LEO ATS LV TELE ES ON
62 LTE naAAT ae 5! Maen RS Sees

a

4 i}
Z fit

SS

eitupetrs
Wine ie

3,
OBS UU IEG,
He ee is

reap
Fy
3) PASE
“ ee wih:

=

SSeS

:
b)

ff: ereatic heats
4 “44 (

315
a

ee
ey

g

eee

INeacinaaee es

Pyeede
GAR +
A AN

Mase an

SENS PAT

“ey

ee
Sera

=
Oh

Ff Soest

My.

2,

3
‘

~

TONE

it
SSE
oes

ae

i
A Maa.

Sipe

braces

yaad id

‘

>
he,

¢

a by ,
Wubi byt Med | opi CR aaa male &
% ry ee A hae } sai

SS ee

Teeth util «
Sar,

af
=

FUR SEAL ARBITRATION.

—

Pe PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION,

CONVENED AT PARIS
UNDER THE

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT
BRITAIN CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 20, 1892,

FOR THE

DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO GOV-
ERNMENTS CONCERNING THE JURISDICTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE

WATERS OF BERING SEA,
VOLUME V.

WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
1895,

| 2 ait Bye et
JCS. 7 ea Pan ee ea ML ere 1.05
Bee wet? tea 5 TENS la Oe ee

7 re :
a « herr le! o

ne ae eet wy hee

e?

Re yi:
Bee Ti) . ee oe
Pre OLE eh Der cre

ie te) %, 247 Ge

COE Hite SS et

ee: ie ~ egies ee a ee -
os OF ae ORO ene
a 3 ?
a . ’

ens ee URGE AT, oa
- OL Si ER ES Be Gee A ae .¢
RE hk te rh =

Pars
-

BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION,

melee a NSDIEX.

TO

Case or Her Masesty’s GOVERNMENT.

WOT ONE, FET:

BS, PT v——1

Ou Cobo

. “ United States No. 2 (

. “United States No. 1 (1891
. “United States No. 2 (

. ‘United States No.3 (1892).”

. “Treaty Series No. 8 (1892).” Treaty and Conventions between

CONTENTS OF. V Olse 111.

Papers presented to the British Parliament (Blue Books).

”)
?

1890)
).

1891).”
).

Great Britain and United States of America relating to Behring
Sea,
3

.

| ESS eee ne ;
PUA, Bihiet Geshu (ey week ee

UNITED SPATES. No. 2 (1890).

CORRESPONDENCE

RESPECTING THE

BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERTES:

bSeG a. OO:

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND
OF HER MAJESTY, AUGUST, 1890.
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS~#

Subject.

Three British Columbian sealers seized by United
States revenue-cruizer ‘‘ Corwin.’

To ask United States Government

for information.

Details of captures of ‘‘ Thornton,”
“Onward,” and ‘‘Carolina.”’ Protest should be
male and compensation demanded.

History of the origin of the Alaska Commercial

Newspaper extracts relating to seizures.....----.----

Sends copy of United States Act to prevent exter-
mination of fur-bearing animals in Alaska, and of
the Alaska Company’s lease.

Sends further details, with Report
of Committee of Canadian Privy Council. Has
any action been taken?

To protest against seizures and reserve rights ..-.---
Has any reply been received to No.2? Or any appeal
lodged against decisions of United States courts?
Nownformabion=s=5o= = 22.2.2 s-=5

Recapitulates facts of seizures as reported to Her Maj-
esty’s Government. ‘To see Mr. Bayard, who will,
no doubt, make due reparation.

Copies of notes founded on Nos. 2 and 8.....-.-------

Extract from ‘‘ Daily British Colonist,” of Victoria,
relating to the seizures.

Facts relating to seal fishery. Hope Her Majesty’s
Government will support United States Govern-
ment in preserving seals.

Telegram trom Canada asking if any answer has been
received from United States. Case one of great

Substance of above-slomeport.-- s.-)-- eee - 2 =

Mr. Bayard has not yet received
official report of proceedings of Court.

Acknowledges No. 14. Question being considered...

Refers to No. 10. Mr. Bayard’s apologies for delay-.-
To seek assurances that no seizures will be made
beyond Alaska territorial waters pending settle-

Copy of note founded on above..............-2e.------

Copy of despatch from Canada, with Report of Privy
Council explaining views of Dominion Government
on historical rights, with letters from persons inter-
ested and newspaper extracts.

‘To express concern at absence of
information, and urge immediate attention.

Note to Mr. Bayard founded ONSaADOVC. = aes wet kee ees

Note from Mr. Bayard explaining delay and assuring
of observance of international obligations.

To ask for information from time to time......-..----

resident hasissued orders for discontinuance of pend-
ing proceedings, and release of vessels and persons.

Despatch from Governor-General, with Report of
Privy Council, and full statements of claims for

Acknowledges above. Proposed to defer sending in
claims pending further examination.

Report of Governor of Alaska for 1886.....-......-.---

@oncursiin-delays--22- 2225-22222 +

Copy of letter from a San Francisco firm to President
protesting against exclusive claims of Alaska Com-

Can Canadian vessels count on not being molested
during ensuing season?

No. Name. Date..
1886.
1 | Colonial Office..........} Sept. 1
Ze |PeROlin lau WiOSb- acess Sept. 9 | Copy of above.
3 | Colonial Oftice .........- Sept. 25 | Refers to No. 1.
CONS OD EUG ieee acme sic | Sept. 21
Company.
Salona GOS Ses eee = se(LOWene
6 | Admiralty..--.--.-....- “Oct. 7
7 | Colonial Office........-- Oct. 16 | Refers to No. 3.
SilLolSir i. Wiest... = 22s. - Oct. 20
a eee GOT Fe cece awe ote Oct. 21
LOWEST eR Wiestesk Seoccee ne ..--do ...| Replies to above.
TS POs Sire eWiesbss ciiens o- Oct. 30
TON Sard, Westie eset. 8 ac | Oct. 21
13 PAtdmiral ty =< 2ssscic0ss Nov. 4
14 | Messrs. Lampson and | Noy. 12
Co.
15 | Colonial Office .......... Nov. 16
hardship.
163|-LoiSire Le West=s2c< J-0: Nov. 18
AE Sin Le Wieste so. ss cece Nov. 19 | Answers above.
18 | To Messrs. Lampson -do
and Co.
TOME Sin Lise Wes bless sane = aie Nov. 14
20 Lon sirla..Wiestas..- sa. Dee. 6
(Telegraphic.)
ment.
21 eo Sindue Wiest... 22 ..2se- Dec. 10
1887.
22 | Colonial Office .......... Jan. 4
23) |ieo Sir Ts. Wiest... ..2<-- Jan. 8 | Copy of preceding.
tA PSH las Ves bse ee cecicoesns Jan. 10
PA es GOR ReRe ee ose Jan. 13
26 | To Sir L. West 27
BT Sirdhs WeSb-s2-s<-<.5-2- 4
28 | Colonial Office -...--.... 8
compensation.
29 | To Colonial Office....-.-- Feb. 14
BOM PSL as WieSta=cs tccacc as Jan. 30
31 | Colonial Office .....-.... Feb. 26 | Answers No. 29.
BOA OLMas WW ESts oss cccecace Mar. 18
pany.
33 | Colonial Office .......--.. Apr. 2
Sle DO Sieh WieStiecgus ces slonee do ..

To make above ThIG (UDA Cade adeostenescesonceccdacons

*The pages here iiicated | are those indented in the text of this publication.

Page

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

Table of contents—Continued.

69

Name, Date.
1887.
MUL WORE scaccseresi<= Mar. 29
aaa (Ob caete vel sicsics ce'aia a wa | CAIs” her
mieten Jes 4Ssccepcese Bead |S as
Bperes UOiesccss cccnse cancer| lave 3G
ee Geese. cteeeseccese.| May 080
Colonial Office ...:.::--- June 27
To Colonial Office..-.--- July 8
To Sir L. West.-.--.:..:- July 9
aul bas he eeeeaoen nee July 12
ROMsirel Wiest ei 2-- Aug. 2
(Telegraphic.)
ies WieSb: s-c2- 2-52 55 Aug. 4
AUS eg BB MGR Seeeneese Aug. 10
oecize MOjaseanseesciednce-t-|<-2 400
DIG LU AWVOStasadee aiacccls = Aug. 15
Admiralty:.-\is+3 5020-05 Aug. 24
Sir. West.<:<.<.-::---| Aug. 20
nbrrae (Ole sebieicre Sols acne lee|| AU oe
Admiralty. ase. 2 a8 == Sept. 5
To Sir L. West......---] Sept. 10
Sir H. Holland to Mar- ! Sept. 14
quis of Lansdowne.
BAP enW OSD. acmsc en cece Sept. 6
PO RSIT Asn VVieSb =e ose Sept. 15
Colonial Office .....-.--. sez.
weet WO. coeadneeoedoreaeoal imei sn. 7!
Losir T. West == <..25-/- Sept. 27
heen Ope epee cues. o-| > 2-0,
Memorandum commu- | Oct. 5
nicated by Baron
Plessen.
Sins Gslccessse ese Sept. 23
Atdmiralty.--<-scscescs=: Oct. 4
Sie 205 NMG) scGeber oo Sept. 28
Memorandum commu- | Oct. 10
nicated by M. d’ Adel-
borg.
To M. d’Adelborg .....- Oct. 11
To Baron Plessen.....-.|.--. yee.
Admiralty <<. 5. .-.2-<--- Oct. 13
Sir L. West......- ecee--| Oct. 14

Subject.

Attempts of Alaska Company to obtain further pro-
tec‘ion. .

The Captain of the *‘Corwin” has been cited to defend
himself for seizures effected bn American schooner
“Sierra.”

Mr. Blaine’s replies to questions founded on No. 34.
Indefinite. | Incloses ‘‘ Provisions relating to the
Unorganized ‘erritory of Alaska.”

Refers to No. 36. Case postponed

Extract from ‘‘New York Timex” showing United
States reply to pretensions of Russia previous to
cession of Alaska.

Report of Canadian Privy Council urging speedy
reparation, with a résumé of facts by Minister of
Marine and Fisheries.

Acknowledges above. We should wait for Report of
judicial proceedings. Want copies of papers laid
before Canadian Parliament.

Copy of No. 40. To get judicial records.-.........--:
Forwards copies of judicial proceedings in Alaska
District Court in cases of the three vessels seized.
Acknowledges above. Were they communicated

without comment?

Answers above.

News received of further seizures. To remind Mr.
Bayard of assurances given in No. 27, and to com-
municate information.

Asks for further information and details connected
with judicial proceedings sent home in No. 43.

Mr. Bayard’s replies to No. 46. He knows of no
assurances, but willask grounds for seizures.

Seizure of {Anna Beekvit won Sanne teee eee Per

Position of “Sayward,” ‘t Dolphin,” and ‘‘Grace”
when seized, with remarks on habits of seals.

Copies of Reports by Captain of the ‘t Rush,” who
ettected above captures, giving details.

Reports by Rear-Admiral sir M. Culme-Seymour on
seizures of ‘‘ Anna Beck” and ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,”
with copies of statements, declarations, and indict-
ments.

General review of the position. No doubt United
States’ Government will admit their liability, and
give compensation.

Sends copy of No. 53. Explains position.--.-......-.-

“New York Times” on maritime jurisdiction in
Behring’s Sea. ‘

Have any steps been taken to appeal in cases of
“Onward,’’ ‘*Carolina,” and *‘ Thornton?”

Copies of two despatches from Canada respecting
Be of ‘‘Grace,”’ ‘‘ Dolphin,” and ‘‘ W. P. Say-
ward.”

Telegram from Canada reporting that vessels are
still detained, and asking for inquiry.

Copy of above. To inquire why vessels have not
been released as promised (see No. 27).

Copies of inclosures in No. 57. To make representa-
tions to the United States Government respecting
seizure of these three vessels.

German Government ask views of Her Majesty’s
Government as to proposal of United States for
International Convention for preservation of seals.

A cine w lode es receipt of No. 53. Copy left with Mr.

ayard.

cay of letter from Commander-in-chief on Pacific
Station, with list of sealing schooners.

Answers No. 59. Note to Mr. Bayard respecting
non-release Of vessels, and extract from ‘‘ New
York Herald”’ on the subject.

Invitation from United States to Sweden to join nego-
tiations for preservation.

Answers above. Nosimilar invitation received from
United States Government. Will Sweden accept?

Answers No. 61. No similar proposal made to Her
Majesty’s Government. What will be decision of
German Government?

Sends copy of letter from Commander-in-chief on
Pacific Station, with newspaper extracts as to de-
murrer handed in on behalf of British sealers.

Renewed orders sent for release of vessels......-..--

102

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table of contents—Continued.

No. Name.

70 | Colonial Oflice.........-
W10\)'Ro'Sir sl. West-.------ -

72 | 'To Colonial Office. .-.----
MOOG, OSba-cane0 coe cee
Mae COR ssa cee asocc skenele sas
(A) Geka Ole wosmsisece asec
TA ae OOwerssezncenetcssae:
(Hiller (UW Soccer See
78) o) Sir i..Wesb---2:224-

79

80

Bi ees QO g2seist- isis emis woes

82 | Colonial Office ..........

83 | To Plenipotentiaries at | Nov.

Fisheries Conference.

ACA EY ops GRD Sete SOR Bere

85 | To Colonial Office..-...-.

86 | Mr. J. Chamberlain,

MP:

87 | Colonial Office ........-.-

BOR POLI Lr VVGR bic sc<oees sets

89 | Colonial Office ..........

OO e227 GOs aaesacscaweaasens

+2 We (eee GORE. aiaicamaswicatectes

+ UPA Pe mars Oise soon taireceen cc's

ooo Moe ee help seacs—sciccscn

OSE SIEMAVW CSbsa2-ociae eset s

Soa LO Sirs. .Wiestss<c~c <<

OG oR os. Cot seenac ee eet aieal

97 | To Colonial Office......-

OS? LosM. do Staal’.........\-
DOMME esbadle- oss. seccsc2
100
101
102
103

104
105

106 | Count Piper ...........-]....

Date.

1887.
Oct. 17

Oct. 19
Oct. 20

Oct. 14

Oct.

Oct.
Oct.

Oct.
Nov.

28

Nov. 29

aoa Kose =

Nov. 28

Dec. 26

1888.
Jan. 5

Jan.

14
Jan. 2:

23

Feb. 3

Feb.

-d0%-2

ee Ore se

-| International Regulations (see No. 93).

Subject.

Copy of despatch from Canada respecting seizure of
“Alfred Adams.” Suggests that protest against
right of seizure should be made to United States
Government.

Refers to above. To protest against seizure of ‘A1-
fred Adams” and similar proceedings.

Answers No. 70. Sir L. West instructed to protest
against seizure of ‘Alfred Adams.’’ Protests
made in previous cases.

Refers to Nos. 59 and 64. Reply received from Mr.
Bayard.

Answers No. 56. Notices of appeal lying in Sitka
Court. “No further steps taken.

Answers No. 60. Note to Mr. Bayard respecting seiz-
ure of ‘‘Grace,”’ ‘* Dolphin,” and ‘‘ W. P. Sayward.”

Refers toabove. Reply from Mr. Bayard acknowledg-
ing note respecting seizures of three vessels.

Brief of United States Government filed in Sitka
Courtand articls thereon from ‘‘ New York Herald.”

Reters to No.71. To give Mr. Bayard copy of inclo-
sure in No. 70.

Refers to No. 69. Approves action

Answers No. 71. Copy of note to Mr. Bayard protest-
ing against seizure of ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” and similar
proceedings.

Refers to above. Copy of note from Mr. Bayard
acknowledging ‘‘ Alfred Adams”’ protest.

Despatch from Canada inclosing Minute of Executive
Council of British Columbia respecting value of seal-
ing industry to province.

No invitation received from United States Govern-
ment as to negotiations for preservation of seals.
Her Majesty’s Government favourably disposed to
negotiate separately from question of fishery rights.

Sends\ copies of Nos. 82'and85=- 2-20-52 252526 F552

Answers No. 82. Quotes instructions to Plenipoten-
tiaries at Fishery Conference as to including Behr-
ing Sea question.

Explains circumstances under which negotiations for
preservation of seals were mentioned. Subject not
referred to at conference.

He vieed claims of owners of ‘‘ Thornton” and ‘ Caro-

ina.”

Refers to Nos. 36and 38. Case of ‘‘Sierra’’ will prob-
ably be dismissed.

Refers to No. 87. Revised claim of owner of ‘‘Onward”’.

Statements of claims of owners and agents of ‘‘ Favour-
ite,” ‘“W.P. Sayward,” ‘‘Grace,” ‘‘Anna Beck,”
‘* Dolphin,” ‘‘Alfred Adams,” and ‘‘Ada.”

Despatch from Canada saying notice has begn given
of orders for release of “Onward,” ‘* Thornton,”
and ‘‘ Carolina.”

Revised statement of claims of ‘‘ Thornton,’ ‘‘On-
ward,’ and ‘‘ Carolina,’ and statement of personal
claims of masters and mates of ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ W.
P. Sayward,” ‘‘Anna Beck,’ ‘‘ Grace,’ and ‘‘Ada.”

Submits Mr. Bayard’s detailed proposal for interna-
tional regulations.

‘“New York Herald” on the question of the seizures
and closed seas.

Copy ofuNor $32. 64 jac chic ced aaicisecesescoteee sacs

Interview
with Mr. Phelps. Readiness to join United States
and Russiain an Agreement.

Copies of above and No. 93, for observations..........

Would be glad if he would join in discussion........

Answers above. Will ask tor instructions-..........

Answers No. 97. Must consult Canada...............

Answersabove. Copiesof Nos. 98,99, and102. Have
reserved all rights and claims.

Copies of Nos. 98and99. Her Majesty’s Government
do not admit rights of jurisdiction.

Submits notice of a question by Mr. Gourley, M. P.,
for opinion as to answer on points raised.

AMIS WICIS;ADOV C2 il oa'siciete bin so a sccm seetacieaeince simian nat

-| Telegram from Governor-General of Canada, who is

anxious for assurances Canadian vessels will not
be interfered with in coming season.

do ...| Swedish Government hopes the negotiations will be

successful, but is not sufficiently interested to take
part.

10

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Name. Date.
1888.
Colonial Office.........-| Mar. 28
Moi SinWGe Wes ba wss asin Mar. 30
To Colonial Office. ....-- 3, Se
RUT Wes bse. ccs canes | Mar. 19
MorSinws: Wrests..s-a.. | Apr. 3
Dindun Wiest cena tances ee GOT
(Telegraphiec.)
To Colonial Office.....-- Apr. 5
Colonial Office..-......- Apr. 10
To Colonial Office. ..---- Apr. 14
SIT MUE IVES Latelcn cc's as s'e ima Mar. 27
Age Colteeer ss ssees oes | Marra
desks GO nsceneece es cerscc-| Cpt. .o
eee $1) Sse coon Sccsnceoad leew ly
To Sir R. Morier (also | Apr. 16
to Sir L. West).
ToiSir Le Wiesti.-.-=---- Apr. 17
To Colonial Office. Board | Apr. 20
of Trade, and Ad-
miralty.
Colonial Office ........--|..-. do:-.-
Sina WW CS be ewan easels Apr. 11
Colonial Office ........-- Apr. 24
PNOMIUUANGY osc cta/senc en == Apr. 25
Colonial Office ........-. Beni tte
saat UG) som ebhsosemoseaal eyo, Eyl
ows: Westies <--ee Apr. 29
isi Ba NVR iS esse eggeeene Apr. 19
Board of Trade ......-.. May 4
Sir L. West...-.--. Been Apr. 22
Sate GD Be cadecspossserccs pity pal
Colonial Office.......... May 12
Shia! Cea \ YG) | 0Se aSee ees are May 30
M. de Staal .....2....... July 25
Colonial Office. --......- Pa dOw =
Mireehelps)-=2--- s~-- a July 28
Colonial Office. .......-- Aug. 1
MOST VES et act a Aug. 2
MomMir Phelpssce: ese. EO
To Colonial Office. ...--- eee UO ee
BEBO Os eee ee eee | ATICRE ND
Colonial Office... .. Aug. 10
shee (te Gnt5 te 5edoossoee aod ede
bose GO eanceeensesneceees | Pade S
2 eee OW) Saseniccog sa socboee lasses ee 4
Minds Wiest==ccsceeoweoe Aug. 6

Table of contents—Continued.

Subject.

tefers to Nos.104 and 105. Possibility of armed re-
sistance by sealers. Anxious for assurances of non-
interference. As to sending a man-of-war to watch
proceedings.

Copy of above. To represent extreme importance of
Her Majesty’s Government being able to contra-
dict report of intended seizures by United States.

Answers No. 107. Gives substance of above......--.

On right of seized vessels to bond pending appeal. ...

Interview with Mr. Phelps. Mr. Bayard’s unofficial
assurances that vessels will not be molested pend-
ing negotiations, though the latter would be ren-
dered abortive by coming Presideutial election.

See No. 108. No orders issued yet for capture of

3sritish vessels.

Substance of 1bove.-- 5-222 -ssseor soe. ose eee eee eeen

On question of bonding captured sealers (see No.
110).

Answers No. 114. Views on bonding and appeal
questions.

Sends a letter by Mr. Swan, assistant collector of
Port Townsend, on fur-seals, bearing on question
of jurisdiction.

Copy of communication founded on No. 102......-----

Refers to No. 110. Memorandum by Mr. Benjaniin,
Councillor-at-Law. Bonding question settled.

Refers to No. 108. Execution of instructions. Mr.
Bay ard hopes there will be no more seizures.

Interview with Russian Ambassador and United
States’ Chargé d’ Affaires. Decision as to a provi-
sional basis for negotiation.

Proposed mixed commission to investigate claims and
decide as to compensation.

Copy of No. 121, for observations........ paraicSoscticns

Answers No. 116. Telegram from Canada as to last
year’s captures.

Refers to No. 120. Private note from Mr. Bayard,
repeating that no orders for seizures have been
issued.

Telegrams between Canada and British Columbia.
As to self-defence by sealers.

Answers No. 123. Wuillyiconcur-=--s2----"-eeeeeee oes

Answer No.123. Canada will probably make re-
serves. Copies of correspondence.

See above. Canadian criticisms.----..-..22.ccasesn--

See No. 114. Propose to extend time for appeal...-.--

See No. 122. Copy of note to Mr. Bayard

Answers No. 123. Disposed to agree

Refers to No. 131. Mr. Bayard prefers to await
judgment of Appellate Court.

Answer No. 130. Copy of note to Mr. Bayard.-.-..--.-

Canadian objections to close time Regulations main-
tained.

Refers to No. 134. Mr. Bayard’s views as to exten-
sion of time for appeal.

Extract from a Russian Memorandum regarding the
hunting of seals.

Circumstances under which ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” was
released nnder bond at Sitka.

Urges immediate action in regard to International
Convention.

Sends a telegram respecting the proposed sale by the
United States of the “Anna Beck,” *‘ Dolphin,”
“Grace,” and “Ada.” Urge its postponement.

Substance of above, for required action...........-..

Acknowledges No. 139522 35-2 -22- -ee eee teens ene

Copy of No. 139, for early consideration. ............-

Substance./of No M14h osee eens eee ee eee

Answers No. 143. Canadian Report on its way

Refers to No. 144. Canada informed

Minute of Canadian Privy Council, giving their
views on the United States proposals for a close
time. They protest against United States doctrine.

Refers to No. 146. Minutes by Canadian Privy Coun-
cil on proposed sales. What is progress of *‘ W. P.
Sayward” case?

Answers No. 141. Note to United States Govern-
ment.

ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Name.

Din WesWestes-- =. - sce
iorsinei., Wiestsss=-- =<
To Colonial Office.
Mo Sire WeAbs=25-c02-

To Colenial Office
Sir L. West.

To Colonial Office....---
Colonial Office
To Lord Sackville

(Telegraphic.)
To Colonial Oftice
Sin Ue WViest- sees >< 2
To Colonial Ofiice

Colonial Office

eee rs

To ean Offrce=-2. =
Colonial Oftice
To Mr. Herbert. .-.....-

(Telegraphic.)
Colonial Office

ERopMareterbotuss-cse see
(Lelegraphic.)
Mr. Herbert
(Telegraphie.)
To Colonial Oftice
Mr. Herbert

~----GO cascee wer ace ccnec+

To Mr. Edwardes......-
Mr. pidyardes Ao soaeseee

Colonial Offices =.52e
To Colonial Office.....--
Mr. Edwardes .....:....

To Colonial Office. ...---

Mr. Edwardes

To Colonial Office. .....-

To Sir J. Pauncefote. -..
Mr. Edwardes..........

Table of contents—Continued.

Date.

1888.
Aug. 16
Sept. 1

Sept. 3

Sept. 13
Sept. 15

1889.
Jap. 8

Mar. 23

ae 2
| Mar.
Mar.
fees

lease,
| Mar.

| Mar.
| Mar.

Apr.

| Apr. 11

=
nw

ee 2d0) <=

= Ok ==

AEG
dora

adore

11

Subject. Page
Refers to above. Sale will be postponed-.........-.-- 219
Refers to above. Copy of No. 148 for report..-.-..-- 220
Refers to above. Substance of preceding..---------- 220
Refers to No.121. Conversation with Mr. Phelns on 220
close season question. Difticulties felt by Canada.
Refers to No. 147. Close time. Substance of above.. 221
tefers to No. 150. Copies of correspondence. Should 221
sale be proceeded with?
Answers No. 151. Case of ‘‘Sayward” not yet dock- 223
eted in Supreme Court.
Gepy ofeNosb5s Wied action t=: ns .esc neces seams eats 223
Answers above. Proposed reply......---...------..- 223
Norvact im!Sensey O14 abOv.0-<. == eee s=sssse een seca ansee 224
Substance of sabore Romane en wee cacnna semataiaeine acs 224
Refers to No. 155. As to disposal of condemned sealers- 224
Refers to No. 160. Copy of No. 161. Whatshould be 225
done with ‘‘Ada’’?
“W.P. Sayward.” See No. 156. Should not action 225
advised by Canada now be taken?
See No. 158. Despatch from Canada on bonding of 226
““Grace,” ‘* Dolphin,” and ‘‘ Anna Beck.”
Refers to above and No. 162. As to case of Ada”..| 22
Should substance of above be communicated?......-- 228
AT'S wersrabO ren) Mes. cesaacce - = hosts casesencmek Onae 228
SeaqNo- 1595 (Substance: of Nos165. 252. -s---o+ =o en 228
“Ada.” Correspondence from Canada as to original 229
appraisement.
See No. 164. What has been done aboutappraisement? 229
Wihat ans wer toUNon 59%. 2. cane se, tinsce cee secene as 230
Answers above. None. Has asked ...........---.-- 230
Substancerot avoverce fas st ace cane eecree cs ceeeeeeece 230
Refers to-No: 168. | Steps taken ---2 2. 9.22524. ose 230
Refers to No.171. Mr. Bayard on the question of the 231
sale.
Mr. Hoar’s motion in Senate for papers and Regula- 233
tions governing fisheries.
President Harrison’s Proclamation against foreign 234
sealers entering Behring Sea. Totelezraph terms of.
Substance of Proclamation........---.2-2s++s+eeee+++ 234
Hextot Proclamation: cee nan - seco teh ees noe cease ee 234
Calls attention to Proclamation. To make represen- 235
tation.
Answers above. Will delay action pending receipt 236
of Act for protection of salmon in Al: aska.
On vropesed sale of ships. Canadian Government 236
think any interference useless (see No. 175).
Copy of Act for protection of the salmon fisheries of 237
Alaska.
Copy of ‘No: 182; for observations. -:---......-.----..-.- 238
See No. 176. Sends extracts from the published cor- 238
respondence dealing with the historical question.
President’s Proclamation. Remarks on bearing of. - 242
Salmon Fisheries Act (see No. 183). Report on its 243
course through the two Houses i in Congress.
President’s Proclamation. Remarks on term ‘‘domin- 251
ion of the United States in the waters of the Beh-
ring Sea.”
Ac knowledges No. 184. Noremarks. What is posi- 251
tion of ‘*W. P. Sayward” appeal?
Copies of Nos. 179, 186, and 187. Remarks on the mean- 251
ing of the Act and Proclamation.
“Ww. P. Sayward.” Whatis position of case?......-.. 252
Remarks on rejected Bill of Mr. Dunn for amending 252
section 1963 of the Revised Statutes.
Answers No.188. Are awaiting Reports from Sir J. 253
Pauncefote.
How long before 1886 were Canadian vessels in habit 254
of sealing in Behring Sea?
Answers No.190. Would be glad ifour meaning could 254
be officially recorded.
Answers No. 194. Has asked Canada-.....-.--..-.--- 255
SWreks Sayward. 4) -ANSwers, NO. LOPS 30. sos te. o= <1. 255
Extract from Annuai Reportof Canadian Department 255
of Fisheries for 1888.
United States revenue-cruizers ‘t Rush” and ‘‘ Bear” 257

ordered to Bebriug Sea.

|

12

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table of contents—Continued.

Namne. Date
1889.

Consu-lGeneral Looker-| June 28
Cololnia Office .........- July 27
Boece NOineecer ese neaaee =o] ATS. oO
To Colonial Oflice...---- Aug. 3
Colonial Office .........- Ag. 8
BS se OD een aaa am cioeatan «| LA OD
Seis Gt) aceedeaganspece Hal seracye
“eae CO sisetwsastaaceses |) Au. 1s
To Colonial Office. ....-- Aug. 17
Mr. Edwardes ..-..----- Aug. 5
Colonial Office .......--- Aug. 19
SG ade G0 Sassesoadtososccosll sis AL)
To Mr. Edwardes. ...--- Aug. 22
sobee (tree sbornéereooceraeas onl Sof
Mr. Edwardes ........-- Aug. 26
Colonial Office ...-.-.--- Aug. 29
mous do ......-.-.--e2----| Sept. 2
To Colonial Office..-..-- |--=-d0 -.-
Colonial Office ........--| Sept. 3
ANG Hab Ny gos seepoesoee Sept. 4
To Mr. Edwardes ......- | Sept. 9
To Colonial Office....-..|.-.. domes
Colonial Office ......---- Sept. 10
Sance UY napenasécncosscoor|saaiise
eee (eres qbocsasnccscoced stay 183
sae do acaneeesase sneer
Mar md wardes =". ss. --- Sept. 17
sewed OO riveree icsscnescies

To Mr. Edwardes.....--

spice do
Colonial Office

To Colonial Office......-. :

Mr. Edwardes

To Mr. Edwardes....-...
To Colonial Office.....--
Colonial Office

To Sir J. Pauncefote....

ee

SEOs ae
Oct. 12
Oct. 14
Oct. 15
Oct. 24
sec 0iao
Oct.. 2
Oct. 9
Oct. 315
Noy. 2
Nov. 5

| See No. 210.

Subject.

Professor Rayner’s letter on the whole question..-.-..

Minute of Canadian Privy Council, with full Report by
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which case is
argued and claims presented.

Alleged seizure of ‘t Black Diamond” in Behring Sea.

Answers above. Should have official details also as
to ‘‘ Triumph.”

Telegram from Canada. Reports appear correct...-.

Refers to No.194. Full report by Minister of Marine
and Fisheries.

“Black Diamond” and Triumph.” Further report.

Case of the American sealer ‘‘San Diego” as bearing
on above cases.

Appeals for seizures in 1886 should be pushed on..---

On cases of ‘‘ Black Diamond” and ‘tTriumph,” and
arguments of United States in regard to seals.

Refers to No. 208. Telegram to Canada

“Black Diamond” and ‘‘Triumph.” Reports from
Canadian Government.

Alleged seizures. Whattruthinreports? Torequest
issue of instructions to prevent recurrence,

Refers to above. To remind Mr. Blaine of Mr. Bay-
ard’s unoflicial assurances. Sir J. Pauncefote will
discuss whole question, but Her Majesty's Govern-
ment protest against seizures.

Summary of interview, and copies of correspondence
with Mr. Blaine on above instructions.

Black Diamond” and‘ Triumph.” Further from
Canada. What answer?

Copy of telegram to Canada, summarizing informa-
tion in No. 214.

Answers No. 215. Say question is being considered.
We have, so far, no authentic details.

Refers to No. 215. Further details from Canada. ...-

“Black Diamond” and ‘‘ Triumph.” Statements by
owners.

ApproveseNo i214 cee ne eects hace cee eceet cee emanated

To ask Canada to telegraph at once any further stop-

pages.
Affidavits of masters of ‘‘ Black Diamond” and ‘* Tri-
umph.”

-| Instructions sent in sense of No. 221........-..--.----

Recent seizures. Telegram from Canada. Affidavits
being forwarded.

Refers to No. 217. Copy of telegram sent to Canada...

Copy of private letter to Mr. Blaine asking for
answer to request for assurances of non-interfer-
ence.

Refers to above. Mr. Blaine’s answer..-.-..---.--.----

Copy of No. 222.

Refers to No. 222. Copies of Nos. 228 and 229........

Interview with Mr. Blaine on the subjectof Mr. Bay-
ard’s unoflicial assurances regarding seizures.

Answers above. Explains what assurances were
referred to in No. 228.

Acknowledges No. 231. Suggests replying to efect
that whole question is under discussion.

Forwards from Canadian Government duplicate of

Report in No. 281.

Seizures of ‘‘ Minnie,” ‘‘Juanita,”’ ‘‘ Pathfinder,”
and ‘‘Lily.” Reports from Canadian Government,
with copies of affidavits of masters.

Report by Canadian Ministerof Marine
and Fisheries on question of appeals against 1886
seizures.

Question of appeals. Sends Memorandum by Mr.
Calderon Carlisle on the case of the United States
vessel ‘Sylvia Handy,” which illustrates point.

Refers to No. 234, and sends copy of letter to Mr.
Blaine in regard to it.

Acknowledges Nos. 236, 237, and 238.
await Sir J. Pauncefote’s Reports.

Approves letter in No. 240...... EROS SOSIS RRC S SO SORCOS

Propose to

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Name. Date.
1889

Sir C. Lampson and Co-.| Nov. 6

Colonial: Office.......--- Nov. 8

Sir J), Pauncetote.......-- Oct. 31
Lciales OGOsasss-ccccsesess-| NOV... 1

ToSirC.Lampsonand Co} Noy. 13

Sir C. Lampson and Co.| Noy. 14

Colonial Office ........-. Nov. 30

International Arbitra- | Dec. 6

tionand Peace Associ-
ation.

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| Dec. 7

Sir J. Pauncefote -....--. Dec. 12
Colonial Office -......... Dee. 10

Yo International Arbi- | Dec. 11

tration and Peace As-
sociation.

Colonial Office .......... Dec. 12
emer. COw cee usatkiosseec 4 eC 13
BE ate OO Bare a oases ie DYsyernan 4
SORE DOPE tse ccsecseceseee| Decerl6

To Colonial Office......./--.. do

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| Dec. 17
see OOPten aces losccescs|s2s-00

To Colonial Office...-.-.-- ee dogsa-

Sir J. Pauncefote....-.. Dec. 18

(Telegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote. ...|..-.do ...

Sir J. Pauncefote......-. Dec. 13
aes GO eee ce tecieewee oe || eG. 26

(LTelegraphic.)
ane Ces cC See seed pai Ko)
ae COP enees sscae os lese G0!
1890.

Colonial Office---. 5... Jan. 10
cosas O0esee sea ee eee eda 18

Sir J. Pauncefote......-. Jan. 9
sae Core Ares cotcseccee po aDe 28

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| Jan. 28

Sir J. Pauncefote....... Jan. 30

Colonial Office. 7. -- 2-2. Jan 31

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| Feb. 1
Lene Gy SeSGosneCOSstesbea Gee. C tare

To Colonial Office..-....-. Feb. 6

Colonial Office ...... Baos local see

Table of contents—Continued.

., Acknowledges No. 255.

-| Amplifies the above

Subject.

Urges importance of settling the question, in inter-
ests of seal preservation, before it is too late.

The High Commissioner for Canada in London is to
discuss question with Her Majesty’s Government.

Copies of letters in newspapers by Mr. Felton and
Mr. R. Rayner arguing the question from different
points.

Preliminary conversation with Mr. Blaine. He does
not assert mare clausum doctrine, and concurs in
resuming the tripartite negotiation regarding a
‘close season.”

Acknowledges No. 234. Will be glad of any atatistics
and information.

Answers above. Collecting information. Their let-
ters may be published.

Refers to No. 205. Report of Committee of Privy
Council of Canada arguing agaiust idea that a close
seasonisof pressing necessity, and inclosing state-
ments of practical hunters, with history of Cana-
dian sealing interests.

Hope a speedy settlement will be arrived at........--

Sends certain proposals as bases of possible negotia-
tion, for opinion.

Mr. Blaine’s views on above proposals. They do not
furnish a possible basis.

Telegram from Canada giving views of Government
as to conditions of negotiation.

Acknowledges No. 250. Matter receiving earnest
consideration.

Refers to No. 237. Despatches from Canada forward-
ing claims of ‘‘ Juanita’ and ‘‘ Pathfinder” in de-
tail.

Telegram to Canada recapitulating points in No. 252...

Canadian reply to above. General concurrence to
avoid delay.

General remarks on above. The negotiations might
now commence, the wishes of Canada being con-
sulted.

The claims therein will be
considered with others.

Answers No. 252. Gives substance of Canadian reply
in No. 257.

Substance of No. 258. To make a formal communi-
cation to United States Government in its sense.
Copy of above
Receipt of No. 261.

munication.

Answers above. May defer communication. --.-.----

Extract from Report of Secretary of Treasury for 1889
on the Seal Islands in Behring Sea.

Discussion with Mr. Blaine as to compensation for
seizures.

Advertisement by Secretary of the Treasury for
tenders for fur-seal contract for twenty-one years.

“Triumph,” “Lily,” ‘‘Black Diamond.”
claims for losses.

“Ariel.”? Claim for compensation, with declarations.

Few fur-seal contract (see No. 268). Resolution by
Senator Plumb.

Answer of the United States Government to protest
made on 12th October against the seizures of Brit-
ish vessels. Detailed arguments.

Acknowledges above. Formal reply will be sent.
Sends terms for negotiation. Would Mr. Blaine be
likely to accept them as basis?

Answers above. Thinks he should have more infor-
mation about amount of compensation claimed be-
fore negotiating for close season.

‘‘Kate.” Sends claims for compensation.........---.

Answers No. 374. Claims amount to about 500,000
dollars, subject to revision.

Claims revised at Colonial Office, and should not ex-
ceed 400,000 dollars.

Ask for observations on No. 272 ......-......----------

Claims for compensation. That of the ‘‘Minnie”’
will have to be added.

Detailed

Reasons for wishing to defer com- |

13

14

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table of contents—Continued.

Name. Date
1890.
Sir J. Pauncefote.....-- Feb. 7
“(0 Soe oe eae nee Feb. 8
To Colonial Office. -.--.-- Feb. 10
To Sir J. Pauncefote-.--.|....do -...
Colonial Office.-..---.... Feb. 11
Sir J. Pauncefote...-..-- re kis =

Lord Knutsford to Lord
Stanley.(Telegraphic.)
To Sir J. Pauncefote. - -

Sir J. Pauncefote.......
a WOME KM ea eecee sacs
To Sir J. Pauncefote. .-.
To Sipe MOrier. 2... =.
SLEW MIOTICn Sos eccses
Colonial Office

Sir J. Pauncefote....... oe

To Colonial Office.....-..

To Sir J. Pauncefote. - -.|
Sir J. Pauncefote......-

To Sir J. Pauncefote- ...
Goalonigli@ince..- = <=.5.-.5-

To Sir J. Pauncefote. . -.
Sir J. Pauncefote....-..

To Sir J. Pauncefote. --.
Colonial Office --.=-....,.

To Colonial Office .....-
Sir J. Pauncefote.......

Colonial Office .........-
Sir J. Panncefote ......-
Colonial Office ...-.....-
55° GO) rasa cane seine =
Sir J. Pauncefote......-
beens do vette renee reee rene
Soke OO senor ec ereccrese
(Telegraphic.)
ae A GOSS anes ee eee
Telegraphic.)
A es GOp scsse ness seeeeoet

To Colonial Office.......

Feb. 12

eALO; See

Feb. 13

eee (type
Seen ee

Feb. 14
5 a2 LO
Feb.
Feb. 22

Feb. 24
Feb. 27

Feb.
Feb. 11

Feb.
Mar. 8
Mar. 14

Mar, 15
Mar. 1

Mar. 4

Winey wr
Mar. 18

Mar.

Bee Obes

Mar.
Mar.

Apr. 25
May 5

sCLOtoe

Subject.

Discussion with Mr. Blaine on amount of compensa-
tion claim, and question of arbitration. His pro-
posals.

May tripartite negotiation for close time begin, leay-
ing claims arbitration in suspense?

Copy of No. 280. Propose to answer No. 281 in
affirmative.

Answers No. 281 in affirmative ...... .--...-=--.....-

Remarks by Canadian Government on call for tenders
alluded to in No. 268.

Refers to above. Mr. Blaine consents...............-

Substance of:NOi 280-7 o.oo e crt: cae eee eee eee

All proposals from United States to be received ad
referendum.

To arrange with Governor-General date when Cana-
dian Representative should be in Washington to
assist.

As tosRussian participations. .2---ese eae eee

Refers to No. 289. Has written to Canada...........-.

Refers to No. 271. Copy of No. 284......-..-...

To invite Russian participation

| Russian Minister will take part ..-...------..-.---- iy

‘*Minnie’’—claim for compensation, thus cou:pleting
the list for 1889.

First informal meeting. Submits area proposed by
Mr. Blaine and M. Struve.

Copy-of abowe, for opimion <2 eases a= eee eee

Remarks on No. 296. SirJ. Pauncefote should confer
with Mr. Tupper.

Answers No. 296. Consult Mr. Tupper...--.-....-...

Memorandum by Mr. Blaine of his views on arbitra-
tion question. .

Russian Government said to have renewed the Alaska
Commercial Company's lease of Russian Seal Islands
in Behring Sea.

Approves language in No. 2802-222 <2 essences eeemeeee

Remarks on Nos. 280 and 300. Important to know
Canadian views.

Refers to Nos. 280 and 286. Copy of No. 303.......---

Further informal conversation with Mr. Blaine and
Mr. Tupper.

Fur-seal islands said to have been leased to American
Commercial Company at large increase.

Acknowledges receipt of No. 288_...--_--------------

Negotiations come to deadlock owing to difference of
opinion about a close season.

Approves proceedings reported in No. 305.........---

Forwards schedule of claims for compensation re-
ceived from Canada.

Copy of No. 308. Propose to wait.

Usual proclamation as to Behring Sea fisheries about
to issue.

Refers to No.305. Report of first formal meeting.
Has prepared a draft scheme which Mr. Tupper has
taken to Canada for consideration.

Article from ‘‘ Tribune,” of New York, headed
‘‘Rights in Behring Sea.”

Approves principle of draft Convention referred to in
No. 318.

Answers No. 311: A gree'to wailt:.--es-s--e= seen eee

Newspaper extract relative to detention of the ‘‘ Path-
finder” at Portland on charge connected with her
last year’sarrest. Herrelease by order of Treasury.

Telegram from Canada giving first impressions of
dratt Convention.

Canada accepts draft with suggested modifications...

Result of interview with Mr. Tupper on his return
from Canada. Submits fresh draft.

Correspondence relating to the fisheries as received
from Mr. Blaine, including evidence of United
States’ experts and counter-evidence furnished by
Mr. Tupper.

Has received Canadian amendments to draft Conven-
tion, and proposes submitting it to Conference.

Has sent injdratt: Convention. => -ccsss.scecmssceeenee

Refers to No. 304. Views of Canada as to procedure
in regard to arbitration and assessment of damages.
Copy of above, for remarks .....0.,sccececeereccccces

454

EE eer

es

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table of contents—Continued.

15

"Name. Date.
1890.
Sir J. Pauncefote ......- Apr. 29
Colonial Office.....-..--- May 8
To Sir J. Pauncefote..-.|..-.. do
(Telegraphic.)

Sir J. Pauncefote.......|.... do .
(YLelegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| May 9
(Telegraphic.)

SSOpe (0) Bock eceenacpoeeece Head ws
= Mayen dOtsee eee esesacee cso May.210
Sir J. Pauncefote.-.--.- May 11
(Telegraphic.)

ABCBS G0). sSRe aad op npeees Snel SEE E Nhe
(Telegraphic.)
oes GW) sancoresenesescaes|) Wien al!
(Telegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote....| May 22

Sir J. Pauncefote ....-..].... dos--

(Telegraphic.)
Extract from ‘“‘ Morning | May 23
Post.”
ToSir J. Pauncefote .--.|.... do
(Lelegraphic.)
Sir J. Pauncefote..-.--|.... dos...
(Telegraphic.)
To Sir J. Pauncefote....) May 24
seagc GO) cose co archeacencod| Wien Ot)
Sir J. Pauncefote.-..... May 30
(Telegraphic.)
To Sir J. Pauncefote.-..| May 31
(Telegraphic.)
Sir J. Pauncefote-..----. May 23
Laieies Ofer cessesnsae asses 5-0
Saisie GW) acache see Acdosdadseeei see
To SirJ. Pauncefote....| June 3
(Telegraphic.)

Sir J. Pauncefote....... June 7
(Telegraphic. )

iste he.s @Ojecessniasos <a -|252200)-5-
(Telegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote-...|.-..do -..
Sir J. Pauncefote......- May 29
naaae Oe eereaea=scess oo Mav 30
Pas (Gk) Gadsesobeocsectaas|) ciruersya lt)
(Telegraphic.)
ace Gla) see eesseoeaeonel ESeeike
(Lelegraphic.)

Sania GW Accentcsnoopadcccos|| Ung) rll

Subject,

Copy of letter to Mr. Blaine sending in draft Conven-
tion as approved by Canadian Government. Sends
copy of it.

Answers No. 325. Criticisms on No. 324

ay ae does Mr. Blaine say to draft sent home in No.

26 ?

Answers above. Mr. Blaine maintains silence. May
he say the draft is approved by Her Majesty’s
Government?

Answers above in affirmative........--.......-.....--

Answers No. 324. Copy of No. 327.
Tupper in first place.

AspPLOVies NOTE ANENO. 3202 -—aeeo =-- eee ciesae see eae

Refers to No. 329. Mr. Blaine does not accept draft
in present form, but thinks it offers a basis.

Answers No. 331. Has prepared draft Arbitration
Agreement, which Mr. Tupper will take to Canada
for approval.

Mr. Tupper not gone.

To consult Mr.

Draft sent by post.........-.-

Answers No. 272. States views of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernmentinreply to United States arguments in sup-
port of seizures.

British counter-proposals rejected. Orders given to
revenue-cruizer to dismantle British sealers. Inter-
view with Mr. Blaine to remonstate. His reply.

Reuter’s telegram announcing orders given to dis
mantle sealers.

Answers No. 337. To warn Mr. Blaine that a formal
protest is being prepared against any interference
with British vessels.

Answers above. Has sentin note...........-......--

Refers to No. 336. Explains why the answer was de-
layed. Inconsequence of news in No. 337, it should
now be presented. Hopes United States Govern-
ment willtake such action as may obviate necessity
for a formal protest.

tefers to No. 337. Regret with which Her Majesty’s
Government has learntnews. Sends draftof formal
protest to be sent in if unfortunately necessary.

Negotiations for close season. Long note has come
in from United States Government reviewing their
history. It concludes with the hope that British
vessels will be prevented by Her Majesty’s Goy-
ernment from entering Behring Sea.

Answers above. The proposal to prevent British
vessels cannot be accepted.

Refers to No. 337. Newspaper extracts on subject of
instructions.

Aumplifies information given in No. 337, and details
conversation with Mr. Blaine.

Note to Mr. Blaine founded on No. 339.....-....-..-..

3ritish sealers have already started, so cannot now
be stopped (see No. 344).

Gives substance of a long note elicited by statement
(see No. 344) that Her Majesty’s Government can-
not stop sealers, in which President's regret is ex-
pressed at action of Her Majesty’s Government.
Has declined to continue correspondence pending
instructions.

Proposed interview with Mr. Blaine put off......-..--

Answers No. 349. Explains position of Her Maj-
esty’s Government in regard to sealers, and readi-
ness to negotiate for close season.

Reters to No. 347. Mr. Blaine acknowledges notice
of formal protest.

Refers to No. 348. Sends copy of note in which draft
Convention is rejected by Russia and the United
States.

Interview with Mr. Blaine, who declines to give for:
mal assurance as to non-interference. Proposes to
send in protest on 14th instant.

At previous interview gave Mr. Blaine explanations
contained in No. 351.

Correspondence with Mr, Blaine about stoppage of
sealers by Her Majesty’s Government. Mr. Blaine
suggests a Proclamation requesting them to abstain
for present season.

468

469
469
472

472
473

473

474
474

474
475

478

479
479

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table of contents—Continued.

Subject.

—_|\-—— | | eS

To Sir J. Pauncefote-. --
(Telegraphic.)

SirJ.Pauncetote......-.
(Telegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote. .--
(TVelegraphic.)

(Telegraphic.)
Sir J. Pauncetote

Colonial Office ........--

Sir J. Pauncefote

Colonial Office ........-.
AGIMITADULYcwecccence <<

To Sir J. Pauncefote- ...

(Telegraphie.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote....}.--

(Telegraphic.)
Colonial Office .-.....--.
ToSirJ. Pauncefote. ...

(Telegraphic.)
Sir J. Pauncefote.......

(Telegraphic.)

To Sir J. Pauncefote....
Sacee Oe ra davies mess wan) siete
foes (GR oneHSceon aRene ge

1890.
June 11

June 1

June 12

June 3

June 13

June 6

June 17
June 19

June 20

June 21

June 10

June 25

eeis@h0;<\-13

June

July 1

July 3
June 18

June 27

Sd Kose

July 9

pdO)ees

aeO wee

-do ...

Answers No. 354. May present protest ....... acenoce

Refers to No. 356. Would Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment refer to arbitration question of legal right of
United States Government to exclude British seal-
ers! If so, would they issue proclamation on con-
ditions as-to compensation for past and prospec-
tive damages?

Answers above. Serious difficulties; but if Procla-
mation were issued, would United States Govern-
ment agree to specified conditions ?

Give rough form in which Proclamation might run,
if issued.

The United States Government having suggested
that a Proclamation excluding sealers for this sea-
son should be issued, he has replied that it is im-
possible. Copies of correspondence.

Claim trom owners of ‘‘ Pathfinder” for her deten-
tion in Neagh Bay in March last (see No. 317).

Refers to Nos. 349 and 361. Correspondence with
Mr. Blaine on subject of proposed exclusion of
sealers.

Extract from Annual Report for 1889 of Canadian
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

Letters from Captain Hulton, of Her Majesty’s ship
‘‘Amphion,” giving names of British sealers, their
owners, &e., and their probable movements.

tefers to No. 353. Explains, by copies of correspond-
ence, &c., position of Her Majesty’s Government in
regard to the negotiations of the spring of 1888,
and corrects impressions received by Mr. Blaine as
to any formal engagement having then been given.

Approves note in NONS0 Lessee senee ree eee eee Bae

Newspaper telegrams reporting that United States
Revenue cruizers have not yet left for Behring Sea.

Approves note in No. 363. Remarks on an observa-
tion by Mr. Phelps in 1888 as to electioneering difti-
culties in way of then concluding negotiations.

Refers to No. 355. Copy of Memorandum given to
Mr. Blaine explaining inability of Her Majesty’s
Government to stop sealers.

Refers to No. 359. May he send in official note formu-
lating conditions in regard to issue of a Proclama-
tion ?

Minute by Canadian Privy Council recommending
that an assurance be sought that sealers will not be
interfered with.

Entirely concurs in proposal in No. 371...............

Copy of note from Mr. Blaine in answer to argu-
ments in No. 336, in which he dwells at length on
undisputed rights of Russia, and claims them for
the United States, and again asks by what right
and on what grounds the present action of Her
Majesty’s Government is defended?

Mr. Blaine will continue negotiations at Bar Harbour.

Refers to No. 857. Copy of protest sent in on 14th,
and of note covering it.

Sends article from ‘‘ New York Herald”’ purporting
to give authoritative version of the story of the
negotiations.

Copy of note to Mr. Blaine founded on authority given
in No. 373.

Resolution adopted in House of Representatives for
publishing correspondence.

Approves note in No. 378 .....--..-.ce00 Gesnaagentac a5

Approves note in No. 376

Acknowledges No. 374. Replies at length to the argu-
ments deduced tromalleged Russian rights of juris.
diction over Behring Sea. Quotes American con-
tentions dating from 1822, opinions of publicists as
to limits of maritime jurisdiction, and diplomatic
documents of 1822, 1823, and 1824. Her Majesty’s
Government are ready. if necessary, to refer to ar-
bitration question of legality of recent captures,
with the issues that depend upon it.

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE BEHRING SEA
SEAL FISHERIES: 1886-90.

No. 1.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received September 1.)

DOWNING STREET, September 1, 1886.

Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, to be laid before the Karl of Iddesleigh, a copy of a
letter from the Admiralty, with its inclosure, respecting the alleged
seizure of three British Columbian seal schooners by the United States
Revenue cruizer * Corwin.”

I am to suggest, for the consideration of Lord Iddesleigh, that the
matter should be brought before the United States Government, with
the view of obtaining further information on the subject.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) KR. H. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 1.]
Admiralty to Colonial Office.

ADMIRALTY, August 26, 1886.

Sir: Iam commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit
herewith, for the perusal of the Secretary of State, a telegram which has been
received from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacifie Station, dated at Victoria, 24th
instant, respecting the seizure of three British Columbian seal schooners by the
United States Revenue cruizer ‘‘Corwin.”

Iam, &c. ,
(Signed) k. D. Awpry.

[{Inclosure 2 in No. 1.—Telegraphic.]

Rear-Admiral Sir M. Culme-Seymour to Admiralty.

VicTORIA, August 24, 1886.

Three British Columbian seal schooners seized [by] United States Revenue cruizer
Corwin,” Behring’s Straits, seaward 70 miles from off the land [ ? in the execution
of ] killing female ‘seals, and. using fire-arms to do it, which they have done for three
years without interference, although i in company with ‘Corwin,’ 17

Pe! ya

18 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 2.
The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 9, 1886.

Str: I transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from the Caleuial
Office, and of its inclosure, respecting the alleged seizure of three
British Columbian seal schooners by the United States Revenue

eruizer “*Corwin;”* and I have to instruct you to address a

2 communication to the United States Government asking to be

furnished with any particulars which they may possess relative
to this occurrence.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.

No. 3.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received September 27.)

DOWNING STREET, September 25, 1886.
Sir: With reference to the capture of Canadian sealing schooners in
Behring’s Sea by the United States Revenue cruizer “Corwin,” I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Earl of Iddesleigh, a telegram from the Officer administer-
ing the Government of the Dominion, together with a copy of a letter
from the Admiralty, with its inclosures, on the subject.
I am to state that, in Mr. Stanhope’s opinion, the case is one in which
a protest should be made to the United States Government, accom-
panied by a demand for compensation, and that Sir L. West might be
instructed to make such protest and demand, if, upon inquiry, he
ascertains that the United States Government maintain the pretension
raised by the seizure of these vessels on the high seas.
Iam, Xe. °
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 3.—Telegraphic. ]
Administrator Lord A. E. Russell to Mr, Stanhope.

SEPTEMBER 22, 1886.

The Canadian schooners ‘‘Thornton,” “Onward” and ‘‘Carolina” were seized on
the Ist August in Behring’s Sea by the United States cutter “Corwin.” The captain
and mate of the *‘Thornton” were tried in the District Court of the United States
at Sitka on the 30th August. It was attempted to show that the ‘‘Thornton” was
seized for killing seal about 70 miles south-south-east of St. George’s Island, within
that portion of Behring’s Sea ceded by Russia to the United States.

The Judge, in charging the jury, quoted Article I of the Treaty of the 30th March,
1867, between the U nited States and Russia, and affirmed that all waters within the
boundary set forth in the Treaty to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago
and Islands were to be deemed American, and that the penalties of the Law against
the killing of fur-bearing animals were to attach to its violation within the limits
in question. The jury were told, if they believed the evidence as to the killing of
any fur-bearing animals by the accused on the Alaskan coast or in Behring’s Sea,
east of the 193rd degree of west longitude, to find them guilty.

: * No. 1,

ae Via tenia 2a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 1S)

The prisoners were found guilty. The master of the *‘Thornton” was fined 500
dollars and sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days. The mate was fined 300 dol-
lars and sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment. The officers of the other two
vessels were also tried, and similar penalties imposed upon them.

The Government of Canada protests against the claim of the United States to the
sole sovereignty over Behring’s Sea, 700 miles east of the westerly boundary of
Alaska, detined by the above-mentioned Article I of the Treaty of the 30th March,
1867, as contrary to the admitted principles of international law, and also in oppo-
sition to the United States’ contention concerning common waters on the coast of
the Atlantic.

It protests also against the unwarranted and arbitrary interference of the authori-
ties of the United States with the peaceable and lawful occupation on the high seas
of Canadian citizens, as well as against the forfeiture of their property and the
indignity of imprisonment which have been imposed upon them. The foregoing
facts have also been communicated to Sir Lionel West.

3 [Inclosure 2 in No. 3.]
Admiralty to Colonial Office.

ADMIRALTY, September 20, 1886.

Sir: Iam commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to transmit
to you, in original, for the perusal of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a letter
from the Commander-in-chiet on the Pacific Station, dated the 25th August, respect-
ing the seizure of three sealing schooners by the United States Revenue cruizer
“Corwin,” on the plea of their killing female seals.

Iam to request that these papers may be sent to the Foreign Office, to be returned
to this Department when done with.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) Evan MACGREGOR.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 3.]
Rear-Admiral Sir M. Culme-Seymour to Admiralty.

“TRIUMPH,” AT ESQUIMALT, August 25, 1886.

Str: In confirmation of my telegram of the 23rd instant, I have the honour to
inform you of the particulars, as far as I can at present ascertain them, of the seizure
of the three sealing schooners by the United States Revenue cruizer ‘‘Corwin,” a
small screw steamer.

The schooners are:

“Thornton,” auxiliary screw, 22 tons, Captain J. D. Warren, owner.

“Carolina,” sailing, 32 tons, William Munsie, owner.

“Onward,” sailing, 35 tons, W. Spring, owner.

All belonging to Victoria, British Columbia.

The schooner which was seized nearest to land was 50 miles from St. George Island,
the other two rather further off. All three were towed by the ‘‘Corwin” to Ouna-
laska, the captain and one man retained on board, and the remainder of the crew
sent to San Francisco by a steamer going there, when they were set free, and sent on
here at the expense of the owners, arriving on the night of the 22nd instant.

Their arrival at San Francisco was the first we heard of the schooners being seized.

Nothing has been disturbed on board the schooners, except that the arms and
ammunition have been seized, and sufficient provision for the crew on their passage
to San Francisco taken.

2. There are ten other sealing schooners from Victoria in the Behring’s Sea. The
season is from about the 1st July to the end of August. If not seized, they are prob-
ably on their way here, and may be expected to arrive the middle of September.
The question of whether they should be protected or not does not, therefore, at
present arise.

Last year there were two schooners from here in the Behring’s Sea, and I am
assured the ‘‘Corwin” spoke them four or five times without interfering.

In 1884 only one schooner was there. The success of these has caused thirteen ta
be fitted out this season.

3. I inclose copies of the following as bearing on the subject;

(1.) Letter from captain of ‘‘Thornton” to owner.

(2.) Letter from captain of ‘ Carolina” to owner,

20 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

(3.) Letter from Mr. Boutwell, Secretary United States Treasury. if

(4.) A warning published in San Francisco papers and copied into British Colum-
bian papers.

(5.) Letter and telegrams between Mr. Lubbe and Mr. Crow-Baker, M. P. for
Victoria,

(6.) A letter from the American newspaper ‘‘ Oregonian. :

I had hoped to have inclosed a copy of the lease from the United States to the
Alaska Commercial Company, and a copy of the depositions of the crews on arrival
at Victoria, but the only copy of the lease in Victoria, as also the depositions, have
been taken away by the Honourable G. E. Foster, Canadian Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, who was here on the 23rd, and left yesterday morning. I have telegraphed

to him for copies, and will forward them as soon as received.
4 4. I would call attention to the Treaty concerning the cession of the Russian
possessions in North America to the United States, concluded 30th March, 1867,
as also to the Convention between Great Britain and Russia, signed 16th (28th) Feb-
ruary, 1825, and beg to make the following observations:

An American Company, called the ‘‘ Alaska Commercial Company,” have a lease
from the United States, dated 1870, of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George for
twenty years, with the right to kill 100,000 seals annually on the islands and “ waters
adjacent.” A United States officer is stationed on these islands to see the terms of
the lease properly carried out, and the ‘‘Corwin” is also there for this purpose.
By the terms of the lease, fire-arms are not to be used to kill the seals, nor may
female seals or seals under one year old be killed.

5. It would appear by Inclosure No. 4+ that the United States claim the whole of
the Behring’s Sea, bounded on the south by the Aleutian Islands, and, as laid down
in the Treaty of 1867, as American territory. It would seem impossible to sustain
this, for it would appear to be the ‘high sea,” and not Russia’s to cede, and this line
mentioned in the Treaty only meant to include the islands within it, and not the sea.

I beg to draw special attention to the letter from Mr. Boutwell in 1872 (Inclosure
No. 3).t Mr. Boutwell was then the United States Secretary to the Treasury, and he
distinetly states his Government could not interfere beyond a marine league from
the shore. Mr. Boutwell was, I am told, greatly instrumental in procuring the lease
of St. Paul and St. George for the Alaska Commercial Company, and was therefore
interested in excluding sealing vessels from the Behring’s Sea.

6. I may mention that female seals cannot be distinguished from males when killed
asleep on the water at sea; the seals killed by the Alaska Commercial Company are
all clubbed ou land, when the difference of sex can be easily seen; but that does not
really affect the question as I view it, which is simply whether the Behring’s Sea is
the “high sea,” or not. If, as I take it, Behring’s Seais the “high sea,” I presume no
vessel fishing there can be legally interfered with.

7. The “San Diego” referred to in Inclosures 1 and 2§ is an American schooner, and
was taken and confiscated, I am informed, for landing and killing 500 seals on Jand,
contrary to United States law.

8. Inclosure 5, || from a gentlemen in Victoria interested im sealing, and the tele-
graphic answers, show that the owners of the schooners sent them up with their eyes
open, and were aware they ran a risk of being seized.

9. Inclosure 6 J is a letter in an American newspaper, the ‘‘ Oregonian,” published
at Portland, Oregon, and shows the view taken by many Americans on the subject.

I have, &c.

0 *

(Signed) M. CULME-SEYMOUR.

P.S. Port Moody, August 27, 1886.—The depositions alluded to having just arrived,
I inclose them.
M. C-S.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 3.]
Captain H. Guttermann [?] to Captain J. D. Warren.

SCHOONER “THORNTON,” IN PORT ILIOLUK, OUNALASKA,
August 7, 1886.

Sir: As this is my first opportunity to let you know that on the Ist August at 6
P. M.—my position 55° 45’ north latitude, 168° 44’ west longitude—having on board
403 seal-skins, all well on board, when United States Revenue cutter “ Corwin”
placed an officer on board, took arms and ammunition, took us in tow. At8P. M.
stopped and took schooner ‘ Carolina” in tow.

* Not printed. § See Inclosures 4 and 5 in No. 3.
t See Inclosure 7 in No. 3. || See Inclosure 8 in No. 3.
t See Inclosure 6 in No. 3, {| See Inclosure 9 in No, 3,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Fi

August 2 at 6 a. M. stopped and took schooner ‘‘Onward.” Atnoon latitude 54° 30’,
longitude 167° 18’. At 8.40 P.M. brought us to anchor in above-mentioned port; took
all the boats from the schooner; put a watchman on board from the cutter.

August 3. At 9 A. M. an officer from the cutter came on board and took the ship’s

apers.
P erat 4, An officer from the cutter returned one boat, and gave four of the crew
liberty to go onshore from 8 A. M. to 8 P. M,, at the discretion of me,
5 August 5. Nothing done to remark,
August 6. Ditto.

August 7. At 9 A.M.an officer from the cutter came on board; took some provi-
sions “from the schooner. At3Pp.M. took ten men, and are eoing to be sent to San
Francisco immediately with steamer “San Paule,” as leaves just 1 now.

“‘San Diego” is seized and stripped here.

IT have put in my protest.

My latest news from the rest of Victoria schooners is ‘doing well.” I know not
more just now, and remain, yours, &c.

(Signed) H. GUITERMANN [?].

My protest is as follows

“YT, H. Gutterman [?], master of British schooner ‘Thornton,’ do hereby declare
that I do not know wherein I have violated the laws of the United States or other
nations in taking seals beyond the usual limit of 3 leagues [? miles] from shore
within Behring’s Sea, and I therefore enter this my solemn protest against the action
of the United States authorities in seizing this the vessel under my command,
together with the seal-skins composing cargo.”

(Excuse haste.) H. G.

[inclosure 5 in No. 3.]
Captain J. Ogilvie to Mr. W. Munsie.
OUNALASKA, August 6, 1886.

DraR Sir: The United States steamer ‘‘ Corwin” boarded and took charge of the
schooner in latitude 55° 50’ north, longitude 168° 53’ west. They took all the fire-
arms from the schooner. I asked why they did so. They said for killing female
seals and carrying fire-arms. They towed the ‘‘Thornton” and ‘*Onward” in at
the same time. I have got 686 seal-skins on board, “Thornton” 404, “Onward”
700. I have heard nothing of the “Pathfinder” in the Behring’s Sea ; she was seen
off Sitka coming up. It was on the Ist August, at 6 P. M. , they took charge of the
schooner.

The American schooner ‘‘San Diego” is in here, they are taking all her skins and
sails on shore; 500 skins.

Your, &c.
(Signed) JAMES OGILVIE.

[Inclosure 6 in No. 3.]
Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Phelps.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, April 19, 1872.

Str: Your letter of the 25th ultimo was duly received, calling the attention of
the Department to certain rumors circulating in San Francisco to the effect that
expeditions are to start from Australia and the Hawaiian Islands to take fur-seals on
their annual migration to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, through the nar-
row pass of Unmark. You recommend, to cut off the responsibility of evil resulting
to the interest of the United States from these expeditions, that a Revenue cutter be
sent to the region of Unmark Pass, by the 16th May next. <A very full conversation
was had with | Captain Bayant upon this subject while he was at the Department,
and he convinced it to be entirely impracticable to make such an expedition a pay-
ing one, inasmuch as the seals go singly or in pairs, and not in droves, and cover a
large region of water in their homeward travel to these islands, and he did not seem
to fear that the seals would be driven from their accustomed resorts, even were such
attempts made.

In addition, I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or
power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such
attempt within a marine league of the shore.

As at present advised, I do not think it expedient to carry out your suggestion,
but I will thank you to communicate to the Department any further facts or infor-
mation you may be able to gather upon the subject.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) GEO. S. BOUTWELL, Secretary.

22 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
6 [Inclosure 7 in No. 3.]

Extract from the ‘ Daily British Colonist” of April 6, 1886.

ALASKA SRAL CaTcHuING.—The story goes that some poachers were fitting out in
San Francisco to kill seals on the Federal preserves in Alaskan waters. To warn
all such parties Secretary Manning addressed the following note to Collector Hager:

“TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 16, 1886.

‘Sir: I transmit herewith, for your information, a copy of a letter addressed by
the Department on the 12th March, 1881, to D. A, D’Ancona, concerning the juris-
diction of the United States in the waters of the Territory of Alaska, and the pre-
vention of the killing of fur-seals and other fur-bearing animals within such areas,
as prescribed by Chapter 5, Title 23, of the Revised Statutes. The attention of your
predecessor in office was called to this subject on the 4th April, 1881. This commn-
nication is addressed to you, inasmuch as it is understood that certain parties at
your port contemplate the fitting out of expeditions to kill tur-seals in these waters.
You are requested to give due publicity to such letters, in order that such parties
may be informed of the construction placed by this Department upon the provision
of law referred to.

“Respectfully yours,
(Signed) “D. MANNING, Secretary.

“COLLECTOR OF Customs, San Francisco.” :

Upon reference to back files we find the full explanation of this note in the letter
referred to, which is as follows:

“TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 12, 1881.

“Sir: Your letter of the 19th ultimo, requesting certain information in regard to
the meaning placed by this Department upon the Law regulating the killing of fur-
bearing animals in the Territory of Alaska, was duly received.

“The Law prohibits the killing of any fur-bearing animals, except as otherwise
therein provided, within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof,
and also prohibits the killing of any fur-seals on the Islands of St. Paul and St.
George, or in the waters adjacent thereto, except during certain months,

“You inquire in regard to the interpretation of the terms ‘waters there’ and
‘waters adjacent thereto,’ as used in the Law, and how far the jurisdiction of the
United States is to be understood as extending.

“‘Presuming your inquiry to relate more especially to the waters of Western Alaska,
you are informed that the Treaty with Russia of the 30th March, 1870,* by which
the Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States, defines the boundary of the
territory so ceded. ‘This Treaty is found on pp. 671 to 675 of the volume of Treaties
of the Revised Statutes. It will be seen, therefore, that the limit of the cession
extends from a Jine starting from the Arctic Ocean, and running through Behring’s
Strait to the north of St. Lawrence Islands.

“The line runs thence in a south-westerly direction, so as to pass midway between
the Island of Attou and Copper Island of the Kormansborski Couplet or Group of the
North Pacific Ocean, to meridian of 173° west longitude. All the waters within that
boundary to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of islands are
considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska Territory.

‘All the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of fur-bearing animals
would therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits before described.

“‘Very respectfully,
(Signed) “HH, F. Frencu, Acting Secretary.

“Tt. A. D’ANCONA,

717, O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California.”

All parties are warned that the rule laid down by the Secretary of the Treasury of
the United States in 1881, and reaffirmed in the note of Secretary Manning to the
Collector of this port of date of the 16th March, 1886, will be rigidly enforced against
all who attempt to poach upon the Federal preserve by killing seals within its limits,
there laid down and defined, in the waters of Alaska. From that preserve the Fed-
eral Government derives revenue, and its lessee is entitled to the protection proffered
by the note of the Secretary referred to.

* ? 1867.

1 imine, aie

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Zo

[Inclosure 8 in No. 3.]
Mr. F. Lubbe to Mr. E. Crow-Baker, M. P.

Vicroria, BRITISH COLUMBIA, March 30, 1886.

DEAR Str: The inclosed clipping explains itself.

The question I wish to ask you is, Can the United States claim the easterly half of
Behring’s Sea as American waters?

The British schooners ‘‘ Mary Ellen,” ‘‘ Favourite,” ‘‘Onward,” ‘‘Grace,” ‘ Dol-
phin,” ‘‘Anna Beck,” “Wm. P. Sayward,” ‘‘Mary Taylor,” ‘ Carolina,” ‘ Alfred
Adams,” and ‘‘ Active” intend to follow the seals into Behring’s Sea at the end of
the seal-fishing season off the British Columbia coast, say the 20th May next. These
schooners would spear and shoot seals upon the high seas, and have no occasion to
go within 30 miles of any land. You are aware that the British schooner ‘‘ Mary
Ellen” has already made two successful voyages to the Behring’s Sea; the ‘‘ Favour-
ite” made also a successful voyage during 1885. Both these vessels were spoken by
an American Revenue cruizer in Behring’s Sea last summer, but not in any way
molested, ;

Would it not be well for you to obtain from the Minister of Marine in Ottawa a
written opinion, and, further, would you be good enough to communicate to me the
substance of such opinion by wire?

Please act promptly, and oblige yours, &c.

(Signed) F. LuBBE.

Warning to Seal Hunters.

The Treasury Department, having become informed that certain parties are fitting
out expeditions for the purpose of killing fur-seals and other fur-bearing animals in
Alaska waters, gives the following information to parties concerned, as to how far
tke jurisdiction of the United States extends in the matter.

The Treaty with Russia of the 30th March, 1870, by which the Territory of Alaska
was ceded to the United States, defines the boundary of the territory so ceded. It
will be seen therefrom that the limit of the cession extends from a line starting from
the Arctic Ocean and running through Behring’s Straits to the north of St. Lawrence
Islands. ‘The line runs thence in a south-westerly direction, so as to pass midway
between the Island of Attou and Cooper Island, of the Kromanboski couplet or group,
in the North Pacific Ocean, to meridian 173° west longitude. Ail the waters within
that boundary to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of islands
are considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska Territory.

All the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of fur-bearing animals
would therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits described.

Mr. A. Crow-Baker to Mr. F. Lubbe.

(Telegraphic. ]
APRIL 20.

Your matter progressing expelitiously as possible. Referred by Council to Min-
ister Justice. Will advise you when decision is reached.

Mr. EL. C. Rowbotham to Mr. F. Lubbe.
[Telegraphic. ]
May 30.

Minister Justice gives opinion in your favor and against American contention. He
has recommended attention of Imperial Government being called to the subject in
order that views of Canadian Government be then sustained and enforced.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 3.]

Declarations.

I, William Munsie, of Victoria, grocer, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am
sole owner of the schooner “ Carolina,” and she has a Canadian register, having been
registered at the port of Victoria. The vessel and her outtit at the time she left

24 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

8 for Behring’s Sea was 7,000 dollars, and I make this solemn declaration, con-

scientiously believing the same to be true, by virtue of the Act passed in the
37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘‘An Act for the Suppression of Voluntary
and Extra-judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) Wo. MunsIE.
Taken and declared before me at Victoria, this 23rd August, 1886.
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwuirr Drakk, J. P.

I, Thomas McLaedy, of Victoria, British Columbia, cook, do solemnly and sin-
cerely declare that I was engaged as cook on board the British schooner ‘ Carolina,”
and I was on board when the United States steamer ‘‘ Corwin” seized her, During
the whole time the said schooner was sealing she never sighted land once. Aftershe
was seized the ‘‘ Corwin” took her in tow about 6 o’clock in the evening, and about
3 o’clock in the morning the English schooner ‘‘ Onward,” of the tonnage of 35.20
tons, was also seized and taken in tow to Ounalaska. Her crew were lett on board
and not removed to San Francisco; she had seal-skins on board. And 1 make this
solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, by virtue of the
Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An Act for the Sup-
pression of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) T. McLArpy.
Taken and declared before me this 25rd August, 1886, at Victoria, British Columbia.
(Signed) M. W. TyRwuHitr Drake, J. P.

I, Edward Shields, of Sooke District, Vancouver Island, a hunter, engaged on
board the British schooner ‘‘ Carolina,” of 31.90 registered tonnage, do solemnly and
sincerely declare that I left Victoria on board the aforesaid schooner on the 20th
May, 1886, bound on a voyage to Behring’s Sea for the purpose of sealing. The
schooner was fitted out for this purpose. She had eleven hands on board, including
the master, by name James Ogilvie. We sailed to Behring’s Sea and commenced
sealing on the 15th June, and at that time we were about 380 miles from land, and
we continued cruizing about for seals, and up to the time the United States vessel
“Corwin” seized us we had 686 seals. During the whole time we were cruizing
about we were in the open sea, out of sight of any land. The seals we obtained
were chiefly females. At the time the “Corwin” seized us on the Ist August we
were out of sight of land and in latitude 55° 50’ north, longitude 168° 53’ west, as I
was informed and verily beheve. ‘There were other vessels, both American and Eng-
lish, cruizing about in the same neighbourhood. We never killed a seal in the neigh-
bourhood of the Aleutian Islands. I was away in the boats when the ‘ Corwin”
seized the vessel, and when I came back I found the ‘‘Carolina” in tow of the ‘‘Cor-
win.” The captain of the “Corwin,” Abbey by name, took away all the fire-arms,
consisting of rifles and shot-guns, ten in all, and I was taken to Ounalaska, and
from there I was taken toSan Francisco by the steamer ‘‘ St. Paul,” and there turned
adrift. The “Carolina” was left at Ounalaska with the seals and outfit, and I make
this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, by virtue of
the Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘‘An Act for the
Suppression of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) EDWARD SHIELDS.

Taken and declared before me at Victoria, this 23rd day of August, 1886, in due
form of law.

(Signed) M. W. TYRWHITT DRAKE, J. P.
9 I, John Dallas, of Victoria, British Columbia, seaman, do solemnly and sin-

cerely declare that I was engaged about the end of May 1886 as a seaman on
board the schooner “Thornton,” of 22.30 registered tonnage, registered in the
Dominion of Canada as a British vessel. I was engaged sealing on the west coast
of Vancouver Island, and when the seals got scarce the “Thornton” left [? Clayo-
quot] Vanconver Island, for Behring’s Sea about beginning of June, and three days
after passing Unmark Pass we killed our first seal, being then about 250 miles from
land. We were engaged sealing in the open sea until the 1st August. We had a
little over 400 skins on board, when the United States steamer ‘‘ Corwin” seized our

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 25

vessel and took her to Ounalaska. They were about twenty-eight hours engaged in
towing us to Ounalaska. The master of the ‘‘Corwin” removed all our guns and
ammunition—ten guns in all. There were fourteen hands on board the ‘‘ Thornton”
altogether, including two Indians, nine white men, and a Chinese cook—were sent
to San Francisco and there discharged. Two white men and two Indians were left
on boatd the schooner at Ounaiaska. We were 5 or 6 miles from the ‘‘ Carolina” at
the time we were seized. I saw no other vessels in sight at the time. We were
never in sight of land during the whole time we were sealing. And I make this
declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, by virtue of the Act
passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘‘An Act for the Suppression
of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.”
; (Signed) JouN DALLAS, his X mark.

Taken and declared before me at Victoria, this 23rd day of August, 1886, the same

having been first read over to him.
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwuitt DRAKE, J. P.

No. 4.
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.—( Received October 4.)

WASHINGTON, September 21, 1886.

My Lorp: The reported seizure of British vessels by American
cruizers in waters over which it appears the United States Govern-
ment claim jurisdiction as adjacent to the Territory of Alaska has given
rise to much comment in the newspapers touching the interests of a
powerful commercial Company which may be affected by the inter-
national questions arising therefrom; and in this connection I have the
honour to inclose to your Lordship Lerewith a précis of the history of
the origin of this Company, as well as of what has been written on the
subject. .

Chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (p. 342, sec-
tions 1954 to 1976 inclusive) contains the “ provisions relating to the
unorganized Territory of Alaska;” and section 1954 extends “the
laws of the United States to and over all the mainland, islands, and
waters of the territory” ceded by Russia to the United States by the
Treaty of 1867.

In addition the lease of the Government Seal Islands the Alaska
Company holds as well leases of certain islands from the Russian
Government, so that in fact it may be said to monopolize the seal fur
trade in these waters.

I have, Xe.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 4.]
History of the Origin of the Alaska Commercial Company.

The transfer of the Territory of Alaska to the United States Government, in com-
pliance with the terms of the Treaty of Purchase between the two Governments,
ineluded the transfer of all the Russian Government property, such as public bnild-
ings at Sitka, Governor’s house, Custom-house, hospital, and wharves, &c. There
were, however, certain buildings reserved as the property of the Russian Fur Com-
pany, and as General Rousseau, the United States Commissioner, could not, in his
official capacity, take any active or open part in its disposal, Prince Matsukoff, the
Russian Governor, concluded a bargain with Mr. Hutchinson, who accompanied

General Rousseau as his Private Secretary. This bargain included all the
10 property of the Russian Fur Company and seal-skins stored. It was made on

private terms and to the exclusion of the stockholders of the Russian Company
and the American officers stationed at Sitka, who claimed that they were entitled to
a share of the spoils.

26 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

By virtue of this bargain with Prince Matsukoff, who was Governor of the Com-
pany, Mr. Hutchinson proposed to take possession of the fur trade of Alaska and the
Seal Islands, and left for Victoria (British Columbia) and San Francisco to make the
necessary arrangements. At the former place he met with a Mr. Kohl, owner of a
British steamer called the “ Fidelitor,” with whom he entered into partnership, and
the firm still exists under the name of Hutchinson, Cole, and Co. The steamer
obtained an American register under the plea that she was a Russian vessel at the
time of the transfer of the territory to the United States, and was thus enabled to
carry on the coasting trade. Preparations were made in 1868 for working the fur
trade of the newly-acquired possession, and especially for the occupation of the
Pribylov Islands, to which, by virtue of the arrangements with Prince Matsukoff,
the new Company considered they had an exclusive right. Upon their arrival
there, however, they found them occupied by experienced sealers from New London
and Stonington (Connecticut) under one Captain Morgan. A fight for possession
seemed imminent, but a division of the season’s catch was finally agreed upon.
While the two parties were thus amicably at work, M. Pflugel, Russian Vice-Consul
at Honolulu, arrived at the head of an expedition, believing that he should find the

‘islands unoccupied, but was eventually forced to retire before the combined forces
of Captain Morgan and Mr. Hutchinson. It now became obvious that the Govern-
ment must take means to preserve these valuable seal rookeries, and in the winter
of 1868 an Act of Congress was passed, the conditions for permission to take seals
being, however, reserved for future Congressional action. ‘The coalition between
Hutchinson and Morgan still continued, and finally led to the organization of the
powerful and wealthy Alaska Commercial Company. Since 1870 this Company has
controlled the entire fur trade of Alaska, and by virtue of its alliances with the
lessees of the Russian Seal Islands, controls the valuable fur-seal trade of the world.
With strong political influence in the Congress of 1876, it obtained a lease of the
Pribylov Islands for twenty years at a rental of 55,000 dollars a-year, and a royalty
of 2 dol. 62 ¢. per skin, the take to be limited to 100,000 skins a-year. Itis calculated
that the Company pays annually 315,000 dollars to the United States Treasury,
which, after paying all the expenses of the Territory, yields more than 4 per cent.
per annum on the purchase-money paid to Russia for Alaska.

To preserve this revenue through future years the protection of the seals from
legal capture or disturbance on their annual visits to the islands has been deemed
an absolute necessity, and hence the prohibition against approaching or landing on
the islands and the vigilance of the United States cruizers in the Behring’s Sea.
It is not, however, generally understood that the Alaska Company controls the fur
trade of all the mainland and islands of Alaska lying west of the 141st meridian
of west longitude, and that its operations over this vast extent of territory and
coast are entirely distinct from, and have no connection with, its exclusive control
of the Seal Islands, which it holds by virtue of its lease from the United States
Government.

Outside of these islands it holds no exclusive rights or franchise from the Govern-
ment, nor does it pay any rent or royalty to the Government on the territory it occu-
pies or the furs it procures from the natives. It has no rights over any other citizen
or company of citizens who may desire to trade in competition with it, and yet it
has been aided by the Revenue Marine in suppressing competition from rival traders,
for it appears that, under instructions from the Treasury Department, the Revenue
cruizers board and examine every trading-vessel sighted in the Behring’s Sea or on
the north-west coast of Alaska, except the vessels of the Company. If a pretext
can be found, an officer is placed on board with instructions to take the vessel to
Ounalaska and discharge her cargo. She is then sent to San Francisco, where the
United States Marshal finds that there is no cause for condemnation, and, as the
object of breaking up her voyage has been gained, she is released and restored to
her owners. ‘The vessels subjected to this treatment come trom British Columbia
and Japan, and are, it is said, fitted out for contraband trade.

WASHINGTON, September 1886.

11 No. 5.
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.—( Received October 4.)

WASHINGTON, September 21, 1886.
My Lorp: With reference to my preceding despatch, I have the
honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copies of correspondence,
as published in the newspapers, relative to the seizure of British sealers
in Alaska waters.
I have, &e. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST,

— ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 27
[Inclosure in No. 5.]
Extract from the “New York Herald” of September 21, 1886.

THE BRITISKH SEALERS—OFFICERS OF SOME OF THE TRESPASSING SCHOONERS
FINED AND IMPRISONED.

WASHINGTON, September 20, 1886.

Acting Secretary Fairchild has received a telegram from Captain Abbey, com-
manding the Revenue steamer “Corwin,” dated at Nanaimo, British Columbia,
which is as follows:

“ Respectfully report ‘ Corwin’ here at request of Governor Swineford and Judge
Dawson. Have brought here twenty-two British seamen, released from seized
sealers. Am to land remaining released American seamen at Port Townsend. Mas-
ters and mates of the seized craft have been convicted and sentenced to fines or
imprisonment, or both. I made full depositions for libel suits before leaving Sitka.”

Despatches have been received at the Navy Departinent from Lieutenant-Com-
mander Nichols, commanding the “Pinta,” from Sitka, Alaska, relating to the seizure
of the British sealers. In the despatch dated the 28th of August he say S::

“On the 24th instant the Revenue steamer ‘Corwin’ came in, bringing the Ameri-
can vessel ‘San Diego,’ of San Francisco, seized for catching seals unlawfully. She
also reported the seizure of three English schooners for the same offence. ‘The latter
were left at Ounalaska in charge of the United States Deputy Marshal, the officers,
crews, and cargoes being brought here. A large quantity of arms and ammunition

was also seized. The matter comes up before the District Court here next week,
and it is probable that interesting international questions will come up, as well also
as the jurisdiction of the United States over the entire seas in the Arctie and Beh-
ring’s Seas east of the boundary line.”

In a despatch dated the 2nd September he says that two of the cases have been dis-
posed of as follows:

“The captain and mate of the British schooner ‘Thornton’ were tried by jury,
found guilty, and sentenced each to imprisonment for thirty days and fined, the cap-
tain 500 dollars and the mate 300 dollars. The captain and mate of the American
schooner ‘San Diego’ waived a jury, and were tried before the Court. Both were
found guilty and sentenced, the captain to two months’ imprisonment, and the mate
to one month’s imprisonment.

“The cases of the two other British schooners will come up in a day or two. The
captain of one of them has disappeared, and, it is supposed, has committed suicide.”
From an inclosure in one of these despatches it is learned that the ‘‘Corwin,”
when conveying her prizes to port, sighted five other vessels, all doubtless engaged
in unlawful sealing, They made sail with all possible haste as soon as the Revenue
vessel was sighted, and the latter was unable to follow them without abandoning

her prizes.

12 No. 6.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received October 11.)

ADMIRALTY, October 7, 1886.

Str: With reference to my letters of the 26th August and the 20th
September,* relative to the seizure of British Columbian sealing
schooners, [ am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admi-
ralty to transmit to you, for the perusal of the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, copy of an Act to prevent the extermination of fur-
bearing animals in Alaska, together with copy of the lease of the
United States to the Alaska Commercial Company to take fur-seals in
the Territory of Alaska. A similar letter has been sent to the Colonial
Office.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR.

* See Inclosure 1 in No. 1, and Inclosure 2 in No. 3.

28 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 6.]
[PuBLti1c—No. 120.]

An Act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that it shall be unlawful to kill any fur-seal upon
the Islands of St, Paul and St. George, or in the waters adjacent thereto, except
during the months of June, July, September, and October in each year, and it shall
be unlawful to kill such seals at any time by the use of fire-arms, or use other means
tending to drive the seals away from said islands.

Provided that the natives of said islands shall have the privilege of killing such
young seals as may be necessary for their own food and clothing during other months,
and also such old seals as may be required for their own clothing and for the manu-
facture of boats for their own use, which killing shall be limited and controlled by
such Regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section 2. And be it further enacted, that it shall be unlawful to kill any female
seal, or any seal less than one year old at any season of the year except as above
provided; and it shallalso be unlawful to kill any seal in the waters adjacent to the
said islands, or on the beaches, cliffs, or rocks where they haul up from the sea to
remain; and any person who shall violate either of the provisions of this or the first
section of this Act shall be punished on conviction thereof for each offence by a
fine of not less than 200 dollars, nor more than 1,000 dollars, or by imprisonment not
exceeding six months, or by such fine and imprisonment both at the discretion of
the Court having jurisdiction, by taking cognizance of the offence; and all vessels,
their tackle, apparel, and furniture, whose crew shall be found engaged in the vio-
lation of any of the provisions of this Act, shall be forfeited to the United States.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that for the period of twenty years from and
after the passage of this Act the number of fur-seals which may be killed for their
skins upon the Island of St. Paul is hereby limited and restricted to 75,000 per
annum; and the number of fur-seals which may be killed for their skins upon the
Island of St. George is hereby limited and restricted to 25,000 per annum. Provided
that the Secretary of the Treasury may restrict and limit the right of killing if it
shall become necessary for the preservation of such seals, with such proportionate
reduction of the rents reserved to the Government as shall be right and proper, and
if any person shall knowingly violate either of the provisions of this section, he
shall, upon due conviction thereof, be punished in the same way as provided herein
for a violation of the provisions of the first and second sections of this Act.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, that immediately upon the passage of this Act
the Secretary of the Treasury shall lease, for the rental mentioned in section 6 of
this Act, to proper and responsible parties, to the best advantage of the United
States, having due regard to the interests of the Government, the native inhabitants,

the parties heretofore engaged in trade, and the protection of the seal fisheries,
13 for a term of twenty years from the Ist day of May, 1870, the right to engage

in the business of taking fuir-seals on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George,
and to send a vessel or vessels to said islands for the skins of such seals, giving to
the lessee or lessees of said islands a lease, duly executed, in duplicate, not transfer-
able, and taking from the lessee or lessees of said islands a bond, with sufficient
sureties, ina sum not less than 500,000 dollars, conditioned for the faithful observance
of all the laws and requirements of Congress, and of the Regulations of the Secretary
of the Treasury touching the subject-matter of taking fur-seals and disposing of the
same, and for the payment of all taxes and dues aecruing to the United States con-
nected therewith; and in making said lease the Secretary of the Treasury shall have
due regard to the preservation of the seal-fur trade of said islands, and the comfort,
maintenance, and education of the natives thereof. The said lessees shall furnish to
the several masters of vessels employed by them certified copies of the lease held by
them respectively, which shall be presented to the Government Revenue officer for
the time being who may be in charge at the said islands as the authority of the
party for landing and taking skins.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, that at the expiration of said term of twenty
years, or on surrender or forfeiture of any lease, other Jeases may be made in manner
aforesaid for other terms of twenty years; but no person other than American citi-
zens shall be permitted by lease or otherwise to occupy said islands or either of them,
for the purpose of taking the skins of fur-seals therefrom, nor shall any foreign ves-
sel be engaged in taking such skins, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall vacate
and declare any lease forfeited if the same be held or operated for the use, benetit,
or advantage, directly or indirectly, of any person or persons other than American
citizens. Every lease shall contain a covenant on the part of the lessee that he will
not keep, sell, furnish, give, or dispose of any distilled spirits or spirituous liquors
on either of the said islands to any of the natives thereof, such person not being a

:
;

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 29

physician and furnishing the same for use as medicine: and any person who shall
kill any fur-seal on either of the said islands, or in the waters adjacent thereto,
without authority of the lessees thereof, and any person who shall molest, disturb,
or interfere with said lessees, or either of them, or their agents or employés, in the
lawful prosecution of their business, under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall for each offence, on conviction thereof, be pun-
ished in the same way and by like penalties as prescribed in the 2nd section of this
Act; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, appurtenances, and cargo, whose crews
shall be found engaged in any violation of either of the provisions of this section,
shall be forfeited to the United States; and if any person or Company, under any
lease herein authorized, shall knowingly kill, or permit to be killed, any number of
seals exceeding the number for each island in this Act prescribed, such person or
Company shall, in addition to the penalties and forfeitures aforesaid, also forfeit
the whole number of the skins of seals killed in that year, or, in case the same have
been disposed of, then said parties or Company shall forfeit the value of the same;
and it shall be the duty of any Revenue officer, officially acting as such on either of
said islands, to seize and destroy any distilled spirits or spirituous liquors found
thereon, provided that such officer shall make detailed report of his doing so to the
Collector of the port.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, that the annual rental to be reserved by said
lease shall not be less than 50,000 dollars per annum, to be secured by deposit of
United States bonds to that amount, and in addition thereto a revenue tax as duty
of 2 dollars is hereby laid upon each fur-seal skin taken and shipped from said islands
during the continuance of such lease to be paid into the Treasury of the United
States; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby empowered and authorized to
make all needful Rules and Regulations for the collection and payment of the same,
for the comfort, maintenance, education, and protection of the natives of said islands,
and also for carrying into full effect all the provisions of this Act. Provided, further,
that the Secretary of the Treasury may terminate any lease given to any person,
Company, or Corporation on full and satisfactory proof of the violation of any of
the provisions of this Act, or the Rules and Regulations established by him. Pro-
vided, further, that the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to deliver to
the owners the fur-seal skins now stored on the islands, on the payment of 1 dollar for
each of said skins taken and shipped away by said owners.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, that the provisions of the 7th and 8th sections of
‘‘An Act to extend the Laws of the United States relating to Customs, Commerce,
and Navigation over the Territory ceded to the United States by Russia, to establish
a Collection District thereon, and for other purposes,” approved 27th July, 1868, shall
be deemed to apply to this Act, and all prosecutions for offences committed against
the provisions of this Act, and all other proceedings had because of the violations of

the provisions of this Act, and which are authorized by said Act above men-
14 tioned, shali be in accordance with the provisions thereof, and all Acts and
parts of Acts inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed,

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, that the Congress may at any time hereafter
alter, amend, or repeal this Act.

Approved Ist July, 1870.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 6.]

Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Phelps, April 19, 1872.

(See inclosure 6 in No. 3.)

[Inclosure 3 in No. 6.]

Lease of the United States to the Alaska Commercial Company to take Fur Seals in the
Territory of Alaska.

This indenture, in duplicate, made this 3rd day of August A. D. 1870, by and
between William A. Richardson, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance of
an Act of Congress, approved the Ist July, 1870, entitled “‘An Act to prevent the
Extermination of Fur-bearing Animalsin Alaska,” and the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany, a Corporation duly established under the laws of the State of California, act-
ing by John F. Miller, its President and Agent, in accordance with a Resolution of
said Corporation duly adopted at a meeting of its Board of Trustees, held the 31st
January, 1870,

Witnesseth—

That the said Secretary hereby leases to the said Alaska Commercial Company,

without power of transfer, for the term of twenty years from the 1st day of May,

30 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

1870, the right to engage in the business of taking fur-seals on the Islands of St.
George and St Paul, within the Territory of Alaska, and to send a vessel or vessels
to said islands for the skins of such seals.

And the said Alaska Commercial Company, in consideration of their right under
this lease, hereby covenant and agree to pay for each year during said term, and in
proportion during any part thereof, the sum of 55,000 dollars into the Treasury of
the United States, in accordance with the Regulations of the Secretary, to be made
for this purpose under said Act, which payment shall be secured by deposit of United
States bonds to that amount, and also covenant and agree to pay annually into the
Treasury of the United States, under said Rules and Regulations, a revenue tax or
duty of 2 dollars upon each fur-seal skin taken and shipped by them, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act aforesaid, and also the sum of 624 cents for each fur-
seal skin taken and shipped, and 55 cents per gallon for each gallon of oil obtained
from said seals for sale on said islands or elsewhere, and sold by said Company; and
also covenant and agree, in accordance with said Rules and Regulations, to furnish
free of charge the inhabitants of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George annually
during said term 25,000 dried salmon, 60 cords fire-wood, a sufficient quantity of salt
and a sufficient number of barrels for preserving the necessary supply of meat.

And the said lessees also hereby covenant and agree during the term aforesaid to
maintain a school on each island, in accordance with said Rules and Regulations,
and suitable for the education of the natives of said islands, for a period of not less
than eight months in each year.

And the said lessees further covenant and agree not to kill upon said Island of St.
Paul more than 75,000 fur-seals, and upon the Island of St. George not more than 25,000
fur-seals, per annum; not to kill any fur-seals upon the islands aforesaid in any other
month except the months of June, July, September, and October of each year; not
to kill such seals at any time by the use of fire-arms or other means tending to drive
the seals from said islands; not to kill any female seal or any seal less than one year
old; not to kill any seal in the waters adjacent to said islands, or on the beaches,
clifis. or rocks where they haul up from the sea to remain.

And the said lessees further covenant and agree to abide by any restriction or
limitation upon the rights to kill seals under this lease that the Act prescribes, or
that the Secretary of the Treasury shall judge necessary for the preservation of such

seals.
15 And the said Jessees hereby agree that they will not in any way sell, trans-
fer, or assign this lease, and that any transfer, sale, or assignment of the same
shall be void or of no effect.

And the said lessees further covenant and agree to furnish to the several masters
of the vessels employed by them certified copies of this lease to be presented to the
Government Revenue officers for the time being in charge of said islands, as the author-
ity of said lessees for the landing and taking said skins.

And the said lessees further covenant and agree that they or their agents shall not
keep, sell, furnish, give, or dispose of any distilled spirits or spirituous liquors on
either of the said islands to any of the natives thereof, such person not being a
physician furnishing the same for use as medicine.

And the said lessees further covenant and agree that this lease is accepted subject
to all needful Rules and Regulations which shall at any time or times hereafter be
made by the Secretary of the Treasury for the collection and payment of the rentals
herein agreed to be paid by said lessees, for the comfort, maintenance, education, and
protection of the natives of said islands, and for carrying into effect all the provisions
of the Act aforesaid, and will abide by and conform to said Rules and Regulations.

And the said lessees, accepting this lease with a full knowledge of the provisions
of the aforesaid Act of Congress, further covenant and agree that they will fulfil all
the provisions, requirements, and limitations of said Act, whether herein specifically
set out or not.

-In witness whereof, the parties aforesaid have hereunto set their hands and seals
the day and year above written.
WILLIAM A. RICHARDSON,
Acting Secretary to the Treasury.
JNO. F. MILLER,
President Alaska Commercial Company.
Executed in presence of—
(Signed) J. H. SAVILLE.

I certify the foregoing printed copy of the lease of the United States to the Alaska
Commercial Company of the right to take fur-seals in the Territory of Alaska has
been compared with the original on file in this Department, and is a true copy
thereof.

(Signed) J. H. SAVILLE,
_ Chief Clerk, Treasury Department,

WASHINGTON, September 3, 1870,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 31

STATE oF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Collector’s Office, Custom-house, December 23, 1885.

I hereby certify the foregoing to be correct copies of original documents on file at
this office.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
City and County of San Francisco:

John T. Fogarty, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the foregoing are true
and correct copies of original documents on file in the office of the Collector of Cus-
toms of the port of San Francisco, that he has compared the foregoing with said
originals, and knows them to be correct copies to his own knowledge.

(Signed) JOHN T. FOGARTY.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23rd day of December, 1885.
(Signed) JOUN E. HAMILL, Notary Public.

No. 7.
Colonial Office to Foreign Ofjice.—( Received October 16.)

DOWNING STREET, October 16, 1886.

Sir: With reference to the ietter from this Department of the 25th
ultimo, respecting the seizure of certain Canadian sealing schoon-
16 ers in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope
to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl of Iddesleigh, copies
of three despatches from the Officer administering the Government of
Canada on the subject.
Mr. Stanhope would be glad to be informed whether Lord Iddesleigh
has directed any action to be taken on the letter above referred to.
lam, We.
(Signed) Rh. H. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 7.]
Administrator Lord A. E. Russell to Mr. Stanhope.

HALIFAX, Nova, Scotia, September 27, 1886.

Srr: I have the honour to forward herewith, for transmission to the Foreign
Office, a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, submit-
ting depositions from some of the officers and men of the Canadian schooners
“Onward,” “Thornton,” and “Carolina,” relative to the seizure of those vessels in
Behring’s Sea by the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘Corwin,” and their subsequent
detention at the port of Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska.

2. You will observe from the accompanying papers that it appears that the
schooners mentioned are Canadian vessels, fitted out in Victoria, British Columbia,
for the capture of seals in the waters of the Northern Pacific Ocean adjacent to
Vancouver Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, and Alaska, and that at the time of
their seizure by the ‘‘Corwin” on the 1st August last they were taking seals in the
open sea at a distance of more than 60 miles from land.

3. My Minister of Marine and Fisheries has taken steps to get further depositions
from the owners, masters, and crews of the above-mentioned vessels in order that
a claim may be made upon the United States Government for damages for the
unwarranted seizure of British vessels on the high sea.

4. I have communicated a copy of this Order in Council, with the accompanying
papers, to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,

Thave, &¢, Pad bake

ay APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 7.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Administrator of the Government in Council, on the 5rd September,
IS86.

On a Report dated the 18th September, 1886, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting the accompanying papers relative to the seizure of the Cana-
dian schooners ‘‘Onward,” ‘‘Thornton,” and ‘‘ Carolina,” in Behring’s Sea, by the
United States Revenue cutter “Corwin,” and their subsequent detention at the port
of Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska—

1. Copy of a letter from James Ogilvie, master of the Canadian sealing schooner
*¢Carolina;”

2. Copy of a letter from Daniel Munroe, master of the Canadian sealing schooner
‘¢ Onward ;”

3. Deposition of John Dallas, seaman on board the ‘“Thornton;” of Thomas
MeLardy, cook on board the “Carolina;” of Edward Shields, seaman on board the
“Carolina;” and of William Munsie, owner of the ‘ Carolina;” all of the Province
of British Columbia: :

The Minister observes that from these papers it appears that the schooners men-
tioned are Canadian vessels fitted out in Victoria, British Columbia, for the capture
of seals in the waters of the Northern Pacific Ocean, adjacent to Vancouver Island,
Queen Charlotte’s Islands, and Alaska; that at the time of their seizure by the
““Corwin” they were taking seals in the open sea out of sight of land, the ‘‘ Carolina ”
in latitude 30° 50’ north, longitude 168° 53’ west; the “ Onward” in latitude 54° 52/
north, longitude i67- 55’ west; and the ‘‘Thornton” in about the same latitude and
longitude; and all ot them at a distance of more than 60 miles from the nearest

land; that they were taken possession of by the United States cutter on the
ile ist August, 1886, and towed to the port of Ounalaska, where they are still

detained. The crews of the ‘‘Thornton” and ‘‘ Carolina,” with the exception
of the captain and one man on each vessel detained at Ounalaska, were sent by the
steamer ‘St. Paul” to San Francisco, California, and then turned adrift, while the
crew of the ‘‘Onward” was kept at Ounalaska.

At the time of their seizure the ‘‘Thornton” had 404 seal-skins on board, the
“Onward” 900, and the ‘‘ Carolina” 686, and these are detained and kept at Ouna-
laska along with the schooners by the United States authorities.

The Minister states that he has taken steps to get further depositions from the
owners, masters, and crews of the vessels above mentioned, in order that a claim
may be made upon the United States Government for damages for this unwarranted
seizure of British vessels in the open sea.

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of
this Minute, if approved, together with copies of the papers herein mentioned,
to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, for
transmission to the Foreign Office, and also copies to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington.

All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

‘[Inclosure 3 in No. 7.]
Mr. Ogilvie to Mr. Munsie, August 6, 1886.

(See Inclosure 5 in No. 3.)

[Inclosure 4 in No. 7.]
Mr. D. Munroe to Mr. C. Spring.

SCHOONER “‘ONWARD,” AT PoRT ILIOLUK, OUNALASKA,
August 7, 1886,
Dear Sir: On the 2nd, while the “Onward” was in latitude 54° 52/ north, longi-
tude 167° 55’ west, and about 70 miles from the nearest land, the United States
Revenue cutter ‘‘ Corwin,” having the schooners ‘‘ Thornton” and “Carolina” in
tow, boarded us, and sent a crew on board and towed us in here, where we are lying
at present with sails bent and seals on board, and a watchman in charge, but cannot
find out what they intend to do with us, so I cannot say any more about it at present,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 3a

I met the ‘‘ Favourite” on the 28th. Captain M’Lean was on board of us; we gave
him 508 skins, and they had 1,290 they took themselves, making them about 1,800
tetal, and as we were in sight of each other until the night of the 1st instant he
must have made a good catch, for we have 400 skins on board at present that we took
in four days, and I am positive his crowd could take twice that number, as we have
not got the best of sealers. ;

I believe all the schooners did well, and I trust they will get away allright. There
is no cutter out at present, as there is only two of them up here—one of them up in
the Arctic, and the other that brought us here is still watching us here.

We may find out to-day how they are going to dispose of us, but I am in hopes
they made false steps, and that they can do nothing more than spoil the season.

They took the schooner ‘San Diego” in here about a month ago, and took the
skins out of her and unbent her sails, and put everything ashore, and they are send-
ing the crew to San Francisco to-day in one of the Fur Company’s steamers, the
pote aul.

Later on: Have heard nothing more, only the crews of the ‘‘ Thornton” and “ Caro-
lina” are going to San Francisco to-day [? by] the steamer ‘‘St. Paul,” except the
captain and one man of each, but they took none of our crew.

There are rumours afloat that the three schooners are to be laid up here all winter,
and that we are going to be taken to Sitka, but no certainty. I wrote you this
morning as the boat was leaving the wharf, thinking that she was going away, but
she came to anchor in the Roads, and I do not think I finished it. I was afraid of
being late. We sent a protest on board the cutter against the action of the authori-

ties in seizing the vessel on the high seas, but I do not know if it will amount
18 to much. There is no Notary Public here to signit. I have nothing more to
write you, trusting things will turn out better than we expect.
Iremain, &c.
(Signed) DANL. MUNROE.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 7.]
Declarations of John Dallas, William Munsie, Thomas McLardy, and Edward Shields.

(See Inclosure 10 in No. 3.)

{Inclosure 6 in No. 7.]
Administrator Lord A. E. Russell to Mr. Stanhope, September 27, 1886.

(Substance of telegram of September 22. See Inclosure 1 in No. 3.)

{Inclosure 7 in No. 7.]
Administrator Lord A, E. Russell to Mr. Stanhope.

Hauirax, Nova Scotia, September 27, 1886.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of an approved Minute of
my Privy Council, to which is appended a Report by my Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, upon which my telegram of the 22nd instant was founded, relative to the
seizures of the Canadian schooners ‘‘ Thornton,” ‘‘ Onward,” and “Carolina” while
engaged in the peaceable pursuit of their lawful occupation on the high seas.

2. It will be seen from this Report that the masters and mates of the above-men-
tioned vessels have been tried before the United States District Court at Sitka, in
Alaska, and sentences of imprisonment, in addition to heavy fines, imposed upon
them, while their property has been subjected to forfeiture.

3. My Ministers are of opinion that the action of the United States authorities
with respect to these vessels is indefensible, and that immediate reparation should
be demanded from the Government of that country therefor.

I have, &ce.

BS, PT V——3

34 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 8 in No. 7.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency the
Administrator of the Government in Council, on the 24th September, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them the annexed Report
from the Minister of Marine and Jisheries with reference to the case of the Cana-
dian schooners ‘‘Thornton,” ‘‘Onward,” and ‘‘ Carolina,” seized on the 1st August
last by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea, :

The Committee concur in the said Report, and they advise that the same be car-
ried out.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGup,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 7.]
Report.

In reference to a Report of Council, under date the 23rd September, referring to the
case of the Canadian schooners ‘‘ Thornton,” ‘‘Onward,” and “Carolina,” seized on
the Ist August by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea, the Undersigned

has the honour to lay before Council the following additional information.
19 It is stated in effect in ‘‘ The Alaskan,” a newspaper published at Sitka, in
the Territory of Alaska, and bearing date the 4th September, 1886—

1. That the master and mate of the schooner ‘ Thornton” were brought for trial
before Judge Dawson in the United States District Court at Sitka on the 30th
August last.

2. That the evidence given by the officers of the United States Revenue cutter
“Corwin” attempts to show that the ‘‘Thornton” was seized while in Behring’s
Sea, about 60 or 70 miles south-south-east. of St. George's Island, for the offence of
hunting and killing seals within that part of Behring’s Sea which was ceded to the
United States by Kussia in 1867.

3. That the Judge, in his charge to the jury, after quoting the Ist Article of the
Treaty of the 30th March, 1867, between Russia and the United States, in which the
western boundary of Alaska is defined, goes on to say: ‘‘All the waters within the
boundary set forth in this Treaty to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago
and chain of islands are to be considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska,
and all the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of fur-bearing animals
must, therefore, attach against any violation of law within the limits heretofore
described.

“Tf, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants by them-
selves, or in conjunction with others, did, on or about the time charged in the
information, kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing
animal or animals, on the shores of Alaska, or in the Behring’s Sea east of the 193rd
degree of west longitude, the jury should find the defendanis guilty, and assess
their punishment separately at a fine of not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1,000
dollars, or imprisonment not more than six months, or by both such fine, within the
limits herein set forth, and imprisonment,”

4, That the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, in accord-
ance with which the master of the ‘‘Thornton,” Hans Guttounsen, was sentenced
to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of 500 dollars, and the mate of the
“Thornton,” Norman, was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a
fine of 300 dollars, which terms of imprisonment are presumably now being carried
into effect.

It also appears, by telegraphic despatch from Nanaimo, British Columbia, dated
the 18th September, that the masters and mates of the ‘‘Onward” and ‘ Caro-
lina” have since been tried and sentenced to undergo similar penalties to those being
inflicted on the master and mate of the ‘‘ Thornton.”

It will appear trom the above information, conjoined with the Report of Council
under date the 23rd September, that the United States have determined to lay claim
to the solesovereignty of that part of Behring’s Sea lying east of the westerly bound-
ary of Alaska, as defined in the Ist Article of the Treaty made between the United
States and Russia in 1867, by which Alaska was ceded to the United States, and which
neludes a stretch of sea extending in its widest part some 600 or 700 miles easterly
from the mainland of Alaska.

In pursuance of this claim, they have interfered with the peaceable and lawful
occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas, have taken possession of their
ships, have subjected their property to forfeiture, and visited upon their persons

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 35

the indignity of imprisonment. They appear to have done this in spite of the
admitted principles of international law, and in direct opposition to their own con-
tention of what constitutes common waters upon the Atlantic coast.

In view of the unwarranted and arbitrary action of the United States authorities,
the Undersigned recommends that a copy. of this Report be sent to Her Majesty’s
Government to the end that immediate reparation be demanded from the Govern-
ment of the United States, and that in the meantime the facts contained therein be
telegraphed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to the British Minister at

Washington.
The whole respectfully submitted.
(Signed) GEORGE E. FosTEr,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, CANADA,
Ottawa, September 21, 1886.

20 No. 8.
The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 20, 1886.

Str: You have received from the Canadian Government a protest
against the claim advanced by the United States authorities in seizing
three Canadian schooners which were engaged in the capture of seals
in what are alleged to be Alaskan waters.

I request that you will lose no time in protesting against these pro-
ceedings in the name of Her Majesty’s Government; and you will at
the same time reserve for consideration hereafter all rights to compen-
sation which may be brought forward.

Full instructions in regard to this matter will be sent to you by mail.

Lam, Se.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.

No. 9.
The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 21, 1886.

Str: I have to request you to inform me whether the United States
Government have replied to the communication which you were directed
to make in my despatch of the 9th ultimo, regarding the seizure of
British vessels in Behring’s Sea by a United States Revenue cutter.

If an answer has been received I should be glad to receive a report
of the substance by telegraph.

1 should be glad at the same time to know whether any appeal has
been lodged against the decisions of the United States Courts con-
demning certain British subjects in connection with this matter.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.

No. 10.
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.—( Received by telegraph, October 22.)

WASHINGTON, October 21, 1886.

My LorpD: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of this day’s
date, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that no answer has as
yet been returned to the communication which, in obedience to the

\

36 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

instructions contained in your Lordship’s despatch of the 9th ultimo, L
addressed to the Secretary of State, asking to be furnished with any
particulars which the United States Government may possess relative
to the seizures of British vessels in Behring’s Sea, and that I have at
present no knowledge of any appeal having been made against the
decisions of the United States Courts condemning the parties concerned
The above information was telegraphed to your Lordship this day.
I have, We.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 11.
The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 30, 1886.

Str: Her Majesty’s Government are still awaiting a Report on the
result of the application which you were directed by my despatch of
the 9th ultimo to make to the Government of the United States for
information in regard to the reported seizure by the United States
Revenue cutter “Corwin” of three Canadian schooners while engaged
in the pursuit of seals in Behring’s Sea.

In the meanwhile, further details in regard to these seizures

21 have been sent to this country, and Her Majesty’s Government

now consider it incumbent on them to bring to the notice of the

United States Government the facts of the case as they have reached
them from British sources.

It appears that the three schooners, named respectively the ‘ Caro-
lina,” the “* Onward,” and the “ Thornton,” were titted out in Victoria,
British Columbia, for the capture of seals in the waters of the Northern
Pacific Ocean, adjacent to Vancouver's Island, Queen Charlotte Islands,
and Alaska.

According to the depositions inclosed herewith from some of the offi-
cers and men,* these vessels were engaged in the capture of seals in the
open sea out of sight of land, when they were taken possession of on or
about the Ist August last by the United States Revenue cutter ‘ Cor-
win,” the “ Carolina,” in latitude 55° 52’ north, longitude 168° 53’ west,
the “ Onward” in latitude 50° 52’ north, longitude 167° 55’ west, and
the “ Thornton” in about the same latitude and longitude.

They were all at a distance of more than 60 miles from the nearest
land at the time of their seizure, and on being captured were towed by
the ‘‘ Corwin” to Ounalaska, where they are still detained. The crews
of the “‘ Carolina” and ‘“ Thornton,” with the exception of the captain
and one man on each vessel detained at that port, were, it appears, sent
by the steamer ‘St. Paul” to San Francisco, California, and then turned
adrift, while the crew of the “ Onward” were kept at Ounalaska.

At the time of their seizure the ‘“ Carolina” had 686 seal-skins on
board, the ‘‘Thornton” 404, and the “Onward” 900, and these were

* 1. Copy of a letter from Daniel Munroe, master of the Canadian sealing schooner
“Onward.”

2. Copy of a letter from James Ogilvie, master of the Canadian sealing schooner
“¢ Carolina.”

3. Deposition of John Dallas, seaman on board the ‘‘Thornton;” of Thomas
MeLardy, cook on board the “ Carolina;” of Edward Shields, seaman on board the
“‘Carolina;” and of Wm. Munsie, owner of the ‘‘ Carolina;” all of the Province of
British Columbia.

‘

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 37

detained, and would appear to be still kept at Ounalaska along with
the schooners by tiie United States authorities.

According to ‘information given in the “Alaskan,” a newspaper pub-
lished at Sitka, in the Territory of Alaska, and dated the 4th September,
1886, it is reported:

us "That the master and mate of the schooner “Thornton” were
brought for trial before Judge Dawson in the United States District
Court at Sitka on the 30th August last.

2. That the evidence given by the officers of the United States
Revenue cutter “Corwin” went to show that the ‘‘ Thornton” was
seized while in Behring’s Sea, about 60 or 70 miles south-south east of
St. George Island, for the offence of hunting and killing seals within
that part of Behring’s Sea which (it was alleged by the “ Alaskan”
newspaper) was ceded to the United States by Russia in 1867.

3. That the Judge in his charge to the jury, after quoting the Ist
Article of the Treaty of the 30th March, 1867, between Russia and the
United States, in which the western boundary of Alaska is defined,
went on to say: ‘All the waters within the boundary set forth in this
Treaty to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of
islands are to be considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska,
and all the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of fur-bear-
ing animals must therefore attach against any violation of law within
the limits heretofore described. If, therefore, the jury believe from
the evidence that the defendants, by themselves or in conjunction with
others, did, on or about the time charged in the information, kill any ~
otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal or
animals, on the shores of Alaska or in the Behring’s Sea east of 193°
of west longitude, the jury should find the defendants guilty, and
assess their punishment separately, at a fine of not less than 200 dol-
lars nor more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisonment not more than six
months, or by both such fine, within the limits herein set forth, and
an uy

That the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against the prisoners,
in a irattite with which the master of the “ Thornton,” Hans Gut-
tounsen, was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a
fine of 500 dollars, and the mate of the “Thornton,” Norman, was sen-
tenced to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of 300 dollars,
which terms of imprisonment are presumably now being carried into
effect.

There is also reason to believe that the masters and inates of the
“Onward” and “Carolina” have since been tried, and sentenced to
undergo penalties similar to those now being inflicted on the master
and mate of the * Thornton.”

You will observe, from the facts given above, that the authorities of the
United States appear to lay claim to the sole sovereignty of that part of
Behring’s Sea lying east of the westerly boundary of Alaska, as defined
in the Ist Article of the Treaty concluded between the United States

and Russia in 1867, by which Alaska was ceded to the United
22 States, and which includes a stretch of sea extending in its

widest part some 600 or 700 miles easterly from the mainland of
Alaska.

In support of this claim, those authorities are alleged to have inter-
fered with the peaceable and lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on
the high seas, to have taken possession of their ships, to have subjected
their property to forfeiture, and to have visited upon their persons the
indignity of imprisonment.

38 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Such proceedings, if correctly reported, would appear to have been
in violation of the admitted principles of international law.

I request that you will, on the receipt of this despatch, seek an inter-
view with Mr. Bayard and make him acquainted with the nature of the
information with which Her Majesty’s Government have been furnished
respecting this matter, and state to him that they do not doubt that, if
on inquiry it should prove to be correct, the Government of the United
States will, with their well-known sense of justice, at once admit the ille-
gality of the proceedings resorted to against the British vessels and
the British subjects above mentioned, and will cause reasonable repara-
tion to be made tor the wrongs to which they have been subjected, and
for the losses which they have sustained.

Should Mr. Bayard desire it, you are authorized to leave with him a
copy of this despatch.

Iam, We.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.

No. 12.

Sir L. West to the Earl of Lddesleigh.—(Recewed November 1.)

WASHINGTON, October 21, 1886.

My Lorn: Upon the receipt of your Lordship’s despatch of the 9th
ultimo I immediately addressed a note to the Secretary of State, in
accordance with the instructions therein contained, and copy of which
is herewith inclosed, requesting to be furnished with any particulars
which the United States Government may possess relative to the seiz-
ure of certain British Columbian seal schooners by the United States
Revenue cruizer ‘* Corwin,” but to which I have received no reply.

Upon the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday’s date I
addressed the note copy of which is likewise inclosed, protesting, in
the name of Her Majesty’s Government, against the said seizures, and
reserving rights to compensation.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 12.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, September 27, 1886.

Srr: I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government have received
a telegiam from the Commander-in-chief of Her Majesty’s naval forces on the Pacific
Station respecting the alleged seizure of three British Columbian seal schooners by
the United States’ Revenue cruizer ‘‘Corwin;” and I am, in consequence, instructed
to request to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government
may possess relative to this occurrence.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

Ea

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 39
{Inclosure 2 in No. 12.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, October 21, 1886.

Sir: With reference to my note of the 27th ultimo, requesting to be furnished with
any particulars which the United States Government may possess relative to the
seizure in the North Pacific waters of three British Columbian seal schooners
23 by the United States Revenue cruizer ‘‘ Corwin,” and to which I am without
reply, I have the honour to inform you that [ am now instructed by the Earl of
Iddesleigh, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to protest,
in the name of Her Majesty’s Government, against such seizure, and to reserve all
rights to compensation.
I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 13.

Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received November 5.
y c é
[Extract. }

ADMIRALTY, November 4, 1886.

Referring to my letter of the 20th of September last and to previous
correspondence, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty to transmit herewith, for the perusal of the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, cuttings from a newspaper called the “ Daily
British Colonist,” at Victoria, respecting the seizure of British Colum-
bian sealing schooners in Behring’s Sea.

{Inclosure in No. 13.]
Extract from the ‘“ Daily British Colonist,” Victoria, of October 7, 1886.
{From the ‘‘ Brooklyn Eagle.’’]

Tue ALASKA SEIZURES.—The recent seizure of vessels in Behring’s Sea by the
United States Revenue steamer ‘‘ Corwin,” for the alleged illegal capture of seals in
the waters of the United States, has attracted a surprisingly small amount of atten-
tion, in this quarter at least. This is probably due to the fact that the Cabinet has
not had a meeting for some time, and that but one Cabinet Minister remained in
Washington, so that there was a lack of information on the subject, which was
unfavourable to its discussion. Now, however, we have something like an official
Report of what has taken place from the Captain of the ‘‘ Corwin,” and the matter
is ripe for the attention of the press of the United States. No one who gives the
subject his notice can fail to recognize the fact that it is one of the most important
questions this Government was ever called upon to discuss, and that it may involve
consequences of the highest moment.

The Captain of the ‘‘Corwin,” it appears, was acting under positive instructions
received at San Francisco, commanding him to seize and deliver to the United States,
District Court of Alaska, for condemnation and seizure, all vessels found engaged in
the capture of seals within Alaskan waters, which were defined to include all of
Behring’s Sea east of the line from Behring’s Strait to a point west of the most
western of the Aleutian Islands. Under this interpretation a vessel might be more
than 500 miles from the mainland of America, and still a trespasser in Alaskan waters,
and therefore liable to seizure. The complaints which led to the issuing of these
instructions came from the Alaska Fur Seal Company, who lease the seal fisheries
from the Government for the payment of 317,000 dollars annually.

40 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The vessels captured were six in number, three of them being described as British,
one American from San Francisco, but the nationality of the other two is not given.
It is not pretended that any of them was within a marine league of the shore; in
fact, the only vessel whose place of capture is specifically stated in the despatch is
the British schooner ‘‘Thornuton,” which, the Captain of the ‘‘Corwin” says, was
captured about 70 miles south-south-east of St. George. This would bring her 150
miles from the chain of the Aleutian Islands, and 300 from the nearest point of the
mainland.

The captured schooners were taken to Ounalaska, where they were libelled for
condemnation, and their crews were conveyed to Sitka, where the masters and mates,
in addition to the loss of their vessels, were tried before Judge Dawson, and fined
and imprisoned, In the ease of the ‘‘Thornton,” the captain was fined 500 dollars.
Judge Dawson, in passing sentence, was very severe on the prisoners, and likened
their offence to piracy, telling them that they had no more right to go into the
waters of another nation to interfere with its industries than they had to go upon
another man’s land and appropriate his crops. Judge Dawson, although only

24 a District Judge, considers that his jurisdiction extends over the whole of the

waters of Alaska, comprising about 1,000,000 square miles of what would else-

where be regarded as the high seas, so that he may sately be regarded as the greatest
maritime Judge extant.

If it should be reported some days in the papers that a Gloucester fishermen had
been captured by a Canadian cruizer 300 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia, and that
her master and mate, in addition to the loss of their vessel, had been heavily fined,
and were then languishing in a Canadian prison, there would probably be some
indignation in New England. Yet that, as regards the maritime aspect of the case,
is substantially what the Alaskan seizures amount to. It is maintained, however,
that the circumstances of these cases are modified by the fact that Russia claimed
the whole Bebring’s Sea as part of her territory, and that the waters claimed by
this Government were ceded as part of Alaska. Judge Dawson is reported to have
said on this point that Russia had claimed and exercised jurisdiction over all that
portion of Behring’s Sea embraced in the boundary-line set forth in the Treaty, and
that claim had been tacitly recognized and acquiesced in by the other Maritime
Powers of the world for a long series of years prior to the Treaty of the 30th March,
1867. He held that the jurisdiction had been transferred, and that the United States
had acquired absolute control and dominion over the area described in the Treaty,
and that British vessels, manned by British subjects, had no right to navigate the
waters for the purpose of killing fur-bearing seals. If this is good law, that is the
end of the matter; but is it good law? Unless we are greatly in error, there are
copies of despatches on the files of the State Department, written prior to 1867, in
which the Russian claim is distinctly repudiated and denied. Circumstances may
have changed since then as to our attitude towards the subject, but the principle
has not. And we doubt greatly whether the United States would ever have admitted
such a claim if made by another nation. What would be said, for instance, if the
British undertook to prevent an American whaler from entering Hudson Bay or
traversing the western half of that arm of the Atlantie Ocean which leads to it?
Maritime law and international law are the same whether on the Atlantic or the
Pacific, and there is certainly something grotesque in the sight of hundreds of
American fishermen hovering on the Canadian Atlantic coast just beyond the 3-mile
limit, and claiming to enter all bays more than 3 miles wide at the mouth and fish,
while, on the Pacific, Canadian vessels are captured 300 miles from the mainland,
and the claim is made that a bay more than 1,000 miles wide at the mouth shall be
a closed sea to them.

There is another aspect to the case, not international but national. One of the
vessels captured was an American schooner from San Francisco. All other American
vessels, except those of the Alaska Seal Fur Company, are therefore excluded from
these waters, which are claimed as belonging to Alaska. Is there any warrant for
this in the Constitution of the United States? It has been the evil policy of the
nation to give up the whole Territory of Alaska to one gigantic monopoly, to dis-
ceurage settlement and all legitimate enterprises not connected with the fur trade.
Is this policy to be continued? It surely was not for this purpose that the territory
was bought, bnt that its resources might be developed, and such parts of it as are
suitable for settlement opened to industrious workers. But for nineteen years
Alaska has been nothing but the reserve of a great Corporation, which is even now
scheming to obtain a renewal of its franchises there. The matter is one of the
greatest interest and importance to the American people, who are not desirous of
establishing monopolies in Alaska or elsewhere, but wish to see all their territory
opened up and made available for the use of all our citizens.

: APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Al
No. 14.

Messrs. Lampson and Oo. to the Harl of Iddesleigh.—(Received Novem-
ber 13.)

64, QUEEN STREET, LONDON, November 12, 1886.

My Lorn: Weunderstand a question of international law has arisen
between the Government of the United States on the one hand and
the Governments of Great Britain and of the Dominion of Canada on
the other hand, respecting the seizure by the United States Revenue
cutter “Corwin” of certain Dominion fishing-vessels engaged in cap-
turing fur-seals in the waters of Alaska.

As the future existence of the fur-seal skin trade, in which we have
for years past been engaged, largely depends upon the settlement of
this question, we beg to submit, for your consideration, the following

facts:
25 Situated in the waters of Alaska, latitude 57° north, longi-
tude 170° west, is the Pribylov group of islands, belonging to
the United States.

These islands, which are occupied every year from May to October
by a large number of fur-seals for the purpose of breeding, have been
leased to an American Company, under stringent conditions, which
restrict them from killing more than 100,000 young males per annum,
and strictly prohibit them from killing any female seals whatever.

The fur-seal being a polygamous animal, the annual increase is not
affected by the killing of this limited number of young males; and it has
been found that the wise nursing by these means of this very important
fishery has not only resulted in the preservation of the seals during
the past sixteen years, but has also given an ample supply of skins for
purposes of trade.

During the last few seasons, however, fishing-vessels have been fitted
out from ports in British Columbia and the United States, and have
been engaged in the wholesale slaughter of female seals, which, during
the breeding season, swarm in the waters round the islands for a
considerable distance out to sea.

Last summer several of the Dominion vessels were seized by the
United States cutter, and it is stated that a case is being prepared by
the Dominion Government, for presentation to the United States Goy-
ernment, disputing the legality of the said captures.

Should Great Britain deny the right of the United States Govern-
ment to protect the fishery in an effectual manner, there can be no
doubt that the Alaska fur-seals, which furnish by far the most impor-
tant part of the world’s supply of seal-skins, will be exterminated in a
very few years, just as in the South Atlantic the Shetland and Georgia
fur-seals, which used to furnish even finer pelts than the Alaskas, have
already been.

It is evident, therefore, that the benefit derived by the Dominion
fishing-vessels from the slaughter of these female seals will be short-
lived.

We would next point out that the 100,000 skins, the annual produce
of the islands (worth 350,000/. at present prices), have been shipped to
us for sale and manufacture in London for sixteen years past, thus
affording in this city employment for a large amount of capital and
means of subsistence to some 10,000 people, many of whom are skilled
workmen earning wages up to 3l. per week.

42 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

We need, therefore, hardly suggest that it would be a shortsighted
and disastrous policy to allow such an industry to be destroyed, espe-
cially at a time when so much distress is already prevalent among the
working classes.

We therefore earnestly trust the British Government will, after veri-
fying the above facts, see its way to give its friendly support to the
United States in the exercise of their right to protect and preserve an
article of commerce equally affecting the interests of both countries.
We have telegraphed to New York for the “ Monograph of the Seal
Islands,” by Professor Elliott, which fully describes the seal life upon
the islands. When we have received the book we shall have the
pleasure of handing it to your Lordship.

We are, &e.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON AND Co.

No. 15.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office—(Received November 16.)

DOWNING STREET, November 16, 1886.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, to be laid before the Earl
of Iddesleigh, a telegram which has been received from the Governor-
General of Canada respecting the Alaska seizures; and I am to request
to be informed of the answer which should be returned to Lord Lans-
downe’s inquiry.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

26 {Inclosure in No. 15.—Telegraphic.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

OTTawa, November 14, 1886.

Alaska seizures. Has any answer been received to representations? Papers will
be sent you proving that the case is one of great hardship, and that a total disregard
of international rights has been shown by the action of the United States. We
believe the masters of the vessels are still in prison.

————

No. 16.
The Earl of Iddesieigh to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 18, 1886.

Sir: I have to inform you that inquiry has been made by the Govern-
ment of Canada as to what reply has been received from the Govern-
ment of the United States to the representations which, as reported in
your telegram of the 21st October, you had made to them in regard to
the seizure of three schooners from British Columbia by the United
States Revenne cruizer “Corwin” in Behring’s Sea.

Lord Lansdowne reports that it is believed that the captains of
these vessels are still in prison, and that documents will be sent to this

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 43

country proving that the case is one of great hardship, and that a total
disregard of international rights has been shown in the action of the
authorities of the United States.

I have, in consequence, sent you a telegram this day requesting you
to report how this case now stands,

I am, &e.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.
No. 17.
Sir L. West to the Harl of Iddesleigh.—( Received by telegraph, Novem-
ber 19.)

WASHINGTON, November 19, 1886.
My Lorp: Upon the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of yester-
day’s date I sought an interview with the Secretary of State, and asked
him whether he had received the official Report of the proceedings of
the Court at Sitka (Alaska) against the British vessels seized in Beh-
ring’s Sea. Mr. Bayard replied in the negative, and said that he had
been urging the Attorney-General in the matter since he last saw me.
It would be, he continued, a complicated question of jurisdiction, for
he had been told that many of the seal-skins found on board the British
vessels were skins of seals which had not been shot, but clubbed, which
proved that a landing had been effected. He said that he would reply
to your Lordship’s despatch which I had communicated to him as soon

as possible.
I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 18.

Foreign Office to Messrs. Lampson and Co.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 19, 1886.
GENTLEMEN: I| ain directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, relative to the seizure
of certain LGritish-owned seal-fishing vessels by the United States Reve-
nue cutter ‘* Corwin,” in the waters of Alaska; and I am to inform you,
in reply, that the question is now under the consideration of Her
Majesty’s Government.
lam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

27 Noosa:
Sir L. West to the Harl of Iddesleigh.—( Received November 26.)

WASHINGTON, November 14, 1886.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of 21st ultimo, I have the
honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a note which I
have received from the Secretary of State, explaining and apologizing

44 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

for the delay which has occurred in replying to my note of the 21st
September last, asking for information respecting the seizure by the
United States Revenue cutter “ Corwin,” in the Behring’s Sea, of British
vessels, and noting the protest on the part of Her Majesty's Govern-
ment against such seizures contained in my note of the 21st ultimo,
copy of which was inclosed in my above-mentioned despatch.
I have, We.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEs?.

{Inclosure in No. 19.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMEN’Y OF STATE, November 12, 1886.

Sir: The delay in my reply to your letters of the 27th September and 21st October,
asking for the information in my possession concerning the seizure by the United
States Revenue cutter “‘ Corwin,” in the Behring’s Sea, of British vessels for an alleged
violation of the laws of the United States in relation to the Alaska seal fisheries, has
been caused by my waiting to receive from the Treasury Department the information
you desired. I tender this fact in apology for the delay and as the reason for my
silence; and, repeating what I said verbally to you in our conversation this morning,
T am still awaiting full and authentic Reports of the judicial trial and Judgment in
the cases of the seizures referred to.

My application to my colleague the Attorney-General to procure an authentic
Report of these proceedings was promptly made, and the delay in furnishing the
Report doubtless has arisen from the remoteness of the place of trial.

As soon as I am enabled, I will convey to you the facts as ascertained i in the trial,
and the rulings of law as applied by the Court.

Itake leave also to acknowle sdge your communication of the 21st of October,
informing me that you had been instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, Her Majesty’s
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to protest against the seizure of
the vessels above referred to, and to reserve all rights of compensation.

All of which shall receive respectful consideration.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 20. °
The Barl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 6, 1886.

Canadian Gover ument inquire whether vessels equipping in British
Columbia for Behring’s Sea fisheries are exposed to seizure.

They seek assurance that no seizures of British vessels will be made
beyond territorial waters of Alaska pending settlement of question.

No. 21.
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.—( Received December 24.)
[Extract.]
WASHINGTON, December 10, 1886.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship’s tele-

gram of the 6th instant, and to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy
of a note which I addvessed to the Secretary of State in the sense of it.

ee ee oe a Le el tea!

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 45

28 [Inclosure in No. 21.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, December 7, 1886.
Srr: Referring to your note of the 12th ultimo on the subject of the seizure of
British vessels in the Behring’s Sea, and promising to convey to me as soon as possi-
ble the facts as ascertained in the trial and the rulings of law as applied by the
Court, I have the honour to state that vessels are now as usual equipping in British
Columbia for fishinginthatsea. The Canadian Government, therefore, in the absence
of information, are desirous of ascertaining whether such vessels fishing in the open
seas and beyond the territorial waters of Alaska would be exposed to seizure, and
Her Majesty’s Government at the same time would be glad if some assurance could
be given that, pending the settlement of the question, no such seizures of British

vessels will se made in Behring’s Sea.
T have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 22.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received January 5.)

DOWNING STREET, January 4, 1887.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence respecting tiie seiz-
ure by the United States Revenue-steamer ‘‘Corwin” of certain Cana-
dian schooners engaged in the seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, I am
directed by Mr. Secretary Stanhope to transmit to you, for such further
action in the matter as Hite Earl of Iddesleigh may ‘think proper, a copy
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing copy of
an approved Report of his Privy Council, explaining the views of the
Dominion Government in the matter.

Mr. Stanhope would be glad to receive a copy of any communication
which Lord Iddesleigh may address to the United States Government
in consequence of this further representation from the Government of
Canada on the subject.

lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 22.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

GOVERNMENT Housgn, Orrawa, November 27, 1886.

Sir: I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of an approved Report of my
Privy Council dealing with the recent seizure of the Canadian schooners ‘ Caro-
line,” ‘‘Onward,” and ‘‘ Thor nton” by the United States Revenue steamer ‘‘ Corwin”
while fishing for seals in Bebri ing’s Sea.

The statements contained in the Report are sufficient to establish that the claim
now put forward on the part of the United States to the sole right of taking fur-
bearing animals within the limits laid down in the Ist Article of the Treaty of 1867
is inconsistent with the rights secured to Great Britain under the Convention of 1825,
and is in substance the same as that which, when advanced by the Russian Govern-
ment on different occasions prior to the cession of Alaska by Russia to the United
States, was either strenuously resisted or treated with ridicule and contempt by the
Government of the latter Power.

It is impossible to believe that, when by the Convention of 1825 it was agreed
that the subjects of Great Britain, as one of the Contracting Parties, should not be
“troubled or molested in any part of the ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean,
either in navigating the same or in fishing therein,” any reservation was intended
with regard to that part of the Pacific Ocean known as Behring’s Sea. The whole
course of the negotiations by which this Convention and that hetween Russia and

46 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the United States of the same yeat were preceded—negotiations which, as pointed
out in the Report, arose out of conflicting claims to these very waters—points to the

contrary conclusion. It would, indeed, be difficult to condemn the present pre-
29 tensions of the United States authorities in language more convincing or

emphatic than that which, while those negotiations were in progress, was used
by Mr. Middleton, then Russian Minister at St. Petersburgh, in his Memorandum
dated the 13th December, 1823. (Vide American State Papers, Foreign Relations,
vol. v, No. 384.)

It is laid downin that Memorandum that ‘‘the existence of territorial rights to the
distance of 100 miles from the coasts upon two opposite continents, and the prohibi-
tion of approaching to the same distance from these coasts or from those of all the
intervening islands, are innovations in the law of nations and measures unexampled.
It must thus be imagined that this prohibition, bearing the pains of ‘confiscation,
applies to a long line of coasts with the intermediate islands, situate in vast seas
where the navigation is subject to innumerable and unknown difficulties, and where
the chief employment, which is the whale fishery, cannot be compatible with a regu-
lated and well-determined course.”

Mr. Middleton added that: ‘‘Universal usage, which has obtained the force of law,
has established for all the coasts an accessory limit of a moderate distance, which is
sufficient for the security of the country and for the commerce of its inhabitants,
but which lays no restraint upon the universal rights of nations, nor upon the free-
dom of commerce and navigation.”

Under the Treaty of 1867 Russia ceded to the United States ‘all the rights, fran-
chises, and privileges” then belonging to her in the territory or dominion included
within the limits described (vide Article VI), but could not cede a right which, in
the express terms of the Treaty of 1825, was recognized as belonging to the subjects
of the British Crown as well as to those of Russia.

This is, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the first occasion upon which claims
of the kind now advanced have been enforced. Sealing-vessels from British Colum-
bia have for some years past frequented the waters of Behring’s Sea without moles-
tation, and a letter, of which I inclose a copy, addressed by Mr. William Munsie, of
Victoria, British Columbia, to my Minister of Marine and Fisheries, shows how
serious will be the effect of this interference upon a well-established and important
industry in which many British subjects have a substantial interest.

It is, I think, worth while to contrast the claims now urged by the Government of
the United States to exclusive control over a part of the Pacific Ocean, the distance
between the shores of which is, as was pointed out by Mr. Adams in 1822, not less
than 4,000 miles, with the indignant remonstrances recently made by Mr. Bayard
against the action of the Canadian authorities in warning United States fishing-
vessels from entering the territorial waters of the Dominion at points where those
waters were only a few miles in width and throughout their whole extent in close
proximity to Canadian territory. A warning of this kind, when given in respect of
the Bay des Chaleurs, which measures about 18 miles at its mouth, was stigmatized
by Mr. Bayard in his despatch of the 14th June, 1886, as a ‘‘ wholly unwarranted
pretension of extra-territorial authority,” and as an ‘‘interference with the unques-
tionable rights of the American fishermen to pursue their business without molesta-
tion at any point not within 3 marine miles of the shore.”

I would also draw your attention specially to the great hardship occasioned to the
owners and crews of the seized vessels by the confiscation of their catch and by the
imprisonment of some of the persons on board of them.

I understand that, owing to the amount of the fines imposed, which were so heavy
that the owners have declined to pay them, the captains and mates of the seized
vessels, though originally sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment, a term which has
long since expired, are still detained. I may add, in explanation of the concluding
passage in Mr. Munsie’s letter, that Mr. Ogilvie, the captain of the ‘Caroline, ”
while waiting at Ounalaska for the trial of his vessel, wandered off into the woods,
in which it appears, from Mr. Munsie’s statement, that he must have perished.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 22.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on November 27, 1886.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a communica-
tion from Mr. E. C. Baker, M. P., Vice-President of the British Columbia Board of
Trade, transmitting a letter from Mr. Theodore Lubbe, the managing owner

30 of the British Columbia sealing fleet, asking information as to the United
States claim to the easterly half of Behring’s Sea, as American waters, and

also a despatch, dated the 26th August last, from the Lieutenant-Governor of British

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. AT

Columbia, advising of the seizure of the Canadian schooners ‘‘Caroline” and
“Thornton,” by the United States Revenue steamer “‘ Corwin,” while engaged in
sealing in Bebrin g’s Sea.

Also copy of a letter from Daniel Munroe, master of the Canadian sealing schooner
“Onward,” which has been already forwarded by his Excellency the Governor-
General to the Colonial Office, and to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington.

The Sub-Committee of Council, to whom the papers were referred, observe that it
appears that the schooners mentioned were Canadian vessels fitted out for the cap-
ture of seals in the North Pacific Ocean adjacent to Vancouver Island, Queen Char-
lotte Island, and Alaska; that they were peaceably pursuing their vocations on the
high seas at a distance of some 70 miles from the nearestisland, and more than 100
miles from the nearest mainland; that they were taken possession of by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘Corwin” on the Ist August last, and towed to the port of
Ounalaska. The crews of the ‘‘ Thornton” and ‘ Caroline” (with the exception of
the captain and one man on each vessel, who were detained at Ounalaska), were
sent by steamer to San Francisco, and there turned adrift, while the men of the
“Onward” were kept at Ounalaska. ‘The schooners and the seals found on board of
them were also detained by the United States authorities.

The authority under which these seizures were made is apparently:

1. A letter of instructions from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States to Mr. D’Ancona, the Collector of Customs at San Francisco, dated the 12th
March, 1881, with inclosures (A of Appendix).

2. A letter from the Secretary of the United States Treasury to the Collector of
Customs at San Francisco, dated the 16th March, 1886, confirming the instructions
given to Mr. D’Ancona in 1881, and ordering publication of the same (B of Appen-
dix).

3. The Revised Statutes of the United States, the 1596th Section of which pro-
hibits the killing of fur-bearing animals within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in
the waters thereof, and Sections 1960 and 1961 of which prohibit the killing of male
seals, except at certain times, and under certain restrictions, and of female seals at
any time, upon the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, or in the waters adjacent
thereto.

The master and mate of the schooner ‘‘Thornton” were subsequently (the 13th
August last) brought for trial before Judge Dawson, in the United States District
Court at Sitka.

The evidence given by the officers of the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Corwin”
was to the effect that the “Thornton” was seized while in Behring’s Sea, about 60 or
70 miles south-south-east of St. George’s Island, for the offence of hunting and kill-
ing seals within that part of Behring’ s Sea which was ceded to the United States by
Russia in 1867.

The Judge in his charge to the jury quoted the Ist Article of the Treaty of the
30th March, 1867, between Russia and the United States, in which the boundary of
Alaska is defined as follows:

“The western limit, within which the territories and dominion conveyed are con-
tained, passes through a point in Behring’s Straits on the parallel of 65° 30’ north
latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the Island
of Krusenstern or Igualook and the Island of Ratmanoff or Noonarbook, and pro-
ceeds due north, without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. The same western
limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds then in a straight course nearly
south-west through Behring’s Straits and Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between
the north-west point of the Island of St. Lawrence and the south-east point of Cape
Choukotski, to the meridian of 172° west longitude, thence from the intersection of
that meridian in a south-westerly direction, so as to pass midway between the Island
of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North
Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of 193° west longitude, so as to include in the terri-
tory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian.” Executive
Documents, 2nd Session, 40th Congress, vol. xiii, document 177.

The Judge is reported to have gone on to say

“‘All the waters within the boundary set forth in this Treaty to the western end
of the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of island, are to be considered as comprised
within the waters of Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by law against the
killing of fur-bearing animals, must therefore attach against any violation of law

within the limits before described.
31 “Tf, therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants did by

themselves or in conjunction with others, on or about the time charged in the
information, kijl any otter, mink, martin, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur- bearing ani-
mal or animals, on the shores of Alaska, or in the Behring’ s Sea, east of the 193° of
west longitude, the jury should find the defendants ¢ guilty, and assess their punish-
ment separately, at a fine of not less than 200 dollars, nor more than 1,000 dollars, or
imprisonment not more than-six months, or by both, such fines within the limits
herein set forth, and imprisonnitnt.”

48 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT: BRITAIN.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, and the master of the ‘‘Thornton” was sen-
tenced to thirty days’ imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500 dollars, while the mate
was sentenced to a like term of imprisonment and to pay a fine of 300 dollars. It
appears from a telegraphic despatch of the i8th September last that the masters and
mates of the ‘‘Onward” and ‘‘Caroline” have since also been tried, and sentenced
to undergo penalties similar to those inflicted on the master and mate of the
“Thornton.”

The Sub-Committee do not here propose to comment on the enlarged construction
placed by Judge Dawson on the words ‘‘adjacent waters” in the clauses of the
Revised Statutes above referred to, further than to remark in passing that its effect
would be to convert a purely municipal prohibition into an international obligation,
and to claim for the United States a jurisdiction which their Government have in
the past not only declined themselves to assert, but which they have strenuously
resisted when claimed by another Power.

The following brief instance will illustrate the position taken by the United States
Government in the recent past:

As late as the 19th April, 1872, Mr. Boutwell, then Secretary of the United States
Treasury, in answer to a request made to him that a Revenue cutter should be sent
to the region of Minnak Pass to prevent Australian and Hawaiian vessels from taking
seals on their annual migration to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, declined to
accede to the request, and added:

“In addition, I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or
power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such
attempts within a marine league of the shore.”

Going further back in date, the Sub-Committee find that in 1822 a claim to sov-
ereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude was put forward
by Russia. An Imperial Ukase, issued on the 4th (16th) September, 1821, regulating
commerce, whaling, and fishing along the eastern coast of Siberia, the north-western
coast of North America, and the Aleutian and other islands, and prohibiting all for-
eign vessels from landing on the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, or approach-
ing them within less than 100 Italian miles, was communicated to the American
Government on the 11th February, 1822 (C of Appendix).

The Honourable John Quincy Adams, at that time United States Secretary of
State, wrote on the 25th of the same month to M. de Poletica, the Russian Minister
Plenipotentiary, expressing the surprise of the President of the United States at
the assertion of a territorial claim by Russia extending to the 51st degree of north
latitude on this continent; stating that the exclusion of American vessels from the
shore beyond the ordinary distance to which the territorial jurisdiction extends had
excited still greater surprise; and requesting an explanation of the grounds of
right, upon principles generally recognized by the laws and usages of nations, which
could warrant such claims.

M. de Poletica, in a despatch dated the 16th (28th) February, 1882, defends the
prohibition as designed to suppress the furnishing by foreigners of arms and ammu-
nition to the natives of Russian America. He adds, however:

“The extent of sea of which these possessions form the limits comprehends all
the conditions which are ordinarily attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées”), and the
Russian Government might, consequently, judge itself authorized to exercise upon
this sea the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the
entrance of foreigners. But it preferred only asserting its essential rights, without
taking any advantage of localities.”

Mr. Adams deemed it a sufficient answer to this claim to point out the fact that
the “‘distance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 51° north, is not less than
90° of longitude, or 4,000 miles.” (State Papers, vol. ix, p. 471 et seq.)

A writer in the ‘‘North American Review,” in an article published a few months
later, says, with respect to Mr. Adams’ answer, ‘‘A volume on the subject could not
have placed the absurdity of the pretensions more glaringly before us.” (‘North

American Review,” vol. xv, p.389.)
32 The position was relinquished by Russia after much negotiation and corre-
spondence (see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. v, p. 432), and on
the 17th April, 1824, a Convention was concluded between the United States and
that country which was ratified at Washington on the 12th January, 1825, and of
which the Ist Article is as follows:

“T. Itis agreed that in any part of the great ocean, commonly called the Pacific
Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting
Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing,
or in the power of resorting to the coasts upon points which may not already have
been occupied for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restric-
tions and conditions determined by the following Articles.” (State Papers, vol. xii,
p. 595.)

The conditions and restrictions relate chiefly to the prevention of illicit trade in
spirituous liquors, fire-arms, &e.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 49

Negotiations between Great Britain and Russia on the subject of the same Ukase,
and the prohibition above referred to, resulted in a Treaty between the two Powers,
concluded on the 16th (28th) February, 1825, and containing the following provision,
in which the right of fishing and navigation by Great Britain in any part of the
Pacific Ocean is recognizea:

“Tt is agreed that the respective subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall not
be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean,
either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts of the
coast as shall ‘not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives,
under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.” (State
Papers, vol. xii, p. 38.)

So far as the Sub-Committee are aware, the claim was never revived until it is
now for the first time put forward by the United States.

It does not appear necessary to insist at any great length that the conditions
attaching to maria clausa can not by any possibility be predicated of Behring’s Sea,
and that the seizure of Canadian vessels at a distance of over 100 miles from the

“mainland and 70 miles from the nearest island constitutes a high-hanvded extension
of maritime jurisdiction unprecedented in the law of nations, but the Sub-Committee
can not conclude without inviting the earnest attention of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment to the fact that Canadian citizens seized while engaged in the pursuit of their
lawful vocation upon the high seas, and more than 70 miles from the nearest land,
have been dragged before a foreign Court, their property confiscated, and themselves
thrown into prison, where they still remain.

The Sub-Committee express their confident hope that such representations will be
at once made to the United States Government as will secure the immediate release
of the imprisoned men, and full reparation for all losses and damage sustained by
them.

The Committee concur in the foregoing Report, and they advise that your Excel-
lency be moved to transmit a copy of this Minute, if approved, to the Right
Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada,

APPENDIX (A).

Mr. H. F. French, Acting Secretary, Treasury Department, to Mr. D. A. D’ Ancona, 717,
O' Far rell Street, San Francisco, California, March 12, 1886,

(See Inclosure 7 in No. 3.)

APPENDIX (B).

Mr. D. Manning, Secretary, Treasury Department, to the Collector of Customs, San Fran-
cisco, March 16, 1886.

(See Inclosure 7 in No. 3.)

33 APPENDIX (C).
Edict of His Imperial Majesty, Autocrat of All the Russias.

The Directing Senate maketh known unto all men: whereas, in an Edict of His
Imperial Majesty, issued to the Directing Senate on the 4th day of September, and
signed by His Imperial Majesty’s own hands, it is thus expressed:

“Observing from reports submitted to us that the trade of our subjects on the
Aleutian Islands and on the north-west coast of America, appertaining unto Russia,
is subjected, because of illicit and secret traffic, to oppression and impediments, and
finding that the principal cause of these difficulties is the want of Rules establishing
the boundaries for navigation along these coasts, and the order of naval communica-
tion, as well in these places as on the whole of the eastern coast of Siberia and the
Kurile Islands, we have deemed it necessary to determine these communications by
specific Regulations which are hereto attached.

BS, PT y——4

50 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“Tn forwarding these Regulations to the Directing Senate, we command that the
same be published for universal information, and that proper measures be taken to
carry them into execution.

(Signed) “Count D. Gurier, Minister of Finance.”

It is therefore decreed by the Directing Senate that His Imperial Majesty’s Edict
be published for the information of all men, and that the same be obeyed by all whom
it may concern.

The original is signed by the Directing Senate.

On the original is written in the handwriting of His Imperial Majesty thus—

‘Be it accordingly,

(Signed) “ALEXANDER.”

Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishery, and of all other indus-
try on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of
America, beginning from Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree of northern latitude,
also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the
Kurile Islands from Behring’s Straits to the south cape of the Island of Urup, viz.,
to the 45° 50’ northern latitude, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects.

Section 2. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels, not only to land on the
coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them
within less than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confisca-
tion, along with the whole cargo.

OTTAWA, April 9, 1886.

Sir: Ihave the honour to transmit herewith a letter just received from Mr. Theo
dore Lubbe, the managing owner of our British Columbian sealing fleet, and dated
the 30th ultimo; the newspaper clipping attached thereto fully explains the matter
embodied therein, and, as will be at once seen, it is a matter of vital importance to
our fishing industry and commercial enterprises generally that the same should
engage the attention of the Government at the very earliest possible moment, in
order that the owners may be apprised with as little delay as possible how they are
to act.

I would therefore respectfully urge that the whole subject be referred to his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council, so that I may be informed as quickly
as is reasonably possible what reply to telegraph; should this mode of procedure be
irregular or undesirable, then I would most respectfully ask that such other steps be
taken in the premises as to you may appear necessary or expedient, so as to avert
trouble in the closely approaching season alluded to, and remove all doubt as to
the rights of the parties on the ‘‘ high seas,” or otherwise, as may appear to be
reasonably consistent.

I have, &c.
(Signed) EpGAR CRrow-Baker, M. P.,
Vice-President, British Columbian Board of Trade.
The Honourable the SECRETARY OF STATE.

Mr. Lubbe to Mr, BE. Crow-Baker, M. P., Victoria, British Columbia, March 30, 1886.

(See Inclosure 8 in No. 3, p. 7.)

Contraband Seal Hunting.

Noticing in your issue of the ‘ Call” of the 25th instant an article referring to the
Alaska Fur Company’s territory, to oblige a number of your subscribers will you
kindly inform us if a vessel hunting seal a marine league off shore in Behring’s Sea
would be liable to seizure, or does the marine league limit apply to that territory as
it does to all land in the high seas?

SEVERAL INTERESTED SUBSCRIBERS.

34 Section 1956, Revised Statutes of the United States, prohibits the killing of

fur-bearing animals within the limits of Alaska Territory or the waters thereof,
except under an authorization from the Secretary of the Treasury, and it further
provided that the Secretary shall not grant any special privileges under this section.
Then comes the inquiry: ‘‘ What is included in the term, ‘the waters thereof’?”
The Treaty by which Alaska was ceded to the United States by Russia defines the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. bil

boundaries of the jurisdiction thus conveyed. The western limit, which extends
out on the high seas (a questionable conveyance) as far as the meridian of 193° west
longitude, so as to include the whole of the Aleutian Archipelago, and thence pro-
ceeds north-west to the intersection of the meridian 172° west with the parallel of
65° 30’ north, passes through the middle of Behring’s Straits, midway between the
Islands of Kousentern, or Ignalook, and Rotmanoft, and thence due north without
limitation into the Frozen Ocean. By Act of Congress the laws of the United
States are extended over all this territory and water. As Behring’s Straits at its
narrowest is 36 miles wide, 9 miles from the Alaskan mainland coast would not begin
to reach the western limit of our purchase from Russia, and until the right of the
United States Government to exclusive jurisdiction over those waters is successfully
controverted, you must not violate the law of Congress, by killing seals therein,
without the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury, on peril of confiscation.
“According to the current of modern authority,” says Chancellor Kent, ‘‘the gen-
eral territorial jurisdiction extends into the sea as far as a cannon-shot will reach,
and no further, and this is generally calculated to be a marine league (3 miles), and
the Congress of the United States has recognized this limitation.” The claim of
Russia to sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude, as
a close sea, was considered by our Government in 1822 as being against the rights of
other nations, but now, as we have bought Russia out, it is all right. One’s opinions
change according to one’s standpoint, and besides, cannons shoot farther now than
they used to.

{PuBLIc—No. 130. ]
An Act to prevent the Extermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska.

(See Inclosure 1 in No. 6.)

Letter dated Treasury Department, Washington, D. C., April 19, 1872.

(See Inclosure 6 in No. 3.)

Indenture dated August 3, 1870.

(See Inclosure 3 in No. 6.)

The Alaska Seizures.
[Extract from the Brooklyn ‘‘ Eagle.”]

(See Inclosure in No. 138.)

[Extract.]
GOVERNMENT Hovusr,
Victoria, British Columbia, August 26, 1886.

T have the hononr to report that a few days since I received a telegram from Mr.
Mason,.acting British Consul at San Francisco, to the following effect:

***Caroline’ and ‘Thornton’ seized by United States steamer ‘Corwin’ for illegal
sealing; about twenty men from them put on board ‘St. Paul’ arrived here last
night; they ask me for protection and to send them to Victoria. Advise me what
to do. They are not charged with anything.”

Upon receipt of this I arranged with the owners of the “Caroline” and ‘‘Thorn-
ton” for the return of the men here, and they arrived on the 23rd.

The “Caroline” and “Thornton,” belonging to different owners, are sloops owned
here and fitted out here for the prosecution of seal fishing in the North Pacific and
Behring’s Sea. It seems from the accounts given that they were peaceably pursuing
their vocations and not within 70 miles of land when they were seized by United
States Revenue steamer “Corwin,” as above stated. Some of the men were shipped
to San Francisco; the sloops and their masters are retained in some Alaska port.

52 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I inclose a cutting from a newspaper published here, which gives as correct an

account of the matter as we have at present, and also a statement of the facts relating

to the transfer to the United States of the Russian-American possessions and

35 of the lease and concessions granted by the Government of the United States
to the Company above mentioned.

The matter has been already laid before the Honourable the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries, who opportunely arrived here a few days after my receiving informa-
tion of it; but I beg to call your earnest attention to it, so that, the whole case being
laid before the Imperial authorities, steps may be taken not only to cause reparations
to be made for the outrage committed, but to definitely prevent any possible repeti-
tion of it,

THE SEALING SCHOONER SEIZURES.

As the late seizures of an American and three British sealing schooners by an
American Revenue cutter in the Behring’s Sea are almost certain to lead to inter-
national complications on account of the extravagance of the assumption upon which
those seizures were made, a brief history of the events which led up to them will be
acceptable at the present time.

In March 1867 a Treaty was made between Russia and the United States, by which
Russia ceded all its possessions in British North America to the Government of the
United States. One of the terms of that Treaty declared that the western limit,
within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained, passes through a
point in Behring’s Straits on the parallel of 65° 30’ north latitude at its intersection
by the meridian which passes midway between the Islands of Krusenstern or Igna-
look, and proceeds due north without limitation, into the same Frozen Ocean. The
same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, proceeds thence in a course
nearly south-west through Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between the north-
west point of St. Lawrence and the south-east point of Cape Choutkotski to the
meridian of 172° west longitude, thence from the intersection of that meridian in a
south-westerly direction so as to pass midway between the Island of Attou and the
Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group in the North Pacific Ocean to
the meridian of 193° west longitude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the
whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian. So far, so good.

In July 1870, in the 2nd Session of the 41st Congress, an Act was passed entitled
“An Act to prevent the ixtermination of Fur-bearing Animals in Alaska,” in which
the number of seals to be killed for their skins was limited on St. Paul’s and St.
George’s Islands to 75,000 per annum on each island, with power by the Secretary of
the ‘Treasury to further limit the number if necessary, and giving that official power
to lease for rental mentioned in this Act, to proper and responsible parties, to the
best advantage of the United States, having dune regard to the interests of the Gov-
ernment, the native inhabitants, the parties hitherto engaged in trade, and the pro-
tection of the seal fisheries, fora term of twenty-five years from May 1870, the right to
engage in taking seals on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George. Another section
declares that any person who shall kill any fur-seals on either of the said islands, or
in the waters adjacent thereto, without authority from the lessees thereof, or inter-
fere with them in the lawful prosecution of their duty, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanonr, and shall for each offence or conviction be punished, and all their
vessels, tackle, apparel, appurtenances, and cargo shall be forfeited to the United
States. In the month following the passage of this Act, that is in August 1870, a
lease called the Seal Island Lease was executed between the United States Govern-
ment and the Alaska Commercial Company, a Corporation established in California.
In return for the exclusive privilege of taking for twenty years (with certain
restrictions) fur-seals in the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, the lessees agreed
to pay the Government an annual sum of 55,000 dollars, 2 dol. 624 ec. for each seal-
skin taken, 55 cents for each gallon of seal-oil sold, and to annually provide the
natives with a certain quantity of provisions and fuel. The months of June, July,
September, and October were, moreover, the only months during which the capture
of the seals could be prosecuted. Under this lease or Concession this Company has
perpetuated its monopoly for sixteen years, reaping a vast profit therefrom. Not
satisfied with the prolific source of its supply, and the facilities afforded it for
engaging in the business, the Company has sought and practically succeeded in con-
trolling the fur-seal market by its aggressiveness in pretending to construe the term
‘‘and the waters adjacent thereto” as meaning that vast sea of waters included in
the limits of cession named in the Russo-American Treaty of 1867. In this inter-
pretation it has received the unrelaxed support of the United States Government,
whose interests in the matter are identical with those of the Company; and here it
may be remarked that the royalty paid by the latter furnishes a handsome profit

eS

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 53

upon the purchase-money of Alaska Territory. One or two American Revenue
36 cutters are always cruizing in the Behring’s Sea and that portion of the North

Pacific to the south of the Aleutian Islands, ever on the alert to prevent any
vessels but those of the Alaska Commercial Company from capturing seals there.
Meeting with no effectual opposition, and the cost of litigation precluding any
chances of success for the appellant, the Government has become more and more
aggressive, until finally, changing from a defensive to an offensive supervision, their
action has culminated in the deliberate seizure of three British sailing schooners
upon, whatever a national greed may declare to the contrary, the high and open
seas, recognized by international law as part of the world’s great highway, free to
the commerce of all countries, and a natural means of intercourse of all nations.

It is laid down as one of the first principles of maritime and commercial interna-
tional law that the open sea or main ocean is, like the atmosphere, free for common
use to all mankind, and cannot be appropriated by any State to the exclusion of the
others. Bearing in mind the huge improbability of the act of the Revenue cutter
not being in consonance with Governmental orders, what do we find? That anation,
disregarding on one coast the belt of the sea littoral which constitutes the range
belonging to coast defence, is actually assuming on another coast supreme maritime
jurisdiction over a waste of waters comprising half the northern part of a vast ocean.
In the exercise of this self-arrogated authority foreign mercantile vessels are forcibly
seized and, with their cargoes, are declared confiscated, while with an unaccount-
able magnanimity the crews, after being landed at an American port many hundred
miles distant from the scene of their capture, are allowed to go at large. It may be
advanced that if open to indiscriminate capture the fur-seal would have ere this
become extinct, or nearly so. But though this has been the case with the seal in the
southern regions it is a fact, which, deplorable as it may be, would furnish a most
flimsy excuse to a Government whose regulation of the industry in Alaskan waters
is prompted not by philanthropy, but by strictly mercenary considerations. So far
has this latter disposition carried them as to cause them to become responsible for an
act which, if committed by a vessel privately manned and owned, would bear but
one interpretation. As it is, the act is one that is rash, aggressive, and, in the face
of what is known, bitterly unjust, and is already spoken of as an unworthy means
ef reprisal for the late seizures made by Canada of American fishing-vessels on the
Atlantic coast. The sealing schooners when seized were over 70 miles from any
land, and how, with this fact before them, the United States Government can
attempt, with any show of reason, to justify the conduct of the Commander of the
“ Corwin,” it is difficult to imagine. With that evidence we have at hand, the seiz-
ures and detention are manifestly illegal, and representations of the affair through
the proper official channels have already been forwarded to the Home Government.
Britain is not belligerent, the strength she possesses—imparted by the commerce she
conducts in every quarter of the globe—she does not misuse.

Mr. Munroe to Mv. Spring, August 7, 1886.

(See Inclosure 4 in No. 7.)

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, November 15, 1886.

DEAR Srr: As our sealing schooners will leave Victoria on or about the 10th
December for the sealing expeditions of 1887, many of them will not return to Vic-
toria until September, or, in other words, not until the Behring’s Sea trip is-com-
pleted. We are, accordingly, anxious to know what is being done in the case of our
seized vessels, and whether or not we may look for protection against what we and
even the American press is pleased to term piracy. We haveno occasion to interfere
with the Alaska Commercial Company’s rights on the Priboloff Islands, nor do our
vessels come anywhere near Jand. The fact is, we take out at sea from 50 to 100
miles what the Honourable H. Elliot, of the Smithsonian Institute, in his Report of
1874 on the Seal Islands, calls “ batchelor seals,” or those not required on breeding-
grounds, to which Report I would be pleased to call your attention.

The industry is of too much importance to Canada to allow the Alaska Commercial
Company to dictate who shall and who shall not take seals on the high or Behring’s
Sea. For the season of 1886 there was brought into Victoria from the Pacific Ocean
and Behring’s Sea, and shipped therefrom to England and the United States, 50,000
i Sr valued at about 350,000 dollars. It is evident that the business is worth pro-

ecting.

Just here allow me to contradict a statement made by Special Agent Single, of
the United States Treasury Department, in which he says that three-fourths of the
seals shot in the water sink and are lost. From the experience of our hunters I main-

54 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

tain but asmali percentage is lost in this way, probably not over one in fifty. I-
37 doubt if the lossis as great as that caused by the rejection of skins after being

clubbed by the Alaska Commercial Company on the islands, to which refer-
ence is made in the Tables of Elliot’s Report.

The Americans themselves in 1824 repudiated Russia’s claim to the Behring’s Sea
when Russia seized the Boston brig “ Pearl” for whaling. ‘Two years later Russia
had to give the vessel up, and paid damages.

In conclusion, I may say that the seized skins are liable to be valueless on account
of neglect. :

Captain Ogilvie’s body has been discovered; a jury was empanelled, and a verdict
was given in accordance with the facts of the case.

Hoping you may be pleased to advise us in this matter before our vessels sail, you
will confer a great favour on your most obedient servant.

(Signed) WM. MUNSIE.

The Honourable GroreEn E. Foster,

Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

No. 23.
The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 8, 1887.

Str: Referring to previous correspondence in regard to the case of
the three Canadian schooners engaged in the seal fishery in Behring’s
Sea, I transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter from the Colonial
Office, with a despatch, and its inclosures, from the Governor-General
of Canada, explaining the views of the Dominion Government in the
matter.*

Nearly four months have now elapsed since my despatch of the 9th
September last was addressed to you, in which you were directed to
invite the Government of the United States to furnish you with any
particulars they might possess relative to the occurrence; and further
instructions were sent to you in my subsequent despatches of the 20th,
21st, and 30th October and the 18th November, but up to the present
date no reply has been received from that Government as to the alleged
proceedings of their officials.

I have now to instruct you to express to Mr. Bayard the concern of
Her Majesty’s Government at receiving no reply to the serious repre-
sentations which they have felt compelled to make on the information
which has reached them respecting the proceedings of the United
States’ cruizer “Corwin” in seizing British sealing schooners on the
high seas, and to urge, with all the force which the gravity of the case
requires, the immediate attention of the United States’ Government to
the action of the American authorities in their treatment of these ves-
sels, and of their masters and crews.

I am, We.
(Signed) IDDESLEIGH.

No. 24.
Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.—( Received January 21.)

WASHINGTON, January 10, 1887.
My Lorn: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s telegram of the 8th instant, and to inelose to your Lordship
herewith copy of a note which I immediately addressed to the Secretary

*No. 22.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. a0

of State, referring to my notes of the 27th September, 21st October,
and 7th December last, and to your Lordship’s despatch of the 30th
October, copy of which I placed in his hand on the 12th November, and
expressing the sense in which Her Majesty’s Government viewed his
silence with regard to the communications which had been made to
him respecting the seizure of British vessels in Behring’s Sea.
1 have, Xe.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 24.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, January 9, 1887.

Srr: Ihave the honour to inform you that I have received instructions from the

farl of Iddesleigh, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign

38 Affairs, again to bring to your notice the grave representations made by Her

Majesty’s Government respecting the seizure of the British vessels ‘‘ Carolina,”

“Onward,” and ‘* Thornton” in Behring’s Sea, by the United States cruizer ‘‘Cor-
win,” to which noreply has as yet been returned.

On the 27th September last I had the honour to address to you a note in which
T stated that Her Majesty’s Government requested to be furnished with any particu-
lars which the United States Government might possess relative to this occurrence.

On the 21st October last I had the honour to inform you that I was instructed by
the Earl of Iddesleigh to protest, in the name of Her Majesty’s Government, against
such seizures, and to reserve all rights to compensation.

In a note dated the 12th November last you were good enough to explain the delay
which had occurred in answering these communications, and, on the same day, I
had the honour to communicate to you a despatch from the Earl of Iddesleigh, a
copy of which, at your request, I placed in your hands.

On the 7th ultimo I again had the honour to address you, stating that vessels were
equipping in British Columbia for fishing in Behring’s Sea, and that the Canadian
Government were desirous of ascertaining whether such vessels fishing in the open
sea, and beyond the territorial waters of Alaska, would be exposed to seizure, and
that Her Majesty’s Government would be glad if some assurance could be given that,
pending the settlement of the questions, no such seizures of British vessels would
be made in Behring’s Sea.

The vessels in question were seized at a distance of more than 60 miles from the
nearest land at the time of their seizure. The master of the ‘‘ Thornton” was sen-
tenced to imprisonment for thirty days, and to pay a fine of 500 dollars, and there is
reason to believe that the masters of the ‘‘Onward” and ‘‘Carolina” have been
sentenced to similar penalties.

In support of this claim to jurisdiction over a stretch of sea extending in its widest
part some 600 or 700 miles from the mainland, advanced by the Judge i in his charge
to the jury, the authorities are alleged to have interfered with the peaceable and
lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas, to have takeu possession of
their ships, to have subjected their property to forfeiture, and to have visited upon
their persons the indignity of imprisonment. Such proceedings therefore, if cor-
rectly reported, would appear to have been in violation of the admitted principle of
international law. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty’s Government do not
hesitate to express their concern at not having received any reply to their represen-

tations, nor do they wish to conceal the grave nature which the casehas thus assu med,
and to which I am now instructed to call your immediate and most serious attefition.

It is unnecessary for me to allude further to the information with which Her
Majesty’s Government has been furnished respecting these seizures of British ves-
sels in the open seas, and which, for some time past, has been in the possession of
the United States Government, because Her Majesty’s Government do not doubt
that if, on inquiry, it should prove to be correct, the Government of the United
States will, with their well-known sense of justice, admit the illegality of the pro-
ceedings resorted to against the British vessels and the British subjects above men-
tioned, and will cause ‘reasonable reparation to be made for the wrongs to which they
have been subjected, and for the losses which they have sustained.

In conclusion, I have the honour again to refer to your note of the 12th November
last, and to what you said verbally to me on the same day, and to express the hope
that the cause of the delay complained of in answering the 1 representations of Her
Majesty’s Government on this grave and important matter may be speedily removed.

I have, &c. (Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

56 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 25.

Sir L. West to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, Foreign Office.—( Received
January 26.)

WASHINGTON, January 13, 1887.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 7th instant, I have
the honour to inelose to your Lordship herewith copy of a note which
I have received from the Secretary of State in answer to my communi-
cation expressing the concern of Her Majesty’s Government at receiv-
ing no reply to their representations respecting the seizure of British
vessels in Behring’s Sea.

I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

89 [Inclosure in No. 25.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 12, 1887.

Sir: Your note of the 9th instant was received by me on the next day, and I regret
exceedingly that, although my efforts have been diligently made to procure from
Alaska the authenticated copies of the judicial proceedings in the cases of the British
vessels ‘‘ Carolina,” ‘‘ Onward,” and ‘‘ Thornton,” to which you refer, I should not
have been able to obtain them in time to have made the urgent and renewed appli-
cation of the Earl of Iddesleigh superfluous. j

The pressing nature of your note constrains me to inform you that on the 27th
September last, when I received my first intimation from you that any question was
possible as to the validity of the judicial proceedings referred to, I lost no time in
requesting my colleague the Attorney-General, in whose Department the cases were,
to procure for me such authentic information as would enable me to make full
response to your application.

From week to week I have been awaiting the arrival of the papers, and to-day, at
my request, the Attorney-General has telegraphed to Portland, in Oregon, the near-
est telegraph station to Sitka, in Alaska, in order to expedite the furnishing of the
desired papers.

You will understand that my wish to meet the questions involved in the instruc-
tions you have received from your Government is averred, and that the delay has
been enforced by the absence of requisite information as to the facts.

The distance of the vessels from any land, or the circumstances attendant upon
their seizure, are unknown to me, save by the statements in your last note, and it is
essential that such facts should be devoid of all uncertainty.

Of whatever information may be in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government I
have, of course, no knowledge or means of knowledge, but this Department of the
Government of the United States has not yet been placed in possession of that
accurate information which would justify its decision in a question which you are
certainly warranted in considering to be of grave importance.

I shall diligently endeavor to procure the best evidence possible of the matters
inquired of, and will make due response thereupon when the opportunity of decision
is afforded to me.

You require no assurance that no avoidance of our international obligations need
be apprehended.

I have, &c. 5; (Signed) T. F. Bayarb.

No. 26.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 27, 1887.
Sir: With reference to your despatch of the 13th instant, I have to
request you to make a point of inquiring from time to time whether the
United States Government have received the expected information with
regard to the seizures of British vessels engaged in seal-fishing in Beh-
rings’s Sea.
lam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ates 57
No. 27.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph, Feb-
ruary 4.)

WASHINGTON, February 4, 1887.

My Lorp: Having reason to believe that the President was about
to take some action in the case of the seizure of British vessels in Beh-
ring’s Sea, Laddressed a note, copy of which is inclosed, to the Secretary
of State, after the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 27th ultimo,
inquiring whether the United States Government had received the
information and papers connected therewith; and I now havethe honour
to inclose copy of a note which I have received in reply thereto, stating

that the papers in question were expected within a fortnight, and
40 informing me that in the meanwhile, without conclusion at this

time of any questions involved, orders have been issued by the
President for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the dis-
charge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under
arrest in connection therewith, which information I telegraphed to your
Lordship this day.

Since the receipt of the Earl of Iddesleigh’s telegram of the 6th
December last I have from time to time endeavoured to obtain a
decision in the sense of the note now addressed to me, which, as far as
it goes, will, I trust, be considered by Her Majesty’s Government as a
satisfactory result.

In accordance with the instruction contained in the above-mentioned
telegram, I have communicated this result to the Governor-General of
Canada.

I have, ce.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 27.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, February 2, 1886.

Sir: Lhave the honour to inform you that, under date of the 27th ultimo, the
Marquis of Salisbury instructs me to inquire whether the information and papers
relative to the seizure of the British schooners ‘‘Carolina,” ‘‘Onward,” and
‘Thornton ” have reached the United States Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST,

{Inclosure 2 in No. 27.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 3, 1887.

Sir: I beg to acknowledge your note of yesterday’s date, received to-day. Upon its
receipt I made instant application to my colleague the Attorney-General in relation
to the record of the judicial proceedings in the cases of the three British vessels
arrested in August last in Behring’s Sea for violation of the United States Laws
regulating the Alaskan seal fisheries.

I am iniormed that the documents in question left Sitka on the 26th January, and
may be expected to arrive at Port Townsend, in Washington Territory, about the
7th instant, so that the papers, in the usual course of mail, should be received by me
within a fortnight.

58 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In this connection, I take occasion to inform you that, without conclusion at this
time of any questions which may be found to be involved in these cases of seizure,
orders have been issued by the President’s direction, for the discontinuance of all
pendiug proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all
persons under arrest in connection therewith.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 28.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 9.)

DOWNING STREET, February 8, 1887.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seiz-
ure of Canadian sealing schooners in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by
Secretary Sir H. Holland to transmit to you, to be laid before the Mar-
quis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch, with its inclosures, from the
Governor-General of Canada on the subject.

Sir H. Holland wili be glad to be informed of any action which Lord
Salisbury may think proper to take upon this despatch, in order that
the Marquis of Lansdowne may be apprised accordingly.

I ain, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

41 [Inclosure 1 in No. 28.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Oliawa, January 15, 1887.
Str: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure of Canadian
sealing schooners in Belring’s Sea, I have the honour to transmit to you, in order
that reparation may be sought from the United States Government, a copy of an
approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council of Canada, submitting papers
containing full statements of claims for damage sustained and compensation
demanded by the owners, masters, and mates of the schooners ‘‘ Onward,” ‘“Thorn-

ton,” and *‘ Carolina.”
Ihave, &c. F
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 28.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 8rd January, 1887.

On a Report dated the 27th December, 1886, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, Submitting papers containing full statements of claims for damage sustained and
compensation demanded by the owners, masters, and mates of the sealing schooners
“ Onward,” “Thornton,” and ‘‘ Carolina,” which vessels were seized by the United
States Revenue cutter “ Corwin ” in Bebring’s Sea in August 1886, and concerning
which full representations have been made to Her Majesty’s Government in des-
patches bearing date respectively the 23rd and 24th September and the 29th Novem-
ber, 1886, and recommending that copies of the same be transmitted to the Right
Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that repara-
tion may be sought from the United States Government for all damages and loss to
British subjects consequent upon the illegal action of the United States officers in
the cases referred to:

The Committee, concurring in the above, advise that your Excellency be moved to
transmit copies of the papers accordingly.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

are. eee

*

ioe

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 59

DOCUMENTS ANNEXED TO PRECEDING REPORT.
The claim of Daniel Munroe, Master of the British Schooner “Onward.”

I claim against the Government of the United States, or whom it may concern, the
sum of 8, 000 dollars for loss of wages, lay-out, damages, and indemnity for illegal
seizure of the schooner “Onward” by the Commander of the United States steamer
“Corwin” in Behring’s Sea on the 1st August, 1886, or thereabouts, and for detention
and subsequent wrongful imprisonment in gaol at Sitka.

(Daniel Munroe, by his Attorney in fact),
(Signed) EpGar Crow-BakEr.
Vicroria, BririsH COLUMBIA,
October 20, 1886.

The Claim of Hans Guttormsen, Master of the British Schooner “ Thornton.”

I claim against the Government of the United States, or whom it may concern, the
sum of 8,000 dollars for loss of wages, lay-out, damages, and indemnity for illeg al
seizure of the schooner ‘‘ Thornton” by the Commander of the United States steamer
‘““Corwin” in the Behring’s Sea on the Ist August, 1886, and for detention and subse-
quent wrongful imprisonment in gaol at Sitka.

(Hans Guttormsen, by his Attorney in fact),
(Signed) EDGAR CROW-BAKER.
Vicrorisa, BRITISH COLUMBIA,
October 20, 1886.

42 Damages claimed by the owner of Schooner ‘‘ Carolina” in respect of her Seizure
by the United States Steam-ship ‘‘ Corwin” while fishing in Behring’s Sea.

British Columbia, to wit.

J, William Munsie, of Victoria, British Columbia, owner of the British schooner
“Carolina,” do solemnly and sincerely declare:

1. That the value of the said vessel at the time of her seizure by the United States
steam-ship ‘‘Corwin” was 4,000 dollars, and the cost of her outfit, when she left
Victoria for the Behring’s Sea, was 3,000 dollars.

2. That she carried a crew of eleven men, and the estimated wages due to the
master and men for four months from the 15th day of May, 1886, to the time of the
return of the said men to Victoria is 4,500 dollars.

3. That at the time of her capture by the ‘‘ Corwin” she had 686 seal-skins, Which
were worth, at 7 dollars each, 4,802 dollars.

4. That the probable catch for the season, estimated from the number of skins
taken by the schooner ‘‘Mary Ellen,” which was 3,554 skins, and by the number of
skins taken when the said schooner was captured, would be 3,000 skins, the value
of which would be 21,000 dollars.

5. That the loss sustained by me in consequence of the detention of the said
schooner, and my being unable to employ her in ordinary work after the sealing
season is over, is 450 dollars a-month, which sum I claim until the vessel is returned
home in good order and condition.

6. That I have also paid ana incurred liabilities connected with the arrest of the
said vessel, and in defence of the master and crew, for legal and other expenses,
1,000 dollars.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true,
by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled ‘An
Act for the Suppression cf Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.”

[L. s.] (Signed) WILLIAM MUNSIE.
Taken and declared before me this 20th October, 1886.
(Signed) M. W. TYRWHITT DRAKE,

Notary Public, Victoria, British Columbia.

60 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Damages claimed by the Owner of the “ Onward” and “‘ Favourite” in respect of their
Seizure by the United States Steam-ship ‘‘ Corwin” while fishing in Behring’s Sea.

British Columbia, to wit.

I, Charles Spring, of Victoria, British Columbia, owner of the British schooners
“Onward” and ‘‘ Favourite” do solemnly and sincerely declare:

1. That the value of the said vessel ““Onward” at the time of her seizure by the
United States steam-ship “Corwin” was 4,000 dollars, and the cost of the outfit
when she left Victoria for the Behring’s Sea was 1,000 dollars.

2. That she carried a crew of twenty men, and, the estimated wages due to the
master and men for four months from the 12th day of June to the time of their return
to Victoria is 7,500 dollars.

3. That at the time of her capture by the “Corwin” she had 400 seal-skins, which
were worth 2,800 dollars.

4, That the probable cateh for the season estimated on the number of skins taken
by other schooners, and by the number of skins taken when the said schooner was
captured, would be 3.000 skins, the value of which, at 7 dollars a skin, would be
21,000 dollars.

5. That the loss sustained by me in consequence of the detention of the said
schooner, and my being unable to employ her in ordinary work after the sealing sea-
son, is over 500 a-month, which sum J claim until the vessel is returned to me in good
order and condition.

6. That I have also paid and incurred liabilities connected with the arrest of the
said vessel, and in defence of the master and crew for legal and other expenses, 1,000
dollars, and I also claim 3,000 dollars damages, because the officer in command of the
United States steam-ship ‘‘Corwin” as she passed the ‘‘lavourite” ordered her to
cease sealing, which she did, and thereby lost her season.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to
43 be true, by virtue of an Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign,
intituled “An Act for the Suppression of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.”

[L. 8. ] (Signed) C. SPRING.
Taken and declared before me this 18th October, 1886.
(Signed) M. W. TyRwHitt DRAKE,

Noiary Public, Victoria, British Columbia

Damages claimed by the Owner of the Steam-vessel ‘‘ Thornton” for illegal Seizure by the
United States Steam-ship ‘“ Corwin” while fishing in Behring’s Sea.

British Columbia, to wit.

I, James Douglas Warren, of Victoria, British Columbia,owner of the British steam-
vessel ‘‘ Thornton,” do solemnly and sincerely declare:

1. That the value of the said vessel at the time of her seizure by the United States
steam-ship ‘‘Corwin” was 6,000 dollars, and the cost of her outfit when she left Vic-
toria for the Behring’s Sea was 4,000 dollars.

2. That she carried a crew of fifteen men, and the estimated wages due to the
master and men for four months fyom the 26th day of May to the 1st day of October,
the date of their return to Victoria, which I have to pay, is 5,100 dollars.

3. That at the time of her capture by the ‘‘ Corwin” she had 403 seal-skins, which,
at 7 dollars each, were worth 2,821 dollars.

4. That the probable catch for the season, estimated on the number of skins taken
by the schooner ‘‘ Mary Ellen,” and by the number of skins taken when the said vessel
was captured, would be 5,000, of the value of 21,000 dollars.

5. That the loss sustained by me in consequence of the detention of the said vessel,
and by being unable to employ her in ordinary work after the sealing season is over,
is 500 dollars a-month, which sum I claim until the vessel is returned to me in good

-order and condition.
-6. That I have also paid and incurred liabilities connected with the arrest of the
nad vessel, and defence of the master and crew for legal and other expenses, 1,000
ollars.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true,

by virtue of the Act passed in the 37th year of Her Majesty’s reign, intituled “An
_Act for the Suppression of Voluntary and Extra-judicial Oaths.” —

[Sea] (Signed) J. D. WARREN.
Taken and declared at Victoria this 19th October, 1886, before me.
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwuirt DRAKE,

Notary Public.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 61

Victoria, British Columbia.

I, James Blake, mate of the schooner ‘Car olina,” claim 5 000 dollars as damages
for’ my illegal arrest and imprisonment on board the “Corwin” and in gaol at Sitka
from the Ist August to the 16th September, 1886.

(Signed) JAMES BLAKE.
Witness:

(Signed ) M. W. TYRWHITT DRAKE.

Victoria, British Columbia.

If, John Margotich, mate of the schooner “Onward,” claim 5,000 dollars as damages
for’ my illegal : arrest and imprisonment on board the United States vessel ‘f Corwin’
and in gaol at Sitka from the 23rd August, 1886, to the 2Uth September in the same

year.
(John Margotich, by his Attorney),
(Signed) C. SPRING.
Witness:
(Signed) M. W. TYRwWHITT DRAKE.
44 Victoria, British Columbia.

he Harry Norman, mate of the steamer “Thornton,” claim as compensation
for my illegal arrest and imprisonment on board the United States steam- ship ‘‘Cor-
win” and in gaol at Sitka, the sum of 5,000 dollars, dated the 19th October, 1886.

(Harry Norman, by his Attorney),

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
OCTOBER 19, 1886.
Witness:
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwititt DRAKE.

Victoria, British Columbia.

If James Ogilvie, master of the schooner ‘‘ Carolina,” claim as compensati on for my
arrest and imprisonment on board the United States steam- ship ‘‘Corwin” and in
gaol at Sitka, the sum of 5,000 dollars, dated the 19th October, 1886.

(James Ogilvie, by his Attorney),

(Signed) A. J. BECKTIL,
OCTOBER 19, 1886.
Witness:
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwiitrt Drakn.

Abstract of Damages.

alnaearta Schooner | Steam-ship | Schooner Schooner

Damages-as per declaration: “Onward.”|‘‘ Thornton.’ ‘‘Carolina.”’ |‘' Favourite.”
Walueotavesseliand outiite---o-eeseee eee ece soe. $5, 000 $10, 000 ST 000i |. c<e-mces esses
IMAC CSONCKOW~ =~ ces5ce- coos cock cere st acces eceacs 7, 500 5, 100 A500) iianieeeee nese
Walue of seal-sking onboard. .2--.-----5:--=----- 2, 800 2, 821 45802) Saatsciosteecsue
Walueioteprobablecatelie-eccs «sa. Gene seisn-re 21, 000 21, 000 21! 000K) 2555. /35-—52
Mosssustamedupy a etention Pararocreact a nsene cel ccoacccs ea tetino-iiane cc eawn cee eee eectceinw seems
Legal and other expenses............---..------- 1, 000 1, 000 TOOOM Peeecc ee sce ios
Hhossisuscalned by order to cease scalino.c2+0 + 2<|2- 254 sca eeee |p eee ceee nce sesesscecanes $3, 000

For illegal Arrest and Imprisonment.

Daniel Munroe, master of Onward,” for indemnity for illegal seizure, loss, &e. $8, 000

Jobn Margotich, mate of ‘ Onward, » ue a O00
Harry Norman, mate of “Thornton,” £¢ Mb sf ey 01000
James Ogilvie, master of “Carolina,” ae gs a ~ 5,000
James Blake, mate of ‘‘Carolina,” bs “e SG - 5,000

Hans Guttormsen, master of ‘ Thornton,”

6

66

66

- 8,000

62 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 29.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

x FOREIGN OFFICE, February 14, 1887.

Sir: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
Sth instant, forwarding a copy of a despatch, with its inclosures, from
the Governor-General of Canada, relating to the claims for damages
sustained and compensation demanded by the owners, masters, and
mates of the British schooners “Onward,” “Thornton,” and ‘“Caro-
lina,” which were seized by the United States Revenue cruizer
‘‘Corwin” last August, while engaged in seal fishing in Behring’s Sea.

In reply, I am directed by his Lordship to request that you will
suggest to Sir H. Holland that it might be desirable to defer laying
these claims before the Government of the United States until Her
Majesty’s Government have had an opportunity of examining the
statement as to the circumstances under which the seizures took place
which is referred to in Sir L. West’s telegram of the 4th instant, com-

municated to you on the following day.
45 I am to add that, should this suggestion meet with Sir H.
Holland’s concurrence, instructions will be sent accordingly to
Sir L. West.
Lam &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 30.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 15.)

WASHINGTON, January 30, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith the Report of
the Governor of Alaska for the year 1886.
I have, We.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 30.]
Extract from the Report of the Governor of Alaska for the Fiscal Year 1886.
PROTECTION OF FUR SEAL AND SEA OTTER.

The capture of one American and three British vessels while engaged in taking
seals in the inland waters of Alaska by the Revenue eutter ‘‘Corwin” has no doubt
been fully reported by her zealous and meritorious Commander, Captain C. A. Abbey,
to the proper Department, and but for the fact that the officers and crews were brought
to Sitka, and, together with the captured property, turned over to the United States
Marshal, the subject might not be considered one within the province of this Report.
The masters and mates of the several vessels were tried at a special term of the Dis-
trict Court, and all convicted and sentenced to brief terms of imprisonment, and three
of them to payment of fines ranging from 300 dollars to 500 dollars each.

The terms of imprisonment of all save the master of the American vessel having very
nearly expired on the 29th September, on the urgent request and recommendation
of the honourable Judge of the District Court before whom the convictions were
had, I granted respites in the several cases, save the exception noted, and the pris-
oners were released and allowed to depart for their several homes. They were with

eae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 63

out means, and, had they been detained until the expiration of their sentences, would
have become objectsof charity among strangers until the sailing of the next monthly
steamer.

As these seizures have most probably raised an international question involving
the right of the United States to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of the
Behring’s Sea north of the Aleutian Islands and east of the 193rd meridian west lon-
gitude, it may not be unbecoming in me to suggest that unless that right is insisted
upen and maintained, an industry which now yields a revenue equal to a fair rate of
interest on the amount paid for the whole of Alaska will not only be destroyed, but
the means of livelihood will likewise be taken away from a large number of people
whom the Government is bound by every consideration of honour and public policy
to protect. I can conceive of no other plan by which the seal fisheries can be pre-
served than the one long ago adopted and now in vogue; whether they ought not
now to be yielding a very much larger revenue to the Government is a question to be
discussed a year or two hence. It is reasonably certain, however, that unless our
Government asserts and maintains the jurisdiction ceded to it by Russia, the Seal
Tslands willin a very few years be robbed of all present or prospective value to
any one.

It is just as essential to the preservation of this industry that the seals be pro-
tected against indiscriminate slaughter while on their way to and from their breed-
ing places as that the number to be taken on the islands should be limited, and every
necessary restriction imposed as to age, sex, and the mode of killing. The use of
fire-arms is prohibited by law, even to the natives, in the killing of seal and other
fur-bearing animals in Alaskan waters and on the islands thereof, and it would be
a manifest act of injustice to them to permit either foreign or American vessels to

enter and engage in the indiscriminate shooting of such animals in waters
46 over which tle United States claims and exercises exclusive jurisdiction and

control. Unless our right to such jurisdiction be waved or abandoned, seals
once in Behring’s Sea are as much the property of the United States as the islands
themselves, and should be no less zealously guarded than are the Newfoundland
cod-banks by the Dominion of Canada. Unless so guarded, chartered rights will
not only be impaired, but a source of large and perpetual revenue to the Government
utterly destroyed.

But there are other than selfish reasons why the United States should insist upon
its right to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Behring’s Sea as far west as
the boundary line described in the Treaty of Cession. The principal occupation
of the inhabitants, some 10,000 or 12,000 in number, of the islands therein and adja-
cent thereto, is sea-otter hunting, an occupation which will be completely destroyed
if its waters are thrown open to all who choose to enter. It is manifestly the duty
of the Government to protect these people in the enjoyment of rights which to them
are inherent; an abandonment of the jurisdiction claimed by us would be practi-
cally assenting that the people in question may be driven from their homes and the
employment by which they and their fathers for generations remote have obtained
a livelihood.

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES NEEDED.

In the foregoing connection I desire to call attention to the imperative necessity
which exists for some means of transportation for the officials of the Civil Govern-
ment to and from the different parts of the Territory. In the present condition of
affairs the Marshal canonly reach a very few points to serve the processes of the Court,
and in each and every case must undergo an enforced absence of at least a month.
The civil officials are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the laws, and yet
are not furnished with the means absolutely necessary to enable themto do so. The
authorities at Washington do not seem to realize the fact that there are no waggon or
other roads in Alaska, and that all travel must necessarily be by water. Crimes are
reported from the various places of settlement, but the executive officers have no
available means of going from place to place to make arrests and enforce the laws.
Smuggling is carried on, distilled spirits are being surreptitiously imported into the
Territory in spite of the decision of the District Court, thousands of dollars’ worth
of dutiable merchandize is imported across the border from British Columbia, and
we are powerless to prevent any of these things.

If a sprightly Revenue cutter could be stationed here with orders to cruize in the
inland waters of South-eastern Alaska, and give aid to the Civil Government, by
carrying its officers to points necessary to be visited by them on official business,
bringing witnesses and jurors, &c., 1 am reasonably certain the lawlessness now
so prevalent could be broken up, the Governmenf’s revenue secured, the laws
enforced, and life and property rights fully protected. Until something is done in
this direction to enable the officials to perform their duties, civil government in
Alaska will be little better than a ridiculous farce.

64 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The following letter, addressed to me by the District Attorney, fully explains the
necessity of the case, and how it may be provided for without detriment, but rather
to the advantage of the Revenue Marine Service:

*“‘DisTRicT OF ALASKA, District ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
“Sitka, September 20, 1886.

“Sir: As the official charged with the institution of the initiatory judicial pro-
ceedings against parties becoming liable to answer for breach of the laws in this
district, I desire to call your attention to a most serious want in the facilities neces-
sary to enable the officers of the Court to perform their duty effectively.

‘“We are, as matters now stand, entirely dependent on the line of nonthly mail-
steamers from Port ownsend, Washington, to Sitka, for any certain or regular
means of getting to or from other places in the district, being thus not only limited
in communication to three or four other Settlements, but also forced to an absence
from Sitka of not less than one and possibly two months in any event in which it
becomes necessary to visit them. Besides this, there are many Settlements where
important business enterprises are located needing protection, which we are not able
to visit at all.

“At one of these, Newchuk, some 300 or 400 miles up the coast to the west, a trader
was brutally murdered by Indians last December. Valuable mineral discoveries
have just been made in that section which it is proposed very soon to develop, and
there are large fishing establishments near and trading posts from which appeals

have been sent to such officials as could be reached, to have the case inquired
47 into and the offenders punished. ‘The facts in this case are undoubted, and

action by the authorities most essential to the interests and protection of all
residents. There is also a report of a murder at the Island of Unga, bunt not yet
fully confirmed. There is certainly need of inquiry into certain larcenies and other
lawless acts at Kadiak.

“T am utterly powerless to institute the necessary examinations into these cases,
in order to bring the parties to justice,and my inability and that of the Court to
punish them must continue until we have the means of reaching those localities
furnished us.

“Another case is in point: There are now lying at Ounalaska three English
schooners, seized for violation of our laws against killing fur-bearing animals within
the Territory. The cargoes of these and one other schooner, consisting of over 2,000
seal-skins, forfeited under these laws, are stored at the same place. Under the neces-
sary proceedings in our Court these vessels and their cargoes have been decreed for-
feited, and the Marshal will be required to sell them. He is absolutely without the
means of getting to Ounalaska at all unless he goes by way of San Francisco, and
ean only carry out the orders of the Court at the most serious inconvenience. In
fact, in the absence of the needed facilities for direct intercommunication between
the several sections and Settlements of this district, it is plain that the interests of
the Government must greatly suffer, as they have already done, together with those
of the people.

“Tt would be an easy and simple thing to supply this need, at no material increase
of expense, in the protection of the Government’s interest in Alaska, but rather to
their positive advantage. A Revenne vessel stationed at Sitka, subject to the rea-
sonable necessities of the Civil Government, could attend to all the wants occurring,
without detriment to the service, necessary for the protection of the seal fisheries
and the rights of the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands. Indeed, being here much
nearer the waters in which such service is required than she would be at any station
lower down the coast, she could perform that duty more conveniently, and at the
same time would be able to put a stop to much of the smuggling and illegal impor-
tation of liquors into South-eastern Alaska which is now going on.

“There is no doubt that the service necessary in order to make the present civil
and judicial government of this Territory something more than a mockery to a large
portion of its avea and people could be effectually rendered in this way, and the
other interests which it is thought necessary to protect by the same means promoted.
I trust you will, therefore, represent this necessity to our Government in your forth-
coming Report. There are many ways in which it is seriously felt, but which it
would be unprofitable to specify.

“Very truly yours,
(Signed) 6OM. Di BAgaLr.
“ United States District Attorney.

“ Hon. A. P. SWINEFORD,

“‘ Governor of Alaska.”

The plan suggested by the District Attorney would not involve any extra expense
to the Government over the present cost of the Revenue Marine Service in Alaskan
waters; it only implies that Sitka be made head-quarters for the cutter which is sent
every year from San Francisco for the protection of the seal fisheries and sea-otter

.

id
k
2

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 65

grounds, and be given the additional duty of co-operating with the civil anthori-
ties in the way suggested,

Under such an arrangement special terms of Court could be held at Ounalaska
and Kadiak during the annual crnize of the cutter, and the laws enforced over a
large section of the Territory, to the people of which the Civil Government is at
present a thing which exists in name only. A matter which can so easily be arranged,
and yet is of such vital i importance to the proper and effective administration ef 3 vhe
Civil Government, ought, it seems to me, to merit the prompt consideration and
favourable action ‘of the proper Departments.

GENERAL REMARKS AND SUGGESTIONS,

It must not be inferred from what I have said concerning the need of transporta-
tion facilities, which can only be supplied without large extra expense by means of a
Revenue cutter stationed here at Sitka, that the presence of a war-vessel large enough
to rate a marine guard can, or ought to be, dispensed with.

A naval vessel, “such as the Pinta,” or even one of the second or third rate, is very
essential as a means of holding in peaceable subjection the native Settlements which
have not yet yielded to civilizing influences, and to assist in restoring erder in case

of riot and armed resistance to the law on the part of a lawless element among
48 the whites, such as that which incited the recent expulsion of the Chinese from

Douglas Island. There is no necessity, however, in my opinion, for keeping a
marine guard on shore here at Sitka, while there is an ever-present and prospective
need for the presence of such a force at Juneau. Had the war-ship and Ler marine
guard been there at the time, I have every reason to believe the expulsion of the
Chinese would not have been attempted, or, if it had been, the commanding officer
would certainly have been in a position, acting in unison with the civil authorities,
to prévent the mob from consummating its unlawful purpose.

The same lawless element that accomplished the forcible removal of the Chinese
miners and labourers is likely at any time to demand the discharge of the natives
who have been employed to fill the enforced vacancies, and in the absence of an
armed. force would be enabled to enforce their demand before any relief could be
afforded from this point, where the only naval or military force in the Territory is now
stationed—and where, I may truthfully add, its presence is not only unnecessary, but
wholly useless. ‘The native people here at Sitka are quiet and peaceable, and there
is no lawless white element which cannot be held in complete subjection to the law
without the aid or intervention of a milifary force.

The only place in the Territory where there is any prospect of lawlessness beyond
the control of the civil authorities is at Juneau, and 1 respectfully urge that the pro-
priety of transferring the “Pinta” and her marine guard to that point be at once
brought to the attention of the honourable Secretary of the Navy.

If for any reason it is not deemed advisable to order the transfer I have suggested,
then I venture the further suggestion that the marine guard now stationed here on
shore at Sitka be transferred, if not to the ship where they properly belong, then
into other quarters than those at present occupied by them in the building popularly
known as the “ Barracks.”

ITsubmit herewith plans showing how and by whom the building is at present
occupied, from which it will be seen that there is a juxtaposition of the civil and
military altogether unseemly, if not wholly improper. ‘The spectacle at the recent
term of Court, when a number of British subjects were on trial, and every morning
heard the beat of the drum, calling guard-mount on the portico, simultaneously
with the loud proclamation of the crier announcing the opening of Court in the
same building, was not one calculated to impress the strangers with an exalted
opinion of our boasted free institutions. For appearance’s sake, if for no other
reason, this marine guard should be removed from this building in which the Courts
are held, and the whole of which is needed for the accommodation of the Civil Gov-
ernment. But the truth is, this marine guard has no duty to perform here in Sitka,
save that of guarding the few supplies necessary to its own subsistence.

Prior to the institution of civil cvovernment the naval commander of the station
was, to all intents and purposes, the executive officer of the Territory, and all vessels
stationed here were of arate which entitled them to a marine guard. One-half of
this guard was sent ashore to perform police duty, the officer in command exercising
the functions of a police mavistrate.

With a view to the continuance of this system, the “ Pinta” was sent here and
furnished with a marine guard of twenty-five men, ‘under command of a Second Lien-
tenant, all of whom were sent ashore, the Commandant and privates performing the
police ‘duties mentioned from the date of her arrival, on the 17th August, 1884, till
the 14th September following, when the newly- created Civil Government was inau-
gurated, Since that time the geuard has had no local duties whatever to perform,
and has practically been as useless as would be the fifth wheel to a waggon.

BS, PT V——5

66 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In this view of the case, I submit if room occupied by it, and which is urgently
required for the use of the Civil Government, ought not to be vacated, and the guard
itself transferred to the only point in the Territory where an emergency requiring
the services of an armed force is likely to arise. There are buildings at Juneau
belonging to the Navy Department large enough for the accommodation of a force
twice its size, and I respectfully urge that the Senior Officer be ordered to make the
transfer without unnecessary delay.

49 No. 31.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 28.)

DOWNING StREET, February 26, 1887.
Str: I am directed by Secretary Sir H. Holland to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, and to state that he concurs
in the Marquis of Salisbury’s proposal to defer, temporarily, presenting
to the United States the claims to compensation advanced by the Goy-
ernment of Canada in respect of sailing-vessels recently seized in
Behring’s sea.
Iam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 32.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 31.)

WASHINGTON, March 18, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
copies of a letter addressed to the President by a firm in San Francisco,
engaged in the seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, complaining of the preten-
sion of the Alaska Seal Company to exclusive jurisdiction over waters
3,000 miles long and 2,700 miles wide, and setting forth the grievances
resulting therefrom. Allusion is made to the case of the American
vessel ** Ocean Spray,” which went to the Island of St. Paul in 1876 and
was seized for killing seals, and to the decision of the Judge of the Cir-
cuit Court of Oregon, to the effect that the vessel had not violated the
Act of Congress. The Treasury Circular of 1872 is also cited as prov-
ing that American vessels had the right to enter Behring’s Sea, from
which the Company sought to exclude them.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 82.]
Extract from the ‘New York Herald” of March 17, 1887.
[From our regular Correspondent.]
“HERALD” BUREAU, CORNER FiIrTEENTH AND G STREETS, N. W.
Washington, March 16, 1887.
The following letter, addressed to the President, has just been received:
“32, CLAY STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,
‘€ March 2, 1887.
“To his Excellency GROVER CLEVELAND, President of the United States:
“Sir: Some respectable business men of the Pacific coast, owners of American
vessels, have recently been assailed through the columns of the public press in a
semi-official manner as ‘marauders’ and ‘ pirates’ on the ocean, their property seized

and forfeited, their business jeopardized, and their sea ventures utterly destroyed,
without any reasonable or justifiable excuse or cause.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 67

‘The pretended cause is, and it is so asserted, that they have violated section
1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which forbids the killing of fur-
seals or iur-bearing animals ‘within’ the waters of Alaska Territory, ignoring the
fact whether or not they were actually engaged in the killing of seals on the high
seas or had made preparations so to do outside of the waters of Alaska Territory.
On mere suspicion, they and their property have been remorselessly seized in the
name of the United States by officials who have been engaged for the past many
months in sounding the praises of the Alaska Commercial Company throughout tlie
land, and adding to their usurpations by vilifying their victims.

‘“The time seems to have come when the great interests involved in the free and

legitimate shipping ventures of the merchant marine of the nation demand
50 that official inquiry be made into the arbitrary conduct of Government officials

in Behring’s Sea, in connection with the usurpation of a Company at whose
instance these arbitrary acts are committed.

“This Company, one of the most stupendous organizations that ever existed in this
country, and the peer of the East India and Hudson Bay Companies, was incorporated
many years ago under the laws of the State of California as the Alaska Commercial

Company.
GRABBING THE OCEAN.

“Tt has taken possession of and assumed sovereign power over the most valuable
fisheries of the whole United States, namely, the Alaska fisheries in Behring’s Sea,
and without shadow of right or authority, except a lease from the United States,
dated the 3rd August, 1870, permitting it to kill 100,000 seals annually upon two
small islands in Behring’s Sea, at a rent of 55,000 dollars per annum, &c., has taken
possession and control, not only of the Territory, but also of a vast sea 3,000 miles
long by 2,700 miles wide, has made itself the Suzerain of the Government, and
impressed into its service the officers and agents of the Government to maintaip
its possession and control of this immense territory and sea.

“ Alexander the Great was not a robber, although he absorbed kingdoms, and the
Alaska Commercial Company is not a “ pirate,” although it has absorbed Alaska and
an ocean.

“Tt has established exclusive trading posts at all the available stations in that
immense territory, on the coast, along the rivers, and upon the islands of Behring’s
Sea. It exercises absolute dominion over the natives, and holds them in a state of
practical bondage. It has exterminated the seals on certain islands to prevent them
from falling into the hands of other traders. Its agents have, in violation of law,
defaced the silver coin of the United States with a stamp for purposes of trade, and
refuse to accept any other when tendered by the natives for the purchase of the
necessaries of life. It has extended its dominion into Russian territory to the restric-
tion and detriment of trade upon the whole of Rehring’s Sea north of latitude 53°,
and by an extension of jurisdiction, unknown to modern law, has procured the seiz-
ure of vessels fishing in Russian waters, upon the assumption of encroachment upon
its privileges granted by the United States under the lease to fish on the Islands of
St. Paul and St. George in Alaska.

“CRIMES AGAINST THE NATION.

“‘Tt has designedly violated the conditions of its lease by the failure to take oil
from the carcasses of the seals killed, to the damage and loss to the Government of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, by throwing away millions of carcasses of seals
without extracting the oil, the lease having been obtained upon an agreement to
pay the Government ‘55 cents per gallon for oil obtained from said seals’ killed by
it on the leased islands. Its agents use the United States Revenue cutters as a means
of transportation, for private benefit; consult with and influence their officers, to
the detriment of American vessels in the waters of Behring’s Sea; it aids and abets
the Indians of Ounalaska to kill by shooting from the shore, contrary to law, young
seals and cows; obtains the skins and sells the salted carcasses back to the Indians;
it refuses to aid American vessels in distress, by refusing to sell them provisions; it
has for its paid agents officers or employés of the Government whose duty to the
Government is overshadowed by the instructions of and for the benefit of the Com-
pany; it sells to the natives at high prices large quantities of condemned and worth-
less tobacco in violation of the internal revenue laws; it employs and pays attor-
neys tu prosecute Government cases where American citizens are falsely and unjustly
accused of crime, and, in order to maintain its supremacy over Alaska and the whole
of Behring’s Sea, it now seeks, by infamous prosecutions, to prevent American citi-
zens from even traversing and fishing upon the high seas, under the absurd pretence
that the waters of the whole of Behring’s Sea are adjacent to the Islands of St. Paul
and St. George, and claims to be molested and disturbed in their lease of said islands
By, fishing-vessels hundreds of miles away and beyond the boundaries of the United
States.

68 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“MONSTROUS CLAIMS.

“This Company claims that the waters of Behring’s Sea are within the limits of
Alaska, and procures the seizure, through subservient Government officers, of every
vessel that dares to traverse those waters, or is found anywhere therein on a seal-

hunting voyage.
51 ‘‘Tt is immaterial to it whether vessels are found in the actual killing of
seals or where the seals have been killed; the mere presence of the vessels in
Behring’s Sea seems sufficient evidence to justify their seizure in any part of those
waters.

‘In the case of the ‘Ocean Spray,’ which went to the Island of St. Paul in 1876,
the very stronghold of this Company, provided with all the appliances for killing
seals and was seized, Judge Deady, of the United States District Court of Oregon,
aman of unquestionable learning and of high judicial and personal character, held
(in 4 Saw., 105) that all these preparations, even if an intent could be shown, were
not a violation of the Act of Congress. This is the only reported adjudicated case,
and the strongest the Company could have.

“This vessel deliberately proceeded to, and landed its crew at, the Island of St.
Paul, yet the Court held that there was no offence;-and when we consider that our
vessel has been seized going to and returning trom Russian waters, hundreds of
miles distant from St. Paul and St. George Islands, and forfeited, and its master and
crew imprisoned, we are left to conjecture that the waters adjacent to the leased
islands might be stretched to include the whole of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,
and that the power and rule of this Company extends from these islands to the city
of Washington.

“As early as 1872 the Company appealed to the Government to have a Revenue
cutter stationed at Ounimak Pass, in the Aleutian group, the only safe entrance to
Behring’s Sea, to prevent American vessels from passing into that sea; but the Sec-
retary of the Treasury, the Hon. George 8. Boutwell, refused, upon the legal ground
that vessels had a right to go there if they did not kill seals within a marine league
of the shore.

“The Act of Congress contemplates this well-established doctrine when it restricts
the killing of seals to the ‘waters of Alaska Territory’ (section 1956, Revised Stat-
utes), and further declares, in sections 1961 and 1967, that it is not a crime to kill
seals in Behring’s Sea unless ‘in the waters adjacent to the Islands of St. Paul and
St.George.’ ‘Adjacent’ means ‘lying near, close, or contiguous,’ and the waters
within the marine league of the decisions are the only ‘adjacent waters’ there are.
But, according to this Company and the officers of the Government, it means a
stretch of ocean 3,000 miles long and 2,700 wide; and under this theory of ‘adja-
cency’ the term ‘pirates’ includes all fishing-vessels found in that sea.

“There never has been a seizure within the waters adjacent to these islands, or
of Alaska Territory, except the ‘Ocean Spray,’ and that vessel was released.

“INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IGNORED.

“Behring’s Sea is the international highway to the Arctic Ocean, and not the pri-
vate property of the Alaska Commercial Company, nor of the Government of the
United States, and the Government could not concede to the Alaska Commercial
Company any greater territorial right than it possessed itself, and that territorial
right and jurisdiction ceases and ends at the ‘marine league’ of international law
from the shore. Beyond this limit the ocean is the common property of the whole
world, and every animal and fish in itis fere nature, and belongs to him who takes it.

“This is the doctrine which has come down to us from antiquity and has been
observed by all people, whether civilized or barbarous, except this Company and
Government officials of the United States.

‘CA shipper or vessel-owner of the Pacific coast is in no condition to resist the
power of an oppressor when his vessel is seized and beached upon an inhospitable
and lawless shore, his cargo scattered to the four winds of heaven, and his crew
imprisoned in an inaccessible port. The only additional requisite to make this sys-
ten’ all-powerful seems to be the annexing of Siberia to the lease, and the trans-
porting of these so-called pirates to its penal mines. The same theory of ‘adjacency’
would certainly apply.

“Phrough this policy of Government officers permitting this Company to extend
its powers under the lease, the Government will surely lose in the end perhaps the
greatest and most profitable industry in the world, namely, the seal fisheries of
Alaska.

“The fishery question now agitating the New England States, and the interests
involved there, are a mere bagatelle to those of the Alaska fisheries.

“Tt is charged that our American fishermen are exterminating the seals in Beh-
ring’s Sea, and they have ‘piratically,’ during the season of 1886, captured 200,000
seals in excess of the number authorized to be taken by the Alaska Commercial
Company at the islands. This is the statement in a letter to a San Francisco paper,

ee ee

=e ae

5 a

de

a>

Le

4

ee |

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 69

dated the 20th February, 1887, of Lientenant J. C. Cantwell, an officer employed in
the United States Revenue Service, stationed in Alaskan waters. But this is con-

tradicted by the records of our Courts, which show that only 577 fur-seal skins
52 were seized on American vessels last season, and proof was offered, but not

admitted, that these were caught in the Pacific Ocean; and M. Phillipeus, the
Russian agent of the Alaska Commercial Company, in his Report of the catch of
that Company for the season of 1886, states that the Company killed 202,000 fur-
seals in the waters of Behring’s Sea. So that, on the testimony of the Company
itself, these so-called ‘piratical’ American fishermen are not engaged in the work of
extermination to any serious extent, but this Company is engaged in that work.
The same Lieutenant Cantwell, who is an ardent (but incoherent) writer, in the
same communication, states that not one-half the number of seals are killed that
should be, because they are increasing so rapidly; and we feel just cause of com-
plaint that American fishermen are arrested and their property confiscated for doing
that which the Alaska Commercial Company is permitted to do in violation of a
lease which restricts its catch to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George.

‘COURT DECISIONS DISREGARDED.

“Under the decisions of our Courts, and the opinion of the Treasury Department,
as given in 1872, every citizen has a right to fish for fur-seals in the waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea when distant a full marine league from the shore.

“But these decisions and former rulings of the Treasury Department are disre-
garded, and no one except this Company is permitted to kill seals anywhere in
Behring’s Sea.

“At a time when Congress is making an effort to protect the fisheries of the
Atlantic coast, the officers of the Government on the Pacific coast, with singular
inconsistency, are destroying and preying upon the commerce of its own citizens.

“It is to be hoped that this mistaken policy of the Government officials will be
changed upon investigation of their conduct and that of the lessees of the Govern-
ment, and that the great injury heretofore committed, and about to be repeated,
upon our fishing-vessels by them, will be prevented.

“We make this statement because we have been despoiled of our property. One
of our vessels, the ‘San Diego,’ seized and taken to Sitka and condemned, her cargo
of seal-skins, taken in the open sea, left in the care of the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany’s warehouse at an island in mid-ocean; the voyage of another schooner, the
‘Sierra,’ broken up and destroyed; because our efforts to procure the signature of
the Judge of the District Court of Alaska to a summary statement of the facts
of the cases, for transmission to the Secretary of the Treasury, for a remission
of the forfeiture, have been disregarded and ignored at the instigation of the Com-
pany, whose own attorney acted as special counsel for the Government in procuring
said forfeiture; because our Petition and requests to the Secretary of the Treasury,
made months ago for relief, and to bring said property within reach of a civilized
community, to prevent its utter destruction by rot and decay, remain unnoticed and
unanswered; because it is understood that large appropriations are about to be made
for the purpose of enabling Revenue cruizers to continue their policy of preying
upon American commerce in Behring’s Sea, and guarding those waters as a closed
sea. And it is respectfully suggested that the subject-matter be submitted to the
Law Officers of the Government, that instructions may be issued and published by
the Treasury Department to Revenue Marine officers, to guide them in the proper
execution of the laws relating to Alaskan waters, so that all persons engaged in
seal fishing may understand their rights in this branch of our domestic commerce.

‘“‘Impressed with the belief that we have exhausted our efforts to obtain either a
hearing or redress is our apolegy for appealing to the Chief Executive of the nation.

“With ercat respect, yours, &e.
(Signed) LL, N. HANDY AND Co.”

No. 33.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 2.)

DOWNING STREET, April 2, 1887.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Secretary Sir H. Holland to transmit to you, to be laid before the Mar-
quis of Salisbury, copy of a telegram from the Governor-General of
Canada inquiring whether owners of vessels now fitting out for this
year’s trip to Behring’s Sea may depend upon being unmolested by
United States cruizers when not near land.

70 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Tam to request that inauiry may be made of the United States
53 Government on this point, and that Sir H. Holland may be
informed of the answer which Lord Salisbury desires should be
returned to the Governor-General.
Iam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inelosure in No. 33.—Telegraphic.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

Marcu 31, 1887.
Owners of vessels now fitting out for this year’s trip to Behring’s Sea inquire
whether they may depend upon being unmolested by United States cruizers when
not near land. Please telegraph reply.

No. 34.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 2, 1887.

Str: I have to request that you will inquire of the United States
Government whether the owners of vessels at present fitting out for
this year’s trip to Behring’s Sea may depend upon not being molested
by United States cruizers when not near the land. You will be good
enough to inform me on this subject by telegraph.

[ have further to instruct you to ascertain from the United States
Government whether they have received the documents connected
with the seizure of British vessels last autumn in Behring’s Sea, which
were referred to in your despatch of the 4th February last.

Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 35.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 11.)

WASHINGTON, March 29, 1887.
My Lorp: I have the honour to report to your Lordship that the
United States steam-ship “Thetis” has sailed from New York, and will
proceed round Cape Horn and up the west coast to Alaska. It is
reported that the Secretary of the Treasury has received a letter from
the Alaska Commercial Company, complaining that private parties are
taking seals in the waters about Alaska, and asking for more Revenue
cutters to be sent for their protection. The Company further ask that
the United States Government should prohibit all killing of seals
within the eastern half of Behring’s Sea, or from a point beginning at
Behring’s Straits, and passing from the north-west end of St. Lawrence
Island in a south-easterly direction to the Island of Attou, at the

extreme westerly point of the Aleutian Archipelago.
I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ae
No. 36.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 11.)

WASHINGTON, April 2, 1887.
My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the Com-
mander of the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘Gallatin” has been cited
to appear before the Admiralty Court in the Boston district to answer
to the allegation that in June last, while in command of the United
States steamer ‘‘Corwin,” he took by force from the American schooner
“Sierra” her arms and ammunition, at a point in the open sea 30 miles
north of Ounalaska, while she was navigating the waters of the North
Pacific Ocean on a hunting and fishing expedition, thus breaking up
her voyage, to the damage of the plaintiffs of 22,500 dollars.
I have instructed Her Majesty’s Consul at Boston to watch this case,
and report the decision of the Court.
I have, Xe.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

54 No. 37.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received by telegraph,
April 13.)

WASHINGTON, April 13, 1887.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd
instant, I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of
a note which I addressed to the Secretary of State, as well as a copy of
the reply thereto, stating that the records of the judicial proceedings
in the cases of the British vessels seized in Behring’s Sea were received
at the State Department on Saturday last, and are now under exami-
nation, and that the remoteness of the scene of the fur-seal fisheries has
delayed the Treasury officials in framing appropriate Regulations and
issuing orders to the United States police vessels, which information I

had the honour to telegraph to your Lordship this day.
I have, Xe.
. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 37.]

Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, April 4, 1887.

Sir: In view of the approaching fishing season in Behlring’s Sea, and the fitting
out of vessels “or fishing operations in those waters, Her Majesty’s Government have
requested me to inquire whether the owners of such vessels may rely on being
unmolested by the cruizers of the United States when not near land.

Her Majesty’s Government are also desirous to know whether the documents
referred to in your note of the 3rd February last, connected with the seizure of
certain British vessels beyond the 3-mile limit, and legal proceedings connected there-
with, have been received, and I have the honour, therefore, to request you to be good
enough to enable me to reply to these inquiries on the part of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment with as little delay as possible.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

72 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 37.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 12, 1887.

Srr: Ihave the honour to acknowledge your note of the 4th instant, relative to
the fisheries in Behring’s Sea, and inquiring whether the documents referred to in
iy note of the 3rd February, relating to the cases of seizure in those waters of
vessels charged with violating the laws of the United States regulating the killing
of fur-seals, had been received. The records of the judicial proceedings in the cases
in the District Court in Alaskareferred to were only received at this Department on
Saturday last, and are now under examination.

The remoteness of the scene of the fur-seal fisheries, and the special peculiarities
of that industry, have unavoidably delayed the Treasury officials in framing appro-
priate Regulations, and issuing orders to United States vessels to police the Alaskan
waters for the protection of the fur-seals from indiscriminate slaughter, and conse-
quent speedy extermination.

The laws of the United States in this behalf are contained in the Revised Statutes
relating to Alaska in sections 1956-1971, and have been in force for upwards of sey-
enteen years, and prior to the seizures of last summer but a single infraction is known
to have occurred, and that was promptly punished.

The question of instructions to Government vessels in regard to preventing the
indiscriminate killing of fur-seals is now being considered, and I will inform you at
the earliest day possible what has been decided, so that British and other vessels
visiting the waters in question can govern themselves accordingly.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) T. F. BayarD.

ANNEX.

(oy
CL

CuHAPTer IIL.
Provisions relating to the Unorganized Territory of Alaska.

Section.

1954. Customs, &c., Laws extended to Alaska.
1955. Importation of Fire-arms and Distilled Spirits may be pro-
hibited.

1956. Killing of Fur-bearing Animals prohibited.

1957. What Courts to have jurisdiction of offences.

1958. Remission of Fines, &c.

1959. Saint Paul and Saint George Islands declared Special Reserva-

tions.

1960. Killing of Seal upon them prohibited except in certain months.

1961. Killing of certain Seal prohibited.

1962. Limit to number of Seals to be killed.

1963. Right to take Seal may be leased.

1964. Bond.

1965. Who may lease.

1966. Covenants in Lease.

1967. Penalty.

1968. Penalty upon Leases.

1969. Tax upon Seal-skins.

1970. Lease may be terminated.

1971. Lessees to furnish Copies to Masters of their Vessels.

1972. Certain Sections may be altered.

1973. Agents and Assistants to manage Seal Fisheries.

1974. Their pay, &c.

1975. Not to be interested in right to take Seals.

1976. Agents may administer certain Oaths and take Testimony.
Be sea See. 1954. The laws of the United States relating to customs, com-
ra ei eo merce, and navigation are extended to and over all the main-land,

27 July, 1868, c. islands, and waters of the territory ceded to the United States by the
273, s. 1, v. 15, p. Emperor of Russia by Treaty concluded at Washington on the 30th
240. day of March, A. b. 1867, so far as the same may be applicable thereto.
Importation See, 1955. The President shall have power to restrict and regulate

and use of fire- oy to prohibit the importation and use of fire-arms, ammunition, and
arms, and © (dis-se 4% Tt eae re ps : utara = 2
tilled spiritsmay Gistilled spirits into and within the Territory of Alaska. The expor-
be prohibited. © tation of the same from any otlier port or place in the United States,

a eee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ho

when destined to any port or place in that Territory, and all such _ 27 July, 1863, c.
arms, ammunition, and distilled spirits, exported or attempted to be eh 8. 4, v. 15, p.
exported from any port or place in the United States and destined for ~~
such Territory, in violation of any regulations that may be prescribed
under this section, and all such arms, ammunition, and distilled spirits
landed or attempted to be landed or used at any port or place in the
Territory, in violation of such regulations, shall be forfeited; and if

the value of the same exceeds 400 dollars the vessel upon which the

same is found, or from which they have been landed, together with

her tackle, apparel, and furniture and cargo, shall be forfeited; and

any person wilfully violating such regulations shall be fined not more

than 500 doilars, or imprisoned not more than six months. Bonds

may be required for a frdthful observance of such regulations from

the master or owners of any vessel departing from any port in the
United States having on board fire-arms, ammunition, or distilled
spirits, when such vessel is destined to any place in the Territory, or

if uot so destined, when there is reasonable ground of suspicion that

such articles are intended to be landed therein in violation of law;

and similar bonds may also be required on the landing of any such
articles in the Territory from the person to whom the same may be
consigued. ite

Sec. 1956. No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur- 1 ae of fur-
seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Ter- abe oe
ritory, or in the waters thereof; aud every person guilty thereof shall, 27 July, ists,e.
for each offence, be fined not less than 200 nor more than 1,000 dollars, 273, s 6, v. 15, p.
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, 4°
their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation
of this section shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury
shall have power to authorize the killing of any such mink, mar-
ten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur-seals, under such
regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Sec-

retary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for
56 the execution of the provisions of this section until it is other-

wise provided by law; nor shall he grant any special privileges
under this section.

Sec. 1957. Until otherwise provided by law, all violations of this | What Courts
chapter, and of the several laws hereby extended to the Territory of b®ve jurisdiction
Alaska and the waters thereof, committed within limits of the same, Calg, 180s é
shall be proseented in any District Court of the United States in Cal- 273, 5.7) v. 15,’p.
ifornia or Oregon, or in the District Courts of Washington; and the 241.
Collector and Deputy Collectors appointed for Alaska ‘l'erritory, and sa duly, ae C.
any person authorized in writing by either of them, or by the Secre- jg9' ss ae
tary of the Treasury, shall have power to arrest persons and seize
vessels and merchandize liable to fines, penalties, or forfeitures under
this and the other laws extended over the Territory, and to keep and
deliver the same to the Marshal of some one of such Courts; and such
Courts shall have original jurisdiction, and may take cognizance of
all cases arising under this Act and the several laws hereby extended
over the Territory, and shall proceed therein in the same manner and
with the like effect as if such cases had arisen within the District or
Territory where the proceedings are brought. ee

Sec. 1958. In all cases of fine, penalty, or forfeiture embraced in f Remission of
the Act approved the 3rd March, 1797, ch. 13, or mentioned in any Act "370°" 1998
in addition to or amendatory of such Act, that have occurred or may 273, s. 8; v. 15, p.
occur in the collection district of Alaska, the Secretary of the Treasury 242.
is authorized, if in his opinion the fine, penalty, or forfeiture was
incurred without wilful negligence or intention of fraud, to ascertain
the facts in such manner and under such regulations as he may deem
proper without regard to the provisions of the Act above referred to,
and upon the facts so to be ascertained, he may exercise all the power
of remission conferred upon him by that Act, as fully as he might
lave done had such facts been ascertained under and according to the
provisions of that Act.

Sec. 1959. The Islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, in Alaska, , Saint Paul and
are declared a special reservation for Government purposes; and until Sa ee Taaee
otherwise provided by law it shall be unlawful for any person to land special Besereas
or remain on either of those islands, except by the authority of the tions.
Secretary of the Treasury; and any person found on either of those ,,?> Mar... 1869,
islands contrary to the provisions hereof shall be summarily removed ; ae oe
and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to carry this section ees
into effect.

74 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Killing of seal Sec. 1960. It shall be unlawful to kill any fur-seal upon the Islands
a se te of Saint Paul and Saint George, or in the waters adjacent thereto,
certain months, except during the months of June, July, September, and October in

1 July, 1870, c. each year; and it shall be unlawful to kill such seals at any time by
189, s. 1, v. 16, p. the use of fire-arms, or by other means tending to drive the seals
180. away from those islands; but the natives of the islands shall have

the privilege of killing such young seals as may be necessary for their
own food and elothing during other months, and also such old seals
as may be required for their own clothing, and for the manufacture of
boats for their own use; and the killing in such cases shall be limited
and controlled by such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secre-
tary of the ‘Treasury.

Killing of cer- See, 1961. It shall be unlawful to kill any female seal, or any seal
1a PT°"Jess than one year old, at any season of the year, except as above

1 July, 1870, c. provided; and it shall also be unlawful to kill any seal in the waters
189, s. 2, v. 16, p. adjacent to the Islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, or on the
180. beaches, clifis, or rocks where they haul up from the sea to remain;

and every person who violates the provisions of this or the preceding
section shall be punished for each offence by a fine of not less than
200 dollars, nor more than 1,000 dollars, or by imprisonment not more
than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and all
vessels, their tackle, apparel, and furniture, whose crews are found
engaged in the violation of cither this or the preceding section, shall
be forfeited to the United States.

Limit tonum- Sec. 1962. For the period of twenty years from the 1st July, 1870,
Be ot seals to be the number of fur-seals which may be killed for their skins upon the

i July, 1870, c, 1Sland of Saint Paul is limited to 75,000 per annum; and the number
189, s. 3, v. 86, p. of fur-seals which may be killed for their skins upon the Island of
180. Saint George is limited to 25,000 per annum; but the Secretary of the

Treasury may limit the right of killing, if it becomes necessary for

the preservation of such seals, with such proportionate reduction of

the rents reserved to the Government as may be proper; and every

person who knowingly violates either of the provisions of this section
shall be punished as provided in the preceding section.

Right to take 57 Sec. 1963. When the lease heretofore made by the Secretary
ele may be of the Treasury to ‘‘ The Alaska Commercial Company,” of the

1 July, 1970, ¢, Tight to engage in taking fur-seals on the Islands of Saint Paul and

189, ss. 4, 5,and6, Saint George, pursuant to the Act of the 1st July, chapter 189, or

v.16, pp. 180,181. when any future similar lease expires, or is surrendered, forfeited, or
terminated, the Secretary shall lease to proper and responsible par-
ties, for the best advantage of the United States, having due regaid
to the interests of the Government, the native inhabitants, their com-
fort, maintenance, and education, as well as to the interests of the
parties heretofore engaged in trade and the protection of the fisheries,
the right of taking fur-seals on the islands herein named, and of send-
ing a vessel or vessels to the islands for the skins of such seals, for the
term of twenty years, at an annual rental of not less than 50,000 dol-
lars, to be reserved in such lease and secured by a deposit of United
States bonds to that amount; and every such lease shall be duly exe-
cuted in duplicate, and shall not be transferable.

Bond.) Sec. 1964. The Secretary of the Treasury shall take from the lessees
a at eS: of such islands in all cases a bond, with securities, in a sum not less
180, 8% Vv. iP: than 500,000 dollars, conditioned for the faithful observance of all

the laws and requirements of Congress, and the Regulations of the
Secretary of the Treasury, touching the taking of fur-seals and the
disposing of the same, and for the payment of all taxes and dues
accruing to the United States connected therewith.

Whomaylease. Sec. 1965. No persons other than American citizens shall be per-

1 July, 1870, e. mitted, by lease or otherwise, to occupy the Islands of Saint Paul and
a 8. 9, v.16, P- Saint George, or either of them, for the purpose of taking the skins

: of fur-seals therefrom, nor shall any foreign vessels be engaged in tak-
ing such skins; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall vacate and
declare any lease forfeited if the same be held or operated for the use,
benefit, or advantage, directly or indirectly, of any persons other than
American citizens.

Covenants in Sec. 1966. Every lease shall contain a covenant on the part of the
brace: =the lessee that he will not keep, sell, furnish, give, or dispose of any dis-
189.3. a Re ae tilled spirits or spiritious liquors on either of those islands to any of
eile ' the natives thereof, such person not being a physician and furnishing

the same for use as medicine; and every Revenue officer, officially act-
ing as such, on either of the islands, shall seize and destroy any dis-

SW hae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. TD

tilled or spirituous liquors found thereon; but such officer shall make
detailed Reports of his doings in that matter to the Collector of the
port. ;

Sec. 1967. Every person who kills any fur-seal on either of those Penalty.

5 i 5 _ ; 5 July, 1870, e.
islands, or in the waters adjacent thereto, without authority of the g9°5.°5.'v. 16, p.
lessees thereof, and every person who molests, disturbs, or interferes igi. — ’
with the lessees, or either of them, or their agents or employés, in

the lawful prosecution of their business, under the provisions of this

chayter, shall for each offence be punished as prescribed in section

1961; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, appurtenances, and cargo,

whose crews are found engaged in any violation of the provisions of

sections 1865 to 1968, inclusive, shall be forfeited to the United States.

Sec. 1968. If any person or Company, under any lease herein author-_ Penalty upon
ized, knowingly kills, or perniits to be killed, any number of seals JOsREeS. ~

‘ E . : F a ° July, 1870, ¢.
exceeding the number for each island in this chapter prescribed, such j¢9 ‘s.'5,’v. 16) p,
person or Company shall, in addition to the penalties and forfeitures 181,’ ;
herein provided, forfeit the whole number of the skins of seals killed in
that year, or, in case the same have been disposed of, then such person
or Company shall forfeit the value of the same. :

Sec. 1969. In addition to the annual rental required to be reserved eve upon seal-
in every lease, as provided in section 1963, a revenue tax or duty of © ale 1870, ¢.
2 dollars is laid upon each fur-seal skin taken and shipped from the 1g9, s. 6) Vv. 16, p.
Islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, during the continuance of 181.
any lease, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States; and the
Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make all needful regula-
tions for the collection and payment of the same, and to secure the
comfort, maintenance, education, and protection of the natives of
those islands, and also to carry into full effect all the provisions of
this chapter except as otherwise prescribed.

Sec. 1970. The Secretary of the Treasury may terminate any lease Lease may be
given to any person, Company, or Corporation on full and satisfactory area eee
proof of the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or the jg9, meee are

regula‘ions established by him. 16Des op :
58 Sec. 1971. The lessees shall furnish to the several masters of _Lessees to fur-
vessels employed by them certified copies of the lease held by nists cones to
5 ; : asters of their
them respectively, which shall be presented to the Government Reve- vessels,
nue officer for the time being who may be in charge at the islands as_ 1 July, 1870, e.

the authority of the party for landing and taking skins. tee s. 4, v. 16, p.

Sec. 1972. Congress may at any time hereafter alter, amend, or repeal Certain sec-

sections from 1960 to 1971, both inclusive, of this chapter. tlonsianay, beral;
altered.

He uly, ere c.
9, 8. 8, v. 16, p.
182.

Sec. 1973. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint Agents and
one Agent and three Assistant Agents, who shall be charged with the ee au a
management of the seal fisheries in Alaska, and the performance Of gries
such other duties as may be assigned to them by the Secretary of the 5 March,1872,c.
Treasury. 31, 8.1, v. 17, p. 35,

Sec. 1974. The Agent shall receive the sum of 10 dollars each day, Their pay. &e-
one Assistant Agent the sum of 8 dollars each day, and two Assistant. °Matoh, 18(2.c:
Agents the sum of 6 dollars each day while so employed; and they” ’* ’™ Ree
shall also be allowed their necessary travelling expenses in going to
and returning from Alaska, for which expenses vouchers shall be pre-
sented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, and such
expenses shall not excced in the aggregate 600 dollars each in any one
year.

Sec. 1975. Such Agents shall never be interested, directly or indi- Not tobe inter-
rectly, in any lease of the right to take seals, nor in any proceeds or Sey en to
profits thereof, either as owner, agent, partner, or otherwise. "5 March.1872, e.

DLS) 1 Wedd; pao.

Sec. 1976. Such Agents are empowered to administer oaths in all Se oapie
cases relating to the service of the United States, and to take testi- minister certain
mony in Alaska for the use of the Government in any matter concern- ts and take
ing the public revenues. 5 March, 1872, c.

81,8. 3, v.17, p. 35.

76 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 38.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 17.)

WASHINGTON, May 6, 1887.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 2nd April last, 1
have the EOnoaE to inform your Lordship that the case of the owners
of the American ships seized for sealing in Behring Sea against the
Captain of the United States cruizer “Corwin” has been postponed
until the Government is prepared for the defences.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 39.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 10.)

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith a
statement which has appeared in the New York ‘‘Times,” showing that
the United States Government persistently combated the pretension
of Russia to absolute dominion over the Kamschatkan and Behring
Seas previous to the cession of Alaska.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 39.]
Extract from the New York “ Times” of May 29, 1887.

Not a LANDLOCKED SEA.—RELEASE OF THE BRITISH SEALERS JUSTIFIED.—The
so-called controversy with respect to the Alaskan seal fisheries and American rights
to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Behring Sea has recently been made the

subject of more misrepresentation to the square inch than almost any other
59 pending topic of public discussion. It has been represented that an elaborate

Conference on this question is now in progress between the State Department
and the British Minister in Washington. Mr. Frederick W. Seward appears to have
imbibed this impression, and has suggested several profonnd conundrums to be pro-
posed by Secretary Bayard to the British Minister in the progress of the controversy.
There is no Conference in progress on this matter. When the President, for reasons
satisfactory to himself, ordered the release of the British sealing vessels captured by
an American Revenue cutter more than 3 miles from shore in Behring Sea that action
had the effect of a pardon, and closed all discussion as to the legality of the cap-
tures. But there are some historical facts in connection with the question which
will probably suggest an exceedingly strong inference.

Mr. Henry W. Elliott, of the Smithsonian Institution, who is stated to have passed
several seasons in the islands of the Behring Sea, and to be one of the best-informed
men in the United States on the subject of jurisdiction over the waters of that ‘‘land-
locked sea,” as he calls it, has recently contributed to the prevailing wrong impres-
sions two important statements, which are in direct conflict with official records
easily accessible. This whole question has so important a bearing upon our present
controversy with Great Britain on the subject of the Canadian fisheries and the right
claimed by our Canadian neighbours to hamper the deep-sea fisheries of the United
States that it is worthy of close examination. Mr. Elliott takes substantially this
position:

1. That when the Emperor of Russia, by the Ukase of 1821, declared the absolute
dominion of the Russian Crown over all’ Russian American ‘territory and seas and

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. «1

bays, including the Kamschatkan or Behring Sea, no protest was made against this
assertion of authority by Russia, and none has ever been made since by any civilized
Power until last year.

2. That the claim made by the United States about this period related to the North
Pacific Ocean only, and that the United States never, in all the correspondence
between the years 1822 and 1824, made the slightest reference to or asked for any
rights or privileges in the Behring Sea.

What are the facts? A translation of the Ukase of 1821 is published in ‘ British
and Foreign State Papers,” vol. ix, p. 472. It distinctly sets out that ‘the pursuits
of commerce, Whaling, and fishery, and of all other industry on all islands, ports,
and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of Aicrica, beginning from
Behring Strait (the northern boundary of Behring Sea) to the 51st degree of north-
ern latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well
as along the Kurile Islands, from Behring Strait to the south cape of the Island of
Urup, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects,” and foreign vessels are interdicted
from appronuching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and islands named under
penalty of confiscation. Having this Ukase before him, John Quincy Adams, Secre-
tary of State, on the 25th February, 1822, wrote to M. Poletica, the Russian Minis-
ter, as follows (the letter is printed in the same volume of State Papers, p. 483):
“Tam directed by the President of the United States to inform you that he has seen
with surprise in this Edict the assertion ofa territorial claim on the part of Russia,
extending to the 51st degree of north latitude on this continent, and a Regulation
interdicting to all commercial vessels other than Russian, upon the penalty of seiz-
ure and confiscation, the approach upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the
shores to which the claim is made to apply.” Mr. Adams adds: ‘‘ To exclude the
vessels of our citizens from the shores beyond the ordinary distance to which the
territorial jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise,” and he closes by
asking an explanation.

M. Poletica replied, on the 28th February, 1822 (p. 487): ‘‘ The Russian possessions
in the Pacific Ocean extend on the north-west coast of America from Behring Strait
to the 51st degree of north latitude and on the opposite side of Asia to the islands
adjacent from the same strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea of which these
possessions form the limit comprehends all the conditions which are ordinarily
attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées’), and the Russian Government might conse-
quently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of sovereiguty,
and especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners. But it pre-
ferred only asserting its essential rights without taking any advantage of localities.”

It is interesting to look at the Map and see what the Russian claim really was.
Latitude north 51° takes in the southern boundary of the Aleutian Islands to the
Sea of Okhotsk. Mr. Adams, in his reply to M. Poletica (same volume, p. 488), says:
“With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified
the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea because it claims
territory both on the American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the dis-

tance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 51° north is not less than 90°
60 of longitude, or 4,000 miles.” He ends by saying the President is persuaded the

citizens of the United States will remain unmolested in their lawful commerce,
and that no effect will be given to an interdiction manifestly incompatible with their
rights. This controversy was ended between the United States and Russia by a Con-
vention signed at St. Petersburgh on the 17th April, 1824, in which it was agreed that
in no part of the great ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, should
the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting Powers be disturbed or
restrained, either in navigation or fishing, or resorting to the coast for the purpose
of trading with the natives. Great Britain concluded a similar Treaty in 1825. This
Treaty of 1824 remained substantially in force until the cession of Alaska to the
United States by Russia.

The claim that Behring Sea is a “landlocked sea” with a ‘firm line pelagic
boundary,” advanced by Mr. Elliott, is manifestly absurd, in view of the fact that it
is about 900 miles from the Aleutian Islands to the Asiatie coast of Russia. But,
even assuming that it could have been treated as a Jand-locked sea at the time of the
Ukase of 1821 by virtue of the possession by one Power of land on both sides, that
condition ceased when Russia parted with her territory on one side, just as Great
Britain was obliged to abandon her claim to territorial jurisdiction over the Bay of
Fundy because the United States owned simply a headland on the other side from
her possessions.

The Sea of Okhotsk is one of the seas distinctly referred to in the Ukase of 1821,
which called out Adams’ protest. Up to 1868, when Russiasold the Kurile Islands to
Japan, this was practically a ‘‘land-locked sea, having a firm pelagic boundary.” as
erroneously claimed by Mr. Elliott in regard to the Behring Sea. Yet in ‘‘ Diplo-
matic Correspondence,” 1868, p. 462, there is a letter addressed by Secretary of State
William H. Seward to Cassius M. Clay, our Minister to Russia, dated the 23rd

78 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

December, 1867, in which Mr. Seward informed Mr. Clay that much anxiety had
been created in the United States by the report that a Russian armed steamer had
ordered American whaling-vessels away from the shore near Okhotsk City, in the
Sea of Okhotsk, and had fired upon the ship’s boat of the bark ‘ Endeavour” of New
Bedford. Mr. Seward instructed our Minister to inquire what foundation there was
for this report, and what instructions had been given by the Russian Government
to authorize this action.

At first the Acting Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs contented himself with
claiming, not that the Sea of Okhotsk was a closed sea, but raising the same ques-
tion of the 3-mile line which now forms so prominent a feature in our Canadian
fishery troubles, and saying that by the laws in foree the American vessel had been
properly warned off, she being within that distance. (This letter is published in
“ Diplomatic Correspondence,” 1868, p. 467.)

Subsequently, in reply to another remonstrance from Mr. Seward, stating that
American whalers had been whaling in those bays unobstructed for seventeen years,
M. Stoeckl, Russian Ambassador, transmits to Mr. Seward (same volume, p. 485) a
copy of a Report from the Russian Minister of Marine, in which he admitted that
there could not be found in the Department of Marine any trace of instrnctions
given to Russian cruizers to take any restrictive measures touching the whaling
fisheries in the Sea of Okhotsk. This ended the controversy with regard to that
sea, which at this time was much more entitled to be considered an inland sea than
the Behring Sea.

One illustration of still later date may be given. In ‘‘ Foreign Relations,” 1882,
p. 447, there is a letter from Secretary of State Frelinghuysen to Mr. Hoffman, our
Chargé d’ Affaires at St. Petersburgh, conveying a complaint of a San Francisco firm
of restrictions put by the Governor of Eastern Siberia on American fishermen in the
Okhotsk and Behring Seas. This was after the cession of Alaska to the United
States. Mr. Hoffinan (p. 452) transmits a note from M. de Giers, from which it
clearly appears that the Russian Government made no pretence of treating either of
those seas as closed seas.

The entire fabric of the attempted censure of the State Department for failure to
maintain American interests in the Behring Sea is thus thrown to the ground. It
is shown that, so far from acknowledging Behring Sea to be a closed sea, the United
States has placed itself on record as vigorously opposing any such assumption, not
only with regard to Behring Sea, where there was a distance of 900 miles from shore
to shore, but also in regard to the Sea of Okhotsk, which might perhaps have been
properly regarded asa land-locked sea. In view of these historical facts, and of the
important bearing which the maintenance of this doctrine of free, untrammelled
rights of commerce, navigation, and fishing on the open sea, which the United States
is now engaged in maintaining in other quarters where the national interests

involved are immeasurably greater, it requires no spirit of prophecy to divine
61 that the Revenue cutters ‘ Bear” and ‘‘ Rush,” which have been ordered by

the Treasury Department from San Francisco to the Behring Sea, have prob-
ably been ordered not to repeat the mistake of capturing foreign sealers unless
detected flagrante delicto within the unquestioned maritime jurisdiction of the United
States, namely, 3 miles from shore.

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1887.

No. 40.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 28.)

DOWNING STREET, June 27, 1887.
Stir: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seiz-
ure of Canadian sealing schooners in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by
Secretary Sir Henry Holland to transmit to you, for such action in the
matter as the Marquis of Salisbury may think proper to take, a copy
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing copy of
an approved Report of the Privy Council respecting the action of the
United States authorities towards British subjects in these cases, and
urging that full reparation may be demanded from the United States
Government.
lam, Xe,
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 79

[Inclosure 1 in No. 40.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT Howse, Yoronto, May 21, 1887.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the seizure of
Canadian sealing schooners in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to forward herewith
a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, concurring in a Report of my
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and recommending that the attention of Her
Majesty’s Government be calied to the grave injustice done by the United States
authorities to British subjects peaceably pursuing their lawful occupations on the
high seas, to the delay which has taken placein inquiring into and redressing wrongs
committed, to the severe, inhospitable, and unjustifiable treatment of the officers
and crews of the vessels seized, and to the serious loss inflicted upon owners of the
same, in order that full and speedy reparation may be made by the United States

Government.
Ihave, &ce.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 40.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 16th May, 1887.

On a Report dated the 9th May, 1887, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
submitting the following résumé of facts, with a reference to the Canadian sealing
schooners ‘‘Carolina,” ‘‘Onward,” and ‘‘Thornton,” seized by the United States
Revenue cutter ‘‘Corwin,” in Behring’s Sea in the year 1886.

The above-named vessels fitted out at Victoria, British Columbia, for seal hunting
iu the waters of the Pacific Ocean, adjacent to Queen Victoria Islands, Queen Char-
lotte Islands, and Alaska. x

At the time of seizure (1st and 2nd August, 1886) they were at a distance of more
than 60 miles from the nearest land. They were taken possession of by the United
States cutter, and towed to the port of Oonalaska, where they were detained.

The crews of the “Carolina” and “Thornton,” with the exception of the captain
and one man detained at Oonalaska, were sent by steamer to San Francisco, and
there turned adrift, while the crew of the “Onward” was kept at Oonalaska.

At the time of the seizure, the ‘‘Carolina” had on board 686 seal-skins, the
“Onward” 900, and the ‘‘Thornton” 404. These, as well as the schooners are, so
far as the Minister is aware, still at Oonalaska, in possession of the United States
authorities.

The master and mate of the “‘Thornton” were brought for trial before Judge

62 Dawson, in the United States District Court at Sitka, on the 30th August,

1886. The evidence given by the officers of the United States Revenue cutter

went to show that this vessel was seized for the oftence of taking seals in that por-

tion of Behring’s Sea ceded to the United States by Russia in 1867, being then at a
distance of from 60 to 70 miles from St. George’s Island.

The Judge charged the jury to the effect that, if they believed the defendants to
have been sealing in the Behring Sea, east of the 193rd degree of longitude west,
they should bring in a verdict of ‘‘ Guilty,” and assess separate fines or imprisonment.

The jury brought in a verdict of ‘‘ Guilty.”

The master of the ‘‘ Thornton” was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment, and
to pay a fine of 500 dollars, and the mate to thirty days’ imprisonment and a fine of
300 dollars. The masters and mates of the ‘“‘Onward” and ‘‘ Carolina” were mulcted
in similar penalties.

On the 25rd and 24th September, 1886, Orders in Council were approved by his
Excellency, the Governor-General, setting forth the above facts, and representing
the injustice to which Canadian citizens engaged in a peaceable and lawful occupation
on the high seas had been subjected, in spite of admitted principles of international
law, and in direct opposition to the United States contention of what constitutes
common waters on the Atlantic coasts, and copies thereof were forwarded to Her
Majesty’s Government, with a request that immediate reparation be demanded from
the United States Government.

On the 12th November, 1886, Mr. Bayard informed Sir L. West that he was awaiting
full and authentic reports of the trial and Judgment in the cases of these seizures
before further discussing the matter.

On the 8th January, 1887, the Earl of Iddesleigh addressed Sir L. West, deprecat-
ing the delay which had taken place in securing the particulars, calling upon him to
urge, with all the force which the gravity of the oases demanded, the immediate

80 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

attention of the United States Government to the action of the American authorities
in their treatment of these vessels, mates, and crews, and directing him to seek assur-
ance that pending a settlement of the question, no seizures of British vessels would
be made beyond the territorial waters of Alaska.

On the 9th January, 1887, Sir L. West wrote to Mr. Bayard, reviewing the whole
case, and urging immediate action. On the 12th of the same month Mr. Bayard
replied, explaining the reasons of the delay, and stating that every possible dispateh
had been made in ‘order to procure the necessary papers.

On the 3rd February Mr. Bayard informed Sir L. West that the documents rela-
tive to these seizures left Sitka on the 26th January, and might be expected to reach
him within a fortnight. In the meantime, he informed the British Minister that
orders had been issued for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the dis-
charge of the vessels, and the release of all persons uniler arrest in connection with
these seizures, and that the conclusion of any questions involved must be reserved
until the papers relating thereto had arrived.

On the 4th February Sir L. West communicated the above information to his
Excellency the Governor-General.

The Minister further states that from information received from the owners of the
seized vessels, and from the Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, he
learns that James Ogilvie, an old nan and master of the “Carolina,” was arrested
along with the masters and mates of the “ Onward” and “Thornton,” and brought
into Court for trial, but that before sentence was pronounced he was suffered to
wander away in the woods, where he died from want and exposure; that the other
masters and mates after remaining several months in prison were reles ued by order
of the Governor of Alaska, and turned adrift liter: uly destitute to find their way as
best they could to their homes 1,500 miles distant, and which could be reached only
bya long and costly sea voy age: that the owners of the condemned vessels have
received no intimation from the United States authorities of the release of their
vessels or the restoration of the valuable cargo of seal-skins and equipments on
board, and that they have no information as to the condition in which their property
is at the present time.

The owners are thus left in complete uncertainty as to when or where their prop-
erty is to be restored, and anticipate serious damage, if not total loss, to their vessels
trom the tremendous gales which during the past winter have swept the North Pac ific
coasts. They also state that, knowing well as they do the character of the Indians
in that vicinity, and apprehending that no ver y vigilant wateh has been kept over
their property, they fear that everything movable Will have been carried aw: Mea litt

they are “compelled to receive the vessels at Oonalaska, where they have been
63 detained, it will necessitate the chartering of a steamer, with men and sup-

plies, at great expense and a round voyage of some 3,000 miles in order to
bring them to Victoria.

The consequent damage and loss to vessels and cargoes through detention, and
the heavy cost which will be entailed in bringing them to the home port, the owners
consider good grounds for claiming consideration from the United States authorities
when the question of reparation is being settled. -

The Committee concurring in the foregoing Report of the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries advise that your Excellency be ‘moved to call the attention of Her Majesty’s
Government again to the grave injustice done by the United States authorities to
British subjects, peace: vbly pursuing their lawful occupations on the high seas, and
to the great delay which has taken place in inquiring into and redressing the wrongs
committed to the severe, inhospitable, and unjustifiable treatment of the officers
and crews of the vessels seized, and to the serious loss inflicted upon owners of the
same, in order that full and speedy reparation may be made by the United States
Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 40.]
Mr. Hamley to Mr. Tilton.

Custom-Housn, Victoria, April 23, 1887.

Str: In reply to your letter of the 15th instant, I beg to state that none of the
masters or mates of the vessels seized in Behring’s ‘Sea in August last remain now in
imprisonment. When the vessels were condemned the Judge, »Mr. Dawson, sentenced
masters and mates to fines, which were never pi aid, and to different terms of impris-
onment. Ogilvie, master of the “Carolina,” an old man, was arrested and brought
into Court, but before the sentence was pronounced he wandered away into the woods
and died there.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 81

The others, after serving a time in prison, were released by an order of the Goy-
ernor and turned loose literally destitute, to find their way home in any way they
could. The vessels themselves, “Carolina,” “Onward,” and ‘‘Thornton,” are now,
as far as we know, in Oonalaska, but unless they have been properly taken care of,
which in such a place seems scarcely probable, they must during the winter months
have suffered greatly, even if they are still in existence. The skins taken from them
are, we believe, stored in the Alaska Fur Company’s warehouses at Oonalaska; the
guns and ammunition were taken to Sitka, and are in the care of the United States
Marshal.

The chronometers and charts of two of the vessels were left in Oonalaska with the
vessels. The chronometer of the other, with one or two boats, was taken, we were
told, as evidence to Sitka.

No notice whatever respecting the release of the vessels or the delivery of their
equipments orof the skins has been received by the owners. No word of any descrip-
tion has been conveyed to them by the United States authorities.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. HAaMKEY.

{Inclosure 4 in No. 40.]
Messrs. Carne and Mansie to Mr. Tilton.

VicroriA, B. C., April 14, 1887.

Drar Srr: Your advice of 2nd instant is to hand. In reply, would say we have
not been advised whether the vessels are to be returned to us at Victoria, or are we
to incur the expense and risk of taking them from Oonalaska, and accept the skins
in the condition they may be found, as an offset in full against the amounts set
opposite them in our claims. The expense and risk of getting them to Victoria will
be great, as there is no direct way of transferring men and supplies a distance of
1,500 miles.

It will necessitate the chartering of a steamer, and, owing to the tremendous gales
in the North Pacific the past winter, the vessels may be very seriously damaged, if
not totally lost. Knowing the Indians as we do we anticipate everything movable

will be carried away.
64 The vessels and skins are left in the care of not too friendly a concern, namely,
the Alaska Commercial Company’s agent, alias the United States Marshal.
Remaining, &c.,
(Signed) CARNE AND MANSIE,

No. 41.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 8, 1887.

Str: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo relating to the case of the
seizure of certain British vessels when engaged in seal-fishing last
autumn in Behring’s Sea.

In reply, I am to request that you will state to Sir H. Holland that,
in Lord Salisbury’s opinion, it is very desirable that, before any further
representations are made to the United States Government with a view
to obtaining reparation, Her Majesty’s Government should be in posses-
sion of the records of the judicial proceedings in the District Court in
Alaska, and instructions have been ‘sent by telegraph to Sir L. West
directingehim to request that he may be furnished with these docu-
ments by the United States Government for the use of Her Majesty’s
Government. -

I am further to request that this Department may be supplied with
a copy of the papers which have been laid before the Canadian Parlia-
ment in regard to this question.

Lam, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
BS, PLT V——6

82 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 42.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 9, 1887.

Sir: Referring to your despatches of the 13th April and the 6th and
30th May last, and to previous correspondence, I transmit, for your
information, acopy of a further letter from the Colonial Office relating
to the question of the seizure last autumn of certain British vessels
when engaged in seal-fishing in Behring’s Sea.*

Betore giving you further instructions in regard to this matter, I
should be glad to have the opportunity of examining the records of the
judicial! proceedings in the District Court in Alaska, and I request that
you will at once apply to the United States Secretary of State, and
ask that these documents may be furnished to you for the use of Her
Majesty’s Government.

Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 43.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received July 22.)

WASHINGTON, July 12, 1887.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 8th
instant, I have the honour to transmit herewith printed copies of the
judicial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District
of Alaska in the several cases of the schooners “Onward,” “ Carolina,”
and “Thornton,” proceeded against on a charge of killing fur-seal in
Alaska.
I have, We.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 43.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ALASKA.

The United States, Libellant, v. The Schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” her Tackle, §:c.—On Libel of
Information for being engaged in the Business of killing Iur-seal in Alaska.

TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
“On the 28th day of August, 1886, was filed the following Libel of Information:

In THE District COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.—
AuGUSr SPECIAL TERM, 1886.

To the Honourable LAFAYETTE DAWSON, Judge of said District Court:

The libel of information of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the United States for the
District of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of said United States, and being pres-
ent here in Court in his proper person, in the name of and on behalf of the said
United States, against the schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo,
and furniture, and against all persons intervening for their interest therein, in a
cause of forfeiture, alleges and informs as follows:

* No. 40.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 83

That Charles A. Abbey, an officer in the Revenue Marine Service of the United
States, and on special duty in the waters of the district of Alaska, heretofore, to
wit, on the 1st day of August, 1886, within the limits of Alaska territory, and in
the waters thereof, and within the civil and judicial district of Alaska, to wit,
within the waters of that portion of Behring Sea belonging to the said district, on

waters navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 or more tons” burden, seized the ship
or vessel, commonly called a schooner, the ‘‘ Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, boats,
cargo, and furniture, being the property of some person or persons to the said Attorney
unknown, as forfeited to the United States, for the following causes:

That the said vessel or schooner was found engaged in killing fur-seal within the
limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, in violation of section 1956 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States.

