Open Collections

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

BC Historical Books

Further correspondence respecting the Behring Sea seal fisheries Great Britain. Foreign Office 1891

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcbooks-1.0222371.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcbooks-1.0222371.json
JSON-LD: bcbooks-1.0222371-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcbooks-1.0222371-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcbooks-1.0222371-rdf.json
Turtle: bcbooks-1.0222371-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcbooks-1.0222371-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcbooks-1.0222371-source.json
Full Text
bcbooks-1.0222371-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcbooks-1.0222371.ris

Full Text

Array UNITED STATES. No. 1 (1891).
 FURTHER   CORRESPONDENCE
 RESPECTING THE
 BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERIES. 
Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.
 March 1891.
 LONDON : 
PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE
 BY   HARRISON AND SONS, ST. MARTIN'S LANE ,
PRINTERS   IN   ORDINARY  TO   HER  MAJESTY. 
And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from
, EYRE and SPOTTISWOODE,  East Harding Street,  Fleet Street,  E.G
JOHN MENZIHS & Co.,  12,  Hanover Street,  Edinburgh, and
21, Drcry Street, Glasgow;   or
HODGES, FIGGIS, A Co., 104, Grafton Street. Dobuh.
[C—6253.]    Price Is. 2d. \>% TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.
No.
Name.
Date.
Subject.
Page
1
Sir J. Pauncefote ..
July    4, 1890
Proposed temporary exclusion of British sealers from
Behring's Sea.    Mr. Blaine's replv to note of
27th June (see " United States No.  2, 1890,"
p. 510) ..
1
2
,1                      9,                  ..      i                ..
28,
Negotiations of 1888.    Correspondence with Mr.
Blaine   (see   "United   States   No.   2,   1890,"
pp.491 and 498) ..
2
3
0.                      99                  • *                       . •
Aug. 14,
Note to  Mr.  Blaine communicating  despatch   of
2nd August on general question (see " United
States No. 2, 1890," p. 512)
5
4
Admiralty            ..
28,
Movements of sealers in Behring's Sea.  Letter from
Commander-in-chief   on   Pacific   Station   from
Esquimalt              .«.              . ,v
6
5
Sir J. Pauncefote .,            ..
July  24,
General observations on course of negotiations and
present state of question      ..             ..
8
6
Sir Ca Lampson and Co.      ..
Sept.   6,
Decrease of fur-seals.     Close  time necessary  to
prevent extinction..            ..             ..
11
7
To Sir C. Lampson and Co...
%
Acknowledges receipt of above..            ..            ..
11
8
Admiralty            ..           ..
o,
Movements of sealers in Behring's Sea.    Telegram
from Commander-in-chief on Pacific Station at
Victoria  .
11
9
Mr. Winton         ..           ..
3,
Comparison between the Behring's Sea and North
Atlantic seal fisheries           ..            ..            ..
12
10
To Mr. Winton    ..
16,
Acknowledges receipt of above,.             ..            ..
14
11
Sir J. Pauncefote ..            . .
",
Sends Bill to amend the Act providing a Civil Government for  Alaska, with proposal to confer
jurisdiction on Supreme Court            ..
14
12.
»           »»         *•            ••
19,
Notes  on  Mr.  Blaine's interpretation  of Mr. J.
Quincy Adams' despatches  on   Russian  Ukase
of 1821 ..
15
13
Admiralty            ..
Oct.    4,
Movements of sealers.   Letter from Commander-
in-chief on Pacific Station reporting their return
from Behring's Sea.    Two-thirds of the catch
said to be female seals         ..            ..
17
14
,9                                    •■•                       . a
14,
Return of sealers.   Telegram from Commander-in-
chief on Pacific Station       ..             ..             ..
18
15
To Sir J. Pauncefote           ..
22,
Answer to No. 2.   Negotiations of 1888.    States
recollection of what passed.   Question considered
unimportant          ..            ..            ..             ..
18
16
Sir J. Pauncefote ..            ..
Nov. 12,
Mr. Blaine reminded of proposal for arbitration.
(Telegraphic)
He is writing a reply to despatch of 2nd August
19
17
9                       ,1                     • .                          a *
7,
American sealing schooner " Sylvia Handy."   Sends
transcript of record in appeal case
19
18
99                    99                 •■•                      * .
Dec. 16,
Refers  to No. 15.    Negotiations of 1888.    Despatch  of 22nd  October communicated to  Mr.
Blaine, owing to appearance of article in " New
York Tribune " referring to subject   ..             ,.
36
19
99                    99                 . •                      ..
19,
Mr. Blaine's note dated 17th December on general
question, in  reply to despatch  of 2nd August
(see "United States No. 2,1890," p. 512). Terms
on which United States will accept arbitration  ..
37
•20
Sir C. Lampson and Co.      .,
30,
Refers to No. 6.    Increase in seal catch.    Fear of
extinction.   Reported intention of United States'
Government  to   raise  duty  on   British   manufactured skins.    Urges speedy settlement of dispute       ..            ..            •.             ..
64
21
To Sir J. Pauncefote           ..
30,
Answers Mo. 18.   Negotiations of 1888.  Approves
language to Mr. Blaine       ..
65
22
Colonial Office     ..
31,
Refers to No. 6.   Apprehended extinction of seals.
Minute   of Canadian   Government on   Messrs.
Lampsons' statements          ..            ..            .. 1 65
23
To Sir C. Lampson and Co...
Jan.    2, 1891
Acknowledges receipt of No. 20
76
24
Colonial Office     ..            ..
2,
Progress of negotiations.    Despatch from Canada
with comments of Canadian Government
76
25
19                  99                   . .                       * .
8,
Catch of  seals  in  season  of 1890.     Minute of
Canadian Privy Council, with letter from Collector of Customs in British Columbia .
77
26
Sir J. Pauncefote ...            .,
6,
President's Message to House of Representatives,
with correspondence since 23rd July, 1890, on
general question   ..           ..            .,
84
[95] TABLE OP  CONTENTS.
No.
Name.
Date.
W.c,
Page
27
Sir J. Pauncefote ..           ..
(Telegraphic)
Jan. 20, 1891
Statement in " Times " of 5th January, respecting
naval preparations of United States in Pacific,
denied by Mr. Blame          ..            ..
84
28
Colonial Office     ..           ..
29,
Despatch from Canada, with Report by Minister of
Marine   on Admiralty Report  respecting  seal-
fishing (see No. 13)
85
29
Sir J. Pauncefote ..            ..
(Telegraphic)
Feb.    9,
'' W. P. Sayward."    Proceedings before Supreme
Court.   Inquiry  by Mr. Blaine whether diplomatic correspondence is to be closed or suspended
in consequence     ,.            ..           ..
86
30
To Sir J. Pauncefote           ..
(Telegraphic)
10,
Answers above.    No connection between diplomatic
correspondence and " W. P. Sayward " proceedings.
Reply to Mr. Blaine's note of 17th December
will be sent shortly .
86
31
»           it                   • •
21,
Reply on general question to Mr. Blaine's note of
17 th December, ending with terms on which Her
Majesty's Government will accept arbitration    ..
87 .ggsaes#9£«(a$fflB»£5S93Biw« Further Correspondence respecting the  Behring Sea Seal
Fisheries.
No. 1.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—{Received July 17.)
My Lord, Washington, July 4, 1890.
I HAVE the honour to transmit a copy of the reply which I have received from
the Secretary of State to my note of the 27th ultimo, of which a copy was inclosed in
my despatch of the 27th ultimo.*
It appears to me that Mr. Blaine attaches an undue significance to the word
" forthwith " in my above-mentioned note.
It is obvious that, if British sealers are to be requested not to enter Behring's Sea
this season, on the ground of the proposed arbitration, there must be no delay in
proceeding to that mode of adjustment, and it was, therefore, naturally made a
condition not " that the President should forthwith accept a formal arbitration which
your Lordship prescribes," but " that the two Governments should agree forthwith to
refer to arbitration " the question of the legality of the seizures of British sealing-
vessels.
That is the question of law in difference between the two Governments, and I am
at a loss to understand why Mr. Blaine should complain of its being so stated.
I shall have the honour of addressing your Lordship in a separate despatch on the
present situation of the question, which has been brought back again by the Unitec"
States' Government to a question of legal right.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,
Inclosure in No. 1.
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Sir, Department of State, Washington, July 2, 1890.
YOUR note of the 27th ultimo, covering Lord Salisbury's reply to the friendly
suggestion of the President, was duly received. It was the design of the President, if
Lord Salisbury had been favourably inclined to his proposition, to submit a form of
settlement for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government which the President
believed Avould end all dispute touching privileges in Behring's Sea. But Lord Salisbury
refused to accept the proposal unless the President should " forthwith " accept a formal
arbitration which his Lordship prescribes. The President's request was made in the
hope that it might lead to a friendly basis of agreement, and he cannot think that Lord
Salisbury's proposition is responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the answer comes so
late that it would be impossible now to proceed this season with the negotiation the
President had desired.
An agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration. The United States is
perhaps more fully committed to that form of international adjustment than any other
Power, but it cannot consent that the form in which arbitration shall be undertaken
shall be decided without full consultation and conference between the two Governments.
I beg further to say that you must have misapprehended what.I said touching
British claims for injuries and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon British vessels
in the Behring's Sea by agents of the United States.   My declaration, was that arbitra-
• s
[95]
iee " United States No. 2 (1890)," p. 510.
B ^ass^^^a^^^s^sag^^yw™"'
2
tion would logically and necessarily include that point.    It is not to be conceded, but
decided with other issues of far greater weight.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
JAMES G. BLAINE.
No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received August 7.)
My Lord, Magnolia, Massachusetts, July 28, 1890.
I HAVE the honour to inclose copies of two notes which I addressed to the
Secretary of State on receipt of your Lordship's despatches of the 20th June* and of
the 21st June last,f and of the reply thereto which I have received from Mr. Blaine.
The reply appears as the last paper in the correspondence relating to the Behring's
Sea fisheries which has just, been sent to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Blaine contends that a Convention was actually agreed on between your
Lordship and Mr. Phelps on the 25th Eebruary, 1888, except as to details, and he
asks Great Britain to adhere to that Agreement. He states that the interposition of
Canada, to which he attributes its abandonment by Her Majesty's Government, was,
in the President's belief, " a grave injustice to the Government of the United States."
It would seem, however, that Mr. Phelps did not consider that any Agreement
had resulted from the communications which passed between him and your Lordship
on the 25th Eebruary, for on the 28th July, according to Mr. Blaine, he telegraphed
to his Government expressing the " fear that owing to Canadian opposition we shall
get no Convention."
It was never suggested at that period, or at any period between the close of the
London negotiations of 1888 and the renewal of the negotiations in Washington, that
any Agreement existed between the two Governments in relation to the fur-seal
fisheries beyond a common desire to adopt all measures shown to be necessary for the
preservation of the fur-seal species, which was said to be in danger of extinction.
If any such Agreement as is appealed to by' Mr. Blaine did exist it is difficult to
understand wrhy the negotiation was renewed in "Washington with the object of
inquiring into the evidence and of endeavouring to arrive at a conclusion as to the
extent of the alleged evils of pelagic sealing and the measures to be adopted for the
preservation of the fur-seal species. On this point I would refer to Mr. Blaine's note
to me of the 1st March, 1890, transmitting the evidence relied on by his Government
in support of their contention, and of which a printed copy was inclosed in my despatch
to your Lordship of the 15th April last.*
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure 1 in No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.
Sir, Washington
IN vour note of the 29th May last,§ which I duly transmitted
Salisbury, there are several references to communications which pa
two Governments in the time of your predecessor
June 30, 1890.
to the Marquis of,
ssed between the
I have now received a despatch from Lord Salisbury,§ copy of which I have the
essions which you
respect to those
honour to inclose, pointing out that there is some error in the impr
have gathered from the records in the  State Department with
communications.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE
• See <; United'States No. 2 (1890)/' p. 491.
% Ibid., p. 423.
§ Ibid.
t Ibi(i
p. 475.
49; 3
Inclosure 2 in No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.
gjr . Washington, June 30,1890.
I HAVE received a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, with reference to the
passage in your note to me of the 4th instant, in which you remark that in 1888 his
Lordship abruptly closed the negotiations because "the Canadian Government
objected," and that he " assigned no other reason whatever."
In view of the observations contained in Lord Salisbury's despatch of the
20th June, of which a copy is inclosed in my last preceding note of this date, his
Lordship deems it unnecessary to discuss at any greater length the circumstances which
led to an interruption of the negotiations of 1888.
With regard, however, to the passage of your note of the 4th instant above
referred to, his Lordship wishes me to call your attention to the following statement
made to him by Mr. Phelps, the United States' Minister in London, on the 3rd April,
1888, and which was recorded in a despatch of the same date to Her Majesty's
Minister at Washington:—
" Under the peculiar political circumstances of America at this moment," said
Mr. Phelps, " with a general election impending, it would be of little use, and, indeed,
hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its issue before the election had taken
place."
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure 3 in No. 2.
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote,
Sir, Bar Harbour, Maine, July 19, 1890.
I REGRET that circumstances beyond my control have postponed my reply
to your two notes of the 30th June, which were received on the 1st instant, on the eve
of my leaving Washington for this nlaee. The note which came to hand on the forenoon of that day inclosed a despatch from Lord Salisbury, in which his Lordship,
referring to my note of the 29th May, expresses " a wish to point out some errors "
which, he thinks I " had gathered from the records in my Office."
The purpose of Lord Salisbury is to show that I misapprehended the facts of the
case when I represented him, in my note of the 29th May, as having given such-
" verbal assurances " to Mr. Phelps as warranted the latter in expecting a Convention
to be concluded between the two Governments for the protection of the seal fisheries
in Behring's Sea.
Speaking directly to this point, his Lordship says: " Mr. Blaine is under a misconception in imagining that I ever gave any verbal assurance or any promise of any
kind with respect to the terms of the proposed Convention."
In answer to this statement, I beg you will say to Lord Salisbury that I simply quoted
in my note of the 29th May the facts communicated by our Minister, Mr. Phelps, and
our Charge1 d'Affaires, Mr. White, who are responsible for the official statements made to
this Government at different stages of the seal fisheries negotiation.
On the 25th February, 1888, as already stated in my note of the 29th May,
Mr. Phelps sent the following intelligence to Secretary Bayard, viz.: " Lord Salisbury
assents to your proposition to establish, by mutual arrangement between the Governments interested, a close time for fur-seals, between the 15th April and the 1st November
in each year, and between 160° of west longitude, and 170° of east longitude in the
BehringVSea. And he will cause an Act to be introduced in Parliament to give effect
to this arrangement so soon as it can be prepared. In his opinion there isno doubt
that the Act will be passed. He will also join the United States' Government in any
preventive measures it may be thought best to adopt by orders issued to the naval
vessels of the respective Governments in that region."
Mr. Phelps has long been known in this country as an able lawyer, accurate in the
use of words, and discriminating in the statement of facts. The Government of the
United States necessarily reposes implicit confidence in the literal correctness of the
despatch above quoted. v^
[95] B 2 T*»!**3,»*JS$ggS5*5?HflB,!?,w
4
Some time after the foregoing conference between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps
had taken place, his Lordship invited the Russian Ambassador, M. de Staal, and the
American Charge^ Mr. White (Mr. Phelps being absent from London), to a conference
held at the Foreign Office on the 16th April, touching the Behring's Sea controversy.
This conference was really called at the request of the Russian Ambassador, who
desired that Russian rights in the Behring's Sea should be as fully recognized by England
as American rights had been recognized in the verbal Agreement of the 25th February;
between Lord Salisbury and Mr Phelps.
The Russian Ambassador received from Lord Salisbury the assurance (valuable
also to the United States) that the protected area for seal life should be extended south
ward to the 47th degree of north latitude, and also the promise that he would have %
draught [sic] Convention prepared for submission to the Russian Ambassador and the
American Charge."
Lord Salisbury now contends that all the proceedings at the Conference of the
16th April are to be regarded as only " provisional, in order to furnish a basis for
negotiation, and without definitively pledging our Government." While the understanding of this Government differs from that maintained by Lord Salisbury, I am
instructed by the President to say that the United States is willing to consider all the
proceedings of the 16th April, 1888, as cancelled, so far as American rights may be
concerned. This Government will ask Great Britain to adhere only to the Agreement
made between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps on the 25th February, 1888. That was
an Agreement made directly between the two Governments, and did not include the
rights of Russia. Asking Lord Salisbury to adhere to the Agreement of the
25th February, we leave the Agreement of the 16th April to be maintained, if maintained at all, by Russia, for whose cause and for whose advantage it was particularly
designed.
While Lord Salisbury makes a general denial of having given " verbal assurances,"
he has not made a special denial touching the Agreement between himself and
Mr. Phelps, which Mr. Phelps has reported in special detail, and the correctness of
which he has since specially affirmed on more than one occasion.
In your second note of the 30th June, received in the afternoon of the 1st July,
you call my attention (at Lord Salisbury's request) to a statement which I made in my
note of the 4th June, to this effect: —
" It is evident, therefore, that in 1888 Lord Salisbury abruptly closed the
negotiation because, in his own phrase, ' the Canadian Government objected.''
To show that there were other causes for closing the negotiation, Lord Salisbury
desires that attention be called Io a remark made to him by Mr. Phelps on the
3rd April, 1888, as follows: " Under the peculiar circumstances of America at this
moment, with a general election impending, it would be of little use, and indeed
hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its issue before the general election
has taken place."
I am quite ready to admit that such a statement made by Mr. Phelps might now
be adduced as one of the reasons for breaking off the negotiation, if, in fact, the
negotiation had been then broken off. But Lord Salisbury immediately proceeded with
the negotiation. The remark ascribed to Mr. Phelps was made, as Lord Salisbury states,
on the 3rd April, 1S88. On the 5th April Mr. Phelps left London on a visit to the
United States. On the 6th April Lord Salisbury addressed a private note to
Mr. White to meet the Russian Ambassador at the Foreign Office, as he had appointed
a meeting for the 16th April to discuss the questions at issue concerning the seal
fisheries in Behring's Sea.
'•••;■*'£?.. On the 23rd April there was some  correspondence in regard to an Order in
Council and an Act of Parliament.
On the 27th April Under-Secretary Barrington of the Foreign Office, in an
official note, informed Mr. White that " the next step was to bring in an Act of
Parliament."
On the 28th April Mr. White was informed that an Act of Parliament would be
necessary in addition to the Order in Council, but that " neither Act nor Order could
be draughted [sic] until Canada is heard from."
Mr. Phelps returned to London on the 22nd June and immediately took up the
subject, earnestly pressing Lord Salisbury to come to a conclusion. On the 28th July,
he telegraphed his Government expressing the " fear that owing to Canadian opposition
we shall get no Convention."
On the 12th September Mr. Phelps wrote to Secretary Bayard that Lord Salisbury
had stated that " the Canadian Government objected to any such restrictions (as those asked for the protection of the seal fisheries), and that until Canada's consent
could be obtained, Her Majesty's Government was not willing to enter into the
Convention."
I am justified, therefore, in assuming that Lord Salisbury cannot recur to the
remark of Mr. Phelps as one of the reasons for breaking off the negotiation, becaui&
the negotiation was in actual progress for more than four months after the remark wras
made, and Mr. Phelps himself took large part in it.
Upon this recital of facts, I am unable to recall or in any way to qualify the
statement which I made in my note of the 4th June to the effect that Lord Salisbury
" abruptly closed the negotiation because the Canadian Government objected, and that
he assigned no other reason whatever."
. Lord Salisbury expresses the belief that even if the view I have taken of these
transactions be accurate, they would not bear out the argument which I found
upon them. The argument to which Lord Salisbury refers, is, I presume, the
remonstrance which I made, by direction of the President, against the change of
policy by Her Majesty's Government without notice and against the wish of the United
States. The interposition, of the wishes of a British province against the conclusion of
a Convention between two nations which, according to Mr. Phelps, " had been virtually
agreed upon except as to details," was, in the President's belief, a grave injustice to
the Government of the United States.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. G. BLAINE.
No. 3.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received August 25.)
My Lord, Magnolia, August 14, 1890.
I HAD the honour to receive on the 11th instant your Lordship's despatch
of the 2nd of this month,* relating to the Behring's Sea controversy, and I now beg to
inclose herewith a copy of the note with which, in accordance with the instructions
contained in that despatch, I forwarded a copy of the same to the Secretary of State.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure in No. 3.
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.
Sir, Magnolia, August 12, 1890.
I TRANSMITTED without delay to the Marquis of Salisbury a copy of your
note of the 30th June relating to the Behring's Sea controversy, and in which you
comment upon a despatch from his Lordship, dated the 22nd May, of which I had the
honour to leave a copy with you.
I have now received a despatch from Lord .Salisbury, dated the 2nd August, in
reply to those comments, and, in accordance with his Lordship's instructions, I have the
honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of it and of its inclosures. You will observe
that in the last paragraph, I am directed to state that Her Majesty's Government have
no desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring's Sea
which was conceded by Great Britain to Prussia, and" which properly accrues to the
present possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or of the law of nations; and that
if the United States' Government, after examination of the evidence and arguments
which are produced in that despatch, still differ from them as to the legality of the
recent captures in that sea, Her Majesty's Government are ready to agree that the
question, with the issues that depend'on it, should be referred to impartial arbitration.
In that case, I am authorized to consider, in concert with you, the method of
procedure to be followed.
I have, &c. '
& (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. .
See " United States No. 2 (1890)," Nfo.'.8S2, p. 512: t^jSS^vsw&:;:ji;o^^?5S=SKS?'s1
No. 4.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received August 30.)
Sir, Admiralty, August 28, 1890.
I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit
herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State, copy of a letter from the
Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station, dated at Esquimalt, the 6th instant,
together with copies of its inclosures, respecting the movements of scalers in Behring's
Sea, &c.
I am, &c.
(Signed) R. D. AWDRY.
Inclosure 1 in No. 4.
Rear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.
(Extract.) " Warspite," at Esquimalt, August 6, 1890.
THE American auxiliary steam-schooner " Misohief " and the British-schooner
"Aurora" having just returned from the sealing fleet, I took the opportunity of
obtaining from them the following information as regards the state of affairs as far as
they knew:—
It is usual for the seal traders to charter a vessel to take the coast catch of sealskins from the sealers, and bring them south before the fleet enter the Behring's Sea.
This year the schooner " Mischief " was chartered by a Syndicate representing twenty-
five British vessels and four American. The American vessels are: " Henry Dennis,"
" San Jose," " Lily L.," and "Allie Alger." The "Mischief" sails under American
colours, and left Victoria on the 14th June. She arrived at Sand Point, Little
Koninski Island, Shumagin group, 4th July, where about thirty vessels' wrere
awaiting her.
On the afternoon of the 6th July nineteen vessels under British colours put to
sea, followed by the "Mischief" to about 15 miles from the land, and between 6 p.m.
of that day and 4 A.M. of the next 9,129 skins were transferred to the " Mischief."
Bad weather coming on, the schooners that had not completed the transfer of
skins went into North-East Harbour (Little Koninski Island), remained there the
7th and 8th July, but wanting more shelter went through the 12-fathom channel
between Shumagin and Simanoff to Sand Cove, in the north-east of Little Koninski
Island. On the 10th July they again weighed and went outside 5 miles from the land
and transferred the remainder of the skins, amounting in all to about 13,000.
The "Mischief" did not fall in with any of the American vessels she was
chartered for, and the guarantee of 50 dollars which the Syndicate had each to deposit
was returned to the owners on her arrival at Victoria.
While taking in the last of the skins the " Mischief " sighted the " Pathfinder,"
which schooner reported that she had sighted the American revenue-cutter " Rush "
(Captain Coulson, with Lieutenant Tuttle as boarding officer, the same as last year) on
the 9th July, heading for Sand Point.
There being still some more skins to come down, the schooner "Aurora" was
chartered by Mr. Munsie, of Victoria, and Captain Cox, Secretary of the British
Sealers Association, to bring them to Victoria. The above-named gentleman gave the
following information to Captain Hulton, of Her Majesty's ship " Amphion."
The "Aurora" was not going to enter the Behring's Sea, as her hunters
refused to do so on account of having had no pay for two years. It appears to be the
oustom for the hunters (Indians) to share according to the catch, and last year and
a year or two before the catches had been seized, consequently the seal-hunters
(Indians) had lost their money. The "Aurora" left two days after the "Mischief,"
and brought a letter from the British schooner % Ariel," which the captain had left at
Sand Point for his owner, Captain Buckram, of Victoria. The letter states he had been
boarded by the Lieutenant of the " Rush," and two copies of the Proclamation of the
American President handed him (copy inclosed). When asked by the boarding officer
if he was going into the Behring's Sea, he replied he was, and Lieutenant Tuttle
warned him, saying, " Then, you had better look out."
A sick man from the schooner " Triumph " came down in the " Aurora " and
reported the " Rush " at Sand Point on the 9th July distributing copies of the above Proclamation. She only, remained about an hour and went out for the i flight,
presumably for North-East Harbour, but returned next morning, not having found ;as$
schooners: j&iere. The " Aurora " arriving at Sand Point on the 12th July found the
whole of the sealers and the cruizer had gone into the Behring's Sea.
From what I can gather here the principal number of sealing-vessels are
owned by American subjects, though not registered in their names, notably one
schooner, the " Mary Ellen;" also the schooners would probably enter and return from
the Behring's Sea by the 172nd Pass so as to avoid Ounalaska. The British vessels
were all warned by their owners not to go within 15 miles of the land whilst in the
Behring's Sea.
I also wish to point out that there will probably be no more news from the
sealers until their return, about the end of September, and they are so scattered while
sealing that it it unlikely, if any seizures do take place, that I should hear of them
until some time after.
I reported by telegram (of the 4th instant) the only seizure that has taken
place is that of an American schooner, the " G. R. White," for contravention of the
'? Spirit and Arms Act of Alaska."
Inclosure 2 in No. 4.
By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.
THE following provisions of the Laws of the United States are hereby published
for the information of all concerned.
Section 1956, Revised Statutes, Chapter III, Title 23, enacts that:—
" No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-
bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof; and
every person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars or
more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and all
vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this
section shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to
authorize the killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal,
except fur-seals, under such Regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty
of the Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the execution
of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall
he grant any special privileges under this section."
'•» T* «fc T* 'P 'N
Section 3 of the Act entitled, " An Act to provide for the Protection of the
Salmon Fisheries of Alaska," approved the 2nd March, 1889, provides that:—
" Section 3. That Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of the Behring's Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President at a timely
season in each year to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for
one month at least in one newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United
States' port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering such
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section, and he shall also
cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters and
arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be or have been engaged in any
violation of the Laws of the United States therein."
******
Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, pursuant to
the above-recited Statutes, hereby warn all persons against entering the waters of
Behring's Sea within the dominion of the United States for the purpose of violating
the provisions of the said Section 1956, Revised Statutes; and I hereby proclaim that
all persons found to be or have been engaged in any violation of the Laws of the
United States in said waters will be arrested and punished as above provided, and
that all vessels so employed, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargoes, will be seized
and forfeited.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the.
United States to be affixed. SSSSSSsSSS?
Done in the city of Washington this 15th day of March, 1800, and of  th
Independence of the United States the 114th.
(Signed) BENJN. HARRISON.
By the President,
(Signed) James G. Blaine,
Secretary of Stute.
No. 5.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received September 1.)
(Extract.) Magnolia, July 24, 1890.
THE adjournment of the Behring's Sea negotiations caused by the departure of
the Secretary of   State   from Washington   for  Bar Harbour,  as reported in my
telegram of the 3rd instant,* affords a convenient opportunity for submitting to your
'Lordship,some observations on the course of those negotiations and on the present
situation of the controversy.
It may be convenient, in the first place, to recall the circumstances under which
the London negotiation was renewed in Washington.
The London negotiation had been interrupted by various events before any satisfactory inquiry had taken place into those important questions of fact on which the
United States' Government base their contention that a close season in Behring's Sea
is indispensable for the preservation of the fur-seal species. That contention was
supported, no doubt, by a considerable amount of ex parte evidence, on the strength of
which the United States' Government proposed a close season from the 15th April to
the 1st November.
At the same time they declared that they only desired a close season for such a
period as might be requisite for the end in view.
Her Majesty's Government were disposed to entertain the proposal favourably,
subject to the views of the Canadian Government, as representing that part of Her
Majesty's dominions immediately interested in the seal fishery. The Canadian Government pointed out that the proposal of the United States' Government would practically
have the effect of excluding Canadian sealers altogether from Behring's Sea. That the
period suggested for a close season might as well be read from the 1st January to the
31st December, it being notorious that seals do not enter Behring's Sea until the
middle or end of May, and have left those waters by the end of October. They
disputed the accuracy and value of the evidence relied on by the United States'
Government.
It was at this juncture that Mr. Phelps, the United States' Minister in London
(according to Mr. Blaine's note of the 19th July, 1890), telegraphed to his Government
expressing his fear that, owing to the opposition of Canada, there would be no
Convention.
The Presidential election then supervened, which, as Mr. Phelps admitted, necessarily suspended the negotiations. The formation of a new Cabinet at Washington,
and the appointment of a new British Minister, retarded further progress, and it was
not until the month of February last that it was agreed that the negotiation should
lie resumed at Washington between Mr. Blaine (the new Secretary of State), M. de
Struvo (the Russian Minister), and myself.
It was admitted that the sole object of the inquiry was the preservation of the
fur-seal species for the benefit of mankind, and that no consideration of advantage to
any particular nation, or of benefit to any private interest, should enter into the
discussion.
During the negotiation I had the advantage of the able assistance of Mr. Charles
Tupper, the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I may say that, throughout the inquiry, Her Majesty's Government were animated by the largest spirit of
justice, friendliness, and conciliation.
On the part of the- United States' Government, Mr. Blaine produced a Memorandum of evidence and extracts from official documents to prove " that the killing of
seals in the open sea tends certainly and rapidly to the extermination of the species."
This assertion was combated with great force and ability by Mr. Tupper in a
counter-Memorandum which I laid before the Conference, and in which a great amount
of testimony is collated adverse to the view of the United States' Government.   The
* S
ee " United States No. 2 (1890)," p. 505. f*
result of the careful consideration which I gave to the evidence on both sides was to
satisfy my own mind that, while measures are called for to protect female seals with
young from slaughter during the well-known periods of their migration to and from
the breeding islands, and also to prohibit the approach of sealing-vessels within a
certain distance of those islands, the inquiry had failed to establish the contention of
the United States' Government that the absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing is
necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species.
But the conflict of evidence and opinion on many points was such as to preclude
all hope of a solution of the question without recourse to a Commission of Experts, and
possibly to arbitration.
In this state of things I was invited by Mr. Blaine to make a proposal on behalf
of Her Majesty's Government. Accordingly, I prepared and submitted to the Conference the scheme of settlement explained in my note to Mr. Blaine of the 29th April,*
together with the draft of a Convention to carry it into effect, the draft having
previously met with the concurrence of the Canadian Government and with your
Lordship's approval.
I venture to think that it would be difficult to suggest a more equitable basis
of settlement.
The proposed Convention provided for an appointment of a Mixed Commission of
Experts to report on the disputed points, with ultimate recourse to arbitration, should
it be found necessary for the final adjustment of all the questions involved. Moreover, it embodied regulations to take immediate effect, and which I do not hesitate to
affirm were amply sufficient to remove all risk of the depletion, or even appreciable
diminution, of the fishery pending the Report of the Commission.
I had every reason to expect that, on receipt of my note of the 29th April and of
the draft Convention which it inclosed, another meeting of the Conference would have
been summoned to discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of the proposals made by
Her Majesty's Government. But the negotiators were not invited to meet again,
and my note of the April 29th, was not even answered.
On the 22nd May the public journals announced the rejection of the British
proposals, and the issue of instructions to the United States' revenue-cruizers of such
a character as rendered necessary the intimation conveyed in my note to Mr. Blaine of
the following day (23rd May),t that Her Majesty's Government would forward without
delay a formal protest against any interference with British vessels in Behring's Sea
outside of territorial waters.
Mr. Blaine's reply to that note is dated the 29th May, J and in the course of his
. observations on the protest of Her Majesty's Government he states that "no course was
left to the United States or Russia " but to reject the proposals contained in my note of
the 29th April.   That is the only formal intimation I have ever received that the proposed Convention was unacceptable to the United States' Government.
The negotiation which was thus brought to so abrupt a termination had
been restricted entirely to the question of a close season. All questions of
legal right in controversy were purposely kept out of view, in the hope that they
would finally disappear in an international agreement. That result, however, not
having been attained, the United States' Government have reverted to the claim
of legal right to exclude all other nations from the fur-seal fishery in Behring's
Sea. I have had some difficulty in clearly apprehending, even after all the correspondence which has taken place, the precise proposition of law on which the United
States' Government rely in justification of that claim.
The attitude of the late Cabinet was quite inconsistent with any serious reliance
on such rights as are now asserted. Thus, President Cleveland, in 1887, ordered the
release of three British sealers seized in Behring's Sea, under Section 1956 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, which in general terms prohibits the killing of
any fur-seal "within the limits of Alaska Territory, or the waters thereof."
It is true that Secretary Bayard stated that such release was ordered " without
conclusion of any questions which might be found to be involved;" but no further
seizures were made in 1888, and the President proceeded to invite the Governments
of Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Sweden, and Japan to enter into an
arrangement for the better protection of the fur-seal fisheries in Behring's Sea.
This amounted to an admission, in the face of Europe, that the object in view could
not be attained consistently with the law of nations without an international agree-
• See « United States No. 2 (1890)," p. 455. f Ibid., p. 478. $ Ibid., p. 475.
f95] q TsSsssss&^essa^gs^sssMewws
10 «g
ment. Another equally significant fact was the refusal of the Senate of the United
States to allow the insertion of a clause, proposed by the House of Representatives, in
the Act of the 2nd March, 1889, declaring that Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes
above referred to, and under which the seizures of British sealers on the high seas
have been made, " include and apply to all the waters of Behring's Sea in Alaska
embraced within the boundary-lines mentioned and described in the Treaty with Russia."
The clause, as it now stands, is as follows:—
" Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby declared to
include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the Waters of Behring's
Sea." It will be seen, therefore, that the Senate declined to compromise itself by any
such declaration as was proposed by the House of Representatives.
This is not surprising, considering the politico-physical geography Of Behring's
Sea. An eminent American jurist, President Angell, in an article in the' " Forum " of
November 1889, demonstrates with great force the fallacy of treating that sea as
mare clausum. He points out that it measures 1,100 miles from east to west, and
800 miles from north to south, and that its area is more than twice that of the North
Sea, and at least two-thirds as great as the Mediterranean. As regards its entrances,
he remarks that it is open io the north by the straits, 36 miles wide, which form
a passage-way to the Arctic Ocean; and to the south by more than 800 miles of sea
intervening between the most westerly island of Alaska and the Asiatic shore.
Another eminent American jurist, Professor Rayner, writing in the same sense to
the " New York Evening Post" of the 27th June, 1889, observes that the narrowest
of the channels between the western extremity of the Aleutian belt of islands
belonging to the United States and the Russian territory of Kamtehatka " would
admit-of a fleet of 100 vessels sailing abreast in a single line, even if deployed with a
quarter of a mile between each two vessels."
But even if Behring's Sea were " land-locked " within the meaning of a close sea,
the severance in the unity of territorial possession which took place in 1867 by the
cession of Alaska to the United. States deprived it at once of one of the indispensable
conditions of a " close sea." .
Russia* by the Ukase of 1821, undoubtedly claimed that part of the Pacific
Ocean as mare clausum, although she did not-' attempt to exclude foreign vessels
entirely from it. As explained by M. Poletica, in his note to Mr. Adams of the
28th February, 1822, Russia, while claiming the right to do so, preferred only asserting,
her " essential rights " by prohibiting foreign vessels from approaching the coasts or
islands within less than 100 Italian miles. It is clear, therefore, that Russia based
her right to impose this lesser restriction on foreign vessels upon the-larger right of
total exclusion under the doctrine of mare clausum.
