{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0222498":{"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierAIP":[{"value":"5ad4b8d0-30be-4910-8344-8c806a43853e","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"CONTENTdm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isReferencedBy":[{"value":"http:\/\/resolve.library.ubc.ca\/cgi-bin\/catsearch?bid=1561644","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"British Columbia Historical Books Collection","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Behring Sea arbitration","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Great Britain","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2015-05-08","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"[1893?]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description":[{"value":"\"At head of title of v. 2-3: Behring Sea arbitration.\" -- Lowther, B. J., & Laing, M. (1968). A bibliography of British Columbia: Laying the foundations, 1849-1899. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria, p. 116.","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/collections\/bcbooks\/items\/1.0222498\/source.json","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/extent":[{"value":"iii, 161, 60 pages : tables ; 33 cm","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/elements\/1.1\/format":[{"value":"application\/pdf","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":" THE LIBRARY\nTHE UNIVERSITY OF\nBRITISH COLUMBIA\n. (zftoecwip.\nU\"<*J\ndoe'*y. \/r. crcoetwu'\n to- \/3>5\/\n 1\n\/Sl\\3M\n \\j A. fe Ju\nPBESENTED ON THE PAET OF THE\nGOVERNMENT OP HEE BRITANNIC MAJESTY\nTO THE\nTRIBUNAL OE ARBITRATION\n\u00ab5\nCONSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE I OE THE TREATY CONCLUDED AT\n1 WASHINGTON ON THE 29th EEBRUARY, 1892,\nBETWEEU\nHER BRITANNIC MAJESTY AND THE UNITED\nSTATES OE AMERICA.\nC 1 I j\nI lss5l\nIt contains also some general propositions which that Government believes to be\nin accordance with the established principles of International Law, and upon which it\nintends to rely.\nThe Case is arranged as follows :\u2014\nChapter I, Head (A).\nChapter II, Head (B).\nChapter III, Head (C).\nChapter IV, Head (D).\nChapter V, Head (E>\nChapter VI, Head (F).\nChapter VII, Head (G).\nChapter VIII.\nChapter IX.\nChapter X.\nSchedule of Claims.\nIntroductory Statement and Outline of Argument..\nArrangement of Case and Heads of Argument\nThe User, up to the year 1821, of the Waters of Behring Sea and\nother Waters of the North Pacific\nThe Ukase of 1821, and the circumstances connected therewith leading\nup to the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 .. .. .. ..\nThe question whether the body of Water now known as Behring\nSea is included in the phrase \u00ab Pacific Ocean,\" as used in the\nTreaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia\nThe User of the Waters in question from 1821 to 1867 .. ..\nWhat rights passed to the United States under the Treaty of 30th\nMarch, 1867 .. .. .. .. .. ..\nThe action of the United States and Russia from 1867 to 1886 ..\nVarious contentions of the United States since the year 1886\nHas the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of protection\nor property in the Fur-Seals frequenting the Islands of the United\nStates in Behring Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit ? .. .. .. .. ..\nGeneral Conclusions upon the whole Case .. \u2022 \u2022 ..\nRecapitulation of Argument .. *. \u00ab\u2022 .. \u2022 \u2022\nConclusion .. .. .. \u00bb. .. ... .*\nStatement of Claims for compensation from the United States' Government on account of the seizures of British Canadian Sealers in\nthe Behring Sea during the years 1886, 1887, 1889, and 1890.\nPages\n1-9\n9-12 ,\n13-36\n37-58\n59-76\n77-90.\n91-102\n103-120\n121-134\n135-140\n141-157\n158-160\n161\nI\n GENERAL CONTENTS.\nIll\nThe Appendix to the Case consists of Four Volumes, the Contents of which are\nas follows:\u2014\nVol. I. Miscellaneous Documents quoted in the Case.\nVol. II. Part 1. Selections from Correspondence between Great Britain and Russia, 1821-1825.\nPart 2. Selections from Correspondence between the United States and Russia, 1822-\n1887.\nPart 3. Treaties: Russia and United States, 1824; Great Britain and Russia, 1825;\nRussia and United States, 1867.\nVol. III. Correspondence respecting the Behrin^ Sea Seal Fisheries. Papers presented to the\nBritish Parliament. Treaty and Convention between Great Britain and the United\nStates of February 29 and April 18, 1892.\nVol. IV. Part 1. Map of the North-West Coasts of America, and the Aleutian and Kurile\nIslands, published in the Quartermaster-General's Department, St. Petersburg, 1802.\nPart 2. Map of the Northern Portion of the North Pacific Ocean.\n\u2014.\n iltimtUMsmmam\n Introductory Statement.\nSeizures of British ships.\nCase presented on behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty to the\nTribunal of Arbitration.\nINTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.\nTHE differences between Great Britain and\nthe United States of America, the subject of this\nArbitration, arise out of claims by the United\nStates of America to prevent and interfere\nwith British vessels fishing in the waters of\nBehring Sea other than the territorial waters\nthereof.\nPrior to the year 1886 British vessels had, in\ncommon with the vessels of the United States\nand those of other nations, navigated and fished\nin the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea\nwithout interference.\nIn 1886 the British schooner I Thornton \" was\narrested when fishing 70 miles south-east of\nSt. George Island, the nearest land.\nThe vessel was libelled in the United States'\nDistrict Court of Alaska by the District Attorney,\nthe charge formulated being that the vessel was\n\"found engaged in killing fur-seals within the\nHmits of Alaska Territory and in the waters\nthereof, in violation of Section 1956 of the\nRevised Statutes of the United States.\"\nThe vessel was condemned, and the master\nand mate were imprisoned and fined.\nThe British schooners I Carolena \" and \" Onward\" were seized about the same time\nwhen fishing under similar circumstances, and\nwere sxibsequently condemned by the District\nCourt.\n[644] B\nill:\n\u25a0m\n The Judge (in summing up the case of the soth Cong., 2nd\n\" Thornton\") ruled that the Law above men- I^d^No. 106,\nmentioned applied to all the waters of Behring pp-120-130.\nG 1 * laoo * +1 \u2022+ a Blue Book\u00bbUnited\nSea east 01 193 of west longitude. states, No. 2,1890,\nCertain other vessels were also subsequently PP-2;19' 3,9-\nj See Appendix,\nseized in non-territorial waters, and the fishing of voi. iii.\nBritish vessels was interfered with under the\ncircumstances hereinafter stated.\nGreat Britain protested against this action\non the part of the United States, and negotiations took place, which eventually resulted\nin the Treaty and Convention entered into at\nWashington on \u00a3he 29th February and the 18th\nApril, 1892. W f|\nThe Treaty is as follows :\u2014\n\"Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of\nGreat Britain and Ireland and the United States of\nAmerica, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of the questions which have arisen between their\nrespective Governments concerning the jurisdictional rights\nof the United States in^the waters of Behring Sea, and\nconcerning also the preservation of the fur-seal in or\nhabitually resorting to the said sea, and the rights of the\ncitizens and subjects of either country as regards the\ntaking of fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said\nwaters, have resolved to submit to arbitration the questions\ninvolved, and to the end of concluding a Convention for\nthat purpose have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries :\n\"Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of\nGreat Britain and Ireland, Sir Julian Pauncefote, G.C.M.G-.,\n.K.C.B., Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister\nPlenipotentiary to the United States; and the President of\nthe United States of America, James G. Blaine, Secretary\nof State of the United States ;\nI Who, after having communicated to each other their\nrespective Full Powers, which were found to be in due and\nproper form, have agreed to and concluded the following\nArticles:\u2014\n\"ARTICLE I.\n\" The questions which have arisen between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of\nthe United States concerning the jurisdictional rights of\nthe United States in the waters of Behring Sea, and concerning also the preservation of the fur-seal in or habitually\nresorting to the said sea, and the rights of the citizens and\nsubjects of either country as regards the taking of fur-seal\nin or habitually resorting to the said waters, shall be submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration, to be composed of\nseven Arbitrators, who shall be appointed in the following\nmanner, that is to say: two shall be named by Her\nBritannic Majesty; two shall be named by the President\nTreaty of 1892.\n\u2022Jt\nfti \u25a0i'^ft - -yuj.'fT^;\n Treaty of 1892.\nof the United States; his Excellency the President of the\nPrench Republic shall be jointly requested by the High\nContracting Parties to name one; His Majesty the King\nof Italy shaU be so requested to name one; and His\nMajesty the King of Sweden and Norway shall be so\nrequested to name one. The seven Arbitrators to be so\nnamed shall be jurists of distinguished reputation in their\nrespective countries: and the selecting Powers shall be\nrequested to choose, if possible, jurists who are acquainted\nwith the English language.\n1 In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of\nany or either of the said Arbitrators, or in the event of\nany or either of the said Arbitrators omitting or declining\nor ceasing to act as such, Her Britannic Majesty, or the\nPresident of the United States, or his Excellency the\nPresident of the French Republic, or His Majesty the King\nof Italy, or His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway,\nas the case may be, shall name, or shall be requested to\nname forthwith, another person to act as Arbitrator in the\nplace and stead of the Arbitrator originally named by such\nhead of a State.\nI And in the event of the refusal or omission for two\nmonths after receipt of the joint request from the High\nContracting Parties of his Excellency the President of\nthe French Republic, or His Majesty the King of Italy,\nor His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, to\nname an Arbitrator, either to fill the original appointment or to fill a vacancy as above provided, then in such\ncase the appointment shall be made or the vacancy shall\nbe filled in such manner as the High Contracting Parties\nshall agree.\n\"ARTICLE II.\n\"The Arbitrators shall meet at Paris within twenty\ndays after the delivery of the counter-cases mentioned in\nArticle IV, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to\nexamine and decide the questions that have been or shall\nbe laid before them as herein provided on the part of the\nGovernments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United\nStates respectively. All questions considered by the\nTribunal, including the final decision, shall be determined\nby a majority of all the Arbitrators.\n\" Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name\none person to attend the Tribunal as its Agent to represent\nit generally in all matters connected with the arbitration.\n| ARTICLE III.\n\"The printed Case of each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and\nother evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered in\nduplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of\nthe other party as soon as may be after the appointment\nof the members of the Tribunal, but within a period not\nexceeding four months from the date of the exchange of\nthe ratifications of this Treaty.\nmm*\n 4\n1*\n\"ARTICLE IV.\n\" Within three months after the delivery on both sides\nof the printed Case, either party may, in like manner,\ndeliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to\nthe Agent of the other party, a counter-case, and additional\ndocuments, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the\ncase, documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented\nby the other party.\n\"If, however, in consequence of the distance of the\nplace from which the evidence to be presented is to be\nprocured, either party shall, within thirty days after the\nreceipt by its Agent of the case of the other party, give\nnotice to the other party that it requires additional time\nfor the delivery of such counter-case, documents, correspondence, tnd evidence, such additional time so indicated,\nbu\u00a3 not exceeding sixty days beyond the three months in\nthis Article provided, shall be allowed.\n\" If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either party\nshall have specified or alluded to any Report or document\nin its own exclusive possession, without annexing a copy,\nsuch party shall be bound, if the other party thinks\nproper to apply for it, to furnish that party with a copy\nthereof; and either party may call upon the other, through\nthe Arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies\nof any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance\nDLGftice thereof within thirty days after delivery of the\nCase; and the original or copy so requested shall be\ndelivered as soon as may be, and within a period not\nexceeding forty days after receipt of notice.\nTreaty of 1892.\n\"ARTICLE V.\n\"It shall be the duty of the Agent of each party,\nwithin one month after the expiration of the time limited\nfor the delivery of the counter-case on both sides, to\ndeliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to\nthe Agent of the other party a printed argument showing\nthe points and referring to the evidence upon which his\nGovernment relies, and either party may also support the\nsame before the Arbitrators by oral argument of counsel;\nand the Arbitrators may, if they desire further elucidation\nwith regard to any point, require a vpritten or printed\nstatement or argument, or oral argument by counsel, upon\nit; but in such case the other party shall be entitled to\nreply either orally or in writing, as the case may be.\nARTICLE VL\n\" In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators,\nit is agreed that the following five points shall be submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace a\ndistinct decision upon each of said five points, to\nwit:\u2014\n\" 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known\nas the Behring Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal-\nfisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up\nto the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States ?\nQuestions for the decision of the Tribunal.\nA\u00abWWi*l\n Treaty of-1892\n| 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the\nseal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain ?\n3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring\nSea included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean\/ as used\nin the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;\nand what rights, if any, in the Behring Sea, were held and\nexclusively exercised by Russia after said Treaty ?\nf' 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction,\nand as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the water\nboundary, in the Treaty between the United States and\nRussia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the\n\u2022United States under that Treaty ?\n| 5. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what\nright, of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting\nthe islands of the United States in Behring Sea when such\nseals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?\n\"ARTICLE VII.\n\" If the determination of the foregoing questions as to\nthe exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall leave\nthe subject in such position that the concurrence of Great\nBritain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations\nfor the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal\nin, or habitually resorting to, the Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations,\noutside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over what waters such Regulations should extend, and to aid them in that determination,\nthe Report of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the\nrespective Governments, shall be laid before them, with\nsuch other evidence as either Government may submit.\n\"The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to\nco-operate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to\nsuch Regulations.\n\"ARTICLE VIII.\n1 The High Contracting Parties having found themselves\nunable to agree upon a reference which shall include the\nquestion of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to\nhave been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in\nconnection with the claims presented and urged by it;\nand, being solicitous that this subordinate question should\nnot interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of the main questions, do agree that either may\nsubmit to the Arbitrators any question of fact involved in\nsaid claims, and ask for a finding thereon, the question of\nthe liability of either Government upon the facts found to\nbe the subject of further negotiation.\nIH . \"ARTICLE IX. |\"' V\n| The High Contracting Parties having agreed to appoint\ntwo Commissioners on the part of each Government to\nmake the joint investigation and Report contemplated in\nthe preceding Article VII, and to include the terms of the\n[644] C\nIt\nm+m.jm\nmnsviTC.\n 6\nsaid Agreement in the present Convention, to the end\nthat the joint and several Reports and recommendations of\nsaid Commissioners may be in due form submitted to the\nArbitrators, should the contingency therefor arise, the said\nAgreement is accordingly herein included as follows:\u2014\n\" Each Government shall appoint two Commissioners to\ninvestigate, conjointly with the Commissioners of the\nother Government, all the facts having relation to seal life\nin Behring Sea, and the measures necessary for its proper\nprotection and preservation.\n\" The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be\nable to agree, make a joint Report to each of the two\nGovernments, and they shall also report, either jointly or\nseverally, to each Government on any points upon which\nthey may be unable to agree. *\n\" These Reports shall not be made public until they\nshall be submitted to the Arbitrators, or it shall appear\nthat the contingency of their being used by the Arbitrators\ncannot arise.\n\"ARTICLE X.\n\"Each Government shall pay the expenses of its\nmembers of the Joint Commission in the investigation\nreferred to in the preceding Article.\n\"ARTICLE XL\n\" The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made\nwithin three months from the close of the argument on\nboth sides.\n\" It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be\nsigned by the Arbitrators who may assent to it.\n\" The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof\nshall be delivered to the Agent of Great Britain for his\nGovernment, and the other copy shall be delivered to the\nAgent of the United States for his Government.\n\" ARTICLE XII,\n\" Each Government shall pay its own Agent, and provide for the proper remuneration of the counsel employed\nby it and of the Arbitrators appointed by it, and for the \u2022\nexpense of preparing and submitting its case to the\nTribunal All other expenses connected with the Arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal\nmoieties.\n\"ARTICLE XIIL.\n\" The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their\nproceedings, and may appoint and employ the necessary\nofficers to assist them.\n\"ARTICLE XIV.\n\" The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the\nresult of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as\nTreaty of 1892.\n-L-a &lNfc\nW.\n a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the questions\nreferred to the Arbitrators.\n\"ARTICLE XV.\n\"The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her\nBritannic Majesty and by the President of the United\nStates of America, by and with the advice and consent of\nthe Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged\neither at Washington or at London within six months\nfrom the date hereof, or earlier if possible.\n\" In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries,\nhave signed this Treaty, and have hereunto affixed our\nseals.\n\"Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 29th day of\nFebruary, 1892.\n(L.S.) 1 JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.\n(L.S.) \"JAMES'G. BLAINE.\"\nOutline of Argument.\nOutline of Argument.\nThe general outline of the argument submitted\nto the Tribunal of Arbitration on behalf of\nGreat Britain will be as follows:\u2014\nThat JBehring Sea, as to which the question\narises, is an open sea in which all nations of the\nworld have the right to navigate and fish, and\nthat the rights of navigation and fishing cannot\nbe taken away or restricted by the mere declaration\nor claim of any one or more nations; they are\nnatural rights, and exist to their full extent\nunless specifically modified, controlled, or limited\nby Treaty.\nThat no mere non-user or absence of exercise\nhas any effect upon, nor can it in any way impair\nor limit such rights of nations in the open seas.\nThey are common rights of all mankind.\nIn support of these principles, which are\nclearly established, and have never been seriously\ndisputed by jurists, authorities will he cited.\nThat in accordance with these principles, and\nin the exercise of these rights, the subjects and\nvessels of various nations did from the earliest\ntimes visit, explore, navigate, and trade in the\nsea in question, and that the exercise of these\nnatural rights continued without any attempted\ninterference or control hy Russia down to the\nyear 182L\nis\nwmmmrj'\n 1\n8\nThat in 1821 when Russia did attempt by\nUkase, i.e., by formal declaration, to close to\nother nations, the waters of a great part of the\nPacific Ocean (including Behring Sea) Great\nBritain and the United States immediately protested against any such attempted interference,\nmaintaining the absolute right of nations to\nnavigate and fish in the non-territorial waters of\nBehring Sea and other non-territorial waters of\nthe Pacific Ocean. Both countries asserted\nthat these rights were common national rights,\nand could not be taken away, or limited by\nUkase, Proclamation, or Declaration, or otherwise\nthan by Treaty.\nThat in the years 1824 and 1825, in consequence of these protests, Russia unconditionally\nwithdrew her pretensions\/and concluded Treaties\nwith the United States and with Great Britain\nwhich recognized the rights common to the\nsubjects of those countries to navigate and fish\nin the non-territorial waters of the seas over\nwhich Russia had attempted to assert such\npretensions.\nThat from the date of such Treaties down to\nthe year 1867, (in which year a portion of the\nterritories which had been referred to in and\naffected by the Ukase of Russia in the year 1821,\nwas purchased by and ceded to the United States),\nthe vessels of several nations continued, year by\nyear, in largely increasing numbers, to navigate,\ntrade, and fish in the waters of Behring Sea, and\nthat during the whole of that period of nearly\nfifty years there is no trace of any attempt on\nthe part of Russia to reassert\" or claim any\ndominion or jurisdiction over the non-territorial\nwaters of that sea, hut, on the contrary, the title\nof aU nations to navigate, fish, and exercise aR\ncommon rights therein was fully recognized.\nThat on the purchase and acquisition of Alaska\nby the United States in the year 1867, the United\nStates were fully aware and recognized that\nthe rights of other nations to navigate and fish\nin the non-territorial waters adjacent to their\nnewly-acquired territory, existed in their full\nnatural state, unimpaired and unlimited by any\nTreaty or bargain whatever.\nThat, from the year 1867 down to the year\n1886, the United States, while they lawfully and\nproperly controlled and legislated for the shores\nand territorial waters of their newly-acquired\nOutline of Argument.\nMfctittftiifi\n Outline of Argument\nterritory, did not attempt to restrict or interfere\nwith the rights of other nations to navigate and\nfish in the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea\nor other parts of the Pacific Ocean.\nThat, under changed conditions of territorial\nownership, and in view of certain new circumstances which had arisen in consequence of the\ngrowth of the industry of pelagic sealing in non-\nterritorial waters, the United States reverted, in\nthe first instance, to certain claims based upon\nthose of the Russian Ukase of 1821, which the\nUnited States, together with Great Britain, had\nsuccessfully contested at the time of their promulgation ; but in the course of the discussions\nwhich have arisen, these exceptional claims to\nthe control of non-territorial waters were dropped,\nand in their place various unprecedented and\nindefinite claims put forward, which appear to\nbe based upon an alleged property in fur-seals\nas such.\nFinally, that while Great Britain has from the\nfirst strenuously and consistently opposed\nall the foregoing exceptional pretensions and\nclaims, she has throughout been favourably disposed to the adoption of general measures of\ncontrol of the fur-seal fishery, should these be\nfound to be necessary or desirable with a view\nto the protection of the fur-seals, provided that\nsuch measures be equitable and framed on just\ngrounds of common interest, and that the\nadhesion of other Powers be secured, as a\nguarantea of their continued and impartial\nexecution.\n1\nArrangement of Case.\nArrangement of Case.\nIt will be convenient to state the arrangement\nand order of the Case here presented on behalf\nof Great Britain.\nArticle VI. The first three points of Article VI are as\nfoUows:\u2014\n11. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known\nas the Behring Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal\nfisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and\nup to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United\nStates ?\n\" 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the\nseal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain ?\n[644] D\n11\ntmem\nJfe\n ^MMMMIHMiMitilpiil!\n10\n\" 3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring\nSea included in the phrase \\ Pacific Ocean\/ as used in the\nTreaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and\nwhat rights, if any, in the Behring Sea, were held and\nexclusively exercised by Russia after said Treaty ?\"\nArrangement of Case.\nIt is proposed in the first instance to deal with\nthese points, which relate to the original claims\nby Prussia to certain rights in Behring Sea, and\nthe action of Great Britain respecting these\nclaims.\nThe questions therein raised will be considered\nunder the following heads:\u2014\n(A.) The user up to the year 1821 of Behring Chapter i.\nT-f pan \\\nSea and other waters of the North Pacific.\n(B.) The Ukase of 1821 and the circumstances Chapter n.\nconnected therewith leading up to the Treaties of\n1824 and 1825.\nHeads of Argument.\n(C.) The question whether the body of water Chapter in.\nnow known as Behring Sea is included in the\nphrase \" Pacific Ocean,\" as used in the Treaty of\n1825 between Great Britain and Russia.\n(I).) The user of the waters in question from Chapter IV.\n1821 to 1367.\nHead D.\nIt is then proposed to consider point 4 of\nArticle VI, which is as follows :\u2014\n\" 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction\nand as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the\nwater boundary, in the Treaty between the United States\nand Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired \u00abto\nthe United States under that Treaty ?\"\nThis point will be considered under the following heads:\u2014\n(E.) What rights passed to the United States Chapter v.\nunder the Treaty of Cession of March 30, 1867. Head K\n(P.) The action of the United States and Chapter VI,\nRussia from 1867 to 1886. Head F'\n(G.) The various contentions advanced by the Chapter VII.\nUnited States since the year 1886.\nPoint 5 of Article VI is as follows:\u2014\n\" 5. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what Chapter VIII\nright, of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting Article VI, Point 5,\n Arrangement of .Case\nthe islands of the United States in Behring Sea when such\nseals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit ?\"\nThis will be briefly considered, but the proposition which appears to be embodied in this\nquestion is of a character so unprecedented that,\nin view of the absence of any precise definition,\nit is impossible to discuss it at length at the\npresent time. It will, however, be treated\nin the light of such official statement^ as\nhave heretofore been made on the part of the\nUnited States, its discussion in detail being\nnecessarily reserved till such time as the\nUnited States may produce the evidence or\nallegations upon which it relies in advancing\nsuch a claim.\n3\nArticle VII.\nArticle VIII.\nArticle VII is as follows :\u2014\n\" If the determination of the foregoing questions as to\nthe exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall leave\nthe subject in such position that the concurrence of Great\nBritain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations\nfor the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal\nin, or habitually resorting to, the Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations\noutside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over what waters such Regula-.\ntions should extend, and to aid them in that-determination,\nthe Report of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the\nrespective Governments, shall be laid before them, with\nsuch other evidence as either Government may submit.\n\"\u2022The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to\nco operate in securing the adhesion of other Powers to\nsuch Regulations.\"\nThe terms of this Article make it necessary\nthat the consideration of any proposed Regulations should be postponed until the decision\nof the Tribunal has been given on the previous\nquestions.\nBeyond, therefore, demonstrating that the\nconcurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the\nestablishment of any Regulations which have for\ntheir object the limitation or control of the\nrights of British subjects in regard to seal fishing\nin non-territorial'waters, it is not proposed to\ndiscuss the question of the proposed Regulations,\nor the nature of the evidence which will be\nsubmitted to the Tribunal.\nWith regard to the points raised under\nArticle VIII (which refer to questions arising\nm\n out of claims for damages), it will be contended\non behalf of Great Britain that the seizure of the\nships was unlawful, and the Arbitrators will he\nasked to find that in each case the seizure took\nplace in non-territorial waters, that such seizures\nwere made with the authoritv and on behalf of\nthe Government of the United States, and that\nthe amounts of damages which Great Britain is\nentitled to claim on behalf of the owners,\nmasters, and crews are the respective amounts\nstated in the Schedule of particulars appended\nto this Case.\nArrangement of Case.\n 13\nUser of Waters up to 1821\nArea to be considered.\n\"Pacific Ocean.\"\nBehring Sea.\"\nChapter I.\nHead (A).\u2014The User, up to the year 1821, of the\nWaters of Behring Sea and other Waters of the\nNorth Pacific.\nIt is shown in the following series of historical\nnotes, chronologically arranged, that the waters\nsubsequently included in the claim made by\nRussia under the Ukase of 1821, had been freelv\nnavigated over, and frequented for purposes of\ntrade and for other purposes, by ships of various\nnations, from the earliest times. Further, that\nthe discovery and exploration of these waters\nand the coasts and islands washed by them, was\nlargely due to the navigators of various nations,\nand in particular to those of Great Britain.\nThe waters affected by the Russian Ukases of\n1799 and 1821* include not only the entire area\nof Behring Sea (though that sea is not specifically\nmentioned by any name in either Ukase), but\nalso other parts of the Pacific Ocean, and in\nconsidering the nature of the user of the waters\nnow in question, the entire area affected by the\nUkase of 1821 is included, the facts relating to\nall parts of this area being of equal significance.\nIt will be noted in this connection that the\nlimit claimed under the Ukase extended southward to the 51st parallel of north latitude on the\nAmerican coast; and that, therefore, any events\noccurring to the north of 54\u00b0 40', which is the\nsouthernmost point of the territory now known\nas Alaska, are well within this limit.\nThe Pacific Ocean as a whole, was, in the last\ncentury and in the earlier part of the present\ncentury, variously named the Pacific, or Great\nOcean or South Sea, the last name arising from\nthe circumstance that it had been reached by\nsailing southward round the Cape of Good Hope\nor Cape Horn.\nBehring Sea is, and was at the time of the\nnegotiations which arose immediately on the\npromulgation of the Ukase of 1821, recognized\nby geographers as a part of the Pacific Ocean.\nin ..kupji i'\n* The text of the Ukase of 1799 will he found at p. 25 of this\nCase; that of the Ukase of 1821 at p. 37.\n[644]\nE\nHS\n 14\nThe name by which it is now known is that of\nthe navigator Behring, but in earlier times it\nwas often named the Sea of Kamtchatka.\nThis sea washes the northern parts of the\ncoasts of North America and of Asia, and is\nregarded as extending from Behring Strait on\nthe north to the Aleutian and Commander\nIslands on the south. Its area is at least\ntwo-thirds of that of the Mediterranean, and\nmore than twice that of the North Sea, while\nits extreme width is 1,260 miles. Prom north to\nsouth it extends over about 14 degrees of\nlatitude, or more than 800 miles.\nProm the south it is approached by numei ous\nopen sea-ways, one of which is 175 miles wide,\nanother 95 miles, five more from 55 to 22 miles,\nand very many of smaller width.\nOn the north, it communicates with the Arctic\nOcean by Behring Strait, 48 miles in width.\nBehring Sea is the common highway to the\nArctic Ocean with its valuable fisheries. It\nis Great Britain's highway to her possessions\nin the north via the Yukon River, (of which the\nfree navigation is guaranteed by Treaty), as well Treaty of\nas the route for such communication as may be May 8,1871,\nheld or attempted with the northern parts of the Artlcle XXVI-\ncoasts of North America to the east of Alaska,\nand with the estuary of the great Mackenzie\nRiver.\nDescription of Behring Sea.\nHistorical Outline.\nIn 1728 and 1729, Behring, in his first expedition, outlined, somewhat vaguely, the Asiatic\ncoast of Behring Sea, and practically proved ^^^ Hl8g\u00b07r-*\nthe separation of the Asiatic and American\ncontinents.\nIn 1741, Behring's second expedition, which ibid., pp. 63-74.\nsailed from Okhotsk, resulted in the discovery of\nthe American coast.\nUnsatisfactory as the voyages of Behring and\nhis associate Chirikof undoubtedly were from a\ngeographical point of view, it was upon their\nresults that Russia chiefly based her subsequent\nHistorical Outline.\n174L\n* This work will be referred to throughout these pages by the\nshort title of \" Alaska.\"\nFor the period discussed in this Chapter reference may be\nmade generally to \" Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States\/'\n2nd edition, Boston, 1828, vol. ii, chapter II.\nS^JL\n*\u00bb\u25a0\u25a0 ^fc^:\nJ\n 1741.\n1768.\n1769.\npretensions to the ownership of the north-western\npart of North America.\nHunters and traders followed Behring's lead,\nand Behring Island, and various islands of the\nAleutian chain, were visited from the Kam-\ntchatkan coast.\nAlaska, p. 141. In 1763, Glottof, on a trading voyage, ventured\nas far east as Kadiak Island.\nIbid., pp. 157,158. In 1764 to 1768, Synd, a Lieutenant of the\nRussian navy, made an expedition along the\ncoast to Behrrns' Strait,\nOf the period from 1769 to 1779, Bancroft\nwrites in his History of Alaska:\u2014\nI From this time to the visit of Captain Cook, single\ntraders and small Companies continued the traffic with the\nislands in much the same manner as before, though a\ngeneral tendency to consolidation was perceptible.\"\nIbid., p. 174.\n1774.\n1775.\n1778.\nCook, Voyage to\nthe Pacific Ocean,\n1776-17S0,\nLondon. 1874.\nIbid., pp. 194-197. The extension of Russian influence did not\npass unnoticed by- Spain, and in 1774 Perez was\ndispatched from Mexico on a voyage of exploration, in which he reached the southern part of\nAlaska.\nIbid., p. 197. In 1775, Heceta,' also instructed by the\nViceroy of Mexico, explored the coast of\nAmerica as far north as the 57th or 58th degree\nof latitude, taking possession of that part of the\ncontinent in the name of Spain.\nIn 1778, Captain Cook, sent by the English\nGovernment, reached the American coast of the\nNorth Pacific with two vessels.\nIn pursuance of his instructions, he explored\nthe coast from about 44\u00b0 of north latitude as far\nas the region of Prince William Sound and Cook\nRiver or Inlet, taking possession of the coasts\nthere. At Cook Inlet he found evidence of\nRussian trade but no Russians. At Unalaska,\none of the Aleutian Islands, he again heard of\nthe Russians, and on the occasion of a second\nvisit met Russian traders. Prom Unalaska he\nsailed eastward to Bristol Bay, landing and\ntaking possession. Prom this he explored, and\ndefined the position of the American coast\nnorthward as far as Icy Cape, beyond Behring1\nStrait.\nCook was killed in the following winter at the\nSandwich Islands, but his ships, under Clarke-\nreturned in 1779 and made further explorations\nin Behring Sea and in the Arctic Ocean.\nUnder this expedition, and for the first time, the-\nas*\nMW \u2014\nva\n:#\n 16\nmain outlines of the north-western part of the\nContinent of America, and particularly those of\nthe coast about Prince William Sound and Cook\nInlet, with the eastern coast of Behring Sea,\nwere correctly traced.\nI This expedition also opened up the trade by\nsea in furs from the north-western part of\nAmerica to China.\nCook's surveys still remain in many cases the\nmost authentic; and these, with other results of\nthe expedition were published in full in 1784.\nIn 1779, another officially accredited Spanish\nexpedition under Arteaga and Quadra, explored\npart of the coast northward from about latitude 55\u00b0, and westward to Mount St. Elias.\nIn 1783, the first attempt was made, following\nCook's discoveries, to establish a Russian trading\npost on the American mainland, at Prince\nWilliam Sound. It ended disastrously.\nPor some years after this reverse only one\nsmall vessel was dispatched from Siberia for\ntrading purposes; but in 1784, Shelikof visited\nUnalaska and reached Kadiak Island, with the\nintention of effecting a permanent occupation\nthere.\nIn 1785, Captain Hanna entered into the\ntrade between the north-west coast of America\nand China, for which Captain Cook's expedition had shown the way. He made a second\nvoyage in the following year, but appears to\nhave conihtfvi hi; trading operations to the\nvicinity of the northern part of Vancouver\nIsland. Other commercial adventurers were,\nhowever, practically contemporaneous with\nHanna, and this year is an important one in\nconnection with the whole region.\nThe \" Captain Cook\" and | Experiment,\"from\nBombay, traded at Nootka and at Prince WiUiam\nSound.\nAn English vessel, the \"Lark,\" Captain .Peters,\nfrom Bengal via Malacca and Canton, after\ntrading at Petropaulovsk in Kamtchatka, sailed\nfor Copper Island with the supposed purpose, as\nalleged, of obtaining a cargo of copper there.\nShe was wrecked on the Commander Islands.\nIn the same year, 1786, Portlock and Dixon,\nand Meares* arrived upon the American coast,\nand traded and explored far to the northward.\nAlaska, pp. 217-\n22 1\nIbid., p. 186.\nIbid., p. 191.\nIbid., p. 224.\nBancroft, History\nof the North-west\nCoast, vol. I,\npp. 173, 174.*\nAlaska, p. 243.\nSauer's account of\nBilling's expedition,\nLondon, 1802,\npp. 279, 281.\n1778.\n1779.\n1783.\n1785.\n1786\u20141789.\n* This work will be referred to throughout these pages by tne\nshort title of \u00ab North-west Coast.\"\n\u00a7\n^wjT'jjaagww.\n 1786-17891\n'A Voyage round\nthe World. &c,\"\nLondon, 1789.\nThese voyages are important, because detailed\naccounts of both were published, in 1789 and\n1790 respectively, while the voyages of other\ntraders have generally not been recorded.\nPortlock and Dixon, who had sailed from\nLondon in 1785 in the \" King George | and\n| Queen Charlotte,\" in 1786, first visited Cook\nInlet, where they found a party of Russians\nencamped, but with no fixed establishment*\nTrade was carried on with the natives there,\nand subsequently at various other places on what\nis now the Alaskan coast, and several harbours\nwere surveyed. In the following year, Portlock\nand Dixon returned to the vicinitv of Prince\nWilliam Sound, where they found Meares, who\nhad spent the previous winter there. They\nsubsequently called at a number of places on the\nAlaskan coast, as well as at ports now included\nin the coast line of British Columbia, making\nvery substantial additions to geographical\nknowledge.\nMeares' voyages Meares sailing from Bengal in the | Nootka |\n\"Annual Register,\" early in the year, reached the Islands of Atka\nand Amlia of the Aleutian chain, staying\np. 287.\n1786.\nAlaska, p. 255.\ntwo days at the last-named island, and holding\ncommunication with the natives and Russians\nfound there. He then proceeded eastward\nalong the Aleutian Islands, and was piloted\ninto Unalaska by a Russian who came off to\nthe ship. He describes the Russian establishment as consisting of underground huts like\nthose occupied by the natives; but being\nanxious to leave the vicinity of the Russian\ntraders, he continued his vovaere eastward to\nCook Inlet and eventually wintered in Prince\nWilliam Sound, as above stated.\nMeares' later voyage, in 1788 and 1789,\nwhich is better known than his first venture, was\ndirected to that part of the coast lying to the\nsouthward of the limits afterwards included by\nthe Ukase of 1799. In 1788, Meares built at\nNootka, in the northern part of Vancouver\nIsland, the first vessel ever constructed on the\ncoast of the north-western part of American\nShe was intended for use in the fur trade,\nand was appropriately named the \"North-West\nAmerica.\"\nAlso in 1786, La Perouse, on his voyage round\nthe world, under instructions of the Prench\nGovernment, first made the American land near\n[644] ' I j\u00a7 P\n\u25a0\n\u25a0mm\n 18\n1\nMount*St. Elias. Thence he sailed eastward and\nsouthward, calling at places on the Alaskan\ncoast. At Lituya Bay he obtained in trade Alaska, p. 243.\n1,000 sea-otter skins.\nIn the same year the Russian Pribyloff iMd., pp. 192-193.\ndiscovered the islands in Behring Sea, now\nknown by his name.\nIn 1788, a. Spanish expedition, in the vessels Ibid., pp. 270-272.\n\"Princesa\" and \"San Carlos,\" under Martinez\nand Haro, set out. It visited Prince William\nSound, but found no Russians. Haro, however,\nfound a Russian colony at Three Saints, on\nKadiak Island. This was the easternmost place\nwhich had at this time a permanent Russian\nsettlement. The voyagers took possession of\nUnalaska for Spain, but afterwards found Russian\ntraders on the island.\nIn the same year, a Russian vessel explored Ibid., pp. 267-270.\nPrince William Sound, Yakutat, and Lituya\nBays, aU of which had previously been examined\nby English or Prench voyagers.\nIn 1788, vessels from the United States first North-west Coast,\ntraded on the north-west coast. vo . i, p.\nUpon the conflict of interests at this time along\nthis part of the American coast, and the rival\nclaims to territory there, Bancroft makes the\nfollowing remarks:\u2014\n1786.\n1788.\n1788.\ns&s-.\n\" The events of 1787-88 must have been puzzling to the Alaska, p. 267.\nnatives of Prince William Sound. Englishmen under the\nEnglish flag, Englishmen under the Portuguese flag,\nSpaniards and Russians, were cruizing about, often within\na few miles of each other, taking possession, for one nation\nor the other of all the land in sight.\"\nReferring to Billing's Russian scientific exploring expedition, by which several voyages\nwere made from 1787 to 1791 in the Behring\nSea region, Bancroft says:\u2014\n\" The geographical results may be set down at next to Ibid, p. 296.\nnothing, with the exception of the thorough surveys of\nCaptain \"Bay in Illiuliuk Harbour on Unalaska Island.\nEvery other part of the work had already been done by\nCook.\"\nThe complaints of natives, against the practices\nof independent traders and adventurers, brought\nback by this expedition, had much to do with\nthe subsequent grant of a monopoly of the trade\nto the Russian-American Company.\n 1791.\n1792.\n1793.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, pp. 204-212\nAlaska, p. 273\nIbid., p. 325.\nIbid., p. 285.\nIbid., p. 274.\nIbid., p. 275.\nIbid., p. 248.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, pp. 250-257.\nAlaska, p. 244.\nIn 1789, twelve vessels at least are known to\nhave been trading on the north-west coast.*\nThe well-known \"Nootka\" seizures by the\nSpaniards occurred in this year.\nIn 1790, Pidalgo sailed from Nootka, then\noccupied by Spain, to examine the north-west\ncoast, including Prince William Sound, Cook\nInlet, and Kadiak. The trading-vessel\nI Phoenix,\" Captain Moore, from the East\nIndies, was in Prince William Sound in this\nyear.\nAt this time also, Russia and Sweden being\nat war, a Swedish cruizer visited the Aleutian\nIslands, but finding no Government establishment to attack, and no Russians except traders\nliving \"in abject misery,\" her Commander\nrefrained from disturbing them.\nIn 1791, Malaspina, from Spain, under orders\nof his Government, visited several places upon\nwhat is now the Alaskan coast. Marchand, in\nthe \" Solide,\" from Prance, on a voyage of trade\nand circumnavigation, also visited the coast, and\nDouglas, in the | Iphigenia,\" was in Cook Inlet\nin this year.\nBesides the above vessels, at least eight trading-\nvessels are known to have been on the coast, of\nwhich seven were from the United States.\nIn 1792, Caamano, setting out from Nootka,\nexplored Port Bucarelli, in South-eastern Alaska;\nand it is reported that in this year fully twenty-\neight vessels were upon the coast, at least half of\nthem beins: engaged in the fur trade.\nLO^S'\nVancouver, vol. iii,\np. 498. Voyage of\nDiscovery to the\nPacific Ocean.\nLondon, 1798.\nAlaska, p. 296.\nVancouver's\nvoyage.\nVancouver gives a list of 21 vessels for the\nsame year, divided as follows: Prom England, 6;\nfrom East Indies, 2; from China, 3; from United\nStates, 7 ; from Portugal, 2 ; from Prance, 1.\nThe \"Halcyon,\" Captain Barclay, visited Petro-\npaulovsk for purposes of trade, and a Prench\nvessel, U La Plavia,\" wintered there.\nIn 1793, Vancouver, who had been dispatched\nby the English Government with the \"Discovery\" and \"Chatham\" for the purpose of\n* In many cases no records exist of the trading voyages made\nto the north-west coast, and the existing records are very incomplete. It is in some cases certainly known that these traders;\nextended their operations to the north of the limit mentioned in\nthe Ukase of 1799, or that of the Ukase of 1821. In other cases\nthe extent of the voyages made is unknown. The traders went.\nin fact, wherever skins could be purchased, and, if disappointed\nor forestalled at one place, at once departed for another. None\nof these trading-vessels were Russian.\n1\nnmn\nmmmmmm\n&\n 20\nfinally deciding the existence or otherwise of a\ncommunication between the Pacific and Atlantic,\nhy the exploration of all remaining inlets on the\nnorth-west coast, was occupied in surveying\no-perations on what now constitutes the southeastern Alaskan coast.\nIn 1794, he surveyed Cook Inlet to its head, Vancouver's\nand Prince William Sound, Kadiak, and the v\u00b0yage#\ncoast extending to Yakutat Bay, were in turn\ncarefuUy lai$. down in detail. He ascertained\nthat the easternmost Russian Establishment at\nthis time was at Port Etches on Prince William\nSound.\nConcerning the Russians here and there met Ibid., vol. iii,\n1793.\n179\n*\u00b1.\nwith, Vancouver remarks that he-\np. 199.\n%\n\" Clearly understood that the Russian Government had\nlittle to do with these Settlements^ that they were solely\nunder the direction and support of independent mercantile\nCompanies ISTot the least attention whatever is\npaid to the cultivation of the land or to any other object\nbut that of collecting furs, which is principally done by\nthe Indians.\"\nNear Yakutat Bay he fell in with the \"Jackal,\"\nan English trading-vessel, which was then upon\nthe coast for the third consecutive season; and\nfarther to the south-eastward he met with the\n\"Arthur,\" Captain Barber, from Bengal.\nVancouver took possession of the coast southward from Cross Sound (latitude 58\u00b0) in the\nname of Great Britain. The results of his\nsurveys were published in 1798.\nThe names of four trading-vessels on the North-west Coast,\nnorth-west coast, including the \" Jackal,\" are ' '\nknown for this vear.\nIn 1795,a trading-vessel, named the \"Phoenix,\" Ibid., p. 304.\nfrom Bengal, was on the north-west coast.\nIn 1796, at least three trading-vessels are known Ibid., p. 305.\nto have been on the north-west coast.\nIn 1797, the names of four trading-vessels on Ibid., p. 306.\nthis coast are known, but these constituted\nprobably but a smaU part of the fleet.\nIn 1798, the names of six trading-vessels happen Ibid., vol. i, p. 306.\nto have been recorded.\nIn 1799, the \" Caroline,\" Captain Cleveland,\nfrom Boston, arrived at Sitka shortly after a\nRussian post had \"been established there.\nSeveral other American vessels, among them Alaska, p. 389.\nthe brig \" Eliza,\" under Captain Rowan, visited\nSitka during the summer and \" absorbed the trade\n1795.\n1796.\n1797.\n1798.\n1799\n North-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 307.\n1798-1801,\nAlaska, p. 384.\nwhile the Russians were preparing to occupy the\nfield in the future.\"\nThe names of seven vessels trading on the\nnorth-west coast are recorded in this year.\nNothing approaching to a complete record of\nthe names or nationalities of vessels trading upon\nthis part of the coast in the years about the close\nof the last century can now be obtained, and, in\nthe absence of any published record of explorations, even incidental allusions to the presence of\nsuch traders become rare in the years after the date\nof Vancouver's departure. That such trade was,\nhowever, continuously practised is evident from\nthe general complaints made by the Russians as to\nits effect on their operations.\nThe following quotations from Bancroft's\n\"History of Alaska\" allude to complaints\nreferring particularly to these years.\nWriting of the enterprises of Baranoff, Governor\nof Sitka, Bancroft says :\u2014\nI \"At every point eastward of Kadiak where he had\nendeavoured to open trade, he found himself forestalled by\nEnglish and American ships, which had raised the prices of\nskins almost beyond his limited means.\"\nIbid., p. 395;\nAgain, referring specially to the nascent\nEstablishment at Sitka, Baranoff himself\nwrites:\u2014\n\" I thought there would be no danger with proper protection from the larger vessels, though the natives there\npossess large quantities of fire-arms and all kinds of\nammunition, receiving new supplies annually from the\nEnglish and from the Republicans of Boston and America,\nwhose object is not permanent settlement on these shores,\nbut who have been in the habit of making trading trips to\nthese regions.\"\nI\nIbid., p. 398.\nIbid., p. 399.\nOn another page Bancroft writes :\u2014\n\" Baranoff's complaints of foreign encroachment appear\nto have been well grounded. Within a few leagues of\nSitka the captains of three Boston ships secured 2,000\nskins, though paying very high prices, each one trying to\noutbid the other.\"\nFurther on Baranoff is quoted to the effect\nthat the Americans had been acquainted with the\ntribes in this region for two or three years, and\nsent there annually from six to eight vessels.\nThese vessels from the United States were at\nthis time just beginning to supplant the English\ntraders, who had in earlier years been the more\nnumerous.\n[644]\nG\nas\njjwcwfaa\nf\nJL M\n mm$mk\u00bbSitmmk\n22\nOnce more Bancroft quotes Baranoff as\nfollows:\u2014\n| The resources of this region are such that millions Alaska, p. 399.\nmay be made there for our country with proper management in the future, but for over ten years from six to ten\nEnglish and American vessels have called here every year.\nIt is safe to calculate an average of 2.000 skins on eight, .\nor say six vessels, which would make 12,000 a-year, and\nif We even take 10,000 as a minimum, it would amount in\nten years to 100,000 skins, which, at the price at Canton\nof 45 roubles per skin, would amount to 4,500,000\nroubles.\"\nCircumstances which led up to Ukase of 1799.\nIt Will be convenient at this point to consider\nthe circumstances which led up to the Ukase of\n1799, the terms of that Ukase, and its effect.\nAs early as 1786, the idea had become dominant Alaska, p. 305.\nwith Grigor Shelikof, who had shortly before\nestablished the first permanent Prussian'colony at\nKadiak, of creating a Company which should\nhold a monopoly of trade in the Russian possessions on the Pacific, and over all that part of the\nAmerican Continent to which Russian traders\nresorted. Shelikof obtained but a partial success\nin the Charter issued for the United American\nCompany; hut after his death at Irkutsk in 1795, ibid., pp. 377-379.\nhis schemes were taken up by his son-in-law\nRezanof, who succeeded in carrying them to completion, and, in 1799, a Ukase was issued which\ngranted the wished-for exclusive privileges to\nthe new Russian-American Company. Before\nthis time, in 1798, a consolidation of the Shelikof\nCompany with several smaller concerns had\nbeen effected under the name of the United\nAmerican Company; and at the date of the\nissuing of the Ukase there were but two rival\nCompanies of importance in the field, the Shelikof\nor United American Company, and the Lebedef\nCompany, and these engaged in active competition and hostility.\nBancroft sums up the situation about 1791 and\n1792 in the foUowing words:\u2014\n\" Affairs were assuming a serious aspect. Not only were Ibid., pp. 338.\nthe Shelikof men excluded from the greater part of the 39-\ninlet [Cook Inlet], but they were opposed in their advance\nround Prince \"William Sound, which was also claimed by\nthe Lebedef faction, though the Orekhof and other Companies were hunting there ....\nCircumstances which led up to Ukase\nof 1799.\n^\u25a0-\u25a0-\u25a0-\u25a0\u25a0^3 V-\n_Ki- idK\n Circumstances which led up to Ukase\nof 1799.\nAlaska, p. 321.\nIbid., pp. 302, 391,\n393.\nIbid., p. 301.\nIbid., p. 299.\n\u00a7 Thus the history of Cook Inlet during the last decade\nof the eighteenth century is replete with romantic incidents\u2014midnight raids, ambuscades, and open warfare\u2014\nresembling the doings of mediaeval raubritters, rather than\nthe exploits of peaceable traders . .\nRobbery and brutal outrages continued to be the\norder of the day, though now committed chiefly for\nthe purpose of obtaining sole control of the inlet, to the\nneglect of legitimate pursuits.\"\nAgain, in another place, the same author\nwrites, with regard especially to the position of\nBaranoff, Governor of Sitka, when he took charge\nof the Shelikof Colony of Kadiak :\u2014\n1 Thus, on every side, rival establishments and traders\nwere draining the country of the valuable staple upon\nwhich rested the very existence of the scheme of colonization. To the east and north there were Russians, but to\nthe south-east the ships of Englishmen, Americans, and\nFrenchmen were already traversing the tortuous channels\nof the Alexander Archipelago, reaping rich harvests of sea-\notter skins, in the very region where Baranoff had decided to\nextend Russian dominion in connection with Company\nsway.\"\nIt was only in the later years of the competition between the rival Russian Companies\nthat they began to assume hostile attitudes to\none another. The growing power of some of\nthem favoured aggression, and the increasing\nscarcity of the sea-otter, which was already\nbeginning to be felt, accentuated it. At first,\nand for many years after Behring's initial voyage,\nthe traders from Siberia were sufficiently occupied\nin turning to advantage their dealings with the\nnatives of the islands and coasts visited by them,\nand this not in the most scrupulous manner.\nTribute in furs was exacted from the Aleuts on\nvarious pretexts, and whenever the traders came\nin sufficient force these people were virtually enslaved. Not only were the companies of traders\nunder no sufficient or recognized control by the\nRussian Government, but they even disliked and-\nresented in some measure the advent or presence\namong\" them of commissioned officers of the\nGovernment.\nThe effect of the reports of the subordinate\nmembers of Billings' expedition, as to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the Aleutian Islands\nand on the American coast, tended to favour\nthe project of the establishment of a monopoly,\nby disclosing the abuses which existed by reason\nof the existing competition. Bancroft more than\nhints that the superior officers of the expedition\n\u25a0MR\nHP\n 2-i\nwere induced to keep silence from interested\nmotives; and Billing's Report, whatever its\ntenour may have been, was never published.\nIn the end, however, it became in a degree\nimperative for the Russian Government to put\na stop to the scandals and abuses which\nflourished in this remote and practically uncontrolled portion of the Empire, and the easiest\nway in which this could be done, and the least\nexpensive, was to vest exclusive rights in the\nhands of the most powerful of the existing rival\nCompanies. This, being also in the interests of\nthe Company in question, was not found difficult\nof achievement, and, as a consequence of the\nUkase of 1799, the absorption of the smaller\nconcerns still existing appears to have followed\nwithout any great difficulty, Baranoff, as the\nexecutive head of the new Corporation on the\nAmerican coast, coming to the front as the\nnatural leader.\nWhen Shelikof presented at St. Petersburg his Alaska, p. 308.\noriginal petition for the right to monopolize the\ntrade, a Report was requested on the subject\nfrom Jacobi, the Governor-General of Eastern\nSiberia, and in Jacobi, Shelikof found an able\nadvocate. Jacobi stated that it would be only\njust to Shelikof to grant his request, and that\nit would be unfair to allow others to enjoy\nthe benefits of the peace which Shelikof had\nestablished at Kadiak.\nThe Empress then ordered the Imperial ibid., p. 309.\nCollege of Commerce to examine the question,\nand a Committee of this body endorsed Jacobi's\nReport and recommended that the request of\nShelikof and Golikof for exclusive privileges\nshould be granted.\nThough, among the arguments naturally advanced in favour of the, grant of a monopoly,\nwe find it urged that the benefits of trade\naccruing would thus be reserved to Russian subjects, the history of the occupation of the coasts\nand the records concerning it, show conclusively\nthat this was not the object which to any great\nextent induced Shelikof to apply for such a\nmonopoly. His Company had the utmost difficulty in sustaining its position against hostile\nnatives, while not less serious were the difficulties\narising from the competition, and scarcely veiled\nhostility of rival Russian traders. The increasing\ntrade by foreigners, together with the numerous\nexploring and surveying expeditions dispatched\nCircumstances which led up to Ukase\nof 1799,\nA\n Circumstances which led up to\nUkase of 1799.\nto the north-west coast of America by various\nPowers, were no doubt distrusted by the Russian\ntraders; but at the same time these traders were\noften obliged to depend on such foreigners for\nsupport and assistance.\nNowhere in the annals of the times previous\nto, and during the operation of the Ukase of\n1799, do we find any reference to attempts\nto interfere with or restrict the operations of\nforeigners upon the American coasts or in the\nAleutian Islands. Even the scientific expeditions\nof the period were often largely interested in\ntrade as well as in exploration, but all vessels\nmeeting with the Russians report a favourable,\nif not a hospitable, reception.\nSuch an attitude on the part of the traders\nand the Company is, in fact, strictly in accord\nwith the Ukase of 1799, which is purely domestic\nin its character, and in which no exclusive rights\nagainst foreigners are asserted.\nText of Ukase of 1799.\nAlaska, pp. 379-\n380.\nUkase of 1799.\nThe following is a literal translation of the\nUkase in question, taken from Golovnin, in\n\"Materialui dla Istoriy Russkikh Zasseleniy,\"\ni, 77-80:\u2014 I . ;^^S\n\"By the grace of a merciful God, we, Paul I, Emperor\nand Autocrat of All the Russias, &c. To the Russian-\nAmerican Company, under our highest protection, the\nbenefits and advantages resulting to our Empire from\nthe hunting and trading carried on by our loyal subjects in the north-eastern seas and along the coasts of\nAmerica have attracted our Royal attention and consideration ; therefore, having taken under our immediate protection a Company organized for the above-named purpose of\ncarrying on hunting and trading, we allow it to assume\nthe appellation of | Bussian-American Company under our\nhighest protection;' and for the purpose of aiding the\nCompany in its enterprises, we allow the Commanders of\nour land and sea forces to employ said forces in the\nCompany's aid if occasion requires it, while for further\nrelief and assistance of said Company, and having examined\ntheir Rules and Regulations, we hereby declare it to be\nour highest Imperial will to grant to this Company for a\nperiod of twenty years the following rights and privileges :\u2014\n\" 1. By the right of discovery in past times by Russian\nnavigators of the north-eastern part of America, beginning\nfrom the 55th degree of north latitude and of the chain of\nislands extending from Kamschatka to the north to\nAmerica and southward to Japan, and by right of possession of the same by Russia, we most graciously permit\nthe Company to have the use of all hunting grounds and\n[644]\nn\nnmem Jm\n 26\nestablishments now existing on the north-eastern [sic] coast\n\"of America, from the above-mentioned 55th degree to\nBehring Strait, and on the same also on the Aleutian,\nKurile, and other islands situated in the north-eastern\nocean.\n\"2. To make new discoveries not only north of the\n55th. degree of north latitude but farther to the south,\nand to occupy the new lands discovered, as Russian possessions, according to prescribed rules, if they bave not\nbeen previously occupied by any other nation, or been\nI dependent on another nation.\n\" 3. To use and profit by everything which has been or\nshall be discovered in those localities, on the surface and\nin the bosom of the earth, without any competition by\nothers.\n\" 4. We most graciously permit this Company to establish Settlements in future times, wherever they are\nwanted, according to their best knowledge and belief, and\nfortify them to insure the safety of the inhabitants, and to\nsend ships to those shores with goods and hunters, without\nany obstacles on the part of the Government.\n\" 5. To extend their navigation to all adjoining nations\nand hold business intercourse with all surrounding Powers,\nupon obtaining their free consent for the purpose, and\nunder our highest protection, to enable them to prosecute\ntheir enterprises with greater force and advantage.\n\"6. To employ for navigation, hunting, and all other\nbusiness, free and unsuspected people, having no illegal\nviews or intentions. In consideration of the distance of\nthe localities where they will be sent, the provincial authorities will grant to all persons sent out as settlers, hunters,\nand in other capacities, passports for seven years. Serfs\nand house-servants will only be employed by the Company\nwith the consent of their land-holders, and Government\ntaxes will be paid for all serfs thus employed.\nf| 7. Though it is forbidden by our highest order to cut\nGovernment timber anywhere without the permission of\nthe College of Admiralty, this Company is hereby permitted, on account of the distance of the Admiralty from\nOkhotsk, when it needs timber for repairs, and occasionally\nfor the construction of new ships, to use freely such timber\nas is required.\n\" 8. For shooting animals, for marine signals, and on all\nunexpected emergencies on the mainland of America and\non the islands, the Company is permitted to buy for cash,\nat cost price, from the Government artillery magazine at\nIrkutsk yearly 40 or 50 pouds of powder, and from the\nNertchinsk mine 200 pouds of lead.\nI 9. If one of the. partners of the Company becomes\nindebted to the Government or to private persons, and is\nnot in a condition to pay them from any other property\nexcept what he holds in the Company, such property\ncannot be seized for the satisfaction of such debts, but the\ndebtor shall not be permitted to use anything but the\ninterest or dividends of such property until the term of\nthe Company's privileges expires, when it will be at his or\nhis creditors' disposal,\n\" 10. The exclusive right most graciously granted to the\nText of Ukase of 1799.\n-ja. <2tat\n Text of Ukase of 1799.