And the said Attorney saith that all and singular the premises are and were true,
and within the Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of this Court, and that by reason
thereof, and by force of the Statutes of the United States in such cases made and
provided, the afore-mentioned and described schooner or vessel, being a vessel of
over 20 tons burden, her tackle,-apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, became and are
forfeited to the use of the said United States, and that said schooner is now within
the district aforesaid.

Wherefore the said Attorney prays that the usual process and monition of this
honourable Court issue in this behalf, and that all persons interested in the before-
mentioned and described schooner or vessel may be cited in general and special to
answer the premises, and all due proceedings being had, that the said schooner or
vessel, her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture may, for the cause aforesaid,
and others appearing, be condemned by the definite sentence and decreeof this hon-
ourable Court, as forfeited to the use of the said United States, according to the
form of the Statute of the said United States in such cases made and provided.

(Signed) Ate 1D)s 18yNicie,
United States District Attorney for the District of Aluska.

Whereupon forthwith issued the following monition:

Disrricr oF ALASKA, Sct.,

The President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the District of
Alaska, greeting:

Whereas a libel of information hath been filed in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Alaska, on the 28th day of August, in the year 1886, by M.
D. Ball, United States Attorney for the district aforesaid, on behalf of the United
States of America, against the schooner ‘‘Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, boats,
cargo, and furniture, as forfeited to the use of the United States for the reasons and
causes in said libel of information mentioned, and praying the usual process and
monition of the said Court in that behalf to be made, and that all persons interested

in the said schooner “‘Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furni-
66 ture, &c., may be cited in general and special to answer the premises, and all

proceedings being had, that the said schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” her tackle, apparel,
boats, cargo, and furniture may, for the causes in the said libel of information men-
tioned, be condemned as forfeited to the use of the United States.

You are therefore hereby commanded to attach the said schooner ‘‘Thornton,” her

tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, to detain the same in your custody until
the further order of the Court respecting the same, and to give notice to all persons
Claiming the same, or knowing or having anything to say why the same should not be
condemned and sold pursuant to the prayer of the said libel of information, that they
be and appear before the said Court to be held in and for the District of Alaska, on
the 4th October, 1886, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon of the same day, if the same shall
be a day of jurisdiction, otherwise on the next day of jurisdiction thereafter, then
and there to interpose a claim for the same, and to make their allegations in that
behalf.

And what you shall have done in the premises do you then and there make return
thereof, together with this writ.

WwW itness the Honourable Lafayette Dawson, Judge of said Court, and the seal thereof
affixed at the City of Sitka, in the District of Alaska, this 28th day of August, in the
year of our Lord 1886; and of the Independence of the United State s, the 111th.

[SEAL. | ANDREW T. Lew Is, Clerk.

84 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

On September 6, 1886, was filed the following affidavit:

.

IN THE UNITED States DisTrRIcT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The United States of America v. The Schooner “ Thornton.”

UNITED Starrs or AMERICA, District of Alaska, ss.

C. A. Abbey, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is, and at all times herecinmentioned was, a Captain in the United States
Revenue Marine, and in command of the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Corwin.”

That affiant and the following named officers of said ‘‘Corwin,” are material and
necessary witnesses for the United States in the above entitled action: J. C. Cantwell,
Lieutenant; J. U. Rhodes, Lieutenant; J. H. Douglass, pilot.

That owing to scarcity of provisions and fuel upon said cutter Corwin,” the said
“ Corwin” and deponent and said witnesses will be obliged to and are about to go to
sea within five days, and out of the district in which the said case is to be tried, and
to a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial of said action before the
time of said trial.

That there is urgent necessity for taking the depositions of affiant and said wit-
nesses forthwith.

That Hans Guttormsen was master, and in possession of said schooner ‘‘ Thornton”
at the time of seizure thereof. ;

(Signed) C. A. ABBEY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 6th day of September, 1886.
(Signed ) ANDREW T. Lewis, Clerk,

On the same day was entered the following order:

In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner “ Thornton,” Case No. 50; Schooner ‘‘Caro-
lina,” Case No. 51; Schooner “Onward,” Case No. 49; Schooner “San Diego,” Case
No. 52.

In the above entitled actions urgent necessity and good cause appearing therefor
from the affidavits of C. A. Abbey, now on motion of M. D. Ball, United States Dis-
trict Attorney for Alaska, and Counsel for the United States herein, it is ordered that
the depositions of the witnesses C. A. Abbey, J. W. Howison, J. C. Cantwell, J. U.
Rhodes, J. H. Douglass, C. T. Winslow, Albert Leaf, C. Wilhelm, Thos. Singleton,
and 'T. Lorensen be taken before the Clerk of the said District Court on Tuesday,
the 7th day of September, 1886, at 7 o’clock P. M., or as soon thereafter as the matter

can be reached at the ofiice of said Clerk at Sitka, Alaska; and if not completed
67 on said evening, then the taking of said depositions to be continued by said

Clerk, from time to time, until completed. That notice of the time and place
of taking said depositions be served by the Marshal of said district on Hans Gut-
tormsen, James Blake, Daniel Munroe, and Charles E. Raynor, and upon W. Clark,
Esq., Attorney at Law, on or before the 7th September at 12 A. M., and that such
shall be due and sufiicient and reasonable notice of the taking of said depositions.

Done in open Court this 6th day of September, 1886, now at this time W. Clark,
Esq., being present in Court, waives service of notice.

On the 7th day of September, 1886, was filed the following notice and return:

In Tur UNITED States Districr COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The United States of America v. The Schooner ‘* Thornton.”

To Hans Guttormsen gcreeting: you are notified that by order of Lafayette Daw-
son, Judge of said District Court, the depositions of C. A. Abbey, J. C. Cantwell,
J. U. Rhodes, and J. H. Douglas will be taken before the Clerk of said District
Court at his office in Sitka in said district on Tuesday, the 7th September, 1886, at
7 o'clock P. M., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be reached, and if not com-
pleted on said evening, the taking of said depositions will be continued by said
Clerk from time to time until completed.

Dated the 7th September, 1886.

(Signed) ANDREW 'T. Lewis, Clerk.

Lab aes a:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 85

UnitED STATES OF AMERICA, District of Alaska, 8s.

This is to certify that on the 7th day of September, 1886, before 12 o’clock noon of
that day, I served the annexed notice on the within-named Hans Guttormsen, at
Sitka, District of Alaska, by then and there personally delivering to said Hans Gut-
tormsen a copy of said notice; and then and there gave him the privilege of being
present at the taking of said depositions.

Dated the 9th September, 1886.

(Signed) BARTON ATKINS,
United States Marshal.

On the 10th September, 1886, were filed the following depositions:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The United States v. The Schooner ‘‘ Thornton.”—No. 50.

Depositions of witnesses sworn and examined before me on the 7th day of Septem-
ber, 1886, at 7 o’clock p. M. of said day, and on the &th and 9th September, 1886,
thereafter, at the Clerk’s Office of said Court in Sitka, District of Alaska, United
States of America, by virtue and in pursuance of the order of the said Court, made
and entered in the above entitled action on the 6th September, 1586, directing that
the testimony and depositions of said witnesses be taken before me at said first-
mentioned time and place, and at such subsequent times as the taking of the same
might be continued to by me, in said action then and there pending in said District
Court between the United States as plaintiff and the schooner ‘‘Thornton” as
defendant, on behalf and at the instance of the said plaintift the United States, and
upon notice of the time and place of the taking of said depositions served upon
Hans Guttormsen, the Captain of the said schooner, and in possession thereof at the
time of seizure, and upon W. Clark, Esq., his Attorney, the owners thereof being
unknown and without the jurisdiction of this Court.

Captain C. A. Abbey, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Q. State your name and occupation.—A. Captain C. A. Abbey, in the United States
Revenue Marine Service, at present in command of the United States Revenue
steamer ‘‘ Corwin,” on special duty in Alaskan waters, for the protection of the Seal

Islands and of the Government interests in Alaska generally.
68 Q. What were you doing and what occurred on the Ist day of August last in

the line of your duty?—A. J was cruizing in Behring Sea about 70 miles south-
southeast from St. George Island, in about latitude and longitude age |
found the four boats of the British steam-schooner ‘‘Thornton,” of Victoria, British
Columbia, engaged in killing fur-seal. Each boat had in her from three to eight
freshly killed seal, arms, and ammunition, rowers, and hunters, who stated that they
belonged to the said schooner ‘‘Thornton,” and were engaged in taking or killing
fur-seal. Some of them, if not all, were seen shooting at the fur-seal which were
swimming in their neighbourhood. On this evidence, I caused the vessel to be seized
by Lieutenant Cantwell, took her in tow, and proceeded with her to Oonalaska,
where I placed the vessel, cargo, tackle, furniture, and appurtenances in charge of
Deputy United States Marshal Isaac Anderson, of Oonalaska, the cargo of fur-seal
skins being stored in ‘‘ Keuch,” in one of the warehouses of the Alaska Commercial
Company, and under seal. One boat of the ‘‘Thornton” was sent to Sitka by the
schooner ‘‘San Diego,” and placed in custody of the United States Marshal at Sitka.
All of this property is now in the custody of the United States Marshal at Sitka,
including her arms and ammunition, which I brought to Sitka on the ‘‘ Corwin.”

@. Was this the vessel against which the libel of information is filed?—A. It is.

Q. Did this all occur within the waters of Alaska and the Territory of Alaska, and
within the jurisdiction of this Court?—A. It did.

Q. Did this occur within the waters of the sea navigable for vessels of 10 tons
burden or over?—A. It did.

(Signed) C. A. ABBEY.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A. D. 1886, after
having been read over by me to deponent.
[SEAL. ] ANDREW T. Lrwis,
Clerk, United States District Court.

Lieutenant John C. Cantwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Q. State your name, occupation, and age.—A. John C. Cantwell, Third Lieutenant
United States Revenue Marine Service, at present on duty United States Revenue
steamer ‘‘ Corwin,” and over the age of 21 years.

Q. Were you so on the Ist day of August last?—A. I was.

86 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Q. State what occurred on that day in the line of your duty.—A. I saw a small
boat on the port bow; we caine up to her, and found she had about eight fur-seal
aboard. The menin the boat were armed with breech-loading rifles. In answer to
the Commanding Officer, the men admitted they were killing fur-seal. Shortly after
we picked up a "second poat, and then sighted the schooner “Thornton.” ‘There
were dead seal in the second boat. I did not examine the other boats; L was sent
on board the schooner, saw Hans Guttormsen apparently acting as captain, and
Henry Norman as mate. Tasked them what they were doing? The captain replied,
“Catching seals.” I signalled this to Captain Abbey, who directed me to seize her,
which I did, and the “Corwin” took the schooner in tow. ‘The fur-sealin the boats
were bleeding, and must have been Isilled within a few hours.

Q. How many men were on board of the ‘‘ Thornton” at the time of seizure ?—
A. About fifteen.

Q. Was this a reasonable number for ordinary purposes of commerce and navigs
tion?—A. It was an unusually large number for the size of the vessel.

Q. Do you recognize this paper 2—A. Ido. Ib is the official inventory made by me
of the furniture, tackle, and cargo of the schooner ‘‘ Thornton” (inventory embraces
the usual furniture, rigging, nautical instruments, boats and stores of a vessel of
this class, with a « “AT gO of 403 seal- skins, 3 seal-pup skins, and 1 hair seal-skin, and
they are receipte d for by I. Anderson, Deputy United States Marshal, Oonalaska, the

- 14th August, 1886); the item 403 seal-skins mentioned in the inventory are fur seal-
skins: this inventory gives a full and correct list of all the furniture, tackle, and
cargo of said vessel, with the exception of the following: arms and ammunition,
octant, and one chronometer. ‘There is one boat belonging to the ‘‘ Thornton” that
was sent down on the “San Diego” and ineluded in “the inventory of the “San
Diego.” The ‘ Thornton” had four boats.

(Signed) JOHN C. CANTWELL,
5rd Lieutenant, United States Revenue Marine.

69 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, a. D. 1886,
after having been read over by me to deponent.
[SEAL. | ANDREW T. LEWIS,

Clerk, United States District Court.

John U. Rhodes, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Q. State your name, age, and occupation?—A. John U. Rhodes, over 21 years of
age, and Lieutenant in the United States Revenue Marine, and attached to the Rev-
enue steamer ‘‘Corwin,” and was so on the Ist August, 1886.

Q. State what happened on the last-named day in connection with the schooner
‘“Thornton” ?-—A. I was on the ‘‘ Corwin” at the time the ‘‘ Thornton ” was seized
on thatday. We first picked up a boat bearing the name *‘ Thornton; ” it had about
eight dead fur-seal in it, the men in the boat had breech-loading rifles: we after-
wards picked up another boat, and then sighted the schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” and went
on board, and was put in charge of her. We afterwards picked up two more boats;
the inen in the boats claimed that the boats belonged to the ‘“‘ Thornton,” and were
put on board of her. There were between fifteen and twenty dead fur-seal on deck
and one hair-seal. ‘These seal were most of them bleeding and evidently recently
killed. The captain and several of the hunters said they had killed twenty-one, I
think it was, fur-seals that day, and would have got more if they had had more day-
light and if the cutter had not come up.

@. Do you recognize these papers?—A. Ido. This paper marked (Ex. ‘‘G”) is
the clearance paper of the schooner ‘‘Thornton” (this paper represents the British
steam-schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” Hans Guttormsen, master, 22.30 tons, navigated with
fifteen men, bound for the Pacific Ocean, Behring Sea, and Okhotsk Sea, on a hunt-
ing and fishing voyage, as having cleared from Victoria, British Columbia, the 15th
May, 1886). This paper marked (Ex. ‘‘H”) is her bill of health (issued same date
and place with clearance). I found these papers in the schooner ‘ Thornton ” at
the time of seizure, and then took possession of them.

Q. What was the list of arms and ammunition found aboard the schooner ‘‘ Thorn-
ton” at the time of seizure?—A. Four rifles, 6 shot-guns, 857 shot-gun cartridges,

420 rifle-gun cartridges, 108 lbs. powder, 1 keg powder partly filled, 2 bags bullets,
11 bags buck- shot, 5 boxes wads, 34 boxes primers.

Q. What has become of these arms and ammunition?—A. They were delivered to
the United States Marshal at Sitka, and are now in his custody.

(Signed) JOHN U. RHODES,
Lieutenant, United States Revenue Marine.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, A. D. 1886, after hav-
ing been read over by me to the deponent.
[SEAL. ] ANDREW T. LEwIs,
Clerk, United States District Court.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 87

John U. Rhodes, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

Q. State your name, age, and oecupation?—A, John U. Rhodes, Lieutenant United
States Revenue Marine, at present on duty on the United States Revenue steamer
“¢ Corwin,” and over the age of 21 years.

Q. State what nautical instruments, if any, were seized on the schooner ‘‘ Thorn-
ton” except such as are included in her general inventory ?—A. One chronometer, No.
1374, made by Kessels, and one octant.

Q. What has become of this property ?—A. I turned it over to the United States
Marshal at Sitka, and it is now in his custody.

(Signed) JOHN U, RHODES.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A. De 1886, after hav-
ing been read over by me to deponent.
[SEAL. | ANDREW T. LEWIS,
Clerk, United States District Court.

J. H. Douglass, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
Q. State your name, age, and occupation?—A. J. H. Douglass, am over the age of
21 years, am a pilot in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States, and
70 have been so for the seven years last past. Iam now and on the Ist August,
1886, was pilot on the Revenue steamer ‘‘ Corwin.”

Q. State what occurred on the last-named day in connection with the schooner
“Thornton” ?—A. We sighted a boat on our port bow and soon after saw another
boat, steamed to the first boat and ordered her to come alongside, which she did.
The name “Steamer Thornton” was on the stern of the boat. There were two or
three men in the boat with arms, and six or eight dead fur-seal, which had the
appearance of having been lately killed. LI asked the men what luck they bad had.
One of them replied, ‘‘ We have six or eight, but not as good as some days.” We
took possession of the boat and contents by order of Captain Abbey. We then
picked up the second boat, finding it engaged in the same business, then we sighted
a schooner drifting without sail or steam, which proved to be the steam-schooner
“Thornton.” On coming up with her she was seized by order of Captain Abbey
and taken in tow. Wethen picked up two more boats belonging to the ‘* Thornton,”
having dead fur-seal on board. ‘This was in Behring’s Sea, about 65 miles south-east
trom St. George’s Island, and about 500 or 600 miles’ to the eastward of the western
bonndary- line of Alaska Territory.

Q. State what experience you have had in the fur-sealing business, and your
knowledge of the habits of the fur-seal?—A. I have been cruizing for more than
fifteen years off and on in Alaskan waters, always as an officer or pilot, and have
visited the Pribiloff Islands, St. Paul and St. George, several hundred times, and
am perfectly familiar with the sealing business as conducted on those islands, and
understand the migrating habits of the fur-seals. From about the 1st May to about
the Ist July of each year the fur-seal is migrating north, and mostly through the
Unimak and Akutan’ Passes to these islands for breeding purposes. They go to no
other place in the known world except these islands and Copper Island for breeding
purposes.

After the breeding season of about a month they begin to migrate south, and until
November of each year are migrating south through Behring’ 8s Sea. During this
season, from May till November, the fur-seal are plenty in the waters adjoining the
Pribiloff Islands, and are migrating to and from these islands, and are at all times
very plenty between Unimak “Pass and said islands in a track about 30 miles wide,
which seems to be their highway to and from said islands. The schooner ‘‘'Thorn-
ton” and her boats when seized were directly on this track.

(Signed) J. H. Dora.ass.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, a. D. 1886, after
having been read over by me to deponent.
[SEAL. ] ANDREW T. LEWIS,
Clerk, United States District Court.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The United States v. The Schooner ‘‘ Thornton.”—No. 50.

Whereas, on the 6th day of September, 1886, the said District Court duly made
and entered in the journal of said Court an order in the above-entitled action, direct-
ing that the testimony and depositions of the witnesses: C. A. Abbey, J. C. Cantwell,
J. U. Rhodes, and J. H. Douglass be taken before me, the Clerk of said Court, at the
time or times and place, and upon such notice as was specified in said order.

88 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Now, therefore, this is to certify:—That in pursuance of said order, on the 7th
September, 1886, at 7 Pp. M., each and all of the above-named witnesses appeared
before me at the Clerk’s office of said Court at Sitka, District of Alaska, United States
of America: that M. D. Ball, Esq., District Attorney of said Conrt and District, and
W. H. Payson, Esq., appeared then and there on behalf of and as attorneys and
proctors for the United States, the libellant herein; and W. Clark, Esq., then and
there appeared on behalf of, and as Attorney and Proctor for the said schooner and
her owners herein; and Hans Guttormsen then and there appeared in pursuance of
notice served upon him.

That I was unable to complete the taking of said depositions on said 7th day of
September, 1886, and [ continued the taking thereof on the 8th and 9th September,
1886, and completed the same on said last-named day. That the said parties by their
said Attorneys and Proctors then and there appeared, and were present on each of
said last-named days, and at all times during the taking of said depositions. That

each of said witnesses was first duly cautioned and sworn by me, then and
rfl there, that the evidence he should give in said action, should be the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth, and thereafter each of said witnesses
was then and there examined before me, and I then and there took down the state-
ment and testimony of each of said witnesses, and reduced the same to writing in
his presence, and then and there read the same over to him; and he then and there,
after the same had been so reduced to writing and read over to him, subscribed the
same in my presence, and swore to the truth thereof.

That the foregoing depositions are the depositions of said witnesses then and there
taken before me as aforesaid. That due notice of the taking of said depositions was
given as required by said order.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said District
Court, this 9th day of September, 1886.

(Signed) ANDREW T. LEWIS,
Clerk, United States District Court in and for the
District of Alaska, United States of America

On the 20th day of September, 1886, was filed the following claim of Master for
Owner:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.
(In Admiralty.)

In the Matter of the Libel of Information against the Schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” her Tackle,
Apparel, Furniture, and Cargo.—Claim of Master for Owner.

And now Hans Guttormsen, master of the schooner ‘‘Thornton” intervening for
the interest of J. D. Warren of Victoria, British Columbia, the owner of the said
schooner “Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, as set forth in the
libel of information herein, appears before this honourable Court and makes claim
to the said schooner ‘‘Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, as set
forth in the said libel of information, and as the same are attached by the Marshal
under process of this Court at the instance of M. D. Ball, Esq., United States
District Attorney for the District of Alaska.

And the said Hans Guttormsen avers that the said J. D. Warren was in possession
of the said schooner at the time of the attachment thereof.

And that the said J. D. Warren above named is the true and bond fide owner of
the said schooner, her tackle, apparel, cargo and furniture as seized by the said
Marshal as aforesaid and that no other person is the owner thereof. Wherefore he
prays to defend accordingly.

(Signed) HANS GUTTORMSEN,.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of September, A. D. 1886.
[SEAL. ] ANDREW T. LEWIS,
Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
W. CLARK AND D. A. DINGLEY,
Proctors for Claimant,

Ts ye goeceel

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 89

On the same day was filed the following amended libel of information:

In TuE Unirep Srarres Disrricr COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

(August Special Term, 1886.)

To the Honourable LAFAYETTE DAWSON, Judge of said District Court:

The amended libel of information of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the United States,
for the District of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of said United States and being
present here in Court in his own proper person, in the name and on behalf of the
said United States, alleges and informs as follows, to wit:

That C. A. Abbey, an officer in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States,
duly commissioned by the President of the United States, in command of the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘Corwin,” and on special duty in the waters of the District

of Alaska heretofore, to wit on the 1st day of August, 1886, within the limits of
72 Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, and within the Civil and Judicial

District of Alaska, to wit—within the waters of that portion of Behring’s Sea
belonging to the United States and said District, on waters navigable from the sea
by vessels of ten or more tons burden, seized the schooner ‘‘‘Thornton,” her tackle,
apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, being the property of some person or persons
unknown to said Atterney. The said property is more particularly described as fol-
lows, to wit:

One schooner ‘‘ Thornton” of Victoria, British Columbia, four boats with oars,
. sails, and gear; carpenter’s and caulking tools and materials: five tons of coal, ten
yards of canvas, clock, chronometer, nautical instruments, provisions, sails and run-
ning gear, ropes, twine, lamps, oil, casks, buckets, engine and gear, twenty sacks of
salt, 403 fur-seal skins, one hair-seal skin, three pup-seal skins, four rifles, six shot
guns, and arms and ainmunition for same and all other property found upon or
appurtenant to said schooner.

That said C. A. Abbey was then and there duly commissioned and authorized by
the proper Department of the United States to make said seizure.

That all of said property was then and there seized as forfeited to the United
States for the following causes:

That said vessel, her captain, officers and crew were then and there found engaged
in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory and within the waters
thereof, in violation of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

That all the said property, after being seized as aforesaid, was brought into the
port of Oonalaska in said Territory, and delivered into the keeping of Isaac Ander-
son, a Deputy United States Marshal of this District, with the exception of the said
arms and ammunition, which latter were brought into the port of Sitka in said Dis-
trict and turned over to the United States Marshal of this District and all of said
property is now within the Judicial District of Alaska, United States of America.

And the said M. D. Ball, Attorney as aforesaid, further informs and alleges:

That on the 1st day of August, 1886, Henry Norman, and certain other persons
whose names are to said United States Attorney unknown, who were then and
there engaged on board of the said schooner ‘‘ Thornton” as seamen and seal-
hunters, did, under the direction and by the authority of Hans Guttormsen, then
and there master of said schooner, engage in killing and did kill, in the Territory
and District of Alaska, and in the waters thereof, to wit, twenty fur-seals, in viola-
tion of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in such cases made
and provided.

That the said 403 fur-seal skins, three pup-skins, one hair-seal skin, and other goods
so seized on board of said schooner ‘‘‘Thornton” constituted the cargo of said
schooner at the time of the killing of said fur-seals, and at the time of said seizure.

And said Attorney saith that all and singular the premises were and are true and
within the Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction of the United States and of this
Honourable Court, and that by reason thereof, and by force of the Statutes in such
cases made and provided, the aforementioned schooner, being a vessel of over twenty.
tons burden, and her said tackle, apparel, boats, cargo and furniture, became and
are forfeited to the use of the United States.

Wherefore the said Attorney prays that the usual process and monition of this
Honourable Court issue in his behalf against said schooner and all said hereinbefore
described property to enforce the forfeiture thereof, and requiring notice to be
given to all persons to appear and show cause, on the return day of said process
why said forfeiture should not be decreed; and that after due proceedings are had,
all of said property be adjudged, decreed, and condemned as forfeited to the use of
the United States; and for such other relief as may be proper in the premises.

Dated the 20th September, 1886.

(Signed) M. D. BALL,
United States District Attorney for the District of Alaska,

90 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

On the same day was filed the following demurrer:
In tne UNITED Strates Districr COURT FOR THE DIsTricr or ALASKA,
United States v. J. D. Warren and Schooner “ Thornton.” —Pemurrer.

The demurrer of J. D. Warren, claimant of the property proceeded against in the
above cause to the information filed herein.
1. The said claimant by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters in
said amended information contained to be true, demurs thereto and says that the
said matters in manner and form, as the same are in the information stated and
73 set forth, are not sufficient in law for the United States to have and maintain
their said action for the forfeiture of the property aforesaid.
2. The said claimant by protestation denies that this Court has jurisdiction to
determine or try the question hereby put in issue.
3. And that the said claimant is not bound in law to answer the same.
Wherefore claimant prays that said information may be dismissed with costs.
(Signed) W. CLark AND D. A. DINGLiEY,
Proctors for Claimant.

Which demurrer was overruled by the Court, and on the same day was filed the
following answer:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.

United States v. J. D. Warien and Schooner ** Thornton.” —Answer of Claimant.

The answer of J. D. Warren, owner and claimant of the said schooner *‘ Thornton,”
her tackle, apparel, cargo, and furniture, as the same are set forth in the information
filed herein in behalf of the United States.

And now comes J. D. Warren, claimant as aforesaid and for answer to the said
information against the said schooner “Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, furniture
and cargo, as set forth in said information says that the said schooner ‘‘ Thornton,”
her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo as set forth in the information mentioned,
did not nor did any part thereof become forfeited in manner and form as in said
information in that behalf alleged, or at all.

Wherefore, the said claimant prays that said information be dismissed with costs
of this claimant attached.

(Signed) W. CLARK AND D. A. DINGLiY,
Proctors for Claimant.

On the 22nd September, 1886, were filed the following exceptions to answer:

UNITED Starrs Districr Court, Disrricr OF ALASKA, UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.

United States v. The Schooner ‘* Thornton.”—No. 50.

The said libellant hereby excepts to the sufficiency of the defendant’s answer
herein, on the following grounds:

1. Said answer is not properly or at all verified as required by Rule 27 of the United
States Admiralty Rules;

2. Said answer is not full, explicit or distinct to each or any allegation of the libel
herein, as required by said Rule;

3. Said answer does not deny or admit any of the allegations of fact in said libel,
but merely denies a conclusion of law.

(Signed) M. D. BALL AND W. H. Payson,
: . Proctors for Libellant.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1886.

Which exceptions were sustained by the Court, and on the same day was filed the
following amended answer:

IN THE UNITED STATES District COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.

United States v. J. D. Warren and Schooner ‘‘ Thornton.”’—Amended Answer.
To the Honourable LAFAYETTE Dawson,
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Hans Guttormsen, master of the schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” intervening for the interest
of and in behalf ef J. D. Warren, owner and claimant of said schooner “Thornton,”

CS uy

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. of

her tackle, apparel, furniture and cargo for amended answer to the libel of informa-

tion herein, against said schooner, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, alleges

as follows: é

1. That he denies each and every material allegation in said libel of information

contained ;

74 2. Denies that the said schooner “Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, furniture,
cargo, and the property appertaining thereto, as set forth and described in said

libel of information or any part thereof became forfeited to the United States;

3. Denies that said schooner, ber captain, ofticers, and crew, or any one of them
were fonnd engaged in killing fur-seal within the limits of Alaska Territory and
within the waters thereof in violation of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States as set forth in said libel of information or at all;

4. Denies that they killed any number of fur-seal or other fur-bearing animals
within the waters of Alaska or the Territory of Alaska or in any part thereof.

5. That all and singular the premises herein are true.

Wherefore said master prays that this Honourable Court will be pleased to pro-
nonnce against the libel herein and that the same may be dismissed with costs to the
claimants to be taxed.

(Signed) W. CLARK AND D. A. DINGLEY,
Proctors for Claimant.

UNITED STATES, District of Alaska, ss.

Hans .Guttormsen, being first duly sworn, says he is master of the schooner
“Thornton,” that he has heard read the foregoing answer and knows the contents
thereof and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge.

(Signed) H. GUTTORMSEN.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of September, A. p. i886.
_ (Signed) ANDREW T. Liwis,
Clerk of the Dnited States District Court for the District of Alaska.

On the 4th day of October, 1886, the motion cited p. 54 was returned with the
following indorsement:

Sitka, District of Alaska, ss.

3e it remembered, that, in obedience to the annexed monition, I have attached the
within-described property and now hold the same in my possession subject to the
order of this Honourable Court;

And I have given due notice to all persons claiming said property to be and appear
before this District Court on the 4th day of October, 1886, at 10 o’clock a. M., if the
same shall be a day of jurisdiction, otherwise on the next day of jurisdiction there-
after, then and there to make their claims and allegations in that behalf:

And I have caused said notice to be published, aid the same has been published in
the “Alaskan,” a newspaper published at Sitka in said District, on the 4th day of
September, 1886, and in each issue of said newspaper subsequent thereto, until 4th
day of October, 1886.

(Signed) BARTON ATKINS,
Marshal, District of Alaska.
Sirka, ALASKA, October 4, 1886.

On the same day was filed the following Decree:

In THE Unirep Srates Districr COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

United States v. The Schooner “ Thornton.”— No. 50.

The Marshal having returned on the monition issued to him in the above entitled
action that, in obedience thereto, he has attached the said schooner “Thornton,”
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, and has given due notice to all per-
sons claiming the same to appear before this Court on this 4th day of October, 1886,
at 10 o’clock A. M., at the District of Alaska, United States of America, then and
there to interpose their claims and make their allegations in that behalf; and Hans
Guttormsen, the captain of said vessel, having heretofore filed a claim to all of said
property on behalf of J. D. Warren, of Victoria, British Columbia, the owner thereof,

92 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

and no other person having appeared, and no claims or allegations having been
made or filed herein by any other person or persons, and the usual proclama-
75 tion having been made, and said cause having been heard upon the pleadings
and proofs, M. D. Ball, Esq., and W. Hl. Payson, Ksq., appearing as advocates
for said libellant, and W. Clark as advocate for said claimant, and said cause having
been submitted to the Court for decision, and due deliberation being had in the
premises, it is now ordered, sentenced, and decreed as follows:

1. That all persons whatsoever other than said claimant be, and they are, hereby
declared in contumacy and default.

2. 'That the said schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” her tackle, apparel, boats, and furniture,
and her cargo of 403 fur-seal skins, and all other property found upon and appurte-
nant to said schooner, be, and are hereby, condemned as forfeited to the use of the
United States.

3. ‘hat unless an appeal be taken to this Decree within the time limited and pre-
scribed by law and the Rules of this Court, the usual writ of venditioni exponas be
issued to the Marshal commanding him to sell all of the said property and bring the
proceeds into this Court to be distributed according to law. Costs to be taxed are
awarded against said claimant.

Dated October 4, 1886.

(Signed) LAFAYETTE DAWSON,
District Judge.

Done in open Court this 4th day of October, 1886, at Sitka, District of Alaska,
United States of America.
(Signed ) ——_ ——, Clerk.

On the same day was filed the following motion to set aside Decree:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.
United States v. J. D. Warren and Schooner ‘* Thornton.”—Motion to set aside Decree.

Now come W. Clark and D. A. Dingley, proctors intervening for and in behalf of
the claimants herein, and moves the Court to set asidethe Decree rendered herein for
the reason that the evidence produced on behalf of the United States is wholly
insufficient upon which to base said Decree.

(Signed) W. CLARK AND D. A. DINGLEY,
Proctors for Claimant.

Which motion was over-ruled by the Court, and on the same day was filed the fol-
lowing notice of appeal:

In THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.
United States v. J. D. Warren and Schooner ‘‘ Thornton.”—Notice of Appeal.

And now come W. Clark and D. A. Dingley, proctors for and in behalf of the
claimant herein, and notifies this honourable Court that they hereby appeal from
the Decree rendered herein to the Circuit Court having appellate jurisdiction over
this district, and that said appeal is taken on questions of law and fact, and prays
the Court for an order on its clerk to prepare a complete transcript of the record
herein, as the law requires. é

(Signed) W. CLARK AND DD. A. DINGLEY,
Proctors for Claimant.

On the 9th day of February, 1887, was entered the following order:

In the Matter of the United States v. Sehooner “ Onward,” Case No. 49; Schooner ‘ Thorn-
ton,” Case No. 50; Schooner ‘ Carolina,” Case No. 51; Schooner ‘San Diego,” Case
No. 52; Arms and Ammunition Schooner “Sierra,” No. 57; Arms and Ammunition
Schooner *‘ San Diego,” No. 58.

In the above causes, upon motion of the Attorney for the United States and argu
ment of counsel for the United States, and for the interveners in said causes, and
consideration by the Court, it is this day ordered that writs of venditioni exponas do

issue from the clerk of said Court to the Marshal of said District, for the sale
76 of the attached vessels, with their tackle, cargoes, and furniture, of whatever
description, and of the arms and ammunition attached in said causes.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 93

And as to the said attached vessels, that the sale of the same (except the schooner
‘‘San Diego,” which shall be sold at Sitka) shall be made at Port Townsend, in the
District of Washington Territory, and as to the seal-skins, part of the cargoes of
said vessels attached, that sale of the same shall be made at San Francisco, in the
District of California, und that sale of said schooner ‘San Diego,” and all the other
attached property be made at Sitka, in the District of Alaska. Thirty days’ notice
of such sale to be given at each of the places where the same are to be made, by
posting such notice, or by publication in some newspaper published at such places
respectively.

And that said Marshal do have the moneys arising from such sales, together with
the writ commanding the same, at a District Court of the United States for this, the
said District of Alaska, to be held on the first eee in September, 1887, and ‘that
he then pay the same to the clerk of said Court.

CLERK’S OFFICE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
? >]
DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
Sitka, March 10, 1887.

I, Andrew T. Lewis, clerk of the said Court, do certify that the foregoing transcript
of the record in the case of the United States v. the schooner ‘‘Thornton,” her tackle,
apparel, &c., on libel of information, pending in said Court, has been compared by
me with the original, and that it is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of
such original, except the full text of the exhibits referred to in the testimony therein,
the purport of which only is stated, and that the purport of said exhibits is correctly
stated, as the same appears of record at my office and in my custody.

Witness my hand and the seal of said Court, this 10th day of March, 1887.

[SEAL. ] ANDREW T. LEWIS, Clerk.

No. 44.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

[Telegra phic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2, 1887.

I have received your despatch of the 12th ultimo.
Were judicial documents communicated without observation by the
United States Government?

2 No. 45.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received by telegraph,
August 4.)

: WASHINGTON, August 4, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the judi-
cial documents alluded to in your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant
were, at my request, forwarded to me by tue Secretary of State, for the
information of Her Majesty’s Government, and were unaccompanied by
any observations.

I have reason to think that no step will be taken in the matter of the
seizure of sealers in Behring’s Sea until the case against the captain of
the “Corwin,” which will be tried at Boston, has been heard.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

94 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 46.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 10, 1887.

Sim: I have to inform you that a telegram has been received from
the Commander-in-chief of Her Majesty’s naval forces in the Pacific,
dated Victoria, British Columbia, on the 7th instant, from which it
appears that an American Revenue vessel had seized three more Brit-

ish Coluinbian sealing schooners when a long distance from land,
77 and that they had been taken to Sitka. He further stated that
several other vessels in sight from Sitka were being towed in.

It will be within your recollection that in the correspondence which
has recently taken place in regard to the previous seizures of three
British vessels by the United States Revenue cruizer “ Corwin,” Mr.
Bayard stated in a note dated the 3rd February (a copy of which accom-
panied your despatch of the following day), that ‘‘ without conclusion at
this time of day of any questions which may be found to be involved in
these cases of seizure, orders have been issued by the President’s direc-
tion for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of
the vessels referred to, aud the release of all persons under arrest in
connection therewith.”

I request that you will at once communicate to the United States
Government the nature of the information which has reached them in
regard to these further seizures of British vessels by the United States
authorities.

You will at the same time say that Her Majesty’s Government had
assumed, in view of the assurances conveyed to you in Mr. Bayard’s
note of the 5rd February last, that pending a conclusion of the discus-
sion between the two Governments on the general question involved, no
further similar seizures of British vessels would be made by order of
the United States Government.

Tam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 47.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 10, 1887.

Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 12th
ultimo, inclosing printed copies of the records in the United States
District Court for the District of Alaska in the cases of the British
Columbian sealing schooners ‘‘ Onward,” “Carolina,” and “ Thornton.”

I should be glad if you would inform me whether the owners or mas-
ters of any of these vessels have entered an appeal against the Judg-
ments delivered by the Court, and whether, if they have not already
done so, such a course is still open to them.

It is also desirable that Her Majesty’s Government should be fur-
nished with a full Report of the proceedings at the trials of the mas-
ters, which resulted in their conviction, and sentence to imprisonment
and ‘fine.

I have further to request that you will endeavour to ascertain and to
report tome when it is probable that the appeals referred to in your

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 95

despatches of the 2nd April, 1887, and of the 6th May, 1887, respec-
tively, of the owners of the American ships which were seized on similar
erounds, will come on for hearing, and whether any arrangement has
been, or can now, in your opinion, advantageously be made between the
owners of the British and American vessels on the one side and the
Government of the United States on the other, that one of these cases
should be regarded as a test case, by which, in so far as the American
legal Tribunals are concerned, the remaining cases might be held to be
concluded.

it must, however, be clearly understood that any such arrangement,
if made, would only affect the legal remedies which were open to the
masters and owners of these vessels in the American Courts, and would
in no degree limit the right of Her Majesty’s Government, after aJl such
legal remedies were considered to be exhausted, to intervene through
diplomatic channels and on international grounds on behalf of such
masters or owners.

It is presumed that the records of the proceedings in the cases of the
seizures of the British schooners which accompanied your despatch
were communicated officially to Her Majesty’s Legation, and, if so,
I request that you will furnish me with a copy of the note by which
they were accompanied.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 48.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 26.)

WASHINGTON, August 15, 1887.

My Lorp: In obedience to the instruction contained in your Lord-
ship’s despatch of the i0th instant, l informed the Secretary of
78 State that three British Columbian schooners had been seized in
Behring’s Sea by the United States cruizers a long distance from
Sitka, and that several other vessels were in sight being towed in. I
also intimated to Mr. Bayard that, in view of the assurances given in
his note of the 3rd February last, Her Majesty’s Government had
assumed that, pending the conclusion of discussions between the two
Governments on general questions involved, no further seizures would
be made by order of the United States Government. Copy of my note
is herewith inclosed. I have likewise the honour to inclose to your
Lordship copy of a note which I have received in reply to the above
communication, in which Mr. Bayard states that he can discover no
ground whatever, from the expressions contained in his note referred
to, for the assumption by Her Majesty’s Government that it contained
any such assurances, but that he will ascertain without delay whether
the circumstances attendant upon the cases of the seizures in question
are the same as those which induced the Executive to direct the release
of the vessels mentioned in his note of the 5rd February.
I have, &e.
(Signed) L. 8. SAC VILLE WEST.

96 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{Inclosure 1 in No. 48.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, August 11, 1887.

Sir: [have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government have received
a telegram from the commander-in-chief of Her Majesty’s naval forces in the Pacilic,
dated Victoria, British Columbia, 7th August, reporting the seizure by United States
eruizers of three British Columbian sealing schooners in Behring’s Sea, a long dis-
tance from Sitka, and that several other vessels were in sight being towedin. In
conveying this information to you, I am requested at-the same time by the Marquis
of Salisbury to state that, in view of the assurances given in your note of the 35rd
February last, Her Majesty’s Government had assumed that pending the conclusion
of discussions between the two Governments on general questions inyolyed, no
further seizures would be made by order of the United States Government,

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 48.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 13, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 11th instant
received yesterday afternoon, informing me of a telegraphic communication from
the Commander-in-chief of Her Majesty’s naval forces in the Pacific, dated at Vic-
toria, British Columbia, August 7th, reporting the seizure of three British Coluin-
bian sealing schooners ‘‘in Behrine’s Sea, a long distance from Sitka,” and that
“several other vessels were in sight being towed in.”

The reference to ny note to you of the 3rd February last; which you make under
the instruction of the Marquis of Salisbury, has caused me to examine the expres-
sions contained therein, and I can discover no ground whatever for the assumption
by Her Majesty’s Government, that it contained assurances ‘‘ that, pending the con-
clusion of discussions between the two Governments on general questions involved,
no further seizures would be made by order of the United States Government.”

Until your note of the 11th instant was received I had no information of the
seizure of the sealing vessels therein referred to, and have no knowledge whatever
of the circumstances under which such seizures have been made.

I shall at once endeavour to supply myself with the information necessary to
enable me to reply to you more fully.

The cases of seizure referred to in my note of the 3rd February, 1887, had occurred
during the previous August, and upon the basis of the information then obtained I
wrote you as follows:

“In this connection I take occasion to inform you that, without conclusion at this
time of any questions which may be found to be involved in these cases of seizure,

orders have been issued by the President’s direction for the discontinuance of
79 all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the
release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith.”

Having no reason to anticipate any other seizures, nothing was said in relation to
the possibility of such an occurrence, nor do [ find in our correspondence on the sub-
ject any grounds for such an understanding as you inform me had been assumed to
exist by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government.

A short time since, when you called upon me and personally obtained copies of the
record of the judicial proceedings in the three cases of seizure in August last in
Behring’s Sea, nothing was said in relation to other cases. Whether the circum-
stances attendant upon the cases which you now report to me are the same as those
which induced the Executive to direct the releases referred to remains hereafter to
be ascertained. and this with as little delay as the circumstances will permit.

Ihave, &c¢.

(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 97

No. 49.

Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received August 27.)

[Extract.]
ADMIRALTY, August 24, 1887.

I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to
send you herewith, for the perusal of the Marquis of Salisbury, extract
from a letter from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station, dated
the 5th August, reporting the seizure of a sealing-schooner, named the
“Anna Beck,” by an American Revenue vessel in Behring’s Sea.

[Inclosure in No. 49.—Extract.]
Rear-Admiral Culme-Seymour to Admiralty.

“TRIUMPH,” AT ESQUIMALT, August 5, 1887.
Since my return I hear that the ‘Anna Beck,” a sealing schooner, has been seized
by an American Revenue vessel in Behring’s Sea—it is reported 60 miles north-east
from St. George’s Island; but no reliable information as to the spot has yet reached
me. As soon as it does [ will forward particulars.

No. 50.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received September 1.)
[Extract.]
WASHINGTON, August 20, 1887.

It would appear from Reports of Captain Shepard, of the United
States Revenue cutter “Rush,” that the “ Sayward” was captured 50
miles and the ‘“ Dolphin” 40 miles from Cape Cheerful, while the
“Grace” was seized 95 miles from Ounalaska.

Cape Cheerful does not appear on any Map or Chart, but is supposed
to be the northernmost point of the Island of Ounalaska.

The Islands of St. George and St. Paul (Pribylov Islands) are distant
180 miles from Ounalaska, so that at the time of the seizure of the
“Grace” that vessel would have been 85 miles distant from them.

To reach the breeding-grounds on the Islands of St. George and St.
Paul, the seals pass regularly through the channel which separates the
Island of Ounalaska from the Island of Akutan, and that which sepa-
rates Akutan from the Island of Unimak, called respectively the Akutan
and Unimak passes, and it is here that the sealers lay in wait for them
on their passage.

It is maintained that the capture of seals in this manner is in viola-
tion of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and
that ships so capturing them are within the limits of Alaska territory
or in the waters thereof.

But, apart from the question of territorial limit and right to seize
vessels in the open sea, it is argued by impartial persons that unless
some arrangement is made for the protection of these valuable animals
on their passage to the breeding-grounds, the genus, as in the case of

beaver, will gradually become extinct.
80 It is a known fact that few, if any, seals pass outside the

Island of Ounalaska to their breeding-grounds, which exist only
on the Pribylov Islands, and that their passage is as regular as their
breeding season.

BS, PT V——7

98 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 51.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 1.)

WASHINGTON, August 22, 1887.

My Lorp: Since writing my preceding despatch I have received
privately from Mr. Bayard copies of the Reports of Captain Shepard,
alluded to therein, respecting the seizure of the British vessels “Anna
Beck,” ““W. P. Sayward,” “ Dolphin,” and ‘“ Grace,” copies of which I
have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith.

The State Department is not in possession of any further information.

I have, Sc.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

P. S.—I have communicated copies of Captain Shepard’s Reports to
the Governor-General of Canada.
Ty S. S. W.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 51.]
Mr. Fairchild to Mr. Bayard.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, August 19, 1887.

Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th
instant, in which you refer to information received through the British Minister as
to the recent seizures by United States cruizers of three British Columbian sealing-
schooners in Behring’s Sea, and request such information as this Department pos-
sesses or can obtain from its Agents relative to said seizures; and, in reply thereto,
Tinclose herewith copies of the Reports of the Captain of the Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush,”
dated the 4th, 11th, and 18th ultimo, reporting the seizures of the British steam-
schooner ‘‘Anna Beck” on the 2nd, the British steam-schooner ‘ W. P. Sayward”
on the 9th, the britishsteam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin” on the 12th, and the British steam-
schooner ‘‘ Grace” on the 17th ultimo.

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) C. 8. FAIRCHILD, Secretary.

[Inclosure 2 in No, 51.]
Captain Shepard, U. S. R. M., to Mr. Fairchild.

UNITED STATES REVENUE MARINE STEAMER ‘ RUSH,”
Ounalaska, A, T., July 4, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to report to the Department the seizure on the 30th June of
the schooner ‘‘Challenge” of Seattle, Washington Territory, H. B. Jones, master,
and Albert Douglas, of Seattle, Washington Territory, President of the Douglas Fur
Company, managing owner, for violation of section 1961, Revised Statutes,—the
having skins of female fur-seal and skins of unborn seal on board, which latter the
captain and mate admitted were taken from the female seal killed by themselves or
the crew of the vessel.

The “Challenge” when found was anchored at Akoutau Island, Alaska: I took
her in tow of the ‘‘Rush,” and proceeded to Ounalaska and delivered her skins, 151
in number, to the United States Deputy Marshal at this place, and have taken her
arms and ammunition on board the ‘‘ Rush” for safe keeping.

The crew, consisting of fifteen men all told, were shipped at Port Townsend, Wash-
ington Territory, by H. Bash, United States Shipping Commissioner, and were’
found present, excepting Wm. Couratz, of Germany, seaman, whom Captain Jones’
reports was taken sick and sent ashore at Goose Island, British Columbia, and Hines,
an Indian of British Columbia, was shipped in his stead at that place.

On the 2nd July, in latitude 54° 58’ north and longitude 167° 26’ west, Cape Cheer-
; ful, Ounalaska Island, bearing south-east } east, 66 miles, I boarded and exam-
81 ined the British steam-schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck,” of Victoria, British Columbia,

Louis Olsen, master, Joe Bosquit, of Victor.a, British Columbia, managing
owner, on a sealing voyage, and having about 334 seal-skins on board, nineteen of

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 99

which the captain admitted were taken in Bebring’s Sea. His boats had recently
been taken out of the water, and considerable fresh seal blood and gurry were found
on deck, indicating that seal had been skinned and dressed on board that day. I
seized the vessel for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes, took in tow, and pro-
ceeded to Ounalaska. ‘This vessel was seen on the 30th June, in nearly the same
position as when we found her, by Captain Aage, of the steamer “‘ Dora,” with sey-
eral boats out hunting seal.

I found on board acrew of nineteen men all told (seven white and twelve Indians),
and the captain reported that on the 30th June two boats containing two Indiaus
each were lost in the fog and could not be found, in addition to the above number.

I have delivered the ‘‘ Anna Beck,” with outfit and 334 seal-skins, to the United
States Deputy Marshal at Ounalaska. No arms or ammunition were found on board.
As the officers of these vessels have to be taken before the United States District
Court at Sitka for trial, to which place there is no estallished mode of conveyance
from here, I have placed the officers and crews of both vessels on board the schooner
“Challenge” and dispatched Benjamin Lorenzen, one of the crew of this vessel, duly
qualified as a Deputy United States Marshal, in charge, to Sitka, with instructions
on his arrival at that place to deliver the vessel, captains, and mates to the United
States Marshal, and to set the crews at liberty, Lorenzen to remain at Sitka until
the arrival of the ‘‘ Rush” at the end of the season.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 51.] 5

Captain Shepard, U. S. R. M., to Mr. Fairchild.

UNITED STATES REVENUE MARINE STEAMER ‘ RUSH,”
Ounalaska, Alaska, July 11, 1887.

Str: I have the honour to inform the Department that on the 9th July in the Beh-
ring’s Sea, latitude 54° 43’ north, longitude 167° 51’ west, Cape Cheerful, Ounalaska
Island, bearing south-east, true 59 miles distant, I boarded and examined the British
schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” 59.79 tons register, of Victoria, British Columbia, Geo.
R. Ferry, master, and W. D. Warren, of Victoria, British Columbia, managing owner,
and found her to be on a sealing voyage—had been four days in the Behring’s Sea.

The captain reported 485 seal-skins on board, sixty-four of which were taken in
the Behring’s Sea. Found the vessel under short sail, and-one canoe and two Indians
out hunting seal.

Her crew consisted of six white men all told, and seventeen Indians from British
Columbia, and two Indians belonging to the crew of the British schooner *‘Anna
Beck,” who had lost that vessel ina fog. I took charge of the vessel’s papers and
seized her for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes; took her in tow and pro-
ceeded to Ounalaska, arriving at midnight.

I have delivered the 485 seal-skins tound on board to the United States Deputy
Marshal at this place, and will send the vessel and her crew to Sitka, Alasks, in
charge of one of the crew of this vessel duly qualified asa United States Deputy
Marshal, with instructions to deliver the vessel with her outfit, the captain and
mate, to the United States Marshal at Sitka on arrival at that port, and to set the
crew at liberty.

Lam, &c.
(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 51.]
Captain Shepard, U. S. R. M., to Mr. Fairchild.

UNITED STATES REVENUE MARINE STEAMER “ RusSH,”
Ounalaska, Alaska, July 18, 1887.

Srr: I have the honoiir to inform the Department that on the 12th July in the
Behring’s Sea, latitude 54° 38’ north, longitude 167° 30’ west, Cape Cheerful, Ouna~
laska Island, bearing south-east + south, 40 miles distant, I boarded and examined

the British steam-sSchooner ‘‘ Dolphin,” 60,1; tons register, of. Victoria, British _
82 Columbia, J. D. Warren, master and managing owner, and found her to be on
a sealing voyage. ‘The vessel had been three days in the Behring’s Sea, and
had 618 seal-skins on board. ‘Ten canoes and one boat were out hunting seal at the
time. From the canoes twelve or more dead seal were taken on board the schooner
while we were near her, and three skins from seal recently killed were found in the

100 APPENDIX TO CASE OF ‘GREAT BRITAIN.

boat. Seized the vessel for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes, and trans-
ferred her arms and ammunition on board the ‘‘ Rush,” viz., 4 breech-loading rifles,
26 breech-loading shot guns, 10 muzzle-loading shot guns, 1 bomb gun, 4 revolvers,
3,404 rounds ammunition for breech-loading rifles, 250 rounds ammunition for shot
guns, 4 kegs powder, 50 lbs. shot and other small ammunition. Seized the 4 breech-
loading rifles and ammunition for same for violation of section 1955, Revised Stat-
utes, and section 4, Executive Order No. 53, dated the 4th May, 1887. I placed
Lieutenant Dunwoody in charge, with instructions to take her into Ounalaska,
where she arrived the following day. The crew consisted of seven white men and
twenty-six Indians from British Columbia.

On the 17th July, in the Behring’s Sea, latitude 55° 3/ north, longitude 168° 40/ west,
Cape Cheerful, Ounalaska Island, bearing south-east 4 east, 96 miles distant, I boarded
and examined the British steam-schooner ‘‘ Grace,” 76,5; tons register, of Victoria,
British Columbia, William Petit, master, and J. D. Warren, of Victoria, British
Columbia, managing owner, and found her to be on a sealing voyage; had been ten
days in the Behring’s Sea, and had 769 seal-skins on board. When boarded she had
twelve canoes and one boat out hunting seal. Saw one seal shot and taken into the
boat while we were near her. Counted twelve seals taken on board the schooner from
one canoe, and all the canoes contained more or less seals recently killed. The cap-
tain reported taking ninety seals during the day and 150 the day previous. Seized
the vessel for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes, and two breech-loading
rifles and ammunition for same; for violation of section 1955, Revised Statutes, and
section 4, Executive Order No. 53, dated the 4th May, 1887.

Her crew consisted of 6 white men, 24 Indians, and 1 Chinaman. Placed Lieuten-
ant Benham in charge, and after waiting seven hours for her canoes to return—some
of which had been a long distance from the vessel—took her in tow and proceeded to
Ounalaska, arriving at 9.30 A.M. I have delivered the seal-skins from these vessels
to the United States Deputy Marshal at this place, and will send the vessels in
charge of men from this vessel duly qualified as United States Deputy Marshals to
Sitka, to be delivered to the United States Marshal for the district of Alaska.

By request of Captain J. D. Warren, of the ‘‘ Dolphin,” managing owner of the
schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck” (seized the 2nd July, as previously reported), I will send her
to Sitka in like manner.

Also on the 16th July, in the Bebring’s Sea, in latitude 55° 46’ north, longitude
170° 38’ west, Delnoi Point, St. George’s Island, bearing north 30° east, 68 miles dis-
tant, I boarded and examined the schooner ‘ Lily L.,” 63,43; tons register, of San
Francisco, California, J. W. Todd, master, and C. D. Ladd, of San Francisco, man-
aging owner, and found her to be on a sealing voyage. Had three boats out at the
time, one of which on returning to the vessel contained two seal recently killed.
Captain Todd and Mr. Ladd, representing the owner, admitted they came into these
waters for the purpose, and had taken seal in the Behring’s Sea, and claimed a right
to do so anywhere outside the 9-mile limit from the shore.

I seized the vessel for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes. There being
only two commissioned officers on board this vessel, I placed Boatswain Winslow on
board the schooner to represent the United States, and instructed her captain to
take her into Ounalaska, which he agreed to do, there being too much sea running
at the time to undertake to tow her to that place.

* On her arrival I will make further report to the Department.
Iam, &c. (Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

No. 52.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received September 7.)

ADMIRALTY, September 5, 1887.

Sir: I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty

to transmit to you herewith, for the perusal of the Marquis of Salisbury,

the accompanying copy of a letter of the 9th August from Rear-

83 Admiral Sir M. Culme-Seymour, with its inclosures, respecting

the seizure of the British Columbian sealing-schooners ‘Anna

Beck” and “ W. P. Sayward,” by an American Revenue steamer in the
Behring’s Sea.

I am to request that these documents may be forwarded to the Colo-
nial Office, with a request that they may eventually be returned to this
Department.

lam, &c. (Signed) R. D. AWDRY.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 101

'Ynclosure 1 in No, 52.]
Rear- Admiral Seymour to Admiralty.

‘¢ TRIUMPH,” AT ESQUIMALT, August 9, 1887.

Sir: In confirmation of my telegram of the 6th instant, I have the honour to report
the British Columbian sealing-schooners “Anna Beck,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” and “ W. P.
Sayward” were seized in the Behring’s Sea, between the 2nd and 12th July last, by
the American Revenue steamer ‘‘ Rush,” and were towed to Ounalaska,

Mr. Andrew Laing, mate and part owner of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” came down
here and returns to-day to Sitka. He has made the following statement to me:

“The ‘W. P. Sayward,’ of Victoria, entered Behring’s Sea on the 2d July, having
on board 479 skins, procured off the west coast of Vancouver Island, &c. On the 9th
she was seized by the ‘ Rush’ about 50 miles to the northward and westward of Ouna-
laska, and was towed to Ounalaska, which took twelve hours. The skins on board
were put into a lighter and taken to the Alaska Commercial Company’s store. A
quartermaster was put on board and the schooner sent to Sitka, the captain and
myself being brought before Judge Dawson and bound over to appear on the 22nd
August to answer a charge of ‘killing seals in American waters.’

““No seals whatever had been taken since we entered Behring’s Sea.”

Iam informed that as the ‘‘Olympian,” an American excursion steamer, was leaving
Sitka, she saw a steamer coming in with several schooners in tow. :

I inclose a copy of the indictment against the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” a copy of the
declaration made by Mr. Andrew Laing before a Notary Public at Victoria, and also
a cutting from the Victoria ‘‘ Daily Colonist.”

I have, &c.
(Signed) M. CULME-SEYMOUR.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 52.]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA.
United States v. Geo. R. Ferry and A. Laing.—Information.

DISTRICT OF ALASKA, 88.

George R. Ferry and A. Laing are accused by M. D. Ball, United States District
Attorney for Alaska, by this information, of the crime of killing fur seals within the
waters of Alaska Territory, committed as follows:

The said George R. Ferry and A. Laing, on the 8th day of July 4. D. 1887, in the
District of Alaska and within the jurisdiction of this Court, to wit, in Behring’s
Sea, within the waters of Alaska Territory, did kill ten fur seals, contrary to the
Statutes of the United States in such case made and provided, and against the peace
and dignity of the United States of America.

Dated at Sitka the 23rd day of July, 1887.

I, M. D. Ball, United States District Attorney for Alaska, being duly sworn, say
the within information is true, as I verily believe.

(Signed) M. C. D. BALL,
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 23rd day of July A. D. 1887.
(Signed) H. E. Haypon, Clerk,

By A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.
I certify that the within is a true copy of the information filed in the cause,

(Signed) H. E. Haypon, Clerk.
By A. A. MeyER, Deputy Clerk.
84 Personally appeared before me, Montague W. Tyrwhitt Drake, Notary Pub-

lic, duly authorized, admitted, and sworn, residing and practising in Victoria,
British Columbia, Andrew Laing, mate of the British schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward,”
who states the above-written information was served upon him by Mr. M. D. Ball on
the 23rd July, 1887.
(Signed) M. W. TyRWHITT DRAKE,
Notary Public.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 52.9
Declaration.

I, Andrew Laing, of Victoria, mate of the British schooner ‘* W. P. Sayward,” do
solemnly and sincerely declare that I left Victoria, British Columbia, in the schooner
“W.P. Sayward” on the 16th day of May, 1887, bound on a sealing voyage, with a

102 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

crew of seven men and sixtcen Indian hunters with eight canocs. We commenced
sealing off Cape Scott, on the north of Vancouver Island, and killed 479 fur-seals in
the Pacific Ocean. and entered the Behring’s Sea on the 2nd July, 1887, passing
between Umnack Island and the Island of the Four Mountains. The weather was
very thick and foggy, and we did no sealing in Behring’s Sea in consequence.

On the 9th July we were captured by the United States steamer ‘‘ Richard Rush,”
being then from 30 to 40 miles off the nearest land.

We were taken in tow to Ounalaska, where we arrived on the 10th July, and they
laid us alongside the steamer ‘St. Paul,” belonging to the Alaska Commercial
Company. They removed the seal-skins and took them ashore to the wharf and put
them in the Company’s warehouse, and they resalted the skins with salt taken from
our vessel. They put an officer from the ‘‘ Rush” on board and towed us out to sea
and told us to go to Sitka. We arrived there on the 22nd July, and on the next day
an investigation was held before Judge Dawson, who bound us over to appear on the
22nd August for trial. The vessel was left in charge of the United States officers,
and we were only allowed to remove our clothing. The Indians were left to find
their way home as they could; they were about 700 miles from their villages. I
further say that when we were taken I spoke to the Captain of the ‘‘ Rush” and told
him we had not taken a seal in Behring’s Sea; he replied: ‘‘J am sorry for you; I
have to obey orders, and take everything I come across in Behring’s Sea.” And I
make this solemn declaration by virtue of the Act passed in the thirty-seventh year
of Her Majesty’s reign, entituled, ‘An Act for the Suppression of Voluntary and
Extra-Judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) A. LAING.
Taken and declared before me at Victoria, this 8th day of August, 1887.
(Signed) M. W. Tyrwiutt Drake,

Notary Public.

{Inclosure 4 in No. 52.]
Extract from the “ Victoria Daily Colonist” of August 6, 1887.

SEALERS SEIZED.—ANOTHER PIRATICAL ACT BY THE AMERICAN REVENUE CUT-
TERS.—The “Olympian,” which arrived from Sitka yesterday, brought the startling
news that another lot of British and American schooners had been captured by the
Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush,” and taken to Sitka, and that as the steamer was leaving the
Revenue cutter again hove in sight, having a number of schooners in tow. Those
in Sitka are the Victoria schooners ‘‘Dolphin,” ‘‘Anna Beck,” ‘‘Grace,” ‘“W. P.
Sayward,” and the American schooner “ Challenger,” of Seattle. With the schooners
seized last year this makes seven British vessels now in charge of the Alaskan author-
ities, and they will, no doubt, be added to, as it seems the intention of the Americans
to seize every schooner that they can secure anywhere within the waters of Behring’s
Sea.

It was not thought probable that such measures would have been taken in the face
of information received from Washington and Ottawa; however, a lack of diplomacy
or of energy seems to have prevailed, and no decisive answer was given to the official
queries made to the United States authorities in regard to the programme they pur-
posed following during the present season.

The following statements of several of the captured sealers is taken from the
Alaskan” of the 30th July:

Captain Olsen, of the steam-schooner “‘ Anna Beck,” stated:

“T left Victoria on the 7th February last, clearing at the Custom-house for
85 the purpose of asealing and fishing trip to the west coast of Vancouver Island,
the North Pacific Ocean, and the Behring’s Sea.

“‘At the time the papers were issued by Mr. A. R. Milne, Collector of Customs, he
made no observation about my vessel fishing in Behring’s Sea; neither did I say
any thing to him. I supposed, from the fact that the papers were issued giving me
such permission, there was no reason why I should not fish in Behring’s Sea, and had
I anticipated that there would be any trouble I would not have started on a voyage
for such a purpose.

“Tt was the common talk amongst the people of Victoria that we were perfectly
safe in fishing, as the American Government would not make any seizures this season.
I don’t understand why my vessel was seized, as personally 1 was not engaged in
catching seals.” I purchase the seals from the Indians for the owners of the schooner,
and I have no control whatever on the natives after they leave the vessel in their
owncanoes. I am not responsible if they catch seals after they have left the schooner’s
side; they can come and go when they please.”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 103

George R. Ferry, the Captain, A. Laing, the mate and part owner of the British
schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” and Michael Keete, mate of the ‘‘Anna Beck,” said:

‘We have heard read the statement of Captain Olsen, and agree with it in every
particular.”

“Michael Keefe: ‘It is certainly a strange thing for the Custom-house at Victoria
to have issued papers to us permitting fishing in Behring’s Sea. If it was not legal,
why should the Collector have cleared the ‘vessel? The general idea of sailors is
that no Custom-house will issue papers to any vessel to go ‘and do an illegal act.’”

‘Captain H. B. Jones, of the American schooner ‘Ch allenger: ’_<T left Seattle on
the 15th April last, clearing at Port Townsend at the Custom-house for a hunting
and walrus trip to the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans. I sealed up the coast 30 or
40 miles from shore as far north as the Aleutian Islands. I have never fished for
seals in Behring’s Sea. My schooner was seized in Akutan Harbour, whither I pro-
ceeded for the purpose of cleaning the bottom of the vessel and taking i in a supply
of water. The harbour is on Akutan Island, situated nearer the Pac ific Ocean than
the Behring’s Sea. There are two passages between the North Pacific Ocean and the
Behring’s Sea at that point, one being through Akum Pass and the other through
Unimak Pass. ‘The Akum Pass being full of reefs and the Unimak Pass being com-
paratively safe I chose the latter, intending to clean my vessel and take in a supply
of water. When anchored there I had not quite decided whether to come back in the
Pacific Ocean or to keep on north, bound for the Arctic Ocean, my destination. The
charge against me is of catching seals in Alaskan waters, thatis, within 3 leagues of

‘shore. Any one who knows anything of sealing is aware that such a char ge is ridicu-
lous, as we never look for seals within 20 miles of shore. They are caught all the

way ‘from between 20 and 150 miles of the land. The seals we packed up on our ves-
sel were shot between Cape Flattery and Saunakh, situated 40 miles south and east
of Unimak Island. All this territory lies within the North Pacific Ocean.”

What makes the present seizures more inexplicable is the fact that the British
schooners seized last year were ordered to be released by Attorney-General Garland,
as is shown by the following copies of the orders in the possession of Carne and
Munsie, of this city:

(Copy of Telegram.]

“WASHINGTON, D. C., January 26, 1887.

“To Judge LAFAYETTE DAWSON and
“Mr. D. BALL, District Attorney, Sitka, Alaska:

“T am directed by the President to instruct you to discontinue all further proceed-
ings in the matter of the seizure of the British vessels ‘ Caroline,’ ‘Onward,’ and
Thornton,’ and discharge all vessels now held under such seizure, and release all
persons that may be under arrest in connection therewith.

(Signed) “A, H. GARLAND, Attorney-General.”

(Copy of Order. ]

“¢To BARTON ATKINS,
“¢ United States Marshal for the District of Alaska.
“Vou are hereby directed to release the vessels ‘Carolina,’ ‘Onward,’ ‘Thorn-
ton,’ and ‘San Diego,’ which were seized in Bebring’s Sea for violation of
86 section 1956, United ‘States Statutes, together with their tackle, apparel, skins,
guns, ammunition, small boats, and everything pertaining to said vessels.
“This 19th day of February, 1887.
(Signed) ‘“‘LAFAYETTE DAWSON,
*¢ District Judge, District of Alaska.”

Tt would appear from the above-that the United States had given up the foolish
‘contention of possessing the control over the high seas. The following letter was
received by Mr. Munsie fromthe Deputy Minister of Fisheries in reply to a letter:

“OTTAWA, April 2, 1887.

“Str: Having reference to your inquiry on the subject of claims for indemnity on
the part of the owners of the Canadian sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s Sea by the
United States Revenue cutter ‘Corwin,’ who have been arrested and released ; also
‘that the conclusion of any questions involved is reserved for the present; and to
‘inform you that the Government has forwarded to the Home Government the details
‘of your claim to be indemnified for the loss consequent upon the seizure of your
vessels.

“Tam, &c.
(Signed) ‘* JOHN TILTON,
“Deputy Minister of Fisheries.”

104 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Again, in answer to another letter, Mr. Munsie received the following reply:
“OTTAWA, July 26, 1887.

““DraR Sirs: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant,
addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which you state, ‘We have not
received a single word from the United States Government about the “release of
the vessels,” ’ referring, of course, to those seized last season.

‘On the 2nd April last I communicated to you the decision of the President of the
United States, in so far as releasing the vessels, &c., which letter you acknowledged.

“Have you made any application for the surrender of the vessels, or have you
reason to suppose the United States Government would communicate the action to
you by other means than the ordinary official channel?

‘This Department lost no time in communicating the decision in question to you,
with the expectation that you would at once take steps to regain possession of the
vessels.

“Tam, &c. (Signed) “JOuN TILTON,
“ Deputy Minister of Fisheries.”

From the above official orders of the American authorities and the correspondence
of the Dominion Government, sealers here were quite natural in believing that no
further seizures would be made during the present season. However, the reverse is
the case, and the American authorities have evidently fully prepared in order to do
as much injury as possible to the sealing interests outside those controlled by the
Alaska Commercial Company.

British and American sealers have fared alike. The latter probably the worst.
Owners of vessels here are naturally indignant at the turn of affairs, and think that
more definite information should have been given them before their vessels sailed as
to the intentions of the Americans. Now that they are seized they consider the
Imperial authorities should move at once in the matter, and demand instant redress
from the United States for a breach of international law, and for the damages sus-
tained by British subjects while legally fishing on the high seas. They are beginning
to wonder if, indeed, England is mistress of the seas when such high-handed pirat-
ical acts as those perpetrated last year, and again repeated this, are allowed to
occur without some protection being given to British subjects or redress secured
for damage done to property and interests at the hands of Americans.

From the ‘‘Alaskan” is also gathered the following in regard to the disposition of
this and last year’s seizures:

“Marshal Atkins has been notified by Deputy-Marshal Anderson of Ounalaska,
that the Commander of the steamer ‘Rush’ has delivered into his custody 964
fur seal-skins seized from the different prize vessels, the American schooner ‘Chal-
lenger,’ and the British schooners ‘W. P. Sayward’ and ‘Anna Beck.’ All the
above-mentioned seal-skins were packed and salted in a kinch in one of the
Alaska Commercial Company’s warehouses, awaiting further instruction from the

Marshal.
87 ‘The ‘Anna Beck’ has been dismantled and a complete inventory taken of
everything on board.

“The 2,082 seal-skins, the result of last year’s seizures, were shipped consigned to
the Marshal on the Alaska Commercial Company’s steamer ‘Dora,’ which left Ouna-
laska on the 8th July bound to San Francisco.

‘“Nineteen Indians and three sailors, belonging to the ‘W. P. Sayward,’ and two
of the ‘Challenger’s’ crew, left Sitka in the early part of the week on board several
canoes and one boat, en route for Victoria and Seattle. They took with them a large
supply of provisions furnished by the commander of the ‘Sayward.’

‘*Marshal Atkins has received advices from the Deputy-Marshal at Ounalaska
under a recent date, stating that the three British schooners seized last August in the
Behring’s Sea and now lying at Ounalaska are in good condition, every care having
been taken to protect them from injury. One of the vessels, which was in a leaky
condition when first captured, was beached in order to save continuous pumping.

“In the District Court on Tuesday morning, H. B. Jones, captain, and Carl Erick-
son, mate of the schooner ‘Challenger,’ Louis Olsen, captain, and Michael Keefe,
mate of the steam schooner ‘Anna Beck,’ and George R. Ferry, captain of the
schooner ‘W. P. Sayward,’ appeared before Judge Dawson and made an application
that they be permitted to surrender their bonds on the ground that they were devoid
of the funds necessary for their subsistence. The Court granted the application, and
ordered that the defendants be placed in the custody of the United States Marshal.

“The arms and ammunition seized on the schooners ‘City of San Diego’ and
‘Sierra’—comprising in all nine rifles and guns and about 1,400 cartridges—will be
sold by auction in Sitka on Monday, the 8th proximo, by the Marshal. The seized
arms and ammunition taken from the schooners ‘San Diego,’ ‘Thornton,’ and
‘Onward,’—comprising some fifty rifles, breech-loading guns and rifles, and several
thousand rounds of ammunition,—will be offered for sale at Juneau as soon as the
necessary instructions are received from Washington.”

|

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 105

BAYARD’S OPINION.

The following telegram is another unofficial announcement, and seems to be rather
out of harmony with the official acts of the commanders of the Revenue cutters:

“WASHINGTON, July 20.

“Secretary Bayard, when he was shown to-day a despatch from Ottawa, stating
that ‘the Dominion Government is protesting against the discourtesy shown by the
United States authorities in ignoring its demand for reparation for the seizure and
detention of the British Columbia sealers seized in Behring’s Sea last year,’ said :—‘ In
the first place, no demand was ever made to our Government by any body, either for
the release of the vessels in question or for damages for their detention; and, in the
second place, if any such demand had been made, it could not have come by any
possibility from the Dominion Government, with which we have absolutely no diplo-
matic relations whatsoever. The vessels in question were released upon representa-
tions of the British Government that they were British vessels. ‘They were released,
because our right to hold them was deemed too doubtful to be enforced. Our Gov-
ernment did what it believed to be right in the matter, without constraint from any
quarter. The probability is that the ‘‘Anna Beck,” alleged to be a British steam
schooner from Victoria, the arrest of which by the Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush” for alleged
violation of our Alaska Revenue Laws was reported yesterday, will be released the
same wayif the facts areas alleged. The claim that Behring’s Sea is a mare clausum
upon which the seizure ot foreign vessels for violating our Revenue Laws proceeds
seems to be untenable. We contended that it was not when Russia owned all the
territory on both sides of it. Now that we own half and Russia half, it seems im-
possible to maintain the mare clausum theory.’”

What course 6f action will be followed by the people here is not yet determined,
but some steps should be taken by the Local and Civic Governments in order to
convey the deep feeling of indignation entertained against the repeated acts of law-
lessness on the part of the American authorities, and their regret that better pro-
tection is not afforded our fishing interests.

A. Laing, mate of the “W. P. Sayward,” arrived down from Nanaimo last evening,
having left the ‘‘ Idaho” at that point. He corroborates the fact that the “Rush ”
was entering Sitka as the steamer left, having in charge a number of schooners, the
names of which were unknown. The Americans evidently intend to make a clean
sweep of the schooners sealing north this season. Portions of the crews of the
seized schooners are on the ‘‘Idaho” and will arrive over from Port Townsend to-day.

A number of sailors and Indians have started for Victoria in boats.
88 It was reported that Captain Miner, of the schooner ‘‘ Penelope,” had over-
powered the men put on his schooner as a prize crew, and was now on his way
to Victoria with his unwilling passengers.

No. 53.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir I. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 10, 1887.

Str: By a despatch of the 30th October last the late Earl of Iddes-
leigh instructed you to call the attention of the United States Secre-
tary of State to the circumstances of the seizure in Behring’s Sea, by
the American cruizer “Corwin,” of some British Canadian vessels; and
his Lordship directed you to state to Mr. Secretary Bayard that Her
Majesty’s Government felt sure that if the proceedings which were
reported to have taken place in the United States District Court were
correctly described, the United States Government would admit their
illegality, and would cause reasonable reparation to be made to the
British subjects for the wrongs to which they had been subjected and
for the losses which they had sustained.

By a previous despatch of the 9th September you had been desired
to ask to be furnished with any particulars which the United States
Government might possess relative to the seizures in question; and on
the 20th October you were instructed to enter a protest on behalf of
Her Majesty’s Government, and reserve for consideration hereafter all
Tights to compensation.

106 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Nearly four months having elapsed without any definite information
being furnished by the United States Government as to the grounds
of the seizures, my predecessor instructed you, on the 8th January last,
to express to Mr. Bayard the concern of Her Majesty’s Government at
the delay, and to urge the immediate attention of the United States
Government to the action of the American authorities in their treatment
of these vessels and of their masters and crews.

On the 3rd February Mr. Bayard informed you that the record of the
judicial proceedings which he had called for was shortly expected to
reach Washington, and that, without conclusion at that time of any
questions which might be found to be involved in these cases of seiz-
ures, orders had becn issued by the President’s direction for the discon-
tinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred
to, and the release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith.

On the 4th April, under instructions from me, you inquired of Mr.
Bayard, in view of the approaching fishing season in Behring’s Sea,
whether the owners of British vessels might rely when not near land
on being unmolested by the cruizers of the United States, and you
again asked when the record of the judicial proceedings might be
expected. Mr. Bayard informed you, in repty (12th April), that the
papers referred to had reached him and were being examined; that
there had been unavoidable delay in framing appropriate Regulations
and issuing orders to the United States vessels to police the Alaskan
waters; that the Revised Statutes relating to Alaska, Sections 1956
and 1971, contain the Laws of the United States in relation to the
matter; and that the Regulations were being considered, and he would
inform you at the earliest day possible what had been decided, so that
British and other vessels might govern themselves accordingly.

In view of the statements made by Mr. Bayard in his note of the 3rd
February, to which I have referred above, Her Majesty’s Government
assumed that, pending a conclusion of the discussion between the two
Governments on the general question involved, no further similar seiz-
ures of British vessels would be made by order of the United States
Government. They learn, however, from the contents of Mr. Bayard’s
note of the 13th August last, inclosed in your despatch of the 15th
August, that such was not the meaning which he intended should be
attached to his communication of the 3rd February; and they deeply
regret to find a proof of their misinterpretation of the intentions of the
United States Government from an announcement recently received
from the Commander in-chicf of Her Majesty’s naval forcesin the Pacific,
that several more British vessels engaged in seal-hunting in Behring’s
Sea have been seized when a long distance from land by an American
Revenue vessel. :

Her Majesty’s Government have carefully considered the transcript of
record of the judicial proceedings in the United States District Court

in the several cases of the schooners “Carolina,” “Onward,” and
89 “Thornton,” which were communicated to you in July, and were

transmitted to me in your despatch of the 12th of that month,
and they cannot find in them any justification for the condemnation of
those vessels.

The libels of information allege that they were seized for killing fur-
seal within the limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof,
in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States; and the United States Naval Commander Abbey certainly
affirmed that the vessels were seized within the waters of Alaska and
the Territory of Alaska; but according to his own evidence they were

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 107

seized 75, 115, and 70 miles respectively south-south-east of St. George’s
Island.

It is not disputed, therefore, that the seizures in question were
effected at a distance from land far in excess of the limit of maritime
jurisdiction which any nation can claim by international law, and it is
hardly necessary to add that such limit cannot be enlarged by any
municipal law.

The claim thus set up appears to be founded on the exceptional title
said to have been conveyed to the United States by Russia at the time
of the cession of the Alaska Territory. The pretension which the
Russian Government at one time put forward to exclusive jurisdiction
over the whole of Behring’s Sea was, however, never admitted either
by this country or by the United States of America. On the contrary,
it was strenuously resisted, as I shall presently show, and the Ameri-
can Government can hardly claim to have received from Russia rights
which they declared to be inadmissible when asserted by the Russian
Government. Nor does it appear from the text of the Treaty of 1867
that Russia either intended or purported to make any such grant; for,
by Article I of that instrument, Russia agreed to cede to the United
States all the territory and dominion then possessed by Russia ‘“‘on the
Continent of America and in the adjacent islands” within certain geo-
graphical limits described, and no mention was made of any exclusive
right over the waters of Behring’s Sea.

“Moreover, whatever rights as “regards their respective subjects and
citizens may be reciprocally conferred on the Russian and American
Governments by Treaty stipulation, the subjects of Her Majesty cannot
be thereby affected, except by special arrangement with this country.

With regard to the exclusive claims advanced in times past by Russia,
I transmit to you documents communicated to the United States Con-
gress by President Monroe in 1822, which show the view taken by the
American Government of these pretensions.

In 1821 the Emperor of Russia had issued an Edict establishing:
“Rules for the limits of navigation and order of communication along
the coast of the Eastern Siberia, the north-western coast of America,
and the Aleutian, Kurile, and other islands.”

The first section of that Edict said: “The pursuit of commerce, whal-
ing, and fishery, and of all other industry on all islands, ports, and gulfs,
including the whole of the north-west coast of America, beginning from
Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree of northern latitude; also from the
Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the
Kurile Islands from Behring’s Straits to the south Cape of the Island
of Urup, viz., to the 45° 50’ of northern latitude, is exclusively granted
to Russian subjects;” and section 2 stated: ‘It is, therefore, prohibited
to all foreign vessels not only to land on the coast and islands belonging
to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within less than
100 Italian miles. The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confiscation,
along with the whole cargo.”

A copy of these Regulations was officially communicated to the A meri-
can Secretary of State by the Russian Minister at Washington on the
ith February, 1822; whereupon Mr. Quincey Adams, on the 25th of
that month, after informing him that the President of the United States
had seen with surprise the assertion of a territorial claim on the part of
Russia, extending to the 51st degree of north latitude on the American
Continent, and a Regulation interdic ting to all commercial vessels other
than Russian, upon the penalty of seizure and confiscation, the approach
upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the shores ‘to which that

108 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

claim was made to apply, went on to say that it was expected before
any act which should define the boundary between the territories of the
United States and Russia, that the same would have been arranged by
Treaty between the parties, and that “to exclude the vessels of Ameri-
can citizens from the shore beyond the ordinary distance to which terri-
torial jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise;” and Mr.
Adams asked whether the Russian Minister was authorized to give
explanations of the “‘ grounds of right, upon principles generally recog-
nized by the laws and. usages of nations, which can warrant the claims
and Regulations.”
90 The Russian Minister, in his reply, dated the 28th February,
after explaining how Russia had acquired her possessions in North
America, said:

“‘T ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, Sir, that the
Russian possessions in the Pacific Ocean extend on the north- west coast
of America from Behring’s Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude,
and on the opposite side of Asia and the islands adjacent from the same
Strait to the 45th degree. Theextent of sea of which these possessions
form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are ordinarily
attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées’), and the Russian Government
might consequently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea
the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the
entrance of foreigners; but it preferred only asserting its essential
rights without taking advantage of localities.”

On the 30th March Mr. Adams replied to the explanations given by
the Russian Minister. He stated that, with respect to the pr retension
advanced in regard to territory, it must be considered not only with
reference to the question of territorial rights, but also to that prohibi-
tion to the vessels of other nations, including those of the United
States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. That from
the period of the existence of the United States as an independent
nation their vessels had freely navigated these seas, the right to navi-
gate them being a part of that independence; and with regard to the
suggestion that “the Russian Government might have justified the
exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, ‘ because
it claims territory both on its American and Asiatic shores,’ it may
suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore on this sea, in lati-
tude 51° north, is not less than ninety degrees of longitude, or 4,000
miles.” Mr. Adams concluded as follows: ‘“‘The President is persuaded
that the citizens of this Union will remain unmolested in the prose-
eution of their lawful commerce, and that no effect will be given to an
interdiction manifestly incompatible with their rights.”

The Convention between the United States of America and Russia
of the 17th April, 1824, put an end to any further pretension on the
part of Russia to restrict navigation or fishing in Behring’s Sea so far

as American citizens were concerned ; for by “Article I it was agreed
that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific
Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High
Contracting Powers shall neither be disturbed nor restrained, either in
navigation or fishing, saving certain restrictions which are not material
to the present issue; and a similar stipulation in the Convention
between this country and Russia in the following year (15th May, 1825)
put anend, as regarded British subjects, to the pretensions of Russia
to which I have referred, and which had been entirely repudiated by
Her Majesty’s Government in correspondence with the Russian Gov-
ernment in 1821 and 1822, which for your more particular information
I inclose herein.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 109

Her Majesty’s Government feel sure that, in view of the considera-
tions which I have set forth in this despatch, which you will communi-
cate to Mr. Bayard, the Government of the United States will admit
that the seizure and condemnation of these British vessels, and the
imprisonment of their masters and crews, were not warranted by the
circumstances, and that they will be ready to afford reasonable com-
pensation to those who have suffered in consequence, and issue imme-
diate instructions to their naval officers which will prevent a recurrence
of these regrettable incidents.

Tam, We. :
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 54.
Sir H. Holland to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

DOWNING STREET, September 14, 1887.

My Lorp: With reference to previous correspondence, I have the
honour to acquaint you, for the information of your Ministers, that the
Marquis of Salisbury caused to be referred to the Law Officers the corre-
spondence which has passed respecting the seizure of the three British
sealing-vessels, the “Thornton,” the *‘ Carolina,” and the ‘* Onward,” by
the United States Revenue cruizer “Corwin,” in Behring’s Sea, and that
they advised that a claim for compensation might properly be made
against the United States Government.

I telegraphed to you on the 7th instant that it was proposed to prefer

a claim for compensation against the United States Government,
91 and inquiring what amount your Ministers would suggest; but as

at present advised it does not seem to me desirable to put forward
the claims which accompanied your despatch of the 15th January, as
some of them are apparently much exaggerated, and a new issue would
be raised as to the reasonableness of the claims.

In the meantime, the Marquis of Salisbury has addressed the despatch,
of which I inclose a copy,* to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,
desiring him to communicate it to the Secretary of State.

Your Ministers will no doubt take this matter into consideration at
the earliest moment.

I have, Sc.
(Signed) H, T. HOLLAND.

No. 55.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 15.)

WASHINGTON, September 6, 1887.
My Lorn: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
an article from the “New York Times” on maritime jurisdiction in Beh-
ring’s Sea,
I have, We.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

*No. 53.

110 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{Inclosure in No. 55.]}
Extract from the ‘‘ New York Times” of September 5, 1887.

A DisPUTED OCEAN.—When the new Fisheries ‘‘ Commission,” as Mr. Bayard insists
it should not be called, was first announced in Parliament, it was said that its scope
would be limited to the controversy between Canada and the United States. But
in response to Mr. Gourlay’s inquiry, it was subsequently added that the question of
including the Alaska seal fisheries was under consideration. It is therefore none too
early for public opinion to begin seriously to shape itself ona question about which
much less has been said than in the interminable codfish squabble. It is, moreover,
a very pretty question in itself, that of our rights in Behring’s Sea, and involves
issues of no slight intrinsic value.

As everybody knows, Russia regarded Behring’s Sea as hers, just as we regard
Delaware and Chesapeake Bays as ours, to compare little things with big. Then
Russia ceded to us the coast on one side of this little ocean, together with one-half
the ocean itself. Next, Congress sold the right of catching seals in what we will
call “our” part of that ocean. And now the question of our rights arises upon the
catching red-handed poachers who happen to be British. Itis intimated that Russia
could not convey to us what she did not own herself, and that when we bought
Alaska we took in fact much less than the deed, that is the Treaty, recited.

The merits of the question are of course involved in Russia’s rights. Her exclu-
sive rights were not conceded, but, on the contrary, were promptly attacked when
they were announced in the Ukase of 1821. The title was thus clouded, but it was
not invalidated. Russia’s last word was that, although she did not care to argue
about her rights, whoever invaded them did so at his peril. Instead of quarrelling,
Russia and the United States agreed that the citizens of both countries should have
unrestrained privileges in those waters. In other words, although Russia’s right of
exclusion of Americans was disputed, it was deemed good enough by us in 1824 to
be the basis of abargain. Great Britain made a similar Treaty the next year. The
British Treaty is still in force, we suppose, over the western, or Russian half of Beh-
ring’s Sea. Great Britain’s rights in the western half are therefore based on the
same title as ours in the eastern. Shecannot admit the rights of the Czar and deny
those of the United States. On the other hand, the United States are not thus
involved. We protested against the pretensions of the Czar because they injured
American commerce. But, having acquired the Czar’s asserted rights by purchase,
we are now as much interested in defending them as we before were in attacking
them. At the very least we can require that whoever questions those rights should
come into Court with clean hands. That means much in connection with this topic,

as can readily be made clear.
92 Russia’s rights are attacked on the very simple ground that she might as

well have annexed the open ocean as Behring’s Sea. Russia’s position was
that the Aleutian Isles, scattered along in a chain between Asia and America, cut
off that northern portion of the Pacific Ocean and made it an interior sea, like Hud-
son’s Bay, in British North America, or like the Gulf of California. The claim
would be more readily conceded if the Aleutian Isles were more contiguous. As
matter of fact, 900 miles of blue water separate the westernmost island from the
most eastern extension of Russian mainland. But between the two most separated
islands the distance, it must be admitted, is considerably less. Still, it would be
enough to overthrow the mare clausum theory were the attack made by any other
nation than England. That ‘‘closed sea” theory is briefly an agreement among
nations that so many of them as have sea-coasts may annex so much of the ocean as
they can control, and control is construed to extend as far as a cannon-ball can
reach. That is the antiquated theory on which exclusive maritime jurisdiction is
conceded by nations to one another over the ocean 3 miles from shore. Of course,
if two capes were only 3 miles apart the interior sea beyond them would, on the
strict mare clausum contention, be conceded to the nation owning the capes, but not
otherwise.

But neither England nor the United States should push this closed sea argument
too hard or too far. England once claimed to own the entire ocean surrounding the
British Isles, and in 1806 the United States thought it ought to be conceded a right
to exclude belligerents from the Atlantic Ocean between the Gulf Stream and the
mainland. To abandon extreme positions and come down to the contentions of
to-day, England, which denies to Russia the right to define its possessions by
imaginary lines drawn from island to island, assumes to itself the right to exclude
Americans from the open ocean included by an imaginary line from headland to
headland. Who seeks equity must do equity. The English must not both keep
their codfish and grab our seals. On the other hand, by the strictest technical
argument it might be that we conld both keep what Russia sold us and get what
England unjustly denies us, Seeretary Bayard has given abundant intimation of

APFENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 111

his opinion that a plenary Council would limit the rights which the Czar assumed
to convey to us. It is given out that the proper thing would be to arrange upon
rules for all to observe regarding seal-fishing. Perhaps so. But that leaves the
dispute of right and title untouched, and who can say in what form it may return
to plague us? Moreover, while Americans are doubtless prepared to yield what
others justly claim, still, there should be no surrender before challenge.

No. 56.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 15, 1887.

Srr: It appears from the transcript of the record of the judicial pro-
ceedings in the cases of the schooners “Carolina,” ‘*Onward,” and
“Thornton,” forwarded in your despatch of the 12th July last, that in
each case notice was given of appeal from the finding of the District
Court.

I have to request that you will ascertain whether the owners of the
vessels have taken steps to prosecute the appeal, and if so, when such
appeal may be expected to come on for hearing.

Iam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 57.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received September 16.)

DOWNING STREET, September 15, 1887.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of two despatches from the
Governor-General of Canada, forwarding papers respecting the recent
seizure of British sealing-vessels by a United States Revenue cutter in
Bebring’s Sea.

lam, &e. (Signed) RoBerT G. W. HERBERT.

93 {Inclosure 1 in No. 57.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

NEW DERREEN, NEW RICHMOND, P. Q., August 19, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to inclose herewith, for your information, copies of a Report
which has been received by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries from the Collector
of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, in regard to the seizure of the sealers
“Grace,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” and ‘‘W. P. Sayward” by the United States Revenue cutter
“Richard Rush.”

2. I beg to call your especial attention to the deposition inclosed in Mr. Hamley’s
Report of Captain Laing, of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward.” You will observe that Captain
Laing states positively that the seals of which the skins were found on board his
vessel were not taken in the Behring’s Sea.

3. It is scarcely necessary to dwell upon the grievous hardship occasioned by these
seizures, for which, as far as I am aware, no justification has yet been forthcoming,
not only to the owners and to the officers and crews, but to the Indian hunters on
board who were, it appears, left to find their way home as they could from Sitka to
their own villages, distant about 700 miles from that place.

Ihave, &e, (Signed) LANSDOWNE.

112 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 57.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

TuE CITADEL, Quebec, August 27, 1887.

Sir: With reference to my despatch of the 19th instant, in regard to the seizure of
the sealers “Grace,” ‘ Dolphin,” and ‘‘W. P. Sayward” by the United States Revenue
cutter “Richard Rush,” Ihave the honour to forward herewith copy of an approved
Minute of the Privy Council of Canada, to which are appended copies of the following
documents :

1. A letter from H. Hamley, Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, to
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

2. The affidavit of Andrew Laing, mate of the seized schooner “ Sayward,” sworn
to at Victoria on the 8th August, 1887.

3. The information filed in the District Court of the United States for the District
of Alaska against the master and mate of the ‘‘Sayward.”

It is requested that these papers, copies of which were inclosed in my above-
mentioned despatch, may be transmitted to the Foreign Office, in order that aremon-
strance may be addressed to the United States Government against the unwarrant-
able action of the Commander of the ‘‘Rush,” and a claim made for all damages
arising from the seizure of the “Sayward,” and the detention of her officers and
crew.

I have, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 57.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on August 23, 1857.

On a Report, dated the 17th August, 1887, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting, with reference to the seizure by the United States steamer “‘ Rich-
ard Rush” on the 9th July last, in the Behring’s Sea, of the British schooner “‘ W.
P. Sayward,” of Victoria, the following papers:

1. A letter from W. Hamley, Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia,
to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries;

2. The affidavit of Andrew Laing, mate of the seized schooner, sworn to at Vic-
toria on the 8th August, 1887; and

3. The information filed in the District Court of the United States for the District
of Alaska against the master and mate of the ‘“‘Sayward;”

The Minister observes that, upon reference to the affidavit of the mate of

94 the schooner ‘‘Sayward,” it appears that all the seals on board the vessel

were taken in the Pacific Ocean, and before the vessel entered the Behring’s

Sea, so that even the alleged claim on the part of the United States Government to

jurisdiction in the Behring’s Sea is not available in the case now complained of;

and would also call attention to the reply of the Commander of the United States

steamer ‘‘ Richard Rush,” in which he states his orders were ‘‘to take everything
he came across in the Behring’s Sea.”

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward copies of the
annexed papers to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the
Colonies, for transmission to the Foreign Office, in order that a remonstrance may be
made to the United States Government for so unwarrantable an act as that com-
mitted by the Commander of the ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and a claim made for all damages
arising out of the seizure of the schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” in the open sea, and the
detention of her officers and crew, and also that copies of the papers be sent to Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington.

All which is respectfully submitted for your iixcellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 57.]

Mr. Hamley to the Hon. G. E. Foster. ,

CustoM-Houss, Victoria, August 9, 1887.
Sir: On the 5th instant I sent you word by telegram that three more Canadian
vessels had been seized in Behring’s Sea, and sent to Sitka, ‘‘Grace,” “ Dolphin,”
and ‘““W.P. Sayward.” This news reached us by the steamer ‘‘ Olympian,” and, the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Lis

day following, the mate of the ‘ W. P. Sayward,” one of the seized vessels, came
down on the steamer ‘“‘Idaho.” I had him here at the custom-house, and his state-
ment in some particulars was so important that I thought it desirable that it should
be taken down before a notary public, and the deposition forwarded to you. I
inclose it herewith. The seizure was made on the 9th July by the master of the
Revenue cutter “Rush” in Bebring’s Sea, from 30 to 40 miles from any land; the |
mate denies that any seal was killed in Behring’s Sea; the skins, 479 in number, all
taken, he says, in the Pacific, were lodged in the Alaska Company’s warehouse at
Ounalaska, and the vessel herself sent to Sitka. There is no doubt now, from the
declaration of the master of the United States Revenue cutter made openly on the
deck of the “‘ W. P. Sayward,” that, in seizing this and other Canadian vessels, he
was acting under direct instructions from the United States Government.

I forward also the information laid in the District Court at Sitka by the United
States Attorney Ball against the master and mate of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward.” The
indictments against the masters and mates of the other vessels are in the same form
and terms—the complaint being that they had killed fur-seals in Behring’s Sea, con-
trary to the Statutes of the United States, and against the peace and dignity of the
United States of America. The case is to be heard in the District Court at Sitka on
the 22nd of this month. The mate of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” was allewed out on
bail in 500 dollars, and returned last night for the trial.

I have, &c.

(Signed) W. HAMLEy.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 57.)
Declaration of Andrew Laing.

(See inclosure 3 in No. 52.)

95 [Inclosure 6 in No. 57.]
In THE DistTricT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
The United States v. George R. Ferry and A. Laing.—Information.

(See inclosure 2 in No. 52.)

No. 58.

,

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received September 26.)

DOWNING STREET, September 24, 1887,

Sir: With reference to recent correspondence, I am directed by
Secretary Sir Henry Holland to transmit to you, for such action upon
it as the Marquis of Salisbury may think proper to take, a telegram
received this day from the Governor-General of Canada, relating to
the question of the release of the British Columbian sealing-vessels
seized by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea.

This telegram appears to relate to the vessels seized last year.

I am to request to be informed of any communication which may be
made to the United States Government in order that a reply may be
sent to the Governor-General.

Lam, Xe.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,
BS, Pr v——8

114 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{Inclosure in No. 58.—Telegraphic.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Colonial Office.

SEPTEMBER 238, 1887.

I understand that, after Mr. Bayard’s announcement of the 3rd February respect-
ing Beliring’s Sea seizures, instructions were sent in accordance with it to the Alaska
authorities by telegraph; that an instrument for the release of the vessels was
thereupon issued by the District Judge, but that subsequently, on the assumption
that the telegram was forged, herescinded the order; that no steps have been taken
by the Department since; the vessels are still detained.

My Government trusts the facts will be inquired into.

No. 59.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 27, 1887.

Sir: I transmit to you, for your information, a copy of a letter from
the Colonial Office,* inclosing a telegram from the Governor-General
of Canada, from which it appears that the British schooners ‘Caro-
lina,” “Onward,” and ‘‘Thornton,” referred to in your despatch of the
4th February last, have not yet been released.

In his note of the 3rd February, inclosed in your above-mentioned
despatch, Mr. Bayard stated that ‘‘orders have been issued, by the
President’s direction, for the discontinuance of all pending proceed:
ings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all
persons under arrest in connection therewith.”

Her Majesty’s Government regret to learn that delay has taken place
in the release of the three vessels, and I have to instruct you to inquire
the reason why the directions of the President, as above quoted, have
not been carried out.

Lam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

96 No. 60.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 27, 1887.

Sir: I transmit to you herewith copies of two despatches addressed
to Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies by the Governor-
General of Canada,t forwarding papers relative to the seizure in Beh-
ring’s Sea by the United States Revenue cutter “Richard Rush” of
three British Colombian vessels, the “Grace,” the “Dolphin,” and the
ow. P. Sayward.”

I have to request that you will make a representation to the United
States Government on the subject of the seizure and detention of
these vessels in connection with the representations which I instructed
you to make in the cases of the ‘ Onward,” the “Carolina,” and the
“Thornton,” and that you will reserve all rights to compensation on
behalf of the owners and the crews.

* No. 58. + Inclosures in No. 57.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 115

You should point out to Mr. Bayard that in the case of the “W. P.
Sayward,” according to the deposition of her mate no seals had been
taken by her crew in Behring’s Sea as is alleged in the libel of infor-
mation filed on behalf of the United States District Attorney in the
District Court of Alaska.

Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 61.
Memorandum communicated by Baron Plessen, October 5, 1887.

The Imperial Government would like to know what are the views of
Her Britannic Majesty’s Government with regard to the American
proposal for an International Convention for the protection of seals in
the Behring’s Sea.

No. 62.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 6.)

[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, September 23, 1887.

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship’s
despatch of the 10th instant, and to inform your Lordship that I com-
municated it this day to the Secretary of State, and, at his request,
left a copy of it in his hands.

No. 63.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received October 6.)

ADMIRALTY, October 4, 1887.

Srr: I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, copy of a letter from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific
Station, dated the 14th September, inclosing a list of the schoouers
that have been sealing, extracted from the “ Victoria Colonist” news-
paper, dated the 13th September.

A similar letter has been sent to the Colonial Office.

Iam, We.
(Signed) Evan MACGREGOR.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 63.]
Rear-Admiral Culme-Seymour to Admiralty.

““TRIUMPH,” AT ESQUIMALT, September 14, 1887.
Sir: The sealing season being now over, I have the honour to inclose a list of the
schooners that have been sealing, cut from the ‘ Victoria Colonist” of yesterday’s
date. It is not yet known whether the five vessels ‘‘to arrive” have been seized or
not, but they are overdue here.

116 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

97 With reference to the schooner ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” I am credibly informed she
was boarded by the American Revenue schooner in Behring’s Sea, her skins

(1,300 in number) taken out, as well as her arms, and she was told to proceed to

Sitka. No one being put on board, the captain brought his vessel down here.

No orders whatever have ever been received here with regard to the release of the
schooners seized last year, which are now, I believe, high and dry at Ounalaska,
wormeaten and worthless.

I have, &c.
(Signed) M. CULME-SEYMOUR.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 63.]
Extract from the “Daily Colonist,” Victoria, B. C., of September 13, 1887.

LIST OF VESSELS ARRIVED, WITH THEIR TOTAL CATCH; THOSE TO ARRIVE; SCHOON-
ERS SEIZED.

The following is the list of sealing schooners which have arrived in port with their
northern catches; also those to arrive and those seized. The coast catch by Indians
and the spring catch by American sealers disposed of in Victoria are also appended:

VESSELS ARRIVED.

Spring | Northern
Name. Cotes catch, | Dotal.
IPALHMNG GIs cone cence sees wicisees <0 cn ccecc ccs nics «aeseneceeeeememmeee eters 400 2, 377 2, 817
Penelope ....--------- ---- + eee ee ee ee een een ee eee n ee 1, 000 1, 500 2, 500
Mary Ellen.........--------------------- 2222+ 2-222 eee eee ee tee eee 367 2, 090 2, 457
Ib Lane ee se agasaeecr ose cous Geman se ose qoosemcencsae cons soeSe sic 400 2, 600 3, 000
iti eG Yee REE Be ee es oppsereerdseseac seed ansomcnsecons> some sse 200 800 1, 000
Ie ht) (CG) ae ea eee SO SeEeeenaseee ror Saisn= = Sen schos ss 5-2 sorce so 400 687 1, 087
Type JUSTO haa S Sabor BESO OBS SEE oSSeOead Saad SsbaccorisconsocgasectoadsoSsGsesassas¢ 964) |o=. cee
Wate | Arise 620 IDS dace ce ~ simon - a SSS oda ee 164 1,350| 1,514

PAW sa ee ata s ciniete a asian main cielo wie wisie oto wie eecie Siete laa orale lalate. es eiatetsietetateietetetetstetas 349: In wwonawcadlseonceste
TMG) 262 Sag 86eg GS 6eS Se COD DBEBEeo bere SemoscesnosopoopddEC Co nobsadce scn0OaN

TES be) Seo OSB eSB Se IEBeE OCONEE EEEe pomp oooaor ih sscmohe ssccdsce sea Sconce 1, 030 |.---------|--2+s006
{UWE ST = Se ee DADO SS HO CUO DCOOUG DESU BUD pp caDmopace cronesScnscbecsnoeocoass 307 ||| <candceanl|Beeeeese
Triumph .......-..---------- 22-22 eee eee eee eee ee ee cere ce eee eee Tein n= se 21 |ecacceencn|onenscee

INA nhe > SSeeee oesor Hon SO EOS oer een Soca Doec SeSentoncsse=occiseo sc esse
GTaCe eesentceesisa\c =i cem- some ai ed
PAGING HOCK 5 ss + a-o = =i oe

W. P. Sayward
PRMITTCUPNO ANS csccia ccc ceesicccs=is\s

The number of seals caught by American schooners and sold in this city is as

follows: 5

lala ert Ssh aa? eS OBE or CCe eee eeReREmeee ss -ios cc oaoane mosses caceatcoce aococasc 436
Syiliviashiandy s-.2.5: 52202. cote s Cece pe can errs eee eee eee ee eee See ereeetaoe 139
Nan JOSOce nea d + assis cide es. occ cce cence co cices Seber eee eee ee eee 197
CitysotySan-Dieg or. -:<\ 222 cise inc 62 bc saeimes cmlcele ee eae eee oes So aeeeae 200
Vanderbilt. — ies wc case cise cece cies acc suse oe pels sisi SEE eee eee eee Eee eee 617
WISCOVOUYpe soins on caesis sa cieec sciet o elect oe coc ae om eee ee ee eee eee 250

The Neah Bay schooner ‘‘Lottie’s” northern catch was disposed of the other day,
and amounted to 700 skins.

This makes the total catch, so far as could be gleaned yesterday, 19,046 skins by
British vessels, and 2,539 skins disposed of by American schooners.

The catch off the west coast by the Indians and sold to store-keepers was 500.

The total number of skins bronght into port for this season will represent in dol-
lars, at 6 dol. 50 c. per skin, the handsome sum of 140,302 dol. 50 ¢.

eri ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 117
98 No. 64.
Sir. L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 10.)

WASHINGTON, September 28, 1887.

My Lorp: In pursuance of the instructions contained in your Lord-
ship’s telegram of yesterday’s date, I have this day addressed a note to
Mr. Bayard, copy of which is herewith inclosed, inquiring the reason for
the non-release of the British vessels mentioned in his note of the 3rd
February last.

I also have the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship copy
of an extract from the “New York Tribune” of yesterday bearing on
this point.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 64.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, September 28, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government have been
officially informed that the British vessels mentioned in your note of the 3rd Feb-
ruary last have not been released, and that I am instructed to inquire the reason
for the delay in complying with the orders sent to this effect, as stated in your
above-mentioned note.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 64.]
Extract from the ‘‘ New York Tribune” of September 27, 1887.
THE ALASKA SEIZURES.

OTTAWA, September 26, 1887.
The Government has just received the Report of Mr. Drake, Q. C., who was sent
to Alaska to investigate matters in connection with the Behring’s Seaseizures. The
following is a copy of the despatch addressed to Judge Lafayette Dawson and Colonel
Ball, United States District Attorney at Sitka, which has not been carried out to
this day, and“in respect to which the Canadian Government has recently sent a
strong protest to the mother-country for transmission to Washington:

“WASHINGTON, January 26, 1887.

“‘T am directed by the President to instruct you to discontinue all proceedings in
the matter of seizure of the British vessels ‘Carolina,’ ‘Onward,’ and ‘Thornton,’
and to discharge all vessels now held under such seizures, and release all persons that
may be under arrest in connection therewith.

(Signed) “A, H. GARLAND, Attorney-General.”

Judge Dawson thereupon issued an order to Marshal Atkins to release the vessels,
but, as stated in previous despatches, afterwards withdrew it on the representation,
Mr. Drake says, of Atkins, and against the express opinion of Colonel Ball. <A rec-
ord of the original instructions appears on the books of the District Court, but there
is no record of their withdrawal.

The “ Onward,” ‘‘Carolina,” and ‘‘ Thornton” are still beached at Ounalaska, and
cannot be removed without considerable expense. The skins taken on these vessels
were sent to San Francisco by a steamer belonging to the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany. Mr. Drake says he cannot find that there was any authority given by the
United States Government for seizures made last year, but that they seem to have
been made at the instance and in the interests of the Commercial Company,

118 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 65.

Note from United States Minister at Stockholm to Swedish Govern-
ment.—(Communicated by M. d’ Adelborg, October 10, 1887.)

The Government of the United States recognizes the necessity of tak-
ing steps for the better protection of the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s
Strait. The indiscriminate and unregulated killing of these valuable
animals has of late years greatly reduced their number, and threatens

in a comparatively short time to all*but extinguish them.
99 The importance of respective Governments entering into an
arrangement which shall have for its purpose the regulation of
seal-hunting and to the present indiscriminate slaughter of seals, is 80
apparent that it needs no elaboration.

To this end I am directed to invite the United Kingdoms of Sweden
and Norway to enter into such an arrangement with the Government
of the United States as will prevent the citizens of either country from
killing seal in Behring’s Sea in such times and places and by such
methods as at present are pursued.

The Governments of Germany, Great Britain, Russia, France, and
Japan, have likewise been invited to co-operate to this end.

No. 66.
The Marquis of Salisbury to M. @Adelborg.

The Marquis of Salisbury has had the honour to receive the copy of
a communication addressed to the Swedish Government by the United
States Minister at Stockholm which Count Adelborg has been good
epough to leave at the Foreign Office.

Her Majesty’s Government have not received any similar communica-
tion from the Government of the United States regarding the protec-
tion of the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea. Lord Salisbury would,
however, be glad to know whether the invitation to enter into an
arrangement on the subject will be accepted by the Swedish Govern-
ment.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 11, 1887.

No. 67.
Foreign Office to Baron Plessen.

Sir J. Pauncefote has the honour to inform Baron Plessen, with
reference to his inquiry of the 5th instant, that no proposal has been
made to Her Majesty’s Government by the Government of the United
States for an International Convention for the pretection of seals in
Behring’s Sea. The Marquis of Salisbury would be giad to be informed
of the decision which may be adopted in the matter by the German
Government.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 11, 1887.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 119

No. 68.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received October 14.)

ADMIRALTY, October 13, 1887.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seiz-
ure of sealing schooners, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners
of the Admiralty to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, copy of a letter from the Commander-in-chief
on the Pacific Station dated the 23rd September, forwarding an extract
from the “ Victoria Daily Times” of Monday, the 19th September, 1887,
containing a demurrer handed in at Sitka by Mr. M. W.'T. Drake, Q.C.,
who was sent to Sitka by the Dominion Government of Canada.

I am to request that the newspaper extracts may be forwarded to
the Colonial Office for the perusal of Secretary Sir Henry Holland, with
a request that they may be returned to the Admiralty when done with.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) Evan MACGREGOR.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 68.]
Rear-Admiral Seymour to Admiralty.

“TRIUMPH,” AT ESQUIMALT, September 23, 1887.

S1r: Referring to the capture of sealing schooners by the American Government,
I have the honour to forward a copy of a demurrer handed in at Sitka by Mr. M.
W.T. Drake, Q. C., of Victoria, who was sent to Sitka by the Dominion Govern-

ment of Canada.
100 2. It would appear by Lord Salisbury’s despatch of the 10th August, 1887,

that orders were given for the schooners seized in 1886 to be released, and I am
informed a telegram to that effect was received at Sitka; nothing was done, and the
vessels are, as stated in my letter of the 14th instant, high and dry at Ounalaska,
and I am credibly informed so wormeaten and damaged as hardly to be worth re-
moval. Certainly no information has ever been received by any authority here, or
by the owners of the schooners seized in 1886, that they were to be released.

3. With regard to the vessels seized this year, the crews have been released and
one of the schooners has been chartered by the authorities at Sitka to proceed to
Ounalaska and bring the skins taken out of the schooners seized this year and landed
at the latter place, to Sitka. The trials will probably take place at Sitka about
this time.

I have, &c. '
(Signed) M. CULME SEYMOUR.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 68.]
Extract from the “ Victoria Daily Times” of September 19, 1887.

At present the seizure of the Victoria seal-hunting schooners with their officers,
crew, and hunters is the topic of the hour in this city. Mr. Drake’s demurrer, the
full text of which is herewith given, will be read with especial interest:

“BRIEF OF MR. M. W. T. DRAKE, Q. C.
“(Filed on behalf of the officers of the British sealers.)

“UNITED STATES Court, District of Alaska.

“The United States, plaintiff, v. J. D. Warren and J. C. Riley, defendants.

“Brief in support of the demurrer filed herein the 30th August, 1887, on behalf of
the masters and owners of the British schooners ‘ Anna Beck, a3 Dolphin,’ ‘Grace,’
and ‘W. P. Sayward,’ seized by the United States cutter for an alleged infraction
of an Act of the United States Congress No. 120, being an Act to prevent the exter-
mination of fur-bearing animals in Alaska. The Act is directly against killing seals

120 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

in the waters adjacent to the islands of St. Paul and St. George and does not refer
to any other waters in Behring’s Sea, but on referring to section 1956 of the Revised
Statutes, the language used is somewhat different, prohibiting the killing of fur-
bearing animals within the limits of Alaska Territory or the waters thereof. The
first question then to be decided is what is meant by ‘the waters thereof.’ If the
defendants are bound by the Treaty between the United States and Russia ceding
Alaska to the United States, then it appears that Russia in 1822 claimed absolute
territorial sovereignty over the Behring’s Sea and purported to convey practically
one half of that sea to the United States, but are the defendants as men belonging
to a country on friendly terms with the United States bound by this assertion of
Russia? And can the United States claim that the Treaty conveys to them any
greater right than Russia herself possessed in these waters? In other words, the
mere assertion of a right contrary to the comity of nations can confer on the grantees
no rights in excess of those recognized by the law of nations.

“RIGHTS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES.

“Tn inquiring what that right was and how far it was submitted to by the other
Powers interested, namely, Great Britain and the United States, we find the United
States Minister at St. Petersburgh in 1822 combatting the pretensions of Russia to
a jurisdiction over the waters of Behring’s Sea for a distance of 100 miles from the
coast (for this was the extent of Russia’s claim in 1822) in the following expressive
language: ‘The existence of territorial rights to the distance of 100 miles from the
coast and the prohibition of approaching to the same distance from these coasts and
from those of all intervening islands are innovations on the law of nations and
measures unexampled.’ We thus find that the assumption of a limited sovereignty
over the waters of Alaska was challenged by the United States, and in consequence
was not persisted in, and on the 17th April, 1824, a Convention was concluded between
the United States and Russia, whereby it was agreed, ‘that in any part of the great

ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the respective citi-
101 zens, subjects of the High Contracting Powers, should be neither disturbed or
restrained either in navigation or in fishing or in the power of resorting to the
coasts upon points which might not then have been already occupied for the purpose
of trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions and conditions contained
in certain Articles attached to the Treaty referring to illicit trade with the Indians.’

‘6A TREATY WITH RUSSIA.

“The Government of Great Britain, on the 28th February, 1825, also entered into a
Treaty with Russia in consequence of the same extravagant pretensions of Russia,
which Treaty contains the following provisions: ‘It is agreed that the respective
subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested in any
part of the ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same,
in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have been
already occupied in order to trade with the natives under the restrictions and con-
ditions specified in the then following Articles.’ These restrictions are not dissimilar
from those attached to the Treaty with the United States. In order to ascertain
what were the pretensions of Russia which led to these Treaties it is necessary to
refer to the Edict of the Autocrat of all the Russias. By Section 1 it is enacted:
‘That the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and all other industries on
all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of America,
beginning from Behring’s Straits to 51° of north latitude, also from the Aleutian
Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands from Beh-
ring’s Straits to the south Cape of the Islandof Uruck, namely, 45° 50’ northern lati-

tude is exclusively granted to Russian subjects.’

* RUSSIA’S CLAIMS.

“Section 2.—‘It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on
the coasts and islands belonging to Russia, but also to approach them within less
than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confiscation along
with the whole cargo.’ Thus it appears that Russia claimed 100 miles from the coast
of all the islands as well as the mainland of Behring’s Sea and south to 45° 50’. It
was this claim that led to the indignant remonstrance of the United States and Great
Britain, and to the Treaties before referred to, and shows that Behring’s Sea was
included in the term Pacific Ocean. The pretensions of Russia were never revived,
and the citizens of Great Britain as well as the United States had free access at all
times to these waters in navigating and fishing without any restriction. And
Russia’s claim was never revived until she purported to cede to the United States a
portionof Behring’s Sea. Russia could not sell what she did not own, and the United
States could not claim that which it was not in the power of Russia to sell. The

ww ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 121

Treaty with England has never been abrogated, and was in force when the cession
to the United States took place, and there was no need to protest against the extrava-
_ gant pretensions of Russia in purporting to dispose of the high seas, as until last
year no attempt had been made to enforce such a claim.

“ AUTHORITIES QUOTED.

“The United States have always been the strongest upholders of the law of nations,
and on this head Kent’s Commentaries, p. 28: ‘The open sea is not capable of
being possessed as private property; the free use of the ocean for navigation and
fishing is common to all mankind, and the public jurists generally and explicitly deny
that the main ocean can ever be appropriated.’ He also refers to the claim of Russia,
and in another place he states that the ‘United States have recognized the limita-
tion of a marine league for general territorial jurisdiction by authorizing the Dis-
trict Courts to take cognizance of all captures made within a marine league of the
American shore.’ (See Act of Congress, June 5, 1794.)

“And in Wharton’s ‘International Law Digest,’ p. 32, the author says, ‘The limit
of 1 sea league from shore is provisionally adopted as that of the territorial sea of
the United States,’ and ‘our jurisdiction has been fixed to extend 3 geographical
miles from our shores, with the exception of any waters or bays which are so land-
locked as to be unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the United States, be their
extent what they may.’ Behring’s Sea is not a gulf or a bay, and is not landlocked
by the lands of the United States.

“SECRETARY SEWARD’S VIEWS.

“ Wharton again states that ‘a vessel on the high seas beyond the distance of a
marine league from the shore is regarded as part of the territory of the nation to
which she belongs;’ and Mr. Seward, in a letter to Mr. Tassava, 16th Decem-
102 _— ber, 1862, tersely states the principle as follows: ‘There are two principles
bearing on the subject which are universally admitted: (1) that the sea is
open to all nations; and (2) that there is a portion of the sea adjacent to every nation
over which the sovereignty of that nation extends, to the exclusion of every other
political authority. A third principle bearing on the subject is that the exclusive
sovereignty of a nation abridging the universal liberty of the seas extends no
further than the power of the nation to maintain it by force stationed on the coast
extends.

“<Terre dominium * * * vis.? (The sovereignty of the coast ends where the
power to control it by force of arms terminates.) It thus appears that by the
comity of nations, sanctioned and approved by American jurists, that the high seas
are open to all; that the territorial authority only extends to a marine league, or, at
all events, not further than a force on shore can protect the coasts.

“SOVEREIGNTY CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES.

“Tt also appears that the United States, in claiming sovereignty over the Beh-
ring’s Sea, is claiming something beyond the well recognized law of nations, and
bases her claim upon the pretensions of Russia, which was successfully repudiated
by both Great Britain and the United States. A Treaty is valid and binding
between the parties to it, but it cannot affect others who are not parties to it. It is
an agreement between nations, and would be construed by law as an agreement
between individuals. Great Britain was no party to it, and therefore was not bound
by its terms.

“It is therefore contended that the proceedings taken against the present defend-
ants are ulira vires and without jurisdiction. But in order to press the matter
further, it may be necessary to discuss the act itself under which the alleged juris-
diction is assumed. The Act must be construed by what appears within its four cor-
ners, and not by any extrinsic document. It is an Act defining a criminal offence,
and an Act which abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens must be most
strictly construed, and nothing but the clearest expression can or ought to be con-
strued against the interest of the public in applying this principle to the present
case. ‘The terms used in the Act itself are, ‘The waters adjacent to the Islands of
St. George and St. Paul.’ ‘Adjacent,’ in Wharton, p. 846, is held to be adjacent to the
coast, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the country. This language, then,
does not apply to these defendants, who were 50 miles from the nearest coast. In
section 1956 the language is, ‘the waters of Alaska.’ This must also be construed
by the universal law as applying to the territorial limit only. And in a letter from
Mr. Evarts to Mr. Foster, in April 1879, referring to a case in which certain Ameri-
can merchant-vessels were seized by the Mexican authorities for an alleged breach
of the Revenue Laws, although distant more than 3 miles from shore, it was held to
be an international offence, and was not cured by a Decree in favour of the assail-
ants by the Mexican Court.

122 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“So here it is submitted that a Decree of your Honour’s Court will not give any
validity to the seizures here inade, and the defendants, in filing their demurrer and
submitting this argument, do not thereby waive their rights or submit to the juris-
diction of the Court.”

No. 69.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Substance telegraphed, Octo-
ber 14.) —

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1887.

My Lorp: With reference to the note from the Secretary of State,
copy of which was inclosed in my despatch of the 12th instant,* I have
the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a further reply
to my note of the 28th ultimo, expressing regret that misconception of
the intentions and orders of the President for the release of the sealers
“Onward,” ‘ Carolina,” and “Thornton” should have delayed their
prompt execution, and stating that renewed orders have been for-
warded.

I have communicated copy of this note to the Marquis of Lansdowne,
the substance of which I telegraphed to your Lordship this day.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

103 [Inclosure in No. 69.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 18, 1887.

Sir: Continuing my reply to your note of the 29th ultimo, inquiring the reason
for the delay in complying with the order issued in January last for the release of
British vessels seized last year in Behring’s Sea, I beg leave to inform you that I have
this day received a communication from my colleague the Attorney-General, inform-
ing me that his telegram to the United States Marshal at Sitka of the 26th January
last, ordering the release of the British schooners ‘‘Onward,” ‘‘Carolina,” and
“Thornton.” owing to some misconception and mistake on the part of the official to
whom it had been addressed had not been acted upon.

A renewed order has gone forward for their release, as had been distinctly directed
last January, and which I had no reason to doubt had been promptly obeyed.

In my note to you of the 11th instant I stated it to be my impression that no
hindrance to their repossession by the owners of the vessels named existed.

This impression, it now appears, was not well founded, and as my object is to give
you the fullest information within my power in relation to all transactions touched
in our correspondence, I hasten to communicate the latest report made to me from
the Department of Justice.

I take leave also to express my regret that any misconception of the intentions and
orders of the President should have delayed their prompt execution.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 70.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received October 18.)

DOWNING STREET, October 17, 1887.

Srr: Iam directed by Secretary Sir H. Holland to transmit to you,
to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, copy of a despatch from
the Governor-General of Canada, dated the 26th September, with its

* See No. 73.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 123

inclosures, respecting the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British
schooner “ Alfred Adams.”

These papers appear to Sir H. Holland to point to a serious state of
things, which seem to make it necessary that some decided action in
the matter should be taken by Her Majesty’s Government. And he
would suggest, for the consideration of Lord Salisbury, whether it
would not be desirable to instruct Sir L. West, unless he has already
done so, formally to protest against the right assumed by the United
States of seizing vessels for catching seals beyond the territorial waters
of Alaska.

Iam to add Sir H. Holland makes this suggestion, as Mr. Bayard is
reported in the newspapers to have stated that no protest against their
right to seize had been made, and to have assumed, therefore, that Her
Majesty’s Government did not really dispute it.

lam, We. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure lin No. 70.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

CITADEL, Quebec, September 26, 1887.

Sir: Incontinuation of my despatch of the 27th August and in reference to previous
correspondence, I have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council of Canada, covering copies of a Report of my Minister of
Marine and Fisheries relating to the seizure and detention of the Canadian sealing
schooner ‘Alfred Adams,” and of other Canadian sealing vessels by the United
States authorities in the Behring’s Sea.

2. The letter directed to the United States District Attorney at Sitka, marked D
in the Minister’s Report, which came into the possession of my Government under the

circumstances described in the Declaration of Captain Dyer, of the ‘Alfred
104 Adams,” has been for warded, together with copies of the papers, to Her Majesty’s
Minister at Washington.

3. The circumstances under which the ‘‘Adams” was seized do not differ materially
from those attending previous seizures in the same waters. I have already laid before
you the reasons which have led my Government.to protest against the assumption
that the Statutes under which other seizures, and I presume this also, have been
made, Statutes governing the conduct of persons fishing within ‘‘the territory of
Alaska” or ‘in the waters thereof” (vide United States Revised Statutes, 1955, 1956),
are applicable to the whole of the waters of the Behring’s Sea, and in cases where, as
in those under discussion, the vessels seized were found fishing at a great distance
from the nearest land.

4, I trust that the earnest attention of Her Majesty’s Government will be given to the
statements contained in the Minister’s Report. No satisfactory explanation has yet
been given of the action of the United States Government subsequent to Mr. Bayard’s
announcement of the 3rd lebruary of the present year, when it was stated by him to
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington that ‘‘orders had been issued by the Presi-
dent’s direction for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of
the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under arrest in connection
therewith.”

5. You will observe from Mr. Foster’s recapitulation of the evidence which he has
been able to collect. and the documents attached to his Report, that an impression
prevails upon the spot to the effect that orders such as those described by Sir Lionel
West were actually issued from Washington. There appears at all events to be
some reason for believing that a telegram authorizing the release of the vessels then
under detention was in fact received by the District Judge, and that instructions
were thereupon issued by him for the purpose of carrying out these orders. The
circumstances under which those instructions are said to have been subsequently
rescinded by the District Judge have not unnaturally given rise to the gravest
suspicion.

6. The Minister has called attention with great force in his Report to the injury
sustained by persons engaged in the sealing industry from the suspense and uncer-
tainty in which they have been kept during the past season owing to the refusal of
the United States Government to give any explicit assurances as to the treatment
which they might expect at its hands.

I have, &c. (Signed) - LANSDOWNE,

124 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN

[Inclosure 2 in No. 70.]

Neport of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Lxcellency the Governor-General in Council on the 21st September, 1887. ;

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration the annexed
Report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with reference to the seizure and
detention of Canadian sealing-vessels by the United States authorities in Behring’s
Sea.

The Committee concur in the said Report, and they advise that your Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy of this Minute and the annexed papers to the Right Hon-
ourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All which is submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 70.]
Report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

With reference to previous correspondence concerning the seizure and detention of
Canadian sealing-vessels by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea, the Min-
ister of Marine and Fisheries begs to submit, for the consideration of his Excellency

the Governor-General in Council, the following papers:
105 (a) A letter from Collector Hamley, of Victoria, British Columbia, dated the
1st September, 1887, inclosing certain papers in reference to the seizure of the
Canadian sealing-schooner ‘Alfred Adams” in Behring’s Sea.

(b) The Declaration of William Henry Dyer, of Victoria, British Columbia, master
of the Canadian schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams.”

(c) A certificate of seizures of the ‘‘Alfred Adams,” signed by L. G. Shepard,
captain of the United States Revenue steamer ‘‘ Rush.”

(d) A sealed and unopened letter directed to the United States District Attorney
and United States Marshal, Sitka, Alaska.

(e) A letter from Collector Hamley, of Victoria, British Columbia, dated the 26th
July, relating to the detention of the Canadian schooners ‘‘Onward,” ‘ Carolina,”
and “‘ Thornton,” seized in August 1866, by the United States cutter “Corwin,” in
Behring’s Sea.

(f) Copy of a telegram and order purporting to befrom the United States Attorney-
General and Judge Dawson respectively, relating to the release of the above-named
vessels; and :

(g) A letter dated the 3rd September, 1887, from the law firm of Drake, Jackson,
and Helmcken, of Victoria, containing additional information relating to the same.

From the above-mentioned papers, it appears that on the 6th August, 1887, the
Canadian schooner ‘“‘ Alfred Adams,” whilst engaged in catching seals in the open
sea, more than 50 miles distant from the nearest land, was forcibly seized by an
armed vessel of the United States, her ship’s papers taken, her cargo of seal-skins,
1,386 in number, together with all her arms, ammunition, and fishing implements
transferred to the United States cutter, and her captain ordered to proceed with
sealed orders to Sitka, and to deliver himself, his vessel, and men into the hands of
the United States Marshal at that place.

This treatment of the ‘“‘ Alfred Adams” whilst peaceably pursuing her lawful call-
ing on the high seas is but a repetition of the unjustifiable seizures of Canadian ves-
sels made by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea, and which have been
dealt with at length in previous Reports to Council.

The Minister, therefore, does not consider it necessary in this instance to traverse
the ground already so fully covered, and recommends that a copy of this Report with
the papers attached be forwarded to Her Majesty’s Government for their earnest and
immediate consideration, and that a copy thereof be sent to the British Minister at
Washington, together with the sealed letter given by Captain Shepard to the master
of the “‘ Adams,” with the request that it be forwarded to Mr. Secretary Bayard.

With reference to the attached papers (e), (f), and (g), the Minister observes that
from the first (e) it appears that inquiries made by the Collector of Customs at Vic-
toria, British Columbia, in July last, resulted in his obtaining the information that
Judge Dawson had up to that date received no orders for the release of the Canadian
sealing-vessels seized in 1886, that the vessels had not been sold, and remained still
under seizure, and that Judge Dawson, when questioned as to the report that a tele-
gram had been sent to him by the Attorney-General of the United States, ordering
the release of the vessels, had replied that he had heard of this report before, but
that noting of the kind had reached either himself or the United States Marshal
at Sitka.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 125

The paper marked (f/f) purports to be a copy of a telegram, dated the 26th January,
1887, trom the United States Attorney-General Garland to Judge Dawson, ordering
him to release the vessels seized in August preceding, and of an order founded thereon
from Judge Dawson to the United States Marshal at Sitka, bearing date the 19th
February, 1887, directing him to ‘‘ release the ‘Carolina,’ ‘Onward,’ ‘Thornton,’ and
‘San Diego,’ together with all their tackle, apparel, skins, guns, ammunition, small
boats, and everything pertaining to said vessels.”

The third paper, marked (g), is a copy of a letter from the law firm of Drake,
Jackson, and Helmecken, of Victoria, British Columbia, to the Minister of Justice,
informing him that they are advised that a telegram was received by Judge Dawson
from the United States Attorney-General, ordering the release of the vessels above
referred to; that Judge Dawson did issuean orderaccordingly, but that he afterwards
rescinded the order on the assumption that the telegram was a forgery, and that since
“no official letters of any sort, either confirming the telegram or respecting the affair,
has been received at Sitka.”

The Minister observes that, if the information conveyed in the above-men-
106 tioned papers is correct, of which there appears no reasonable doubt, it reveals
a state of affairs by no means satisfactory.

On the 38rd February, 1887, Mr. Secretary Bayard informed the British Minister at
Washington that ‘‘ orders have been issued by the President’s direction for the dis-
continuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and
the release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith.”

A telegram in accordance with Mr. Bayard’s communication appears to have been
sent to Alaska, and an order based thereon to have been issued by the District Judge,
but to have been afterwards rescinded, and no further action has been taken up to
date of latest information.

Meanwhile, the vessels remain under seizure, the seal-skins are forfeited, and the
property of Canadian citizens forcibly witheld from them under circumstances
which involve very great loss and damage,

The Minister further observes that, with a view of guiding the action of Canadian
citizens interested in sealing in the northern seas, repeated attempts were made
previous to the commencement of the present season to obtain an official expression
from the United States Government of the policy they proposed to pursue in their
treatment of foreign vessels sealing in Behring’s Sea, but that these efforts proved
altogether unavailing. From Mr. Bayard’s communication of the 3rd February,
1887, above referred to, the fair inference, however, was to be drawn that, until the
question in dispute between the two Governments as to the legality of the previous
seizures had been finally disposed of, no further seizures would be made; and there
isno doubt that on the strength of this communication, and in the absence of any
explicit statement of policy to the contrary, Canadian citizens did, in the beginning
of the present season, embark upon their customary sealing expeditions to Behring’s
Sea, under the reasonable impression that they would not be interfered with by the
United States authorities so long as they conducted their operations in the open
sea, only, however, to find their vessels seized, their property confiscated, and their
ventures completely ruined.

It is respectfully submitted that this condition of affairs is in the highest degree
detrimental to the interests of Canada, and should not be permitted to continue.

For nearly two years Canadian vessels have been exposed to arbitrary seizure and
confiscation in the pursuit of a lawful occupation upon the high seas, and Canadian
citizens subjected to imprisonment and serious financial loss; while an important
and remunerative Canadian industry has been threatened with absolute ruin. This
course of action has been pursued by the United States officers in opposition to the
contention in the past of their Government in regard to the waters in which these
seizures have taken place, in violation of the plainest dictates of international law,
and in the face of repeated and vigorous protests of both the Canadian and British
Governments.

The Minister advises that Her Majesty’s Government be again asked to give its
serious and immediate attention to the repeated remonstrances of the Canadian
Government against the unwarrantable action of the United States in respect to
Canadian vessels in Behring’s Sea, with a view to obtain a speedy recognition of its
just rights, and full reparation for the losses sustained by its citizens.

The whole respectfully submitted.

(Signed. ) GEORGE E. FOSTER,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, Ottawa, September 15, 1887.

126 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
| Inclosure 4 in No. 70.]
Mr. "Tamley to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

CustomM-Housk, Victoria, British Columbia, July 26, 1887.

Dear Sir: Captain Carroll, master of the American steamer ‘Olympian,” has
been taking parties of excursionists to Sitka, and I asked him to see the Judge, Mr.
Dawson, and find out something we could trust respecting the seized vessels. Daw-
son told him he had received no orders whatever for the release of the vessels; they
have not been sold, and remain as they were, under seizure. Captain Carroll told
Dawson of the telegram dated last January, purporting to have been sent by Mr.
Garland, Attorney-General at Washington, in the President’s name, ordering the

vessels to be released. Dawson said he had heard of it hefore, and that it
107 must have been as he termed it, a “put up thing,” as nothing of the kind had
reached either himself or the United States Marshal at Sitka.

The serious part is that our people, trusting to the story of the order for release,
have sent thirteen vessels again this year to the sealing grounds. One has been
seized already, and if the others fall in the way of the Revenue cutters they will
probably be seized also.

I may perhaps learn something more from the Admiral when he Tetur ns from
Alaska. and, if so, I will write to you again.

Yours, &c,
(Signed. ) W. HAMLEY.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 70.—Telegraphice. ]
The Attorney-General, Washington, to Judge Lafayette Dawson and M., D. Ball.

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, January 26, 1887.

I am directed by the President to instruct you to discontinue any further proceed-
ings in the matter of the seizure of the British vessels ‘‘ Carolina,” ‘‘Onward,” and
“Thornton,” and discharge all vessels now held under such seizure, and release all
persous that may be under arrest in connection therewith.

[Inclosure 6 in No. 70.]

Mr. Dawson to Mr. Atkins,

To BARTON ATKINS,
United States Marshal for the District of Alaska.

You are hereby directed to release the vessels ‘‘ Carolina,” “Onward,” ‘* Thornton,”
and ‘‘San Diego,” which were seized in Behring’s Sea for violation of section 1956,
United States’ Statutes, together with their tackle, apparel], skins,* guns, ammuni-
tion, small boats, and everything pertaining to said vessels, this 19th day of Febru-
ary, 1887.

(Signed. ) LAFAYETTE DAWSON,
District Judge, District of Alaska.

{Inclosure 7 in No. 70.]
Mr. Hamley to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

CustoM-Houskg, Victoria, September 1, 1887.

Srr: On the 7th August the master of the United States Revenue cutter ‘“ Rush”
seized in Behring’s Sea, 60 miles from any land, the Canadian schooner “ Alfred
Adams,” her register, clearance, guns, and ‘ammunition, and the seal-skins she had
taken (1, 386) were all taken from her, and the vessel herself ordered to Sitka. No
one from the Revenue cutter was put. on board by Captain Shepard, and the master
of the “Alfred Adams,” instead of going, as he was desired, to Sitka, returned to
Victoria, arriving here the 31st Au gust.

1 forward the master’s depositions before a notary public, and what Captain Shep-
ard is pleased to term a certificate of the schooner’s seizure, signed by himself. Mr.
Drake, a solicitor, is at Sitka, waiting for the cases to be heard in Court. ‘The trial

* Please note skins.—C. A. M.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. a 47

was delayed for the arrival of the “Rush,” and she was expected about the begin-
ning of this month. Mr. Drake will no doubt report direct to the Minister of Justice,

Ihave, &c.
(Signed. ) W. HAMLEY.

P. S.—I inclose also a sealed letter addressed by Captain Shepard to the District
Attorney and United States Marshal at Sitka, which the master of the “ Alfred
Adams” brought down with him, and which you can deal with in any way you
think fit. :

WH.

108 {Inclosure 8 in No. 70.}
Captain Shepard to the District Attorney and United States Marshal at Sitka.

UNITED STATES REVENUE STEAMER “‘ Rus,”
Behring’s Sea, August 6, 1887.
To whom it may concern:

This will certify that I have this day seized the British schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams,”
of Victoria, British Columbia, Captain W. H. Dyer, master, for violation of law, and
have taken charge of his ship’s papers, viz., register, shipping articles, clearance,
bill of health, and log book; also her arms and seal-skins.

Very respectfully,
(Signed. ) L. G. SHEPARD,
Captain, United States Revenue Marine.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 70.]
DECLARATION.

In the matter of the seizure of the Sealing-schooner ‘Alfred Adams” by the United States
Revenue cutter ‘Richard Rush.”

I, William Henry Dyer, of Victoria, British Columbia, master mariner, do solemnly
and sincerely declare that—

1. I am the master of the schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams,” of the port of Victoria,
British Columbia, engaged in the business of catching seals. On the 6th August,
1887, while on board the said schooner, and in command of the same, being in lati-
tude 54° 48’ north and longitude 167° 49’ west the United States Revenue cutter
‘Richard Rush” steamed alongside, lowered a boat commanded by the First Lieu-
tenant and boat’screw. Thesaid Lieutenant came on board the said ‘‘Alfred Adams”
and ordered me to take the ship’s register, log-book, articles, and all others of the
ship’s papers on board the ‘‘Richard Rush.” In obedience to his command, I took
all said papers and accompanied the said Lieutenant on board the ‘‘ Richard Rush.”
When I arrived on board the ‘‘ Rush,” the Captain of the ‘‘Rush” asked me what
was my business in the Behring’s Sea; I replied taking seals. Heinqnired how many
skins I had; I replied 1,886. He then said he would seize the ship, take the skins,
arms, ammunition, and spears. I stated I did not think the ship was liable to seiz-
ure, as we had never taken a seal within 60 miles of Ounalaska, nor nearer St. Paul’s
than 60 miles south of it, and that we had never been notified that the waters were
prohibited, unless landing and taking them from the Island of St. Paul’s. He stated
he must obey the orders of his Government, and that our Government and his must
settle the matter, and ordered me to proceed on board the said schooner and deliver
up my arms, ammunition, and skins and spears. He sent two boats belonging to the
“Rush” in charge of the First and Second Lieutenant of the ‘‘ Rush” respectively,
and manned with sailors from the ‘‘ Rush,” who came on board the said schooner (I
returning in company with the First Lieutenant). They took from the said schooner
1,386 skins, 4 kegs powder (3 triple F and 1 blasting powder), 500 shells, 3 cases caps
and primers, 9 breach-loading double-barrelled shot-guns, 1 Winchester rifle, all in
good order, and 12 Indian spears, and he then gave me a sealed letter addressed to
the United States Marshal and United States District Attorney at Sitka; he also
gave me an acknowledgment of the goods taken, aud also gave me a certificate that
the said schooner was under seizure, and, after being alongside for about 34 hours, I
received orders in writing to proceed to Sitka, and report to the United States Dis-
trict Attorney and Marshal: we then parted company. My crew consisted of myself,
mate, 2 seamen, 1 Chinese cook, and 21 Indians. Previous to the said seizure we
had spoken the schooner ‘“‘ Kate,” of Victoria, and had been informed by the mate of

128 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

that vessel that the crews (and particularly the Indians) taken to Sitka on schooners

previously seized had been very badly treated. The Indians became very mutinous

on learning that we were to proceed to Sitka and report to the United States anthori-

ties; they declared they would not go to Sitka and, to avoid trouble, Icame to Vie-

toria, instead of going to Sitka. I arrived in Victoria on the 31st August, 1887, at
about 7 P. M.

109 And I make this solemn Declaration, conscientiously believing the same to
be true, and by virtue of the Oaths Ordinance, 1869.
(Signed) W. Hi: Dye:

Declared before me this 1st day of September, A. D. 1887, at Victoria, British
Columbia.
[L. s.] (Signed) H. DaLuas HELMCKEN,
A Notary Public in and for the Province of British Columbia,

{Inclosure 10 in No. 70.]
Messrs. Drake, Jackson, and Helmcken to the Minister of Justice, Ottawa.

Victoria, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 3, 1887.

Str: We have the honour to inform you that we are in receipt of a letter from
our Mr. Drake, written from Sitka, under date the 28th August, in which he states
that a telegram was received at Sitka relative to the schooners seized last year from
the United States Attorney-General Garland, directing their release and discharge
of the men. The Judge gave an Order accordingly, which was afterwards rescinded,
on the assumption that the telegram was a forgery. No official letter of any sort,
either confirming the telegram or respecting the affair, has been received at Sitka.
The schooners now seized and at Sitka are the ‘Anna Beck,” ‘‘W. P. Sayward,”
“Dolphin,” and ‘‘Grace.” The ‘‘Alfred Adams” was also seized. The trial of the
present men, Mr. Drake states, would not take place until after the arrival of the
Revenue cutter “ Rush ;” also that, judging from the past and the views held by the
Court, the result would most probably be the same, and urges that immediate steps
should be taken to prevent the imprisonment of the masters. and that he would
obtain declarations from the masters duly certified, and enter a protest at the trial.

The “‘ Rush” was not expected at Sitka until yesterday.

Regarding the seizure of the ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” we have to state that the schooner
has arrived here safely. The declarations of her captain, Captain Dyer, and his
men have been duly taken, which her owners, Messrs. Guttman and Frank, of this
city, yesterday handed to ‘Honourable Mr. Stanley, Collector of Customs, together
with a sealed letter, which the commander of the ‘‘ Rush” handed to Captain Dyer,
to be delivered to the District Attorney at Sitka. These papers no doubt Mr. Stanley
has already forwarded to the proper Department.

We have since forwarded a copy of this information to the Right Honourable Sir
John A. Macdonald, K. C. B., &c.

We have, &e.

(Signed) DRAKE, JACKSON, AND HELMCKEN.

[Inclosure 11 in No. 70.]
Mr. Burbidge to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, Ottawa.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Ottawa, September 12, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to inclose, for your information, a copy of a letter which
has been received by the Minister of Justice from Messrs. Drake, Jackson, and
Helmcken, in which they report with reference to the sealing vessels which have
been seized in the Behring’s Sea by the United States authorities.

I am to state that the Minister of Justice has taken no action with respect to this
communication, but that he is of opinion that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries
should, at his earliest convenience, take steps to communicate the substance thereof
to the Colonial Office and to the British Minister at Washington.

I have, &c.
(Signed) GEO. W. BURBIDGE,
Deputy Minister of Justice.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 129
110 7 No. 71.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.-(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 19, 1887.

S1tr: Information has reached Her Majesty’s Government from the
Government of Canada that a further seizure has been made of a Cana-
dian vessel, the ‘“‘Alfred Adams,” by the United States Revenue-cutter
“Rush,” when engaged in seal-fishing in Behring’s Sea in latitude 549
48’ north, and longitude 167° 49’ west, more than 50 miles distant
from the nearest land.

I have to request that you will forthwith address a protest to the
Government of the United States against this seizure, and against the
continuance of similar proceedings on the high seas by the authorities
of the United States.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 72.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 20, 1887.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury 'to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 17th instant inclosing copies of a correspond-
ence received from the Governor-General of Canada relative to the
seizures by the authorities of the United States of certain British vessels
when engaged in seal-fishing in Behring’s Sea.

With reference to the latest. case reported, that of the Canadian
schooner “Alfred Adams,” I am to request that you will inform Sir H.
Holland that a telegram ‘has been sent to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington directing him to make a protest to the United States Gov-
ernment against the seizure of that vessel, and the continuance on the
high seas of similar proceedings by the authorities of the United States.

With regard to the report that it had been stated by Mr. Bayard
that no protest had been made against the right of those authorities to
make the seizures, and that it had been therefore assumed that Her
Majesty’s Government did not really dispute the right, I am to remind
you that Sir L. West, acting on the instructions which were given to
him by the late Earl of Iddesleigh on the 20th October, 1886, addressed
a note to the United States Secretary of State protesting, in the name
of Her Majesty’s Government, against the seizure of the three Colum-
bian schooners “ Thornton,” “Ouward,” and “ Carolina” by the United
States Revenue-cruizer ‘‘ Corwin.”

I am further to point out that the directions given to Sir L. West in
regard to subsequent seizures of other British vessels in Behring’s Sea
during the present fishing season, which were embodied in Lord Salis-
bury’s despatches of the 10th and 27th ultimo, amount to a protest
against the assumption by the United States Government of their right
to seize British vessels on the high seas in those waters.

I am to request that in laying this letter before Sir H. Holland you
will move him to ascertain by telegraph whether the Report of Mr.
Foster (the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries) of the 15th

BS, PT V——9

130 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ultimo has been communicated by Lord Lansdowne, with the papers
attached, to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, as suggested in the
Report. On learning that this has been done Lord Salisbury proposes
to authorize Sir L. West to give a copy of them to Mr. Bayard.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 73.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 24.)

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1887.

My Lorp: In accordance with the instructions contained in your
Lordship’s telegram of the 27th ultimo, I addressed a note to the See-
retary of State, copy of which I had the honour to inclose to your
Lordship in my despatch of the 28th ultimo, inquiring the reason why
the vessels referred to in his note of the 3rd February last had not
been released, and I now inclose copy of the reply which I have
received thereto.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST,

111 [Inclosure in No. 73.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 11, 1887.

Srr: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of the 28th ultimo, stating that
Her Majesty’s Government had been officially informed that the British vessels
referred to in my note to you of the 3rd February last had not been released, and
asking the reason for the delay in complying with the orders of the Executive in
that regard.

Upon receiving your note I at once wrote my colleague the Attorney-General, as
the Head of the Department of Justice, in order that I might be enabled to reply
satisfactorily to your inquiry. I am still without an answer from him, which, when
received, shall be promptly communicated to you.

In the meantime, in acknowledging your note, I take occasion to state my impres-
sion—that if the three vessels seized, and ordered to be released, have not been
repossessed by their owners, it is not because of any hindrance on the part of any
official of this Government, or failure to obey the order for release, but probably
because of the remoteness of the locality (Sitka) where they were taken after arrest
for adjudication, and the proceedings having been in rem, the owners have not seen
proper to proceed to Alaska and repossess themselves of the property in question.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 74.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Sulisbury.—( Received October 24.)

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1887.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 15th
ultimo, respecting the judicial proceedings in the cases of the schooners
“Carolina,” “Onward,” and “Thornton,” I have the honour to state
that, from what I can ascertain, the notice of appeal in these cases is

.¥ —————————

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 131

still lying in the Sitka Court, for there is no Court to which under the
Act of Congress the injured parties could appeal, and as in the case of
the American vessel ‘“‘San Diego,” no further steps can be taken in the
matter.
I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 75.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 24.)

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1887.
My Lorp: In accordance with the instructions contained in your
Lordship’s despatch of the 27th ultimo, I addressed a note to the Secre-
tary of State, copy of which I have the honour to inclose herewith,
making similar representations respecting the seizure of the British
vessels “Grace,” ‘* Dolphin,” and “ W. P. Sayward,” as were made in
the cases of the “Onward,” ‘“‘ Carolina,” and “Thornton,” and reserving
all rights to compensation on behalf of the owners and crew.
f have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 75.]

Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1887.

Sie: In connection with the representation which I was instructed to make to you

respecting the seizure of the British schooners ‘‘ Onward,” ‘‘ Carolina,” and ‘‘ Thorn-

ton,” by the United States cruizer ‘‘ Corwin,” in Behring’s Sea, I have the

112 honour to inform you that I am now further instructed to make similar repre-

sentations in the cases of the British Columbian vessels ‘‘Grace,” ‘ Dolphin,”

and ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” seized lately by the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard

Rush,” and at the same time, as in the case of the ‘‘ Onward,” ‘‘Carolina,’ and

“Thornton,” to reserve all rights to compensation on behalf of the owners and
crews.

I am also instructed to point out to you that, according to the deposition of the
mate of the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” copy of which is inclosed, no seals had been taken by
her crew in Behring’s Sea as is alleged in the libels of information filed on behalf of
the United States’ District Attorney in the District Court of Alaska.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 24.)

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inciose to your Lordship herewith
copy of the reply which I have received to my note of the 12th instant,
copy of which was inclosed in my despatch of the 12th instant, respect-
ing the seizure of the “ Grace,” “ Dolphin,” and “ W. P. Sayward.”

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

132 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure in No. 76.]
Myr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 18, 1887.

Srr: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of yesterday in relation to the
cases of the seizure of the British schooners “ Onward,” ‘‘ Carolina,” and ‘‘ Thornton,”
in Behring’s Sea, by United States Revenue vessels in August 186, and also your
instructions to include by similar representations the cases of the British Columbian
vessels “Grace,” Dolphin,” and ‘* W. P. Sayward,” seized by the United States
Revenne authorities in Behring’s Sea, with notification that Her Britannic Majesty’s
Government reserve all right to compensation on behalf of the owners and crews of
the above-mentioned vessels.

The attidavit of the mate of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” has been read, and the facts
therein stated will be at once investigated.

Ihave, &e. ;

(Signed) THowAs F. BAYARD,

Noite
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—-( Received October 24.)

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1587.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
copies of the brief recently filed in the Court at Sitka by the counsel for
the United States Government which has appeared i: the “ New York
Herald,” as well as an article thereupon from that Journal.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 77.]
Extract from the “New York Herald,” October 18, 1887.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, October 12, 1887.

The Government here are in receipt of advices from Sitka which contain the brie
which is understood to have been prepared at Washington and recently filed
113 inthe Court at Sitka by Mr. A. K. Delaney, as counsel for the United States
Government. 4
The following is a verbatim copy of the brief:

“© CASE.

‘‘The information in this case is based on Section 1956 of Chapter 3 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States, which provides that ‘No person shall kill any otter,
mink, martin, sable or fur seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of
Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof.’

“‘The offence is charged to have been committed 130 miles north of the Isiand of
Ounalaska, and therefore in the main waters of that part of the Behring’s Sea ceded
by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of 1867. The defendants demur to the
information on the ground—

‘1, That the Court has no jurisdiction over the defendants, the alleged offence
having been committed beyond the limit of a marine league from the shores of Alaska.

“‘2. That the Act under which the defendants were arrested is unconstitutional in
so far as it restricts the free navigation of the Behring’s Sea for fishing and sealing
purposes beyond the limits of a marine league from shore. The issue thus raised by
the demurrer presents squarely the questions:

““(1) The jurisdiction of the United States over Behring’s Sea.

“‘(2) The power of Congress to legislate concerning those waters,

.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. LSS

‘““THE ARGUMENT.

“The fate of the second of these propositions depends largely upon that of the first,
for if the jurisdiction and dominion of the United States as to these waters be not
sustained the restrictive Acts of Congress must fall, and if our jurisdiction shall be
sustained small question can be made as to the power of Congress to regulate fishing
and sealing within our own waters. The grave question, one important to all the
nations of the civilized world, as well as to the United States and Great Britain, is
‘the dominion of Behring’s Sea.’

“THE THREE MILE LIMIT.

“Concerning the doctrine of international law establishing what is known as the
marine league belt, which extends the jurisdiction of a nation into adjacent seas for
the distance of one marine league, or 3 miles from its shores, and following all the
indentations and sinuosities of its coast, there is at this day no room for discussion.
It must be accepted as the settled law of nations. It is sustained by the highest
authorities, law-writers, and jurists. It has been sanctioned by the United States
since the foundation of the Government. It was affirmed by Mr. Jefferson, Secre-
tary of State, as early as 1793, and has been reaffirmed by his successors—Mr. Pick-
ering, in 1796; Mr. Madison, in 1807; Mr. Webster, in 1842; Mr. Buchanan, in 1849;
Mr. Seward, in 1862, 1863, and 1864; Mr. Fish, in 1875; Mr. Evarts, in 1879 and 1881;
and Mr. Bayard, in 1886. (Wheaton’s ‘International Law,’ vol. i, sec. 32, pp. 100
and 109.)

“‘Sanctioned thus by an unbroken line of precedents covering the first century of
our national existence, the United States would not abandon this doctrine if they
could; they could not if they would.

‘“SLANDLOCKED SEAS.

“Well grounded as is this doctrine of the law of nations, it is no more firmly
established as a part of the international code than that other principle which gives
to a nation supremacy, jurisdiction, dominion over its own inland waters, gulfs,
bays, and seas. If a sea is entirely inclosed by the territories of a nation, and has
no other communication with the ocean than by a channel, of which that nation may
take possession, it appears that such a sea is no less capable of being occupied and
becoming property than the land, and it ought to follow the fate of the country
that surrounds it. The Mediterranean in former times was absolutely inclosed
within the territories of the Romans, and that people, by rendering themselves
masters of the strait which joins it to the ocean might subject the Mediterranean
to their Empire, and assume the dominion over it. ‘They did not by such proceed-

ing injure the rights of other nations, a particular sea being manifestly
114 designed by nature for the use of the countries and nations that surround it.
(Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations,’ pp. 129 and 130.)

“Chancellor Kent, in 1826, before the doctrine as to the marine league limit was
as firmly established as it now is, says:

‘¢ <T¢ is difficult to draw any precise or determined conclusion amid the variety of
opinions as to the distance a State may lawfully extend its exclusive dominion over
the seas adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the sea which are
embraced by harbours, gulfs, bays, and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction
unquestionably extends.’ (Kent, vol. i, p. 28.)

“JURISDICTION OF STATES.

“Tt thus appears that, while in 1826 the limit of the marine belt was unsettled,
the jurisdiction of a State over its inland waters was unquestioned.

“In the laws of nations bays are regarded as a part of the territory of the
country when their dimensions and configurations are such as to show that the nation
occupying the coast also occupies the bay as a part of its territory.’ (Manning’s
‘Law of Nations,’ p. 120.)

“¢ ‘An inland sea or lake belongs to the State in which it is territorially situated.
As illustrations, may be mentioned the inland lakes whose entire body is within the
United States, and the Sea of Azof.’ (Wheaton’s ‘International Law,’ vol. i, sec. 31.)

“« ¢ Rivers and inland Jakes and seas, when contained in a particular State, are sub-
ject to the Sovereign of such State.’ (Idem, vol. iii, sec. 300.)

“‘¢Undoubtedly it is upon this principle of international law that our right to
dominion over such vast inland waters as the great lakes, Boston Harbour, Long
Island Sound, Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, Albemarle Sound, and the Bay of San
Francisco rests. This country, in 1793, considered the whole of Delaware Bay to be
within our territorial jurisdiction, and it rested its claim upon these authorities,
which admit that gulfs, channels, and arms of the sea belong to the people within
whose land they are encompassed.’ (Kent’s Com., vol.i, p. 528.)

134 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

‘(THE DOCTRINE ALWAYS ASSERTED.

“Tt thus appears that our Government asserted this doctrine in its infancy. It
was announced by Mr. Jefferson as Secretary of State and by the Attorney-General
in 1793. Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State in 1796, reaffirms it, in his letter to the
Governor of Virginia, in the following language: ‘Our jurisdiction has been fixed
to extend 3 geographical miles from our shores, with the exception of any waters or
bays which are so landlocked as to be unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the
States, be their extent what they may.’ (Wheaton’s ‘International Law,’ vol. i, sec.
32, pp. 2-100.

Ne rote Secretary of State, to Mr. Jordan, in 1849, reiterates this rule
in the following language: ‘The exclusive jurisdiction of a nation extends to the
ports, harbours, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by
headlands.’ (Idem, p. 101.)

“Mr. Seward, in the Senate in 1852, substantially enunciates the same doctrine by
declaring that, if we relied alone upon the old rule that only those bays whose
entrance from headland to headland do not exceed 6 miles are within the territorial
jurisdiction of the adjoining nation, our dominion to all the larger and more
important arms of the sea on both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts would have to be
surrendered. Our right to jurisdiction over these rests with the rule of interna-
tional law which gives a nation jurisdiction over waters embraced within its land
dominion.

““BEHRING’S SEA INLAND WATER.

“It thus appears that from our earliest history, contemporaneously with our accept-
ance of the principle of the marine league belt and supported by the same high
authorities is the assertion of the doctrine of our right to dominion over our inland
waters under the Treaty of 1867, and on this rule of international law we base our
claim to jurisdiction and dominion over the waters of the Behring’s Sea. While it
is, no doubt, true that a nation cannot by Treaty acquire dominion in contravention
of the law of nations, it is none the less true that, whatever title or dominion our

grantor, Russia, possessed under the law of nations at the time of the Treaty
115 of Cession in 1867, passed and now rightfully belongs to the United States.

Having determined the law, we are next led to inquire as to whether Behring’s
Sea is an inland water or a part of the open ocean, and what was Russia’s jurisdiction
over it.

‘‘Behring’s Sea is an inland water. Beginning on the eastern coast of Asia, this
body of water, formerly known as the Sea of Kamchatka, is bounded by the Penin-
sula of Kamchatka and Eastern Siberia to the Behring’s Strait. From the American
side of this strait the waters of the Behring Sea wash the coast of the mainland of
Alaska as far south as the Peninsula of Alaska. From the extremity of this penin-
sula, in a long, sweeping curve, the Aleutian Islands stretch in a continuous chain
almost to the shores of Kamchatka, thus encasing the sea.

‘“CRUSSIA’S TITLE AND DOMINION.

“Tt will not be denied that at the time the United States acquired the Territory
of Alaska by the Treaty of 1867, the waters of the Behring’s Sea washed only the
shores of Russian territory. The territory on the Asiatic side she had possessed
‘since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.’ Her title to the other por-
tions of those shores and her dominion over the waters of the Behring’s Sea are
‘based on ‘discovery and settlement.’

‘(POSSESSION AND SUPREMACY.

“The right of a nation to acquire new territory by discovery and possession has
been so universally recognized by the law of nations that a citation of authorities is
scarcely necessary. Upon this subject the most eminent ag well as the most con-
servative of authorities says: ‘All mankind have an equal right to things that have
not yet fallen into the possession of any one, and those things belong to the person
who first takes possession of them. When, therefore, a nation finds a country unin-
habited and without an owner, it may lawfully take possession of it, and after it
has sufficiently made known its will in this respect it cannot be deprived of it by
another nation.’

““<Thus navigators going on voyages of discovery, furnished with a commission
from their Sovereign, meeting islands or other lands in a desert state, have taken
possession of them in the name of their nation, and this title has been usually
respected, provided it was soon followed by a real possession.’ ‘When a nation
takes possession of a country to which no prior owner can lay claim, it is considered
as acquiring the empire or sovereignty of it at the same time with the domain.’ ‘The
whole space over which a nation extends its government becomes the seat of its
jurisdiction and is called its territory.’ (Vattel, p. 98.)

eee Oe eee eee ee eS ete ee eee eee pe

ee Ne eT ee ef:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 135

‘Such being the law, we are led to inquire as to on what discoveries, possessions,
and occupation Russia’s right to dominion in North America is based.

“HISTORICAL SKETCH —. 1725-1867.

“In 1725, under the commission of that wondrous combination of ironand energy,
Peter the Great, an expedition was organized, crossed the continent from St. Peters-
burgh to Kamchatka, where a vessel was constructed, and in July 1728 sailed for
explorations to the north and east. That vessel was the ‘Gabriel.’ Her master was
Vitus Behring, a name destined to historical immortality. On the expedition Beh-
ring crossed the waters of the Sea of Kamchatka, discovered and named the Island
St. Lawrence midway between which and the Asiatic mainland our boundary-line
is laid down by the Treaty, and after passing through the straits which bear his
name returned to St. Petersburgh.

“Jn 1733 a second expedition was organized under the auspices of the Government
and the commission of Queen Anne, and with Behring, raised to the rank of Admiral,
at its head, repeated the long and dreary journey across Siberia, and in June 1741
sailed for new discoveries. In July of that year Behring sighted the American con-
tinent, some authorities claim at the 58th degree of north latitude, others at the 50th
degree. The latter is probably correct, as it rests on the authority of Stellar, who
accompanied the expedition, and Behring undoubtedly sailed as far south along the
American coast as the 45th parallel, in accordance with his instructions. But what
is more pertinent to this inquiry, he discovered several of the Aleutian Islands and
the Komanderoff group or couplet. On the larger of this couplet, which bears his
name, the hardy navigator, after shipwreck, died on the 19th December, 1741.

116 ‘‘RUSSIAN DISCOVERY,

“But the spirit of Russian discovery survived him, and from the starting point he
began traders, hunters, and adventurers made their way from island to island until
the whole Aleutian chain, and with it the mainland, was discovered. In 1748, 1745,
1747, and 1749 a Cossack sergeant named Bossof made four consecutive voyages from
the mainland of Kamchatka to the Behring and Copper Islands in vessels of his own
construction. In 1745 a sailor named Nevidchinof, who had served under Behring,
crossed the channel which connects the North Pacific Ocean with the Behring’s
Sea and discovered the Islands of Attoo and Agatoo, the former of which now marks
the western limit of our land dominion. In 1744 a small Russian merchant-vessel
reached the Island of Atka and some of the smaller islands surrounding it.

“Ten years later Glottoft, in a ship belonging to an Okotsk merchant, advanced
as far as the Island of Ounak, and subsequently discovered Ounalaska and the whole
of that group of the Aleutian chain known as the Fox Islands. He made a Map of
his explorations, which includes eight islands east of Ounalaska. In 1760 a Russian
merchant, Adreian Tolstyk, landed on the Island of Adak, explored it and some of
the surrounding islands, and made a report of his discoveries to the Russian Crown.
This group was named after him, the Adreian Islands. The next year aship belong-
ing to a Russian merchant named Bechevin made the coast of the Alirska Peninsula,
and in the autumn of 1762 Glottoff, who discovered Ounalaska and the Fox Group,
reached the Island of Kodiak. In 1768 two captains of the Imperial Navy, Krenitzen
and Levashoff, sailed from Kamchatka in two Government vessels, and the former
passed the succeeding winter at Kodiak, and the latter at Ounalaska.

“Twenty-five years succeeding the death of Behring the spirit of discovery had
planted the Russian ensign along the entire Aleutian chain, trom Behring’s Island
to the mainland of the North American continent.

‘AFTER THE SEALS.

“Possession and occupation followed the footsteps of discovery, and settlements
and trading posts were established at the more favourable points along the line.
Expeditions, stimulated by the large remunerations of the fur traffic, were con-
stantly fitted out at the ports along the shores of the Sea of Okotsk and the mouth
of the Amoor River for voyages of trade and exploration in the new country. Lieu-
tenant Elliot, in his Report on the seal islands, published with the Tenth Census of
the United States, estimates that no fewer than twenty-five different Companies,
with quite a fleet of small vessels, were thus employed as early as 1772. Under the
auspices of one of these Companies, Shekeloff, a merchant of Rylsk, founded the first
permanent Settlement on the Island of Kodiak in 1784. From this point exploring
expeditions were sent out, one of which crossed the strait between Kodiak and the
mainland which bears Shekeloff’s name, and explored the coast of the mainland as
far as Cook’s Inlet, upon the shores of which in 1786 a Settlement was established.

136 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“Another pushed along the coast to Prince William Sound and Cape St. Elias, the
latter of which was located by Behring in 1741. In 1788 another of Shekelofi’s
ships visited Prince William Sound, discovered Yakutat Bay, and made a thorough
exploration of Cook’s Inlet. In the meantime, in 1786, Gehrman Pribylov, a Musco-
vite ship’s mate, sailed from Ounalaska in a small sloop called the ‘‘St. George,”
discovered the islands which bear his name, located in the heart of the Behring’s
Sea, and now far famed as the only seal rookeries in the known world. ;

‘“BARANOFE’S MISSION.

“‘In 1790 the Shekeloff Company placed at the head of all enterprises in the new
country that restless spirit whose energies clinched Russia’s dominion to her posses-
sions in North America, Alexander Baranoff. Arriving at Kodiak, he changed the
head-quarters of the Company to the harbour of St. Paul, where the village of that
name now stands, and the next year one of his skippers passed round the extremity
of the Alaska Peninsula and along the north-western coast to Bristol Bay, discover-
ing Kviehak River and the Lake Llamna, and crossed the portage to the mouth of
Cook’s Inlet, thus finding the safest and quickest means of communication between
Shekeloff Strait and the Behring’s Sea.

“Tn 1794 Baranoff established a ship-yard at Resurrection Bay, on Prince Willliam

Sound. Aboutthis time the first missionaries of the Greek Church arrived, and
117. + Missions were established at Kodiak, Ounalaska, and Spruce Island. The next

year Baranoff extended his operations and trading posts to Yakutat Bay. Fol-
lowing this was the consolidation of all Russian interests in North America, giving
rise to the Russian-American Company, which was chartered the year that Baranoff
founded Sitka, 1799. The possessions and supremacy Russia gained under this Cor-
poration have heen so universally acknowledged and widely understood as to scarcely
need comment. Under this Company, chartered by the Crown, patronized by nobil-
ity, sustained by the sinews of consolidated capital, and led by the tireless energy
of Baranoff, new explorations and Settlements inevitably followed.

‘‘As early as 1806, aside from trading posts and Settlements along the Aleutian
Islands, we find the Russian-American Company had established fourteen fortified
stations from Kodiak to the Alexander Archipelago, now known as South-eastern
Alaska—one at Three Saints Harbour, one at St. Paul Island, one on the Island of
Kodiak, one off Afognak Island, one at the entrance of Cook’s Inlet, three on the
coats of the inlet, two on Prince William Sound, one at Cape St. Elias, two on
Yakutat Bay, and oneat New Archangel, on the Bay of Sitka.

“ALONG THE COAST,

“After the death of Baranoff, in 1819, his successor in charge of the affairs of the
Company, Lieutenant Yanovsky, made extensive explorations of the coast and main-
land above the Alaska Peninsula. One expedition explored and made a preliminary
survey of the coast from Bristol Bay as far as the mouth of the Kuskovim River,
discovering and locating that stream and also the Island of Nunivak, on parallel
60th degree, in Behring’s Sea. Another passed beyond the mouth of the Yukon to
Norton’s Sound, and another entered the Nushegak River just above Bristol Bay,
pushed into the interior, and crossed the mountains and tundras into the valley of
the Kuskovim. Following these, in 1824 and 1826, were the explorations and surveys
of Ethloin and Luedke, further north on the coast of the mainland.

“Tn 1824 that eminent divine of the Greek Church, Bishop Veniamanoff, visited
the coast between Bristol Bay and the Kuskovim, establishing Missions, chapels, and
churches. Previous to this time, in 1815, Lieutenant Kotzebue, under the patronage
of Count Rumiantzo, had discovered and surveyed Kotzebue Sound and the Arctic
coast of America as far as Cape Lisburne. Lieutenant Tebenkof, of the navy, in
1835 established Missions and redoubts at St. Michael’s, on the Norton Sound, and in
1838 an expedition fitted out by him located Point Barrow. Meanwhile, expeditions
had penetrated into the interior. Glazunof ascended the Yukon as far as Nulato,
and made the first portage between that river and the Kuskovim in 1836, while
Malakof reached the same point from the redoubt established by Veniamanoff on the
Nushegak, by way of that river and the Kuskovim.

“They were followed by Lieutenant Zagoskin, of the Imperial Navy, who in
1842-43 with five assistants made extensive explorations of basins of the Yukon and
Kuskovim, a voluminous journal of which is now in print.

‘“UNBROKEN POSSESSION.

“This brings us to the close of the first century of Russian discoveries and occu-
pation in North America. It is needless to follow further, as the twenty-five years
intervening between 1842 and the date of the Treaty of the United States are but a
continuation and repetition of Russian occupation and supremacy of this territory.
That possession was never changed or broken until it passed to the United States

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. LOG

under the Treaty of 1867. The archives of Russia will further show that the Impe-
rial Government itself not only fostered these discoveries, but from the earliest period
has asserted and exercised dominion over the North American possessions.

“‘The discoveries of Behring in 1728-41 were under Royal Commission. In 1766
Tolstyk, after his discovery of the Adreian group of the Aleutian chain, was granted
special privileges in the new possessions by an Edict of Catherine II. The expedi-
tion of Kreutzen, of the Imperial Navy, to Ounimak Island in 1758 was under com-
mission of the same Sovereign. Upon the Report of the Committee of Commerce
and the recommendation of the Governor-General of Siberia in 1768, Shelikof was
granted a credit from the Public Treasury of 200,000 roubles to carry forward his
enterprises in North America. By a Ukase of Catherine II in 1793 Missions of the
Greek Church were established in the new dominion, and a Colony was also founded
at Kodiak under Royal Edict.

118 ‘THE RUSSIAN-AMERICAN COMPANY.

“The Charter of the Russian-American Company issued in 1799 declares Russia’s
dominion in the following language: ‘By the right of discovery in past times by
Russian navigators of the north-western part of America, beginning from the 55th
degree of north latitude and the chain of islands extending from Kamchatka to
America and southward to Japan, graciously permit the Company to have the use
of all hunting grounds and establishments now existing on the north-western coast
of America, from the above-mentioned 55th degree to Behring’s Strait, and on the
same on the Aleutian Kurile Islands situated on the north-eastern ocean.’

Tn conclusion, the Charter enjoins: ‘All military and civil authorities in the
above-mentioned localities not only not to prevent the Company from enjoying to
the fullest extent the privileges granted, but in case of need to protect them with
all their power from loss or injury, and render them, upon application of the Com-
pany, all aid, assistance, and protection.’

“This assertion of dominion by Russia was reiterated in 1820, when, by an Impe-
tial Ukase, Alexander I granted the second Charter to the Russian-American Com-
pany, renewing its privileges for twenty years, and was again asserted in 1844 by
the granting of the third Charter, which not only increased the privileges of the
Company, but also provided a system of colonial government for the Russian-
American colonies for the twenty succeeding years.

“RUSSIAN ORDINANCE OF 1821.

“All these assertions of jurisdiction and dominion passed unchallenged, but in
1821 the Imperial Government had issued an Ordinance regulating trafficin its Asiatic
and American possessions, and reserved exclusively to subjects of the Russian
Empire ‘the transaction of commerce, the pursuit of whaling and fishing, or any
other industry, on the islands in the harbours and inlets, and in general along the
north-western coast of America, from Behring’s Strait to the 51st parallel of north
latitude and in the Aleutian Islands, and along the coast of Siberia and on the Kurile
Islands, from Behring’s Strait to the south-eastern promontory of the Island of
Urup—viz., as far south as latitude 45° and 50° north.’

“This Ordinance called forth the protests of the United States and Great Britain,
and protracted discussions followed. A critical examination of the diplomatic cor-
respondence between the United States and Great Britain on one side and Russia
upon the other will disclose that the points in dispute in the controversy were the
assertion of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction over the Pacific Ocean, the assertion of
dominion over the coast of North America from the 55th parallel south to the 51st.
(See note of Mr. Adams, American Minister to Russia, to the Russian Minister,
March 1822.)

“Following these discussions came the Treaty of 1824 between Russia and the
United States, and the analogous Treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain.
By these Treaties, Russia receded from her assertion of exclusive jurisdiction over the
Pacific Ocean, and abandoned her claim to possessions on the coast of North America,
south of 54° 40’.

“THE TREATY.

“The following are the Articles of the Treaty between the United States and
Russia germane to the questions involved in the case:

«¢¢ ARTICLE I.
““¢Tt is agreed that in any part of the great ocean commonly called the Pacific

Ocean, or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting
Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing,

138 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

or in the power of resorting to the coasts upon points which may not already have
been occupied for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the restric-
tions and conditions determined by the following Articles.

6¢¢ ARTICLE II.

““¢ With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exercised

upon the great ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting Powers

from becoming the pretext of an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens of

119 the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian estab-

lishment without the permission of the Governor or Commander, and that

reciprocally the subjects of Russia shall not resort without permission to any estab-
lishment of the United States upon the north-west coast.

66 CARTICLE ILi.

‘¢ ‘Tt is, moreover, agreed that hereafter there shall not be formed by the citizens
of the United States, or under authority of the said States, any establishment upon
the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent to the north of
54° 40/ north latitude, and that in the same manner there shall be none formed by
the Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.

(6 CARTICLE LV.

‘¢ (Tt is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, counting from
the signatures of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong
to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any
hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast
mentioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the
natives of the country.’ (Wheaton’s ‘International Law,’ vol. i, pp. 2-112.)

“‘The Treaty between Russia and Great Britain contains substantially the same

provisions. Neither in the Treaties nor in the correspondence is any reference made.

to Russia’s claim of dominion over the Behring’s Sea. If in the diplomatic corre-
spondence leading up to the Treaty any challenge as to the jurisdiction of Behring’s
Sea had been made, why was it not settled by the Treaties? Did the High Con-
tracting Powers to these Treaties enter into a discussion lasting nearly two years as
to one matter and make adjustment by Treaty as to other matters?

“<The Convention between Russia and Great Britain, aside from disposing of the
question of Russia’s asserted sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean and fixing the
southern limit of her possession on the western coast of North America, also estab-
lished the dividing line of their respective North American possessions from 54 40
north to the frozen ocean, which boundary-line is incorporated verbatim into the
Treaty of Cession of 1867 from Russia to the United States. (Treaty of 1867,
Article I.)

“If differences existed as to the dominion of the Behring’s Sea, why were they not
also settled, as that manifestly would be a part of the object of holding the Conven-
tion?

‘‘ RUSSIA’S JURISDICTION.

“Tt cannot be successfully maintained that by such terms as the ‘Great Ocean,’
the ‘Pacific Ocean,’ or the ‘South Sea,’ the High Contracting Powers referred to the
Behring’s Sea. Aside from this, it is stipulated in both Treaties that the ships, citi-
zens, and subjects of either Power may reciprocally frequent the interior seas, gulfs,
harbours, and creeks of the other on the North American coast for a period of ten
years. The only interior sea on the North American coast was the Behring’s Sea held
by Russia. If that was a part of the ‘Pacific Ocean,’ or the ‘Great Ocean,’ or the
‘South Sea,’ or belonged to the high seas under the law of nations, why the term
‘interior sea,’ and why should the United States and Great Britain accept a ten years’
limit of the right of navigation, fishing, and trading in an interior sea if they had
the unconditional right to frequent those waters under the law of nations?

‘‘This section of the Treaty, therefore, really concedes Russia’s dominion over
Behring’s Sea. Chancellor Kent alludes to this subject as the ‘claim of Russia to
sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean north of the 51st degree of latitude.’ (Kent, vol.
i, p. 28.)

‘A summary of results following the discussions and Conventions as to the Royal
Ordinance of 1821 is the abandonment by Russia of her claim to sovereignty over the
Pacific Ocean; a surrender of her claim to the North American coast south of 54°
40’; a settlement by Russia and Great Britain as to the boundary-line of their pos-
sessions in North America; agreements as to settlements upon each other’s territory
and navigation of each other’s waters, but no surrender of Russia’s jurisdiction over
the Behring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 139
120 “POWERS OF CONGRESS.

“Upon this branch of the subject, the power of Congress over Behring’s Sea,
there seems to be little room for discussion. The power of a nation to control its
own dominions is one of the inherent elements of sovereignty.

“«¢ When a nation takes possession of certain parts of the sea, it takes possession
of the empire over them as well as of the domain, on the same principles which are
advanced intreating of theland. Thesepartsof theseaare within the jurisdiction of
the nation and a part of its territory; the Sovereign commands them; he makes
laws and may punish those who violate them; in a word, he has the same rights
there as on the land, and in general, every right which the laws of the State allow
him.’ (Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations,’ p. 130.)

“By the Treaty of 1867, ‘the cession of territory and dominion therein made is
declared to be free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, franchises,
grants, or possessions, berets and conveys all the rights, franchises, and
privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion and the
appurtenances thereto.’ (Treaty, Article VI.)

“The Constitution of the United States declares that all Treaties made under the
authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. (Constitution
of the United States, Article 6.)

‘That same instrument vests in Congress ‘the power to make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States.’ (Constitution of the United States, Article 4, section 3.)

‘“‘Manifestly, the Acts of Congress contained in chapter 3, Revised Statutes of the
United States, ‘relating to the unorganized Territory of Alaska,’ and under which
the information is brought, are embraced within these constitutional provisions.

‘6 CONCLUSION.

“The foregoing record may contain but a meagre idea of the indomitable energy
and perseverance displayed by the Russian people in acquiring empire in North
America, beginning with discoveries of Behring in 1728, aud extending for more than
a century and a quarter, wherein they braved the perils of land and sea, overcamea
savage native population, faced ice and snow, storm and shipwreck, to found and
maintain empire on these rugged shores. Enough has been said to disclose the basis
of Russia’s right to jurisdiction of the Behring’s Sea under the law of nations, viz.,
original possession of the Asiatic coast, followed by discovery and possession of the
Aleutian chain and the shores of Alaska North, not only to Behring’s Strait but to
Point Barrow and the frozen ocean, thus inclosing within its territory, as within the
embrace of a mighty giant, the islands and waters of Behring’s Sea, and with this
the assertion and exercise of dominion over land and sea.

“Such is our understanding of the law, such is the record. Upon them the United
Stafes are nrenared to abide the Judgments of the Courts and the opinion of the
civilized world.”

[Inclosure 2 in No. 77.]
Extract from the “ New York Herald,” October 13, 1887.

THE ALASKAN SEAL FIsHERIES.—The ‘Herald ” lays before its readers this morn-
ing the grounds on which the United States claims exclusive jurisdiction over the
seal fisheries of Behring’s Sea, as set forth in the brief of the counsel for this coun-
try in the case against certain British vessels charged with violating our rights.

The plea in defence is that the United States has no dominion over the waters of
Behring’s Sea beyond a marine league, or 3 miles, from the Alaskan shore. But this
view cannot be sustained. As is shown by numerous authorities cited in Counsellor
Delaney’s brief, it is a recognized principle of international law, and one which this
country has always asserted, that a nation has jurisdiction not only over waters
within the marine league, but all waters, whatever their extent, embraced within
its land dominion. Gulfs, bays, and arms of the sea belong to the country within
whose land they are encompassed.

Now Behring’s Sea is not a part of the open or high sea. It is, as Mr. Delaney
clearly shows, “an inland water cut off from the ocean and essentially land-locked.”

Before the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867 it was within the
121 exclusive jurisdiction of Russia. By that purchase it passed into the exclu-
sive jurisdiction of the United States, which succeeded to the title of Russia,

140 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 78.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 26, 1887.

Sir: With reference to my despatch of the 19th instant, requesting
you to protest to the United States Government against the seizure of
the British sealing schooner “ Alfred Adams” in Behring’s Sea, I have
to instruct you to give the United States Secretary of State a copy of
the Report, and inclosures, which was drawn up by Mr. Foster, the
Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on the 15th ultimo.

LT understand that this document has been communicated to you by
the Governor-General of Canada, and a copy was inclosed in the letter
from the Colonial Cftice of the 17th instant.

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 79.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 29, 1887.

Sir: I have received your despatch of the 14th instant, inclosing a
note trom Mr. Bayard, in which he expresses regret that the orders of
the President of the United States for the release of the vessels ‘ Caro-
lina,” “Onward,” and “Thornton” should have been delayed through
misconception, and states that renewed orders have been forwarded
for their liberation.

I approve your action in having forwarded a copy of this note to the
Governor-General of Canada.

Iam, &e.

(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 80.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 31.)

WASHINGTON, October 20, 1887.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose your Lordship herewith
copy of a note which, upon the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of
the 19th, I addressed to the Secretary of State protesting against the
seizure of the Canadian vessel “ Alfred Adams” in Behring’s Sea, and
against the continuation of similar proceedings by the United States
authorities on the high seas.

I have, We.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 141

[Inclosure in No. 80.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, October 19, 1887.

Str: I have the honour to inform you that Iam instructed by the Marquis of Salis-
bury, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Aftairs, to protest
against the seizure of the Canadian vessel ‘‘ Alfred Adams” in Behring’s Sea, and
against the continuation of similar proceedings by the United States authorities on

the high seas.
I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEsT.

122 Noss.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 14.)

WASHINGTON, October 23, 1887.

My Lorn: With reference to my despatch of the 20th instant, in
which | had the honour to inclose copy of the note which, according to
instructions, I addressed to the United States Government on the sub-
ject of the seizure of the ‘ Alfred Adams” in Behring’s Sea, I have the
honour to transmit herewith copy of Mr. Bayard’s reply, in which he
acknowledges the receipt of my above-mentioned communication.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST,

{Inclosare in No. 81.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 22, 1887.

Srr: I had the honour to receive last evening your note of the 19th instant, con-
veying the instructions addressed to you by the Marquis of Salisbury, that you
should protest against the seizure of the Canadian vessel ‘‘ Alfred Adams” in Beh-
ring’s Sea, and against the continuance of similar proceedings by the United States

authorities on the high seas, and I have, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

No. 82.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received November 21.)

DOWNING STREET, November 19, 1887.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Secretary Sir Henry Holland to transmit to you, to be laid before the
Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General
of Canada, forwarding a Minute of the Executive Council of British
Columbia respecting the value to that province of the sealing industry
on Behring’s Sea.

I am to ask what answer should be returned to Lord Lansdowne,
and to suggest that copies of these papers should be forwarded to Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington.

lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

142 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Iuclosure 1 in No. 82.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, OrTTawa, October 20, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to transmit to you a copy of an approved Report of a Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, to which is appended a copy of a despatch from his
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, covering a Minute of his
Executive Council setting forth the value to british Columbia of the present seal-
ing industry in Behring’s Sea.

You will observe that the Executive Council of British Columbia consider that
the rights of British subjects, as regards the Behring’s Sea, should be included in
the scope of the duties of the International Fisheries Commission.

I have, &e. (Signed) LANSDOWNE.

123 {Inclosure 2 in No. 82.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 15th October, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated
15th September, 1887, from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, covering

a Minute of his Executive Council setting forth the value to British Columbiaof the .

present sealing industry in Behring’s Sea, together with the opinion of the Execu-
tive that the rights of British subjects should have the same protection and consid-
eration on the Pacific as on the Atlantic, and that these rights as regards the Behring’s
Sea should be included in the scope of the duties of the International Commission in
process of organization.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were
referred, recommends that a copy of the despatch referred to, with its inclosures, be
transmitted to Her Majesty’s Government.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of the
papers herein mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Col-
onies, for the information of Her Majesty’ s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed ) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council for Canada.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 82.]
Lieutenant-Governor Ne'son to the Secretary of State, Ottawa.

HarRISON HoT SPRINGS, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 15, 1887.

Sir: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a Minute of my Executive
Council, approved by me on the 9th instant, representing the value to the Province
of British Columbia of the present sealing industry in Behring’s Sea, the number of
vessels, men, &c., engaged in the same, the loss to the province certain to ensue
from the destruction of this trade by the seizures and confiscations made by the
United States cruizers.

That the rights of British subjects should have the same protection and consider-
ation on the Pacific as on the Atlantic, and that full compensation and redress for
injuries already received, and assurances of future non-interference, should be

obtained from the United States Government.

That this question should be included in the scope of the duties of the Inter-
national Fishery Commission now understood to be in process of organization, and
that it is desirable said Commission should hold some of its sittings in Victoria, for
reasons therein set forth, &e.

Ihave, &c. (Signed) Huau NELSON.

{Inclosure 4 in No. 82.]
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Executive Council, approved by his Honour
the Lieutenant-Governor on the 9th September, 1887.

On a Memorandum from the Honourable the Minister of Finance and Agriculture,
dated the 6th September, 1887, setting forth—

That there are usually engaged i in seal- fishing in Behring’s Sea seventeen vessels
aw lelly. owned by people residing in this city, of the aggregate value of 125,000
dollars;

eo te a ee eee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 143

That the outfit for each semi-annual voyage of these vessels represents an expend-
iture of 75,000 dollars, equal to 150,000 dollars a-year;

That each of these vessels, on an average, employs a crew of five whites and about

twenty Indians, or fifteen to eighteen whites as hunters;
124 That the probable aggregate value of the product of each voyage is 200,000
dollars, or 400,000 dollars a-year ;

That this industry, though as yet only in its infancy, is a very important one for
so small a community ;

That the glaring and unlawful seizures and confiscations in Behring’s Sea during
last season and the present year are completely crushing out this infant industry,
and causing ruin, and, in several known instances, actual distress, to those who
have invested their all in the business and relied upon it for a livelihood;

That the destruction of this industry not only entails ruin and distress upon those
directly engaged therein, but it affects most injuriously the trade of the province,
and drives from these waters a race of hardy and adventurous fishermen, who, with
their families, are large consumers, and who would in time become a very important
element of strength, if not the nucleus of the future navy of Canada on the Pacific.

That the rights and interests of British subjects, whether in fisheries or commerce,
are entitled to the same consideration and protection on the Pacific as on the Atlantic,
and that it is therefore the duty of the Dominion Government to employ every proper
means for obtaining immediate and full compensation and redress for past injuries
and wrongs, as well as to guard against the possibility of a repetition of these high-
handed outrages in the future;

That it is believed to be desirable that this question should be included in the
scope of the duties of the International Commission now understood to be in process
of organization for the settlement of the fishery disputes existing between Canada
and the United States of America; and it is considered most important that the said
Commission should hold one or more of its sittings in this city, in order that those
more directly acquainted with and interested in the Pacific fisheries may have a
better opportunity of being heard and making the Commissioners more thoroughly
acquainted with the subject than would otherwise be possible:

The Committee advise approval, and that a copy of this Minute be fowarded to
the Honourable the Secretary of State for Canada [sic].

Certified,
(Signed) JNO. ROBSON, Clerk, Executive Council.

No. 83.

The Marquis of Salisbury to the British Plenipotentiaries at the Fisheries
Conference.— (Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 28, 1887.

GENTLEMEN: I received on the 26th instant a telegram from Mr.
Chamberlain, inquiring whether a proposal for an International Con-
ference in regard to the Behring’s Sea fisheries had been accepted by
Her Majesty’s Government.

You are aware, from the correspondence which is in your possession,
that communications with reference to a proposal which would appear
to have been addressed to some of the Maritime Powers by the United
States for an International Convention for the protection of seals in the
Behring’s Sea, were received last October from the German and Swedish
Chargés d’ Affaires in London.

No definite invitation, however, for an international understanding on
this question has yet been received from the Government of the United
States by Her Majesty’s Government.

In answer to a question from Mr. Phelps, I have expressed myself as
being favourabiy disposed to negotiating for an agreement as to a close
Season in all seal fisheries, to whomsoever belonging, but I-carefully
separated the question from all controversies as to fishery rights.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

144 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
125 No. 84.

The Marquis of Salisbury to the British Commissioners to the Fisheries
q y :
Conference.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 29, 1887.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith for your information, a copy of a
letter from the Colonial Office,* and its inclosures, calling attention
to the value to British Columbia of the present sealing industry in
Rehring’s Sea.

The Executive Council of the Colony express a desire that this ques-
tion should be included in the scope of the duties of the Fisheries Con-
ference now sitting at Washington.

A copy of the reply which has been returned to the Colonial Office is
also inclosed herewith. t

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 85.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 29, 1887.

Sir: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, with its inclosures, showing
the value to British Columbia of the present sealing industry in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

His Lordship notes the opinion expressed in the Minute of the Execu-
tive Council of the Colony that this question should be included in the
scope of the duties of the Fisheries Conference now sitting at Wash-
ington.

{ am now to request that, in laying this letter before Secretary Sir H.
Holland, you will state to him that copies of Lord Lansdowne’s dispatch
of the 20th ultimo, and of its inclosures, will be forwarded to the Brit-
ish Plenipotentiaries at the Conference.

I am also to call attention to the instructions in regard to this sub-
ject contained in Lord Salisbury’s dispatch of the 24th ultimo to the
British Plenipotentiaries. ¢

It was then stated that “the question of the seal fisheries in the
Behring’s Sea . . . has not been specifically included in the terms
of reference; but you will understand that if the United States Pleni-
potentiaries should be authorized to discuss that subject, it would
come within the terms of the reference, and that you have full power
and authority to treat for a settlement of the points involved in any
manner which you may deem advisable, whether by a direct discussion
at the present Conference or by a reference to a subsequent Conference
to adjust that particular question.”

Lord Salisbury would suggest, for Sir H. Holland’s consideration,
that the substance of these instructions should be communicated to the
Governor-General of Canada.

lain, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

*No. 82. t No. 85. tSce “United States No. 1 (1888).”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 145
No. 86.

Mr. J. Chamberlain, M. P., to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received
December 12.)

WASHINGTON, November 28, 1887.

My Lorp: I have received your Lordship’s telegram of this day’s
date, in reply to mine of the 25th instant.

In explanation of the circumstances which led me to address to your
Lordship the inquiry contained in my telegram, I should state that
Mr. Angell, one of the United States Plenipotentiaries at the Fishery
Conference, stated to me, in the course of a private and confidential
conversation, that an invitation had been conveyed to your Lordship,

on behalf of the United States, to take part in an International
126 Conference for the protection of the seal fisheries in the Beh-

ring’s Sea, and that your Lordship had cordially accepted this
invitation.

I may add that the question of the seal fishery in the Behring’s Sea
has not yet arisen for discussion at the sittings of the Conference.

I have, &ce.
(Signed) J. CHAMBERLAIN.

No. 87.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received December 26.)

DOWNING STREET, December 26, 1887.

Str: Iam directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of
a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, forwarding revised
claims made by the owners of the “Thornton” and ‘“‘Carolina” for losses
sustained on account of the seizure of these vessels by a United States
Revenue vessel in Behring’s Sea.

The revised claim of the owners of the ‘‘Onward,” the other vessel
seized in 1886, has not yet been received, but Lord Salisbury will know
whether it will be advisable to wait for it before putting forward the
“Thornton” and “Carolina” claims.

I am to request that the inclosures in Lord Lansdowne’s despatch,
which are sent in original, may be returned when done with.

Iam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 87.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT HouskE, Ottawa, December 2, 1887.

Sir: With reference to your despatch of the 14th September last on the subject of
the seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea by United States Revenue
crnizers, and directing attention to the magnitude of the claims for compensation
preferred by the owners against the United States Government, I have the honour
to forward herewith a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy
Council, submitting a revised Statement of the losses sustained in the cases of the
“Thornton” and ‘‘Carolina.” My Minister of Marine and Fisheries considers that
the claims now made are not unreasonable.

BS, PP V: 10

146 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

You will observe that whereas the amount at first claimed in respect of the seizure
of these two vessels was 102,228 dollars, the amount now claimed is 71,130 dol. 66 ¢.
In the case of the ‘‘Onward,” the third vessel seized, the claim has not yet been
returned by the owners.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 87.]

Certified Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Couneil for
Canada, approved by his Lacellency the Governor-General in Council on the 29th
November, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch,
dated the 14th September, 1887, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, on the subject of the seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea
by United States Revenue cruizers, and directing attention to certain claims for
compensation against the United States Government.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were

referred, stated that the claims (three in number) referred to in this despatch
127 were sent back to the owners of the vessels for revision. In the cases of two

of these, the ‘‘ Thornton” and “Carolina,” a fulland detailed revised Statement
of the losses is submitted herewith. These, the Minister submits, are not unreason-
able; the claim for the ‘‘ Onward,” the third vesse) seized, has not yet been returned
by the owners.

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward the claims
herein mentioned to the Right Honourable the Seéretary of State for the Colonies,
for transmission to the United States Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 87.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry or OTTAWA, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada,

1, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British
Columbia, of the Dominion of Canada, mariner and ship-owner, solemnly and sin-
cerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent of William Muusle, of the city of Victoria
aforesaid, the owner of the hereinafter mentioned schooner ‘‘ Carolina.”

2. That the schooner ‘‘Carolina” is a British vessel, registered at the port of

Victoria aforesaid, of about ——— tons burden, builders’ measurement, and that in
A.D. 1884 the ‘* Carolina” was rebuilt and lengthened about 15 feet by a section built
amidships, and put in first-class order and condition. In A. D. 1885 the said ‘‘ Caro.
lina”? was valued for insurance by the Union Insurance Company at 4,000 dollars,
and in A.D. 1886 the California Insurance Company placed the same value, namely,
4,000 dollars, upon her for a like purpose. Iam informed by the said William Munsle,
and believe that since the rebuilding and enlargement of the ‘‘ Carolina,” she has not
been re-registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid nor at any other port, and that
consequently her actual tonnage is greater than appears by the official record, or the
register of the said ‘‘ Carolina.”
3. That on or about the 20th day of May, A.D. 1886, the said ‘‘ Carolina” left the
port of Victoria aforesaid, after having been duly cleared at Customs, one James
Ogilvie being master, and one James Blake mate, and a crew of nine sailors and
hunters, on a fishing and hunting voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s
Sea.

4, That on the Ist day of August, in said year 1886, while in said Behring’s Sea in
north latitude 55° 50’, west longitude 168° 53’, then being from 65 to 75 miles from
the nearest land, and while, as I am informed and verily believe, lawfully pursuing
the objects of said voyage, the said schooner ‘‘ Carolina” was seized by the United
States steam-ship ‘‘Corwin,” and taken to Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska,
of the United States of America, and her voyage broken up.

5. That on arrival at Ounalaska aforesaid the ‘‘ Carolina” was, by order of the
United States authorities, stripped of her outfit and running-gear, the seal-skins on
board taken out, the captain, James Ogilvie, and the mate, James Blake, placed
under arrest and sent to Sitka, in said Territory of Alaska, and the crew sent to the
city of San Francisco.

—S ee |

ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. pie. Oy

6. That upon arrival at Sitka the captain and the mate of the “Carolina” were
formally charged with having violated the laws of the United States of America
respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska, but before the day fixed for the hearing
and trialof said charge Captain Ogilvie disappeared, and was afterwards found dead
in orabout the neighbourhood of Sitka. The mate, James Blake, was tried, found
guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of 300 dollars and be imprisoned at Sitka for
thirty days, and which imprisonment he, James Blake, suffered.

7. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a Statement of the articles comprising the
outfit of the schooner ‘ Carolina” on her departure on said voyage, and all of which
I verily believe were on board the ‘‘Carolina” at the time of her seizure, excepting
only what had been consumed in the ordinary course of the voyage, together with
the value of said articles, also of the amount of premiums paid for insurance on the
hull, outfit, and cargo of the said ‘‘Carolina” for the said voyage; also of the amount
of wages paid to the crew and hunters on board the ‘‘Carolina” up to the time of

such seizure; also of the expenses of the mate and part of the crew in returning
128 tothe city of Victoria from Ounalaska and Sitka, and also a statement of the

number of seal-skins on board the *‘ Carolina” at the time of said seizure, and
the value thereof.

8. The Exhibit (B) hereto annexed is a Statement of the catch of thirteen sealing-
vessels in and about the Behring’s Sea during so much of the season of A. D. 1886 as
they were in Behring’s Sea. The statement is taken fromthe Report of the Inspector
of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for the year 1886, as contained in
the Report of the Department of Fisheries for Canada at pages 248 and 249, and I
verily say, from personal knowledge of the facts, that the said Statement is sub-
stantial, true, and correct. The schooners ‘‘Carolina,” meaning the ‘‘Carolina”
herein mentioned, and ‘‘Thornton” and ‘*Onward,” were seized on the Ist and 2nd
Angust in 1886, and their voyages thus broken up; the schooners ‘‘Mary Taylor,”
“Mountain Chief,” ‘‘ Rustler,” and ‘ Kate” not having been in Behring’s Sea during
the season of 1886, the catch of these above-named schooners are not included in
estimating the average catch in Behring’s Sea for that year. On account of the
seizures made on the Ist and 2nd August as aforesaid, and of the schooner ‘‘ Favorite”
being ordered out of the sea by the Commander of the said ‘‘ Corwin,” the thirteen
vessels mentioned in Exhibit (B), with one or two exceptions, left Behring’s Sea, or
the best sealing-grounds therein, long before the close of the sealing season, and
thus the average catch as found in Exhibit (B) is fully, as I verily believe, 500 skins
less than it would have been had they all remained till the end of the season.

9. That hereto annexed, marked (C) is a Statement of the legal expenses incurred
at Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizure of the ‘‘ Carolina,” and the arrest of
her captain and mate as aforesaid, and also of the personal expenses connected
therewith.

10. That hereto annexed, marked (D), is a Statement of the damages claimed by
the owner of the ‘‘ Carolina” by reason of her said seizure and detention during the
years 1886, 1887, and 1888, based upon the average catch of seal-skins per vessel as
found by Exhibit (B).

11. The price per skin charged in Exhibits (A) and (D), namely, 7 dollars, was the
market price at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the season of 1886, and was the
price which, in the ordinary course of events, would have been realized for said seal-
skins had not such seizure taken place.

12. That hereto annexed, marked (FE), is an estimate of the principal sums on
which interest is claimed, from the Ist day of October, A. D. 1886, on or about which
date the catch of the “Carolina” would have been realized on had she not been
seized, and also for the actual outlay by her owner prior to that date, arising by
reason of the seizure and detention of the ‘‘Carolina,” the arrest of the captain and
mate, and the expenses of the mate and crew in returning to Victoria from Ounalaska
and Sitka.

13. That during the month of October, A. p. 1886, and ever since that time, the
minimum rate of interest on money for commercial purposes at the city of Victoria
aforesaid was and now is7 per cent. per annum.

14. That hereto annexed, marked (IF), is a Statement of the items of the outfit of
the ‘“ Carolina” when on said voyage and the value thereof, which would have been
wholly consumed in the ordinary prosecution of a full season’s hunting and fishing
voyage.

15. The prices charged for the articles and groups of articles in Exhibit (A), com-
prising the outfit of the ‘‘ Carolina,” are the market prices of the said articles and
groups of articles at Victoria at the time of their purchase for the purposes of said
voyage.

16. That as to the item, ‘Cash on board and unaccounted for, 500 dollars,” charged
in Exhibit (A), I am informed by the said William Munsle, and do verily believe, that
the said sum of 500 dollars was placed on board the ‘‘Carolina” at the time of her
departure from Victoria as aforesaid, intrusted to the master, James Ogilvie, for use

148 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

in cases of emergency or unforeseen expenditures, and I verily believe that said sum
of 500 dollars was on board the ‘‘Carolina” at the time of her seizure; but owing
to the death of Captain Ogilvie at Sitka, it was not known by the said owner what
became of the said sum of 500 dollars.

17. That at the time of the seizure of the ‘ Carolina” she was in good order and
condition, having been thoroughly overhauled before starting out on said voyage, and
not having sustained any damage beyond ordinary wear and tear during said voyage

up to the time of her seizure.
129 18. That the value placed on the ‘‘ Carolina,” namely, 4,000 dollars, is a fair
and reasonable valuation of the said schooner, and from my personal knowl-
edge of the ‘‘Carolina,” and the value of vessels of her class at Victoria, I verily
believe that she could not be replaced by a vessel in all respects as good and as well
adapted to the purposes for which she was used for a less sum than 4,000 dollars.

19. That on or about the 13th day of July last past I was at Ounalaska aforesaid,
and saw and was on board of the said schooner ‘‘ Carolina.” She was then lying
anchored in the harbour at Ounalaska, stripped of all her outfit and running gear.
Her standing rigging was much weather-beaten, her iron work much rusted, her
deck seams in a bad state, and I verily believe, from the condition in which the
“Carolina” then was, and in view of the fact that she must remain so exposed until
least next May (A.D. 1888), it will cost at least 4,000 dollars to put her in as good
repair and condition as when seized and return her to Victoria. To be taken to
Victoria under ordinary circumstances would alone cost between 2,500 and 3,000
dollars.

20. That the “Carolina” at the time of her seizure was insured in the California
Insurance Company for the sum of 2,500 dollars on her hull, and in the sum of 1,000
dollars on her outfit and cargo.

21. That the estimated loss of 5,000 dollars for each of the years 1887 and 1888 by
reason of the seizure and detention of the ‘‘Carolina” as aforesaid is based upon an
average catch of 2,380 seal-skins for each of the said years, at 54 dollars per skin,
which was the market 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 ‘‘ Carolina’s ”
voyage of A.D. 1886.

And I, James Douglas Warren, aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting extra-
judicial oaths.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton,
in the Province of Ontario, this 28th day of November, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) W. D. Hoae,
Notary Public for Ontario.

Exuipir (A).

Value of the schooner “ Carolina” at the time of seizure.........--.---- $4, 000. 00

Outfit:
(GTOCETIGS Hares. See Sees dee ck Bae DORE ee eee ee F598. 60
PAIMINUNUGVONS =. SoceUt ths Yo pe ee a soe oe eee eee 173. 34
Srxashonoyounse Hees celts Ses ee Oe ee aed ee ies eames 300. 00
Riv Genesee oes sddles Saioe ac os Sosa. See ote CE ene 130. 00
Gunimplements anditools: 252 4: 2. -2- 22s ee eee 17. 29
IDNA y GOOUS 6 bbe S soso cosa cued sanesp= coc ggageccecose jaccmde 71. 37
Slauly, GgnielMycaaaoonaen bosses anesss bacoege sss Goucdscesec 76, 83
WV AbODAGABIKS sas bi Saeke Hiei aes incase 26 Sie Eocene 12. 00
Chronometer fale se. Mso0 gels se. 5. Codec b Bae emcees Sree cee 160. 00
HOURICANOESANGS OUWtinte.)5 = ssc Secs lore ce eee aoe Se eeeeee 248. 50
OnetbOdt ee eae ne oc Soha ecre cok SESS. REESE ee ee eerste 100. 00
Sau tea ae a PE ES Bee is Sy Sic aySisras See eee ome aie ee ree eee 81. 00
Conlvandtwoodsforfiwel. a5 sce ces 5A Boks cee eee eee 37. 62
Coolkineistoverndl utensils ss2 22s 22. es eek a esa eee 79. 00
MaAncellaneOUstass se ose Saw cee ajeiees kee Sislete ee a eee reeset 42. 34
@ashion! board and unaccounted for..-..--- --<- -2------ so. 500. 00
ET WOMAN RUA INES He Bide S oes elalleiere wD wre eres Se wiewlappemiansiaioe elas ste 75. 00

3, 002. 89

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 149

Exuisit (A)—Continued.

Insurance premium and survey fee on 2,500 dollars on hull and 1,000

dollarsion! oublitiand care oles 222-2 = s-5 co a= See Sen One Conceey eee sal)
Wages paid to hunters and crews for V voyage up ‘to time of seiz-
HAD) CSGS'S EOS Oo Oe Ors OTIC ie tee Pane ER ela neater ne a $1, 332. 22

Part of crew having been sent to San Francisco by United
States authorities, board of five men at San Francisco and

passage-money thence to Victoria ........---..-.---.---...-- TAT2,
Passage-money and expenses of mate, James Blake, from Sitka
to Victoria after release from PrISONP et ipo eae Bes eee 100. 00
——_ 2, 003. 94
686 seal-skins on board the ‘‘ Carolina” when seized, and not returned,
Atma ollansyperyskIMy. Sac e alesse ae egals soe seca sya ceeenecccse -see ce cere sy So0es00
Mo tally Rix biGy (AY) yeccte a Pe laloa siya ye ey eee = eis I= Ss aciseceteisesis seitee se = ls, AOL So

130 Exurpit (B).—Number of seal-skins taken by each of the following thirteen
sealing vessels during the year 1886 in and about the Behring’s Sea, most of
the said vessels leaving the sea before the end of the season fearing capture.

|
Number of | Number of
Vessels. seal-skins. Vessels. seal-skins.

LASTING A: See coacseoseotadsnpaondsocd 1,766 || Dolphin 2, 601
MEM MNIOM se cee wanes aes ne aac ose 4,256 || Anna Beck 1, 400
PRG TOS arate suis Soke cs oes eo ecse cco QhG 25 WV Graeerees-ceecsnecocce 2, 550
MAaVOUTItel sc sceee tec mac ciee Oa cceies 2,325 || Sayward 2,725
IAC ko Diamonds ess ceases eens a nis sais 1, 760 wee
PAN fede A dan Siac aaiciac eo aralasi access css 2, 465 Totalucatehes sso sce aneesee 30, 955
PNCTIV Ones eee ee ce cecisice ac Sa ecine mteecss S 2,275 —
City. OfSAaNtlalOranes ssh ccces cso 1, 620 Average per vessel .........--- 2, 381
Dilviamilian dyseeenacaclce seleoeiestier 1, 587

EXHIBIT (C).

Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the ‘‘Carolina”. $500.00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the
“‘Carolina,”’ and the claims arising thereunder, exclusive of the above

HOORMOM ATS f4er sere SE EN Ee AE SS RE AS gh ate 8 yds Soa PE ou Loe a2 750. 00
Personal expenses other than the above in the same connection.........-.- 250. 00
Mota SEssMssk ac oseteh Se a Mase SASS CE A See aside Sas Sask 1, 500. 00

Exursit (D).—Estimated damages arising from the seizure and detention of the
schooner ‘‘ Carolina” based on the average catch per vessel as given in Exhibit (B),
season 1886.

No.
AWeracorcatchtOfiseals Se toses 2 sah ists Jl aw Suse oe Bhs 2, 381
Less on board at seizure, and charged in Exhibit (A)-....... 689
balanceat iidollars per akin’: $5220.22 6 YALA 1, 695 = $11, 865. 00

Reasonable and probable profit on operations for year 1887.. $5, 000. 00
“Carolina” not being released and not available to engage in
next year’s operations, reasonable and probable profit for
Perera mna een sae Sao Soe saete kl Sse Se cicias soeweelsece 5, 000. 00
—_——£— 10, 000. 00

EG ualte felisatul bib) (AD) itt Case OD oe oe eA Las SUES Ses ida 21, 855. 00

150 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Exursir (E).—Estimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent. per
annum is claimed, and the time for which interest is so claimed,

Value of ‘‘Carolina’s” estimated catch for 1886—namely, 2,381
skins, at 7 dollars per skin—from the Ist day of October, a.D.

1X86, when the catch would have been realized on .---..---- $16, 667. 00
Actual cash outlay for legal and other necessary expenses
incurred by reason of the said seizure..-......----.......- 500. 00

Total principal on which interest is claimed from Octo-
ber, A.D. 1886, to date of payment of claim ------.. 222... --__-- $17, 167. 00
Estimated value of the ‘‘Carolina”’ catch for 1887, less cost of outfit and
wages of crew and hunters, on which interest at 7 per cent. is claimed
trom Ist October, A. D. 1887, on or about which date the catch would be
Reaizeqjon co date Of payment ce: > -- == eee ee are eee. 5, 000. 00
If the claim for 1887 be not allowed, then interest is claimed on the value
of the “Carolina” from Ist October, 1886, to date of payment...-..... 4, 000. 00

131. Exuteir (F).—Details of items of “Carolina’s” outfit consumed during the
course of a full hunting and sealing voyage.

IGPROCELIOS Ete 1e — © iw t= = S80 cces wie aye aren Sie pe ee eee eee pe ete ee $598. 60
AWD AO ee eee Peete caeses coc d Dads sedo loses hcsod secede 173. 34
IDI? Omde) A Ses Seeds soe sescd ccoser dace 82a 55S ssace $d0555250ss Sscccssase 71. 37
ShupeChan elLy << sa c.- = 222 222 jo cee ee 2 ee eee ee ere 376. 83
Sill) sléopga aeons hearer et Se worn Kee snemicnatceoass dhacuss 81. 00
WaallandwOOd,..- <1 220 t= s002 Sake eso ee eee Sacer. arrnep sate 37. 62
Muscellaneous «....- =~... 5-2-2 225-5505 Jase ee aaleisae =o se ie elas Sete ele eeiee 42. 34
WYRE? CRE) is Gee SE Oeea mae TeScandeatss> doe cosop assed boss edactessed 1, 832. 22

Total value consuned...-..- once tedele Son aces cio ceaceissecke SSS ee aoe One!

[Inclosure 4 in Ne. 87.]

Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry or Orrawa, Province of Ontarie, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British
Columbia, of the Dominion of Canada, mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That Lam a British subject by birth.

2. That I was sole owner of the British steam-schooner ‘‘Thornton,” 78 tons bur-
den by builders’ measurement, registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid, before
and at the time of her seizure hereinafter set out by the United States steam-ship
“¢ Corwin.”

3. That the said steam-schooner ‘Thornton ” was rebuilt by me in A. D. 1887,* ata
cost of 3,500 dollars, and in A. pb. 1880 and A.D. 1881 was fitted up with steam pro-
pelling power at an additional cost of 3,000 dollars. Her bottom and sides of above
light water-line were coppered and copper fastened.

4. That on or about the 16th day of May, 1886, the said steam-schooner
“Thornton” was regularly cleared at the port of Victoria aforesaid for a full season
of about four months’ fishing and hunting in the North Pacitie Ocean and Behring’s
Sea, and that on or about the 27th day of said month of May the ‘‘Thornton” finally
sailed from Clayoquot Sound, on the south-west of Vancouver Island, on said fishing
and hunting voyage.

5. The master of the “‘Thornton” on and for said voyage was one Hans Guttormsen,
of the said city of Victoria, and the mate one Harry Norman, of the same place, and
a crew of thirteen men.

6. That on the Ist day of August, A.D. 1886, while in Behring’s Sea in north lati-
tude 55° 45/ and west longitude 168° 44’, lawfully, as I verily believe, pursuing the
objects of said voyage, the said steam-schooner ‘‘Thornton” was seized by the
United States steam-ship ‘‘Corwin,” and by the ‘‘Corwin” taken to Ounalaska, in
the United States Territory of Alaska, and her voyage was broken up.

*Qy. 1877.

;
=

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 151

7. That on arrival at Ounalaska the said ‘‘ Thornton ” was, by order of the United
States authorities, stripped of her outfit and running gear, the seal-skins then on
board taken out, the captain and mate made prisoners and sent to Sitka, in said
Territory of Alaska, where, after trial, they were fined, the captain in the sum of
500 dollars and the mate in the sum of 300 dollars, and each imprisoned for thirty
davs.

The remainder of the crew, with only two excepted, were sent by the United
States authorities to the city of San Francisco by a steamer belonging to the Alaska
Commercial Company.

8. That I am informed by Captain Guttormsen that immediately upon the arrival
at Ounalaska of the ‘“‘ Corwin” with the ‘‘ Thornton,” he (the captain) entered his
solemn protest against the seizure of his vessel and her outfit and the seal-skins
then on board.

9. That on or about the 13th day of July of the present year I was at Ounalaska,
and saw the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Thornton,” and found her in a very bad condi-
tion. She was lying on her bilge on a gravel beach, partially embedded, and exposed
to all weathers, and was consequently greatly depreciated in value since her seizure.
Her copper is much chafed, her deck seams are opened, through which water had
leaked upon the steam-boiler, engine, and machinery, all of which are well nigh

ruined. She cannot be brought away from Ounalaska without repairs involv-
132. ing great expense, and not at all before next summer can this be done. I

verily believe, from the inspection I then made, that it would cost over 6,000
dollars to take the “Thornton” from Ounalaska to Victoria aforesaid, the nearest
port at which the repairs could be made, and put her in as good order and condition
as she was in when seized.

10. That at the time of her seizure the ‘‘ Thornton” was in good repair and condition
and perfectly seaworthy, excepting only that her mainmast-head had been carried
away during the voyage she then was on.

11. That for and during the said voyage the ‘‘ Thornton” was insured by Lloyd’s
underwriters in the sum of 1,200/. on the hull and machinery, and in the sum of 1,0001.
on the outfit and cargo.

12. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a detailed Statement of the outfit of the
“Thornton” for the voyage on which she was seized as above set out, and all of which,
excepting only what had been consumed in the regular course of the voyage, was on
board the ‘‘ Thornton” at the time of her seizure; also of the amount of premiums
paid by me for insurance upon the hull, machinery, outfit, and cargo of the ‘‘ Thorn-
ton” during the said voyage, and also for wages paid by me to the hunters and crew
of the said - “Thornton” of said voyage for the time of said voyage up to the said
seizure. Also, a Statement of the sums paid by me for passage money of the crew
from San Francisco to Victoria, and passage money and expenses of the captain and
mate at and from Sitka after their release to Victoria aforesaid.

13. That also in said Statement (A) are charged 403 seal-skins taken from the
“Thornton” at the time of seizure, and which, so appears from the Report of the
officers of the United States steam-ship ‘‘ Corwin,” submitted to the Court at Sitka
on the trial of the said captain and mate of the ‘‘Thornton,” and the price there
charged, namely, 7 dollars per skin, was the market value per skin at Victoria afore-
said, on orabout the Ist October, A.D. 1886, when the said skins, had not such seizure
taken place, would have been placed on the market at Victoria.

14. That the value placed upon the various articles and groups of articles in the
outfit mentionedin 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.

15. That hereto annexed, marked (B), is a Statement showing the number of seal-
skins taken by each one of the thirteen sealing-schooners in and about Behring’s
Sea during the season of 1886. The said statement is based upon the Report of the
Inspector of Fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for the year 1886, as con-
tained in the Report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for Canada for said
year at pp. 248 and 249. The schooners ‘‘Carolina,” “Onward,” and said steam-
schooner ‘‘ Thornton” were seized on the Ist and 2nd August of said year when the
sealing season was not half over, and the schooners ‘‘ Mary Taylor,” ‘‘Mountain
Chief,” ‘‘ Rustler,” and ‘‘ Kate” were not in Behring’s Sea during the season of 1886,
so that in calculating the average catch for the B ehring’ s Sea fleet, the catch of the
seven above-mentioned schooners was not included. With one or two exceptions the
thirteen sealing-schooners, mentioned in Exhibit (B), left Behring’s Sea, or the best
fishing grounds therein, long before the end of the said season, as their masters
feared seizure by the United States authorities, and the said average catch so found
by Exhibit (B), is therefore fully 500 less than it otherwise would have been.

16. That hereto annexed, marked (C), is a Statement of the amount of legal
expenses paid and incurred by me at Sitka and elsewhere, and also of the amount of
my personal expenses incurred by reason of the said seizure.

17. That hereto annexed, marked (D), isa Statement showing the estimated loss
incurred by me as owner of the said “ Thornton,” by reason of the said seizure and

152 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

detention, and of the seizure and detention of the seal-skins then on board the
“Thornton,” and the breaking up of the said sealing voyage. Also, the estimated
loss incurred by me during the present year by reason of the non-release of the
“Thornton ;” and in view of the fact that it is now too late to put the ‘‘ Thornton”
in repair and condition to engage in next year’s business, the estimated loss for next
year. And 1 verily believe that the said estimates of the losses incurred by me by
reason of the seizure and detention of the said “Thornton” for the years 1886, 1887,
and 1888, are fair and reasonable estimates, and rather under than over the actual
losses so sustained.

18. That the estimated loss of 5,000 dollars for each of the years 1887 and 1888, by
reason of the seizure and detention of the ‘‘ Thornton,” is based upon an average
catch of 2,380 seal-skins valued at 5 dol. 50 ¢. per skin, the market value at Victoria

for the present season, deducting from the gross value thereof the cost of outfit
133. and amountof the wages of hunters and crew, based on the ‘‘ Thornton’s” voyage
of A. D. 1886.

19. That during and since the year 1886 7 per cent. per annum was, and now is, the
minimum rate at which money for ordinary commercial purposes could be obtained
at the city of Victoria aforesaid, and that hereto annexed, marked (E), is an esti-
mate of the principal sums on which interest is claimed at the rate of 7 per cent. per
annum, and the time for which it is so claimed.

And J, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting extra-
judicial oaths.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton,
this 25th day of November, A. D. 1887, and certified under my official seal.

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
[SEAL. ] (Signed) D. B. MacTavisu, Notary Public.

ExnipitT (A).

Value of steam-schooner “‘Thornton” at time of seizure bs United States

steam-ship "Corwin. 325 212-ccsmetce ase des act asters ee Sees Seer $6, 000. 00
Value of ‘‘ Thornton’s” outfit:

Groceries: a: docs ssh isine os Seb eeeet eee con osieee seme eee eee ae $533. 37
AMMUNIGLOM = 2o25. Losec Se ce eek Sa. See eee eee eee eee eee 340. 26
Dy OOS oct: ne sje wdevews ne ose dere Beate beeie oe te ae Sees 49. 88
Mronawatortan ke. <.c. =e oe Cele Reece heen ee ee 50. 00
Ship chandlery for sealing purposes.-...-..--.-.-----.----- 278. 64
Onejchronometer.. 62,5232). dees een ee eee ee 81. 45
ixtra suit of mew Sails: i..cish2 4224 fees eno ee eee eee s 307. 18
NeveneNo dOshot cunsas4--22 2 oases eee ae eee 248. 00
Miviemiless. £65 5 cect eis Sess Soe eee eee eee 125. 96
Cuntimiplementsiandstools.2 yjsheeee oe ee eee eee eee oe 23. 20
Hourmew sealing boats/andisails s2eeeeeees eos ee aes 612. 70
Water casks. siincc0c washed cease ee eee ee eee 25. 00
Gilonisisallih: ks sie sisre bhi cis oF ee ee ae ee ee eee 90. 00
MU SsGONs COAL L. h25. 5 alse eie ake Yat a ee ee ee ae bee ee eee 126. 00
Cookine- range and:utensils)). 42 45-2 eee eee eee 50. 00

Motalou bits. oc css cue sess ere eeee see ees eee dee wee ee ee eae 2, 941. 64

Insurance:

Premium on 1, 200/.—insurance on hull, 1011. 48.---.....---- 492.83

Premium on 1, 000/.—insurance on outfit and cargo, 201. 3s. 4d. 98. 60 PH

Wages paid hunters and crew up to time of seizure, hunters and
crew having been taken to San Francisco by United States

GUID NOPLGIOS 22 Sahn Saha es ach secs SHEGR ace cee ie Saas 1, 370. 00
Passage money thence to Victoria.......:---....---.<s-+-----+--- 177. 16
Passage money and expenses of Captain Guttormsen and mate,
Harry Norman, after release from Sitka to Victoria...-...----. 200. 00
403 seal-skins on board the ‘‘ Thornton” at the time of seizure, at
maollarsperskin 2-2 4otcs is ab erce see atoad sens Hate le eee een ae 2, 821. 00
Motalisepes. ed 2. tWe ss swsjedar se sha, SSee hele cdaceeeceece~ecaeeaee 4, 568. 16
TotaliotgE xhibiti(As)|=2-sa-sae osa= see cee ene eee ee eeeseecemacee 14, 101. 23

(Signed) D. B. MacTavisu, Notary Public.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. B53

184 Exnisir (B).—Number of seals taken by the following thirteen sealing shoon-
ers during the year 1886 in and about the Behring’s Sea, most of the thirteen
leaving the sea before the end of the season, fearing capture.

Scbooners: No. of seals.
At MN lem es cma Nee Weie de loam Do ercise sae Sacisoe ne Sake Awiawelse els emieda Sane 1, 766
Mamyabilil Oniece: stactaetne ness oe ie so ce cosines a! sierste sane a site .sid nine se ices sere 4, 256
MOTOS ae tea ee Se eee Roe a AOE are oot OS wae oom ie eueieret aes 2, 625

BM AVOURIGC se eee ane ants cee ters ss hoetjcli wa. TEL owe sua Suiseee Sealine noose 3, 325
IBIACKAO TAM ON ecko ee ee is te aie aaa ae eaet> See iaeie eee ohh cisetecs 1, 760
PAVITTE CMPACIM Stine ins Se eke MT oe I ons Rhee vet rk cL, Nath WA a fo ens CieaPala's 2, 465
INQUBIG 6 Soe EASES SARS a eee ee ne ee ees Oe tees Ee a 2, 275
CihiyxOTP SAMOA COV ses Saar eee S Nate wine Seta erm nyc. cin aha ears, = a statsiowial seta 1, 620
Sillyaar Elan dhytaee ea) ates SOM ys. cere oie, veka faeries sageve seen seas 1, 587
ID Glipnimne es sree see ee res inc le ocware ele sean Mies dia sie See Suet eeeiiess 2,601
ANSTEY) BEY ee aes Oe ee en ee eI Ie CRS Oe ose es ty ee 1, 400
TRC Operate rn een ay TRON eee no sae aye Nvclerg uate emia tere cyeissie es Se mccies 2, 550

RObaleeatenyre st otets cote oe eee Rp la SB Ae at eae phd me aaNet Meek ra 30, 955

Aerio) Pelt VESSCliwecia cnecicisinn ene cece cece ecetescsinsee seine ciguca casas 2ook
(Signed) D. B. MacTavisu, Notary Public.

EXHIBIT (C).

Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with seizure of ‘‘ Thornton”.......-. $500. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising
HROMGS Bl OGSOlZ ULC as ate ae = Sores ian aon stairs GEESE s peetnlouem sia cise stellata csi 750. 00
Travelling, hotel, and other necessary expenses in connection with said
HelZULeran GaClatimMs: foes fas. ot sera sen tase See seis sec ncehese Seas socs 1, 000. 00
Granditotall Bi xhibiti(C)esetmsee ccs cee se ncteesisaee at sees aasicee 2, 250. 00
(Signed) D. B. MacTavisn, Notary Public.

Exist (D).—Damages arising from the seizure and detention of the “ Thornton,”
based upon the average catch of seal-skins per season as given in Statement (Bb),
season of 1886.

No.
Estimatediaverage cate oc. S. a2 co. cost sc eee ce se sece acs sh sc 2, 381 -
Less 403 skins on board the ‘‘ Thornton” at the time of seizure, and
Chancedoing sta tbememn ty CA))\eae see a eee oe cio a siesiceraaies eae rree 403
Balancerat ie GQOUArspetas kei Meer —eseee see ectes eaieeesseeetecce 1, 978=$13, 846. 00
Reasonable and probable profit ‘‘Thornton” would have earned in 1887
HOE OWATO Rs a ee LEE Mi Be a a et Sy Re a Sea et ee a eae ae ee ee 5, 000. 00
In view of fact that ‘‘Thornton” cannot be made available for next
year’s operations, reasonable and probable profit for 1888.....-.--.---- 5, 000. 00
otalvamounb bxht biG CD) ees ass secrets steno scee erence 23, 846. 00
(Signed) D. B. MacTavisu, Notary Public.
135 SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS.
Welln Gib COM nyay err icay a2 9 a ae ee ee ees ae $6, 000. 00
Peluso ythornionss OUbhbes saemcets coos cee atore ee oece case 3, 533. OT
Mia esrOlcre wean dehunbers 22st ese eke ae nee Sees Ne eae cies 1, 370. 00
Passage money aud expenses of officers and crew in returning
LOMVIC LOLA Maa ee eee ass ems SEL a eel et eee ee 377. 16
LOSSOolesicins watts, Gollata swe ae sac oe ce see hes sem Coe cle eee eos 2, 821. 00

PotaleDhibit\(A eae. os Wo) baat lee ee $14, 101. 23

154 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

PETsON Al ExPONSOsOL OWMEL oes ove cee alee ol oem nein $1, 000. 00
Mepralvexpensesen seen e ae Se ces sowie cect = le eters raisons og tenet 1, 250. 00
MGT ME 1 8p-dl ein (CO) Seay cone se costes sacar ooccas sass co7S seetesn tse $2, 250. 00
Balance on estimated seal catch for 1886....-......-..-------- 13, 846. 00
Estimated loss to owner by detention of the Thornton” dur-
OM LSS aeae as eee cuet Ble coc hoek eats See Se eee ee 5, 000. 00
Estimated loss on same grounds for 1888...-.....--.---------- 5, 000. 00
Potal-sPxhipitiD 2-252 2525-5422. Sacer nee sees eee eee eee 23, 846. 00
Motalamount af claim: 2222.2 2sesssce=ee =e -eeie Seas 40, 197. 23
MEMORANDUM.

If the owner of the ‘‘ Thornton ” is indemnified for balance of estimated seal catch
for year 1886, there should be deducted from the total ckaim the sum of 3,379 dol.
58 ¢. included in Exhibit (A) for outfit, which would necessarily have been consumed
in the prosecution of the voyage, and including the sum of 1,370 dollars paid in
wages, as per Exhibit (F).

4 DTW he EY 0 0 i er ee eee, ENE Ne I eal 9 dee Bo ASSO S aos $40, 197. 23

Walierconsumed On VOVAte.-- --- eee see Sees ee See eee eee 3, 379. 58

Neticlaim: <<: -....cces boos = pes eee eree =e eo oe ee OO NAS
(Signed) D. B. MacTavisu, Notary Public.

Exnisit (E).—Estimate of the principal sums on which interest at 7 per cent. per
annum is claimed, and the time for which interest is so claimed.

Value of “‘Phornton’s” estimated full catch for 1886, namely, 2,381 skins,
at 7 dollars per skin, from the 1st October, 1886, when the catch would

have been realized on...--- 2 Pee $16, 667. 00
Actual cash outlay for leg al and other 1 necessary - expenses i ine curred. by

reason of the seizure before the Ist October, [S86 es oe NE 500. 00

Total principal on which interest is claimed since the 1st October, 1886,

to date ef payment of claim -----.-.-...- pees 7, 6700
Estimated value of the “Thornton” eateh for 1887, less cost of outfit and

wages of crew and hunters, on which interest ag 7 per cent. per annum

is claimed from the 1st October, 1887, on or about which date the catch

would be realized on, to date of payment <tc) 2.2e- aces - 5, 000. 00
If the claim for 1887 be not allow ed, then interest is claimed on the value

of the ‘‘Thornton” at 7 per cent. per annum from the Ist October, A.

Dds; tobime of payment..:- 2. 2. eee ce ease eee a ee oe eee nO GOO

(Signed) D. B. MacTayvisn, Notary Public.

136 9 =Exureir (F).—Details of items of “Thornton’s” outfit consumed during the
course of full sealing and fishing voyage.

ITEMS.

GROCEEICR A ca ac oc ae we nicecoc's's 5 cco EEE eee Seen eee $533. 37
AMMIMUMNUGLON 2 306 2 seie-aks isicicjs Sar! siee.ciesGloeretece eee eee Cee ener eee ee ee 34.0. 26
Dive COOUSi es mae emcas- == <\= ee Heat AS ek AH tn SAN aS Ae as CAS OSAb © 49, 88
Shipichandilervsss S43 sec eve. oc ocels noe alacme ins yee ene tee eee eRe 278. 64
NSiTramceppremniwMnis so. oss. —- aces see Steele Ree PMR a eee rE 591. 43
Wiad CestOiCreweanG MUNCCRS =... sci 0.2 sac sees me Seine a ee eee eee 1, 370. 00
GHtOnS iS ait cmas ee ee cate ae Sac ne ae eel pmee pwiee ne dee cere tne Tear e eae 90. 00
AS GONG COA eects Fee wieicie Sein whsiae A Prem tcye mie Socios Sere eee as ee ae ete ea ea eee 126. 00

TotalSvalueiconsumed sss. eas Cocos Sees e et eee ee Ren One eee eee 3, 379. 58

(Signed) D. B. MacVavisu, Notary Public.

—_

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 155
No. 88.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received January 16.)

WASHINGTON, January 5, 1888,

My Lorp: With reference to my despatches of the 2nd April last

and of the 6th May, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that

Il am advised that the case of the American sealing-schooner “Sierra”

will probably be dismissed, on the ground that the Captain of the Rev-

enue eruizer was acting under the instructions of the Government, and
that the plaintiff therefore would have to apply to Congress.

I have, &e.

. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 89.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received January 16.)

DOWNING STREET, January 14, 1888.
Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 26th
ultimo, relating to the seizure of Canadian sealing-schooners in Beh-
ring’s Sea, I am directed by Secretary Sir Henry Holland to transmit to
you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch
from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing an approved Report of
a Committee of his Privy Council, submitting a revised statement of

the loss sustained in the case of the schooner “ Onward.”
Tam, Xe.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

[Inciosure 1 in No. 89.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT Housr, Ottawa, December 23, 1887.
Str: With reference to your despatch of the 14th September last, directing atten-
tion to the magnitude of the claims for compensation prepared by the owners of the
British sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s Sea by United States Revenue cruizers,
and to my despatch of the 2nd instant, I have the honour to forward herewith, for
transmission to the United States Government, a copy of an approved Report of a
Committee of the Privy Council, submitting a revised statement of the loss sustained
in the case of the schooner ‘‘ Onward.”
You will observe that my Minister of Marine and Fisheries considers that the claim
now made is not unreasonable.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 89.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council, December 20, 1887.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch,
dated the 14th September, 1887, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State
for the Colonies, on the subject of the seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s
Sea by United States Revenue cruizers, and directing attention to certain claims for
compensation against the United States Government.

156 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

137 The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures
were referred, states that the claims (three in number) referred to in this
despatch were sent back to the owners of the vessels for revision. In the cases of
two of these, the “Thornton” and ‘‘ Carolina,” a full and detailed revised statement
of the losses has already been submitted, and he (the Minister) submits herewith a
revised statement of the loss to the owners of the schooner ‘‘Onward” on account of
the seizure of said vessel. This claim the Minister considers to be a reasonable one.
The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward the claim
herein mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies
for transmission to the United States Government.
All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.
(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 89.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry oF OTTAWA, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British
Columbia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly
and sincerely declare as follows:

1. Chat Iam the duly authorized agent of Charles Spring, merchant, of the said
city of Victoria, and owner of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner ‘‘ Onward.”

2. That the said schooner ‘‘Onward” is a British vessel of about 94 tons burden,
builder’s measurement, and at the time of her seizure, as hereinafter set out, was,
and now is, registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid.

3. That about the 10th day of June, A. D. 1886, the said schooner ‘‘ Onward” sailed
from the west coast of Vancouver Island, having previously cleared at the port of
Victoria aforesaid, on and for a full-season hunting and fishing voyage in the North
Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

4. That on and for said voyage the crew of the ‘‘Onward” consisted of Daniel
Monroe, of Victoria aforesaid, master; John Margotich, of the same place, mate; and
twenty sailors and hunters; all of whom were on board the ‘‘Onward” at the time
of her seizure hereinafter mentioned.

5. That on the morning of the 2nd August, A. D. 1886, while in said Bebring’s Sea, in
north latitude 54° 32’ and west longitude 167° 55’, and about 68 miles from Ounalaska
Island, the nearest land, lawfully, as I verily believe, pursuing the objects of her
said voyage, the ‘‘Onward” was seized by the United States steam-ship ‘‘ Corwin,”
and taken in tow of said ‘‘Corwin” to Ounalaska, in the Territory of Alaska, of the
United States of America, having then on board 400 seal-skins.

6. That upon the said ‘‘ Corwin’s” arrival at Ounalaska aforesaid with the said
“Onward,” the ‘‘Onward” was, by order of the United States authorities thereat,
stripped of her sails and outfit, the skins on board taken out, her master, the said
Daniel Monroe, and mate, the said John Margotich, placed under arrest, and her
voyage completely broken up.

7. That the said master and mate, Daniel Monroe and John Margotich, were by the
said United States authorities taken to Sitka, in the said Territory of Alaska, there
to be tried on a charge of having violated the laws of the United States respecting
seal fishing in the waters of Alaska. On arrival at Sitka the said master and mate
were bound over to appear for trial on said charge, and were on or about the Ist of
the month of September following so tried, found guilty, and sentenced—the master,
Daniel Monroe, to pay a fine of 500 dollars, the mate, John Margotich, to pay a fine
of 300 dollars, and each to be imprisoned for the space of thirty days, which impris-
onment they suffered.

8. That hereto annexed, marked ‘“(A),” is a statement of the articles comprising
the outfit of the ‘‘Onward” at the time of her departure on said voyage, and the
value thereof, all of which were on board the “ Onward” at the time of her said
seizure, excepting only what had heen consumed in the ordinary course and prosecu-
tion of the voyage; also of the amount paid for insurance on said voyage, also the
amount of wages paid the crew and hunters on said voyage, also the amount paid for
fares and expenses of the master and mate in returning to Victoria from Sitka after
their release, and also of the number and value of the seal-skins on board the
“Onward” at the time of her seizure, and which were taken from the ‘‘ Onward” at
Ounalaska by the United States’ authorities.

9. That the prices charged for the various articles and groups of articles com-

138 prising the outfit of the “Onward” on and for said voyage are the regular
market prices of the said articles at Victoria aforesaid at the time of their
purchase for use on said voyage. The price charged in said statement for the seal-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 157

skins on board the ‘‘Onward” when seized, namely, 7 dollars per skin, was the
market price per skin at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the sealing season of 1886,
when the catch of the ‘‘Onward,” had not such seizure taken place, would have
been placed on the market.

10. That the value of the schooner ‘‘Onward,” as given in Exhibit (A), namely,
4,000 dollars, is a fair and reasonable value for the said schooner at the time of her
seizure; she was then, and had always been, kept in first class order and condition,
and was always a staunch, seaworthy vessel, and for the said voyage had been refitted
with new sails and sailing gear.

11. That hereto annexed, marked “B,” is a statement of the catch of thirteen
sealing-vessels, in and about Behring’s Sea, during the season of 1886; the said
statement is compiled from the Report of the Inspector of Fisheries for the Province
of British Columbia for the year 1886, as contained in the Report of the Department
of Fisheries for Canada for that year at pp. 248 and 249, and from personal knowl-
edge of the facts therein set out, I verily believe the said statement to be substan-
tially true and correct. The steam-schooner ‘‘Thornton,” the schooners “Carolena”
and ‘* Onward,” meaning the ‘‘Onward” herein mentioned, were seized on the 1st
and 2nd August, 1886, in Behring’s Sea, at the beginning of "the best sealing period;
and the schooners “Mary Taylor,” ‘‘Monntain Chief, 2 “Rustler,” and “Kate” were
not in Behring’s Sea during the season of 1886, so in estimating the average catch
per vessel 1n Behring’s Sea for 1886, the catch of the above-named seven vessels is
not included in Exhibit (B); all of the thirteen vessels named in Exhibit (B), with
only one or two exceptions, left Behring’s Sea long before the end of the sealing sea-
son of 1886, because of the seizures which had been made by the United States
steam-ship ‘‘Corwin,” fearing to remain lest they also should be seized; by reason
of such departure from the said sea, or the best sealing grounds therein, before the
close of the season, I verily believe that the catch per vessel, as found in Exhibit
(B), namely, 2,381 seal-skins, is fully 500 less than it would have been had the said
vessels remained the full season in said sea.

12. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(C),” isastatement of the legalexpenses incurred
at Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the said seizure of the ‘‘ Onward,” the arrest
and imprisonment of the said master and mate, and the claims arising therefrom,
and also of the personal expenses of the said owner and said agent in the same
connection.

13. That the Exhibit (D), hereto annexed, is a statement of the estimated loss and
damage resulting to the owner of the ‘‘Onward” by reason of her seizure and deten-
_ tion in A. D. 1886, A. D. 1887, and A. D.1888. The estimated loss for the year 1886 is
based upon the average catch per vessel, as found in Exhibit (B), less the number of
skins on board the ‘‘ Onward” when seized, the balance being valued at 7 dollars per
skin, the price per skin at Victoria at the close of the season 1886. The claim for a. D.
1887 and A. D. 1888 is based upon the same average catch as for A. D. 1886, valued at
5 dol. 50 c. per skin, which was the market value per skin at Victoria aforesaid at the
close of the season 1887, after deducting therefrom the cost of outfit and wages of
erew and hunters for each year, based on the ‘‘Onward’s” said voyage of A. D. 1886.
The said claim of 5,000 dollars for each of said years A. D. 1887 and A. D. 1888 is a fair
and reasonable estimate of the earnings of the ‘‘Onward” in hunting and fishing
for the said years.

14. That Exhibit (EF), hereto annexed, is astatement of the principal sums on which
interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, and the time for which said interest is
so claimed. At the time when the catch of the ‘‘ Onward” for 1886 would have, in
the ordinary course of events, been realized on, namely, on or about the 1st October
in said year, the minimum rate of interest on money ‘for commercial purposes was,
has since continued to be, and now is, 7 per cent. per annum.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘“(I*),” is a statement of the articles, and the
value thereof, as given in Exhibit (A) of the ‘‘ Onward’s” outfit on said voyage of
1886, including insurance premiums and wages, which would necessarily be wholly,
or almost wholly, consumed in the course of a full season’s hunting and fishing,
such as contemplated by the ‘‘ Onward” in 1886.

16. That on the 13th day of July last past I was at Ounalaska aforesaid, and was
then on board of the said schooner ‘‘ Onward.” She was then lying side-to on a
gravel beach, in the harbour at Ounalaska, partially embedded in the gravel, and
generally in a very bad condition. Her standing rigging was much weather-beaten,
also her deck and side-seams were in a very bad state, the long exposure and severe
frosts of the previous winter having broken out the pitch, and, judging from their

appearance, they were very leaky. From what I then saw of the condition of
139 the ‘‘Onward,” I verily believe that she could not be floated and putin a fit state

for sea without extensive repairs, which at Ounalaska, where there is neither
the requisite workmen nor material, would involve very large expenditure, and that
to float the said ‘‘Onward,” take her to Victoria aforesaid, the nearest port where
the requisite facilities exist, and where she could be repaired and refitted at least
cost, and there repair and refit her, would cost at least 4,500 dollars.

158 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

And I, Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously
believi ing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘‘Act respecting Extra-judicial

Oaths.”
(Signed) J. D. WARREN

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton,
in the Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

EXHIBIT (A).

Value of the schooner “Onward” at the time of her seizure......-.-..... $4, 000. 00
Outtit:

(ROC ELIOS 322 = 2 cine cise as oe hoe ene Se Eon eee $470. 70
ATMIMNUMIGLON. 2) )<.)2- 3. 0.o2 5 ee eee ee eee = eee Eerie 19. 07
IDI? BOCGINESSS saappeesness Soenk obo Secsososede Goesesuasecsor 68. 25
phipiehandleny ..--o- 2-2 =e eee Be anos see ee eee 251.59
Hout Shot OUNS: - 2 -..>-i soc, aes ee See eae See tee eee 61. 00
Whree iron water-tanks. <- 22 — seme eee ee ee eee 57. 00
Hourteen water-casks, ..<. <5. -s2-2e6 aoe aeseoce ee ee eceee 21. 00
INine'canoes and. outfit. -..--2 223255) eres] tse eee 445. 50
OU Gia ie oie Sis on) sre wise winng c'msaic ee Sus etme a. ea Gree eee eee 2.50
WO aN hic ote oen nas & does, bee boc ne COS ee ale ee ee eae 13. 80
Cooking stove and utensils. << 222 soc sete eee ee OO
Chronometer . sextant, and two flags SSO cae eee ican 140. 00
sUIMee extra COMPAsseS, = == oseeceo eee eee eee ee eee 24, 00
SUMGTLCS - <i icon t- eioecits, Create ee eeee eee eee ee eee eee 97.58
— 1,778.69
insurance premium and survey on hull S2see. see eee ee se ee ee ee 260. 00
Wages paid to hunters and crew for voyage _.-..--:--.---=-2-.-----._--. 1, 820. 00
Fines and expenses of captain and mate from Sitka to Victoria after
TO CHSC eee See Seer at Uae Saar hae Sta A SARS Sangco dos 200. 00
400 seal-skins on board, at 7 dollars per skin..--.. .--...----------------- 2. 800. 00
Motal. hibit, (A). snes aseceetane tice eee eee ee eoe= eee eee 10, 858. 69
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exuibit (B).—Number of Seal-skins taken by each of the following thirteen Sealing-
vessels during the year 1886, in and about the Behring’s Sea, most of the said vessels
leaving the Sea before the end of the said Season fearing seizure:

'
Vissels. Seal-skins Vessels: Seal-skins.
|
IPathitimndersee. ocete = ce este -- es sees e ee 1.760 || Dol phinhees see seen ase eee ae 2, 601
Miamyatlleniee ene srisce = 2h. » sina e were 4)2.06)5| PAC Ia) ISOC Kee eos eee ice ers 1, 400
TRIG e. 54 Bera = COOAa CEE eee beeaee 2.625: Il (Grace. acts 25 kesreieae erences ee eee ae 2, 550
Favorite ie PA PIT | \WielerstNac hells bs Seetinse spo oscSoose se 2, 725
BlzekWramonG. asec. cee sc ees ce sce e = 1, 760 | —_—
FAUTredieAamiSysacecccems ss j= ccs sss os 2, 465 | Total cateh: ssh e6 shee eles 80, 955
PAC HIV Omer ec cinte clear - ae ae Se Sede sie 2,275 | —
Citylot Ssantingor=s 0 .-saey)ss= ns 1, 620 || Average per vessel.......-.-..- 2, 38]
SHhwivls Hrikys--Gbpeqssn--. Sosccosoesse 1, 587 |
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) DD, O'CONNOR, Notary Public.

‘WO. Lhe

‘_w ey

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 159

140 ExuisirT (C).

Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the “Onward”. $500. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the
“ Onward,” and the claims arising thereunder, exclusive of the above 500

WOME). coo seSG Sees Co OSS Ber aene SEO ne ea Seere one ebaeee = See ae ae Seema 750. 00

Personal expenses other than the above in the same connection .----..--.- 250. 00

NO alter eres stn eteye st ctercis Sere Soma ieeinsie ona So ctenciclaiee fies Se Serdtevetanc i 1, 500. 00
(Signed) J.D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exmipir (D).—Estimated Damages arising from the Seizure and Detention of the
Schooner ‘fOnward,” based on the average Catch per Vessel for 1886, as given in
Exhibit (B).

Awvrerare cate heseall 22) Fen ee. sacs SSSSRegdessss ce acepens cokes 2, 381

Less number on board at seizure, and charged in Exhibit (A)-...-- 400
Balance: ats aollars|per slimes oss sseeema oe see ee cece sere 1, 981—=$13, 867. 00
Reasonable and probable profit on operations for the year 1887 ..---. --- 5, 000. 00

“Onward” not being released, and not available to engage in next year’s
operations, reasonable and probable profit for 1888 ..-.....-.--.------ 5, 000. 00
oval VEDI i GD) ss ssc ecicieceisescac esses se aaisn asics secs sae 23, 867. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exursir (E).—Estimate of the Principal Sums on which Interest at 7 per cent. per
annum is claimed, and the Time for which interest is so claimed.

Value of the ‘‘Onward’s” estimated catch for 1886, namely, 2,381 skins,
at 7 dollars per skin, from the Ist day of October, A. D. 1886, when the

CaAChnwoulalnave: been Reauizedhone= seo oe oe eee eee eee $16, 667. 00
Actual outlay for legal and other necessary expenses incurred by reason
of the seizure of the ‘‘ Onward” before the Ist October, 1886__.. ..---- 500. 00

Total principal on which interest is claimed from October, A. D.

sel, UD CH Ot Tey Mn On Cleniil 24 soled sossoo eons ee cSaeleaec 17, 167. 00
Estimated value of ‘* Onward’s” cateh for 1887 (less cost of outfit and
wages of crew and hunters) on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum
is claimed from the Ist October, A. D. 1887, on or about which date the

catch would be realized on, to date of payment.-.-......-...----.----- 5, 000. 00
If claim for 1887 be not allowed, then interest is claimed on the value of
the ‘Onward ” from the Ist October, a. D. 1886, to date of payment.-.. 4, 000.00
(Signed) J. D. WarREN.

(Signed) D. O’ConNoR, Notary Public.

Exurbir (F).—Value of Articles of ‘ Onward’s” Outfit, which would have been
wholly or almost wholly consumed on a full Hunting and Fishing Trip.

CHROLDELAIGE) is cet Cie Cees eee eT ee] Oa ey a itl RIS AO Pan OR te $470. 70
PRTINTEUUTU LOM EM aie (aycts axaycichs eyecare ep eer Sa ek cepyna ofsiz a aek ws ble <iep ase se cece 19. 07
aOR USN cet ei eee Sette oars rae eet alan aie Bek e oAne mem oslo Sasinis.< 68. 25
RADIUM TIONG INGE Esc a) Sore pelea = Aecie teeyarmaje aay SOR wots <iaiimjn nie siidinme Ke he 251.59
BSE eee ete reo Ey Sette RE Set ere apt Sh HER ciate & o\ove arate cis ents odie “nse 52.57
(COM no 5S Bes Sess Gedo GIES aS CEs eo ee Sn a 13. 80
WN ABO 05 4 SESE OO ROC EMO sce = ok Ne At ga ea man Ra 1, 820. 00
| FE. TRE LAGS) TEAS COU ETOCS eee a ge ge nN cA i ee Ra a 260. 00

Lotaleconsimp tion Curing: VOyaAGe . 624d 2.) cn bein c's d, ase sce, sine a cece 2, 955. 98

(Signed) J.D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

160 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Memo.—If the full claim for the sealing season of 1886, as set out in Exhibit (B), be
allowed, then the amount of this Exhibit, 2,955 dol. 98 c. will properly appear as a
credit, and be deducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms part.

141 No. 90.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received January 23.)

DOWNING STREET, January 23, 1888.

Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, with refer-
ence to previous correspondence, copies of two despatches from the
Governor-General of Canada, forwarding statements of claims for
losses sustained by certain British vessels engaged in the Behring’s
Sea seal fishery.

Iam to request that these claims may be presented to the United
States Government should Lord Salisbury see no objection thereto.

Tam to request that the sub-inclosures in these despatches, which
are sent in original, may be returned.

lam, &e. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 90.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT HousgE, Ottawa, January 4, 1888.

Sir: I have the honour to transmit to you, for presentation to the United States
Government, a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada, sub-
mitting a detailed statement of the claim of the owner and agent of the schooner
“Favorite,” which vessel was, on the 2nd August, 1886, while sealing in Behring’s
Sea, about 68 miles from land, ordered by the United States steamer ‘ Corwin,”
under threat of seizure, to cease operations and leave the Behring’s Sea forthwith.

You will observe that the circumstances connected with this claim differ from all
the others, inasmuch as no actual seizure was effected, but my Minister of Marine
and Fisheries considers that the claim for the loss of the fishing season is not unrea-
sonable.

Ihave, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 90.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 30th December, 1887.

On a Report dated the 19th December, 1887, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting a detailed statement of the claim of the owner and agent of the
schooner ‘‘ Favorite,” which vessel was, on the 2nd day of August, 1886, while sealing
in the Behring’s Sea, not far from where the schooner ‘‘ Onward” was seized the same
day, viz., north latitude 54° 32’, west longitude 167° 55’, about 68 miles from land,
ordered by the United States steamer ‘‘Corwin,” under threat of seizure, to cease
operations and leave the Behring’s Sea forthwith.

The Minister represents that the circumstances connected with this claim differ
from all the others, inasmuch as no actual seizure was effected, but the Minister
believes the claim for loss of the fishing season to be reasonable.

The Minister recommends that it be forwarded to Her Majesty’s Government for
presentation to the Government of the United States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward the claim herein
mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for trans-
mission to the United States Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGER,
Clerk, Privy Council.

~ Soe
Fe

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 161

{Inclosure 3 in No. 90.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Crry or Orrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:
142 1. Lam the duly authorized agent of Charles Spring, merchant, of Victoria
aforesaid, the owner of the hereinafter mentioned schooner “ Favorite.”
2. That the schooner ‘‘Favorite” herein referred to is a British vessel of 80 tons,
registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid, and was so registered at the time of the

- occurrence hereinafter set out, namely, on the Ist and 2nd days of August, A. D. 1886.

3. ‘That towards the end of the month of May A. b. 1886, after having been duly
cleared at the port of Victoria aforesaid, for that purpose, the said schooner ‘‘Favor-
ite” sailed on and for a full season’s hunting and fishing in the North Pacific Ocean
and Bebhring’s Sea.

4, That on and for said voyage the crew of the said ‘‘ Favorite” consisted of Alex-
ander McLean, of Victoria aforesaid, master, a mate, and twenty-three sailors and
hunters, and completely equipped and provisioned for a full season of hunting and
fishing in said waters.

5. 1 am informed by the said master of the ‘‘ Favorite,” and several of the crew of
the ‘‘Favorite,” and do verily believe, that on the night of the Ist August, or
early morning of the 2nd August, A. D. 1886, the said ‘‘ Favorite,” while in the Beh-
ring’s Sea, not far from where the schooner ‘‘ Onward” was seized on the said morning
of the 2nd August, 1886, and while lawfully pursuing the objects of said voyage,
was hailed by United States steam-ship ‘‘ Corwin,” then having in tow the seized
vessels ** Thornton” and ‘‘Carolena.” After the usual inquiries as to the name of
the vessel, the Commander or officer then in charge of the said ‘‘Corwin” ordered
the ‘‘ Favorite” to cease sealing and leave Behring’s Sea forthwith, otherwise she
would be seized, or words to that effect. The master of the “ Favorite,” not wish-
ing to risk seizure, and fearing that if he remained in the said sea his vessel and
cargo would be so seized as threatened by the Commander of the ‘‘ Corwin,” and for no
other reason or reasons whatever, at once made all sail and left the said sealing
grounds, thereby losing the remainder of the sealing season.

6. That by reason of so being forced to cease sealing and leave Behring’s Sea at
about the beginning of the best period of the sealing season, the ‘‘ Favorite” lost at
least 1,000 seal-skins, and her total catch for the season was reduced by that much.

7. That on said voyage the “Favorite” carried twenty hunters and ten canoes.
The schooner ‘‘Mary Ellen,” of Victoria aforesaid, on a similar voyage the same sea-
son, with fifteen hunters and five sealing-boats, not seeing or hearing of the said
seizures, and remaining in the sea till or about the close of the sealing season, caught
4,256 seal-skins. The actual catch of the ‘ Favorite” for said season was only 3,325,
though she had one-third more hunters than the said ‘Mary Ellen,” and equally as
good, if not better, chances of obtaining as large a catch; and I verily believe that
the sum of the actual catch of the ‘ Favorite.” together with the 1,000 herein
claimed, making a total of 4,325 fer the season of 1886, is a fair and reasonable esti-
mate for the catch of the ‘‘Favcrite” that year, had she not been interfered with as
above set out.

&. That the market price per seal-skin at Victoria at the close of the season of 1886
was 7 dollars, and the amount claimed as the value of 1,000 skins lost to the owner
of the ‘‘ Favorite” by reason of her so leaving the Behring’s Sea is 7,000 dollars.

And I, James Dougias Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘‘ Act respecting Extra-
judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) J.D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton,
in the Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O’CoNNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 90.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland,

GOVERNMENT HousgE, Ottawa, January 5, 1888.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence, I have the honour to forward
herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada, embodying
a Report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheries, submitting detailed statements of

1 Te Ve

162 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the claims of the owners and agents of the ‘ W. P. Sayward,” “Grace,” “Anna
Beck,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” and ‘‘ Ada,” seized in the Behring’s Sea during
’ the present season for the alleged offence of illegally capturing seals.
143 The Minister, you will observ e, is of opinion that the claims submitted are
reasonable, and recommends that they be presented to the United States
Government.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 90.]

Report oe a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his —
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 30th December, 1887.

On a Report dated the 19th December, 1887, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting detailed statements ‘of the claims of the owners and agents of
the following vessels ‘seized in the Behring’s Sea during the present season by United
States revenue vessels, for the alleged oftence of illegally capturing seals:

1. Schooner “W. P. Sayward,” seized the 9th July, 1887, latitude 54° 43’ north,
longitude 167° 51’ west, 58 miles from nearest land ;

2. Steam-schooner “ Grace, ” seized the 17th July, 1887, latitude 53° 3/ north, longi-
tude 168° 40’ west, 92 miles from nearest land;

3. Schooner “Anna Beck,” seized the 2nd July, 1887, latitude 54° 58’ north, longi-
tude 167° 26’ west, 66 miles from nearest land;

4. Steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin,” seized the 12th July, 1887, latitude 54° 38’ north,
longitude 167° 3’ west, 42 miles from nearest land;

5. Schooner “Alfred Adams,” seized the 6th August, 1887, latitude 54° 48’ north,
longitude 167° 49’ west, 62 miles from nearest land;

6. Schooner ‘‘Ada,” seized the 25th August, 1887, about 15 miles northward from
Ounalaska Island, which was the nearest ‘and;

The Minister represents that the circumstances connected with the seizure of these
vessels do not materially differ from those attending the seizures of 1886, and for
which claims for the losses sustained have already been forwarded to Her Majesty’s
Government, for presentation to the Government of the United States.

It may, however, be maintained that the injustice of the seizures inade in 1887 is
emphasized by the action of the United States Government in ordering the release
of the vessels seized in 1886, and thus leading owners of the vessels for which claims
are now presented to fairly assume that, under similar circumstances, no further
seizures of Canadian vessels in Behring’s Sea would be effected by the United States
Government. /

The Minister believes that the claims submitted herewith, the particulars of which,
as far as possible, are attested to, are reasonable, and recommends that they be for-
warded to Her Majesty’s Government, for presentation to the Government of the
United States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward the claims herein
mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for
transmission to the United States Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 6 in No. 90.)
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

City or OTrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owuer, do solemnly and
as ely declare as follows:

. That I have been a resident of the said city of Victoria for the past twenty-nine
Sy and during that time I have been largely interested in the building, equip-
ment, and management of steam and sailing ‘vessels. I have also been engaged i in
the sealing and fishing business at said city for the past fourteen or fifteen years.

2. The steam-schooners “Grace” and “ Dolphin,” and the schooner ‘‘ W. P. Say-

ward,’ ” and the rebuilding and fitting with steam-power of the steam-schooners
“Anna Beck” and “Thornton,” all of which vessels have been seized in Behring’s

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 163

Sea by the United States authorities, were built and done for me, and under my per-

sonal direction, and were each owned and managed by me for some time after
144 + their completion, and are now managed by me for their respective owner and

owners. ‘The schooners ‘‘Carolena,” ‘ Favorite,” ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” ‘‘ Ada,”
and “Onward,” all also seized in Behring’s Sea by the United States authorities,
were each and all well known to me from personal knowledge. From my interest
in the Behring’s Sea sealing business, I kept myself well posted on the matter and
manner of the condition and equipment of the said vessels, and most of the facts
stated in the declarations of claim in the case of each of these vessels came under
my personal observation. The said vessels, excepting the ‘ Thornton,” ‘‘Onward,”
and ‘‘Carolena,” which are at Ounalaska, are at Sitka, in the United States Ter-
ritory of Alaska.

3. To bring these vessels from Sitka to Victoria, a distance of about 900 miles,
will involve a cost of at least 1,600 dollars to purchase the necessary materials and
take them to Sitka, and to convey the necessary men to Sitka and pay their wages.
From leaving Victoria until arrival back with any one of said vessels would take
about two months, or perhaps a few days less in the summer months, and a few days
more in the winter months.

4, A full hunting and sealing season begins as early as the 1st January and up till
the 1st March, and extends thence until the end of September.

This season is divided into two parts, the coast season and the Behring’s Sea sea-
son. The coast season terminates about the end of June, but vessels intending to
go to Behring’s Sea generally leave the coast fishing during the month of May, seal-
ing as they go northward, and reaching Behring’s Sea the end of June or beginning
of July. The best period of the sealing season in Behring’s Sea varies in different
years according to the prevailing weather from about the 20th July to the end of
September, after which date, though seals are plentiful, stress of weather compels
sealing-vessels to leave the sea and go south.

5. On sealing voyages the hunters are paid in lieu of wages so much per seal skin
on each skin they capture, receiving from 2 to 2} dollars per skin. The masters are
generally paid partly in wages and partly in the same manner as the hunters.