If I correctly understand the contention of the United States' Government, it is
this:—
They are willing to discard the doctrine of mare clausum as applied to Behring's
Sea, but they insist on the more limited right claimed by Russia to exereise jurisdic-"
tion over foreign vessels within 100 miles of the coasts and islands. It is obvious,
however, that the Russian claim of jurisdiction within 100 miles disappeared with the
larger claim of mare clausum from which it was derived, and that it cannot now be
revived with any semblance of right, and for any purpose whatever. Such an
appropriation of open sea, to use the language of Dr. Dana (7th edition of Wheaton,
note to paragraph 187), "however long acquiesced in, is inadmissible in the nature of
things. Whatever may be the evidence of the time or nature of the use, it is set
aside as a bad usage which no evidence can make legal."
Hitherto the credit has been ascribed to the United States of having been the
first nation to vindicate the freedom of the sea in respect of this very portion of the
Pacific Ocean by the vigorous protest of Mr. J. Q. Adams against the whole of the
claims, maritime and territorial, asserted by the Emperor Alexander I in his famous
Ukase of 1821.
I think it will be a matter of general surprise to learn that, in the view of the
United States' Government, that protest was not intended to apply to the claims of
Russia in Behring's Sea. But, whatever opinion may be formed on that point, ft is
certain that the principles of the law of nations invoked by Mr. Adams apply with
equal force, whether to the north or to the south of the Aleutian Islands, and that the
millions of fur-seals which migrate annually to Behring's Sea do not, on entering its
waters, become the exclusive property of the United States.
I will not presume to dwell longer on the legal aspect of the controversy, as the
various questions of law to which it has given rise have been fully and conclusively 11
dealt with in vour Lordship's despatches, of which copies have been communicated to
Mr. Blaine.
T will only observe, in conclusion, that if the United States' Government persist
in their endeavour to exclude British subjects from any participation in the fur-seal
fishery in Behring's Sea, on the plea that such exclusion is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species, they assume a position which in my opinion will not bear
the test of an impartial inquiry, and that, in defending such action on the ground of
legal right, they raise questions of grave interest and concern to all nations which there
can be no hope of bringing to a satisfactory solution otherwise than by a Conference
of the Great Powers or by international arbitration.
No. 6.
Sir C. Lampson and Co, to Foreign Office.—(Received September 6.)
Dear Sir, 64, Queen Street, London, September 6,1890.
SINCE we addressed you, under date of the 6th November last,* on the Behring's
Sea Fishery question, the number of fur-seals annually visiting the Pribylov breeding
islands has decreased to such an extent that the Company who hold the lease from the
United States' Government have only been able to secure, for trade purposes, 21,000,
instead of the usual 100,000, skins, the United States' Government Agent stationed on
the islands prohibiting any further killing.
The total extermination of the fur-seal, which we foreshadowed in our last, has
therefore come within measurable distance, and unless a close time can be arranged
immediately, the animal will undoubtedly become extinct within a very short time.
We need scarcely point out that as the seals taken by the Canadian schooners at
sea are the females and pups of those visiting the breeding islands, this industry will
of necessity disappear with the extinction of the seal, and in confirmation of this we
have just received a telegram from Victoria informing us that the seal fishery in the
Behring's Sea has been a failure, the total catch being far below those of preceding
years, although the fishing-vessels do not appear to have been molested by the United
States' Government cruizers.
We are, &c.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON and Co.
No. 7.
Foreign Office to Sir C. Lampson and Co.
Gentlemen, Foreign Office, September 9,1890.
I AM directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 0th instant, calling attention to the serious diminution Avhich appears to
have taken place in the number of fur-seals resorting to the Pribylov Islands.
I am, &c.     jf$&*
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.
No. 8.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received September 10.)
Sir, Admiralty, September 9, 1890.
I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit, for
the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copy of a telegram dated
the 8th September from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station.
I am, &c.
(Signed) EVAN MACGREGOR.
* See " United States No. 2 (1890)," p. 338.
[95] C 2 la
Inclosure in No. 8
Vice-Admiral Heneage to Admiralty.
(Telegraphic.) Victoria, British Columbia, September 8, 1890.
ON the 23rd August four sealing schooners left Behring's Sea, reporting vessels
homeward bound. Very bad catch on account of foggy weather. " Rush " steamed
round one while hunting seals, and took no notice. No seizure made or any other
interference with sealers.
No. 9.
Afr. Winton to tlie Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received September 13.)
My Lord, 32, Hal ton Street, Toronto, Canada, September 3,1890.
PERMIT me to say that I am pleased to be able to confirm your Lordship's
representations in reply to Mr. Blaine's statements respecting the " possible destruction of the Behring's Sea fishery by over-fishing and by the irregular slaughter of
seals " in that quarter.
The North Atlantic seal fishery is very similar in character to that of Behring's
Sea, and the habits of the animal in both seas have a good deal in common. The
dissimilarity consists physically only in the character of the fur, and locally in the fact
that the Atlantic seal is taken, captured, or killed either in the water or upon the ice
with which it is covered at the season when they are taken, whilst the Pacific seal is
killed in the water or upon the adjacent islands.
May I ask your Lordship also to note the fact that when United States' seal-
hunters some years ago (in 1860-61, I think) undertook to compete in our Newfoundland seal fishery no objection whatever was raised by us to their doing so, or even to
their outfitting in our ports, subject to like duties upon their supplies and outfits which
the local fisherman had to pay ? It was our refusal to permit them to bring in their
own supplies free" of duty, whilst they outfitted in other respects from our ports, which
induced them in a fit of mere dudgeon to abandon the fishery.
From the inclosed extract which I take from the " Toronto Empire " of the 28th
July your Lordship will please to observe that I have taken some pains to tabulate
the recorded annual catch of our North Atlantic seals from 1805 to 1885 inclusive.
This is entirely distinct from the catch (of which no record is kept) mainly taken
from the shore and within the bays and harbours of the island, which is in some
years quite large, and would add very considerably to the number. And yet, with all
this annual destruction, there is to-day no perceptible diminution of the number of
seals. If these animals were not thus destroyed, and their produce utilized, the cod
fishery, which to-day constitutes the main industry of the Colony, together with our
Atlantic salmon and herring fisheries, would almost immediately be destroyed; for it
is entirely upon these fish they prey, and the quantity annually consumed by them is
almost incalculable.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ROBT. WINTON.
Inclosure in No. 9.
Extract from the " Toronto Empire" of July 28, 1890.
The Behring's Sea Seal Fishery.
To the Editor of the " Empire."
Sir, 32, Halton Street, July 24, 1890.
I HAVE read with much interest that portion of the official correspondence
recently laid before the House of Commons on the above controversy between the
British and the United States' Governments, as published in your issue of " The
Empire " this morning, and have been much struck by the contrast exhibited between
the vigorous, logical, and perspicuous representations of Lord Salisbury and the
msmsm 15
weak and disingenuous assumptions and propositions of the Minister of the United
States.
I am glad to observe Lord Salisbury's recognition of the fact that " it requires
something more than a mere declaration " upon the part of a Minister of the United
States to bring one to a substantial conclusion as to facts involved in the discussion of
quastiones vexata between the two Governments. It is quite possible (as his Lordship
intimates) that in some respects " Mr. Blaine has been misinformed," as it is equally
clear that in others he is neither informed nor misinformed.
In reply to Mr. Blaine's statement respecting the " irregular slaughter of seals in
the open waters of Behring's Sea," and the consequent possible total destruction of the
fishery in a few years, Lord Salisbury deems it unnecessary to deal with that phase of
the question, as it is proposed to submit all the conditions of pelagic sealing to the
investigation of a Committee to be appointed by the two Governments. In the meantime, his Lordship is of opinion that if all such sealing was stopped, the creature
would multiply at even a more extraordinary rate than at present, an opinion which
every practical seal-hunter will readily indorse.
As compared with the North Atlantic seal fishery, the Behring's Sea fishery is
quite a modern and recent industry. Before Behring discovered cither the sea or the
straits to which his name has been given the North Atlantic fishery was an important
industry.
Both fisheries have some features in common, and the habits and characteristics
of the animals in both waters are not very dissimilar, especially as regards conditions
of propagation, gestation, &c.
The records of our eastern fishery have been very accurately tabulated for nearly
a hundred years, and the results fully justify Lord Salisbury's opinion, and most
emphatically confute Mr. Blaine's lamentations. In order to show how little justification there is for Mr. Blaine's prognostications, I may say that from 1805 to 1885, or
within the past eighty years, no less than 28,000,000 seals have been captured in the.
North Atlantic, over and above those of which we have no record, and yet no perceptible reduction of the mass is annually or periodically visible.
The following Table gives the numbers taken in decades from 1805 to 1885 :—
..    1,090,000
.. .. .. .. ..     1,950,624
..     4,312,673
• • •• • • * • ••        I,*/JXj 1 lO
..    4,388,280
• • •• • • • * ••     o,y3/,o/b
..    4,145,800
• • •• •• •• ••      o,Jo 1 ,<3b0
The year
ending
1815
99
99
1825
M
99
1835
n
t$
1845
»»
9»
1855
99
99
1865
99
9*
1875
91
99
1885
Total to 1885
28,816,783
Just at this moment I have not at hand the figures for the past five years,
but I think they will not vary materially from the averages given above for the preceding like period, except as they may be affected by the decreased outfit of sailing-
vessels and the reduction of the number of steamers now employed in the fishery,
several of which have been purchased by the United States' Government and converted
into ships of war, as, for example, the "Tigress," "Bear," "Thetis," and others, the
names of which I am not advised of. Our old and discarded seal-hunters, after fifteen
or twenty years' service and the loss of their first letter, make gallant war-ships for the
United States; and, as a remarkable instance of the irony of fate, are occasionallv
employed on the Pacific in the chase and capture of their congeners engaged in
occupations that were not (notwithstanding Mr. Blaine) contra bonos mores in earlier
and happier days. Could these old stagers speak, how well they might exclaim, " To
what base uses do we come at last."
But there is one point in this controversy to which I am desirous of calling the
attention of our Representative at Washington, and of Lord Salisbury himself, and
that is, that as long ago as 1860 the Americans themselves demanded of us the very
right which we now demand of them, and then, as now, we admitted their right to a
prosecution of the North Atlantic seal fishery, quite as much, nay more, a perquisite of
our Atlantic provinces as is their Behring's Sea fishery of the Alaskan and Aleutian
annexes. For several years the American steamer " Monticello" was dispatched to
St. John's, Newfoundland, and was there fitted out, provisioned, manned, and equipped
for the prosecution of a pelagic industry, the capture of seals in the deep waters adjacent
to the coasts of that province.   She, no doubt, took seals within the 3-mile limit; nj^^SA::svk:r>S:K!5n^£=--^
14
outside that limit her right to take them was never questioned. She might have con*
tinued the prosecution of that industry to this day had her owners found men in
the United States with sufficient daring and pluck and muscle for the work; out they
were not to be had, and after one or two voyages the vessel was withdrawn, only in
cppsequeiice of our refusal to permit her to outfit and man in our own ports, and to
enter and clear her supplies, brought from the United States, free of the customs rates
which our own people were subject to.
In this case the Americans then demanded, and we conceded, the same rights
which we now demand and they refuse. More, they were actually permitted to fit out
at pur own ports upon the same conditions as our own outfitters were subject t>. I
leave these facts to Mr. Blaine, for his consideration, and trust they will not be last
sight of when the prospective Committee makes up its Report
Yours, &c.
(Signed) R. WINTON.
No.'10.
Foreign Office to Mr. Winton.
Sir, Foreign Office, September 16, 1800.
I AM directed by the ^arquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 3rd instant, relating to the seal fisheries in die North Atlantic an.I in
Behring's Sea, and I am to return to you his Lordship's thanks for your communication.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
T. H. SANDERSON.
No. 11.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—{Received September 22.)
My Lord, Magnolia, September 11, 1890.
I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copy of a Bill entitled, " A Bill to
amend the Act entitled, ' An Act providing a Civil Government for Alaska.' "
The words in italics constitute the amendment by which jurisdiction is proposed
to be conferred on the Supreme Court.
The rest Is exactly as the Statute now stands.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure in No. 11.
51s* Congress, 1st Session.—H. R. 11979.
In the House op Representatives.
September 8, 1890.—Read twice, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
ordered to be printed.
Mr. Thompson introduced the following Bili:—
A Bill to amend the Act entitled, "An Act providing a Civil Government for Alaska."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that section 7 of the Act approved the 17th May, 1884,
Chapter 53, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows s—
" Sect. 7. That the General Laws of the State of Oregon now in force are hereby
declared to be the Law in said district so far as the same may be applicable, and not
in conflict with the provisions of this Act or the Laws of the United States; and the
sentence of imprisonment in any criminal case shall be carried out by confinement in 15
the gaol or penitentiary hereihaftef provided fbr. But the said District Cdttrt Shall
have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases in equity, or those involving & question of title
to land, or mining rights; or the constitutionality of a Law and ih all criminal offences
which are capital. In all civil cases at common law, any issue of fact shall be determined by a jury, at the instance of either party, and art appeal shall lie irt any case,
civil or criminal, for the judgment of said Ooinmisssioners ib the said District Court,
where the amount involved in any civil case is 200 dollars or more, and in any drinlinal
case where a find of more than 100 dollars or imprisonment is imposed, upon the" filing
of a sufficient appeal bond by the party appealing, to be approved b^ttte Court or
Commissioner. Writs of error in criminal Cases shall issue to the said District Court
from the United States' Circuit Court for the District of Oregon in the cases provided
in Chapter 176 of the Laws of 1879, and the jurisdiction thereby conferred updii the
Circuit Courts is hereby given to the Circuit Court of Oregon ; and the jindl Judgments
or Decrees of said District Court may be reviewed by the said Circuit Court in civil cqses in
the some manner and with the like effect as final Judgments or Decrees of the United States'
District Court for the District of Oregon; and the final Judgments or Decrees of said
Circuit Court and District Court may be reviewed by the Supreme Oortrt of the United
States as in other cases."
No. 12<
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—{Received September 29.)
My Lord, Magnolia, Massachusetts, September 19, 1890.
WITH reference to my despatch of the 24th July last, I have the honour to
inclose, in the form of a Memorandum, some observations' on Mr. Blaine's note of the
80th June last. They are suggested by certain passages in Mr. John Quincy Adams'
despatches relating to the Russian Ukase of 1821, which do not appear in the
correspondence on the subject laid before Congress in 1889,- but which s'Cem "to me to
confirm in a remarkable way the views expressed in your Lordship's despatch of the
2nd August.
I am, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Irtclosure in No. 12.
Note on Mr. Blaine's Interpretation of Mr. J. Quincy Adams' Despatch to Mr. Middleton
of July 22, 1823.
MR. BLAINE, in his note of the 80th June, 1890, argues at great length to
show that Mr. Adams, in his despatch to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1828, did
not dispute the claim of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction over that part of the Pacific
Ocean now known as Behring's Sea, but that he only protested against the Imperial
Ukase of 1821 so far as it related to the claim of Russia to territorial dominion on
the continent of America south of the 55th parallel, and to exclusive maritime jurisdiction south of the Aleutian Islands.
It is to be regretted that in the printed correspondence relating to the Imperial
Ukase of 1821, presented to Congress in 1889, certain passages from Mr. Adams'
despatches should have been omitted, as they are absolutely fatal to Mr. Blaine's
contention.
In   the   first   place, in   a   paper   accompanying Mr.  Adams' instructions to
Mr. Middleton (but which paper does not appear in the printed correspondence above
referred  to),  the   following  passage occurs with reference to Russia's   claim  of
maritime jurisdiction from Behring's Strait to 45° 50' on the Asiatic coast and to 51
on the American coast:—
' The right of navigation and of fishing in the Pacific Ocean, even on the Asiatic
coast north of latitude 45°, can as little be interdicted to the United States as that of
traffic with the natives of North America."
President Angell, who cites the above passage in his article in the Forum of
November 1889, makes the following comment upon it:—
"After reading such language from Mr. Adams, can any one doubt what his
answer would have been to a proposition by Russia to concede that the Pacific south -g^SS^Y? p-&s>«cKJ5?^sf-~~=
16
of the 55th parallel was an open sea, but that the part north of it formed a close sea
over which she had exclusive jurisdiction ? "
An equally important passage is also omitted in the correspondence presented to
Congress. It is to be found in the despatch addressed by Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush,
the United States' Minister in London, inclosing copies of his instructions to
Mr. Middleton, and directing him to confer freely on the subject with the British
Government, both Governments being united against the Imperial Ukase of 1821.
This despatch, which is of even date with the instructions to Mr. Middleton (22nd July,
1823), is referred to by Dr. Dana at p. 97Jof his 8th edition of Wheaton's "International Law " (note on the Monroe doctrine appended to section 67), for the purpose
of showing that the paternity of the Monroe doctrine belongs to Mr. Adams. But it
has an important bearing on the point raised by Mr. Blaine, as it contains a clear and
contemporaneous exposition by Mr. Adams himself of his views in relation to the
freedom of navigation of the Pacific Ocean in its entirety.
In this despatch Mr. Adams, after contending that the entire continent was
closed to any new establishment by any European Power, proceeds as follows:—
" A necessary consequence of this state of things will be that the American
Continents henceforth will no longer be subject to colonization. Occupied by civilized
nations, they will be accessible to Europeans and each other on that footing alone,
and the Pacifio Ocean, in every part of it, will remain open to the navigation of all
nations in .like manner with the Atlantic."
Mr. Blaine, in his note of the 30th June, observes that Mr. Adams, at an interview
with Baron Tuyl in July 1823, had foreshadowed the doctrine which four months later
was asserted by President Monroe, in his Annual Message to Congress. But he makes
no allusion to the passage above cited from Mr. Adams' despatch to Mr. Rush,
probably because it is omitted from the text of the despatch, as printed at p. 212 of
the Correspondence presented to Congress. It appears to me to confirm in a
remarkable way the view of historians and jurists, that the purpose of Mr. Adams'
despatch to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1823, was not only to oppose the
territorial claim of Russia, but to vindicate the freedom of navigation of the Pacific
Ocean " in every part of it." Thus, Calvo states that the result of the Treaty of 1824,
between Russia and the United States, was to secure freedom of navigation and fishery
"dans toute l'etendue de l'Ocean Pacifique" (vol. i, p. 415, 4th edit.). The United
States' Government cannot seriously contend that Behring's Sea was not a part of the
Pacific Ocean in the contemplation of Mr. Adams, for not only was the term " Behring
Sea'" unknown at the time of the Treaty of 1824, but even in the Treaty oi: Cession of
Alaska of the 20th June, 1867, the Island of Attou and Copper Island (of the
Kormandorski group) are described as being in the " North Pacific Ocean." Moreover,
in 1842, Russia refused to interfere with the operations of American whalers in
Behring's Sea when pressed to do so by the Russian American Company, on the ground
that the Treaty of 1824 gave to American citizens the right of fishing " over the whole
extent of the Pacific Ocean."* Indeed, since the Treaty of 1824, and that with Great
Britain of 1825, Russia has never attempted to exercise maritime jurisdiction over
foreign vessels in Behring's Sea outside of the territorial waters. This alone should
dispose of the claim of the United States to exercise such jurisdiction within
100 miles of the coast of Alaska, for it purports to have been derived from Russia in
1867, while it was renounced by Russia herself in 1824.
As regards the right of fishery which flows from the right of navigation, Calvo, in
his work on International Law (4th edition, § 357), cites the claim of Denmark to the
Greenland fisheries, based on long usage and on recognition by Treaties. Although
she reduced her claim to seventy-five miles from the coast the other nations refused
to admit her pretensions, on the ground that as no nation can acquire by usage or by
Treaty any property in the high seas, therefore no nation can extend the limits of its
territorial waters.   Calvo adds :—
" Si de pareilles derogations aux principes universellement "reconnus ont lieu, c'est
qu'elles sont dictees par un interet maritime de premier ordre, notamment l'exploi-
tation de peches c6tieres d'une nature exceptionnelle, des bancs d'hultres ou autres
coquillages; il faut qu'elles se renferment dans la limite de l'objet special qui les a
fait adopter; et elles ont besoin pour devenir obligatoires, d'etre sanctionne'es par des
Conventions expresses et e'crites."
J. P.
Bancroft's " History of the Pacific States," vol. xxviii, p 583
32SHS5S tv 17
No. 13.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received October 7.)
Sir, Admiralty, October 4,1890.
I AM commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit, for
the perusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, an extract of a letter from
the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station, dated the 10th September, reporting
the return of the sealing-schooners from Behring's Sea.
My Lords desire me to call particular attention to paragraph 6 of Rear-Admiral
Hotham's letter, in which it is stated that two-thirds of the catch consisted of female
seals, showing the necessity of some agreement to prevent the extermination of a
valuable fishery.
I am, &c.
(Signed) EVAN MACGREGOR.
Inclosure in No. 13.
Rear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.
(Extract.) " Warspite," at Esquimalt, September 10,1890.
I HAVE to request you will bring to the notice of the Lords Commissioners oi
the Admiralty this letter with reference to my telegram of the 8th instant.
I personally saw the masters of the sealing-schooners named below, and obtained
from them the information herein reported:—
Captain C. Cox, schooner " Sapphire."
Captain Petit, schooner " Mary Taylor."
Captain Hackett, schooner " Annie Seymour."
Captain W. Cox, schooner " Triumph."
They left the Behring's Sea on the 23rd August, and reached Victoria, British
Columbia, in thirteen days. This season has been the worst they have experienced
(Captain Cox, of the " Triumph," having been sealing for five years), and state it is
due to the bad weather they experienced in July, which is the month they always
make the biggest catch; as for twenty-one days, then, nothing but heavy fog was
experienced, and they consequently could not get out their boats and canoes to hunt;
they state they saw of plenty of seals whenever it cleared a little.
Mr. Hackett, of the "Annie Seymour," says he met the American cruizer
" Rush," while his boats were round the schooner, actually engaged in sealing, and the
cruizer steamed round them, but took no notice whatever; he had his colours flying,
and after about half-an-hour she steamed away.
None of the other schooners they spoke with had met with any interference,
or been spoken to by the cruizers. They knew of the " Rush " having been to Sand
Head, Shumagin Group, and served a Proclamation on board the " Ariel," but, as they
were at North-East Bay, they had not met her then.
They also mentioned that two-thirds of their catch consisted of female seals,
but that after the 1st July very few indeed were captured " in pup," and that when
sealing outside the Behring's Sea, round the coast, on the way up (where this year the
heaviest catches were made), they acknowledged that seals "in pup " were frequently
captured.
One captain stated he saw what he thought to be an English man-of-war, but
as this could not have been, the vessel may have been the United States' surveying-
ship " Albatross," or a Russian man-of-war or cruizer, though I have no intelligence of
any of the Siberian fleet being in those parts.
I might add that the sealers say they heard rumours of a new seal-rookery
being formed on Middleton Island, which is outside the Behring's Sea, but American
territory.
[95]
D ';S3*^'^**3w>^£!BSS5S»W3=^'«'»>.-''~-- •
18
No. 14.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—{Received October 14.)
Sir, Admiralty, October 14, 1890.
I AM commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit, for
the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copy of a telegram,
dated the 14th instant, from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station.
I am, &c.
(Signed)    EVAN MACGREGOR.
(Telegraphic.)
ALL the sealing schooners have returned.
Inclosure in No. 14.
Rear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.
* Warspite" at Victoria, October 14,1890.
No. 15.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Sir, Foreign Office, October 22,1890.
YOUR despatch of the 28th July last, inclosing a letter from Mr. Blaine
under date the 19th July, reached me shortly before the close of the Session of Parliament. I did not answer it at the time, chiefly because I did not think it desirable
to mix up what seemed to me a controversy on a very unimportant and secondary
point with the more serious questions which were in issue between the two Governments, and to which the correspondence then going on specially applied. I understand
from you that Mr. Blaine has since asked whether you have received any answer to
that despatch, and, therefore, I will make some observations upon it now, although it
appears to me to contain little that affects any question of public importance.
I understand his complaint to be that, in a conversation with Mr. Phelps,
reported by that gentleman in a despatch dated the 25th February, 1888, I had
assented to the American proposition to establish, by mutual arrangement between
the Governments interested, a close time for fur-seals between the 15th April and
the 1st November in each year, and between 160° west longitude and 170° east
longitude
in
the Behring's
Sea:  that I had undertaken
to cause
an Act to be
introduced in Parliament to give effect to this arrangement as soon as it could be
prepared, and that I subsequently receded from these engagements.
The conversation in question took place on the 22nd February, 1888, and my own
record of it, written on the same day in a despatch to your predecessor, is as
follows:—
"Mr. Phelps then made a proposal on the bases embodied in Mr. Bayard's
despatch of the 7th February, a copy of which accompanies my previous despatch of
this day's date. Mr. Bayard there expresses the opinion that the only way of
preventing the destruction of the seals would be by concentrated action on the part of
the United States, Great Britain, and other interested Powers, to prevent their citizens
or subjects from killing fur-seals with fire-arms or other destructive weapons north of
50° north latitude, and between 160° west longitude and 170° east longitude from
Greenwich, during the period intervening between the 15th April and the 1st
November. I expressed to Mr. Phelps the entire readiness of Her Majesty's Government to join in an Agreement with Russia and the United States to establish a
close time for seal fishing north of some latitude to be fixed."
It results from these two records that Mr. Phelps understood me to accept en bloc
the proposals of the Government of the United States; while my own intention and
my own recollection of the conversation was, that I merely accepted the general
principle of a close time north of some degree of latitude to be subsequently fixed.
This difference in the two reports of the same conversation, though not in itself very
wide, unfortunately covers the controversy between the two Governments, at least
in its earlier stage; for the matter in dispute between us was the extent of the area
and the season over which the close time was to extend, and not the expediency of a
close time in principle. Mr. Blaine speaks of Mr. Phelps as having been long known
in his country as an able lawyer, aocurate in the use of words, and discriminating in
the statement of facts.   In that tribute to Mr. Phelps' high intellectual qualities I 19
join most unreservedly, as far as my own acquaintance with him enabled me to judge.
But it is nothing unheard of that a man, however highly gifted in this respect,
should, in recording three days afterwards a conversation where no kind of note was
taken, and no effort made to define the expressions of opinion which were exchanged,
have slightly misconceived the extent to which assent was given to his own proposals.
My recollection remains unchanged, that I never intended to assent and never did
assent to the detailed proposals which were put forward on behalf of the United
States, reserving my opinion on them for fuller consideration; but that I expressed
the fullest concurrence on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the general
principle on which those proposals proceeded, namely, the establishment of such close
time as should be necessary to preserve the species of fur-seals from extermination.
Beyond this issue on the particular question of fact, whether I did or did not
assent to the proposals of the United States as unreservedly as Mr. Phelps imagined,
there is a larger question in regard to which I must respectfully differ from the
opinion expressed by Mr. Blaine. He speaks of these conversations as constituting an
Agreement, and alludes to one of them under the name of the Agreement of the
25th February. I do not think that this was the object which the parties had in view
in the conversation to which Mr. Blaine refers. They were not making binding stipulations or definitive Agreements. No word, as far as I remember, was uttered on one
side or the other to indicate that so unusual a meaning was attached to the language
used. They were, as such conversations usually are, preliminary conversations,
intended to lead up to an Agreement. If the words uttered in a conversation at
which no notes are taken are intended to constitute in any sense or degree an Agreement between persons taking part in the conversation, it seems to me essential that
the subsequent record which contains the phrases which are to be construed as
an Agreement should be drawn up with the concurrence of both the parties who have
taken part in the conversation. Any other course must necessarily lead to misunderstanding.
If Mr. Blaine should revert to the matter again you may read to him this
despatch, but I do not think the question is of sufficient importance to require any
communication on your part unless he should refer specially to it.
I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.
No. 16.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.'—(Received November 12.)
(Telegraphic.)    P. Washington, November 12, 1890.
I FAILED in my efforts to see Mr. Blaine until to-day, when I reminded him
of your Lordship's proposal of arbitration in the Behring's Sea controversy, and
pressed him for an answer in view of the approaching meeting of Parliament. He said
that the delay in sending an answer was due to the pressure of home politics during
the recess. He was, however, now engaged in writing me a note in answer to my note
of the 12th August, in which I communicated to him your Lordship's despatch of the
2nd August. This note he said would be delivered before the meeting of Parliament or the reassembling of Congress, and would, he thought, advance matters. In
the meantime any further discussion is deferred.
No. 17.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received November 17.)
My Lord, Washington, November 7, 1890.
I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith two copies of the transcript of record
in the appeal case of the schooner " Sylvia Handy"" v. the United States.
The " Sylvia Handy " is an American vessel, and her owners, who are American
citizens, appeal against her condemnation and forfeiture by the District Court of
Alaska for engaging in the fur-seal fishery in Behring's Sea 17 miles from land.
It will be contended on this appeal that the Act of Congress under which the
seizure was made has no application outside of the territorial waters of Alaska; and
that, if it purports to control the waters of Behring's Sea beyond 1 marine league
from the shore, it is unconstitutional and abortive.
[95] D 2 T3£3iB3S^'$S!&5335E^;saH*SM«*«a«
20
This appeal case was numbered 683 in the last term of the Supreme Court. It is
now numbered 373, and it may possibly come up for hearing before the expiration of the
present term. Although different considerations apply to the case of an American
vessel, the Court may be called on to give a construction to the words in clause 1956
of the Revised Statutes of the United States, " within the limits of Alaska Territory
or in the waters thereof," which will settle the question of law adversely to the
contention of the United States' Government, and irrespectively of the nationality of
the vessel.
r na,ve  &c
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure in No. 17.
Transcript of Record.
Supreme Court of the United States.
October Term, 1889.   No. 683.
The Schooner " Sylvia Handy," her Tackle, Apparel, 8fc; L. N. Handy, James Carthcui,
J. N. Handy, and William Thomas, Owners, Appellants, v. the United States.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska.
(Filed June 16,1888.)
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska, United States of
America.
To the Honourable La Fayette Dawson, Judge of said District Court.
THE libel of information of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the United States for the
District of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of the said United States, in the name
and on behalf of the said United States, alleges and informs as follows, to wit :—
That M. A. Healy, an officer in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States,
duly commissioned by the President of the United States, in command of the
revenue-cutter " Bear," and on special duty in the waters of the District of Alaska,
heretofore, to wit, the 2nd day of September, a.d. 1887, within the limits of Alaska
Territory and in the waters thereof, and within the Civil and Judicial District of Alaska,
to wit, within the waters of that portion of Behring's Sea belonging to the United
States and said district, on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 or more
tons burden, seized the schooner " Sylvia Handy," of San Francisco, California, her
tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, being the property of some person or
persons unknown to said Attorney. '.<
The property is more particularly described as follows, to wit: The schooner
" Sylvia Handy," of San Francisco, California, of 67^0% tons burden as per register,
standing and running rigging, sails, chronometer and nautical instruments, clock,
lamps, carpenters' tools, books, anchors, casks, cooking and table utensils, provisions,
rifles and shot-guns and ammunition for the same, and 1,679 fur-seal skins, and all
other property found upon or appurtenant to said schooner.
That M. A. Healy was then and there duly commissioned and authorized by the
proper Department of the United States to make said seizure; that all said property
was then and there seized as forfeited to the United States for the following causes:
That the said vessel and her captain, officers, and crew were then and there found
engaged in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory, and in the said
waters thereof, in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United
That all the said property, after being seized as aforesaid, was brought into the
port of Sitka, in said district, and turned over to the United States' Marshal of
this district, with the exception of the said 1,679 fur-seal skins, which latter were
brought into the port of Ounalaska, in said Territory, and delivered into the
keeping of J. B. Johnston, a special agent of the United States' Marshal, subject to
mu 21
the order of the Court, and all of said property is now within the Judicial District of
Alaska, United States of America.
And said M. D. Ball, Attorney as aforesaid, further informs and alleges—
That on the 2nd day of September, a.d. 1887, and at divers other times during the
month of August 1887, J. L. Carthcut and certain other persons, whose names are to
the said United States' Attorney unknown, who were then and there engaged on board
of said schooner " Sylvia Handy " as seamen and seal-hunters, did, under the direction
and by the authority of Jas. L. Carthcut, then and there master of said schooner,
engage in the killing, and did kill, in the Territory and District of Alaska, and in the
waters thereof, forty-two fur-seals, in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States in such cases made and provided.
That the said 1,679 fur-seal skins and other goods so seized on board the schooner
" Sylvia Handy " constituted the cargo of said schooner at the time of the killing of
said fur-seals and at the time of said seizure.
And said Attorney saith that all and singular the premises were and are true and
within the Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and of this
honourable Court, and that by reason thereof and by force of the Statutes in such cases
made and provided the aforementioned schooner, being a vessel of burden, and her
said apparel, tackle, boats, cargo, and furniture, became and are forfeited to the use of
the said United States.
Wherefore the said Attorney prays that the usual process and monition of this
honourable Court issue in the behalf against said schooner and all said hereinbefore-
described property, to enforce the forfeiture thereof, and requiring notice to be given
to all persons to appear and show cause on the return day of said process why said
forfeiture should not be decreed, and that after due proceedings are had all said
property to be adjudged, decreed, and condemned as forfeited to the use of the United
States, and for such other relief as may be proper in the premises.
(Signed) M. D. BALL, United States' District Attorney
for the District of Alaska.
(By A. K. Delaney, Special Assistant Attorney
for the United States.)
Dated September 15, 1887.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 1. United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
The United States against the schooner " Sylvia Handy." Libel of information.
Filed the 15th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy
Clerk.
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Claim.
Comes now James L. Carthcut, one of the owners and master of the above-named
schooner, intervening for his own interest and in behalf of those owning with him in
the said schooner " Sylvia Handy," and appears before this honourable Court and
makes claim to the said schooner, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, as the same
are now attached by the United States' Marshal for the District of Alaska, at the
instance of the Revenue Department of the United States, and the said James L.
Carthcut avers that he is part owner and master of said vessel, and was in possession
of said vessel at the time of the seizure thereof, and that he in conjunction with
L. N. Handy and Joseph Handy and William Thomas are the sole, only, and bond fide
owners of said schooner; that no other person or persons own any interest therein.
Wherefore he prays this honourable Court to be allowed to defend accordingly.
(Signed) J. L. CARTHCUT.
Sworn to and subscribed this 15th day of September, A.D. 1887.
Before me,
(Signed) H. E. Haydon, Clerk,
United States' District Court.
(By A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.)
(Seal.)
(Signed)
W. Clark, Proctor for Claimant. ^as^^-^iesdSg^sss^eaaw"
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 2. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Claim.
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy
Clerk.   W. Clark, proctor for claimant.
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Demurrer.
At this time comes W. Clark, Esq., proctor for the claimant of the property
proceeded against in the above cause, and demurs to the libel of information filed
herein. The said claimant, by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters
in the said information contained to be true, demurs thereto and says that the said
matters in manner and form as the same are in said information stated and set forth
are not sufficient in law for the United States to maintain their said action for
the forfeiture of the property aforesaid, and that the said claimant is not bound by law
to answer the same; wherefore the said claimant prays that the said information be
dismissed, with costs.
.   (Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Owners.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 3. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Demurrer.
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.
W. Clark, proctor for claimants.
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner "Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Answer of James L. Carthcut, Master and Part Owner.
And now comes James L. Carthcut, claimant as aforesaid, and for answer to the
libel of information filed herein says :—
1. He admits that M. A. Healy was an officer of the United States' Revenue
Marine Service, duly commissioned, and that he was at the time the property proceeded
against herein was seized in command of the United States' revenue-cutter " Bear," and
on official duty at the time the said seizure was made, and was then and there duly
commissioned and authorized by the proper Department of the United States to make
said seizure, but denies that said seizure was made within the waters of Alaska
Territory or within the Civil and Judicial District of Alaska, or in any portion of
Behring's Sea belonging to the United States, or upon any other waters belonging to
libellants navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 tons or over.
2. Denies that said vessel, her captain, officers, and crew, were then and there
found engaged in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters
thereof, or that they .were then and there violating any Law of the United States.
3. Denies that on the 2nd day of September, a.d. 1887, any other person or
persons did then and there, under the direction and authority of the said James L.
Carthcut or any other person or at all, kill any fur-seal within the District of Alaska, or
in the waters thereof.