\nCompany for a period of twenty years, to use and enjoy*\nin the above-described extent of country and islands, all\nprofits and advantages derived from hunting, trade, industries, and discovery of new lands, prohibiting the enjoyment of those profits and advantages not only to those who\nwould wish to sail to those countries on their own account,\nbut to all former hunters and trappers who have been\nengaged in this trade, and have their,vessels and furs at\nthose places; and other Companies which may have been\nformed will not be allowed to continue their business\nunless they unite with the present Company with their\nfree consent; but such private Companies or traders-as\nhave their vessels in those regions can either sell their\nproperty, or, with the Company's consent, remain until\nthey have obtained a cargo, but no longer than is required\nfor the loading and return of their vessel; and after that\nnobody will have any privileges but this one Company,\nwhich will be protected in the enjoyment of all the advantages mentioned.\ni 11. Under our highest protection, the Bussian-American\nCoaapany will have full control over all above-mentioned\nlocalities, and exercise judicial powers in minor cases.\nThe Company will also be permitted to use all local\nfacilities for fortifications in the defence of the country\nunder their control against foreign attacks. Only partners\nof the Company shall be employed in the administration\nof the new possessions in charge of the Company.\nI In conclusion of this our most gracious order for the\nbenefit of the Russian-American Company \u2022 under highest;\nprotection, we enjoin all our military and civil authorities\nin the above-mentioned localities not only not to prevent\nthem from enjoying to the fullest extent the privileges\ngranted by us,, but in case of need to protect them with all\ntheir power from loss or injury, and to render them, upon\napplication of the Company's authorities, all necessary aicl,\nassistance, and protection.\n1 To give effect to this our most gracious Order, we\nsubscribe it with our own hand, and give orders to confirm\nit with our Imperial seal.\nI Given at St. Petersburgh, in the year after the birth of\nChrist 1799, the 27th day of December, in the fourth year\nm\nof our reign.\n(Signed)\nPaul.\"\nThe Ukase of 1799 considered.\nThe Ukase, it will be observed, granted to the\nRussian-American Company exclusive rights as\nagainst other Russian subjects only, and in no\nway interfered with the rights of foreigners, notwithstanding that the representations which led to\nits promulgation contained, as has already been\nindicated, complaints of competition by foreigners.\nIt will be noticed, for instance, that the details\nincorporated in clause 10 of the Ukase respecting\nthe rights of independent traders are such as to be\napplicable to Russian subjects or Companies alone.\nThe rights and privileges under the grant\nI\ni iw\n . ij#.fr\n28\nextended to the hunting grounds and establishments then existing on the main coast of\nAmerica from Behring Strait down to the\n55th degree of north latitude.\nThe southern limit of the exclusive coast\nprivileges granted to the Company extended on\nthe Asiatic side to Japan.\nNot only were the main coasts of Asia and\nAmerica thus covered by the Ukase, but the same\nprivileges were granted on the Aleutian, Kurile,\nand other islands \" situated in the North Eastern\nOcean.\"\nIt will be noted, therefore, that the area over\nwhich the exclusive privileges were granted to the\nRussian-American Company extended both on\nthe coast of Asia and of America far beyond the\nlimits of Behring Sea.\nSpecial privileges in regard to the purchase of\npowder for shooting animals \"on the mainland of\nAmerica and on the islands \" were conceded, and\nthe exclusive right ** to use and enjoy in the\nabove-described extent of country and islands \"\nthe hunting and trading.\nThe Ukase in no way claimed any exclusive\njurisdiction over the sea, nor were any measures\ntaken under it to restrict the commerce, navigation, or fishery of the subjects of foreign nations,\nand this although, within the very area covered\nby the Ukase, as has already been shown by the\nfacts stated, vessels of various nations had been\nnavigating and trading.\nIt will be seen, by the account of the years\nfoUowing 1799, that these operations on the part\nof foreigners continued.\nReferring to the Ukase of 1799, Mr. Middle-\nton, the United States' Minister at St. Peters-\nburgh, writes, 7th (19th) April, 1824, to\nMr. Adams, the Secretary of State of the United\nStates, as follows :\u2014\n| The confusion prevailing in Europe in 1799 permitted American State\nRussia (who alone seems to have kept her attention fixed ^aPers\u00bb Foreign\nupon this interest during that period) to take a decided p 46j '\nstep towards the monopoly of this trade, by the Ukase of\nthat date, which trespassed upon the acknowledged rights\nof Spain ;* but at that moment the Emperor Paul had\ndeclared war against that country as being an ally of\n* The rights of Spain are here mentioned because, by the\nUkase of 1799, Russia claimed territory which Spain was also\nunderstood to claim. In 1824 the United States was committed\nin its own iaterest to support the old Spanish claim, in consequence of the Spanish cession to the United States in 1819.\nThe Ukase of 1799 purely domestic.\n Prance. This Ukase, which is, in its form, an act purely\ndomestic, was never notified to any foreign State with\ninjunction to respect its provisions. Accordingly, it appears to have been passed over unobserved by foreign\nPowers, and it remained without execution in so far as it\nmilitated against their rights.\"\nHistorical Outline resumed.\n1800\n1801.\n1802.\n1803.\nAlaska, p. 389,,\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 308.\nIbid., p. 310.\nRobert Greenhow,\nLibrarian of United\nStates' Department\nof State, \u2022\u00ab History\nof Oregon and\nCalifornia,\" pp. 266,\n267.\nNorth American\nReview, 1822,\nArticle XVIII.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 3.\nAlaska, pp. 404-\n409.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. 1 pp. 311, 312.\nIbid., p. 417.\nThe accuracy of the views expressed by Mr.\nMiddleton appears clearly from the facts disclosed by the chronological statement relating to\nthe period subsequent to the year 1799:\u2014\nIn 1800, the ship \"Enterprise,\" from New\nYorkj arrived at Kadiak.\nThe name of seven trading-vessels on the\nnorth-west coast are given in this year.\nIn 1801, there were at least thirteen United\nStates' vessels on the north-west coast. These\nvessels exchanged with the natives of the coast\nfor furs parts of their cargoes, and, proceeding\nto China, returned to their respective countries\nwith cargoes of teas, &c. Upwards of 18,000\nsea-otter skins, besides other furs, were in 1801\ncollected by United States' traders alone for the\nChina market*\nIn 1802, the Russian Establishment at Sitka\nwas destroyed, and nearly aU the Russians there\nwere massacred, by the natives. According to\nLisiansky, the natives were \\ assisted by three\ndeserters from a United States' vessel, the\n\"Jenny,\" which had called at Sitka not long\nbefore. Shortly afterwards, an English vessel,\nthe \"Unicorn,\" Captain Barber, arrived at\nSitka, and two other vessels, reported hj the\nRussian survivors as English, but one of these\nBancroft believes to have been the United\nStates' vessel | Alert.\"\nIn this year also Krusenstern, having visited\nChina, presented a Memorial to the Russian\nGovernment calling attention to the advantages\noffered by the trade in furs from America direct\nto Chinese ports, and suggesting that Russia\nshould engage in. it.\nOf the vessels trading on the north-west\ncoast in this year, the names of ten have been\nrecorded.\nIn 1803, Baranoff contemplated the abandon-\n[6441 I\nwmmFM\nzmmmmmmmmmm\n 30\nment of Unalaska, owing to disease and non-\narrival of supplies. He ordered that the best\nmen should be moved to the Pribyloff Islands\nto collect there the furs accumulated by the\nnatives. These islands had not been visited for\nmany years.\nCaptain O'Cain, of the United States' vessel\n\" O'Cain,\" exchanged goods for furs with\nBaranoff at Sitka, and also took Aleutian\nhunters to the Californian coast to hunt fur-\nseals and sea-otters. | Thus was inaugurated a Alaska, pp. 477,\nseries of hunting expeditions beyond the borders 478,\nof the Russian Colonies, which continued for\nmany years.\"\nThe names of five vessels trading on the north- North-west Coast,\nwest coast are known. vol. i, PP. 312-317.\nIn 1804, Sitka was reoccupied and rebuilt by ibid., pp. 318, 319.\nthe Russians. Two United States' vessels, one\nbeing the \" Juno,\" were there. The names of\nfour vessels are known as trading on the northwest coast.\nIn 1805, the | Juno \" and another vessel from ibid., p. 320.\nthe United States were at Sitka, and we hear of\nsix vessels, including the \"Juno,\" as trading on\nthe north-west coast.\nIn 1806, the Russian Envoy Rezanoff visited\nthe Pribyloff Islands on the \"Maria,\" and endeavoured to stop the wasteful slaughter of fur-\nseals. He recommended the Emperor to \"take Alaska p. 446.\na stronger hold of the country,\" as the traders in\nships from Boston were undermining the trade\nwith China. He reported that the \"Bostonians\" ibid., p. 451.\nhad armed the Kolosh Indians.\nIn the same year the \" Juno,\" with her cargo, ibid., p. 454.\nwas purchased by Baranoff, and the \"Eclipse\" ibid., pp. 478 479.\n(Captain O'Cain) sailed for China with furs; but\nwas lost on the way back.\nThe names of four vessels trading on the\nnorth-west coast are known in this year.\nRezanoff, in 1807, sent the \"Juno\" to the\nCalifornian coast for provisions. The \" Myrtle,\" xbid., p. 461.\nan English ship (Captain Barber), was purchased by Baranoff. Six north-west coast trading-\nvessels are known by name for this year.\nIn 1808, the United States' vessel \" Mercury \" ibid., pp. 479, 480.\nobtained at Kadiak 25 bidarkas, or skin-boats,\nfor hunting and trading to the southward.\nEour United States' trading-vessels are known\nto have been on the Alaskan coast in 1808 and\n1809.\n1803.\n1804.\n1805.\n1806\n1807.\n1808.\n1809\n\u00bb\n 31\n1810.\nAlaska, p 467.\n1811.\n1812.\n1814.\n1815.\n1816.\n1817.\nIbid., p. 470.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 325.\nAlaska, p. 429.\nIbid., p. 483.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol, i, p. 326.\nAlaska, p. 472.\nIbid., p. 480.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol.4, p. 329.\nAlaska, p. 503.\nIbid., pp. 504, 505.\nIbid., p. 506.\nIbid., p. 501.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 335.\nAlaska, p. 510.\nIn 1810, the Russian sloop-of-war \"Diana'*\nvisited Sitka. There were several United States\"\nvessels in the port at the time. Shortly after\nthe United States' vessels \" Enterprise | . and\n\"O'Cain\" arrived. The \"Enterprise\" went to\nCanton with furs.\nGolovnin, Commander of the \" Diana,\" writes\nthat at this time an American sailor and a\nPrussian skipper composed the Diplomatic Corps\nof the Russian-American Company.\nIn 1810 and 1811, four foreign vessels were\nengaged in sea-otter hunting, under Russian\ncontracts.\nIn 1811, the \" Enterprise | returned from and\nwent back to China with furs. In this year the\nRoss Colony was founded in California to provide [agricultural products for use on the northwest coast. Eive vessels engaged in trading and\nhunting, besides the four vessels under Russian\ncontracts, were seen on the coast of Southern\nAlaska in this year.\nIn 1812, the United States' ship \"Beaver\"\ndisposed of her cargo to Baranoff at Sitka, and\nwas then sent to the Pribyloff Islands for fur-\nseal skins as payment.\nBetween 1809 and 1812, Baranoff made six\nadditional hunting contracts with United States'\nvessels. He received a proportion of the skins,\nwhich were chiefly sea-otters.\nBetween 1812 and 1814, there was scarcely any\ntrade, owing to the war between England and the\nUnited States.\nIn 1814, Captain Bennett (United States) sold\ntwo vessels with their cargoes to Baranoff, and\ntook fur-seal skins from the Pribyloff Islands in\npayment. Lozaref, sent by Russia, with two\nships, reached Sitka, but quarrelled with Baranoff\nand returned.\nIn 1815, the Russian vessel | Isabel\" reached\nSitka with Dr. Sheffer on board.\nIn 1816, the Russian vessel 1 Rurik \" (Captain\nKotzebue) touched at St. Lawrence Island and\nexplored Kotzebue Sound, north of Behring\nStrait.\nTwo United States' vessels visited the Russian\nSettlements this year.\nIn 1817, Kotzebue, on an exploring expedition\nto the North, only reached St. Lawrence Island..\nAn expedition in two vessels under Hagemeister*\nsent by Russia, reached Sitka.\nc\n 32\nIn 1818, Hagemeister superseded Baranoff,\nunder instructions. Roquefeuil, a Erench officer, Alaska, pp. 522,\narrived at Sitka in the \"Bordelais,\" a trading- 5 \"\nvessel. He sailed for Prince of Wales Archipelago, but had a conflict with natives and\nreturned to Sitka. Roquefeuil notes meeting a Northwest Coast,\nUnited States' and a British trading^vessel in vo1*ij P- 338*\nAlaskan waters.\nIn 1818 and 1821, expeditions were dispatched Encyclopaedia\nby the British Government in search of a north- yoi^x^p' 319.6 I\nwest passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific.\nThese efforts were continued, and in 1824 and\n1825 Parry, Beechey, and Eranklin were engaged\nin the same quest, Beechey having been directed\nto pass through Behring Strait and to rendezvous\nwith the others at Kotzebue Sound. These efforts\nwere stimulated by the offer by Parliament of\nlarge pecuniary rewards, and it is obvious that\nthe value of the discovery, if made, depended on\nthe free right of navigation for purposes of commerce through Behring Strait.\nIn 1819, the United States' traders obtained Alaska, p. 528.\nmost of tbe trade, bartering with the Kolosh\nfire-arms and rum for skins. They obtained\nabout 8,000 skins a-year. The Russians could\nnot successfuUy compete with them.\nThe privileges granted for twenty years to the\nRussian-American Company were now about to\nexpire, and Golovnin was instructed to inquire\nas to its operations. His Report was not favourable.\nHe writes:\u2014\n\" Three things are wanting, in the organization of the Ibid, p. 531.\nCompany's colonies: a clearer definition of the duties\nbelonging to the various officers, a distinction of rank, and\na regular uniform, so that foreigners visiting these parts\nmay see something indicating the existence of forts and \u2022\ntroops belonging to the Russian sceptre \u2014 something\nresembling a regular garrison. At present they can come\nto no other conclusion than that these stations are but\ntemporary fortifications erected by hunters as a defence\nagainst savages.\"\n1818.\n1819.\nIn 1820, four trading-vessels are known to have North-west Coast,\nbeen ooerating on the north-west coast. v0' *' p*.\nThe extent of Russian occupation at about the Alaska, p. 522.\ndate of the expiry of the first Charter can he\nshown by the Census taken in 1819, which states\nthe number of Russians as foUows:\u2014\n1820-\n\u25a0Jl\n 33\nFor Tikhmenieff's\ncomplete Tables,\nincluding natives,\nsee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 5.\nUncertainty of territorial claims in .1818.\nSee also Adams to\nRush, July 22,\n1823;\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. v,\np. 446;\nand also Confidential Memorial\ninclosed in letter,\nMiddleton to\nAdams, December\n1 (13), 1823;\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. v,\np. 449.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNos. 4 and 5.\nFor text of\nConvention, see .\nAmerican State\nPapers, vol. iv,\np. 406.\nRussian territorial claim in 1821.\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. \u25bc,\np. 436.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 3.\n\u2022 %\nMen.\nWomen.\nSitka, or New Archangel\n\u2022 \u2022\n198\n11\nKadiak and adjoining island's\n\u2022 9\nt \u2022\n73\n\u2022 \u2022 -\nIsland of Ookamok ..\n\u2022 \u00bb\n\u00bb \u2022\n2\n\u2022 \u00bb\nKatmai .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022\n> \u2022\n4\n\u2022 \u2022\nSutkhumokoi\n\u2022 \u2022\n\u00bb \u00a9\n3\n\u2022 m\nVoskressenskv Harbour\n\u2022 \u2022\nI \u2022\n2\n\u2022 \u2022\nFort Constantine\n\u2022 \u2022\nt \u2022\n17\n\u2022 *\nNikolai, Cook Inlet ..\n\u2022 0\n\u25ba \u2022\n11\n\u2022 *\nAlexandrovsk, Cook Inlet\n0 \u2022\n\u2022\n11\n\u2022 0\nRoss Settlement, California\n\u2022 \u2022\n.\n27\n\u2022 0\nSeal Islands \u201e.\n* \u2022\n\u2022\n27\n0 \u2022\nNushagak fthe only Settlement on\nthe\ncontinent north of the Aleu\ntian Islai\n* \u2022\nads]\n3\n2\nTotal\nc\n\u2022\n378\n13\nWhile the subjects of Russia, Spain, Great\nBritain, and the United States were doubtless\nmaking claims on the part of their respective\ncountries from time to time, so uncertain were\nthese claims and the merits of each, that in 1818\n(20th October), in the Convention between the\nUnited States and Great Britain, it was agreed\nthat any\u2014-\n\" Country that may be claimed by either party on the\nnorth-west coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks,\nand the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and\nopen for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present Convention, to the vessels, citizens,\nand subjects of the two Powers, it being well understood\nthat this agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice\nof any claim which either of the two High Contracting\nParties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall\nit be taken to affect the claims of any other Power or\nState to any part of the said country, the only object of\nthe High Contracting Parties in that respect being to\nprevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.\"\nMr. Adams, Secretary of State of the United\nStates, in a despatch to Mr. Middleton, the\nUnited States' Minister at St. Petersburgh, dated\n22nd July, 1823, contended that even as late as\nthat year Russian rights in the region under consideration \" were confined to certain islands north\nof the 55th degree of latitude,\" and had \" no\nexistence on the continent of America.\"\nIn the same letter Mr. Adams observed:\u2014\n\"It does not appear that there ever has been a\npermanent Russian Settlement on this continent south of\nlatitude 59\u00b0, that of New Archangel, cited by M. Poletica,\nin latitude 57\u00b0 30', being upon an island. So far as prior\ndiscovery can constitute a .foundation of right, the papers\n[044] K\n. ;\u25a0\ni\n 34\nwhich I have referred to prove that it belongs to the\nUnited States as far as 59\u00b0 north, by the transfer to them\nof the rights of Spain. There is, however, no part of the\nglobe where the mere fact of discovery could be held to\ngive weaker claims than on the north-w^est coast. ' The\ngreat sinuosity,' says Humboldt, 'formed by the coast\nbetween the 55th and 60th parallels of latitude, embraces\ndiscoveries made by Gali, Bering, and TchivikofF, Quadra,\nCook, La Perouse, Malaspina, and Vancouver. No\nEuropean nation has yet formed an establishment upon\nthe immense extent of coast from Cape Mendosino to the\n59th degree of latitude. Beyond that limit the Russian\nfactories commence, most of which are scattered and\ndistant from each other like the factories established by\nthe European nations for the last three centuries on the\ncoast of Africa. Most of these little Russian Colonies\ncommunicate with each other only by sea, and the new\ndenominations of Russian-America or Russian possessions\nin the new continent, must not lead us to believe that the\ncoast of Bering Bay, the Peninsula of Alaska, or the country I\nof the Ischugatschi, have become Russian provinces in the\nsame sense given to the word when speaking of the\nSpanish Provinces of Sonora, or New Biscay.' (Humboldt's\nI New Spain,\" vol. ii, Book 3, chap. 8, p. 496.)\n| In M. Poletica's letter of the 28th February, 1822, to\nme, be says that when the Emperor Paul I granted to the\npresent American Company its first Charter in 1799, he\ngave it the exclusive possession of the north-west c*oast .of\nAmerica, which belonged to Russia, from the 55th degree\nof north latitude, to Bering Strait.\nI In his letter of 2nd April, 1822, he says that the\nCharter to the Russian-American Company in 1799, was\nmerely conceding to them a part of the sovereignty, or\nrather certain exclusive privileges of commerce.\nI This is the most correct view of the subject. The\nEmperor Paul granted to the Russian-American Company\ncertain exclusive privileges of commerce\u2014exclusive with\nreference to other Russian subjects; but Russia had never\nbefore asserted a right of sovereignty over any part of the\nNorth American continent; and in 1799 the people of the\nUnited States had been at least for twelve years in the\nconstant and uninterrupted enjoyment of a profitable trade\nwith the natives of that very coast, of which the Ukase of\nthe Emperor Paul could not deprive them.\"\nThe Honourable Charles Sumner, speaking in\nthe United States' Senate on the occasion of the\ncession of Alaska to the United States, in 1867,\nsaid:\u2014\n*\n| It seems that there were various small Companies, of H. R., Ex. Doc.\nwhich that at Kadiak was the most considerable, all of *^' 2nd Sess.,\nwhich were finally fused into one large trading Company, 1867-68\/\nknown as the Russian-American Company, which was See Appendix,\norganized in 1799, under a Charter from the Emperor v0 ' | \u00b0'\nPaul, with the power of administration throughout the\nwhole region, including the coasts and the islands. In\nthis respect it was not unlike the East India Company,\nRussian territorial claim in 1821.\nm\nAA\t\n 85\nExtent of Russian Settlements.\nArticle XVIII,\nNorth American\nReview, vol. xv,\nQuarterly Review,\n1821-22, vol. xxvi.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, jNos. 3 and 4.\nAdams to Middle-\nton, July 22, 1823.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 3.\nAlaska, p. 591.\nwhich has played such a part in English history; but it\nmay be more properly compared with the Hudson Bay\nCompany, of which*it was a Russian counterpart. The\nCharter was for a term of years, but it has been from time\nto time extended, and, as I understand, is now on the\npoint of expiring. The powers of the Company are\nsententiously described by the i Almanach de Gotha' for\n1867, where, under the head of Russia, it says that 'to the\npresent time Russian America has been the property of a\nCompany.'\"\nAnd, referring to as late a period as 1867, he\nremarked:\u2014\n\" It is evident that these Russian Settlements, distributed\nthrough an immense region and far from any civilized\nneighbourhood, have little in common with those of\nEuropean nations elsewhere, unless we except those of\nDenmark, on the west coast of Greenland. Nearly all are\non the coast or the islands. They are nothing but\n' villages ' or \u2022 factories ' under the protection of palisades.\nSitka is an exception, due unquestionably to its selection\nas the head-quarters of the Government, and also to the\neminent character of the Governors who have made it\ntheir home.\"\nTouching Russia's claims to exclusive jurisdiction over more than certain islands in the\nPacific Ocean on the American coast, Mr. Adams,\nmoreover, in 1823 brought forward with approval,\narticles which appeared in \" The North American\nReview,\" published in the United States, and in\nthe 1 Quarterly Review,\" published in England;\nThe facts stated in these articles show the\ngrounds upon which- the Government of the\nUnited States considered themselves justified in\nthe contention advanced by Mr. Adams, that\n\"the rights of discovery, of occupancy, of uncontested possession,\" alleged by Russia, were\nI all without foundation in fact,\" as late as the\nyear 1823.\nAgain referring to the circumstances in the\nyear 1867 (the date of the cession of Alaska to the\nUnited States), the historian Bancroft writes :\u2014\nI Moreover, Russia had never occupied, and never\nwished to occupy, this territory. Eor two-thirds of a\ncentury she had been represented there, as we have seen,\nalmost entirely, by a-fur and trading Company under the\nprotection of Government. In a measure it had controlled, or endeavoured to control, the affairs of that Company, and among its stockholders were several members\nof the Royal Family;, but Alaska.had been originally\ngranted to the Russian-American Company by Imperial\nOukaz, and by Imperial Oukaz the Charter had been\nmadia\nPMPnm\n 36\ntwice renewed. Now that the Company had declined to\naccept a fourth Charter on the terms proposed, something\nmust be done with the territory, and Russia would lose no\nactual portion of her Empire in ceding it to a Republic\nwith which she was on friendly terms, and whose domain\nseemed destined to spread over the entire continent\"\nThe foregoing historical summary establishes -\nThat from the earliest periods of which any\nrecords exist down to the year 1821, there is no\nevidence that Russia ei lie* asserted or exercised\nin the non-territorial waters of the North Pacific\nany rights to the exclusion of other nations.\nThat during the whole of that period the\nshores of America and Asia belonging to Russia\nas far north as Behring Straits, and the waters\nlying between those coasts, as well as the islands\ntherein, were visited by the trading-vessels of all\nnations, including those sailing under the flags\nof Great Britain, the United States, Spain, and\nBrance, with the knowledge of the Russian\nauthorities.\nThat the only rights, in fact, exercised by\nRussia or on her behalf, were the ordinary\nterritorial rights connected with settlements or\nannexations of territory consequent upon such\nsettlements, and the only rights she purported\nto deal with or confer were rights and privileges\ngiven to the Russian-American Company, as\nRussian subjects,\nRussian subjects.\nin preference over other\n Ukase of 1821.\nVoyage, M. de\nKrusenstern,\nvol. i, p. 14.\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. v,\npp. 453-454.\nCompetition by Foreigners.\nAmerican State\nPapers, vol. v,\npp. 438-443.\nAlaska, p. 528.\nTikhmenief,\nIster. Obos. I,\ncited in note to\nAlaska, p. 532.\nSee also Alaska,\np. 446; Rezanof's\ncomplaint in 1806.\nText of Ukase of 1821.\nSee Appendix,\nvo] i, No. I.\nHead B.\u2014The Ukase of 1821, and the circum-\nstances connected therewith leading up to the\nTreaties of 1824 and 1825.\nShortly before the date of the renewal of the\nCharter of the Russian-American Company in\n1821, the aspect of affairs had considerably\nchanged. I\nThe Company had long before fully succeeded\nin getting rid of its Russian rivals, but trading-\nvessels from England and from the United States\nfrequented the coasts in increasing numbers,\nand everywhere competed with the Company.\nGoods were brought by these vessels at prices\nwhich the Company could not successfully meet,\nand furs were taken by them direct to Chinese\nsea-ports, while the Company, as a rule, had stiU\nto depend on the overland route from Okhotsk\nto Kiakhta on the Amoor.\nDomestic competition had in fact ceased, and\nthe most serious drawback to the success of the\nCompany consisted in the competition from\nabroad.\nThe difficulties resulting to the Company on\naccount of foreign competition appear prominently in the complaints made by its agents\nat this time, and the new claim of the right to\nexclude foreigners from trade is embodied in the\nUkase of 1821. '%\u25a0 'jg -jH& :f;\nThe following is the translation of the\nUkase which was issued by the Emperor\nAlexander in 1821:\u2014\nI Edict of His Imperial Majesty, Autocrat of All the\nI Hussias.\n\"The Directing Senate maketh known to all men:\nWhereas, in an Edict of His Imperial Majesty, issued to\nthe Directing Senate on the 4th day of September [1821],\nand signed by His Imperial Majesty's own hand, it is thus\nexpressed:\u2014\n\"'Observing from Reports submitted to us that the\ntrade of our subjects on the Aleutian Islands and on the\nnorth-west coast of America appertaining unto Russia is\nsubjected, because of secret and illicit traffic, to oppression.\nand impediments, and finding that the principal cause of\nthese difficulties is the want of Rules establishing the\nboundaries for navigation along these coasts, and the order\nof naval communication, as well in these places as on the\n[644] L\nN\nmm*\nKmH*9>*.\n(MNM9\n 38\nwhole of the eastern coast of Siberia and the Kurile\nIslands, we have deemed it necessary to determine these\ncommunications by specific Regulations, which are hereto\nattached.\n'\"In forwarding these Regulations to the Directing\nSenate, we command that the same be published for\nuniversal information, and that the proper measures be\ntaken to carry them into execution.\n(Countersigned) \"' Count D. Gtjrieff,\n\"' Minister of Finances.\nUkase of 1821.\n\" l It is therefore decreed by the Directing Senate that\nHis Imperial Majesty's Edict be published for the information of all men, and that the same be obeyed by all\nwhom it may concern.'\n8v I ' ^ '\n[The original is signed hy the Directing Senate. On the\noriginal is written in the handwriting of His Imperial Majesty,\nthus :] Be it accordingly, Alexander.\n\" Rules established for the Limits of Navigation and Order\nof Communication along the Coast of the Eastern Siberia,\nthe North-west Coast of America, and the Aleutian,\nKurile, and oilier Islands.\n\"' Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and gee Appendix\nfishery, and of all other industry, on all islands, ports, and \u21221. i, No. 1.\ngulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of\nAmerica, beginning from Behring Straits to the 51st\nof northern latitude; also from the Aleutian Islands to\nthe eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile\nIslands, from Behring Straits to the south cape of the\nIsland of Urup, viz., to the 45\u00b0 50' northern latitude, is\nexclusively granted to Russian subjects.\n. \"' Section 2. It is therefore inhibited to all foreign\nvessels not only to land on the coasts and islands belonging\nto Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within\nless than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is\nsubject to confiscation, along with the whole cargo.'\"\nBy this Ukase Russia first attempted to assert,\nas against other nations, exclusive jurisdiction\nor rights over the shores of America and Asia\nbounding the Pacific Ocean, certain islands\ntherein, and over a portion of the Pacific Ocean\nincluding what is now known as Behring Sea.\nThe purpose of the Ukase, so far as the\nattempted exclusion of foreigners from 100 miles\nof the coasts is concerned, is explained by Baron Baron Nicolav t0\nde Nicolay in his note to Lord Londonderry, the October 31\n(November 12),\n1821.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I, No. 1.\nFirst assertion of exclusive jurisdiction.\nPurpose of Ukase of 1821\n31st October (12th November), 1821.\n 39\nTo prevent illicit traffic.\nTo extend territorial jurisdiction.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. M\nHe insists that the operations of | smugglers '*\nand \" adventurers \" on the coast\u2014\n\" Have for their object not only a fraudulent commerce\nin furs and other articles which are exclusively reserved\nto the Russian-American Company, but it appears that\nthey often betray a hostile tendency.\n\"It was,\" he continues, \"therefore necessary to take\nsevere measures against these intrigues, and to protect the\nCompany against the considerable injury that resulted, and\nit was with that end in view that the annexed Regulation\n*\nhas been published.\"\nAnd again:\u2014\n\"The Government, however, limited itself, as can be\nseen by the newly-published Regulation, to forbidding all\nforeign vessels not only to land on the Settlements of the\nAmerican Company and on the peninsula of Kamtchatka\nand the coasts of the Okhotsk Sea, but also to sail along\nthe coast of these possessions, and, as a rule, to approach\nthem within 100 Italian miles.\"\nThe justification for the Ukase, and the Regulations made thereunder, is stated on the face of\nthe Ukase in the words:\u2014\nI And finding that the principal cause of these difficulties\n[i.e., impediments caused by 'secret and illicit traffic']\nis want of Rules establishing the boundaries for navigation\nalong these coasts, * * * * \"\nThat the object of the Ukase was to extend\nterritorial jurisdiction over the north-west coast\nand islands and to prohibit the trade of foreigners,\nrather than to protect any existing or prospective\nfishery is further indicated by JNo. 70 of the\nRegulations of the Russian-American Company.\nThis Regulation reads:\u2014\n\"70. A ship of war, after visiting, not only the Company's Settlements, but also, and more particularly, the\nchannels which foreign merchant-vessels are likely to\nfrequent for the purpose of illicit trading with the natives,\nwill return to winter wherever the Government orders it.\"\nPoletica to Adams,\nFebruary 28, 1822.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 1.\nis\nThe motive and purpose of this Ukase\nfurther explained by the letter of M. de Poletica,\nRussian Minister at Washington, dated the\n28th February, 1822. , 11\nThat Russia's aim was to acquire a vast North\nAmerican Territory appears by the construction\nput by M. de Poletica on the Ukase of the\nEmperor Paul in 1799, as conveying to the\nRussian-American Company the grant of a terri-\nwa*ra\nmm\n 40\ntorial concession down to the 55th degree of\nlatitude, and by his justification of its further\nextension to the 51st degree on the American\ncoast.\nHe proceeds to defend the policy of exclusion\ncontained in the Ukase of 1821 by explaining that,\nas Russian possessions extend from Behring Strait\nto the 51st degree north latitude on the north-west\ncoast of America, and on the opposite coast of\nAsia and the islands adjacent, to the 45th degree,\nthe sea within those limits (viz., that part of the\nPacific Ocean) was a close sea, over which Russia\nmight exercise exclusive jurisdiction; but he goes\non to say that Russia preferred asserting only her\nessential right without \"taking any advantage\nof localities,\" and on these grounds the limit of\n100 Italian miles is justified.\nThe measure he declares to be directed:\u2014\n\" Against the culpable enterprises of foreign adventurers,\nwho, not content with exercising upon the coasts above\nmentioned an illicit trade, very prejudicial to the rights\nreserved entirely to the Russian-American Company, take\nupon them besides to furnish arms and ammunition to the\nnatives in the Russian possessions in America, inciting\nthem likewise in every manner to resist and revolt against\nthe authorities there established.\"\nThe same view is expressed in the Confidential See p. 42.\nMemorandum inclosed in the Duke of \"Wellington's letter to Mr. G. Canning of the 28th\nNovember, 1822.\nUpon receiving communication of the Ukase,\nthe British and United States' Governments\nimmediately objected both to the extension of the\nterritorial claim and to the assertion of maritime\njurisdiction.\nProtest of Great Britain.\nThe Ukase was brought to the notice of Lord The protest of the British Government.\nLondonderry, Secretary of State for Poreign\nAffairs for Great Britain, in the letter already See Appendix,\nquoted of the 12th November, 1821, by Baron vol. ii, Part I, No. l.\nde Nicolay, then Russian Charge* d'Affaires,\nas connected with the territorial rights of the\nRussian Crown on the north-west coast of\nAmerica, and with the commerce and navigation\nof the Emperor's subjects in the seas adjacent\nthereto.\nOn the 18th January, 1822, four months after\nthe issue of the Ukase, Lord Londonderry wrote\n 41\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 7.\nIbid., vol. ii,\nPart I, No. 14.\nAbandonment of claim to extraordinary jurisdiction.\nin the following terms to Count Lieven, the\nRussian Ambassador in London:\u2014\n\" In the meantime, upon the subject of this Ukase\ngenerally, and especially upon the two main principles of\nelaim laid down therein, viz., an exclusive sovereignty\nalleged to belong to Russia over the territories therein\ndescribed, as also the exclusive right of navigating and trading\nwithin the maritime limits therein set forth, His Britannic\nMajesty must be understood as hereby reserving all his\nrights, not being prepared to admit that the intercourse\nwhich is allowed on the face of this instrument to have\nhitherto subsisted on those coasts and in those seas can\nbe deemed to be illicit, or that the ships of friendly\nPowers, even supposing an unqualified sovereignty was\nproved to appertain to the Imperial Crown in these vast\nand very imperfectly occupied territories, could, by the\nacknowledged law of nations, be excluded from navigating\nwithin the distance of 100 Italian miles, as therein laid\ndown from the coast, the exclusive dominion of which is\nassumed (but as His Majesty's Government conceive in\nerror) to belong to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of\nAll the Russias.\"\nThe Duke of Wellington having been appointed\nBritish Plenipotentiary at the Congress of Yerona,\nMr. G. Canning, then Secretary of State for\nPoreign Affairs, addressed to him, on the 27th\nSeptember, 1822, a despatch in which he dealt\nwith the claim in the Ukase for the extension of\nterritorial rights over adjacent seas to the distance\n\u2014\"unprecedented distance,'' he terms it\u2014of 100\nmiles from the coast, and of closing1 \"a hitherto\nunobstructed passage.\"\nIn this despatch Mr. Canning says :\u2014\n\" I have, indeed, the satisfaction to believe, from a conference which I have had with Count Lieven on this\nmatter, that upon these two points,\u2014the attempt to shut\nup the passage altogether, and the claim of exclusive\ndominion to so enormous a distance from the coast,\u2014\nthe Russian Government are prepared . entirely to waive\ntheir pretensions. The only effort that has been made to\njustify the latter claim was by reference to an Article in\nthe Treaty of Utrecht, which assigns 30 leagues from the\ncoast as the distance of prohibition. But to this argument\nit is sufficient to answer, that \u2022 the assumption of such a\nspace was, in the instance quoted, by stipulation in a\nTreaty, and one to which, therefore, the party to be affected\nby it had (whether wisely or not) given its deliberate\nconsent. No inference could be drawn from that transaction in favour of a claim by authority against all the\nworld.\n11 have little doubt, therefore, but that the public notification of the claim to consider the portions of the ocean\nincluded between the adjoining coasts of America and the\n[644]\nM\ni\nf\nn\ni\n\"\nll\nnmmmB^mmmmFM\n 42\nRussian Empire as a mare clausum, and to extend the\nexclusive territorial jurisdiction of Russia to 100 Italian\nmiles from the coast, will be publicly recalled, and I have\nthe King's commands to instruct your Grace further to\nrequire of the Russian Minister (on the ground of the facts\nand reasonings furnished in their [sic] despatch and its\ninclosures) that such a portion of territory alone shall be\ndefined as belonging to Russia as shall not interfere with\nthe rights and actual possessions of His Majesty's subjects\nin North America.\"\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\nOn the 17th October in the same year, the\nDuke of Wellington, at Verona, addressed to\nCount Nesselrode, the Russian Plenipotentiary at\nthe Congress, a Confidential Memorandum containing the following words :\u2014\nI Objecting, as we do, to this claim of exclusive Confidential Memo*\nsovereignty on the part of Russia, I migbt save myself the randum inclosed in\ntrouble of discussing the particular mode of its exercise as JL ^f. \u00b0 \u25a0uu^e 0I\n\u00b0 r \\ Wellington to\nset forth in this Ukase, but we object to the mode in which G. Canning,\nthe sovereignty is proposed to be exercised under this November 28,\nUkase, not less than we do to the claim of it. We cannot 0 \" * ,.\n'$'.&$-. -. . \u00bbee Appendix,\nadmit the right of any lower possessing the sovereignty of a vol. ii Part I\ncountry to exclude the vessels of others from the seas on its No, 15.\ncoasts to the distance of 100 Italian miles.\"\nIn reply, Count Nesselrode communicated\nto the Duke of Wellington a \" Confidential Ibid.\nMemorandum | dated the 11th (23rd) November,\n1822, which contains the following passages:\u2014\n\" The Cabinet of Russia has taken into mature consideration the Confidential Memorandum forwarded to\nthem by the Duke of Wellington on the 17th October last,\nrelative to the measures adopted by His Majesty the\nEmperor, under date of the 4th (16th) September, 1821,\nfor defining the extent of the Russian possessions on the\nnorth-west coast of America, and for forbidding foreign\nvessels to approach his possessions within a distance of\n100 Italian miles.\n\".... It was, on the contrary, because she regarded\nthose rights of sovereignty as legitimate, and because\nimperious considerations involving the very existence of\nthe commerce which sbe carries on in the regions of the\nnorth-west coast of America compelled her to establish a\nsystem of precautions which became indispensable that\nshe caused the Ukase of the 4th (16th) September, 1821,\nto be issued.\n\". . . . Consequently, the Emperor has charged his\nCabinet to declare to the Duke of Wellington (such\ndeclaration not to prejudice his rights in any way if it be\nnot accepted) that he is ready to fix, by means'of friendly\nnegotiation, and on the basis of mutual accommodation,\nthe degrees of latitude and longitude which the two\nPowers shall regard as the utmost limit of their possessions\nand of their establishments on the north-west coast of\nAmerica.\n 43\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\n\"His Imperial Majesty is pleased to believe that this\nnegotiation can be completed without difficulty to the\nmutual satisfaction of the two States; and the Cabinet of\nRussia can from this moment assure the Duke of\nWellington that the measures of precaution and super-(\nvision which will then be taken on the Russian part of\nthe coast of America will be entirely in conformity with\nthe rights derived from sovereignty, and with the\nestablished customs of nations, and that there will be no\npossibility of legitimate cause of complaint against\nthem.\"\nSee Apnendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 15.\nAgain, on the 28th November, 1822, the Duke\nof Wellington addressed a note to Count Lieven,\ncontaining the following words:\u2014\n\" The second ground on which we object to the Ukase is\nthat His Imperial Majesty thereby excludes from a certain\nconsiderable extent of the open sea vessels of other nations.\nWe contend that the assumption of this power is contrary\nto the law of nations, and we cannot found a negotiation\nupon a paper in which it is again broadly asserted. We\ncontend that no Power whatever can exclude another\nfrom the use of the open sea. A Power can exclude itself\nfrom the navigation of a certain coast, sea, &c, by its own\nact or engagement, but it cannot by right be excluded by\nanother. This we consider as the law of nations, and we\ncannot negotiate upon a paper in which a right is asserted\ninconsistent with this principle.\"\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 31.\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. v,\np. 448.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,.\nNo. 29.\nAt an early date in the course of the negotiations with the United States and with Great\nBritain the execution of the Ukase beyond\nthe territorial limit of 3 miles was suspended.\nIndeed, as far as the waters of Behring Sea are\nconcerned, it may safely be said that it was\nnever put into practical execution beyond this\nlimit. The note from Count Nesselrode to Mr,\nMiddleton on the subject was dated the 1st August,\n1822, and is thus alluded to by Mr. Middleton in\na despatch to Mr. Adams of the 19th September,\n1823:\u2014\n\"Upon Sir Charles [Bagot] expressing his wish to be\ninformed respecting the actual state of the north-west\nquestion between the United States and Russia, so far as\nit might be known to me, I saw no objection to making, a\nconfidential communication to him of the note of Count\nNesselrode, dated the 1st August, 1822, by which, in fact,\nstaying the execution of the Ukase above mentioned,\nRussia has virtually abandoned the pretensions therein\nadvanced.\"\nThe communication to the British Government\non the same subject was made in August 1823 in\nWSS\nmmm\/Fx\n\u25a0Mm\n It\n\\M\n44\nthe shape of an extract from a despatch from\nCount Nesselrode to Count Lieven, dated the\n26th June, 1823. The following passage in it\nshows how complete was the abandonment of\nthe unusual claim of maritime jurisdiction:\u2014\nThat the Commanders of our ships of war must\nconfine their surveillance as nearly as possible to the\nmainland, i.e., over an extent of sea within range of\ncannon-shot from the shore; that they must not extend\nthat surveillance beyond the sphere where the American\nCompany has effectually exercised its rights of hunting\nand fishing since the date of its creation, as well as since\nthe renewal of its privileges in 1799, and that, as to the\nislands on which are to be found colonies or settlements of\nthe Company, they are all indistinctively comprised in this\ngeneral rule.\n. . . Your Excellency will observe that these new\ninstructions\u2014which, as a matter of fact, are to suspend\nprovisionally the effect of the Imperial Ukase of the\n4th September, 1821\u2014were sent from St. Petersburgh only\nin August of last year.\"\nMr. Lyall, Chairman of the Ship-owners* See Appendix,\nSociety, of London, wrote on the 19th November, jjo's. ^s, 34, and 35.\n1823, to Mr. G. Canning, asking whether official\nadvices had been received from St. Petersburg\nthat the Ukase of 1821 had been annulled.\nMr. Canning having privately submitted his\nproposed reply to Count Lieven for his comments,\ncaused the following letter to be sent, which had\nreceived Count Lieven's approval:\u2014\n\"I am directed by Mr. Secretary Canning to acknow- Lord F. Conyng-\nledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, ham to Mr. Lyall,\n0 \u25a0\u25a0 \u25a0 c J November 26,\nexpressing a hope that the Ukase of September 1821 had 1823.\nbeen annulled. See Appendix,\n\" Mr. Canning cannot authorize me to state to you in -^ * q'q^\ndistinct terms that the Ukase has been 'annulled', because\nthe negotiation to which it gave rise is still pending,\nembracing, as it does, many points of great intricacy as\nweU as importance.\n\" But, I am directed by Mr. Canning to acquaint you\nthat orders have been sent out by the Court of St. Petersburg to their Naval Commanders calculated to prevent\n,any collision between Russian ships and those of other\nnations, and, in effect, suspending the Ukase of September\n1821.\"\nOn the 15th January, 1824, Mr. G. Canning See Appendix,\nwrote to Sir C. Bagot, the British Ambassador at ^0* jji art ?\nSt. Petersburg :\u2014\n'\"\".'-. . . The questions at issue between Great Britain\nand Russia are short and simple. The Russian Ukase\ncontains two objectionable pretensions: First, an extravagant assumption of maritime supremacy; secondly, an\ntmw&aTanted claim of territorial dominions,\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia. W&\nAbandonment of claim to extraordinary jurisdiction.\n Correspondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\nAbandonment of claim to extraordinary jurisdiction.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part 1,\nNo. 44.\nSee ante, p. 32.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 52.\n45\n\" As to the first, the disavowal of Russia is, in substance\nall that we could desire. Nothing remains for negotiation\non that head but to clothe that disavowal in precise and\nsatisfactory terms. We would much rather that those\nterms should be suggested by Russia herself than have the\nair of pretending to dictate them; you will therefore\nrequest Count Nesselrode to furnish you with his notion\nof such a declaration on this point as may be satisfactory to\nyour Government. That declaration may be made the\npreamble of the convention of limits.\" ....\nAgain, in a despatch, 24th July, 1824, to\nSir C. Bagot, Mr. G. Canning says :\u2014\n\". . . . Your Excellency will observe that there are but\ntwo points which have struck Count Lieven as susceptible\nof any question. The first, the assumption of the base of\nthe mountains, instead of the summit as the line of\nboundary; the second, the extension of the right of the\nnavigation of the Pacific to the sea beyond Behring\nStraits.\n* * * *\nI As to the second point, it is, perhaps, as Count Lieven\nremarks, new. But it is to be remarked, in return, that the\ncircumstances under which this additional security is\nrequired will be new also.\n\" By the territorial demarcation agreed to in this\n'projet\/ Russia will become possessed, in acknowledged\nsovereignty of both sides, of Behring Straits.\n\" The Power which could think of making the Pacific a\nmare clausum may not unnaturally be supposed capable of\na disposition to apply the same character to a strait\ncomprehended between two shores of which it becomes\nthe undisputed owner; but the shutting up of Behring\nStraits, or the power to shut them up hereafter, would be\na thing not to be tolerated by England.\nI Nor could we submit to be excluded, either positively\nor constructively, from a sea in which the skill and\nscience of our seamen has been and is still employed in\nenterprises interesting not to this country alone, but to\nthe whole civilized world.\n\" The protection given by the Convention to the American\ncoasts of each Power may (if it is thought necessary) be\nextended in terms to the coasts of the Russian Asiatic\n. territory; but in some way or other, if not in the form\nnow prescribed, the free navigation of Behring Straits and\nof the seas beyond them must be secured to us.\"\nMr. George Canning in a despatch to Mr.\nStratford Canning, who had been appointed\nBritish Plenipotentiary for the negotiation of a\nConvention at St. Petersburg, under date the\n8th December, 1824, after giving a summary of\nthe negotiations up to that date, goes on to\nsay:\u2014\n[644] N\nH\n!HI\n\u25a0MRS\nKm\n '.ffl\nin\nJ\n11\n48\n1 It is comparatively indifferent to us whether we hasten\nor postpone all questions respecting the hmits of territorial\npossession on the continent of America, but the pretensions of the Russian Ukase of 1821 to exclusive dominion\nover the Pacific could not continue longer unrepealed\nwithout compelling us to take some measure of public and\neffectual remonstrance against it.\n| You will therefore take care, in the first instance, to\nrepress any attempt to give this change to the character\nof the negotiation, and will declare without reserve that\nthe point to which alone the solicitude of the British\nGovernment and the jealousy of the British nation attach\nany great importance is the doing away (in a manner as\nlittle disagreeable to Russia as possible) of the effect of\nthe Ukase of 1821.\n\" That this Ukase is not acted upon, and that instructions have been long ago sent by the Russian Government\nto their cruisers in the Pacific to suspend the execution of\nits provisions, is true: but a private disavowal of a\npublished claim is no security against the revival of that\nclaim. The suspension of the\u00a3 execution of a principle\nmay be perfectly compatible with the continued maintenance of the principle itself, and when we have seen in\nthe course of this negotiation that the Russian claim to\nthe possession of the coast of America down to latitude\n59\u00b0 [sic] rests in fact on no other ground than the presumed\nacquiescence of the nations of Europe in the provisions of\nan Ukase published by the Emperor Paul in the year\n1799, against which it is affirmed that no public remonstrance was made, it becomes us to be exceedingly careful\nthat we do not, by a similar neglect, on the present\noccasion allow a similar presumption to be raised as to an\nacquiescence in the Ukase of 1821.\n\" The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate\nfreely in the Pacific cannot be held as a matter of indulgence from any Power. Having once been publicly\nquestioned, it must be publicly acknowledged.\n\" We do not desire that any distinct reference should\nbe made to the Ukase of 1821; but we do feel it necessary\nthat the statement of our right should be clear and positive, and that it should stand forth in the Convention in\nthe place which properly belongs to it, as a plain and substantive stipulation, and not be brought in as an incidental\nconsequence of other arrangements to which we attach\ncomparatively little importance.\n\" This stipulation stands in the front of the Convention See post, p. 52,\nconcluded between Russia and the United States of\nAmerica; and we see no reason why upon similar claims\nwe should not obtain exactly the like satisfaction.\n\"For reasons of the same nature we cannot consent\nthat the liberty of navigation through Bering Straits\nshould be stated in the Treaty as a boon from Russia.\n\"The tendency of such a statement would be to give\ncountenance to those claims of exclusive jurisdiction\nagainst which we, on our own behalf, and on that of the\nwhole civilized world, protest.\n* * * *\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\nAbandonment of claim to extraordinary jurisdiction.\n '47\nCorrespondence between Great Britain\nand Russia.\nAbandonment of claim to extra-\ndinary jurisdiction.\nThe Treaty (Great Britain and Russia).\nFebruary 28,1825.\n\" It will of course strike the Russian Plenipotentiaries\nthat, by the adoption of the American Article respecting\nnavigation, &c, the provision for an exclusive fishery of\n2 leagues from the coasts of our respective possessions\nfalls to the ground.\n\" But the omission is, in truth, immaterial.\n\"The law of nations assigns the exclusive sovereignty\nof 1 league to each Power on its own coasts, without any\nspecific stipulation, and though Sir Charles Bagot was\nauthorized to sign the Convention with the specific stipulation of 2 leagues, in ignorance of what had been decided\nin the American Convention at the time, yet, after that\nConvention has been some months before the world, and\nafter the opportunity of consideration has been forced\nupon us by the act of Russia herself, we cannot now\nconsent, in negotiating de novo, to a stipulation which,\nwhile it is absolutely unimportant to any practical good,\nwould appear to establish a contrast between the United\nStates and us to our disadvantage.\"\nThese negotiations resulted in a Convention\nwith Great Britain, signed on the 28th February,\n1825, hereinafter referred to.\n\u00ab5\nProtest of United States against\nUkase of 1821.\n50th Cong.,\n2nd Sess., Sen.\nEx. Doc. No. 106,\np. 204.\nIbid,, p. 205.\nProtest of the United States.\nOn the 30th January (11th February), 1822,\nM. Pierre de Poletica, the Envoy Extraordinary\nand Minister Plenipotentiary of the Russian\nEmperor, transmitted the Ukase to Mr. Adams,\nSecretary of State for the United States.\nOn the 25th February, 1822, Mr, Adams wrote\nto M. Poletica :\u2014\n\"Department of State, Washington,\n| Sir, \" February 25, 1822.\n\"I have the honour of receiving your note of the\n11th instant, inclosing a printed copy of the Regulations\nadopted by the Russian-American Company, and sanctioned by His Imperial Majesty, relating to the commerce\nof foreigners in the waters bordering on the establishments\nof that Company upon the north-west coast of America.\n11 am directed by the President of the United States to\ninform you that he has seen with surprise, in this Edict,\nf the assertion of a territorial claim on the part of Russia,'\nextending to the 51st degree of north latitude on this\ncontinent, and a Regulation interdicting to all commercial\nvessels other than Russian, upon the penalty of seizure and\nconfiscation, the approach upon the high seas within\n100 Italian miles of the shores to which that claim is\nmade to apply. The relations of the United States with\nHis Imperial Majesty have always been of the most\nfriendly character; and it is the earnest desire of this\nGovernment to preserve them in that state. It was\nexpected, before any Act which should define the boundary\n1\n1\nIBS\nItMJHJIJH\nELM!\n 48\nbetween the territories of the United States and Russia on\nthis continent, that the same would have been arranged by\nTreaty between the parties. To exclude the vessels of our\ncitizens from the shore, beyond the ordinary distance to\nwhich the territorial jurisdiction extends, has excited still\ngreater surprise.\nI This Ordinance affects so deeply the rights of the\nUnited States and of their citizens, that I am instructed to\ninquire whether you are authorized to give explanations of\nthe grounds of right, upon principles generally recognized\nby the laws and usages of nations, which can warrant the\nclaims and Regulations contained in it.\n\" I avail, &c.\n(Signed) \"John Quincy Adams.\"\nProtest of United States against\nUkase of 1821.\nIt will be observed that both the Ukase and\nthe protest apply to the waters from Behring\nStrait southward as far as the 51st degree of\nlatitude on the coast of America.\nOn the 28th of the same month the Russian\nRussian defence of Ukase,\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II\nNo. 1.\nRepresentative replied at length, defending the M de polet-ca t0\nterritorial claim on grounds of discovery, first Mr. J. Q. Adams,\n,. -, j. , , -, . -, February 28, 1822,\noccupation, and undisturbed possession, and American State\nexplaining the motive which determined the Papers, Foreign\nx \u2022 i n x. - c at, tti Relations, vol. iv,\nImperial Government in framing the Ukase. pp. 861-862.\nHe wrote:\u2014\n\" I shall be more succinct, Sir, in the exposition of the\nmotives which determined the Imperial Government to\nprohibit foreign vessels from approaching the north-wes1:\ncoast of America belonging to Russia within the distance\nof at least 100 Italian miles. This measure, however\nsevere it may at first appear, is, after all, but a measure of\nprevention. It is exclusively directed against the culpable\nenterprises of foreign adventurers, who, not content with\nexercising upon the coasts above mentioned an illicit trade\nvery prejudicial to the rights reserved entirely to the\nRussian-American Company, take upon them besides to\nfurnish arms and ammunition to the natives in the Russian\npossessions in America, exciting them likewise in every\nmanner to resist and revolt against the authorities there\nestablished.\n\" The American Government doubtless recoUects that\nthe irregular conduct of these adventurers, the majority of\nwhom was composed of American citizens, has been the\nobject of the most pressing remonstrances on the part of\nRussia to the Federal Government from the time that\nDiplomatic Missions were organized between the countries.\nThese remonstrances, repeated at different times, remain\nconstantly without effect, and the inconveniences to which\nthey ought to bring a remedy continue to increase\t\n\" I ought, in the last place, to request you to consider,\nSir, that the Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean\nextend, on the north-west coast of America, from Behring\nStrait to the 51st degree of north latitude, and on the\nopposite side of Asia and the islands adjacent, from the\nUkase based on doctrine of\nmare clausum.\n Correspondence between United States\nand Russia.\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate\nEx. Doc. No. 106,\np. 207.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 2.\nsame strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea of which\nthese possessions form the limits comprehends all the\nconditions which are ordinarily attached to shut seas\n(\"mers fermees\"), and the Russian Government might\nconsequently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this\nsea the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely\ninterdicting the entrance of foreigners. But it preferred\nonly asserting its essential rights, without taking any\nadvantage of localities.\"\nTo this Mr. Adams replied (30th March, 1822).\nHe said:\u2014! wm\n\"This pretension is to be considered not only with\nreference to the question of territorial right, but also to\nthat prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including\nthose of the United. States, to approach within 100 Italian\nmiles of the coasts. Erom the period of the existence of\nthe United States as an independent nation, their vessels\nhave freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate\nthem is a part of that independence.\n\"With regard to the suggestion that the Russian\nGovernment might have justified the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it\nclaims territory both on its American and Asiatic shores,\nit may suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore\non this sea, in latitude 51\u00b0 north, is not less than 90\u00b0 of\nlongitude, or 4,000 miles.\"\nM. de Poletica to\nMr. J. Q. Adams,\nApril 2, 1822.\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate Ex.\nDoc. No. 106,\np. 208.\nThe Russian Representative replied to .this\nnote on the 2nd Apr^l following, and in the\ncourse of his letter he said:\u2014\nlfc>3\n\"In the same manner the great extent of the Pacific\nOcean at the 51st degree of latitude can not invalidate the\nright which Russia may have of considering that part of\nthe ocean as close. But as the Imperial Government has\nnot thought fit to take advantage of that right, all further\ndiscussion on this subject would be idle.\n| As to the right claimed for the citizens of the United.\nStates of trading with the natives of the country of the\nnorth-west coast of America, without the limits of the\njurisdiction belonging to Russia, the Imperial Government\nwill not certainly think- of limiting it, and still less of\nattacking it there. But I cannot dissemble, Sir, that this\nsame trade beyond the 51st degree will meet with\ndifficulties and inconveniences, for which the American\nowners will only have to accuse their own imprudence\nafter the publicity which has been given to the measures\ntaken by the Imperial Government for maintaining the\nrights of the Russian-American Company in their absolute\nintegrity.\n11 shall not finish this letter, without repeating to you,\nSir, the very positive assurance which I have already had\nthe honour once of expressing to you that in every case\nwhere the American Government shall judge it necessary\nto make explanations to that of the Emperor, the President\n[644] O\nLLM\n 50\nof the United States may rest assured that these explanations will always be attended to by the Emperor, my august\nSovereign, with the most friendly and consequently the\nmost conciliatory, dispositions.\"\nCorrespondence between United States\nand Russia.\nOn the 22nd July, 1823, Mr. Adams wrote to\nMr. Middleton, the United States' Minister at\nSt. Petersburg, as follows:\u2014\n\" From the tenour of the Ukase, the pretentions of the 50th Cong., 2nd\nImperial Government extend to an exclusive territorial Sess., Senate Ex.\njurisdiction from the 45th degree of north latitude, on the 2io. *\nAsiatic coast, to the latitude of 51 north on the western See Appendix,\ncoast of the American Continent; and they assume the \u2122** *!' arfc **>\nNo. 3.\nright of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all\nother nations to the extent of 100 miles from the whole of\nthat coast.\n\" The United States can admit no part of these claims.\nTheir right of navigation and of fishing is perfect, and has\nbeen in constant exercise from the earbest times, after the\nPeace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the\nSouthern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary exceptions\nand exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions, which, so far\nas Russian rights are concerned, are confined to certain\nislands north of the 55th degree of latitude, and have no\nexistence on the Continent of America.\n\"The correspondence between M. Poletica and this\nDepartment contained no discussion of the principles or of\nthe facts upon which he attempted the justification of the\nImperial Ukase. This was purposely avoided on our part,\nunder the expectation that the Imperial Government\ncould not fail, upon a review of the measure, to revoke it\naltogether. It did, however, excite mucli public animadversion in this country, as the Ukase itself had already\ndone in England. I inclose herewith the North American\nReview for October 1822, No. 37, which contains an\narticle (p. 370) written by a person fully master of the\nsubject; and for the view of it taken in England I refer\nyou to the 52nd number of the' Quarterly Review, the\narticle upon Lieutenant Kotzebue's voyages. Erom the\narticle in the North American Review it will be seen\nthat the rights of discovery, of occupancy, and of uncontested possession, alleged by M. Poletica, are all without\nfoundation in fact.\"\nMr. Middleton, writing to the Secretary of State\nof the United States, on the 1st December,\n1823, inclosed a confidential memorial which\nthus dealt with the claim (which is properly\nregarded by him as an attempt to extend territorial jurisdiction upon the theory of a shut sea\nand having no other basis):\u2014\n\" The- extension of territorial rights to the distance of American State\n100 miles from the coasts upon two opposite continents, Re?a? ns^ol'v\np. 452.\n Correspondence between United States\nand Russia*\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 5.\nAmerican State\nPapers, Foreign\nRelations, vol. v.,\npp. 465-466.\n61\nand the prohibition of approaching to the same distance?\nfrom these coasts, or from those of all the intervening\nislands, are innovations in the law of nations, and measures\nunexampled. It must thus be imagined that this prohibition, bearing the pains of confiscation, applies to a long\nline of coasts, with the intermediate islands, situated in\nvast seas, where the navigation is subject to innumerable'\nand unknown difficulties, and where the chief employment,\nwhich is the whale fishery, cannot be compatible with a\nregulated and well-determined course.\n\" The right cannot be denied of shutting a port, a sea,\nor even an entire country, against foreign commerce in\nsome particular cases. But the exercise of such a right,\nunless in the case of a colonial system already established,\nor for some other special object, would be exposed to an\nunfavourable interpretation, as being contrary to the\nliberal spirit of modern times, wherein we look for the\nbonds of amity and of reciprocal commerce among all\nnations'being more closely cemented.\nI Universal usage, which has obtained the force of law,\nhas established for all the coasts an accessory limit of a\nmoderate distance, which is sufficient for the security of\nthe country and for the convenience of its inhabitants, but\nwhich lays no restraint upon the universal rights of\nnations, nor upon the freedom of commerce and of navigation.