The only vessel in the Behring’s Sea in either of the seasons of 1886 or 1887 that
made a reasonably full catch of seals was the schooner “Mary Ellen,” of Victoria,
which, in the season of 1886, took 4,256 seal-skins. On and for said season the
‘Mary Ellen” carried fifteen hunters and five boats, an average catch per boat of
851 seal-skins, the five boats being about equal to cight or nine canoes. The ‘‘ Mary
Ellen” was the only vessel in Behring’s Sea in either 1886 or 1887 which, so far as I
know, or am able after inquiry to learn, remained the full season in said sea on and
about the best sealing grounds without being disturbed by the United S:ates author-
ities. And I believe that the said steam-schoonerts ‘‘Grace Dolphin” and “ Anna
Beck,” and the said schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” which were the best equipped ves-
sels for sealing that had ever entered the Behring’s Sea, would have, if not seized or
disturbed by the United States authorities, made an equally large catch in said years
1886 and 1887, there being no reason why they should not do so.

6. The masters of the steam-schooner ‘‘ Thornton” and schooner ‘*‘ Onward,” and
the mate of the schooner *‘ Carolena,” after their arrival at Sitka as prisoners in the
latter part of August, entered into an agreement with one Clarke, a counsellor-at-
law at Sitka, to defend their vessels and themselves on their pending trial at Sitka
before the United States District Court, and the charge of 500 dollars for legal
expenses at Sitka in the case of each of the said vessels is to cover the claim of said
Clarke.

7. The wages of the crew of each of the said seized vessels, except the ‘Alfred
Adams” and ‘‘Onward,” are based on two months’ service expiring on the day of
seizure in each case. In the ‘‘ Adams” and ‘‘ Onward” cases, the crews were paid
up to the time of their arrival at Victoria.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘‘ Act respecting Extra-
judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me, at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a. D. 1887, and certified under

my official seal.
(Signed) J. M. BALDERSON,
Notary Public for Ontario.

164 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
145 [Inclosure 7 in No, 90.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry or Orrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent, by power of attorney bearing date the 4th
November, A. D. 1886, of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San Francisco, in the State
of California, one of the United States of America, the managing owner of the herein-
after mentioned schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward.”

2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, as I am informed and do verily believe, a
British subject by birth, and has never renounced his allegiauce to the Sovereign of
Great Britain.

3. That the said schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward” is a British vessel, having been built at
Victoria aforesaid in A. D. 1882, and duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid,
and was at the time of her seizure, as hereinafter set out, so registered. The said
“W. P. Sayward” is 1353 tons burden, by builder’s measurement, and is a well and
strongly built vessel.

4. That on the 16th day of May, A. D. 1887, after having duly cleared at Customs at
the port of Victoria aforesaid for such purpose, the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” sailed from Vic-
toria on and for a full hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and
Behring’s Sea. On said voyage George E. Ferey, of the said city of Victoria, was
master; Andrew Laing, of the same place, mate; and the crew numbered, in addi-
tion to the master and mate, twenty-two or twenty-three, with nine canoes and one
boat for hunting and sealing purposes.

5. On the 2nd day of July then next following the said ‘* W. P. Sayward ” entered
Behrineg’s Sea, having then on board, as by the report of the master sent to me, 479
seal-skins, all taken on the voyage from Victoria to Behring’s Sea prior to the said
2nd day of July. After entering the said sea the weather was very thick, and no
sealing was done by the ‘‘W. P. Sayward.”

6. On the 9th day of said July, the ‘‘W.P.Sayward” then being in latitude 54°
43/ north and longitude 167° 51’ west, and about 58 miles from Ounalaska Island,
the nearest land, and lawfully pursuing the objects of her voyage, was seized by the
United States steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and taken to Illoolook Harbour, at
Ounalaska Island, in the United States’ Territory of Alaska. At said harbour the
seal-skins on board the ‘“‘W.P.Sayward” were taken out and stored on shore, and
the “ W.P. Sayward” was, by order of the authorities of the United States, sent to
Sitka, in the said Territory of Alaska, in charge of an officer from said ‘ Richard
Rush,” together with all her crew.

7. Upon arrival at Sitka the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” was handed over to United States
Marshal Atkins, the master and mate of the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” the said George E.
Ferey and Andrew Laing, were taken before a Judge and bound over to appear for
trial on the 22nd day of August then instant, and from day to day thereafter, on a
charge of having violated the laws of the United States relating to seal-fishing in
the waters of Alaska. The said master and mate so appeared on the 22nd August
and day by day thereafter, until the 9th day of September, when, without having
been tried on said charge or any other charge whatever, they were unconditionally
released.

8. That hereto annexed, marked “(A),” is a statement of the value of the said
schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” at the time of her seizure by the “ Richard Rush,” also
of the articles, and groups of articles, and the value thereof, comprising the outfit
of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” on and for said voyage, also of the amount of premiums
paid for insurance of the hull, outfit, and cargo of said schooner during said voyage;
also of the amount paid in wages to the crew and hunters on said voyage; also of
the fares and expenses of the mate to and from Victoria for instructions, and of the
master, mate, and part of the crew in returning to Victoria from Sitka; and also of
the number and value of the seal-skins taken from the said schooner when seized.

9. The value placed on the schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” in said Exhibit (A), namely,
6,000 dollars, is a fair and reasonable valuation of the said schooner, considering her
origina] cost, which was about 7,000-dollars, the condition of repair she was in
when seized, and the value of vessels of her class at Victoria aforesaid, for such
purposes as the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” was designed and used. Immediately before going

on said voyage she was thoroughly repaired and refitted, and, at the time of
146 her seizure, was in first-class order and condition. Besides the outfit men-
tioned in Exhibit (A), there was on board the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” when seized,
a considerable quantity of extra gear, tackling, and ship stores. The insurance

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 165

value of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” for the year 1887, was 6,000 dollars, and on and dur-
ing said vovage she was insured in the sum of 1,000/. on her hull, and in 2,0001. on
her outfit and cargo.

10. 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 at Victoria aforesaid at the time of their purchase for the use and pur-
poses of said voyage. The price charged in xhibih (A) for the seal-skins on board
the ‘‘W. P. Say ward” when seized, namely, 5 dol. 50 ce. per skin, is the market price
per skin current at Victoria aforesaid on or Su the close of the sealing season of
1887, when the catch of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” had not such seizure taken place,
would have been placed on the said market.

11. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘ (C),” is a statement of the legal and personal
expenses incurred at Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizure of the ‘ W. P.
Sayward,” the arrest and detention of her master and mate, and the claims arising
therefrom.

12. ‘That hereto annexed, marked “(D),” is an estimate of the loss and damage

resulting to the owner thereof by reason of the seizure and detention of the schooner
SW. P. ‘Say ware ” during the season of 1887, and the probable loss from the same
cause for the season of 1888. The estimated catch of seals by the ‘‘W. P. Sayward”
for the season of 1887 is based npon an average catch of 350 seals per boat and canoe
for a full season, and I verily believe, had the above seizure not taken place, that,
under ordinary circumstances, the total catch of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” for said full
season would have been at least the said number of 3,500 seals.

13. That after the close of the sealing season, and during the months of October,
November, and December, A. D. 1887, and January 1888, had the ‘‘W.P. Sayward”
been in her owner’s possession she would have been engaged in the coasting and gen-
eral freighting trade in and about the coasts of British Columbia, and the said claim
of 300 dollars per month for each of said months is a fair and reasonable estimate of
the earnings of the ‘“W. P. Sayward” for and during said months, after deducting
therefrom the cost of wages and running expenses.

14. In order to put the “OW, P. Sayw ard” in order and condition to engage in hunt-
ing and fishing the full season of 1888, itis necessary that she should be in her own-
er’s possession at Victoria aforesaid on or before the Ist day of February, A. D. 1888.
If not then at Victoria it will be impossible to repair and refit her in time to start
out on a full season voyage which begins about the Ist March. As during the sum-
mer months there would be little for a vessel like the “W. P. Sayward” to do in the
coasting and local freighting trade, if she were not got away on a fishing and hunt-
ing voyage the season would be practically lost. The estimated profit on a full sea-
son of hunting and fishing by the ‘ W. P. Sayward” in 1888, namely, 6,000 dollars,
is a fair and reasonabie catch estimate, based on a catch of 3 3,500 seal- skins, and,
deducting from the gross value thereof, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, the cost of outfit and
wages based on the “W.P. Sayward’s” voyage of 1887.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(E),” is a statement of the principal sums on
which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so
elaimed. On the Ist October, A. D.1887,0n or about which date the catch of the
“W.P. Sayward ” for 1887 would have been, in the ordinary course of events, realized
on, the minimum rate of interest on money ‘for commercial purposes at the ‘said city
of Victoria was, has since continued to be, and now is, 7 per cent. per annum.

16. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(#),” isa statement of the articles, and groups of
articles, and the value thereof, comprised in the outfit of the ‘ W. Pp. Sayward” on
said voyage as given in xhibit (A), which would have been wholly or almost wholly
consumed in the course and prosecution of a full season’s hunting and fishing voy-
age, such as contemplated by the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” in 1887.

And J, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the “Act respecting Extra-
judicial oaths.”

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
aud Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, /ARSD). 1887, and certified under my
official seal.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

166 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

147 EXxnuisiT (A).
Value of the schooner ““W. P. Sayward” at the time of her seizure by
United States steam-ship ‘Richard Rush” on the 9th July, A. D. 1887. --.. $6, 000. 00
Value of ‘‘W. P. Sayward’s” outfit on said voyage:
(GROCOIICS eee ceen oon bz chick Bice a lem See eee ee eee Eee een $856. 67
FATT DIOD ees Sete wins (2s 3 12h ere ood cite Oe Selanne eee 202. 76
IDI ONS 8 GS SSRs ae AAO ASM Hag sys CoO Gbads asa sce soca ehibe 95. 75
PRMVOM@ON tanks? 2 ide.2 vol. onde ck oeiee Me eee tea ceeeereeer 50. 00
Winiterscaskey st). 2oc1.i2-2o bi. Se Peet ee ae re eee 25. 00
Shiptchandlery «. 2.5. sccclc Js cen oo Pee. eee eee eee ease 101. 40
Hour Now 0 shot cunsi.t4.< ceseee ee Beene ee ee eee ee eee eee 160. 00
WO RLHOS ;.:= occas Ske Soe Sener eee eee Aree eee ee eee 45. 00
Gunyimplements:and tools) -2 yas 4ee- eee eee eee ee 9. 00
Oneysealine-boat;(returned)!i2 2:5 seater eee ee ee Sie eee
Nine canoes and outfitse..U fn5. 5. BS OR eee eee 513. 00
Sons Salt. 2.5 2.4 2h2o tore ee eae tase eae cere 120. 00
HabONS COAL .e.0.0 Rec Seed te ee res ees cee ere Bleees 35. 00>
Cooking Tange and utensils!se ese 5 pee eee eee eee eee eer 75. 00
——— 2,288.58
Insurance:
Ereminm on J 0007" on hnllysa Gs gous eerieeeaeeeeeee see ene 410. 70
Premium on 2,000. on cargo, 1051. 13s. 4d._-.-...--.----...-.- 514. 59
925. 29
Wages paid sailors and hunters for voyage up to time of seizure.........- 1, 437. 75
Passage money of mate to Victoria for counsel and instructions and
OUUTI 5.5 2 Sis:b.5 eis sein d Stis soar Ss eliaealeloepe eee ale See See Oe ee eee 100. 00
Fares of master and mate on return to Victoria, and personal ex-
WONSES 22 fii = -.25 lee isles ee eee oe ease tae See ee ee 150. 00
Fares of seventeen men (crew) from Fort Simpson to Victoria.... 255. 00
505. 00
479 seals on board “ W. P. Sayward” when seized, at 5dol.50¢. perskin.. 2, 634. 50
otal, dxhibit: (A) ..sscst.ceee Se sale ceecieas neers tes eter seer aes 13, 791. 12
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

EXxurpir (G).

Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the “ W. P. Say-

WUT Witterote a whe ic oot Se Gee SE ER: eos Sars See ene oe a $100. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising

PROMS AIC SCIZULO: «55 Sb.6-.25 = te so oe eas Sen ee ae eee ee 750. 00
Personal expenses of the owner in connection with said seizureand claims. 250. 00

Totals Wxhibit: (C)y.2:. ic. ice Ree ee 1, 100. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

EXHIBIT (D). —Damages arising from the Seizure and Detention of the ‘“ W. P.
Sayward,” during the Season of 1887, based upon her reasonable and probable
Catch of Seals for that Season.

Shim ateducatcmotseal-sicins,. -.- 2. 2.2 neces cose ee ee eee 3, 500
NVESSONEN OAL ewiSOl7UIT OMe o.oo cin ot bates Racer ee ee ee eee 479
Balance wat dolso0lc. per Skin: 22. --.o8-5-c24-seeeee eee 3, 021 = $16, 615. 50

Loss to owners of ‘‘W.P. Sayward” bv reasonoft her detention after the

close of the sealing season of 1887, n: unely, for the months of October,

November, and December, ING 0% 1887, and Janu: ry, A. D. 1888, when

the *‘ W. P, Sayward,” if in owner's possession, would have been en-

gaged in coasting trade. Four months, at 300 dollars per month---- 1, 200. 00
If owner not putin possession of ‘‘W. P. Sayward” on or betore the 1st

February, 1888, so that she may be put in order and condition to en-

gage in fishing and hunting voyage for season of 1888, reasonable

and probable profit for the season of 1888..........0. seme soso0onooSS 6, 000. 00

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 167

148 Exurpit (E).—Estimate of the Principal Sums on which Interest is claimed
at 7 per cent. per annum, and the Time for which it is so claimed.

Value of the estimated catch of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” for season of 1887,

from the Ist day of October, A. D. 1887, when said catch would have

been realized on, viz., 3,500 skins, at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin....-..---..-- $19, 250. 00
Actual outlay for legal and other expenses on account of said seizure prior

ROMEO LS LEOClODEr NSS ie sear toma cect ec co aacis tis se wiecn cscs mem cece aes 605. 10

Total principal on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum from the 1st
WO CTODEL MLSS nscale User et na sacs ctr oe ena eel ok mam cs Serta 19, 855. 10

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exuisir (F).—Value of estimated Consumption of Articles of **W. P. Sayward’s”
Outfit on a full Voyage.

(GrOGERICS ee ese isnccen Sack ~ ace eee soe eee Seas soa eeas eee eens eons $856. 67
PAM OU TON as secretes eee ce Gee eee S Sates S Cee ae can coos Monee cesese 202. 76
DINO OOU Stas sac ese Sohels stack an ey ace ee oe tei eee eee eee ose eee a eae 95. 75
SS iipec band letyarteen seem ee ie eres Men a ores as oe nana Reese ee ersyabony ate 101. 40
pd leer een spears dias tice a oh ceectern army Strate ean Mo ee Ba WES EIN fen toe SONATE 120. 00
(CORI owicgS SAAS SERS EIS O RIC EDI EIS aR eR ie iinet Reena ee mee. Spe ea 35. 00
WY GES os cea Cte iees ees aie pan te als ieee ints PU Baki 2 ge ok ne ieae We. Or aL Sigel ls SPR Re a We 1, 437. 75
MSTA Cg PLOMMUIMNS ener eee mere ees ree ee ee ae ae ee tae arte 925. 29

MOLE CONSUMPUVON ea -ec char cece create oma le etait ee ce e/ee naire eee 3, 774. 62

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.
t=)

Memo.—If the full claim for the season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D), be
allowed, then the amount of this exhibit, 3,774 dol. 62 ¢., will properly appear as a
credit, and be deducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms a part.

[Inclosure 8 in No. 90.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

City oF OrtTawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San
Francisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America, the owner
of the hereinafter-mentioned steam-schooner ‘‘ Grace,” by power of attorney bearing
date the 4th day of February, A. D. 1886.

2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, I am informed and do verily believe, a Brit-
ish subject by birth, and never having renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of
Great Britain.

3. That the said steam-schooner “‘Grace” is a British vessel built at Victoria afore-
said, in A. D. 1881, and duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid. By builder’s
measurement the ‘‘ Grace” is about 182 tons burden. Sheis substantially and strongiy
built, copper fastened throughout, and in A. p. 1885 her bottom and sides to about
half-load-line were coppered. Her steam power consists of one large boiler, com-
pound engines, and all necessary fittings, including inside surface condenser, steam
fire pumps and hose, and also had on board a double steam cargo winch.

4, The said ‘‘Grace” was duly licensed as a passenger boat, and had all the
appliances and conveniences required by Canadian law for such vessels.

5. That as such agent as aforesaid, I am the,sole manager of the said steam-

schooner ‘‘ Grace” for the said Thomas H. Cooper.
149 6. That on or about the 23rd day of April, A. p. 1887, having previously duly
cleared therefor at the port of Victoria aforesaid, the said steam-schooner

168 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“Grace” sailed from Victoria on and for a full season hunting and fishing voyage
in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea. On said voyage the crew of the
“Grace” consisted of William Petit, of Victoria aforesaid, master, a mate, and
twenty-nine sailors and hunters.

7. That on the 6th or 7th day of July following the ‘ Grace” entered the Behring’s
Sea along the 172nd west meridian, through the Amoughta Pass, commonly called
the ‘‘172nd Pass,” having then on board 458 seals taken while on the voyage from
Victoria aforesaid to the said pass.

8. That on the 12th day of said July, A. D. 1887, the ‘“‘Grace” began sealing in said
Behring’s Sea, and from then till she was seized as hereinafter set out caught 323
seals. On the 17th day of the said month of July the United States steam-ship
““Richard Rush” seized the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Grace” for alleged violation of
the laws of the United States of America respecting seal-fishing in the waters of
Alaska. At the time of said seizure the ‘‘ Grace” was in north latitude 55° 3’ and
west longitude 168° 40’, then being about 92 miles from Ounalaska Island, the nearest
land, and, as I verily believe, lawfully pursuing the objects of said voyage.

9. The ‘‘Grace” after being seized was taken to Ounalaska, in the Territory of
Alaska, where by order of the United States authorities thereat, all the seal-skins
on board, except as hereinafter stated, were taken out and stored at Ounalaska,
and all the firearms and ammunition taken on board the said ‘‘ Richard Rush.” On
removing the seal-skins twelve were missing. Five were afterwards discovered on
board the ‘‘Grace” and not removed, the remaining seven were not, so far as I
know, ever found.

10. After removal from the ‘‘Grace” of the said seal-skins as stated in the preced-
ing paragraph 8, a United States officer was placed on board the ‘‘ Grace,” and she
was, in charge of said officer, taken to Sitka, in the Territory of Alaska, together
with all the crew and hunters. On arrival at Sitka on the Ist August United States
Marshal Atkins took charge of the ‘‘Grace.” The master, the said William Petit,
was bound over to appear for trial on the 22nd day of August then instant, on a
charge then preferred against him of having violated the laws of the United States
respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska. The said master so appeared for
trial on the 22nd instant, and thereafter day by day until the 9th day of September
next following, when, without having been brought to trial on such a charge or any
other charge whatever, he was unconditionally released.

11. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(A),” is a statement of the value of said steam-
schooner ‘‘ Grace” at the time of her seizure, and of the outfit then on board, also of
the premiums paid for insurance on the hull, outfit, and cargo of the ‘‘Grace” for
and during said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid the crew and hunters on
and for said voyage up to time of seizure; also of the expenses and fares of the
master and five men at and from Sitka to Victoria aforesaid, and also of the number
of the seal-skins on board at the time of seizure, and the value thereof.

12. That the value placed upon the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Grace” at the time of
her seizure, namely, 12,000 dollars, is based upon the original cost of the said vessel,
the state of repair she was then in, and the general market value of the vessels of the
same class at the said port of Victoria, and for the same purpose for which she was
designed. The first cost of the ‘“‘ Grace” was between 16,000 and 17,000 dollars. At
the time of her seizure she was 6 years old, and in 1885 had been thoroughly repaired,
coppered as aforesaid, and generally put in first-class order and condition. On her
departure on said voyage she was in good order and condition, and had on said voy-
age up to the time of seizure sustained no damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.
Her insurance value for said year 1887 was placed at 12,500 dollars, and she was,
while on said voyage, insured for the sum of 2,000/., and the said value of 12,000
dollars at the time of her seizure is a reasonable and fair value for the said steam-
schooner ‘‘ Grace.”

13. That the value in Exhibit (A) placed on the articles, and groups of articles,
comprising the outfit of the said ‘ Grace” is the cost price of the said articles at the
port of Victoria at the time of their purchase for the purposes of said voyage. In
addition to the outfit named in Exhibit (A), there was on board the ‘‘Grace” at the
time of her seizure a considerable quantity of general ship stores.

14. The price per seal-skin charged in Exhibit (A), namely, 5 dol. 50 ¢c. per skin for
the seal-skins on board the ‘‘Grice” when seized and taken out at Ounalaska was
the market price at Victoria at the close of the sealing season of 1887, when the catch
of the “Grace” for that season, in the ordinary course of events, would have been
placed on the market.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(C),” is a statement of the legal expenses

incurred at Sitka and elsewhere by reason of the seizure of the ‘‘Grace” and
150 «the arrest of the captain, and the claims arising therefrom, and also of the
personal expenses connected therewith.

aa

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 169

16. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(D),” is a statement of the amounts claimed
by the owner of the steam-schooner ‘‘Grace” by reason of her seizure and detention
during the season of 1887, and of the loss arising from the detention of the said
“ Grace” after the close of said season.

17. The estimated catch by the ‘‘Grace” for the season of 1887, namely, 4,200 seal-
skins, is based upon a reasonable and probable catch per boat or canoe for that
season. Experience in sealing has proved that the greater number of boats or canoes,
or both, carried by any one sealing-vessel, the smaller the average per canoe or boat,
and it is in view of this that the average per canoe for the ‘‘ Grace” is put at 300
per canoe, while the average for the steam-schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck” for the same season
is placed at 350, the latter carrying eight canoes and one boat, while the former
carried twelve canoes and two boats. The said average catch of 300 seal-skins per
canoe and boat for the ‘‘Grace” is a fair average catch, and I verily believe that,
had the ‘‘Grace” not been seized as aforesaid, her catch for the season of 1887 would
have exceeded the said number of 4,200 seal-skins.

18. That during the months of October, November, and December, A. p. 1887, and
January, A. D. 1888, had the ‘‘Grace” been in possession of her owner, she would
have been engaged in the coasting trade between the various ports of British Colum-
bia. The estimated loss per month of 500 dollars for each of said months is a fair
and reasonable estimate of the earnings of the said steam-schooner ‘‘Grace” for the
said months of October, November, December, and January, after deducting the
cost of wages and ordinary running expenses, and I verily believe that the ‘‘ Grace ”
would have earned the said sum per month had she been in her owner’s possession.

19. That in order to engage in the hunting and fishing of next year, namely, A. D.
1888, and in view of the tact that the ‘‘Grace” will require the usual overhauling
and fitting out before being sent on so long a voyage, the latest date at which it
will be possible to begin necessary repairs and refitting, and have them completed
in order to leave at or about the usual date on said hunting and fishing voyage, will
be on or about the Ist day of February, A. D. 1888. If the ‘‘Grace” be not delivered
to the owners at Victoria on or before that date, it will be too late to repair and
refit her for a full season hunting and fishing voyage, which begins on or about the
Ist March of each year. During the summer months, for a vessel of the class and
equipment of the ‘‘Grace,” there is very little to do in and about the coasting trade,
and the season in the event of the ‘‘Grace” not being in the possession of her owner
on or before the 1st February, A. D. 1888, would be practically lost to her owner.
The claim for lossif detained beyond the 1st February aforesaid is a fair and reason-
able estimate of the loss which will in such cases be sustained by the owner of the
““Grace.”

20. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(E),” is an estimate of the principal sums on
which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so
claimed. On the Ist day of October, A. D. 1887, when the catch of the “Grace”
would have been, in the ordinary course of events, realized on, the minimum rate
of interest on money for commercial purposes at the said city of Victoria was, has
since continued to be, and now is, 7 per cent. per annum.

21. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(F),” 1s a statement of the articles, and groups
of articles, and the value thereof, from Exhibit (A), which would have been wholly,
or almost wholly, consumed in the course and prosecution of the said voyage, had
not the ‘‘Grace” been seized and detained as aforesaid.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘“‘Act respecting Extra-
judicial Oaths.”

: (Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton,
in the Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O’CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

170 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
151 ¢XHIBIT (A).

Value of the steam-schooner ‘‘Grace” at the time of her seizure......... $12, 000.00
Outfit:

GrOCETICS eect cers econ em iiaee a shee eees ieee Een eee $948. 13
ANIME T OMe tects le = am clsm~ n\viniw slo clei e jena gee erate 166. 63
IDA OOYGL 5 GSR BARRA SRS SRS BN Sae Coesn a Nossa sees Sade 276.17
ibhree dronywater-tanks- .- 2 =--.- < s0 cn epee eee eee aes 66. 00
Widen CABINS oro e fee ca ni oe ewes cone a asap pe ee meena sienaser 25. 00
ShiMienanglenye a. cscs. ce socom sca See ee Renee ae 161.18
WOLVELNO. LOISDODOUNS <<. 5 =<) 9 eee eae eee eee 480. 00
PUNTO OMICS eres coe = on aioe ee eniiaee ieee Bee ee eee eee ere 77.50
One small cannon on carriage for signalling -...-.......---. 50. 00
Gunyimplements and tools) - =~ <2 < 22a eee eee eae 10. 50
Mvrosealine: boats and) outhts=--- o-es ase see ase ase 249. 57
Mwelvevcanoes and ioutits. 2-5. sc-)- eee eeee re eee 684. 00
SPONSLOLIS ANU ~..\-</<[0-wiciee yelote nee eee eaten 127.50
BoLLONSIOL, COAL. 2.0. ecw aetiie se ols ieeieee eee eee ee eee 231.00
Cooking range and! utensils. 92-2 seeee see esse eee eee 100. 00

——— 3,653.18

Insurance:

iPremiumon 20007, insuraneeron sil yee eee eee 821. 40
Premium on 2,000/. insurance on outfit and cargo.......--..- 514. 59
—-— 1, 335. 99
Wages paid crew and hunters on voyage up to time of seizure..-....--- 2164. 25
Fares from Sitka to Victoria of master and five of the crew, and mas-
emsyeOx ponses at Sitkae. os cpoe oc oes pete eis eee eee 200. 00
781 seal-skins on board the ‘‘Grace” when seized, at 5 dol. 50c. per
GIN = Hed h ade sbds oboe baad babs Sade edda saod vos saslosoq Sada bSsooe nose ese 4, 295. 50
MOEN apd Mi MG) SS se 4S ce secs soso ss Goan saee cas poco en se nbSSsneese 23,648. 92
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O’ConnorR, Notary Public.
EXHIBIT (C).
Legal expenses at Sitka inconnection with the seizure of the “Grace ” and
DIES OH TNOSUE toon ooo go sass Saseoo seacaes- Pease eo coce ig Pa Boones 100. 00
Counsel and other Jegal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the
‘- Grace,” and other claims arising thereunder._.-...--........---.-.-2.: 750. 00
Personaliexpenses 1m the same connechiolesasess ese eee ace eee eee ee 250. 00
PROTA ES occ cde toes Sone cee sects ne Se ee eee ee a eee ee eeee 1, 100. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exuibit (D).—Estimated Loss and Damage to the Owner of the “‘ Grace,” by reason
of her Seizure and Detention, during A. D. 1887.

Reasonable and probable catch of seals for the season of 1887.. 4, 200
Less number on board when seized, and charged in Exhibit (A). 781

Balancesat b> dal. 50'c. per, skin.=.- 2... 22. eas ee oe a 3,419 — $18, 804.50
Reasonable earnings of ‘‘ Grace” during months of October, Novem-
ber, and December 1887, and January 1888, had she been in owner’s

possession, viz., four months at 500 dollars each.....-...--....--- 2, 000. 00
Estimated loss for sealing season of 1888, if ‘‘ Grace” not in posses-
sion of owner on or before Ist February, 1888.........--..-....--. 7, 000. 00
MORN Sse cee cacdesseobonbd sos] sobbed cae bSo Sacer nbd sondasboodse 27, 804. 50
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

:
J
7

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. — 171

152. Exnrpit (E).—Estimate of the principal sums on which Interest at 7 per cent,
per annum is claimed, and the Time for which such Interest is so claimed.

Value of the ‘‘Grace’s” estimated catch of seals for 1887, fro: the 1st

October, A. D. 1887, on or before which date the said catch would have

been realized on, viz., 4,200 skins at 5 dol. 50 c. per skin .----..----.-- $23, 100.00
Cash expended for legal and other expenses on account of such seizure up

ORS ala Clete esta ates pata alate aera ataareiete iatinl =i wiaya sn /~)s atavcrataie ainiareieicisiciq eisis'ateisate 300. 00

Total principal on which interest is claimed at 7 per cent. per
annum from 1st-October to date of payment..--..............-- 23, 400.00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public. 3

EXHIBIT (F).—Value of the Articles of the ‘Grace’s” Outfit which would have
been wholly, or almost wholly consumed, on a full hunting and fishing voyage.

GO COLES eee erate ete ree seca jae iepereies ee aia ee aia are Siete tate eta ctanch ole ca ereteanelaiate $948. 13
AITO ao seb oces EGER SSENOOE Osc 6 AES BAS cH beam caeeececooecnseees 5 TRG:
IDINY GOOG J43secsasodode soaasested susace gece canocetoossussce Sebdaosescdae 276.17
2 OTD GIMSV0G A GosGns eae cbemge ses Sas de a5 Soasctieo tbe = SSes asses Sob ated 161.18
COM sosossss bdodea e605 saantend cecbbous Hoon cat eslan se daccupeoEecoussacegeee 231. 00
IWEVDIOS ieee steno ny. nie cars fale Sansa Sele Sate fe ela ayyecte(a re ae eh atoea ns a aya mata sio Slee 2, 164. 25
IMSULAnce;s PLrEMIWIMS e253 poses os ea waioe ceca see asia Ne sls e winiale) wares als ceiee 1, 335. 99

MM Obalev anes COMBS UIC Cesare crete a iaiatee ers etree er ne Sie soe erm icy Seat 5, 410. 85

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

Memo.—lIf the full claim for the season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D) be allowed,
then the amount of this Exhibit, 5,410 dol. 85 c., will properly appear as a credit,
and be deducted from the total of Exhibit (A) of which it forms a part,

{Inclosure 9 in No. 90.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry oF Orrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San
Francisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America, engineer,
by power of attorney bearing date the 4th day of November, A. D. 1886, the owner of
the hereinafter-mentioned steam-schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck.”

2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, as I am informed and verily believe, a Brit-
ish subject by birth, and has never renounced his allegiance to the Sovereign of Great
Britain.

3. That the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck” is a British vessel since A.D. 1872,
when she was transferred by purchase from the Registry of the port of San Fran-
cisco aforesaid to that of Victoria aforesaid, and has since remained on the Registry
of the port of Victoria. In 1883 the ‘“‘ Anna Beck” was rebuilt and raised, and in the
winter of 1880-81 she was fitted up with steam-propellor, and all the machinery and
appliances necessary for such a purpose. The cost of said steam-power and rebuild-
ing was over 8,000 dollars.

4, That as agent, as aforesaid, of the said Thomas H. Cooper, I am the sole man-
ager of the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Anna Beck.”

5. That on the 21st March, A.D. 1887, the said ‘“‘ Anna Beck” sailed from Victoria,
having previously cleared for that purpose, on a full season’s hunting and fishing
voyage in the North Pacific Ocean aud Behring’s Sea. On or about the 25th day of
May then next following the ‘“‘ Anna Beck” sailed from the west coast of Vancouver

Island for Behring’s Sea. On and for said voyage to Behring’s Sea the crew of
153. ‘Anna Beck” consisted of Louis Olsen, of the said city of Victoria, master;

Michael Keefe, of the same place, mate; and twenty-one sailors and hunters,
with one sealing-boat and eight canoes, and a complete outfit for a full voyage of
hunting and fishing in Behring’s Sea.

Li2 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

6. That on or about the 28th day of June, A.D. 1887, the “ Anna Beck” entered the
Behring’s Sea, and on the 2nd day of July, A. D. 1887, while in said sea, in latitude
54° 58/ north and longitude 167° 26’ west, then being about 66 miles from the nearest
land, and lawfully engaged in the objects of said voyage, the ‘“‘Anna Beck” was
seized by the United States steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush,” for alleged violation of the
laws of the United States respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska.

7. That at the time of said seizure the ‘‘ Anna Beck” had on board 334 seal-skins,
most of which had been taken by the ‘“‘ Anna Beck” on her voyage up to the time of
entering said sea, and not afterwards. After seizure, the ‘‘ Anna Beck” was, by the
authority of the Commander of the ‘“‘ Richard Rush,” taken to Tloolook Harbour, at
Ounalaska Island, in the United States Territory of Alaska, where the said seal-skins
were taken out and stored on shore, and the arms and ammunition transferred to the
said “‘ Richard Rush,” either at sea or in said harbour. The master, mate, and crew
of the “‘ Anna Beck” were sent to Sitka, in said Territory of Alaska, on the American
schooner “‘Challenge.” On their arrival at Sitka aforesaid the master and mate of
the “Anna Beck” were taken before a Judge, and bound over to appear before said
Judge on the 22nd August then instant, for trial, on a charge of having violated the
laws of the United States respecting seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska. The
master and mate so appeared for trial on the 22nd day of August, A. D. 1887, and
thereafter from day to day until the 9th day of September then next following,
when, without having been brought to trial on said charge, or on any other charge
whatever, they were unconditionally released.

8. That hereto annexed, marked “‘(A),” is a statement showing the value of the
said steam-schooner “Anna Beck” at the time of her seizure as above set out, except-
ing only what had been consumed in the ordinary course and prosecution of the said
voyage; also of the outfit, and value thereof, of the “Anna Beck” on said voyage;
also of the amounts paid for insurance premiums on the hull, outfit, and cargo of
the ‘Anna Beck” on and during said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid to
the crew and hunters for said voyage up to the time of said seizure; also of the fares
and expenses of the master and mate from Sitka to Victoria, and of sixteen of the
crew of the ‘‘Anna Beck” from Fort Simpson to Victoria; and also of the number
and value of the seal-skins taken from the said ‘‘Anna Beck” after such seizure at
Ounalaska Island.

9. The value placed on the said steam-schooner ‘Anna Beck,” namely, 8,000 dol-
lars, is based upon her cost, the order and condition in which she was when seized,
and the value of similar vessels at Victoria aforesaid. As stated in the preceding
paragraph 8 of this declaration, the ““Anna Beck” was fitted with steam propelling
power in A. D. 1880-81, and in a. D. 1883 was rebuilt and raised at a total cost of over
8,000 dollars. At the time of her seizure she was in first-class order and condition,
having been thoroughly overhauled and refitted for said voyage, and the value
claimed for her, namely, 8,000 dollars, is a fair and reasonable value for her at the
time of her said seizure.

10. The prices charged in Exhibit (A) for the articles, and groups of articles, com-
prising the outfit of the “Anna Beck” on said voyage are the market prices at Vic-
toria aforesaid at the time of their purchase for the use and purposes of said voyage,
and the price per skin charged for the seal-skins taken from the “Anna Beek” when
seized is the market price per skin current at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the
season of 1887, when, in the ordinary course of events, the catch of the “Anna Beck”
would have been placed on said market. 7

11. That hereto annexed, marked ‘(C),” is a statement of the legal and personal
expenses at Sitka and elsewhere arising out of the seizure and detention of the
“Anna Beck,” the arrest of her master and mate, and the claims arising therefrom.

12. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(D),” is a statement of the estimated loss and
damage to the owner of the said ‘‘Anna Beck,” by reason of her seizure and deten-
tion as aforesaid for the years A. D. 1887 and A. D. 1888. The estimated catch of
seals for the season of 1887, namely, 3,150, is calculated upon an average catch per
boat and per canoe of 350 seals, which is a fair and reasonable estimate of the prob-
able catch per boat and per canoe for the boat and each of the canoes of the said
“Anna Beck” during the season of 1887.

13. After the close of the sealing season of 1887, and during the following months
of October, November, and December, a. D. 1887, and January, A. D. 1888, had the
said steam-schooner “‘Anna Beck” been in possession of her said owner, she would
have been engaged in the general coasting and freighting trade in and about the

coasts of British Columbia aforesaid, and the reasonable and probable earnings
154 of the “Anna Beck” for said months of October, November, December, and

January, after deducting from the gross amount thereof the cost of wages and
running expenses, would be at least 500 dollars per month for each of the said
months.

14. In order that the “Anna Beck” may be repaired and refitted in time to engage
in the full season’s hunting and fishing voyage for A. D. 1888, it is necessary that she

np HE onl aig

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 173

should be in her owner’s possession at Victoria aforesaid on or about the Ist day. of
February, A.D. 1888. If not at that date at Victoria and in possession of her owner,
it will be impossible to put her in fit and proper condition to start out on said voy-
age at or about the usual time, which is on or about the Ist March in each year.
During the summer months there is little for a vessel of the class and equipment of
the ‘Anna Beck” to do in and about the general coasting trade, and if not engaged
in hunting and fishing aforesaid the season would be practically lost. ‘The ciaim of
6,000 dollars as probable loss and damage to the owner of the “Anna Beck” if she
is detained after the Ist February, A. D. 1888, is a fair and reasonable estimate of his
said loss by reason of such detention, for the season of 1888.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(E),” is a statement of the principal sums on
which interest is claimed, the rate thereof, and the time from and to which it is so
claimed. At the time when the catch of the ‘‘Anna Beck” for 1887 would have been
realized, on or about the 1st October, 1887, the minimum rate of interest on money
for commercial purposes at Victoria aforesaid was, has since continued to be, and
now is, 7 per cent. per annum.

16. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(F),” is a statement of the articles of the outfit
of the said ‘Anna Beck,” and the value thereof, as given in Exhibit (A), which
would have been wholly or almost wholly consumed during the course and prosecu-
tion of a full hunting and fishing voyage in the Behring’s Sea.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the “Act respecting Extra-
judicial Oaths.”

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario,

EXHIBIT (A).

Value of steam-schooner ‘‘Anna Beck” at time of seizure by United States

steam-ship “‘ Richard Rush” on 2nd July, a. D. 1887.....-....-...---.-.. $8, 000. 00
Value of ‘‘Anna Beck’s” outfit:
GROGOIIES Reef rajecte nate eae see Aare aie shssilere mei e's toe Spero $876. 42
PAUTUTINUUTUNU OT epee aye ere <0 a Sere Peo cliche sain renee eee tole hee 242. 60
LIRA 00 RVG R Eoin onwee Gor Ueda Seine GCE Cena Shs aan ae irre 95. 76
Homminmon: tanks massac secon fe ee le eee ne ee eee ais ere 82. 00
CRIGISS 4: Be PSB UEEIS ES Sse RASC anno ees Comoro mere rier me ars Mamie fee 10. 00
prc handleny a. ss:2 ict oie leader Demise time cecee soa aces 240. 06
Hour No mlOsshothounsissese. eee eae en sees ene sees eee ae 160. 00
HNWORRIM OS Monee eens Sok n teem Oat ene De Woy cee ec ee oe 45. 00
Guneirmplenmentsraid tO Ose sesso eee eee eee oe 9. 00
Onesoaline-boatiand’outhites. se: sep s= seciescise oe a5 oe as 140. 50
PieircanOes aNd OUGIb. st 226-422 selec ose see sce beso cew ese 456. 00
OAUONSIS Abe y= Ham Soe see -\ eerste ci cytisina) scle oe Semel. Boost se 100. 00
A DELOMSICOMM ss was yaya se meet Mas seis yor Heep ont Meenas ees Bie 175. 00
Coon rane and UteNSIs=---1---- ose ssn cet oeeense ese. ot 09:00
— 2, 727. 34
Insurance:
remmunmmzon t, 4007 onmhull (isis lss 4d.) 22225 22222. nc cec ees 574. 98
Eremiumron 22,0000; on outit (Oat; 138, 4dh)j2252 22 22222 22 eee 514.59
1, 089. 57
Wages paid crew and hunters up to time of seizure.-..--..-----.---..-.- He Lela 50)
Passage and expenses of captain and mate from Sitka, and sixteen of the
crew of the ‘Anna Beck” from Fort Simpson to Victoria.............--- 460. 54
334 seal-skins on board the ‘Anna Beck” at time of seizure, at 5 dol. 50c.
ODES alee sere ete Meese ism ee ease cece rte ae as ahem ee eo 1, 837. 00
atime EECA) Semana noes cen seem ests os doe wae cet eS ete cee 15,295.95
(Signed) J.D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

174 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

155 Exu1BiIT (C).
Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the ‘‘ Anna
FRG Gee hs Sects oe ee ote ars bak ele we sich tein toy epee eee oe Se ie cas ee $100. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the claims arising
PMOMIUSATUUSOIZNLOs sec. tacit 6. oe oso lee a ete minal Ste efor tae eee eae 750. 00
Personal expenses of the owner in connection with said seizure and claims. — 250. 00
Total .. 0.2... c2ce cone cece n cone cece ceca s cee n es nce eens coc enn cone 1, 100. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

Exuisir (D).—Damages arising from the Seizure and Detention of the ‘‘ Anna
Beck” during the season 1887, based upon her reasonable and probable Catch of
Seals for that season.

Estimated catch ....------------ ---------- -22e-+ 2-2 + ee eee eee eee 3, 150

vessiskinsion board when selzedtaee seperate eee ee eee 33
Balance ati5 dol. 50ic. pers Win pees. nes-ce.6 eee eee eee 2, 816 = $15, 488. 00

Loss to owner of ‘‘Anna Beck” by reason of her detention after the

close of the sealing season of 1887, namely, for the months of Octo-

ber, November, and December, A. D. 1887, and January 1888, during

which time the ‘‘Anna Beck,” if in owner’s possession, would have

been engaged in coasting trade: four months at 500 dollars...-..-..-- 2, 000. 00
If owner not put in possession of “Anna Beck” on or before Ist Feb-

ruary, A. D. 1888, so that she may be put in order and condition to

engage in fishing and hunting voyage for 1888, reasonable and prob-

able profit for the season of 1888..-.-.---.--------------- +--+. ------ 6, 000. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.
(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exuibit (E).—Estimate of the Principal Sums on which Interest, at 7 per cent. per
annum, is claimed, and the Time for which said Interest is so claimed.

Value of ‘‘Anna Beck’s” estimated catch of seals for 1887, about which
date said catch would have been realized on, namely, 3,150 seal-skins

nis CO GW) Caseeese spose ses sou osecs GodcbsSac0 sedcog dose seasiSess sone $17, 325. 00
Outlay for legal and other expenses prior to Ist October, 1887....-..-.-- 560. 54
Total principal on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed
from 1st October, 1887, to date of payment -...-........----.... 17, 885. 54
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR, Notary Public.

Exurpir (F).—Articles of the ‘‘Anna Beck’s” Outfit, and Value thereof, as found in
Exhibit (A), which would have been wholly, or almost wholly, consumed on said
Voyage had it not been broken up.

GTO COLICS He iolecic he win is Seiwicic'e ceic.clec nikiorw: slelo wie eae ee ere ee eereeeeice eee $876. 42
FANNIN TDLONPesse ccc 2s bbe Smee cs cole eile tecis cate eer see Sees ae eee eee 242. 60
IDA ROU USS 5 o3 82.56 po deos Sop eee OE Eb SoS 9 Be Osea ode bas psn aoe oreo aca5cserse 95. 76
Shipichandlery --osccb. cece. oee 22 = ee meee ae eee ea 240. 06
ETT STS SUH eto aise mie crn oS SNRs lala HAS os Rete scretays eel eee ae eee ene 120. 00
DHEhONATCO Blam are ae oleicle nike cic cbewinre wioceie Sos De De ero Cee Ree tciee Renee ere 175. 00
HITE STIR AINGO saree ine oe ee elas So seioe see! Shia dicted cco em ae ee eee eee eee eee 1, 089. 57
Wages sage soSoeoe 25nd sno Cae SoS OB Ono Ie Uoobod oeasconda sone oS da soooos oe dsos i, 111.50

MNotalav alu eiCONSUMEG dciscictsc c-c-wsc cele Sos Sees Sacceeemeeesereeeeer 3, 950. 91

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

Memo.—If the full claim for the sealing season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D),
be allowed, then the amount of this Exhibit, 3,950 dol. 91 ¢., will properly appear as
a credit, and be deducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms pax*

APPENDIX TO GASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 175

156 [Inclosure 10 in No. 90.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry or Otrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That Iam the duly authorized agent of Thomas H. Cooper, of the city of San
Francisco, in the State of California, one of the United States of America, the owner
of the hereinafter-mentioned steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin,” by power of attorney bear-
ing date the 4th day of November, A. D. 1886.

2. That the said Thomas H. Cooper is, as I am informed and do verily believe, a
British subject by birth, and never having renounced his allegiance to the Sover-
eign of Great Britain.

3. That the said steam-schooner ‘‘Dolphin” is a British vessel, built at Victoria
aforesaid in A. D. 1882, and duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid. By
builder’s measurement the ‘‘Dolphin” is 174 tons burden. She ‘was substantially
built, coppered to above light water-line, and copper-fastened when built, and had
not up to the time of her seizure hereinafter set out sustained any damage or strain
beyond ordinary wear and tear. Her steam-power consists of one large steel boiler,
put in during the winter of 1884-85, compound engines and all the necessary fittings,
including inside surface condenser, and also steam fire-pumps and hose, and a double
steam cargo winch.

4. The said steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin” was duly licensed as a passenger-boat, and
had all the appliances and conveniences required by Canadian laws for such vessels.

5. That as such agent as aforesaid, Iam the sole manager of the steam-schooner
“Dolphin” for the said Thomas H. Cooper.

6. That on the 16th day of May, A. D. 1887, having previously cleared at the port
of Victoria for that purpose, the said ‘‘ Dolphin” sailed from Victoria on and for a
full season’s hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s
Sea, and on and for said voyage the crew of the ‘‘ Dolphin” consisted of myself as
master, John Reilly mate, and crew of thirty-one sailors and hunters.

7. That on the 6th day of July, A. D. 1887, the ‘‘Dolphin” entered the said Beh-
ring Sea through the Amoughta Pass, commonly called the ‘172nd Pass,” having then
on board 590 seals, taken while on the voyage up through the North Pacific Ocean
from Victoria aforesaid to Amoughta Pass aforesaid.

8. On the 9th day of said month of July the ‘‘ Dolphin” began catching seals in
Behring’s Sea, then being in north latitude 54° 18’, and west longitude 168° 40’, and
from said 9th day of July until the afternoon of the 12th day of said month of July
the ‘‘Dolphin” caught twenty-eight seals in said Behring’s Sea.

9. That on the afternoon of the 12th day of July, A. D. 1887, the United States
steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush” seized the said steam-schooner ‘‘Dolphin” while law-
fully pursuing the objects of said voyage, and then being in north latitude 54° 38’,
and west longitude 167° 3’, and about 42 miles from Ounalaska Island, the nearest
land, for an alleged violation of the laws of the United States respecting seal-fish-
ing in the waters of Alaska. That when said seizure was made the “Dolphin” was
lawfully persuing the objects of said voyage. When the Commander of the said
“Richard Rush” made the said seizure he told me that his instructions were to seize
everything he found in the sea, or words to that effect.

10. After seizure all the firearms and ammunition on board the “‘ Dolphin” were
taken on board the said ‘‘ Richard Rush,” a Lieutenant from the latter placed on
board the ‘‘ Dolphin,” under whose command the ‘‘ Dolphin” was taken to the II]loo-
look Harbour at Ounalaska Island, in the United States Territory of Alaska. After
arrival there the 618 seal-skins on board the “‘ Dolphin” were, by order of the United
States authorities thereat, taken out and stored. About 2,600 lbs. of salt were also
taken out, for resalting the seal-skins. On the 20th day of said July the ‘‘ Dolphin”
sailed from Illoolook Harbour on Ounalaska Island for Sitka, in the said Territory
of Alaska, where she arrived on the 31st day of said month of July.

11. On arrival at Sitka the ‘‘Dolphin” was taken charge of by United States
Marshal Atkins, of the said Territory of Alaska. As master of the ‘‘Dolphin” I,
with the mate, the said John Reilly, were, on the 16th day of August then next fol-
lowing, taken before a Judge and bound over to appear for trial on the 22nd day of

August, A, D. 1887, on a charge then read over to us of having violated the
157 = law of the United States of America respecting seal-fishing in the waters of

Alaska. We so appeared on the 22nd day of August for trial, and from day to
day thertatter, for our trial on said charge. We so appeared thereafter for trial day
after day until the 9th day of September following, when, without any trial on said
charge or any other charge whatever, we were unconditionally released. From our
arrival at Sitka an the 31st July until the 16th day of August following, when we

176 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

were taken before the Judge, no effort was made to restrain us or in any way deprive
us of liberty. The crew of the ‘‘Dolphin” lived on board her all the time of their
stay at Sitka, and when leaving to return to Victoria by the United States steam-
ship ‘“‘Richard Rush” took from the ‘‘ Dolphin” sufficient provisions and supplies for
the trip.

12. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(A),” is a statement of the value of the steam-
schooner “Dolphin” at the time of her said seizure; also of the articles, and groups
of articles, comprising her outfit on and for said voyage, all of which, excepting only
what had been consumed in the prosecution of the voyage, were on board at seizure,
as well as considerable extra supplies and stores not mentioned in Exhibit (A); also
of the amount of premiums paid for insurance on the hull, cargo, and outfit of the
“Dolphin” for and during said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid to the
crew and hunters of the ‘‘Dolphin” on said voyage up to the time of her seizure,
and of the expenses of the master and mate in returning to Victoria from Sitka; and
also of the number and value of the seal-skins taken from the ‘ Dolphin” when
seized.

13. The value placed on the said steam-schooner ‘ Dolphin” in Exhibit (A),
namely, 12,000 dollars, is based upon her original cost, the condition which she was in
when seized, and the value of vessels of her class and equipment at Victoria aforesaid.
The first cost of the ‘‘ Dolphin” was over 16,000 dollars. At the time of her seizure
she was in first-class wrder and condition, having been specially repaired and refitted
for the voyage she then was on. Her insurance value for 1887 was 12,500 dollars,
and she was insured on and during said voyage for 2,0001. The said value, namely,
12,000 dollars, isa fair and reasonable value for the ‘‘ Dolphin” when seized.

14. The prices charged for the articles, and groups of articles, in Exhibit (A),
comprising the outfit of the ‘‘ Dolphin,” are the actual cost prices of the said
articles, and groups of articles, at the time of their purchase at Victoria for the pur-
poses of said voyage. ‘The price per skin charged in Exhibit (A) for the seal-skins
on board the * Dolphin” when seized, namely 5 dol. 50 c. per skin, was the market
price at Victoria aforesaid at the close of the sealing season of 1887, and at which
time the said seal-skins would haye, had not such seizure taken place, been put upon
the Victoria market.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(C),” is a statement of the legal expenses
incurred at Sitka and elsewhere, and also of personal expenses arising out of the
seizure of the ‘‘ Dolphin,” the arrest of the master and mate, and the claims relating
thereto.

16. That Exhibit (D), hereto annexed, is a statement of the estimated loss and
damage to the owner of the Dolphin” by reason of her seizure and detention dur-
ing A. D. 1887. The loss for 1887 is based upon a catch of 4,500 seals at the current
price per seal-skin at Victoria at the close of the season of 1887. The ‘‘ Dolphin,”
on her voyage, carried thirteen canoes and two sealing-boats, and a crew of thirty-
one sailors and hunters. The estimated catch of 4,500 seals by the ‘‘ Dolphin” for
said season is calculated on an average catch of 300 seals per boat and canoe for a
full season; and I verily believe that said average catch per boat and per canoe for
said season is a fair and reasonable estimate for a full season’s work. During the
time the Dolphin” was in Behring’s Sea, before capture, the weather was very
unfavourable for seal-hunting, being both foggy and windy, and the catch for that
period is no standard by which to judge of the ordinary and average catch of the
season. There are frequently, all through the season, days at a time when no seals
at all are taken, and, on the contrary, I have known a single boat to take from thirty
to fifty seals per day in fine weather.

17. After the close of the sealing season, and during the succeeding months of
October, November, December, and January, had the “Dolphin” been in her owner’s
possession, she would have been engaged in the coasting trade between the various
ports and freighting places on the coasts of British Columbia. During said months
the fair and reasonable earnings of the ‘‘Dolphin,” after deducting from the gross
amount thereof the cost of wages and running expenses, would be at least 500 dollars
per month.

18. The estimated loss for the season of 1888 is based upon the said average catch
of 4,500 seal-skins at the rate of 54 dollars per skin, after deducting therefrom the
cost of outfit, wages, and other necessary expenses of a hunting and fishing voy-~
age based on the ‘‘ Dolphin’s” voyage of A. D.1887. In order to fit up the ‘ Dolphin”
for such voyage in 1888, it is necessary that she be in her owner’s possession on or

before the Ist day of February of that year. If notat Victoria aforesaid about
158 that date, it will be impossible to put her in order and condition to leave on

such a voyage at the usual time, namely, about the Ist March. During the
summer months there is little or no coasting trade for a vessel of the class and equip-
ment of the ‘‘Dolphin,” and unless she can be sent out on a regular full season of
hunting and fishing, her owner will practically lose the profits of the season. And I
verily believe that 7,000 dollars is a fair and reasonable estimate of the earnings of
the “Dolphin” on such a full season’s hunting and fishing voyage.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Lee

19. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(E),” is a statement of the principal sums on
which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so
claimed. At the time when the catch of the “Dolphin” for the season of 1887 would,
in the ordinary course of events, have been realized on, namely, on or about the Ist
October of that year, the minimum rate of interest on money for commercial purposes
at Victoria aforesaid was, has continued to be, and now is, 7 per cent. per annum.

20. That hereto annexed, marked ‘*(I*),” is a statement showing the various articles,
and groups of articles, comprised in the outfit of the “ Dolphin, ” and the value
thereof, as given in Exhibit (A), which would have been wholly or almost wholly
consumed on a full season’s hunting and fishing voyage, such as that contemplated
by the ‘‘ Dolphin” in 1887.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously helievi ing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘Act respecting Extra-
judicial Oaths. m

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton,
in the Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O’CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

EXHIBIT (A).

Value of steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin” at the time of her seizure.........- $12, 000. 00
Outfit:
(GOES ENCE T Pers Be mn aes te See a ee ae et a ee pin $985.68 -
PATENT OM arorstoreerstols (a1 Saas alec ese ere es cea too ceelel geen Sate ors 240. 22
DIN? BOCUIS S ce Romo osptisera tevoroe Bae SoS Sen ear oem seinen 229. 30
PW OEIRONE WaAlOr- TANKS eee no. sen tere eel ema) cei ste eiss 25. 00
WWidiber=casien!= © sepa ncty aces bret oe oie ce ween om see le 55. 00
inucinamalllernyaetee tetsa cles ree ere eye a eyo se cae ari atcletenne ny croyere 262. 03
ERvveniiyaunree shottOunS.iso- cies. Seles seal eo. soca ses ece 920. 00
Iolite IOS See Reena ams CASAS eert ARS eee een eee 90. 00
Onewpomp-cmmetorestomalling esse sae oe sees eae e eos 60. 00
Gunbimnplementsramdstool stats as) ee secre ie eine ete ee = 10.50
MNiMnieen GanoOesrandsOuuibie == acs sos=- ee sae oeeeiose eee 741. 00
One second shamd wb Othe aoe es we oe eet a MEE OG 75. 00 a
Winernme wal Owmbs (LELUTMEM) mans see ose aces somo a oee ce corse
CG) (SGN OVS SIE is ne 135. 00
MIE CONSLOl COA rs seiate se oto tse noe caic eet Shem Seiccee Se cee ac micle 287. 00
Coolkine range andubensilss-22- 22 seees s- 25 e-sc2 cee cs 2 - 75. 00
—— _ 4,190.73
Insurance:
Rremuimmm-:on 2.0002 imsurance ont hulls: =.=. aa. oe - ess one 821. 40
Premium on 2,000/. insurance on outfit and cargo ......----- 514.59
1, 335. 99
Wages paid crew and hunters on voyage up to date of seizure...-.....-- 1, 899. 50
Fares and expenses of master and mate, and five of crew, from Sitka to
WAG UOIEIE Be Oa tes ap eee eg en eee ree PR eS SES te S0.8 300. 00
618 seal-skins on board ‘‘ Dolphin” when seized, at 5 dol. 50 ¢. perskin.. 3, 399. 00
eRoual Meld bh CANS es tae So aaterctatiayonn sai, cee See <= weiss leieisielors/eisis ee 23, 125. 22
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

159 EXHIBIT (C).
Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure and detention of the
S Wolphin.” and arrest of master and mate. © 2. .....2..-....s.2-0-------- $100. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about the seizure of the
“Dolphin,” and the claim ALISinGsberemomie sess wees ees cae elec es 750. 00
Personal expenses of the owner in the same connection ....-...-..--..---- 250. 00
TG) 2362 SoC Sh Ec Re DOE EAD BBO Ee CoE Sy a see es anes eres ee 1, 100. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.
B 8, PT V——12

178 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Exuisit (D).—Estimated Loss and Damages to the owner of the ‘ Dolphin” by
reason of her Seizure and Detention during A. D. 1887.

Reasonable and probable catch of seal-skins for season 1887. .... 4, 500
Mess number on Hoard: when Selzed 22 -- 2. -...jecee eel lee eee mae 618
Balance, au odo. O0'C., Per SKIN sa. = 2 seme eee metee eta 3, 882 = $21, 351. 00

Reasonable earnings of the ‘‘ Dolphin” during the months of October,
November, and December a. D. 1887, and January A. D. 1888, had
she been in ownet’s possession, viz., four months, at 500 dollars per

month ......---- -2---- - 22+ eee en nnn ee enn wane wee eee eee wee 2, 000. 00
Estimated loss for sealing season of 1888, if ‘‘Dolphin” not in posses-
sion of owner on or before the Ist February, 1888.........-.....-... 7, 000.00
IG PIPES ooeappopsaaecece teed soos bess codaSe onscoses eoososcooueres 30, 351. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN,

(Signed) D. O’ConNOR, Notary Public.

ExuiBit (E).—Estimate of the Principal Sums on which Interest at 7 percent. per
annum is claimed, and the time for which it is so claimed.

Value of the estimated catch of the “Dolphin” for the season of 1887,

from the 1st October, 1887, about which time the said catch would have

been realized on, viz., 4,500 seal-skins, at 5 dol. 50 c.--....---.-------- $24, 750. 00
Cash expenditure for legal and other expenses on account of said seizure

prior to the. let October, A8eie-= 25 eae = an seen ee eee ee eee 400. 00

Total principal on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed
from the 1st October, 1887, to date of payment of claim........-. 25, 150. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN,
(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

Exuisit (F).—Value of the Articles of the ‘‘Dolphin’s” Outfit which would have
been wholly or almost wholly consumed on a full hunting and sealing voyage.

GETOCOTIGS va.) oea 28's asia coerce Sin Se ele Sere ee eee eee ee oe ee $985. 68
PATMMUNIbION |. 22 = 0 sos Seine See re aera ee ere ree eee re ere ea 240. 22
JOSS SOUR RESS Sep ceaSseer SosselSsgeosseesce es Sebo se SoH ausdoseascsosases S55 229. 30
Shipichan dlery: =o ios sc\--scioelsie eee ae ae eeeteeee eee eee eae ere 262. 03
SHU S606ecs bean seeUee seo Ses ES oOmbobo UsoEHengcososu pees case aceoeoobe ste: 135. 00
Woalee sei his. ccis 5-5 s,sa 0 .c.cc else siesclenias See oe eee ie eee eee eee ee eee 287. 00
WWAS ESS oo. . oo os esc see Sees ceo wet seme seca eeee ee eee Uae Eee see eee eer 1, 899. 50
Insurance: premiums .42.5.2-5 <2 ede emeee ee tea eiose eee eee meee 133.99

otal value consumed ; 2 .2/-\s5./5 ste eo enio See eae cee eee ee ee 5, 374, 72

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.
Memo.—lIf the full claim for the sealing season of 1887, as set out in Exhibit (D),
be allowed, then the amount of this Exhibit, 5,374 dol. 72 ¢., will properly appear
as a credit, and be deducted from the total of Exhibit (A), of which it forms a part.

160 {Inclosure 11 in No. 90.)
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry or Orrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. Iam the duly authorized agent, under power of attorney bearing date the 23rd
day of November, A. D. 1887, in this behalf of the firm of Gutmanand Frank, of the
city of Victoria aforesaid, merchants, the said Gutman being owner of the herein-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 179

after-mentioned schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams,” and his partner, the said Frank, being
equally interested with Gutman in the results of the sealing voyage hereinafter
referred to.

2. The said schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams” is a British vessel of 692 tons, registered at
Victoria aforesaid.

3. That on or about the last of May, or early in June, a. D. 1887, the said schooner
“Alfred Adams” sailed from the port of Victoria aforesaid, on a full hunting and
sealing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea. On or for said voyage
the crew of the ‘‘Alfred Adams” consisted of William H. Dyer, master, a mate, and
crew of twenty-four sailors and hunters, and fully equipped and provisioned.

4. That on the 10th day of July, A.D. 1887, the ‘‘Alfred Adams” entered Behring’s
Sea, and continued therein until the 6th day of August following, when, in north
latitude 54° 48’, and west longitude 167° 49’, then being about 62 miles from Ounalaska
Island, the nearest land, and lawfully, as I verily believe, pursuing the objects of
the said voyage, the ‘‘Alfred Adams” was seized by the United States steam-ship
“Richard Rush” for alleged violation of the laws of the United States respecting
seal-fishing in the waters of Alaska,

5. That immediately after such seizure the Commander of the ‘‘ Richard Rush”
ordered the seal-skins then on board the ‘Alfred Adams,” and all the firearms and
ammunition, and Indian spears on board, to be taken out, and said seal-skins to the
number of 1,386, and the firearms, ammunition, and spears, were taken from the said
schooner ‘‘Alfred Adams,” and conveyed to the said United States steam-ship
‘“‘Richard Rush.” The ship’s papers of the ‘Alfred Adams” were also taken from
her by the Commander of the ‘‘Richard Rush,” and, as I verily believe, the master
and mate of the ‘Alfred Adams” placed under arrest, though not actually imprisoned.

6. Hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(A),” is a statement of articles and value thereof, as
claimed by the said Gutman and Frank, which were so taken by the ‘‘Alfred Adams.”

7. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(B),” is an estimate of the loss claimed by the
said Gutman and Frank, as resulting to them by reason of the seizure of the ‘‘Alfred
Adams,” herein set out, and of the legal and personal expenses incurred by reason of
said seizure and the claims arising therefrom. The price per skin charged for the
estimated catch of the ‘‘Alfred Adams” for a full season, namely, 5 dol. 50 ¢. per skin,
was the current market price per skin at Victoria at the close of the sealing season
of 1887. The catch of the ‘Alfred Adams” for said season is estimated trom an
average catch per canoe of 320 seals, the ‘‘Alfred Adams” having on said voyage ten
canoes.

8. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(E),” is a statement of the principal sums on
which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, the rate per cent., and the time
from and to which it is so claimed. At the time when the catch of the ‘‘ Alfred
Adams” for the season of 1887 would have been, in the ordinary course of events,
realized on, namely, on or about the 1st October, a. D, 1887, the minimum rate of inter-
est on money for commercial purposes at Victoria aforesaid was 7 per cent. per annum.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, wake this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the “ Act respecting Extra-

judicial Oaths.”
(Signed) J. D. WARKEN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O'Connor,
Notary Public for Ontario.

161. Exuteir (A).—Statement of the Articles, and the Value thereof, taken from the
Schooner ‘‘ Alfred Adams” by the United States Steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush,”
in Behring’s Sea, the 6th August, 1887.

focoseal-skins,/at' 5 dol.50' ce. per skin’. 52. 2255-00 dsasectcees es Shetoi ek $7, 623. 00
ournkeosof powder, at 10 dollars . 222.2124: .2-.).2.0.ec. 2058 te pees 40. 00
DO LNELEGUTS! Sale pee ae RR ORC yo Re ee ce ee 60. 00
Peieelcanescaps and primersios sores S45 0 jesse cel not seed sho Seiclalne 60. 00
Hine precch-loading shot guns). 2). 222.5-4 205 .).6i05. 25.5 ose. 52-5 sled an - 450. 00
PPERIMEMOSTBESEMLG.! sen a5 Macy aaa in Ae oo ine ioe eae tees sae 25. 00
Pee ucrlmdluaispeard of cys tie See i WoL hes Phe eS) Bs 48. 00

Pc aaveul tl egba coms reise eects Lae rasa ete eis iakiels 1 52S wow cece 8, 306. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

180 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Exuibir (B).—Loss to the Owner of the ‘‘ Alfred Adams” by reason of her being
forced to leave Behring’s Sea, and return to Victoria, British Columbia.

Reasonable and probable catch of seals by the ‘‘ Alfred Adams”

TODMUEISBUSOMOL LSat se. e's oe ween ee = soe See eee 38, 500
Less number on board when seized, and charged in Exhibit (A). 1, 386
Balance rat: dol. 50). per slcim.. = -- s\n 2,114 = $11, 627. 00
Legal expenses in connection with the claims arising fromsaid = *
ROUZULONS Seni ate oe Stesec shee as LS ays eee eee $300. 00
Personal expenses in the same connection..-....--.-- {aso ae 200. 00
—_- 500. 00
Mota I: s/s) (ociSeise sce feo ad coal hs cites ee cieee Peres eats eee 12, 127. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN,

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.

=
Exnipir ().—Principal Stn on which Interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed,
and the Time for which it is so claimed.

Value of the probable catch of the ‘‘ Alfred Adams” for season of 1887,
from the 1st October, 1887, on or about which date said catch would

have been realized on, viz., 3,500 seal-skins, at 5 dol. 50 c..---.-.....- $19, 250. 00
Totalsum on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is claimed, from
the lst October, 1887, until timelof paymenti-222- .2 22 sesee 2 -ee) wld) 250500
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

[Inclosure 12 in No, 80.]
Declaration of James Douglas Warren.

Ciry oF Orrawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent, under power of attorney bearing date
the 25th day of November, a. D. 1887, of James J. Gray, of the said city of Victoria,
ship-owner, and owner of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner ‘‘Ada,”

2. That the said schooner ‘‘Ada” is a British vessel of 65 tons, registered at the
port of Shanghae, and was, at the time of her seizure hereinafter set out, 5 years old.

3. That on or about the 16th day of June, A. D. 1887, the said schooner ‘‘ Ada”
cleared at the port of Victoria aforesaid, on and for a full hunting and fishing voy-

age in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea. For said voyage the crew
162. of the ‘‘Ada” consisted of James Gaudin, master, a mate, and twenty sailors

and hunters, with two sealing-boats and seven canoes, and fully equipped
and provisioned for such voyage. :

4, The ‘‘ Ada” entered Behring’s Sea on or about the 16th day of July, A. vp. 1887,
and continued therein lawfully pursuing the objects of her voyage until the 25th
day of August then next following, when, while so lawfully pursuing the objects of
her voyage in said sea about 15 miles northward from Ounalaska Island, which said
island was the nearest land, the said schooner was seized by the United States steam-
ship ‘‘ Bear,” and taken to Illoolook Harbour at said Ounalaska Island, in the United
States Territory of Alaska, and her voyage completely broken up.

5. Atthe time of said seizure the ‘‘Ada” had on board 1,876 seal-skins, which upon
arrival at Illoolook Harbour aforesaid were taken from on board the ‘‘Ada” and
stored on shore, after which, by order of the United States authorities, the ‘“‘Ada”
was taken to Sitka, in said Territory of Alaska, together with the master, mate, and
crew.

6. That the said ‘‘Ada” arrived at Sitka on the 6th day of September, A. D. 1887,
and on the 9th day of the said month her master and imate were, without being tried
for any offence whatever, unconditionally released, but the ‘“‘Ada” kept at Sitka,
where she still remains.

7. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(A),” is a statement showing the value of the

‘“‘ Ada” at the time of her said seizure, and the value of her outfit on and for said

Bos

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 181

voyage, also of the number and value of the seai-skins taken from the ‘‘Ada” when
seized, and also of the expenses of the master and mate of the ‘‘Ada” in returning
from Victoria to Sitka.

8. The value placed on the “Ada” by her said owner at the time of seizure, namely,
7,000 dollars, is a fair and reasonable value for the ‘‘Ada” when seized. Sheis asub-
stantially built craft in every respect, and is one of the best sailing-vessels engaged
in the sealing trade. The value of the ‘‘Ada’s” outfit given in said Exhibit, namely,
2,500 dollars, is less than that of any of the other seized vessels from the fact that the
“Ada’s” hunters were mostly Indians, whose canoes and outfits were returned after
such seizure, and said outfit not including wages.

9. The price charged for the seal-skins taken from the ‘‘Ada” when seized is the
current market price of seal-skins at Victoria at the close of the sealing season of
1887.

10. That the Exhibit (C), hereto annexed, shows the legal and personal expenses
incurred by the owner of the “Ada” by reason of the seizure and detention of the
said schooner ‘‘Ada,” and the arrest and detention of the master and mate, and the
claims arising therefrom. :

11. That Exhibit (D), hereto annexed, is a statement of the estimated loss and
damage to the owner of said schooner ‘‘ Ada” by reason of her said seizure and deten-
tion during 1887, and the loss for 1888 if she is detained beyond the Ist February,
1888.

12. The claim of 1,000seal-skins as the probable additional catch of the ‘‘Ada” for
the balance of the sealing season, had she not been seized, is a fair and reasonable
estimate, and with her actual catch, making a total for the season of 2,876, which,
as she carried two boats, seven canoes, and twenty hunters, cannot be considered an
excessive estimate.

15. During the months of October, November, December, and January following
the close of the sealing season, or the greater part thereof, had the “Ada” been in
her owner's possession, she would have been engaged in the general coasting and
freighting trade on and about the coasts of British Columbia, and the fair and reason-
able earnings of the “Ada” during said months, after deducting from the gross
amount thereof the cost of wages and running expenses, would be at least 500 dol-
lars per month.

‘Id. In case the ‘‘Ada” be not delivered into her owner’s possession at Victoria on or
before the 1st day of February, A.D. 1888, it will be impossible to give her the neces-
sary repairs and refitting in time to start out at the usual date, about the 1st March,
on a full season’s hunting and fishing. As during the summer months there is little
coasting and freighting trade in which the ‘‘Ada” could be employed, her owner
would, in the event of her not being ready in time for a regular hunting and fishing
voyage, practically lose the greater part of the season, and the earnings of the ‘‘Ada”
for such full season, after deducting therefrom the cost of outfit, wages, and other
running expenses, would be at least, under circumstances, 6,000 dolars.

15. That hereto annexed, marked ‘‘(K),” is a statement of the principal sums on
which interest at 7 per cent. is claimed, and the time from and to which it is so
claimed. At the close of the sealing season of 1887, when the catch of the ‘‘Ada, ”
in the ordinary course of events, would have been realized on, the minimum rate of
interest on money for commercial purposes was, has continued to be, and now is, 7
per cent. per annum.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, con-
163 scientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the “Act respeci-
ing Extra-judicial Oaths.”
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the City of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December, a. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

Exarpir (A).
Value of the schooner “Ada” at the time of her seizure by the United

States steam-ship ‘‘ Bear,” the 25th August, 1887 .........--........---- $7, 000. 00
Bianco “HAdas outiitat the same time. isis 2s. s lec. ck eel eiee ccd: 2, 500. 09
Value of seal-skins on board at seizure, viz., 1,876 skins, at 5 dol. 50 ¢. per

SURIN, 42-55 uk Se rare a Le aga OS Aes ren ett Sane aeie per ER eR 10, 518. 00
Passage and expenses of master of ‘‘Ada” from Sitka to Victoria......... 100. 00

Total, Exhibit (A) ..2..... Sie sae ato es Seats tee. LOOTSEO0
(Signed) J. D, WARREN.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR, Notary Public.

182 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

EXHIBIT (C).

Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with said seizure........-....----+- $100. 00
Counsel and other legal fees and expenses, exclusive of the above, in refer-
ence to the seizure and claims arising therefrom........-....----..----- 750. CO
Personal expenses of the owner in the same connection......---..--..---- 250. 00
(NY 0 UB Sea enero ease peo DEO DOUROroaaD GOR cat onnoOsO cesenbSSSoe+ 1, 100. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN. 4

(Signed) D. O'Connor, Notary Public.
Exuipir (D).

Estimated additional catch of seal-skins by schooner ‘‘Ada” had sue not

been seized, ‘viz.- L.000iskinsjati> dol S0iest 522. se oe eee eee pon DOU AOU
Loss to owner of ‘‘Ada” by reason of her detention during the months of

October, November, and December A. D. 1887, and January 1888, during

which she would have been engaged in the coasting trade, namely, four

monthsyahio00) dollars each. 2: sa. seis eee oe ees eae eee 2, 000. 00
If owner not put in possession of “ Ada” on or before the 1st February,

1888, so that she may be fitted out for hunting and fishing voyage of

1888, reasonable and probable profit on season of 1888........-----.--- 6, 000. 00
Motul exhibit) seen se aeecisen foes eee sear eeeee aera eect eae ane 13, 500. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

. Exurert (E).—Principal Sums on which Interest is claimed at 7 per cent. per aunum,
and the Time for which it is so claimed.

Value of the probable full catch of “Ada” for season of 1887, viz., 2,876

TSH VEh ann SG} eG UK eee Noa aoae sesso onsen Seoco cose te Dbosooekee adoome $15, 818. 00
Cashroutlay; prior to the st) October jlSStiae a ae seem e seieeeiaee e 200. 00
Total principal on which interest at 7 per cent. per annum is
claimed, from the Ist October, 1887, to date of payment--:.----- 16, 018. 00
(Signed) J. D. WARREN,

(Signed) D. O’Connor, Notary Public.

164 No. 91.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received February 3.)

DOWNING STREET, February 3, 1888.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the Brit-
ish sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by the Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, to be laid before the
Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General
of Canada, reporting that orders have been issued by the United
States Government for the return to their owners of the vessels
‘ Onward,” “ Thornton,” and “ ©arolina,” seized in 1886.

lam, We.
(Signed) RoBert G. W. HERBERT.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 183

[Inclosure 1 in No. 91.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland,

GOVERNMENT HowssE, Ottawa, January 19, 1888.

Sir: In reference to my former despatches upon the subject of the seizure of
Canadian sealing-vessels during the years 1886-87 by United States cruizers for fish-
ing in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to report that my Minister of Marine and
Fisheries has received from the Customs authorities at Victoria an intimation
addressed by the United States Marshal at Sitka to Mr. Spring, the owner of the
“Onward,” one of the three vessels seized in 1886, to the effect that that vessel, as
well as the “Thornton” and “Carolina,” with their tackle, apparel, and furniture,
as they now lie in the harbour of Ounalaska, are to be restored to their owners. A
copy of this intimation is inclosed herewith.

2. The information received by my Minister is to the effect that the condition of
these three vessels, owing to the length of time during which they have been lying
on the shore, is now such as to render it questionable whether they could, under
present circumstances, be repaired and removed with advantage. The difficulty of
doing this would be increased, from the fact that the vessels have been released at
a season of the year in which, owing to the great distance between Victoria and
Ounalaska, it would be scarcely possible for the owners to fit out steamers for
the purpose of going up to Ounalaska to repair their vessels and bring them home.

3. L also inclose herewith copy of an extract from an American newspaper (the
name and date of publication are not given), from which it would appear that the
District Judge has made an order for the sale of the arms and ammunition taken
from the three schooners in question upon the supposed ground that, as the instruc-
tions sent by the United States Government to Sitka for the liberation of the vessels
made no mention of the arms and ammunition on board of them, the Court con-
cluded that these should be confiscated and sold. It would seem from the same
extract that the remaining vessels held in Alaska are not included in the order sent
by the United States Government for the release of the ‘‘Thornton,” ‘‘Carolina,”
and ‘‘Onward,” and are therefore likely to be confiscated and sold with their
contents and equipment.

5. I have already dwelt at sufficient length upon the extent of the hardships
involved to the crews and the owners of these vessels by the action of the United States
Government, and I will only, upon the present occasion, remind you that another
fishing season is approaching, and that, as far as my Government is aware, no decla-
ration has been made by that of the United States in regard to the policy which it
intends to adopt during the course of the year which has just commenced.

Ihave, &c.,
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 91.]
Mr. B. Atkins to Mr. C. Spring.

OFFICE OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL,
Sitka, District of Alaska, December 5, 1887.
Sir: I take pleasure ‘in informing you and other owners of the schooners seized
in the Behring’s Sea by United States steamer ‘‘ Corwin,” that I am in receipt
165 of orders from Washington to restore to their owners the schooners ‘‘ Onward,”
“Thornton,” and ‘ Carolina,” their tackle, apparel, and furniture, as they now
lie in the harbour of Ounalaska.
Orders for their release have been forwarded to their custodian at Ounalaska.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) BARTON ATKINS,
United States Marshal, District of Alaska.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 91.]

Extract from American Newspaper (name and date unknown).

ALASKA NEwWs.—Judge Dawson has made an order for the sale, at Juneau, of the
arms and ammunition taken from the British schooners ‘‘ Thornton,” ‘‘ Carolina,”
and “ Onward,” captured last year by the ‘ Corwin.” Attorney-General Garland
sent instructions to Sitka to have the three vessels liberated, but, as he made no
mention of the arms and ammunition, the Court concluded that they must be sold,
and gave directions accordingly.

184 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Marshal has further been authorized to sell the schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward”
(British), and the ‘ Alpha,” “ Kate,” and “‘ Anna,” and ‘Sylvia Handy” (American),
together with their boats, tackle, and furniture. By stipulation entered into last
September between Mr. Delaney, acting for the United States, and Mr. Drake, Q.C.,
representing the Canadian Government, the remaining British schooners cannot. be
sold until the expiration of three months from the 11th January next, and then only
by the District Attorney giving the owners ninety days’ notice.

Application granted:

In the cases of the schooners ‘ Lily L.,” ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” “‘Annie,” “ Allie J.
Alger,” “ Alpha,” “Kate and Anna,” and “ Sylvia Handy,” an application made by
Attorney W. Clark, counsel for the owners, for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States, was granted.

A motion presented by the same attorney for a stay of proceedings for three
months in the cases of the ‘‘W.P.Sayward,” ‘ Alpha,” ‘‘Kate and Anna,” and
“Sylvia Handy,” was refused by the Court, on the ground that the owners had
ample time in which to prepare for their appeals, and it was entirely their own fault
if they had not done so.

. No. 92.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 13.)

[Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, February 13, 1888.

With reference to previous correspondence respecting the claims of
British subjects against the Government of the United States arising
out of the seizure of or interference with certain sealing vessels in the
Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Secretary Sir Henry Holland to trans-
mit to you, to be laid before Lord Salisbury, copies of two further
despatches from the Governor-General relating to further claims in the
cases of the vessels ‘“‘ Thornton,” ‘ Carolina,” and “ Onward,” and of
the vessels “‘ Dolphin,” “ W. P. Sayward,” “Anna Beck,” “ Grace,” and
“A da.”

[Inclosure 1 in No. 92.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT House, Ottawa, January 20, 1888.

Str: With reference to my despatches of the 2nd and 23rd December last, trausmit-
ting revised statements of the claims of the owners of the ‘‘ Thornton,” ‘‘ Carolina,”
and ‘‘Onward,” seized in Behring’s Sea during the season of 1886 by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Corwin,” I have the honour to forward herewith, for presen-
tation to the United States Government, a copy of an approved Report of a Com-
mittee of the Privy Council, submitting a revised statement of the claims of the
masters and mates of the above-mentioned vessels.

My Minister of Marine and Fisheries considers that these revised claims are
166 just and reasonable, and expresses the hope that prompt reparation may be
made to those persons for the sufferings and losses they have sustained.
Ihave, &e.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 92.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Hacellency the Governor-General in Council, January 12, 1888.

On a Report dated 5th January, 1888, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
stating, with reference to the Minute of Council of the 3rd January, 1887, transmit-
ting claims of the owners, masters, and mates of the sealing-schooners ‘‘Thornton,”
Carolina,” and ‘‘Onward,” which were seized in the Belring’s Sea in August, 1886,

beat) Abia

Cen he DG Pala RON ae Gk HOS Apo PAN

op eS

i ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 185

by the United States revenue-cutter ‘‘Corwin,” and the despatch from the Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies, dated 14th September, 1887, returning these for revi-
sion, as well as to the Minutes of Council of the 29th November and 20th December,
1887, transmitting the revised claims of the schooners ‘‘ Thornton” and ‘ Carolina”
and of the ‘*Onward” respectively, so far as the owners are concerned, that, the per-
sonal claims for illegal arrest and imprisonment of the masters and mates of the
above-mentioned vessels haying been referred back to the parties interested, they
have consented to accept a reduction of one-half the origina! claim as submitted.
They would therefore be as follows:
Schooner ‘ Thornton”—

eMnoh GutGerms enc MmaSte tessa: cai soe ee nels cine laa ccs o cistciae ele s sen $4, 000. 00

OT TEy NOL MAM DUAUC atta clo yo sieme rine, ae cite cle tcs.c se sie clersiccietln ce scien 2, 500. 00
Schooner ‘‘Carolina”—

JamestO Culvwe aMASlOR es oma me cate Saw oe Ses oere alee © eee cain mieten =e 2,500. 00

aes wb lacles Mat aes ao) Veer menses eee oem sabe hte meee s 2, 500. 00
Schooner ‘‘Onward’?’—

LD AMNS IP VITIMO GS NT AS COR ae see errs epee ies ne rey cares Se ee ecto ree ea rscane 4, 000. 00

Jobe Manco ticle mate. sean sss, comers ci 2) Nae eens coe ce aps ce oan emer ee 2, 500. 00

The Minister, believing these revised claims to be just and reasonable, recommends
that they be forwarded for presentation to the United States Government, and
expresses the hope that prompt reparation may be made to those persons for the suf-
ferings and losses they have sustained.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward the claims herein
mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for trans.
mission to the United States Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No, 92.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, January 18, 1888.

Str: With reference to my despatch of the 5th instant, transmitting detailed
statements of the claims of the owners and agents of the Canadian sealing-vessels
seized in Behring’s Sea during the past season, I have the honour to forward here-
with a copy of an approved Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, submit-
ting the personal claims of the masters and mates of the ‘‘ Dolphin,” “ W. P. Sayward,”
“Anna Beck,” “Grace,” and “Ada.”

My Minister of Marine and Fisheries is of opinion that the claims submitted are
just and reasonable, and recommends that they be presented to the United States
Government with the hope that prompt reparation may be made to these persons
for the sufferings and losses they have sustained.

I have, &c. (Signed) LANSDOWNE.

167 {Inclosure 4 in No. 92.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, January 12, 1888.

_ On a Report, dated the 29th December, 1887, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting, in connection with the seizures of Canadian sealing-vessels in
Behring’s Sea during the seasons of 1886 and 1887, the personal claims of the fellow-
ing masters and mates of the seized vessels:

Schooner “ Dolphin”—

\ @UPROM, GASURNII Ls Gaaetseaa Gee See ese GEC OCSD SAE Ree Ee eee ee sera $2, 635. OO

PLO MINS EVOUUyAeNDe te See mae eae eee weet Patera oy see hn eens T, 000. 00
Schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward” —

Seem CLG Vy Cor baMs 6c ortega en eninjecns Gee woe eo has cen ce 2, 000. 00

Bro Wy Weta Tap ETHOS Sa se i gees ie a | Na a i eet 8 ah I re a 1, 000. 00
Schooner “Anna Beck”— |

JL ceees: (COS SSE 4 Oey ORRIN eas oe eee ea ata GI Fe i Reale Res 2, 000. 00

MitchaeleMGotomniatersr hepa) eterna en eee eae oe oe 1, 000. 00
Schooner ‘‘ Grace ”—

NIG, TEETH) SE es i ga i ee ae a hid Rem A HE ee 2, 000. 06

Schooner ‘Ada ”—
Charles Ay lund berg, mates. ..i\Ss5.-ce+ seen Sees ons eaceeeeeewece en 000,00

186 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Minister believes that these claims are just and reasonable, and recommends
that they be forwarded to Her Majesty’s Government for presentation to the Gov-
ernment of the United States, and he expresses the hope that prompt reparation
may be made to these persons for the sufferings and losses they have sustained.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward the claims
herein mentioned to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
for transmission to the United States Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOUN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

Declaration.

City or OTTAwa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I was master of the British steam-schooner *‘ Dolphin,” of Victoria afore-
said, on the 12th day of July, A. D. 1887, the said schooner on that day being in that
part of the North Pacific Ocean called Behring’s Sea, lawfully engaged in seal-
fishing.

2. That onthe said 12th day of July, A. D. 1887, the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin ”
was seized by the United States steamship ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and I was made a pris-
oner and taken on board of the said steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush” with the ship’s
papers of the said “Dolphin.”

3. That shortly afterwards on the same day I was sent back on board the “ Dol-
phin,” which, in command of an officer from the said “ Richard Rush,” was taken to
Ounalaska Island, in the United States territory of Alaska, from which place a few
days after I was sent—with the said steam-schooner ‘‘ Dolphin,” in command of an
officer from the said ‘‘ Richard Rush”—to Sitka, in the said territory of Alaska. On
arrival at Sitka I was handed over to the United States Marshal of the territory of
Alaska, in whose custody I remained from the Ist day of August, A. D. 1887, until
the 16th day of August instant, when I was taken before the United States Dis-
trict Court at Sitka, formally charged with having violated the laws of the United
States relating to seal fishing in the waters of Alaska, and upon my own recognizance
of 500 dollars released to appear for trial on said charge on the 22nd day of August
then instant, and to appear from day to day thereafter until I should be so tried. I
did so appear on the days so ordered until the 9th day of September following, when,
without so being tried on said charge, or any other charge or offence whatever, I was
unconditionally released by order of the Judge of said Court, and for the said illegal
arrest and imprisonment I claimed as damages the sum of 2,000 dollars.

4. That at the same time I was arrested, as aforesaid, one John Reilly was mate
of the said steain-schooner ‘‘: olphin,” and Lam the duly authorized agent in this
behalf of the said John Reilly, mate of the said ‘‘ Dolphin.”

5. The said John Reilly was arrested, taken to Ounalaska, thence to Sitka,
168 delivered into the custody of the United States Marshal of Alaska, arraigned,

allowed bail, and finally released at the same place, time, and manner in
which I was, asset out in the declaration, and the said John Reilly, by me, his duly
authorized agent in this behalf, claims 1,000 dollars as damages for said illegal arrest
and detention,

6. That after arrival of said steam-schooner “ Dolphin” at Ounalaska aforesaid,
after her seizure, I agreed with the Commander of the said ‘ Richard Rush” to
navigate the said ‘‘ Dolphin” from Ounalaska to Sitka, for which purpose I engaged
the crew on board the ‘‘ Dolphin” after seizure, agreeing to pay them their ordinary
wages therefor. I did so navigate the said ‘‘ Dolphin” from Ounalaska to Sitka
with the said crew, but I have never been paid therefor, nor have the said crew been
paid the wages promised and agreed to be paid them therefor. The said trip froin
Ounalaska to Sitka took about fifteen days, and the amount due me for said services
for myself and crew amount to 160 dollars, which said sum I hereby claim as justly
due ine for such services.

7. That at the time I agreed with the said Commander of the ‘‘ Richard Rush” to
navigate the said ‘‘ Dolphin” from Ounalaska to Sitka I also agreed to furnish
officers and crews to navigate the screw-schooners ‘‘ Grace” and “ Anna Beck” from
Ounalaska to Sitka. I did so provide for their navigation from and to said places,
and agreed to pay their said officers and crew ordinary wages for their services in
so doing. The ‘‘Grace” and *‘ Anna Beck” were so taken {rom Ounalaska to Sitka;
the voyage took about fifteen days, and the amount due to master and mates and
crew therefore 160 dollars for each of the said vessels ‘‘ Grace” and ‘‘ Anna Beck,”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 187

and I claim therefore 320 dollars for said services. I also claim 155 dollars for simi-
lar services in navigating the schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” by her master and crew,
from Ounalaska to Sitka. The said schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward” and steam-schooners
“Grace,” Dolphin,” and “Anna Beck” are still at Sitka, and are about one-half
the distance from Victoria they were when at Ounalaska, and can be got at any
time of the year, while, had they remained at Ounalaska, they could only have been
reached during the summer months, and then at a cost two or three times as great
as now.

8. That Iam the duly authorized agent of the owner of and manager of the said
schooner ‘W. P. Sayward” and of the said steam-schooners ‘ Grace,” ‘ Dolphin,”
and ‘‘Anna Beck.”

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true,
and by virtue of the Act respecting extra-judicial oaths,

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me at the city of Ottawa, in the County of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this 9th day of December A. D. 1887, and certified under
my official seal.

(Signed) D. O'CONNOR,
Notary Public for Ontario.

Exuipit (A).

James D. Warren’s claim for illegal arrest. ..............-------2-------- $2, 000. 00
ohnerelivsiclaimtor leo alvarnesb.ca- 22 s22cieseo soe is) eee rien = 1, 000. 00

James D. Warren’s claim for navigating steam-schooner ‘‘Dolphin” from
Ounalaskatofoubwapessa-kcese sok jose ie tose anaes escheat ten eat = 160. 00

James D. Warren’s claim for navigating steai-schooners ‘‘Grace” and
BOAMIM ABC CKey woth Soe mabye ie se paeiaatan oc SSS ore Selcie isle ioloe oni= 2 ne ecene ac 320. 00
James D. Warren’s claim for navigating steam-schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward”. 155. 00
ile tele eras sere safes ciel SNe mio clenec/sccnls sie eres co etswiee ee wa aSs.5 sane 3, 635. 00

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

(Signed) D. O’ConNOR, Notary Public.

Damages claimed by George R. Ferey, Master of the schooner “W. P. Sayward,” for illegal
arrest and detention on board the United States steam-ship ‘‘ Rush,” and at Sitka, from
July 9 to September 10, 1887.

BRITISH COLUMBIA, to wit.

I, George R. Ferey, of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, Dominion of

Canada, master mariner, and master of the schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” solemnly
and sincerely declare as follows:

169 1. that I was on the 9th July, 1887, master of the schooner ‘‘ W. P. Say-
\ ard”; at that date the said schooner was in the Behring’s Sea.

2. Th. t on the said 9th July the said schooner ‘‘W. P.Sayward” was seized by
the Unit: d States steam-ship ‘ Rush,” and I was made a prisoner and taken on board
the said steam-ship ‘‘ Rush” with the papers of the said schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward.”

3. The Captain of the said steam-ship ‘‘Rush” told me I was in his charge, and
must obey lis orders; he sent me back to the said schooner ‘*W. P. Sayward,” made
her fast to the “Rush,” and towed her to Onnalaska, from which place we were dis-
tant at time of said seizure about 80 miles.

4, When I arrived at Ounalaska aforesaid I was given into the charge of a Deputy
United States Marshal, and next day I, in the said schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” in
charge of a Deputy Marshal, was sent on my way to Sitka, where I arrived on the
22nd July, and was there delivered into the custody of the United States Marshal.

5. That on the 23rd July I was brought before Judge Dawson, the Judge of the
District Court at Sitka, and placed under bond of 500 doliars to appear before the
said District Court on the 22nd August, 1887. I had to remain at Sitka from the
said 28rd July, and on the 22nd August, 1887, I appeared before the said District
Court, and so on from day to day until the 10th September, when Judge Dawson
aforesaid discharged me, stating he had received instructions from Washington to
release all parties connected with the seized sealers.

, . I claim as damages for my said illegal arrest and detention the sum of 2,000
ollars.

188 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

7. And Imake this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be
true, and by virtue of the ‘‘Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”
(Signed) GEORGE R. FEREY.

Declared before me at Victoria, this 2ud November, 1887, in pursuance of the Oaths
Ordinance, 1869.
(Signed) Cuas. E. POOLry,
Notary Public, Victoria, British Columbia.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia, of the Dominion of Canada, master mariner and ship-owner, do solemnly and
sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent in this behalf of Andrew D. Laing, of the
city of Victoria aforesaid, mate and partner of the British schooner ‘‘W. P. Say-

rard,” at the time of her seizure as stated herein.

2. That on the 9th July, a. D. 1887, the said schooner ‘*W. P. Sayward,” while in
Behring’s Sea, in north latitude 54° 43’, and west longitude 167° 51’, and lawfully
engaged in sealing, she was seized by the United States steam-ship “ Richard Rush,”
and the said Andrew D. Laing, mate of the said schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” was
then placed under arrest by an officer of and from the said ‘‘ Richard Rush.”

3. That, by authority of the Commander of the said ‘Richard Rush,” the said
mate was taken first to Ounalaska Island, in the United States Territory of Alaska,
and thence to Sitka, in said Territory of Alaska, and there arraigned for trial on the |
22nd August, 1887, being admitted to bail in the meantime. The said Andrew D. ~ —
Laing pleaded ‘not guilty” to the charge preferred against him, namely, that of |
violating the laws of the United States respecting seal fishing in the waters of
Alaska, and appeared on the said 22nd August for trial, and from day to day there- |
after until the 9th September following, when without having been tried on said |
charge, or for any ofience whatever, he was unconditionally released.

4. And the said Andrew D. Laing, by me, his duly authorized agent in this behalf,
claims 1,000 dollars as damages for such illegal arrest.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘‘Act respecting extra-

Declaration.
Ciry or OTTawa, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

judicial oaths.”
(Signed) J.D. WARREN.

Declared and affirmed before me, at the city of Ottawa, in the county of Carleton
and Province of Ontario, this 9th December, 1887, and certified under my official
seal.

(Signed) J.M. BALDERSON,
Notary Public for Ontario.

170 Declaration.

City oF OTTAWA, Province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada.

I, James Douglas Warren, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British
Columbia, of the Dominion of Canada, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the duly authorized agent of Louis Olsen, of the said city of Vic-
toria, in this behalf, master mariner, and master of the steam-schooner ‘‘Anna Beck”
at the time hereinafter mentioned.

2. That on the 2nd July, A. dD. 1887, the said ‘Anna Beck,” while in Behring’s Sea
in north latitude 54° 58’ and west longitude 167° 26’,and lawfully engaged in seal
fishing, was seized by the United States steam-ship ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and the said
Louis Olsen, as master thereof, made prisoner by an officer of and from said steam-
ship ‘‘ Richard Rush.”

3. An armed crew from the said ‘ Richard Rush” took charge of the said ‘‘Anna
Beck,” and took her and her erew to Ounalaska,in the Territory of Alaska. The
said Louis Olsen was kept in custody at Ounalaska until the 5th day of said July,
when he was sent as a prisoner to Sitka,in the said Territory of Alaska, on board
the American schooner ‘‘ Challenge,” in charge of an officer from the said ‘‘ Richard
Rush.”

4, After his arrival at Sitka the said master of the “Anna Beck” was arraigned
before a Judge of the District Court ona charge of having violated the laws of the
United States respecting seal fishing in the waters of Alaska.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 189

He pleaded “not guilty” to said charge, and was ordered to appear for trial on
the 22nd day of August then instant, and thereafter from day to day until so tried,
in the meantime being allowed out on bail on his own recognizance for 500 dollars.
He so appeared for trial on the said 22nd day of August, and day by day thereafter,
until the 9th day of September following, when, without being so tried on said
charge or any other charge whatever, he was unc ondition: lly rele: ised, and the said
Louis Olsen by me, his agent in his behalf, claims 2,000 dollars as damages for such
illegal arrest and detention.

And I, James Douglas Warren aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘Act respecting extra-
judicial oaths.”

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

Declared and aftirmed before me, at the city gf Ottawa, in the county of Carleton,
this 9th day of December, A. D. 1887, and certified under my official seal.

(Signed) J. M. BALDERSON,
Notary Public for Ontario.

LANGLEY STREET, VicrortiA, B. C., November 30, 1887.
Str: We have the honour to forward herewith the claim of Mr. Michael Keefe
against the American Government for damages for illegal arrest and detention by

the American steam- ship “Rush” while he was acting as mate of the steam-vessel
“Anna Beck.”

We have, &c. (Signed) DAVIE AND POOLEY, Barristers, Sc.
The Hon, the MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES,
Ottawa.

Damages claimed by Michael Keefe, Mate of the Steam-vessel “Anna Beck,” for illegal
arrest and detention by the United States Steam-ship Rush,” and at Sitka, from July
20 to September 10, 1887.

BrRiTisH COLUMBIA, to wit.

I, Michael Keefe, of Victoria, in the province of British Columbia, master mariner,
and chief mate of the steam-vessel “‘Anna Beck,” solemnly and sincerely declare as
follows: ,

1. That I was on the 2nd day of July 1887 chief mate of the steam-vessel ‘‘Anna
Beck;” at that date the said steam-vessel was in the Behring’s Sea engaged in seal-
fishing.

That on thesaid 2nd day of July the said steam-vessel “Anna Beck” was seized
es the United States steam- ship ‘‘Rush,” and I was made a prisoner ara taken on
board the said steam-ship ‘‘Anna Beck,” in charge of an armed crew from the said
steam-ship ‘‘ Rush,” to Ounalaska, where we arrived ou the 8rd day of July 1887.

3. At the time of the said seizure the said steam-vessel “Anna Beck” was 73 miles
from the nearest land.

4. When we arrived at Ounalaska we were kept in custody by the said steam-ship
“Rush” until the 5th day of July, when I and the rest of the crew of the said steam-

vessel ‘‘Anna Beck” were transferred to the American schooner ‘‘Challenge,”
171 and were sent to Sitka, Alaska, in charge of a quartermaster from the said
steam-ship ‘‘ Rush,” where we arrived on the 20th day of July 1887.

5. On the 22nd day of July I was taken before Judge Dawson, of the United States
District Court, by the United States Marshal, and was charged with taking seals ille-
gally in Alaskan waters. I pleaded ‘‘not guilty” to the charge, and I was released
on my own bond of 500 dollars to appear when called upon after the arrival of the
“Rush,” which was expected to arrive in August.

6. On the 27th day of July I appeared before the said Judge Dawson and told him
Thad no means of supporting myself, and he then handed me over to the custody of
the United States Marshal, in whose custody I remained until the 10th day of Sep-
tember, 1887, when the said Judge Dawson sent for me to court, when he released me,
stating he had received a telegram from Washington instructing him to release all
parties connected with the seized vessels.

7. Iclaim as damages for my said illegal arrest and detention the sum of 1,000
dollars. .

8. And Imake this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be
true, and by virtue of the ‘‘Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”

(Signed) MICHAEL KEEFE.

Declared before me at Victoria, British Columbia, this 16th day of November, 1887,
in pursuance of the ‘ Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”
(Signed) Cuas. E. Pootry, Notary Public.

190 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Damages claimed by William Petit, Master of the Steam-vessel ‘‘ Grace,” for illegal arrest
and detention on board the United States Steam-ship ‘ Rush,” and at Sitka, from July
17 to September 10, 1887.

British COLUMBIA, to wit.

I, William Petit, of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, master mariner,

ue master of the steam-vessel ‘‘Grace,” solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

That I was the master of the steam-vessel ‘‘Grace” on the 17th day of July,

1887; the said vessel was at that date in the Behring’s Sea, engaged in seal-fishing.

That on the said 17th day of July the said steam-vessel “Grace” was seized by

the United States steam-ship “Rush,” and I was made a prisoner and taken on board
the said steam-ship ‘‘ Rush” with the papers of the said steam-vessel ““Grace.”

3. That I was again sent back to my said steam-vessel ‘ Grace,” and an officer and
two men from the said steam-ship ‘‘ Rush” were placed in charge of her; and the
said steam-vessel “Grace” was taken in tow by the said steam-ship “Rush, ” and
brought into Ounalaska, which place at the time of seizure was 93 miles distant.

4, From Ounalaska aforesaid I was taken down to Sitka in my said steam-vessel
“‘Grace,” in charge of a Deputy United States Marshal; and when I arrived at Sitka,
on the Ist day of August, 1887, I was handed over to the custody of the United States
Marshal.

5. That I remained in the custody of the said United States Marshal at Sitka until
the 17th day of August, when I was arraigned before the District Court, and was
remanded on my own bailof 500 dollars until the 21st day of August; and I appeared
before the said Court on the said 21st day of August, and thence on from day to day
until the 10th day of September, 1887, when Judge Dawson, the Judge of the said
District Court, discharged me, stating he had instr uctions from Washington to release
all parties connected with the seized sealers.

6. And for the said illegal arrest and detention I claim as damages tle sum of 2, 000
dollars.

7. And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be
true, and by virtue of ‘‘The Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”

(Signed) WILLIAM PETIT.

Declared before me, at Victoria, this 2nd day of November, 1887, in pursuance of
“The Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”
(Signed) Cuas. E. Poo.ey,
Notary Public, Victoria, British Columbia.

172. Damages claimed by Charles August Lundberg, Chief Mate of the British Schooner
“Ada,” for illegal arrest and detention by the United States Revenue Cutter ‘‘ Bear,”
and by the United States Marshal at Sitka, from August 25 to October 4, 1887.

BRITISH COLUMBIA, to wit.

I, Charles August Lundberg, of Victoria, British Columbia, do solemnly and sin-
gered declare:

That I sailed from the city of Victoria, as chief mate of the British schooner
fea: ” on the 17th day of June, 1887, on a sealing voyage to the Behring’s Sea.

2, That on the 25th day of August, 1887, in the Behring’ s Sea, and while engaged
in the lawful business of the said yoyage, the schooner ‘“‘Ada” was seized and taken
possession of by the United States revenue-cutter ‘‘Bear.” The officers of the said
cutter placed a crew on board of the said schooner, and towed her to Ounalaska.

3. At Ounalaska our cargo of seal-skins was taken out of the said schooner against
the protest of the captain, ‘and before our havi ing a hearing before any legal Tribunal.
I was then forced to go on the seized schooner, in charve ‘of a United States Deputy-
Marshal, to Sitka, for trial, arriving at Sitka on the 5th day of September, i887.

4. Upon arrival at Sitka the schooner was handed over to the United States Mar-
shal, and I was kept on board the vessel until the 9th day of the same month, when
I was released.

5. Iwas without means or provisions, and nothing was done towards enabling me
to return to my home until the 25th September, 1887, when I was sent on board the
United States revenue-cutter “Rush,” and taken to Victoria, where I arrived on the
4th day of October, 1887.

6. For my damages, by reason of my illegal arrest and detention as aforesaid, I
claim the sum of 2,000 dollars.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true,
and by virtue of ‘‘The Oaths Ordinance, 1869.”

(Signed) C. A. LUNDBERG.
Declared at Victoria, British Columbia, this 9th day of November, a. b. 1887,
before me, (Signed) THORNTON FELL,

Notary Public, Victoria, British Columbia.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Tom

No. 93.
Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 18.)

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, February 17, 1888.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose a printed copy of an impor-
tant note relative to the Alaska seal fisheries which I have just received
from my Government. It has reference to the proposal for some Inter-
national Regulations at those fisheries which I had the honour to submit
in general terms to your Lordship in a personal interview on the 17th
November last, and which I then promised to ask my Government to
state more precisely.

As the matter is one that, as it appears to the United States Govern-
ment, should be dealt with immediately, and in which I presume both
Governments will readily concur, I shall be glad of the honour of an
interview with your Lordship at as early a day next week as may be
convenient and agreeable to you, when the proposed restrictions and
the method of carrying them into effect can be considered.

I have, &c.
(Signed) E. J. PHELPS.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 93.]
My. Bayard to Mr. Phelps.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 7, 1888.

Sir: I have received your despatch of the 12th November last, containing an

account of your interview with Lord Salisbury of the preceding day, in which his

Lordship expressed acquiescence in my proposal of an agreement between the

173 United States and Great Britainin regard to the adoption of concurrent tegula-

tions for the preservation of fur seals in Behring’s Sea from extermination by

destruction at improper seasons and by improper methods by the citizens of either
country.

In response to his Lordship’s suggestion that this Government submit a sketch of
a system of regulations for the purpose indicated, it may be expedient, before making
a definite proposition, to describe some of the conditions of seal life. And for this
purpose it is believed that a concise statement as to that part of the life of the seal
which is spent in Behring Sea will be sufficient.

All those who have made astudy of the seals in Behring’s Sea are agreed that, on an
average, from five to six months—that is to say, from the middle or towards the end
of spring till the middle or end of October—are spent by them in those waters in
breeding and in rearing their young. During this time they have their rookeries on
the Islands of St. Pauland St. George, which constitute the Pribyloff group and belong
to the United States, and on the Commander Islands, which belong to Russia. But
the number of animals resorting to the latter group is small in comparison with that
resorting to the former. The rest of the year they are supposed to spend in the open
sea south of the Aleutian Islands.

Their migration northward, which has been stated as taking place during the
spring and till the middle of June, is made through the numerous passes in the long
chain of the Aleutian Islands; above which the courses of their travel converge chiefly
to the Pribyloff group. During this migration the female seals are so advanced in
pregnancy that they generally give birth to their young, which are commonly called
pups, within two weeks after reaching the rookeries. Between the time of the birth of
the pups and of the emigration of the seals from the islands in the autumn the females
are occupied in suckling their young; and by far the largest part of the seals found
at a distance from the islands in Behring’s Sea during the summer and early autumn
are females in search of food, which is made doubly necessary to enable them to
suckle their young as well as to support a condition of renewed pregnancy, which
begins in a week or a little more after their delivery.

The male seals, or bulls, as they are commonly called, require little food while on
the islands, where they remain guarding their harems, watching the rookeries, and
sustaining existence on the large amount of blubber which they have secreted beneath
their skins and which is gradually absorbed during the five or six succeeding months.

192 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

.

Moreover it is impossible to distinguish the male from the female seals in the water,
or pregnant females from those that are not so. When the animals are killed in the
water with firearms many sink at once and are never recovered, and some authorities
state that not more than one out of three of those so slaughtered is ever secured. .
This may, however, be an over-estimate of the number lost.

It is thus apparent that to permit the destruction of the seals by the use of firearms,
nets, or other mischievous means in Behring’s Sea would result in the speedy exter-
mination of the race. ‘There appears to be no difference of opinion on this subject
among experts. And the fact 1s so clearly and foreibly stated in the Report of the
Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia of the 51st of December, 1886, that I will
quote therefrom the following pertinent passage:

“There were killed this year, so far, from 40,000 to 50,000 fur seals which have been

taken by schooners from San Francisco and Victoria. The greater number were
killed in Behring’s Sea, and were nearly all cows or female seals. This enormous
catch, with the increase which will take place when the vessels fitting up every year
are ready, will, I am afraid, soon deplete our fur seal fishery, and it is a great pity
that such a valuable industry could not in some way be protected. Si

[Report of Thomos Mowat, Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia; Sessional
Papers, Vol. 15, No. 16, p. 268; Ottawa, 1887. ]

The only way of obvi ating the lamentable result above predicted appears to be by
the United States, Great Britain, and other interested Powers taking concerted
action to prevent their citizens or subjects from killing fur seals with ‘jirearms, or
other destructive weapons, north of 50° of north latitude, and between 160° of lon-
gitude west and 170° of longitude east from Greenwich, during the period interven-
ing between 15th April and ‘ist November. To prevent ‘the killing within a marine
belt of forty or fifty miles from the Islands during that period would be ineffectual
as a preservative measure. ‘This would clearly De so during the approach of the
seals to the Islands. And after their arrival there such a limit of protection would
also be insufficient; since the rapid progress of the seals through the water enables
them to go great distances from the islands in so short a time that it has been caleu-
lated that an ordinar y seal could go to the Aleutian Islands and back, in all a dis-
tance of 360 or 400 miles, in less thana day.

On the Pribyloft Islands themselves, where the killing is at present under

174 ~=the direction of the Alaska Commercial Company, which by the terms of its

contract is not permitted to take over 100,000 skins a year, no females, pups,

or old bulls are ever killed, and thus the breeding of the animals is not interfered

with, The old bulls are the first to reach the islands, where they await the coming

of the females. As the young bulls arrive they are driven away by the old bulls to

the sandy part of the islands, by themselves. And these are the animals that are

driven inland and there killed by clubbing, so that the skins are not perforated and
discrimination is exercised in each case.

That the extermination of the fur se: uls must soon take place unless they are pro-
tected from destruction in Behring’s Sea is shown by the fate of the animal in other
parts of the world, in the absence of concerted action among the nations interested
for its preservation. Formerly many thousands of seals were obtained annually
from the South Pacific Islands, and from the coasts of Chiliand South Africa. They
were also common in the Falkland Islands and the adjacent seas. But in those
islands, where hundreds of thousands of skins were formerly obtained, there have
been taken, according to best statistics, since 1880, less than 1,500 skins. In some
places the indiscriminate slaughter, especially by use of fire- arms, has in a few years
resulted in completely breaking up extensive rookeries.

At the present time it is estimated that out of an ageregate yearly yield of 185,000
seals from all parts of the globe over 130,000, or more than two-thirds, are obtained
from the rookeries on the American and Russian islands in Behring’s Sea. Of the
remainder, the larger part are taken in Behring’s Sea, although such taking, at least on
such a scale, in that quarter is a comparatively recent thing. But if the killing of
the fur seal there with fire-arms, nets, and other destructive implements were per-
mitted, hunters would abandon other exhausted places of pursuit for the more pro-
ductive field of Behring’s Sea, where extermination of this valuable animal would
also rapidly ensue.

It is manifestly for the interests of all nations that so deplorable a thing should
not be allowed to occur. As has already been stated, on the Pribyloff Islands this
Government strictly limits the number of seals that may be killed under its own
lease to an American Company; and citizens of the United States have, during the
past year, been arrested, and ten American vessels seized for killing fur seals in
Behring’s Sea.

England, however, has an especially great interest in this matter, in addition to
that which she must feel in preventing the extermination of an animal which con-
tributes so much to the gain and comfort of her people, Nearly all undressed fur

i a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. — - 193

seal skins are sent to London, where they are dressed and dyed for the market, and
where many of them are sold. It is stated that at least 10,000 people in that city
find profitable employment in this work; far more than the total number of people
engaged i in hunting the fur seal in every part of the world. Atthe Pribyloff Islands
it is believed that there are not more than 400 persons so engaged; at Commander
Islands, not more than 300; in the north-west coast fishery, not more than 525 Indian
hunters and 100 whites; and in the Cape Horn fishery not more than 400 persons, of
whom perhaps 300 are Chileans. Great Britain, therefore, in co-operating with the
United States to prevent the destruction of fur seals in Behring’s Sea, would also be
perpetuating an extensive and valuable industry in which her own citizens have
the most lucrative share.

linclose for your information copy of a Memorandum on the fur seal fisheries of
the world prepared by Mr. A. Howard Clark, in response to a request made by this
Department to the United States Fish Commissioner. I inclose also, for your further
information, copy of a letter to me dated the 3rd December last, from Mr. Henry W.
Elliott, who has spent much time in Alaska, engaged in the study of seal life, upon
which he is well known as an authority. I desire to call your special attention to
what is said by Mr. ElHott in respect to the new method of catching the seals with
nets.

As the subject of this despatch is one of great importance and of immediate
urgency, I will ask that you give it as early attention as possible.

lam, &c.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 93.]

Review of the Fur Seal Fisheries of the World in 1887, by A. Howard Clark.

In the “‘Encyclopiedia Britannica,” ninth edition, the fur seal fisheries are credited
with an annual yield of 185,000 skins, of which 100, 000 are said to be obtained from
the Pribyloff Islands, 30, 000 from the Commander Islands, 15,000 from the Straits of
Juan de Fuca and vicinity, 12,000 from the Lobos Islands, ‘15, 600 from Patagonia and
outlying islands, 500 from the Falkland Islands, 10,000 from the Cape of Good Hope
and places thereabout, and 2,500 from islands belonging to Japan.

The above statistics were communicated by me to the author of the article

175 “Seal Fisheries” in the ‘‘ Encyclopedia,” and had been carefully verified by
the latest official records and by a personal interview with Messrs. C. M.
Lampson and Co., of London, one of the principal fur houses of the world, and by
whom most of the annual production of fur seal-skins are placed upon the market.

A review of the subject at this time (January 1888) necessitates but a slight change
in the annual production and in the apportionment to the several fisheries. Some of
the fisheries have increased, while others have decreased. Taking the average
annual yield from 1880 to date, I find that the total production is now 192,457 skins,
obtained as follows:

ANNUAL YIELD OF FUR SEAL FISHERIES.
Number of
Fur Seal Skins.

Pr WLOot Islands; BenrINo7s Sean. saa temsercs onsets cmieacice's sec coce soe See 94, 967
Commandertislandsand Mobb enineehseos- «ose o=icen ae nice eae os eee oa - 41, 893
HSlmd selon on abo apaMe sms soe Aen isae Co seem se ee eels nae ie f. 4,000

British and American sealing fleets on north-west coast of America (includ-
ing catch at Cape Flattery and Behring’s Sea)..---.-.----.----------.-s-- 25, 000
Wohosislands abemouth ofikiordedaelatie-os-. 5-52 sess ace--5 ccs. cece ee 12, 385
Cape of Good Hope (including islands in Southern Indian Ocean)..--...--. 5, 500
PAV CHE OLMERe OOM eee ee a ersesioae coe anes Ce ioe sees chee ceramics seas 8, 162
eitalerrecl Wel vides Meee eT AC Oy SON: DOR Ree TG The aR 550
ORO EES Gas Sis Sere ECR Eee Sie ean gees Smilies ae ae ea pe 192, 457

The Statistics for the Pribyloff and Commander Islands are compiled from Reports
of the Alaska Commercial Company, Mr. Elliott’s Reports in Vol. viii, 10th Census,
and in Section 5, United States Fish Commission Report, and Trade Reports of
annual sales in London (‘Fur Trade Review,” published monthly at No. 11, Bond
Street, New York). The north-west coast statistics are from the annual Reports of
the Department of Fisheries of Canada, and from Mr. Swan’s Keport in pec uon 5,
vol. ii, of the quarto report of the United States Fish Commission. For . Japan,
Lobos Islands, Cape of Good Hope, and Falkland Islands the statistics are from the
“Annual Statements of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries
and British Possessions as presented to Parliament.” Statistics for Cape Horn
region are from sealing merchants of Stonington and New London, Connecticut.

BS, pr y——13

194

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The details of the fisheries for a series of years are shown in the following Table.
(As to the number of persons employed, it is not possible to give details in all

cases.

At Pribyloft Islands, in 1880, there were 372 Aleuts and 18 whites.
mander Islands there are about 500 persons.

At Com-
In the North-west coast fishery 523

Indian hunters and 100 whites, and in the Cape Horn fishery about 400 whites, of
whom, perhaps, 300 are Chileans. )

Number of Fur Seal Skins from Principal Iisheries: 1871 to 1887.

[Compiled from official sources by A. H. Clark.

No returus for spaces blank.]

Com-
; North- :
Pribyloff | mander west : |Falkland| Cape | Lobos Cape of
Year. Islands. Islands Coast of Japan. Islands. Horn. | Islands. Good
and Rob- ‘Aynerion | Hope
jben Reef. | :

1 CTH eee eee see 63, 000 BB bce eaacee ( faye idee er (ook al Pewee aol teers
TED a> RBCS seoeeaoe O9N000)] wi2001 ON peeeeeeree Oeil le coeseeees yy fag Mleteesedces tbsoscmSs-
99, 630 aU eo \lenondscs se Se} \koonss2se- eel Peeper ln abe ae

991820") 1817 |Sooeseecee on 1,085 || #5o 7, 954 9, 393

99,500), ; S62ay|aas-eeeeee |! es 10 {ESS 2, 243 8, 629

99,000 |. 26,960: ii- ane . 52. 173 || aaa 6,618 | 11, 225

$5,000) aelebBon eee ee aS 1,386/| §& 22, 550 11, 065

955000)|) eslaeOnmeeen eee eS) 2,366|15 & |} 11,931 13, 086

99, 968 42,752 18,500 || Ss 4,038 |(& ~J| 6,900 15, 128

99,950} 48,504 19, 150 52 2, 427 9,275 | 10, 900 7,731

85,000 | 42,640 |...-2-22-- || ae | 620 6, 610 8, 887 8, 280

99,800} 46.000) 17,700* | 8 50 8,600 | 15, 067 11, 497

WS. 000)| | 251000s|-seeeseeee | ~ 11,943 8:1 es 13, 950 7, 020

99.500] 38,000] 15,641*|......--.. 684. || 4 5 10, 722 3, 924

) 799° 600:||-=42) 000%)" #15; 0005) Sees ees aaeeeenee 150.4 11, 223 4, 407

| 98,000] 45,000} 38. 907* 3, 695 G8iipore 15, 949 3, 378

1 °99;,890'|, 48000), 129) Qin ene apes | ee eremeetere | (& 2 | BE SEA IAS 8

| |

* Catch landed at British Columbia vessels. {Mostly taken in Behring’s Sea. See Schedule (A).

176 The second point upon which information is requested is ‘‘that of the
destruction of the fur seal, resulting either in its extermination or the dimi-
nution of its yield in places where it formerly abounded,” &c.

At the beginning of the present century there were great rookeries of fur seal at
Falkland Islands, at the South Shetlands, at Masafuera, at South Georgia, and at
many other places throughout the Antarctic region. These places were visited by
sealing-vessels, and indiscriminate slaughter of the animals resulted in the exter-
mination of the species, or in such diminution in their numbers that the fishery
became unprofitable.

The details of the Antarctic fishery are given in Section 5, vol. ii, of the quarto
Report of the United States Fish Commission, pp. 400-467; in Report by H. W.
Elliott on ‘‘Seal Islands of Alaska,” 6, pp. 117-124 (reprinted in vol. viii, 10th Cen-
sus Reports); in ‘‘ Monograph of North American Pinnipeds,” by J. A. Allen (Misc.
Pub., xii, United States Geological Survey); in “‘ Fanning’s Voyages Round the
World” (New York, 1833); in ‘‘ Narrative of Voyages and Travels in Northern and
Southern Hemispheres,” by Amasa Delano (Boston, 1817); and in numerous other
works, towhich reference will be found in the above volumes.

A few men are still living who participated in the Antarctic seal fisheries years

ago. Their stories of the former abundance of fur seals I have obtained in personal
interviews. As to the manner of destruction there is but one thing to say: an indis-

criminate slaughter of old and young, male and female, in a few years results in the
breaking up of the largest rookeries, and, as in the case of Masafuera and the Falk-
land Islands, the injury seems to be a permanent one. As an instance, the South
Shetlands were first visited in 1819, when fur seals were very abundant; two vessels
in a short time securing full fares. In 1820 thirty vessels hastened to the islands,
and in a few weeks obtained upwards of 250,000 skins, while thousands of seals
were killed and lost. In 1821-22 Weddell * says: ‘‘320,000 skins were taken. :
The system of extermination was practised, for whenever a seal reached
the beach, of whatever denomination, he was immediately killed and his skin taken ;
and by this means, at the end of the second year, the animals became nearly extinct.
The young, having lost their mothers when only three or four days old, of course
died, which, at the lowest calculation, exceeded 100,000.” In subsequent years,
until 1845, these islands were occasionally visited by vessels in search of seal-skins,

* “ Weddell’s Voyages,” p. 130, quoted in Section Vis vol. ii, quarto Report of United
States Fish Commission, p. 407.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 195

but never after 1822 were many animals found there. About 1845 the Antarctic
fur-sealing was abandoned. In 1871 the industry was renewed, and a few vessels
secured some valuable furs from the South Shetlands, but ina few years voyages
there became unprofitable. (See sec. 5, vol. ii, United States Fish Commission
Report, pp. 402-458. )

The same story may be told of Masafuera, from which island about 3,500,000 fur
seal.skins were taken between the years 1793 and 1807. (See sec. 5, as above, p- 40%.)
Captain Morrell states that in 1807 ‘the business was scarcely worth following at
Masafuera, and in 1824 the island, like its neighbour Juan Fernandez, was almost
entirely abandoned by these animals. (Morrell’ s Voyage: New York, 1832, p. 130.)
Searcely any seals have since been found at Masafuera. Delano states that in 1797
there were tsvo or three million fur seals on that island. Elliott, in his Report already
cited, gives accounts of earlier voyages to Masafuera, &c. I have consulted log-
books and journals of several voyages, all agreeing in the former abundance, and the
extermination of the fur seal on Masafuera as wellas on other Antarctic or southern
islands.

At the Falkland Islands both fur seals and sea-lions abounded, but there, too, they
were destroyed.

The sealing business at South Georgia was most prosperous in 1800, during which
season sixteen American and English vessels took 112,000 fur seal-skins. Though not
as important a rookery as some of the other islands, considerable numbers of fur seals
have been taken from South Georgia. Since 1870 some good cargoes of elephant seal
oil have been taken there.

Fur seals were abundant at the Tristan d’Acunha Islands at the beginning of the
century, and because of the almost inaccessible caves and rocks to which they resort
a few have survived—or, at least, as late as 1873 a few were annually taken there.

On the west cost of Africa, from the Cape of Good Hope to the 16th degree of south
latitude, there was until 1870 a considerable number of fur seals of an inferior qual-
ity, but they are now practically exhausted, the few skins marketed as coming trom
there being taken on various hauling grounds on islets farther south and east. (See
sec. 5, vol. ii, United States Fish Commission Report, p. 415.)

The Prince Edward group, Crozet Islands, Kerguelen Land, and other smaller

islands in the Southern Indian and Southern Pacific Oceans, were important
177 _—sseail fisheries both for the fur and elephant seal. At none of them is any

number of seals found to-day. The English exploring ship ‘‘Challenger” vis-
ited Kerguelen Land in 1873-76, and reports:

“Two of the whaling schooners met with at the island killed over seventy fur
seals in one day, and upwards of twenty at another, at some small islands off Howe
Islands to the north. It is a pity that some discretion is not exercised in killing the
animals, as is done at St. Paul Island, in Behring’s Sea, in the case of the northern
fur seal. By killing the young males and selecting certain animals only for killing,
the number of seals even may be increased; the sealers in Kerguelen Island kill all
they can find.” (See ‘‘ Report of the Scientific Results of the Exploring Voyage of
Her Majesty’s ship ‘Challenger,’ 1873-76. Narrative of the Cruise. Vol. i, in two
parts. 4to. Published by order of Her Majesty’s Government, 1885.”)

In these volumes will be found similar references to other seal islands visited by
the “Challenger.” In referring to Marion Island the Report says:

“The ruthless manner in which fur and elephant seals were destroyed by the seal-
ing parties in the early part of this century has had the effect of almost exterminat-
ing the colony that used these desolate islands for breeding purposes.” (Vol. i, p.
294.)

To recapitulate: concerning seal rookeries south of the equator, I may say that
there is no single place where any number are now known to resort except on the
Lobos Islands, off Peru, and at the mouth of the Rio de la Plata, and on the neigh-
bouring hauling grounds at the cliffs of Cabo Corrientes. Here they are, and have
long been, protected by the Argentine Republic or Uruguay, and the rookery appears
to remain about the same size, with little apparent increase or decrease in the num-
ber of animals, as may be seen by statistics of the catch in the Table above given.

The small rookeries or hauling grounds at Diego Ramirez Islands, Cape Horn, and
the rocky islets in that vicinity, from 1870 to 1883 or 1884 yielded some return to the
hardy sealers of Stonington and New London, Connecticut, from which ports a half-
dozen vessels have been annually sent. Even this last resort of American sealers is
practically exhausted, and only by much search is a profitable voyage made there.
Dr, Coppinger, who was at Cape Horn in 1878-82 (‘‘ Cruise of the ‘Alert,’” by R.W.
Coppinger: London, 1883), tells of the difficulties of sealing at Cape Horn, and of
the profits made when even a fewskins are secured. In 1880 Captain Temple ‘‘ came
through the western channels of Patagonia, having entered the straits at Tres Mon-
a 2 auc on the Cavadonga group of barren rocks he says he found some thousands
of seals.

196 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Had the great southern rookeries been protected by Government, it is altogether
probable, according to all authorities, that they would to-day yield many thousands
of skins, in some cases equal to the valuable returns of the Pribyloft Group.

In proceeding up the Southern Pacific from Masafuera we pass St. Felix, the Lobos
Islands, off Peru, and the Galapagos Islands, on which, as well as on other islands
in that ocean, the fur seal once was found, but whence it has been exterminated.
North of the equator we meet, first, the Gaudaloupe Islands, where in 1878 there
were a few fur seals, presumably migrations from the Pribyloff Group. Moving
northward, along the Californian and north-west coast, the fur seal is found in
winter and early spring on its way to the great breeding grounds on the Pribyloft
Islands. Itis during this migration that the Pacific sealing-schooners of British
Columbia and San Francisco capture them, and it is probable that if the fleet
increases in size, with a corresponding increase in the number of seals taken, there
will ere long be an appreciable decrease in the number of seals on the Pribyloft
Islands. This cannot but be the result, for many seals are killed and not secured,
and there is the same indiscriminate slaughter as regards young and old, male and
female, that was practised at the southern rookeries. The statistics showing the
present growing condition of the north-west coast fishery, and the efforts of the
fishermen to follow the seals even into Behring’s Sea, are already a matter of
record, and need not be repeated here, except to refer to the Annual Reports of the
Department of Fisheries of Canada. In the Report for 1886 will be found (on p. 249)
the names of the British Columbian fleet, aggregating 20 vessels, manned by 79 sail-
ors and 380 hunters, and their catch is given at 38,917 skins, as compared with 138
vessels, taking 17,700 skins, in 1882. The American vessels in this fleet in 1880 and
and their catch is given by Mr. Swan in sec. 5, vol. ii, of the quarto Report of the
United States Fish Commission.

It is not necessary that I refer to the condition of the rookeries on the Pribyloff
Islands. There can be no question concerning the advisability of regulating the
number of animals to be killed, and the selection of such animals as will not inter-
fere with the breeding of the species. The history of the islands at the beginning
of the century, when there was an indiscriminate slaughter of fur seals, and the pro-
tection of the animals in 1808 and thereafter by the Russian and American Govern-

ments, is fully told by Veniaminov and by Elliott, and need not be repeated
178 here. (Veniaminov’s ‘“ Zapieskie,” &c., St. Petersburgh, 1842, vol. ii, p. 568,

quoted by H. W. Elliott in ‘‘Seal Islands of Alaska,” pp. 140-145, vol. viii,
Tenth Census Report. )

The Commander Islands (Behring and Copper Islands), in Behring’s Sea, and
Robben Reef, near Saghalien, in the Okhotsk Sea, are leased by the Alaska Com-
mercial Company, and are protected by the Russian Government in much the same
manner that the Pribyloff Islands are protected by the United States Government.
A description of the sealindustry on those islands is given by Professor Nordenskiold
in ‘‘ Voyage of the Vega,” a translation of a portion of his Report being given by
Mr. Elliott on pp. 109-115 in ‘‘ Seal Islands of Alaska.” At Robben Reef it is impos-
sible to establish a station, the rock being often wave-washed; but the Alaska Com-
pany send men there in the season, to gather from 1,500 to 4,000 skins each year.
The agent of the Russian Government confers with the Alaska Company’s agent
each year to determine the number of skins that shall be taken in the Commander
Islands.

The seals taken by the Japanese are those migrating from the Commander Group,
and are not secured in large numbers, the average being about 4,000, though some
years as many as 11,000 are taken.

197

GREAT BRITAIN.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF

*poinydeo you sfassaA x

696 ‘TT
L6G ‘T (je BUGIS) ese ee ” ” lprictes wog pus Apoer Nd == "== anon Tse 89 |= === FILO COA EUS OCHS ERAT UNS ||POOSOSR Coma. 0791 | OT
Fe ‘T Go oy pratt Seca GERSON | ie i ee he ania oe Pan eee OPUNTIA) (a, = = PSedes ” pocenoee Tern AIHEHIN |e eee “""" OFFIC | ST
BLT g ” QWec Vy “SVOly, O[SULL “WO jio27s oso ie, lea ae ae oa SeTINL “V | 8ST 5 eS) PETROS SO A HOG MI ERAT) PISO OOOSICOR ELIA | GAL
Peewee ot “uUmy ‘qf
168 rG 49 ” TMG a ee oka Sage ASAE forree Fe teas SOOM aCe: se anya srs 1 TIC SE GS COO ROMA CPS OPPOCOSOCSCOSS Ghiih (ag ll ec
686 COL? Spe cel <0 Red AS ee en Cg as cereal Itai edie oto eS ULAIvY) “AL
C6 Ali sce [PRS QE ORotCS an Ge Men eke Sos eee WHET EID Pee ee agece UTR, “See | ade 5: ” Malaaeee ae ee ay CUCL Veen. cee ee OU Gis GE
LLG Clea een |e ans Cee ” Asia dl Sta eae asnfAqaT “Ay °X) | -- TIOMIUA AA “AOL Pgrigs Pay erm os |Secre se ae See SCAU O Nall Sate ae ome ae OTN Tal Ten
FOE IU Beare ai ee SP fn ” ” A as ieee WwicJiitlatq¢ Ashe (9) Sse oes ialge SGU Oye == PSRS9e pens | Spee VAN G77] UU REINEDs fol PEEL SQO SECO O ouuI | OT
c6r CGE Amelia Gea iy ” se) Mae ie oe ae eq eH POE: |RSS “-umorg "A | PERE een Boe Ge aCe G)iloygye | EEOR SR ESOSO Facog i |G}
Tet DA ey ee: ” Aia> yl ieee DOA CIWEM) oP 2etenee TG, CAN. SFE | Gy. ife2oeee th calles resgiies ase YeeANT ate iota sa SPSS COMICAL ||-()
GPP 9) aT ar | Seek ae ea ” 1 ecles | as Sees eee es BSBTONO Guava lenge ease “-seulor ‘gy | g CAG ye [PE ROP OSS DSC UK MAELO) | per mRenOOOCOS Conte at If
HEAD eiclo/ei=e «USMY, e toreeoe--* Uno “Vy spas Ty 7) PISRATEY O14 Or
918 ‘T OCR inal ne a eT «¢ TBOG ,, LOUIS |--- = roo 7A eNCops (sore (| Of Peer Se SOGEIEIG wag enousg) Sp Ht (fey 9 [Pap eee 0 ieioiel™ Sestak ey tale) 1B Duero oe oud | 9
618 ‘T GL ony |" ” ” Aine | pe co ae aeons WALL BN TG) CTP PRP Ole Oo 25 OAT “MM “AA | 89 cineca PECOORSS (2003) Oe OER G Azle POSS IOs IOMOOTIS | Gg
819 Loe ap = ” ” hc ee eS oe ere Tf Oe ge eo WalIvVM'd'L | OL oueieias = ey isis seicinie ayers SULT CLO s, potas voice, ae oVId | F
69L SL aie NS ” ” ” CE A ee ee ” BOOS OBOE uN Fa (CU N GW «Il Ls cae een eo 50 Pisseisie sieisie in sle cri OORLE) seas a inem es oid |
9&6 te 2 Sorina ee Beton ” ee Seer aioe Sees ” Pees ae UWAS[O SINO'T | ge ae on Fee ee FOS OUMUSy: ||mames anne ould |Z
LLY or Atue |e MERU, WO OBoI SI ONUOAS Tocco asses UG ROGAI MY (a Cole PE RPPSosAGaGng Captenysy ip (qe = eGRooe SIO ans = prvamAes gq *A\ |~*-Louo00gos ures | T
|
‘s[Beg | ‘aqaeq “poazrasg "IOTMGO “ureydeg ‘osvuuoy,| ‘*woreN “OUI NT SI ‘ON

Se a ee ee I a ete A oe eS OR) ye ee ere en ee ee iseaeer eT he] een ee seat get oul] See

“L£98T wr “nag sburyag ur “oP ‘sjassag ‘sainzvag uys-ywagy fo wnpuv.owayy—("y) HTAaAHOY

i98 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Arrival of Sealing Schooners from Behring’s Sea in 1887, as far as reported to October

5, 1887.

Arrived at— Name of Schooner. N ee of

OR EWO MIRON n= Samar: mina pn mice nniciis cee ae wice y= mtcacmiesein ae LOO S522 eee sec eeeeeeee eee 700

BV ASTOT ute sees cinste cio canis o)fsic.cluiclaye Pens Sete atere Se See obele Ree eee Mary Davyloriscc-scc-necc sae 1, 000

iN ict nN Bo cide niches, < 1b bc atoiths.15 Meine eee retalets Pathfinders cdecsctecescasee 2, 300

Wo Ee SB aaa See one Depa ae ema ncaa tits. Penelope>.s: .2 32 Sa5. eee 1, 500

SR ae eects a etnies naam cdane sess shee ee ee eee Black Dinmondls.-2.seseeee1 595

OME eee nie mie oe ole ba nos ale Docu: Be a Sardis Be cece Renee Mountain’ Chief... .:...22- 700

WSS Se Sees el eee eee Ame RAS, Fe ae he Lottie Fairfield =: -..---2--2- 2, 997

SEE er Wot 2 ge. ical aha Co ee oe Ee ee ee Adele essere ees 1, 350

pS eR ee cE cre Pe xia ou ab ce.boce See t aes Geese eee Haviorite .s<5 62d secaencsee 1, 887

Oo COE eo ROR OE PR COM BOONES RISE At nena doscdcdae TONeshi-25<- no enemas tose oes 1, 246

SEIMEI a cee caine «Stoo win = te alee meee Se ee eae ree Zi Whisk beep) eee ee Aon Sao or 480

REM er sesso ome tala ootale) sie aie ogee Se pApaeosoosasce City of San Diego..........- < 1, 187

BE ee Se hs ocd ae coe e.clde scaaisiam cat cam eens Meee eee ee Vanderbilt... 2tieeecte senses 1, 300

17, 242

Reeapitulation, as re coneryed up to October 5, 1887:

Skins Blade Pak Aoirl cain eee | eee BO Oe OE aROnSOCHOFDDoHEoonooscscopsscecsmas Jubii:
S)ohisel bhi (20 ER ARE eee AAS Ae SnOaSRAn or Smecsoc Cacodan Sadcoae bcrnp noo oOsOSaIODAoesOl 008 17, 242 -

MOtalics cocecaes cs ans ciameacee (ccs seins seen eemeanicae seco eee eee saceneoc Saletan ate 29, 211

179 {Inclosure 3 in No. 93.]
Mr. Elliott to Mr. Bayard.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Washington, D., C., December 3, 1887.

Sir: During the course of my extended studies of the fur-seal on its breeding and
hanling erounds i in Behring’s Sea, I was led naturally into a very careful examina-
tion of the subject of its protection and perpetuation. This investigation caused
me to give much attention then to the effect which pelagic sealing would have upon
the well-being and tie conservation of these anomalous and valuable interests of
our Government as we view them upon the Pribyloff group.

When preparing, in 1881, a final arrangement of my field notes and memoranda for
publication in my Monograph of the Seal Islands of Alaska (10th Census U.S. A.),
the late Professor Baird suggested that I omit the discussion of this theme of pelagic
sealing, because it might serve to invite an attack which otherwise would never be
made upon these preserves of our Government.

This attack, however, has recently been made, and the thought occurs to me now
that a brief epitome of my study of the effect which this plan of sealing will have
upon the integrity and value of our fur-beariug interests in Behring’s Sea—that such
a brief, yet accurate, statement will be of service to you. I therefore venture to
present the following transcript.

It is now well understood and unquestioned—

1. That the fur-seal of Alaska is obliged to haul out annually upon the Pribyloff
ae for the purpose of breeding and shedding its pelage.

. That from the time of its de parture from these islands in the autumn of every
y ear up to the time of its return to them in the following spring it lands nowhere
else.

3. That it arrives en masse upon these islands in June and July, and departs from
them in October and November.

4, That when leavi ing the isla nds in the fall it heads directly for, and rapidly passes
out from Behring’s Sea ‘into, the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Its paths of travel
are bee-lines from the Pribyloff group to and through the numerous passes of the
Aleutian Archipelago; the passes of Oonimak, Akootan, Oonalga, Oomnak, and the
Four Mountains are most favoured by it.

5. That it returns from the broad wastes of the North Pacific Ocean by these same
paths of departure.

Therefore, if you will glance at the Map of Alaska, you will observe that the con-
vergence and divergence ‘of these watery paths of the fur-seal in Behring’s Sea to and
from the Seal Islands resembles the spread of the spokes of a half-wheel—the Aleu-
tian chain forms the felloe, while the hub into which these spokes enter is the small
Pribyloti group.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 199

Thus you can see that as these watery paths of the fur-seal converge in Belring’s
Sea they, in so doing, rapidly and solidly mass together thousands and tens of thou-
sands of widely scattered animals (as they travel) at points 50 and even 100 miles dis-
tant from the rookeries of the Seal Islands,

Here is the location and the opportunity of the pelagic sealer. Here is his chance
to lie at anchor over the shallow bed of Behring’s Sea, 50 and 100 miles distant from
the Pribyloff group, where be has the best holding ground known tosailors, and where
he can ride at any weather safely swinging to his cable and in no danger from a lee
shore if it should slip. The immediate vicinity, however, of the Aleutian passes is
dangerous in the extreme to him. There he encounters terrible tide-rips, swift cur-
rents, and furious gales formed through the entrances, with the very worst of rough,
rocky, holding ground.

But up here, anywhere from 3 to 100 miles south of the Seal Islands, in Behring’s
Sea, in that watery road of the returning fur-seal millions, he has a safe and fine loca-
tion from which to shoot, to spear, and to net these fur-bearing amphibians, and
where he can work the most complete ruin in a very short time.

His power for destruction is still further augmented by the tact that those seals
which are most liable to meet his eye and aim are female fur-seals, which, heavy
with young, are here slowly nearing the land, reluctant to haul out of the cool water
until the day and hour arrives that limits the period of their gestation.

The pelagic sealer employs three agencies with which to secure his quarry, viz.:
He sends out Indians with canoes and spears from his vessel; he uses rifle and ball,
shot-gunsand buck-shot; and last, but most deadly and destructive of all, he spreads

the ‘‘ gill-net” in favourable weather.
180 With gill-nets, under run by a fleet of sealers in Behring’s Sea, across these

converging paths of the fur-seal, anywhere from 3 to 100 miles southerly from
the Seal Islands, I am extremely moderate in saying that such a fleet could and
would utterly ruin the fur-seal rookeries of the Pribyloff Islands in less time than
three or four short seasons. If these men were unchecked every foot of that watery
area of fur-seal travel in Behring’s Sea above indicated could and would be traversed
by these deadly nets, and a seal would scarcely have one chance in ten to safely pass
such a cordon in attempting to go and return from its breeding haunts.

Open these waters of Behring’s Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing, then a fleet of
hundreds of vessels—steamers, ships, schooners, and what not—would immediately
venture into them, bent upon the most vigorous and indiscriminate slaughter of
these animals. A few seasons then of the greediest rapine, then nothing left of
those wonderful and valuable interests of the public which are now so handsomely
embodied on the Seal Islands. Guarded and conserved as they are to-day, they will
last for an indefinite time to come, objects of the highest commercial value and good
to the world, and subjects for the most fascinating biological study.

It is also well to note the fact that not an eligible acre of land is barred out from
settlement or any other fit use by our people, and not a league of water is closed to
any legitimate trade or commerce in all Alaska by this action of our Government in
thus protecting the fur-bearing rookeries of the Pribyloff group.

Such are the facts in this connection. They are indisputable. No intelligent
unselfish man will advocate for a moment the policy of destruction in this instance ;
he never will if fully aware of the facts bearing on the question.

There are only two parties in this controversy. The party of destruction demands
the full right to unchecked pelagic sealing in Behring’s Sea, while the party of pres-
ervation demands the suppression of that sealing. Comment is unnecessary,

Very truly, &c.
(Signed) HENRY W,. ELLIOTT,

No. 94.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 21.)

WASHINGTON, February 10, 1888.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
an article from the “New York Herald” on the Behring’s Sea seizures
and closed seas.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST,

200 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 94.]
Extract from the ‘New York Herald” of February 8, 1888,

CLosED Sras.—An Ottawa despatch states that Professor Dawson is on the way to
Washington, as agent of the Canadian Government, in relation to complaints of that
Government about wrongs suffered by some of ils people in Alaska,

This refers probably to the seizure of a number of Canadian sealing-vessels in
Behring’s Sea and their condemnation at Sitka. The ‘‘ Carolina,” “ Onward,” and
‘“¢Thornton,” all confessedly Canadian sealers, were seized in August 1886 by an
American Revenue-cutter, while over 60 miles from land, in Behring’s Sea, and were
later condemned by the United States Court. About the same time several Amecri-
can sealing-vessels—the ‘‘ San Diego,” ‘‘ Sierra,” and others—were also seized, under
similar circumstances, and also condemned.

Early in 1887 the President ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings against
the Canadian sealers and their discharge, but the American vessels captured and
condemned were held. Subsequently, in July 1887, five other Canadian sealers—the
“Grace,” “ Dolphin,” ‘‘Alfred Adams,” “ W. P. Sayward,” and ‘‘Anna Beck ”—were
seized, also at a distance from land. For all these seizures, and the losses inflicted
on the owners and crews, damages are claimed by the British Government. In con-
sidering these claims, the question whether the United States can hold Behring’s Sea
to be a closed sea turns up.

We suppose that if it were not for a desire to preserve the valuable fur seal fish-
eries this question would not be raised, because Behring’s Sea, geographically, is

plainly an integral part of the Pacific Ocean. Russia, when she owned both
181 shores of it, may have claimed it as a closed sea, just as Spain once claimed the

exclusive right to navigate the whole Pacitic Ocean. But in modern times
such claims have been considered preposterous, and have been shelved. Our own
Government has been in the past most persistent in its opposition to ‘‘ the headland”
theory, and to the assertion by other Powers of exclusive rights to waters much
more closely land-bound than the Behring’s Sea. The United States were the first
to resist the claims of the Barbary Powers to a tribute for entering the Mediterranean.
Our Government resisted the payment of the ‘‘Sound dues” to Denmark as “‘ incon-
sistent with just principles of international law,” and asserted ‘ the freedom of the
Baltic Sound,” and ‘insisted on the right of free transit into and from the Baltic.”

Later, the United States even refused to acknowledge the right of Turkey to
exclude our vessels from the Black Sea, and we have always refused to acknowledge
Great Britain’s claim to make the Gulf of St. Lawrence a closed water. We do not
suppose, therefore, that the Government will defend the seizure of the Canadian
sealers on the ground that it can prevent foreign ships from entering Behring’s Sea,
or from fishing or sealing in it beyond 3 miles from the shore. That northern exten-
sion of the Pacific Ocean is, it seems to us, undoubtedly an open sea, in which all
nations may freely sail and fish, keeping outside the 3-mile limit.

The preservation of the seal fisheries is, of course, of interest to the Government,
which draws a revenue from these fisheries sufficient, we believe, to pay the interest
on the cost of Alaska.

It has often been urged that, if any one may capture seals in the Behring’s Sea,
the animals will soon become extinct. So the Canadians represent that if our mack-
erel fishers are allowed to use the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the mackerel fishery there
will be destroyed for the Canadians, the American seines destroying, as they allege,
the young fish. We have not noticed that much attention has been paid here to this
plea of the Canadians.

Perhaps, if our fishermen will agree not to fish in Canadian waters, the Canadians
will agree not to seal in Behring’s Sea?

Meantime, there is a bill of damages on each side; for the Canadians have dealt
with great severity, not to say brutality, with our fishermen in their waters.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 201

Nos 95:
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 22, 1888.
Sir: I transmit herewith, for your information, a copy of a letter
from the United States Minister in London,* inelosing a copy of a
despatch addressed to him by Mr. Bayard on the 7th instant, in which
attention is called to the necessity for the adoption of measures for the
protection of the fur-seals in Behring’s Sea.
I an, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 96.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

[Extract.]

FoREIGN OFFICE, February 22, 1888.

The United States Minister called to-day at the Foreign Office, and
spoke to me about the question of the protection of the fur seals in
Behring’s Sea.

He said that the difficulties in regard to the seal fisheries in that sea
were mainly connected with the question of the close time, and that
no attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States to
stop the fishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate.

Mr. Phelps then made a proposal on the bases embodied in Mr.
Bayard’s despatch of the 7th February, a copy of which accompanies
my previous despatch of this day’s date.*

Mr. Bayard there expresses the opinion that the only way of pre-
venting the destruction of the seals would be by concentrated action on

the part of the United States, Great Britain, and other interested
182. Powers to prevent their citizens or subjects from kiling fur

seals with fire-arms or other destructive weapons north of 50°
of north latitude, and between 100° of longitude west and 170° of longi-
tude east from Greenwich, during the period intervening between
the 15th April and 1st November.

I expressed to Mr. Phelps the entire readiness of Her Majesty’s
Government to join in an Agreement with Russia and the United
States to establish a close time for seal-fishing north of some latitude
to be fixed.

No. 97.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 3, 1888.

Sir: Tam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit here-
with, for the information of Secretary Sir H. Holland, a copy of a letter
from the United States Minister in London,* inclosing a copy of a

* See No. 93.

202 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

despatch addressed to him by Mr. Bayard on the 7th ultimo, in which
attention is called to the necessity for the adoption of measures for
protecting the fur seals in Behring’s Sea.

I am at the same time to inclose a copy of a despatch which has been
addressed to Sir L. West,* repeating the substance of what passed at
an interview between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps on this question
on the 22nd ultimo.

I am to request that in laying these papers before Sir H. Holland,
you will move him to furnish Lord Salisbury with any observations he
may have to offer on the subject.

Lam, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 98.
The Marquis of Salisbury to M. de Staal.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 3, 1888.

My DEAR AMBASSADOR: I[ informed you a short time ago that the
Government of the United States had proposed negotiations with the
object of regulating the catching of fur seals in Behring’s Sea.

It would be a source of satisfaction to me if the Russian Government
would authorize your Excellency to enter into a discussion of the mat-
ter with Mr. Phelps and myself, and I should be greatly obliged if you
would communicate on the subject with M. de Giers and inform me of
the decision at which his Excellency may arrive.

I have, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 99.
M. de Staal to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 8.)

LONDRES, le 24 Feévrier (7 Mars), 1888.

CHER LORD SALISBURY: J’ai eu V’honneur de recevoir la lettre que
vous avez bien voulu m’adresser en date du 3 Mars au sujet de la pro-
position faite par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d’Amérique en vue
du réglement de la question de la chasse aux phoques dans la mer de
Behring.

Votre Excellence m’ayant fait part du désir du Gouvernement de Sa
Majesté Britannique de voir la Russie concourir aux arrangements a
concerter pour préserver de la ruine une branche d’industrie impor-
tante, je m’empresserai d’en informer le Gouvernement Impérial en pri-
ant M. de Giers de me munir des instructions nécessaires pour le cas ou
le Ministere Impérial m’autoriserait & m’associer aux négociations sur
Pobjet en question.

Veuillez, &e.
(Signé) STAAL.

*No. 96.

Oee,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 203

183 [Translation.]

Lonpon, February 24 (March 7), 1888.

DEAR LORD SALISBURY: I have had the honour to receive the letter
which you were good enough to address to me on the 3rd March respect-
ing the proposal made by the Government of the United States of
America with the object of settling the question of seal-hunting in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

Your Exeellency having acquainted me of the desire of Her Britannic
Majesty’s Government to have the co-operation of Russia in the arrange-
ments to be concerted for the preservation from ruin of an important
branch of industry, I shall lose no time in informing the Imperial Gov-
ernment, and I shall ask M. de Giers to furnish me with the necessary
instructions in case the Imperial Goveriment should authorize me to
take part in the negotiations on the subject in question.

Receive, &c.
(Signed) STAAL.

No. 100.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received March 13.)

DOWNING STREET, March 12, 1888.

Str: In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I am directed by Lord
Knutsford to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis of Salis-
bury, that he thinks it will be necessary to consult the Canadian Gov-
ernment on the proposal to establish a close time for seals in Behring’s
Sea before expressing a final opinion upon it.

A copy of your letter and its inelosure bas been forwarded to the
Governor-General with a view to obtaining an expression of the views
of his Ministers upon it.

JT am to add that Lord Knutsford is inclined to view the proposal of
the United States Government with favour, but that he presumes that
it will be made quite clear, should Her Majesty’s Government assent
to it, that such assent will not be taken as an admission of the claims
of the United States in Behring’s Sea, which have formed and still
form the subject of controversy.

Tam, Se.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 101.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 17, 1888.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
12th instant, relative to the proposals of the United States Government
for the establishment of a close season for the fur-bearing seals which
frequent Behring’s Sea.

By his Lordship’s direction I transmit herewith for your information
copies of the correspondence, marked in the margin,* which has recently

* Nos. 98, 99, and 102.

204 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

passed on this subject; and Iam to request that in laying these papers
before Lord Knutsford you will call his attention to the instructions
given to Sir L. West to inform the United States Secretary of State
that, in acting upon the invitation conveyed in Mr. Bayard’s despatch
to Mr. Phelps of the 7th ultimo, Her Majesty’s Government do not
admit the rights of jurisdiction exercised by the United States authori-
ties in Behring’s Sea during the fishing seasons of 1886-87 and 1887-88,
and that the presentation of claims on account of the wrongtul seizures
of British vessels engaged in the seal-fishing industry will not be
affected by such action.
Lan, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

184 No. 102.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 17, 1888.

Sir: Since forwarding to you my despatch of the 22nd ultimo I have
been in communication with the Russian Ambassador at this Court,
and have invited his Excellency to ascertain whether his Government
would authorize him to discuss with Mr. Phelps and myself the sug-
gestion made by Mr. Bayard in his despatch of the 7th February, that
concerted action should be taken by the United States, Great Britain,
and other interested Powers, in order to preserve from extermination
the fur seals which at certain seasons are found in Behring’s Sea.

Copies of the correspondence on this question which has passed
between M. de Staal and myself is inclosed herewith.*

L request that you will inform Mr. Bayard of the steps which have
been taken, with a view to the initiation of negotiations for an Agree-
ment between the three Powers principally concerned in the mainte-
nance of the seal fisheries. But in so doing, you should state that this
action on the part of Her Majesty’s Government must not be taken as
an admission of the rights of jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea exercised
there by the United States authorities during the tishing seasons of
1886-87 and 1887-88, nor as affecting the claims which Her Majesty’s
Government will have to present on account of the wrongful seizures
which have taken place of British vessels engaged in the seal-fishing
industry.

lam, &e
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 103.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Receired March 22.)

DOWNING STREET, March 22, 1888.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a notice of a question to be
asked in the House of Commons on Monday next by Mr. Gourley,
respecting the alleged clearing for Behring’s Sea of Canadian sealing

* Nos. 98 and 99,

s

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 205

schooners with armed Indian crews for the purpose of waging war
upon American Revenue cutters, should their commanders attempt to
molest them.

The question also asks what measures Her Majesty’s Government
intend adopting for the purpose of arriving at an amicable solution of
the Alaskan Fisheries disputes.

Lord Knutsford has telegraphed to the Governor-General of Canada
to inquire into the truth of the report referred to in the question, but
he would be glad if the Marquis of Salisbury would inform him of the
answer which should be returned to that part of the question which
relates to the measures to be adopted for a settlement of the Alaskan
Fisheries dispute.

Lord Knutsford would also be glad to receive Lord Salisbury’s opin-
ion as to whether it would be legally justifiable, and, if so, advisable,
to desire the commanders of Her Majesty’s ships to disarm any British
sealing schooners sailing with such intention as is alleged in the report.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

{Inclosure in No. 103.]
Questions to be asked in the House of Commons, March 26, 1888.

Mr. Gowrley,—To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is cor-
rect, as reported by cable from Victoria, British Columbia, that a number of Cana-
dian sealing schooners have been permitted to clear for Behring’s Sea with the inten-
tion of prosecuting seal-fishing contrary to the regulations of the United States
Alaskan authorities, carrying large Indian crews for the purpose of waging war
upon American Revenue cutters, should their commanders attempt to molest them.

And what measures Her Majesty’s Government intend adopting for the purpose
of alriving at an amicable solution of the Alaskan Fiseries disputes.

185 No. 104.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 24, 1888.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 22nd instant, calling attention to a notice
of a question to be asked by Mr. Gourley in the House of Commons on
the 26th instant (1) in regard to the alleged clearing for Behring’s Sea of
certain Canadian sealing schooners with armed Indian crews, for the
purpose of waging war upon American Revenue cutters, should the com-
manders of the latter attempt to molest them; and (2) as to the meas-
ures which Her Majesty’s Government intend to adopt for arriving at
an amicable solution of the Alaskan Fisheries disputes.

With reference to the latter part of Mr. Gourley’s question, I am to
request that you will state to Lord Knutsford that, although some
delay is inevitable in pressing for an immediate settlement of the ques-
tions which have arisen between this country and the United States in
connection with the tur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, there is no reason
to believe that any further illegal seizures of British vessels will take
place, especially as the United States Government have invited Her
Majesty’s Government to negotiate a convention for a close time, thereby

206 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

admitting their claim to exclusive rights in those waters to be unten-
able. Lord Salisbury, however, will again endeavour to obtain assur-
ances on the subject from the Government of the United States.

As regards the rumours which have reached this country by tele-
graph from Victoria, British Columbia, of the clearance of Canadian
vessels for Behring’s Sea, manned with armed Irlian crews, I am to
state that Lord Salisbury will be prepared to submit the matter to the
Law Officer of the Crown, should the rumours in question be confirmed,
but that if the vessels are armed, not for the purpose of attack, but for
the purpose of resistance to illegal seizure on the high seas, it would
seem difficult to justify any interference with them on the part of Her
Majesty’s cruizers.

In conclusion, I am to suggest, for Lord Knutsford’s consideration,
that, in reply to Mr. Gourley’s inquiry as to ‘“* what measures Her
Majesty’s Government intent adopting for the purpose of arriving at
an amicable solution of the Alaskan Fisheries disputes,” it might be
stated that the question is now under the consideration of the two Gov-
ernments concerned, but that it would be premature at this moment to
say more than that Her Majesty’s Government have no reason to
doubt that a satisfactory arrangement will be arrived at.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
No. 105,

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.— (Received March 26.)

DOWNING STREET, March 24, 1888.

Sir: With reference to my letter of yesterday’s date respecting a
question to be asked in the House of Commons upon the subject of the
alleged clearance of Canadian sealing vessels for the Behring’s Sea
with armed Indian crews, [ am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit
to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram
which has this day been received from the Governor-General of Canada.

IT am to request to be informed of the answer which Lord Salisbury
would wish to be returned to the Governor-General in regard to the
latter part of his telegram.

Lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{inclosure in No. 105.—Telegraphie.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

Orrawa, March 22, 1888.

Thave received your telegram of the 22nd. The press has published rumour re-

ferred to, but it is not credited here, or confirmed by information, private or official.

It is, however, of great importance, in order toavoid injury to fishing interest

186 and risk of further complications, to obtain from United States Government

explicit statement of its intentions as to sealers found in behlring’s Sea this
scason.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 207
No. 106,
Count Piper to the Marquis of Salishury,—( Received March 27.)

En se référant 4 la note verbale en date du 11 Octobre dernier, par
laquelle M. le Marquis de Salisbury a exprimé le désir de connaitre si le
Gouvernement du Roi accepterait Vinvitation qui lui avait été adressée
par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis A entrer dans un arrangement
concernant la péche aux phoques dans la mer de Behring, le Comte
Piper a Phonneur, d’ordre de son Gouvernement, de lui communiquer
ci-joint la réponse que le Comte Ehrensviird a fait parvenir a ce sujet
au Ministre des Itats-Unis 4 Stockholm.

LONDRES, le 24 Mars, 1888.

{Translation.]

With reference to the note verbale of the 11th October last, in whieh
the Marquis of Salisbury expressed the wish to know if the King’s
Government would accept the invitation addressed to them by that of
the United States to come to an arrangement concerning the seal fish-
ery in Bebring’s Sea, Count Piper has the honour, by order of his Goy-
ernment, to communicate to Lord Salisbury the inclosed reply which
Count Ehrensviird has addressed to the United States Minister at
Stockholm on the subject.

LONDON, March 24, 1888.

{Inclosure in No. 106.]
Count Ehrensviard to the United States Minister at Stockholm.

Lr 15 Mars, 1888.

Par une Jettre en date du 17 Septembre de année passée Vous avez bien voulu, au
nom de Votre Gouvernement, inviter les Royaumes-Unis a entrer dans un arrangement
avec les Etats-Unis pour la préservation des phoques dans la mer de Behring.

La chasse aux phoques dans ces parages n’étant, jusqw’a présent, que d’un intérét
minime pour les Royaumes-Unis, le Gouvernement de Roi a cru ne pas devoir pren-
dre part activement a ces pourparlers, lesquels il suivra toutefois avee toute V’atten-
tion que mérite l’affaire. I] sera ainsi heurcux (apprendre que les pourparlers
engagés entre les Puissances intéressées en premicre ligne 4 ce sujet aient pu aboutir
& un arrangement international, et que la faculté d’adhérer 4 Ventente serait, le cas
échéant, réservée aux autres Puissances.

Veuillez, &c.
(Signé) EHRENSVARD.

[Translation.]

Manc# 16, 1888.

In a letter dated the 17th September of last year You were good enough, in the
name of Your Governinent, to invite the United Kingdoms to enter into an arrange-
ment with the United States for the preservation of seals in Behring’s Sea.

As the hunting of seals in those regions is at present but of very slight interest to
the United Kingdoms, the Government of the King have not thought it their duty
to take an active part in these negotiations, though they will be glad to follow
them with all the attention which the matter deserves. They will also be glad to
learn that the negotiations between the Powers chiefly interested have successfully
resulted in an international arrangement, and that liberty will be reserved to the
other Powers to join in such an arrangement should they desire to do so,

Receive, &c.
(Signed) EHRENSVARD,

208 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
187 No. 107.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received March 29.)

DOWNING STREET, March 28, 1888.

Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 24th
instant, and to yours of the same date, relating to the alleged clearing
for Behring’s Sea of certain Canadian sealing schooners with armed
Indian crews, for the purpose of resisting the American Revenue eut-
ters, should the commanders of the latter attempt to molest them, Lam
directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the
Marquis of Salisbury, a telegram received from the Governor-General
of Canada, from which it appears that this rumour is not unfounded.

Lord Knutsford desires to call the attention of Lord Salisbury to the
suggestion of the Governor-General that the Admiralty should instruct
the Admiral commanding on the station to watch the proceedings on
the spot.

His Lordship would also suggest that this matter should be brought
under the immediate notice of the United States Government in order
that a definite announcement of their intentions during the present
season with reference to the Behring’s Sea sealers may be obtained;
with such information Her Majesty’s Government would be better able
to consider how further complications may best be avoided.

I am, We.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

[Inclosure in No. 107.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Lansdowne to Lerd Knutsford.

Orrawa, March 27, 1888.

Tam informed by Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia that sealers on the
point of departure for Behring’s Sea are arming the vessels and crews to resist cap-
ture by American Revenue cutters. We think it desirable that Admiral should be
instructed to watch proceedings on the spot. I have telegraphed to Lieutenant-
Governor to issue notice cautioning sealers to refrain from any assertion of right by
force of arms, and pointing out grave results which might ensue from resort to arms
whilst negotiations stillin progress. It seems to us impossible to prevent fishermen
taking on 1 board the arms and ammunition usually required for their own protection
and for use in seal- fishing. Reports reach us from Victoria that United States Gov-
ernment has issued orders for the seizure of all sealers found this season in Behring’s
Sea. Let me again urge necessity of obtaining from United States Government
definite announcement of its intentions during present fishing season in those waters.

No. 108.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, Varch 30, 1888.
Str: I inclose, for your information, a copy of a letter from the
Colonial Office,* inclosing a telegram from the Governor-General of
Canada, from which it appears that the British vessels and crews now
fitting out for the approaching seal-fishing season in Behring’s Sea are
being armed with a view to offering resistance to their capture by
American cruizers when so occupied.

*No. 107.

il

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 209

Lord Lansdowne also reports that it is rumoured in Victoria that
orders have been issued by the United States Government for the
seizure of all sealers found this season in Behring’s Sea,

T request that you will inform Mr. Bayard of the report in question,
and that you will earnestly represent to him the extreme importance
that Her Majesty’s Government should be enabled to contradict it.

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

188 No. 109.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 30, 1888.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
28th instant, inclosing a telegram from the Governor-General of Can-
ada, from which it appears that the vessels and crews now preparing
for the seal-fishing season in Behring’s Sea are betng armed with a
view to offering resistance to their capture in that sea.

I am to request that you will inform Lord Knutsford, in reply, that
Sir L. West has been instructed to call Mr. Bayard’s attention to the
rumour current in Victoria that orders have been issued by the United
States Government to capture British ships fishing in Behring’s Sea,
and he has been further directed to represent earnestly the extreme
importance that Her Majesty’s Government sh ould be enabled to con-
tradict the rumour in question,

On receipt of Sir L. West’s reply a further communication will be
addressed to you.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

No. 110.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 2.)

WASHINGTON, March 19, 1888.

My Lorp: I[ have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
copy of a telegram which I have received from Mr, Foster, the Cana-
dian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as well as copy of a dispatch
which I have addressed to the Marquis of Lansdowne in reply thereto,
and which is based on unofficial communication with the State Depart-
ment.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 110.—Telegraphic.]

Mr. Foster to Sir L. West.
OrTTawa, March 6, 1888.
It seems that Canadian sealers are required to carry appeal to United States
Court, or, by failure to do that, will forfeit bonds. Can they be allowed, pending
definite settlement between United States and Great Britain, to bond vessels and
skins without obligation to appeal?

Bes; PTV. 14

210 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 110.—Extract.]
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

WASHINGTON, March 19, 1888.

TI have the honour to inclose to your Excellency herewith copy of a telegram
which I have received from Mr. Foster, your Excellency’s Minister of Marine and
Visheries, relative to pending proceedings in the cases of Canadian sealers seized in
Behring’s Sea, and, in reply, to inform your Excellency that the Attorney-General
has stated that Rule X of the Practice in Admiralty and Rules of the Supreme Court
(1887) make it plain that the confiscated ships can be bonded pending appeal.

No. tds

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 3, 1888.

Sir: The United States Minister called upon me to-day, previous to
his return to America. He was anxious to speak to me especially with
reference to the condition of the seal-fishery in Behring’s Sea.
189 He expressed the hope that instructions would soon arrive
which would enable the Russian Ambassador to negotiate on the
subject of establishing a close time during which the capture of seals
in certain localities should not be permitted; and he added that, when-
ever that Convention could be arranged, it would put an end to all the
difficulties which had arisen with respect to the seal-fishery in that sea.

Mr. Phelps was very anxious for dispatch because the destruction of
the species was enormous, and was increasing in volume every year.
But under the peculiar political circumstances of America at this
moment, with a general election impending, it would, he said, be of
little use, and, indeed, hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation
to its issue before the election had taken place. He held it, however,
to be of great importance that no steps should be neglected that could
be taken for the purpose of rendering the negotiation easier to con-
clude, or for supplying the place of it until the conclusion was obtained.
He informed me, therefore, unofficially, that he had received from Mr.
Bayard a private letter, from which he read to me a passage to the
following effect:

“7 shall advise that secret instructions be given to American cruiz-
ers not to molest British ships in Behring’s Sea at a distance from the
shore, and this on the ground that the negotiations for the establish-
ment of a close time are going on.”

> But, Mr. Phelps added, there is every reason that this step should
not become public, as it might give encouragement to the destruction
of seals that is taking place.

I suggested to him that it would be desirable for Lord Lansdowne
to know of it, as his Excellency was much embarrassed by the meas-
ures for self-defence which were being taken by some of the sealing-
ships that were fitting out from British Columbia.

Mr. Phelps then said that he would have no objection to my com-
muniecating this information to Lord Lansdowne confidentially. At the
same time he expressed the hope that I would represent to Lord Lans-
downe the importance of refusing clearance, if he could do so, to all
ships going out from ports in British Columbia to shoot seals in Beh-
ring’s Sea during close time, that is to say, from the 15th April to the
Ist November.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 211

He also said he presumed that any Convention for exercising police
in Behring’s Sea must, in the case of America and Great Britain, be
supported by legislation; and he would be very glad if Her Majesty’s
Governinent would try to obtain the requisite powers during the present
Session.

T replied that the matter should have our immediate attention.

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 112.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 4.)
[Lelegraphie. }
WASHINGTON, April 3, 1888,

I have made representation to Secretary of State as directed in your
telegram of the 30th ultimo. He begs me toinform your Lordship that
no orders have been issued for capture of British ships fishing in
Belhring’s Sea.

No. 113.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 5, 1888.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 28th ultimo, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to state to you, for the information of
Secretary Lord Knutsford, that a telegram has been received from Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington reporting that the United States
Secretary of State has informed him that no orders have been issued
by the Government of the United States for the capture of British

Ships fishing in Behring’s Sea.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

190 No. 114.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office—(Received April 11.)

DOWNING STREET, April 10, 1888.

Sir: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, an extract of a despatch from the
Governor-General of Canada respecting the question of bonding the
British sealing vessels captured by the United States cruizers in Beh-
ring’s Sea during last season, and again urging the desirability of obtain-
ing from the Government of the United States a distinct intimation of
its intentions with regard to the approaching season.

Lam, We.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

Biz APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 114.—Extract.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOoUuSsE, Ottawa, March 21, 1888.

I am given to understand by my Minister of Marine and Fisheries that permission
has actually been given to the owners of the British vesseis to bond them pending
appeal, provided that the sureties are citizens of the United States and resident
therein. He has, however, learnt that the British Columbian owners who are con-
cerned in this matter are not willing to bond their vessels if they are thereby bound
to carry an appeal to the United States Courts, and if, by not proceeding with the
appeal, they would thereby forteit their bonds, :

It has, moreover, been suggested that, by giving bonds pending an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, the owners might thereby place the matter
outside the scope of any diplomatic negotiations which may take place upon this
subject, a result which they would naturally be desirous of avoiding.

They have now inquired whether it would be possible for them to bond their ves-
sels, &c., pending, not an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the diplomatic settle-
ment of the question which has arisen in connection with the seal fishery in these
waters.

I shall be glad if Her Majesty’s Government will invite the attention of that of
the United States to this request, which should be attended to as soon as possible.

From information which I have received, there is reason to believe that the seal-
skins on board of these vessels will be sold at Sitka on the 19th April.

In connection with the subject of this despatch, I venture again to call your atten-
tion to the inquiry made in my telegram of the 31st March, 1887, in regard to the
action likely to be taken during the present year by cruizers of the United States
in Behring’s Sea against sealers frequenting these waters. The uncertainty as to
this has had a very prejudicial effect upon the fishing interests of British Columbia,
and I would urge that, both in order to avoid this inconvenience, and also in order
to obviate the risk of further friction between the two Governments, an explicit
statement of its intentions should be obtained from that of the United States with
as little delay as possible. It is, I think, obvious that an international arrangement
whereby a close time would be established for fur-seals within certain limits is not
likely to be arrived at in time to provide for the requirements of the fishing season
of this year.

I have communicated a copy of this despatch to Sir Lionel West.

Wil No. 116.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 14, 1888.

Str: I laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the 10th
instant, together with the despatch trom the Marquis of Lansdowne
therein inclosed, respecting the bonding of British sealing-vessels cap-
tured by the United States cruizers in Behring’s Sea during last sea-
son, and- again urging the desirability of obtaining from the United
States Government a distinct intimation of their intentions with regard
to the approaching season.

On this latter point my other letter of this day will have made known
to the Secretary of State for the Colonies Lord Salisbury’s views.

With regard to the question of “the bonding for appeal vessels or
cargoes condemned to forfeiture by the District Court of Alaska,” lam
directed by Lord Salisbury to observe that the arrangement proposed
in paragraph 5 of Lord Lansdowne’s despatch would operate as an
abandonment of the right of -appeal without any certain prospect of a
remedy by diplomatic action. His Lordship would therefore suggest,
for the consideration of Lord Knutsford, whether it might not be pref-
erable to propose to the United States Government that the time lim-
ited for the prosecution of the appeals should be extended by consent

oe
¥
:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 213

for such period as may allow of a settlement by diplomatic negotiation,
without prejudice to the ultimate legal remedy by appeal, should such
negotiation be unsuccessful.

As regards the sureties, Lord Salisbury does not think that reason-
able objection can be taken to the stipulation that they should be cit-
izens of the United States and resident therein, and therefore within
the jurisdiction of the American Courts.

Iam, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. b7.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 16.)

WASHINGTON, March 27, 1888.
My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith
copies of a letter addressed to Senator Dolph, of Oregon, by Mr. James
G. Swan, Assistant Collector of Port Townsend, Washington Territory,
relative to fur-seals in the waters of Alaska and in the Behring’s Sea.
The migration of the New England fishermen to the Pacific coast, and
their determination to assert the right to fish or hunt in the American
waters of Behring’s Sea, outside of 5 nautical miles from any island or
the mainland of Alaska, will have an important bearing on the juris-
diction claimed by the United States for the benefit of the Alaska

Commercial Company.
I have, Xe.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 117.]
(50th Congress.—Senate Mis. Doc. No. 78.)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Marcu 15, 1888.—Presented by Mr. Dolph, and ordered to lie on the table and be
printed.

Letter of James G. Swan, Assistant Collector, Port Townsend, Washington Territory, rela-
tive to Fur Seals in the Waters of Alaska and in the Behring’s Sea.

Port TOWNSEND, WASHINGTON, March 7, 1888.

SENATOR: I have the honour to inform you of the arrival here of the first vessel of

the Gloucester, Massachusetts, fishing fleet—the schooner ‘‘ Mollie Adams,”

192. Captain Johnson, which arrived here on the 3rd instant. ‘This vessel is owned

by Captain Solomon Jacobs, of Gloucester, who has taken command of her,

and she sails to-day on a sealing expedition from off the mouth of the Columbia, fol-

lowing the herd north. Seals are reported as being unusually numerous this season

and are in myriads. California steamers report running through one herd which

extended 100 miles, and the seals appeared to be as thick as they could swim, After

the sealing season is over the schooner will engage in the halibut and cod fishery and
send their catch in ice to the Eastern markets.

Another of Captain Jacobs’ schooners, the ‘‘ Webster,” will be here in April, and
several others will be here this season. Next year between fifty and sixty vessels are
expected, and they will be followed by others, and within two years a colony of
several hundred of these fishermen will be here to develop the wealth now dormant
and hidden in our waters.

Since I returned from Queen Charlotte’s Island, in 1883, I have persistently urged

on Professor Baird the necessity of sending one of the United States Fish Commis-

214 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

sion steamers to the Pacific to develop our fisheries, and shortly before Professor
Baird’s lamented death he wrote me that the ‘‘ Albatross” would be sent to our
waters, and she is now on her way out.

These Gloucester fishermen will render valuable assistance to Captain Tanner. It
is to the fishermen of Gloucester, Cape Cod, and the coast of Maine that the United
States Fish Commission is largely indebted for much of the valuable information
respecting the Atlantic fisheries, which has been published by that admirable Bureau
of the Smithsonian Institution.

Hitherto no protection has been given our Pacific fishermen by our Government.
The Treaty of 1818 does not allude to the Pacific coast, nor does the present Treaty,
so far as I am informed, make any provision for or allusion to the fisheries of the
North Pacific. British Columbia is,as it were, sandwiched between ‘Washington
and Alaska; our interests are identical, and at present the most harmonious and
kindly feeling exists between the people of British Columbia and ourselves. Every
steamer for Alaska which takes the inside passage passes through the waters of
British Columbia, affording a means of delightful recreation to thousands of tourists.
This kindly feeling should be encouraged, and particularly in reference to our fisher-
men who wish to fish the waters of the coast from the Columbia to Alaska.

But these New England fishermen ask more than to fish along the coast; they wish
to explore the waters of Behring’s Sea and the Arctic Ocean, and to be permitted to
take any of the products of the ocean in American waters without the annoyance
they have been subjected to for so many years on the Canadian coasts of the
Atlantic.

Ever since the lease of the Pribylov Islands to the Alaska Commercial Company,
that powerful monopoly has persistently deceived the Congress of the United States
and the American people by arrogantly asserting that all the tin seals of the North
Pacific Ocean congregate on the Islands of Saint Paul and St. George, and that the
indiscriminate slaughter of those seals would soon exterminate the race. The latter
part of this assertion is true, but the first, I assert, is a physical impossibility. The
seals of the North Pacific,in countless myriads, could not, by any process of their
own, find room on those two comparatively insignificant islands, and I am prepared
to prove that the southern seals, from the Gulf of Tehuantepec and Gulf of Cali-
fornia, which come north every season, differ from the seals of the Pribylov Islands,
and never “haul out” on that group. The indiscriminate slaughter of fin seals in
early days on the Island of Massafuero, on the coast of Chile, and on the San Benito
Islands of Lower California, drove the seals away from those once famous rookeries,
and they seem to have acquired new habits. A paid writer of the company, Henry
W. Elliott, in an otherwise excellent monograph on the fin seal islands of Alaska,
boldly asserts that the seals of the North Pacific a]l congregate on the Pribylov
Islands. He further asserts that those seals have their pups on land, and that if a
pup is thrown into the water it cannot swim, but will sink like a stone, and takes
me to task for asserting that the pups of the seals taken at Cape Flattery can swim
as soon as born and even when taken alive from the mother’s womb.*

In 1883 I was instructed by Professor Baird to investigate the habits of the fin seals
and to make a Report thereon, which Report may be found in the Bulletin of the
United States Fish Commission (vol. iii, 1883, p. 201). In that Report I have shown
by thirteen witnesses, some of them Government officials, that the fin seals of Cape
Flattery do have their pups in the water, on the kelp and at other places not yet

discovered, and that the pups swiin as soon as born; this evidence as against
193 Mr. Elliott’s unsupported, dogmatic assertion that the pups will sink like a

stone. I believe that Mr. Elliott is correct so far as the seals of the Pribylov
Islands are concerned, and I know that Iam correct so far as regards the seals of Cape
Flattery, and, believing that both of us are correct, it proves incontestably that the
seals which come from the south to Cape Flattery differ in their habits from those
of Behring’s Sea.

These eastern fishermen, knowing the value of the rookeries, are desirous that the
law protecting the seals on the Pribylov Islands, as well as the provisions of the
lease to the Alaska Commercial Company, should be rigidly enforced. But they do
not believe that the term ‘‘adjacent waters” named in that lease ever meant or was
intended to mean all the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. They believe that they,
as American citizens, have aright to fish or hunt in the American waters of Behring’s
Sea, outside of 3 nautical miles from any island or the mainland of Alaska. They
believe that William H. Seward did not purchase Alaska for the Alaska Commer-
cial Company, but forthe wholenation. ‘These fishermen from New England demand
as aright that they be permitted to pursue their honourable business in the Amer-
ican waters of the North Pacific, Behring’s Sea, and the Arctic without being treated
as criminals and hunted down and seized and imprisoned by the pivatical Revenue

*United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Special Bulletin 176, a Mono-
graph of the Seal Islands of Alaska, by Henry W. Elliott, 1882, p. 166, last paragraph.

4]

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 215

cutters of the United States, at the diction and for the sole benefit of the Alaska
Commercial Company. These fishermen already here, and the colonies which will
be here next year with their fleets of schooners, are of vastly more importance to the
American nation thanthe monopoly of the Alaska Commercial Company. And they
have requested me to address you, Senator, and other Senators, respectfully asking
you to kindly look into this question, and have it ordered by the Treasury Department
that American citizens can take any of the products of the ocean outside of 3 marine
miles from any island in Behring’s Sea or the coasts of the mainland of Alaska.

Hitherto the outrageous arrogance and assumption of the Alaska Commercial
Company has been only met by feeble protests from merchants of San Francisco and
a few Portland traders. But now a new order of things is about being inaugurated.
An intelligent and valuable class of New England fishermen are coming here to
reside among us and become citizens of Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. They
know their rights as American citizens, and they are determined to have their rights.

It is time that the farce played by the Alaska Commercial Company was ended,
and that the sorry sight of American Revenue cutters hunting down our own citizens
for the benefit of that huge monopoly should for ever cease.

I have given this subject careful attention for many years, but have had no occa-
sion to take any particular interest in it until now, and now is the time to speak
and act. ‘These determined, energetic fishermen of New England are here, and more
coming. All they ask is their right as American citizens to hunt and fish in Amer-
ican waters outside 3 miles from land. Strictly enforce the law prohibiting the
taking of seals on the Pribylov Islands; strictly enforce the law prohibiting the
introduction of spirits or fire-arms among Indians; but give the fishermen the right
to develop the wealth in our waters, encourage them to make new discoveries, aid
them in every legal manner to pursue their avocations, and they will prove a new
source of wealth to our Pacific States, and add to our population a new and a most
desirable element.

I have had the honour, Senator, to address Senator Mitchell and Senator Stanford
upon this important question, and if there are any points on which you would like
further information, I shall esteem it an honour if you will address me, and I will
give yon all the information I possess. I want to see Behring’s Sea and all American
waters open to American fishermen, and I earnestly and respectfully solicit your kind
consideration of the question.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. SWAN.

The Hon. JosEruH N. Do.pn,

Senator in Congress from Oregon.

194 No. 118.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 16.)

WASHINGTON, March 31, 1888.

My Lorp: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s despatch of the 17th instant, and to inclose herewith copy
of a note which I addressed to the Secretary of State in the sense of
that despatch, as well as copy of the reply which I have received thereto.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

(Inclosure 1 in No. 118.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, March 26, 1888.

Str: With reference to the proposed concerted action by Great Britain, the United
States, and other interested Powers, in order to preserve from extermination the fur
seals which at certain seasons are found in Behring’s Sea, I am requested by the
Marquis of Salisbury to inform you that the Russian Ambassador in London has
been communicated with on the subject, and that he has referred to his Government
tor instructions.

216 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

But in making this communication to you, I am instructed to state that this action
on the part of Her Majesty’s Government must not be taken as an admission of the
rights of jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea exercised there by the United States authori-
ties during the fishing seasons of 1886-87 and 1887-88, nor as affecting the claims
which Her Majesty’s Government will have to present on account of the wrongful
seizures which have taken place of British vessels engaged in the seal-fishing
industry.

I have, &o. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosnre 2 in No. 118.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF Sate, Washington, March 30, 1888. ~

Sir: Ihave the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 26th instant,
in which you inform the Department that the action of Her Majesty’s Government
in respect to the proposal of this Government for an arrangement to protect the fur-
seal from extermination in Behring’s Sea is not to be taken as an admission of the
jurisdiction of the United States over Behring’s Sea, nor as affecting the claims
which Her Majesty’s Government will have to present on account of the seizure of
certain British vessels in those waters.

I have, &c. (Signed) - T. F. BAyarD.

No. 119.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received April 16.)

WASHINGTON, April 5, 1888,
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 19th March, I have
the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a Memo-
195 randum sent to me by the lawyer engaged in the case of certain
seal-skins ordered to be sold at Sitka, from which your Lordship
will perceive that the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted.
Lhave communicated this Memorandum to the Marquis of Lansdowne.
I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

- [Inclosure in No. 119.]

Memorandum by Mr. Benjamin.

The District Judge for Alaska having refused to admit British Columbian claim-
ants to the privileges of the Attorney-General’s Order of last December, prescribing
that condemned sealing-vessels and cargoes might be released to their late owners,
pending appeal, upon supersedeas bonds, with sureties, residing in Alaska, Califor-
nia, Oregon, or Washington Territory (said District Judge contending that the
Order related only to the cases of American claimants), I laid before the Attorney-
General, on the 31st ultimo, the case of the British owner of 1,400 seal-skins, ordered
to be sold under Condemnation Decree at Sitka on the 18th instant, said owner hay-
ing tendered a valid appeal bond with sureties, residing at San Francisco.

To-day, during my attendance upon the Attorney-General, he sent a joint telegram
to the District Judge and the District Attorney at Sitka, advising them that his
Order of last December was intended to apply to all claimants, irrespective of
nationality.

The telegram will go by mail from Port Townsend, and will reach Sitka before the
day of sale in due course.

The Attorney-General expressed his dissatisfaction with the course of the officers
at Sitka in putting so narrow a construction upon the original Order.

(Signed) CHARLES F. BENJAMIN,
Counsellor-at-Law.
WASILINGTON, April 4, 1888.

cei) a. oe

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 217
No. 120.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received April 16.)

WASHINGTON, April 6, 1888,

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 30th
March, I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which I
addressed to Mr. Bayard, representing the importance of enabling Her
Majesty’s Government to contradict the report that orders had been
issued by the United States Government for the capture of British ships
fishing in Behring’s Sea. I had previously received a communication
in the above sense from the Marquis of Lansdowne, and at an interview
which I had with the Secretary of State he stated to me that no such
orders had been issued, which information I telegraphed to your Lord-
ship on the 3rd instant.

I have since received a further telegram from the Marquis of Lans-
downe, copy of which is inclosed, requesting to know whether his Gov-
ernment is to understand that sealers will not be molested except within
the marine league from the shore. I accordingly again called on Mr.
Bayard, and he repeated to me, in reply to my question in the above
sense, that no orders had been issued for the capture of sealers in Beh-
ring’s Sea. He presumed that the orders I alluded to as having been
issued some years ago were instructions under Statute (see 1,956 Revised
Statutes) for the regulation of the seal fishery in the waters of Alaska.
Pending international negotiations on this subject, he did not think it
was expedient to answer my question in so far as it related to the marine
league limit, as these negotiations had for object the general protection
and preservation of the seal in all waters. He did not wish to see
another British or American sealer seized, and hoped that no such Selz-
ures would occur,

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

196 [Inclosure 1 in No. 120.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, April 2, 1888.
Str: I have the honour to inform you that the Marquis of Salisbury has received
intimation from the Canadian Government to the effect that orders have been issued
by the United States Government for the capture of British ships fishing in Beh-
ring’s Sea, and that he has te ‘legraphed to me to represent earnestly the extreme
impor tance of enabling Her Majesty’s Gov ernment to contradict this rumour.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 120.—Telegraphic.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir L. West.
APRIL 5, 1888.

In reply to your telegram of the 8rd April, there is an impression here that orders
were issued some years ago by United States Government to Collector at San Fran-
cisco for seizure of vessels found in B ehring’s Sea, and that these orders have never
been withdrawn.

May we understand our sealers will not be molested except within the marine
league from shore?

218 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 121.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.*

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 16, 1888.

Str: The Russian Ambassador and the United States Chargé
@Attaires called upon me this afternoon to discuss the question of the
seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, which had been brought into prominence
by the recent action of the United States.

The United States Government had expressed a desire that some
agreement should be arrived at between the three Governments for the
purpose of prohibiting the slaughter of the seals during the time of
breeding; and, at my request, M. de Staal had obtained instructions
from his Government on that question.

At this preliminary discussion it was decided provisionally, in order
to furnish a basis for negotiation, and without definitively pledging our
Governments, that the space to be covered by the proposed Convention
should be the sea between America and Russia north of the 47th degree
of latitude; that the close time should extend from the 15th April to
the 1st November; that during that time the slaughter of all seals
should be forbidden; and vessels engaged in it should be liable to seizure
by the cruizers of any of the three Powers, and should be taken to
the port of their own nationality for condemnation; that the traffic in
arms, alcohol, and powder should be prohibited in all the islands of those
seas; and that, as soon as the three Powers had concluded a Conven-
tion, they should join in submitting it for the assent of the other Mari-
time Powers of the northern seas.

The United States Chargé d’A ffaires was exceedingly earnest in press-
ing on us the importance of dispatch on account of the inconceivable
slaughter that had been and was still going on in these seas. Hestated
that, in addition to the vast quantity brought to market, it was a com-
mon practice for those engaged in the trade to shoot all seals they
might meet in the open sea, and that of these a great number sank, so
that their skins could not be recovered.

Iam, &e. ; (Signed) , SALISBURY.

197 No. 122.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 17, 1888.

Sir: Her Majesty’s Government have had under consideration the
particulars received by them in regard to the claims of British sealing-
vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, and warned off by the United States
authorities.

‘They consider that it would be difficult to arrive at a just estimate of
the amount of the claims in question without an investigation by a
Mixed Commission into the circumstances under which these claims
have arisen, which require verification.

I have accordingly to request you to ascertain whether the United
States Government would agree to the appointment of a Mixed Com.
_ mission, whose functions should be restricted to inquiring whether any
compensation is due, and, if so, how much in each case.

Lam, We. (Signed) SALISBURY.

* Also to Sir L. West.

A ands,
[ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. PS,
No. 123.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.*

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 20, 1888.

Str: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you
acopy of adespatch which his Lordship has addressed to Her Majesty’s
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh and Her Majesty’s Minister at Wash-
ington,t recording a conversation he has had with the Russian Ambas-
sador and the United States Chargé d’Affaires at this Court, on the
subject of the measures which might be adopted to check the indiscrimi-
nate slaughter of seals in Behring’s Sea.

I am to request that, in laying the inclosed despatch before Her
~Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, you will move him to
favour Lord Salisbury with any observations he may have to offer upon
the proposals discussed therein.

lam, &c. (Signed) == JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. iIpLE
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 21.)

DOWNING STREET, April 20, 1888.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 14th instant, [ am directed
by Lord Knutsford to trausmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, for any observations which he may have to offer, a copy of a
telegram from the Governor-General of Canada respecting the cases of
the British sealers captured last year.
Iam, &e. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure in No. 124.—Telegraphie.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

\

APrriL 18, 1888.

It seems very desirable time for appeal be extended as long as possible. United
States Government should, in the interim, release vessels and skins on security abide
by conditions of negotiations. Owners would desire to appeal as last resort should
negotiations fail.

198 No. 125.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 23.)

WASHINGTON, April 11, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 6th instant, I have
the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a private note
which I have received from Mr. Bayard, repeating what he had told
ine on the 6th instant, that no orders had been issued this year for the
seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea.
I have forwarded copy of Mr. Bayard’s note to the Marquis of Lans-
downe.
I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

*Also to Board of Trade and Admiralty. tNo.1

220 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure in No. 125.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 10, 1888.
Drar Sir LIongeL: Referring to our conversation held on the 6th instant in a per-
sonal interview in relation to the Treasury orders for the seizure of British sealing-
vessels in Behring’s Sea by United States Revenue cutters, I now repeat, at your
request, what I then told you in reply to the memorandum of inquiry by Lord Salis-
bury, that no orders on the subject referred to had been issued this year by the
Treasury Department.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) T. F. BayarD.

No. 126.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 24.)

DOWNING STREET, April 24, 1888.

Str: With reference to the previous correspondence walatie to the
seizure of British fishing-vessels in Behring’s Sea by United States
eruizers, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a confidential despatch
received from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing copies of
telegrams which have passed between his Lordship and the Lieuten-
ant-Governor of British Columbia respecting the arming of sealing-
vessels to resist capture by the United States cruizers.

Lam, Xe.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 126.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Hovsn, Oltawa, March 29, 1888.
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit, for your Lordship’s information, copies
of telegrams which I have received from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Colum-
bia, dated the 27th and 29th instant, stating that the owners of sealing-vessels now
on the point of departure for the Behring’s Sea are arming their vessels and crews
to resist capture by United States cruisers. I also inclose a copy of my reply to the
former of these telegrams.
I have, &ce.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

({Inclosure 2 in No. 126.—Telegraphice.]
Lieutenant-Governor Nelson to the Marquis of Lansdowne.
VicroriA, BririsH COLUMBIA, March 26, 1888.

My Government has received information that sealers, on point of departure for
Behring’s Sea, are arming their vessels and crews to resist capture.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Peal

.

199 {Inclosure 3 in No. 126.—Telegraphic.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lieutenant-Governor Nelson.

Otrawa, March 27, 1888.

In reply to your telegram of the 26th, public notice should be issued by your
Government, cautioning persons going on sealing expeditions to refrain from asser-
tion of their rights by force, and from taking on board arms and ammunition in
excess of their usual requirements. The whole matter forms the subject of diplo-
matic negotiations now in progress. Any intemperate action in the meanwhile
would be most detrimental to British Columbian interests, and might lead to serious
complications, and be followed by grave consequences.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 126.—Telegraphic.]
Lieutenant-Governor Nelson to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

VicroriA, British COLUMBIA, March 29, 1888.

It is reported that, with a view to protecting their vessels and property from law-
less designs of United States Government, some persons, fitting out here for sealing,
are arming their vessels and crews, and unless protection is afforded by Imperial
Government, serious loss of property, and possibly human life, may result. Domin-
ion Government are therefore urged to take such steps for the protection of een
interests in Behring’s Sea as may be deemed advisable.

No. 127.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received April 26.)

ADMIRALTY, April 25, 1888.

Str: My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have had under
their consideration your letter of the 20th instant, inclosing a copy of
a despatch, dated the 16th instant, which has been addressed by Lord
Salisbury to Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburgh and Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington in regard to the adoption of meas-
ures to check the indiscriminate slaughter of seals in Behring’s Sea.

2. My Lords request that you will state to Lord Salisbury that their
Lordships fully concur in the views set forth in the inclosure to your
letter now under reply.

Iam, We.
(Signed) Evan MACGREGOR.

No. 128.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 26.)

DOWNING STREET, April 25, 1888.
Str: | am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 20th instant, transmitting a copy of a despatch
addressed to Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburgh respecting
the proposed establishment of a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea.*
In reply, I am to inclose, for the information of the Marquis of Salis-
bury, a copy of the extender of a telegram which was sent to the

*No. 121,

227 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Governor-General of Canada, on his Lordship’s suggestion, inquiring
whether the Dominion Government were aware of any objection to the
proposed arrangement.

I am also to inclose a copy of a despatch from Lord Lansdowne, in
the two concluding paragraphs of which he points out that the prob-
able effect of the proposed close time on the operations of the Canadian
sealers would be to exclude them coipletely from the rights which
they have until lately enjoyed without question or molestation.

In these circumstances, it is probabie that the United States
200 proposals may not be accepted by Canada without reserve, and
Lord Knutsford would suggest that, pending the receipt of the
observations of the Dominion Government i in response to the invitation
contained in his despatch of the 8th March, referred to by Lord Lans-
downe. no final action should be taken in the matter.
Tam, &e.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 128.]
Lord Knutsford to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

DOWNING STREET, April 21, 1888.
My Lorn: I have the honour to acquaint you that I have this day telegraphed to
you, with reference to your despatch of the 9th instant, that negotiations are pro-
ceeding between Russia, the United States, and Great Britian with regard to the
establishment of a close time, during which ‘it would be unlawful to kill seals at sea,
in any manner, to the north of the 47th parallel of latitude between the coasts of
JRtussia and America, and inquired whether your Government was aware of any objec-
tion to the proposed arrangement.
IT added that, of course, as regards Canadian waters, Canadian legislation would
be necessary.
I have, &c.
(Signed) KNUTSFORD.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 128.—Extract.]

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.
F GOVERNMENT Housk, Ottawa, April 9, 1888.

In reference to my despatch of the 29th March, I have the honour to inclose here-
with copy of a telegram, dated the Sth instant, from the Attorney-General of British
Columbia to Sir John Macdonald, acquainting him that my telezram, of which a
copy was sent to you in the above despatch, had been published in the provincial
press as a warning to sealing-vessels, and that there was reason to believe that these
vessels had, in consequence of the intimation thus given, ceased to arm themselves
for the purpose of resisting the cruizers of the United States.

I have forwarded to you by this mail copies of a telegram received from Sir L.
West in reference to the probable action of these cruizers during the present season,
and of a telegram addressed to him by me in reply.

I observe that the information obtained by Sir Lionel West from Mr. Bayard, which
is the same as that communicated to me in your telegraphic despatch of the 6th
instant, is merely to the effect that no orders have been issued by the United States
for the capture of British ships fishing in the Behring’s Sea. I need scarcely point
out that this is not equivalent to an assurance that such vessels will not be molested
except when found within the 3-mile limit, and that we are not informed whether
any orders which have been already issued in this connection are or are not still in
force.

I need scarely point out that the close time for seals, referred to in your telegram,
is created under a Statute of the United States, which is not obligatory except upon
the subjects of that Power. The proposal contained in the inclosure to your Confi-
dential despatch of the 8th March, 1888, for the adoption of asimilar close season by
British fishermen is at present receiving the careful consideration of my Government.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 223

Such a close time could obviously not be imposed upon our fishermen without notice
or without a fuller discussion than it has yet undergone. You are awaie that, dur-
ing the close time enforced by the United States Statute, the seals, although protected
from slaughter by the use of firearms, may be killed in ereat numbers on their breedin g-
grounds by the persons who enjoy the monopoly of the trade under Concessions from
the United States Government. The rest of the yearthese animals are, according
to Mr. Bayard’s statement in his despatch of the 7th February, 1888, ‘supposed to
spend in the open sea south of the Aleutian Islands,” where they are probably widely
scattered and difficult to find. It would appear to follow that, if concurrent regula-
tions based upon the American Law were to be adopted by Great Britain and the

United States, the privileges enjoyed by the citizens of the latter Power would
201 ~—scvbe: little if at all curtailed, while British fishermen would find themselves com-

pletely excluded from the rights which until lately they have enjoyed without
question or molestation.

In making this observation I do not desire to intimate that my Government would
be averse to entering into a reasonable agreement for protecting the fur-bearing
animals of the Pacific coast from extermination, but merely that a one-sided restric-
tion such as that which appeared to be suggested in your telegram could not be sud-
denly and arbitrarily enforced by my Government upon the fishermen or this country.

I have, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 128.—Telegraphic. ]
Mr. J. Robson to Sir J. Macdonald.

Victoria, April 5, 1888.
As a warning, Lord Lansdowne’s telegram to Lieutenant-Governor was published
on 29th ultimo, and, I believe, arming has been discontinued, but to avert serious
trouble assurance of protection continues [?] essential.

No. 129.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—Received April 28.

DOWNING STREET, April 27, 1888.
Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 25th
instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a telegram from the Governor- General
of Canada, explaining the views of the Dominion Government with
regard to the establishment of a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea.
Lord Knutsford would be glad to know what reply, if any, Lord Salis-
bury thinks should be sent.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 129.—Telegraphic.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

(Received at the Colonial Office, April 25, 1888, 10.10 P. mM.)

If proved to be necessary, Canadian Government will be ready to join other Gov-
ernments in adopting steps to prevent exterminationof fur-seals in Northern Pacifie
Ocean, but, before final agreement, desires full information and opportunity for con-
sidering operation of pr oposed close time.

Establishment of close time at sea only would give virtual monopoly of seal fish-
eries to Russia and United States; the latter Power owns the most important breed-
ing places, in which close time would not operate.

Rights should be reserved for Canada of terminating arrangemeni after sufficient
notice, not exceeding two years.

224 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 130.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 29, 1888.

Sir: With reference to Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 21st
March,* respecting the Behring’s Sea question, a copy of which was
forwarded to you by his Excellency, I have to request that you will pro-
pose to the United States Government that the limit of time fixed for

the prosecution of the appeals in regard to the seizures of British
202 sealing-vessels should be extended by consent for such a period

as may allow of the claims in question being settled by diplo-
matic negotiation without prejudice to the ultimate legal remedy by
appeal if such negotiation should not be successful. You should also
propose that the vessels and skins should be in the meanwhile at once
released on security.

The stipulation made by the American Court that the sureties should
be American citizens resident in the States is objected to by some
of the Canadian defendants, but this condition appears to me to be
reasonable.

Iam, We
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 131.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 30.)

WASHINGTON, April 19, 1888. °

My Lorp: Upon the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 17th
instant I addressed a note verbale to Mr. Bayard, copy of which is
inclosed, in order to ascertain whether the United States Government
would agree to a Commission to inquire into the claims of British seal-
ing-vessels seized and warned off by the United States authorities in
Behring’s Sea. I handed this note myself to Mr. Bayard, who read it,
and remarked that from what had passed in the Fisheries Conference
he had. been led to believe that these claims would be held over. He
would, however, answer my communication.

I have, &e.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 131.]
Note Verbale.

Her Majesty’s Government have just received the particulars of the claims for
compensation on account of British sealers seized and warned off by the United
States authorities in Behring’s Sea. A just assessment of these claims appears to
them difficult, without investigation and verification, and they therefore wish to
ascertain whether the United States Government would be disposed to agree to a
Commission which should be restricted to inquiring in each case whether compensa-
tion is due, and the amount of such compensation.

WASHINGTON, April 18, 1588.

*See No. 114.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 225

; No. 132.
Board of Trade to Foreign Office.—(Received May 5.)

BOARD OF TRADE, London, May 4, 1888.

Sir: I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 20th ultimo, in which you transmit copy of a
despatch addressed by the Marquis of Salisbury to Her Majesty’s
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh and Her Majesty’s Minister at Wash-
ington, recording a conversation which his Lordship has had with the
Russian Ambassador and the United States Chargé d’Affaires at this
Court on the subject of adopting measures with a view to check the
indiscriminate slaughter of seals in Behring’s Sea.

With reference to the concluding paragraph of your letter, I am to
request that you will state to Lord Salisbury that the Board of Trade
have no information to enable them to speak with confidence on the
subject, but that, so far as they are in a position to judge, they would
be disposed to regard favourably the proposals indicated by you as a
basis for negotiation, and which contemplate restrictions partly in
analogy with those already constituting a close time for the seal fishery
of the Greenland Sea, where, however, the valuable fur-seals for which
the Behring’s Sea is noted are not found.

At the same time, it may be supposed that the Western British
203 Colonies in North America would be interested in the matter,
and they might be prepared to criticize the proposals in question
for reasons with which this Department is not acquainted.
I have, &e.
(Signed) HENRY G. CALCRAFT.

No. 133.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 14.)

WASHINGTON, April 22, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 19th instant, I have
the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith a copy of a note verbale
which I have received in reply to the one which I addressed to Mr.
Bayard, copy of which was inclosed in that despatch, stating that, in
the cases of British vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, it is preferable to
await the judgment of the Appellate Court in the premises.
I have, &ce.
(Sigued) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 133.]

Note Verbale.

Responding to the note verbale of Sir L. West, dated the 18th instant, it is sug-
gested, on behalf of the United States, that, asthe cases of seizure of British sealing-
vessels in Behring’s Sea therein referred to are now in Court pending an appeal from
a judicial decision, it is preferable to await the judgment ef the Appellate Court in
the premises.

WASHINGTON, April 21, 1888,
BS, PT V 15

226 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 134.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 14.)

WASHINGTON, May 1, 1888.

My Lorp: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s telegram of the 29th ultimo, and to inclose to your Lordship
herewith a copy of a note which I addressed to the Secretary of State,
in the sense conveyed therein, on the subject of the cases of British
vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, upon which appeals are pending.

I have, We.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 134.]
Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, April 80, 1888.

Sir: With reference to pending legal proceedings in the cases of British vessels
seized by the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to inform
you that I am instructed by the Marquis of Salisbury to propose to the United
States Government that the time limited for the prosecution of the appeals in these
cases should, by consent, be extended for such a period as may permit of a settle-
ment of the claims in question by diplomatic negotiation, without prejudice to the
ultimate legal remedy by appeal, should such negotiation be unsuccessful, and that
the vessels and skins should be at once released on security.

It is understood, indeed, that permission has actually been given to the owners of
these vessels to bond them pending appeal, provided the sureties are citizens of the
United States and resident therein, and, under these circumstances, the proposal for
an extension of the time limited for such appeal is submitted in view of any diplo-
matic negotiations which may ensue, having for object the satisfactory adjustment
of all matters connected with these cases.

I have, &c.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

204 No. 135.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received May 14.)

DOWNING STREET, May 12, 1888.
Sir: LI am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you a copy of
the telegram which was addressed to the Governor-General of Canada
upon the question of the proposed close time for seals in Behring’s Sea,
together with a copy of the reply which has now been received from
the Governor-General, and which I am to request may be laid before
the Marquis of Salisbury.
lam, We.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 135.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

DOWNING STREET, May 9, 1888.
Behring’s Sea close time for seals. .
With reference to yonr telegram 25th April, would objections of your Government
he met if proposal to take 50th degree north latitude be reverted to instead of 47th?

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Beil
{Inclosure 2 in No. 135.—Telegraphic. }

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.

May 11, 1888.

I have received your cablegram of the 9th instant. The objections of the Canadian
Government would not be removed by the substitution of the 50th instead of the 47th
parallel. A Report on close time question is in course of preparation. My Govern-
ment hopes that no decision will be taken until you are in possession of it,

No. 136.

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 11.)
[Extract. |

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1888.

With reference to my despatch of the 1st instant, [ have the honour
to inform your Lordship that at Mr. Bayard’s request I called upon him,
and he then remarked to me, with reference to my note of the 30th
April, that he was not aware that there were any vessels or skins held
at the present moment.

With regard to extending the time limited for appeal, he said that
he had consulted with the Attorney-General, and that he had found
that it was not in the power of the Executive to intervene in the matter.
Having given me this explanation, he said he would reply to my note
in this sense.

P. S.—I subjoin copy of the reply to my note of the 30th April, which
I have just received.

[Inclosure in No. 136.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 28, 1888.

Srr: I have the honour to acknowledge your notes of the 30th ultimo and the 25th
instant, both relating to the appeals taken in the Judicial Courts in Alaska from
decrees in cases of British vessels seized by the United States Revenue officials in
Behring’s Sea, under charges of haying violated the laws of the United States regu-
lating the killing of fur-seals.

I must excuse myself for the delay in making reply to your note of the 30th April,
which was caused by my desire to obtain from you a verbal explanation of what
appeared to me an inadvertent expression contained therein, {rom which it appeared
that the ‘‘skippers” were held under arrest as well as the sealing-vessels.

In my personal interview with you to-day it became mutually understood

205 that there has been and is no such personal detentiou in any of the cases, but

the proceedings have all been in rem against the vessels so employed and their
outfits.

The suggestion of the Marquis of Salisbury that the time limited for prosecution
of the appeals (entered already or proposed to be entered) in the cases referred to, in
order to give an opportunity for a diplomatic settlement [sic], will meet with
favourable consideration within the limits of statutory provision in relation to the
docketing and prosecution of appeals.

While it is not within the power of the Executive Branch to alter or extend the
statutory limitation in respect of the time of entering such appeals, yet as far as
agreement of both parties may preyail in procuring postponements of the arguments
and pleadings, after the appeal has been duly taken, I apprehend that there will be
every disposition on the part of the prosecution to give time for diplomatic arrange-
ment. =

Accept, &e.
(Signed) T. F. BAYARD,

2 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 137.

Extract from Russian Memorandum regarding Hunting of Seals.—(Com-
municated by M.de Staal to the Marquis of Salisbury, July 25, 1888.)

Les endroits ot. se pratique la chasse aux otaries peuvent se diviser
en deux groupes distincts:

Nombre
des Otaries
tuées en
1885.
Le premier groupe comprendrait:
Wes tles'Pribyloff dans la. Merde Behring) o.c- ese ene ee ae ee eee eee 100, 000
Les Iles du Commandeur (les Iles de Behring et de Cuivre)...-...---.-.-..-----..---.- 45, 000
ite des Phoques (Mer Okhotsk) .<sescccc ose dec ecences ccs seseseesaseses ss teeseeeee 4, 000
149, 000
Le deuxiéme groupe:
lamer pres 'des.chtes.de Victorias -..---/. seme cca meneeenes eos h esse ese eee eee eee 20, 000
NGO DAS) He iain’ id ctwincs Jom wo Soe Seb eles Sear ene Bee ae Oe eee eee ee 15, 000
esilesiprés du: Cap Hom et'la Mer Polaire doisud ee) es -) ee ee ae eee 10, 0U0
ie\Cap) de bonne-Mspbrance... 5... 2s seers eee a = eee ete eee eee eee eee 5, 0U0
es Les Vaponaises: -.--.0 5-2 encc csesevinccese ss eens cee wencuoeccne soto sreeeeer eae 7, 000
57, 000

Dans le premier groupe le nombre des otaries tuées tous les ans est
de beaucoup plus important que dans le deuxiéme groupe. La chasse
s’y pratique sur des bases rationnelles, c’est-a-dire quw’on n’y tue que les
otaries qui répondent aux exigences du commerce: d’une certaine
taille et du sexe male et a ’époque de année ott la fourrure a le plus
de valeur commerciale. En outre, la chasse s’y régle de fagon que le
nombre des otaries qui fréquentent ces iles, loin de diminuer, augmente
tous les ans.

Dans le deuxiéme groupe, la chasse a lieu sans aucun systeme; on y
tue les otaries males et femelles de tout age sans tenir compte des
époques de Vannée. Ce mode d’extermiuation et le manque de lois
protectrices font craindre la disparition complete des otaries de ces
parages. Comme preuve on cite des endrvits appartenant a ce deu-
xieme groupe ou. jadis on trouvait des millions de ces phocacés et ot
maintenant on en tue a peine quelques milliers.

La période qui suivit expiration de la Concession accordée a la
Compagnie Russo-Américaine pour Vexploitation de la-chasse sur les
les Pribyloff et du Commandeur a clairement démontré tout le mal
qwune chasse libre pourrait faire au développement et a la multiplica-
tion des otaries. Apres expiration de cette Concession les iles devin-
rent la proie du premier venu et les chiffres qui suivent démontrent la
progression énorme qua subi le nombre des otaries exterminées pen-
dant ces deux années:

En 1867, le nombre des otaries tuées sur les Isles Pribyloff était de
40,000; en 1868, de 242,000; et en 1869, de 87,000.

Sur les Iles du Commandeur on avait tué l'année 1867, 4,000 otaries;
Vannée 1868, 12,000; année 1869, 21,000; et année 1870, 27,000.

Ce nest que Péloignement de ces iles des contrées habitées et le
nombre minime de la population locale qui a empéché la destrue-
tion compléte de ces phocacés.

Pour mettre fin & ces abus, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis
WVAmérigue concéda en 1870 a la Compaguie de Commerce d’Aliaska

9

a

06

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 229

le droit d’exploiter la chasse des otaries sur les Iles Pribyloff pendant
vingt ans.

La meme Compagnie, mais sous un autre nom, obtint une autorisa-
tion analogue du Gouvernement Russe pour la chasse des otaries sur
les isles du Commandeur et des Phoques, pour la méme péricde de
vingt ans, a partir du 18 Fevrier, 1871.

Ainsi, nous voyons qwun monopole privé a été concédé sur les iles
fréquentées par les otaries trois ans a peine apres l’expiration de celui
de la Compagnie Russo-Américaine.

Ce monopole a été reconnu nécessaire pour les deux Gouvernements a
la suite des conclusions des Commissions Russe et Américaine, insti-
tuées dans le but @étudier la question de la chasse aux otaries et le
moyen de préserver ces animaux dune destruction complete.

D’aprés le Contrat par le Gouvernement Russe, le nombre des otaries
que la Compagnie a le droit de tuer est réglé chaque année par les
autorités Russes locales. La chasse ne peut étre pratiqué que par les
indigenes, excepté sur Ile des Phoques, oti la Compagnie peut employer
ses propres chasseurs, Vile Wétant pas habitée.

En échange de chaque peau la Compagnie doit payer aux indigénes
un certain prix prévu par le Contrat. L’époque de la chasse est stricte-
ment limitée.

Ce qui fait le plus de tort au développement du nombre des otaries
est la chasse illicite qui se pratique tant en pleine mer que sur les Les
Japonaises et quelquefois sur ’Ile des Phoques aprés ie départ du bati-
ment de la Compagnie, ce qui arrive généralement vers la mi-Octobre.
D’apres les Rapports des Douanes Japonaises il a été importé au Japon,
pendant Vannée 1884, 3,400 peaux dotaries résultant de ce genre de
braconnage; ce qui ferait 50 pour cent sur toutes les fourrures d’otaries
exportées du Japon.

Jusqu’a 1862 il n’existait pas dans ce pays de loi prohibant la chasse
des otaries. En 1862 une Loi defendant cette chasse a été promulguée
sans effet, les iles nétant pas suffisamment gardécs contre Vinvasion
des braconniers.

En automne les otaries quittent la terre ferme et se dirigent au sud
des [les Aléoutes, ot: elles séjournent le reste de année en pleine mer,
C’est alors quwelles sont exposées aux attaques des navires armés en
chasse qui les détruisent par tous les moyens: arimes a feu, filets, har-
pons, &c., sans distinction entre les males et les femelles pleines. I]
n’y a qwun tiers seulement des animaux tués de la sorte qui est utilisé,
le reste se perd sans le moindre profit. C’est ace genre de procédé
qu’on attribue la disparition a peu prés complete des otaires sur les
cotes du Chili et de PAfrique Méridionale, ainsi que sur les Iles de
Falkland.

On a peur que le méme sort ne soit réservé aux iles dela Mer de Beh-
ring, & moins que des mesures efficaces ne soient adoptées a bref délai
pour protéger les otaries,

230 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{Translation.]

The places where fur-seal hunting takes place can be divided into
two distinct groups:

Number of

Fur-Seals
killed in
1885.
The first group would include:
ite aap wot lsland S)00S CHiN G6 | SOa ieee = see a= sean eel eee ae ener one ae eee 100, 000
The Commander Islands (Be hring and Copper Telands)-<-2e.-2-4-teseee-e sees eee 45, 000
The Seal Islands (Sea of Okhotsk)): 3. 22S cnc edaemomcsnw ene mcsece cee: mcsedessaee oe = | 4, 000
149, 000
The second group:
Theiseaadjoiing the (coasts! of Vactoriarsecce--ece eres see see eee eases as eee 20, 000
LObDAS «.322 0-22 s0( oes Soe dee aslo Boe Sane n esse oe cle perc nee snisin ciate a Seo see aieiae a eee ee Me ereee 15, O00
The islands near Cape Horn and the South Polar Sea..--.-----.. 2. -..--.------- cannes 10, 000
Lhe Cape.of 'Goodsbope: os... cece seas aes ssa see an ae eae ee ee See eee ae eee eee 5, 000
The Japanese [slands+62-o te ac coe ce ocetaisiseigeis coecctne cae tse CCee eter omen Coreen Caner 7, 000
57, 000
207 In the first group the number of fur-seals killed annually is

much larger than in the second group.

Hunting is conducted on rational bases, 7. e., that only such fur-seals
are killed as are useful for commercial pur poses, 8 seals of a certain size,
of the male sex, and at a time of year when the fur has the most com-
mercial value. In addition, the hunting is regulated in such a way that
the number of fur-seals w hich frequent the islands, far from diminish-
ing, increases every year.

In the second group hunting is carried on under no system. Male
and female fur-seals of every age are killed, without regard to the season
of the year. In consequence of this destructive method, and the
absence of protective laws, the complete disappearance of the fur-seals
from these shores is to be apprehended. As a proof, it is stated that
millions of fur-seals were found formerly in places in the second group
where but a few thousands are killed now.

The period which followed the expiration of the Concession accorded
to the Russo-American Company for hunting on the Pribyloff and Com-
mander Islands clearly showed the injurious effect of unrestricted hunt-
ing on the development and multiplication of fur-seals. After the
expiration of this Concession the islands became a prey to the first
comer, and the following figures show the enormous increase in the
number of fur-seals exter minated during these two years:

In 1867 the number of fur-seals killed on the Pribyloff Islands was
40,000; in 1868, 242,000; and in 1869, 87,000. ;

On the Commander Islands 4,000 fur-seals were killed in 1867 ; 12,000
in 1868; 21,000 in 1869; and 27 000 i in 1870.

The complete extermination of the seal species was only prevented
by the distance of these islands from inhabited countries, and the
limited numbers of the local population.

To put an end to these abuses the United States Government con-
ceded, in 1870, to the Commercial Company of Alaska the right to fur-
seal hunting on the Pribyloff Islands for twenty years.

The same Company, under a different name, obtained a similar author-
ization from the Russian Government to hunt fur-seals on the Com-
mander and Seal Islands for the same period of twenty years from the
18th February, 1871.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ry |

It is thus seen that a private monopoly was conceded on the islands
frequented by the fur-seals hardly three years after the expiration of
that of the Russo-American Company.

This monopoly was recognized to be necessary by the two Govern-
ments in consequence of the conclusions of the Russian and American
Commissions which were appointed for the purpose of examining the
question of fur-seal hunting and the means of preserving these animals
from complete destruction.

According to the terms of the Russian Contract, the number of seals
which the Company has the right of killing is regulated every year by
the local Russian authorities. Hunting can only be carried on by the
inhabitants, except on Seal Island, where the Company can employ its
own huniers, the island being uninhabited.

In exchange for each skin the Company must pay the natives a cer-
tain price as provided for in the Contract. The season of hunting is
strictly limited.

What most hinders the increase of the fur-seals is the illicit hunting
which takes place in the open sea, as well as on the Japanese Islands
and sometimes on Seal Island after the departure of the Company’s
ship, which takes place generally about the middle of October. Accord-
ing to the Japanese Customs Reports, 3,400 fur-seal skins, which rep-
resent the produce of this kind of poaching, were imported into Japan
in 1884, which amounts to 50 per cent. of all the seal-furs exported from
- Japan.

Till 1862 there was no law in this country prohibiting fur-seal hunt-
ing. In 1862 a Law was passed forbidding it, but without effect, as the
islands were not sufficiently defended against the inroads of poachers.

In the autumn the fur-seals leave the land and make for the south of
the Aleutian Islands, where they stay for the rest of the year in the
open sea. It is then that they are exposed to the attacks of ships
equipped for the hunt which destroy them by every means, fire-arms,
nets, harpoons, &c., without distinguishing males from females with
young. Only a third of the animals killed in this way are utilized; the
rest are lost without any profit. It is to these proceedings that the
almost complete disappearance of fur-seals from the coasts of Chile and
South Africa, as well as from the Falkland Islands, is to be attributed.

It is to be feared that the same fate is reserved for the islands of the
Behring’s Sea unless efficacious measures are ehoculy aclopted to pro-
tect the fur-seals.

208 No. 138.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received July 26.)

DOWNING STREET, July 25, 1888.

_ Sir: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seiz-
ure of British sealing-vessels in the Behring’s Sea, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
with its inclosures, relating to the circumstances in which the schooner
‘“W. P. Sayward” was released under bond at Sitka.
lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

232 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 138.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CASCAPEDIA RIVER, New Richmond, June 25, 1888.

My Lorb: With reference to previous correspondence upon the subject, I have the
honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy
Council of Canada submitting a copy of a letter from the attorney of Captain J. D.
Warren with reference to the circumstances under which the seized sealing-schooner
“W. P. Sayward” was released under bond at Sitka.

I have, &c. (Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 138.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Haccllency
the Governor-General in Council on the 27st June, 1888.

On a Memorandum dated the 9th June, 1888, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting the accompanying letter from the attorney of Mr. J. D. Warren
with reference to the circumstances under which thé seized sealing-schooner ‘ W. P.
Sayward” was released under bond at Sitka, and recommending that the same be
forwarded to the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for the information
of Her Majesty’s Government.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy hereof to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 138.]
Mr. Belyea to Mr. Tilton.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, May 23, 1888.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of a letter from Captain J. D. Warren, of Victoria,
British Columbia, under date the 15th instant, in which he informs me of the cir-
cumstances under which the seized sealing-schooner ‘‘W. P. Sayward” was released
under bond. He had gone to Sitka to secure, if possible, the release of all the
schooners seized in 1887, viz.: the ‘‘ Grace,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ Anna Beck,” ‘‘W. P. Say-
ward,” and ‘‘Ada.” ‘The bond on release was conditioned on prosecuting an appeal
from the Alaska District Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. The
formal motion thus became one ‘for leave to perfect an appeal,” and such motion
for each of the vessels was made on the 14th April last before Judge Dawson at Sitka,
and in every case refused, on the grounds that the time for allowing an appeal had
expired. Captain Warren’s counsel then applied for a record of the order refusing
leave to appeal. This was on Saturday.

On Monday following, the 16th April, without any application therefor by the
defendant or any one on his behalf, Judge Dawson offered to rescind the order of

Saturday in the case of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” and release her to her owners.
209 She was then lying at Puget’s Sound, under an order for sale on that day, the

offer was accepted (contra ary, as Capt ain Warren says, to the expectations of
the United States authorities at Sitka), and the order of the previous Saturday 4
rescinded and leave granted to appeal.

I am not informed as to the amount of the bond.

The United States Marshal at Sitka has been ordered to take remaining schooners,
viz., the ‘‘ Grace,” “Dolphin,” ‘Anna Beck,” and ‘‘Ada,” to Puget’s Sound for imme-
diate sale.

The schooners ‘‘' Thornton,” ‘‘ Onward,” and ‘‘Carolena,” seized in 1886 and left at
Ounalaska, have been, as you are aware, offered to the owners as they now are. All
three are high up on the beach and practically worthless. The United States
anthorities sold everything in and on these vessels that would bring a dollar, and
then attempted to contract the taking of the hulls to San Francisco to be there sold.

Finding this would cost more than the damaged hulls would sell for, they otfered
to give the vessels up to their owners, and had an order to that effect issued.

Captain Warren says it is out of the question to go to Ounalaska for these vessels.

I may add that the ‘‘ Sayward” is now in possession of her owners.

Very faithfully, &e.
(Signed) A. L. BELYEa,
Attorney for J. D. Warren.

.PPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 233

No. 139.
Mr. Phelps to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 30.)

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, July 28, 1888.

My Lorp: I beg to recall your Lordship’s attention to the subject
of the proposed Convention between the Governments of the United
States, Great Britain, and Russia for the protection of the seal fisheries
in Behring’s Sea. <A considerable time has now elapsed since the last
conversation I had the honour to have with your Lordship in regard to
it, when it was musally, believed that an early agreement might be
arrived at.

I am sure your Lordship will concur with me in conceiving it to be
for the interest of all parties that a conclusion should be reached as
soon as possible. And my Government instructs me respectfully to
urge upon Her Majesty’s Government the propriety, under existing

ircumstances, of immediate action.

I understand the Russian Government to be prepared to concur in
the proposed Convention as soon as the other Governments concerned
are ready to assent to it.

I have, &e.
(Signed) E. J. PHELPS.

No. 140.
Colonial Office to Forcign Office.—( Received August 1.)

DOWNING STREET, August 1, 1888.

Srr: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a telegram received from the Governor-
General of Canada respecting the proposed sale by the United States
authorities of the sealing-vessels “Anna Beck,” “ Dolphin,” “Grace,”
and “Ada,” seized last year in Behring’s Sea.

Lord Salisbury will observe that the Government of Canada urge
that the United States Government may be requested by Her M ajesty’s
Government to postpone the sale of the condemned vessels pending the
settlement of the question as to the legality of their seizure.

Lord Knutsford trusts that Lord Salisbury will, as soon as practica-
ble, make such communication as may be proper to the United States
Government with a view to give effect to the wishes of the Dominion
Government.

It will be seen that the matter is urgent.

Jam, We.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

210 {Inclosure in No. 140.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

JULY 380, 1888.

The sealing-schooners “ Anna Beck,” ‘‘Dolphin,” “Grace,” and ‘“ Ada,” which
were seized in 1887 in the Behring’s s Sea, are now being removed to Port Tow nsend,
Puget Sound, from Sitka, in order to be sold by the United States Marshal of Alaska.

234 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Judge of the District Court of Alaska has declined to permit the owners to bond
the vessels, giving as a reason that their application is too late. My Ministers reecom-
mend that the Imperial Government be moved to ask for the interposition of the
United States Government for a postponement of the sale of the condemned vessels
pending the settlement of the question concerning the legality of their seizure.
Pray obtain this if possible. On account of time the question is urgent.

No. 141.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. ,West.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2, 1888.

sir: The Governor-General of Canada has informed the Secretary
of State for the Colonies, by telegraph, that the sealing-vessels ‘“‘ Anna
Beck,” *“ Dolphin,” “ Grace,” and ‘ Ada,” which were seized last year
in Behring’s Sea by the United States authorities, are now being taken
to Port Townsend for sale by the United States Marshal of Alaska,
and that the Judge of the Alaska District Court has refused to allow
the owners to bond their ve essels, giving as his reason that the applica-
tion for permission to do so was made too late.

I have to request you to ask the United States Government to post-
pone the sale of these vessels until the question as to the legality of
their seizure has been settled.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 142.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Phelps.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2, 1888.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of
the 28th ultimo, calling attention to the question of the proposed Con-
vention between this country, the United States, and Russia for the
protection of the seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, and I beg leave to say
that I hope shortly to be able to address to you a further communica-
tion on the subject.

I have, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 143.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2, 1888.

Str: Referring to your letter of the 15th June last, inclosing copies
of a telegraphic correspondence with the Governor-General of Canada
in regard to the question of the proposed International Convention for
the protection of the fur-bearing seals in Behring’s Sea, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit herewith a copy of a letter

.’

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 235

from Mr. Phelps,* in which, by direction of his Government, he urges
the propriety of reaching a conclusion on the subject.

I am to request that, in laying this letter before Secretary Lord
Knutsford, you will move him to give as early a consideration as pos-
sible to Mr. Phelps’ communication.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

211 No. 144.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, Auqust 3, 1888.

Sir: I laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the 1st
instant, inclosing a telegram from the Governor-General of Canada
reporting the intention of the United States authorities to sell the
sealing-vessels “Anna Beck,” “Dolphin,” “Grace,” and “ Ada,” seized
last year in Behring’s Sea.

IT am directed by his Lordship to state that, in accordance with Lord
Knutsford’s desire, Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington was instructed
by telegraph on the 2nd instant to ask the United States Government
to postpone the sale of these vessels pending a settlement of the ques-
tion as to the legality of the seizure.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 145,
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 10.)

DOWNING STREET, August 10, 1888.

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 2nd instant, forwarding a note from
the American Minister at this Court urging the early consideration of
the question of establishing a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea, [am
directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of
the Marquis of Salisbury, copy of telegraphic correspondence with the
Governor-General of Canada on the subject.

The Report referred to in the telegram from Lord Stanley of Preston
will probably be received on the 14th instant, and will be communicated
to you without delay.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 145.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, August 8, 1888.

United States Government pressing for early reply question of close time Behring’s
Sea. When may Report be expected from your Ministers?

% *No. 139.

236 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 2 in No, 145.—Telegraphice. ]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

AUGUST 9, 1888.
I sent last Monday Report asked for in your Lordship’s telegram 8th August.

No. 146.
Colonial Office to Foreign Ofjice.—( Received August 10.)

DOWNING STREET, August 10, 1888.
Sir: With reference to your letter of the 3rd instant, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Mar-
quis of Salisbury, copies of further telegraphic correspondence with
the Governor-General of Canada respecting the sale of the vessels
seized in Behring’s Sea last year, and now lying at Port Townsend.
lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

212 [Inclosure 1 in No. 146.—Telegraphice. ]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

Auausrt 4, 1888.

With reference to my telegram of the 30th July, I am informed by the Minister of
Fisheries that the schooners ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ Grace,” “Ada,” and ‘‘Anna Beck” will be
sold at Port Townsend, in Washington Territory, on the 22nd August.

Immediate intervention of Home Government, as previously asked for, is earnestly
requested.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 146.—Telegraphie.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, August 7, 1888.

Ihave received your telegram of 4th August. Instructions sent 2nd August to
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington to ask United States Government that, pend-
ing settlement of question of legality of seizure, sale of vessels might be postponed.

No. 147.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received August 18.)

DOWNING STREET, August 18, 1888,

Str: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 10th
instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
beforethe Marquisof Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-
General of Canada, forwarding a Minute of his Privy Council on the
subject of the proposal of the United States Government for the estab-
lishment of a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea.

In view of the explanations of the Dominion Government, which state
very clearly the strong objections to the proposed close season, it appears
to Lord Knutsford that it will be necessary for the United States Gov-
ernment to make some modified proposal if the negotiations are to have
any useful result.

lam, &e. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Zal

[Inclosure 1 in No. 147.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 3, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 8th March last, trans-
mitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, with a note from the American
Minister in London, submitting a proposal “for regulating the seal fishing in Behrins’s
Sea, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Pri ivy
Council concurring in a Report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheries protesting
against this pr oposal.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2in No. 147.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 14th July, 1888.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch,

dated the 8th March, 1888, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the

Culonies, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, with a note

213 +=from the United States Minister in London, submitting a proposal from Mr.

Secretary Bayard for the establishment of a close season for the seal fishing in

and near Behring’s Sea, to extend from the 15th April to the Ist November of each

year, and to be operative in the waters lying north of latitude 50° north and between

longitude 160° west and 170° east from Greenwich, in which despatch Lord Knuts-

tord asks to be favoured with any observations which the Canadian Government may
have to offer on the subject.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the said despatch and inclosures
were referred, submits a Report thereon, dated the 7th July, 1888, protesting against
Mr. Bayvard’s proposal as an unjust and unnecessary interference with, or rather
prohibition of, rights so long enjoyed to a lawful and remunerative occupation upon
the high seas.

The Committee concur in the said Report, and advise that a copy thereof, and of
this Minute, if approved, be transmitted by your Excellency to the Right Honourable
the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 147.]
Minute.

DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES, CANADA,
Ottawa, July 7, 1888,

The Undersigned has the honour to submit, for the consideration of the Governor-
General in Council, the following observations in reply to a despatch from Lord
Knutsford to Lord Lansdowne, dated the 8th Mare h, 1888, and inclosing a proposal
from Mr. Secretary Bayard for ‘the establishment of a close’ season for the seal fishing
in and near Behring’s Sea, to extend from the 15th April to the Ist November of each
year, and to be operative i in the waters lying north of latitude 50° north and between
longitude 160° west and longitude 170° east from Greenwich.

Before entering upon the discussion of this proposition, the Minister desires to call
attention to a sentence in a letter from Lord Salisbury to Sir L. S. West, dated the
22nd February, 1888, and forming a part of the above-mentioned despatch, in which
Lord Salisbury says:

“The United States Minister called to-day at the Foreign Office and spoke to me
about the question of the fur seals in Behring’s Sea. He said that the difficulties in
regard to the seal fisheries in that sea were “mainly connected with the question of
the close time, and that no attempt had bee gnade by the authorities of the United
States to stop ‘the fishing there of any vesselg ut the time when it was legitimate.”

This clearly implies that Lord Salisbury had been led by the United “States Min-
ister to believe that there is a fixed close and open season for the killing of seals in
Behring’s Sea which is common to all vessels of all nationalities, and that during the
open season these may legitimately and without molestation pursue the business of
catching seals.

The facts of the case appear to be that within the limits of the Territory of Alaska,
which by the United States contention iucludes the waters of Behring’s Sea as fax

238 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

westward asa line drawn from a point in Behring’s Straits south-west to the meridian
of longitude 173° west, the killing of fur-bearing animals, amongst which the seal
is included, is prohibited by law; that repeated warnings to this effect have been
given by the United States authorities, and that vessels both of Canada and the
United States have within the past two years been seized and condemned for killing
seals within these waters. It also appears that in the Islands of St. George and St.
Paul, during the months of June, July, September, and October of each year, the
United States Government allows the slaughter of seals to the number of 100,000 by
certain citizens of that country known as the Alaska Commercial Company, for which
monopoly the United States Government is paid a yearly revenue of more than 300,000
dollars.

At no season of the year, and to no other persons whatever, is it permitted to kill
a single seal within what is claimed as the limits of the Territory of Alaska. It is
evident, therefore, that there is no part of the year when citizens of any country, with
the sole exception of the Alaska Commercial Company, can legitimately kill seals
within the limits named; and when Mr. Phelps stated to Lord Salisbury that ‘no

attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States to stop the
214 ~~ fishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate,” his statement

should be read in conjunction with the fact that there is no period of the year
when it is legitimate for any vessels to fish for seals in the waters of Alaska.

The proposal to fix a close time is based by Mr. Bayard upon the alleged necessity
of immediate measures to prevent the destruction of the seal fishery in Behring’s
Sea and the North Pacific Ocean.

It is not clear from any information at present possessed that any pressing and
absolute necessity exists for any such measures, so far as shown by the present con-
dition of that fishery in the North Pacific.

From a Report made by the Special United States Treasury Agent in Alaska, *
dated the 31st July, 1887, it appears:

1. That none but young male seals are allowed to be killed on the Pribyloff Islands,
and of these only 100,000 annually.

2. That a careful measurement of the breeding rookeries on St. Paul and St. George
Islands showed 6,357,750 seals, exclusive of young males.

3. That 90 per cent. of the pups bred by these go into the water, leaving a mor-
tality of but 10 per cent. at the place of breeding.

4, That fully one-half of the above 90 per cent. of pups returned the following
year as yearlings to the rookeries, leaving thus a total mortality of 45 per cent. from
various causes at sea.

It needs but a slight consideration of these figures to demonstrate that an addi-
tion of millions each year must be made to the surviving seal life in the North Pacific
Ocean.

The Agent in his Report says: ‘‘This vast number of animals, so valuable to the
Government, are still on the increase. The condition of all the rookeries could not
be better.”

Against the enormous yearly increase of seal life may be placed the average annual
slaughter as given in the Memorandum attached to Mr. Bayard’s letter, viz., 192,457
for the whole world, or for the seals near to Behring’s sea as follows:

12 retl Dy lita Wes ec (oi er RE est eres En Se SS SpSeaS 94, 967
Commanderisiands and RobbincsReets.--e5 "+. sees sae ee eee eee Eee eee 41, 893
apamewslamad gh Joie lice sals BE I. ee ed Sse PES ga ae ne fea ba pee ets 4, 000
INGrth-=west coastotA merica 4s. 2s. S0Us Cys Dei e eee cee eee te 25, 000

Oxriaxbotal tom. soy. 222, DEI BRR AO ae ee 165, 860

With an annual clear increase of millions, and an annual slaughter of less than
200,000 in the North Pacific Ocean, it surely cannot be contended that there is any
necessity for such stringent and exclusive measures as the one proposed in order to
preserve the seal fishery from threatened destruction. Not only would it appear that
the present rate of catch could be permitted, and a continual increase of the total
number of seals be assured, but it would seem that this annual take might be many
times multiplied without serious fears of exhaustion so long as the present conditions
of breeding on the Pribyloff Islands are preserved.

The time proposed as close months deserves consideration, viz., from the 15th
April to the 1st November. For all practical purposes, so far as Canadian sealers
are concerned, it might as well read from the Ist January to the 3lst December.

It is a well-known fact that seals do not begin to enter the Behring’s Sea until the
middle or end of May; they have practically all left those waters by the end of
October. The establishment of the proposed close season, therefore, prohibits the
taking of seals during the whole year. Even in that case, if it were proposed to
make this close season operative for all on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George as

———e —— at =

* Executive Document No. 31, 50th Congress, 1st Session.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 239

well as in the waters of the Behring’s Sea, it could at least be said that the close
time would bear equally on all.

But the United States Government propose to allow seals to be killed by their own
citizens on the rookeries, the only places where they haul out in Alaska, during June,
July, September, and October, tour of the months of the proposed close season. The
result would be that while all others would be prevented from killing a seal in
Behring’s Sea, the United States would possess a complete monopoly, and the effect
would be to render infinitely more valuable and maintain in perpetuity the seal
fisheries of the North Pacific for the sole benefit of the United States.

It is to be noted that the area proposed by Mr. Bayard to be affected by the

215 close season virtually covers the whole portion of the Behring’s Sea in which
the exclusive right of sealing has, during 1886 and 1887, been practically main-
tained by the United States’ Government. ‘To this is added a part of the North
Pacific Ocean, north 50° of north latitude, and which commands the approach of the
seals to the passes leading into Behring’s Sea. By the adoption of this area and
close season the United States would gain, by consent, what she has for two years
held in defiance of international law and the protests of Great Britain and Canada.

And while this area would be held closed to all operations except to those of her
own sealers on the Pribyloff Islands, the north-west coast of North America up to
the 50th parallel of north latitude and the sealing areas on the north-eastern coast
of Asia would be open to her as before.

The device, if successful, would feed and perpetuate the rookeries on St. Paul and
St. George Islands, and add immensely to their value, while it cuts off at one blow
the most valuable portion of the high seas from all participation by the sealers of all
other nations.

It is to be borne in mind that Canada’s interest in this industry is a vital and
important one, that she has had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it,
and that while by the proposed plan the other Powers chiefly interested have their
compensations, Canada has none. To her it would mean ruin so far as the sealing
industry is concerned.

Mr. Bayard appeals to the Government of Great Britain on the grounds of the
labour interested in preparing the seal-skins in London. It is not necessary that
the Alaska Commercial Company should do the sole catching of seals in order to
retain this advantage to London labourers. Thesealskins taken by Canadian sealers
find their way to London to be dressed, just as surely as do those taken by the United
States Company. So long as the fishery is not exhausted, London will, other things
being equal, retain the advantage she now possesses in this respect. But Mr. Bayard
must misapprehend the sense of justice of Her Majesty’s Government if he supposes
that they would consent to an unjust deprivation of Canadian rights, because of the
alleged prospect of perpetuating some small pecuniary advantage to a limited section
of her subjects in London. Under this proposal Russia would lose nothing. Her
vessels do not now pursue seals in that part of Behring’s Sea ceded by her to the
United States in 1867. Russia has valuable seal islands of her own: the Commander
Islands in Behring’s Sea, and Robben Reef in the Okhotsk Sea, on which there are
valuable rookeries, and the Russian Government draws a considerable revenue there-
from, as they are under lease to this same Alaska Commercial Company. This part
of Behring’s Sea does not fall within the proposed closed area,

It has been already shown that the United States would gain largely by the
establishment of this close period. From her rookeries on the Pribyloft Islands she
draws now a yearly revenue of over 300,000 dollars. This would not only not be inter-
fered with, but would be enormously increased by reason of the perpetual monopoly
she would enjoy under the proposed arrangement. But while this is true as to Rus-
sia and the United States, Canada would lose the enjoyment of a lucrative right
long possessed, and this loss would be fatal to her prosecution of the seal industry 5
and would be unrelieved by a single compensation.

It is manifest, from a perusal of Mr. Bayard’s letter, that the proposition is to
prevent the killing of seals during the close time by any process whatever within
the area set apart, except, of course, upon the Pribyloff Islands.

Experienced sealers aver that by the present methods of hunting with gun and
spear not more than one in ten of the seals struck is lost, and it is not believed that
these methods are so destructive as Mr. Bayard alleges.

The method of taking seals by means of the net is not a destructive method, and
yet it is proposed to pr ohibit this aswell. It appears, therefore, that what Mr. Bayard
intends is to entirely prevent the killing of seals within the area proposed by any
methods or by any persons except by the methods employed upon the Pribylotf
Islands and by the citizens of the United States, who may, for the time being, enjoy
the monopoly of taking seals thereon. Against this unjust and unnecessary inter-
ference with, or rather prohibition of, rights so long enjoyed to a lawful and
remunerative occupation upon the high seas, the Undersigned begs to enter his most
earnest protest.

(Signed) GEO. E. FOSTER,
Acting Minister ef Marine and Fisheries.

240 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
216 No. 148.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 20.)

DOWNING STREET, August 18, 1888.

Srr: With reference to the letter form this Department of the 10th
instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be
laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of two despatches from the
Governor-General of Canada respecting the proposed sale at Port
Townshend of four of the British sealing-vessels captured last year in
Behring’s Sea.

Lord Knutsford hopes that the Minute of the Canadian Government,
inclosed in Lord Stanley of Preston’s despatch of the 26th July, will
receive Lord Salisbury’s attentive consideration.

I am at the same time to request that Her Majesty’s Minister .at
Washington may be desired to report when the appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of the ‘““W. P. Sayward” is
likely to come on, and to report generally on the progress of the case.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,

{Inclosure 1 in No. 148.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, July 26, 1888.
My Lorn. With reference to previous correspondence relative to the pending pro-
ceedings in the case of the Canadian sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, I have
the honour to forward to your Lordship an extract of an approved Minute of the
Privy Council, based upon Sir Ls West’s despatch of the 19th March,* a copy of
which, together with other correspondence, noted in the margin, is inclosed here-
with.
I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,

[Inclosure 2 in No. 148.]

Extract from a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by
His Hucellency the Governor-General in Council, on July 7, 1888.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch
dated the 19th March, 1888, from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, relative to
pending proceedings in the cases of Canadian sealers seized in Behring’s Sea.

The Sub-Committee of Council to whom the question was referred report as follows:

In the despatch of the 19th March, 1888, Sir Lionel Sackville West states that the
Attorney-General of the United States had intimated that Rule 10 of the practice in
Admiralty and Rules of the Supreme Court (1887) make it plain that the confiscated
sealing-ships seized in Behring’s Sea can be bonded pending appeal; and Sir Lionel
Sackville West further states that, as to the question whether such vessels can be
bonded without obligation to appeal, he is advised that, since it was agreed in the
Conference that the question of damages should be reserved, any such request would
open up the whole question of damages on each side.

The Sub-Committee observe that the obligation sought to be imposed upon the
owners of the Canadian vessels seized in Behring’s Sea of appealing from the decision
of the Magistrate of Sitka to the Supreme Court of the United States, is obviously
one which cannot with justice or propriety be enforced. Some doubt exists as to the
right of appeal, and if it be held that no appeal will lie, the bonds will be forfeited.

* See No. 110,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 241

Apart from this risk, however, which the owners of the vessels are asked to take
upon themselves, it appears that the giving of bonds of such a nature would involve
the admission that the Courts of the \'nited States had jurisdiction in regard to the

seizures, and that the laws of the United States applied to the cases of these
217.—-vessels, such propositions could by no means be admitted. The vessels had
not entered within the waters over which the laws of the United States extend,
and over which the Executive or Judiciary of that country have any authority.

The vessels in question were molested in a lawful occupation on the high seas, and
were seized by vessels in the service of the United States but possessing no right
whatever to molest the people of Canada or their property on the ocean.

Similar outrages have been committed in the preceding year, and the vessels seized
then were ordered to be surrendered by the United States authorities. In the pres-
ent cases, therefore, the repetition of such acts of violence was a proceeding for which
the owners of the vessels have a right to expect that Her Majesty’s Government will
demand and exact redress.

They should not be asked to seek that redress in the Courts of any foreign coun-
try whatever, and the Courts of the United States have no more cognizance of their
complaint than the Courts of any other foreign country.

The Committee, concurring in the above Report, advise that yvour Excellency be
moved to transmit a copy of this Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, and also to the British Minister at Washineton.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JouNn J. McGer,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada,

{Inclosure 3 in No. 148.]
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Lansdowne, March 19, 1888,

(See Inclosure 2 in No. 110.)

[Inclosure 4 in No. 148.]
Afr. Foster to Sir L. West, March 6, 1888,

(See Inclosure 1 in No. 110.)

{Inclosure 5 in No. 148.—Extract.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir L. West.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, March 23, 1888.

I have the honour to inclose herewith, for your information, copy of a despatch
which [have addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies* upon the subject of
the Canadian sealing- vessels seized by the United States cruizers in the Behring’s Sea.

Should you be able to obtain any information in regard to the action likely to be
taken during the present year by cruizers of the United States in the Behring’s Sea
agninst vessels frequenting those waters, I shall be much obliged if you will put me
in possession of it.

{Inclosure 6 in No. 148.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Sir L. West.

THe Cascaprepia, New Richmond, July 21, 1888.

Str: With reference to your despatch of the 19th March, inclosing a copy of a tele-
gram which you had received from my Minister of Marine and Tl isheries relative to
the pending proceedings in the cases of Canadian sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s
Sea, andin reply thereto, setting forth the opinion of the Attorney-General that Rule

*See Inclosure in No. 114.

242 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

X of the practice in Admiralty and Rules of the Supreme Court (1887) make it plain
that confiscated ships ean be bonded pending appeal, I have the honour to
218 forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Conneil coneur-
ring in a report of the Sub-Committee to whom the question was referred.
I have communicated a copy of the inclosed Minute of Council to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies.
Ihave, &c. ; ;
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 7 in No. 148.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 4, 7888.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 30th ultimo requesting that the
Imperial authorities may urge the United States Government to take steps for post-
poning the sale of the sealing schooners ‘Anna Beck,” ‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ Grace,” and
“ Ada,” which were seized last year in Behring’s Sea, pending the settlement of the
question concerning the legality of their seizure, [have the honour to forward here-
with a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, upon which my telegram
was founded.

IT have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,

{Inclosure 8 in No. 148.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on July 30, 1888.

The Committee have had under consideration a telegram dated the 20th July, 1888,
from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia with respect to the bonding of
the sealing-schooners ‘‘ Anna Beck,” ‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘Grace,” and ‘‘ Ada,” seized in
Behring’s Sea in 1887.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the said telegram was referred,
recommends that the Imperial Government be moved to request the interposition of
the United States Government to have the sale of the condemned vessels postponed
pending the settlement of the question as to the legality of their seizure.

The Committee submit the above for your Excellency’s approval, and advise that
your Excellency be moved to communicate by cable to the Colonial Secretary the
request of the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, and to urge upon Her
Majesty’s Government the necessity for immediate communication with the United
States Government with a view to save from further and disastrous loss the owners
of the condemned vessels.

. All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excelleney’s approval.
(Signed) JoHN J. McGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 148.—Telegraphic.]
Lieutenant-Governor Nelson to the Hon, C. H. Tupper.

Vicroria, BririsH CoLuMBIA, July 20, 1888.

The following sealing schooners, seized in Behring’s Sea in 1887, “Anna Beck,”
** Dolphin,” ‘‘ Grace,” and “Ada,” are now being taken from Sitka to Port Townsend,
Puget Sound, to be sold by United States.Marshal of Alaska. Judge of District
Court of Alaska has refused bonding to owners, giving as reason application too late.
Under present circumstances, owners willing and anxious to bond vessels for appraised
yalues:

“Anna Beck,” 2,600 dollars; ‘‘ Dolphin,” 7,750 dollars; “Grace,” 10,404 dollars;
“Ada,” 2,900 dollars; or, pending settlement of question, have sale postponed. Will
Dominion Government take necessary steps to secure if possible from United States
Government that this arrangement shall be acceded to?

ant o'

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 243
219 No. 149.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received August 27.)

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSET'I'S), August 6, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd
instant, | have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which I
addressed to the Secretary of State, asking that the sale of the four
British vessels seized last year in Behring’s Sea may be postponed
pending the settlement of the question of the legality of the seizure.
I have, we.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No. 149.]
oir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSETTS), August 6, 1888.

Srr: I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government have received
intelligence to the effect that the four British ships seized last year in Behring’s Sea
are being taken to Port Townsend for sale by the United States authorities. It
would seem that this action has been taken in consequence of the Judge of the Dis-
trict Court of Alaska having refused to bond the owners upon the eround that their
application was too late.

The Marquis of Salisbury has now requested mine to ask the United States Govern-
ment to postpone the sale of the said vessels pending the settlement of the question
of the legality of the seizure.

I have, &c. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 150.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 31.)

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSETTS), August 16, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd
August, [ have the honour to inelose to your Lordship herewith copy of a
note which I have received from the Secretary of State, stating that, in
pursuance of your Lordship’s request conveyed through me, the Acting
Attorney-General has directed by telegram and letter the postpone-
ment of the sale of the vessels in question, and has also instructed the
United States Marshal in charge to receive bonds in lieu of the vessels.
IT communicated the substance of this note to your Lordship this day
by telegraph, and have informed the Governor-General of Canada to

the same effect.
I have, We. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

{Inclosure in No, 150.]

Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 13, 1888.

Sir: With further reference to your note of the 6th instant, conveying the request
of the Marquis of Salisbury for a postponement of the sale of four British vessels
seized in Behring’s Sea last year, I have now the honour to state that I have just
received a letter from the Acting Attorney-General, informing me that, in pursnance
of the request so made, he had directed by telegram and letter the nostponement of
the sale of the vessels in question, and has also instructed the United States Mar-
shal in charge to receive bonds in lieu of the vessels.

Accept, &c. (Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

244 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
220 INO. ple
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 1, 1888.
Sir: With reference to your despatch of the 16th ultimo, I transmit
herewith a copy of a letter from the Colonial Oftice,* inclosing copies
of two despatches from Lord Stanley of Preston to the Secretary of
State for the Colonies relative to the proposed sale of four of the British
vessels seized when engaged in seal-fishing last year in Behring’s Sea.
Before taking any further action with regard to these seizures by the
American authorities, [ request that you will inform me when the
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the
“W, P. Sayward” is likely to come on, and to report generally on the

progress of the case.
Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 152.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 1, 1888.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
18th ultimo inclosing conies of two despatches from the Governor-Gen-
eral of Canada on the subject of the legal proceedings pending before
the United States Courts with regard to the British vessels seized by
the American authorities when engaged in seal-fishing in Behring’s Sea,
and the claims for damages raised by the owners of the vessels.

I am to request that you will state to Secretary Lord Knutsford, in
reply, that before taking any action on the Minute of the Canadian
Government inclosed with Lord Stanley’s despatch of the 26th July,
1885, Lord Salisbury has instructed Her Majesty’s Minister at Wash-
ington to state when the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of the “W. P. Sayward” is likely to come on, and to
report generally on the progress of the case.

Tam, Sc.
(Signed) P. CURRIE

No. 153.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 3, 1888.
Str: With reference to my despatch of the 16th April last, relative
to the proposals received from the Government of the United States for
concerted action on the part of the Powers interested in the matter,
with a view to the establishment of a close season for the preservation
of the fur seals resorting to Behring’s Sea, I have to inform you that I
have recently had a long conversation with Mr. Phelps on the subject.

No, 148,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 245

He stated that his Government were very anxious that an agreement
should be arrived at as soon as possible.

I pointed out the difficulties felt by the Canadian Government, and
said that, while the scheme was favourable to the industries of the
mother country, considerable apprehension was felt in Canada with
respect to its possible effect on colonial interests.

IT added that [ was still sanguine of coming to an arrangement, but
that time was indjspensable. :

Lam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

221 No. 154.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

. - FOREIGN OFFICE, September 3, 1888.

Srr: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
18th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General
of Canada, with a Minute of his Privy Council on the proposal made
by the United States Government for tie establishment of a close time
for fur seals in Behring’s Sea.

With reference to Lord Knutsford’s suggestion that the Government
of the United States should make some modified proposal, I am_ to
request that you will inform his Lordship that Lord Salisbury has
recently had a long conversation with Mr. Phelps on the subject.

Mr. Phelps stated that his Government were very anxious that an
agreement should be arrived at as soon as possible.

The difficulties felt on the subject by the Government of the Dominion
were pointed out to him, and he was informed that, while the scheme
was advantageous to the industries of the mother country, considerable
apprehension was felt in Canada as to its possible effect on colonial
interests.

Lord Salisbury added that he was still sanguine of coming to an
arrangement, but that time was indispensable.

lam, &e.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 155.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received October 1.)

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSETTS), September 13, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 16th ultimo, I have
the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a note which
J have received from the Secretary of State, together with copy of the
correspondence which accompanied it, relative to the sale of certain
3ritish vessels seized in Behring’s Sea, which sale had, at your Lord-
ship’s request, been postponed, and to request your Lordship’s instrue-
tions as to the answer to be returned.
I have forwarded copies of this correspondence to the Governor-
General of Canada.
I have, &e. (Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

246 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,
(Ineclosure 1 in No. 155.]]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 10, 1888.

Sir: Referring to previons correspondence in relation to the sale of the four British
vessels condemned for taking seals illicitly in Behring’s Sea in 1887, I have the honour
to inform you that I have received a communication from the Acting Attorney-General
of the 3rd instant, in which an expression of my views is requested upon the pro-
priety of an immediate sale of the vessels in view of certain statements made in
regard to them.

As an order for the postponenent of the sale and the bonding of the vessels was
issued by the Department of Justice in compliance with the request of Lord Salis-

bury communicated to this Department, I inclose herewith a copy of the letter of

the Acting Attorney-General, together with its inclosures, and will be glad to learn
whether, in the light of the facts now disclosed, it is still the desire of his Lordship
that the sale should not be proceeded with.
Ihave, &ce.
(Signed) T. F. BayarD.

S22 {Inclosure 2 in No. 155.]
Mr. Jenks to Mr. Bayard.

WASIIINGTON, September 3, 1888.

Sir: Ihave the honour to send you copies of letters of the 23rd and 25th ultimo,
from Mr. Atkins, United States Marshal for the District of Alaska, and to ask for an
expression of your views upon the propriety of an immediate sale of the vessels
mentioned by the Marshal on consideration of the statements he makes in relation
to them.

I have, &c.
(Signed) G. A. JENKS,
Acting Attorney-General.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 155.]
My. Atkins to Mr. Jenks.

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON TERRITORY, August 23, 1888.

Sir: In reference to the four condemned British vessels now in my custody, I have
the honour to report:

That the owners of the schooners ‘‘ Anna Beck,” ‘ Grace,” and ‘ Dolphin” elaim
that the appraisement made at Sitka one year ago was at the time excessive, anil
that their value on account of the inclement climate of Alaska has in the meantime
been constantly depreciating, and therefore decline to bond them at such appraise-
ment, but request a new appraisement, which, if not granted, they desire the sale
to proceed. The owner says, however, that he will furnish satisfactory bonds for
the schooner “ Anna beck” at her present appraised value if it can be effected, subject
to a final settlement of the matter and without the expense of an appeal to the
Supreme Court.

Having myself a practical knowledge of the value of such property, I fully coin-
cide with the claimant that the valuation put on the schooners ‘‘ Grace” and ‘ Dol-
phin” at Sitka was excessive.

The schooner “ Ada” is owned and registered at Shanghae, China, and her owner,
whoever he may be, has not yet made any claim or appearance.

In the meantime, the vessels are remote from my district, thus greatly increasing
the responsibility of their safe custody, and the expense thereof constantly increasing.

1 desire to be instructed, in case vessels are not soon sold or bonded, what further
action to take in reference to returning to my district and leaving the vessels in
charge of aspecial deputy.

L have, &c. (Signed) BaRTON ATKINS.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 247

{Inclosure 4 in No. 155.]
Myr. Atkins to My. Jenks.

District OF ALASKA, OFFICE Or UNITED STATES MARSHAL,
Portland, Oregon, August 25, 1888.

Sir: In view of the present situation relative to the British vessels in my eustody
now moored at Port Townsend, Washington Territory, I beg leave to state as follows:

That all of said vessels, owing to the length of time they have been out of commis-
sion, are in a dilapidated condition, and their depreciation in value is constant and
rapid.

That they are small in size, the combined tonnage of the four being only 249 tons.

That the owner of the “Anna Beck.” “Gr ace,” and “Dolphin,” Captain J. D.
W arren, of Victoria, British Columbia. has notitied me that he prefers that the
“Grace” and Dolphin’ ” should be sold without further delay, and the ‘‘ Anna Beck”
also, unless he can bond that vessel without instituting an appeal to the Supreme
Court, or making the journey to Sitka for that purpose.

That if longer held in custody, they will have to be removed from Port Townsend

to some place secure from the fall and winter winds, for permanent moorings.
223 All of which will be attended by much greater expense comparatively than
has heretofore been required tor their s: vfe custody.

1 do not hesitate to recommend that, in interest of all concerned, the vessels, if
not bonded, should be sold without delay. It is my purpose soon to repair to Port
Townsend, there to await Department orders.

I have, &c.
(Signed) Barron ATKINS.

No. 156.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 1.)

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSETTS), September 15, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despateh of the 1st
instant, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the appeal in
the case of the “ W. P. Sayward,” alluded to therein, has not yet even
been docketed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
I have, We.
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

No. 157.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 2, 1888.

Str: With reference to your letter of the 10th August hist I am
directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you copies of a
despatch, and its inclosures, from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washing-
tonon the subject of the British sealing-vessels seized in Behring’s Sea.*

Tam to request that, in laying Sir Ws West’s despatch before Secre-
tary Lord Knutsford, you w ill move him to inform Lord Salisbury what
reply should be returned to the inquiry of the United States Secretary
of State with regard to the sale of the vessels seized.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) -P. CURRIE.

“Now 155.

248 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 158.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 9.)

DOWNING STREET, October 8, 1888,

Str: With reference to your letter of the 2nd instant, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, copies of telegraphic correspondence with the Governor-
General of Canada respecting the bonding of the vessels seized last
year in Behring’s Sea.

Lord Knutsford would be glad if instructions could be given by tele-
graph to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington to propose to the
United States Government the course recommended in Lord Stanley
of Prestow’s telegram of the 6th instant.

lam, We.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 158.—Telegraphie.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, October 4, 1888.

With reference to Mr. Bayard’s note to Sir L. West of the 10th September relative
to Behring’s Sea seizures, what answer should be returned?

224 [Inclosure 2 in No, 158.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

OCTOBER 6, 1888.
Recommend that the United States authorities be moved to authorize the reap-
praisement of ‘‘Grace” and ‘‘Dolphin,” and in case of ‘‘Anna Beck” to accept pro-
posed bonds of owner, subject to final settlement of matter.

No. 159.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Lord Sackville.
{ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 10, 1888.
In reply to your despatch of the 13th ultimo, I request that you
will move United States Government to authorize reappraisement. of
“Grace” and “Dolphin,” and to accept proposed bond of owner, subject
to final settlement of matter, in case of “Anna Beck.”

No. 160.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 10, 1888.
Str: Tam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the Sth instant, on the subject of the British
vessels seized in Behring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 249

I am to state to you, in reply, for the information of Lord Knutsford,
that a telegram has this day been sent to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington, requesting him to move the Government of the United
States to authorize the reappraisement of the ‘“ Dolphin” and “Grace,”
and to accept the proposed bond of the owner of the ** Anna Beck,”
subject to a final settlement of the matter.

I am, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 161.
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Reccived October 12.)

BEVERLY (MASSACHUSETTS), September 30, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 15th instant, I have
the honour to inelose copy of a further note which I have received from
the Secretary of State, relative to the four British sealers condemned
for taking seals in Behring’s Sea, and requesting a decision in regard
the disposition of them.
I have forwarded copy of this note to the Governor-General of
Canada.
I have, &e.
(Signed) L. 8S. SACKVILLE WEST.

