 1867 to 1886 the 
 possession was enjoyed by the United States with no interrup- 
 tion and no intrusion from any source. Her IMajesty's Govern- 
 ment can not but think that Mr. Blaine has been misinformed 
 as to the history of the operations in Behring Sea during that 
 period. 
 - The instances recorded in Inclosure i in this dispatch are 
 
;t( 
 
 20 
 
 sufficient to prove from official United States sources that from 
 1867 to 1886 British vessels were engaged at intervals in the 
 fur-seal fisheries with the cognizance of the United States 
 Government. . . . 
 
 Her Majesty's Government do not deny that if all sealing 
 were stopped in Behring Sea except on the islands in posses- 
 sion of the lessees of the United States, the seal may increase 
 and multiply at an even more extraordinary rate than at pres- 
 ent, and the seal fishery on the island may become a monop- 
 oly of increasing value ; but they cannot admit that this is 
 sufficient ground to justify the United States in forcibly 
 depriving other nations of any share in this industry in waters 
 which, by the recognized law of nations, are now free to all 
 the world. — Foreign Relations, 1890, pp. 420-423. 
 
 1890, May 29. Secretary Blaine to Minister 
 
 Pauncefote. 
 
 I am instructed by the President to protest against the 
 course of the British Government in authorizing, encouraging, 
 and protecting vessels which are not only interfering with 
 American rights in the Behring Sea, but which are doing vio- 
 lence as well to the rights of the civilized world. They are 
 engaged in a warfare against seal life, disregarding all the 
 regulations which lead to its protection, and committing acts 
 which lead ultimately to its destruction. — Foreign Relations, 
 1890, p. 425. 
 
 1890, June 30. 
 
 Secretary Blaine to Minister 
 Pauncefote. 
 
 Mr. Adams protested not against the ukase of Paul, but 
 against the ukase of Alexander ; not wholly against the ukase 
 of Alexander, but only against his extended claim of sover- 
 eignty southward of the continent to the fifty-first degree north 
 latitude. In short, Mr. Adams protested, not against the old pos- 
 sessions, but only against the new pretensions of Russia on the 
 northwest coast of America — pretensions to territory claimed 
 by the United States and frequented by her mariners since the 
 peace of 1783. ... It is very plain that Mr. Adams's phrase 
 " the continent of America," in his reference to Russia's posses- 
 
21 
 
 sions, was used in a territorial sense, and not in a geographical 
 sense. He was drawing the distinction between the territory 
 of " America " and the territory of the " Russian possessions." 
 Mr. Adams did not intend to assert that these territorial rights 
 of Russia had no existence on the continent of North America. 
 He meant that they did not exist as the ukase of the Emperor 
 Alexander had attempted to establish them — southward of the 
 Aleutian peninsula and on that distinctive part of the conti- 
 nent claimed as the territory of the United States. " America " 
 and the " United States " were then, as they are now, com- 
 monly used as synonymous. 
 
 The Government of the United States has steadily main- 
 tained that in neither of these treaties with Russia was there 
 any attempt at regulating or controlling, or even asserting an 
 interest in, the Russian Posses.sions and the Behring Sea, which 
 lie far to the north and west of the territory which formed the 
 basis of the contention. 
 
 These treaties were therefore a practical renunciation, both 
 on the part of England and the United States, of any rights 
 in the waters of Behring Sea during the period of Russia's 
 sovereignty. They left the Behring Sea and all its coasts and 
 islands precisely as the ukase of Alexander in 1821 left them, 
 that is, with a prohibition against any vessel approaching nearer 
 to the coast than one hundred Italian miles, under danger of 
 confiscation. The original ukase of Alexander ( 1 8 2 1 ) claimed 
 as far south as the fifty-first degree of north latitude, with the 
 inhibition of one hundred miles from the coast applying to the 
 whole. 
 
 But the one-hundred-mile restriction performed the function 
 for which it was specially designed in preventing foreign nations 
 from molesting, disturbing, or by any possibility sharing in the 
 fur trade. The fur trade formed the principal, almost the sole, 
 employment of the Russian-American Company. 
 