\" (Vattel, Book I, Chapter 23, section 289.)\nAt the fourth Conference (8th March, 1824)\nwhich preceded the signature of the Treaty of\nthe 5th (17th) April, 1824, Mr. Middleton, the\nUnited States' Representative, submitted to Count\nNesselrode the following paper:\u2014\n\" (Translation.)\n\" The dominion cannot Be acquired but by a real\noccupation and possession, and an intention (' animus ') to\nestabhsh it is by no means sufficient.\nI Now, it is clear, according to the facts established,\nthat \"neither Russia nor any other European Power has\nthe riant of dominion upon the Continent of America\nbetween the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.\n\"Still less has she the dominion of the adjacent\nmaritime territory, or of the sea which washes these coasts,\na dominion which is only accessory to the territorial\ndominion.\n1 Therefore she has not the right of exclusion or of\nadmission on these coasts, nor in these seas, which are free\nseas.\n\" The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by\nnatural law, to every independent nation, and even-\nconstitutes an essential part of this independence.\n\"The United States have exercised navigation in the\nseas, and commerce upon the coasts above mentioned,\nfrom the time of their independence; and they have a\nperfect right to this navigation and to this commerce, and\ns%\nHBHB3\nm\n 52\nthey can only be deprived of it by their own act or by a\nConvention.\"\nConvention between the United States and Russia.\nThe result of these negotiations between the\nUnited States and Russia was the Convention\nof the 17th April, 1824, which put an end to For French text,\nany further pretension on the part of Russia to **j iPpart^lll\nrestrict navigation or fishing in Behring Sea, so No. l.\nfar as citizens of the United States were concerned.\nThe English version of the Convention is as Blue Book,\nj? -it | United States\nIOllOWS:\u2014 No> t (18Q1)\/'\n\"ARTICLE I. P; 57* 1\nAppendix, vol. ui.\n\"It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean,\ncommonly called the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, the\nrespective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting\nPowers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in\nnavigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the\ncoasts, upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving\nalways the restrictions and conditions determined by the\nfollowing Articles.\n\"ARTICLE II.\n\"With a view of preventing the rights of navigation\nand of fishing, exercised upon the Great Ocean by the\ncitizens and subjects of the High Contracting Powers, from\nbecoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that\nthe citizens of the United States shall not resort to any\npoint where there is a Russian Establishment, without the\npermission of the Governor or Commander; and that,\nreciprocally, the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any Establishment of the United States\nupon the north-west coast.\n\"ARTICLE III.\n\" It is, moreover, agreed that hereafter there shall not\nbe formed by the citizens of the United States, or under\nthe authority of the said States, any Establishment upon\nthe north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands\nadjacent, to the north of 54\u00b0 40' of north latitude; and\nthat, in the same manner there, shall be none formed by\nRussian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south\nof the same parallel.\n\"ARTICLE IV.\n\" It is, nevertheless, understood that, during a term of\ntun years, counting from the signature -of the present\nConvention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong to\ntheir citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocaUy\nfrequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior\nseas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast mentioned\nin the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and\ntrading with the natives of the country.\nThe Treaty (Russia and the United\nStates), April 17,1824.\nNavigation of Pacific to be free.\n 53\nTreaty of 1824.\nTreaty (Great Britain and\nRussia), February 28, 1825.\nFor French text,\nsee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part III,\nNo. 2.\n[Navigation of Pacific to be free.\nSee Blue Book,\n| United States\nNo. 1 (1891),\"\np. 58.\nAppendix, vol. iii.\n\"ARTICLE V.\n\" All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms; powder,\nand munitions of war of every, kind are always excepted\nfrom this same commerce permitted by the preceding\nArticle; and the two Powers engage reciprocally neither\nto sell, or suffer them to be sold to the natives, by their\nrespective citizens and subjects, nor by any person who\nmay be under their authority. It is likewise stipulated\nthat this restriction shall never afford a pretext, nor be\nadvanced, in any case, to authorize either search or detention of the vessels, seizure of the merchandize, or, in fine,\nany measures of constraint whatever towards the merchants or the crews who may carry on this commerce;\nthe High Contracting Powers reciprocally reserving to\nthemselves to determine upon the penalties to be incurred,\nand to inflict the punishments in case of the contravention of this Article, by their respective citizens or\nsubjects. |lp\n\"ARTICLE VI.\n\" When this Convention shall have been duly ratified\nby the President of the United States, with the advice\nand consent of the Senate on the one part, and on the\nother, by His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, the\nratifications shall be exchanged at Washington in the\nspace of ten months from the date below, or sooner if\npossible.'*\n\" In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have\nsigned this Convention, and thereto affixed the seals of\ntheir arms.\n\"Done at St. Petersburgh the 5th (17th) April in the\nyear of Grace 1824.\n(L.S.) \"Henry Middleton.\n(L.S.) \"Le Comte C. De Nesselrode.\n(L.S.) \"Pierre De Poletica.\"\nConvention between Great Britain and Russia.\nThe negotiations between Great Britain and\nRussia resulted in the Convention of the 28th\nFebruary, 1825.\nThe following is the English translation of this\nConvention:\u2014\n\"ARTICLE I.\n\" It is agreed that the respective subjects of the\nHigh Contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested\nin any part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific\nOcean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or\nin landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have\nbeen already occupied, in order to trade with the natives,\nunder the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.\n[644] P\n\u00a35\nmm*\n 54\nARTICLE II.\n\"In order to prevent the right of navigating and\nfishing exercised upon the ocean by the subjects of the\nHigh Contracting Parties, from becoming the pretext for\nan illicit commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His\nBritannic Majesty shall not land at any place where there\nmay be a Russian establishment without the permission of\nthe Governor or Commandant; and, on the other hand,\nthat Russian subjects shall not land without permission\nat any British establishment on the north-west coast.\n\"ARTICLE III.\n\"The line of demarcation between the possessions\nof the High Contracting Parties upon the coast of the\ncontinent and the islands of America to the north-west,\nshall be drawn in the manner following:\u2014\n\" Commencing from the southernmost part of the island\ncalled Prince of Wales' Island, which point lies in the\nparallel of 54\u00b0 40' north latitude, and between the 131st\nand the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of\nGreenwich), the said'line shall ascend to the north along\nthe channel called Portland Channel, as far as the point of\nthe continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north\nlatitude; from this last - mentioned point, the hue of\ndemarcation shaR foUow the summit of the mountains\nsituated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same\nmeridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection,\nthe said meridian-line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit\nbetween the Russian and British possessions on the continent of America to the north-west.\nTreaty of 1825.\n\"ARTICLE IV.\n\" With reference to the line of demarcation laid down\nin the preceding Article, it is understood;\n\" 1st. That the island called Prince of Wales Island\nshall belong wholly to Russia.\n\" 2nd. That wherever the summit of the mountains\nwhich extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the\n56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection\nof the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at\nthe distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the\nocean, the limit between the British possessions and the\nline of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above\nmentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the\nwindings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the\ndistance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.\n\"ARTICLE V.\n\"It is moreover agreed that no establishment shall\nbe formed by either of the two parties within the limits\nassigned by the two preceding Articles to the possessions\nof the other; consequently British subjects shall not\n 55\nTreaty of 1825.\nform any establishment either upon the coast or upon the\nborder of the continent comprised within the limits of the\nRussian possessions, as designated in the two preceding\nArticles; and, in like manner, no establishment shall be\nformed by Russian subjects beyond the said limits.\n\"ARTICLE VI.\n\"It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic\nMajesty, from whatever quarter they may arrive, whether\nfrom the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall\nfor ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without\nany hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which,\nin their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may cross the\nline of demarcation upon the line of coast described in\nArticle III of the present Convention.\n\"ARTICLE VII.\n\"It is also understood that, for the space of ten\nyears from the signature of the present Convention, the\nvessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their\nrespective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent,\nwithout any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas, the\ngulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in\nArticle III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading\nwith the natives.\"\n\"ARTICLE VIII\n\" The port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open\nto the commerce and vessels of British subjects for the\nspace of ten years from the date of the exchange of the\nratifications of the present Convention. In the event of\nan extension of this term of ten years being granted to any\nother Power, the like extension shaU be granted also to\nGreat Britain.\n\"ARTICLE IX.\n\" The above-mentioned liberty of commerce shall not\napply to the trade in spirituous liquors, in fire-arms, or\nother arms, gunpowder, or other warlike stores; the High\nContracting Parties reciprocally engaging not to permit\nthe above-mentioned articles to be sold or delivered, in any\nmanner whatever, to the natives of the country.\n\"ARTICLE X.\n\" Every British or Russian vessel navigating the Pacific\nOcean which may be compelled by storms or by accident\nto take shelter in the ports of the respective Parties, shall\nbe at liberty to refit therein, to provide itself with aU\nnecessary stores, and to put, to sea again, without paying\nany other than port and lighthouse dues, which shall be\nthe 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\ndefray his expenses, he shaU conform himself to the\nRegulations and Tariffs of the place where he may have\nlanded.\n[644] Q\n'\n1H\u00aep\nnnsn\n 56\n\"ARTICLE XI.\n\" In every case of complaint on account of an infraction\n.of the Articles of the present Convention, the civil and\nmilitary authorities of the High Contracting Parties, without previously acting or taking any forcible measure, shall\nmake an exact and circumstantial report of the matter to\ntheir respective Courts, who engage to settle the same in\na friendly manner and according to the principles of\njustice.\n\"ARTICLE XII.\n\"The present Convention shall be ratified, and the\nratifications shall be exchanged at London within the\nspace of six weeks, or sooner if possible.\n\"In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries\nhave signed the same and have affixed thereto the seal of\ntheir arms.\nI Done at St. Petersburgh the 16th (28th) day of\nFebruary, in the year of our Lord One thousand eight\nhundred and twenty-five.\n(L.S.) \" Stratford Canning.\n(L.S.) \" The Count De Nesselrode.\n(L.S.) \"Pierre de Politica.\"\nMr. Stratford Canning to Mr. GL Canning, in\nhis despatch of the 1st March, 1825, inclosing\nthe Convention as signed, says:\u2014\n\" With respect to Behring Straits, I am happy to have\n. . .....\u201e, See Appendix,\nit in my power to assure you, on the joint authority of the vo^ jj part j\nRussian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of Russia has No. 56.\nno intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim\nto the navigation of those straits, or of the seas to the\nnorth of them.\"\nTreaty of 1825.\nMr. S. Canning, in a further despatch to\nMr. G. Canning, 3rd (15th) April, 1825, said :\u2014\n\" . . . With respect to the right of fishing, no explanation whatever took place between the Plenipotentiaries\nand myself in the course of our negotiations. As no\nobjection was started by them to the Article which I\noffered in obedience to your instructions, I thought it\nunadvisable to raise a discussion on the question; and the\ndistance from the coast at which the right of fishing is to\nbe exercised in common passed without specification, and\nconsequently rests on the law of nations as generally\nreceived.\n\" Conceiving, however, at a later period that you might\npossibly wish to declare the law of nations thereon, jointly\nwith the Court of Russia, in some ostensible shape, I\nbroached the matter anew to Count Nesselrode, and\nsuggested that he should authorize Count Lieven, on your\ninvitation, to exchange notes with you declaratory of the\nIbid., No. 57.\nlaw as fixing the distance a\nt 1 marine league from the\nshore.\n _ _ -\u2014\u2014\u2014\u25a0\u00ab \u2014 \u25a0\u25a0 .- -\u2014 iif- i \u2014\u00bb \u2014 i i \u25a0 __\u25a0\n 57\nI ii\nUnited States' interpretation of Russo-\nAmerican Treaty.\nCount Nesselrode replied that he should feel em\nbarrassed in submitting this suggestion to the Emperor\njust at the moment when the ratifications of the Convention were on the point of being dispatched to London; and\nhe seemed exceedingly desirous that nothing should\nhappen to retard the accomplishment of that essential\nformality. He assured me at the same time that his\nGovernment would be content, in executing the Convention, to abide by the recognized law of nations; and that,\nif any question should hereafter be raised upon the subject,\nhe should not refuse to join in making the suggested\ndeclaration, on being satisfied that the general rule under\nthe law of nations was such as we supposed.\n\" Having no authority to press the point in question, I\ntook the assurance thus given by Count Nesselrode as\nsufficient, in all probability, to answer every national\npurpose. . . .\"\nThe claim of Russia attracted much attention\nat the time.\nPresident Monroe wrote to Mr. Madison on the\n2nd August, 1824, with reference to the Convention of that year, to the effect that\u2014\n\"By this Convention the claim to the mare clausum\nis given up, a very high northern latitude is established\nfor our boundary with Russia, and our trade with the\nIndians placed for ten years on a perfectly free footing,\nand after that term left open for negotiation. . . . England\nwill, of course, have a similar stipulation in favour of the\nfree navigation of the Pacific, but we shall have the credit\nof having taken the lead in the affair.\nIn answer to the above, Mr. Madison wrote to\nPresident Monroe on the 5th August, 1824:\u2014\nLetters and \" The Convention with Russia is a propitious event, as\nMadison Phila^ substituting amicable adjustment for the risk of hostile\ndelphia, 1865, collision. But I give the Emperor, however, little credit\nP* 446, for his assent to the principle of ' mare Liberater' [sic] in\nthe North Pacific. His pretensions were so absurd, and so\ndisgusting to the maritime world, that he could not do\nbetter than retreat from them through the forms of nesro-\ntiation. It is well that the cautious, if not courteous,\npolicy of England towards Russia has had the effect of\nmaking us, in the public eye, the leading Power in arresting\nher expansive ambition.\"\nWharton, Digest\nof International\nLaw, section 159,\nvol. ii, p. 226.\nThe Ukase never enforced.\nSee letter of\nS. Canning to\nG. Canning,\nApril 23, 1823.\n.Appendix, vol. ii,\nPart I, No. 24.\nSee post, p. 78.\nIn the year 1822 the Russian authorities\nattempted to enforce the provisions of the Ukase\nof 1821 and seized the United States' brier\n| Pearl,\" when on a voyage from Boston to Sitka.\nThe circumstances of this case are stated in the\nnext Chapter.\nIt is sufficient for the present purpose to note\n\u25a0 i\n9H\n 58\nML\n\u25a0 \u00ab|\nthat the United States at once protested, the\n\" Pearl\" was released, and compensation paid for\nher arrest and detention.\nThis is believed to be the only case in which\nany attempt was, in practice, made by E\/ussia to\ninterfere with any ship of another nation in the\nwaters in question outside of territorial limits.\nThe facts disclosed in this Chapter show :\u2014\nThat the Ukase of the Emperor Paul in the\nyear 1821\u2014the first and only attempt on the\npart of Russia to assert dominion over, and\nrestrict the rights of other nations in, the non-\nterritorial waters of the North Pacific, including\nthose of Behring Sea\u2014was made the subject of\nimmediate and emphatic protest by Great Britain\nand the United States of America,\nThat Russia thereupon unequivocally withdrew her claims to such exclusive dominion and\nright of control.\nThat the Conventions of 1824 and 1825\ndeclared-and recognized the rights of the subjects\nof Great Britain and the United States to navigate and fish in all parts of the non-territorial\nwaters over which the Ukase purported to\nextend.\n 59\nPacific Ocean \" as used in the\nTreaty of 1825.\nChapter III.\nHead C.\u2014The question whether the body of water\nnow known as the Behring Sea is included in the\nphrase \"Pacific Ocean\" as used in the Treaty of\n1S25 between Great Britain and Russia.\nIt will be remembered that the Ukase of 1821\nincluded the Pacific from the Behring Strait southward to the 51 st parallel, and that this claim was\nprotested against in toto, on the ground that the\ncoast was almost entirely unoccupied, and that\nmaritime jurisdiction, even where the coast was\noccupied, could not extend beyond 3 miles.\nIn the first Articles of the Conventions of\n1824 and 1825 the claim to an extraordinary\njurisdiction at sea was definitely abandoned, and\nthe abandonment was a complete withdrawal of\nthe claim made. It was principally against this\nvery claim that the protests of Great Britain\nand the United States Were directed, and its\nrelinquishment was therefore, and purposely,\nplaced at the head of each of the resulting Conventions.\nArticle I of the Convention between Russia\nand the United States is as follows :\u2014\n\"It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean,\ncommonly called the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, the\nrespective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting\nPowers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in\nnavigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the\ncoasts, upon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving\nalways the restrictions and conditions determined by the\nfollowing Articles.\"\nArticle I of the Convention between Great\nBritain and Russia is as follows:\u2014\nI \" It is agreed that the respective \u2022 subjects of. the\nHigh Contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested\nin any part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific\nOcean\/either in navigating the same, in fishing therein,\nor in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have\nbeen already occupied, in order to trade with the natives,\nunder the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.\"\nIt has been contended, however, on the part of\nthe United States, that the renunciation of\nclaims contained in the Articles above quoted\ndid not extend to what is now known as Behring\nSea.\nOn this point Mr, Blaine, Secretary of State\nfor the United States, writes :\u2014\nT644] R\n11\n\u25a0\u25a0Mm\n\"\u25a0 \u25a0wc.-\nBS38S5J\n 60\n\" The United States contends that the Behring Sea was\nnot mentioned, or even referred to, in either Treaty, and\nwas in no sense included in the phrase ' Pacific\" Ocean.' Mr. Blaine to Sir .\nIf Great Britain can maintain her position that the J-Pauncefote, Blue\nBehring Sea at the time of the Treaties with Russia of gtateg t^0> jg9j\n1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean, the p. 37.\nGovernment of the United States has no well-grounded Sef APPendlx>\n\u00b0 vol. in.\ncomplaint against her.\" '0m\nContention of the United States that\nBehring Sea was not included.\nIn order to uphold the contention thus\nadvanced by the United States, it is, however,\nfurther found necessary to maintain that the\nwords \"north-west coast\" and \"north-west\ncoast of America,\" which frequently occur in the\ncorrespondence connected with those Conventions, refer only to a portion of the coast of the\ncontinent south of Behring Sea. This portion of\nthe coast Mr. Blaine endeavours to define\nprecisely in his letter, which has just been\nquoted, illustrating his meaning by maps, and\nseeking to restrict the application of the term\nto that part of the coast which runs southward i^id., p, 38.\ncontinuously from the 60th parallel.\nThe meaning of the phrase \"Pacific Ocean\"\nand that of the term \" north-west coast\" are thus\nintimately associated in the contention of the\nUnited States, and it will be convenient to treat\nthem together.\nI North-west Coast.\"'\nMeaning\nMeaning of the phrase \"Pacific Ocean' and the\nterm \"North-west Coast\" in the Treaties and\nCorrespondence.\nIt will be found that such a construction of jvr. de Poletica to\nthese phrases as Mr. Blaine has striven to place ^ Ada\u2122s' , onn\nr x February 28, 1822.\nupon them cannot be reconciled with the corre- See Appendix,\n\u25a01 vol. ii, Part II,\nspondence. No ^\nIn the first place, it has already been shown\n\u2022that Russia's object was not the acquisition of\nthe control of the sea between Behring Strait and\nlatitude 51\u00b0\u2014this she distinctly denied\u2014but the\nexclusion from her coasts in Asia and America,\nand on the islands, of the traders whose ventures\nthreatened the success of the Russian-American\nCompany.\nNo claim had been advanced by Russia which\ncould possibly render a distinction between\nBehring Sea and the main Pacific of the slightest\nimportance.\nOn the contrary, in the Ukase of 1799, Russia\nasserted jurisdiction over her subjects on all\nhunting grounds and estahlishments on the\ncoast of America from the 55\u00b0 north latitude to\nBehring Strait and thence southward to Japan,\nof \"Pacific Ocean\" and\n\"North-west Coast\" in the Treaties and correspondence.\n \u25a0\u25a0BfissHI\nUsage of the terms in official\ncorrespondence.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 1.\nIbid., vol. ii,\nPart I, No. 1.\nI North-west Coast\/*\nPacific Ocean.'\nand on the Aleutian, Kurile, and other Islands\nin all the | north-eastern\nIn 1821, Russia was endeavouring to assert\na title to the whole coast from Behring Strait\nto 51\u00b0 north latitude on the American, and\nlatitude 45\u00b0 50' on the Asiatic coast.\nHer claim to an extraordinary maritime jurisdiction over the non-territorial waters of the\nocean was definitively abandoned at the outset\nof the negotiations, and the discussion was\nthenceforward confined to the protection of her\nrights within territorial limits.\nRussia's object was the recognition and protection of the Russian Settlements in America.\nAccordingly, the Conventions provide against\n\"illicit commerce,\" landing \"at any place [from\nBehring Strait to the southernmost boundary]\nwhere there may be a Russian establishment\nwithout the permission of the Governor or Commandant,\" and against the formation of Establishments by either Power (in the respective Conventions) on territory claimed by, or conceded to,\nthe other.\nWith the same object rules were made by\nRussia, headed \" Rules established for the Limits\nof Navigation and Order of Communication along\nthe coast of the Eastern Siberia, the north-west-\ncoast of America, and the Aleutian, Kurile, and\nother Islands.\" This obviously included the\nAmerican coast of Behring Sea in the term\n\"north-west coast.\"\nBaron Nicolay, writing to Lord Londonderry,\n31st October (12th November), 1821, says:\u2014\nI (Translation.)\n\" The new Regulation does not forbid foreign vessels to\nnavigate the seas which wash the Russian possessions on\nthe northrwest coast of America and the north-east coast\nof Asia.\n*\n| On the other hand, in considering the Russian possessions which extend on the nortJi-west coast of America,\nfrom Behring Strait to 51\u00b0 of north latitude, and also on\nthe opposite coast of Asia and the adjacent islands, from\nthe same Strait to 45\u00b0, &c.\n* * * *\n\" For, if it is demonstrated that the Imperial Government would, strictly speaking, have had the power to\nentirely close to foreigners that part of the Pacific Ocean\non which our possessions in America and Asia border,\nthere is all the more reason why the right, in virtue of\nwhich it has just adopted a measure much less generally\nrestrictive, should not be called in question.'\n*\nass\ni The officers commanding the Russian vessels of war,\nRS\u00abM\n\"B*7!9B?\n 62\nwhich are to see to the maintenance .of the above-men-\ntioned arrangements in the Pacific Ocean, have been\nordered to put them into force against those foreign\nvessels, &c.\"\nIn this note \"north-west coast of America\"\nis mentioned three times, and in each case the\ncoast of Behring Sea is included in the term.\n\"Pacific Ocean\" appears twice, and in both\ninstances includes the Behring Sea.\nA map, published officially by Russian au- For map, see\nthorities, of which a copy is included among the Appendix, vol. iv,\ndocuments annexed to this Case, was forwarded See Appendix,\nfrom St. Petersburg by Sir Charles Bagot to jjj^ \u00a3 ar '\nLord Londonderry, in a despatch dated the 17th\nNovember, 1821, in which it is thus described:\u2014\n11 have the honour to transmit to your Lordship, under\na separate cover, an English translation of the Ukase, and\nI at the same time inclose a Map of the north-west coasts\nof America, and the Aleutian and Kurile Islands, which\nhas been published in the Quartermaster-General's Department here, and upon which I have marked all the principal Russian Settlements.\"\nIt will be seen on reference to this Map that\nthe words \" part of the north-west coast of\nAmerica\" include the whole coast line from a\npoint north of Behring Straits down to latitude\n64\u00b0 north.\nAgain Lord Londonderry writes to Count\nLieven :\u2014\nNorth-west Coast.\"\n\" The Undersigned has the honour hereby to acknowledge the note, addressed to him by Baron de Nicolay of\nthe 12th November last, covering a copy of an Ukase\nissued by His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of All the\nRussias, and bearing date the 4th September, 1821, for\nvarious purposes, therein set forth, especially connected\nwith the territorial rights of his Crown on the northwestern coast of America, bordering upon the Pacific, and\nthe commerce and navigation of His Imperial Majesty's\nsubjects in the seas adjacent thereto.\"\nAnd Mr. S. Canning writing in Eebruary 1822\nto Lord Londouderry from \"Washington, where\nhe was then British Minister, observes:\u2014\n\" I was informed this morning by Mr. Adams that the\nRussian Envoy has, within the last few days, communicated officially to the American Government an Ukase of\n.the Emperor of Russia, which has lately appeared in the\npublic prints, appropriating to the sovereignty and exclusive use of His Imperial Majesty the north-west coast\nof America down to the 51st parallel of latitude, together\nwith a considerable portion of the opposite coasts of Asia,\nand the neighbouring seas to the extent of 100 Italian\nmiles from any part of the coasts and intervening islands\nso appropriated. In apprizing me of this circumstance,\nMr, Adams gave me to understand that it was not the\nintention of the American Cabinet to admit the claim thus\nLord Londonderry\nto Count Lieven,\nJanuary 18, 1822.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 7.\nMr. Stratford\nCanning to the\nMarquis of\nLondonderry,\nFebruary 19, 1822.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 9.\n .\"North-west Coast.\"\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part if,\nNo. 1.\n\"Pacific Ocean.\"\nNorth-west Coast.\"\nHudson's Bay\nCompany to the\nMarquis of\nLondonderry,\nMarch 27, 1822.\nSee Appendix,\nVol. ii, Part I,\nNo. 10.\nMr. Adams to\nMr. Rash, July 22,\n1823. American\nState Papers,\nForeign delations,\nvol. v, p. 446.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, J'art II,\nNo. 4.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, Nos. 3 and 4.\n63\nnotified on the part of Russia. His objection appears to\nlie more particularly against the exclusion of foreign,\nvessels to so great a distance from the shore.\"\nAgain M. de Poletica, writing to Mr. Adams\non the 28th February, 1822 :\u2014\n\" The first discoveries of the Russians on the north-west\ncontinent of America go back to the time of the Emperor\nPeter I. They belong to the attempt, made towards the\nend of the reign of this great Monarch, to find a passage\nfrom the icy sea into the Pacific Ocean.\"\n* * \u2022 \u00bb\nI When, in 1799, the Emperor Paul I granted to the\npresent American Company its first Charter, he gave it the\nexclusive possession of the north-west coast of America,\nwhich belonged to Russia, from the 55th degree of north\nlatitude to Behring Straits.\"\n* * * *\n\" Erom this faithful exposition of known facts, it is easy,\nSir, as appears to me, to draw the conclusion that the rights\nof Russia, to the extent of the north-west coast, specified\nin the Regulation of the Russian-American Company,\nrest,\" &c.\n* \u2022 * \u2022\n\" The Imperial Government, in assigning for limits to\nthe Russian possessions on the north-west coast of America\non the one side Behring Straits, and on the other the 51st\ndegree of north latitude, has,\" &c.\n* * *\u2022\n\" I ought, in the last place, to request you to consider,\nSir, that the Russian possessions in tJie Pacific Oceovn extend\nen the north-west coast of America from Behring Straits to\nthe 51st degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side\nof Asia and the islands adjacent from the same strait to\nthe 45th degree.\"\nThroughout tbis note the phrase \" north-west\ncoast I includes the coast of Behring Sea, and the\nlast passage shows unmistakably that the Russians\nat that time regarded the Pacific Ocean as extending to Behring Strait.\nThe attention of the British Government was\ncalled to the Ukase by the Hudson's Bay Company in the following terms:\u2014\n\" It has fallen under the observation of the Governor\nand Committee of the Hudson's Bay Company that the\nRussian Government have made a claim to the north-west\ncoast of America from Behring Straits to the 51st degree\nof north latitude; and in an Imperial Ukase have prohibited foreign vessels from approaching the coast within\n100 miles, under penalty of confiscation.\nMr. Adams, in 1823, dealt with the Russian\nclaim as one of exclusive territorial right on the\nnorth-west coast of America, extending, as he said,\nfrom the \" northern extremity of the continent.\"\nArticles in the \"North American Review\" (vol. xv,\nArticle 18), and \" Quarterly Review \" (1821-22,\n[644] S\nill\nI y|;\n1 !\n 64\nOft\nvol. xxvi, p. 344), published at the time of the\ncontroversy, and already referred to as mentioned\nwith approbation by Mr. Adams, in 1824-25,\nuse the words | north-west coast\" with the same\nsignification.\nMr. Adams, in his despatch of the 22nd July, American State\n_r>__ , -. r \u25a0^.|^.^-,^ , \u201e . . .. TT, \u00bb Papers, Foreign\n1823, to Mr. Middleton, referred to the Ukase ol Relations, vol. v\nthe Emperor Paul as purporting to grant to the P- 436*\nAmerican Companv the \" exclusive possession of See Appendix,\nr J f vol ii, Part II,\nthe north-west coast of America, which belonged No. 3.\nto Russia, from the 55th degree of north latitude\nto Behring Strait.\"\nThe fact that the whole, and not merely a\nparticular portion, of the territorial and maritime\nclaim advanced by the Ukase was in question,\nand was settled by the Treaties of 1824 and 1825,\nalso appears from the Memorial laid by Mr.\nMiddleton, on the part of the United States,\nbefore the Russian Government on the 17th\nDecember, 1823:\u2014\n| With all the respect which we owe to the declared American State\nintention and to the determination indicated by the Ukase, Bapers> v\u00b0b v\u00bb\np. 452.\nit is necessary to examine the two points of fact; (1.) If\nthe country to the south and east of Behring Strait, as far as f \"^tTVtt\nthe Blst degree of north latitude, is found strictly unoccupied. No. 5.\n(2.) If there has been, latterly, a real occupation of this vast\nterritory ? . . . . The conclusion which must necessarily\nresult from these facts does not appear to establish that\nthe territory in question had been legitimately incorporated with the Russian Empire.\n\"The extension of territorial rights to the distance of\n100 miles from the coasts upon two opposite continents,\nand the prohibition of approaching to the same distance\nfrom these coasts, or from those of all the intervening\nislands, are innovations in the law of nations, and measures\nunexampled.\"\nIn an earlier part of the same paper, Mr.\nMiddleton observes:\u2014\n\"The Ukase even goes to the shutting up of a strait\nwhich has never been till now shut up, and which is at\npresent the principal object of discoveries, interesting and\nuseful to the sciences.\n\" The very terms of the Ukase bear that this pretension\nhas now been made for the first time.\"\nThe same appears from Mr. G. Canning's\ndespatch to Sir C. Bagot of the 24th July, \u201e\n- See Appendix,\n1824 (which has been already quoted in another vol ii, Part I,\nconnection) :\u2014\n\" Your Excellency will observe that there are but two\npoints which have struck Count Lieven as susceptible of\nany question. The first, the assumption of the base of the\nmountains, instead cf the summit as the line of boundary;\nthe second, the extension of the right of navigation of the\nPacific to the sea beyond Behring Straits.\n\" North-west Coast.\"\nPacific Ocean.\"\n 65\n\" Pacific Ocean,\"\nSee ante, p. 32.\n\" As to the second point, it is perhaps, as Count Lieven\nremarks, new. But it is to be remarked, in return, that the\ncircumstances under which this additional security is\nrequired will be new also.\nI By the territorial demarcation agreed to in this' Projet\/\nRussia will become possessed, in acknowledged sovereignty\nof both sides, of Behring Straits.\n\" The Power which could think of making the Pacific a\nmare clausum may not unnaturally be supposed capable of\na disposition to apply the same character to a strait comprehended between two shores of which it becomes the\nundisputed owner; but the shutting up of Behring Straits, or\nthe power to shut them up hereafter, would be a thing not to\nbe tolerated by England.\nI Nor could we submit to be excluded, either positively or\nconstructively, from a sea in which the skill and science of\nour seamen has been and is still employed in enterprises\ninteresting not to this country alone, but to the whole civilized\nworld.\n\" The protection* given by the Convention to the\nAmerican coasts of each Power may (if it is thought\nnecessary) be extended in terms to the coasts of the\nRussian Asiatic territory; but in some way or other, if\nnot in the form now prescribed, the free navigation of\nBehring Straits, and of the seas beyond them, must be\nsecured to us.\"\nIt would have been of little advantage to\nsecure the right to navigate through Behring\nStrait unless the right to navigate the sea leading\nto it was secured, which would not have been\nthe case if the Ukase had remained in full\nforce over Behring Sea.\nThe frequent references to Behring Strait and\nthe seas beyond it show that there was no\ndoubt in the minds of the British statesmen of\nthat day that, in obtaining an acknowledgment\nof freedom of navigation and fishing throughout\nthe Pacific, they had also secured this right\nas far as Behring Strait.\nAs corroborative proof of the usual practice of\nthe^British naval authorities, in the nomenclature\nof these waters, reference may be made to the\ninstructions given in 1825 by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, which will be found\nin the | Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and\nBehring Strait, &c,\" under command of Captain\nP. W. Beechey, R.N., in the years 1825-26-27-28,\npublished by authority in London, 1831.\nThese instructions from the Lords Commis-\n* (\u00bb.\u00ab.) By the extension of territorial jurisdiction to two\nleagues, as originally proposed in the course of the negotiations\nbetween Great Britain and Russia\nf*\n 66\nsioners, which are full and detailed, make\nreference only to Behring Strait and the Pacific\nOcean, and do not mention the Sea of Kairi-\ntchatka or Behring Sea.\nCommon meaning of \" Pacific Ocean'' and \" North-\nWest Coast\"\nThe.works of Mr. Robert Greenhow, Translator and Librarian to the United States*\nDepartment of State (well known in connection with the discussion of the \"Oregon question\"), afford a detailed and conclusive means of\nascertaining the views officially held by the United\nStates' Government on the meaning of Pacific\nOcean, Behring Sea, North-west coast, and the\nextent to which the claims made by Russia in\nthe Ukase of T.821 were abandoned by the Convention of 1824.\nCommon meaning of \" Pacific Ocean,\"\nand \" North-west Coast.\"\nGreenhow's works,\nA \" Memoir \" Was prepared bv Mr. Greenhow, ''Memoir Historical and Political of the north-west coast\n\u2022*\u25a0 x \" of North America and the adjacent territories, iliustiated\non the official request of Mr. L. P. Linn, Chairman\nof a Select Committee on the Territory of Oregon,\n\"North-west Coast.\"\nby a Map and a geographical view of these countries, by\nRobert Greenhow, Translator and Librarim to the Department of State.\" Senate, 26th Cong., 1st Session (174),\nby Order Of Mr. John Porsyth, Secretary Of State. The same Memoir, separately printed, apparently in identical\nT, . , -. -,r ,.., , .. m, ..-,. ,, L.^ , form, and with the same Map, and pagination, Wiley and\nit includes a Map entitled \" The JNorth-west Coast. Putnam, New York, 1840.\nof Xorth America and adjacent Territories,\"\nwhich extends from below A.capulco in Mexico\nto above the mouth of the Kuskoquim in Behring\nSea, and embraces also the greater part of the\nAleutian chain.\nTouching the signification of the terms Northwest coast and Pacific Ocean, and the meaning\nattached to the relinquishment of Russian claims\nby the Convention of 1824, the first part of\nthe \" Memoir,'' under the heading \" Geography\nof the \"Western Section of North America,\" contains the following passage:\u2014\n\"The north-west coast* is the expression usually employed in the United States at the present time to\ndistinguish the vast portion of the American continent\nwhich extends north of the 40th parallel of latitude from\nthe Pacific to the great dividing ridge of the Rocky\nMountains, together with the contiguous islands in that\nocean. The southern part of this territory, which is\ndrained almost entirely by the Eiver Columbia, is commonly\ncalled Oregon, from the supposition (no doubt erroneous)\nthat such was the name applied to its principal stream by\nthe aborigines. To the more northern parts of the\ncontinent many appellations, which will hereafter be\nmentioned, have been assigned by navigators and fur\ntraders of various nations. The territory bordering upon\nthe Pacific southward, from the 40th parallel to the\n\u2022 N.B.\u2014The italics in this and subsequent quotations axo thc*\u00ab\nemployed by Greenhow himself.\n 67\nextremity of the peninsula which stretches in that\ndirection as far as the Tropic of Cancer, is called California,\na name of uncertain derivation, formerly applied by the\nSpaniards to the whole western section of North America,\nas that of Florida was employed by them to designate the\nregions bordering upon the Atlantic. The north-west\ncoast and the west coast of California, together form the\nwest coast of North America; as it has been found\nimpossible to separate the history of these two portions,\nso it will be necessary to include them both in this\ngeographical view \" (p. 1;.\n1 Pacific Ocean.\"\n: The Geography of Oregon and California and the other\nterritories on the north-west coast of North America.\"\nNew York, 1845.\nMr. Greenhow here gives the following\nnote:\u2014-\n\" In the following pages the term coast will be used,\nsometimes as signifying only the sea-shore, and sometimes\nas embracing the whole territory, extending therefrom to\nthe sources of the river; care has been, however, taken to\nprevent misapprehension, where the context does not\nsufficiently indicate the true sense. In order to avoid\nrepetitions, the north-west coast will be understood to be\nthe north-west coast of North America; all latitudes will\nbe taken as north latitudes, and all longitudes as west from\nGreenwich, unless otherwise expressed.\"\nThe | Memoir \" continues as follows :\u2014\nI The northern extremity of the west coast of America\nis Cape Prince of Wales, in latitude of 65\u00b0 52', which is\nalso the westernmost spot in the whole continent; it is\nsituated on the eastern side of Beering's Strait, a channel\n51 miles in width, connecting the Pacific with the Arctic\n[or Icy or North Frozen] Ocean, on the western side of\nwhich strait, opposite Cape Prince of \"Wales, is Fast Cape,\nthe eastern extremity of Asia. Beyond Beering Strait the\nshores of the two continents recede from each other. The\nnorth coast of America has been traced from Cape Prince\nof Wales north-eastward to Cape Barrow,\" &c, pp. 3-4.\nThe relations of Behring Sea to the Pacific\nOcean are defined as follows in the \" Memoir\":\u2014\n\" The part of the Pacific north of the Aleutian Islands\nwhich bathes those shores is commonly distinguished as\nthe Sea of Kamtchatka, and sometimes as Behring Sea, in\nhonour of the Eussian navigator of that name who first\nexplored it\" (pp. 4-5).\nAgain, in the | Geography of Oregon and\nCalifornia,\" Mr. Greenhow writes :\u2014\n\"Cape Prince of Wales, the westernmost point of\nAmerica, is the eastern pillar of Behring Strait, a passage\nonly 50 miles in width, separating that continent from\nAsia, and forming the only direct communication between\nthe Pacific and Arctic Oceans.\n* * \u2022\u2022 *\n[6441\nL\nT\nics\n \u25a0-\"\u25a0\u25a0.*.*-\nI; '\u25a0\u25a0- %\n68\n| The part of the Pacific called the Sea of Kamtchatka, or\nBehring Sea, north of the Aleutian chain, likewise contains several islands,\" &c. (p. 4).\nGreenhow's | History \" was officially presented\nto the Government of Great Britain by the\nGovernment of the United States in July 1845,\nin connection with the Oregon discussion and in\npursuance of an Act of Congress.*\nIn this History the Sea of Kamtchatka, or\nBehring's Sea, is again referred to as a part of the\nPacific Ocean.\nIn respect of the understanding by the United\nStates that the claims advanced by the Ukase\nof 1821 had been entirely relinquished by the\nRussian and United States' Convention of 1824,\nPacific Ocean.\"\n| The^ History of Oregon and California and the other\nterritories on the north-weBt coast of North America, by\nRobert Greenhow, Translator and Librarian to the Department of State of the United States; author of a Memoir\nHistorical and Political, on the north-west coast of North\nAmerica, published in 1840 by direction of the Senate of\nthe United States.\" New York, 1845.\nThis is a second edition, and in the preface it is explained\nthat its issue was rendered necessary to supply 1,500\ncopies of the work which had been ordered for the General\nGovernment.\nThe same work. First edition, London, 1844.\nBoth editions contain Maps, which appear to be identical,\nbut different from the Maps accompanying the Memoir,\nthough including nearly the same limits with them.\n* The following is the correspondence accompanying the\npresentation by the Government of the United States:\u2014\n\" Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Pakenham.\n\" Department of State, Washington,\n\"Sir, \"July 12, 1845.\n\"In pursuance of an Act of Congress approved on the\n20th February, 1845, I have the honour to transmit to\nyou herewith, for presentation to the Government of\nGreat Britain, one copy of the 'History of Oregon,\nCahfornia, and the other territories on the !Nbrth-west\nCoast of America,' by Eobert Greenhow, Esq., Translator\nand Librarian of the Department of State.\n11 avail, &c.\n(Signed) \"James Buchanan.\"\n\"Mr. Pakenham to the Earl of Aberdeen.\u2014{Received\n| August 16.)\n\"My Lord, 1 Washington, July 29, 1845.\n\" I have the honour herewith to transmit a copy of a\nnote which I have received from the Secretary of State of\nthe United States, accompanied by a copy of Mr. Green-\nhow's work on Oregon and California, which, in pursuance\nof an Act of Congress, is presented to Her Majesty's\nGovernment.\nAlthough. Mr. Greenhow's book is already in your\nLordship's possession, I think it right, in consequence of\nthe official character with which it is presented, to forward\nto your Lordship the inclosed volume, being the identical\none which has been sent to me by Mr. Buchanan.\n\"I have not failed to acknowledge the receipt of\nMr. Buchanan's note in suitable terms.\nI have, &c.\n(Signed) \"K. Pakenham.\"\n Ir\n69\nthe following is found on a later page of the\nvolume last referred to:\u2014\n\" This Convention does not appear to offer any grounds\nfor dispute as to the construction of its stipulations, but is,\non the contrary, clear, and equally favourable to both\nnations. The rights of both parties to navigate every part\nof the Pacific, and to trade with the natives of any places\non the coasts of that sea, not already occupied, are first\ndistinctly acknowledged, &c. \" (p. 342).\nIt is tbus clear, as the result of the investigations undertaken by Greenhow on behalf of the\nUnited States' Government\u2014\nThat Behring Sea was a part of the Pacific.\nThat the north-west coast was understood to\nextend to Behring Strait.\nThat Russia relinquished her asserted claims\nover \" every part of the Pacific.\"\nEussian interpretation of \" Pacific\nOcean.\"\nTikhmeniefF.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 5,\nThat the phrase | Pacific Ocean | in the Treaty\nincluded Behring Sea is still further shown by\nthe reply of the Russian Government to Governor\nEtholin in 1842, when he wished to keep .Ameri-\ncan whalers out of Behring Sea:\u2014\n\" The claim to a mare clausum, if we wished to advance\nsuch a claim in respect to the northern part of the Pacific\nOcean, could not be theoretically justified. Under Article I\nof the Convention of 1824 between Russia and the United\nStates, which is still in force, American citizens have a right\nto fish in all parts of the Pacific Ocean. But under\nArticle IV of the same Convention, the ten years' period\nmentioned in that Article having expired, we have power\nto forbid American vessels to visit inland seas, gulfs,\nharbours, and bays for the purposes of fishing and trading\nwith the natives. That is the limit of our rights, and we\nhave no power to prevent American ships from taking\nwhales in the open sea.\"\n1846.\nIbid.\nInterpretation in the United States\nSeepos!, p. 99.\nAgain, in the reply of the Russian Government\nto representations of the Governor-General of\nEastern Siberia in 1846, the following words\noccur:\u2014\n| We have no right to exclude foreign ships from that\npart of the great ocean which separates the eastern shore\nof Siberia from the north-western shore of America,\" &c.\nThe instructions which were finally issued\nto the Russian cruizers on the 9th December,\n1853, are to the same effect.\nThe Legislature of the Territory of Washington,\nin 1866, referred to sc fishing banks known to\nnavigators to exist along the Pacific coast from,\nthe Gortes bank to Behring Strait.\"\nI\nm\n1\nMm\nwnw\nmmm\n '0\nll\nIt is clear that the Honourable Charles Sumner,\nwhen proposing to the Senate, in the year 1867,\nthe adoption of the Treaty of Cession of Alaska,\nunderstood the words \"North Pacific\" in the\nsense in which these words are defined by the\nauthorities just cited. In his speech on that\noccasion, Mr. Sumner thus referred to the waters\nin question:\u2014\n\" Sea-otter seems to belong exclusively to the North See Appendix,\nPacific Its present zone is between the parallels vo*' *\u00bb \u21220, *>\u2022\nof 60\u00b0 and 65\u00b0 north latitude on the American and Asiatic\ncoasts, so that its range is very limited.\"\nI\nMr. IE. W. Elliott, who was engaged in the Report on the Seal\n00 Islands of Alaska,\nstudy of the seal islands of Alaska for the United Washington, 1881,\nStates' Government as late as the year 1881, in pp* 6'\nhis official Report on the seal islands of Alaska\nremarks, concerning the seals :\u2014\n\" Their range in the North Pacific is virtually confined to\nfour islands in Bering Sea, namely, St. Paul and St. George,\nof the tiny Pribyloff group, and Bering and Copper of the\nCommander Islands.\"\nAgain, he says :\u2014\n\" In the North Atlantic no suitable territory for their\nreception exists, or ever did exist ; and really nothing in\nthe North Pacific beyond what we have designated in\nBering Sea.\"\nHe also describes the rookeries in Behring Sea\nas % North Pacific rookeries.\"\nAnd \"writes further:\u2014\n\" Geographically, as well as in regard to natural history, \u00bb P* * *\nBering Island is one of the most curious islands in the\nnorthern part of the Pacific Ocean.\"\nThe above are, however, only a few from\namong very many similar instances which might\nhe quoted of the continued usage of the name\nI Pacific Ocean \" as including Behring Sea.\nIn 1882, a Notice which affected part of\nOkhotsk and Behring Seas was published by\nA. K. Pelikan, His Royal and Imperial Majesty's\nConsul, Yokohama, on the 15th November, 1881,\nfrom which the following, is an extract:\u2014\nAt the request of the local authorities of Behring and 50th Cong., 2nd\nother islands, the Undersigned hereby notifies that the Sess., Sen. Ex.\n\u2022 \u2022 \/~i t -l ' \/\u2022 i i Doc. Ao. 106,\nRussian Imperial Government publishes tor general know- 559.\nledge the following:\u2014\n 71\n\"Pacific\"\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate Ex.\nDoc. No. 106,\np. 262.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 16.\n1. Without a special permit or licence from the\nGovernor-General of Eastern Siberia, foreign vessels are\nnot allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c, on\nthe Eussian coast or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring\nSeas, or on the north-eastern coast of Asia, or within their\nsea boundary-line.\"\nIn the correspondence between the United\nStates and Russia, touching the meaning of this\nRegulation, the Notice is alluded to by M. de\nGiers as \" relative to fishing, hunting, and to trade\nin the Russian waters of the Pacific,\" and as\nrelative to fishing and hunting in (t our Pacific\nwaters.\"\nIn the same correspondence the Secretary of\nState of the United States and the United States'\nMinister at St. Petersburg similarly speak of\n1 Pacific Coast fisheries \" and | our Pacific Ocean\nfisheries.\"\nWriting on the 8th (20th) May, 1882, to\nMr. Hoffman, the American Minister at St.\nPetersburg, M. de Giers said:\u2014\n\" Eeferring to the exchange of communications which\nhas taken place between us on the subject of a Notice\npublished by our Consul at Yokohama relative to fishing,\nhunting, and to trade in the Russian waters of the Pacific,\nand in reply to the note which you addressed to me, dated\nthe 15th (27th) March, I am now in a position to give\nyou the following information:\u2014\nIA Notice of the tenour of that annexed to your note of\nthe 15th March was, in fact, published by our Consul at\nYokohama, and our Consul-General at San Francisco is\nalso authorized to publish it.\nI This measure refers only to prohibited industries and\nto the trade in contraband; the restrictions which it\nestablishes extend strictly to the territorial waters of Eussia\nonly. It was required by the numerous abuses proved in\nlate years, and which fell with all their weight on the\npopulation of our sea-shore and of our islands, whose only\nmeans of support is by fishing and hunting. These abuses\ninflicted also a marked injury on the interests of the\nCompany to which the Imperial Government had conceded\nthe monopoly of fishing and hunting (f exportation'), in\nislands called the | Commodore' and the f Seals.'\n\"Beyond this new Eegulation, of which the essential\npoint is the obligation imposed upon captains of vessels\nwho desire to fish and to hunt in the Russian waters of the\nPacific to provide themselves at Vladivostock with the\npermission or licence of the Governor-General of Oriental\nSiberia, the right of fishing, hunting, and of trade by\nforeigners in our territorial waters is regulated by\nArticle 560, and those following, of vol. xh, Part II, of\nthe Code of Laws.\n\" Informing you of the preceding, I have, &c.\"\n[644] U\nwBmmmmmmmtm\nft*\n t\n72\nBancroft writes, in his | History of Alaska\"\n(pp. 19, 20): I The Anadir, which empties into\nthe Pacific.\" Again: | Thus the Pacific Ocean\nwas first reached by the Russians on the shore of\nthe Okhotsk Sea.\" And yet again: \" The ascent\nof the Lena brought the Russians to Lake Baikal,\nand showed them another route to the Pacific,\nthrough China by way of the Amoor.\"\nSo, in 1887, it is found that the American 50th Cong., 2nd\nRepresentative at St. Petersburg informed doc.No. 106,\nMr. Bayard (17th February, 1887) that the P- *f i\n^ v m ' See Appendix,\nNotice already quoted prohibits fishing, &c, on Vol. ii, Part II,\n\"the Russian Pacific coasts.\" This corre- No*18*\nspondence related to a seizure which had been\nmade in Behring Straits.\n\" Pacific.\nI\n1\nGeographical use of \" Pacific Ocean\" and \"North-\nWest Coast:' \\\nIn the discussion of the question of jurisdiction between the United States and Great Britain,\nspecial reference has been made by the United\nStates to the marking of Maps, from which it has\nbeen insisted that the waters of Behring Sea had\nbeen given a name distinct from that of the\nPacific Ocean.\nProm this it was urged that the words | Pacific\nOcean\" in the Conventions were used with great\ncare, so as to reserve under the exclusive jurisdiction of Russia the waters of Behring Sea.\nIt is, however, to be noted in studying any series\nof Maps chronologically arranged, particularly\nthose published before the middle of the present\ncentury, that Behring Sea is frequently without\nany special name, though the adjoining Sea of\nOkhotsk is in almost every instance clearly\ndesignated.\nOn various Charts issued by the United States'\nHydrographic Office, including the latest and\nmost perfect editions now in actual use, the expression \"Pacific | or \"North Pacific Ocean\" is\nused as including Behring Sea. This appears\nfrom the titles of such Charts, of which the\nfollowing may be referred to :\u2014\nNo. 909. Published March 1883 at the Hydro-\ngraphic Office, Washington, D.C.:\u2014\n\"Pacific Ocean. Behring Sea, Plover Bay,\nfrom a survey by Lieutenant Maximov, Imperial\nRussian Navy, 1876.\" \u00a7 | I\n(Plover Bay is situated on the Asiatic coast,\nnear the entrance to Behring Strait.)\nGeographical use of \" Pacific Ocean \" and'\n1 North-west Coast.'\n \" Pacific \" and \" North-west Coast\" in\ngeographical works.\nMalham, John, \"Naval Gazetteer,\" London, 1795.\nBrookes, R., \" General Gazetteer,\" 12th ed., London, 1802.\nGalletti, J. G. A., \" Allgemeines Geographisches Worter-\nbuch,\" Pesth, 1822.\n\" Dictionnaire Geograpbique Universel,\" Tom. iv, Paris,\n1823-33.\nSeitz, Dr. J. C, \"Geographisches Statistisches Hand-\nworterbuch,\" Bd. iii, Pesth, 1822, Halberstadt, 1829.\nArrowsmith, \" Grammar of Modern Geography,\" London,\n1832.\nNo. 910. Published October 1882 at the\nHydrographic Office, Washington, D.C.:\u2014\nI North Pacific Ocean. Anadir Bay, Behring\nSea. Prom a Chart by Engineer Bulkley, of New\nYork, in 1865,\" &c.\n(Anadir Bay is situated between latitudes 64\u00b0\nand 65\u00b0 on the Asiatic side of Behring Sea.)\nSimilar evidence is afforded by the title-page\nof the work issued by the same Hydrographic\nOffice in 1869, as follows:\u2014\n\" Directory of Behring Sea and the coast of\nAlaska Arranged from the Directory of\nthe Pacific Ocean.\"\nThe British Admiralty Chart of Behring Sea,\ncorrected up to November 1889, but originally\ncompiled in 1884 (No. 2460), is likewise entitled\nas follows:\u2014\n\" North-west Pacific. Kamchatka to Kadiak\nIsland, including Behring Sea and Strait.\"\nThe definitions touching the Pacific Ocean,\nBehring Sea, &c, to be found in gazetteers|\ndictionaries, and geographical works, both of the\npresent and past dates, moreover, show conclusively that Behring Sea was, at the time of the\nConventions, and is now, understood to form an\nintegral part of the Pacific Ocean.\nSuch formal definitions are naturally moro\ntrustworthy than inferences drawn from the\nconstruction of Maps.\nA few of these will suffice, though many more\nmight be quoted :\u2014\n\" Beering's Straits, which is the passage from the North\nPacific Ocean to the Arctic Sea.\"\n| Beering's Island. An island in the Pacific Ocean.\nI Kamschatka. Bounded east and south by Pacific.\"\ni Stilles Meer. Vom 5 nordl. Br. an bis zur Berings-\nstrasse aufwarts stets heftige Sturme.\"\nI Mer Pacifique. II s'e'tend du nord au sud depuis le\nCercle Polaire Arctique, e'est-a-dire, depuis le Detroit\nde Behring, qui le fait communiquer a l'Ocean Glacial\nAustral.\"\n| Stilles Meer. Vom 30 siidlicher Breite bis zum 5\nnordlicher Breite verdient es durch seine Heiterkeit und\nStille den namen des Stillen Meers; von da an bis zur\nBeringsstrasse ist es heftigen Stiirmen unterworfen.\"\nI Bhering's Strait connects the Frozen Ocean with the\nPacific.\nI The Anadir flows into the Pacific Ocean.\n\" The principal gulfs of Asiatic Bussia are: the Gulf of\nAnadir, near Bhering's Strait; the Sea of Penjina, and the\nGulf of Okhotsk, between Kamtchatka and the mainland\nof Eussia\u2014all three in the Pacific Ocean.\"\n1\nIP*!!\n1 t\np\n 74\n; |\n\" L'Ocean Pacifique Boreal s'etend depuis le Detroit de\nBehring jusqu'au Tropique de Cancer.\"\n\" Le Detroit de Behring. A commencer par ce d^troit,\nle Grand Ocean (ou Ocean Pacifique) forme la hmite\norientale de l'Asie.\"\n\" Behiing (ddtroit celebre). II joint l'Ocean Glacial\nArctique au Grand Ocdan.\"\n\"The Pacific Ocean. Its boundary-line is pretty well\ndetermined by the adjacent continents, which approach\none another towards the north, and at Behring's Strait\nwhich separates them, are only about 36 miles apart.\nThis strait may be considered as closing the Pacific on the\nnorth.\"\n| Behring (Detroit de) a l'extr^inite' nord-est de l'Asie,\nse*pare ce continent de l'Amerique et l'Ocean Glacial\nArctique de l'Ocean Pacifique.\n\" Behring (Mer de), partie de l'Ocean Pacifique.''\n\" Behring (Detroit de). Canal de l'Ocean .... unissant\nles eaux de l'Ocean Pacifique a celles de l'Ocean Arctique.\"\n\" Pacific Ocean. Between longitude 70\u00b0 west and 110\u00b0\neast, that is, for a space of over 180\u00b0, it covers the greater\npart of the earth's surface, from Behring's Straits to the\nPolar Circle, that separates it from the Antarctic Ocean.\"\n\" Behring Sea is that part of the North Pacific Ocean\nbetween the Aleutian Islands in latitude 55\u00b0 north and\nBehring Strait in latitude 66\u00b0 north, by which latter it\ncommunicates with the Arctic Ocean.\"\n\" Behring Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamtchatka,\nis that portion of the North Pacific Ocean lying between\nthe Aleutian Islands and Behring's Strait.\"\n\" Behring (Detroit de). Canal du Grand Ocean unissant\nles eaux de l'Ocean Pacifique a celles de l'Ocean Glacial\nArctique.\"\n\"Pacific Ocean. Its extreme southern limit is the\nAntarctic Circle, from which it stretches northward through\n132\u00b0 of latitude to Behring's Strait, which separates it from\nthe Arctic Ocean.\"\n\" Behring (Detroit de). Canal ou bras de mer unissant\nles eaux de l'Ocean Glacial Arctique k celles de l'Ocean\nPacifique.\"\n\"Behring (Detroit de). Passage qui unit l'Ocean\nGlacial Arctique au Grand Oc\u00a3an.\"\n\" Behring Sea, Or Sea of Kamchatka, is that part of the\nNorth Pacific Ocean between the Aleutian Islands in\nlatitude 55\u00b0 north and Behring Strait in latitude 66\u00b0 north,\nby which latter it communicates with the Arctic Ocean.\"\n\" Beringsstrasse. Meerenge das nordostichste Eismeer\nmit dem Stillen Ocean verbindend.\"\n\" Behring's Strait, connecting the North Pacific with the\nArctic Ocean.\n\" Behring's Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamchatka,\nis that portion of the North Pacific Ocean lying between\nthe Aleutian Islands and Behring's Strait.\"\n\"Precis de la Geographic Universelle,\" par Malte-Brun,\nTom. ii, p. 181, Paris, 1831-37.\nIbid., Tom. viii, p. 4.\nLanglois, \" Dictionnaire de Geographie,\" Tom. i, Paris,\n1838.\n\" Penny Cyclopaedia,\" vol. xvii, London, 1840.\n\"Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire et de Geographie,\" par\nM. N. Bouillet, Paris, 1842.\n\"Dictionnaire Geographique et Statistique,\" par Adrien\nGuibert. Tom. i, Paris, 1850.\n\" The New American Cyclopaedia,\" edited by George\nRipley and Charles A. Dana, New York, 1851.\n\"Harper's Statistical Gazetteer of the World,\" vol. i, by\nJ. Collins Smith, New York, 1855.\nImperial Gazetteer, vol. i, Glasgow, 1855.\n\"Grand Dictionnaire de Geographie Universelle,\" par\nS. N. Eescherelle, Tom.i, Paris, 1856-57.\nMcCulloch's \"Geographical Dictionary,\" edited by F.\nMartin, vol. iii, London, 1866.\n\" Grand Dictionnaire Universel,\" par P. La Pousse,\nTom. ii, Paris, 1866-76.\nSt. Martin, \"Nouveau Dictionnaire de Geographie Universelle,\" Tom. i, Paris, 1879.\nLippinoott's \"Gazetteer of the World,\" Philadelphia, 1880.\nBitter's \" Geographisch Statistisch Lexicon,\" Bd. i, Leipzig,\n1883.\nBlackie's \"Modern Cyclopaedia,\" vol. i, London, 1889\nedition.\n r5\nTiews of English and American jurists.\nWoolsey, | Introduction to International Law,\n3rd edition, New\nYork, 1872, p. 83.\nFinally, a few passages may be quoted from\nEnglish and American publicists of acknowledged\neminence, to show the manner in which the\ngeneral question has been viewed by them.\nDr. T. D. Woolsey, President of Yale College,\n\" Introduction to the Study of International\nLaw,\" 3rd edition, New York, 1872, p. 83 :\u2014\n\"Russia, finally, at a more recent date, based an exclusive claim to the Pacific, north of the 51st degree, upon\nthe ground that this part of the ocean was a passage to\nshores lying exclusively within her jurisdiction. But this\nclaim was resisted by our government, and withdrawn in\nthe temporary convention of 1824. A treaty of the same\nempire with Great Britain in 1825 contains similar concessions.\"\nWharton, In referring to the Russian Ukase of 1821,\nnational Law,\"6' Wharton, \"Digest of International Law of the\nWashington, 1886, United States,\" Washington, 1886, vol. i, sec-\nvol. i, section 32, . \u25a0\np. 3. tion 32, p. o, speaks ot Russia\u2014\n\"Having asserted in 1822 to 1824 an exclusive jurisdiction over the north-west coast and waters of America from,\nBehring Strait to the fifty-first degree of north latitude.\"\nDavis, \"Outlines ^r- Davis, Assistant Professor of Law at the\nof International United States' Military Academy, \"Outlines of\nLaw,\" New York, J J \\\n1887, p. 44. International Law,\" New York, 1887, p. 44 :\u2014\n\" Russia, in 1822, laid claim to exclusive jurisdiction\nover that part of the Pacific Ocean lying north of the\n51st degree of north latitude, on the ground that it possessed the shores of that sea on both continents beyond\nthat limit, and so had the right to restrict commerce to\nthe coast inhabitants.\"\nJas. B. Angell, in\nthe | Forum,\"\nNovember 1889;\n\"American Rights\nin Behring Sea.\"\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 8.\nA recent United States' writer, Professor J. B.\nAngell, discussing this subject, says:\u2014\n\"The Treaty of 1824 secured to us the right of navigation and fishing \\ in any part of the great ocean, commonly\ncalled the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea, and (in Article IV)\nfor ten years that of frequenting the interior seas, gulfs,\nharbours, and creeks upon the coast for the purpose of\nfishing and trading. At the expiration of ten years\nEussia refused to renew this last provision, and it never\nwas formally renewed. But, for nearly fifty years at\nleast, American vessels have been engaged in taking\nwhales in Behring Sea without being disturbed by the\nRussian Government. Long before the cession of Alaska\nto us, hundreds of our whaling vessels annually visited the\nArctic Ocean and Behring Sea, and brought home rich\ncargoes. It would seem, therefore, that Bussia regarded\nBehring Sea as a part of the Pacific Ocean, and not as one\nof the i interior seas,' access to which was forbidden by the\ntermination of the IVth Article of the Treaty.\"\n[644] X\n\u00ab\nI\n 1\n&\n1\n76\nSir B. Phillimore, in the 2nd edition of Phillimore,\" Inter-\n\" Commentaries upon International Law,\" vol. i, 2nd edition, vol. i,\np. 241 [3rd edition,\np. 290\n3rd edition, p. 147.