THE BEGINNING OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.
With the issues thus made up, and the subject matter of controversy fully understood, in exactly the sane sense, by all three of the parties. the negotiations began. It would not be protitable to devote any time to an examination of the relative strength of the several claims to the coast in question. Doubtless, for the purpose of driving a better bargain, the elaim of Great Britain was put forward with con- scious extravaganee: but this is comparatively unimportant in this discussion, as the Treaty of 1825 dues not purport to express a set- tlement of conflicting rights. in any sense, in necordance with the way such rights were respectively stated or urged. On the con- trary, all questions of right were expressly waived. It is, however. portant to observe that while this was avowed by both Great Britain and Russia, Russia at uo time, receded from, but always, down to the conclusion of the negotiations. asserted her claim of actual and undisputed sovereignty over all of the coast north of the 5éth devree. This is significant ti connection with determining whether or not Russia ever understood that she was abandoning to Great Britain any part of the coast over which she bad always asserted sovereignty. .
A declaration of sovercignty tule. and never departed from at any stuge of the negotiations, cannot fail to be a strong exponent of the understanding by the parties, of the language used for the purpose of finally determining their controversy.
THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE TREATY GF 1835 D1) NOT PROCEED CVON STRICT RIGHT, BOT CPON CONSIDERATIONS OF MUTUAL EXPEDIENCY,
Count Lieven said to Mr. George Canning in a letter of January 19, 1823:
Before leaving Verena the andersigned was ordered to present to the Govern- ment of His Britannic Majesty a new proof of the Emperor's well known feelings hy proposing to Mis Exeelleney, Mr. Canning, Chicf Seeretary of State for Foreign Affairs of His Britannic Majesty (without perinitting this proposition to prejudics the rights of His Imperial Majesty should it not le accepted), that the question of striet right be temporarily set aside on the part of both and that all the dif- ferences to which the regulation in question has given rise be adjusted by an amicable arrangement founded on the sole principle of mutual expediency, to be negotiated at St. Petersburg.[1]
- ↑ U. S. C. App., 118.