 It only remains to say that whatever duty Great Britain 
 owed to Alaska as a Russian province, whatever she agreed 
 to do, or to refrain from doing, touching Alaska and the 
 Behring Sea, was not changed by the mere fact of the transfer 
 to the United States. It was explicitly declared, in the sixth 
 article of the treaty by which the territory was ceded by 
 Russia, that " the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, 
 
-,^> 
 
 t 
 
 aa 
 
 franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said 
 territory or dominions and appurtenances thereto." Neither 
 by the treaty with Russia of 1825, nor by its renewal in 1843, 
 nor by its second renewal in 1859, did Great Britain gain any 
 right to take seals in Behring Sea. — Foreign Relations, 1890, 
 PP- 439» 440. 
 
 1890, Aug. 2. 
 
 Prime-Minister Salisbury to Minister 
 Pauncefote. 
 
 You will state that Her Majesty's Government have no 
 desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdic- 
 tion in Behring's Sea which was conceded by Great Britain 
 to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present possess- 
 ors of Alaska in virtue of treaties or the law of nations ; and 
 that if the United States Government, after examination of 
 the evidence and arguments which I have produced, still differ 
 from them as to the legality of the recent capture s in that 
 sea, they are ready to agree that the question, witl he issues 
 that depend upon it, should be referred to impartua arbitra- 
 tion. — Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 465. 
 
 1890, Dec. 17. 
 
 Secretary Blaine to Minister 
 Pauncefote. 
 
 Great Britain contends that the phrase " Pacific Ocenn," 
 as used in the treaties, was intended to include, and does in- 
 clude, 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 great and undeniable. 
 
 The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase 
 " northwest coast," or " northwest coast of America." Lord 
 
n the said 
 
 Neither 
 
 1 in 1843, 
 
 I gain any 
 
 1890, 
 
 7ns, 
 
 Minister 
 
 have no 
 r jurisdic- 
 Lt Britain 
 t possess- 
 ons; and 
 nation of 
 still differ 
 s in that 
 he issues 
 1 arbitra- 
 
 STER 
 
 Ocenn," 
 
 does in- 
 
 Behring 
 
 Sea was 
 
 and was 
 
 m." If 
 
 ring Sea 
 
 ?2 5 was 
 
 United 
 
 on the 
 
 ibt that 
 
 tood by 
 
 er, and 
 
 en the 
 
 liable. 
 
 phrase 
 
 Lord 
 
 Salisbury assumes that the " northwest coast " has but one 
 meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching north- 
 ward to the Behring Straits. The contention of this Govern- 
 ment is that by long prescription the " northwest coast " means 
 the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of the Alaska Peninsula, 
 or south of the sixtieth 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 181 9, 
 to the point where the Spanish claims met the claims of 
 Russia, viz., from 42° to 60° north latitude. . . . Russia 
 practically withdrew the operation of the ukase of 1821 from 
 the waters of the northwest coast of the Pacific Ocean, but 
 the proof is conclusive that it was left in full force over the 
 waters of the Behring Sea. ... It is easy to pro /e from, other 
 sources that in the treaty between the United States and 
 Russia the coast referred to was that which I ha /e defined as 
 the " northwest coast " of the Pacific Ocean south of 60° north 
 latitude, or, as the Russians for a long time believed it, 59° 
 30'. We have in the Department of State the originals of the 
 proto ols between our minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. Henry 
 Middleton, and Count Nesselrode, of Russia, who negotiated 
 the treaty of 1824, . . . We feel justified in asking His Lord- 
 ship if the Government of Great Britain has uniformly illus- 
 trated these precepts by example, or whether she has not es- 
 tablished at least one notable precedent which would justify 
 us in making greater demands upon Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment touching the Behring Sea than either our necessities or 
 our desires have ever suggested. . . . Napoleon was promptly 
 sent by Great Britain to the island of St. Helena as a prisoner 
 for life. Six months after he reached St, Helena the British 
 Parliament enacted a special and extraordinary law for the 
 purpose of making his detention more secure. . . . The statute 
 . . . forbids them to " hover within eight leagues of the coast 
 of the island." The penalty for hovering within eight leagues 
 of the coast is the forfeiture of the ship to His Majesty the 
 King of Great Britain, on trial to be had in London, and the 
 offenses to be the same as if committed in the county of Mid- 
 dlesex. ... 
 