4. Denies that the property proceeded against in this cause or any portion thereof
ever became forfeited to the United States. Wherefore the said claimant prays that
the libel of information filed herein may be dismissed, and for any other just and
equitanle relief as to this Court may seem meet and proper.
(Signed) J. L. CARTHCUT.
Sworn to and subscribed this 16th day of September, a.d. 1887.
Before me,
(Signed) H. E. Haydon, Clerk,
United States' District Court.
(By A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.)
(Seal.)
(Signed) W. Claek, Proctor for Claimant.
mm 23
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 4. United States v. schooner '« Sylvia Handy." Answer.
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy,
W, Clark, proctor for claimant.
Return.
Sitka, District of Alaska, sect.:
Be it remembered that, in obedience to the annexed monition, I have attached
the within-described property and now hold the same in my possession, subject
to the order of this honourable Court; and the owners and claimants, of said property
having in writing, filed in Court this day, waived notice of publication and posting of
the libel and seizure, I therefore have notified all persons claiming said prop&tfy
to be and appear before this District Court on the 19th day of September, 1887, at
3 o'clock p.m., then and there to make their claims and allegations in that behalf.
(Signed) BARTON ATKINS, United States' Marshal,
District of Alaska.
Sitka, Alaska, September 19,1887.
United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
District of Alaska, sect.:
The President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the District of
Alaska, greeting:
Whereas a libel of information hath been filed in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Alaska on the 15th day of September, in the year 1887, by
Honourable M. D. Ball, United States' Attorney for the district aforesaid, on behalf
of the United States of America, against the schooner " Sylvia Handy," her tackle,
apparel, boats, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins, furniture, as forfeited to the use of the
United States for the reasons set forth in said libel of information, and praying the
usual process and monition of said Court in that behalf to be made, and that all
persons interested in said schooner " Sylvia Handy," her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo,
and said sealskins and furniture, &c.,.may be cited in general and special to answer
the premises, and, all proceedings being had, that the said schooner " Sylvia Handy,"
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, said seal-skins and furniture, may, for the causes in
the said libel of information mentioned, be condemned as forfeited to the use of the
United States.
You are therefore hereby commanded to attach the said schooner " Sylvia Handy,''
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and said sealskins and furniture, to detain the same
in your custody until the further order of the Court respecting the same, and to give
notice to all persons claiming the same or knowing or having anything to say why
the same should not be condemned and sold pursuant to the prayer of the said libel
of information that they be and appear before the said Court, to be held in and for
the District of Alaska on the 19th day of September, 1887, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, if the same shall be a day of jurisdiction, otherwise on the next
day of jurisdiction thereafter, then and there to interpose a claim for the same and to
make their allegations in that behalf; and what you shall have done in the premises
do you then and there make returns thereof, together with this writ.
Witness, the Honourable La Fayette Dawson, Judge of said Court, and the seal
thereof affixed at the city of Sitka, in the District of Alaska, this 15th day of
September, in the year of our Lord 1887, and of the independence of the United
States the 112th.
(Signed) H. E. HAYDON, Clerk, United States'
District Court.
(Seal.) (By A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.)
Endorsed: H. 5. No. 93. In the United States' District Court for the District
of Alaska. The United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Monition. Returned
and filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer,
Deputy. gas^ssflfssj^ss^ssssg®^^
II
24
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.— Waiver of Publication of Notice.
And now comes W. Clark, Esq., proctor for the owners of the above-named
schooner, as appears by their claim filed herein, and on behalf of said owners, and
being authorized thereto, waives said owners' right to publication and posting of the
notice of the libel and seizure of the property being proceeded against in this
cause, and waives also time of hearing and announces himself ready to proceed to
trial,
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimants.
Endorsed: H. 6. No. 93. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Waiver.
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy
Clerk.   W. Clark, proctor for owners.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."—No. 93.
At this time comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court for
leave to file a demurrer to the libel of information filed herein.
September 19,1887.
Endorsed: 7. Demurrer.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."—No. 93.
Now, at this time, come the parties above named, by their respective attorneys,
Mr. A. K. Delaney for plaintiff, and M. W. Clark for defendant; and this cause
coming on to be heard upon the demurrer of libel therein, and the Court being fully
advised in the premises, it is considered and ordered that the demurrer be, and the
same is hereby, overruled.
September 19, 1887.
Endorsed: 8.   Overruling Demurrer.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Answer.
And now comes James L. Carthcut, by W. Clark, Esq,, master of the above-
named schooner, and moves the Court for leave to file an answer to the libel of
information herein.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted.
September 19,1887.
Endorsed: 9.   Answer.
•^''-"''jf-^T VS»^ £v^***^F«*i*4Mft*»*** 25
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy'
No. 93.—Claim of Owners.
Comes- now W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court for leave to
file claim of master for owners.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted,
September 19,1887.
Endorsed: 10.   Claim.
In the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Evidence for Prosecution.
By Mr. Delaney.—I am John C. Moore, Third Lieutenant of the revenue-cutter
" Bear," and I was such on the 2nd September last. I was present at the seizure
of the schooner " Sylvia Handy " on the 2nd. We were in latitude 54° 12' north and
longitude 166° 50', 17 miles from Cape Cheerful. Captain Healy is Commander of the
" Bear," R.M.S., U.S. I was boarding officer, sent by Captain Healy, in company
with Alexander Wilson; boarded the vessel, and found she had forty-two seals on
deck, unskinned. I reported the fact to Captain Healy, who ordered me to seize the
vessel. I returned and told the captain that I had orders to seize the vessel. He
said, he would submit, but on protest. James Carthcut was in command of the vessel.
Captain did not state how long he had been in Behring's Sea, but said he thought he
had a perfect right to sealing in the sea if he was 3 miles from shore.
This was in waters from the sea navigable by vessels of 10 or more tons burden.
The schooner was taken to Ounalaska; the skins taken out and stored in the
Government warehouse.
By Court.—There were 1,637 skins below, and 42 on deck.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clark.
The only authority you had for making this seizure were Captain Healy's orders ?
—Yes, Sir.
By whose order did you deliver those skins to Ounalaska ?—Under Captain Healy's
orders.
Who did you deliver them to ?—I did not deliver them myself, but have a receipt
for them.
Who did ?—The Captain.
Were you in command of the vessel ?—Yes, Sir.
He ordered you to deliver the skins in Ounalaska ?—Yes, Sir.
You say you were ordered to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir; I
delivered them to Captain Healy in Ounalaska.
You stated those skins were placed in the Government coal-house ?—Yes, Sir; in
charge of the United States' Marshal.
What was his name ?—Isaac Anderson.
Have .you a receipt for the skins?—Yes, Sir; I have not got it here, but I can
get it.
Counsel here produces papers for identification.   Witness identifies them"
Redirect:
Mr. Delaney.—Counsel states that witness may correct any statement which he
may have made during counsel's absence for a few minutes.
Witness states Johnson is Commissioner in Ounalaska, and the skins were delivered
to the Commissioner, the United States Marshal being absent at the time.
[95] E
HBHtTiHH
BBS ~3E«?*^.-*»^^g®3SS?t«KP>»»w?-^
26
The papers produced by counsel are as follows, to wit:—
Register, No. 51; numeral 116,085, issued at Customs Office, San Francisco.
12th January, 1887; tonnage, 67'70 net; " Sylvia Handy" certificate; crew list
certified 12th July, 1887, San Francisco; clearance from Customs Office, Victoria,
British Columbia, 9th May, 1S87; bound for North Pacific Ocean and Behring's Sea
(bill of health accompanying); also certificate of United States' Consul of the deposit
of his clearanoe and other papers with the Consul at Victoria, British Columbia.
Endorsed: C. H. 11. No. 93. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy."
Evidence. Filed 22nd September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer,
Deputy Clerk,
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Findings and Conclusions of Law.
This cause having been tried and submitted, the Court, from the evidence, finds
the following facts and conclusions of law :—
1. That on the 2nd day of September, 1887, and theretofore, the master and crew
of the defendant's vessel were engaged in killing, and did kill, fur-seals in that
portion of Behring's Sea ceded by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of March
1867, and within the waters of Alaska, in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, and that the promiscuous shooting of fur-bearing
animals in the waters adjacent to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, and in that
portion of Behring's Sea east of the 193rd degree of west longitude, has a tendency to
frighten and prevent said animals from going upon those islands, as they have been
accustomed to do in the past.
2. That on the said 2nd day of September, 1887, said vessel, her furniture, apparel,
tackle, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins were seized in said waters by the commanding
officer of the United States' revenue-cutter " Bear," then and there engaged in the
revenue marine service of the United States.
3. That said commanding officer was duly commissioned by the President of
the United States, and made such seizure under the direction and by the authority of
the Treasury Department of the United States.
4. That said property so seized was delivered by said commanding officer of said
cutter to the United States' Marshal of the District of Alaska, and is now within
the jurisdiction of this Court.
As conclusions of law the Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
forfeiture against said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, cargo, and the said
1,679 fur-seal skins
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
Dated September 22, 1887. District Judge.
Endorsed. C. H. 12. No. 93. In the United States' District Court, District
of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Findings and conclusions of
law.   Filed the 22nd September, 1887.    H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
United States v. Sclwoner " Sylvia Handy," J. L. Carthcut, L. N. Handy, Jas. Handy,
and Wm. Thomas.
No. 93.—Decree.
The Marshal having returned on the monition issued to him in the above entitled
action that, in obedience thereto, he had attached the said schooner " Sylvia Handy,"
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, and proctor for claimants, on behalf of
«R><m*^^<iKJ.u,muj,u.>!* 27
said owners, having waived said owners' right to publication and posting of the notice
of the libel and seizure, and also time of hearing, and has given due notice to all
persons claiming the same to appear before this Court on the 19th day of September,
1887, at 3 o'clock p.m., at the District of Alaska, United States of America, then and
there to internose their claims and make their allegations in that behalf, and J. L. Carth-
cut, the captain of said vessel, having hereto filed a claim to all of said property in his
and the behalf of L. N. Handy and Jas. Handy, and Wm. Thomas, of San Francisco,
California, and no other persons having appeared, and no other claims or allegations
having been made or filed by any other person or persons, and the usual proclamation
having been made, and said cause having been heard this day by consent of parties on
the pleadings and proofs, M. D. Ball, Esq., United States' District Attorney, by
A. K. Delaney, Esq., counsel in that behalf, appearing as advocate for said hbellant,
and W. Clark, Esq., as advocate for said claimants, and said cause having been
submitted to the Court for decision, and due deliberation being had in the premises,
and the Court having filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law herein, it is now
thereupon ordered, sentenced, and decreed as follows :—
1. That all persons whosoever other than said claimants be, and they are hereby,
decreed in contumacy and default.
2. That said schooner "Sylvia Handy," her tackle, apparel,' boats, and furniture,
and her cargo of 1,679 fur-seal skins, now in the custody of J. B. Johnston, United
States' Commissioner, a special agent of the Deputy United States' Marshal at
Ounalaska, subject to the order of the Court, and all property found upon or
appurtenant to said schooner be, and the same are hereby, condemned as forfeited
to the use of the United States.
3. That unless an appeal betaken against this Decree within the time limited and
prescribed by law and the Rules of the Court the usual writ of venditioni exponas be
issued to the Marshal commanding him to sell all the said property and bring the
proceeds into this Court to be distributed according to law.
Costs to be taxed, and are awarded against said claimants.
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
District Judge.
Endorsed: H. 13. No. 93. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy."
Decree. Filed the 22nd September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by H. E. Haydon,
jun., Deputy Clerk.,
In the United Sates District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. American Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.— Motion in Arrest.
At this time comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court to
arrest the decree of forfeiture in said cause for the following reasons, to wit:
1. That the libel of information herein does not state facts sufficient in law to',
enable the United States to have and maintain this action for the forfeiture of the
property seized herein.
2. That the evidence produced on part of the United States in this cause is not
sufficient upon which to have a decree of forfcijiure.^,^
3. That from the evidence produced on the part of the United States it appears
that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this cause.
4. That the Act of Congress under which the seizure herein was made is
unconstitutional and ultra vires, in that it purports to give the United States
jurisdiction over a portion of the high seas more than 3 marine leagues from its
shores, and purports to establish an international boundary-line in mid-ocean with no
definite terminal points and impossible to determine by absolute measurement or
clearly define by marks.
Therefore claimants pray that said decree may be for ever rested and his cause
dismissed.
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimants,    ,
[95] .    . E2 F^SiiSSSiYS -.\£L;.:SCv'rt!;3S^»S:wt-'!<»^<|
28
Endorsed: H. 14. No. 93. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy."
Motion in arrest. Filed the 3rd October, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.^by
A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.   W. Clark, proctor for claimants.
In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. American Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Petition for Leave to appeal.
And now comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and prays the Court for leave
to appeal this cause to the Supreme Court of the United States or such other Court
as may have appellate jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this cause.
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimants.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 15. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy."
Petition for leave to appeal. Filed the 9th December, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
W. Clark, proctor for claimants.
United States District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."—No. 93.
Petition filed by W. Clark, Esq., proctor for claimants, for leave to appeal.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted.
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
December 9,1887. District Judge.
Endorsed: Petition to appeal.   16.
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Motion for Stay of Proceedings.
And now comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court to grant a
stay of proceedings herein for three months from this date to enable claimants to bond
the property seized herein if they desire to do so.
Dated at Sitka this 3rd day of October, a.d. 1887.
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimants.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 17. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Motion
fer stay of proceedings. Motion filed and overruled by Court the 9th December, 1887.
H. E. Haydon, Clerk.   W. Clark, proctor for claimants.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy" and L. N. Handy, J. Handy, J. L. Carthcut,
and W. Thomas.
No. 93.—-Affidavit on Appeal.
United States, District of Alaska, ss.:
Personally appeared before me the Undersigned, Clerk of the District Court in
and Jor the District of Alaska* William S. Morrisey, who, upon being first duly sworn,
upon his oath-says he is the duly authorized agent for claimants in the above-entitled
assseo
mm
spm 29
cause; that said claimants purpose appealing said cause to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
That they purpose prosecuting said appeal with due diligence and without
unnecessary delay; that they are appealing said cause for the reason that they feel
themselves aggrieved and injured by the decree of the District Court rendered herein
on the 22nd day of September, a.d. 1887, at a special term of said Court.
That said appeal is not taken for vexatious delay or to hinder or delay the United
States in obtaining the proceeds of the said decree of forfeiture rendered herein, but
that the law and the facts may be reviewed by the said Superior Court, and that this
appeal is made by affiant for and in behalf of said claimants;
(Signed) W. S. MORRISEY.
Subscribed to and sworn before me this 13th day of February, 1888.
(Signed) H. E. Haydon, Clerk,
United States' District Court.
(Seal.)
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 18. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Affidavit
on appeal.   Filed the 13th February, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
In the United States' District Court, District of Alaska.
The United States v. the Schooner
J. Handy, James L. Carthcut,
Attorney-in-Fact.
" Sylvia Handy," her
William Thomas, and
Cargo,  and L. N. Handy,
W. S. Morrisey, Agent and
No. 93.—Amended Petition for Leave to appeal.
At this time comes M. P. Berry, proctor, intervening for and in behalf of the
owners of the above-named vessel and cargo, through and by authority of W. S. Morrisey,
Esq., the duly authorized agent of the said owners, and prays the honourable Court, by
virtue of the powers vested under section 3 of the Organic Act creating the District of
Alaska, passed by Congress of the United States, and approved by the President the
17th May, 1884, that leave be granted to amend the appeal heretofore allowed by this
Court (at a special term holden the 9th December, 1887) [ ? ] be granted, said owners
and agent, defendants, to appeal and carry forward their cause direct to the Supreme
Court of the United States of America.
That the above-named vessel and cargo, being of the appraised value of
12,673 dol. 25 c, to wit, that the schooner " Sylvia Handy " and cargo, was appraised
by duly appointed and sworn appraisers of this Court in the sum of 4,350 dollars, and
that the cargo, consisting of 1,679 fur-seal skins [ ? ] in the sum of 8,323 dol. 25 c,
making a total of 12,673 dol. 25 c.
The same being a sufficient sum to carry an appeal to the said Supreme Court of
the United States for review.
(Signed) M. P. BERRY,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owners.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 19. In the United States' District Court, District of
Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Amended petition for leave to
appeal. Filed the 13th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry,
proctor.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
The United States, Plaintiff, v. the Schooner " Sylvia Handy " and Cargo, Owners,
and Agent, Defendant.
No. 93.—Motion for New Trial.
At this time comes M. P. Berry, proctor, appearing for William S. Morrisey, duly
authorized agent for the above-named defendants, and prays this honourable Court
that defendants be allowed a rehearing in their cause.
BH .^ifess^sa^jSSSKsssijfs***"
I
fii
30
That a day certain be named by the Court for a new trial.
That this motion is based upon the ground that the Congress of the United
States, by the passage of certain Laws whereby we were subject to arrest and confiscation, did not only wrong us in our persons and goods, but that body did exceed
their jurisdiction.
(Signed) M. P. BERRY,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owners.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 20. In the Uuited States' District Court in and for the
District of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Motion for new trial.
Filed the 14th February, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.   M. P. Berry, Proctor.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
The United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Motion for Stay of Proceedings.
Comes now M. P. Berry, Proctor, and moves the Court for stay of proceedings in
the above-entitled cause pending appeal heretofore allowed to be taken by this
honourable Court.
(Signed) M. P. BERRY,
Proctor for Defendants' Agent.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 21. In the United States' District Court in and for the
District of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Motion for stay of
proceedings. Filed the 14th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry,
Proctor.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."—No. 93.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that the motion for a new trial and a
stay of proceedings heretofore filed in this case be overruled.
Dated February 21,1888.
Endorsed: 22.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
The United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy " and Cargo, fyc.; and L. N, Handy,
J. Handy, J. L. Carthcut, and William Thomas.
No. 93.—Verification of Claim.
Personally appeared before me in open Court, Wm. S. Morrisey, of Sitka, in the
District of Alaska, and solemnly swears that he is the lawful bailee for the owners of
the above»named schooner " Sylvia Handy " and cargo.
That he is duly authorized by said owners of the above-named vessel and cargo to
enter into and file stipulations, with sureties, for the payment of all costs and expenses
Which shall be awarded against them by the decree of this Court, or upon an appeal
by the Appellate Court.
(Signed) W. S. MORRISEY.
Done in open Court, this 19th day of February, 1888.
(Signed) H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
(Seal.)
Endorsed: No. 93. 23. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Verifica*
tion of claim.   Filed the 20th February, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk. SI
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy " and Cargo, and L. N. Handy, James Carthcut,
J. N. Handy, and WUliam Thomas, Owners.
■   No. 93.—Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Slates.   In Admiralty.
To the honourable Supreme Court of the United States of Amerioa.
The appeal of the above-named appellants respectively showeth that, on or about
the 15th day of September, in the year 1887, the above-named libellants, the United
States of America, exhibited their libel in the District Court of the United States for
the District of Alaska against the appellants for the reasons set forth in said libel, that
these appellants might be condemned to pay the demands of said libellants and cost*
in said libel mentioned.
That process issued out of said Court having been served on these appellants,
they did, on or about the 19th day of September, in the year 1887, file then* answer
to said libel in the said District Court, praying that the said libel be dismissed with
their costs in that behalf, as by reference to the said libel and the said answer may
more fully appear.
That the said cause came on to be heard before the Honourable La Fayette
Dawson, Judge of the said District Court, on or about the 22nd day of September,
in the year 1887, upon the testimony and proofs adduced by the respective parties j
and the said Judge, having advised thereon, did, on the 22nd day of September, in the
year 1887, make his decree in said cause, whereby it was, among other things,
decreed that the libellants in said cause recover against these appellants a decree of
forfeiture against said vessel, her tackle, apparel, fiumiture, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal
skins, as by reference to the said decree may more fully appear; and these appellants
are advised and insist that the said decree is erroneous, inasmuch as the honourable
Court, at such sitting, did not declare the law or constitution by which such seizure
and forfeiture of property was made.
Wherefore these appellants appeal from the whole of said decree of said District
Court of the United States, and respectfully pray that the decree of the said District
Court and the bill, answer, pleadings, evidence, and proceedings in the said cause may
be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States without delay, and that the said
Supreme Court will proceed to hear the said clausea new, and that the said decree of
the District Court and every part thereof may be reversed and a decree made dismissing said libel with costs, or such other decree as to the said Supreme Court shall
seem just.
(Signed) M. P. BERRY,
Dated March 20, 1888. Solicitor for Appellants.
Endorsed i Copy. H. No. 93. 24. In the United States' District Court in and
for the District of Alaska. United States v. Schooner "Sylvia Handy," Appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States. In Admiralty. Filed the 83rd March, 1888.
H, E. Haydon, Clerk.   M. P. Berry, solicitor for appellants,
In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy " and Cargo.
No. 93.—Court in Error.   Brief of Proctor.
(Submitted without argument.)
Par. I. That the assumption of ownership by Russia of that portion of the Pacific
Ocean generally known as the Behring's Sea was a fallacy, and the transfer of the same
to the United States of America was a fraudulent exercise of such ownership and
supremacy, which did not exist at the certain time of the sale and transfer of Alaska
and the Aleutian Islands to the said United States of America. e^SgSSSSSSSS*?***
Par. II. That Russia had no control over such sea or waters from the year 1825
until the claim of ownership.when negotiating for the sale of the mainland of the
Continent of North America and known and recognized as Alaska, and the chain of
islands bearing the name of Aleutian, with other islands of the same group and certain
islands within the Behring's Sea and the strait opening and leading into the North
Arctic Ocean—1866 and 1867 ; that the destruction of many American ships in the
said Behring's Sea and waters adjacent thereto by an unrecognized war-vessel as late as
1864 and 1865 met with no protest from the Russian authorities at that time within
those seas (viz., the Kamschatka or Behring's Seas), properly the North Pacific Ocean,
is indisputable proof that such seas were not considered neutral waters by the Russian
Government.
Par. III. That the Congress of the United States exceeded its Constitutional power
by the passage of Laws to control waters of seas upon hypothetical lines drawn from
land's end, off soundings, through open ocean, and ending on a parallel of latitude
70 marine leagues from land; that Laws to control the waters beyond the 1 marine
league or 3 miles from the shore-line of each and every island, open reef of rocks, or
mainland is abortive.
Par. IV. That the enactment of Laws by the Legislative Power of the United States
that destroys a legitimate occupation, one of the industries of the people, is a tyrannical
exercise of such power vested in that body by such peoples, and is unconstitutional.
Par. V. That the Honourable the District Judge, by the authority of the "Organic
Act providing a Civil Government for Alaska," passed and approved the 17th May,
1884, being expressly clothed with the exclusive jurisdiction to pronounce upon the
constitutionality of the Law by such Organic Act, is in error by sustaining the constitutionality of the law whereby the United States, as plaintiff, became entitled to a
decree of forfeiture against these defendants, appellants, and their property.
(Signed) M. P. BERRY,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owner.
Endorsed: C.H. 25. No. 93. In the United States' District Court, District of
Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Brief of proctor. Filed the 23rd
March, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.   M. P. Berry, Proctor.
In the United States' District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy," and L. N. Handy, J. N. Handy,
J. L. Carthcut, and W. Thomas.
No. 93.—Order granting Appeal.
Upon hearing and filing petition of M. P. Berry, proctor, intervening for and in
behalf of the owners of the above-named vessel and cargo through and by authority of
W. S. Morrisey, Esq., the duly authorized agent of the said owners, praying for an
order allowing them to appeal this cause to the Supreme Court of the United States,
and upon hearing and filing the affidavit of W. S. Morrisey, the duly authorized agent
for claimants in the above-entitled cause, and no objection being raised on the part of
the United States, and sufficient security having been given by said claimants that
they will prosecute said appeal to effect, and upon being fully advised in the premises,
it is ordered that said petition be granted and said claimants allowed to appeal this
cause.
Done at'Sitka, Alaska, this 23rd day of March, 1888.   %
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
£$*Sfj District Judge.
Endorsed : C. H. 26. No. 93. In the United States' District Court, District of
Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Order granting appeal. Filed
the 23rd March, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk. 33
In the United States' Circuit Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner *' Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Consent that Vessel be discharged on Stipulation.
The schooner " Sylvia Handy," her small boats, tackle, apparel, arms, ammunition,
furniture, and cargo, consisting of 1,679 fur-seal skins, having been arrested on the
process issued in this cause, we consent that on filing the usual stipulation entered
into according to the Rules of the Court to appear, abide, and perform the decree in
the sum of 12,673 dol. 25 c, and on filing a claim and on complying with the Rules of
the Court as to the fees of the officers of Court the said schooner be discharged from
custody and arrest.
(Signed) WHIT. M. GRANT,
Dated March 23,1888. Proctor for Libellant.
Endorsed: 27. No. 93. In the United States' District Court District of Alaska.
United States i;. schooner *' Sylvia Handy." Consent that vessel and cargo be discharged on stipulation. Filed the 23rd March, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
M. P. Berry, proctor for owners.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
The United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy " and Cargo,
No. 93.—Bill of Exceptions.
Bo it remembered that on the trial of this cause, the same being the 22nd day of
September, 1887, in the District Court of the United States for the District ©f Alaska,
holden at Sitka, in the aforesaid district, and at the November term thereof, the
Government, to sustain the issue on its part, offered the foUowing evidence to the
Court, viz.:—
I am John C. Moore, Third Lieutenant of the revenue-cutter " Bear," and I was
such on the 2nd September last. I was present at the seizure of the schooner
"Sylvia Handy" on the 2nd. We were in latitude 54° 12' north, and longitude
166° 51', 17 miles from Cape Cheerful. Captain Healy is Commander of the " Bear,"
R.M.S., U.S.N. I was boarding officer, sent by Captain Healy in company with
Alex. Wilson; boarded the vessel and found she had forty-two seals on deck unskinned.
I reported the fact to Captain Healy, who ordered me to seize the vessel. I returned and
told the captain that I had orders to seize the vessel. He said he would submit, but
on protest. James Carthcut was in command of the vessel; captain did not state
how long he had been in Behring's Sea, but said he thought he had a perfect right to
sealing in the sea if he was 3 miles from shore.
This was in waters from the sea navigable by vessels of 10 or more tons burden.
The schooner was taken to Ounalaska, the skins taken out and stored in the
Government warehouse.
By Court.—There were 1,637 skins below and 42 on deck.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clark.
The only authority you had for making the seizure were Captain Healy's orders ?
—Yes, Sir.
By whose orders did you deliver those skins to Ounalaska?—Under Captain
Healy's orders.
Who did you deliver them to ?—I did not deliver them myself, but have a receipt
for them.
Who did ?—The Captain.
Were you in command of the vessel ?—Yes, Sir.
He ordered you to deliver the skins in Ounalaska ?—Yes, Sir.
You say you were ordered to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir; I
delivered them to Captain Healy, in Ounalaska.
[95] F 34
You stated those skins were placed in the Government warehouse ?—Yes, Sir; in
charge of the United States' Marshal.
What was his name ?—Isaac Anderson.
Have you a receipt for the skins ?—Yes, Sir. I have not got it here, but I can
get it.
Counsel here produces papers for identification.   Witness identifies them.
Redirect hy Mr. Delaney.
1 >. Counsel states that witness may correct any statement whicH he may have made
during counsel's absence for a few minutes.
Witness States Johnson is Commissioner in Ounalaska, and the skins were
delivered to the Commissioner, the United States' M&rs"bai Being absent at the
time.
In th§' tfial of the sealer cases Captain Sheppard, commander of the revenue-
cutter " Rush," engaged in cruizing in the Behring's Sea, testified that Shooting: and
the^ method of taking seals pursued by said seized vessels tended to drive them from
their usual haunts and breeding and Raising grounds in Behring's Sea, which evidence
was used and considered in the trial and decision ©f this cause.
To which the.defendants then and there objected, Hbe objection being overruled
and the evidence admitted. The defendants there and then excepted to the ruling of
the Court, and the law, as declared by the Court, viz.:—
This cause having been tried and submitted, the Court, from the evidence,
finds the following facts and conclusions of law:
" 1. That on the 2nd day of September, 1887, and theretofore, the master and
crew of the defendants' vessel were engaged in killing, and did kill, fur-seals in that
portion of Behring's Sea ceded by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of March
1867, and within the waters of Alaska, in violation of section 1956 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States* and that the promiscuous shooting of fur-bearing
animals in the waters adjacent to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, and in that
portion of Behring's Sea east of the 193rd degree of west longitude, has a tendency to
frighten and -prevent said animals from going upon those islands, as they have been
accustomed to do in-itfe past.
"2. Thstt on the said 2nd day of September, 1887, said vessel, her furnittt«V
apparel, tackle, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins were seized in said waters by the
commanding officer ©f the United  States' revenue-cutter 'Bear,' then and there
engaged in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States*
"3. That said commanding officer was duly commissioned by the President of
the United States, and made Such seizure under the direction and by the authority of
thff treasury Department of the United States.
" 4. That ifaid property so seized was delivered by said commanding officer of
said cutter to tiie. United States' Marshal of the District of Alaska, and is now within
the jurisdietidit ©i-tbis Court."
j As conclusions of law* the Const* finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
forfeiture against said Vessel, her isaekle, apparel, furniture; cargo, and the said 1,678
fur-seal skins.
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
District Judge.
Endorsed: 28. No. 98. In the United"States*; District Court m and for the
District of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Bill of Exceptions.
Filed 23rd March, 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
In fane" Unitect States' District Court, District of Alaska.
United Slates v. Schooner " S~ylma Hdnay.
No. 93.—Stipulation.
It is hereby Stipulated by and between Wi M. Graffity United States' District.
Attorney, acting for and on behalf of the United Statesi^aHd'Mt P.- Berry, proctor $f'
TgRT^^SM 35
W. S. Morrisey. duly appointed and constituted agent for the owners, that the
f©flowing shall ue omitted from the transcript hereunto annexed, namely :—
AH thp exhibits referred to in the testimony of J. C. Moore.
(Signed) WHIT. M. GRANT, United States' District
Attorney,
M. P. BERRY, Proctor for W. S..Morrisey,
Agent for Owners.
Endorsed; 29. No. 98. In the United States' pistrict Court in and for the
District of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Stipulation. Filed
the 28rd March. 1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
Jfn the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia- Handy"—No. 9JJ,
Now comes M. P. Berry, proctor for claimant, and moves the Court for leave
to file stipulation for the appraised value of the schooner " Sylvia Handy,-' her tackle,
apparel, small boats, arms, ammunition, and cargo, consisting of 1,678 fur-seal
skins.
Upon examination of the stipulations it is ordered by the Court that the same be
approved, and whereupon the Court issued the following order, to wit:
The stipulation of the claimants herein with sufficient surety having been filed
and approved, it is ordered that the above-named vessel and all her tackle, apparel,
furniture, arms, ammunition, and cargo, consisting of 1,678 fur-seal skins, received in
this port by the United States' Marshal for the District of Alaska, be released, and that
the same be delivered to William S. Morrisey, Esq., Attorney-in-fact for the claimants
herein.
(Signed) LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
March 23, 1888. District Judge.
Endorsed: 80.   Journal entiy.
In tihte United States' District Court, District of Alaska,
In the Mattervf the United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."—No. 93.
Comes now M. P. Berry, proctor for claimants in the above-entitled cause, and
prays that the amended petition for leave to appeal and the affidavit on appeal heretofore filed be considered by the Court.
March 23, 1888.
Endorsed: 31.   Journal entry.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner " Sylvia Handy."
No. 93.—Stipulation for Costs given by Claimants on Appeal
Whereas a libel was filed in this Court in the within cause on the 15th dav of
September, a.d. 1887, by M. D. Ball, United States'Attorney for the District of Alaska,
against the schooner " Sylvia Handy," her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, for the
reasons and causes set forth and mentioned in said libel of information, and praying
that the same may be condemned and sold;
And whereas a decree of forfeiture was, on the 22nd day of September, 1887,
rendered against the said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, and against.
L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, James L. Carthcut, of San Francisco, Cahiornia, inter*
[95] F 2
mt , rs^^^-^.'-'-^^i^^^s^ss**5^^
36
vening as the sole and only claimants to said vessel, tackle, apparel, furniture, and
cargo;
And whereas the said L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, and J. L. Carthcut, claimants
as aforesaid, are desirous of and purpose appealing from the said Decree of this
Honourable Court to the Supreme Court of the United States;
Now, therefore, we, the undersigned stipulators, submitting ourselves to the jurisdiction of this Court, do acknowledge ourselves to be bound unto the United States of
America, the said L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, and James L. Carthcut, as principals,
and W. S. Morrisey and David Wallace, as sureties, jointly and severally, in the sum
of 300 dollars lawful money of the United States, conditioned that if the claimants
above named shall pay all costs and expenses which shall be awarded against them
by the final decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, then this stipulation to
be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
Witness our; hands this 28rd day of March, 1888.
(Signed) W. J. MORRISEY.
DAVID WALLACE.
United States, District of Alaska, ss.:
Personally appeared before me,"H. E. Haydon, Clerk of the United States' District
Court for the District of Alaska, W. S. Morrisey, and David Wallace, who, being duly
sworn, each for himself deposes and says that he is a resident and householder in said
district, and that he is worth the sum set forth in the foregoing stipulation above his
just debts and liabilities and property exempt from execution.
(Signed) W. S. MORRISEY.
DAVID WALLACE.
Sworn to and subscribed the 23rd day of March, 1888.
(Signed) H. E. Haydon, Clerk,
United States' District Court.
(Seal United States' District
Court, Alaska.)
Endorsed: No. 93. 32. In the United States' District Court in and for the
District of Alaska. United States v. schooner " Sylvia Handy." Bond for costs on
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Filed and approved the 23rd March,
1888.   H. E. Haydon, Clerk.
In the United States' District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
I, Henry E. Haydon, Clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for
the District of Alaska, do hereby certify that the foregoing copies of pleadings, papers,
and journal entries in the cause of the United States v. the schooner " Sylvia Handy "
and L. N. Handy and Co. have been by me compared with the originals thereof as the
same appear on file and of record in this Court, and that the same are full and true
transcripts of said original pleadings, papers, and journal entries now in my custody
and control.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
Court, at Sitka, in said district, this 2nd day of April, 1888.
(Signed) HENRY E. HAYDON, Clerk.
(Seal United States' District
Court, Alaska.)
Endorsed on cover: Alaska D. C.U. S. No. 683. The schooner " Sylvia Handy,"
her tackle, apparel, &c.; L. N. Handy, James Carthcut, J. N. Handy, and William
Thomas, owners, appellants, v. the United States.   Filed the 16th June, 1888.
• No. 18.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.'—{Received December 27.)
My Lord, Washington, December 16, 1890.
IN the last paragraph of your Lordship's despatch of the 22nd October T was
instructed to read that despatch to the Secretary of State, if he should revert to the subject
Whrt^rit^MWffBBl 37
of his note to me of the 19th July, but your Lordship added that you did not consider the
controversy which it raised of sufficient importance to require any communication on my
part unless Mr. Blaine should refer specially to it.
Although he has not done so, I observed that the subject was adverted to in an
article in the " New York Tribune," purporting to give some information as to the further?
correspondence on the Behring's Sea question, which, as announced in the President's
Message, will shortly be presented to Congress.
In these circumstances, I thought it desirable to communicate a copy of your Lordship's
despatch to the Secretary of State, in order that it might be included in the further
correspondence about to be published, and I called on Mr. Blaine on the 11th instant
and placed a copy of the despatch in his hands, explaining that I did so in consequence of
the article which had appeared in the " New York Tribune."
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
No. 19.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-—(Received December 30.)
My Lord, Washington, December 19, 1890.
I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith a printed copy of a note which I received
on the 17th instant from the Secretary of State.
It contains the reply of the United States' Government to your Lordship's despatch
of the 2nd August last, offering on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to submit to
arbitration the question of the legality of the recent seizures of British sealing-vessels in
the Behring's Sea by United States' revenue cruizers.
The voluminous character of this note precludes any attempt to give even a brief
abstract of its contents within the limits of a despatch.
Its main feature, however, is that while the United States' Government decline to
submit to arbitration the real question in controversy, namely, the legality of the seizures
of British vessels in the Behring's Sea outside of territorial waters, they express their
willingness to submit to arbitration certain historical and political questions which, in my
humble opinion, would raise false issues, however pertinent they may be as supplying
materials for argument in support of the American contention. For, even if all those
questions were decided in favour of the United States, it would not follow that the seizures
were justified, or that the claim of the United States to the control of any part of the
Behring's Sea outside of territorial waters could be supported by international law.