\np. 241, remarks:\u2014\n\" In 1822 Russia laid claim to a sovereignty over the\nPacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude; but\nthe Government of the United States of America resisted\nthis claim as contrary to the principles of international\nlaw.\"\nMr. W. E. Hall, | Principles of International Hall,\" Inter-\nLaw,'' Clarendon Press, Oxford, 3rd edition, Sf\n1890, p. 147:\u2014 ^ IgM\n\"Note.\u2014A new claim subsequently sprung up in the\nPacific, but it was abandoned in a very short time. The\nRussian Government pretended to be Sovereign over the\nPacific north of the 51st degree of latitude, and published\nan Ukase in 1821 prohibiting foreign vessels from\napproaching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and\nislands bordering upon or included in that portion of the\nocean. This pretension was resisted by the United States\nand Great Britain, and was wholly given up by Conventions\nbetween the former .Powers and Russia in 1824 and 1825.\"\nThe arguments contained in the foregoing\nchapter establish:\u2014\nThat the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain\nand Russia applied, and was intended to apply,\nto all the non-territorial waters of the North\nPacific, extending from Behring Strait upon\nthe north to latitude 51\u00b0 upon the coast of\nAmerica, and to latitude 45\u00b0 50' upon the coast\nof Asia (being the whole extent of sea covered\nby the Ukase).\nThat at no stage of the controversy was any\ndistinction drawn, or intended to be drawn,\nbetween the seas to the north and the seas to\nthe south of the Aleutian Islands.\nThat Behring Sea was included in the phrase\n1 Pacific Ocean\" as used in the Treaty of\n1825. J.. it'\nThat the expression \" north-west coast of\nAmerica\" or, in its abbreviated form, \"northwest coast\" included the coast up to Behring\nStrait.\n 77\n-\u00ab*=\"-=\nUser of Waters from 1821 to 1867.\nHistorical Outline.\n1821,\n1822.\nL823L\nAlaska, pp. 534,\n535.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, pp. 340, 341.\nAlaska, pp. 537-\n539.\nIbid., p. 540.\nIbid., p. 546.\nIbid., pp. 536-539.\nIbid., p. 538.\nChapteb IV.\nHEAD CD).\u2014The User of the Waters in question\nfrom 1821 to 1867. f\nAs regards the user of the waters in question,\nit has been shown that down to the year 1821\nRussia made no attempt in practice to assert or\nexercise jurisdiction over foreign vessels when\nbeyond the ordinary territorial jurisdiction.\nWith the exception of the incidents connected\nwith the Ukase of 1821, already referred to in\nChapter II, the same is true of the period\nbetween 1821 and 1867. |\nTo resume the historical statement in chronological order:\u2014\nIn the year 1821 Mouravief was sent out to\ntake control at Sitka under the new Charter.\nHe assumed the name of | Governor \" in place\nof that of I Chief Manager,\" which had previously been employed.\nThe names of seven trading-vessels on the\nnorth-west coast are known for this year.*\nIn 1822, the Russian vessel | Rurik \" arrived\nat Sitka from Kronstadt with supplies. About\nthe close of the year the Russian sloop-of-war\nIApollon I also arrived, with instructions that all\ntrade with foreigners should cease. This interdict\nremained in force for two years, and seriously\ninterfered with the profits of the Company.\nIn this year also the Russian sloops-of-war\n\"Kreisser\" and \"Ladoga\" arrived to enforce\nthe provisions of the Ukase, and remained for\ntwo years.\nAn exploratory expedition, which remained\nabsent two years, was dispatched from Sitka to\nthe eastern shore of Behring: Sea.\nIn 1823, a famine was feared at Sitka and on\nthe coast, and the | Rurik fj and an American\nvessel which had been purchased, were sent\nto California and the Sandwich Islands for\nsupplies.\nReferring to this incident, Bancroft writes:\u2014\nI As in this instance, the Colonies had frequently been\nrelieved from want by trade with foreigners; and, indeed\n* See note on p. 19 referring to trading-vessels on the northwest coast. None of these trading-vessels were Russian.\nIf?\nV\n3P*\n 78\nthis was too often the only means of averting starvation.\nEven between 1818 and 1822, when supplies were comparatively abundant, goods, consisting mainly of provisions,\nwere obtained by traffic with American and English\ncoasters to the value of more than 300,000 roubles in\nscrip.\"\nIn the same year, the \" Rob Roy,\" from North-west Coast,\nBoston, is known to have been on the north-west vo1- | p- 341-\ncoast.\nIn 1824, Kotzebue, in the \" Predpriatie,\" called Alaska, p. 540.\nat Sitka. About this time the shareholders of ibid., p 541.\nthe Russian Company protested against the\ninterdict of foreign trade, and Sitka was, in consequence, again opened to such trade.\nAoting under the authority of the Ukase of Dall's Alaska,\n1821, the United States' brig \"Pearl,\" when on pp> 233' 234-\na voyage from Boston to Sitka, had been in the\nyear 1822 seized by the Russian sloop \" Apollon.\"\nCount Nesselrode, in his despatch to Count\nLieven (26th June, 1823), when communicating See Appendix,\nthe suspension of the Ukase of 1821, says the Jj\u00a3 2'9Part 1\nadvices to this effect were sent from St. Petersburg in August of 1823, and that the officer of\nthe \"Apollon\" could not receive them before\nSeptember 1824, and that, therefore, he could\nnot have known of them at the \"time of the\noccurrence of the incident reported by the\nAmerican press.\"\nIn 1824, the \"Pearl\" was released, and As to the \u00ab Pearl\/'\n.. ., \u201e , see S. Canning to\ncompensation was paid for her arrest and g. Canning,\ndetention. APril 2> 1823.\nAppendix, vol. 11,\nIn the same year four vessels are recorded Tart I, No. 24.\nas having visited the north-west coast, and some North-west Coast,\nof them are known to have repeated their visits vo \u2022'\u00bbP*\nin later vears.\nIn 1825, the | Elena \" arrived at Sitka with Alaska, p. 539.\nsupplies. Kotzebue also again called at\nSitka.\nRemonstrances were addressed by the Russian- Ibid., p. 544.\nAmerican Company to the Russian Government\nas to the effect of the Conventions of 1824 and\n1825. The name of but one vessel trading on\nthe north-west coast has been preserved in this North-west Coast,\nyear.\nvol. i, p. 341.\nIn 1826, Chistiakof wrote to the Directors of Alaska, p. 582.\nthe Company asking that an experienced whaling\nmaster should be sent out. In July of this year Beechey's Voyage\nHer Majesty's ship \"Blossom,\" under Captain J^\/*^\u2122*\nBeechey, sailed through Behring Sea into the Lcndon, 1831,'\nArctic Ocean. vo1' 11 335*\n1824.\n1825.\n1826,\n 1827.\n1828.\n1829.\n1830.\n1832 or 1833.\n1833.\n1834\n1836.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 341.\nAlaska, p. 546.\nLetter of Brewer to\nAmory, H.R., Ex.\nDoc, 40th Cong.,\n2nd Sess., No. 177,\np. 85.\nAlaska, p. 565.\nAlaska, p. 547.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 341.\nAlaska, p. 546. In 1827, Lutke, sent by the Russian Govern\nment, arrived at Sitka, and thereafter made\nexplorations in the Aleutian Islands and in\nBehring Sea.\nTwo vessels only of the trading fleet on the\nnorth-west coast are in this year known by\nname.\nIn 1828, two vessels belonging to Lutke's expedition carried on surveys in Behring Sea. The\ntrading-vessel I Eliza | was at Sitka in this year.\nIn the years 1826, 1827, and 1828 the j Chin-\nchella,\" a United States' brig, Thomas Meek,\nmaster, was trading between Sitka and China.\nIn 1829, a Russian vessel was sent from Sitka\nto Chile to trade. Some explorations were also\nmade by the Russians in the inland country.\nIn 1830, explorations were made in Behring\nSea by Etholen. Wrangell relieved Chistiakof\nin command. The names of four or five\nforeign vessels trading on the north-west\ncoast in this and the following year are recorded.\nIn 1832 or 1833, Tebenkof established a post\nnear the mouth of the Yukon, and explorations\nwere conducted inland.\nIn 1833, the Hudson's Bay Company sent the\nBritish vessel \"Dryad\" to form an Establishment\nat the mouth of the Stikine, but Wrangell, having\nheard of the enterprise, occupied the place in\nadvance, and turned the vessel back. Damages to\nthe amount of 20,000\/. were claimed through the\nBritish Government from Russia. This will be\nreferred to later.\nA United States' whaling master, under a five-\nyears' Contract with the Russian Company,\narrived at Sitka, but achieved little.\nIn 1834, the name of but one of the foreign\nvessels trading on the north-west coast is\nrecorded.\nIbid., pp. 341, 342. In 1836, the | Eliza \" was again at Sitka, and\nthree foreign trading-vessels are recorded to have\nvisited the Alaskan coast.\nAlaska, pp. 548-\n552.\nIbid., p. 555.\nSee post, p. 83.\nIbid., p. 583.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 341.\nCase of the 1 Loriot I\nCase of the | Loriot.\"\nIn the same year the United States' brig\n\" Loriot\" sailed from the Sandwich Islands for\nthe north-west coast of America for the purpose\n[644] T\nll' \u25a0;\nS5S\n\u00ae&mmssm\nmm\nmm\n\u25a0WISBE.\n11\n13\n- 'ifS\u00a3^^mt!r3~^*i^^^1^'\n 80\nof procuring provisions, and also Indians to\nhunt for sea-otters on the coast. When in the\nHarbour of Tuckessan, latitude 54\u00b0 55' north,\nand longitude 132\u00b0 30' west, a Russian armed\nbrig ordered the \"Loriot\" to leave. This\naction was based on the expiration of the\nperiod named in the IVth Article of the Treaty,\nwhereby, for ten years only, liberty to touch and\ntrade at Russian Establishments on the coast was\ngranted.\nThe United States protested against the inter- 50th Cong- 2\u00bbd\nference with the \"Loriot,\" characterizing it as Ex. Doc. No. 106,\nan \" outrage,\" and the following is an extract P* 233,\nfrom instructions which were sent by the United voj# \u201e ParAi\nStates' Secretary of State to Mr. Dallas, the No- 6\nMinister at St. Petersburg, under date 4th May,\n1837:\u2014 ^^^^K '\n\" On the other hand, should there prove to be no\n\u2022Russian Establishments at the places mentioned, this outrage on the | Loriot' assumes a still graver aspect. It is a\nviolation of the right of the citizens of the United States,\nimmemorially exercised, and secured to them as well by\nthe law of nations as by the stipulations of the 1st Article\nof the Convention of 1824, to fish in those seas, and to\nresort to the coast, for the prosecution of their lawful\ncommerce upon points not already occupied As such, it\nis the President's wish that you should remonstrate, in an\nearnest but respectful tone, against this groundless assumption of the Russian Fur Company, and claim from His\nImperial Majesty's Government for the owners of the brig\n'Loriot,' for their losses and for the damages they have\nsustained, such indemnification as may, on an investigation\nof the case, be found to be justly due to them.\"\nCase of the \" Loriot\n11\nMr. Dallas subsequently wrote that he was 50th Cong., 2nd\nled to believe that Russian Establishments had Sess^ Senate\nEx. Doc. JNo. 106,\nbeen made at the places mentioned. Never- p. 234.\ntheless, the United States contended that at See Appendix,\nthe expiration of the IVth Article, the law of n0. 7'\nnations practically gave United States' ships the ibid., p. 236.\nprivileges therein mentioned. ^f Appendix,\n* vol. 11, Part II,\nMr. Dallas (16th August, 1837) wrote to the No. 8.\nSecretary of State:\u2014\n\" The 1st Article asserts for both countries general and Ibid., p. 234.\npermanent rights of navigation, fishing, and trading with See Appendix,\nthe natives, upon points not occupied by either, north or Y? \u2022 \"' \"art \u00bb\nJ. A (J* \/ \u2022\nsouth of the agreed parallel of latitude.\nMr. Porsyth, Secretary of State for the United ibid., p. 286.\nStates, writing? to Mr. Dallas on the 3rd Novem- See Appendix,\nber,\/1837, and referring to the 1st Article of the ^0. 9.\n Case of the \" Loriot.\"\n81\nConvention of April 1824 between the United\nStates and Russia, said :\u2014\n\" The 1st Article of that instrument is only declaratory\nof a right which the parties to it possessed under the law\nof nations without conventional stipulations, to wit, to\nnavigate and fish in the ocean upon an unoccupied coast,\nand to resort to such coast for the purpose of trading with\nthe natives.\n#\n*\n*\n*\n\" The United States, in agreeing not to form new establishments to the north of latitude of 54\u00b0 40' N\u201e made no\nacknowledgment of the right of Russia to the territory\nabove that line.\"\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate\nEx. Doc. No. 106,\np. 238.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 10.\nAnd, again:\u2014\nI It can not follow that the United States ever intended\nto abandon the just right acknowledged by the 1st Article\nto belong to them under the law of nations\u2014to frequent\nany part of the unoccupied coast of North America for the\npurpose of fishing or trading with the natives. All that\nthe Convention admits is an inference of the right of\nRussia to acquire possession by settlement north of\n54\u00b0 40' N. Until that actual possession is taken, the 1st\nArticle of the Convention acknowledges the right of the\nUnited States to fish and trade as prior to its negotiation.\"\nIn his despatch of the 23rd Pebruary, 183S,\nCount Nesselrode, the Russian Eoreign Minister.\nwrote to Mr. Dallas :\u2014\n\"It is true, indeed, the 1st Article of the Convention of 1824, to which the proprietors of the ' Loriotf\nappeal, secures to the citizens of the United States entire\nliberty of navigation in the Pacific Ocean, as well as the\nright of landing without disturbance upon all points on\nthe north-west coast of America, not already occupied, and\nto trade with the natives.\"\nk\nIbid., p. 241.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 11.\nAgain, Mr. Dallas, in a despatch to Count\nNesselrode, dated the 5th (17th) March, 1838,\ninterpreted Article I of the Convention as being\napplicable to any part of the Pacific Ocean. He\nwrote:\u2014\n\" . . . . The right of the citizens of the United States to\nnavigate the Pacific Ocean, and their right to trade with\nthe aboriginal natives of the north-west coast of America,\nwithout the jurisdiction of other nations, are rights which\nconstituted a part of their independence as soon as they\ndeclared it. They are rights founded in the law of nations,\nenjoyed in common with all other independent sovereignties, and incapable of being abridged or extinguished,\n t R? '\n82\nexcept with their own consent. It is unknown to the\nUndersigned that they have voluntarily conceded these\nrights, or either of them, at any time, through the agency\nof their Government, by Treaty or other form of obligation,,\nin favour of any community.\n* * * *\n\"There is first a mutual and permanent agreement\ndeclaratory of their respective rights, without disturbance\nor restraint, to navigate and fish in any part of the Pacific\nOcean, and to resort to its coasts upon points which may\nnot already have been occupied, in order to trade with\nthe natives. These rights pre-existed in each, and were\nnot fresh liberties resulting from the stipulation. To navigate, to fish, and to coast, as described, were rights of equal\ncertainty, springing from the same source, and attached to\nthe same quality of nationality. Their exercise, however,\nwas subjected to certain restrictions and conditions, to the\neffect that the citizens and subjects of the contracting\nsovereignties should not resort to points where establishments existed without obtaining permission; that no\nfuture establishments should be fdrmed by one party north,\nnor by the other party south, of 54\u00b0 40' north latitude;\nbut that, nevertheless, both might, for a term of ten years,\nwithout regard to whether an establishment existed or not,\nwithout obtaining permission, without any hindrance\nwhatever, frequent the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and\ncreeks, to fish and trade with the natives. This short\nanalysis leaves, on the question at issue, no room for construction.\n*\n*\n*\n\" The Undersigned submits that in no sense can the\nfourth Article be understood as implying an acknowledgment, on the part of the United States, of the right of\nRussia to the possession of the coast above the latitude of\n5,4\u00b0 40' north.\"\nCase of the $ Loriot.\n1\nIn transmitting the papers relative to the President\n\"Loriot\" to Congress, the President of the !\u00a3\u00a3\u00a3&%\nUnited States observed:\u2014 f 838, State Papers,\nby Hertslet,\n\" The correspondence herewith communicated, will show ' XXV1' P' 166i)\u00b0\nthe grounds upon which we contend that the citizens of\nThe United States have, independent of the provisions of\nthe Convention of 1824, a right to trade with the natives\nupon the coast in question at unoccupied places, liable,\nhowever, it is admitted, to be at any time extinguished by\nthe creation of Russian establishments at such points.\nThis right is denied by the Russian Government, which\nasserts that, by the operation of the Treaty of 1824, each\nparty agreed to waive the general right to land on the\nvacant coasts on the respective sides of the degree of\nlatitude referred to, and accepted, in lieu thereof, the\nmutual privileges mentioned in Article TV. The capital\nand tonnage employed by our citizens in their trade with\nthe north-west coast of America will, perhaps, on adverting\n 83\nto the official statements of the commerce and navigation\nof The United States for the last few years, be deemed too\ninconsiderable in amount to attract much attention; yet\nthe subject may, in other respects, deserve the careful\nconsideration of Congress.\"\nHistorical Outline continued.\n1837.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 342.\n1838,\nAlaska, pp. 552,\n558.\nNorth-west Coast,\nvol. i, p. 342.\n1839.\nAlaska, pp. 556,\n557.\n1840.\n1841.\n1842.\nIbid., p. 557.\nIbid., p. 583,\nTikhmenieff.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 5.\nAlaska, p. 559.\nIbid., p. 568.\nIbid., p. 583.\nTo return again to the chronological order of\nevents:\u2014\nIn 1837, one foreign trading-vessel is named as\nhaving been on the north-west coast.\nIn 1838, further explorations were undertaken\nin the north by Chernof and Malakhof. Three\nforeign trading-vessels are noted as having been\non the north-west coast in this year, and one is\nknown to have visited Alaskan waters.\nIn 1839, a Commission met in London to\narrange the dispute between the Hudson's Bay\nand Russian-American Companies, arising out of\nthe interference by Russian officials with the\nBritish vessel \" Dryad.\" The claim for damages\nby the former Company was waived, on condition that the latter should grant a lease of all\ntheir continental territory northward to Cape\nSpencer, Cross Sound (about latitude 58\u00b0), on a\nfixed rental. This arrangement was for ten\nyears, but was renewed, and actually continued\nin force for twenty-eight years.\nIn 184.0, the British flag was hoisted and\nsaluted at the mouth of the Stikine, the Hudson's\nBay Company taking possession. A post was\nalso established by the Company at Taku Inlet.\nAt this time whalers were just beginning to\nresort to Behring Sea; from 1840 to 1842 a\nlarge part of the fleet was engaged in whaling\non the \"Kadiak grounds.\" Writing in 1842,\nEtholen says, that for some time he had been\nconstantly receiving reports from various parts\nof the Colony of the appearance of American\nwhalers in the neighbourhood of the shores.\nIn the same year Etholen relieved Kuprianof\nas Governor at Sitka.\nIn 1841, the Charter of the Russian-American\nCompany was renewed for a further term of\ntwenty years. Etholen reported the presence of\nfifty foreign whalers in Behring Sea.\nIn 1842, according to Etholen, thirty foreign\nwhalers were in Behring Sea. He asks the\nRussian Government to send cruizers to preserve\nthis sea as a mare clausum. Jj|\nHis efforts were, however, unsuccessful, the\nf644] Z\n1\n*lPSC.\n Tm\n\u00a3.\nI\n84\nMinister for Eoreign Affairs replying that the\nTreaty between Russia and the United States\ngave to American citizens the right to engage in\nfishing over the whole extent of the Pacific\nOcean.\nIn the same year, inland explorations by Alaska, pp. 553,\nZagoskin, which continued till 1844, began. 654#\nSir George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson's Ibid#' PP* 558-560\u00bb\nBay Company, reached the Stikine post just in\ntime to prevent an Indian uprising. He also\nvisited the Russian Establishment at Sitka and\ncompleted an arrangement between the Companies to interdict trade in spirits on the coast.\nAbout this time the Russian-American Company became alarmed at the danger to their fur\ntrade. Every effort was, therefore, put forward\nby the Company and the Governors to induce the\n[Foreign Office of the Russian Government to\ndrive off these whalers from the coasts, and by\nexcluding them for a great distance from shore,\nprevent trespasses on shore and the traffic in\nfurs.\nIn 1843, explorations were carried out by the ibid., p. 576.\nRussians on the Sustchina and Copper Rivers.\nThe whalers, from 1843 to 1850, landed on Ibid., pp. 583, 584.\nthe Aleutian and Kurile Islands, committing\ndepredations. United States' captains openly\ncarried on a traffic in furs with the natives.\nTikhmenieff writes:\u2014\n1843.\n\"Erom 1843 to 1850 there were constant complaints by Tikhmenieff.\nthe Company of the increasing boldness of the whalers.\" , 4PpTen(i_1X,\nr J & vol. i, No. 5.\n&\nIn 1846 the Governor-General of Eastern\nSiberia asked that foreign whalers should not be\nallowed to come within 40 Italian miles of the\nRussian shores.\nTikhmenieff thus describes the result of these\nrepresentations:\u2014\n\"The exact words of the letter from the Foreign Office\nare as follows:\u2014\n\"'The fixing of a line at sea within which foreign\nvessels should be prohibited from whaling off our shores\nwould not be in accordance with the spirit of the Convention of 1824, and would be contrary to the provisions of\nour Convention of 1825 with Great Britain. Moreover\nthe adoption of such a measure, without prehminary\nnegotiation and arrangement with the other Powers, might\nlead to protests, since no clear and uniform agreement has\nyet been arrived at among nations in regard to the limit of\njurisdiction at sea.'\n1846.\n 85\n| In 1847 a representation from Governor Tebenkoff in\nregard to new aggressions on the part of the whalers gave\nrise to further correspondence. Some time before, in\nJune 1846, the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia had\nexpressed his opinion that, in order to limit the whaling\noperations of foreigners, it would be fair to forbid them to\ncome within 40 Italian miles of our shores, the ports of\nPetropaulovsk and Okhotsk to be excluded, and a payment\nof 100 silver roubles to be demanded at those ports from\nevery vessel for the right of whaling. He recommended\nthat a ship of war should be employed as a cruizer to\nwatch foreign vessels. The Foreign Office expressly\nstated as follows, in reply:\u2014\nI' We have no right to exclude foreign ships from that\npart of the Great Ocean which separates the eastern shore\nof Siberia from the north-western shore of America, or to\nmake the payment of a sum of money a condition to\nallowing them to take whales\/\n\" The Foreign Office were of opinion that the fixing of\nthe line referred to above would reopen the discussions\nformerly carried on between England and France on the\nsubject. The limit of a cannon-shot, that is about\n3 Italian miles, would alone give rise to no dispute. The\nForeign Office observed, in conclusion, that no Power had\nyet succeeded in limiting the freedom of fishing in open\nseas, and that such pretensions had never been recognized\nby the other Powers. They were confident that the fitting\nout of colonial cruizers would put an end to all difficulties;\nthere had. not yet been time to test the efficacy of this\nmeasure.\"\n1847.\n1848.\nTikhmenieff.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 5.\n1849.\nAlaska, p. 584.\n1850.\nIbid., p. 572.\nIbid., p. 584.\nIii 1847, traffic in fur-seal skins was carried on\nbv a United States' whaler at Behrinp: Island.\nIn 1848, foreign whaling vessels entered the\nArctic Ocean by way of Behring Straits for the\nfirst time.\nIn 1849, the whaling fleet in the Arctic and\nnorthern part of the North Pacific numbered\n299 vessels. Two-thirds of these are said to\nhave been United States' vessels, but others\nwere French and English, the latter chiefly from\nAustralasia. A Russian \"Whaling Company for\nthe North Pacific was formed at Abo, in Einland,\nwith special privileges. This Company sent out\nsix vessels in all.\nIn 1850, the British vessels \"Herald,\"\n\"Plover,\" and \" Investigator,\" all despatched in\nsearch of Sir John Eranklin's expedition, met in\nKotzebue Sound, after passing through Behring\nStrait.\nIn the same year an armed Russian corvette\nwas ordered to cruize in the Pacific, and in this\nyear it is estimated that 300, and in later years\nI\n I 3\n\u2022II\nII\nm\ni\n1\n\u2022\n86\nas many as 500 foreign whalers visited the Arctic\nand neighbouring waters.\nTebenkof's administration came to an end in\ntliis year.\nIn 1851, Nulato, a fort on the Yukon some\nway inland, was surprised by Indians and the\ninmates butchered, including Lieutenant Barnard,\nan English officer of Her Majesty's ship \"Enterprise,\" one of the ships engaged in the expedition\nin search of Sir John Franklin. The |Enterprise |\npassed Behring Strait on the 6th May, 1851.\n\u25a0The United States' whaling fleet is said to have\nbeen as numerous as in 1849.\nThe interval between the close of Tebenkof's\nadministration and the beginning of that of\nYoievodsky was filled by the temporary appointment of Rosenburg and Rudakof.\nIn 1852, buildings at the Hot| Springs, near\nSitka, were destroved by the Indians.\nThe value of catch of the whaling fleet in\nthe North Pacific in this year is estimated at\n14,000,000 dollars. After 1852 the whaling\nindustry gradually decreased.\nIn 1853, war impending between England and\nRussia, the Hudson's Bay and Russian-American\nCompanies influenced their respective Governments to prohibit hostilities on the north-west\ncoast of America.\nIn the same year the Russian-American Com-\npany again specially requested the Government to\nprohibit whalers from entering Okhotsk Sea, but\nwithout success. Instructions were, however,\nissued to Russian cruizers to prevent whalers from\nentering bays or gulfs, or from coming within\n3 Italian miles of the shores.\nTikhmenieff gives the following details i\u2014\nSome time before the Company had written to\nthe Foreign Office (22nd March, 1853) :\u2014\nAlaska, p. 585.\nIbid., p. 572.\n| Encyclopaedia\nBritannica,\"\nvol. xix, p. 321.\n1851.\nAlaska, p. 586.\nIbid., p. 574.\nIbid., p. 669,\n1852.\nIbid., p. 570.\n1853.\nTikbraenieff.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 5.\n\"If it is found impracticable entirely to prohibit for a'Ibid.\ntime fishing by foreigners in the Sea of Okhotsk, as an\ninland sea, would it not, at any rate, be possible officially\nto prohibit whalers from coming close to our shores and\nwhaling in the bays and among the islands, detaching\none of the cruizers of the Kamtchatka flotilla for this\nservice ?\"\nThe instructions to cruizers were approved on\nthe 9th December, 1853. The cruizers were to\nsee that no whalers entered the bays or gulfs,\n 87\nor came within 3 Italian miles of the shores\nof Russian America (north of 54\u00b0 41'), the\nPeninsula of Kamtchatka, Siberia, the Kadjak\nArchipelago, the Aleutian Islands, the Pribyloff\nand Commander Islands, and the others in\nBehring Sea, the Kuriles, Sakhalin, the Shantar\nIslands, and the others in the Sea of Okhotsk\nto the north of 46\u00b0 30' north. The cruizers\nwere instructed constantly to keep in view\nthat:\u2014\n\" Our Government not only does not wish to prohibit\nor put obstacles in the way of whaling by foreigners in the\nnorthern part of the Pacific Ocean, but allows foreigners\nto take whales in the Sea of Okhotsk, which, as stated in\nthese instructions, is, from its geographical position, a\nRussian inland sea.\" (These words are in italics in the\noriginal.)\n1854.\n1855.\n1856.\nAlaska, p. 584.\nIbid., p. 585.\nIbid., p. 585.\nIbid., p. 584.\nIbid., p. 668.\n100\/.\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess. Sen. Ex.\nDoc. No. 106,\np. 251, Seward to\nClav, February 24,\n1868.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 12.\nSee p. 114 of Case.\n1859.\nAlaska, p. 592.\n1860.\nIbid., pp. 578,579.\nIn 1854, 525 foreign whalers were in Behring\nSea and its : vicinity. In the same year\nVoievodsky was elected Governor for the Company.\no\nIn 1855, the Abo Whaling Company went into\nliquidation.\nIn 1856, 366 foreign whalers were reported as\nin Behring Sea and vicinity.\nBancroft reports that in the year 1857:\u2014\nI Of the 600 or 700 United States' whalers that were\nfitted out in 1857, at least one-half, including most of the\nlarger vessels, were engaged in the North Pacific ....\nincluding, of course, Behring Sea.\nCaptain Manuel Enos, of the United States'\nbarque | Java,\" stated in 1867 that he had\nwhaled unmolested in the bays of Okhotsk Sea\nfor seventeen years previously.\nIbid., p. 580.\nIn 1859, the cession of Alaska to the United\nStates began to be discussed privately.\nIn 1860, the Russian-American Company applied for a new Charter for twenty years, to date\nfrom the 1st January, 1862, and Reports as to\nthe condition of the Company were called for by\nthe Government.\nThe Russian population of the American\nColonies at this date, apparently including\nnative wives, numbered 784: Creoles, 1,700;\nnative population estimated at over 7,000.\n[644] 2 A\nnmm\n If\n88\nIn 1862, the value of the catch of the North\nPacific whaling fleet was estimated at 800,000\ndollars.\nIn 1863, the United States' brig I Timandra \"\nwas engaged in the cod fishery off Sagh alien\nIsland, Okhotsk Sea. In succeeding years a\nnumber of vessels resorted to this sea for the cod\nfishery.\nIn 1864, Maksutof took temporary charge for\nthe Russian Government of the Company's\naffairs.\nIn 1865, negotiations between the Russian\nCompany and the Government continued, but\nterms such as the Company would accept could\nnot he arrived at.\nIn the spring of this year, the \" North Pacific\ncod-fish fleet\" was organized. It comprised\nseven vessels, all of which are believed to have\nfished in Okhotsk Sea.\nIn 1866, the Russian Government still contemplated renewing the Company's Charter on\ncertain terms. A Californian Company entered\ninto treaty for a lease of the | coast strip\"\nof Alaska, then held by the Hudson's Bay\nCompany.\nEighteen vessels were engaged in the Okhotsk\nSea cod fishery. The \" Porpoise\" initiated the\nfishery in the Shumagan Group, Alaska, finding\nthere \"safe harbours, fuel, water, and other\nfacilities for prosecuting this business.\" Several\nBritish Columbian schooners also fished in\nAlaskan waters.\nIn 1867, Alaska was sold by Russia to the\nUnited States for 7,200,000 dollars. , .3 ,\nNineteen United States' vessels fished for cod\nin Okhotsk Sea or in Alaskan waters, the Shumagan fleet consisting of three vessels. The total\ncatch amounted to nearly 1,000,000 fish.\nIn 1867, before the cession of Alaska, the\nwhaling interest of the United States in these\nseas are thus referred to by a Philadelphia\npaper:\u2014\n\"Our whaling interests are now heaviest in the seas\nadjacent to Russian-America, both above and below\nBehring Strait.\"\nAlaska, p. 669.\n1862.\nIr- 1863\nFishery Industries\nof the United\nStates, sec. v,\nvol. i, p. 209.\nAlaska, p. 579.\n1864.\nIbid.\nFishery Industries\nof the United\nStates, sec. v,\nvol. i, p. 210.\nAlaska, p. 580.\nFishery Industries\nof the United\nStates, sec. v,\nvol. i, p. 210.\nIbid., p. 210.\na\nPhiladelphia\nNorth American\nGazette,\" Friday,\nApril 12,1867.\nEx. Doc. No. 177,\n2nd Sess.,\n40th Cong., p. 39.\n1865.\n1866.\n1867.\nThe value of the catch of the North Pacific Alaska, p. 669.\nwhaling fleet was estimated at 3,200,000 dollars.\nIn 1868, the lease of the \" coast strip | of h,^ p. 593.\nAlaska to the Hudson's Bay Company by the\nRussian-American Company expired.\n1868.\n 89\nWhaling industry.\n\" Fishery Industries\nof the United\nStates,\" sec. 5,\nvol. ii, pp. 84-85,\nStatistics of United States9 Whaling Industry.\n(North Pacific Grounds, including Okhotsk and\nBehring Seas and Arctic Ocean.)\nThe growth and decline of the whaling industry\nduring the years discussed in this chapter may\nbe conveniently illustrated by the following\nTable, which shows the number of United\nStates' vessels in the- North Pacific whaling fleet\nfrom 1841 to 1867. It is taken from \"The\n\u25a0Fishery Industries of the United States,\" 1887,\nsection 5, vol. ii, pp. 84-85.\n(This list does not include whalers of other\nnationalities.)\nYear.\nNumber of Vessels.\ni\n1841\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n20\n1842\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n29\n1843\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u00bb\n108\n1844\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n170\n1845\n* \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n263\n1846\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n292\n1847\n\u2022 * \u2022 \u2022\n177\n1848\n\u2022 \u2022 * \u2022\n159\n1849\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n155\n1850\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n144\n1851\n\u00a3\u00bb * \u2022 \u2022\n133\n1852\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n278\n1853\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n238\n1854\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n232\n1855\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n217\n1856\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n178\n1857\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n143\n1858\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n196\n1859\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n176\n1860\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n121\n1861\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 *\n76\n1862\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u00ab\u2022\n32\n1863\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n42\n1864\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n68\n1865\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n59\n1866\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n95\n1867\n\u2022 \u2022 * \u2022\n90\nWalrus hunting.\nIbid., p. 314.\nThe whaling-vessels frequenting Behring Sea\nand the Arctic Ocean, from the first, engaged to\na certain extent in walrus hunting, and about\n1860 such hunting began to be an important\nsecondary object with the whalers. In subsequent years many thousand barrels of walrus\noil and great quantities of skins and ivory were\nsecured.\nc^*a\n\u00abm\n CO\nThe facts stated in this chapter establish :\u2014\nThat from the year 1821 to the year 1867 the\nrights of navigation and fishing in the waters of\nBehring Sea were freely exercised by the vessels\nof the United States, Great Britain, and other\nforeign nations, and were recognized as existing\nby Russia.\nThat the waters of Behring Sea were treated by\nRussia as being subject to the provisions of the\nTreaties of 1824 and 1825.\nI\n ffc\n91\nCession of 1867 and what passed by-\nit to the United States.\nChapter V.\nThe Cession of 1867 and what passed by it.\nThe fourth question or point in Article IV of\nthe Case is as follows :\u2014\nDid not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction\nand as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the\nwater boundary, in the Treaty between the United\nStates and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass\nunimpaired to the United States under that Treaty ?\nThis question may conveniently be treated\nunder the following heads, as proposed on\np. 10 :\u2022\n(E.) What rights passed to the United States\nunder the Treaty of the 30th March, 1867.\n(P.) The Action of the United States and\nRussia from 1867 to 1886.\nI\n(Gr.) The contentions of the United States since\nthe year 1886.\nHead (E.)\u2014What rights passed to the United\nStates under the Treaty of March 30, 1867.\nText of Treaty of Cession, 1867\nThe following is the text of the Treaty of\nCession of Alaska as signed:\u2014\npp. 539-543.\nFor English\nversion, see\nAppendix, vol. ii\nPart III, No. 3.\nUnited States' \"Sa Majeste\" lEmpereur de Toutes les Eussies et les\nr*atKUoQS \u00ab! 3 r\u00a3e' \u00a3tats-Unis d'Amerique, d^sirant raffermir, s'il est possible,\nla bonne intelligence qui existe entre eux, ont nomine\" a\ncet effet, pour leurs Pl^nipotentiaires, savoir:\nI Sa Majeste TEmpereur de Toutes les Eussies, le Con-\nseiller Prive\" fidouard de Stoeckl, son Envoye* Extraordinaire et Ministre Ple'nipotentiaire aux fitats-Unis; et\n\"Le President des fitats-Unis, le Sieur William H.\nSeward, Secretaire d'Etat;\n\"Lesquels, apres avoir ^change leurs pleins pouvoirs,\ntrouve\"s en bonne et due forme, ont arrete\" et signd les\nArticles suivants:\u2014\n[644] 2 B\n>mm\n^ilWE-!\n =J\u00a3TT\n92\n\"AETICLE I.\n| Sa Majesty l'Empereur de Toutes les Eussies s'engage,\npar cette Convention, a ceder aux Etats-Unis, immediate-\nment apres l'^change des ratifications, tout le territoire\navec droit de souverainete\" actuellement possede\" par Sa\nMajeste' sur le Continent d'Amerique ainsi que les lies\ncontigiies, le dit territoire 6tant compris dans les limites\ng^ographiques ci-dessous indiquees, savoir: la limite\norientale est la ligne de demarcation entre les possessions\nEusses et Britanniques dans l'Anierique du Nord, ainsi\nqu'elle est e\"tablie par la Convention conclue entre la\nEussie et la Grande-Bretagne, le 16 (28\u00ab) FeVrier, 1825, et\ndefinie dans les termes suivants des Articles III et IV de\nla dite Convention:\u2014\n\"CA partir du point le plus meridional de File dite\nPrince of Wales, lequel point se trouve sous le parallele\ndu 54\u00b0 40' de latitude nord, et entre le 131m0 et le\n133me degrade longitude ouest (miridien de Greenwich), la\ndite ligne remontera au nord le long de la passe dite\nPortland Channel, jusqu'au point de la terre ferme, ou elle\natteint le 56me degre* de latitude nord; de ce dernier point\nla ligne de demarcation suivra la crete des montagnes\nsitu^es parallelement a la cote jusqu'au point d'intersection\ndu 141toe degre\" de longitude ouest (m^me meridien); et\nfinalement, du dit point d'intersection la m&me ligne\nmeridienne du 141m0 degre\" formera dans son prolongement\njusqu'a la Mer Glaciale la limite entre les possessions\nEusses et Britanniques sur le Continent de l'Ame\"rique\nNord-Ouest.\n\"I II est entendu, par rapport a la ligne de demarcation\ndetermined dans l'Article precedent:\n\"' 1\u00b0. Que File dite Prince of Wales appartiendra toute\nentiere a la Eussie:' (mais des ce jour en vertu de cette\ncession aux Etats-Unis).\n\"'2\u00b0. Que partout ou la create des montagnes qui\nsMtendent dans une direction parallele a la c&te, depuis\nle 56me degre\" de latitude nord au point d'intersection du\n141me degre\" de longitude ouest se trouverait a la distance\nde plus de 10 lieues marines de l'oc\u00a3an, la limite entre les\npossessions Britanniques et la lisiere de cote mentionn^e\nci-dessus comrae devant appartenir a la Eussie' (c'est-a-\ndire la limite des possessions cedees par cette Convention) :' sera formee par une ligne parallele aux sinuosite's\nde la c&te et qui ne pourra jamais en \u00a3tre eloignee que de\n10 lieues marines.'\n\" La limite occidentale des territoires cedes passe par un\npoint au Detroit de Behring sous le parallele du soixante-\ncinquienie degre\" trente minutes de latitude Nord a son\nintersection par le ni&ridien qui separe a distance \u00a3gale les\nIsles Krusenfitern ou Ignalook et l'lle Eatmanoff ou\nNbonarbook, et remonte en ligne directe, sans limitation,\nvers le nord, jusqu'& ce qu'elle se perde dans la mer\nGlataiale. Comniencant au mSine point de depart, cette\nlimite occidentale suit de la un cours presque sud-ouest, k\ntravers le Detroit de Behring et la Mer de Behring, de\nTreaty of 1867.\n IBS*\" 1\n03\nTreaty of 1867.\nmaniere a passer a distance egale entre le point Nord-ouest\nde File Saint-Laurent et le point Sud-est du cap Chou-\nkotski jusqu'au meridien cent soixante-douzieme de longitude Ouest; de ce point a partir. de l'intersection de cc\nmeridien, cette limite suit une direction Sud-ouest de\nmaniere a passer a distance egale entre l'lle d'Attou et\nFile Copper du groupe d'ilots Kormandorski dans l'ocean\nPacifique Septentrional, jusqu'au meridien de cent quatre-\nvingt-treize degrds de longitude Ouest, de maniere a en-\nclaver, dans le Territoire cede, toutes les lies Ale\"oute3\nsitu^es a Test de ce meridien.\n\"AETICLEII.\n\" Dans le Territoire c\u00a3de\" par l'article precedent a la\nSouverainete des \u00a3tats-Unis, sont compris le droit de propriety sur tous les terrains et places publics, terres inoccu-\np\u00a3es, toutes les constructions publiques, fortifications,\ncasernes, et autres Edifices qui ne sont pas propriete priv^e\nindividuelle. 11 est, toutefois entendu et convenu que\nles eglises, construites par le Gouvernement Eusse sur le\nTerritoire cede*, resteront la propriete\" des mombres de\nl'fighse Grecque Orientale r^sidant dans ce Territoire et\nappartenant a ce culte. Tous les archives, papiers, et\ndocuments du Gouvernement, ayant trait au susdit Territoire, et qui y sont maintenant deposes, seront places entre\nles mains de FAgent des Etats-Unis; mais les Etats-Unis\nfourniront, toujours quand il y aura lieu, des copies\nlegalises de ccs documents au Gouvernement Eusse, aux\nofficiers ou sujets Eusses qui pourront en faire la demande.\n\"AETICLEIII.\n1II est reserve aux habitants du Territoire cede* le choix\nde garder leur nationalite\" et de rentrer en Eussie dans\nl'espace de trois ans; mais s'ils pref erent rester dans le\nTerritoire cdde, ils seront admis, a l'exception toutefois des\ntribus sauvages, a jouir de tous les droits, avantages, et\nimmunites des citoyens des Etats-Unis, et ils seront\nmaintenus et proteges dans le plein exercice de leur liberty,\ndroit de propriete*, et religion. Les tribus sauvages seront\nassujetties aux lois et reglements que les Etats - Unis\npourront adopter, de temps en temps, a l'egard des tribus\naborigines de ce pays.\n\"AETICLE IV.\n\" Sa Majeste l'Empereur de toutes les Eussies nommera,\naussitot que possible, un agent ou des agents charges de\nremmettre, formellement a l'agent ou aux agents nommes\npar les Etats-Unis, le Territoire, la souverainete, les pro-\nprietes, dependances, et appartenances ainsi cedees et de\ndresser tout autre acte qui sera necessaire a l'accomplisse-\nment de cette transaction. Mais la cession, avec le droit\nde possession immediate, doit toutefois etre consideree\ncomplete et absolue a l'echange des ratifications, sans\nattendre la remise formelle.\ni I I\n\u2022\nr *JBM\n\u00abS\u00bb\n 94\n'\n\"AETICLE V.\n\" Immediatement apres l'echange des ratifications de\ncette convention, les fortifications et les postes militaires\nqui se trouveront sur le Territoire cede seront remis a\nFagent des Etats-Unis, et les troupes Eusses qui sont\nstationnees dans le dit territoire seront retirees dans un\nterme praticable et qui puisse convenir aux deux\nparties.\n\"AETICLE VI. ll' . ,j|?\n| En consideration de la susdite cession, les Etats-Unis\ns'engagent & payer a la Tresorerie a Washington dans le\nterme de dix mois apres l'echange des ratifications de cette\nconvention, sept millions deux cent mille dollars en or, au\nEepresentant diplomatique ou tout autre agent de Sa\nMajeste l'Empereur de toutes les Eussies dument autorise\na recevoir cette somme. La cession du Territoire avec droit\nde souverainete faite par cette convention, est declare\nlibre et degagee de toutes reservations, privileges, franchises, ou possessions par des confpagnies Eusses on tout\nautre, legalement constituees ou autrement, ou par des\nassociations, sauf simplement les proprietaires possedant\ndes biens prives individuels, et la cession ainsi faite\ntransfere tous les droits, franchises, et privileges apparte-\nnant actuellement a la Eussie dans le dit Territoire et ses\ndependances.\nI AETICLE VII.\n\" Lorsque cette Convention aura \n 101\nDebates in Congress.\nlimit. And yet it seems as if the possession of this coast\nas a commercial base must necessarily give to its people\npeculiar advantages in this pursuit.\"\nUnited States'\nCongressional\nDebates, from\n\" Congressional\nGlobe,\" December\n11, 1S67, 40th\nCong., 2nd Sess.,\nPart I, p. 138.\nMr. Washburn, of Wisconsin, said:\u2014\n\"But, Sir, there has never been a day since Yitus\nBehring sighted that coast until the present when the\npeople of all nations have not been allowed to fish there,\nand to cure fish so far as they can be cured in a country\nwhere they have only from forty-five to sixty pleasant\ndays in the whole year. England, whose relations with\nRussia are far less friendly than ours, has a treaty with\nthat Government by which British subjects are allowed to\nfish and cure fish on that coast. Nay, more, she has a\ntreaty giving her subjects forever the free navigation of\nthe rivers of Russian* America, and making Sitka a free\nport to the commerce of Great Britain.\"\nUnited States'\nCongressional\nDebates, from\n\" Congressional\nGlobe,\" July 1,\n1868, 40th Cong.,\n2nd Sess., Part IV,\np. 3667. '\nIn 1868 Mr. Eerriss spoke as follows :\u2014-\n\" That extensive fishing banks exist in these northern\nseas is quite certain; but what exclusive title do we get\nto them ? They are said to be far out at sea, and nowhere\nwithin 3 marine leagues of the islands or main shore.\"\nUnited States'\nCongressional\nDebates, from\n\" Congressional\nGlobe,\" July !>.\n1868, 40th Cong.,\n2nd Sess., Part IV,\np. 3668.\nMr. Peters, in the course\nremarked:\u2014\nof his speech,\n\" I believe that all the evidence upon the subject proves\nthe proposition of Alaska's worthlessness to be true. Of\ncourse, I would not deny that her cod fisheries, if she has\nthem, would be somewhat valuable \u2022 but it seems doubtful\nif fish can find sun enough to be cured on her shores, and\nif even that is so, my friend from Wisconsin (Mk Washburn) shows pretty conclusively that in existing treaties\nwe had that right already.\"\nr that the seals would be driven from\ntheir accustomed resorts, even were such attempts made.\n\" In addition, I do not see that the United States would\nhave the jurisdiction or power to drive off parties going up\n 1875.\n44th Cong., 1st\nSess., H. R., Ex.\nDoc. No. 130, p.\n124, March 15,\n1875.\nOpinion of Secretary Fish.\nFish to Boker,\nDec. 1, 1875,\nWharton, vol. i.,\nsect. 32, p. 106.\nFishing and navigation by foreigners.\nH. R., Ex. Doc.\nNo. 35, 44th Cong.,\n1st Sess.\n109\nthere for that purpose, unless they made such attempt\nwithin a marine league of the shore.*\n\"As at present advised, I do not think it expedient to\ncarry out your suggestions, but I will thank you to communicate to the Department any further facts or information you may be able to gather upon the subject.\n\"I am,'&c.\n(Signed) \"George S. Boutwell,\nSecretary.\"\nIn 1875 Mr. Mclntyre, the Assistant Treasury\nAgent at the Pribyloff Islands, wrote that he had\narmed the natives with the intention of repelling\nby force attempts \" to kill seals in the rookeries\nor within a rifle shot of the shore.\"\nIn 1875, a question having arisen as to Prussia's\nauthority to grant licences for the use of the seas\ncontiguous to her coasts, Mr. Pish, Secretary of\nState for the United States of America, gives\nconclusive evidence as to the interpretation\nplaced upon the Convention of 1824 by the\nUnited States, as follows:\u2014\n1 There was reason to hope that the practice which\nformerly prevailed with powerful nations of regarding seas\nand bays, usually of large extent, near their coast, as closed\nto any foreign commerce or fishery not specially licensed by\nthem, was, without exception, a pretension of the past, and\nthat no nation would claim exemption from the general\nrule of public law which limits its maritime jurisdiction\nto a marine league from its coast. We should particularly regret if Russia should insist on any such\npretension.\"\nDuring the whole period discussed in this\nchapter, the vessels of various nations were\ncontinuously engaged in hunting, fishing, and\nnavigating in the waters of the North Pacific,\nincluding Behring Sea.\nSchooners from British Columbia were fishing?\nfor cod as early as 1866, and seals to the number\nof 20,000 a-year were reported as being taken\nsouth of St. George and St. Paul Islands in 1870\nand 1872. S\nEx parte T. H.\nCooper, owner of\n* In 1888 (after the occurrence of the seizures of British\nvessels in 1886 and 1887) Mr. Boutwell, by request., explained,.\n\" W. P. Sayward.\"\n\u25a0d \u2022 ..f ,1 jt ...ma letter aated the loth January, that \"neither upon my\nrecollection of facts, as they were understood by me in 1S72, nor\nupon the present reading of the correspondence, do 1 admit the\nclaim of Great Britain that my letter is ah admission of any ii^ht\nadverse to the claims of the United States in the waters known\nas Behring Sea. My letter had reference solely to the waters\nof the Pacific Ocean south of the Aleutian Islands.\"\nStates, No. 9,\nOctober Term,\n1830, p. 197.\nI\nmm\nmm\n Fishery Industries\n110\nWhalers continued as before to frequent the\nwaters both east and west of the line described in\nthe Treaty of 1867. The extent of their operations of the United\nf 4.x, -p n \u2022 ' m w -u-\\ -u States, 1887, sec. 5,\nappears irom the following Table, which shows YOi,\u00ab, p, 85.\nthe number of vessels composing the North\nPacific whaling fleet after the date of the Alaska\nCession.*\nWhaling industry.\nNumber of\nYear.\nUnited States'\nVessels.\nRemarks.\n1867\n90\nAlso eleven foreign vessels.\n1868\n61\nAlso seven foreign vessels.\n1869\n43\nAlso six foreign vessels.\n1870\n46\nAlso nine foreign vessels.\n1S71\n35\nAll but seven of the fleet were\nlost, including four foreign\nvessels.\n1872\n27\nAlso four foreign vessels.\n1873\n30\nAlso four foreign vessels.\n1874\n23\nAlso four foreign vessels.\n1875\n16\nAlso four foreign, vessels.\n1876\n18\nAll but eight of the fleet lost, also\ntwo foreign vessels.\n1877\n19\nThree of the fleet were lost; one\nforeign vessel.\n1878\n17\nOne of the fleet lost.\n1879\n21\nThree Of the fleet lost.\n1880\n19\nWalrus hunting is also known to have been\ncontinuouslv practised by the whalers during\nJ \\ . J , .... * Fishery Industries\nthese years, and m some years large quantities oi 0f the United\nwalrus ivory and oil were obtained :\u2014 States, sect, v,\n^ vol. n, part 17,\nI The Arctic whaling fleet from 1870 to 1880, inclusive, PP- 313 | se9'\nis estimated to have captured 100,000 walrus, producing\n1,996,000 gallons of oil and 398,868 lbs. of ivory, of a total\nvalue of 1,260,000 dollars.\"\nIn 1872 expeditions for sealing in Behring Sea\nwere reported to be fittino; out in various places, \u201e S 1 ||\nr to L H. R., Ex. Doc\nas appears from Mr. Phelps' letter of the 25th No. 83, p. 125,\nMarch in that year, already quoted, and in 1875 *** Con\u00b0-'lst\na schooner was reported as having been seen\nshooting seals among the seal islands.\nIvan Petroff, Special Commissioner of the\nUnited States to the seal islands in the year\n1880, says in his Report:\u2014\n\"As these seals pass up and down the coast as far as h. R., Ex. Doc.\nthe Straits of Fuca and the mouth of Columbia River, No. 40,46th Cong.,\nquite a number of them are secured by hunters, who shoot q\u00a7\nor spear them as they find them asleep at sea. Also,\nsmall vessels are fitted out in San Francisco, which\nTegularly cruize in these waters for the purpose alone of\nshooting sleeping seal\"\nWalrus hunting.\nSeal hunting.\n* All vessels not sailing under the United States' flag are\nspecified in this Table as \" foreign.\"\n H. R., Ex. Doc.\nNo. 40, 45th\nCong., 3rd Sess.,\nvol. xviii, p. 68.\nH. R., Ex. Doc.\nNo. 153, 49th\nCong., 1st Sess.\nH. R., Ex. Doc.\nNo. 3883, 50th\nCong., 2nd Sess.,\np. 58.\nComplaints of depredations on\nrookeries.\nLetter from Mr. D'Ancona.\nReply of Mr. French.\nH. R., Ex. Doc,\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., No. 3883,\np. 281.\nIll\nAnd he adds :\u2014\n\"The fur trade of this country, with the exception of\nthat confi,ned to the seal islands and set apart by law, is\nfree to all legitimate enterprise.\"\nSealing-vessels and their catches were also\nreported by the United States' cutter \" Corwin3\"\nbut none were interfered with when outside of the\n3-mile limit.\nIn 1881 an Agent of the United States'\n\u2022 Government stated that during the past twenty\nyears probably 100 vessels had \"prowled\" about\nthe Pribyloff Islands.\nThe Agents of the United States' Government\nsent to the seal islands previously to 1886 continually reported upon the inadequacy of the\nprotection of the islandSj and they frequently\nreferred to depredations upon the rookeries by\nthe crews of vessels sealing in Behring Sea.\nEarly in 1881, Collector D. A. D'Ancona, of San\nPrancisco, appears to have requested information\nfrom the Treasury Department at Washington in\nregard to the meaning placed by that Department\nupon the law regulating the killing of fur-bearing\nanimals in the territory of Alaska, and specially\nas to the interpretation of the terms \"waters\nthereof \" and \" waters adjacent thereto,\" as used\nin the law, and how far the jurisdiction of the\nUnited States was to be understood as extending.\nIn reply, Acting Secretary H. P. Prench, of\nthe Treasury Department, wrote as follows on\nthe 12th March, 1881 :\u2014\n\"Sir, ;j|: \u2022 .\n1 Your letter of the 19th ultimo, requesting certain\ninformation in regard to the meaning placed by this\nDepartment upon the law regulating the killing of fur-\nbearing animals in the Territory of Alaska, was duly\nreceived. The law prohibits the killing of any fur-\nbearing animals, except as otherwise therein provided, -\nwithin the limits of Alaska Territory or in the waters\nthereof, and also prohibits the killing of any fur-seals on\nthe Islands of St. Paul and St. George or in the waters\nadjacent thereto, except during certain months.\n\" You inquire in regard to the interpretation of the\nterms 'waters thereof and 'waters adjacent thereto,' as\nused in the law, and how far the jurisdiction of the United\nStates is to be understood as extending.\nI Presuming your inquiry to relate more especially to\nthe waters of Western Alaska, you are informed that the\nTreaty with Russia of the 30th March, 1870 [sic], by which\nthe Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States,\ndefines the boundary of the Territory so ceded. This Treaty\nis found on pp. 671 to 673 of the volume of Treaties of the\nRevised Statutes. It will be seen therefrom that the\n[644] 2 G\nS3BBM\nmmmmmm\na\n mm\nw*\n\"HST\nm\n112\nlimit of the cession extends from a line starting from the\nArctic Ocean and running through Bering Strait to the\nnorth of St. Lawrence Islands. The line runs thence in a\nsouth-westerly direction, so as to pass midway between\nthe Island of Attoo and Copper Island of the Kroman-\nboski [sic] couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to\nmeridian of 193 degrees of west longitude. All the waters\nwithin that boundary to the western end of the Aleutian\nArchipelago and chain of islands, are considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska Territory.\n\" All the penalties prescribed by law against the killing 'i\nof fur-bearing animals would therefore attach against, any\nviolation of law within the limits before described.\n(Signed) \"H. F. French,\n\" Acting Secretary.\"\nIt does not appear from any official, documents\nthat any action was taken at the time in accordance with the opinion expressed in this letter, and\nno seizures were made, and no warning was given\nto any British vessel engaged in sealing beyond the\nordinary territorial limits prior to 1886, although\nat least one British vessel is known to have been\nengaged in such sealing in 1884, and no less than\nthirteen were so engaged in 1885. Two of these 50th Cong., 2nd\nvessels are stated to have been spoken by a United Doc?No \"io^ *\nStates' revenue cutter, without being in any way p. i34.\nmolested.\nOn the 22nd May, 1884, Lieutenant I. E. Lutz H. R., Mis. Doc.,\nwas instructed by the Captain of the United |\u00a3* ^\"f 602*\nStates' revenue steamer 1 Corwin \" to watch and p. 28.\nto seize or arrest any vessel or persons attempting\nto take seals contrary to law.\nActing under these instructions, Lieutenant ibid., p. 33.\nLutz arrested the \" Adele,\" of Hamburg, Gustave\nIsaacson, master, with three officers and a crew\nof eighteen Japanese, when at anchor off shore.\nThe Lieutenant was careful to ascertain that the\nvessel was engaged in sealing ashore, and having\nwaited the return of the ship's boat which came\nback loaded with seal carcasses, Lieutenant Lutz\nreported that, having now secured all necessary\nevidence he notified the captain of the seizure of\nthe vessel.\nIt is found that from 1867 down to and\nincluding 1885, vessels continued to visit and\nhunt in Behring Sea without interference when\noutside of the ordinary territorial jurisdiction.\nThe circumstances which appear to have led\nto a change of official policy in 1886 will be\nrelated hereafter.\nIt may be convenient at this point to refer to\nquestions which were raised by occurrences in\nthe Asiatic waters of the Pacific, adjacent to\nRussian territory.\nNo seizures made before 1886.\n 113\nDisputes in Okhotsk and Behring Seas.\nWhalers in Okhotsk Sea.\nFishery Industries\nof the United\nStates, section 5,\nvol. ii, p. 20.\nSee extract from\nTikhmenieff,\nAppendix, vol. i,\nNo. 5.\nWhalers sometimes seal-hunters.\nQuestions arising between the United States and\nRussia in Okhotsk and Behring Seas.\nDisputes have more than once arisen respecting\nthe rights of United States' whaling vessels in\nOkhotsk Sea.\nThe main objection to these whalers was\nthat they interfered with the fur industry, and\nit is on record that the mode of whaling practised in this sea was often to anchor the vessel\nin some harbour and to send the boats therefrom in pursuit of whales. The instructions to\nB\/ussian cruizers, dating from 1853, only prohibited these vessels from coming | within\n3 Italian miles of our shores.\" The Sea of\nOkhotsk was covered by the Ukase of 1821,\nand possesses a seal rookery (Bobben Island).\nWhalers from the United States and elsewhere\nbegan to frequent this sea about the year 1843.\nThe following evidence with reference to\no\nsealing and whaling in Okhotsk Sea given before\nthe Committee of Ways and Means in the\nHouse of Representatives at Washington (3rd\nMay, 1876), shows that whalers were also\nengaged in taking seals :\u2014\nH. R., 44th Cong., I Q- Who are Williams, Haven, and Co. ?\u2014A. Williams*\n1st Sess., Report Haven, and Co. are Mr. Henry P. Haven, of Connecticut.\n623. ,\nwho died last Sunday, and Richard Chapel. They are\nwhalers. They took seals and whales, and had been at\nthat business in the Pacific for a great many years.\n\" Q. They had an interest in these skins ?\u2014A. Yes, Sir.\nThey had a vessel in the waters of the Okhotsk Sea, I\nthink, seal-fishing in 1866. While their vessel was at\nHonolulu in 1866, the captain became acquainted with a\nRussian captain who put in there in distress with the\nremainder, or a portion, of the Alaska seal-skins taken by\nthe old Russian Company, and there this captain learned\nof this interest. He left his vessel at Honolulu, went to\nConnecticut, and conferred with his employers. Then\nMr. Chapel, one of the concern, went out to Honolulu and\nfitted out this vessel and another one and sent them to\nthe Alaska Islands as early as April, 1868.\"\nMr. Hoffman to The United States* Minister at St. Petersburg,\nMarch 14,1882. ^r- Hoffman, writing in 1882, thus refers to this\nsea:\u2014\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate Ex.\nDoc, No. 106,\np. 260. See\nAppendix, vol. ii,\nPart II, No. 14.\nIA glance at the Map will show that the Kurile Islands\nare dotted across the entrance to the Sea of Okhotsk the\nentire distance from Japan on the south to the southernmost Cape of Kamtchatka on the north.\n\"In the time when Russia owned the whole of these\nislands, her Representatives in Siberia claimed that the.\nSea of Okhotsk was a mare clausum, for that Russian\njurisdiction extended from island to island and over\n\u25a0BMP\namss\n 14\n2 marine leagues of intermediate sea from Japan to Kamtchatka.\n\"But about five years ago Russia ceded the southern\ngroup of these islands to Japan, in return for the half of\nthe Island of Saghalien, which belonged to that Power.\n\" As soon as this was done it became impossible for the\nSiberian authorities to maintain their claim. My informant\nwas not aware that this claim had ever been seriously\nmade at St. Petersburgh.\"\nAnd in another letter he says:\u2014\n\"I do not think that Russia claims that the Sea of March 27, 1882.\nr\\T i 4. i \u25a0 7 -, . t -, ! -,- 50th Cong., 2nd\nOkhotsk is a mare claumm, over which she has exclusive \u00ab Senate Ex\njurisdiction. If she does, her' claim is not a tenable one Doc. No. 106,\nsince the cession of part of the group of the Kurile Islands P* , '\n\u25a0 lg|l bee Appendix,\nto Japan, if it ever were tenable at any time.\"\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 15.\nThe following appears as an introductory\nstatement in | Papers relating to Behring Sea\nPisheries,\" published at the Government Printing\nOffice in Washington, 1887 :\u2014\u25a0\nI This sea [of Okhotsk] is a part of the waters to which\nthe Ukase of 1821 applied, and which M. Poletica, in his\nsubsequent correspondence with Mr. Adams, prior to the\nTreaty of 1824, said His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of\nall the Russias, might have claimed as a close sea had he\nchosen to do so. As has been seen, all question as to the\nright of citizens of the United States, as well as of the\nsubjects of Great Britain, to navigate and fish in those\nwaters, was given up by Russia once for all in the Treaty\nof 1824 with the United States, and of 1825 with Great\nBritain.\nI The following correspondence between Russia and the\nUnited States in the years 1867 and 1868 contains an\nexplicit disavowal by Russia of any claim to interfere with\nthe fishing operations of citizens of the United States in\nthe Sea of Okhotsk.\"\nOkhotsk Sea subject to Ukase of 1821.\nThe correspondence referred to shows that the\ncaptain of the \" Europa,\" a United States'\nwhaling-vessel, complained to the Department of\nState at Washington that the Captain of a Russian\narmed steamer had stated that he was authorized\nto drive United States' whalers away from the\nvicinity of the Settlement of Okhotsk, in the\nof Okhotsk, and that he had fired on the\nhip's boat of the bark et Endeavour \" of New\ndford.\nIt appears also from the same correspondence\nthat on the 27th July, 1867, the United States'\nhark \" Java\" was cruizing for whales in Shantar\nBay and standing towards Silas Richard's Bluff, |7ard to0?%-fi\nJ \u00b0 ' February 24, 1868,\nwhen a Russian Commander ordered him out vol. ii, Part II,\nof the hay, and thereupon Mr. Seward inquired '\nInterference with United States' vessels.\nSea\nT>\nEuropa,\"\n\" Endeavour.\"\n\" Java.\"\nwarn\n 115\nExplanations by Russia.\nof the Russian Government what instructions had been issued relating to fisheries in this\nsea.\nIn reply to this inquiry, the following explanation was received from M. de Westmann,\nUnited States' Acting Minister of Poreign Affairs at St. Peters-\nSecretary of State, hurff, which shows the claim of jurisdiction\nJuly 31, 1868, . .\n50th Cong., 2nd of Russia to have been confined to 3 miles only\nDoc'' iona]06Ex' in Russian gulfs and bays, in this part of the\np. 258. very waters covered by the Ukase of 1821:\u2014\nINb claim of jurisdiction beyond 3-mile limit.\n\" These are the circumstances: The schooner ' Aleout,'\nunder the command of Lieutenant Etoline, had been sent\nin commission from Mcolaievsk to Oudrk. The abundance\nof floating ice having forced him to enter into the Gulf of\nTougoursh, he there met, the 14th July, at about 20 miles\nto the south of the Straits of Chautarsk, near the eastern\ncoast, the American whaler ' Java,' occupied in rendering\nthe oil of a captured whale. Considering that foreign\nwhalers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the\nRussian gulfs and bays at a distance of less than 3 miles\nfrom the shore, where the right of fishing is exclusively\nreserved to Russian subjects, Lieutenant Etoline warned\n('invita') the captain of the 'Java' to 'bear off' from\nthe Gulf of Tougoursh, which he at once did. The same\nday the 'Aleout' made for the Bay of Mawgon, where\narrived, on the next day the American whale schooner\n' Caroline Foot\/ whose captain, accompanied by the\ncaptain of the 'Java,' called on Lieutenant Etoline, and\ndeclared that he had no right to prevent them from fishing\nfor whales wherever they liked. Lieutenant Etoline\nreplied that there were in that respect established rules\n(' regies'), and if they insisted, absolutely, upon breaking\nthem, that he would be compelled to prevent them. The\ncaptain of the schooner 'Caroline Poof pretending ('ayant\npretendu') that he had entered into the Bay of Tougoursh\nin consequence of 'deviations from his course\/ Lieutenant\nEtoline offered at once all assistance in his power; and,\nupon request, delivered him 7 pouds of biscuit from the\nstores of the 'Aleout,' after which the two ships again\nwent to sea. The 19th of July, that is, four days afterwards, the schooner 'Aleout' met a whale, upon which\nthe Commander caused a trial fire to be made. At the\nsame moment was seen, at about 16 miles distance, a sail,\nname unknown, and, nearer, three ' chaloupes\/ the nearest\nof which was at least 3 miles in advance in the direction\nof the cannon fire. In the evening all these ships had\ndisappeared. That incident is registered in the books of\nthe 'Aleout' in the following terms: *The 19th of July,\nat 9 in the evening, at anchor in the Bay of Mawgons,\nfired a cannon shot for practice at a whale afloat.' Prom\nthese facts General Clay will be convinced that the\nincident alluded to has been exaggerated, and even perverted (' denature\"') much in order to be represented as a\ncause of-grievance against the Commander of the ' Aleout'\non the part of the American whalers.\"\n[64A1 2 H\n1\nIf\njT\n 116\nThe explanation was considered satisfactory. 