 The repeated assertions that the Government of the United 
 States demands that the Behring Sea be pronounced mare 
 
34 
 
 clausum, are without foundation. The Government has never 
 claimed it and never desired it. It expressly disavows it. At 
 the same time the United States does not lack abundant 
 authority, according to the ablest exponents of International 
 law, for holding a small section of the Behring Sea for the pro- 
 tection of the fur-seals. Controlling a comparatively restricted 
 area of water for the one specific purpose is by no means 
 the equivalent of declaring the sea, or any part thereof, jnan' 
 clausum. Nor is it by any means so serious an obstruction as 
 Great Britain assumed to make in the South Atlantic, nor so 
 groundless an interference with the common law of the sea as 
 is maintained by British authority to-day in the Indian Ocean. 
 — Foreig7i Relations^ 1890, pp. 477, 480, 484, 496, 500. 
 
 1891, June 15. 
 
 Modus Vivendi between Great Britain 
 AND THE United States. 
 
 1. Her Majesty's Government will prohibit, until May next, 
 seal killing in that part of Behring Sea lying eastward of the 
 line of demarcation described in Article No. i of the treaty 
 of 1867 between the United States and Russia, "and will 
 promptly use its best efforts to insure the observance of this 
 prohibition by British subjects and vessels." 
 
 2. The United States Government will prohibit seal killing 
 for the same period in the same part of Behring Sea, and on 
 the shores and islands thereof, the property of the United 
 States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the 
 subsistence and care of the natives), and will promptly use its 
 best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition l)y 
 United States citizens and vessels. 
 
 3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibi- 
 tion in the said waters of Behring Sea outside of the ordinary 
 territorial limits of the United States, may be seized and de- 
 tained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either 
 of the High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over 
 as soon as practicable to the authorities of the nation to which 
 they respectively belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to 
 try the offense and impose the penalties for the same. . . . 
 
 4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Ma- 
 jesty's Government may desire to make, with a view to the 
 presentation of the case of that Government before arbitrators, 
 
has never 
 ws it. At 
 
 abundant 
 ernational 
 or the pro- 
 ■ restricted 
 no means 
 reof, 7nare 
 ruction as 
 tic, nor so 
 the sea as 
 an Ocean. 
 500. 
 
 " Britain 
 
 May next, 
 ird of the 
 the treaty 
 " and will 
 ce of this 
 
 eal killing 
 a, and on 
 e United 
 s for the 
 ly use its 
 ition l)y 
 
 prohibi- 
 I ordinary 
 
 and de- 
 I of either 
 fled over 
 to which 
 jiction to 
 
 [er Ma- 
 to the 
 litrators, 
 
 and in expectat.on that an agreement for arbitration may be 
 arrived at, it is agreed that suitable persons designated by 
 Great Britain will be permitted at any time, upon application, 
 to visit or to main upon the seal islands during the present 
 sealing season for that purpose. — Senate Executive Documents, 
 52 Cong., I Sess., No. 55, p. 46. 
 
 1892, Feb. 29. Decision of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States in the Savward Case. 
 
 The record . . . shows that officers of the United States, 
 acting under the advice of their Government, seized this ves- 
 sel engaged in catching seal. . . . 
 
 How did it happen that the officers received, such orders? 
 It must be admitted that they were given in the assertion on 
 the part of this Government of territorial jvirisdiction over 
 Behring Sea to an extent exceeding fifty-nine miles from the 
 shores of Alaska ; that this territorial jurisdiction in the en- 
 forcement of the laws protecting seal fisheries was asserted by 
 actual seizures during the seasons of 1886, 1887, and 1889 of 
 a number of British vessels ; that the Government persistently 
 maintains that such jurisdiction belongs to it, based not only 
 on the peculiar nature of the seal fisheries and the property of 
 the Government in them, but also upon the position that this 
 jurisdiction was asserted by Russia for more than ninety years, 
 and by that Government transferred to the United States ; 
 and that investigations are pending upon the subject. . . . 
 
 In this case Her Britannic Majesty's attorney-general of 
 Canada has presented, with the knowledge and approval of the 
 Imperial Government of Great Britain, a suggestion on behalf 
 of the claimant. . . . We are not insensible to the courtesy im- 
 plied in the wilHngness thus manifested that this court should 
 proceed to a decision on the main question argued for the peti- 
 tioner ; . . . but it is very clear that, presented as a political 
 question merely, it could not fall within our province to deter- 
 mine it. — Ex parte Cooper, 1 2 Supreme Court Reporter, \^<^, 46 1 . 
 
 1892, Feb. 29. Agreement for an Arbitration between 
 THE United States and Great Britain. 
 