[Inclosure in No. 161.]
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West.

DeraRTMENT OF STATE, Iashington, September 27, 1888.

Str: Reeurring to the subject of the four British vessels condemnel for taking seals
illicitly in Behring’s Seain 1887, I have the honour toinform you that I have received
from the Acting Attorney-General a letter, dated the 26th instant, inclosing copies
of letters from the United States Attorney for Alaska, and the United States Marshal
for Washington Territory, of the 7th and 10th instant respectively, in relation to the
same matter.

The four vessels, the schooners ‘‘Grace,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘ Anna Beck,” and ‘‘ Ada,”

have been transferred by the United States Marshal for Alaska to the custody
225 of the United States Marshal for Washington Territory, and are now at Port

Townsend, snbject to instructions from the Department of Justice touching
their sale or other disposition. The Department is informed that none of the vessels
have been bonded, and that the owners of three of them have refused to take that
step, on the ground that their appraisement was too high. As the season advances,
the probability of realizing a fair price for the vessels will diminish, and the expenses
incident to their retention by the Marshal are necessarily accruing.

These considerations make it proper that a decision in regard to the disposition of
the vessels should speedily be reached, and I have the honour to request that if it is
desired to postpone the sale still further, the Department may be assured at an early
day that an arrangement will be made whereby the vessels may be saved from becom-
ing a loss

I have, &c.
: (Signed) T. F. BAYARD.

250 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 162.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 13, 1888.

Str: With reference to my letter of the 10th instant, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you a copy of a despatch
from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,* inclosing a note from Mr.
Bayard, requesting a decision as to the disposition of mth four sealing-
schooners “Grace,” “ Dolphin,” “Anna Beck,” and “Ada.”

Iam to request you to move Lord Knutsford to cause Lord Salisbury
to be informed what reply should be returned as to the “Ada.”

Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington has been already commupni-
cated with by telegraph in regard to the other three vessels, as you
were informed in my letter above referred to.

Jam, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE

No. 163.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 22.

DOWNING STREET, October 20, 1888.

Sir: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 11th instant, inclosing a copy of a despatch from
Her Majesty’s Minister at W ashington,t stating that the appeal in the

case of the “W. P. Sayward” has not yet been docketed i in the Supreme
Court of the United States.

In your letter of the Ist ultimo, it was stated that before taking any
action on the Minute of the Canadian Government, inclosed in the
despatch from Lord Stanley of Preston of the 26th July last, Lord
Salisbury had instructed Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington to
state when the appeal to the Supreme Court in the case of the * W. P.
Sayward” was likely to come on, and to report generally on the prog-
ress of the case.

As it appears from the answer now received from Sir L. West that
there is likely to be considerable delay in this case, Lord Knutsford
would be glad to be informed whether, in Lord Salisbury’s opinion,
action should not now be taken on the Minute of the Canadian Privy
Council referred to.

Iam, Xce.,

(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON
22 No. 164.

Colonial Office to Foreign Offiee.—( Received October 26.)

DOWNING STREET, October 25, 1888.
Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 8th
instant respecting the bonding of certain vessels seized last year in
Behring’s Sea, I am direc ted by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you,

* No. 161. t No. 156.

—-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 251

for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch
from the Governor-General of Canada on the subject.

As the papers forwarded by Lord Stanley of Preston do not answer
the question in Mr. Bayard’s note to Sir Lionel West, dated the 10th
September last (inclosed in your letter to this Department of the 2nd
instant), so far es concerns the schooner “Ada,” Lord Knutsford has
telegraphed to the Governor General of C anada. with reference to your
letter of the 13th instant, asking what reply should be returned in
regard to that vessel.

I am, we.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

{inclosure J in No. 164.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HousgE, Ottawa, October 8, 1888.

My Lorp: With reference to your telegram of the 4th instant, inquiring what
answer should be returned to Mr. Bayard’s note to Sir Lionel West of the 10th Sep-
tember with reference to the bonding of certain British vessels seized some time
since in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of a despatch
which I have to-day addressed to Sir Lionel West, covering a copy of an approved
Minute of my Privy Council dealing with this subject.

I have, &e.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No, 164.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Sir L. West.

GOVERNMENT Houst, Ottawa, October 8, 1888.

Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 13th
ultimo, covering copy of a note from the See retary of State of the United States,
with copies of ~ correspondence accompanying it, relative to the bonding of the
British ships ‘‘ Grace,” ‘ Dolphin,” and ‘‘Anna Beck,” which were seized some time
since in Beliring’s Sea.

I now beg to inclose copy of an approved Minute of my Privy Council in relation
to this matter, from which it will be seen that my Ministers desire that the Govern-
ment of the United States may be moved to authorize the reappraisement of the
schooners ‘‘Grace” and ‘‘ Dolphin,” owing to the fact, which is duly set forth in the
correspondence accompanying Mr. Bay ard’s note, that the appraisement made at
Sitka more than a year since is regarded by the owners as having been excessive,
and as having become still more so, consequent upon the exposure of these vessels
to the inclement climate of Alaska.

As regards the case of the ‘“‘Anna Beck,” the Minute recommends that the United
States Government may be requested to give instructions that the proposed bonds
of the owner may be accepted, subject to a final settlement of this question.

I have, &c.

(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.
227 {Inclosure 3 in No. 164.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 30th September, 1888.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch from
Sir L. West to Lord Stanley, under date the 13th September instant, covering copy
of a note from the Secretary of State for the United States, together with copies of
correspondence which accompanied it, relative to certain ships which had been seized
in Behring’s Sea.

252 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the above was referred, reports
that on the 80th Jnly last a Minute of Council was adopted as follows:

“The Committee have had under consideration a telegram dated the 20th July,
1888, from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, with respect to the bond-
ing of the sealing schooners ‘Anna Beck,’ ‘Dolphin,’ ‘Grace,’ and ‘Ada,’ seized in
Bebring’s Sea in 1887. ‘The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the said tele-
gram was referred, recommends that the Imperial Government be moved to request
the interposition of the United States Government to have the sale of the condemned
vessels postponed, pending the settlement of the question as to the legality of their
seizure.

“The Committee submit the above for your Excellency’s approval, and advise
that your Excellency be moved to communicate by cable to the Colonial Secretary
the request of the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, and to urge upon Her
Majesty’s Government the necessity for immediate communication with the United
States Government, with a view to save from further and disastrous loss the owners
of the condemned vessels;” and that in reply to this Minute a telegram, under date
of the 18th August, 1888, was received by your Excellency from Sir Lionel West as
follows:

“Acting Attorney Garrison has given directions, both by letter and telegram, to
postpone the sale of the schooners. The Marshal has also been directed to receive
bonds in lieu of the vessels.”

The Minister observes that copies of the correspondence referred to confirm the
intimation conveyed by the above telegram, that an order for the postponement of
the sale, and permitting the bonding of these vessels at the value already appraised,
had been made by the Department of Justice at Washington, in compliance with
the request of Lord Salisbury. Subsequent to the receipt of this order, the United
States Marshal at Seattle, Washington Territory, informed the Attorney-General for
the United States that the owners of the schooners ‘‘Anna Beck,” ‘‘Grace,” and
“Dolphin,” claimed that not only was the appraisement made at Sitka a year pre-
viously excessive, but that the value of the vessels, on account of the inclement
climate at Alaska, had in the meantime been constantly depreciating, and they
therefore declined to bond them, with the exception of the ‘‘Anna Beck,” at such
appraisement, but requested a new appraisement, and stated that if a new appraise-
ment was not allowed, the owners desired the sale should proceed.

It further appears from the same communication, that in the case of one of the
vessels, the ‘Anna Beck,” the owner is willing to furnish satisfactory bonds, at the
value already appraised, if this can be done, subject to a final settlement of the matter,
and without necessitating an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Minister further observes that, touching the question of excessive appraise-
ment, the United States Marshal states as follows: ‘“‘ Having myself a practical
knowledge of the value of such property I fully coincide with the claimant, that
the valuation put on the schooners ‘ Grace’ and ‘ Dolphin’ was excessive.”

The Committee recommend, therefore, that your Excellency be moved to forward
a copy of this Minute to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, with a view to mov-
ing the United States authorities to authorize the reappraisement in the cases of
the “Grace” and ‘‘ Dolphin,” and that in the case of the ‘‘Anna Beck,” instructions
be given to accept the proposed bonds of the owner, subject to a final settlement of
the matter.

All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed ) JOHN J. MCGER,
Clerk, Privy Council, Canada.

22 No. 165.
Colonial Ofice to Foreign Office.—( Received November 2.)

DOWNING STREET, November 1, 1888.
Srr: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 25th
October respecting the bonding of certain vessels seized last year in
Behring’s Sea, | am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be
laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram received from
the Governor-General of Canada relating to the case of the vessel, “Ada.”
lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 253

[Inclosure in No. 165.—Telegraphic. ]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

OCTOBER 28, 1888.

In reply to the inquiry made in your telegram of the 20th October, owners of “Ada”
do not object to original appraisement of the vessel. My Ministers advise that action
should be taken accordingly.

No. 166,
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 17, 1888.

Sir: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
Ist instant, inclosing a telegram from the Governor-General of Canada,
stating that the owners of the Ada,” one of the sealing ships seized
last year in Behring’s Sea, do not object to the original appraisement
of the vessel.

His Lordship directs me to inquire whether Lord Knutsford desires
that the substance of Lord Stanley’s telegram should be sent to Her
Majesty’s Legation at Washington, for communication to the United
States Government,

Tam, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFO'E.

No. 167.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received November 21.)

DOWNING STREET, November 21, 1888.
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 17th instant, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis of
Salisbury, that he thinks it desirable that the substance of the telegram
from the Governor-General of Canada respecting the sealing ship ‘*Ada”
should be communicated to the Government of the United States.
Iam, We.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSION.

No. 168,
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Herbert.
[Telegraphice. |

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 22, 1888.

With reference to my telegram of the 10th ultimo, you should inform
United States Government owners of “Ada” do not object to original
appraisement of the vessel.

254 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
22 No. 169.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received November 26.)

DOWNING STREET, November 26, 1888,
Sir: Iam directed by the Secretary of the State for the Colonies to
transmit to vou, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, with
reference to previous correspondence, copy of a despatch from the
Governor-General of Canada, and of a telegram addressed to him
respecting the case of the “Ada,” one of the vessels seized last year in
Behring’s Sea.
Lam, We.
(Signed) Robert G. W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 169.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT House, Ottawa, October 27, 1888.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 20th instant, and to
mine in reply of to-day’s date, stating that the owners of the “Ada” do not object
to the original appraisement, I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy
of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council upon which my tele-
gram was based.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 169.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Eacellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 27th October, I8SS8.

The Committee of the Privy Council having referred the telegram of the 20th
October instant (1888), from Lord Knutsford, in the terms, ‘‘ Referring to your tele-
gram 6th October, Behring’s Sea, and despatch 8th October; what answer should
be returned, ‘Ada?’”’ to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is advised by a
despatch from tie Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia that the agent for the
owners of the schooner *‘Ada” does not object to the original appraisment, respect-
fully recommend that your Excellency be moved to telegraph Lord Knutsford in the
above scuse in answer to his telegram of the 20th October instant.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 169.—Telegraphie. ]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, November 6, 1888.
With reference to your telegram of 27th October, United States’ Government will
be informed that owners of ‘‘Ada” do not object to original appraisement. I pre-
sume it will be for owners to take any further action.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 255
No. 170.
Colonial Office to Loreign Office.—( Received December 4.)

DOWNING STREET, December 3, 1888. —

Str: Withreference to previous correspondence, lam directed by Lord
Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury,

acopy of a telegram from the Governor-General of Canada, inquir-
230 = ing whether any answer has yet been received from the United

States Government on the subject of the reappraisement of the
vessels seized last year in Behring’s Sea. The telegram from Lord
Stanley of the 6th October, referred to in his present message, was
communicated to you in the letter from this Department of the 8th of
that month.

Lord Knutsford would be glad to learn whether any answer has been
received from the United States Government on this subject, and, if not,
he desires me to suggest that a.reply should be asked for by telegraph.

Lam, Xe.
(Signed) L0OBERT G. W, HERBER’.

[Inclosure in No. 170.—Telegraphie.]
The Marquis of Lansdowne to Lord Knutsford.
NOVEMBER 29, 1888.
Have you answer from Washington relative to reappraisement of vessels ‘* Grace,”

“Dolphin,” “Anna Beck,” referred to in my telegram of the 6th October? Governor
of British Colwubia presses for reply.

Nowe:
Tire Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Herbert.
[ Telegraphic. |

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 5, 1888.
What answer from United States Government as to Behring’s Sea
seizures referred to in my telegram of 10th October?

No. 172.

Mr. Herbert to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 5.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, December 5, 1888.
In reply to your telegram of to-day, I have received no answer from
United States’ Government. Have again asked to-day tor a reply.

256 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 173.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 7, 1888,

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 5rd instant, | am directed by the
Marquis of Salisbury to state to you, for the information of Secretary
Lord Knutsford, that no reply has been returned by the United States
Government to the request that they would authorize the reappraise-
ment of the British vessels “Grace” and * Dolphin” seized in Behring’s
Sea.

Mr. Herbert, who is in charge of Her Majesty’s Legation at Wash-
ington, has reported in a telegram, dated the 5th instant, that he had
on that d: vy again asked for an answer from the United States Gov-
ernment.

Tam, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 174.
Mr. Ilerbert to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 11.)

WASHINGTON, November 30, 1888.
My Lorp: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s telegram of the 22nd, and to state that Mr. Bayard,
231 in reply to my communication, that the owners of the “Ada” did
not object to the original appraisement, has informed me that

the Attorney-General has been made acquainted with their decision.

I have, We.
For M. H. HERBERT’,
(Signed) ARTHUR HERBERT.

No. 175.
Mr. Herbert to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 24.)

WASHINGTON, December 12, 1888.

My LorD: On the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 5th
instant, | immediately wrote to Mr. Bayard pressing for areply to Lord
Sackville’ s note of the 12th October on the subject of the re-appraise-
ment of the British sealers seized in Behring’s Sea in 1887, and I have
now received a note from hin, copy of which with its inclosures [ inclose
herewith, in which he states that he has been informed by the Attorney-
General that orders were given on the 14th ultimo for the sale of the
vessels in question, but that he has not yet heard whether the sale
has been effected or not. As soon, however, as he is informed by the
Department of Justice he will duly advise me as to what has taken
place.

' [have sent a copy of Mr. Bayard’s note to the Governor-General of
Canada.
I have, &e,
(Signed) MICHAEL H. HERBERT.

P

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 257
[Inclosure 1 in No. 175.}

Mr. Bayard to Mr. Herbert.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 10, 1888.

Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5th instant,
in which you eall attention to the note of Lord Sackville of the 12th October last, in
relation to the appraisement of three of the four British schooners seized and con-

demned for illicitly taking seals in Bebring’s Sea in 1887.

’ The note referred to was at once communicated to the Department of Justice with
a request for an opinion on the question of re-appraisement.

Some time previously, upon the request of the Marquis of Salisbury, the sale of
the schooners had been stayed by this Government in order that full opportunity
might be given to their owners to make some arrangements whereby they might
become repossessed of the vessels. On the 11th October, the day preceding the date
of the note of Lord Sackville above referred to, the Attorney-General wrote to this
Department a letter, copy of which is inclosed, in which he intimated an opinion that
the interests of both the United States and the claimants would be best subserved
hy aspeedy sale of the vessels. By this letter it appears that, although the schooners
had long since been condemned, no claims had been filed by their owners and no bonds
given for costs. Nevertheless, the Department again consulted the Deneueien of
Justice in regard to the proposition contained in the note under date of the 12th
October. Under date of the 20th October last a reply from the Attorney-General was
received, copy of which is inclosed. To this I made answer on the 27th October,
expressing my concurrence in the view of the Attorney-General, that, under the cir-
cumstances, the wiser course for all concerned was to let the sale of the vessels take
place at once, as delay seemed impracticable, and could only be productive of loss.

On the 14th of last month the Attorney-General informed that he had that day
directed the United States Marshal in charge of the vessels at Port Townsend, Wash-
ington Territory, to take the necessary steps to effect a sale of the four vessels as
speedily as possible.

Since that time no correspondence on the subject has taken place with the Depart-
ment of Justice except a request from this Department on the 17th ultimo that it
might be informed of the proceedings of the Marshal under the order above stated.

When a response to this request shall have been received you will be duly advised
of its contents.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) T. F. Bayarb.

232 [Inclosure 2 in No. 175.]
Mr. Garland to Mr. Bayard.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, October 20, 1888.

Sm: By your communication of the 17th October, 1888, you requested an expres-
sion of my views on the arrangement proposed by the British Government in regard
to the disposal of the vessels ‘‘ Grace,” “ Dolphin,” and ‘‘ Anna Beck.” The arrange-
ment referred to is that the United States authorize a re-appraisement of the
schooners ‘‘ Grace” and “‘ Do] phin,”’ and that instructions be given in the case of the
‘Anna Beck” that bonds of the owner may be accepted subject to the final settle-
ment of the question.

The libels against the vessels were submitted on the stipulation, dated the 10th
day of September, 1887, by M. W. Drake on behalf of the masters, they were, on or
about the 3rd day of October, 1887, after hearing condemned, and in pursuance of
the terms of the stipulation, were ordered to be sold at Port Townsend.

The time for appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States has long since
expired.

On the 25th day of August, 1888, the United States Marshal for Alaska reported
‘that the owner of the ‘Anna Beck,’ ‘ Grace,’ and ‘ Dolphin,’ Captain J. W. Warren,
of Victoria, British Columbia, notified me (him) that he prefers that the ‘Grace’ and
‘Dolphin’ should be sold without further delay, and the ‘Anna Beck’ also, unless he
can bond that vessel without instituting an appeal to the Supreme Court, or making
the journey to Sitka for that purpose.”

The aggregate tonnage of the three vessels, with the ‘“ Ada” (for which no owner
has been heard from), is but 279 tons.

The vessels, if not sold, will soon be substantially valueless. If attempt be made
to keep them over winter a total loss may result.

BS) Peyv fh

258 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I therefore adhere to the views expressed in my former communication, that the
interests of all concerned will be best subserved by an early sale, and earnestly hope
I may receive a prompt communication from you concurring therein.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) A. Hl. GARLAND, Allorney-General.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 175.]
Mr. Grant to Mr. Garland.

Disrricr of ALASKA, ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S OFFICE,
Sitka, September 20, 1888,
DEAR Sir: Marshal returned from Port Townsend says no vessel was bonded, and
now the parties have concluded not to bond, and want the sale to go on, but I shall
instruct the Marshal to await instructions from you. How long shall I wait for the
parties to act? No owners have appeared on the record; the record does not show
who they are. No claims are filed, or bonds for costs eiven.
The cases were submitted on the agreement signed by Mr. Drake for the masters,
and on his demurrer as Representative of Canadian Government.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) Wiur. M. Grant, District Attorney.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 175.]
In THE Districr Court OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA,

The United States v. the British Schooners ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘Anna Beck,” ‘ Grace,” and
“Ada.”

It is hereby stipulated and agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the masters of
the defendant schooners that the demurrer filed in the matter of the information
against J. D. Warren, and the agreement therein, shall apply to the libels filed or to
be filed against the above vessels. It is further stipulated and admitted as a fact

that the masters of the above-named vessels did kill seals during the month
233 =of July 1887, in that portion of Behring’s Sea claimed by the United States

under the Treaty of 1867 between Russia and the United States, and beyond
the limit of 10 miles from any land.

It is further stipulated that in case the vessels or any of them shall be condemned,
by any order of the Court, that the same shall not be sold until the expiration of
three months from the public ation of any order ordering such sales, and that such
sales shall take place at Port Townsend or some other point on Puget Sound.

lt is further stipulated that the defendants may give security for appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, or such other Court as m: ly have jurisdiction,
by bonds of any qualified bondsmen in Washineton ‘Territory, Oregon, or California.

Upon the question of facts thus agreed upon, the parties submit the cases to the
Court upon the law question raised Dy the demurrer.

On behalf of the Masters of the above schooners,
(Signed) M. W. Draw.
(Signed) A. K. DELANEY,
Attorney for the United States.
SEPTEMBER 10, 1887.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 175.]
Mr, Garland to Mr. Bayard.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, October 11, 1888.

Sir: I herewith inclose copies of communications received from W. M. Grant,
United States Attorney for Alaska, from the facts submitted by him in connection
with those contained in my letter of the 26th September. I submit whether it will
not be expedient, and for the best interests both of the United States and adverse
claimants, if there be such, that the vessels referred to be speedily sold. An answer
is desired at your earliest convenience.

Very respectfully
(Signed) A. H. GARLAND, Attorney-General.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 200
No. 176.
Mr. Herbert to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received Januaay 23.)

WASAINGTON, January 8, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to report that Mr. Hoar introduced a
Resolution in the Senate on the 3rd instant, asking for any correspond-
ence that may have taken place with Great Britain in regard to the
seal-fisheries in or near Behring’s Straits, especially as to the seizure or
release of any British vessels by the United States; and also asking for
information as to the Regulations governing the fisheries which have
been adopted by the United States Government.

Mr. Hoar alleges that there have been, and still are, widespread com-
plaints of unjust. discrimination made against Americ an ve ssels in those

waters, and that while they are not permitted to take seals out at sea,
aiieh is perfectly proper and right, no interference is made with the
operations of the vessels of other ‘countries, par ticularly those of Great
Britain

This Resolution, which was adopted by the Senate, was probably
prompted by the reference in the President’s Message to a proposed
arrangement with foreign Powers for the protection of fur-seais in Beh-
ring’s Sea, which has aroused a good deal of curiosity here.

The passage in question ran as follows:

“My endeavours to establish, by international co-operation, measures
for the prevention of the extermination of fur-seals in B ehring? s Sea,
have not been relaxed, and I have hopes of being enabled shortly to
submit an effective and satisfactory Conventional project with the
Maritime Powers for the approval of the Senate.”

I will not fail to send your Lordship a copy of the correspondence
asked for as soon as it is presented to Congress.

I have, We.
(Signed) MicuarL H. HERBERT.

234 No. 177.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 23, 1889.

Sir: My attention has been called to a telegram, dated Washington,
the 22nd March, which appeared in the ‘ Times” of to-d: vy, to the effect
that President Harrison has issued a Proclamation warning foreign
fishing-vessels against entering the waters of Behring’s Sea, within the
dominion of the United States, for unlawful fishing for fur-bearing ani-
mals or salmon.

I have to request you to report to me, by telegraph, the exact terms
of the Proclamation referred to.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY,

260 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 178.

Mr, Edwardes to the Marquis of Sealab urge vasen ted by telegraph,
March 23.)

WASHINGTON, March 23, 1889.
My Lorp: I have had the honour to inform your Lordship to-day, by
telegraph, that a Proclamation was issued late yesterday afterngon by
the President, warning all persons against entering the waters of
Behring’s Sea within the domain of the United States for the purpose
of violating the provisions of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes
relating to ‘the killing of fur-bearing animals, and that, if found doing
SO, they will be arrested and their vessels, apparel, &e., will be seized.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. KL DWARDES.,

Moris:

Mr, Edwardes to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received by telegraph,
March 23.)

WASHINGTON, March 23, 1889.

My Lorp: In obedience to your Lordship’s instructions received in
your telegram of to-day’s date, I had the honour to send to you, by tele-
graph, the exact terms of the President’s Proclamation issued yester-
day afternoon, which he issued under the authority granted to him by
the Act of the 2nd March, 1889, providing for the protection of the
salmon fisheries of Alaska.

This Proclamation, copies of which I have the honour to inclose,
warns all persons against violating the laws of the United States in
the waters of Behring’s Sea, with regard to killing fur bearing animals,
the penalty for such violation being arrest of person and seizure and
confiscation of vessels, apparel, We.

I have, We.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

[Inclosure in No. 179.]
Extract from the ‘Washington Post” of March 23, 1889.

ALASKA WITHOUT A GOVERNOR.—A PROCLAMATION REGARDING FUR-BEARING
ANIMALS AND SALMON.—Governor A. P. Swineford some time since wrote out his res-
ignation as Governor of Alaska, and sent it to the Interior Department, where it
remains unacted upon. Since then the Governor wrote that he should leave Alaska
for home on the 6th March, so that he is now out of the territory, and Alaska is with-
out an executive head.

The following Proclamation was issued late yesterday afternoon:

A Proclamation.

By the President of the United States.
The following provisions of the Laws of the United States are hereby published
for the information of all concerned:
235 Section 1956 Revised Statutes, chapter 3, title 23, enacts that—
No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur seal, or other fur-
bearing animal, within the limits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof; and

“_eoo

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 261

every person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars,
nor more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and
all vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of
this section shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power
to authorize the killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal,
except fur seals, under such regulations as he may prescribe, and it shall be the duty
of the Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur seal, and to provide for the execu-
tion of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall
he grant any special privileges under this section.

Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the protection of the Salmon
Fisheries of Alaska,” approved the 2nd March, 1889, provides that

Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby declared to
include and apply to all the dominion of the United Statesin the waters of Behring’s
Sea, and it shall be the duty of the Presidentat a timely season in each year to issue
his Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one month at least in one
newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United States port of entry on
the Pacific Ceast, warning all persons against entering such waters for the purpose
of violating the provisions of said section, and he shall also cause one or more of
the vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters, and arrest all per-
sous and seize all vessels found to be or to have been engaged in any violation of
the Laws of the United States therein.

Now, therefore I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, pursuant to
the above recited Statutes, hereby warn all persons against entering the waters of
Behring’s Sea within the domain of the United States for the purpose of violating
the provisions of said section 1956 Revised Statutes, and I hereby proclaim that all
persons found to be or to have been engaged in any violation of the Laws of the
United States in said waters will be arrested and punished as above provided, and
that all vessels so employed, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargoes, will be
seized and forfeited.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 21st day of March, 1889, and of the Independ-
ence of the United States the 113th.

(Signed) BENJ. HARRISON.

By the President,

(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE,
Secretary of State.

Sailing orders have been sent to the United States steamer ‘‘ Thetis” at the Mare
Island Navy Yard to proceed to Sitka, touching en route at such places as her com-
manding officer may deem necessary. When she arrives at Sitka and communicates
with the civil authorities she will, if the situation is quiet and her presence there is
not required, continue on northward, and devote attention particularly to the whal-
ing fleet and to other commercial interests of the United States in the waters about
Behring’s Straits and the Arctic Ocean.

As the whaling vessels usually leave the Arctic in the latter part of September, the
presence of the ‘‘ Thetis” until then will add security to those engaged in that impor-
tant industry, and the ‘‘ Thetis” will remain until they have taken their departure
southward, taking care not to be caught in the ice. She will return to Sitka and
await further instructions.

No. 180.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received March 26.)

DOWNING STREET, March 26, 1889.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to request that you will call

the attention of the Marquis of Salisbury to the accompanying copy of

a telegram from Washington which appeared in the “Times” of the

23rd instant.

As the Canadian sealing-vessels will shortly be proceeding to

236 ~=—s the sealing-grounds in Behring’s Sea, Lord Knutsford would be

giad if Lord Salisbury would telegraph to Her Majesty’s Chargé

Affaires at Washington to ascertain whether the statement in the tele-
gram is correct.

262 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Iam to suggest also that Mr. Herbert should, at the same time, be
instructed, if the statement is correct, to inform the United States Goy-
ernment that Her Majesty’s Government cannot require the masters of
British vessels, when fishing in Behring’s Sea beyond the 3-mile limit,
to recognize the laws of the United States.

I am, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inelosure in No. 180.]
The Alaska Fisheries.

WASHINGTON, March 22.

President Harrison has issued a Proclamation, warning foreign fishing-vessels
against entering the waters of Behring’s Sea, within the dominion of the United
States, for unlawful fishing for fur- bearing animals or salmon.

No. 181.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 30, 1889.

Srr: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
26th instant, calling attention to a telegram which appeared in the
“ Times ” of the 23rd instant respecting the Proclamation by the Presi-
dent of the United States in regard to the seal-fisheries in Behring’s
Sea, and suggesting that a representation should be made to the United
States Government on the subject.

His Lordship directs me to state, for Lord Knutsford’s information,
that it is proposed to defer any action in the matter until the receipt of
the Act for the protection of salmon in Alaska, which is now on its way
from Washington.

lam, We. ¥
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 182.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 1.)

WASHINGTON, March 15, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to state that, having heard privately
from a Member of the House of Commons, who has lately been travel-
ling in Canada, that the sale of the three seized British sealers was
ordered to take place on the 26th instant, I telegraphed to the Governor-
General of Canada (copy of telegram inclosed) to inquire whether the
owners of those vessels were willing to bond their ships, and that, if
so, | would endeavour to procure e from the United States authorities
a postponement of the sale.

In the meantime, I learnt privately that if laddressed such an appli-
cation to the United States Government, the Solicitor-General, to whom
it would be referred, the matter having been under consideration in his
Department, would at once order a postponement,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 263

I received last night a telegram (copy inclosed) from Lord Stanley of
Preston, informing me that the Canadian Minister of Marine is not of
opinion that any intervention on the part of Her Majesty’s Legation at
this moment would be of value. The owners of the vessels were not
willing to bond at the valuation made by the United States authorities,
and the late Administration had refused to allow a revaluation.

T shall, consequently, refrain from action in the matter without further
instructions.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDEsS.

23) [Inclosure 1 in No, 182.—Teclegraphic.]
Mr. Edwardes to Lord Stanley of Preston.

WASHINGTON, March 8, 1889.

I have learnt from private source that the three seized British sealers are to be sold
on the 26th instant.

IT might endeavour to obtain a postponement of the sale if the owners are willing
to bond their vessels.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 182.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Mr. Edwardes.

Marcu 12, 1889.
Your telegram of the 8th March.
Minister of Marine does not think that any interference just now would be of any
value. Owners of vessels will not bond at present valuation, and request for revalu-
ation was refused by late Government.

INov ES3:
Myr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 1.)

WASHINGTON, March 18, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith a
copy of a Bill which has become law, providing for the protection of
the salmon fisheries of Alaska.

IT have thought it worthy of transmission on account of section 3 of
the Act which might possibly be quoted in connection with the seizure
of sealers in the Behring’s Sea.

I have, We.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

[Inclosure in No. 183.]
[Pusiic—No. 158.]
An Act to provide for the Protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Alaska.

Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America, in Congress assembled,

That the erection of dams, barricades, or other obstructions to any of the rivers
of Alaska, with the purpose or result of preventing or impeding the ascent of salmon
or other anadromous species to their spawning grounds, is hereby declared to be

264 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

unlawful, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to
establish such regulations and surveillance as may be necessary to insure that this
prohibition is strictly enforced, and to otherwise protect the salmon fisheries of
Alaska; and every persou who shall be found guilty of a violation of the provisions
of this section shall be fined not less than 250 dollars for each day of the continuance
of such obstruction.

Src. 2. That the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is hereby empowered and
directed to institute an investigation into the habits, abundance, and distribution of
the salmon of Alaska, as well as the present conditions and methods of the fisheries,
with a view of recommending to Congress such additional legislation as may be
necessary to prevent the impairment or exhaustion of these valuable fisheries, and
placing them under regular and permanent conditions of production.

Sec. 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby
declared to include and apply to all the dominion cf the United States in the waters
of Behring’s Sea; and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in
each year, to issue his Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one

month in at least one newspaper, if any such there be published at each United
238 = States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering

said waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section; and he
shall also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruise said
waters and arrest all persons, and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been,
engaged in any violation of the Laws of the United States therein.

Approved March 2, 1889,

No. 184.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 4, 1889.
Srr: Tam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit, for the
information of Secretary Lord Knutsford, a copy of a despatch from
Mr. Edwardes, Her Majesty’s Chargé d’ Affaires at Washington,* on the
question of the sale of the three british vessels seized by the United
States authorities in 1887 when engaged in seal fishing in Behring’s
Sea, and I am to request that you will move his Lordship to furnish
Lord Salisbury with any observations he may have to offer on Mr.

Kdwardes’ despatch.
lam, &e.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 185.

Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 5.)
[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, March 25, 1889.

I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith extracts of
the correspondence which has been published in response to a Senate
tesolution of the 2nd January, 1889, upon the seal fisheries in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

* No. 182.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 265

[Inclosure in No. 185.}

Extracts from Part IV of the Message from the President of the United States of
February 12, 1889, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, Ex. Doc. No. 106.

Mr. Poletica to Mr. Adams.
{ Translation. ]

WASHINGTON, January 30 (February 11), 1822.

The Undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His
Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, in consequence of orders which have lately
reached him, hastens herewith to transmit to Mr. Adams, Secretary of State in the
Department of Foreign Affairs, a printed copy of the Regulations adopted by the
Russian-American Company, and sanctioned by His Imperial Majesty, relative to
foreign commerce in the waters bordering the establishments of the said Company
on the north-west coast of America.

The Undersigned conceives it to be, moreover, his duty to inform Mr. Adams that
the Imperial Government, in adopting the Regulation, supposes that a foreign ship,
which shall have sailed from a European port after the 1st March, 1822, or from one
of the perts of the United States after the Ist July of the same year, cannot law-
fully pretend ignorance of these pew measures.

The Undersigned, &C.
(Signed) PIERRE DE POLETICA.

[Inclosure 1.]
Edict of His Imperial Majesty, Autocrat of All the Russias.

The directing Senate maketh known unto all men:

Whereas in an Edict of His Imperial Majesty issued to the directing Senate on the
4th day of September, and signed by His Majesty’s own hand, it is thus expressed:

“Observing, from Reports submitted to us, that the trade of our subjects on the
Aleutian Islands and on the north-west coast of America, appertaining unto Russia,
is subject, because of secret and illicit traffic, to oppression aud impediments; and
finding that the principal cause of these difficulties is the want of Rules establishing
the boundaries for nav igation along these coasts, and the order of naval communi-

cation, as well in these places as on the whole of the eastern coast of Siberia
239 and the Kurile Islands, we have deemed it necessary to determine these com-
munications by specific Regulations, which are hereto attached.

“Tn forwarding these Regulations to the directing Senate, we command that the
same be published for universal information, and that the proper measures be taken
to carry them into execution.”

(Signed) Count D. Gurirr, Minister of Finances.

It is therefore decreed by the directing Senate that His Imperial Majesty’s Edict
be published for the information of all men, and that the same be obeyed by all whom
it may concern.

[The original is signed by the directing Senate. ]

Printed at St. Petersburgh. In the Senate, the 7th September, 1821.

[On the original is wr itten, in the hand writing of His Imperial Majesty, thus :]

Be it accordingly.

(Signed) ALEXANDER.

KAMENNOY OsTROFF, September 4, 1821.

{Inclosure 2.]

Rules established for the Limits of Navigation and Order of Communication along the
coast of the Kastern Siberia, the north-western coast of America, and the Aleutian,
Kurile, and other Islands.

Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and of all other indus-
try, on all islands, ports, and gulfs, including the whole of the north-west coast of
America, beginning from Behring’s Strait to the 51st degree of northern latitude;
also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the
Kurile Islands from Behring’s Strait to the south cape of the Island of Urup, viz., to
45° 50’ northern latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian subjects.

266 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

See. 2. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the
coasts and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them
within less than 100 Italian miles. ‘The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confisca-
tion along with the whole cargo.

See. 3. An exception to this rule is to be made in favour of vessels carried thither
by heavy gales, or real want of provisions, and unable to make any other shores but
such as belong to Russia; in these cases they are obliged to produce convincing
proofs of actual reason for such an exception. Ships of friendly Governments,
merely on discoveries, are likewise exempt from the foregoing Rule (section 2). In
this case, however, they must previously be provided with passports from the
Russian Minister of the Navy.

* * ” * * * *

Mr. Adams to Mr. Poletica.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MWashington, February 25, 1822.

Sir: I have the honour of receiving your note of the 11th instant, inclosing a
printed copy of the Regulations adopted by the Russian-American Company, and
sanctioned by His Imperial Majesty, relating to the commerce of foreigners in the
waters bordering on the establishment of that Company upon the north-west coast
of America.

IT am directed by the President of the United States toinform you that he has seen
with surprise, in this Edict, the assertion of a territorial claim on the part of Russia,
extending to the 51st degree of north latitude on this continent, and a Regulation
interdicting to all commercial vessels other than Russian, upon the penalty of seiz-
ureand confiscation, the approach upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the
shores to which that claim is made to apply. The relations of the United States
with His Imperial Majesty have always been of the most friendly character, and it
is the earnest desire of this Government to preserve them in that state. It was
expected, before any act which should define the boundary between the territories
of the United States and Russia on this continent, that the same would have been
arranged by Treaty between the parties. To exclude the vessels of our citizens from
the shore beyond the ordinary distance to which the territorial jurisdiction extends,
has excited still greatersurprise.

This Ordinance affects so deeply the rights of the United States and of their citi-
zens that I am instructed to inquire whether you are authorized to give explanations
of the grounds of right, upon principles generally recognized by the laws and usages
of nations, which can warrant the claims and Regulations contained in it.

Lavail, &c.
(Signed) JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

Mr. Poletica to Mr. Adams.

WASHINGTON, February 28, 1822.

Mr. Poletica replied on the 28th of the same month, and, after giving a summary
of historical incidents which seemed to him to establish the title of Russia to the
territories in question by first discovery, said:

“‘T shall be more succinct, Sir, in the exposition of the motives which determined
the Imperial Government to prohibit foreign vessels from approaching the north-
west coast of America belonging to Russia within the distance of at least 100 Italian
miles. This measure, however severe it may at first appear, is, after all, but ameas-
ure of prevention. It is exclusively directed against the culpable enterprises of for-

eign adventurers, who, not content with exercising upon the coasts above
240 mentioned an illicit trade very prejudicial to the rights reserved entirely to
the Russian-American Company, take upon them besides to furnish arms and
ammunition to the nativesin the Russian possessions in America, exciting them like-
wise in every manner to resist and revolt against the authorities there established.

“The American Government doubtless recollects that the irregular conduct of
these adventurers, the majority of whom was composed of American citizens, has
been the object of the most pressing remonstrances on the part of Russia to the
Federal Governinent from the time that Diplomatic Missions were organized between
the countries. ‘These remonstrances, repeated at different times, remain constantly
without effeet, and the inconveniences to which they ought to bring a remedy con-
tinue to increase. . . .

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 267

“T ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, Sir, that the Russian pos-
sessions in the Pacific Ocean extend, on the, north-west coast of Americ a, from Beh-
ring’s Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side of Asia
and the islands adjacent, from the same strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea
of which these possessions form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are
ordinarily attached to shut seas (‘‘mers feymées”), and the Russian Government
might consequently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of
sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners.
But it preterred only asserting its essential rights without taking any advantage of
localities.”

My. Adams to Mr. Poletica.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 30, 1822.

Sir: T have had the honour of receiving your letter of the 28th ultimo, which has
been submitted to the consideration of the President of the United States.

From the deduction which it contains of the grounds upon which Articles of Regu-
lation of the Russian-American Company have 1 now, for the first time, extended the
claim of Russia on the norti-west coast of America to the 51st degree of north lati-
tude, its only foundation appears to be the existence of the small Settlement of Novo
Archangelsk, situated, not on the American continent, but upon a small island in
Jatitude 57°; and the principle upon which you state that this claim is now advanced
is that the51st degrce isexquidistant from the Settlement of Novo Archangelsk and the
establishment of the United States at the mouth of the Columbia River. But, from
the same statement, it appears that, im the year 1799, the limits prescribed by the
Kmperor Paul to the Russian-American Company were fixed at the 55th degree of
latitude, and that, in assuming now the latitude 57°, a new pretension is asserted, to
which no settlement made since the year 1799 has given the colour of a sanction.

This pretension is to be considered not only with reference to the question of terri-
torial right, but also to that prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including
those of the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts.
From the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation,
their vessels have freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate them is a
part of that independence.

With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified
the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it claims
territory both on its American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the
distance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitude 51° north, is not less than 90
degrees of longitude, or 4,000 miles.

As little can the United States accede to the justice of the reason assigned for the
prohibition above mentioned. The right of the citizens of the United States to hold
commerce with the aboriginal natives of the north-west coast of America, without
the territorial jurisdiction of other nations, even in arms and munitions of war, is
as clear and indisputable as that of navigating theseas. That right has never been
exercised in a spirit unfriendly to Russi: 05 and, although general complaints have
occasionally been made on the subject of this commerce by some of your predeces-
sors, no specific ground of charge has ever been alleged by them of any transaction
in it which the United States were, by the ordinary laws and usages of nations,
bound either to restrain or to punish. Had any such charge been made, it would
lave received the most pointed attention of this Government, with the sincerest and
firmest disposition to perform every act and obligation of justice to yours which
could have been required. J am commanded by the President of the United States
to assure you that this disposition will continue to be entertained, together with the
earnest desire that the harmonious relations between the two countries may be pre-
served.

Relying upon the assurance in your note of similar dispositions reciprocally enter-
tained by His Imperial Majesty towards the United States, the President is persuaded
that the citizens of this Union will remain nnmolested in the prosecution of their
lawful commerce, and that no etfect will be given to an interdiction manifestly
incompatible with their rights.

Iam, «&c,
(Signed) JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,

268 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Poletica to Mr. Adams.
[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, April 2, 1822.

Mr. Poletica replied on the 2nd April following, and after again endeavouring to
prove the title of Russia to the north-west coast of America, from Behring’s Straits
to the 51st degree of north latitude, said:

“In the same manner the great extent of the Pacific Ocean at the 51st degree of

latitude cannot invalidate the right which Russia may have of considering
241 that part of the ocean as close. But as the Imperial Government has not

thought fit to take advantage of that right, all further discussion on this sub-
ject would be idle.

‘As to the right claimed by the citizensof the United States of trading with the
natives of the country of the north-west coast of America, without the limits of
the jurisdiction belonging to Russia, the Imperial Government will not certainly
think of limiting it, and still less of attacking it there.”

Mr. Adams to Mr. Middleton.
[Extract. ]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 22, 1828.

From the tenour of the Ukase of the 4th (16th) September, 1821, the pretensions
of the Imperial Government extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction from the
45th degree of north latitude, on the Asiatic coast, to the latitude of 51° north on
the western coast of the American continent; and they assume the right of interdict-
ing thenavigation and fishery of all other nations to the extent of 100 miles from the
whole of that coast.

The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their right of navigation
and of fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
after the Peace of 1783 throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean,
subject only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdic-
tions, which, so far as Russian rights are concerned, are confined to certain islands
north of 55th degree of latitude, and have no existence on the Continent of America.

At the fourth Conference which preceded the signature of the Treaty of the 5th
(17th) April, 1824, Mr. Middleton, the United States Representative, submitted to
Count Nesselrode the following paper:

“' Translation. |

“The dominion cannot be acquired but by a real occupation and possession, and
an intention (‘animus’) to establish it is by no means sufficient.

“Now, it is clear, according to the facts established, that neither Russia nor any
other European Power has the right of dominion upon the continent of America
between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.

“Still less has she the dominion of the adjacent maritime territory, or of the sea
which washes these coasts, a dominion which is only accessory to the territorial
dominion.

“Therefore she has not the right of exclusion or of admission on these coasts, nor
in these seas, which are free seas.

“The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every inde-
pendent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence.

“The United States have exercised navigation in the seas, and commerce upon
the coasts above mentioned, from the time of their independence; and they have
a perfect right to this navigation and to this commerce, and they can only be
deprived of it by their own act or by a Convention.”

Extract from Convention of April 5 (17), 1824.

Article 1. It is agreed that, in any part of the great ocean, commonly called the
Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Con-
tracting Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 269

fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not
already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving
always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following Articles.

Art. IJ. With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exer-
cised upon the great ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting
Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens
of the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establish-
ment, without the permission of the Governor or Commander; and that, reciprocally,
the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any establishment ef
the United States upon the north-west coast.

Art. III. It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the
citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any estab-
lishment upon the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent,
to the north of 54° 40’ of north latitude; and that, in the same manuer, there shall
be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the
same parallel.

Art. IV. It is nevertheless understood that, during a term of ten years, counting
from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which
belong to their citizens or subjects, respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without
any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast
mecutioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the
natives of the country.

Mr. Forsyth to Mr, Dallas.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 4, 1837.

Sir: I regret to have occasion so soon again to advert to a subject connected with

the claims of the United States to the right of trading with the natives of the

242 country, and of fishing on the north-west coast of this continent. You will

perceive from a perusal of the accompanying papers that the expiration of the

IVth Article of the Convention of 1824 with Russia is not unlikely to be attended

with difficulties to our citizens frequenting that coast in pursuit of lawful objects.

The leading features of the case, to which your attention is now invited (the partic-

ulars of which are more fully detailed in the inclosed copy of a letter, dated the 24th

November last, from J. C. Jones, Consul of the United States at the Sandwich
Islands, to this Department, and of the protest to which it refers), are as follows:

The American brig ‘‘ Loriot,” Blinn, master, sailed from the port of Oahu on the
22nd August last, bound to the north-west coast of America, for the purpose of pro-
curing provisions, and also Indians to hunt for sea-otter on the said coast. It appears
that she made the land called Forrester’s Island on the 14th September following,
and on the 15th anchored in the harbour of Tuckessan, latitude 54° 55’ north, and
longitude 152° 30’ west; that on the 18th a Russian armed brig arrived in the
harbour of Tateskey, latitude 54° 45’ north, and longitude 132° 55/ west; that on the
succeeding day the ‘*‘ Loriot” was boarded by officers from the Russian brig, who
ordered the captain of the American vessel to leave the dominions of His Majesty
the Emperor of Russia; that Captain Blinn then repaired on board the Russian brig,
where the same orders were repeated to him by the Commander; that on the 20th
and 23rd days of the same month these orders were reiterated; that on the 25th the
““Loriot ” was boarded by two armed boats from the Russian brig, and directed to
get under way and proceed to the harbour of Tateskey; that on the 27th the armed
boats again boarded the American brig, and compelled the captain to proceed to
Tateskey; that when off that place, the weather being threatening, permission was
asked of the Russian Commander to enter the harbour with the ‘ Loriot,” which
request was denied, and Captain Blinn was again ordered to leave the waters of His
Imperial Majesty; and that Captain Blinn, being prevented from procuring supplies
or necessaries for his vessel, and from obtaining any Indians (for the purpose of hunt-
ing sea-otter), was finally obliged to abandon his voyage and return to the Sandwich
Islands, where he arrived on the 1st November of the same year.

The harbours designated in Captain Blinn’s protest by the names of Tuckessan
and Tateskey are not laid down on any Map to which I[ have referred, and the Depart-
ment has no knowledge of any Russian establishments having been formed on the
north-west coast or adjacent islands in or about the latitude given for these places.
It will, therefore, be proper to ascertain whether there are, in fact, Russian Settle-
ments at the points designated, and, if so, you are authorized to make a representa-
tion of the whole subject to His Imperial Majesty’s Government, complaining of the
proceedings in relation to the “ Loriot,” which are supposed to have been unauthor-
izedly instigated by the Russian American Fur Company, and stating that the Presi-
dent cannot but regard this act as one of a most unfriendly character, as the United

270 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

States have had no official or other notice of the existence of such establishments,
and have not, although an application has long since been made for them, ever been
furnished by the Russian Government with the Regulations, consequent on the expira-
tion of the LVth Article of the Convention , proposed to be applied to American vessels
resorting to Russian Settlements on that ‘coast.

On the other hand, should there prove to be no Russian establishments at the places
mentioned, this outrage on the ‘ Loriot” assumes a still graver aspect. It is a vio-
lation of the right of ‘the citizens of the United States, immemorially exercised and
secured to them as well by the law of nations as by the stipulations of the Ist Article
of the Convention of 1821, to fish in those seas, and to resort to the coast for the
prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already occupied. As such,
it is the President’s wish that you should remonstrate, in an earnest but respectful
tone against this groundless assumption of the Russian Fur Company, and claim
from His Imperial Majesty’ s Government for the owners of the brig ‘‘ Loriot,” for their
losses and for the damages they have sustained, such indemnification as may, ou an
investigation of the case, be found to be justly due to them.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) JoUN ForsyTu.

Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Dallas,
[Extract.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 3, 1837.

With reference to your remarks regarding the proper construction of the Gaanene
tion of April 1824 between the United States aud Russia, the Ist Article of that
instrument is only declaratory of a right which the parties to it possessed, under the
law of nations, without Conventional stipulations, to wit, to navigate and fish in the
ocean upon an unoccupied coast, and to resort to such coast tor the purpose of trading
with the natives.

No. 186.
Mr, Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Reccived April 6.)

WASHINGTON, March 23, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 18th instant, to my
telegram of the 23rd instant, to your Lordship’s telegram of the 23rd
instant, and to my telegram of the same day, I have the honour to
report that the Proclamation issued on the afternoon of the 22nd instant
by the President, declaring that all persons entering the waters of

Behring’s Sea within the domain of the United States for the
243 purpose of killing fur-bearing animals, or of violating Regula-

tions to be made with regard to the salmon fisheries of Alaska,
shall be arrested and their vessels, &e., seized, has been issued on the
power given to him by the “Act to provide tor the protection of the
salmon fisheries in Alaska.”

Copy of this Act was inclosed in my despatch of the 18th instant,
and was one of the last Acts which was passed in the closing hours of
Congress.

The Bill originated in the Senate where it was passed, after having
been reduced to sections 1 and 2 of the present Act, and in that con-
dition sent to the House.

At that time there was before the House another Bill of similar
import, which had been referred back from the Committee of Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, and was waiting to be reached.

When the Senate Bill came up before the House section 3 was added
to it as an amendment, which amendment the House intended to take

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. pHs

the place of their Bill, the passing of which was evidently impossible
on account of want of time. The Senate refused to accept the House
amendment, and the Bill was accordingly referred to a Conference, the
result of whose action was its acceptance at the last hour by both
Houses. Iam told that the President’s approval and signature were
really only obtained on Sunday, the 5rd instant, but as that day is not
a legal day, the approval is dated the 2d instant.

Like many other Acts, it was hurried through the Legislature in its
last hours without any but its immediate instigators having any
knowledge of its scope or even of its effect, and there can be no doubt
but that the House amendment to the Senate Bill, that is to say, see-
tion 3, has been the work of those interested in the Alaska Fur-seal
Company.

The President has lost no time in making use of the authority it has
given him, by issuing the Proclamation which appeared yesterday, one
of the objects of which is to again assert the claim of the United
States to dominion over the Behring’s Sea, which claim the United
States Government denied when it was put forward by the Russian
Government by the Imperial Ukase of the 14th (16th) September, 1821.

The Proclamation may also deter American and Canadian fisher-
men from engaging in seal fishing in the open waters of the Behring’s
Sea this season.

Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes provides for the punishment of
persons killing fur-bearing animals without the authorization of the
Secretary of the Treasury (the taking of seals being still further
restricted) “within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters
thereof.”

Section 3 of the Act of the 2nd March, 1889, extends section 1956 to
‘all the dominion of the United States in the waters of the Behring’s
Sea.”

It may consequently be thought that the Proclamation following
upon the Act is an attempt to settle an international question, which,
doubtless, other Powers may still consider an open one.

I have, &c.
(Sigued) H. G. EDWARDES.

Nowis7.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received April 5.)

WASHINGTON, March 25, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my dispatch of the 18th instant, inelos-
ing a copy of the Act to provide for the protection of the salmon fish-
eries of Alaska, I have now the honour to report in detail the course
of this Act through the two Houses in Congress.

On the 25th February, Mr. Stockbridge, Senator for Michigan, intro-
duced a Bill, copy inclosed, to amend section 1963 of the Revised Stat-
utes, and to provide for the better protection of the fur seals and
salmon fisheries of Alaska, and for other purposes, which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on Fisheries.

The Bill was reported back by Mr. Stockbridge a few days later, copy
of Report is herewith inclosed, the Committee having recommended an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, The whole Bill as amended

272 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

then consisted solely of sections | and 2 of the Act as ultimately passed,
and in that state if was passed by the Senate, almost without discussion.

The Bill was then brought up before the House, and an amendment
was offered by Mr. Dunn, which added a section 3, The amendment

ran as erg

244 “Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States was intended to include and apply, and is hereby
declared to include and apply, to all the waters in Behring’s Sea in
Alaska embraced within the boundary lines mentioned and deseribed
in the Treaty with Russia, dated 50th March, A. D. 1867, by which the
Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States; and it shall be
the duty of the President at a timely season in each year to issue his
Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one month in
at least one newspaper published at each United States port of entry
on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said territory
and waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section;
and he shall also cause one or more vessels of the United States to dili-
gently cruize said waters, and arrest all persons and seize all vessels
found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation of the Laws of
the United States therein:” and, after an explanation that the object
of the amendment was solely the preservation of seals from extermina-
tion, was passed. When the Bill came back to the Senate, the House
amendment above cited was disagreed to; the objection being made
that the amendment touched upon the question of the rights of the
Government of the United States. These, it was maintained by Sena-
tor Morgan, had not been considered, or intended be considered, in the
original Senate Bill, and there was now no time to considera question of
such importance. A Conference of the two Houses was consequently
called, which agreed to recommend the adoption of the Bill, with an

amendment to run as follows:

That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby declared
to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the waters of Beh-
Ting’s Sea; and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in each year,
to issue his Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one month in at
least one newspaper if any such there be published at each United States port of
entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said waters for the
purpose of violating the provisions of said sec tion; and he shall also cause one or
more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters, and arrest all per-

sons and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been , engaged in any violation oi the
Laws of the United States therein.

In this shape the Bill was ultimately accepted by both Houses, the
Conferrees from the lfouses recognizing that there was no time to allow
of the discussion and passage of another Bill of similar import intro-
duced into the House by Mr. Dunn. The approval and signature by
the President were obtained on the last day of the Session.

Further copies of the Act are herewith inclosed, together with the
full report of the proceedings taken from the Cong ressional Record.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 213

{Inclosure 1 in No. 187.]
(50th Congress, 2nd Session.—S. 3993.)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

Fresruary 25, 1889.—Mr. Stockbridge introduced the following Bill; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on Fisheries.

A Bill to amend Section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to provide for the better Protec-
tion of the Fur Seals and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska, and for other Purposes.

Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled: that section 1963 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States be amended so as to read as follows:

“Section 1963. Within one year prior to the time when the lease heretofore made
by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Alaska Commercial Company, of the right
to engage in taking fur seals on the islands of St. Panl and St. George, pursuant to
the Act of the 1st July, 1870, cap. 189, or when any future similar lease expires, or

is surrendered, forfeited, or terminated, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
245 lease to proper and responsible parties, for the best advantage of the United

States, having due regard to the interests of the Government, the native
inhabitants, their comfort, maintenance, and education, as well as to the interests
of the parties heretofore engaged in the trade and the protection of the fisheries,
the right of taking fur seals on the islands herein named, and of sending a vessel
or vessels to the islands for the skins of such seals, tor the term of twenty years, at
an annual rental of not less than 50,000 dollars, to be reserved in such lease and
secured by a deposit of United States bonds to that amount; and the additional
sum of not less than 3 dol. 50 c. for each fur seal skin taken and shipped from the
islands of St. Paul and St. George during the continuance of any lease, to be paid
into the Treasury of the United States, and every such lease shall be duly executed
in duplicate, and shall not be transferable; and the Secretary of the Treasury
is empowered to make all needful regulations for the collection and payment of
the same, and to secure the comfort, maintenance, education, and protection of
the natives of those islands, and also to carry into full effect all the provisions
of this chapter, except as otherwise prescribed. And he shall give at least sixty
days’ notice of the letting of said lease, by publication in at least one daily paper
published in the cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington,
Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and San I'rancisco, inviting bids for the same.”

Sec.2. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was intended
to include and apply, and is hereby declared to include and apply, to all the waters of
Behring’s Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary lines mentioned and described
in the Treaty with Russia, dated 30th March, a. p. 1867, by which the Territory of
Alaska was ceded to the United States; and it shall be the duty of the President, at
a timely season in each year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be
published for one month in at least one newspaper published at each United States
port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said territory
and waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section; and he shall
also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters,
and arrest all persons, and seizeall vessels found to be, or to have been, engaged in
any violation of the Laws of the United States therein.

Sec. 3. That section 1969 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the
same is hereby, repealed.

sec. 4. That the erection of dams, barricades, or other obstructions in any of the
rivers of Alaska, with the purpose or result of preventing or impeding the ascent of
salmon or other anadromous species to their spawning grounds, is hereby declared
to be unlawful, and the Seeretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed
to establish such Regulations and surveillance as may be necessary to insure that
this prohibition is strictly enforced; and every person who shall be found guilty of
a violation of the provisions of this section shall be fined not less than 250 dollars
for each day of the continuance of such obstruction.

See. 5. That the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is hereby empowered and
directed to institute an investigation into the habits, abundance, and distribution of
the salmon of Alaska, as well as the present conditions and methods of the fisheries,
with a view of recommending to Congress such additional legislation as may be neces-
sary to preveut the impairment or exhaustion of these valuable fisheries, and placing
them under regular and permanent conditions of production.

BS, PT v——18

274 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 187.]
(50th Congress, 2nd Session.—Report No. 2687.)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
FEBRUARY 27, 1889.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. Stockbridge, from the Committee on Fish and Fisheries, submitted the following
Report (To accompany Bill S. 3993).

The Committee on Fish and Fisheries, to whom was referred the Bill (S. 3993) to
amend section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to provide for the better protection
of the fur seals and salmon fisheries of Alaska, and for other purposes, beg leave to

offer a substitute therefor, together with the accompanying Report:
246 Salmon of different species are abundantly distributed to all the waters of
Alaska from British Colombia to Norton Sound. The greater portion of their
life is spent in salt water. They enter the rivers mainly for the purpose of repro-
duction, and it is there that they become the object of pursuit and capture. ‘The
spawning grounds are on the gravelly beds at the sources of the rivers,

Any obstructions placed in the rivers which wholly or in considerable measure
prevent them from reaching their spawning grounds will in a very short period of
time result in the destruction of valuable fisheries, which under judicious regula-
tion and restraint are a source of continuing wealth and production to the inhabit-
ants of the territory. Up to the present time one river only, the Korluk, on the
Island of Kodiak, has been seriously obstructed by the use of dams or barricades to
arrest the ascent of salmon. This stream, hardly 20 miles long, yielded during the
season of 1888 salmon to the value of 1,200,000 dollars. This extraordinary produe-
tion has been at the cost of permanence, and should the use of dams and barricades
be continued several years longer, the Korluk will cease to be a salmon river.

The marvellous profits reaped by the canners on the Korluk River in 1888 has
stimulated enterprise all along the west coast, and numerous expeditions are being
now fitted out for the purpose of engaging in the salmon fisheries of Alaska the
present season. Their objective points are the small streams, which can be readily
obstructed by dams or other barriers, and it is certain that, in the absence of
restraining legislation, this means of enhancing profits will be resorted to without
scruple, and without regard to the fact that such methods generally pursued will
result in the destruction of the salmon fisheries of the territory.

(Inclosure 3 in No. 187.]
An Act to provide for the Protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Alaska,

(See Inclosure in No. 183.)

[Inclosure 4 in No. 187.]
Salmon Iisheries of Alaska.

Mr. Stockbridge.—I am directed by the Committee on Fisheries, to whom was
referred the Bill (S. 3993) to amend section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to
provide for the better protection of the fur seals and salmon fisheries of Alaska, and
for other purposes, to report it with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. It
is a short Bill, and a very important one to the fisheries of Alaska. It is very
strongly urged by the Fish Commissioner. I ask for the present consideration of
the Bill.

The President, pro tempore.—The Senator from Michigan asks unanimous consent
that the Bill reported by him may be now considered. It will be read at length for
information,

The Bill was read.

The amendment reported by the Committee on Fisheries was to strike out all
after the enacting clause, and insert:

aah

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 275

““That the erection of dams, barricades, or other obstructions in any of the rivers
of Alaska, with the purpose or result of preventing or impeding the ascent of
salmon or other anadromous creatures to their spawning grounds, is hereby declared
to be unlawiul; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed
to establish such Regulations and surveillance as may be necessary to insure that
this prohibition is strictly enforced, and to otherwise protect the salmon fisheries of
Alaska; and every person who shall be found guilty of a violation of the provisions
of this section shall be fined not less than 250 dollars for each day of the continuance
of such obstruction.

“Sec. 2. That the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is hereby empowered and
directed to institute an investigation into the habits, abundance, and distribution
of the salmon of Alaska, as well as the present conditions and methods of the fish-
eries, with a view of recommending to Congress such additional legislation as may
be necessary to prevent the impairment or exhaustion of these valuable fisheries, and
placing them under regular and permanent conditions of production.”

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the whole, proceeded to

consider the Bill.
247 The President, pro tempore.—The question is on agreeing to the amendment
reported by the Committee on Fisheries.

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was con-
curred in.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and
passed.

Mr. Dawes.—The title should be amended. I call the attention of the Senator
from Michigan to the fact that the Bill does not relate to the fur seals as amended.

Mr, Stockbridge.—No, Sir; it relates to the salmon fisheries of Alaska, The title
should be amended.

The title was amended so as to read: ‘A Bill to provide for the Protection of the
Salmon lisheries of Alaska.”

Mr, Platt.—Does the section of the Revised Statutes which is referred to relate to
salmon fisheries?

Mr. Stockbridge.—Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stewart.—I should like to have the Bill lie over, so that I may look at it. Ido
not know that I shall want to object to it after I examine it.

The President, pro tewpore.—The Senator from Nevada moves to reconsider the
vote by which the Senate passed the Bill.

Mr. Dawes.—I wish to say to the Senator from Nevada that unless the Bill oes to
the other branch immediately it will be entirely useless. It is the result of an
investigation of a Committee m the other branch with reference to the salmon fish-
eries only. It has nothing to do with the fur-seal fisheries.

Mr, Stewart.—I will enter a motion to reconsider and look at it.

The President, pro tempore.—The Senator from Nevada enters a motion to recon-
sider the vote by which the Bill was passed.

Mr, Stewart subsequently said: I shonld like to withdraw my motion to recon-
sider the Bill in regard to the salmon fisheries of Alaska.

The President, pro tempore.—Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the
motion to reconsider is withdrawn. The Lill stands passed.

Salmon Fisheries of Alaska.

The Speaker also laid before the House the Bill (S. 3993) to provide for the protec-
tion of the salmon fisheries of Alaska.

Mr, Dunn.—Mr. Speaker, the provisions of that Bill are contained in a Bill
reported unanimously from the Committee on Merchant Marine and lisheries. It
is an emergency Bill, necessary for the preservation of the salmon fisheries of
Alaska, and Iask unanimous consent that it be now considered. It contains noth-
ing else but the necessary measures for the protection of these importiant fisheries.

The Speaker.—The Bill which the gentleman from Arkansas says has been reported
from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries has been read already in the
House, and unless there be a demand for the reading of the Senate Bill, the reading
will be dispensed with.

There was no objection.

Mr. Anderson, of Kansas.—Is this the Bill that makes the lease to the Fisheries
Company ?

Mr. Dunn.—No; this is a different Bill. 1 shall report that from the Committee,
and give the House ample opportunity to consider it hereafter. This is a Senate
Bill, which relates simply to the salmon fisheries. It is identical with sections 4

276 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

and 5 of the House Bill, prohibiting the erection of dams or other obstructions in

the rivers of Alaska which prevent the salmon from ascending to their spawning
rounds.

. The Speaker.—Is there objection to the present consideration of the Bill?

There was no objection.

Mr. Dunn.—I ofter an amendment which relates also to the preservation of the
herd of seals, and I ask the previous question upon the Bill and amendment.

Mr. Biggs.—I reserve the right to object.

The Speaker.—The amendment will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

“Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was
intended to include and apply, and is hereby declared to include and apply, to all

the waters of Behring’s Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary lines
248 mentioned and described in the Treaty with Russia, dated the 30th March,

A. D. 1867, by which the Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States;
and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in each year, to issue
his Proclamation, and cause the saine to be published for one month in at least one
newspaper published at each United States port of entry on the Pacific coast,
warning all persons against entering said territory and waters for the purpose of
violating the provisions of said section; and he shall also cause one or more vessels
of the United States to diligently cruize said waters, and arrest all persons and
seize all vessels found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation of the Laws
of the United States therein.”

Mr. Taulbee.—I would like to ask the gentleman, in the light of his explanation,
the necessity for this Resolution at this time.

Mr. Dunn.—The necessity is that the general Bill, reported by the Committee to
the House, has been reconmitted for the purpose of considering certain amendments
relating to the rele tting of the lease and tLe length of its term in future, and in the
present condition of the House, it is not at all “probable that it will receive final
consideration in time to pass the Senate. This amendment simply provides for the
protection to the herd of seals and the salinon until there can be further levislation
of a permanent character.

Mr. Taulbee.—Does it have the effect of sending up the vessels named in this
amendment as patrols to protect the Company which already has the control of that
business?

Mr. at all. It is to protect the herd of seals and enforce the Laws of
the United Sti tes which were enacted in 1870.

Mr. Taulbee.— Why can not the President do that by existing law?

Mr. Dunn.—There has been a relaxation of the enforcement of the Law heretofore,
so that unauthorized persons have concluded that the Government does not intend
to enforce the Law, and not less that 150 vessels are to-day fitting out to go to Beh-
ring’s Sea. They will literally cover that sea with unlawful seal-hunters armed
with guns, and the destruction of seal-life that will take place, and the fusilade of
fire-arms that will occur in that sea during four months of next summer will drive
every seal from it that is not killed in the general and indiscriminate slaughter.
It does not change the Law, but commands the President of the United States to
enforce it.

Mr. Buchanan.—And is not this method of getting seals—by shooting them in the
open sea—the most wasteful method that could be devised, only about one in five
being recovered?

Mr. Dunn.—About one out of seven is recovered. The time has come when the
Government must enforce the Laws for the preservation of our herd of seals with
firmness and decision, or suffer an absolute destruction of the herd. The danger is
imminent, and [ hope no gentleman will object to it. It does not involve a dollar of
expenditure.

It is useless to protect the seals on the rookeries—the islands of St. Paul and St.
George—and leave them to their fate in the waters of Behring’s Sea. If they are
left without protection in the sea, there will soon be none left to go to the rookeries.
(Cries of “Vote!” ‘‘ Vote!”’)

The amendment was agreed to.

The Bill as amended was ordered to a third reading; and it was accordingly read
the third time, and passed.

Mr. Dunn moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also
moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the ‘lable.

The latter motion was agreed to.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 277

oe Salmon Fisheries of Alaska.

The President, pro tempore.—Reports of Committees are now in order,

Mr. Sherman.—I am instructed by the Committee on Foreign Relations to report
back the Bill (S. 3993) to amend section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to provide
for the better protection of the fur seals and salmon fisheries of Alaska, and for other
purposes, with the House amendment, with a recommendation that the House amend-
ment be disagreed to. I ask for its present consideration.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Chace in the chair).—Is there objection to the present
consideration of the House amendment to this Bill? The Chair hears none.

The title of the Bill was read.

The Presiding Officer.—Does the Senator wish a Conference?
249 Mr. Sherman.—I ask that the amendment of the House be disagreed to, and
then I shall ask for a Committee of Conference.

The Presiding Oficer.—It is moved by the Senator from Ohio that the Senate disa-
gree to the amendment of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Morgan.—Has this Bill passed the Senate?

Mr. Sherman.—It is a Senate Bill which has passed the House with an amendment.
We now report disagreement to the House amendment.

Mr. Morgan.—Aud the question is on disagreeing to the amendment of the House.

Mr. Sherman.—Yes, sir.

Mr. Morgan.—I wish to say just this: That in the Report made by the Committee
the rights of the Government of the United States were not considered, and not
intended to be considered. We only arrive at the conclusion that the question pre-
sented in the amendment of the House isof such a serious and important a character
that the Committee on Foreign Relations would not undertake at this time to pro-
nounce that kind of judgment upon it which is due to the magnitude of sucha
question.

I desire that the Bill as it passed the Senate originally should pass, because it
protects the salmon and other fisheries in Alaska, about which there is no dispute;
but this particular question is one of very great gravity and seriousness, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations, or at least a majority of the entire Committee, did
not feel warranted in undertaking to consider it at this time.

Mr. Sherman.—I intended, when the amendment was properly before us, to say to
the Senate that the Committee on Foreign Relations were of the opinion that while
there was no objection at all to the Senate Bill as it passed, it being for a clear and
plain purpose, the question proposed by the House in the form of an amendment
was a grave one, and had no relation to the subject-matter of the Bill, and ought
not to be connected with it, had no connection really with it, and involved serious
matters of international law, perhaps, and of public policy, and therefore it ought
to be considered by itself.

I was directed by the Committee to state that the subject-matter, the merits of
the proposition proposed by the House, were not before us, and not considered by
us, and we-are not at all committed for or against the proposition made by the
House. We make this Report simply because it has no connection with the Bill
itself, and it onght to be disagreed to and abandoned, and considered more carefully
hereafter. I therefore ask for a Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses.

The Presiding Oficer.—The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the House
of Representatives.

The amendment was not concurred in.

The Presiding Oficer.—The Senator from Ohio now moves that the Senate ask for a
Conference with the House of Representatives on the disagreeing votes,

The motion was agreed to.

Alaska Salmon Fisheries.

Mr. Dunn.—I submit the following Conference Report.

The Clerk read as follows: :

“The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the Bill to provide for the protection of the saimon
fisheries of Alaska having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recom-
mend to their respective Houses, and do recommend:

‘‘That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House,
and agree to the same, with an amendment to read as follows:

“« Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to inelude and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the
waters of Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President at a timely season
in each year to issue his Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one
month at least in one newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United

278 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering such
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section, and he shall also
cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters,
250 and arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been,
engaged in any violation of the Laws of the United States therein.’
“And the House agree to the same.”
(Signed) POINDEXTER DUNN,
BENTON McMIL1IN,
CHARLES N. FELTON,
Managers on the part of the House.

(Signed) JOHN SHERMAN, .
J. T. MORGAN,
GEORGE F. EpMUNDS,
Managers on the part of the Senate.

The following is the Statement accompanying the Report under the Rule:
STATEMENT.

“The effect of the amendment is to leave out of the House amendment the words
that are descriptive of the boundaries of the waters of Alaska.”
(Signed) POINDEXTER DUNN,
BENTON MCMILLIN,
C. N. FELTON,
Managers on the part of the House.
The Conference Report was adopted.
Mr. Dunn moved to reconsider the vote by which the Conference Report was
adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the Table.
The latter motion was agreed to.

Salmon Fisheries of Alaska.

Mr. Sherman.—I ask that the action of the House of Representatives on Senate
Bill 3993 be laid before the Senate.
The Resolution of the House of Representatives was read as follows:

“TN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 2, 1889.

** Resolved, that the House concur in the Report of the Committee of Conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the
Bill (8.3993) to provide for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska.”

Mr. Sherman submitted the following Report:

‘““The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the Bill (S. 3993) to provide for the protection of the
salmon fisheries of Alaska having met, after full and free conference have agreed to
recommend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:

“That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House,
and agree to the same, with an amendment to read as follows:

“¢Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season
in each year, to issue his Proclamation, and cause the same to be published for one
month in at least one newspaper (if any such there be) published in each United
States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section, and he shall cause
one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters, and arrest
all persons and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation
of the Laws of the United States therein.’

‘‘And the House agree to the same.”

(Signed) JOHN SHERMAN,
JOHN T. MORGAN,
GEORGE I. EDMUNDS,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
(Signed) POINDEXTER DUNN,
BENTON MCMILLIN,
C. N. FELTON,
Managers on the part of the House.
251 The President, pro tempore.—If there be no objection to the present consider-
ation of the Report, the question is upon concurring in the same.
The Report was concurred in.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 279

No. 188.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 11.)

DOWNING STREET, April 10, 1889.

Sir: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt
of your letters of the 25th ultimo and 3rd instant, inclosing copies of
despatches from Her Majesty’s Chargé d’ Affaires at Washington on the
Behring’s Sea question.*

The Proclamation recently issued by President Harrison with regard
to the seal fishing in Behring’s Sea appears to raise an important ques-
tion as to the meaning which is attached by the United States Gov-
ernment to the words ‘‘all the dominion of the United States in the
water of Behring’s Sea,” which is the term used in the Act upon which
the Proclamation is founded.

Bearing in mind the interpretation which the United States Govern-
ment has hitherto placed upon the dominion of the United States in
Behring’s Sea, it seems to his Lordship worthy of consideration whether
some intimation, such as that suggested in the letter from this Depart-
ment of the 26th March, should not be conveyed to the United States.

Iam, We.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

No. 189.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 11.)

DOWNING STREET, April 10, 1889.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 4th instant, transmitting, for his Lordship’s informa-
tion, a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at
Washington, on the question of the sale of three British vessels seized
by the United States authorities in 1887, when engaged in seal fishing
in the Behring’s Sea.

2. In reply, his Lordship desires me to state, for the information of
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he has no observations
to offer on the despatch referred to.

3. Lord Knutsford would be glad to learn what is the present posi-
tion of the appeal in the case of the steam-ship ““W. P. Sayward.”

Iam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 190.
Forcign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 11, 1889.
Str: I transmit herewith copies of despatches from Her Majesty’s
Chargé d’Affaires at Washington, as inarked in the margin,t} relative
to the Act of the United States Congress of the 2nd March, 1889, pro-

*Nos. 179 and 183. +Nos. 179, 186, and 187.

250 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

viding for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska, and the
Proclamation which has been issued by the President of the United
States in pursuance of its provisions.

The Act declares that section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States “ineludes and applies to all the dominion of the United
States in the waters of Behring’s Sea,” and directs the President, ‘ at
a timely season in each year to issue his Proclamation, w arning all
persons against entering the said waters for the purpose of violating
the provisions of the said section,” We.

That section (1956) enacts that “no person shall kill any otter, mink,

marten, sable, or fur seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the
252 ~—slimits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof;” and the

President, after reciting the section in question and the section
of the Salmon Act in which it is referred to, proceeds by his Proclama-
tion to “warn all persons against entering the waters of Behring’s
Sea within the domain of the United States “for the purpose of violat-
ing the provisions of the said section 1956, Revised Statutes,” &e.

I am directed by Marquis of Salisbury to request that, in laying the
inclosed papers before Lord Knutsford, you will point out to his Lord-
ship that the Act and Proclamation, taken strictly, do no more than
assert the rights of the United States in their territorial waters. In
fact, the discussions in tne Senate and the House of Representatives,
recorded in Inclosure 4 to Mr. Edwardes’ despatch of the 25th ultimo,
show that the majority in the Senate desired to avoid committing them-
selves by any words in the Act to an interpretation of the Treaty rights
of the United States in Behring’s Sea, and that the House of Repre-
sentatives acquiesced in that intention.

lam, We.
. (Signed) P. CURRIE,

No. 191.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 13, 1889.
Sir: With reference to Mr. Edwardes’ despatch of the 15th ultimo,
I have to request that you will report to me, for the information of the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is the present position of the
appeal in the case of the steam-ship “W. P. Sayward,” last reported on
in Sir L. West’s despatch of the 15th September, 1888.
Iam, Xe.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 192.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 16.)

WASHINGTON, April 2, 1889.
My Lorp: Although the Bill introduced by Mr. Dunn into the House
of Representatives to amend section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and
to provide for the better protection of the fur seals and salmon fisheries
of Alaska, and for other purposes, did not become law, I think it right

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 281

to submit a Report as to the proceedings in the House which took
place in regard to it, on account of its connection with the Act passed
on the 2nd March for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska.

The first section of Mr. Dunn’s Bill related to the leasing to any per-
son or Company, by the Secretary of the Treasury, of the right to take
fur-seals on certain islands.

The second section extended to all the waters of Behring’s Sea. The
prohibition contained in section 1956 of the Revised Statutes to kill
fur-bearing animals (except to those authorized), and calls on the Presi-
dent to issue a Proclamation every year warning all persons against
entering the waters of the Behring’s Sea for that purpose; and to cause
vessels of the United States to police those waters, to arrest all found
in such illegal hunting, and to seize their vessels, We.

The other sections referred to the protection of salmon in Alaska
waters.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, and reported back by Mr. Dunn. The Report, copy of which
is herewith inclosed, is most interesting, and gives the result of inves-
tigation into the subject of the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska, and of the
leases granted by the Government to persons or Companies for the
rights of taking fur-bearing animals in those parts, We.

Mr. Dunn opened the discussion on the Bill by reviewing the rights
of the United States in the waters of Alaska, which were acquired by
the Treaty with Russia in 1867. Every right, every privilege, every
immunity which, he said, Russia had had in the territory of Alaska, the
United States now have. Chief among the interests acquired by the
United States by their purchase from Russia was the seal rookery of
the Pribyloff Islands.

He then went on to give an account of the lease held by the

253 Alaska Commercial Company of the amount of seals allowed to

be killed under its provisions, and of the amount of revenues
obtained by the United States from this territorial acquisition.

It was most important, he said, that the seas should be patrolled by
United States vessels. and that unlawful hunters should know that if
found they will be arrested and their vessels seized.

Several vessels had thus been seized last season, the legality of the
seizure being contested on the grounds that the United States Govern-
ment had no jurisdiction over that sea. The Courts had sustained the
right of jurisdiction of the Government over the sea, and their right
to protect the fisheries. If there had been any leniency in releasing
the seized vessels on the part of the Executive, it was pending some
negotiations about the Eastern Fisheries question.

However, in no case have the rights of the United States been
waived. The State Department has taken no decision conceding that
the Behring’s Sea is an open sea. The Committee have been satisfied
that the policing of the sea must be more rigid, and that no indulgence
must be shown to violators of the law. The existence of the inhabit-
ants of the Aleutian Islands and of other parts in the United States
possessions in those latitudes depends on the continuation of the legit-
imate killing of seals. They get all their means of existence from those
employed in it. The Committee have therefore considered it advisable
that the President should issue a Proclamation yearly, warning all per-
sons from entering Behring’s Sea with the intention of violating the
existing laws; and, moreover, he should be called upon to see to the
closer patrolling of that sea.

282 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

If this be not done the seal rookeries will be open to every one, and
the herds of seals will not last three years. No Government would
wish for this result. On the contrary, it is understood that other Gov-
ernments are more than willing that the seals should be protected.
The United States Government have but to be firm, positive, and
unmistakable in their policy.

Mr. Dingley also spoke strongly in favour of the Bill, the most note-
worthy portion of his speech being that in which he refers to the claim
of Russia, before the cession by her of Alaska to the United States, to
exclusive jurisdiction in the Behring’s Sea, to the controversy that took
place between Russia and the United States when the former attempted
to extend that jurisdiction, and to the Treaties between Russia and the
United States and between Russia and Great Britain, whereby the
rights of Russia were recognized to control the Behring’s Sea north
of 55°,

Several amendments were offered to the Bill, which was ultimately
recommitted, the last stage it reached before Congress expired.

As I had the honour to report to your Lordship, in my despatch of
the 23rd ultimo, the House seeing that Mr. Dunn’s Bill could not possi-
bly pass before the closing of Congress, added an amendment to the
Senate bill (which was ultimately accepted, and the Bill was passed) in
the shape of an addition of a section 3 of the same import as section 2
in Mr. Dunn’s Bill, and it has been in response to this amendment of
the House that the President has issued his Proclamation of the 22nd
March.

T have, Xe. (Signed) H. E. EDWARDES.

No. 193.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 18, 1889.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
10th instant, in which you call attention to the Proclamation issued by
President Harrison on the 22nd ultimo for the protection of the fur seals
in Behring’s Sea, and to the Act recently passed by the United States
Congress on which that Proclamation is based.

In view of the previous action of the United States authorities on the
spot, and of the meaning which may be attached by the Government of
the United States to the words “all the dominion of the United States
in the waters of Behring’s Sea,” employed in section 3 of the Act, Lord
Knutsford suggests that an intimation should be made to that Govern-
ment, that Her Majesty’s Government cannot require the masters of
British vessels, when fishing in Behring’s Sea beyond the 3-mile limit,
to recognize the law of the United States.

In reply, I am to request that you will state to his Lordship

254 ~=that Sir J. Pauncetote, who has been appointed to succeed Lord

Sackville as Her Majesty’s Representative at Washington, left
London for his post on the 15th instant.

It would, in Lord Salisbury’s opinion, be advisable to wait until he
has had ‘time to examine into the question on the spot, and to report
upon the situation, before making any communication to the United
States Gover nment on the subject.

1 am, We.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 283
No. 194.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

[Extract.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 18, 1889.

It will be seen, on reference to the correspondence respecting the
seizure of Canadian schooners by United States Revenue cutters in
Behring’s Sea, that Mr. Bayard, in a letter addressed to Her Majesty’s
Minister at Washington on the 12th April, 1887,* a copy of which
accompanied the letter from this Department of the 5th May of that
year, stated that “the laws of the United States regula.ing the killing
of fur seals have been in force for upwards of seventeen years, and,
prior to the seizure of last summer, but a single infraction is known to
have occurred, and that was promptly punished.”

On the other hand, Lord Lansdowne, in his despatch of the 27th
November, 1886,7 of which a copy was forwarded in your letter of the
4th January, 1887, states: ‘“‘This is, as far as I have been able to ascer-
tain, the first occasion upon which claims of the kind now advanced
have been enforced. Sealing-vessels from British Columbia have for
some years past frequented the waters of Behring’s Sea without moles-
tation.”

Lord Salisbury observes, however, that, in the Minute by the Depart-
ment of Marine and Fisheries, inelosed in Lord Stanley’s despatch of
the 5rd August, 1888 (of which a copy was forwarded in your letter of
the 18th of that month), it is stated that, by the proposed arrangement
for a close time, “ Canada would lose the enjoyment of a lucrative right
long possessed, and this loss would be fatal to the prosecution of the
seal industry.”

In Lord Salisbury’s opinion it would be interesting, with a view to
possible further negotiations, to know for how long, and to what extent,
Canadian vessels have been in the habit of killing seals in the waters
of Behring’s Sea before 1886.

I am to request that, in laying this letter before Secretary Lord
Knutsford, yeu will move him to endeavour to obtain such statistical
information bearing on these points as can be furnished by the Cana-
dian Government.

No. 195.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received April 20.)

DOWNING STREET, April 20, 1889.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 11th instant, transmitting copies of despatches from
Her Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at Washington relative to the Act of
the United States Congress of the 2nd March, 1889, providing for the
protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska, and the Proclamation which
has been issued by the President of the United States in pursuance of
its provisions.

*See Inclosure 2 in No. 37. +See Inclosure 1 in No. 22,

284 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In reply, I am to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis
of Salisbury, that Lord Knutsford, while accepting the construction put
upon the Act and Proclamation in your letter, would have been glad
if an opportunity could have been found of placing that construction
oflicially on record.

1 an, &ce.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

No. 196.

bo
CU
Cl

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received April 30.)

DOWNING STREET, April 29, 1889.
Srr: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, with reference to your letter of the 18th instant, a
copy of a despatch which he has addressed to the Governor-General of
Canada inquiring as to the extent to which British Columbian vessels
were engaged in seal hunting in Behring’s Sea prior to 1886.
Lam, &e.
(Signed) RoBERT G. W. HERBERT.

{Inclosure in No. 196.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.
DOWNING STREET, April 27, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to your Minis-
ters, a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office requesting to be supplied with infor-

mation as to the extent to which vessels belonging to British Columbia were engaged ~

in seai hunting in Beblring’s Sea prior to 1886.
I shonld be obliged if your Ministers could supply the information desired by the
Marquis of Salisbury at an early date.
I have, &c.
(Signed) KNUTSFORD.

No. 197.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 13.)

WASHINGTON, April 26, 1889.

My Lorp: In reply to your Lordship’s despatch of the 13th instant, I
have the honour to inform you that I learn on inquiry that the record of
the appeal of the schooner “ W. P. Sayward” was filed on the 30th of
October, 1888, but has not yet been printed. If it is not printed when
the case is called the appeal will be dismissed.

But it appears the case will not be reached for call for some three
years, the business of the Supreme Court of the United States being,
as [ am told, nearly or quite four years in arrear.

Iam, We.
; (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

|

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 285

Nos 198;
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received May 15.)
DOWNING STREET, May 14, 1889.
Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy
of the Annual Report of the Canadian Department of Fisheries for the
year 1888.
I am to call attention to the remarks at p. 241 as to the seal-hunting
in Behring’s Sea.
Tam, We. (Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

256 {Inclosure in No. 198.]

Return showing the Number of Vessels, Boats, and Men engaged in the Marine Fur Fishery
of Britis Columbia, with the Products and Value, for the Season of 1888,

sd Number | Number
Ton- Num-| Num-/| of seals} of seals} Total | Total
Names of vessels. Names of owners. wee ber of | ber of | in Brit- | in Beh- | number | valueof
“©”* boats.| men. | ish Co- | ring’s | of seals.| seals.
lumbia. Sea.
Penelope--..-......- Modis Gari vinaee seeeresae= 69 5 20 805 900 1,705 | $17, 050
Mary blleny so. ctem Ae Miienn}s2secereacne 69 14 30 1, 410 1, 937 3,347 | 33,470
dimen ees ssheecce Hall and Gospel....-..-- 40 13 28 177 1,017 1,194 | 11, 940
Mountain Chief. -.-.| B. Jacobson...-.-...--- 26 6 10 400 825 1,225 | 12,250
Sanidlos6s---- 2c --- (ists) IE) AesseboeaSone 52 4 16 LOT eae <g sovere 107 1, 070
Sapphire. -.......-- iiipes se LORONU Ee eee 124 9 22 T2008 |e nate 1,200 | 12,000
Gh aise Gooce pee open Carne and Munsic-..-.- 92 5 21 806 | 2,069 2,875 | 28,750
Black Diamond. .--| Gutman and Ffrank.--. 81 9 19 231 863 1, 096 10, 960
Mary Taylor-..---- Oly DL) SWAT erat = 42 13 24 BOA |e aatetee ise 392 3, 920
TCTG YON ===) = == PANNE RICAN m= .elaaeiias === 61 6 24 If \lbeag=sece 17 170
Ave lesseeesseas DSMicleaneosanaccesss< 97 12 Qe a ayers eee 25470 2,470 | 24,700
ONS: Fowler.--.--- Mame Benditec as ss=se- 34 2 12 250), eee 230, 2, 300
Annie ©: Moonre:.-.|| Chas.Hackethe. s- -=-- 112 if Py eee ee 715 715 7, 150
Ibnihy ¢Sacososepseces Gutman and Frank..-.| 68 22 20 Gh). |boeesese- 93 930
Pathfinder-..-.-.-.- Carne and Muusie-...... 66 9 21 600 650 1,250 | 12,500
Adlets 22 ss sk tats ais IP RWbZ nese eeeiee 50 8 19 392 822 1, 214 12,140
Rosey Olsen -.----- Wan Olsen seers scenes 33 3 13 100 500 600 6, 000
mig megs ses ee ee Viaswleatiine sees 25 3 11 156 | 1,039] 1,195] 11,950
Maggie Mc........ ohne odd eaee ee 71 5 20 125] 1,299] 1,424] 14,240
Havouxrite == 2... <2 Chass Sprin’ a.cecece sc 79 12 27 300 1, 834 2,134 | 21,340
NO balies apres ea | ee era mre ctes] eens SIO | eee ee teed he eI «Chore 244, 830
Estimate of skins purchased from Indians..... -...-------------- Ba) ere 3,500 | 35, 000
et sea otter-skins purchased from Indians...---.-------- OOM Rea eseae 100 7, 500
fs hair seals purchased from Indians.........----------- SHEN Pneceeece 3, 500 2, 625
Schooner “Osseo wlér] walrus-Skins: a2 52s. cb ecessceeecsecoses |e eee ace 21 21 378
2 BS ZOOMVOLN A ab AU Gh aae sac iccca se osiscac icc loot e eee rice se |spchoteeensrete 100
Granditovslimarine tours and productse.s-o-ssscee casicceiess|s ce enee co|esecaseeclosnices ce 280, 43 3

The decrease in the fur*seal catch in Behring’s Sea is still more noticeable; it was
caused principally by the unsettled state of affairs with the American Government,
several of the schooners being afraid to enter these waters at the risk of seizures.

A great deal has been written on the life and habits of the fur seal. It is con-
tended by some that all the fur seal in the North Pacific have their rookeries on St.
Paul and St. George Islands in Behring Sea. Others claim that many of the fur seals
of the Pacific never enter Behring’s Sea, but pup on large kelp fields in the ocean,
and may perhaps have regular hauling grounds outside of } Bebring’s sea. Lxtracts
from a Circular of C. M. Lamsen and Co., of London, England, will give the reader
some idea of where the fur seals are caught. From October 1886 to January 1888
the following number of skins were sold:

Seal-skins,

INOLGH= Wiese acer CaS tise e132 ele ee ee eee ae cslee Cota Si Nei mea 43, 687
Wo busplsland see es taper nests kee ele tS oa eet Mh oi EN a any (awe Soo 30. 463
ANG ISIEGY, SESE SOAR But mene UM Egat Cee Eek HS) el ene BES pane eet ar ee ee ae a mee SS are 204, 033
CO eR IS GNSS e586 Sy ae eae ee Seeing Soe nee deta Soa ene Ms ete emery eee pega te 100, 880
Jay OI 5 SER Boer Aeted BGS NEA ae kes tena ponen ae es es Ee eee a eee 9, 856
Cryo LEWCt. Deets bodisae CoC GUd Hee REE ES Boe A Er pa ae ee as on oe Oe 6, 926
DOU Sea epee PEE Ce ee «ote ea ee ae chee hmcewal See Ghee aacde ones Be 200

396, 045

286 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

It has been estimated that 16,000,000 seals haul out annually of St. Paul, and
3,000,000 on St. George Islands. The Commercial Alaska Company controls these
and other islands by lease from the American and Russian Governments. I am of
opinion that many fur seal pup on kelp fields along the British Columbia coast. I
have had reliable information from practical hunters and fishermen who bear me
out on this point. Morris: Moss, of Victoria, states that during the year 1870 he was
engaged trading onthe coast near Bella Bella during the months of March aud April,
when he saw hundreds of fur seal pups from 3 to 5 months old, which had become
separated from their mothers, and on account of a heavy storm were blown on shore
and caught by the natives. Captain Alexander McLean, of Victoria, states that
he killed a number of fur seal pups off Cape Cook, which had likewise been blown

ashore during a storm. James G.Swan’s Report for 1880 and 1885 goes to show
257 ~=that the Indians of Cape Flattery capture fur seal pups each season, and keep

them as pets around the camps. It is impossible that these pups may have
come from Bebring’s Seaat that age, as Mr. Elliott states they do not leave the islands
before the month of November, and those that Mr. Swan speaks of are caught early
in the spring. The majority of our hunters contend that there are over 7 per cent.
of pups in the entire catch of fur seals on the coast; while in Behring’s Sea the catch
does not exceed 1 per cent. But they cannot deny the fact that over 60 per cent. of
the entire catch of Behring’s Sea is made up of female seals.

No-99;
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 3.)

WASHINGTON, May 24, 1889.
My Lorp: [have the honour to inform your Lordship that the steamer
“Rush,” of the United States Revenue Service, has been ordered to
Behring’s Sea in order to protect the fur-bearing animals in the terri-
tory of Alaska or in the waters thereof, in accordance with section 1956
of the Revised Statutes.
The Revenue steamer * Bear,” now fitting at San Francisco, will shortly
follow the ‘‘ Rush,” in order to assist her in this work.
I have, we.
(Signed) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 199.)
Extract from the ‘“‘ Washington Post” of May 24, 1889.

THe ALASKAN SEAL FisHEries.—Secretary Windom yesterday signed the sailing
orders of the Revenue-steamer ‘ Rush,” directing that she sail immediately upon
receipt of her instructions to Ounalaska, and then to cruize diligently in Behring’s
Sea for the purpose of ‘warning all persons against entering such waters for the
purpose of violating section 1956 of the Revised Stavutes, and arresting all persons,
and seizing all vessels, found to be, or to haye been, engaged in any violation of the
laws of the United States therein.”

Section 1956, Revised Statutes, referred to above, provides that ‘‘no person shall
kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within
the limits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof; and every person guilty
thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1, 000
dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and all vessels, their
tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this section
shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize
the killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur-
seal, under such regulations as he may prescribe, and it shall be the duty of the
Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the execution of
the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall he grant
any special privileges under this section.”

The Commanding Officer of the “Rush” is also furnished with copies of the Act
of the 2nd March, 1889, and the President’s Proclamation of the 21st March, 1889,
regarding the protection of the seal and salmon fisheries of Alaska, and instructed

eee. ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 287

to enforce their provisions. The ‘“‘Rush” is now at San Francisco ready for sea,
and will sail immediately upon receipt of the orders, which were mailed at Wash-
ington yesterday afternoon. The Revenue-steamer ‘‘ Bear,” which is now fitting out
at Sau Francisco for an expedition to Point Barrow, Alaska, has also been designated
to assist in the protection of the Alaskan fisheries, and will follow the “‘ Rush” in a
short time. Her orders are now being prepared at the Treasury Department.

258 No. 200.
Consul-General Booker to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 8.)

NEw YORK, June 28, 1889.
My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose extracts, for your Lordship’s
perusal, from the New York “ Hvening Post” of yesterday, containing
an interesting letter on the Behring’s Sea question.
I have, Se.
(Signed) Wm. LANE Booker.

[Inclosure in No. 200.]
Extract from the New York ‘ Evening Post” of June 27, 1889.
THE BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION.

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, June 21, 1889.
To the Editor of the ‘‘ Evening Post.”

Sir: Since the rejection of the Treaty of February 1888 with Great Britain, the
public has heard very little of fishery troubles on the old debatable ground of the
north-west Atlantic, but there is every prospect that the absence—obviously a merely
temporary absence—from public discussion of the well-gnawed bone of contention
will, in a measure, be made good by taking up as a topic the analogous question
pending between the United States and Great Britain concerning the seal fisheries in
the north Pacific, or, as our statesmen and writers prefer, for a very shrewd reason,
to say, in ‘“‘ Behring’s Sea.”

Several British vessels were seized in 1886 and 1887 by United States Revenue-
cruizers for sealing in Behring’s Sea (a part of the Pacific Ocean, as I shall show
presently), far outside of the 3-mile shore belt, and these vessels were condemned by
the United States District Court at Sitka. So far as I am aware, there is no official
publication showing the position taken by our Government in this matter, so that we
must fall back on statements in the press.

The ‘‘New York Herald” of the 13th October, 1887, published what purported to
be a verbatim copy of the ‘‘ brief understood to have been prepared at Washington
and recently filed in the Court at Sitka by Mr. A. K. Delaney as counsel for the United
States Government.” The defendant’s name is not given there, but obviously it is
the brief against one of the British vessels seized in 1887, and probably substantially
the same brief was used against all of them. In a leader in the same issue the
‘‘Herald” refers to this brief as that against certain British vessels charged with
violating our rights. There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of this paper, and
in the-absence of other evidence, we may take it as a trustworthy guide to the
position taken by our Government. It is there stated that the case is based on sec-
tion 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, providing that ‘“‘no person
shall kill any otter, &c., or other fur-bearing animal, within the limits of Alaska
Territory or in the waters thereof;” that the offence is charged to have been com-
mitted ‘£130 miles north of the Island of Ounalaska, and, therefore, in the main
waters of that part of the Behring’s Sea ceded by Russia to the United States.”

It is further stated that the defendants demur on the ground that the Court has no
jurisdiction, as the alleged offence was committed beyond the limit of a marine league
trom the shores of Alaska, and that the Act under which the defendants were arrested
is unconstitutional in so far as it restricts the free navigation of the Behring’s Sea
for fishing and sealing purposes beyond the limits of a marine league from shore ;
that the demurrer. presents squarely the questions:

1. The jurisdiction of the United States over Behring’s Sea,

288 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The power of Congress to legislate concerning those waters.

7 Thon follows the argument, opening as follows:

“The fate of the second of these propositions depeuds largely upon that of the
first, for if the jurisdiction and dominion of the United States as to these waters be
not sustained, the restrictive acts of Congress must fall . . ‘i

This argument offers great temptation to submit it to criticism in detail, but I

shall confine myself to the main issue.

259 It states that international law recognizes seas and waters of a certain kind

s “landlocked or inland,” and accords dominion and jurisdiction over thein
to individual nations. Quotations from the text-books are then given to define the
physical conditions required by international law to constitute such landlocked or
inland sea. These conditions may be summed up in Vattel’s axiom: ‘‘ It must be
entirely surrounded by the territory of the nation claiming jurisdiction, and must
have no other communication with the ocean than by a channel of which that nation
may take possession.”

All perfectly true. The trouble is merely in the ‘‘ application on’t” to the case in
point. The boundaries of Behring’s Sea are correctly given. Among them are
enumerated the Peninsula of Kamtchatka and Eastern Siberia, and then it is said,
“Tt will not be denied that at the time the United States acquired the territory of
Alaska the waters of the Behring’s Sea washed only the shores of Russian territory!”

Precisely. But, as Russia ceded to us only a part of such shores, and as she retained
as her own a great part of them, we are not in possession of all the shores, and, conse-
quently, we cannot claim ‘‘dominion and jurisdiction” over Behring’s Sea under
the above doctrine.

Now as to the other condition shown to be the second requisite of a closed or land-
locked sea—absence of communication with the ocean, except by a channel of which
we, as claimants of dominion, might take possession. ‘That is purely a geographical
question, to be settled by reference to authentic Maps or Charts. ‘The reliability of
the Charts issued by our Hydrographic Office at Washington will not be questioned,
so let us consult its Chart No. 68, edition of May 1888, entitled “ Behring’s Sea and
Arctic Ocean.” Let us, for brevity’s sake, assume, what i is, however, not true in fact,
that the chain «f islands generally called the Aleutian, as far as they go, answers
all the requirements of international law as an inclosing barrier. We then need
only examine the sea to the westward of the most western of said islands, the one

called Atton. The said Chart shows only two islands between Atton and the coast
of Kamtchatka, and these intervening islands are Russian territory. The respective
positions are laid down in said Chart as follows:

° U ° ‘
Atton (most western United States territory), west extremity of...--.-.---. 52 57 N. 172 30 KE.
Copper Island (nearest land eastward), south-east extremity of.....---.---- 54 35 N. 168 05 E.
Copper Island (north-west), extremity of-.-.-.2-22-- 222-2. 2+ cee ec- anna 54 55 N. 167 24 E.
Behring’s Island, nearest land eastward to Copper Island.......-........-..|.-.-.--.....].------------
Point nearest to Copper Island, Cape Chitron....-2. .--...--2.-=-.---------- bd poe 166 37 KE.
Point nearest to Kamtchatka coast, Sea Lion's Head.-.-.......-...-.-.------- 55° 116 IN: 165 40 E.
Kamtchatka, point nearest to Behring’s Island............-...-----.------- 56 06 N 163 20 EK.

The usual method of nautical calculation shows the shortest distances between
the above points to be as follows, to wit, between—

Ation and, Copper Island sense eceeee eee eee 183 ) Nautical miles and
Copper Island and Behring’s Island --------.- 27 a fraction over
Behring’s Island and Kamtchatka....-.....-- 23 in every case.

The narrowest of these channels would admit of the passage of a fleet of over 100
vessels sailing abreast in a single line, even if deployed with a quarter of a mile
between each two vessels!

Are these channels such as a nation can be supposed to be able to take posses-
sion of ?

In all other parts of the world our people have always been the strenuous cham-
pion of the freedom of the seas, and have even claimed (see Senate, Rep., No. 1683,
49 Cong. 2 sess., p.5) that straits as narrow as the Gut of Canso (1 to 14 miles wide)
leading to seas accessible by other channels of sufficient width, were free to our use.
On this principle every one of the many channels between the Aleutian Islands, and
connecting the sea south of them with that north of them, is free to all the world.
The best of all of them, the Amoughta Pass, is about 41 miles wide! Imagine the
ridicule, the vials of wrath that our publicists and diplomatists would pour out on
any luckless wight who, stealing our thunder, should undertake to prove that the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, for instance, was by international law a British closed sea,
landlocked and inland. And yet logically his position would be infinitely stronger

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 289

than ours is, for that gulf, insignificant in extent compared with Behring’s Sea, is
actually inclosed by B ritish territory, and has only three channels of communication
with the Atlantic!
260 There is a story of a naval captain who, on being overhauled by his superiors
for not returning a salute fired in honour of his flag, replied that he hada
whole number of good 1 reasons for the omission, to wit: firstly, having no powder,
and who was thereupon immediately cut short by the remark, ‘That will do!” You
may say the Attor ney of the United States himself has rested his case on the ground
that Behring” s Sea is a landlocked and inland sea. The contrary has now been
demonstrated ; consequently the matter is settled, and nobody cares to hear any
more on so tedious a subject.

But there are always plenty of good people in the world to whom that would not
be conclusive by any means, and who can only be convinced by having every one of
the other allegations, however hopelessly involved in the preceding, or however
absurd or irrelevant in themselves, disproved separately and distinctly. ‘These alle-
gations are, partly in express terms, partly by implication, that (1) Behring’s Sea and
the Pacific Ocean are separate and different seas; (2) that Behring Sea is not a part of
the Pacific, and Behring’s Sea was the only interior sea of the North American coast,
and was held by Russia; (3) that Russia by the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 (with the
United States and Great Britain respectively) abandoned her prior claim to jurisdic-
tion over the Pacific, but did not surrender jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea, and that
consequently such jurisdiction descended to the United States through the cession
to us of all Russia’s rights by the Treaty of 1867.

In support of these assertions, the ‘‘argument” asks triumphantly if there was a
challenge of Russia’s jurisdic tion over Behring’ s Sea, why was it not settled in the
Treaties? Why was a ten years’ limit of mutually free navigation in the interior
seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks of each other on the North American coast accepted
by the United States and by Great Britain, if Behring’s Sea—declared by the argu-
ment to be the only interior sea—was part of the Pacific or belonged to the high
seas, and, therefore, free to all? Why was the term inland sea used?

The answer to it all is the same as that to so many other conundrums—‘‘ The boy
lied.”

Behring’s Sea was and is a part of the Pacific.

The terin Behring’s Sea was unknown at the time the Treaties of 1824 and 1825
were made, and, therefore, was not, and could not be, used in them. When a dis-
tinctive name was employed for that sea, they called it in those d: vys ‘‘The Sea of
Kamtchatka”—the argument itself admits this by saving ‘‘formerly known as the
Sea of Kamtchatka.” The term Behring’s Sea is absent not only from these Treaties
but from all the prior diplomatic correspondence and from all contemporaneous
writings. I could fill a page with the mere titles of the encyclopedias, gazetteers,
and geographical reference books, &c., published up to 1825, and for many years after,
in which I have looked, and looked i in vain, for Behring’s Sea. The name Beliring, in
a variety of spellings, occurs in all, as that of a navigator, of a bay on our coast
(but far to the east of Behring’s Sea), of an island, of a strait, but never, until long
after 1825, as that of the sea, now so called. The present application of that name
is of much more recent origin, and its general adoption has been gradual and slow;
but that this separate name should or could divest this sea of its old quality of form.
ing part of the Pacific Ocean is an idea unknown to the scientific world. Look into
any old or modern reference book, under ‘‘ Behring’s Sea” and ‘‘ Pacific Ocean,” and
you will always find the first defined as a part of the Pacific Ocean, and this as begin-
ning at Behring’s Strait, thus including the first. I found but one exception to this,
viz., the second edition of ‘““Appleton’s Encyclopedia,” (1873), which says that the
Pacific is bounded on the north by the Aleutian Islands (Behring’s Sea not being
properly oceanic in its character), and this is in contradiction to the definition of
Behring’s Sea, in the same edition, that being said to be part of the Pacific. How-
ever, the earliest edition of the same work (1858) makes the Pacific extend from Behr-
ing’s Strait to the Antarctic circle, and it again proves my assertion. Our own early
official Charts, viz., Pilot Charts of Lieutenant M. F. Maury, United States Navy
(United States Hydrographic Office, 1850), sheets Nos. 2 and 3, series “A,” covering
the present Behring’s Sea, are entitled “North Pacific;” the name Behring’s Sea
does not occur in them; but on No. 2 the names of “Sea of Ochotsk” and “Sea of
Sachalien” are given to those divisions of the Pacific. In the official documents and
in the Congressional debates about giving aid to Perry McD. Collins (February 1862,
et seq.) for his telegraph between Asia and America via Behring’s Straits, enacted the
Ist July, 1864, Pacific Ocean is the term generally, if not exclusively, used when refer-
ence is made to the sea now known as Behring’s. But to make assurance doubly
sure, I applied for an opinion on the question to the most eminent livin g authority
in matters geographical, Professor Dr. H. Supan, editor of “‘Petermann’s ; Mitteilun-
gen,” who likewise says that all geographers consider Behring’s Sea a part of the
Pacific. I can submit the correspondence if desired.

BS, PL 19

290 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

261 A look at a Map or Chart of the region in question (which please to recol-
lect embraces not only the American shore north of the Peninsula of Alaska,
but that to the eastward and southward of it, whether Russian, British, or of the
United States) will show that so far from Behring’s Sea being the only inland sez
there, this region is particularly full ‘of peninsulas and whole archipelagoes of
islands, and is consequently also full of interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks,
and it is for that very reason that they were made the subject of express stipula-
tions in the said Treaties. :

No less untrue than the preceding assertion of the argument about the ‘only
inland sea” is the other, that the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 were a sort of give-and-take
arrangement as regards marine dominion; that Russia abandoned a part of it only,
and had the balance conceded to her. Secretary Adams, in his instruetions to our
Minister at St. Petersburgh of the 22nd July, 1823 (see American State Papers,
“Voreign Relations,” second series, folio edition, vol. v, p. 436), after setting forth
Russia’s claims as including the right to interdict the navigation and the fishery of
all other nations to the extent of 100 miles from the coasts of Asia, from 45° north
(round) to 51° north of the American Continent, says emphatically:

“The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their right of navigation
and of fishery is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
after the peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the South Ocean, subject
only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial] jurisdictions which,
so far as Russia’s rights are concerned, are confined to certain islands north of the
55th degree of latitude, and have no existence on the coast of America.”

And when you remember that in those days there was no such division of the
Pacific between Pacific and Belring’s Sea as we, or those who do the talking for
us, now claim, it is perfectly clear that we and Great Britain, in the respective
Treaties of 1824 and 1825, carried our point for free navigation and fishery to its
fullest extent by having it acknowledged therein as extending to ‘‘any part of the
great ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea.” And further to show
that this was also Russia’s view of the meaning of said Treaties, let me refer to a
passage in Bancroft’s ‘‘ History of the Pacific State,” vol. xxviii, p. 583. In 1842 the
Russian American Company urged the Russian Government to send armed cruizers
for the preservation of Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, on account of the great
extent of American whale-fishing there; but the Russian Ministry replied that the
Russo-American ‘Treaty gave to Americans the right to engage in fishing over the
whole extent of the Pacific Ocean.

It is hardly necessary to say anything more. To assert in the face of all this that
our part of Behring’s Sea is a closed sea, is nothing else than a parody on the old
headland-line doctrine, a line, in this case some 900 miles long, from Cape Prince of
Wales to Atton, and inclosing a ‘“‘bay” stretching, at its greatest extent, over about
30 degrees of longitude. This may recommend itself to lovers of a “big thing,” but
legally and logically it is no less absurd than Russia’s still longer headland-line of
1821, which Secretary Adams wiped out.

Perhaps it may be pleaded on behalf of the Judge at Sitka, the Hon. Leff. Dawson,
that he is only a District Judge, and that he was misled by the Washington brief;
but what can be said for our superior officials, the Secretaries of State and of the
Treasury? Were and are they too misinformed on the geography, the history, and
even the law governing these cases?

From time to time we have been told by the newspapers that the British vessels
seized have been released, and then again that it has not been done. It seems to be
all a muddle.

The newspapers also say we must, in self defence, prevent any one but the Alaska
Commercial Company from sealing in Behring’s Sea, because that Company pays our
Government a handsome interest on the cost to us of Alaska; that the seals there are
all ours because bred on territory of ours, and that free sealing would soon extermi-
nate these animals. Imagine such sophisms and such untruth subinitted to the
Supreme Court.

The fur-seal are not all, or even nearly all, bred on our territory. Mr. H. W. Collins,
in his Report on the seal islands of Alaska, published officially as part of the United
States Census of 1880, vol. xiii, No. 42, Part VIII, says, on p. 6, that they also breed
on Copper and Behring’s Islands, both Russian, and both leased by our Alaska Com-
mercial Company; and on p. 113, that 48,504 of these animals were taken on these
Russian islands. But if the seals were all American-born it would make no differ-
ence in law, as creatures roaming about the high seas are no man’s property, except
his who catches them. That “free sealing” might entail extermination of these
creatures in the North Pacific, as it has already done elsewhere, is probable, but this

gives us no right to make preventive laws, even of the mildest kind, for
262 others than American citizens and for localities other than our own territory.
Even the Washington brief admits this. International agreement, and not
the ipse divit of any single nation, is the proper remedy, if there be one, That freq

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 291

sealing might, and probably would, injure financially an American corporation, even-
tually, perhaps, even our Government, may be deplorable, but will not be accepted as
our justification for interference with the rights of other nations, involving the
infliction of injustice on individual foreigners.

The whole course of our Government, its action as well as its inaction, in this matter
is open to severe criticism. It looks as if, in this matter, we repudiated all our tradi-
tional and sterling maxims of international obligations, as if we had substituted for
our old trusty and trusted moral compass a new one, and that one subject to the most
astounding variations, according to locality—variations eclipsing in scope any similar
performance of the mariner’s compass. Within certain moderate limits, there may
be as good local reasons for the variations of the moral compass as for those of the
mariner’s instrument; but an absolute turning end for end, an inversion of north and
south, of right and wrong, the claim that a general principle of law has one effect
here and the opposite effect elsewhere, will not be accepted, in either navigation or
law, by either experts or merely common-sense people. When the captain finds that
the card of his compass calls that north which the sun in the heavens proves to be
the south, you cannot fool the captain into believing that compass. He will tell you
that, though the needle is as right as ever, someboily has been monkeying” with the
ecard. He will at once correct the falsification. The sooner Uncle Sam goes and does
likewise in this Pacific contention the better for all concerned, and particularly for
the international reputation of our country as an upright, a fair-dealing, a just people.

(Signed) ROBERT RAYNER.

No. 201.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received July 27.)

DOWNING STREET’, July 27, 1889.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am «lirected by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
with its inclosures, urging the desirability of such steps being taken as
will secure reparation for the damages sustained by sealers of the
Dominion, in consequence of the seizure of Canadian sealing-vessels in
Behring’s Sea, and the withdrawal of the claim advanced by the Gov-
ernment of the United States to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters
of that sea.

As Lord Salisbury is aware that a considerable delay has occurred in
the presentation of these claims, Lord Knutsford would suggest that
the claims should be presented to the United States Government at an
early date, unless there are strong reasons of policy against this course,

Iam, We.
(Signed) Rosert G. W. HERBERT,

{Inclosure 1 in No. 201.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

NEw RicHMmonp, P. Q., June 12, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the seiz-
ures of Canadian sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to forward to
your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute of my Privy Council concurring in a
Report submitted by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who deals fully with the
whole question of these seizures, and strougly urges the desirability of such steps
being taken by Her Majesty’s Government as shall secure full reparation for the dam-
ages sustained by Canadian sealers, and the retraction of the claim advanced by the
United States Government to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Behrine’s Sea.

Lhaye, &c,
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,

292 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

263 [{Inclosure 2 in No. 201.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 4th June, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 27th May, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
submitting the following résumé and recommendation relating to the Canadian ves-
sels seized in or ordered away from the Behring’s Sea by United States authorities.

So far back as the month of September 1886, the Canadian Government first called
attention of the Imperial authorities to this action on the part of the United States,
and ina Minute of Council approved by your Excellency on the 29th November, 1886,
the desire was then expressed that immediate reparation should be demanded for
such wanton and unjustifiable acts.

On the 29th November, 18387, a Minute of Council was approved by your Excellency,
in which the revised claims of the owners of the schooners ‘‘Thornton” and ‘ Caro-
Jena” are stated in detail, and directing that the claims should be forwarded to the
Secretary of State for the Colonies for transmission to the United States Government.

On the 20th December, 1887, a further Minute of Council was adopted having
reference to the claim of the owner of the schooner ‘‘Onward” and recommending
that a claim for damages be forwarded in a similar manner to the Government of the
United States.

These vessels the Minister is informed are still laid up on the beach at Ounalaska,
and are in an advanced stage of decay.

On the 30th December, 1887, asubsequent Minute was adopted by the Privy Council,
having reference to the claim of the owner of the schooner ‘‘ Favorite,” which vessel
was, on the 2nd August, 1886, while sealing in Behring, ordered away by the United
States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Corwin” under threat of seizure. A claim for damages was
also transmitted in this case in like manner as in others.

A Report was adopted on the 30th December, 1887, having reference to the seizure
of the schooner ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” 9th July, 1887; “Grace,” 17th July, 1887; “Anna
Beck,” 2nd July, 1887; “Dolphin,” 12th July, 1887; ‘Alfred Adams,” 6th August,
1887; and ‘“ Ada,” 25th August, 1887, and embodied the claims connected therewith
which were recommended to be forwarded through the Imperial Government for
immediate settlement.

Further revised claims for personal damages, for illegal arrest and imprisonment
were forwarded under an approved Minute of Council of the 12th January, 1888, to
the Imperial Government in connection with the seizures in the year 1886, as follows:

Schooner ‘‘ Thornton.”

ans! GrlbiOnMSeN WW aSbel asses eae eer ele a eae ees $4, 000

Telabne ING NNE ANH as ogee ocaoooed 266 Soo eed manec Sa boss sod ocac eesSees5 = 2, 500
“Schooner ** Carolena.”

JaAMes Ovrilvile, Maste les sas rs se Cs see ele ee eee ee ere 2,500

Jena) BI Gyeles MiP Yilees A eee Seo omesbo cocoa ween ceca cose osoe Senos sceDs 2, 500
Schooner ‘‘ Onward.”

Mantel Munroe; master ::o- .. see cnc ose ee setese ee ee eee eee eee eee 4, 000

VOM) WE Trcy NENG MEK ae Sane Sooo cae an Cos Gone sc ese ce sean cans oSuece st 2,500

The personal claims of the masters and mates of the vessels seized in 1887 were
recommended for transmission by a Minute of Council of the 12th January, 1888, as
follows:

Schooner “ Dolphin.”

Re yaWialren; MASters.2.a2- so -2c. bok co oe eee eee eee eee ee eee eee eee $2,635

JohmpReillvawmabes). i: ero ot ce) eerie eee Se eee RE eit eee teres 1,000
Schooner ‘* W. P. Sayward.”

(Ceres) lite Ieee) ae nee aS esac Saad soo5s6e Shine shon coma ses Sods 2,000

AC TD Maine MAtO a2. 2.2. ck seeie es cee oc Sec Sele eee ele Seen Seer 1,000
Schooner ‘* Anna Beck.”

ouissOlsen.smasten 2 ~~ -[.25 eects oc ee eel sae See eee ee eee eee 2,000

Michaelukieete smaten 22-20 .o asco ees ee eee cee eee eee Se eee a eels COU
Schooner “ Grace.”

Walliam: Petit, master... .0cl.. -cocce cease sscc seme caee eee oeeeniesiae 2,000
Schooner ** Ada.”

Ciiendles, JNa) Dialers Tithe 6S Sh a4 Seb nSd sob sos soH Sono Soon UaaSossecder 2,000
264 One vessel was released on the 15th May, 1888, under a bond, viz., the

schooner ‘“‘W. P. Sayward;” the owners of the other vessels (except the
“Ada” for which no owner could be found) considered that the appraisement was
largely in excess of the value of the vessels.
The Marshal of the United States Court was also of that opinion, and a reappraise-
ment was sought from the American Government but refused,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 293

The Minister has recently been advised that the schooners ‘‘ Grace,” ‘Anna Beck,”
“Dolphin,” and ‘‘ Ada” were sold by direction of the United States Government on
the 26th March last, the cargoes, supplies, and outtits of all the seized vessels having
been previously disposed of.

The Minister further submits that in a despatch from the Colonial Office, under
date the 29th March, 1888, stating that the Law Officers of the Crown were of the
opinion that ‘in respect of the schooner ‘Favorite,’ warned to cease operations
under threat of seizure, the simple question is whether the threat was intended to
be put into force, and whether she bond fide ceased to fish in consequence. ‘There

ean be little doubt that both questions would be answered in her favour, and in her
case also, a claim should be pressed, though the measure of damages will be difterent
from that in the ease of the other vessels and w ould, in the abseuce of special cir-
cumstances, be the actual loss occasioned by reason of the interruption of the fishing.”

The same despatch referring to the cases of the ‘“W. P. Sayward,’ ‘‘ Grace,”
“Anna Beck,” ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” and ‘‘ Ada,” seized in the Behring’s Sea
during the season of 1887, says, upon the facts laid before the Law Officers, these
seizures were, in their opinion, unwarranted, and the claims for compensation can
be pressed.

It may here be mentioned that in the case of the ‘‘Alfred Adams” the cireum-
stances are somewhat exceptional. This vessel was seized, and ordered by the United
States authorities to report to the United States Marshal at Sitka; instead of which
the captain sailed for Victoria, thus escaping detention and loss further than that of
being obliged to relinquish his sealing voyage.

The Minister desires to draw attention to the concise and forcible presentation of
the Canadian case against the United States contained in the despatch from his Lord-
ship the Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Lionel Sackville West, under date the 10th Sep-
tember, 1887, wherein Lord Salisbury deals with the claim set up by the late Adminis-
tration of the United States to the authority of that country in the Behring’s Sea,
under the Treaty of Cession with Russia hereinafter mentioned, including those waters
at a distance from land far in excess of the ordinary limit of maritime jurisdiction.

The Marquis of Salisbury, in that despatch, remarks: ‘‘ Nearly four months have
elapsed without any definite information being furnished by the United States Gov-
ernment, as to the grounds of the seizures. My predecessor instructed you on the
8th January last, to express Ho Mr. Bayard the concern of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment at the delay, and to urge the immediate attention of the United States Gov-
ernment to the action of the American authorities in their treatment of these v essels
and of their masters and crews.” And again: ‘‘Her Majesty’s Government have
carefully considered the transcript record of the judicial proceedings in the United
States District Court, in the several cases of the schooners ‘Carolena,’? ‘Onward,’
and ‘Thornton,’ which were communicated to you in July, and were transmitted to
me in your despatch No, 196 of the 12th of that month, and they cannot find in them
any justification for the condemnation of those vessels; ” and cone luding his despateh
his Lordship further stated: ‘Her Majesty’s Government feel sure that in view of
the considerations which I have set forth in this despateh, which you will commu-
nicate to Mr. Bayard, the Government of the United States will admit that the seiz-
ure and condemnation of these British vessels and the imprisonment of their masters
and crews were not warranted by. the circumstances, and that they will be ready to
afford reasonable compensation to those who have suffered in consequence, and issue
immediate instructions to their naval officers which will prevent a recurrence of these
regrettable incidents.”

Three years have now almost passed since the American Government were apprised
of the remonstrance on the part of the British Government against the claim set up
to exclusive jurisdiction in the Behring’s Sea, with practically no result other than
the virtual and continual exclusion of Canadian sealers from those open waters by
the Government of the United States.

Constant inquiry has been made of the Canadian Government as to the present
condition of the claims of British subjects in Canada for the damage and loss sus-
tained by the unjustifiable action of the United States authorities.

The Minister regrets that he has been able to give no other answer to these
265 inquiries than to say that the claims are still being pressed upon the attention
of the United States Government, but that no settlement has been arrived at.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is informed that the failure to obtain satis-
faction has already resulted in the financial embarrassment and failure of Captain
Warren, of Victoria, British Columbia, one of the owners most largely interested in
the seized vessels: while the sealing industry, so far as Canada is concerned, which
was heretofore prosecuted with considerable ‘advantage to labour and capital, has
become entirely paralyzed.

He further observes that while the argument advanced by the British Government
touching the rights of British subjects in the open waters of Behring’s Sea has not been
met, recent expressions and actions on the part of officials and of the authorities in

294 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the United States touching the Belring’s Sea, taken with the seizures of British ves-
sels already referred to, atlord a reasonable ground for the belief that the Revenne-
cutters of the United States Governmert in the waters in question will continue to
treat these waters as closed. Great damage has therefore not only been sustained,
but is now being suffered, by British subjects in consequence of their not daring to
risk their persons and property in these waters in the absence, not only of a set-
tlement of the claims already existing, but without any positive assurance from the
British Government that, in the event of loss or damage again occurring to them in
the open waters of the Behring’s Sea at the hands of the United States authorities,
ample redress will be obtained therefor.

The Minister observes that the lease granted by the United States to the Alaska
Commercial Company in August 1870 gave that Company the right to take seals on
the Islands of St. George and St. Paul only.

It appears that it is claimed by the United States authorities that the supply on
these islands began to diminish in consequence of the number killed and taken in
the open sea.*

In 1879 a Notice was published by the Treasury Department at Washington, call-
ing attention to section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States for the
purpose apparently of prohibiting American citizens from interfering with the rights
of the Alaska Commercial Company under its Contract with the United States.t

Notwithstanding the statement in the Report of the Committee of the House of
Representatives t hereinafter referred to, ‘‘that American citizens respected the law
and the published notice of the Secretary of State of the Treasury, and made no
attempt to take seas,” the list of seizures appended to that Report§ shows that an
American schooner was seized in 1886 and seven American schooners were seized in
1887 for the violation of the section of the Revised Statutes mentioned in the Notice.

The bold attempt of the United States to make Behring’s Sea a mare clausum
occurred in 1886 by the seizure of the British schooners ‘‘‘Thornton,” ‘‘Carolena,”
and ‘¢Onward.”

It will be remembered that in 1887 Mr. Bayard wrote to Sir L. S. Sackville West
referring to the Alaskan waters and the Regulations and Orders to United States
vessels to protect them as follows:

“The Laws of the United States in this behalf are contained in the Revised. Stat-
utes relating to Alaska in sections 1956 to 1971, and have been in force for upwards
of seventeen years.

‘The question of instructions to Government vessels in regard to preventing the
indiscriminate killing of fur-seals is now being considered, and I will inform you at
the earliest day possible what has been decided, so that British and other vessels
visiting the waters in question can govern themselves accordingly.”

The Minister is not aware that any information has been communicated by the
Secretary of State Department of the United States Government as promised, ‘so
that British and other vessels visiting the waters in question could govern themselves
accordingly,” but the following Circular appears to have been issued in Washington
in the year 1888:

“TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
** Washington, D. C., March 5, 1888.

“Dear Sir: Referring to the Department’s létter to you of the 16th March,
1886, concerning the scope of the jurisdiction of the United States over the waters
of the territory of Alaska, and the prevention of the killing of fur-seals and other
fur-bearing animals within such, and as described by Chapter 3 of Title 23 of the

Revised Statutes, you are again requested to give publicity to the matter, so
266 that any parties who may be contemplating the fitting out of expeditions

to kill fur-seals in the said waters, may have due and timely notice of the
requirements of the Statute in the premises, as construed by the Department.

(Signed) “LL. H. MAYNARD,
‘Assistant Secretary.
“COLLECTOR OF CustToMs, San Francisco, California.”

Attention is called to the last words of the foregoing Cireular.

The ‘‘constiuing of the Department” may be ascertained by the seizures under
consideration.

The Minister would further draw attention to the Report of the Governor of Alaska
for the year 1888, || wherein he argues that the monopoly of the seal fishery in Behring’s
Sea will be lost if the Government of the United States does not assert exclusive
jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit.

* Report No. 3883 H. R.,50 Congress, Session 2, Appendix (A).

t Appendix (B), April 21, 1879.

{ Report No. 3883 H. R., 50 Congress, Section 2, p.5, Appendix (A).

§ Appendix (C), Exhibit C, to above Report.

| Appendix (D), “‘ Report of Governor of Alaska for fiscal year 1888,”

—

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 295

In this Report, after expressing his fear that the British sealing-vessels will again
visit the open waters of Behring’s Sea, and capture seals, the Governor calls for an
announcement of the ‘‘ policy and determination of the Government in the matter
of their protection.”

Subsequently, and during the 50th Session of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Marine and Fisheries was directed ‘to fully investigate and report
upon the nature and extent of the rights and interests of the United States in the
fur-seals and other fisheries in the Behring’s Sea in Alaska; whether and to what
extent the same had been violated: a:d by whom: and what, if any, legislation is
necessary for the better protection : 1. preservation of the same.”

The Committee reported * upholding the claim of the United States to jurisdiction
over all waters and land included in the Treaty of Cession by Russia to the United
States, and construing different Acts of Congress as completing the claim of national
territorial rights to cover the open waters “of Behring’s Sea outside of the 3-mile
limit.

The concluding portion of the Report, among other things, states as follows:

“That the chief object of the purchase of Alaska was the acquisition of the valu-
able prodnets of the Behring’s Sea.

“That at the date of the cession of Alaska to the United States, Russia’s title to
Behring’s Sea was perfect and undisputed.

“That by virtue of the Treaty of Cession the United States acquired complete
title to all that portion of Behring’s Sea situated within the limits prescribed by the
Treaty.

-““The Committee herewith report a Billt making necessary amendments of the
existing Law relating to these subjects, and recommend its passage.”

Herewith appended is a copy of the Bill H. R. 12,432, introduced as directed by
this Report, together with an extract from the “ coe uaa Record” relating to
the same.t

The Proclamation of the President of the United States was issued on the 21st
March, 1889, of which a copy is appended to this Report.§

This Proclamation takes the place of the Notice already quoted, first reciting sec-
tion 1,956 of the Revised Statutes and then section 3.of the Act, entitled ‘‘ An Act to
provide for the Protection of the Salmon Fisheries of Alaska,” || which is as follows:

“Section 3. That section 1,956 of the. Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President at a timely season
in each year to issue his proclamation and cause the same to be published for one
month at least in one newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United
States port of entry on the Pacific Coast warning all persons against entering the
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of the said section, and he shall
also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize in the said
waters and arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be or to have been engaged
in any Violation of the Laws of the United States therein.”

Then follows the warning as in Appendix (marked E).

The Minister desires to bring to the immediate notice of the British Government
the foregoing to show that w hile the wrongs inflicted by the American authorities
upon subjec ts of Her Britannic Majesty still; go unredressed, instead of withdrawing
from the position assumed by the United States in 1886, the Government of that coun-

try threatens to renew the illegal acts complained of.
267 Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the public mind in Can-
ada has become excited if not alarmed by even the appearance of delay in
obtaining full compensation for the injuries done to British subjects residing in this
portion of the Empire.

Adverting again to the Report of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries of the
House of Representatives, the Minister does not deem it necessary to review all the
conclusive answers which have been given to the ground taken by said Committee,
and he is glad to recollect that the British Government has never entertained doubt
regarding the absence of the slightest justification for the seizure of the Canadian
vessels.

He may, however, be permitted to refer to the argument of the Committee of
Marine and Fisheries before adverted to.

-The contention of the Committee was that the only question ever raised between
Russia, England, and the United States regarding maritime jurisdiction in the Pacifie
had reference to a section of the eoast of the North Pacific Ocean, and entirely
remote from Behring’s Sea.

Report No, eon 50 Congress, Section 2, Appendix (A), March 30, 1869.
t Bill, H. R. 432.

t Appendix as

§ Proclamation, March 21, 1889, Appendix (E).

|| Approved, March 2, 1889.

296 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Upon this the Minister observes that the distinguished American jurist, Chancellor
Kent. did not so construe the letter of Mr. Adais.* On the subject of mare clausum
he says in his Commentaries :t

“The claim of dominion to close or narrow seas is still the theme of discussion and
controversy. Puftendorf admits that in a narrow sea the dominion of it, and the
right of fishing therein, may belong to the Sovereigns of the adjoining shores.

% Accor ding to the current of modern authority, the general territorial jurisdic tion
extends into the sea as far as cannon-shot will reach and no farther, and this is gen-
erally calculated to be a marine league, and the Congress of the United States have
recognized this limitation by authorizing the District Courts to take cognizance of
all ¢ captures made within a marine league of the American shores.”

And with reference to the letter of Mr. Adams, he further says:

“The claim of Russia to sovereignty over the Pacific coast north of the 51st degree
of latitude as a close sea was considered by our Government in 1882 to be against
the rights of other nations.”

In Regulations under the Russian Ukase of 1821, which led to the correspondence
referred to, Russia expressly pretends to grant exclusive commercial and fishing
rights to Russian subjects ‘“‘from Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree of northern
latitude; also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as
along the Kurile Islands from Behring’s Strait to the south cape of the Island of
Urup, viz., to 45° 50’ northern latitude.”

Criticizing this, Mr. Adams said: ¢

“To exclude the vessels of our citizens from the shores beyond the ordinary dis-
tance to which the territoria] jurisdiction extends has excited still greater surprise

The letter of the 2nd April, 1822, from Mr. Poletica to Mr. Adams “especially shows
that the long controversy from 1822 to 1868 between the Russian and American
Governments was not confined, as the Committee of Marine and Visheries says, ‘‘ to
that section of the coast and waters of the North Pacific Ocean between the 51st par-
allel of north latitude and Mount St. Elias and east of the 141st meridian,” since in it,
after endeavouring to prove the title of Russia to the north-west coast of America
from Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree of north latitude, Mr. Poletica says :

“Tn the same manner the great extent of the Pacific Ocean at the 41st degree of
latitude cannot invalidate the right which Russia may have of considering that part
of the ocean as close. But as the Imperial Government has not thought fit to take
advantage of that right, all further discussion on this subject would ‘be idle.”

Reference can again be made to the letter of Mr. Adams to Mr. Poletiéa, § wherein
he stated:

“With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified
the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea because it claims
territory both on its American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the dis-
tance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 5° north is not less than 90° of
longitude, or 4,000 miles.”

And to the letter of Mr. Adams to Mr. Middleton,|| the American Representative
in Russia, wherein he remarks:

“From the tenour of the Ukase, the pretensions of the Imperial Government

268 extend to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction from the 45th degree of north

latitude, on the Asiatic coast, to the latitude of 51° north, on the western coast

of the American continent, and they assume the right of interdicting the navigation

and the fishery of all other nations to the extent of 100 miles from the whole of that
coast.

‘“The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their right of naviga-
tion and of fishing is perfect and has been in constant exercise from the earliest
times, after the Peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean,
subject only to the ordinary exemptions and exelusions of the territorial jurisdie-
tions, which, so far as Russian rights are concerned, are confined to certain islands
north of the 55th degree of latitude and have no existence on the continent of
America.”

Subsequently Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State at Washington, wrote Mr. Dallas,
from which is extracted the following passage:

“The United States, in agreeing not to form new establishments to the north of
latitude 54° 40’ north, made no acknowledgment of the right of Russia to the terri-
tory above that line. If such an admission had been made, Russia, by the same
construction of the Article referred to, must have acknowledged the right of the

* March 30, 1882.

t “‘ Kent’s Commentaries,” vol. i, pp. 29 and 30, 18th edition.
t Mr. Adams to Mr. Poletie: 1, February 25, 1822,

§ March 20, 1822.

|| July 22, 1823.

q| November 3, 1837.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 297

United States to the territory south of the designated line. But that Russia did not
so understand the Article is conclusively proved by her having entered into a simi-
lar Agreement (1825) with Great Britain, and having, in fact, acknowledged in that
instrument the right of possession of the same territory by Great Britain. ‘The
United States can only be considered as acknowledging the right of Russia to acquire
by actual occupation a just claim to unoccupied Jands above the latitude 54° 40/
north, and even this is mere natter of inference, as the Convention of 1824 contains
nothing more than a negation of the right of the United States to occupy new points
within those limits.

“Admitting that this inference is just, and was in contemplation of the parties to
the Convention, it cannot follow that the United States ever intended to abandon
the just right acknowledged by the Ist Article to belong to them under the law of
nations, to frequent any part of the unoccupied coast of North America for the pur-
pose of fishing or trading with the natives.” :

The Committee having endeavoured to show that the correspondence between
1822 down to the Treaty of Cession with Russia had no reference to Behring’s Sea,
were compelled to reconcile with their contention the opinion of Mr. Seeretary Bout-
well, of the Treasury Department at Washington, given on the 9th April, 1872,
wherein he held that the taking of fur-seals was not unlawful unless attempted
within a marine league of the shore. Accordingly, Mr. Boutwell was called upon to
explain his previous letter, and this he has attempted to do.*

It will be observed, however, that, while Mr. Boutwell now claims that his letter
of 1872 referred only to that portion of the Pacific south of the Aleutian range of
islands, the letter is in reply to a direct question from the Collector at San Francisco,
founded upon an extract from a newspaper.

This newspaper expressly states that parties in Australia are fitting out for an
expedition for the capture of fur-seals ‘in Behring’s Sea.” The Collector incloses
this extract to Mr. Boutwell, and suggests that, as the seals reach St. Paul and St.
George Islands uniformly by the Ounimak Pass and through the narrow straits near
that pass, that a cutter be placed in the region of Ounimak Pass, where it could
render most efficient service in preventing foreigners slaughtering fur-seals in the
water on their way to the islands.

Mr. Boutwell’s letter conveyed his opinion that a Revenue cutter could not protect
the seals in the narrow pass referred to, since they went in pairs or singly and not in
droves, and covered ‘‘a large region of water in their homeward travel to these
islands,” and he added: ‘I do not see that the United States would have the juris-
diction or power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose unless they
made such attempt within a marine league of the shore.”

It is impossible, in the light of the present contention of the United States, to sup-
pose that Mr. Boutwell did not know that the slaughter of the seals in the waters of
the Behring’s Sea was the fear of the collector and that the suggestion of the latter
was to prevent foreign vessels pursuing seals through the pass in question.t

Notwithstanding this explanation, it is to be observed that no vessel of any
kind was ever seized by the American Government for violation of section 1956,
Revised Statutes before mentioned, until 1884, when outside of the 3-mile limit in
Behring’s Sea.

The list of seizures produced before the Committee is hereto appended.}
269 The Minister of Marine and Fisheries feels assured that arguments such as
he has referred to cannot do more than aggravate the situation and expose the
weakness of a claim of jurisdiction which for nearly three years the Government of
the United States have been permitted to maintain against the interests and rights
of British subjects.

It is to be regretted that some of the leading Representatives in the Canadian
Parliament have already been induced to express the opinion that the British Gov-
ernnent would not actively protect the rights of British subjects resident in Canada
in cases wherein the United States were concerned, and while he, the Minister,
believes such opinion to be entirely erroneous and unfounded, he desires to express
the hope that these extreme views may be in nowise strengthened by any unnecessary
delay in vigorously and etfectively pressing the Canadian claims against the American
Government for the illegal and unjustifiable action now under consideration.

The record of the claims having been completed on the 12th day of January, 1888,
and then forwarded to the Imperial authorities, the Minister recommends that Her
Majesty’s Government be urged to take such further steps as will promptly secure
from the Government of the United States not only full and ample reparation for the
loss and damage sustained, but also a complete and immediate retraction of the claim
of that country to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of the Behring’s Sea.

*Report of Committee on Marine and Fisheries, p. 12,50 Congress, Session 2, No
3883, Appendix (F).

t Appendix (G).

¢ Appendix (C).

298 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Committee concur in the foregoing résumé and recommendation of the Minister
of Marine and Fisheries, and they advise that your excellency be moved to forward
a copy of this Minute, together with the inclosures, to the Right Honourable the
Secretary of State for the “Colonies.

The Committee further advise that the High Commissioner for Canada be directed
to place himself in personal communication with the Secretary of State, so as to
afford him any further information that may be desired, all which is respectfully
submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

‘Signed) Joun J. McGur,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDICES.
50th Congress, 2nd session, H. R. 12432.—(Report. No. 3883.)
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

JANUARY 29, 1889.—Read twice, recommitted to the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Dunn, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, reported the fol-
lowing Bill:

A Bill to Amend Section 1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to provide for the better Protec-
tion of the Fur-Seals and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska, and for other Purposes.

Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that section 1963 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States be amended so as to read as follows:

“Section 1963. Within one year prior to the time when the lease heretofore made
by the Secretary of the Treasury to ‘the Alaska Commercial Company’ of the right
to engage in taking fur-seals on the islands of Saint Paul and St. George ,pursuant to
the Act of the Ist July, 1870, chapter 189, or when any future similar lease expires
or is surrendered, forfeited, or terminated, the Secretary of the ‘Treasury shall lease
to proper and responsible parties for the best advantage of the United States, having
due regard to the interests of the Government, the native inhabitants, their comfort,
maintenance, and education, as well as to the interest of the parties heretofore
engagedin the trade and the protection of the fisheries, the right of taking fur-seals
on the islands herein named, and of sending a vessel or vessels to the islands for the
skins of such seals, for the term of twenty years, at an annual rental of not less
than 50.000 dollars, to be reserved in such lease and secured by a deposit of United
States bonds to that amount; and the additional sum of not less than 3 dols. 50. for
each fur-seal skin taken and shipped from the islands of St. Paul and St. George
during the continuance of any lease to be paid into the Treasury of the United
States, and every such lease shall be duly executed in duplicate and shall not be
transferable; and the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make all need ful
Regulations for the collection and payment of the same, and to secure the comfort,

maintevance, education, and protection of the natives of those islands, and also
270 ~=—to carry into full effect all the provisions of this chapter, except as otherwise

prescribed. And he shall give at least sixty days’ notice of the letting of said
lease by publication in at least one daily paper published in the cities of Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, W ashington, Chicago, New Orleans, St. Louis, and
San Francisco, inviting bids for the same.”

Sec. 2. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was intended
to include and apply, and is hereby declared to include and apply, to all the waters
of Behring’s Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary-lines mentioned and
described in the Treaty with Russia, dated the 30th March, A. p. 1867, by which the
Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States; and it shall be the duty of the
President, at a timely season in each year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the
same to be published for one month in at least one newspaper published at each
United States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against enter-
ing said Territory and waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said
section; and he shall also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently
eruize said waters and arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be, or to have
been, engaged in any violation of the laws of the United States therein.

Sec. 3. That section 1969 of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the
same is hereby, repealed.

—= -

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 299

Sec. 4. That the erection of dams, barricades, or other obstructions in any of the
rivers of Alaska, with the purpose or result of preventing or impeding the ascent of
salmon, or other anadromous species, to their spawning-grounds, is hereby declared
to be unlawful, and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed
to establish such Regulations and surveillance as may be necessary to insure that
this prohibition is strictly enforced; and every person who shall be found euilty of
a violation of the provisions of this section shall be fined not less than 250 dollars
for each day of the continuance of such obstructions.

Sec. 5. The Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is hereby empowered and directed
to institute an investigation into the habits, abundance, and distribution of the sal-
mon of Alaska, as well as the present conditions and methods of the fisheries, with
a view of recommending to Congress such additional legislation as may be necessary
to prevent the imp: Lirment or exhaustion of these valuable fisheries, and placing
them under regular and permanent conditions of production,

APPENDIX (A).
Extract from the “ Congressional Record,” 1889, p. 2788.
FUR-SEAL AND SALMON FISHERIES.

Mr. Dunn, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, reported back
with the amendments ordered by the House the Bill (H. R. 12432) to amend section
1963 of the Revised Statutes, and to provide for the better protection of the fur-seal
and salmon fisheries of Alaska and for other purposes, which was laid on the table
for the present, and the bill and amendments and the accompanying Report ordered
to be printed.

APPENDIX (B).
NOTICE.

Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that no person
shall, without the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury, kill any otter, mink,
marten, sable or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska
territory, or in the waters thereof; and that any person convicted of a violation of
that section shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars or more than
1,000 dollars, or be imprisoned not more than six mouths, or both; and that all ves-
sels, with their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of
that section, shall be forfeited.

No fur-bearing animal will therefore be allowed to be killed by persons other than

natives within the limits of the Alaska Territory. or in the waters thereof, except
fur-seals taken by the Alaska Commercial Company, in pursuance of their lease.
The use of fire-arms by the natives in killing otter during the months of May, June,
July, August, and September, is hereby prohibited, No vessel will be allowed to
anchor in the well-known otter- killing grounds, except those which may carry parties
of natives to or from such killing erounds; and it will be the duty of the officers of the
United States who may be in that loc ality to take all proper measures to enforce all
the pains and penalties of the law against persons found guilty of a violation thereof.
White men lawfully married to nativ es, and residing within the territory, are con-
sidered natives within the meaning of this Order.

300

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

271 APPENDIX (C).
FUR-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA.
EXxuIsBiT C.
List of Vessels seized under orders of the Treasury Department.
Date. Vessel Seized. Seizing Vessel. Commander.

For violation of Section 1956,

R.S.:
Sept. 1, 1884 Hamburgh schooner ‘“‘Ad- | Revenue steamer ‘ Corwin” Captain M. A. Healy.
ele.”
July 17,1886 American schooner ‘San | Ditto...-... waacs ee eecemceaee Captain C. A. Abbey.
Diego.”
PANTIES, edi” 16 British schooner “* Mhorn- | Ditto cls. 2-2. occ en = == Ditto.
ton.”
British schooner ‘‘Carole- | Ditto...-....-....<..-......- Ditto.
mae
PAR re, 16 British schooners Onward 24) DitbOse. sas. -= eee eee Ditto.
July 2, 1887 British schooner ‘Anna | Revenue steamer ‘Rush Captain L. G. Shepard.
; seck.” >
Ue Qa nts sritish) Schooners— Win. bia] iLO sa apeasaasie eee eee eae Ditto.
Sayward.”
00 sae Ge Britishischooner. Dolphin || Dittosessss-osse= essere seers Ditto.
EGR ke American schooner “2Lally || SDititos2: cesses ces sees ee Ditto.
NS re
Os early Gama British schooner ‘‘Grace”’ DOV GHOes onasectioce eee eae Ditto.
vAtioe) 6.) §° American schooner‘]hllen?) | Ditton 2s. ea. ee ee eee eee ae Ditto.
COS! (imo American. schoonenss An, | Dittohs-assa4esoseeoeee eens | Ditto.
nie.”
“O91 ace British sschoonery Alfred s| WDittosesseeeeeeeneeeese seers Ditto.
Adams.”
CO GR ake Americanwechooner! {VAl- a | Ditties feseeeeeen ose ceeseee Ditto.
pha.”
CO git: os American schooner *‘ Kate | Ditto...-.--.-...------..---- Ditto.
and Anna.”
CO tae American sschooner) {Sanh |SDittossss-+aaseneee eeeeeee eae Ditto.
Jose.”
cee D, ue American schooner ‘‘Allie | Revenue steamer ‘‘ Bear Captain W. A. Healy.
J. Algar.”
ceo rss British schooner ‘‘Ada”....| Ditto......------------eeee-- Ditto.
Sept. 2, ‘ American schooner “Sylvia | Ditto...--......------.------ Ditto.
Handy.”
For violation of Section 1961,
R.S.:
June 30, * American schooner ‘‘Chal- | Revenue steamer ‘‘ Rush”’...| Captain L. G. Shepard.
lenge.”

APPENDIX (D).

Luxtract from the Report of the Governor of Alaska for the fiscal year 1888, to the Secre-
tary of the Interior at Washington.

But whatever may be the conclusion as to the advisability or propriety of continu-
ing the present policy of leasing the rookeries, the question need give Congress
little concern if the claim of our Government to exclusive jurisdiction to all that
part of Behring’s Sea ceded to it by Russia be not insisted upon and maintained. It
is just as essential, even more so, that the seals should be protected during their
annual migrations to and from the islands, as that they should have such protection
while on the rookeries and breeding- erounds. Protection within the 3-mile limit
will not suffice to prevent the depopulation of the rookeries and ultimate total
extinction of seal life in the waters of Behring’s Sea.

In view of the fact that no seizures have been made the present year, the impres-
sion has gone abroad that hereafter there will be no interference by our Government
with vessels which may engage in taking seals outside the 3-mile limit, and in con-
sequence there is a well-grounded apprehension that next summer Behring’s Sea will
swarm with sealing- vessels from British Columbia and our own ports, ‘and unless
measures are taken to stop them at the threshold, incalculable damage is likely to be
done to the rookeries.

The views I entertain concerning what I believe to be the bad policy of leasing
the islands, do not blind me to the fact that here is a most valuable interest which
itis the duty of the Government to protect by every legal means in its power; it
matters not whether the present system be continued, or whether some other and
less objectionable plan of dealing with it be adopted.

Pe -

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 301

In view of the existing impression and the probability of a much more determined
and destructive raid being made against the seals next summer than was ever before
attempted, it is very desirable that the policy and determination of the Government
in the matter of their protection should be speedily and finally announced.

APPENDIX (E).
President Harrison’s Proclamation against unlawful Hunting on Alaska.
By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

The following provisions of the laws of the United States are hereby published for
the information of all concerned:

Section 1956 Revised Statutes, chapter 3, title 2, enacts that:

““No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing
animal, within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof; and every
person guilty thereof shall for each offence be fined not less than 200 nor more than
1,000 dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, their
tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this section shall
be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the
killing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur-seals,
under such Regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Secre-
tary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the execution of the
provisions of this section until itis otherwise provided by law, nor shall he grant

any special privileges under this section.”
272 Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the Protection of the
Salmon Fisheries of Alaska,” approved 2nd March, 1889, provides that:

“Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby
declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the waters
of Behring’s Sea; andit shall be the duty of the President, ata timely season in each
year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for one month at
least in one newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United States port
of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering the waters for the
purpose of violating the provisions of said section; and he shall also cause one or
more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize the said waters and arrest all
persons and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation
of the laws of the United States therein.”

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, pursuant to
the abovye-recited Statutes, hereby warn all persons against entering the waters of
Behring’s Sea within the dominion of the United States for the purpose of violating
the provisions of said section 1956 Revised Statutes; and I hereby proclaim that all
persons found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation of the laws of the
United States in said waters will be arrested and punished as above provided, and
that all vessels so employed, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargoes, will be
seized and forfeited.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United
States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this 21st day of March, 1889, and of the Inde-
pendence of the United States the 113th.

By the President,

(Signed) BENJAMIN HARRISON,
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE,
Secretary of State.

APPENDIX (F).
Extract from Report of Committee on Marine and Fisheries, p. 12.

It having been claimed by the Canadian authorities in their brief relating to the
seizure of Canadian vessels in Behring’s Sea by our Revenue cutters, that ex-Secre-
tary Boutwell had decided that the United States had no jurisdiction over Behring’s
Sea outside of the 3-mile limit, the attention of Mr. Boutwell was called to the matter

302 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

by Honourable W. W. Eaton, late Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, United
States Senate, to which Mr. Boutwell made the following reply:

“ WASHINGTON, January 18, 1888.

“Str: Since the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, I have examined with care
the letter addressed to me as Secretary of the Treasury by T. G. Phelps, Esq., then
Collector of Customs at the Port of San Francisco, dated the 25th Mareh, 1872, and
also my official reply thereto, dated the 19th April, 1872, in relation to the purpose of
certain parties to capture fur-seals on their annual migration to the islands of St.
Paul and St. George, through the Onimak Pass, and through the neighboring
approaches to the islands. Upon the examination of the correspondence, my recol-
lection is in a degree refreshed, and my knowledge of the circumstances revived.

“The fourth sentence of Mr. Phelps’ letter appears to proceed upon the idea that
it was the purpose of the hunters, as their purpose was then understood by him, to
take the seals upon the Pacific Ocean side of the Aleutian range of islands, and near
the passes mentioned, and through which the animals were destined to move, and
such was the view taken by me on which my reply was based.

“Nor can I now see that there is ground for any other reasonable construction of
the correspondence.

“Mr. Phelps appears to have apprehended a diversion of seals from the Onimak
Pass and the narrow straits near that pass, and his suggestion of a remedy was lim-
ited to the same field. Therefore, neither upon my recollection of facts as they were
understood by me in 1872, nor upon the present reading of the correspondence, do L
admit the claim of Great Britain that my letter is an admission of any right adverse
to the claims of the United States in the waters known as Behring’s Sea. My letter
had reference solely to the waters of the Pacific Ocean, south of the Aleutian Islands.

“Very respectfully,
(Signed) “GORGE 8S. BOUTWELL.

“Hon. W. W. Eaton, Washington, D. C.”

APPENDIX (G).

Extract from ‘ Papers relating to Behring’s Sea Fisheries,” Washington Government
Printing Office, 1887.

PART avis

The following correspondence shows the position assumed in 1872 by the Treasury
Department in relation to the extent of jurisdiction of the United States in Alaskan
waters.

“* Mr. Phelps to Mr. Boutwell.

“Customs HOUSE, SAN FRANCISCO, COLLECTOR’S OFFLCE,
Mareh 25, 1872.
‘Sir: I deem it proper to cal! the attention of the Department to certain rumours
which appear to be well authenticated, the substance of which appears in the printed
slip taken from the ‘ Daily Chronicle’ of this date, herewith inclosed.
273 ‘‘In addition to the several schemes mentioned in this paper, information
has come to this Office of another which is being organized at the Hawaiian
Islands for the same purpose. It is well known that, during the month of May and
the early part of June in each year, the fur-seal, in their migration from the south-
ward to St. Paul and St. George Islands, uniformly move through Onimak Pass in
large numbers, and also through the narrow straits near that pass which separate
several small islands from Aleutian group.

‘The object of these several expeditions is unquestionably to intercept the fur-
seals at these narrow passages during the period above mentioned, and there, by
means of small boats manned by skilful Indians or Aleutian hunters, make indis-
criminate slaughter of those animals in the water, after the manner of hunting sea-
otters.

“The evil to be apprehended from such proceedings is not so much in respect of
the loss resulting from the destruction of the seals at those places (although the
killing of each female is in effeet the destruction of two seals), but the danger lies

in diverting these animals from their accustomed course to the Islands of St. Paul

and St. George, their only haunts in the United States.

“Tt is believed by those who have made the peculiar nature and habits of these
animals a study that if they are by any means seriously diverted from the line upon
which they have been accustomed to move northward in their passage to these

ee

a

AP,rENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 303

islands, there is great danger of their seeking other haunts, and should this oceur
the natural selection would be Komandorsky Islands, which lie just opposite the
Priboloy group, near the coast of Kamschatka, owned by Russia, and are now the
haunts of fur-seals.

“That the successful prosecution of the above-mentioned schemes would have
the effect to drive the seals from their accustomed course there can be no doubt.

Jonsidering, therefore, alone the danger which is here threatened to the interest of
the Government in the seal fisheries, and the large annual revenue derived from the
same, I have the honour to suggest, for the ¢ onsideration of the Honourable Secretary
of the Treasury the question whether the Act of the 1st July, 1870, relating to those
fisheries, does not authorize his interference by means of Revenue cutters to prevent
foreigners and others from doing such an irreparable mischief to this valuable
interest. Should the Honourable. Secretary deem it expedient to send a cutter into
these waters, I would respectfully suggest that a steam-eutter would be able to
render the most efficient service, and that it should be in the region of Onimak Pass
and St. Paul and St. George Islands by the 15th of next May.

“Tam, very respectfully,
(Signed) “T, G. PHELps, Collector.”

Extract from San Francisco ‘ Daily Chronicle,” March 21, 1872.

“It is stated in reliable commercial circles that parties in Australia are preparing
to fit ont an expedition for the capture of fur-seals in Behring’s Sea. The present
high prices of fur-seal furs in London and the European m: kets bas acted pow-
erfully in stimulating enterprises of a lke character. But afew days ago we men-
tioned that a Victorian Company was organized for catching fur-seals in the North
Pacific. Another party—an agent representing some Eastern capitalists—has been
in this city for the past week making inquiries as to the feasibility of organizing an
expedition for like purposes.”

“ Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Phelps.

“TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., April 19, 1872.

“Sir: Your letter of the 25th ultimo was duly received, calling the attention of
the Department to certain rumours circulating in San Francisco ‘to the effect that
expeditions are to start from Australia and the Hawaiian Islands to take fur-seals
on their annual migration to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George through the
narrow pass of Onimak. You recommend—to cut off the possibility of evil result-
ing to the interests of the United States from these expeditions—that a Revenue
cutter be sent to the region of Onimak Pass by the 15th May next.

“A very full conversation was had with Captain Bryant upon this subject while
he was at the Department, and he conceived it to be entirely impracticable to make

such an expedition a paying one, inasmuch as the seals go singly or in pairs, and
not in droves, and cover a large region of water in their homew ard travel to these
islands, and he did not seem to fear that the seals would be driven from their accus-
tomed resorts, even were such attempts made.

‘Tn addition, I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or
power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such
attempt within a marine league of the shore.

“As at present advised, I do not think it expedient to carry out your suggestions,
but I will thank you to communicate to the Department any further facts or infor-
mation you may be able to gather upon the subject.

*‘T am, very respectfully,
(Signed) ‘GEORGE

~

S. BouTwELL, Secretary.”

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 3.)

DOWNING STREET, August 3, 1889.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, an extract of a letter from the High
Commissioner for Canada respecting the alleged seizure of the “ Black
Diamond” in Behring’s Sea.

304 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

274 Lord Knutsford feels assured that the subject will receive the
careful and early consideration of Lord Salisbury.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) Rh. H. MEADE.

(Inclosure in No. 202.— Extract.]
The High Commissioner for Canada to Lord Knutsford.

9, VICTORIA CHAMBERS, Westminster, August 2, 1889.

Referring to the interview with which I was favoured by Lord Salisbury, yourself,
and Sir Julian Pauncefote yesterday, I beg to inclose cuttings from the London
““New York Herald,” * and ‘‘Daily News” t of to-day, which seem to leave no doubt
that the seizure of the British schooner the ‘Black Diamond” took placein the open
waters of Behring’s Sea, and is therefore in direct violation of the engagement made
by the United States that no more seizures of British vessels should take place pend-
ing a settlement of the present controversy.

No. 203.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 5, 1889.

Sir: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
ord instant, with its inclosures, addressed to Her Majesty’s Principal
Secretary of State for the Colonies by the High Commissioner for
Canada, calling attention to the reported seizure in Behring’s Sea of
the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” by the United States Revenue-
cutter ‘ Rush.”

It appears from the newspaper cuttings forwarded by Sir C. Tupper,
that despatches from British Columbia, giving details of the case, have
arrived at Ottawa, and Lord Salisbury thinks that it would be desir-
able to obtain by cable some official statement of the case from the
Canadian Government before telegraphing to Her Majesty’s Represent-
ative at Washington.

[am to point out that everything seems to depend in this case on
the precise position of the “Black Diamond” at thé time of seizure.

Lord Salisbury would also be glad to be furnished with the details
of the case of the “Triumph,” to which allusion is made in the news-
papers, but of which no intormation has reached the Foreign Office.

The original inclosures accompanying your letter are returned here-
with.

Iam, We.
(Signed) T. V. LISTER.

No. 204.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 9.)

DOWNING STREET, August 8, 1889.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 5th instant respecting the
seizure of the “Black Diamond” in the Behring’s Sea, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Mar-

*August 2, tAugust 2, and ‘ Standard” of same date. Not printed.

~ —ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 305

quis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which was addressed to the
Governor-General of Canada on the receipt of your letter, together
with a copy of-one received this day from Lord Stanley of Preston in
reply.
lam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 204.—Telegraphic. ]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, August 6, 1889.

Seizure of Black Diamond” and “Triumph.” Telegraph at once full information,
specifying precise point where seized, and all the facts connected with these cases.

275 [Inclosure 2 in No. 204.—Telegraphie.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

AuGusT 7, 1889.
Cases of “‘ Black Diamond” and ‘‘ Triumph.”
Newspaper reports appear substantially correct,
According to private telegram from Victoria, seizure of ‘‘Black Diamond” 70
miles from land. I have not yet received from Ottawa official Report asked for by
telegram,

No. 205.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received August 9.)

DOWNING STREET, August 9, 1889.

Srr: With reference to your letter of the 18th April last, requesting
to be supplied with information as to the extent to which vessels
belonging to British Columbia were engaged in seal-hunting in Beh-
ring’s Sea prior to 1885, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit
to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch
from the Governor-General of Canada, with its inclosures, upon the
subject.

Lord Salisbury will observe that the last sub-inclosure to this
despatch tends to show that the shooting of seals in the open sea is
not the wanton and wasteful destruction of seal life which it is alleged
to be by the authorities of the United States.

I am to request that the inclosures to the Governor-General’s
despatch, which are forwarded in original, may be returned to this
Department when they have been printed at the Foreign Office.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) HDWARD WINGFIELD.

[Inclosure lin No. 205.j
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

New KicHMonp, P. Q., July 20, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 27th April last,
transmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office requesting to be supplied
with information as to the extent to which vessels belonging to British Columbia

Be Soe EAE iV: 20

306 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

were engaged in seal-hunting in Behring’s Sea prior to 1886, I have the honour to
forward herewith a copy of an approv ed Minute of the Priv y Council concurring
in a Report of my Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) “ STANLEY OF PRESTON,

[Inclosure 2 in No. 205.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, June 29, IS89.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch
dated the 27th April, 1889, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, requesting information as to the extent to which vessels belonging to
British Columbia were engaged in seal-hunting in Behring’s Sea prior to 1886.

The Minister of Marine “and Fisheries to whom the despatch was referred states
that until the return of the sealing fleet, which some time since cleared from British
Columbia upon its annual sealing. voyage, he is unable to furnish complete infor-
mation upon the early history of the seal industry in the North Pacifie Ocean and
Behring’s Sea, so far as it relates to vessels belonging to British Columbia. The Min-
ister desir es, “how ever, to call attention to the C ustoms records at Vietoria, British
Columbia, from which it appears that the schooner “Kate,” 58 tons, Duteh Harry,
master, H. Ogilvie, navigator, went to Behring’s Sea in 1865 and again in 1866 upon
a sealing voyage.

The Minister observes that it is to be remembered that the sealing industry was
carried on by British Columbian vessels, in the waters of British Columbia on the

north and north-western coast, as well as in the North Pacifie Ocean and
276 Behring’s Sea, the seals at certain times of the year spreading over these
waters and being captured in great numbers at different points.

In 1880 the fur-seal trade of the British Columbia Coast was of great importance.
Previously, and even then, it was difficult to obtain absolutely correct Returns
regarding it, but it was estimated that 20,000 skins were obtained in the immediate
neighbour hood of Vancouver Island alone ‘during that season.

There were engaged in this fishery in that year the following British Columbia
vessels, sailors, and hunters:

Vessels. Tonnage. | Sailors. Hunters.

MA WOTIGO. ccs coe cc Sos cs eaicis om ciate esis seein ociciotseite maleate s 2s eta eeie sae 79 5 40
(Osan) so ee Sang oncbote cho ~ do coeeeeStese one some ose segosseonse 35 4 30
4 Word a0) bla = eee coo SE OOO Sn OSS OSS SRS Dorian OSOSNeSoseeHoeodsese 35 4 24
Ammar Becks: S525 -ceses ces oete er pe ee = eee ne settee ieee eemteets 50 5 32
IWAN GOLELr As dsc 2cciee cee eee ene reset Cece cane ee Gat meee aerate cane 16 3 16
PA Vert 2 eee sees se Ra Naee oie eee ee os re ee nie ah ele teestaleleneteretore te eterete 30 3 32
\Wylabonh net apap eeonceannoon Con aG 000 Sab oem aoDOd ssoCeC muabcesenesos- 15 | 3 12

260 27 186

Employing 93 canoes.

It will be observed that of these vessels a number were, in 1886 and 1887, seized
by the United States Government in Behring’s Sea, and form the subject of the claims
now being pressed.

In the season of 1881 between 13,000 and 14,000 skins, worth from 150,000 dollars
to 180,000 dollars, were obtained by the following British vessels:

Vessels. Tonnage. Sailors. | Ilunters.
|

Mop) BG abe bans bas so SBD SSbobo Re op Sehensboo sASse Sedasoocasoos 50 6 32
TUM ML Sj5ces Son Sseebar -bessoedone- coos bosocusobocoatboasodebe a> 35 5 24
dati) (comp SoRe ee SoBeC ee SEC OOD SSS Se0 SRS SU Se aaaSes Seam eeceocikn 18 3 12
Vivir ttl Se esp pascuncudac Hanna sao cous Tot sdace Gane sseecdSccosad 15 3 12
(Ory Bhi le Ok oc5e0cU saOOGU SOO eU Sa OCU REO EO US TOe SopedodncagondeS 35 4 32
BAC Tam ON Gee Semies a oases et aeeae aoe aie ania aee seater eres 80 5 36
Cinhonti eso seca ocopCeEe RCOUn See cea secdtbe Sooo Us cb Sosnecobobsese5 80 5 36
IEW OIE) SoacogocnccomaSpodKA Soba coos eobins ones dbo anScocosess5—* 80 5 36
Wibiny LNG, Coo sadb eboposcpectods = sos esot aoe aeeoccesaosscedasso. 65 5 44
IGCHEG one sentences ceeeae sce eric cecceice wee watbion eseeseiieisicit aise 55 5 24

483 | 46 292

Employing 146 canoes.

a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 307

In the next season the catch was valued at 177,000 dollars and the following vessels
were engaged in this pursuit:

Vessels. Tonnage. Sailors. | Hunters.
-| = =

(GHA) pha ocingcop sade os Co Boo one OSE ensuoorecsemEEcSeueEo sas Seeettete 80 5 36
WOW - 2 oan Soe an mate ie wm i= we ww ww ie win lh = = 80 5 36
Sfmt) G+ eos = oseee cone Seenoa cos eprecosnrSs SucdoeouenoSobeoonS 50 4 32
W. P. Sayward.--.-------------------------+----+----+--+----+----- 75 4 32
TRENWOINIIG), 52 So 5elsc bee cetoond sono o Rca ea OA OCnOn GD eE poScpecsecoBoore 80 5 32
Winnie IMM enlnodéabecenssdonedcobeosces osc as cang=ee-ensapacesuS5ur } 65 5 36
Titi@voned es boews doen Sone adhd oboe soemotarosericed paoBe Sopp cOUCH EES 55 4 28
(Omi iat eosse sSastesdeeu Coens dogs pc po enGuenencle 45 5eGade pease nods 35 4 32
THAD Mini NG Le eopoaetoDoncehcceASeaoeuoenac bebDeE se Pee rise eee 80 4 32
\iiiiiieet aac Goes eabos copop nee o Ck co tee EOnGuds oven a cuburaoaocs 15 2 12
PAGTITY UW ESG Capa eyelet eis iota stare ta ae ols Taw ee oie nln fo) oh te Slo vetesete| sels orerele orate 50 4 32
MOM bO Me eae ae ee ee ate eco cia swe a ES Stadac Sey late nye eres Se Ser ele 35 4 28
PAE eOAUA Cam Seeecesecteec <sineicieicite Sie i> oicnlela\selnin)siciae'a ie (n/a lntee 5 eia(ml= 75 | 4 32

775 | 54 | 400

| |

Employing 200 canoes.

277 And in 1883 the following vessels from British Columbia pursued this indus-
try:
Vessels. Tonnage. | Sailors. Hunters.

Mio IE ISB NORM los Soogee denecccebcaseSasonedSebdGoccEmisacnesomseorse 75 4 32
TIE OPC ood aves SSE oa Seep poss OUobScoO sen seEepoSOOee en meas ee ae 80 5 32
Wenmy 1oilkein. co csosossis ssecesseors=nse ooSsodoeseose ssecossossesces 65 5 36
SE SSE EE ER Soa ne Se Sons eer erate Se Ree ee ches ata eta 55 4 28
O@inwaande-eseae ara sao ae eI ee as ein eierereis ai cis sislsic sia ete oerere 35 4 32
BAe ke Diamon Geers a nosertn mame ese ce tees sonicinre om a cucetenae cee ne 80 4 32
SV PIT R OC pears ners Sects See SE an wae oo ctaiene cIoneftveie ate eis /ee Delete see cote 15 2 12
MH OMNtOMe tere ce ae cae eek eoeracenlc Soars icisteiae Sares ec esiee Jen-soeek ees 35 4 28
PANTIE G PACES eats m joys ete ciaie re entered atante esaietatsicra latate= nine sie Siesiogels Sota 75 4 32
PACT APIS OC Kiser eraictercne ieee aie oreteteinictoriele nicte Sintele cieisincin w iene is eiessiztecens 50 4 32

565 40 296

Employing 148 canoes.

Apparently and in the absence of more definite information at this moment ayail-
able in the continual pursuit of these seals, it was after this that fur-seals were
systematically sought in the Behring’s Sea, as well as in the North Pacific Ocean by
British sealers, for it is found that in 1884 Daniel and Alexander McLean, both Brit-
ish subjects, took the American schooner ‘‘San Diego” to Behring’s Sea, and that
they were successful in the seal fishery. On their return they purchased the British
schooner ‘‘ Mary Ellen,” 63 tons, and chartered the schooner ‘‘ Favorite,” 80 tons, and
with white crew, white hunters, and Indians cleared from Victoria for Behring’s Sea
in 1885, where they met with repeated success, returning to Victoria before 1886 and
clearing in 1886 again for the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

The Minister further observes that attention is drawn in the letter from the For-
eign Office, now under consideration, to the statement of Mr. Bayard in a letter
addressed to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington on the 12th April, 1887, in which
the following passage occurs:

“The Laws of the United States regulating the killing of fur-seals have been in
force for upwards of seventeen years, and, prior to the seizure of last summer, but a
single infraction is known to have oceurred and that was promptly punished.”

In this connection it is important to note that the Governor of Alaska in his
Report, bearing date the Ist October, 1886, and again in 1887, regarded the capture
of one American and three British schooners apparently as the first overt act on the
part of the United States Government to assert the claim for exclusive jurisdiction
over the waters of Behring’s Sea north of the Aleutian Islands.

Extracts from these two Reports, hereto appended, indicate as well that, in the
opinion of the Governor, an indiscriminate slaughter of seals had been previously
carried on in these waters.

In the voluminous correspondence touching the acquisition and Government of
Alaska by the United States published in the Executive documents of Congress from
1868 down to the time of the seizures in question, the Minister, after a careful exam-
ination, has been unable to find, in the various instructions given from time to time
to Commanders of the Revenue Service, or of ships of war of the United States

308 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

eruizing in Behring’s Sea, organizing a Government in Alaska and guarding the
interests of the Alaska Commercial Company upon the islands leased to the Com-
pany, any suggestion of the intention of that Government to assert a claim which it
had so vehemently disputed when advanced by Russia. The Minister, on the con-
trary, has observed that while vessels from British Columbia and elsewhere were
trading and fishing generally in the Behring’s Sea, the instructions relating to the
fisheries given to Revenue marine ships by the United States Government until 1886
were confined to the protection of the Seal Islands from marauders who were in the
habit of landing thereon.

It is to be noted that the seizures of British sealers in the open sea followed the
Report on the cruize of the Revenue marine steamer ‘‘Corwin” in the year 1885,

In this Report it is among other things stated that a special look-out was kept for
vessels sealing when shaping a course for St. Paul’s. The Captain in his Report says:

‘“While we were in the vicinity of the Seal Islands a look-out was kept at the
278 mast-head for vessels cruizing, sealing, or illicitly trading among those islands.”

Having drawn attention to the number of ve ssels which sought the seals on
the islands, and having illustrated the great difficulty of preventing the so-called
“‘niracy” thereupon, the Commander concludes as follows:

*‘In view of the foregoing facts, I would respectfully suggest—

“(1.) That the Department cause to be printed in the Western Papers, particularly
those of San Francisco, California, and Victoria, British Columbia, the sections of
the Law relating to the killing of fur-bearing animals in Alaskan waters, and defining
in specific terms what is meant by Alaskan waters.

“(2.) That a Revenue-cutter be sent to cruize in the vicinity of Pribyloff Islands
and Aleutian group during the sealing season.”

While the first sugge stion has never been adopted, no notice nor Act having yet
defined what is meant by Alaskan waters, it seems to be clear that, in accordance
with this Report and other similar representations, the United States Government
sent Revenue-cutters in 1886 with instructions for the first time to take sealing-
vessels found anywhere in the great ocean called the Behring’s Sea.

Accordingly Mr. George R. Tingle, Special Agent of the Treasury Department,
reports from St. Panl Island, Alaska, 31st July, 1886, to the Honourable C. 8. Fair-
child, Acting Secretary of Treasury, Washington, District of Columbia, that the
Revenue-cutters were then engaged in keeping marauders from landing on the Seal
Islands, and that the Captain of the Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Corwin,” on the 26th July had
reported having seized the schooner ‘‘San Diego,” which vessel he calls an ‘old
offender.” He goes on to say: ‘‘This commencement of captures will do much
towards breaking up the marauding business about the islands this season; indeed,

the ‘Corwin’s’ presence here has undoubtedly kept off quite a fleet of schooners and
destroyed their unlawful business hereabouts. With the cutter ‘Bear’ to remain
until fall, after coming out of the Arctic, seal life will be protected from pirates
this season. It is the only means by which good can be accomplished in that direc-
tion. I do earnestly hope the Department will see the necessity of keeping a cutter
around the fur-seal islands every season from the 1st July to the Ist November.”

From the extract in Mr. Bayard’s letter it appears that he was under the impres-
sion that prior to the seizures of 1886 but a single infraction of the United States
Law regulating fur-seals as construed by the Commanders of the Revenue-vessels
which made these seizures, had occurred.

The particulars already referred to by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries fully
meet Mr. Bayard’s assertion, whether he refers to the violation of the Statute inside
of the 3-mile limit or upon the waters of the sea at large.

Attention may be directed to the Report of Mr. George Davidson, Assistant
United States Survey on board the United States Revenue-steamer “Lincoln,” to
Professor Benjamin Pierce, Superintendent United States Coast Survey, Washing-
ton, District of Columbia, in 1867, wherein he says, when touching upon the fisheries
of the Behring’s Sea : “Two or three small schooners sailed from Victoria and made
small eatches.” And again, ‘‘In addition to the already acknowledged success of
the cod fisheries from San Francisco and Victoria and our own experience, I add that
of Captain Bryant, formerly a whaler in the North Pacific, and now an influential
member of the Msacarhinsaits Legislature, quoting from your notes of the 26th May.
Behring’s Sea is a mighty reservoir of cod and halibut, so that he never threw over
his lines without bri inging up fish in whatever part of the sea he might happen.”

It is admitted that Mr. Davidson is not dealing with the fur-seal fisheries to which
Mr. Bayard specifically refers, yet the extracts from this Report appear to the Min-
ister to be important, touching the general question of mare clausum, bearing testi-
mony as they do to the undisputed enjoyment of the fisheries in general in the Beh-
ring’s Sea by vessels from British Columbia long ago.

The Minister desires to avail himself of this opportunity to direct attention to
recent criticisms of one of the most influential and independent organs of public
opinion in the United States upon the position taken by the Government of that
country as regards Behring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 309

The Minister appends herewith a paper upon the ‘‘Fur-seal Fisheries of the Pacific
Coast and Alaska,” recently prepared and published in San Francisco, and designed
to explain, more particularly to Eastern United States Senators and Congressmen,
the value of the fur-seal fisheries, which contains much valuable imformation not
adverse to the contention of the Canadian Government.

The Committee, concurring in the foregoing Report of the Minister of Marine and

Fisheries, recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of
279 this Minute to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the

Colonies, for the information of the Foreign Office, and that a copy thereof be
sent to the High Commissioner.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX No. 1.
Extract from the Report of the Governor of Alaska for the Fiscal Year 1S8¢
PROTECTION OF FUR-SEAIL AND SEA OTTER, PAGE 48.

As these seizures have most probably raised an international question involving
the right of the United States to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of the
Behring’s Sea north of the Aleutian Islands, and east of the 193rd meridian, west
longitude, it may not be unbecoming in me to suggest that unless that right is
insisted upon and maintained, an industry which now yields a revenne equal to a
fair rate of interest on the amount paid for the whole of Alaska will not only be
destroyed, but the means of livelihood will likewise be taken away from a large
number of people whom the Government is bound by every consideration of honour
and public policy to protect. I can conceive of no other plan by which the seal
fisheries can be preserved than the one long ago adopted and now in vogue, whether
they ought not now to be yielding avery large revenue to the Gover nment is a question
to be discussed a year or two hence. It is - reasonably certain, however, that unless
our Government asserts and maintains the jurisdiction ceded to it by Russia, the
Seal Islands will in a very few years be robbed of all present or prospective value to
any one. It is just as essential to the preservation of this industry that the seals be
protected against indiscriminate slaughter while on their way to and from their
breeding places, as that the number to be taken on the islands should be limited,
and every necessary restriction imposed as to age, sex, and the mode of killing.

+ * * * * * *

Unless our right to such jurisdiction be waived or abandoned, seals once in Beh-
ring’s Sea are as much the property of the United States as the islands themselves,
and should be no less zealously guarded than are the Newfoundland cod banks by
the Dominion of Canada. Unless so guarded chartered rights will not only be
impaired, but a source of large and perpetual revenue to the Government utterly
destroyed.

APPENDIX No. 2.
Extract from the Report of the Governor of Alaska for the Fiscal Year 1887.
PROTECTION OF FUR-SEAL.

In connection with these seizures, from which it seems to me no other inference
ean be drawn than that our Government is determined to assert and maintain the
right of exclusive jurisdiction over all that portion of Behring’s Sea ceded to it by
Russia, I can only reiterate that part of my last Annual Report in which I essayed,
rather feebly I fear, not only to show the necessity of such a policy to the preserva-
tion of the sea-fur industry, but the wrong its abandonment would inflict upon the
very considerable number of native people who wholly or in large part depend upen
it for a livelihood, and whom, it appears to me, it is the duty of the Government to
protect.

In view of the fact that the seizure of these vessels and their forfeiture has raised
an international question of grave importance, I have thought it proper to include
with this Report a copy of the brief submitted by the Queen’ s Counsel in the case
of the British schooners, together with the argument of the United States Attorney
and the opinion of the Court. Honourable AK Delaney, Collector of Customs,

310 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT: BRITAIN.

having been designated as special Counsel on account of the illness and subsequent
death of Colonel M. D. Ball, United States District Attorney, represented the Goy-
ernment, and made what I ‘think will be generally conceded a most able and forci-
ble, if not wholly unanswerable, argument. (See Appendix C.)

APPENDIX NO. 3.
Report of the Cruize of the Revenue Marine Steamer ‘‘ Corwin” in the Year 1885.
{Ex. Doc. No. 153, 49th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 17 and 18.]

During the year quite a number of vessels have raided Alaskan waters for
seals and other fur-be aring animals. Among the number the following, with their
catches, are noted:

*‘Look-out,” 1,100 seals; ‘“‘Mary Ellen,” 2,309 seals; ‘‘Favourite,” 2,065 seals;
“San Diego,” 1,725 seals; ‘‘Sierra,” 1,312 seals; “Vanderbilt, ” about 1,000 seals;
“Henrietta,” about 1,200 seals; “ Alexander, ” 660 seals and 107 sea- otters; “ Otter,”
a few seals and about fifty or sixty sea- -otters; with the ‘‘ Adele” and other vessels

yet to hear from.
280 “Thus it will be seen that upwards of ten vessels were engaged in unlawful
sealing in Alaskan waters during the present year, and I am convinced that
next year the number will be considerably increased.

“Rumours are current here that the American Consul at Victoria has informed
different people that they are not prohibited by law from sealing in Alaskan or other
waters, provided they keep more than 3 leagues from the shore. Encouraged by this
decision and the success of the marauding sealers during the present year, parties in
Victoria are fitting out vessels (two or three being steam- schooners) to engage in the
business next year. Not only are seals killed out of season, but they are shot i in the
water, and young and old, male and female, killed indiscriminately, all in direct
violation of Sections 1960 and 1961, Revised Statutes, and all tending, if allowed to
continue, to drive the seals from their regular haunts.”

APPENDIX NO. 4.

Wardman’s “Trip to Alaska,” pp. 116 and 117.
[Published at Boston and New York in 1884.]

Sea Otter Island, lying about 5 miles southwardly from St. Paul’s, is another land-
ing-place for the fur-seal, but only to a limited extent. Owing to the fact that it is
not permanently inhabited, some marauders were in the habit of landing on the
opposite side, where they could not be seen from St. Paul’s, and killing whatever
seal they could find, without regard to sex, age, or condition. The Company reported
these facts to the Secretary of the Treasury, who decided that the intention of the
Act under which the lease was authorized appeared to be to give all the islands of
the group to the lessees for the regulation of the traffic and preservation of the fur-
seal. Then, as the Company could not defend Sea Otter Island, the Government was
asked to do. so, and now the practice is to leave a Revenue marine guard there dur-
ing the sealing season.

APPENDIX NO. 5.

EXTRACT FROM HousrE EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS, 2ND SESSION, 48TH CONGRESS,
1884-85, VOL. 29.

Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury relative to the Protection of Seal and Enforce-
ment of Laws in Alaska, and recommending an appropriation of 25,000 dollars for the
Revenue Marine Service in that Territory, February 24, 1885.

[Ex. Doc. No. 252, 48th Congress, 2nd Session.]

REVENUE MARINE SERVICE.—In this connection I beg to call the attention oi
Congress to the importance of the work performed in Alaska by the Revenue cutters.
The seal fisheries yield annually to the Government a revenue of about 300,000 dol-
lars. The islands on which the seals are taken are protected from incursions of
marauding vessels alone through the cruizing of the Revenue cutters.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 311
APPENDIX NO. 6.

Report of the Cruize of the Revenue Marine Steamer “ Corwin” in the year 1885.
[Ex. Doc. No. 153, 49th Congress, 1st Session, p. 15.]

On our arrival at Ounalaska on the 15th, the steamer ‘‘ Dora” was in port, and three
days later the schooner ‘‘ Mattie Turner” arrived. The ‘‘Turner” reported having
seen, three weeks previous, a schooner between the seal islands and Ounalaska, and
thought she might still be cruizing in that vicinity for the purpose of killing seals.

APPENDIX No. 7.
“New York Herald,” June 7, 1889,

Mr. BLAINE’s f EMBARRASSMENTS.”—The “ Tribane” admits that the ‘‘ Herald” is
right when it assumes that the State Department will be embarrassed by the action
of the previous Administration in dealing with the Behring’s Sea question.

That is to say, Secretary Blaine, if he undertakes to negotiate with England on the
theory that Behring’s Sea betwéen the Straits and the “Aleutian Islands is a land-
locked or closed sea, will be confronted with recent confessions by Mr. Bayard that
it is an open sea, and that ils fisheries are to be regulated by international action of
the leading Maritime Powers.

Very true. It is less than two years since Secretary Bayard invited a number of

foreign Powers iuto some arrangement with the United States for the protec-
281 tion of the Behring’s seal fisheries. ‘That was a distinct admission on the part

of this Government, and a specific announcement to the Powers addressed that
the United States did not claim exclusive jurisdiction over the waters, nor assume
any exclusive right to regulate the fisheries. And in keeping with this view was the
action of the Government in orderi ing the release of the Canadian sealers seized by
our eruizers. Of course all this will promptly and with reason be cited against
Secretary Blaine if he now abandons the position and undertakes to maintain the
contrary.

But this is not all that will be cited against the Secretary to his ‘‘ embarrassment.”
He will be confronted by the fact that the United States more than sixty years ago
emphatically denied the claim of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction, and never con-
ceded that claim while Russia owned Alaska. He will be confronted by the fact
that this Government asserted a similar principle in the case of the Black Sea and
that of the Baltic. He will further be confronted by the geographical fact that
Behring’s Sea is an open sea, and by the universal principle of international law
that an open sea cannot be owned or controlled by one nation without the consent of
other nations. Lastly, Mr. Blaine will be ‘‘embarrassed” by the fact that he is the
first Secretary of State to advance the claim that Behring’s Sea is a closed sea, sub-
ject to the control of the United States.

But, says our contemporary, President Harrison’s recent Proclamation, which is
based on the Act of Congress of the 2nd March, 1889, “embodies the claim to exclu-
sive jurisdiction.” Well, suppose it does. That cannot help Mr. Blaine much in
his controversy with England. A claim asserted by Congress or the President, or
both, has no more inter national force than a claim asserted. by the State Depar tment.

But does the Act of Congress of the 2nd March, on which the President’s Procla-
mation rests, assert the right of control over Behring’ sxsea? It asserts the right of
control over ‘all the dominion of the United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea,’
Now the extent of the dominion of the United States in those waters is the very
point in issue. The previous Act passed in 1868, immediately after the purchase,
applied to ‘“‘the watersof Alaska.” If the Amendatory Act of 1889 was intended to
assert a larger domain than that of 1868, to declare in favour of exclusive jurisdic-
tion, will not Mr. Blaine be also confronted with the argument that this claim was
not asserted by Congress till this year?

However, we hope that Mr. Blaine will be able to overcome his many ‘‘embarrass-
ments” in the controversy, and to satisfy England and the other Powers interested
that his claim is well grounded. Behring’s Sea is a great body of water, and its
fisheries are very valuable. If we can secure control of it with foreign consent, so
ae the better for us. But it looks as if Mr. Blaine had a big undertaking on his

ands.
“New York Herald,” May 29, 1889.

THE BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION.—So it seems Secretary Blaine has decided that
Behring’s Sea is a mare clausum, or closed sea, over which the United States bas exclu-

ole APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

sive jurisdiction and absolute control. No one, native or alien, but the Alaska Com-
pany is to be allowed to catch seals in those waters, and any vessel, American or
foreign, found violating this prohibition is to be seized.

Can Mr. Blaine successfully maintain this claim in the diplomatic controversy
which its announcement must provoke? Can our Government undertake to enforce
it without inviting a foreign war?

The claim is against universally recognized principles of international law. It is
opposed to the traditions and precedents of our own Government. It is contrary to
the record of the State Department on this very question as recently as the adminis-
tration of Mr. Bayard.

In the law of nations no principle is more settled than that the high seas are the
public property of the world, which cannot be monopolized by any one Power, As
Woolsey says:

The high sea is free and open to all nations. It cannot be the property or the
empire of a particular State. It cannot become property, for it cannot be possessed.
It is clearly for the common benefit of mankind. It is a common pathway, separat-
ing and yet binding, intended alike for all.

It is equally well settled that a nation may own and exercise exclusive control over
a ‘closed sea”—that is, a body of water either lying wholly within, or is almost
entirely surrounded by, its own territory. The jurisdiction of every country over
the ocean for a marine league, or 3 miles, from its coast is universally conceded.

A glance at the map will show that Behring’s Sea is not a closed sea. It is a vast
expanse of water more than 1,000 miles wide. It is not land-locked. It is part of
the Pacific Ocean; it forms the water highway between that and the Arctic Ocean.
To claim it is to claim the high seas.

The State Department now bases its claim on the rights acquired from Russia when
we purchased Alaska. ‘There can be no question that the United States succeeded
to all the rights held by Russia. But what were Russia’s rights?

It is true that Russia claimed Behring’s Sea long before we bought Alaska. But
that country never had any exclusive right to it, for the simple reason that it never
acquired, and never could acquire, except by the consent of nations, any such right.
This Government cannot simply fall back on Russia’s claim. It will be required by
foreign Powers to show that the claim is well founded, or abandon it.

Russia’s claim was never conceded by any other Power. On the contrary, it was
emphatically denied by the two foreign Powers most interested. It was denied by
the United States, and it was denied by Great Britain. Russia yielded to this Goy-
ernment in a Treaty made in 1824, and to England in one made in the following year.
Our Treaty continued in force for only ten years, but we never conceded to Russia the
right it claimed.

If the State Department now undertakes to maintain Russia’s old claim it will be
confronted not only by the opposition of Engiand, but also by its own record. More-
over, it will run counter to the international principle it has invoked against foreign
Powers in numerous cases, that an open sea cannot be exclusively controlled by any
nation.

282 APPENDIX NO. 8.
“ Fur Seal Fisheries of the Pacific Coast and Alaska.”

This pamphlet, in connection with the Chart inclosed, is designed to explain more
particularly to our Eastern Senators and Congressmen the full value of the fur-seal
fisheries, in order that when the question of re-leasing the fur-seal islands of St. George
and St. Paul arises, they may know exactly what they are doing, so that they may
not grant a monopoly to any firm or Company for a trifle, which has been done in
the past to the Alaska Commercial Company of San Francisco.

These islands are so far away from the eastern part of our country that the great
majority of merchants and business men know comparatively nothing about this
great industry, and the profits connected with the same.

The writer, during the past two or three years, has met a great many eastern
visitors to our coast, and whenever the question of the fur-seal fisheries has been
brought up he finds that in all cases they have not the slightest idea of the same,
and whenever the value is explained, and Charts shown, showing just how broad
the claim our Government has taken in its jurisdiction of the Behring’s Sea, in pro-
tection of the fur-seal, or more particularly protecting the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany in their vast monopoly of the fur-seal fisheries, and by this monopoly enabling
this Company to control nearly all of the fur trade of Alaska, they are astonished,
and still more when it is further explained to them that the 100,000 fur-seals, as taken
by the Alaska Commercial Company, bring nearly 2,000,000 dollars each year, and for

edict

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 313

this privilege the fee to the United States Government is the small sum of 296,286
dol. 82 ¢., being the exact average amount paid by the Alaska Commercial Company,
and to be paid by them each year, as claimed by the Alaska Commercial Company,
during the twenty years of their lease. This is taken from the Alaska Commercial
Company’s own statement in their reply to Governor Swineford’s charges (see p. 12
of that volume)—and these figures cannot be disputed by them—thus enabling the
Company to make a clear profit of not less than 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 dollars each
year off the seal islands alone.

When they come to figure that this has been going on for nearly twenty years, it
is easy to explain how they have controlled all the trade of this vast section.

Evidently a strong effort is being made by certain parties that the leasing of the
fur-seal islands shall be at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury to say
who is the proper person to lease these islands to, and that a set sum shall be the
specified amount for this lease. Below we copy an article cut from one of the daily
papers, entitled—

The Seal Fisheries.
(An interesting Report presented to the House.)

WASHINGTON, January 29.

Representative Dunn, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
to-day presented the results of the investigation by the Committee into the fur-seal
fisheries of Alaska, with special reference to whether the Contract giving the Alaska
Commercial Company the right to take fur-seals had been violated. Dunn accom-
panied his Report with a Bill on the subject. It proposes to amend the present Law
by providing that one year before the present lease to the Alaska Company expires,
or when any future similar lease expires, the Secretary of the Treasury shall lease
to the proper persons the right of taking fur-seals on the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George for twenty years, at not less than 50,000 dollars per annum, and 8 dol.
50 ¢. in addition for each sealskin shipped from the islands. Such lease shall not be
transferable.

You will notice in this Report it is recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury
shall lease to the proper persons. Now, the question is, who are the proper persons?
Can any one read this Report and fail to see where the interest is? Why not put the
leasing of these islands in a business shape like any other Government Contract?
Let it be awarded to the highest bidder; give all a chance, and not allow this one
man to decide who are the proper persons to whom these islands shall-be leased. If
it is done in this way it is safe to say that the next lease will realize from 600,000 to
800,000 dollars per annum to our Government, instead of 400,000 dollars, as per
recommendation of Mr. Dunn.

You will also notice that it is recommended to amend the Laws so that the Secre-
tary of the Treasury shall not only have the power of re-leasing the islands, but
that this Law shall apply to any future lease, thereby extending this power to an
unlimited extent, in fact as long as these islands are of any value for leasing.

Who would not like to be the Secretary of the Treasury and have this power? It
would be almost as good as having the islands themselves. Now, we protest against
such action. It shows fraud upon its face so plain that a blind man ought to see
through it.

This Report of the 29th January goes further on, and says:

The present Law is declared to apply to all the waters of Behring’s Sea in Alaska
mentioned in the Treaty with Russia by which Alaska was ceded to the United
States, and the President shall take measures to have arrested all persons, and seized
all vessels, violating the laws of the United States therein. In addition to the above
provision is made for the protection of the salmon fisheries. The Report recommends

that the Act to prevent the extermination of our fur-bearing animals in Alaska
283 be continued in force with certain amendments, believing that not only the

system it adopts but the methods of carrying it into effect are well adapted
for the purpose indicated.

In conelusion, the Committee finds the following facts:

That if the Law protecting seal life is enforced, the preservation of the seal rook-
eries will be assured, the revenue continued and increased, and the native inhabit-
ants of the seal islands maintained, without cost to the Government; that the Alaska
Commercial Company has fully performed its Contract with the Government, and
has contributed liberally to the support, maintenance, comfort, and civilization of
the inhabitants of not only the seal islands, but to those of the Aleutian Islands,
Kodiac, and the mainland; that the fur-seal industry will have paid into the
Treasury over 8,000,000 dollars during the period of the present lease; that the chief
object of the purchase of Alaska was the acquisition of the valuable products of
Behring’s Sea, that at the cession of Alaska to the United States the Russian title to

314 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Behring’s Sea was perfect and undisputed, and that by virtue of the cession the
United States ac quired complete title to all that portion of Behring’s Sea situated
within the limits prescribed by Treaty.

In reviewing this part of ihe Report we are not prepared to say that the Company
has not fulfilled all of its obligation to the Government, certainly it should have
done so with the profits connected with this monopoly. This part of the Report
was, as we understand, the result of an investigation of the charges made by Goy-
ernor Alfred P. Swineford, of Alaska, against the Alaska Commercial Company.

We hereby republish Governor Swineford’s reply, as published in various papers
previous to this date:

Governor Swineford’s Report.

The annual Report of Governor Swineford, of Alaska, on the territory and the
operations of the Alaska Commercial Company was laid before both Houses of Con-
gress on the 19th January.

The Governor reaffirms and emphasizes the accusations heretofore made by him
against the Company in its dealings with the natives other than those living on the
seal islands.

Concerning the treatment of these he has no word of complaint. He also says
that the Comp: iny’s Contract with the Government relative to the mone of fur-seal
is, in his opinion, faithfully observed. The Company’s treatment of the mainland
natives he characterizes as unjust and cruel in the extreme.

Referring to the denial of the charges against the Company in his last annual
Report, he says:

“T now and here reiterate every one of those charges, though I know full well
that an investigation made by a Committee of Congress, holding its sessions in
W ashington, and calling as witnesses only those who have been recipients of the
Company’s favours, is not likely to arrive at any just conclusion as to their truth or
falsity. I can only say thi it each and every statement I have made concerning the
operations of the Company is susceptible of the clearest and most convincing ‘proof
but the evidence will not be found lying around loose in the cities of Washington
and San Francisco. It must be sought for among the people who have suftered from
its oppressions rather than in the persons of those who have had free transportation
on its ships and been wined and dined at the tables of its officers and agents. A
Sub-Committee of Congress going over the route taken by me in the recent cruize
of the ‘Thetis,’ assuring the people of protection against still greater oppression
after its departure, will have no difficulty whatever in finding the evidence to prove
the truth of every statement I have made.”

The Report for 1887 above referred to was published in the ‘‘ Fur Trade Review”
for July 1887.

The “Fur Trade Review” can be obtained by addressing the publishers, No. 35,
Bond Street, New York oe

In referring to the part of this Report where it is claimed that the fur-seal indus-
try will have paid into the Treasury over 8,000,000 dollars during the period of the
present lease, we claim this part to be false. The Government has not, and will not,
have received it at the end of the lease, and taking the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany’s reply to Governor Swineford’s charge in referring to what they have paid, the
Alaska Commercial Company says:

“As this part of the subject bears upon the Company’s relation to the Government,
we may be excused for here calling attention to the fact that the total annual tax
and rental paid by this Company to the United States from the Ist of July, 1870, to
Augusf 1887, amounts to 5,290,736 dol. 49 «.

“Calculating that the full number of fur-seals for the next two years be taken, we
will have paid the full sum of 5,925,736 dol. 49 e.”

See pp. 11 and 12 of reply of the Alaska Commercial Company to the charge of
Governor Alfred E. Swinetord, of Alaska, against the Company, in his annnal Report
for the year 1887.

Now, this is copied directly from the Alaska Commercial Company’s reply. Tak-
ing their own figures for the same, where they only claim they will have paid into
the Treasury at the end of their lease 5,925,736 dol. 49 ¢., this leaves a difference of
2,074,263 dol. 51 ¢. between what they will actually have paid, according to their
own figures, and what is claimed in the Report of Representative Dunn. Now, we
ask, why this false representation by one of our Representatives?

Having now fully shown why this Report, as recommended, should have no bear-
ing—showing the falsity of the same—we will now go further, and show the value
of the catch of the 100,000 fur-seals, as taken by the Alaska Commercial Company
for the year 1888.

We will also show nearly the actual cost of the expense to the Company in tak-
ing them, sending to market, commissions, &c. While this is a difficult matter to
do exactly, we will come near it, and allow loug margins in favour of this expense,
enough so that it will undoubtedly leave a balance in their favour:

sie ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

284 In the first place, we take their average amount paid to the
Government, as per their own estimate and statement...--.------

This must be correct.

We then take the money paid to the natives for killing and skinning
the seal.

In their reply to Governor Swineford’s charge (p. 19) they say:

“There are 87 families on St. Paul Island; there are 26 families on St.
George Island; making 115 families in all.”

We will give the benefit of 450 dollars for each family, which is the
highest price claimed as being paid to them for their service (see p. 16
in their reply to Governor Swineford’s charge). This would give total
expense for killing, skinning, curing, and loading into the vessel, as paid
ORD MGMT INVES aecre ee pes oRS op. terarars sine ais's) ie Sainte e aeephecle me ee Sos ieee

This allows the very highest estimate paid for this service, according
to their own Report.

Wierwall now make an allowante Otecseses- 55 soe eee- 2s oe oes as ee
for expense of the Company on the islands for the year, independent of
the sum paid to the natives. This is for white clerk hire, insurance,
and for fuel, and an abundant supply of salted salmon, which is given
to the natives free of charge, &c., which we think to be a full margin
for this expense.

The next item of expense is salf, which is the only article used to cure
the skins. We will say that it takes 400 tons of salt—200 tons will do
this, but on account of the short time in which seals are taken, it does
not allow much time to use it ov er, which can be done two or three
times. This salt at present is worth 9 dollars per ton in San Francisco,
in small lots of 1 to 10 tons. We will say that it cost that for 400 tons,
MAKUMNOVEXPENSe Of Salibsass a oo! <a Sioa sl seh erepeates so ioe cmeos seine ee ale

The next item is cost of transportation from the island to San Francisco.
The steamer ‘St. Paul” is designed for this purpose. She made three
trips during the year 1888, clearing from San Francisco for Ounalaska—

Ist trip, cleared March 22, 1888.
2nd trip, cleared May 12, 1888.
3rd trip, cleared September 13, 1888.

Each time the manifest called for assorted goods and merchandize of
various kinds, and fully one-half of which was consigned to other parts
of Alaska, so that probably one-half of the expense of this steamer could
be charged to other business, independent of the seal islands. On two
of these trips she cleared with thirty men, and once with thirty-one.
The steamer is probably employed eight months in the year. The expense
of this cannot be accurately estimated, but by estimating the expense
OhiDInIA IE RSe Me cis ace es a tel soi, ee cee! aero ape uaericct tance t eae es OF Lemp
for the year, would, we think, give long margin, so as to include wear
and tear, interest on investment, insurance, &c.; this would give expense
a fair estimate until goods are laid in San Francisco. We will allow 14
per cent. insurance to London on, say, 1,250,000 dollars, which would
probably be the extent that these skins could be insured for, and which
UNA OUTNU SIL Olsens ape yeaa estar ora eral aoe aah lo ape at aye ate, it aie te ce Soret felony

When the skins arrive in San Francisco they are packed in casks, espe-
cially made for this purpose, which contain on an average 40 to 45 skins,
calling 40 skins. This would make 2,500 casks. San Francisco market
value of same is 2 dol..25 c..each, making total expense..-.-.-.-.---.---

We will give expense of packing in casks, drayage, and storage in San
ISU CTS C One ae se tte eect apy cee rsela ot era hea mean oe oe epe soe eee

The freight at present time between San Francisco and New York, in
carload lots, for seal-skins in pickle, is 2 cents per lb. When packed they
will average nearly 16 lbs., and taking this as a basis, they would make
MEAT ye IeOO0 OOO Mbse patra CNbS eG MDa. sayeet aa eels ave eS

We will say it cost one-half this amount to lay and deliver them in
London via steamer from New York, which, we think, is a large esti-
TVA eee vara as ie apse eee ee eee cep ea win iats etapycle Seine eaeis alee ie saa seis Sele

This lays them in London ready for sale. The purchaser has a dis-
count of 24 per cent. allowed him, which is deducted from his purchase.
This would make on 1,890,094 dol. 29.96 e., amount realized for the skins. -

C. M. Lampson and Co.’s charges for commission on the sale of salted
fur-seal skins, which include insurance, storage, &c., after the goods are
Melivereditor tems Sy451 Gl COmtmaetemnense saan Bee see ae cece ee

This gives total expense of cate hing, curing, and marketing the 100,000

seals... ... eee area ate ciate cle a aaicbate sina cveo eo timalciviais’ Seid Acta co Sere Deciswecocices

315

$296, 286. 82

51, 850. 00

30, 000. 00

3, 600. 00

50, 000. 00

18, 750. 00

5, 375. 00
5, 000. 00
32, 000. 00
16, 000. 00
AT, 252. 35
75, 603. 76

559, 367. 93

316 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The estimate of cost..........-.. BOO Re ess iS AOI COB AGS $296, 286. 82
DISCOUNT 2a POU GONUes aeeee = ese ale = cle eee eee ee ee eee 47, 252. 35
Commissions, &c.,'C. M. Lampson and Co. io 222 t eee. eee eerie do, Clon TO
HaboOuUr.Or tHE MAULVOS= act nis Soe oleae oc leemmee aoe aie oeisteeis eee 51, 850. 00

470, 992. 93

These figures are practically correct, and can be verified, This amounts to within
88,375 dollars which is estimated, but the estimates are made long enough so that
any Company obtaining the future lease of these islands can contract in San Francisco
for this portion of the expense at these figures, and even less.

Having now found the actual cost, or near the same, of the 100,000 seals,
285 we will go further and tind what these seals were sold for; we can then deter-
mine the profit, or near it, for the year 1888 on the 100,000 ’seals.

The skins, after arriving in London, were sold on the 6th November, 1888, by C.
M. Lampson and Co., at public sale at the London Commercial Sale Rooms, Mincing
Lane, as per their catalogue, which can be obtained from all exporters of furs, or
from all large fur houses in the principal cities of the United States. They were
sold in lots, the largest lot of which contained 222 skins, and the prices ranged from
130s. per skin down to 29s. In order to get at the exact amount realized by the sale,
we have assorted the lots, and find that they brought as follows:

29 skins brought 130s. each 1, 098 skins brought................... 80s. each.
120 120s. 360“ esek sae 79s.
1,293“ = 19a; 78 "| 3 164) Serene 788.
413 7% 7 118s. ** 360 “ “ “
360 sc “cb 117s. ‘ 2, 303 “ “ “a
1,660 « cL 116s. “ | 24,660 “ “
3,298 « x lids. “ | 3,420 « « “
2,240 “ “ 114s. * 180 “ 4“ “
420 ae ae 113s oe 102 ay oe “ee
65 “ ‘c 112s. * 206 “ “ “
140 “f DE ee 56 ss a
140 “ “ 109s. 470 “ “ 6
280 “ ‘i 107s. *& 1,377 “ “c “
Boa o: fO5a: 21 ea bose e “
140, w 1038. “ | 2741 * “ “
142 oe oe 98s. “a 2 769 “a ins “
143 “i “ 96s. “ 9,187 “i 4c “
60 Ts “ 95s. * 2, 270 “6 “
942 “ 94g, * 200 a3 “ “
147 “ ee 935. oe ils 054 “ oe “
183 “ “ 925, 263 “ “ “
8, 200 “ “ 9ls. ‘ 393 “ “ “
9, 600 “ rT 90s. 172 “ “ “
3, 200 “ “ 89s. * 384 “6 a3 Ts
177 “ Ts 88s. s 29 “ “ “
640 ee ee 85s. “a 31 “ “ es
368 “ “ 83s. 57 “ “ “
944 ce zs 82s. a 16 te ae ae
180“ us Sis.

Now, in summing up the different lots, I find that instead of there being only
100,000 skins, as represented at the beginning of Lampson and Co.’s catalogue, con-
sisting of 97, 871 Alaska fur-seal skins, salted, and 2,129 Alaska seal skins, dressed
natural, there was 100,016 skins, which realized 389,911. 3s., which, when reduced
to United States money on the basis of 4 dol. 84% c. to the pound sterling amounts to
1,890,094 dol. 29.69 c., thus bringing on an average 18 dol. 89.79 c. per skin.

Wietound that these'skins broucht-22scsss-sene-e eae eees Sosa eee $1, 890, 094. 2967
Deductine the total cost of sameziocce case cee cote eee eee eee eee 559, 367. 9300

Leaves a net profit of ...... sidcan's Saale J ecemee ene eee oeaten REL Oo UMeoeoOng

for the year 1888. Figuring this as general merchants do, it makes nearly a net
profit of 238 per cent. on the ec: ipital invested. Talk about your sugar trust, gas
stock, Water Companies, railroads, &c., this lays them all in the shade in the matter
of profits. These figures are not mere guess work, but the facts, and any one by
following the dir ections as specified can find vouchers for all these estimates.
Having now shown the value of this privilege in a fair and business manner, we
ask, is it right and just to the business men, merchants, capitalists, and persons of the
United States who ee é money to invest, and are more than willing to invest where
there is a reasonable chance for returns, that this privilege should | “be placed at the
discretion of one man to decide who is the proper person to have this privilege?
Are we not right in this claim thatif it is placed like any other Government contract
that 600,000 to 800,000 dollars per year will be offered for this privilege, and by
parties who will give as good bonds as can be had for the fulfilment of their contract?
Among the various methods for handling of the fur-seals, one is that the Govern-,
ment shall take charge of this, and conduct this business so as to derive all the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 317

benefit therefrom, which is not a badone. Some would say the Government could not
do this. It seems plainandeasy. Let the Government take charge of this Reserva-
tion. ‘The articles necessary to conduct the business could be bought the same as it
now is, with ordinary supplies, by bids. A competent foreman can be obtained
among its officers to superintend the killing and curing of the seal, as it requires no
great skill to do this.

The Government steamer ‘‘ Bear” could be used to transport supplies on its trip to
the Arctic in the spring and bring back to San Francisco the seal-skins on their
return trip in the fall, thereby causing but little expense, as on both trips to and
from the Arctic they pass within 50 miles of these islands. The skins could be packed
and shipped under the provision of the Government officials to C. M. Lampson and
Co. for sale, and returns made direct to the Treasurer of the United States. This
seems to be the best and most practical way to dispose of this franchise, thereby
deriving all the benefits there may be in it to the Government. The privilege of
couducting a general store on the islands could be sold the same as with other
Reservations, as 113 families would undoubtedly support one good general merchan-
dize store.

Another way, which we think would be much better for the best interest of the
people of the Pacific coast, would be as follows.

Let the Government take charge of this Reservation, and, instead of killing

100,000, take 50,000 seals; and in doing this, let the selection be more thorough,
286 so thet the 50,000 skins shall be strictly choice skins, that would average the

highest possible price. ‘Then abandon the present policy of claiming the Beh-
ring’s Sea as an inland sea, which cannot be made to stand in the end. Restrict the
killing of seal within the 3-mile or 6-mile limit, whatever is decided to be the limit
of what a nation can hold authority over the high seas, and in this way it would
promote the industry of private sealing to a much larger extent than it now is.

A person not knowing the value of this industry would ask wherein it would be
to the interest of the Pacific coast to promote the sealing industry by private indi-
viduals. The answer is, three-fourths of the money derived from the catch of the
private sealer is put right into circulation in this manner; in fact, quite a large per-
centage is put into circulation before the vessel leaves port. In order to make this
more plain, we will give the detail of the private-sealer business. In the first place,
a vessel has to be secured, either by chartering or purchasing. The vessels employed
in this business are mostly small schooners ranging from 40 to 110 tons burden, 70
tons being a fair average for size. We will say an order is given to our ship-yards
for a vessel for sealing:

For a new vessel of this description of 70 tons a fair price in San Fran-

RASC ORS eee oe she at 4 ae Spas ot ol Sie Nene rs a ee Ano Aide, Meee oe Setas ams $7, 000. 00
This is designed to carry six otter- or sealing-boats, and a crew of twenty-

one men. As soon as the vessel is received from the ship-yard, she has

to be furnished with her anchors, chains, spare ropes, an extra suit of

sails, dishes, cooking utensils, and other articles too numerous to mention,

MEENA ae a ott s Cie Sead op Sire Minin “safer ey ofeisia MS Cinmiciaisis ae(sBramec ae eed aes 2, 500. 00

is a low estimate.
The next item is the six hunting-boats, with anaverage of 100 dollars

oN a Lara yee eget ete eiclaee a mee Sate inlets GEL Sia a puare geo Het thee 600. 00
A complete new outfit of guns, rifles, and ammunition, ranging from 600 to

900 dollars, according to the ideas of the master or owner, which we will

Call Reese te eens cine. BAe Sem Nn He nisin asl S caine Se ye emndrele cine cele Laleeewc 750. 00
Se Ore nme CGS KM Sie aise t= ais = > a ce cect ain Sel od clawwigln Saier ais es. ao. 100. 00
Then comes the item of provisions, coal, &c., for a cruize of eight months

LOTIOWeNEYy- ONE MeN; WOOLG ANVCTACO® Jc is 22225525 sees eee eh oe ceo - = cso - 900. 00

The slop-chest, which consists of clothing, blankets, boots and shoes,

tobacco and medicines suitable for a cruize, which the law forces all mas-

LETS aL OgbAIKCe pI STGS DIMM al te Cane rene ns ay cts te See Wahi dah (Soros a ee S oS 450. 00
The vessel is now ready for sea except the crew. These as a rule go on

a lay, but all being poor men, they generally have an advance paid to

them, ranging from 20 to 100 dollars, and with a crew of twenty-one

men a master may be considered lucky if he gets off with less than.....-. 1, 200. 00

advance money for his crew.

Total expense to start with........ Ra ie dew eeitnnieemcesa sacs conte 13, 500. 00

This is as low an estimate as a vessel carrying six boats can be built and furnished
for her first trip, with a reasonably fair outfit suitable to make a success of the busi-
ness. This is near the actual expense which any one would be at to engage in this
business. Of course this amount would immediately go into circulation. At the
present time there are about fifteen American vessels on the Pacific coast engaged in
this business. Now could this business be brought up to 115 vessels, it would require

318 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

100 new vessels and outfits, which would at once put into circulation 1,350,000 dol-
lars at the lowest calculation possible, and would give employment to 2,100 men.
We will now estimate the average catch of the private sealer at 10,000 dollars each.
This, one season with another, is a fair average catch and would realize 1,000,000
dollars for the 100 vessels. The crew, at the end of the season, come in to be paid
off, and, as a rule, receive one-half of the catch, which amounts to 500,000 dollars.

This is put immediately into circulation, leaving the balance in the owner's hands
to balance his outlay on the trip whatever net profit there may he in the business.
We will say that it is divided between the 100 owners. Now these 100 owners sup-
port 100 families, as a rule, and spend much more than though it was made and
handled by four or five men in a stock Company. ‘This explains wherein it is to the
best advantage for the Pacific coast to have this business open to any one who
wished to invest in the same. It is plain to be seen if this extra amount of busi-
ness could be distributed on the Pacific coast between San Francisco, Portland, Port
Townsend, Seattle, and other shipping points, it would promote all trade and busi-
ness, with perhaps the exception of the hack-driver and undertaker. The Govern-
ment at the same time would derive a large revenue on the sale of the 50,000 skins,
enough to pay a dividend on the purchase of Alaska larger than it ever has done,
and havea inargin to pretect the seals on their breeding grounds, which is conceded
by all should be done.

We understand the objection made to the private sealers is made by those who do
not understand how the hunting of seal is done. The reason for the objection is,
that the private sealer will destroy all the seals and break up the seal rookeries.
We ask: Has there ever been a seal rookery broken up and destroyed by hunters
with fire-arms when used at sea from 10 to 20 miles away from the rookeries, and in
most instances 50 miles away from the rookeries?) We answer, No; itnever has been
done, and never can be done. In all cases where rookeries have been broken up it
has been done by hunters directly on the beach where the seal land, and by hunting
and killing them indiscriminately, so that they could not Jand and have their young,
and care for the same. The killing of seal from 10 to 20 miles away from the rook-
eries is quite another thing. The seal there is not at the mercy of the hunter, as it
has plenty of sea room, and is able to take care of itself, and is no easy game to cap-
ture, even by the most skilful hunter. This will be understood when it is consid-
ered that 2,500 seals is an exceptionally good catch for a vessel carrying twenty-one
men, who are generally out seven or eight months getting this many. This shows
that the seal, when away from land and at sea, is a hard animal to capture, and
that they can never be exterminated by hunting ‘at sea as now done, any more than
the ducks and geese can be all killed, while on their way to and from breeding

grounds in the Arctic.
287 We often see Reports about the seal-hunters, with remarks of the way they
capture seals, claiming that many were shot and wounded, snd couched in the
most endearing manner that the poor seals were slaughtered by the hunters with
shot-gun and rifle, so as to carry the impression that it was the most cruel business
on the part of private sealers, and a business that should not be allowed, it being
cruel in the extreme and unnecessary.

We will now turn the tables, and ask was there ever a more cruel and brutal
method invented for killing dumb animals than is now practiced in killing seals on
the Islands of St. George and St. Paul. Imagine how these highly intelligent ani-
mals are gradually for ced and driven away from the sea, their native element, driven
inland as far as deemed practical. The slaughter then commences. Imagine a gang
of men with clubs and bludgeons knocking out their brains right and ‘left, and it
the seal is not hit right at the first blow it is followed up and slaughtered, its brains
being knocked ont by a club.

Who can imagine a more cruel method than this for killing dumb animals? Cer-
tainly the private sealer’s method is the most humane of the two. Again, it is
claimed that many seals are shot that sink and are lost. Undoubtedly there are some
lost in this way, but the percentage is light, probably one in thirty or forty, not more
than this. It is also claimed that ten are shot and wounded that die to one that is
secured, This is also an error. Many seals are shot at that are not hit at all, but
when a seal is wounded, so that in the end it will die, it is most always secured by
the hunter who may have to shoot at it several times in order to get it, as the seal
in the water exposes only its head, and when frightened exposes only a small portion
of that, so that, together with the constant diving of the seal, the motion of the
boat, &e., makes it very hard to hit. This is where it is claimed that ten are shot
and wounded to one that is secured, but it is nearer the truth that one is lost to ten
that are secured, for the reason that when a seal is wounded it cannot remain under
water any length of time, and therefore the hunter can easily follow it up and
secure it.

We will now look at the Chart of the Behrivg’s Sea and see on what grounds our
Government claims this. You will notice a long chain of islands, called the Aleutian

si

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 319

Islands, extending in the form of a circle to the westward, dividing the Pacific Ocean
from the Behring’s Sea. These islands are undoubtedly of volcanic formation, and
while they extend some 1,200 miles to the westward, they do not inclose the Beh-
ring’s Sea. The Island of Atton is our extreme western possession. The distance
from the Island of Atton to Copper Island is 175 miles, and to the nearest point of the
Kamchatka coast or Siberian side, 370 miles. Now if our Government can claim and
control asea with a passage 370 miles across, we want to know how she is going to do
it, and on what grounds. Certainly not that it is an inclosed sea. More especially,
when you again look at the Chart, you see that the Island of Atton is at the extreme
end of the chain of islands, and as you follow this chain of islands back to the east-

ward as far as Unimak Pass, that between these islands are wirle passages, allowing
vessels of the largest dimensions to pass in and out of the Behring’s Sea at will, a
distance of some ile 200 miles to the Siberian coast, in a direct westward line. By eare-
fully perusing this Chart it must convince the sceptical that our Government has no
claim to the Behring’s Sea as an inclosed sea.

We now come to the question of the jurisdiction of the Behring 's Sea as taken by
our Government, caused by the seal question. For this reason the Chart of the North
Pacific Ocean and the Behring’ s Sea is sent to you so that it may show just how
broad the claim our Government has taken in this matter. You will notice on the
Chart of the Behring’s Sea the line called the United States imaginary boundary-
line, called this for lack of no better name. This line has been laid out er imagined
to exist in an open sea 1,200 miles across in its widest part, something never before
claimed by any other Power in the history of the world. The impression has gone
out that the Behring’s Sea is an inclosed water, and under the full control of the
United States and Russia. Just how or where this claim was first obtained no one
seems to know. It sprang into existence like a mushroom, and apparently with
about the same strength and standing. Our Government could, with the same con-
sistency, all of a sudden claim the control of the Gulf of Mexico. It is considered
by all maritime laws that a nation can only control a certain distance of the sea from,
her shores. This has been the established custom as a maritime law for an indefinite
time, and our Government insists that onr American fishermen shall have all right
outside of the 3-mile Jimit from land in the controversy between the Canadian and
American fishermen, and would not consider the 10-miles headland point as asked
by the Canadians, but when they come on the Pacific in the Behring’s Sea they go
directly back on what they claim on the eustern side, and say, We own all this sea,
and if you are found in it your vessels are subject to seizure and yourself fined,
making no allowance whatever for what portion you may be in, w hether 1 mile or
100 miles from land. Our Government then going directly back on what it claims
from the Canadian authorities on the other side, we ask, can this claim be held when
it comes to a final issue? So far it has been done by force, but might is not always
right, and can any one claim but what our Government will have yet to pay for the
damages to the Canadians and her own citizens for the losses they have sustained by
the seizure of their vessels and forfeiture of same by our Government in its raid
among the sealers in the year 1887 in the Behring’s Sea.

By what other rights has the United States to the Behring’s Sea? It is claimed
that Russia ceded and sold to the United States the full and absolute right and con-
trol of all the waters of the Behring’s Sea. The question cS did Russia do this? Did
she sell this open sea, the public highway of the whalers, for an indefinite length of
time in the past, to the whaling erounds i in the Arctic—the highway of England vid
the Yukun River to her possessions in the farnorth. She did not doit. She sold her
rights of the shore-line only, of which undoubtedly she had a right todo. Russia,
despots and tyrants as they have proved themselves to be in all their dealings with
nations and private individuals, never has and does not to this day claim or exercise

jurisdiction of the Behring’s Sea, except the shore-line. American, English, and ves-

sels of all nations are allowed to hunt, fish, and trade without molestation in the
waters of Behring’s Sea, adjacent to Russian possessions, providing they respect the
shore-line. The ‘Russian Consul at Yokahama has in the past, and ‘undoubtedly does
at the present, issue orders to parties fitting out for hunting in the Behring’s Sea,
warning them not to intrude on the shore- line, within so many miles from shor e,
288 thus practically admitting that she had no claim to this open high sea. Is not
this fact alone sufficient evidence that she never sold to the United States what
is now claimed she sold? She sold what she owned, and that was the shore-line only.
It seems that this imaginary boundary-line as set down on the Chart originated in
imagination much the same as many stories, and after being told awhile is accepted
as a fact and believed to be true, even by the person who first told the story. But
when a thorough investigation is made, it is found that they will not hold water, and
are matters of fiction only.
Having now reviewed this question, we ask our eastern Congressmen and Senators
and Eastern newspapers to examine the merits of this case, so ‘that when this linpor-
tant measure comes up they will know the full value of the same, and will act in the
way that will be for the best interest of the most people of the United States. When

320 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Alaska was purchased, it was undoubtedly designed to be for the benefit of the
masses, and probably not to create a monopoly for the benefit of a few men only,
thereby retarding the growth and development of this very valnable Territory. We
also think the laws should be so amended that a person could acquire a title to prop-
erty, and so changed that a white man could have the privilege of killing a mink or
an otter for its skin without first marrying a squaw; as the law now reads, no white
man is allowed to kill any fur-bearing animal unless he marries a squaw. This is
not commonly understood, but is a fact, and is a queer state of affairs, and one that
would not be relished by parents having sons that would like to go to Alaska, more
especially if they should have seen the Reports of Miss Kate Field on the women of
Alaska.

It should not be forgotten that this is the first instance in the history of the Goy-
ernment of the United States in which it has ever pursued a policy tending to create
amonopoly. All its laws relating to other portions of the public domain have been
framed with a view to invite competition and prevent monopoly. Such is the spirit
which has actuated and governed the pre-emption, homestead, mineral, and other
laws relating to the public property. The theory has been that such public property
has been vested in the Government, in trust, as it were, for all its citizens. The
proposed legislation with respect to the Alaska seal fisheries will be the first excep-
tion to this universal policy. . Indeed there is no species of the public property which
has been more peculiarly regarded as the common heritage of all than the fisheries.
Thus our Government has been for years past expending the most elaborate efforts,
in time and money, to bring about such an adjustment of the Fisheries question on
the North Atlantic coast as will open them to all American citizens. It is at least
singular that, the moment we cross the continent, this established public policy
should entirely change, and the waters of the Pacific be erected into a monopoly for
the benefit of a single Corporation.

In conclusion, we cannot help but review the fact that it would be vastly to the
best interest of the Pacific coast, and to the whole of the people of the United States,
that the Government should take charge of the seal islands, restrict the killing to
50,000 seals per year, abandon the present bad policy of the jurisdiction ot. the
whole of Behring’s Sea, and open the Territory to its full development.

Our Eastern friends might ask us how it would benefit them. In the first place,
it would open a profitable. field for the employment of your idle capital.

In the second place, half of the articles necessary to develop this Territory would
be drawn from your manufacturers, such as hardware, canvas for sails, ship chan-
dlery, guns, clothing of all description, such as waterproof and oil clothing, and, in
fact, all branches of trade would derive some benefit from it.

In the third place, it would open a field for the profitable employment of hundreds
of your young men who are always on the watch for new fields to enter, so as to
acquire wealth and a competency.

We ask your careful attention of the facts set before you, and trust our efforts
may not be in vain,

Copies of this can be obtained by addressing C. D. Ladd, 529 and 531, Kearny
Street, San Francisco, California.

Salmon and Seal.

THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW TO BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.

In referring to the order, as reported, of the 15th March,* in regard to the salmon
fisheries, this mention of dams would be supposed to apply to the present method

*Washington, March 15.—In company with D. Brown Goode, of the United States
Fisheries Commission, Senator Stockbridge, Chairman of the Committee on Fish-
eries, to-day called upon Secretary Windom with reference to the Act recently passed
for the protection of the salmon fisheries in Alaska. The Act makes it unlawful to
erect or maintain any obstruction in the rivers of Alaska with the purpose or result
of impeding or preventing the ascent of salmon to their spawning grounds, and
affixes a minimum penalty of 250 dollars a day for violation thereof. Last year, it
is said, certain parties, by the aid of dams, captured millions of fish, and they are
reported to be making ready for another campaign this year. The matter has been
referred to the Law Officers of the Treasury Department, who will at once prepare
the necessary orders for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The last sec-
tion of the Act, Senator Stockbridge says, will be carried out by the President in
due time. Its adoption was a matter of serious concern to Congress, and its phrase-
ology was changed by the Senate on Foreign Relations, and it was enacted into law
as follows.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. pea!

of taking salmon, called fish-traps. This order, if carried into effect, will undoubt-
edly work great hardships to the salmon canneries now engaged in this business in
Alaska.

Section 3 reads that the publication of notice of seizure and confiscation of ves-
sels shall be published one month in the papers at each United States port of entry
on the Pacific coast. With regard to this publication, it is earnestly hoped that it
shall be plain, and clearly define just what the Government claims as its domain,
whether it claims the shore-line or the whole Behring’s Sea. In 1887 similar notices
were published in San Francisco, bu& did not define what the Government claimed.
In this year the Government vessel ‘ Richard Rush,” commanded by Captain Shep-
ard, seized ten or twelve American and English schooners engaged in fur-seal hunting
in the Behring’s Sea, taking them wherever found, about 15 ‘niles from land being

the ne arest that any was found and seized. One English vessel was 98 miles
289 from land when seized, and others from 20 to 70 miles from land, and in no
case was any vessel within the 3-mile limit, which is supposed to be what a
nation holds and controls of the high seas. Captain Shepard in one instance when
remonstrated with said: ‘‘Wedo not care where you are, whether 1 mile or 500
miles from land, we are going to take you anywhere in the Behring’s Sea.” ‘This
high-handed proceeding on the part of our Government caused a great deal of criti-
cism from our newspapers and public men, and the public sentiment, wherever the
case was fully understood, was that these seizures were illegal and could not be
sustained. In 1888 the ‘‘ Richard Rush” left San Francisco the 3rd July for its cruize
in the Behring’s Sea, and it was currently reported that the Captain’s instructions
were the same as in 1887. Upon the vessel’s arrival at Ounalaska this policy was
changed, and no vessels were seized in 1888, the supposition being that none were
found within the 3-mile limit. By this action the Government receded from the
grounds taken in the year 1887, thereby practically admitting that the seizures of
1887 were w rong and illegal. Great injustice was done to the owners of American
vessels engaged in this business in 1888 by the withholding of what the order was
to be with regard to the Behring’s Sea until the arrival of the “Richard Rush” i
Ounalaska, thereby keeping out the American vessels. The English masters at Vie-
toria claim that they had advices from their Government at Ottawa, that no seizure
would be made outside the 3-mile limit. The result was that the English vessels
went in, while the American vessels stayed outside. Hence this publication should
by all means be explicit on this point in order that no one can be misled as they
were last year.

Wenow come to that part of the Revised Statutes (section 1956) * where the killing
of any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the
limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof, it reads:

“Any person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dol-
Jars nor more than 1,000 doHars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both,
and all outfits confiscated.”

We ask, was there ever in the whole history of the world, a Law passed that
showed quite the injustice that this does? Can you find its parallel? We doubt it
when you look at the actual offence as compared with the value of the property
taken. For instance, a miner on the Yukon kills a mink, its market value being less
than 1 dollar, he is subject to a fine of possibly 1,000 dollars and imprisonment for
six months, with the confiscation of his boats, blankets, provisions, &c. The same
Law would apply to a prospector should he kill a beaver or a bear and use it for
food: both are fur-bearing animals, and are common in Alaska.

The question comes up—tor what reason has such a Law been passed? Is it to pro-
tect the fur-bearing animals of Alaska?t On the face of it, it would seem so, but

*Section 3. That Snetion 19560f the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby
declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the waters
of Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in each
year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for one month in
at least one newspaper, if any such there be published, at each United States port
of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said waters for
the purpose of violating the provision of said section, and he shall also cause one or
more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize in said waters and arrest all
persons, and seize all persons found to be, or to have been engaged in any violation
of the laws of the United States therein.

t Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: ‘‘ No person shall kill any otter,
mink, marten, sable or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska
Territory, or in the waters thereof, and every person guilty thereof shall, for each
offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1 ,000 dollars, or imprison-
ment not more than six months, or both, and all vessels, their tackle, appar el, furni-
ture, and cargo, found engaged i in violation of this section, shall be forfeited, but the
Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the killing of any such

BSP P Y: 21

322 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

really such is not the case. A Law like this has a tendency to discourage all parties
from going to Alaska to trap, hunt, prospect for mines, and this is what is wanted
by those who control the trade of Alaska. It is not desirable that Alaska should
become settled, and its resources fully developed. It is more desirable to their inter-
ests that white men should be kept away, and for this reason a Law like this is pushed
through by some means or other, which on the face of it looks sincere, but when
understood shows plainly the injustice of it, and the detriment to the best interests
of Alaska, injustice to all residents of Alaska, and to all parties who would like to
go there. It isan understood fact that no vessel can go to Alaska for trade and
make a success; it is impossible to buy furs from the natives to any extent. Why is
this? Simply, when a native sells his furs to an outside trader, he is cut off from
trading at the various ports, and is virtually considered an onteast, hence they dare
not doit. The longer that white men are kept out of Alaska, so much the longer
this trade is controlled. White hunters and traders hunt and send their furs where
they choose, hence it is desirable that all such persons should be kept out if possible.
It seems that these Laws are so framed in order to exclude competition and retard
the development of Alaska instead of developing its resources as they should be, and
open this vast country for the benefit of the whole people and not for the exclusive
use of a few rich and powerful Companies. An earnest appeal is made that these
Laws shall be amended so that a white man can at least live in the country without
being acriminal. Simple justice asks this, as the only practical resources of Alaska
are its furs, fisheries, and mines,

No. 206.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received August 10.)

DOWNING STREET, August 9, 1889.

Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of yesterday

J am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to trans-

290 mit to you, for communication to the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy

of a further telegram from the Governor-General of Canada,
respecting the seizure of the “‘ Black Diamond” and “Triumph”:

It appears from a telegram, dated the 8th August, from Ottawa, that all additional
information respecting ‘‘Black Diamond” and ‘‘Triumph” is being sent to-day;
steps have been taken to secure sworn affidavits as to exact location of seizures and
boarding of those vessels.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) Robert G. W. HERBERT.

No. 207.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 15.)

DOWNING STREET, August 14, 1889.
Str: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 3rd
instant respecting the seizure by the United States authorities of the
“‘ Black Diamond” in the Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Lord Knuts-
ford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, and
for such action upon it as his Lordship may think proper, a copy of a

mink, marten, sable or other fur-bearing animals, except fur-seals, under such regu-
lations as he may prescribe, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to prevent the
killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the execution of the provisions of this
section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall he grant any special privi-
leges under this section.”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 323

further letter from the High Commissioner for Canada inclosing a copy
of a Petition to the President of the United States from the owners of
the American schooner “San Diego,” which appears to support the
Canadian view respecting such seizures.

The Orders in Council of the Canadian Government referred to Sir
Charles Tupper were forwarded to the Foreign Office in the letters from
this Department of the 18th August last year and the 9th instant
respectively.

lam, &c.
(Signed) RoBert G. W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 207.]

Sir C. Tupper to Lord Knutsford.

9, Victoria CHAMBERS, Westminster, London, August 9, 1889.

My Lord: With reference to my letter of the 2nd instant on the subject of the
seizure of British vessels in the Behring’s Sea by the United States, I now have the
honour to transmit, for your Lordship’s information, a copy of a Petition to the Presi-
dent of the United States from the owners of the American schooner ‘‘San Diego,”
-which seems to support the Canadian view of the matter.

With regard to the American proposal for the establishment of a close time for the
Behring’s Sea in relation to the seal-fishing, I should like to refer your Lordship to
the Order in Council of the Canadian Government, dated the 4th July, 1888, which
deals very fully with this part of the question.

I think both Lord Salisbury and your Lordship, after a careful perusal of this
document, will come to the conclusion that the adoption of the proposal that is dis-
cussed would practically mean the exclusion of our fishermen from the Behring’s Sea,
while, at the same time, it would operate entirely to the benefit of the Alaska Com-
mercial Company, with whose privileges it would not interfere. It also demon-
strates, in my opinion, that there is no scarcity of seals; that any indiscriminate
slaughter that takes place oceurs on the islands on which the American Company
pursues its operations, and that the seal-fishing industry might be extended con-
siderably without any appreciable effect upon the supply. Supposing, however,
that a necessity was found for some measures for protecting the seals, a proposition
of the kind should be made upon a proper basis, which would operate equally against
all, and not be a partial measure such as that suggested by the American Govern-
ment, the adoption of which would be tantamount to the exclusion of British vessels
from participation in the industry.

Ihave no doubt that your Lordship has seen by this time the further Order in
Council of the Canadian Government approved by his Excellency the Governor-
General on the 29th June, 1889. This also contains information, much of it from
American sources, proving beyond doubt the justice of the British claim to equal
rights with the United States in the open waters of Behring’s Sea. The right of the

American Government to make Regulations with regard to the fishing on
991° the islands and the mainland, and in the waters within the 3-mile limit from

the shore, is not disputed, but before the purchase of the territory, the United
States dissented in the strongest possible manner to any claim of exclusive jurisdiction
by another Power in the open waters of the sea in question, andit is only comparatively
recently that they have advanced their claim to regard the open sea as United States
property. Her Majesty’s Government have always resisted such a contention, and I
cannot doubt that they will now take such steps as will insure the prompt settlement
of the question by the withdrawal of the United States Government from the posi-
tion they have taken up, and not only thus enable British vessels to engage peace-
fully, without molestation in the fishery industry, in accordance with the rights
conceded by international law, but also demand reparation in favour of those persons
whose vessels, equipment, and cargo have been seized, and of those who have in other
ways suffered injury in consequence of the harsh, arbitrary, and unjust acts of the
United States Revenue cruizers,

Ihave, &c.

(Signed) CHARLES TUPPER,

324 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

; [Inclosure 2 in No. 207.]
Messrs. Handy and Co. to the President of the United States.

32, CLAY STREET, San Francisco.

Under the provisions of Article 2, Section 2, of the Federal Constitution, as
expounded in six opinions (Attorneys-General, p. 393), and in the case of ex parte
Garland (4 Wall, 333), we herewith respectfully apply to you to remit the forfeiture
adjudged against our vessel, the American schooner ‘‘San Diego.” her tackle, apparel,
furniture, and cargo, in the District Court of the United States for the District of
Alaska, as appears by the papers on file in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury,
which, by reference, are made a part of this Petition.

The oftence for which our vessel and cargo were judicially condemned was the
killing of fur-seals in the waters of Alaska, contrary to the Statute in such cases
made and provided, Remission and pardon are invoked upon the following grounds:

1. That the offence was not, in fact, committed.

2. That, owing to the distance and inaccessibility of the place of seizure, trial, and
condemnation, and the ignorance of the master of said schooner, a fair opportunity
did not offer itself to us to make an adequate defence against the condemnation.

3. That although the trial and condemnation were had under a belief shared by
all parties to the proceeding that an appeal would lie for either party against the
decision of the District Court of Alaska, and although such an appeal was duly
taken in our behalf from the Judgment of Condemnation, it now appears exceed-
ingly doubtful whether the Act of May 17, 1884, which organizes a judicial system
for the territory of Alaska, permits rights of appeal in any case not strictly criminal.

4, Because the Attorney-General, in opinions rendered to the Secretary of the
Treasury under dates of the 19th March and 16th April, 1887, has held that the
remissory power conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by sundry provisions
of the Revised Statutes does not extend to our case.

From the foregoing summary of the grounds of this Petition, it will be seen that
we are in danger of being for ever deprived of our property upon a doubtful state of
facts without a full though a. legal hearing, under an apparently mistaken belief on
the part of the trial Judge and Council that means to review the decision of such
Judge had been provided, and with no other effectual remedy now left to us than to
resort to the constitutional power of the President to grant pardons and remissions.

It has been said by Mr. Attorney-General Cushing (6 Opin., 488), that the power
of remission is proper to be exercised in cases where doubtful questions of law are
involved, or where parties are so situated that a due process of law cannot or has
not been had.

Our case is at least within the spirit of this opinion on both points, firstly, because
we had not had, and seemingly cavnot have, one fair day in Court, and secondly,
because if our vessel had been engaged in killing seals in the waters alleged (a fact
which we deny), it would be extremely doubtful if such killing would be an offence
against any law of the United States.

Upon this point we refer to the decision of Mr. Secretary Boutwell, of the

292. Treasury Department, rendered in April 1872, wherein he held that the taking
of fur-seals in Behring’s Sea was not unlawful unless attempted within a
marine leagne from the shore. We need not remind your Excellency that the same
position is held to-day by the Government of the United States in the matter of the
Canadian fisheries, and that the three British vessels lately seized and judicially
condemned for seal killing in Behring’s Sea have been released in obedience to the
uniform and unswerving doctrine of our Government upon the question of what con-

stitutes the high seas. When we add that our vessel was seized in the same waters -

at the same time, and condemned in the same Court upon precisely the same grounds
as were these British sealers, recently set free, with title restored to their owners,
we believe that we have stated full, sufficient, and reasonable grounds why the
repudiated headland doctrine should not lie against us. There is no pretence set up
in the evidence submitted on the part of the Government that our vessel was sealing
within the 3-mile limit, or was actually caught catching seals within the waters of
Behring’s Sea. In the case of the ‘Ocean Spray,” reported in 4 Law., p. 105, Judge
Deady held that, to constitute a violation of Section 1956, Revised Statutes, under
which law our vessel was condemned, there must be an actual killing established.

Permit me to observe that if the forfeiture in our case shall be permitted to stand,
the anomalous spectacle is presented that alien persons and foreign vessels are per-
mitted by our Government to pursue an industry and receive the mercy of pardon
denied to citizens and vessels of the United States. No such distinction in matter
of right and law between aliens and American citizens has ever been drawn by a
a Federal Administration.

The facts of this case, as shown by the papers in the Treasury Department, which
the Secretary of the Treasury has not been permitted to examine by reason of the
adverse opinion of the Attorney-General upon the question of his power to remit,
are as follows:

_——

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. B25

The American schooner “San Diego,” of 86 tons burthen, owned by Messrs. L. N.
Handy and Co., American citizens and merchants at San Francisco, was cleared at
that port for a general hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean, on
or about the 28th February, 1886. She commenced seal killing off the Farallone
Islands, about 20 miles from the Golden Gate; continuing north, she hunted and
fished on that ocean up to Ounalaska Pass, which she entered about the 24th June.
Turning westward toward Copper Island, in the Russian waters of Behring’s Sea,
then heading eastward and south of the Aleutian Group, she made her way into the
Pacific Ocean, and sailed eastward till Ounalaska Pass was again sighted. While
operating outside this Pass, a coming storm induced the vessel to run through the
Pass into Behring’s Sea for safety, where she was befogged and without observa-
tion for three days. When the fog lifted, she was found to be off Ounalaska Island,
12 or 15 miles from any land. Here she was boarded from the Revenue-cutter ‘ Cor-
win” [?] 17th July, 1886, and was seized because the boarding officer mistook the
purpose of the mister’s answer, that he had killed a few seals in Behring’s Sea; the
master referring to some thirty seals taken near Copper Island, in Russian waters,
and the boarding officer supposing him to admit that he had been sealing within the
water boundary of the United States. The boarding officer was also misled by the
presence of skins of recently killed seals on board, the explanation being that some
twenty-two sealskins had beer taken in the Pacific Ocean, off Ounalaska Pass, before
running in for shelter, and had not been salted, because rough weather and fog had
prevented the careful process of cleaning, saiting, and folding from being carried
upon the deck of so small a vessel as the ‘‘San Diego.”

It appears that the owners of the ‘‘San Diego” had expressly instructed the mas-
ter not to interfere with the privileges of the Alaska Commercial Company, nor
violate the law in any particular, and, although we hold that, under the ruling of
Mr. Secretary Boutwell, the diplomatic contention of one Government, and the dog-

.trine recognized in the recent release of the British sealing vessels, our vessel might
lawfully have taken seals in the very place where the officer found her with fresh
sealskins on board, we are obliged to adhere to the contention that she did not take
any seals in that place nor anywhere thereabouts, because the evidence shows that
not a skin was obtained in the whole of Behring’s Sea, except near Copper Island,
in the Russian jurisdiction. When discovered by the Revenue-cutter the vessel was
entirely inactive, her sealing boats lashed on deck, waiting for an opportunity to
get out upon the ocean to continue her business.

It would appear from the testimony of Lieutenant Cantwell, of the Revenue-
cutter, that he asked the master of the schooner if he did not know it was illegal
to take seals around here, and he answered that he did not know that it was against
the law so long as he kept a marine league from the shore. This answer suggests
a possible intention of taking seals in that vicinity if opportunity offered, but the
fact is that no seals were taken, nor does it appear that any could have been taken

up to the time of the seizure of the vessel if the wish and purpose to take them
293 had existed. Itis very evident from the whole record that we, the present

petitioners and sole prospective losers by the seizures of the vessel, never
intended nor contemplated the taking of a single sealskin on that voyage in an
unlawful or clandestine manner. Having openly cleared our vessel for a hunting
voyage in the North Pacific, we knew that, in due course of administration, that
fact would reach the Alaska Company, and the Revenue vessels employed for their
protection; hence it would be folly on our part to assent beforehand to any dubious
or risky transaction by our agent, the master.

Your Excellency will not fail to consider the United States Attorney-General for
Alaska against our application for the restoration of our vessel and cargo. The
grounds of his opposition and our answers are as follows:

1. The finding of the vessel in Behring’s Sea, equipped for fishing, with tresh skins
on board, together with the admission of the master that a few had been taken in
Behring’s Sea, raises a presumption against our present evidence that no seals were
taken in Behring’s Sea except near Copper Island. ‘lo this we answer, the vessel
was openly fitted and dispatched for seal-tishing; that the fresh skins on board could
not reasonably have been cleaned, salted, and packed before seizure, and that the
master had reference to his sealing operations near Copper Island when he said he had
taken a few seals in Behring’s Sea.

2. The District Attorney says that the answer of the master, that he thought seal-
fishing lawful outside of a 3-mile limit, raises a presumption that he had been fishing
outside, though within the water boundary of the United States; to which we reply
that this argument makes for rather than against our present application, because
if the master thought he had the right to seal outside the 3-mile limit, his doing so
would be innocent, in fact even if illegal at law.

3. Says the District Attorney, the allegation that the vessel was driven through
we Pass into Behring’s Sea is improbable, and throws suspicion upon the merits of

e case.

326 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

This unimportant observation doubtless arises from confounding the voluntary
passage of the vessel through the Pass to escape a storm, with a supposititious driving
of the vessel through the Pass by the wind.

4, Says United States Attorney that, although the owners of the vessel were rep-
resented by Counsel, they did not produce at the judicial hearing the important
testimony now offered ex parte.

This argument is met by the circumstance that the owners of the vessel had no
opportunity to select Counsel for themselves, nor to influence the production of evi-
dence and arguments in their behalf in that distant locality, and hence it would be
hard to hold them responsible for a failure to produce evidence at the trial, which
they admit the Counsel retained for them by the captain ought to have produced,
and for the non-production of which said Connsel have been dropped from the case.
The captain who employed the Counsel at Sitka thought his own testimony ought
to have been taken, but he did not feel qualified to question the judgment of ‘his
attorneys.

5. The District Attorney believes the merits of the case can be better determined
on the pending Appeal from the judgment than by an executive proceeding.

This argument is refuted by circumstances that, so far as the Statute Book shows,
there is no Court in which the Appeal, taken at large to the Circuit having appela-
tive jurisdiction, can be located or determined.

6. That the power to remit is an extraordinary one, and should be used restrictingly.

This argument of the District Attorney has been long since answered by the
Supreme Court, which has said that the laws imposing penalties are not to be con-
strued strictly against persons or property for the benefit of the revenue, and that
the laws conferring powers of remission are remedial in their nature, and should be
liberally used for the benefit of those who have innocently incurred the sanction of
the penal law. (10 Wheaton, 841, United States v. Morris, 106.)

In conclusion, we remind your Excellency that no seals were in fact taken in or
near the place where the Revenue officer supposed the ‘San Diego” had been seal-
ing; that, in point of law, no unlawful sealing was done by our vessel; that the
British vessels seized at the same time, in the same locality, for the same cause, and
judicially condemned to forfeiture in the same court, by the same Judge, and under
the same circumstances as our own, have been released upon the ground of inno-
cency; that without any actual fault of our own, we have, in fact, been deprived of
a fair trial in the Court below, and, to all appearances, are left without further
judicial remedy; that the remissory powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, by a
probable oversight in the Statutes, do not reach our case; that personally we have
been free from all evil intent, fault, or negligence throughout; and that while our
agent, the master, did not take the seals within the American boundary of Behring’s

Sea, he might justly have done so in view of the ruling of Mr. Secretary Bout-
294 well, the diplomatic action of our own Government from the first to the pres-

ent moment, and the general belief of merchants, lawyers, and all persons
interested in the seal fisheries that such fishing is lawful in any part of Behring’s
Sea, except near the islands of St. Paul, St. George, or within 3 miles of the shore.

Having filed with the Secretary of the Treasury the papers upon which we rely to
sustain the position taken therein, and convincing evidence of our good standing as
citizens and merchants, we pray your Excellency “to take this Petition into prompt
and favourable consideration, and release us henceforth from the serious and continu-
ing loss that we have undeservedly suffered, and are suffering, by the seizure and
retention of our vessel and cargo, in which no third parties are interested as inform-
ers or captors.

Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) L. N. HANDY AND Co.,
Commission Merchants,

No. 208,
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 17, 1889.

Srr: Tam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to request that you
will state to Secretary Lord Knutsford that, in his Lordship’s opinion,
it is very desirable, pending the receipt of full details in regard to the
recent seizure in Beliring’s Sea by the United States Revenue-cutter
“Ttush” of the British vessels “Black Diamond” and “Triumph,” that

—————s

—

a ee ey ee

“ses

1 ss

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 326

steps should be taken to proceed at once with the appeals to the
Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of the British vessels
whose sealing operations were stopped under similar circumstances in
1886.

I am to request, therefore, that you will suggest, for Lord Knutsford’s
consideration, that a telegram should be sent to the Governor-General
of Canada to the effect that, it being very unusual to press for diplo-
matic redress for a private wrong, So long as there is areasonable chance
of obtaining it from the Tribunals of the country under whose jurisdic-
tion the wrong complained of has occurred, Her Majesty’s Government
consider that they would be in a stronger position for dealing diplo-
matically with the Behring’s Sea cases if appeals on the cases of seizure
which took place in 1886 were pushed on.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) T., H. SANDERSON.

No, 209.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 19.)

WASHINGTON, August 5, 1889.

My Lorp: On the 1st instant I had the honour to inform your Lord-
ship by telegraph that the newspapers reported the seizure on the 11th
ultimo by the United States Revenue cruizer ‘‘Rush” of the British
schooner ‘ Black Diamond,” sealing in Behring’s Sea, being at the time
of the seizure 70 miles from land.

It was also reported that another British schooner, the “Triumph,”
was also boarded by the Captain of the “ Rush,” but no arrest was made,
the seal-skins on board the “Triumph” having been captured in the
Pacific, and not in the Behring’s Sea.

I have not up to the present date received any official information on
the subject. There is, however, no doubt about the truth of the fact
that the seizure of a British vessel has been made, and that another
British vessel was stopped and searched, both occurrences taking place
on the high seas, on the grounds that they had no legal rights to seal-
fish in those seas.

The question of the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States over
the Behring’s Sea is thus reopened, but it does not appear that any new
feature in the case has presented itself. However, a novel situation is
produced by the fact which is reported, that, after the seizure of the
‘Black Diamond,” one of the crew of the United States cruizer having
been placed on board of her by the Captain of the “‘ Rush,” with orders
to take her to Sitka, the Captain of the British vessel ignored the
instructions of the man in whose charge she was supposed to be, and
sailed for Victoria, British Columbia, where she is reported to have
arrived safely. Had she gone to Sitka, she would, in all probability,
have been declared by the United States District Court of Alaska a

lawful prize. As your Lordship will remember in the ease of the
295 ‘British sealers which were seized during the last two years, and

after seizure were condemned by the United States District Court
of Alaska, the United States Goveriument agreed to release them on
their owners giving bond to appeal to a higher Court. Few, if any of
them, availed themselves of this permission, and they were ultimately
sold by publicauction. I have been given reason to believe by a lawyer

328 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of some standing in this city, that through some defect in the legisla-
tion affecting the territory of Alaska, the only appeal that could have
been made in the matter would have been to the Supreme Court of the
United States.

IT cannot anticipate that the United States Government would try
and justify before that Court the seizures by a pretension that the
Behring’s Sea is not an open sea. However much their action and the
action of Congress may appear to put forward and maintain such a pre-
tension, it is the general opinion that the Supreme Court would not
hesitate to pronounce itself against it.

On what the United States Government would base their claim to
exclusive seal-fishing rights in the Behring’s Sea it is difficult to fore-
see, but in conversation a short time ago with a politician of very high
standing under the late Administration, I learnt that the following
argument has been brought forward and used by one or more of the
most prominent lawyers in the Houses of Congress. They maintain
that the “‘seal nation ” in those seas has its domicile, breeding-grounds,
&e., on United States territory, where it is carefully preserved and pro-
tected by United States law, and consequently they do not admit that
the seal loses its nationality when its habits cause it to temporarily
absent itself from its home.

From what I gathered from the gentlemen above referred to, I feel
confident that this was one of the chief arguments which might have
been used by the United States Government had the matter been
brought up to the Supreme Court during the time that the late Admin-
istration was in power.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES,

No. 210.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office —( Received August 20.)

DOWNING STREET, August 19, 1889.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 17th instant, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Mar-
quis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which has been addressed to
the Governor-General of Canada in connection with the Behring’s Sea
seizures in 1886,
Iam, Se.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 210.—Telegraphie.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

COLONIAL OFFICE, August 18, 7891.

It is very unusual to press for diplomatic redress for a private wrong as long as
there is a reasonable chance of obtaining it from the Tribunals of the country.

Her Majesty’s Government consider that they would be in stronger position for
dealing diplomatically with Behring’s Sea cases if appeals on 1886 seizures were
pushed on.

. ,» ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 329
No. 211
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received August 21.)

DOWNING STREET, August 20, 1889.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
with its inelosures, containing information respecting the recent seizure
of the schooner “ Black Diamond” and the detention of the schooner
“Triumph” in Behring’s Sea.

Lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

296 {Inclosure 1 in No. 211.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

‘ CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 8, 1889.

My Lorp: In transmitting to your Lordshtp such information as I have been able
to procure up to the present time respecting the recent seizure of the schooner
‘Black Diamond,” and the detention of the schooner ‘‘ Triumph,” in Behring’s Sea,
I deem it my duty to bring to your notice the very strong feeling which is arising
throughout the Dominion consequent upon the continued seizures of Canadian ves-
sels upon the open sea, and their condemnation in the United States Courts of law.

A sense of irritation is growing up in the public mind not only against the Goy-
ernment of the United States, but against the Imperial Government, which may at
any moment result in serious trouble, and there is reason to apprehend that, if the
supposed inaction of the Home Government PTET the sealers may be driven to
armed resistance in defence of what they believe to be their lawful calling, and it
would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Dominion Government to prevent such

a state of affairs.

I had the honour recently to inclose to your Lordship a Minute of the Privy Council
containing a very full recital of the past history of the so-called Behring’s Sea
question, and I must express the earnest hope that your Lordship will move the
Foreign Office to take such steps as may tend to an early settlement.

Up ‘to the present time there has been every disposition on the part of the Cana-
dian people to rely on the maintenance by the Imperial Government of the interna-
tional rights w hich the Foreign Office is char ged with the duty of protec ting, and if
the question of the free navigation of the North Pacific (or Behring’s Sea) were fully
maintained, I do not think that any reasonable measures which could be proposed
for the protection of the (so-called) seal fisher y would meet with a refusal here.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 211.—Telegraphic.]
Tieutenant-Colonel John Tilton to Sir John Macdonald.

VicroriA, July 30, 1889.

Sir John Thompson requests that the following telegram, just received, addressed
to Honourable Mr. Tupper from Victoria, signed - E. Crow Baker , may be repeated to
you,

“British schooner ‘Triumph’ arrived yesterday evening from Behring’s Sea.
Master reports seizure of British schooner ‘ Black Diamond’ with eatch of sealskins
by American Revenue-cruizer ‘Rush,’ 70 miles off land. Boarding officer informed
master that all vessels found with President’s Proc: imation and recent instructions
(ste) issued by Secretary of Treasury (sic). ‘Triumph’ had no skins on board, and
therefore escaped immediate confiscation. Is it not possible to afford protec tion to
some twenty Canadian schooners still there prosecuting their legitimate business, and

330 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

liable to immediate seizure if not already seized? Steamer ‘Sardonyx’ leaves with
coal for British war-ships now at Port Simpson on Thursday next. Please reply
immediately what steps Federal Government will now take in the matter. Meeting
to-day of those interested, who strongly urge this message. Senator Macdonald of
Toronto heartily endorses action of owners here. In meantime sealing business
interests completely paralyzed.” :

[{Inclosure 3 in No. 211.]
Extract from the “ Ottawa Evening Journal,” of July 31, 1889.
THE SEALER SEIZURE.

San Francisco, Cala, July 30.—The steamer *‘ Dora,” from Behring’s Sea, brings the
first detailed news of the capture of the British sealer ‘‘ Black Diamond,” by the
United States Revenne-cutter ‘‘Richard Rush,” on the 11th July. The “Rush”
overtook the ‘ Black Diamond” and ordered her to heave-to. The captain of the

“Black Diamond” refused. Thereupon the commander of the ‘‘ Rush” ordered
297 «a lowering of ports and running ont of guns, which caused the steamer to

heave-to. Captain Shepard and Lieutenant Tuttle boarded the English craft
and asked for her papers. The officers of the ‘‘ Black Diamond” offered no armed
resistance, but refused to deliver the papers. Captain Shepard at once broke open
the cabin, and forced the hinges off the strong box and the captain’s chest, thereby
securing the papers. A search of the *vessel disclosed 10,000 seal skins, which had
been taken in Behring’s Sea. Captain Shepard placed a non-commissioned officer
from the ‘“‘ Rush” in charge of the ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and ordered the vessel to be
taken to Sitka to await further instructions. The captain of the ‘“‘ Black Diamond”
stated that when in Victoria he had been ordered to pay no attention in case he was
overtaken by the “Rush” and requested to heave-to. He said he would not have
surrendered if the ‘‘ Rush” had had an inferior force to his own. On the 1st July
the schooner “Triumph” was-also boarded by Captain Shepard, but no arrest was
made, the skins on board having been captured in the Pacific. A passenger who
arrived on the “Dora” said: ‘‘On our way down from St. Paul’s Island we saw six
sealers and the ‘‘Rush” pursuing. Undoubtedly by this time the ‘‘Rush” has
made additional captures.”

Captain Shepard's Report.

Washington, July 80.—A telegram from Captain Shepard, commanding the Revenue-
steamer ‘‘ Rush,” says he seized the ‘“‘ Black Diamond,” for violation of section 1956
of the revised statutes. ‘This section was incorporated in the President’s Proclama-
tion of the 21st March, on the subject of seal fisheries. It forbids the killing, by
unauthorized persons, of seal and other fur-bearing animals within the limits of
Alaska or in the waters thereof. The penalty provided is a fine of from 200 dollars
to 1,000 dollars, or imprisonment for not exceeding six months, or both, and the for-
feiture of the vessels violating the law.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 211.]
Extract from the “ Ottawa Citizen” of August 3, 1889.
BEHRING’S SEA TROUBLES.
[By telegraph to the ‘‘Citizen.”]
Washington, 2nd.—The seizure of the British sealing-vessel “Black Diamond” by
the Revenue-eutter ‘ Rush” is believed to be the beginning of a series of seizures

which must lead to some definite understanding between the United States and Great
Britain on the subject. Great Britain has emphatically expressed the opinion that

the United States’ Government has no jurisdiction over the Behring’s Sea outside -

the 3-mile limit. Our Government proceeds on the assumption that it has a right to
protect the seal in any part of the Behring’s Sea, although the State Department has

ttt a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. eo Fad |

never stated that assumption in direct terms, and all its official utterances on the
subject carry the conviction of the Department’s consciousness of inability to estab-
lish the claim on the basis of any Treaty agreement or international law. Even the
Acts of Congress do not anywhere assert a claim over the whole of Behring’s Sea,
but only over Alaskan waters or the waters adjacent to Alaska and to our islands in
Behring’s Sea. Indeed, the one plea upon which the United States Government cap-
tures sealing-vessels all over the thousands of miles of water within Behring’s Sea is
that the welfare of mankind requires that the seal shall be protected from poachers.
The English Government agrees that the seal should be carefully protected and pre-
served, but contends that it has a right to be consulted as to the method of protect-
ing the seal on the open sea.

The United States Government is unwilling to take other Governments into part-
nership in the business, because the seal really belongs to the*Pribylov Islands,
although it sometimes strays to distant waters to spend the winter. Nevertheless,
when it comes to a crisis, this Government will probably have to admit that it has
no right to say, independent of other nations, that seal shall not be taken 200 or 300
miles from shore. It would not be surprising if some serious collisions should occur
between the seal-hunters and our Revenue-cutters. The sealers are out in numbers,
and the seizures that are sure to be made this summer must bring things to a crisis
and lead to a settlement of right in the matter. Sir Julian Pauncefote will have

big business to attend to “when he returns to Washington. He will doubtless
298 bring back with him some urgent representations from Lord Salisbury. Sir

Julian said before sailing for hy ngland that up to that time the subject had not
been talked of at all between himself and the State Department here.

The seizure and search of the ‘‘ Triumph,” whieh was afterwards released because
no sealskins were found on board, may be a more serious matter than the seizure of
the “Black Diamond,” for it involved the right of the United States to seize and
search suspected vessels outside of what are conceded to be the limits of the juris-
diction of the United States.

Bangor, Me., 1st.—Secretary Blaine passed through this city this evening en route
to Bar Harbour. <A reporter called his attention to a declaration in a Boston paper
that it would be impossible for the national Government to ‘‘ sustain the pretension
of Secretary Blaine that Behring’s Sea is distinctly American water.” ‘The Secre-
tary of State simply remarked that it might be well for the paper in question to
indicate the occasion, official or unofficial, where he said anything at all on that
point. Mr. Blaine added that everything done on the fur-seal question since the
4th of last March was in literal compliance with the directions contained in the Act
of Congress which was approved by President Cleveland on the last day of his
term.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 211.]
Extract from the ‘‘ Ottawa Citizen” of August 6, 1889.