[ have. &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure in No. 19.
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Sir, Department of State, Washington, December 17, 1890.
YOUR note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the 1st September, inclosed
a copy of a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, dated the 2nd August, in reply to my
note of the 30th June.
The consideration advanced by his Lordship have received the careful attention of the
President, and I am instructed to insist upon the correctness and validity of the position
which has been earnestly advocated by the Government of the United States in defence
of American rights in the Behring's Sea.
Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently complicated, are often found, after prolonged discussion, to depend on the settlement of a single point. Such, in the judgment
of the President, is the position in whieh the United States and Great Britain find themselves in the pending controversy touching the true construction of the Russo-American and
Anglo-Russian Treaties of 1824 and 1825. Great Britain contends that the phrase " Pacific
Ocean," as used in the Treaties, was intended to include, and does include, the body of
water which is now known as the Behring's Sea. The United States contends that the
Behring's 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's 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 complaiut
against her. If, on the other hand, this Government can prove beyond all doubt that the
Behring's Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood by the three Signatory Powers to F^i?SSW^\-?T.&;:<S"JSF5S5=^^«'«?«-
'■
33
be a separate body of water, and was not included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean," then the
American case against Great Britain is complete and undeniable.
The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase " nofth-west coast," or
"north-west coast of America." Lord Salisbury assumes that the f(north-west coast''
has but one meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching northward to the
Behring's Straits. The contention of this Government is that by long prescription the
"north-west coast" means the coast of the Pacific Ocean, south of the Alaskan Peninsula,
or south of the 60th parallel of north latitude; or, to define it still more accurately, the
coast, from the northern border of the Spanish possessions, ceded to the United States in
1819, to the point where the Spanish claims met the claims of Russia, viz., from 42° to
60° north latitude. The Russian authorities for a long time assumed that 59° 30' was the
exact point of latitude, but subsequent adjustments fixed it at 60°. The phrase u north*
west coast," or " north-west coast of America," has been well known and widely recognized
in popular usage in England and America from the date of the first trading to that coast,
about 1784.* So absolute has been this prescription that the distinguished historian
Hubert Howe Bancroft has written an accurate history of the north-west coast, which at
different times, during a period of seventy-five years, was the scene of important contests
between at least four Great Powers. To render the understanding explicit, Mr. Bancroft
has illustrated the north-west coast by a carefully prepared Map. The Map will be found to
include precisely the area which has been steadily maintained by this Government in the
pending discussion.    (For Map, see opposite PaJ?e0
The phrase " north-west coast of America " has not infrequently been used simply as
the synonym of the " north-west coast/' but it has also been used in another sense as
including the American coast of the Russian possessions as far northward as the Straits of
Behring. Confusion has sometimes arisen in the use of the phrase " north-west coast of
America,"-but the true meaning can always be determined by reference to the context.
The Treaty between the United States and Russia was concluded on the 17th April,
1824, and that between Great Britain and Russia was concluded on the 28th February, 1825,,
The full and accurate text of both Treaties will be fouud in Inclosure (A). The Treaty
between the United States and Russia is first in the order of time, but I shall consider both
Treaties together. T quote the first Articles of each Treaty, for, to "all intents and purposes,
they are identical in meaning, though differing somewhat in phrase.
The 1st Article in the American Treaty is as follows :—
" Article I. It is agreed that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the
Pacific Ocean or the 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 purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions and
conditions determined by the following Articles."
The 1st Article in the British Treaty is as follows :—
" Article I. It is agreed that 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 at such parts of the
coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives, under
the restrictions specified in the following Articles."
Lord Salisbury contends that—■
" The Russian Government had no idea of any distinction between Behring's Sea and the
Pacific Ocean, which latter they considered as reaching southward from Behring's Straits.
Nor throughout the whole of the subsequent correspondence is there any reference whatever on either side to any distinctive name for Behring's Sea, or any intimation that it
could be considered otherwise than as forming an integral, part of the Pacific Ocean."
The Government of the United States cordially agrees with Lord Salisbury's statement that throughout the whole correspondence connected with the formation of the
Treaties there was no reference whatever by either side to any distinctive name for
Behring's Sea, and for the very simple reason which I have already indicated, that the
negotiation had no reference whatever to the Behring's Sea, but was entirely confined to a
* The same designation obtained in Europe. As early as 1803, in a Map published by the Geographic
Institute at Weimar, the coast from Columbia River (49°) to Cape Elizabeth (60 ) is designated as the " Nord
West Kuste"
mm  ^i?B^-%ViS&Uv£t¥;S3S^SS=»65'«''»'" 39
" strip of land    on the north-west coast and the waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent
thereto.   For future reference I call special attention to the phrase "strip of land."
I venture to remind Lord Salisbury of the fact that Behring's Sea was, at the time
referred to, the recognized name in some quarters, and so appeared on many authentic
Maps several years before the Treaties were negotiated. But, as I mentioned in my note of
the 30th June, the same sea had been presented as a body of water separate from the
Pacific Ocean for a long period prior to 1825. Many names had been applied to it, but
the one most frequently used and most widely recognized was the Sea of Kamschatka.
English statesmen of the period when the Treaties were negotiated had complete knowledge of all the geographical points involved. They knew that on the Map published in
1784 to illustrate the voyages of the most eminent English navigator of the eighteenth
centurv the " Sea of Kamschatka'' appeared in absolute contradistiction to the " Great
South Sea " or the Pacific Ocean. And the Map, as shown by the words on its margin,
was "prepared by Lieutenant Henry Roberts under the immediate inspection of Captain
Cook."
Twenty years before Captain Cook's Map appeared, the "London Magazine" contained*
a Map on which the Sea of Kamschatka was conspicuously engraved. At a Still earlier
date—even as far back as 1732—Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Russian expedition of Shestakoff
in 1730 (who, even before Behring, sighted the land of tile American Continent)^ published
the sea as bearing the name of Kamschatka. Muller, who was Historian and Geographer
of the second expedition of Behring in 1741, designated it as the Sea of Kamschatka in
bis Map published in 1761.
I inclose a list of a large proportion of the most authentic Maps published during fch»
ninety years prior to 1825 in Great Britain, in the United States* the Netherlands, France,
Spain, Germany, and Russia—in til 105 Maps—on every one of which the body of water
now known as Behring's Sea was plainly distinguished by a name separate from the Pacific
Ocean. On the great majority it hi named the Sea of Kamschatka, a few use the name Of
Behring, while Several other designations are used* The whole number, aggregating, as
they did, the opinion of a large part of the civilized world, distinguished the sea, no matter
under what name, as altogether separate from the Pacific Ocean.    (See Inclosure B.)
Is it possible, that with this great cloud of witnesses before the eyes of Mr. Adams
and Mr. George Canning, attesting the existence of the Sea of Kamschatka, they Would
simply include it in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," and make no allusion whatever to it as a
separate sea, when it was known by almost every educated man in Europe and America to
have been so designated numberless times? Is it possible that Mr. Canning and
Mr. Adams, both educated in the common law, could believe that they were acquiring
for the United States and Great Britain the enormous rights inherent in the Sea of
Kamschatka without the slightest reference to that sea, or without any description of its
metes and bounds, when neither of them would have paid for a Village house lot unless the
deed for it should recite every fact and feature necessary for the identification of the lot
against any other piece of ground on the surface of the globe ? When We contemplate the
minute particularity, the tedious verbiage, the duplications and the reduplications
employed to secure unmistakable plainness in framing Treaties, it is impossible to Conceive
that a fact of this great magnitude could have been omitted from the instructions written
by Mr. Adams and Mr. G. Canning as Secretaries for Foreign Affairs in their respective
conn tries—* impossible that such a fact could have escaped the notice of Mf. Middleton and
Count Nesselrode, of Mr. Stratford Canning and M. Poletiea, who were the negotiators of
the two Treaties. It is impossible that, in the Anglo-Russian Treaty, Count Nesselrode,
Mr. Stratford Canning, and M. Poletiea could have taken sixteen lines to recite the titles
and honours they had received from their respective Sovereigns, and not even suggest the
insertion of one line, or even word) to secure so valuable a grant to England as the full
freedom of the Behring's Sea.
There is another argument of great weight against the assumption of Lord Salisbury
that the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the 1st Article of both the American and
British Treaties, was intended to include the Waters of the Behring's Sea. It is trim that,
by the Treaties with the United States and Great Britain, Russia practically withdrew the
operation of the Ukase of 1821 from the waters of tie north-west coast ©n th# Pacific
Ocean; but the proof is conclusive that it was left in full force over the waters of th«
Behring's Sea. Lord Salisbury cannot have ascertained the value of the Behring's Sea to
Russia when he assumed that, in the Treaties of 182* and 1825^ the Imperial Government
had, by mere inclusion in another phrase, with apparent carelessness, thrown ©pen all ^ T*i?S5*^iS*9«gSKK5SH?<B3W«»<-
Ill-'
40
resources and all the wealth of those waters to the citizens of the United States and to the
subjects of Great Britain.
Lord Salisbury has, perhaps, not thought it worth while to make any examination of
the money value of Alaska and the waters of the Behring's Sea at the time the Treaties
were negotiated and in the succeeding years. The first period of the Russian-American
Company's operations bad closed before the Ukase of 1821 was issued. Its affairs were
kept secret for a long time, but are now accurately known. The money advanced for the
capital stock of the Company at its opening in 1799 amounted to 1,238,746 roubles. The
gross sales of furs and skins by the Company at Kodiak and Canton from that date up to
1820 amounted to 20,024,698 roubles. The net profit was 7,685,000 roubles for the
twenty-one years—over 620 per cent, for the whole period, or nearly 30 per cent, per
annum.
Reviewing these facts, Bancroft, in his "History of Alaska," a standard work of
exhaustive research, says:—
"We find this powerful monopoly firmly established in the favour of the Imperial
Government, many Nobles of high rank and several members of the Royal Family being
among the shareholders."
And yet Lord Salisbury evidently supposes that a large amount of wealth was carelessly thrown away by the Royal Family, the Nobles, the courtiers, the capitalists, and the
speculators of St. Petersburgh in a phrase which merged the Behring's Sea in the Pacific
Ocean. That it was not thrown away is shown by the transactions of the Company for
the next twenty years.
The second period of the Russian-American Company began in 1821 and ended in
1841. Within that time the gross revenues of the Company exceeded 61,000,000 roubles.
Besides paying all expenses and all taxes, the Company largely increased the original
capital, and divided 8,500,000 roubles among the shareholders. These dividends and the
increase of the stock showed a profit on the original capital of 55 per cent, per annum for
the whole twenty years—a great increase over the first period. It must not be forgotten
that, during sixteen of these twenty years of constantly increasing profits, the Treaties
which, according to Lord Salisbury, gave to Great Britain and the United States equal
rights with Russia iu the Behriug's Sea, were in full force.
The proceedings which took place when the second period of the Russian American
Company was at an end are thus described in Bancroft's " History of Alaska":—
" ' In the variety and extent of its operations,' declare the members of the
Imperial Council, ' no other Company can compare with it.    In addition to a commercial
and industrial monopoly, the Government has invested it with a portion of its own powers
in governing the vast and distant territory over which it now holds control
A change in
this system would now be of doubtful benefit. To open our ports to all hunters promiscuously would be a death-blow to the fur trade, while the Government, having transferred to
the Company the control of the Colonies, could not now resume it without great expense
and trouble, and would have to create new financial resources for such a purpose.'"
The Imperial Council, it will be seen, did not hesitate to call the Russian-American
Company a monopoly, which it could not have been if Lord Salisbury's construction of the
Treaty was correct. Nor did the Council feel any doubt that to open the ports of the
Behring's Sea " to all hunters promiscuously would be a death-blow to the fur trade."
Bancroft says further:—
..." This opinion of the Imperial Council, together with a Charter defining the
privileges and duties of the Company, was delivered to the Czar, and received his signature
on the 11th October, 1844. The new Charter did not differ in its main features from
that of 1821, though the boundary was, of course, changed in accordance with the English
and American Treaties. None of the Company's rights were curtailed, and the additional
privileges were granted of trading with certain ports in China and of shipping tea direct
from China to St. Petersburgh."
The Russians-American Company was thus chartered for a third period of twenty
years, and at the end of the time it was found that the gross receipts amounted to
75,770,000 roubles, a minor part of it from the tea trade. The expenses of administration
were very large. The shareholders received dividends to the amount of 10,210,000 roubles
—-about 90O per cent, for the whole period, or 45 per cent, per annum on the original
capital.    At the time the third period closed, in 1862, the Russian Government saw an 41
opportunity to sell Alaska, and refused to continue the Charter of the Company. Agents
of the United States had initiated negotiations for the transfer of Alaska as early as 1859.
The Company continued, practically, however, to exercise its monopoly until 1867, when
Alaska was sold by Russia to the United States. The enormous profits of the Russian
American Company in the fur trade of the Behring's Sea continued under the Russian flag
for more than forty years after the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 had been concluded. And
yet Lord Salisbury contends that during this long period of exceptional profits from the
fur trade Great Britain and the United States had as good a right as Russia to take part
in-these highly lucrative ventures.
American and English ships in goodly numbers during this whole period annually
visited and traded on the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean. And yet, of all these
vessels of the United States and Great Britain, not one ever sought to disturb the fur
fisheries of the Behring's Sea or along its coasts, either of the continent or of the islands.
So far as known, it is believed that neither American nor English ships ever attempted to
take one fur-seal at the Pribyloff Islands or in the open waters of the Behring's Sea during
that period. The 100-mile limit was for the preservation of all these fur animals, and this
limit was observed for that purpose by all the maritime nations that sent vessels to the
Behring waters.
Can any one believe it to be possible that the maritime, adventurous, gain-loving
people of the United States and of Great Britain could have had such an inviting field
open to them forty years and yet not one ship of either nation enter the Behring's Sea
to compete with the Russian-American Company for the inordinate profits which had
flowed so steadily and for so long a period into their treasury from the fur trade ? The
fact that the ships of both nations refrained, during that long period, from taking a single
fur-seal inside the shores of that sea is a presumption of their lack of right and their
recognized disability so strong that, independently of all other arguments, it requires the
most authentic and convincing evidence to rebut it. That English ships did not enter the
Behring's Sea to take part in the catching of seals is not all that can be said. Her
acquiescence in Russia's power over the seal fisheries was so complete that during the
forty years of Russia's supremacy in the Behring's Sea (that followed the Treaties of
1824-25) it is not believed that Great Britain even made a protest, verbal or written,
against what Bancroft describes as the "Russian monopoly."
A certain degree of confusion and disorganization in the form of the government that
had existed in Alaska was the inevitable accompaniment of the transfer of sovereignty to
the United States. The American title was not made complete until the money, specified
as the price in the Treaty, had been appropriated by Congress and paid to the Russian
Minister by the Executive Department of the Government of the United States. This
was effected in the latter half of the year 1868. The acquired sovereignty of Alaska
carried with it by Treaty "all the rights, franchises, and privileges" which, had belonged
to Russia. A little more than a year after the acquisition, the United States transferred
certain rights to the Alaska Commercial Company over the seal fisheries of Behring's Sea
lor a period of twenty years. Russia had given the same rights (besides rights of still
larger scope) to the Russian-American Company for three periods of twenty years each,
without a protest from the British Government, without a single interference from British
ships. For these reasons this Government again insists that Great Britain and the United
States recognized, respected, and obeyed the authority of Russia in the Behring's Sea; and
did it for more than forty years after the Treaties with Russia were negotiated. It still
remains for England to explain why she persistently violates the same rights when transferred to the ownership of the United States.
The Ilnd Article of the American Treaty is as follows :—
"Article 11. With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exer*
cised upon the Great Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting Powers
from becoming 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
permission 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 north-west coast."
The Ilnd Article of the British Treaty is as follows:—
" Article II. In order to prevent the right of navigation and fishing,  exercised
upon the ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties, from becomine the
[95 J G^ 562»l*«!«s«si5gsBsesHr»»«*<w
at";
:
I    -
42
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, without
the permission of the Governor or Commandant; and, on the other hand, the Russian
subjects shall not land, without permission, at any British establishment on the
north-west coast."
In the Ilnd Articles of the Treaties it is recognized that both the United
States and Great Britain have establishments on the " north-west coast," and, as
neither country ever claimed any territory north of the 60th parallel of latitude,
we necessarily have the meaning of the north-west coast significantly defined in exact
accordance with the American contention.
An argument, altogether historical in its character, is of great and, I think, conclusive
force touching this question. It will be remembered that the Treaty of the 20th October,
1818, between the United States and Great Britain, comprised a variety of topics, among
others, in Article III, the following:—
" It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the north-west
coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays,
and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for the term
of ten years from the date of the signature of the present Convention, to the vessels, citizens,
and subjects of the two Powers ; it being understood that this Agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two High Contracting Parties may
have to any part of the said country, nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any
other Power or State to any part of the said country, the only object of the High
Contracting Parties, in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst
themselves."
While this Article placed upon a common basis for ten years the rights of Great
Britain and America on the north-west coast, it made no adjustment of the claims of Russia
on the north, or of Spain on the south, which are referred to in the Article as " any other
Power or State." Russia had claimed down to latitude 55° under the Ukase of 1799.
Spain had claimed indefinitely northward from the 42nd parallel of latitude. But
all th§ Spanish claims had been transferred to the United States by the Treaty of 1819,
and Russia had been so quiet until the. Ukase of 1821 that no conflict was feared.
But after that Ukase a settlement, either permanent or temporary, was imperatively
demanded.
The proposition made by Mr. Adams which I now quote shows, I think, beyond all
doubt, that the dispute was wholly touching the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean. I
make the following quotation from Mr. Adams' instruction to Mr. Middleton, our Minister
at. St. Petersburgh, on the 22nd July, 1823 :—
" By the Treaty of the 22nd February, 1819, with Spain, the United States acquired
all the rights of Spain north of latitude 42°; and by the Illrd Article of the Convention
between the United States and Great Britain of the 20th October, 1818, it was agreed that
any country that might be claimed by either party on the north-west coast of America,
westward of the Stony Mountains, should, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks,
and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years
from that date, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers, without prejudice
to the claims of either party or of any other State.
" You are authorized to propose an Article of the same import for a term of
ten years from the signature of a Joint Convention between the United States, Great
Britain, and Russia."
Instructions of the same purport were sent by the same mail to Mr. Rush, our Minister
at London, in order that the proposition should be completely understood by each of the
three Powers. The confident presumption was that this proposition would, as a temporary
settlement, be acceptable to all parties. But before there was time for full consideration of
the proposition, either by Russia or Great Britain, President Monroe, in December 1823,
proclaimed his famous doctrine of excluding future European Colonies from this continent.
Its effect on all European nations holding unsettled or disputed claims to territory was to
create a desire for prompt settlement so that each Power could be assured of its own, without the trouble or cost of further defending it. Great Britain was already entangled with
the United States on the southern side of her claims on the north-west coast. That
Agreement she must adhere to, but she was wholly unwilling to postpone a definite understanding with Russia as to the northern limit of her claims on the north-west coast.   Hfsace 43
a permanent Treaty was desired, and in both Treaties the " ten-year " feature was recognized
—in the. Vllth Article of the British Treaty and in the tV'th Article of the American
Treaty. But neither in the correspondence nor in the personal conferences that brought
about the Agreement was there a single hint that the settlement was to include anything
else whatever than the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean, south of the 60th parallel of
north latitude.
Fortunately, however, it is not necessary for the United States to rely on this
suggestive definition of the north-west coast, or upon the historical facts above given. It
is easy to prove from other sources that in the Treaty between the United States and
Russia the coast referred to was that which 1 have defined as the " north-west coast" on
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 Protocols between
our Minister at St. Petersburgh, Mr. Henry Middleton, and Count Nesselrode, of Russia,
who negotiated the Treaty of 1824. I quote, as I have quoted in my note of the
30th June, a Memorandum submitted to Count Nesselrode by Mr. Middleton as part of
the 4 th Protocol:—
" Now, it is clear, according to the facts established, that neither Russia nor
any other European Power has the right of dominion upon the Continent of America
between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.
"Still less has she the dominion of the adjacent maritime territory, or of the
sea which washes these coasts, a dominion which is only accessory to the territorial
dominion.
" Therefore, she has not the right of exclusion or of admission on these coasts, nor in
these seas, which are free seas.
" The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every independent
nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence.
" The United States have exercised navigation in the seas, and commerce upon
the coasts above mentioned, from the time of their independence ; and they have a
perfect right to this navigation and to this commerce, and they can only be deprived of it
by their own act or by a Convention."
Mr. Middleton declares that Russia had not the right of dominion " upon the
Continent of America between the 50lh and 60th degrees of north latitude." Still less has
she the dominion of " the adjacent maritime territory or the sea which washes these coasts."
He further declares that Russia had not the "right of exclusion or of admission on
these coasts, nor in these seas, which are free seas "—that is, the coast and seas between the
50th and GOth degrees of north latitude on the body of the continent.
The following remark of Mr. Middleton deserves special attention:—
"The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every
independent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence."
This earnest protest by Mr. Middleton, it will be noted, was against the Ukase
of Alexander which proposed to extend Russian sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean
as far south as the 51st degree of latitude, at which point, as Mr. Adams reminded
the Russian Minister, that ocean is 4,000 miles wide. It is also to be specially noted that
Mr. Middleton's double reference to " the free seas " would have no meaning whatever if
he did not recognize that freedom on certain seas had been restricted. He could not have
used the phrase if he had regarded all seas in that region as " free seas."
In answer to my former reference to these facts (in my note of the 30th June)
Lord Salisbury makes this plea:—
" Mr. Blaine states that when Mr. Middleton declared that Russia had no right
of exclusion on the coasts of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north
latitude, nor in the seas which washed those coasts, he intended to make a distiction
between Behring's Sea and the Pacific Ocean. But on reference to a Map it will be seen
that the 60th degree of north latitude strikes straight across Behring's Sea, leaving by far
the larger and more important part of it to the south; so that I confess it appears to me
that by no conceivable construction of his words can Mr. Middleton be supposed to have
excepted that sea from those which he declared to be free."
If his Lordship had examined his Map somewhat more closely, he would have found
mv statement literally correct.    When Mr. Middleton  referred to  " the Continent of
[95] G % rsat?*^S'--**!«s«Si:^a!«?ss?e«?*pw«»'^-»r' ■
44
America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude," it was impossible that he
could have referred to the coast of Behring's Sea, for the very simple ieason that
the 50th degree of latitude is altogether south of the Behring's Sea. The fact that
the 60th parallel " strikes straight across the Behring's Sea" has no more pertinence
to this discussion than if his Lordship had remarked that the same parallel passes through
the Sea of Okhotsk, which lies to the west of Behring's Sea, just as the arm of the North
Pacific lies to the east of it. Mr. Middleton was denying Russia's dominion upon
a continuous line of coast upon the continent betweeu two specified points and over
the waters washing that coast. There is such a continous line of coast between the
50th and 60th degrees on the Pacific Ocean; but there is no such line of coast on the
Behring's Sea, even if you measure from the southernmost island of the Aleutian chain.
In a word, the argument of Lord Salisbury on this point is based upon a geographical
impossibility.    (See illustrative Map on opposite page.)
But, if there could be any doubt left as to what coast and to what waters
Mr. Middleton referred, an analysis of the last paragraph of the 4th Protocol will dispel
that doubt. When Mr. Middleton declared that " the United States have exercised
navigation in the seas, and commerce upon the coasts above mentioned, from the time of their
independence," he makes the same declaration that had . been previously made by
Mr. Adams. That declaration could only refer to the north-west coast as I have described
it, or as Mr. Middleton phrases it, " the Continent of America between the 50th and 60th
degrees of north latitude."
Even his Lordship would not dispute the fact that it was upon this coast and in the
waters washing it that the United States and Great Britain had exercised free navigation
and commerce continuously since 1784. By no possibility could that navigation and
commerce have been in the Behring's Sea. Mr. Middleton, a close student of history, and
experienced in diplomacy, could not have declared that the United States had " exercised
navigation " in the Behring's Sea, and " commerce upon its coasts," from the time of their
independence. As a matter of history, there was no trade and no navigation (except the
navigation of explorers) by the United States and Great Britain in the Behring's Sea in
1784, or even at the time these Treaties were negotiated. Captain Cook's voyage of
exploration and discovery through the waters of that sea was completed at the close of
the year 1778, and his " Voyage to the Pacific Ocean " was not published in Loudon until
five years after his death, which occurred at the Sandwich Islands on the 14th February,
1779. The Pribyloff Islands were first discovered, one in 1786 and the other in 1787.
Seals were taken there for a few years afterwards by the Lebedef Company of Russia,
subsequently consolidated into the Russian-American Company; but the taking of seals
on those islands was then discontinued by the Russians until 1803, when it was resumed
by the Russian-American Company.
At the time these Treaties were negotiated there was only one Settlement, and that of
Russians, on the shores of the Behring's Sea, and the only trading vessels whieh had
entered that sea were the vessels of the Russian Fur Company. Exploring expeditions bad,
of course, entered. It is evident, therefore, without further statement, that neither the
vessels of the United States nor of Great Britain nor of any other Power than Russia had
traded on the shores of Behring's Sea prior to the negotiations of these Treaties. No
more convincing proof could be adduced that these Treaties had reference solely to the
waters and coasts of the continent south of the Alaskan Peninsula—simply the " Pacific
Ocean " and the " north-west coast" named in the Treaties.
The Hlrd Article of the British Treaty, as printed in the British State Papers, is as
follows:—
" 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 in the manner following:—
** Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' north latitude, and between the 131st and
the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the
north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where
it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point the line of
demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far
as the point of intersection of the 141 st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian) ;
and, finally, from the said point of intersection the said meridian line of the 141 st degree,
in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian
and the British possessions on the Continent of America to the north-west."
mm  ^^ae?wss'*?r)SBcsgasssHs«s'=*=»'i<,?"'T' 45
It will be observed that this Article explicitly delimits the boundary between British
America and the Russian possessions. This delimitation is in minute detail from 54° 40'
to the northern terminus of the coast known as the north-west coast. \V hen the boundary,
line reaches that point (opposite 60° north latitude) where it intersects the 141st degree of
west longitude, all particularity of description ceases. From that point it is projected
directly northward for 600 or 700 miles without any reference to coast-line, without any
reference to points of discovery or occupation (for there were none in that interior
country), but simply on a longitudinal line as far north as the Frozen or Arctic Ocean.
What more striking interpretation of the Treaty could there be than this boundary-
line itself? It could not be clearer if the British negotiators had been recorded as saying
to the Russian negotiators :—
"Here is the north-west coast to which 'we have disputed your claims—from the 51st
to the 60th degree of north latitude. We will not, in any event, admit your right south
of 54° 40'. From 54° 40' to the point of junction with the 141st degree of west longitude
we will agree to your possession of the coast. That will cover the dispute between us.
As to the body of the continent above the point of intersection, at the 141st degree'of
longitude, we know nothing, nor do you. It is a vast unexplored wilderness. We have
no Settlements there, and you have none. We have, therefore, no conflicting interests
with your Government. The simplest division of that territory is to accept the prolongation of the 141st degree of longitude to the Arctic Ocean as the boundary. East of it the
territory shall be British.   West of it the territory shall be Russian,"
And it was so finally settled.
Article IV of the Anglo-Russian Treaty is as follows:—
" With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it is
understood:
" 1. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.
" 2. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel
to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st
degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues
from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to
belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by ' a line parallel to the windings
of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.' "
The evident design of this Article was to make certain and definite the boundary-line
along the line of coast, should there be any doubt as to that line as laid down in
Article III. It provided that the boundary-line, following the windings of the coast, should
never be more than 10 marine leagues therefrom.
The Vth Article of the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia reads thus :—
" It is, moreover, agreed that no establishment shall be formed by either of the two
Parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding Articles to the possessions of the
other. Consequently, British subjects shall not form any establishment either upon the
coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions, as designated in the two preceding Articles; and, in like manner, no establishment shall be formed by Russian subjects beyond the said limits,"
The plain meaning of this Article is that neither Party shall make Settlements within
the limits assigned by the illrd and IVth Articles to the possession of the other. Consequently, the 1 Ilrd and IVth Articles are of supreme importance as making the actual delimitations between the two countries, and forbidding each to form any establishments
within the limits of the other.
The Vlth Article of Russia's Treaty with Great Britain is as follows:—
" It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter
they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall lor ever
enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers
and streams which, in their course toward the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of
demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III of the present Con-
ventien."
The meaning of this Article is not obscure. The subjects of Great Britain, whether
.aiming 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 ^35^??'f-:"■*:  ;;y^i:^~/!Sf—w
if
RsV
HI
46
tf Ae line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III. As is plainly apparent,
the coast referrred to ih Article 111 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 10 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 the I Hid Article. Directly to the east of this&trip 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 ail rivers crossing that strip of land from 54° 40' to
the point of intersection with the 141st degree of longitude. Without this coneession the
Treaty could not have been made. I do not understand that Lord Salisbury dissents from
this obvious construction of the Vlth Article, 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 coast
from 54° 407 to 60°. There is no description of the coast above that point stretching along
the Behring's Sea from latitude 60° to the Straits of Behring.
The Vllth Article of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, whose provisions have led to the
principal contention between the United States and Great Britain, is as follows :—
"It is also understood that for the space of ten years from the signature of the
present Convention the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respective
subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the
inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in Article 111, for the
purposes of fishing and of trading with the natives."
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's Sea.
Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says :—
" 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 coast mentioned in Article til, 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
of * the 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 the Vlth Article to the subjects of Great Britain are limited to " the coast
described in Article III of the Treaty." But when he reaches the Vllth Article, 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.
The Illrd Article 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.,
"^uth of 60° north latitude was the only place where Great Britain had possessions on the 47
coast-line. North of that point her territory had no connection whatever .with the coast
either of the Pacific Ocean or the Behring's Sea. It is thus evident that the only coast
referred to in Article III was this strip of land south of 60° or 59G 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 coast as far as their intersection with the \A\st degree of longitude. After having
described this line of demarcation between the possessions of both parties on the coast, the
remaining sentence of the Article shows that, " filially, 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 the Vllth and Hlrd Articles, 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 the Illrd Article 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 (the Hlrd, IVth, Vth, Vlth, and Vllth) are
expressed with an exactness of meaning which no argument can change or pervert. In a
later part of my ncte 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 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
f^ncting in her negotiations with Great Britain than she had been with the United States.
What was it ?
It is only necessary to quote the Illrd and IVth Articles 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 :—
"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 north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent, to the north
of 54°40' of north latitude; and that, in the same manner, there shall be none formed
by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.
" Article IV. It is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, counting
from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or whiph belong
to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance
whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast mentioned in
the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the
country."
It will be noted that in the British Treaty four Articles, with critical expression of
terms, take the place of the Illrd and IVth Articles 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 the Hlrd and
IVth Articles. The phrase, as I have before said, was used in two senges, 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's 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 rSJ6^^*sr;^i33S^S5?S>e«='t*»'"~.-''^'
48
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 jetee de bauts cris'), and, by means of their influence, had prevailed upon
his Government to send him these instructions upon two points. One was that he 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 thescpoints he loft 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:—
" Explanatory Note from Russia.
" Explanatory note to be presented to the Government 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 commerce 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
Icy Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the 1st Article of the Convention of the
5th (17th) 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 hunt within the distance of 2 marine leagues. This
will not prevent the reception of foreign vessels which have been damaged or beaten by
storm."
The course pursued by Mr. Adams, after the Russian note had been submitted to him,
is fully told in his diary, from which I again quote:—
" I told Baron Tuyl that we should be disposed to do every thing to accommodate the
views of his Government that was in our power, but that a modification of the Convention
could be made no otherwise than by a new Convention, and that the construction of the
Convention as concluded belonged to other Departments of the Government, for which
the Executive had no authority to stipulate. ... I added that the Convention would be
submitted immediately to the Senate; that if anything affecting its construction, or, still
more, modifying its meaning, were to be presented on the part of the Russian Government
before or at the exchange of the ratifications, it must be laid before the Senate, and could
have no other possible effect than of starting doubts, and, perhaps, hesitation, in that body,
and of favouring the views of those, if such there were, who might wish to defeat the
^•g5^:»>yj>>^A^T-g>j^g«fear •* 49
ratification itself of the Convention. . . . If,, therefore, he would permit mo.to suggest to
him what I thought would, be his: best course, it would be to wait for the exchange of the
ratifications, and make it purely and simply; that afterwards, if the instructions of his
Government were imperative, he might present the note, to which I now. informed him
•what would be, in substance, my answer. It necessarily could not be otherwise. But, if
.his instructions left it discretionary with him, he would do still better to inform his
Government of the state of things here, of the purport of our conference, and of what my
answer must be if he should present the note. I believed his Court would then deem it
best that he should not present the note at all. Their apprehension had been excited by an
interest not very friendly to the good understanding between the United States and Russia.
Our merchants, would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of Siberia, or north of the
frith degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such fancies into thew^heads. At least
the Imperial Government might wait to see the operation of the Convention before taking
any further steps, and / was confident they would hear no complaint resulting from it,    If
they should, then would  be the
modification of the Convention.
time for adjusting the construction or negotiating a
The Russian Minister was. deeply impressed by what Mr. Adams had said. He had
not before clearly perceived the inevitable effect if he should insist on presenting the note
in the form of a demand. He was not prepared for so serious a result as the destruction
or the indefinite postponsment of the Treaty between Russia and the United States, and
Mr. Adams readily convinced him that at the exchange of ratifications no modification
of the Treaty could be made. The only two courses open were, first, to ratify; or,
second, to refuse, and annul the Treaty. Mr. Adams reports the words of the Minister in
reply:—
" The Baron said that these ideas had occurred to himself; that he had made this
application in pursuance of his instructions, but he was aware of the distribution of powers
in our Constitution, and of the incompetency of the Executive to adjust such questions.
He would therefore wait for the exchange of the ratifications without presenting his note,
and reserve for future consideration whether to present it shortly afterwards or to inform
his Court of what he has done and ask their further instructions upon what he shall
definitely do on the subject." . . .
As Baron Tuyl surrendered his opinions to the superior judgment of Mr. Adams,
the ratifications of the Treaty were exchanged on the 11th day of January, and on the
following day the Treaty was formally proclaimed. A fortnight later, on the 25th
January, 1825, Baron Tuyl, following the instructions of his Government, filed his note
in the Department of State. Of course, his act at that time did not affect the text of
the Treaty; but it placed in the hands of the Government of the United States an
unofficial note which significantly told what Russia's construction of the Treaty would be
if, unhappily, any difference as to its meaning should arise between the two Governments.
But Mr. Adams' friendly intimation removed all danger of dispute, for it conveyed to
Russia the assurance that the Treaty, as negotiated, contained, in effect, the provisions
which the Russian note was designed to supply. From that time until Alaska, with all its
rights of land and water, was transferred to the United States-—a period of forty-three
years—no act or word on the part of either Government ever impeached the full validity
of the Treaty as it was understood both by Mr. Adams and by Baron Tuyl at the time it
was formally proclaimed.
While these important matters were transpiring in Washington, negotiations between
Russia and England (ending in the Treaty of 1825) were in progress in St. Petersburgh.
The instructions to Baron Tuyl concerning the Russian-American Treaty were fully
reflected in the care with which the Anglo-Russian Treaty was constructed, a fact to which
I have already adverted in full. There was, indeed, a possibility that the true meaning
of the Treaty with the United States might be misunderstood, and it was therefore the
evident purpose of the Russian Government to make the Treaty with England so plain
and so clear as to leave no room for doubt and to baffle all attempts at misconstruction.
The Government of the United States finds the full advantage to it in the caution taken
by Russia in 1825, and can therefore quote the Anglo-Russian Treaty, with the utmost
confidence that its meaning cannot be changed from that clear unmistakable text which,
throughout all the Articles, sustains the American contention.