 Article VI. In deciding the matters submitted to the 
 arbitrators, it is agreed that the following five points shall be 
 
I 
 
 m 
 
 111 
 
 26 
 
 submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace a 
 distinct decision upon each of the said five points, to wit : 
 
 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the 
 Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries 
 therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the 
 tiine of the cession of Alaska to the United States? 
 
 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal 
 fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain ? 
 
 3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea 
 included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty 
 of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, 
 if any, in the Behring's Sea, were held and exclusively exercised 
 by Russia after said treaty? 
 
 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to the jurisdiction and 
 as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water bound- 
 ary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia of 
 the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States 
 under that treaty? 
 
 5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right, 
 of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the 
 islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals 
 are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit? 
 
 Article VII. If the determination of the foregoing ques- 
 tions shall leave the subject in such position that the concur- 
 rence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of 
 Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the 
 fur-seal in, or habilaally resorting to, the Behring Sea, the arbi- 
 trators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations out- 
 side the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are 
 necessary, and over what waters such Regulations should 
 extend ; and to aid them in that determination the report of a 
 Joint Commission to be appointed by the respective Govern- 
 ments shall be laid before them, with such other evidence as 
 eitnc- Government may submit. The high contracting Par- 
 ties furthermore agree to co-operate in securing the adhesion 
 of other Powers to such Regulations. — Senate Executive Docu- 
 ments^ 52 Cofig., I Sess.y No 55, p. 4. 
 
 \ 
 
 A 
 
 ture 
 aut 
 
 A 
 
 poeti 
 
 » 
 
 supp] 
 the I 
 
 V\ 
 
 Tv 
 abou 
 
 Eac 
 
 » 4 
 of thi 
 
 t)NQri: 
 
mbrace a 
 ) wit: 
 wn as the 
 
 1 fisheries 
 ap to the 
 
 the seal 
 
 ring's Sea 
 the treaty 
 lat rights, 
 exercised 
 
 ction and 
 er bound- 
 Russia of 
 ted States 
 
 tiat right, 
 iting the 
 ,uch seals 
 
 ing ques- 
 
 2 concur- 
 iment of 
 on of the 
 
 the arbi- 
 ions out- 
 nents are 
 should 
 port of a 
 Govern- 
 ence as 
 ing Par- 
 adhesion 
 ve Docu- 
 
 Walter Scott's Popular PnWications. 
 
 -«•»- 
 
 THE CAMELOT SERIES. 
 
 A series of monthly volumes, comprising the choicest litera- 
 ture of ancient and modern times, carefully edited by competent 
 authorities. 
 
 THE CANTERBURY POETS. 
 
 A series of monthly volumes covering the whole range of 
 poetical literature. 
 
 THE GREAT WRITERS SERIES. 
 
 A series of bi-monthly biographies of the great authors, each 
 supplemented with a bibliography prepared by the Librarian of 
 the British Museum. 
 
 WILSON'S TALES OF THE BORDERS. 
 
 Twenty-four volumes of interesting tales of fact and fiction 
 about the border wars between England and Scotland. 
 
 Each Volume, 12iiio., Cloth. Price, 40 cents. 
 
 « * 
 
 >^ For sale by all booksellers, or sent postpaid on receipt 
 
 of the price by 
 
 Walter Scott, 
 
 No. 3 East 14tli Street, 
 
 t)etor ^ Tt OAtalogae sent on application. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
If 
 
 *'A weU-digeited Manual*' 
 
 Civil Government: 
 
 STUDIES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
 By R. E. CLEMENT, 
 
 Principal of Scliools, Cranford, New Jersey. 
 
 ISmo. Cloth. 232 pp. PricSy 84 Cents. 
 
 In this worl? the aim has been to present to pupils not only the his- 
 torical facts relating to the formation of the Federal Government, ■ 
 but the theories of the most able writers on its nature and scope. ?; 
 Interesting descriptions of the several kinds of Colonial Governments, ■ 
 with sliort accounts of the four Colonial Congresses, precede the 
 detailed consideration of the Constitution. An important feature is 
 the summary of historical events leading up to each event, a descrip- 
 tion of the Revolutionary Congress and its powers under the Articles 
 of Confederation, and brief summaries of the results of the Annapolis 
 and Constitutional Conventions. 
 