50th Cong., 2nd\nMr. Seward observing that | the captain of the Dot'l^mef**\n' Java,' spoke unwarrantably when by implication p* 255.\nhe denied that the Russian authorities have the\nright to prevent foreign vessels from fishing for\nwhales within 3 marine miles of their own shore.\"\nIn the year 1881 the Russian Consul at Yokohama issued, on behalf of the Russian Imperial\nGovernment, a Notice, of which the following\nis a translation:\u2014\n1 Notice.\n\" At the request of the local authorities of Behring and Russian Notice of November 1881 respecting\nother islands, the Undersigned hereby notifies that the Okhotsk and Behring Seas,\nRussian Imperial Government publishes, for general j^ p# 259\nknowledge, the following:\n. '\"1. Without a special permit or licence from the\nGovernor-General of Eastern Siberia, foreign vessels are\nnot allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c, on\nthe Russian coast or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring\nSeas, or on the north-eastern coast of Asia, or within their\nsea boundary-line.\n\"' 2. For such permits or licences, foreign vessels should\napply to Yladivostock exclusively.\n\"'3. In the port of Petropaulovsk, though being the\nonly port of entry in Kamtchatka, such permits or licences\nshall not be issued.\nI' 4. No permits or licences whatever shall be issued\nfor hunting, fishing, or trading at or on the Commodore\nand Robben Islands.\n\"' 5. Foreign vessels found trading, fishing, hunting,\n&c, in Russian waters, without a licence or permit from\nthe Governor-General, and also those possessing a licence\nor permit who may infringe the existing bye-laws on\nhunting, shall be confiscated, both vessels and cargoes, for\nthe benefit of the Government. This enactment shall be\nenforced henceforth, commencing with a.d. 1882.\n\"' 6. The enforcement of the . above will be intrusted to\nRussian men-of-war, and also to Russian merchant-vessels,\nwhich, for that purpose, will carry military detachments\nand be provided with proper instructions.\n\"'A. Pelikan,\n\" j H. I R. M. Consul.\n\"' Yokohama, November 15,1881.'\"\n1\nThe firm of Messrs. Lynde and Hough, of San Ibid., p. 259.\nPrancisco, was in 1882, and had been for years, toyj70w \u00b0Ug\nengaged in the Pacific coast fisheries. They February 15,1882.\nrM r\\-\\ i 1 \u00ab , . See Appendix,\nyearly sent vessels to the Sea of Okhotsk, fishing voi. ylt part n,\nfrom 10 to 20 miles from shore. The attention No-13-\nof the firm being called to the above Notice, they\nwrote to the Secretary of State of the United\nStates calling attention thereto.\n 50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., .Senate Ex.\nDoc. No. 106,\np. 258.\n117\nThe Secretary of State (Mr. Frelinghuysen),\non the 7th March, 1882, inclosed their letter,\ntogether with the regulations \"touching the\nPacific coast fisheries,\" as he termed them\nMr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Hoffman, the United States' Minister\nMarch 27,\u00b01882.\nto\nIbid., p. 261.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 15.\nApplied only to territorial waters.\nCase of the \"Eliza.'*\nIbid., p. 262.\nM. de Giers to\nMr. Hoffman,\nMay 8 (20), 1882.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nISo. 16\nIbid., p. 262.\nM. de Giers to\nMr. Hoffman,\nJune 1 (13), 1882.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 17.\nIbid., p. 260.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 14.\nIbid., pp. 262, 263.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II,\nNo. 16.\nSt. Petersburg. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged the\nreceipt of this despatch, in reference to what he\nalso called | our Pacific Ocean fisheries.\"\nMr. Hoffman, having made inquiry of M. de\nGiers, the Russian Poreign Minister, the latter,\nin his reply, dated the 8th (20th) May, 1882,\nexplained that these Regulations applied only to\n\"territorial waters of Russia,\" and, in a subsequent letter of the 1st (13th) June, quoted\nArticle 560 of the Russian Code, which is as\nfollows:\u2014\nI ARTICLE 560.\n\" The maritime waters, even when they wash the shores,\nwhere there is a permanent population, can not be the\nsubject of private possession; they are open to the use of\none and all.\"\nIn a letter to Mr. Prelinghuysen of the\n14th March, 1882, Mr. Hoffman shows what\nhe understood to be the meaning applied by\nM. de Giers to the words \" territorial waters.\"\nHe writes:\u2014\n\"The best whaling grounds are found in the bays and\ninlets of the Sea of Okhotsk. Into these the Russian\nGovernment does not permit foreign whalers to enter,\nupon the ground that the entrance to them, from headland to\nheadland, is less than 2 marine leagues wide.\"\nIndeed, M. de Giers, in the letter of the 8th\n(20th) May, 1882, already quoted, makes it clear\nthat, as to fishing and hunting, the rule was the\nsame, and that the prohibition of vessels engaged\nin these pursuits extended only over the marine\nleague from the shores of the coasts \"and\nthe islands called the * Commander' and the\n\\ Seals.' I\nThe island referred to as t\nthe\na\nSeals \u00a7\nis\nRobben Island, and the reference to this and the\nCommander Islands indicates that M. de Giers,\nunder the term of \"hunting,\" was referring\nspecially to the sealing industry.\n| On the 21st July, 1884, the United States'\nschooner \"Eliza\" was seized by the Russian\ncruizer \"Razboinik\" in the Anadir River, which\nruns into Anadir Bay, a northern portion of\nBehring Sea. It was represented to the United\n! |j| 1 j\ny*\n 118\nML\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate Ex.\nDoc, No. 106,\np. 263.\nIbid., p. 270.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. ii, Part II.\nNo. 19.\nStates that she was there trading and hunting\nwalrus. The United States' Vice-Consul-General\nat Japan termed the seizure | an act of piracy.\"\nGeneral Vlangaly, writing from the Department of Poreign Affairs on the 19th (31st)\nJanuary, 1887, explained that the \"Eliza\" was\narrested, \" not for the fact of seal hunting,\" but\nfor violating the prohibition touching trading,\nhunting, and fishing on the Russian coasts of the\nPacific without special licence.\nThe crew, it was found, were trading with the Ibid., p. 269.\nnatives on the coasts of Kamtchatka, as well as\nhunting walrus.\nThis appears to have been accepted as a valid\n'explanation; but with reference to the seizure of\nthis ship and of the \" Henrietta,\" Mr\u201e Lothrop,\nUnited States' Minister at St. Petersburg, writing\nto Mr. Bayard, the United States' Secretary of\nState, on the 17th Pebruary, 1887, remarks :\u2014\n\"I may add that the Russian Code of Prize Law of\n1869, Article 21, and now in force, hmits the jurisdictional\nwaters of Russia to 3 miles from the shore.\"\nIbid. See\nAppendix, vol. ii,\nPart II, No. 19.\nIbid., p. 267.\nThe United States' schooner \"Henrietta\" had\nbeen seized on the 29th August, 1886, off East\nCape in Behring Strait by the Russian corvette\n\" Kreysser.\"\nExplanations from the Russian Government Ibid., p. 269.\nwere promptly demanded by the United States, v^e | p^t \u00a7\nand it was alleged she was arrested for illicit No. 18.\ntrading on the Russian coasts.\nNevertheless, Mr. Bayard, writing to Mr.\nLothrop on the 16th March, 1887, observed:\u2014\n\" If, as I am to conclude from your despatch, the seizure Papers relating to\nof the ' Henrietta' was made in Russian territorial waters, Behring Sea\nI -r. j|p\u00a7s |i _. .,..,.. , .\u201e ] Fisheries, published\nthen the Russian authorities had jurisdiction ; and if the at t^e Government\ncondemnation was on proceedings duly instituted and Printing Office in\nadministered before a competent Court and on adequate ^l.in\u00b0 on' '\nevidence, this Department has no right to complain. But\nif either of these conditions does not exist, the condemnation cannot be internationally sustained. The first of\nthese conditions, viz., that the proceedings should have\nbeen duly instituted and administered, could not be held\nto exist .if it should appear that the Court before whom\nthe proceedings were had was composed of parties\ninterested in the seizure. On general principles of international law, to enforce a condemnation by such a Court\nis a denial and perversion of justice, for which this\nGovernment is entitled to claim redress.\n\" The same right to redress, also, would arise if it should\nappear that, while the seizure was within the 3-mile zone,\nthe alleged offence was committed exterior to that zone\nand on the high seas.\nCase of the I Henrietta.\"\nViews of Mr. Bayard.\n No assertion by United States of extraordinary jurisdiction previous to 1886.\nReport of cruize of the \" Corwin,\" 1885.\nH. R., Ex. Doc.\n153, 49th Cong.,\n1st Sess.\n119\n\" You are therefore instructed to inquire, not merely as\nto the mode in which the condemning Court was con-\nstituted, but as to the evidence adduced before such Court,\nin which the exact locality of seizure should be included.\"\nThe instructions given from time to time to\nCommanders of the Revenue Service, or of ships\nof war of the United States cruizing in Behring\nSea, and guarding the interests of the Alaska\nCommercial Company upon the islands leased\nto the Company, do not even suggest the intention of that Government to assert a claim so\nvehemently disputed when advanced by Russia.\nOn the contrary, while vessels from British\nColumbia and elsewhere were trading and\nfishing generally in the Behring Sea, and while\nvessels\u2014chiefly those of the United States\u2014were\nactually raiding the rookeries, the instructions\nrelating to the fisheries given to Revenue Marine\nvessels by the United States' Government, until\n1886, were confined, as has been shown, to th\u00a9\nimmediate protection of the seal islands.\nThe seizure of British sealers in the open sea\nfollowed the report on the cruize of the Revenue\nMarine steamer \" Corwin \" in the year 1885.\nIn this report, it is among other things stated,\nthat while shaping a course for St. Paul a special\nlook-out was kept for vessels sealing.\nThe Captain writes :\u2014\n| While we were in the vicinity of the seal islands a\nlook-out was kept at masthead for vessels cruizing, sealing,\nor illicitly trading among those islands. But no such vessels\nwere seen.\"\nHaving drawn attention to the number of\nvessels which had taken, or had endeavoured to\ntake seals on the shores of the islands, and\nillustrated the great difficulty of preventing the\nlanding thereupon, the Commander concludes\nas follows:\u2014\n\"In view of the foregoing facts, I would respectfully\nsuggest\u2014\n\"1. That the Department cause to be printed in the\nWestern papers, particularly those of San Francisco,\nCalifornia, and Victoria, British Columbia, the sections of\nthe law relating to the killing of fur-bearing animals in\nAlaskan waters, and defining in specific terms what is\nmeant by Alaskan waters.\n\"2. That a revenue cutter be sent to cruize in the\nvicinity of the Pribyloff Islands and Aleutian group\nduring the sealing season.\"\n[644]\n2 I\ni\n\u2022MT9B\n mil\n120\nOn the 6th March, 1886, Mr. Daniel Manning, Senate Ex. Doc,\nSecretary to the Treasury, wrote to the Collector J\u00a3* ^\"iS*\nof Customs at San Prancisco as follows :\u2014 p. 135.\n\" Treasury Department,\n\\ Sir, \" March 6,1886.\n11 transmit herewith, for your information, a copy of a See ante, p. 111.\nletter addressed by the Department on the 12th March,\n1881, to D. A. D'Ancona, concerning the jurisdiction of\nthe United States in the waters of the Territory of Alaska,\nand the prevention of the killing of fur-seals and other\nfur-bearing animals within such areas, as prescribed by\nchapter 3, title 23, of the Revised Statutes. The attention of your predecessor in office was called to this subject\non the 4th April, 1881. This communication is addressed\nto you, inasmuch as it is understood that certain parties at\nyour port contemplate the fitting out of expeditions to kill\nfur-seals in these waters. You are requested to give due\npublicity to such letters in order that such parties may be\ninformed of the construction placed by this Department\nupon the provision of law referred to.\nI Yours, &c.\n(Signed) \" D. Manning,\n\" Secretary.\"\nPublic notice appears to have been given Blue Book,\naccordingly in the terms of the letter addressed No 2?i890),,Sp 7.\nby Mr. H. P. Prench to Mr. D'Ancona. (See See Appendix,\nante, p. 111.)\nThe statement of facts in this chapter establishes :\u2014\nThat from the year 1867 down to the year\n1886 the action of the United States and Russia,\nthe parties to the Treaty of Cession of 1867, is\nconsistent only with the view that the rights\npossessed \"by the United States and by Russia\nrespectively in the waters of Behring Sea were\nonly those ordinarily incident to the possession of\nthe coasts of that sea and the islands situated\ntherein.\nThat during that period, notwithstanding the\npresence of seal-hunting craft in Behring Sea,\nthe United States' authorities confined the\nexercise of jurisdiction to the land and waters\nincluded within the ordinary territorial limits.\nI\nHi\n 121\nContentions of United States since 1886.\nInstructions to revenue cutters.\nReports ofGovernor\nof Alaska, 1886,\np. 48; 1887, p. 36.\nBlue Book,\n\" United States\nNo.2(1890),\"p.45.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nSeizure of three British vessels.\nSee Judge\nDawson's summing\nup in case of\n% Thornton,\" Blue\nBook, \" United\nStates No. 2\n(1890),\" p. 30.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nProtest of British Government.\nChapter VII.\nHead (G.)\u2014Various Contentions of the United\nStates since the year 1886.\nThe considerable development of pelagic sealing\nin the North Pacific which had taken place in\nthe years previous to 1886 had established a very\nstrong competition against the Alaska Commercial Company. That Company, paying a\nconsiderable royalty to the United States'\"\nGovernment upon every skin, had now to face\nthe competition of the pelagic sealers, who paid\nno rent or royalty. The Company therefore\nexerted all its influence, especially powerful at\nWashington, to check and, if possible, destroy\nthis competition. Till the development of the\npelagic sealing industry, the actual circumstances had been such as to allow the Companv\nlargely to control the markets for seal-skins, and\nto enable them to exercise a practical monopoly\nof sealing in the North Pacific.\nIn the year 1886 the United States' Government for the first time furnished revenue cutters\nwith instructions to prevent any vessel from\nsealing in any part of Behring Sea to the eastward of the geographical limit mentioned in the\nTreaty of Cession.\nThis action by the United States was the first\nattempt to actively interfere with the right of\nthe vessels of other nations to navigate and fish\nin the waters of Behring Sea other than territorial waters.\nIn pursuance of the above-mentioned orders,\nthree British vessels were seized during this\nyear while fishing outside ordinary territorial\nwaters, and subsequently condemned upon the\nground that the waters in which they were\nfishing, formed part of the waters of Alaska and\nwere subject to the jurisdiction of the United\nStates.\nSir L. S. Sackville West, British Minister\nat Washington, at once, by instruction, made a\nformal protest in the name of Her Majesty's\nGovernment against these seizures of British.\nvessels.\nIKS!\n 122\nAttorney-General Garland issued the following 50th Cong., 2nd\norder, after the British protest:~~ \u00a7 ^ Noaoe^'\np. 185.\n\" Washington, D.C., January 26, 1887.\n| Judge Lafayette Dawson and M. D. Ball, United States'\nDistrict Attorney, Sitka, Alaska.\n\"I am directed by the President to instruct you to\ndiscontinue any further proceedings in the matter of the\nseizure of the British vessels ' Carolena\/ ' Onward\/ and\n' Thornton\/ and discharge all vessels now held under such\nseizure, and release all persons that may be under arrest\nin connection therewith.\n(Signed) \"A. H. Garland,\n\" Attorney-General.\"\nMr. Bayard, however, the Secretary of State, ibid., p. 40.\nwrote, on the 3rd Pebruary, 1887, to Sir L. S.\nSackville West that this order was issued \" without conclusion of any questions which may be\nfound to be involved in these cases of seizure.\"\nPresh seizures took place in July and August\nof 1887, and renewed protest was made by Great\nBritain.\nNo seizure occurred in 1888, though British\nsealing-vessels made large catches in that year in\nBehring Sea.\nIn 1889 five British ships were seized in Behring\nSea, and three others were ordered out of the sea.\nIn 1890 no seizures were made, though a large\nnumber of sealers visited the sea and took seals\ntherein.\nIn 1S91 an agreement was come to between\nthe United States and Great Britain, resulting in\na modus Vivendi, tor tne purpose oi temporarily \u00abUnited States\nregulating the fishery, pending the result of No* 3 (1892)\/'\nexpert investigation into the necessities of the See Appendix,\ncase. Vessels were forbidden to take seals in *1I1#-\nBehring Sea for a limited period under penalty of\nseizure and fine, and on the other hand the\nnumber allowed to be killed on the islands was\nlargely reduced. The only seizures that have\noccurred since the establishment of the modus\nvivendi have been made on the ground of its\nRenewed seizures.\n\" Modus Vivendi.\"\n Discussion in Congress of rights of\nUnited States.\n123\nThe legality of the seizures made in 1886,\n1887, and 1889 became a subject of much\ndiscussion and debate in the United States. The\nuncertainty of the claim of the Government of\nthe United States is exemplified by the fact that\nUnited States' sealers entered Behring Sea to\nseal three or four years before the British sealers\nentered, and they rapidly increased in numbers,\nbut were only occasionally interfered with or\nseized.\nDuring the fiftieth Session of the House of\nRepresentatives, in 1889, the Committee on Marine\nH.R., 50th Con*., arid Pisheries was directed \" to fully investigate\n2nd Sess., Report an(j rep0rt upon the nature and extent of the\nNo. 3S83, p. i. .,,,.,\nTo accompany\nBill H.R. 12432.\nrights and interests of the United States in the\nfur-seals and other fisheries in the Behring Sea\nin Alaska, whether and to what extent the same\nhad been violated, and by whom; and what, if\n* The following Table shows the names of the British sealing-vessels seized or warned by\nUnited States' revenue eruizers 1886-90, and the approximate distance from land when\nseized. The distances assigned in the cases of the | Carolena,\" \" Thornton,\" and \" Onward,\"\nare on the authority of U. S. Naval Commander Abbey (see 50th Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Ex.\nDoc. No. 106, pp. 20, 40, 30). The distances assigned in the cases of the \" Anna Beck,\"\n\" W. P. Say ward,\" \"Dolphin,\" and \"Grace\" are on the authority of Captain Shepard,\nU. S. Ii. M. (Blue Book, \" United States No. 2 (1890),\" pp. 80-82. See Appendix, vol. iii).\nName of Vessel.\nDate of Seizure.\nApproximate Distance from Land\nwhen seized.\nUnited States'\nVessel\nmaking Seizure.\nCarolena .. ..\nAugust 1,\n1886\n75 miles .. .. ..\nCorwin.\nThornton .. ..\n1,\n>>\n* U jn \u2022\u2022 * \u2022 \u2022\u2022\n\u00bb\nOnward .. ..\n\u201e 2,\n55\n11 *\u00bb\niJ-^9, \u2022\u2022 \u2022\u2022 ..\nj\u00bb\nFavourite .. ..\n2,\n\u00bb\u00bb\nWarned by \" Corwin\" in about\nsame position as \" Onward\"\nAnna Beck .. ..\nJuly 2,\n1887\n66 miles ,. .. .,\nRush.\nW. P. Say ward ..\n9\n?,\nKG\nJ5\nDolphin\n12,\n,5\n40\nJ>\nGrace ..\n| 17,\n?>\n96\ntMJ J, \u00bb . . . . .\n\u00bb>\nAlfred Adams\nAugust 10,\n?5\nt>^ ,, \u2022 . . . . .\n>\u25a0>\nAda .. ..\n\u201e 25,\n5>\n1 ^\nBear.\nTriumph .. ..\n4,\nJ>\nWarned by \"Rush\" not to enter\nBehring Sea\nJuanita .. ..\nJuly 31,\n1889\n66 miles\nRush.\nPathfinder .. ..\n29\n5>\n50 ,, .. .. ..\n\u00bb*\nTriumph .. \u2022.\n11,\n5>\nOrdered out of Behring Sea by\n\" Rush.\" [?] As to position when\nwarned\nBlack Diamond ..\n11,\n\u00bb\u00bb\n35 miles .. .. ..\n\u00bb\u00bb\nLily . \u2022 *.\nAugust 6,\n5,\n66\n\u00bb\nAriel\nJuly 30,\n)\u00bb\nOrdered out of Behring Sea by\n1 Rush \"\nKate\nAugust 13,\n1J\nDitto .. .. ..\n\u00bb\u00bb\nMinnie .. ..\nJuly 15,\n5\u00bb\n65 miles .. .. ..\n>>\nPathfinder .. ..\nMarch 27,\n1890\nSeized in Neah Bayf\nCorwin.\nill\ni\nf Neah Bay is in the State of Washington, and the \" Pathfinder \" was seized there on charges\nmade against her in Behring Sea in the previous year. She was released two days later.\n[644]\n1 K\nBSgagSg\n - ^eJjBTT*^1**3*\"\n1\nij\u00a3.\n124\nany, legislation is necessary for the better protection and preservation of the same.\"\nThe Committee reported, upholding the claim\nof the United States to jurisdiction over all\nwaters and land included in the geographical\nlimits stated in the Treaty of Cession by Bussia\nto the United States, and construing different Acts\nof Congress as perfecting the claim of national\nterritorial rights over the open waters of\nBehring Sea everywhere within the above-mentioned limits. i||\nThe Beport states:\u2014\n\" The territory of Alaska consists of land and water. H.R., 50th Con?.,\nExclusive of its lakes, rivers, harbours, and inlets, there is 2nd Sess., Report\n, . , ,. IB 19 No. 3883, p. 10.\na large area of marine territory which lies outside oi the\n3-mile limit from the shore, but is within the boundary-\nlines of the territory transferred by Eussia to the United\nStates.\"\n* # * *\nThe concluding portion of the Report states\nas follows:\u2014\n% That the chief object of the purchase of Alaska was Ibid., p. 23.\nthe acquisition of the valuable products of Behring Sea.\n\"That at the date of the cession of Alaska to the\nUnited States, Eussia's title to Behring Sea was perfect and\nundisputed.\n\" That by virtue of the Treaty of Cession, the United\nStates acquired complete title to all that portion of\nBehring Sea situated within the limits prescribed by the\nTreaty.\n\" The Committee herewith report a bill making necessary\namendments of the existing law relating to these subjects,\nand recommend its passage.\"\nThe Report describes these amendments as\ndeclaring\u2014\n\"The true meaning and intent of section 1956 of the Ibid., p. 21.\nEevised Statutes which prohibit the killing of fur-seals,\n&c, in the waters of Alaska, and requires the President to\nissue an annual Proclamation, and cause one or more\nGovernment vessels to cruize said waters, in order to\nprohibit the unlawful killing of fur-seals therein.\nI The amendment increases the revenues of the Government from this source by at least 150,000 dollars per\nannum.'\nThe Bill reported contained the following\nSection:\u2014\nReport of Committee of Souse of\nEepresenlatives.\n\"Section 2. That section 1956 of the Eevised Statutes Bill H.R., 12432.\nof the United States was intended to include and apply, glue Book,\"United\nrtr J States No. 2\nand is hereby declared to include and apply, to all the (1890),\" p. 245*\nwaters of Behring Sea in Alaska embraced within the See Appendix,\nboundary-lines mentioned and described in the Treaty\nwith Russia, dated the 30th March, a.d. 1867, by which\nthe Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States;\n 125\nConference'of the Houses.\nMr. Edwardes to\nLord Salisburv,\nMarch 23, 18P9.\nBlue Book,\"United\nStates No. 2\n(1890),\" p. 243.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nIbid.\np. 237.\nIbid, p. 234.\nInternational Agreement proposed.\nand it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely\nseason in each year, to issue his Proclamation, and cause\nthe same to be published for one month in at least one\nnewspaper published at each United States' port of entry\non the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering\nsaid Territory and waters for the purpose of violating the\nprovisions of said Section; and he shall also cause one or\nmore vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said\nwaters and arrest all persons, and seize all vessels found to\nbe, or to have been, engaged in any violation of the laws of\nthe United States therein.\"\nThis Bill did not pass the House of Representatives, but the above section was added by\nthe House as an amendment to a Bill for the\n\"Protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Alaska,\"\nwhich originated in the Senate. The Senate,\nhowever, refused to accept the House amendment,\nand the Bill was accordingly referred to a conference of the Houses, and the section, as finally\nmodified and adopted in the Act of the 2nd March,\n1889, reads as follows:\u2014\n\"Section 3. That section 1956 of the Eevised Statutes\nof the United States is hereby declared to include and\napply to all the dominion of the United States in (lie-\nwaters of Behring Sea, and it shall be the duty of the\nPresident, at a timely season in each year, to issue his\nProclamation, and cause the same to be published for one\nmonth in at least one newspaper (if any such there be)\npublished in each United States' port of entry on the\nPacific coast, warning all persons against entering said\nwaters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said\nsection, and he shall cause one or more vessels of the\nUnited States to diligently cruize said waters, and arrest\nall persons and seize all vessels found to be or to have\nbeen engaged in any violation of the laws of the United\nStates therein.\"\nOn the 21st March, 1889, President Harrison\nissued his Proclamation accordingly, warning\n| all persons against entering the waters of\nBehring Sea within the domain of the United\nStates for the purpose of violating the provisions\nof said Section 1956 of Revised Statutes.\"\nInternational Agreement proposed.\nOn the 19th August, 1887, after the seizure of\nthe \"W. P. Say ward,\" and while she was in\ncustody, the United States' Secretary of State\nwrote identic instructions to the United States'\nMinisters in Prance, Germany, Great Britain,*\n* The invitation conveyed by the instructions was not, bow-\never, communicated to Great Britain until November 11, 1887.\nSee 50th Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate Ex. Doc. No. 106, p. 87; and\nBlue Book, 'f United States No. 2 (1890);\" Sir J. Pauncefote to\nBaron Plessen, October 11, lb87. See Appendix, vol. iii.\n 126\n*\u00a32il\na*\nK\nJapan, Russia, and Sweden and Norway in the\nfollowing terms :\u2014\nInternational Agreement proposed.\n\" Eecent occurrences have drawn the attention of this Senate Ex. Doc.\nDepartment to the necessity of taking steps for the better 2 a ^q^\u00b0 ho 106\nprotection of the fur-seal fisheries in Bering Sea. Without p. 84.\nraising any question as to the exceptional measures which\nthe particular character of the property in question might\njustify this Government in taking, and without reference\nto any exceptional marine jurisdiction that might properly\nbe claimed for that end, it is deemed advisable\u2014and I am\ninstructed by the President so to inform you\u2014to attain the\ndesired ends by international co-operation.\n\" It is well known that the unregulated and indis-\ncriminate killing of seals in many parts of the world has\ndriven them from place to place, and, by breaking up their\nhabitual resorts, has greatly reduced their- number.\nI Under these circumstances, and in view of ^the common\ninterests of all nations in preventing the indiscriminate\ndestruction and consequent extermination of an animal\nwhich contributes so importantly to the commercial wealth\nand general use of mankind, you are hereby instructed to\ndraw the attention of the Government to which you are\naccredited to the subject, and invite it to enter into such\nan arrangement with the Government of the United States\nas will prevent the citizens of either country from killing\nseal in Bering Sea at such times and places, and by such\nmethods as at present are pursued, and which threaten the\nspeedy extermination of those animals and consequent\nserious loss to mankind.\n\"The Ministers of the United States to Germany,\nSweden and Norway, Eussia, Japan, and Great Britain\nhave been each similarly addressed on the subject referred\nto in this instruction.\" m\nSo to Mr. White, Secretary of the United^\nStates' Legation in London, with reference to\nthis proposition, he wrote, on the 1st May,\n1888:\u2014\n1 The suggestion made by Lord Salisbury, that it may be Ibid., p. 101.\nnecessary to bring other Governments than the United\nStates, Great Britain, and Eussia into the arrangements,\nhas already been met by the action of the Department, as\nI have heretofore informed you. At the same time the invitation was sent to the British Government to negotiate a\nConvention for seal protection in Bering Sea, a like invitation was extended to various other Powers, which have,\nwithout exception, returned a favourable response.\n\" In order, therefore, that the plan may be carried out, the\nConvention proposed between the United States, Great\nBritain, and Eussia should contain a clause providing for\nthe subsequent adhesion of other Powers.\"\nAnd on the 7th February, 1888, the Secretary\nof State, in a despatch to the Minister at the\n 127\n50th Cong., 2nd\nSess., Senate Ex.\nDoc. No. 106,\np. 89.\nCourt of St. James', after referring to the killing\nof seals in Behring Sea, wrote:\u2014\n\" The only way of obviating the lamentable result above\npredicted appears to be by the United States, Great\nBritain, and other interested Powers taking concerted\naction to prevent their citizens or subjects from killing\nfur-seals with fire-arms or other destructive weapons, north\nof 50\u00b0 of north latitude, and between 160\u00b0 of longitude\nwest and 170\u00b0 of longitude east from Greenwich, during\nthe period intervening between April 15 and November 1.\"\nm\nContentions of the United States.\nJudge Dawson's directions to the jury.\nCase of the 1 Thornton.\"\nBlue Book,\n| United States\nNo. 2 (1890),\"\np. 21.\nSee Appendix,\nvoL iii.\nClaim of jurisdiction.in Behring Sea\neast of 193\nOO\nwest longitude.\nCase of the \" Anna Beck \" and other\nvessels. Brief for United States'\nGovernment.\nSee Blue Book,\n\" United States\nNo. 2 (1890),\"\np. 112.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nContentions of the United States.\nThe Judge of the District Court of Alaska, the\nHonourable Lafayette Dawson, is reported, in\nsumming up the case to the jury, to have quoted\nthe 1st Article of the Treaty of Cession of the\n30th March, 1867, and to have continued as\nfollows:\u2014\n\"All the waters within the boundary set forth in this\n' Treaty to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and\nchain of islands are to be considered as comprised within\nthe waters of Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by\nlaw against the killing of fur-bearing animals must therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits\nheretofore described.\n\" If, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that\nthe defendants did by themselves or in conjunction with\nothers, on or about the time charged in the information,\nMil any otter, mink, martin, sable or fur-seal, or other fur-\nbearing animal or animals, on the shores of Alaska, or in\nthe Behring Sea, east of the 193\u00b0 of west longitude, the\njury should find the defendants guilty, and assess their\npunishment separately, at a fine of not less than 200 dollars\nnor more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisonment not more\nthan six months, or by both, such fines within the limits\nherein set forth, and imprisonment.\"\nThe Counsel appearing for the United States'\nGovernment, to justify the seizure of the\n\"Anna Beck\" and other vessels in 1887, filed\na \"brief,\" from which the following extracts\nare taken:\u2014\n\" The information in this case is based on section 1956\nof chapter 3 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States,\nwhich provides that\u2014\n\"' No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or\nfur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of\nAlaska Territory or in the waters thereof.'\n\"The offence is charged to have been committed\n130 miles north of the Island of Ounalaska, and therefore\nin the main waters of that part of the Behring Sea ceded\nby Eussia to the United States by the Treaty of 1867.\n[644] 2 L\nHPHV\n ill\n1 li\nbill\ntill\n128\nThe defendants demur to the information on the\nground\u2014\n\"1. That the Court has no jurisdiction over the\ndefendants, the alleged offence having been committed\nbeyond the limit of a marine league from the shores of\nAlaska.\n\"2. That the Act under which the defendants were\narrested is unconstitutional in so far as it restricts the free\nnavigation of the Behring Sea for fishing and sealing purposes beyond the limits of a marine league from shore.\nThe issue thus raised by the demurrer presents squarely\nthe questions:\u2014\nI (1.) The jurisdiction of the United States over\nBehring Sea.\n| (2.) The power of Congress to legislate concerning\nthose waters. \u2022\n| The Argument.\n| The fate of the second of these propositions depends\nlargely upon that of the first, for if the jurisdiction and\ndominion of the United States as to these waters be not sustained the restrictive Acts of Congress must fall, and if our\njurisdiction shall be sustained small question can be made\nas to the power of Congress to regulate fishing and sealing\nwithin our own waters. The grave question, one important to all the nations of the civilized world, as well as\nto the United States and Great Britain, is 'the dominion\nof Behring Sea.'\"\nAfter conceding unreservedly the general\ndoctrine of the 3-mile limit, he proceeds:\u2014\n\"It thus appears that from our earliest history,\ncontemporaneously with our acceptance of the principle of\nthe marine league belt and supported by the same high\nauthorities is the assertion of the doctrine of our right to\ndominion over our inland waters under the Treaty of\n1867, and on this rule of international law we base our\nclaim to jurisdiction and dominion over the waters of the\nBehring Sea. While it is, no doubt, true that a nation\ncannot by Treaty acquire dominion in contravention of\nthe law of nations, it is none the less true that, whatever\ntitle or dominion our grantor, Eussia, possessed under the\nlaw of nations at the time of the Treaty of Cession in\n1867, passed and now rightfully belongs to the United\nStates. Having determined the law, we are next led to\ninquire as to whether Behring Sea is an inland water or a\npart of the open ocean, and what was Eussia's jurisdiction\nover it.\n\"Behring Sea is an inland water. Beginning on the\neastern coast of Asia, this body of water, formerly known\nas the Sea of Kamtchatka, is bounded by the Peninsula of\nKamtchatka and Eastern Siberia to the Behring Strait.\nFrom the American side of this strait the waters of the\nBehring Sea wash the coast of the mainland of Alaska as\nfar south as the Peninsula of Alaska. From the extremity\nof this peninsula, in a long, sweeping curve, the Aleutian'\nCase of the \"Anna Beck\" and other\n- vessels. Brief for United States'\nGovernment.\nBehring Sea said to be inland water.\n 129\nIslands stretch in a continuous chain almost to the shores\nof Kamtchatka, thus encasing the sea.\"\nAnd he concludes:\u2014\nI Enough has been said to disclose the basis of Eussia's\nright to jurisdiction of the Behring Sea under the law of\nnations, viz., original possession of the Asiatic coast, followed by discovery and possession of the Aleutian chain\nand the shores of Alaska north, not only to Behring\nStrait, but to Point Barrow and the Frozen Ocean, thus\ninclosing within its territory, as within the embrace of a\nmighty giant, the islands and waters of Behring Sea, and\nwith this the assertion and exercise of dominion over land\nand sea.\n\"Such is our understanding of the law, such is the\nrecord. Upon them the United States are prepared to\nabide the Judgments of the Courts and the opinion of the\ncivilized world.\"\nBlue Book,\nI United States\nNo. 2(1890),\"\np. 89.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nBlue Book,\nI United States\nNo. 2 (1890),\"\np. 89.\nSee Appendix,\nvol iii.\nOn the 10th September, 1887, the Marquis of\nSalisbury addressing Sir Lionel West, British\nMinister at Washington, discussed the proceedings in the United States' District Court in the\ncases of the 1 Carolena,\" I Onward,\" and\n\"Thornton.\" After stating that Her Majesty's\nGovernment could not find in these proceedings\nany justification for the condemnation of those\nvessels, he wrote:\u2014\n| The libels of information allege that they were seized\nfor killing fur-seal within the limits of Alaska Territory,\nand in the waters thereof, in violation of section 1956 of\nthe Eevised Statutes of the United States; and the United\nStates' Naval Commander Abbey certainly affirmed that\nthe vessels were seized within the waters of Alaska and\nthe Territory of Alaska; but according to his own\nevidence, they were seized 75,115, and 70 miles respectively south-south-east of St. George's Island.\n. \" It is not disputed, therefore, that the seizures in question were effected at a distance from land far in excees of\nthe limit of maritime jurisdiction which any nation can\nclaim by international law, and it is hardly necessary to\nadd that such limit cannot be enlarged by any municipal\nlaw:'\nI The claim thus set up appears to be founded on the\nexceptional title said to have been conveyed to the United\nStates by Eussia at the time of the cession of the Alaska\nTerritory. The pretension which the Eussian Government\nat one time put forward to exclusive jurisdiction over the\nwhole of Behring Sea was, however, never admitted\neither by this country or by the United States of\nAmerica.\"\nUpon this ground the discussion between Her\nMajesty's Government and the Government of\nW\u00abTW5l\n3\u00a7Sb8\n 130\nthe United States was carried on for some years\nuntil the receipt of Mr. Blaine's despatch of the\n22nd January, 1890, to Sir Julian Pauncefote,\nthe British Minister at Washington, wherein a\nnew or modified position was taken up, and it\nwas asserted to be contra bonos mores to engage\nin the killing of seals at sea.\nMr. Blaine, after promising Sir Julian Pauncefote to put in writing the precise grounds upon\nwhich the United States justified the seizures,\nwrote as follows:\u2014\nMr. Blaine upon the seizures.\n\" In the opinion of the President, the Canadian vessels\narrested and detained in the Behring Sea were engaged in\na pursuit -that is in itself contra bonos mores\u2014a pursuit JJr* Bl\u00a3\"ne t0 Sir J\u00ab\n. Jraunceiote,\nwhich of necessity involves a serious and permanent January 22,1890.\ninjury to the rights of the Government and people of the Blue Book,\nUnited States. |United States\nNo. 2 (1890) \"\n\" To establish this ground, it is not necessary to argue p> 39g#\nthe question of the extent and nature of the sovereignty of See Appendix,\nthis Government over the waters of the Behring Sea; it is\nnot necessary to explain, certainly not to define, the\npowers and privileges ceded by His Imperial Majesty the\nEmperor of Eussia in the Treaty, by which the Alaskan\nTerritory was transferred to the United States. The\nweighty consideration growing out of the acquisition of\nthat territory, with all the rights on land and sea inseparably connected therewith, may be safely left out of\nview while the grounds are set forth upon which this\nGovernment rests its justification for the action complained of by Her Majesty's Government.\" ....\nHe argues that the practice of pelagic sealing\ninsures the extermination of the species, and\ncontinues:\u2014\n\" In the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea Ibid., p. 398.\nis not lawlessness. Nor can the law of the sea and the\nliberty which it confers and which it protects be perverted\nto justify acts which are immoral in themselves, which\ninevitably tend to result against the interest and against\nthe welfare of mankind. One step beyond that which Her\nMajesty's Government has taken in this contention, and\npiracy finds its justification.\"\nSealing contra boTWs mores.\nO\nOn the 17th December, 1890, Mr. Blaine again\nwrote to Sir Julian Pauncefote:\u2014\nBehring Sea not included in Pacific Ocean\nin Treaties of 1824 and 1825.\n\" Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently compli- Blue Book,\ncated, are often found, after prolonged discussion, to \" United States'\ndepend on the settlement of a single point. Such, in the pp\/37 33\njudgment of the President, is the position in which the See Appendix,\nUnited States and Great Britain find themselves in the UK\npending controversy touching the true construction of the\nEusso-American and Anglo-Eussian Treaties of 1824 and\n1825. Great Britain contends that the phrase ' Pacific\nOcean,' as used in the Treaties, was intended to include,\n Disavowal of mare clausum.\nBlue Book,\nI United States\nNo. 1 (1891),\"\np. 56. See\nAppendix, vol. iii.\nIbid., p. 41.\nUkase of 1821 never annulled in\nBehring's Sea,\nIbid., p. 52.\nClaim to control restricted area for\nspecific purpose.\nIbid., o. 54.\nIbid., p. 56.\n131\nand does include, the body of water which is now known\nas the Behring Sea. The United States contends that the\nBehrinq; Sea was not mentioned, or even referred to, in\neither Treaty, and was in no sense included in the phrase\n'Pacific Ocean.' If Great Britain can maintain her\nposition that the Behring Sea at the time of the Treaties\nwith Eussia of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific\nOcean, the Government of the United States has no well-\ngrounded complaint against her. If, on the other hand,\nthis Government can prove beyond all doubt that the\nBehring Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood\nby the three Signatory Powers to be a separate body of\nwater, and was not included in the phrase ' Pacific Ocean,\nthen the American Case against Great Britain is complete\nand undeniable.\" ....\nIn the sar#e note Mr. Blaine disavows the contention that the Behring Sea is mare clausum, but\nclaims that the Ukase, which asserted exclusive\njurisdiction over 100 miles from the coast in that\nSea, was never annulled by Bussia. He had in\nthis note previously argued | that Great Britain\nand the United States recognized, respected, and\nobeyed the authority of Bussia in the Behring\nSea \" for more than fortv vcars after the Treaties\nwith Bussia. In conclusion, he claims for the\nUnited States the right to hold for a specific\npurpose a | comparatively restricted area of\nwater.\"\nIn this note the Secretary of State thus\nexpresses himself:\u2014\n\" The English statesman of that day had, as I have\nbefore remarked, attempted the abolition of the Ukase of\nAlexander only so far as it affected the coast of the Pacific\nOcean from the 51st to the 60th degree of north latitude.\nIt was left in full force on the shores of the Behrinsr Sea.\nThere is no proof whatever that the Eussian Emperor\nannulled it there. That sea, from east to west, is\n1,300 miles in extent ; from north to south it is\n1,000 miles in extent. The whole of this great body of\nwater, under the Ukase, was left open to the world, except\na strip of 100 miles from the shore. But with these\n100 miles enforced on all the coasts of the Behring Sea it\nwould be obviously impossible to approach the Straits of\nBehring, which were less than 50 miles in extreme\nwidth.\" ....\n\"The United States desires only such control over a\nlimited extent of the waters in the Behring Sea, for a part\nof each year, as will be sufficient to insure the protection\nof the fur-seal fisheries, already injured, possibly, to an\nirreparable extent by the intrusion of Canadian vessels.\"\n* * * *\n\"The repeated assertions that the Government of the\nUnited States demands that the Behring Sea be pro-\n[644] 2 M\nSi II\nBBI1BWW\nWSH9K\n 132\nt',\"\n\u00bb\nnounced mare clausum are without foundation. The\nGovernment has never claimed it, and never desired it.\nIt expressly disavows it.\n\"At the same time the United States does not lack\nabundant authority, according to the ablest exponents of\ninternational law, for holding a small section of the\nBehring Sea for the protection of the fur-seals. Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for that\none specific purpose is by no means the equivalent of\ndeclaring the sea, or any part thereof, mare clausum.\"\nThis disavowal of any claim to Behring Sea as Blue Book,\n\" United States\nNo. 3 (1892),\"\np. 2. See\nAppendix, vol. iii.\na mare clausum is again referred to in Mr. Blaine's\ndespatch of the 14th April, 1891.\nOn the 21st Pebruary, 1891, in answer to the\ndespatch of Mr. Blaine of the 17th December,\n1890, Lord Salisbury wrote to Sir Julian\nPauncefote:\u2014\n\"-The effect of the discussion which has been carried, on Blue Book,\nbetween the two Governments has been materially to ' ,te,c; \u201e}?v,!\nY :_ No. 1 (1891),\nnarrow the area of controversy.\" It is now quite clear that p. 87. See\nthe advisers of the President do not claim Behring Sea as a Appendix, vol. iii.\nmare clausum, and indeed that they repudiate that contention in express terms. Nor do they rely, as a justification\nfor the seizure of British ships in the open sea, upon the\ncontention that the interests of the seal fisheries give to\nthe United States' Government any right for that purpose\nwhich, according to international law, it would not other-\nwise possess. Whatever importance they attach to the\npreservation of the fur-seal species,\u2014and they justly look\non it as an object deserving the most serious solicitude,\u2014\nthey do not conceive that it confers upon any Maritime\nPower rights over the open ocean which that Power could\nnot assert on other grounds.\n\" The claim of the United States to prevent the exercise\nof the seal fishery by other nations in Behring Sea rests.\nnow exclusively upon the interest which by purchase they\npossess in a Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander I in\nthe year 1821, which prohibits foreign vessels from\napproaching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and\nislands then belonging to Eussia in Behring Sea.\"\nIn reply to this, Mr. Blaine wrote on the\n14th April, 1891:\u2014 Hi\n\"In the opinion of the President, Lord Salisbury is Blue Book,\nwholly and strangely in error in making the following * United States\nJ \u00b0 J \u00b0 b No. 3 (1892),\nstatement: ' Nor do they [the advisers of the President] p 4. gee\nrely as a justification for the seizure of British ships in Appendix, vol. iii.\nthe open sea upon the contention that the interests of the\nseal fisheries give to the United States' Government any\nright for that purpose which, according to international\nlaw, it would not otherwise possess.' The Government of\nthe United States has steadily held just the reverse of the\nposition Lord Salisbury has imputed to it. It holds that\nthe ownership of the islands upon which the seals breed,\nthat the habit of the seals in regularly resorting thither\n Claim of property interest in seals.\nCase of the \" W. P. Say ward.\"\n133\nand rearing their young thereon, that their going out from\nthe islands in search of food and regularly returning\nthereto, and all the facts and incidents of their relation to\nthe islands, give to the United States a property interest\ntherein ; that this property interest was claimed and\nexercised by Eussia during the whole period of its\nsovereignty over the land and waters of Alaska; that\nEngland recognized this property interest, so far as recognition is implied by abstaining from all interference with it\nduring the whole period of Eussia's ownership of Alaska,\nand during the first nineteen years of the sovereignty of\nthe United States.\n\" It is yet to be determined whether the lawless intrusion\nof Canadian vessels in 1886 and subsequent years has\nchanged the law and equity of the case theretofore prevailing.\"\nIt does not appear, however, that the special\nrights now apparently claimed by the United\nStates in respect of a special property in fur-\nseals have ever been otherwise advanced or more\ndefinitely formulated than as above mentioned.\nIn 1891, in the course of the Argument before\nthe Supreme Court of the United States in the\ncase of the \"W. P. Savward,\" one of the learned\nStenograpbic\nReport of Arguments in Case of the\n\"W. P. Say ward,\" Judges inquired of Mr. Attorney-General\np. 96.\nMiller\nSee also Brief for\nfor United States,\nex parte T. H.\n\"Do you mean that the Political Department has\ndecided in terms what constitute the waters of Alaska, or\nCooper, owner and only that the United States has jurisdiction over certain\nclaimant of the\nschooner \" W. P.\nSay ward,\" p. 166.\nwaters for certain purposes\n2-\nClaim of territorial jurisdiction over\n100 miles.\nTo which Mr. Miller replied :\u2014\n\"That is what I understand they have decided; that\nthey have jurisdiction, and that they have territorial jurisdiction over those waters to the extent of 100 miles.\"\nJudgment United Mr. Chief Justice Puller, delivering the\nCourt ex^parte opinion of .the Supreme Court of the United\nT. H. Cooper, States in the case of the | W. P. Say ward,\" on\nof the schooner the 29th Pebruary, 1892, referred to the seizures\nIW. P. Sayward.\" gg ^G following terms :-\u2014\np. 16. \u00b0\n\" If we assume that the record shows the locality of the\nalleged offence and seizure as stated, it also shows that\nofficers of the United States, acting under the. orders of\ntheir Government, seized this vessel engaged in catching\nseal and took her into the nearest port; and that the Law\nOfficers of the Government libelled her and proceeded\nagainst her for the violation of the laws of the United\nStates, in the District Court, resulting in her condemnation.\nI How did it happen that the officers received such\norders ?\" It must be admitted that they were given in the\nassertion on the part of this Government of territorial\ni\nraw mm\nkiss;\n mL\nJLo-1\njurisdiction over Behring Sea to an extent exceeding\n59 miles from the shores of Alaska ;* that this territorial\njurisdiction, in the enforcement of the laws protecting seal\nfisheries, was asserted by actual seizures during the seasons\nof 1886, 1887, and 1889, of a number of British vessels ;\nthat the Government persistently maintains that such\njurisdiction belongs to it, based not only on the peculiar\nnature of the seal fisheries and the property of the Government in them, but also upon the position that this juris-\"\ndiction was asserted by Eussia for more than ninety years,\nand by that Government transferred to the United States;\n\u2022and that negotiations are pending upon the subject.\"\n%<\nThe facts stated in this chapter show:\u2014\nThat the original ground upon which the\nvessels seized in 1886 and 1887 were condemned,\nwas that Behring Sea was a mare clausum, an\ninland sea, and as such had been conveyed, in\npart, by [Russia to the United States.\nThat this ground was subsequently entirely\nabandoned, but a claim was then made to\nexclusive jurisdiction over 100 miles from the\ncoast-line of the United States' territory.\nThat subsequently a further claim has been\nset up to the effect that the United States have\nproperty in and a right of protection over fur-\nseals in non-territorial waters.\n* The Supreme Court, however, expressed no opinion as to\nthe legal validity of the jurisdiction so asserted.\n 135\nChapter VIII.\nEight of protection or property in seals\noutside 3-mile limit.\nA novel claim.\nClaim involves mare clausum.\nPoint 5 or Article VI.\u2014Has the United States\nany Right, and, if so', what Right of Protection\nor Property in the Far-Seals frequenting the\nIslands of the United States in Behring Sea when\nsuch seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile\nlimit ?\nThe claim involved in this question is not only\nnew in the present discussion, but is entirely\nwithout precedent. It is, moreover, in contradiction of the position assumed by the United\nStates in analogous cases on more than one\noccasion*\nThe claim appears to be, in this instance, made,\nonly in respect of seals, but the principle involved\nin it might be extended on similar grounds to\nother animals fierce natures, such, for instance, as\nwhales, walrus, salmon, and marine animals of\nmany kinds.\nApart from the ordinary limits of territorial\njurisdiction over waters adjacent to coasts, or to\nsome exceptional condition based upon agreement, there is absolutely no precedent for the\nassumption of the right to property in a free-\nswimming animal, whose movements are uncontrolled and not controllable by man.\nPur-seals are indisputably animals fer&\nnatura, and such animals have been universally\nregarded by jurists as res nullius until they are\ncaptured. No person can have property in them\nuntil Tie has actually reduced them into possession by capture.\nWhy should there be a property in seals in\nBehring Sea alone ? Outside Behring Sea citizens\nof the United States have pursued the seals for\nyears as Canadians have done, and are doing,\nwithout let or hindrance, and with the full\nknowledge of the United States' Government.\nThe proposition that on one side of the Aleutian Archipelago a seal is the property of the\nUnited States, and on the other it is the property\nof any man who can catch it, can only be supported on the ground that Behring Sea is the\ndomain of the United States, in other words, a\nmare clausum.\nIt is, moreover, submitted that if seals before\ncapture constitute special property, the larceny\nof a seal on the high seas by a vessel not be-\n[644] 2 I\n 1\n136\nlonging to the United States is not cognizable by\nthe United States' Courts, and that any claim to\nprotection of seals beyond territorial jurisdiction\nmust involve mare clausum.\nWhatever arguments may be brought forward\nin order to induce other nations to concur in the\nadoption of Regulations limiting and interfering\nwith their rights to fish for and catch seals or\nother animals ferm naturae upon the high seas,\nno nation under the principles of law and the\npractice among nations can, without the concurrence of all interested Powers, interfere with\nvessels engaged in this pursuit when outside of\nthe ordinary territorial jurisdiction.\nThe principle suggested in the question\ndiscussed in this chapter has been steadily\nresisted bv all nations. The Government of the\nUnited States has more than once distinctly\nasserted the principle that the fur-seal fishery is\npart of the ocean fishery, and free to all, beyond\nthe 3-mile limit.\nIn 1832 the United States' schooner | Harriet,\"\nDavison, master, was seized by the Government\nof the Republic of Buenos Ayres at the Palkland\nIslands; that Government having claimed the .\nright to capture and detain United States' vessels*\nengaged in the seal fishery at the Malvinas\n(Palkland Islands) and the islands and coasts\nadjacent to Cape Horn.\nThe United States' Charge* d'Affaires wrote, on\nthe 20th June, 1832, to the Buenos Ayres\nMinister as follows :\u2014\n\"... . The Undersigned is instructed and authorized to British and Foreign\nsay,\u2014that they utterly deny the existence of any right in \u201ete PaPers> by\n,!. _ 1 .. . . ... Hertslet, vol. xx,\nthis Eepublic to interrupt, molest, detain or capture any p< 335, \u25a0\n\"Vessels belonging to citizens of the United States of\nAmerica, or any persons being citizens of those States,\nengaged in taking seals, or whales, or any species of fish or\nmarine animals, in any of the waters, or on any of the\nshores or lands, of any or either of the Falkland Islands,\nTierra del Fuego, Cape Horn, or any of the adjacent\nislands in the Atlantic Ocean.\"\nFreedom of seal fisheries asserted by\nUnited States.\nFalkland Islands. Case of the \" Harriet'\nOn the 10th July, 1832, the United States'\nCharge d'Affaires wrote to the same Minister as\nfollows:\u2014\n\" But again,\u2014if it be admitted, hypothetically, that the Ibid., p. 3-19.\nArgentine Eepublic did succeed to the entire rights of\nSpain over these regions; and that when she succeeded,\nSpain was possessed of sovereign rights;\u2014the question is\ncertainly worth examination, whether the right to exclude\nAmerican vessels and American citizens from the fisheries\nthere, is incident to such a succession to sovereignty.\n M\nFalkland Islands seal fisheries.\nBritish and Foreig a\nState Papers, by\nHertslet, vol. xx>\np. 351.\nHunt's \" Merchants' Magazine,'\nFebruarv 1842.\np. 137. *\n137\n\" The ocean fishery is a natural right, which all nations\nmay enjoy in common. Every interference with it by a\nforeign Power, is a national wrong. When it is carried on\nwithin the marine league of the coast, which has been\ndesignated as the extent of national jurisdiction, reason\nseems to dictate a restriction, if, under pretext of carrying\non the fishery, an evasion of the Eevenue Laws of the\ncountry may reasonably be apprehended, or any other\nserious injury to the Sovereign of the coast, he has a right\nto prohibit it; but, as such prohibition derogates from a\nnatural right, the evil to be apprehended ought to be a\nreal, not an imaginary one. No such evil can be apprehended on a desert and uninhabited coast; therefore, such\ncoasts form no exception to the common right of Fishing in\nthe seas adjoining them. All the .reasoning on this subject\napplies to the large bays of the Ocean, the entrance to\nwhich cannot be defended; and 'this is the doctrine of\nVattel, chapter 23, section 291, who expressly cites the\nStraits of Magellan, as an instance for the application of\nthe rule.\n1 . .. . The Treaty concluded between Great Britain and\nSpain, in 1790, already alluded to, is to be viewed, in\nreference to this subject, because, both nations, by\nrestricting themselves from forming Settlements, evidently\nintended that the fishery should be left open, both in'the\nwaters and on the shores of these islands, and perfectly\nfree, so that no individual claim for damage, for- use of\nthe shores, should ever arise. That case, however, could\n. scarcely occur, for whales are invariably taken at sea, and\ngenerally without the marine league\u2014and seals, on rocks\nand sandy beaches, incapable of cultivation. The Stipula-\n. tion in the Treaty of 1790 is, clearly, founded on the right\nto use the unsettled shores for the purpose of fishery, and\nto secure its continuance.\"\nMr. Hobert Greenhow, whose works have\nalready been quoted, in a series of articles\non the Palkland Islands, written for \"Hunt's\nMerchants' Magazine,\" in February 1842, refers\nto the claim set up by Buenos Ayres respecting\nthe jurisdiction of the Republic and the application of its laws and regulations, | especially those\nrespecting the seal fishery on the coast.\"\nMr. Greenhow says:\u2014\n\" To proceed another step in admissions. Supposing the\nArgentine Eepublic to have really and unquestionably\ninherited from Spain the sovereignty of the' territories\nadjoining it on the south, and the contiguous islands, that\nGovernment would still want the right to extend its\n' Eegulations respecting the seal fishery' to the unsettled\nportions of the coasts of those territories. That right was\nindeed assumed by Spain, with many equally unjust, which\nwere enforced so long as other nations did not find it\nprudent to contest them. But as the Spanish power\nwaned, other nations claimed their imprescriptible rights ;\nII\n*\n 138\nthey insisted on navigating every part of the open sea, and\nof its unoccupied straits and harbours, with such limitations only as each might choose to admit by Treaty with\nanother; and they resorted to the North Pacific coasts of\nAmerica for trade and settlement, and to the southernmost\nshores of the continent for the seal fishery, without regard\nfor the exclusive pretensions of Spain to the sovereignty of\nthose regions. Of the hundreds of vessels, nearly all\nAmerican, which annually frequented the coasts omd seas\nabove mentioned after 1789, not one was captured or detained\nby (lie Spanish authorities; and long before the revolutions\nin Southern America began, the prohibitory Decrees of the\nCourt of Madrid and of its Governors, relative to those\nparts of the world, had become obsolete, and the warnings\nof its officers were treated as jests.\n\" The common right of all nations to navigate and fish\nin the open sea, and in its indefensible straits, and to use\ntheir unsettled shores for temporary purposes, is now\nadmitted among the principal Maritime Powers; and the\nstipulations in Treaties on those subjects, are intended to\n\u2014prevent disputes as to what coasts are to be considered\nas unsettled,\u2014what straits are indefensible,\u2014within what\ndistance from a settled coast the sea ceases to be open, &c.\n\" The Governments of Spanish American Eepublics\nhave, however, in many instances exhibited a strong indisposition to conform with these and other such Eegula-\ntions of national law, though clearly founded on justice\nand reason, and intended clearly for the benefit of the\nweak, to which class they all belong.\"\nHe also refers to the case of the \" Harriet\" as\nfollows:\u2014\nFalkland Islands seal fisheries.\n31\n\" . . . . The President at the same time declared, that Hunt's \" Merch-\nthe name of the Eepublic of Buenos Ayres ' had been used. i\"lts Magazine,\"\n\u2022iri if * 4-1, -f \\ \u25a0 \u2022 \u25a0 4- 4-1 - February 1842,\nto cover with a show oi authority, acts injurious to the p> 143\ncommerce of the United States, and to the property and\nliberty of their citizens; for which reason, he had given\norders for the dispatch of an armed vessel to join the\nAmerican squadron in the south seas, and aid in affording\nall lawful protection to the trade of the Union, which\nmight be required ; and he should without delay send a\nMinister to Buenos Ayres, to examine into the nature of\nthe circumstances, and also of the claim set up by that\nGovernment to the Falkland Islands.\n\" . . . . The question had, however, become more com- Ibid., p. 144.\nplicated before the arrival of Mr. Baylies at Buenos\nAyres.\n\" The I Lexington' reached Berkeley Sound on the\n28th December, and lay at the entrance, during a severe\ngale, until the 31st, when she went up and anchored in\nfront of the harbour of Soledad. Boats were immediately\nsent ashore, with armed seamen and marines, who made\nprisoners of Brisbane, Metcalf, and some other persons,\nand sent them on board the ship; the cannon mounted\nbefore the place were at the same time spiked, some of the\narms and ammunition were destroyed, and the seal-skins\n Hi\nHalifax Fisheries Commission.\nMr. Dana's speech.\nRecord of the\nProceedings of\nHalifax Fisheries\nCommission, 1877,\np. 1653.\nand other articles taken from the ' Harriet' and \u2022 Superior'\nwere removed from the warehouses, and placed in the\nschooner ' Dash,' which carried them to the United States.\nCaptain Duncan then gave notice to the inhabitants that\nthe seal fishery on those coasts was in future to be free to\nall Americans; and that the capture of any vessel of the .\nUnited States would be regarded as an act of piracy; and\nhaving affixed a declaration in writing to that effect on\nthe door of the Government-house, he took his departure,\non the 22nd January, 1832, carrying with him in the\n* Lexington,' Brisbane and six other persons as prisoners,\nwith many of the negroes and settlers as passengers.\"\nMr. H, H. Dana, in his speech on behalf of\nthe United States before the Halifax Fisheries\nCommission in 1877, says:\u2014\n\" The right to fish in the sea is in its nature not real, as\nthe common law has it, nor immovable, as named by the\ncivil law, but personal. It is a liberty. It is a franchise\nor a faculty. It is not property pertaining to or connected\nwith the land. It is incorporeal; it is aboriginal. The\nright of fishing, dropping line or net into the sea, to.draw\nfrom it the means of sustenance, is as old as the human\nrace, and the limits that have been set about it have been\nset about it in recent and modern times, and wherever the\nfisherman is excluded, a reason for excluding him should\nalways be given. I speak of the deep sea fishermen\nfollowing the free-swimming fish through the sea, not\nof the crustaceous animals, or of any of those that connect\nthemselves with the 'soil under the sea or adiacent to the\nsea, nor do I speak of any fishing which requires posses- \u25a0\nsion of the land or any touching or troubling the bottom of\nthe sea 1 I speak of the deep-sea fishermen, who sail over\nthe high seas pursuing the free-swimming fish of the high\nseas. Against them, it is a question not of admission, but\nof exclusion. These fish are not property. Nobody owns\nthem. They come we know not whence, and go we know\nnot whither.\n* * * *\n\" They are no man's property; they belong, by right of\nnature to those who take them, and every man may take\nthem who can.\"\nln.il\nDr. \"Woolsey's opinion.\nSec. 59, p. 73,\nsixth edition.\nDr. Woolsey, in the sixth edition of his Treatise\non International Law, says:\u2014\n\" The recent controversy between Great Britain and the\nUnited States involving the right of British subjects to\ncatch seals in North Pacific waters appears to be an\nattempted revival of these old claims to jurisdiction over\nbroad stretches of sea. That an international agreement\nestablishing a rational close season for the fur-seal is wise\nand necessary no one will dispute, but to prevent foreigners\nfrom sealing on the high sea or within the Kamschatkan\nSea (which is not even inclosed by American territory, its\nf644] 2 0\nJ\n\u00bb\nt>\n 140\nwest and north-west shores being. Eussian) is as unwarranted as if England should warn fishermen of other\nnationalities off the Newfoundland banks.\nIn the absence of any indication as to\nthe grounds upon which the United States\nbase so unprecedented a claim as that of a\nright to protection of or property in animals\nfera? natures upon the high seas, the further\nconsideration of this claim must of necessity be\npostponed; but it is maintained that, according\nto the principles of international law, no property\ncan exist in animals fera natura.'wh.eiL frequenting\nthe high seas.\n 141\nGeneral conclusions.\nBehring Sea an open sea.\nClIAPTElt IX.\nGeneral Conclusions upon the whole Case.\nIt now remains to state the principles of\nlaw applicable to the whole Case, some authorities bearing thereon, and the conclusions\nof fact established b-y the foregoine; statement,\nand to formulate the final propositions both of\nlaw and of fact, upon which Great Britain will\ninsist.