The "explanatory note," filed with this Government by Baron Tuyl, is so plain in its
text that, after the lapse of sixty-six years, the exact meaning can neither be misapprehended nor misrepresented.    It draws the distinction between the Pacific Ocean and
[95] H '■]£S8Fw&. ■?■'<<'&-.^  : ■■•■«--9:«sksm
50
the waters now known as the Behring's Sea so particularly and so perspicuously that no
answer can be made to it. It will bear the closest analysis in every particular. " It is
not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean!" This
frank and explicit statement shows with what entire good faith Russia had withdrawn, in
both Treaties, the offensive Ukase of Alexander, so far as the Pacific Ocean was made
subject to it. Another avowal is equally explicit, viz., that " the coast of Siberia, the
north-west coast of America to 59° 30' of north latitude [that is, down to 59° 30', the
explanatory note reckoning from north to south] and the Aleutian Islands are positively
excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipulated in favour of citizens
of the United States for ten years." The reason given for this exclusion is most significant
in connection with the pending discussion, namely, that the coasts of Siberia are washed
by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the ley Sea, and not by the " South
Sea " [Pacific Ocean] mentioned in the 1st Article of the Convention of the 5th (17th)
April, 1824. The Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka, or
Northern Ocean (Northern Ocean being used in contradistinction to South Sea or Pacific
Ocean). The liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce mentioned in the Treaties was
therefore confined to the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of 59° SO' both to the United
States and Great Britain. It must certainly be apparent now to Lord Salisbury that
Russia never intended to include the Behring's Sea in the phrase "Pacific Ocean." The
American argument on that question has been signally vindicated by the official declaration of the Russian Government.
In addition to the foregoing, Russia claimed jurisdiction of 2 marine leagues from the
shore in the Pacific Ocean, a point not finally insisted upon in either Treaty. The
Protocols, however, show that Great Britain was willing to agree to the 2 marine leagues,
but the United States was not; and, after the concession was made to the Dnited States,
Mr. Q. Canning insisted upon its being made to Great Britain also.
In the interview between the American Secretary of State and the Russian Minister,
in December 1824, it is worth noting that Mr. Adams believed that the application made
by Baron Tuyl had its origin "in the apprehension of the Court of Russia which had
been caused by an interest not very friendly to the good understanding between the
United States and Russia." I presume no one need be told that the reference here made
by Mr. Adams was to the Government of Great Britain; that the obvious effort of the
British Government at that time was designed to make it certain that the United States
should not have the power in the waters and on the shores of Behring's Sea which,
Lord Salisbury now argues, had undoubtedly been given both to the United States and Great
Britain by the Treaties.
It is to be remembered that Mr. Adams' entire argument was to quiet Baron Tuyl
with the assurance that the Treaty already negotiated was, in effect, just what the Russian
Government desired it to be by the incorporation of the "explanatory note" of which
Baron Tuyl was the bearer. Mr. Adams was not a man to seize an advantage merely by
cunning construction of language which might have two meanings. He was determined
to remove the hesitation and distrust entertained for the moment by Russia. He went so
far, indeed, as to give an assurance that American ships would not go above 57° north
latitude (Sitka), and he did not want the text of the Treaty so changed as to mention the
facts contained in the explanatory note, because, speaking of the hunters and the
fishermen, it " was wisest not to put such fancies into their heads."
It is still further noticeable that Mr. Adams, in his sententious expression, spoke of
the Treaty in his interview with Baron Tuyl as " the North-West Coast Convention."
This closely descriptive phrase was enough to satisfy Baron Tuyl that Mr. Adams had not
taken a false view of the true limits of the Treaty, and had not attempted to extend the
privileges granted to the United States a single inch beyond their plain and honourable
intent.
The three most confident assertions made by Lord Salisbury, and regarded by him as
unanswerable, are, in his own language, the following:—
1. That England refused to admit any part of the Russian claim asserted by the
Ukase of 1821 of a maritime jurisdiction and exclusive right of fishing throughout the
whole extent of thai? claim, from Behring's Straits to the 51st parallel.
2. That the Convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renunciation on the
part of Russia of that claim in its entirety.
3. That, though Behring's Straits were known and specifically provided for,
Behring's Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as a part of the Pacific
Ocean.
The explanatory note of the Russian Government disproves and denies in detail
these three assertions of Lord Salisbury.    I think they are completely disproved by the
:r ^KT 5^^rFvoT^.^-^^5Al«W«(bP* .* 51
facts recited in this despatch, but the explanatory note is a specific contradiction of each
one of them.
The  inclosnres  which   accompanied Lord  Salisbury's   despatch,   and  which   are
quoted to strengthen his arguments, seem to me to sustain, in a remarkable manner, the
. position of the United States.    The first inclosure is a despatch from Lord Londonderry
to Count Lieven, Russian Minister at London, dated Foreign Office, the 18th January,
1822.    The first paragraph of this despatch is as follows:—
"The Undersigned has the honour to acknowledge the note addressed to him by
Baron de Nicolai of the 12th September last, covering a copy of a Ukase issued by his
Imparial Master, Emperor of all the Russias, bearing date the 4th September, 1821, for
various purposes therein set forth, especially connected with the territorial rights of his
Crown an the north-west caast of America bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and the commerce
and navigation of His Imperial Majesty's subjects in the seas adjacent thereto.
It is altogether apparent that this despatch is limited to the withdrawal of the
provisions of the Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander, especially connected with the
territorial rights on the north-west coast bordering on the Pacific Ocean. Evidently Lord
Londonderry makes no reference, direct or indirect, to the Behring's Sea. The whole
scope of his contention, as defined by himself, lies outside of the field of the present
dispute between the British and American Governments. This Government heartily
agrees with Lord Londonderry's form of stating the question.
The Duke of Wellington was England's Representative in the Congress of Verona,
for which place he set out in the autumn of 1822. His instructions from Mr. G.
Canning, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, followed the precise line indicated by Lord
Londonderry in the despatch above quoted. This is more plainly shown by a " Memorandum on the Russian Ukase" delivered by the Duke on the 17th October to Count
Nesselrode, Russia's Representative at Verona. The Duke was arguing against the Ukase
of Alexander, as it affected British interests, and his language plainly shows that he
confined himself to the " north-west coast of America bordering on the Pacific Ocean."
To establish this it is only necessary to quote the following paragraph from the Duke's
Memorandum, viz.:—
" Now, we can prove that the English North-West Company and the Hudson's Bay
Company have for many years established forts and other trading places in a country
called New Caledonia, situated to the west of a range of mountains called the Rocky
Mountains, and extending along the shores of the Pacific Ocean from latitude 49° to
latitude 60° north."
The Duke of Wellington always went, directly to the point at issue, and he was
evidently not concerning himself about any subject other than the protectioh of the
English territory south of the Alaskan Peninsula, and on the north-west coast bordering '
on the Pacific Ocean. England owned no territory on the coast north of the Alaskan
Peninsula, and hence there was no reason for connecting the coast above the peninsula in
any way with the question before the Congress. Evidently the Duke did not, in the remotest
manner, connect the subject he was discussing with the waters or the shores of the
Behring's Sea.
The most significant and important of all the inclosures is No. 12, in which
Mr. Stratford Canning, the British negotiator at St. Petersburgh, communicated, under date
of the 1st March, 1825, to Mr. G. Canning, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the text of the
Treaty between England and Russia. Some of Mr. Stratford Canning's statements are
very important. In the second paragraph of his letter he makes the following statement :—
" The line of demarcation along the strip of land on the north-west coast of America
assigned to Russia is laid down in the Convention agreeably to your directions." ....
After all, then, it appears that the " strip of land," to which we have already referred
more than once, was reported by the English Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburgh. This
clearly and undeniably exhibits the field of controversy between Russia and England, even
if we had no other proof of the fact. It was solely on the north-west coast bordering on
the Pacific Ocean, and not in the Behring's Sea at all. It is the same strip of land which
the United States acquired in the purchase of Alaska, and runs from 54° 40' to 60° north
latitude—the same strip of land which gave to British America, lying behind it, a free
access to the ocean.
[951
H i^a^tt^^^^^VS^WSHK**'
his letter of the  1st March, the
If, as Lord
3 coast, as it
52
Mr. Stratford Canning also communicated, in
following:—
" With respect to Behring's Straits, I am happy to have it in my power to assure
you, on the joint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of Russia
has no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the navigation of those straits
or of the seas to the north of them.'
This assurance from the Emperor of Russia is of that kind where the power to give
or to withhold is absolute. If the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia had
conceded such rights in the Behring waters as Lord Salisbury now claims, why was
Sir Stratford Canning so "happy" to "have it in his power to assure" the British
Foreign Office, on "the authority of two Russian Plenipotentiaries," that "the Emperor
bad no intention of maintaining an exclusive claim to the navigation of the Behring's
Straits," or of the " seas to the north of them." The seas to the south of the straits were
most significantly not included in the Imperial assurance. The English statesmen of that
day had, as I have before remarked, attempted the abolition of the Ukase of Alexander
only so far as it affected the coast of the Pacific Ocean from the 51st to the 60th degree
of north latitude. It was left in full force on the shores of the Behring's Sea. There is
no proof whatever that the Russian Emperor annulled it there. That sea, from east to
west, is 1,300 miles in extent; from north to south it is 1,000 miles in extent. The
whole of this great body of water, under the Ukase, was left open to the world, except a
strip of 100 miles from the shore. But with these 100 miles enforced on all the coasts of
the Behring's Sea it would be obviously impossible to approach the Straits of Behring,
which were less than 50 miles in extreme width. If enforced strictly, the Ukase would
cut off all vessels from passing through the straits to the Arctic Ocean
Salisbury claims, the Ukase had been withdrawn from the entire Behrin£
was between the 51st and 60th degrees on the Pacific coast, what need would there have
been for Mr. Stratford Canning, the English Plenipotentiary, to seek a favour from Russia
in regard to passing through the straits into the Arctic Ocean, where scientific expeditions
and whaling vessels desired to go P
I need not review all the inclosures, but I am sure that, properly analyzed, they will
all show that the subject-matter touched only the settlement of the dispute on the northwest coast, from the 51st to the 60th degree of nprth latitude. In other words, they
related to the contest which was finally adjusted by the establishment of the line 54° 40',
which marked the boundary between Russian and English territory at the time of the
Anglo-Russian Treaty, as to-day it marks the line of division between Alaska and British
Columbia. But that question in no way touched the Behring's Sea; it was confined wholly
to the Pacific Ocean and the north-west coast.
Lord Salisbury has deemed it proper, in his despatch, to call the attention of the
Government of the United States to some elementary principles of international law
touching the freedom of the seas. For our better instruction he gives sundry extracts
from Wheaton and Kent—our most eminent publicists—and, for further illustration,
quotes from the despatches of Secretaries Seward and Fish, all maintaining the well-known
principle that a nation's jurisdiction over the sea is limited to 3 marine miles from its
shore line.    Commenting on these quotations, his Lordship says:—
" A claim of jurisdiction over the open sea which is not in accordance with the
recognized principles of international law or usage may, of course, be asserted by force,
but cannot be said to have any legal validity as against the vessels of other countries,
except in so far as it is positively admitted in Conventional Agreements with those
countries.''
The United States, having the most extended sea-coast of all the nations of the
world, may be presumed to have paid serious attention to the laws and usages which
define and limit maritime jurisdiction. The course of this Government has been uniformly
in favour of upholding the recognized law of nations on that subject. While Lord
Salisbury's admonitions are received in good part by this Government, we feel justified in
asking bis Lordship if the Government of Great Britain has uniformly illustrated
these precepts by example, or whether she has not established at least one notable
precedent which would justify us in making greater demands vipon Her Majesty's
Government touching the Behring's Sea than either our necessities or our desires have ever
suggested ?    The precedent to which I refer is contained in the following narrative :—
Napoleon Bonaparte fell into the power of Great Britain on the 15th July, 1815.
The disposition of the illustrious prisoner was primarily determined by a Treaty
negotiated at Paris on the 2nd of the following August between Great Britain, Russia,
^ssa^s^tetSB^SViiib^.* 53
Prussia, and Austria. By that Treaty " the custody of Napoleon is specially intrusted to
the British Government." The choice of the place and of the measures which could best
secure the prisoner were especially reserved to Ilis Britannic Majesty. In pursuance of
this power, 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. It
was altogether a memorable Statute, and gave to the British Governor of the Island of
St. Helena remarkable powers over the property and rights of other nations. The Statute
contains eight long sections, and in the 4th section assumes the power to exclude ships
of any nationality, not only from landing on the island, but forbids them " to hover within
8 leagues of the coast of the island." The penalty for hovering within 8 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 offence to be the same as if committed in the County of
Middlesex. This power was not assumed by a military commander, pleading the silence
of law amid the clash of arms; nor was it conferred by the power of civil government in
a crisis of public danger. It was a Parliamentary enactment in a season of profound
peace that was not broken in Europe by war among the Great Powers for eight-and-thirty
years thereafter.   (See Inclosure C.)
The British Government thus assumed exclusive and absolute control over a
considerable section of the South Atlantic Ocean, lying directly in the path of the world's
commerce, near the capes which mark the southernmost points of both hemispheres, over
the waters which for centuries had connected the shores of all continents, and afforded
the commercial highway from and to all the ports of the world. The body of water thus
controlled, in the form of a circle nearly 50 miles' in diameter, was scarcely less than 2,000
square miles in extent; and whatever ship dared to tarry or hover within this area might,
regardless of its nationality, be forcibly seized and summarily forfeited to the British
King-
The United States had grave and special reasons for resenting this peremptory
assertion of power by Great Britain. On the 3rd day of July, 1815, a fortnight after the
Battle of Waterloo and twelve days before Napoleon became a prisoner of war, an important
Commercial Treaty was concluded at London between the United States and Great
Britain. It was the sequel to the Treaty of Ghent, which was concluded some six months
before, and was remarkable, not only from the character of its provisions, but from the
eminence of the American negotiators—John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert
Gallatin. Among other provisions of this Treaty relaxing the stringent colonial policy of
England was one which agreed that American ships should be admitted and hospitably
received at the Island of St. Helena. Before the ratifications of the Treaty were
exchanged in the following November, it was determined that Napoleon should be sent
to St. Helena. England thereupon declined to ratify the Treaty unless the United
States should surrender the provision respecting that island. After that came the
stringent enactment of Parliament forbidding vessels to hover within. 24 miles o( the
island. The United States was already a great Commercial Power. She had 1,400,000
tons of shipping; more than 500 ships bearing her flag were engaged in trade around the
capes. Lord Salisbury has had much to say about the liberty of the seas, but these
500 American ships were denied the liberty of the seas within a space of 50 miles wide in
the South Atlantic Ocean by the express authority of Great Britain.
The Act of Parliament which asserted this power over the sea was to be in force as
long as Napoleon should live. Napoleon was born the same year with Wellington, an ;
was therefore but 46 years of age when he was sent to St. Helena. His expectation o.
life was then as good as that of the Duke, who lived until 1852. The order made in
April 1816 to obstruct free navigation in a section of the South Atlantic might, therefore
have been in force for the period of thirty-six years, if not longer. It actually prove! to
be for five years only.    Napoleon died in 1821.
It is hardly conceivable that the same nation which exercised this authority in the
broad Atlantis^ over which, at that very time, 800,000,000 of peop'e made their commercial exchanges, should deny the right ol the United States to assume control over
a limited area, for a fraction of each year, in a sea which lies far beyond the line of trade,
whose silent waters were never cloven by a commercial prow, whose uninhabited shores
have no port of entry, and could never he approached on a lawful errand under any other
flag than that of the United States. Is this Government to understand that Lord Salisbu v
justifies the course of England ? Is this Government to understand that Lord Salisburv
maintains the right of England, at her will and pleasure, to obstruct the highway o.
commerce in mid-ocean, and that she will at the same time interpose objections to th j rg3S«5-s;rf :-.'5k::-'<&~ Kf-T^MFKHSB
54
United States exercising her jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit, in a remote and unused
sea, for the sole purpose of preserving the most valuable fur-seal fishery in the world from
remediless destruction ?
If Great Britain shall "consider that the precedent set at St. Helena of obstruction
to the navigable waters of the ocean is too remote for present quotation, 1 invite her
attention to one still in existence. Even to-day, while Her Majesty's Government is
aiding one of her Colonies to destroy the American seal fisheries, another Colony, with
.ier consent, has established a pearl fishery in an area of the Indian Ocean 600 miles wide.
And so complete is the assumption of power that, according to Sir George Baden-Powell,
a licence-fee is collected from the vessels engaged in the pearl fisheries in the open ocean.
The asserted power goes to the extent of making foreign vessels that have procured their
pearls far outside the 3-mile limit pay a heavy tax when the vessels enter an Australian
port to land cargoes and refit. Thus the foreign vessel is hedged in on both sides, and is
bound to pay the tax under British law, because, as Sir George Baden-Powell intimates, the
voyage to another port would probably be more expensive than the tax. I quote further
from Sir George to show the extent to which British assumption of power over the Ocean
has gone:—
"The right to charge these dues and to exercise this control outside the 3-mile limit
is based on an Act of the Federal Council of Australasia, which (Federal Council Act, 1885,
sec. 15) enacts that the Council shall have legislative authority, inter alia, in respect to
fisheries in Australian waters ouside territorial limits. In 1889 this Council passed an Act
to ' regulate the pearl-shell and beche-de-mer fisheries in Australian waters adjacent to the
Colony of Western Australia.' In 1888 a similar Act had been passed, dealing with the
fisheries in the seas adjacent to Queensland (on the east coast)."
I am directed by the President to say that, on behalf of the United States, he is
willing to adopt the text used in the Act of Parliament to exclude ships from hovering
nearer to the Island of Sf. Helena than 8 marine leagues, or he will take the example
cited by Sir George Baden-Powell, where, by permission of Her Majesty's Government,
control over apart of the ocean 600 miles wide is to-day authorized by Australian law.
The President will ask the Government of Great Britain to agree to the distance of
20 marine leagues—within which no ship shall hover around the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George, from the 15th May to the 15th October of each year. This will prove an effective
mode of preserving the seal fisheries for the use of the civilized world—a mode which, in
view of Great Britain's assumption of power over the open ocean, she cannot with
consistency decline. Great Britain prescribed 8 leagues at St. Helena; but the obvious
necessities in the Behring's Sea will, on the basis of this precedent, justify 20 leagues for
the protection of the American seal fisheries.
The United States desires only such control over a limited extent of the waters in the
Behring's Sea, for a part of each year, as will be sufficient to insure the protection of the
fur-seal fisheries, already injured, possibly, to an irreparable extent by the intrusion of
Canadian vessels, sailing with the encouragement of Great Britain and protected by her
flag. The gravest wrong is committed when (as in many instances is the case) American
citizens, refusing obedience to the laws of their own country, have gone into partnership
With the British flag and engaged in the destruction of the seal fisheries which belong to
the United States. So general, so notorious, and so shamelessly avowed has this practice
become that last season, according to the Report ot the American Consul at Victoria, when
the intruders assembled at Ounalaska on the 4th July, previous to entering Behring's
Sea, the day was celebrated in a patriotic and spirited manner by the American citizens,
who, at the time, were protected by the British flag in their violation of the laws of their
own country.
With such agencies as these, devised by the Dominion of Canada and protected by
the flag of Great Britain, American rights and interests have, within the past four years,
been damaged to the extent of millions of dollars, with no corresponding gain to those who
caused the loss. From 1870 to 1^90 the seal fisheries—carefully guarded and preserved—
yielded 100,000 skins each year. The Canadian intrusions began in 1886, and so great
has been the damage resulting from their destruction of seal life in the open sea surrounding
the Pribyloff Islands, that in 1«90 the Government of the United States limited the
Alaska Company to 60,000 seals. But the Company was able to secure only 21,000 seals.
Under the same evil influences that have been active now for five seasons the seal fisheries
will soon be utterly destroyed. Great Britain has been informed, advised, warned over
and over again, of the evil effects that would flow from her course of action; but, against
testimony that amounts to demonstration, she has preferred to abide by personal repre- 55
sentations from Ottawa, by Reports of Commissioners who examined nothing, and heard
nothing, except the testimony of those engaged in the business against which the United
States has earnestly protested. She may possibly be convinced of the damage if she will
send an intelligent Commissioner to the Pribyloff Islands.
In general answer to all these facts, Great Britain announces that she is willing to
settle the dispute by arbitration. Her proposition is contained in the following paragraph,
which I quote in full:—
" I have to request that you will communicate a copy of this despatch, and of its
inclosures, to Mr. Blaine. You will state that Her Majesty's Government have no desire
whetever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring's Sea which was
conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present possessors
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 captures in that sea, they are ready to
agree that the question, with the issues that depend upon it, should be referred to impartial
arbitration. You will in that case be authorized to consider, in concert with Mr. Blaine,
the method of procedure to be followed."
In his annual Message, sent to Congress on the 1st of the present month, the
President, speaking in relation to the Behring's Sea question, said :—
" The offer to submit the question to arbitration, as proposed by Her Majesty's
Government, has not been accepted, for the reason that the form of submission proposed
is not thought to be calculated to assure a conclusion satisfactory to either party."
In the judgment of the President, nothing of importance would be settled by proving
that Great Britain conceded no jurisdiction to Russia over the seal fisheries of the
Behring's Sea. It might as well be proved that Russia conceded no jurisdiction to
England over the River Thames. By doing nothing in each case everything is conceded.
In neither case is anything asked of the other " Concession," as used here, means simply
acquiescence in the rightfulness of the title, and that is the onlv form of concession which
Russia.asked of Great Britain, or which Great Britain gave to Russia.
The second offer of Lord Salisbury to arbitrate amounts simply to a submission of the
question whether any country has a right to extend its jurisdiction more than one marine
league from the shore? No one disputes that, as a rule; but the question is whether
there may not be exceptions whose enforcement does not interfere with those highways of
commerce which the necessities and usage of the world have marked out. Great Britain,
when she desired an exception, did not stop to consider or regard the inconvenience to
which the commercial world might be subjected. Her exception placed an obstacle in the
highway between continents. The United States, in protecting the seal fisheries, will not
interfere with a single sail of commerce on any sea of the globe.
It will mean something tangible, in the President's opinion, if Great Britain will
consent to arbitrate the real questions which have been under discussion between the two
Governments for the last four years. I shall endeavour to state what, in the judgment of
the President, those issues are:—
1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring's Sea, and what
exclusive lights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to
time 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 given or conceded to Great Britain by the
said Treaty ?
4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries in
Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States and
Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that
Treaty ?
5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the
waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such rights
grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held by her in such
fisheries or in the waters of Behring's Sea, or out of the ownership of the breeding
islands and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their young thereon and
going out from the islands for food, or out of any other fact or incident connected with the
relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the United States ? to
6. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such a
position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing Regulations for
the killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters of Behring's Sea, then it shall be
further determined : (I) How far, if at all, outside the ordinary territorial limits it is
necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive jurisdiction in order to
protect the seal for the time living upon the islands of the United States and feeding therefrom ? (2) Whether a closed season (during which the killing of seals in the waters of
Behring's Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be prohibited) is necessary to save
the seal fishing industry, so valuable and important to mankind, from deterioration or
destruction? And, if so, (3) What months or parts of months should be included in
such season, and over what waters it should extend 'I
The repeated assertions that the Government of the United States demands that the
Behring's Sea be pronounced mare 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's Sea for the protection of
the fur-seals. Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for that one specific
purpose is by no means the equivalent of declaring the sea, or any part thereof, mare
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. The President does
not, however, desire the long postponement which an examination of legal authorities
from Ulpian to Phillimore and Kent would "involve. He finds his own views well
expressed by Mr; Phelps, our late Minister to England, when, after failing to secure a just
arrangement with Great Britain touching the seal fisheries, he wrote the following in his
closing communication to his own Government, 12th September, 1888:—
" Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the abstract question of
the right of mare clausum,    I do not conceive it to be applicable to the present case.
'' Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly managed, permanent
industry, the property of the nations on whose shores it is carried on. It is proposed by
the Colony of a foreign nation, in defiance of the joint remonstrance of all the countries
interested, to destroy this business by the indiscriminate slaughter and extermination of
the animals in question, in the open neighbouring sea, during the period of gestation,
when the common dictates of humanity ought to protect them, were there no interest at
all involved. And it;is suggested that we are prevented from defending ourselves against
such depredations because the sea at a certain distance from the coast is free.
" The same line of argument would take under its protection piracy and the Slave
Trade when prosecuted in the open sea, or would justify one nation in destroying the
commerce of another by placing dangerous obstructions and derelicts in the open sea near
its coasts. There are many things that cannot be allowed to be done on the open sea
with impunity, and against which every sea is mare clausum ; and the right of self-defence
as to person and property prevails there as fully as elsewhere. If the fish upon the
Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering poison in the open sea adjacent with
some small profit to those engaged in it, would Canada, upon the just principles of
international law, be held defenceless in such a case ? Yet that process would be no more
destructive, inhuman, and wanton than this.
" If precedents are .wanting for. a defence so necessary and so proper, it is because
precedents for such a course of conduct arc likewise unknown. The best international
la a has arisen from precedents that have been established when the just occasion for them
arose, undeterred by the discussion of abstract and inadequate rules.'' >
I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.  ^ae^sscvsw^sss^ss******
Page 58 missing merce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall not land at any place
where there may be a Russian establishment^-without the permission of the Governor or
Commandant; and, on the other hand, that Russian subjects shall not land, without
permission, at any British establishment on the north-west coast.
ARTICLE III.
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 in
the manner following.::—
Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island,
which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40' noith latitude, and between the 131 st and
the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the
north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where
it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point the fine of
demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast, as far
as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian) •
and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree,
in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean; shall form the limit between the Russian
and British possessions on the Continent of America to the north-west.
ARTICLE IV.
*
With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, it is
understood:—
1. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.
2. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction parallel to
the coast, from the. 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of the
141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10 marine
leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the line of coast
which is to belongto Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by aline parallel to the
windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues
therefrom.
ARTICLE V.
It is, moreover, agreed that no establishment shall be formed by either of the two
Parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding Articles to the possessions of the
other; consequently, British subjects shall not form any establishment either upon the
coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the limits of the Russian
possessions, as designated in the two preceding Articles; and, in like manner, no establishment shall be formed by Russian subjects beyond the said limits.
ARTICLE VI.
It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter
they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall for
ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers
and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line Of
demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III of the present Convention.
ARTICLE VII.
It is also understood that, for the space often years from the signature of the present
Convention, the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respective subjects';
shall mutually be:at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance whatever, all the inland
seas, the gulfs, havpns, and creeks on the coast mentioned in Artiele III, for the purposes
of fishing and of trading with the natives.
ARTICLE VIII.
The port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce and vessels
of British subjects for the space of ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the present Convention.    In the event of an extension of this term of ten years
[95] I 2 gSfiBSSSSfSSSSSjgg   . z-.uT^sssiHa
-~ - " ■ 60
being granted to any other Power, the like extension shall be granted also to Great
Britain.
ARTICLE IX.
The above-mentioned liberty of commerce shall not apply to the trade in spirituous
liquors, in fire-arms, or other arms, gunpowder, or other warlike stores; the High
Contracting Parties reciprocally engaging not to permit the above-mentioned articles to be
sold or delivered, in any manner whatever, to the natives of the country.
ARTICLE X.
Every British or Russian vessel navigating the Pacific Ocean, which may be compelled
by storms or by accident to take shelter in the ports of the respective Parties, shall be at
liberty to refit therein, to provide itself with all necessary stores, and to put to sea again,
without paying any other than port and lighthouse dues, which shall be the same as those
paid by national vessels. In case, however, the master of such vessel should be under the
necessity of disposing of a part of his merchandize in order to defray his expenses, he shall
conform himself to the Regulations and Tariffs of the place where he may have landed.
ARTICLE XI.
In every case of complaint on account of an infraction of the Articles of the present
Convention, the civil and military authorities of the High Contracting Parties, without
previously acting or taking any forcible measure, shall make an exact and circumstantial
report of the matter to their respective Courts, who engage to settle* the same in a friendly
manner, and according to the principles of justice.
ARTICLE XII.
The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at
London, within the space of six weeks, or sooner if possible.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have
affixed thereto the seal of their arms.
Done at St. Petersburgh the 16th (28th) day of February, in the year of our Lord
One thousand eight hundred and twenty five.
(LS.) STRATFORD CANNING.
(L.S.) The Count DE NESSELRODE.
(L.S.) PIERRE DE POLETICA.
Inclosure (B).
List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring's Sea, with Date and
Place of Publication.
[In these Maps the waters south of Behring's Sea are variously designated as the Pacific Ocean, Ocean
Pacifique, Stitles Meer} the Great Ocean, Grande Mer, Grosse Ocean; the Great South Sea, Grosse Sud See,
Mer du Sud. And they are again further divided, and the northern part designated as North Pacific Ocean,
Paitie du Nord de la Mer du Sud, Partie da Nord de la Grande Mer, Grand Ocean Boreal, Nordlischer Theil des
Grossen Sud Meers, Nordlischer Theil des Stillen Meers, Nordlische Stille Meers, &c. Iu all the Maps,
however, the Pacific Ocean, under one of these various titles, is designated separate from the sea.]
Name of Maps, &c.
Name of Sea.
Place of Publication.
Date.
Accurate Charte von Nord Amerika, from
Sea of Anadir   .,           . .
•.
Unknown
the best sources
Map   made   under direction  of Mikhael
Eamtschatskisches Meer ..
St. Petersburgh        ..
1743
Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Shestakof Ex
pedition in 1730
Mappemonde, by Lowitz            ..            ..
Geographical Atlas of the Russian Empire,
Mare Andiricum             ..
Berlin       ..           ..
1746
Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea
St. Petersburgh       ..
1748
Alexander Vostchinine
Carte de l'lsle de Ieso, corrected to date,
Mer de Kamtschatka
Paris         ..            ..
1754
by    Philippe    Buache,    Academy   of
Science vaA Geographer to the King
i 61
Name of Maps, &c.
Muller's Map of the Discoveries by the
Russians  on .the North-West Coast.of
America,   prepared   for   the   Imperial
Academy of Sciences
D'Auville's Map of the Western Hemisphere
Map of Hemisphere Septentrional, by Count
Redfern, published by Royal Academy
of Sciences ,,
Map published in the " London Magazine "
Map by S. Bellin, Engineer of the Royal
Academy
Nouvelle  Carte .des   Decouvertes  par les
Vaisseaux  Busses aux. cotes ineonnues
de l'AmeriqueSepteritrionale; Miiller .
Jeffery's   American    Atlas,   printed    by
R. Sayers and J. Bennett
Boad Map from Paris to Tobolsken
Bowie's Atlas; Map of the World ..
Map of the Eastern part of the Russian
Territory, by J. Truscott
Map of the New Northern Archipelago, in
J. von Stnehlin Storcksburg's Account of
the   Northern  Archipelago, lately discovered by the Russians in the Seas of
Kamtschatka and Anadir
Samuel Dunn's Map of North America
Chart of Russian Discoveries from the Map
published by the Imperial Academy of
St.  Petersburgh (Robert   Sayer,  print-
seller), published as the Act directs.
Jeffery's Atlas;  Chart containing part of
Icy Sea and adjacent Coasts of Asia and
America; published in 1775, according to
Act of Parliament, by Sayer and Bennett
Jeffery's Atlas; Chart of the Russian Discoveries, from Map published by Imperial
Academy   of   Sciences;   published   by
Robert Sayer, March S4,.1775.
Atlas, Thomas  Jeffery's   (Geographer   to
King), American; Chart containing the
Coasts of California, New Albion, aud
the Russian discoveries to the North
Map in the French Encyclopedia ..
Schmidi's A-tlas .. .. ..
Jeffery's Atlas .. . • ..
Carte der Entdekun gen Zwischen Siberia
und Amerika to the year 1780
Map of the New Discoveries in the Eastern
Ocean
St. Petersburgh Atlas .. .. . • • .
Halbkugel der Erde, by Bode   .. ..
Chart of the North-West Coast of America
and the North-East Coast of Asia, prepared by Lieutenant Henry Roberts,
under the immediate inspection of
Captain Cook; published by William
Faden
Map of the Empire of Bussia and Tartary,
by F. L. Gulsefeld
Map of Disooveries made by the Russians
and by Captain Cook;  Alexandre Vil-
brech
Dunn's Atlas; Map of the World
D'Auville's Atlas; Map of the World, with
improvements ; prepared, for J. Harrison,
as the Act directs
Meares' Voyages;   Chart  of North-West
Coast of America
Chart of the World, exhibiting all the new
discove ries to the present time, with the
tracts of the most distinguished navigators from the year 1700, carefully
collected from the best Charts, Maps,
Voyages, &c, extant, by A. Arrowsmith,
Geographer, as the Act directs
Name of Sea.
Place of Publication.
Sea of Kamtschatka
Sea of Anadir   ,,
Mer Dormant   ..
Sea of Kamtschatka
St. Petersburgh
Paris ..
Berlin       ,,
.   London     ..
Mer de Kamtschatka and    Amsterdam
Mer d'Anadir
•
Sea of  Kamtschatka and    Londoi     ..
Sea of Anadir
Sea of Kamtschatka        ..   Paris ..
Sea of Anadir   .. ,.'■ London      ,.
Mare Kamtschatkiensae ..   St. Petersburg!!
Sea of Kamtschatka and
Sea of Anadir
Sea of Anadir  ..
Sea of Kamtschatka
London
Kamtschatkische Meer    .,
Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea
Sea of Kamtschatka        ..
Kamtschatka Sea .,
Sea of Kamtschatka       .,
Paris        .,
» . •
London     ..
St. Petersburgh
Berlin
London
Kamtschatkische oder Biber   Nuremburg
Meer
Sea of Kamtschatka       ..   St. Petersburgh
London
Date.
1758
1761
1762
1764
1766
1766
1768-72
1769
1770
1771
1774
1774
1775
1776
1776
1776
1777     2
1777
1778
178<>   _»
1781   ^i
1782
1783
1784
1786
1787
1788
1788
1790
1790   jj
■Xfl
sliiEptj ^ssSSSisrESS*™*'*''6™'"1'
62
Name of Map, &c.
Chart of the Great Ocean, or South Sea,
conformable to the account of the voyage
of discovery of the French frigates
" La Boussole " and " L'Astrolabe;" La
Perouse
Karte des Nordens von Amerika; G. Forster
Greenough's Map in Wilkinson's Atlas     ..
Map of the North-Eastern part of Siberia,
the Frozen Sea, the Eastern Ocean, and
North-Western Coasts of America, indicating Billings' expedition
Arrowsmith's Map of the World..
Charte von Araenka, F. L. Gulsefeld
Atlas of Mathew f'avey; Map of the World
from the best authorities, and Map of
Russian Empire in Europe and Asia
Chart of North America, by J. Wilkes,
" as Act directs "
Halbkugel der Erde
Chart von Nord Amerika, by F. L. Gulsefeld
C. F. Delmarche's Atlas; Mappemonde,
by Robert du Vaugondy, including new
Discoveries of Captain Cook
La Peronse's Chart of the Great Ocean, or
South Sea, conformably to the discoveries
of the French frigates- " La Boussole"
and " L'Astrolabe," published in conformity with the Decree of the French
National Assembly, 1791, translated and
printed by J. Johnson
W. Heather's Marine Atlas       ..
Greenough's Atlas; Map by "Vibrecht
entitled " Oarte de la Cote Nord-Ouest
de l'Anierique Septentrionale." and showing the discoveries of the Russians and
Portlock and Dickson.
Wilkinson's General Atlas ; a new Merea-
tor's Chart drawn from the latest discoveries
Map of the World; Graberg     .. ..
Map Magazine, composed according to the
latest observations of foreign navigators,
corrected to 1802
Map of Meer von Kamtschatka, with the
routes of Captain Jos. Billings and Mart.
Sauer, drawn by Fred. Gotze, to accompany Report of Billings' Russian Official
Visit to Alentia and Alaska.
Atlas des Ganzeu Erdkreises, by Christian
Gottlieb Beichard
Arrowsmith's General Atlas        .. ..
Map of Savrilia Sarytscheff's journey in the
North-East Sea
Jedediah Morse's Map of North America ..
Bobert Wilkinson's General Atlas; new
Mercator's Chart
Atlas of the Russian Empire, adopted by the
General Direction of Schools.