 The Constitution is shown to be the logical development of the pre- 
 ceding forms of government, and the author has applied to each clause 
 the interpretation of men whose acts and utterances have been sanc- 
 tioned l)y the American people. Laws of Congress and valuable his- 
 torical notes render material assistance in elucidating the text. 
 
 Briefly summarized, the special features of the book are: 1. A 
 political history of each colony. 2. A description of the three forms 
 of Colonial Government. 3. A consideration of the causes which led 
 to the formation of the four Colonial Congresses, to the Revolutionary 
 Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution. 4. 
 An examination of the Articles of Perpetual Union, with the object of 
 demonstrating their weakness and the necessity of estaljlishing a 
 powerful central government. 5. A brief account of the Annapolis 
 Convention of 1786, and of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. 0. 
 An explanation of each clause of tlie Constitution, with a history of 
 tlie amendments that have been added. 7. The insertion of legal 
 and historical notes and references for the purpose of elucidating the 
 text. 8. A clear statement of the relations of the State and Federal 
 Governments. 
 
 "Clement's 'Civil Government' will be found useful not only in 
 schools, but on the desks of newspaper men and politicians. In treat- 
 ing disputed questions, Mr. Clement has had recourse to the l)est au- 
 thorities, and his statements are careful and impartial. The chapter 
 on the relations of tlie State and Federal Governments Is especially 
 valuable." — Springfield Republican. 
 
 A. LOVELL & CO., Publishers, 
 
 8 East 14th StrMt, New York. 
 
 Pr 
 
ON. 
 
 only the his-| 
 Government, [ 
 e and scope, 
 jrovernments, 
 , precede the 
 int feature is 
 nt, a descrip- , 
 • the Articles 
 :he Annapolis 
 
 it of the pre- 
 io each clause 
 ve been sane- 
 valuable his- 
 3 text. I 
 
 are: 1. A 
 i three forms 
 ses which led 
 evolutionary 
 volution. 4. v 
 the object of 
 Wishing a ; 
 Annapolis 
 of 1787. 6. 
 a history of 
 on of legal 
 cidating the 
 and Federal 
 
 not only in 
 IS. In treat- 
 the best au- 
 The chapter 
 s especially 
 
 kRS, 
 
 lew York. 
 
 le 
 
 "Attractive to the degree of fascination. ' ' 
 
 Studies in Philology. 
 
 By FREDERIC GARLANDA, Ph.D., 
 
 Prof, of English and Anglo-Saxon in the University of Rome, Italy. 
 
 1.— PHILOSOPHY OF WORDS. 
 A Popular Introduction to thb Science of Language. 
 
 ISmo, Oloth, Pricet $1.60. 
 
 Summary: I. — Introduction. II. — Sounds and Language. III.— 
 The English Language : Household Wouds, Chuhch Words, Words 
 OF Society, Political Words. IV. — Comparative Grammar. V. — 
 Outlines of the History of the Science of Language. VI. — The ques- 
 tion of the Origin of Language. VII. — Comparative Mythology. 
 VIII. — Languages and Races : Local and Family Names. IX. — Lan- 
 guage and Education. 
 
 It is the only work which explains in a really popular way the latest 
 results of the Science of Language. 
 
 " I read it with much interest, and recommended it to the young 
 men at Oxford." — Max Muller. 
 
 " It is not extravagant to say that it reads like a romance. The Phi- 
 losophy of Words is pre-eminently a volume for the library table and 
 for the pocket of an habitual reader. The author calls it ' a popular 
 introduction to the science of language,' and in that fleld it is probably 
 unrivalled." — R. H. Stoddard. 
 
 II.— THE FORTUNES OF WORDS. 
 
 Twenty Letters to a Lady on the Life, Growth and Changes 
 
 OF Words. 
 
 ISmo. Cloth. Price, $1.50. 
 
 It describes in very attractive style the changes in signification that 
 have come over words, and gives a popular account of the latest re- 
 sults of philological research. 
 
 Extract from Table of Contents : — Science of Language ; Etymol- 
 ogy and History of Words ; The Idea of Root ; Changes in Personal 
 and Local Names ; History and Connection of Familiar Words ; Devel- 
 opment of Ethical Feelings studied in Words ; Superstitions of Lan- 
 guage ; Slang — its Merits and Demerits. 
 