Victoria, B. C., 5th.—The most astonishing thing that has happened here since the
foundation of the town was the arrival in the harbour yesterday of the ‘‘ Black
Diamond,” Captain Thomas, which, on the 11th July last, was seized by the Ameri-
can Revenue-cutter “Rush, ” for the alleged illegal capture of seals in Behring’s
Sea. Captain Thomas, the moment he stepped ashore, was met by the owners “of
the schooner, and to them he reported the facts connected with the interr uption of
his vessel’s sealing trip. He sighted the Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush” on the 11th July,
5 miles away. He was catching seals at the time, and was 70 miles off shore. He
immediately made sail, intending to elude the cutter and avoid any possible trouble.
The wind, unfortunately, was rather light, and the ‘‘ Rush’s” engines enabled her,
inside of an hour, to overhaul the ‘‘ Black Diamond.” The Commander of the
“Rush” at first signalled the schooner to heave to, but no attention being paid to
the order by Captain Thomas, the “Rush” steamed almost alongside, her Com-
mander shouting out his order for her to lay to. This he did three times, but Cap-
tain Thomas still paying no attention to him, he steamed ahead of the “ Black
Diamond” and lay across her bows, compelling Captain Thomas to haul his vessel
up sharply and lay to.

Then Lieutenant Tuttle, three other officers, and two boat-loads of Yankee sailors
came aboard and began making an examination of the ‘‘Black Diamond” hold.
Captain Thomas demanded an explanation, when Lieutenant Tuttle informed him
that his vessel was under seizure for the illegal catching of seals, and demanding the
“Black Diamond’s” papers. Captain Thomas indignantly repudiated the ch: Irge
that he was acting illegally, and refused to give up his papers. Lieutenant Tuttle
argued, demanded, and threatened, and finally, after three distinct, emphatic refusals

332 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

on Captain Thomas’ part, ordered his seamen to break open the cabin lockers and
find what the Captain refused to give up. ‘The papers were found, and Lieutenant
Tuttle took possession of them, refusing to Captain Thomas’ repeated demands to
return them. An American sailor named John Hawkins was then left aboard by the
Commander of the “Rush,” who informed Captain Thomas that he and his mate
were under arrest, that the schooner was to be taken to Sitka, that the crew were
not to be detained; but that the vessel was to be delivered over to the United States
Collector of the Port of Sitka, who would take whatever further action should be
thought necessary by the American authorities. Written instructions to this effect
were given to Hawkins, and, after a thorough search of the schooner, Lieutenant
Tuttle, with his officers and men, departed, and shortly afterward the ‘ Rush”
steamed off toward some other vessels in sight. Captain Thomas said nothing to
Hawkins, but putting up the port helm headed toward the Alaskan shore. Four
days later the “Rush” was passed by the ‘‘Black Diamond,” but did not hail her;
the schooner was headed in the proper direction, and there was no necessity for
speaking to each other. But the next day the “‘ Black Diamond” reached the har-
bour of Ounalaska, in the island of that name, forming one of the Fox Islands in
the Aleutian group, and went inside in the hope of finding there an English man-of-
war. The place was deserted however, except by natives, so Captain Thomas, with-
out any ado, turned his vessel about, heading for the passage leading into the

Pacific Ocean, and, reaching that, headed straight for Victoria, where he arrived
299 as described above. Captain Thomas said he wasn’t going to let any one

Yankee sailor take him captive into Sitka, and, as seaman Hawkins appears to
have had very little to say about the matter after the “Rush” departed, the Cana-
dian kept his determination.

There was no violence on the ‘Black Diamond.” Hawkins, as soon as he saw that
Captain Thomas didn’t intend to sail the schooner into Sitka, seems to have made
some sort of a protest, inetfectual, of course, and then settled down to a realization
of the truth of saying that ‘“‘there’s many a slip ’twixt the cup and the lip.” He
was quite hopeful, when he came ashore to-day, that he wouldn’t be swung from a
yard arm for not obeying orders. In the face of his predicament he was in fact
remarkably cheerful. He proceeded at once to the American Consulate, where,
handing over his instructions to the United States Consul, he made a statement of
what happened, as he saw it, since the ‘‘Rush” parted with him. His history of the
affair has been telegraphed to the authorities at Washington. The utmost satisfac-
tion is felt here at the escape of the “Black Diamond,” particularly among the
sealers and the owners of sealing-vessels, and Captain Thomas is being made a lion
of for his conduct in the matter.

{Inclosure 6 in No. 211.]
Extract from the ‘‘ Ottawa Citizen” of August 6, 1889.
Is 1T A BACKDOWN ?

Washington, District of Columbia, 5th August.—[Special.]—In some quarters the
running away of the “Black Diamond” is looked upon as nothing more or less than
a surrender of the position taken by the United States on the Behring’s Sea ques-
tion. It was so stated this morning by an ex-officiai of the Government, and, upon
my asking for his reason for such a view, he simply referred to the course pursued
by the Treasury and State Departments in 1888 as a sufficient answer. According to
his theory, the seizure of the ‘Black Diamond” was all for effect, and her arrival at
a British port was nothing more nor less than what was expected. The Treasury
people with whom I conversed on the subject scouted this position as most absurd.
They state that Captain Shepard was carrying out his instructions, and would never
have seized the ‘‘ Black Diamond” unless he was convinced that the laws of this Gov-
ernment on the fur-seal matter had been openly and unquestionably violated. Full
particulars by mail are to reach the Treasury Department not later than Wedues-
day next. Captain Shepard will explain the seizure of the ‘Black Diamond,” and
this, the Treasury people say, will fully explain his action on breaking open the
cabin and taking possession of the ship’s papers. The action of Captain Shepard
has given rise to considerable comment in official circles. One of the gentlemen
with whom I talked, and who is well informed, said the ‘‘Black Diamond” will be
seized the first time she appears in American water for this same offence, but it will
be along time before the opportunity for such a seizure occurs, and there is no law
by which the case can be reached otherwise. The vessel was seized and got away,
and that is the whole story in anut shell. The British Chargé d’Affaires has not
received any information as yet regarding this new development in Belring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 333

[Inclosure 7 in No. 211.]
Extract from the “ Toronto Globe” of August 1, 1889.
More DETrTAILs.

Victoria, British Columbia, 31st July.—Captain McLean, of the British sealer ‘‘ Tri-
umph,” which has arrived here from Behring’s Sea, is reticent about affairs in the
north. Itis stated by others on the vessel, however, that when the “ Triumph” was
sighted by the ‘ Rush” there were thirty seals dead ‘lying on the ‘‘Triumph’s” deck.
These are hurriedly skinned, and the pelts hidden among a large quantity of salt.
This salt also formed a heavy coating to about 800 sealskins which lay in the bottom
of the schooner. Lieutenant Tuttle made an examination, but seeing nothing but
salt departed. 'The men onthe ‘‘ Triumph” say that Captain Dodd, of the “‘ Mac,” had
said he would fire on any American officer attempting to board his vessel. Lieutenant
Tuttle told Captain McLean he had seen five schooners entering Behring’s Sea on the

4th July, viz., ‘‘Maggie Mac,” ‘‘ Triumph,” ‘Mary Ellen,” ‘Lillie L.,” and
300 ‘Black Diamond.” The latter was captured, but the fate of the others is

unknown. The ‘‘ Corona” arrived to-day. Captain Carroll says when he left
Juneau, Wednesday, the British men-of-war ‘‘Swiftsure,” ‘“‘Iearus,” and ‘‘Amphion”
were there; they left for Port Simpson on the following day. The ‘‘ Corona” heard
nothing of the seizures.

A number of prominent sealing men waited on the Captain of the British man-of-
war “Champion,” which sailed to-day for the north to join the fleet, and ¢ gave him
full particulars in writing. He will convey them personally to Admiral Heneage. A
deputation also waited on the Honourable John Robinson, Provincial Secretary ; ; he
has telegraphed to Ottawa demanding protection of the Imperial Government. Tele-
grams also have been sent by the most prominent public men of the province. The
action of the Imperial Government is anxiously awaited.

No. 212
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 22, 1889.

Str: Her Majesty’s Government are in receipt of repeated rumours
that British vessels have been searched and even seized in Behring’s
Sea, outside the 3-mile distance from any land.

Noofficial confirmation of these rumours has yet reached Her Majesty’s
Government, but they appear to be authentic.

I have to instruct you to inquire of the United States Government
whether any similar information has reached them.

You will also request that stringent instructions may be issued as
soon as practicable to the officials of the United States to prevent the
possible recurrence of such incidents.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 213.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 22, 1889.
Str: When you make the communication to Mr. Blaine, as instructed
In my previous despatch of this day’s ue relative to the recent sei-
zures of British vessels in Behring’s Sea, I should wish you to remind
him that clear though unofficial assurances were given last year by Mr.

334 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Bayard that, pending the general discussion of the questions at issue
between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States, no
further interference should take place with British ships in Behring’s
Sea at a distance from the shore.

You will find the record of such an assurance conveyed to me through
Mr. Phelps in my despatch to Sir L. West of the 3rd April, 1888, and
Sir C. Tupper informs me that Mr. Bayard gave personally similar
assurances to him and the other members of the Commission sent to
Washington.

Sir J. P auncefote will be prepared to discuss the whole question when
he returns to Washington in the autumn; but you should point out
that a settlement will only be hindered should the United States author-
ities resort to measures of force against British ships beyond the 3-mile
limit, against which Her Majesty’s Government must necessarily pro-
test as contrary to the principle of international law, which the United
States have not only acknowledged, but have themselves firmly and
publicly maintained.

1 am, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 214.

Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received by telegraph,
August 26.)

NEWPORT, August 26, 1889.

My Lorp: I had the honour to receive on the 23rd instant your Lord-
ship’s two telegrams of the 22nd ultimo, instructing me to inform the
Secretary of State that repeated rumours had of late reached Her

Majesty’s Government that United States cruizers have stopped,
301 searched, and even seized British vessels in Behring’s Sea out-
side the 3-mile limit from the nearest land: that although no
official confirmation of these rumours had reached Her Majesty 1s Gover n-
ment, there did not appear to be any reason to doubt their authenticity.

Your Lordship desired me at the same time to inquire whether the
United States Government were in possession of similar information,
and to ask that stringent instructions should be sent at the earliest
moment, with the view to prevent the possibility of such occurrences
taking place.

In speaking to Mr. Blaine on the above subject, your Lordship
instructed me to remind him that Her Majesty’s Government had
received last year very clear assurances from Mr. Bayard, at that time
Secretary of State, that, pending the discussion of the general ques-
tions at issue, no further interference should take place with British
vessels in Behring’s Sea, and, in conclusion, to state that Sir J. Paunce-
fote would be pr epared, on his return to Washington in the autumn, to
discuss the whole question, adding that Her Majesty’s Government
wished to point out that a settlement could not but be hindered by
measures of force on the part of the United States.

I accordingly left at once for Bar Harbour (Maine), where Mr, Blaine
has been passing the summer, and on the morning of the 24th instant
J called on him, and made a communication to him in the above sense.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 335

Mr. Blaine at once asked me to address to him a note containing the
substance of your Lordship’s instructions. He said that he was unable
to give a reply until he had consulted with the President, but he prom-
ised that I should receive one to the note I was to address to him at a
very early date.

All that he could say to me then was that similar rumours had reached
the United States Government, which were probably authentic, although
no official confirmation had been given to them, and he could say to me,
in further reply tomy communication, that he was of opinion that there
was little divergence in the views of the two Governments on the points
at issue.

On the termination of my interview with Mr. Blaine, I dispatched to
your Lordship a telegram informing you of what had taken place, and
then, in accordance with Mr. Blaine’s request, I addressed to him a note,
a copy of which I have the honour to inclose.

In the afternoon of the same day I met Mr. Blaine, and he told me
that he had addressed a letter to me containing the reply he had made
to me-earlier in the day. I had the honour to forward to your Lord-
ship by telegraph the substance of this reply, a copy of which is here-
with inclosed.

This reply, as your Lordship will see, commences by saying that
rumours of the search and seizure of British vessels in Behring’s Sea
by United States cruizers have reached the United States Govern-
ment, and that although no official confirmation of those rumours has
been received by them, they appear to be based on truth.

Mr. Blaine then goes on to say that it has been and is the earnest
desire of the President of the United States to have such an adjust-
ment as shall remove all possible ground of misunderstanding with
Her Majesty’s Government concerning the existing troubles in the
Behring’s Sea, and that the President believes that the responsibility
for delay in that adjustment cannot be properly charged to the Govern-
ment of the United States, and he begs me to express to your Lordship
the gratification with which the Government of the United States
hears that Sir J. Pauncefote will be prepared on his return to Wash-
ington in the autumn to discuss the whole question.

Mr. Blaine concludes his letter by saying that he has pleasure in
assuring me that the Government of the United States will endeavour
to be prepared for the discussion, and that, in the opinion of the Presi-
dent, the points at issue between the two Governments are capable of
prompt adjustment on a basis entirely honourable to both.

I acknowledged Mr. Blaine’s letter in a note, a copy of which is here-
with inclosed (Inclosure No. 3), informing him that I should lose no
time in bringing his reply to the knowledge of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, who, while awaiting an answer to the other inquiries I had the
honour to make to him, would, I felt confident, receive with much sat-
isfaction the assurances which he had been good enough to offer to me.

I have, &c.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

302 {Tnclosure 1 in No. 214.9
Mr. Edwardes to Mr. Blaine.

3AR Harbour, August 24, 1889.
Str: In accordance with instructions which I have received from Her Majesty’s
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I have the honour to state to you

336 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

that repeated rumours have of late reached Her Majesty’s Government that United
States cruizers have stopped, searched, and even seized British vessels in Behring’s
Sea outside the 3-mile limit from the nearest land.

Although no official confirmation of these rumours has reached Her Majesty’s Goy-
ernment, there appears to be no reason to doubt their authenticity. I am desired
by the Marquis of Salisbury to inquire whether the United States Government are
in possession of similar information, and further to ask that stringent instructions
may be sent by the United States Government at the earliest moment to their offi-
cers, with the view to prevent the possibility of such occurrences taking place.

In continuation of my instructions, I have the honour to remind you that Her
Majesty’s Government received very clear assurances last year from Mr. Bayard,
then Secretary of State, that pending the discussion. of the general questions at
issue, no further interference should take place with British vessels in Behring’s Sea.

In conclusion, the Marquis of Salisbury desires me to say that Sir Julian Paunce-
fote, Her Majesty’s Minister, will be prepared, on his return to Washington in the
autumn, to discuss the whole question, and Her Majesty’s Government wish to point
out to the United States Government that a settlement cannot but be hindered by
any means of force which may be resorted to by the United States Government.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 214.]
Mr. Blaine to Mr. Edwardes.

Bar HARBOUR, MAINE, August 24, 1889.

Srr: [have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this date, con-
veying to me the intelligence “‘that repeated rumours have of late reached Her
Majesty’s Government that the United States cruizers have stopped, searched, and
even seized British vessels in Behring’s Sea outside the 3-mile limit from the nearest
land.”

And you add that, ‘“‘although no official confirmation of these rumours has reached
Her Majesty’s Government, there appears to be no reason to doubt their authen-
ticity.”

Te eeply. I have the honour to state that the same rumours, probably based on
truth, have reached the Government of the United States, but that up to this date
there has been no official communication received on the subject.

Jt has been, and is, the earnest desire of the President of the United States to
have such an adjustment as shall remove all possible ground of misunderstanding
with Her Majesty’s Government concerning the existing troubles in Behring’s Sea,
and the President believes that the responsibility for delay in that adjustment can-
not be properly charged to the Government of the United States.

I beg you will express to the Marquis of Salisbury the gratification with which
the Government of the United States learns that Sir J. Pauncefote, Her Majesty’s
Minister, will be prepared, on his return to Washington in the autumn, to discuss the
whole question. It gives me pleasure to assure you that the Government of the
United States will endeavour to be prepared for the discussion, and that, in the
opinion of the President, the points at issue between the two Governments are capa-
ble of prompt adjustment on a basis entirely honourable to both.

I have, &c.
(Signed) J. G. BLAINE.

303 {Inclosure 3 in No. 214.]
Mr. Edwardes to Mr. Blaine.

BaR HarBour, August 25, 1889.

Sir: I had the honour to receive yesterday your note, in which you have been good
enough to inform me, with respect to the repeated rumours which have of late reached
Her Majesty’s Government of the search and seizure of British vessels in Behring’s
Sea by United States cruizers, that the same rumours, probably based on truth, have
reached the United States Government, but that up to this date there has been no
official communication received on the subject.

At the same time, you have done me the honour to inform me that it has been, and
is, the earnest desire of the President of the United States to have such an adjust-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 337

ment as shall remove all possible ground of misunderstanding with Her Majesty’s
Government concerning the existing troubles in Behring’s Sea, and that the Presi-
dent believes that the responsibility for delay in that adjustment cannot be properly
charged to the Government of the United States.

You request me at the same time to express to the Marquis of Salisbury the gratifi-
eation with which the Government of the United States learns that Sir J. Paunce-
fote, Her Majesty’s Minister, will be prepared, on his return to Washington in the
autumn, to discuss the whole question, and you are good enough to inform me of the
pleasure you have in assuring me that the Government of the United States will
endeavour to be prepared for the discussion, and that, in the opinion of the Presi-
dent, the points at issue between the two Governments are capable of prompt adjust-
ment on a basis entirely honourable to both.

I shall lose no time in bringing your reply to the knowledge of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment, who, while awaiting an answer tothe other inquiries I have had the honour
to make to you, will, I feel confident, receive with much satisfaction the assurances
which you have been good enough to make to me in your note of yesterday’s date.

I have, &c.
(Signed) H. G. EKbwarbEs.

No. 215.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received August 29.)

DOWNING STREET, August 29, 1889.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-
General of Canada, with a Report of the Committee of Privy Council of
the Dominion, with telegrams from Mr. Baker and the Collector of Cus-
toms at Victoria, respecting the seizure of the “Black Diamond” and
the “Triumph” by the United States Revenue-cutter “Richard Rush.”
[I am to request to be informed what answer Lord Salisbury would

propose should be returned to this despatch.
Iam, We.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 215.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 9, 1889.
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved
Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, submitting telegrams dated the 30th
ultimo, from E. C. Baker, Esq., M. P., and the Collector of Customs at Victoria, British
Columbia, with reference to the seizure in Behring’s Sea, 70 miles from land, of the
British sealing-schooner ‘ Black Diamond,” with her cargo of sealskins, and to the
searching in these waters, in the same locality, of the British schooner ‘‘ Triumph,”
by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘ Richard Rush,” and requesting that the atten-
tion of Her Majesty’s Government be invited thereto, with the earnest hope that
304 an early assurance will be given that British subjects peacefully pursuing their
lawful occupations on the high seas will be protected.
Ihave, &e.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 215.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, August 2, 1SS9.

On a Report, dated the 31st July, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
submitting telegrams dated the 30th ultimo, from E. C. Baker, Esq., M. P., and the
Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, with reference to the seizure in the
Behring’s Sea, 70 miles from land, of the British seaiing-schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,”

B 8, Pt V-——22

338 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

with her cargo of sealskins, and to the searching in these waters, in the same locality,
of the British schooner “Triumph, ” by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘Richard
Rush,” the Master of the “Triumph” being informed that immunity from the seizure
of his vessel was due solely to the fact that she had no sealskins on board.

The Minister represents that four years have elapsed since the seizure of British
seuling-vessels was commenced by the United States authorities in the Behring’s Sea,
and the strong representations of Her Majesty’s Ministers to the United States have
only resulted in a continuance of the policy, and a declaration that such policy will
be systematically pursued.

The Committee advise that copies of the annexed telegrams be transmitted to the
Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the request that the
attention of Her Majesty’s Government be invited thereto, and with the earnest hope
that an early assurance will be given that British subjects peacefully pursuing their
lawful occupations on the high seas will be protected,

All of which is respectfully subinitted for approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGER,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 215.]
Mr. Crow Baker to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.

(See Inclosure 2 in No. 211.)

{Inclosure 4 in No. 215.—Telegraphic.]
Mr. Hambly to the Hon. M. Bowell.

Schooner “‘ Triumph” searched by officer of United States Revenue-cutter the 11th
July in Behring’s Sea. Noskins. Vessel released. Officer told Master that same
day ‘Black Diamond,” having skins, was seized. Both vessels 70 miles from land.
Officer said orders were to seize every vessel; British or American, with skins on board.

No. 216.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received September 2.)

DOWNING STREET, September 2, 1889.

Srr: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which
has been sent to the Governor-General of Canada respecting the Beh-
ring’s Sea difficulties.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

805 {Inclosure in No. 216.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, August 31, 1889.

Seizures of British vessels in Behring’s Sea. Her Majesty’s Chargé d’Affaires at
Nase ee reports United States Government have no information beyond what we

ave

Mr. Blaine asked that the substance of Lord Salisbury’s instructions might be
embodied in a note, and promised early reply. He said it was necessary first to con-
sult President. He apprehended no serious divergence between two Governments,
and expressed his own very sincere desire fora “joint settlement of Fisheries and
Behring’s Sea questions, and dwelt on very friendly feelings of President Harrison’s
Administration.

— ,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 339

In a further telegram substance of Mr. Blaine’s letter is given, saying that the
same rumours, probably authentic, had reached his Government, but have not been
confirmed officially. The letter expresses the earnest desire of the President for an
adjustment removing all possible ground for misunderstanding concerning the
troublesin Behring’s Sea, and satisfaction at learning that Sir J. Pauncefote will
discuss question on his return.

United States Government will prepare for discussion, and President thinks points
at issue are capable of prompt adjustment on basis honourable to both Governments.

A third telegram states that Mr. Blaine had promised a very early reply whether
instructions would be sent to Alaska in order to prevent possible recurrence of such
incidents.

No. 217.
Forcign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 2, 1889.

Sir: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
29th ultimo, forwarding a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada and a Report of the Committee of the Canadian Privy Council
on the action of the United States Revenue-cutter “Richard Rush” in
seizing the British sealing-vessel ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and searching
another vessel, the * Triumph, ” in the waters of Behring’s Sea.

In reply to ‘your inquiry as to the answer to be returned to this
despatch, I am directed by his Lordship to suggest that Lord Stanley
should be informed that Her Majesty’s Government are in communica-
tion with that of the United States with the object of procuring instrue-
tions which will prevent any further seizures.

Tam, at the same time, to request that you will point out to Secretary
Lord Knutsford that as yet no authentic and detailed information has
reached this Department as to the circumstances attending the seizure
and searching of these or other British vessels by the United States
authorities during the present fishing season.

Lain, Se.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON,

No. 218.
Colonial Office to Foreign Ofjice.—( Received September 3.)

DOWNING STREET, September 3, 1889.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, and particularly to
the letter from this Department of the 29th ultimo, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a further despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, containing with other inclosures a eutting from a local news-
paper respecting the searching of the “Triumph,” and a telegram from
the Collector of Customs at Victoria in connection with the arrival of
the ‘Black Diamond” at that port.
I am to request that the inclosures to Lord Stanley’s despatch may
be returned to this Department when dove with.
Lam, We,
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD,

340 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

306 [Inclosure 1 in No, 218.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lurd Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 15, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 9th instant, I have the honour to
transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, sub-
mitting a copy of a despatch from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.
together with a cutting from the ‘‘ Colonist” containing Captain McLean’s statement
of the circumstances under which his vessel, the ‘‘ Triumph,” was searched, and also.
a copy of a telegram from the Collector of Customs at Victoria, giving information
as to the arrival of the seized schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” at that port.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 218.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 11th August, 1889.

The Committee of Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated the
30th July, 1889, from the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, respecting the
seizure of the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” by the United States cutter
““Richard Rush,” 70 miles from land, and transmitting a cutting from the ‘‘ Colonist,”
a British Columbia newspaper, containing Captain ‘McLean’s “statement of the cir-
cumstances under which his vessel, the “Triumph,” was searched, and also a tele-
gram from the Collector of Customs at Victoria, giving information as to the arrival
of the seized schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” at Victoria.

The Committee advise that copies of these communications be transmitted to the
Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the information of
Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for approval.

(Signed) Joun J. McGEr,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 218.)
Tieutenant-Governor Nelson to the Secretary of State, Ottawa.

GOVERNMENT HOUvUSE, Victoria, July 30, 1889.
Str: I have the honour to inform you that Captain McLean, of the sealing-
schooner ‘‘'Triumph,” just arrived from Behring’s Sea, has brought news of the sei-
zure of the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” by the United States eruizer ‘‘ Rush”
for sealing in that sea. I inclose cutting taken from the ‘‘Colonist” newspaper,
giving an account of Captain McLean’s statement.
I have, &c.
(Signed) HuGu NELson.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 218.]
Extract from the “Colonist.”

THE SEALING-SCHOONER ‘‘ BLack DIAMOND” SEIZED BY THE REVENUE-CUTTER
“RUSH,” AND DISPATCHED TO SiTKa.—Sunday evening considerable excitement
was caused in the city, more especially in commercial circles, when it became known
that the sealing-schooner ‘‘ Triumph” had arrived in harbour, bringing with her the
news of the capture of the schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and her own narrow escape
from the same fate. The particulars of the case are as follows:

At about 6 o’clock on the evening of the 11th July a steamer was sighted from the
deck of the ‘‘ Triumph,” and Captain McLean at once concluded that the vessel was

a United States cutter, either the ‘‘ Bear” or the ‘‘Rush.” The exact locality
307 of his schooner at the time Captain McLean did not know, but, as nearly as he

could judge, he was 100 miles to the westward of St. George’s Islands, in Beh-
ring’s Sea. The steamer followed in his wake for two hours, and at dusk came along-
side and ordered him to heave to. He at[?] obeyed the order, and a boat’s crew, with
the Chief Officer of the “Rush” (Mr. Tuttle), boarded her. ‘The captain stood at the
gangway, and asked the ofiicer his reasous for boarding the schooner. The answer

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 341

was the production of written orders authorizing ‘the capture of any vessel illegally
sealing in Behring’s Sea.”

He then asked to be allowed to search the ship, and on permission being accorded
him he spent over half-an-hour with his men in overhauling the vessel, No find
rewarded his search, however, the whole of the skins aboard having been dexterously
hidden in tine to ay vid detection. When the search was concluded the officer turned
to Captain McLean, and, after expressing his pleasure at not being under necessity to
seize his vessel, informed him that a few hours before, the ‘‘ Rush” had come up with
and boarded the schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond.” He had found aboard her 104 sealskins,
and on discovering these had put the second officer in charge, and disp: itched the
captured sealer to Sitka. He also stated that it was the intention of his Commander
to capture every vessel illegally sealing in Behring’s Sea, and send them to Ameriaan
ports in charge of American officers.

He then ordered his crew to return to the ‘‘ Rush,” and, as soon as they were aboard
the steamer, headed full speed away to the west.

At the time of boarding, the ‘‘Triumph” had aboard her about 300 skins.

The ‘‘ Black Diamond” is owned by Messrs. Guttman and Frank, of this city.

Yesterday morning, when the facts of the case became generally known, Captain
_ Cox, Mr. H. Saunders, and Mr. W. Munsie formed themselves into a deputation, and
decided to leave for Esquimalt immediately, and interview the captain of the
“Champion” on the subject. Commander Sinclair received the deputation very
courteously, and, on learning the object of their visit, ordered his secretary to take
down all the statements made. The facts of the case were then put before him, and
the visitors protested against the menace to the sealing industry by the acts of the
United States Revenue-cutter. It was represented that out of fifty-five sealing-,
schooners that have entered Behring’s Sea this season twenty-four belong to Victoria,
and that if the acts of the American Government were not speedily put a stop to,
the sealing industry of Victoria would be ruined.

All the members of the deputation signed the statement, and Commander Sinclair
told them that, although he could do nothing himself, he would lay everything before
the Admiral as soon as he joined the fleet. He further advised them to collect all
other available information on the subject and dispatch it to Admiral Heneage by
the steam-ship ‘‘Sardonyx,” which sails on Thursday next for Port Simpson.

On arrival in the city the deputation was joined by Mr. Richard Hall and Captain
Grant. Senator Macdonald, of Toronto, was then interviewed at the Driard, and at
once threw himself into the subject, going with the deputation to Mr. EH. Crow
Baker, M. P., and the Honourable Mr. Robson, Provincial Secretary. A telegram
containing the whole of the facts was dispatched to the Honourable the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa by Senator Macdonald, and it is expected that an
answer will be received in time for it to be dispatched to the Admiral by the ‘‘ Sar-
donyx.”

The Honourable Mr. Robson also dispatched a separate telegram to the Minister
of Marine on the same subject.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 218.]
Telegram from Victoria, B. C., to Mr. Bowell, Minister of Customs, Ottawa.

One man from Revenue-eutter placed on board ‘Black Diamond,” with orders to
take her to Sitka. Vessel’s master and crew remained on board, and brought her
straight to Victoria. Vessel’s papers, clearance, coasting licence, and certificate of
registrary, also salted skins, taken from her by officer of Revenue-cutter.

No. 219.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received September 6.)

ADMIRALTY, September 4, 1889.

Sir: Iam commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State,
308 copy of a letter from the Captain of Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Cham
pion,” dated the 30th July last, with copy of its inclosure, respect-
ing the capture of an English sealing-schooner by a United States
cruizer in the Behring’s Sea.
lam, &e. (Signed) R. D. AWDRY.,

342 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{Inclosure 1 in No. 219.]
Captain St. Clair to Rear-Admiral Heneage.

‘¢CHAMPION,” AT ESQUIMALT, July 80, 1889.
Sir: Lhave the honour to report, for your information, that during the forenoon
of the 20th instant a deputation of owners of sealing-schooners came on board of this
ship at Esquimalt to report that an English schooner had been captured in the Beh-
ring’s Sea by a United States cruizer.
A copy of their statement is attached.
I informed them that I would submit their statement to you on my arrival at Port
Simpson.
I have, &c,
(Signed) A. F. St. Carr.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 219.]
Statement made by Owners of Sealing-Schooners at Victoria, B. C.

The Enelish schooner “Triumph,” Captain McLean, arrived at Victoria last evening
(28th July) from Behring’s Seas, and reported that she was boarded in these seas on
the 11th instant at 8 P.M. by the American steamer “Rush,” Lieutenant-Commander
Shepherd, at longitude 170° west, and 70 miles off the shore.

The Commander of the “Rush” searched the vessel and found no seals on board.
He ordered her (the “‘Triumph”) out of the seas, and said if she was found there
again She would be taken prisoner to Ounalaska.

Lieutenant Shepherd, of the ‘‘ Rush,” also had informed Captain McLean that he
had that day seized the English schooner ‘ Black Diamond,” and his instructions
were to seize all vessels found in these seas.

A prize crew had been put on board the ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and the vessel sent to
Ounalaska.

(Signed) JOHN GRANAM,
Owner of Schooner ‘‘Sapphire.”
WILLM. MIMSIL,
Owner of Schooners “Viva,” “Pathfinder,” and “Mary Taylor.”
H. SAUNDERS,
Owner of Schooner “Ourel,”
“CHAMPION,” AT ESQUIMALT, July 29, 1889.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 9, 1889.
Str: I have to express to you my approval of your proceedings, as
reported in your despatch of the 26th August last, with reference to
the representations you were instructed to make to the United States
Secretary of State in regard to the seizures of British vessels in the
waters of Beliring’s Sea.-
Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 343
309 No. 221.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 9, 1889.

Sir: With reference to your letter of the 3rd instant, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to request that you will move the Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies to cause a telegram to be sent to the Gov-
ernor-General of Canada, requesting his Excellency to furnish Her
Majesty’s Government with immediate information if any further stop-
page of vessels in Behring’s Sea takes place.

lam, &e.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 222.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received September 10.)

DOWNING STREET, September 10, 1889.

Sir: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the sei-
zure of Canadian sealers in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Lord Knuts-
ford to transmit to you, for communication to the Marquis of Salisbury,
a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of the Dominion, with
its inclosures, on the subject.

Lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 222.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

CITADEL, QUEBEC, August 26, 1889.
My Lorp: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure of
the ‘ Black Diamond” and the detention of the ‘‘Triumph” in Bebring’s Sea, I have
the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council,
submitting copies of the instructions given to the special officer placed on board the
“Black Diamond” by the Captain of the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush,” and
of a letter from the Collector of Customs at Victoria, together with the affidavits of

the masters of the two vessels.
I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 222.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 22nd August, 1889.

On a Report dated the 13th August, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and lisheries,
submitting, in reference to the seizure in the Behring’s Sea of the schooner *‘ Black
Diamond” and the boarding of the schooner ‘‘Triumyph,” the original instructions
given to the special ofticer placed by the Captain of the United States Revenue-cut-
ter ‘‘ Rush” on board the “‘ Black Diamond” at the time of the latter’s seizure, and
also aletter from the Honourable W. Hamley, Collector of Customs at Victoria, British
Columbia, together with the following affidavits:

344 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

1. Affidavit of Owen Thomas, of Victoria, British Columbia, master of the British
sealing schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond.”

2. Affidavit of Daniel McLean, of Victoria, British Columbia, master of the British
sealing schooner ‘ Triumph.”

The Minister recommends that copies of the inclosures herewith be immediately
forwarded, for the information of Her Majesty’s Government.

The Committee concurring advise that your Excellency be moved to forward
310 this Minute, together with copies of the inclosures, to the Right Honourable
the Secretary of State for the Colonies
All of which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 222.]
Captain Shepard to Mr. Hankanson.

UNITED STATES REVENUE-STEAMER ‘‘RusH,”

Behring’s Sea, Lat. 56° 22’ N., Long. 170° 25' W., July 11, 1889.
Sir: You are hereby appointed a special officer, and directed to proceed on board
the schooner ‘ Black Diamond,” of Victoria, British Columbia, this day seized for
violation of Law, section 1946 Revised Statutes of the United States, and assume
charge of said vessel, her officers and crew, twenty-five in number, all told, excepting
the navigation of the vessel, which is reserved to Captain Owen Thomas, and which
you will not interfere with unless you become convinced that he is proceeding to some
other than your port of destination, in which event you are authorized to assume full
charge of the vessel. Everything being in readiness, you will direct Captain Owen
Thomas to make the best of his way to Sitka, Alaska, and upon arrival at that port you
will report in person to the United States District Attorney for the district of Alaska,
and deliver to him the letter so addressed, the schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” of Vic-
toria, british Columbia, her outfit, and the persons of Captain Owen Thomas and
Mate Alexander Galb, and set her crew at liberty. After being relieved of the
property and persons intrusted to your care, you will await at Sitka the arrival of

the “ Rush.”
Ihave, &¢e.
(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

[Inclosure 4 in No, 222.]
Mr. Hamley to the Customs, Quebec.

Custom-Housks, Victoria, August 5, 1889.

Sir: I forward herewith, in original, the orders given by Captain Shepard, of the
United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush,” to J. Hankanson, special officer, to proceed on
board the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” seized in Behring’s Sea, and to take
her to Sitka.

‘The master of the schooner reports to me that the Indians employed as hunters in
the schooner would, he believes, have murdered Hankanson if an attempt had been
made to take her to Sitka. The master got out of the sea and sailed at once for
Victoria, without any opposition on the part of Hankanson, and I think it is very
probable that the orders given him privately by the Captain of the ‘‘Rush” were
not to interfere in any way with the destination of the vessel. He arrived here
on Saturday evening, the 3rd August; the object of the Revenue-cutter was no doubt
attained in taking her skins, rifle, ana Indian spears away, and sending the vessel
out of Behring’s Sea. Her certificate of registry was also taken away.

Shall I give her a fresh certificate?

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) W. HAMLEY.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 345
[Inclosure 5 in No. 222

In the Matter of the Seizure of the Sealing- schooner “Black Diamond” by the
United States Revenue-cutter “Richard Rush,” on the 11th day of July, 1889.

Deposition of Owen Thomas.

I, Owen Thomas, of the city of Victoria, British Columbia, master mariner, do
solemnly and sincerely declare that—

1. Lam amaster mariner, and was at the time of the occurrences hereinafter
811 mentioned and still am the master of the schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” of the
port of Victoria, British Columbia.

2. On the 11th day of July, A.D. 1889, whilst Iwas on board and in command of the
said schooner, and she being then on a sealing expedition, and being in latitude 56°
22’ north and longitude i70° 25’ west, and ata distance of about 35 miles from land,
the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” overhauled the said schooner,
and, having hailed her by shouting, a command which I could not distinctly hear,
steamed across the bows of the said schooner, compelling her to come to. A boat

was then lowered from the said cutter, and Lieutenant Tuttle and five other men
from the United States vessel came aboard the said schooner. I asked the Lieuten-
ant what he wanted, and on his stating he wished to see the ship’s papers, I took him
down to my cabin and showed them to him. He then commanded me to hand the
papers over to him. This I refused to do, and locked them up in my locker.

At this time there were 131 sealskins aboard the schooner, 76 of which had been
salted, and 55 of which were unsalted, and Lieutenant Tuttle ordered his men to bring
up the skins, and to take the salted ones on board the ‘‘Richard Rush.” The cutter’s
men accordingly transferred all of the salted skins from my schooner to the ‘‘ Richard
Rush,” and also took aboard the cutter two sacks of salt and arifle belonging to the
schooner. Lieutenant Tuttle then again demanded me to give up the ship’s papers,
and told me that if I would not give them up he would take them by force. As I
still declined to part with them he signaled to the cutter, and a boat came otf with the
Master-at-Arms, who came on board the schooner. Lieutenant Tuttle asked me for
the kevs of the locker so that he might get the papers out, and upon my refusing to
give them to him he ordered the Master-at-Arms to force open the locker. The Master-
at-Arms then unscrewed the hinges of the locker, took out the ship’s papers, and
handed them to Lieutenant Tuttle. Lieutenant Tuttle then returned to the “ Richard
Rush,” and came back to the schooner again, bringing on board with him one whose
name I have since heard to be John Hawkinson, and who believe to be a Quarter-
master of the ‘‘ Richard Rush.” Lieutenant Tuttle then told me to take the schooner
to Sitka. I told him that I should not go unless he put a crew on board to take the
schooner there. He gave Hawkinsen directions to take the ship to Sitka, and gave
him letters to give to the United States authorities on arrival.

Lieutenant Tuttle, before leaving my schooner, ordered twenty Indian spears
which were aboard for sealing purposes to be taken on to the ‘‘ Richard Rush.” I
asked the Lieutenant to give me a receipt for the papers, skins, &c., he had taken.
This he refused to do, and he then returned to the “ Richard Rush,” taking the said
spears with him, and leavi ing the man Hawkinson in charge of the ‘schooner.
Shortly afterwards the cutter steamed away, without returning the ship’s papers,
sealskins, and other goods before-mentioned.

Aiter the departure of the United States vessel, I directed my course to Ounalaska,
hoping to meet with an English man-of-war. We arrived there on the 15th day of
July. My crew at this time consisted of a mate, Alexander Gault, two white sea-
men, deck hands, and a white cook, and twenty Indians. The Indians, thinking
we were going to Sitka, became mutinous, and told me the best thing I could do to
avoid trouble was to take the schooner home. They also warned the other white
men on board that if they thought I meant to take the schooner to Sitka, they
would throw us all overboard. There being no man-of-war at Ounalaska I left
there and directed my course to Victoria, and arrived at that port at about 7 P. M.
on Saturday, the 8rd August last, having on board the said John Hawkinson, who,
during the eruize to Victoria, had not tried to give me any directions, or made any
suggestions as to the course to be taken by the schooner. On arrival at Victoria
Hawkinson was put ashore by one of my boats.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be
true, and by virtue of the Oaths Ordinane e, 1869.

Declared at the city of Victoria, British "Columbia, the 7th day of August, 1889,
before me,

(Signed) OwEN THOMAS.
(Signed) Ernest V. Bopwett,
A Notary Public for the Province of British Columbia.

346 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

312 {Inclosure 6 in No, 222.]
Deposition of Daniel McLean.

I, Daniel McLean, of the city of Victoria, in the province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, being duly sworn, depose as follows:

That Lam master and part-owner of the British schooner ‘‘ Triumph,” registered
at the port of Victoria, British Columbia; that, in contormity to laws of the Domin-
ion of Canada, I regularly cleared the said schooner “Triumph” for a voyage to the
North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and that, in pursuance of my legitimate
business, did enter the said Behring’s Sea on the 4th day of July, 1889, and did in a
peaceful manner proceed on my voyage, and being in latitude 56° 05’ north, longitude
171° 23’ west on the 11th day of July, 1889. At the hour of 8.30 a. M. was hailed by
Commander of United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Richard Rush,” the said Revenue-
cutter being a vessel belonging to the Government of the United States and regularly
commissioned by the same; a boat having been lowered by officer and crew, I was
boarded by the same, the officer in charge of the boat being one Lieutenant Tuttle,
who demanded the official papers of my vessel, and, after reading the same, pro-
ceeded to search my vessel for seals, and finding no evidence of the same informed
me that orders had been issued by the Secretary of the United States, under the
Proclamation of the President, instructing the Commanding Officer of the said
Revenue-cutter “Rush” to seize all vessels found sealing in Behring’s Sea; he also
told me that should he again board me and find sealskins on board, that he would
seize and confiscate the vessel and catch; be furthermore informed me that he had
already seized the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” of Victoria, British Columbia,
and that she had been sent to Sitka, and that, therefore, by reason of his threats and
menaces, I was caused to forego my legitimate and peaceful voyage on the high seas
and return to the port of my departure, causing serious pecuniary loss to myself,
crew, and owners, for which a claim will be formulated and forwarded in due course.

And I make this solemn affidavit, conscientiously believing the same to be true,
and by virtue of the Oaths Ordinance, 1869.

(Signed) DANIEL MCLEAN,
Master of Schooner “ Triumph.”

Sworn before me this 8th August, 1889, at Victoria, British Columbia.

(Signed) GEO. Morison, J. P.,
A Justice of the Peace for the Province of British Columbia.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received September 12.)

DOWNING STREET, September 10, 1889.
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 9thinstant, Lam directed by Lord
Knutsford to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis of Salis-
bury, that the Governor-General of Canada has to-day been requested
to send immediate information if any further stoppage of vessels takes
place in Behring’s Sea.
Iam, Sc. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 224.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received September 14.)

DOWNING STREET, September 13, 1889.
Srr: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, for communication to the Marquis of Salisbury, with
reference to previous correspondence, a copy of a telegram from the
Governor-General of Canada, containing information in respect of the
recent seizures in Behring’s Sea, and stating that affidavits were being
forwarded.
Iam, &c. (Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

+=)

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 347

313. {Inclosure in No. 224.---Telegraphic.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

(Received September 29, 1889.)

Seizures of British vessels in Behring’s Sea.

“Black Diamond” seized 11th July; ‘‘Minnie,” 15th July; ‘‘Juanita,” 31st July;
“Pathfinder,” 27th August; ‘‘ Triumph” warned off, being threatened with seizure
11th July. Official information recently received at Ottawa respecting ‘Minnie,’
“ Juanita,” “Pathfinder.” Affidavits being forwarded. Seizure of ‘‘Lily” reported;
affidavit when received at Ottawa will be forwarded. Seizing officers removed skins,
ammunition, arms, and ship’s papers.

No. 225.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received September 14.)
{Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, September 13, 1889.
With reference to your letter of the 2nd instant, and to previous
correspondence respec ting the seizures of Canadian sealers in Behring’s
Sea, | am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for commu-
nication to the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which has
been sent to the Governor-General of the Dominion on the subject.

[Inclosure in No. 225.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, September 6, 1889.

Her Majesty’s Government communicating with United States Government with
a view to preventing further seizures in Behiing’s Sea.

No authentic and detailed information received as to seizures during the present
fishing season.

Appeal in case of 1886 seizures might be expedited by motion on meeting of
Supreme Court October, but case could not be heard till spring.

No. 226.

Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
September 20.)

[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, September 17, 1889.

On the 11th instant I had the honour to receive your Lordship’s
telegram informing me that it would be better that I should write
privately to Mr. Blaine, saying that Her Majesty’s Government were
earnestly expecting an answer to their request that the United States
Government would send to Alaska such instructions as would put a
stop to the seizures of British vessels, the reports of which seizures
were causing much excitement both in England and Canada.

I now have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of the private
letter which, in accordance with the terms of your Lordship’s above
telegrams, I addressed to Mr. Blaine on the 12th instant.

348 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,
[Inclosure in No. 226.—Personal.]
Mr. Edwardes to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, September 12, 1889.

My Drar Mr. Braine: I should be very much obliged if you would kindly let me
know when I may expect an answer to the request of Her Majesty’s Government,
which Ihad the honour of communicating to you in my note of the 24th August, that
instructions may besent to Alaska to prevent the possibility of the seizure of British

ships in Behring’s Sea. Her Majesty’s Government are earnestly awaiting the
314 reply of the United States Government on this subject, as the recent reports of
seizures haying taken place are causing much excitement both in England and
in Canada.
I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDEs.

No. 227.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received September 30.)

WASHINGTON, September 19, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 17th instant, I have
the honour to inclose herewith to your Lordship a copy of a note which
I have received from the Secretary of State in reply to my personal note
of the 12th instant, in which [ inquired of him when [ might expect an
answer to the request of Her Majesty’s Government that instructions
may be sent to Alaska to prevent the possibility of the seizure of British
ships in Behring’s Sea.

Mr. Blaine states that he had supposed that his note of the 24th
August, copy of which was inclosed in my despatch of the 26th August,
would satisfy Her Majesty’s Government that the President was earn-
estly desirous of coming to afriendly agreement on all matters at issue
between the two Governments in relation to the Behring’s Sea, and that
he had further supposed that my mention to him that Sir Julian Paunce-
fote would be officially instructed to proceed, on his return to Washing-
ton, to a full discussion of the question removed all necessity of a
preliminary correspondence touching its merits.

Mr. Blaine then goes on to say that, with reference more particularly
to the question to which I had informed him Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment were expecting a reply, a categorical response would have been
and still is impracticable, unjust to the United States Government, and
misleading to Her Majesty’s Government, and that it was therefore the
judgment of the President that the whole question could more wisely
be remanded to the formal discussion so near at hand, which Her
Majesty’s Government have proposed, and to which the United States
Government have cordially assented.

The Secretary of State concludes by stating that he considers it
proper to add that any instruction sent to Behring’s Sea at the time of
my original request, namely, the 24th August, would have failed to reach
those waters before the proposed departure of the vessels of the United
States.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 349

{Inclosure in No. 2°7.]
Myr. Blaine to Mr. Edwardes.

Bar HARBOUR, MAINE, September 14, 1889.

Stk: [have the honout to acknowledge the receipt of your personal note of the
12th instant, written at Washington, in which you desire to know when you may
expect an answer to the request of Her Majesty’s Government ‘that instructions
may be sent to Alaska to prevent the possibility of the seizure of British ships in
Behring’s Sea.”

I had supposed that my note of the 24th August would satisfy Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment of the President’s earnest desire to come to a friendly agreement touching
all matters at issue between the two Governments in relation to Behring’s Sea, and
I had further supposed that your mention of the official instruction to Sir J. Paunce-
fote to proceed, immediately after his arrival in October. to a full discussion of the
question removed all necessity of a preliminary correspondence touching its merits.

Referring more particularly to the question to which you repeat the desire of your
Government for an answer, I have the honour to inform yon that a categorical
response would have been and still is impracticable, unjust to this Government, and
misleading to the Government of Her Majesty. It was therefore the judgment of
the President that the whole subject could more wisely be remanded to the formal
discussion so near at hand, which Her Majesty’s Government has proposed, and to
which the Government of the United States has cordially assented.

It is proper, however, to add that any instruction sent to Behring’s Sea at
313 ~—the time of your original request, upon the 24th August, would have failed to
reach those waters before the proposed departure of the vessels of the United
States.
I have, &¢.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 228.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 2, 1889.

Srr: In my despatch of the 17th August I furnished you with copies*
of a correspondence which had passed between this Department and the
Colonial Office, on the subject of the seizure of the Canadian vessels
‘ Black Diamond” and “Triumph” in the Behring’s Sea by the United
States Revenue. cutter ‘* Rush.”

I have now received, and transmit herewith, a copy of a despatch from
the Governor-General of Canada to the Secretary of State for the Col-
onies,t which incloses copies of the instructions given to the special offi-
cer placed on board the ‘“* Black Diamond” by the Officer commanding
the ‘‘Rush” and of a letter from the Collector of Customs at Victoria,
together with the sworn affidavits of the masters of the two Canadian
vessels.

It is apparent from these affidavits that the vessels were seized at a
distance from land far in excess of the limit of maritime jurisdiction
which any nation can claim by international law.

The cases are similar in this respect to those of the ships *‘ Caroline,”
“Onward,” and “Thornton,” which were seized by a vessel of the
United States outside territorial waters in the summer of 1887. Ina
despatch to Sir L. West dated the 10th September, 1887, which was
communicated to Mr. Bayard, I drew the attention of the Government
of the United States to the illegality of these proceedings, and
expressed a hope that due compensation would be awarded to the sub-
jects of Her Majesty who had suffered from them. I have not since

* Nos. 202, 203, and 204, t No, 222,

350 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

that time received from the Government of the United States any inti-
mation of their intentions in this respect or any explanation of the
grounds upon which this interference with the British sealers had been
authorized. Mr. Bayard did indeed communicate to us unofficially an
assurance that no further seizures of this character should take place
pending the discussion of the questions involved between the two Gov-
ernments. Her Majest)’s Government much regret to find that this
understanding has not been carried forward into the present year; and
that instructions have been issued to cruizers of the United States to
seize British vessels fishing for seals in Behring’s Sea outside the limit
of territorial waters. The grounds upon which these violent measures
have been taken have not been communicated to Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment, and remain still unexplained.

But, in view of the unexpected renewal of the seizures of which
Her Majesty’s Government have previously complained, it is my duty
to protest against them, and to state that, in the opinion of Her Maj-
esty’s Government, they are wholly unjustified by international law.

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 2, 1889.

Str: At the time when the seizures of British ships hunting seals
in Behring’s Sea during the years 1886 and 1887 were the subjects of
discussion, the Minister of the United States made certain overtures
to Her Majesty’s Government with respect to the institution of a close
time for the seal fishery, for the purpose of preventing the extirpation
of the species in that part of the world. Without in any way admit-
ting that considerations of this order could justify the seizure of vessels
which were transgressing no rule of international law, Her Majesty’s
Government were very ready to agree that the subject was one deserv:
ing of the gravest attention on the part of all the Governments inter-
ested i in those waters.

The Russian Government was disposed to join in the proposed nego-

tiations, but they were suspended for a time in consequence of
316 objections raised by the Dominion of Canada, and of doubts

thrown on the physical data on which any restrictive legislation
must have been based.

Her Majesty’s Government are fully sensible of the importance of
this question, and of the great value which will attach to an interna-
tional agreement in respect to it; and Her Majesty’s Representative
will be furnished with the requisite instruetions in case the Secretary
of State should be willing to enter upon the discussion.

You will read this de spatel hand my previous despatch of the same
date to the Secretary of State, and if he should desire it you are
authorized to give him copies of them.

Iam, &e.

(Signed) SALISBURY.

|

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 351
No. 230.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 3, 1889.

Simm: I have received your despatch of the 17th ultimo, and I have
to inform you that I approve the terms of your letter to Mr. Blaine,
iuquiring when a reply might be expected to the request of Her
Majesty’s Government that instructions might be sent to the Alaska
authorities to prevent the possibility of farther seizures of British seal-
ing-vessels in Beliring’s Sea.

Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 231.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 5.)

DOWNING STREET, October 5, 1889.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a letter from Mr. T. U.
Clarke, inclosing a Report of a meeting at Victoria, British Columbia,
held to protest against the seizure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s
Sea, and adverting to the case of the “ Juanita.”
Lord Knutsford would be glad to be informed what answer Lord
Salisbury wishes to be returned to Mr. Clarke.
Iam, Se.

(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 231.]
Mr. Clarke to Lord Knutsford.

HiGHGATE House, Kilsby, Rugby, September 24, 1889.

My Lorp: I beg to call your attention to the Report of a meeting headed ‘A Vig-
orous Protest,” in inclosed Victorian (British Columbia) paper, referring to the
seizure of British sealing-vessels in the high seas.

Also to the notice, marked on p. 4, referring to the robbery of 620 sealskins from
the “Juanita,” of which vessel my brother is captain and part-owner.

As the vessel was 80 miles from land at the time of the seizure, I, on my brother’s
behalf, beg respectfully to ask whether Her Majesty’s Government is taking steps to
prevent these illegal seizures, and also to obtain compensation fur those who suffer
thereby.

Your kind attention and advice will oblige.

Yours, &c.
(Signed) T. U. CLarke.

317 [Inclosure 2 in No. 231.]
Extracts from the “ Victoria Daily Colonist” of September 1, 1889.

A Vigorous Protrst.—A few evenings ago, a meeting was held at the office of
Messrs. Hall and Goepel of those interested in the sealing industry, and a Committee
of five was appointed to make arrangements for a public meeting at which the voice
of the people of Victoria could be heard in reference to the recent seizure of British
schooners sealing in Bebring’s Sea.

352 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Committee consulted with Mayor Grant, and a mass meeting was duly adver-
tised to be held at the City Hall last evening for the purpose referred to.

By 8 o’clock, at which hour the meeting was called for, every seat in the City Hall
was taken, and dozens of deeply-interested citizens were compelled to stand. The
meeting was thoroughly representative, there being present all the leading business
men of Victoria, vessel owners and practical sealing men, while among the most
prominent men present were to be noticed the Honourable John Robson, E. Crow
Baker, M. P., Lieutenant-Colonel E. G. Prior, M. P., the Honourable Robert Beaven,
M. P. P., D. W. Higgins, M. P. P., 8S. Duck, M. P. P., Mayor Grant, Robert Ward,
President of British Columbia Board of Trade, Captain J. D. Warren, E. Bb. Marvin,
W. Munsie, J. H. Todd, Morris Moss, C. Strouss, Captain William Grant, Captain
Clarke, R. P. Rithet, and very many others.

Upon motion of the Honourable Mr. Beaven, seconded by Mr. E. Crow Baker, M. P.,
Mayor Grant was requested to take the chair, which he did at 8.15 p. mM.

His Worship, in opening the meeting, said that the matters for the discussion of
which the meeting was called had always possessed a deep interest for him. In the
early part of 1887, he had the honour to move in the House for the submission to the
Dominion Government of a proposition for submission to the Imperial Government
in regard to the protection of British sealing interests in Behring’s Sea. His motion
had been carried without a dissenting voice. In 1888 he had made another proposi-
tion through the House. This proposition provided that the individual interests
should not be allowed to suffer by the negligence of the Government in settling this
question. He had always been very anxious to see an early settlement of the
Behring’s Sea question. Without further preface, he would call on Mr. Edgar Crow
Baker, M. P.

Mr. Baker expressed pleasure at being called on tostrike the first blow. It was a
matter, he said, that concerned not only the individual, but the entire province, the
dominion at large, and the whole British !mpire. The matter was one deserving of
consideration, not only because it touched the individual pockets and the province
our home, but because it touched our hearths. The view taken by the people of British
Columbia was that the grand old flag that they had learned to love from infancy had
not only been insulted, but had been trampled in the dust. (Applanse.) It was
proposed to place everything in connection with the Behring’s Sea question before the
meeting truly and fairly from the very start, and to let the citizens of Victoria express
their calm and conscientious opinion upon them. After referring but briefly to the
various Treaties that had been made by the United States and Canada, which were
not, however, entered into at any great length, as they affected more particularly
the fisheries on the Atlantic seaboard, Mr. Baker pointed ont how, as far back as 1820,
when Russia owned Alaska, and claimed jurisdiction not only over the 3-mile limit
about its coasts, but also over the sea 100 miles from land, the United States Secretary
made a very vigorous protest at St. Petersburgh against the contention of the Rus-
sian Government. The British Government also strongly disputed Russia’s claim, and
the result was that in 1824 a Treaty was made with the United States, and in 1825
one with Great Britain, which showed how the two great nations, Great Britain and
the United States, joined issue with Russia when she set up the claim to jurisdiction
over Behring’s Sea, and contended that it was an inland sea, and not a branch of the
Northern Pacific Ocean.

On the 20th June, 1867, the United States purchased the territory of Alaska and the
eastern half of Behring’s Sea from Russia, paying therefor the sum of 7,200,000 dollars.
At this time, the Russian Government gave them what they claimed to be a clear title
to the eastern half of Behring’s Sea. If that title was bad the fault is not ours.
(Applause.) In 1870 the United States Congress passed a measure prohibiting the
killing of seals in close proximity to the Islands of St. George and St. Paul. Shortly
after this, the United States Government leased to the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany the exclusive right to kill seals for twenty years, in consideration of the sum
of 55,000 dollars per annum, and certain royalties. In the early part of 1889 an Act
was passed, by some claimed to have been smuggled through Congress in a rush,

proclaiming not very definitely that intrusions in Behring’s Sea would not be
318 = allowed; and containiay asweeping clause granting the President power to deal

with matters in connection with sealing by proclamation. Power of a very
indefinite kind was also given in regard to giving instructions to the United States
cutters. Aggressive measures were first taken in 1886, when Mr. T. Lubbe wrote to
him (Mr. Baker) at Ottawa, informing him that the British interests were endangered.
Mr. Lubbe’s letter was laid before the Governor-General in Council, and the matter
was promptly placed before the Imperial Government by the Dominion Cabinet.
The Minister of Justice at this time gave his opinion in favour of the British Colum-
bian sealers both to Mr. Baker and to the Imperial Government, pronouncing the
action of the United States illegal, and urging upon the British Government the
necessity of taking definite action at once to protect her interests in British Colum-
bia. ‘This was three years and a-half ago, and it was most mortifying to think that

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 353

this time should have elapsed before any decision was reached, The actual seizures
commenced in 1886, when three schooners were taken possession of, along with their
fittings and cargoes, and sold. The crews were cast on their own resources in Alaska,
and the masters and mates were not only heavily fined, but imprisoned as well. Mat-
ters of losses were expected by every one in business; but every British Columbian
felt that he was protected by the flag of England, under which many present were
born, and thought it strange that he was not sheltered by the flag whose protection
he had a right to expect. In 1887 nothing practical was done, and no restitution
was made. In 1887 the number of seizures was doubled, six schooners being taken
possession of. Coming to the present, in 1888 no seizures were made, and there was
every reason to believe that the seizures would be discontinued. The Dominion
Government had acted as promptly and as energetically as they possibly could. ‘They
had placed all matters promptly and rightly before the Imperial Government. It
was therefore easy to see where the responsibility rested. It was impossible for the
Government of Canada to protect its citizens outside of the coast limit of a marine
league. When the citizens of British Columbia sailed for the northern seas they
passed beyond the protection of the Federal Government, fondly hoping that where-
ever they went they were protected by the old flag of England.

Mr. Baker proceeded to read an amount of correspondence in reference to the
appeal for protection made by Mr. Morris Moss for the British Columbia sealers
on 28th March, 1888, which the Minister of Justice replied to by saying that it was
to Great Britain to whom the sealers should look for protection. The Dominion
Government could not send armed ships on the high seas to protect Canadians.

On the 28th July of this year the schooner ‘‘Triumph” arrived in port, and her
captain brought the news of his being boarded by Lieutenant Tuttle, of the United
States cutter ‘‘Richard Rush,” and warned him that if he was found in Behring’s
Sea fishing or hunting for seals, not only would his catch of seals be forfeited, but
his vessel and equipments would be confiscated, and sent with a prize crew on board
to an American port. The “Triumph” also brought news of the capture of the
“Black Diamond.” Immediately afterwards, on the following day, he (Mr. Baker)
had telegraphed again to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, asking him if it was
not possible to secure some protection for the twenty other British sealers in Behring’s
Sea. The steamer ‘“Sardonyx” was going north with coal for Her Majesty’s war-
ships, then in the north, in a few days, and it was suggested that instruction could
be sent to them by the Imperial Government to protect the British sealers. An
answer was received that the matter would receive immediate consideration.

Having reviewed the whole history of the sealing question, Mr. Baker expressed
the belief that all present could see for themselves how outrageous it was for any
Government to arrogate to itself the exclusive control of a great body of water such
as Behring’s Sea was—700 miles long from north to south, and 900 miles wide. The
desire of the sealers of Victoria was, first of all, to secure a guarantee that tlie sei-
zures would bestopped. They had alsoa reasonable right to expect compensation for
the losses already sustained, and without further delay. They, further, wished to
be secured in their right to prosecute the deep-sea fishing, of which fur-sealing was
a branch. He would conclude by moving the following Resolution:

‘Whereas in the year 1886, by order of the Government of the United States,
claiming exclusive territorial jurisdiction over the whole of Behring’s Sea, east-
ward of a line drawn from about the middle of Behring’s Strait south-westward till
it crosses the 193rd meridian of longitude, three British vessels, while lawfully
engaged in hunting seals, were seized in that sea at distances of from 65 to 70 miles
from the nearest land; and

“Whereas after protest by the British Government against such seizures, the
Government of the United States ordered the unconditional release of the said ves-
sels; and

“Whereas by such a course the United States Government practically admitted
the illegality of the seizures, and left it to be inferred that no further seizures would

be made; and =
319 ‘¢ Whereas in 1887 it again resorted to the seizure of sealing-vessels in Beh-
ring’s Sea outside the 3-mile limit, and at distances from 15 to 92 miles from
the nearest land, six vessels belonging to our citizens were seized by its orders and
afterwards declared forfeited to the United States; and

“‘ Whereas in the following year, 1888, sealing-vessels belonging to our citizens
again entered Behring’s Sea, and took seals throughout the season without molesta-
tion by the Revenue-cutters of the Government of the United States, which had
distinctly that year, by its instructions to the commanders of its cutters in Belring’s
Sea, ordered that no seizures of such vessels be made; and

‘Whereas in the present year seizures of British scaling-vessels belonging to our
citizens have again been made, practically in mid-ocean, in Behring’s Sea, by order
of the Government of the United States, the vessels robbed of sealskins on board,
and arms and ammunition:

BS, PIT V 23

354 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

‘Be it therefore resolved, that the citizens of Victoria protest against the usurpa-
tion of jurisdiction by the Government of the United States over the waters of
Behring’s Sea, outside the universally acknowledged 3-mile limit, and express their
indign: ation at the repeated outrages to which the persons and property of their fel-
low- ‘citizens, lawfully exercising their rights on the high seas in that part of the
globe, are subjected by the orders of the Government of the United States.”

Lieutenant-Colonel Prior, M. P., was called upon to second the Resolution. He
was very glad, he said, to do so. He considered the conduct of the United States in
the matter of seizing vessels on the high seas the most outrageous that could be
thought of. There was no necessity for 1 reviewing the question ‘the present meeting
was called to consider. It had been fully gone “into already. The question was,
what right had the American Government to seize our sealers?

A Voice from the audience.—No right.

Colonel Prior, continuing.—That was just the answer I was going to make. The
press of both countries says they had no right. The most important papers of the
United States says that the American Government will have to back down in their
contention. The Russian Government, by Treaties with both the United States and
Canada, gave up their claim to jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea in 1825. How then
can the United States claim to have purchased their jurisdiction from Russia? The
great 1aajority of Americans acknowledge that the claim advanced by their Govern-
ment has nothing to rest on. Who is to blame then for not stopping these illegal
seizures? The Dominion Government are not to blame. They have done all in their
power. When the newsof the first seizure this year reached me, I was in Kamloops.
J at once telegraphed to Ottawa, and expressed the hope that the Imperial Govern-
ment would give Admiral Heneage orders to retake the captured vessels. The
““Caroline” had orders to do this in 1887, but for some reason was recalled. If in
1887, why not now? If the Behring’s Sea question is purely one of jurisdiction,
why does not the American Government allow its own sealers to fish and hunt unmo-
lested? It is not the reason. The United States Government is trying to bolster up
a giant monopoly—the Alaska Commercial Company, who by tender acquired a lease
of sealing rights on the Islands of St. George and St. Paul, the breeding-grounds,
for twenty years. The true reason for their action is that the American Government
is afraid to lose the 315,000 dollars paid them annually by the Alaska Commercial
Company. Governor Swineford, of Alaska, has condemned the Company as the
greatest and worst monopoly in America, but, as he says, it has its agents always at
Washington to pull the strings in its interest.

This is the last season of the Company’s lease, and there is no knowing what the
Government propose to do next. This year, when we first heard of the outrages in
Behring’s Sea, he had thought, and he was not the only one on the floor of the Honse
of Commons who had thought the same, that it would not be poor policy to send the
British fleet into Behring’s Sea to protect the interests of Canadians. If France set
up a claim of jurisdiction over some particular part of the ocean, and seized a German
sealer therein, do you think that it would have taken three vears to settle the ques-
tion? Possibly, but they would be three very bad years forsome one! (Cheers.) If
Beaconsfield had lived, would it have taken England three years and a-half to settle
this question? No! (Cheers. ) He had pleasure i in seconding the Resolution intro-
duced by his colleague.

The Resolution was carried unanimously, with cheers.

The Honourable Mr. Beaven was the next speaker. He touched upon the varions
Treaties dealing with Behring’s Sea, and referred to the manner in which British
subjects were taught, that they were protected by the flag of England while and
wherever they were engaged in a lawful calling. The action of the United States

was contrary to international law. It had been so pronounced by the Premier
320. of England and a host of United States authorities. He thonght matters

should be at once referred to arbitration, as there could be no disputing the
legality as well as the justice of the Canadian claim. It was true that Canada had
suffered in past arbitration with the States; but still, arbitration was far preferable
to any other method in the settlement of existing disputes. He proceeded to review
the value of the sealing fleet and industry to the province, and explain the dimen-
sions it might assume if the present difficulties were settled. From a dollar-and-
cents point of view, it was necessary that action should be taken at once. He
begged to move the following Resolution:

““Resolved,— That, as loyal British subjects, we resent the insult to our flag, and
respectfully claim for our vessels and citizens on the high seas that protection by
the British Government which for centuries has been the right and pride of even the
meanest subject of the Empire, but which now seems to be denied us, causing great
loss to the commerce of our city, and financial ruin to eur fellow-citizens engaged in
the sealing industry.’

Mr. 8. Duck, M. P. P. ., seconded the Resolution. There should be no more delay.
Some action should at once be taken to secure British subjects in pursuit of their

i

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 355

lawful avocation from illegal seizure; and to let them know whether they are to
receive compensation for loss already sustained while pursuing their legitimate calling
onthe high seas. Itwas hard for him to understand the apathy that had been shown
by the Imperial Government in this matter. The good sense of the American people
would compel their Government to take a right action in the matter, if the Imperial
Government but did their duty by Canada. He was glad to second the Resolution.

Again the Resolution was put and carried, with loud applause, but no dissenting
voice.

Mr. D. W. Higgins, M. P. P., was nextcalled upon. Hesaid that he had had placed

in his hands the following Resolution, » hich he proceeded to read:

“ Resolved,—That the time has come :or a speedy and final settlement of the ques-
tion of our rights i in Behring’s Sea, and we urge upon both the Imperial and Canadian
Governments “the danger of ‘allowing this question to longer remain open.’

He thought this placed the question in a practical form. The other Resolutions
were longer, but still explicit. He could not, he said, help contrasting the action of
England when Imperial rights were concerned with her action in this case when
Colonial interest was at stake. The Delagoa Bay incident came to his memory.
Certain English property was seized by Portugal, and a cable-message was at once
sent to England. ‘Three days after a fleet was ordered to Delagoa Bay to protect the
British interests. It would have been in keeping with this policy if the fleet at
Esquimalt had long ago been sent to Behring’s Sea to protect British interests.
Beaconsfield, at the close of his carreer, said: ‘‘I have kept peace with honour.”
Can Salisbury, if the present policy is continued, say the same at the close of his
career? He may say, ‘‘I have kept peace,” but at the sacrifice of the liberties of
the greatest and most warlike natiov in the world. He (Mr. Higgins) had paid a
visit to the Southern States, and witnessed all the awful desolation apparent just
after the civil war. He had at that time breathed the prayer that his country might
never know the horrors of war. War was awful; but there was one thing just as
terrible—a peace preserved at the loss of national honour. (Loud cheers. ie

Mr. R. P. Rithet seconded Mr. Higgins’ Resolution. He acknowledged that it was
humiliating to be compelled to make an appeal for protection to our own nation
while pursuing a lawful avocation on the high seas. The matter was of no moment
whether the insult had been offered to one humble subject or tomany. The principle
wasthe same. British subjects had been illegally made prisoners of on the high seas,
and had been fined and imprisoned. Like good subjects, they had waited long for
action to be taken without their demanding it as their right. This action not hav-
ing been made, however, it was necessary now to emphasize the representations that
had been made to the Imperial Government. Like Colonel Prior, he himself felt like
striking back when he was hit. He thought it would have been a good thing if one
of the British men-of-war lying idly in Esquimalt Harbour had sailed north for
Behring’s Sea with the ‘‘ Richard Rush” at the beginning of the season; kept in the
‘““Rush’s” company until she attempted to interfere with some British sealer, and
then quietly sail between and say, ‘‘ You must not!”

The United States now claimed that their desire was to protect the sealing indus-
try from extermination. It was the desire of Victoria’s sealers as well, and they
would make no attempt to disobey any international regulations that might be made
for the preservation of the seals. He was fully in accord with the Resolution, which
he seconded.

Like its two predecessors, the Resolution passed unanimously.

Mr. Robert Ward, President of the British Columbia Board of Trade, drew atten-

tion to the inconsistency shown by the American Government, and carefully
321 reviewed the question of compensation before moving the following Resolution,
which was seconded by Mr. J. H. Todd:

“Whereas no compensation has yet been made to the owners and crews of any of
the vessels so seized and forfeited, be it therefore resolved, that we urge the Goy-
ernments of Canada and Great Britain to promptly compensate the sufferers by these
seizures, irrespective of the merits of the international questions involved.”

Carried unanimously.

The Mayor then called upon the Hon. Mr. Robson to move the next Resolution.
Mr. Robson stepped forward amidst applause. He said the hour was so late, and so
much had been said, and so well said, that he did not feel justified in occupying
much of the time of the meeting. He was in perfect accord with the Resolutions
which had been passed, and was ; hopeful of good results. That some such steps had
not been taken sooner was matter of surprise and regret. Too long had the glorious
old flag of which we all felt justly proud been trailed in the dust on these western
seas with impunity (loudapplause), and true loyalty required that we should employ
every legitimate means to put a stop to it. Long enough had Drother Jonathan
been allowed with impunity to twist the tailof the British lion, and now it remained
for the ‘‘simple fishermen of Victoria” to strike a lucifer under the lethargic old
animal’s nyse, and arouse it to a proper sense of duty. (Applause.) One speaker

356 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

had said the Provincial Government had nothing to do with this matter, while
another said it had. Perhaps in the strict official sense it had not; but he conceived
that in a very important sense it had to do with whatever concerned the welfare of
the country, and he felt it to be due to the Provincial Government to say that this
matter had received its most earnest attention. (Applanse.) It had prepared and
transmitted no fewer than sixteen Orders in Council and telegrams, and he could
assure the meeting that thesé were couched in as strong language as was consistent
with State documents. (Applause.) He moved the following Resolution:

“‘Resolved,—That copies of the Resolutions passed at this meeting be forwarded
to the Imperial and Canadian Governments, and to all Boards of Trade in Canada.”

Mr. A. B. Gray seconded the Resolution, which he considered a fitting climax to
the evening’s work. It would show to the world the attitude the province of Brit-
ish Columbia had assumed after mature consideration of the question dealt with.

The Resolution was earried, again unanimously; and after a vote of thanks to the
Mayor, both for calling the meeting and for his services in the chair, the meeting
adjourned.

ANOTHER RETURNS.—Messrs. Hall and Goepel’s little sealing schooner ‘ Juanita,”
Captain Charles E. Clarke, which has been expected for several days, arrived safely
yesterday afternoon, and tied up at Janion’s wharf. Captain Clarke reports having
sailed direct from Behring’s Sea for home, but having been compelled to wait four
days for a favourable wind to bring him in from the Straits.

The “Juanita” was overhauled by the United States cutter ‘‘Rush” on the 31st
July while sealing in Behring’s Sea. She was boarded by the captain and lieutenant
of the cutter with a boat’s crew, who demanded Captain Clarke’s papers, and also
took possession of the entire catch of the schooner, 620 skins. The guns and ammu-
nition carried by the schooner were safely hidden away, and the officers of the
“Rush” failed to discover their whereabouts.

Captain Clarke protested vigorously against the seizure, which, he informed the
officers of the cutter, was outrageous, the schooner being 80 miles out in the open
sea. ‘They replied that they were sorry to be compelled to do it, but were forced to
obey their orders. After instructing the captain to sail for Sitka, but without any
American ‘‘ prize crew,” the ‘“‘Rush” steamed away to capture another schooner
sighted, and supposed to be the “ Lily.”

As soon as the cutter had dropped behind the horizon the ‘‘ Juanita” resumed her
hunting, but her luck had apparently gone. Aiter several days of hard weather the
‘‘ Juanita” sailed for home, passiag the schooner ‘ Kate” on the way down, but not
close enough to speak her.

322 No. 232.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FoREIGN OFFICE, October 5, 1889.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
10th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General
of Canada, dated the 26th August last, in which his Excellency trans-
mits copies of the instructions given to the special officer placed on
board the “Black Diamond” by the officer commanding the United
States Revenue-cutter “Rush,” and of a letter from the Collector of
Customs at Victoria, together with affidavits of the masters of the
“Black Diamond” and ‘* Triumph.”

Iam directed by his Lordship to state in reply, for the information
of Lord Knutsford, that he has addressed to Her Majesty’s Chargé
@Affaires at Washington the two despatches of which copies are
inelosed.* They have been submitted to, and have received the con-
currence of, the Law Officers of the Crown.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

* Nos, 228 and 229.

—— o

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 357

No. 233.

Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received by telegraph,
October 13.)

‘

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1889.

My Lorp: I had the honour to receive on the 11th instant your
Lordship’s despatches of the 2nd instant on the subject of the seizures
of British vessels in Behring’s Sea.

With the view of carrying out your Lordship’s instructions to read
the above despatches to the Secretary of State, leaving with him,
should he desire it, copies thereof, I called yesterday at the Depart-
ment of State, but was unable to tind Mr. Blaine that day.

Accordingly, I called on him the next morning by appointment, read
the two despatches to him, and left with him copies of the same.

When I came to the passage in your Lordship’s despatch which refers
to the communication made by Mr. Bayard to Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, unofficially, of an assurance that no further seizures of the char-
acter indicated should take place peuding the discussion of the questions
involved between the two Governments, Mr. Blaine stopped me and
asked me if I could tell him in what manner this unofficial assurance
had been given. I replied that 1 believed it to have been given in a
letter from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West, and that the letter would be found
in the printed correspondence relative to the seal fisheries in Behring’s
Sea which was laid before Congress this year.*

When I had concluded the reading of the despatches, Mr. Blaine asked
me for copies of them, which I handed to him, and before I took my leave
he said that he would send me a reply later on.

I have, &e.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

No. 254.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Edwardes.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 14, 1889.

Sir: With reference to your telegram of the 12th instant, I have to
observe that the assurance to which I alluded in ny despatch of the 2nd
instant was conveyed to me unofficially by Mr. Phelps on the 3d April,
1888.t The conversation was recorded in a letter of the same date tothe
Colonial Office. There is also an allusion in a similar sense in a despatch
from Sir L. West of the 6th April.

Iam, &ce.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

*See Message from the President of the United States of February 12, 1889, p. 12;
Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West, February 3, 1887.

tSee Nos. 111 and 120.

358 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

323 No. 235.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 15, 1889.

Sir: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, forwarding copy of a letter and
inclosures from Mr. T. A. Clarke relative to the seizure of British seal-
ing-vessels in Belhring’s Sea, with special mention of the case of the
“ Juanita,” and asking what reply should, in Lord Salisbury’s opinion,
be returned to Mr. Clarke.

I am directed by his Lordship to suggest that the answer should be
to the effect that the question is at present under discussion between
the two Governments, and that Sir J. Pauncefote, who is now on his way
out, will at once enter upon the subject on his arrival at Washington.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 236.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received October 25.)

DOWNING StREET, October 24, 1889.

Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 5th
instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Gov-
ernor-General of Canada, inclosing an approved Minute of his Privy
Council, with copy of Resolutions passed at a meeting of the citizens of
Victoria, British Columbia, on the 31st August last, respecting the sei-
zure of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea.

Lord Knutsford proposes to reply to the Governor-General, with the
concurrence of Lord Salisbury, in terms similar to those suggested as
a reply to Mr. Clarke in your letter of the 15th instant.

Iam, We.
(Signed) Rh. H. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 236.]
Deputy Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OTTawa, Seplember 19, 1889.
My Lorn: I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, submitting a copy of the Resolutions passed at a meeting of
the citizens of Victoria, British Columbia, on the 31st August, respecting the seizures
of British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea.
I have, &e.
(Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 236.]

Report of a Committee of the TTonourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 14th September, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 11th September, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting a copy of the Resolutions passed at a meeting of the citizens
of Victoria, British Columbia, on the 31st August, having reference to the Behring’s

~ ie

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 359

Sea seizures, the Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy thereof to the
Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, for submission
to Her Majesty’s Government.
All which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

324 {Inclosure 3 in No. 236.]

Resolutions adopted at a Meeting of the Citizens of Victoria, British Columbia, held
August 31, 1889.

(See Inclosure 2 in No. 231.)

No. 237.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office—(Received October 25.)

DOWNING STREET, Uctober 24, 1889.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
consideration of the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of four despatches,
with accompanying papers, received from the Governor-General of
Canada, relating to the seizure, by the United States Revenue-cutter
“ Rush” in the Behring’s Sea, of the British sealing-vessels named in
the margin.*
I have, &e.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 237.)
Deputy Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OrTrawa, September 20, 1889.

My Lorn: I have the honour to inclose herewith, for your Lordship’s information,
a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, submitting the affidavit of the
owner and master of the British schooner ‘“‘ Minnie,” who therein set forth the cir-
cnmstances under which that vessel with her cargo of sealskins was seized in Behring’s
Sea on the 15th July last by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush.”
I have, &c.
(Signed } W. J. RITCHIE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 237.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 14th September, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 12th September, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting the affidavit of the owner and master of the British schooner
“Minnie,” which vessel, with her cargo of 421 sealskins, was seized in the Behring’s
Sea on the 15th July last by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Rush;” the Com-
mittee recommend that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of this Minute,
together with copy of the annexed aftidavit, to the Right Honourable the Principal
Secretary of State for the Colonies, for submission to Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

* “Minnie,” “Juanita,” “Pathfinder,” and ‘“ Lily.”

360 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 237.]

Affidavit of Vietor Jacobson.

I, Victor Jacobson, owner and master of the British schooner ‘ Minnie,” of Vic-
tovia, British Columbia, make oath and say:

I cleared my vessel from Victoria in the early part of May for a sealing voyage to
Behring’s Sea. My crew consisted of five white men and sixteen Indians. I entered
the sea on the 27th June, and commenced sealing on the 15th July. I was hove-to

under reefed mainsail and jib, when I perceived a vessel under full steam
325 bearing down uponus. This was about3 Pp. M. I made sail and tried to get

away, but was soon overhauled by what turned out to be the United States
eutter ‘‘Rush.” Some one on board shouted out, ‘‘Heave-to.” I did so, and a boat
filled with men came alongside. A Lieutenant came on board and asked me for my
papers, which I gave him. He thenasked me how many sealsI had. I replied about
450. He then took my papers off to the cutter, and returned and ordered his men
to take off the hatches, and bring up all the skins they could find. They took off
421 skins to the eutter. I went on board the cutter and interviewed Captain Shep-
herd, who told me he must obey his orders, which were to seize every schooner
found sealing in the Behring’s Sea, and send them to Sitka. I returned to the
schooner, when the Lieutenant asked me for my guns and spears. He took a breech-
loading gun and a muzzle-loader, but refused a French musket which I offered him.
He then left with his men, leaving one man on board. The cutter then steamed
away. The Lieutenant told me before leaving that I was 65 miles sonth-east by east
trom Aonimak Pass. After the cutter left the United States sailor told me he was
in charge, but he never attempted to interfere with the working of the vessel.
Some time afterwards he showed me his written instructions, which were that the
vessel should proceed to Sitka, and there be handed over to United States’ Marshal,
and that the captain and mate should be arrested. I then concluded [ would not go
to Sitka, but would continue my voyage. That night we made some new spears, and
next morning commenced hunting as though nothing had happened. We captured
fifty seals that day and ninety on the next, kept on hunting until the 17th August,
when, having five hundred seals on board, I left for the south. After passing through
Aonimak Pass, I told the prize crew I should steer for Victoria. He replied, ‘I
always thought so.”

The Indians told me that if the United States sailor attempted to take the vessel
to Sitka they would throw him overboard. We arrived in Victoria last evening, and
to-day at noon the prize crew came ashore and reported at the American consulate.

(Signed) VICTOR JACOBSON.

Sworn before me, at Victoria, British Columbia, 2nd day of September, A. D. 1889.
(Signed) ROBERT WARD,
A Justice of the Peace for the Province of British Columbia.

{Inclosure 4 in No. 237.]
Deputy Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OTTAWA, September 21, 1889.
My Lonrp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, submitting the affidavit of the master and mate of the British
schooner ‘ Juanita,” which vessel was seized on the 31st July last by the United
States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush,” together with a copy of the receipt of the captain of
the ‘‘Rush” for the ship’s papers, and a sealed envelope addressed to the United
States District Attorney at Sitka.
Your Lordship will observe that the seizure took place about 80 miles from the
nearest land.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 237.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 14th September, 1889.

On a Report dated the 12th September, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting the affidavit of the master and mate of the British schooner
“ Juanita,” which vessel, with her cargo of 620 sealskins, was seized in the Behring’s

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 361

Sea on the 31st July last by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush,” together with

the original receipt of the captain of the ‘‘ Rush” for the ship’s papers, and a sealed

envelope addressed to the United States District Attorney at Sitka; and it will be

observed that in this case the captain of the ‘‘ Rush” has fixed the latitude and

longitude at which the seizure took place at 55° 42’ north latitude and 170° 40’

326 west longitude, which is about 80 miles from the nearest land, and, as the

captain of the “‘ Juanita” defines it, ‘‘on the blue waters of the Great Ocean.”

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of

this Minute, together with copy of the annexed papers, to the Right Hononrable

tle Secretary of State for the Colonies, for submission to Her Majesty’s Government.
All which is respectfully submitted for your Kxcellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{[Inclosure 6 in No. 237.]
Affidavit of the Master and Mate of the British Schooner ‘ Juanita.”

We, the undersigned master and mate of the British schooner ‘‘ Juanita,” hereby
affirm and declare:

That the schooner ‘‘ Juanita” entered the Behring’s Sea on the 2nd day of July,
1889, having on board a crew consisting of four white men and fourteen Indians, all
told, with seven canoes and one boat, the said schooner being engaged on a fur-
sealing voyage.

That on the 31st day of July, at about 3 A. M., the schooner being at that time in
latitude 55° 30’ north, longitude 170° 25’ west, according to the master’s reckoning,
the United States Revenne-cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” was discovered a short distance
trom the vessel. After some delay she (the ‘ Richard Rush”) steamed alongside the
“ Juanita,” aud the captain requested that the schooner be hove-to, as he wished to
board her. In the course of a very short time the schooner was boarded by three
officers, the senior of whom inquired from the master with regard to the length of
time the vessel had been in the sea, and the number of skinson board. On learning
these particulars he (the officer) informed the master of the “Juanita” that he
should have to seize his vessel and catch; after which he instructed his boat’s crew
to tranship the sealskins (620 in number) to the ‘‘ Richard Rush,” which work was
immediately proceeded with.

The schooner’s master remonstrated with the steamer’s officer at the irregularity of
this proceeding, pointing out the fact that the vessel was then something like 80
miles from the nearest land, and on the blue water of the Great Ocean, to which the
ofiicer replied that he was simply carrying out the orders and instructions of his
superiors. He then demanded the schooner’s papers and the spears of the Indian
hunters, which were given up.

The papers consisted of the schooner’s certificate of registration and her clear-
ance. After all the skins had been transhipped, two letters were sent on board the
schooner; one (addressed to the master) proved to be a certificate of the seizure,
and the other was addressed to the District Attorney of Alaska at Sitka. With these
came verbal instructions to the master to proceed with his vessel to Sitka, after
which the steamer went on her way.

During the time of these operations the British ensign was flying at the schooner’s
peak, nor was it hauled down until after the steamer had resumed her course.

(Signed) CuHaAs. E. CLARKE.
JOSEPH SECORD.

Sworn before me this 2nd day of September, 1889.

(Signed) J. W. SHOTBOLT,
Justice of the Peace.

[Inclosure 7 in No. 237.]
Certificate of Seizure.

UNITED STATES REVENUE-STEAMER ‘§‘ RUSH,”
Behring’s Sea, Lat. 55° 42' N., Long. 170° 40' W., July 31, 1889.
To whom it may concern :

This will certify that I have this day seized the British schooner ‘‘ Juanita,” of
Victoria, British Columbia, C. E. Clarke, master, for violation of law, section 1956
Revised Statutes, United States, aud taken possession of his ship’s papers, consist-
ing of registry and clearance,

: (Signed) L. G. SHEPARD,
Captain, United States Revenue Marine.

362 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

327 {Inclosure 8 in No. 237.]

‘Captain Shepard, U. S. N., to the United States District Attorney,

UNITED STATES REVENUE-STEAMER “ RUSH,”
Behring’s Sea, Lat. 55° 29' N., Long. 166° 15’ W., August 6, 1889.

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that J have this day in the Behring’s Sea, lat-
itude 55° 29’ north, longitude 166° 15’ west, seized the British schooner ‘“ Lily,” of
Victoria, British Columbia, John Reilly, master, for violation of law, section 1956
Revised Statutes.

I have taken his arms and sealskins, 333 in number, on board the ‘‘ Rush,” for bet-
ter security, and as I have no officer to spare to place in charge, I have directed the
captain to proceed with his vessel to Sitka, Alaska, and on his arrival to set his crew,
three white men and twenty-five Indians, at liberty, and to report in person to you;
and I have to request that you will take charge of this vessel and her officers, Cap-
tain John Reilly and mate, George McDonald, until I can appear in the United States
District Court at Sitka against them.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 237.]

Deputy Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

Orrawa, September 23, 1889.

My Lonp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council of Canada, to which is appended a copy of the sworn state-
ment of the master of the British schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” giving particulars of the
seizure of his vessel by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush,” in
Bebring’s Sea, on the 27th August-last.

The Canadian Government, as your Lordship will observe, call attention to the
irritating and unjustifiable nature of the seizure, and request that suitable redress
be demanded from the United States Government for the wrong inflicted on loyal
subjects of Her Majesty.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

{Inclosure 10 in No. 237.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 14th September, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 7th September, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting, in connection with the Behring’s Sea seizures, the sworn statement
of the master of the British schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” giving the particulars of the
seizure of this vessel by the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush,” in the
Behring’s Sea, on the 27th August last, and the removal thereto from the ‘ Path-
finder” of 854 sealskins, together with all the rifles, shot-guns, and ammunition on
board; the Minister submits also the instructions given the special officer placed on
board the ‘‘ Pathfinder” by the commander of the ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and it will be
noticed, however, these were disregarded by the master and crew, as the vessel was
navigated to Victoria, British Columbia, instead of Sitka.

The Minister observes that the circumstances which characterize this seizure are
no less irritating and unjustifiable than those which have preceded it.

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to transmit a copy of
this Minute, together with the papers herewith, to the Right Honourable the Prin-
cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order to bring to the notice of Her
Majesty’s Government the particulars of the seizure in question, with a view to
seeking from the Government of the United States redress commensurate with the
wrong which has in this case been inflicted upon loyal subjects of Her Majesty.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Kxcellency’s approval,

(Signed) Joun J. MCGEE,
: Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 363

328 [Inclosure 11 in No. 237.]
Statement of Captain O’ Leary.

VicToriA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 80, 1889.

Captain O’Leary states that he sailed as master on board the British schooner
“Pathfinder,” owned by Carne and Munsie, of Victoria. We cleared at Custom-
house on the 17th April for a sailing expedition to the North Pacific Ocean and on
Behring’s Sea. We had fair success, and shipped the early season’s catch to Vic-
toria. We entered Behring’s Sea on the Ist July, and up to the 27th of that month
had taken about 860 skins, the weather being rather unfavourable for sealing up to
that time. On the morning of the 29th we sighted the United States cutter
“ Richard Rush” in about 57° 24’ north latitude, 172° 14’ west longitude. Com-
mander Shepard ordered me to heave-to; I did so: as there was no wind, escape was
impossible. First Lieutenant Tuttle came on board with a boat’s crew, and asked
me if I was sealing; I told him Iwas. He asked me how many skins I had on
board; I told him J had about 854. He then returned to the Revenue-cutter, and in
a short time returned and told me he was going to seize my vessel. I asked him
what he was going to seize me for; he said for sealing in Behring’s Sea. His men
then searched my vessel, and took all the ship’s papers, 854 sealskins, 12 rifles and
shot-guns, also all shells, cartridges, &c., which were transferred to the cutter
‘*Rush.” He put one of his crew on board my vessel, and told me to proceed to
Sitka with the ‘“‘ Pathfinder.” The ‘ Rush” then steamed away, and I headed the
*¢Patbfinder” south. After we were well out of the Behring’s Sea, some of my crew
informed the American officer that we were bound for Victoria. He said nothing to
me, nor did he offer any objection. As the month of August is our best sealing
month, I consider we could easily have taken 3,000 seals in all to the end of the
sealing season.

(Signed) W. O’LEarY.

Sworn before me this 31st day of August, 1889.

(Signed) J. W. SHOTBOLT,
Justice of the Peace.

[Inclosure 12 in No. 237.]

Captain Shepard, U. S. N., to Mr. Hunter.

. UNITED STATES REVENUE-CUTTER ‘‘ RUSH,”
Behring’s Sea, Lat. 57° 24’ N., Long. 171° 55' W., July 29, 1889.
Str: You are hereby appointed a special officer, and are directed to proceed on
board the schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” of Victoria, British Columbia, this day seized for
violation of section 1956 Revised Statutes of the United States, and assume charge
of the said vessel, her officers and crew, twenty white men, all told; excepting the
navigation of the vessel, which is reserved to Captain O’Leary, and which you will
not interfere with unless you become convinced he is proceeding to some other than
your port of destination, in which event you are authorized to assume full charge of
the vesse!. Everything being in readiness, you will direct Captain O’Leary to make
the best of his way to Sitka, Alaska, and upon arrival at that port you will report
in person to the United States District Attorney for the District of Alaska, and
deliver it to him, the letter so addressed, the schooner, her outfit, and the persons of
Captain William O’Leary and mate, A. Davidson, and set the crew at liberty.
After being relieved of the property and persons intrusted to your care, you will
await at Sitka the arrival of the “‘ Rush.”
Respectfully, &c. (Signed) L. G. SHEPARD.

[Inclosure 13 in No. 237.]
Deputy Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OTTAWA, September 24, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, submitting a copy of the attidavit of the master of the British
sealing-schooner ‘ Lily,” which vessel was seized in Behring’s Sea by the United
States Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” on the 6th ultimo, about 60 miles from the
nearest land, together with a copy of the certificate of seizure signed by the captain
of the ‘‘ Richard Rush,” and a sealed communication addressed to the United States
District Attorney at Sitka.

I have, &c. (Signed) W. J. RITCHIE,

364 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

329 {Inclosure 14 in No. 237.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 18th September, 1889.

On a Memorandum, dated the 18th September, 1889, from the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries, submitting the affidavit of the master of the British sealing-schooner
“Lily,” which vessel was on the 6th day of August last in the Behring’s Sea (latitude
55° 29’ north, longitude 166° 15’ west). distant about 60 miles from the nearest land,
with her cargo of 333 sealskins, seized by the United States Revenue-cntter “ Richard
Rush,” also the certificate of seizure signed by L. G. Shepard, captain of the ‘‘ Richard
Rush,” and a sealed communication addressed to the United States District Attorney,
District of Alaska, Sitka, given to the master of the ‘ Lily” for delivery on his arrival
at Sitka, whither he was ordered to proceed, which order, however, he disregarded,
and sailed to Victoria.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be pleased to forward copies of the
inclosures to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,
for submission to Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council,

{Inclosure 15 in No. 237.]
Declaration of John Reilly.

In the matter of the seizure of the sealing schooner “Lily” by the United States
Revenue-cutter ‘Richard Rush,” on the 6th day of August, A. D. 1889.

I, John Reilly, of the city of Victoria, British Columbia, master mariner, do sol-
emnly and sincerely declare that: :

Iam amaster mariner, and was at the time of the occurrences hereinafter men-
tioned, and still am, the master of the schooner ‘“ Lily,” of the port of Victoria,
British Columbia. j

On the 6th day of August, A. D. 1889, whilst I was on board and in command of
the said schooner, and she then being on a sealing expedition, and being in latitude
55° 29’ north and longitude 166° 15’ west, and at a distance of about 66 miles from
nearest land, the United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Richard Rush” overhauled the
said schooner.

I was first boarded by the First Lieutenant, who was armed, and who asked me
how many skins I had on board. I replied that he should find out himself, and said
that if he wanted to see the schooner’s papers I would show them to him, and would
render him assistance should he want to search the schooner for contraband goods;
but I would not acknowledge his right to seize me for sealing on the high seas.

The First Lieutenant then returned to the cutter, and in a short time returned,
accompanied by another boat of the cutter, which was in charge of the Second
Lieutenant.

They both came on board, and the First Lieutenant demanded of me the surrender
of the schooner, and asking at the same time for the schooner’s papers. This I at
first declined to do, and the First Lieutenant said unless I gave the schooner’s papers
to him at once, he would take them by force. I then gave him the scliooner’s papers,
consisting of registry, coasting licence, and clearance.

The First Lieutenant then ordered both boats’ crew to search the schooner, and
they took from my schooner 333 sealskins, all in good order.

He then asked me if I would give him two sacks of salt. I told him that it would
be useless for me to refuse, as he could take them by force, so I told him to go ahead
and help himself.

He then gave me two letters, the contents of which were unknown to me at the
time, one of them being sealed, and the contents of which is still unknown to me,
the other certifying that he had seized the schooner “Lily” for violation of the
United States laws, and taken possession of the schooner’s papers.

He then told me to proceed to Sitka, Alaska. I asked him if he wanteca me to go
to Victoria or Sitka, Alaska; to which he replied that he had nothing to say, but
had simply told me his orders.

My crew at this time consisted of a mate, George McDonald, and three white men
and twenty-five Indian hunters.

The Indian hunters said they would not proceed to Sitka, and, to avoid fur-
330 ther trouble, I directed the schooner’s course for Victoria, and arrived here the
1st day of September, at 7 o’clock Pp. M.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 365

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true,
and by virtue of ‘The Oath Ordinance, 1869.”
(Signed) JOHN REILLY.

Declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 11th day of September,
1889, before me.
(Signed) J. W. SHOTROLT,
Justice of the Peace.

I hereby make oath that the above declaration is true as far as I know of.
(Signed) GEOKGE MCDONALD.

Declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 11th day of September,
1889, before me.
(Signed) J. W. SHOTBOLT,
Justice of the Peace.

[Inclosure 16 in No. 237.]
Certificate of Seizure.

UNITED STATES REVENUE-CUTTER ‘‘ RUSH,”
Behring’s Sea, Lat. 55° 29' N., Long. 166° 15' W., August 6, 1889.
To whom it may concern:

This will certify that I have this day seized the British schooner ‘‘ Lily,” of Vic-
toria, British Columbia, John Reilly, master, for violation of law (section 1956
Revised Statutes), and taken possession of his ship’s papers, viz., certificate of regis-
try, coasting licence, and clearance. : hires

(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD,
Capiain, United States kevenue Marine.

No. 238,
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 25.)

[Extract. ]

DOWNING STREET, October 24, 1889.

With reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure of
British vessels in Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to
transmit to you, to be laid betore the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing an
approved Minute of his Privy Council submitting a Report of the Min-
ister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 238.]
Deputy-Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

Orrawa, September 23, 1889.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 18th ultimo, stating
that Her Majesty’s Government would be in a stronger position for dealing definitely
with Behring’s Sea cases if the appeals on 1886 seizures were pushed on, I have the
honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, sub-
mitting a Report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the subject.
I have, &e.
(Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

366 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 2 in No, 238.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 16th September, 1889.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a cable despatch,

dated the 18th August, 1889, from Lord Knutsford, intimating that Her Maj-

331 esty’s Government considers that it would be in a stronger position for dealing

definitely with Behring’s Sea cases if appeals in 1886 seizures were pushed on,

and the despatch goes on to say: ‘It is very unusual to press for diplomatic redress

for a private wrong as long as there is a reasonable chance of obtaining it from the
Tribunals of the country.”

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the cable despatch was referred,
submits the annexed Report, in which the Committee concur.

The Committee recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy
hereof and the annexed papers to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for
the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 238.]
Mr. Tupper to the Governor-General in Council.

OTTAWA, September 9, 1889.

The Undersigned has the honour to report that he has had before hima cable
despatch from Lord Knutsford to your Excellency, dated the 18th August, 1889.

This despatch intimates that Her Majesty’s Government considers that it would
be in astronger position for dealing definitely with Behring’s Sea cases if appeals
in 1886 seizures were pushed on. The despatch goes on to say: ‘‘It is very unusual
to press for diplomatic redress for a private wrong as long as there is a reasonable
chance of obtaining it from the Tribunals of the country.”

The Undersigned desires to call attention to some of the correspondence which has
already taken place upon this subject.

It will be recollected that in July 1887 Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State
for the Colonies expressed the desire of the Marquis of Salisbury that before any
further representations are made to the United States Government with a view to
obtaining reparation, that Her Majesty’s Government should be in possession of the
record of the judicial proceedings in the District Court in Alaska. *

Copies of records in United States District Court for the District of Alaska in the
cases of “Onward,” ‘‘Carolena,” and ‘‘Thornton” were duly forwarded in August
1887.t In acknowledging their receipt, the Marquis of Salisbury said: ‘‘I have
further to request that you will endeavour to ascertain and report to me when it is
probable that the appeals referred to in your despatches of the 2nd April, 1887, and
of the 6th May, 1887, respectively, of the owners of the American ships which were
seized on similar grounds, will come on for hearing, and whether any arrangement
has been or can now in your opinion advantageously be made between the owners
of the British and American vessels on the one side and the Government of the
United States on the other, that one of these cases should be regarded as a test case,
by which, in so far as the American legal Tribunals are concerned, the remaining
cases might be held to be concluded.

‘It must, however, be clearly understood that any such arrangement, if made,
would only affect the legal remedies which were open to the masters and owners of
these vessels in the American Courts, and would in no degree limit the right of Her
Majesty’s Government, after all such legal remedies were considered to be exhausted,
to intervene through diplomatic channels and on international grounds on behalf of
such masters or owners.”

The suggestion, that the United States should agree to a test case for submission
to the United States Supreme Court, was never acted upon. The cases of the United
States vessels referred to in this despatch as having been seized under circumstances
similar to those of the British vessels were discontinued by consent of Counsel rep-
resenting both private owners and the United States Government.

No suit is, therefore, now pending before the Tribunals of the United States, with
the exception of the case of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” a British ship, as hereinafter
explained

*Sir H. Holland, July 14, 1887.
tThe Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West, August 10, 1887.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 367

In January 1887, it appears the authorities in Washington directed the release of
the “Onward,” ‘‘Carolena,” and ‘*Thornton,” the 1886 seizures referred to in the
cable message under copsideration,

Upon this subject an extract from a letter, dated the 17th August, 1889, from Mr.
A. L. Belyea, Attorney for the owners of the vessels above referred to, and addressed

to them, is appended to this Report.*
332 In the year 1888, the Canadian Government having inquired whether the ves-
sels seized could be bonded without imposing on the owners the obligation to
appeal, correspondence took place between the British and the United States authori-
ties, and upon the 21st day of June a Confidential despatch was received by Lord
Stanley from Lord Knutsford, inclosing a Memorandum, dated the 28th May, 1888,
which Sir L. S. West had received. This Memorandum is as follows :

“6 Memorandum.

“Tn the cases of the condemned Behring’s Sea vessels and their cargoes, it appears
that the Proctor for some (and possibly all) of the British sealers failed to take an
appeal from the Decrees of Condemnation entered by the District Court at Sitka.
Consequently, they have lost the benefit of the Attorney-General’s Order permitting
release of the property on bond pending decision of the appeals, and, as the Decrees
have become final, have no other than a diplomatic remedy.”

It would, therefore, appear that Her Majesty’s Government were advised in 1888
that no appeal could be taken in the matter of the seizures of 1886.

One vessel only of all those seized in the different years was released upon a bond
of security for costs of an appeal being given, viz., the ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” the cir-
cumstances attending which transaction are explained in Appendix (B).

The United States Marshal at Sitka was directed to take the remaining schooners
(at that time in possession of the United States authorities, viz., the ‘‘ Grace,”
“Dolphin,” “Anna Beck,” and ‘‘ Ada”) to Puget Sound for immediate sale.

The owners of the ‘‘ Anna Beck,” ‘‘ Grace,” and ‘‘ Dolphin,” seized in 1887, having
been refused leave to appeal, permission was asked for bonding their vessels at
appfaised value, and to have the sale then about to take place postponed pending
the settlement of the question.

After representation had been accordingly made, Mr. Bayard informed Sir L. S.
West that the Acting Attorney-General had directed the postponement of the sale,
and had instructed the United States Marshal to receive bonds in lieu of the vessel,

Mr. Bayard subsequently inclosed, under cover to Sir L. S. West, letters from the
United States Marshal for the District of Alaska, in which he reported that the
original appraisement of these vessels was excessive, and that the value had still
further deteriorated in consequence of the climate of Alaska. For these reasons the
owners of all these vessels, with the exception of the owners of the ‘‘Anna Beck,”
refused to bond them at the old appraisement. The owner of the ‘‘Anna Beck” alone
was willing to give a bond at the original appraisement, subject to a final settlement
of the matter without necessitating an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States. d

Accordingly, the Government of Canada requested the British Government to
move the United States authorities to authorize the reappraisement in the cases of
the ‘‘ Grace” and ‘ Dolphin,” and to sanction the bonding of the ‘““Anna Beck” in
the manner proposed.

After much delay, it was intimated that the sale of these vessels would be pro-
ceeded with, and areappraisement and bonding as above would not be sanctioned
by the United States authorities.

From the correspondence herein reviewed, it will thus be seen that the only appeal
in the Canadian case from the Judgment of the Court of First Instance which has
been preferred is in the case of the ‘‘ W. P. Sayward,” seized in 1887.

This case has been duly inscribed in the Supreme Court of the United States for
nearly a year, and, on inquiry, the Undersigned learns that it will not be reached in
its turn for argument for another year from this date. It further appears that the
suits regarding the United States vessels seized under similar circumstances have
been discontinued; that no test case was ever agreed upon; and that the United
States Government would not sanction the release and bonding of the seized vessels
pending a settlement of the question.

The owners of the ““W. P. Sayward” having to await the almost endless delays
attending the arguments and decision of a case in the Supreme Court of the United
States, the question whether an appeal lies in such a case being also involved, and
the administration of that country evincing no desire to reach an early decision in
their Appellate Court upon the question at issue, the Undersigned hopes that Her
Majesty’s Government will not consider that the just demands of the Canadian
eeu should not be pressed until the case of the ‘*W. P. Sayward” is dis-
posed of.

* Appendix (A).

368 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The decision of the Court in the District of Alaska in the case of the ‘‘ Dolphin,”

a case similar to all of the rest, proceeded upon the one ground, viz., that

333 Behring’s Sea was ceded to the United States by Russia, and that the title in
Russia at that time was exclusive. *

It will be observed that none of the seizures in Behring’s Sea forming the subject
of correspondence between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States
involve the investigation of complicated facts. There is no pretension that any
vessel seized was within the 3-mile or territorial limit. The sole question is the
claim of the United States to the exclusive control over that part of the North
Pacific Ocean known as the Behring’s Sea.

The Undersigned submits that the fact that Russia once raised the same point
does not establish on the part of the United States even a prima facie case, especially
in view of the attitude of the latter country when such a claim was put forward
by Russia.

So long ago as July 1888, the views of the Canadian Government regarding the
propriety of owners of seized vessels assuming the obligation and responsibility of
appealing from the decision of the District Court of Alaska were communicated to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The Report of that date dealt with a despatch of the 9th March, 1888, from Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington, relative to the then pending proceedings in the
cases of the Canadian sealers seized in Behring’s Sea.

The Committee deemed the obligation sought to be imposed upon the owners of
Canadian vessels seized in the Behring’s Sea of appealing from the decision of the
Magistrate at Sitka was ‘‘obviously one which cannot with justice or propriety be
enforced.” The Report went on to say that ‘“‘some doubts exist as to the right of
appeal; and if it should be held that no appeal will be, the bonds will be forfeited.
Apart from this risk, however, which the owners of the vessels are asked to take
upon themselves, it appears that the giving of bonds of such a nature would involve
the admission that the Courts of the United States had jurisdiction in regard to the
seizures, and that the Laws of the United States applied in the cases of these ves-
sels. Such propositions conld by no means be adinitted. The vessels had not
entered within the waters over which the Laws of the United States extend, and
over which the Executive or Judiciary of that country have any authority.

“The vessels in question were molested in their lawful occupation on the high
seas, and were seized by vessels in the service of the United States, but possessing
no right whatever to molest the people of Canada or their property on the ocean.

“Similar outrages have been committed in the preceding year, and the vessels
seized then were ordered to be surrendered by the United States authorities. In the
present cases, therefore, the repetition of such acts of violence was a proceeding for
which the owners of the vessels have the right to expect that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment will demand and exact redress. They should not be asked to seek that redress
in the Courts of any foreign country whatever: the Courts of the United States
have no more cognizance of their complaint than the Court of any other foreign
country.”

The Undersigned is not aware that Her Majesty’s Government at any time pre-
vious to the cable message now under consideration intimated that the above ground
was not well taken. On the contrary, previous to the receipt of this cable message
the particulars of every seizure had been furnished by the Canadian Government to
Her Majesty’s Government, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been
obtained by Her Majesty’s Government, advising that the claims could be pressed, and
the Marquis of Salisbury had in a despatch of the 10th September, 1887, to Sir L. S.
West, dealt fully with the claim set up by the Administration of the United States in
connection with these seizures, in which he stated: ‘‘ Her Majesty’s Government have
carefully considered the transcript record of the Judicial proceedings in the United
States District Court in the several cases of the schooners ‘ Carolena,’ ‘ Onward,’
and ‘ Thornton,’ which were communicated to you in July, and were transmitted to
me in your despatch of the 12th of that month, and they cannot find in them any
justification for the condemnation of these vessels.”

It is to be remembered that these are the seizures of 1886, to which the cable
message has special reference.

The following vessels, while pursuing their lawful occupation in the North Pacific
Ocean, have been wantonly seized and molested by Revenue-cutters of the United
States: ‘‘Carolena,” 2nd August, 1886; ‘‘Onward,” 2nd August, 1886; ‘‘ Thornton,”
2nd August, 1886; ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” 9th July, 1887; “Dolphin,” 12th July, 1887;
“Anna Beck,” 2nd July, 1887; ‘‘Grace,” 17th July, 1887; ‘‘Ada,” 25th August, 1887;
“Alfred Adams,” 6th August, 1887 (escaped); ‘‘ Black Diamond,” 11th July, 1889

(escaped); ‘‘ Pathfinder,” 27th August, 1889; ‘‘ Minnie,” 15th July, 1889; besides
334 =the ‘ Favorite,” warned off under threat of seizure, 2nd August, 1886; and the
“Triumph,” searched 11th July, 1889.

*See Report, Governor of Alaska, 1887.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 369

In every instance, as already stated, the Canadian Government has placed Her
Majesty’s Government promptly in possession of the information in its possession,
and it is with much regret that, at this date, when the period for appealing has long
since expired in the case of the seizures of 1886, the Undersigned learns that any
further steps are considered necessary to strengthen the demand made in 1886 upon
the United States Government, more especially in view of similar outrages now
being daily perpetrated.

With deference, the Undersigned further submits that the intimation in the cable
despatch above mentioned is somewhat unusual under the circumstances which
attended the seizure of the ships in question.

If the alleged infraction of the Laws of the United States had occurred in the
waters over which that country is or was entitled to exercise jurisdiction, the Courts
of the United States could with propriety be first resorted to before pressing any
claim for the immediate attention of the Executive.

In view of the firmness with which the rights of British subjects on the high seas
have been maintained in the past, the Undersigned fails to appreciate not ‘merely
any reason for the long delay in obtaining satisfaction from the ageressive and hos-
tile action exercised against British subjects and British property by the United
States, but also for the wanton continuance of this treatment from which so much
direct and indirect damage and loss is sustained by one of Her Majesty’s Colonial
Possessions. Moreover, the Undersigned would call attention to the imminent dan-
ger of loss of life, not to speak of the physical suffering already sustained, since it
requires no ar eument to show that the lawless violence on the part of the Revenue-
cutters of the United States Government may at any time lead to forcible resistance
from the crews of British vessels being pursued and molested in their lawful pur-
suits.

The Undersigned, therefore, recommends that his Excellency the Governor-General
be moved to acquaint the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies
with these views, and to urge that no further time be permitted to elapse without
securing for British subjects in Canada the same freedom in the navigation and
enjoyment of the waters of the Behring’s Sea which the United States claimed for
the seamen of all nations when the territory adjacent to that part of the Pacitic
Ocean belonged to the Empire of Russia.

Respectfully submitted.

(Signed) CHARLES H. TUPPER,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

APPENDIX (A).
Re Beliing’s Sea Seizures.

To Captain JoHN G. Cox and WiLLiaAM Munsik£. Esq.,
Victoria, British Columbia.
Vicroria, August 17, 1889.

GENTLEMEN: In reference to the orders issued by the United States Government
for the release of the British schooners ‘‘Carolena,” “Onward,” and ‘‘Thornton,”
seized in Behring’s Sea in 1886, and since detained at Ounalaska, T received in Aug ust
last from the United States Marshal, Atkins, of Alaska, the following letters:

“A, L. BELYEA, Esq., Victoria.
‘DISTRICT OF ALASKA,
“OFFICE OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL,
“Sitka, August 4, 1888.

‘*DraR Sir: In reply to your letter of the 17th July, 1 have the honour to state
that in the month of February 1887 the officers of the District Court of this district
received a despatch purporting to be from the United States Attorney-General,
directing the release of the schooners ‘Onward,’ ‘Thornton,’ and ‘ Carolena,’ but, oi
what was then deemed sufficient evidence, the despatch was thought to be a forgery,
and no action was taken in the matter until the receipt in October last of another
despatch from the Honourable Attorney-General, as follows:

«Let the vessels ‘‘ Carolena,” ‘‘ Onward,” and ‘‘ Thornton” be released, as ordered
in mine of the 6th January last.’
“On the receipt of the above despatch I gave notice thereof to Captain J. D.
335 Warren and to Mr. C. Spring, of Victoria, owners of two of the vessels, and

should have given like notice to the owner of the ‘Carolena’ had I known his

address and name. I requested Captain Warren to notify all owners at Victoria,

BS, PT vy——24

370 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

and Mr. Spring published the notice I gave him in the Victoria papers. This I
deemed sufficient notice to all the parties concerned. I have not received any order
from Washington other than above mentioned.
‘Very Tespectfully,
(Signed) “BARTON ATKINS,
s “United States Marshal.”

The following copy of the despatch referred to in Marshal Atkins’ letter, and of
the order made thereon by Judge Dawson, of the United States District Court,
Alaska, I obtained shortly afterwards from the official records at Sitka:

“To Judge LA FayetrE Dawson and M. D. BALL,
“« United States District Attorney, Sitka, Alaska.

‘WASHINGTON, January 26, 1887.

“‘T am directed by the President to instruct you to discontinue any further pro-
ceedings in the matter of the seizure of the British vessels ‘Carolena,’ ‘Onward,’
and ‘Thornton,’ and discharge all vessels now held under such seizure, and release
all persons that may be under arrest in connection therewith.

(Signed) “A. H. GARLAND,
“ Attorney- General.”

* Copy of Order.
“To BARTON ATKINS,
“United States Marshal for District of Alaska.

Os You are hereby directed to release the vessels ‘Carolena,’ ‘Onward,’ aud ‘Thorn-
ton,’ and ‘San Diego,’ which were seized in Behring’s Sea, for violation of section
1956 United States Statutes, together with their tackle, apparel, skins, guns, ammu-
nition, small boats, and everything pertaining to said vessels.

“‘This 10th day of February, 1887.

(Signed) “LA FAYETTE DAWSON,
“ District Judge, District of Alaska.”

About the time I received the above letter I met the Marshal in this city, and
asked him why no official notice of the release of these schooners had been given to
the owners. In reply, he said he thought it had been done, but if not he would
attend to the matter on his return to Sitka. Such notice not coming to hand as
expected, I, on the 16th October following, wrote the Marshal as follows:

“BARTON ATKINS, Esq.,
“United States Marshal, Sitka, Alaska.
“Victoria, BRITISH COLUMBIA, October 16, 1858.

“My DEARSIR: Youmay remember a conversation I had with you when in Victoria
in reference to the non-receipt of official notice of the release of the schooner ‘ Caro-
lena’ at Ounalaska by her owners. At their request I have to ask that you will
kindly forward the same to me by return mail. The owners, as you may notice on
reterring to the records of the Court, are Munsie and Co. (Munsie and Co.) of this
city.

“Tam, &c.
(Signed) “A. L. BELYEA,
“Attorney for Munsie and Co.”

By return mail I received from the Marshal a letter, saying that official notice had
been sent to the owners of the ‘‘ Carolena,” with an order directing the Deputy Col-
lector at Ounalaska to deliver the vessel to the owners, which notice and order are
to be found on pp.7 and 8 of Mr. Milne’s statement. ‘Thus it was that not till nearly
two years after the Washington authorities ordered the release of this vessel, and
then only after asking for it was such notice received; and to this day the owners
of the ‘‘ Thornton” and ‘‘Onward” have received no such official notice or order for
delivery, and could not, if they so desired, obtain possession of their vessels.

The telegram ordering the release was receiv ed at Sitka on the 9th February, 1888.

The vessels were then under order for sale, which order Judge Dawson imme-
336 diately revoked, and on the 19th of same month made the or der for the release

above recited. This or der was given to the Marshal, but for the reasons appar-
ently mentioned in the Marshal’s letter to me of the 4th August, 1888, the matter
dropped.

The officials at Sitka took no steps to find out whether the telegram was genuine
or not, nor did they, so far as I can learn, ever acknowledge or notify the Washing-
ton authorities of its receipt. This shuffling on the part of the Court Secretary calls
‘some misconception and mistake,” but those who know and have felt the power of
the Alaska Commercial Company in Alaska call it a vastly different name.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 371

APPENDIX (B).
Extract of a Letter from Mr. A. L. Belyea to the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, May 23, 1888.

‘The [the owner] had gone to Sitka to secure, if possible, the release of all the
schooners seized in 1887, viz., the “Grace,” ‘‘ Dolphin,” ‘‘Anna Beck,” ‘“‘W. P. Say-
ward,” and “Ada.” The bond on release was conditioned on prosecuting an appeal
from the Alaska District Court to the Supreme Court of the United States. The
formal motion thus became one for leave to perfect an appeal, and such motion for each
of the vessels was made on the 14th April last before Judge Dawson at Sitka, and in
every case refused, on the grounds that the time for allowing an appeal had expired.
Captain Warner’s Counsel then applied for a record of the order refusing leave to
appeal. This was on Saturday. On Monday following, April the 16th, without any
application therefor by the defendant or any one on his behalf, Judge Dawson offered
to rescind the order of Saturday in the case of the “ W. P. Sayward,” and release
her to the owners. She was then lying at Puget Sound, under an order for sale on
that day. The offer was accepted (contrary, as Captain Warren says, to the expecta-
tion of the United States authorities at Sitka), and the order of the previous Satur-
day rescinded, and leave granted to appeal. I am not informed as to the amount of
the bond.

APPENDIX (B 2).

[This is identic with Appendix (A) from Mr. Atkins’ letter of August 4, 1888, to
the end. ]

No. 239.
Mr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 28.)

WASHINGTON, October 9, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to the question of appeals filed in the
Supreme Court by owners of sealers in Behring’s Sea, of which up to
now it has been believed that there were none but the case of the
“6W, P. Sayward’ v. the United States,” [ have the honour to inclose
a copy of a Memorandum which I have received from Mr. Calderon
Carlisle on the subject of an appeal, viz., “The schooner ‘Sylvia
Handy’ v. the United States,” which, it appears, had escaped the
notice of even the Clerk of the Court, in spite of the many applications
which have of late, under the direction of Her Majesty’s Legation,
been made.

I shall not fail to secure copies of the record, should it be printed.

I have, We.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.
337 {Inclosure in No. 239.]

Memorandum as to the Case of the Schooner “ Sylvia Handy” v. the United States.—
(October Term, 1889, No. 683.)

The Clerk of the Supreme Court telephoned me yesterday that he had discovered
the above appear on the docket of the Court, of which he knew nothing on my last
visit there. The record, which I have examined, is practically the same as that in
the case of the ‘“‘Sayward.” It seems to have been filed on the 16th June, 1888.
Mr. McKenna, Member of Congress from California, entered his appearance to secure
the filing of the record, but the real Counsel in the case is Mr, Howell L. Powell,
207, Sansome Street, San Francisco, California,

at2 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Clerk’s attention was called to this case by the visit of local Counsel yester-
day, to learn the expense of printing the record in the case, There is included in
the record a brief for claimants, which discusses the pretensions of Russia in Beh-
ring’s Sea. The schooner’s cargo consisted of 1,679 skins, ana the schooner and her
cargo were appraised at 12,673.25 dollars.

The schooner is described as of San Francisco; appears to be registered in the
United States; and there is a certificate of deposit of some of her papers with the
United States Consul at Victoria, British Columbia. The capture was made 17 miles
from Cape Cheerful in 54° 12’ north, 166° 50’ west. The vessel was captured on the
2nd September, 1887, with forty-two unskinned seals on deck.

(Signed) C. CARLISLE,

WASHINGTON, October 1, 1589.

No. 240.
Myr. Edwardes to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 28.)

WASHINGTON, October 15, 1889.

My Lonrp: [ had the honour to receive your Lordship’s telegram of
the 14th instant, in which, with reference to my despatch of the 12th
instant, you informed me that the unofficial assurance given to Her
Majesty’s Government by Mr. Bayard that no further seizure of British
vessels in Behring’s Sea should take place pending the discussion of
the points at issue between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the
United States, which was referred to in your Lordship’s despatch of
the 2nd October, was the assurance which was given unofficially by the
United States Minister in London and also by Mr. Bayard to Sir L.
West in the month of April last year.

With the view of removing any misconception on the part of Mr.
Blaine owing to the reply I had given to his inquiry when reading your
Lordship’s above-mentioned despatch to him, that I believed the assur-
ance referred to was given by Mr. Bayard in a letter addressed to Sir
L. West, and that the letter would be found in the printed correspond.
ence on the subject which was laid before Congress this year, I wrote
to Mr. Blaine a letter, a copy of which I have the honour to inclose, in
accordance with the information with which your Lordship did me tie
honour to furnish me in your telegram above referred to.

I have, We.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

{Inclosure in No. 240.)
Mr. Edwardes to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, October 14, 1889.

My Drar Mr. Bratne: When I had the honour to read to you on Saturday, the 12th
instant, two despatches addressed to me by the Marquis of Salisbury on the subject
of the seizures of British sealers in Behring’ s Sea, you inquired of me, when I reached
the passage which runs as follows: ‘‘ Mr. Bayard did, indeed, conmunicate to us,

unottcially, an assurance that no further seizures ‘of this character should take
338 place pending the discussion of the questions involved between the two Goy-

ernments,” if I could tell you in what way this assurance was unofficially com-
municated to her Majesty’s Government.

I replied that I believed it had been so communicated in a letter addressed by Mr.
Bayard to Sir L. West, and that that letter would be found in the printed ¢orre-
spondence on the subject Jaid before Congress this year.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, ato

I have since learnt that the assurance which Lord Salisbury had in mind when writ-
ing the despatch I read was not that to which I referred in my reply to you, but was
an assurance communicated unofticially to his Lordship by the United States Minister
in London and also by Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West in the month of April last year.

I have, &c.
(Signed) H. G. EDWARDES.

241.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 2, 1889.

Str: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury Mr. Meade’s three
letters of the 24th ultimo, with their inclosures, relating to the ques-
tion of the seizures of British sealing-vessels by the authorities of the
United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea.

In reply, I am directed by his Lordship to request that you will state
to Lord Knutsford that copies of all these papers will be forwarded at
once to Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington.

I am to suggest that the Governor-General of Canada should be
informed that Sir Julian Pauncefote, before leaving for his post, was
instructed to take the earliest opportunity of discussing the question
with Mr. Blaine.

Lord Salisbury proposes to await Sir Julian’s Report before deciding
as to what further steps should be taken in the matter.

Lam, We.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 5, 1889.
Sir: I have received Mr. Edwardes’ despatch of the 15th ultimo,
forwarding copy of the private letter which he addressed to Mr. Blaine
respecting the unofficial assurance given to Her Majesty’s Government
that no further seizure of British vessels in Behring’s Sea should take
place pending the discussion of the points at issue between the two
Governments.
I have to inform you that Mr. Edwardes’ actien in this matter is
approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
lam, Se.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 243.

Sir 0. Lampson and Oo. to Foreign Office.—(Received November 7.)

64, QUEEN STREET, London, November 6, 1889.
DEAR Sir: We addressed Lord Iddesieigh on the 12th November,
1886, on the subject of the Behring’s Sea seal fishery.
Since that time the number of sealing-vessels, mostly owned in British
Columbia, has steadily increased, and this year,owing to the high

374 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

prices obtainable for the skins, as many as fifty schooners, some of them

titted with steam, and amply provided with firearms, have been engaged
in the capture of female seals.

339 It is estimated that their catch this season will amount to no
less than 40,000 skins. This number does not include the many

animals killed or mutilated, but not retrieved.

Now, if this indiscriminate slaughter of female seals cannot be
stopped, or at all events restricted, by some International Agreement
(as to a close time, for instance), the animal will, before many years are
over, become extine t, and a lar. ge industry, in which Great Britain is
deeply interested, will be lost.

Already there are unmistakable signs that the number of seals annu-
ally visiting the two breeding islands in the Behring’s Sea is decreas-
ing, for from Reports lately to hand, we learn that the Superintendent
on the islands, which are leased from the United States Government
by the Alaska’ Commercial Company of San Francisco, has this year
found considerable difficulty in obtaining the usual quantity of desir-
able male seals, and estimates that the herd has decreased fully one-
third in the last ten years.

In submitting these facts to you, we would urge the importance of
arriving at a speedy settlement of this question before it is too late.

We are, &e.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON AND Co.

No. 244.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received November 8.)

DOWNING STREET, November 8, 1889.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of adespatch from the Deputy-
Governor of Canada relating to the question of the Behring’s Sea sei-
zures, from which it appears that the High Commissioner for Canada is
to be instructed to place himself in communication with Her Majesty’s
Government, with the object of expediting a satisfactory settlement of
the general question.

Jam, Xe.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 244.]

Sir W. J. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OTTAWA, October 23, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, having reference to the course which the owners of British
schooners seized in Bbehring’s Sea by the United States cutter ‘‘ Rush” proposed to
follow in the event of Captain Sheppard’s arriving at Victoria.

Your Lordship will note the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, that the High Commissioner be instrueted to place himself in personal
communication with Her Majesty’s Government, with the object of expediting a
satisfactory settlement of the general question of seizures in Behring’s Sea.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W.J. RITCHIE, Deputy-Governor.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 875

[Inclosure 2 in No. 244.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 18th October, 1889.

On a report, dated the 12th October, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, stating that the following telegram has been received from Messrs. Carnie and
Munsie, of Victoria, British Columbia, on behalf of parties interested in the fur-seal

fisheries of Behring’s Sea:
340 ‘Cutter ‘Rush’ expected here. Owners of seized schooners think of hold-
ing Captain Sheppard to bail in action for damages. What do you advise?”

To which the Minister replied as follows:

‘Telegram yesterday received. Cannot advise under present circumstances, but
I do not anticipate any beneficial result from such a course.”

The Minister submits that, while his reply discouraged the action contemplated
by the parties interested, it is quite competent for any British subject to institute
such proceedings under the Law of Canada.

The Minister desires to refer to a newspaper cutting, herewith annexed, taken
from the ‘‘ Ottawa Citizen,” purporting to be a report of a reply by Captain Shep-
pard, of the United States Revenne-cutter ‘“‘ Richard Rush,” to an inquiry whether
he had any knowledge of the intention indicated in the above telegram.

The Minister, with reference to the information supplied from time to time to the
Imperial Government on the subject of the seizure of British vessels in the Behring’s
Sea, and to the great national importance of the earliest possible settlement of the
question, owing not only to the continuation of the outrages during the past season
by United States Revenue-cutters, but to the growing doubt on the part of the
Canadian people as to whether Her Majesty’s Government will actively support the
demands of the Dominion of Canada in consequence of the long delay which has
taken place in arriving at a satisfactory adjustment of the question, recommends
that the High Commissioner for Canada in London be directed to place himself in
personal communication with Her Majesty’s Government, with the object of expedit-
ing in any way he may be able to do a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the
question.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that a
copy be also sent to the High Commissioner for Canada.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEr,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 244.]
Extract from the “ Ottawa Citizen” of October 12, 1889.

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, October 11, 1889.

The United States Revenue-cutter ‘‘Rush” arrived here yesterday from Alaska.
Lieutenant-Commander Sheppard was interviewed regarding rumours current here
that British Columbians were lying in wait for him to punish him for seizing their
schooners. The Commander smiled, and said he had not heard of any such threats
until he had read them in the papers on his arrival at Port Townsend. He said that
he did not believe anything of the kind had been uttered, and the statement must
have come from irresponsible persons. If there was any truth in it, and he could
have been apprised of it in time, he would have steamed into Victoria, and have
shaken the American flag in the face of the Victorians. He said he was on good
terms personally with the prominent men in Victoria, and did not believe that any
indignity to an American Government ship would be countenanced by the people of
Victoria.

No. 245,
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 11.)

WASHINGTON, October 31, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inelose herewith copies of an article
which has appeared in a San Francisco newspaper on the subject of the
seizures in Behring’s Sea, which maintains the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States in that sea. The article is written by Mr. Felton,
one of the representatives for the State of California in Congress.

376 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

An answer to this (copies inclosed) appeared in the New York
341 “Evening Post,” the author of which is Mr. Robert Rayner, who
has already written a very able letter on this subject.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 245.]
Extract from the ‘*San Francisco Argonaut” of August 12, 1889.
THE QUESTION OF BEHRING’S SEA.
[By Charles N. Felton.]

[The annexed article, by the Honourable Charles N. Felton, Member of Congress,
will be found of much interest, particularly at this time. Mr. Felton is thoroughly
conversant with the subject, as he was a member of the Conference Committee
between the Senate and the House which caused the passage of the Lill amendatory
of the Laws regulating the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea. This Bill was passed
during the closing hours of the Cleveland Administration.—Ebs. ]

In view of the fact that the Government of the United States has seized the
British schooner “ Black Diamond,” confiscated the vessel and cargo, as required by
our Statutes, for evasion or infringement of our laws, and that our right to do so is
questioned, and perhaps may become an international question, it occurs to me that
a statement of the facts upon which is based our rights and title would not be
uninteresting to your readers; hence, I will attempt to; give them such a statement.

The title of the United States to Alaska and the Behring’ s Sea was acquired from
Russia by the Treaty of Cession made in 1868, in which she “ceded and cony eyed
all the rights, franchises, privileges now belonging to Russia in the ceded territory
or dominion, and appurtenances thereto ;” the same being contained within the
geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:

The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and British
possessions in North America, &c. The western limit, within which the territories
and dominion conveyed are contained, pass through a point in Behring’s Strait om
the parallel of 65° 30’ north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which
passes midway between the Island of Krusenstern or Tgnalook and the Island of
Ratmanov or Noonarbrook, and proceeds due north, without limitation, into the
same frozen ocean. The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point,
proceeds thence in a course nearly south-west through Behring’s Strait and Belring’s:
Sea, so as to pass midway between the Island of Attoo and the Copper Island, of
the Kormandorski couplet or group, in the North Pacific Ocean, to the meridian of
193° west longitude, so as to include the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that.
meridian.”

Russia’s title was based upon the following facts:

Behring’s Sea, formerly called the Sea of Kamchatka, was discovered by Vitus:
Behring, a Russian subject and officer, in 1725. From that date to that of the pur-
chase of Alaska by the United States, its waters were surrounded by Russian terri-
tory, except Behring’s Strait upon the north, and the south-west outlet to the North
Pacitic Ocean. Soon after its discovery, it was occupied by Russian citizens as:
traders and fur-hunters, and several trading stations were established upon its coasts:
and islands by Russian subjects.

In 1745, the Aleutian Islands were discovered by Russia. In 1768, Beliring’s Sea,.
the whole archipelago, and the Peninsula of Alaska, were explored by an expedi-
tion ordered by the Empress Catherine. Subsequently, Russia caused four other
exploring expeditions to be made, in 1785, 1803, 1815, and 1826. Vancouver discoy-
ered the coast of British Columbia in 1790, and in the same year the Columbia River
was entered by Gray. Jt will be here noted that Russia’s discoveries and titles on
the north-western coast antedate those of the other nations some sixty-five years.

In 1764, the Russian Government granted the right to trade on the Aleutian
Islands to a Russian Company, who created and conducted a considerable number
of trading stations.

In 1799, the then Russian Emperor Paul issued his Imperial Ukase, asserting the .

Dominion of Russia, by right of discovery and occupancy, to all the territory
342 embraced from Behring’s Strait on the north to the 55th parallel on the Amer-
ican coast, and as far south as Japan on the coast of Asia; and invested the
Russian-American Company with its absolute control, and, if necessary, the land
and naval forces of the Empire were ordered to maintain their jurisdiction. To

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 377

this Imperial act no protest was made on the part of any of the nations, nor were
Russia’s rights disputed or questioned. Thus tacitly, at least, all the nations con-
ceded her rights, based first upon discovery, and next upon continued occupancy
and peaceful and undisputed possession for nearly three-quarters of a century.

In 1821, upon the complaint of this Company to the Russian Government that
their rights under their Charter were being disturbed by the interference of for-
eigners, the then Emperor Alexander issued his Manifesto, extending his dominion
to the 51st parallel on the North American coast, and prohibiting foreign vessels
from approaching within 100 miles of the shore. I quote from said Manifesto as
follows:

‘<< Section 1. The transaction of commerce, and the pursuit of whaling and fishing,
or any other industry, on the islands, in the harbours and inlets, and, in general, all
along the north-western coast of America, from Behring’s Strait _to the 51st parallel
of northern latitude, and likewise on the Aleutian Islands, and along the eastern
coast of Siberia, and on the Kurile Islands—that is, from Behring’s Strait to the south-
ern promontory of the Island of Urup, viz., as far south as latitude 45° 50! north—
are exclusively reserved to subjects of the Russian Empire. ;

“See. 2. Accordingly, no foreign vessel shall be allowed either to put to shore at.
any of the coasts and islands under Russian dominion, as specified in the preceding
section, or even to approach the same to within a distance of less than 100 Italian
miles. Any vessel contravening this provision shall be subject to confiscation with
her whole cargo.”

To this edict, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain entered
protest, in so far as it extended the dominion of Russia 4° south, and to the 100-mile
limit. Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, conceded the boundary named in the
Charter to the Russian-American Company, viz., to the 55th parallel on the coast of
the North Pacific Ocean, but resisted the claim of Russia to the coast between the
Bist and 55th parallels north, also the exclusion of American ships from the North
Pacific Ocean, stating that ‘“‘ with the Russian Settlements at Kodiac, or at Sitka,
the United States may fairly claim the advantage of a free trade, having so long
enjoyed it unmolested, and because it has been, and would continue to be, as advan-
tageous to those Settlements as to them.”

Mr. Adams also said, ‘‘It may suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore
of this sea, in latitude 51¥ north, is not less than 90° longitude, or 4,000 miles,” having
exclusive reference to the Pacific Ocean.

A careful examination of the protests before mentioned and the correspondence in
reference thereto, as well as the Treaties which settled the controversy—that of 1824
between Russia and the United States, and that of 1825 between Russia and Great
Britain—will disclose the fact that they all had reference to the coast and waters of
the North Pacific between the 5ist parallel north latitude and Mount St. Elias and
east of the 141st meridian of longitude. In all the protests, correspondence, nego-
tiations, and Treaties, there is no allusion to Behring’s Sea, the Aleutian Islands, or
to any region of country or sea within 1,000 miles of its eastern border; hence the
sovereiguty asserted and maintained by Russia over that sea from its discovery to its
partition and cession to the United States, a period of over 140 years, has never been
officially questioned or denied.

At the time of and when negotiating these Treaties, the High Contracting Powers
all knew of the existence of Behring’s Sea, the Aleutian Islands, the Prebilov Islands
(St. George and St. Paul) within Behring’s Sea, and the valuable life on them and in
their surrounding waters, and that these constituted the chief value of Russia’s pos-
sessions on the North American coast and waters. Charts had been published before
and as early as 1805 by England and Russia, as accurately bounding and defining the
waters of Behring’s Sea on the north-west coast to the North Pacific Ocean, as do the
Maps of to-day, Behring’s Sea then being called the Sea of Kamchatka.

In these Treaties, there is no allusion to, or surrender of, Russia’s dominion over
Behring’s Sea and the Aleutian chain of islands by expression or inference. Russia
surrendered or abandoned her claim only to the control of the North Pacitic Ocean
and to the north-west coast south of latitude 54° north, yet her title tothe Aleutian
Islands, extending as far south as 51° north latitude and longitude 166° to 167° west,

is not and never has been disputed or invalidated.
343 It will be observed by the description of territory granted to us in our pur-

chase of Alaska, that its western boundary divides Behring’s Sea between us
and Siberian Russia, and the fact cannot be successfully denied, as it is a matter of
history, that Russia, from her discovery of Lehring’s Sea down to the cession to the
United States, has controlled the navigation of its waters and the taking of its
marine life. To this end her navy has patrolled it, and, in pursuance of her laws,
taken, confiscated, and burned marauding vessels; she has since pursued, and is
now pursuing, the same policy on her part of Behring’s Sea.

In confirmation of this, I quote from the official order issued by the Russian Gov-
ernment, as late as the 13th January, 1882:

378 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“‘Notice.—At the request of the local authorities of Behring and other islands, the
Undersigned hereby notilies that the Russian Imperial Government publishes, for
general knowledge, the following:

“1, Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern
Siberia, foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c.,
on the Russian coast or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring’s Seas, or on the north-
east coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary-line.

“5. Foreign vessels found trading, hunting, fishing, &c., in Russian waters with-
out a licence or permit from the Governor-General, and also those possessing a licence
or permit who may infringe the existing byelaws on hunting, shall be confiscated,
both vessels and cargoes, tor the benefit of the Government. This enactment shall
be enforced henceforth, commencing with a.bD. 1882.

“6. The enforcement of the above will be intrusted to men-of-war, and also Rus-
sian merchant-vessels, which, for that purpose, will carry military detachments, and
be provided with proper instructions.”

There is nothing ambiguous in the language of this Proclamation. It means that
Russia will enforce her sovereignty over the western half of Behring’s Sea, within
her ‘‘ sea boundary-line.”

The cession of Alaska to the United States by Russia, and the terms of the Treaty
making such cession, were well known to all nations, yet no protests or objections
were made, though it was well understood to convey the title to the waters of
Behring’s Sea. The discussion of the treaty in the United States Senate was notice
to our nation and to all the world. In confirmation of which, I quote from the
remarks of Mr. Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the Senate of the United States, at the time of the consideration of the Treaty. Mr.
Sumner said, speaking for the Treaty:

«<The seal, amphibious, polygamous, and intelligent as the beaver, has always
supplied the largest multitude of furs to the Russian Company.’ After enumerat-
ing the land furs, the value of the walrus for ivory, he adds: ‘I mention the sea-
otter last; but in beauty and value it is the first. In these respects it far surpasses
the river and land otter, &c. I come now to the fisheries, the Jast head of this
inquiry, and not inferior to any other in importance; perhaps the most important of
all. What even are sea-otter skins by the side of that product of the sea, incalculable
in amount, which contributes to the sustenance of the human family?’ ”

Thus showing that the acquisition of the products of Behring’s Sea, its fur-bearing
animals, and fisheries, were regarded as the chief object of the purchase.

Again, Mr. Sumner, in the course of his remarks, said:

“<«Traversing Behring’s Sea midway between the Island of Attoo on the east and
Copper Island on the west, to the meridian of 173° east longitude, leaving the pro-
longed group of the Aleutian Islands in the possessions now transferred to the
United States, and making the western boundary of our country the dividing-line
which separates Asia from America.’ ”

Mr. Sumner again said:

““tIn the Aleutian range, beside innumerable islets and rocks, there are not less
than fifty-five islands exceeding 3 miles in length; there are seven exceeding 40
miles, with Oonimak, which is the largest, exceeding 73 miles. Jn our part of Beh-
ring’s Sea there are five considerable islands, the largest of which is St. Lawrence,

being more than 96 miles long.’ ” ,
344 Note the expression of the distinguished Senator, ‘‘In our part of Behring’s

Sea.” This, coming from so high an authority, in language so plain and
explicit as not to admit of misconstruction, evinces the intention and understanding
of the Contracting Governments, which was the partition of the sovereignty of the
waters of. Behring’s Sea by a south-westerly line through it, the eastern portion,
with Alaska, being the territory of the United States, and the western portion, with
Siberian Asia, that of Russia, their combined territory and shore-lines surrounding
Behring’s Sea, except the northern and southern outlets.

Lhe discussion in the United States Senate, and its final action upon this Treaty
and question, was a notice to the world of Russia’s right to transfer this valuable
marine territory, to which not even a suggestion to the contrary has ever been raised
on the part of any nation.

If more were needed to convince us of the rights and intentions of the High Con-
tracting Parties, we have only to refer to the correspondence between our then Sec-
retary of State, Mr. Seward, and our Minister at St. Petersburgh. (Printed in
executive documents for the use of Congress.)

In May 1867 our Minister writes as follows:

“Sir: Your despatch No. 241 of the 1st April, 1867, inclosing the Treaty between
Russia and America, ceding us all Russian America, was duly received. I awaited
the expression of European and Russian sentiments in reference thereto before
answering you,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 379

“T congratulate you upon this brilliant achievement, which adds so vast a terri-
tory to our Union, whose ports, whose mines, whose waters, whose furs, whose
fisheries are of untold value, and whose fields will produce many grains (even
wheat), and become thereafter, in time, the seat of a hearty white population.”

Again, in November 1867, the American Minister at St. Petersburgh, giving a
description of Russian America, says, in reference to the Aleutian Islands:

“The Aleutian Islands may attract transient traders, but no permanent settlers.
To inhabit them one must be an Aleut, and if it were not for the sea surrounding
the islands, this country, owing to its unfavourable climatic conditions and the
sterility of its ground, would have never been inhabited at all.”

From the first extract, it will be observed that the American Government exer-
cised caution before concluding the Treaty, and awaited the expression ef European
sentiments in reference to the same. Its acts were open and free to criticism, and
the last quotation is conclusive on the point that our Government fully comprehended
the value of the waters of Behring’s Sea, and for this reason mainly was the pur-
chase made.

Had it been understood that the waters of Behring’s Sea and its marine life were
free to the fishermen of all nations, including ours, there could have been no incentive
on the part of our Government for its purchase at the price of 7,200,000 dollars. In
any other view of the case it would have been absurd, but, on the contrary, it was
known that Russia did, from the time of its discovery, control these waters, and
that she had ever asserted her title and maintained her dominion by causing her
ships of war to patrol them.

It is admitted on all sides that whatever title Russia had at the date of the transfer
of the territory we acquired and still possess, and the United States being in pos-
session and claiming ownership, our right must be conceded until it is established
that our grantor, Russia, had no title to this territory, or that she did not maintain
dominion over it, which, I apprehend, cannot be successfully accomplished.

There was no concealment of this Treaty or its purpose. Russia divided her pos-
sessions of Behring’s Sea with us in the presence of all nations, to which there was
no remonstrance on the part of any of them.

By an Act of Congress, approved as early as the 27th July, 1868, it is provided:
“The Laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce, and navigation are
extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of the territory ceded to
the United States by the Emperor of Russia.” It also provides that (see Revised
Statutes, section 1956) ‘‘no person shall kill any fur-seal or other fur-bearing animals
within the limits of Alaska territory, or in the waters thereof.”

In 1881, it coming to the knowledge of the United States Government for the first
time that unauthorized persons were illegally taking seals in Alaskan waters, the
Secretary of the Treasury caused to be published a notice to all that the Law pro-

hibiting the killing of seals in Alaskan waters would be enforced against all
345 comers, and its penalties be inflicted (Congress having made provision to equip

the vessels of the Revenue Marine for that purpose); since which time this
notice has been yearly published, and to-day, both this and the Russian Govern-
ments are protecting their respective dominions in the waters of Behring’s Sea, as
they ever have done, from all unauthorized comers.

It might be interesting to continue the history of the legislation of Congress on
this subject, and ascertain upon what facts it based its late action, the necessity for
such action, and to speculate upon its probable results, bat my time and your space
will not permit. Suffice it to say, Congress had entire confidence in our title, the
justice of our cause, our ability to maintain our rights, and believed that not to
have maintained those rights would have been unwise, beneath the dignity of the
nation, and even craven.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 245.]
Extract from the ‘‘ New York Evening Post” of October 18, 1889.
Tur BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION.
(A REPLY TO CONGRESSMAN FELTON.)

SALEM, MaAss., October 6.
To the Editor of the ‘‘ Evening Post.”

Sir: The Honourable Charles N. Felton published in the San Francisco ‘‘Argo-
naut” of the 12th August last an attempt at a vindication of our seizures of foreign
sealing-vessels in that part of the Pacific called Behzing’s Sea, and he says of it that
it is a statement of the facts. Mr. Felton was a member of the last Congress, and
also a member of the Conference Committee which had to compromise the difference
between Senate and House over our last very sapient piece of legislation concerning

380 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the waters of Alaska, The positions held by Mr. Felton led the “Argonaut” to say
of him that he is thoroughly conversant with the subject, a belief probably shared
by many who are themselves ignorant of if, and who will therefore accept his ‘‘state-
ment of the facts” as reliable and perfectly conelusive.

There are, however, others, and they are not few in number, whose investigations
of this question have proved to them that the facts connected therewith are diamet-
rically opposed to those alleged by Mr. Felton, and who have consequently arrived
at an entirely different conclusion.

Mr. Felton’s plea is not new in itself, and it does not gain by his wayof stating it,
which is confused and often unintelligible. The line of argumentation followed is
that now forced upon the special pleaders in vindication of these seizures, by the
fact that the theory originally advanced, of Behring’s Sea being by international
law a closed sea, has been too thoroughly exploded to leave it available any longer.
They therefore try to argue thatif itis nota closed sea by international law, it isa closed
sea by international acquiescence! And then, remembering the showman’s hint that,
though a leopard cannot change his spots, you can do it for him with a brush and a
little paint, they set to work to manufacture corroborative evidence. By dint of
judicious suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, they get up a semblance of proof, well
calculated to impose upon the public, a good enough Morgan until after exposure.
Meanwhile the one end, never lost sight of, is gained. ‘The seizures go on, foreign
competition is as least checked, and the Alaska Commercial Company is “‘ protected”
as far as possible.

In order that your readers may clearly understand the points at issue between the
defenders of the seizures and those who condemn them, let me summarize these
points.

The hypothesis of the defenders is, that in settling the controversy arising out of
Russia’s pretensions of 1821, a discrimination was made between Pacific Ocean and
Behring’s Sea; that while the high seas (all outside of the customary 3-mile shore
belt) of the Pacific were declared free to all the contestants, the high seas of Behring’s
Sea were acknowledged to be under Russia’s ‘“‘exclusive dominion;” that this exclu-
sive dominion was never denied nor questioned by any Power, was always maintained
by Russia, and finally was made over by her to us, so far as it concerned our part of
Behring’s Sea; that consequently our title to such dominion is unimpeachable.

The argument of the opponents of seizures, on the other hand, is that there was
no discrimination made between the Pacific and Behring’s Sea, and that there was

no cail nor excuse for any, as they are identical in all that constitutes either an
346 open or a closed sea, the only two kinds of sea which international usage and

law recognize; that the absence of the term ‘‘ Behring’s Sea” from all the docu-
ments is perfectly natural, because that name is of more modern origin than the date
of those papers, and because the parties to the controversy followed the safe and well-
established custom of using only the common nomenclature of the times, which did
not include the name “ Behring’s Sea;” that all the waters of the present Behring’s
Sea were then, and now are, considered by all authorities on geography as belonging
to, and forming part of, the Pacific Ocean; that consequently the stipulations of the
Treaties of 1824 and 1825, declaring freedom of navigation and fishery in any part
of the Pacific, apply to every part of Behring’s Sea, and are binding on all the nations
which signed these Treaties; that Russia never after the date of these Treaties
asserted or claimed any jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea, and never afterwards inter-
fered with the fishing by the vessels of other nations in its waters; and last, but not
least, that Russia never ceded nor pretended to cede to us any sea or dominion of any kind
over any sea whatsoever.

The defenders of the seizures do not produce, or even allege that there exists, any
direct documentary proof of the pretended discrimination between Pacific Ocean and
Behring’s Sea, or of any acknowledgment, in express terms, of Russia’s exclusive
dominion. Neither do they offer any reason for this discrimination—this making
fish of one and fowl of the other,—nor do they show any object that was to be
gained by us by this abandonment of our_rights under international law to the free
use of Behring’s Sea. Per contra, the opponents do bring ample proof, drawn from
official documents, in support of every point in their arguments, as will now be
shown. A collection of these documents, in convenient form, has recently been pub-
lished, as Sen. Ex. Doc. No. 106, 50, C. 2'S., from which I will quote. (In support of
the assertion that the question of navigation and fishery was treated as concerning
the whole of the Pacific, without discrimination between its different parts. )

(P. 210.) Secretary Adams’ letter, July 22, 1823, to our Minister at St. Peters-
burgh, summarizes the Russian claim as extending to ‘‘an exclusive territorial juris-
diction from the 45th degree of north latitude, on the Adriatic coast, to the latitude
of 51° north, on the western coast of the American Continent; and they assume the
right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of all other nations to the extent
of 100 miles from the whole of that coast.”

“The United States can admit no part of these claims.”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 381

(P. 214.) Our Minister at St. Petersburgh to Secretary Adams, April 19, 1824.
Report on the Minutes of the Conference proceedings: ‘That I must now frankly
tell them [the Russian Ministers] that my instructions required that I should obtain
two points as necessary conditions to the third object contemplated by the project of
Convention: (1) the revocation, either spontaneous or by Convention, of the maritime
provisions of the Ukase of September 4 (16), 1821; (2) the adoption of the commercial
principle (or something similar) agreed upon between the United States and Great
Britain in their Convention of 1818, in relation to these coasts; (3) that, these pre-
liminaries being settled, a territorial delimitation for settlements at 55° might be
agreed upon.”

(In support of the assertion that all the waters of the present Behring’s Sea
were, at the time of the Treaties and since, officially recognized as belonging to the
Pacific. )

(P. 206.) Russian Minister at Washington to Secretary Adams, February 28, 1822:
“T ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, sir, that the Russian posses-
sions in the Pacific Ocean extend on the north-west coast of America, from Behring’s
Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side of Asia and the
islands adjacent, from the same strait to the 45th degree.”

(This includes every part of the present Behring’s Sea. )

(P. 248.) Treaty of Cession, 20th June, 1867. Last clause of Article I, stating
western limit of the cession: “ . . . soas to pass midway between the Island
of Attou and the Copper Island of the Komandorski couplet or group in the North
PacificiOcean. «2 va

(Attou lies in 52° 57’, and Copper Island in 54° 35/ to 54° 55/ north, or about 100
miles more northerly than the Aleutian Island of Attou, and there is no chain of
islands between Copper Island and our coast-line from Behring’s Strait to the south
end of the Peninsulaof Alaska, nothing to set off that portion of the Pacific in which
Copper Island is thus officially stated to lie, from that portion which washes our
coast. )

’ (In support of assertions concerning Treaty stipulations.)

(Pp. 220-221.) A summary of the 'l'reaty of 1824:

Article I. Itis agreed that in any part of the great ocean commonly called the Pacific
Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting

Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in
347 fishing or in the power of resorting to the coasts upon points which may not
already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving
always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following Articles.
_Article I forbids the resorting to the respective establishments without permis-
sion.

Article III forbids the forming of establishments by either party, north and south
respectively, of 54° 40/ north.

Article LV permits, during a term of ten years, the frequenting by either party of
the interior seas, &c., upon the coast mentioned in the preceding Article.

(In support of the assertion that Russia ceded to the United States no sea, and no
dominion over any sea.)

(P. 247.) Treaty of Cession, 20th June, 1867:

Article 1. Russia agrees to cede “all the territory and dominion now possessed by
his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being
contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit: The eastern limit
is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North
America . . . [the details are omited here as irrelevant, this line not touching
Behring’s Sea at any point]. The western limit within which the territories and
dominions conveyed are contained passes through a point in Behring’s Straits, on the
parallel of 65° 30’ north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes
midway between the Islands of Krusenstern or Ignalook, and the Island of Ratma-
noft, or Noonarbook, and proceeds due north, without limitation, into the same
Frozen Ocean. The same western limit, beginning at the same initial point, pro-
ceeds thence in a course nearly south-west through Behring’s Straits and Behring’s
Sea, so as to pass midway between the north-west point of the island of St. Law-
_rence and the south-east point of Cape Choukotski, to the merdian of 172° west
longitude; thence from the intersection of that meridian in a south-westerly direc-
tion, so as to pass midway between the Island of Attou and the Copper Island of the
Komandorski [Kormandorski is a misprint] couplet or group in the North Pacific
Ocean, to the meridian of 193° west longitude, so as to include in the territory con-
veyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands east of that meridian.”

Article II. In the cession of territory and dominion made by the preceding Article
‘fare included the right of property in all public lots and squares, vacant lands, and
all public buildings, fortifications, barracks, and other edifices which are not private
ees property.” The rest of the provisions refer to churches and to public
archives, — ;

382 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Article III refers to the rights of the inhabitants.

Article IV refers to the appointment of agents for the transfer of the territory and
property ceded.

Article V refers to the exchange of ratification.

Article VI says . . . the cession of territory and dominion herein ‘‘ made
is hereby declared to be free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges,
franchises, grants, or possessions by any associated Companies, whether corporate or
incorporate, Russian or any other, or by any parties, except merely private indi-
vidual property-holders; and the cession hereby made conveys all the rights, fran-
chises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the said territory or dominion, and
appurtenances thereto.”

No sea or dominion over any sea is among the things enumerated as ceded. No
dominion over an open sea like Behring’s Sea could be claimed as a right ceded under
Article VI, because Russia has limited these rights to such as belong to her, in the
said territory or dominion and appurtenances thereto, and dominion over an open sea is
not a right attaching to territory, nor is such a sea an appurtenance to territory.

Mr. Felton tells us that it had been understood that the waters of Behring’s Sea
and its ‘‘marine life were free to the ‘fishermen of all nations including ours’ [sic],
there could have been no incentive on the part of our Government for its purchase
at the price of oF 200,000 dollars. In any other view of the case, it would have been
absurd. .

That is, of course, a matter of opinion, and on it some may prefer the judgment of
men like ‘Secretary Seward and Senator Sumner to that of Mr. Felton. But what is
sure is, that these gentlemen would have left nothing at loose ends. They were the
prime movers on our side in the transaction, and if they had thought that our bar-
gain “‘ineluded exclusive dominion over Behring’s Sea,” they would have had express
stipulations to that effet inserted in the Treaty, just as Secretary Seward is known
tu have insisted on the insertion of the clause in Article VI (cited above) that ‘‘the
territory was free and unencumbered,” &c.

Now let me say a few words in support of my charges against Mr. Felton and his

fellow-advocates of the seizures of manufacture of evidence, of suppressio veri,
348 and suggestio falsi. I repeat that every allegation concerning important facts

is more or less untrue, and every essential quotation more or less twisted and
perverted. To expose all of these sins here is, of course, impossible, so I confine
myself to a few examples.

Take the opening assertion in Mr. Felton’s article:

“The title of the United States to Alaska and the Behring’s Sea was acquired from
Russia by the Treaty of Cession of 1868 [misprint for 1867], § in which she ceded and
conveyed all the rights, franchises, [and] privileges now belonging to Russia in the
ceded territory or dominion, and appurtenances thereto;’ the same being contained
within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:” followed by the description
of them, as quoted by me above. Here a straightfor ward and honest quotation of
Article I of the Treaty would at once have exposed the fallacy of the above assertion
as regards Behring’s Sea, and so a little game of selecting and arranging suitable
passages is resorted to. The most essential part of the par rticulars given in Article
I, the enumeration of the territory and dominion ceded, is suppressed. For it is
substituted something cut off from the end of Article VI the general covenants of
secondary importance, usual in conveyances, which can be correctly interpreted only
by reference to a preceding enumeration, and then comes the rest of Article I, the
description of the geographical limits. The effect aimed at, and probably attained
in the case of most readers, is to hide the true import of Article I, the simple state-
ment that everything ceded was included within certain geographical limits, and to
create instead the false impression that everything embraced within these limits
was ceded; to create the false impression that as a large part of Behring’s Sea was
situate w ithin these limits, such part of this sea was consequently also ceded and
conveyed.

In like manner Mr. Felton’s mere reference to, without proper quotations from
our protests against Russia’s pretensions, destroys the emphasis, belittles and belies
the scope of Secretary Adams’ categorical and all-embracing, ‘‘can admit no part of
these claims.”

Again, Mr. Felton’s assertion ‘‘that Russia, from her discovery of Behring’s Sea
down to the cession to the United States, has controlled the navigation of its waters
and the taking of its marine life. To this end her navy has patrolled it, and, in
pursuance of her laws, taken, confiscated, and burned marauding vessels; she has
since and is now pursuing the same policy on her part of Behring’s Sea,” is simply a
glaring untruth.

Mr. Felton does not, of course, cite any case of such confiscation, and none oc-
curred; for since the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 Russia never interfered with foreign
vessels ‘fishing i in those waters, though foreign whalers frequented them during the
whole of the time referred to, and literally swarmed there by hundreds during the

a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 383

years of the prosperity of that pursuit. On the contrary, Russia in 1842 refused
officially a demand of the Russian-American Company for interference with those
whalers on the express ground that the Treaty gave Americans the right to fish over
the whole extent of the Pacific Ocean (see Bancroft’s ‘‘ History of the Pacific States,”
vol. xxviii, p. 583). And it may be well to remind Mr. Felton that seal-fishing on
the high seas is just as legitimate in international law as whale-fishing there.

Just as little as Russia interfered in times gone by does she do so now, and the
inference to the contrary which Mr, Felton pretencs to draw from an official Russian
Notification of the 15th November, 1881, is as unwarranted and as misleading as
most of his inferences. Mr. Felton assigns a wrong date to it, but quotes it correctly
and in extenso. It forbids foreign vessels to carry on, without special permit or
licence, trading, hunting, fishing, &c., on the Rassian coast or islands in the Okhotsk
and Behring’s Seas, or on the north-east coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary-line
(the italics are Mr. Felton’s). There is nothing ambiguous in the language of this
Proclamation, says Mr. Felton, and this isindisputable. It is this gentleman alone
who introduees ambiguity and even misrepresentation into the discussion, when he
proceeds to say: “It means that Russia will enforce her sovereignty over the western
half of Behring’s Sea within her sea boundary-line.” Certain phrases have certain
definite and well-established meanings, are employed exclusively in such accepted
signification in official documents, and are always interpreted strictly in this sense.
The accepted seuse of sea boundary-line, with reference to coasts and islands, is a
line three miles seaward from low-water mark on the shore, and there is consequently
no warrant for Mr. Felton’s preposterous misinterpretation. Perusal of pp. 251 to
273 of the official document above referred to (Sen. Ex. Doc., No. 106) would have
furnished Mr. Felton proof of the untruth of his assertion and of the falsity of his
interpretation. Only three cases of interference are there mentioned; none of them
were for acts done on the high sea, but all for acts within the 3-mile limit. Two of

these seizures took place in the Russian part of Behring’s Sea, and if Mr.
349 Felton’s hypothesis of a division between Russia and the United States of
exclusive jurisdiction over this sea has ever been adopted by our Government,
the wonder is how it could consistently take any official notice of an exercise of
such jurisdiction by Russia that would be perfectly legitimate under said hypothesis.

Mr. Felton’s manner of arguing, his way of stating a proposition and drawing
inferences from it, offers a refreshing contrast to the stale rules of logic hitherto con-
sidered as binding upona writer. His method of geographical definition is also quite
novel, and I confess I have not been able to master 1t. Here is a specimen which is
entirely beyond me: ‘‘. . . that they [Treaty of 1824 and other documents] all
had reference to the coast and the waters of the North Pacific, between the 51st par-
allel of north latitude and Mount St. Elias and east of the 141st meridian of longi-
tude.” Mount St. Elias is a good many miles inland, and this is the first instance
known to me of an inland mountain being pressed into service as a terminal point of
‘coast and waters.” Besides, this limitation of the application of the Treaty of
1824 leaves a very long coast-line of the Pacific, and unquestionably not of Behring’s
Sea, viz., that from 141° west to the south-west extremity of the Peninsula of Alaska
in about 163° 30’ west unprovided for. Was there some kind of ‘ acquiescence”
about this long coast-line, too, and if so, what was acquiesced in?

The passage, ‘‘ Russia surrendered or abandoned her claim only to the control of
the North Pacific Ocean, and to the north-west coast south of latitude 54° north, yet
her title to the Aleutian Islands, extending [title or islands? @. #.) as far south as
51° north latitude and longitude 166° to 167° west, is not, and never has been, dis-
pee or invalidated,” is another geographical conundrum as well as a puzzle in

ogic. ;

The closing sentence in Mr. Felton’s article is as extraordinary as anything he has
achieved in the way of assertion: ‘Congress had entire confidence in our title ”—
that is, in our title to exclusive jurisdiction in our part of Behring’s Sea. Let us see
what the ‘Congressional Record” shows on this point: The House tacked on to a
Senate Bill an amendment that section 1956 of the United States Revised Statutes
includes and applies to all the waters of Bebring’s Sea in Alaska embraced within
“the boundary-lines mentioned and described in the Treaty with Russia dated the
30th March, 1867;” that ‘‘it shall be the duty of the President to issue an annual
wirning Notification, to have it published in a newspaper, and to cause one or more
vessels to cruize in said waters to seize all violators of United States laws therein.”
The Senate refused to pass the amendment. In conformity with the advice of the
Conference Committee, the amendment was altered to the following: That section
1956 ‘‘is hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United
States in the waters of Behring’s Sea,” leaving the new duties of the President as
above, and in this shape it was enacted. The effect of the change resulting from
the Senate’s action is stated in the House Report to be ‘‘ to leave out the words that
are descriptive of the boundaries of the waters of Alaska.” Mr. Felton is, of course,
entitled to all the comtort he may be able to derive from this proceeding, but the

384 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

public will not accept this testimony as proving ‘“ confidence” on the part of Con-
gress. Considering that the House had actually to rescind its action, to abandon the
position to which it had committed itself, the whole looked decidedly like a con-
fession that the House felt ‘‘ very shaky” indeed on the validity of the alleged title.

It recalls the story of the King who quarrelled over some point in a game of chess
which he had the condescension to play with a subject of his, while a crowd of
courtiers preserved a dead silence. When the contention was at its height, an officer
of known skill at the game entered, to whom the King appealed for a decision, and
who replied instanter: ‘‘Your Majesty is wrong!” ‘How can you tell when you
have not even glanced at the board?” ‘Quite unnecessary! Would these gentle-
men,” pointing to the courtiers, ‘remain silent if there was a ghost of a chance to
say anything in favour of your Majesty?” A claim in our favour and against Lng-
land, which such ever-ready champions of everything anti-English as Messrs.
Edmunds, Hoar, Frye, &c., refuse to support, must be indeed hopelessly weak.

However much one may find fault with what Mr. Felton does say in his article, it
is, nevertheless, impossible not to regret that he left some things unsaid, that he
found it impossible “ to continue the history of the legislation of Congress on this
subject, and ascertain upon what facts it based its late action, the necessity for such
action, and to speculate upon its probable results. . . .” Light on all these
peints is certainly very much needed, and it is very much to be hoped that some
Congressional Pheebus Apollo will furnish it to the public. It is indeed difficult to
find or imagine any good reason for the new Act of the 2nd March last. It is super-
fluous, and even absurd, to make a statutory declaration that a law already enacted
for a certain locality shallapply toit. The measures for its enforcement now ordered

may be wise, but if they were to be confined to their legitimate sphere, they
350 were quite within the President’s authority before said Act. They had, in

fact, been already taken by Mr. Cleveland’s Administration, had then been
carried out in regions beyond that sphere for two seasons, after which better coun-
sel prevailed, and they were limited to our acknowledged jurisdiction. The new
law contains nothing new as to the sphere in which the old law is to be enforced ;
on the contrary, the attempted extension of this region was distinctly abandoned.
Congress in this case, as often before, shirked the responsibility, and confined itself
to ‘‘egging on.” Secretary Blaine’s assertion, that he is merely enforcing an Act of
Congress when he allows the capture of foreign sealers outside of the 3-mile shore
limit, is not borne out by the provisions of the Act.

Apparently, Mr. Felton and his partizans are entirely unconscious of the fact that
their hypothesis fairly bristles with absurdities. It presupposes that, in the settle-
ment of a controversy seriously affecting established principles of international
law, civilized Governments would deliberately stultify themselves to the extent of
insisting upon these principles being strictly carried out in one part of the ocean,
and of utterly ignoring them, at the same time, in the part immediately adjoining;
of discriminating between seas that have not those geographical differences which
international law makes the very conditio sine qué non of discrimination, and of doing
all this without any documentary record of their action, and without a word of
explanation as to the reason forsuch an unprecedented performance. It presupposes
that the two maritime nations par excellence, Great Britain and the United States.
each more powerful on the ocean than Russia, would have surrendered to her their
natural right to the free use of an open sea (expressly declared by Mr. Felton to have
been known at the time as valuable), without struggle or remonstrance, without
equivalent or cause! And all this idiotic travesty of patriotism, statesmanship, and
diplomacy, is imputed to men of the calibre of John Quincy Adams, George Canning,
and Count Nesselrode. This sorry figment of crazy suppositions is palmed off for
truth, in the face of documentary proof of a natural, a reasonable, and a consistent
argument to the contrary.

We are urged to persist in an indefensible and dishonourable policy when there is
every evidence that a legitimate and honourable course—that of international con-
ference and agreement—would bring about every result we profess to be aiming at,
and bring it about more quickly and more thoroughly than could be hoped for by
any other means.

The ultimate outcome of such persistence is plain; it may be delayed, but it can-
not be escaped from eventually. And finally it must not be overlooked that, at the
best, even a triumphant maintenance against Great Britain of Mr. Felton’s hypothesis
would not settle the question in our favour as against the rest of the world. Acqui-
escence being the basis of that hypothesis, it would be binding only upon those
nations that had acquiesced. The others remain free to exercise their natural rights
in Behring’s Sea, and would in time undoubtedly insist upon doing so, without our
having a chance of preventing them under international law.

(Signed) ROBERT RAYNER.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 385

No. 246.
Sir. J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 12.)

WASHINGTON, November 1, 1889.

My LorpD: I lost no time, after my arrival here on the 15th ultimo,
in seeking an interview with Mr. Blaine on the Behring’s Sea question.
He was much engaged at the time with the Maritime Conference, but
he ultimately appointed Thursday, the 24th, for a preliminary conver-
sation on the subject.

We had a great deal of friendly discussion, in the cvurse of which
he stated that the seizures of the Canadian seal-fishing vessels had
been effected by the Treasury Department, which is charged with the
protection and collection of the revenue (including that derived from
the Alaska Company), and the measure had been resorted to under the
belief that it was warranted by the Act of Congress and the Procla-
mation of the President. In this view, the Department had been con-
firmed by the Judgment of the District Court of Alaska,

I observed that this appeared like an assertion of the mare clausum
doctrine, which I could hardly believe would be revived at the present
day by his Government or any other; to which he replied that his
Government had not officially asserted such a claim, and therefore it
was unnecessary to discuss it. As a matter of fact, there had been no
interference with any Canadian vessels in Behring’s Sea except such

as were found engaged in the capture and destruction of fur-
351 ~—seals. But his Government claim the exclusive right of seal-

fishery, which the United States, and Russia before them, had
practically enjoyed for generations without any attempt at interference
from any other country. The fur-seal was a species most valuable to
mankind, and the Behring’s Sea was its last stronghold. The United
States had bought the islands in that sea, to which these creatures
periodically resort to lay their young, and now Canadian fishermen
step in and slaughter the seals on their passage to the islands, without
taking heed of the warnings given by Canadian officials themselves,
that the result must inevitably be the extermination of the species.
This was an abuse, not only reprehensible in itself, and opposed to the
interests of mankind, but an infraction of the rights of the United
States. It inflicted, moreover, a serious injury on a neighbouring and
friendly State, by depriving it of the fruits of an industry on which
vast sums of money had been expended, and which had long been pur-
sued exclusively, and for the general benefit. The case was so strong
aS to necessitate measures of self-defence for the vindication of the
rights of the United States and the protection of this valuable fishery
from destruction.

I replied that, as regarded the question of right, I could not admit
that the seizure of the Canadian vessels was justified under the terms
of the Act of Congress or of the Proclamation of the President. Munic-
ipal legislation could have no operation against foreign vessels beyond
territorial waters. A claim of exclusive fishery on the high seas was
opposed to international law, and no such right could be acquired by
prescription. Mr. Blaine observed that he thought Great Britain
enjoyed such a right in relation to pearl fisheries in some parts of the
world. I said I was not aware of any such case. As regarded the
question of fact, namely, the danger of extermination of the fur-seal
species and the necessity for a ‘‘close season,” there was unfortunately

B Ss, PL V——25

386 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

a conflict of opinion. But if, upon a further and more complete exami-
nation of the evidence, Her Majesty’s Government should come to the
conclusion that a “close season” is really necessary, and if an agree-
ment should be arrived at on the subject, all differences on questions
of legal right would ipso facto disappear.

Mr. Blaine expressed his readiness to proceed to such an inquiry,
adding that he would be prepared to establish from Canadian evidence
alone the absolute necessity for a ‘close season;” but he strongly
insisted that the inquiry should take place here, and be entirely of a
diplomatic character. It was suggested, in conversation, that the
tripartite negotiation commenced in London between Great Britain, the
United States, and Russia, which, from various causes, had been sus-
pended, might be resumed in Washington.

Mr. Blaine expressed his concurrence, but he said he did not wish to
originate such a proposal.

I stated that if such an arrangement were agreed to, I should require
the assistance of experts from Canada, and it should be understood
that the results of the inquiry should, if desired, be made public to the
world as a justification of the adoption of a ‘“‘close season,” and an
inducement to all other nations to observe it. Also, that there should
be an assurance against any more seizures, and an understanding as to
compensation to the owners of the vessels and property seized.

Mr. Blaine replied that if we did not settle the question before next
April he should despair of our ever doing so, and that until that date,
when the fishing season reopened, no seizures would take place, for
there could be no object in them.

As regards compensation, if an agreement should be arrived at, he
felt sure that his Government would not wish that private individuals
who had acted bona fide in the belief that they were exercising their
lawful rights, should be the victims of a grave dispute between two
great countries, which had happily been adjusted. He was not without
hope, therefore, that the wishes I had expressed might be met, and that
all might be arranged in a manner which should involve no humiliation
on either side.

His tone was most friendly throughout, and he manifested a strong
desire to let all questions of legal right and international law disappear
in an agreement for a close season, which he believes to be urgently
called for in the common interest.

It only now remains for me to solicit your Lordship’s instructions in
regard to the suggestion of resuming in Washington the tripartite
negotiation, with a view to arriving, if possible, at such a solution as is
proposed by Mr. Blaine.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

352 No. 247.
Foreign Office to Sir C. Lampson and Co.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 13, 1889.
GENTLEMEN: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowl.
edge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, with its inclosure,
again calling attention to the effects which are to be apprehended from

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 3872

the indiscriminate slaughter of female seals in the waters of Behring’s
Sea, and I am to say that your representations on the subject will
receive careful attention.

Lord Salisbury will be glad to receive any statistical evidence which
you may be able to furnish as to the extent to which the number and
quality of the catch of male seals has been affected of late years by
the increased slaughter of female seals in the open sea, and any other
information which might be of assistance in considering the remedial
measures which it may be desirable to adopt.

His Lordship presumes that you would have no objection to the
eventual publication of your letter under reply, and of any subsequent
communications not marked ‘‘ Confidential.”

1 have, &c.

(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 248.
Sir C. Lampson and Co. to Foreign Office.—( Received November 15.)

64, QUEEN STREET, London, November 14, 1889.

DEAR Sir: We have to acknowledge receipt of your valued favour
of the 13th instant, and beg to thank you for having taken the matter
into consideration.

We are now collecting all the information we can with reference to
the details Lord Salisbury is anxious to obtain, and when we have
completed our Statement, will forward it to you.

We are quite willing to have any of our letters used as Lord Salis-
bury may see fit. ;

Yours, &c.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON AND Co.

No. 249.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received December 1.)

DOWNING SLREET, November 30, 1889.

Str: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 9th
August last, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be
laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the
Deputy Governor of Canada, inclosing an important Minute of the
Dominion Privy Council on the subject of the proposed close time for
seals in Behring’s Sea.

I am to request that the inclosures in Sir W. Ritchie’s despatch,
which are sent in original, may be returned after perusal.

Ian, &e.

(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,

388 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
353 {Inclosure 1 in No. 249.]
Deputy-Governor Sir W. Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OrTawa, November 11, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to Lord Stanley of Preston’s confidential despatch of
the 3rd Angust, 1888, in which was inclosed a copy of a Minute of Council of the 14th
July of that year, protesting against the proposal made by the United States Govern-
ment for the establishment of a close season for seals in Behring’s Sea, I lave the
honour to forward herewith, for your Lordship’s information, a copy of an approved
Report of a Committee of the Privy Council, to which are appended certain declara-
tions and statements tending to support the contentions advanced by the Dominion
Government in the above-mentioned Minute.

I have, &e.
“ : (Signed) W. J. Rircuie.

{Inclosure 2 in No, 249.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, November 4, 1889.

_ Ona Report dated the 26th October, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, stating that he has recently received from parties interested in the fur-seal-
ing industry of the Behring’s Sea, further information relative to seal-hunting.

The Minister desires attention to the Minute of Council dated the 14th July, 1888,
made on a Report of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon a proposal from
Mr. Secretary Bayard, for the estavlishment of a close season for seals in the Beh-
ring’s Sea, which was a proposition to agree to enforcing a close season from the 15th
April to the Ist November in each year.

The Minute of Council dealt very fully with this and pointed out:

That the United States Minister, as reported in the despatch from Lord Knutsford,
of the 8th March, 1888, then under consideration, had asserted that there were both
close and open seasons for killing seals in the Behring’ 8 Sea, and that the United
States Government was endeavouring to enforce the observance of these seasons by
all nationalities alike, and, consequently, that during the open season seals could be
pursued without fear of molestation, whereas, in fact, the killing of seals, except by
-the Alaska Commercial Company, lessees of the Seal Islands, is entiiely prohibited
by the laws of the United States, and this law was then being enforced against
citizens of the United States and those of Canada.

That the Alaska Commercial Company, under the terms of their lease, had a monop-
oly of the industry, and killed 100,000 seals annually, for which monopoly they paid
paid yearly into the Treasury of the United States over 300,000 dollars.

The Minute of Council above referred to went on to show that no pressing neces-
sity existed for the establishment of such a close season, since careful measurement
of the “‘ Rookeries” on St. Panl and St. George Islands showed 6,337,750 seals, whilst
only 100,000 were annually killed, and the United States Special Agent for Alaska in
1887, reported the seals on the increase.

That as the seals arrive in May and leave about the end of October, a close season
from the 1st April to the 16th November, as proposed by the Honourable Mr. Bayard,
would practically prohibit all fishing except by the Alaska Commercial Company,
who could kill on the only places where the seals “‘haul out” during June, July,
September, and October, four of the months of the proposed close season, thus estab-
lishing their monopoly more effectually.

That while under Mr. Bayard’s proposition this area would be closed against all
operations except those of their own sealers on the Pribylofi Islands, other sealing
areas in America and Asia would be open to her as before.

That the Alaska Commercial Company has a leasehold from the Russian Govern-
ment which does not fall under the proposed area.

That while the arrangement would benefit Russia and the United States, Canada

would lose the whole sealing industry.
354 The Minister further observes that this Minute of Council called attention
to the opinion of experienced sealers, who aver that by the present methods
of hunting with gun and spear not more than one in ten of the seals struck is lost,
and that it is not believed that these methods are so destructive as alleged.

In the said Minute of Council it is claimed that the sole object of the United States
was to establish a monopoly in the manner and locality of killing seals in favour of
such United States citizens who might from time to time enjoy the privilege of
sealing on Pribyloff Islands.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 389

The Minister submits the appended declarations and statements in support of the
views expressed in the Minute above referred to: they are as follows:

Appendix No. 1. Statement prepared by practical seal-hunters.

Appendix No. 2. Statement prepared by A. R. Milne, Esq., giving a history of the
sealing industry as pursued by British subjects in the Behrine’s 5 Sea.

Appendix No. 3. Solemn declaration of Carl A. Lundburg on the slaughter of about

10,000 seals at Robin Island by the crew of the schooner “ Leon,” aw ratch-vessel of
the Alaska Commercial Company.
' The Minister states that it will be seen that the first Appendix, in which the dif-
ferent hunters describe their operations in detail, fully bears out the position taken
in the Minute of Council of the 14th July, 1888, that the destructive nature of the
modes of killing seals by spears and fire-arms has been greatly exaggerated by the
United States authorities, a very small percentage of loss occurring. Also that the
operations of the Canadian sealers in the Behring’s Sea are of necessity during the
months proposed by the Honourable Mr. Bayard as a close season.

The Minister desires to invite particular attention to the fact that, while female
seals with pup are taken to some extent along the coasts approaching the Behring’s
Sea, such instances are of rare occurrence in the sea itself.

Appendix No. 2 treats altogether of the history and extent of the Canadian sealing
interest in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and concludes by showing that,
as the seals travel singly and in pairs, not in droves or numbers as has been claimed,
there is no opportunity for the indiscriminate slaughter alleged. The percentage
of seals wounded or killed and not secured is placed at 6 per cent.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is of opinion that the action described in
Appendix No. 3, of the servants of the Alaska Commercial Company at Robin Island,
under lease to them from Russia, in wantonly and maliciously slaughtering on their
rookeries 10,000 seals at one time, principally cows and pups, and | destroying their
skins for the avowed purpose of insuring the failure of other sealers, is but another
argument against securing a monopoly of the seal-fishing interest in the North
Pacitic Ocean for the Alaska Commercial Company, and while this one act has been
more destructive than the combined operations of the other sealers in the Behring’s
Sea, it renders altogether erroneous the interference of the United States authorities
on the plea of protection with the legitimate pursuits of sealers in the open sea.

The Committee concurring in the above Report recommend that your Excellency
be moved to forward a copy y hereof to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State
for the Colonies, and that a copy be also forwarded to the High Commissioner for
Canada for his information.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s apyroval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEr,
Clerk, Privy Council.

355 - APPENDIX 1.
STATEMENTS OF PRACTICAL HUNTERS.
James Wilson.

I was carpenter on board the sealing-schooner ‘‘ Triumph” on her voyage this year,
One of the hunters was drowned just before entering Behring’s Sea, and I took his
place. I was out hunting seals about a week, but the weather was bad, and I got
only twenty-three seals I had had no experience. I used a breech-loading shot-
gun, and shot seals at a range of from 10 to 15 yards. Ilost one seal through the
carelessness of the boat hands running the boat over the seal, which sank directly
under the boat.

Most of seals lost by hunters are shot at long ranges with the rifle. One hunter
on the “Triumph” this year got over sixty seals and only lost one. [ never saw a
cow seal with her young beside her. Out of the tw enty-three I got, five or six were
cows carrying their young.

(Signed) JAMES WILSON.

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 9, 1889.

William Fewings.

I have been three years hunting seals on the Pacific Coast and in Behring’s Sea. In
1887 I was on board the sealing-schooner ‘‘Favourite,” in 1888 on the ‘‘ Viva,” and
in 1889 on board the “Triumph.” In each year the vessel I was on entered the
Behring’s Sea early in July, and left the sea the latter part of August or early in

390 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

September, except this year, when the “Triumph” left the sea on the 11th July,
under threat of seizure, after searched by the United States cutter ‘‘Rush.” In 1887
the hunters I was with were partly Indians and partly whites. In the two last years
the hunters were all whites, using shot-guns and rifles. The rifles were used by the
more experienced hunters and better shots for long-range shooting, up to 100 yards,
but few hunters attempted that range. The general range for rifles is not over fifty
yards, and most shots are made at a less range.

A few hunters used the rifle for all distances. I use either rifle or shot-gun,
according to the distance and position of the seal and the condition of the water.

My first year I got about 400 seals. In getting this number, I failed to capture
about twenty-five shot at, or killed, or wounded, but which escaped. In my second
year I got over 500 and lost about thirty. This year I got 140, and lost only one. I
have frequently shot from two to five seal in a bunch, and got them all. One day
in 1887 I got two bunches of five each and another of four, and got the whole
fourteen.

Indian hunters use spears, and either get every seal they throw at or it escapes
unhurt, or but slightly wounded. Indians, it can be safely said, get every seal they
kill.

Oscar Scarr, a hunter on the “Viva” in 1888, got over 600 seals, and lost only
about twenty. The average number lost by white hunters does not exceed six in
100, and by the Indians not six in 1,000. I have never shot nor have I ever seen a
female seal with a young one beside or with her. It is very seldom a female is killed
in Behring’s Sea, carrying her young with her, and out of 1,000 killed on the coast
earlier in the season less than one-third are females carrying their young.

(Signed) Wm. FEWINGS.

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 9, 1889.

Captain J. D. Warren.

I am amaster mariner, and have been actively engaged in the deep-sea sealing
business for twenty years. I have owned and commanded sealing-vessels on voyages
along the Pacitic Coast from 47° or 48° north latitude to 56° or 57° north latitude
within Behring’s Sea. I have generally employed Indians, except in 1886 and 1887,
the last years I was’ out, when I had white hunters as well. White hunters use
rifles and shot-guns entirely, Indian hunters use spears. Bullets weighing from 300
to 400 grains are used with rifles, and ordinary buck-shot with guns. Both rifles
and shot-guns are breech-loading, and of the best make. Seals are approached by
the hunters in boats, to 10 or 15 yards, lying generally asleep on the water. Fre-
quently seals are taken alive when asleep, especially by the Indians, who, in their
canoes, get within from a spear’s length (14 or 15 feet) to 30 feet before they throw.
Indians rarely lose a seal they strike, and if one escapes it is always but slightly
wounded. Of seals killed by white hunters, probably not over 10 per cent. are killed
with rifle, which is generally used for only a long range.

Sealers divide the seals for hunting purposes into two classes, ‘‘sleepers” and
‘‘feeders;” or ‘travellers sleepers” are almost always shot at from 10 to 15 yards
range, and are seldom lost. ‘‘ Feeders” are shot at just as their heads emerge from
the water. From this fact the range is always from a few feet to 100 yards, though
few are fired at that distance. Hunters use a “ gaff,” a pole about 10 or 12 feet long,
with one to three hooks upon it, with which they catch the seal and bring it into the
boat. If the seal sinks, the “ gaff” is run down, and the seal hooked up. The brit-
ish sealing-vessels employ more Indian than white hunters. My experience with
white hunters is not so extensive as with Indians, but from what I have seen while
engaged in sealing I can say that not over six in every 100 seals killed by white
hunters are lost or escape.

Experienced hunters seldom lose a seal; the losses are chiefly made by inexperi-
enced hunters, only a few of whom are employed, for the reason that as hunters are

paid so much a skin, inferior men cannot make good wages. I have noticed
356 no diminution in the number of seals during the twenty years I have been in

the business, but if any change at all, an increase. Of the seals taken along
the coast about one-half are females, and of the females not more than one-half
are with young. In Behring’s Sea not one in 100 of those taken by the hunters are
females with young; because as soon as the females carrying their young get into
the sea they go to breeding islands or rookeries, and in a few days their young are
born. The cows remain with their young until they are quite able to take care of
themselves. I do not think that out of the seals taken by Indian and white hunters
more than 30 per cent. are females actually breeding or capable of breeding.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 391

“Old bulls,” ‘ bachelors,” ‘‘two-year-old pups,” and ‘‘ Barre cows” make up the
great majority. Cows actually breeding are very watchful, and while on the voyage
northward are ever on the alert, so they are difficult to take. On the other hand,
the other classes above named make up the great class of ‘‘ sleepers ” from which
fully 90 per cent. of the whole catch of hunters is derived. I never saw or heard of
a ‘‘cow” having her young beside her in the water, either on the coast or in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

(Signed) J. D. WARREN.

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 10, 1889.

Captain Sieward.

I have been a master sealer for two years. In 1888 I commanded the ‘‘Araunah,”
and in 1889 the ‘‘ Walter L. Rich,” and during both years sealed along the coast from
off Point Northward to Behring’s Sea. In 1888 I had Indian hunters, and this year
white hunters. The Indians lose very few seals, for if the spear strike the seal is
got, and if the spear misses the seal of course escapes unhurt. The white hunters use
rifles and shot-guns, the latter much more than the former. Rifles are used only by
good shots, and then at only long range. The seals lost by white hunters after being
shot or wounded do not on the lower coast exceed six in 100, and on the Alaska coast
and in Behring’s Sea not over four in 100.

On sailing I generally take 10 per cent. additional ammunition for waste shot, that
is, if calculating on a catch of 3,000 seals, I would take ammunition for 3,300 shots.
That was double the excess the hunters would consider necessary, and I never knew
that percentage of waste shot to be used. I never saw a female seal with her young
beside her in the water. Out of a catch of 1,423 seals this year, I had only fifty-five
seals under 2 years old, i. e., between 1 and 2 years old.

When at Ounalaska this year, I learned that the Alaska Commercial Company last
year fitted out two small schooners belonging to private parties with large deep nets
several hundred fathoms long, which were set across the passes leading from Beh-
ring’s Sea for the purpose of catching young seals. One of these schooners got 700
- of these young seals, about 4 months old, and sold them to the Alaska Commercial
Company at 2 dol. 50 c. apiece.

A schooner, the “Spencer F. Baird,” 10 or 12 tons, was then at Ounaiaska fitting
up to go to Akoutan Pass for the same purpose this fall. The law forbids the killing
of all fur-bearing animals in Alaskan waters by any hunters except the natives, yet
such is done every year at Kodiak, Sanaka, and the Aleutian Islands by white hunters
fitted out by the Alaskan Commercial Company, under the agreement that the furs
must be sold to the Company.

(Signed) H. F. SreEwarp,
Master, American schooner ‘* Walter L. Rich.”

VicToRIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 10, 1889.

Walter House.

I was a hunter on the schooner ‘‘ Walter L. Rich,” on her sealing voyage this year.
It was my first year on the Pacific coast, but I had had seven years’ experience on the
Newfoundland coast catching hair-seals. This year on the “ Rich” I got 185 seals
and lost five, which sank before I reached them. I used a shot-gun. The hunters
on the “ Rich” lost about the same proportion, some a few more, some less. I never
saw a cow seal in the water with her young beside her or near her, nor have I ever
heard of such a case.

(Signed) WALTER HOUSE.

ViIcTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 10, 1889.

Memorandum.

EsTIMATE of the Amount paid for Wages, &c., of the Victoria Sealing Fleet, and the
probable Returns.

Mares Ol crow ane hunters, POr VESSEL... = 252 - talcecccceecccacscccucaeceaces $7, 000
Insurance premium on 8,000 dollars, at 7 per cent............-...-...02-e0 560
ETONASIONS ESal bl vaMiMuniblOns GsCase ssl acie note saan ne sooo oe ocbe ee 3, 000

Total per vessel. ............. BTS ne i eee a AEM ara Wi get BY FOR ee 10, 560

Wondwenty Vessels: Chiployeds ..5 62! Seca Goes kane cose bon cwseccce sens 211, 200

392 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

An average catch per vessel at, say..-.-..----------20----se-e-eee- 2,000 skins.
Walueipernsiain, WdolsUlC eee can chee es eae (pee ene ete ete eee 15, 000 dollars.
Vialnedor twenty Vessels. <..0. te seeioes he eae erence Peete eee 300,000 *

357 Two thousand skins is a low estimate per vessel, and were it not for the

interference of the United States cutters in Behring’s Sea, the catch per vessel
would average quite 3,000 skins.

—

Captain William O’ Leary.

I am a master mariner, and have been seal-hunting on the Pacific coast four years,
three of which I was in Behring’ s Sea as well. One. year I had Indian hunters only,
and the three years I had white hunters only—all on the schooner ‘‘ Pathtinder.’
My experience with Indian hunters is that they lose none—at most a few—of the
seals they spear. The spears are ‘‘ bearded,” some with one, some with two beards,
and once the seal is struck, capture is certain.

White hunters use shot-guus and rifles, according to distance and state of water.
On smooth water and at long ranges the rifle is generally used, but the majority of
hunters use the shot-gun, and the great majority of seals are shot with guns.

The number of seals lost by white hunters does not exceed six in 100, and many
hunters lose much less than that number. About half of the seals taken along the
coast are cows, and perhaps two-thirds of the cows are with young. Putting a
vessel’s coast catch at 400, from 150 to 175 might be cows with young. In Behring’s
Sea the average of cows with young killed will not average one in 100, for the reason
that as soon as the cows reach the sea they go to the breeding islands where their
young are born.

I never saw cows in the water with their young with them. I do not think there
is any decrease in the number of seal entering Behring’s Sea. I never saw so many
seal along the coast as there were this year, and in Behring’s Sea they were more
numerous than I ever saw before. This year I shot forty-four seals and lost one.

(Signed) Wm. O’LEary.

VicroriIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 12, 1889.

Frederick Gilbert.

Tam aseal hunter. Ihave been four years on board sealing-vessels, one year I
Was a boat rower, and three years a hunter. I have always been with white hunt-
or and have used the shot- gun and rifle for shooting seals.

In 1887 I got 518 seals and lost 14; in 1888 I got 244 and lost 5; in 1889 I got 454
and lost 16; or in the three years I got 1,216 seals, and lost 35, or 24 per cent. I
never shot or saw pups with the cows in the water, nor have I ever heard of such a
case. Sume hunters lose a few more than I do, but the most unlucky hunters I have
met with did not lose twice as many.

(Signed) FRED. GILBERT.

Victoria, BRITISH COLUMBIA, September 12, 1889.

George Howe.

My first year’s sealing, 1886, was on board the ‘‘Theresa” from San Francisco to
Victoria. We left San Francisco on the 20th January, and arrived at Victoria on
the 7th April. I got 159 seals, of which I lostabout7. I used ashot-gun principally,
the rifle only for long range shooting, say, from 30 to 60 yards. At Victoria I left
the ‘‘ Theresa” and joined the ‘‘ Pathfinder.” The ‘‘ Pathfinder” left Victoria on the
4th May for Behring’s Sea, and that trip I got 442 seals and lost about 20. In 1887
I joined the ‘* Penelope,” ‘and left Victoria on the third February. I got 618 seals
during the season and lost 31. In 1888I did not go sealing, but in 1889 I was
engaged on the schooner ‘‘ Viva;” we left Victoria on the 19th January, and I got
734 seals duri ing the season and lost 37. I never saw a young pup alongside its cow
in the water.

About one-third of the seals taken on the coasts are cows with pup or capable of
being with pup. In Behring’s Sea I got four cows with pups in them.

(Signed) GEORGE HOWE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 393

Thomas Howe.

In 1886, on board the ‘‘ Theresa” and ‘‘ Pathfinder,” I got for the season 397 seals,
and lost about 20. In 1887, on the schooner ‘‘ Penelope,” I got 510 and lost about 30.
In 1888, on the ‘‘ Lily Lad,” I got 316 and lost 12. In 1889, on board the “ Viva,” I
got 587 and lost 27.

(Signed) Tuomas HowsE.

Albert J. Bertram.

This was my first year hunting seals. I went out on the ‘‘Annie C. Moore.” We
left Victoria on the 25th January. I got during the season 320 seals. I use a shot-
gun principally. On the coast I got about 25 to 30 females with young in them, and
in Behring’s Sea I got about 6 or 7. I never saw a cow with her pup alongside of her
in the water. I lost 21 seals that sank before I could reach them.

(Signed) A. J. BERTRAM.

358 APPENDIX 2,
Statement by Mr, Milne.

With regard to the early history of the sealing industry in British Columbia, it is
well known that, owing to the sparse Settlements on the west coast of Vancouver
and Queen Charlotte Islands, the taking of seals and the hunting of the sea otter
was followed only by our Indian population, who pursued this industry in their own
primitive manner, that is, by using the canoe and spear, and seldom venturing
beyond sight of land. Their success was only known to the traders who had stores
or stations, or trading schooners usuully visiting the west coast during that season;
the white population up to later years being chiefly engaged in other occupations.
Sealing and deep-sea fishing did not seem to attract much attention. The few seals
caught by the Indians adjacent to the coast was not considered sufficient induce-
ment to our seamen, and also the habits of the seal, their regular yearly migration
from Behring’s Sea, and their long journey and return following the food fish, were
all matters not full known or understood by our people. At all events, it does not
appear that that knowledge was possessed of the seal life by our hunters, presented
any extra inducement to them to follow this hazardous occupation.

Up to the year 1865-66 the sealing industry remained in the hands of the west coast
Indians; but in the year 1866 the schooner ‘‘ Kate,” of Victoria, British Columbia, in
charge of Dutch Harry and Ogilvie, left Victoria on a sealing and trading venture to
the North Pacific and Behring’s Sea. The success of the venture is unknown. It is
said that this voyage was more for trading than seal hunting, and as expeditions of
the former kind were plentiful at that time, the United States having about that
time acquired possession of Alaska. It is now generally believed that they did not
enter Bebring’s Sea for the purpose of sealing. At all events, the parties are now
dead, and no authentic record can be found as to their success (if any) as a seal-
ing voyage. Atter that time some few years appear to have elapsed before the seal-
ing business was much noted, it being attractive to only a few traders engaged on the
west coast in the usual barter and exchange with Indians.

The pioneers of the sealing industry, namely, James D. Warren, Hugh McKay, and
William Spring (of whom the first mentioned only survives to impart the early his-
tory of the now important industry) reaped the reward of toil, and have retired to
enjoy the fruits of their labour,

About the years 1878-79 the schooners belonging to the port of Victoria, British
Columbia, began to extend their voyages seawards, and the migrations of the seals
became better understood. Schooners cruizing southerly in the early spring months
would meet the returning seals, bound northward. At this time the following
schooners engaged in this traffic: ‘‘Thornton,” owned by Captain J. D. Warren;
‘Anna Beck,” owned by Captain J. D. Warren; ‘‘ Favorite,” owned by Captain
Hugh McKay; ‘ Onward,” owned by Captain Hugh McKay.

In the year 1880 the schooner ‘‘Mary Ellen,” a vessel 63 tons, was purchased by
William Spring, and added to the sealing fleet at Victoria; and in the years 1881-82
auxiliary steam power was added to the ‘‘ Anna Beck” and ‘“‘ Thornton,” and several
new vessels were built. The sealing industry at this time was considered in a fairly
prosperous condition.

In the year 1883, the American schooner ‘‘San Diego,” of San Francisco, of which
Daniel McLean was master, his brother Alexander McLean being mate (both Nova
Scotians), fitted out in San Francisco for the North Pacific and Behring’s Sea on a
walrussing and sealing voyage. With a crew of thirteen men they hunted along the
west coast of California and British Columbia, starting about the 1st June, 1883.

894 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

During the voyage, which lasted till the end of August, they spoke no vessel or
Revenue-cutter, nor had any communication with any one. They returned to Vic-
toria after a successful voyage.

The following vessels were engaged on the west coast as sealers in the years 1882-83,
but which did not enter Behring’s Sea. All were fairly successful:

Schooners: Tons.
BOR SVOLULO!: s -nioese ois < a acln'c nice oe te Se een ee ieee nies Cee eae eee 80
‘Alfred Adams” «<.:...< 2222250252 50 oeteee ace Mes eo seats semeee ae eceae eee 60 (69)
Anna BOCK?) ...2122-, 1< 65 cae ai Pee ee eee See 5 the OH
“Dolphin? soi) 2.2.05 sks She tae aso wclonsenpe © lacie seats, seers eee eee ee ete 60
Se UCO i isle hao aio nye,o dle e.tele ae eee on ae eee ees REA Sipe A Sf 3 Oy fl q7
SS @OmWAIO.”. ook s Savcbios BOSS See ee bee ae oC eo ee eee 35
<oTMAorn ton” sc fea 3e See Wee ere a ee ee 29
SOW P.; Say wand? aoosccs Mids e ee eee eee ee ee ee 60
“Black Diamond? ie oF eo Si re hy BY ee eee ee 82

In the year 1884 the schooner “‘ Mary Ellen,” of Victoria, British Columbia, Daniel
McLean master, fitted out at San Francisco with a crew of sixteen men to hunt seals
along the west coast, and entered Behring’s Sea about the 15th June and left about
the end of August of the same year. The voyage was satisfactory to owners and
crew. They prosecuted their legitimate and peaceful voyage to the high seas
without any interference from any one.

In the same year the schooners ‘‘ Favorite,” ‘‘Anna Beck,” ‘‘ Alfred Adams,” ‘‘ Dol-
phin,” ‘‘Grace,” “Onward,” “Thornton,” ‘“ W. P. Sayward,” and “ Black Diamond,”
were all engaged in the sealing industry iu the North Pacific.

In the year 1885—considered a prosperous one for sealers—the ‘‘ Mary Ellen” and
“Favorite,” of Victoria, having entered Bebring’s Sea during June and leaving about
the end of August, and the other schooners, as per list attached hereto, hunted in

the North Pacific, but not entering Behring’s Sea.
359 A number of vessels were added to the fleet in the following year (1886), and
the enterprising firm, Carne and Munsie, brought around Cape Horn the
schooner “Pathfinder.” This latter led to some immigration from eastern provinces
of the hardy class of seamen so well adapted to the sealing industry. All the ves-
sels clearing from Victoria, British Columbia, entered Behring’s Sea with the excep-
tion of the schooners ‘‘ Active” and “ Rustler,” lost off Vancouver’s Island.

The same year (1886) is also remarkable for the seizures of the ‘‘Carolina,” ‘‘ On-
ward,” and ‘‘Thornton,” the attending circumstances of which is now a matter of
history. These vessels, fitted out at Victoria for sealing in the waters of the North
Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and at the time of seizure (1st and 2nd August,
1886), were about 70 miles from the nearest land.

The United States Revenue-cutter took them to Ounalaska. The crews of the
“Carolina” and ‘“‘ Thornton,” with the exception of the captain and one man detained
on board, were sent to San Francisco, nearly 1,000 miles from home, and turned
adrift to beg their bread, and by appealing to the charity of the humane to find
their way back to their homes on Vancouver’s Island. The crew of the ‘‘ Onward”
was kept at Ounalaska. The master and mate of the ‘‘Thornton ” were brought to
trial before a Judge named Dawson, in the United States District Court at Sitka;
and if half the stories that are told are true as to the manner in which Courts are
conducted in Alaska, we cannot be surprised at the verdict. The trial was a farce
on justice, where international law or comity had no consideration. ‘‘The Britisher
must suffer,” and he was found guilty accordingly. The master of the ‘‘ Thornton ”
was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment and a fine of 500 dollars; the mate to
thirty days’ imprisonment and a fine of 300 dollars. The master and mates of the
““Onward,” as also the officers of the “Carolina,” were likewise mulcted of similar
penalties. The master of the latter vessel, one James Ogilvie, an old man and a
pioneer of British Columbia, well thought of by owners and crews sailing from his
port, of Victoria, after suffering harsh and inhuman treatment at the hands of the
servants of the mighty Republic which blatantly proclaims its love for the right,
was suffered to wander into wood, where he died from want and exposure.

The other masters and mates, after remaining in prison for several months, were
released by order of the Governor of Alaska upon his being besought by the inhab-
itants of Sitka in the interests of humanity. They were turned out of confinement
literally destitute, without food or shelter, and compelled to find their way back as
best they might to their homes 1,500 miles distant, reached only by a long and costly
voyage, or by the friendly help of the Indian and a canoe over a tempestuous wintry
ocean.

The story of poor Ogilvie, the taunts of an unscrupulous Judge, characterizing
them as pirates and robbers, the subsequent imprisonment in a foul Alaskan dungeon
(fit only for a savage Aleut), will long be told as a travesty onthe humane acts of a
friendly Government.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 395

The schooners have since lain on the beach at Ounalaska, worm-eaten and worth-
less. In 1887 the Government of the United States concluded to give these vessels
up, and in a letter from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. West, dated the 11th October, 1887, the
following extract appears: é

“In the meantime, in acknowledging your note, I take occasion to state my impres-
sion that if the three vessels seized and ordered to be released have not been
re-possessed by their owners, it is not because of any hindrance on the part of any
official of this Government or failure to obey the order for release, but probably
because of the remoteness of the locality (Ounalaska) where they were taken after
arrest for adjudication, and the proceedings having been in rem, the owners have
not seen proper to proceed to Alaska to re-possess themselves of the property in
question.” :

Again, on the 13th October of the same year we find the following from Mr. Bay-
ard to Sir L. West:

‘““DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 13, 1887.

“Str: Continuing my reply to your note of the 29th ultimo inquiring the reason
for the delay in complying with the order issued in January last for the release of
the British vessels seized last year in Behring’s Sea, I beg leave to inform you that
I have this day received a communication from my colleague, the Attorney-General,
informing me that his telegram to the United States Marshal at Sitka of the 26th
January last, ordering the release of the British schooners ‘‘Ouward,” ‘‘ Caroline,”
and ‘‘Thornton,” owing to some misconception and mistake on the part of the official
to whom it had been addressed, had not been acted upon. A renewed order has gone
forward for their release, as had been distinctly directed last January, and which I

had no reason to doubt had been promptly obeyed.
(Signed) poe HTe) DAYAR Ds

From the foregoing it naturally would be believed by all reasonable people that
the Secretary ot the United States would have had due respect for the proprieties of
international comity, and see that his order would be carried into effect before the
close of the year 1887. Such was not the case, whatever intervened in this diplo-
matic shuffle. It did not materialize before the 1st November, 1888, and not until
the 10th November of that year did Messrs. Carne and Munsie receive the following:

“DISTRICT OF ALASKA, UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S OFFICE,
“Sitka, November 1, 1888.
“Str: You are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the rightful owner,
Messrs. Munsie and Co., Victoria, British Columbia, the seized schooner ‘‘ Caroline,”
of Victoria, British Columbia, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, as she now lies in
the Harbour of Ounalaska.
(Signed) “BARTON ATKINS,
“United States Marshal.
“EK. H. WALL, Esq.,
“United States Deputy Collector of Customs, Ounalaska, Alaska.”

360 ‘DISTRICT OF ALASKA, UNITED STATES MARSHAUL’S OFFICE,
“Sitka, November 1, 1888.

‘“GENTLEMEN: I have the honour to inform you that I have received from the
honourable Attorney-General of the United States orders to release to the rightful
owners the schooner ‘‘Caroline,” her tackle, apparel, and furniture, as she now lies
at the Harbour of Ounalaska, in the district of Alaska. The order on the Deputy
Collector of Customs at Ounalaska to deliver to you the property is herewit
inclosed.

““Very respectfully,
(Signed) “BARTON ATKINS,
“United States Marshal.
*‘Messrs. MUNSIE AND Co.,
“Victoria, British Columbia.”

In the year 1887 the vessels enumerated on list on p. 178 entered Behring’s Sea after
finishing the spring season. The names of the schooners and dates of the seizure,
together with dates of their sale at Port Townsend, W. T., where they were taken
after postponements and delays, also appear. They were sold on the 26th March,
1889, currently report at the time disposed of at a nominal value.

All the vessels named on the list, p. 179, went to sea in 1888, proceeding to Beh-
ring’s Sea, and were, with the exception of the ‘‘Araunah,” which was seized, suc-
cessful. This seizure was made on the 1st July of that year by the Russian schooner
“Alexander II,” and taken to the port of Vladivostock, Russian Siberia.

396 APPENDIX TO GASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

All the vessels enumerated on p. 179 went to Behring’s Sea in 1889, and the return
of the “Triumph” and capture of the ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and subsequent escape,
are all fresh in the memories of our people, and need not be here repeated.

In conclusion, I have omitted remarks on the many questions arising in regard to
the seizure of our vessels, feeling assured that the Government is doing everything
to bring the matter to a speedy settlement. Also in regard to the habits of the seal,
many erroneous opinions being given in the American press, and by the paid officials
of the Alaska Fur Company as to the loss of seals by wanton slaughter (as they
term it) of our sealers, I have made due and diligent inquiry as to the percentage of
seals liable to be lost after being shot, and from what I have gathered, it amounts,
at most to only 6 per cent.

The habits of the seal are now well understood. They travel] singly and in pairs,
not in droves or numbers as has been supposed by some, and to cover a large expanse
of water. They are found 400 miles westward of Vancouver Island, and migrate to
Bebring’s Sea in September and October. The pups leave later in November, the
temperature of the water having some influence upon their movement, but they
always return to Behring’s Sea in June of every year.

Vessels cleared for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, 1885.

Schooners. Tons.
My INGO -oobendossasseoncbsseenasose 63 | White crew and hunters.
INEM OENG) SoAgcoged ching doch Saacsesoasc5 80 | White crew and Indian hunters.

Vessels cleared for North Pacifie Ocean, but did not enter Behring’s Sea.

Schooners. Tons.
ATiredvAdams: ccc. aoeeesseeeneeese ees 69
TAM AY BOCK set 23 Les detente: tate oe pyste 46
BIS CKe DFMO 10 eee ee eae 82
Warolingy fee some ae See aes eee mien ee 32
Dolphin gases sesso se SENET: See See 60
GracCescsas ssass sae eee eae eee 77
Kates Jo-t-e.- 8-6 226 es. eee ee aA ce 58
Mountain Chicf 23
Onward 2eeesn nse cee toe eee ceceme ee 35
ARHOEN TON eae ee eee eo sae cee ee 29
W.P. Sayward | 60
361 Vessels cleared for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, 1886.
Schooners. Tons.
‘AilfredAdamsi se. 2252 -e ea, eee k= 69
“Ara BOCK ce wins ore oeetserd tector: foie 46
ACTING Soc sb ene sehen es 42 | Foundered April 1, 1887.
BlacksDiamMoen dies eee 82
Dolphinesascser Ree ae erate 80
WaAVOLLtbelccstas nines eee eee os 80
Grace 2. occ tscsocce see aeeeeeacee Tih
Carolinas ssse-e-8es sane aes seer 32 | Seized August 2, 1886, by United States Government.
NEAGO ecg ies sions ens Sito etree 38
Manin hainnO NVCh co <— = emer ee aeiee 23
IW eva yd UU NESB AE Se abopbEor -Sanpsede 63
Onavand Besse see a3. toe ees | 35 | Seized August 1, 1886, by United States Government.
LER IN Ne) Soe secokenens Sao ean Asean 70
Pati Ole = misi= -yn1=.- eyai- aioe ss see 66
Wiebe S2Y Ward 22 noes ote se ten 60
SIWORN LON eetee ste sk < amis See 29 | Seized August 1, 1886, by United States Government.
MenreSarerccc ae ac esa cen aire asle sche, 63
Rustler ees. eet ems occ oe eek ces eI 29 | Wrecked February 26, 1887.

‘Rustler’ did not enter Behring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

397

Vessels cleared for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, 1887.

Schooner. Tons. Disposition.
ISG saoocebeesesacbeo sp sonecbagessbes = 55 | Seized August 25, 1887,and sold by United States
Government at Port Townsend, W. T., March 26,
1889.
PN fren ain Siar erinis om etein,</sie=lei=imlnie nla « 69
JASTITEY IBGE so Geeta adeeceeerccendere 40 | Seized July 2, 1887, and sold by United States Gov-
ernment at Port Townsend, W. T’., March 26, 1889.
IDE JOO 5 sShodanctc coceeccebaEs 82 :
Dolphin’ . <2 .\-< ssa ieee om et w= = = = 60 | Seized July 12, 1887, and sold by United States Gov-
ernment at Port Townsend, W.T., March 26, 1889.
TIER WOES loo ooms pepaanecocoesoerodecenede 80
Grae! sa esn'- es eem oe 2 i ne an we = 77 | Seized July 17, 1887, and sold by United States Gov-
ernment at Port Townsend, March 26, 1889.
APEC Ae ocgepsucocs esses susoeeseesee= 48
[XTC pe deeds edsobuoesscuepenosseee aes 58
Mary Taylor..-.-.--------------------- 43
Mo unpbadns@ NOt met aoe ale areal eaae 23
Mary Ellen .-.--.---..--------.-------- 63
LOWS) sesssesdones ce beoncce docs Sacer 70
Poathfinder.:--------.- 66
SHS AE on See Sore coeor eoseeeeraceess 124 :
W.P. Sayward 60 | Seized July 9, 1887. by United States Government,
and released under bonds.
Rrinmplisces sem 422-2 == ei 15
WLBT Ponca poamoOnUnUSesdocBedsoesmeenc 63
Aa in ooocenonosece +c HO SmBpeSDasnoSedacbs 92
\Wamndlawere sac beer coerce doen seosoeesaeee 16
Nottie Wairtield sce. ccec~- <> --emian- as 150
362 Vessels cleared for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, 1888.
Schooners. Tons. Disposition.
Annie C. Moore..---- sade sascieccimemes 113
Ata umahiveec eee een eae i- eles == 2 = 71 | Seized July 1, 1888, by Russian Government.
IRTORUE OS Oso nsasg sem ane Bae oeSaccgoe 41
Tks JOM Mme es Sane se ooeoseasooe 82
Favorite. -...-- Joon Ga Scooabeedeoudessase 80
PLEATT ebie ee ee eels ieee coeineminciioe ose 40
Ui Glo seer leon ce aneban a Hosebecsianse Be 58
Ui by SoS e Se apocosancmenoo Coe aE Seranenoa 69 | Coming.
IUGR ese Gee eacaequoceraeacee seaseBHon 28
Wininy DEW He 5 ooo Sch sot esbesboceeseans 43
MWountaml Chieti ect gesrae ae cle selse smote 23
Witty DNDN ns ocossodsoq sence veneer 63
IMac ciey MG eee =.= = == 71
IRs ne) seacopsdeseoc0e Soeeet se beaaeos 70
Pn) MH Rope nade a sonsobEec. SaeOcauE 66
Sapphines saree ekeraaee ae arose ar l= 124
W. P. Sayward 60
UUPINON aoa bdoodacoess Suances coseneac 16
UTS ESB OSC GEESE HHOOBR Bed cneerecc 63
Gini sec qesesosrc sscsersegeEneSeone 98
WAN icoc aces beoeeaanoc ss seesehonercaooe 92
NViandeTrenecere case ee cieeescmciaecas == 16
\vaielieg| Seco oeeeoeneneesc rae booSeSoCt 13

398 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Vessels cleared for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, 1889.

Schooners. Tons.
PATIe) eae es on ne casi cies nee acces 90
Annie C. Moore... <a 113
PATEL OPS ee cisictontneiaicine 41
Black Diamond oe. oe oa ment mem 82 | Seized July 11.
TY Gt eePasasnesec cosocospsaesshcnccs 80
ALT Eh SS OR Se Ss - hoc sseored er rac asec 40 | Seized July 31.
CAL Cee are SO nae Sa SPS SIA TEE OOC Se 58
LP ys Goce bbc bosnc danas pane eccnesor 69
1 Pi nh nk ee ees BS Se carn ooanscocs SoSH 28
Mary MUG seer see aaa een eee nen 63
Mary Maylene aes se e-e oaae= ae i 43
ESS AG OM Ole ote a ominiainielm as mi oniniate == i 71
MoM Eadm CMO tose eee ome meio ee 23
Tein Gree bp ob ashdocenodesessopecc 66 | Seized August 27.
Minnie. ....-..------.--- scpSssoacsseSe 46 | Seized July 15.
Penelope.....-..------ Se Hennes eosocne 70
Sapphiresece.-e-a--chas— = Sdageossesasc 124
IWR S8Y Walle. cece wince oe nian lal 60
Wuptipiny) desc es sosbadbocdsacepenscedboasas 98 | Ordered off July 11.
Teresa 63
Triumph 15
WAVGsh bt cacesiee ese 92
Wanderer 16
Winifred 13

Besides our own twenty-four British vessels, it is said that thirty-two of other
nations have cleared at San Francisco and Puget Sound ports, all intending to go to
Behring’s Sea this year.

Value of | White P

363 Owners. Vessel. Tonnage.) Outfit. Men, | Idians.
Carne and Munsie....-.-..-.--------- Mary Taylor.......... 43 $8, 000 5 22
ID SbepnoSonee son SeocnecoocoSeaTose Pathtinder.--........- 66 10, 000 PPA SSS OBS
ID Deasaaceecace - See poUebeSe roster sc Milby anne cares opoarc 92 12, 000 ety | em oie re erate
DS Mcenn sso. soccer seater e Mary Ellen.---....... 63 8, 000 D1 Esse steer
MAC BakerjangOomcssess- =. seeeeeeee Eeiumpheeese eee seen 98 14, 000 80-|cee este
C. Spring....--.----------5---------- Favorite -..---.-.----- 80 8, 000 7 30
IDAs Sanco soood cao p oder sepeceoocs Kate ss cece. eseesccice 58 7, 000 5 30
NGS RUSTON peo nose een Cosreooosercas PANINOY Ase sole etaiela= atta 41 8, 000 4 24
WaCODSEN fees] ee cese eee ares cere Minnieses sae -so- eee 46 8, 500 4 30
Manvantand COX. sees nee eee Sappliret=----.----5-- 124 15, 000 6 40
iG Wonal deans a sees eee eee Wanifreds.-4-s-c.-<-1-8 13 2, 500 5 10
PAC ranke pees se see ee seein eee sea ere Black Diamond ....--- 82 9, 500 5 30
Dittome ecco ee cose ee eesce sesso IRI eeee sana SooDaOSS0> 69 8, 500 5 36
Gray and Moss......------------.--- Penelope.........-...- 70 10, 000 Wiles saseeeee
Dodd land (CGlee--s-s5-e eee meegie ike Seb soccceS 71 10, 000 Pat eeso- ocose
Lundberg and Co..-.....------------- W. P. Sayward ....... 60 8, 000 5 50
Hall and Goepel..-..---.----.----.-- Juanita... -s-..---.. 40 6, 000 5 28
Moore and Hackett..----.-.--.------ Annie C. Moore. ..---- 113 15, 000 2D |Vcee laces
Babington and Co.....--..---------- Ao est oeene ser enesad 63 10, 000 20 ieoz cee
IBuCKIAN eee hence eee ccmciteeem ee ATIe) 2252 se teene emesis 90 9, 000 OF leet eee
TEEN SS ceceanscoudasuoosescnccosar Mountain Chiet..--.--- 23 3:000s|scaccnaces 20
Paxton andacoseeeees= enema sence Wanderers) 7-2 cscce = 16 5, 500 3 20
IN hroie, NUNS ie cseoagsssdassoocesdie rinmphissceeeaese ces 15 3, 000 3 15
JONES a asecennooeaccpsdcosneccasesd Metitigecessssseeeceses 28 DEOU0!| Seccvtermneate 20

1,464 | 200,500 262 375

Memorandum.

EstIMaTEs of the Amount paid for Wages, &c., of the Victoria Sealing Fleet, and
the probable Returns.

Wages of crew and hunters, per vessel.......-.--- pewaeoceawoss soe eo meneee $7, 000
Insurance premium on 8,000 dollars, at 7 per cent....---------------------- 560
Provisions, salt, ammunition, &c..-.-..-....-.-. .--------- -----+ +--+ ------ 3, 000
Total per vessel... l22ci.2 ssc cesses =e Sn ee eee eee eee ee emis eter 10, 560
For twenty vessels employed .......-...........-..--------.. ---- ---- 211, 200
An average catch per vessel at, say.----.-.------------------------ 2, 000 skins.
Valne perskin, 7-00), 50.¢_-- 22 ose~ccee een cee eee eee a -15, 000 dollars.

Value for twenty. vessels. ..0--scceeosccs~oseees=eee seeeeeeen see OU neo me

whe’? Sept: yt

bed tet

i ph eS

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 399

Two thousand skins is a low estimate per vessel, and were it not for the interfer-
ence of the United States cutters in Behring’s Sea, the catch would average quite
3,000 skins per vessel.

APPENDIX 3.
Declaration of Carl A. Lundberg.

City oF Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, Carl A. Lundberg, of the city of Vancouver, in the Province of British Colum-
bia, late of the city of Yakohama, Japan, fisherman, do solemnly and sincerely declare
as follows:

1. In the year 1883 I was ship-keeper of the schooner “ North Star,” of Yakohama
aforesaid. The said schooner was engaged in hunting and fishing in Okhotsk Sea
and Kurile Islands. :

2. In the month of September the said schooner was in the vicinity of Robin
Bank, or Island, returning from Cape Patience. One day towards the end of said
month of September, I, with a number of others from the said schooner, landed on
a beach of said Robin Island.

On the island I met the mate of the schooner “Leon,” a vessel in the employ of
the Alaska Commercial Company as a watch vessel, about the said Robin Bank, or
Island.

The said mate had with him about 15 natives of the Aleutian Islands. While on
shore we discovered a great heap of dead and rotton seals piled against the cliff at
the back of a narrow strip of smooth beach such as seals haul up on. I examined
the seals, and found that they had been driven into a heap, clubbed, and afterwards
a great number had been cut and mutilated so as to destroy the skins and hasten
decay. The said mate of the ‘‘Leon” was present, and I asked him why he had
killed all of these thousands of seals—cows and pups. He replied, ‘“‘That is to keep
any of these Yokohama fellows from getting anything this year.” I asked him for
his authority for being on the island and killing the seals. He showed me a docu-
ment signed by the Alaska Commercial Company, directing him not to allow any
persons to land on the island except the servants of the Company. I asked him who
gave him the paper; he replied, he could not tell. The document referred to was

nailed to the wall of the house occupied by the mate and his men.
364 3. Next morning I went back to the beach with thirty-three men, the crews
; of my own vessel, and the schooner ‘‘ Helena,” which was also at the bank.
We began at once to drag the dead seals to the water, and, after three days and
nights hard work, we got the beach cleared. Every man was ordered to keep count
of the number of dead seals he dragged off the beach, and when the work was done
we found that the total number in the pile was between 9,000 and 10,000, nearly all
cows and pups. There were thousands of seals in the water, but they would not
pull out on the beach on account of the stench and filth. We washed the beach as
clean as we could, and turned the gravel over as far as we were able. Shortly a
heavy gale came on which washed the beach quite clean again, and the seals then
began to pull out.

And I make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true
and by virtue of the Act respecting extra-judicial oaths.

(Signed) C. A. LUNDBERG.

Declared and affirmed at the City of Victoria, British Columbia, the 5th day of
October, Aa. D. 1889.
Before me, (Signed) A. L. BELYEA,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia,

No. 250.

International Arbitration and Peace Association to the Marquis of
Salisbury.—( Received December 7.)

40 AND 41, OUTER TEMPLE, STRAND,
London, December 6, 1889.
My Lorp: The Committee of the International Arbitration and
Peace Association have had again brought under their notice the very
unsatisfactory state of affairs that has long prevailed regarding the
seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea and the adjacent coasts,

400 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The proceedings of the United States cruizers in seizing and seques-
trating—and, in some cases, confiscating—the vessels and cargoes of
British subjects engaged in fisheries on the open sea, have caused—as,
no doubt, your Lordship is too well aware—excessive and prolonged
irritation amongst our fellow-citizens of the Canadian Dominion, as it
would appear that those in command of Her Majesty’s vessels on the
Pacific Coast feel themselves, for some reason, unable to check the
high-handed proceedings of the United States cruizers; while those
measures of redress, long since demanded by Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, and ostensibly conceded by the United States Government, do
not appear to have ever been carried out, or compensation made to the
victims of admittedly lawless seizures.

Our Committee are more free in addressing your Lordship on this
subject, inasmuch as the principles of international law involved in
these transactions, and the violation of established Regulations affect-
ing the freedom of the seas, both seem so clear, that they feel per-
suaded that the whole subject has only to be brought afresh to the
serious attention of the United States Government to insure a settle-
ment of the questions at issue and the termination of a grave occasion
for irritation and complaint on the part of Her Majesty’s Canadian
subjects.

In venturing thus to press this international question on the atten-
tion of Her Majesty’s Government, our Committee take leave to refer
to your Lordship’s despatch of the 10th September, 1887, in which the
whole history of the case is clearly recapitulated, and the judicial prin-
ciples concerned are cogently indicated.

Our Committee trust that now that public attention has been again
drawn to this cause of prolonged friction, the arguments in the above-
named valuable State paper will be again placed before the authorities
of the United States, and feel persuaded that an amicable settlement
may now be speedily sought for and attained.

We have, We.
(Signed) W. Martin Woop, Vice-Chairman.
J. FREDK. GREEN, Secretary.

365 No. 251.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 7, 1889.

Sir: I have been informed that a telegram has been received by the
Secretary of State for the Colonies from the Governor-General of Canada,
reporting that his Council have expressed the following views in regard
to reopening negotiations with the United States Government on the
subject of the Behring’s Sea seal fishery.

It is held by the Government of Canada, on evidence which they
deem sufficient, that no real danger exists of the extermination of the
seal fishery in Behring’s Sea. They therefore contend that, if the
United States Government are not of that opinion, that Government
should make the proposals which they consider necessary for the pro-
tection of the species.

If, however, the renewal of negotiations is considered expedient by
Her Majesty’s Government, Canada will agree to that course on the
following conditions:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 401

1. That the United States Government shall first abandon any claim
to regard the Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, and that any existing
legislation in the United States, which would seem to support that
claim, shall be either amended or repealed.

2. That there shall be a direct Representative of Canada on the
British Commission entrusted with the negotiations, in the same manner
as at the negotiations for the Treaty of Washington in 1871, the Fish-
eries Commission under that Treaty, and the Treaty of Washington of
last year.

3. That any conclusions which may be the result of the negotiations
shall be referred to the Dominion Government for approval.

4, That Great Britain and Canada, without Russia, shall conduct
any negotiations for compensation for losses to British subjects arising
out of the action of the United States authorities.

I have to request you to inform me whether you consider that these
proposals will furnish the bases of possible negotiation.

Iam, Se.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 252.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received by telegraph,
December 10.)

WASHINGTON, December 12, 1889.

My Lorp: Immediately on the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram
of the 7th instant, containing certain proposals of the Dominion Govy-
ernment in relation to the Behring’s Sea question, and instructing me
to report whether, in my opinion, those proposals furnished a basis of
possible negotiation, I obtained an interview with Mr. Blaine, and I
sounded him on the subject of Canada being directly represented in
any diplomatic negotiations which might be renewed for the settlement
of the controversy. Mr. Blaine at once expressed his absolute objec-
tion to such a course. He said the question was one between Great
Britain and the United States, and that his Government would certainly
refuse to negotiate with the Imperial and Dominion Governments jointly,
or with Great Britain, with the condition that the conclusions arrived
at should be subject to the approval of Canada.

I did not touch on the other proposals, for the following reasons:

As regards the abandonment of the mare clausum claim, no such claim
having been officially asserted by the United States Government, they
would naturally object to withdraw it; and as regards the suggested
amendment of their legislation, such a proposal would gravely embitter
the controversy, and is hardly necessary, as I conceive that there is
nothing in the terms of such legislation, if correctly interpreted, with
due regard to international law, which supports the mare clausum claim.

Lastly, it has never been suggested that Russia should intervene in the
question of compensation, but on that question also the United States

Government will insist on negotiating with Great Britain alone.
066 In my opinion, therefore, the proposals of the Dominion Goy-
ernment do not furnish a basis of possible negotiation.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

BS. PP y 26

402 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 253.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received December 10.)

DOWNING STREET, December 10, 1889.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a telegram from the Governor General of Canada,
containing the views of his Government as to the proposed negotiations
at Washington for the establishment of a close time for seals in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

As at present advised, Lord Knutsford is disposed to think that the
conditions (b), (¢), (d), upon which the Dominion Government are will-
ing to enter upon the negotiations, may be acceded to; and his Lord-
ship trusts that the point referred to in (a) may prove capable of
arrangement.

I am to take this opportunity of transmitting to you, for Lord Salis-
bury’s information, copies of the despatch and the telegram to which
this message replies.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 253.]

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, November 23, 1589.

My Lorp: Her Majesty’s Government have been informed that a proposal to renew
at Washington the diplomatic negotiation commenced last year between the Govern-
ments of the United States, Great Britain, and Russia, with a view to prevent the
extermination of seals in Bebring’s Sea by their wholesale destruction during the
breeding season, would be acceptable to the Government of the United States.

In commencing negotiation it would be desirable to obtain, in the first place, an
admission from the United States Government that they have no right to claim the
Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, and thus admission will of course remove a serious
impediment which had embarrassed the discussion of the various questions at issue.
Another point to be kept in view, would be the consent of the United States Govern-
ment to give such directions as may be necessary for the prevention of any further
seizures of Canadian vessels in the Behring’s Sea, though it may be observed that
the negotiations ought to be satisfactorily concluded before April, until which month
there would be no question of further seizures.

With regard to the compensation payable on account of past seizures, there is
reason to believe that the United States Government would propose that this subject
should form a part of the general negotiations.

I think I am right in concluding that the Dominion Government is now prepared
to concur in any reasonable arrangement for the establishment of a close’season in
Behring’s Sea, and I therefore anticipate that your advisers will agree with Her
Majesty’s Government in thinking it expedient to commence the suggested negoti-
ation at an early date, Her Majesty’s Minister being assisted during the negotiation
by an officer or officers of the Canadian Government.

You will understand that the conclusions which may be arrived at by the Repre-
sentatives of the three Powers would be reported to their respective Governments
for consideration, and would not be binding upon the subjects of any Power which
has not accepted them.

I have explained to the High Commissioner for Canada the general nature of this
proposal, and I shall be glad to learn by telegraph that your Ministers agree with

Her Majesty’s Government that Her Majesty’s Minister should be instructed to
367 propose formally to the United States Government the resumption of the tri-
partite negotiation at Washington in the event of his receiving satisfactory
assurances from Mr. Blaine on the subject of the compensation claimed for British
subjects, and the cessation of seizures.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) KNUTSFORD.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 403

[Inclosure 2 in No. 253.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, December 5, 1889.
Hope that Colonial Government agree to proposal indicated in my despatch of 25rd
November on the seal fishery question. Her Majesty’s Government anxious for reply
by telegraph as soon as possible. .

{Inclosure 3 in No. 253.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENY HOUSE, Ottawa, December 6, 1889.

My Lorp: I had the honour to send to your Lordship to-day a telegraphic mes-
sage, of which the following is the substance:

“Tn reply to your telegram Privy Council, at a meeting held to-day, recommend a
reply to be sent as follows:

“1, Satisfactory evidence is held by Canada tbat the danger of extermination does
not really exist.

“2. That if United States Government holds different opinion the proposal should
be made by them.

“If it is deemed expedient by Her Majesty’s Government to initiate proceedings,
Canadian authorities consent to a reopening of negotiations on the following con-
ditions:

“(a.) That the United States abandon its claim to consider Behring’s Sea as a mare
clausum, and repeal all legislation seeming to support that claim.

“(D.) "That as in the cases of the Washington Treaty 1871, the Fishery Commission
under that Treaty and the Washington Treaty 1888, Canada shall have direct repre-
sentation on the british Commission.

“(e.) The approval of Canada to any conclusions arrived at shall be necessary.

““(d.) Russia to be excluded from the negotiations in reference to compensation
and seizures.”

Ihave, &c., (Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

To, 254.
Foreign Office to International Arbitration and Peace Association.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 11, 1889.
GENTLEMEN: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, in which, on behalf of
the Committee of the International Arbitration and Peace Association,
you call attention to the question of the seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.
I am to state, in reply, for the information of your Committee, that
this matter is receiving the earnest attention of Her-Majesty’s Gov-

ernment.
I am, &e. (Signed) P. CURRIE.

368 No. 255.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received December 12.)

DOWNING STREET, December 12, 1889.
Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 24th
October, relating to the seizure, by the United States authorities in
Behring’s Sea, of the British schooners “ Juanita” and “ Pathfinder,”

404 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before
the Marquis of Salisbury, for such action as his Lordship may think
proper, copies of two despatches from the Deputy Governor of Canada,
forwarding claims for compensation for loss sustained by reason of
such seizures.
Tam, Xe.
(Signed) JOIN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 255.]
Deputy Governor Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

Orrawa, November 14, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to ny despatch of the 21st ultimo, dealing with the
seizure of the British schooner “ Juanita” in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to
transmit herewith a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy
Council, submitting the claim to compensation advanced by the owners of that ves-
sel against the United States Government for loss incurred by reason of her seizure.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 255.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 9th November, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 4th November, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting, in connection with the seizure in the Behring’s Sea of the British
schooner ‘‘ Juanita,” the circumstances attending which were detailed in a Minute
of Council dated the 14th September, 1889, formal statements and claim to compen-
sation for loss incurred by reason of the seizure of said vessel, and the transfer of
the United States Revenue cutter ‘Richard Rush” of her cargo of sealskins and
twelve spears, as well as the estimated balance of sealskins to complete the vessel’s
catch had she not been interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her calling, which,
with incidental expenses, aggregate 14,695 dollars.

The Minister observes that the claim is advanced by Mr. Richard Hall, of Hall,
Goepel, and Co., of Victoria, British Columbia, part owners and business managers,
and by Mr. Charles E. Clarke, part owner and master of the vessel in question; and
he recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper channel to Her
Majesty’s Government, for transmission to the Government of the United States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies for transmission to the
Government of the United States, as recommended by the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries. <

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

369 [Inclosure 3 in No. 255.]
Affidavit of Charles E. Clarke.

Ciry oF VicroriA, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, Charles E. Clarke, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. Lam the duly registered owner of sixteen sixty-fourths of the British vessel
“ Juanita,” schooner-rigged, of the port of Victoria aforesaid, the other owners of
said vessel being Richard Hall, merchant, William J. Goepel, merchant, both of the
said city of Victoria, and Hans Helgeson, of the same place, fisherman, each owning
an equal number of shares in said vessel.

2. On the 7th day of May, A.D. 1889, I cleared the said ‘‘ Juanita” at the Custom-
house at the said port of Victoria for a sealing and hunting voyage in the North

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 405

Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea. On the said voyage I was master of said vessel,
and had a sailing crew of four men. The ‘‘ Juanita” sailed from the port of Vic-
toria on the 8th May last, and was equipped and provisioned for a full season’s
voyage and purposes above mentioned.

3. On the west coast of Vancouver Island I took on board fourteen Indian hunters,
and then sailed northward.

4, On the 2nd day of July last the ‘‘ Juanita” entered Behring’s Sea through the
Ounimak Pass.

5. Early in the morning of the 31st of July last the United States Revenue cutter
“Richard Rush” steamed up to the “Juanita” and demanded that I heave my vessel
to. I did so, and was at once boarded by three officers from the ‘“‘Rush.” ‘The officer
in charge asked me if I had any sealskins on board, and asked me if I had taken any
seal in Behring’s Sea. I told him | had come into the sea on the 2nd July, and had
about 600 skins on board. He then reported to the Captain of the ‘‘ Rush,” inform-
ing me that he would have to seize my vessel and her cargo.

6. The Captain of the “ Rush” ordered the sealskins to be taken from the “Juanita”
and put on board the ‘‘ Rush,” which was at once done, the number taken being 600.
A demand was made by the boarding officer for my ship’s papers, and all guns, ammu-
nition, and spears on board. He obtained the ship’s papers and spears (twelve in
number), which were taken on board the ‘‘ Rush.”

7. ‘‘Hereto annexed, marked “A,” is a copy of the certificate of seizure given to
me by the ofticer from the said steamer ‘ Richard Rush,” who also instructed me to
proceed to Sitka, in the territory of Alaska, and to deliver a sealed letter, which he
then handed me to the United States District Attorney of that place.

8. Being unable to continue sealing and hunting, I sailed out of Behring’s Sea, and
arrived at Victoria aforesaid on the 30th day of August last.

9. On my arrival at Victoria I handed the said sealed letter to the Collector of
Customs.

10. Had the “Juanita” not been seized, and her hunting implements taken away,
I verily believe that the said “Juanita” would have made a total catch in Behring’s
Sea the full season of 1889 of not less than 1,800 sealskins.

Declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, by the said Charles E. Clarke,
the 15th day of October, a. Dp. 1889.

(Signed) CHARLES E. CLARKE.

Before me,

(Signed) ARTHUR Louis BELYEA,
A Notary Public by Royal authority in and for the Province of British
Columbia, residing and practising at Victoria aforesaid.

370 [Inclosure 4 in No. 255.]
Certificate.

UNITED STATES STEAMER “‘ Rusu,”
Behring Sea, Lat. 55° 42’ N., Long. 170° 40' W., July 31, 1889.

To whom it may concern:

This will certify that I have this day seized the British schooner ‘‘ Juanita,” of
Victoria, British Columbia, C. E. Clarke, master, for violation of Law, section 1956,
Revised Statutes, United States, and taken possession of his ship’s papers, consist-
ing of registry and clearance.

(Signed) L. G. SHEPARD,
Captain, United States Revenue Marine.

This is the exhibit marked (A) referred to in annexed Declaration of Charles E.
Clarke, made before me the 15th day of October, 1889.
(Signed) A. G. BELYEa, Notary Public.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 255.]
Affidavit of Richard Hall.

City oF Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, Richard Hall, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, merchant, of the firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., do solemnly
and sincerely declare as follows:

1. That the said firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., are the owners of thirty-two shares
of the hereinafter-mentioned schooner ‘‘ Juanita,” of the Port of Victoria aforesaid,
and are the business managers of the said schooner.

406 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

2. The said schooner was in May last sent by the said firm on a sealing and hunting
voyage in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

3. The said schooner returned to Victoria the last of August, having taken, as I
am informed, and do believe, by the captain of the said schooner, on said voyage,
653 sealskins, of which number the said firm received only thirty- two skins, sent to
us from said schooner by the ‘‘ Wanderer” before the ‘‘ Juanita” entered Behring’s
Sea, said thirty-two sealskins h: wing been taken outside Behring’ s Sea.

4. The remainder of the sealskins “taken by the ‘‘ Juanita” was, as I am informed
by the said captain, and do verily believe, taken from the ‘ Juanita” on or about
the 31st day of July last, when said schooner was in Behring’s Sea, by the orders of
the Commander of the United States steamer “Richard Rush.”

5. The market value of sealskins at the said Port of Victoria on or about the Ist
October instant, when, in the ordinary course, the “ Juanita” would have arrived
after a full season’s voyage aforesaid, was 8 dollars a skin.

6. From the number of sealskins taken by the ‘‘ Juanita” up to the said 31st July
I verily believe that the said schooner would, in a full season, have taken at least
1,800 sealskins.

7. At the same time the sealskins were taken from the ‘‘ Juanita” by the officers
of the said United States steamer ‘‘ Richard Rush,” there was also taken by the
said officers, as I am informed by Captain Clarke, and do believe, twelve spears the
value of which was 3 dollars each, and the ship’s papers.

8. The said firm of Hall, Goepel, and Co., claims damages against the Government
of the United States of America for such taking and detention of sealskins, spears,
and ship’s papers, based upon the value of the skins actually taken, and for 1,178
skins, the balance of an estimated catch of 1,800 sealskins by the said schooner for
full season of 1889 in Behring’s Sea; also for the value of the said spears, and for
the cost of obtaining a new set of ship’s papers from the Government of Canada,
and for legal and other expenses in connection with the preparation and submission
of this claim.

9. That hereto annexed, marked ‘“‘ B,” is a statement in detail of such claim.

10. That upon the sailing of the said schooner in May last, advances were made to
the hunters based upon a full season’s catch, and said hunters will, upon payment

of such claim, be entitled to and will receive their share thereof.
371 And I, Richard Hall, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing
the same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.

Declared by the said Richard Hall at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, the
14th day of October, a. D. 1889.

(Signed) RICHARD HALL.

Before me,

(Signed) A. L. BELYFA,
A Notary Public by Royal authority in and for the Province of British
Columbia, residing and practising at Victoria aforesaid.

{Inclosure 6 in No. 255.)

(B.)

DETAILED Statement of Claim by Owners of British Schooner ‘ Juanita” against
the Government of the United States of America.

620 sealskins taken from “Juanita” in Behring’s Sea by United States’

steamer “Richard Rush,”at/8 dollars per slant ----- 920 aee eae eee $4, 960. 00
1,178 sealskins, balance of an estimated catch of 1,800 sealskins by the

“ Juanita” for the full season of 1889 in Behring’s Sea, at 8 dollars per

SEG iS seas ee a ee ee eer eee hes ers mG eiscb Sasa bo a=2>Se58 9, 424. 00
i spears: atio dollars .oo2s 85 See a ee eee cece * 36. 00
Costiofobtainine mew ship's papers ss--ee. = eae sees ee eee eee eee 25. 00
Legal and other expenses incidental to the seizure.-......-...---.-----.-- 250. 00

Total poeccwaeic cele sec nia ss se seiscice sole ais See ee see me eee e maene ee 14, 695. 00
(Signed) RICHARD HALL.

This is the exhibit (B) referred toin the declaration of Richard Hall hereto annexed,
made before me the 14th day of October, 1889.
(Signed) A. L. BretyEa, Notary Public.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 407

[Inclosure 7 in No. 255.]
Deputy Governor Ritchie to Lord Knutsford.

OTrawa, November 15, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 23rd September last, relating to
the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British schooner ‘ Pathfinder” by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush,” I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an
approved Minute of the Privy Council submitting the claim to compensation of the
managing owner of that vessel for the loss sustained by reason of her seizure by the
United States authorities.

Ihave, &c. (Signed) W. J. RITCHIE.

{Inclosure 8 in No. 255.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 9th November, 1889.

On a Report dated the 5th November, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting in connection with the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British
schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” the circumstances attending which were detailed ina Minute
of Council dated the 14th September, 1889, formal statement and claim to compen-
sation for loss incurred by reason of the seizure of the vessel and the transfer of her
cargo to the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush,” as well as the estimated
balance of sealskins to complete the vessel’s catch, had she not been interfered with

in the legitimate pursuit of her calling, aggregating 26,765 dollars.
372 The Minister observes that the claim is advanced by Mr. William Munsie,
of the firm of Carne and Munsie, of Victoria, managing owner of the vessel in
question, and he recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper chan-
nel to Her Majesty’s Government for transmission to the Government of the United
States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for transmission to the
Government of the United States, as recommended by the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 9 in No. 255.]
Affidavit of William Munsie.

Ciry or Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, William Munsie, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, merchant, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. [am a member of the firm of Carne and Munsie, merchant, of the said city of
Victoria, the said firm being composed of Frederic Carne, Junior, of the same place,
and myself.

2. Thesaid Frederic Carne, Junior, is the registered owner of sixteen shares of the
hereinafter mentioned schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” of the Port of Victoria; I am the reg-
istered owner of sixteen shares of said schooner, and the said firm are registered
owners of the remaining thirty-two shares. I am the managing owner of the said
schooner.

3. The said schooner ‘ Pathfinder” cleared at the Custom-house, Victoria, afore-
said, on the 17th day of April, a. D. 1889, for a hunting and sealing voyage in the
North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and sailed on the 18th day of April, a. D. 1889.

4. On the said voyage William O’Leary was master, and Andrew Davidson was
mate. ‘The crew consisted of a cook, twelve seamen, and five hunters.

5. On the 24th July last I received from the said ‘‘ Pathfinder” by the schooner
“Wanderer” from the north, 558 sealskins which had been caught by the ‘“ Path-
finder” in the Pacific Ocean on her way northward to Bebring’s Sea.

6. On the 30th August last the said ‘‘ Pathfinder” returned to Victoria aforesaid,
having on board an officer from the United States steamer ‘‘ Richard Rush.” Captain
O’Leary reported to me that on the 29th day of July last the said United States
steamer “‘ Richard Rush” hailed him in Behring’s Sea about 57° 24’ north latitude
and 171° 55’ west longitude, and ordered him to heave to. The ‘‘ Pathfinder” was
immediately boarded by officers from the said ‘Richard Rush.” The officer in charge
seized the “‘ Pathfinder ” and took away all the sealskins on board (854), eight shot-
guns, four rifles, six boxes of ammunition, a quantity of salt, and the ship’s papers.
He left an officer on board in charge, and ordered Captain O’Leary to take the
“Pathfinder” to Port of Sitka, in the Territory of Alaska.

408 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

7. At the time of such seizure the sealing season in Behring’s Sea was less than
half gone, and I verily believe that had the ‘ Pathfinder” remained unmolested in
Behring’s Sea until the close of the season she would have caught not less than 2,100
sealskins. I have this on information given me by the said Captain O’Leary and by
Captain Baker, of the schooner ‘‘ Viva,” also owned by us and managed by myself,
who was in the Behring’s Sea the whole season of 1889. The hunting equipment of
the said two schooners was about equal.

A few days before the ‘“ Pathfinder” was seized as aforesaid, she was spoken by
the ‘‘ Viva.” At that time the ‘‘ Pathfinder” had 449 sealskins on board, and the
“Viva” 420. The “Viva” caught in the full season in Behring’s Sea 2,182 sealskins,
and for the year a total of 3,641 skins.

8. In the year 1888, and this year 1889, the said firm of Carne and Munsie shipped
their sealskins to London on their own account, and hereto annexed, marked (B), is
acopy of the account sales of part of the catch of the ‘‘ Pathfinder” for the year
1888; and hereto annexed, marked (C), is a copy of the account-sales of the said
** Pathfinder’s” catch of seals in the spring of 1889, before going north. The seal-
skins per first account sales (1888) netted the said firm at Victoria, British Columbia,

about 12 dol. 25 ce. per skin, and, per the second account sales, they netted the
373 said firm about 10 dol. 30 c. per skin at Victoria, British Columbia. The catch

of 1889 was a spring catch, which always contains a larger percentage of
small skins than the summer and fall catches, and hence realize less per skin on an
even market.

9. I, for myself, the said Frederic Carne, Junior, and for the said firm of Carne and
Munsie, claim damages against the Government of the United States of America for
the seizure of the said ‘‘ Pathfinder,” and for the taking and detention of the said
854 sealskins, and for 1,246, the balance of the estimated catch of 2,1U0 in Behring’s
Sea for a full season; also for the guns, rifles, ammunition, salt, and ship’s papers
seized as aforesaid; and for legal and other expenses incidental to, and arising out
of, such seizure, and the preparation and submission of this claim therefor, and
interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum.

10. Hereto annexed, marked (A), is a Statement in detail of such claim.

11. I am in constant communication with my agents in London, England, and from
information I have received from such agents, I verily believe that the price of
summer and fall catches of sealskins from North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea for
1889 will be fully up to the price obtained for the ‘‘Pathfinder’s ” catch, sold as per
account-sales (B), hereto annexed, namely, 12 dol. 25 c. per skin net, at Victoria,
British Columbia.

12. That I have paid in full the crew and hunters of the ‘‘ Pathfinder” for the
season of 1889, including the sums due to them in respect of the 854 sealskins seized
as aforesaid.

And I, William Munsie, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the
same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths.

Declared by the said William Munsie, at Victoria, the 18th day of October, a. D.
1889, before me.

(Signed) WILLIAM MUNSIE.
(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEA,
A Notary Public by Royal authority in and for the Province of British
Columbia, residing and practising at Victoria, British Columbia.

(Inclosure 10 in No. 255.]
(A.)

STATEMENT of claim by owners of schooner ‘ Pathfinder” against the Government
of the United States of America, for seizure in Behring’s Sea on the 29th July, 1889.

854 sealskins (seized).
1, 246 skins, balance of estimated catch by ‘‘ Pathfinder” for full season
1889 in Behring’s Sea,

—_—_—_—

2-1 00skins, ‘at. 12 dolw25c:'each sce. ssccce cance ccleeieeetincocmecceeeneees $25, 725. 00
Si shot-cuns, at 2>idollars each?! 2. ese sc. 05 seco eee ee ee eee ee eee ee ee eee 440. 00
Avriflesatco dollars (each <i 22 Wl U saa ae ee eee el ene eee 100. 00
Guboxesammunitionvat says she occ se eee bee sees aoe one eee eee 200. 00
Salts ere Pe peat ek Ct SE Se eA cee Ee I Soo ree eae 25. 00
Costiof obtaininine new, ship’s papers. = =-2 e+ se. eee eee en aaees 25. 00
Legal and other expenses arising out of, and incidental to, such seizure... - 250. 00

Totals 52 yee Ne nlesaa tin ee cs anes prone oe sees cee aeseloe ces secs 26, 765. 00

And interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum until paid.
(Signed) WILLIAM MUNSIE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 409

This is the Statement of claim referred to in the declaration of William Munsie,
as marked (A), hereunto annexed, and made the 18th day of October, 1889.
Before me, (Signed) A. L. Betysa, Notary Public.

374 UNITED STATES REVENUE STEAMER ‘‘RusH,”
Lat. 57° 24' N., Long. 171° 55’ W., Behring’s Sea, July 29, 1889.

Sr: You are hereby appointed a special officer, and are directed to proceed on
board the schooner “ Pathfinder,” of Victoria, British Columbia, this day seized for
violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes of the United States, and assume charge
of said vessel, her officers, and crew, twenty white men all told.

Excepting the navigation of the vessel, which is reserved to Captain O’Leary, and
which you will not interfere with, unless you become convinced he is proceeding to
some other port than your port of destination, in which event you are authorized to
assume full charge of the vessel. Everything being in readiness, you will direct
Captain O’Leary to make the best of his way to Sitka, Alaska, and upon arrival at
that port you will report in person to the United States District Attorney for the
District of Alaska, and deliver to him the letter so addressed, the schooner, her out-
fit, and the persons of Captain O’Leary, Mate, A. Davidson, and set the crew at lib-
erty. After being relieved of the property and persons entrusted to your care, you
will await at Sitka the arrival of the ‘‘ Rush.”

Respectfully, (Signed) L. C. SHEPARD,
Captain, United States Revenue Marine.
- WILLIAM MUNSIE.
T. W. Hunvrer, Special Officer.

Lonpon, July 14, 1889. (Prompt, July 18, 1889.)
Account Sales.

Sold by order and for account of Messrs. Carne and Munsie, a. p. sale.
PER ‘‘ PATHFINDER.”

C. and M.
P. 6 and p. 11 casks salted fur-seal skins.

Lot. Ga Bias
NOM Giesmallsfur-sealeskins at o0s. cache esses ene toe c iene ltaslceistniee L6G NO a0)
Hie LOlMarrespups Gibbowab ood. CACM seein soe eens) o ccna 267 13 O
Zee MNAdlinoe ditto, atrozs: Cacho stat. 5 o-oo oases ee ae eee aes 192 Sra O)
StasOmemalledittos aty44an caches soca ose ae ae ecco tem ane nates ane PIS Ie Se 20
AO IOX ce OUbbO Mab one OAC Meas so cision cies om aa cas casle scissne te aaees Aa OO)
[ee eeMiadlingedibtOn abiols reac lies. oasecysece a \avcinoe meee Aalejeer—aroe Gog 40

AESMAlleaieto sat ols: CEM ooo soe aces) os oe ce te eiarmcisise lel sla a= Be on)

380 Soi 10 O

Discount) 2F pericentsc 5.2. tacec sso sae cises esas sass Paphos ke) AS)

Sto, dd
June 24— ES AAT
Landing charges, telegrams, &c....-------.------------ Io! 189
Housing and striking, 380 at 3s. 9d. per 100.....---.--.- 0 14 3
Piling away to sorter, 380, at 1s. 104d. per 100.--...----- Ome iesarl
Weighing for average, 100, at 28. 6d. per 100.--.--..---- OF 252-6
Cessing for assortment, 380, at 2s. 6d. per 120...--..---- OF inet
Counting at delivery, 380, at 1s. 3d. per 120..-..-.-.-.-- 0 4 10
Rentroniss0abi6 pa l20 wk ld wkSescce. aac esece cca Of 6) £
Showing for public sale, lotting, &c..--.........--.---- OR ie 3
Simidecey
Allowance, 20 per cent. on £2 13s. 4d.-..........----- OF 10273
Spee OMeeO
Assorting for sale, 380, at 5s. 24d. per 100...........-..- OF AIO
Public sale charges, advertising, &c., 6 lots, at 3s. 6d... 1 1 0
HIRE ANSUTANCe. 1 Pek COlboc== ates sos ce sae sce ese eee 2 wee alal
Canmissions 2a Net) CONt ot =, <5. -/. sss sn ssn cessiens See 22 One

— BU Ue Bb

845 O 4

(Signed) CULVERWELL, Brooks, and Co.

WILLIAM MUNSIE.

410 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

375 This is the exhibit marked “‘C” referred to in the declaration of William

Munsie, made before me the 18th day of October, 1889.

(Signed) A. L. Betyna, Notary Public.

PER ‘‘ PATHFINDER.”
P.10 casks salted fur-seal skins.

Lot. Sean
Ie 13: small tor-seal skins, at 20s each ans arse ese ae eee eee eee ahhes thee 0)
DLO SLATES UPS KCL. geared ea eC tee ey pee ase ee Se eh (0)
ou LOT midldilin codrtto abioss sOuC Naa. es eee oe) ern eee 31) oe
A SOU SDL ALGO Ab lis CAC = rs ee eee re ete ee ie eee ery as eae 150) 3 olen O
ee OP OX OU CO. AU) he ORCL cre cece eet ener Re nny ar Ue pen

2 middling ditto, at 27s. each.----.-- a Seay a Soe ee eae See ae 2 14 O
G3 ear ce pups Cato fabiogs.16 aC lessee aan eae ieee eee 210 12 O
(noe LaLoe pups Otto abipos Ca Nee pe mee see ae eae 21 Sebo
Chee TikariO Gl bina Gbunie) Chi BPe Lo GHIClies 6 Iie ae ee toes ee eh os sbe eo =< 184 12 0
OL Roles lag bOnab 458. CACM) se aes cee aes aes a eens aren ee en 66S ae)
565 1 OUD a ley 0
Discounti2s pericenit-2 see ae eee eee ee eee ee othe go) bem a0)
1,467 19 0
November 1-— pore ey tk
andincvcharmes; telecrams ade Ceecnmen see tee ere ean OMeeliT nO)
Housing and striking, ! 565, at 3s. 9d. DerlUO Cee ee See ee eee
Piling away to sorter, 565, at 1s. 103d. per ye ees O. 0
Weighing for average, 150, at 28.6d. per100...-........ 0 3 9
Cessing for assortment, 565, at 2s.6d. per120............ 0 11 9
Counting at delivery, 565, at 1s.3d.per100-............ 0 5 11
INGA Civ DEbhE NO dH D dey di ooaee sco sgee bese WO lhe ©
Showing for public sale; lotting, &c:. 2.2. 2.22-:.-...... 0 16 11
4 18 10
Allowance, 20 per cent. on £4 1s. 10d. 2-2 .-.22.-:... 0 16° 4
A ee 2G
Assorting for sale, 565, at 5s. 24d. per 100.. Se cegh elie SOU PE
Public sale charges, advertising, &c., 9 lots, at 38. 6d... Se SG
OV MNSUPAN CO aoe oe ee cee erste ae cin ee ae ET aan
Commission, 5 per CORB aace cban oo be AES SIRE, SEIS
84 6 8
1,383 12 6
(Signed) WILLIAM MUNSIE.

DECEMBER 4, 1888.

This is the exhibit marked “‘B” referred to in the declaration of William Munsie,

made before me the 18th day of October, 1889.

(Signed) A. L. BeLyEas, Notary Public.

Messrs. CARNE and MUNSIE:

We have this day sold for your account at public auction the undermentioned

goods in conformity with the sale conditions.
Prompt, the 4th December, 1888. Discount, 24 per cent.

EX ‘f PATHFINDER.”
P. 10 casks.

JS smallisaltedsinn-sealskins tps eee eee eee seas ceneeeee
10 Jarrepupsicitto.: sche so ase ae oe eee nn, ne Ty aa
. 107 middling CLibtO ass BSE PS SEs Seen ee ts See Se ee
BO small ditto .2-<c:bo..). Mineo! eG ere ee si TD

9 ex small ditto

2 OVA Gin Bee Shas PASS SOAS Se ea RR Ee ert ee
Slilarse pups. ditto..2.-c2: toce2 de. sel eee eee eee. eee
SZAGIUTO MCh Oe =. ee ae eee
(obi alhineanigeas see se Ss eosae
20 small Gititor: Stk ose tak eee SRS ee ie Oe

2 Git, Gibb Gas. eh bb 2 eee soe eet eae eee eee ee

Cougs mew S!
co

49s. each.
HRs,

58s. GC
les ye
278 50
ies # SS
ping ee
FOX Ge
52s “c
AS
ils ke ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Ait

376 TOS GE AIAN
V.32 casks.
Lot.
10. ShwWles LOL SCAUSKINS Ube ses sets cttcesee ciss ese ocenssnsas Sot ee 70s. each,
NO dG nov Cho meets ee eee ere epee a erase ee ee ae we hente OSa o
ake AU SCENE to Ree Se SSS AAA SSeLI ees Set ae eee HT SeieeC aes Roti CC
COO LATO es INNS CuthO ss. can se ere snare cele aaj enae ie tones acels See oe see Spin |
HAS Conalb bos OiihOma= sae naas Same eyes ctaate Sis ois Sersieis - esses sees a oeeie Bok
ep ile Aurore Kol bone Chi NS aera aa cae eae eects Sea Soe aa ge a Hae
DE Sue VOLO MGUO LLO Mee te he Ree ne ee mene see ane toes sete ohee ogee ary CC
DIME Gh TELOMLIEEG oe oes ee EE A FEIN A A SEIS AL Aad 56s. «é
Pee Om AOOISTOMKGttOmes ce eeels see ae eects site eines mis ecla tbo oe asec sects 468. <“
Done el OOMibtowlttor sesso asses a Soa hice Se = Cece hee emesis AMT, 206
BME si udGOOiLLOmae soa ce aoa ce Ste SRN Oe ei gery 46s. “
Slee eOLexas maya dub bOe ec Mee ose Solana coe cee See ae ne ee ore vera See Oem
32. Splat Cen CHb tO me es eee ent soe a eee See ee SS Pe eae HG ey Od
Doe 2oumiddliney didtione ss esc h2) Sk ae shee ee ee ee seas Anleee ce
34. lGrsmalledithonse seers tee bee en OE ee See Poe eee ao eeiaee BEES. ew!
35. NGESESYLENGLO Sess 5 ss secon ea seseee ia See oe iia is stein = tine tty Sse

otal, 6,5801. 12s. 4d.
(Signed) CULVERWELL, BROOKS, AND Co.
47, St. Mary Axe.

CULVERWELL, Brooks, AND Co.
27 St. Mary Axe. London, February 2, 1589.

Result of Sales of Salted Fur-Seal Skins.

17,133 North-west Coast..

5,576 Lobos Island ...--- offered and sold.

There was again a good demand for this important article at the sales held on the
1st instant, and all classes sold readily at the advanced prices established at the
November auctions. The skins were chiefly purchased by the English, French, and
American buyers. There is every indication of prices being maintained,

PRICES.
| North-west} Lobos

Coast. Islands.

ees Sess
Ib GIS cai GRO Sica scinogs Sa osoon doable pooBdo OSE ED Oa Sae Bos oneoososeses 30'to'40) |. 252-22 22-5-
STINE E SSCS OBO C AOE Te ner ates Seni esas eh Mins ees gos yl = as ne SEBS ee aaa S 29 46 23 to 41
IDATTED NBO bec e aaa ou soed ob be 60 o seD TBSP ORnS SoeSere Janae ee BEr Oa Seep a eS rooECe 30 653 29 36
WiC PS GMC he eR oor osce AANA boob Shee en aCOe SAE OoCe Sor ooesUrSedtonaeaaaosc P+) RA 2t 633
Sinalliditto) 2s5-2-2--5.5=< Bt ar eA ne Can a I ee or Sra ee eae 22)) 43 19 26
oS GTO MWhth Me ee GaSe CBSO EEaa CO CHS EROS Cer E Cn ene Het eae Seat ree es 19 38 16 «21
aE) Kea © KAS TNA MONO sepa cere = eos ietain cys sevatats alae oleicte om wraiee ein femese ee latte so Selsiatale Daag (0: be See

With Culverwell, Brooks, and Co.’s complinents.
Messrs. CARNE AND MUNSIE&.