General Map of the travels of Captain
Golovnin
Map in Carey's Atlas   .. .. ..
Lieutenant Roberts' Chart, improved to
date
Mappemonde in Atlas of Malte-Brun
Dunn's Atlas.. .. .. ..
Karte des Grossen Oceans; usually the South
Sea; Sotzmann
Chart vori Amerika; Streits     ' . i*
Arrowsmith's Map of North America
Map of the World in Pinkerton's Atlas    ..
Map by Lapie .. ..
" Carte d'Amerique, redigee d'apr^s celle
d'Arrowsmith, en quatre planches et sou-
mise aux observations astronomiqnes de
Mi de Humboldt j" by Champion
Sea of Kamtschatka
Kamtschatka Sea
Sea of Kamtschatka
Kamtschatka Sea
Sea of Kamtschatka
Kamtschatkisches Meer
Sea of K'.untscha'ka
Kamtschatka Sea
Kamtschatkisches Meer
Sea of Kamtsc!i:;tki
Mer de Kamtschatka
Sea of Kamtschatka
Bacino di Behring . j
Beaver Sea or Sea of Kamtschatka
Place of Publication.
Date.
Paris
Berlin ..
London ..
St. Petersburgh
Iiondon ,,
Nurnberg .. >
Philadelphia
London     ..
Nuremberg
Nurnberg ,.
Paris ..
London
Edinburgh..
London     ..
Geneva      ..
St. Petersburgh
Meer ven Ka iitschatka •..    Weimar    .,
Meer von K'am
sch
atka   -..
n
Sea of Kamtscl
mtk
a
| London
Lcipsic
5>                                5»
••
' Boston
. London
Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea   St. Petersburgh
Kamtschatka Sea ..      „ „
Sea of Kamtschatka        .. I London
Bassin de Behring
Sea of Kamtschatka
Kamtschatkisches Meer
Sea of Kamtschatka
Bassin du Nord
Bassin de Behring
Paris-
London .
Hamburg .
Weimar .
London .
»» •
Paris .
1791
1791
1791
1791
1794
1796
1796
1796
1797
1787
1797
1798
1799
1800
1800
1802
1802
1803
1803
1804
1805
1805
1807
1807
1807-9
1808
1808
1809
1810
1810
1810
1811
1812
1812
1813 63
Name of Map, &c.
Name of Sea.
Place of Publication.
Date.
Map of Oceania, or the Fifth Part of the
Bassin du Nord..              . •
Paris         ..
1814
World, including a portion of America'
and the coasts of Asia, by II. Brue
Ncele's General Atlas ; Samuel and George
Sea of Kamtschatka        ..
London     ..           ..
18-14
Neele
•Chart vo:i Anio:ik:i; Geographic Institute
Meer von Kamtschatka   ..
Weimar    ..             ..
1814
Map of the Wml 1, by Von Kruscnstcrn
,»                  ,,              • *
St. Petersburgh       ..
1815
Encyproplypc de 1'Ameriquc Septentrionale,
Bassin du Nord..
Paris         ..            ..
1815
by Brue
Smith's General Atlas
Sea of Kamtschatka
London     ..            ..
J816
Allgemeinewelt   Charte,   with Voyage   of
19                                il                                     • •
13                    * *                          • •
1815
Krusenstern
Grand  Atlas   Universel,  edited by   Chez
Bassin du Nord,.
Paris         ..             ..
1816
Desray; Mappemonde, by Goujon, Geo
grapher
Atlas Elementaire, by Lapie et Poirson
Bassin   du   Nord   ou   de
»>            ••             ••
1816
Behring
Ameriquc  Septentrionale et Meridionale;
Mer de Behring ou Bassin
39                        ••                         ••
1817
Lapis
du Nord
Map in Thompson's Atlas          ..
Sea of Kamtschatka
Edinburgh..            ..
1817
Fielding Lucas' Atlas
,,               ,,                 . .
Baltimore ..            ..
1817
Reichard and Von Haller's German Atlas ,'.'
n               n                 • •
Weimar     ..            ..
1818
Man in Greenough's Atlas
j*               »>                 •
Edinburgh..            ..
1818
John Pinkerton's Modern Atlas
,,               ,,                 . .
Philadelphia
1818
Map engraved by Kirkwood and Sons       ..
33                             31                                 * ■
Edinburgh..            ..
1819
Chart  of   the  Russian. and English  Dis
31                              11                                 • •
London     .,             ..
1819
coveries in the North Pacific Oci'an, by
Captain lames Burncy, F.B.S.
Carte  Generale de 1'Ameriquc;   De  La-
Mer de Behring ou Bassin
Paris         ..            ..
1819
marche
du Nord
Carte de l'Anierique Septentrionale et Meri
Bassin du Nord..
33                         . .                           * •
1820
dionale ; Hennon.
Chart  of   Alaska,  by J.   K.   Eyries and
Behring Sea      ..            ..
,,                         . .                          . .
1821
Malte-Brun
Chart of the   Arctic   Ocean  and  North
,»       i»       • *             • ■
Weimar    ..            .,
1821
America, by Lapie
Carte Generale du Globe; Brue ..          <isi,'
Mer de Behring                ..
Paris          ..
1821
Mappemonde; Tardieu                ,.             ..
Mer de Behring..             ..
31                             . •                             * •
1821
Atlas of La Vogne ; M. Carey  ..
Sea of Kamtschatka         ..
Philadelphia
1821
Atlas Uhiver>el of A. H. Brue
Mer de Behring'. •
Paris         ..            ..
1822
Mappemonde ; Hi risson /
Mer de Behring               ..
33                            • •                              •  •
1823
Map to illustrate the Voyage of Kotzebue..
Sea of Kamtschatka
St. Petersburgh
1823
Fielding Lucas' Atlas ..            ..          ._w
33                                33                                    • •
Philadelphia            •.
1823
Fielding Lucas' Atlas
33                                 13                                      • •
Baltimore
1823
Ameriquc Septentrionale; Lapie
Mer de Behring
Paris         ..            ..
■ 1824
Atlas Classique et Universel, by M. Lapie..
Mer de Behring ou Bassin
du Nord
Paris
1824.
Anthony Fiiuey's Atlas
Sea of Kamtschatka
Philadelphia            ..
1824
Atlas of Uuchon;   Cartes des Possessions
Bassin du Nord..            ..
Paris
1825
llusses
Map in Biith ri» Atlas
Sea of Kamtschatka
London      ..             ..
1825
Atlas Historique de la Sage
Mer de Behring
Paris          ..
1829
* This Chart also designates the coast from Columbia River (49°) to Cape Elizabeth (60°) as the " Nord-
West Kuste."
Inclosure (C).
Section 4 of " An Act for regulating the Intercourse with the Island of St. Helena during!
the time Napoleon Bonaparte shall be detained there, and for indemnifying Persons in
the cases therein mentioned (1 \th April, 1816)."
Section 4. And be it further enacted, that# sjhajl and may be lawful for the Governor,
or, in his absence, the Deputy Governor, of the^gid Island of St. Helena, by all necessary
ways and means, to hinder and prevent any ship, vessel, or boat from repairing to, trading,
or touching at said island, or having any communication with the same, and to hinder and
prevent any person or persons from landing upon the said island from such ship, vessel, or
boats, and to seize and detain all and every person and persons that shall land upon the
said island from the same; and ajj_such ships, vessel, or boats (except as above excepted)- "'•StfSS^'*3'"'"  -•«•:.«-;> .i-SS^SKFS*-5"
-■*&*:=tr .zat+t
64
as shall repair to, or touch at, the said island, or shall be found hovering within 8 leagues
of the coast thereof, and which shall or may belong, in the whole or in part, to any subject
or subjects of His Majesty, pr to any person or persons owing allegiance to His Majesty,
shall and are hereby "declared to be forfeited to His Majesty, and shall and may be seized
and detained, and brought to England, and shall and may be prosecuted to condemnation
by His Majesty's Attorney-General, in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster, in such manner and form as any ship, vessel; or boat may be seized, detained, or
prosecuted for any breach or violation of the Navigation or Revenue Laws of this country;
and the offence for which such ship, vessel, or boat shall be proceeded against shall and
may be laid and charged to have been done and committed in the County of Middlesex;
and if any ship, vessel, or boat, not belonging in the whole or in part to any person
or persons the subject or subjects' of, or owing allegiance to, His Majest)', his heirs and
successors, shall repair to, Or trade or touch at, the said Island of St. Helena, or shall be
found hovering within 8 leagues of the coast thereof, and shall not depart from the said
island or the coast thereof when and so soon as the master or other person having the
charge and command thereof shall be ordered so to do by the Governor or Lieutenant-
Governor of the said .island for the time being, or by the Commander of His Majesty's naval
or military force stationed at or off the said island for the time being (unless in case of
unavoidable necessity or distress of weather), such ship or vessel shall be deemed forfeited,
and shall and may be seized and detained and prosecuted, in the same manner as is hereinbefore enacted as to ships, vessels, or boats of or belonging to any subject or subjects of
His Majesty.'*
No. 20
Messrs. Lampson and Co. to Foreign Office.—(Received December 30.)
Sir, 64, Queen Street, London, December 30,1890.
SINCE we addressed you on the 6th September last, the number of fur seal-skins
taken in the Behring's Sea and landed at Victoria has increased to such an extent, that the
total catch, instead of being less, actually exceeds that,of last year.
This somewhat unexpected increase appears to have been due, apart from the
favourable weather, to the larger number of schooners engaged in the fishery, and to the
fact that the United States' Government Revenue-cutters did not in any way interfere with-
the fishing operations.
We are informed that Professor Elliott, who has been commissioned by the United
States' Government to examine into the condition of the Seal Islands, in the Report
submitted to his Government speaks of the total extinction of seal life as being a question
of only a few years, and advocates that no more seals should be killed, even on the
islands, for some time.to come.
We have had the honour to point out to you how important an industry, at present
centred in London, depends on the continuance of the supply of fur seal-skins, and how
many people, now engaged in this' industry, would by its disappearance be thrown out of
work.
This industry appears now to be threatened by a new danger of an unexpected kind.
From information received, we learn that the United States' Government, probably with
the view of influencing the. decision of Her Majesty's Government in the Behring's Sea
fishery dispute, will propose to raise the duty on British manufactured fur seal-skins from
20 to 50 per cent, ad* valorem. To estimate the importance of this measure, we should
mention that, for many years past, of the Alaska fur seal-skins annually consigned to
London, no less than 75 per cent, have been bought for. American account and reshipped
to the United States after having been manufactured in London. Should the United
States' Government carry out-their proposal, the skins destined for American consumption
would undoubtedly be manufactured in the United States, with the result that another
important British industry would pass away to a foreign country.
We confidently trust that Her Majesty's Government may see its way to protect
these important British home interests, by arriving at a speedy settlement of the present
dispute.
We have, &c.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON and Co. 65
No. 21.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Sir, • Foreign Office, December 30, 1890.
I HAVE received your despatch of the 16th instant, reporting that you had
handed to Mr. Blaine a copy of my despatch of the 22nd October last in regard
to my conversation with Mr. Phelps on the 22nd February, 1888, on the subject of the
Behring's Sea controversy.
I have to inform you that your language to Mr. Blaine, when communicating to him
the despatch in question, is approved,
I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.
No. 22.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—{Received January 1, 1891.)
Sir, Downing Street, December 31, 1890.
WITH reference to your letter of the 13th September last, forwarding copy of a letter
from Sir C. Lampson and Co.* respecting the probable early extinction of the seals in
Behring's Sea, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of
the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
transmitting an approved Minute of the Dominion Privy Council embodying a Report by
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the statements contained in Messrs. Lampson's
letter.
I am to request that the inclosures to Lord Stanley's despatch, which are sent in
original, may be returned, with a printed copy in the event of their being printed at the
Foreign Office.
I am, &c.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.
Inclosure 1 in Ho. 22.
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.
My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, November 28, 1890.
WITH reference to the representations contained in the letter from Sir C. Lampson
and Co. to the Foreign Office of the 6th September last, copy of which was inclosed
in your Lordship's despatch of the 24th of that month, to the effect that there was
likelihood of the early extinction of the fur-seal species unless a close season were at once
established, I have the honour to forward to your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, embodying a Report by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the
subject.
Tour Lordship willj'observe that the Minister contends that there is no good reason
for believing that the extinction of the species is likely to be brought about, furnishing
statistics of the Canadian catch for the past season, and adducing evidence drawn from
United States' sources in support of his contention.
I have, &c.
. (Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.
[95]
No 6.
K ■>■_,-; •;;;";.-   ;_:> ^:~?%Z&.-<ZltS&
66
Inclosure 2 in No. 22.
Meport of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the VSth November, 1890.
THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated
the 24th September, 1890, from the Colonial Office, transmitting a copy of a letter from
Sir C. M. Lampson and Company to the Foreign Office, under date the 6th September,
1890, on the Subject of a close season for seals in Behring's Sea.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the papers were referred, submits the
following observations thereon :—
That Sir C. Lampson and Co. state in effect:
1. That the total extinction of the fur-seal has come within measurable distance, and
unless a close season can be arranged immediately the animal will become extinct in a very
short time.
2. That as the seals taken by the Canadiah schooners at sea are females and pups of
those visiting the breeding islands, this industry will of necessity disappear with the
extinction of the seal.
3. That the fur-seal fishery in Behring's Sea has been- a failure this season,
the total catch being far below those of preceding years, although the fishing-vessels
do not appear to have been molested by United States' Government cruizers.
The Minister observes that statements similar to those contained in the paragraphs
marked 1 and 2 above were made before the Committee of Congress in 1889, and repeated
in despatches of the Government of the United States to the British Government at
different times since 1885.
That at the recent Conference in Washington (1890) these allegations were formally
reiterated in a paper prepared by Mr. Blaine, it having been understood at this time that
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would put before the Conference the authorities upon
which the Canadian Government denied their accuracy, so that the evidence on each side
might be discussed, examined, and compared.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries accordingly prepared a Memorandum in which
he, among other things, proved from United States' authorities that the seals were still
frequenting the islands in Behring's Sea in enormous numbers, and were actually on the
increase. It was also shown that the seals taken by Canadian sealers in Behring's Sea were,
for the most part, males. Appended to the present Report will be found an extract from
the Memorandum mentioned above containing references to authorities touching these
points (marked Appendix " A ").
The Minister deems it important to mention that, after those authorities were placed
before the Conference, Mr. Blaine declined to proceed with the discussion of the two
briefs.
It was then proposed by the British Representative that a joint inquiry into the
facts in controversy should be made by experts on the islands and in the sea, and that a
temporary close season should be agreed upon for a period of two years and a-half.
This proposition was also declined by the Government of the United States.
Meanwhile, however, it appears that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States appointed Henry W. Elliot a Special Agent to the Treasury to make an ex parte
examination in regard to the Alaska fishery interests, under the provision of a special Act
Congress, approved the 5th April, 1890.
While the Minister has not enjoyed the advantage of perusing Mr. Elliot's special
Report, nevertheless, from the press of the United States, and from the leading reviews
published in that country, it is evident that the present lessees of the Pribylov group
have not been less zealous than their predecessors in circulating alarming statements
concerning the fur-seals. Mr. Elliot has perhaps again concluded that the rookeries are
being ruined, and that his opinions given to Congress before this mission to the islands
have been confirmed.
In the " New York Herald" of the 16th August, 1890, a letter appeared purporting
to emanate from D. H. James, of the United States' cutter " Rush," dated Ounalaska, the
26th July, in which that gentleman says:—
" A startling state of affairs exists at the Seal Islands this year  .   This
year the rookeries are almost deserted rocks that were once eovered with seals
are now being grown over with moss The cause assigned is that the sealing
fleet, which is now increased and composed of larger and better vessels, has followed the
seals so closely and pursued them so ruthlessly." $7
This writer adds:—
*' It is thought the sealers will not catch enough to pay expenses.**
Before dealing with such sensational reports from those interested in the maintenance
of a monopoly of the fur-seal business, it is well to note that from the first of t&e'
discussion to the present time not a suggestion has been made by the United States'
authorities that it would be advisable to restrict the pursuit of the fur-seal on the
Californian and British Columbian coasts, where it is admitted that many seals in pup
are captured and killed before their final departure for the breeding-grounds in
Behring's Sea.
Though the proposition for a joint inquiry into the condition of the Seal Islands was
not entertained by the United States, the statistics and reports from the vessels which
■proceeded from British Columbia are such as to lead the Minister of Marine and Fisheries
to doubt the accuracy of ex parte reports regarding the diminution of seal life during the
season of 1890, and to which Messrs. Sir 0. Lampson and Co. draw special attention.
The total catch by Canadian sealers fitted out in British Columbia in 1889 amounted
to 27,960. The catch so far reported by these vessels in 1890 amounts to 39,547. The
catch of vessels and sold in British Columbia was no less than 43,315 skins. The catch
from the 'Siberian coast is reported to be large. Judging from recent years the catch will
foe, at Commander Islands, 45,000 ; Lobos Islands, 15,000; islands near Cape Horn
and South Polar Sea, 10,000; Seal Islands, Okhotsk Sea, 4,000 ; Japan, 7,000; Cape of
Good Hope, 5,000.
These statistics, while meeting the fears of all interested in the preservation of seal
life, are undoubtedly alarming to the lessees of the Pribylov group, who, relying upon
securing a monopoly of the fur-seal industry of Behring's Sea, were induced to make
a contract with the United States' Government, whereby they agreed to pay the enormous
and unprecedented royalty of 10 dol. 25 c. on every seal taken by them, upon "whien their
predecessors and unsuccessful tenderers for the present lease gave only 2 dol. 62-|e. a-skin.
■jit is consequently quite likely that these lessees cannot afford with such a royalty to catch
their full quota of 60,000 this year, and so a reduction of the number actually put upon
the market tends to increase the price of those skins sold. It may not be out of place in
this connection to make further reference to the energetic manner in which those
interested in the monopoly endeavour to excite alarm regarding the probable extinction of
•fur-seals.
Mr. D. O. Mills, of New York, is supposed to be the most largely interested of the
present lessees of the Seal Islands in Behring's Sea. He does not pretend to expert knowledge nor to have visited the seal rookeries. An article written by him in the "North American
Review" for September 1890 is remarkable for the following extraordinary statements
connected with seal life, and unsupported by any other authority than his signature:—
"There is the best evidence that the poachers confine themselves almost exclusively
to this (commercially precious female portion of the herd, .... for the male seal is strong
and alert, and no hunter can get within shooting distance of him, as he can generally
escape from the fastest boat pursuing them In two or three years most of the
females would be destroyed, with their young, and in a comparatively short time the
entire family would be extinguished They live only upon fish, and must therefore gc
to the water for their food. The large fishing banks on which the Pribylov seals must
depend for subsistence are from 30 to 60 miles distant from the islands, and if the females
are killed by the hunter there while feeding, the pup left on the island, which does not
become able to take care of itself until after September, loses its protector and dies	
JFire-arms are freely used by the poachers, however. Indeed, that is their ohief instrument
iof slaughter, and the effect of attacking the herds in the water with flotillas of boats, while
the air is filled with the sharp reports of guns, is injurious in the extreme."
These statements are, in the main, contradicted by the Reports of the United States'
■officials, to which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries refers in his Memorandum hereinbefore mentioned.
The Minister, so soon as the communication of Messrs. Sir C. Lampson and Co.
was referred to him, at once caused thorough and careful investigation through the
Collector of Customs at the port of Victoria, British Columbia, to be made into the
experience of the British Columbian sealers who have hunted in Behring's Sea during
the season of 1890.    The result of this investigation establishes—
That, owing to stormy and boisterous weather in Behring's Sea, the prevalence of
much fog, and particularly to a change by the seals of their usual haunts, as hereinafter
mentioned, the early sealers of this season returned with a shorter catch than usual.
Volcanic disturbances on Ounalaska and neighbouring islands are said to have occurred
this season.
[95] K 2 =E£5gSSS5.-Wf
68
The vessels which remained in the sea, after finding the main body of the seals on their
new grounds, made the best catches, and all the masters of the Canadian sealers testify to
the extraordinary number of seals still frequenting this sea.
More seals were found to the north and eastward of the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George, distant therefrom between 40 and 60 miles, than formerly. Heretofore they
had been more plentiful to the westward of these islands, and distant therefrom about
40 miles,
The old Alaska Company, which now holds a lease of Copper Island, on the Russian
side, killed no less than 42,000 seals.
The present lessees of the Pribylov group, instead of taking 60,000 on the leased
islands, and paying the enormous royalty of 10 dol. 25 c. upon each skin, took only 21,000
from these islands. They, however, bought the whole coast and Sand Point catch of the
pelagic sealers, at from 10 to 11 dollars for each skin, and so the price of skins in London
is kept high.
Appendix (C)J Appended to this Report is a Table showing the catch of—
1. The Canadian sealing fleet, 1890.
2. Foreign vessels' catch sold in Victoria, showing a total catch of the above (I and
2) for 1890 of 43,315 skins, worth 493,160 dollars, against 35,310 skins in 1889,
worth 247,170 dollars.
3. Names and value of Canadian sealing-vessels, with outfit, crews, boats, and canoes.
4. Vessels carrying part Indian crews.
5. Vessels and catch of Victoria sealing fleet for 1890.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries desires to take advantage of this opportunity to
draw attention to further testimony corroborating the views previously expressed by the
Canadian Government upon the subject of the seal fishery, and given in the Memorandum
to which reference has already been made in this Report. Since the date of that paper
evidence taken by the Committee of Congress appointed to inquire into the relations of
the United States with Canada has been published.
James G. Swan, Esq., of Port Townsend, is described before the Committee as
a man who has given much attention to the fisheries of Behring's Sea, both for his
own information and for that of the United States' Fish Commission.
He produced a Report of the Board of Trade of Port Townsend, Washington
Territory, in which this Chamber of Commerce denounce the closing of Behring's Sea as
a " species of class legislation for the benefit of the wealthy few."
Mr. Swan advocated free fishing in the open sea, and explained at length that
a valuable Report of his, wherein he expressed views opposed to those of Mr. Elliot,
was suppressed; and, he adds : " The arguments and assertions of the Alaska Commercial
Company that the fur-seals all go to the Pribylov Islands, and would be exterminated j
if that Company did not have the care and protection of them, would easily be disposed of
if both sides of the argument could be heard and the real facts made known.''
Further on he says: " Congress and the country [have] been systematically kept
in darkness regarding the fur-seal fisheries in Behring's Sea, for those who have had the
information to impart have had an interest directly opposed to imparting it."
Mr. Swan denies there is any danger of extermination of seals, and produces sworn
declarations touching the existence of seals at places which witness now claims the seals
have abandoned.    Finally, Mr. Swan is asked by Senator Pugh :—
"You do not think it is of any importance to prevent the destruction of seals?"
He answers, " I do, on the islands, but not on the outside, because the proportion
of seals that are destroyed is a very small fraction of what the whole number is. There
are millions of seals in the Pacific Ocean. You have no conception of the vast myriads
of them."
Ibid., p. 215. The Statistical Agent of the United States' Fish Commission, Mr. Wm. A. Wilcox,
was asked by Senator Hall, "Do you think the seal is manifestly disappearing?" and
he replied, " I have no reason to think so.    I think they have been seen this past year in
almost as innumerable numbers as ever."
Appendix (D)» Mr. Swan did not believe that for every seal taken several were killed.   He refers to
Anpendix (E).        to the shyness and intelligence of the seal, and to the fact that they are never taken when
Appendix (F).        in motion.
Appendix (G). Captain Joshua Brown said as follows:—-
Relations with
Canada, p. 314 of
Evidence.
Ibid., p. 265.
Ibid, p. 265.
Ibid., pp. 268, 269.
Ibid., p. 269.
Ibid., p. 269.
Ibid., p. 289.
(See Appendix G)i
• This testimony, it will be seeh, supports the statements of the Canadian sealers
already pleaded before Her Majesty's Government, and affords further assurance that 69
the pursuit of seals in the deep waters of Behring's Sea does not tend to extmgniah
seal fife.
The Committee, concurring in the above Report, recommend that your Excellency be
moved to forward a copy hereof to the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for
submission to Her Majesty's Government, and that a copy be also sent to the High
Commissioner for Canada in London for his information.
All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.
(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council.
APPENDIX.
Appendix (A).
Seal Fishery of Behring's Sea.    Washington, 1890.
(Pages 41, 42, and 43.)
MR. GEORGE TINGLE, a Special Agent of the Treasury, gave his evidence before the same
Committee, and he is put forward by Mr. Blaine in support of the United States' contention. (Appendix
to Mr. Blaine's letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, 1st March, p. 17.)
Confirming Mr. Gliddon's opinion, as above quoted, Mr. Tingle says:—
" From Mr. Elliott's statement I understand that'there are no more seals now than there were in
.1872. I am at a loss to know how Mr. Elliott got his information, as he had not been on the islands
for fourteen years."
The same Mr, Tingle in 1887 reported to Secretary Fairchild that—
" He found the lines of occupancy extending beyond those of last year, and the cows quite as densely
packed on the ground on most of the rookeries, whilst on two rookeries there is some faUing-off. It is
certain, however, this vast number of animals, so valuable to the Government, are still on the increase.
The condition of all the rookeries could not he better." (Appendix to Report, Congressional Committee,
1888, p. 359.)
In a Report of the Alaska Commercial Company (13th December, 1887), it is stated that
Mr. George R. Tingle, the Agent appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, substantially confirms
Mr. Elliott in his view referred to above, excepting that, upon a careful survey by himself in 1886, he
estimated that the fur-seals upon the two islands had increased in number about 2,000,000 up to that
time. Mr. Tingle's estimate for 1886 is 6,537,750 (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 31, 50th Congress, 1st Session),
and in December the Alaska Commercial Company, in their Report, said that the seals were on the
increase.
The latest definite information appearing in the United States' documents regarding the condition
of the rookeries is contained in the Report of Mr. Tingle, who, as Special Agent of the Treasury
Department, wrote from St. Paul Island, Alaska, the 31st July, 1888, as follows:—
" I am happy to be able to report that, although late landing, the breeding rookeries are filled out
to the lines of measurement heretofore made, and some of them much beyond these lines, showing
conclusively that seal life is not being depleted, but is fully up to the estimates given in my Report
of 1887."
From the above United States' officials it is clear that, with only partial protection on the islands,
the seals have increased in an amazing degree. These islands, containing in 1874 the largest number
of seals ever found in the history of sealing at any place, contain to-day a more astounding number.
When the number was less than half of what it is at present, Lieutenant Washburn Maynard, of
the United States' navy, was instructed to make an investigation into the condition of the fur trade of
the Territory of Alaska, and in 1874 he reported that 112,000 young male seals had been annually
killed in each year from 1870 to 1874 on the islands comprising the Pribylov group, and he did not
think that this diminished the numbers. Lieutenant Maynard's Report (44th Congress, 1st Session,
H. R No. 43), as well as that of Mr. Bryant in 1869 (Ex. Doc. No. 32, 41st Congress, 2nd Session),
largely supports the contention of the Canadian Government respecting the productiveness of the seal
and their habits during the breeding season.
It is not denied that seals enter Behring's Sea for the purpose of resorting .to the islands to
propagate their species, and because the immense herd is chiefly confined to the islands for this purpose
during the breeding season it is that the seals have so constantly increased.
Notwithstanding the lax efforts on the part of the United States to guard or patrol the breeding
islands, the difficulty of approaching the rough coasts thereof, the prevalence of fogs, and other causes,
have in a large degree prevented too destructive or too numerous raids being made upon the
rookeries.
The Canadian Government contends that while seals in calf are taken on and off the coasts of
British Columbia and California, and also during their migrations near the Aleutian Islands by Indians
and Aleuts, the hulk of the seals taken in the open sea of that part of the Pacific Ocean called Behring's
Sea are bulls both old and young—hut chiefly young—and that most of the cows when taken are known
as " dry cows," i.e., cows that have nursed and weaned their young, or cows that are barren, or those
that have lost pups from natural causes. .-.«asf*s!«>
70
It must also be noted that there are more females than males in a heard of seals. (" Trip to
Alaska," Wardman, p. 94.)
The position taken by the Canadian Government is supported—
1. By the history of the rookeries as above given, and "the great increase'.shown despite the
constant killing and raids upon the islands during the past century.
2. By the fact that the old bulls that have been able to hold their position on the rookeries go into
the water at the end of the rutting season between the 1st and 10th August. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83,
44th Congress, 1st Session, Appendix, p. 132.)
Mr. Clark, on the Antarctic seal fisheries, in " The Fisheries and Fishery Industries in the United
States," 1887, pp. 423-424, says :—
" In very stormy weather, when they (the seals) are driven into the sea, they are forced to betake
themselves to the sheltered side of the island, hence the men find that stormy weather pays them best.
Two or three old males, 'termed * beach masters,' hold a beach to themselves and cover it with cows,
but allow no other males to haul up. The males fight furiously, and one man told me that he had seen
an old male take up a younger one in his teeth and throw him into the air. The males show fight when
whipped, and are with great difficulty driven into the sea.
"They are sometimes treated with horrible brutality. The females give birth to the young soon
after their arrival.
" After leaving the rookeries the bulls do not return to them again that season."
3. By the fact that two-thirds of all the males that are born are never permitted to land upon the
same ground with the females. This large band of bachelors, when it visits land, herds mile away from
the breeding-grounds.    (W. H. Elliott, H. R.No. 3883, 50th Congress, p. 112.)
They are driven off into the water. (Clark's article on Antarctic seal fishery industries of the
United States, section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p. 431.)
Young seals are prevented from landing on rookeries. (Ex. Doc. 83, 44th Congress, 1st Session,
p. 23 ; see also Elliott, H. R, 44th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)
Yearling seals arrive about the middle of July, accompanied by a few of the mature males,
lemaining a greater part of the time in water. (H. H. Mclntyre, 41st Congress, 2nd Session, H. R
No. 36, p. 14; also H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 4.)
Mr. ■Samuel Falkner, Assistant Treasury Agent, writing from St. George Island, 1st August, 1873,
to Mr. Bryant, Treasury Agent for the Seal Islands, says :—
" I notice on some of the rookeries the passage-ways formerly occupied hy young bachelors in
hauling upon the back-ground are completely blocked up by females, thus preventing the young seals
from landing, and as the greater portion of this island shore is composed of high cliffs, it renders it
difficult for any great number to effect a landing. There are also numerous old males constantly
guarding the shore-line, which makes it still more difficult for the young ones to work their way on the
back-ground."
Then, again, it must be remembered that the non-breeclmg seals, consisting of all the yearlings
and all the males under 6 or 7 years of age, nearly equal m number the breeding seals; and
Mr. Elliott estimated, when there were 4,700,000 seals on the islands, 1,500,000 of this number were
non-breeding seals.    (Elliott, Appendix to H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 79.)
On thick foggy days bachelor seals, numbering over a million, will often haul out on different
hauling-grounds, and on the recurrence of fine weather disappear into the water. (Elliott, p. 144, H. K,
44th Congress, 1st Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)
The young bachelors do not remain on shore long at a time (p. 4, 44th Congress, 1st Session, Ex.
Doc. No. 43). They are so numerous, however, that thousands can be seen upon the hauling-grounds,
as all of them are never either on shore or in the water at the same time {ibid., p. 44). By the fact
that the cows remain with their pups and suckle them until all have left.
They do not go on the rookeries until 3 years of age. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Congress,
1st Session, p. 4.)
They do not go far from shore until the young are reared. Peron says that both parent elephant
Beals stay with the young, without feeding at all, until the young are 6 or 7 weeks old, and that then
the old ones conduct the young to the water.    (Clark's article on Antarctic seals, p. 424.)
'The young are suckled by the females for some time and then left to themselves lying on the
beach, where they seem to grow fat without further feeding. (" The Fisheries and Fishing Industries
of the United States," section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p. 424.) For this reason, those that are pupped in June
are off in the water in August.
So also on the African coast the seal remains until the young can take care of themselves. {Ibid.,
p. 416.)
The bulk of the seals are confined to the islands until ice surrounds them. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 45,
44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2.)
The seals never leave their places, seldom sleep, and never eat anything from May to August,
when they take to the water, but, it is believed, take no food until their final departure in November.
(H. H. Mclntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress, 2nd Session, vol. v.) Mr. Elliott says
"Perhaps she feeds" (p. 130 of his Report on Alaska).    (1874, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress.)
The bulls while on the island prevent the mothers taking to the water. (" Marine Mammals," Jay
Captain Shannon, United States' Revenue Marine, 1874, p. 152.)
From the 10th to the 25th July the rookeries are fuller than at any other time during the season*
as the pups have all been born, and .all the bulls, cows, and pups remain within their limits. (H. R.
Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 3.)
It has been shown that when in the rookeries mothers were destroyed, the young Were found
dead, &c, but "Professor Elliott, in reference to the Pribylov Islands, says:—
m With .the exception of those animals which have received wounds in combat, no sick or. dying
seals are seen upon the islands. 71
"Out of the great numbers—thousands upon thousands—of seals tlatmust die every year from
Id age alone, not one have I ever seen here.   They evidently give up their lives at sea."    (His Report
on Alaska, 1874, H, R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress, p. 150.)
Appendix (B).
Extract from Letter from Captain Solomon Jacobs, from on board the Schooner " Mollie Adams" Fort
Townsend, Washington, May 6, 1889.
AS I intend to sail to-day on a voyage north for fishing and sealing, I shall not be able to see you
regarding the fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, Behring's Sea, and Alaskan waters, but will refer
you to James G. Swan, Esq., of Port Townsend, who has given more attention to obtaining information
about these fisheries, both for his own satisfaction and for the United States' Fish Commission, with
whom he has corresponded, and acted ever since it was first formed, than any man I have seen on the
Pacific coast, and you can rely entirely upon the information he may give you.
I will also refer you to Mr. Joshua Brown, of Salem, Massachusetts, owner of schooner "Henry
Dennis," who is now here; also to Captain Lavender, of schooner " Henry Dennis," who can give
information regarding the fur-seals at Cape Horn, as he has recently arrived from there.
*******
Relations with Canada;
p. 314.
James G-. Swan,
Behring's Sea must be declared free and open to all our citizens except the adjacent waters to the Ibid., f. 265.
Pribylov Islands, which should not exceed in limit the distance from the shores of those islands of
1 marine league, inside of which limit the seals should be preserved during the months of breeding, as
belonging to the rookeries owned by the United States, but outside of that limit the waters should be
free to all of our citizens.
*******
Extract from Report of Board of Trade of Port Townsend.
We do not believe that the lease of the " Pribylov Islands and adjacent waters" ever was-meant
or intended to mean the whole waters of Behring's Sea, but that the limit of 1 marine league from the
shore is the recognized limit, outside of which the waters are known to the civilized world as the high
seas, where our citizens should be encouraged to pursue their avocations of fishing and hunting.
It is shown by the Reports of Government officials in the publications of the Tenth Census, that
the destruction of fish life by seals, sea-lions, and other animals whose sole food is fish, is very largely
in excess of the amount of fish taken by the whole of the fisheries of the United States, and to
protect these ravenous animals is to cause the destruction of enormous quantities of nutritious food
which should be utilized as a means of supporting the lives of the millions of people in these United
States.
The Chamber of Commerce consider that the order of the Government by Act of Congress closing
the Behring's Sea is an Act not for the benefit of the people to secure them a cheap article of food, but
is for the sole benefit of a simple monopoly, to enable them to supply articles of luxury for the
fashionable clothing of the rich.
We believe this Act of Congress to be a species of class legislation for the benefit of the wealthy
few, and as such is opposed to the principles of sound public policy, and we protest against its further
continuance.
*******
Ibid,
James G. Swan.
In reply to a communication received by me from the Committee on Relations with Canada, Ibid., p. 268.
under date of the 4th April, 1889, inviting information from me on the general subject of their
investigations, and especially to the fisheries of the Pacific [coast, I,' have the honour to submit the
following:—
On the 26th November, 1879, Professor Spencer F. Baird wrote me from Washington: " I should
be very glad to have you undertake the work of collecting the'fishery statistics for Puget Sound. Your
Report may be as you choose to make it, particular attention being paid of course to the statistics of
capture and yield. ... Of course, I should wish you to take up the local seal fisheries as well as the
others." Acting upon this invitation, I prepared and forwarded to Professor Baird a Report on the
fur-seal fishery off the entrance to the Strait of Fuca and west coast of Washington Territory, which
was sent from Neah Bay to him by mail on the 20th July, 1880; also a paper on the food fishes of
Cape Flattery, Washington Territory, September 1880, and an exhaustive monograph of the halibut
fishery of Cape Flattery and Puget Sound, under date of the 20th October, 1880.