 A. LOVELL & CO., Publishers, 
 
 9 ^^t Hth Street, New yprlp 
 

 SOME BOOKS IN 
 HISTORY, AND SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Handbook of Dates. By Henry Cl- I'JTon Brown. 12 mo. Cloth. . 
 
 viii+182 pp. Price $1 00 
 
 Arranged alphabeticalljr and chronologically, comprising all the important events 
 from the earliest ages to within the present decade. 
 
 The Honors of the Empire State in the War of the Rebellion. 
 
 By Thos. S. ToWNSEND. Large 12 mo. Cloth. 416 pp. Price... 2 50 
 A history of the military operations of the Empire State during the Civil War. 
 
 Who? WhenP And What P Six Centuries of Men and Events. 
 In Chart form. Price, in Duck case, 50 cents ; Leather case 75 
 
 Political Economy for American Youth. By J. Harris Patton. 
 l2mo. Cloth, viii+298 pp. Price 100 
 
 It advocates the adoption and maintenance of an economic system suited to 
 American conditions, while at the same time recognizing at their full value com- 
 mercial and industrial relations with foreign nations. The principles advanced are 
 re-enforced by citations from our national history. 
 
 Fabian Essays in Socialism. By G. Bernard Shaw, and others. 
 8 vo. viii -1-234 pp. Paper covers. Price 40 
 
 " Cannot fail to be of great service in dispelling much misunderstanding of current 
 socialism." — T/ie Academy^ London, 
 
 The Eight Hours Day, By Sidney Webb and Harold Cox. 
 
 12 mo. viii-l-280 pp. Paper covers. Price 50 
 
 The question is discussed in its historical, economic, and social aspects, and 
 contains a bibliography for further research. 
 
 Civics for Young- Americans. By Wm. M. Giffin. Large 12 mo. 
 
 132 pp. With an illustration. Cloth. Price 50 
 
 The author shows in a strikingly novel and interesting way, and in language 
 intelligible to a ten-year-old boy, the necessity of government, the different forms 
 of government, and the advantages of our government over all others. 
 
 Civil Government. By R. E. Clement. 12 mo. Cloth, xiv-f 
 232 pp. Price 84 
 
 A brief and lucid treatise on the Federal Constitution, and the Colonial, 
 Revolutionary and Confederate Governments which preceded it. 
 
 English Political Orations from Wentworth to Macaulay. 
 
 Edited, with Introduction, by William Clarke. 12 mo. xvi-H3i2 
 
 pp. Cloth, uncut, price, 40 cents ; red roan, $1.25 ; half more, g. t. . I 50 
 
 Great speeches on great themes by famous English statesmen. The selection 
 covers a period from 1576 to 1831. 
 
 For sale by all booksellers, or sent by mail, postpaid, on receipt of the price. 
 
 A, LOVELL & CO., Publishers, 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 on 
 foi 
 
CIENCE. 
 
 Cloth. . 
 $1 oo 
 
 mt events 
 
 tellion. 
 
 'rice. . .2 50 
 ivil War. 
 
 Events. 
 
 'atton. 
 
 75 
 
 ,1 00 
 
 suited to 
 lue com- 
 inced are 
 
 I others. 
 
 40 
 
 )f current 
 
 D Cox. 
 
 \ 50 
 
 :cts, and 
 
 12 mo. 
 
 50 
 
 anguage 
 nt forms 
 
 xiv-f 
 
 84 
 
 [Dolonial, 
 
 iulay. 
 
 /i+312 
 g. t..i 50 
 
 selection 
 
 )f the price. 
 lERS, 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 J@^ " I deem Phonography an invaluable adjunct to education ; and 
 one which, when acquired in youth, would not be parted with in manhood 
 for thousands of dollars."— /^(?«. J. IV. Stone. 
 
 *' I advise all parents to have their boys and girls taught shorthand 
 and typewriting. A stenographer who can typewrite his notes would be 
 far safer from poverty than a great Greek scholar." 
 
 — Charles Reade on •' The Coming Man." 
 
 ISAAC PITMAN'S 
 
 SHORTHAND. 
 
 THE ORIGI NAL AND S TUNDIRD. 
 
 f>RESS OPINIONS. 
 