\nThe sea now known as Behring Sea is an open\nsea forming part of the common highway of all\nnations, and especially of Great Britain to her\npossessions in the northern parts of North\nAmerica. In the absence of Treaty or international arrangement, all the nations of the\nworld have the right to navigate and fish in such\nwaters, and no mere declarations or claims by anv\none or more nations can take away or restrict the\nrights of other nations. Moreover, mere non-\nuse or absence of the exercise by any nation of\nher rights cannot in any way impair or take\naway the right of that nation or of any other\nnation to exercise these rights. They are, in\nfact, the common heritage of all mankind, and\nincapable of being appropriated by any one or\nmore nations.\nThe rights and interests of nations in the open\n9th edition, Boston, sea are correctly stated by Chancellor Kent as\nKent's I Com-\n1858, p. 29.\nWheaton,\nElements, Sth\nedition by Dana,\n1866, p. 269.\nfollows:\u2014\n\"The open sea is not capable of being possessed as\nprivate property. The free use of the ocean for navigation\nand fishing is common to all mankind, and the public\njurists generally and explicitly deny that the main ocean\ncan ever be appropriated.\"\nThe controversy between Grotius and Selden\nas to the right of appropriation by a nation of\nthe sea beyond the immediate vicinity of the\ncoast is thus reviewed by Wheaton I\u2014\n1 There are only two decisive reasons applicable to the\nquestion. The first is physical and material, which would\nalone be sufficient; but when coupled with the second\nreason, which is purely moral, will be found conclusive of\nthe whole controversy.\n11. Those things which are originally the common property of all mankind can only become the exclusive property of a particular individual or society of men, by\nmeans of possession. In order to establish the claim of a\nparticular nation to a right of property in the sea, that\nnation must obtain and keep possession of it, which is\nimpossible.\nS3WUW\nEi!S?l\n 142\n\"2. In the second place, the sea is an element which\nhelongs equally to all men, like the air. No nation, then,\nhas the .right to appropriate it, even though it might be\nphysically possible to do so.\n| It is thus demonstrated that the sea cannot become the Cf. Ortolan,\nexclusive property of any nation. And, consequently, the Diplomatie de la\nn , i , . , Mer,\" torn. I,\nuse of the sea for these purposes, remains open and pD< 120-I26.\ncommon to all mankind.\"\nIn a note on this passage of Wheaton,\nMr. Dana adds that\u2014j\nv The right of one nation, or of several nations, to an\nexclusive jurisdiction over an open sea, was, as stated in\nthe text, rested solely on a kind of prescription. But,\nhowever long acquiesced in, such an appropriation is inadmissible, in the nature of things; and whatever may be the\nevidence of the time or nature of the use, it is set aside as\na bad usage, which no evidence can make legal.\"\nSir R. Phillimore writes :\u2014\n\" The right of navigation, fishing, and the like, upon the Phillimore, \" Inter-\nopen sea, beinsr jura merce facultatis, rights which do not \u00b0afcl01ial Law, |\n1 . M ... \u2022 , \u2022 4-1 \u2022 US 2^ edition, 1871,\nrequire a continuous exercise to maintain their validity, j \u00a7 174.\nbut which may or may not be exercised according to the\nfree will and pleasure of those entitled to them, can neither\nbe lost by non-user or prescribed against, nor acquired to\nthe exclusion of others by having been immemorially\nexercised by one nation only. No presumption can arise\nthat those who have not hitherto exercised such rights,\nhave abandoned the intention of ever doing so.\"\nNo prescription in open sea.\nThe following position was correctly taken by\nthe United States in 1862, and, it is presumed,\nwill be adhered to by that country to-day.\nIn that year Spain pushed her claim to an\nextended jurisdiction around the Island of Cuba*\nSecretary Seward wrote :\u2014\n\" It cannot be admitted, nor indeed is Mr. Tessara Mr. Seward to\nunderstood to claim, that the mere assertion of a Sovereign, Mr. Tessara.\n, c , . t ,. , , , ,, Wharton Digest of\nby an act of legislation, however solemn, can have the \"international\neffect to establish and fix its external maritime jurisdic- Law,\" vol. i,\nlion He cannot, by a mere Decree, extend the sec# 32' P* 103,\nlimit and fix it at 6 miles, because, if he could, he could S?,1??11! v\u00b0\u00b0}'\nUnited States\nthe same manner, and upon motives of interest, No. 2 (1890),\"\nambition, and even upon caprice, fix it at 10, or 20, or P* 5l8-\n50 miles, without the consent or acquiescence of other vo] (J-? '\nPowers which have .a common right with himself in the\nfreedom of all the oceans. Such a pretension could never\nbe successfully or rightfully maintained.\"\nPosition taken by United States in.\n. 1862: Cuba.\nIt is claimed by Great Britain that the facts\nalready stated establish :g~\n(A.) That from the earliest times down to the \"Chapter I.\nvear 1821 the ships of Great Britain and the\n General conclusions.\nChapter II.\nChapter 1IL\nChapter IV.\n143\nUnited States and of other foreign nations navigated the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea\nand the other parts of the North Pacific, and\nexercised freely the natural and common rights\ntherein without interference or remonstrance by\nRussia.\n(B.) That when, in the year 1821, Eussia, in\nthe terms of the Ukase of ,that date, advanced\nclaims to exercise control over a considerable\nportion of the non-territorial waters of the North\nPacific (including a large part of the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea) as over a mare\nclausum, the practice of nations and their\nadmitted rights upon the high seas were already\nentirely opposed to any claim to such exclusive\nand exceptional rights as were embodied in or\nimplied by the Ukase.\nThat this attempt on the part of Bussia led\nto immediate and emphatic protests by Great\nBritain and the United States, which protests\nled to the withdrawal of Russia's claims. That\nthose claims were never recognized or conceded\nby Great Britain in the smallest degree.\nThat, in view of the continued practice of\nnations and the growth of the principles of\ninternational law since 1821, the arguments then\nemployed by Great Britain and the United States\nhave to-day, if possible, even greater weight than\nat that period.\n(C.) That the body of water now commonly\nknown as \" Behring Sea 1 is included in the phrase\n*' Pacific Ocean \" as used in the Treaty of 1825\nbetween Great Britain and Bussia, and that that\nTreaty was intended to declare the rights of Great\nBritain to navigate and fish in all the waters\nover which Bussia had attempted to control and\nHmit such rights, that is to say, from Behring\nStrait on the north to latitude 51\u00b0 on the coast of\nAmerica, and latitude 45\u00b0 50' on the coast of Asia.\n(D.) That for a period of more than forty\nyears, that is to say, from 1821 to 1867, the\nsubjects and vessels of Great Britain and the\nUnited States and other nations continued in\nincreasing numbers to navigate, trade, and fish in\nthe waters of Behring Sea, and that during the\nwhole of that period no attempt was made on the\npart of Bussia to reassert or claim any dominion\nor jurisdiction over the non-territorial waters of\nthat sea; but that, on the contrary, the right of\nall nations to navigate, fish, and exercise common\nrights therein was fully recognized.\n[644] 2 P\nI?\n \\\\n\n144\n(E.) That at the time of the acquisition of\nAlaska by the United States pursuant to the\nTreaty of the 30th March, 1867, Bussia had no\nrights in respect of Behring Sea other than those\nwhich belonged to her as possessing territories\nwashed by its waters, and could not transmit to\nthe United States any rights of exclusive dominion or control over navigation and fishing in\nnon-territorial waters, and the United States of\nAmerica acquiring as they did all the rights of\nBussia, acquired no more.\nPurther, that at the time of the acquisition\n\u2022the United States of America was fully alive to\nthe fact that the non-territorial waters of\nBehring Sea were open to the ships of all\nnations for the purpose of the exercise of the\ncommon rights of navigation and fishing.\nThat as to the rights which Bussia possessed\nat the time of the Treaty of 1867, and which,\nwere transferred to the United States by virtue\nof that Treaty, the ordinary rule as to the extent\nof maritime jurisdiction applied.\nAdmitting, in the consideration of this question,\nthat Russia's title before 1867 to the coast of\nBehring Sea and to the islands within those\nwaters was complete, an examination of the\nprinciples of international law and the practice\nof nations will show that her jurisdiction (subject\nto the question of embayed or inland waters) was\nconfined to the distance of 1 marine league or\n3 miles from her shores.\nOrtolan, in his \"Diplomatie de la Mer,\"\npp. 145,153 (edition 1864), says :\u2014\nOn doit ranger sur la meme ligne que les rades et les Proceedings of\nports, les golfes et les bales et tous les enfoncements Halifax Fisheries\nconnus sous d'autres denominations, lorsque ces enfonce- om\u2122lsslon> \u2022 >\nments, formed par les terres d'un meme \u00a3tat, ne depassent\npas en largeur la double ported du canon, ou lorsque\nl'entr\u00a3e peut en 6tre gouvern^e par Tartillerie, ou qu'elle\nest deTendue naturellement par des lies, par des bancs, ou\npar des roches. Dans tous ces cas, en effet, il est vrai.de\ndire que ces golfes ou ces baies sont en la puissance de\nl'fitat maitre du territoire qui les enserre. Cet \u00a3tat en a\nla possession: tous les raisonnements que nous avons fait\na Tdgard des rades et des ports peuvent se rep&er ici.\nLes bords et rivages de la mer qui baigne les c&tes d'un Ortolan, p. 153.\nliltat sont les limites maritimes natureiles de cet Etat.\nMais pour la protection, pour la defense plus efncace de\nces limites natureiles, la coutume generate des nations,\nd'accord avec beaucoup de Trait^s publics, permet de\ntracer sur mer, a une distance convenable des c6tes, et\nChapter V\nAuthorities as to the 3-mile bruit\nOrtolan.\n i\u00abB>\\\n145\nsuivant leurs contours, une ligne imaginaire qui doit \u00a7tre\nconsidejee comme la frontiere maritime artificielle. Tout\nbatiment qui se trouve a terre de cette ligne est dit 6tre\ndans les eaux de 1'lStat dont elle limite le droit de souverainete' et de juridiction.\"\nCase of the \"Washington.\"\nMr Joshua Bates' decision.\nProceedings of\nHalifax Fisheries\nCommission, 1877,\np. 152.\nUnder the clauses of the Convention of the\n8th Pebruary, 1853, the case of the | Washington\" (which had been seized in the Bay of\nPundy and confiscated in the Vice-Admiralty\nCourt at Yarmouth, N.S.) came before the Joint\nCommission for settlement of claims in London,\nand on the disagreement of the Commissioners\nwas decided by the Umpire, Mr. Joshua Bates,\nin favour of the United States. In his decision\nhe said::\u2014\n\"The question turns, so far as relates to the Treaty\nstipulations, on the meaning given to the word | bays' in\nthe Treaty of 1783. By that Treaty, the Americans had\nno right to dry and cure fish on the shores and bays of\nNewfoundland; but they had that right on the shores,\ncoasts, bays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia; and, as\nthey must land to cure fish on the shores, bays, and\ncreeks, they were evidently admitted to the shores of the\nbays, &c. By the Treaty of 1818 the same right is\ngranted to cure fish on the coasts', bays, &c, of Newfoundland ; but the Americans relinquished that right, and (lie\nright to fish within 3 miles of the coasts, bays, Sec, of Nova\nScotia. Taking it for granted that the framers of the\ntreaty intended that the word j bay' or jj bays' should have\nthe same meaning in all cases, and no mention being made\nof headlands, there appears no doubt that the % Washington,'\nin fishing 10 miles from the shore, violated no stipulations\nof the Treaty.\n\"It was urged, on behalf of the British Government\nthat by 'coasts,' 'bays,' &c, is understood an imaginary\nUne drawn along the coast from headland to headland, and\nthat the jurisdiction of Her Majesty extends 3 marine\nmiles outside of this line ; thus closing all the bays on the\ncoast or shore, and that great body of water called the Bay\nof Fundy, against Americans and others, making the latter\na British bay. This doctrine of the headlands is new, and\nhas received a proper limit in the convention between\nFrance and Great Britain of the 2nd August, 1839 \u2022 in\nwhich \\ it is agreed that the distance of 3 miles, fixed as\nthe general limit for the exclusive right of fishery upon\nthe coasts of the two countries, shall, with respect to bays\nthe mouths of which do not exceed 10 miles in width be\nmeasured from a straight line drawn from headland to\nheadland.'\n| The Bay of Fundy is from 65 to 75 miles wide and\n130 to 140 miles long; it has several bays on its coast;\nthus the word ' bay,' as applied to this great body of water,\nhas the same meaning as that applied to the Bay of\nBiscay, the Bay of Bengal, over which no nation can have\nK3S\u00a7s\n Wf^r\nm\n111!\n146\nthe right to assume sovereignty. One of the headlands of\nthe Bay of Fundy is in the United States, and ships bound\nto Passamaquoddy must sail through a large space of it.\nThe islands of Grand Menan (British) and Little Menan\n(American) are situated nearly on a line from headland to\nheadland These islands, as represented in all geographies,\nare situated in the Atlantic Ocean. The conclusion is\ntherefore in my mind irresistible that the Bay of Fundy 13\nnot a British bay, nor a bay within the meaning of the\nword as used in the Treaties of 1783 and 1818.\" \\jg|\nThe Agent for the United States before the\nHalifax Fisheries Commission, 1877, quotes this\ndecision, and adds the following note:\u2014\nI This Convention between France and Great Britain Proceedings of\nextended the headland doctrine to bays 10 miles wide; \u2022\nthus going beyond the general rule of international law,\naccording to which no bays are treated as within the\nterritorial jurisdiction of a State which are more than\n6 miles wide on a straight line measured from one headland to the other.\"\nCommission, 1877,\np. 153 (note).\nI\n1\nThe principle of the marine league was in\n1872 applied by Mr. Boutwell, United States*\nSecretary to the Treasury, in his letter of instructions to the Collector of Customs at San\nPrancisco, dated 19th April, 1872, already quoted,\nas follows:\u2014\n\" I do not see that the United States would have the\njurisdiction or power to drive off parties going up there\nfor that purpose [to take fur-seals], unless they made such\nattempt within a marine league of the shore.\"\nThe same principle was affirmed in respect of\nthe waters now in question by Mr. Pish, the\nUnited States' Secretary of State, who wrote to See ante, p. 109.\nthe United States' Legation in Bussia on the\n1st December, 1875 :\u2014\nSecretary Boutwell's opinion.\nSee ante, pp. 108, 109.\nSecretary Fishfs opinion.\n106.\n\" There was reason to hope that the practice, which for- Wharton's\nmerly prevailed with powerful nations, of regarding seas \" ^jj8** sec*\nand bays, usually of large extent near their coast, as closed\nto any foreign commerce or fishery not specially licensed\nby them, was, without exception, a pretension of the past,\nand that no nation would claim exemption from the\ngeneral rule of public law which limits its maritime jurisdiction to a marine league from its coast. We should particularly regret if Eussia should insist on any such pretension.\"\nThe same position was taken up by the United\nStates in their brief filed with the Halifax\nFisheries Commission in 1877.\nThe Agent of the United States at Halifax,\nimV\n\u25a0HHMr\ni\u2014\n 147\nAuthorities quoted by the United States *\nin Halifax Fisheries Commission.\nProceedings of\nHalifax Fisheries\nCommission, 1877,\np. 162.\nafter setting out the various authorities under\nthis head, concluded as follows:\u2014\nI The jurisdiction of a State or country over its adjoining\nwaters is limited to 3 miles from low-water mark along its\nsea-coast, and the same rule applies equally to bays and\ngulfs whose width exceeds 6 miles from headland to\nheadland. Property in and dominion over the sea can\nonly exist as to those portions capable of permanent possession ; that is, of a possession from the land, which possession can only be maintained by artillery. At one mile\nbeyond the reach of coast-guns there is no more possession\nthan in mid-ocean. This is the rule laid down by almost\nall the writers on international law.\"\nVattel.\nIbid., p. 162.\nAs to inland seas and seas over which empire\nmay extend, the following authorities were\nreferred to by the Agent in the same brief j\u2014\nI At present,\" says Vattel, | Law of Nations,\" Book 1,\nch. xxiii, \u00a7\u00a7 289, 291, \"the whole space of the sea within\ncannon-shot of the coast is considered as making a part of\nthe territory; and, for that reason, a vessel taken under\nthe guns of a neutral fortress is not a good prize.\n1 All we have said of the parts of the sea near the coast\nmay be said more particularly, and with much greater\nreason, of the roads, bays, and straits, as still more capable\nof being occupied, and of greater importance to the safety\nof the country. But I speak of the bays and straits of\nsmall extent, and not of those great parts of the sea to\nwhich these names are sometimes given\u2014as Hudson's\nBay and the Straits of Magellan\u2014over which the Empire\ncannot extend, and still less a right of property. A bay\nwhose entrance may be defended may be possessed and\nrendered subject to the laws of the Sovereign; and it is of\nimportance that it should be so, since the country may be\nmuch more easily insulted in such a place than on the\ncoast, open to the winds and the impetuosity of the\nwaves.\"\nBluntschli.\nIbid., p. 163*\nProfessor Bluntschli, in his \"Law of Nations,\"\nBook 4, \u00a7\u00a7 302, 309, states the rule in the same\nway*\u2014\nI When the frontier of a State is formed by the open\nsea, the part of the sea over which the State can from the\nshore make its power respected\u2014i.e., a portion of the sea\nextending as far as a cannon-shot from the coast\u2014is\nconsidered as belonging to the territory of that State.\nTreaties or agreements can establish other and more\nprecise limits.\"\n\"Note.\u2014The extent practised of this sovereignty has\nremarkably increased since the invention of far-shooting\ncannon. This is the consequence of the improvements\nmade in the means of defence, of which the State makes\nuse. The sovereignty of States over the sea extended\n[644]\n2 I\n Mlu\n;\u25a0?'\nI\n148\noriginally only to a stone's-throw from the coast; later, to\nan arrow-shot; fire-arms were invented, and by rapid\nprogress we have arrived to the far-shooting cannon of the\npresent age. But still we preserve the principle: * Terras\ndominium finitur, ubi finitur armorum vis.' |\n\"Within certain limits, there are submitted to the\nsovereignty of the bordering State:\u2014\n| (a.) The portion of the sea placed within a cannon-\nshot of the shore.\n\"(5.) Harbours.\n\"(c.) GulfsT\nI {d.) Koadsteads.\"\n\"Note.\u2014Certain portions of the sea are so nearly joined\nto the terra firma, that, in some measure at least, they\nought to form a part of the territory of the bordering\nState; they are considered as accessories to the terra firma.\nThe safety of the State, and the public quiet, are so dependent on them that they cannot be contented, in certain\ngulfs, with the portion of the sea lying under the fire of\ncannon from the coast. These exceptions from the general\nrule of the liberty of the sea can only be made for weighty\nreasons, and when the extent of the arm of the sea is not\nlarge; thus, Hudson's Bay and the Gulf of Mexico\nevidently are a part of the open sea. No one disputes the\npower of England over the arm of the sea lying between\nthe Isle of Wight and the English coast, which could not\nbe admitted for the sea lying between England and Ireland;\nthe English Admiralty has, however, sometimes maintained the theory of ' narrow seas ;' and has tried, but\nwithout success, to keep for its own interest, under the\nname of ' King's Chambers,' some considerable extents of\nthe sea,\"\nKluber, \" Droit des Gens Modernes de l'Europe\n(Paris, Edition 1831),\" torn, i, p. 216 :\u2014\n\" Au territoire maritime d'un irttat appartiennent les Proceedings of\ndistricts maritimes, ou parages susceptibles d'une possession exclusive, sur lesquels l'Etat a acquis (par occupation ou convention) et continue' la souverainete. Sont\nde ce nombre, (1) Les parties de 1'oc^an qui avoisinent le\nterritoire continental de l'Etat, du moins, d'apres l'opinion\npresque g\u00a3n\u00a3raiement adoptee, autant qu'elles se trouvent\nsous la ported du canon qui serait plac\u00a3 sur le rivage;\n(2) les parties de l'oc^an qui s'^tendent dans le territoire\ncontinental de l'Etat, si elles peuvent etre gcuvernees par le\ncanon des deux bords, ou que l'entr^e seulement en peut\n\u00a7tre d^fendue aux vaisseaux (golfes, baies, et cales);\n(3) les detroits qui s&parent deux continents, et qui egale-\nment sont sous la ported du canon place' sur le rivage, ou\ndont l'entr^e et la sortie peuvent \u00a7tre d^fendues (d&roit,\ncanal, bosphore, sonde). Sont encore du m\u00a7me nombre;\n(4) les golfes, detroits, et mers avoisinant le territoire\ncontinental d'un Etat, lesquels, quoiqu'ils ne soient pas\nentierement sous la ported du canon, sont neanmoins\nreconnus par dautres Puissances comme mer fermeV;\nJSHiiber.\nHalifax Fisheries\nCommission, 1877,\np. 163.\n Brief for the United States, Sitka,\nin 1887.\nBrief for the\nUnited States.\nFiled at Sitka\nOctober 12, 1887.\nI New York\nHerald,\" October\n18, 1887.\nBlue Book,\nI United States\nNo. 2 (1890),\"\np. 112.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. iii.\nSee Lord Lans-\ndowne to\nMr. Stanhope,\nNovembers?, 1886.\nBlue Book,\n\" United States\nNo. 2 (1890),\"\np. 28.\nAppendix, vol. iii.\nc'est-a-dire, comme soumis a une domination, et, par consequent, inaccessibles aux vaisseaux etrangers qui n'oht\npoint obtenu la permission d'y naviguer.\"\nThis view, moreover, was emphatically maintained on behalf of the United States on the\noccasion of the seizures in the year 1887.\nThe following is the extract from the Brief of\nthe United States on this occasion:\u2014\n\"Concerning the doctrine of international law establishing what is known as the marine league belt, which\nextends the jurisdiction of a nation into adjacent seas for\nthe distance of 1 marine league, or 3 miles from its shores,\nand following all the indentations and sinuosities of its\ncoast, there is at this day no room for discussion. It must\nbe accepted as the settled law of nations. It is sustained\nby the highest authorities, law-writers, and jurists. It has\nbeen sanctioned by the United States since the foundation\nof the Government. It was affirmed by Mr. Jefferson,\nSecretary of State, as early as 1793, and has been reaffirmed by his successors\u2014Mr. Pickering, in 1796 ;\nMr. Madison, in 1807; Mr. Webster, in 1842 j Mr.\nBuchanan, in 1849; Mr. Seward, in 1862, 1863, and\n1864; Mr. Fish,* in 1875 ; Mr.Evarts,in 1879 and 1881 j\nand Mr. Bayard, in 1886. (Wheaton's [Wharton] | International Law,\" vol i, sec. 32, pp. 100 and 109.)\n\"Sanctioned thus by an unbroken line of precedents\ncovering the first century of our national existence, the\nUnited States would not abandon this doctrine if they\ncould; they could not if they would.\"\n* This probably refers to Mr. Fish's letter already quoted at\np. 109, or to his letter to Sir E. Thornton, dated the\n22nd January, 1875, which is as follows:\u2014\n\" The instruction from the Foreign Office to Mr. Watson of\nthe 25th September last, a copy of which was communicated\nby that gentleman to this Department in his note of the\n17th October, directs him to ascertain the views of this Government in regard to the extent of maritime jurisdiction which can\nproperly be claimed by any Power, and whether we have eve\/\nrecognized the claim of Spain to a 6-mile limit, or have evet\nprotested against such claim.\nv in reply, I have the honour to inform you that this Government has uniformly, under every Administration which nas had\noccasion to consider the subject, objected to the pretension of\nSpain adverted to, upon the same ground and in similar terms to\nthose contained in the instruction of the Earl of Derby.\n\"We have understood and asserted that, pursuant to public\nlaw, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a\nmarine league from the coast.\n\" This opinion on our part has sometimes been said to be\ninconsistent with the facts that, by the law of the United States,\nrevenue cutters are authorized to board vessels anywhere within\n4 leagues of their coasts, and that by the Treaty of Guadalupe-\nHidalgo, so called between the United States and Mexico, of the\n2nd February, 1848, the boundary-line between the dominions of\nthe parties begins in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land.\"\nAnd he proceeds to explain these two instances as being\nexceptional. . . . (Wharton, p International Law,\" vol i, p. 105.)\n1\n 150\nThe Kussian claim to extraordinary jurisdiction was expressly founded on a supposed right\nto hold a portion of the Pacific as mare clausum,\nhecause that nation claimed the territory on both\nsides. Even if this claim had been well founded\nthe Treaty of 1867 destroyed it, since the sea was\nno longer shut in or surrounded by the territory\nof one nation.\nOn this subiect Ortolan writes:\u2014\n|' Quant aux mers particulieres et interieures, un droit Ortolan % R&des\nexclusif de domaine et de souverainete' de la partd'une Internationales et\nnation sur une telle mer n'est incontestable qu'autant que PJP \u00bb f.*1?,~?\n. Mer, 4e edition,\ncette mer est totalement enclave^ dans le territoire de torn, i, p. 147.\ntelle sorte qu'elle en fait partie integrante, et qu'elle ne\npent absolument servir de lien de communication et de\ncommerce qu'entre les seuls citoyens de cette nation.\nAlors, en effet, aucune des causes qui font obstacle soit a\nia propriete, soit a l'empire des mers, ne trouve ici son\napplication. Mais du moment que plueieurs fitats\ndifferents possedent des cotes autour de cette mer, aucun\nd'eux ne peut s'en dire propri^taire ni souverain a l'exclu-\nsion des autres.'\"\nSir Travers Twiss writes to the same effect:\u2014\n| If a sea is entirely inclosed by the territory of a (i mmfe and\nnation, and has no other communication with the ocean Duties of Nations\nthan by a channel, of which that nation may take pos- ln *ime \u00b0v,Jjface*\n, . . 1884, p. 293.\nsession, it appears that such a sea is no less capable of\nbeing occupied and becoming property than the land, and\nit ought to follow the fate of the country that surrounds it.\"\nSo Halleck says :\u2014\n\"21. It is generally admitted that the territory of a Halleck's\nState includes the seas, lakes, and rivers entirely inclosed International Law,\nEffect of cession of Alaska on mare\nclausum doctrine.\nwithin its limits. Thus, so long as the shores of the\nBlack Sea were exclusively possessed by Turkey, that sea\nmight, with propriety, be considered as a mare clausum;\nand there seemed no reason to question the right of the\nOttoman Porte to exclude other nations from navigating\nthe passage which connects it with the Mediterranean,\nboth shores of this passage being also portions of the\nTurkish territory. But when Turkey lost a part of her\npossessions bordering upon this sea, and Eussia had formed\nher commercial establishments on the shores of the\nEuxine, both that Empire and other Maritime Powers\nbecame entitled to participate in the commerce of the\nBlack Sea, and consequently to the free navigation of the\nDardanelles and the Bosphorus. This right was expressly\nrecognized by the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829.\n* * * *\n\" 22. The great inland lakes, and their navigable outlets,\nare considered as subject to the same rule as inland seas;\nwhere inclosed witliin the limits of a single State, they\nare regarded as belonging to the territory of that State ;\nbut if different nations occupy their borders, the rule of\nmare clausum cannot be applied to the navigation and use\nof their waters.\"\nvol. i, cap. 6,\npp. 143-145.\nOrtolan.\nTwiss.\nHalleck.\ni\n 151\nMr. Hoffman,\nfrofessor Angell\nMr. Hoffman to\nMr. Frelinghuysen,\nMarch 14, 1882,\n60th Congress,\n2nd Sess., Senate\nEx. Doc. No. 106,\np. 260. See\nAppendix, vol. ii,\nPart II, No. 13.\nMr. Hoffman to\nMr. Frelinghuysen,\nMarch 27, 1882.\n50th Congress,\n2nd Sess., Senate\nEx. Doc. No. 106,\np, 261. See\nAppendix, vol. ii,\nPart II, No. 14.\nSee Appendix,\nvol. i, No. 8.\nThe view expressed by the above authorities\nhas been officially adopted by an accredited\nRepresentative of the United States, so that it is\nperhaps unnecessary to insist further upon it in\nthis connection.\nOn the 14th March, 1882, Mr. Hoffman wrote\nfrom the Legation of the United States at St.\nPetersburg to Mr. Prelinghuysen, Secretary of\nState, in a letter already quoted:\u2014\nI In the time when Eussia owned the whole of these\nislands her Eepresentatives in Siberia claimed that the\nSea of Okhotsk was a mare clausum, for that Eussian\njurisdiction extended from island to island and over\n2 marine leagues of intermediate sea from Japan to\nKamtchatka.\n\"But about five years ago Eussia ceded the southern\ngroup of these islands to Japan in return for the half of\nthe Island of Saghalien, which belonged to that Power.\nI As soon as this was done, it became impossible for the\nSiberian authorities to maintain their claim. My informant was not aware that this claim had ever been\nseriously made at St. Petersburg.\"\nAnd on the 27th March, 1882, he further\nwrote:\u2014\n\" I do not think that Eussia claims that the Sea of\nOkhotsk is a mare clausum, over which she has exclusive\njurisdiction. If she does, her claim is not a tenable one,\nsince the cession of part of the group of the Kurile Islands\nto Japan, if it ever were tenable at any time.\"\nProfessor James B. Angell, one of the United\nStates* Plenipotentiaries in the negotiation of\nthe Fisheries Treaty at Washington in 1888, and\nan eminent jurist, in an article entitled \"American\nEights in Behring Sea,\" in \" The Porum\" for\nNovember 1889, wrote :\u2014\n1 Gan we sustain a claim that Behring Sea is a closed sea,\nand so subject to our control ? It is, perhaps, impossible\nto frame a definition of a closed sea which the publicists\nof all nations will accept. Vattel's closed sea is one\n'entirely inclosed by the land of a nation, with only a\ncommunication with the ocean by a channel of which that\nnation may take possession.' Hautefeuille substantially\nadopts this statement, asserting more specifically, however,\nthat the channel must be narrow enough to be defended\nfrom the shores. Perels, one of the more eminent of the\nlater German writers, practically accepts Hautefeuille's\ndefinition. But so narrow a channel or opening as that\nindicated by the eminent French writer can hardly be\ninsisted on. Probably, most authorities will regard it as\na reasonable requirement that the entrance to the sea\nshould be narrow enough to make the naval occupation of\nit easy or practicable. We, at least, may be expected to\n[644] 2 R\n :;!\n152\nprescribe no definition which would make the Gulf of\nSt. Lawrence a closed sea.\n\"Behring Sea is not inclosed wholly by our territory\nFrom the most western island in our possession to the\nnearest point on the Asiatic shore is more than 300 miles.\nFrom our most western island (Attou) to the nearest\nEussian island (Copper Island) is 183 miles, The sea\nfrom east to west measures about 1,100 miles, and from\nnorth to south fully 800 miles. The area of the sea must\nbe at least two-thirds as great as that of the Mediterranean,\nand more than twice that of the North Sea. - The Straits\nof Gibraltar are less than 9 miles wide. The chief\nentrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is entirely\nsurrounded by British territory, is only about 50 miles in\nwidth Behring Sea is open on the north by the straits,\n36 miles wide, which form a passage way to the Arctic\nOcean. On what grounds and after what modern precedent we could set up a claim to hold this great sea,\nwith its wide approaches, as a marc clausum, it is not\neasy to see.\"\nDana, in a note to Wheaton's \" Elements,'\\\nsays:\u2014\n\"The only question now is, whether a given sea or Wheaton, 8th\nsound is, in fact, as a matter of politico-physical geography, edition, by\n.,,.., , . ..,.'- ,. mu i \u2022 Mr. Dana, 1866,\nwithm the exclusive jurisdiction of one nation. The claim \u201e\u201e\u201e\u2666,-\u201e\u201e to* \/\nof several nations, whose borders surround a large open\nsea, to combine and make it mare clausum against the\nrest of the world, cannot be admitted. The making of\nsuch a claim to the Baltic was the infirmity of the position\ntaken up by the Armed Neutrality in 1780 and 1800, and\nin the Eussian Declaration of War against England in\n1807.\"\nMr. Dana*\nsection 187 (note).\nIt is further claimed, on behalf of Great\nBritain\u2014\n(P.) That from the acquisition of Alaska by\nthe United States in 1887 down to the year 1886\nno attempt was made by the United States to\nlimit or interfere with the right of the subjects of\nGreat Britain or of any other nation to navigate\nand fish in the non-territorial waters of Behring\nSea*\n(G.) That the original ground upon which the\nvessels seized in 1888 and 1887 were condemned\nrested upon a claim to treat Behring Sea as mare\nclausum, and as having been conveyed as such,\nin part, by Russia to the United States.\nThat the contention of the United States has\nsubsequently been rested upon a claim to exclusive jurisdiction over a space of 100 miles\nfrom the coast of the United States' territory.\nThat subsequently a further claim has been\nraised to an alleged special right of protection\nof or property in the fur-seal.\nChapter VI.\nChapter VII.\nm\n General conclusions.\nChapter VIII.\nAlleged right of protection.\nAnalogous questions.\nEight of search on high seas.\nMr. Madison to\nMr. Monroe,\nJanuary 5, 1804,\nAmerican State .\nPapers, Foreign\nEelations, vol. ii,\np. 730.\nSlave Trade.\nCase of \" Le Louis \" engaged in\n\u00a3>\"&*\nSlave Trade and seized.\n\"Le Louis,\" 1816.\nSee Dodson's\nAdmiralty Cases,\nvol. ii, p. 210.\n153\nAs to Point 5 of Article VI\u2014\nThat, as regards the right claimed by the\nUnited States of protection of or property in fur-\nseals when found outside the ordinary 3-mile\nlimit, no property exists, pr is known to international law in animals feres nature until reduced\ninto possession by capture, and no nation has any\nright to claim property in such animals when\nfound outside territorial waters. The only\nright is to prevent the ships and subjects of\nother nations from entering territorial waters for\nthe purpose of capturing such animals.\nUpon analogous questions similar principles\nhave been generally maintained and recognized.\nThus, with reference to the right to search\nneutral vessels upon the high seas\u2014In 1804,\nduring the war with Prance, Great Britain\nclaimed to search neutral vessels on the high\nseas, and to seize her own subjects when found\nserving under a neutral flag.\nThe position taken on this subject by the\nUnited States was not only in opposition to such\na right, but that country insisted that in no\ncase did the sovereignty of any nation extend\nbeyond its own dominions and its own vessels on\nthe high seas.\nA similar view has been adopted by all nations\nin relation to the Slave Trade.\nAlthough it cannot properly be argued that\nthe taking of seals in any manner whatever is\ncomparable with the immorality or injustice\nattaching to the Slave Trade, yet, even in the case\nof vessels engaged in that trade, the rights of\nnations have not been allowed to be overruled\non such pleas.\nUpon this point legal authorities both in the\nUnited States and in Great Britain are quite\nclear.\nIn 1816 a Prench vessel (\"Le Louis\")\nsailing from Martinique, destined on a voyage\nto the coast of Africa and back, was captured\n10 or 12 leagues to the southward of Cape\nMesurada, by the \"Queen Charlotte\" cutter,\nand carried to Sierra Leone. She was proceeded against in the Vice-Admiralty Court of\nthat colony.\nIt was alleged that the vessel was fitted out\nfor the purpose of carrying on the African\nSlave Trade, after that trade had been abolished\nby the internal laws of Prance, and by the\nTreaty between Great Britain and Prance.\nm\n ml,\nI '^'\nii\n154.\nThe King's Advocate admitted the proposition\nto be true generally that the right of visitation\nand search does not exist in time of peace, but\ndenied it to be so universally. Occasions, he\nargued, may and must arise, at a period when no\nhostilities exist, in which an exercise of this power\nwould be justifiable. The rule of law could not\nhe maintained as a universal proposition, but was\nsubject to exceptions, and within those exceptions\nmust be included the present transaction, which\nwas a transgression, not only of municipal law,\nhut likewise of the general law of nations. In\nwhatever light the Slave Trade might have been\nviewed in former times, it must no longer be\ndeemed within the protection of the law of\nnations. Since the Declaration of the Congress\n\u2022of Vienna, that the Slave Trade was repugnant\nto the principles of humanity and of universal\nmorality, traffic in slaves must be considered a\ncrime, and it was the right and duty of every\nnation to prevent the commission of crime. On\nthe whole, he submitted that the \"Le Louis,\"\nhaving been engaged in a traffic prohibited by the\nlaws of her own country, and contrary to the\ngeneral laws of humanity and justice, ought not\nto be restored to the claimant.\nSir William Scott, afterwards Lord Stowell,\nin the British High Court of Admiralty,\nheld, however, that trading in slaves was not\na crime by universal law of nations. He\nohserved:\u2014\n\" Neither this Court nor any other can carry its private See Dodson's\napprehensions, independent of law, into its public judg- Admiralty Cases,\nments on the quality of actions. It must conform to the * '\njudgment of the law upon that subject; and acting as a\nCourt in the adniinistration of law, it cannot attribute\ncrirninality to an act where the law imputes none. It\nmust look to the legal standard of morality; and upon a\nquestion of this nature, that standard must be found in\nthe law of nations as fixed- and evidenced by general and\nancient and admitted practice, by Treaties and by the\ngeneral tenour of the laws and ordinances and the formal\ntransactions of civilized States.\n\" . . . . Much stress is laid upon a solemn declaration ibid, p. 252.\nof very eminent persons assembled in Congress, whose\nrank, high as it is, is by no means the most respectable\nfoundation of the weight of their opinion that this traffic\nis contrary to all religion and morality. Great as the\nreverence due to such authorities may be, they cannot I\ntihi-nk be admitted to have the force of overruling the\nestablished course of the general law of nations.'*\nSlave Trade.\nCase of \" Le Louis.**\nLord Stowell's Judgment. Seizure not\njustified.\n Slave Trade\nCase of \" Le Louis.\"\nSee Dodson's\nAdmiralty Case3,\nvol. ii, p. 252.\nIbid., p. 256.\nCase of the \" Antelope.\" United States\nSupreme Court to same effect.\nWheaton, Report,\nvol. 10, p. 66.\n\" It is next said that every country has a right to\nenforce its own navigation laws ; and so it certainly has,\nso far- as it does not interfere with the rights of others.\nBut it has no right, in consequence, to visit and search all\nthe apparent vessels of other countries on the high seas.\"\n# * * *\n\" It is said, and with just concern, that if not permitted\nin time of peace it will be extremely difficult to suppress\nthe Traffic. It will be so, and no man can deny that the\nsuppression, however desirable, and however sought, is\nattended with enormous difficulties; difficulties which\nhave baffled the most zealous endeavours for many years.\nTo every man it must have been evident that without a\ngeneral and sincere concurrence of all the maritime States,\nin the principle and in the proper modes of pursuing it,\ncomparatively but little of positive good could be acquired;\nso far at least, as the interests of the victims of this commerce\nwere concerned in it; and to every man who looks to the\nrival claims of these States, to their established habits of\ntrade, to their real or pretended wants, to their different\nmodes of thinking, and to their real mode of acting upon\nthis particular subject, it must be equally evident that such\na concurrence was matter of very difficult attainment.\nBut the difficulty of the attainment will not legalize\nmeasures that are otherwise illegal. To press forward to a\ngreat principle by breaking through every other great\nprinciple that stands in the way of its establishment; to\nforce the way to the liberation of Africa by trampling on\nthe independence of other States in Europe; in short, to\nprocure an eminent good by means that are unlawful; is as\nlittle consonant to private morality as to public justice.\nObtain the concurrence of other nations, if you can by\napplication, by remonstrance, by example, by every peaceable instrument which man can employ to attract the consent of man. But a nation is not justified in assuming\nrights that do not belong to her, merely because she means\nto apply them to a laudable purpose; nor in setting out\nupon a moral crusade of converting other nations by acts\nof unlawful force. jSTor is it to be argued that because\nother nations approve the ultimate purpose, they must,\ntherefore submit to every measure which any one State or\nits subjects may inconsiderately adopt for its attainment.\"\nIn accordance with this view of the law,\nthe Judgment of the Vice-Admiralty Court\nof Sierra Leone, condemning the Prench ship\nfor being employed in the Slave Trade and for\nforcibly resisting the search of the King of\nEngland's cruizers, was reversed.\nThe decision of the Supreme Court of the\nUnited States in the case of the \"Antelope\"\nis to the same effect. There Chief Justice\nMarshall delivered the opinion of the Court,\nholding that the Slave Trade, though contrary\nto the law of nature, was not in conflict with the\nlaw of nations :\u2014-\n[644] , 2 S\n 156\n\"No principle of general law is more universally\nacknowledged than the perfect equality of nations.\nEussia and Geneva have equal rights. It results from Wheaton, Report,\nthis equality, that no one can rightfully impose a rule on vol\u00ab JO, p. 122.\nanother. Each legislates for itself, but its legislation can\noperate on itself alone. A right, then, which is vested in\nall by the consent of all, can be devested only by consent;\nand this trade, in which all have participated, must\nremain lawful to those who cannot be induced to relinquish\nit. As no nation can prescribe a rule for others, none can\nmake a law of nations; and this traffic remains lawful to\nthose whose governments have not forbidden it.\n\" If it is consistent with the law of nations, it cannot in\nitself be piracy. It can be made so only by statute ; and\nthe obligation of the statute cannot transcend the\nlegislative power of the state which may enact it.\n\" If it be neither repugnant to the law of nations, nor\npiracy, it is almost superfluous to say in this Court, that\nthe right of bringing in for adjudication in time of peace,\neven where the vessel belongs to a nation which has\nprohibited the trade, cannot exist. The Courts of no\ncountry execute the penal laws of another, and the course\nof the American government on the subject of visitation\nand search, would decide any case in which that right had\nbeen exercised by an American cruizer, on the vessel of a\nforeign nation, not violating our municipal laws, against\nthe captors.\n\" It follows, that a foreign vessel engaged in the African\nslave trade, captured on the high seas in time of peace,\nby an American cruizer, and brought in for adjudication,\nwould be restored.\"\nSlave Trade.\nCase of the \" Antelope.\"\nThe subject is fully discussed in Mr. Dana's\nnote No. 108 to Wheaton's International Law \u201e_,\nWheaton, \" Inter-\n(p. 258), where it is said of Chief Justice Marshall, national Law,\"\nMr. Dana.\nin Church versus Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187\n8th edition, by\nMr. Dana, 1866,\np. 359.\n\" It is true, that Chief Justice Marshall admitted the\nright of a nation to secure itself against intended violations\nof its laws, by seizures made within reasonable limits, as\nto which, he said, nations must exercise comity and\nconcession, and the exact extent of which was not settled ;\nand, in the case before the court, the 4 leagues were not\ntreated as rendering the seizure illegal. This remark\nmust now be treated as an unwarranted admission\t\nIt may be said that the principle is settled, that municipal Ibid., p. 260\nseizures cannot be made, for arjy purpose, beyond territorial\nwaters. It is also settled that the limit of these waters is,\nin the absence of treaty, the marine league or the\ncannon-shot. It cannot now be successfully maintained,\neither that municipal visits and search may be made\nbeyond the territorial waters for special purposes, or that\nthere are different bounds of that territory for different\nobjects. But, as the line of territorial waters, if not fixed, is\ndependent on the unsettled range of artillery fire, and, if\nfixed, must be by an arbitrary measure, the courts, in the\nearlier cases were not strict as to standards of distance,\nM\n President Tyler.\n157\nwhere no foreign Powers intervened in the causes. In later-\ntimes, it is safe to infer that judicial as well as political\ntribunals will insist on one line of marine territorial\njurisdiction for the exercise of force on foreign vessels, in\ntime of peace, for all purposes alike.\"\nIt is an axiom of international maritime law\nthat such action is only admissible in the case of\npiracy or in pursuance of special international\nagreement. This' principle has been universally\nadmitted by jurists, and was very distinctly laid\ndown by President Tylei> in his Special Message\nState Papers by *\u00b0 Congress, dated the 27th Pebruary, 1843,\nHertslet, vol. xxxii, ^hen, after acknowledging the right to detain\np. 575. ...\nand search a vessel on suspicion of piracy, he\ngoes on to say:\u2014\n\" With this single exception, no nation has, in time of\npeace, any authority to detain the ships of another upon\nthe high seas, on any pretext whatever, outside the\nterritorial jurisdiction.\"\nArticle VII.\nConsideration of Eegulations postponed.\nArticle VII.\nGreat Britain maintains, in the light of the\nfacts and arguments which have been adduced\non the points included in the VIth Article of the\nTreaty, that her concurrence is necessary to the\nestablishment of any Regulations which limit or\ncontrol the rights of British subjects to exercise\ntheir right of the pursuit and capture of seals in\nthe non-territorial waters of Behring Sea. The\nfurther consideration of any proposed Regulations,\nand of the evidence proper to be considered by\nthe Tribunal in connection therewith, must of\nnecessity be for the present postponed.\ni\nMP*\n %L\nChapter X.\nRecapitulation of Argument.\nThe following are the propositions of law and\nfact which, it is maintained on behalf of Great\nBritain, have been established in the foregoing\nCase:\u2014\n\u2022\n1*. The sea now known as Behring Sea is an\nopen sea, free to the vessels of all nations, and\nthe right of all nations to navigate and fish\nin the waters of Behring Sea, other than the\nterritorial waters thereof, is a natural right.\n[Recapitulation of Argument.\n2. No assertion of jurisdiction by Russia, the\nUnited States, or any other nation could limit\nor restrict the right of all nations to the free use\nof the open sea for navigation or fishing.\n3. At no time prior to the Treaty of the 30th\nMarch, 1867, did Russia possess any exclusive\njurisdiction in the non-territorial waters of the\nsea now known as Behring Sea.\n4. At no time prior to the said cession did\nRussia assert or exercise any exclusive rights\nin the seal fisheries in the non-territorial waters\nof the sea now known as Behring Sea.\n5. The attempt by Russia in the year 1821\nto restrict the freedom of navigation and fishing\nby the subjects of other nations than Russia\nin the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea was\nimmediately and effectually resisted by Great\nBritain and the United States of America.\n6. The claims of Russia to limit and interfere\nwith the rights of navigation and fishing by other\nnations in the waters of Behring Sea, other than\nthe territorial waters thereof, were never recognized or conceded by Great Britain.\n7. The protests raised and the objections taken\nby Great Britain to the claims of Russia to\nlimit such free right of navigation and fishing\nwere acquiesced in by Russia; and no attempt\nwas ever made by Russia to again assert\n 159\nRecapitulation, of Argument.\nor enforce any such supposed right to exclude or\nlimit the rights of other nations to navigate or\nfish in the waters of the sea now known as\nBehring Sea, other than the territorial waters\nthereof.\n8. The assertion of rights by Russia in the\nyear 1821, and her ineffectual attempt to limit\nthe rights of navigation and fishing, was inoperative and had no effect upon the rights of other\nnations.\n9. The body of Water now known as the\nBehring Sea was included in the phrase | Pacific\nOcean,\" as used in the Treaty of 1825 between\nGreat Britain and Russia.\n10. Prom the year 1824 down to 1886 the\nvessels of Great Britain have continuously, and\nwithout interruption or interference, exercised\nthe rights of navigation and fishing in the\nwaters of Behring Sea other than the territorial\nwaters thereof.\n11. The right of all nations to navigate and\nfish in the waters of Behring Sea, other than the\nterritorial waters thereof, have been repeatedly\nrecognized and admitted both by Russia and by\nthe United States of America.\n12. Whatever territorial fights passed to the\nUnited States under and by virtue of the Treaty\nof the 30th March, 1867, Russia had not the\nright to transmit, and the United States did\nnot acquire, any jurisdiction over or rights in the\nseal fisheries in any part of the sea now known\nas Behring Sea, other than in the territorial\nwaters thereof.\n13. The Treaty of Cession of the 30th March,\n1867, did not convey anything more than ordinary\nterritorial dominion. *\n14. Prom the acquisition of Alaska by the\nUnited States in 1867 down to the year 1886, no\nattempt was made by the United States to assert\nor exercise any right to limit or interfere with the\nright of Great Britain, or of any other nation,\nto navigate and fish in the waters of Behring Sea\nother than the territorial waters thereof.\n[644] 2 T\n1\nm.\n\u00abl\n H\n.\n15. The sole right of the United States in\nrespect of the protection of seals is that incident\nto territorial possession, including the right to\nprevent the subjects of other nations from entering upon land belonging to the United States,\nor the territorial waters thereof, so as to prevent\ntheir capturing seals or any other animals or\nfish either on such lands or in such territorial\nwaters.\n16. The United States have not, nor has any\nsubject of the United States, any property in\nfur-seals until they have been reduced into\npossession by capture, and the property so\nacquired endures so long only as they are\nretained in control.\n17. Pur-seals are animals fera natura, and\nthe United States has no right of protection or\nproperty in fur-seals when found outside the\nordinary 3-mile limit, whether such seals frequent\nthe islands of the United States in Behring Sea\nor not.\n18. The right of the subjects of all nations to\nnavigate and fish in the non-territorial waters of\nthe sea now known as Behring Sea remains and\nexists free and unfettered, and cannot be limited\nor interfered with except with the concurrence\nof any nations affected.\n19. No regulations affecting British subjects\ncan be established for the protection and preservation of the fur-seal in the non-territorial\nwaters of Behring Sea without the concurrence\nof Great Britain.\nBe capitulation of Argument.\n 161\nConclusion.\n-\nSchedule of Claims.\nCONCLUSION.\nIt is submitted on behalf of Great Britain to\nthe Tribunal of Arbitration, that the questions\nraised in this Arbitration are of far greater\nimportance than the mere preservation of a\nparticular industry ; they involve the right of\nevery nation of the world to navigate on and fish in\nthe high seas, and to exercise without interference\nthe common rights of the human race; they\ninvolve the question of the right of one nation by\nProclamation to limit and interfere with rights\nwhich are the common heritage of all mankind.\nIn defence of these rights and in the interests of\nall civilized nations, the above arguments are\nrespectfully urged upon the consideration of the\nTribunal.\nThe SCHEDULE annexed to this Case contains particulars in connection with the claims\npresented under Article VIII of the Treaty of\nArbitration, and the facts and evidence contained\nin the Schedule are submitted to the consideration of the Tribunal for the purposes stated at,\np. 12 of this Case.\ni\nI\ncws\n mn\nSCHEDULE OF CLAIMS.\nSEIZURE OF SHIPS IN BEHRING SEA.\nStatement of Claims for Compensation from the United States* Government on\naccount of the seizures of british canadian sealers in the behring sea\nduring the years 1886, 1887, and 1889.\nIndex.\n1. \"Carolena\"\nPages\n1\n2. \"Thornton\"\n6\n3. \"Onward\"\n10\n4. \"Favourite\"\n15\n5. \"W. P. Sayward\"\n6. \"Grace\"\n17\n20\n7. \"Anna Beck\" ..\n24\n8. \"Dolphin\"\n9. \" Alfred Adams \"\n28\n32\n10. \"Ada\"\n34\n11. \"Triumph\"\n12. \"Juanita\"\n36\n38\n13. \"Pathfinder\" ..\n40\n14. \"Triumph\"\n15. \"Black Diamond\"\n45\n48\n16. \"Lily\"\n17. \"Ariel\"\n50\n52\n18. \"Kate\"\n54\n19. \"Minnie\"\n56\n20. \"Pathfinder\" ..\n57\n(No. 1.)\n\u00abc\n1arolena\n\u00bb\n3BS5\ni\nSeized by United States5 Steam-ship \"Corwin,\" August 1; 1886.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward by\nOwner.\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nDol. c.\n4,000 00\n3,002 89\n352 50\n1,832 22\n71 72\n100 00\n250 00\n1,250 00\n16,667 00\nValue of vessel, 32 tons .. .. ..\nValue of outfit (unconsumable) ., ,. ..\nInsurance .. .. .. .. ..\nWages of crew up to date of seizure.. .. \" ..\nPassage of crew from San Francisco to Victoria ..\nPassage of mate, Sitka to Victoria, after release from\nprison\nPersonal expenses of owner.. .. .. ..\nLegal expenses .. .. .. ..\nEstimated seal catch for 1886 .. .. ..\nDeduct value consumed during a full voyage .. ..\nClaim by owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to date of\npayment\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\n27,526 33\n3,213 32\n24,313 01\n[644]\n2 U\nMS\n mfn\nV .!\u25a0'\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nof the Dominion of Canada, mariner and ship-owner, solemnly and sincerely declare as\nfollows: \u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent of William Munsle, of the city of Victoria\naforesaid, the owner of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner \"Carolena.\"\n2. That the said schooner \"Carolena\" is a British vessel, registered at the port of\nVictoria aforesaid, of about 32 tons burden, builder's measurement, and that in a.d. 1884\nthe \"Carolena\" was rebuilt and lengthened about 15 feet by a section built amidships, and\nput in first-class order and condition. In A.D. 1885 the said \"Carolena\" was valued for\ninsurance by the Union Insurance Company at 4,000 dollars, and in a.d. 1886 the\nCalifornian Insurance Company placed the same value, namely, 4,000 dollars, upon her for\na like purpose. I am informed by the said William Munsle, and believe that since the\nrebuilding and enlargement of the \" Carolena,\" she has not been reregistered at the port of\nVictoria aforesaid, nor at any other port, and that consequently her actual tonnage is\ngreater than appears by the official record, or the register of the said \" Carolena.\"\n3. That on or about the 20th day of May, A.D. 1886, the said 1 Carolena \" left the port\nof Victoria aforesaid, after having been duly cleared at Customs, one James Ogilvie being\nmaster, and one James Blake mate, and a crew of nine sailors and hunters, on a fishing\nand hunting voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea.\n4. That on the 1st day of August, in said year 1886, while in said Behring' Sea in\nnorth latitude 55\u00b0 50', west longitude 168\u00b0 53', then being from 65 to 75 miles from the\nnearest land, and while, as I am informed and verily believe, lawfully pursuing the objects\nof said voyage, the said schooner \"Carolena\" was seized by the United States' steam-ship\n\" Corwin,\" and taken to Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska, of the United States of\nAmerice, and her voyage broken up.\n5. That on arrival at Ounalaska aforesaid the \"Carolena\" was, by order of the United\nStates' authorities, stripped of her outfit and running-gear, the seal-skins on board taken\nout, the captain, James Ogilvie, and the mate, James Blake, placed under arrest and sent\nto Sitka, in said Territory of Alaska, and the crew sent to the city of San Francisco.\n6. That upon arrival at Sitka the captain and the mate of the \"Carolena\" were\nformally charged with having violated the laws of the United States of America respecting\nseal-fishing in the waters of Alaska, but before the day fixed for the hearing and trial of\nsaid charge Captain Ogilvie disappeared, and was afterwards found dead in or about the\nneighbourhood of Sitka. The mate, James Blake, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to\npay a fine of 300 dollars and be imprisoned at Sitka for thirty days, and which imprison-*\nment he, James Blake, suffered.\n7. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a Statement of the articles comprising the\noutfit of the schooner \" Carolena \" on her departure on said voyage, and all of which I\nverily believe were on board the \" Carolena \" at the time of her seizure, excepting only what\nhad been consumed in the ordinary course of the voyage, together with the value of said\narticles, also of the amount of premiums paid for insurance on the hull, outfit, and cargo of\nthe said 1 Carolena\" for the said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid to the crew and\nhunters on board the (i Carolena \" up to the time of such seizure; also of the expenses or\nthe mate and part of the crew in returning to the city of Victoria from Ounalaska an^\nSitka, and also a Statement of the number of seal-skins on board the \" Carolena \" at the\ntime of said seizure, and the value thereof.\n.8. The.Exhibit (B) hereto annexed is a Statement of the catch of thirteen sealing-\nvessels in and about the Behring Sea during so much of the season of a.d. 1886 as they\nwere in Behring Sea. The Statement is taken from the Report of the Inspector of\nFisheries for the Province of British Columbia for 1he year 1886, fas contained in the\nReport of the Department of Fisheries for Canada at pp. 248 and 249, and I verily say,\nfrom personal knowledge of the facts, that the said Statement is substantial, true, and\ncorrect. The schooners \" Carolena,\" meaning the \" Carolena\" herein mentioned, and\n\"Thornton\" and \"Onward,\" were seized on the 1st and 2nd August in 1886, and their\nvoyages thus broken up; the schooners \" Mary Taylor,\" \"Mountain Chief,\" \"Rustler,\"\nand I Kate \" not having been in Behring Sea during the season of 1886, the catch of these\nabove-named schooners are not included in estimating the average catch in Behring Sea for\nthat year. On account of the seizures made on the 1st and 2nd August as aforesaid, and\nof the schooner \" Favourite \" being ordered out of the sea by the Commander of the said\n1 Corwin,\" the thirteen vessels mentioned in Exhibit (B), with one or two exceptions, left\nBehring Sea, or the best sealing-grounds therein, long before the close of the sealing\n\u2022s O\nseason, and thus the average catch as found in Exhibit (B) is fully, as I verily believe,\n500 skins less than it would have been had they all remained till the end of the season.\n9. That hereto annexed, marked (C), is a Statement of the legal expenses incurred at\nSitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizure of the \" Carolena,\" and the arrest of her\ncaptain and mate as aforesaid, and also of the personal expenses connected therewith.\n10. That hereto annexed, marked (D), is a Statement of the damages claimed by the\nowner of the \"Carolena\" by reason of her said seizure and detention during the years\n1886, 1887, and 1888, based upon the average catch of seal-skins per vessel as found by\nExhibit (B).\n ***-*\n11. The price per skin charged in Exhibits (A) and (D), namely, 7 dollars, was the\nmarket price at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the season of 1886, and was the price\nwhich, in the ordinary course of events, would have been realized for said seal-skins had\nnot such seizure taken place.\n12. That hereto annexed, marked (E), is an estimate of the principal sums on which\ninterest is claimed, from the 1st day of October, a.d. 1886, on or about which date the\ncatch of the \"Carolena\" would have been realized on had she not been seized, and also for\nthe actual outlay by her owner prior to that date, arising by reason of the seizure and\ndetention of the \" Carolena,\" the arrest of the captain and mate, and the expenses of the\nmate and crew in returning to Victoria from Ounalaska and Sitka.\n13. That during the month of October, a.d. 1886, and ever since that time, the\nminimum rate of interest on money for commercial purposes at the city of Victoria aforesaid was and now is 7 per cent, per annum.\n14. That hereto annexed, marked (F), is a Statement of,the items of the outfit of the\n\" Carolena \" when on said voyage and the value thereof, which would have been wholly\nconsumed in the ordinary prosecution of a full season's hunting and fishing voyage.\n15. The prices charged for the articles and groups of articles in Exhibit (A),\ncomprising the outfit of the \" Carolena,\" are the market prices of the said articles and\ngroups of articles at Victoria at the time of their purchase for the purposes of said voyage.\n16. That as to the item, \" Cash on board and unaccounted for, 500 dollars,\" charged\nin Exhibit (A), I am informed by the said William Munsle, and do verily believe, that the\nsaid sum of 500 dollars was placed on board the \" Carolena \" at the time of her departure\nfrom Victoria as aforesaid, intrusted to the master, James Ogilvie, for use in cases of\nemergency or unforeseen expenditures, and I very believe that said sum of 500 dollars was\non board the \" Carolena\" at the time of her seizure; but owing to the death of Captain\nOgilvie at Sitka, it was not known by the said owner what became of the said sum of\n500 dollars.\n17. That at the time of the seizure of the \"Carolena\" she was in good order and\ncondition, having been thoroughly overhauled before starting out on said voyage, and not\nhaving sustained any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear during said voyage up to the\ntime of her seizure.\n18. That the value placed on the \"Carolena,\" namely, 4,000 dollars, is a fair and\nreasonable valuation of the said schooner, and from my personal knowledge of the\n\" Carolena,\" and the value of vessels of her class at Victoria, I verily believe that she could\nnot be replaced by a vessel in all respects as good and as well adapted to the purposes for\nwhich she was used for a less sum than 4,000 dollars.\n19. That on or about the 13th day of July last past I was at Ounalaska aforesaid, and\nsaw and was on board of the said schooner \" Carolena.\" She was then lying anchored in\nthe harbour at Ounalaska, stripped of all her outfit and running gear. Her standing\nrigging was much weather-beaten, her iron work much rusted, her deck seems in a bad\nstate, and I verily believe, from the condition in which the \" Carolena\" then was, and in\nview of the fact that she must remain so exposed until least next May (a.d. 1888), it will\ncost at least 4,000 dollars to put her in as good repair and condition as when seized and\nreturn her to Victoria. To be taken to Victoria under ordinary circumstances would alone\ncost between 2,500 and 3,000 dollars.\n20. That the \"Carolena\" at the time of her seizure was insured in the California\nInsurance Company for the sum of 2,500 dollars on her hull, and in the sum of\n1,000 dollars on her outfit and cargo.\n21. That the estimated loss of 5,000 dollars for each of the years 1887 and 1888 by\nreason of the seizure and detention of the \" Carolena\" as aforesaid is based upon an average\ncatch of 2,380 seal-skins for each of the said years, at 5 J dollars per skin, which was the\nmarket value per skin at Victoria at the close of the season of 1887, after deducting therefrom the cost of outfit and wages, based on the \" Carolena's \" voyage of a.d. 1886.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren, aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extrajudicial Oaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\n\u2022:Ii\n\u25a0'W\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton, in\nthe Province of Ontario, this 28th day of November, a.d. 1887, and certified under my\nofficial seal.\n(Signed) W. D. Hogg, Notary Public for Ontario.\n\\QW]\n2 X\n 1\nExhibit (A).\nValue of the schooner \" Carolena\" at the time of seizure\nOutfit-\nGroceries .. ..\nAmmunition .. .,\nSix short guns.. .. ..\nFive rifles .. .. ..\nGun implements and tools ..\nDry goods .. ..\nShip chandlery .. ..\nWater-casks .. ..\nChronometer .. .. ..\nFour canoes and outfit ..\nOne boat .. .. ..\noclITJ \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\u2022\nCoal and wood for fuel .. ..\nCooking stove and utensils ..\nMiscellaneous .. .. ,.\nCash on board and unaccounted for\nTwo sextants .. .. ..\nInsurance premium and survey fee 014 \u00a3,500 dollars on hull and\n1,000 dollars on outfit and cargo .. .. ..\nWages paid to hunters and crews for voyage up to time of seizure. 1,832 22\nPart of crew having been sent to San Francisco by United States'\nauthorities, board of five men at San Francisco and passage-\nmoney thence to Victoria .. .. .. ..