On the 16th November, 1880,1 received at Neah Bay a letter from Professor G. Brown Goode,
dated Washington, 29th October, 1880, in which he says • "Your Report on fur-seal fishery is at hand,
and is of great importance to us. I am very much surprised at the extent of the business in your
district." This Report was attacked in a most virulent manner by Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who, like
myself, had been employed by the Smithsonian Institution to make investigations on the habits of the 72
ilations with Canada,
269.
id.
Id.
fur-seals. Mr. Elliott, in his Report on the seals of the Pribylov Islands, says the pups of the fur-seal
cannot swim, but will sink like a stone if thrown into the water. I showed that the pups of the fur-
seal at Cape Flattery do swim as soon as born, and adduced proof to show that in this respect the seals
of Cape Flattery differ from those of Behring's Sea. This statement of mine was in direct opposition
to the statements of Mr. Elliott, and constantly reiterated by the Alaska Commercial Company for the
past twenty years, that all the seals of the North Pacific go to Behring's Sea, and congregate principally
on the Pribylov Islands. The remarks of Mr. Elliott, which can be found in "A Monograph of the
Seal Islands of Alaska," a special Bulletin No. 176 of the United States' Fish Commission, 1882, p. 166,
were so personally offensive to me that I remonstrated with Professor Baird for allowing the objectionable paragraph to be published, and by his request I prepared another paper on the fur-seal, which was
published in the Bulletin of the United States' Fish Commission, 1883, vol. hi, pp. 201 to 207, in whioh
I proved by various witnesses, Government officers, masters of sealing-vessels, white traders, and
Indians that I was correct in my assertions contained in my Report of 1880 above referred to.
These Reports of mine, although published by the Government, seem for some reason to be
systematically kept out of sight whenever information regarding seals and the fur-seal fishery is desired
by Members of Congress.
The arguments and assertions of the Alaska Commercial Company that the fur-seals all go to the
Pribylov Islands, and would be exterminated if that Company did not have the care and protection of
them, would easily be disproved if both sides of the argument could be heard and the real facts made
known.
I wish to make no charge against the Alaska Commercial Company. They are a commercial
organization, and- they follow out their true instincts to make all they can out of their very profitable
lease. They are only repeating the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company, which for more • than
100 years deceived the British Parliament by the same arguments now used by the Alaska Commercial
Company, until when, in 1858, they applied to Parliament for a renewal of their Charter, those wise
and far-seeing statesmen, Roebuck, Gladstone, Lord Bury, and Sir E. B. Lytton, exposed the shallow
sophistry of the pretensions of that Company and a renewal of their Charter was denied them.-
*******
Although my Report on the fur-seals of Cape Flattery in 1880 was published by the Government
in the Fisheries Exhibit of the Tenth Census, and sneeringly criticized by Elliott, as alluded to, I have
been unable to procure a single copy, although I have made diligent search in all the volumes of the
Tenth Census'Report
In like manner has Congress and the country been systematically kept in darkness regarding the
fur-seal fisheries in Behring's Sea, for those who have had the information to impart have had an
interest directly opposed to imparting it.
*   " * * * * *
It is constantly asserted in Washington that the indiscriminate slaughter of seals will exterminate
them, and cases are cited of the Islands of Massafuero, Lobos, and others on the Pacific coast, where the
slaughter by crews of vessels from New London, Connecticut, and other New England ports has
entirely exterminated the fur-seals at those islands and at Cape Horn. I assume that fur-seals can no
more be exterminated than herring or codfish. They may be driven off from a rookery, but they are
not exterminated; and, in proof of my assertion, I respectfully ask permission to file the sworn statements of Richard Dupuis relative to the fur-seals of Cape Horn, and of Edward Thomas Biggs relative
to the fur-seals of the Falkland Islands, which I have respectively marked " Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3."
The statements show that the fur-^eals have not been exterminated at those places, but are taken in
considerable numbers every season, and, although at one time were almost driven entirely away, are
now returning to their former haunts.
v»(
f; '*^'
Appendix (C).
Recapitulation (1889).
O.
Vessels.
Coast Catch.
Behring's
Sea.
Total.
British ..
American
German..
..             ..
Grand total • •
12,463
2,318
240
15,497
3,403
1,461
27,960
5,721
1,701
15,021
20,361
35,382
Total value, at 7 dollars per skin, 247,674 dollars. 73
Catch of Canadian Sealing Fleet, 1890.
Name.
Spring
Catch.
Sand Point.
Behring's
Sea.
Total.
Mary Taylor   ..            ..            ,
104
302
592
998
Pathfinder (Pioneer)     ..            .
235
716
984
1,935
Viva..            ..            ..            ,
262
436
2,015
2,713
Triumph        ..            ..            .
182
1,018
473
1,673
E.B.Marvin..             ..            .
368
878
918
2,164
Sapphire        ..            .,            .
119
1,378
745
2,242
C. H. Tupper..
,.
571
796
1,367
Kate..
156
511
230
897
Favorite         ..            ..            .
356    ,
981
1,116
2,453
Aurora            ..            ..            .
165
• 797    ■
..
969
Beatrice          ..             .,            .
220
710
854
1,784
Katherine       ..             .,             .
380
365
945
1,670   .
Lily	
122     f -
#.
500
62)1
Penelope        ..           ..            ,
148
578
445
1,171
W. Pi Sayward              ,.            .
154
339
459
952
Maggie Mac   .. •          ,.            .
, ,
1,200
752
1,952
Juanita            ..             ..             .
97
311
770
1,178
A. C. Moore ..            ..           .
90
703
630
1,423
Theresa           ..            ..
175
569
450
1,194
Ariel              ..            ..           .
220
349
1,137
1,706
Minnie           ..            ,.
300
764
1,467
2,591:
Sea Lion        ..            ,.            .
254
817
774
1,845
Walter L. Rich              ..
122
562
633
1,317
Ocean Belle    .. •          .,           .
% m
-  946
480
1,426
Wanderer       .. -          ..
82
, ,
851
Venture         ..            .,            .
94
, .              ' *
94
Mary Ellen    ..            ..            .
115
- 951
1,066
Mountain Chief*           ..            .
60
..
60
Letitia*           ,.            ,.            ,
70
••
•70
4,650
16,732
18,165
39,547
Indian owners.
Foreign Vessels whose Catch was sold in Victoria.
Names.
Coast Catch.
Behring's Sea.
Total.
American—
Mattie T. Dyer           ..
San Diego     ..            ••            •.            ••
George A. White         ..            ..             ..
Henry Dennis              ..            ..            ..
Venture        ..            ..            ..            ..
74
5*79
400
1,500
564
74
579
400
1,500
564
74
3,043
3,117
German— '
Addle            ..            ..            ..            ..
220
431
651
Grand Total.
Springcatch             ..           ...          ..           ..
Sand Point..            ..            ..            ..            .,            ,.
Behring's Sea           ..           ,.           ..           ..           .,
!   Total	
• •                        ••
• •                        • •
• •                         ••
4,944
16,732
21,639
,.      43,315
Skins.'
Per Skin.
Value.
Springcatch        ..            ..            ..
Coast or Sand Point catch ..           ..           ,,
Behring's Sea catch            .,            ,.
4,944
16,732
21,639
Dollars.
1»
11
12
Dollars.
~ 49,440
184,052
259,668
43,315
••
493,160
Skins.
Value.
Total catch of fleet for 1890         .,
i,           t,              1889
43,315
35,310
Dollars.
493,160
247,170
Balance in favour of 1890
..
8,005
245,890
[95] r/iriTiWiiTf'rtiiiiiiie
74
1890.
Value of Canadian Sealing Vessels, with Outfit, also showing Tonnage, Crews carried, and value of
Boats and Canoes separately.
Name.
[Owners.
Tons.
Value of
Vessel,
with
Outfit.
Number
Boats.
•
Value of
Boats.
Number
of
Canoes.
Value of
Canoes.
Number
of
Men."
Dollars.
•
Dollars.
Dollars.
C. H. Tupper;'.
..   Walker and Co...            .,
99
13,000
7
700
. m
23
Viva              ..
• •   Carne and Munsie           •.
92
12,000
6
600
##
23
lily..
..   W. Barns         ..           .,
69
8,500
1
100
8
400
25
Ariel              ..
..    S. W. Buckinan
90
9,000
1
100
11
500
28
Sea Lion         ..
.. IS. Collins         ..            .,
50
7,000 "'
5
500
. t
18
Mary Taylor  ..
.. 1 Carne and Munsie           .,
42
8,000
1
100
10
500
23
Annie C.Moore
Walter L. Rich
.. 1 Hachett and Co.              ..
113
15,000
7
700
22
..    Cameron and Monro       ..
79
7.000
6
600
20
Adele              ,. .
..    Ratz and Co.
50
5,000
6
600
18
E. B. Marvin ..
..   Marvin and Co.,.            .,
117
12,000
700
mm
, m
26
Kate..           ..
..   C. spring        ..           .,
58
4,000
5
500
11   1
500
27
Pioneer (Pathfinder)
.. 1 Carne and Munsie           .,
66
10,000
500
. #
•-
20
Favorite         ..
..   C. Spring         ..            .,
..    R. Hall and Co.
64
8,000
# ,
13
500
32
Ocean Belle    .;
83
10,000
700
M
23
Theresa
..    Babington and Co.           .,
63
10,000
700
m .
J» t
23
Sapphire         ..
.. | Marvin and Co...            .,
124
14,000
10*0*
18
900
42
Triumph         ..
..   Ditto ..
..   Dod and Co.    ..            .,
98
14,000
700
# #
M
23
Maggie Mac   ,.
70
10,000
725
# .
"       ' *
20
Juanita           ,.
.. | J. Kinsman       ..             .,
49
6,000
1
100"
9
450
22
W. P. Sayward
.'.   Lang and Moss..            .,
59
8,000
1
100
8
400  .
22
Katherine        ..
.J J. A. Penney    ..
81
5,500
100
10
500
23
Beatrice         ..
• •   W. Grant         •.
66
7,000
12
600
29
Mary Ellen   ..
.. 1 M. Moss          .,            .,
73
&25ft
7
700
..
.,
23
Penelope         ..
y.jlJitto..
69
10,000
i
500
..
.,
22
Minnie            ..
..   V. Jacobsen     ,,            .
46
8,000
100
8
400
21
Aurora             ..
.. i i. Harold
41
8,000
I
100
10
500
24
Wanderer       ..
.. 1 H. Paxton and Co.          .
32
5,000
100
8
400
29
Venture          ..
•.    D. TJrquhardt   ..              .
48
5,000
400
..
..
15
Mountain Chief*
..    J. Hawassund   ..             .
23
1,000
..
• •
4
160
10
Letitia*           ..
... P. Quachaund  ..             .
28
1,000
**
5
200
12
Totals
r2$H
248,250
107
10.S25
145
6,910
678
* Indian
schooners.
The following named Schooners Carried part Indian Crews (1890).
Names.
Number of
Indians.
Katherine ..
: •                    •
•                      ••                      • •
20
Beatrice    ..
•                      • •                      •
•                      ••
24
Minnie
• •                    •
•                      ••                      •
•                      * •
24
Aurora
• •                   •
•                      ••                      *
•           '** Tfr
20
Kate
• •                    •
.                      ••                      .
•                  ••
24
Favorite     .
•                      • ■                      •
•                  •*
24
Mary Taylor
Ariel        ..
•
.
20
24
Sapphire   • •
Wanderer ••
••                     9
-
.i
36
IB
Juanita     ••
• •                      •
.                      ••                      •
.        . *
16
W.J. Sayward
Lily
Venture    . ■
i i
•                      ••                      •
"
28
20
16
Adele       ..
Total
..
.
..
12
	
324 ft
List of Vessels and Catch of Victoria Sealing Fleet for 1889.
Vessels.
Coast Catch.
Behring's Sea.
Total.
British-
Pathfinder    ..           ..           • •            ..
Teresa           . •            • •            •.            • •
Viva             ..            .•            ..           ..
Annie C. Moore          ..           •.           . *
Penelope       ..            ..            •.            ..
Sapphire       • •             • •             ..
Onwards       ..            ..            ..            ••
Juanita         ..            ..            ..            ..
Mary Taylor..           ..           ..
Minnie         ..           ..           ..           ..
Wanderer     ..           . •           ..           ••
Ariel            ..           ..           ..           ..
Lily             ..            ..           ••           ..
Black Diamond           ..            ..            ..
Kate             ..            ..            ..            ..
Favorite       ..            ..           ..
Mountain Chief          ..           ..            •.
Sierra           ..            ..            •.            ..
W- P. Sayward
Winifred       ..             ..            ..            . •
Beatrice       ..            . •            . •           •.
Maggie Mac ..             ..            •.            •.
Triumph       ..            ..            •.
942
482
1,481
802
384
1,364
816
135
747
200
178
841
280
629
624
340
210
80
557
22
500
777
72
48
828
2,882
1,318
1,796
1,626
"29
*500
*844
74
55
800
1,764
1,643
700
1,290
990
1,310
3,643
2,120
2,180
2,990
816
164
747
700
178
1,685
354
684
1,424
2,104
210
80
2,200
22
1,200
2,007
72
12,463
15 497
27,960
American—
Walter Rich..
San Diego     ..            ..            ..
J. Hamilton Lewis      • •            . •            *.
Venture         ..             . •             •.
Alice L. Alger             ..            ..
Henry Dennis              ..            •.            ,,
Lottie            ..             ..             ..             ..
Mollie Adams                ..              ..               ..
Bessie Butler..            ..            ..            ..
1,419
69
242
317
253
18
700
625
1,553
525
1,419
69
242
317
253
718
625
1,553.
525
2,318
3,403
5,721
German ..            ..            ..           ..
240
1,461
1,701
Appendix '(D).
Mr. James G. Swan's Evidence,
Q. That is the point in my question.   You say that it is not true that for every seal taken hy Relations with Canada,
fishermen several are killed ?—A. I do not believe it; I have no evidence of it. j>. 281.
Q. Do you not think a great many more are'killed than they get the skins of \—A, No, I do not ■ A
I think they say so, and I know the Alaska Commercial Company will try to have you' believe so, but
all the evidence. I have from the sealers is directly to the contrary.
*****
• Appendix (E).
Mr. James G. Swan's Evidence.
Q. How are those seals taken at Cape Flattery I—A. Most of them are taken by the Indians, but
of late years they have been shooting tEem a good deal, and, as a consequence, seals have been very IH&# P- 285.
shy, so that when they see a boat or canoe coming, they will get out of the way.    They are very
intelligent animals.
Q. "When they are shot, are they always brought ashore 1—A. Yes, Sir.
* * * * * • * *
Appendix (F).
Mr. James G. Swan's Evidence.
They are never taken in motion.
* .   * *
> Ibid., p. 384.
[95]
L 2 ■fiiiirriMtfttiW
76
Relations with Canada,
pj 346.
Appendix (G).
Captain Joshua Brown's Evidence.
LET the Government place proper people on those islands;-snd establish-open and close months,
then say that no sealers should go within 3 leagues of these islands, for the females that nurse their
young never go farther away from the islands than that; there is ah abundance of fish there for them
to eat. The females go back to the islands two or three times every day to nurse their young. But
let no fishermen go in there, and let there be close months, and let them have a fair and equal chance,
and then I do not think they will ever exterminate those seals, because they reproduce themselves
every year properly protected.   ' '$£
No. 23.
Foreign Office to Sir C. Lampson and Co.
Gentlemen, Foreign Office, January 2, 1891.
I AM directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
the 30th ultimo on the subject of the Behring's Sea seal fishery and the trade in seal-skins
with the United States.
I am, &c.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.
No. 24.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received January 3.)
(Extract.) Downing Street, January 2, 1891.
I AM directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marqui6
of Salisbury, a copy of a letter from the High Commissioner for Canada, and of a despatc
from the Govern or-General Gf Canada, on the subject of certain statements in Sir J.
Pauncefote's despatch of the 24th July respecting the progress of the Behring's Sea
negotiations.
Inclosure I in No. 24.
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.
My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, November 22, 1890.
WITH reference to your Lordship's despatch of the 4th October last, inclosing
copy of a despatch from Sir Julian Pauncefote to the Foreign Office on the subject of
the Behring's Sea seal fisheries, I have the honour to forward, for your Lordship's
information, a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, embodying the comments
of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the views expressed in Sir Julian's despatch.
I have, &c
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.
Inclosure 2 in No. 24.
Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency the
Governor-General in Council on the \9th November, 1890.
THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a Colonial Office
despatch dated the 4th October, 1890, transmitting a despatch to the Foreign Office from
the British Minister at Washington, Sir Julian Pauncefote, on the subject of the Behring's
Sea fisheries question.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosure were
referred, states that he has read with interest and satisfaction Sir Julian Pauncefote's elear
statement on the course of the Behring's Sea negotiations, and of the present situation of
the controversy.
The Minister, while recommending that these despatches be filed for future reference, 77
deems it advisable to call your Excellency's' attention to the following remarks in Sir
Julian Pauncefote's despatch, viz. r—
" The result of the careful consideration which I gave to the evidence on both sides
was to satisfy my own mind that while measures are called for to protect female seals with
young from slaughter during well-known periods of their migration to and from the breeding
islands, and also to prohibit the approach of sealing-vessels within a certain distance of
those islands, the inquiry had failed to establish the contention of the United States'
Government that the absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing is necessary for the preservation
of the fur-seal species."
The Minister further states that if Sir Julian Pauncefote means by this that it is
necessary to restrict the hunting and killing of seals at all times when found outside of the
islands or breeding resorts of the Behring's Sea, and the territorial waters surrounding
them, or to prohibit the killing of seals found beyond the ordinary 3-mile limit in Behring's
Sea, he (the Minister) desires to say that, having given considerable attention to the
various arguments adduced in support of the contentions that measures are required to
protect female seals, and that the approach of sealing-vessels within certain limits of the
sealing islands should be prohibited, he has failed to observed any satisfactory evidence
from which it could be established that regulations are necessary to protect the female
seals with young within the Behring's Sea before they reach the breeding islands.
While there appears to be no good reason for doubting that considerable destruction by
sealers of different nations takes place during the months of January, February, March,
and April, along the coasts of the United States and British Columbia, before the seals
begin what may be termed the direct journey to the breeding rookeries, the best authorities
known to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries go to show that female seals with young
proceed with extraordinary rapidity on entering Behring's Sea direct to the breeding
rookeries, and that during such time it is impossible for the hunters to secure them by shot
or spear, neither can he accept the opinion that it is necessary to restrict pelagic sealing
beyond the distance of the 3-mile limit.
The Minister, however, while holding strong views upon these points, does not
pretend that a full and thorough investigation on the subject by those especially qualified
to make such an examination would not support the impression apparently entertained by
Sir Julian Pauncefote touching these phases of the question.
The Minister, while differing from Sir Julian Pauncefote on the foregoing points,
cordially concurs in the concluding paragraph of Sir Julian's despatch, wherein he states :—■
" That if the United States' Government persist in their endeavour to exclude British
subjects from any participation in the fur-seal fishery in Behring's Sea, on the plea that
such exclusion is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species, they assume a
position which will not bear the test of an impartial inquiry.''
The Committee, concurring in the above Report, recommend that a copy of this
Minute be forwarded to the Right Honourable Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State
for the Colonies, for submission to Her Majesty's Government, and also that a copy be
forwarded to the High Commissioner for Canada in London, for his information.
All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency's approval.
(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.
No. 25.
Cotonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received January 8.)
Sir, Downing Street, January 8, 1891.
WITH reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to
transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch
from the Governor-General of Canada, forwarding a further Minute of the Privy Council,
submitting a letter from the Collector of Customs at British Columbia as to the catch of
seals in Behring's Sea during the season of 1890.
I am, &c.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE. msBsmsa
78
Inclosure 1 in No. 25.
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford-
My Lord, Government House, Ottawa, December 12, 1890.
WITH further reference to the subject of my despatch of the 28th ultimo in regard
to the catch of seals in the Behring's Sea, I have the honour to inclose a copy of an
approved Minute of the Privy Council, submitting a letter from the Collector of Customs
at Victoria, British Columbia, containing supplementary information as to the season's,
catch of seals by British Columbian vessels.
I have, &c. I£
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.
Inclosure 2 in No. 25.
Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency the
Governor-General in Council on the 5th December, 1890.
ON a Report, dated the 1st December, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting, with reference to the Minute of Council of the 15th November,
1890, respecting this season's catch of seals by vessels sailing from British Columbia, in
supplement thereto a letter received from the Collector of Customs of the Port of Victoria,
British Columbia, under date the 11th November, 1890, and which is annexed:
The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Minute to the Principal
Secretary of State for the Colonies for submission to Her Majesty's Government.
All which is respectfully submitted for vour Excellency's approval.
'(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.
Inclosure 3 in No. 25.
Mr. Milne to Mr. Tupper.
Sir, Victoria, British Columbia, November 11, 1890.
I HAVE the honour, in further reference to your telegrams of the 15th and 16th
ultimo, to say that since my letter of the 30th ultimo I have had interviews with those
masters of schooners that remained the latest in the Behring's Sea, and who were most
fortunate in getting a large catch. Amongst the masters, W. E. Baker, master of the
schooner " Viva," whose catch was 2,015 in Behring's Sea, and also V. J. Jacobsen,
master of the schooner "Minnie." These men being intelligent and careful mariners, on
being questioned by me, separately declare that they have never seen the seals more
plentiful than just before they left Behring's Sea; Jacobsen saying that with his Indian
crew, the few days before leaving the sealing-grounds, the Indians would bring 250 to 275
on board daily, but that the weather was very boisterous, foggy, and bad, interfering very
much with their operations.
And I can now safely repeat what I have already said and written, that owners and
masters do not entertain the slightest idea that the seals are at all scarcer, and all
interested in the sealing industry are of the opinion that the howlings of the American
press about the scarcity of seals caused by the '*■ seal poachers " (as they term our vessels)
is simply manufactured by the paid agent of the new Company, ': The North American
Trading Company," both here and in San Francisco, no doubt to gain some advantage for
themselves. It is a fact well known to our sealers that during this year the only vessel
that attempted to raid any islands was the American schooner, " Geo. R. White," on
Copper Island, and last year two American schooners raided, but without much success.
That our schooners have been most careful I can safely assert, from my acquaintance and
knowledge of the character of masters and owners, that no attempt would be made by any
of them to commit any breach of law or international regulations.
Various reports have been telegraphed from here and San Francisco regarding the
reported sailing of our schooners on a second cruize to Behring's Sea, as reported for the
express purpose of raiding the seal islands of St Paul and St. George. I inclose you a
cutting from one of our newspapers that gives the story. 79
On the 20th September the Canadian schooner " Triumph " cleared from this port
for a second cruize in the North Pacific and Behring's Sea. The same vessel was the first
to return from Behring's Sea, owing to lack of success caused by boisterous weather, and
the owners thought best, rather than have her laid up to January, the time for spring
outfit, to make reasonable terms with the crew, and send her out for a second voyage, as
it was considered that the seals might move to the westward and be later. At this time
it was known that the seals were found to the north and eastward of the Islands of
St. Paul and St. George.
On the sailing of this schooner, which was done in open day, without any attempt at
concealment, telegrams were flying all over the continent that a fleet of British poaching
schooners had cleared for Behring's Sea, to raid the Pribylov Seal Islands. A few days
after a small German schooner, named the "Adele;' cleared from here to Yokohama.
Japan.    She was also reported as having gone to raid the Seal Islands.
This having been reported to San Francisco, I am creditably informed that H. Liebes
3(tifH. Liebes and Co.), the Resident of the North American Trading Company, the lessees
of the Seal Islands) telegraphed to the United States' Consul here, and who seems to have
been controlled by others, and he made representations to his Government, which I
understand he has since denied, but which, I think, there was no doubt, as Lieutenant
Wooley, of the United States' cutter " Wolcott" came over to obtain further information from the Consul, and he also called at the Custom-house, and when he left
me he was, I think, satisfied that the whole matter had been misrepresented to his
Government.
You will see by the inclosed newspaper cutting a copy of the order given to the
revenue-cutter by the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, 0. S. Spaulding:—
" Didn't catch them.
" The United States' Government spends a lot of money foolishly.
" The steamer 'Bertha' lay at anchor in Port Townsend Bay all day Sunday. She
was not attached to a British sealer either, as some thought she would be, when she came
back to Puget Sound. She arrived early in the morning from Alaska, where she went
three weeks ago in charge of Captain Russel Glover, of the revenue-cutter ' Wolcott,' and
Lieutenant Benhem, of the Revenue Marine Service, stationed at San Francisco. Captain
Glover was seen by a reporter, and he stated that he went only as far as Ounalaska on his
cruize. There he found the cutter * Bear ' in charge of Captain Healy, and delivered to
that officer all orders in his possession. -
" It will be remembered that quite a ripple of excitement was caused some weeks ago
by the report that the United States' cutter ' Wolcott' had been ordered to Behring's Sea,
and that the steamer ' Bertha' went in her place. The following orders were the ones
sent on to Captain Glover:—
U ' Washington, D.C., September 22,1890.
U(Captain Russel Glover, Revenue cutter "Oliver Wolcott," Port Townsend, Washington.
"' The schooners " Triumph," '< Adele," " Mary Ellen," " Pathfinder," and probably
others, are reported to have left Victoria for the Seal Islands within the past three days,
for the purpose of raiding them. You are hereby instructed to promptly proceed to cruize
about the islands as long as the weather will permit, and spare no effort to protect the
rookeries,
"'You are not instructed to warn raiding vessels off, but are instructed to discover
them in the act. If they are taking seals on land at the islands, seize and bring them to
Sitka.   Ih brief, get them with evidence to convict.
"' Give a copy of these instructions to the " Rush," or " Bear," who are hereby
instructed to be governed by them.
" \ It may be well for you to obtain additional information concerning the raiding of
vessels from United States' Consul at Victoria, if you can do so without delaying your
departure.
(Signed) '"O. S. Spaulding,
" 'Assistant Secretary, Treasurer.'
"The 'Bertha' took the place of the 'Wolcott' on account of the latter's unseaworthiness, and,   supplies and  men were transferred to the f Bertha,' the Government 80
paying 200 dollars per day for her, and the steamer started north. After meeting the
' Bear' at Ounalaska, the ' Bertha' was laid up for a few days for some slight repairs, and
while transferring coal and supplies taken up for the Dading Company. She also picked
up thirteen seamen belonging to the wrecked whaling-schooner ' Thomas Pope.' These
will be taken to Seattle by the 'Bertha,' which is now lying in Port Townsend
Harbour.
" The cutter ' Bear' proceeded at once to Behring's Sea, in charge of Captain Healy,
to carry out the orders of Spaulding. From the last sentence of his official despatch it is
evident the original information was sent out from Victoria.
" Lieutenant Willey admits having gone to Victoria to see what could be found out
regarding the matter, and he was told the ' Triumph' and * Adele' had both cleared.
The former was flying the British flag, and had cleared for Behring's Sea. The ' Adele'
was flying the German flag, and was on the way to Behring's Sea."
The only vessels of our sealing fleet that have cleared, up to this [date, from this port
are as follows:—
Canadian schooner " Triumph," Cox, master, North Pacific and Behring's Sea.
German schooner " Adele," Hansen, master, Yokohama, Japan.
Canadian schooner " Mary Taylor," Petit, master, South Pacific and Galapagos
Islands.
The " Triumph " clearing on the 20th September, the " Adele " on the 23rd September,
and the " Mary Taylor" on the 11th October last.
The master and owners of the " Triumph" assured me that the vessel will likely
circle out of Behring's Sea towards the Kurile Islands, and endeavour to follow the track
of the seals, probably returning by way of Sandwich Islands. The German schooner
" Adele," I am satisfied, went towards the Kurile Islands, on the Asiatic side, and from
thence, I believe, goes to Yokohama, Japan, where her owner resides. I have endeavoured
to make clear to you the movements of the only vessels of our sealing fleet that have left
our port (the rest all being laid up here until January), as a refutation of the many absurd
rumours that have appeared in the American press as to the number of our vessels that
had left on a second cruize, for the express purpose of raiding the Seal Islands.
In my letter of the 30th ultimo I inclosed a statement of the number of seals caught
by each of our vessels, as well as the number sold here by foreign vessels. I would now
most respectfully beg to point out to you the number of seals taken on our coast, which I
have designated as the Coast and Sand Point catch, which are both coast catches. Before
this year there were only two divisions made, that is, the early spring and the Behring's
Sea catches, and consequently the seals taken from Vancouver Island northward were
taken into Behring's Sea, and, on the vessel's return, were credited as being taken there.
This was manifestly wrong, as you will observe by my statement that 16,732 seals
were taken from Vancouver Island to Sand Point, on the Shumagin Islands, and only
18,165 altogether in the sea.
The statement sent you is correct, being carefully compiled by myself, and which will
constitute the manner in which we will keep record of future operations, as by this year's
statement it is clearly proven that sealing is not altogether confined to Behring's Sea, and
that we have in the North Pacific a considerable portion of this industry.
The statement reads as follows :—
Canadian vessels—
Spring coast catch
Sand Point coast catch
Behring's Sea .. .. ..
Difference in favour of coast catch
4,650
..    16,782
21,382
..     18,165
3,217
Referring to my letter of the 30th ultimo, I would beg to make some small correction
as to the purchasers of sealskins this year at this port. I would now say: That
nearly the whole coast and Sand Point catches (that is, 4,870 and 16,732 this year) were
principally purchased by Morris Moss, the resident agent of the firm of H. Liebes and Co.,
of San Francisco, California ; the said H. Liebes being the President of the North
American Trading Company, who are the present lessees of the Seal Islands in Behring's
Sea. The portion of the Behring's Sea catch purchased by the said Morris Moss for the
said H. Liebes and Co., of San Francisco, as reported to me, were as follows :— 81
Canadian Vessels.
Schooners—
"Kate"
" Favourite "
"Adele"
" Penelope "
"W. P. Sayward"
"Ariel"
" Sea Lion "
Skins.
230
1,116
431
445
459
1,137
774
The other portion of the Behring's Sea catch which was sold here was purchased
principally by M J. Davis, agent of Joseph Uhlmann, New York, but a considerable portion
of them was sent to London by the owners direct.
1 would further beg to point out that the price of skins last year, 1889, was 7 dollars,
while this year the prices have ruled high, the early spring catch at 10 dollars, the Sand
Point catch 11 dollars, and the Behring's Sea 12 dollars, and in some small lots 13 dollars
per skin, the agent of H. Liebes and Co. being active competitors, but those who could
afford to send their skins to London did better.
Value of Vessels.
I would beg further to call your attention to the statement already sent you as to the
value of vessels and outfits, crews, boats, &c, engaged in the sealing business. I have seen
some adverse statements made as to the value of our sealing vessels in eastern papers, and,
as usual, without any knowledge of the subject. I can assure you that our sealing-vessels;
are a credit to our port, the greater part of them fine schooners taken round from Nova
Scotia, and others that have been built here. They are all well found in every particular:
their outfits, boats, guns, &c, are excellent. They are all fleet and excellent sea vessels^*
remaining out at sea on the Pacific during the fierce gales that prevail duiing the spring of
the year.
I have taken considerable care to ascertain the value of new vessels built here at present
with the high price of labour, and 1 find that 100 dollars per registered ton is as low as a
good vessel can be built for in this province. Some have doubted this, but experience has
shown that in some cases it has cost 125 dollars, but at the present I am assured that
100 dollars per registered ton is a fair figure, while in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
the usual price is 50 dollars-per registered ton, being double in this province to what it is
east. So it is with the boats, which cost from 125 to 160 dollars. They are made
and adapted to the sealing business, and vessels will carry from six to ten boats. The
other portion of their outfit is likewise expensive, more especially regarding the particular
kind of guns and costly rifles that experience has taught the hunter to be best adapted
to ocean sealing. These guns cost 55 to 65 dollars each, and the rifles are also
expensive, so that when these larger vessels are ready for sea their outfits will be between
3,000 and 4,000 dollars, and smaller ones I have been informed, on best authority,.
are not less than 2,500 dollars. It must be borne in mind that these schooners will carry
a crew, including hunters, of twenty-three or twenty-five men.
Five schooners will be added to our fleet from Nova Scotia this year. They have already
sailed via Cape Horn, and also one schooner purchased in Yokohama, Japan. They
all schooners from 70 to 110 tons register. I understand that each of the schooner8-
that has left Halifax brings a full crew of hunters. 1 have also seen it stated that
a number of American schooners were going to sail under our flag in sealing. This-
is absolutely not true. There are no American schooners changing their flag at present,
and none contemplated. As a fact, the American schooners have not been as successful as
our own Canadian vessels, and fewer of them have visited our port last year than,
formerly.
I have the honour to inclose you some further information as to the Owners
and Masters Association. I send the newspaper cutting, which, I believe, is correct, but
I am promised a full copy of the proceedings, v\ hich, if I receive in time, I will inclose
herewith.
The terms are:—
Any hunter procuring 400 seals and upward
„ „ 300 to 4C0
„ „ 200 to 300
„ ,,        less than 200       ..
[95]
Dol. c.
2 50 per skin.
2 00
1 50
1 00
M 82
The owners have bound themselves, in the event of the hunters not accepting
tiiis scale, to import new hunters from the east, and no schooner to engage, in any case,
more than three of the old hunters.
"Interesting to Sealers.
" On Tuesday a meeting was held by the owners and masters interested in the sealing
industry of this port, the gathering having been called to deal with several matters of vital
interest to all parties concerned. Captain Warren was asked to take the Chair,
Mr. Richard Hall, of Hall and Goepel, acting as Secretary. The outlook for the next
Season was discussed at considerable length, as was the result of the past one. It was the
opinion of all that the price of skins this year was considerably above the average, and
that it was highly probable that a drop in prices would take place next year. The reason
for the increased prices for the past season's catch was held to be due to the fact that the
bad weather had been against a big catch, and that the shortage naturally made a livelier
demand.
" The question of pay for hunters and boatmen then came up, and the adoption of a
scale per sealskin was discussed. It was admitted by the owners, many of whom are
practical men, that the business of seal-hunting was a dangerous and arduous one, and one
that should in all fairness be paid for in a liberal way, but, at the same time, the great
risks in the sealing business, together with the uncertainty of the markets, made the
payment of an excessive rate entirely out of the question. It was also shown that a good
hunter, one who was able to get many seals, was a cheaper man at better pay than was a
poor one. An indifferent man occupied a boat and kept two boatmen at work, while the
result of his season's work might not be sufficient to pay interest on the capital invested.
In view of these facts, the following scale of wages was unanimously adopted:—
Catch.
Pay per Skin.
Dol c.
Dp to 199
• •                           • ♦
#
.  .
• .
1 00
f9         Zi7&                               • *
• »                          • •
a
»                                 • •
. *
1  50
„   399
• *                            • •
# ,
. *
..
2 00
400 or over           ..
• •                          • •
.
• •
•.
2 50
Grey pups, each.   ..
..
•
••
..
1 00
" It will thus be seen that the hunter who captures less than 200 only gets 1 dollar
each, while the good shot and experienced man who gets 400 or over has 2 dol. 50 c.
each.    This scale has been agreed to by all the owners.
"Boat pullers are to be paid 30 dollars per month, or 15 dollars per month and
25 cents per skin taken. This will be an incentive to the boatmen to work with the hunter
for a good catch.
itm~i' " Another matter of importance came up, and that was the employment of old hands.
It was shown that there were not experienced hunters enough to man the fleet, and it has
been agreed upon by the owners to limit the number of old hands in each vessel to three,
the others to be made up of new men composed of porpoise hunters from the east. This
plan will give each of the owners an equal chance for a good crew. One exception only
was made, and that in the case of a schooner which is owned almost exclusively by the
hunters. In this case the rule as to limit in the number will not be enforced. The scale
of wages will, however, be the same."