CULVERWELL, BROOKS, AND Co.
27 St. Mary Axe, London, November 9, 1888.

Special Result of Sales of Salted Fur-Seal Skins, November 9, 1888.

LOO 000A askaneeanaceosee
9,003 North-west Coast. . > offered and sold.
13,333 Lobos Island ..-.--

There was a large attendance of buyers at these sales, and throughout active coms
petition prevailed, and on all classes an important advance was established. In the
Alaska collection the smaller sizes realized relatively the highest prices. We
377 quote middlings, smalls, and large pups, 28 per cent. to 26 per cent. dearer,
and middlings and smalls, middling pup, small pups, and extra small pups,

43 per cent. to 48 per cent. higher.

412 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The 9,003 North-west Coast contained one fine parcel which realized extreme rates,
ee on other parcels an average advance of 20 per cent. to 30 per cent was estab-
ished. :

The 13,333 Lobos Islands skins contained one good parcel of 2,000 skins, which
realized 40 per cent higher rates. The other assortments were not of a desirable
description, but 20 per cent. higher rates were paid.

The few Alaska skins dressed in their natural state by a well-known English firm,
sold as follows:

Middlings and smalls, 150s. each; small, 1188., 119s.; large pups, 938., 948.; mid-
dling pups, 78s.; small pups, 66s., 673.; extra small pups, 63s. each. These prices
include the cost of dressing.

PRICES.

Alaska. ae eat est Lobos Islands.

fe C5 Soy nes BOs SSSetL
SW ERS Pete en crete eictalheinicte © oe wa cwieete see a inaiat aeees sieteieiece nce oat eee 23 to 28 | 29 0to30 0
Mioclinosiand:smalls?. 22-5225. cet oss aoe eee soccer anes 68 to 120 33 PY mace cise Scns
IU OUI Wie Aa Sins Scene Jas ouoc chee sodoans sesso Se sonoAssoacedacuaall tte 29 452] 5
SUS ty ee eo eee eno Oe ee ee een ML 68 116) 29. “515 2* 8 ete
UPD EY OEE Serie 8 tei ce see os sos BocdoesHesd ot Geos Bacecnsr eae) lr 92 26 54/24 0 37 0
WO GK ie Min as aaSoe neOc er eroseaann = enEeeELcocHneEosceacaae ae 50 81 21 51> | 2010) 3870
Smal Gitte wes cocina ser esas no catnienmcite sc. eee eee ee emer ee sci 4o 66 19 39;12 0 31 0
Jibe RINE NIG Neonaraopo cles emnacandascd asoaebsascesAaecssccese 50 62 14 29) 8 0 20 0
Jor OIG UPO Ce dose nos seeo lose Joos qe or aA secur oaeaae sasal Asosdeade 11 26 |izacecsess scene
(Greeny CUI S Ss tes6 ci aadOo Sb ao Sacd> Hodge adem sls sage cHaconscusse 9 PAD! soon .6ads5- ES: 8 6

With Culverwell, Brooks, and Co’s compliments.
To Messrs. CARNE AND MUNSIZ£,
Odd Fellows’ Buildings, Douglas Street, Victoria, British Columbia.

No. 256.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received December 13.)

DOWNING STREET, December 13, 1889.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which
he has addressed to the Governor-General of Canada respecting the
proposed negotiations at Washington on the subject of a close time for
seals in Behring’s Sea.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure in No. 256.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, December 11, 1889, 9 p. m.

In reply to your telegram of 6th instant.

Sir J. Pauncefote telegraphs: Mr. Blaine says that his Government have never
asserted mare clausum doctrine, and will make no disclaimer, but that the question
will be disposed of by international agreement for close time.

United States Government do not agree to Canadian representation in negotiation
as to close time. Proceedings would not be in the form of a Commission, but a Dip-
lomatice Conference. British Minister would be advised by Canadian Assistant; and
as conclusions would not be binding unless accepted by Governments, it would seem
unnecessary to press for direct representation of Canada. Russia would not inter-
vene in negotiations as to compensation to British subjects,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 413

378 No. 257.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received December 14.)

DOWNING STREET, December 14, 1889.

Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 13th
instant, inclosing copy of a telegram which had been addressed to the
Governor-General of Canada, relating to the proposed negotiations at
Washington on the subject of the establishment of a close time for seals
in the Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you,
to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram received
from the Governor-General, in reply, communicating the views of his
Government on points connected with this matter.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) JOUN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 257.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

(Received December 14, 1889.)

Substance of Resolutions passed at meeting of Council yesterday :

Mare clausum doctrine has been asserted by United States of America, by instruct-
ing its officers to seize vessels in mid-ocean, by setting up that doctrine in the
Courts, by obtaining condemnation of ships on that doctrine, and by selling the prop-
erty of Canadians under such condemnation. Canada expects British Government
not to conclude arrangement unless Behring’s Sea declared in it to be free. She
adheres to opinion that agreement as to close season and preservation of seals should
be subject to her approval as one of the parties chiefly interested in the question.

Agreement as to close season should be terminable by each of the Parties to the
Treaty. Canada fails to understand objection of the United States of America to a
Canadian being direct Representative of Her Majesty’s Government; but to avoid
delay, will defer without further protest to course decided on by Her Majesty’s
Government.

No. 258.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received December 16.)

DOWNING STREET, December 16, 1889.

Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
request that you will inform the Marquis of Salisbury, with reference
to the telegram from Lord Stanley of Preston on the proposal to resuine
negotiations respecting the Behring’s Sea (a copy of which was trans-
mitted to you in my letter of the 14th instant), that his Lordship, after
conferring with Sir Charles Tupper, is of opinion that the concurrence of
the Canadian Government in that proposal is now sufficiently complete,
and that Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington may be instructed to
make a formal communication to the United States Government on the
subject.

Lord Knutsford observes with satisfaction that the Dominion Govern-
ment, although strongly impressed with the necessity arising out of the
acts which it recapitulates in the first sentence of the telegram under
consideration of concluding no arrangement which does not either com-
prise or rest upon a definitive assurance as to the freedom of the Behring’s
Sea, is now willing to waive the requirement that a declaration by the

414 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

United States Government to that effect shall precede the resumption
of the negotiations, and to leave for future consideration at what time
and in what manner this assurance shall be obtained.

On the second point raised in the telegram, Lord Knutsford thinks
there can be no question as to complying in some form or other with
the desire of Canada that no rules as to a close season shall be finally
adopted unless she concurs in them. As the negotiations between the
Representatives of the three Powers will be a diplomatic discussion ad
referendum, and as Great Britain has no special interest in the Behring’s
Sea except on behalf of the Canadian fishery, this country could have
no object in assenting to any conclusions unacceptable to the Canadian
Government.

The telegram does not state the reason for which the Dominion
379 Government proposes that any one party to the Agreement shall
have the power of terminating it, and, on this point, it will be
desirable to consider the text of the Resolutions of the Privy Council
when received; but Lord Knutsford apprehends that, as the Dominion
Government considers it demonstrable that no close time is needed for
the preservation of the seals, @ fortiort it holds that any close time
which may be prescribed in the first instance may possibly, after trial,
be found needlessly injurious to the fishery, and should be practically
subject to revision.

As the Dominion Government withdraws its stipulation for the direct
representation of Canada in the negotiations, it will not be necessary
to discuss this point further at the present time, and Lord Knutsford
concludes that simultaneously with the discussion as to the close time,
a Commission, comprising a Canadian Representative, but upon which

russia will not- be represented, will consider the compensation to be
paid inrespect of the seizures of British vessels, and other losses arising
out of past interference with them.

Lord Knutsford would therefore propose, with Lord Salisbury’s con-
currence, to reply to this telegram that Her Majesty’s Government is
glad to find that the Dominion Government consents to the negotiation
in the form proposed, and will consult that Government at stages, and
conclude no agreement as to aclose time without their approval, and
requests that a Representative of the Dominion Government may be
ready to proceed to Washington as soon as Sir J. Pauncefote has received
his instructions.

lam, &e.
(Signed) ROBERT G, W. HERBERT.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 16, 1889.

Str: T have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
10th instant, in which you inclose copies of two despatches from the
Deputy Governor of Canada, forwarding claims for compensation for
losses sustained by the owners of the British schooners “Juanita” and
‘ Pathfinder,” in consequence of the seizure of those vessels by the
United States authorities in Behring’s Sea.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 415

His Lordship directs me to request you to inform Lord Knutsford, in
reply, that these claims will be considered, together with those of other
owners of vesseis which have been seized, in the negotiations which it
is proposed to conduct with the United States, and the commencement
of which is waiting for the consent of the Canadian Government.

Iam, We.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 260.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 17, 1889.

Str: I communicated to the Secretary of State for the Colonies your
telegram of the 9th instant in regard to the question of reopening negoti-
ations with the United States Government on the subject of the seal
fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

The Governor-General of Canada was made acquainted with the views
of the United States Government, as expressed in that telegram, and a
reply has been received from him to the following effect:

“The Government of Canada expects that no arrangement will be
concluded with the United States by Her Majesty’s Government in
which it is not expressly declared that the Behring’s Sea is free.

‘‘They adhere to their view that any agreement as to a close season
and the preservation of seals should be made subject to the approval
of Canada, as one of the parties whose interests are primarily involved ;
and they consider that each of the parties to the Treaty should have
the power of terminating the close season Agreement.

“The Dominion Government are unable to understand why the United
States should object to Her Majesty’s Government being directly repre-
sented by a Canadian Delegate, but, in order to avoid delay, they are
willing to defer without further protest to the course decided on by Her
Majesty’s Government.”

lam, We. (Signed) SALISBURY.

s

380 No. 261.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 17, 1889.

Str: [I have to inform you that the Secretary of State for the Colo-
nies has had under his consideration, in consultation with Sir Charles
Tupper, the views of the Canadian Government, communicated to you
in my despatch of this day’s date, respecting the proposed reopening
of negotiations with the United States on the Behring’s Sea question.

Lord Knutsford is of opinion that those views express with sufficient
completeness the concurrence of the Dominion Government in the bases
which would render such negotiations possible.

They are willing to abandon their former demand that, before the
opening of the negotiations, the United States Government should
make a declaration disclaiming any pretension to regard the Behring’s
Sea as a mare clausum.

416 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The condition under which Canada is to be consulted before the final
acceptance of any rules as to a close season would appear to present
no difficulty, inasmuch as the discussions will be ad referendum.

Her Majesty’s Government are not yet in possession of the text of
the Resolution of the Canadian Privy Council, recommending that the
close-season agreement should be terminable by both parties to the
Treaty, but there would seem to be nothing unreasonable in such a
stipulation.

Although the Canadian demand for a direct representative has been
withdrawn, Lord Knutsford is of opinion that a Commission upon
which Canada, but not Russia, should be represented, might consider
the question of compensation for losses arising out of the action of the
United States authorities at the same time as the discussion on the
close-season agreement is being carried on.

Lord Knutsford will inform the Governor-General of Canada, by
telegraph, that Her Majesty’s Government are glad to learn that the
Dominion Government consent to the reopening of negotiations in the
form proposed; that the Dominion Government will be consulted at all
stages of the discussion; and that no agreement as to a close season
will be concluded without their approval.

Lord Knutsford will, at the same time, suggest that a Canadian
representative should hold himself in readiness to proceed to Wash-
ington as soon as you have received your instructions in regard to the
negotiations. ‘

You are now authorized to make a formal communication to the
United States Government in conformity with the instructions con-
tained in this despatch.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 17, 1889.

Str: In reply to your letter of the 16th instant, I am directed by the
Marquis of Salisbury to transmit herewith, for the information of Lord
Knutsford, a copy of the instructions which have been addressed to
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,* directing him to make a formal
proposal to the Government of the United States for the resumption
of negotiations on the Behring’s Sea question.

I am at the same time to say that Lord Salisbury concurs in the reply
which Lord Knutsford proposes to return to the telegram from the
Governor-General of Canada, a copy of which accompanied your letter
of the 14th instant.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

* No. 261.

_ APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 417

381 No. 263.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received December 18.)

(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1889.

I have received your telegram of yesterday.

It would be desirable that proposed communication of Colonial Office
to Canada as to her consent to close season agreement be deterred.

I think Mr. Blaine will agree to an arrangement for a fixed term, and
afterwards terminable at will of either party; but lam sure he will not
consent to Commission to assess compensation. I have suggested that
we should agree to a lump sum before the negotiation. He is consider-
ing the proposal with the President of the United States.

May I defer sending in a note until your Lordship has received my
private letter, and until Mr. Blaine’s answer reaches me ?

No. 264.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 18, 1889.

Sir: I have received your telegram of this day’s date, respecting the
proposed negotiations on the question of the seal fisheries in Behring’s
Sea.

With reference to the request in the last paragraph, I have to inform
you that you are authorized to defer making a formal proposal to the
United States Government until you receive a reply from Mr. Blaine as
to the possibility of agreeing upon a lump sum for the compensation of
the owners of vessels seized by the United States authorities.

lam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 265.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 23.)

WASHINGTON, December 13, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 12th instant, I have
the honour to inclose herewith an extract from the Report of the Sec-
retary of the Treasury for the year 1889 on the subject of the seal
islands in Behring’s Sea. :

I have, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 265.]

Extract from the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for the year 1889 on the subject
of the Seal Islands in Behring’s Sea.

The lease now held by the Alaska Commercial Company, of the exclusive right to
take fur-seals on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, in Behring’s Sea, expires on
the Ist day of May next. By the provisions of sections 1963 to 1967, Revised Statutes,

TS AL 27

418 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the Secretary of the Treasury is required to lease to proper and responsible parties,
for the best advantage of the United States, having due regard for the interests of
the Government, the native inhabitants, their comfort, maintenance, and education,
the right of taking fur-seals on the islands named, and of sending vessels thereto
for the skins so taken, for the term of twenty years, at an annual rental of not less
than 50,000 dollars, and a revenue tax of 2 dollars upon each fur seal-skin taken dur-
ing the continuance of the lease. These provisions impose a large measure of respon-
sibility upon the Secretary, and the official record of legislative proceedings in the
last preceding session of Congress indicates that it is the will of that body that such
discretion should remain as originally provided in the Statute.

The present lessees of the seal islands pay an annual rental of 55,000 dollars and a
combined revenue tax and royalty of 2 dol. 62} c. per skin, and an experience of
twenty years has shown the capability of the leasing system, when faithfully admin-

istered, to respond to the various public interests concerned. ,
382 The Pribyloy Islands are now the only important sources of supply for mer-

chantable seal-skins. The herd which makes those islands its home is vari-
ously estimated to number from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 seals, but the Treasury agents
on duty at the islands have begun to note an apparent decrease in the number of seals
resorting to the islands in the breeding season. It is much to be desired that any
such decrease is but temporary, for should the Pribylov herd disappear, there is
none to replace it. It is estimated that upwards of 300,000 seals were killed by
unauthorized sealing-vessels during the breeding seasons of 1888 and 1889, and as the
great majority of these were cows, there was an almost equal loss of pupseals. It is
obvious that the herd must soon disappear under such a decimation of its produc-
tive members, even if the habitual use of fire-arms did not tend to drive the seals
away from their haunts in advance of their extermination.

The Act of the 2nd March, 1889, confers all the needed authority upon the Exec-
utive to protect the seals within the waters of the United States, butanappropriation
is necessary to provide effective means for exercising that authority. There are not
enough Revenue-cutters at the disposal of the Department to properly police the
sealing-grounds during the dense fogs that prevail throughout the breeding season,
and the great number of petty vessels engaged in marauding would render it impos-
sible for their captors to furnish prize crews to take them all to Sitka for condemna-
tion. The present state and prospects of the industry seem to call for prompt and
energetic measures to preserve the valuable Pribylov herd from destruction or dis-
persion. It is suggested that a sufficient force of cruizing-vessels should be char-
tered, equipped, and manned, as auxiliary to such Revenue-vessels as could be spared
from stations, and a dep6t for prisoners established at Ounalaska, whence they could
be transferred to Sitka, and dealt with according to law. It is believed that two or
three seasons of energetic effort would break up the present destructive and threat-
ening operations.

No. 266.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 27.)
(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, December 26, 1889.

Seizuresin Behring’s Sea.

Secretary of State has been at New York during past week. I
renewed discussion as to compensation this morning. He stated that
he had decided to reply to the protest of Her Majesty’s Government of
October last, in order to place on record before the world the precise
grounds on which his Government justify the seizures of our vessels,
so that any compensation given may not be construed as an admission
of wrong. He begged me to assure your Lordship that his reply would
be sent in a few days, would not in any way embarrass the negotiations,
and I will telegraph substance to your Lordship, and suspend further
action pending its receipt.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 419

No. 267.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 6, 1890.)

WASHINGTON, December 26, 1889,

My Lorp: I[ have the honour to report that I called on Mr. Blaine
this morning on his return from New York, where he has been during
the past week, and renewed the discussion as to the question of compen-
sation for the seizures in Behring’s Sea.

In the course of the conversation he informed. me that, on further
consideration, he had decided to reply to my protest in order to place
on record before the world the precise grounds on which the United
States Government justify the seizure of the Canadian vessels, so that
any compensation which may be granted may not be interpreted as an
admission of wrong.

He begged ine, at the same time, to assure your Lordship that the
proposed negotiations would not be embarrassed in any way by his
reply, and that he would send it in afew days.

I will telegraph the substance of his note to your Lordship as soon
as I shall have received it, and I propose to suspend further action
pending its receipt.

I have, We.
(Signed) J. PAUNCEFOTE,

383 No. 268.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury. —(Received January 6, 1890.)

WASHINGTON, December 26, 1889.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith an extract from
the ‘‘ Washington Post,” on the subject of an advertisement which has
just been issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, inviting proposals
for the privilege of taking fur-seals upon the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George, Alaska, for the term of twenty years from the lst May next.

As your Lordship will observe, the number of seals to be taken
during the year ending May 1891 will be limited to 60,000, and for the
succeeding years the number will be determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury.

I have, &e.
(Signed) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 268.]
Extract from the ‘‘Washington Post” of December 25, 1889.

THE SEAL ISLAND CONTRACT.—Secretary Windom yesterday afternoon issued the
following advertisement, inviting proposals for the privilege of taking fur-seals
upon the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, Alaska:

“The Secretary of the Treasury will receive proposals until 12 o’clock, noon, on
the 23rd day of January, 1890, for the exclusive rigkt to take fur-seals upon the
Islands of St. Paul and St. George, Alaska, for the term of twenty years from the
oe day of May, 1890, agreeably to the provisions of the Statutes of the United

tates.

“Tn addition to the specific requirements of the said Statutes the successful bidder
will be required to provide a suitable building for a public school on each island

420 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

and to pay the expense of maintaining schools therein during a period of not less
than eight months in each year, as may be required by the Secretary of the Treasury.

“Also to pay to the inhabitants of said islands, for labour performed by them, such
just and proper compensation as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury.

“The number of seals to be taken for their skins upon said islands during the year
ending May 1891 will be limited to 60,000, and for the succeeding years the number
will be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with the provisions
of law.

“The right is reserved to reject any and all proposals not deemed to be in accord-
ques en the best interests of the United States, and of the inhabitants of said
islands.

“As a guarantee of good faith, each proposal must be accompanied by a properly
certified cheque drawn on a United States national bank.”

No. 269.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received January 10.)

DOWNING STREET, January 10, 1890.

Sir: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 12th
ultimo, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of three despatches from the
Governor-General of Canada, forwarding the claims for losses incurred
by the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the “Triumph,” the * Lily,” and the
“Black Diamond.”

The claim in the case of the “ Minnie” has not yet been received.

Iam, We.
(Signed) ROBERT G, W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 269.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HouskE, Ottawa, December 16, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 26th August last,* in which I
inclosed a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council detailing the
384 circumstances attending the warning-oft from the Behring’s Sea of the British
sealing schooner ‘‘Triumph,” I have the honour to forward herewith, for
transmission to the United States Government, a copy of an approved Report of a
Committee of the Privy Council, submitting formal statements and claim to com-
pensation, on behalf of the owners, for loss incurred by reason of the said vessel
being interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her calling.
I have, &v.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 269.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on November 16, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 11th November, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting, in connection with the warning-off from the Behring’s Sea of
the British sealing-schooner ‘‘ Triumph,” the circumstances attending which were
detailed in the Minute of Council dated the 22nd August last, made upon a Report
of the 13th August last of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, formal statements
and claim to compensation on behalf of the owners, for loss incurred by reason of
the said vessel being interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her calling.

*See Inclosure 1 in No. 222.

7 aca

AS

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 421

The Minister states that this claim amounts to 19,674 dollars, and is advanced by
Mr. E. Crow Baker, of Victoria, British Columbia, managing owner, on behalf of
himself, Daniel McLean, Rosine Gibson, and John C. Blackett, as joint owners of the
vessel in question.

The Committee advise, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Minute, together with
the papers herewith annexed, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the
Colonies for transmission to the Government of the United States.

All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 269.]
Declaration of Edgar Crow Baker.

City oF Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, Edgar Crow Baker, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, retired Navigating Lieutenant, Royal Navy, but at present
(among various other businesses) following the occupation or calling of a Real Estate
and Financial Broker in the city aforesaid, and the duly authorized managing owner
of the British sealing-schooner ‘‘Triumph,” do solemnly and sincerely declare as
follows:

1. That said schooner was built in April 1887 in Shelburne, Nova Scotia, purchased
by myself and others, as per original register, and brought to the port of Victoria
by one Daniel McLean, master and part owner, for the express purpose of engaging
in the business of seal-hunting in the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and
elsewhere. :

2. That said vessel was duly registered at the port of Victoria, British Columbia,
by the usual method of transfer of registry, on the 2nd December, 1887, with the port
number 11, her registered tonnage being 87.51, and her official number, 90,681.

3. That said vessel arrived at the port of Victoria on or about the 25th April, 1888,
and after undergoing usual refit and outfit for her sealing voyage, cleared from the
port of Victoria on or about the 5th May, 1888, for Behring’s Sea, and prosecuted
that branch of the deep-sea fisheries known as seal-hunting, in said arm of the North
Pacific Ocean, with a crew composed principally of Indian hunters, and returned to
Victoria on or about the 12th September of said year with a catch of 2,491 sealskins,
and the master reported no interference or molestation on the part of the United
States Revenue cruizers.

4. That said catch was sold in the market at Victoria for the price or sum of 14,219
dol. 75 ¢., and after reimbursing all expense of outfit for the hunting period, pay-
ment of hunters and crew, yielded a very handsome profit to the owners of said
vessel for their season’s venture. :

5. That the price paid for skins during the season immediately above referred
385 to was 6 dollars only in Victoria, though 75 dol. 25 c. and 65 dol. 50 c. was
obtained at the usual fall sales in London, Great Britain.

6. That the registered owners of said vessel at that time were: Edgar Crow Baker,
21 shares; Walter EK. Blackett,21 shares; Daniel McLean, 22 shares, participating
equally in the profits, and the vessel commanded by same master.

7. Thatin January of the present year (1889), in order to make the vessel as staunch
and seaworthy as it was possible to make a vessel, not then two years old, she was
docked in graving- dock at Esquimalt, and coppered to 9 feet forward and 11 feet aft,
at an expense to the owners of 1,254 dol. 50 c., thereby enhancing the value of said
vessel from 8,250 dollars to very nearly 9,500 dollars.

8. That the primary object in sparing no expense to efficiently equip said vessel
was that she might ‘‘keep the sea” in any weather, and prolong her seal-hunting
voyage until the latest moment of the season, and return to her home-port in the
following season with a catch in excess of that already quoted.

9. That the declarant sent said vessel down to San Francisco on the 24th March of
the present year, in order to procure the best white hunters, sealing boats and seal-
ing outfit obtainable, and disbursed for same and provisions 2,966 dol. 24 ¢.

10, That said vessel left San Francisco on or about the 12th April of the present
year with a crew consisting of master, mate, carpenter, gunner, cook and steward,
eight hunters, seventeen able and ordinary seamen, and two apprentices, in all
thirty-two in number, as per certificate of shipping master of said port.

11. That said vessel entered and cleared from the port of Victoria on the 25th day
of April last, and sent by the declarant on a sealing and hunting voyage in the
North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea at a further cost to the owners of 2,975 dol.
19 c, for advances to hunters and crew, provisions, sails, equipments and apparel,
marine insurance, and necessaries.

422 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

12. That the total amount of cash at risk in said venture, from commencement of
voyage to finish on the 28th July, was 15,425 dol. 43 ¢., irrespective of the lay out
or wages of master.

13. That the said schooner entered Behring’s Sea on or about the 4th July, and
having previously transhipped her outside, or coast catch, was hove to on the 11th
July, and boarded by Lieutenant Tuttle, of the United States Revenue cutter
‘Richard Rush” (as per sworn-to testimony of the master, made on arriving in Vic-
toria, dated the 8th August) who searched the vessel, examined and returned ship’s
papers, and ordered the schooner out of Behring’s Sea, threatening confiscation of
vessel and catch if canght in the act of killing seals, or with skins on board after
having been warned.

14, That by reason of the threats and menaces of the said United States cutter,
the master was prevented from further prosecuting his legitimate business in said
sea, and not wishing to incur the responsibility of threatened capture of his valu-
able vessel, returned to Victoria on the 28th July, with only seventy-two skins on
board, and which were on board at the time of search, though undiscovered by the
boarding officer, at least, so 1 am informed and verily believe.

15. That from the number of skins taken by the “Triumph” last year, with
vessel partially equipped only and with less experienced hunters, I conscientiously
believe that the said schooner, in a full season unmolested and free from fear of
molestation, would have taken in the neighbourhood of 2,500 skins.

16. That the market value of sealskins at the port of Victoria, on or about the 1st
October instant, when in the usual course of events heretofore, the “Triumph”
would have arrived after a complete season’s voyage, as hereinbefore mentioned, was
8 dollars per skin.

17. That the declarant, on behalf of himself and co-owners, claims damages against
the Government of the United States of America for the unlawful and unwarrantable
interference, molestation, threat and menace of its said Revenue cutter, whereby
a heavy loss is incurred by the owners and hunters of said schooner ‘‘'Triumph,”
amounting to the value of the difference between the skins actually taken, and esti-
mated catch, viz., 2,428 skins (2,500, less 72) at 8 dollars per skin, or the sum of 19,424
dollars, and 250 dollars for legal and other expenses in connection with the preparation
and submission of this claim.

18. That hereto annexed, marked (A), is a statement in detail of such claim, and of
the persons entitled to share therein.

19. That upon the sailing of the said schooner in April and May last at San Fran-
cisco and Victoria, respectively, advances were made to the hunters based upon a
full season’s catch, and said hunters will, upon payment of said claim, be entitled to,

and will receive their share thereof.
386 And I, Edgar Crow Baker, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously
believing the same to be true, just and equitable, and by virtue of Act respect-
ing Extra-Judicial Oaths.
(Signed) EDGAR Crow BAKER,
Managing Owner.

Declared by the said Edgar Crow Baker, at the City of Victoria, British Columbia,
the day of November, A. D. 1889.
Before me,
(Signed) D. R. HARRIs,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British
Columbia, residing and practising at Victoria aforesaid.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 269.]

DETAILED Statement of Claim by Owners of British schooner ‘‘ Triumph” against
the Government of the United States of America.

2,428 sealskins, balance of an estimated catch of 2,500 sealskins by the
schooner ‘‘ Triumph” for the full season of 1889 in Behring’s Sea, at 8 dol-

lars, per SKIN WJ. se-Bseweeace eens Geek Senses see ee eee EERE aE eee eee $19, 424

Legal and other expenses incidental to preparation and submission of claims. 250

MOtal . 152. -cceaweesisasnchemisaws decease Seeee ease sae aa canteen eens 19, 674
OWNERS on October 1, 1889.

Shares.

Edgar Crow Baker, manaping owner... 2: ocecesceoh. Seer ee aes aes see ee eee 21

Daniel, Melueansmaster marinelecs esse ent eeo aes eee eee eee eee 22

Rosine Gibson ybaule, Ontario: 2c o.5-ce- sect oeoe ee eee eee eee eae ee eee 11

Johni@. BlackettaVictoria, British Colum biaeee- esse. seee- eee eee ee eee eee 10

fT ee ee eee ert AES © eee oosadconnigoacdedsoes, el

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 423

N. B.—E. Crow Baker, representing D. McLean’s shares by full power of attorney,
and as mortgagee in possession, J. C. Blackett, by power of attorney, and Rosina
Gibson’s by consent of attorney.

(Signed) EDWARD CROW BAKER,
Managing Owner.

The schedule marked (A) referred to in statement, of which this form part.
(Signed) D. R. Harris,
Jotary Public for the Province of British Columbia.

To all to whom these presents shall come be it known and made manifest that I,
Alexander Roland Milne, a Surveyor in Her Majesty’s Customs for the Port of Vic-
toria, British Columbia, in the Dominion of Canada, duly appointed as such, residing
and officiating in said capacity in the city of Victoria, in the Province aforesaid, do
hereby certify that the paper written hereto annexed, dated the 8th August, 1889,
signed and sworn to before George Morrison, J. P., on said day by one Daniel McLean,
master of the British schooner ‘‘Triumph,” registered at the port aforesaid and
engaged in the sealing business, is as it purports to be a full, true and correct copy
of the original thereof in every respect. I do further certify that the original docu-
ment was forwarded by the Collector of Customs of this port to the Department of
Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa on or about the date therein named, and that I have
full confidence in the truth of the statements made by said master embodied in said
affidavit.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office at the city of
Victoria, British Columbia, this 4th day of November, 1889.

(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Surveyor, Sc.

387 {Inclosure 5 in No. 269.]
Deposition of Daniel McLean,

In the matter of search, &c., of the sealing schooner ‘‘Triumph” by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” in Behring’s Sea.

I, Daniel McLean, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,»
Dominion of Canada, being duly sworn, depose as follows:

That I am master and part owner of the British schooner ‘‘ Triumph,” registered
at the Port of Victoria, British Columbia, that in conformity to the laws of the
Dominion of Canada I regularly cleared the said schooner ‘‘ Triumph” for a voyage
to the North Pacific Ocean and behring’s Sea, and that in pursuance of my legitimate
business did enter the said Behring’s Sea on the 4th day of July, 1889, and did ina
peaceful manner proceed on my voyage and being in latitude 50° 5’ north, longitude
171° 23’ west, on the 11th day of July, 1880, at the hour of 8.30 a. M., was hailed by
the Commander of the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush,” the said Revenue cut-
ter being a vessel belonging to the Government of the United States and regularly
commissioned by the same, a boat having been lowered by the officer and crew I was
boarded by the same, the officer in charge of the boat being one Lieutenant Tuttle,
who demanded the official papers of my vessel, and after reading the same proceeded
to search my vessel for seals, and finding no evidence of the same informed me that
orders have been issued by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States under
the Proclamation of the President, instructing the Commanding Officer of the said
Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush” to seize all vessels found sealing in Behring’s Sea; he also
told me that should he again board me and find sealskins on board that-he would
seize and confiscate the vessel and catch; he furthermore informed me that he had
already seized the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” of Victoria, British Columbia,
anal that she had been sent to Sitka, and that, therefore, by reason of his threats and
menaces I was caused to forego my legitimate and peaceful voyage on the high seas,
and return to the port of my departure, causing serious pecuniary loss to myself,
crew, and owners, for which a claim will be formulated and forwarded in due course.

And Imake this solemn affidavit conscientiously believing the same to be true, and
by virtue of the Oaths Ordinance, 1869.

(Signed) DanieEL McLean,
Master, Schooner “ Triumph.”
Sworn before me this 8th August, 1889, at Victoria, British Columbia.
(Signed) GEO. Morrison, J. P.,
A Justice of the Peace for the Province of British Columbia.

I do hereby certify to the correctness of this statement as verbally expressed to me
also by said Daniel McLean.

(Signed) EDGAR CROW BAKER,
Notary Public,

424 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 6 in No. 269.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Hovuss, Ottawa, December 17, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 26th August last, relating to the
seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British schooner ‘ Black Diamond,” I have the honour
to forward herewith a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, submitting
the claim to compensation of the owner of the vessel for loss sustained by re#son of
her seizure by the United States authorities.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 7 in No. 269.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on December 2, 1889.

On a Report dated the 28th November, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries submitting, in connection with the seizure in the Behring’s Sea of
388 the British schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” the circumstances attending which
were detailed in the Minute of Council approved by your Excellency on the
22nd August, 1889, formal statements and claim by the owner to compensation for
loss incurred by reason of the seizure of said vessel, and the forcible removal to the
United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” of seventy-six sealskins, as well as
for the value of the estimated catch for the balance of the season had the vessel not
been interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her calling, which claim, with
incidental expenses, aggregates the sum of 17,185 dollars.
The Minister recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper channel
to her Majesty’s Government for transmission to the Government of the United States.
The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
All which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 8 in No. 269.]
Declaration of Morris Moss.

CANADA, Province of British Columbia, City of Victoria.

I, Morris Moss, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, Domin-
ion of Canada, fur dealer and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as
follows:

1. Lam a British subject by birth, and the duly registered owner of the schooner
“Black Diamond,” of the port of Victoria, aforesaid.

2. On the 12th day of February, 1889, the said schooner was cleared at the Custom-
house at said city of Victoria for a fishing and hunting voyage to the North Pacitic
Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

3. On the 3rd day of August, 1889, the said ‘‘ Black Diamond” returned to Vic-
toria aforesaid, and hereto annexed, marked (X), is the statutory declaration of Alex-
ander Gault, the mate of the said schooner on said voyage, of the cause and manner
of the ‘‘ Black Diamond’s” return to Victoria from such voyage, which said statement
I verily believe is true.

4. The value of the sealskins taken from the ‘‘ Black Diamond” as set out in said
Alexander Gault’s statement was, on or about the 1st day of October (when in due
course the vessel would have delivered her cargo of skins at Victoria aforesaid), 8
dollars per skin. The salt so taken as aforesaid was worth 5 dollars. The Indian
spears 4 dollars each, and the said rifle was worth 25 dollars.

5. From the actual catch of seals made in said sea during said season by other
sailing vessels, I verily believe that had the said ‘‘ Black Diamond” not been seized
and her hunting voyage broken up as set out in said statement of Alexander Gault,
the hunters on said schooner would have captured at least 2,100 sealskins in said Beh-
ring’s Sea during the season of 1889.

6. I, for myself and the crew and hunters of the said ‘‘ Black Diamond,” claimed
damages against the Government of the United States of America for the seizure of

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 425

the said “Black Diamond,’ and for the taking and detention of said seventy-six
sealskins, and for 2,024 sealskins the balance of the estimated catch of 2,100 in Beh-
ring’s Sea for the full season of 1889, also for the salt, rifle, Indian spears, and ship’s
papers taken as aforesaid, and for legal and other expenses incidental to, and aris-
ing out of, such seizure, and the preparation and submission of this claim therefor
and interest thereof at 7 per cent. per annum until paid.

7. Hereto annexed marked (A) is a Statement in detail of such claim for damages,

And I, Morris Moss, make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing ‘the
same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting Voluntary and Extra- Judicial
Oaths.

(Signed) Morris Moss.

Declared by the said Morris Moss, at the city of Victoria, the 19th day of Novem-
ber, A. D. 1889.
Betore me,
(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEa,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia.

389 [Inclosure 9 in No. 269.]
(A.)
STATEMENT of Claim by Owner of schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond” against the Govern-
ment of the United States of America for Seizure in Behring’s 3 Sea on July 11, 1889.

76 sealskins (seized).
2, 024 sealskins, balance of estimated catch by ‘‘ Black Diamond” for full
season of 1889 in Behring’s Sea.

2, 100 Bolten, at 8 dollars. Bans eae 2 Neer aioe reete cle SSSR 2 re RI aid aiee $16, 800
il "rifle, CULE era ere sie eee eo ciae focicto anlese neiSe-cthoe Geleainw eee s Seis clea deters 25
MIS DEAUUS a ailear OllATS Ga Nisrestese ea tei forars cj mee gn feta a taey Varaie wie yay oare cia ieleys, = Sco 80
2 sacks salt, Mtr ta lo lets Oe Cova) Oa Sa erm a be A a aels oe See ee SS ee eo 5
Cost of obtaining new ship’s papérs........---..-----..-- BAe ict ot ten ts Soe 25
Legal and other expenses arising out of, and incidental to, such seizure. ..... 250

oO talP Asses et oe eee eS Stee ek eee tesa tt eet elses lasuebsesnis yd Bo

And interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum until paid.
(Signed) Morris Moss.

This is the Statement referred to as marked (A) in the declaration of Morris Moss,
taken before me the 19th November, 1889.
(Signed) A. L. BeLyEA, Notary Public.

(X.)

In the matter of the seizure of the sealing schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush,” on the 11th day of July, A. D. 1889.

I, Alexander Gault, of the city of Victoria, mate, do solemnly and sincerely declare
that:

1. I was at the time of the occurrences hereinafter mentioned, employed as mate of
the sealing schooner ‘‘ Black Diamond,” of the port of Victoria, British Columbia.

2, On the 11th day of July last, whilst on board the said schooner, she then being
on a sealing expedition, and in latitude 56° 22’ north, and longitude 170° 25’ west,
and at a distance of about 35 miles from shore, we were overhauled by the ‘‘ Richard
Rush,” a United States Revenue cutter, which latter vessel] having hailed us, and
shouted a command we were unable to understand, steamed across our steamer’s
bows compelling us to come to. A boat was then ‘lowered from the cutter, and
Lieutenant Tuttle, with five other men came aboard the schooner. The captain of
our schooner asked Lieutenant Tuttle what he wanted, and he replied he wished to
see our papers. The captain then took him down into his cabin, and in my presence
showed him the ship’s papers.

Lieutenant Tuttle then demanded that they should be handed to him, but our cap-
tain refused to give them up, and locked them in his locker. Lieutenant Tuttle
then ordered his men to bring up the sealskins. At this time there were seventy-six
salted and fifty-five unsalted sealskins on board. The Lieutenant then ordered the

426 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

salted skins to be taken on board the ‘‘ Richard Rush.” This was done by the cutter’s
boat, two bags of salt and a rifle being also taken from the schooner to the cutter.
Lieutenant Tuttle told our captain that if he did not give up the papers he should
take them by force, and our captain still refusing, the Lieutenant hailed the cutter,
and a boat brought off the Master-at-arms who came aboard our schooner. Lieu-
tenant Tuttle asked our captain for his keys, but not being able to obtain them,
ordered the Master-at-arms to force the locker. The master-at-arms then unscrewed
the hinges of the locker, and taking out the papers, handed the same to Lieutenant
Tuttle. Lieutenant Tuttle then went back to the ‘‘ Richard Rush,” but returned
again, bringing with him one whose name I have since heard to be John Hawkinsen.
The Lieutenant then ordered certain Indian sealing spears belonging to the
schooner to the number of twenty to be placed in his boat, which was accordingly
done by the cutter’s men. Our captain asked him for a receipt for the skins, ship’s
papers, and other goods he had taken; this he refused to give. He then ordered our
captain to take the schooner to Sitka, but our captain told him that if he wanted
the schooner to go there he would have to put a crew on board to take her there.
Lieutenant Tuttle then gave Hawkinsen some orders and some papers addressed
to the United States authorities at Sitka, and, leaving Hawkinsen on board the
schooner, and taking the spears with him, returned to the cutter, which shortly
afterwards steamed away, taking the ship’s papers, the skins, and other goods
with her.
390 We set sail for Oonalaska where the captain hoped to fall in with a British
man-of-war, and arrived at that place on the 15th day of July. There being no
man-of-war there, and the Indians having become very mutinous, and threatening to
throw us overboard if they thought we were going to Sitka, we set sail for the port
of Victoria, reaching the latter place on the 3rd day of August, 1889, at about the
hour of 7 P.M. The man Hawkinsen, during the voyage, did not attempt to give
any directions or suggestions as to the course to be taken by the schooner, and on
arrival at Victoria was placed on shore by one of the schooner’s boats.
And I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by
virtue of the Oaths Ordinance, 1889.

(Signed) ALEXANDER GAULT.
Declared before me at the city of Victoria, this 8th day of August, 1889.
(Signed) ERNEST V. BODWELL,

A Notary Public for the Province of British Columbia.

This is the statutory declaration of Alexander Gault referred to as marked (X) in
the declaration of Morris Moss made before me the 19th day of November, 1889.
(Signed) A. L. BrLykEa, Notary Public.

[Inclosure 10 in No. 269.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Housn, Ottawa, December 17, 1889.

My Lorp: With reference to the Deputy Governor’s despatch of the 24th Septem-
ber last relating to the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British schooner “Lily,” I
have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved Report of a
Committee of the Privy Council, submitting formal statements and claim to com-
pensation advanced by the owners of that vessel against the United States Govern-
ment for loss incurred by reason of her seizure.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 11 in No. 269.]

Report of a Committce of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on December 2, 1589.

On a Report dated the 28th November, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, submitting, in connection with the seizure in the Behring’s Sea of the
British schooner “Lily,” the circumstances attending which were detailed in the

ee Fo

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 427

Minnte of Council approved by your Excellency on the 18th September, 1889,” formal
statements and claims by the owners to compensation for loss incurred by reason of
the seizure of said vessel, and the forcible removal to the United States Revenue
cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” of 333 sealskins, as well as for the value of the estimated
catch for the balance of the season had the vessel not been interfered with in the
legitimate pursuit of her calling, which claim, with incidental expenses, aggregates
the sum of 17,167 dollars.

The Minister recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper channel
to Her Majesty’s Government for transmission to the Government of the United
States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof to
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

391 [Inclosure 12 in No. 269.]
Declaration of Morris Moss.

CANADA, Province of British Columbia, City of Victoria.

I, Morris Moss, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, Domin-
ion of Canada, fur dealer and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as fol-
lows:

1. Tam a British subject by birth, and the duly registered owner of the schooner
“Tily” of the port of Victoria »foresaid.

2. On the 20th day of May, A. D. 1829, the said schooner ‘‘Lily” cleared at the
Customs-house, Victoria aforesaid, for a fishing and hunting voyage in the North
Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

3. On the Ist day of September, A. D. 1889, the said schooner “‘ Lily ” returned to
the said port of Victoria, and hereto annexed, marked (X), is the statutory declara-
tion of John Reilly, the master of the said schooner ‘‘ Lily” on said voyage, setting
forth the cause and manner of the return to Victoria of said schooner from such
voyage, which said statement I verily believe to be true.

4. The value of the sealskins taken from the said ‘‘ Lily,” as set out in said John
Reilly’s statement, was, on or about the 1st day of October (when in due course the
said vessel would have delivered her cargo of skins at Victoria aforesaid), 8 dollars
per skin. The salt so taken as aforesaid was worth 5 dollars, and the Indian spears
4 dollars each. ,

5. From the actual catch of seals made in said sea during said season by other
vessels, I verily believe that had the said ‘‘ Lily” not been seized, and her hunting
voyage broken up, as set out in said statement of John Reilly, the said hunters on
said schooner “ Lily” would have captured at least 2,100 sealskins in Behring’s Sea
during the season of 1889.

6. Lfor myself and the crew and hunters of the said *‘ Lily” claim damages against
the Government of the United States of America for the seizure of the said ‘ Lily,”
and for the taking and detention of said 333 sealskins, and for 1,767 sealskins, the
balance of the estimated catch of 2,100 in Behring’s Sea for the full season of 1889;
also for the salt and Indian spears and ship’s papers taken as aforesaid, and for legal
and other expenses incidental to, and arising out of, such seizure, and the prepara-
tion and submissien of this claim therefor and interest thereon, at the rate of 7 per
cent. per annum until paid.

7. Hereto annexed, marked (A), isa statement in detail of such claim for damages.

And I, Morris Moss, make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the
same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting Voluntary and Extra-Judicial
Oaths.

(Signed) Morris Moss.

Declared by the said Morris Moss at the city of Victoria, the 19th day of Novem-
ber, A. D. 1889.

Before me,

(Signed) A. L. BELYEA,
Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia.

428 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure 13 in No. 269.]
Statement of Claim.

By owner of schooner ‘‘Lily” against the Government of the United States of
America for seizure in Behring’s Sea on the 6th August, A. D. 1889.

333 sealskins (seized).
1, 767 sealskins, balance of estimated catch by “Lily” for full season of 1889
in Behring’s Sea.

2,100 sealskins, at’8 dollarsize< (222 502 -252as. ee soek eee. SR e ete eee pL en
2eIndian spears, at 4 dollars= 2 222 o> oe none se Cee eee econ pee sees eee
2isackes salt; ab. olab0ye/92 25) rs ea ee eee ae oe <
Cost of obtaining new ship’s papers. - Seine 25
Legal and other expenses arising out of, ‘and incidental to, ‘such seizure .... 250
Total. g Boccasne we abhen pcs esas eee Sm salen oe eb sicser-ewelecienasiae =a ena ee
And interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum until paid.
(Signed) Morris Moss.
392 This is the Statement of Claim referred to as marked (A) in the declaration
of Morris Moss, made before me the 19th November, 1889.
(Signed) A. L. BELYEA, Notary Public.

In the matter of the seizure of the sealing schooner ‘‘ Lily” by the United States
Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush,” on the 6th day of August, A. D. 1889.

I, John Reilly, of the city of Victoria, British Columbia, master mariner, do
solemnly and sincerely declare that:

1. [am a master mariner, and was at the time of the occurrences hereinafter men-
tioned, and still am master ‘of the schooner “ Lily” of the Port of Victoria, British
Columbia.

2. On the 6th day of August, A. D. 1889, whilst I was on board and in command of the

said schooner ‘‘ Lily,” and she being then on a sealing expedition, and being in lati-
tude 55° 29’ north, and longitude 166° 15/ west, and at a distance of about 66 miles
from the nearest land, the United States Revenue cutter “ Richard Rush ” overhauled
the said schooner.

3. I was first boarded by the First Lieutenant, who was armed, and who asked me
how many skins I had on board. I replied that he should find out himself, and said
that if he wanted to see the schooner’s papers I would show them to him and would
render him assistance should he want to search the schooner for contraband goods,
but I would not acknowledge his right to seize me for sealing on the high seas.

4. The First Lieutenant then returned to the cutter, and in a short time returned
accompanied by another boat of the cutter which was in charge of the Second
Lieutenant.

5. They both came on board, and the First Lieutenant demanded of me the sur-
coniler of the schooner, and asking, at the same time, for the schooner’s -papers.
This I at first declined to do, and the First Lieutenant said unless I gave the schoon-
er’s papers to him at once he would take them by force. I then gave him the
schooner’s papers, consisting of registry, coasting licence, and clearance.

6. The First Lieutenant then ordered both boats’ crew to search the schooner, and
they took from my schooner 333 sealskins, all in good order.

7. He then asked me if I would give him two sacks of salt. I told him it would
be useless for me to refuse, as he could take them by force, so I told him to go ahead
and help himself.

He then gave me two letters, the contents of which were unknown to me at the
time, one of them being sealed, the contents of which is still unknown to me, the
other certifying that he had seized the schooner “ Lily” for violation of the United
States laws, and taken possession of schooner’s papers.

8. He then told me to proceed to Sitka, Alaska. I asked him if he wanted me to
go to Victoria or Sitka, Alaska, to which he replied that he had nothing to say but
simply told me his orders.

9. My crew, at this time, consisted of a mate, George McDonald, and three white
men, and twenty-five Indian hunters. The Indian hunters said that they would not

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 429

proceed to Sitka, and to avoid further trouble I directed the schooner course to Vic-
toria, and arrived here the Ist day of September at 7 o’clock P. M.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true
and by virtue of the Oaths Ordinance, 1889.
(Signed) Joun REILLY.
Declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 11th day of September, 1889.
Before me,
(Signed) Tuos. SHOTBOLT,
Justice of the Peace.

This is the statutory declaration of John Reilly, referred to as marked (X) in the
declaration of Morris Moss, made before me the 19th November, 1889.
(Signed) A. L. Betyra, Notary Public.

No. 270.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received January 20.)

DOWNING STREET, January 18, 1890.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch and its
393 inclosures from the Governor-General of Canada, forwarding a
claim for compensation from the owners of the schooner ‘ Ariel”
for loss incurred by reason of its being interfered with by the United
States Revenue cutter “Richard Rush” while engaged in a sealing
voyage in Behring’s Sea.
lam, Wc. (Signed) KR. H. MEADE,

[Inclosure 1 in No. 270.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, December 31, 1889.
My Lorp: i have the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved
Minute of the Privy Council submitting a declaration and formal statement of claim
to compensation on behalf of the owners of the British schooner ‘‘ Ariel” for loss
incurred by reason of the said vessel being interfered with by the United States
Revenue cutter “Richard Rush” while engaged in a sealing voyage in Behring’s Sea.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 270.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on December 28, 1889.

On a Report, dated the 27th December, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries submitting the appended declaration and formal statement of claim to compen-
sation on behalf of the owners of the British schooner ‘‘Ariel,” which vessel was, on
the 30th day of July, 1889, while engaged in a sealing voyage in the Behring’s Sea
(so called) boarded by three officers from the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Richard
Rush.” The officer searched and examined the schooner ‘‘Ariel,” and questioned the
inaster as to his voyage, crew, and catch; and also warned him against taking seals
in the Behring’s Sea under threat of seizure of the vessel and the arrest of himself
and mate.

The Minister observes that the claim amounts to 9,498 dollars for loss incurred by
reason of the said vessel being interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her call-
ing, and is advanced by Mr. Samuel W. Bucknam, of Victoria, British Columbia,
managing owner and master of the said schooner ‘‘Ariel,” on behalf of himself and
Messrs. John M. Tayler and Bela R. Lawrence, of the city of St. John, New Bruns-
wick, as joint owners of the vessel in question,

430 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Minister recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper chan-
nel to Her Majesty’s Government for transmission to the Government of the United
States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, together
with the papers mentioned herein.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGurx,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 270.]
Declaration of Samuel W. Bucknam.

CANADA, Province of British Columbia, City of Victoria.

I, Samuel W. Bucknam, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Colum-
bia, and Dominion of Canada, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as
follows:

1. The hereinafter-mentioned schooner ‘‘Ariel” is a British vessel registered at the
port of St.John, in the province of New Brunswick, one of the provinces of the
Dominion of Canada.

2. The registered owners of the said schooner ‘‘Ariel” are John M. Taylor

394 and Bela R. Lawrence, both of the city of St. John aforesaid, who each own

twenty-four shares thereof, and myself, who own the remaining sixteen shares
thereof.

3. I am the managing owner and master of the said schooner ‘‘Ariel.”

4. On the 9th day of February, 1889, A. D., I cleared the said schooner ‘‘Ariel” at
the Customs at the said port of Victoria for a fishing and seal-hunting voyage in the
North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, and on the 11th day of said month sailed from
said port of Victoria on such voyage.

5. On and for said voyage I was master of said ‘‘Ariel” and one Herman Smith
was mate, and said ‘‘Ariel” on said voyage carried a crew of twenty-two men all
told. The said schooner ‘‘Ariel” was equipped and provisioned for a full season’s
voyage.

é On the 12th day of July following, the ‘‘ Ariel” entered Behring’s Sea. The
sealskins which had been taken by the hunters on said schooner in the North Pacific
Ocean had been shipped to Victoria before entering Behring’s Sea, and no skins were
on board on said 12th July.

7. The hunters on the ‘‘Ariel”’ began sealing on the 14th day of said July, and in
the sixteen days following captured about 400 sealskins.

8. On the 30th day of said month of July, at about 6 o’clock in the morning, the
United States Revenne cutter ‘‘ Richard Rush” came alongside the ‘‘ Ariel” and three
officers from said ‘‘ Richard Rush” boarded the ‘‘Ariel.” The said officers examined
and searched the ‘‘Ariel,” asked the number of my crew, when I entered the sea,
and how many sealskins I had on board, and warned and threatened me that if I was
caught taking seals, or with fresh sealskins on board, the ‘‘Ariel” would be seized,
and myself and mate placed under arrest. The said officers also told me that they
had seized the schooners ‘‘ Pathfinder,” ‘‘ Black Diamond,” and ‘ Minnie,” and
searched other vessels in the sea. ‘The officers then left, and shortly after the cutter
sailed away.

9. Fearing to remain in Behring’s Sea lest I should lose my vessel and be myself
put in prison, I at once sailed for one of the passes leading from the sea. On the 31st
day of July I lost a boat with three men, and remained some days in the immediate
vicinity in order to pick them up. On the 21st August the ‘‘Ariel” sailed out of
Behring’s Sea, homeward bound, with 844 sealskins on board. On the 2nd day of
September thej‘‘Ariel” arrived at Victoria aforseaid, fully one month earlier than
the usual time of arrival for sealers from Behring’s Sea.

10. From the actual number of seals captured by the ‘‘Ariel” before being boarded
as aforesaid and from the number actually captured by other sealing vessels, with
about the same equipment of boats and men as the “Ariel,” I believe that had the
“Ariel” not been molested in Behring’s Sea (and but for such boarding and threat-
ening as aforesaid she certainly would have remained the full season) the said “‘Ariel”
would have made a total catch of not less than 2,000 sealskins.

11. The selling price of sealskins at said Victoria on the said arrival of the ‘‘Ariel”
and on the Ist October, about which time sealing vessels usually arrive at Victoria
from a full season’s voyage, was 8 dollars per skin.

12. I for myself, the said John M. Taylor, and the said Bella R. Lawrence, my
co-owners in said schooner ‘‘Ariel,” and likewise for the crew of the said ‘‘Ariel” on
said yoyage who were and are entitled to share in the total catch of sealskins by

seteker sate

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 431

said vessel for the full season aforesaid, claim damages of and from the Government
of the United States of America for the illegal boarding as aforesaid of the said
schooner, and for having by threats and intimidation broken up the voyage of said
schooner ‘“‘Ariel” and thereby caused the loss of at least 1,156 sealskins to the said
vessel, her owners, and crew, and for legal and other expenses incidental to the
preparation and submission of this claim.

13. Hereto annexed, marked (A), is a statement of such claim for damages as
aforesaid.

And I, Samuel W. Bucknam aforesaid, make this solemn declaration conscien-
tiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the ‘‘ Act respecting voluntary
and extra-judicial oaths.”

(Signed) SAMUEL W. BuckNaM,

Signed and declared by the said Samuel W. Bucknam the 29th day of November,
A. D. 1889.
Before me,
(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEFA,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia.

395 {Inclosure 4 in No. 270.]

STATEMENT of claim against the United States of America re boarding and threats
to seize the schooner ‘‘Ariel” in Behring’s Sea, July 30, 1889:

2,000 sealskins estimated catch for full season.

844 cs number actually taken.
1,156 oe balance of estimated catch, claimed in damages at 8 dollars.. $9, 248
Legal and other expenses incidental to the making and submission of this
GGHteN 53256 ba eoGo seus oni Seba Ghee Ben pCO bane Sa Seo ee one Spo essere eam ean eres 250
“MDUANL S ecko eae Sao EE a eS a aE ase 9, 498

And interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum until paid.

This is the Statement of claim referred to in the declaration of Samuel W. Buck-
nam, made before me the 29th November, A. D. 1889.
(Signed) A. L. Betyxna, Notary Public.

No. 271.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 22.)

WASHINGTON, January 9, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 26th ultimo, I have
the honour to inclose herewith copy of a Resolution which has been laid
upon the table of the Senate by Senator Plumb in regard to the adver-
tisement of the Secretary of the Treasury, inviting tenders for a new
lease of the Alaska seal fisheries.

Ihave, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 271.]

Extract from the “ Congressional Record” of January 7, 1890.

ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES.

se Biembt offer a Resolution, which I ask may lie upon the table, and be
printed.

The Vice-President.—The resolution will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

“Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury has, by public advertisement, invited
bids for leasing the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, in the Territory of Alaska,
for a period of twenty years; and

432 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“Whereas the law under which said proposal is issued was passed about twenty
years since, and the circumstances and conditions existing in Alaska, and with ref-
erence to the seal industry, have materially changed during that period; and

“Whereas it has been charged upon the authority of a late Governor of Alaska
that the Alaska Commercial Company, now occupying said islands under lease from
the Government, has exercised its privileges oppressively and against the interests of
both the natives and the Government; and

‘Whereas said Company claims that it is the only person or organization which
can successfully compete for the lease invited by the Secretary of the Treasury as
aforesaid, and there is every reason to believe that under present legislation and
conditions the lease proposed will be made to said Alaska Commercial Company
substantially without competition. Therefore,

“ Resolved,—That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested not to make a new lease
of said islands until further action by Congress, or until the latest period made nec-
essary by existing law, and that meanwhile he make full report to the Senate as to
the manner in which the said Alaska Commercial Company has discharged its duties
and obligations under the present lease, and also what additional legislation, if any,
is necessary in order that the interests of the Government and those of the natives
and citizens of Alaska may be more fully protected.”

The Vice-President.—The Resolution will lie on the table and be printed.

396 No. 272.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
January 23.)

WASHINGTON, January 23, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note
which I have received from Mr. Blaine, containing the answer of the
United States Government to the protest which Mr. Edwardes made
by your Lordship’s directions on the 12th October last against the
seizure of Canadian vessels made by the United States Revenue cut-
ter “‘ Rush” in Behring’s Sea.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 272.]

Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 22, 1890.

Sir: Several weeks have elapsed since I had the honour to receive through the
hands of Mr. Edwardes copies of two despatches from Lord Salisbury,* complaining
of the course of the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush” in intercepting Canadian
vessels sailing under the British flag, and engaged in taking fur seals in the waters
of the Behring’s Sea. ;

Subjects which could not be postponed have engaged the attention of this Depart-
ment, and have rendered it impossible to give a formal answer to Lord Salisbury
until the present time.

In the opinion of the President, the Canadian vessels, arrested and detained in the
Behbring’s Sea, were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bonos mores—a pur-
suit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent injury to the rights of the
Government and people of the United States. To establish this ground, it is not
necessary to argue the question of the extent and nature of the sovereignty of this
Government over the waters of the Behring’s Sea; it is not necessary to explain, cer-
tainly not to define, the powers and privileges ceded by His Imperial Majesty the
Emperor of Russia in the Treaty by which the Alaskan territory was transferred to
the United States. The weighty considerations growing out of the acquisition of
that territory, with all the rights on land and sea inseparably connected therewith,

*See Nos. 228 and 229.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 433

may be safely left out of view while the grounds are set forth upon which this
Government rests its justification for the action complained of by Her Majesty’s
Government.

It cannot be unknown to Her Majesty’s Government that one of the most valuable
sources of revenue from the Alaskan possessions is the fur-seal fisheries of the Beh-
ring’s Sea. These fisheries had been exclusively controlled by the Government ot
Russia, without interference and without question, from their original discovery
unti! the cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867. From 1867 to 1886 the pos-
session, in which Russia had been undisturbed, was enjoyed by this Government
also. There was no interruption and no intrusion from any source. Vessels from
other nations passing from time to time through Behring’s Sea to the Arctic Ocean
in pursuit of whales had always abstained from taking part i in the capture of seals.

This uniform avoidance of all attempts to take fur seal in those waters had been
a constant recognition of the right held and exercised first by Russia, and subse-
quently by this Government. It has also been the recognition of a fact now held
beyond denial or doubt, that the taking of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to
their extinction.

This is not only the well-known opinion of experts, both British and American,
based upon prolonged obser\ation and investigation, but the fact had also been
demonstrated in a wide sense by the well-nigh total destruction of all seal fisheries
except the one in the Behring’s Sea which the Government of the United States is
now striving to preserve, not altogether for the use of the American people, but for
the use of the world at lar ge.

The killing of seals in the open sea involves the destruction of the female in com-
mon with themale. The slaughter of a female seal is reckoned as an immediate loss
of three seals, besides the future loss of the whole number which the bearing seal
may produce in the successive years of life. ‘The destruction which results from kill-

ing seals in the cpen sea proceeds, therefore, by a ratio which constantly and
397 rapidly increases, and insures the total extermination of the species within a

very brief period. It has thus become known that the only proper time for the
slaughter of seals is at the season when they betake themselves to the land, because
the land is the only place where the necessary discrimination can be made as to the
age and sex of the seal. It would seem then, by fair reasoning, that nations not
possessing the territory upon which seals can increase their numbers by natural
growth, and thus afford an annual supply of skins for the use of mankind, should
refrain from the slaughter in open sea, where the destruction of the species is sure
and swift.

After the acquisition of Alaska, the Government of the United States, through com-
petent agents, working under the direction of the best experts, gave careful atten-
tion to the improvement of the seal fisheries. Proceeding by a close obedience to
the laws of nature, and rigidly limiting the number to be annually slaughtered, the
Government succeeded in increasing the total number of seals, and adding corre-
spondingly and largely to the value of the fisheries. In the course of a few years of
intelligent and interesting experiment, the number that could be safely slaughtered
was fixed at 100,000 annually. The Company to which the administration of the fish-
eries was intrusted by a lease from this Government has paid a rental of 50,000 dol-
lars per annum, and, in addition thereto, 2 dol. 624 ¢. per skin for the total number
taken. The skins were regularly transported to London to be dressed and prepared
for the markets of the world, and the business had grown so large that the earnings
of English labourers, since Alaska was transferred to the United States, amounts in
the aggregate to more than 12,000,000 dollars.

The entire business was thus conducted peacefully, lawfully, and profitably; profit-
ably to the United States, for the rental was yielding a moderate interest on the
large sum which this Government had paid for Alaska, including the rights now at
issue; profitably to the Alaskan Company, which, under Governmental direction and
restriction, had given unwearied pains to the care and development of the fisheries;
profitably to the Aleuts, who were receiving a fair pecuniary reward for their
labours, and were elevated from semi-sayagery to civilization, and to the enjoyment
of schools and churches provided for their benefit by the Government of the United
States; and, last of all, profitably to a large body of English labourers who had
constant employment and received good wages.

This, in brief, was the condition of the Alaska fur-seal fisheries down to the year
1886. The precedents, customs, and rights had been established and enjoyed either
by Russia or the United States for nearly a century. The two nations were the only
Powers that owned a foot of land on the continents that bordered, or on the islands
included within, the Behring’s waters where the seals resort to breed. Into this
peaceful and secluded field of labour, whose benefits were so equitably shared by
the native Aleuts of the Pribyloff Islands, by the United States, and by England,
certain Canadian vessels in 1886 asserted their right to enter and, by their ruthless
course, to destroy the fisheries, and with them to destroy also the resulting indus-

BS, PT V: 28

434 APPENDIX TO CASE OF: GREAT BRITAIN.

tries which are so valuable. The Government of the United States at once proceeded
to check this movement, which, unchecked, was sure to do great and irreparable
harm.

It was cause of unfeigned surprise to the United States that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment should immediately interfere to defend and encourage (surely to encourage by
defending) the course of the Canadians in disturbing an industry which had been
carefully developed for more than ninety years under the flags of Russia and the
United States, developed in such manner as not to interfere with the public rights or
the private industries of any other people or any other person.

Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 1886 that which they
had refrained from doing for more than ninety years? Upon what grounds did Her
Majesty’s Government defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the Behring’s
Sea which she had carefully avoided every since the discovery of that sea? By
what reasoning did Her Majesty’s Government conclude that an act may be com-
mitted with impunity against the rights of the United States which had never been
attempted against the same rights when held by the Russian Empire?

So great has been the injury to the fisheries from the irregular and destructive
slaughter of seals in the open waters of the Behring’s Sea by Canadian vessels, that
whereas the Government has allowed 100,000 to be taken annually for a series of
years, it is now compelled to reduce the number to 60,000. If four years of this
violation of natural law and neighbour’s rights has reduced the annual slaughter of
seal by 40 per cent., it is easy to see how short a period will be required to work the
total destruction of the fisheries.

The ground upon which Her Majesty’s Government justifies, or at least
398 defends, the course of the Canadian vessels, rests upon the fact that they are
committing their acts of destruction on the high seas, viz., more than 3 marine
miles from the shore-line. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty’s Government would
abide by this rule if the attempt were made to interfere with the pearl fisheries of
Ceylon, which extend 20 miles from the shore-line, and have been enjoyed by Eng-
land without molestation ever since their acquisition. England has felt authorized
to sell the fishery rights from year to year. Nor is it credible that modes of fishing
on the Grand Banks, altogether practicable but highly destructive, would be justi-
fied or even permitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious acts were com-
mitted more than 3 miles from shore.

There are, according to scientific authority, ‘‘great colonies of fish on the New-
foundland banks. These colonies resemble the seats of great populations on land.
They remain stationary, having a limited range of water in which to live and die.”
In these great ‘‘ colonies,” it is according to expert judgment comparatively easy to
explode dynamite or giant powder in such manner as to kill vast quantities of fish,
and at the same time destroy countless numbers of eggs. Stringent laws have becn
necessary to prevent the taking of fish by the use of dynamite in many of the rivers
and lakes of the United States. The same mode of fishing could readily be adopted
with effect on the more shallow parts of the banks, but the destruction of fish in pro-
portion to the “catch,” says a high authority, might be as great as 10,000 tol. Would
Her Majesty’s Government think that so wicked an act could not be prevented, and
its perpetrators punished, simply because it had been committed outside of the 3-mile
line?

Why are not the two cases parallel? The Canadian vessels are engaged in the
taking of fur seal in a manner that destroys the power of reproduction, and insures
the extermination of the species. In exterminating the species an article useful to
mankind is totally destroyed,in order that temporary and immoral gain may be
acquired by a few persons. By the employment of dynamite on the banks, it is not
probable that the total destruction of fish could be accomplished, but a serious dimi-
nution of a valuable food for man might assuredly result. Does Her Majesty’s
Government seriously maintain that the law of nations is powerless to prevent such
violation of the common rights of man? Are the supporters of justice in all nations
to be declared incompetent to prevent wrongs so odious and so destructive?

In the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea is not lawlessness. Nor
can the law of the sea and the liberty which it confers and which it protects be per-
verted to justify acts which are immoral in themselves, which inevitably tend to
results against the interest and against the welfare of mankind. One step beyond
that which Her Majesty’s Government has taken in this contention and piracy finds
its justification. The President does not conceive it possible that Her Majesty’s
Government could, in fact, be less indifferent to these evil results than is the Gov-
ernment of the United States. But he hopes that Her Majesty’s Government will,
after this frank expression of views, more readily comprehend the position of the
Government of the United States touching this serious question.

This Government has been ready to concede much in order to adjust all differences
of view, and has in the judgment of the President already proposed a solution not
only equitable, but generous, Thus far, Her Majesty’s Government has declined to

ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 435

accept the proposal of the United States. The President now awaits with deep
interest, not unmixed with solicitude, any proposition for reasonable adjustment
which Her Majesty’ s Government may submit. The forcible resistance to which this
Government is constrained in the Behring’s Sea is, in the President’s judgment,
demanded not only by the necessity of defending the traditional and long-estab-
lished rights of the United States, but also the rights of good morals and ‘of good
government the world over.

In this contention, the Government of the United States has no occasion and no
desire to withdraw or modify the positions which it has at any time maintained
against the claims of the Imperial Government of Russia. The United States will
not withhold from any nation the privileges which it demanded for itself when
Alaska was part of the Russian Empire. Nor is the Government of the United
States disposed to exercise in those possessions any less power or authority than it
was willing to concede to the Imperial Government of Russia when its sovereignty
extended over them. The President is persuaded that all friendly nations will con-
cede to the United States the same rights and privileges on the lands and in the
waters of Alaska which the same friendly nations always conceded to the Empire
of Russia.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMeES G. BLAINE.

399 No. 273.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 28, 1890.

Str: I have received your telegram of the 25rd instant, giving the
substance of a note you had received from Mr. Blaine, in reply to the
proposals made to the Government of the United States for the reopen-
ing of negotiations on the Behring’s Sea question.

Her Majesty’s Government will be prepared, when the text of the
note reaches them, to give it their careful consideration, and to return
a formalreply. So far as they are at present able to judge, it lays down
doctrines in international law to which they would be unable to sub-
scribe.

Meanwhile, they would be glad to know whether, in your opinion, it
would be desirable that, in reply to Mr. Blaine’s assurance that ‘the
Government of the United States await with deep interest, not unmixed
with anxiety, any suggestion for a reasonable adjustment of the points
at issue between the two Governments,” you should now make proposals
in the sense explained in your despatch of the 1st November last, with
the modifications which, after consultation with the Colonial Office, have
been considered necessary.

The following are the terms which Her Majesty’s Government would
be prepared to authorize you to propose to Mr. Blaine:

(a) That the tripartite negotiation for securing a close time in Beh-
ring’s Sea for the protection of the fur-seals should be resumed at
Washington.

(b) That all well-founded claims for compensation on the part of
British subjects for seizures in the past of their vessels by authorities
of the United States should be dealt with by a separate negotiation as
speedily as possible, but that it should be understood that Her Majesty’s
Government must be satisfied on this point before they can come to any
settlement in regard to a close season.

(c) Lastly, that an assurance should be obtained from the Govern-
ment of the United States that there shall be no further seizures of
British ships in Behring’s Sea while negotiations are proceeding.

Lam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

436 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 274.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received by telegraph,
January 30.)

WASHINGTON, January 30, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I think
it is important that I should know the total amount of compensation
which is claimed for the seizures of British vessels in Behring’s Sea up
to date before making the proposals indicated in your Lordship’s tele-
gram of the 28th instant.

I have told Mr. Blaine that Her Majesty’s Government must have
satisfaction on this point before they can agree to any settlement on the
other question.

Arguing from his stand-point he denies any right of compensation,
but he is willing, for the sake of settling so grave a dispute, to consult
the President of the United States as to a gratuitous offer of a lump
sum in full satisfaction, in order that discussions on items involving
principles on which the views of the two Governments appear irrecon-
cilable may be avoided. He has, therefore, asked me to obtain the
above information as soon as possible.

If this difficulty be surmounted, negotiations for a close season might
be commenced at once, subject to adequate assurances against further
seizures, which, I think, I might be able to obtain.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

400 No. 275.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received February 1.)

DOWNING STREET, January 31, 1890.

Str: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of adespatch from the Governor-
General of Canada, forwarding a claim to compensation on behalf of
the owner of the British schooner “ Kate,” which vessel was ordered
from the Behring’s Sea in August last by an officer of the United States
Revenue-cutter “Richard Rush.”

Iam to add that this claim had not previously been received, and
Lord Knutsford has inquired, by telegraph, whether any further claims
are to be expected.

lam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

({Inclosure 1 in No. 275.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Hovusk, Ottawa, January 6, 1890.
My Lorn: I have the honour to forward herewith, for transmission to the United
States Government, a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy
Council submitting declarations and formal statement of the claim to compensation
on behalf of the owner of the British schooner ‘‘ Kate,” which vessel was on the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 437

13th August last, while engaged ona sealing voyage, ordered from the Bebring’s
Sea, under threat of seizure, by an officer of the United States Revenue-cutter
“Richard Rush.”

Your Lordship will observe that the claim amounts to the sum of 11,210 dollars
for loss incurred by reason of the said vessel being interfered with in the legitimate
pursuit of her calling, and is advanced by Mr. Charles Spring, of Victoria, British
Columbia, as sole owner of the vesscl in question.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 275.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Bacellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 28th December, 1889.

On a Report, dated 27th December, 1889, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, submitting the appended declarations and formal statement of the claim to
compensation on behalf of the owner of the British schooner ‘‘ Kate,” which vessel
was on the 13th August, 18389, while engaged on a sealing voyage, ordered from the
Behring’s Sea (so-called) under threat of seizure by an officer of the United States
Revenue-cutter “ Richard Rush.”

The Minister observes that the claim amounts to 11,210 dollars for loss incurred by
reason of the said vessel being interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her
calling, and is advanced by Mr. Charles Spring, of Victoria, British Columbia, as
sole owner of the schooner in question.

The Minister recommends that this claim be forwarded through the proper channel
to Her Majesty’s Government for transmission to the Government of the United
States.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Minute, together with the papers mentioned herein, to the Right Honourable the
Secretary of State for the Colonies.

All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

401 APPENDIX.

CANADA, Province of British Columbia, Ciiy of Victoria.

I, Neils Moss, of the city of Victoria, province of British Columbia, Dominion of
Canada, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. The hereinafter mentioned schooner ‘‘ Kate ” is a British vessel, registered at the
port of Victoria, British Columbia, and owned by Charles Spring, of the same place.

2. On or about the Ist of June, 1889, I cleared the said schooner ‘‘ Kate,” as master
thereof, at the Customs-house, port of Victoria, for a fishing and hunting voyage in
the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea.

On the following day the ‘‘ Kate” sailed on said voyage, fully equipped and pro-
visioned for a whole season’s voyage, and carrying a crew of four men.

3. On the west coast of Vancouver Island I engaged and took on board sixteen
Indian hunters and sailed northward, entering Behring’s Sea on or about the 20th
July following, haying then on board twenty-four seal-skins caught outside Beh-
ring’s Sea.

4. A few days after entering the Sea the hunters began taking seals, and continued
to do so up to the 13th August following, on which day the ‘‘ Kate” had on board 630
seal-skins.

5. On said 13th August, at about 6 o’clock in the evening, the United States Rev-
enue-cutter ‘Richard Rush” steamed up to the ‘ Kate,” w ithin hailing distance, and
an officer asked me what I was doing. I replied that I was fishing. He said that
he had orders to order all schooners out of Behring’s Sea if caught sealing, and if
he saw me again in the sea he would seize me. The wind was blowing a gale at the
time, and the cutter steamed away.

6. In consequence of what had been said to me by the officer of said cutter I at
once determined to leave the Sea and not risk seizure, and on the 16th day of the

said month of August the ‘‘ Kate” sailed out of Behring’ s Sea by the Ounimak Pass,
and sailing south teached Victoria about the 10th September, after some days’ delay
on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

438 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

7. Before being spoken by the said cutter, my intention was to remain in Behring’s
Sea until the Ist September, and with the hunters I had and average weather I verily
believe that by the Ist September, had not the “Kate” been ordered to leave the Sea
and threatened with seizure if seen again by the said cutter, the said ‘ Kate” would
have made a total catch of not less than 2,000 seal-skins: The best part of the seal-
ing season in the said Sea was about beginning, and in the three days just preceding
the said 13th August the hunters on the ‘ Kate” brought in about 300 seal-skins.

I, Neils Moss, aforesaid, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing
the same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘“‘ Act respecting extra-judicial oaths.”

(Signed) NEILs Moss.

Signed and declared by the said Neils Moss, the 7th day of December, A. D. 1889,
before me.
(Signed) ArrHurR L. BeLy4%a.
Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia,

Canavda, Province of British Columbia, Victoria.

I, Charles Spring, of the city of Victoria, province of British Columbia, Dominion
of Canada, trader and ship-owner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. Iam the sole owner of the schooner ‘‘ Kate,” of the port of Victoria, aforesaid.

2. LT have read the declaration of Neils Moss, the master of said schooner on a seal-
ing voyage to the North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea in 1889, and verily believe
the same to be true.

3. The market value of seal-skins at Victoria, aforesaid, at or about the time the
“Kate” arrived from said voyage and since that time. was, and now is, 8 dollars
per skin.

4. I, on my own behalf and on behalf of the crew of said schooner, claim damages
of and from the Government of the United States of America for having, by force of
threats and intimidation, compelled the master of said schooner on said voyage to
leave Behring’s Sea before the close of the sealing season, and thus depriving the
crew and owner of said vessel of the benefits and profits of a full season’s catch of

seal-skins.
402 I also claim compensation for legal, personal, and other expenses in connec-
tion with the preparation and submission of this claim for damages, and
hereto annexed marked (A) is a statement in detail of such claim.

And I, Charles Spring, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the

same to be true, and by virtue of the ‘“‘ Act respecting extra-judicial oaths.”

(Signed) C. SPRING.
Signed and declared by the said Charles Spring, the 13th day of December, A. D.

1889, before me.
(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEA,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia.

STATEMENT of Claim by Owner of schooner “ Kate.”

2,000 seal-skins, estimated catch by “Kate” for full season of 1889 in Beh-
ring’s Sea. :
630 less number taken up to 13th of August, 1889.

1,370 balance, at-8 dollars per skin ....20. 222.2 02022450 ceew wes o eee bare 222 G10, 960
Legal and other expenses in preparation and submission of this claim. --.-- 25
Total:...212ie2 sys Sse Sse fi uebe odes ae ae ees eae 11, 210

And interest thereon at 7 per cent. until paid.
This is the statement (A) of claim referred to in the declaration of Charles Spring,
made before me the 13th day of December, 1889.
(Signed ) A. L. Bretyna, Notary Public.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 439
No. 276.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 1, 1890.

Str: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 30th
ultimo, asking to be informed what is the total amount of the compen-
sation claimed on account of the British vessels seized up to date by
the United States authorities in Behring’s Sea.

You are authorized to inform Mr. Blaine that the claims which have
been presented to Her Majesty’s Government amount to about 500,000
dollars.

Her Majesty’s Government would, of course, be willing to subject
them to further examination, and probably considerable reductions
would be found to be admissible.

Should differences of opinion arise as to the amounts to be awarded
in the several cases, Her Majesty’s Government might not be indisposed
to agree that they should be referred to arbitration.

lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY,

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 1, 1890.
S1r: I have to inform you that the claims for compensation for the
seizure of British vessels in Behring’s Sea, submitted by the Canadian
yovernment, have been revised at the Colonial Office, and should not
exceed 400,000 dollars.
A summary of the various claims will be sent to you by mail this
evening.
Lam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

403 No. 278.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 6, 1890.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to state that his
Lordship would be glad to be favoured with any observations which
Lord Knutsford may have to offer on the reply of the United States
Government to the protest of Her Majesty’s Government against the
seizures of Canadian sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea by the United
States authorities.*

Tam, We.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

* See No. 272.

440 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,
No. 279.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 7.)

DOWNING STREET, February 6, 1890.
Str: With reference to tie last paragraph of the letter from this
Department of the 31st ultimo, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to
transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, copies
of telegraphic correspondence with the Governor-General of Canada
respecting the claims on account of the seizures made by the United
States Revenue cruizers in Behring’s Sea.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) ROBERT G, W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 279.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stunley of Preston.
DOWNING STREET, January 30, 1890.

I should be glad to know if there are any further claims for compensation Beh-
ring’s Sea, and what they amount to.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 279.—Telegraphie.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

(Received at the Colonial Office, February 4, 1890.)
There is one additional claim for compensation ‘ Minnie,” 16,460 dollars. I am
sending summary of claims by post, and have forwarded a copy to Her Majesty’s
Minister at Washington for his information.

No. 280.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
February 8.)
: WASHINGTON, February 7, 1890.

My Lorp: The terrible calamity which has befallen the family of
the Secretary of the Navy and the renewed affliction in the family of
the Secretary of State, both of which events I had the honour to report
to your Lordship by telegram, have delayed the further progress of the
negotiations respecting the Behring’s Sea question. But as soon as
was practicable after the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 1st
instant I had an interview with Mr. Blaine and resumed the discussion
on the subject of damages for the seizure of the Canadian vessels.

IT informed him of the amount of the claims, at which he appeared
quite astounded. After some general conversation as to the nature and

character of the damages claimed, Mr. Blaine said that, viewing
404 the case as he did from the standpoint taken in his reply to the
protest of Her Majesty’s Government against the seizure of the
vessels in question, he could never admit that his Government were justly
liable to pay any damages at all. But he was willing to examine and
assess the damages with me on the same principle.as if the liability of

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. AAI

his Government were adinitted, and then to refer the question of liabil-
ity to some eminent jurisconsult for decision, on written statements and
answers submitted by the two Governments respectively.

I objected that the whole Behring’s Sea controversy would be raised
in such an arbitration, which it appeared to me would of necessity
involve grave questions of international law more fitting for solution by
an areopagus of the Great Powers.

Mr. Blaine dissented from this view, urging that, as his Government
had asserted no claim to the Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, no estab-
lished principles of international law would be in dispute.

The Arbitrator would only have to find whether, under the cireum-
stances, the United States Government ought to pay damages for the
seizures. If he found in the affirmative, the damages previously
assessed would be paid.

I observed that, apart from other objections, it seemed to me prema-
ture to talk of arbitration; and I reminded him that at our first inter-
view (reported in my despatch No, 190 of the lst November, 1889) he
expressed the opinion that, if an arrangement in regard to a close time
should be arrived at, his Government would not wish that private
individuals who had acted bond fide in the belief that they were exer-
cising their lawful rights, should be the victims of a grave dispute
between two great countries which had happily been adjusted. I
inquired why he was no longer disposed to adopt this friendly and
equitable mode of treating the question.

Mr. Blaine replied that he was not aware, at that time, of the mag-
nitude of the claims. He now learned for the first time that they were
actually computed at nearly 500,000 dollars. Making all allowances
for exaggerated demands, the claim was still too large to be dealt with
in any other way than by an appropriation vote of Congress, and his
Government were not prepared to propose a vote of such an amount
unless the liability of the United States Government had been pre-
viously established by the award of an arbitrator.

If Her Majesty’s Government were disposed to agree to an arbitra-
tion such as he had indicated he was quite willing to resume at once
here the tripartite negotiation for a close time commenced in London,
and concurrently to proceed with the necessary steps for the settle.
ment of the question of damages.

I replied that at present my instructions were that Her Majesty’s
Government would come to no agreement for a close time unless they
obtained satisfaction in the matter of d: amages, and that I thought they
would only accept arbitration on the question of amount. But I prom-
ised Mr. Blaine to communicate his proposals to your Lordship without
delay, and I have accordingly done so by telegram.

I have, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 281
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received by telegraph,
February 8.)
[Extract.]
WASHINGTON, February 8, 1890.

With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I have the honour
to inquire whether your Lordship would see any objection to the tri-
partite negotiation for a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea, and the

442 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

assessment of damages for the seizures of Canadian vessels, being com-
menced at once, leaving the question of arbitration in suspense until
the results of both proceedings are known.

No. 282.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 10, 1890.

Str: With reference to my letter of the 3rd instant, I am directed

by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit herewith, to be laid be-

405 fore Secretary Lord Knutsford, a copy of a telegram from Sir J.

Pauncefote,* stating that he has communicated the amount of

the Behring’s Sea claims to Mr. Blaine, who proposes to assess them

provisionally, and then to refer the question of the liability of the United
States Government to arbitration.

Tam to state that Lord Salisbury proposes, with Lord Knutsford’s
concurrence, to authorize Sir J. Pauncefote to commence at once the
tripartite negotiations and the assessment of damages, leaving the
question of arbitration in suspense until the results of both proceed-
ings are known.

lam, &e. (Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 283.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 10, 1890.

Srr: I have received your telegram of the 8th instant, stating that
you have communicated to Mr. Blaine the amount claimed on account
of the seizures of Canadian vessels, and that his [Excellency states
that such a sum could only be paid on the award of an arbitration,
followed by a vote of Congress. You add that he is willing to assess
the claims provisionally, leaving the question of the liability of the
United States Government to be eventually decided by arbitration.

I have to acquaint you that Her Majesty’s Government are willing to
proceed in accordance with Mr. Blaine’s suggestion, and that you are
authorized at once to commence negotiations for a tripartite Agreement
respecting the establishment of a close season, and the assessment of
damages sustained on account of the seizure of the vessels.

Iam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.
No. 284.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 11.)
(Extract. ]

DOWNING STREET, February 11, 1890.
_ With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by Lord
Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salis-
bury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, for-

* See No. 280.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 443

warding a Minute of the Dominion Privy Council on the subject of the
Notice published by the United States Governuient calling for tenders
for the lease of the Alaskan seal fisheries.

Although, as suggested by the Canadian Government, the granting
of such a lease as that referred to would be calculated to complicate
the contemplated negotiations, Lord Knutsford is disposed to think
that the issue of the Notice need not be held to preclude the commence-
ment of those negotiations, and his Lordship desires me to suggest
thata copy of this despatch should be sent to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington, with instructions to communicate it to the United States
Government, if he sees no objection.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 284.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT House, Ottawa, January 20, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to the proposals made by Mr. Bayard for a close season
for seals in Behring’s Sea, which was dealt with by my Government in the Orders in
Council, copies of which were forwarded in my despatches of the 3rd August, 1888,
and of the 11th November, 1889, I have the honour to forward herewith, for your
Lordship’s information, a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, embody-
ing a Report of the Minister of Marine and lisheries, in regard to an advertisement
recently issued by the Secretary of the Treasury for the United States, calling for
tenders for the exclusive privilege of taking seals on the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George of the Pribylov group in the Behring’s Sea for a term of twenty years

from the 1st May, 1890.
406 Your Lordship will observe that my Government is apprehensive that a

lease such as that contemplated in the advertisement, under which the
monopoly which has existed for the past twenty years would be continued regard-
less of any close season, may interfere with the proposed negotiations for a close
season.

lhave, &ce. <
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 284.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 15th January, 1890.

On a Report dated the 4th January, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
submitting in connection with the Minutes of Council of the 14th July, 1888, and
4th November, 1889, approved by his Excellency the Governor-General, upon the
subject of the protection of fur-seals in the Behring’s Sea, the appended advertise-
ment recently issued by the Secretary of the Treasury for the United States of
America, calling for tenders to be received up to the 25rd January instant for the
exclusive privilege of taking fur-seals on the Islands of St. Pan] and St. George, of
the Pribylov group, in the Behring’s Sea, commonly known as tlhe Seal Islands, for
a term of twenty years from the lst May, 1890.

The Minister observes, in reference to the Honourable Mr. Bayard’s proposal for
international action in the establishment of a close season for seals in the Behring’s
Sea, extending from the 15th April to the 1st November, that the present advertise-
ment would indicate on the part of the United States authorities the intention to
continue that monopoly of the seal industry which has existed for the past twenty
years, regardless of any close season applicable to the breeding grounds or rookeries
of the seals.

The Minister notices that the only important difference between the terms of the
proposed lease and those in the lease held by the Alaska Commercial Company,
expiring in May 1890, is the limitation in the number of seals to be annually killed,
which is stated to be 60,000, instead of 100,000, for the first year, the number to be
fixed by the Treasury Department for succeeding years.

.

444 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Minister desires to point out that the months open to the lessees of the breed-
ing grounds for killing operations, during the next twenty years, are June, July,
September, and October, or four of the months in the middle of the close season pro-
posed by the Honourable Mr. Bayard on behalf of the United States authorities.

It has already been contended by your Excellency’s advisers that the dates then
proposed by the Honourable Mr. Bayard were fixed tu practically exclude from fish-
ing operations all vessels likely to frequent these waters for that purpose.

The Minister observes that in support of the Honourable Mr. Bayard’s proposal,
it was contended that the British and other sealers were in the habit of killing aud
wounding the cow-seals with their young, and that therefore the necessity for the
close season proposed by him was all the greater in the interest of the fishery; but
upon this it may be said that the British vessels seized or expelled from the Behring’s
Sea, almost without exception, entered that sea, in the month of July, or during the
height of the killing season of the Alaska Commercial Company, and as the female
seals (according to the United States authorities) repair to the rookeries in June and
July, where they soon after bring forth their young, the opportunity for sealing-
vessels to kill females with pup in the open waters of the Behring’s Sea must be
very rare.

The Minister is of opinion that the attention of Her Majesty’s Government should
be called to this state of facts, and that they be informed that your Excellency’s
advisers are under the apprehension that the said lease may interfere with the pro-
posed negotiations for a close season for Behring’s Sea.

The Committee concurring, advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a
copy of this Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
for the information of Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOuUN J. McGrr,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX.
(See Inclosure in No. 268.)

407 No. 286,

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
February 11.)

WASHINGTON, February 11, 1890.

My Lorp: I communicated the substance of your Lordship’s tele-
gram to Mr. Blaine late yesterday evening, and he consented to your
Lordship’s proposal to commence the tripartite negotiation and the
assessment of damages at once.

He said, at the same time, that he would communicate with the Rus-
sian Minister here on the subject and inform me of the result, with a
view to common action by your Lordship and himself in inviting Russia
to participate in the negotiations.

I have, We. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFO'TE.

No. 287.

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.—( Received at Foreign Office,
February 12.
[Telegraphice.
DOWNING STREET, February 12, 1890.
Instructions sent to Minister at Washington to commence negotia-
tions for establishment of a close season, and provisionally for assess-
ment of claims for damage; he will also be directed to communicate
with you as to fixing time for Representative of Dominion Government
to assist you at Washington.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 445
No. 288.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 12, 1890.
Str: With reference to my despatch of the 28th ultimo, I have to
request that you will bear in mind that all proposals from the United
States Government for the settlement of the Behring’s Sea question
should be received by you ad referendum.
Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 289.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 13, 1890.
Srr: I transmit to you herewith copy of a telegram from the Govy-
ernor-General of Canada relative to the Behring’s Sea negotiations ;*
and I have to request you to communicate with the Governor-General
of Canada with a view to settling the date on which the Representative
of the Dominion, who will assist you in the negotiations, should arrive
in Washington.
Tam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

408 No. 290.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received by telegraph,
February 14.)

WASHINGTON, February 13, 1890.
My Lorpb: Mr. Blaine informed me to-day that M. de Struve, the
Russian Minister here, has telegraphed to his Government to inquire
whether they consent to his taking part in the negotiations on the sub-
ject of a close time for seals in Behring’s Sea.
He hopes that your Lordship will, on your side, invite the Russian
Government to participate in the proposed negotiations.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 291.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
February 14.)

WASHINGTON, February 13, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of to-day, I
have the honour to inform your Lordship that I have written to the
Governor-General of Canada and have requested him to be prepared to

* No. 287.

446 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

send a Canadian Agent to Washington, in order to assist me in the
forthcoming negotiations on the subject of a close time for seals in
Behring’s Sea.
I will not fail to telegraph to him as soon as I learn that the Russian
Government have consented to participate in the negotiations.
T have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 292.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 14, 1890.
Str: With reference to your despatch of the 9th ultimo, IL transmit
herewith, for your information, a copy of a letter from the Colonial
Office,* covering a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, forwarding a Minute of the Dominion Privy Council on the
subject of the Notice published by the United States Government
calling for tenders for the lease of the Alaska seal fisheries.
Lam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 293.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 14, 1890.

Sir: I have to inform your Excellency that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment have agreed with that of the United States that it is desirable to
resume the negotiations, which ceased in 1888, between Great Britain,
Russia, and the United States for the establishment of a close time for
seals in the Behring’s Sea.

I should be glad if your Excellency would invite the Russian Govern-
ment to give instructions to their Representative at Washington to take
part in negotiations for the purpose.

Iam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY,

409 No. 294.

Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salishury.t—(Received by telegraph,

February 23.)

St. PETERSBURGH, February 23, 1890,
My Lorp: On receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 14th instant,
instructing me inquire of the Russian Government whether they would
consent to their Minister at Washington taking part in the negotia-
tions respecting a close time for seal-fishing, which Her Majesty’s Govy-
ernment and the United States Government are anxious to resume, I
at once addressed a note to M. de Giers in this sense.

* No. 284, tSubstance sent to Sir J, Pauncefote by telegraph, February 22.

Oe oe ae

ae toe bee TR ae

*

7 fa

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 447

I have now the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of the
reply which I have received from M. de Giers, stating that the Russian
Minister at Washington has been instructed by telegraph to take part
in the negotiations as desired by your Lordship.

I have, &c.
(Signed) Ji. B. D. MORIER,

[Inclosure in No, 294.]
M, de Giers to Sir R. Morier.

SAINT-PHTERSBOURG, le 9 (21) Février, 1890.

M. AMBASSADEUR: J’ai recu la note que votre Excellence a bien voulu m’adresser
en date du 3 (15) courant au sujet de la reprise des négociations, interrompues en
1888, relativement 4 la fixation de la période durant laquelle la chasse aux otaries
serait défendue.

Le Cabinet Impérial étant vivement désireux de mettre une fin aux discussions et
aux malentendus, auxquels Vabsence de tout reglement A ce sujet est de nature &
donner lieu, le Ministre de Russie 4 Washington vient d’étre antorisé par télégraphe
a prendre part aux négociations en question.

in me faisant un devoir d’informer votre Excellence de ce qui précéde, je saisis, &c.

(Signé) GIERS.
{Translation.]

St. PETERSBURGH, Tebruary 9 (21), 1890.

M. W’AMBASSADEUR: I have received the note which your Excellency was good
enough to address to me on the 3rd (15th) instant, on the subject of the resumption
of the negotiations, broken off in 1888, relative to the fixture of a period during
which the hunting of fur-seals should be prohibited.

The Imperial Cabinet earnestly desire to put an end to the discussions and mis-
understandings to which the absence of any regulation on the subject is caleulated
to give rise, and the Minister of Russia at Washington has accordingly been author-
ized by telegraph to take part in the negotiations in question.

While making it my duty to communicate the above to your Excellency, I
avail, &c.

(Signed) GIERS.

No. 295.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 22.

DOWNING STREET, February 22, 1890.

Str: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 6th
instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-
General of Canada, forwarding the claim for compensation in the case
of the British schooner “ Minnie,” which was seized by the United States
Revenue cruizer “Richard Rush” in Behring’s Sea last year.

This claim completes the list of claims on account of these seizures,

Tam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.
410 [Inclosure 1 in No. 295.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutaford.

GOVERNMENT House, Ottawa, February 3, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to the Deputy Governor’s despatch of the 20th Sep-
tember last relative to the seizure in Behring’s Sea of the British schooner “ Minnie”

AA APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

by the United States Revenue cutter ‘ Richard Rush,” I have the honour to transmit
to your Lordship a copy of an approved Report of a Committee of the Privy Council,
submitting formal statements and claim of the owner, Mr. Victor Jacobson, of Vic-
toria, British Columbia, amounting to the sum of 16,460 dollars.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON

{Inclosure 2 in No. 295.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 51st January, 1890.

On a Report dated the 16th January, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, Submitting, with reference to the seizure in the Behring’s Sea of the British
schooner ‘‘ Minnie” (the circumstances attending which were detailed in a Minute
of Council dated the 14th September, 1889), formal statements and claims by the
owner, Mr. Victor Jacobson, of Victoria, British Columbia, to compensation for loss
incurred by reason of the seizure of the said vessel, and the forcible removal there-
from to the United States Revenue cutter ‘Richard Rush” of 420 seal-skins, and
guns, spears, &c., as well as for the value of the catch for the balance of the season
had the vessel not been interfered with in the legitimate pursuit of her calling, which
claim aggregates 16,460 dollars:

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof to the Right Hon-
ourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for transmissien to the Government
of the United States.

All which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) JOUN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 295.]
Declaration of Victor Jacobson.

City oF Victoria, Province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada.

I, Victor Jacobson, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
Dominion of Canada, master mariner, do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. That I am the owner and master of the British vessel ‘‘ Minnie,” 50 tons burden,
registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid.

2. That in the first part of the month of May last I cleared the said ‘‘ Minnie” at
the port of Victoria for a sealing and hunting voyage in the North Pacitie Ocean
and Behring’s Sea, and sailed immediately afterwards.

3. IL hada crew of five white men and sixteen Indians, with two boats for white
hunters, eight canoes for Indian hunters, and completely provisioned and equipped
for a full season’s hunting and sealing in northern waters.

4, On the 27th day of June last I entered the Behring’s Sea, through Ounimak
Pass, having then on board about 150 seal-skins caught on the way up from Victoria.

5. Limmediately engaged in hunting, and sealing and continued to do so until the
15th July last, at which date I had on board 420 seal-skins in all.

6. On that day, the 15th July last, about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, I sighted a
steamer bearing down upon us, which proved to be the United States Revenue steamer
“Richard Rush.” When within hailing distance, an officer on the said ‘‘ Rush”
salled out to me to heave-to, and I did so; a boat was sent off from the *‘ Rush” with
two officers and ten or twelve men. The officer and five or six men came on board

the ‘‘Minnie.” The officer in command asked me for my papers, which I handed
411 tohim. He then asked me when I entered the sea, and how many skins I had.

I told him, and he went back to the ‘‘Rush.” In a short time he returned and
told me he would take all the skins, seize my vessel, and send her to Sitka in charge
of a man from the ‘‘Rush.” He then ordered his men to open the hatches and take
all the seal-skins, 420 in number, on board the ‘‘Rush,” which was done. He also
took two guns and all the Indian spears. He then went back to the “Rush,” but
soon returned to my vessel with a man, and sai& to me that this man would take
charge of the vessel, except navigating her, and take her to Sitka.

7. At the time of the seizure the ‘‘ Minnie” was about 65 miles north-west by west

from Ounimak Pass, and about the same distance from Ounimak Island, the nearest
land.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 449

8. An hour or so after the “Rush” went away the man left in charge showed me
his written instructions from Captain Shepard, of the ‘‘ Richard Rush;” as nearly as
I can remember the directions he was to deliver the ‘ Minnie” to the United States
authorities at Sitka, and place her captain, myself, and mate under arrest. I at once
made up my mind to stay where I was and catch what seals I could. Next morning
I made new spears for the Indians and sent them out sealing. I remained in the sea
up to the 16th August following, and in that time caught 486 seals and eight sea otters,
I did not sce anything of the ‘‘ Rush” after the 15th July.

9. In the season of 1888 I was in command of the schooner ‘‘ Mountain Chief,” with
ten Indian hunters only. The said ‘‘ Mountain Chief” was in Behring’s Sea less than
twenty days, and in seventeen days’ actual sealing the ten Indian hunters caught
937 seal-skins. On the said schooner ‘‘ Minnie,” in 1889, I had sixteen Indian hunters
and two white hunters, and but fur the interference of the United States Revenue
eutter ‘“‘Richard Rush,” as aforesaid, the ““Minnie” would have remained in Behring’s
Sea until about the 10th September, or a period of over two months.

10. I verily believe that if the “‘Minnie” had not been boarded, and the guns and
spears taken as aforesaid, that the total catch of seal-skins by tiie hunters on board
her for the season in Behring’s Sea would not have been less than 2,500.

11. The value at Victoria aforesaid of seal-skins on or about the close of the seal-
ing season for 1889, and for some time both before and after such close, was 8 dollars
per skin.

I claim damages from the Government of the United States of America for the
seizure of the said ‘‘ Minnie” as aforesaid, and for the taking and detention of the
said 420 seal-skins, and for 1,594 seal-skins, the balance of an estimated catch of
2,500, by the ‘‘Minnie” in Behring’s Sea for the season of 1889, also for the guns,
spears, and salt taken as aforesaid, and for legal and other expenses incidental to
and arising out of such seizure, and the preparation and subinission of this claim
therefor, and interest thereon at 7 per cent. per annum until paid, a statement in
detail of which claim is hereunto annexed.

And I, Victor Jacobson, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing
the same to be true, and by virtue of the Act respecting extra-judicial oaths.

(Signed) Vicrok JACOBSON,
Declared by the said Victor Jacobson, at the city of Victoria, the 4th day of Jan-

uary, 1890.
Before me,

(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEA,
A Notary Public, by Royal authority, in and for the Province of British Columbia.

Statement of Claim.—Schooner “ Minnie.”

For damages for seizure, &c,, in Behring’s Sea, July 15, 1889, by United States
Revenue cutter “ Richard Rush.”

420 seal skins taken from “ Minnie” by ‘‘ Richard Rush.”
1,594 balance of estimated catch of 2,500 in Behring’s Sea in 1889 by ‘‘ Min-
nie,” after deducting 486 brought to Victoria by ‘‘ Minnie.”

Ceol tare me lary per Bley 713) 2 societies. See a es sa dee eis oo case ou. $16, 112
em aii aollars 1 cum a6. 10: Collars..o.22 = 5 cicwst mis sameness san. <Scimaeigcusice 65
HOPindianyspe ms sabia WOUArse esse sees ee see ace sooo See es Soon nese Sameee en 30
DASA SYS lor oe la Ol Cece wotaetee caet nen Soe ALR eS de ele a Suen eee oe 3
PEAR Oem ex WOnsbsy: io Nitty. ie ble i. eel 2h See She 250
ARG TEL AG) i Ts a Sere ae a oe a ey ge eRe ES 4 A ee pS De AD 16, 460
And interest on said amount at 7 per cent. per annum until paid.
412 This is the Statement referred to in the annexed declaration of Victor
Jacobson, made before me the 4th day of January, 1890.
(Signed) ARTHUR L. BELYEA,

Notary Public.
BS, PT V——29

450 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received by telegraph,
February 23.)

WASHINGTON, February 22, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of to-day, I
have the honour to report that I have telegraphed to Lord Stanley to
inquire when I may expect the arrival in Washington of the Canadian
Agent who is to assist me in the coming negotiations.

Mr. Blaine, M. de Struve, the Russian Minister, and I, held a pre-
liminary and informal meeting this morning, at which the question of
the area of the possible arrangement was discussed.

Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve then proposed the following area:
“ From a point on the 50th parallel north latitude due south from the
southernmost point of the Peninsula of Kamtchatka; thence due east
on the said 50th parallel to the point of the intersection with the 160th
meridian of longitude west from Greenwich; thence north and east by
a Straight line to the point of intersection of the 60th parallel of north
latitude with the 140th meridian of longitude west from Greenwich.”

The 50th parallel, as your Lordship is aware, was the southernmost
limit proposed by Mr. Bayard, and it need only be extended on the
west to the Kamtchatka Peninsula, as M. de Struve states that there
is no Seal fishery in the Sea of Ochotsk.

I objected, however, to the limit on the east being extended beyond
the 160th meridian of longitude, which was the limit proposed by Mr.
Bayard, and is quite sufficient for the necessities of the case.

I should be much obliged if your Lordship would inform me whether
you approve of the area now suggested by Mr. Blaine and M. de
Struve, provided it be limited on the east by the 160th meridian.

I have, &c. .
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

No. 297.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 24, 1890,

Str: With reference to the letter from this Office of the 22nd instant,
I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you the accom-
panying copy of a telegram from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washing-
ton,* giving the result of an informal conversation with the Secretary
of State and the Russian Minister on the subject of an area within
which the proposed arrangement relating to the Behring’s Sea seal
fisheries might be applied.

I am to request that, in laying this telegram before the Secretary of
State for the Colonies, you will move his Lordship to favour Lord Salis-
bury, at his earliest convenience, with his opinion as to the answer
which should be returned to it.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

*No. 296. _

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 451

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received February 28.)

DOWNING STREET, February 27, 1890.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of

your letter of the 24th instant, inclosing a telegram from Her Majesty’s

Minister at Washington, in which he reports the result of a prelim-

413 inary and informal Conference on the subject of the area within

which the proposed close season for fur-seals in Behring’s Sea

should be confined, and requesting instructions as to the distance to the
eastward at which the line limiting such area should be drawn.

I am to observe, in reply, that in order to avoid unnecessary inter-
ference with British subjects, it is desirable that the area no less than
the period of the close season should be confined within the strictest
limits absolutely essential for the preservation of the seals from extermi-
nation; and the line proposed by Sir J. Pauncefote appears to Lord
Knutsford to include more of the open sea than is necessary, bearing in
mind that the object of the negotiations is solely the sufficient preser-
vation of the seals, and not the maintenance in its integrity of the
monoply claimed on behalf of the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands.

Tt appears to his Lordship that this object might be attained suffi-
ciently by fixing an area round these islands within which sealing
should be prohibited during the period when the female seals are on
these islands, or in their near neighbourhood, and also possibly in the
immediate vicinity of the passes of the Aleutian Islands.

The matter is one, however, on which the Secretary of State for the
Colonies could not undertake to express any definite opinion without
that information which the Government of Canada is alone able to sup-
ply; and his Lordship would suggest, in order to save time, that Sir J.
Pauncetfote should be desired to confer with Mr. Tupper, the Dominion
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who, it is understood is now at
Washington, before committing Her Majesty’s Government to any line
of demarcation which the Government of Canada may hereafter object
to as undesirable.

I ann, &e. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 299.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FoREIGN OFFICE, February 28, 1890.

Str: I have had under my consideration, in communication, with the
Secretary of State for the Colonies, your telegram of the 23rd instant,
reporting the result of a preliminary discussion with Mr. Blaine and
the Russian Minister at Washington respecting the area within which
itis proposed to prohibit seal fishing in Behring’s Sea during a fixed
period of each year.

Before coming to any decision with regard to the area now proposed,
Lord Knutsford would be glad to know what view of it is taken by the
Government of Canada.

I have accordingly to request you, in order to save time, to consult
the Canadian Minister of Marine, who is now at Washington, on the
subject, and to inform me of his opinion by telegraph.

Tam, Xe. (Signed) SALISBURY,

452 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 300.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 5.)

WASHINGTON, February 11, 1890.

My Lorp: Withreference to my despatch of the 7th instant, I have
the honour to report that I had a further interview this day with the
Secretary of State, at his request, on the subject of the proposed arbi-
tration. and provisional assessment of damages.

Mr. Blaine said that it might be convenient if he were to put in writ-
ing, informally, his views as to the question to be arbitrated, and the
procedure to be followed in regard to the assessment of damages.

He accordingly, in my presence, drew up a Memorandum, of which
he afterwards handed me a copy. It is in the following terms:

“The first question to be arbitrated is whether, under the cireum-
stances existing at the time, the Government of the United States was
justified in arresting and detaining the vessels that entered the Beh-
ring’s Sea for the purpose of killing fur-seals in the open sea.

‘In the event of the arbitrator finding that the Government of the
United States was justified in arresting and detaining the vessels

before described, the case would be finished.
414 “Tn the event that the Government of the United States was

found not to be justified, the second question would be the
ascertainment of the amount of damages due to the Government of
Great Britain. If that amount could not be amicably determined by
the British Minister in Washington and the American Secretary of
State, it would be left to the determination of the arbitrator, who
should find the amount according to certain principles previously
agreed to by both Parties.”

I have, &e.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 301.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received March 5.)

WASHINGTON, February 20, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose an extract from the “ New
York Herald” of yesterday stating that the Russian Government has
confirmed the renewal of the lease of the Russian seal islands in
Behring’s Sea to the Alaska Commercial Company.

Iam, &e.
(Signed ) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No, 301.]
Extract from the New York Herald” of February 19, 1890.

THE FUR-SEAL MONOPOLY.—RUSSIA RENEWS THE ALASKA COMPANY’S LEASE OF
ISLANDS IN BEHRING’S SEA.

[By Telegraph to the ‘‘ Herald.’’]

San FRANCISCO, February 18, 1890.
A private despatch received here to-day announces that the Imperial Russian
Government has confirmed the renewal of the lease of the Russian seal islands in
Behring’s Sea to the Alaska Commercial Company of this city. This action is under-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 453

stood to be based upon a persuasion that the Government of the United States will
take a similar course with regard to its own seal islands, and that the control of the
seal-fur industry may thus be vested in a single management.

INCORPORATION OF AN ALASKA COMMERCIAL COMPANY IN NEW YORK.

ALBANY, NEW York, February 18, 1890.

The New York Commercial Company of Alaska (Limited), formed with a capital
of 1,000,000 dollars, for carrying on mining, fishing, building, and commercial enter-
prises generally in the Territory of Alaska, filed a certificate of incorporation with
the Secretary of State to-day. The incorporators of the Company are William Bb.
Pope, Thaddeus D. Bradford, William T. Davis, and John H. Droge, of New York;
and Heury 8. Tibbey, of Unga Island, Alaska.

No. 302.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 8, 1890.
Str: I have received your despatch of the 7th ultimo, reporting a
conversation which you had held with Mr. Blaine on the subject of
damages for the seizure of Canadian vessels by the United States Rev-
enue cutters in Behring’s Sea.
Your language on the occasion is approved.
Ian, Xe.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

415 No. 303.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received March 15.)

DOWNING STREET, March 14, 1890.

Str: Lam directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt
of copies of despatches from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington
respecting communications which have passed with the United States
Secretary of State as to the compensation for the seizure of British
vessels in Behring’s Sea.*

I am to observe that the terms on which Mr. Blaine would propose
to submit the question of compensation to arbitration, as stated in his
Memorandum, taken together with his further statement that no estab-
lished principles of international law would be brought into dispute,
appear to indicate that he would abandon, before the arbitrator, not
only the mare clausum doctrine, but also the claim of an exclusive right
of fishery in Behring’s Sea, and would rely on the contention that the
United States are charged with the duty of repressing acts done in
that sea, contra bonos mores, to the injury of a fishery open to all nations.
Lord Knutsford cannot doubt that an impartial arbitrator, whether all
the three issues or only one of them be placed before him, would con-
firm the opinion that the owners are entitled to compensation for the
ill-treatment to which they have been subjected.

Lord Knutsford, however, desires me to observe that the question
whether recourse should be had to arbitration on this subject, and the
precise issues to be submitted to an arbitrator, are matters on which
it is important to ascertain the views of the Government of Canada.

lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

* Nos. 280 and 300.

454 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 304.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote-—(Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 15, 1890.

Sir: Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration
your despatches of the 7th and 11th ultimo, reporting the substance of
conversations you had had with Mr. Blaine on the question of the
claims for damages on account of seizures of British vessels by Amer-
ican cruizers in Behring’s Sea, and on his proposal to refer the question
of the liability of the United States Government to the decision of
some eminent jurisconsult.

I transmit, for your information and guidance, a copy of a letter from
the Colonial ‘Office, containing Lord Knutsford’s observations on your
Reports above referred to.*

Tam, We. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 305.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 17.)

WASHINGTON, March 1, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to report that the Honourable Charles
H. Tupper, the Dominion Minister of Marine and Fisheries, arrived
here on the 25th ultimo, and on the 27th was presented by me to the
Secretary of State. He was this day presented by Mr. Blaine to the
Breatddn

On the occasion of our visit to the Secretary of State we had some
‘informal conversation with him as to the procedure to be followed in
the tripartite negotiation.

Mr. Blaine apparently considered that we should commence at once
to discuss the limits of the proposed close season as regards its area
and duration.

I pointed out, however, that I deemed it essential, in the first place,
to examine the evidence on which the United States Government base
their contention as to necessity for a close season.

Mr. Blaine objected that such an inquiry would cause a delay

416 of several months, and that it was unnecessary, as the case for

a close season had been established by the evidence of numer-

ous United States officials and experts, and that the result of their

researches and practical experience during the last twenty years had
already been published to the world.

I replied that their evidence had been ‘contested, and that, in my
opinion, it was of the highest importance that a conclusion on the
point should, if possible, be arrived at in the course of the present
negotiation, for the satisfaction not only of my Government, but of all
the other Governments who, if an arrangement should be concluded,
will be invited to accede to it.

IT urged that no delay would be occasioned, as I could not see any
reason why we should not proceed provisionally and concurrently with
the other questions involved, such as the area and duration of the close
season, the consideration of which would be materially assisted by the
inquiry I proposed.

* No. 303.

ea ae ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. A455

After some further discussion, in which Mr. Tupper took part, Mr.
Blaine agreed to furnish extracts from the evidence already published
by his Government, on which they relied as establishing the case for a
close season, and it was arranged that the first meeting of the nego-
tiators should take place at the State Department on Monday, the 3rd
instant, at 11 o’clock.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 396,
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 17.)

WASHINGTON, March 4, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 26th December, I
have the honour to enclose an extract from the “* Washington Post,” in
which it is stated that the North American Commercial Company of
New York and San Francisco have been granted a lease for taking fur
seals upon the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, Alaska, for a period
of twenty years from the 1st May next.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 306.]

Extract from the ‘* Washington Post” of March 1, 1890.

ALASKA FISHERIES LEASE.—Secretary Windom has directed a lease to be made
with the North American Commercial Company of New York and San Francisco, I.
Liebes, President, for the exclusive privilege of taking fur seals upon the Islands of
St. Paul and St. George, Alaska, for a period of twenty years from the Ist May next.

The following are the names of the Directors of the North American Commercial
Company: Lloyd Trevis, Henry Cowell, Mathias Meyer, and Isaacs Liebes, all of
San Francisco, and Albert Miller, of Oakland, California. Mr. David O. Mills, of
New York, is a Director of the Company. Its capital stock is 2,000,000 dollars.

The annual revenue to the Government under this lease on the basis of 100,000
seals per annum will be about 1,000,000 dollars, as against about 300,000 dollars
under the present lease to the Alaska Commercial Company.

No. 307.
Sir J. Pauncefote vo the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 17.)

WASHINGTON, March 7, 1890.
My Lorp: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s despatch of the 12th ultimo, in which you request me to
bear in mind that all proposals from the United States Government for
the settlement of the Behring’s Sea should be received by me ad refer-
endum, and I beg to state that I shall strictly adhere to your Lordship’s
instructions.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

456 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

417 No. 308.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received by telegraph,
March 18.)

[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, March 18, 1890.

With reference to my despatch of the 1st instant, I have the honour
to report that the Behring’s Sea negotiations have come to a deadlock,
owing to a conflict of evidence in regard to the necessity for a close
season for the fur-seal fishery.

Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve both agree that the preservation of the
fur-seal species is the sole object in view; but they insist, at the same
time, that it will necessitate the total exclusion of sealing vessels from
Behring’s Sea during the close season.

Mr. Tupper, on the other hand, maintains that no close season is nec-
essary at all; but I believe the Canadian Government are ready to give
way to some extent on this point.

Mr. Blaine says that the arguments on his proposal are exhausted,
and has called upon me to put forward a counter-proposal.

I have accordingly prepared a draft Convention, which, I venture to
state, offers the only prospect of a possible arrangement.

Mr. Tupper 1-ft for Ottawa last night, taking with him a copy of it,
which he will submit for the consideration of the Canadian Govern-
ment.

I will not fail to telegraph the reply of the Canadian Government
to my proposal, and shall then await further instructions from your
Lordship.

In the meanwhile, negotiations are suspended.

No. 309.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 19, 1890.

Sir: Her Majesty’s Government approve your oReedintel in con-
nection with the negotiations for the establishment of a close season
in the Behring’s Sea seal fishing, as reported in your despatch of the
Ist instant.

lam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 310.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received March 20.)

DOWNING STREET, March 19, 1890.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis
of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, forwarding a Schedule of the claims for compensation for
dama ees resulting from the seizure of British vessels in Behring’s Sea.
T am, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 457

{Inclosure 1 in No.310.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT House, Ottawa, February 3, 1890.

My Lorp: I had the honour to send to your Lordship to-day the following tele-
graphic message in code:

“One additional claim for compensation ‘Minnie’ 16,460 dollars. Summary of
claims by post. Have sent copy. for his information, to Minister at Washington.”

I have now the honour to transmit a copy of a Privy Council Order on which my
telegram was based. A copy of this Minute has been forwarded to Her Majesty’s
Minister at Washington, for his information.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,

418 [Inclosure 2 in No. 310.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 3rd February, 1890.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them the cablegram from the
Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated the 30th January,
1890, of which the substance is as follows:

“Are there any further claims for compensation for Behring’s Sea seizures, and
can you state their amount?”

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the cablegram was referred, observes
that my despatch of the 6th January inclosed a copy of an Order in Council of the
28th December, 1889, in reference to the compensation claimed by tla owners of the
“Kate,” and that a claim on behalf of the owners of the ‘‘Minnie” has, since the
date of the despatch alluded to, been formally made and forwarded to the Right
Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

_ The Minister further, in order that no claim relating to the seizures in Behring’s

Sea may escape the attention of Her Majesty’s Government, recommends that the
appended reply to the above message be forwarded by your Excellency to the Right
Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the information of Her
Majesty’s Government.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to cable the reply as here-
with submitted.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX.

Proposed Reply from his Excellency the Governor-General to the Right Honourable the
Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The following claims have reached my Government, and have been duly for-
warded:

1886. ‘‘Carolena,” 40,739 dollars; and personal claims, 5,000 dollars.

1886. “Onward,” 39,181 dollars; personal claims, 6,500 dollars.

1886. “Thornton,” 43,576 dollars; personal claims, 6,500 dollars.

1886. ‘‘Favorite,” 7,000 dollars.

1887. ‘‘Anna Beck,” 43,764 dollars; personal claims, 3,000 dollars,

1887. ‘‘Sayward,” 42,481 dollars; personal claims, 3,000 dollars.

1887. “Dolphin,” 59,950 dollars; personal claims, 3,635 dollars,

1887. ‘ Grace,” 57,964 dollars; personal claims, 2,000 dollars.

1887. ‘‘Ada,” 34,518 dollars; personal claims, 2,000 dollars,

1887. ‘Alfred Adams,” 20,433 dollars.

1889. ‘‘Black Diamond,” 17,185 dollars.

1889. “Pathfinder,” 26,765 dollars.

1889. “Juanita,” 14,695 dollars.

1889. “‘Lily,” 17,167 dollars.

1889. ‘‘Trinmph,” 19,674 dollars.

1889. “Ariel,” 9,498 dollars.

1889. ‘‘Kate,” 11,210 dollars.

1889. ‘‘Minnie,” 16,460 dollars.

458 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 311.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 20, 1890.
Srr: With reference to my letter of the 15th instant, I am directed
by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit herewith, for the information
of Secretary Lord Knutsford, a copy of a telegram from Sir J. Paunce-
fote,* reporting on the present state of the negotiations on the Beh-
ring’s Sea question.
I am at the same time to say that, before taking any further action
in regard to this telegram, Lord Salisbury proposes to wait for informa-
tion from Sir J. Pauncefote as to whether the Canadian Govern-
419 ment are disposed to take a favourable view of the Convention
which he has drafted for the protection of the fur seals resort-
ing to Behring’s Sea.
lam, &e.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 312.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received by telegraph,
March 26.)

WASHINGTON, March 26, 1890.
My¥ Lorp: I have the honour to report that some of to-day’s news-
papers announce the publication of the Proclamation relating to the
seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, which the President of the United States

is bound by law to issue ‘“‘at a timely season in each year.”
Mr. Blaine told me a few days ago that it was ready for publication.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 313.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 31.)

WASHINGTON, March 21, 1890.

My Lorp: In continuation of my despatch of the 1st instant relat-
ing to the Behring’s Sea fisheries, I have the honour to report that the
first formal meeting of the Conference between the Secretary of State,
M. de Struve (the Russian Minister), and myself took place on the 3rd
instant, and that Mr. Tupper, the Canadian Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, was present on the occasion.

A long discussion took place on the subject of a close season. Mr.
Blaine and M. de Struve contended that not only was a close season
indispensable for the preservation of the fur-seal species, but that no
close season would be effectual for securing the object in view unless
during the period of its duration all sealing vessels of whatever nation-
ality were absolutely excluded from the Behring’s Sea.

~ *No. 308.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 459

The Russian Minister stated that since the date of our preliminary
meeting of the 22nd ultimo (reported by me to your Lordship on the
same day), at which a line of demarcation for a close season had been
informally proposed by Mr. Blaine and himself, he had received instrue-
tions from his Government to press that the line should commence on
the west from a point at the southern extremity of the Island of Sag-
halien, in order to protect the rookery or breeding place on Robin Reef
in the Sea of Ochotsk.

On the other hand, Mr. Blaine seemed disposed to agree that on the
east the line should terminate at the 160th meridian of longitude west
from Greenwich, as originally proposed by the United States Govern-
ment.

Mr. Tupper, who was then invited to express his views, strongly con-
tended that a close season was not necessary for the preservation of the
fur-seal species. All that was really required for that purpose was to
use greater vigilance for the protection of the rookeries against the
destruction of seals on shore by marauding parties. This would be
effectually carried out by the United States Government by the
employment of additional cruizers, without necessitating the exclusion
of all sealing vessels from the Behring’s Sea for any period.

A great deal of argument ensued on the evidence of particular wit-
nesses and the reports of officials and experts, in the course of which
Mr. Blaine laid great stress on a passage in the Report of Mr. Mowatt,
Inspector of Fisheries for British Columbia, which is cited in Mr. Bay.
ard’s despatch to Mr. Phelps of the 7th February, 1888. It is to the
effect that the enormous catch of fur seal in Behring’s Sea by schoon-
ers from San Francisco and Victoria consisted principally of “cows”
or female seals, and that, in view of the increase of vessels fitting out
every year, there was reason to apprehend, in the opinion of the writer,
that unless some measure of protection were adopted, the fur-seal fish-
ery would soon be depleted.

It was agreed to adjourn the meeting until we had examined a Mem-
orandum of the evidence relied on by the United States Government
which Mr. Blaine had promised to furnish, as reported in my despatch
of the 1st instant.

This Memorandum was delivered the same day, and Mr. Tupper
immediately prepared a counter-Memorandum in support of his views.

Both documents are in course of printing, and copies will be trans-

mitted to your Lordship as early as practicable.
420 They unfortunately present so great a divergence of opinion

on all the facts relating to the fur-seal fishery in the Behring’s
Sea, that Mr. Blaine decided to invite M. de Struve and myself to an
interview on the 12th instant, at which he stated that the perusal of
Mr. Tupper’s Memorandum had convinced him of the hopelessness of
arriving at a solution that would be satisfactory to Canada. He said
he had exhausted all the arguments in favour of the proposal made by
the United States Government two years ago, and he called on me to
make a counter-proposal on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

I replied that I was reluctant to make a counter-proposal without
previous reference to your Lordship, but that I did not take so despond-
ing a view of the situation as he appeared to do.

It had been admitted and agreed that the sole object of the pro-
posed arrangement was the preservation of the fur-seal species, and not
the gain or benefit of any particular Government or body of persons.
I did not believe that Canada, in view of the conflict of evidence,
would object to a reasonable close season, at all events by way of
experiment, and with a view to the further elucidation of the question.

460 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The difficulty was to fix the limits of a close season both as to its
area and its duration. Mr. Bayard in his despatch to Mr. White of
the Ist May, 1888, had distinctly stated that only such a period is
desired “as may be requisite for the end in view.” This equally
applied to the question of area.

It would be strange therefore if no machinery could be devised to
surmount the difficulty.

1 then stated that I had prepared a scheme which provided such
machinery, and that I had actually put it in the form of a draft Con-
vention which I proposed to refer to your Lordship, and, if approved,
to lay before the Conference as the counter-proposal of Her Majesty’s
Government.

I then explained the general provisions of the scheme.

The draft Convention lays down in the first place that there shall be
a close season, but that in view of the conflict of evidence which has
arisen as to what should be its area and duration, a Commission of
experts shall be appointed to report on the matter, and that if,on the
examination of their Report the three Governments should still be
unable to settle the conditions of a close season, the points in difference
shall be referred to the arbitration of an impartial Government, whose
award shall finally determine the close season for the purposes of the
Convention.

The draft also provides for the immediate adoption and enforcement
of a provisional close time as to which the High Contracting Parties
would probably be disposed to be more yielding by reason of its tem-
porary and experimental character, and in view of the prospect of an
ultimate and impartial decision on the questions in dispute.

The other Articles of the draft provide for the enforcement of the
close season, the trial of offenders, the duration of the Convention, and
the accession thereto of other Powers.

Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve declined to look at the draft or to express
any opinion on the scheme until it should be formally placed before
them, but they listened to its details with evident interest, and I
observed no indication of serious dissent or unfavourable criticism on
their part.

I am not without hope therefore that if its general features should
meet with your Lordship’s approval, it may form a basis of arrangement,
and present an issue out of the difficulties of the situation.

Mr. Tupper, who concurs generally in the draft, has returned to Ottawa
to consult his Government thereon, and the next meeting of the Con-
ference is adjourned pending the receipt of your Lordship’s further
instructions.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 314.
_ Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received March 31.)

WASHINGTON, March 21, 1890.
My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose a cutting from the New York
“Tribune” of the 19th instant, containing an article on the Alaska Sea
fisheries, headed ‘‘ Rights in Behring’s Sea.”

-

«~~. 4 sh eee.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 461

I have been unable to discover that any American jurist has ever

ventured to assert that the United States can claim any special

421 jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea, or any exclusive right of fishery

therein, or to support the extraordinary argument that the cor-

respondence between the Russian and United States Governments in
1823 had no reference to Behring’s Sea.

On the other hand, the fallacy of the views put forward in the “New
York Tribune” has been demonstrated, as your Lordship is aware, by
two eminent American writers, Professor Rayner, in his letters to the
‘‘New York Evening Post” of the 27th June and 18th October, 1889,
and Professor Angel, in his article in the “‘ Forum” of November, 1889,

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 315.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 3, 1890. .
The principle of the draft Convention has my full approval.

No. 316.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 9.)

DOWNING STREET, April 9, 1890.
Sir: In reply to your letter of the 20th ultimo, forwarding copy of
a telegram from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, on the present
state of the negotiations on the Behring’s Sea question, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis
of Salisbury, that he concurs in his Lordship’s proposal to await infor-
mation as to the views of the Canadian Government on the subject of
the Convention which Sir J. Pauncefote has suggested before taking

any action in the matter.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

No. 317.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 10.)

WASHINGTON, March 31, 1890.

My Lorp: [ have the honour to inclose herewith a newspaper extract
relative to the detention of the British sealing-vessel ‘‘ Pathfinder” at
Portland, Oregon.

She was seized last year in Behring’s Sea, and ordered to Sitka in
charge of one seaman. She escaped to Victoria, and has been engaged
in sealing till compelled to go into Portland Bay for repairs, where she

462 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

was detained till released by instructions from the Secretary of the
Treasury dated the 29th instant, on the ground that the Federal Courts
of Alaska have exclusive jurisdiction over all violations of the Seal
Fishery Laws.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 317.]
Extract from the ‘ New York Tribune,” of March 30, 1890.

PORTLAND, OREGON, March 29, 1890.

The British sealing schooner “ Pathfinder,” Captain Arthur Morgan, of Victoria,
was towed into port last night by the United States Revenue cutter ‘“ Corwin.”
The schooner was found at Neagh Bay, Washington, with rudder disabled, and taken
into custody by the cutter. The ‘ Pathfinder” is not seized, but detained pending
instructions from the Department at Washington, The schooner is one of the seal-
ing-vessels seized last year in Behring’s Sea by the cutter “ Richard Rush,” and
ordered to Sitka, Alaska, in charge of one seaman as a prizemaster. She escaped to
Victoria, and has since been engaged in sealing off the American and British coasts
till yesterday, when compelled to go into the bay for repairs. Captain Hooper, of
the ‘‘Corwin,” holds the vessel pending the decision of the Department relative to
whether the vessel is amenable to the Law regarding sealing in Behring’s Sea, for
which she was seized.
422 The ‘‘ Pathfinder” sailed from Victoria two months ago; she secured 150
seals off the coast of Vancouver and Washington.
Particulars of the detention have been sent to the Secretary of the Treasury at
Washington, also to the Department at Ottawa, Canada.

WASHINGTON, March 29, 1890.

The following telegram was sent by Assistant Secretary Tichenor this afternoon to
the Collector of Customs at Port Townsend, Washington:

“Tn the year 1887 the Department, in a case quite similar, but in some respects
stronger for the Government, decided that the vessel could not be held. In view of
that precedent, without now reviewing the principles upon which it proceeded, I
direct the release of the ‘ Pathfinder.’”

The precedent referred to in the above telegram was the case of the schooner
“Ellen.” That vessel was seized in Behring’s Sea in 1887, by Captain Shepard, of
the Revenue Marine Service, for violation of the Seal Fishery Laws, and was ordered
to Sitka, Alaska, for trial. Instead, however, her captain took her to San Francisco.
She was there seized by the Customs officers, but was subsequently released by
direction of Secretary Fairchild, on the ground that the Federal officers at San Fran-
cisco had no jurisdiction over offences committed in the District of Alaska. Under
this ruling the Federal Courts of Alaska will have exclusive jurisdiction over all vio-
lations of the Seal Fishery Laws.

No. 318.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 18.)

DOWNING STREET, April 14, 1890.

Sir: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of telegraphic corre-
spondence with the Governor-General of Canada respecting the pro-
posed Convention for the establishment of a close time for seals in
Behring’s Sea.

lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 463

[Inclosure 1 in No, 318.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, April 11, 1890.

Telegraph whether, as I hope, your Government has agreed to Minister at Wash-
ington’s proposed Behring’s Sea Convention.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 318.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Stanley of Preston io Lord Knutsford.

(Received April 12, 1890.)

Minister of Marine has returned to Washington with our alternative proposal.

We are quite ready to acquiesce in general principle of protecting seal life, but
are most anxious that inquiry by experts may precede permanent Treaty, as we
believe the facts to be incorrect on which United States proposals are based. We
suggest modus vivendi for not more than two years, during which experts should
determine the facts on which permanent Treaty can be based.

Cannot answer your question till we hear, which we expect todo soon, from Wash-
ington. No disposition here to raise unnecessary difficulties, but if we get no better
terms than those proposed by United States, seal fishery will be seriously affected.

No. 319.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received April 19.)

DOWNING STREET, April 19, 1890.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the

information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram
423 from the Governor-General of Canada, reporting that his Gov-

ernment accept with some modifications, Sir J. Pauncefote’s
second draft Convention for establishing a close season for fur seals in
Behring’s Sea.

Lord Knutsford will be glad to have a copy of the second draft, with
the modifications suggested by the Dominion Government, if it has been
telegraphed by Sir J. Pauncefote.

lam, We. (Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure in No. 319.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.
APRIL 18, 1890.

The Prime Minister told me this afternoon that his Cabinet will accept Sir J.
Pauncefote’s second draft with some modifications, which, in my opinion, do not
injure it. Ihave telegraphed to tell him so. I hope grave difficulty is now over so
far as Canada is concerned.

No. 320.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 21.)

[Extract. ]

WASHINGTON, April 11, 1890.
I have the honour to report that the Honourable Mr. Tupper, the

Dominion Minister of Marine and Fisheries, called on me yesterday on
his return from Ottawa.

464 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

He informed me that the Canadian Government objected to my pro-
posed draft of a Convention for the settlement of the Behring’s Sea
question in so far as it admitted the necessity of a close season, and
provided, although provisionally, for the exclusion of sealers within a
certain radius round the breeding islands.

I understand that the principal objection of the Canadian Government
to the radius clause is that it would practically have the effect of an
admission that it was necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal spe-
cies; and they maintain the position that no interference with pelagic
sealing is nece sary for the purpose in view.

I am anxious that the proposal of Her Majesty’s Government should
be practical and liberal, and such as will commend itself to the sense
of justice and impartiality of all other nations. On the other hand, I
need hardly say how anxious [ am to give the utmost effect to the views
and wishes of the Dominion Government in this negotiation. I have
therefore prepared anew draft Convention, of which I inclose copy, and
in which I have followed, as closely as is consistent with the views
above expressed, the lines indicated by the Canadian Government.

I am sending a copy of the new draft this day to Lord Stanley,
together with a copy of this despatch.

In the meanwhile, I should be grateful if your Lordship would inform
me by telegram whether you concur in the views I have expressed and
approve of the new draft which I have prepared, or whether you desire
that I should adopt the first draft as amended by the Dominion Govern-
ment, as the counter-proposal of Her Majesty’s Government.

(For draft Convention as proposed to United States Government, see
Inclosure 2 in No, 326.)

No. 321.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 25.)

WASHINGTON, April 15, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 21st ultimo, I have
the honour to inclose herewith copies of the correspondence relating to
the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, which I have just received
494 from Mr. Blaine, and which consists of the evidence furnished
by experts and officers of the United States, and the counter-
evidence furnished in reply thereto by Mr. Tupper, on the question of
the extermination of the fur-seal species by the killing of seals in the
open sea.
Lhave, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

{Inclosure in No. 321.]

CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO FUR-SEAL FISHERIES IN BEHRING’S SEA.
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 1, 1890
My Dear Sir JULIAN: I have extracted from official documents and appended
hereto a large mass of evidence, given under oath by professional experts and offi-
cers of the United States, touching the subject upon which you desired further
proof, namely, that the killing of seals in the open sea tends certainly and rapidly
to the extermination of the species. If further evidence is desired, it can be readily
furnished.
Ihave, &c. (Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 465

From the official Report made to the House of Representatives in 1889:

In former years fur-seals were found in great numbers on various islands of the
South Pacific Ocean, but after a comparatively short period of indiscriminate
slaughter the rookeries were deserted, the animals having been killed or driven
from. their haunts; sv that pow the only existing rookeries are those in Alaska,
another in the Russian part of Behring’s Sea, and a third on Lobos Island, at the
mouth of the River Plate in South America.

All these rookeries are under the protection of their several Governments.

The best estimate as to the number of these animals on the Alaska rookeries
places it at about 4,000,000; but a marked diminution of the number is noticed
within the last two or three years, which is attributed by the testimony to the fact
that unauthorized persous during ‘the summers of 1886, 1887, and 1888 had fitted out
expeditions and cruized in Alaskan waters, and "by the use of fire-arms destroyed
hundreds of thousands of these animals without regard to age or sex.

The law prohibits the killing of fur-seals in the Territory of Alaska or the waters
thereof, except by the lessee of the Seal Islands, and the lessee is permitted to kill
during ‘the months of June, July, September, and October only; and is forbidden to
kill any seal less than 1 year old, or any female seal, ‘‘or to kill such seals at any
time by the use of fire-arms, or by other means tending to drive the seals away from
those islands.” (Revised Statutes, section 1960.)

Governor Simpson, of the Hudson Bay Company, in his ‘‘ Overland Journey Round
the World,” 1841-42, p. 130, says:

“‘Some twenty or thirty years ago there was a most wasteful destruction of the
seal, when young and old, male and female, were indiscriminately knocked in the
head. This imprudence, as any one might have expected, proved detrimental in two
ways. The race was almost extirpated, and the market was glutted to such a degree,
at the rate for some time of 200,000 skins a-year, that the prices did not even pay the
expenses of carriage. The Russians, however, have now adopted nearly the same
plan which the Hudson Bay Company pursues in recruiting any of its exhausted dis-
tricts, killing only a limited number of such males as have attained their full growth,
a plan peculiarly applicable to the fur-seal, inasmuch as its habits render a system
of husbanding the stock as easy and certain as that of destroying it.”

In the year 1800 the rookeries of the Georgian Islands produced 112,000 fur-seals,
From 1806 to 1823, says the ‘‘ Encyclopedia Britannica, ” “the Geor gian Islands pro-
duced 1,200,000 seals, and the Island of Desolation has been equally productive.”
Over 1,000,000 were taken from the Island of Mas-:i-I'uera and shipped to China in
1798-99. (Fanning’s ‘‘ Voyages to the South Sea,” p. 299.)

In 1820 and 1821 over 300,U00 fur-seals were taken at the South Shetland Islands,
and Captain Weddell states that at the end of the second year the species had there
become almost exterminated. In addition to the number killed for their furs, he
estimates that ‘not less than 100,000 newly-born young died in consequence of the
destruction of their mothers.” (See Elliott’s Report, 1884, p. 118.)

In 1830 the supply of fur-seals in the South Seas had so greatly decreased that the
vessels engaged in this enterprise ‘‘ generally made losing voyages, from the fact that
those places which were the resort of seals had been abandoned by them.” (Fan-
ning’s ‘‘ Voyages,” p. 487.)

At Antipodes Island, off the coast of New South Wales, 400,000 skins were obtained
in the years 1814 and 1815.

Referring to these facts, Professor Elliott, of the Smithsonian Institution, in his
able Report on the Seal Islands, published by the Interior Department in 1s84, says:

“This gives a very fair idea of the manner in which the business was conducted
in the South Pacific. How long would our sealing interests in Behring’s Sea with-
stand the attacks of sixty vessels carrying from twenty to thirty men each? Not
over two seasons. The fact that these great southern rookeries withstood and paid
for attacks of this extensive character during a period of more than twenty years
speaks eloquently of the millions upon millions that must have existed in the waters

now almost deserted by them.”
425 Mr. R. H. Chapel, of New London, Connecticut, whose vessels had visited all
the rookeries of the South Pacific, in his written statement before the Com-
mittee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, said:

“As showing the progress of this trade in fur-seal skins, and the abuses of its
prosecution, resulting in almost total annihilation of the animals in some localities,
it is stated on good authority that, from about 1770 to 1800, Kerguelen Land, in the
Indian Ocean, yielded to the English traders over 1,000,000 skins; but open compe-
tition swept off the herds that resorted there, and since the latter year hardly 100
per annum could be obtained on all its long coast. Afterwards Mas-aé-Fuera Island,
near Juan Fernandez, was visited, and 50,000 a-year were obtained; but as every one
that desired was free to go and kill, the usual result followed—the seals were exter-
minated at that island, and also at the Galapagos group near by.

BS, PTV 30

466 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“‘Palkland and Shetland Islands, and South American coasts, near Cape Horn, came
next in order; here the seal were very abundant, It is stated that at the Shetlands
alone 100,000 per annum might have been obtained and the rookories preserved, if
taken under proper restrictions; but in the eagerness of men they killed old and
young, male and female; little pups a few days old, deprived of their mothers, died
by thousands on the beaches; carcasses and bones strewed the shores, and this pro-
ductive fishery was wholly destroyed. It is estimated that in the years 1821 and
1822 no less than 320,000 of these animals were killed at the Shetlands alone. An
American captain, describing in after years his success there, says: ‘We went the
first year with one vessel and got 1,200; the second year with two vessels, and
obtained 30,000; the third year with six vessels, getting only 1,700—all there was left.’

‘““A small rookery is still preserved at the Lobos Islands, off the River La Plata;
this, being carefully guarded underY strict regulations by the Government of Buenos
Ayres and rented to proper parties, yields about 5,000 skins per annum. As late as
the year 1854 a small island, hardly a mile across, was discovered by Americans in
the Japan Sea, where about 50,000 seals resorted annually. Traders visited it, and
in three years the club and knife had cleaned them all off. Not 100 a season can
now be found there.”

Honourable C. A. Williams, of Connecticut, who inherited the whaling and sealing
business from his father and grandfather, speaking of the seal in the South Pacific,
gave the following testimony before the Congressional Committee:

The history of sealing goes back to about 1790, and from that to the early part of
this century.

In the earlier period of which I speak there were no seals known in the North
Pacific Ocean. Their particular haunt was the South Atlantic. They were discoy-
ered by Cook, in his voyages, on the Island of Desolation; by Widdall, in his voy-
ages to the South Pole, on the Island of South Georgia and Sandwichland; and by
later voyagers, whose names escape me, in the islands of the South Pacifie Ocean.
When the number of seals on those islands werefirst brought to the notice of British
merchants, they pursued the hunting of these animals on the Island of Desolation.

The most authentic authority we have about the matter is derived from reports
made by these voyagers as to the number of seals taken from those places, and,
although they are not entirely accurate, I think they are fully as accurate as could
be expected, considering the lapse of time. On the Island of Desolation it is esti-
mated that 1,200,000 fur-seals were taken; from the Island of South Georgia a like
number were taken, and from the Island of Mas-a-Fuera probably a greater number
were taken. As to the Sandwichland the statistics are not clear, but there can be
no doubt that over 500,000 seals were taken from that locality, and in 1820 the Islands
of South Shetland, south of Cape Horn, were discovered; and from these islands
320,000 fur-seals were taken in two years. There were other localities from which
seals were taken, but no others where they were found in such large numbers.

* * * * * * * *

The cause of the extermination of seals in those localities was the indiscriminate
character of the slaughter. Sometimes as many as fifteen vessels would be hanging
around these islands awaiting opportunity to get their catch, and every vessel
would be governed by individual interests. They would kill everything that came
in their way that furnished a skin, whether a cow, a bull, or a middle-grown seal,
leaving the young pups just born to die from neglect and starvation. It was like
taking a herd of cattle and killing all the bulls and cows and leaving the calves.
The extermination was so complete in these localities that the trade was exhausted,
and voyages to those places were abandoned, About 1870, nearly fifty years after
the discovery of the South Shetland Islands, when the occupation of Alaska by the
cession of Russia to the United States of the Behring’s Sea was brought about——

The Chairman.—I want to interrupt you to ask a question bearing on that point.
Were those rookeries in the South Seas never under the protectorate of any Govern-
ment at all?

The Witness.—Never. I was going to say that when the cession was made by Rus-
sia to the United States of this territory, and the subject of the value of fur-seals,
or the possible value, was brought to mind, people who had been previously engaged
in that business revisited these southern localities after a lapse of nearly fifty years,
and no seals were found on the Island of Desolation. These islands have been used
as the breeding-place for sea-elephants, and that creature cannot be exterminated
on that island, for the reason that certain beaches known as ‘‘ weather beaches” are
there. The sea breaks rudely upon these beaches, and it is impossible to land upon
them. There are cliffs, something like 300 to 500 feet, of shore ice, and the sea-ele-
phant finds a safe resort on these beaches, and stili preserves enough life to make
the pursuit of that animal worth following in a small way.

I have vessels there, and have had, myself and father, for fifty or sixty years. But
this is incidental. The Island of South Shetland, and the Island of South Georgia,
and the Island of Sandwichland, and the Diegos, off Cape Horn, and one or two

Se eS or ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 467

other minor points were found to yield more or less seal. In this period of fifty years
in these localities seal life had recuperated to such an extent that there was taken
from them in the six years from 1870 to 1876 or 1877 perhaps 40,000 skins.

Q. After they had been abandoned for fifty years?—A. Yes; to-day they are again
exhausted. ‘The last year’s search of vessels in that region—-I have the statistics here
of a vessel from Stonington from the South Shetland Islands, reported in 1888, and
she procured thirty-nine skins as the total result of search on those islands and South
Georgia.

~ One of my own vessels procured sixty-one skins, including eleven pups, as

426 the total result of her voyage; and, except about Cape Horn, there are, in my

opinion, no seals remaining. Ido not think that 100 seals could be procured

from all the localities mentioned by a close search. Any one of those localities I

have named, under proper protection and restrictions, might have been perpetuated

as a breeding-place for seals, yielding as great a number per annum as do the islands
belonging to the United States.

Now, the trade in those localities is entirely exhausted, and it would be impossible
in a century to restock those islands, or bring them back to a point where they would
yield a reasonable return for the investment of capital in hunting skins. ‘That, in
brief, completes the history of the fur-seal in the South Atlantic Ocean.

Danger of the Extermination of the Alaska Rookeries.

We have already mentioned that the present number of seals on St. Paul and St.
George Islands has materially diminished during the last two or three years. The
testimony discloses the fact that a large number of British and American vessels,
manned by expert Indian seal-hunters, have frequented Behring’s Sea and destroyed
hundreds of thousands of fur-seals by shooting them in the water, and securing as
many of the carcases for their skins as they were able to take on board, The testi-
mony of the Government Agents shows that of the number of seals killed in the
water not more than one in seven, on an average, is secured, for the reason that a
wounded seal will sink in the sea; so that for every 1,000 sealskins secured in this
manner there is a diminution of seal life at these rookeries of at least 7,000. Added
to this is the fact that the shooting of a female seal with young causes the death of
both. If the shooting is before delivery, that, of course, is the end of both; if after,
the young seal dies for want of sustenance.

During the season of 1885 the number of contraband sealskins placed on the mar-
ket was over 13,000; and in 1886, 25,000; in 1887, 34,000; and in 1888 the number of
illicit skins secured by British cruizers was less than 25,000, which number would
have been largely increased had not the season been very stormy and boisterous.
American citizens respected the law and the published notice of the Secretary of
the Treasury, and made no attempt to take seals.

From this it appears that, during the last three years, the number of contraband
sealskins placedl on the market amounted to over 97,000, and which, according to
the testimony, destroyed nearly 750,000 fur-seals, causing a loss of revenue amount-
ing to over 2,000,000 dollars, at the rate of tax and rental paid by the lessee of the
Seal Islands. -
Limitation: the Lessee forbidden to kill any Female Seal.

The following is an extract from the official Report to Congress:

The lessee is permitted to kill 100,000 fur-seals on St. Panl and St. George Islands,
and no more, and is prohibited from killing any female seal or any seal less than one
- year old, and from killing any fur-seal at any time except during the months of June,
July, September, and October, and from killing such seals by the use of fire-arms or
other means tending to drive the seals from said islands, and from killing any seal
in the water adjacent to said islands, or on the beaches, cliffs, or rocks where they
haul up from the sea to remain.

Further extract from Report:

It is clear to your Committee, from the proof submitted, that to prohibit seal-
killing on the Seal Islands, and permit the killing in Behring’s Sea, would be no
protection; for it isnot on the islands where the destruction of seal life is threat-
ened or seals are unlawfully killed, but it is in that part of Behvring’s Sea lying
between the eastern and western limits of Alaska, as described in the Treaty of
Cession, through which the seals pass and repass in going to and from their feeding-
grounds, some 50 miles south-east of the rookeries, and in their annual migrations to
and from the islands.

Extract from Report of L. N. Buynitsky, Agent of the Treasury in 1870, to Hon-
ourable Geo. L. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury. It will be observed that this
Report was made in 1870, before any dispute had arisen with the Canadian sealers:

When the herd has been driven a certain distance from the shore a halt is made,
and a sorting of the game as to age, sex, and condition of the fur is efiected. ‘This

468 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

operation reqnires the exercise of a life-long experience, and is of the utmost impor-
tance, as the killing of females, which are easily mistaken for young males, even by
the natives, would endanger the propagation of the species,

The same witness, when not an employé of the Treasury, gave testimony on another
point in 1889:

Q. Where are those seals born? Where do the female seals give birth to their
young ?—A. They are born on the rookeries.

Q. Are they an animal or a fish, or what are they; how do you.classify them?—A.
They are hot-blooded animals born on the land; they are not a fish.

Q. And born on the United States territory, are they?—A. Yes; all those born on
the Islands of St. Paul and St. George.

Q. That is in United States territory ?—A. Yes, Sir. ‘ Fisheries” is a misnomer

all the way through, and always was.
427 H. A. Glidden, an Agent of the Treasury Department, was on the Pribylov
Islands from May 1882 to June 1885. In describing before the Congressional
Committee the mode of killing seals by the lessee of the islands, the following
occurred:

Q. Do they kill any females?—A. They never kill females. I do not know of but
one or two instances in my experience where a female seal was ever driven out
with the crowd.

* * * * * * *

Q. Do you believe seal life can be preserved without Government protection over
them ?—A. I do not.

W. B. Taylor, a Treasury Agent, was asked the same question as to the killing of
female seals, and he said that ‘‘he had never known but one or two killed by the
lessee on the islands, and they by accident.” He was further asked as follows:

@. When they kill the seals in the waters, about what proportion of them do they
recover ?—A. I do not believe more than one-fourth of them.

Q. The others sink?—A. They shoot them and they sink.

(). Have you ever noticed any wounded ones that came ashore that have been
shot?—A. No, Sir; I do not think I did.

The same witness testified as follows:

Q. You do not think, then, that the value of the seal fisheries and the seal rookeries
could be preserved under an open policy ?—A., No, Sir; Idonot. Ithink if you open
it they will be destroyed without question.

@. Do you think it necessary to protect the seals in the sea and down in their
feeding-grounds in the Pacific, if possible, in order to preserve their full value and
perpetuity of seal life? Do you think they ought to be protected everywhere as well
as on the rookeries?—A. Yes, Sir; I think they ought to be protected not alone on
the rookeries, but on the waters of the Behring’s Sea. I do not think it is necessary
to go outside the Behring’s Sea, because there is no considerable number of them.

Q. Are they so dispersed in the Pacific that they would not be liable to destrue-
tion?—A. Yes, Sir; they are scattered very much, and no hunters do much hunting
in the Pacific, as I understand. Another reason why they should be protected in all
the waters of the Behring’s Sea is this: a large number of seals that are on the
islands of course eat a great many fish every twenty-four hours, and the fish have
become well aware of the fact that there are a good many seal on the Seal Islands,
and they stay out a longer distance from the islands, and they do not come near the
shore. It becomes necessary for the seal themselves, the cows, to go a good dis-
tance into the sea in order to obtain food, and it is there where most of the damage
is done by these vessels. They catch them while they are out.

@. So on the rookeries they go out daily for food?—A. The cows go out every day -

for food. The bulls do not go; they stay on the island all summer. The cows go 10
and 15 miles, and even further, I do not know the average of it, and they are going
and coming all the morning and evening. The sea is black with them round about
the islands. If there is a little fog and they get out balf-a-mile from shore, we can-
not see a vessel—100 yards even. The vessels themselves lay around the islands
there where they pick up a good many seal, and there is where the killing of cows
occurs when they go ashore. I think this is worse than it would be to take 25,000
more seal on the islands than are now taken. I think there is some damage done in
the killing and shooting of the cows, and leaving so many young without their
mothers.

Q. Is it your opinion that a larger number of seals may be taken annually without
detriment to the rookeries?—A. No, Sir; I would not recommend that. The time
may come, but I think that one year with another they are taking all they ought to
take, tor this reason:

I believe that the capacity of the bull seal is limited, the same as any other animal,
and I have very frequently counted from thirty to thirty-five, and even, at one time,
forty-two cows with one bull. I think if there were more bulls there would be less
cows to one bull, and in that way the increase would be greater than now. While

~~ >a

4PPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 469

the number of seal in the aggregate is not apparently diminished, and, in fact, there
is undoubtedly an increase, yet if you take any greater number of seal than is taken
now, this ratio of cows to one bull would be ereater, and for that reason there would
bea ‘less number of young seals, undoubtedly. I look upon the breeding of the seal
as something like the breeding of any other animal, and that the same care, and
restriction, and judgment should be exercised in this breeding.

The same witness testified as follows:

Q. What will be the etfect upon the seal rookeries if this surreptitious and unlaw-
ful killing in the Belhring’s Sea is to be permitted ?—A. In my judgment, it would
eventually exterminate the seal.

Mr. C. A. Williams, of Connecticut, before referred to, testified as follows:

Q. I wonld like to know—I do not know that it is just the proper time—but I
would like to get the idea of those conversant with the habits and nature of the
seal, as to what their opinion is upon the effect of the indiscriminate killing of them
while they are coming to and going from the islands ?—A. That is a question which

I think most any of us here can answer. If you note the conformation of
428 the Aleution Islands, which form a wall, and note the gaps through which the

seals come from the Pacific Ocean seeking the haunt on these islands, that is
the whole point. When they come through these various passes, generally through
the Oomnak Pass, the sea is reasonably shallow, and the cows come laden with pups,
waiting until the last moment in the water to go ashore to deliver, because they can
roll and seratch and help themselves better than if they haul out when heavy with
pup, so they stay in the water playing about until their instinct warns them it is
time to go ashore, and during that time they are massed in great quantities in the sea.

Q. Now, in that view of it, the destruction of them there is almost practically the
same as the destruction on the islands?—A. Yes, Sir.

Q. And the conditions are as bad?—A. Yes, Sir; and often worse, for this reason:
If you kill a pup you destroy a single life, but in killing a cow you not only destroy
the life that may be, but the source from which life comes hereafter, and when they
are killed there in the water by a shot-gun or a spear the proportion saved by the
hunters is probably not one in seyen. That was their own estimate; that out of eight
shots they would save one seal and seven were lost. If they were killed in the land,
those seven would go towards filling out their score.

The same witness also testified as follows

Q. Have you instructed your agents to eomply strictly with the Laws and Regula-
tions of the Treasury Department 2—A. In every case; yes.

Q. Do you kill seals with fire-arms at the islands, or do you prohibit that?—A. No,
Sir, never; it is not allowed by the Act.

Q. Do you kill the female seals or allow them to be killed?—A. Never with our
knowledge.

Q. Do you kill any during the month of August for their skins ?—A. Not a seal; no.

Q. Do you kill any seals under 2 years old?—A. Not that we are aware of.

The same witness further testified:

Q. Now, I would like to have your opinion as to the insufficiency of the present
Measures taken by the Government for the protection of the rookeries, and your
opinion as to whether any additional safeguards are necessary for their protection.—
A. That the present measnres are somewhat insufficient is shown by the fact that
for the last three or four years there have been increased depredations annually upon
the rookeries. More seals are taken within the limits of Behring’s Sea. Formerly
seals were only taken outside of Behring’s Sea as they passed up to British Columbia,
and off the mouth of Puget Sound, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. That was a
legitimate place to take them, and one against which no objection could be raised.
Seals which come up that way enter through the passages of the Aleutian Islands
nearest to the mainland, and it has always been the custom in British Columbia
and our Sound to intercept the seals and get what they could. Within the last two
or three years marauders have followed them through the passages into Behring’s
Sea, and have with guns and spears taken the seals as they lay upon the water, as I
stated before, waiting to haul ashore and have their pups. The cows are heavy with
pup, and they do not like to go ashore until the last moment, and so they lie there
in the water, and this affords an opportunity for these marauders to shoot and spear
them. This is done by gangs of Indians which they have. They hire gangs of
Indians and take them with them. The effects of this shooting is not alone upon
the seals which are at that point, but also upon those all around, and it startles
them and raises a suspicion in their minds, and there is a general feeling of disturb-
ance such as you notice among cattle when bears are about or something of that
kind.

And again:

Q. Now, Mr. Williams, should it be finally ascertained and considered by our Gov-
ernment that, under the Treaty of Cession by which we acquired Alaska from Russia,
and under the law of nations, the United States does possess and has absolute domin-

470 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ion and jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea and the waters of Alaska, would you think
it would be a wise policy to adhere to and maintain that jurisdiction and dominion
complete, or would it be wiser to declare it the high sea in the legal sense?—A. In
the light of to-day I should say keep what you have got.

Q. Hold it as a closed sea?—A. Fisheries within those limits are yet to be devel-
oped, and it wovld seem to be very unwise to open up possible fishery contentions
which are very likely to arise by such a course.

Q. You think that would be, then, the wiser policy to maintain such jurisdiction
and dominion as we have, and to concede to the vessels of other nations such rights
as are not inconsistent with the interests which our nation has there and which need
protection?’—A. Exactly that; the right of transit through the sea wherever they
please, but positive protection to seal life.

Q. You do not think it would be wise to grant anything else?—A. No, Sir; not
at all.

Q. And in no case to surrender the power of policing the sea?—A. No, Sir; under
no circumstances.

Q. Could that power and jurisdiction be surrendered and yet preserve this seal
life on these rookeries and the value of our fisheries that may be developed there ?—
A. Only with very great risk, because, if that right is surrendered, and thereby the
right to police the sea, the depredations that are made upon the seal wherever they
may be found, wherever men thought they could carry them out without being
taken in the act, would be carried out. So it would be difficult in regard to the
fisheries. Wherever they could kill these seals they certainly would be there, and

it would be impossible to prevent them.
429 In the statements and statistics relative to the fur-seal fisheries submitted
by C. A. Williams in 1888 to the Committee of Congress on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, appears the following:

Examination of the earliest records of the fur-seal fishery shows that from the
date of man’s recognition of the value of the fur the pursuit of the animal bearing
it has been unceasing and relentless. Save in the few instances to be noted here-
after, where Governments have interposed for the purpose of protecting seal life,
having in view benefits to accrue in the future, the animal has been wantonly
slaughtered, with no regard forage, sex, or condition. The mature male, the female
heavy with young, the pup, dependent for life on the mother, each and all have
been indiscriminately killed or left to die of want. ‘This cruel and useless butchery
has resulted in complete extermination of the fur-seal from localities which were
once frequented by millions of the species; and, so far as these localities are con-
cerned, has obliterated an industry which a little more enlightened selfishness
might have preserved in perpetuity to the great benefit of all ranks of civilized
society. Nothing less than stringent laws, with will power to enforce them against
all violators, can preserve for man’s benefit the remnant of a race of animals so
interesting and so useful.

The most valuable “rookery,” or breeding-place, of these animals ever known to
man is now in the possession of the United States. How it has been cared for in
former years and brought to its present state of value and usefulness will be shown
later on. But the matter of its preservation and perpetuation intact is the impor-
tant question of the moment, and that this question may be considered intelligently
the evidence is here presented of the wanton destruction that has befallen these
animals when left unprotected by the law to man’s greed and selfishness, which, it
is fair to say, is all that could be expected from the unlicensed hunter, whose nature
seeks individual and immediate gain, with no regard for a future in which he has
no assurance of personal advantage.

The following statistics are gathered from the journals of early navigators, and
such commercial records as are now ayailable are submitted.

Kerguelen Land.—An island in Southern Indian Ocean, discovered about 1772.
The sbores of this island were teeming with fur-seal when it first became known.
Between the date of its discovery and the year 1800 over 1,200,000 seal-skins were
taken by the British vessels from the island, and seal life thereon was exterminated.

Crozetts.—TVhe Crozett Islands, in same ocean and not far distant, were also visited
and hunted over and the seal life there totally exhausted.

Mas-d-Fuera.—An island in Southern Pacific Ocean, latitude 38° 48’ south, longi-
tude 80° 34’ west, came next in order of discovery, and from its shores in a few years
were gathered and shipped 1,200,000 fur-seal skins.

Delano, chapter 17, p. 306, says of Mas-a-Fuera:

““When the Americans came to this place in 1797 and began to make a business of
killing seals, there is no doubt but there were 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of them on the
island. I have made an estimate of more than 3,000,000 that have been carried to

tanton from thence in the space of seven years. I have carried more than 100,000
myself, and have been at the place when there were the people of fourteen ships or
vessels on the island at one time killing seals.”

>
>

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 471

South Shetlands.—In 1821-23 the South Shetland Islands, a group nearly south from
Cape Horn, becaine known to the seal-hnnters, and in two years over 320,000 seals
were killed and their skins shipped from these islands.

South Georgia.—Later still, seal were found on the Island of South Georgia, South
Atlantic Ocean, and from this locality was obtained over 1,000,000 of fur- ‘seal, leav-
ing the be: wches bare of seal life.

Cape Horn.—F rom the coasts of South America and about Cape Horn many thou-
sands of fur-seal have been taken, and of the life once so prolific there nothing is now :
left save such remnants of former herds as shelter on rocks and islets almost inac-
cessible to the most daring hunter.

This record shows the nearly complete destruction of these valuable animals in
southern seas. Properly protected, Kerguelen Land, Mas-d4-Fuera, the Shetlands,
and South Georgia might have been hives of industry, producing vast wealth, train-
ing-schools for hardy seamen, and furnishing employment for tens of thousands in
the world’s markets where skins are dressed, prepared, and distributed. But the
localities were no man’s Jand, and no man cared for them or their products save as
through destruction they could be transmitted into a passing profit.

: The seal life of to-day available for commercial purposes is centered in three
ocalities:

1. The Lobos Islands, situated in the mouth of the River La Plata, owned and con-
trolled by the Uruguay Republic, and by that Government leased to private parties
for the sum of 6,000 dollars per annum and some stipulated charges. The annual
product in skins is about 12,000. The skins are of rather inferior quality. Insuf-
ficient restrictions are placed upon the lessees in regard to the number of skins per-
mitted to be taken annually, consequently there is some waste of life; nevertheless,
the measure of protection allowed has insured the preservation of the rookery, and
will continue so to do.

2. Komandorski Couplet, which consists of the Islands of Copper and Behring,
near the coast of Kamchatka, in that portion of Behring’s Sea pertaining to Russia.
These islands yield about 40,000 skins per annum, of good quality, and are guarded
by carefully restrictive Rules as to the killing of seal, analogous to the Statutes of
the United States relative to the same subject. The right to take seals upon them
is leased by the Russian Government to an Association of American citizens, who
also hold the lease of the islands belonging to the United States, and are thus
enabled to control and direct the business in fur-seal skins for the common advan-
tage and benefit of all parties in interest. These islands can hardly be said to have
been ‘ worked ” at all for salted sealskins prior to the cession of Alaska by Russia
to the United States, and the United States Government now profits by the industry

to the extent of the duty of 20 per cent. collected on the ‘‘ dressed skins”
430 returned to this country from the London market. From 1878 to 1887,
inclusive, this return has been 121,275 skins.

3. The Pribylov group consists of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, and is a
Government reservation in that part of Behring’s Sea ceded to the United States by
Russia, together with and a part of Alaska. So exhaustive an account of these
islands and their seal Jife has been given by Mr. H. W. Elliott, Special Agent of the
Treasury Department in 1874, and since intimately connected with the Smithsonian
Institution, which account has been made a part of Tenth Census Report, that it
would be intrusive here to attempt to supplement aught, and therefore only general-
izations based on said Report and such statements of life and procedure on the
islands to-day are presented as may be pertinent in this connection.

In an article on fur-seals which appeared in ‘‘Land and Water,” July 14, 1877,
Mr. Henry Lee (Englishman), F. L. S., says:

It has been stated that during a period of fifty years not less than 20,000 tons of
sea-elephant’s oil, worth more than 1,000,000/., was annually obtained from New
Georgia, besides an incalculable number of fur-seal skins, of which we have no
statistics. Some idea may be had of their numbers in former years when we learn
that on the Island of Mas-d-Fuera, on the coast of Chile (an island not 25 miles in
circumference), Captain Fanning, of the American ship ‘‘ Betsy,” obtained in 17£8 a
full erop of choice skins, and estimated that there were left on the island at least
500,000 seals. Subsequently there were taken from this island little short of 1,000,000
skins. The seal catching was extensively prosecuted there for many years, the seal-
ing fleeton the coast of Chile alone then numbering thirty vessels. From Desolation
Island, also discovered by Cook, and the South Shetlands, discovered by Weddell,
the number of skins taken was at least as great; from the latter alone 320,000 were
shipped during the two years 1821 and 1822. China was the great market to which
they were sent, and there the price for each skin was from 4 to 6 dollars. As several

thousand tons of shipping, chiefly English and American, were at that time employed
in fur-seal catching, the profits of the early traders were enormous.

Does the reader ask what has become of this extensive and highly remunerative
southern fur trade? It has been all but annihilated by man’s grasping greed, reck-

472 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

less improvidence, and wanton cruelty. The ‘“‘ woeful want” has come that “ woeful
waste” hasmade. Without thought of the future the misguided hunters persist-
ently killed every seal that came within theirreach. Oldand young, maleand female,
were indiscriminately slaughtered, in season and out of season, and thousands of
little pups not thought worth the trouble of knocking them on the head were left
to die of hunger alongside of the flayed and gory carcases of their mothers. Every
coast and island known to be the haunt of the seals was visited by ship after ship,
and the massacre Jeft unfinished by one gang was continued by the next comers and
completed by others until, in consequence of none of the animals being left to breed,
their number gradually diminished so that they were almost exterminated, only a
few stragglers remaining where millions were once found. In some places where
formerly they gathered together in such densely packed crowds upon the shore that
a boat’s crew could not find room to land till they had dispersed them for a space
with oars and boat-hooks, not one fur-seal was to be found even so long ago as 1835.

Dr. H. H. McIntyre, Superintendent of the seal fisheries of Alaska for the lessees,
testified before the Congressional Committee as follows:

Q. What proportion of the seals shot in the water are recovered and the skins taken
to market?—A. I think not more than one-fifth of those shot are recovered. Many
are badly wounded and escape. We find every year, imbedded in blubber of animals
killed upon the islands, large quantities of bullets, shot, and buckshot. Last year
my men brought to me as much as a double handful of lead found by them imbedded
in this way.

* * * * * * #

Q. I want to ask you whether or not the 3-year-old seals, or many of them, which
should have returned this year did not return because they had been killed?—A. That
seems to be the case. The marauding was extensively carried on in 1885 and 1886,
and in previous years, and of course the pups that would have been born from cows
that were killed in 1885, or that perished through the loss of their mothers during
that year, would have come upon the islands in 1888, and we should have had that
additional number from which to make our selection this year. The deficiency this
year is attributed to that cause—to the fact that the cows were killed. And I would
say further that if cows are killed late in the season, say in August, after the pups
are born, the latter are left upon the island deprived of the mother’s care, and of
course perish. The effect is the same whether the cows are killed before or after the
pups are dropped. ‘The young perish in either case.

* * * * * * *

Q. It being conceded that the islands are their home, and no one being interested
other than the American and Russian Governments, there would be no special reason
why other nations would object?—A. Only the Governments of the United States and
England are interested in the Alaskan seal fisheries to any great extent. The United
States is interested in it as a producer of raw material, and England as a manufac-
turer of furs. If these two nations were agreed that seal life should be protected.
I think there would be no trouble in fully protecting it. It is a question of quite as
much interest to England as to the United States, for she has a large number of
skilled workmen and a large amount of capital engaged in this industry.

Professor Elliott, of the Smithsonian Institution, who has spent some time in scien-
tifically examining the Seal Islands and the habits of the seal, thus describes the

killing power of the seal-hunter at sea:
431 His power to destroy them is also augmented by the fact that those seals
which are most liable to meet his eye and aim are the female fur-seals, which,
heavy with young, are here slowly nearing the land, soundly sleeping at sea by
intervals, and reluctant to haul out from the cool embrace of the water upon their
breeding-grounds until that day, and hour eyen, arrives which limits the period
of their gestation.

The pelagic sealer employs three agencies with which to secure his quarry, viz.:
He sends out Indians with canoes from his vessel armed with spears; he uses shot-
guns and buck-shot, rifles and balls; and last, but most deadly and destructive of
all, he can spread the “gill-net” in favourable weather.

With gill-nets ‘‘underrun” by a fleet of sealers in Behring’s Sea across these con-
verging paths of the fur-seal, anywhere from 10 to 100 miles southerly from the
Pribylov group, I am moderate in saying that such a fleet could utterly ruin and
destroy those fur-seal rookeries now present upon the Seal Islands in less time than
three or four short years. Every foot of that watery roadway of fur-seal travel above
indicated, if these men were not checked, could and would be traversed by those
deadly nets; and a seal coming from or going to the islands would have, under the
water and above it, scarcely one chance in ten of safely passing such a cordon.

Open those waters of Behring’s Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing, then a fleet of
hundreds of vessels, steamers, ships, schooners, and what not, would immediately
venture into them, bent upon the most vigorous and indiscriminate slaughter of
these fur-seals; a few seasons of greediest rapine, then nothing would be left of

Meee

ogee’ *

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 473

those wonderful and valuable interests of our Government which are now so hand-
somely embodied on the Seal Islands; but which, if guarded and conserved as they
are to-day, will last for an indefinite time to come as Objects of the highest commer-
cial good and value to the world, and as subjects for the most fascinating biological
study

shobting fur-seals in the open waters of the sea or vcean with the peculiar shot
and bullet cartridges used involves an immense waste of seal life. MKvery seal that
is merely wounded, and even if mortally wounded at the moment of shooting, dives
and swims away instantly, to per ish at some point far distant, and to be never again
seen by its human enemies; it is ultimately destroyed, but it is lost. in so far as the
hunters are concerned. If the seal is shot dead instantly, killed instantly, then it
can be picked up in most every case; but not one seal in ten fired at by the most
skilful marine hunters is so shot, and nearly every seal in this ten will have been
wounded, many of them fatally. The irregular tumbling of the water around the
seal, and the irregular heaving of the hunter’s boat, both ‘acting at the same moment
entirely independent of each other, making the difficulty of taking an accurate aim
exceedingly great, and the result of clean killing very slender.

Mr. George k. Tingle, United States Treasury y Agent in charge of the fur-seal
islands from April 1885 until August 1886, testified as follows:

Q. It is Mr. MeIntyre’s opinion that they have not only not increased, but have
decreased?—A. There has been a slight diminution of seals, probably.

Q. To what do you attribute that?—A. I think there have been more seals killed
in the sea than ever before by marauders. I estimated that they secured 30,000 skins
in 1887, and in order to secure that number of skins they would have had to kill
500,000 seals, while this Company in taking 100,000 on shore destroyed only thirty-
one seals. Those were killed by accident. Sometimes a young seal, or one not
intended to be killed, pops up his head and gets a blow unintentionally.

Q. The waste of seal life was only fifty-three in 1887?—A. Yes, Sir; in securing
100,000 skins, while these marauders did not kill last year less than 500,000. ‘The
logs of marauding schooners have fallen into my hands, and they have convinced me
that they do not secure more than one seal out of every ten that they mortally wound
and kill, for the reason that the seals sink very quickly in the water. Allowing one
out of ten, there would be 300,000 that they would kill in getting 30,000 skins:
200,000 of those killed would be females having 200,000 pups on shore. Those pups
would die by reason of the death of their mothers, which, added to the 300,000,
makes 500,000 destroyed. I am inclined to think, because the seals show they are
not increasing, or rather that they are at a standstill, that more than 300,000 are
killed by marauders.

Q. You are of the opinion, then, that the marauders are killing more seals than the
Alaska Commercial Company ?—A. At least five or six times as many as the Alaska
Commercial Company are killing.

Q. What will be the effect if more stringent measures are not taken to protect the
seals by the Government?—A. If more stringent measures are not taken, it is only
a question of time when these seals will be driven ultimately to seek some other
home where they will not be molested. They will not continue to be harassed; and,
if this marauding is continued, they will, in my opinion, either be gradually exter-
minated, or will leave the islands permanently and land at some other place. They
may go on the Russian side

Q. Will marauding increase if the Government does not take steps to prevent it?—
A. I think so.

Q. Is it practicable to prevent it?—A. Yes, Sir. If we did not allow these cheeky,
persistent, insolent British Columbia seamen to go there and defy the United States
and its authorities, it would very soon be stopped. When our revenue-cutters seize
the British schooners, the captains are very insolent and defiant, and claim that they
have astrong Government at their backs. JI am now referring particularly to Cap-
tain Warner, of the “ Dolphin.” He said in 1887, when captured, ‘‘We have got a
strong Government at our backs, and we will fight you on this question.” ‘‘ Very
well,” says Captain Shepherd, ‘‘I have gota strong Government at my back, and I
am going to do my duty. My Government sends me to protect these seal rookeries.
I am charged by this Administration to enforce the law, and I will seize all
marauders.”

* * * * * * *

432 Q. You were speaking a while ago in regard to the amount of seal life
destroyed by marauders, and that a captain had given the number of seals
destroyed. Have you seen any of the log-books of those + vessels?—A. Yes, Sir.

Q. Will you state what you remember with regard to the number of seals lost or
captured by those vessels?—A. I remember reading the log-book of the ‘‘ Angel
Dolly,” which I captured. There was an entry in that loe-book that read as tol-
lows: “Issued to-day to my boats 300 rounds of ammunition. At night they came
in with the ammunition all expended, and one seal-skin.”

474 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Q. They had shot 300 rounds of ammunition?—A. Yes, Sir. Another entry I saw
was: ‘Seven seals shot from the deck, but only secured one.” All lost but one.
Another entry: ‘‘It is very discouraging to issue a large quantity of ammunition to
your boats, and have so few seals returned.” An entry was made in another place,
where he gave it as his opinion that he did not secure one seal-skin ont of every fifty
seals wounded and killed.

Q. Have you seen seal-skins upon the island that had been shot?—A. Very often.
We gather handfuls of shot every season.

Q. Does that injure the market value of the skins?—A. Undoubtedly. Any hole
is an injury to the skin.

Extract from Mr. 'Tingle’s Report to the Treasury Department:

I am now convinced from what I gather, in questioning the men belonging to cap-
tured schooners and from reading the logs of the vessels, that not more than one seal
in ten killed and mortally wounded is landed on the boats and skinned; thus you
will see the wanton destruction of seal life without any benefit whatever. I think
30,000 skins taken this year by the marauders is a low estimate on this basis; 300,000
fur-seals were killed to secure that number, or three times as many as the Alaska
Commercial Company are allowed by law to kill. Youcan readily see that this great
slaughter of seals will in a few years make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken
on the islands by the lessees. I earnestly hope more vigorous measures will be
adopted by the Government in dealing with these destructive law-breakers.

William Gavitt, an Agent of the United States Treasury, gave this testimony:

Q. I understand you to say—for instance, taking 1887 or 1888—that the 100,000
seals taken upon the islands and the 40,000 taken and killed in the water, if no
ereater amount was taken, that there would be no perceptible diminution’in the
number of seal; that by the natural increase the Company might take 40,000 more
than now if it were not for the depredations?—A. I had in mind an average between
25,000 killed in 1888 and about 40,000 in 1887.

Q. What I want to know is this: Is it yeur opinion that the number taken in the
sea, when they are on the way from the islands to the feeding-grounds, have a tend-
eney to demoralize the seal and to break up their habits, their confidence, &c.?—A.
It would be likely to doit. They are very easily frightened, and the discharge of
fire-arms has a tendency to frighten them away.

By Mr. MacDonald:

Q. No seals are killed by the Company in this way?—A. No, Sir; they are all
killed on the islands with clubs.

Jacob H. Moulton, an Agent of the Government, testified:

Q. Do you think it essential to the preservation of seal life to protect the seal in
the waters of Alaska and the Pacific?—A. There is no doubt about it.

Q. The herd could be exterminated without taking them upon the islands?—A.
They could be exterminated by a system of maranding in the Behring’s Sea, but I
think the number killed along the british Columbia coast did not affect the number
we were killing on the islands at that time, because there was apparently an increase
during these years. There had been for five or six years up to that time. Since that
time in Behring’s Sea the seal have been gradually decreasing.

Q. You think their decrease is attributable to unlawful hunting in Behring’s
Sea?—A. There is no doubt of that.

Q. As a result of your observation there, could you suggest any better method of
preserving seal life in Behring’s Sea than that now adopted?—A. Not unless they
furnished more revenue-vessels and men-of-war.

Q. So as to patrol the sea closely?—A. I think so. I donot think the seals scatter
much through any great distance during the summer season, although very late in
the summer the smaller seals arrive. The females, after giving birth to their young,
scatter out in Behring’s Sea for food. We know they leave the islands to go into the

water, because they are coming and going. They suckle their young the same as’

most animals.

Q. Lawless hunters killeverything they find, I believe, females or not?—A. Yes, Sir.

Q. When a female is nursing her young and goes out for food and is killed or
wounded, that results also in the death of her young?—A. Yes, Sir. As her young
does not go into the water, it does not do anything for some time, and cannot swim
and has to be taught.

Q. The seals are born upon those islands?—A. Yes, Sir; they come there for that
purpose. They come there expressly to breed, because if they dropped their young
in the water the pup would drown.

Q. Do you think the value of the seals justifies the policy that the Government
pursues for their preservation and protection?—A. Yes, Sir; I do.

Q. And under a rigidly enforced system protecting seal life in the waters of
433 these seas do you think the herd could be materially increased?—-A. I think it
would. I think there is no doubt but what it would,

:
:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. A475

Edward Shields, of Vancouver Island, a sailor on board the British schooner ‘‘Car-
oline,” engaged in seal-hunting in Behring’ § Sea in 1886, testified, after the vessel
was seized, that the 686 seals taken during ‘the whole time they were cruizing in the
open sea were chiefly females.

Mr. H. A. Glidden, Treasury Agent, recalled, testified as follows:

Q. From the number of skins taken you estimated the number killed?—A. That
season I know there were thirty-five vessels in the sea, and we captured fifteen ves-
sels. The catches of the vessels were published in the papers when they arrived
home, and averaged from 1,000 to 2,500 skins each.

Q. You estimate, then, that during the season 40,000 skins were taken? In killing
them in the open sea they do not recover every seal they kill?—-A. No, Sir; I do not
think they do. In fact, I know they do not, judging from the amount of shot and
Jead taken from the seals that are afterwards killed on St. Paul and St. George
Islands.

Q. So that the destruction of the seals in the open sea would be much in excess of
the number taken, probably 2—A. I have no very accurate information on which to
base an opinion, but I should judge that they lost from 40 to 60 per cent. of them. I
saw agood many shot from the boats as I was approaching, and think they lost two
or three out of five or six that I saw them shoot at.

Q. From your observations have you any recommendations or suggestions to offer,
the adoption of which would lead to the better preservation of seal life in these waters
than is now provided by law?—A. There is a difference of opinion as to the construc-
tion of the law. I firmly believe that the Government should either protect the
islands and water in the eastern half of Behring’s Sea or throw up their interest there.
If the Behring’s Sea is to be regarded as open for vessels to go in and capture seals
in the water, they would be exterminated in a short time.

Synopsis of Reply to Mr. Blaine’s Letter to Sir J. Pauncefote of March 1, 1890.

Page.
Mr. Blaine’s reference to indiscriminate slanghter—note in point...-.-.------ 436
EI XTLAOLGIMARYs PLOCUCtIVENeSS OlvsealSans sy asse os ese oer faces fase See csi cele 436
Rookeries in South Pacific withheld extensive raids for OATS oa eee ae 436
None of Pacific fisheries ever equalled those of the Pribylov group. ......---- 436
History of South Shetland Islands, and wholesale destruction thereon.....-.. 436
Destruction Mas-a-Miulerasa esse clas eee Sone ee acest 2s IPN ES ee eae 436
Chapel of opinion that 100,000 a-year could have been taken from the Shet-
Land Sau Chip LOD Gr LeShLiehlONS ees sass ee aa ante ae sae eet to et ee 436
Lupsim thousands: found ‘dead ion) beaches) :-- 22-2222 422552522222 = ese eee 436
Incorrect statement in Report of the House of Representatives as to rookeries
Ea LL NaVQONG! cd) Mae sete we ao es ek eae eee Gy aL Soa suet fo eeu th 436
Russian Memorandum of July 25, 1888, enumerating rockeries.....-....----- 437
Cape of Good Hope rookeries, and the protection of same-.--..-....----.------- 437
Destruction on these rookeries formerly—plague—revival of rookeries
under regulations.
Seals shot—statement that one only in seven is shot—contradicted by Canadian
ONDA CRIS AE S as se ae gt eh, Ee eee ee ae ee eS SO SHE ISee obo ea eeCineas 437
Mrs Pilliott on unerring aim of Indian humters-=-.22--- 22-52-2252 -2-- ss.55--- 437
TAGE CORO te EU HOT Se ee aise yee es Tea SN Se oR eed s Rennie Japa ve ys eae EL 437
_Statement of facts prior to and at time lease of islands to Alaska Commercial
Company (1870)—lessees permitted to take 100,000 a-year.--....----.-.----- 437
Slauphiterundensussiane rulesss+ =. 929s cere ses one Smet aecmct se skon sate 437
Table SOnwiM Osc ab Chippl sile/— G0 Roepe sees a Wee e years eG ba) eR aI et ait 437
Undiminished condition of islands, 1868, though 6,000,000 taken 1841-70-.-.-..- 438
50,000 seals killed on the Island of St. George i Tat) ol ho eee Ee eRe ae, AO 458
150, 000 killed on the Island of St. Paul during the same year......--.....--- 43
General Ons laToht——3 00,000 Pkallle damit 869/55 ies See ee ee ee ees eeee oe 438
Notwithstanding the above destruction, 100,000 a-year might, Mr. Boutwell
stated, be killed with protection in.and around the islands. -.........------- 438
Mr. Dall of same opinion in 1870 (100,000 a-year may safely be killed)......-- 438
Tenure of lease allowed 100,000 a-year—any male seal of one year or over—
natives to kill pups for NCE RA Mdina US AN oe eee 438
Opinion of Committee of House of Representatives that seals require protec-
tion during migration, and for 50 miles south-east of rookeries while search-
ing for food, which differs from Mr. Blaine’s proposition......-.--.-------- 438
Mr. Glidden’s testimony—merely his opinions, not based on practical knowledge. 43
IN meld Bee Wasa Kone AWG NSIS BSOLONON? 3 m2 Sees Ge cee Se ea eH ee a ae 439

On islands in 1881—as to seals’ intelligence and hours for feeding.
No bulls remain on islands all summer—writers and agents contradict this-... 489

476 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Taylor admits that killing occurs inshore, where the sea is black with seals.
This witness, while stating that young pups are lost, does not instance
finding dead pups on the islands—his admission that seals have not

diminished.
434 Chief damage due to insufficient protection of isiands..............---
Mr-“Williams’ testimony: 2.2 52-2 esc cee heen eee eee eae eamee nea

No personal knowledge as to the seal—refers to want of protection on
islands and danger of seals being taken when passing Aleutian
Islands—inereased depredations upon the rookeries for last three or
four years.

Mr. McIntyre, Government Agent, afterwards a Superintendent for the Com-

aie. 2 Se Pere Ea a a Ses eee eee ee eee one eee
Thinks one-fifth only of seals shot are recovered—found seals with shot—
attributes deficiency of seals in 1888 to the fact that cows were killed—
attempts to reduce estimate, as to number, of Elliott and Dall by one-
half—large decrease in 1887-88—decrease since 1882, especially since
1884—considerable percentage of killed made up of males—410,000 skins
in 1886 and 1887 taken in Behring’s Sea—this merely a surmise—80 or 90
per cent. of catch females—positive testimony of this witness on mat-
ters of opinion or hearsay— his statement that islands unmolested from
1870 to 1885 incorrect, as well as statement as to decrease from 1882
and 1884.
Mare Dlliott as testimony occ + see se ee ee cee ee eee eee eee nae
Report regarding him by Mr. Morris in 1879—Mr. Elliott’s evidence before
Congressional Committee goes further than his previous writings—his
statement regarding loss of wounded seals contradicted.

Mrtinicele/s testimonyon: seo na oa eee toe cece ee oe ae eee eee eee er aeee

On islands, 1885 to 1886—slight diminution probably—caleulation of catch
from entry in log of ‘Angel Dolly ”’—extraordinary log and extraordi-
nary crew of ‘Angel Dolly’”—Mr. Tingle contradicts Mr. MeIntyre—
increase since Mr. Elliott’s count, 1876, 2,1387,000—eriticism of Mr.
Elliott’s statement ve decrease, and points out that Mr. Elliott was not
on the islands for fourteen years.

Mraw. Gawitt/sstestimoniye 2-0. caseeee ee ano ereet pees cee: eee eerer rear

On St. George Island, 1887-88—bad character of employés of Company—
no means of Agents knowing of unlawful killing—no agent can say when
seals are captured off the islands—lessees buy seals killed at Ounalaska—
Agents drawing two salaries, one from Government and one from the
Company.

Mri Moulton’s testimony. 1eii-oos tack acres a ee catenin

Increase in number seals to 1882—decrease to 1885—opinion and evidence
as to catch of mothers.

Edward Shields. sailor, as to catch of 686 seals, chiefly females—custom of
hunters to class all skins of seals under those of mature seals as females....

Mr. Glidden, recalled, based his estimate of 40,000 catch from newspapers. .--

IMEXpPErloncelOk WATMESSESE ots e ee ae see ee eine ee eee eee eee

NoCLoss-e Xana plone Of wilbNeSSGS. =e e =] =e ee nese ee een eee a= eee eerie

The opinions’ Of; wAtNesses ae. -< = 2-0 ieee ee see see cys eee ee eee

Their opinions are substantially that females nursing go out for food—
when away from islands are shot—greater part of catch in Behring’s Sea
made up of females—many of the seals shot are lost.

Issue joined on these by Canadian Government. Seals can be protected and
increased in number by (1) proper patrol of islands; (2) killing of pups pro-
hibited; (3) reduction of pups to be killed on islands; (4) limit of months
for killing; (5) prevention of killing by Aleuts at the Aleutian Islands--..-

Difference between House of Representatives’ Committee and Mr. Blaine as to
when injury began to islands—1886 or 1885........-.---------.-------------

Important to show how insignificant catch of Canadian sealers compared with
depredations successfully survived by islands...--..-..----..--------------

Depredations on islands and catch outside islands—

IC (0) SERA eS arr era ene a AS oe oe Sone lspaonwooseC

Page.
439

439
439

440

440

441

442

442
442
442
442
443

E

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

Depredations on islands and catch outside islands—Continued,

THING 2 pS RE SES ocecnsdie acan EO Re er One aoe ane peo Ue Sea oenermnee crete
None of the depredations were committed by Canadian sealers....--...------
Mr. Blaine refers to increase and profitable pursuit of industry down to 1886. .
Present value and condition of islands better than ever.-...---..-...--------.

Comparative offers for lease of islands, 1870-90..........-...----------
435 Enormous rental and profits received by the United States from the

ASIBVIVGISY Beets S06 Sa Seem REDE ce Means cere oe PN nie Sete ee eee te See
Receipts and expenses—9,525,283 dollars received by the United States in
excessioimpurehase price: of, Allaslcaseseisse soni se era sseee siete eels oes ce

Marvellous increase of seals in spite of depredations referred to....--...-----
1869, 1,728,000—1874, 4,700,000-—1884, increasing—1885, no change; count-
less numbers—1887, still on the increase—1888, no change.

With total of 4,700,000 in 1874, Lieutenant Maynard of opinion 112,000 young
male seals can be safely killed annually:-.-.. 0.2.2. 02. -sce cece esses eect
Reference to Maynard’s and Bryant’s Report as to habits of seals supports
Ganadianu contentions: 3222.0 tee Se asa osm sees Starters sae eel csemiae el
Canadian Government contends few females in calf ever taken in sea.....--.
Maorestemalespneannerd tham males 22/52 Aces sass a5) oe SyaiatieSo = seis es ci= mere
Canadian contention supported by following facts: (1) seals on rookeries still
increasing; (2) old bulls go into water at end of rutting season and do not
return to islands—Clark on males driving others off; (3) two-thirds of males
not permitted to land at rookeries—occasional visits to land—yearlings arrive
middle of July—non-breeding male seals equal breeding seals (1,500,000)—
bachelors not long on shore—females do not feed until young go into
WIEBE cososs coos esp see os bene Sooo ests Hoss ede Sce0sSse50S- so saco ge econ cago osue
Bulk of seals confined to island until ice surrounds islands..-....--.....---.-
Never eat until departure (see Mr. McIntyre’s Report, p. 448)
Bullisiprevent mothers taking, tO wabere--——-2-2-cm oc ces 2s sens sees e-eseee
Rookeriessulletord wly;25, andi remain in WMits>- ss. co-—saesseeee oe sete
No seals sickoridyiniovom Slams <2 2 sey. on sao ets as sie oie eaie'- ee seit so ee
Canadian contention supported by Report on International Fisheries Exhibi-
tion (London, 1883)—Nature has imposed a limit to their destruction... _.-
Mr. Elliott, in 1874, agrees with the above contention—the equilibrium of life
HE@UUNOEl. ot esa ec oo seus eo sebds soc coe Pbde nano ccou suSadende seu Reesss sone seae
Sealsycotitheiratishyime: NorthuPacuiCs ao. ecm sce sap senisicin a oss heme cle asteeoe aelas
Mr. McIntyre’s Report as to habits of seals, 1869.........--..-.-..---...---.-
Seals take no food until their departure from islands in November...-...-----
The duty of Government to patrol islands—Mr. Tingle in 1886 asks for cutters
to patrol islands—Mr. Morgan recommends launches—Mr. Wardman alludes
fommadequacy of provection, jowslands. ssa. so cease an eos Soe ee seen
Mr. Williams points out insufficiency of protection to islands.-...-..---.-..-
Mr. Taylor says, in 1881, the difticulty arises from the want of better protec-
TOM Vis Gait den: AO COS ser ecee says cis Stace eet see eo apsiche serene Sapte Seek we
Mr. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury, in 1870, conceived the duty of the
Government was to efficiently guard “in and around the islands”..._....-.
The interests on behalf of a monopoly cause divergent views respecting the
PLGUECH ONG Om Sealee en cee ose eee eco a oe amie ae ere te a a nw Sopa roel
Mr. Bryant shows the value of the lease in conferring a monopoly—Mr. Moore
THI RUNS TAPES MUTE Ge ee ee IP I nee a eee eng
When the Company took less than 100,000 seals it did so because the market
dirdinotidernandmthemilsce ata see joe seers Seisio o + emote ce eee ole Seeeeer
Mr. MeiIntyre shows that 800,000 were once thrown into the sea as worthless
Wihenpilie marke bwwasnolubhedes ss) 4 ees cts saan ee Se a2 See rcee Sees Le eee
Kailler-whales and sharks’ the enemies of seals...-.--.-..-----.2-<----2-.-.--
Man’s assaults at sea small in comparison to the natural enemies of the seal...
Canadianmoy sve nisO le mW ING ee en sce sen eas Seay a eee ye eee te ed
Mr. Elliott shows that if temporary diminution does occur on the Islands of
St. Paul and St. George, the missing seals are probably on the Russian
islands -...2....

478 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

Mr. Tupper to Six J. Pauncefote.

THE ARLINGTON, Washington, March 8, 1890.

Dear Sir Jurran: I have the honour to inclose herewith a Memorandum prepared
by me in reply to the Memorandum sent to you by Mr. Blaine, and which you handed
to me upon the 38rd instant.

I send you a copy for yourself, one for Mr. Blaine, and one for M. de Struve, the
Russian Ambassador.

ITalso have the honour to forward herewith a valuable paper upon the subject,
prepared hurriedly by the Assistant Director of the Geological Survey of Canada,
George Dawson, D.S., F.G.S., F.R.S.C., F. R. M.S.

I may add that Dr. Dawson was in charge of the Yukon Expedition in 1887.

Copies of his paper are also inclosed for Mr. Blaine and M. de Struve.

am &e.
; (Signed) CHarLes H., TUPPER.

436 Memorandum on Mr. Blaine’s Letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated March 1, 1890.

In the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter of the 1st March, on the third page, is an
extract from a Report to the House of Representatives, as follows:

“‘In former years fur-seals were found in great numbers on various islands of the
South Pacific Ocean, but after a comparatively short period of indiscriminate slaugh-
ter the rookeries were deserted, the animals having been killed or driven from
their haunts.”

While it is admitted that indiscriminate slaughters upon the rookeries are most
injurious to the maintenance of seal life, it is denied that in the history of the fur-
seal industry any instance can be found where a rookery has ever been destroyed,
depleted, or even injured by the killing of seals at sea only.

Mr. Elliott, who is quoted by Mr. Blaine, admits that the rookeries in the South
Pacific withstood attacks of the most extensive and destructive character for twenty
years, when young and old males and females were indiscriminately knocked on the
head upon their breeding-grounds; and Mr. Clark (H. R. Report No. 3883, 50th Con-
gress, 2nd Session, p. 91) tells us that in 1820 thirty vessels on the islands (South
Shetlands) took in a few weeks 250,000 skins, while thousands were killed and lost.
In 1821 and 1822, 320,000 skins were taken, and 150,000 young seals destroyed. None
of these islands, however, were ever frequented by the millions which have been
found on the Pribylov group for over twenty years.

“These islands constitute the most valuable rookery or breeding-place of these
animals ever known to man.” (H.R. Report 3883, 50th Congress, pp. 111, 112, Hon.
C. A. Williams’ written statement.)

Professor Elliott (in his evidence, p. 142) mentions one person who, when with him
at the islands, estimated the number at 16,000,000.

The Report of the Coagressional Committee on the Alaska seal fisheries states that
indiscriminate slaughter in the early part of the nineteenth century caused a deser-
tion of the rookeries, and it goes on to say that in 1820 and 1821, 300,000 were taken
in an indiscriminate fashion at the South Shetlands, and, at the end of the second
year, the species had there been almost exterminated.

The Honourable C. A. Williams, whose evidence is cited and relied upon by Mr.
Blaine, supports this view (see p. 111, H. R. Report No. 3883, 50th Congress); but,
as a matter of fact, while seals are admittedly not so plentiful in Sonth Shetlands as
heretofore, owing to wholesale destruction on the breeding- grounds, so prolific are
they that, in 1872, 8,000 skins of “the choicest and richest quality were obtained
from these islands. In the next season 15,000 skins were taken there, and in 1874,
10,000 skins, and from 1870 to 1880 the sealing fleet brought home 92,756 fur-seal
skins from the South Shetlands, and the vicinity of Cape Horn and Tierra del Fuego.”
(A. Howard Clark, p. 402, Commission of Fisheries, Fishery Industries United States,
section 5, vol. ii, 1887. ) In this regard, it may here be noted that this extract refers
only to the catch of sez ilers which fitted out at New London, Connecticut, and does
not embrace the operations of sealers from other countries.

Mr. Clark describes the manner in which the seals at Mas-4-Fuera were attacked.
At p.407 of the article above cited he points out that between the years 1793 and
1807, 3,500,000 seals were obtained from this island by English and American vessels,
and in 1824 the island was “almost abandoned by these “animals.” Mr. Clark also
shows that in 1797 there were only 2,000,000 on the islands, and yet in seven years
more than 3,000,000 were carried from the islands to Canton, China.

Mention is made, too, of fourteen ships’ crews on the island at one time killing
seals. At p.408 mention is made of from twelve to fifteen crews on shore at the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. A779

same time (American and English), and that ‘‘there were constantly more or less of
ships’ crews stationed here for the purpose of taking fur-seals’ skins,” from 1793 to
1807.

It is contended by the Canadian Government that areference to the history of this
island is entirely beside the contention on the part of the United States that it is
necessary to keep sealing craft hundreds of miles away from rookeries in order to
preserve the seal life on the breeding-grounds.

The cause of injury is the same in Pall the cases mentioned, and Mr. Chapel, in the
Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter, now under consideration, at p.5 well says:

“Tt is stated that at the Shetlands alone {which never equalled the present condi-
tion of the Pribylov group, mentioned by Hon. C. A. Williams, already quoted],
100,000 per annum might have been obtained and the rookeries preserved if taken
under proper restrictions; but, in the eagerness of men, old and young male and
female seals were killed, and little pups a 1 few days old, deprived of their mothers,
died by thousands on the beaches”—[it may here be observed that not a case of dead
pups was ever found on the Pribylov group,so far as the Reports on the islands
show ]—“‘careases and bones strewed on the shores.”

This statement, cited in the United States Case, is direct authority for the Cana-
dian contention. It illustrates three important points:

1. That indiscriminate slaughter on the breeding-grounds is injurious and in time
destructive.

2. That when the mothers are killed, the young pups, dying in consequence, are
found on the island.

3. ‘Lhat Regulations of the number to be killed on the island, with careful super-
vision, will maintain the rookeries independently of prohibiting sealing i in the waters.

The Report of the House of Representatives states:

“The only existing rookeries are those in Alaska, another in the Russian part of
Behring’s Sea, and a third on Lobos Island, at the mouth of the River Plate, in South
America.”

The statement is incorrect. Important omissions occur, since the cases left out,
when examined, show that, notwithstanding all of the extraordinary and indis-
criminate slaughter of past years, it is possible, by careful supervision of the rook-
eries alone, and of the seals while on Jand, to revive, restore, and maintain lucrative
rookeries.

Quoting from an extract from a Russian Memorandum respecting the hunt-

ing of seals, communicated by M.de Staal to the Marquis of Salisbury, and

437 dated the 25th July, 1888, it is found that other rookeries are by no means
deserted. ‘Ihe extract reads as follows

“The places where fur-seal hunting is carried on may be divided into two distinct
groups. The first group would comprise Pribylov Islands, Behring’s Sea, 100,000
killed in 1885; Commander Islands (Behring and Copper Islands, 45,000; Seal Islands,
Okhotsk Sea, 4,000); total, 149,000.

' “The second group, the sea near the coast of Victoria, 20,000; Lobes Islands, 15,000;
islands near Cape Horn and the South Polar Sea, 10,000; islands belonging to Japan,
7,000; Cape of Good Hope, 5,000; total, 57,000.”

An important omission is the case of Cape of Good Hope, in reference to which
the Committee of the House of Representatives, previous to their Report, had been
informed (see H. R. Report No. 8883, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 114) that from the
Cape of Good Hope Islands, under protection of the Cape Government, a yearly sup-
ply of 5,000 to 8,000 skins is derived, and that from Japan, it was stated, sometimes
15,000 and sometimes 5,000 a-year are received. These islands are now rigidly pro-
tected by the Governments of the countries to which they belong; but neither does
the Government of the Cape,of Japan, nor of Uruguay, in the case of the Lobos
Islands, consider it necessary to demand the restriction of the pursuit of seals in the
open sea, :

United States vessels have visited the islands off the Cape of Good Hope from 1800
to 1835, and have taken on some days 500 to 700 skins, securing several thousands of
skins annually. In 1830 Captain Gurdon L. Allyn, of Gale’s Ferry, Connecticut,
mentions finding 1,000 carcases of seals at one of the islands, the skins of which
had been taken. He landed and took seals in considerable numbers. He was again
on a sealing voyage on this coast in 1834, and shot seals on the rookeries.

In 1828 a plague visited these rookeries, and 500,000 seals perished during the plague
(Clark in the Report of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 1887,
section 5, vol. ii, pp. 415, 416), and yet to-day we find a renewal of the industry by
Regulations applied solely to the rookeries, and exclusive of the deep-sea operations.

Upon p. 7 of the Appendix now under review, the Report of the Congressional Com-
mittee on Alaska seal fisheries refers to testimony of United States Government
Agents regarding the number of seals shot and not secured, and a calculation is
referred to, to the effect that one in every seven is alone secured by the hunter who
follows seals on the sea, The experience of Canadian hunters is directly opposed

480 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

to this theory, and shows that a loss of 6 per cent. is all that ever takes place, while
Indian hunters seldom lose one. Solemn declarations to this effect have been made
under the Canadian Statute relating to extra-judicial oaths.

In confirmation of this, reference may be had to Mr. H. W. Elliott, in the United
States Fish Commissioner’s Report, vol. ii, section 5, p. 489, where he says:

“The Aleuts fire at the otter at 1,000 yards range, and that, when hit in the head,
nine times out of ten the shot is fatal.”

In the case of hunting the seals, the practice of the white hunters, al] expert shots,
is to paddle up to the seal while asleep in the water, shoot it in the head, and at once
haul it into the boat; while the Indians approach it in a canoe and spear the seal,
the head of the spear separating itself and being attached to a rope by which the
seal is dragged into the canoe.

Reference is made on p. 4 of the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to the limitations
in the lease of 1870. These conditions, it is contended, are most inconsistent with
the present view of the United States regarding the danger to the preservation of
seal life. With respect to this the following facts should be carefully noted:

1. Up to 1862 no Law in Russia existed prohibiting or forbidding the killing of
seals, and in that year an inoperative Law was promulgated. (See “Russian Memo-
randum, M. de Staal to Lord Salisbury, 25th July, 1888.)

Mr. McIntyre, a Special Agent of the Treasury ‘Depart tment (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36,
41st Congress, 2nd Session, p. 18), records the catch taken from the Pribylov Islands
under the Russian-American Company, as follows:

Table showing the Number of Fur-seals taken by the Russians on St. Paul and St. George
Islands from 1817 to 1860.

= | Number of | ro Number of
“ear. Seals. Year Seals.

DSU Tio meieeiateinieials eiaialwis ai iste sails stewie =e miets GOl188ai\) 1810 soso erento eciea =e eae eee eeese *8, 000
SESS ces ere secon Sees nceeiionscn eo ecie UP stolon he: be A Sos oneenaaseSaa Done stS esac *8, 000
PBLO RAE Zecca ce ete see eee ecene by Feral lia ts? PRE SS Sana sone epdcoacaaecea aac 10, 370
S20 Eemiatmicece ieee erinitice seeeeeeeeaecaer SP PAU | IRE BSS See Ho sBe bose see sodas eos aos 11, 240
UCP ile Shine pspcaacsaconngocaaoaseanar Ss Ce ia | Il ko) pe ee reer Se se 11, 924
36; 469 1) 184be0 6s Spee ao ceeee ode see 13, 637
2978785|| WSAGS eee oe ore ote ee tsata rinse ere 15, 070
205400) ASAT ee te ee ae eee ein eecetineee 17, 703
OO; LOOM pLO4 SE == Roce sce nents eee ee er 14, 650
203°200:5]|) W849 EF Pee Soe ean on laps ae iterate are 21, 450
ON 700 | W850 bes sek acs aoe ae eee =e meee 6, 770
23;228° || ISSA So are cota Sees See amici aerate 6, 564
QU ASTE | W852 a2 l58 ected toe woe oth seceiies sett 6, 725
WSK O84 || 853-822 sjscke ses. eee esc eee oe eee 18, 035
TAUB? Bl Uy aS sec Oey we anseeciasa Seqacicos 26, 146
SG A46 0 LSD De eee cee eae ee eee eerie 8, 585
16) 42) S56: A ee eras chee eee ite erie at See are 23, 550
A5e 751) CURD Tess Ae cc et ye saeco eater ees aced 21, 082
GF080 8 (PSO Se see sice mene sees eee eee ae 31, 810
655905) | PUSsOe eer eee spose ce eee eee . 22, 000
Bi BOO ABO. cote Ue cet ee see ee ea 21,590

*6, 000 || —
*6, 000 Total in'44 years: \.. scsece-cieee 765, 687

* A pproximutive.

458 Referring to this Table, Mr. McIntyre says:

“The number of seals on St. Paul Island is variously estimated at from 3,000,000.

to 4,000,000, including all classes, and on St. George at about one-third as many. I
think it may be safely stated that-there are not less than 4,000,000 on the two islands.
The Table from the records of the late Russian-American € Jompany, appended to this
Report, exhibits the number of seals taken from each island from 1817 to 1837, and
from 1842 to 1860. Previously to 1817, says the late Bishop Veniamnoff, no records
were kept. From the same authority we learn that during the first few years fol-
lowing the discovery of the islands in 1781 over 100,000 skins were annually obtained ;
but this, it seems, was too large.a number, for the decrease in the yearly return was
constant until 1842, when they had become nearly extinet; and in the next decade
the whole number secured was 129,178, being in 1852 but 6,564; but from 1842, under
judicious management, there appears to have been an increase, and in 1858, 31,810
were taken, which was the largest catch in any one year, until 1867, when, as I am
informed, some 80,000 or 100,000 were secured, under the supposition that the terri-
tory would soon be transferred to the United States. ‘The decrease from 1817 to
1838,’ says Bishop Veniamnoff, ‘averaged about one-eighth of the whole number
annually, so that in 1834 there were produced on both islands, instead of 60.909) to
80,000, only 15,751, and in 18387, 6,802.’ From the most careful computation I haye

—— ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 481

been able to make, I am of the opinion that no more than 100,000—75,000 on St. Paul
and 25,000 on St. George—can be annually taken without incurring the risk of again
diminishing the yearly production, as we observe the Russians to have done in
former years.”

See also Wick, Chief of Land Service, Russian-American Telegraph Expedition,
who reported in 1868 on undiminished condition of the seal fishery. (H.R. Ex. Doc.
No. 177, 40th Congress, 2nd Session.)

Six million seals had been taken from this sea between 1841 and 1870. (Vide Dall
on “ Alaska and its Resources,” 1870, p. 492.)

2. In 1868 Hutchinson and Morgan, the promoters and founders of the Alaska
Commercial Company, and afterwards lessees of the islands, saw that, unless restric-
tions were imposed upon the islands, there would be ruin to the rookeries (H. W.
Elliott, ‘‘Our Arctic Province,” pp. 247, 248); consequently, by Act of Congress
approved the 27th July, 1868, the killing of fur-seals on the islands was prohibited
(W. H. McIntyre, Special Agent, Treasury Department, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st
Congress, 2nd Session, p. 12). Notwithstanding the Act to which reference has been
made, 50,000 were killed on St. George and 150,000 on St. Paul by traders in 1868
(Dall, p. 496), 100,000 in 1869 (W. H. McIntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress,

»3)).

% ae Wardman, an Agent of the United States Treasury at the Seal Islands, in his
“Trip to Alaska,” published 1884, on p. 92, says:

‘General onslaught, threatening extermination, by American vessels during the
interregnum of departure of Russian and installation of United States Governments
took place.”

And the same officer, in his own sworn testimony given before the Congressional
Committee, stated that 300,000 were killed in 1869.

3. Notwithstanding this condition of affairs, Secretary Boutwell reported in 1870
(H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 129, p. 2, 41st Congress, 2nd Session) that ‘“‘if the animals are pro-
tected, itis probable that about 100,000 skins may be taken each year without dimin-
ishing the supply,” and that ‘‘ great care was necessary for the preservation of the
seal fisheries upon the Islands of St. Paul and St. George.”

So Dall, in his book on Alaska (1870, p. 496), in referring to slaughter by Russians,
believed that 100,000 seals could safely be killed annually under Regulations, and
Mr. Blaine, in his despatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote of the 27th of January, says:

“Tn the course of a few years of intelligent and interesting experiment the num-
ber that could be safely slaughtered was fixed at 100,000 per annum.”

Mr. Boutwell, as will be seen on reference to his Report, was opposed to a lease,
and remarked that it was necessary in any event to maintain in and around the islands
an enlarged naval force for the protection of the same. This Report was followed
by the legislation under which a lease was executed in May 1870.

4, In drawing the terms of the lease and Regulations concerning the islands the

United States permitted, in the then state of affairs, the lessees to take 100,000 seals
a-year for twenty years, and they were permitted to make up this number from any
male seals of 1 year of age or over.

5. The natives were allowed to destroy on the islands pup seals of either sex for
food, numbering in some years 5,000.

6. The 100,000 could be killed by the lessees in the months of June, July, Septem-
ber, and October.

Upon p.8 of the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s note the opinion of the Committee of
House of Representatives is given to the effect that the protection of the islands is
not enough, but that the seals must be protected in their annual migrations to
and from the rookeries, and for 50 miles south-east of the rookeries to their feeding-
grounds. Thisis a far different proposal from that submitted by the Secretary of
State, since it does not embrace the whole of the Behring’s Sea, but locates the feed-
ing grounds, so called, within 50 miles of the islands.

The other points on p. 8 of the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian
Pauncefote of the 3rd instant, need hardly be dealt with in discussing the necessity
for a close season, reference being made therein to the sorting of the herd for killing
on land so as not to kill the females. This is admittedly wise, since the killing is
done 14th June when the pups are being dropped. The rest of p. 8 of Mr. Blaine’s
Memorandum raises the point that a seal is not a fish.

So on p. 9 testimony is cited, touching the necessity for not killing females on the
rookeries, when wholesale slaughter of 100,000 a-year goes on, and this is not here
controverted. The opinion of Mr. Glidden, whose experience was confined to the
land operations, regarding the proportion of seals recovered when shot in deep sea,
cannot be of weight. It is, therefore, unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that he
is a Government employé, giving his views in favour of his Government’s contention
in 1888, after the seizures of 1885 had taken place. This officer was on St. George

Island from the 25th of May to August in 1881 only. His opinion that an
439 “open policy” would not preserve the value of the seal fisheries, and that it is

BS, Pf V——31

482 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

necessary to protect the seals in Behring’s Sea, as well as on the islands, is not based
upon much practical knowledge. He further stated that not much hunting was
done in the Pacific.

Honourable Mr, Williams, at p. 107 of Evidence before the Congressional Com-
mittee, says:

“Three miles beyond land (in Pacific) you do not see them; where they go no one
knows.”

The British Columbian sealers and the record of their catches in the Pacific for
twenty years weakens the standing of these witnesses as experts.

Mr. Taylor, another witness, ascribes to the fish of Behring’s Sea a very high
order of intelligence. He deposes that in Behring’s sea the seals eat a great many
fish every twenty-four hours, and as ‘the fish have become well aware of the fact
that there is a good many seals on the Seal Islands, they keep far out to sea.” He
stands alone in testifying so positively to what can, at best, be a matter for con-
jecture, and he fails to show he had the slightest means of ascertaining this knowl-
edge. He further stated that the bulls remain on the islands all summer.

This is contradicted by writers and other United States witnesses, as will be seen
hereafter. It is, therefore, evident that this gentleman was testifying simply to his
own peculiar theories regarding seal life upon very limited experience. He says,
at one place, that while the cows are out (and they go, he tells us, 10 to 15 miles,
and even further) the sealers catch them; while at another place, he states:

“The sea is black with them around the islands, where they pick up a good many
seal, and there is where the killing of cows oceurs—when they go ashore.”

So that, evidently, he may have seen cows killed when around the islands, the only
place at which he apparently could observe them, and he has merely conjectured the
distance that they go from land and the number actually shot in deep water.

This witness “‘ thinks there is some damage done in killing and shooting of the cows
and leaving so many young without their mothers.” There would be less doubt
respecting the cows being shot or lost if it was satisfactorily shown that large num-
bers of young pups were found dead in the rookeries. The witness, if able, would
have certainly pointed to this. The reverse, however, is the fact; and, with the
exception of one witness before the Congressional Committee, whose evidence will
be examined again, not an Agent of the Government nor a writer ever stated that
pups were found dead in any numbers on the islands from loss of mothers; the fact
being that mothers never go far from their young until the young are well able to
care for themselves. This witness, notwithstanding his allusion to supposed damage
by the killing of mothers, the killing of cows by vessels in shore—where the sea is
black with them—had to admit, ‘‘ the numberof seal, in the aggregate, is not appar-
ently diminished.” His knowledge is contined to one year (1881), and we have
better and undisputed testimony that long after this a great increase had taken
place—an increase of millions. Mr. Taylor, it should be observed, however, gave
other testimony than that quoted by Mr. Blaine. He said that—

“These predatory vessels are generally there (in Behring’s Sea) in the spring of
the year, when the cows are going to the island to breed; . . . most of the
seals that are killed by these marauding vessels are cows with young.”

He estimates the number taken in 1881 at from 5,000 to 8,000.

“These vessels will take occasion to hang around the islands, and when there is
a heavy fog to go on the rookeries very often.”

The chief damage, according to Mr. Taylor, is not the killing of mothers out at
sea when their young are on shore depending upon the return of ‘heir mothers, as is
contended, but it is due, he says, to the insufficient protection of the island. This
can, as will be pointed out, be remedied if the suggestions of Government Agents
are acted upon in the line of better police guarding of the rookeries.

Mr. Williams’ testimony is next referred to on p. 10 of the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s
letter. This gentleman was engaged in the whaling business for forty years (p. 73
of Evidence before Congressional Committee). As regards fur-seals, his knowledge
is not based upon experience, but ‘‘from reading and from conversations with my
captains” (p. 73). He was called by request of attorney for the Alaska Commercial
Company, of which Mr. Williams was a stockholder.

No importance, it is submitted, can be attached to his testimony regarding the
habits and nature of the seal after such a frank confession.

His evidence that females in pup mass together in the sea before landing may
therefore be dismissed, since he does not produce any authority for a statement
which is contradicted by expert testimony. Neither is his statement that hunters
admit that out of eight shots they would save one seal only correct.

On pp. 11 and 12 of the Appendix Mr, Williams naturally gives his view for hold-
ing the control over seal life in Behring’s Sea. It is not denied that every lessee of
the Pribylov group would agree entirely with him in this. It may be remarked that
he does not share the theory of the United States that the chief danger lies in
ns the mothers when out in the deep sea for food, having left their nurslings on
shore.

————— es CO

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 483

At pp. 10, 11, and 12 of the Appendix Mr. Williams is quoted to show that the
danger to the females lies in the journey through the Aleutian Islands, with young,
to the breeding-grounds. On p. 90 of his Evidence before the Committee, he illus-
trates the ineffective means of protecting the rookeries by stating:

‘Last fall a schooner landed at one of the rookeries and kilied seventeen cows and

bulls right on the breeding rookeries.”
440 Again, at p. 106, he says:

“That the present measures are somewhat insufficient is shown by the fact
that for the last three or four years there have been increased depredations annually
upon the rookeries.

‘‘A revenne-cutter goes upon the grounds and then is ordered north for inspection,
or for relief of a whaling crew, or something of that kind, and they are gone pretty
much the whole time of the sealing season, and there appears to be insufficiency of
the method of protection.”

On p. 108 he says:

“They shoot them as they find them. . . . A vessel can approach within less
than half a mile or a quarter of a mile of the island and not be seen (on account of
the fog), and can send her boats on the beaches and get off fifty or a hundred skins
before the inhabitants can find it out.”

Evidently Mr. Williams does not consider the shooting of females far from land is
much indulged in, as he insists that the damage is done inshore, where no police pro-
tection is enforced,

The history of the rookeries given on pp. 12,13, and 14 of the Appendix has been
dealt with already in this paper.

On pp. 14 and 15 of the Appendix an article on fur-seals, from ‘‘ Land and Water,”
written in 1877 by a Mr. Lee, is referred to.

He merely alludes to the indiscriminate slaughter which was practised on the
rookeries, which no one defends or justifies.

Mr. Me{ntyre, Superintendent of the seal fisheries of Alaska for the lessees, is then
brought forward by Mr. Blaine.

This gentleman went to the island as a Government Agent to inspect the operations
of the Company. His reports were favourable to and highly eulogistic of the Com-
pany, and they were iminediately followed by his resignation as a Government official
and his appointment to a lucrative position under the Company.

His testimony is naturally more in favour of the Company and of the Govern-
ment’s contention, which is so directly in the interest of the Company, than the
testimony of any other witness.

He thinks only one-fifth of the seals shot are recovered, and his reason is that he
has found seals with bullets in their blubbers on the islands. He attributes a defi-
ciency in the number of seals in 1888 to the fact that cows were killed. He men-
tions that if cows are killed in August, and their young deprived of their mothers’
care, the young perish. The young perish also if the mother is killed before they
are born. In this way he endeavours to represent such a practice obtains, but it is
to be borne in mind that he does not go so far as to say that pups are found dead on
the islands in any number. When this officer was reporting on the operations of the
Company, and before the present contention was raised, he gave a glowing account
of the increasing numbers of seals at the islands, as will be shown; but at p. 116 of
the evidence before the Congressional Inquiry he labours to reduce the estimates of
both Elliott and Dall by one-third or one-half. He concludes that the number of
seals has largely decreased in the last two years (1887 and 1888). The Company,
however, killed their 100,000 in each of these years. The Government had the dis-
cretion to reduce the limit. The Government did not deem it necessary to do so.
The number, this witness says, was increasing until 1882, and then other parties
began the killing of seals, especially since 1884.” All this told upon the rookeries,
and, he added, ‘‘a considerable percentage” of the killing was made up of male
seals (Evidence, p. 117).

Mr. McIntyre attempted to count the catch in 1886 and in 1887, and stated that
40,000 skins a-year were taken, nearly all in Behring’s Sea water,and in a few
instances by raids on the land. How he obtained this information is not shown.
From his position on the Island of St. Paul during all that time his statement is
obviously a mere surmise.

He could only know personally of the catch from raids which were made on the
island in 1886 and 1887, and which were due to ineffective protection of the islands.
After telling us that a large percentage of the catch of the marauders was made up
of adult males, he entirely forgets this, as we find him saying (at p. 118):

“A majority of the skins taken by marauders, in fact 80 or 90 per cent., are from
females.”

It is submitted that this witness, whose interest on behalf of the Company (the
lessees) is shown in his confession that it was at times necessary, in order to control
the price in the markets, for the Company to take less than 100,000 seals (Evidence,

484 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

p. 121), has not strengthened his testimony on the main point by speaking positively
to the following, which could only have been known to him by hearsay:

(a) Russia destroyed marauding vessels.

(b) A British vessel, in 1887, took 450 seals in Behring’s Sea, secreted them on a
small island, left them. and returned to the Sea for more.

(c) Marauders kill 100,000 each season.

(d) It is not true that vessels are seized when pursuing legitimate business.

He goes on to say that for the first fifteen years of the Company’s lease, viz., from
1870 to 1885, the lessees were unmolested (p. 129), which statement has been shown
to be incorrect. He observed that since 1882, and especially since 1884, other parties
have been destroying the seals, ‘‘reducing the equilibrium of the sexes.” As will
be submitted hereafter, he has been contradicted in regard to this by expert writers,
historians, travellers, and Agents of the United States Government.

Mr. H. W. Elliott, whose experience is limited to 1872, 1874, and 1876—when, as
Mr. McIntyre says, no injury was done by marauders—is next referred to by Mr.
Blaine (p. 16 of Appendix). He is referred to as a member of the Smithsonian Insti-
tute; he was also a spevial Agent of the Treasury.

The following are extracts taken from a ‘‘Report upon the Customs Dis-
441 tricts, Public Service, and Resources of Alaska Territory, by W. L. Morris,
Special Agent of the Treasury Department, 1879”:

“Tn the November number of ‘ Harper’s Magazine,’ 1877, appears an article entitled
‘Ten Years’ Acquaintance with Alaska, 1867-77.’ The authorship is correctly ascribed
to Mr. Henry W. Elliott, now connected with the Smithsonian Institution in sub-
official capacity. This gentleman was formerly a special Agent of the Treasury
Department, under a special Act of Congress, approved 22nd April, 1874, appointed
for the purpose of ascertaining at that time the condition of the seal fisheries in
Alaska, the haunts and habits of the seal, the preservation and extension of the
fisheries as a source of revenue to the United States, with like information respect-
ing the fur-bearing animals of Alaska generally, the statistics of the fur trade and
the condition of the people or natives, especially those upon whom the successful
prosecution of the fisheries and fur trade is dependent.

“This Report of Mr. Elliott will be further noticed hereafter, and, upon the
threshold of criticizing anything he has written upon Alaska, occasion is here taken
to give him full credit for his valuable contribution in regard to fur-seals. It is to
be regarded as authority and well conceived. The views of Mr. Elliott, however,
in reference to other matters of moment in the Territory, are so diametrically opposed
and antagonistic to my own that I feel constrained to review some of his statements,
glittering generalities, and the wholesale method with which he brushes out of exist-
ence with his facile pen and ready artist’s brush anything of any essence of value,
light, shade, or shadow in the broad expanse of Alaska that does not conform pre-
cisely to the rule of investigation and recital laid down by himself, and which con-
tradicts his repeated assurances that outside of the Seal Islands and the immediate
dependencies of the Alaska Commercial Company there is nothing in Alaska.

“This magazine article bears a sort of semi-official indorsement, its authority is
not denied, and with this explanation for using the name of Mr. Elliott in connec-
tion therewith, a few of its crudities and nudities will be noticed:

‘<<¢ The Sense-keeper of Alaska.

“<¢So little is known about Alaska that whenever anything comes up in Congress
relating to it information is sought wherever it can readily be found. The ‘‘inform-
ant” is ever on hand, with his work on fur-seals comfortably tucked underneath his
left arm, to impart all the knowledge extant about the country, ‘‘ for he knows more
about Alaska than any man living.”

““¢ A decade has passed since we acquired this Territory, and for a decade it has
afforded employment and subsistence for its presentsense-keeper; but the next decade
is warming into national existence, and it is about time this bubble was pricked and
the bladder not quite so much inflated.

“¢T am fully aware of all the consequences to be dreaded, the responsibility as-
sumed, when rash enough to dispute the heretofore self-established authority from
the Arctic Ocean to the Portland Canal.’

‘This man seems to be the natural foe of Alaska, prosecuting and persecuting her
with the brush of the pencil and the pen of an expert whenever and wherever he can
get an audience, and I attribute the presensdorlorn condition of the Territory to-day
more to his ignorance and misrepresentation than to all other causes combined. He
is accused of being the paid creature and hired tool of the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany, and belonging to them body and soul. I have made diligent inquiry and
ascertain he is not in their employ, and, furthermore, they repudiate the ownership.
They should not be held responsible for the indiscreet utterings of the sense-keeper,
OE ae the charge of ownership might cause him to be more readily list-
ened to.

~~. Wie on ee ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 485

‘Doubtless when they have been attacked through the columns of the press they
have employed this individual, who is unquestionably possessed with the cacoethes
scribendi, to reply to unjustifiable onslanghts, and paid him for it as they would any
other penny-liner who makes literature and writing for the press his profession.”

His evidence in 1888 is open advocacy of the United States contention. His writ-
ings and Reports prior to the dispute will be referred to, and it will be submitted
that his statements and experiences before 1888 hardly support his later theories.
His statement on p. 17 of the Appendix, that wounded seals swim away to perish at
a point never to be seen again, is contradicted by the last witness, Mr. McIntyre,
who picked handfuls of buckshot, &c., out of seals clubbed on the islands. His
theory of the difficulty of shooting seals is contrary to the known practice of the
hunters to creep upon the seal as it lies floating in the calm waters of the sea, and
by his own testimony before quoted, of the nnerring aim of the Indian hunters.

Mr. Tingle, an Agent of the Treasury, in charge of the fur-seal islands from April
1885 to August 1886, is quoted by Mr. Blaine (Appendix, p. 17).

Mr. Tingle is not able to go so far as Mr. McIntyre, although he was at the islands
in 1886 (Evidence, p. 153), but he stated ‘there has been a slight diminution of seals,
probably.” He estimated 30,000 were taken by marauders, and to do this he euesses
that 500,000 were killed. This gentleman, as an Agent of the Treasury, was con-
fined to the islands during his tenure of office (Evidence, p. 153).

He bases his contention on the log of a marauding schooner which fell into his
hands. This log was, it may be remarked, not produced, and no excuse is given for
withholding it. He produced what he said was a copy. As his opinions are based
upon this curious statement, his testimony can hardly be seriously pressed. He
testified to insolence of sealers when seized, though he does not appear to have been
present at any of the seizures. ‘The log-book, it should be observed, is said to have
belonged to the ‘Angel Dolly.”

This is not the name of a Canadian sealer, and it may here be stated that no
Canadian sealer has ever been found within the 3-mile limit. The operations on the
schooner ‘“‘Angel Dolly” must have been rather expensive, and they do not corrob-
orate, the allegation that large catches were made, since 300 rounds of ammunition
(Mr. Tingle said) were wasted for the capture of one seal.

Another supposed entry in the log is most extraordinary for the captain of a
sealer, under any circumstances, to make. ‘The statement referred to is as follows:

“Tt is very discouraging to issue a large quantity of ammunition to your boats
and have so few seals returned.”

There is not a Magistrate’s Court in the country that would listen to this oral testi-
mony as to the contents of alog. A reference to this pretended log—a copy of a
portion thereof only being produced by Mr. McIntyre (p. 332 of Evidence)—shows
that the captain had an exceptionally bad crew. The captain described them in the
following terms: ‘‘ The hardest set of hunters in Behring’s Sea;” he ‘‘never will be
canght with such a crowd again; they are alla set of curs.” The captain added,
however, that if ‘“‘we only had hunters, we would be going home now with 1,500
skins at the very least;” and from the log it would appear that he had no regular
hunters on board.

It is worthy of remark that the statements made by Mr. Tingle respecting the
entries in this alleged log are not contirmed by an inspection of the transcript Mr.
McIntyre produces (on p. 332 of Evidence).

Mr. Tingle contradicts Mr. McIntyre regarding the number of seals on the island.

He states (p. 162, Evidence) that there had been an increase of seals since
442 Mr. Elliott’s count in 1876 of 2,137,500. He expressed natural astonishment
(p. 163) at the statement of Mr. Elliott regarding a decrease. He says:

**T am at aloss to know how Mr. Elliott gets his information, as he had not been
on the islands for fourteen years.”

Pushed by the Chairman of the Committee by the following question, viz., ‘It is
Mr. McIntyre’s opinion that they have not only not increased, but have decreased,”
the witness, in reply, stated that ‘there has been a slight diminution of seals, prob-
ably.

The next authority quoted by the United States is William Gavitt, a Special Agent
of the Treasury at St. George Island from May 1887 to August 1888. The evidence
of this witness is not referred to at any length by Mr. Blaine. ~ The witness testified
before the Congressional Committee, however, that the employés of the Company
(the lessees) did not respect the laws of God or man. He named particularly Mr.
Webster, Dr. Luty John Kirk, and John Hall (p.180). And he added that the rules
of the Company were violated. The Committee handled this witness rather roughly,
Mr. Jeffries saying to him (p. 188):

“You had better understand what you are talking about.”

On p. 191 he rebukes other officers of the Treasury who had testified positively to
matters without the means of knowledge. The witness was asked:

“What was the result of your observations and opinions that you deem reliable in
respect to the unlawful killing of seal annually?”

A86 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The witness answered that—

“We have no means of knowing that.”

He was then pressed in this way:

“It is a mere matter of estimate, of course, but I wish it based upon as reliable
information as you have.”

When the witness said—

“T think the first season the revenue-cutter captured 15,000 stolen skins (p. 191);
where they were stolen, whether in the sea or out of it, no agent could truthfully say.”

He also showed that the lessees of the islands were not so particular as other Agents
pretend, when he tells us (p. 191) that they bought from the natives at Ounalaska
5,000 seals killed by them, there (p. 196). The United States puts forward this officer
as a reliable witness, and it is, therefore but fair to attach importance to a statement
which weakens the force of the ex parte statement and opinion of the Special Agents
sent from time to time to the islands, and who have now been brought forward on
behalf of the United States as witnesses in support of a case which concerns not
merely the Government, but most directly the lessees. The witness stated that one
of the employés of the Company told him that when a Government officer came there
and got along with the Company it was profitable. Upon being asked by the Com-
mittee, before whom he was giving evidence, to explain, he replied that—

“(A man could draw two salaries, like Mr. Falkner and Judge Glidden, one from
the Government and one from the Company” (p. 191).

Mr. Moulton’s evidence is next presented (p. 19 of Appendix). He was a Govern-
ment Agent from 1877 to 1885. He said that there was an apparent increase during
the first five years, i.e., to 1882, then a decrease to 1885 (Evidence, p. 255). In this
statement he has been contradicted by official Reports, as will be shown.

The witness admits, however, that female seals, after giving birth to their young,
scatter out in Behring’s Sea; and he is of opinion that lawless hunters kill all they
find, and that they find mothers away from their nurslings. No special reason for
this opinion is given, however.

A sailor, Edward Shields, of Vancouver, formerly on the sealing-schooner ‘‘Caro-
line,” is said to have testified, where and when it is not stated (p. 20 of Appendix to
Mr. Blaine’s letter), that in 1X86 out of 686 seals taken by the ‘‘Caroline” the seals
were chiefly females. Upon this, it may be said that it is the custom among hunters
to class all seals the skins of which are the size or near the size of the female as
“females,” for their guidance as to the quality of skinsin the catch. It may also be
remarked that it does not appear that these females were in milk, and this is always
known when skinning the seal. ‘ Dry cows” are caught, as has been admitted, and
taking this evidence, given ex parte as it was, it is at best, if true, an exceptional
case in a very small catch.

Mr. Glidden was recalled by the Committee, and explained that his estimate of
40,000 skins was based on newspaper reports of the catch of the sealers. He was, of
course, unable to show how many of these were taken near the Aleutian Islands, in
the North Pacific, or on the west coast of British Columbia, or in the Puget Sound,
but he evidently credits the whole estimated catch to Behring’s Sea. Consequently
he was of opinion that sealing in Behring’s Sea should be ended, to lead to the better
preservation of seal life.

It is to be observed that not one of these witnesses, whose opinions are relied upon
both as to the catch, the habits, and sex of the seal in deep water and the method
of shooting, &c., has had any experience as a hunter or with hunters. They were
not experts. They were sent to the islands to see that the lessees performed their
obligations as covenanted in the lease. The experience of most of them was limited
to a few years’ residence on the Seal Islands, associated with and under the natural
influence of a Company admittedly a monopoly and desirous of restricting the catch
so as to control the market of the world as far as seals are concerned.

None of the witnesses were, moreover, submitted to a cross-examination,

443 and they were to a large extent led by the examiners in the questions put to

them. ‘The only facts that were possibly within their knowledge relate to seal

life on the islands, to the mode of killing, and to the times when killed there, and
to their habits when in and upon the rookeries.

The opinions of the gentlemen given before the Congressional Committee in 1888,
for the most part, though sometimes contradictory, are in favour of the under-
mentioned theories:

1. That the female seals while nursing their young go great distances in search of
food.

2. That when out a great distance female seals are shot, and the pups on shore are
lost for want of their mothers’ care.

3. That the greater part of the catch in Behring’s Sea is made up of female seals.

4. That the destruction of the seals when hunted on the sea is great in consequence
of many wounded seals being lost.

— =. oo

or,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 487

All these opinions are put forward in support of the main proposition of the
United States, viz., that since 1882, and especially since 1884, the number of seals
usually collecting on the breeding-ground has constantly diminished.

The Canadian Government joins issue upon this, and the counter-assertion is made
that there has been no appreciable diminution of seals frequenting the rookeries, and
it is claimed that the seals are more numerous and more valuable upon the rookeries
to-day than ever in their previous history; that this is the fact notwithstanding the
rookeries have been for twenty years practically unprotected from frequent and
most dangerous raids upon the actual breeding-grounds, and many other injuries, all
within the control of the Government of the United States, as hereinafter specified.

The Canadian Government asserts that the seal life upon the islands cannot only
be maintained, but greatly increased by the adoption on the part of the United
States of—

1. An efficient means for the patrol and protection of the islands.

2. By the prohibition of the killing of pups by the natives for food.

3. By reducing the number of yearling seals to be killed by the lessees.

4, By not permitting any killing of seals upon the islands, excepting in July, August,
and September.

5. By preventing the Aleuts from killing seals on their migration through the
Aleutian Islands on their way to and from the breeding-grounds,

In Mr. Blaine’s despatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote of the 27th January, 1890, he
proceeds upon a somewhat different ground than the evidence already reviewed, in
order to show the necessity for prohibition of sealing in the waters of Behring’s Sea.

The ex parte evidence before the Congressional Committee satisfied that Committee
that ‘the present number of seals on St. Paul and St. George Islands has materially
diminished during the last two or three years,” viz., from 1886 to 1889, while Mr.
McIntyre, whose evidence is so much relied upon by the United States, dates the
decrease from 1882.

Mr. Blaine, however, adopts the view that the rookeries were in prime condition
and undiminished until 1885, when, as he says, Canadian sealers made their advent
into Behring’s Sea and the injury began.

It is therefore important to point out that the operations of the Canadian sealers
were absolutely harmless compared with the numerous depredationus upon the islands
for the last century, which, however, have not yet begun to affect the value and
number of seals on these wonderful rookeries:

Already evidence has been cited in this paper establishing the fact that extraor-
dinary slaughter occurred prior to 1870, and that after all this, when the total num-
ber of seals on St. Paul and St. George Islands was admittedly less than now, it was
deemed safe to permit 100,000 male seals of 1 year or over to be killed annually for
twenty years, &c.

Tn 1870 Collector Phelps, of San Francisco, reported:

“Tam assured the entire number taken south of the Islands of St. George and
St. Paul will aggregate, say, 10,000 to 20,000 per annum.” (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 35,
44th Congress, 1st Session.)

The Acting Secretary of the Treasury Department, in September 1870, gave per-
mission to the Company to use fire-arms for protection of theislands against marauders.
(H. R., 44th Congress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83, p. 30.)

In 1872 Collector Phelps, to Mr. Secretary Boutwell, reports expedition fitting out
in Australia and Victoria for sealing in Behring’s Sea with the object of capturing
seals on their migrations to and from St. Paul and St. George Islands. Secretary
Boutwell did not consider it expedient to interfere with these operations if they were
carried on 3 miles from land.

In 1874 Mr. Secretary Sawyer, writing to Mr. H. W. Elliott, referred to British
vessels taking fur-seals in the United States waters and to the seals becoming more
numerous.

In 1875 Mr. William McIntyre, an Assistant Agent of the Treasury, describes hav-
ing been told thatthe crew of the schooner ‘‘Cygnet,” as she lay at anchor in Zapad-
nee Bay in 1874, were shooting seals from the deck, skinning them, and throwing the
careases overboard, which was alarming the seals and driving them from their
breeding-grounds. And he said:

“‘T wished to give the captain of the vessel timely warning before proceeding to
harsh measures. Ehad armed the natives with the intention of repelling by force
any attempts to kill seal on the rookeries or within rifle-shot of the shore, if the crews
still persisted in doing so after the receipt of my letter to the captain.”

He described the operations of the “Cygnet” under the cliff near the rookery,
which alarmed the seals so that they left the rookery in large numbers. (Ex. Doc.
No. 83, p. 124, 44th Congress, Ist Session.)

This vessel is again reported by Special Agent Bryant in 12th May, 1875. (Ex.
Doc. No. 838, p. 125, 44th Congress, 1st Session.)

488 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

From 1874 to 1878 Mr. F. J. Morgan, Attorney for the Alaska Company, was on the
islands during the years 1868, 1869, and from 1874 to 1878. He speaks of several
444 raids upon the islands in his time, and he says the whole question is one or
more cruizers to protect the rookeries on the islands. (H. R. Ex. Doce. No. 3883,

50th Congress, pp. 58, 71, 109.)

In 1875 the evidence of Darins Lyman contains the following information. (Report,
Committee Ways and Means, House Report No. 623, 44th Congress, 1st Session.)

Answering Mr. Burchand as to what he knew about the seizure of the “San Diego,”
Mr. Lyman replied:

“There was a seizure made of the ‘San Diego,’ a schooner, near St. Paul Island,
on the 27th July last (1875), on board of which were 1,660 fur-seal skins. The
‘San Diego’ was sent down to California, and arrived there in August.”

On p. 73 of the same Report, Mr. Elliott, in answer to Mr. Chapin, says that the
skins taken from the ‘‘San Diego” were from Otter Island, one of the leased group.

In 1880 Mr. McIntyre reported the estimated annual slaughter of 5,000 pregnant
females on the British Columbia coast.

From Reports of Special Agent Ottis and Captain Bailey respecting the people of
Alaska and their condition (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 132, 46th Congress, 2nd Session,
vol. iv, p. 4), Captain Bailey says:

“‘During April and May all the coast Indians, from the mouth of the Straits of
Fuca to the north end of Prince of Wales Island, find profitable employment in tak~
ing fur-seals which seem to be making the passage along the coast to the north, being
probably a portion of the vast number that finally congregate at the Seal Island later
in the season. Iam informed by the Indians that most of the seals taken along this
coast are females, and their skins find a market at the various Hudson Bay posts.”

On p. 34 of the same Report, in a list of the vessels boarded, he gives the United
States schooner ‘‘ Loleta,” Dexter master, seized at the Seal Islands by Special Agent
Ottis.

In a Report by Special Commissioner Ivan Petroff in the year 1880, he says:

“CAs these seals pass up and down the coast as far as the Straits of Fuca and the
mouth of Columbia River, quite a number of them are secured by hunters, who
shoot or spear them as they find them asleep at sea. Also small vessels are fitted
out in San Francisco, which regularly cruize in these waters for the purpose alone
of shooting sleeping seal.” (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 40, 46th Congress, 3rd Session, vol.
XVlii, p. 65.)

At p. 61 of the same Report this officer speaks of the natives securing 1,200 to 1,400
young fur-seals in transitu through Oonalga Pass.

Special Agent D. B. Taylor, in 1881, states that the Company was powerless to
protect the islands, but that if a harbour was built and a steam-launch stationed at each
island they could be protected. He states that vessels go to the islands and kill 10,000 to
15,000 a-year, and that 100 vessels have been prowling about these islands for twenty years.
(H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 3883, 50th Congress, p. 58.)

Mr. Treasury Agent H. A. Glidden, who was on the islands from 1882 to 1885,
shows that the trouble is at the islands. The hunters go there on moonlight nights.
He stated that he took possession of a vessel while the crew were on shore killing
seals. The Government, he goes on to say, did not Keep vessels there in his time,
and he recommended that a revenue-cutter should be kept there to guard the islands.
(H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 8883, 50th Congress, p. 28.)

Prior to the decision of the United States to arrest vessels outside the 3-mile limit
in Behring’s Sea experience had shown that the police force at the islands could not
protect them from raids. ‘This is illustrated in a letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. W. McCulloch, dated the 24th February, 1885, wherein he recommends
that 25,000 dollars be obtained for the protection of seals and the enforcement of the
laws:

“The seal fisheries,” he states, ‘‘yield annually to the Government a revenue of
about 300,000 dollars. The islands on which the seals are taken are protected from
incursions of marauding vessels alone through the eruizing of the revenue-cutters.
Last year the officers of the ‘Corwin’ seized a schooner engaged in taking seals
unlawfully. Without the use of cutters the fur-seal industry has no protection.”

The letter closes by asking for 25,060 dollars ‘‘in the Estimates for next year.”
(HL. R. Ex. Doc. No. 252, 48th Congress, 2nd Session, vol. xxix.)

September 1, 1884, the Hamburgh schooner ‘‘Adéle” was seized for violation of sec-
tion 1956, Revised Statutes, United States.

In 1884 Captain McLean, master of the schooner ‘‘ Mary Ellen,” was in Behring’s
Sea from the 8th July to the 22nd August. He took 2,007 seals, and was not inter-
fered with. (See his declaration under Act for the Suppression of Extra-judicial
and Voluntary Oaths. )

Mr. George Wardman, an officer of the United States Government, was at the Seal
Islands May 1885. He was also there in 1879, and, in addition to his evidence before
the Congressional Committee, he has reported to his Government, and has written
a book upon Alaska and Behring’s Sea, ‘‘ Wardman’s Trip to Alaska,” published in

ow

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 489

1884. At p.116 of this is given an account of the raiding of Otter Islands, and the
consequent request for a revenue marine guard at that place during the sealing
season, which was granted.

_ In 1885 Captain McLean again visited Behring’s Sea in the ‘‘ Mary Ellen.” He was
there from the 4th July tothe 3rd September. He took 2,300 seals, and was not inter-
fered with.

Captain Healy, in reporting on the cruize of the ‘‘Corwin” in the Behring’s Sea,
in 1885, when speaking of the seal fisheries, said:

“During the year quite a number of vessels have raided Alaskan waters for seals
and other fur-bearing animals.” (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 153, 49th Congress, Ist Session,
vol. xxxii.

In 1886 he Governor of Alaska, in his Report for that year (p.43), states that an
indiscriminate slaughter was carried on previous to the seizures of 1885.

In 1886 Special Agent Tingle, to Secretary Fairchild, congratulated the Govern-

_ ment on the arrest of the ‘‘San Diego,” which he called ‘‘an old offender.”
445 ‘This,” Mr. Tingle remarked, ‘‘ will do much to break up marauding business
around the islands.” He further urged the Government to keep a cutter about

the islands from the 1st July to the Ist November.

The above references, it is submitted, establish conclusively the defenceless condi-
tion of the islands from the depredations of the marauders or poachers upon the
rookeries (not one being a Canadian) ever since the islands came into the possession
of the United States.

Mr. Blaine, in his despatch of the 27th January, 1890, remarks that—

“Proceeding by a close obedience to the laws of Nature, and rigidly limiting the
number to be annually slaughtered, the Government succeeded in increasing the total
number of seals and adding correspondingly and largely to the value of the fisheries.”

And in the same despatch he speaks of the profitable pursuit of this business down
to the year 1886.

To show that at the present time the value of the islands is greater and their con-
dition is better than ever, it is only necessary to observe that while the late lessees
paid to the Government of the United States an annual rental of 50,000 dollars in
addition to 2 dol. 624} .¢. per skin for the total number taken, the offers, when the

islands were put up for competition in 1890, were enormously exceeded, as will be
seen on reference to a schedule of the proposals submitted to the United States
Treasury Department in response to the advertisements of the Treasury inviting
offers for the privileges, dated the 24th December, 1889, and the 20th February, 1890.

Upon reference to the evidence before the Congressional Committee (H. R. No. 3883,
50th Congress, 2nd Session), it will be seen that ‘‘the Government now, without any
care or risk, gets 317,000 dollars a-year for the lease.” And at p. 99 of the same Report
it is stated that the annual income from skins to the Government was 512,736 dollars,
and that in sixteen years the United States Government received from the Alaskan
fur-seal industry 8,203,776 dollars.

It is further stated that the Government had then already been repaid the capital
sum paid for the whole Territory of Alaska, and more, with ‘‘ her many varied, and,
as I believe, incomparably great national resources, to represent the investment of
capital first made.”

“ Fifth.—The Receipts and Expenses of the Government on account of said Contract.

“The total amount paid by the lessees on account of said contract up to the 30th
June, 1888, inclusive, was 5,597,100 dollars. The total amount expended by the Gov-
ernment during the same period was about 250,000 dollars for salaries and travelling
expenses of Agents of the Treasury Department at the Seal Islands, and about 150,000
dollars for the revenue-cutters cruizing Alaskan waters.

“To the amount already received direct from the Company should be added the
sum received by the United States from customs duties on Alaskan-dressed sealskins
imported from Europe, amounting to 3,426,000 dollars, to which should be added the
sum of 502,000 dollars customs duties on imported sealskins taken by said Company
under its contract with Russia, making an aggregate amount received by the Gov-
ernment on account of this industry of 9,525,233 dollars, being 2,325,283 in excess of
the amount paid to Russia for the Territory.” (Report of Congress, 1888.)

It can now be shown how marvellous has been the increase of seals on these
islands, notwithstanding the absence of the protection to the rookeries and 3-mile
limit, whether around the islands or at the different passes in the Aleutian range,
where the breeding seals in pup go twice a-year.

In 1869 Special Agent Bryant estimated the number of seals to be as follows (41st
Congress, 2nd Session, No. 32, Senate, p. 7):

“On St. Paul Island..... NSBGEE Be ee eet Ieee Sere Oe ese eR ESE 1, 152, 000
On, St: Georpe Islan@. 2-02 eo ccc a5. A Re ha REN Stray” la eae cts oh 576, 000

ROLabeeremanses ease casas! teste sesh ek Pacenlssneassseltwiciniss sienielsiscesl Ly (20,000

490 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In 1874, Mr. Elliott, after examination, estimated the number of seals to be:

““Onist. Pal dislan dss 2 2. saree acto See weno ences see Seeee See 8, 080, 000
Qn St, George: island !.5 2 cccs sseccs seer <n sees opeaeh aces eee eee 163, 420
Mota ee es sss haiersk Sb, Ue sa ddestos ac se ha ea eters eee See EE ae Cee Peete mn Gone

exclusive of non-breeding seals, and adding those to the estimate of Mr. Elliott just
quoted, he himself said that the total would reach 4,700,000.”

In 1884, long after the period when Mr. McIntyre stated that the seals were
decreasing—as he said since 1882—Mr. Wardman, when writing from the islands,
tells us—

“The number of seals is steadily increasing.” (‘fA Trip to Alaska,” p. 93.)

Mr. H. A. Glidden, an Agent of the Treasury from 1882 to the 8th June, 1885, an
authority quoted by Mr. Blaine in support of the United States contention, told the
Congressional Committee in 1888, in replying to the question, ‘‘ What do you say
about the increase or diminution of the number of seals on the rookeries of St. Paul
and St. George?”

“T did not notice any change. . . . . Icould notsee any particular difference.
They come and have their young and go away. The period of gestation is eleven
months, and then they come back in the spring following. ‘They are there during
the season in countless numbers.” (Evidence before Congressional Committee, p. 27.)

Mr. George R. Tingle, a Special Agent of the Treasury, gave his evidence before
the same Committee, and he is put forward by Mr. Biaine in support of the United
ntaios contention. (Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, March

eel)

2 ‘onfirming Mr. Glidden’s opinion, as above quoted, Mr. Tingle said:

“From Mr. Elliott’s statement I understand that there are no more seals now than
there were in 1872. Iam ata loss to know how Mr. Elliott got his information, as

he had not been on the islands for fourteen years.”

446 The same Mr. Tingle, in 1887, reported to Secretary Fairchild that:

“He found the lines of occupancy extending beyond those of last year, and
the cows quite as densely packed on the ground on most of the rookeries, whilst on
two rookeries there is some falling-off. Jt is certain, however, this vast number of
animals, so valuable to the Government, are still on the increase. The condition of
all the rookeries could not be better.” (Appendix to Report, Congressional Commit-
tee, 1888, p. 359.)

In a Report of the Alaska Commercial Company (138th December, 1887) it is stated
that Mr. George R. Tingle, the Agent appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury,
substantially confirms Mr. Elliott in his view referred to above, excepting that, upon
a careful survey by himself in 1886, he estimated that the fur-seals upon the two
islands had increased in number about 2,000,000 up to that time. Mr. Tingle’s esti-
mate for 1886 is 6,537,750 (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 31, 50th Congress, Ist Session), and in
December the Alaska Commercial Company, in their Report, said that the seals were
on the increase.

The latest definite information appearing in the United States documents regard-
ing the condition of the rookeries is contained in the Report of Mr. Tingle, who, as
Spec ial Agent of the Treasury Department, wrote from St. Paul Island, “Alaska, the
3ist oa “1888, as follows:

Iam happy to be able to report that, although late landing, the breeding rook-
eries are filled out to the lines of measurement heretofore made, and some of them
much beyond these lines, showing conclusively that seal life is not being depleted,
but is fully up to the estimates given in my Report of 1887.”

From the above United States officials it is clear that, with only partial protection
on the islands, the seals have increased in an amazing degree. These islands, con-
taining in 1874 the largest number of seals ever found in the history of sealing at
any place, contain to- day a more astounding number.

When the number was less than half of what it is at present, Lientenant Wash-
burn Maynard, of the United States navy, was instructed to make an investigation
into the condition of the fur trade of the Territory of Alaska, and in 1874 he reported
that 112,000 young male seals had been annually killed in each year,#xrom 1870 to
1874, on the islands comprising the Pribylov group, and he did not think that this
diminished the numbers. Lieutenant Maynard’s Report (44th Congress, 1st Session,
H. R. No. 43), as well as that of Mr. Bryant in 1869 (Ex. Doc. No. 32 , 41st Congress,
2nd Session), largely supports the contention of the Canadian Government respect-

ing the productiveness of the seal and their habits during the breeding season.

It is not denied that seals enter Behring’s Sea for the purpose of resorting to the
islands to propagate their species, and because the immense herd is chiefly confined
to the islands for this purpose during the breeding season it is that the seals have so
constantly increased.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 491

Notwithstanding the lax efforts on the part of the United States to guard or patrol
the breeding islands, the difficulty of approaching the rough coats thereof, the prey-
alence of fogs, and other causes, have, in a large degree, prevented too destructive
or too numerous raids being made upon the rookeries.

The Canadian Government contends that while seals in calf are taken on and off
the coasts of British Columbia and California, and also during their migrations near
the Aleutian Islands by Indians and Aleuts, the bulk of the seals taken in the open
sea of that part of the Pacific Ocean called Behring’s Sea are bulls, both old and
young —but chiefly young—and that most of the cows, when taken, are known as ‘dry
cows,” i. e., cows that have nursed and weaned their young, or cows that are barren,
or those that have Jost pups from natural causes.

It must also be noted that there are more females than males in a herd of seals.
(‘‘Trip to Alaska,” Wardman, p. 94.)

The position taken by the Canadian Government is supported—

1. By the history of the rookeries as above given and the great increase shown,
despite the constant killing and raids upon the islands during the past century.

2. By the fact that the old bulls that have been able to hold their position on the
rookeries go into the water at the end of the rutting season, between the Ist and
10th August. (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress, Ist Session, Appendix, p. 132.)

Mr. Clark, on the Aniarctic seal fisheries, in ‘‘ The Fisheries and Fishery Industries
in the United States,” 1887, pp. 423, 424, says:

“‘In very stormy weather, when they (the seals) are driven into the sea, they are
forced to betake themselves to the sheltered side of the island, hence the men find
that stormy weather pays them best. Two or three old males, termed ‘beach-
masters,’ hold a beach to themselves and cover it with cows, but allow no other
males to haul up. The males fight furiously, and one man told me that he had seen
an old male take up a younger one in his teeth and throw him into the air. The
males show fight when whipped, and are with great difficulty driven into the sea.

“They are sometimes treated with horrible brutality. The females give birth to
the young soon after their arrival.

“ After leaving the rookeries the bulls do not return to them again that season.”

3. By the fact that two-thirds of all the males that are born are never permitted
to land upon thesame ground with the females. This large band of bachelors, when
it visits land, herds miles away from the breeding-grounds. (H.W. Elliott, H. R. No.
3883, 50th Congress, p. 112.)

They are driven off into the water. (Clark’s article on Antarctic seal fishery indus-
tries of the United States, section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p. 431.)

Young seals are prevented from landing on rookeries. (Ex. Doc. 83, 44th Congress,
1st Session, p. 93; see also Elliott, H. R., 44th Congress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)

Yearling seals arrive about the middle of July, accompanied by a few of the
mature males, remaining a greater part of the time in the water. (H.H.MelIntyre,
41st Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. No. 36, p.14; also H. R. Ex. Doc. 43, Ist Session, 44th
Congress, p. 4.)

Mr. Samuel Falkner, Assistant Treasury Agent, writing from St. George Island,

Ist August, 1875, to Mr. Bryant, Treasury Agent for the Seal Islands, says:
447 “T notice on some of the rookeries the passage-ways, formerly occupied by

young bachelors in hauling upon the background, are completely blocked up
by females, thus preventing the young seals from landing; and as the greater portion
of this island shore is composed of high cliffs, it renders it difficult for any great
number to effect a landing. There are also numerous old males constantly guard-
ing the shore line, which makes it still more difficult for the young ones to work
their way on the background.

Then, again, it must be remembered that non-breeding seals, consisting of all the
yearlings and all the males under 6 or7 years of age, nearly equal in number the
breedling seals, and Mr. Eiliott estimated, when there were 4,700,000 seals on the
island, 1,500,000 of this number were non-breeding seals. (Elliott, Appendix to H.
kh. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congyess, 1st Session, p. 79.)

On thick foggy days bachelor seals, numbering over a million, will often haul out
on different hauling-grounds, and on the recurrence of fine weather disappear into
the water. (Elliott, p. 144, H. R., 44th Congress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)

The young bachelors do not remain on shore long at a time. (Page 4, 44th Con-
gress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 43.)

They are so numerous, however, that thousands can be seen upon the hauling-
Sone all of them are never either on shore or in the water at the same time.
(Loid., p. 44.)

: 2s the fact that the cows remain with their pups and suckle them until all have
eft.

They donot go on the rookeries until 3 years of age. (H.R. Ex. Doc., 44th Congress,
1st Session, No. 43, p. 4.)

492 - APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

They do not go far from shore until the young are reared. Peron says that both
parent elephant seals stay with the young, without feeding at all, until the young
are 6 or 7 weeks old, and that then the old ones conduct the young to the water.
(Clark’s article on Antarctic seals, p. 424.)

The young are suckled by the females for some time and then left to themselves,
lying on the beach, where they seem to grow fat without further feeding. (‘The
Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States,” section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p.
424.) For this reason those that are pupped in June are off in the water in August.

So, also, on the African coast, the seal remains until the young can take care of
themselves. (Jbid, p. 416.)

The bulk of the seals are confined to the islands until ice surrounds them. (H.
R. Ex. Doc. No. 45, 44th Congress, Ist Session, p. 2.)

The seals never leave their places, seldom sleep, and never eat anything from May
to August, when they take to the water, but, it is believed, take no food until their
final departure in November. (H. H. McIntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Con-
gress, 2nd Session, vol. v.)

Mr. Elliott says, ‘‘perhaps she feeds” (p. 130, his Report on Alaska, 1874, H. R.
Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress).

The bulls, while on the island, prevent the mothers taking tothe water. (‘‘ Marine
Mammals,” by Captain Shannon, United States Revenue Marine, 1874, p. 152.)

From the 10th to the 25th July the rookeries are fuller than at any other time dur-
ing the season, as the pups have all been born, and all the bulls, cows, and pups
remain within their limits. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Congress, 1st Session, p. 3.)

It has been shown that when in the rookeries mothers were destroyed, the young
were found dead, &c., but Professor Elliott, in reference to the Pribyloy Islands, says:

‘““With the exception of those animals which have received wounds in combat, no
sick or dying seals are seen upon the islands.

“Out of the great numbers, thousands upon thousands, of seals that must die
every year from old age alone, not one have I ever seen here. They evidently give
up their lives at sea.” (His Report on Alaska, 1874, H. R. Ex. Doe. No. 83, 44th
Congress, p. 150.)

To further prove that the contention of the Canadian Government is not at all
unreasonable, it may be said that at the International Fisheries Exhibition, London,
1883, Mr. Brown Goode, of the United States Fish Commission, having stated the
Regulations of the United States concerning the Pribylov group, the official Report
upon the Exhibition says:

“Every animal, both in sea and on land, reproduces its kind in greater numbers
than can possibly exist. In other words, all animals tend to multiply more rapidly
than their food; many of them must in consequence either die or be destroyed, and
man may rest satisfied that, so far as the open ocean is concerned, the fish which he
destroys, if he abstain from destroying, would perish in other ways. With respect
to the former (seals), I have already pointed out that the restriction which the
United States Government has placed on the destruction of seals in the Alaskan
islands seems unnecessarily large.”

Ile added that Nature has imposed a limit to their destruction.

Professor Elliott himself was of the opinion in 1874 (see his Report on Alaska
already referred to, pp. 88, 89) that:

“With regard to the increase of the seal life, I do not think it within the power of
human management to promote this end to the slightest appreciable degree beyond its
present extent and condition in a state of nature; for it cannot fail to be evident, from
my detailed description of the habits and life of the fur-seal on these islands during
a great part of the year, that, could man have the same supervision and control over
this animal during the whole season which he has at his command while they visit the
land, he might cause them to multiply and increase, as he would so many cattle, to an
indefinite number, only limited by time and means; but the case in question, unfortu-
nately, takes the fur-seal six months out of every year far beyond the reach, or even
cognizance, of any one, where it is exposed to known powerful and destructive natural
enemies, and many others probably unknown, which prey upon it and, in accordance
with a well-recognized law of Nature, keep it at about a certain number, which has
been for ages, and will be for the future, as affairs now are, its maximum limit of increase.
This law holds good everywhere throughout the animal kingdom, regulating and pre-
serving the equilibrium of life in a state of nature. Did it not hold good these seal
islands and all Behring’s Sea would have been literally covered, and have swarmed
with them long before the Russians discovered them; but there were no more seals
when first seen here by human eyes in 1786-87 than there are now, in 1874, as far as
all evidence goes.

* * * * * * *

‘“¢What can be done to promote their increase? We cannot cause a greater number

of females to be born every year; we do not touch or disturb these females as they
grow up and live, and wesave more than enough males to serve them. Nothing more

—-— ;

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 493

can be done, for it is impossible to protect them from deadly enemies in their wander-
ings for food.

“This great body of four and five millions of hearty active animals must consume
ap enormous amount of food every year. They cannot average less than 5 lbs. of fish
each per diem (this is not half enough for an adult male), which gives the consump-
tion of over three million tons of fish every year!