\nPassage-money and expenses of mate, James Blake, from Sitka to\nVictoria after release from prison|. .. ..\n686 seal-skins on board the \"Carolena\" when seized, and not\nreturned, at 7 dollars per skin .. .. .. ..\nTotal Exhibit (A) ..\nDol. c.\nDol. c.\nt \u2022\n4,000 00\n598 60\n173 34\n300 00\n130 00\n17 29\n71 37\n376 83\n12 00\n160 00\n248 50\n100 00\n81 00\n37 62\n79 00\n42 34\n500 00\n75 00\n3 nn9 \u00abq\n352 50\n71\n72\n100\n00\n2,003\n94\n* \u2022\n4,802\n00\n\u2022 *\n14,161\n33\nExhibit (B).\nNumber of seal-skins taken by each of the following thirteen sealing-vessels during the\nyear 1886 in and about the Behring Sea, most of the said vessels leaving the sea before\nthe end of the season fearing capture.\nVessels.\nNumber\nof Seal-skins.\nPathfinder . >\na a\n\u2022 \u2022 *\na a \u00ab\na \u00ab\n1,766\nMary Ellen ..\n\u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 * \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nt a\n4,256\nTheresa ..\n\u2022 a\n\u2022 a a\na a \u2022\na a\n2,625\nFavourite ..\n\"\"'\u00bb \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 a a\n\u2022 a\n2,325\nBlack Diamond\n\u2022 \u2022\na \u2022 \u2022\na \u2022 \u2022\na a\n1,760\nAlfred Adams\n\u2022 a\na \u2022 \u2022\n1 \u2022 a\na a\n2,465\nActive\na t\n* \u2022 a\nt a a\n\u2022 a\n2,275\nCity of Santiago\na a\n\u2022 * \u2022\n# \u2022 \u2022\na \u2022\n1,620\nSilvia Handy..\n\u2022 *\n\u2022 \u2022 *\nL \u2022 \u00ab\n\u2022 \u00bb\n1,587\nDolphin ,,\n\u2022 \u2022\na \u2022 4\nt \u2022 \u2022\na a\n2,601\nAnna Beck ..\nt a\n\u2022 a a\nt \u2022\na a\n1,400\nGrace ..\n\u2022 \u2022\n* a \u2022\n1 \u2022 9\n\u2022 a\n2,550\nSay ward ,.\n\u2022 \u2022\nitch\nper\n\u2666 * \u2022 *\nvessel \u2022 1\n*\u2022\n\u2022 a\n4 \u00ab\n\u2022 0\n2,725\nTotal a\n30,955\nAverage\n2,381\nExhibit (C).\nLegal expenses at Sitka in connncction with the seizure of the \" Carolena\"..\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the\n\"Carolena,\" and the claims arising thereunder, exclusive of the above\n500 dollars .. .. .. .. .. .. ,.\nPersonal expenses other than the above in the same connection ., .,\nTotal \u2022\u2022 \u2022\u2022 .. *. .. \u00bb,\nDol. c.\n500 00\n750 00\n250 00\n1,500 00\n:jmmymmm\\\n*>\u2022><\n t)\n. Exhibit (D).\nEstimated damages arising from the seizure and detention of the schooner \"Carolena5\nbased on the average catch per vessel as given in Exhibit (B), season 1886.\nDol. c.\nAverage catch of seals .. .. .. ,. ..\nLess on board at seizure, and charged in Exhibit (A)..\nBalance at 7 dollars per skin .. .. ,.\nReasonable and probable profit on operations for year 1887\nI Carolena,\" not being released and not available to engage in\nnext year's operations, reasonable and probable profit for\n1888 .. .. ,. ,. ., ..\nTotal of Exhibit (D)\nNo.\n2,381\n689\n1,695 = 11,865 00\nDol. c.\n5,000 00\n5,000 00\n10,000 00\n21,865 00\nExhibit (E).\nEstimate of the principalsums on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed, and\nthe time for which interest is so claimed. i&B\nValue of \" Carolena's \" estimated catch for 1886\u2014namely,\n2,381 skins, at 7 dollars per skin\u2014from the 1st day of\nOctober, a.d. 1886, when the catch would have been\nrealized on .. .. .. . \u00bb\nActual cash outlay for legal and other necessary expenses\nincurred by reason of the said seizure .. .. ..\nTotal principal on which interest is claimed from\nOctober, a.d. 1886, to date of payment of\nclaim .. .. .. .. ,.\nEstimated value of the \" Carolena \" catch for 1887, less cost of\noutfit and wages of crew and hunters, on which interest at\n7 per cent, is claimed from 1st October, a.d. 1887, on or\nabout which date the catch would be realized on to date of\npayment ..\nIf the claim for 1887 be not allowed, then interest is claimed\non the value of the \" Carolena \" from 1st October, 1\u00ab\u00a386, to\ndate of payment .. .. .. .. ..\nDol. c. Dol. c.\n16,667 00\n500 00\n17,167 00\n5,000 00\n4,000 00\nExhibit (F).\nDetails of items of 1 Carolena's\" outfit consumed during the course of a full hunting and\nsealing voyage.\nGroceries..\nAmmunition\nDry goods\nShip chandlery\nSalt\nCoal and wood\nMiscellaneous\nWages of crew\nDol.\nc.\n598\n60\n173\n34\n71\n37\n376\n83\n81\n00\nnS|jJH^i \u2022\n37\n62\n42\n34\n.. 1,832\n22\nTotal value consumed\n3,213 32\n[644]\n2 if\n M\n(No. 2.)\nI Thornton?\nSeized by United States' Steam-ship \"Corwin,\" August 1, 1886.\nAmount of\nj\nClaim\nas put forward\nby\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nOwner.\nDol.\nc.\n6,000\n00\nValue of vessel, 78 tons .. ., .. ,.\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\n2,941\n64\nValue of outfit (unconsumable) .. .. ..\nDitto.\n591\n43\nInsurance ,. .. .. .. ..\nDitto.\n1,370\n00\nWages paid to date of seizure to crew, &c.\nDitto.\n177\n16\nPassage-money of crew from San Francisco to Victoria ..\nDitto.\n200\n00\nPassage-money of crew, and expenses of captain and mate\nafter release, Sitka to Victoria .. .. ..\nDitto.\n1,000\n00\nPersonal expenses of owners .. .. ,.\nDitto.\n1,250\n00\nLegal expenses .. .. .. .. ..\nDitto.\n16,667\n00\nEstimated catch of seals for 1886 .. .. ..\nDitto.\n30,197\n23\n3,379\n58\nDeduct value consumed on a full voyage.\nClaim by owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to date of\n26,817\n65\npayment.\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI^r James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British\nColumbia, of the Dominion of Canada, mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely\ndeclare as follows:\u2014\n1. That I am a British subject by birth.\n2. That I was sole owner of the British steam-schooner \"Thornton,\" 78 tons burden\nby builder's measurement, registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid, before and at the\ntime of her seizure hereinafter .set out by the United States' steam-ship \" Corwin.\"\n3. That the said steam-schooner \"Thornton\" was rebult by me in a.d. 1887,* at a\ncost of 3,500 dollars, and in a.d. 1880 and a.d. 1881 was fitted up with steam-propelling\npower at an additional cost of 3,000 dollars. Her bottom and sides of above light water-\nline were coppered and copper fastened.\n4. That on or about the 16th day of May, 1886, the said steam-schooner \" Thornton\"\nwas regularly cleared at the port of Victoria aforesaid for a full season of about four\nmonths' fishing and hunting in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea, and that on or\nabout the 27th day of said month of May the \"Thornton'\" finally sailed from Clayoquot\nSound, on the south-west of Vancouver Island, on said fishing and hunting voyage.\n5. The master of the \"Thornton\" on and for said voyage was one Hans Guttormsen,\nof the said city of Victoria, and the mate one Harry Norman, of the same place, and a\ncrew of thirteen men.\n6. That on the 1st day of August, a.d. 1886, while in Behring Sea in north latitude\n55\u00b0 45' and west longitude 168\u00b0 44', lawfully, as I verily believe, pursuing the objects of\nsaid voyage, the said steam-schooner \" Thornton \" was seized by the United States' steamship \" Corwin,\" and by the \" Corwin\" taken to Ounalaska, in the United States' territory\nof Alaska, and her voyage was broken up;\n7- That on arrival at Ounalaska the said '\u2022'Thornton\" was, by order of the United\nStates' authoritier, stripped of her outfit and running gear, the seal-skins then on board\ntaken out, the captain and mate made prisoners and sent to Sitka, in said Territory of\nAlaska, where, after trial, they were fined, the captain in the sum of 500 dollars, and the\nmate in the sum of 300 dollars, and each imprisoned for thirty days.\nThe remainder of the crew, with only two excepted, were sent by the United States'\nauthorities to the city of San Francisco by a steamer belonging to the Alaska Commercial\nCompany.\n8. That I am informed by Captain Guttormsen that immediately upon the arrival\nat Ounalaska of the \"Corwin'' with the \"Thornton,\" he (the captain) entered his\nsolemn protest against the seizure of his vessel and her outfit and the seal-skins then on\nboard.\n9. That on or about the 13th day of July of the present year I was at Ounalaska, and\nsaw the said steam-schooner \" Thornton,\" and found her in a very bad condition. She was\n* Qy. 1877.\n-Jffn\ni\u00a3P*\u00bb\n lying on her bilge on a gravel beach, partially embedded, and exposed to all weathers, and\nwas consequently greatly depreciated in value since her seizure. Her copper is much\nchafed, her deck seams are opened, through which water had leaked upon the steam-boiler,\nengine, and machinery, all of which are well nigh ruined. She cannot be brought away\nfrom Ounalaska without repairs involving great expense, and not at all before next summer\ncan this be done. I verily believe, from the inspection I tlien made, that it would cost\nover 6,000 dollars to take the \"Thornton\" from Ounalaska to Victoria aforesaid, the\nnearest port at which the repairs could be made, and put her in as good order and condition as she was in when seized.\n10. That at the time of her seizure the \"Thornton\" was in good repair and condition\nand perfectly seaworthy, excepting only that her mainmast-head had been carried away\n,during the voyage she then was on.\n11. That for and during the said voyage the \"Thornton\" was insured by Lloyd's\nunderwriters in the sum of 1.200Z. on the hull and machinery, and in the sum of 1,000\/.\non the outfit and cargo.\n12. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a detailed Statement of the outfit of the\n\" Thornton\" for the voyage on which she was seized as above set out, and all of which, *\nexcepting only what had been consumed in the regular course of the voyage, was on board\nthe \" Thornton \" at the time of her seizure; also of the amount of premiums paid by me\nfor insurance upon the hull, machinery, outfit, and cargo of the \"Thornton\" during the\nsaid voyage, and also for wages paid by me to the hunters and crew of the said \" Thornton \"\nof said voyage for the time of said voyage up to the said seizure. Also a statement of the\nsums paid by me for passage-money of the crew from San Francisco to Victoria, and\npassage-money and expenses of the captain and mate at and from Sitka after their release\nto Victoria aforesaid.\n13. That also in said Statement (A) are charged 403 seal-skins taken from the\n\"Thornton \" at the time of seizure, and which, so appears from the Report of the officers\nof the United States' steam-ship \" Corwin,\" submitted to the Court at Sitka on the trial of\nthe said captain and mate of the \"Thornton,\" and the price there charged, namely,\n7 dollars per skin, was the market value per skin at Victoria aforesaid, on or about the\n1st October, a.d. 1886, when the said skins, had not such seizure taken place, would have\nbeen placed on the market at Victoria.\n14. That the value placed upon the various articles and groups of articles in the outfit\nmentioned in Exhibit (A) is the actual cost of the said articles at the city of Victoria aforesaid at the time of their purchase in the spring of 1886.\n15. That hereto annexed, marked (B), is a Statement showing the number of sealskins taken by each one of the thirteen sealing-schooners in and about Behring's Sea\nduring the season of 1886. The said Statement is based upon the Report of the Inspector\nof Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for the year 1886, as contained in the\nReport of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for Canada for said year at pp. 248 and\n249. The schooners \" Carolejja,\" \" Onward,\" and said steam-schooner \" Thornton \" were\n.seized on the 1st and 2nd August of said year when the sealing season was not half over,\nand the schooners \" Mary Taylor\/' \" Mountain Chief,\" \" Rustler,\" and \" Kate' were not\nin Behring Sea during the season of 1886, so that in calculating the average catch for the\nBehring Sea fleet, the catch of the seven above-mentioned schooners was not included.\nWith one or two exceptions the thirteen sealing-schooners, mentioned in Exhibit (B), left\nBehring Sea, or the best fishing grounds therein, long before the end of the said season, as\ntheir masters feared seizure by the United States' authorities, and the said average\ncatch, so found by Exhibit (B), is therefore fully 500 less than it otherwise would have\nbeen.\n16. That hereto annexed, marked (C), is a Statement of the amount of legal expenses\npaid and incurred by me at Sitka and elsewhere, and also of the amount' of my personal\nexpenses incurred by reason of the said seizure.\n17. That hereto annexed, marked (D), is a Statement showing the estimated loss\nincurred by me as owner of the said \"Thornton,\" by reason of the said seizure and\ndetention, and of the seizure and detention of the seal-skins then on board the \"Thornton,\"\nand the breaking up of the said sealing voyage. Also, the estimated loss incurred by me\nduring the present year by reason of the non-release of the \" Thornton;\" and in view of\nthe fact that it is now too late to put the \" Thornton in repair and condition to engage in\nnext year's business, the estimated loss for next year. And I verily believe that the said\nestimates of the losses incurred by me by reason of the seizure and detention of the said\n\"Thornton\" for the years 1886, 1887, and 1888, are fair and reasonable estimates, and\nrather under than over the actual losses so sustained.\n18. That the estimated loss of 5000, dollars for each of the years 1887 and 1888,\nby reason of the* seizure and detention of the \"Thornton,\" is based upon an average\ncatch of 2,380 seal-skins valued at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, the market value at Victoria\nfor the present season, deducting from the gross value thereof the cost of outfit and\namount of the wages of hunters and crew, based on the \"Thornton's\" voyage of a.d. 1886.\n19. That during and since the year 1886 7 per cent, per annum was, and now is, the\nminimum rate at which money for ordinary commercial purposes could be obtained at the\ncity of Victoria aforesaid, and that hereto annexed, marked (E), is an estimate of the\nprincipal sums on which interest is claimed at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, and\nthe time for which it is so claimed.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien.-\nran\n 8\ntiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial\nOaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton, this\n25th day of November, a.d. 1887, and certified under my official seal.\n(Seal.) (Signed) D. B. MacTavish, Notary Public.\nExhibit (A).\nValue of steam-schooner *\/ Thorntou - at time of seizure by Unitec\nStates' steam-ship \" Corwin \" ..\nValue of | Thornton's \" outfit-\nGroceries ..\nAmmunition .. ..\nDry goods .. .. .,\nIron water tanks\nShip chandlery for sealing purposes\nOne chronometer .. ..\nExtra suit of new sails\nSeven No. 10 shot guns\nFive rifles .. ,.\nGun implements and tools ..\nFour new sealing-boats and sails\nWater casks\n6 tans salt .. .,\n18 tons coal..\nCooking range and utensils\nTotal outfit\nInsurance\u2014\nPremium on 1,200\/.\u2014insurance on hull, 101?. 4s. .,\nPremium on 1,000\/. \u2014 insurance on outfit and cargc\n20\/. 3s. id.\nWages paid hunters and crew up to time of seizure, hunters and\ncrew having been taken to San Francisco by United States'\nauthorities .. ...\nPassage-money thence to Victoria\nPassage-money and expenses of Captain Guttormsen and mate,\nHarry Norman, after release from Sitka to Victoria\n403 seal-skins on board the \"Thornton\" at the time of seizure\nat 7 dollars per skin .. ..\nDol. c.\n533 37\n340 26\n49 88\n50 00\n278 64\n81 45\n307 18\n248 00\n125 96\n23 20\n612 70\n25 00\n90 00\n126 00\n50 00\nTotal ..\nTotal of Exhibit (A)\n(Signed)\n\u2022 \u2022\n492\n83\n98\n60\n1,370\n177\n00\n16\n200\nCO\n2,821\n00\nDol. c.\n6,000 00\n2,941 04\n591 43\n4,568 16\n14,101 23\nD. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Public.\nNl'J\nExhibit (B).\nNumber of seals taken by the following thirteen sealing schooners during the year 1886 in\nand about the Behring Sea, most of the thirteen leaving the sea before the end of the\nseason, fearing capture.\nSchooners \u2014\nNo. of Seals\nPathfinder\n\u2022 \u2022\n, \\\n,,\n.. .. .. 1.766\nMary Ellen\n\u2022 .\n\u2022 \u2022\n?.\n. \u2022 .\n4,256\nTheresa .,\n, *\nt \u2022\n..\n\u00ab. .\n2,625\nFavorite\n\u00ab \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n.,\no \u2022 \u2022\n3,325\nBlack Diamond ..\n\u2022 i\n\u2022 \u2022\n.,\n\u00bb . .\n1,760\nAlfred Adams .,\n\u25a0 *\n\u00ab *\n,.\n. . .\n2,465\nActive\n\u2022 *\n\u2022 \u2022\n..\n. . .4\n2,275\nCity of Santiago\n\u2022 \u2022\n..\n\u2022 . .\n1,620\nSilvia Handy\n. i\n* *\n..\n\u00bb \u2022 . \u2022\n1,587\nDolphin\n% \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n..\n\u2022 \u2022 . .\n2,601\nAnna Beck\n, \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n..\n\u2022 \u25a0 . <\n1,400\nGrace\n\u00ab.\n\u2022 4\n..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 .\n2,550\nSayward\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 * .\nTotal catch\nAverage per vessel\n\u2022 \u2022\n* * t\n2,725\n* * t\n30,955\n2,381\n(Sig\nned)\nD.\nB. Mac!\nLAVISH, Notary 1\nM,gJ*l_'\n\u00abHM\n 9\nExhibit (C).\nLegal expenses at Sitka in connection with seizure of \" Thornton \".. ..\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising from\nsaid seizure ., .. .. .. .. .. ..\nTravelling, hotel, and other nacessary expenses in connection with said seizure\nand claims .. .. .. .. .. .. ..\nDols. c.\n500 00\n750 00\n1,000 00\nGrand total; Exhibit (C)\n(Signed)\n.. 2,150 00\nD. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Public.\nExhibit (D). |\nDamages arising from the seizure and detention of the \"Thornton,''-based upon the\naverage catch of seal-skins per season as given in Statement (B), season of 1886.\nEstimated average catch .. .. .. .. ..\nLess 403 skins on board the \" Thornton \" at the time of seizure,\nand charged in Statement (A) .. . \u2022 ..\nBalance, at 7 dollars per skin .. .. ..\nReasonable and probable profit \" Thornton \" would have earned\nin 1887 for owner .. .-. .. .. ..\nIn view of fact that \" Thornton \" cannot be made available for\nnext year's operations, reasonable and probable profit for\nloou .. .. .. .. .. ..\nTotal amount, Exhibit (D)\n(Signed)\nNo.\n2,381\nDol. c.\n403\n1,978 =\n= 13,846 00\n..\n5,000 00\n. \u2022\n5,000 00\n23,846'00\nD. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Public\nSummary of Exhibits.\nValue of \" Thornton \" .. .. .,\nValue of \" Thornton's \" outfit .. .. ..\nWages of crew and hunters .. .. ..\nPassage-money and expenses of officers and crew in returning to\nVictoria .. .. .. .,\n403 seal-skins, at 7 dollars .. .. ..\nTotal, Exhibit (A) ..\nPersonal expenses of owner\nLegal expenses .. ..\nDol. c.\n6,000 00\n3,533 07\n1,370 00\n377 16\n2,821 00\n1,000 00\n1,250 00\n.. 13,846 00\nTotal, Exhibit (C) ..\nBalance on estimated seal catch for 1886 ..\nEstimated loss to owner by detention of the \"Thornton'' during\n1887 .. .. .. .. .. .. 5,000 00\nEstimated loss on same grounds for 1888 .. .. .. 5,000 00\nTotal, Exhibit (D) ..\nTotal amount of claim\nDol. c,\n14,101 23\n2,250 00\n23,846 00\n40,197 23\nMemorandum.\nIf the owner of the \"Thornton\" is indemnified for balance of estimated seal catch\nfor the year 1886, there should be deducted from the total claim the sum of 3,379 dol. 58 c.\nincluded in Exhibit (A) for outfit, which would necessarily have been consumed in the\nprosecution of the voyage, and including the sum of 1,370 dollars paid in wages, as per\nExhibit (F).\nDol.\niB\n\u00a3w\nc.\nTotal claim .. .,\nValue consumed on voyage.,\nNet claim ..\n40,197 23\n3,379 58;\n(Signed)\n36,817 65\nD. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Pubtic.\n[644]\n2 Z\n mtu\nt\n10\nExhibit (E).\nEstimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent.per annum is claimed, and\nthe time for which interest is so claimed.\nDol. c.\nValue of ''Thornton's\" estimated full catch for 1886, namely, 2,381 skins, at\n7 dollars per skin, from the 1st October, 1886, when the catch would\nhave been realized on .. .. .. .. .. .. 16,667 00\nActual cash outlay for legal and other necessary expenses ineurred by reason\nof the seizure before the 1st October, 1886 .. .. .. .. 500 00\nTotal principal on which interest is claimed since the 1st October, 1886, to\ndate of payment of claim .. .. .. ..\nEstimated value of the \"Thornton\" catch for 1887, less cost of outfit and\nwages of crew and hunters, on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is\nclaimed frem the 1st October, 1887, on or about which date the catch\nwould be realized on, to date of payment\nIf the claim for 1887 be not allowed, then interest is claimed on the value of\nthe \"Thornton\" at 7 per cent, per annum from the 1st October,\na.d. 1886, to time of payment .. .. .. .. ..\n17,167 00\n5,000 00\n(Signed)\n6,000 00\nD. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Public.\nExhibit (F).\nDetails of items of \" Thornton's \" outfit consumed during the course of full sealing and\nfishing voyage.\nItems.\nGroceries..\nAmmunition ..\nDry goods ..\nShip chandlery ..\nInsurance premiums\nWages of crew and hunters\n6 tons salt ..\n18 tons coal\nDol.\nc.\n533\n37\n340\n26\n49\n88\n278\n64\n591\n43\n. 1,370\n00\n90\n00\n126\n00\nTotal value consumed .. .. .. .. 3,379 58\n(Signed) D. B. MacTAVISH, Notary Public.\n(No. 3.)\n% Onward.\"\nSeized by United States' Steam-ship \" Corwin,\" August 2, 18S6.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward\nOwner.\nby\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nDol. c.\n4,000 00\n1,778 69\n260 00\n1,820 00\n200 00\n250 00\n1,250 00\n16,667 00\nValue of vessel, 94 tons .. ,\nValue of outfit ((inconsumable)\nInsurance .. ..\nWages paid for voyage ..\nPassage,' &c, of master and mate\nPersonal expenses of owner,.\nLegal expenses ..\nEstimated catch .. ..\nDeduct value consumed during a full\nClaim by owner, with interest at 7\npayment.\n. ..\n. ..\n. ..\ni. ..\n. ..\ni. ..\ni. ..\neoyage.\nper cent, to\ndate <\n> \u2022\n\u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n)f\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\n26,225 69\n2,955 98\n23,269 71\ntzmwm\n Declaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city.of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nof the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely\ndeclare as follows:\u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Charles Spring, merchant, of the said city of\nVictoria, and owner of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner \" Onward\/\n2. That the said schooner | Onward\" is a British vessel of about 94 tons burden,\nbuilder's measurement, and at the time of her seizure, as hereinafter set out, was, and now\nis, registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid.\n3. That about the 10th day of June, A.D. 1886, the said schooner \"Onward\" sailed\nfrom the west coast of Vancouver Island, having previously cleared at the port of Victoria\naforesaid, on and for a full-season hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean\nand Behring Sea.\n4. That on and for said voyage the crew of the \"Onward\" consisted of Daniel\nMonroe, of Victoria aforesaid, master; John Margotich, of the same place, mate; and\ntwenty sailors and hunters; all of whom were on board the \"Onward\" at the time of her\nseizure hereinafter mentioned.\n5. That on the morning of the 2nd August, A.D. 1886, while in said Behring Sea, in\nnorth latitude 54\u00b0 32' and west longitude 167\u00b0 55', and about 68 miles from Ounalaska\nIsland, the nearest land, lawfully, as 1 verily believe, pursuing the objects of her said voyage,\nthe I Onward\" was seized by the United States' steam-ship | Corwin,\" and taken in tow of\nsaid \"Corwin\" to Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska, of the United States of America,\nhaving then on board 400 seal-skins.\n6. That upon the said \"Corwin's\" arrival at Ounalaska aforesaid with the said\nI Onward,\" the \" Onward \" was, by order of the United States' authorities thereat, stripped\nof her sails and outfit, the skins on board taken out, her master, the said Daniel Monroe,\nand mate, the said John Margotich, placed under arrest, and her voyage completely\nbroken up.\n7. That the said master and mate, Daniel Monroe and John Margotich, were by\nthe said United States' authorities taken to Sitka, in the said Territory of Alaska, there to\nbe tried on a charge of having violated the laws of the United States respecting seal fishing\nin the waters of Alaska. On arrival at Sitka the said master and mate were bound over to\nappear for trial on said charge, and were on or about the 1st of the month of September\nfollowing so tried, found guilty, and sentenced\u2014the master, Daniel Monroe, to pay a fine\nof 500 dollars, the mate, John Margotich, to pay a fine of 300 dollars, and each to be\nimprisoned for the space of thirty days, which imprisonment they suffered.\n8. That hereto annexed, marked \" (A) \" is a statement of the articles comprising the\noutfit of the || Onward\" at the time of her departure on said voyage, and the value thereof,\nall of which were on board the \"Onward\" at the time of her said seizure, excepting only\nwhat had been consumed in the ordinary course and prosecution of the voyage; also of the\namount paid for insurance on said voyage, also the amount of wages paid the crew and\nhunters on said voyage, also the amount paid for fares and expenses of the master and mate\nin returning to Victoria from Sitka after their release, and also of the number and value of\nthe seal-skins on board the \"Onward\" at the time of her seizure, and which were taken\nfrom the \" Onward \" at Ounalaska by the United States' authorities.\n9. That the prices charged for the various articles and groups of articles comprising the\noutfit of the \"Onward\" on and for said voyage are the regular market prices of the said\narticles at Victoria aforesaid at the time of their purchase for use on said voyage. The\nprice charged in said statement for the seal-skins on beard the \"Onward\" when seized,\nnamely, 7 dollars per skin, was the market price per skin at Victoria aforesaid at the close\nof the sealing season of 1886, when the catch of the \"Onward,\" had not such seizure taken\nplace, would have been placed on the market.\n10. That the value of the schooner \" Onward,\" as given in Exhibit (A), namely,\n4,000 dollars, is a fair and reasouable value for the said schooner at the time of her\nseizure; she was then, and h^d always been, kept in first-class order and condition, and was\nalways a staunch, seaworthy vessel, and for the said voyage had been refitted with new sails\nand sailing gear.\n11. That hereto annexed, marked \"(B)\" is a statement of the catch of thirteen\nsealing-vessels, in and about Behring Sea, during the season of 1886; the said statement is\ncompiled from the Report of the Inspector of Fisheries for the Province of British\nColumbia for the year 1886, as contained in the Report of the Department of Fisheries for\nCanada for that year at pp. 248 and 249, and from personal knowledge of the facts therein\nset out, I verily believe the said statement to be substantially true and correct. The\nsteam-schooner \"Thornton,\" the .schooners \"Carolena\" and \"Onward,\" meaning the\n\"Onward\" herein mentioned, were seized on the 1st and 2nd August, 1886, in Behring\nSea, at the beginning of the best sealing period; and the schooners \" Mary Taylor,\"\n\"Mountain Chief,\" \"Rustler,\" and \"Kate\" were not in Behring Sea during the season of\n1886, so in estimating the average catch per vessel in Behring Sea for 1886, the catch of\nthe above-named seven vessels is not included in Exhibit (B); all of the thirteen vessels\nnamed in Exhibit (B), with only one or two exceptions, left Behring Sea long before the\n ll\n\u25a0\n12\nend of the sealing season of 1886, because of the seizures which had been made by the\nUnited States' steam-ship \"Corwin,\" fearing to remain lest they also should be seized; by\nreason of such departure from the said sea, or the best sealing ground therein, before the\nclose of the season, I verily believe that the catch per vessel, as found in Exhibit (B),\nnamely, 2,381 seal-skins, is fully 500 less than it would have been had the said vessels\nremained the full season in said sea.\n12. That hereto annexed, marked \" (C),\" is a statement of the legal expenses incurred\nat Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the said seizure of the \" Onward,\" the arrest and\nimprisonment of the said master and mate, and the claims arising therefrom, and also of the\npersonal expenses of the said owner and said agent in the same connection.\n13. That the Exhibit (D), hereto annexed, is a statement of the estimated loss and\ndamage resulting to the owner of the \" Onward \" by reason of her seizure and detention in\nA.D. 1886, A.D. .1887, and A.D. 1888. The estimated loss for the year 1886 is based upon\nthe average catch per vessel, as found in Exhibit (B), less the number of skins on board the\n\"Onward\" when seized, the balance being valued at 7 dollars per skin, the price per skin\nat Victoria at the close of the season 1886. The claim for A.D. 1887 and A.D. 1888 is based\nupon the same average cateh as for A.D. 1886, valued at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, which was the\nmarket value per skin at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the season 1887, after deducting\ntherefrom the cost of outfit and wages of crew and hunters for each year, based on the\n\"Onward's\" said voyage of A.D. 1886. The said claim of 5,000 dollars for each of said\nyears a.d. 1887 and a.d. 1888 is a fair and reasonable estimate of the earnings of the\n\"Onward\" in hunting and fishing for the said years.\n14. That Exhibit (E), hereto annexed, is a statement of the principal sums on which\ninterest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed, and the time for which said interest is so\nclaimed. At the time when the catch of the \"Onward\" for 1886 would have, in the\nordinary course of events, been realized on, namely, on or about the 1st October in said\nyear, the minimum rate of interest on money for commercial purposes was, has since\ncontinued to be, and now is, 7 per cent, per annum.\n15. That hereto annexed, marked \" (F),\" is a statement of the articles, and the value\nthereof, as given in Exhibit (A) of the \"Onward's\" outfit on said voyage of 1886,\nincluding insurance premiums and wages, which would necessarily be wholly, or almost\nwhollv, consumed in the course of a full season's hunting and fishing, such as contemplated\nby the \" Onward\" in 1886.\n16. That on the 13th day of July last past I was at Ounalaska aforesaid, and was\nthen on board of the said schooner \" Onward.\" She was ihen lying side-to on a gravel\nbeach, in the harbour of Ounalaska, partially embedded in the gravel, and generally in a\nvery bad condition. Her standing rigging was much weather-beaten, also her deck and\nside-seams were in a very bad state, the long exposure and severe frosts of the previous\nwinter having broken out the pitch, and, judging from their appearance, they were very\nleaky. From what I then saw of the condition of the \" Onward,\" I verily believe that\nshe could not be floated and put in a fit state for sea without extensive repairs, which at\nOunalaska, where there is neither the requisite workmen nor material, would involve\nvery large expenditure, and that to float the said \" Onward,\" take her to Victoria\naforesaid, the nearest port where the requisite facilities exist, and where she could be\nrepaired and refitted at least cost, and there repair and refit her, would cost at least\n4,500 dollars.\nAnd I, Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously\nbelieving the same to be true, and by virtue of \"The Act respecting Extra-Judicial\nOaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton, in\nthe Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a.d. 1887, and certified under my\nofficial seal.\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public for Ontario.\n \u25a0\nExhibit (A).\nValue of the schooner \" Onward \" at the time of her seizure\nOutfit\u2014\n\u00ab \u2022\nGroceries\nAmmunition\nDry goods ..\nShip chandlery\nFour shot guns\nThree iron water-tanks\nFourteen water-casks..\nNine canoes and outfit\nSalt ..\nCoal ,. ,.\nCooking stove and utensils ..\nChronometer, sextant, and two flags\nThree extra compasses ..\nSundries .. ,.\n* \u2022\na, \u2022\n\u2022 *\n\u2022 *\n\u2022 #\n\u2022 \u00ab\nInsurance premium and survey on hull\nWages paid to hunters and crew for voyage ..\nFines and expenses of captain and mate from Sitka to Victoria after\nrelease .. .. .. ..\n400 seal-skins' on board, at 7 dollars per skin..\nTotal, Exhibit (A.) ,.\n(Signed)\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (B)\n\u00ab \u00ab\n* \u2022\nt \u2022\n\u2022 t\n\u25a0 \u2022\n\u00ab \u2022\n470\n19\n68\n251\n61\n57\n21\n445\n52\n13\n56\n140\n24\n97\n70\n07\n25\n59\n00\n00\n00\n50\n57\n80\n63\n00\n00\n58\n\u2022 *\n* \u2022\n1,778 69\n260 00\n1,820 00\n200 00\n2,800 00\n10,858 69\nJ. D. WARREN.\nNumber of seal-skins taken by each of the following thirteen sealing-vessels during the\nyear 1886 in and about the Behring Sea, most of the said vessels leaving the se\nbefore the end of the said season, fearing seizure.\nVessels.\nSeal, skins.\nPathfinder .. ..-\nMary Ellen .. ..\nTheresa .. .. .. .. ,.\nFavorite .. .. .. .. ,, ..\nBlack Diamond .. .. .. .. .. ..\nAlfred Adams .. .. .. .. .. ..\nCity of Santiago .. ,.\nSilvia Handy .. .. ,. .. .. ..\nDolphin .. ,. ,. .. .. ..\nAnna Beck .. .. .. ,. .. ..\nW. P. Say ward .. .. .. .. .. ..\n1,766\n4,256\n2,625\n2,325\n1,760\n2,465\n2,275\n1,620\n1,587\n2,601\n1,400\n2,550\n2,725\nTotal catch ,. ,. ., .. ..\n30,955\nAverage per vessel .. .. .. ..\n2,381\n(Signed)\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(S\nSigned)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (C).\nLegal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the \" Onward \" ,.\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the\n\" Onward,\" and the claims arising thereunder, exclusive of the above\n500 dollars .. .. .. .. .. .. ..\nPersonal expenses other than the above in the same connection\nDol. c.\n500 00\n750 00\n250 00\nTotal\n(Signed)\n.. 1,500 00\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\n[644]\n3 A\n Estimated damages arising from the seizure and detention of the schooner \" Onward,\nbased on the average catch per vessel for 1886, as given in Exhibit (B).\nReasonable and probable profit on operations for the year 1887 ..\n\"Onward\" not being released, and not available to engage in\nnext year's operations, reasonable and probable profit for\n1888\n(Signed)\n2,381\n400\n=\n13,867\n5,000\n1,981.\n00\n\u2022\u2022\n00\n\u00ab \u2022\n5,000\n00\n\u2022 a\n23,867\n00\nJ\n. D. WARREN.\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (E).\nEstimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed,\nand the time for which interest is so claimed.\n\"\u25a0\/\nValue of the \" Onward's \" estimated catch for 1886, namely, 2,381 skins, at\n7 dollars per skin, from the 1st day of October, a.d. 1886, when the\ncatch would have been realized on\nActual outlay for legal and other necessary expenses incurred by reason of the\nseizure of the \" Onward \" before the 1st October, 1886\nTotal principal on which interest is claimed from October, a.d. 1886, to date\nof payment of claim .. ..\nEstimated value of \" Onward's\" catoh for D387 (less cost of outfit and wages\nof crew and hunters) on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is\nclaimed from the 1st October, a.d. 1887, on or about which date the\ncatch would be realized on, to date of payment .. ..\nIf claim for 1887 be not allowed, then interest is claimed on the value of the\n\" Onward \" from the 1st October, a.d. 1886, to date of payment ..\nDol. c.\n16,667 00\n500 00\n17,167 00\n5,000 00\n4,000 00\n(Signed)\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (F).\nValue of articles of \nregistered at the port of Victoria aforesaid, and was so registered at the time of the\noccurrence hereinafter set out, namely, on theMst and 2nd days of August, a.d. 1886.\n3. That towards the end of the month of May, A.d. 1886, after having been duly\ncleared at the port of Victoria aforesaid, for that purpose, the said schooner \" Favourite\n}>\nfull\nseason's nunting and fishing in the North Pacific Ocean and\nsailed on? and for\nBehring Sea\n4. That on and for said voyage the crew of the said \"Favourite\" consisted of\nAlexander McLean, of Victoria aforesaid, master, a mate, and twenty-three sailors and\nhunters, and completely equipped and provisioned for a full season of hunting and fishing\nin said waters. .\n5. I am informed by the said master of the \" Favourite,\" and several of the crew of\nthe '\"Favourite,\" and do verily believe, that on the night of the 1st August, or early\nrBorning of the 2nd August, a.d. 1886, the said | Favourite,\" while in the Behring Sea,\nnot far from where the schooner i Onward\" was seized on the said morning of the\n2nd August, 1886, and while lawfully pursuing the objects of said voyage, was hailed by\nUnited States' steam-ship \"Corwin,\" then having in tow the seized vessels \"Thornton\"\nand \" Carolena.\" After the usual inquiries as to the name of the vessel, the Commander\nor officer then in oharge of the said \" Corwin \" ordered the \" Favourite I to cease sealing\nand leave Behring Sea forthwith, otherwise she would be seized, or words to that\neffect. The master of the \" Favourite,\" not wishing to risk seizure, and fearing that if\nhe remained in the said sea his vessel and cargo would be so seized and threatened by the\nCommander of the \"Corwin,\" and for no other reason or reasons whatever, at Once made\nall sail and left the said sealing\" grounds, thereby losing the remainder of the sealing\nseason.\n6. That by reason of so being forced to cease sealing and leave Behring Sea at about\nthe beginning of the best period of the sealing season, the \"Favourite \" lost at least 1,000\nseal-skins, and her total catch for the season was reduced by that much.\nJ: That on said voyage the \" Favourite \" carried twenty hunters and ten canoes. The\nschooner \" Mary Ellen,\" of Victoria aforesaid, on a similar voyage the same season,\nwith fifteen hunters and five sealing-boats, not seeing or hearing of the said seizures,\nand remaining in the sea till or about the close of the sealing season, caught 4,256 sealskins. The actual catch of the \"Favourite\" for the said season was only 3,325, though\nshe had one-third more hunters than the said | Mary Ellen,\" and equally as good, if not\nbetter, chances of obtaining as large a catch; and I verily believe that the sum of the\nactual catch.of the \"c Favourite,\" together with the 1,000 herein claimed, making a total\nof 4,325 for the season of 1886, is a fair and reasonable estimate for the catch of the\n\" Favourite\" that year, had she not been interfered with as above set out.\n8. That the market price per seal-skin at Victoria at the close of the season of 1886\nwas 7 dollars, and the amount claimed as the value of 1,000 skins lost to the owner of the\n\" Favourite,\" by reason of her so leaving the Behring Sea is 7,000 dollars.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, m-ake this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of \"The Act respecting Extra-Judicial\nOaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed b\n;ne\ncitv of Ottawa, in the Countv of Carleton. in\nthe Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a.d. 1387, and certified under my\nofficial seal.\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public for Ontario.\nI\n Declaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British\nColumbia, of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and\nsincerely declare as follows :\u2014\n1. That I have been a resident of the said city of Victoria for the past twenty-nine\nyears, and during that time I have been largely interested in the building, equipment, and\nmanagement of steam- and sailing-vessels. I \"have also been engaged in the sealing and\nfishing business at said city for the past fourteen or fifteen years.\n2. The steam-schooners \" Grace\" and \" Dolphin,\nid the schooner \"W. P.\nward,\" and the rebuilding and fitting with steam-power of the steam-schooners \"Anna\nBeck\" and \"Thornton,\" all of which vessels have been seized in Behring Sea by the\nUnited States' authorities, Avere built and done for me, and under my personal direction,\nand were each owned and managed by me for some time after their completion, and are\nnow managed by me for their respective owner and owners. The schooners \"-Carolena,\"\n\"Favourite,\" \"Alfred Adams,\" \"Ada,\" and \"Onward,\" all also seized in Behring Sea\nby the United States' authorities, were each and all well known to me from personal\nknowledge. From my interest in the Behring Sea sealing business, I kept myself well\nposted on the matter and manner of the condition and equipment of the said vessels, and\nmost of the facts stated in the declarations of claim in the case of each of these vessels\ncame under my personal observation. The said vessels, excepting the \"Thornton,\"\n% Onward,\" and \" Carolena,\" which are at Ounalaska, are at Sitka, in the United States'\nTerritory of Alaska.\n3. To bring these vessels from Sitka to Victoria, a distance of about 900 miles, will\ninvolve a cost of at least 1,600 dollars to purchase the necessary materials and take them\nto Sitka, and to convey the necessary men %o Sitka and pay their wages. From leaving\nVictoria until arrival back with any one of said vessels would take about two months, or\nperhaps a few days less in the summer months, and a few days more in the winter\nmonths.\n4. A full hunting and sealing- season begins as early as the 1st January and up till the\n1st March, and extends thence until the end of September.\nThis season is divided into two parts, the coast season and the Behring Sea season.\nThe coast season terminates about the end of June, but vessels intending to go to\nBehring Sea generally leave the coast fishing during the month of May, sealing as they\ngo northward, and reaching Behring Sea the end of June or beginning of July. The\nbest period of the sealing season in Behring Sea varies in different years according to the\nprevailing weather from about the 20th July to the end of September,'after which date,\nthough seals are plentiful, stress of weather compels sealing-vessels to leave the sea and go\nsouth.\n. 5. On sealing voyages the hunters are paid in lieu of wages so much per seal-skin on\neach skin they capture, receiving from 2 to 2\\ dollars per skin. The masters are geneially\npaid parti)?- in wages and partly in the same manner as the hunters.\nThe only vessel in the Behring Sea in either of the seasons of 1886 or 1887 that\nmade a reasonably full catch of seals was the schooner \"Mary Ellen,\" of Victoria, which,\nin the season of 1886, took 4,256 seal-skins. On and for said season the \"Mary Ellen\"\ncarried fifteen hunters and five boa^s, an average catch per boat of 851 seal-skins, the five\nboats being about equal to eight or nine canoes. The \"Mary Ellen\" was the only vessel in\nBehring Sea in either 1886 or 1887 which, so far as I know, or am able after inquiry to\nlearn, remained the full season in said sea on and about the best sealing grounds without\nbeing disturbed by the United States' authorities. And I believe that the said steam-\nschooners \" Grace Dolphin\" and \"Anna Beck,\" and the said schooner \"W. P. Say ward,\"\nwhich were the best equipped vessels for sealing that had ever entered the Behring\nSea, would have3 if not seized or disturbed by the United States' authorities, made an\nequally large catch in said years 1886 and 1887? there being no reason why they should\nnot do so.\n6. The masters of the steam-schooner \"Thornton\" and schooner \"Onward,\" and the\nmate of the schooner \" Carolena,\" after their arrival at Sitka as prisoners in the latter part\nof August, entered into an agreement with one Clarke, a counsellor-at-law at Sitka, to\ndefend their vessels and themselves on their pending trial at Sitka before the United\nStates' District Court, and the charge of 500 dollars for legal expenses at Sitka in the case\nof each of the said vessels is to cover the claim of said Clarke.\n7, The wages of the crew of each of the said seized vessels, except the \"Alfred\nAdams \" and \" Onward,\" are based on two months' service expiring on the day of seizure\nin each case. In the \"Adams\" and \" Onward\" cases, the crews were paid up to the time\nof their arrival at Victoria.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of I The Act respecting Extra-Judicial\nOaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me, at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton\nand Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a.d. 1887, and certified under my\nofficial seal.\n(Signed) J. M. Baldebson, Notary Public for Ontario.\nmsm\n os^w^bM\n17\n(No. 5.)\nI W. P. Saywardr\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" July 9, 1887.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward\nby\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nOwner.\nDol. c.\n255 00\nPassages of crew, &c. ,. .. ..\nAffidavit of J. D. Warren, &c.\n250 00\nPassages of officers .. .. .. ..\nDitto.\n250 00\n* Personal expenses of owners .. .. ..\nDitto.\n850 00\nLegal expenses .. .. ..\nDitto.\n19,250 00\nProbable seal catcb, 1887, 3,500 seals, at 5\u00a3 dollars\nDitto.\n1,200 00\nLoss by detention, 1st October, 1887, to 1st February,\n.. 1888\nDitto.\n6,000 00\nLoss of profit in season of 1888 (1st February to 1st\nDitto.\nOctober)\nClaim by owner, witb interest at 7 per cent., to date of\n28,055 00\npayment.\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nof the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely\ndeclare as follows :\u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent, by power of attorney bearing date the 4th\nNovember, a.d. 1886, of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San Francisco, in the State of\nCalifornia, one of the United States of America, the managing owner of the hereinafter-\nmentioned schooner \"W. P. Sayward.\"\n2. That the said Thomas. H. Cooper is, as I am informed and do verily believe, a\nBritish subject by birth, and has never renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of Great\nBritain.\n3. That the said schooner \" W. P. Sayward \" is a British vessel, having been built at\nVictoria aforesaid m a.d. 1882, and duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid, and\nwas at the time of her seizure, as hereinafter set out, so registered. The said \"W. P.\nSayward\" is 135J tons burden, Wy builder's measurement, and is a well and strongly'built\nvessel.\n4. That on the 16th day of May, a.d. 1887, after having duly cleared at Customs at\nthe port of Victoria aforesaid for such purpose, the | W. P. Sayward \" sailed from Victoria\non and for a full hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring\nSea. On said voyage George E. Ferey, of the said city of Victorfa, was master; Andrew.\nLaing, of the same place, mate; and the crew numbered, in addition to the master and\nmate, twenty-$wo or twenty-three, with nine canoes and one boat for hunting and sealing\npurposes.\n5. On the 2nd day of July then next following, the said \" W. P. Sayward\" entered\nBehring Sea, having then on board, as by the report of the master sent to me, 497 sealskins, all taken on the voyage from Victoria to Behring Sea prior to the 2nd day of July.\nAfter entering the said sea the weather was Very thick, and no sealing was done by the\n1W. P. Sayward.\"\n6. .On the 9th day of said July, the \"W. P. Sayward\" then being in latitude\n54\u00b0 43' north and longitude 167\u00b0 51' west, and about 58 miles from Ounalaska Island, the\nnearest land, and lawfully pursuing the objects of her voyage, Mas seized by the United\nStates' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" and taken to Uoolook Harbour, at Ounalaska\nIsland, in the United States' Territory of Alaska. At said harbour the seal-skins on board\nthe \" W. P. Sayward\" were taken out and stored on shore, and the \" W. P. Sayward\"\nwas, by order of the authorities of the United States, sent to Sitka, in the said Territory of\nAlaska, in charge of an officer from said \" Richard Rush,\" together with all her crew.\n7- Upon arrival at Sitka the \"W. P. Sayward\" was handed over to United States'\nMarshal Atkins, the master and mate o^the \" W. P. Sayward,\" the said George, E. Ferey.\nand Andrew Laing, were taken before a Judge and bound over to appear for trial on the\n22nd day of August then instant, and from day to day thereafter, on a charge of having\nviolated the laws of the United States relating to seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska. The\nsaid master and mate so appeared on the 22nd August and day by day thereafter, until the\n9th day of September, when, without having been tried on said charge or any other charge\nwhatever, they were unconditionally released.\n8. That hereto annexed, marked \" (A),\" is a statement of the value of the said schooner\n\" yV. P. Sayward \" at the time of her seizure by the \" Richard Rush,\" also of the articles,\nand groups of articles, and the value thereof, comprising the outfit of the \" W. P. Sayward \"\non and for said voyage; also of the amount of premiums paid for insurance of the hull,\nJ644.J\n3B\n T~\nIi\n111*\n18\n<\noutfit, and cargo of said schooner during said voyage; also of the amount paid in wages to\nto the crew and hunters on said voyage; also of the fares and expenses of the mate to and\nfrom Victoria for instructions, and of the master, mate, and part of the crew in returning\nto Victoria from Sitka; and also of the number and value of the seal-skins taken from the\nsaid schooner when seized.\n9. The value placed on the schooner \" W. P. Sayward \" in said Exhibit (A), namely,\n6,000 dolllars, is a fair and reasonable valuation of the said schooner, considering her\noriginal cost, which was about 7,000 dollars, the condition of repair she was in when seized,\nand the value of vessels of her class at Victoria aforesaid, for such purposes as the \" W. P.\nImmediately before going on said voyage\nshe\nwas\nSayward\" was designed and used.\nthoroughly repaired and refitted, and at the time of her seizure was in first-class order and\ncondition. Besides the outfit mentioned in Exhibit (A), there was on board the \"W. P.\nSaward \" when seized a considerable quantity of extra gear, tackling, and ship stores. The\ninsurance value of the \"W. P. Sayward\" for the year 1887 was 6,000.dollars, and on and\nduring said voyage she was insured in the sum of 1,000\/. on her hull, and^in 2,000\/. ofi her\noutfit and cargo.\n10. The value placed on the various articles and groups of articles comprising the outfit of the said schooner, as given in Exhibit (A), is the market price for each of said articles\nat Victoria aforesaid at the time of their purchase for the use and pnrposes of fcaid voyage.\nThe price charged in Exhibit (A) for the seal-skins on board the \"W. P. Sayward\"\nwhen seized, namely, 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, is the market price per skin current at\n\"Victoria aforesaid on or about the close of the sealing season of 1887, when the cateh of the\n\" W. P. Sayward,\" had not such seizure taken place, would have been placed on the said\nmarket.\n11. That hereto annexed, marked \"{C),\" is a statement of the legal and personal\nexpenses incurred at Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizure of the \"W. P.\nSayward,\" the arrest and detention of her master and mate, and the claims arising therefrom.\n12. TBat hereto annexed, marked \" (D),\" is an estimate of the loss and damage\nresulting to the owner thereof by reason of the seizure and detention of the schooner\n\"W. P. Sayward\" duringthe season of 1887, and the probable loss from the same cause\nfor* the season of 1888. ^The estimated catch of seals by the \" W. P. Sayward'' for the\nseason of 1887 is based upon an average catch of 350 seals per boat and canoe for a full\nseason, and I verily believe, had the above seizure not taken place, that, under ordinary\ncircumstances, the total catch of the \" W. P. Sayward\" for said full season would have been\nat least the said number of 3,500 seals.\n13. That after the close of the sealing season, and during the months of October,\nNovember,and December, a.d. 1887 and January 1888, had the \" W. P. Sayward\" been in\nher owner's possession she would have been engaged .in tjj\u00a3 coasting and general freighting\ntrade in and about the coasts of British Columbia, and the said claim of 300 dollars per\nmonth for each of said months is a fair and reasonable estimate of the earnings of the\n\" W. P. Sayward \" for and during said months, after deducting therefrom the cost of waees\nand running expenses.\n14. In order to put the \"W. P. Sayward\" in order and condition to engage in\nhunting and fishing the full season of 18*88, it is necessary that she should be in her\nowner's possession at Victoria aforesaid on or before the 1st day of February, a.d. 1888.\nIf not then at Victoria it will be impossible to repair and refit her in time to start out on a\nfull season voyage which begins about the 1st March. As o^uring the summer months\nthere would be little for a vessel like the \" W. P. Sayward \" to do in the coasting and local\nfreighting trade, if she were not got away on a fishing and hunting voyage the season\nwould be practically lost. The estimated profit on a full season of hunting and fishing by\nthe \"W. P\u00ab Sayward\" in 1888, namely, 6,000 dollars, is a fair and reasonable cateb\n\u2022estimate, based on a catch of 3,500 seal-skins, and, deducting from the gross value thereof,\nat 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, the cost of outfit and wages based on the \" W. P. Sayward's*,>\n-voyage of 1887.\n15. That hereto annexed, marked \" (E),'' is a statement of the principal sums on\nwhich interest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so claimed.\nOn the 1st October, A.d. 1887, on or about which date the catch of the \" W. P. SaywardJ'\nfor 1887 would have been, in the ordinary course of events, realized on, the minimum rate\nof interest on money for commercial purposes at the said city of Victoria was, has since\ncontinued to be, and now is, 7 per cent, per annum.\n16. That hereto annexed, marked \" (F),\" is a statement of the articles, and groups of\narticles, and the value thereof, comprised in the outfit of the \" W. P. Sayward \" on said\nvoyage as given in Exhibit (A), which would have been wholly or almost wholly consumed\nin the course and prosecution of a full season's hunting and fishing voyage, such as\ncontemplated-by the \" W. P. Sayward \" in 1887.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously\nbelieving the same to be true, and by virtue of the \" Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton and\nProvince of Ontario, this 91h day of December, aj). 1887, and certified under my official\nseal.\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.\n\u25a0\u00bb\u00bbi\n m\nValue of tbe schooner \" W. P. Sayward \" at the time of her seizure\nby United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush \" on the 9 th July,\na.d. 1887\nValue of \"W. P. Sayward's\" outfit on said voyage-\nGroceries\nAmmunition\nDry goods .\nTwo iron tanks\nWater-casks\nShip chandlery\nFour No. 10 shot guns ..\nTwo rifles\nGun implements and tools\nOne sealing-boat (returned)\nNine canoes and outfits ..\n8 tons salt\n5 tons coal,\nCooking range and utensils\nInsurance\u2014^\nPremium on 1,000\/. on hull, 84\/. 6s. 8d.\nPremium on 2,000\/. on cargo, 105\/. 13s. 4.d,\nWages paid-Sailors and hunters for voyage up to time of seizure\nPassage-money of mate to Victoria for counsel and instructions and\nreturn\nFares of master and mate on return to Victoria, and personal\nexpenses\nFares of seventeen men (crew) from Fort Simpson to Victoria .\n479 seals on board \"W. P. Sayward\" when seized, at 5 dol. 50 c,\nper skin\n\u2022 *\nTotal, Exhibit (A)\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (C).\nLegal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the \" W. P. Sayward\"\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising\nfrom said seizure\nPersonal expenses of the owner in connection with said seizure and claims\nTotal, Exhibit (C)..\n(Signed)\n1,100 00\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (D).\nDamages arising from the seizure and detention of the \" W. P. Sayward\" during the\nseason of 1887, based upon her reasonable and probable eaten of seals for that\nseason.\nDol. c.\nEstimated catch of seal-skins .. .. ,. .. 3,500\nLess on board at seizure .. .. .. .. .. ! 479\nBalance, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin .. .. 3,021\nLoss to owners of \" W. P. Sayward\" by reason of her detention after the\nclose of the sealing season of 1887, namely, for the months of October,\n, November,. and December, a.d. 1887, and January, a.d. 1888, when\nthe \"W. P. Sayward,\" if in owner's possession, would have been\nengaged in coasting trade. Four months, at 300 dollars per month ..\nIf owner not put in possession of \"W. P. Sayward\" on or before the 1st\nFebruary, 18S8,, so that she may be put in order and condition to\nengage in fishing and hunting voyage for season of 1888, reasonable\nand probable profit fojr the season of 1888\n16,615 50\n1,200 00\n6,000 00\n Exhibit (E)\\\nKi\nEstimate of the principal sums on which interest is clainfed at 7 per cent, per annum,\nand the time for which it is so claimed.\nValue of the estimated catch of the \" W. P. Sayward \" for season of 1887,\nfrom the first day of October, a.d. 1887, when said catch would have\nbeen realized on, viz., 3,500 skins, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin .. ..\nActual outlay for legal and other expenses on account of said seizure prior\nto the 1st October, 1887\nTotal principal on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum from the\n1st October, 1887, is claimed ..\n(Signed)\nDol. c.\n19,250 00\n605 10\n19,855 10\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (F).\nyALUE of estimated consumption of articles of \"W. P. Sayward's\" outfit on a full\nvoyage.\nGroceries..\nAmmunition\nDry goods\nShip chandlery\nSalt ..\nCoal\nWages ..\nInsurance premiums\nc \u2022\nTotal consumption\n(Signed)\nDol.\nc.\n\u2022 \u2022\n856\n67\n\u2022 \u2022\n202\n76\n\u2022 \u2022\n95\n75\n\u2022 \u2022\n101\n40\n\u2022 \u2022\n120\n00\n\u2022 \u2022\n35\n00\nt %\n1,437\n75\n\u25a0 \u2022\n952\n29\n\u2022 t\n3,774\n62\nJ.\nD. WARREN\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nMemo.\nIf theofull claim for the season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D), be allowed, then\nthe amount of this exhibit, 3,774 dol. 62 c, will properly appear as a credit, and be\ndeducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms a part.\nH\n(No. 6.)\n\" Grace.\"\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" July 17, 1887-\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward by\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nOwner.\nDol. c.\n12,000 00\nValue of vessel, 182 tons .. ,. .. ..\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\n1,742 57\nNon-consumable outfit .. .. .. ..\nDitto.\n200 00\nPassages of master and crew .. .. ,.\nDitto.\n250 00\nPersonal expenses of owners .. ..\nDitto.\n850 00\nLegal expenses .. .. .. .. ..\nDitto.\n23,100 00\nProbable catch, 1887^4,200, at 5 dol. 50 c. ..\nClaim of owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to date of\nDitto.\n38,142 57\npayment.\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada, i\n\u2022 I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British\nColumbia, of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and\nsincerely declare as follows:\u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San\nFrancisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America\/ the owner of\n 21\nthe hereinafter-mentioned schooner \" Grace,\" by power of attorney bearing date the\n4th day of February, a.d. 1886.\n2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, I am informed and do verily believe, a British\nsubject by birth, and never having renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of Great\nBritain.\n3. That the said steam-schooner \" Grace\" is a British vessel built at Victoria aforesaid, in a.d. 1881, and duly registered at the port .of Victoria aforesaid. By builder's\nmeasurement the \" Grace\" is about 182 tons burden. She is substantially and strongly\nbuilt, copper fastened throughout, and in a.d. 1885 her bottom and sides to about half-\nload-line were coppered. Her steam power consists of one large boiler, compound engines,\nand all necessary fittings, including inside surface condenser, steam fire pumps and hose,\nand also had on board a double steam cargo winch.\n4. The said | Grace \" was duly licensed as a passenger boat, and had all the appliances\nand conveniences required by Canadian law for such vessels.\n5. That as such agent as aforesaid, I am the sole manager of the said steam-schooner\n| Grace\" for the said Thomas H. Cooper.\n6. That on or about the 23rd day of April, a.d. 1887, having previously duly cleared\ntherefor at the port of Victoria aforesaid, the said steam-schooner \"Grace\" sailed from\nVictoria on and for a full season hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean\nand Behring Sea. On said voyage the crew of the If Grace\" consisted of William Petit,\nof Victoria aforesaid, master, a mate, and twenty-nine sailors and hunters.\n7. That on the 6th or 7th day of July following the i Grace \" entered the Behring\nSea along the 172nd west meridian, through the Amoughta Pass, commonly called\nthe \"172nd Pass,\" having then on board 458 seals taken while on the vogage from Victoria\naforesaid to the said pass.\n8. That on the 12th day of said July, a.d. 1887, the I Grace\" began sealing in said\nBehring Sea, and from then till she was seized as hereinafter set out caught 323 seals.\nOn the 17th day of the said month of July the United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush\"\nseized the said steam-schooner u Grace \" for alleged violation of the laws of the United\nStates of America respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska. At the time of said\nseizure the \" Grace \" was in north latitude 55\u00b0 3' and west longitude 168\u00b0 40', then being\nabout 92 mtles from Ounalaska Island, the nearest land, and, as I verily believe, lawfully\npursuing the objects of said voyage.\n9. The \" Grace\" after being seized was taken to Ounalaska, in the Territory of\nAlaska, where by order of the United States' authorities thereat, all the seal-skins on\nboard, except as hereinafter stated, were taken out and stored at Ounalaska, and all\nthe fire-arms and ammunition taken on board the said \" Richard Rush;5' On removing\nthe seal* skins twelve were missina;. Five were afterwards discovered on board the\n\u00a7 Grace\" and not removed, the remaining seven were not, as far as I know, ever found.\n10. After removal from the || Grace \" of the said seal-skins as stated in the preceding\nparagraph 8, a United States' officer was placed on board the | Grace,\" and she was, in\ncharge of said officer, taken to Sitka, in the Territory of Alaska, together with all the\ncrew and hunters. On arrival at Sitka on the 1st August United States' Marshal A.tkins\ntook charge of the \" Grace.\" The master, the said William Petit, was bound over\nto appear for trial on the 22nd day of August then instant, on a charge then preferred\nagainst him of having violated the laws of the United States respecting seal-fishing\nin the waters of Alaska, The said master so appeared for trial on the 22nd instant,\nand thereafter day by day until the 9th day of September next following, when, without\nhaving been brought to trial on such a charge or any other charge whatever, he was\nunconditionally released.\n11. That hereto annexed, marked \u00a7 (A),\" is a statement of the value of said steam-\nschooner % Grace \" at the time of her seizure, and of the outfit then on board, also of the\npremiums paid for insurance on the hull, outfit, and cargo of the \" Grace \" for and during\nsaid voyage; also of the amount of wages paid the crew and hunters on and for said voyage\nup to time of seizure; also of the expenses and fares of the master and five men at and\nfrom Sitka to Victoria aforesaid, and also of the number of the seal-skins on board at the\ntime of seizure and the value thereof.\n12. That the value placed upon the said steam-schooner 1 Grace\" at the time of her\nseizure, namely, 12,000 dollars, is based upon the original cost of the said vessel, the state\nof repair she was then in, and the general market value of the vessels of the same class at\nthe said port of Victoria, and for the same purpose for which she was designed. The first\ncost of the || Grace\" was between 16,000 and 17,000 dollars. At the time of her seizure\nshe was 6 years old, and in 1885 had been thoroughly repaired, coppered as aforesaid, and\ngenerally put in first-class order and condition. On her departure on said voyage she was\nin good order and condition, and had on said voyage up to the time of seizure sustained no\ndamage beyond ordinary wear and tear. Her insurance value for said year 1887 was\nplaced at 12,500 dollars, and she was, while on said voyage, insured for the sum of 2,000\/.,\nand the said value of 12,000 dollars at the time of her seizure is a resonable and fair\nvalue for the said steam-schooner \" Grace.\"\n13. That the value in Exhibit (A) placed on the articles, and groups of articles,\ncomprising the outfit of the said | Grace\" is the cost price of the said articles at the port\nof Victoria at the time of their purchase for the purposes of said voyage. In addition to\nthe outfit named in Exhibit (A), there was on board the \" Grace\" at the time of her\nseizure a considerable quantity of general ship stores.\n[644] 3 0\ni\nHH J \u2022!f^SH\n 22\nU'jjm\n14. The price per seal-skin charged in Exhibit (A), namely, 5 dol. 50 c. per skin for\nthe seal-skins on board the \"Grace\" when seized and taken out at Ounalaska, was the\nmarket price at Victoria at the close of the sealing season of 1887, when the catch of the\n\" Grace | for that season, in the ordinary course of events, would have been placed on the\nmarket.