Every year our sealers are becoming better acquainted with seal life, both in the
North Pacific Ocean and in Behring's Sea, and I have endeavoured to find out from the
most intelligent many matters on which there have been conflicting opinions. One of
those, as to the number of females caught; and even persons in this province have been
ready to give extravagant opinions on this subject, as to the excessive numbers of females
taken. Now it is well known to our best and most intelligent sealers that a considerable
proportion of cow or female seals taken are barren, quite barren, that is, they have not
borne young for one. or more seasons. This the hunters well know from the absence of
any appearance of lacteal fluid in the animal: it is now well known that the young seal
will take to the water as soon as born, contrary to the theory advanced by Elliot. On
this and many other Kke matters I endeavour to elicit all information that I think might
be of service to the Government at any future time. 83
I am very happy to say that the owners and masters of our sealing fleet are always
ready and anxious to confer with me at any time in regard to any matter appertaining to
the sealing industry, and appear to be satisfied that the Government are doing everything
possible to bring about an honourable settlement of this important question.
I have, &c.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE,
Collector of Customs.
Inclosure 4 in No. 25.
Report of Proceedings.
WE, the Undersigned, members of the Victoria Ship-owners and Masters Sealing
Association, hereby agree and pledge ourselves to strictly adhere to the tariff of prices
agreed on at our meetings, and which said tariff is hereinafter specified, and we also bind
ourselves on our word of honour not to violate this agreement by offering any bonus or
inducements of any kind whatever, outside the letter of this Agreement, and also we bind
ourselves to assist each other in every possible manner to carry out this Agreement and
preserve the integrity of our Association. The following is the tariff of wages and lay to
be allowed hunters, boat-pullers, and steerers for the season 1891:—
Hunters—
On catch of 199 skins or less .. .. ..
„   200-299
„   300-399
„ 400 and upwards
Excepting in every instance grey pup-skins, for which will be paid 1 dollar each.
The catch referring to the number of skins secured by each hunter in his respective
boat, and delivered to the captain or officer in charge of his schooner. Any skin showing
grey marking under the fur about the shoulder is to be considered a grey pup-skin.
3l.
c.
1
00
pei
skin.
1
50
»»
2
00
,9
2
50
Boat-pullers and Steerers.
Wages only, not to exceed 30 dollars per month. Wages and lay, 15 dollars per
month, and 25 cents per skin. Lay only, 50 cents per skin (grey pups excepted) all
caught in their respective boats, and delivered to the captain or officer in charge of the
schooner.    On each grey pup for lay only the price shall be 25 cents.
Second Officers.
Wages not to exceed 35 dollars per month. We also bind ourselves not to take
more than three experienced hunters in the sealing business on each vessel represented by
us, said hunters to be engaged at the scale or lay adopted by this Association, as hereinbefore particularly described; and we also agree that all hunters required in excess of the
three hunters above mentioned for each vessel shall be new men at the business of seal-
hunting and shall be engaged at the same scale or lay hereinbefore mentioned, and this
clause shall apply to all vessels owned or controlled by the members of this Association,
whether clearing from the port of Victoria, or other ports in Canada or the United States,
or any port where any vessel owned or controlled by any member of this Association may
he fitting out for sealing on this coast. We also bind ourselves that the scale for Indian
hunters shall be as follows:—
For the spring engagement, for each seal-skin (grey pups excepted, for which will be
paid the sum of 1 dollar [sic]), all to be delivered to the captain or officer in charge of the
schooner; and we further bind ourselves to offer no further bonus or inducement whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in excess of the above prices for the spring engagement.
On the Northern and Behring's Sea catch we agree to pay not more than 3 dollars
for each seal-skin (grey pups included) delivered to the captain or officer in charge of the
schooner, and, if necessary, also not more than 10 dollars for each canoe procured, and
also a bonus of not more than 10 dollars to the Chief or Headman for procuring such
canoes; and we bind ourselves that the above shall be the only moneys paid out in excess
of the cost of the skins, viz., 3 dollars for the Northern and Behring's Sea engagement.
And, lastly, we agree not to advance or in any way exceed the scale or lay of any
[95] N $4,
B
P-
-hunters, should those in Victoria decline to accept the hereinbefore-mentioned lay, but to
procure hunters elsewhere.
In the faithful performance of the within Agreement, we hereby sign our names, and
the names of the schooners represented by us.
No. 26.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received January 16.)
My Lord, •   :-*& Washington, January 6, 1891.
I HAVE the honour to inclose herewith copies of the President's Message to the
House of Representatives, transmitting a letter from the Secretary of State, which is
accompanied by the correspondence which has taken place since the 23rd July, 1890, on
the Behring's Sea question.
'This correspondence consists of your Lordship's despatch to myself of the 2nd August
last, and of Mr. Blaine's note in reply of the 17th December, copy of which I had the
honour to transmit to your Lordship in my despatch of the 19th ultimo.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
Inclosure in No. 26.
President's Message.
Seal Fisheries of Behring's Sea.
To the House of Representatives,
■IN further response to/the Resolution of the House of Representatives, requesttwg,
me, if in my judgment not incompatible with the public interest; to furnish to the House
the correspondence since the 4th March, 1889, between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Great Britain, touching the subjects in dispute in the
Behring's Sea, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, which is
accompanied by •thte correspondence which has taken place since my Message of the
23rd July, 189«.
(Signed) BBNMMiN HARRISON.
Executive Mansion, January o, 1891.
To the President, Department of State, Washington, January 5, 1891.
In response to your direction, I submit herewith the official correspondence between
the Government of fcheiEnited States and the Government of -Great Britain, touching the
seal fisheries of the Behring's Sea, since the 19th July last.
I am, &c.
^Signed) JAMES G. MjAANE.
i$o. 27.
'■Sir J. Panmcefote to the MarguVB of Salisbury.—(Recewed January 20.)
/Telegraphic.) Washington, January 20, 1891.
BEHRINiGr'S Sea.
With reference to my (telegram of the 17th instant, I have the honour to inform
your Lordship itha-t I Baw Mr. Blaise yesterdays and he showed me a statement which
had appeared in the " Times1" jflf the 54lh January respecting the naval preparations of
the United States in the Pacific.
. Tins statement was, he said, based on a mischievous telegram from the Philadelphia
correspondent of the "**'83Hfcses>" and explained the temporary excitement in London.
The telegram was absolutely and entirely false. 85
No. 28.
Colonial Office to Foteign Office.—(Received January 30.)
{(Extract). Downing Street, January 29, 1891.
WITH reference to a Report, reoe&ved through the Admiralty,* from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station on the subject of the seal fishing in the
Behring's Sea, I am directed hy Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the
Marquis of Salisbury, an extract of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
with a Minute of|hiskPrivjr Qoano^ submitting a Report by the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries on the Commander*ite-ehifef's letter.
Inclosure 1 in- No. 28.
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.
(Extract.) Government House, Ottawa, January     , 1891.
I HAVE the honour to forward to your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute of
the Privy Council, submitting a Report by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the
letter ifrom the Commander-in-chielf on the Pacific Station as to the seal fishery in
Behring's Sea, copy of which was inclosed in your Lordship's despatch of ffi&
5th November last.
Inclosure 2 in No. 28.
RepoH of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his iEfoceUertcy the
rGfovernor-&eheral in'06UntCil, on"fhe 3\st December, 189©.
THE Committee of the Privy-Council have had under consideration a despatch,
dated the 5th November, 1890, from. [Lord Knutsford, transmitting a copy of a commu-
nication, received through the Foreign Office from the Admiralty, inclosing a Report
from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station concerning the seal fishery in
Behring's Sea.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were
referred, submits the annexed Report thereupon, in which the Committee concur.
The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Report to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State, for the information of Her
Majesty's Government. u
All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency s, approvak .
(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.
Inclosure 3 Tn No. 28.
Mr. Tapper to Lord Stanley of Preston.
(Extract.)
THE Undersigned has the
Department of Fisheries, Canada,
Ottawa, November ^7, 1890.
honour »to acknowledge your Excellency's reference^
covering a letter from Her M&je$t#?s Principal 'Secretary of -State -jfbir <the Colonies,
transmitting a copy of a communication r&ceived by Lford Krfutsford thrdugh the
Foreign Office from the Admiralty, 'inclosing a Report front the Comm&nder-iift-chief on
<he pacific Station OOUceriiitfg the-seal fishefcy4fr Behrings'p Sdav
r$he Undersigned has Carefully perttseAhme letter *df< the Commander-in-chief of the
Pa&ifte Station, in whieh he reports to the Admkattep<the retratarof the sealing schooners
from Behring's Sea, and certain information which he has igaibhered from the captains of
the schooners respectipg the nature and extent of this season's catch of seals.
The Undersigned wouU observe that after full "inquiry through The" "Collector of
Customs at the Port of Victoria, British Colombia, he submitted a Report upon the
subject of this season's catch, which your Excellency approved, on the 17th and
19th November, 1890; andraa't the information thus conveyed to Her Majesty's Government is supplemented bjr a further Report from the Undersigned based on additional
particulars frt>m the Collector of easterns at Victoria, under date the 11th November.
* See*No. 13. '■«&£' ■■ msk
86
Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Admiralty from the Commander-in-chief on the-
Pacific Station, to which special attention is directed by the Admiralty, is as follows:—
, " They (the captains of the sealing vessels) also mentioned that two-thirds of their
catch consisted of female seals, hut that after the 1st July very few indeed were captured
' in pup,' and that when sealing outside the Behring's Sea round the coast on the way up
(where this year the heaviest catches were made) they acknowledged that seals * in pup *
were frequently captured."
The Undersigned would remark upon this, that seal-hunters are in the habit of
classifying seals as males and females when assorting their catches for the markets,
regardless of the sexes of the seals; in other words, all seals of a standard size and over
are classed as males, those under the standard size being classed as females.
It does not appear from Rear-Admiral Hotham's Report, that in his investigations
any special examination was made as to the sexes, and the Undersigned would remark, in
passing, that very careful investigation is necessary in order to distinguish the male from
the female seals.
Reading paragraph 6, however, as applicable to the experience of the hunters previous
to their entering Behring's Sea, the views conveyed hy Rear-Admiral Hotham to the
Admiralty are not inconsistent with information received from time to time by the Undersigned, to the effect that a considerable number of female seals and seals " in pup " have
been taken outside of the Behring's Sea, in the great waters of the Pacific Ocean, and along
the coasts of British Columbia, California, and Washington territory. The Undersigned,
upon this phase of the sealing industry, moreover, would remark that neither the United
States nor any other nation has yet expressed willingness to consider a close season,
covering the great waters of the Pacific Ocean outside of Behring's Sea, so as to prevent
the destruction of seal life.
The Undersigned is of the opinion that, upon investigation by experts, it might
possibly be found necessary, for the preservation of the fur-seal species, to establish
Regulations in order to prevent this slaughter upon the coasts above mentioned. There
is evidence that the slaughter of the females when "in pup" occurs while the seals are
travelling slowly up the coasts on their way to the rookeries in Behring's Sea, when
resting, playing, or feeding, before they have begun the more immediate and direct
journey to the breeding islands. There is, however, it is submitted, no satisfactory
evidence to establish that when the seals have once passed through the Aleutian Islands
on their course to the breeding rookeries, that it is possible for hunters to shoot or
Indians to spear them; on the contrary, there is reliable authority for stating that the
journey through the Aleutian Islands and to the breeding grounds is direct and swift. It
is known, moreover, that the pelagic sealers in Behring's Sea obtain their catch chiefly
from the "bachelor" seals and the "barren cow " seals, found at different points off the
rookeries, at periods when the breeding seals are mostly confined to the islands, and the
waters immediately surrounding the islands.
No. 29.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—{Received February 10.)
(Telegraphic.) Washington, February 9,1891.
IN an interview which I had to-day with Mr. Blaine he told me that he had been
intending to write to me to ask whether he was to consider the diplomatic correspondence on the Behring's Sea question suspended or closed in view of the legal
proceedings in the " Sayward " case now before the Supreme Court.
I said that I had no instructions on the subject, but that in view of the reported
reply of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to a question in the House of Commons
that the legal proceeding in question was in the nature of a private suit, and did not
interfere with the pending negotiations, I did not think that your Lordship considered
the diplomatic correspondence closed or even suspended. I added, however, that I
would inform your Lordship of the inquiry he had made.
No. 30.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, February 10, 1891.
WITH reference to your telegram of yesterday, I have to inform you that my reply
to Mr. Blaine's note of the 17th December, on the subject of Behring's Sea, will be sent 87
very shortly.   I have delayed it with the object of obtaining information on a few
points.
There is not, in my view, any connection between the legal proceedings in the case of
the " W. P. Sayward " and the diplomatic correspondence with regard to Behring's Sea.
No. 31.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Sir, Foreign Office, February 21,1891.
THE despatch of Mr. Blaine, under date of the 17th December, has been carefully
considered by Her Majesty's Government. The effect of the discussion which has been
carried on between the two Governments has been materially to narrow the area of
controversy. It is now quite clear that the advisers of the President do not claim
Behring's Sea as a mare clausum, and indeed that they repudiate that contention in
express terms. Nor do they rely, as a justification for the seizure of British ships
in the open sea, upon the contention that the interests of the seal fisheries give to
the United States' Government any right for that purpose which, according to international law, it would not otherwise possess. Whatever importance they attach to the
preservation of the fur-seal species,—and they justly look on it as an object deserving
the most serious solicitude,—they do not conceive that it confers upon any Maritime
Power rights over the open ocean which that Power could not assert on other grounds.
The claim of the United States to prevent the exercise of the seal fishery by
other nations in Behring's Sea rests now exclusively upon the interest which by
purchase they possess in a Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander I. in the year 1821,
which prohibits foreign vessels from approaching within 100 Italian miles of the
coasts and islands then belonging to Russia in Behring's Sea. It is not, as I understand, contended that the Russian Government, at the time of the issue of this
Ukase, possessed any inherent right to enforce such a prohibition, or acquired by the act
of issuing it any claims over the open sea beyond the territorial limit of 3 miles, which
they would not otherwise have possessed. But it is said that this prohibition, worthless
in itself, acquired validity and force against the British Government because that
Government can be shown to have accepted its provisions. The Ukase was a mere
usurpation; but it is said that it was converted into a valid international law, as against
the British Government, by the admission of that Government itself.
I am not concerned to dispute the contention that an invalid claim may, as
against another Government, acquire a validity which in its inception it did not possess,
if it is formally or effectively accepted by that Government. But the vital question for
decision is whether any other Government, and especially whether the Government of
Great Britain, has ever accepted the claim put forward in this Ukase. Our contention is,
that not only can it not be shown that the Government of Great Britain, at any time since
1821, has admitted the soundness of the pretension put forward by that Ukase, but
that it can be shown that it has categorically denied it on more than one occasion. On
the 18th January, 1822, four months after the issue of the Ukase, Lord Londonderry,
then British Foreign Secretary, wrote in the following terms to Count Lieven, the
Russian Ambassador in London:—
"Upon the subject of this Ukase generally, and especially upon the two main
principles of claim laid down therein, viz., an exclusive sovereignty alleged to belong
to Russia over the territories therein described, as also the exclusive right of navigating
and trading within the maritime limits therein set forth, His Britannic Majesty must be
understood as hereby reserving all his rights, not being prepared to admit that
the intercourse which is allowed on the face of this instrument to have hitherto
subsisted on those coasts and in those seas can be deemed to be illicit; or that
the ships of friendly Powers, even supposing an unqualified sovereignty was proved to
appertain to the Imperial Crown, in these vast and very imperfectly occupied territories,
could, by the acknowledged law of nations, be excluded from navigating within the
distance of 100 Italian miles, as therein laid down, from the coast."
On the 17th October in the same year the Duke of Wellington, Ambassador
at Verona, addressed to Count Nesselrode a note containing the following words:—
" Objecting, as we do, to this claim of exclusive sovereignty on the part of Russia,
I might save myself the trouble of discussing the particular mode of its exercise as
[95] 0 88
r-
set forth in this Ukase. But w,e object to the sovereignty proposed to be exercised und,er
this Ukase not less than we do to the claim of it. We cannot admit the right of flny
Power possessing the sovereignty of a country to exclude the vessels of others from
the seas on its coasts to the distance of 100 Italian 4$<les."
Again, on the 28th November, 1822, the Duke of Wellington addressed a note to
Count Lieven containing the following words:—
" The second ground on which we object to the Ukase is that His Imperial Majesty
thereby excludes from a certain considerable extent of the open sea vessels of other
nations. We contend that the assumption of this power is contrary to the law of
nations; and we cannot found a negotiation upon a paper in which it is again broadly
asserted. We contend that no Power whatever can exclude another from the use of
the open sea; a Power can exclude itself from the navigation of a certain coast, sea, &c,
by its own act or engagement, hut it cannot bj right be excluded by another. This we
consider as the law of nations; and we cannot negotiate upon a paper in which a right
is asserted inconsistent with this principle."
It is evident, therefore, that so far as diplomatic representation went, the King's
•Government of that date took every step which it was in their power to take, in order
to make it clear to the Russian Government that Great Britain did not accept the
.claim to exclude her subjects for 100 miles distance from the coast, which had been put
forward in the Ukase of 1821.
Mr. Blaine does not deal with these protests, which appear to Her Majesty's
Government to be in themselves amply sufficient to decide the question, whether Great
Britain did or did not acquiesce in the Russian claim put forward by the Ukase. He
confines himself mainly, in the despatch under consideration, to the consideration of
the Treaties which were subsequently made between Great Britain and Russia and
America and Russia in the year 1825; and especially of that between Russia and
Great Britain. This Treaty, of which the text is printed at the close of Mr. Blaine's
despatch, does not contain a word to signify the acquiescence of Great Britain in the
claim recently put forward by Russia to control the waters of the sea for 100 miles
from her coast. There is no stipulation upon which this interpretation can be imposed
hy any process of construction whatsoever. But there is a provision having in our
judgment a totally opposite tendency, which indeed was intended to negative the extravagant claim that had recently been made on the part of Russia; and it is upon tins
provision that the main part of Mr. Blaine's argument, as I understand it, is founded.
The stipulation to which I refer is contained in the 1st Article, and runs as follows:—
" Article I. It is agreed^ tijal the respective subjects pf the $igh Contracting
Parties shall not be troubled or unvested in any part of the flpeap, conunppjy palled tjjp
Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, ip fishing therein, pr in landing at s.ucj|
parts of the coast as. shall not feaye been already occup;e(J» ip order to trade with the
natives, under the restrictions and conditions specified ip the following Aj$ples."
I understand Mr. Blapie's argumept to be that if Great Britain had jptepdpd tp
protest against the claim of Russia to exclude sbms for 100 mjles from her coasts/ ip
Behring's Sea, she would have taken this opportunity of doing so; hflt that jp copfjnjpg
herself to stipulations in favour of full liberty of navigation and fishing in any part of
the ocean, commonly called the Pacific Oceap, she, by implication, renounced apy claim
that could arise out of the same set of circumstances in regard to apy sea that was not
part of the Pacific Ocean. And then Mr. Blaine goes on to contend that the phrase
" Pacific Ocean " did not and does not include Behnng's Sea.
Even if this latter contention were correct, I should earnestly demur to the
conclusion that our inherent rights to free passage and free fishing over a vast extent of
ocean could be effectively renounced by mere reticence or omission. The right is
one of which we could not be deprived unless we consented to abandon it, and that
consent could not be sufficiently inferred from our negotiators having omitted to mention
the subject upon one particular occasion.
But I am not prepared to admit the justice of Mr. Blaine's contention that the
words "Pacific Ocean" did not include Behring's Sea. I believe that in common
parlance, then and now, Behring's Sea was and is part of the Pacific Ocean; and that
the latter words were used in order to give the fullest and widest scope possible to.the
claim which the British negotiators were solemnly recording of a right freehr to navigate
and fish in every part of it, and throughout its entire extent.   In proof of the argument 89
tha#the wordtf"Pacific Ocean" do not include Behring's Sea,Mr. Blaine adduces along'
list of Maps in which a designation distinct from that of " Pacific Ocean " is given to
Behring's Sea; either "Behring's Sea," or "Sea of Kamschatka" or the "Sea of
Anadirl" The argument will hardly have any force unless it is applicable with equal
truth to all the other oceans of the world. But no one will dispute that the Bay of
Biscay forms part of the Atlantic Ocean, or that the Gulf of Lyons forms part of the
Mediterranean Sea; and yet in most Map3 it will be found that to those portions of
the larger sea a separate designation has been given. The question whether by the
Words "Pacific Ocean" the negotiators meant to include or to exclude Behring's Sea
depends upon which locution was esteemed to be the correct usage at the time. The
date is not a distant one, and there is no ground for suggesting that the usage has
changed since the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 was signed. The determination of
this point will be most satisfactorily ascertained by consulting the ordinary books of
reterence. I append to this despatch a list of some thirty works of this class, of various
dates from 1795 downwards, and printed in various countries, which combine to show
that, in customary parlance, the words " Pacific Ocean " do include Behring's Sea.
If, then, in ordinary language, the Pacific Ocean is used as a phrase including the
whole sea from Behring's Straits to the Antarctic Circle, it follows that the 1st Article
of the Treaty of 1825 did secure to Great Britain in the fullest manner the freedom of
navigation and fishing in Behring's Sea. In that case no inference, however indirect or
circuitous, can be drawn from any omission in the language of that instrument to show-
that Great Britain acquiesced in the usurpation which the Ukase of 1821 had attempted.
The other documents which 1 have quoted sufficiently establish that she not only did not
acquiesce in it, but repudiated it more than once in plain and unequivocal terms; and
as the claim made by the Ukase has no strength or validity except what it might derive
from the assent of any Power whom it might affect, it results that Russia has never
acquired by the Ukase any right to curtail the natural liberty of Her Majesty's subjects
to" navigate or fish in these seas anywhere outside territorial waters. And what Russia
did not herself possess she was not able to transmit to the United States.
Her Majesty's Government have, in view of these considerations, no doubt whatever
that British subjects enjoy the same rights in Behring's Sea which belong to them in
every other portion of the open ocean; but it is, nevertheless, a matter of sincere
satisfaction that the President is willing to refer to arbitration what he conceives to be
the matters which have been under discussion between the two Governments for the last
four years. In regard to the questions as they are proposed by Mr. Blaine, I should
say that as to the first and second, no objection will be offered by Her Majesty's
Government.    They are as follows:—
"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 time 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?hy Great Britain ?"
The third question is expressed in the following terms: " 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 given or conceded to Great Britain by the said Treaty ?"
Her Majesty's Government would have no objection to referring to arbitration the
first part of that question, if it should be thought desirable to do so; but they would
give that' consent with the reservation that they do not admit that the decision of it
can conclude the larger questions which the Arbitrator would hate to determine. To
the latter part of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception:—
"What rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea were given or conceded to Great
Britain by the said Treaty 1"
Great Britain has never suggested that any rights were given to her or conceded to
her by the said Treaty. All that was done was to recognize her natural right of free
navigation and fishing in that as in all other parts of the Pacific Ocean. Russia did not
give those rights to Great Britain, because they were never hers to give away.
" 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in
Behring's Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between the United States and
[95] 0 2 TJMHBir
Russia of the 30th March, 186
Treaty ? "
90
pass unimpaired to the United States under that
This fourth question is hardly worth referring to an Arbitrator, as Great Britain
would be prepared to accept it without dispute.
The fifth proposed question runs as follows:—
" 5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the
waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such rights
grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held by her in
such fisheries or in the waters of Behring's Sea, or out of the owpership of the breeding
islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their young thereon,
and going out from the islands for food, or out of any other fact or incident connected
with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the United
States ?"
The first clause, " What are now the rights of the United States as to the far-seal
fisheries in the waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits ? " is
a question which would be very properly referred to the decision of an Arbitrator. But
the subsequent clause, which assumes that such rights could have grown out of the
ownership of the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thereto,
involves an assumption as to the prescriptions of international law at the present time to
which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accede. The sixth question, which
deals with the issues that will arise in case the controversy should be decided in favour of
Great Britain, would perhaps more fitly form the substance of a separate reference.
Her Majesty's Government have no objection to refer the general question of a close
time to arbitration, or to ascertain by that means how far the enactment of such a
provision is necessary for the preservation of the seal species; but any such reference
ought not to contain words appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the
matter to the United States.
There is one omission in'these questions which I have no doubt the Government of
the President will be very glad to repair; and that is the reference to the Arbitrator of
the question, what damages are due to the persons who have been injured, in case it
shall be determined by him that the action of the United States in seizing British vessels
has been without warrant in international law. Subject to these reservations, Her
Majesty's Government will have great satisfaction in joining with the Government of the
United States in seeking by means of arbitration an adjustment of the international
questions which have so long formed a matter of controversy between the two Governments.
I have to request that you will read this despatch to Mr. Blaine, and leave a copy of
it with him should he desire it.
I am, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.
APPENDIX.
Malliam, John.
"Xaval Gazetted,"
1795.
Brookes, R.
" General Gazetteer."
1802.
Montefiore.    '■'■ Commercial'Dictionary,"
1803.
** Geographical
Dictionary."   London,
1804.
Cruttv/ell, C. "New
Universal Gazetteer."
1808.
MangnaU. B.    "Compendium of Geography."    1815.
Galletti, J. G. A.
" Geographisches
"Wdrterbuch."
Pesth, 1822.
Kamschatka Sea, is a large branch of the Oriental or North Pacific Ocean.
Beering's Straits, which is the passage from the North Pacific Ocean to the Arctic Sea.
Beering's Island.   An island in the Pacific Ocean.   [Behring's Island is in Behring's Sea.]
Kamschatka.   Bounded east and south hy Pacific.
Kamtschatka.   Bounded on the north hy the country of the Koriacs, on the east and south hy
the North Pacific Ocean, and on the west hy the Sea of Okotsk
Beering's Island.   In the North Pacific Ocean.
Beering's Island.   An island in the North Pacific Ocean.
Kamtchatka.   Elver, which runs into the North Pacific Ocean.
Kamtchatka.    Pensinsula, hounded on the east and south hy the North Pacific Ocean.
Islands in the Eastern or Great Pacific Ocean: Bkering's Isle.
Stilles Meer.    Vom  5  nordl.  Br. an bis zur Beringsstrasse aufwarts stets heftige  Sturme,
[Behring's Strait is at the northern extremity of Behring's Sea.] 91
Behring s Island.   An island in the North Pacific Ocean. "Edinburgh Ga
zetteer," Edition 1822
vol. i, p. 432.
Beering's Island.   In the North Pacific Ocean. "General Gazetteer."
° London, 1823.
Beering's Island.   In the Pacific. "New London Uni
versal Gazetteer."
1826.
Mer Pacifique.   II s'etend du nord au sud depuis le Cercle Polaire Arctique, c'est-a-dire, depuis " Dictionnaire Geo-
le Detroit de Behring, qui le fait communiquer a l'Ocean Glacial Austral. m™*™Universe1'"
Stilles Meer.   Vom 30 siidlicher Breite his zum 5 nSrdlicher Breite verdient es durch seine Sete, Dr. j. c.
Heiterkeit und Stille den namen des Stillen Meers; von da an bis zur Beringsstrasse ist es heftigen stntlsIsches'riMd-
Stiirmen unterworfen. worterbuch."
Halberstadt, 1829.
" Penny National
Library: Geography
and Gazetteer."  1830.
Beering's Island.   In the North Pacific Ocean.
Arrowsmith.
" Grammar of Modern
Geography."    1832.
Bhering's Strait connects the Frozen Ocean with the Pacific.
The Anadir flows into the Pacific Ocean.
The principal gulfs of Asiatic Russia are: the Gulf of Anadir, near Bhering's Strait; the Sea of
Penjina, and the Gulf of Okhotsk, between Kamtchatka and the mainland of Russia—all three in the
Pacific Ocean.
L'Ocean Pacifique Boreal s'etend depuis le Detroit de Behring jusqu'au tropique de Cancer. "Precis de la Geo-
graphie Universelle,"
par Malte-Brun, vol. ii,
p. 181, Edition 1835.
Le Detroit de Behring.   A commencer par ce d&roit, le Grand Oc^an (ou Oc^an Pacifique) forme Ditto, vol. vffi, p. 4.
la limite orientale de l'Asie.
Behring (Detroit celebre).   II joint l'Ocean Glacial Arctique au Grand Ocean. Langfaii.   "Diction
naire de Geographic"
1838.
The Pacific Ocean.   Its boundary-line is pretty well determined by the adjacent continents, •• Penny Cyclopedia,"
which approach one another towards.the north, and at Behring's Strait which separates them, are only *840.
about 36 miles apart   This strait maybe considered as closing the Pacific on the north.
Behring (Detroit de) a l'extre'mite' nord-est de l'Asie, separe ce Continent de PAmerique et " Dictionnaire Uni.
l'Ocean Glacial Arctique de l'Ocean Pacifique. J?™*1 d'h^?ire ** de
Behring (Mer de), partie de l'Ocean Pacifique. M. N^Botdilet**
Paris, 1842.
Behring (Detroit de).    Canal de l'ocean .... unissant les eaux de l'Ocean Pacifique a celles de "Dictionnaire Geo-
l'Ocean AlCtique. graphique et Stetis-
1 tique,   par Adrien
Guibert.  Paris, 1850.
Pacific Ocean.   Between longitude 70° west and 110° east, that is for a space of over 180°—it " The New American
covers the greater part of the earth's surface, from Behring's Straits to the Polar Circle, that separates Cyclopedia," edited
it from the Antarctic Ocean. Mass ***
New Yoik, 1861.
Behring (Detroit de).   Canal du Grand Ocean unissant les eaux de l'Ocean Pacifique a celles de "Grand Dictionnaire
l'Ocean Glacial Arctique. "* Geographie Uni-
verselle," par
M. Bescherelle Aine.
4 vols.   1855.
Behring's Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamtchatka, is that portion of the North Pacific " imperial Gazetteer,"!
Ocean lying between the Aleutian Islands and Behring's Strait. 1865>
Behring's Island.   An island in the North Pacific Ocean. Pullarton's "Gazetteer
of the World."   1866.
Behring's Strait, which connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean, is formed by the approach "Cydoptediaof Geo. 1
of the Continents of America and Asia. graphy," by Charles
Knight.   1866.
Pacific Ocean.   Its extreme southern limit is the Antarctic Circle, from which it stretches McCnlloch's" Geo.
northward through 132 degrees of latitude to Behring's Strait, which separates it from the Arctic graphical Dictionary,"]
Ocean. edited by F. Martin.
1800.
Behring (Detroit de).   Canal ou bras de mer unissant les eaux de l'Ocean Glacial Arctique & " Grand Dictionnaire 1
celles de l'Ocean Pacifique. Universel," par
M. Pierre Labousse.
Paris, 1867.
Behring's Strait.   The narrow sea between the north-east part of Asia and the north-west part " Encyclopaedia
of North America, connecting the North Pacific with the Arctic Ocean. Britannica," 1875.
Bering (Detroit de).   Passage qui unit l'Ocean Glacial Arctique au Grand .Ocean. St-Mattk.   "Nou. |
veau Dictionnaire de
Geographie Universelle."    Paris,
1879.
Behring Sea, or Sea of Kamchatka, is that part of the North Pacific Ocean between the Aleutian Lippincottfs "Ga-
Islands in latitude 55° north and Behring Strait in latitude 66° north, by which latter it communicates *etteer of the Worid.'*J
with the Arctic Ocean. Philadelphia, 1880. SSBSSKSS
mmssm&mm
Bryce and Johnston,
" Cyclopeedia of Geography."    London
and Glasgow, 1880,
Brockhaus' "Conversations Lex icon."
Leipzig, 1882.
Bitter's "Geographisobr
Statistisch Lexicon."
Leipzig, 188%
" Pocket Encyclo-
[ psedia."   Sampson
Low, 1888..
Chambers' " Encyelo-
ptedia," 1888.
Blackie's "Modern
Cyclopaedia," 1888
Edition.
92
Behring, or Bhering.   A strait, sea, island, aiidtbay, North Pacific Oceans
Bering's Meer.   Der nordostlichste Teil des Stillen Ocean's.
Beringsstrasse.   Meerenge das nordostlichste Eismeer mit dem Stillen Ocean verbindend.
Behring's Sea.   North-east part of the Pacific between Asiaand America.
Behring Strait connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean.
Behring Sea.   A part of the Pacific Ocean, commonly known as the Sea of Kamchatka.
Behring's Strait, connecting the North Pacific wish the Arctic Ocean.
Behring's Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamchatka, is that portion of the North Pacific Ocean
lying between the Aleutian Islands and Behring's Strait
In support of his argument that the term "Pacific Ocean" was not understood at the-time aa
including Behring's Sea, Mr. Blaine has quoted a note which, it appears, was presented by*-the
Russian Minister at Washington after the ratification of the Treaty of the 5th (17th) April, 1824,
between the United States and Russia.
In this note Baron Tuyl stated 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 were positively
excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipulated in favour of United States'
citizens for ten years." The rights alluded to could not be those contained in the 1st Article of the
Treaty, which is unlimited in duration, but those of frequenting the interior seas, harbours, and creeks
conferred by Article IV.
Baron Tuyl grounded this construction of the Treaty on the argument that " the coasts of Siberia
are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by the South Sea
mentioned in the 1st Allele of the Convention," and that " the Aleutian Islands were also washed by
the Sea of Kamsehatka or Northern Ocean."
He added that " it was not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Pacifio
Ocean, and that 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 vessel could approach her coasts and
islands, nor fish or hunt within the distance of 2 marine leagues."*
Mr. Adams, on being shown the draft of the note, stated to Baron Tuyl that, if it were' presented,
he should return an answer to the effect that " the construction of Treaties depending here upon the
Judiciary Tribunals, the Executive Government, even if disposed to acquiesce in that of the Russian
Government, as announced by him (Baron Tuyl), could not be [? make it] binding upon the Courts"
or upon this nation." He went on to say that it would be much better not to present the note, as
the United States' merchants would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of Siberia or north
of the 6vth degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such fancies into their heads}*'
The incident, therefore, shows nothing material to the present issue except thatthe''Russiarr-
Minister attempted in a note, which has hitherto been kept secret, to argue that Behring's Sea was
not a part of the South Sea (a term winch is not employed in the British Treaty), anfl^fcttt^Ml^ASlamB
stated that, even if the United States' Government were disposed to acquies£eiHM'thi!o*view? they1
could not bind the nation or the Courts to it.
On the other hand, the Regulations of 1881, under which the American schooners " Eliza " and
" Henrietta" were seized by the Russian authorities, are headed:—
" Notice of Order relative to Commerce on Russian Pacific- Coast:—
" Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Sibeiiajtforeignvessels
are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c, on the Russian coasts or islands in the
Okhotsk and Behring's Seas; or on the north-eastern coast of Asia, oir-within;,th§irf sear boundaiyi-lhi§.''
(Memorandum in Mr. Lothrop's despatch to Mr. Bayard of the 7th Mar^ 1882: Ex@e. Doc.
Ng>,106, 50gi Congress, 2nd Session, p. 271.)
M. de Giers, in*his,subsequent note of the 8th May, 1882, speaks of these -Regulations as " a ndtice
published by our Consul at Yokohama relative to fishing, hunting, and to trade in the- Russian wateru-
of the Pacific."    (Ibid., p. 262.)
Mr. Frelinghuysen also speaks of the matter as "touching the Pacific coast fisheries."
(Ibid., p. 258.)
* It does not appear, however, that the proposed limit of 2 leagues was observed or enforced, for in 1868 the Russian Minister
for Foreign Affairs, explaining the treatment of the American sealer "Java" in the Sea of Okhotsk, writes:—
" Considering that foreign sealers are forbidden by the laws ih force to fish in the Russian -gulfs and bays at tt distance less
than 3 miles from the shore."   (Mi 'vVestmann to Mri Clay, 31st July, 1868, E*. Doc. No. 106)'Mtn'tJong*eOTy'2n*Sies*slDir/'-
* 253.)  'rfrWfMH
S 6
S   *
s»
^
Vs
^
^ ft
cr. n
EP
►q 5
ex?
00
on
CO
OS
00
CO
Ms
171
18i
M<
181
Di
18
Ui
18
Mi
gr.
TV
Pe

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcbooks.1-0222371/manifest

Comment

Related Items