 The N. E. Journal of Education (Boston) says: — "The Isaac 
 Pitman system is the original and standard, having been in use for 
 54 years, and is the one upon which nearly all are based .... is 
 rapidly superseding all others in public schools and seminaries in this 
 country. The sale of the text books alone has reached over two million 
 copies. The Isaac Pitman system is the only one having a literature of 
 its own, ranging from a fifteen cent text book to the complete Bible in 
 Shorthand. Pupils quickly and easily learn to write the 'best forms' 
 from having so large a literature to select from." 
 
 "Shorthand possesses a great charm to the average youth. Pitman 
 has made the road to shorthand writing as easy as possible. We can 
 safely say that no one will make a mistake by adopting it. The 
 extremely low price of the books places them within the reach of every- 
 body."— T//^ School Journal, N. Y. 
 
 I^^The Isaac Pitman "Phonographic Teacher," 
 (15c.) and *' Manual of Phonography," (40c.) have been 
 added to the list of text-books adopted by the New York 
 Board of Education, for use in the Evening Schools. 
 
 The above works will be sent postpaid on receipt of 
 50 cents. Special rates to schools. 
 
 For Catalogue of Shorthand Works 
 
 ADDRESS : 
 
 ISAAC PITMAN & SONS, 
 
 The Phonographic Depdt, 
 
 3 East Fourteenth Street, 
 
 NEW YORK, 
 
American History Leaflets: 
 
 COLONIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 ALBERT BUSHNELL HABT and EDWABD OHANNINO, 
 
 or HARVAKD UNIVERSITY. 
 
 These Leaflets are designed to promote the scientific method of studying 
 history from its documents, and furnish in convenient form and at a moderate 
 price copies of original documents that have become famous in our colonial 
 and constitutional history as the outcome of some important crisis, or as 
 exponents of the theories underlying our form of government. 
 
 In selecting the documents, the Editors have chosen those that will be of 
 substantial value in studying the development of American history. Each 
 Leaflet contains a brief historical introduction and bibliography to aid further 
 investigation by the student. 
 
 SERIES OF 1892. 
 
 I. — The Letter of Columbus to Santangel announcing his Discovery. 
 2. — The Ostend Manifesto. 1854. 
 
 3. — Extracts from the Sagas describing the Voyages to Vinland. 
 4. — Extracts from Oflicial Declarations of the United States embodying the 
 Monroe Doctrine. 1789-1891. [Double number. 
 
 5. — Extracts from the Treaty of Paris of 1763, with the King's Proclamation. 
 6. — Extracts from papers relating to the Bering Sea Controversy. 1 824-1 891. 
 All of the above numbers are now ready for delivery. Price, for the 
 Series, 30 cents. 
 
 ANNOUNCEMENT. 
 Encouraged by the success of the flrst year's issue, the Publishers take 
 pleasure in announcing that the following numbers will constitute the 
 
 SERIES OF 1808. 
 
 1643- 
 
 7. — Articles and Ordinances of the Confederation of New England. 
 
 1684. 
 
 8. — Exact Text of the Constitution of the United States. 1787-1870. 
 9. — Papers relating to the Voyages of John Cabot. 1497-1498. 
 10. — Gov. McDuffie's Message on the Slavery Question. 1835. 
 II- — Jefferson's Proposed Instructions to the Virginia Delegation. 1774. 
 
 [Double number. 
 12. — Ordinances and other Papers relating to Secession. 1860-1861. 
 
 The above six numbers will be published bi-monthly in the months of 
 January, March, May, July, September and November. 
 Annual subscription, 30 cents. 
 
 Single numbers, price, 5 cents per copy. Double numbers, price, 10 ceuts 
 per copy. 
 
 *• They seem to me to be exactly what was needed." 
 
 — C. V. Parselly Preit., Clinton Liberal Institute, Fort Plain, N. Y. 
 
 A, LOVELL & CO., Publishers, 
 
;s: 
 
 AKNINO, 
 
 of studying 
 
 It a moderate 
 
 our colonial 
 
 crisis, or as 
 
 lat will be of 
 storv. Each 
 o aid further 
 
 overy. 
 
 ibodying the 
 able number, i, 
 Proclamation. 
 . 1824-1891. i 
 •rice, for the I 
 
 iblishers take 
 ite the 
 
 [land. 1643- 
 
 i7-i870. 
 S. 
 
 )n. 1774. 
 
 uble number. 
 
 -1861. 
 
 le months of 
 
 rice, 10 cenis 
 
 Plain, N. Y. 
 HERS, 
 
 — 1