\n15. That hereto annexed, marked \" (C),\" is a statement of the legal expenses incurred\nat Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizuae of the \" Grace \" and the arrest of the\ncaptain, and the claims arising therefrom, and also of the personal expenses connected\ntherewith.\n16. That hereto annexed, marked \" (D),\" is a statement of the amounts claimed by\nthe owner of the steam-schooner \" Grace \" by reason of her seizure and detention during\nthe season of 1887, and of the loss arising from the detention of the said \" Grace\" after\nthe close of said season.\n17. The estimated catch by the \"Grace'' for the season of 1887, namely, 4,200\nseal-skins, is based upon a reasonable and probable catch per boat or canoe for that season.\nExperience in sealing has proved that the greater number of boats or canoes, or both,\ncarried by any one sealing-vessel, the smaller the average per canoe or boat, and it\nis in view of this that the average per canoe for the \" Grace \" is put at 300 per canoe,\nwhile the average for the steam-schooner \"Anna Beck\" for the same season is placed\nat 350, the latter carrying eight canoes and one boat, while the former carried twelve\ncanoes and two boats. The said average catch of 300 seal-skins per canoe and boat for\nthe \" Grace \" is a fair average catch, and I verily believe that, had the | Grace 1 not been\nseized as aforesaid, her catch for the season of 1887 would have exceeded the said number\nof 4,200 seal-skins.\n18. That during the months of October, November, and December, a.d. 1887, and\nJanuary, a.d. 1888, had the \"Grace\" been in possession of her owner, she would have\nbeen engaged in the coasting trade between the various ports of British Columbia. The\nestimated loss per month of 500 dollars for each of said months is a fair and reasonable\nestimate of the earnings of the said steam-schooner \" Grace\" for the said months of\nOctober, November, December, and January, after deducting the cost of wages and\nordinary running expenses, and I verily believe that the \" Grace\" would have earned the\nsaid sum per month had she been in her owner's possession.\n19. That in order to engage in the hunting and fishing of next year, namely,\na.d. 1888, and in view of the fact that the \"Grace\" will require the usual overhauling\nand fitting out before being sent on so long a voyage, the latest date at which it will be\npossible to begin necessary repairs and refitting, and have them completed in order to\nleave at or about the usual date on said hunting and fishing voyage, will be on or about the\n1st day of February, a.d. 1888. If the \"Grace\" be not delivered to the owners at\nVictoria on or before that date, it will be too late to repair and refit her for a full season\nhunting and fishing voyage, which begins on or about the 1st March of each year. During\nthe summer months, for a vessel of the class and equipment of the 1 Grace,\" there is very\nlittle to do in and about the coasting trade, and the season in the event of the I Grace\"\nnot being in the possession of her owner on or before the 1st February, a.d. 1888, would\nbe practically lost to her owner. The claim for loss if detained beyond the 1st February\naforesaid is a fair and reasonable estimate of the loss which will in such cases be sustained\nby the owner of the \" Grace.\"\n20. That hereto annexed, marked (E), is an estimate of the principal sums on which\ninterest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so claimed. On\nthe 1st day of October, a.d. 1887, when the catch of the & Grace\" would have been, in\nthe ordinary course of events, realized on, the minimum rate of interest on money for\ncommercial purposes at the said city of Victoria was, has since continued to be, and now is,\n7 per cent, per annum.\n21. That hereto annexed, marked (F), is a statement of the articles, and groups of\narticles, and the value thereof, from Exhibit (A), which would have been wholly, or almost\nwholly, consumed in the course and prosecution of the said voyage, had not the \" Grace \"\nbeen seized and detained as aforesaid.\nAnd I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extrajudicial Oaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the City of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton,\nin the Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a.d. 1887, and certified under my\nofficial seal.\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public for Ontario.\ni\u00bb*i\n -\n23\nExhibit (A).\nValue of the steam-schooner \" Grace \" at the time of her seizure\nOutfit\u2014\nGroceries .. . \u2022 .. \u00bb. ..\nAmmunition .. .. .. .. ,.\nDrj goods .. .. .. .. ..\nThree iron water-tanks.. .. .. ..\nWater-casks .. .. .. .. ..\nShip chandlery .. .. ,. ..\nTwelve No. 10 shot guns ..\nThree rifles .. .. .. .. ,.\nOne small cannon on carriage for signalling\nGun implements and tools .. ..\nTwo sealing boats and outfits .. .,\nTwelve canoes and outfits ..\n8b tons of salt\n33 tons of coal .. .. ..\nCooking range and utensils .. ..\nInsurance\u2014\nPremium on 2,000\/. insurance on hull\n,, \u201e ,, outfit and cargo\nWages paid crew and hunters on voyage up to time of seizure\nFares from Sitka to Victoria of master and five of the crew, and\nmaster's expenses at Sitka .. .. .. ..\n781 seal-skins on board the \" Grace \" when seized, at 5 dol. 50 c.\nper skin .. .. .. .. .. ..\nTotal, Exhibit (A)\n(Signed)\n(Signed) D. 0,Connor, Notary Public.\nDol. c. Dol. c.\n12,000 00\n948 13\n16G 63\n276 17\n66 00\n25 00\n161 18\n480 00\n77 50\n50 00\n10 50\n249 57\n684 00\n127 50\n231 00\n100 00\n821 40\n514 59\n3,653 18\n1,335 99\n2,164 25\n200 00\n4,295 50\n23,648 92\nJ. D. WARREN.\nExhibit (C).\nLegal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the \" Grace \" and\narrest of master ,. .. ., .. .. ..\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the\n\" Grace,\" and other claims arising thereunder .. .. ..\nPersonal expenses in the same connection .. .. ,. ,.\nTotal\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nDol.\nc.\n100\n00\n750\n00\n250\n00\n1,100 00\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Exhibit (D).\nEstimated loss and damage to the owner of the \" Grace,\" by reason of her seizure\nand detention, during A.d. 1887.\nReasonable and probable catch of seals for the season of 1887 ..\nLess number on board when seized, and charged in Exhibit (A) ..\nBalance, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin .. ..\nReasonable earnings of \"Grace\" during months of October,\nNovember, and December, 1887, and January 1888, had\nshe been in owner's possession, viz., four months at 500\ndollars each .. .. .. .. .. ..\nEstimated loss for sealing season of 1888, if \" Grace \" not in\npossession of owner on or before 1st February, 1888 ..\nTotal\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nDol. c.\n4,200\n781\n3,419 = 18,804 50\n2,000 00\n7,000 00\n27,804 50\nJ. D. WARREN.\n1\n 24\n1\/.\nExhibit (E).\nEstimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed,\nand the time for which such interest is so claimed.\nValue of the \" Grace's\" estimated catch of seals for 1887, from the 1st\nOctober, a.o. 1887, on or before which date the said catch would have\nbeen realized on, viz., 4,200 skins, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin\nCash expended for legal and other expenses on account of such seizure up to\nsaid date . \u2022 .. .. .. .. .. ..\nDol. c.\n23,100 00\n300 00\nTotal principal on which interest is claimed at 7 per cent, per\nannum from 1st October to date of payment .. .,\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\n23,400 00\nJ. D. WARREN.\n8*\nExhibit (F).\nValue of the articles of the \" Grace's \" outfit which would have been wholly, or almost\nwholly, consumed on a full hunting and fishing voyage.\nDol. c.\nGroceries.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 948 1.3\nAmmunition\nDry goods\nShip chandlery\nSalt\nCoal ,.\nWages ..\nInsurance premiums\n166\n63\n276\n17\n161\n18\n127\n50\n231\n00\n2,164\n25\n1,335\n99\nTotal value consumed ,.\n(Signed)\n.. 5,410 85\nJ. D. WARREN.\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nMemo.\nIf the full claim for the season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D), be allowed, then\nthe amount of this Exhibit, 5,41Q dol. 85 c, will properly appear as a credit, and be\ndeducted from the total of Exhibit (A) of which it forms a part.\n(No. 70\nI Anna Beck.\"\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" June 28, 1887.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward\nOwner..\nby\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nDol. c.\n8,000 00\n977 50\n460 54\n250 00\n850 00\n17,325 00\nValue of vessel .. ..\nNon-consumable outfit\nPassages of master and crew\nPersonal expenses of owner =..\nLegal expenses ..\nProbable seal catch, 1887\u20143,1\nClaim of owner, with interest\npayment.\n50\nat\nt \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 * \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nat 5 dol. 50 c.\"\n7 per cent, to date of\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\n27,863 04\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British\nColumbia, of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and\nsincerely declare as follows:\u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San\nErancisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America, engineer, by\n\u00abpnai\n\u25a0\u00bb\u2022>!\n power of attorney bearing date the 4th day of November, a.d. 1886, the owner of the\nhereinafter-mentioned steam-schooner \" Anna Beck.\"\n2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, as I am informed and verily believe, a\nBritish subject by birth, and has never renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of Great\nBritain.\n3. That the said steam-schooner \"Anna Beck\" is a British vessel since a.d. 1872,\nwhen she was transferred by purchase from the Registry of the port of San Francisco\naforesaid to that of Victoria aforesaid, and has since remained on the Registry of the port\nof Victoria. In 1883 the \"Anna Beck\" was rebuilt and raised, and in the winter of\n1880-81 she was fitted up with steam-propeller, and all the machinery and appliances\nnecessary for such a purpose. The cost of said steam-power and rebuilding was over\n8,000 dollars.\n4. That as agent, as aforesaid, of the said Thomas H. Cooper, I am the sole manager\nof the said steam-schooner \"Anna Beck.\"\n5. That on the 21st March, a.d. 1887, the said \"Anna Beck\" sailed from Victoria,\nhaving previously cleared for that purpose, on a full season's hunting and fishing voyage in\nthe North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea. On or about the 25th day of May then next\nfollowing the \"Anna Beck\" sailed from the west coast of Vancouver Island for Behring\nSea. On and for said voyage to Behring Sea the crew of | Anna Beck \" consisted of\nLouis Olsen, of the said city of Victoria, master ; Michael Keefe, of the same place, mate;\nand twenty-one sailors and hunters, with one sealing-boat and eight canoes, and a complete\noutfit for a full voyage of hunting and fishin\u00b0: in Behring Sea.\n6. That on or about the 28th day of June, a.d. 1887, the \"Anna Beck\" entered the\nBehring Sea, and on the 2nd day of July, a.d. 1887, while in said sea, in latitude 54\u00b0 58'\nnorth and longitude 167\u00b0 26' west, then being about 66 miles from the nearest land, and\nlawfully engaged in the objects of said voyage, the \" Anna Beck \" was seized by the United\nStates' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" for alleged violation of the laws of the United States\nrespecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska.\n7. That at the time of said seizure the \"Anna Beck\" had on board 334 seal-skins,\nmost of which had been taken by the \" Anna Beck \" on her voyage up to the time of\nentering said sea, and not afterwards. After seizure, the \" Anna Beck\" was, by the\nauthority of the Commander of the \"Richard Rush,\" taken to Iloolook Harbour, at\nOunalaska Island, in the United States' Territory of Alaska, where the said seal-skins were\ntaken out and stored on shore, and the arms and ammunition transferred to the said\n\" Richard Rush,\" either at sea or in said harbour. The master, mate, and crew of the\n\"Anna Beck\" were sent to Sitlsa_, in said Territory of Alaska, on the American schooner\n\"Challenge.\" On their arrival at Sitka aforesaid the master and mate of the \"Anna\nBeck \" were taken before a Judge, and bound over to appear before said Judge on the\n22nd August then instant, for trial, on a charge of having violated the laws of- the United\nStates respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska. The master and mate so appeared\nfor trial on the 22nd day of August, a.d. 1887, and thereafter from day to day until\nthe 9th day of September then next following, when, without having been brought to trial\non said charge, or on any other charge whatever, they were unconditionally released.\n8. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a statement showing the value of the said\nsteam-schooner \"Anna Beck \" at the time of her seizure as above set out, excepting only\nwhat had been consumed in the ordinary course and prosecution of the said voyage; also of\nthe outfit, and value thereof, of the \"Anna Beck\" on said voyage; also of the amounts\npaid for insurance premiums on the hull, outfit, and cargo of the \" Anna Beck \" on and\nduring said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid to the crew and hunters for said\nvoj-age up to the time of said seizure; also of the fares and expenses of the master and\nmate from Sitka to Victoria, and of sixteen of the crew of the \" Anna Beck \" from Fort\nSimpson to Victoria; and also of the number and value of the seal-skins taken from the\nsaid \" Anna Beck \" after such seizure at Ounalaska Island.\n9. The value placed on the said steam-schooner l Anna Beck,\" namely, 8,000 dollars,\nis based upon her cost, the order and condition in which she was when seized, and the\nvalue of similar vessels at Victoria aforesaid. As stated in the preceding paragraph 3 of\nthis declaration, the \"Anna Beck\" was fitted with steam propelling power in a.d. 1880-81,\nand in a.d. 1883 was rebuilt and raised at a total cost of over 8,000 dollars. At the time\nof her seizure she was in first-class order and condition, having been thoroughly overhauled\nand refitted for said voyage, and the value claimed for her, namely, 8,000 dollars, is a fair\nand reasonable value for her at the time of her said seizure.\n10. The prices charged in Exhibit (A) for the articles, and groups of articles, comprising the outfit of the \"Anna Beck\" on said voyage are the market prices at Victoria\naforesaid at the time of their purchase for the use and purposes of said voyage, and the\nprice per skin charged for the seal-skins taken from the | Anna Beck\" when seized is the\nmarket price yer skin current at Victoria.aforesaid at the close of the season of'l887, when,\nin the ordinary course of events, the catch of the \"Anna Beck\" would have been placed\non said market.\n11. That hereto annexed, marked \"(C),\" is a statement of the legal 'and personal\nexpenses at Sitka and elsewhere arising out ot the seizure and detention of the \" Anna\nBeck,\" the arrest of her master and mate, and the claims arising therefrom.\n12. That hereto annexed, marked \" (D),\" is a statement of the estimated loss and\ndamage to the owner of the said \"Anna Beck,\" by reason of her seizure and detention as\naforesaid for the years a.d. 1887 and a.d. 1888. The estimated catch of seals for the\nf\n3 D\n1\nsp\n :t \u25a0\n26\nseason of 1887, namely, 3,150, is calculated upon an average catch per boat and per canoe\nof 350 seals, which is a fair and reasonable estimate of the probable catch per boat and\nper canoe for the boat and each of the canoes of iihe said \" Anna Beck \" during the season\nof 1887.\n13. After the close of the sealing season of 1887, and during the following months of\nOctober, November, and December, a.d. 1887, and January, a.d. 1888, and the said\nsteam-schooner \" Anna Beck\" been in possession of her said owner, she would have been\nengaged in the general coasting and freighting trade in and about the coasts of British\nColumbia aforesaid, and the reasonable and probable earnings of the \"Anna Beck\" foe\nsaid months of October, November, December, and January, after deducting from the\ngross amount thereof the cost of wages*and running expenses, would be at least 500 dollars\nper month for each of the said months.\n14. In order that the \"Anna Beck\" may be repaired and refitted in time to engage\nin a full season's hunting and fishing voyage for a.d. 1888, it is necessary that she should\nbe in her owner's possession at Victoria aforesaid on or about the 1st day of February,\na.d. 1888. If not at that date at Victoria and in possession of her owner, it will be\nimpossible to put her in fit and proper condition to start out on said voyage at or abont the\nusual time, which is on or about the 1st March in each year. During the summer months\nthere is little for a vessel of the class and equipment of the \" Anna Beck \" to do in and\nabout the general coasting trade, and if not engaged in hunting and fishing as aforesaid the\nseason will be practically lost. The claim of 6,000 dollars as probable loss and damage to\nthe owner of the \"Anna Beck\" if she is detained after the 1st February, a.d. 1888, is a\nfair and reasonable estimate of his said loss by reason of such detention, for the season of\n1888.\n15. That hereto annexed, marked \" (E),\" is a statement of the principal sums on\nwhich interest is claimed, the rate thereof, and the time from and to which it is so claimed.\nAt the time when the catch of the \" Anna Beck'' for 1887 would have been realized, on or -\nabout the 1st October, 1887, the minimnm rate of interest on money for commercial\npurposes at Victoria aforesaid was, has since continued to be, and now is, 7 per cent, per\nannum.\n16. That hereto annexed, marked \" (F),\" is a statement of the articles of the outfit of the\nsaid \" Anna Beck,\" and the value thereof, as given in Exhibit (A), which would have been\nwholly or almost wholly consumed during the course and prosecution of a full hunting and\nfishing voyage in the Behring Sea.\nAnd I, James Douglas 'Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial\nOaths.\"\n(Signed) J. D. WARREN.\nDeclared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton and\nProvince of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a.d. 1887, and certified under my official\nseal.\n(Signed) D. O'Connok, Notary Public of Ontario.\nExhibit (A).\nValue of steam-schooner \"Anna Beck\" at timo of seizure by\nUnited States' steam-ship \"Richard Rush\" on 2nd July,\na.d. 188\/ .. .. .. ,, ,. ,,\nValue of \" Anna Beck's \" outfit\u2014\nGroceries .. .. .. ,. .. ,.\n*.\n6 .\n* .\na .\n. .\nt .\nt .\nAmmunition ..\nDry goods\nFour iron-tanks ..\nCasks\nShip chandlery ..\nFour No. 10 shot gun\nTwo rifles .. ..\nGun implements and tools\nOne sealing-boat and outfit\nEight canoes and outfit\n8 tons salt .. ..\n25 tons coal..\nCooking range and utensils\nInsurance\u2014\nPremium on 1,400\/. on hull (118\/. 1*. Ad.)\n\u201e 2,000\/. on outfit (105\/. 13s. Ad.)\nWages paid crew and hunters up to time of seizure .. .,\nPassage and expenses of captain and mate from Sitka, and sixteen\nof the crew of the \"Anna Beck\" from Fort Simpson to\nVictoria .. .. .. .. ..\n334 seal-skins on board the \" Anna Beck \" at time of seizure, at\n5 dol. 50 c. per skin .. .. .. .. ..\nDol. c. Dol. c\n8,000 00\n876 42\n242 60\n95 76\n82 00\n10 00\n240 06\n160 00\n45 00\n9 00\n140 50\n456 00\n100 00\n175 00\n73\n00\n574 98\n514 59\n2,727 34\n(Signed)\nTotal, Exhibit (A) .. .. ..\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public,\n1,089\n1,111\n57\n50\n460\n54\n1,837\n00\n15,225\n95\nJ. D. WARREN,\nIMP\n Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the '' Anna Beck\" ..\nCounsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising from\nsaid seizure\nPersonal expenses of the owner in connection with said seizure and claims\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nExhibit (D).\nDamages arising from the seizure and detention of the \"Anna Beck\" during the season\n1887, based upon her reasonable and probable catch of seals for that season.\nEstimated catch ..\nLess skins on board when seized\nDols.\n3,150\n334\nBalance at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin\nLess to owner of \"Anna Beck \" by reason of her detention after the close\nof the sealing season of 1887, namely, for the months of October,\nNovember, and December, a.d. 1887, and January 1888, during which\ntime the \" Anna Beck,\" if in owner's possession, would have been\nengaged in coasting trade; four months at 500 dollars\nIf owner not put in. possession of \" Anna Beck\" on or before 1st February,\na.d. 1888, so that she may be put in order and condition to engage in\nfishing and. hunting voyage for 1888, reasonable and probable profit for\nthe season of 1888\n15,488 00\n2,000 00\n6,000 00\n(Signed)\n(Signed)\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nJ. D. WARREN.\nExhibit (E).\nEstimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is claimed,\nand the time for which said interest is so claimed.\nValue of \"Anna Beck's\" estimated catch of seals for 1887, about which\ndate said catch would have been realized on, namely, 3,150 seal-skins,\nat 5 dol. 50 c. .. .. .. \u2022. ..\nOutlay for legal and other expenses prior to 1st October, 1887 ..\nDol.\n17,325 00\n560 54\nII\n(Signed)\nTotal principal on which interest at 7 per cent, per annum is\nclaimed from 1st October, 1887, to date of payment ,.\n(Signed)\n17,885 54\nJ. D. WARREN.\nD. O'Connor, Notary Public.\n11 \\\nj i\nExhibit (F).\nArticles of the \"Anna Beck's\" outfit and value thereof as found in Exhibit (A), which\nwould have been wholly, or almost wholly, consumed on said voyage had it not been\nbroken up.\nDol. c.\nGroceries .. .. \u00ab\u00ab,\u2022 .. .. .. .. 876 42\nAmmunition\nDry goods\nShip* chandlery\n8 tons salt\n25 tons coal\nInsurance\nWages \u2022.\nTotal value consumed ,.\n(Signed)\n(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.\nMemo.\nIf the full claim for the sealing season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D), be allowed,\nthen the amount of this Exhibit, 3,950 dol. 91 c, will properly appear as a credit, and be\ndeducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms part.\n242\n60\n95\n76\n240\n06\n120\n00\n175\n00\n1,089\n57\n1,111\n50\n3,950\n91\n. D. WARREN.\n \u25a0raw\n1 '\n28\n(No. 8.)\n\" Dolphin.\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \"Richard Rush,\" July 12, 1887.\n5?\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward\nby\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nOwner.\nDol. c.\n12,000 00\nValue of vessel, 174 tons ., .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022\nTwo affidavits of J. D. Warren, &c.\n2,051 50\nValue of non-consumable outfit .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022\nDitto.\n300 00\nPassages of master and crew .. ..\n\u2022 4\nDitto.\n250 00\nPersonal expenses of owner.. .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022\nDitto.\n850 00\nLegal expenses .. .. .. ..\n\u2022 >\nDitto.\n24,750 00\nProbable catch, 1887\u20143,150, at 5 dol. 50 c.\nClaim of owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to\ndate\n\u2022 \u2022\nof\nDitto.\n40,201 50\npayment.\nDeclaration of James Douglas Warren.\nCity of Ottawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.\nI, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nof the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely\ndeclare as follows :\u2014\n1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San\nFrancisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America, the owner of the\nhereinafter-mentioned steam-schooner \" Dolphin\/' by power of attorney bearing date the\n4th day of November, a.d. 1886.\n2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, as I am informed and do verily believe, a\nBritish subject by birth, and never having renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of\nGreat Britain.\n3. That the said steam-schooner \" Dolphin\" is a British vessel, built at Victoria\naforesaid in a.d. 1882, and duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid. By builder's\nmeasurement the \"Dolphin\" is 174 tons burden. She was substantially built, coppered\nto above light water-line, and copper-fastened when built, and had not up to the time of\nher seizure hereinafter set out sustained any damage or strain beyond ordinary wear and\ntear. Her steam-power consists of one large steel boiler, put in during the winter of\n1884-85, compound engines and all the necessary fittings, including inside surface condenser,\nand also steam fire-pumps and hose, and a double steam cargo winch.\n4. The said steam-schooner \" Dolphin \" was duly licensed as a passenger-boat, and had\nall the appliances and conveniences required by Canadian laws for such vessels.\n5. That as such agent as aforesaid, I am the sole manager of the steam-schooner\n\" Dolphin \" for the said Thomas H. Cooper.\n6. That on the 16th day of May, a.d. 1887, having previously cleared at the port of\nVictoria for that purpose, the said \" Dolphin \" sailed from Victoria on and for a full\nseason's hunting and fishing voyage in the North'Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea, and on\nand for said voyage the crew of the \"Dolphin\" consisted of myself as master, John Reilly,\nmate, and crew of thirty-one sailors and hunters.\n7. That on the 6th day of July, a.d. 1887, the uDolphin\" entered the said Behring\nSea through the Amoughta Pass, commonly called the \" 172nd Pass,\" having then on\nboard 590 seals, taken while on the voyage up through the North Pacific Ocean from\nVictoria aforesaid to Amoughta Pass aforesaid.\n8. On the 9th day of said month of July the \" Dolphin\" began catching seals in\nBehring Sea, then being in north latitude 54\u00b0 18', and west longitude 168\u00b0 40', and from\nsaid 9th day of July until the afternoon of the 12th day of said month of July the.\n, 5, and\n6 of this declaration, I was the owner of the British schooner \" Triumph,\" registered at the\nport of Victoria, British Columbia.\n1. On the 20th day of May, 1887, the said schooner sailed from the said port of\nVictoria on a fur-seal hunting voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea, having\nfirst been duly cleared at Her Majesty's Customs for that purpose.\n2. On such voyage one George Errington, who is now out of this country, was master\nof said schooner \" Triumph,\" and one Herman Smith, mate.\n3. In the month of September the said schooner returned to the port of Victoria with\nkkJh.\t\n \u00ab\u00ab\u2022,\n37\n480 seal-skins on board, and the master, Captain Errington, and mate, Smith, reported to\nme the following occurrences, which I verily believe to be true.\n4. Upon leaving Victoria on the 20th May, 1887, the \"Triumph\" sailed for the west\ncoast of Vancouver Island, and she reshipped a number of Indian seal-hunters and sailed\nnorthward.\n5. On the 4th day of August the \" Triumph \" was about 10 miles off the southward\nof Ounimak Pass, one of the entrances to Behring Sea. About 8 o'clock on the morning of\nthat day the \"Triumph\" was boarded by Lieutenant Tuttle, of the United States' revenue\ncutter \" Richard Rush.\" He demanded the ship's papers, which were handed to him. He\nalso asked if there were any seal-skins, liquor, or guns on board the \"Triumph.\" He was\ntold that there were forty-nine seal-skins and one rifle on board, but no liquor. He then\nsearched the \"Triumph\" all over. He also asked where the seal-skins were caught, and\nupon being told, demanded the log-book, and took the position from that as to where the\nseal-skins were caught. Lieutenant Tuttle then went back to the \" Richard Rush,\" but\nsoon returned saying that Captain Shepard could then seize the \"Triumph,\" but thinking\nthe crew were working for themselves, he would not do so, provided the \" Triumph \" went\nback at once to Victoria, and would leave the rifle, provided that there was no ammunition\nfor it on board. He then went on board the \" Richard Rush,\" but returned in a short time\nto ask if the captain had made up his mind what he would do, and demanded a decided\nanswer. He was told that no answer would be given, and about the same time the Captain\nof the \" Richard Rush \" called out that if the \" Triumph \" went into Behring Sea he would\nseize her. The \" Richard Rush \" shortlv after sailed awav.\n6. In consequence of the acts and threats of the officers of the \" Richard Rush \" the\nsaid schooner's sealing voyage was practically broken up, and I verily believe that, but for\nsuch acts and threats, the said schooner would have taken at least 1,000 in addition' to the\nnumber actually caught on her said voyage.\n7. At the close of the sealing season of 1887, fur-seals were worth at least 8 dollars\nper skin.\n8. I, for myself and the crew of the said schooner on said voyage, claim for the\nGovernment of the United States damages for the illegal boarding and searching of the\nsaid schooner \"Triumph,\" and for the breaking up of the said schooner's sealing voyage,\nwhereby I and the said crew lost the benefit and advantage of a catch of at least 1,000\nseal-skins, and for expenses, cost, and charges incidental to the preparation and submission\nof this claim therefor, and interest thereon until paid.\n9. Hereunto annexed is a statement of such claim.\nAnd I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and\nby virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.\"\nSolemnly declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 4th day of August,\n1890.\n(Signed) GEORGE BYRNES.\nBefore me,\n(Signed) Arthur L. Belyea,\nA Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for\nthe Province of British Columbia.\nStatement of Claim.\nFor illegal boarding and searching of \"Triumph,\" as set out in foregoing\ndeclaration .. .. .. .. .. .. ..\n1,000 seal-skins, at 8, dollars .. .. .. .. .. ..\nLegal and other expenses incidental to the preparation and submission of this\nclaim.. .. .. .. .. .. .. \u2022.\nTotal\nDollars,\n2,000\n8,000\n250\n10,250\n(Signed)\nGEORGE BYRNES!\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea,\nNoidry Public, British Columbia.\n[644]\n3 G\nS\n \u25a0MM\nill\nI\n33\n(So. 12.)1\n\" Juanita\"\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" July 31, 1889.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put foi\n\u2022ward\nby Owner.\nDol.\nc.\n4,960\n00\n9,424\n00\n36\n00\n25\n00\n250\n00\n14,695 00\n620 skins seized, at 8 dollars ... .. ..\nBalance of estimated catch for 1889, at ditto ..\nSpears, &c. .. ..\nNew ship's papers .. .. .. ..\nLegal and other expenses ..\nClaim of owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to date oi\npayment.\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nAffidavits of Charles E. CJarke and\nRichard Hall\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nDitto.\nAffidavit of Charles E. Clarke.\nCity of Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.\nI, Charles E. Clarke, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nDominion of Canada, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows :\u2014\n1. I am the duly registered owner of sixteen sixty-fourths of the British vessel\n\" Juanita,\" schooner-rigged, of the port. of Victoria aforesaid, the other owners of said\nvessel being Richard Hall, merchant, William J. Goepel, merchant, both of the said city\nof Victoria, and Hans Helgeson, of the same place, fisherman, each owning an equal\nnumber of shares in said vessel.\n2. On the 7th day of May, a.d. 1889, I cleared the said \" Juanita\" at the customhouse at the said port of Victoria for a sealing and hunting voyage in the North Pacific\nOcean and Behring Sea. On the said voyage I was master of the said vessel, and had a\nsailing crew of four men. The \" Juanita \" sailed from the port of Victoria on the 8th May\nlast, and was equipped and provisioned for a full season's voyage and purposes above\nmentioned.\n3. On the west coast of Vancouver Island I took on board fourteen Indian hunters,\nand then sailed northward.\n4. On the 2nd day of July last the \"Juanita\" entered Behring Sea through the\nOunimak Pass.\n5. Early in the morning of the 31st July last the United States' revenue cutter\n\"Richard Rush\" steamed up to the \"Juanita\" and demanded that I heave my vessel to.\nI did so, and Was at once boarded by three officers from the \" Rush.\" The officer in charge\nasked me if I had any seal-skins on board, and asked me if I had taken any seal in Behring\nSea. I told him I had come into the sea on the 2nd July, and had about 600 skins on\nboard. He then reported to the Captain of the \" Rush,\" informing me that he would have\nto seize my vessel and her cargo.\n6. The Captain of the \" Rush \" ordered the seal-skins to be taken from the \" Juanita\"\nand put on board the \" Rush,\" which was at once done, the number taken being 600. A\ndemand was made by the hoarding officer for my ship's papers, and all guns, ammunition,\nand spears on board. He obtained the ship's papers and spears (twelve in number), which\nwere taken on board the \" Rush.\"\n7. Hereto annexed, marked \"A,\" is a copy of the certificate of seizure given to me by\nthe officer from the said steamer \"Richard Rush\/' who also instructed me to proceed to\nSitka, in the Territory of Alaska, and to deliver a sealed letter, which he then handed me,\nto the United States' District Attorney of that place.\n8. Being unable to continue sealing and hunting, I sailed out of Behring Sea, and\narrived at Victoria aforesaid on the 30th day of August last.\n9. On my arrival at Victoria I handed the said sealed letter to the Collector of\nCustoms.\n10. Had the \"Juanita\" not been seized, and her hunting implements taken away, I\nverily believe that the said \"Juanita\" would have made a total catch in Behring's Sea the\nfull season of 1889 of not less than 1,800 seal-skins.\nDeclared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, by the said Charles E. Clarke, the\n15th dav of October, a.d. 1889.\n(Signed) CHARLES E. CLARKE.\nBefore me,\n(Signed) Arthur Louis Belyea,\nA Notary Public by Royal authority in and for the Province of British\nColumbia, residing and practising at Victoria aforesaid.\n 39\nCertificate.\nUnited States' steamer <( Rush,'* Behring Sea,\nTo whom it may concern. . Lat. 55\u00b0 42' N, long. 170\u00b0 40' W., July 31, 1889.\nThis will certify that I have this day seized the British schooner \"Juanita,\" of\nVictoria, British Columbia, C. E. Clarke, master, for violation of law, section 1956,\nRevised Statutes, United States, and taken possession of his ship's papers, consisting of\nregistry and clearance.\n(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD, Captain,\nUnited States' Revenue Marine.\nThis is the Exhibit marked (A) referred to in annexed declaration of Charles E.\nClarke, made before me the 15th day of October, 1889.\n(Signed) A. G. Belyea, Notary Public.\nAffidavit of Richard Hall.\nCity of Victora, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.\nI, Richard Hall, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, Dominion\nof Canada, merchant, of the firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., do solemnly and sincerely\ndeclare as follows :\u2014\n1. That the said firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., are the owners of thirty-two shares of\nthe hereinafter-mentioned schooner \" Juanita,' of the port of Victoria aforesaid, and are\nthe business managers of the said schooner.\n2. The said schooner was in May last sent by the said firm on a sealing and hunting\nvoyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea.\n3. The said schooner returned to Victoria the last of August, having taken, as I am\ninformed, and do believe, by the captain of the said schooner, on said voyage, 652 sealskins, of which number the said firm received only thirty-two skins, sent to us from said\nschooner by the \"Wanderer\" before the \"Juanita\" entered Behring's Sea, said thirty-\ntwo seal-skins having been taken outside Behring Sea.\n4. The remainder of the seal-skins taken by the \" Juanita\" was, as I am informed by\nthe said captain, and dp verily believe, taken from the \" Juanita\" on or about the 3lst day\nof July last, when said schooner was in Behring Sea, by the orders of the Commander of\nthe United States' steamer \" Richard Rush.\"\n5. The market value of seal-skins at the said port of Victoria on or about the\n1st October instant, when, in the ordinary course, the \" Juanita\" would have arrived after\na full season's voyage aforesaid, was 8 dollars a skin.\n6. From the number of seal-skins taken by the \" Juanita \" up to the said 31st July\nI verily believe that the said schooner would, in a full season, have taken at least 1,800\nseal-skins.\n7. At the same time the seal-skins were taken from the \" Juanita \" by the officers of\nthe said United States' steamer \"Richard Rush,\" there was also taken by the said officers,\nas I am informed by Captain Clarke, and do believe, twelve spears, the value of which was\n3 dollars each, and the ship's papers.\n8. The said firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., claims damages against the Government of\nthe United States of America for such taking and detention of seal-skins, spears, and ship's\npapers, based upon the value of the skins actually taken, and for 1,178 skins, the balance\nof an estimated catch of 1,800 seal-skins by the said schooner for full season of 1889 in\nBehring Sea; also for the value of the said spears, and for the cost of obtaining a new set\nof ship's papers from the Government of Canada, and for legal and other expenses in connection with the preparation arid submission of this claim.\n9. That hereto annexed, marked \"B,\" is a statement in detail of such claim.\n10. That upon the sailing of the said schooner in May last, advances were made to the\nhunters based upon a full season's catch, and said hunters will, upon payment of such claim,\nbe entitled to and will receive the share thereof.\nAnd I, Richard Hall, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same\nto be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.\"\nDeclared by the said Richard Hall at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, the 14th\nday of October, a.d. 1889.\n(Signed) RICHARD HALL.\nBefore me,\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea,\nA Notary Pubtic by Royal authority in and for the Province of British\nColumbia, residing and practising at Victoria aforesaid.\n^\nisp\n \u00b1Mm\u00a3tki3m\nk\n40\n(BO!\nDetailed statement of Claim by Owners of British schooner \"Juanita\" against the\nGovernment of the United States of America.\n620 seal-skins taken from \"Juanita\" in Behring Sea by United States'\nsteamer \"Richard Rush,\" at 8 dollars per skin .. .. .,\n1,178 seal-skins, balance of an estimated catch of 1,800 seal-skins by the\n\"Juanita\" for the full season of 1889 in Behring Sea, at 8 dollars\nper skin .. .. .. .. .. ..\n12 spears, at 3 dollars\nCost of obtaining new ship's papers .. .. ,.\nLegal and other expenses incidental to the seizure .. .. ,,\nDol. c.\n4,960 00\nTotal\n9,424 00\n36\n00\n25\n00\n250\n00\n1.4,695\n00\n(Signed)\nRICHARD HALL.\nThis is the Exhibit (B) referred to in the declaration of Richard Hall hereto annexed,\nmade before me the 14th day of October, 1889.\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea, Notary Public. \\\n(No. 13.)'\na\nPathfinder.\"\nSeized by United States' steam-ship \" Richard Rush,\" July 29, 1889.\nAmount of\nClaim\nas put forward\nFor\u2014\nEvidence in support of Claim.\nby Owner.\nDol. c.\n25,725 00\n854 skins .seized, and estimated balance of catch (1,246),\nat 12 dol. 25 c. a skin\nAffidavit of William Munsie, &c.\n765 00\nGuns, &c, seized.. ..\nDitto.\n25 00\n.New papers .. .. ..\nDitto.\n250 00\nLegal expenses ..\nClaim of owner, with interest at 7 per cent, to date of\nDitto.\n26,765 00\npayment.\nAffidavit of William Munsie.\nCity of Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.\nI, William Munsie, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nDominion of Canada, merchant, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows :\u2014\n1. I am a member of the firm of Came and Munsie, merchant, of the said city of\nVictoria, the said firm being composed of Frederic Came, Junior, of the same place, and\nmyself.\n2. The said Frederic Carne, Junior, is the registered owner of sixteen shares of the\nhereinafter-mentioned schooner \" Pathfinder,\" of the port of Victoria: I am the registered\nowner of sixteen shares of the said schooner, and the said firm are registered owners of the\nremaining thirty-two shares. I am the managing owner of the said schooner.\n3. The said schooner \"Pathfinder\" cleared at the Custom-house, Victoria, aforesaid,\non the 17th day of April, A.d. 1889, for a hunting and sealing voyage in the North Pacific\nOcean and Behring Sea, and sailed on the 18th day of April, a.d. 1889.\n4. On the said voyage William O'Leary was master, and Andrew Davidson was mate.\nThe crew consisted of a cook, twelve seamen, and five hunters.\n5. On the 24th July last I received from the said \"Pathfinder\" by the schooner\n\"Wanderer\" from the north, 558 seal-skins which had been caught by the \"Pathfinder\"\nin the Pacific Ocean on her way northward to Behring Sea.\n6. On the 30th August last the said \"Pathfinder\" returned to Victoria aforesaid,\nhaving on board an officer from the United States'steamer \" Richard Rush.\" Captain\nO'Leary reported to me that on the 29th day of July last the said United States' steamer\nhailed him in Behring Sea about 57\u00b0 24' north latitude and 171\u00b0 55' west\n\"Richard Rush\"\nlongitude, and ordered him to heave-to.\nofficers from the said \"Richard Rush.\" The officer in charge seized the ftPathfinder\"\nPathfinder \" was immediately boarded by\n 41\nand took away all the seal-skins on board (854), eight shot-guns, four rifles, six bofles of\nammunition, a quantity of salt, and the ship's papers. He left an officer on board in\ncharge, and ordered Captain O'Leary to take the \" Pathfinder\" to port of Sitka, in the\nTerritory of Alaska.\n7. At the time of such seizure the sealing season in Behring Sea was less than half\nCD O\ngone, and 1 verily believe that had the \" Pathfinder\" remained unmolested in Behring\nSea until the close of the season she would have caught not less than 2,100 seal-skins. I\nhave this on information given me by the said Captain O'Leary and by Captain Baker, of\nthe schooner \"Viva,\" also owned by us and managed by myself, who was in the Behring\nSea the whole season of 1889. The hunting equipment of the said two schooners was\nabout equal.\nA few days before the \" Pathfinder \" was seized as aforesaid, she was spoken by the\n\"Viva.\" At that time the \"Pathfinder\" had 449 seal-skins on board, and the \"Viva\"\n420. The \" Viva \" caught in the full season in Behring Sea 2,182 seal-skins, and for the\nyear a total of 3,641 skins.\n8. In the year 1888, and this year 1889, the said firm of Carne and Munsie shipped\ntheir seal-skins to London on their own account, and hereto annexed, marked (B), is a\ncopy of the account-sales of part of the catch of the \" Pathfinder\" for the year 1888 ; and\nhereto annexed, marked (C), is a copy of the account-sales of the said \" Pathfinder's\"\ncatch of seals in the spring of 1889, before going north. The seal-skins per first account-\nsales (1888) netted the said firm at ..Victoria, British Columbia, about 12 dol. 25 c. per\nskin, and per the second account-sales, they netted the said firm about 10 dol. 30 c. per\nski^ at Victoria. British Columbia. The catch of 1889 was a spring catch, which always\ncontains a larger percentage of small skins than the summer and fall catches, and hence\nrealize less per skin on an even market.\n9. I, for myself, the said Frederic Carne, Junior, and for the said firm of Carne and\nMunsie, claim damages against the Government of the United States of America for the\nseizure of the said \" Pathfinder,\" and for the taking and detention of the said 854 seal-\nskifts, and for 1,246, the balance of the estimated catch of 2,100 in Behring Sea for a full\nseason; also for the guns, rifles, ammunition, salt, and ship's papers seized as aforesaid;\nand for legal and other expenses incidental to, and arising out of, such seizure, and the\npreparation and submission of this claim therefor, and interest thereon at 7 per cent, per\nannum.\n10. Hereto annexed, marked (A), is a statement in detail of such claim.\n11. I am in constant communication with my agents in London, England, and from\ninformation I have received from such agents, I verily believe that the price of summer\nand fall catches of seal-skins from North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea for 1889 will be\nfully up to the price obtained for the \" Pathfinder's \" catch, sold as per account-sales (B),\nhereto annexed, namely, 12 dol. 25 c. per skin net, at Victoria, British Columbia.\n12. That I have paid in full the crew and hunters of the \" Pathfinder\" for the season\nof 1889, including the sums due to them in respect of the 854 seal-skins seized as\naforesaid.\nAnd I, William Munsie, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the\nsame to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.\"\n^Declared by the said William Munsie, at Victoria, the I8th day of October, a.d. 1889,\nbefore me.\n(Signed) WTILLIAM MUNSIE.\n(Signed) Arthur L. Belyea.\nA Notary Public by Royal authority in and for the Province of British\nColumbia, residing and practising at Victoria, British Columbia.\nm\n(A.)\nStatement of claim by owners of schooner \" Pathfinder\" against the Government of the\nUnited States of America, for seizure in Behring Sea on the 29th July, 1889.\n854 seal-skins (seized).\n1,246 skins, balance of estimated catch by \" Pathfinder\" for full season\n1889 in Behring's Sea,\n2,100 skins, at 12 dol. 25 c. each .. D\u00ab .. .. .\n8 shot-guns, at 25 dollars each .. ... .. .. .\n4 rifles, at 25 \"dollars each .. ..\n6 boxes ammunition, at say .. ..\nSalt\nCost of obtaining new ship's papers ..\nLegal and other expenses arising out of, and incidental to, such seizure\nX otal .. .. .. .. .. ..\nDol. c.\n25,725 00\n440 00\n100 00\n200 00\n25 00\n25 00\n250 00\n26,765 00\nmm\nAnd interest thereon at 7 per cent, per annum until paid.\n(Signed) I. WILLIAM MUNSIE.\n3 H\n 4 9,\ni\/This is the statement of claim referred to in the declaration of William Munsie, as\nmarked (A), hereunto annexed, and made the 18th day of October, 1889.\nBefore me,\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea, Notary Public.\nUnited States' Revenue Steamer \" Rush,\" Lat. 57\u00b0 24' N.,\nSir, Long. 1?!\u00b0 55' W., Behring Sea, July 29, 1889.\nYou are hereby appointed a special officer, and are directed to proceed on board the\nschooner \" Pathfinder,\" of Victoria, British Columbia, this day seized for violation of\nsection 1956, Revised Statutes of the United States, and assume charge of said vessel, her\nofficers, and crew, twenty white men all told.\nExcepting the navigation of the vessel, which is reserved to Captain O'Leary, and\nwhich you will not interfere with, unless you become convinced he is proceeding to some\nother port than your port of destination, in which event you are authorized to assume full\ncharge of the vessel. Everything being in readiness, you will direct Captain O'Leary to\nmake the best of his way to Sitka, Alaska, and upon arrival at that port you will report in\nperson to the United States' District Attorney for the District of Alaska, and deliver to\nhim the letter so addressed, the schooner, her outfit, and the persons of Captain O'Leary,\nmate, A. Davidson, and set the crew at liberty. After being relieved of the property and\npersons intrusted to your care, you will await at Sitka the arrival of the \" Rush.\"\nRespectfully,\n(Signed) L. C. SHEPARD, Captain, United States'\nRevenue Marine.\nWILLIAM MUNSIE.\nT. W. Hunter, Special Officer.\nI\nLondon, July 14, 1889. (Prompt, July 18, 1889.)\nAccount-Sales.\nSold by order and for account of Messrs. Carne and Munsie, a. p. sale.\nLot.\n10.\n11.\n12.\n13.\n14.\n15.\nPer \" Pathfinder.\"\nC. and M.\nP. 6 and p. 11 casks salted fur-seal skins.\n67 small fur-seal skins, at 50s. each\n101 large pups ditto, at 53*. each\n74 middling ditto, at 52*. each\n97 small ditto, at 44*. each ..\n35 \" ex \" ditto, at 27*. each ..\n4 middling ditto, at 31*. each\n2 small ditto, at 31*. each ..\n380\nDiscount, 2J per cent.\nJune 24\u2014\nLanding charges, telegrams, &c. ..\nHousing and striking, 380 at 3*. 9d. per 100\nPiling away to sorter, 380, at 1*. 10\u00a3d. per 100\nWeighing for average, 100, at 2*. 6d. per 100\nCessing for assortment, 380, at 2*. 6d. per 120\nCounting at delivery, 380, at 1*. Zd. per 120\nRent on 380, at 6 p. 120 wk., 14 wks. ..\nShowing for public sale, lotting, &c. ..\nAllowance, 20 per cent, on \u00a32 13*. Ad.\nAssorting for sale, 380, at 5*. 2%d. per 100 ..\nPublic sale charges, advertising, &c, 6 lots, at 3*. 6d.\nFire insurance, \u00a3 per cent. .. .. ,.\nCommissson, 2 i per cent. .. .. .,\n\u00a3 s. d.\n\u2022 \u2022\n167 10 0\n, .\n267 13 0\n, I\n192 8 0\n, ,\n213 8 0\nt \u2022\n47 5 0\n\u2022 \u2022\n6 4 0\n\u2022 \u2022\n3 2 0\n897\n10\n0\nt\n\u2022\n22\n8\n9\n875\n1\n3\n\u00a3 8\nd.\n1 3\n9\n0 14\n3\n0 7\n1\n0 2\n6\n0 7\n11\n0 4\n10\n0 6\n4\n0 11\n3\n3 17\n1\n0 10\n8\n3 6\n5\n0 19\n10\n1 1\n0\n2 4\n11\n22 8\n9\n30\n0\n11\n845 0 4\n(Signed)\nCULVERWELL, BROOKS, and Co.\nWILLIAM MUNSIE.\nThis is the exhibit marked \" C\" referred to in the declaration of\nmade before me the 18th day of October, 1889.\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea, Notary Public.\nWilliam Munsie,\nft\n Lot.\n1.\n2.\n3.\n4.\n5.\n6.\n\u20227.\n8.\n9.\nP. 10 casks salted fur-seal skins\n13 small fur-seal skins, at 49*. each\n110 large pups ditto, at 58*. each\n107 middling ditto, at 58*. each\n59 small ditto, at 51*. each ..\n9 \" ex.\" ditto, at 27*. each\n2 middling ditto, at 27*. each\n81 large pups ditto, at 52*. each\n82 large pups ditto, at 53*. each\n71 middling ditto, at 52*. each\n31 small ditto, at 43*. each ..\nPer \u00ab Pathfinder,\"\n\u2022 9\n\u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 9\n\u00a3 a.\nd.\n\u2022 *\n31 17\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n319 0\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n810 6\n0\n* \u2022\n150 9\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n12 3\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n2 14\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n210 12\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n217 6\n0\n\u2022 \u2022\n184 12\n0\n\u00ab \u2022\n66 13\n0\n56i\nDiscount, 5\u00a3 per cent.\n1,505 12 0\n37 12 10\nNovember 1\u2014\nLanding charges, telegrams, &c. ,, .\nHousing and striking, 565, at 3*. 9d. per 100 ,\nPiling away to sorter, 565, at 1*. 10$rf. per 100\nWeighing for average, 150, at 2*. 6d. per 100 .\nCessing for assortment, 565, at 2*. 6d. per 120 .\nCounting at delivery, 565, at 1*. 3d. per 100 .\nRent on 565, at 6 p. 120 p. wk., 5 wks.\nShowing for public sale, lotting, &c. .. .\nAllowance, 20 per cent, on Al. Is. \\Qd.\nAssorting for sale, 565, at 5*. 2\\d. per 100 *\u2022\nPublic sale charges, advertising, &c> 9 lots, at 3*. 6d.\nFor insurance .. .. .. ..\nCommission, 5 per cent. .. .. ..\n1,467 19\n0\n\u00a3 s. d.\n0 17 0\n112\n0 10 0\n0 3 9\n0 11 9\n0 5 11\n0 11 9\n0 16 11\n4 18 10\n0 16 4\n4 2\n6\n1 9\n4\n1 11\n6\n1 17\n8\n75 5\n8\nDecember 4,1888.\n(Signed)\n84 6 8\n1,383 12 6\nWILLIAM MUNSIE.\nThis is the exhibit marked \" B\" referred to in tbe declaration of William Munsie,\nmade before me the 18th day of October, 1889.\n(Signed) A. L. Belyea, Notary Public.\nMessrs. Carne and Munsie,\nWe have this day sold for your account at public auction the undermentioned goods,\nin conformity with the sale conditions.\nPrompt, the 4th December, 1888. Discount, 2J per cent.\nEx \" Pathfinder.\"\nP. 10 casks.\nLot.\n1. 13 small salted fur-seal skins, at\n2. 110 large pups ditto .. ..\n3. 107 middling ditto\n4. 59 small ditto .. ..\n5. 9 ex small ditto .. . .\n2 middling .. .,\n6. 81 large pups ditto .. ..\n7. 82 ditto, ditto\n8. 71 middling ditto .. ..\n9. 29 small ditto\n2 ditto, ditto .. ..\nEx \"Viva\n>\u2022>\nV. 32 casks.\nLot.\n10.\n3 wigs fur-seal skins, at\n10 middling ditto\n11.\n47 small ditto\n12, 13.\n200 large pups ditto\n14, I?.\n372 ditto, ditto ..\n18, 21,\n400 middling ditto\n22, 23.\n200 ditto, ditto ..\n24.\n65 ditto, ditio\n25, 28.\n400 small ditto ..\n29.\n100 ditto, ditto ..\n30.\n55 ditto, ditto ..\n31.\n119 ex small ditto\n32.\n39 large ditto ..\n33.\n26 middling ditto\n34.\n16 small ditto ..\n35.\n16 grey ditto ..\n49*.\n58*.\n58*.\n51*.\n27*.\n27*.\n52*.\n52*.\n52*.\n43*.\n43*.\n70*.\n70s.\n58*.\n55*.\n56*.\n54*.\n55*.\n56*.\n46*.\n47*.\n46*.\n32*.\n49*.\n41*.\n32*.\n15*.\neach.\neach.\n47, St. Mary Axe.\nTotal, 6,580\/. 12*. Ad.\n(Signed) CULVERWELL, BROOKS,\nAND\nCo.\ne=\n^-\u2022\u25a0- \u25a0. \u00a3.:-\u25a0 -ok.w* \u00a3\nmx\\ \"\n til\n\u25a0 F\n%\n44\nCULVERWELL, BROOKS, AND Co.,\n27, St. Mary Axe, London, February 2, 1889=\nResult of Sales of Salted Fur-Seal' Skins*\n17,138 North-west Coast ] a , . \u201e ,,\n:' \u00bb. T . T1 j > offered and sold.\n5,578 Lobos Island\nThere was again a good demand for this important article at the sales held on the\n1st instant, and all classes sold readily at the advanced prices established at the November\nauctions. The skins were chiefly purchased by the English, French, and American buyers.\nThere is every indication of prices being maintained.\nPrices.\nNor\nC\nth-\nwest\nLobos Islands.\noat\nt.\n*.\n*.\n*.\n*.\nMiddlings and smalls\n\u2022 * \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nft ft\n30\nto\n40\n\u2022 \u2022\nSmalls .. ..\n\u2022 \u00ab \u25a0\u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n29\n46\n23 to\n41\nLarge pups ..\n\u00ab \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n30\n53\n29\n36\nMiddling ditto\n\u2022 \u2022 t\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022\n25\n55\n27\n33\nSmall ditto ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n. 22\n41\n19\n26\nEx small ditto\n* \u2022 *\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nt #\n19\n38\n16\n21\nEx ex small ditto ..\n. \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\ne \u2022\n15\n24\n\u00bb\u2022\nWith Culverwell, Brooks, and Co\/s compliments.\nMessrs. Carne and Munsie.\nCulverwell, Brooks, and Co.,\n27, St. Mary Axe, London, November 9, 1888.\nSpecial Result of Sales of Salted Fur-Seal Skins, November 9, 1888.\n100,000 Alaska .. .. \"j\n9,003 North-west Coast }\u25ba offered and sold.\n13,333 Lobos Island .. J\nThere was a large attendance of buyers at these sales, and throughout active\ncompetition prevailed, and on all classes an important advance was established. In the\nAlaska collection the smaller sizes realized relatively the highest prices. We quote\nmiddlings, smalls, and large pups, 28 per cent, to 26 per cent, dearer, and middlings and\nsmalls, middling pups, small pups, and extra small pups, 43 per cent, to 48 per cent,\nhigher.\nThe 9,003 north-west coast contained one fine parcel which realized extreme rates,\nand on other parcels an^ average advance of 20 per cent, to 30 per cent, was established.\nThe 13,333 Lobos Islands skins contained one good parcel of 2,000 skins, which\nrealized 40 per cent, higher rates. The other assortments were not of a desirable\ndescription, but 20 per cent, higher rates were paid.\nThe few Alaska skins dressed in their natural state by a well-known English firm,\nsold as follows:\u2014\nMiddlings and smalls, 1305. each; small, 118*., 119s.; large pups, 935., 94s.;\nmiddling pups, 78s.; small pups, 66*., 67s.; extra small pups, 63s. each. These prices\ninclude the cost of dressing.\nA S\n Prices\nAlaska.\nNorth-west .\nLobos Islands.\nCoast.\n*. *.\n*. *.\n*. d. s. d.\nWigs .\n..\n23 to 28\n29 0 to 30 0\nMiddlings and smalls .. ..\n68 to 120\n33 45\n, .\nMiddlings .. ..\nSmalls .. .. ..\n88\n68 116\n29 451\n29 51J\n27 0 30 0\nLarge pups .. .. ..\n62 92\n26 54\n24 0 37 0\nMiddling ditto .. ..\n50 81\n21 51\n21 0 37 0\nSmall ditto .. .. ..\n42 66\n19 39\n12 0 31 0\nEx. small ditto .. ..\n50 62\n14 29\n8 0 20 0\nEx. ex. small ditto .. ..\n, ,\n11 20\n, \u00ab\nGrey ditto ,. ..\n9 26\n* j\n16 8 6\nWith Culverwell, Brooks, and Co.'s compliments.\nft\nTo Messrs. Carne and Munsie,\nOdd Fellows' Buildings, Douglas Street,\n. Victoria, British Columbia.\n(No. 14.)\n\u00ab -.py-IS.' \u25a0. ' \u25a0 \u25a0'-\n J\u00a3\n\u00abe\nm\noS\nDeclaration of Mr. W. Munsie.\nDominion of Canada, Province of British Columbia, city of Victoria.\nI, William Munsie, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,\nmerchant, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:\u2014\n1. I am the managing owner of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner \" Pathfinder,\" duly\nregistered at the port of Victoria aforesaid.\n2. The said schooner is employed exclusively in the sealing business, and left the port\nof Victoria on or about the 17th January last on a sealing voyage along the Pacific coast,\nsouth of Vancouver Island.\n3. On or about the 8th February last the \"Pathfinder\" returned to Victoria for\nrepairs, and sailed again for the same purpose on or about the 12th February last.\n4. On or about the 23rd day of March last, when off Cape Flatter)', the \"Pathfinder\"\nencountered a storm and became disabled by the breaking of the tillerband, and was forced\nto find shelter in the nearest harbour, Neah Bay, in the State of Washington, United States\nof America, lying about 9 miles from Cape Flattery. The \" Pathfinder \" anchored in Neah\nBay on the 26th March last.\nOn the evening of the 27th March last, while still lying in said bay, undergoing\nrepairs, an officer from the United States' revenue cutter \" Thomas Corwin,\" boarded\nthe \"Pathfinder\" and asked for the ship's papers. These were handed to him, inspected\nby him, and, in reply to a question hy the captain of the \"Pathfinder\" as to whether\nthey were all right, he replied that he would report to the Captain of the cutter next\nmorning. The Captain of the cutter sent an officer on board the \" Pathfinder\" with\na request that her captain would go on board the cutter and take his papers with him.\nThe captain did so, and after looking over the papers the Captain of the cutter said he\nrecognized the \" Pathfinder\" as a vessel which had been seized last year, and that\nhe must detain her, as the law must be maintained. He then ordered the captain of\nthe \"Pathfinder\" to heave his anchor, and said he would take the \"Pathfinder\" to the\nnearest telegraph station, which was Port Angeles. . The captain of the \" Pathfinder\"\nprotested against being* removed, and declined to hoist anchor. The Captain of the\ncutter replied that if he did not hoist anchor men would be sent from the cutter to\ndo so. Upon this the captain of the \"Pathfinder\" went back to his vessel and ordered\nhis men to heave the anchor up. The \"Pathfinder\" was then taken in tow by the cutter\nand taken to Port Townsend. At that place two officers from the cutter were placed\non board the \"Pathfinder\" and remained in charge until the \" Pathfinder\" was released.\nThe captain of the \" Pathfinder\" entered a protest at the office of the Collector of Customs,\nPort Townsend, and also filed a protest with the Captain of the cutter. After doing so he\nWas persuaded to withdraw both protests until reply had been received from Washington\nas to what dispositions would be made of the \" Pathfinder.\"\n5. The \" Pathfinder\" was released on the afternoon of the 29th March last, and\narrived at Victoria aforesaid on the morning of the 31st March last.\n6. By reason of the said seizure or detention of the \" Pathfinder\" her owners have\nlost at least a week of the best period of the spring season for sealing. In consequence\nalso of the seizure and detention a number of the crew of the \"Pathfinder\" have\ndeserted, causing inconvenience and loss in filling their places.\n7. In respect to the said seizure and detention, and of the losses thereby resulting,\nand for the expenses incurred by reason of such seizure or detention, I, as managing\nowner of the \"Pathfinder,\" claim of and from the Government of the United States of\nAmerica as damages the sum of 2,000 dollars.\nAnd I, William Munsie, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the\nsame to be true, and by virtue of \" The Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.\"\n(Signed) WILLIAM MUNSIE.\nDeclared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 4th day of August, a.d. 1890.\nBefore me,\n(Signed) Francis B. Gregory,\nA Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for\nthe Province of British Columbia.\nm\n Amount claimed.\nDollars.\n4,000\n2,500\n4,000\n2,500\n2,500\n2,500\n18,000\n2,635\n1,000\n2,000\n1,000\n2,000\n1,000\n2,000\n2,000\n13,635\n49,635\nod\nPersonal Claims.\nFor-\n1886.\nIllegal arrest and imprisonment\nDitto..\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nTotal for 1886.\n1887.\nSufferings and losses: navigating four vessels\nfrom Ounalaska to Sitka\nSufferings and losses\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nDitto ..\nDitto ,.\nDitto ..\nTotal for 1887.\nTotal for 1886 and 1887.\nClaimed by-\nDavid Monroe, master of '* Onward.\"\nMargotich, mate of \" Onward.\"\nHans Guttormsen, master of \" Thornton.\"\nHarry Norman, mate of *j Thornton.\"\nJames Ogilvie, master of \" Carolena.\"\nJames Black, mate of \" Carolena.\"\nWarren, master of ie Dolphin.\"\nJohn Reilly, mate of \" Dolphin.\"\nGeorge P. Ferey, master of \" W. P. Sayward.\"\nA. B. Laing, mat6 of \" W. P. Sayward.\"\nLouis Olsen, master of \" Anna Beck.\"\nMichael Keefe, mate of \" Anna Beck.\"\nW. Petit, master of \"Grace.\"\nC. A. Lundbergj mate of \"Ada.\"\nKg\nWhere seized.\nBy\nUnited States*\nVessel.\nNorth Latitude.\nWest Longitude.\nSteam -ship.\nCarolena .. ..\n\u2022 \u00ab \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\no \/\n55 50\no \/\n168 53\nCorwin.\nOnward .. \u2022 \u2022\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n54 32\n167 55\n5J\nThornton .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n55 45\n168 44\n3\nFavourite .. .,\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u00ab \u2022 \u2022\nHailed and warned in about the same\nposition as \" Onward.\"\n9)\nW. P. Sayward\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n54 43\n167 51\nRush.\nGrace .. \u2022.\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n55 3\n168 40\n>>\nAnna Beck ,. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n54 58\n167 26\nj.\nDolphin .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n54 38\n167 3\njj\nAda .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 * \u2022\n15 miles north of Ounalaska,\nBear.\nAlfred Adams ..\n* \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n54 48 | 167 49\nRush.\nTriumph .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 * \u2022\nAbout 10 miles south of Ounimak Pass.\n3,\nJuanita .. ..\no o \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n55 42\n170 40\n\u00bb3\n(Captain Shepard's certil\nicate.) II\nPathfinder .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 * \u2022\n57 24\n171 55\n>,\nTriumph .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n50 5\n171 23\n\u00bb}\nBlack Diamond ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u00ab\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n56 22\n170 25\nLily .. . *\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\n55 29\n166 15\n\u00bb\nAriel .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u00bb\u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nBehring Sea.\nMinnie .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nDitto.\nKate .. . \u2022\n\u00ab\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\nDitto.\nPathfinder .. ..\n\u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022\u00bb\nNeah Bay, Washington.\nCorwin-.\n II\n60\nRecapitulation.\nYear.\n1886\n1887\n1889\n1890\nr\nI\nVessel.\nCarolena ..\nThornton..\nOnward ..\nFavourite..\nPersonal claims\nW. P. Sayward\nGrace\nAnna Bock\nDolphin ..\nAda\nAlfred Adams\nTriumph ..\nPersonal claims\nJuanita ..\nPathfinder\nTriumph ..\nBlack Diamond\nLily \u00bb\nAriel\nMinnie\nKate\n* \u2022\nPathfinder\nTotal claim without interest .\n! Amount Claimed.\nDol.\n24,313\n26,817\n23,269\n7,000\n18,000\nc.\n01\n65\n71\n00\n00\n28,055\n38,142\n27,863\n40,201\n26,528\n20,433\n10,250\n13,635\n00\n57\n04\n50\n00\n00\n00\n00\n14,695\n26,765\n19,674\n17,185\n17,176\n9,498\n16,460\n11,210\n00\n00\n00\n00\n00\n00\n00\n00\nTotal.\nDol. c.\n99,400 37\n205,108 11\n132,663 00\n2,000 00\n439,171 48\nTotal.\n1886\u2014\nVessels ..\nPersonal claims\n1887\u2014\nVessels ..\nPersonal claims\n1889\u2014\nVessels ..\n1890\u2014\nVessels \u2022 \u2022\nTo\nal\nDol. c.\n81,400 37\n18,000 00\n191,473 11\n13,635 00\n132,663 00\n2,000 00\n439,171 48\nO\n ^o^^>\n\u00a7\nmt\n ","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Other Copies: http:\/\/www.worldcat.org\/oclc\/26641447","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Legislative proceedings","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/identifier":[{"value":"F5050.3.S3 B38","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"I-1043","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0222498","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"English","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher":[{"value":"[London] : [publisher not identified]","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/source":[{"value":"Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. F5050.3.S3 B38","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/subject":[{"value":"Bering Sea controversy","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"United States--Claims vs. Great Britain","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"Great Britain--Claims vs. United States","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"Case presented on the part of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty to the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under Article I of the treaty concluded at Washington on the 29th February, 1892, between Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}