“To get this immense food supply the seals are compelled to disperse over a

448 very large area of the North Pacific and fish. This brings them into contact

more and more with their enemies as they advance south, until they reach a

point where their annual destruction from natural foes is equal to their increase, and

at this point their number will remain fixed, About the Seal Islands I have failed to

notice the least disturbance among these animals by anything im the water or out,

and from my observation I am led to believe that if is not until they descend well

to the south in the North Pacific that they meet with sharks and voracious killer-
whales.” *

The following extract from the Report of Mr. H. H. McIntyre, Special Agent of
the Treasury at the islands in 1869, largely supports the foregoing views:

“The habits of the fur-seal are peculiar and, in considering the action necessary
to their protection, deserve careful attention. "From the statements of the employés
of the late Russian-American Company, the information derived from the intelligent
native Chief of St. Paul Island, and my own observation during the summer of 1869,
I have reached the following conclusions: The seals reach the Islands of St. Paul
and St. George in May, June, and July of each year in the following order—first, a
small number of old male seals, known as wigs, visit the islands very early in the
spring, or as soon as the ice has melted sufficiently to allow them to reach the rocks
upon the shore. Their object at this time seems to be solely to reconnoitre their old
rookeries with a view to reoccupy them, if they have not been disturbed, and the
natives, so understanding it, avoid any noise likely to alarm them, and in case the
wind is in such direction as to carry the smoke from the Settlement towards the rook-
eries all fires are extinguished. After afew days these pioneers take their departure,
and as the season advances, if they have been undisturbed on the occasion of their
first visit, they return, bringing with them all the males of mature age, above 5 or 6
years old, who are able to maintain their places in the breeding rookeries. Climbing
up on the rocks, each seal selects his position and takes possession of and occupies
through the season, if sufficiently strong, from one to three square rods of ground.
Still later in the season, when the ice has nearly disappeared, the females” arrive,
conveyed by the young males above one year of age, who are unable to occupy the
rookeries with their seniors. The females, immediately on reaching the shore, are
appropriated by the old males and taken to the e places respectively selected by them
for the season, which is generally the same for many successive years. It is asserted
that the same male seal has been known to occupy one rock for more than twenty
seasons. The young seals above one year of age, called bachelors, take their posi-
tions around the edges of the rookeries or remain in the water, and are constantly
trying to steal the females from their respective masters, who also rob each other of
their families, by stealth or strength, whenever occasion offers; and thus an inces-
sant quarrel is maintained at all points, which keeps the old males constantly on the
alert. They never leave their places, seldom sleep, nor do they eat anything what-
ever during the entire season irom May to August, when they go into the water;
but, as far as can be ascertained, take 1o food until their final departure in Novem-
ber. It may be remarked, however, that they are very fat on arrival and quite as
lean at the time of leaving in autumn. The young seals are supposed to feed
while in the water, but this has not been definitely proved, nor is the nature of
their food well known, since an examination of their stomachs seldom reveals more
than a green mucilaginous matter. Following all others, the yearling seals arrive
about the middle of July, accompanied by a few of the older males, and remain for
the greater part of the time in the water. Soon after their arrival in the months of
June and July the females bring forth their young.” (Ex. Doc., 41st Congress, 2nd
Session, No. 36, p. 14.)

Reference has been made to the raids upon the rookeries, and to the fact that
insufficient care has been taken of the breeding-ground. It is contended that it is
the duty of the Government, drawing an enormous rental from these islands, to care-
fully guard and protect them, and it is undoubted that, with efficient protection,
the increase of seal life will be more marvellous than ever.

Mr. Tingle, in 1886, in his Report to Secretary Fairchild, urges the Government to
keep a cutter around the islands from the Ist July to the Ist November.

*«In the stomach of one of ‘these animals (year pefore last) four teen small harp-
seals were found.”—WMichael Carroll's Report, Canadian Fisheries, 1872.

494 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Morgan, in 1888, in his evidence before Congress (p. 23), said there were not
sufficient cutters for the protection of the islands, and Mr, Wardman, Special Agent
of the Treasury at the islands, 1881 to 1885, said:

“T think the Government ought to keep at least one revenue-steamer therein and
about these two islands up until the middle of October at least. The trouble has
been in the Revenue Marine Service. The appropriations were all right, and a fellow
would be sent up to nominally protect the Seal Islands, but he would also be ordered
to look for the North Pole as well as watch the Seal Islands. He mieht find the
North Pole, but not around the Seal Islands. He would be away just at the time he
would be needed around there.” (Evidence before Congressional Committee, p. 38.)

The Honourable Mr. Williams said:

“The Government practice, through the Treasury Department, has been to pro-
tect these waters so far as they could with the revenue-cutters which are at their
command. Still it has frequently happened that a revenue-cutter goes upon the
seal ground and then is ordered north for inspection, or for the relief of a whaling
crew or something of that kind, and they are gone pretty much the whole time of
the sealing season, and there seems to be an insufficiency in the method of pro-
tection.” (Evidence before Congressional Committee, p. 106.)

Mr. Taylor, Special Agent of the Treasury in 1881, said, before the same Commit-
tee (p. 58):

“The difficulty heretofore has been that our revenue-cutters have been obliged to
cover a territory of 809 miles long and 7C0O or 800 miles wide, north and south, and
they would get around to the Seal Islands about twice during a season. They never
happened to be there when needed, and, as far as rendering any service whatever is
concerned, they were practically useless so far as the Seal Islands were concerned.
That has been the experience, I believe, of all who have been there.”

This officer recommended steam-launches for Government Agents at the islands.
(Evidence before Congressional Committee, p. 109.)

Mr. Glidden, another Agent of the Treasury from 1882 to 1885, says (Evidence,
Congressional Committee, p. 28) when he was at the islands the Government kept
no vessels there.

“They landed our officers on a little island6 miles from St. Paultowatch. . . .
In every Report I made I recommended that they should keep a revenue-cutter there,
One vessel cannot protect those islands and visit the Arctic Ocean besides. The
cruizing-ground is far too extensive, covering, as it does, a distance of several thou-
sand miles, and while the cutter is absent in the Arctic much damage can be done by
the marauding vessels to the Seal Islands.”

That Congress regarded it at the outset as the duty at least of the Administration
to simply guard and regulate the islands, is clear from the Act first dealing with the
subject. ;

Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury, reported in 1870 (41st Congress, 2nd
Session, Ex. Doc. No. 109) as follows:

““A suggestion has been made to this Department, in various forms, that the Goy-
ernment should lease these islands for a long period of time to a Company or firm
for an annual sum of money, upon the condition that provision should be made for
the subsistence and education of the natives, and that the fisheries themselves
should be preserved from injury. This plan is open to the very grave objection that
it makes a monopoly of a branch of industry, important not only for the people of

the islands, but to the people of the United States, if the preparation and man-
449 ufacture of theskins for use should be transferred from London to this country.

Such a monopoly is contrary to the ideas of the people, and not many years
would pass before serious efforts would be made for its overthrow. Moreover, the
natives of the islands would be under the control of the Company,.and as the expi-
ration of the lease approached, the inducements to protect them and preserve the
fisheries would diminish, especially if the Company saw, as would probably be the
case, that it had no hope of a renewal of its privileges. Under these circumstan-
ces the Government of the United States would necessarily be subjected to great
expense and trouble.

“For these reasons, briefly stated, but valid, as they appear to me, I cannot con-
cur in the suggestion that the islands should be leased te any Company fer a period
of years.

“Inasmuch as it will be necessary for the Government of the United States to
maintain in and around the islands a military and naval force for the protection of
its interests under any plan that can be devised, I am of opinion that it is better
that the Government should assume the entire control of the business of the islands,
and exclude everybody but its own servants and agents; that it should establish a
rigid system of police, excluding from the islands distilled spirits and fire-arms, and
subject vessels that touch there to forfeiture, except when they are driven to seek
shelter or for necessary repairs. The conditions of such occupancy and control by
the Government of the United States seem to me to be these:

—

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 495

“1st, the exclusion of other parties; 2nd, the supply to the natives of such arti-
cles as they are accustomed to use; 3rd, compensation to the natives for their labour,
and the payment of a sufficient additional sum each year to enable them to live in
the manner to which they have been accustomed; 4th, an equitable division of the
value of the skins over the payments made to the natives, and the cost to the Goy-
ernment of the United States of maintaining such force as is necessary for the pro-
tection of the business.

“The portion of the surplus equitably belonging to the natives might be set aside
for the purpose of education and religious teaching, the erection of more suitable
dwellings than they now possess, and generally for their physical, intellectual, and
moral improvement.

““Tf the Government were to lease the islands it would not be possible to withdraw
entirely the military and naval forces, or to neglect a careful supervision, and the
additional expense consequent upon retaining possession of the business of the
islands in the hands of the Government would not be large.

“Ordinarily, | agree in the opinion that a Government, especially one like that of
the United States, is not adapted to the management of business; but this clearly is
a business which cannot be left open to individual competition, and if it is to be a
monopoly, whether profitable or otherwise, the interest of the Government is so large,
and the expenses incident to the protection of these islands so great, that it cannot
afford to substitute to any extent the monopoly of an individual or of a Company
for its own lawful supervision.

“‘Should the Government fail in the attempt to manage the business through its
own agents, there will then be opportunity to lease the fisheries to private parties;
but my opinion is that a larger revenue can be obtained from them by actual man-
agement than by a lease.

“Tn further reply to the Resolution, I have to say that the skins taken in 1868
were removed by Messrs. Kohl, Hutchinson, and Co., the Solicitor of the Treasury
being of the opinion that the Government had no legal anthority to detain them.
Those taken in 1869 are upon the islands, but no decision has been made touching
the rights of the Government.

“Tn concluding this Report I desire to call the attention of Congress to the fact
that it is necessary to legislate immediately so far as to provide for the business of
the present year. The natives will commence the capture of seals about the 1st
June.

“Tf the islands are to be leased for the present year it should be done immediately,
that the lessee may make provision for the business of the year. If the business of
the present year is to be conducted by the Government, as I think it should be, what-
ever our future policy, legislation is necessary; and I suggest that the Secretary of
the Treasury be authorized to appoint Agents in Alaska who shall be empowered to
superintend the capture of the seals and the curing of the skins; and that an appro-
priation shall be made of 100,000 dollars, out of which the natives shall be paid for
the labour performed by them, and the other expenses incident to the business met.

“The Secretary of the Treasury should also be authorized to sell the skins at pub-
lic auction or upon sealed proposals at San Francisco or New York, as he may deem
most for the interest of the Government.

“It should be observed in this connection that the Government derived no benetit
whatever from the seal fishery of the year 1868, and that the skins taken in 1869 are,
nominally at least, the property of two Companies, while the Government, during
the last year, has furnished protection to the natives and the fishery, and has no
assurance at present that it will derive any benefit whatever therefrom.

“Tf legislation is long delayed the Lusiness of the year 1870 will be but a repetition
of that of 1869.”

While the Canadian contention is supported, as has been seen, by many extracts
from the Reports of officials of the United States Government, it is apparent that
the desire of the lessees, and indirectly that of the officials, has been to create a
monopoly in the fur-seal industry, since in this way the market for the skins is
largely enhanced and the value of the islands greatly increased.

This is, no doubt, one reason for the divergent opinions entertained as to the best
Regulations for the preservation of seal life between those who control the islands
and those who are compelled to hunt the seals in the ocean.

In support of the above assertion the following authorities are in point:

Mr. Bryant, in 1869 (Senate Ex. Doe. No. 32, 41st Congress, 2nd Session), stated that
the large number taken in 1867 and in 1868 decreased the London valuation to 3 and
4 dollars askin.

Mr. Moore, in a report to the Secretary of the Treasury (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, p. 196,
44th Congress, Ist Session), says, when alluding to the avisability of killing more
seals than prescribed by the Act of the 1st July, 1870:

“It seems that the 100,000 fur-seals from our own islands, together with the
30,000 obtained by them from the Asiatic islands, besides the scattering fur-seals

496 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

killed in the South Seas, are all the market of the world can conveniently take. In
fact, it is pretty evident the very restriction of the numbers killed is about the
most valuable part of the franchise of the Alaska Commercial Company, and it is
only another proof of the absurdity of the frequent charges made against them that
they surreptitiously take from our islands 20,000 or 30,000 more seals than they are
entitled to take.

* t * * * * *

‘There does not exist any doubt, nor indeed is it denied by the Alaska Commercial
Company, that the lease of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George is highly luera-
tive. The great success of this franchise is, however, owing, as far as I could ascer-
tain, to three principal causes: Ist, the Alaska Commercial Company, owing to the
fact that they have the sole control of the three Asiatic islands on which fur-seals are
found, as well as on our own islands, as St. Paul and St. George, virtually manage
the sale of 80 per cent. of all the fur-seals killed annually in the world; 2ndly, the
arbitrary and somewhat eccentric law of fashion has raised the price of fur-seals in
the markets of the world during the last four years fully 100 per cent. in value;
3rdly, time and experience have given this controlling Company most valuable advan-
tages. For instance,in the Island of St. Paul, where a reputed number of from
3,000,000 to 3,500,000 of seals congregate, the comparatively small quantity only of
formerly 75,000 and now 90,000 are killed. The Company employs experts in select-
ing easily the kind that are the most valuable in the market, and have no difficulty in
getting 90,000 out of a flock of 3,000,000 to 3,500,000, which are the select of the select;
and it is owing to this cause, and to the care taken in avoiding cuts in the skins, as
also in properly preparing them for the market, that the high prices are obtained.
Indeed, the fact is that a fur-seal selling now in London for 21. 10s. or 31. is, owing
to its superior quality and excellent condition, cheaper than the fur-seals which five
years ago fetched 30s. sterling. The former mode of the indiscriminate killing of
fur-seals was as detrimental to the value of the skins as it was to the existence of
the breed. With such a valuabje franchise, secured by a contract that has still fif-
teen years to run, but which could, without notice, be terminated by the Secretary
of the Treasury for cause, it would indeed be a suicidal policy on the part of the
Company to infringe on the stipulations of the contract.”

All this is explained in the evidence before the Congressional Committee, pp. 77, 101,
105, and 121, where the Company is shown not to have taken the full quota in two
years:

“Not because we could not get encugh seals, but because the market did not
demand them. There were plenty of seals.” (Evidence before Congressional Com-

mittee, p. 121.)
450 Mr. McIntyre, once a Special Agent, has already been quoted, and was after-
wards in the service of the Company, reported, in 1869, to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Mr. Blaine (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress, 2nd
Session), that—

“The number of skins that may be secured, however, should not be taken as the
criterion on which to fix the limit of the yearly catch, but rather the demand of the
market, keeping of course always within the annual production. It appears that
under the Russian management a much larger number was sometimes killed than
could be advantageously disposed of. Thus in 1803, after the slaughter had been
conducted for some years without regard to the market, an accumulation of 800,000
skins was found in the storehouses on the islands, 700,000 of which were thrown
into the sea as worthless. At several times since that date the market has been
glutted, and sales almost or quite suspended. A few months previously to the trans-
fer of Alaska to the United States sealskins were worth in London only 1 dol. 50 c.
to 3 dollars each, and several thousand skins owned by the Russian-American Com-
pany were sold to parties in San Francisco, at the time of the transfer, at 50 cents
to 1 dol. 25 ¢., a sum insufficient to pay the present cost of securing and transport-
ing them to that city. Soon afterwards, however, fur-seal garments became fash-
ionable in Europe, and in the expectation that the usual supply would be cut off by
reason of the transfer of Alaska, prices advanced to 4 to 7 dollars per skin; contrary
to the expectation of dealers more than 200,000 skins were taken by the various
parties engaged in the business on the islands in 1868, and the London price has
declined to 3 or 4 dollars per skin; and I am assured that if the raw skins now held
by dealers in London were thrown upon the market, a sufficient sum to pay the cost
of transportation from the islands could hardly be realized. The number of raw
skins now upon the market is not less than 350,000, and it is predicted that several
years must elapse before the demand will again raise the price above the present rate,
if indeed the large surplus of skins does not carry it much lower before reaction
begins.”

Many of the dangers to seal life have been mentioned, and it has been shown that
the herd still thrives; but the wonderful productiveness of the seal is further shown

<p elie

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 497

by an allusion to a danger greater than all the assanlts of man in the deep sea, a
danger ever existing, which naturally tends to keep the seals inshore, or, when
outside, to scatter.

Reference is made to the killer-whales and sharks. (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th
Congress, Ist Session, p. 177, and pp. 80, 87 of Appendix to the same document; also
p. 359 of Evidence before Congressional Committee, 1888) :

“That these animals are preyed upon extensively by killer-whales (Orca gladiator)
in especial, and by sharks and probably other submarine foes now unknown, is at
once evident; for were they not held in check by some such cause they would, as
they exist to-day on St. Paul, quickly multiply, by arithmetical progression, to so
great an extent that the island, nay, Behring’s Sea itself, could not contain them.
The present annual killing of 100,000 out of a yearly total of over 1,000,000 males
does not in an appreciable degree diminish the seal life, or interfere in the slighest
with its regular, sure perpetuation on the breeding-grounds every year. We may,
therefore, properly look upon this aggregate of four and five millions of fur-seals as
we see them every season on these Pribylov Islands as the maximum limit of increase
assigned to them by natural laws. The great equilibrium which Nature holds in
life upon this earth must be sustained at St. Paul as well as elsewhere.” (Klliott’s
Report, pp. 62, 64.)

“When before the Committee of Ways and Means on the 17th March, 1876, on the
investigation before alluded to, Mr. Elliott made a similar statement, giving in
somewhat greater detail the reasons for his conclusions. His evidence will be found
annexed to the Report of the Committee.” (Report No. 623, H. R., 44th Congress, Ist
Session. )

Respecting the practice of sealing as known in Canada, it may be said:

Canadian sealers start ont upon their sealing voyages some time in the beginning
of the year. The vessels go down to a point off San Francisco, and from thence
work north. The seals taken by them off the coast are of both sexes, many in pup,
some young bulls; very few old lulls run in the Pacifie Ocean.

The catch of each vessel will average between 500 and 700 seals a-year between the
1st of January and the end of May.

When an untrained crew is taken, many shots may be fired without hitting the
seals at all, since the novice expects he can hit when at a considerable distance, the
seals in such cases escaping entirely, but with Indian hunters and expert whites a
seal is nearly always captured when hit. An expert never shoots until after he has
arrived at close quarters, and generally when the seal is asleep.

In Behring’s Sea the catch is made up largely of young bachelors.

Sealing captains contend that no male becomes fit for the rookeries until 6 years of age,

This contention is supported by the authorities to whom reference has already been
made. ,

It is further contended that should a temporary diminution of seal life become
apparent upon the islands of the Pribylov group it would not follow that the herds
were (lecreasing. Professor Elliott, in his Report of 1874 upon Alaska, so frequently
referred to in this paper, argues, on pp. 265 and 266, that in such a case a corre-
sponding augmentation may occur in Copper or Behring Island, since ‘‘ these animals
are not particularly attached to the respective places of their birth:”

“Thus it appears to me necessary that definite knowledge concerning the Com-
mander [Islands and the Kuriles should he possessed; without it, I should not hesitate
to say that any Report made by an Agent of the Departinent as to a visible dimi-
nution of the seal life on the Pribylovs, due in his opinion to the effect of killing, as it
is conducted, was without good foundation; that this diminution would have been
noticed just the same in all likelihood had there been no taking of seals at all on
the islands, and that the missing seals are more than probably on the Russian
grounds.”

Note on the Question of the Protection of the Fur-Seal in the North Pacific.

[By Mr. George Dawson, D.S., F. G.S., F.R.5.C., F.R.M.S., Assistant Director of the Geological
Survey of Canada.]

The mode of protection which is apparently advocated by the United States Gov-
ernment in the case of the fur-seal, viz., that of leasing the privilege of killing the
animal on the breeding-grounds and prohibiting its capture elsewhere, is a new
departure in the matter of such protection. If, indeed, the whole sweep of the
Pacitic Ocean north of the Equator was dominated and effectively controlled by the
United States, something might be said in favour of some such mode of protection
from a commercial point of view, but in the aciual circumstances the results would
be so entirely in favour of the United States, and so completely opposed to the
interests and natural rights of citizens of all other countries, that it is preposterous
to suppose that such a mode of protection of these animals can be maintained.

B S, PT V——32

498 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Stated briefly, the position of the United States in the matter appears to be based
on the idea of allowing, for a money consideration, the slaughter of the maximum
possible number of seals compatible with the continued existence of the animals on
the Pribylov Islands, while, in order that this number shall not be reduced, no

sealing is to be permitted elsewhere.
451 Such an assumption can be based, in this case, on one or other only of two
grounds:

1. That Behring’s Sea is a mare clausum.

2. That each and every fur-seal is the property of the United States.

Both claims have been made in one form or other, but neither has, so far as I
know, been officially formulated.

The first is simply disproved by the geographical features of Behring’s Sea, by the
fact that this sea and Behring’s Strait contribute the open highway to the Arctic
and to part of the northern shore of Canada, by the previous action of the United
States Government when this sea was nearly surrounded by Russian territory, and
by the fact that from 1842 to the date of the purchase of Alaska fleets of United
States and other whalers were annually engaged in Behring’s Sea. It is scarcely
possible that any serious attempt will be made to support this contention. (Ban-
croft’s History, vol. xxxiii, Alaska, p. 583 et seq.)

The second ground of claim is candidly advanced by H. W. Elliott, who writes:

“The fur-seals of Alaska, collectively and individually, are the property of the
General Government. . . . . Every fur-seal playing in the waters of Behring’s
Sea around about the Pribylov Islands, no matter if found so doing 100 miles away
from those rookeries, belongs there, has been begotten and born thereon, and is the
animal that the explicit shield of the law protects. No legal sophism or quibble can
cloud the whole truth of my statement. . . . . . The matter is, however, now
thoroughly appreciated and understood at the Treasury Department, and has been
during the past four years, as the seal pirates have discovered to their chagrin and
discomfiture.” (United States 10th Census, vol. viii, Fur-Seal Islands, p. 157.)

Waiving for the moment the general objection which may be raised to the enforce-
ment of such a principle on the high seas, an enforcement which the United States,
in the interest of the Alaska Fur Company, appear to have undertaken, the facts
upon which the assumption are based may be questioned. Mr. Elliott, in fact, him-
self writes, on the same page (referring to the presence of a large sealing fleet in
Behring’s Sea), that it conld not fail “in a few short years in so harassing and irri-
tating the breeding seals as to cause their withdrawal trom the Alaska rookeries,
and probable retreat to those of Russia, a source of undoubted Muscovite delight
and emolument, and of corresponding loss and shame to us.”

This remark implies that the seals may resort to either the Pribylov or the Kus-
sian islands, according to circumstances; and who is to judge, in the case of a par-
ticular animal, in which of these places it has been born? The old theory, that the
seals returned each year to the same spot, has been amply disproved. Eliott him-
self admits this, and it is confirmed (op. cit., p. 31) by Captain Charles Bryant, who
resided eight years in the Pribylov Islands as Government Agent, and who, having
marked 100 seals in 1870, on St. Paul Island, recognized, the next year, four of them
in different rookeries on that island, and two on St. George Island. (Monograph on
North American Pinnipedes, Allen, 1880, p. 401.)

It is, moreover, by no means certain that the fur-seals breed exclusively on the
Russian and United States Seal Islands of Behring’s Sea, though these islands are
no doubt their principal and important breeding-places. They were formerly,
according to Captain Shannon, found in considerable numbers on the coast of Cali-
fornia; and Captain Bryant was credibly informed (‘‘ Marine Mammals of Coast of
North-West North America,” pp. 152, 154, quoted by Allen, op. cit., p. 332) of the
existence in recent years of small breeding colonies of these animals on the Queen
Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. Mr. Allen further quotes from the observa-
tions of Mr. James G. Swan, Field Assistant of the United States Commissioner of
Fish and Fisheries:

“Mr. Swan” (I quote from Mr. Elliott), “has passed near an average lifetime on
the north-west coast, and has rendered to natural science and to ethnology efficient
and valuable service.”

His statements may therefore be received with respect. He writes:

“The fact that they (the fur-seals) do bear pups in the open ocean, off Fuca Strait,
is well established by the evidence of every one of the sealing captains, the Indians,
and my own personal observations. Dr. Power says the facts do not admit of dis-
pute. . . . Itseems as preposterous to my mind to suppose that all the fur-seals
of the North Pacific go to the Pribyloy Islands as to suppose that all the salmon go
to the Columbia or Fraser River or to the Yukon.”

To this Professor D.S. Jordon, the well-known naturalist, adds:

“‘T may remark that I saw a live fur seal pup at Cape Flattery, taken from an old
seal just killed, showing that the time of bringing them forth was just at hand,”

al

at

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 499

On these statements Mr. Allen himself remarks:

“These observations, aside from the judicious suggestions made by Mr. Swan, are
of special interest as confirming those made some years ago by Captain Bryant, and
already briefly recorded in this work. They seem to show that at least a certain
number of fur-seals repair to secluded places, suited to their needs, as far south as
the latitude of Cape Flattery, to bring forth their young.” (Allen, op. cit., pp. 411,
772, 773. )

Mr. Elliott, of course, stoutly denies the authenticity of all these observations, it
being necessary to do so in order to maintain his contention as to the ownership of
the United States Government, or the Alaska Fur Company, as the case may be, in
the seals.

It has further been often stated that the killing of fur-seals in the open sea off the
North Pacific coast is a comparatively new departure, while it is, as a matter of
fact, morally certain that the Indians of the whole length of that coast have pur-
sued and killed these animals from time immemorial. As the value of theskins has,
however, only of late years become fully known and appreciated, it is naturally
difficult to obtain much trustworthy evidence of this without considerable research.
Some facts can, however, be adduced. Thus, Captain Shannon described the mode
of hunting seals in canoes employed by the Indians of Vancouver Island, and refers
to the capture of seals by the Indians off the Straits of Fuca, where, he adds, they
appear—

“Some years as early as the Ist March, and more or less remain till July or
August, but they are most plentiful in April and May. During these two months the
Indians devote nearly all their time to sealing when the weather will permit.”

452 In 1848 to 1864 only a few dozen skins are known to have been taken annually,
but in 1869 fully 5,000 were obtained. Mr. Allen, writing in 1880, states that—

“During the winter months considerable numbers of sealskins are taken by the
natives of British Columbia, some years as many as 2,000.” (Allen, op. cit., pp. 332,
871, 411.)

The protection of the fur-seals from extermination has from time to time been
speciously advanced as a sufficient reason for extraordinary departures from the
respect usually paid to private property and to international rigbts; but any pro-
tection based on the lease of the breeding-grounds of these animals as places of
slanghter, and an attempt to preserve the seals when at large and spread over the
ocean, as they are during the greater part of each year, is unfair in its operation,
unsound in principle, and impracticable in enforcement.

Referring to the interests of the Indians of the north-west coast, it is true that a
certain number of Aleuts now on the Pribylov Islands (898 in all, according to
Elliott) are dependent on the sealing business for subsistence, but these islands were
uninhabited when discovered by the Russians, who brought these people here for
their own convenience. Further south along the coast the natives of the Aleutian
Islands, of the south-east coast of Alaska, and of the entire coast of British Colum-
bia have been, and still are, accustomed annually to kill considerable numbers of
seals. This it would be unjust to interfere with, even were it possible to carry ont
any regulations with that effect. The further development of oceanic sealing affords
employment to, and serves as a mode of advancement and civilization for, these
Indians, and is one of the natural industries of the coast. No allusion need be made
to the prescriptive rights of the white sealers, which are well known.

The unsoundness of this principle of conservation is shown by what has occurred
in the Southern Hemisphere in respect to the fur-seals of that region. About the
beginning of the century very productive sealing-grounds existed in the Falkland
Islands, Kerguelen Islands, Georgian Islands, the west coast of Patagonia, and many
other places similarly situated, all of Which were in the course of a few years almost
absolutely stripped of seals, and in many of which the animal is now practically
extinct. This destruction of the southern fur-sealing trade was not caused by pro-
miscuous sealing at sea, but entirely by hunting on and around the shores, and, had
these islands been protected as breeding-places, the fur-seals would in all probability
be nearly as abundant in the south to-day as they were at the date at which the
trade commenced.

The impracticability of preventing the killing of seals on the open sea, and of
efficiently patrolling the North Pacitie for this purpose, is sufficiently obvious. The
seals, moreover, when at sea (in marked contrast with their boldness and docility in
their breeding-places) are extremely wary, and the number which can be obtained by
legitimate hunting at sea must always be smallas compared with the total. Elliott,
in fact, states that the seal, when at sea, ‘‘is the shyest aud wariest your ingenuity
can define.” (Op. cit., p. 65.)

The position is such that at the present time the perpetuation or the extermina-
tion of the fur-seal in the North Pacific as a commercial factor practically depends
entirely on the regulations and restrictions which may be applied by the United
States to the Pribylov Islands, and now that this is understood a regard for the

500 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

general interest of its own citizens, as well as for those of other countries, demands
that the extermination or serious depletion of the seals on their breeding-isliands
should be prevented. It is probably not necessary for this purpose that the killing
of seals on these islands should be entirely prohibited. Both Elliott and Bryant
show good reason for believing that a large number of seals may be killed annually
without reducing the average aggregate number which can find suitable breeding-
grounds on these islands, and after the very great reduction in numbers which
occurred, owing to an inclement season abont 1836 (Elliott), or 1842 (Bryant), the
seals increased very rapidly again, and in a few years being nearly as numerous as
in 1873, when the total number on the islands was estimated at over 4,700,000.

By retaining an efticient control of the number of seals to be killed on the Pribylov
Islands, and by fixing this number anew each season in accordance with cireum-
stances, the United States Government will be in position to counteract the effect of
other causes tending to diminish the number of seals, whether climatic or resulting
from the killing of a large number at sea. There is no reason to apprehend that the
number of seals which might thus be safely killed on the islands would, under any
circumstances, be so small as to fail to cover the cost of the administration and pro-
tection of the islands. If such a policy as this, based on the common interests in
the preservation of the seals, were adopted, it might be reasonable to agree (for the
purpose of safeguarding the islands and for police purposes) that the jurisdiction
of the United States in this matter should be admitted to extend to some greater
distance than this usual one of 3 marine miles, though, as shown further on, the
necessary distance would not be great.

The situation of the Pribylov Islands and the habits of the seal together cause the
problem of its preservation to be one of extreme simplicity if approached from the
point of view of protection on and about the islands, but one of very great difficulty
if looked at from any other standpoint. ‘The long-continued and presumably accu-
rate observations which have been made on the habits of the seals show that during
the entire breeding season they are very closely contined to the immediate shores of
the breeding islands, and that neither in arriving nor in departing from these islands
do they form schools or appear together in such numbers as to render promiscuous
slaughter at sea possible. The old bulls actually remain on shore during the entire
breeding season, while the females, though leaving their young from time to time
for the water, are described as haunting the immediate vicinity of the shores just
beyond the line of surf. Even the bachelor seals (Elliott, op. cit., pp. 45, 64, et passim;
Allen, op. cit., p. 386), which constitute a distinct body while ashore and are not
actually engaged in breeding or protecting the young, are said to remain close to
the shore. If, however, any seals are to be found at this time going to or returning
from the sea at some distance from land, these belong to the ‘“‘bachelor” class, which

is the very class selected for the killing by the fur Company. The young
453 females, after leaving the islands in the year of their birth, do not return at
all till after reaching maturity in their third year. (Allen, op. cit., p. 402.)

The evidence obtained by Captain Bryant shows that while ‘‘small groups of
small seals (apparently 1 and 2 years old)” are met with at large in Behring’s Sea
during July and August, no considerable numbers of schools are to be found. (Allen,
op. cit., p. 411.)

It isthus apparent that the perfect security of the seals actually engaged in breeding
and suckling their young may be secured without extending the limits of protection
beyond the usual distance of 3 miles from the shores of the breeding islands, but
that for the purpose of increasing the facilities of supervision a somewhat wider
limit might reasonably be accorded. Possibly by defining an area inclosed by lines
joining points 3 miles off the extreme headlands and inlets of the Pribylov group,
an ample and unobjectionable area of protection might be establishe.

It is allowed by all naturalists that the habits of the fur-seals of the Southern
Hemisphere are identical with those of the seal of the North Pacific, and it is there-
fore admissible to quote the observations of Dampier on Juan Fernandez Island in
further confirmation of the fact that these animals go only for a very short distance
from land during the breeding season, even when in immense multitudes on the
shore. Dampier writes:

“‘Here are always thousands, I might say possibly millions of them, either sitting
on the bays or going and coming in the sea round the islands, which is covered with
them (as they lie at the top of the water playing and sunning themselves) for a mile
or two from the shore.” (‘«A New Voyage Round the World,” 1703; quoted by Allen,
op. cit., p. 394. )

These rookeries have, like others in the south, been long since depleted and
abandoned.

The circumstance that the female fur-seal becomes pregnant within a few days
after the birth of its young, and that the period of gestation is nearly twelve months,
with the fact that the skins are at all times fit for market (though for a few weeks,
extending from the middle of August to the end of September, during the progress

oo

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 501

of the shedding and renewal of the longer hair, they are of less value) show that there
is no natural basis for a close season generally applicable. Thus, should any close
season be advocated, its length and the time of year during which it shall occur can
only be determined as a matter of convenience and be of the nature of a compromise
between the various interests involved. The pelagic habits of the seals during fully
six months of each year, and the fact that they are during the entire winter season
widely dispersed over the Pacific, constitute a natural and unavoidable close season.
It is thus only possible, from a commercial point of view, to kill the seals during the
period of their approximate concentration for migration or when in Behring’s Sea.
This is the period fixed by Nature during which seals may be taken, and any artificial
close season can be effective only if applied to the further curtailment of the time at
which it is possible to carry on the fishery. It may be assumed, therefore, as such a
close season for seal-hunting at sea must be purely arbitrary and artificial, that any
close season proposed by the United States or the lessees of the Seal Islands will be
chosen entirely in the interest of sealing on shore, and so arranged as to render the
time of sealing on the open sea as short and unprofitable as possible. It is thus
important that the sea-going sealers should at least have an equal voice in the matter
of the time and duration of a close period if such should be contemplated.

(Signed) GEORGE M. Dawson.
Marcu 5, 1890. :

No. 322.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 26.)
{Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, April 26, 1890.

I have received the amendments proposed by the Canadian Govern-
ment in my new dratt Convention referred to in my despatch of the
11th instant. I propose to submit the draft Convention to the Confer-
ence on Tuesday, with the amendments, unless your Lordship instructs
me otherwise.

INO2323:

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received April 30.)
[Lelegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, April 30, 1890.
I have sent the draft Convention to Mr. Blaine, with a letter sup.
porting our counter-proposal.
I sent your Lordship copies by post yesterday.

454 No. 324.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 5.)

WASHINGTON, April 25, 1890.

My wees In obedience to your Lordship’s instructions banned to
me in your telegram of the 15th March, 1 have the honour to inform
you that I communicated copies of my despatches of the 7th and 11th
February, respecting the assessment of damages for seizure in Behring’s
Sea, to Mr. Tupper, in order that he might consult his colleagues on
the subject during his visit to Ottawa.

502 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I have now the honour to inclose a copy of the letter in which he
informs me of the views of the Dominion Government as to the pro-
cedure to be followed.

From this letter it appears that the Canadian Government desire that
| should endeavour to assess the amount of damages with Mr. Blaine,
but that they would prefer a modification of the procedure suggested
on the proposed reference to arbitration.

I have the honour to request that I may be informed whether your
Lordship approves of the modification in Mr. Blaine’s proposal suggested
by the Canadian Government, and, if so, whether 1 am authorized to
accept that proposal as so modified on behalf of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 324.]
Mr. Tupper to Sir J. Pauncefote.

WASHINGTON, April 19, 1890.

DEAR SIR JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE: Referring to the copies of your despatches of the
7th and 11th February, addressed to Lord Salisbury, and which you handed to me,
I have now to inform you that during my visit to Ottawa I discussed with my col-
leagues the subject to which they refer.

In the despatch of the 7th February you say Mr. Blaine was willing ‘‘to examine
and assess the damages with me on the same principle as if the liability of his Gov-
ernment were admitted, then to refer the question of liability to some eminent juris-
consult for decision on written statements and answers submitted by the two Govy-
ernments respectively.”

It will be agreeable to the Canadian Government that you should endeavour to
assess the amount of damages with Mr. Blaine.

Touching Mr. Blaine’s proposal for ascertaining the liability, my colleagues think

that it would be preferable to the mode suggested that a statement of the case *

should be made, setting out all the facts connected with the action of the Revenue
cutters of the United States concerning Canadian sealing-vessels, their crews, car-
goes, papers, &c., in Behring’s Sea, and the question propounded upon such a
statement should be whether the conduct of the United States in the premises was
justifiable under the principles of international or natural law.

The question ‘‘on written statements and answers submitted by the Governments
respectively” should be submitted to two eminent Judges, one to be, say, the Chief
Justice of the United States, the other an eminent member of the English Judiciary,
to be named by the British Government.

Yours, &c.
(Signed) Cu. H. Tupper.

No. 325.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 5, 1890.

Srr: With reference to your letter of the 14th March last, I am

directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit herewith a copy of

a despatch from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,* inclosing a

copy of a letter addressed to him by Mr. Tupper, explaining the views

of the Dominion Government as to the procedure to be followed

455 in the proposed assessment of damages claimed on behalf of the
owners of the British vessels seized in Behring’s Sea.

*No. 324.

*

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5038

T am to request that, in laying this letter before Secretary Lord
Knutsford, you will move him to furnish Lord Salisbury with any
observations he may have to offer in regard to the modifications in Mr,
Blaine’s proposal suggested by the Canadian Government.

Tam, &c,
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 326.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 8.)

WASHINGTON, April 29, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 11th instant, I have
the honour to inclose copy of a letter which I have this day addressed to
Mr. Blaine inclosing the draft of a Convention which I have prepared
for the settlement of the Behring’s Sea Fisheries question, and which
has the approval of the Canadian Government.

I have, we.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure lin No. 326.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, April 29, 1890.

DEAR Mr. Buarne: At the last sitting of the Conference on the Behring’s Sea Fish-
eries question you expressed doubts, after reading the Memorandum of the Canadian
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, which by your courtesy has since been printed,
whether any arrangement could be arrived at that would be satisfactory to Canada.

You observed that the proposal of the United States had now been two years before
Her Majesty’s Government, that there was nothing further to urge in support of it,
and you invited me to make a counter-proposal on your behalf. To that task I have
most earnestly applied myself, and while fully sensible of its great difficulty, owing
to the conflict of opinion and of testimony which has manifested itself in the course
of our discussions, I do not despair of arriving at a solution which will be satis-
factory to all the Governments concerned. It has been admitted from the commence-
ment that the sole object of the negotiation is the preservation of the fur-seal species
for the benefit of mankind, and that no considerations of advantage to any particu-
lar nation or of benefit to any private interest should enter into the question.

Such being the basis of negotiation, it would be strange, indeed, if we should fail
to devise the means of solving the difficulties which have unfortunately arisen. I
will proceed to explain by what method this result can, in my judgment, be attained.
The great divergence of views which exists as to whether any restrictions on pelagic
sealing are necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species, and, if so, as to the
character and extent of such restrictions, render it impossible, in my opinion, to
arrive at any solution which would satisfy public opinion either in Canada or Great
Britain, or in any country which may be invited to accede to the proposed arrange-
ment, without a full inquiry by a Mixed Commission of Experts, the result of whose
labours and investigations in the region of the seal fishery would probably dispose
of all the points in dispute.

As regards the immediate necessities of the case, I am prepared to recommend to
my Government, for their approval and acceptance, certain measures of precaution
which might be adopted provisionally and without prejudice to the ultimate decision
on the points to be investigated by the Commission. These measures, which I will
explain later on, would effectually remove all reasonable apprehension of any deple-
tion of the fur-seal species, at all events pending the Report of the Commission.

It is important in this relation to note that while it has been contended on the
part of the United States Government that the depletion of the fur-seal species has
already commenced, and even that the extermination of the species is threatened
within a measureable space of time, the latest Reports of the United States Agent,
Mr. Tingle, are such as to dissipate all such alarms,

504 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Tingle, in 1887, reported that the vast number of seals was on the increase,

and that the condition of all the rookeries could not be better.

456 In his later Report, dated the 31st July, 1888, he wrote as follows:

“T am happy to be able to report that, although late Janding, the breeding
rookeries are filled out to the lines of measurement heretofore made, and some of them
much beyond those lines, showing conclusively that seal life is not being depleted,
but is fully up to the estimate given in my Report of 1887.”

Mr. Elliot, who is frequently appealed to as a great authority on the subject,
aftirms that such is the natural increase of the fur-seal species that these animals,
were they not preyed upon by killer-whales (Orca gladiator), sharks, and other sub-
marine foes, would multiply to such an extent that ‘‘ Behring’s Sea itself could not
contain them.”

The Honourable Mr. Tupper has shown in his Memorandum that the destruction of
seals caused by pelagic sealing is insignificant in comparison with that caused by their
natural enemies; and he gives figures exhibiting the marvellous increase of seals in
spite of the depredations complained of. Again, the destructive nature of the modes
of killing seals by spears and fire-arms has apparently been greatly exaggerated, as
may be seen from the affidavits of practical seal-hunters which I annex to this letter, *
together with a confirmatory extract from a paper upon the ‘Fur Seal Fisheries of
the Pacific Coast and Alaska,” prepared and published in San Irancisco, and designed
for the information of Eastern United States Senators and Congressmen.

The Canadian Government estimate the percentage of seals so wounded or killed
and not recovered at 6 per cent.

In view of the facts above stated, it is improbable that pending the result of the
inquiry which I have suggested any appreciable diminution of the fur-seal species
should take place, even if the existing conditions of pelagic sealing were to remain
unchanged.

But in order to quiet all apprehension on that score I would propose the following
provisional Regulations:

1. That pelagic sealing should be prohibited in the Belring’s Sea, the Sea of
Ochotsk, and the adjoining waters, during the months of May and June, and the
months of October, November, and December, which may be termed the ‘‘ migration
periods” of the fur-seal.

2. That all sealing-vessels should be prohibited from approaching the breeding
islands within a radius of 10 miles.

These Regulations would put a stop to the two practices complained of as tending
to exterminate the species; (1) the slaughter of female seals with young during
migration periods, ‘‘especially in the narrow passes of the Aleutian Islands; (2) the
destruction of female seals by marauders surreptitiously landing on the breeding
islands under cover of the dense fogs which almost continuously prevail in that
locality during the summer.

Mr. Taylor, another Agent of the United States Government, asserts that the
female seals (called ‘“‘cows”) go out from the breeding islands every day for food.
The following is an extract from his evidence.

“Thecows go 10 and 15 miles, and even further—I do not know the average of it—
and they are going and coming all the morning and evening. ‘The sea is black with
them round about the islands. If there is a little fog, and they get out half-a-mile
from shore, we cannot see a vessel 100 yardseven. ‘The vessels themselves lay around
the islands there, where they pick up a good many seal, and there is where the kill-
ing of cows occurs when they go ashore.”

Whether the female seals go any distance from the islands in quest of food, and,
if so, to what distance, are questions in dispute. But, pending their solution, the
Regulation which I propose against the approach of sealing-vessels within 10 miles
of the islands for the prevention of surreptitious landing practically meets Mr. Tay-
lor’s complaint, be it well founded or not, to the fullest extent; for, owing to the
prevalence of fogs, the risk of capture within a radius of 10 miles will keep vessels
off at a much greater distance.

This Regulation, if accepted by Her Majesty’s Government, would certainly mani
fest a friendly desire on their part to co-operate with your Government and that of
Itussia in the protection of their rookeries, and in the prevention of any violation of
the Laws applicable thereto.

I have the honour to inclose the draft of a Preliminary Convention which I have
prepared, providing for the appointment of a Mixed Commission, who are to report
on certain specitied questions within two years.

The draft embodies the temporary Regulations above described, together with
other clauses which appear to me necessary to give proper efiect to them.

Although I believe that it would be sufficient during the ‘ migration
457 periods” to prevent all sealing within a specified distance from the passes of

*See Appendix 1 in Colonial Office letter of November 30, 1889, pp. 355-357.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 505

the Aleutian Islands, I have, out of deference to your views and to the wishes
of the Russian Minister, adopted the fishery line described in Article V, and which
was sugevested by you at the outset of our negotiation.

The drait, of course, contemplates the conclusion of a further Convention, after
full examination of the Report of the Mixed Commission. It also makes provision
for the ultimate settlement by arbitration of any differences which the Report of
the Commission may still fail to adjust, whereby the important element of finality
issecured; and in order to give to the proposed arrangement the widest international
basis, the draft provides that the other Powers shall be invited to accede to it.

Theabove proposals are, of Course, submitted ad referendum, and it only now remains
for me to commend them to your favourable consideration and to that of the Russian
Minister. They have been framed by me in a spirit of justice and conciliation, and
with the most earnest desire to terminate the controversy in a manner honourable
to all parties, and worthy of the three great nations concerned.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 326.]
THE NorTH AMERICAN SEAL FISHERY CONVENTION,

Draft Convention between Great Britain, Russia, and the United States of America, in
relation to the Fur-seal Iishery in the Dehring’s Sea, the Sea of Ochotsk, and the adjoin-
ing waters.

The Governments of Russia and of the United States having repre- Preamble.
sented to the Government of Great Britain the urgency of regulating,
by means of an International Agreement, the fur- “seal fishery in Beh-
ring’s Sea, the Sea of Ochotsk, and the adjoining waters, for ‘the pres-
ervation of the fur-seal species in the North Pacific Ocean, and
differences of opinion having arisen as to the necessity for the pro-
posed Agreement, in consequence whereof the three Governments have
resolved to institute a full inquiry into the subject, and pending the
result of such inquiry, to adopt temporary measures for the restriction
of the killing of seals during the breeding season without prejudice to
the ultimate decision of the questions in difference in relation to the
said fishery

Thesaid three Governments have appointed as their respective Pleni-
potentiaries, to wit:

Who, after having exchanged their full powers, which were found
to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:

ARTICLE I.

The High Contracting Parties agree to appoint a Mixed Commission Mix
ixed Com.

of Experts, who shall inquire fully into the subject, and report to the jission of Ex-
High Contracting Parties within two years from the date of this Con- perts to be ap-
vention the result of their investigations, together with their opinions pointed.
and recommendations on the following questions:

1. Whether Regulations properly entorced upon the breeding islands
(Robin Island in the Sea of Ochotsk, and the Commander Islands
and the Pribyloff Islands in the Behring’s Sea) and in the territorial
waters surrounding those islands are sufficient for the preservation of
the fur-seal species.

2. If not, how far from the islands is it necessary that such Regula-
tions should be enforced in order to preserve the species?

3. In either of the above cases, what should such Regulations pro-
vide?

4. If a close season is required on the breeding islands and terri-
torial waters, what months should it embrace?

5. If a close season is necessary outside of the breeding island as

well, what extent of waters and what period or periods should it
embrace #

506 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

458 ARTICLE II.

On receipt of On receipt of the Report of the Commission, and of any separate
teport of Com- Reports which may be made by individual Commissioners, the High
perc onan Contracting Parties will proceed forthwith to determine what Inter-
Regulations tobe PAtional Regulations, if any, are necessary for the purpose aforesaid,
forthwith deter- and any Regulations so agreed upon shall be embodied in,a further
mined. Convention, to which the accession of the other Powers shall be invited.

ARTICLE III.

Arbitration. In case the High Contracting Parties should be unable to agree
upon the Regulations to be adopted, the questions in difference shall
be referred to the arbitration of an impartia' Government, who shall
duly consider the Reports hereinbefore mentioned, and whose award
shall be final, and shall determine the conditions of the further
Convention.

ARTICLE IV.

Pending the Report of the Commission, and for six months after
the date of such Report, the High Contracting Parties agree to adopt
and put in force as a temporary measure, and without prejudice to
the ultimate decision of any of the questions in difference in relation
to the said fishery, the Regulations contained in the next following
Articles Nos. V to X inclusive.

Provisional
Regulations.

ARTICLE V.

5 A line of demarcation, to be called the ‘seal fishery line,” shall be
ee fishery drawn as follows:

5 From Point Anival at the southern extremity of the Island of Sag-
halien in the Sea of Ochotsk, to the point of intersection of the 50th
parallel of north latitude with the 160th meridian of longitude east
from Greenwich, thence eastward along the said 50th parallel to its
point of intersection with the 160th meridian of longitude west from
Greenwich.

ARTICLE VI.

J The subjects and citizens of the High Contracting Parties shall be
Close time. = prohibited from engaging in the fur-seal fishery and the taking of
seals by land or sea north of the seal fishery line from the 1st May to

the 30th June, and also from the Ist October to the 30th December.

ARTICLE VII.

Prevention of During the intervening period, in order more effectively to prevent
inarauders. the surreptitious landing of marauders on the said breeding islands,
vessels engaged in the fur-seal fishery, and belonging to the subjects
and citizens of the High Contracting Parties, shall be prohibited from

approaching the said islands within a radius of 10 miles.

ARTICLE VIII.

Further pro- The High Contracting Parties may, pending the Report of the Com-
visional Regula- mission, and on its recommendation or otherwise, make such further

tious. temporary Regulations as may be deemed by them expedient for better
carrying out the provisions of this Convention ana the purposes
thereof.

ARTICLE IX.

Penaltyforvio- Eyvery vessel which shall be found engaged in the fur-seal fishery
lation of provi- contrary to the prohibitions provided for in Articles VI and VII, or in
ene ale violation of any Regulation made under Article VIII, shall, together

with her apparel, equipment, and contents, be liable to forfeiture and
confiscation, and the master and crew of such vessel, and every person
belonging thereto, shall be liable to fine and imprisonment.

;
:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5O7

ARTICLE X.

Every such offending vessel or person may be seized and detained Seizure for
by the haval or other duly commissioned officers of any of the High Pee mE prone:
Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practi- igh oe

cable to the authorities of the nation to which they respectively Trial of of-
belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to try the offence and i impose fences.
the penalties for the same. The witnesses and proofs necessary to
establish the offence shall also be sent with them, and the Court adju-
dicating upon the case may order such portion of the fines imposed, or
of the proceeds of the condemned vessel, to be applied in payment of

the expenses occasioned thereby.
459 ARTICLE XI.

This Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be Ratification.
exchanged at in six months from the date thereof, or sooner if Commence-
possible. It shall take effect on such day as shall be agreed Epon by mentyand dura-
the High Contracting Parties, and shall remain in force “until the expi- os Aa

ration of six month after the date of the Report of the Commission
of Experts to be appointed under Article 1; but its duration may be

extended by consent.
ARTICLE XII.

The High Contracting Parties agree to invite the accession of the euceen ton of
other Powers to the present Cony ention. bE SE

{Inclosure 3 in No. 326.]

Extract from a Pamphlet entitled “ Fur-scal Fisheries of the Pacific Coast and Alaska.”
Published by C. D. Ladd.

It is claimed that many seals are shot that sink and are lost. Undoubtedly there
are some Jost in this way, but the percentage is light, probably one in thirty or
forty, not more than this. It is also claimed that ten are shot and wounded that
die to one that is secured. This is also an error. Many seals are shot at that are
net hit at all, but when a seal is wounded, so that in the end it will die, it is most
always secured by the hunter, who may have to shoot at it several times in order
to get it, as the seal in the water exposes only its head, and when frightened exposes
only a small portion of that, so that, together with the constant diving of the seal,
the motion of the boat, &c., makes it very hard to hit. This is where it is claimed
that ten are shot and wounded to one that is secured, but it is nearer the truth that
one is lost to ten that are secured, for the reason that when a seal is wounded it can-
not remain under water any length of time, and therefore the hunter can easily follow
it up and secure it.

No. 327.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received May 8.)

DOWNING STREET, May 8, 1890.

Sir: In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I am directed by Lord
Knutsford to acquaint you, for the information of the Marquis of Salis-
bury, that he does not see any reason for taking exception to the pro-
posal of the Dominion Government that the question of the liability of
the United States Government to pay compensation in respect of the
seizures in Behring’s Sea should be submitted te two eminent Judges
instead of the single jurisconsult proposed by Mr. Blaine, if provision
is made for securing a final decision in the event of a ‘difference of
opinion between the * Sudges chosen, by a reference to an umpire to be
selected by the two J udges before the arbitration is commenced,

508 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

With regard to the question to be submitted to the arbitrators, Lord
Knutsford would suggest that Her Majesty’s Government should depre-
cate the employment of so vague and elastic a term as “natural law.”
Tam to point out, also, that Mr. Blaine, in the conversation with Sir
J. Pauncefote reported in the latter’s despatch of the 7th February last,
stated that no established principles of international Jaw would be in
dispute, and he would probably object, therefore, to a specifie reference
to international law.

It appears to Lord Knutsford also to deserve consideration whether
Mr. Tupper’s proposed form of question does not narrow rather than
extend the range of acts for which the United States should be held
responsible, as it is not impossible that, by ingenious argument, the
arbitrators might be persuaded that proceedings otherwise not justifi-
able were excusable under some alleged doctrine of international law.

Lord Knutsford is disposed, therefore, to prefer the broader terms
of reference suggested by Mr. Blaine in the Memorandum which he
communicated to Sir J. Pauncefote on the 11th February last, namely,
whether, under the circumstances existing at the time, the United
States Government was justified in arresting and detaining the vessels
that entered the Belring’s Sea for the purpose of killing fur-seals in
the open sea. This would not prevent Her Majesty’s Government from

invoking the principles of international law against the United
460 States action, as indeed it is proposed to do in the reply to be

given to Mr. Blaine’s note of the 22nd January, setting forth the
grounds upon which he rests the justification of the seizures.

IT am to observe, further, that Mr. Tupper does not say in his letter
whether the Dominion Government are willing that the question of the
amount of the damages, in the event of Mr. Blaine and Sir J. Pauncefote
failing to agree, should be referred to the arbitrators to be selected to
det ermine the question of the liability of the United States.

Lord Knutsford would suggest, for Lord Salisbury’s consideration,
that Sir J. Pauncefote should be desired to communicate with Mr. Tupper
as to the points raised in this letter before submitting the matter to the
United States Government,

Iam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 328.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
| Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 8, 1890.

What reception has Mr. Blaine given to the proposals embodied in
the draft Convention for regulating the Behring’s Sea fur-seal fisheries
which was sent home in your despateh of the 29th ultimo?

Her Majesty’s Government would be glad to be kept informed by
telegraph of any advance in the negotiations.

en ia

——— ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 509
No. 329.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received May 8.)
[‘Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, May 8, 1890.

Your Lordship’s telegram of to-days’ date received.

I will telegraph without (ail as soon as I receive any communication
from Mr. Blaine as to his views on the drait Convention.

Although as friendly as ever in manner, he has hitherto maintained
absolute silence on the subject.

Would your Lordship authorize me to inform him that you approve
the drait, and hope that it will be accepted by the United States Gov-
ernment?

The desired information may thus be elicited.

No. 330.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic. ] °

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 9, 1890.

I have received your telegram of to-day, and, in reply, I have to
inform you that you are authorized, if you think it advisable, to inform
Mr. Blaine that Her Majesty’s Government approve the terms of the
draft Convention submitted to him by you for the regulation of the
Behring’s Sea fur-seal fisheries.

No. 331.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.—( Substance telegraphed.)

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 9, 1890.

Sir: Llost no time in communicating to the Secretary of State for
the Colonies copies of your despatch of the 25th ultimo, and its inclo
sure, relative to the assessment of compensation for the seizures by
United States vessels of British sealers in Behring’s Sea; and I now
transmit, for your information and guidance, a copy of a letter con-

taining Lord Knutsford’s views on the matter.*
461 As it is very desirable that the negotiations now pending

Should be brought to as early a conclusion as possible. I tele-
graphed the substance of the Colonial Office letter to you this day,
desiring you to consult Mr. Tupper on its contents before approaching
the United St’ +s Government in regard to them.

lam, &e.

(Signed) SALISBURY.

510 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 332.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 10, 1890.
Sim: I have received your despatch of the 29th ultimo, covering copy
of a note in which you submitted to Mr, Blaine the draft Convention,
which has been approved by the Government of Canada, for the settle-
ment of the Behring’s Sea Fisheries question, as well as a copy of the
draft Convention itself.
The terms of your note are approved by Her Majesty’s Government.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 333.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 11.)

[Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, May 11, 1890,

With reference to my telegram of the 8th instant, Mr. Blaine has
informed me that he will send me a communication before the end of
the week, in which he will explain why the United States Government
are unable to accept my draft Convention in its present shape. He
told me, however, at the same time, that he thought a basis of arrange-
ment was offered by my proposal which he was in hopes would lead to
a settlement of the question.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 11.)
[Telegraphic. |
WASHINGTON, May 11, 1890.

As to compensation for damages refer! ed to in your fierashay: s tele-
eram of the 9th instant, I have prepared, after discussion with Mr.
Tupper, a draft Arbitration Agreement on the basis of your Lordship’s
instructions.

Mr. Tupper will to-morrow take a copy of it to Ottawa for the approval
of the Canadian Government, and should his further services be required
here, will return immediately.

AS soon as I receive the reply of the Canadian Government, T will
forward copy to your Lordship.

Proposal for arbitrators and umpire will be agreed to by Mr. Blaine.

No. 335.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 14.)
[Telegraphic.]
WASHINGTON, May 14, 1890.

Mr. Tupper did not leave for Ottawa as stated in my telegram of the
11th instant. Draft Agreement was sent there by post instead of being
taken by him.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5a
462 No. 336,
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 22, 1890.

Str: L received in due course your despatch of ihe 23rd January ,*
inclosing copy of Mr. Blaine’s uote of the 22nd of that month, in answer
to the protest made on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on the

12th October last against the seizure of Canadian vessels by the United
States Revenue cutter ‘‘ Rush” in Behring’s Sea.

The importance of the subject necessitated a reference to the Gov-
ernment of Canada, and some time elapsed before their reply reached
Her Majesty’s Government. The negotiations which have taken place
between Mr. Blaine and yourself afford strong reason to hope that the
difficulties attending this question are in a fair way towards an adjust-
ment which will be satisfactory to both Governments. I think it right,
however, to place on record, as briefly as possible, the views of Her
Majesty’s Government on the principal arguments brought forward on
behalf of the United States.

Mr. Blaine’s note defends the acts complained of by Her Majesty’s
Government on the following grounds:

1. That “ the Canadian vessels arrested and detained in the Beliring’s
Sea were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bonos mores—a
pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent injury to
the rights of the Government and people of the United States.”

2. That the fisheries had been in the undisturbed possession, and
under the exclusive control, of Russia from their discovery until the
cession of Alaska to the United States in 1567, and that from this date
onwards until 1886 they had also remained in the undisturbed posses-
sion of the United States Government.

3. That it is a fact now held beyond denial or doubt that the taking
of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to the extinction of the species,
and that therefore nations not possessing the territory upon which seals
can increase their numbers by natural growth should refrain trom the
slaughter of them in the open sea.

Mr. Blaine further argues that the law of the sea and the liberty
which it confers do not justify acts which are immoral in themselves,
and which inevitably tend to results against the interests and against
the welfare of mankind; and he proceeds to justify the forcible resist-
ance of the United States Government by the necessity of defending
not only their own traditional and long-established rights, but also the
rights of good morals and of good government the world over.

He declares that while the United States will not withhold from any
nation the privileges which they demanded for themselves when Alaska
was part of the Russian Empire, they are not disposed to exercise in
the possessions acquired from Russia any less power or authority than
they were willing to concede to the Imperial Government of Russia
when its sovereignty extended over them. He claims from friendly
nations a recognition of the same rights and privileges on the lands
and in the waters of Alaska which the same friendly nations always
conceded to the Empire of Russia.

With regard to the first of these arguments, namely, that the seizure
of the Canadian vessels in the Behring’s Sea was justified by the fact
that they were “engaged in a pur suit that is in itself contra bonos

* No. 272.

512 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

mores—a pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent
injury to the rights of the Government and people of the United States,”
it is obvious that two questions are involved: first, whether the pursuit
and killing of fur-seals in certain parts of the open sea is, from the point
of view of international morality, an offence contra bonos mores; and
secondly, whether, if such be the case, this fact justities the seizure on
the high seas and subsequent confiscation in time of peace of the private
vessels of a friendly nation.

It is an axiom of international maritime law that such action is only
admissible in the case of piracy or in pursuance of special international
agreement. This principle has been universally admitted by jurists,
and was very distinetly laid down by President Ty’er in his Special
Message to Congress, dated the 27th February, 1843, when, after
acknowledging the right to detain and search a vessel on suspicion of
piracy, he goes on to say: ‘‘ With this single exception, no nation has,
in time of peace, any authority to detain the ships of another upon the
high seas, on any pretext whatever, outside the territorial jurisdiction.”

Now, the pursuit of seals in the open sea, under whatever circum-
stances, has never hitherto been considered as piracy by any civilized

State. Nor, even if the United States had gone so far as to ake
463 the killing of fur-seals piracy by their Municipal Law, would this

have justified them in punishing offences against such Law com-
mitted by any persons other than their own citizens outside the terri-
torial jurisdiction of the United States.

In the case of the Slave Trade, a practice which the civilized world
has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the right of arresting the
vessels of another country is exercised only by special international
agreement, and no one Government has been allowed that general con-
trol of morals in this respect which Mr. Blaine claims on behalf of the
United States in regard of seal-hunting.

But Her Majesty’s Government must question whether this pursuit
can of itself be regarded as contra bonos mores, unless and until, for
special reasons, it has been agreed by international arrangement to for-
bid it. Fur-seals are indisputably animals fere nature, and these have
universally been regarded by jurists as res nullius until they are caught;
no person, therefore, can have property in them until he has actually
reduced them into possession by capture.

It requires something more than a mere declaration that the Govern-
ment or citizens of the United States, or even other countries interested
in the seal trade, are losers by a certain course of proceeding, to ren-
der that course an immoral one.

Her Majesty’s Government would deeply regret that the pursuit of
fur-seals on the high seas by British vessels should involve even the
slightest injury to the people of the United States. If the case be
proved, they will be ready to consider what measures can be properly
taken for the remedy of such injury, but they would be unable on that
ground to depart from a principle on which free commerce on the high
seas depends.

The second argument advanced by Mr. Blaine is that the ‘“fur-seal
fisheries of Behring’s Sea had been exclusively controlled by the Gov-
ernment of Russia, without interference and without question, from
their original discovery until the cession of Alaska to the United States
in 1867,” and that “from 1867 to 1886 the possession, in which Russia
had been undisturbed, was enjoyed by the United States Government
also without interruption or intrusion from any source.”

I will deal with these two periods separately.

os

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 53

First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Russia. After Russia,
at the instance of the “Russian American Fur Company, claimed in 182
the pursuits of conmerce, whaling, and fishing from Behring’s Straits
to the 51st degree of north latitude, and not only prohibited all foreign
vessels from landing on the coasts and islands of the above w aters,
but also prevented them from approaching within 100 miles thereof,
Mr. Quincy Adams wrote as follows to the United States Minister in
Russia:

The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation and
fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times through-
out the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary exceptions
and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions.

That the right of fishing thus asserted included the right of killing
fur-bearing animals is shown by the case of the United States brig
“Loriot.”. That vessel proceeded to the waters over which Russia
claimed exclusive jurisdiction tor the purpose of hunting the sea-otter,
the killing of which is now prohibited by the United States Statutes
applicable to the fur-seal, and was forced to abandon her voyage and
leave the waters in eso by an armed vessel of the Russian navy.
Mr. Forsyth, writing on the case to the American Minister at St. Peters-
burgh on the 4th May, 1857, said:

It is a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States, immemorially
exercised and secured to them as well by the law of nations as by the stipulations
of the Ist Article of the Convention of 1824, to fish in those seas, and to resort to
the coast for the prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already
occupied,

From the speech of Mr. Sumner when introducing the question of
the purchase of Alaska to Congress, it is equally clear that the United
States Government did not regard themselves as purchasing a monop-
oly. Having dealt with fur-bearing animals, he went on to treat of
fisheries, and, atter alluding to the presence of different species of
whales in the vicinity of the Aleutians, said: ““No sea is now mare
clausum; all of these may be pursued by a ship under any flag, except
directly on the coast or within its territorial limit.”

I now come to the statement that from 1867 to 1886 the possession
was enjoyed by the United States with no interruption and no intru-
sion from any source. Her Majesty’s Government cannot but think
that Mr. Blaine has been misinformed as to the history of the opera-
tions in Behring’s Sea during that period.

The instances recorded in Inclosure 1 in this despatch are

464 sufficient to prove, from official United States sources, that from

1867 to 1886 British vessels were engaged at intervals in the

fur-seal fisheries, with the cognizance of the United States Govern-
ment. I will here, by way of example, quote but one.

In 1872 Collector Phelps reported the fitting-out of expeditions in
Australia and Victoria for the purpose of taking seals in Behring’s
Sea, while passing to and from their rookeries on St. Paul and St.
George Islands, and recommended that a steam-cutter should be sent
to the region of Ounimak Pass and the Islands of St. Paul and St.
George.

Mr. Secretary Boutwell informed him, in reply, that he did not con-
sider it expedient to send a cutter to interfere with the operations of
foreigners, and stated, ‘In addition, I do not see that the United
States would have the jurisdiction or power to drive off parties going
up there for that purpose, unless they made such attempt within a
marine league of the shore.”

BS, PT V——s3

514 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Before leaving this part of Mr. Blaine’s argument, I would allude to
his remark, that “vessels from other nations passing from time to time
through Behring’s Sea to the Arctic Ocean in pursuit of whales have
always abstained from taking part in the capture of seals,” which he
holds to be proof of the recognition of rights held and exercised first
by Russia and then by the United States.

Even if the facts are as stated, it is not remarkable that vessels
pushing on for the short season in which whaies can be captured in
the Arctic Ocean, and being fitted specially for the whale fisheries,
neglected to carry boats and hunters for fur-seals, or to engage in an
entirely different pursuit.

The whalers, moreover, pass through Bebhring’s Sea to the fishing-
grounds in the Arctic Qcean in April and May as soon as the ice breaks
up, while the great bulk of the seals do not reach the Pribyloff Islands
till June, leaving again by the time the closing-up of the ice compels
the whalers to return.

The statement that it is “‘a fact now held beyond denial or doubt
that the taking of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to their extine-
tion” would admit of reply, and abundant evidence could be adduced
on the other side. But asit is proposed that this part of the question
should be examined by a Committee to be appointed by the two Goy-
ernments, it is not necessary that I should deal with it here.

Her Majesty’s Government do not deny that if all sealing were
stopped in Behring’s Sea except on the islands in possession of the
lessees of the United States, the seal may increase and multiply at an
even more extraordinary rate than at present, and the seal fishery on
the islands may become a monopoly of increasing value; but they can-
not admit that this is a sufficient ground to justify the United States
in forcibly depriving other nations of any share in this industry in
waters which, by the recognized law of nations, are now free to all the
world.

It is from no disrespect that I refrain from replying specifically to the
subsidiary questions and arguments put forward by Mr. Blaine. Till
the views of the two Governments as to the obligations attaching, on
grounds either of morality or necessity, to the United States Govern-
ment in this matter, have been brought into closer harmony, such a
course would appear needlessly to extend a controversy which Her
Majesty’s Government are anxious to keep within reasonable limits.

The negotiations now being carried on at Washington prove the
readiness of Her Majesty’s Government to consider whether any spe-
cial international agreement is necessary for the protection of the fur-
sealing industry. In its absence they are unable to admit that the
case put forward on behalf of the United States affords any sufficient
justification for the forcible action already taken by them against
peaceable subjects of Her Majesty engaged in lawful operations on the
high seas.

“The President,” says: Mr. Blaine, “is persuaded that all friendly
nations will concede to the United States the same rights and privi-
leges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which the same friendly
nations always conceded to the Empire of Russia.”

Her Majesty’s Government have no difficulty in making such a con-
cession. In strict accord with the views which, previous to the present
controversy, were consistently and successfully maintained by the
United States, they have, whenever occasion arose, opposed all claims
to exclusive privileges in the non-territorial waters of Behring’s Sea.
The rights they have demanded have been those of free navigation

ae as ae ay

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 515

and fishing in waters which, previous to their own acquisition of Alaska,
the United States declared to be free and open to all foreign vessels.
That is the extent of their present contention, and they trust that,
on consideration of the arguments now presented to them, the United
States will recognize its justice and moderation.
465 I have to request that you will read this despatch to Mr.
Blaine, and leave a copy of it with him should he desire it.
Iam, Sc.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

{Inclosure in No. 336.]
Memorandum,

In 1870, Collector Phelps reported, ‘The barque ‘Cyane’ has arrived at this port
(San Francisco) from Alaska, having on board forty-seven seal-skins.” (See Ex. Doc.
No. 85, 44th Congress, Ist Session.)

In 1872, he reported expeditions fitting out in Australia and Victoria for the pur-
pose of taking seals in Behring’s Sea, and was informed that it was not expedient to
interfere with them.

In 1874, Acting Secretary Sawyer, writing to Mr. Elliott, Special Agent, said:

“Tt having been officially reported to this Department by the Collector of Customs
at Port Townsend, from Neea-ah Bay, that British vessels from Victoria cross over
into American waters and engage in taking fur-seals (which, he represents, are
annually becoming more numerous on our immediate coast) to the great injury of
our sealers, both white and Indian, you will give such proper attention to the exami-
nation of the subject as its importance may seem to you, after careful inquiry, to
demand, and with a view toa Report to the Department of all facts ascertained.”
(Ditto, May 4th, No. 117, p. 114.)

In 1875, Mr. McIntyre, Treasury Agent, described how ‘‘ before proceeding to harsh
measures” he had warned the Captain of the ‘‘Cygnet,” who was shooting seals in
Zapadnee Bay, and stated that the Captain appeared astonished that he was break-
ing the law. (Ditto, March 15th, 1875, No. 130, p. 124.)

In 1880, the fur-seal trade of the British Columbia coast was of great importance.
Seven vessels were then engaged in the fishery, of which the greater number were,
in 1886 and 1887, seized by the United States Government in Behring’s Sea.

In 1884, Daniel and Alexander McLean, both British subjects, took the American
schooner ‘‘San Diego” to Behring’s Sea, and were so successful that they returned
there in 1885, from Victoria, with the ‘‘Mary Ellen” and the ‘“ Favourite,”

No. 337.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 23.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, May 22, 1890.

A statement appears in the newspapers to-day that after a Cabinet
Council, held on Tuesday, it has been decided to reject the British
counter-proposal, and instructions have been issued to the officer com-
manding the United States Revenue eruizer “Bear,” now lying at
Seattle, similar to those of last year, with one exception, viz., that,
instead of capturing, she is to dismantle all vessels found sealing in
Behring’s Sea, and to seize their log-books and skins as evidence in
case of judicial proceedings being taken.

I went at once to Mr. Blaine, who did not deny these statements.

I remonstrated against the publication of such news before he had
returned any reply to the proposals of Her Majesty’s Government, and
against the issue of such instructions while negotiations are pending,

516 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In reply, he said that the press could not be controlled; that his
answer was delayed in order to return a joint reply with Russia; that
our draft Convention was quite inadequate to the necessities of the
case. He inveighed against the words of Article VI, which purports
to prescribe regulations on land, and urged that, as there would be no
seals without the seal islands, the possession of those islands gave the
United States special rights on the open sea, in order to enable them
to protect the species. The United States Government would never
admit that, as regards the seal fishery, the rights of Great Britain in
Behring’s Sea were equal to their own. Nothing short of the total exclu-
sion of sealing-vessels during the summer months, in which we proposed
to leave the fisheries open, would satisfy them.

J strongly insisted that the sole ground of discussion was the
466 preservation of the seals, reminding him of his assurance at our
last interview that the draft offered a basis of negotiation.

He replied that on that oecasion he had in his mind the question of
arbitration, but he did not think we would ever agree as to the form of
questions to be subinitted to arbitration.

I will not cease to press Mr. Blaine that our proposals may receive a
formal reply.

No. 338.
{Extract from the ‘“‘ Morning Post” of May 23, 1890.]
The Behring’s Sea Fisheries.

{[Reuter’s Telegram. ]
NEw York, May 21.

The United States Revenue cutter “Bear” has been ordered to cruize
in the Behring’s Sea for the protection of the seal fisheries, with
instructions to seize and dismantle all vessels found violating the
Statute, in order to deprive them of the means of its further violation.
The vessel is also ordered to seize the logs and skins on board vessels
found illegally fishing, and to preserve them as evidence against the
offending persons.

No. 339.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 23, 1890.

This morning’s newspapers contain a paragraph which states, in sub-
stance, that the United States Government have instructed some of
their ships of war to proceed to Behring’s Sea, with orders to take such
steps as may be necessary to prevent the merchant-vessels of other
nations from pursuing their calling as fur-sealers in non-territorial
waters.

The communications made to you by Mr. Secretary Blaine, as recorded
in your telegram of the 22nd instant, givea general confirmation of the
statements of the press.

I have to instruct you to inform the Secretary of State that a formal
protest against any such interference with British vessels is now being
prepared, and that no time will be lost in forwarding it to him,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 517

No. 340.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 23.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of to-day’s date, I have
addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, as instructed by your Lordship.

No. 341.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 24, 1890.

Sir: You will receive by this mail my despatch of the 22nd instant,
replying to the arguments urged by Mr. Blaine in his note of the 22nd
January last in defence of the seizure of Canadian vessels by United
States Revenue cruizers in Behring’s Sea.

Those argunents were not such as Her Majesty’s Government could
admit to be valid according to the established principles of international
law, or sufficient to justify the acts complained of. The reply has been
for some time in draft; but Her Majesty’s Government were unwilling
to introduce any unnecessary element of controversy into the negotia-

tions in which you are engaged for the friendly settlement of the
467 whole question. I had, therefore, thought that a certain delay in
the presentation of the despatch would not be disadvantageous.

The intelligence contained in your telegrams of the 22nd instant as
to the dispatch of United States cruizers to Behring’s Sea, and the
instructions with which they are provided, render it necessary that the
communication should no longer be delayed. I have accordingly to
request that you will at once place a copy of it in Mr. Blaine’s hands.

I shall forward to you, as soon as its terms have been approved by
the Queen and the Cabinet, a formal Protest, to be delivered to Mr.
Blaine, against any such interference with British vessels outside the
territorial waters of the United States, as appears to be contemplated
in the instructions just issued. I need not say that it would be a cause
of sincere satisfaction to Her Majesty’s Government if a consideration
of the arguments advanced in my despatch, and of those with which
you will be able to supplement them, should induce the Government of
the United States so to limit the action of their cruizers as to remove
the occasion for such a Protest.

Iam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 29, 1890.
Str: I received on the 23rd instant, and at once submitted to the
Queen and the Cabinet, your telegrams of the previous day, reporting
the instructions issued to the United States Revenue cruizers in Beh-
ring’s Sea for the approaching fishery season.

518 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

According to accounts given in the press, the accuracy of which is
not denied by Mr. Blaine, these instructions are similar to those under
which Canadian vessels were seized last summer outside the territorial
waters of the United States, with this exception, that, instead of captur-
ing vessels found sealing in Behring’s Sea, the cruizers are to dismantle
such vessels, and to seize their log-books and skins as evidence in case
of judicial proceedings.

This modification, it is unnecessary to say, in no way removes the
objections of Her Majesty’s Government to such interference with Brit-
ish vessels on the high seas as contrary to international law and the
practice of civilized nations.

They deeply regret this decision of the United States Government,
as likely, if persisted in, to produce the most serious complications,
and to frustrate the efforts now being made to arrive at an agreement
for the proper protection of the seal fisheries, and the settlement of
the questions connected therewith.

Her Majesty’s Government have no alternative, under the cireum-
stances, but to protest formally and solemnly against any interference
on the part of United States cruizers with British vessels navigating
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and to leave to
the United States Government the responsibility of the consequences
if that protest is disregarded.

I accordingly inclose herewith the draft of a note which you will
address to Mr. Blaine if you should unfortunately find that there is no
intention of so modifying or restricting the action of the United States
cruizers as to render this step unnecessary.

J am, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

[Inclosure in No. 342.]
Draft of Note to be addressed to Mr. Blaine.

The Undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extroardinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary, &c., has the honour, by instructions of his Government, to make to
Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, &c., the following communication:

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government have learned with great concern, from notices
which have appeared in the press, and the general accuracy of which has been con-

firmed by Mr. Blaine’s statements to the Undersigned, that the Government of
468 the United States have issued instructions to their Revenue cruizers about to

be dispatched to Behring’s Sea, under which the vessels of British subjects
will again be exposed, in the prosecution of their legitimate industry on the high
seas, to unlawful interference at the hands of American officers.

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government are anxious to co operate to the fullest extent
of their power with the Government of the United States in such measures as may
be found to be expedient for the protection of the seal fisheries. They are at the
present moment engaged in examining, in concert with the Government of the United
States, the best method of arriving at an agreement upon this point. But they ean-
not admit the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict for this
purpose the freedom of navigation of Behring’s Sea, which the United States have
themselves in former years convincingly and successfully vindicated, nor to enforce
their municipal legislation against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits
of their territorial jurisdiction.

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government are therefore unable to pass over without
notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of the Government of
the United States to renew the acts of interference with British vessels navigating
outside the territorial waters of the United States, of which they have previously
had to complain.

The Undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest against such
interference, and to declare that Her Britannic M: ujesty’s Government must hold the
Government of the United States responsible for the consequences that may ensue
from acts which are contrary to the established principles of international law.

The Undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurances of his
highest consideration.

eye

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. BLO

No. 343.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received May 31.)

[Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, May 30, 1890.

I received last night from the Secretary of State a long note, copy of
which I have sent by bag to-day, on the question of the negotiations
for a close season in the Behring’s Sea.

The note commences by a protest against the course alleged to be
pursued by Her Majesty’s Government in ‘authorizing, encouraging,
and protecting” British vessels, who, if maintains, are interfering with
the rights of the United States and those of the whole civilized world
by taking seals in that sea.

Thehistory of the negotiations for a close season from their commence-
ment is reviewed in the note, which then goes on to inveigh strongly
against the change of position taken by Her Majesty’s Government in
the negotiations, which change, the Secretary of State maintains, has
been brought about by the “interposition of Canada.” Mr. Blaine then
points out that the arrangements which were proposed in 1888 relative
to a close season, and those which were proposed in the draft Conven-
tion, must be considered to be “in significant contrast.” Moreover, the
latter are, in the opinion of the United States Government, quite inad-
equate to protect the rights of the United States in the Behring’s Sea.
They are equally insufficient for the preservation of seal life.

The United States and Russia have consequently no other course but
to reject our proposals. The negotiations will, however, be continued
by the United States Government in the hope that a satisfactory agree-
ment may be arrived at, although it is too late, the note says, for the
application of any result, which may be reached, to this season. Mr.
Blaine maintains that the responsibility of the delays which have
occurred cannot be laid to the charge of his Government.

The note contains at the conclusion a proposal on the part of the
United States Government that with the view of avoiding any inter-
ruption of the negotiations by any ‘‘untoward events,” all British ves-
sels shall be prevented by Her Majesty’s Government from entering
_the Behring’s Sea.

469 No. 344.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.j

ForREIGN OFFICE, May 31, 1890.
_ Inreply to your telegram of the 30th instant, I have to state that it
is impossible, on grounds both of law and of policy, for Her Majesty’s
Government to accept Mr. Blaine’s suggestion that British sealing-
Ships should be forbidden to enter the Behring’s Sea.

,

520 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 345.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 3.)

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I have
the honour to inclose herewith extracts from the “New York Herald”
and the “New York Evening Post” relative to the instructions given
to the Revenue cutter “Bear,” and to the report that the Cabinet had
decided to reject the Behring’s Sea proposal.

Your Lordship will observe that in the account of the alleged inter-
view with the correspondent of the “Evening Post,” the Secretary of
the Treasury is reported to have denied ever having seen the British
proposal, which throws some doubt upon the statement in the “ Herald,”
that the Cabinet had refused to accept the proposal.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 345.—Extract from the ‘‘ New York Evening Post” of May 22, 1890.)
Tht BEHRING’S SEA QUESTION.
What Secretary Windom says of a Current Report.

[Special Despatch to the ‘‘ Evening Post.”]

WASHINGTON, May 22, 1890.

Secretary Windom was asked this morning what truth there was in the report
telegraphed from here last night, that he had taken a decisive stand in the Cabinet
meeting yesterday against the acceptance of the British Behring’s Sea proposal.

“‘T have not read the despatch,” he answered. ‘If cousequently cannot plead te
the indictment.”

“Did you authorize the statement, then, that you did not oppose the acceptance
of the proposal?”

“What is the nature of the proposal said to be?” he asked, in reply.

“That is not given.”

“No British proposal,” he then said, ‘‘has been submitted to me. I am here
simply to enforce the law, and Iam trying to do so. But, naturally, I do not care to
discuss the matter till I have had a chance to see of what I am accused.”

The instructions given to the Commander of the Revenue cutter “ Bear” respect-
ing the capture of sealing-vessels in Alaskan waters are identical with those of last
year, except that captured vessels are to be dismantled, so as {o prevent any repeti-
tion of the offence during the season. The Commander is to warn all persons against
entering Behring’s Sea for the purpose of violating the laws of the United States
therein, and particularly the Jaw which provides that no person shall kilk any fur
seal ‘‘within the limits of Alaska territory or the waters thereof.” What those
limits are has not beendefined. The British Columbian sealers hold that they are the

waters within 3 miles of any land of Alaska territory. Do we hold the con-
470 trary? Not so far as any authentic documentary evidence has been submitted.

Not so far as either Congress or the President has declared. We have not gone
to the length of laying down one rule for Behring’s Sea and a different one for the
Gulf of St. Lawrence. It would seem, therefore, that the Government has put into
the discretion of the Commander of a Revenue cutter a question of extreme gravity
which it has not ventured to decide for itself, and that upon his decision muy rest
issues of vast importance. Of course, no discussion of the Behring’s Sea question
of any value will be possible until the negotiations between Secretary Blaine and
Sir Julian Pauncefote are made public.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 521

[Inclosure 2 in No. 345.—Extract from the ‘‘New York Herald” of May 22, 1890.)
GREAT EXCITEMENT IN CANADA.

[From our Regular Correspondent.]

“HERALD” BUREAU, CORNER OF FIFTEENTH AND G STREETS, N.W.,
Washington, May 21, 1890.

Tlearn that at the Cabinet meeting yesterday it was decided to reject the British
proposition submitted three weeks ago for a settlement of the Behring’s Sea question.

Secretary Windom, as I am informed, was decidedly opposed to the acceptance of
the proposal—tirst, because its provisions were deemed by him entirely inadequate to
secure the professed object of preserving seal life in Behring’s Sea, and, second,
because 1t virtually ignored the established position of the United States in that sea
arising out of its ownership of the partially surrounding shores and of a part of the
islands within the sea; the possession of a universally recognized boundary-line
which included in the cession to the United States the very part of the sea wherein
alone this country has sought to exercise a territorial jurisdiction; the inheritance
from Russia vf a continuous claim of jurisdiction never directly questioned nor suc-
cessfully assailed, and the undoubted right that the United States has to exercise a
reasonable police jurisdiction to protect its own property and interests in Behring’s
Sea, and secure to itself the natural use and profit thereof.

Secretary Blaine did not advocate an acceptance of the proposal, and thought it
probable that further negotiations would abate the Canadian contentions and
improve the position of the United States. The British proposal, being without sup-
port from either of the two Departments immediately concerned with “It, necess: ivily
met with rejection, a like fate with that which overtook the preceding American
proposal in the Council of the Governor-General of Canada

JT understand that in neither case was an acceptance of the proposal anticipated
by the party submitting it, but that the only result expected from the exchange of
proposals was the bringing of the parties a little nearer together by the elimination
of some of the points of difference:

To some extent, according to my information, this expectation has been realized,
so that the negotiations are vreally in a better state, notwithstanding the reflection of
the counter- -proposals than at the beginning.

The Next Step.

T am advised that the next step in the negotiations will be the discussion and set-
tlement of the details connected with the creation of a Joint Commission of experts
to prepare and submit to the two Governments a full and particular project as the
basis of a Treaty by which the whole question can be permanently settled. It is
possible that the Government of Russia may be directly represented in this Commis-
sion of experts, but that is a matter which has not yet received any consideration,
and is altogether likely to be governed by the wishes of that Government at the
proper time. ;

In any and all events, there is a confident expectation that a Treaty can be framed
in time for submission to the Senate immediately upon the opening of the second
Session of the present Congress.

471 Enforcing a Closure.

The more important question for the Cabinet yesterday was that of the ad interim
policy to be pursued in Behring’s Sea with immediate reference to the sealing sea-
son, which will be in full headway by the end of this month. The Treasury view
was that, inasmuch as the British Government had admitted a close season to be
necessary to the preservation of the seals and the just interest of the United States,
and had offered as part of its proposal a radius around the seal islands to protect
the female seals from attacks while obtaining food in the waters adjacent to the
Rookery Islands, it would be admissible and proper to enforce by warning, and by
restraint after warning had proved ineffectual in any case. such a closure during the
present season, relying upon the good sense and disposition of the British Govern-
ment to acquiesce in measures so entirely reasonable and merely provisional.

This view prevailed, it being a practical and substantial acceptance of the modus
rivendi voluntarily tendered by the British Government in company with its rejected
proposal. The Commanders of the cruizing vessels will be emphatically enjoined to
refrain, so far as possible within the lines of their instructions, from any conduct
toward the British sealers whom they meet with that can be made the occasion of
just complaint or resentment.

These instructions will be communicated to the British Government in order that
the Canadian authorities may take any action they may deem advisable toward the
common end of maintaining peace and amity from now till the close of the season.

522 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Orders to the ‘‘ Bear” to proceed to Behring’s Sea and seize all Vessels engaged in
Unlawful Acts.
WASHINGTON, May 21, 1890.

Secretary Windom to-day signed the Sailing Orders of the Revenue-cutter ‘‘ Bear,”
now at Seattle, Washington, directing that she sail immediately to Ounalaska and
then to cruize diligéntly in Behring’s Sea for the purpose of warning all persons
against entering such waters for the purpose of violating section 1956 of the Revised
Statutes, and arresting all persons and seizing all vessels found to be or to have been
engaged in any violation of the laws of the United States therein.

Section 1956, Revised Statutes, referred to above, provides that ‘‘no person shall
kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur seal, or other fur-bearing animal within
the limits of Alaska territory or in the waters thereof, and every person guilty
thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars, nor more than 1,000
dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and all vessels, their
tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo found engaged in violation of this section shall
be forfeited, but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the
killing of any such otter, mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal except
fur seals, under such Regul: itions as he may prescribe, and it shall be the duty of the
Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur seal, and to provide for the execution of
the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall he
grant any special privileges under this section.’

The Commander of the ‘ Bear” is also furnished with copies of the President's last
Proclamation on this subject and the Act of the 2nd March, 1889, regarding the seal
and salmon fisheries of Alaska.

Dismantling the Law Breakers.

The instructions, while not differing materially from those of last year, are much
more specific in character. Efforts will be made to avoid a repetition of last year’s
experience with foreign vessels seized for violations of law. In two or three cases
the vessels were placed in charge of a prize crew consisting of one man, and, as a
result, never reached the port where he was ordered to take them. Whileit will be
equally impossible now to increase the size of the prize crews, an effort will be made
to accomplish the same result in another way. According to the present instruc-
tions, it is understood that all vessels found violating the law will be dismantled and
deprived of all means of further violations. Their logs and all skins are also to be
seized and preserved as evidence against them. With the exception of certain
details as to the enforcement of the law there is, however, no change in the general
policy of the administration on this question.

A72 No. 346.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 3.)

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890.

My Lorp: Immediately upon reading in the newspapers of yesterday
the announcement (which I at once telegraphed to your Lordship) that
the United States Cabinet had decided to reject the counter-proposal
of Her Majesty’s Government for the settlement of the Behring’s Sea
question, and that they had issued orders to their Revenue cruizers
to prevent all vessels from ie eae in the sealing-industry in those
waters, I called on the Secretary of State and inquired whether the
announcement was correct. Mr. Blaine did not deny its accuracy, and
defended the action of the Treasury in regard to their instructions to
the Revenue cruizers, which he said were issued pursuant to an Act of
Congress.

I objected that no Act of Congress authorized interference with for-
eign vessels on the high seas. It was a misconstruction of the Act so
to apply its provisions. I remonstrated against the publication in the
press of the decision of his Government on the proposals of Her
Majesty’s Government before any reply had been returned to those pro-
posals, and I complained of the issue of the orders reported to have been
given to the Revenue cruizers while the negotiations were still pending,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 523

contrary to the assurance given by him in his note to me of the 24th
Mareh last. Mr. Blaine replied to the effect. that it was not possible to
guard against the publication in the press of news of such public inter-
est; that his answer to the British proposals, which he had promised. to
send to me last week, had been delayed, as he now proposed that it
should be in the form of a joint reply from his Government and that of
Russia; and that, as regards the orders to the Revenue cruizers, they
were the natural consequence of the rejection of the proposals which I
had submitted to the Conference. Those proposals he proceeded to
criticize as totally inadequate to the necessities of the case, and he
animadverted upon the words in Article VI of the draft Convention,
which purport to prescribe Regulations on land.

I pointed out to him that the draft Convention afforded the most
ample protection to seal life by prohibiting pelagic sealing during the
periods of migration to and from the Kiookeries, and by establishing au

‘adius around the Seal Islands to prevent the surreptitious landing of
marauders. Moreover, it supplied the most complete machinery for
arriving at a final decision as to what regulations should be adopted
for the preservation of the seal species.

Mr. Blaine then urged that the United States, by the possession of
the Seal Islands, had acquired special rights in Behring’s Sea as regards
the seal fishery. He said that the United States Government could
never admit that Great Britain had rights equal to their own in that
sea, and that they would not bes atisfied with anything less than the
total exclusion of all sealing vessels from Behring’s Sea during the sum-
mer months in which Her Majesty’ s Government. proposed that the fish-
ery should be open. ITreminded Mr. Blaine that the sole question was
the preservation of the seal species. I urged that the draft Convention
made ample provision for that purpose. That as regarded the claim
which he advocated on behalf of his Government to special rights
beyond the territorial waters of Behring’s Sea,it rested on novel doe-
trines entirely opposed to the law and practice of nations. I also
reminded him that he had quite recently informed me that the draft
Convention, though not acceptable to his Government in its present
form, afforded a basis of settlement. Mr. Blaine replied that he had at
that time in his mind the provision relating to arbitration; but he
doubted whether the two Governments could ever come to terms as to
the form of the questions to be submitted for decision.

My interview here came to an end, Mr. Blaine having an appointment
with the President which compelled him to leave for the White House.

I have, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 347.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 3.)

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890,

My Lorpb: In compliance with the instruetions contained in your
Lordship’s telegram of to-day, I have the honour to inclose copy
473 of a note which I have addressed to Mr. Blaine, in which I have
informed him that a formal protest by Her Majesty’s Government
against any interference with British vessels in Behring’s Sea will be
forwarded to him without delay.
1 have, Xe. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

524 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure in No. 347.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, May 23, 1890.
Sir: I have the honour to inform you that a statement having appeared in the
newspapers, to the effect that United States Revenue cruizers have received orders
to proceed to Behring’s Sea for the purpose of preventing the exercise of the seal-
fishery by foreign vessels in non-territorial waters, and that statement havine been
confirmed yesterday by you, I am instructed by the Marquis of Salisbury to state to
you that a formal protest, by Her Majesty’s Government, against any such interfer-

ence with British vessels, will be forwarded to you without delay.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 348.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 3, 1890.

Information has reached Her Majesty’s Government that about twenty-
three British vessels have already cleared from ports in British North
America for the seal fishing.

All question, therefore, of stopping them, even if Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment considered it expedient to do so, is at an end.

No. 349.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 7.)

{ Telegraphie. ]
WASHINGTON, June 7, 1890.

Mr. Blaine having inquired, on behalf of the President, whether with
a view to a friendly settlement by arbitration Her Majesty’s Government
would consent to the total exclusion of British sealers for the present
season from Behring’s Sea, | replied at once that this proposal could
not be entertained, as apart from other considerations which I explained
there was no legal power to enforce such exclusion.

My answer has elicited a long note expressing the President’s regret
that his most friendly and considerate proposal for adjusting all trou-
bles connected with the Behring’s Sea question should be rejected so
promptly.

With reference to a statement made by me to the effect that the fur-
ther examination of the question had satisfied Her Majasty’s Government
that total exclusion went beyond the requirements of the case, the note
states that until the receipt of my reply the United States Government
had never been informed that any other object¥on to the proposal was
entertained by your Lordship than that assigned by you when you
abruptly closed the negotiations {n London, viz., that Canada would not
consent to it. It observes any privileges conferred on Canadian sealers
must be extended at once to American vessels, and that our proposed
radius of 10 miles would expose female seals to be slaughtered by hun.
dreds of thousands.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 525

“The President does not conceal his disappointment that even for
the sake of securing arbitration, Her Majesty’s Government refuses to
suspend for a single season the practice which your Lordship described
in 1888 as the wanton destruction of a valuable industry, and which the
United States Government has uniformly regarded as an unprovoked
invasion of its established rights.”

I have declined in my acknowledgment of the note to continue the

correspondence until I receive further instructions, especially as
474 the views of Her Majesty’s Government are clearly explained in

your Lordship’s despatch of the 22nd ultimo, which I read to the
Secretary of State only a few hours before his note reached me.

No. 350.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 7.)

(Telegraphic. |
WASHINGTON, June 7, 1890.
Mr. Blaine has postponed our interview arranged for this morning.
I will endeavour to meet him in the course of to-morrow,

No. 351.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic. |

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 7, 1890.
I regret to learn from your telegram of the 7th instant that the Pres.
ident should think I am wanting in conciliation in the Behring’s Sea
negotiations. I think, however, that he misunderstands the conditions
of our law.

There is no power whatever which would enable Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment to exclude British or Canadian vessels from any part of the
high seas for however short a period of time without first obtaining, in
the one case, an Act of the British Parliament, and in the other one,
of the Canadian Parliament.

We have always been willing, without pledging ourselves to details
as to area and date, to negotiate with the hope of coming to an arrange-
ment for the establishment of a close season so far as necessary to
preserve the fur-seal species, but its provisions would require the
sanction of the respective Legislatures.

I do not recognize the expressions which are apparently attributed
to me in Mr. Blaine’s note.

I do not think I used them, not at all events in the context stated in
the note.

No. 352.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 9.)
WASHINGTON, May 29, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 23rd instant, I

have the honour to inclose copy of a note which I have received from
Mr. Blaine in reply to my communication of the 23rd instant, in which

526 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I informed him that a formal protest by Her Majesty’s Government
against any interference with British vessels in Behring’s Sea would
be forwarded to him without delay.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 352.)
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 26, 1890.
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 23rd instant,
in which you inform me that Her Britannic Majesty’s Government will formally pro-
test against certain action recently taken by this Government for the protection of
the Alaska seal fisheries.
I have, &c.
(Signed) J. G. BLAINE.

475 No. 353.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 9.)

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of to-day’s date, I have
the honour to inclose copy of the note which I have received from Mr.
Blaine, informing me of the rejection of the draft Convention by his
Government and that of Russia, and stating the grounds for that
decision.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 353.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, May 29, 1890.

Str: Your note of the 23rd instant, already acknowledged, informs this Govern-
ment that you ‘have been instructed by the Marquis of Salisbury to state that Her
Majesty’s Government would forward, without delay, a protest” against the course
which this Government has found it necessary, under the laws of Congress, to pursue
in the waters of the Behring’s Sea.

In turn, Iam instructed by the President to protest against the course of the
British Government in authorizing, encouraging, and protecting vessels which are
not only interfering with American rights in the Behring’s Sea, but which are doing
violence as well to the rights of the civilized world. ‘They are engaged in a warfare
against seal life, disregarding all the Regulations which lead to its protection, and
committing acts which lead ultimately to its destruction, as has been the case in
every part of the world where the abuses which are now claimed as British rights
have been practised.

The President is surprised that such protest should be authorized by Lord Salis-
bury, especially because the previous declarations of his Lordship would seem to
render it impossible. -On the 11th November, 1887, Lord Salisbury, in an official
interview with the Minister from the United States (Mr. Phelps), cordially agreed that
“a Code of Regulations should be adopted for the preservation of the seals in Beh-
rine’s Sea from destruction at improper times, by improper means, by the citizens of
either country.” And Lord Salisbury suggested that Mr. Phelps ‘‘should obtain
from his Government, and submit to him (Lord Salisbury), a sketch of a system of

- a eee ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 527

Regulations which would be adequate for the purpose.” Further interviews were
held during the following month of February (1888) between Lord Salisbury and the
American Minister, and between Lord Salisbury and the American Minister, accom-
panied by ‘the Russian Ambassador. In answer to Lord Salisbury’s request, Mr.
Phelps submitted the ‘‘Regulations” which the Government of the United States
desired; and in a despatch of the 25th February Mr. Phelps communicated the fol-
lowing to Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State:

“Lord Salisbury assents to your proposition to establish, by mutual arrangement
between the Governments interested, a close time for fur-seals, between the 15th
April and the 1st November and between 160° of longitude west and 170° of longi-
tude east, in the Behring’s Sea. And he will cause an Act to be introduced into
Parliament to give effect to this arrangement so soon as it can be prepared. In his
opinion, there is no doubt that the Act will be passed.

‘‘He will also join the United States Government in any preventive measures it
may be thought best to adopt, by orders issued to the naval vessels of the respective
Governments in that region.”

Early in April (1888) the Russian Ambassador in London, M. de Staal, advised the
American Chargé ‘‘that the Russian Government would like to have the Regulations
which might be agreed upon for the Behring’s Sea extended to that portion of the
latter in which the Commander Islands are situated, and also to the Sea of Okhotsk,
in which Robben Island is situated.” On the 16th April, at Lord Salisbury’s invita-
tion, the Russian Ambassador and Mr. White (the American Chargé), Mr. Phelps
being absent from London, met at the Foreign Office ‘for the purpose of discussing
with Lord Salisbury the details of the proposed Conventional arrangement for the
protection of seals in Behring’s Sea.”

* * * * * * *
476 “‘With a view to meeting the Russian Government’s wishes respecting the

waters surrounding Robben Island, his Lordship suggested that beside the
whole of Behring’s Sea, those portions of the Seaof Okhotsk and of the Pacific Ocean
north of north latitude 47° should be included in the proposed arrangement. His
Lordship intimated, furthermore, that the period proposed by the United States for a
closed time, from the 15th April to the Ist November, might interfere with the trade
longer than absolutely necessary for the protection of seals, and he suggested the Ist
October, instead of a month later, as the termination of the period of seal protec-

‘tion.” Furthermore, Lord Salisbury ‘‘promised to have a draft Convention prepared

for submission to the Russian Ambassador and American Minister.”

On the 23rd April, the American Chargé was informed by Lord Salisbury that ‘it
is now proposed to give effect to a Seal Convention by Order in Council, not by Act
of Parliament.” It was understood that this course was proposed by Lord Salisbury
in order that the ‘‘Regulations” needed in Behring’s Sea might be promptly applied.

You will observe, then, that from the 11th November, 1887, to the 23rd April, 1888,
Lord Salisbury had in every form of speech assented to the necessity of a close season
for the protection of the seals.

The shortest period which he named was from the 15th April to the 1st October—
five and a-half months. In addition, his Lordship suggested that the closed sea for
the period named should include the whole of the Behring’s Sea, and should also
include such portion of the Sea of Okhotsk as would be necessary to protect the
Russian seal fishery on Robben Island; that the closed season be extended as far
south as 47° north latitude, 120 miles south of the northern boundary of the United
States on the Pacific Ocean. He promised, further, to draft a Convention upon the
subject between England, Russia, and the United States.

These assurances were given to the American Minister, to the American Chargé
to the Russian Ambassador, and on more than one occasion to two of them together.
The United States had no reason, therefore, to doubt that the whole dispute touch-
ing the seal fisheries was practically settled. Indeed, to have distrusted it would
have been to question the good faith of Lord Salisbury. In diplomatic intercourse
between Great Britain and the United States, be it said to the honour of both Gov-
ernments, a verbal assurance from a Minister has always been equal to his written
pledge. Speaking the same language, there has been no room for misunderstanding
between the Representatives of the two Governments, as may easily happen between
those of different tongues. Fora period of six months, therefore, without retraction
or qualification, without the suggestion of a doubt or the dropping of a hint, the
understanding between the two Governments, on the assurance of Lord Salisbury,
was as complete as language could make it.

On the 28th April, five days after Lord Salisbury’s last pointed assurance, five days
after he had proposed to perfect the scheme, not by the delay of Parliament, but by
the promptness of an Order in Council, the American Chargé was informed that the
Act of Parliament would be necessary in addition to the Order in Council, and that
neither Act nor Order could be drafted ‘until Canada is heard from,”

528 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

For several weeks following the 28th April, there were many calls by the American
Chargé at the Foreign Office to learn whether ‘Canada had been heard from.” He
called alone, and called in company with the Russian Ambassador. Finally, on the
20th June, Lord Salisbury told bim that an urgent telegram had been ‘sent to
Canada a week ago with respect to the delay in its expedition,” and that a reply had
been ‘‘received by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, saying that the matter
will be taken up immediately.” Mr. White, relying entirely upon these assurances,
ventured to ‘hope that shortly after Mr. Phelps’ return the British Government will
be in a condition to agree upon the terms of the proposed Convention.”

Mr. Phelps returned to London on the 22nd June, two days after Mr. White’s
interview with Lord Salisbury, and immediately after the urgent telegram had been
sent to Canada.

On the 28th July, Mr. Phelps had received no assurances from Lord Salisbury, and
telegraphed the Department of State his “fear that owing to Canadian opposition
we shall get no Convention.” Ina despatch to his Government of the 12th Septem-
ber he related having had interviews with Lord Salisbury respecting the Conven-
tion, which he says had been ‘‘ virtually agreed upon except in its details.” Mr.
Phelps goes on to say: ‘‘The consideration of it his been suspended for communica-
tion by the British Government with the Canadian Government, for which purpose

an interval of several months had been allowed to elapse. During this long
477 interval theattention of Lord Salisbury had been repeatedly called to the sub-

ject by the American Legation, and on those occasions the answer received
from him was that no reply from the Canadian authorities had arrived!”

Mr. Phelps proceeds in the despatch of the 12th September to say: ‘‘I again
pressed Lord Salisbury for the completion of the Convention, as the extermination
of seals by Canadian vessels was understood to be rapidly proceeding. His Lord-
ship, in reply, did not question the propriety or the importance of taking measures
to prevent the wanton destruction of so valuable an industry, in which, as he
remarked, England had a large interest of its own, but his Lordship stated that the
Canadian Government objected to any such restrictions, and that until its consent
could be obtained Her Majesty’s Government was not willing to enter into the Con-
vention.” It was thus finally acknowledged that the negotiations into whieh Lord
Salisbury had cordially entered, and to which he had readily agreed, even himself
suggesting some of its most valuable details, was entirely subordinated to the judg-
ment and desire of the Canadian Government. This Government cannot but feel that
Lord Salisbury would have dealt more frankly if in the beginning he had informed
Minister Phelps that no arrangement could be made unless C anada concurred in it,
and that all negotiation with the British Government direct was but a loss of time.

When you, Mr. Minister, arrived in this country a year azo, there seemed the best
prospect for a settlement of this question, but the Russian Minister and the Ameri-
san Secretary of State have had the experience of Mr. Phelps and the Russian
Ambassador in London repeated. In our early interviews, there seemed to be as
ready a disposition on your part to come to a reasonable and friendly adjustment as
there certainly has always been on our part to offer one. You will not forget an
interview between yourself, the Russian Minister, and myself, in which the lines for
a close season in the Behring’s Sea laid down by Lord Salisbury were almost exactly
repeated by yourself, and were inscribed on Maps which were before us, a copy of
which is in the possession of the Russian Minister, and a copy also in my possession.
A prompt adjustment seemed practicable, an adjustment which I am sure would have
been honourable to all the countries interested. No obstacles were presented on the
American side of the question. No insistance was made upon the Behring’s Sea as
mare clausum; no objection was interposed to the entrance of British ships at all
times, on all commercial errands, through all the waters of the Behring’s Sea. But
our negotiations, as in London, were suddenly broken oft for many weeks by the
interposition of Canada. When correspondence was resumed on the last day of
April, you made an offer for a Mixed Commission of Experts to decide the questions
at issue.

Your proposition is that pelagic sealing should be prohibited in the Behring’s Sea
during the months of May, June, October, November, and December, and that there
should be no prohibition during the months of Jul y, August, and September. Your
proposition involved the condition that British vessels should be allowed to kill seals
within 10 miles of the coast of the Pribylov Islands. Lord Salisbury’s proposition
of 1888 was that, during the same months for which the 10-mile privilege is now
demanded, no British vessel hunting seals should come nearer to the Priby loy Islands
than the 47th parallel of north 1: ititnde about 600 miles.

The open season which you thus select for killing is the one when the areas around
the breeding islands are most crowded with seals, and especially crowded with female
seals, going forth to secure food for the hundreds of thousands of their young, of
whic h “they have recently been delivered. The destruction of the females, which,
according to expert testimony, would be 95 per cent. of all which the sealing ves-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 529

sels might readily capture, would inflict deadly loss upon the rookeries. The
destruction of the female would be followed by the destruction of their young on
the islands, and the herds would be diminished the next year by this wholesale
slaughter of the producing females and their offspring. The 10-mile limit would
give the marauders the vantage ground for killing the seals that are in the water by
tens of thousands searching for food. The opportunity, under cover of fog and
night, for stealing silently upon the islands and slaughtering the seals within a mile
or even less of the keepers’ residence, would largely increase the aggregate destruc-
tion. Under such conditions, the British vessels could evenly divide with the United
States within the 3-mile limit of its own shores, and upon the islands themselves,
the whole advantage of the seal fisheries. The respect which the scaling vessels
would pay to the 10-mile limit would be the same that wolves pay to a flock of sheep
so placed that no shepherd can guard them. This arrangement, according to your
proposal, was to continue for three months of each year, the best months in the
478 season for depredations upon the seal herd. No course was left to the United
States or to Russia but to reject the proposition.

The propositions made by Lord Salisbury in 1888, and the propositions made by
Her Majesty’s Minister in Washington in 1890, are in significant contrast. ‘The cir-
cumstances are the same, the conditions are the same, the rights of the United States
are the same, in both years. The position of England has changed, because the
wishes of Canada have demanded tke change. ‘The result then with which the
United States is expected to be content is, that her rights within the Behring’s Sea
and on the islands thereof are not absolute, but are to be deteamined by one of Her
Majesty’s provinces.

The British Government would assuredly and rightfully complain if an agreement
between her [sic] Representative and the Representative of the United States should,
without notice, be broken off by the United States, on the ground that the State of
California was not willing that it should be completed. California has a Governor
chosen independently of the Executive power of the National Government. Canada
has a Governor appointed by the British Crown. The Legislature of Californiaenacts
laws with which the Executive power of the United States has no right whatever
to interfere; Canada enacts laws with which the Executive power of Great Britain
can interfere so far as absolutely to annul. Can the Government of the United
States be expected to accept as final a decision of the Government of Great Britain
that an agreement with the United States cannot be fulfilled because the Province
of Canada objects!

This review of the circumstances which led to the present troubles on the Behring’s
Sea question has been presented by direction of the President, in order to show that
the responsibility does not rest with this Government. The change of policy made
by Her Majesty’s Government without notice, and against the wish of this Govern-
nent, is, in the President’s belief, the cause of all the differences that have followed.

Tam further instructed by the President to say, that while your proposals of the
30th April cannot be accepted, the United States will continue the negotiation in
hope of reaching an agreement that may conduce to a good understanding, and leave
no cause for future dispute. In the President’s opinion, owing to delays for which
this Government is not responsible, it is too late to conclude such negotiation
in time to apply its result the present season. He, therefore, proposes that Her
Majesty’s Government agree not to permit the vessels (which, in his judgment, do
injury to the property of the United States) to enter the Behring’s Sea for this sea-
son, in order that time may be secured for negotiation that shall not be disturbed
by untoward events, or unduly influenced by popular agitation. If this offer be
accepted, the President believes that before another season shall open the friendly
relations existing between the two countries, and the mutual desire to continue them,
will lead to Treaty stipulations which shall be permanent, because just and honour-
able to all parties.

I have, &e. (Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 354.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Reccived June 11.)

{ Telegraphic. |

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1890.

As reported in my telegram of the 7th instant, my interview with
Mr. Blaine arranged for that day was postponed, and, not having received
any further communication from him, I called at his house yesterday.

BS ety. 34

530 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

He then informed me that the President was unwilling that he should
proceed with the negotiations until he had answered your Lordship’s
despatch of the 22nd ultimo, of which I left a copy with him on the 5th.
He wished especially to send a reply on the charge that the United
States Government were now claiming aright which they had disputed
when asserted by Russia before the cession of Alaska. Mr. Blaine
promised me this reply before the end of the week, after which he would
be ready to resume our interviews.

I complained of the delay, pointing out the danger of ‘some untoward
event,” and again urged him to give me an assurance that while the
negotiations were continuing there should be no interference with our
vessels; such assurance he declined to give, but he said there was little
likelihood of anything of the kind happening before July.

I think that the protest contained in your Lordship’s despatch of the
29th May should be sent in before the Revenue cutters are beyond the

reach of instructions.
479 Subject to your Lordship’s approval, I propose to send in the
protest on the 14th instant, informing Mr. Blaine that I have
deferred doing so until the last moment.

No. 355.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received June 11.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1890.

At the interview with Mr. Blaine mentioned in my immediately pre-
ceding telegram, referring to his note of the 4th instant,* I stated that
your Lordship regretted that the President should think you wanting
in conciliation, that this was probably due to his being unaware that
by British law legislation was necessary before any British vessel could
be excluded from any part of the high seas.

Legislative sanction was also required for any measures necessary
for the preservation of the seal species, and Her Majesty’s Government
have always been willing to negotiate for the adoption of such measures.

As regards the expressions attributed to your Lordship by Mr. Blaine
in his note, I informed him that you did not recognize them, and that
you certainly did not think you could have used them in the context
mentioned,

No. 356.

Sir J. Pauncecfote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Substance telegraphed,
June 11.)

WASHINGTON, June 11, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copy of the note from Mr.
Blaine referred to in my telegram of to-day, together with a copy of
the reply which I have returned thereto.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

*See Inclosure 1 in No. 363.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5a
{Inclosure 1 in No. 356.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

WASHINGTON, June 11, 1890.

Str: I have shown to the present the extract from the telegram of Lord Salis-
bury of the 9th June, in which his Lordship states that ‘it is beyond the power of
lier Majesty’s Government to exclude British or Canadian ships from any portion of
the high seas, even for an hour, without legislative sanction.”

Not stopping to comment upon the fact that his Lordship assumes the waters sur-
rounding the Pribyloft Islands to be “the high seas,” the President instructs me to
say that it would satisfy this Government if ‘Lord Salisbury would, by public Proc-
lamation, simply request that vessels sailing under the British flag should abstain
from. entering the Behring’s Sea for the present season. If this request shall be com-
plied with, there will be “full time for impartial negotiations, and, as the President
hopes, for a friendly conclusion of the ditterences between the two Governments.

I have, &c.
(Signed) Jamis G. BLAINE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 356.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 17, 1890.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of this day with reference to
the passage in a telegram from the Marquis of Salisbury which I communicated to
you at our interview of the 9th instant, to the effect that “it is beyond the power
of Her Majesty’s Government to exclude British or Canadian ships from any portion

of the high seas, even for an hour, without legislative sanction.”
480 You inform me that without commenting on the fact that his Lordship

assumes the waters surrounding the Pribyloff Islands to be the high seas, the
President instructs you to say that it would satisfy your Government if “Lord Salis-
bury would, by public Proclamation, simply request that vessels sailing under the
British flar should abstain from entering the Behring’s Sea for the present season.
You add, if this request shall be complied with, there will be full time for impartial
negotiations, and, as the President hopes, for a friendly conclusion of the ditferences
between the two Governments.

I have telegraphed the above communication to Lord Salisbury, and I await his
Lordship’s instructions thereon. In the meanwhile, I take this opportunity of
informing you that I reported to his Lordship by telegraph that at the same inter-
view I again pressed you for an assurance that British sealing-vessels would not
be interfered with in the Behring’s Sea by United States Revenue ctuizers while the
negotiations continued, but you replied that you could not give such assurance.

I trust this is not a final decision, and that, in the course of the next few days,
while there is yet time to communicate with the Commanders, instructions will
be sent to them to abstain from such interference.

It isin this hope that I have delayed delivering the formal protest of Her Maj-
esty’s Government announced in my note of the 23rd May.

I have, &c.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

No. 357.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote,

[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 11, 1890.
In reply to your telegram of yesterday, you may present the Protest.

532 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 398.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 12.
i : : =
[Telegraphie.]

WASHINGTON, June 11, 1890,

Referring to my previous telegram of to-day, I presume that Her
Majesty’s Government have no objection to refer to arbitration the
question of the legal right of the United States Government to exclude
British sealing-vessels from Behring’s Sea.

If this be so, I should be glad to know whether they would consent
that the proposed Proclamation should be issued on the express con-
ditions that the United States Government shall not interfere with our
flag this season, and, if the award be against them, shall at once pay
damages for past interference, aud compensate British sealers for losses
sustained by them in complying with the Proclamation.

No. 359.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic. }

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 12, 1890.

In reply to your telegram of yesterday, I have to state that there are
serious constitutional difficulties in the way of your proposal.

But it might save time if, without prejudice to either side, you could
ask the Government of the United States whether, supposing her
Majesty’s Government were to agree to issue a Proclamation, and as
to its terms, the United States Government will agree to the three
conditions formulated by you, namely, to refer the legality of their
proceedings to arbitration, to abstain from any interference with the
British flag, and, in case of an adverse award, to pay for damages
resulting from the Proclamation.

481 No. 360.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 12, 1890.

Referring to my previous telegram of to-day’s date, if we could come
to terms on this proposal we would suggest some such kind of Procla-
mation as the following:

‘‘Whereas, the United States and Her Majesty’s Government have
agreed to refer to arbitration the legality of the action of the United
States in making certain captures of British vessels in the Behring’s
Sea; and whereas the United States have engaged if the award should
be adverse to them to pay compensation not only for past interference,
but for any loss arising from abstention from sealing consequent on this
Proclamation. Captains are hereby requested not to seal in Behring’s
Sea during the present season.”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. bao
No. 361
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 13.)

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1890:

My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that, since the
receipt of Mr. Blaine’s note of the 29th ultimo, informing me of the
rejection of the draft Convention by his Government, I have been in
constant communication with him, with the view of coming to some
possible settlement of the Behring’s Sea question.

On the 30th ultimo Mr. Blaine informed me that he was to have an
interview with the President, the result of which he promised to com-
municate to me as Soon as possible.

I accordingly received a note from him last night, a copy of whichis
inclosed herewith, in which he states that the President is of opinion
that an arbitration could not be concluded in time for this season, but
he is anxious to know “ whether Lord Salisbury, in order to promote a
friendly solution of the question, will make for a single season the
regulation which in 1888 he offered to make permanent.”

Your Lordship will observe that the above proposal is identical with
that contained at the conclusion of Mr. Blaine’s note of the 29th ultimo.

In view of the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 31st ultimo,
and in order to save time, [ at once wrote a note, a copy of which is
also inclosed, to Mr. Blaine in reply, in which I informed him that Her
Majesty’s Government were not prepared to agree to such a Regulation
as was suggested by Mr. Blaine.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure 1 in No. 361.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 2, 1890.

My Drar Sir JuLian: I have had a prolonged interview with the President on
the matters upon which we are endeavouring to come to an agreement touching the
fur-seal question.

The President expresses the opinion that an arbitration Could not be concluded in
time for this season. Arbitration is of little value unless it is conducted with the
most careful deliberation. What the President most anxiously desires to know is
whether Lord Salisbury, in order to promote a friendly solution of the question, will
make for a single season the Regulation which in 1888 he offered to make permanent.
The President regards that as the step which will lead most certainly and most
promptly to a friendly agreement between the two Governments.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

482 {Inclosure 2 in No. 361.]

Sir J. Pawncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1890.
DEAR Mr. Buarne: In reply to your letter of yesterday evening touching the fur-
seal question, I beg to state that I am in a position to answer at once the inquiry
““whether Lord Salisbury, in order to promote a friendly solution of the question,
will make for a single season the eae which in 1888 he offered to make per-
manent.”

534 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The words which I quote from your letter have reference, no doubt, to the pro-
posal of the United States that British sealing-vessels should be entirely excluded
from the Behring’s Sea during the seal fishery season. I shall not attempt to discuss
here whether what took place in the course of the abortive negotiations of 1888
amounted to an offer on the part of Lord Salisbury “to make such a regulation
permanent.”

It will suffice for the present purpose to state that the further examination of the
question which has taken place has satisfied his Lordship that such an extreme
measure as that proposed in 1888 goes far beyond the requirements of the case. Her
Majesty’s Government are quite willing to adopt all measures which shall be satis-
factorily proved to be necessary for the preservation of the fur seal species, and to
enforce such measures on British subjects by proper legislation.

But they are not prepared to agree to such a regulation as is suggested in your
letter, for the present fishery season, as, apart from other considerations, there would
be no legal power to enforce its observance on British subjects and British vessels.

IT have, &c,
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 362.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office. —( Received June 14.)

DOWNING STREET, June 13, 1890.

Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the
Governor-General of Canada, forwarding a claim from the owners of
the ‘“‘Pathfinder” for the detention of that vessel at Neagh Bay in
March last.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 362.]
Lord Stanley of Preston » Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, May 20, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to forward herewith, for transmission to the United
States authorities, a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada,
to which is attached a formal declaration of the managing owner of the british
schooner ‘‘ Pathfinder,” setting forth the particulars of the seizure of that vessel in
Neagh Bay, in the State of Washington, by the United States Revenue cutter ‘‘Cor-
win, » and preferring a claim for damages to the amount of 3,000 dollars against
the United States Government in consequence of the said seizure.

Your Lordship has already been informed in the Deputy Governor’s despatch of
the 23rd October last of the circumstances of the former seizure of this vessel in
3ehring’s Sea on the 27th August last by the same United States cruizer.

Ihave, &c. ; :
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,
483 [Inclosure 2 in No. 362.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Lxecellency
the Governor-General in Council on the I2Zth May, 1890.

Ona Report dated the 23rd April, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
submitting, in connection with previous Reports on the subject of seizures of British
fishing-vessels in the Behring’s Sea, and more particularly with reference to the
Minute of Council approved by your Excellency on the 14th September, 1889, detail-
ing the circumstances of the seizure of the schooner “ Pathtinder,” a formal declara-
tion of the managing owner of the ‘ Pathfinder,” in which are set forth particulars

a 4". i a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 535

of the subsequent seizure of the vessel in Neagh Bay, in the State of Washington,
United States of America, on the evening of the 27th March, 1890, by the United
States Revenue cutter “Thomas 1). Corwin;” the Commander having recognized the
“Pathfinder” as a vessel which had been seized in Behring’s Sea during the previous
year.

' The “Pathfinder” sought Neagh Bay through stress of weather, and was undergo-
ing repairs at the time of the second seizure. ‘The vessel was towed to Port Town-
send and placed in charge of officers from the Revenue cutter, until released on the
afternoon of the 29th March.

The Minister further submits a claim advanced by Mr. William Munsie, of Victoria,
British Columbia, merchant, as managing owner of the vessel in question, amount-
ing to 3,000 dollars for loss resulting and expenses by reason of the seizure.

The committee on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Minute, together with
the paper herewith, tothe Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
for transmission to the Government of the United States.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 362.]
Declaration of Mr. W. Munsie.

DOMINION OF CANADA, Province of British Columbia, City of Victoria.

J, William Munsie, of the city of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia,
merchant, solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:

1. Iam the managing owner of the hereinafter mentioned schooner ‘ Pathfinder,”
duly registered at the port of Victoria aforesaid.

2. The said schooner is employed exclusively in the sealing business, and left the
port of Victoria on or about the 17th January last on a sealing voyage along the
Pacific coast, south of Vancouver Island.

3. On or about the 8th February last the ‘‘ Pathfinder” returned to Victoria for
repairs, and sailed again for the same purpose on or about the 12th February last.

4, On or about the 23rd day of March last, when off Cape Flattery, the ‘‘ Path-
finder” encountered a storm and became disabled by the breaking of the tiller-band,
and was forced to find shelter in the nearest harbour, Neagh Bay, in the State of
Washington, United States of America, lying about 9 miles from Cape Flattery. The
“Pathfinder” anchored in Neagh Bay on the 26th March last. On the evening of
the 27th March, while still lying in said bay, undergoing repairs, an officer from the
United States Revenue cutter ‘Thomas D. Corwin,” boarded the ‘‘ Pathfinder ” and
asked for the ship’s papers. These were handed to him, inspected by him, and in
reply to a question by the captain of the ‘‘Pathfinder” as to whether they were
allright, he replied that he would report to the Captain of the cutter. Next morn-
ing the Captain of the cutter sent an officer on board the ‘‘ Pathfinder” with a
request that her captain would go on board the cutterand take his papers with him.
The captain did so, and after looking over the papers the Captain of the cutter said
he recognized the ‘‘ Pathfinder” as a vessel which had been seized last year, and that
he must detain her, as the law must be maintained. He then ordered the captain
of the ‘‘ Pathfinder” to heave his anchor, and said he would take the ‘“‘ Pathfinder ”
to the nearest telegraphstation, which was Port Angeles. ‘The captain of the “‘ Path-

finder” protested against being removed, and declined to hoist anchor. The
484 Captain of the cutter replied that if he did not hoist anchor men would be

sent from the cutter to do so. Upon this the captain of the ‘‘ Pathfinder”
went back to his vessel and ordered his men to heave the anchor up.

The ‘‘ Pathfinder” was then taken in tow by the cutter, and taken to Port Town-
send. At that place two officers from the cutter were placed on board the ‘‘ Path-
finder,” and remained in charge until the ‘‘ Pathfinder” was released. The captain
of the ‘ Pathfinder” entered a protest from the office of the Collector of Customs,
Port Townsend, and also filed a protest with the Captain of the cutter. After doing
so he was persuaded to withdraw both protests until reply had been received from
Washington as to what disposition would be made of the ‘‘ Pathfinder.”

5. The ‘ Pathfinder” was released on the afternoon of the 29th March last, and
arrived at Victoria aforesaid on the morning of the 31st March last.

6. By reason of the said seizure or detention of the ‘‘ Pathfinder,” her owners have
lost at least a week of the best period of the spring seasous for sealing. In conse-
quence, also, of the seizure and detention, a number of the crew of the ‘ Path-
finder” have deserted, causing inconvenience and loss in filling their places.

536 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

7. In respect of the said scizure and detention, and of the losses thereby resulting,
and for the expenses incurred by reason of such seizure or detention, I, as managing
owner of the ‘ Pathfinder,” claim of and from the Government of the United States
as damages the sum of 3, 000 dollars.

And I, William Munsie, make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing
the same to be true, and by virtue of the Acts respecting extra- judicial ch alee

[L. 8.] (Signed) Wn. MuNSIE.

Declared at the city of Victoria, British Columbia, this 3rd day of en A.D. 1890,
before me,
(Signed) Artuur L. Breiyra,
A Notary Public by Royal Authority in and for the Province of British Columbia.

No. 363.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 16.)

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 3rd instant, I have
the honour to inclose copy of a further note which I have received from
Mr. Blaine on the subject of the proposed exclusion of British sealers
from Behring’s Sea during the present season, together with the reply
which I have sent thereto.

I have, &e.
(Signed) J. PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure 1 in No. 363.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 4, 1890.

Srr: I have your favour of the 2nd instant.

The President sincerely regrets that his considerate and most friendly proposal
for adjustment of all troubles connected with the Behring’s Sea should be so promptly
rejected.

The paragraph in your note in which you refer to Lord Salisbury’s position needs
explanation. I quote it in full:

“Tt will suffice for the present purpose to state that the further examination of
the question which has taken place has satisfied his Lordship that such an extreme
measure as that proposed in 1888 goes far beyond the requirements of the case.”

I do not know what may have been the ‘examination of the question” that ‘has
satisfied Lord Salisbury that such an extreme measure as that proposed in 1888 goes
far beyond the requirements of the case.” I only know that the most extreme meas-
ure proposed came from Lord Salisbury himself, in suggesting a close season as far
south as the 47th parallel of latitude, to last from the 15th April to the Ist October

in each year.
485 At the close of his negotiations with Mr. Phelps, in September 1888, his Lord-

ship, still approving the ‘‘ measures to prevent the wanton destruction of so
valuable an industry,” declared, apparently with regret, that “the Canadian Goy-
ernment objected to any such restrictions” (i. €., as those which his Lordship had in
part proposed and wholly approved), and that, ‘‘until its consent would be obtained,
Her Majesty’s Government was not willing to enter into the Convention.” It is evi-
dent, therefore, that in 1888 Lord Salisbury abruptly closed the negotiations because,
in his own phrase, ‘‘the Canadian Government objected.” He “assigned no other
reason whatever, and, until your note of the 2nd was received this Government had
never been informed that his Lordship entertained any other objections than those
expressed in September 1888.

It is proper to recall to your recollection that at divers times in personal conyersa-
tion I have proposed to you, on behalf of this Government, a close season materially
shorter in point of time than was voluntarily offered by Lord Salisbury, and much

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 537

less extended in point of space. Instead of going as far south as the 47th parallel, I
have frequently indicated the willingness of ‘this Government to take the div iding
line between the Pacific Ocean and the Behring’s Sea—the line which is tangent to
the southernmost island of the Alentian eroup—being as near as may be the 50th par-
allel of north latitude.

Early in April you will remember that you suggested to me the advantage that
might follow if the sailing of Revenue cutters for Behring’ s Sea could be postpone d
till the middle of May. Though that was a matter entirely under the control of the
Treasury Department, Secretary Windom promptly complied with your request, and
by the President’s direction a still longer postponement was ordered in the hope that
some form of equitable adjustment might be proposed by Her Majesty’s Government.
Even the Revenue cutter which annually passes through Behring’s Sea carrying
supplies to the relief station at Point Baad in the Arctic Ocean——72nd degree of
north Jatitude—was held back, lest her appearance in Behring’s Sea might be mis-
represented as a non-observance of the understanding between us.

Itis perfectly clear that if your claim for British vessels to kill seals within 10
miles of the Pribyloff Islands, directly after the the mothers are delivered of their
young, should be granted, the Behring’s Sea would swarm with vessels engaged in
sealing, not forty or fifty as now, but many hundreds, through the summer months,
If that privilege should be given to Canadian vessels, it must of course be conceded
at once to American vessels. If the rookeries are to be thrown open to Canadians,
they would certainly, as a matterof common right, be thrown open to citizens of the
United States.

The seal-mothers, which require an area of from 40 to 50 miles from the islands on
all sides to secure food for their young, would be slaughtered by hundreds of thou-

sands, andin a brief space of time there would no seals in the Behri ing’s Sea. Sim-
ilar causes have uniforinly produced similar effects. Seal rookeries in all parts of
the world have been destroyed in that way. The present course of Great Britain
will produce the same effect on the only seal rookery of any value left in the waters
of the oceans and seas of the globe. The United States have leased the privilege of
sealing because cnly in that way can the rookeries be preserved, and only in that
way can this Government derive a revenue from the Pribyloft Islands. Great Brit-
ain would perhaps gain something for a few years, but it would be at the expense of
destroying a valuable interest belonging toa friendly nation, an interest which the
civilized world desires to have preserved.

I observe that you quote Treasury Agent George R. Tingle, in your despatch of the
30th April, as showing that, notwithstanding the depredations of marauders, the total
number of seals had increased in the Behring’sSea. Therude mode of estimating the
total number can readily lead to mistakes, “and other agents have differed from Mr.
Tingle. But, aside from the correctness or incorrectness of Mr. Tingle’s conclusions
on that point, may I ask upon what grounds do the Canadian vessels assert a claim,
unless they assume that they have a title to the increase of the seal herd? If the
claim of the United States to the seals of the Pribyloff Islands be well founded, we
are certainly entitled to the increase as much as a sheep-grower is entitled to the
increase of his flock.

Having introduced Mr. Tingle, who has very extensive knowledge touching the
seals in Behring’s Sea, as well as the habits of the Canadian marauders, I trust you
will not discredit his testimony. The following statement, made by Mr. Tingle in
his official Report to the Treasury Department at the close of the season of 1887, is

respectfully commended to your consideration:
486 “T am now convinced, from what I gather in questioning the men belonging

to captured schooners, and from re ding the logs of the vessels, that not more
than one seal in ten killed and mortally wounded is landed on the boats and skinned;
thus you will see the wanton destruction of seal life without any benefit whatever.
I think 30,000 skins taken this year is a low estimate on this basis; 300,000 fur-seals
were killed to secure that number, or three times as many as the Alaska Commercial
Company are allowed by law to kill. You can readily see that this great slaughter
of seals will in a few years make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken on the
islands by the lessees. I earnestly hope more rigorous measures will be adopted by
the Government in dealing with these destructive law-breakers.”

Both of Mr. Tingle’s statements are made in his official ¢ apacity, and in both cases
he had no temptation to state anything except what he honestly believed to be the
truth.

The President does not conceal his disappointment that, even for the sake of secur-
ing an impartial arbitration of the question at issue, Her Majesty’s Government is
not willing to suspend for a single season the practice which Lord Salisbury described
in 1888 as ‘“‘the wanton destruction of a valuable industry,” and which this Govern-
ment has uniformly regarded as an unprovoked invasion of its established rights.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

538 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 363.]
Sir J. Pauncefole to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1890.

Sir: T have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your official note of the 4th
instant, commenting upon the reply which I returned to the inquiry contained in
your letter of the 2nd instant, whether the Marquis of Salisbury would, in order to
promote a friendly solution of the fur-seal question, agree to the total exclusion of
British sealers from the Behring’s Sea during the present fishery season. You
expressed the regret of the President that ‘his considerate and most friendly pro-
posal for the adjustment of all trouble connected with the Behring’s Sea should be
so promptly rejected.”

I have this day transmitted a copy of your note to Lord Salisbury, and, pending
further instructions, I will abstain from pursuing the discession on the various
points with which it deals, especially as the views of Her Majesty’s Government
on the main questions involved are stated with great precision in Lord Salisbury’s
despatch of the 22nd May, which I had the honour to read to you yesterday, and
of which, in accordance with your desire, I left a copy in your hands.

I would only observe that, as regards the sufficiency or insufficiency of the radius
of 10 miles around the rookeries ‘‘ within which Her Majesty’s Government propose
that sealers should be excluded,” no opportunity was afforded me of discussing the
question before the proposals of Her Majesty’s Government were summarily rejected.

I may mention also that I fear there has been some misapprehension as regards a
request which you appear to have understood me to make respecting the date of the

sailing of United States Revenue cutters for Behring’s Sea. I have no recollection
ot havi ing made any suggestion with reference to those Revenue cutters, except that
their Commanders should receive explicit instructions not to apply the Municipal
Law of the United States to British vessels in Behring’s Sea outside of territorial
waters.
I have, &e.
(Signed) J. PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 364.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 18.)

DOWNING STREET, June 17, 1890.

Str: Lam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of the Annual Report
for 1889 of the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

I am to eall attention to the Keport on the fur-seal fishery.

Tam, &e.

(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.
487 [Inclosure in No. 364.]

Letract from the Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries, Dominion of Canada, for
the calendar year 1889.

MARINE FURS.

The Returns show an increase in the catch this season of 5,587 fur-sealskins, and
twenty-five sea-otters. There were 1,922 more sealskins taken on the coast by our
vessels than in 1888, and 2,558 more by foreigners, who sold their catches in Victoria.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 539
The following Table shows the detailed catch of the sealing fleet for this season:

Return showing the Number of Vessels, Boats, and Men engaged in the Marine Fur Fishery
of British Columbia, with the Products and Values, for the Season of 1889.

a picts Gia Tas
Selassie citl (ese ke
ea PrP | ecipexeeal | ecto at
Ol ace ol and: i bee ad SES
Name of Vessel. Name of Owner. 2 o Cores esos tal cee th ens
& ® 8 O58 Cres An
eS 2 2 as a a o
q EI 5 See) 4) ae EI =
>) 2] S BIS) eS -Q RS) a
a A A | an D a >
Path find ef ee --\-ise=~ = =1- Carne and Munsie..-.--.- 66 6 24 942 48 990 | $9, 900
MANE sace se aretnanooeas fs Ge Sneddec 92 6 22 | 1,481 | 2,182 | 3,663] 386,630
Mary Taylor: ...-2-.-.- te Settee = 42 11 25 WAS rece alate 748 7, 480
JUNE) oso coeqsnoaeooe Babbington and Co..... 63 u 23 482 828 | 1.310] 13, 100
Annie C. Moore.....--- CyHacketimeeas--eeeeee 213 of 23 802 } 1,318 | 2,120} 21,200
1 Wogeinoaaets Saneem anes Morris Moss.......-..-- 70 18 41 500 532 1,032} 10,320
IRenelopeieassoeeisicicel=iac Oe 70 6 21 384 | 1,769] 2,180] 21,800
lori? gas oee aoneposondode os - 68 13 26 280 74 354 3, 540
NAPPHILG= =a ecm ce =< ne eB: Marva alee alee! 123 25 52} 1,364] 1,626] 2,990] 20,900
PACNOR Dips sees e/aiyy= sielaiale Adolph Wasburg...---- 41 13 38 SIGE Seca 816 8, 160
uanit wee sss6asest 5 Hall and Goepel..-.-.-...- 40 13 29 135 29 164 1, 640
CANT: Clip oereeisisis vem wiocy-t' == E. W. Bucknam........ 90 6 22 934 | 1,400] 2,334 | 23,340
IKi\eSoasone ace eee sae ChassS pring ice mescaase= 58 10 24 624 800 | 1,424] 14, 240
MA VOTUGG) ssa ennieisl~ at = ig OO) aloe cbtcacos 79 10 25 340 | 1,764] 2,104] 21,040
Maggie Mack........-. Se WOdGee rk nee Shee eee 70 6 25 777 | 1,290! 2,067! 20,670
Wi. 2. Sayward .---.--. dig 10), Vii kates soc oose 59 12 29 557 | 1,643 |} 2,200} 22,000
Mi ese es scinisle'= Victor Jacobsen .-.-.--.- 46 10 21 200 500 700 7, 000
Mountain Chief.-....-.-. a LGie SS SnoncoS 26 5 13 LO | raya joretal=t= 210 2, 100
Winltdereress ss — sce area 1s (JEP RIO bs oocancedosced 15 6 15 IIS) acenbase 178 1,780
Black Diamond --.....- IMERMOSSicmemc oetee ones 81 12 29 629 55 684 6, 840
Beatriceyeseas- 2). =i \iifitns (Care see eocssce 67 7 22 500 700 | 1,200} 12,000
Sierra eects a sees | a laiiewinwiasiey=ierysisinitetcieisi=r 10 2 5 eo) Aoea doe 80 800
ViVi 8a aga obo sboadedd| boacaepoobadcessuoGHebosod 10 2 5 P74 Ne oseaniae 22 220
1,499 | 213 559 | 12,985 | 16,585 | 29,570 | 295, 700
Sea-otter caught by sealing fleet, 15, at 100 dollars each............--.--..------.-----|.--.---- 1,500
Hgtimateror seals purchased! fromuIndiane rt <1. oo. insnlsinciety ese ales aiee wieinieje eee miele aie 4,000 | 40,000
os sea-otter purchased from Indians, 100, at 100 dollars each...............|..-...-- 10, 600
ae WRITS ala Ti OOO). Sessa = Kise wie oe sla ciate sioate ais; ~ am heetete cla Salado store idl ne rwle win staid ath | aaerere 2, 625
Grand! totaliby (Canadian! vessels: jeccsereclsia siecle wis eis laie ainie ainisie cinemas nicielcetwicinisle -.s- 33, 570 | 349, 825

488 Fur-Seals caught by Foreign Vessels and disposed of in Victoria, British Columbia.

suber of Number of
cau Sat on Seals Total Total
Name of Vessel. a etigh | caught in | Numberof| yatue
Galanin Pons 3 Seals.
coast.
Wialtenpi seule Wise m aeepeitscepewe eeialse ena = American. . de te fel eras eerie 1, 419 $14, 190
siiind DaGy{ty 5 Sobonoeeentonssooaseecqdacnce Se Gt) BSaadanennae 69 690
PREG WAS se cjeaicee aeeoeeieieelins ec ne nei ele ne DAO om cee sees 242 2, 420
VIET UUTO cee set ee ee re eer eres atin Wy BUM acts soceess 317 3,170
Allie S. Alger. ....- o OO | te ce since 253 2, 530
Harry Dinnes gf 18 700 718 7, 180
Lottie ...... EOC Sate ei eterna reteietetalsl ets bite he le Gensrease see 625 625 6, 250
Mollie Adams SOY | wise ate seslere) 1, 553 ib iB} 15, 430
BessiemRultersss --osenasss3secsee eee =n ELD A Slbecnkecseces 525 525 5, 250
/AGVSIG) Go SSS OCHOOLO CON Gee ES OES opened German... 240 1, 467 OR 17, 070
Totalibyttoreieners 422242 ces oe ecer sossie soeclece 2, 558 4, 870 7,428 74, 280

It will thus be seen that there are more vessels in the trade than last year. This
was on account of an anticipated settlement of the Behring’s Sea question. The
vessels had been previously purchased on the Atlantic coast for the purpose of
prosecuting this trade in Behring’s Sea, but when they reached this coast and found
the question was still unsettied, they paid more attention to hunting on the coast.

540 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 365.

Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received June 20.)

ADMIRALTY, June 19, 1890.

Str: Iam commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit, for the perusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, copies of two letters from Captain Hulton, of her Majesty’s
ship ‘* Amphion,” respecting the Behring’s Sea fishery.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 365.—Extract.]
Captain Hulton to Admiralty.

‘““ AMPHION,” AT ESQUIMALT, May 28, 1890.

With reference to your recent telegrams to hasten the repairs of Her Majesty’s
ship ‘‘ Aimphion,” if possible, she being very much required, and your inquiries as
to the movemeuts of the sealing fleet to Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to supple-
ment my telegraphic replies as follows: :

Tinclose herewith a list of the sailing-schooners cleared from Victoria for this
season’s fishing, and about to clear, furnished me by the Lieutenant-Governor, his
Honour Hugh Nelson, in reply to my letter of which a copy is attached.

The sealing fleet have just about finished their coast catching, moving slowly up
from the Californian coast, and are now midway between Clayaquot Sound and the
southernmost of the Shumagan Islands.

The vessels mostly cleared in February and March, and few of them return till
the autumn unless in distress of some sort, owing to difficulties with their crews,
with drunkenness and desertion. One or two vessels communicate with them from
time to time, bringing back the catches of skins, &c.

As they work north they replenish at a sealing store in Clayaquot Sound, and by
the end of June they have all assembled in the Shumagan Islands, and are mostly
to be found in North-East Harbour, on the southernmost but one of the islands of
that group.

A second point at which the vessels are then to be found is at Sand Point, about
50’ to the northward of North-East Harbour, where the vessels beach to clean and

repair, revictual and water.
489 A third harbour which they use, a little north of Sand Point, is Falmouth
Harbour,but it is smaller, and not so much frequented.

About the 20th June a small vessel (probably a small steam-tug) will go up to the
above rendezvous with letters, &c., and to receive skins; she would arrive there
about the 27th or 28th June, and the schooners would again weigh and get amongst
the seals, working their way to the passes, principally the Unimak and the 72nd Pass,
as it is called (172° west longitude). ‘These passes the vessels all go through between
the Ist and 10th July.

The time the vessels are in the Behring’s Sea is from the 1st or 10th July to about
the 15th or 30th September, though, if a vessel is lucky, she has frequently left by
the latter half of August, not to return again that season,

{Inclosure 2 in No. 365.]
Captain Hulton to Licutenant-Governor Nelson.

“AMPHION,” AT ESQUIMALT, May 28, 1890.

Str: I have the honour to request that you will be good enough to instruct the
Collector of Customs to furnish me as quickly as possible with a detailed list of the
sealing-vessels owned by British subjects that have been cleared for the north (pre-
sumably for Behring’s Sea) for this summer’s sealing.

On the list, I am anxious to have shown me the tonnage and rig of the vessels,
names of the captains, numbers of their crews, and the names and addresses of their
owners; and I further request that the Collector of Customs may be directed to give
me every assistance in getting the fullest information possible.

I have, &e.
(Signed) E. Grey HULTON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

541

. [Inclosure 3 in No. 365.]

| SPECIAL MEMORANDUM FOR LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR NELSON,
Sealing Vessels cleared for Behring’s Sea.

4

No. Schooner. Master. Tons. | Crew.

1 | Juanita, now Mascot...-.---..-.-- Ws OlSeteaiascce's cise wele ences See aceeis Sain 40 4
Pie blAciceDramon G NO ws caAthlarin.Ce-2|) laps IW bats cere Se ae olina oisresis cone cis aires 81 5
3 | Mollie Adams, now E. B. Marvin..| R. E. MecKeill..-.......-. Be Nee conte. 118 23
AM MNVULTODE ALOIS stein c cleloe eee as oe EES LOWieU seas ae stee sia oes a etee atte ate 76 23
|) Oxkeewinl 13x See Seconse5espesoore iio (Os bene: BUR SReeaHs bococe neecoroeceose 86 23
Op MVONGUT Ops eter sate a ceinecicineane See eMC God eae ees cee vee sein s See ecienese: 48 4
TD AR RESP EG eenoosa ae osconecues (Gig Dey Ieayye Sadek boebon sae dos qoodeerarcse 60 7
(3 || Slain IbronSsare Saooosscusceaseodcane 1G WIRE: Goadbugsnoesce SSsSuSKOoSABeBe 50 24
2) GREET ONS Cae Secees ce ron saccssenOoe (Os Cie sais a svecdbodsoscobes sessenesebanes- 98 20
T)y) | MW iRyeraiiay 1 aXe eeoocessemeeeusoosEae |) davaie a (Bie GaSe choos eacse sou pconseoooo. 71 21
iit || ISIN) 9 oe Peesaocoaseonqeacqooece. Wit Jit ODS Citas ee eee et eee nea 46 10
1) Shay Obie So Shs aa ado oseaseescaoees MWS (GOSS se deo se eset esosesunscescossscdgcse- 126 9
1G || Way Athy Week od Gaceecaaacseonoe DO AVC OP OLUPSanialsiteae swiss se sin's <enissie sit 43 3
TV) IH! one oode = se esos aoa aSeonesebors Gere oral ds eee eeeesse cease eee 69 6
SMRAUI ROTA ests serie eieloye's) cnenisicle ates TH EL ATO LG ioe segs atcecine ne acm bine ecine sins 41 4
13") Jetenella) ope peoecnOncoea SESS sone ASC WOM BR uae s\stalanrale laisse aiaaisinic(ae onesies 41 20
T7( 4) AUGER G S45 5 Seppe c a one Anoop cn ae DOMMES LEGIO Seto a atseicraaarctel efor levelas nisersis ate 63 23
LS ital ay OPIDO sects ss alae iare c ctetsrcisis = stole Tie MiCiseamyrn soto soecinclein etsicis=slaiesicicise cess 64 6
LOW VON eee ae eterna a scleieie Seis oieacs DV eat sa @ Meyers soe s riots olslsic seeremies ais 92 23
AN |) Mira MGT Ss co esrece Sacodencre JO hele Gin NE a3 -peganenn Se nonbone coeesonpEce 63 27
ZleeMoribaia oleh. : 2 e102 << <)> sms James Newassum (Indian)...............- 23 5
DORON A S72 oes cre Aalsiqaieeeoceicic eerais Thos. Cheetmatlet (Indian) ............... 2. 5
on MON serecae acess cae aaa ceciee OBhomas)=22et sss see oo ee wee eee eciieh cows 58 5
Bite VIREO OTOR= a cjeseisc\aisiaee oe acter imoios EL yale ALOT cretersielelsiea aaa aeiete eterelseiel stele oiaieioiae 26 | About to
clear.
The before-mentioned all of Victoria Registry.

490 These last-mentioned of Registry at Ports named:

No. Schooner. Master. Tons. | Crew.
ZonliwAnmieiC. Moore: i sccecece sd esice'se C. Hackett, of Shelbourne, Nova Scotia... 117 | 22
Boy} Ai eo aS S ee oo ne beeeseneanoobes John Reilly, of St. John’s, Newfoundland. 90 | 7
27 | C. H. Tupper C.S. Kelly 99 9
Rt} | MEST CEpSaecs sper meoopasccomaesee CUINC OL Ogee memereiesls elecc aiele sjeis\sepae eine eicte =a7s eceree | 5

;
Of Shanghae, but of British Registry:
Mol Carmealitien Mec 52252522 sedecann'e- Is overdue from Halifax. Particulars not as yet obtainable.
The following of Foreign Registry:
80) Adele; (German, registered at | G. W.O; Hansen..<...s0ccc.cccccccecsccne 50 5

Shanghae.

And some five vessels of United States sealing-schooners that make this their port
of departure,

(Signed) A. It. MILnu, Collector of Customs.

542 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 365.]

Further Memorandum in re Sealers for Captain Hulton.

No. Schooner.
inl dinanitar now MASCOU. -.cceec cee me sneer John KONSMAN sce voes aeeiee cee 64 shares.
2 | Black Diamond, now Katharine.....--- Dob Aeee ANN Vee ces cease ae Ditto.
3 | Mollie Adams, now E. B. Marvin..-..--- Aina ee Cs eee Seon oee ao ssose Managing owner.
4 | Pathfinder, now Pioncer.-......--..---.. William: Munsie|jssc<---22--0-5 oe. Distos at ee
Pomel her liv kULC Mera atate me ola imino am mest Charles N. Cameron ......----.--- Ditto.
Gn eOcean Bell Gesanacm= sess enone meine UG eng ait ae esos osodnor Ditto.
Fal MVONULe eee ckaee teste cseene eeaeee mee Donald Umgthartess ose ee eo ee Ditto.
|| MBI SISE) ait BSS ae ep oonctpecescesods> ANOLE Walia Pn cenaeone = eee eee Ree Ditto.
i) i) Biche Gh Ne Ses een oceccrcancosodas sercco cae Georre Collims sens asmacsicesec= oe 64 shares.
it), || SSeivinye We seeaRsodadescescoctsee sec oslnes SOD Cray OO rte ee eel ee ae eee Managing owner.
TUS) WEY area 74 Ye) ea okinemosnocesosbod cae Tey na DTG er panstecsoacaacaso35 Ditto.
124 ono bbohetle ee sap en ook oS Osc sodade Sood) Wed os(eiljec an se poosdaseusosscas 64 shares.
118) |) Sha aby soereooseooeooseoos 4] Boia (Ces Clr sor jcossberassssecos5< Managing owner.
4s Mair y, avon: soem esas Wailliame Momsen sence acieeta Ditto.
1155|| UB 3 gaeanpos esos soceocsooscasdas Jecinat RY FOIA CODSON eee clea amen a Ditto.
TG |) AOE Sopenodossooncnnorocdsesdhosdenood SAGES CLS eeeasis (nna eer Ditto.
1G | Wetenvaly eeeencoooceosonoobEEsAstsmochode IMOrnistMlOssera-samiacs nse sieee ee Ditto.
i3})|| SUN WESE op sosenocesoscaboseoscocdsostete PAS BADDINGtOne sen sees eee Ditto.
TG) |) AREA ee pbaoriaoeoobonosccbo= censseroocas Charles}Sprine2s-masesneee seenaeae 64 shares.
A) || Wa iAaedbaosoonconencononedoscosesecns Wallisomy Mun Sie) semester Managing owner.
21 | Mary Allen......-2.-.- 22 se oso e nena. Wave WIGS S53— 45 50nqne s5esenccse 64 shares.
OFA Mountain! ©hiOfas acess aaisesassseatsr James Newassum......-..-------- Managing owner.
Dan SLOLT ase ese iacisem sa eeee er aeacise = aaeter arses Thos. Cheetmatlet ......-......-.. Ditto.
DA WRAGO Sai oie e ea « cieimivin =lnls\=/o\einivlnt=ininlel=iniminim i=in Charles!SprnGesssesse sae ace eee 64 shares.
ay |) MUG Soo Sosa ssnasbecHecsdooceseosas 15 yd 8225. 410) le Seeman someonSCDases Managing owner.
26 | Annie C. Moore Not recorded in Victoria, B.C.
ON IM ISARG Sa onsnoon appl aSonso: Ditto.
28 | C. H. Tupper Ditto
21))| eG Eh BCC ide Repo obese soos soso soos=c Ditto.
AAU) | MCE DI) SS coma gcosadsssccdemesssecnese Ditto.
Bul || ZAKI Cp aanconesdbccdoosnbaseséne Sooddod A German vessel, registered in Shanghae.

The five United States sealers mentioned in List No. 1 are, of course, not of record
at Victoria, B. C.

Nore.—The address of all the above-mentioned owners is Victoria, B. C., with the
exception of John L. Penny, of the schooner ‘‘ Katharine,” whose address is Claya-
quot Sound, B. C., via Victoria, B. C.

(Signed) A. R. MILNE,
Collector of Customs and Registrar of Shipping.

491 No. 366.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J, Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 20, 1890.

Sir: [have to acknowledge your despatch of the 30th ultimo, inclos-
ing copy of a note from Mr. Blaine, dated the 29th ultimo.

It contains several references to communications which passed be-
tween the two Governments in the time of Mr. Blaine’s predecessor,
especially in the spring of 1888. Without referring at present to other
portions of Mr. Blaine’s note, I wish only now to point out some error
in the impressions which he has gathered from the records in his office
with respect to those communications. He states that on the 23rd April
of that year I informed the American Chargé d’Affaires, Mr. White,
that it was proposed to give effect to a Seal Convention by Order in
Council, not by Act of Parliament. This was a mistake. It was very
natural that Mr. White should not have apprehended me correctly

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 543

when I was describing the somewhat complicated arrangements by
which Agreements of this kind are brought into force in England. But
two or three days after the 23rd April he called to make inquiry on the
subject, and, in reply to his question, the following letter was addressed
to him by my instructions:
FOREIGN OFFicE, April 27, 1888.
My Drar WuiteE: Lord Salisbury desires me to express his regret that he is not
yet in a position to make any further communication to you on the subject of the
seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea. After his interview with you and M. de Staal he had
to refer to the Canadian Government, the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty, but
has as yet only obtained the opinion of the Admiralty. The next step is to bring a
Bill into Parliament.
Yours, &c.
(Signed) Eric BARRINGTON.

On the 28th Mr. White replied:

LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATEs,
London, April 28, 1888.

My Dear BARRINGTON: Thanks for your note, respecting the final sentence of
which, ‘‘ The next step is to bring a Bill into Parliament,” I must trouble you with
a line.

I understood Lord Salisbury to say when I saw him with M.de Staal, and again
last week alone, that it is now proposed to give effect to the Conventional arrange-
ment for the protection of seals by an Order in Council, not by Act of Parliament.

When Mr. Phelps left, the latter was thought necessary, and last week I received a
telegram from the Secretary of State, asking me obtain confidentially a copy of the
proposed Act of Parliament, with a view to assimilating our contemplated Act of
Congress thereto. I replied, after seeing Lord Salisbury last Saturday, that there
would be no Bill introduced in Parliament, bat an Order in Council.

May I ask if this be now incorrect, as, in that event, I should particularly like to
correct my former statement by this day’s mail.

To this the following reply was on the same date addressed to Mr.
White:
: FOREIGN OFFICE, April 28, 1888.

My Dear Waite: Lord Salisbury is afraid that he did not make himself under-
stood when last he spoke to you about the Seal Fisheries Convention.

An Act of Parliament is necessary to give power to our authorities to act on the
provisions of the Convention when itis signed. The Order in Council will be merely
he machinery which the Act will provide for the purpose of bringing its provisions
into force. The object of this machinery is to enable the Government to wait till
the other two Powers are ready. But neither Convention nor Bill is drafted yet,
because we have not got the opinions from Canada which are necessary to enable us
to proceed.

Yours, &e.
(Signed) Eric BARRINGTON.

It is evident from this correspondence that if the United States
Government was misled upon the 25rd April into the belief that Her
Majesty’s Government could proceed in the matter without an
492. Actof Parliament, or could proceed without previous reference
to Canada, it was a mistake which must have been entirely dissi-

pated by the correspondence which followed in the ensuing week.

Mr. Blaine is also under a misconception in imagining that I ever
gave any verbal assurance, or any promise of any kind, with respect
to the terms of the projected Convention. Her Majesty’s Government
always have been, and are still, anxious for the arrangement of a Con-
vention which shall provide whatever close time in whatever localities
is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species. But I have
always represented that the details must be the subject of discussion,
a discussion to which those who are locally interested must of necessity
contribute, I find the record of the following conversation about the
date to which Mr. Blaine refers:

544 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

FOREIGN Orrick, March 17, 1888.

Sin: Since furwarding to you my despatch of the 22nd ultimo, I have been in
communication with the Russian Ambassador at this Court, and have invited his
Excellency to ascertain whether his Government would authorize him to discuss
with Mr. Phelps and myself the suggestion made by Mr. Bayard in his despatch of
the 7th February, that concerted action should be taken by the United States, Great
Britain, and other interested Powers, in order to preserve from extermination the
fur-seals which at certain seasons are found in Behring’s Sea.

Copies of the correspondence on this question which has passed between M. de
Staal and myself is inclosed herewith.

{ request that you will inform Mr. Bayard of the steps which have been taken,
with a view to the initiation of negotiations for an Agreement between the three
Powers principally concerned in the maintenance of the seal fisheries. But in so
doing, you should state that this action, on the part of Her Majesty’s Government,
must not be taken as an admission of the rights of jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea
exercised there by the United States authorities during the fishing seasons of 1886-87
and 1887-88, nor as affecting the claims which Her Majesty’s Government will have
to present on account of the wrongful seizures which have taken place of British
vessels engaged in the seal fishing industry.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

In pursuance of this despatch, the suggestion made by Mr. Bayard
to which I referred was discussed, and negotiations were initiated for
an Agreement between the three Powers. The following despatch con-
tains the record of what I believe was the first meeting between the
Representatives of the three Powers upon the subject:

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

_ ForeIGN OFFICE, April 16, 1888.

Str: The Russian Ambassador and the United States Chargé d’A ffaires called upon
me this afternoon to discuss the question of the seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, which
had been brought into prominence by the recent action of the United States.

The United States Government had expressed a desire that some Agreement should
be arrived at between the three Governments for the purpose of probibiting the
slaughter of the seals during the time of breeding; and, at my request, M. de Staal
had obtained instructions from his Government on that question.

At this preliminary discussion it was decided provisionally, in order to furnish a
basis for negotiation, and without definitively pledging our Governments, that the space
to be covered by the proposed Convention should be the sea between America and
Russia north of the 47th degree of latitude; that the close time should extend from
the 15th April to the Ist November; that during that time the slaughter of all seals
should be forbidden, and vessels engaged in it should be liable to seizure by the
cruizers of any of the three Powers, and should be taken to the port of their own
nationality for condemnation; that the traffic in arms, alcohol, and powder should
be prohibited in all the islands of those seas; and that, as soon as the three Powers
had concluded a Convention, they should join in submitting it for the assent of the
other Maritime Powers of the Northern Seas.

The United States Chargé d’Affaires was exceedingly earnest in pressing on us

the importance of dispatch on account of the inconceivable slaughter that had
493 been, and was still, going on in these seas. He stated that in addition to the
vast quantity brought to market, it was a common practice for those engaged
in the trade to shoot all seals they might meet in the open sea, and that of these a
great number sank, so that their skins could not be recovered.
Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

It was impossible to state more distinctly that any proposal made
was provisional, and was merely made for the purpose of enabling the
requisite negotiations to proceed. The subsequent discussion of these
proposals was undoubtedly delayed in consequence of the length of
time occupied by the Canadian Government in collecting from cousid-
erable distances the information which they required before their opin-
ion on the subject could be thoroughly formed, and after that it was

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 545

delaved, I believe, chiefly in consequence of the political events in the
United States unconnected with this question. I think it desirable to
correct the misconceptions which have arisen with respect to these
transactions; though Ido not think that, even if the view of them
which is taken by Mr. Blaine is accurate, they would bear out the argu-
ment which he founds upon them.

I shall be glad if you will take the opportunity of informing Mr,
Blaine of these corrections.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 367.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 20, 1890.
Str: [have received your despatch of the 3rd instant, and I approve
the note which you addressed to Mr. Blaine in reply to his inquiry
whether Her Majesty’s Government would consent to “make for a single
season the Regulation,” as to the killing of seals in Behring’s Sea,
‘which in 1888 they offered to make permanent.”
Tam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No, 368,
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received June 21.)
[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 21, 1890.

I have the honour to report to your Lordship that a telegram is pub-
lished in the “Washington Post” newspaper of to-day, dated Port
Townsend, in Washington State, 20th June, stating that the Revenue
cutter ‘‘Corwin” arrived there on the 18th on its way to Behring’s Sea,
and will await further orders. In the same telegram it is stated that
the “Rush” is at Seattle,in Washington State, and is awaiting orders
at that port.

No. 369.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 21, 1890.

Sim: Lapprove the reply, inclosed in your despatch of the 6th instant,
which you returned to Mr. Blaine’s note of the 4th instant, in regard
to the proposed exclusion of British sealing-vessels from Behring’s Sea
during the present season.

It is unnecessary, in view of the observations contained in my
despatch of the 20th instant, that I should discuss at any length the
circumstances which led to an interruption of the negotiations in 1888,

Biss BE 30

546 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

With regard, however, to Mr. Blaine’s remarks that in 1888 [had
494 abruptly closed the negotiations because ‘ the Canadian Govern-
ment objected,” and that “I assigned no other reason whatever,”
L should wish you to call Mr. Blaine’s attention to the statement of
Mr. Phelps recorded in my despatch to Sir L. West of the 3rd April,
1888, that “under the peculiar political circumstances of America at
this moment, with a general election impending, it would be of little
use, and, indeed, hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its
issue before the election had taken place.”
lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 370.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Murquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 24.)

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1890,

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of to-day, I have the
honour to inclose herewith copy of a Memorandum which I gave to
Mr. Blaine at our interview of yesterday on the subject of the inability
of Her Majesty’s Government to exclude British vessels from the high
seas without legislative sanction.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 3870.)
Memorandum.

Lord Salisbury regrets that the President of the United States should think him
wanting in conciliation, but his Lordship cannot refrain from thinking that the
President does not appreciate the difficulty arising from the law of England.

It is entirely beyond the power of Her Majesty’s Government to exclude British or
Canadian ships from any portion of the high seas, even for an hour, without legisla-
tive sanction.

Her Majesty’s Government have always been willing, without pledging themselves
to details on the questions of area and date, to carry on negotiations, hoping thereby
to come to some arrangement for such a close season as is necessary in order to pre-
serve the seal species from extinction, but the provisions of such an arrangement
would always re juire legislative sanction, so that the measures thereby determined
may be enforced.

Lord Salisbury does not recognize the expressions attributed to him. He does not
think that he can have used them, at all events in the context mentioned,

No. 371.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 25.)
{Telegraphie. ]
- WASHINGTON, June 25, 1890.
Although I have not yet received the Secretary of State’s promised
reply to your Lordsliip’s despatch of the 22nd ultimo, and though he
refuses to proceed with the negotiations until that reply is delivered,
I am informed that he has announced his intention of leaving for the
north in the course of next week.

i la ae sll

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 547

I therefore venture to suggest that I may be authorized to address
at once to Mr, Blaine an official note, replying to the President’s inquiry,
in the sense of your Lordship’s telegram of the 12th instant, viz., that
the issue of a Proclamation as proposed by the President involves dif-
ficulties of a Constitutional nature, and Her Majesty’s Government
could only consent to issue it as part of a general settlement, and on the
three conditions named below:

1. That the question of the legal right of the United States Govern-
ment to interfere with British sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea be sub-
initted to arbitration.

2. That, pending the result of the arbitration, the United States
Government cease all interference with British sealers outside of terri-

torial waters.
495 3. That, if the result of the arbitration be adverse to the
United States Government, British subjects be compensated, not
only for past interference, but also for all losses ensuing from their
compliance with the Proclamation.

No. 372.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 26.)
[Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, June 25, 1890.

With reference to previous correspondence, 1 am directed by Lord
Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salis-
bury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, for-
warding an approved Minute of his Privy Council recommending that
xn assurance should be sought from the United States that no attempt
will be made to interfere with British vessels in Behring’s Sea during
the present season.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 372.

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

Tne CIrraDEL, Quebec, June 12, 1890.
5 v ’ ,

My Lorp: With reference to previous correspondence on the subject of the seizures
of Canadian sealing-vessels in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to forward herewith
a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, embodying a Report of the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

The Minister forcibly presents the grievance sustained by Canadian subjects in the
course pursued by the United States authorities in regard to this matter, and, in view
of the fact that another sealing season has opened without any intimation of a with-
drawal, on the part of the United States, of their extraordinary claim to jurisdiction
over the waters of the open sea, he recommends that an assurance be sought from
the United State: Government by Her Majesty’s Government that the claim to
jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit will be no longer insisted on.

Ihave, &¢,
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

548 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 372.]

Leport of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 7th Ture, 1890.

On a Report, dated the 6th June, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
expressing regret that it again becomes necessary to call the attention of your Excel-
lency to the long period which has elapsed since the illegal seizures of British sealing-
vessels by United States Revenue cutters occurred, and to the annual continuance
of this molestation.

The Minister desires to remind your Excellency that the attention of the Imperial
authorities has frequently been called to all the facts and circumstances connected
with the different seizures which have occurred since 1885, and to observe that, not-
withstanding the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the absence of any
justification on the part of the United States authorities for the acts complained of,
and despite the protests of the British Government which were presented to the
Government of the United States, the great wrongs to British subjects go unre-
dressed. The Minister would especially point out “that as yet there has been no
withdrawal on the part of the United States authorities of the assertion of their
right to prevent subjects of Her Majesty from engaging in hunting seals in the deep
waters of Bebhring’s Sea.

The Minister observes that intense embarrassment and financial loss has been
experienced in connection with the prosecution of this pursuit, due not only to
actual arrests and molestation, but to intimidation caused by the attitude assumed

on the part of the United States, ever since the year 1885, as regards the right
496 of sealing in Behring’s Sea. As evidence of the strong desire on the part of

your Excellency’ s advisers to cordially co-operate with the Imperial authori-
ties in reaching, if possible, a friendly settlement, the Minister recalls the fact that
upon the urgent request of Her Majesty’s Government, the Government of Canada
agreed to a discussion of the question of a close season for fur-seals in the Beh-
ring’s Sea, notwithstanding the perpetration of the gross wrongs and injuries com-
plained of by Canada, and in the absence of any definite assurance or offer of redress.

The Minister desires to refer to the Minute of Council approved on the 13th day
of March last, dealing at length with a note from the Honourable Mr. Blaine, Secre-
tary of State for the United ‘States, communicating the reply of the United States
Government to a protest by Mr. Edwardes, on the part of the Imperial Government,
in October last, against the seizure in 1889 ‘of Canadian vessels. After dealing very
fully with the question, the Minute went on to say:

““Knowing the desire of both Her Majesty’s Government and the Canadian people
to maintain as friendly relations as possible with the people of the United States,
the Minister recommends that Her Majesty’s Government be informed that your
Excellency’s advisers are prepared to discuss any proposed international arrange-
ment for the proper protection of the fur-seal, but that before such an inquiry
is completed they expect that the question raised by the seizures of Canadian ves-
sels in the Behring’s Sea shall be settled according to the law of nations, and that
the claims for indemnity now in the hands of Her Majesty’s Government shall be
fully satisfied.”

The Minister further observes that while negotiations are in progress touching the
question of a close season, another sealing season has begun without any intimation
of a withdrawal on the part of the United States of their extraordinary claim to
jurisdiction over the waters of the open sea, nor has any indemnification been made
or assured to the subjects of Her Majesty who have suffered loss from the illegal acts
on the part of the United States authorities. Indeed, it is currently reported in the
press of the United States and elsewhere that tne United States Revenue entters will
this year continue to interfere with and harass British sealers when in Behring’s Sea.

The Minister is of opinion that it is at least due to Her Majesty’s subjects inter-
ested in this branch of industry to have authentic knowledge of the actual position to
be taken in connection with Behring’s Sea during the coming season by the authori-
ties of the United States, and he, therefore, recommends that Her Majesty’ 8 Govern-
ment be urged to obtain an immediate assurance that the claim to jurisdiction or
authority over sealing-vessels when beyond the 3-mile territorial limit in Behring’s
Sea will be no longer insisted upon.

The Committee, concurring in the aboye Report of the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, recommend that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Min-
ute to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The Committee further advise that a copy hereof be also forwarded to the High
Commissioner for Canada in London, with instruetions to him to personally press
upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies the urgent necessity for obtaining from
the Government of the United States satisfactory assurances upon this subje et.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 549

No. 573.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
| Telegraphic. |

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 26, 1890.

The proposal made in your telegram of yesterday has my entire
concurrence.

497 No. 374.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Substance telegraphed,
July 3.)

WASHINGTON, July 1, 1890.

My Lorp: [ have the honour to transmit a copy of a note which I
received yesterday evening from Mr, Blaine, in answer to your Lord-
ship’s despatch of the 22nd May, of which I left a copy in his hands on
the 5th ultimo.

In this note Mr. Blaine endeavours to show that the negotiations
which preceded the conclusion of the Treaty of 1824 between the United
States and Russia, and the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and
Ttussia, had, so far as respects maritime jurisdiction, no reference what-
ever to the Behring’s Sea, but only to the Pacifie Ocean south of the
Aleutian Islands, and, therefore, that the United States Government
have not laid themselves open to the charge of asserting rights in the
Behring’s Sea which they disputed as against Russia, before the cession
of Alaska to the United States in 1867.

While repudiating any claim to the Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum,
Mr. Blaine insists that the claim of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction
within 100 miles from land was not disputed as regards the Behring’s
Sea, but, on the contrary, was acquiesced in both by Great Britain and
the United States at the time of the Treaties above referred to, and
that it is only since the rights of Russia in Alaska and the Behring’s
Sea passed to the United States by purchase in 1867 that Great Britain
has sought to challenge rights which she respected when Alaska was a
Russian province.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 374.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 30, 1890.

Sir: On the 5th instant you read to me a despatch from Lord Salisbury, dated the
22nd May, and by his instruction you left with me a copy. His Lordship writes in
answer to my despatch of the 22nd January last. At that time, writing to yourself
touching the current contention between the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain as to the jurisdiction of the former over the waters of the Behring’s
Sea, I made the following statement:

“The Government of the United States has no oceasion and no desire to withdraw
or modify the positions which it has at any time maintained against the claims of
the Imperial Government of Russia. The United States will not withhold from any
nation the privileges which it demanded for itself when Alaska was part of the
Russian Empire. Nor is the Government of the United States disposed to exercise

550 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

any less power or authority than it was willing to concede to the Imperial Govern-
ment of Russia when its sovereignty extended over the territory in question. ‘The
President is persuaded that all friendly nations will concede to the United States the
same rights and privileges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which the same
friendly nations always conceded to the Empire of Russia.”

In answer to this declaration, Lord Salisbury contends that Mr. John Quincy
Adams, when Secretary of State under President Monroe, protested against the
jurisdiction which Russia claimed over the waters of the Behring’s Sea. To main-
tain this position his Lordship cites the words of a despatch of Mr. Adams, written
on the 23rd July, 1823, to Mr. Henry Middleton, at that time our Minister at St.
Petersburgh. ‘he alleged declarations and admissions of Mr. Adams in that des-
patch have been the basis of all the arguments which Her Majesty’s Government
have submitted against the ownership of certain properties in the Behring’s Sea
which the Government of the United States confidently assumes. I quote the por-
tion of Lord Salisbury’s argument which includes the quotation from Mr. Adams:

“After Russia, at the instance of the Russian American Fur Company, claimed in
1821 the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing from Behring’s Straits to the
dist degree of north latitude, and not only prohibited all foreign vessels from land-

ing on the coasts and islands of the above waters, but also prevented them
498 from approaching within 100 miles thereof, Mr. Quincy Adams wrote as follows
to the United States Minister in Russia:

“The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation
and fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
thronehonut the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary
exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions.”

The quotation which Lord Salisbury makes is unfortunately a most defective,
erroneous, and misleading one. The conclusion is separated from the premise, a
comma is turned into a period, an important qualification as to time is entirely
erased, without even a suggestion that it had ever formed part of the text, and out
of eighty-four words, logically and inseparably connected, thirty-five are dropped
from Mr. Adams’ paragraph in Lord Salisbury’s quotation. Noedition of Mr. Adams’
work gives authority for his Lordship’s quotation; while the archives of this Depart-
ment plainly disclose its many errors. I requote Lord Salisbury’s version of what
Mr. Adams said, and in juxtaposition produce Mr. Adams’ full text as he wrote it.

Lord Salisbury’s quotation from Mr, Adams.

“The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation
and fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
thronghout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary
exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions.”

Full text of Mr. Adams’ paragraph.

“The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation
and of fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
after the peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject
only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusionsof the territcrial jurisdictions, which,
so far as Russian rights are concerned, are confined to certain islands north of the 55th
degree of latitude, and have no existence on the Continent of America.”

The words in italics are those which are left out of Mr. Adams’ paragraph in the
despatch of Lord Salisbury. They are precisely the words upon which the Govern-
ment of the United States founds its argument in this case. Conclusions or infer-
ences resting upon the paragraph, with the material parts of Mr. Adams’ text
omitted, are of course valueless.

The first object is to ascertain the true meaning of Mr. Adams’ words which were
omitted by Lord Salisbury. ‘Russian rights,” said Mr. Adams, ‘are confined to
certain islands north of the 55th degree of latitude.” The islands referred to are as
easily recognized to-day as when Mr. Adams described their situation sixty-seven
years ago. The best known among them, both under Russian and American juris-
diction, are Sitka and Kadiak, but their whole number is great. If Mr. Adams lit-
erally intended to confine Russian rights to those islands, all the discoveries of Vitus
Behring and other great navigators are brushed away by one sweep of his pen, and
a large chapter of history is but a fable. :

But Mr. Adams goes still further. He declares that ‘‘ Russian rights have no exist-
ence on the Continent of America.” If we take the words of Mr. Adams with their
literal meaning there was no such thing as ‘Russian possessions in America,”
although forty-four years after Mr. Adams wrote these words the United States paid
Russia 7,200,000 dollars for these ‘ possessions,” and all the rights of land and sea
connected therewith.

1 rm

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 551

This construction of Mr. Adams’ language cannot be the true one. It would be
absurd on its face. The title to that far northern territory was secure to Russia as
early as 1741; secure to her against the claims of all other nations; secure to her
thirty-seven years before Captain Cook had sailed into the North Pacific; secure to
her more than half-a-century before the United States had made good her title to
Oregon. Russia was in point of time the first Power in this region by right of dis-
covery. Without immoderate presumption she might have challenged the rights of
others to assume territorial possessions, but no nation had shadow of cause or right
to challenge her title to the vast region of land and water which, before Mr. Adams

was Secretary of State, had become known as the ‘‘ Russian possessions.”
499 Mr. Adams’ meaning was not, therefore, and indeed could not be, what Lord
Salisbury assumed. As against such interpretation, I shall endeavour to call
his Lordship’s attention to what this Government holds to be theindisputable mean-
ing of Mr. Adams’ entire paragraph. ‘To that end a brief review of certain public
transactions and a brief record of certain facts will be necessary.

At the close of the year 1799 the Emperor Paul, by a Ukase, asserted the exclusive
authority of Russia over the territory from the’ Behring’s Strait down to the 55th
degree of north latitude on the American coast, following westward ‘by the Aleu-
tian, Kurile, and other islands,” practically inclosing the Behring’s Sea. To the
Russian American Company, w hich was organized under this Ukase, the Emperor
gave the right ‘“‘to make new discoveries” in that almost unknown region, and ‘to
occupy the new land discovered” as ‘‘ Russian possessions.” ‘The Emperor Was assas-
sinated before any new discoveries were announced; but his successor, the Emperor
Alexander I, inherited the ambition and the purpose of his father, and tw a new Ukase
of the 4th September, 1821, asserted the exclusive authority of Russia from Behring’s
Straits southward to the 51st degree of north latitude on the American coast, pro-
claiming his authority at the same time on the Asiatic coast as far south as the 45th
degree, and forbidding any vessel to approach within 100 miles of land on either
continent. I quote the two sections of the Ukase that contain the order and the
punishment:

“Section 1. The transaction of commerce and the pursuit of whaling and fishing
or any other industry on the islands in the harbours and inlets, and, in general, all
along the north-western coast of America from Behring’s Strait to. the 5ist parallel
of northern latitude, and likewise on the Aleutian Islands and along the eastern
coast of Siberia and on the Kurile Islands, that is from Behring’s Strait to the south-
ern promontory of the Island of Urup, viz., as far south as latitude 45° 50/ north, are
exclusively reserved to subjects of the Russian Empire.

“Section 2. Accordingly, no foreign vessel shall be allowed either to put to shore
at any of the coasts and islands under Russian dominion, as specified in the preced-
ing section, or even to approach the same to within a distance of less than 100 Italian
miles. Any vessel contravening this provision shall be subject to confiscation with
her whole cargo.”

Against this larger claim of authority (viz., extending farther south on the Ameri-
can coast to the 51st degree of north latitude) Mr. Adams vigorously protested. In
a despatch of the 30th March, 1822, to M. Poletica, the Russian Minister at Wash-
ington, Mr. Adams said:

“‘This Ukase now for the first time extends the claim of Russia on the north-west
coast of America to the 51st degree of north latitude.”

And he pointed out to the Russian Minister that the only foundation for the new
pretension of Russia was the existence of a small Settlement, situated, not on the
American Continent, but on a small island in latitude 57°—Novo Archangelsk, now
known as Sitka.

Mr. Adams protested, not against the Ukase of Paul, but against the Ukase of
Alexander; not wholly against the Ukase of Alexander, but only against his extended
claim of sov ereignty southward on the continent to the 5ist degree north latitude.
In short, Mr. Adams protested, not against the old possessions, but against the new
pretensions of Russia on the north-west coast of America—pretensions to territory
claimed by the United States, and frequented by her mariners since the peace of 1783,
a specification of time which is dropped from Lord Salisbury’s quotation from Mr.
Adams, but which Mr. Adams pointedly used to fix the date when the power of the
United States was visibly exercised on the coast of the Pacific Ocean.

The names and phrases at that time in use to describe the geography included
within the area of this dispute are confusing, and, at certain points, apparently con-
tradictory and irreconcilable. Mr. Adams” "denial to Russia of the ownership of
territory on the ‘‘Continent of America” is a fair illustration of this singular con-
tradiction of names and places. In the same way the phrase ‘“north-w est coast”
will be found, beyond all possible doubt, to have been used in two senses: one includ-
ing the north-west coast of the Russian possessions, and one to describe the coast
whose northern limit is the 60th parallel of north latitude.

552 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

It is very plain that Mr. Adams’ phrase ‘the Continent of America,” in his refer-
ence to Russia’s possessions, was used in a territorial sense, and not in a geographical
sense; he was drawing the distinction between the territory of “America” and the
territory of the ‘‘Russian possessions.” Mr. Adams did not intend to assert that
these territorial rights of Russia had no existence on the Continent of North America.

He meant that they did not exist as the Ukase of the Emperor Alexander had
500 attempted to establish them, southward of the Aleutian Peninsula, and on

that distinctive partof the continent claimed as the territory of the United
States. ‘‘America” and the ‘‘United States” were then, as they are now, commonly
used as synonymous.

British statesmen at that time used the phrase precisely as Mr. Adams did. The
possessions of the Crown were generically termed ‘ British America.” Great Britain
and the United States harmonized at this point, and on this territorial issue, against
Russia. Whatever disputes might be left by these negotiations for subsequent set-
tlement between the two Powers, there can be no doubt that at that time they hada
common and very strong interest against the territorial aggrandizement of Russia.
The British use of the phrase is clearly seen in the Treaty between Great Britain
and Russia negotiated in 1825, and referred to at length in a subsequent portion of
this despatch. A publicist as eminent as Stratford Canning opened the IlIrd Article
of that Treaty in these descriptive words: ‘‘ The line of demarcation between the
possessions of the High Contracting Parties, upon the coasts of the continent, and
the islands of America to the north west.” Mr. Canning evidently distinguished
“the islands of America” from “the islands of the Russian possessions,” which were
far more numerous, and by the use of the phrase ‘‘to the north-west,” just as evi-
dently limited the coast of the continent as Mr. Adams limited it in that direction
by the Alaskan Peninsula. A concurrence of opinion between John Quincy Adams
and Stratford Canning touching any public question left little room even for sug-
gestion by a third person.

It will be observed, as having weighty significance, that the Russian ownership of
the Aleutian and Kurile Islands (which border and close in the Behring’s Sea, and
by the dip of the peninsula are several degrees south of latitude 55°) was not dis-
puted by Mr. Adams, and could not possibly have been referred to by him when he
was limiting the ‘‘island” possessions of Russia. ‘This is but another evidence that
Mr. Adams was making no question as to Russia’s ownership of all territory border-
ing on the Behring’s Sea. The contest pertained wholly to the territory on the
north-west coast. The Emperor Paul’s Ukase, including his sovereignty over the
Aleutian and Kurile Islands, was never questioned or denied by any Power at any
time.

Many of the acts of Mr. Adams’ public life received interesting commentary, and,
where there was doubt, luminous interpretation in his personal diary, which was
carefully kept from the 3rd June, 1794, to the Ist January, 1848, inclusive. The
present case affords a happy illustration of the corroborative strength of the diary.
During the progress of this correspondence Baron Tuyl, who had succeeded M.
Poletica as Russian Minister in Washington, called upon Mr, Adams at his office, on
the 17th July, 1823, six days before the date of the despatch upon which I have been
commenting, and upon which Lord Salisbury relies for sustaining his contention in
regard to the Behring’s Sea. During an animated conversation of an hour or more
between Mr. Adams and Baron Tuy], the former said:

“‘T told Baron Tuyl specially that we should contest the right of Russia to any
territorial establishment on this continent . . .”

It will be observed that Mr. Adams uses the same phrase in his conversation that
has misled English statesmen as to the true scope and meaning of his despatch of
the 23rd July, 1823. When he declared that we should ‘ contest the right of Russia
to any territorial establishment on this continent” (with the word ‘‘any” italicized),
he no more meant that we should attempt to drive Russia from her ancient posses-
sions than that we should attempt to drive England from the ownership of Canada
or Nova Scotia. Such talk would have been absurd gasconade, and Mr. Adams was
the last man to indulge in it. His true meaning, it will be seen, comes out in the
next sentence, when he declares:

“TY told Baron Tuyl that we should assume distinctly the principle that the Amer-
ican continents are no longer subjects for any new European colonial establishments.”

In the Message of President Monroe to the next Congress (the eighteenth) at its
first Session, the 2nd December, 1823, he announced that, at the proposal of the
Russian Government, the United States had agreed to ‘‘ arrange, by amicable nego-
tiations, the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the north-west
coast of this continent.” A similar proposal had been made by Russia to Great
Britain, and had been likewise agreed to. The negotiations in both cases were to
be at St. Petersburgh.

It was in connection with this subject, and in the same paragraph, that President
Monroe spoke thus:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 553

“Tn the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements
by which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as
a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that

the American Continents, by the free and independent condilion which they have
501 assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future
colonization by any Luropean Power.”

This very brief declaration (in fact, merely the three lines italicized) constitutes
the famous ‘‘ Monroe doctrine.” Mr. Adams’ words of the July preceding clearly
foreshadowed this position as the permanent policy of the United States. The
declaration removes the last doubt, if room for doubt had been left, that the refer-
ence made by Mr. Adams was to the future, and had no possible connection with the
Russian rights existing for three-quarters of a century before the despatch of 1823
was written.

It was evident from the first that the determined attitude of the United States,
subsequently supported by Great britain, would prevent the extension of Russian
territory southward to the 51st parallel. The Treaties which were the result of the
meeting at St. Petersburgh, already noted, marked the surrender on the part of
Russia of this pretension, and the conclusion was a joint Agreement that 50° 40/
should be taken as the extreme southern boundary of Russia on the north-west coast
instead of the 55th degree which was proclaimed by the Emperor Paul in the Ukase
of 1799. The Treaty between Russia and the United States was concluded on the
17th April, 1824, and that between Russia and Great Britain ten months later, on the
16th February, 1825. In both Treaties Russia acknowledged 54° 40! as the dividing
line. It was not determined which of the two nations owned the territory from
54° 40’ down to the 49th parallel, and it remained in dispute between Great Britain
and the United States until its final adjustment by the “ Oregon Treaty ” negotiated
by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Pakenham under the Administration of Mr. Polk in 1846.

The Government of the United States has steadily maintained that in neither of
these ‘Treaties with Russia was there any attempt at regulating or controlling or
even asserting an interest in the Russian possessions and the Behring’s Sea which
lie far to the north and west of the territory which formed the basis of the conten-
tion. This conclusion is indisputably proved by the Protocols which were signed
during the progress of the negotiation. At the fourth conference of the Plenipo-
tentiaries on the 8th March, 1824, the American Minister, Mr. Henry Middleton,
submitted to the Russian Representative, Count Nesselrode, the following:

“The dominion cannot be acquired but by a real occupation and possession, and
an intention (‘animus’) to establish it is by no means sufficient.”

Now, it is clear, according to the facts established, that neither Russia nor any
other Power has the right of Gominion upon the Continent of America between the
50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.

Still less has she the dominion of the adjacent maritime territory, or of the sea
which washes these coasts, a dominion which is only accessory to the territorial
dominion.

Therefore, she has not the right of exclusion or of admission on these coasts, nor
in these seas, which are free seas.

The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every inde-
pendent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence.

The United States have exercised navigation in the seas and commerce upon the
coasts above mentioned from the time of their independence; and they have a per-
fect right to this navigation and to this commerce, and they can only be deprived of
it by their own act or a Convention.

This is a clear proof of what is demonstrated in other ways, that the whole dis-
pute between the United States and Russia, and between Great Britain and Russia,
related toe the north-west coast, as Mr. Middleton expresses it, between the “50th
and the 60th degrees of north latitude.” This statement is in perfect harmony with
Mr. Adams’ paragraph when given in full. ‘ Phe United States,” Mr. Middleton
insists, ‘‘ have exercised navigation in the seas and commerce upon the coasts above
mentioned from the time of their independence; ” but he does not say one word in
regard to our possessing any rights of navigation or commerce in the Belring’s Sea.
He declares that Russia has not the right of exclusion or admission on these coasts
(between the 50th and the 60th degrees north latitude) nor in these seas, which are
free seas, evidently emphasizing ‘‘free” to distinguish those seas from the Behring’s
Sea, which was recognized as being under Russian restrictions.

Mr. Middleton wisely and conclusively maintained that if Russia had no claim to
the continent between the 50th and 60th degrees north latitude, ‘still less could
she have the dominion of the adjacent maritime territory,” or, to make it more
specific, “of the sea which washes these coasts.” That sea was the Great Ocean, or
ue South Sea, or the Pacific Ocean, the three names being equally used for the same
thing.

554. APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The language of Mr. Middleton plainly shows that the lines of latitude were
502. used simply to indicate the ‘‘dominion” on the coast between the 50th and
60th parallels of north latitude.

The important declarations of Mr. Middleton which interpret and enforce the con-
tention of the United States should be regarded as indisputable authority, from the
fact that they are but a paraphrase of the instructions which Mr. Adams delivered
to him for his guidance in negotiating the Treaty with Count Nesselrode. Beyond
all doubt, they prove that Mr. Adams’ meaning was the reverse of what Lord Salis-
bury infers it to be in the paragraph of which he quoted only a part.

The four principal Articles of the Treaty negotiated by Mr. Middleton are as fol-
lows:

‘Article I. It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the
Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contract-
ing Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fish-
ing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already
have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the
restrictious and conditions determined by the following Articles.

“Article Il. With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing
exercised upon the Great Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting
Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens
of the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establish-
ment without the permission of the Governor or Commander; and that, reciprocally,
the subjects of Russia shall not resort without permission to any establishment of
the United States upon the north-west coast.

‘‘Article III. It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by
the citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any
establishment upon the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands
adjacent, to the north of 54° 40’ of north latitude; and that in the same manner
there shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia,
south of the same parallel.

“Article 1V. It is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years,
counting from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or
which belong to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent,
without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon
the coast mentioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading
with the natives of the country.”

The Ist Article, by carefully mentioning the Great Ocean, and describing it as the
ocean ‘‘commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea,” evidently meant to dis-
tinguish it from some other body of water with which the negotiators did not wish
to confuse it. Mr. Adams used the term ‘South Sea” in the despatch quoted by
Lord Salisbury, and used it with the same discriminating knowledge that pervades
his whole argument on this question. If no other body of water existed within the
possible scope of the Treaty, such particularity of description would have had no
logical meaning. But there was another body of water already known as the Beh-
ring’s Sea. That name was first given to it in 1817, according to English authority,
seven years before the American Treaty, and eight years before the British 'T reaty
with Russia; but it had been known as a sea, separate from the ocean, under the
names of the Sea of Kamtchatka, the Sea of Otters, or the Aleutian Sea, ‘at different
periods before the Emperor Paul issued his Ukase of 1799.

The IInd Article plainly shows that the Treaty is limited to the Great Ocean, as
separate from Behring’s Sea, because the limitation of the ‘‘north-west coast”
between the 50th and 60th degrees could apply to no other. That coast, as defined
both by Ainerican and British negotiators at that time, did not border on the Beh-
ring’s Sea.

The ILIrd Article shows the compromise as to territorial sovereignty on the north-
west coast. ‘The United States and Great Britain had both claimed that Russia’s just
boundary on the coast terminated at the 60th degree north latitude, the southern
border of the Aleutian Peninsula. Russia claimed to the 51st parallel. They made
a compromise by a nearly equal division, An exactly equal division would have
given Russia 54° 30’; but 10 miles farther north, Prince of Walcs’ Island, presented
a better geographical point for division, and Russia accepted a little less than half
the coast of which she had claimed all, and 54° 40’ was thus established as the divid-
ing point.

The IVth Article of the Treaty necessarily grew out of the claims of Russia to a
share of the north-west coast in dispute between the United States and Great
Britain. Mr. Adams, in the instruction to Mr. Middleton so often referred to,

Says:
503 “BR sy the IIIrd Article of the Convention between the United States and Great
Britain of the 20th October, 1818, it was agreed that any country that might
be claimed by either party on the north-west coast of America, westward of the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 5db5

Stony Mountains, should, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navi-
gation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years from
that date, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers, without prejudice
to the claims of either party or of any other State.

“You are authorized to propose an Article of the same purport for a term of ten
years from the signature of a joint Convention between the United States, Great
Britain, and Russia.”

It will be observed that the 1Vth Article relates solely to the “north-west coast of
America,” so well understood as the coast of the Pacific Ocean between the 50th and
the 60th degrees north latitude, and, therefore, does not in the remotest degree touch
the Behring’s Sea or the land bordering upon it.

The several Articles in the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia, 16th Feb-
ruary, 1825, that could have any bearing on the pending contention are as follows:

Articles I and II. (Substantially the same as in the Treaty between Russia and the
United States. )

‘Article III. The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Con-
tracting Parties, upon the coast of the continent, and the Islands of America to the
north-west, shall be drawn in the manner following:

“Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales’
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40’ north latitude, and between the
131st and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line
shall ascend to the north, along the channel called Portland Channel as far as the
point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this
last-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the moun-
tains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st
degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point
of intersection the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far
as the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British posses-
sions on the Continent of America to the north-west.

Article VY. (Substantially the same as Article [II of the Treaty between Russia
and the United States.)

“Article VI. It is understood that the subjects of His Britannie Majesty, from
whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior ot
the continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any
hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course towards the
Pacifie Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in
Article I1I of the present Convention.

“Article VII. It is also understood that, for the space of ten years from the signa-
ture of the present Convention, the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to
their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hin-
drance whatever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast men-
tioned in Article III, for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives.”

After the analysis of the Articles in the American Treaty there is little in the Eng-
lish Treaty that requires explanation. The two Treaties were drafted under cirenm-
stances and fitted to conditions quite similar. There were some differences because
of Great Britain’s ownership of British America. But these very differences corrob-
orate the position of the United States. This is most plainly seen in Article VI.
By that Article the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty were guaranteed the right of
navigating freely the rivers emptying into the Pacific Ocean and crossing the line of
demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III. The line of demarcation is
described in Article III as following ‘‘the summit of the mountains situated parallel
to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude.”
Article IV, qualifying Article ILI, specifies that ‘‘ wherever the summit of the moun-
tains which extend in a direction parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north
latitude to the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove
to be at a distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between
the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above
mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and shall
never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.”

By both these Articles the line of demarcation ceases to have any parallel relation

to the coast when it reaches the point of intersection of the 141st degree of
504 west longitude. From that point the 141st degree of west longitude, as far

as it extends continuously on land northward, is taken as the boundary
between the territories of the two Powers. It is thus evident that British subjects
were guaranteed the right of navigating only such rivers as crossed the line of
demarcation while it followed the line of coast. They were limited, therefore, to the
rivers that emptied into the Pacific Ocean between 54° 40’ and 60° north latitude,
the latter being the point on the coast opposite the point where the line of
demarcation diverges, Mount St. Elias.

556 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

By this Agreement Great Britain was excluded from all rivers emptying into the
Behri ing’s Se: a, including the Great Yukon and its affluent the Porcupine, which rise,
and for a long distance : flow, in British America. So complete was the exclusion
from Behring’ s Sea that Great Britain surrendered in this case a doctrine which she
had aided in impressing upon the Congress of Vienna for European rivers. She did
not demand access to the sea from a river whose source was in her territory. She
cousented, by signing the Treaty of 1825, to such total exclusion from the Behring’s

Sea as to forego ‘followi ing her own river ‘to its mouth in that sea.

It shows a curious association of political events that in the Washington Treaty
of 1871 the United States conceded to Great Britain the privilege of navigating the
Yukon and its branch the Porcupine to the Belring’s Sea in exchange for certain
privileges conceded to the United States on the St. Lawrence. ‘The request of Great
Britain for the privilege of navigating the Yukon and the Porcupine is a suggestive
confession that it was withheld from her by Russia in the Treaty of 1825, withheld
because the rivers flowed to the Behring’s Sea.

The VIIth Article is practically a repetition of the [Vth Article in the Treaty
between Russia and the United States, and the privilege of fishing and trading with
the natives is limited to the coast mentioned in Article III, identically the same line
of coast which they were at liberty to pass through to reach British America or to
reach the coast from British America. ‘They are excluded from going north of the
prescribed point on the coast near Mount St. Elias, and are therefore kept out of
Behring’s Sea.

It is to be noted that the negotiators of this Treaty in defining the boundary
between the Russian and British possessions cease to observe particularity exactly
at the point on the coast where it is intersected by the 60th parallel. From that
point the boundary is designated by the almost indefinite prolongation northward of
the 141st degree of longitude west. It is plain, therefore, that this Treaty, like the
Russo-American Treaty, limited the ‘north-west coast” to that part of the coast
between the 50th and 60th parallels of north latitude, as fully set forth by Mr. Mid-
dleton in the Protocols preceding the Treaty between the United States and Russia.
The negotiators never touched one foot of the boundary of the Behring’s Sea, whether
on continent or island,and never even made a reference to it. Its nearest point in
Bristol Bay was 1,000 miles distant from the field of negotiation between the Powers.

It must not be forgotten that this entire negotiation of the three Powers proceeded
with full knowledge and recognition of the Ukase of 1821. While all questions
touching the respective rights of the Powers on the north-west coast between the
50th and 60th parallels were discussed and pressed by one side or the other, and
finally agreed upon, the terms of the Ukase of 1821, in which the Emperor set forth
so clearly the rights claimed and exercised by Russia in the Beliing’s Sea, were
untouched and unquestioned. These rights were therefore admitted by all the
Powers negotiating as within the exercise of Russia’s lawful authority then, and
they were left inviolate by England during all the subsequent continuance of Russia’s
dominion over Alaska.

These Treaties were therefore a practical renunciation, both on the part of England
and the United States, of any rights in the waters of Behring’s Sea during the period
of Russia’s sovereignty. ‘They left the Behring’s Sea, and all its coasts and islands,
precisely as the Ukase of Alexander in 1821 left them—that is, with the prohibition
against any vessel approaching nearer to the coast than 100 Italian miles under dan-
ger of confiscation. The original Ukase of Alexander of 1821 ciaimed as far south
as the 51st degree of north latitude, with the inhibition of 100 miles from the coast
applying to the whole.

The result of the protest of Mr. Adams, followed by the co-cperation of Great
Britain, was to force Russia back to 54° 40’ as her southern boundary. But there
was no renunciation whatever on the part of Russia as to the Behring’s Sea, to
which the Ukase especially and primarily applied. As a piece of legislation this
Ukase was as authoritative in the dominions of Russia as an Act of Parliament is
in the dominions of Great Britain or any Act of Congress in the territory of the
United States.

ixcept as voluntarily modified by Russia in the Treaty with the United States,
17th April, 1824, and in the Treaty with Great Britain, 16th February, 1825,
505 the Ukase of 1821 stood as the law controlling the Russian possessions in
America until the close of Russia’s ownership by transfer to this Government.
soth the United States and Great Britain recognized it, respected it, obeyed it. It
did not, as so many suppose, declare the Bebring’s Sea to be mare clausum. It did
declare that the waters, to the extent of 100 miles from the shore, were reserved for
the subjects of the Russian Empire. Of course, many hundred miles east and west
and north and south were thus intentionally left by Russia for the whale fishery, and
for fishing open and free to the world, of which other nations took large advantage.
Perhaps, in pursuing this advantage, ‘foreigners did not always keep 100 miles from
the shore; but the theory of right on which they conducted their business unmo-
lested was that they observed the conditions of the Ukase.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Do

But the 100-mile restriction performed the function for which it was specially
designed in preventing foreign nations from molesting, disturbing, or by any possi-
bility sharing in the fur trade. The fur trade formed the principal, almost the sole,
employment of the Russian American Company. It formed its employment, indeed,
to such a degree that it soon became known only as the Russian American [uw Com-
pany, and quite suggestively that name is given to the Company by Lord Salisbury
in the despatch to which Lam replying. While, therefore, there may have been a
large amount of lawful whaling and fishing in the Behring’s Sea, the taking of furs
by foreigners was always and under all circumstances illicit.

Kichteen years after the Treaty of 1825 (in 1843) Great Britain made a Commercial
Treaty with Russia based on the principle of reciprocity of advantages, but the rights
of the Russian American Company, which under both Ukases included the sover-
eignty over the sea to the extent of 100 miles from the shores, were reserved by special
clause in a separate and special Article signed after the principal Articles of the
Treaty had been concluded and signed. Although British rights were enlarged with
nearly all other parts of the Russian Empire, her relations with the Russian posses-
sions and with the Behring’s Sea remained at precisely the same point where the
Treaty of 1825 had placed them.

Again, in 1859, Great Britain still further enlarged her commercial relations with
the Emperor of Russia, and again the “possessions” and the Behring’s Sea were held
firmly in their relations to the Russian American Company as they had been held in
the Treaty of 1843.

It is especially notable that, both in the Treaty of 1843 and the Treaty of 1859, it
is declared that ‘‘in regurd to commerce and navigation in the Russian possessions
on the north-west coast of America the Convention concluded at St. Petersburgh,
16th February, 1825, shall continue in force.” The same distinction and the same
restrictions which Mr. Adams made in regard to the north-west coast of America
were still cbserved, and Great Britain’s access from or to the interior of the conti-
nent was still limited to that part of the coast between 54° 40’ and a point near
Mount St. Elias. The language of the three Russo-British Treaties of 1825, 1843, and
1859 corresponds with that employed in Mr. Adams’ despatch to Mr. Middleton to
which reference has so frequently been made. This shows that the true meaning of
Mr. Adams’ paragraph is the key, and indeed the only key, by which the Treaties
can be correctly interpreted, and by which expressions apparently contradictory or
unintelligible can be readily harmonized.

Immediately following the partial quotation of Mr. Adams’ despatch, Lord Salis-
bury quotes the case of the United States brig ‘‘Loriot” as having some bearing on
the question relating to the Behring’s Sea. The case happened on the 15th Septem-
ber, 1836, and Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, in a despatch to the United States
Minister at St. Petersburgh, declared the course of the Russians in arresting the
vessel to be a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States; he claimed
that the citizens of the United States had the right immemorially, as well as by the
stipulations of the Treaty of 1824, to fish in those waters.

Lord Salisbury’s understanding of the case differs entirely from that held by the
Government of the United States. The ‘‘Loriot” was not arrested in the Behring’s
Sea at all, nor was she engaged in taking furs. She was arrested, as Mr. Forsyth
in his despatch says, in latitude 54° 55’, more than 60 miles south of Sitka, on the
“north-west coast,” to which, and to which only, the Treaty of 1824 referred. Russia
upheld its action on the ground that the ten-year term provided in the IVth Article
of the Treaty had closed two years before. The case was made the basis of an appli-
cation on the part of the United States Government for a renewal of that Article.
This application was pressed for several years, but finally and absolutely refused by
the Russian Government. Under the claim of Russia that the term of ten years had

expired, the United States failed to secure any redress in the ‘‘Loriot” case.
506 With all due respect to Lord Salisbury’s judgment, the case of the ‘‘Loriot”

sustains the entire correctness of the position of the United States in this
contention.

It only remains to say that whatever duty Great Britain owed to Alaska as a Rus-
sian province, whatever she agreed to do, or to refrain from doing, touching Alaska
and the Behring’s Sea, was not changed by the mere fact of the transfer of sover-
eignty to the United States. It was explicitly declared in the VIth Article of the
Treaty by which the territory was ceded by Russia, that ‘‘the cession hereby made
conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now belonging to Russia in the
said territory or dominions, and appurtenances thereto.” Neither by the Treaty
with Russia of 1825, nor by its renewal in 1843, nor by its second renewal in 1859, did
Great Britain gain any right to take seals in Behrine’s Sea. In fact, those Treaties
were a prohibition upon her which she steadily respected so long as Alaska was a
Russian province. It is for Great Britain now to show by what law she gained rights
in that sea after the transfer of its sovereignty to the United States. | ;

During all the time elapsing between the Treaty of 1825 and the cession of Alaska
to the United States in 1867, Great Britain never affirmed the right of her subjects

558 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

to capture fur-seal in the Behring’s Sea; and, as a matter of fact, her subjects did
not during that long period attempt to catch seals in the Behring’s Sea. Lord Salis-
bury, in replying to my assertion that these lawless intrusions upon the fur-seal
fisheries began in 1886, declares that they had occurred before. He points out one
attempt in 1870, in which forty-seven skins were found on board an intruding vessel ;
in 1872 there was arumour that expeditions were about to fit out in Australia and Vic-
toria for the purpose of taking seal in the Behring’s Sea; in 1874 some reports were
heard that vessels had entered the sea for that purpose; one case was reported in
1875, two cases in 1884, two also in 1885.

These cases, I may say, without intending disrespect to his Lordship, prove the truth
of the statement which he endeavours to controvert; because they form just a suffi-
cient number of exceptions to establish the fact that the destructive intrusion began
in 1886. But I refer to them now for the purpose of showing that his Lordship does
not attempt to cite the intrusion of a single British sealer into the Behring’s Sea
until after Alaska had been transferred to the United States. Jam justified, there-
fore, in repeating the questions I addressed to Her Majesty’s Government on the 22nd
of last January, and which still remain unanswered, viz. :

“Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 1886 that which they
had refrained from doing for nearly ninety years?

“Upon what grounds did Her Majesty’s Government defend in the year 1886 a
course of conduct in the Behring’s Sea which had been carefully avoided ever since
the discovery of that sea?

“By what reasoning did Her Majesty’s Government conclude that an act may bo
committed with impunity against the rights of the United States which had never
been attempted against the same rights when held by the Russian Empire?”

I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 375.
Sir J. Pauneefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 3.)

| Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, July 3, 1890.

Thad a long interview with My. Blaine yesterday. He said that his
health necessitated his departure, and that he had decided to leave for
Bar Harbour to-day.

Alluding to the Behring’s Sea question, he said that it was too late
now to make any arrangement which would affect the present fishery
season, but that he was prepared to continue the negotiations with me
from Bar Harbour, as I should probably soon be in the neighbourhood.

No. 376.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 7.)

WASHINGTON, June 18, 1890.
My Lorp: I have the honour to report that on Saturday, the 14th
instant, as instructed in your Lordship’s telegram of the 11th
507 ~~ instant, I addressed to the United States Secretary of State the
Protest against any further interference with British sealers in
3ehring’s Sea, the draft of which was inclosed in your Lordship’s
despatch of the 29th ultimo.
I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of the Protest as deliv-
ered, together with copy of the covering note to Mr, Blaine.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

CO
ite)

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. a

{Inclosure 1 in No. 376.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 14, 1890.
? »)

Str: With reference to the note which I had the honour to address to you on the
11th instant, I desire to express to you my deep regret at having failed up to the
present time to obtain from you the assurance which I had hoped to receive, that
during the continuance of our negotiations for the settlement of the Fur-seal Fishery
question, British sealing-vessels would not be interfered with by United States
Revenue cruizers on the Behring’s Sea outside of territorial waters.

Having learnt from statements in the public press and from other sources that the
Revenue-crnizers ‘‘ Rush” and ‘‘Corwin” are now about to be dispatched to the
Behring’s Sea, I cannot, consistently with the instructions I have received from my
Government, any longer defer the communication of their formal Protest, announced
in my notes of the 23rd ultimo and the 11th instant, against any such interference
with British vessels. I have accordingly the honour to transmit the same herewith.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

{Inclosure 2 in No. 376.]

Protest.

The Undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary to the United States of America, has the honour, by instructions of
his Government, to make to the Honourable J. G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the
United States, the following communication:

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government have learnt with great concern, from notices
which have appeared in the press, and the general accuracy of which has been con-
firmed by Mr. Blaine’s statements to the Undersigned, that the Government of the
United States have issued instructions to their Revenue cruizers about to be dis-
patched to Behring’s Sea, under which the vessels of British subjects will again be
exposed, in the prosecution of their legitimate industry on the high seas, to unlawful
interference at the hands of American officers.

Iler Britannic Majesty’s Government are anxious to co-operate to the fullest extent
of their power with the Government of the United States in such measures as may
be found to be expedient for the protection of the seal fisheries. They are at the
present moment engaged in examining, in concert with the Government of the United
States, the best method of arriving at an agreement upon this point. But they can-
not admit the right of the United States of their own sole motion to restrict for this
purpose the freedom of Behring’s Sea, which the United States have themselves in
former years convincingly and successfully vindicated, nor to enforce their municipal
legislation against British vessels on the high seas beyond the limits of their terri-
torial jurisdiction.

Her Britannic Majesty’s Government are therefore unable to pass over without
notice the public announcement of an intention on the part of the Government of
the United States to renew the acts of interference with British vessels navigating
outside the territorial waters of the United States, of which they have previously
had to complain.

The Undersigned is in consequence instructed formally to protest against such

interference, and to declare that Her Britannic Majesty’s Government must hold
508 the Government of the United States responsible for the consequences which
may ensue from acts which are contrary to the principles of international law.

The Undersigned has the honour to renew to Mr. Blaine the assurances of his
highest consideration.

; (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 377.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 7.)

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1890.
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a remarkable
article on the subject of the Behring’s Sea negotiations which appeared
in the “New York Herald” of yesterday. :
I have, &e, (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

560 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure in No. 377.]
Extract from the ** New York Herald” of June 26, 1890.

{From our regular Correspondent. |

“HERALD” BUREAU, CORNER OF FIFTEENTH AND G Strrerrs, N.W.,
Washington, June 25, 1890.

The story of a recent interference by the President with the conduct and progress
of the Behring’s Sea negotiations has been circulating confidentially in Washington
for several weeks. Its publication now, after the interposition of the President had
ceased and the mischief threatened by it had passed away, is regarded in some
quarters as a counter-attack on Mr. Blaine for his alleged Tariff heresy.

The following is a plain statement of the facts of the Behring’s Sea episode,
obtained from an authoritative source. It shows that, as soon as the President saw
the consequences of his well-meant intention, and that he had separated himself in
some degree from Mr. Blaine, he hastened to reunite himself to the Secretary and to
strengthen the latter’s position to the fullest extent as against adverse influences in
the Administration.

Steps in Diplomacy.

The oral discussion of the Behring’s Sea question began between Secretary Blaine
and Minister Pauncefote last January. The Secretary advanced and the Minister
combated the claim of a territorial jurisdiction by the United States over all that
part of Bebring’s Sea lying east and south of the boundary-line drawing through
Behring’s Strait and across the sea by the Treaty with Russia for the cession of
Alaska to this country. Without coming to a head the discussion was laid aside by
mutual consent and without prejudice to the position of either party, for the reason
that the British Representative admitted that his Government was not only willing,
but desirous, on grounds of good neighbourhood and of a mutual interest, to enter
into an arrangement that would efficiently protect the seals resorting to Bekring’s
Sea from injurious molestation or slaugliter.

As these were the very and the only objects for which the United States Govern-
ment was desirous to establish its claim to a territorial jurisdiction in the waters of
the sea, it was agreed to shift the discussion to the project of an international regu-
lation of seal-catching wherein a prohibition of marine sealing during the annual
breeding season should form a leading position. Russia, being a necessary party to
such an arrangement, and having an identical interest with that of the United States
as the owner of seal-rookeries in Behring’s Sea, was invited to take part in the new
discussion, and did so through its Resident Envoy at Washington.

Mr. Blaine, however, was not satisfied te rest wholly upon the British assurance

that England was even something more than willing to assist the United States
509 in taking due care of its seal property. In preparing for his friendly and

informal conferences with the British Minister he had taken, upon his notes, a
suggestion to draw into discussion the question, in view of the peculiar habits of the
fur-seal (which though nomadic during part of each year returned regularly and for
a considerable period to its home within the ITnited States), whether this Govern-
ment might not lay claim to a right to extend a reasonable protection to the animal
during its various movements in the waters surrunding its rookecies.

This discussion he pressed upon the Minister, relying upon the well-established
English doctrine of the “intention to return” ta offset the legal argument that
property in animals of a wild nature is limited te the period of possession. This
second and independent claim to a police jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea is still pend-
ing, and the arguments on both sides of it have been fully and formally stated, with
the help of competent lawyers, and made matter of record, should it ever become
necessary to revert to the claim.

A Close Season.

Up to the stage above indicated the negotiations had proceeded without obstrne-
tion. Not till the Plenipotentiaries came together to settle principal details of the
agreed International Regulations did it appear that while the United States contem
plated a close season in Behring’s Sea covering the whole period of six months or
more during which the seals were moving into and out of the sea and were reposing
at the rookeries, Great Britain proposed simply such arrangements as would reason-
ably guard against an excessive catching of female seals, by which the perpetuity
of the herd would be endangered. In lieu of a single and continuous close season,
covering the whole time of the yearly presence of the seals in Behring’s Sea, which
was the project of the United States, the British proposal was of two short periods
of closure, one during the inward and another during the outward movement of the
seals, supplemented by a broad belt of isolation around the rookeries, which no
sealing-vessel was to penetrate.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. © 561

Mr. Blaine was confident that the Senate of the United States would not ratify
such a Convention as the British Plenipotentiary proposed, nor Congress enact the
legislation necessary to give it effect. Sir Julian was equally sure that neither the
British nor the Canadian Parliament would legislate upon the broad lines laid down
by Mr. Blaine. Still both Plenipotentiaries were agreed upon the principle that
there should be am effective regulation of the sealing industry, to be attained by
mutual co-operation. The Russian proposition accorded with that of the United
States, but the Russian Minister left it to our Government, as the larger proprietor
of rookeries, to act for both.

The real trouble lay in the statements and opinions of experts, upon which both
negotiants necessarily had torely. Tosettle the defects and conflicts of this so-called
evidence, and to produce a satisfactory basis for a Convention and the legislation
necessitated by it, a proposal was moved from the British side to assemble a Joint
Technical Commission to examine, decide, and report what was actually necessary
to carry out the well-settled intention of the parties. After a very careful and
deliberate consideration of this proposal, in which the main question was studied
in every possible aspect, Mr. Blaine gave his adhesion to it.

At this point the new lessees of the Alaskan Seal Islands intervened. They were
not willing to put at issue, inany manner of form, the question whether there should
be any marine sealing in Behring’s Sea, however restricted. To make a long story
short, they prevailed, but not at the State Department. The control of the negotia-
tions was taken from Mr. Blaine, and he was only permitted, as the organ of the
Government, to reject the modus vivendi proposed by the British Government to carry
the parties safely through the sealing season then close at hand, and report what he
could learn or guess of the probable action or disposition of Lord Salisbury, The
project of a Technical Commission was dropped clean out of sight.

Ordered to use Force.

The Revenue cutters were ordered to Behring’s Sea, there to enforce within dis-
puted waters the fall vigour of a Law passed with a view to waters not in dispute,
and the extension of which Law to the waters in dispute Congress had shrunk from
as lately as 1889, when the question of such an extension was squarely presented by
a Bill which went into Conference and became a Law. Inquirers at the Treasury
Department were informed that the sailing orders to the cutters meant all they said;

that no secret or supplementary orders would issue in favour of British ves-
510 sels, and that any such vessel sealing in Behring’s Sea would be seized, relieved
of its lading and papers, and be dismantled.

Mr. Blaine knew that the original question at issue had broadened into the larger
one of an exercise of the right of search in time of peace upon what, with consid-
erable force of argument and weight of authority, was claimed to bea part of the
high seas, and without the consent of the friendly Power whose vessels were to be
subjected to an indignity which the United States had once to gone to war to resent.
What he knew the new conductors of the negotiations knew necessarily. But they
scouted the idea that England would do more than protest, and they were not afraid
of protestation.

England protests.

All at once it became known that Lord Salisbury meant to do the very thing he
was expected not to do, and to protect by force, if necessary, British vessels and
subjects in Behring’s Sea. The situation was hastily reviewed, and the conclusion
reached that, upon the record of the case as made since January last, the Govern-
ment could not afford to go before the world, nor even before the press and people of
the United States, with a defence of its contemplated policy of violence.

The Revenue cutters were stopped at Puget Sound to await further orders. The
negotiations were restored to the charge of the Secretary of State, who impro-
vised a proposal designed to cover a retreat not necessitated by himself and to put
the question back to a normal and proper situation.

There will be no trouble in Behring’s Sea. The claims of the United States have
been preserved in full vigour, and before the opening of another sealing season-a
settlement will be reached honourable and advantageous to the United States.

Arbitration expected.

It is expected that within the next ten or twelve days the negotiations will be so
far advanced that new sailing orders may be issued to the “‘ Rush” and ‘‘ Corwin,”
which vessels will then resume their interrupted voyage to Behring’s Sea, there to
perform all the duties required by law, but not to exercise a disputed jurisdiction
which it is the expectation of the Government to submit to the determination of

BS; Pa" Y: 36

562 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

some disinterested Power or Sovereign, possibly Pope Leo XIII, as intimated many
months ago in these despatches. Oe ; $

Mr. Blaine gave it as an excuse that he could not visit. Chicago this week, when
pressed to do so, because of the importance of the Behring’s Sea negotiations now
favourably progressing, as he said.

No. 378.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 7.)

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1890.
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit copy of a note which I
addressed to Mr. Blaine immediately upon the receipt of your Lord-
ship’s telegram of the 26th instant.
I trust that it will meet with your Lordship’s approval.
I have, &e.
; (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 378.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1890.

Sir: I did not fail to transmit to the Marquis of Salisbury a copy of your note of
the 11th instant, in which, with reference to his Lordship’s statement, that British
legislation would be necessary to enable Her Majesty’s Government to exclude
British vessels from any portion of the high seas, ‘‘ even for an hour,” you informed
me, by desire of the President, that the United States Government would be satisfied
“if Lord Salisbury would, by public Proclamation, simply request that vessels sail-
ing under the British flag should abstain from entering the Behring’s Sea during the
present season.”

I have now the honour to inform you that I have been instructed by Lord

511 Salisbury to state to you,in reply, that the President’s request presents con-
stitutional difficulties which would preclude Her Majesty’s Government from
acceding to it, except as part of a general scheme for the settlement of the Beh-
ring’s Sea controversy, and on certain conditions which would justify the assumption
by Her Majesty’s Government of the grave responsibility involved in the proposal.

Those conditions are:

1. That the two Governments agree forthwith to refer to arbitration the question
of the legality of the action of the United States Government in seizing or other-
wise interfering with British vessels engaged in the Behring’s Sea, outside of terri-
torial waters, during the years 1886, 1887, and 1889.

2. That, pending the award, all interference with British sealing-vessels shall
absolutely cease.

3. That the United States Government, if the award should be adverse to them on
the question of legal right, will compensate British subjects for the losses which
they may sustain by reason of their compliance with the British Proclamation.

Such are the three conditions on which it is indispensable, in the view of Her
Majesty’s Government, that the issue of the proposed Proclamation should be based.

As regards the compensation claimed by Her Majesty’s Government for the losses
and injuries sustained by British subjects by reason of the action of the United
States Government against British sealing-vessels in the Behring’s Sea during the
years 1886, 1887, and 1889, I have already informed Lord Salisbury of your assur-
ance that the United States Government would not let that claim stand in the way
of an amicable adjustment of the controversy, and I trust that the reply which, by
direction of Lord Salisbury, I have now the honour to return to the President’s
inquiry, may facilitate the attainment of that object, for which we have so long and
so earnestly laboured.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 563
No. 379.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 9.)

{ Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, July 9, 1890.

In the House of Representatives to-day, on the motion of Mr. Hitt,
the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, a Resolution
was adopted, ‘That the President be requested to furnish the House
with the correspondence between the Government of the United States
wnd the Government of Great Britain touching the subjects in dispute
in the Behring’s Sea since the 4th March, 1839.”

No. 380.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 10, 1890.
Str: I approve the note addressed by you to Mr. Blaine on the sub-
ject of the issue of a Proclamation requesting British vessels to abstain
from entering the Behring’s Sea during the present sealing season, of
which a copy was inclosed in your despatch of the 27th ultimo.
Tam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

512 No. 381.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir. J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 10, 1890.

Srr: I approve the terms of the note in which you forwarded to Mr.
Blaine the protest of Her Majesty’s Government against any further
interference with British sealers in Behring’s Sea, as reported in your
despatch of the 18th ultimo.

I am, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 382.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 2, 1890.

Sir: I have received and laid before the Queen your despatch of the
1st ultimo, forwarding a copy of a note from Mr. Blaine, in which he
maintains that the United States have derived from Russia rights
of jurisdiction over the waters of Behring’s Sea to a distance of 100
miles from the coasts transferred to them under the Treaty of the 30th
March, 1867.

In replying to the arguments to the contrary effect contained in my
despatch of the 22nd May, Mr. Blaine draws attention to certain
expressions which I had omitted for the sake of brevity in quoting

564 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

from Mr. Adams’ despatch of the 22nd July, 1823. He contends that
these words give a different meaning to the despatch, and that the lat-
ter does not refute, but actually supports, the present claim of the
United States. It becomes necessary, therefore, that | should refer in
greater detail to the correspondence, an examination of which will show
that the passage in question can not have the signification which Mr.
Blaine seeks to give to it, that the words omitted by me do not in
reality affect the point at issue, and that the view which he takes of
the attitude both of Great Britain and of the United States towards
the claim put forward by Russia in 1822 cannot be reconciled with the
tenour of the despatches.

It appears from the published papers that in 1799 the Emperor Paul I
granted by Charter to the Russian American Company the exclusive
right of hunting, trade, industries, and discoveries of new land on the
northwest coast of America from Behring’s Strait to the 55th degree
of north latitude, with permission to the C ompany to extend their ‘dis-
coveries to the south and to form establishments there, provided they
did not encroach upon the territory occupied by other Powers.

The southern limit thus provisionally assigned to the Company cor-
responds, within 20 or 30 miles, with that which was eventually agreed
upon as the boundary between the British and Russian possessions.
It comprises not only the whole American coast of Behring’s Sea, but a
long reach of coast-line to the south of the Alaskan Peninsula as far as
the level of the southern portion of Prince of Wales’ Island.

The Charter, which was issued at atime of great European excite-
ment, attracted apparently little attention at the moment, and gave
rise to no remonstrance. It made no claim to exclusive jurisdiction
over the sea, 1ror do any measures appear to have been taken under it
to restrict the commerce, navigation, or fishery of the subjects of foreign
nations. But in September 1821 the Russian Government issued a
fresh Ukase, of which the provisions material to the present discussion
were as follows:

Section 1. The pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing, andof all other industry,
on all islands, ports, and gulfs, ineluding the whole of the north-west coast of Amer-
ica, beginning from Behring’s Strait to “the 51st degree of northern latitude; also
from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile
Islands from Behring’s Strait to the south cape of the Island of Urup, viz., to 45° 50’
northern latitude, are exclusively granted to Russian subjects.

Sec. 2. It is therefore prohibited to all foreign vessels not only to land on the coasts
and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within

less than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor’s vessel is subject to confiscation, along
with the whole cargo.

By this Ukase the exclusive dominion claimed by Russia on the
American Continent was pushed some 250 miles to the south as
513 far as Vancouver Island, and notice was for the first time given
of a claim to maritime jurisdiction which was regarded both in
England and the United States as extravagant, or, to use Lord Sto-
Ww ell’s description of it, “very unmeasured and insupportable. y
Upon receiving communication of the Ukase, the British and United
States Governments at once objected both to the extension of the ter-
ritorial claim and to the assertion of maritime jurisdiction. For the
present, I will refer only to the protest of the United States Govern-
ment. This was made ina note from Mr. John Quincy Adams, then
Secretary of State, to the Russian Representative, dated the 25th Feb-
ruary, 1822, which contains the following statement:
I am directed by the President of the United States to inform you that he has seen
with surprise in this Edict the assertion of a territorial claim on the part of Russia

aff

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 565

extending to the 51st degree of north latitude on this continent, and a regulation
interdicting to all commercial vessels other than Russian, upon the penalty of sei-
zure and confiscation, the approach upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the
shores to which that claim is made to apply. The relations of the United States
with His Imperial Majesty have always been of the most friendly character, and it
is the earnest desire of this Government to preserve them in that state. It was
expected, before any act which should define the boundary between the territories
of the United States and Russia on this continent, that the same would have been
arranged by Treaty between the parties. To exclude the vessels of our citizens from
the shore, beyond the ordinary distance to which the territorial jurisdiction extends,
has excited still greater surprise.

This Ordinance affects so deeply the rights of the United States and of their citi-
zens that I am instructed to inquire whether you are authorized to give explana-
tions of the grounds of right, upon principles generally recognized by the laws and
usages of nations, which can warrant the claims and regulations contained in it.

The Russian Representative replied at length, defending the terri-
torial claim on grounds of discovery, first occupation, and undisturbed
possession, and explaining the motive “ which determined the Imperial
Government to prohibit foreign vessels from approaching the north-
west coasts of America belonging to Kussia, within the distance of at
least 100 Italian miles. This measure,” he said, “however severe it
may at first view appear, is after all but a measure of prevention.” He
went on to say that it was adopted in order to put a stop to an illicit
trade in arms and ammunition with the natives, against which the
Russian Government had frequently remonstrated; and further on he
observed :

Tought, in the last place, to request you to consider, Sir, that the Russian posses-
sions in the Pacific Ocean extend, on the north-west coast of America, from Behring’s
Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side of Asia and the
islands adjacent, from the same strait to the 45th degree, the extent of sea of which
these possessions form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are ordi-
narily attached to shut seas (‘mers fermées’), and the Russian Government might,
consequently, judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of sover-
eignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners. But

it preferred only asserting its essential rights, without taking any advantage of
localities.

To this Mr. Adams replied (30th March, 1822), pointing out that the
only ground given for the extension of the Russian territorial claim
was the establishment of a settlement, not upon the continent, but upon
a small island, actually within the limits prescribed to the Russian
American Company in 1799, and he went on to say:

This pretension is to be considered not only with reference to the question of ter-
ritorial right, but also to that prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including
those of the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. From
the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation, their
vessels have freely navigated those seas, and the right to navigate them is a part of
that independence. .

With regard to the suggestion that the Russian Government might have justified
the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea, because it claims
territory both on its American and Asiatic shores, it may suffice to say that the dis-
tance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitue 51° north, is not less than 90 degrees
of longitude, or 4,000 miles.

The Russian Representative replied to this note, endeavouring to
prove that the territorial rights of Russia on the north-west coast of
America were not confined to the limits of the Concession granted to
the Russian American Company in 1799,and arguing that the great
extent of the Pacific Ocean at the 51st degree of latitude did not invali-
date the right which Russia might have to consider that part of the
ocean as closed. But he added that further discussion of this point
was unnecessary, as the Imperial Government had not thought fit to
take advantage of that right.

566 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The correspondence then dropped for a time, to be restimed in the
following spring. Butit is perfectly clear from the above that the
514 ~— privileges granted to the Kussian American Company in 1799,
whatever effect they may have had as regards other Russian sub-
jects, did not operate to exclude American vessels from any part of the
coast, and that the attempt to exclude them in 1821 was at once resisted.
Further, that the Russian Government had no idea of any distinction
between Behring’s Sea and the Pacific Ocean, which latter they con-
sidered as reaching southward from Behring’s Str aits. Nor throughout
the whole of the subsequent correspondence is there any reference
whatever on either side to any distinctive name for Behring’s Sea, or
any intimation that it could be considered otherwise than as forming
an integral part of the Pacific Ocean.

I now come to the despatch from Mr. Adams to Mr. Middleton of the
22nd July, 1823, to which reference has before been made, and which it
will be necessary to quote somewhat at length. After authorizing Mr.
Middleton to enter upon a negotiation with the Russian Ministers eon-
cerning the differences which had arisen from the Ukaseof the 4th (16th)
September, 1821, Mr. Adams continues:

From the tenour of the Ukase, the pretensions of the Imperial Government extend

‘to an exclusive territorial jurisdiction from the 45th degree of north latitude, on the
Asiatic coast, to the latitude of 51° north on the western coast of the American Con-

tinent; and they assume the right of interdicting the navigation and the fishery of

all other nations to the extent of 100 miles fromthe whole of that coast.

The United States can admit no part of these claims. Their right of navigation
and of fishing is perfect, and has been in constant exercise from the earliest times,
after the peace of 1783, throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject
only to the ordinary exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions, which,
so far as Russian rights are concerned, are confined to certain islands north of the
55th degree of latitude, and have no existence on the continent of America.

Mr. blaine has argued at great length to show that when Mr. Adams
used these clear and forcible expressions he did not mean what he
seemed to say; that when he stated that the United States “could
admit no part of these claims,” he meant that they admitted all that
part of them which related to the coast north of the Aleutian Islands;
that when he spoke of the Southern Ocean, he meant to except Beh-
ring’s Sea; and that when he contended that the ordinary exceptions
and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions had no existence, so far
as Russian rights were concerned, on the Continent of America, he
used the latter term not in a geographical but in a “territorial” sense,
and tacitly excepted, by a very singular petitio principii, the Russian
possessions. In order to carry out this theory, it is necessary for him
also to assume that the negotiators in the course of the discussions
made indiscriminate use of the term “north-west coast of America,”
with a variety of signification which he admits to be ‘‘confusing, and,
at certain points, apparently contradictory and irreconcilable.”

The reputation of the American statesmen and diplomatists of that
day for caution and precision affords of itself strong argument against
such a view, and, even if this had been otherwise, so forced a construe-
tion would require very strong evidence to confirm it. But a glance at
the rest of the despatch and at the other papers will show that the
more simple interpretation of the words is the correct one. For Mr.
Adams goes on to say:

The correspondence between M. Poletica and this Department contained no dis-
cussion of the principles or of the facts upon which he attempted the justification
of the Imperial Ukase. This was purposely avoided on our part, under the expecta-
tion that the Imperial Government could not fail, upon a review of the measure, to
revoke it altogéther. It did, however, excite much public animadversion in this

tegen? ie

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 567

country, as the Ukase itself had already done in England. I inclose herewith the
‘North American Review” for October 1822, No, 37, which contains an Article (p. 370)
written by a person fully master of the subject; and for the view of it taken in
England I refer you to the fifty-second number of the ‘‘ Quarterly Review,” the article
upon Lieutenant Kotzebue’s voyages. From the articie in the ‘‘North American
Review ” it will beseen that the rights of discovery, of occupancy, and of uncontested
possession, alleged by M. Poletica, are all without foundation in fact.

On reference to the last-mentioned article, it will be found that the
writer states that “a trade to the north-western coast of America and
the free navigation of the waters that wash its shores have been enjoyed
as a common right by subjects of the United States and of several
European Powers, without interruption, for nearly forty years. We
are by no means prepared to believe, or admit, that all this has been on
sufferance merely, and that the rights of commerce and navigation in
that region have been vested in Russia alone.” Further on he puts
the question in the following manner (the italics are his own): ‘It is

not, we apprehend, whether Russia has any settlements that
515 give _her territorial claims on the Continent of America. This

we do not deny—but it is whether the location of those settlements
and the discoveries of her navigators are such as they are represented to
be; whether they entitle her to the exclusive possession of the whole terrt-
tory north of 51°, and to sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean beyond that
parallel.”

These passages sufficiently illustrate Mr. Adams’ meaning, if any
evidence be required that he used plain language in its ordinary sense.
Clearly he meant to deny that the Russian settlements or discoveries
gave Russia any claim as of right to exclude the navigation or fishery
of other nations from any part of the seas on the coast of America, and
that her rights in this respect were limited to the territorial waters of
certain islands of which she was in permanent and complete occupation.

Having distinctly laid down this proposition as regards the rights of
the case, Mr. Adams went on to state what the United States were
ready to agree to as a matter of Conventional arrangement. He said:

With regard to the territorial claim, separate from the right of traffic with the

natives and from any system of colonial exclusions, we are willing to agree to the
boundary-line within which the E Imperor Paul had granted exclusive privileges to
the Russian American Company, that is to say, latitude 55°.

Tf the Russian Government apprehend serious inconvenience from the illicit traffic
of foreigners with their settlements on the north-west coast, it may be effectually
guarded against by stipulations similar to those a draft of which is herewith sub-

pined, and to which you are authorized, on the part of the United States, to
ayree, :

The draft Convention was as follows:
Draft of Treaty between the United States and Russia.

Article I. In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, and to preserve in future
avnerfect harmony and good understanding between the Contracting Parties, it is
aweed that their respective citizens and subjects shall not be disturbed or molested,
eiher in navigating or in carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the
Soith Seas, or in landing on the c oasts of those seas, in places not already occupied,
for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country, sub-
[acy nevertheless, to the restrictions and provisions specified in the two foliowi ing

rticles.

Art. II. To the end that the navigation and fishery of the citizens and subjects of
he Contracting Parties, respectiv ely, in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas may
lot be made a pretext for illicit trade with their respective settlements, it is agreed
hat the citizens of the United States shall not land on any part of the coast ac tually
ccupied by Russian settlements, unless by permission of the Governor or Commander
tereof, and that Russian subjec ts shall, in like manner, be interdicted from landing
wthout permission at any settlement of the United States on the said north-west
cost.

568 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Art. III. It is agreed that no settlement shall be made hereafter on the north-west
coast of America by citizens of the United States or under their authority, north, nor
by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the 55th degree of
north latitude.

In an explanatory despatch to Mr. Rush, the American Minister in
London, same date, Mr. Adams says:

The right of carrying on trade with the natives throughout the north-west coast
they (the United States) cannot renounce. With the Russian settlements at Kodiak,
or at New Archangel, they may fairly claim the advantage of a free trade, having so
long enjoyed it unmolested, and because it has been and would continue to be as
advantageous at least to those settlements as to them. But they will not contest the
right of Russia to prohibit the traffic, as strictly confined to the Russian settlement

-itself, and not extending to the original natives of the coast.

It is difficult to conceive how the term ‘north-west coast of America”
used here and elsewhere can be interpreted otherwise than as applying
to the north-west coast of America generally, or how it can be seriously
contended that it was meant to denote only the more westerly portion,
excluding the more north-westerly part, because by becoming a Russian
possession this latter had ceased to belong to the American Continent.

Mr. Blaine states that when Mr. Middleton declared that Russia had
no right of exclusion on the coasts of America between the 50th and
60th degrees of north latitude, nor in the seas which washed those
coasts, he intended to make a distinction between Behring’s Sea and
the Pacific Ocean. But upon reference to a Map, it will be seen that
the 60th degree of north latitude strikes straight across Behring’s Sea,
leaving by far the larger and more important part of it to the south; so
that I confess it appears to me that by no conceivable construction of
his words can Mr. Middleton be supposed to have excepted that sea
from those which he declared to be free.

With regard to the construction which Mr. Blaine puts upon the
Treaty between the United States and Russia of the 17th April, 1824,

I will only say that it is, as far as I am aware, an entirely novel
516 one, that there is no trace of its having been known to the various

publicists who have given an account of the controversy in
Treaties on International Law, and that itis contrary, as I shall show.
to that which the British negotiators placed on the Treaty when they
adopted the Ist and Iind Articles for insertion in the British Treaty of
the 28th February, 1825. I must further dissent from his interpretation
of Article VII of the latter Treaty. That Article gives to the vessel
of the two Powers “liberty to frequent all the inland seas, gulf,
havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in Article ILI, for the purpee
of fishing and of trading with the natives.” The expression ‘cosst
mentioned in Article I1I” can only refer to the first words of the
Article: “The line of demarcation between the possessions of the Hign
Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent and the islandsof
America to the north-west shall be drawn,” &c. That is to say, it
included all the possessions of the two Powers on the north-west caist
of America. For there would have been no sense whatever in stipuiat-
ing that Russian vessels should have freedom of access to the small
portion of coast which, by a later part of the Article, is to belong to
Russia. And as bearing on this point it will be noticed that Articb
V1, which has a more restricted bearing, speaks only of ‘the su)-
jects of His Britannic Majesty,” and of ‘the line of coast describd
in Article III.”

The stipulations of the Treaty were formally renewed by Artices
inserted in the General Treaties of Commerce between Great Britin
aud Russia of 1843 and 1859. But Mr. Blaine states that “the rigts

Shemp,<> sage

Ee

——————

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 569

of the Russian American Company, which, under both Ukases, included
the sovereignty over the sea to the extent of 100 miles from the shores,
were reserved by special clause in a separate and special Article signed
after the principal Articles of the Treaty had been concluded “and
signed.”

Upon this I have to observe, in the first place that the Ukase of 1799
did not contain any mention whatever of sovereignty over the sea;
secondly, that the context of the Separate Article is such as altogether
to preclude the interpretation that if was meant to recognize the “objec:
tionable claim contained in the Ukase of 1821. I will quote the Article
at length:

Separate Article II.

It is understood in like manner that the exceptions, immunities, and privileges
hereinafter mentioned shall not be considered as at variance with the principle of
reciprocity which forms the basis of the Treaty of this date, that is to say:

1. The exemption from navigation dues during the first three years, which is
enjoyed by vessels built in Russia and belonging to Russian subjects.

3. The exemptions of the like nature granted in the Russian ports of the Black
Sea, the Sea of Azof, and the Danube to such Turkish vessels arriv ing from ports of
the Ottoman Empire situated on the Black Sea, as do not exceed 80 lasts burden.

3. The permission granted to the inhabitants of the coast of the Government of
Archangel, to import. duty free, or on payment of moderate duties, into the ports of
the said Government, dried or salted fish, as likewise certain kinds of furs, and to
export therefrom, in the same manner, corn, rope and cordage, pitch, and ravensduck.

4. The privilege of the Russian American Company.

5. The privilege of the Steam Navigation Companies of Lubeck and Havre; lastly,

6. The immunities granted in Russia to certain English Companies, called ‘‘ Yacht
Clubs.”

To suppose that under the simple words, “ the privilege of the Rus-
sian American Company,” placed in connection with the privilege of
French and German Steam Navigation Companies, and the immunities
of yacht clubs, it was intended to acknowledge a claim of jurisdiction
against which her Majesty’s Government had formally protested as
contrary to international law, and which it had avowedly been one of
the main objects of the Treaty of 1825 to extinguish, is a suggestion too
improbable to require any lengthened discussion.

But Her Majesty’ s Government did not of course agree to the Article
without knowing what was the exact nature of the privileges thus
excepted from reciprocity. They had received from the Russian Ambas-
sador, in December 1842, an explanatory Memorandum on this subject,
of which the following is the portion relating to the Russian American
Company:

VE

La Compagnie Russe Américaine a le privilége d’expédier francs de droits: de
Cronstadt autour du monde et d’Ochotsk dans les Colonies Russes, les produits
Russes ainsi que les marchandises étrangéres dont les droits ont déja été prélevés;
de méme (importer au retour de ces Colonies des car gaisons de pellete ries et d’autres
produits de ces Colonies, sans payer aucun droit si d’apres les lois générales il n’est
pas établi @impét particulier intérieur sur les marchandises de pelleterie.

Observation.—D’apres le Tarif en vigueur, Vimportation des fourrures dans les
ports de St.-Pétersbourg et d’Archangel, de production Russe et sur des vaisseaux

Russes, est admise sans droits.

517 It is surely incredible that if the privilege of the Russian

American Company did comprise a right of excluding vessels

from approaching within 100 miles of the shore, it should not even
have been alluded to in this explanation.

Nor is it possible to agree in Mr. Blaine’s view, that the exclusion of

foreign vessels for a distance of 100 miles from the coast remained in

570 APPENDIX TO GASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

force pending the negotiations, and in so far as it was not modified by
the Conventions. A claim of jurisdiction over the open sea, which is
not in accordance with the recognized principles of international law
or usage, may, of course, be asserted by force, but cannot be said to
have any legal validity as against the vessels of other countries, except
in so far as it is positively admitted by Conventional Agreements with
those countries.

I do not suppose that it is necessary that I should argue at length
upon so elementary a point as that a claim to prohibit the vessels of
other nations from approaching within a distance of 100 miles from the
coast is contrary to modern international usage. Mr. Adams and Mr.
Canning clearly thought in 1825 that the matter was beyond doubt or
discussion.

The rule which was recognized at that time, and which has been gen-
erally admitted both by publicists and Governments, limits the juris-
diction of a country in the open sea to a distance of 3 miles from its
coasts, this having been considered to be the range of a cannon-shot
when the principle was adopted.

Wheaton, who may be regarded as a contemporary authority, equally
respected in Europe and America, says:

The maritime territory of every State extends to the ports, harbours, bays, mouths
of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea inclosed by headlands belonging to the same
State. The general usage of nations superadds to this extent of territorial jurisdic-

tion a distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon-shot will reach trom the
shore along all the coasts of the State.

And again—

The rule of law on this subject is terre dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis; and
since the introduction of fire-arms that distance has usually been recognized to be
about 3 miles from the shore.

Chancellor Kent, who is inclined to advocate a more extended limit,
still admits that:

According to the current of modern authority, the general territorial jurisdiction
extends into the sea as far as cannon-shot will reach, and no far ther; and this is gen-
erally calculated to be a marine league.

Calvo, one of the most recent text-writers, makes a corresponding
statement:

Les limites juridictionnelles @’un Etat embrassent non seulement son territoire,
mais encore les eaux qui le traversent ou Ventourent, les ports, les baies, les golfes,
le sembouchures des fleuves et les mers enclayées dans son territoire. L’usage gén-
éral des nations permet également aux Etats @exercer leur juridiction sur Ta zone
maritime jusqu’a 3 mille marins ou & la portée de canon de leurs cétes.

3ut L need scarcely appeal to any other authority than that of the
United States Government itself.

In a note to the Spanish Minister, dated the 16th December, 1862,
on the subject of the Spanish claim to a 6-mile limit at sea, Mr. Seward
stated : *

A third principle bearing on the subject is also well established, namely, that this
exclusive sovereignty of a nation—thus abridging the universal liberty of the seas——
extends no farther than the power of the nation to maintain it by force, stationed
on the coast, extends. This principle | is tersely expressed in the maxim: “ Terre
dominium jinitur ubi jinitur armorum vis.

But it must always be a matter of uncertainty and dispute at what point the
force of arms, exerted on the coast, can actually reach. The publicists rather
advanced towards than reached a solution when they laid down the rule that the
limit of the force is the range of a cannon-ball. The range of a cannon-ball is
shorter or longer according to the circumstances of projection, “and it must be always
liable to change with the improvement of the science of ordnance. Such uncer-

* Wharton’s International Law Digest, vol.i, § 32.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 571

tainty upon a point of jurisdiction or sovereignty would be productive of many and
endless controversies and conflicts. A more practical limit of national jurisdiction
upon the high seas was indispensably necessary, and this was found, as the Under-
signed thinks, in fixing the limit at 3 miles from the coast. This limit was early
proposed by the publicists of all maritime nations. While it is not insisted that all
nations have accepted or acquiesced and bound themselves to abide by this rule
when applied to themselves, yet three points involved in the subject are insisted
upon by the United States:
518 1. That this limit has been generally recognized by nations;
2. That no other general rule has been accepted; and

3. That if any State has succeeded in fixing for itself a larger limit, this has been
done by the exercise of maritime power, and constitutes an exception to the general
understanding which fixes the range of a cannon-shot (when it is made the test of
jurisdiction) at 3 miles. So generally is this rule accepted, that writers commonly
use the expressions of a range of cannon-shot and 3 miles as equivalents of each
other. In other cases, they use the latter expression as a substitute for the former.

And in a later communication on the same subject of the 10th August,
1863, he observes:

Nevertheless, it cannot be admitted, nor indeed is Mr. Tassara understood to claim,
that the mere assertion of a Sovereign, by an act of legislation, however solemn, can
have the effect to establish and fix its external maritime jurisdiction. His right to
a jurisdiction of 3 miles is derived, not from his own Decree, but from the law of
nations, and exists, even though he may never have proclaimed or asserted it by any
Decree or Declaration whatsoever. He cannot, by a mere Decree, extend the limit
and fix it at 6 miles, because, if he could, he could in the same manner, and upon
motives of interest, ambition, or even upon caprice, fix it at 10, or 20, or 50 miles
without the consent or acquiescence of other Powers which have a common right
with himself in the freedom of all the oceans. Such a pretension could never be
successfully or rightfully maintained.

The same principles were laid down in a note addressed to Sir E.
Thornton by Mr. Fish, then Secretary of State, on the 22nd January,
1875. Mr. Fish there stated: “ We have always understood and asserted
that pursuant to public law no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction
at sea beyond a marine league from the coast.”

He then went on to explain the only two exceptions that were appar-
ently known to him so far as the United States were concerned: certain
Revenue Laws which admitted the boarding of vessels at a distance of 4
leagues from the coast, which, he said, had never been so applied in
practice as to give rise to complaint on the part of a foreign Govern-
ment; and a Treaty between the United States and Mexico of 1848, in
which the boundary-line between the two States was described as begin-
ning in the Gulf of Mexico, 3 leagues from land. As regards this stipu-
Jation, he observed that it had been explained at the time that it could
only affect the rights of Mexico and the United States, and was never
intended to trench upon the rights of Great Britain or of any other
Power under the law of nations.

It would seem, therefore, that Mr. Fish was entirely unaware of the
exceptional jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea, which is now said to have
‘been conceded by the United States to Russia from 1823 to 1867, trans-
ferred to the United States, so far as the American coast was concerned,
only eight years before he wrote, and which would presumably be still
acknowledged by them as belonging to Russia on the Asiatic shore. L
must suppose that when Mr. Blaine states that “both the United
States and Great Britain recognized, respected, obeyed” the Ukase of
1821, in so far as it affected Behring o’s Sea, he has some evidence to go
upon in regard to the conduct of his country which is unknown to the
world at large, and which he has not as yet produced. But I must be
allowed altogether to deny that the attitude of Great Britain was such
as he represents, or that she ever admitted by act or by sufferance
the extraordinary claim of maritime jurisdiction which that Ukase
contained.

572 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. |

The inclosed copies of correspondence, extracted from the archives of
this Office, make it very difficult to believe that Mr. Blaine has not
been altogether led into error. It results from them that not only did
Her Majesty’s Government formally protest against the Ukase on its
first issue as contrary to the acknowledged law of nations, but that the
Russian Government gave a verbal assurance that the claim of juris-
diction would not be exercised. In the subsequent negotiations great
importance was attached to obtaining a more formal disavowal of the
claim in the manner least hurtful to Russian susceptibilities, but so
as effectually to preclude its revival. And this security the British
Government undoubtedly considered that both they and the United
States had obtained by the Conventions of 1824 and 1825.

Upon this point the instructions given by Mr. George Canning to
Mr. Stratford Canning when the latter was named Plenipotentiary to
negotiate the Treaty of 1825 have a material bearing.

Writing under date the 8th December, 1824, after giving a summary
of the negotiations up to that date, he goes on to say:

It is comparatively indifferent to us whether we hasten or postpone all questions
respecting the limits of territorial possession on the Continent of America, but the
pretensions of the Russian Ukase of 1821, to exclusive dominion over the Pacific,
could not continue longer unrepealed without compelling us to take some measure

of public and effectual remonstrance against it.
519 You will, therefore, take care in the first instance to repress any attempt to
give this change to the character of the negotiation, and will declare, without
reserve, that the point to which alone the solicitude of the British Government, and
the jealousy of the British nation, attach any great importance is the doing away
(in a manner as little disagreeable to Russia as possible) of the effect of the Ukase of
1821.

That this Ukase is not acted upon, and that instructions have long ago been sent
by the Russian Government to their cruizers in the Pacific to suspend the execution
of its provisions, is true, but a private disavowal of a published claim is no security
against the revival of that claim; the suspension of the execution of a principle may
be perfectly compatible with the continued maintenance of the principle itself.

* * * * * * ”

The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the Pacific cannot
be held as a matter of indulgence from any Power. Having once been publicly
questioned, it must be publicly acknowledged.

We do not desire that any distinct reference should be made to the Ukase of 1821,
but we do feel it necessary that the statement of our right should be clear and posi-
tive, and that it should stand forth in the Convention in the place which properly
belongs to it as a plain and substantive stipulation, and not be brought in as an
incidental consequence of other arrangements to which we attach comparatively
little importance.

This stipulation stands in the grant of the Convention concluded between Russia
and the United States of America, and we see no reason why, upon similar claims, we
should not obtain exactly the like satisfaction.

For reasons of the same nature we cannot consent that the liberty of navigation
through Behring’s Straits should be stated in the Treaty as a boon from Russia.

The tendency of such a statement would be to give countenance to those claims of
exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own behalf and on that of the whole
civilized world, protest.

* * * * ® * *

It will of course strike the Russian Plenipotentiaries that, by the adoption of the
American Article respecting navigation, &c., the provision for an exclusive fishery
of 2 leagues from the coasts of our respective possessions falls to the ground.

But the ommission is, in truth, immaterial.

The law of nations assigns the exclusive sovereignty of 1 league to each Power off
its own coasts, without any specified stipulation, and though Sir Charles Bagot was
authorized to sign the Convention with the specific stipulation of 2 leagues, in igno-
rance of what had been decided in the American Convention at the time, yet, after
that Convention has been some months before the world, and after the opportunity
of reconsideration has been forced upon us by the act of Russia herself, we cannot
now consent, in negotiating de novo, to a stipulation which, while it is absolutely
unimportant to any practical good, would appear to establish a contract between
the United States and us to our disadvantage.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 513

Mr. Stratford Canning, in his despatch of the 1st March, 1825, inclos-
ing the Convention as signed, says:

With respect to Behring’s Straits, I am happy to have it in my power to assure you
on the joint authority of the Russian Pienipotentiaries, that the Emperor of Russia
has no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the navigation of
these Straits, or of the seas to the north of them.

These extracts show conclusively: (1) that England refused to admit
any part of the Russian claim asserted by the Ukase of 1821 to a mari-
time jurisdiction and exclusive right of fishing throughout the whole
extent of that claim, from Behring’s Straits to the 51st parallel; (2)
that the Convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renuncia-
tion on the part of Russia of that claim in its entirety; and (3) that
though Behring’s Straits was known and specifically provided for, Beh-
ring’s Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as part of the
Pacific Ocean.

The answer, therefore, to the questions with which Mr. Blaine con-
cludes his despatch is that Her Majesty’s Government have always
claimed the freedom of navigation and fishing in the waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea outside the usual territorial limit of 1 marine league from the
coast; that it is impossible to admit that a public right to fish, catch
Seals, or pursue any other Jawful occupation on the high seas can be
held to be abandoned by a nation from the mere fact that for a certain
number of years it has not suited the subjects of that nation to exer-
cise it.

It must be remembered that British Columbia has come into exist-
ence as a Colony at a comparatively recent date, and that the first
considerable influx of population, some thirty years ago, was due to the
discovery of gold, and did not tend to an immediate development of
the shipping interest.

I have to request that you will communicate a copy of this despatch,
and of its inclosures, to Mr. Blaine. You will state that her Maj-
esty’s Government have no desire whatever to refuse to the United
States any jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea which was conceded by Great

Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the present
520 possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or the law of nations;

and that if the United States Government, after examination of
the evidence and arguments which I have produced, still differ from
them as to the legality of the recent captures in that sea, they are ready
to agree that the question, with the issues that depend upon it, should
be referred to impartial arbitration. You will in that case be author-
ized to consider, in concert with Mr. Blaine, the method of procedure
to be followed.

Tam, We.

(Signed) SALISBURY.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 382.]
Lord Londonderry to Count Lieven.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 18, 1822.

The Undersigned has the honour hereby to acknowledge the note addressed to
him by Baron de Nicolai, of the 12th November last, covering a copy of an Ukase
issued by His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, and bearing date the
4th September, 1821, for various purposes therein set forth, especially connected
with the territorial rights of his Crown on the north-western coast of America
bordering upon the Pacific, and the commerce and navigation of His Imperial
Majosty’s subjects in the seas adjacent thereto.

574 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

This document, containing Regulations of great extent and importance, both in its
territorial and maritime bearings, has been considered with the utmost attention,
and with those favourable sentiments which His Majesty’s Government always bear
towards the acts of a State with which His Majesty has the satisfaction to feel him-
self connected by the most intimate ties of friendship and alliance, and having been
referred for the Report of those high legal authorities whose duty it is to advise His
Majesty on such matters, the Undersigned is directed, till such friendly explanations
can take place between the two Governments as may obviate misunderstanding upon
so delicate and important a point, to make such provisional protest against the
enactments of the said Ukase as may fully serve to save the rights of His Majesty’s
Crown, and may protect the persons and properties of His Majesty’s subjects from
molestation in the exercise of their lawful callings in that quarter of the globe.

The Undersigned is commanded to acquaint Count Lieven that, it being the King’s
constant desire to respect and cause to be respected by his subjects, in the fullest
manner, the Emperor of Russia’s just rights, His Majesty will be ready to enter into
amicable explanations upon the interests affected by this instrument, in such man-
ner as may be most acceptable to His Imperial Majesty.

In the meantime, upon the subject of this Ukase generally, and especially upon
the two main principles of claim laid down therein, viz., an exclusive sovereignty
alleged to belong to Russia over the territories therein described, as also the exclu-
sive right of navigating and trading within the maritime limits therein set forth,
His Britannic Majesty must be understood as hereby reserving all his rights, not
being prepared to admit that the intercourse which is allowed on the face of this
instrument to have hitherto subsisted on those coasts, and in those seas, can be
deemed to beillicit; or that the ships of friendly Powers, even supposing an unquali-
fied sovereignty was proved to appertain to the Imperial Crown, in these vast and
very imperfectly occupied territories, could, by the acknowledged law of nations,
be excluded from navigating within the distance of 100 Italian miles, as therein laid
down, from the coast the exclusive dominion of which is assumed (but as His Majesty’s
Government conceive in error) to belong to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of All
the Russias.

(Signed) LONDONDERRY.

521 {Inclosure 2 in No. 382.]
Memorandum by the Duke of Wellington.—(September 11, 1822.

In the course of a conversation which I had yesterday with Count Lieven, he
informed that he had been directed to give verbal explanations of the Ukase respect-.
ing the north-western coast of America. These explanations went, he said, to this,
that the Emperor did not propose to carry into execution the Ukase in its extended
sense; that [lis Imperial Majesty’s ships had been directed to cruize at the shortest
possible distance from the shore, in order to supply the natives with arms and ammu-
nition, and in order to warn aJl vessels that that was His Imperial Majesty’s dominion,
and that His Lnperial Majesty had besides given directions to his Minister in the
United States to agree upon a Treaty of Limits with the United States.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 382.]
Mr. G. Canning to the Duke of Wellington.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 27, 1822.

My Lorp DvuKE: Your Grace is already in possession of all that has passed both
here and at St. Petersburgh, on the subject of the issue, in September of last year, by
the Emperor of Russia, of an Ukase, indirectly asserting an exclusive right of sov-
ereignty from Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree of north latitude on the west coast
of America, and to the 45th degree north on the opposite coast of Asia; and (as a
qualified exercise of that right) prohibiting all foreign ships, under pain of confis-
cation, from approaching within 100 Italian miles of those coasts. ‘This Ukase hav-
ing been communicated by Baron Nicolai, the Russian Chargé d’Affaires at this
Court, to His Majesty’s Government, was forthwith submitted to the legal authori-
ties whose duty it is to advise His Majesty on such matters, and a note was in
consequence addressed by the late Marquis of Londonderry to Count Lieven, the Rus-
sian Ambassador, and also communicated to His Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Peters-
burgh, protesting against the enactinents of the said Ukase, and requesting such

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 575

amicable explanations as might tend to reconcile the pretensions of Russia in that
quarter of the globe with the just rights of His Majesty’s Crown and the interests
of his subjects. As such explanations will probably be offered to your Grace dur-
ing the Conferences about to take place at Vienna, I hasten to signify to you the
King’ s commands as to the language which you will hold on the part of His Majesty
upon this subject.

The opinions given in November and December last by Lord Stowell and by His
Majesty’s Advocate-General (copies of which are already in your possession) will
furnish you with the best legal arguments in opposition to the pretensions put for-
ward in the Russian Ukase; and, as in both these opinions much stress is very prop-
erly laid upon the state of actual occupation of the territories claimed by Russia,
and the different periods of time at which they were so occupied, I have obtained
from the Governor of the principal Company of His Majesty’s subjects trading in
that part of the world the information which your Grace will find in the inclosed

apers.
; That information will enable you sufficiently to prove to the Russian Minister, not
only that the point of prior discovery may be fairly disputed with Russia, but that
the much more certain title of actual occupation by the agents and the trading serv-
ants of the Hudson’s Bay Company extends at this moment to many degrees of
higher latitude on the north-west coast of America than is claimed as the territory
of Russia by the Ukase in question.

Enlightened statesmen and jurists have long held as insignificant all titles of ter-
ritory that are not founded on actual occupation, and that title i is, in the opinion of
the most esteemed writers on public law, to be established only by practical use.

With respect to the other points in the Ukase which have the éffect of extending
the territorial rights of Russia over the adjacent seas to the unprecedented distance
of 100 miles from the line of coast, and of closing a hitherto unobstructed passage,
at the present moment the object of important discoveries for the promotion of gen-
eral commerce and navigation, these pretensions are considered by the best legal
authorities as positive innovations on the rights of navigation; as such they can

receive no explanation from further discussion, nor can by possibility be jus-
522 tified. Common usage, which has obtained the force of law, has indeed as-

signed to coasts and shores an accessorial boundary to a short limited distance
for purposes of protection and general convenience, in no manner interfering with
the rights of others, and not obstr ucting the freedom of general commerce and navi-
gation. But this important qualification the extent of the present claim entirely
excludes, and when such a prohibition is, as in the present case, applied to a long
line of coasts and also to intermediate islands in remote seas, where navigation is
beset with innumerable and unforeseen difficulties, and where the principal employ-
ment of the fisheries must be pursued under circumstances which are incompatible
with the prescribed courses, all particular considerations concur, in an especial man-
ner, with the general principle, in repelling such a pretension as an encroachment
on the freedom of navigation, and the unalienable rights of all nations.

Thave, indeed, the satisfaction to believe, from a conference which I have had with
Count Lieven on this matter, that upon these two points—the attempt to shut up the
passage altogether, and the claim of exclusive dominion to so enormous a distance
from the coast—the Russian Government are prepared entirely to waive their pre-
tensions. The only effort that has been made to justify the latter claim was by ref-
erence to an Article in the Treaty of Utrecht, which assigns 30 leagues from the coast
as the distance of prohibition. But to this argument it is sufficient to answer that
the assumption of such a space was, in the instance quoted, by stipulation in a
Treaty, and one to which, therefore, the party to be affected by it had (whether
wisely or not) given its deliberate consent. No inference could be drawn from that
transaction in favour of a claim by authority against all the world.

I have little doubt, therefore, but that the public notification of the claim to con-
sider the portions of the ocean included between the adjoining coasts of America
and the Russian Empire as a mare clausum, and to extend the exclusive territorial
jurisdiction of Russia to 100 Italian miles from the coast, will be publicly recalled;
and I have the King’s commands to instruct your Grace further to require of the
Russian Minister (on the ground of the facts and reasonings furnished in this
despatch and its inclosures) that such a portion of territory alone shall be defined
as belonging to Russia as shall not interfere with the rights and actual possessions
of His Majesty’ 8 subjects in North America,

Tan, &ce.
(Signed) GEO. CANNING,

576 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 4 in No, 382.]
Memorandum on Russian Ukase of 1821,

In the month of September 1821 His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia
issued an Ukase asserting the existence in the Crown of Russia of an exclusive right
of sovereignty in the countries extending from Behring’s Straits to the 51st degree
of North latitude on the west coast of America, and to the 45th degree of north lati-
tude on the opposite coast of Asia; and, as a qualified exercise of that right of sover-
eignty, prohibiting all foreign vessels from approaching within 100 Italian miles of
those coasts.

After this Ukase had been submitted by the King’s Government to those legal
authorities whose duty it is to advise His Majesty on such matters, a note was
addressed by the late Marquis of Londonderry to Count Lieven, the Russian Ambas-
sador, protesting against the enactments of this Ukase, and requesting such amica-
ble explanations as might tend to reconcile the pretensions of Russia in that quarter
of the globe with the just rights of His Majesty’s Crown and the interests of his
subjects.

We object, first, to the claim of sovereignty as set forth in this Ukase; and, sec-
ondly, to the mode in which it is exercised.

The best writers on the laws of nations do not attribute the exclusive sovereignty,
particularly of continents, to those who have first discovered them; and although we
might on good grounds dispute with Russia the priority of discovery of these conti-
nents, we contend that the much more easily proved, more conclusive, and more
certain title of occupation aud use ought to decide the claim of sovereignty.

Now, we can prove that the English North-West Company and the Hudson’s Bay
Company have for many years established forts and other trading-stations in a coun-

try called New Caledonia, situated to the west of a range of mountains called
523 Rocky Mountains, and extending along the shores of the Pacific Ocean from
latitude 49° to latitude 60°.

This Company likewise possess factories and other establishments on Mackenzie’s
River, which falls into the Frazer River as far north as latitude 66° 30’, from
whence they carry on trade with the Indians inhabiting the countries to the west of
that river, and who, from the nature of the country, can communicate with Macken-
zie’s River with more facility than they can with the posts in New Caledonia. Thus,
in opposition to the claims founded on discovery, the priority of which, however, we
conceive we might fairly dispute, we have the indisputable claim of occupancy and
use for a series of years, which all the best writers on the laws of nations admit is
the best-founded claim for territory of this description. Objecting, as we do, to this
claim of exclusive sovereignty on the part of Russia, I might save myself the trouble
of discussing the particular mode of its exercise as set forth in this Ukase, But we
object to the sovereignty proposed to be exercised under this Ukase not less than we
do to the claim of it. We cannot admit the right of any Power possessing the sov-
ereignty of a country to exclude the vessels of others from the seas on its coasts to
the distance of 100 Italian miles. We must object likewise to the arrangements
contained in the said Ukase conveying to private merchant-ships the right to search
in time of peace, &c., which are quite contrary to the laws and usages of nations
and to the practice of modern times.

(Signed) WELLINGTON.

VERONA, October 17, 1822.

To Count NESSELRODE.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 382.—Mémoire Confidentiel.]
Count Nesselrode to the Duke of Wellington.

VERONE, le 11 (23) Novembre, 1822.

Le Cabinet de Russie a pris en mfire considération le Mémoire Confidentiel que
M. le Due de Wellington lui a remis le 17 Octobre dernier, relativement aux mesures
adoptées par Sa Majesté ’Empereur, sous la date du (4) 16 Septembre, 1821, pour
déterminer |’étendue des possessions Russes sur la cdte nord-ouest de ’ Amérique, et
pour interdire aux vaisseaux étrangers approche de ses possessions jusqwa la dis-
tance de 100 milles d’Italie.

Les ouvertures faites & ce sujet au Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Britannique par le
Comte de Lieven au moment ot cet Ambassadeur allait quitter Londres doivent déja
avoir prouvé que lopinion que le Cabinet de St. James avait congue des mesures
dont il s’agit n’était point fondée sur une appréciation entitrement exacte des vues
de Sa Majesté Impériale.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 577

La Russie est loin de méconnaitre que l’usage et occupation constituent la plus
solide des titres d’aprés lesquels un Etat puisse réclamer des droits de souveraineté
sur une portion quelconque du Continent. La Russie est plus loin encore d’avoir
voulu outrepasser arbitrairement les limites que ce titre assigne & ses domaines sur
la c6te nord-ouest de )Amériaue, ou ériger en principe général de droit maritime les
régles qu’une nécessité purement locale l’avait obligée de poser pour la navigation
étrangere dans le voisinage de la partie de cette céte qui lui appartient.

C’était au contraire parce qu’elle regardait ces droits de souveraineté comme légit-
imes, et parce que des considérations impérieuses tenant a l’existence méme du com-
merce quelle fait dans les parages de la céte nord-ouest de l’ Amérique, la forcaient
a établir un systeéme de précautions devenues indispensables, qu’elle a fait paraitre
VOukase du (4) 16 Septembre, 1821.

La Russie serait toujours préte & faire part des motifs qui en justifient les dispo-
sitions; mais pour le moment elle se bornera aux observations snivantes:

M. le Due de Wellington affirme, dans son Mémoire Confidentiel du 17 Octobre,
que des établissements Anglais, appartenant & deux Compagnies, celle de la Baye de
Hudson et celle du Nord-Ouest, se sont formés dans une contrée appelée la Nouvelle-
Calédonie, qui s’étend le long de la céte de Océan Pacifique, depuis le 49° jusqu’au
69° degré de latitude septentrionale. .

La Russie ne parlera point des établissements qui peuvent exister entre le 49° et
le 51° paralléle; mais quant aux autres, elle n’hésite pas de convenir quwelle en ignore
jusqu’a présent l’existence, pour autant aumoins qwils toucheraient Ocean Pacifique,

Les Cartes Anglaises méme les plusrécentes et les plus détaillées n’indiquent
524 absolument aucune des stations de commerce mentionnées dans le Mémoire du
17 Octobre, sur la céte méme de l’ Amérique, entre le 51° et le 60° degré de lati-

tude septentrionale.

D’ailleurs, depuis les expéditions de Behring et de Tchirikoff, c’est-A-dire depuis
pres d’un siecle, des établissements Russes ont pris, 4 partir du 60° degré, une exten-
sion progressive, quides l’année 1799 les avait fait parvenir jusqu’au 55° paralléle,
commie le porte la premiere charte de la Compagnie Russe-Américaine, charte qui a
recu dans le temps une publicité officielle, et qui n’a motivé aucune protestation de
la part de l’Angleterre.

Cette méme charte accordait &4 la Compagnie Russe le droit de porter ses établisse-
ments vers le midi au dela du 55° degré de latitude septentrionale, pourvu que de tels
accroissements de territoire ne pussent donner motif de réclamation a aucune Puis-
sance étrangere.

L’ Angleterre n’a pas non plus protesté contre cette disposition; elle n’a pas méme
réclamé contre les nouveaux établissements que la Compagnie Russe-Américaine a
pu former au sud due 55* degré, en vertu de ce privilege.

La Russie était done pleinement autorisée 4 profiter d’un consentement qui, pour
étre tacite, n’en était pas moins solennel, et 4 déterminer pour bornes des ses domaines
le degré de latitude jusqu’anquel la Compagnie Russe avait étendu ses opérations
depuis 1799.

Quoiqwil en soit, et quelque force que ces circonstances prétent aux titres de la
Russie, Sa Majesté Impériale ne déviera point dans cette conjuncture du systéme
habituel de sa politique.

Le premier de ses veux sera toujours de prévenir toute discussion, et de consolider
de plus en plus les rapports damitié et de parfaite intelligence qu’elle se félicite
@entretenir avec la Grande-Bretagne.

En conséquence l’ Empereur a chargé son Cabinet de déclarer 4 M. le Due de Wel-
lington (sans que cette déclaration puisse préjudicier en rien a ses droits, si elle
n’était point acceptée) qu’il est prét a fixer, au moyen d’une négociation amicale, et
sur la base des convenances mutuelles, les degrés de latitude et de longitude que les
deux Puissarrces regarderont comme derniéeres limites de leurs possessions et de leurs
établissements sur la céte nord-ouest de Amérique.

Sa Majesté Impériale se plait a croire que cette négociation pourra se terminer sans
difficulté & la satisfaction réciproque des deux Etats; et le Cabinet de Russie peut
assurer dés 4 présent M. le Duc de Wellington que les mesures de précaution et de
surveillance qui seront prises alors sur la partie Russe de la céte d’Amérique se
trouveront entitrement conformes aux droits dérivant de la souveraineté, ainsi
qu’aux ee établis entre nations, et qu’aucune plainte légitime ne pourra s’élever
contre elles.

{Translation.—Confidential Memorandum.]

Verona, Noveiiber 11 (23), 1822.
The Cabinet of Russia have taken into mature consideration the Confidential
Memorandum forwarded to them by the Duke of Wellington on the 17th October
last, relative to the measures adopted by His Majesty the Emperor, under date of
the 4th (16th) September, 1821, for defining the extent of the Russian possessions on
the north-west coast of America, and for forbidding foreign vessels to approach his
possessions within a distance of 100 Italian miles.

B 8, PT V——37

578 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The overtures made on this subject to the Government of His Britannie Majesty
by Count de Lieven at the moment when that Ambassador was about to leave Lon-
don must already have proved that the opinion which the Cabinet of St. James’ had
formed of the measures in question was not founded on an entirely accurate appre-
ciation of the views of His Imperial Majesty.

Russia is far from failing to recognize that custom aud occupation constitute the
most solid title upon which a State can claim rights of sovereignty over any por-
tion of the mainland. Russia is still further from having wished to arbitrarily
transgress the limits which that title assigns to her dominions on the north-west
coast of America, or to exalt into a general principle of maritime law the rules
which a necessity of purely local character had obliged her to lay down for foreign
navigation in the neighbourhood of the portion of that coast which belongs to her,

It was, on the contrary, because she regarded those rights of sovereignty as legit-
imate, and becausé imperious considerations involving the very existence of the
commerce which she carries on in the latitudes of the north-west coast of America
compelled her to establish a system or precautions which became indispensable, that

she caused the Ukase of the 4th (16th) September, 1821, to be issued.
525 Russia would be always ready to explain the motives which justify the
provisions of that document; but for the moment she will confine herself to
the following observations:

The Duke of Wellington asserts, in his Confidential Memorandum of the 17th
October, that English establishments belonging to two Companies, the Hudson’s
Bay Company and the North-West Company, have been formed in a country called
New Caledonia, which extends along the coast of the Pacific Ocean from the 49th to
the 60th deeree of north latitude.

Russia will not refer to the establishments which may exist between the 49th and
51st parallel; but, with regard to the others, she does not hesitate to admit that she
is, up to the present, ignorant of their existence in so far at least as to their
touching the Pacific Ocean.

Even the most recent and most minute English Maps give absolutely no indication
of the trading stations, mentioned in the Memorandum of the 17th October, on the
coast of America between the 51st and 60th degree of north latitude.

On the other hand, since the expeditions of Behring and Tchirikoff, that is nearly
a century ago, Russian establishments have extended progressively from the 60th
degree, so that by the year 1799 they had reached the 55th parallel, as is shown by
the first Charter of the Russo-American Company, a Charter which received official
publicity at the time, and drew forth no protest on the part of England.

This same Charter granted to the Russian Company the right to extend its estab-
lishments towards the south beyond the 55th degree of north latitude, provided that
such increase of territory could not give rise to objections on the part of any foreign
Power.

Nor did England protest against this provision either, nor did she even object to
the new establishments which the Russo-American Company was able to form to the
south of the 55th degree in virtue of that privilege.

Russia was therefore fully entitled to profit by a consent which, for being tacit,
was none the less solemn, and to fix as the boundary of her dominions the degree of
latitude up to which the Russian Company had extended its operations since 1799.

Be this as it may, and whatever force these circumstances may give to the titles
of Russia, His lmperial Majesty will not deviate at this juncture from the habitual
system of his policy. :

His first wish will always be to prevent all discussion, and to strengthen more and

more the relations of friendship and complete understanding which he is happy to
maintain with Great Britain. -
_ Consequently, the Emperor has charged his Cabinet to declare to the Duke of
Wellington (such declaration not to prejudice his rights in any way if it be not
accepted) that he is ready to fix, by means of friendly negotiation and on the basis
of mutual accommodation, the degrees of latitude and longitude which the two Pow-
ers shall regard as the utmost limits of their possessions and of their establishments
on the north-west coast of America.

His Imperial Majesty is pleased to believe that this negotiation can be completed
without difficulty, to the mutual satisfaction of the two States; and the Cabinet of
Russia can, from this moment, assure the Duke of Wellington that the measures of
precaution and superintendence which will then be taken on the Russian part of
the coast of America wiil be entirely in conformity with the rights derived from sov-
ereignty and with the established customs of nations, and that there will be ne
possibility of legitimate cause of complaint against them.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, Be

[Inclosure 6 in No. 382.]
The Duke of Wellington to Mr. G. Canning.

VERONA, November 28, 1822.
Sir: Linclose a copy of a Confidential Memorandum which I gave to Count Nessel-
rode on the 17th October, regarding the Russian Ukase, and the copy of his answer.
I have had one or two discussions with Count Lieven upon this paper, to which I
object, as not enabling His Majesty’s Government to found upon it any negotiation
to settle the questions arising out of the Ukase, which have not got the better of
these difficulties; and Linclose you the copy of a letter which I have written to Count
Lieven, which explains my objections to the Russian ‘‘ Mémoire Confidentiel.”
526 This question, then, stands exactly where it did. Ihave not been able to do

apything upon it.
I have, &c.
(Signed) WELLINGTON.

[Inclosure 7 in No. 382.]
The Duke of Wellington to Count Lieven.

VERONA, November 28, 1822.

M. LE Comte: Having considered the paper which your Excellency gave me last
night, on the part of his Excellency Count Nesselrode, on the subject of our discus-
sions on the Russian Ukase, I must inform you that I cannot consent, on the part of
my Government, to found on that paper the negotiation for the settlement of the
question which has arisen between the two Governments on this subject.

We object to the Ukase on two grounds: (1) that His Imperial Majesty assumes
thereby an exclusive sovereignty in North America, of which we are not prepared
to acknowledge the existence or the extent; upon this point, however, the Memoir
of Count Nesselrode does afford the means of negotiation; and my Government will
be ready to discuss it, either in London or St. Petersburgh, whenever the state of
the discussions on the other question arising out of the Ukase will allow of the dis-
cussion.

The second ground on which we object to the Ukase is that His Imperial Majesty
thereby excludes from a certain considerable extent of the open sea vessels of other
nations. We contend that the assumption of this power is contrary to the law of
nations; and we cannot found a negotiation upon a paper in which it is again
broadly asserted. We contend that no Power whatever can exclude another from
the use of the open sea; a Power can exclude itself from the navigation of a certain
coast, sea, &c., by its own act or eugagement, but it cannot by right be excluded by
another. This we consider as the law of nations; and we cannot negotiate upon a
paper in which a right is asserted inconsistent with this principle.

I think, therefore, that the best mode of proceeding would be that you should
state your readiness to negotiate upon the whole subject, withoitt restating the objec-
tionable principle of the Ukase which we cannot admit.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) WELLINGTON,

{Inclosure 8 in No. 382.]

The Duke of Wellington to Mr. G. Canning.

VERONA, November 29, 1822.

Sie: Since I wrote to you yesterday I have had another conversation with the
Russian Minister regarding the Ukase. It is now settled that both the Memoran-
dums which I inclosed to you should be considered as non avenus, and the Russian
Ambassador in London is to address you a note in answer to that of the late Lord
Londonderry, assuring you of the desire of the Emperor to negotiate with you upon
the whole question of the Emperor’s claims in North America, reserving them afl if
the result of the negotiation should not be satisfactory to both parties.

This note will then put this matter in a train of negotiation, which is what was
wished.

I have, &c.
(Signed) WELLINGTON.

580 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 9 in No. 382.]
Count Lieven to Mr. G. Canning.

A la suite des déclarations verbales que le Soussigné, Ambassadeur Extraordinaire
et Plénipotentiaire de Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies, a faites au
Ministére de Sa Majesté Britannique, le Cabinet de St. James a df se convaincre que

si des objections s’étaient élevées contre le Reglement publié au nom de Sa
527 Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies sous la date du 4 (16) Septembre,

1821, les mesures ultérieures adoptces par Sa Majesté Impériale ne laissent
aucun doute sur la pureté de ses vues et sur le désir qu’elle aura toujours de concilier
ses droits et ses intéréts avec les intéréts et les droits des Puissances auxquelles
Vunissent les liens d’une amitié véritable et d’une bienveillance réciproque.

Avant de quitter Vérone, le Sonssigné a regu Vordre de donner au Gouvernement
de Sa Majesté Britannique une nouvelle preuve des dispositions connues de l’ Empe-
reur, en proposant & son Excellence M, Canning, Principal Secrétaire d’Etat de Sa
Majesté Britannique pour les Affaires Etrangéres, sans que cette proposition puisse
porter atteinte aux droits de Sa Majesté Impériale, si elle n’est pas acceptée, que de
part et d’autre la question de droit strict soit provisoirement écartée, et que tous
les différends auxquels a donné lieu le Réeglement dont il s’agit, s’applanissent par
un arrangement amical fondé sur le seul principe des convenances mutuelles et qui
serait négocié a St. Pétersbourg.

L’Empereur se flatte que Sir Charles Bagot ne tardera point a recevoir les pouvoirs
et les instructions nécessaires 4 cet effet, et que la proposition du Soussigné achévera
de démontrer au Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Britannique combien Sa Majesté
Impériale souhaite qu’aucune divergence d’opinion ne puisse subsister entre la Russie
et la Grande-Bretagne, et que le plus parfait accord continue de présider a leurs
relations.

Le Soussigné, &e.
(Signé) , LIEVEN.

LONDRES, le 19 (31) Janvier, 1823.

[Translation.]

By the verbal declarations made by the Undersigned, Ambassador Extraordinary
and Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the Empeior of All the Russias, to Her Britannic
Majesty’s Government, the Cabinet of St. James’ must have been convinced that,
though exception had been taken to the Regulation published on the 4th (16th) Sep-
tember, 1821, in the name of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the subse-
quent steps taken by His Imperial Majesty leave no doubt as to the purity of his
intentions, and as to the desire which will always animate him to reconcile his own
rights and interests with those of the Powers to which he is linked by bonds of true
friendship and reciprocal good-will.

Before leaving Verona the Undersigned received instructions to give the Govern-
ment of Her Britannic Majesty a new proof of the known feelings of the Emperor,
by proposing to his Excellency Mr. Canning, Her Britannic Majesty’s Principal Sec-
retary of State for Foreign Affairs, whilst reserving the rights of His lmperial Maj-
esty should the proposal not be accepted, that the question of strict right should be
provisionally set aside by both parties, and that all the differences created by the
Regulation in question should be smoothed over by a friendly arrangement based
solely on the principle of mutual accommodation to be negotiated at St. Petersburgh.

The Emperor flatters himself that Sir Charles Bagot will very shortly receive the
necessary powers and instructions in the above sense, and that the proposal of the
Undersigned will completely convince the Government of Her Britannic Majesty of
the earnest wish of His Imperial Majesty that no difference of opinion should exist
between Russia and Great Britain, and that the most perfect agreement should con-
tinue to guide their relations.

The Undersigned, &c.
(Signed) LIEVEN.

LONDON, January 19 (81), 1828.

[Inclosure 10 in No. 382.]
Mr. G. Canning to Sir C. Bagot.

ForEIGN OFFICE, February 5, 1823.

Str: With respect to my despatch of the 31st December last, transmitting to your
Excellency the copy of an instruction addressed to the Duke of Wellington, as well
as a despatch from his Grace dated Verona, the 29th November last, both upon the
subject of the Russian Ukase of September 1821, I have now to inclose to your

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 581

Excellency the copy of a note which has been addressed to me by Count Lieven,
sxpressing His Imperial Majesty’s wish to enter into some amicable arrange-
528 ment for bringing this subject to a satisfactory termination, and requesting
that your Excellency may be furnished with the necessary powers to enter into
negotiation for that purpose with His Imperial Majesty’s Ministers at St. Peters-
burgh.

I avail myself of the opportunity of a Russian courier (of whose departure Count
Lieven has only just apprised me) to send this note to your Excellency, and to desire
that your Excellency will proceed to open the discussion with the Russian Minister
upon the basis of the instruction to the Duke of Wellington.

I will not fail to transmit to your Excellency full powers for the conclusion of an
agreement upon this subject, by a messenger whom I will dispatch to you as soon as
I shall have collected any further information which it may be expedient to furnish
to your Excellency, or to found any further instruction upon that may be necessary
for your guidance in this important negotiation.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) GEO. CANNING.

[Inclosure 11 in No. 382.]
Mr. Lyall to Mr. G. Canning.

SHIP-OWNERS’ SocieTY, NEw BroapD STREET,
November 19, 1828.

Sire: In the month of June last you were pleased to honour me with an interview
on the subject of the Russian Ukase prohibiting foreign vessels from touching at or
approaching the Russian establishments along the north-west coast of America
therein mentioned, when you had the goodness to inform me that a representation
had been made to that Government, and that you had reason to believe that the
Ukase would not be acted upon; and very shortly after this communication I was
informed, on what I considered undoubted authority, that the Russian Government
had consented to withdraw that unfounded pretension.

The Committee of this Society being about to make their annual Report to the
ship-owners at large, it would be satisfactory to them to be able to state therein that
official advices have been received from St. Petersburgh that the Ukase had been
annulled; and should that be the case, I have to express the hope of the Committee
to be favoured with a communication from you to that effect. :

Thave, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE LYALL,
Chairman of Ship-owners’ Committee.
[Inclosure 12 in No. 382.]
Lord F. Conyngham to Mr. Lyall.
fe FOREIGN OFFICE, November 26, 1823.

Stir: Iam directed by Mr. Secretary Canning to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 19th instant, expressing a hope that the Ukase of September 1821 had
been annulled.

Mr. Canning cannot authorize me to state to you in distinct terms that the Ukase
has been annulled, because the negotiation to which it gave rise is still pending,
embracing as it does many points of great intricacy as well as importance.

But I am directed by Mr. Canning to acquaint you that orders have been sent out
by the Court of St. Petersburgh to their Naval Commanders calculated to prevent
any collision between Russian ships and those of other nations; and in effect sus-
pending the Ukase of September 1821.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) F. CONYNGHAM.

{Inclosure 13 in No. 382.—Extract.]

Mr. G. Canning to Sir C. Bagot.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 20, 1824.

A long period has elapsed since I gave your Excellency reason to expect additional
qusiracuigns for your conduct in the negotiation respecting the Russian Ukase of
1821.

Or

82 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

529 That expectation was held out in the belief that I should have to instruct
you to combine your proceedings with those of the American Minister, and the
framing such instructions was, of necessity, delayed until Mr. Rush should bein pos-
session of the intentions of his Government upon the subject.
* * * * # co *

It remains, therefore, only for me to direct your Excellency to resume your nego-
tiation with the Court of St. Petersburgh at the point at which it was suspended in
consequence of the expected accession of the United States, and to endeavour to
bring it as speedily as possible to an amicable and honourable conclusion.

The questions at issue between Great Britain and Russia are short and simple.
The Russian Ukase contains two objectionable pretensions: first, an extravagant
assumption of maritime supremacy; secondly, an unwarranted claim of territorial
dominion. )

As to the first, the disavowal of Russia is, in substance, all that we could desire.
Nothing remains for negotiation on that head but to clothe that disavowal in precise
and satisfactory terms. Wewould much rather that those terms should be suggested
by Russia herself than have the air of pretending to dictate them. You will, there-
fore, request Count Nesselrode to furnish you with his notion of such a declaration
on this point as may be satisfactory to your Government. That declaration may be
made the preamble of the Convention of Limits.

* * * * * a *

{Inclosure 14 in No. 382.—Extract.]
Mr. G. Canning to Sir C, Bagot.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 24, 1824.

The ‘‘Projet” of a Convention, which is inclosed in my No. 26, having been com-
municated by me to Count Lieven, with a request that his Excellency would note
any points in it upon which he conceived any difficulty likely to arise, or any
explanation to be necessary, I have received from his Excellency the Memorandum
a copy of which is herewith inclosed.

Your Excellency will observe that there are but two points which have struck
Count Lieven as susceptible of any question: the first, the assumption of the base
of the mountains, instead of the summit, as the line of boundary; the second, the
extension of the right of navigation of the Pacific to the sea beyond Behring’s
Straits.

* * * * * * *

As to the second point, it is, perhaps, as Lieven remarks, new. But it is to be
remarked, in return, that the circumstances under which this additional security is
required will be new also.

By the territorial demarcation agreed to in this ‘‘Projet,” Russia will become
possessed, in acknowledged sovereignty, of both sides of Behring’s Straits.

The Power which could think of making the Pacific a mare clausum may not
unnaturally be supposed capable of a disposition te apply the same character to a
strait comprehended between two shores of which it becomes the untlisputed owner.
But the shutting up of Behring’s Straits, or the power to shut them up hereafter,
would be a thing not to be tolerated by England.

Nor could we submit to be excluded, either positively or constructively, from a
sea in which the skill and science of our seamen has been and is still employed in
enterprises interesting, not to this country alone. but the whole civilized world.

The protection given by the Convention to the American coasts of each Power
may (if if is thought necessary) be extended in terms to the coasts of the Russian
Asiatie territory; but in some way or other, if not in the form now presented, the
free navigation of Behring’s Straits, and of the seas beyond them, must be secured
to us.

[Inclosure 15 in No. 382.—Extract.]
Mr. G. Canning to Mr. S. Canning.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 8, 1824.

His Majesty having been graciously pleased to name you his Plenipotentiary for
concluding and signing with the Russian Government a Convention, for terminating
the discussions which have arisen out of the promulgation of the Russian

530 Ukase of 1821, and for settling the respective territorial claims of Great
Britian and Russia on the north-west coast of America, I have received His

Se

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 583

Majesty’s commands to direct you to repair to St. Petersburgh for that purpose, and
to furnish you with the necessary instructions for terminating the long-protracted
negotiation.

The correspondence which has already passed upon this subject has been sub-
mitted to your perusal. And I inclose you a copy—

1. Of the ‘‘ Projet” which Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to conclude and sign
some months ago, and which we had every reason to expect would have been entirely
satisfactory to the Russian Government.

2. Of a ‘‘ Contre-Projet” drawn up by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and presented
to Sir Charles Bagot at their last meeting before Sir Charles Bagot’s departure from
St. Petersburgh.

3. Of a despatch from Count Nesselrode, accompanying the transmission of the
“ Contre-Projet ” to Count Lieven.

In that despatch, and in certain marginal annotations upon the copy of the ‘‘Pro-
jet,” are! assigned the reasons of the alterations proposed by the Russian Plenipo-
tentiaries.

In considering the expediency of admitting or rejecting the proposed alterations,
it will be convenient to follow the Articles of the Treaty in the order in which they
stand in the English “ Projet.”

You will observe in the first place that it is proposed by the Russian Plenipotenti-
aries entirely to change that order, and to transfer to the latter part of the instru-
ment the Article which has hitherto stood first in the ‘‘ Projet.”

To that transposition we cannot agree, for the very reason which Count Nesselrode
alleges in favour of it, viz., that the ‘‘ Economie,” or arrangement of the Treaty,
ought to have reference to the history of the negotiation.

The whole negotiation grows out of the Ukase of 1821.

So entirely and absolutely true is this proposition, that the settlement of the
limits of the respective possessions of Great Britain and Russia on the north-west
coast of America was proposed by us only as a mode of facilitating the adjustment
of the difference arising from the Ukase, by enabling the Court of Russia, under
cover of the more comprehensive arrangement, to withdraw, with less appearance
of concession, the offensive pretensions of that Edict.

It is comparatively indifferent to us whether we hasten or postpone all questions
respecting the limits of territorial possession on the Continent of America; but the
pretensions of the Russian Ukase of 1821 to exclusive dominion over the Pacific could
not continue longer unrepealed without compelling us to take some measure of
public and effectual remonstrance against it.

You will therefore take care, in the first instance, to repress any attempt to give
this change to the character of the negotiation; and will declare without reserve
that the point to which alone the solicitude of the British Government and the
jealousy of the British nation attach any great importance is the doing away (in
a manner as little disagreeable to Russia as possible) of the effect of the Ukase of
1821.

That this Ukase is not acted upon, and that instructions have been long ago sent
by the Russian Government to their cruizers in the Pacific to suspend the execution
of its provisions, is true; but a private disavowal of a published claim is no security
against the revival of that claim: the suspension of the execution of a principle
may be perfectly compatible with the continued maintenance of the principle itself,
and when we have seen in the course of this negotiation that the Russian claim to
the possession of the coast of America down to latitude 5°° rests, in fact, on no other
ground than the presumed acquiescence of the nations of Europe in the provisions
of an Ukase published by the Emperor Paul in the year 1800, against which it is
affirmed that no public remonstrance was made, it becomes us to be exeeedingly
careful that we do not, by a similar neglect on the present occasion, allow a similar
presumption to be raised as to an acquiescence in the Ukase of 1821.

The right of the subjects of His Majesty to navigate freely in the Pacific cannot
be held as matter of indulgence from any Power. Having once been publicly
questioned, it must be publicly acknowledged.

We do not desire that any distinct reference should be made to the Ukase of 1821;
but we do feel it necessary that the statement of our right should be clear and posi-
tive, and that it should stand forth in the Convention in the place which properly
belongs to it, as a plain and substantive stipulation. and not be brought in as an
incidental consequence of other arrangements to which we attach comparatively
little importance.

This stipulation stands in the front of the Convention concluded between
5381 Russia and the United States of America; and we see no reason why, upon
similar claims, we should not obtain exactly the like satisfaction.

For reasons of the same nature we cannot consent that the liberty of navigation
through Behring’s Straits should be stated in the Treaty as a boon from Russia.

The tendency of such a statement would be to give countenance to those claims

584 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of exclusive jurisdiction against which we, on our own behalf, and on that of the
whole civilized world, protest.

No specification of this sort is found in the Convention with the United States of
America; and yet it cannot be doubted that the Americans consider themselves as
secured in the right of navigating Behring’s Straits and the sea beyond them.

It cannot be expected that England should receive as a boon that which the
United States hold as a right so unquestionable as not to be worth recording.

Perhaps the simplest course, after all, will be to substitute, for all that part of the
“Projet” and ‘Contre-Projet” which relates to maritime rights, and to navigation,
the first two Articles of the Convention already concluded by the Court of St. Peters-
burgh with the United States of America, in the order in which they stand in that
Convention. .

Russia cannot mean to give to the United States of America what she withholds
from us, nor to withhold from us anything that she has consented to give to the
United States.

The uniformity of stipulations in pari materia gives clearness and force to both
arrangements, and will establish that footing of equality between the several Con-
tracting Parties which it is most desirable should exist between three Powers whose
interests come so nearly in contact with each other in a part of the globe in which
no other Power is concerned.

This, therefore, is what I am to instruct you to propose at once to the Russian
Minister as cutting short an otherwise inconvenient discussion.

This expedient will dispose of Article I of the ‘‘ Projet,” and of Articles V and VI
of the ‘ Contre-Projet.”

The next Articles relate to the territorial demarcation.

® * ¥ * * * *

With regard to the port of Sitka or New Archangel, the offer came originally from
Russia, but we are not disposed to object to the restriction which she now applies
to it.

We are content that the port shall be open to us for ten years, provided only that
if any other nation obtains a more extended term, the like term shall be extended
to us also.

We are content also to assign the period of ten years for the reciprocal liberty of
access and commerce with each other’s territories, which stipulation may be best
stated precisely in the terms of Article IV of the American Convention.

These, I think, are the only points in which alterations are required by Russia,
and we have no other to propose.

A “ Projet,” such as it will stand according to the observations of this despatch is
inclosed, which you will understand as furnished to you as a guide for the drawing
up of the Convention; but not as prescribing the precise form of words, nor fetter-
ing your discretion as to any alterations, not varying from the substance of these
instructions.

It will, of course, strike the Russian Plenipotentiaries that by the adoption of
the American Article respecting navigation, &c., the provision for an exclusive
fishery of two leagues from the coasts of our respective possessions falls to the

round.

. But the omission is, in truth, immaterial. The law of nations assigns the exclu-
Sive sovereignty of one league to each Power off its own coasts, without any specific
stipulation, and though Sir Charles Bagot was authorized to sign the Convention
with the specific stipulation of two leagues, in ignorance of what had been decided
in the American Convention at the time, yet, after that Convention has been some
months before the world, and after the opportunity of reconsideration has been
forced upon us by the act of Russia herself, we cannot now consent, in negotiating de
novo, to a stipulation which, while it is absolutely unimportant to any practical
good, would appear to establish a contract between the United States and us to our
disadvantage.

Count Nesselrode himself has frankly admitted that it was natural that we should
expect, andreasonable that we should receive, at the hands of Russia, equal measure,
in all respects, with the United States of America.

It remains only, in recapitulation, to remind you of the origin and principles of

this whole negotiation.
532 It is not, on our part, essentially a negotiation about limits. It isa demand
of the repeal of an offensive and unjustifiable arrogation of exclusive juris-
diction over an ocean of unmeasured extent; but ademand, qualified and mitigated
in its manner, in order that its justice may be acknowledged and satisfied without
soreness or humiliation on the part of Russia.

We negotiate about territory to cover the remonstrance upon principle.

But any attempt to take undue advantage of this voluntary facility we must
oppose.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 585

If the present ‘‘ Projet” is agreeable to Russia, we are ready to conclude and sign
the Treaty. If the territorial arrangements are not satisfactory, we are ready to
postpone them, and to conclude and sign the essential part—that which relates to
navigation alone, adding an Article stipulating to negotiate about territorial limits
hereafter.

But we are not prepared to defer any longer the settlement of that essential part
of the question; and if Russia will neither sign the whole Convention nor that essen-
tial part of it, she must not take it amiss that we resort to some mode of recording,
in the face of the world, our protest against the pretensions of the Ukase of 1821,
and of effectually securing our own interests against the possibility of its future
operations.

[Inclosure 16 in No. 382.]
Mr. S. Canning to Mr. G. Canning.

ST. PETERSBURGH, February 17 (March 1), 1825.

Sir: By the messenger Latchford I have the honour to send you the accompany-
ing Convention between His Majesty and the Emperor of Russia respecting the
Pacific Ocean and north-west coast of America, which, according to your instruc-
tions, I concluded and signed last night with the Russian Plenipotentiaries.

The alterations which, at their instance, I have admitted into the ‘‘ Projet,” such
as I presented it to them at first, will be found, I conceive, to be in strict conformity
with the spirit and substance of His Majesty’s commands. The order of the two
main subjects of our negotiation, as stated in the preamble of the Convention, is
preserved in the Articles of that instrument. The line of demarcation along the
strip of land on the north-west coast of America, assigned to Russia, is laid down in
the Convention agreeably to your directions, notwithstanding some difficulties raised
on this point, as well as on that which regards the order of the Articles, by the Rus-
sian Plenipotentiaries.

The instance in which you will perceive that I have most availed myself of the
latitude afforded by your instructions to bring the negotiation to a satisfactory and
prompt conclusion is the division of the IlIrd Article of the new “ Projet,” as it
stood when I gave it in, into the IlIrd, 1Vth, ane Vth Articles of the Convention
signed by the Plenipotentiaries.

This change was suggested by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, and at first it was
suggested in a shape which appeared to me objectionable; but the Articles, as they
are now drawn up, I humbly conceive to be such as will not meet with your disap-
probation. The second paragraph of the 1Vth Article had already appeared paren-
thetically in the IlIrd Article of the “ Projet,” and the whole of the IVth Article is
limited in its signification and connected with the Article immediately preceding it
by the first paragraph. ;

With respect to Behring’s Straits, I am happy to have it in my power to assure
you, on the joint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of
Russia has no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the naviga-
tion of those straits, or of the seas to the north of them.

It cannot be necessary, under these circumstances, to trouble you with a more
particular account of the several conferences which I have held with the Russian
Plenipotentiaries, and it is but justice to state that I have found them disposed,
throughout this latter stage of the negotiation, to treat the matters under discussion
with fairness and liberality.

As two originals of the Convention prepared for His Majesty’s Government are
signed by the Plenipotentiaries, I propose to leave one of them with Mr. Ward for
the archives of the Embassy.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STRATFORD CANNING.

. ter
tee ae

eNOS AWS Nor I> (2SoL).

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

RESPECTING THE

BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERIES.

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND
OF HER MAJESTY.

MANE? Cul. are te

587

abe OR ICONT ENTS:

Subject.

ora wo

19

20

21
22

23
24

25

26

Name. Date.
1890.
Sir J. Pauncefote.-.......- July 4
Stiose A0eessaseeesascace==-| SUlynsd
spond GID) sesasspcoancononcdcad | Huns ak!
Admiralty; << sc--<ccces=- == Aug. 28
Sir J. Pauncefote...+..--- July 24
Sir C. Lampsonand Co-..-.| Sept. 6
ToSirC.Lampsonand Co. -| Sept. 9
/kGuenimeM yes Sonmsoposense eee dOas
Whe, \ynin ony ea Saesqonosese Sept. 3
Moe Mins Woo bOD sso seias ce Sept 16
Sir J. Pauncefote..-.-..--- Sept. 11
fasts GO soasescsopencesosne a) eyeball
PACAP ALtys= ~ ccla'= alnivln= ene Oct. 4
Behe Gh) -nocosbonneeocecpaos) Olen, ae
To Sir J. Pauncefote...-..-. Oct. 22
Sir J. Pauncefote......-.-. Nov. 12
(Telegraphic)
ewel= GOjecessccsoresess=e---|) Nove 7
Seis GW Seoscnodcaeononocecs|| Lb wld
SBaoe GD) oaoasecscnencaooceae|! IOrerEy ae)
Sir C. Lampson and Co..-| Dec. 30
To Sir J. Pauncefote..-..-|.... do..
Colonial Office ........-..- Dec. 31
1891
To Sir C. Lampson and Co. (ees 2
Colonial\@fficatsees-seosesla0-e doo.
Ape i aeaocdocdsaqcceseseon|| dining 3}
Sir J. Pauncefote.-........ Jan. 6

-| Answers No. 18

Proposed temporary exclusion of British sealers
from Behring’s Sea. Mr. Blaine’s reply to note
of 27th June (see ‘‘ United States No. 2, 1890,” p
510).

Nessdations of 1888. Correspondence with Mr.
Blaine (see ‘‘ United States No. 2, 1890,” pp. 491 and
493).

Note to Mr. Blaine communicating despatch of 2nd
August on general question (see ‘‘ United States
No. "2, 1890, OP. p. 512).

Movements of sealers in Behri ing’s Sea. Letter
from Commander-in-chief on Pacific Station from
Esquimalt.

General observations on course of neyotiations and
present state of question.

Decrease of fur-seals. Close time necessary to pre-
vent extinction.

Acknowledges receipt of above...........--.-.-.-..

Movements of sealers in Behring’s Sea. Telegram
from Commander-in-chief on Pacific Station at
Victoria.

Comparison betwecn the Behring’s Sea and North
Atlantic seal fisheries.

Acknowledges receipt of above...........-..-...---

Sends Bill to amend the Act providing a Civil Gov-
ernment for Alaska, with proposal to confer juris-
diction on Supreme Court.

Notes on Mr. Blaine’s interpretation of Mr. J.
Quincey Adams’ despatches on Russian Ukase of
1821.

Movements of sealers. Letter from Commander-
m-chief on Pacific Station reporting their return
from Pehring’s Sea. Two-thirds of the catch
said to be female seals.

Return of sealers. Telegram from Commander-in-
chief on Pacific Station.

Answer to No. 2. Negotiations of 1888. States
recollection of what passed. Question consid-
ered unimportant.

Mr. Blaine reminded of proposal for arbitration.
He is writing a reply to despatch of 2nd August.

American sealing schooner ‘'Sylvia Handy.” Sends
transcript of record in appeal case.

| Refers to No. 15. Negotiations of 1888. Despatch

of 22nd October communicated to Mr. Blaine,
owing to appearance of article in ‘‘ New York
Tribune” referring to subject.

Mr. Blaine’s note dated 17th December on general
question, in reply to despatch of 2nd August (see
“United States’ No. 2, 1890,” p. 512). Terms on
which United States will accept arbitration.

Refers to No. 6. Increase in seal catch. Fear of
extinction. Reported intention of United States’
Government to raise duty on British manutac-
tured skins. Dnges speedy settlement of dispute.

egotiations of 1888. Approves
language to Mr. Blaine.

Refers to No.6. Apprehended extinction of seals.
Minute of Canadian Government on Messrs.
Lampsons’ statements.

Acknowledges receipt of No. 20.....--.....--------

Progress of “negotiations. Despatch from Canada
with comments of Canadian Government.

Catch of seals in season of 1890. Minute of Cana-
dian Privy Council, with letter from Collector of
Customs in British Columbia.

President’s Message to House of Representatives,
with correspondence since 23rd July, 1890, on
general question.

589

17

18
18

19

19

36

37

64

590 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Name. Date. Subject. Page.
1891.
Sir J. Pauncefote...-...-.-. Jan. 20 | Statement in ‘‘ Times” of 5th January, respecting 84
(Telegraphic) naval preparations of United States in Pacitic,
denied by Mr. Blaine.
ColonialiOfiice-----.---- -- Jan. 29 |. Despatch from Canada, with Report by Minister of 85
Marine on Admiralty Report respecting seal-
fishing (see No. 13),
Sir J. Pauncefote---...-.- Feb. 9 | “W. P. Sayward.’ Proceedings before Supreme 86
(Telegraphic) Court. Inquiry by Mr. Blaine whether diplo-

matic correspondence is to be closed or suspended

in consequence.

To Sir J. Pauncefote...--. Feb. 10 |,Answersabove. No connection between diplomatic 86
(Telegraphic) correspondence and ‘‘W. P. Sayward”’ proceed-

ings. Reply to Mr, Blaine’s note of 17th Decem-

ber will be sent shortly.

aoe 0 ..2---e0eeeee-ee----| Feb. 21 | Reply on general question to Mr. Blaine’s note of 87

17th December, ending with terms on which Her

Majesty's Government will accept arbitration.

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE BEHRING SEA
SEAL FISHERIES,

No 21.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 17.)

WASHINGTON, July 4, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit a copy of the reply which
I have received from the Secretary of State to my note of the 27th
ultimo, of which a copy was inclosed in my despatch of the 27th ultimo.*

It appears to me that Mr. Blaine attaches an undue significance to
the word “forthwith” in my above-mentioned note.

It is obvious that, if British sealers are to be requested not to enter
Behring’s Sea this season, on the ground of the proposed arbitration,
there must be no delay in proceeding to that mode of adjustment, and
it was, therefore, naturally made a condition not “that the President
shouid forthwith accept a formal arbitration which your Lordship pre-
scribes,” but ‘‘that the two Governments should agree forthwith to
refer to arbitration” the question of the legality of the seizures of
British sealing-vessels.

That is the question of law in difference between the two Govern-
nents, and Iam at a loss to understand why Mr. Blaine should com-
plain of its being so stated.

I shall have the honour of addressing your Lordship in a separate
despatch on the present situation of the question, which has been
brought back again by the United States Government to a question of
legal right.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 1.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 2, 1890.

Sir: Your note of the 27th ultimo, covering Lord Salisbury’s reply to the friendly
suggestion of the President, was duly received. It was the design of the President,
if Lord Salisbury had been favourably inclined to his proposition, to submit a form
of settlement for the consideration of Her Majesty’s Government which the President
believed would end all dispute touching privileges in Behring’s Sea. But Lord Salis-
bury refused to accept the proposal unless the President should “forthwith” accept
a formal arbitration which his Lordship prescribes. The President’s request was
made in the hope that it might lead to a friendly basis of agreement, and he cannot
think that Lord Salisbury’s proposition is responsive to his suggestion. Besides, the

*See “United States No. 2 (1890),” p.510.

591

592 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

answer comes so late that it would be impossible now to proceed this season with the
negotiation the President had desired.

An agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration. The United States is
perhaps more fully committed to that form of international adjustment than any
other Power, but it cannot consent that the form in which arbitration shall be under-

taken shall be decided without full consultation and conference between the two
Governments.

I beg further to say that you must have misapprehended what I said touching
British claims for injuries and losses alleged to have been inflicted upon British ves-

sels in the Behring’s Sea by agents ‘of the United States. My declaration was

2 that arbitration would logically and necessarily include that point. It is not
to be conceded, but decided with other issues of far greater weight.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.
No. 2.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received August 7.)

MAGNOLIA, MASSACHUSETTS, July 28, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copies of two notes which
I addressed to the Secretary of State on receipt of your Lordship’s
despatches of the 20th June* and of the 21st June last,t and of the
reply thereto which I have received from Mr. Blaine.

The reply appears as the last paper in the correspondence relating to
the Behring’s Sea fisheries which has just been sent to the House of
Representatives.

Mr. Blaine contends that a Convention was actually agreed on
between your Lordship and Mr. Phelps on the 25th February, 1888,
except as to details, and he asks Great Britain to adhere to that Agree.
ment. He states that the interposition of Canada, to which he attributes
its abandonment by Her Majesty’s Government, was, in the President’s
belief, ‘‘a grave injustice to the Government of the United States.”

It would seem, however, that Mr. Phelps did not consider that any
Agreement had resulted from the communications which passed between
him and your Lordship on the 25th February, for on the 28th July,
according to Mr. Blaine, he telegraphed to his Government expressing
the“ fear that owing to Canadian opposition we shall get no Convention.”

It was never suggested at that period, or at any period between the
close of the London negotiations of 1888 and the renewal of the nego-
tiations in Washington, that any Agreement existed between the two
Governments in relation to the fur-seal fisheries beyoud a common desire
to adopt all measures shown to be necessary for the preservation of the
fur-seal species, which was said to be in danger of extinetion.

If any such Agreement as is appealed to by Mr. Blaine did exist it is
difficult to understand why the negotiation was renewed in Washing-
ton with the object of inquiring into the evidence and of endeavouring
to arrive at a conclusion as to the extent of the alleged evils of pelagic
sealing and the measures to be adopted for the preser vation of the fur-
seal species. On this point I would refer to Mr. Blaine’s note to me of
the 1st March, 1890, transmitting the evidence relied on i his Govern-
ment in support of their contention, and of which a printed copy was
inclosed in my despatch to your Lordship of the 15th April last.t

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

* See “United States No. 2 (1890),” p. 491. + Ibid.,p.493. — ¢ Ibid., p. 423.
Pp ’

a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 593

{Inclosure 1 in No. 2.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 30, 1890.

Str: In your note of the 29th May last,* which I duly transmitted to the Marquis
of Salisbury, there are several references to communications which passed between
the two Governments in the time of your predecessor.

I have now received a despatch from Lord Salisbury, * copy of which I have the
honour to inclose, pointing out that there is some error in the impressions which you
have gathered from the records in the State Department with respect to those
communications,

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

3 {Inclosure 2 in No. 2.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, June 80, 1890.

Str: I have received a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, with reference to
the passage in your note to me of the 4th instant, in which you remark that in 1888
his Lordship abruptly closed the negotiations because “the Canadian Government
objected,” and that he ‘assigned no _ other reason whatever.”

In view of the observations contained in Lord Salisbury’s despatch of the 20th
June, of which a copy is inclosed in my last preceeding note of this date, his Lord-
ship deems it unnecessary to discuss at any greater length the circumstances which
led to an interruption of the negotiations of 1888.

With regard, however, to the passage of your note of the 4th instant above referred
to, his Lor rdship wishes me to call your attention to the following statement made to
him by Mr. Phelps, the United States Minister in London, on the 3rd April, 1888,
and which was recorded in a despatch of the same date to Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington:

‘Under the peculiar political circumstances of America at this moment,” said Mr.
Phelps, ‘‘with a general election impending, it would be of little use, and, indeed,
hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its issue before the election had
taken place.”

1 have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 2.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

Bar HARBOUR, MAINE, July 19, 1890.

Sir: Iregret that circumstances beyond my control have postponed my reply to
your two notes of the 30th June, which were received on the Ist instant, on the eve
of my leaving Washington for this place. The note which came to hand on the fore-
noon of that day inclosed a despatch from Lord Salisbury, in which his Lordship,
referring to my note of the 29th May, expresses “‘a wish to point out some errors”
which he thinks I ‘‘had gathered from the records in my Office.”

The purpose of Lord Salisbury is to show that I misapprehended the facts of the
case when I represented him, in my note of the 29th May, as having given such
“‘verbal assurances” to Mr. Phelps as warranted the latter in expecting a Convention
to be concluded between the two Governments for the protection of the seal fisheries
in Behring’s Sea.

Speaking directly to this point, his Lordship says: ‘‘Mr. Blaine is under a mis-
conception in imagining that I ever gave any verbal assurance or any promise of any
kind with respect to the terms of the proposed Convention.”

In answer to this statement, I beg you will say to Lord Salisbury that I simply
quoted in my note of the 29th May the facts communicated by our Minister, Mr.
Phelps, and our Chargé d’Affaires, Mr. White, who are responsible for the official

*Tbid., p. 475.
BS, PT V——38

594 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
statements made to this Government at different stages of the seal fisheries nego-
tiation.

On the 25th February, 1888, as already stated in my note of the 29th May, Mr.
Phelps sent the following intelligence to Secretary Bayard, viz.: “Lord Salisbury
assents to your proposition to establish, by mutual arrangement between the Goy-
ernments interested, a close time for fur-seals, between the 15th April and the Ist
November in each year,.and between 160° of west longitude, and 170° of east longi-
tude in the Behring’s Sea. And he will cause an Act to be introduced in Parliament
to give effect to this arrangement so soon as it can be prepared. In his opinion there
is no doubt that the Act will be passed. He will also join the United States Gov-
ernment in any preventive measures it may be thought best to adopt by orders issued
to the naval vessels of the respective Governments in that region.”

Mr. Phelps has long been known in this country as an able lawyer, accurate in the
use of words, and discriminating in the statement of facts. The Government of the
United States necessarily reposes implicit confidence in the literal correctness of the

despatch above quoted.
4 Some time after the foregoing conference between Lord Salisbury and Mr.

Phelps had taken place, his Lordship invited the Russian Ambassador, M. de
Staal, and the American Chargé, Mr. White (Mr. Phelps being absent from London),
to a conference held at the Foreign Office on the 16th April, touching the Behring’s
Sea controversy. This conference was really called at the request of the Russian
Ambassador, who desired that Russian rights in the Behring’s Sea should be as fully
recognized by England as American rights had been recognized in the verbal Agree-
ment of the 25th February between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps.

The Russian Ambassador received from Lord Salisbury the assurance (valuable
also to the United States) that the protected area for seal life should be extended
southward to the 47th degree of north latitude, and also the promise that he would
have a draught [sic] Convention prepared for submission to the Russian Ambassador
and the American Chargé.”

Lord Salisbury now contends that all the proceedings at the Conference of the
16th April are to be regarded as only ‘‘ provisional, in order to furnish a basis for
negotiation, and without definitely pledging our Government.” While the under-
standing of this Government differs from that maintained by Lord Salisbury, I am
instructed by the President to say that the United States is willing to consider all
the proceedings of the 16th April, 1888, as cancelled, so far as American rights may
be concerned. This Government will ask Great Britain to adhere only to the Agree-
ment made between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps on the 25th February, 1888.
That was an Agreement made directly between the two Governments, and did not
include the rights of Russia. Asking Lord Salisbury to adhere to the Agreement
of the 25th February, we leave the Agreement of the 16th April to be maintained,
if maintained at all, by Russia, for whose cause and for whose advantage it was
particularly designed.

While Lord Salisbury makes a general denial of having given ‘‘ verbal assur-
ances,” he has not made a special denial touching the Agreement between himself
and Mr. Phelps, which Mr. Phelps has reported in special detail, and the correctness
of which he has since specially affirmed on more than one occasion.

In your second note of the 30th June, received in the afternoon of the Ist July,
you call my attention (at Lord Salisbury’s request) to a statement which I made in
my note of the 4th June, to this effect:

“Tt is evident, therefore, that in 1888 Lord Salisbury abruptly closed the negotia-
tion because, in his own phrase, ‘the Canadian Government objected.’ ”

To show that there were other causes for closing the negotiation, Lord Salisbury
desires that attention be called to a remark made to him by Mr. Phelps on the 3rd
April, 1888, as follows: ‘‘Under the peculiar circumstances of America at this
moment, with a general election impending, it would be of little use, and’ indeed
hardly practicable, to conduct any negotiation to its issue before the general election
has taken place.”

I am quite ready to admit that such a statement made by Mr. Phelps might now be
adduced as one of the reasons for breaking off the negotiation, if, in fact, the nego-
tiation had been then broken off. But Lord Salisbury immediately proceeded with
the negotiation. ‘The remark ascribed to Mr. Phelps was made, as Lord Salisbury
states, on the 3rd April, 1888. On the 5th April Mr. Phelps left London on a visit to
the United States. On the 6th April Lord Salisbury addressed a private note to
Mr. White to meet the Russian Ambassador at the Foreign Office, as he had appointed
a meeting for the 16th April to discuss the questions at issue concerning the seal
fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

On the 23rd April there was some correspondence in regard to an Order in Council
and an Act of Parliament.

On the 27th April Under-Secretary Barrington of the Foreign Office, in an official
note, informed Mr, White that “the next step was to bring in an Act of Parliament,”

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 595

On the 28th April Mr. White was informed that an Act of Parliament would be
necessary in addition to the Order in Council, but that “neither Act nor Order could
be draughted [sic] until Canada is heard from.”

Mr. Phelps retuyned to London on the 22nd June and immediately took up the
subject, earnestly¥tpressing Lord Salisbury to come to a conclusion. On the 28th
July, he telegraphed his Government expressing the ‘fear that owing to Canadian
opposition we shall get no Convention.”

On the 12th September Mr. Phelps wrote to Secretary Bayard that Lord Salisbury

had stated that ‘the Canadian Government objected to any such restrictions
5 (as those asked for the protection of the seal fisheries), and that until Canada’s

consent could be obtained, Her Majesty’s Governinent was not willing to enter
into the Convention.”

I am justified, therefore, in assuming that Lord Salisbury cannot recur to the
remark of Mr. Phelps as one of the reasons for breaking off the negotiation, because
the negotiation was in actual progress for more than tour months after the remark
was made, and Mr. Phelps himself took large part in it.

Upon this recital of facts, 1 am unable to recall or inany way to qualify the state-
ment which I made in my note of the 4th June to the effect that Lord Salisbury
“abruptly closed the negotiation because the Canadian Government objected, and
that he assigned no other reason whatever.”

Lord Salisbury expresses the belief that even if the view I have taken of these
transactions be accurate, they would not bear out the argument which I found upon
them. The argument to which Lord Salisbury refers, is, I presume, the remonstrance
which I made, by direction of the President, against the change of policy by Her
Majesty’s Government without notice and against the wish of the United States.
The interposition of the wishes of a British province against the conclusion of a
Convention between two nations which, according to Mr. Phelps, ‘ had been virtually
agreed upon except as to details,” was, in the President’s belief, a grave injustice to
the Government of the United States.

Lhave, &c.
(Signed) J. G. BLAINE,

No. 3.
Stir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 25.)

MAGNOLIA. August 14, 1890.
My Lorp: [had the honour to receive on the 11th instant your Lord-
ship’s despatch of the 2nd of this month,* relating to the Behring’s Sea
controversy, and | now beg to inclose herewith a copy of the note with
which, in accordance with the instructions contained in that despatch,
1 forwarded a copy of the same to the Secretary of State.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

{Inclosure in No. 3.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

MAGNOLIA, August 12, 1890.

596 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ernment Lave no desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in
Behring’s Sea which was conceded by Great Britian to Russia, and which properly
accrues to the present possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or of the law of
nations; and that if the United States Government, after examination of the evidence
and arguments which are produced in that despatch, still differ from them as to the
legality of the recent captures in that sea, Her Majesty’s Government are ready to
agree that the question, with the issues that depend on it, should be referred to impar-
tial arbitration.

In that case, I am authorized to consider, in concert with you, the method of pro-
cedure to be followed.

Lhave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

6 No. 4.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received August 30.)

ADMIRALTY, August 28, 1890.

Str: Iam commanded by my Lords Commissicners of the Admiralty
to transmit herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State,
copy of a letter from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station,
dated at Esquimalt, the 6th instant, together with copies of its inclo-
sures, respecting the movements of sealers in Behring’s Sea, &c.

lam, We.
(Signed) kt. D. AWDRY.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 4.—Extract.]
Rear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.

““WARSPITE,” AT ESQUIMALT, August 6, 1890.
) ,

The American auxiliary steam-schooner ‘‘ Mischief” and the British schooner
“Aurora” having just returned from the sealing fleet, I took the opportunity of
obtaining from them the following information as regards the state of affairs as far
as they knew:

It is usual for the seal traders to charter a vessvl to take the coast catch of seal-
skins from the sealers, and bring them south before the fleet enter the Behring’s Sea.
This year the schooner ‘‘ Mischief” was chartered by a Syndicate representing
twenty-five British vessels and four American. The American vessels are: ‘‘ Henry
Dennis,” ‘San José,” ‘Lily L.,” and ‘‘ Allie Alger.” ‘The ‘‘ Mischief” sails under
American colours, and left Victoria on the 14th June. She arrived at Sand Point,
Little Koninski Island, Shumagin group, 4th July, where about thirty vessels were
awaiting her.

On the afternoon of the 6th July nineteen vessels under British colours put to
sea, followed by the ‘‘ Mischief” to about 15 miles from the land, and between 6 P. M.
of that day and 4 a. M. of the next 9,129 skins were transferred to the ‘‘Mischief.”

Bad weather coming on, the schooners that had not completed the transfer of skins
went into North-East Harbour (Little Koninski Island), remained there the 7th and
8th July, but wanting more shelter went through the 12-fathom channel between
Shumagin and Simanoff to Sand Cove, in the north-east of Little Koninski Island. -
On the 10th July they again weighed and went outside 5 miles from the land and
transferred the remainder of the skins, amounting in all to about 13,000.

The ‘‘ Mischief” did not fall in with any of the American vessels she was chartered
for, and the guarantee of 50 dollars which the Syndicate had each to deposit was
returned to the owners on her arrival at Victoria.

While taking in the last of the skins the ‘‘ Mischief” sighted the ‘‘ Pathfinder,”
which schooner reported that she had sighted the American revenue-cutter ‘‘ Rush”
(Captain Coulson, with Lieutenant Tuttle as boarding officer, the same as last year)
on the 9th July, heading for Sand Point.

There being still some more skins to come down, the schooner ‘‘Aurora” was char-
tered bv Mr. Munsie, of Victoria, and Captain Cox, Secretary of the British Sealers

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 597

Association, to bring them to Victoria. The above-named gentlemen gave the follow-
ing information to Captain Hulton, of HerMajesty’s ship ‘‘Amphion.”

The “Aurora” was not going to enter the Behring’s Sea, as her hunters refused to
do so on account of having had no pay for two years. It appears to be the custom
for the hunters (Indians) to share according to the catch, and last year and a year or
two before the catches had been seized, consequently the seal-hunters (Indians) had
lost their money. ‘The ‘‘Aurora” left two days after the ‘‘ Mischief,” and brought a
letter from the British schooner ‘‘Ariel,” which the captain had left at Sand Point
for his owner, Captain Buckram, of Victoria The letter states he had been boarded
by the Lieutenant of the ‘‘Rush,” and two copies of the Proclamation of the Ameri-
can President handed him (copy inclosed). When asked by the boarding officer if
he was going into the Behring’s Sea, he replied he was, and Lieutenant Tuttle warned
him, saying, ‘‘Then you had better look out.” -

A sick man from the schooner “Triumph” came down in the “ Aurora” and

reported the ‘‘ Rush” at Sand Point on the 9th July distributing copies of the
U above Proclamation. She only remained about an hour and went out for the

night, presumably for North-East Harbour, but returned next morning, not
having found any schooners there. The ‘‘Aurora” arriving at Sand Point on the
12th July found the whole of the sealers and the cruizer had gone into the Behring’s
Sea.

From what I can gather here the principal number of sealing-vessels are owned by
American subjects, though not registered in their names, notably one schooner, the
“Mary Ellen;” also the schooners would probably enter and return from the Beh-
ring’s Sea by the 172nd Pass so as to avoid Ounalaska. ‘The British vessels were all
warned by their owners not to go within 15 miles of the land whilst in the Behring’s
Sea.

I also wish to point out that there will probably be no more news from the sealers
until their return, about the end of September, and they are so scattered while seal-
ing that it is unlikely, if any seizures do take place, that I should hear of them until
some time after.

I reported by telegram (of the 4th instant) the only seizure that has taken place is
that of an American schooner, the ‘““G. R. White,” for contravention of the ‘Spirit
and Arms Act of Alaska.”

[Inclosure 2 in No. 4.]}
By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.

The following provisions of the Laws of the United States are hereby published
for the information of all concerned.

Section 1956, Revised Statutes, Chapter III, Title 23, enacts that:

“No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-
bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof; and
every person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars
or more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and all
vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation ot
this section shall be forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power
to authorize the killing of anysuch mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal,
except fur-seals, under such Regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the
duty of the Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the
execution of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor
shall he grant any special privileges under this section.”

* * * * * * *

Section 3 of the Act entitled, ‘An Act to provide for the Protection of the Salmon
Fisheries of Alaska,” approved the 2nd March, 1889, provides that:

“Section 3. That Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of the Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President at a timely
season in each year to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for
one month at least in one newspaper (if any such there be) published at each United
States port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering such
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section, and he shall also
cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters and
arrest all persons and seize all vessels found to be or have been engaged in any vio-
lation of the Laws of the United States therein.”

* * * * * * e

598 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, pursuant to
the above-recited Statutes, hereby warn all persons against entering the waters of
Behring’s Sea within the dominion of the United States for the purpose of violating
the provisions of the said Section 1956, Revised Statutes; and I hereby proclaim
that all persons found to be or have been engaged in any violation of the Laws of
the United States in said waters will be arrested and punished as above provided,
and that all vessels so employed, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargoes, will
be seized and forfeited.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the

United States to be affixed.

8 Done in the city of Washington this 15th day of March, 1890, and of the
Independence of the United States the 114th.
(Signed) BENJN. HARRISON.

By the President:
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE,
Secretary of State.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 1.)

[Extract ]}
MAGNOLIA, July 24, 1890.

The adjournment of the Behring’s Sea negotiations caused by the
departure of the Secretary of State from Washington for Bar Harbour,
as reported in my telegram of the 3rd instant,* affords a convenient
opportunity for submitting to your Lordship some observations on the
course of those negotiations and on the present situation of the con-
troversy.

It may be convenient, in the first place, to recall the circumstances
under which the London negotiation was renewed in Washington.

The London negotiation had been interrupted by various events
before any satisfactory inquiry had taken place into those important
questions of fact on which the United States Government base their
contention that a close season in Behring’s Sea is indispensable for the
preservation of the fur-seal species. That contention was supported,
no doubt, by a considerable amount of ex parte evidence, on the
strength of which the United States Government proposed a close
season from the 15th April to the 1st November.

At the same time they declared that they only desired a close season
for such a period as might be requisite for the end in view.

Her Majesty’s Government were disposed to entertain the proposal
favourably, subject to the views of the Canadian Government, as repre-
senting that part of Her Majesty’s dominions immediately interested
in the seal fishery. The Canadian Government pointed out that the
proposal of the United States Government would practically have the
effect of excluding Canadian sealers altogether from Behring’s Sea:
That the period suggested for a close season might as well be read from
the Ist January to the 3ist December, it being notorious that seals do
not enter Bebring’s Sea until the middle or end of May, and have left
those waters by the end of October. They disputed the accuracy and
value of the evidence relied on by the United States Government.

It was at this juncture that Mr. Phelps, the United States Minister
i London (according to Mr. Blaine’s note of the 19th July, 1890), tele-

* See ‘‘ United States No. 2 (1890),” p. 506.

cr?

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 599

graphed to his Government expressing his fear that, owing to the oppo-
sition of Canada, there would be no Convention.

The Presidential election then supervened, which, as Mr. Phelps
admitted, necessarily suspended the negotiations. The formation of a
new Cabinet at Washington, and the appointment of a new British
Minister, retarded further progress, and it was not until the month of
February last that it was agreed that the negotiation should be resumed.
at Washington between Mr, Blaine (the new Secretary of State), M. de
Struve (the Russian Minister), and myself.

It was admitted that the sole object of the inquiry was the preserva-
tion of the fur-seal species for the benefit of mankind, and that no con-
sideration of advantage to any particular nation, or of benefit to any
private interest, should enter into the discussion.

During the negotiation I had the advantage of the able assistance
of Mr. Charles Tupper, the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
and I may say that, throughout the inquiry, Her Majesty’s Government
were animated by the largest spirit of justice, frendliness, and concilia-
tion.

On the part of the United States Government, Mr. Blaine produced
a Memorandum of evidence and extracts from official documents to
prove “that the killing of seals in the open sea tends certainly and
rapidly to the extermination of the species.

This assertion was combated with great force and ability by Mr.
Tupper in a counter-Memorandum which I laid before the Conference,

and in which a great amount of testimony is collated adverse to
9 the view of the United States Government. The result of the

careful consideration which I gave to the evidence on both sides
was to satisfy my own mind that, while measures are called for to pro-
tect female seals with young from slaughter during the well-known
periods of their migration to and from the breeding islands, and also to
prohibit the approach of sealing-vessels within a certain distance of
those islands, the inquiry had failed to establish the contention of the
United States Government that the absolute prohibition of pelagic
sealing is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species.

But the conflict of evidence and opinion on many points was such as
to preclude all hope of a solution of the question without recourse to a
Commission of Experts, and possibly to arbitration.

In this state of things I was invited by Mr. Blaine to make a pro-
posal on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government. Accordingly, I prepared
and submitted to the Conference the scheme of settlement explained
in my note to Mr. Blaine of the 29th April,* together with the draft of
a Convention to carry it into effect, the draft having previously met
with the concurrence of the Canadian Government and with your Lord-
ship’s approval.

I venture to think that it would be difficult to suggest a more equi-
table basis of settlement.

The proposed Convention provided for an appointment of a Mixed
Commission of Experts to report on the disputed points, with ultimate
recourse to arbitration, should it be found necessary for the final adjust-
ment of all the questions involved. Moreover, it embodied regulations
to take immediate effect, and which I do not hesitate to affirm were
amply sufficient to remove all risk of the depletion, or even appreciable
diminution, of the fishery pending the Report of the Commission.

*See ‘‘ United States No. 2 (1890),” p. 455.

600 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

J had every reason to expect that, on receipt of my note of the 29th
April and of the draft Convention which it inclosed, another meeting
of the Conference would have been summoned to discuss the sufficiency
or insufficiency of the proposals made by Her Majesty’s Government.
But the negotiators were not invited to meet again, and my note of
the April 29th, was not even answered.

On the 22nd May the public journals announced the rejection of the
British proposals, and the issue of instructions to the United States
revenue-cruizers of such a character as rendered necessary the intima-
tion conveyed in my note to Mr. Blaine of the following day (23rd
May),* that Her Majesty’s Government would forward without delay a
formal protest against any interference with British vessels in Behring’s
Sea outside of territorial waters.

Mr. Blaine’s reply to that note is dated the 29th May,t and in the
course of his observations on the protest of Her Majesty’s Government
he states that ‘“‘no course was left to the United States or Russia” but
to reject the proposals contained in my note of the 29th April. That
is the only formal intimation I have ever received that the proposed
Convention was unacceptable to the United States Government.

The negotiation which was thus brought to so abrupt a termination
had been restricted entirely to the question of a close season. All
questions of legal right in controversy were purposely kept out of view,
in the hope that they would finally disappear in an international agree-
ment. That result, however, not having been attained, the United
States Government have reverted to the claim of legal right to exclude
all other nations from the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea. Ihave had
some difficulty in clearly apprehending, even after all the correspond-
ence which has taken place, the precise proposition of law on which the
United States Government rely in justification of that claim.

The attitude of the late Cabinet was quite inconsistent with any
serious reliance on such rights as are now asserted. Thus, President
Cleveland, in 1887, ordered the release of three British sealers seized
in Behring’s Sea, under Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States, which in general terms prohibits the killing of any fur-
seal “‘ within the limits of Alaska Territory, or the waters thereof.”

It is true that Secretary Bayard stated that such release was ordered
“without conclusion of any questions which might be found to be
involved;” but no further seizures were made in 1888, and the Presi-
dent proceeded to invite the Governments of Great Britain, Germany,
France, Russia, Sweden, and Japan to enter into an arrangement for
the better protection of the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea. This
amounted to an admission, in the face of Europe, that the object in

view conld not be attained consistently with the law of nations
10 without an international agreement. Another equally signifi-

cant fact was the refusal of the Senate of the United States to
allow the insertion of a clause, proposed by the House of Representa-
tives, in the Act of the 2nd March, 1889, declaring that Section 1956
of the Revised Statutes above referred to, and under which the seizures
of British sealers on the high seas have been made, “include and apply
to all the waters of Behring’s Sea in Alaska embraced within the
boundary-lines mentioned and described in the Treaty with Russia.”

The clause, as it now stands, is as follows:

“Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby
declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United States

*Ibid., p. 473. tIbid., p. 475.

Bech. db:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 601

in the waters of Behring’s Sea.” It will be seen, therefore, that the
Senate declined to compromise itself by any such declaration as was
proposed by the House of Representatives.

This is not surprising, considering the politico-physical geography
of Behring’s Sea. An eminent American jurist, President Angell, in
an article in the “‘ Forum” of November 1889, demonstrates with oreat
force the fallacy of treating that sea as mare ’elausum. He points out
that it measures 1,100 miles from east to west, and 800 miles from north
to south, and that its area is more than twice that of the North Sea,
and at least two-thirds as great as the Mediterranean. As regards its
entrances, he remarks that it is open to the north by the straits, 36
miles wide, which form a passageway to the Arctic Ocean; and to the
south by more than 300 miles of sea intervening between the most
westerly island of Alaska and the Asiatie shore.

Another eminent American jurist, Professor Rayner, writing in the

same sense to the “New York Hvening Post” of the 27th June, 1889,
observes that the narrowest of the channels between the western
extremity of the Aleutian belt of islands belonging to the United
States and the Russian territory of Kamtchatka ‘‘ would admit of a
fleet of 100 vessels sailing abreast in a single line, even if deployed
with a quarter of a mile between each two vessels.”

But even if Behring’s Sea were “land-locked” within the meaning
of a close sea, tlhe severance in the unity of territorial possession which
took place in 1867 by the cession of Alaska to the United States
deprived it at once of one of the indispensable conditions of a “close
sea.”

Russia, by the Ukase of 1821, undoubtedly claimed that part of the
Pacific Ocean as mare clausum, although she did not attempt to exclude
foreign vessels entirely from it. As explained by M. Poletica, in his
note to Mr. Adams of the 28th February, 1822, Russia, while claiming
the right to do so, preferred only asserting her “essential rights” by
prohibiting foreign vessels from approaching the coasts or islands
within less than 100 Italian miles. It is clear, therefore, that Russia
based her right to impose this lesser restriction on foreign vessels upon
the larger right of total exclusion under the doctrine of mare clausum.,

tft correctly understand the contention of the United States Gov-
ernment, it is this:

They are willing to discard the doctrine of mare clausum as applied
to Behring’s Sea, but they insist on the more limited right claimed by
Russia to exercise jurisdiction over foreign vessels within 100 miles of
the coasts and islands. Itis obvious, however, that the Russian claim
of jurisdiction within 100 miles disappeared with the larger claim of
mare clausum from which it was derived, and that it cannot now be
revived with any semblance of right, and for any purpose whatever.
Such an appropriation of open sea, to use the language of Dr. Dana (7th
edition of Wheaton, note to paragraph 187), “however long acquiesced
in, is inadmissible in the nature of things. Whatever may be the evi-
dence of the time or nature of the use, it is set aside as a bad usage
which no evidence can make legal.”

Hitherto the credit has been ascribed to the United States of having
been the first nation to vindicate the freedom of the sea in respect of
this very portion of the Pacific Ocean by the vigorous protest of Mr.
J. Q. Adams against the whole of the claims, maritime wand territorial,
asserted by the Emperor Alexander I in his ‘famous Ukase of 1821.

I think it will be a matter of general surprise to learn that, in the
view of the United States Government, that protest was not intended

602 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

to apply to the claims of Russia in Behring’s Sea. But, whatever
opinion may be formed on that point, it is certain that the principles of
the law of nations invoked by Mr. Adams apply with equal force,
whether to the north or to the south of the Aleutian Islands, and that
the millions of fur seals which migrate annually to Behring’s Sea do
not, on entering its waters, become the exclusive property of the United
States.
I will not presume to dwell longer on the legal aspect of the contro-
versy, as the various questions of law to which it has given rise
et have been fully and conclusively dealt with in your Lordship’s
despatches, of which copies have been communicated to Mr.
Blaine.

I will only observe, in conclusion, that if the United States Govern-
ment persist in their endeavour to exclude British subjects from any
participation in the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, on the plea that
such exclusion is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species,
they assume a position which in my opinion will not bear the test of an
impartial inquiry, and that, in defending such action on the ground of
legal right, they raise questions of grave interest and concern to all
nations which there can be no hope of bringing to a satisfactory solu-
tion otherwise than by a Conference of the Great Powers or by inter-
national arbitration.

No. 6,
Sir C. Lampson and Co. to Foreign Office.—(Received September 6.)

64, QUEEN STREET, London, September 6, 1890.

DEAR SiR: Since we addressed you, under date of the 6th November
last,* on the Behring’s Sea Fishery question, the number of fur-seals
annually visiting the Pribylov breeding islands has decreased to such
an extent that the Company who hold the lease from the United States
Government have only been able to secure, for trade purposes, 21,000,
instead of the usual 100,000, skins, the United States Government
Agent stationed on the islands prohibiting any further killing.

The total extermination of the fur-seal, which we foreshadowed in
our last, has therefore come within measurable distance, and unless a
close time can be arranged immediately, the animal will undoubtedly
become extinct within a very short time.

We need seareely point out that as the seals taken by the Canadian
schooners at sea are the females and pups of those visiting the breeding
islands, this industry will of necessity disappear with the extinction of
the seal, and in confirmation of this we have just received a telegram
from Victoria informing us that the seal fishery in the Behring’s Sea
has been a failure, the total catch being far below those of preceding
years, although the fishing-vessels do not appear to have been molested
by the United States’ Government cruizers.

We are, Xe.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON AND Co.

* See ‘United States No. 2 (1890),” p. 338.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 603

Nowa:
Foreign Office to Sir C. Lampson and Co.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 9, 1890.
GENTLEMEN: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, calling attention to
the serious diminution which appears to have taken place in the num-
ber of fur-seals resorting to the Pribylov Islands.
Tam, Xe.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 8.
Admiralty to Foreign Office —(Received September 10.)

ADMIRALTY, September 9, 1890.
Sir: Tam commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Adiniralty
to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, copy of a telegram dated the 8th September from the Com-
mander-in-chief on the Pacific Station.
Iam, Xe.

(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR.
12 [Inclosure in No. 8.—Telegraphie. ]

Vice-Admiral Heneage to Admiralty.

Viceroria, British COLUMBIA, September 8, 1890.
On the 23rd Auenst four sealing schooners left Behring’s Sea, re porting vessels
homeward bound. Very bad catch on account of foggy weather. “Rush” steamed
round one while hunting seals, and took no notice. No seizure made or any other
interference with sealers.

No. 9.
Mr. Winton to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received September 13.)

32, HALTON STREET,
Toronto, Canada, September 3, 1890,

My Lorp: Permit me to say that I am pleased to be able to confirm
your Lordshin’s representations in reply to Mr. Blaine’s statements
respecting the “possible destruction of the Behring’s Sea fishery by
over-fishing and by the irregular slaughter of seals” in that quarter.

The North Atlantie seal fishery i is very Similar in character to that
of Behring’s Sea, and the habits of the animal in both seas have a good
deal in common. The dissimilarity consists physically only in the e¢ char-
acter of the fur, and locally in the fact that the Atlantic seal is taken,
captured, or killed either in the water or upon the ice with which it is
covered at the season when they are taken, whilst the Pacific seal is
killed in the water or upon the adjacent islands.

604 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

May I ask your Lordship also to note the fact that when United
States seal-hunters some years ago (in 1860-61, I think) undertook to
compete in our Newfoundland seal fishery no objection whatever was
raised by us to their doing so, or even to their outfitting in our ports,
subject to like duties upon their supplies and outfits which the local
fisherman had to pay? It was our refusal to permit them to bring in
their own supplies free of duty, whilst they outfitted in other respects
from our ports, which induced them in a fit of mere dudgeon to abandon
the fishery.

From the inclosed extract which I take from the “Toronto Empire”
of the 28th July your Lordship will please to observe that I have taken
some pains to tabulate the recorded annual catch of our North Atlantic
seals from 1805 to 1885 inclusive. This is entirely distinet from the

catch (of which no record is kept) mainly taken from the shore and
within the bays and harbours of the island, which is in some years
quite large, and would add very considerably to the number. And yet,
with all this annual destruction, there is to-day no perceptible diminu-
tion of the number of seals. If these animals were not thus destroyed,
and their produce utilized, the cod fishery, which to-day constitutes the
main industry of the Colony, together with our Atlantic salmon and
herring fisheries, would almost immediately be destroyed; for it is
entirely upon these fish they prey, and the quantity annually consumed
by them is almost incalculable.

I have, &e.
(Signed) Rost. WINTON.

.

{Inclosure in No. 9.]
Extract from the “ Toronto Empire” of July 28, 1890.
THE BEHRING’S SEA SEAL FISHERY.

32, HALTON STREET, July 24, 1890.
To the Editor of the “ Empire.”

Sir: Ihave read with much interest that portion of the ofticial correspondence
recently laid before the House of Commons on the above controversy between the
British and the United States Governments, as published in your issue of ‘‘ The
Empire” this morning, and have been much struck by the contrast exhibited between

the vigorous, logical, and perspicuous representations of Lord Salisbury and
13 the weak and disingenuous assumptions and propositions of the Minister of
the United States.

I am glad to observe Lord Salisbury’s recognition of the fact that ‘it requires
something more than a mere declaration” upon the part of a Minister of the United
States to ‘bring one to a substantial conclusion as to facts involved in the discussion
of questiones vexrate between the two Governments. It is quite possible (as his Lord-
ship intimates) that in some respects ‘‘Mr. Blaine has been misinformed,” as it is
equally clear that in others he is neither informed nor misinformed.

In reply to Mr. Blaine’s statement respecting the ‘irregular slaughter of seals in
the open waters of Behring’s Sea,” and the consequent possible total destruction of
the tishery in a few years, ‘Lord Salisbury deems it unnecessary to deal with that
phase of the question, as it is proposed to submit all the conditions of pelagic seal-
ing to the investigation of a Committee to be appointed by the two Governments.
In the meantime, his Lordship is of opinion that if all such sealing was stopped, the
creature would multiply at even a more extraordinary rate than at present, an opinion
which every practical seal-hunter will readily indorse.

As compared with the North Atlantic seal fishery, the Behring’s Sea fishery is
quite a modern and recent industry. Before Behring discovered either the sea or the
straits to which his name has been given the North Atlantic fishery was an important
industry.

Both fisheries have some features in common, and the habits and characteristics
of the animals in both waters are not very dissimilar, especially as regards condi-
tions of propagation, gestation, &c.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 605

The records of our eastern fishery have been very accurately tabulated for nearly
a hundred years, and the results fully justify Lord Salisbury’s opinion, and most
emphatically confute Mr. Blaine’s lamentations. In order to show how little justifi-
cation there is for Mr. Blaine’s prognostications, I may say that from 1805 to 1885, or
within the past eighty years, no less than 28,000,000 seals have been captured in the
North Atlantic, over and above those of which we have no record, and yet no per-
ceptible reduction of the mass is annually or periodically visible.

The following Table gives the numbers taken in decades from 1805 to 1885:

(ine sen Giicbing Weil) 5 sess boa Sso soe gay ose oue encegsaSoco bc oceeoomtede 1, 090, 000
fe (GO SGU ME I, MA LD ACE a RIN pe aN 1, 950, 624

«“ 0) SRS At hat ei hee eee a lie: he et 4, 312) 673

« Remastered eden an) Sees FIO HORI OED pa Rtn ASIN JIS Ee 4) 991, 176

«“ Gag AB made. Wet AL eA SOM eM MRR ENN EL ta Je ABET GR Tg 4, 388, 280

« Chie Pel Bits ee el AMON te en ce ME, Scenes 3, 957, 376

«“ FcR rae Me de Orth See 1) ted Oy, 4) 145, 300

«“ CO ia ac tee MUR Po, Flee eR 1 ee Ee SR 3, 981, 360
Ta TESS ach a ON Ge a 28, 816, 783

Just at this moment I have not at hand the figures for the past five years, but I
think they will not vary materially from the averages given above for the preceding
like period, except as they may be affected by the decreased outfit of sailing-vessels
and the reduction of the number of steamers now employed in the fishery, several
of which have been purchased by the United States Government and converted into
ships of war, as, for example, the ‘ Tigress,” ‘‘Bear,” ‘“‘Thetis,” and others, the
names of which I am not advised of. Our old and discarded seal-hunters, after
tifteen or twenty years’ service and the loss of their first letter, make gallant war-
ships for the United States; and, as a remarkable instance of the irony of fate, are
occasionally employed on the Pacific in the chase and capture of their congeners
engaged in occupations that were not (notwithstanding Mr. Blaine) contra bonos
mores in earlier and happier days. Could these old stagers speak, how well they
might exclaim, ‘‘To what base uses do we come at last.”

But there is one point in this controversy to which I am desirous of calling the
attention of our Representative at Washington, and of Lord Salisbury himself, and
that is, that as long ago as 1860 the Americans themselves demanded of us the very
right which we now demand of them, and then, as now, we admitted their right to
a prosecution of the North Atlantic seal fishery, quite as much, nay more, a perqui-
site of our Atlantic provinces as is their Bebring’s Sea fishery of the Alaskan and
Aleutian annexes. For several years the American steamer ‘‘ Monticello” was dis-
patched to St. John’s, Newfoundland, and was there fitted out, provisioned, manned,
and equipped for the prosecution of a pelagic industry, the capture of seals in the

deep waters adjacent to the coasts of that province. She, no doubt, took seals
14 within the 3-mile limit; outside that limit her right to take them was never

questioned. She might have continued the prosecution of that industry to this
day had her owners found men in the United States with sufficient daring and pluck
and muscle for the work; but they were not to be had, and after one or two voyages
the vessel was withdrawn, only in consequence of our refusal to permit her to outfit
and man in our own ports, and to enter and clear her supplies, brought from the
United States, free of the customs rates which our own people were subject to.

In this case the Americans then demanded, and we conceded, the same rights which
we now demand and they refuse. More, they were actually permitted to fit out at
our own ports upon the same conditions as our own outfitters were subject to. I
leave these facts to Mr. Blaine, for his consideration, and trust they will not be lost
sight of when the prospective Committee makes up its Report.

Yours, &c.
(Signed) R. WINTON.

No. 10.
Foreign Office to Mr. Winton.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 16, 1890.
Str: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, relating to the seal fisheries in
the North Atlantic and in Behring’s Sea, and I am to return to you
his Lordship’s thanks for your communication.
Iam, &ce.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

606 APPENDIX TO GASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 11.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 22.)

MAGNOLIA, September 11, 1890.

My Lonrp: I have the honour to transmit herewith copy of a Bill
entitled, “A Bill to amend the Act entitled, ‘An Act providing a Civil
Government for Alaska.’”

The words in italics constitute the amendment by which jurisdiction
is proposed to be conferred on the Supreme Court.

The rest is exactly as the Statute now stands.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 11.]
(51st Congress, Ist Session.—H. R. 11979.)
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1890.—Read twice, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
ordered to be printed.

Mr. THOMPSON introduced the following Bill:
A Bill to amend the Act entitled, “An Aet providing a Civil Government for Alaska.”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, that section 7 of the Act approved the 17th May, 1884,
Chapter 53, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:

“Sect. 7. That the General Laws of the State of Oregon now in force are hereby
declared to be the Law in said district so far as the same may be applicable, and not
in conflict with the provisions of this Act or the Laws of the United States; and the

sentence of imprisonment in any criminal case shall be carried out by confine-
15 mentin the gaol or penitentiary hereinafter provided for. But the said District

Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction inall cases in equity, or those involving
a question of title to land, or mining rights, or the constitutionality of a Law and in
all criminal offences which are capital. In all civil cases at common law, any issue
of fact shall be determined by a jury, at the instance of either party, and an appeal
shall lie in any case, civil or criminal, for the judgment of said Commissioners to
the said District Court, where the amount involved in any civil case is 200 dollars or
more, and in any criminal case where a fine of more than 100 dollars or imprisonment
is imposed, upon the filing of a sufficient appeal bond by the party appealing, to be
approved by the Court or Commissioner. Writs of error iu criminal cases shall issue
to the said District Court from the United States Circuit Court for the District of
Oregon in the cases provided in Chapter 176 of the Laws of 1879, and the jurisdiction
thereby conferred upon the Cireuit Courts is hereby given to the Cireuit Court of
Oregon; and the final Judgments or Decrees of said District Court may be reviewed by
the said Circuit Court in civil cases in the same manner and with the like effect as final
Judgments or Decrees of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; and
the final Judgments or Decrees of said Circnit Court and District Court may be
reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States as in other cases.”

No. 12.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received September 29.)
MAGNOLIA, MASSACHUSETTS, September 19, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 24th July last, I

have the honour to inclose, in the form of a Memorandum, some obser-
vations ov Mr, Blaine’s note of the 30th June last. They are suggested

tt

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 607

by certain passages in Mr. John Quincy Adams’ despatches relating to
the Russian Ukase of 1821, which do not appear in the correspondence
on the subject laid before Congress in 1889, but which seem to me to
confirm in a remarkable way the views expressed in your Lordship’s
despatch of the 2nd August.
Tam, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 12.]

Note on Mr. Blaine’s Interpretation of Mr. J. Quincy Adams’ Despatch to Mr. Middleton
of July 22, 1823.

Mr. Blaine, in his note of the 30th June, 1890, argues at great length to show that
Mr. Adams, in his despatch to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1823, did not dispute
the claim of Russia to exclusive jurisdiction over that part of the Pacific Ocean now
known as Behring’s Sea, but that he only protested against the Imperial Ukase of
1821 so far as it related to the claim of Russia to territorial dominion on the con-
tinent of America south of the 55th parallel, and to exclusive maritime jurisdiction
south of the Aleutian Islands. :

It is to be regretted that in the printed correspondence relating to the Imperial
Ukase of 1821, presented to Congress in i889, certain passages trom Mr. Adams’
despatches should have been omitted, as they are absolutely fatal to Mr. Blaine’s
contention.

In the first place, in a paper accompanying Mr. Adams’ instructions to Mr. Middle-
ton (but which paper does not appear in the printed correspondence above referred
to), the following passage occurs with reference to Russia’s claim of maritime juris-
diction from Behring’s Strait to 45°50’ on the Asiatic coast and to 51 on the American
coast:

“The right of navigation and of fishing in the Pacific Ocean, even on the Asiatic
coast north of latitude 45°, can as little be interdicted to the United States as that
of traffic with the natives of North America.”

President Angell, whocites the above passage in his article inthe Forumof Novem-
ber 1889, makes the following comment upon it:

“ After reading such language from Mr. Adams, can any one doubt what his answer

would have been to a proposition by Russia to concede that the Pacific south
16 of the 55th parallel was an open sea, but that the part north of it formed a
close sea over which she had exclusive jurisdiction ? ”

An equally important passage is also omitted in the correspondence presented to
Cougress. It is to be found in the despatch addressed by Mr. Adams to Mr. Rush,
the United States Minister in London, inclosing copies of his instructions to Mr.
Middleton, and directing him to confer freely on the subject with the British Gov-
ernment, both Governments being united against the Imperial Ukase of 1821. This
despatch, which is of even date with the instructions to Mr. Middleton (22nd July,
1823), is referred to by Dr. Dana at p. 97 of his 8th edition of Wheaton’s ‘ Inter-
national Law” (note on the Monroe doctrine appended to section 67), for the purpose
of showing that the paternity of the Monroe doctrine belongs to Mr. Adams. But
it has an important bearing on the point raised by Mr. Blaine, as it contains a clear
and contemporaneous exposition by Mr. Adams himself of his views in relation to
the freedom of navigation of the Pacific Ocean in its entirety.

In this despatch Mr. Adams, after contending that the entire continent was closed
to any new establishment by any European Power, proceeds as follows:

“A necessary consequence of this state of things will be that the American Con-
tinents henceforth will no longer be subject to colonization. Occupied by civilized
nations, they will be accessible to Europeans and each other on that footing alone,
and the Pacific Ocean, in every part of it, will remain open to the navigation of all
nations in like manner with the Atlantic.”

Mr, Blaine, in his note of the 30th June, observes that Mr. Adams, at an interview
with Baron Tuylin July 1823, had foreshadowed the doctrine which four months
later was asserted by President Monroe, in his Annual Message to Congress. But he
makes no allusion to the passage above cited from Mr. Adams’ despatch to Mr. Rush,
probably because it is omitted from the text of the despatch, as printed at p. 212 of
the Correspondence presented to Congress. It appears to me to confirm in a remark-
able way the view of historians and jurists, that the purpose of Mr, Adams’ despatch
to Mr. Middleton of the 22nd July, 1823, was not only to oppose the territorial claim
of Russia, but to vindicate the freedom of navigation of the Pacific Ocean ‘in every

608 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

part of it.” Thus, Calvo states that the result of the Treaty of 1824, between Russia
and the United States, was to secure freedom of navigation and fishery ‘‘dans toute
Vétendue de Océan Pacifique” (vol. i, p. 415, 4th edit.). The United States Govern-
ment cannot seriously contend that Behring’s Sea was not a part of the Pacific Ocean in
the contemplation of Mr. Adams, for not only was the term ‘‘ Behring Sea” unknown
at the time of the Treaty of 1824, but even in the Treaty of Cessionof Alaska of the
20th June, 1867, the Island of Attou and Copper Island (of the Kormandorski group)
are described as being in the ‘‘North Pacific Ocean.” Moreover, in 1842, Russia
refused to interfere with the operations of American whalers in Behring’s Sea when
pressed to do so by the Russian American Company, 6n the ground that the Treaty
of 1824 gave to American citizens the right of fishing ‘‘over the whole extent of the
Pacific Ocean.”* Indeed, since the Treaty of 1824, and that with Great Britain of
1825, Russia has never attempted to exercise maritime jurisdiction over foreign ves-
sels in Behring’s Sea outside of the territorial waters. This alone should dispose of
the claim of the United States to exercise such jurisdiction within 100 miles of the
coast of Alaska, for it purports to have been derived from Russia in 1867, while it
was renounced by Russia herself in 1824.

As regards the right of fishery which flows from the right of navigation, Calvo, in
his work on International Law (4th edition, § 357), cites the claim of Denmark to the
Greenland fisheries, based on long usage and on recognition by Treaties. Although
she reduced her claim to seventy-five miles from the coast the other nations refused
to admit her pretentions, on the ground that as no nition can acquire by usage or by
Treaty any property in the high seas, therefore no nation can extend the limits of its
territorial waters. Calvo adds:

‘Si de pareilles dérogations aux principes universellement reconnus ont lieu, c’est
quwelles sont dictées par un intérét maritime de premier ordre, notamment l’exploi-
tation de péches cOtiéres d’une nature exceptionnelle, des banes d’huitres ou autres
coquillages; il faut qu’elles se renferment dans la limite de Vobjet spécial qui les a
fait adopter; et elles ont besoin pour devenir obligatoires, Wétre sanctionnées par des
Conventions expresses et écrites.”

J.P.

IN No. 13.
Admiralty to Foreign Ofjice.—( Received October 7.)

ADMIRALTY, October 4, 1890.

Sir: Tam commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit, for the perusal of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, an extract of a letter from the Commander-in-chief on the
Pacific Station, dated the LOth September, reporting the return of the
sealing-schooners from Behring’s Sea.

My Lords desire me to call particular attention to paragraph 6 of
Rear-Admiral Hotham’s letter, in which it is stated that two-thirds of
the catch consisted of female seals, showing the necessity of some
agreement to prevent the extermination of a valuable fishery.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR.

[Inclosure in No 13.—Extract.]
Rear-Adniral Hotham to Admiralty.

“WARSPITE,” AT ESQUIMALT, September 10, 1890.
? ? ep ,

I have to request you will bring to the notice of the Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty this letter with reference to my telegram of the 8th instant.

I personally saw the masters of the sealing-schooners named below, and obtained
from them the information herein reported:

Captain C. Cox, schooner “ Sapphire.”

* Bancroft’s ‘‘ History of the Pacific States,” vol. xxviii, p. 583.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 609

Captain Petit, schooner “‘ Mary Taylor.”

Captain Hackett, schooner ‘‘Annie Seymour.”

Captain W. Cox, schooner “f Triumph.”

They left the Behring’s Sea on the 23rd August, and reached Victoria, British
Columbia, in thirteen days. This season has been the worst they have experienced
(Captain Cox, of the “Triumph,” having been sealing for five years), and state it is
due to the bad weather they experienced in July, which is the month they always
make the biggest catch; as for twenty-one days, then, nothing but heavy fog was
experienced, ‘and they consequently conld not get out their boats and canoes to hunt;
they state they saw of plenty of seals whenever it cleared a little.

Mr. Hackett, of the ‘‘ Annie Seymour,” says he met the American cruizer ‘‘ Rush,”
while his boats were round the schooner, actually engaged in sealing, and the
eruizer steamed round them, but took no notice whatever; he had his colours flying,
and after about half-an-hour she steamed away.

None of the other schooners they spoke with had met with any interference, or
been spoken to by the cruizers. They knew of the “Rush” having been to Sand
Head, Shumagin Group, and served a Proclamation on board the ‘‘ Ariel,” but, as
they were at North-East Bay, they had not met her then.

They also mentioned that two- thirds of their catch consisted of female seals, but
that after the Ist July very few indeed were captured ‘‘in pup,” and that when ‘seal-
ing outside the Behring’s Sea, round the coast, on the way up (where this year the
heaviest catches were made), they acknowledged that seals ‘‘in pup” were fre-
quently captured.

One captain stated he saw what he thought to be an English man-of-war, but as
this could not have been, the vessel may have been the United States surveying-ship
“Albatross,” or a Russian man-of-war or cruizer, though I have no intelligence of
any of the Siberian fleet being in those parts.

I might add that the sealers say they heard rumours of a new seal-rookery being
formed on Middleton Island, which is outside the Behring’s Sea, but American
territory.

18 No. 14.

Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received October 14.)

ADMIRALTY, October 14, 1890.

Sir: Iam commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, copy of a telegram, dated the 14th instant, from the Com-
mander-in-chief on the Pacific Station.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) EVAN MACGREGOR,

{Inclosure in No. 14.—Telegraphic. ]
Rear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.

““WARSPITE,” AT VICTORIA, October 14, 1890.
All the sealing schooners have returned.

No. 15.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 22, 1890.

Str: Your despatch of the 28th July last, sage a letter from Mr.
Blaine under date the 19th July, reached me shor tly betore the close
of the Session of Parliament. I did not answer it at the time, chiefly

BS, PT V——39

610 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

because I did not think it desirable to mix up what seemed to me a con-
troversy on a very unimportant and secondary point with the more
serious questions which were in issue between the two Governments,
and to which the correspondence then going on specially applied. I
understand from you that Mr. Blaine has since asked whether you have
received any answer to that despatch, and, therefore, I will make some
observations upon it now, although it appears to me to contain little that
effects any question of public importance.

I understand his complaint to be that, in a conversation with Mr.
Phelps, reported by that gentleman in a despatch dated the 25th Feb-
ruary, 1883, I had assented to the American proposition to establish, by
mutual arrangement between the Governments interested, a close time
for fur-seals between the 15th Apriland the Ist November in each year,
and between 160° west longitude and 170° east longitude in the Beh-
ring’s Sea; that I had undertaken to cause an Act to be introduced in
Parliament to give effect to this arrangement as soon as it could be pre-
pared, and that I subsequently receded from these engagements.

The conversation in question took place on the 22nd February, 1888,
and my own record of it, written on the same day in a despatch to
your predecessor, is as follows:

Mr. Phelps then made a proposal on the bases embodied in Mr. Bayard’s despatch
of the 7th February, a copy of which accompanies my previous despatch of this
day’s date. Mr. Bayard there expressés the opinion that the only way of preventing
the destruction of the seals would be by concentrated action on the part of the
United States, Great Britain, and other interested Powers, to prevent their citizens
or subjects from killing fur-seals with fire-arms or other destructive weapons north
of 50° north latitude, and between 160° west longitude and 170° east longitude from
Greenwich, during the period intervening between the 15th April and the Ist
November. I expressed to Mr. Phelps the entire readiness of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment to join in an Agreement with Russia and the United States to establish a close
time for seal fishing north of some latitude to be fixed.

It results from these two records that Mr. Phelps understood me to
accept en bloc the proposals of the Government of the United States;
while my own intention and my own recollection of the conversation
was, that I merely accepted the general principle of a close time north
of some degree of latitude to be subsequently fixed. This difference
in the two reports of the same conversation, though not in itself
very wide, unfortunately covers the controversy between the two Goy-
ernments, at least in its earlier stage; for the matter in dispute between
us was the extent of the area and the season over which the close time
was to extend, and not the expediency of a close timein principle. Mr.
Blaine speaks of Mr. Phelps as having been long known in his country
as an able lawyer, accurate in the use of words, and discriminating in

the statement of facts. In that tribute to Mr. Phelps’ high intel-
19 lectual qualities I join most unreservedly, as far as my own

acquaintance with him enabled me to judge. But it is nothing
unheard of that a man, however highly gifted in this respect, should in
recording three days afterwards a conversation where no kind of note
was taken, and no effort made to define the expressions of opinion
which were exchanged, have slightly misconceived the extent to
which assent was given to his own proposals. My recollection remains
unchanged, that | never intended to assent and never did assent to
the detailed proposals which were put forward on behalf of the United
States, reserving my opinion on them for fuller consideration; but that
I expressed the “fullest concurrence on the part of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment in the general principle on which those proposals proceeded,
namely, the establishment of such close time as should be necessary to
preserve the species of fur seals from extermination. |

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 61%

Beyond this issue on the particular question of fact, whether I did or
did not assent to the proposals of the United States as unreservedly as
Mr. Phelps imagined, there is a larger question in regard to which I
must respectfully differ from the opinion expressed by Mr. Blaine. He
speaks of these conversations as constituting an Agreement, and
alludes to one of them under the name of the Agreement of the 25th
February. I do not think that this was the object which the parties
liad in view in the conversation to which Mr. Blaine refers. They were
not making binding stipulations or definitive Agreements. No word, as
far as I remember, was uttered on one side or the other to indicate that
so unusual a meaning was attached to the language used. ‘They were,
as such conversations usually are, preliminary conversations, intended
to lead up to an Agreement. If the words uttered in a conversation at
which no notes are taken are intended to constitute in any sense or
degree an Agreement between persons taking part in the conversation,
it seems to me essential that the subsequent record which contains the
phrases which are to be construed as an Agreement should be drawn
up with the concurre:ce of both the parties who have taken part in the
conversation. Any other course must necessarily lead to misunder-
standing.

If Mr. Blaine should revert to the matter again you may read to him
this despatch, but I do not think the question is of sufficient importance
to require any communication on your part unless he should refer
specially to it.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY,

No. 16.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 12.)
|Telegraphic.] P.
WASHINGTON, November 12, 1890.

I failed in my efforts to see Mr. Blaine until to-day, when I reminded
him of your Lordship’s proposal of arbitration in the Behring’s Sea con-
troversy, and pressed him for an answer in view of the approaching
meeting of Parliament. He said that the delay in sending an answer
was due to the pressure of home politics during the recess. He was,
however, now engaged I in writing me a note in answer to my note of the
12th August, in which I communicated to him your Lordship’s despatch
of the £ ond August. This note he said would be delivered before the
meeting of Parliament or the reassembling of Congress, and would, he
thought, advance matters. In the meantime any further discussion is
deferred.

No.7.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received November 17.)

WASHINGTON, November 7, 1890.
My Lorp: IL have the honour to transmit herewith two copies of the
transcript of record in the appeal case of the schooner ‘Sylvia Handy”
», the United States,

612 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The “Sylvia Handy” is an American vessel, and her owners, who are
American citizens, appeal against her condemnation and forfeiture by
the District Court of Alaska for engaging in the fur-seal fishery in
Behring’s Sea 17 miles from land.

It will be contended on this appeal that the Act of Congress under
which the seizure was made has no application outside of the territo-
rial waters of Alaska; and that, if it purports to control the waters of
Behring’s Sea beyond 1 marine league from the shore, it is unconstitu-

tional and abortive.
20 This appeal case was numbered 683 in the last term of the Su-

preme Court. It is now numbered 373, and it may possibly come
up for hearing before the expiration of the ‘present term. Although
different considerations apply to the case of an American vessel, the
Court may be called on to give a construction to the words in clause
1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, ‘‘ within the limits
of Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof,” which will settle the
question of law adversely to the contention of the United States Gov-
ernment, and irrespectively of the nationality of the vessel.

I have, We.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 17].
Transcript of Record.
SUPREME CoURY OF THE UNITED STATES.
October Term, 1889. No. 683.

The Schooner “Sylvia Handy,” her Tackle, Apparel, §c.; L. N. Handy, James Cartheut
J. N. Handy, and William Thomas, Owners, Appellants, v. the United States.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ALASKA.

(Filed June 16, 1888.)

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska, United States
of America.

To the Honourable LA FAYETTE DAWSON, Judge of said District Court.

The libel of information of M. D. Ball, Attorney for the United States for the Dis-
trict of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of the said United States, in the name and
on behalf of the said United States, alleges and informs as follows, to wit:

That M. A. Healey, an officer in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States,
duly commissioned by the President of the United States, in command of the revenue-
cutter ‘‘ Bear,” and on special duty in the waters of the District of Alaska, heretofore,
to wit, the 2nd day of September, A. D. 1887, within the limits of Alaska Territory and
in the waters thereof, and within the Civil and Judicial District of Alaska, to wit,
within the waters of that portion of Behri ing’s Sea belonging to the United States and
said district, on waters navigable from the | sea by vessels of 10 or more tons burden,
seized the schooner‘ ‘Sylvia Handy, ” of San Francisc o, California, her tackle, apparel,
boats, cargo, and furniture, being the property of some person or persons unknown to
said Attorney.

The property is more particularly described as follows, to wit: The schooner
“Sylvia Handy,” of San Francisco, California, of 67,4; tons burden as per register,
Stearn and running rigging, sails, chronometer and nautical instruments, clock,

lamps, carpenters’ tools, books, anchors, casks, cooking and table utensils, provi-
sions, rifles and shot-guns and ammunition for the same, ‘and 1 ,679 fur-seal skins, and
all other property found upon or appurtenant to said schooner.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 613

That M. A. Healy was then and there duly commissioned and authorized by the
proper Department of the United States to make said seizure; that all said property
was then and there seized as forfeited to the United States for the following causes:

That the said vessel and her captain, officers, and crew were then and there found
engaged in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory and in the said
waters thereof, in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States.

That all the said property, after being seized as aforesaid, was brought into
the port of Sitka, in said district, and turned over to the United States Marshal of
this district, with the exception of the said 1,679 fur-seal skins, which latter were
brought into the port of Qunalaska, in said Territory, and delivered into the keep-

ing of J. B. Johnston, a special agent of the United States Marshal, subject to
21 the order of the Court, and all of said property is now within the Judicial Dis-
trict of Alaska, United States of America.

And said M. D. Ball, Attorney as aforesaid, further informs and alleges—

That on the 2nd day of September, A.D. 1887, and at divers other times during the
month of August 1887, J. L. Carthcut and certain other persons, whose names are to
the said United States Attorney unknown, who were then and there engaged on
board of said schooner ‘ Sylvia Handy” as seamen and seal-hunters, did, under the
direction and by the authority of Jas. L. Cartheut, then and there master of said
schooner, engage in the killing, and did kill, in the Territory and District of Alaska,
and in the waters thereof, forty-two fur-seals, in violation of Section 1956 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States in such cases made and provided.

That the said 1,679 fur-seal skins and other goods so seized on board the schooner
“Sylvia Handy” constituted the cargo of said schooner at the time of the killing of
said fur-seals and at the time of said seizure.

And said Attorney saith that all and singular the premises were and are true and
within the Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and of this
honourable Court, and that by reason thereof and by force of the Statutes in such
cases made and provided the aforementioned schooner, being a vessel of burden, and
her said apparel, tackle, boats, cargo, and furniture, became and are forfeited to the
use of the said United States.

Wherefore the said Attorney prays that the usual process and monition of this
honourable Court issuein the behalf against said schooner and all said hereinbefore-
described property, to enforce the forfeiture thereof, and requiring notice to be given
to all persons to appear and show cause on the return day of said process why said
forfeiture should not be decreed, and that after due proceedings are had all said
property to be adjudged, decreed, and condemned as forfeited to the use of the
United States, and for such other relief as may be proper in the premises.

(Signed) M. D. Batt,
United States District Atlorney for the District of Alaska.
(By A. K. DELANEY,
Special Assistant Attorney for the United States.)
Dated September 15, 1887.

Endorsed: H. No. 93. 1. United States District Court, District of Alaska.
The United States against the schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Libel of information.
Filed the 15th September, 1887, H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy
Clerk.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska,
United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”

No. 93.—Claim.

Comes now James L. Cartheut, one of the owners and master of the above-named
schooner, intervening for his own interest and in behalf of those owning with him
in the said schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy,” and appears before this honourable Court and
makes claim to the said schooner, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, as the
same are now attached by the United States Marshal for the District of Alaska, at
the instance of the Revenue Department of the United States, and the said James
L. Cartheut avers that he is part owner and master of said vessel, and was in posses-
sion of said vessel at the time of the seizure thereof, and that he in conjunction
with L. N. Handy and Joseph Handy and William Thomas are the sole, only, and

614 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

* bond fide owners of said schooner; that no other person or persons own any interest
therein.
Wherefore he prays this honourable Court to be allowed to defend accordingly.

(Signed) J. L. CARTHCUT.
Sworn to and subseribed this 15th day of September, A. D. 1887.
Before me,
(Signed) H. EK. Haypon,
Clerk, United States District Court.

(By A. A. Mryer, Deputy Clerk.)

[SEAL. ]
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimant.
22 Endorsed: H. No. 93. 2. United States v. schooner ‘“‘Sylvia Handy.”

Claim. Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A.
Meyer, Deputy Clerk. W. Clark, proctor for claimant.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Demurrer.

At this time comes W. Clark, Esq., proctor for the claimant of the property pro-
ceeded against in the above cause, and demurs to the libel of information filed herein.
The said claimant, by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters in the
said information contained to be true, demurs thereto and says that the said matters
in manner and form as the same are in said information stated and set forth are not
sufficient in law for the United States to maintain their said action for the forfeiture
of the property aforesaid, and that the said claimant is not bound by law to answer
the same; wherefore the said claimant prays that the said information be dismissed,
with costs.

(Signed) W. Criark, Proctor for Owners.
Endorsed: H. No.93. 3. United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Demurrer.

Filed the 19th September, 1887. H.E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.
W. Clark, proctor for claimants.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner “Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Answer of James L. Carthcut, Master and Part Owner.

And now comes James L. Carthcut, claimant as aforesaid, and for answer to the
libel of information filed herein says:

1. He admits that M. A. Healy was an officer of the United States Revenue Marine
Service, duly commissioned, and that he was at the time the property proceeded
against herein was seized in command of the United States revenue-cutter ‘‘ Bear,”
and on official duty at the time the said seizure was made, and was then and there
duly commissioned and authorized by the proper Department of the United States
to make said seizure, but denies that said seizure was made within the waters of
Alaska Territory or within the Civil and Judicial District of Alaska, or in any por-
tion of Behring’s Sea belonging to the United States, or upon any other waters
belonging to libellants navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 tons or over.

2. Denies that said vessel, her captain, officers, and crew, were then and there
found engaging in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the
waters thereof, or that they were then and there violating any Law of the United
States.

3. Denies that on the 2nd day of September, A. D. 1887, any other person or per-
sons did then and there, under the direction and authority of the said James L.
Cartheut or any other person or at all, kill any fur-seal within the District of Alaska,
or in the waters thereof.

4. Denies that the property proceeded against in this cause or any portion thereof
ever became forfeited to the United States. Wherefore the said claimant prays that

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 615

the libel of information filed herein may be dismissed, and for any other iust and
equitable relief as to this Court may seem meet and proper.
(Signed) J. L. CARTHCUT.
Sworn to and subscribed this 16th day of September, A. D. 1887.
Before me,
(Signed) H. E. HAYDON,
Clerk, United States District Court.
(By A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk.)

[SEAL. |
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimant.
23 Endorsed: H. No. 93. 4. United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.”

Answer. Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A.
Meyer, Deputy. W. Clark, proctor for claimant.

Return.
SrrKa, District of Alaska, sect.:

Be it remembered that, in obedience to the annexed monition, I have attached the
within-described property and now hold the same in my possession, subject to the
order of this honourable Court; and the owners and claimants of said property
having in writing, filed in Court this day, waived notice of publication and posting
of the libel and seizure, I therefore have notified all persons claiming said property
to be and appear before this District Court on the 19th day of September, 1887, at
3 o'clock P. M., then and there to make their claims and allegations in that behalf.

(Signed) BARTON ATKINS,
United States Marshal, District of Alaska.
Sika, ALASKA, September 19, 1887.

United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

DISTRICT OF ALASKA, sect.:

The President of the United States of America to the Marshal of the District of

Alaska, greeting:

Whereas a libel of information hath been filed in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Alaska on the 15th day of September, in the year 1887, by
Honourable M. D. Ball, United States Attorney for the district aforesaid, on behalf
of the United States of America, against the schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy,” her tackle,
apparel, boats, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins, furniture, as forfeited to the use of
the United States for the reasons set forth in said libel of information, and praying

.the usual process and monition of said Court in that behalf to be made, and that all

persons interested in said schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy,” her tackle, apparel, boats,
cargo, and said sealskins and furniture, &c., may be cited in general and special to
answer the premises, and, all proceedings being had, that the said schooner ‘‘Sylvia
Handy,” her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, said seal-skins and furniture, may, for
the causes in the said libel of information mentioned, be condemned as forfeited to
the use of the United States.

You are therefore hereby commanded to attach the said schooner “Sylvia Handy,”
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and said sealskins and furniture, to detain the
same in your custody until the further order of the Court respecting the same, and
to give notice to all persons claiming the same or knowing or having anything to
say why the same should not be condemned and sold pursuant to the prayer of the
said libel of information that they be and appear before the said Court, to be held
in and for the District of Alaska on the 19th day of September, 1887, at 3 o’cloek in
the afternoon of the same day, if the same shall be a day of jurisdiction, otherwise
on the next day of jurisdiction thereafter, then and there to interpose a claim for
the same and to make their allegations in that behalf; and what you shall have
done in the premises do you then and there make returns thereof, together with
this writ.

Witness, the Honourable La Fayette Dawson, Judge of said Court, and the seal

thereof affixed at the city of Sitka, in the District of Alaska, this 15th day of Sep-

tember, in the year of our Lord 1887, and of the independence of the United States
the 112th.

(Signed) H. E. Haypon,
Clerk, United States District Court.
[SEAL. ] (By A. A. MEYER,

Deputy Clerk.)

Endorsed: H. 5. No. 93. In the United States District Court for the District
of Alaska. The United States v. schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.” Monition. Returned
and filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy.

616 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

24 In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
st United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.— Waiver of Publication of Notice.

And now comes W. Clark, Esq., proctor for the owners of the above-named
schooner, as appears by their claim filed herein, and on behalf of said owners, and
being authorized thereto, waives said owners’ right to publication and posting ot
the notice of the libel and seizure of the property being proceeded against in this
eanse, and waives also time of hearing and announces himself ready to proceed to

trial.
(Signed) W. CLarkK, Proctor for Claimants.

indorsed: H. 6. No. 93. United States v. schooner “Sylvia Handy.” Waiver.
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy
Clerk. W. Clark, proctor for owners.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”—No. 93.

At this time comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court for leave
to file a demurrer to the libel of information tiled herein.
SEPTEMBER 19, 1887.

Endorsed: 7. Demurrer.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner *‘ Sylvia Handy.”—No. 93.

Now, at this time, come the parties above named, by their respective attorneys,
Mr. A. K. Delaney for plaintiff, and M. W. Clark for defendant; and this cause com-
ing on to be heard upon the demurrer of libel therein, and the Court being fully
advised in the premises, it is considered and ordered that the demurrer be, and the
same is hereby, overruled.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1887.
Endorsed: 8. Overruling Demurrer.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner “‘ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Answer.

And now comes James L. Cartheut, by W. Clark, Esq., master cf the above-named
schooner, and moves the Court for leave to file an answer to the libel of information

herein.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1887.
Endorsed: 9. Answer.

25 In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.

In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Claim of Owners.

Comes now W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court for leave to file
claim of master for owners. :
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1887.
Endorsed: 10. Claim.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 617

In the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Evidence for Prosecution.

By Mr. Delaney.—I am John C. Moore, Third Lieutenant of the revenne-cutter
“Bear,” and I was such on the 2nd September last. I was present at the seizure of
the schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy” on the 2nd. We were in latitude 54° 12’ north and
longitude 166° 50’, 17 miles from Cape Cheerful. Captain Healy is Commander of
the ‘‘ Bear,” R.M.8.,U.8. Iwas boarding officer, sent by Captain Healy, in company
with Alexander Wilson; boarded the vessel, and found she had forty-two seals on
deck, unskinned. I reported the fact to Captain Healy, who ordered me to seize the
vessel. I returned and told the captain that I had orders to seize the vessel. He
said he would submit, but on protest. James Carthcut was in command of the vessel.
Captain did not state how long he had been in Behring’s Sea, but said he thought he
had a perfect right to sealing in the sea if he was 3 miles from shore.

This was in waters from the sea navigable by vessels of 10 or more tons burden.

The schooner was taken to Ounalaska; the skins taken out and stored in the
Government warehouse,

By Court.—There were 1,637 skins below, and 42 on deck.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clark.

The only authority you had for making this seizure were Captain Healy’s orders ?—
Ves, Sir:

By whose order did you deliver those skins to Ounalaska?—Under Captain Healy’s
orders.

Who did you deliver them to?—I did not deliver them myself, but have a receipt
for them.

Who did?—The Captain.

Were you in command of the vessel?—Yes, Sir.

He ordered you to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir.

You say you were ordered to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir; I deliv-
ered them to Captain Healy in Ounalaska.

You stated those skins were pl
charge of the United States Marshal.

What was his name ?—Isaac Anderson.

Have you a receipt for the skins?—Yes, Sir; I have not gotit here, but I can get it.

Counsel here produces papers for identification. Witness identities them.

3 in

Redirect:

Mr. Delaney.—Counsel states that witness may correct any statement which he
may have made during counsel’s absence for a few minutes.
Witness states Johnson is Commissioner in Ounalaska, and the skins were delivered
to the Commissioner, the United States Marshal being absent at the time.
26 The papers produced by counsel are as follows, to wit:

Register, No. 51; numeral 116,085, issued at Customs Office, San Francisco,
12th January, 1887; tonnaze, 67.70 net; “Sylvia Handy” certificate; crew list certi-
fied 12th July, 1887, San Francisco; clearance from Customs Office, Victoria, British
Columbia, 9th May, 1887; bound for North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea (bill of
health accompanying) ; also certificate of United States Consul of the deposit of
his clearance and other papers with the Consul at Victoria, British Columbia.

Endorsed: C. H. 11. No. 93. United States v. schooner “Sylvia Handy.”
Evidence. Filed 22nd September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer,
Deputy Clerk.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska,

In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Findings and Conclusions of Law.

This cause having been tried and submitted, the Court, from the evidence, finds
the following facts “and conclusions of law:

1. That on the 2nd day of September, 1887, and theretofore, the master and crew
of the defendant’s vessel were engaged in killing, and did kill, fur-seals in that por-
tion of Behring’s Sea ceded by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of March
1867, and within the waters of Alaska, in violation of Section 1956 of the Revised

618 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Statutes of the United States, and that the promiscuous shooting of fur-bearing
animals in the waters adjacent to the Islands of St. Pani and St. Geor ge, and in that
portion of Behring’s Sea east of the 193rd degree of west longitude, has a tendency
to frighten and prevent said animals from going upon those islands, as they have
been accustomed to do in the past.

2. That on the said 2nd day of September, 1887, said vessel, her furniture, apparel,
tackle, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins were seized in said w aters by the commanding
officer of the United States revenue-cutter “ Bear,” then and there engaged in the
revenue marine service of the United States.

3. That said commanding officer was duly commissioned by the President of the
Unite d States, and made such seizure under the direction and by the authority of
the Treasury Department of the United States.

4, That said property so seized was delivered by said commanding officer of said
cutter to the United States Marshal of the District of Alaska, and is now within the
jurisdiction of this Court.

As conclusions of law the Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
forfeiture against said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, cargo, and the said
1,679 fur-seal skins.

(Signed) LA FAYETTE Dawson, District Judge.

Dated September 22, 1887.

Endorsed. C.H. 12. No. 93. In the United States District Court, District of
Alaska. United States ». schooner “Sylvia Handy.” Findings and conclusions of
law. Tiled the 22nd September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.

United States v. Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy,” J. L. Cartheut, L. N. Handy, Jas. Handy,
and Wm. Thomas.

No. 93.-—Decree.

The Marshal having returned on the monition issued to him in the above entitled
action that, in obedience thereto, he had attached the said schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy,”
her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, and proctor for claimants, on
27 behalf of said owners, having waived said owners’ right to publication and
posting of the notice of the libel and seizure, and also time of hearing, and has
given due notice to all persons claiming the same to appear before this Court on the
19th day of September, 1887, at 30 clock P. M. ., at the District of Alaska, United States
of America, then and there to interpose their claims and make their allegations in
that behalf, and J. L. Cartheut, the captain of said vessel, having hereto filed a claim
to all of said property in his and the behalf of L. N. Handy, and Jas. Handy, and
Wm. Thomas, of San Francisco, California, and no other persons having appeared,
and no other claims or allegations having been made or filed by any other person or
persons, and the usual proclamation having been made, and said cause having been
heard this day by consent of parties on the pleadings and proofs, M. D. Ball, Esq.,
United States District Attorney, by A. K. Delaney, Esq., counsel in that behalf,
appearing as advocate for said libellant, and W. Clark, Esq., as advocate for said
claimants, and said cause having been submitted to the Court for decision, and due
deliberation being had in the premises, and the Court having filed his findings of faet
and conclusions of law herein, it is now thereupon ordered, sentenced, and decreed
as follows:
1. That all persons whosoever other than said claimants be, and they are hereby,
decreed in contumacy and default.

That said schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy,” her tackle, apparel, boats, and furniture,
and her cargo of 1,679 fur-seal skins, now in the custody of J. B. Johnston, United
States Commissioner, a special agent of the Deputy United States Marshal at Ouna-
laska, subject to the order of the Court, and all property found upon or appurtenant

to said schooner be, and the same are hereby, condemned as forfeited to the use of

the United States.

3. That unless an appeal be taken against this Decree within the time limited and
prescribed by law and the Rules of the Court the usual writ of venditioni exponas be
issued to the Marshal commanding him to sell all the said property and bring the
proceeds into this Court to be distributed according to law.

Costs to be taxed, and are awarded against said claimants.

(Signed) LA FAYETTE Dawson, District Judge.
Endorsed: H. 13. No. 93. United States v. schooner “Sylvia Handy.” Decree.

Filed the 22nd September, 1887, H, E. Haydon, Clerk, by H. E. Haydon, jun.,
Deputy Clerk.

—_——

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 619

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska,
United States vy. American Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Motion in Arrest.

At this time comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court to arrest
the decree of forfeiture in said cause for the following reasons, to wit:

1. That the libel of information herein does not state facts sufficient in law to
enable the United States to have and maintain this action for the forfeiture of the
property seized herein.

2. That the evidence produced on part of the United States in this cause is not
sufficient upon which to have a decree of forfeiture.

3. That from the evidence produced on the part of the United States it appears
fone this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this cause.

That the Act of Congress under which the seizure herein was made is uncon-
SFO iLand ultra vires, in that it purports to give the United States jurisdiction
over a portion of the high seas more than 3 marine leagues from its shores, and pur-
ports to establish an international boundary-line in mid-ocean with no definite ter-
minal points and impossible to determine by absolute measurement or clearly define
by marks.

Therefore claimants pray that said decree may be for ever rested and his cause
dismissed.

(Signed) W. CLark, Proctor for Claimants.

28 Endorsed: H. 14. No. 93. United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.”
Motion in arrest. Filed the 3rd October, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A.
A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk. W. Clark, proctor for claimants.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. American Schooner “ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 95.—Petition for Leave to appeal.

And now comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and prays the Court for leave to
appeal this cause to the Supreme Court of the United States or such other Court as
may have appellate jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this cause.

(Signed) W. CxiarK, Proctor for Claimants.

Endorsed: H. No. 93. 15, United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Petition
for leave to appeal. Tiled the 9th December, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. W. Clark,
proctor for claimants.

United States District Court, District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.” —No. 938.

Petition filed by W. Clark, Esq., proctor for claimants, for leave to appeal.
It is considered and ordered by the Court that leave be granted.

(Signed) LA Fayette Dawson, District Judge.
DECEMBER 9, 1887.

Endorsed: Petition to appeal. 16.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”
No. §

Motion for Stay of Proceedings.

And now comes W. Clark, proctor for claimants, and moves the Court to grant a
stay of proceedings herein for three months from this date to enable claimants to
bond the property seized herein if they desire to do so.

Dated at Sitka this 3rd day of October, A. D. 1887.

(Signed) W. CrarK, Proctor for Claimants.
Endorsed: H. No. 93. 17. United States v. schooner ‘‘Syivia Handy.” Motion

for stay of proceedings. Motion filed and overruled by Court the 9th December,
1887. H. KE. Haydon, Clerk. W. Clark, proctor for claimants.

620 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska. |

United States v. Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy,” and L. N. Handy, J. Handy, J. L. Cartheut,
and W. Thomas.

No. 93.—Afidavit on Appéal.

UniTED States, District of Alaska, s8s.:

Personally appeared before me the Undersigned, Clerk of the District Court in and

for the District of Alaska, William 8. Morrisey, who, upon being first duly sworn,
upon his oath says he is the duly authorized agent for claimants in the above-

29 entitled cause; that said claimants purpose appealing said cause to the
Supreme Court of the United States.

That they purpose prosecuting said appeal with due diligence and without unnec-
essary delay; that they are appealing said cause for the reason that they feel them-
selves aggrieved and injured by the decree of the District Court rendered herein on
the 22nd day of September, A. D. 1887, at a special term of said Court.

That said appeal is not taken for vexatious delay or to hinder or delay the United
States in obtaining the proceeds of the said decree of forfeiture rendered herein, but
that the law and the facts may be reviewed by the said Superior Court, and that
this appeal is made by affiant for and in behalf of said claimants.

(Signed) W. S. Morrisey.
Subscribed to and sworn before me this 13th day of February, 1888. j
[SEAL. } (Signed) H. E. Haypon,

Clerk, United States District Court.

Endorsed: H. No.93. 18. United States v. schooner “Sylvia Handy.” Affidavit
on appeal. Filed the 13th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.

The United States v. the Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy,” her Cargo, and L. N. Handy, J.
Handy, James L. Cartheut, William Thomas, and W. 8. Morrisey, Agent and Attorney-
in-Tact.

No. 93.—Amended Petition for Leave to appeal.

At this time comes M. P. Berry, proctor, intervening for and in behalf of the
owners of the above-named vessel and cargo, through and by authority of W. S.
Morrisey, Esq., the duly authorized agent of the said owners, and prays the honour-
able Court, by virtue of the powers vested under section 3 of the Organic Act creat-
ing the District of Alaska, passed by Congress of the United States, and approved
by the President the 17th May, 1884, that leave be granted to amend the appeal
heretofore allowed by this Court (at a special term holden the 9th December, 1887)
[?] be granted, said owners and agent, defendants, to appeal and carry forward their
cause direct to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

That the above-named vessel and cargo, being of the appraised value of 12,673
dol. 25 c., to wit, that the schooner ‘Sylvia Handy” and cargo, was appraised by
duly appointed and sworn appraisers of this Court in the sum of 4,350 dollars, and
that the cargo, consisting of 1,679 fur-seal skins [?] in the sum of 8,323 dol. 25 ¢.,
making a total of 12,673 dol. 25 c.

The same being a sufficient sum to carry an appeal to the said Supreme Court of
the United States for review. :

(Signed) M. P. Berry,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owners.

Endorsed: H. No.93. 19. Inthe United States District Court, Districtof Alaska.
United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Amended petition for leave to appeal.
Filed the 13th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry, proctor.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.

The United States, Plaintiff, v. the Schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy” and Cargo, Owners, and
Agent, Defendant.

No. 93.—Motion for New Trial.

At this time comes M. P. Berry, proctor, appearing for William S. Morrisey, duly
authorized agent for the above-named defendants, and prays this honourable Court
that defendants be allowed a rehearing in their cause.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 621

30 That a day certain be named by the Court for a new trial.
That this motion is based upon the ground that the Congress of the.United
States, by the passage of certain Laws whereby we were subject to arrest and confis-
cation, did not only wrong us in our persons and goods, but that body did exceed
their jurisdiction.
(Signed) M. P. Berry,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owners.
Endorsed: H. No. 98. 20. Inthe United States District Court in and for the Dis-

trict of Alaska. United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Motion for new trial.
Filed the 14th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry, Proctor.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska,
The United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.— Motion for Stay of Proceedings.

Comes now M. P. Berry, Proctor, and moves the Court for stay of proceedings in
the above-entitled cause pending appeal heretofore allowed to be taken by this

honourable Court.
(Signed) M. P. Berry,
Proctor for Defendants’ Agent.

Endorsed: H. No. 93. 21. In the United States District Court in and for the
District of Alaska, United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Motion for stay of
proceedings. Filed the 14th February, 1888. H. EK. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry,
Proctor.

a

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”—No. 93.

It is considered and ordered by the court that the motion for a new trial and astay
of proceedings heretofore filed in this case be overruled.
Dated February 21, 1888.

Endorsed: 22.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.

The United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy” and Cargo, §e.; and L. N. Handy, J.
Handy, J. L. Cartheut, and William Thomas.

No. 93.—Verification of Claim.

Personally appeared before me in open Court, Wim. 8S. Morrisey, of Sitka, in the
District of Alaska, and solemnly swears that he is the lawful bailee for the owners
of the above-named schooner ‘ Sylvia Handy” and cargo.

That he is duly authorized by said owners of the above-named vessel and cargo to
enter into and file stipulations, with sureties, for the payment of all costs and
expenses which shall be awarded against them by the decree of this Court, or upon
an appeal by the Appellate Court.

(Signed) W. S. Morrisey.
Done in open Court, this 19th day of February, 1888.
[SEAL. ] (Signed) H. EK. Haynpon, Clerk.

Endorsed: No, 93. 23. United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Verification
of claim. Filed the 20th February, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

622 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
OL In the United States District Court in and for the Disttict of Alaska.

United States v. Schooner *‘Sylvia Handy” and Cargo, and L. N. Handy, James Cartheut,
J. N. Handy, and William Thomas, Owners.

No. 93.—Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. In Admiralty.

To the honourable Supreme Court of the United States of America.

The appeal of the above-named appellants respectively showeth that, cr or about
the 15th day of September, in the year 1887, the above-named libellants, tue United
States of America, exhibited their libel in the District Court of the United States
for the District of Alaska against the appellants for the reasons set forth in said
libel, that these appellants might be condemned to pay the demands of said libellants
and costs in said libel mentioned.

That process issued out of said Court having been served on these appellants, they
did, on or about the 19th day of September, in the year 1887, file their answer to said
libel in the said District Court, praying that the said libel be dismissed with their
costs in that behalf, as by reference to the said libel and the said answer may more
fully appear.

That the said cause came on to be heard before the Honourable La Fayette Dawson,
Judge of the said District Court, on or about the 22nd day of September, in the year
1887, upon the testimony and proofs adduced by the respective parties; and the
said Judge, having advised thereon, did, on the 22nd day of September, in the year
1887, make his decree in said cause, whereby it was, among other things, decreed
that the libellants in said cause recover against these appellants a decree of forfei-
ture against said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins,
as by reference to the said decree may more fully appear; and these appellants are
advised and insist that the said decree is erroneous, inasmuch as the honourable
Court, at such sitting, did not declare the law or constitution by which such seizure
and forfeiture of property was made.

Wherefore these appellants appeal from the whole of said decree of said District
Court of the United States, and respectfully pray that the decree of the said District
Court and the bill, answer, pleadings, evidence, and proceedings in the said cause
may be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States without delay, and that the
said Supreme Court will proceed to hear the said clause anew, and that the said
decree of the District Court and every part thereof may be reversed and a decree
made dismissing said libel with costs, or such other decree as to the said Supreme
Court shall seem just.

(Signed) M. P. Berry, Solicitor for Appellants.

Dated March 20, 1888.

Endorsed: Copy. H. No. 93. 24. In the United States District Court in and for
the District of Alaska. United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.” Appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States. In Admiralty. Filed the 25rd March, 1888.
H. KE. Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry, solicitor for appellants.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy” and Cargo.
No. 93.—Court in Error. Brief of Proctor.
(Submitted without argument. )

Par. I. That the assumption of ownership by Russia of that portion of the Pacific
Ocean generally known as the Behring’s Sea was a fallacy, and the transfer of the
same to the United States of America was a fraudulent exercise of such ownership
and supremacy, which did not exist at the certain time of the sale and transfer of

Alaska and the Aleutian Islands to the said United States of America.
2 » Par. II. That Russia had no control over such sea or waters from the year
1825 until the claim of ownership when negotiating for the sale of the main-
land of the Continent of North America and known and recognized as Alaska, and
the chain of islands bearing the name of Aleutian, with other islands of the same

group and certain islands within the Behring’s Sea and the strait opening and.

leading into the North Arctic Ocean—1&66 and 1867; that the destruction of many
American ships in the said Behring’s Sea and waters adjacent thereto by an unrec-
ognized war-vessel as late as 1864 and 1865 met with no protest from the Russian
authorities at that time within those seas (viz., the Kamschatka or Belring’s Seas),

aS mae foe

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 623

properly the North Pacific Ocean, is indisputable proof that such seas were not
considered neutral waters by the Russian Government.

Par. III. That the Congress of the United States exceeded its Constitutional
power by the passage of Laws to control waters of seas upon hypothetical lines
drawn from land’s end, off soundings, through open ocean, and ending on a parallel
of latitude 70 marine leagues from land; that Laws to control the waters beyond
the 1 marine league or 3 miles from the shore-line of each and every island, open
reef of rocks, or mainland is abortive.

Par. IV. That the enactment of Laws by the Legislative Power of the United
States that destroys a legitimate occupation, one of the industries of the people,
is a tyrannical exercise of such power vested in that body by such peoples, and is
unconstitutional.

Par. V. That the Honourable the District Judge, by the authority of the ‘Organic
Act providing a Civil Government for Alaska,” passed and approved the 17th May,
1884, being expressly clothed with the exclusive jurisdiction to pronounce upon the
constitutionality of the Law by such Organie Act, is in error by sustaining the con-
stitutionality of the law whereby the United States, as plaintiff, became entitled to
a decree of forfeiture against these defendants, appellants, and their. property.

(Signed) M. P. Berry,
Proctor for W. 8. Morrisey, Agent for Owner.

Endorsed: C.H. 25. No. 93. In the United States District Court, District of
Alaska. United States ». schooner *‘Sylvia Handy.” Brief of proctor. Filed the
23rd March, 1888. H. if, Haydon, Clerk. M. P. Berry, Proctor.

In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy,” and L. N. Handy, J. N. Handy, J. L. Carth-
cut, and IW. Thomas.

No. 93.—Order granting Appeal.

Upon hearing and filing petition of M. P. Berry, proctor, intervening for and in
behalf of the owners of the above-named vessel and cargo through and by author-
ity of W.S. Morrisey, Esq., the duly authorized agent of the said owners, praying
for an order allowing them to appeal this cause to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and upon hearing and filing the affidavit of W.S. Morrisey, the duly author-
ized agent for claimants in the above-entitled cause, and no objection being raised
on the part of the United States, and sufficient security having been given by said
claimants that they will prosecute said appeal to effect, and upon being fully advised
in the premises, it is ordered that said petition be granted and said claimants allowed
to appeal this cause.

Done at Sitka, Alaska, this 23rd day of March, 1888.

(Signed) La FAYETTE Dawson, District Judge.

Endorsed: C. H. 26. No. 93. In the United States District Court, District of
Alaska. United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Order granting appeal. Filed
the 23rd March, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

Bis) In the United States Circuit Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner “Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Consent that Vessel be discharged on Stipulation.

The schooner ‘Sylvia Handy,” her small boats, tackle, apparel, arms, ammunition,
furniture, and cargo, consisting of 1,679 fur-seal skins, having been arrested on the
process issued in this cause, we consent that on filing the usual stipulation entered
into according to the Rules of the Court to appear, abide, and perform the decree in
the sum of 12,673 dol. 25 ¢., and on filing a claim and on complying with the Rules of
the Court as to the fees of the officers of Court the said schooner be discharged from
custody and arrest. 3

(Signed) Wut. M. Grant, Proctor for Libellant.

Dated March 23, 1888.

Endorsed: 27. No. 93. In the United States District Court, District of Alaska.
United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Consent that vessel and cargo be dis-
charged on stipulation, Filed the 23rd March, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk. M., P.
Berry, proctor for owners,

624 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
The United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy” and Cargo.
No. 93.—Bill of Laxceptions.

Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause, the same being the 22nd day of
September, 1887, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska,
holden at Sitka, in the aforesaid district, and at the November term thereof, the
Government, to sustain the issue on its part, offered the following evidence to the
Court, viz.:

I am John C. Moore, Third Lieutenant of the revenue-cutter ‘‘ Bear,” and I was
such on the 2nd September last. J was present at the seizure of the schooner ‘‘ Sylvia
Handy” on the 2nd. We were in latitude 54° 12’ north, and longitude 166° 51’, 17
miles from Cape Cheerful. Captain Healy is Commander of the ‘“ Bear,” R.M.S.,
U.S.N. I was boarding officer, sent by Captain Healy in company with Alex. Wil-
son; boarded the vessel and found she had forty-two seals on deck unskinned, I
reported the fact to Captain Healy, who ordered me to seize the vessel. I returned
and told the captain that I had orders to seize the vessel. He said he would submit,
but on protest. James Cartheut was in command of the vessel; captain did not
state how long he had been in Behring’s Sea, but said he thought he had a perfect
right to sealing in the sea if he was 3 miles from shore.

This was in waters from the sea navigable by vessels of 10 or more tons burden.

The schooner was taken to Ounalaska, the skins taken out and stored in the Gov-
ernment warehouse.

By Court.—There were 1,637 skins below and 42 on deck.

Cross-examined by Mr. Clark,

The only authority you had for making the seizure were Captain Healy’s orders ?—
Yes, Sir.
By whose orders did you deliver those skins to Ounalaska?—Under Captain Healy’s
orders.
Who did you deliver them to?—I did not deliver them myself, but have a receipt
for them.
Who did?—The Captain.
Were you in command of the vessel?—Yes, Sir.
He ordered you to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir.
You say you were ordered to deliver the skins in Ounalaska?—Yes, Sir; I delivered
them to Captain Healy, in Ounalaska.
34 You stated those skins were placed in the Government warehouse?—Yes, Sir;
in charge of the United States Marshal.
What was his name?—Isaac Anderson.
Have you a receipt for the skins?—Yes, Sir. I have not got it here, but 1 can
et it.
: Counsel here produces papers for identification. Witness identifies them.

Redirect by Mr. Delaney.

Counsel states that witness may correct any statement which he may have made
during counsel’s absence for a few minutes.

Witness states Johnson is Commissioner in Ounalaska, and the skins were deliv-
ered to the Commissioner, the United States Marshal being absent at the time.

In the trial of the sealer cases Captain Sheppard, commander of the revenue-cut-
ter ‘‘Rush,” engaged in cruizing in the Behring’s Sea, testified that shooting and the
method of taking seals pursued by said seized vessels tended to drive them from their
usual haunts and breeding and raising grounds in Behring’s Sea, which evidence was
used and considered in the trial and decision of this cause.

To which the defendants then and there objected, the objection being overruled
and the evidence admitted. The defendants there and then excepted to the ruling of
the Court, and the law, as declared by the Court, viz.:

This cause having been tried and submitted, the Court, from the evidence, finds
the following facts and conclusions of law:

“1. That on the 2nd day of September, 1887, and theretofore, the master and crew
of the defendants’ vessel were engaged in- killing, and did kill, fur-seals in that
portion of Behring’s Sea ceded by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of
March 1867, and within the waters of Alaska, in violation of section 1956 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, and that the promiscuous shooting of fur-
bearing animals in the waters adjacent to the Islands of St. Paul and St. George,

a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 625

and in that portion of Behring’s Sea east of the 193rd degree of west longitude, has
a tendency to frighten and prevent said animals from going upon those islands, as
they have been accustomed to do in the past.

“2. That on the said 2nd day.of September, 1887, said vessel, her furniture,
apparel, tackle, cargo, and 1,679 fur-seal skins were seized in said waters by the
commanding officer of the United States revenue-cutter ‘Bear,’ then and there
engaged in the Revenue Marine Service of the United States.

“3. That said commanding officer was duly commissioned by the President of the
United States, and made such seizure under the direction and by the authority of
the Treasury Department of the United States.

“4, That said property so seized was delivered by said commanding officer of said
cutter to the United States Marshal of the District of Alaska, and is now within the
jurisdiction of this Court.”

As conclusions of law, the Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
forfeiture against said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, cargo, and the said
1,679 fur-seal skins.

(Signed) La Fayette Dawson, District Judge.

Endorsed: 28. No. 93. Inthe United States District Court in and for the District
of Alaska. United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Bill of Exceptions. Filed
23rd March, 1888. H. EK. Haydon, Clerk.

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska,
United States v. Schooner “ Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Stipulation.

It is hereby stipulated by and between W. M. Grant, United States District
Attorney, acting for and on behalf of the United States; and M. P. Berry,
35 proctor for W. 8. Morrisey, duly appointed and constituted agent for the
owners, that the following shall be omitted from the transcript hereunto
annexed, namely:
All the exhibits referred to in the testimony of J. C. Moore.
(Signed) Wuit. M. GRANT,
United States District Attorney.

M. P. Berry,
Proctor for W. S. Morrisey, Agent for Owners.

Endorsed: 29. No. 93. Inthe United States District Court in and for the Dis-
trict of Alaska. United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Stipulation, Filed
the 23rd March, 1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
In the Matter of the United States v. Schooner ‘‘ Sylvia Handy.”—No. 93.

Now comes M. P. Berry, proctor for claimant, and moves the Court for leave to file
stipulation for the appraised value of the schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy,” her tackle,
apparel, small boats, arms, ammunition, and cargo, consisting of 1,678 fur-seal
skins.

Upon examination of the stipulations it is ordered by the Court that the same be
approved, and whereupon the Court issued the following order, to wit:

The stipulation of the claimants herein with sufficient surety having been filed and
approved, it is ordered that the above-named vessel and all her tackle, apparel, fur-
niture, arms, ammunition, and cargo, consisting of 1,678 fur-seal skins, received in
this port by the United States Marshal for the District of Alaska, be released, and
that the same be delivered to William §S. Morrisey, Esq., Attorney-in-fact for the
claimants herein.

(Signed) La FAYETTE Dawson, District Judge.

MARCH 23, 1888.

Endorsed: 30. Journal entry,
BS, PL ¥. 40

626 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

In the United States District Court, District of Alaska,
In the Matter of the United States vy. Schooner ‘“ Sylvia Handy.”—No. 93.

Comes now M. P. Berry, proctor for claimants in the above-entitled cause, and
prays that the amended petition for leave to appeal and the affidavit on appeal here
tofore filed be considered by the Court.

MARCH 23, 1888.
Endorsed: 31. Journal entry.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.
United States v. Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.”
No. 93.—Stipulation for Costs given by Claimants on Appeal.

Whereas a libel was filed in this Court in the within cause on the 15th day of
September, A. D. 1887, by M. D. Ball, United States Attorney for the District of
Alaska, against the schooner ‘“‘Sylvia Handy,” her tackle, apparel, furniture, and
cargo, for the reasons and causes set forth and mentioned in said libel of information,
and praying that the same may be condemned and sold:

And whereas a decree of forfeiture was, on the 22nd day of September, 1887, ren-
dered against the said vessel, her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, and against

L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, James L. Carthcut, of San Francisco, California,
36 intervening as the sole and only claimants to said vessel, tackle, apparel, fur-
niture, and cargo;

And whereas the said L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, and J. L. Cartheut, claimants as
aforesaid, are desirous of and purpose appealing from the said Decree of this Hon-
ourable Court to the Supreme Court of the United States:

Now, therefore, we, the undersigned stipulators, submitting ourselves to the juris-
diction of this Court, do acknowledge ourselves to be bound unto the United States
of America, the said L. N. Handy, J. L. Handy, and James L. Carthcut, as princi-
pals, and W. S. Morrisey and David Wallace, as sureties, jointly and severally, in
the sum of 300 dollars lawful money of the United States, conditioned that if the
claimants above named shall pay all costs and expenses which shall be awarded
against them by the final decree of the Supreme Court of the United States, then
this stipulation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

Witness our hands this 23rd day of March, 1888.

(Signed) W. J. MORRISEY.
DAVID WALLACE.
UNITED StaTES, District of Alaska, ss.:

Personally appeared before me, H. E. Haydon, Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Alaska, W. S. Morrisey, and David Wallace, who, being
duly sworn, each for himself deposes and says that he is a resident and householder
in said district, and that he is worth the sum set forth in the foregoing stipulation
above his just debts and liabilities and property exempt from execution.

(Signed) W. S. Morrisey.
DAVID WALLACE.
Sworn to and subscribed the 23rd day of March, 1888.
[Seal United States District (Signed) H. E. Haypon,
Court, Alaska. ] Clerk, United States District Court.

Endorsed: No. 93. 32. Inthe United States District Court in and for the District
of Alaska. United States v. schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” Bond for costs on appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States. Filed and approved the 23rd March,
1888. H. E. Haydon, Clerk.

In the United States District Court in and for the District of Alaska.

I, Henry E. Haydon, Clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for
the District of Alaska, do hereby certify that the foregoing copies of pleadings,
papers, and journal entries in the cause of the United States v. the schooner ‘‘ Sylvia
Handy” and L. N. Handy and Co. have been by me compared with the originals
thereof as the same appear on file and of record in this Court, and that the same are

a=

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 627

full and true transcripts of said original pleadings, papers, and journal entries now
in my custody and control.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
Court, at Sitka, in said district, this 2nd day of April, 1888.

[Seal United States District (Signed) Henry E. Haypon, Clerk.

Court, Alaska. ]

Endorsed on cover: Alaska D.C.U.S. No. 683. The schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy,”
her tackle, apparel, &c.; L. N. Handy, James Cartheut, J. N. Handy, and William
Thomas, owners, appellants, v. the United States. Filed the 16th June, 1888,

No. 18.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishbury.—( Received December 27.)

WASHINGTON, December 16, 1890.

My Lorp: In the last paragraph of your Lordship’s despatch of the

22nd October I was instructed to read that despatch to the Secre-

oT tary of State,if he should revert to the subject of his note tome

of the 19th. July, but your Lordship added that you did not con-

sider the controversy which it raised of sufficient importance to require

any communication on my part unless Mr. Blaine should refer specially
to it.

Although he has not done so, I observed that the subject was adverted
to in an article in the “ New York Tribune,” purporting to give some
information as to the further correspondence on the Behring’s Sea ques-
tion, which, as announced in the President’s Message, will shortly be
presented to Congress.

In these circumstances, I thought it desirable to communicate a copy
of your Lordship’s despatch to the Secretary of State, in order that it
might be included in the further correspondence about to be published,
and I called on Mr. Blaine on the 11th instant and placed a copy of the
despatch in his hands, explaining that I did so in consequence of the
article which had appeared in the ‘‘ New York Tribune.”

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Nos 19;
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 30.)

WASHINGTON, December 19, 1890.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a printed copy of
a note which I received on the 17th instant from the Secretary of State.

It contains the reply of the United States Government to your Lord-
ship’s despatch of the 2nd August last, offering on behalf of Her Maj-
esty’s Government to submit to arbitration the question of the legality
of the recent seizures of British sealing-vessels in the Behring’s Sea by
United States revenue cruizers.

The voluminous character of this note precludes any attempt to give
even a brief abstract of its contents within the limits of a despatch.

Its main feature, however, is that while the United States Govern-
ment decline to submit to arbitration the real question in controversy,

628 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

namely, the legality of the seizures of British vessels in the Behring’s
Sea outside of territorial waters, they express their willingness to sub-
mit to arbitration certain historical and political questions which, in
my humble opinion, would raise false issues, however pertinent they
may be as supplying materials for argument in support of the Ameri-
can contention. For, even if all those questions were decided in favour
of the United States, it would not follow that the seizures were justi-
fied, or that the claim of the United States to the control of any part
of the Behring’s Sea outside of territorial waters could be supported
by international law.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 19.]

Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 17, 1890.

Srr: Your note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the Ist September,
inclosed a copy of a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, dated the 2nd August,
in reply to my note of the 50th June.

The consideration advanced by his Lordship have received the careful attention
of the President, and I am instructed to insist upon the correctness and validity of
the position which has been earnestly advocated by the Government of the United
States in defence of American rights in the Behring’s Sea.

Legal and diplomatic questions, apparently complicated, are often found, after
prolonged discussion, to depend on the settlement of a single point. Such, in the
judgment of the President,is the position in which the United States and Great
Britain find themselves in the pending controversy touching the true construction
of the Russo-American and Anglo-Russian Treaties of 1824 and 1825. Great Britain
contends that the phrase ‘‘ Pacific Ocean,” as used in the Treaties, was intended to
include, and does include, the body of water which is now known as the Behring’s
Sea. The United States contends that the Behring’s Sea was not mentioned, or even
referred to, in either Treaty, and was in no sense included in the phrase “ Pacific
Ocean.” If Great Britain can maintain her position that the Behring’s Sea at the
time of the Treaties with Russia of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Pacific Ocean,
the Government of the United States has no well-grounded complaint against her.
If, on the other hand, this Government can prove beyond all doubt that the Behring’s

Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood by the three Signatory Powers
38 to be a separate body of water, and was not included in the phrase ‘ Pacific

Ocean,” then the American case against Great Britain is complete and unde-
niable.

The dispute prominently involves the meaning of the phrase ‘‘ north-west coast,”
or ‘north-west coast of America.” Lord Salisbury assumes that the “north-west
coast” has but one meaning, and that it includes the whole coast stretching north-
ward to the Behring’s Straits. The contention of this Government is that by long
prescription the ‘‘north-west coast” means the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of
the Alaskan Peninsula, or south of the 60th parallel of north latitude; or, to define it
still more accurately, the coast, from the northern border of the Spanish possessions,
ceded to the United States in 1819, to the point where the Spanish claims met the
claims of Russia, viz., from 42° to 60° north latitude. The Russian authorities for
a long time assumed that 59° 30’ was the exact point of latitude, but subsequent
adjustments fixed it at 60°. The phrase ‘‘north-west coast,” or ‘‘north-west coast
of America,” has been well known and widely recognized in popular usage in Eng-
land and America from the date of the first trading to that coast, about 1784.* So
absolute has been this prescription that the distinguished historian Hubert Howe
Bancroft has written an accurate history of the north-west coast, which at different
times, during a period of seventy-five years, was the scene of important contests
between at leastfour Great Powers. To render the understanding explicit, Mr. Ban-
croft has illustrated the north-west coast by a carefully prepared Map. The Map

*The same designation obtained in Europe. As early as 1803, in a Map published
by the Geographic Institute at Weimar, the coast from Columbia River (49°) to
Cape Elizabeth (60°) is designated as the “ Nérd West Kuste.”

trS Pauncetote of Dec IT#18M)

60

we RESe MM
WSN HI
= << \\ \\\

)
|
{1H

i

Pi ii) yf
SG
TUE
Hh AA )
STN
WR
\\ \\ AY
\\ \\

Hilly if
WH
} (th) i

(1400. 1/91. 1022 ) 95. FO. Sacket& Wilhelms Litho Co XY

Copy of Map Not, inclosed in M’ Blaines Note to Sir J. Pauncefote of Dec IT ¢ 1890.

80 60 70 60 7

Sand
OSS

ou

AB Rainn

Sectou & Wilke'ms Litho Go NY

ae ih entailed bie AA” Mi dexaonsy Wabi

‘ + a
tall, 2, Es oe
Ma esl tt mend soln

A a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 629

will be found to include precisely the area which has been steadily maintained by
this Government in the pending discussion. (For Map, see opposite page.)

The phrase ‘‘ north-west coast of America” has not infrequently been used simply
as the synonym of the ‘‘north-west coast,” but it has also been used in another sense
as including the American coast of the Russian possessions as far northward as the
Straits of Behring. Confusion has sometimes arisen in the use of the phrase ‘‘ north-
west coast of America,” but the true meaning can always be determined by refer-
ence to the context.

The Treaty between the United States and Russia was concluded on the 17th April,
1824, and that between Great Britain and Russia was concluded on the 28th Feb-
ruary, 1825. The full and accurate text of both Treaties will be found in Inclosure
(A). The Treaty between the United States and Russia is first in the order of time,
but I shall consider both Treaties together. I quote the first Articles of each Treaty,
for, to all intents and purposes, they are identical in meaning, though differing
somewhat in phrase.

The Ist Article in the American Treaty is as follows:

“Article I, It is agreed that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the
Pacitic Ocean or the South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Con-
tracting Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navig ation or in
fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not
already have been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving
always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following Articles.”

The Ist Article in the British Treaty is as follows:

“Article I. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the High Contracting
Parties shall not be troubled or molested, in any part of the ocean, commonly called
the Pacifie Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at
such parts of the coast as shall not have been ‘already oceupied, in order to trade
with the natives, under the restrictions specified in the following Articles.”

Lord Salisbury contends that—

“The Russian Government had no idea of any distinction between Behring’s Sea and the
Pacific Ocean, which latter they considered as reaching southward from Behring’s Straits.
Nor throughout the whole of the subsequent correspondence is there any reference
whatever on either side to any distinctive name for Behrine’s Sea, or any intimation
that it could be considered otherwise than as forming an integral part of the Pacific
Ocean.”

The Government of the United States cordially agrees with Lord Salisbury’s state-
ment that throughout the whole correspondence connected with the formation of
the Treaties there was no reference whatever by either side to any distinctive name
for Behring’s Sea, and for the very simple reason which I have already indicated,

that the negotiation had no reference whatever to the Behring’s Sea, but was
39 entirely confined to a “strip of land” on the north-west coast and the waters

of the Pacific Ocean adjacent thereto. For future reference I call special
attention to the phrase ‘‘strip of land.”

I venture to remind Lord Salisbury of the fact that Behring’s Sea was, at the time
referred to, the recognized name in some quarters, and so appeared on many authen-
tic Maps several years before the Treaties were negotiated. But, as I mentioned in
my note of the 50th June, the same sea had been presented as a body of water sepa-
rate from the Pacific Ocean for a long period prior to 1825. Many names had been
applied to it, but the one most frequently used and most widely recognized was the
Sea of Kamschatka. English statesmen of the period when the Treaties were nego-
tiated had complete knowledge of all the geographical pointsinvolved. They knew
that on the Map published in 1784 to illustrate the voyages of the most eminent
English navigator of the eighteenth century the ‘‘Sea of Kamsehatka” appeared in
absolute contradistinction to the ‘Great South Sea” or the Pacific Ocean. And the
Map, as shown by the words on its margin, was ‘“‘prepared by Lieutenant Henry
Roberts under the immediate inspection of Captain Cook.”

Twenty years before Captain Cook’s Map appeared, the ‘‘ London Magazine” con-
tained a Map on which the Sea of Kamschatka was conspicuously engraved. Ata
still earlier date—even as far back as 1732—Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Russian expe-
dition of Shestakoff in 1730 (who, even before Behring, sighted the land of the
American continent), published the sea as bearing the name of Kamschatka. Mul-
ler, who was Historian and Geographer of the second expedition of Behring in 1741,
designated it as the Sea of Kamschatka in his Map published in 1761.

I inclose a list of a large proportion of the most authentic Maps published during
the ninety years prior to 1825 in Great Britain, in the United States, the Nether-
lands, France, Spain, Germany, and Russia—in all 105 Maps—on every one of which
the body of water now known as Behring’s Sea was plainly distinguished by a name
separate from the Pacific Ocean. On the great majority it is named the Sea of
Kamschatka, a few use the name of Behring, while several other designations are
used. The whole number, aggregating, as they did, the opinion of a large part of

630 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the civilized world, distinguished the sea, no matter under what name, as altogether
separate from the Pacific Ocean. (See Inclosure B. )

Is it possible, that with this great cloud of witnesses before the eyes of Mr. Adee
and Mr. George Canning, attesting the existence of the Sea of Kamschatka, they
would simply ‘include it in the phrase ‘‘ Pacific Ocean,” aud make no allusion what-
ever to it as a separate sea, when it was known by almost every educated man in
Europe and America to have been so designated numberless times? Is it possible
that Mr. Canning and Mr. Adams, both educated in the common law, could believe
that they were acquiring for the United States and Great Britain the enormous
rights inherent inthe Sea of Kamschatka without the slighest reference to that sea, or
without any description of its metes and bounds, when neither of them would have
paid for a village house lot unless the deed for it should recite every fact and feature
necessary for the identification of the lot against any other piece of ground on the
surface of the globe? When we contemplate the minute particularity, the tedious
verbiage, the duplications and the reduplications employed to secure unmistakable
plainness in framing Treaties, it is impossible to conceive that a fact of this great
re ary could have been omitted from the instructions written by Mr, Adams
and Mr. x. Canning as Secretaries for Foreign Affairs in their respective countries—
ani that such a fact could have escaped the notice of Mr. Middleton and
Count Nesselrode, of Mr. Stratford Canning and M. Poletica, who were the negoti-
ators of the two Treaties. It is impossible that, in the Anglo- "Russian T reaty, Count
Nesselrode, Mr. Stratford Canning, and M. Poletica could have taken sixteen lines
to recite the titles and honours they had received from their respective Sovereigns,
and not even suggest the insertion of one line, or even word, to secure so valuable a
grant to England as the full freedom of the Behring’ 8 Sea.

There is another argument of great weight against the assumption of Lord Salis-
bury that the phrase ‘Pacific Ocean,” as used _in the Ist Article of both the Amer-
ican and British Treaties, was intended to include the waters of the Behring’sSea. It
is true that, by the Treaties with the United States and Great Britain, Russia prac-
tically withdrew the operation of the Ukase of 1821 from the waters of the north-
west coast on the Pacific Ocean; but the proof is conclusive that it was left in full
force over the waters of the Behring’s Sea. Lord Salisbury cannot have ascertained
the value of the Behring’s Sea to Russia when he assumed that, in the Treaties of

1824 and 1825, the Imperial Government had, by mere inclusion in another
40 phrase, with apparent carelessness, thrown open all the resources and all the

wealth of those waters to the citizens of the United States and to the subjects
of Great Britain.

Lord Salisbury has, perhaps, not thought it worth while to make any examination
of the money value of Alaska and the waters of the Behring’s Sea at the time the
Treaties were negotiated and in the succeeding years. The ‘first period of the Rus-
sian-American Company’ s operations had closed before the Ukase of 1821 was issued.
Its affairs were kept secret for a long time, but are now accurately known. The
money advanced for the capital stock of the Comp any atits opening in 1799 amounted
to 1 1238, 746 roubles. The gross sales of furs and skins by the Company at Kodiak
and Canton from that date up to 1820 amounted to 20,024,698 roubles. The net profit

was 7,685,000 roubles for the twenty-one years—over 620 per cent. for the whole
period, or nearly 30 per cent. per annum.

Reviewing these facts, Bancroft, in his ‘‘ History of Alaska,” a standard work of
exhaustive research, says:

“We find this powerful monopoly firmly established in the favour of the Imperial
Government, many Nobles of high rank and several members of the Royal Family
being among the shareholders.”

And yet Lord Salisbury evidently supposes that a large amount of wealth was care-
lessly thrown away by the Royal Family, the Nobles, the courtiers, the capitalists,
and the speculators of St. Petersburgh in a phrase which merged the Behring’s Sea
in the Pacific Ocean. That it was not thrown away is shown by the transactions of
the Company for the next twenty years.

The second period of the Russian-American Company began in 1821 and ended in
1841. Within that time the gross revenues of the Company exceeded 61,000,000
roubles. Besides paying all expenses and all taxes, the Company largely increased
the original capital, and divided 8,500,000 roubles among the shareholders. These
dividends and the increase of the stock showed a profit on the original capital of 55
per cent. per annum forthe whole twenty years—a great increase over the first period.
It must not be forgotten that, during sixteen of “these twenty years of constantly
increasing profits, the Treaties which, according to Lord Salisbury, gave to Great
Britain and the United States equal rights with Russia in the Behring’s Sea, were in
full force.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 631

The proceedings which took place when the second period of the Russian American
Company was at an end are thus described in Bancroft’s ‘“ History of Alaska”:

«oo . ,) 6 In the variety and extent of its operations,’ declare the members of
the Imperial Council, ‘no other Company can compare with it. In addition to a
commercial and industrial monopoly, the Government has invested it with a portion
of its own powers in governing the vast and distant territory over which it now
holds control. A change in this system would now be of doubtful benefit. To open
our ports to all hunters promiscuously would be a death-blow to the fur trade, while the
Government, having transferred to the Company the control of the Colonies, could
not now resume it without great expense and trouble, and would have to create new
financial resources for such a purpose.’ ”

The Imperial Council, it will be seen, did not hesitate to call the Russian-American

«Company a monopoly, which it could not have been if Lord Salisbury’s construction

of the Treaty was correct. Nor did the Council feel any doubt that to open the ports
of the Behring’s Sea ‘to all hunters promiscuously would be a death-blow to the
fur trade.”

Bancroft says further:

Spree “This opinion of the Imperial Council, together with a Charter defining
the privileges and duties of the Company, was delivered to the Czar, and received
his signature on the 11th October, 1844. The new Charter did not differ in its main
features from that of 1821, though the boundary was, of course, changed in accord-
ance with the English and American Treaties. None of the Company’s rights were
curtailed, and the additional privileges were granted of trading with certain ports
in China and of shipping tea direct trom China to St. Petersburgh.”

The Russian-American Company was thus chartered for a third period of twenty
years, and at the end of the time it was found that the gross receipts amounted to
75,770,000 roubles, a minor part of it from the tea trade. The expenses of adminis-
tration were very large. The shareholders received dividends to the amount of
10,210,000 roubles—about 900 per cent. for the whole period, or 45 per cent. per annum

on the original capital. At the time the third period closed, in 1862, the Russian
41 Government saw an opportunity to sell Alaska, and refused to continue the

Charter of the Company. Agents of the United States had initiated negotia-
tions for the transfer of Alaska as early as 1859. The Company continued, practically,
however, to exercise its monopoly until 1867, when Alaska was sold by Russia to the
United States. The enormous profits of the Russian American Company in the fur
trade of the Behring’s Sea continued under the Russian flag for more than forty years
after the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 had been concluded. And yet Lord Salisbury con-
tends that during this long period of exceptional profits from the fur trade Great
Britain and the United States had as good a right as Russia to take part in these
highly lucrative ventures.

American and English ships in goodly numbers during this whole period annually
visited and traded on the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean. And yet, of all these
vessels of the United States and Great Britain, not one ever sought to disturb the
fur fisheries of the Behring’s Sea or along its coasts, either of the continent or of the
islands. So far as known, it is believed that neither American nor English ships ever
attempted to take one fur-seal at the Pribyloff Islands or in the open waters of the
Behring’s Sea during that period. ‘The 100-mile limit was for the preservation of all
these fur animals, and this limit was observed for that purpose by all the maritime
nations that sent vessels to the Behring waters.

Can any one believe it to be possible that the maritime, adventurous, gain-loving
people of the United States and of Great Britain could have had such an inviting
field open to them forty years and yet not one ship of either nation enter the Beh-
ring’s Sea to compete with the Russian-American Company for the inordinate profits
which had flowed so steadily and for so long a period into their treasury from the
furtrade? The fact that the ships of both nations refrained, during that long period,
from taking a single fur-seal inside the shores of that sea is a presumption of their
lack of right and their recognized disability so strong that, independently of all
other arguments, it requires the most authentic and convincing evidence to rebut
it. That English ships did not enter the Behring’s Sea to take part in the catching
of seals is not all that can be said. Her acquiescence in Russia’s power over the
seal fisheries was so complete that during the forty years of Russia’s supremacy in
the Behring’s Sea (that followed the Treaties of 1824-25) it is not believed that Great
Britain even made a protest, verbal or written, against what Bancroft describes as
the ‘‘ Russian monopoly.”

A certain degree of confusion and disorganization in the form of the government
that had existed in Alaska was the inevitable accompaniment of the transfer of
sovereignty to the United States. The American title was not made complete until
the money, specified as the price of the Treaty, had been appropriated by Congress
and paid to the Russian Minister by the Executive Department of the Government
of the United States. This was effected in the latter half of the year 1868. The

632 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

acquired sovereignty of Alaska carried with it by Treaty “ all the rights, franchises,
and privileges” which had belonged to Russia. A little more than a year after the
acquisition, the United States transferred certain rights to the Alaska Commercial
Company over the seal fisheries of Behring’s Sea for a period of twenty years.
Russia had given the same rights (besides rights of still larger scope) to the Russian-
American Company for three periods of twenty years each, without a protest from
the British Government, without a single interference from British ships. For these
reasons this Government again insists that Great Britain and the United States recog-
nized, respected, and obeyed the authority of Russia in the Behring’s Sea; and did
it for more than forty years after the Treaties with Russia were negotiated. It still
remains for England to explain why she persistently violates the same rights when
transfered to the ownership of the United States.

The IInd Article of the American Treaty is as follows:

“Article II. With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exer-
cised upon the Great Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting
Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens
of the United States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establish-
ment, without the permission of the Governor or Commander; and that, reciprocally,
the subjects of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any establishment of
the United States upon the north-west coast.”

The IInd Article of the British Treaty is as follows:

“Article II. In order to prevent the right of navigation and fishing, exercised upon

the ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties, from becoming the
42 pretext for an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannic

Majesty shall not land at any place where there may be a Russian establishment,
without the permission of the Governor or Commandant; and, on the other hand, the
Russian subjects shall not land, without permission, at any British establishment
on the north-west coast.”

In the IInd Articles of the Treaties it is recognized that both the United States and
Great Britain have establishments on the ‘north-west coast,” and, as neither country
ever claimed any territory north of the 60th parallel of latitude, we necessarily have
the meaning of the north-west coast significantly defined in exact accordance with
the American contention. -

An argument, altogether historical in its character, is of great and, I think, con-
clusive force touching this question. It will be remembered that the Treaty of the
20th October, 1818, between the United States and Great Britain, comprised a variety
of topics, among others, in Article III, the following:

“Tt is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the north-
west coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, shall, together with its
harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be
free and open, for the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present
Convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers; it being under-
stood that this Agreement is not to be construed to the prejudice of any claim which
either of the two High Contracting Parties may have to any part of the said country, .
nor shall it be taken to affect the claims of any other Power or State to any part of
the said country, the only object of the High Contracting Parties, in that respect,
being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.”

While this Article placed upon a common basis for ten years the rights of Great
Britain and America on the north-west coast, it made no adjustment of the claims
of Russia on the north, or of Spain on the south, which are referred to in the Article
as ‘any other Power or State.” Russia had claimed down to latitiide 55° under the
Ukase of 1799. Spain had claimed indefinitely northward from the 42nd parallel of
latitude. But all the Spanish claims had been transferred to the United States by
the Treaty of 1819, and Russia had been so quiet until the Ukase of 1821 that no con-
flict was feared. But after that Ukase a settlement, either permanent or temporary,
was imperatively demanded.

The proposition made by Mr. Adams which I now quote shows, I think, beyond
all doubt, that the dispute was wholly touching the north-west coast on the Pacific
Ocean. Imake the following quotation from Mr. Adams’ instruction to Mr. Middleton,
our Minister at St. Petersburgh, on the 22nd July, 1823:

‘By the Treaty of the 22nd February, 1819, with Spain, the United States acquired
all the rights of Spain north of latitude 42°; and by the IIIrd Article of the Con-
vention between the United States and Great Britain of the 20th October, 1818, it
was agreed that any country that might be claimed by either party on the north-
west coast of America, westward of the Stony Mountains, should, together with its
harbours, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within the same, be

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 633

free and open, for the term of ten years from that date, to the vessels, citizens, and
subjects of the two Powers, without prejudice to the claims of either party or of
any other State.
“Vou are authorized to propose an Article of the sameimport for a term of ten years from
the signature of a Joint Convention between the United States, Great Britain, and Russia.”
Instructions of the same purport were sent by the same mail to Mr. Rush, our Min-
ister at London, in order that the proposition should be completely understood by
each of the three Powers. The confident presumption was that this proposition
would, as a temporary settlement, be acceptable to all parties. But before there was
time for full consideration of the proposition, either by Russia or Great Britain,
President Monroe, in December 1823, proclaimed his famous doctrine of excluding
future European Colonies from this continent. Its effect on all European nations
holding unsettled or disputed claims to territory was to create a desire for prompt
settlement so that each Power could be assured of its own, without the trouble or
cost of further defending it. Great Britain was already entangled with the United
States on the southern side of her claims on the north-west coast. That Agreement
she must adhere to, but she was wholly unwilling to postpone a definite understand -
ing with Russia as to the northern limit of her claims on the north-west coast.
45 Hence a permanent Treaty was desired, and in both Treaties the ‘‘ ten-year”
feature was recognized—in the VIIth Article of the British Treaty and in the
IVth Article of the American Treaty. But neither in the correspondence nor in the
personal conferences that brought about the Agreement was there a single hint that
the settlement was to include anything else whatever than the north-west coast on
the Pacific Ocean, south of the 60th parallel of north latitude.

Fortunately, however, it is not necessary for the United States to rely on this sug-
gestive definition of the north-west coast, or upon the historical facts above given.
It is easy to prove from other sources that in the Treaty between the United States
and Russia the coast referred to was that which I have defined as the “north-west
coast” on the Pacific Ocean south of 60° north latitude, or, asthe Russians for a long
time believed it, 59° 30’. We have in the Department of State the originals of the
Protocols between our Minister at St. Petersburgh, Mr. Henry Middleton, and Count
Nesselrode, of Russia, who negotiated the Treaty of 1824. I quote, as I have quoted
in my note of the 30th June, a Memorandum submitted to Count Nesselrode by Mr.
Middleton as a part of the 4th Protocol:

“Now, it is clear, according to the facts established, that neither Russia nor any
other European Power has the right of dominion upon the Continent of America
between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.

“Still less has she the dominion of the adjacent maritime territory, or of the sea
which washes these coasts, a dominion which is only accessory to the territorial
dominion.

“Therefore, she has not the right of exclusion or of admission on these coasts, nor
in these seas, which are free seas.

“The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every inde-
pendent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence.

‘The United States have exercised navigation in the seas, and commerce upon the
coasts above mentioned, from the time of their independence; and they have a per-
fect right to this navigation and to this commerce, and they can only be deprived of
it by their own act or by a Convention.”

Mr. Middleton declares that Russia had not the right of dominion ‘ upon the Con-
tinent of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude.” Still less has she
the dominion of ‘‘ the adjacent maritime territory or the sea which washes these coasts.”
He further declares that Russia had not the ‘‘right of exclusion or of admission on
these coasts, nor in these seas, which are free seas” —that is, the coast and seas between
the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude on the body of the continent.

The following remark of Mr. Middleton deserves special attention:

“The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every inde-
pendent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this independence.”

This earnest protest by Mr. Middleton, it will be noted, was against the Ukase of
Alexander which proposed to extend Russian sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as
far south as the 51st degree of latitude, at which point, as Mr. Adams reminded the
Russian Minister, that ocean is 4,000 miles wide. It is also to be specially noted
that Mr. Middleton’s double reference to ‘‘the free seas” would have no meaning
whatever if he did not recognize that freedom on certain seas had been restricted.
He could not have used the phrase if he had regarded all seas in that region as
“free seas.”

In answer to my former reference to these facts (in my note of the 30th June)
Lord Salisbury makes this plea:

‘‘Mr. Blaine states that when Mr. Middleton declared that Russia had no right of
exclusion on the coasts of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north lati-

6354 APPENDIX TO CASE CF GREAT BRITAIN.

tude, nor in the seas which washed those coasts, he intended to make a distinction
between Behring’s Sea and the Pacific Ocean. But on reference to a Map it will be
seen that the 60th degree of north latitude strikes straight across Behring’s Sea,
leaving by far the larger and more important part of it to the south; so that I con-
fess it appears to me that by no conceivable construction of his words can Mr. Mid-
dleton be supposed to have excepted that sea from those which he declared to be free.

If his Lordship had examined his Map somewhat more closely, he would have found

my statement literally correct. When Mr. Middleton referred to ‘ the Conti-
44 nent of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude,” it was

impossible that he could have referred to the coast of Behring’s Sea, for the
very simple reason that the 50th degree of latitude is altogether south of the Behring’s
Sea. The fact that the 60th parallel “strikes straight across the Behring’s Sea” has
no more pertinence to this discussion thanif his Lordship had remarked that the same
parallel passes through the Sea of Okhotsk, which lies to the west of Behring’s Sea,
just as the arm of the North Pacific lies to the east of it. Mr. Middleton was deny-
ing Russia’s dominion upon a continuous line of coast upon the continent between
two specified points and over the waters washing that coast. There is such a con-
tinuous line of coast between the 50th and 60th degrees on the Pacific Ocean; but
there is no such line of coast on the Behring’s Sea, even if you measure from the
southernmost island of the Aleutian chain. In a word, the argument of Lord Salis-
bury on this point is based upon a geographical impossibility. (See illustrative
Map on opposite page. )

But, if there could be any doubt left as to what coast and to what waters Mr. Mid-
dleton referred, an analysis of the last paragraph of the 4th Portocol will dispel that
doubt. When Mr. Middleton declared that ‘‘the United States have exercised navigation
in the seas, and conmerce upon the coasts above mentioned, from the time of their inde-
pendence,” he makes the same declaration that had been previously made by Mr. Adams.
That declaration could only refer to the north-west coast as I have described it, or as
Mr. Middleton phrases it, ‘‘the Continent of America between the 50th and 60th
degrees of north latitude.”

Even his Lordship will not dispute the fact that it was upon this coast and in the
waters washing it that the United States and Great Britain had exercised free navi-
gation and commerce continuously since 1784. By no possibility conld that navigation
and commerce have been in Behring’s Sea. Mr. Middleton, a close student of history,
and experienced in diplomacy, could not have declared that the United States had
‘exercised navigation” in the Behring’s Sea, and ‘‘commerce upon its coasts,” from
the time of their independence. As a matter of history, there was no trade and no nay-
igation (except the navigation of explorers) by the United States and Great Britain
in the Behring’s Sea in 1784, or even at the time these Treaties were negotiated.
Captain Cook’s voyage of exploration and discovery through the waters of that sea
was completed at the close of the year 1778, and his ‘“‘ Voyage to the Pacific Ocean”
was not published in London until five years after his death, which occurred at the
Sandwich Islands on the 14th February, 1779. The Pribyloff Islands were first dis-
covered, one in 1786 and the other in 1787. Seals were taken there for a few years
afterwards by the Lebedef Company of Russia, subsequently consolidated into the
Russian-American Company; but the taking of seals on those islands was then dis-
continued by the Russians until 1803, when it was resumed by the Russian-American
Company. ,

At the time these Treaties were negotiated there was only one Settlement, and that
of Russians, on the shores of the Behring’s Sea, and the only trading vessels which
had entered that sea were the vessels of the Russian Fur Company. Exploring
expeditions had, of course, entered. It is evident, therefore, without further state-
ment, that neither the vessels of the United States nor of Great Britain nor of any
other Power than Russia had traded on the shores of Behring’s Sea prior to the nego-
tiations of these Treaties. No more convincing proof could be adduced that these
Treaties had reference solely to the waters and coasts of the continent south of the
Alaskan Peninsula—simply the “Pacific Ocean” and the ‘north-west coast” named
in the Treaties.

ae IlIrd Article of the British Treaty, as printed in the British State Papers, is
as follows:

“The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties
upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west shall
be drawn in the manner following:

“Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40’ north latitude, and between the
131st and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line
shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the
point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this

140° 130° 120°
SCET EC ECE EEE SE eer

4 A

yaa
4 a : NA

\

bps
O

ULF OF ALASKA

Qu
“\

A)

PBRITISH COLUMBIA’

L |
40 SS SECS SS EEE
120° 140°
Sacketl& Wilhelms Litho Co NY | ,
a OF MAP N22 ACCOMPANYING M8 BLAINE S NOTE OF DEC/7Z/890.

5

k

SECTION OF A TRACK CHART OF THE WORLD, COVERING THE BEHRING SEA.

20° ay 140° 150° 160° 170° 180° oe ee _{s0" __ 0" so" <> ae
: = Shc Sb Salsa aos aS sSaSsSsGse OSS SSS Sh SSsSSb.S2B. j=8 SSR —0 588.85 0-8 828 S08 S0S05 8. eS bSbse8 aN eS BebSe ise =a [heh les Ble Selna

adiak GULF OF ALASKA

Sackett Wilbelins Litho Co NY D
: OUTLINE OF MAP N22 ACCOMPANYING MB BLAINE S NOTE OF DEC/7/890.

+
ashes

ie = pews ~~. i op e 4

Bee) Oe GN
ee ee nd ee oe : T.s

‘nga : a i : a :

+

~-
*

—
—

as

2 tech citeine ie

a

RBZ AETOHRG 2%

a. af .

vs. OTN ee ,

q a & ; x mA : Rie | Q

sai | Ay a \

fe 24.20.50) Slee ee ee ee eS Ee eo AP eB SS Ph 2
1 “wet nozi nat

°OP1

tii
ad 0 ea

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 635

Jast-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the moun-
tains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st
degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of
intersection the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as
the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and the British
possessions on the Continent of America to the north-west.”
45 It will be observed that this Article explicitly delimits the boundary between
British America and the Russian possessions. ‘This delimitation is in minute
detail from 54° 40’ to the northern terminus of the coast known as the north-west
coast. When the boundary-line reaches that point (opposite 60° north latitude)
where it intersects the 141st degree of west longitude, all particularity of descrip-
tion ceases. From that point it is projected directly northward for 600 or 700 miles
without any reference to coast-line, without any reference to points of discovery or
occupation (for there were none in that interior country), but simply on a longitudinal
line as far north as the Frozen or Arctic Ocean.

What more striking interpretation of the Treaty could there be than this boundary-
line itself? It could not be clearer if the British negotiators had been recorded as
saying to the Russian negotiators:

‘“‘Here is the north-west coast to which we have disputed your claims—from the
51st to the 60th degree of north latitude. We will not, in any event, admit your
Tight south of 54° 40’. From 54° 40’ to the point of junction with the 141st degree
of west longitude we will agree to your possession of the coast. That will cover
the dispute between us. As to the body of the continent above the point of inter-
section, at the 141st degree of longitude, we know nothing, nordo you. It is a vast
unexplored wilderness. We have no Settlements there, and you have none. We
have, therefore, no conflicting interests with your Government. The simplest divi-
sion of that territory is to accept the prolongation of the 141st degree of longitude
to the Arctic Ocean as the boundary. East of it the territory shall be British.
West of it the territory shall be Russian.”

And it was so finally settled.

Article 1V of the Anglo-Russian Treaty is as follows:

“With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article it
is understood:

“1, That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.

«9. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction par-
allel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection
of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than
10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the
line of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by
‘a line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the
distance of 10 marine leagues therefrom.’”

The evident design of this Article was to make certain and definite the boundary-
line along the line of coast, should there be any doubt as to that line as laid down
in Artiele III. It provided that the boundary-line, following the windings of the
coast, should never be more than 10 marine leagues therefrom.

The Vth Article of the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia reads thus:

“Tt is, moreover, agreed that no establishment shall be formed by either of the
two Parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding Articles to the posses-
sions of the other. Consequently, British subjects shall not form any establishment
either upon the coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the
limits of the Russian possessions, as designated in the two preceding Articles; and,
in like manner, no establishment shall be formed by Russian subjects beyond the
said limits.”

The plain meaning of this Article is that neither Party shall make Settlements
within the limits assigned by the IlIrd and [Vth Articles to the possession of the
other. Consequently, the ilIrd and IVth Articles are of supreme importance as
making the actual delimitations between the two countries, and forbidding each to
form any establishments within the limits of the other.

The VIth Article of Russia’s Treaty with Great Britain is as follows:

“Tt is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever
quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the conti-
nent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance
whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in their course toward the Pacific Ocean,
may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III of
the present Convention.”

The meaning of this Articleis not obscure. Thesubjects of Great Pritain, whether
arriving from the interior of the continent or from the ocean, shall enjoy the right

of navigating freely all the rivers and streams which, in their course to the
46 Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described
in Article III, As is plainly apparent, the coast referred to in Article III is

636 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the coast south of the point of junction already described. Nothing is clearer than
the reason for this provision. <A strip of land, at no point wider than 10 marine
leagues, running along the Pacific Ocean from 54° 40’ to 60° (320 miles by geograph-
ical line, by the windings of the coast three times that distance), was assigned to
Russia by the IIIrd Article. Directly to the east of this strip of land—or, as might
be said, behind it—lay the British possessions. To shut out the inhabitants of the
British possessions from the sea by this strip of land, would have been not only
unreasonable, but intolerable to Great Britain. Russia promptly conceded the privi-
lege, and gave to Great Britain the right of navigating all rivers crossing that strip
of land from 54° 40/ to the point of intersection with the 141st degree of longitude.
Without this concession the Treaty could not have been made. I do not understand
that Lord Salisbury dissents from this obvious construction of the VIth Article, for
in his despatch he says that the Article has a “ restricted bearing,” and refers only
to “the line of coast described in Article IIL” (the italies are his own), and the only
line of coast described in Article III is the coast from 54° 40’ to 60°. There is no
description of the coast above that point stretching along the Behring’s Sea from
latitude 60° to the Straits of Behring.

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

“Tt is also understood that for the space of ten years from the signature of the
present Convention the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their respec-
tive subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance what-
ever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in
Article III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading with the natives.”

In the judgment of the President the meaning of this Article is altogether plain
and clear. It provides that for the space of ten years the vessels of the two Powers
should mutually be at liberty to frequent all the inland seas, &c., ‘‘on the coast men-
tioned in Article IIT, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives.” Following
out the line of my argument and the language of the Article, I have already main-
tained that this privilege could only refer to the coast from 54° 40’ to the point of
intersection with the 141st degree of west longitude; that therefore, British sub-
jects were not granted the right of frequenting the Behring’s Sea.

Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says:

“‘T must further dissent from Mr. Blaine’s interpretation of Article VII of the lat-
ter Treaty (British). That Article gives to the vessels of the two Powers ‘liberty
to frequent all the inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned in
Article III, for the purpose of fishing and of trading with the natives.’ The expres-
sion ‘coast mentioned in Article III’ can only refer to the first words of the Article,
‘the line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties
upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west shall
be drawn,’ &c., that is to say, it included all the possessions of the two Powers on the
north-west coast of America. For there would have been no sense whatever in
stipulating that Russian vessels should have freedom of access to the small portion
of coast which, by a later part of the Article, is to belong to Russia. And, as bearing
on this point, it will be noticed that Article VI, which has a more restricted bearing,
speaks only of ‘the subjects of His Britannic Majesty’ and of ‘the line of coast
described in Article III.’”

It is curious to note the embarrassing intricacies of his Lordsbip’s language and
the erroneous assumption upon which his argument is based. He admits that the
privileges granted in the VIth Article to the subjects of Great Britain are limited
to “the coast described in Article III of the Treaty.” But when he reaches the VIIth
Article, where the privileges granted are limited to “the coast mentioned in Article
Ill of the Treaty,” his Lordship maintains that the two references do not mean the
same coast at all. The coast described in Article III and the coast mentioned in Article
III are, therefore, in his Lordship’s judgment, entirely different. The “coast
described in Article III” is limited, he admits, by the intersection of the boundary-
line with the 141st degree of longitude, but the ‘‘coast mentioned in Article IIL”
stretches to the Straits of Behring.

The IlIrd Article is, indeed, a very plain one, and its meaning cannot be obscured.
Observe that the “line of demarcation” is between the possessions of both parties
on the coast of the continent. Great Britain had no possessions on the coast-line
above the point of junction with the 141st degree, nor had she any Settlements

above 60° north latitude. South of 60° north latitude was the only place
47 where Great Britain had possessions on the coast-line. North of that point

her territory had no connection whatever with the coast either of the Pacific
Ocean or the Behring’s Sea. It is thus evident that the only coast referred to in
Article III was this strip of land south of 60° or 59° 30’.

The preamble closes by saying that the line of demarcation between the posses-
sions on the coast ‘‘shall be drawn in the manner following,” viz.: From Prince of
Wales Island, in 54° 40’, along Portland Channel and the summit of the mountains

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 637

parallel to the coast as far as their intersection with the 141st degree of longitude. After
having described this line of demarcation between the possessions of both parties on
the coast, the remaining sentence of the Article shows that, ‘‘ finally, from the said
point of intersection, the said meridian-line . . . shall form the limit between the
Russian and British possessions on the Continent of America.” South of the point of
intersection the Article describes a line of demarcation between possessions on the
coast; north of that point of intersection the Article designates a meridian-line as
the limit between possessions on the continent. Theargument of Lord Salisbury appears
to this Government not only to contradict the obvious meaning of the VIIth and IlIrd
Articles, but to destroy their logical connection with the other Articles. In fact,
Lord Salisbury’s attempt to make two coasts out of the one coast referred to in the
IIIvd Article is not only out of harmony with the plain provisions of the Anglo-
Russian Treaty, but is inconsistent with the preceding part of his own argument.

These five Articles in the British Treaty (the IIIrd, IVth, Vth, VIth, and VIIth)
are expressed with an exactness of meaning which no argument can change or per-
vert. Ina later part of my note I shall be able, I think, to explain why the Russian
Government elaborated the Treaty with Great Britain with greater precision and at
greater length than was employed in framing the Treaty with the United States.
It will be remembered that between the two Treaties there was an interval of more
than ten months—the Treaty with the United States being negotiated in April 1824,
and that with Great Britain in February 1825. During that interval something
occurred which made Russia more careful and more exacting in her negotiations
with Great Britain than she had been with the United States. What was it?

It is only necessary to quote the IlIrd and IVth Articles of the American Treaty
to prove that less attention was given to their consideration than was given to the
formation of the British Treaty with Russia. The two Articles in the American
Treaty are as follows:

“Article Iil. It is, moreover, agreed that hereafter there shall not be formed by
the citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any
establishment upon the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adja-
cent, to the north of 54° 40’ of north latitude; and that, in the same manner, there
shall be none formed by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of
the same parallel.

“Article IV. It is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, count-
ing from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which
belong to their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without
any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast
mentioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading with the
natives of the country.”

It will be noted that in the British Treaty four Articles, with critical expression
of terms, take the place of the IIIrd and IVth Articles of the American Treaty,
which were evidently drafted with an absence of the caution on the part of Russia
which marked the work of the Russian Plenipotentiaries in the British negotiation.

From some cause, not fully explained, great uneasiness was felt in certain Russian
circles, and especially among the members of the Russian-American Company, when
the Treaty between Russia and the United States was made public. The facts leading
to the uneasiness were not accurately known, and from that cause they were exag-
gerated. The Russians who were to be affected by the Treaty were in doubt as to
the possible extent implied by the phrase ‘‘north-west coast of America,” as referred
to in the IIIrd and IVth Articles. The phrase, as I have before said, was used in
two senses, and they feared it might have such a construction as would carry the
American privilege to the Straits of Behring. They feared, moreover, that the
uncertainty of the coast referred to in Article III might, by construction adverse to
Russia, include the Behring’s Sea among the seas and gulfs mentioned in Article IV.

If that construction should prevail, not only the American coast, but the
48 coast of Siberia and the Aleutian coasts, might also be thrown open to the

ingress of American fishermen. So great and genuine was their fright that
they were able to induce the Russian Government to demand a fresh discussion of
the Treaty before they would consent to exchange ratifications.

It is easy, therefore, to discern the facts which caused the difference in precision
between the American and British Treaties with Russia, and which at the same time
give conclusive force to the argument steadily maintained by the Government of the
United States. These facts have thus far only been hinted at, and I have the right
to presume that they have not yet fallen under the observation of Lord Salisbury.
The President hopes that after the facts are presented the American contention will
no longer be denied or resisted by Her Majesty’s Government.

638 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Nearly eight months after the Russo-American Treaty was negotiated, and before
the exchange of ratifications had yet taken place, there was a remarkable interview
between Secretary Adams and the Russian Minister. I quote from Mr, Adams’
diary, the 6th December, 1824: ‘

“6th, Monday.—Baron Tuyl, the Russian Minister, wrote me a note requesting an
immediate interview, in consequence of instructions received yesterday from his
Court. He came, and, after intimating that he was under some embarrassment in
executing his instructions, said that the Russian-American Company, upon learning
the purport of the North-West Coast Convention concluded last June by Mr. Mid-
dleton, were extremely dissatisfied (‘a jetée de hauts cris’), and, by means of their
influence, had prevailed upon his Government to send him these instructions upon
two points. One was that be should deliver, upon the exchange of the ratifications
of the Convention, an explanatory note purporting that the Russian Government did
not understand that the Convention would give liberty to the citizens of the United
States to trade on the coast of Siberia and the Aleutian Islands. The other was to
propose a modification of the Convention, by which our vessels should be prohibited
from trading on the north-west coast north of latitude 57°. With regard to the
former of these points he feft with me a Minute in writing.”

With this preliminary statement Baron Tuyl, in accordance with instructions from
his Government, submitted to Mr. Adams the following note:

“ Kueplanatory Note from Russia.

“‘Explanatory note to be presented to the Government of the United States at the
time of the exchange of ratifications, with a view to removing with more certainty
all occasion for future discussions; by means of which note it will be seen that the
Aleutian Islands, the coasts of Siberia, and the Russian possessions in general on the north-
west coast of America to 59° 30' of north latitude are positively excepted from the
liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipulated in favour of citizens of the
United States for ten years.

“This seems to be only a natural consequence of the stipulations agreed upon, for
the coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and
the Icy Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the Ist Article of the Convention
of the 5th (17th) April, 1824. The Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of
Kamschatka, or Northern Ocean.

“« It is not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean.
She would be satisfied with causing to be recognized, as well understood and placed
beyond all manner of doubt, the principle that beyond 59° 30/ no foreign vessel can
approach her coasts and her islands, nor fish or hunt within the distance of 2 marine
leagues. This will not prevent the reception of foreign vessels which have been
damaged or beaten by storm.”

The course pursued by Mr. Adams, after the Russian note had been submitted to
him, is fully told in his diary, from which I again quote:

“T told Baron Tuy] that we should be disposed to do every thing to accommodate
the views of his Government that was in our power, but that a modification of the
Convention could be made no otherwise than by a new Convention, and that the con-
struction of the Convention as concluded belonged to other Departments of the Gov-
ernment, for which the Executive had no authority to stipulate. . . . I added
that the Convention would be submitted immediately to the Senate; that if any-
thing affecting its construction, or, still more, modifying its meaning, were to be
presented on the part of the Russian Government before or at the exchange of the
ratitfications, it must be laid before the Senate, and,could have no other possible
effect than of starting doubts, and, perhaps, hesitation, in that body, and of favour-

ing the views of those, if such there were, who might wish to defeat the
49 ratification itself of the Convention. . . . If, therefore, he would permit

me to suggest to him what I thought would be his best course, it would be to
wait for the exchange of the ratifications, and make it purely and simply; that after-
wards, if the instructions of his Government were imperative, he might present the
note, to which I now informed him what would be, in substance, my answer. It
necessarily could not be otherwise. But, if his instructions left it discretionary
with him, he would do still better to inform his Government of the state of things
here, of the purport of our conference, and of what my answer must be if he should
present the note. I believed his Court would then deem it best that he should not
present the note at all. Their apprehension had been excited by an interest not very
Friendly to the good understanding between the United States and Russia. Our merchants
would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of Siberia, or north of the 57th degree of
latitude, and it was wisest not to put such fancies into their heads. Atleast the Imperial
Government might wait to see the operation of the Convention before taking any
further steps, and J was confident they would hear no complaint resulting from it. If
they should, then would be the time for adjusting the construction or negotiating a
modification of the Convention.” . . .

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 639

The Russian Minister was deeply impressed by what Mr. Adams had said. He had
not before clearly perceived the inevitable effect if he should insist on presenting the
note in the form of a demand. He was not prepared for so serious a result as the
destruction or the indefinite postponement of the Treaty between Russia and the
United States, and Mr. Adams readily convinced him that at the exchange of ratifica-
tions no modification of the Treaty could be made. The only two courses open were,
first, to ratify; or, second, to refuse, and annul the Treaty. Mr. Adams reports the
words of the Minister in reply:

‘“‘The Baron said that these ideas had occurred to himself; that he had made this
application in pursuance of his instructions, but he was aware of the distribution of
powers in our Constitution, and of the incompetency of the Executive to adjust such
questions. He would therefore wait for the exchange of the ratifications without
presenting his note, and reserve for future consideration whether to present it shortly
afterwards or toinform his Court of what he has done and ask their further instruc-
tions upon what he shall definitely do on the subject.” . . .

As Baron Tuyl surrendered his opinions to the superior judgment of Mr. Adams,
the ratifications of the Treaty were exchanged on the 11th day of January, and on the
following day the Treaty was formally proclaimed. A fortnight later, on the 25th
January, 1825, Baron Tuyl, following the instructions of his Government, filed his
note in the Department of State. Of course, his act at that time did not affect the
text of the Treaty; but it placed in the hands of the Government of the United
States an unofficial note which significantly told what Russia’s construction of the
Treaty would be if, unhappily, any difference as to its meaning should arise between
the two Governments. But Mr. Adams’ friendly intimation removed all danger of
dispute, for it conveyed to Russia the assurance that the Treaty, as negotiated, con-
tained, in effect, the provisions, which the Russian note was designed to supply.
From that time until Alaska, with all its rights of land and water, was transferred

-to the United States—a period of forty-three years—no act or word on the part of

either Government ever impeached the full validity of the Treaty as it was understood
both by Mr. Adams and by Baron Tuy] at the time it was formally proclaimed.

While these important matters were transpiring in Washington, negotiations
between Russia and England (ending in the Treaty of 1825) were in progress in St.
Petersburgh. The instructions to Baron Tuyl concerning the Russian-American
Treaty were fully reflected in the care with which the Anglo-Russian Treaty was
constructed, a fact to which I have already adverted in full. There was, indeed, a
possibility that the true meaning of the Treaty with the United States might be mis-
understood, and it was therefore the evident purpose of the Russian Government to
make the Treaty with England so plain and so clear as to leave no room for doubt and
to baffle all attempts at misconstruction. The Government of the United States finds
the full advantage to it in the caution taken by Russia in 1825, and can therefore
quote the Angio-Russian Treaty, with the utmost confidence that its meaning cannot
be changed from that clear unmistakable text which, throughout all the Articles,
sustains the American contention.

The ‘‘ explanatory note,” filed with this Government by Baron Tuy], is so plain in
its text that, after the lapse of sixty-six years, the exact meaning can neither be mis-

apprebended nor misrepresented. It draws the distinction between the Pacific
50 Ocean and the waters now known as the Behrings’ Sea so particularly and so per-
spicuously that no answer can be made toit. It will bear the closest analysis

in every particular. ‘‘It is not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation
of the Pacific Ocean” This frank and explicit statement shows with what entire
good faith Russia had withdrawn, in both Treaties, the offensive Ukase of Alexander,
so far as the Pacific Ocean was made subject toit. Another avowal is equally explicit,
viz., that ‘‘the coast of Siberia, the north-west coast of America to 59° 30’ of north
latitude [that is, down to 59° 30’, the explanatory note reckoning from north to
south] and the Aleutian Islands are positively excepted from the liberty of hunting,
fishing, and commerce stipulated in favour of citizens of the United States for ten
years.” The reason given for this exclusion is most significant in connection with
the pending discussion, namely, that the coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea
of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by the ‘‘South Sea”
[Pacific Ocean] mentioned in the Ist Article of the Convention of the 5th (17th) April,
1824, The Aleutian Islands are also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka, or Northern
Ocean (Northern Ocean being used in contradistinetion to South Sea or Pacific Ocean.)
The liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce mentioned in the Treaties was there-
fore confined to the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of 59° 30’ both to the United
States and Great Britain. It must certainly be apparent now to Lord Salisbury that
Russia never intended to include the Behring’s Sea in the phrase ‘ Pacific Ocean.”
The American argument on that question has been signally vindicated by the official
declaration of the Russian Government.

In addition to the foregoing, Russia claimed jurisdiction of 2 marine leagues from
the shore in the Pacific Ocean, a point not finally insisted upon in either Treaty.

640 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Protocols, however, show that Great Britain was willing to agree to the 2
marine leagues, but the United States was not; and, after the concession was made
to the United States, Mr. G. Canning insisted upon its being made to Great Britain
also.

In the interview between the American Secretary -of State and the Russian Minis-
ter, in December 1824, it is worth noting that Mr. Adams believed that the applica-
tion made by Baron Tuyl had its origin ‘‘in the apprehension of the Court of Russia
which had been caused by an interest not very friendly to the good understanding
between the United States and Russia.” I presume no one need be told that the
reference here made by Mr. Adams was to the Government of Great Britain; that
the obvious effort of the British Government at that time was designed to make it
certain that the United States should not have the power in the waters and on the
shores of Behring’s Sea which, Lord Salisbury now argues, had undoubtedly been given
both to the United States and Great Britain by the Treaties.

It is to be remembered that Mr. Adams’ entire argument was to quiet Baron Tuyl
with the assurance that the Treaty already negotiated was, in effect, just what the
Russian Government desired it to be by the incorporation of the ‘explanatory note” of
which Baron Tuyl was the bearer. Mr. Adams was not a man to seize an advantage
merely by cunning construction of language which might have two meanings. He
was determined to remove the hesitation and distrust entertained for the moment
by Russia. He went so far, indeed, as to give an assurance that American ships
would not go above 57° north latitude (Sitka), and he did not want the text of the
Treaty so changed as to mention the facts contained in the explanatory note, because,
speaking of the hunters and the fishermen, it ‘‘ was wisest not to put such fancies
into their heads.”

It is still further noticeable that Mr. Adams, in his sententious expression, spoke
of the Treaty in his interview with Baron Tuyl as ‘the North-West Coast Conven-
tion.” This closely descriptive phrase was enough to satisfy Baron Tuy] that Mr.
Adams had not takgn a false view of the true limits of the Treaty, and had not
attempted to extend the privileges granted to the United States a singleinch beyond
their plain and honourable intent.

The three most confident assertions made by Lord Salisbury, and regarded by him
as unanswerable, are, in his own lauguage, the following:

1. That England refused to admit any part of the Russian claim asserted by the
Ukase of 1821 of a maritime jurisdiction and exclusive right of fishing throughout
the whole extent of that claim, from Behring’s Straits to the 51st parallel.

2. That the Convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renunciation on
the part of Russia of that claim in its entirety.

3. That, though Behring’s Straits were known and specifically provided for, Beh-
Ting’s Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as a part of the Pacific
Ocean.

The explanatory note of the Russian Government disproves and denies in detail

these three assertions of Lord Salisbury. I think they are completely dis-
51 proved by the facts récited in this despatch, but the explanatory note is a
specific contradiction of each one of them.

The inclosures whick accompanied Lord Salisbury’s despatch, and which are
quoted to strengthen his arguments, seem to me to sustain, in a remarkable manner,
the position of the United States. The first inclosure is a despatch from Lord Lon-
donderry to Count Lieven, Russian Minister at London, dated Foreign Office, the
18th January, 1822. The first paragraph of this despatch is as follows:

“The undersigned has the honour to acknowledge the note addressed to him by
Baron de Nicolai of the 12th September last, covering a copy of a Ukase issued by
his Imperial Master, Emperor of all the Russias, bearing date the 4th September,
1821, for various purposes therein set forth, especially connected with the territorial
rights of his Crown on the north-west coast of America bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and
he commence and navigation of His Imperial Majesty’s subjects in the seas adjacent
thereto.’

It is altogether apparent that this despatch is limited to the withdrawal of the
provisions of the Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander, especially connected with
the territorial rights on the north-west coast bordering on the Pacific Ocean. Evidently
Lord Londonderry makes no reference, direct or indirect, to the Behring’s Sea. The
whole scope of his contention, as defined by himself, lies outside of the field of the
present dispute between the British and American Governments. This Government
heartily agrees with Lord LGondonderry’s form of stating the question.

‘The Duke of Wellington was England’s Representative i in the Congress of Verona,
for which place he set “out i in the autumn of 1822. His instructions from Mr. G. Can-
ning, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, followed the precise line indicated by

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 641

Lord Londonderry in the despatch above quoted. This is more plainly shown by a
‘“Memorandum on the Russian Ukase” delivered by the Duke on the 17th October to
Count Nesselrode, Russia’s Representative at Verona. The Duke was arguing against
the Ukase of Alexander, as it affected British interests, and his language plainly
shows that he confined himself to the ‘ north-west coast of America bordering on the
Pacific Ocean.” To establish this it is only necessary to quote the following para-
graph from the Duke’s Memorandum, viz. :

‘‘Now, we can prove that the English North-West Company and the Hudson’s Bay
Company have for many years established forts and other trading places in a country
called New Caledonia, situated to the west of a range of mountains called the Rocky
Mountains, and extending along the shores of the Pacific Ocean from latitude 49° to
latitude 60° north.

The Duke of Wellington always went directly to the point at issue, and he was
evidently not concerning himself about any subject other than the protection of the
English territory south of the Alaskan Peninsula, and on the north-west coast border-
ing on the Pacific Ocean. England owned no territory on the coast north of the
Alaskan Peninsula, and hence there was no reason for connecting the coast above the
peninsula in any way with the question before the Congress. Evidently the Duke
did not, in the remotest manner, connect the subject he was discussing with the waters
or the shores of the Behring’s Sea.

The most significant and important of all the inclosures is No. 12, in which Mr.
Stratford Canning, the British negotiator at St. Petersburgh, communicated, under
date of the Ist March, 1825, to Mr. G. Canning, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the text
of the Treaty between England and Russia. Some of Mr. Stratford Canning’s state-
ments are very important. In the second paragraph of his letter he makes the
following statement:

“The line of demarcation along the strip of land on the north-west coast of
America assigned to Russia is laid down in the Convention agreeably to your direc-
TIONS pe

After all, then, it appears that the ‘strip of land,” to which we have already
referred more than once, was reported by the English Plenipotentiary at St. Peters-
burgh. This clearly and undeniably exhibits the field of controversy between Russia
and England, even if we had no other proof of the fact. It was solely on the north-
west coast bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and not in the Behring’s Sea at all. Itis
the same strip of land which the United States acquired in the purchase of Alaska,
and runs from 54° 40/ to 60° north latitude—the same strip of land which gave to

British America, lying behind it, a free access to the ocean.
52 Mr. Stratford Canning also communicated, in his letter of the Ist March,
the following:

‘With respect to Behring’s Straits, 1am happy to have it in my power to assure
you, on the joint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the Emperor of
Russia has no intention whatever of maintaining any exclusive claim to the navigation of
those straits or of the seas to the north of them.”

This assurance from the Emperor of Russia is of that kind where the power to
give or to withhold is absolute. If the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and
Russia had conceded such rights in the Behring waters as Lord Salisbury now claims,
why was Sir Stratford Canning so ‘‘ happy” to ‘‘have it in his power to assure” the
British Foreign Office, on ‘‘the authority of two Russian Plenipotentiaries,” that
‘the Emperor had no intention of maintaining an exclusive claim to the navigation
of the Behring’s Straits,” or of the ‘‘seas to the north of them.” The seas to the south
of the straits were most significantly not included in the Imperial assurance. The
English statesmen of that day had, as I have before remarked, attempted the aboli-
tion of the Ukase of Alexander only so far as it affected the coast of the Pacific
Ocean from the 51st to the 60th degree of northlatitude. It was left in full force on
the shores of the Behring’s Sea. There is no proof whatever that the Russian
Emperor annulled it there. That sea, from east to west, is 1,300 miles in extent;
from north to south it is 1,000 miles in extent. The whole of this great body of
water, under the Ukase, was left open to the world, except astrip of 100 miles from
the shore. But with these 100 miles enforced on all the coasts of the Behring’s Sea
it would be obviously impossible to approach the Straits of Behring, which were
less than 50 miles in extreme width. If enforced strictly, the Ukase would cut off
all vessels from passing through the straits to the Arctic Ocean. If, as Lord Salis-
bury claims, the Ukase had been withdrawn from the entire Behring coast, as it was
between the 51st and 60th degrees on the Pacific coast, what need would there have
been for Mr, Stratford Canning, the English Plenipotentiary, to seek a favour from
Russia in regard to passing through the straits into the Arctic Ocean, where scientific
expeditions and whaling vessels desired to go?

I need not review all the inclosures, but I am sure that, properly analyzed, they
will all show that the subject-matter touched only the settlement of the dispute on
the north-west coast, from the 51st to the 60th degree of north latitude. In other

Bs, Pry 41

642 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

words, they related to the contest which was finally adjusted by the establishment
of the line 54° 40’, which marked the boundary between Russian and English terri-
tory at the time of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, as to-day it marks the line of division
between Alaska and British Columbia. But that question in no way touched the
Behring’s Sea; it was confined wholly to the Pacific Ocean and the north-west coast.

Lord Salisbury has deemed it proper, in his despatch, to call the attention of the
Government of the United States to some elementary principles of international law
touching the freedom of the seas. For our better instruction he gives sundry extracts
trom Wheaton and Kent—our most eminent publicists—and, for further illustration,
quotes from the despatches of Secretaries Seward and Fish, all maintaining the well-
known principle that a nation’s jurisdiction over the sea is limited to 3 marine miles
from its shore line. Commenting on these quotations, his Lordship says:

“A claim of jurisdiction over the open sea which is not in accordance with the
recognized principles of international law or usage may, of course, be asserted by
force, but cannot be said to have any legal validity as against the vessels of other
countries, except in so far as it is positively admitted in Conventional Agreements
with those countries.”

The United States, having the most extended sea-coast of all the nations of the
world, may be presumed to have paid serious attention to the laws and usages which
define and limit maritime jurisdiction. The course of this Government has been
uniformly in favour of upholding the recognized law of nations on that subject.
While Lord Salisbury’s admonitions are received in good part by this Government,
we feel justified in asking his Lordship if the Government of Great Britain has uni-
formly illustrated these precepts by example, or whether she has not established at
least one notable precedent which would justify us in making greater demands upon
Her Majesty’s Government touching the Behring’s Sea than either our necessities or
our desires have ever suggested? ‘The precedent to which I refer is contained in the
following narative:

Napoleon Bonaparte fell into the power of Great Britain on the 15th July, 1815.
The disposition of the illustrious prisoner was primarily determined by a Treaty

negotiated at Paris on the 2nd of the following August between Great Britain,
53 Russia, Prussia. and Austria. By that Treaty ‘‘the custody of Napoleon is

specially intrusted to the British Government.” The choice of the place and
of the measures which could best secure the prisoner were especially reserved to His
Britannic Majesty. In pursuance of this power, Napoleon was promptly sent by
Great Britain to the Island of St. Helena as a prisoner for life. Six months after
he reached St. Helena the British Parliament enacted a special and extraordinary
Law for the purpose of making his detention more secure. It was altogether a
memorable Statute, and gave to the British Governor of the Island of St. Helena
remarkable powers over the property and rights of other nations. The Statute con-
tains eight long sections, and in the 4th section assumes the power to exclude ships
of any nationality, not only from landing on the island, but forbids them ‘to hover
within 8 leagues of the coast of the island.” ‘The penalty for hovering within 8
leagues of the coast is the forfeiture of the ship to His Majesty the King of Great
Britain, on trial to be had in London, and the offence to be the same as if committed
in the County of Middlesex. This power was not assumed by a military com-
mander, pleading the silence of law amid the clash of arms; nor was it conferred by
the power of civil government in a crisis of public danger. It was a Parliamentary
enactment in a season of profound peace that was not broken in Europe by war
among the Great Powers for eight-and-thirty years thereafter. (See Inclosure C.)

The British Government thus assumed exclusive and absolute control over a con-
siderable section of the South Atlantic Ocean, lying directly in the path of the
world’s commerce, near the capes which mark the southernmost points of both
hemispheres, over the waters which for centuries had connected the shores of all
continents, and afforded the commercial highway from and to all the ports of the
world. The body of water thus controlled, in the form of a circle nearly 50 miles in
diameter, was scarcely less than 2,000 square miles in extent; and whatever ship
dared to tarry or hover within this area might, regardless of its nationality, be
forcibly seized and summarily forfeited to the British King.

The United States had grave and special reasons for resenting this peremptory
assertion of power by Great Britain. On the 8rd day of July, 1815, a fortnight after
the Battle of Waterloo and twelve days before Napoleon became a prisoner of war,
an important Commercial Treaty was concluded at London between the United
States and Great Britain. It was the sequel to the Treaty of Ghent, which was
concluded some six months before, and was remarkable, not only from the character
of its provisions, but from the eminence of the American negotiators—John Quincy
Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin. Among other provisions of this Treaty
relaxing the stringent colonial policy of England was one which agreed that Ameri-
can ships should be admitted and hospitably received at the Island of St, Helena.
Before the ratifications of the Treaty were exchanged in the following November,
it was determined that Napoleon should be sent to St. Helena. England thereupon

Se

ll

Soar

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 643

declincd to ratify the Treaty unless the United States should surrender the proyision
respecting that island. After that came the stringent enactment of Parliament
forbidding vessels to hover within 24 miles of the island. The United States was
already a great Commercial Power. She had 1,400,000 tons of shipping; more than
500 ships bearing her flag were engaged im trade around the capes. Lord Salisbury
has had much-to say about the liberty of the seas, but these 500 American ships
were denied the liberty of the seas within a space of 50 miles wide in the South
Atlantic Ocean by the express authority of Great Britain.

The Act of Parliament which asserted this power over the sea was to be in force
as long as Napoleon should live. Napoleon was born the same year with Wellington,
and was therefore but 46 years of age when he was sent to St. Helena. His expecta-
tion of life was then as good as that of the Duke, who lived until 1852. The order
made in April 1816 to obstruct free navigation in a section of the South Atlantic
might, therefore, have been in force for the period of thirty-six years, if not longer.
It actually proved to be for five years only. Napoleon died in 1821.

It is hardly conceivable that the same nation which exercised this authority in the
broad Atlantic, over which, at that very time, 800,000,000 of people made their com-
mercial exchanges, should deny the right of the United States to assume control over
a limited area, for a fraction of each year, in a sea which lies far beyond the line of
trade, whose silent waters were never cloven by a commercial prow, whose uninhab-
ited shores have no port of entry, and could never be approached on a lawful errand
under any other flag than that of the United States. Is this Government to under-
stand that Lord Salisbury justifies the course of England? Is this Government to
understand that Lord Salisbury maintains the right of England, at her will and

pleasure, to obstruct the highway of commerce in mid-ocean, and that she will
54 at the same time interpose objections to the United States exercising her juris-

diction beyond the 3-mile limit, in a remote and unused sea, for the sole pur-
pose of preserving the most valuable fur-seal fishery in the world from remediless
destruction?

If Great Britain shall consider that the precedent set at St. Helena of obstruction
to the navigable waters of the ocean is too remote for present quotation, I invite
her attention to one still in existence. Even to-day, while Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment is aiding one of her Colonies to destroy the American seal fisheries, another
Colony, with her consent, has established a pearl fishery in an area of the Indian
Ocean 600 miles wide, And so complete is the assumption of power that, according
to Sir George Baden-Powell, a licence-fee is collected from the vessels engaged in
the pearl fisheries in the open ocean. The asserted power goes to the extent of
making foreign vessels that have procured their pearls far outside the 3-mile limit
pay a heavy tax when the vessels enter an Australian port to land cargoes and refit.
Thus the foreign vessel is hedged in on both sides, and is bound to pay the tax under
British law, because, as Sir George Baden-Powell intimates, the voyage to another
port would probably be more expensive than the tax. I quote further from Sir
George to show the extent to which British assumption of power over the Ocean
has gone:

“The right to charge these dunes and to exercise this control outside the 3-mile limit
is based on an Act of the Federal Council of Australasia, which (Federal Council
Act, 1885, sec. 15) enacts that the Council shall have legislative authority, inter alia,
in respect to fisheries in Australian waters outside territorial limits. In 1889 this Council
passed an Act to ‘regulate the pearl-shell and béche-de-mer fisheries in Australian
waters adjacent to the Colony of Western Australia.’ In 1888 a similar Act had
been passed, dealing with the fisheries in the seas adjacent to Queensland (on the
east coast).”

I am directed by the President to say that, on behalf of the United States, he is
willing to adopt the text used in the Act of Parliament to exclude ships from hoy-
ering nearer to the Island of St. Helena than 8 marine leagues, or he will take the
example cited by Sir George Baden-Powell, where, by permission of Her Majesty’s
Government, control over a part of the ocean 600 miles wide is to-day authorized by
Australian law. ‘The President will ask the Government of Great Britain to agree
to the distance of 20 marine leagues—within which no ship shall hover around the
Islands of St. Paul and St. George, from the 15th May to the 15th October of each
year. This will prove an effective mode of preserving the seal fisheries for the use
of the civilized world—a mode which, in view of Great Britain’s assumption of
power over the open ocean, she cannot with consistency decline. Great Britain
prescribed 8 leagues at St. Helena; but the obvious necessities in the Behring’s Sea
will, on the basis of this precedent, justify 20 leagues for the protection of the
American seal fisheries.

The United States desires only such control over a limited extent of the waters in
the Behring’s Sea, for a part of each year, as will be sufficient to insure the protec-
tion of the fur-seai fisheries, already injured, possibly, to an irreparable extent by
the intrusion of Canadian vessels, sailing with the encouragement of Great Britain
and protected by her flag. The gravest wrong is committed when (as in many

644 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

instances is the case) American citizens, refusing obedience to the laws of their
own country, have gone into partnership with the British flag and engaged in the
destruction of the seal fisheries which belong to the United States. So general, so
notorious, and so shamelessly avowed has this practice become that last season,
according to the Report of the American Consul at Victoria, when the intruders
assembled at Ounalaska on the 4th July, previous to entering Behring’s Sea, the day
was celebrated in a patriotic and spirited manner by the American citizens, who, at
the time, were protected by the British flag in their violation of the laws of their
own country.

With such agencies as these, devised by the Dominion of Canada and protected by
the flag of Great Britain, American rights and interests have, within the past four
years, been damaged to the extent of millions of dollars, with no corresponding
gain to those who caused the loss. From 1870 to 1890 the seal fisheries—carefully
guarded and preserved—yielded 100,000 skins each year. The Canadian intrusions
began in 1886, and so great has been the damage resulting from their destruction of
seal life in the open sea surrounding the Pribyloff Islands, that in 1890 the Govern-
ment of the United States limited the Alaska Company to 60,000 seals. But the Com-
pany was able to secure only 21,000 seals. Under the same evil influences that have
been active now for five seasons the seal fisheries will soon be utterly destroyed.
Great Britain has been informed, advised, warned over and over again, of the evil

effects that would flow from her course of action; but, against testimony that
55 amounts to demonstration, she has preferred to abide by personal representations

from Ottawa, by Reports of Commissioners who examined nothing, and heard
nothing, except the testimony of those engaged in the business against which the
United States has earnestly protested. She may possibly be convinced of the damage
if she will send an intelligent Commissioner to the Pribyloff Islands.

In general answer to all these facts, Great Britain announces that she is willing
te settle the dispute by arbitration. Her proposition is contained in the following
paragraph, which I quote in full:

“T have to request that you will communicate a copy of this despatch, and of its
inclosures, to Mr. Blaine. You will state that Her Majesty’s Government have no
desire whatever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea
which was conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which properly accrues to the
present possessors of Alaska in virtue of Treaties or the law of nations; and that,
if the United States Government, after examination of the evidence and arguments
which I have produced, still differ from them as to the legality of the recent cap-
tures in that sea, they are ready to agree that the question, with the issues that
depend upon it, should be referred to impartial arbitration. You will in that case
be authorized to consider, in concert with Mr. Blaine, the method of procedure to
be followed.”

In his annual Message, sent to Congress on the Ist of the present month, the Presi-
dent, speaking in relation to the Behring’s Sea question, said:

“The offer to submit the question to arbitration, as proposed by Her Majesty’s
Government, has not been accepted, for the reason that the form of submission pro-
posed is not thought to be calculated to assure a conclusion satisfactory to either
party.”

In the judgment of the President, nothing of importance would be settled by
proving that Great Britain conceded no jurisdiction to Russia over the seal fisheries
of the Behring’s Sea. It might aswell be proved that Russia conceded no jurisdic-
tion to England over the River Thames. By doingnothing in each case everything is
conceded. Inneithercase is anything asked of the other. ‘ Concession,” asused here,
means simply acquiescence in the rightfulness of the title, and that is the only form
of concession which Russia asked of Great Britain, or which Great Britain gave to
ltussia.

The second offer of Lord Salisbury to arbitrate amounts simply to a submission of
the question whether any country has a right to extend its jurisdiction more than
one marine league from the shore? No one disputes that, as a rule; but the question
is whether there may not be exceptions whose enforcement does not interfere with
those highways of commerce which the necessities and usage of the world have
marked out. Great Britain, when she desired an exception, did not stop to consider
or regard the inconvenience to which the commercial world might be subjected.
Her exception placed an obstacle in the highway between continents. The United
States, in protecting the seal fisheries, will not interfere with a single sail of com-
merce on any sea of the globe.

It will mean something tangible, in the President’s opinion, if Great Britain will
consent to arbitrate the real questions which have been under discussion between the
two Governments for the last four years. I shall endeavor to state what, in the
judgment of the President, those issues are:

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise
prior and up to time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

——E——————————————————

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 645

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and
conceded by Great Britain? ;

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase
“Pacific Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;
and what rights (if any) in the Behring’s Sea were given or conceded to Great Brit-
ain by the said Treaty?

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries in
Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States
and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that
Treaty?

5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the
waters of the Behring’s Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such
rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held by
her in such fisheries or in the waters of Behring’s Sea, or out of the ownership of the
breeding islands and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their
young thereon and going out from the islands for food, or out of any other fact or
incident connected with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial posses-

sions of the United States?
56 6. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in

such a position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescrib- |
ing Regulations for the killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters of Behring’s
Sea, then it shall be further determined: (1) How far, if at all, outside the ordinary
territorial limits it is necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive
jurisdiction in order to protect the seal for the time living upon the islands of the
United States and feeding therefrom? (2) Whether a closed season (during which
the killing of seals in the waters of Behring’s Sea outside the ordinary territorial
limits shall be prohibited) is necessary to save the seal fishing industry, so valuable
and important to mankind, from deterioration or destruction? And, if so, (3) What
months or parts of months should be included in such season, and over what waters
it should extend? rf

The repeated assertions that the Government of the United States demands that
the Behring’s Sea be pronounced mare clausum are without foundation. The Govern-
ment has never claimed it and never desired it. It expressly disavows it. At the
same time the United States does not lack abundant authority, according to the ablest
exponents of international law, for holding a small section of the Behring’s Sea for
the protection of the fur-seals. Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water
for that one specific purpose is by no means the equivalent of declaring the sea, or
any part thereof, mare clausum. Nor is it by any means so serious an obstruction as
Great Britain assumed to make in the South Atlantic, nor so groundless an interfer-
ence with the common law of the sea as is maintained by British authority to-day in
the Indian Ocean. ‘The President does not, however, desire the long postponement
which an examination of legal authorities from Ulpian to Phillimore and Kent would
involve. He finds his own views well expressed by Mr. Phelps, our late Minister to
England, when, after failing to secure a just arrangement with Great Britain touch-
ing the seal fisheries, he wrote the following in his closing communication to his own
Government, 12th September, 1888:

“Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the abstract question of
the right of mare clausum. I do not conceive it to be applicable to the present case.

“Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly managed, permanent
industry, the property of the nations on whose shores it is carried on. It is proposed
by the Colony of a foreign nation, in defiance of the joint remonstrance of all the
countries interested, to destroy this business by the indiscriminate slaughter and
extermination of the animals in question, in the open neighbouring sea, during the
period of gestation, when the common dictates of humanity ought to protect them,
were there no interest at allinvolved. And it is suggested that we are prevented
from defending ourselves against such depredations because the sea at a certain dis-
tance from the coast is free.

“The same line of argument would take under its protection piracy and the Slave
Trade when prosecuted in the open sea, or would justify one nation in destroying the
commerce of another by placing dangerous obstructions and derelicts in the open sea
near its coasts. There are many things that cannot be allowed to be done on the open
sea with impunity, and against which every sea is mare clausum; and the right of
self-defense as to person and property prevails there as fully as elsewhere. If the
fish upon the Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering poison in the open
sea adjacent with some small profit to those engaged in it, would Canada, upon the
just principles of international law, be held defenceless in such a case? Yet that
process would be no more destructive, inhuman, and wanton than this.

“Tf precedents are wanting for a defence so necessary and so proper, it is because
precedents for such a course of conduct are likewise unknown. ‘The best interna-

646 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

tional Jaw has arisen from precedents that have been established when the just occa-
sion for them arose, undeterred by the discussion of abstract and inadequate rules.”
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

57 [Inclosure (A).]

Convention * between the United States and Russia relative to Navigation, Fishing, and
Trading in the Pacific Ocean, and to Establishments on the North-West Coast.—Con-
cluded April 17, 1824; Ratifications exchanged at Washington, January 11, 1825; Pro-
claimed January 12, 1825.

In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.

The President of the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of All
the Russias, wishing to cement the bonds of amity which unite them, and to secuce
between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect concord, by means of the pres-
ent Convention, have named as their Plenipotentiaries to this effect, to wit:

The President of the United States of America, Henry Middleton, a citizen of said
States, and their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary near His Imperial
Majesty; and His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, his beloved and faithful
Charles Robert, Count of Nesselrode, Actual Privy Counsellor, Member of the Coun-
cil of State, Secretary of State directing the administration of Foreign Affairs, Actual
Chamberlain, Knight of the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky, Grand Cross of the Order
of St. Wladimir of the first class, Knight of that of the White Eagle of Poland, Grand
Cross of the Order of St. Stephen of Hungary, Knight of the Orders of the Holy
Ghost and St. Michael, and Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour of France, Knight
Grand Cross of the Orders of the Black and of the Red Eagle of Prussia, of the
Annunciation of Sardinia, of Charles III of Spain, of St. Ferdinand and of Merit of
Naples, of the Elephant of Denmark, of the Polar Star of Sweden, of the Crown of
Wiirtemberg, of the Guelphs of Hanover, of the Belgic Lion, of Fidelity of Baden,
and of St. Constantine of Parma; and Pierre de Poletica, Actual Counsellor of State,
Knight of the Order of St. Anne of the first class, and Grand Cross of the Order of
St. Wladimir of the Second;

Who, after having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have
agreed upon and signed the following stipulations:

ARTICLE I.

It is agreed that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific
Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the High Contracting
Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing,
or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which may not already have
been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives, saving always the
restrictions and conditions determined by the following Articles.

ARTICLE II.

With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exercised upon
the Great Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Contracting Powers from
becoming the pretext for.an illicit trade, it is agreed that the citizens of the United
States shall not resort to any point where there is a Russian establishment without
the permission of the Governor or Commander; and that, reciprocally, the subjects
of Russia shall not resort, without permission, to any establishment of the United
States upon the north-west coast.

ARTICLE III.

It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the citizens of
the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any establishment upon
the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands adjacent, to the north of
54° 40’ of north latitude; and that, in the same manner, there shall be none formed
by Russian subjects, or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.

* Translation from the original, which is in the French language, ©

See

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 647

ARTICLE IV.

It is, nevertheless, understood that during a term of ten years, counting from the
signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or which belong to
their citizens or subjects respectively, may reciprocally frequent, without any hin-

drance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours, and creeks upon the coast
58 mentioned in the preceding Article, for the purpose of fishing and trading
with the natives of the country.

ARTICLE V.

All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and munitions of war of every
kind are always excepted from this same commerce permitted by the preceding Arti-
ele; and the two Powers engage, reciprocally, neither to sell nor suffer them to be sold
to the natives by their respective citizens and subjects, nor by any person who may
be under their authority. It is likewise stipulated that this restriction shall never
afford a pretext, nor be advanced in any case to authorize either search or detention
of the vessels, seizure of the merchandize, or, in fine, any measures of constraint
whatever towards the merchants or the crews who may carry on this commerce; the
High Contracting Powers reciprocally reserving to themselves to determine upon the
penalties to be incurred, and to inflict the punishments in case of the contravention
of this Article by their respective citizens or subjects.

ARTICLE VI.

When this Convention shall have been duly ratified by the President of the United
States, with the advice and consent of the Senate on the one part, and on the other
by His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the ratifications shall be exchanged
at Washington in the space of ten months from the date below, or sooner if possible.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Convention,
and thereto affixed the seals of their arms.

Done at St. Petersburgh the 5th (17th) April, of the year of Grace one thousand
eight hundred and twenty four.

[SEAL. ] HENRY MIDDLETON.
[SEAL. ] Le Comte CHARLES DE NESSELRODE.
[SEAL. ] PIERRE DE POLETICA.

Convention between Great Britain and Russia.—Signed at St, Petersburgh, February 16
28), 1825; Presented to Parliament May 16, 1825,

In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, being desirous of drawing still closer
the ties of good understanding and friendship which unite them, by means of an
Agreement which may settle, upon the basis of reciprocal convenience, different
points connected with the commerce, navigation, and fisheries of their subjects on
the Pacific Ocean, as well as the limits of their respective possessions on the north-
west coast of America, have named Plenipotentiaries to conclude a Convention for
this purpose, that is to say:

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ana Ireland, the
Right Honourable Stratford Canning, a Member of His said Majesty’s Most Honour-
able Privy Council, &ce.

And His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the Sieur Charles Robert, Count
de Nesselrode, His Imperial-Majesty’s Privy Councillor, a Member of the Council of
the Empire, Secretary of State for the Department of Foreign Affairs, &c.; and the
Sieur Pierre de Poletica, His Imperial Majesty’s Councillor of State, &e.;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found
in good and due form, have agreed upon and signed the following Articles:

ARTICLE I.

It is agreed that the respective subjects of the High Contracting Parties shall not
be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean,
either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such parts of the
coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the natives,
under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.

648 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

ARTICLE II.

In order to prevent the right of navigating and fishing exercised upon the ocean |
by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties from becoming the pretext
59 for an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty
shall not land at any place where there may be a Russian establishment, with-
out the permission of the Governor or Commandant; and, on the other hand, that
Russian subjects shall not land, without permission, at any British establishment on
the north-west coast.
ARTICLE III.

The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting Parties,
upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the north-west, shall
be drawn in the manner following:

Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales
Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54° 40’ north latitude, and between the
131st and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line
shall ascend to the north alung the channel called Portland Channel, as far as the
point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this
last-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the moun-
tains situated parallel to the coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st
degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of
intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as
the Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions
on the Continent of America to the north-west.

ARTICLE IV.

With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding Article, itis
understood:

1. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly to Russia.

2. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction paral-
lel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of intersection of
the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the distance of more than 10
marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between the British possessions and the
line of coast which is to belong to Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by a
line parallel to the windings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance
of 10 marine leagues therefrom.

ARTICLE V.

It is, moreover, agreed that no establishment shall be formed by either of the two
Parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding Articles to the possessions
of the other; consequently, British subjects shall not form any establishment either
upon the coast or upon the border of the continent comprised within the limits of
the Russian possessions, as designated in the two preceding articles; and, in like
ee no establishment shall be formed by Russian subjects beyond the said

imits.
ARTICLE VI.

It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever quarter
they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the continent, shall
forever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any hindrance whatever,
all the rivers and streams which, in their course towards the Pacific Ocean, may
cross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast described in Article III of the
present Convention.

ARTICLE VII.

It is also understood that, for the space of ten years from the signature of the
present Convention, the. vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging to their
respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without any hindrance
whatever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on the coast mentioned
in Article III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading with the natives.

ARTICLE VIII.

The port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce and vessels

of British subjects for the space of ten years from the date of the exchange of the

ratifications of the present Convention. In the event of an extension of this

60 term of ten years being granted to any other Power, the like extension shall
be granted also to Great Britain.

ltl tt Ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 649

ARTICLE IX,

The above-mentioned liberty of commerce shall not apply to the trade in spirituous
liquors, in fire-arms, or other arms, gunpowder, or other warlike stores; the High
Contracting Parties reciprocally engaging not to permit the above-mentioned articles
to be sold or delivered, in any manner whatever, to the natives of the country.

ARTICLE X.

Every British or Russian vessel navigating the Pacific Ocean, which may be com-
pelled by storms or by accident to take shelter in the ports of the respective Parties,
shall be at liberty to retit therein, to provide itself with all necessary stores, and to
put to sea again, without paying any other than port and lighthouse dues, which
shall be the same as those paid by national vessels. In case, however, the master of
such vessel should be under the necessity of disposing of a part of his merchandize
in order to defray his expenses, he shall conform himself to the Regulations and
Tariffs of the place where he may have landed.

ARTICLE XI.

In every case of complaint on account of an infraction of the Articles of the
present Convention, the civil and military authorities of the High Contracting
Parties, without previously acting or taking any forcible measure, shall make an
exact and circumstantial report of the matter to their respective Courts, who engage
to settle the same in a friendly manner, and according to the principles of justice.

ARTICLE XII.

The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged
at London, within the space of six weeks, or sooner if possible.

In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have
affixed thereto the seal of their arms.

Done at St. Petersburgh the 16th (28th) day of February, in the year of our Lord
One thousand eight hundred and twenty-five.

[L. 8.] STRATFORD CANNING.
[L. s.] The Count DE NESSELRODE,
[L. S.] PIERRE DE POLETICA.

[Inclosure (B).]

List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring’s Sea, with Date
and Place of Publication.

[In these Maps the waters south of Behring’s Sea are variously designated as the Pacific Ocean,
Ocean Pacifique, Stilles Meer; the Great Ocean, Grande Mer, Grosse Ocean; the Great South Sea,
Grosse Sud See, Mer du Sud. And they are again further divided, and the northern part designated
as North Pacific Ocean, Partie du Nord de la Mer du Sud, Partie du Nord de la Grande Mer, Grand
Océan Boréal, Nérdlischer Theil des Grossen Sud Meers, Nérdlischer Theil des Stillen Meers,
Nordlische Stille Meers, &c. In allthe Maps, however, the Pacific Ocean, under one of these various
titles, is designated separate from the sea.]

Place of Publica-

Name of Maps, &c. Name of Sea. tori Date.
Accurate Charte von Nord Amerika, from | Sea of Anadir.............-.|-.-.0--sees------- Unknown.
the best sources.
Map made under direction of Mikhael | Kamtschatskisches Meer-.-.| St. Petersburgh. 1743
Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Shestakof Ex-
pedition in 1730.
Mappemonde, by Lowitz .................| Mare Andiricum..........-.- Berlinwhs spas 1746
Geographical Atlas of the Russian Em- | Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea.| St. Petersburgh. 1748

pire, Alexander Vostchinine.

Carte de l'Isle de Ieso, corrected to date, | Mer de Kamtschatka..-...-. PATI Seen criss /ostels 1754

by Philippe Buache, Academy of Scien-

ces, and Geographer to the King.

61 Miiller’s Map of the Discoveries | Sea of Kamtschatka......... St. Petersburgh. 1758

by the Russians on the North-

West Coast of America, prepared for
the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

2D auxiles Map of the Western Hemi- | Sea of Anadir............--. IPATISiSoe caeteticn 1761
sphere.
Map of Hémisphére Septentrional, by | Mer Dormant...........----. Berlin ....... sles 1762

Count Redfern, published by Royal
Academy of Sciences.

650

APPENDIX TO CASE OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring’s Sea, etc.—Cont’d.

Name of Maps, &e.

Name of Sea.

Map published in the ‘‘London Maga-
zine.”

Map by S. Bellin, Engineer of the Royal
Academy.

Nouvelle Carte des Découvertes par les
Vaisseaux Russes aux cotes inconnues
de l'Amérique Septentrionale; Miiller.

Jetfery’s American Atlas, printed by R.
Sayers and J. Bennett.

Road Map from Paris to Tobolsken..--.-

Bowle’s Atlas; Map of the World.....---.

Map of the Eastern part of the Russian
Territory, byjJ. Truscott.

Map of the New Northern Archipelago,
in J. von Staehlin Storcksburg’s Ac-
count of the Northern Archipelago,
lately discovered by the Russians in
the Seas of Kamtschatka and Anadir.

Samuel Dunn’s Map of North America. -.

Chart of Russian Discoveries from the
Map published by the Imperial Acad-
emy of St. Petersburgh (Robert Sayer,
print-seller), published as the Act di-
rects. :

Jeffery’s Atlas; Chart containing part of
Iey Sea and adjacent Coasts of Asia
and America; published in 1775, ac-
cording to Act of Parliament, by Sayer
and Bennett.

Jetfery’s Atlas; Chart of the Russian
Discoveries, from Map published by
Imperial Academy of Sciences; pub-
lished by Robert Sayer, March 2, 1775.

Atlas, Thomas Jeffery’s (Geographer to
King), American; Chart containing
the Coasts of California, New Albion,
and the Russian discoveries to the
North.

Map in the French Encyclopedia..--...-.-

Schmidi’s A tlastess cc se Se seese oe o cs

Jetery 's Atlas ce aieee sn eee

Carte der Entdekun gen Zwischen Si-
beria und Amerika to the year 1780.

Map of the New Discoveries in the East-
ern Ocean.

St, Petersburgh Atlas) cc2- ee eene nee ee

Halbkugel der Erde, by Bode.-..-...--..-

Chart of the North-West Coast of Amer-
ica and the North-East Coast of Asia,
prepared by Lieutenant Henry Rob-
erts, under the immediate inspection
of Captain Cook; published by Wil-
liam Faden

Map of the Empire of Russia and Tar-
tary, by F. L. Gulsefeld.

Map of Discoveries made by the Russians
and by Captain Cook; Alexandre Vil-
brech.

Dunn’s Atlas; Map of the World .....--.

D’Auville’s Atlas; Map of the World,
with improvements; prepared for J.
Harrison, as the Act directs.

Meares’ Voyages; Chart of North-West

, Coast of America.

Chart of the World, exhibiting all the
new discoveries to the present time,
with the tracts of the most distin-
guished navigators from the year 1700,
carefully collected from the best Charts,
Maps, Voyages, &c., extant, by A.
Arrowsmith, Geographer, as the Act

directs.

62 Chart of the Great Ocean, or South

Sea, conformable to the account
of the voyage of discovery of the French
trigates ‘‘ La Boussole” and ‘‘ L’ Astro-
labe;’’ La Pérouse.

Karte des Nordens von Amerika;
Forster.

Sea of Kamtschatka..-.......

“ ae

Mer de Kamtschatka and
Mer d’Anadir.

Sea of Kamtschatka and Sea
of Anadir.

Sea of Kamtschatka.........

Sea of-Amadir==2--) eaasoen-e

Mare Kamtschatkiensae.....

Seaof Kamtschatka and Sea
of Anadir.

seaol Amadin.- 2-4-0. -seseeee
Sea of Kamtschatka

ity oe

eeeeeee--
“ “
se ce

weeee eee
“ee ce

“ ee

a9 ae

Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea. -
Sea of Kamtschatka..--......

Kamtschatka Sea.-.---..-.----
Sea of Kamtschatka:........

Kamtschatkische oder Biber
Meer.
Sea ot Kamtschatka.......-.

G. | Kamtschatka Sea----.s2..---

Greenough’s Map in Wilkinson’s Atlas..| Sea of Kamtschatka.... ....

Place of Publica-

tion. Date.
London......... 1764
tS pees Fae 1766
Amsterdam..... 1766
LOndon'-2enn2 2 1768-72
Pavia cscs oe orc 1769
Mond enisss-- cia 1770
St. Petersburgh. 1771
Gondon.. :..2\<i': 1774
fb oS eiaeemese 1774
te E cepeeee 1775
CO wt ote 1776
Se reece ae 1776
aE esc oe 1776
(RP anisieees Sector 1777
PET nese A cict 1777
London ....-..--- 1778
SSia atone ememasees 1780
St. Petersburgh. 1781
“ “ - 1782
Berlin’ 5.u-- see! 1783
London] -2s 2s 1784
Nuremburg..... 1786
St. Petersburgh. 1787
Mond one esas 11788
SE er i eA 1788
Uh cea nee 1790
OS Aten rot 1790
IPALIS: soceeeie Seen 1791
Berlin ssc ceese- 1791
Lon GON le aera bee 1791

e

ra
~~
»

i.
3
4
res

a’

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

651

List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring’s Sea, ete.—Cont’d.

Place of Publica-

tute.

rr / a Ts Sa td
Name of Maps, &c. Name of Sea. Gre Date.
Map of the North-Eastern partof Siberia, | Kamtschatka Sea.......-..-- St. Petersburgh. 1791
the Frozen Sea, the Eastern Ocean, and
North-Western Coasts of America, in-
dicating Billings’ expedition.
Arrowsmith's Map of the World .-.-.---. Sea of Kamtschatka.-.....--. Hondow sss. 22. 1794
Charte von Amerika, F. L. Gulseteld....| Kamtschatkisches Meer..... Nornbermteecn. 1796
Atlas of Mathew Carey; Map of the | Sea of Kamtschatka.......-. Philadelphia. .-. 1796
World from the best authorities, and
Map of Russian Empire in Europe and
Asia.
Chart of North America, by J. Wilkes, | ‘“ MP ccnccasc: Wondons--ss4--- 1796
‘“as Act directs.” ,
Halbkugel der Erde---.-..--------------- Kamtschatka Sea....-.-..--. Nuremberg .---- 1797
Chart von Nord Amerika, by IF. L. | Kamtschatkisches Meer..... Nurnberg: --=- - 1797
Gulsefeld.
C. F. Delmarche’s Atlas; Mappemonde, | Sea of Kamtschatka.......-- Arist seca ase 1797
by Robert du Vaugondy, including new
Discoveries of Captain Cook.
La Pérouse’s Chart of the Great Ocean, cs s Abodossod Iho lessees 1798
or South Sea, conformably to the dis-
coveries of the French frigates ‘“‘ La
Boussole” and ‘‘L’Astrolabe,’”’ pub-
lished in conformity with the Decree
of the French National Assembly, 1791,
translated and printed by J. Johnson.
W. Heather’s Marine Atlas.........-.--- Oe CO Renn ssOre SE oe oe ee 1799
Greenough’s Atlas; Map by Vibrecht | Mer de Kamtschatka .....--- Edinburg..---.- 1800
entitled ‘‘Carte de la Céte Nord-Ouest
de Amérique Septentrionale,” and
showing the discoveries of the Rus-
sians and Portlock and Dickson.
Wilkinson’s General Atlas; anew Mer- | Sea of Kamtschatka.-.......- Wondon!=-.----- 1800
cator’s Chart drawn from the latest
discoveries
Map of the World; Graberg..-..-.------- Bacino di Behring -----..-... | *GoenGyiin-- 2) -e =. 1802
Map Magazine, composed according to | Beaver Sea or Sea of Kamt- | St. Petersburgh. 1802
the latest observations of foreign navi- schatka.
gators, corrected to 1802.
Map of Meervon Kamtschatka, with the | Meer von Kamtschatka.-.--. Weimar ---~-s- 1803
routes of Captain Jos. Billings and
Mart. Sauer, drawn by Fred. Gotze, to
accompany Report of Billings’ Russian
Official Visit to Aleutia and Alaska.
Atlas des Ganzen Erdkreises, by Chris- | Meer von Kamtschatka.-.-.-- Oi 9 Pala ahs 1803
tian Gottlieb Reichard. :
Arrowsmith’s General Atlas....--..-.--- Sea of Kamtschatka.-....-... iondoneetna-eee 1804
Map of Savrilia Sarytscheft’s journey in ue “6 aoe Werpsi¢ees-=ss-- 1805
the North-East Sea.
Jedediah Morse’s Map of North America. ss CT see ees BOStONe assess a 1805
Robert Wilkinson’s General Atlas; new se Os gchar eRe Mendoneeesen ose 1807
Mercator’s Chart.
-Atlas of the Russian Empire, adopted by | Kamtschatka or Beaver Sea..| St. Petersburgh 1807
the General Direction of Schools.
General Map of the travels of Captain | Kamtschatka Sea.-.--..-..-- ze ot 1807-9
Golovnin.
Map ani Carey's Atlas =. o.----s-5- Se<s-sa- Sea of Kamtschatka.-....... ond onee-eease 1808
Tismtenant Roberts’ Chart, improved to | * Coat Senne COraee ce tae 1808
date.
Mappemonde in Atlas of Malte-Brun.--.| Bassin de Behring ..-.--..--- Parssicesee tants 1809
MNT S PAG AS era eee sales ees ani Sea of Kamtschatka.......-. ontloneeeee one 1810
Karte des Grossen Oceans, usually the | Kamtschatkisches Meer.---. Hambure-=-5- = - 1810
South Sea; Sotzmann.
Chart von Amerika; Streits ............. Sea of Kamtschatka..-....-- Weimar ........ 1810
Arrowsmith’s Map of North America....| tO RT) Lo asieeinwsloe ondonte- esse 1811
Map of the World in Pinkerton’s Atlas..| ‘ Ce MSS eer HD a2 See ee 1812
MD DLO = scseteo aacie aein sea ee seo BASHIN, GUONOLO ces eee ee sees | eb irks ete Seoae 1812
“Carte d’ Amérique, rédigée d’aprés celle | Bassin de Behring...--.---.-. Sela Peta Sh 1813
d@’ Arrowsmith, en quatre planches et
soumise aux observations astrono-
miques de M.de Humboldt;”’ by Cham-
pion.
63 Map of Oceania, or the Fifth Part | Bassin du Nor@...... Ae CO ELE chats bee 1814
of the Wor!d, including a portion
of America and the coasts of Asia, by
H. Brue.
Neele’s General Atlas; Samuel and | Sea of Kamtschatka..-....-- Wonton see ee - 1814
George Neele.
*Chart von Amerika; Geographic Insti- | Meer von Kamtschatka....-- Weimar .<=05.-: 1814

* This Chart also designates the coast from Columbia River (49°) to Cape Elizabeth (60°) as the

“ Nord-West Kusts.’

652 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring’s Sea, etc.—Cont’d.

Name of Sea.

Place of Publica-

Name of Maps, &c. ice Date.
Map of the World, by Von Krusenstern.| Meer von Kamtschatka--.--- St. Petersburgh. 1815
Encyproptype de l'Amérique Septen- | Bassin du Nord...........-.- Panis © ase eeee 1815
trionale, by Brué.
Smith’s General Atlas.......----------.-. Sea of Kamtschatka.-......-. ondoneeseseses 1815
Allgemeinewelt Charte, with Voyage of s ee Aponscosc PENT AS Jee seat 1815
Krusenstern.
Grand Atlas Universel, edited by Chez | Bassin du Nord..-..........-- LEE Tae asae 1816
Desray; Mappemonde, by Goujon,
Geographer.
Atlas Elémentaire, by Lapie et Poirson..| Bassin du Nord ou de Beh- Eg BSC Ba Secc 1816
ring.
Amérique Septentrionale et Méridionale; | Mer de Behring ou Bassin SOP SL eee 1817
Lapie. du Nord.
Map in Thompson’s Atlas.--.--.--..-.... Sea of Kamtschatka......... Edinburgh ..... 1817
Fielding Lucas’ Atlas.......-.--..-...... “ Ohi amon Set Baltimore.-:.-.. 1817
Reichard and Von Haller’s German Atlas. ee Moor pl ieaSeees< Wielman esses 1818
Map in Greenough’s Atlas ..............- us HO 8s Sasecaese Edinburgh ..... 1818
John Pinkerton’s Modern Atlas -.....-.. nf OW ai Philadelphia. --. 1818
Map engraved by Kirkwood and Sons..-.. Bd Ye webcoscatic Edinburgh ..... 1819
Chart of the Russian and English Dis- es Ne eres ae london =--es- 1819
coveries in the North Pacific Ocean,
by Captain James Burney, F. RB. S.
Carte Générale de ) Amérique; De La- | Mer de Behring ou Bassin | Paris -.-.---.--. 1819
marche. 4 du Nord.
Carte de Amérique Septentrionale et | Bassin du Nord.-..---.--..-.. een Able reise, 1820
Méridionale; Hennon.
Chart of Alaska, by J. K. Eyries and | Behring Sea..............--. Pee Sack sent 1821
Malte-Brun.
Chart of the Arctic Ocean and North a fe eeeatan ene eee Weimar -2--= => 1821
America, by Lapie.
Carte Générale du Globe; Brué .......--. Meride Behring.---4--0-e52-6 Paris): soese- eas 1821
Mappemonde; Tardieu: ....-.-......---..- Mer de Behring. ----5.------- ee enentacas: 1821
Atlas of La Vogne; M. Carey..-.--..-.--- Sea of Kamtschatka ......-.-. Philadelphia. .-.. 1821
Atlas Universel of A. H. Brué...-....-.- Meride Behring: 22 e---eecee RAIS see eee 1822
Mappemonde; Herisson.-.---......-.----- Mer de. Behring. ---.----.--2: OSs aceite be ncine 1823
Map to illustrate the Voyage of Kotze- | Sea of Kamtschatka......... St. Petersburgh. 1823
bue.
Hielding Lucas Atlas -se-s-e2=s-2 sence oe Be a arta sri Reed Philadelphia. - -. 1823
Wielding Wucas Atlassesosss se eee eee WY Sa, ia |boeesteeerscs Baltimore. . ----- 1823
Amérique Septentrionale ; Lapie-.---.--. Merde ‘Behring ----ss-2 5-2 || eb avis\oone acne 1824
Atlas Classique et Universel, by M. Lapie.| Mer fe Behring ou Bassin 3 ee er 1824
du Nord.
Anthony Finley’s Atlas.......----..----- Sea of Kamtschatka.......-- Philadelphia. ... 1824
Atlas of Buchon; Cartes des Posses- | Bassin du Nord.-...-.-.--.---- TERT centioaass 1825
sions Russes.
Man ineButler's Atias-- eee eee ek eee Sea of Kamtschatka .......-- ondontss2----e- 1825

Atlas Historique de la Sage.....-.-...-.. Mer de Behring........-..---. Parisi seeseeee 1829

{Inclosure (C).]

Sectéon 4 of ‘‘An Act for regulating the Intercourse with the Island of St. Helena dur-
ing the time Napoleon Bonaparte shall be detained there, and for indemnifying Persons
in the cases therein mentioned (11th April, 1816).

Section 4. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the Goy-
ernor, or, in his absence, the Deputy Governor, of the said Island of St. Helena, by
all necessary ways and means, to hinder and prevent any ship, vessel, or boat from
repairing to, trading, or touching at said island, or having any communication with
the same, and to hinder and prevent any person or persons from landing upon the
said island from such ship, vessel, or boats, and to seize and detain all and every per-

son and persons that shall land upon the said island from the same; and all
64 such ships, vessels, or boats (except as above excepted) as shall repair to, or

touch at, the said island, or shall be found hovering within 8 leagues of the
coast thereof, and which shall or may belong, in the whole or in part, to any subject
or subjects of His Majesty, or to any person or persons owing allegiance to His
Majesty, shall and are hereby declared to be forfeited to His Majesty, and shall and
may be seized and detained, and brought to England, and shall and may be prose-
cuted to condemnation by His Majesty’s Attorney-General, in any of His Majesty’s
Courts of Record at Westminster, in such manner and form as any ship, vessel, or
boat may be seized, detained, or prosecuted for any breach or violation of the Nay-
igation or Revenue Laws of this country; and the offence for which such ship, ves-
sel, or boat shall be proceeded against shall and may be laid and charged to have
been done and committed in the County of Middlesex; and if any ship, vessel, or

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 653

boat, not belonging in the whole or in part to any person or persons the subject or
subjects of, or owing allegiance to, His Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall repair
to, or trade or touch at, the said Island of St. Helena, or shall be found hovering
within 8 leagues of the coast thereof, and shall not depart from the said island or
the coast thereof when and so soon as the master or other person haying the charge
and command thereof shall be ordered so to do by the Governor or Lieutenant-
Governor of the said island for the time being, or by the Commander of His Majesty’s
nayal or military force stationed at or off the said island for the time being (unless
in case of unavoidable necessity or distress of weather), such ship or vessel shall be
deemed forfeited, and shail and may be seized and detained and prosecuted, in the
same manner as is hereinbefore enacted as to ships, vessels, or boats of or belonging
to any subject or subjects of His Majesty.

No. 20.
Messrs. Lampson and Co. to Foreign Office.—(Received December 30.)

64, QUEEN STREET, London, December 30, 1890.

Str: Since we addressed you on the 6th September last, the number
of fur seal-skins taken in the Behring’s Sea and landed at Victoria has
increased to such an extent, that the total catch, instead of being less,
actually exceeds that of last year.

This somewhat unexpected increase appears to have been due, apart
from the favourable weather, to the larger number of schooners engaged
in the fishery, and to the fact that the United States Gevernment
Revenue-cutters did not in any way interfere with the fishing opera-
tions.

We are informed that Professor Elliott, who has been commissioned
by the United States Government to examine into the condition of the
Seal Islands, in the Report submitted to his Government speaks of the
total extinction of seal life as being a question of only a few years, and
advocates that no more seals should be killed, even on the islands, for
some time to come.

We have had the honour to point out to you how important an indus-
try, at present centred in London, depends on the continuance of the
supply of fur seal-skins, and how many people, now engaged in this
industry, would by its disappearance be thrown out of work.

This industry appears now to be threatened by a new danger of an
unexpected kind. From information received, we learn that the United
States Government, probably with the view of influencing the decision
of Her Majesty’s Government in the Behring’s Sea fishery dispute, will
propose to raise the duty on British manufactured fur seal-skins from 20
to 50 per cent. ad valorem. ‘To estimate the importance of this measure,
we should mention that, for many years past, of the Alaska fur seal-
skins annually consigned to London, no less than 75 per cent. have been
bought for American account and reshipped to the United States after
having been manufactured in London. Should the United States Gov-
ernment carry out their proposal, the skins destined for American con-
sumption would undoubtedly be manufactured in the United States,
with the result that another important British industry would pass
away to a foreign country.

We confidently trust that Her Majesty’s Government may see its way
to protect these important British home interests, by arriving at a
speedy settlement of the present dispute.

We have, &c.
(Signed) C. M. LAMPSON AND Co.

654 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
65 No. 21.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 30, 1890.

Sir: I have received your despatch of the 16th instant, reporting
that you had handed to Mr. Blaine a copy of my despatch of the 22nd
October last in regard to my conversation with Mr. Phelps on the 22nd
February, 1888, on the subject of the Behring’s Sea controversy.

I have to inform you that your language to Mr. Blaine, when com-
municating to him the despatch in question, is approved.

Tam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office—( Received January 1, 1891.)

DOWNING STREET, December 31, 1890.

Sir: With reference to your letter of the 13th September last, for-
warding copy of a letter from Sir C. Lampson and Oo.* respecting the
probable early extinction of the seals in Behring’s Sea, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Mar-
quis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, transmitting an approved Minute of the Dominion Privy Coun-
cil embodying a Report by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the
statements contained in Messrs. Lampson’s letter.

I am to request that the inclosures to Lord Stanley’s despatch, which
are sent in original, may be returned, with a printed copy in the event
of their being printed at the Foreign Office.

Iam, Se.
(Signed) KR. UH. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 22.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HousgE, Ottawa, November 28, 1890.

My Lorp: With reference to the representations contained in the letter from Sir
C. Lampson and Co. to the Foreign Office of the 6th September last, copy of which
was inclosed in your Lordship’s despatch of the 24th of that month, to the effect that
there was likelihood of the early extinction of the fur-seal species unless a close
season were at once established, I have the honour to forward to your Lordship a
copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, embodying a Report by the Min-
ister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject.

Your Lordship will observe that the Minister contends that there is no good reason
for believing that the extinction of the species is likely to be brought about, furnish-
ing statistics of the Canadian catch for the past season, and adducing evidence drawn
from United States sources in support of his contention.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

*No. 6.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 655
66 [Inclosure 2 in No. 22.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 15th November, 1890.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch
dated the 24th September, 1890, from the Colonial Office, transmitting a copy of a
letter from Sir C. M. Lampson and Company to the Foreign Office, under date the
6th September, 1890, on the subject of a close season for seals in Behring’s Sea.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the papers were referred, submits
the following observations thereon:

That Sir C. Lampson and Co. state in effect:

1. That the total extinction of the fur-seal has come within measurable distance,
and unless a close season can be arranged immediately the animal will become extinct
in a very short time.

2. That as the seals taken by the Canadian schooners at sea are females and pups
of those visiting the breeding islands, this industry will of necessity disappear with
the extinction of the seal.

3. That the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea has been a failure this season, the
total catch being far below those of preceding years, although the fishing-vessels do
not appear to have been molested by United States Government cruizers.

The Minister observes that statements similar to those contained in the paragraphs
marked 1 and 2 above were made before the Committee of Congress in 1889, and
repeated in despatches of the Government of the United States to the British Gov-
ernment at different times since 1885.

That at the recent Conference in Washington (1890) these allegations were form-
ally reiterated in a paper prepared by Mr. Blaine, i i having been understood at this
time that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would put before the Conference the
authorities upon which the Canadian Government denied their accuracy, so that the
evidence on each side might be discussed, examined, and compared.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries accordingly prepared a Memorandum in
which he, among other things, proved from United States authorities that the seals
were still frequenting the islands in Behring’s Sea in enormous numbers, and were
actually on the increase. It was also shown that the seals taken by Canadian seal-
ers in Behring’s Sea were, for the most part, males. Appended to the present Report
will be found an extract from the Memorandum mentioned above containing refer-
ences to authorities touching these points (marked Appendix ‘‘A”).

The Minister deems it important to mention that, after those authorities were
placed before the Conference, Mr. Blaine declined to proceed with the discussion of
the two briefs.

It was then proposed by the British Representative that a joint inquiry into the
facts in controversy should be made by experts on the islands and in the sea, and
that a temporary close season should be agreed upon for a period of two years and
a-half. This proposition was also declined by the Government of the United States.

Meanwhile, however, it appears that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States appointed Henry W. Elliot a Special Agent to the Treasury to make an ex
parte examination in regard to the Alaska fishery interests, under the provision of a
special Act Congress, approved the 5th April, 1890.

While the Minister has not enjoyed the advantage of perusing Mr. Elliot’s special
Report, nevertheless, from the press of the United States, and from the leading
reviews published in that country, it is evident that the present lessees of the
Pribylov group have not been less zealous than their predecessors in circulating
alarming statements concerning the fur-seals. Mr. Elliot has perhaps again con-
cluded that the rookeries are being ruined, and that his opinions given to Congress
before this mission to the islands have been confirmed.

In the ‘New York Herald” of the 16th August, 1890, a letter appeared purporting
to emanate from D. H. James, of the United States cutter ‘‘Rush,” dated Ounalaska,
the 26th July, in which that gentleman says:

“A startling state of affairs exists at the Seal Islands this year. . . . This year
the rookeries are almost deserted, . . . rocks that were once covered with seals
are now being grown over with moss. . . . The cause assigned is that the seal-
ing fleet, which is now increased and composed of larger and better vessels, has fol-

lowed the seals so closely and pursued them so ruthlessly.”
67 This writer adds:
“Tt is thought the sealers will not catch enough to pay expenses.”

Before dealing with such sensational reports from those interested in the mainte-
nance of a monopoly of the fur-seal business, it is well to note that from the first of
the discussion to the present time not a suggestion has been made by the United
States authorities that it would be advisable to restrict the pursuit of the fur-seal
ou the Californian and British Columbian coasts, where it is admitted that many

656 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

seals in pup are captured and killed before their final departure for the breeding-
grounds in Behring’s Sea. ae *)

Though the proposition for a joint inquiry into the condition of the Seal Islands
was not entertained by the United States, the statistics and reports from the vessels
which proceeded from British Columbia are such as to lead the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries to doubt the accuracy of ex parte reports regarding the diminution of
seal life during the season of 1890, and to which Messrs. Sir C. Lampson and Co.
draw special attention.

The total catch by Canadian sealers fitted out in British Columbia in 1889 amounted
to 27,960. The catch so far reported by these vessels in 1890 amounts to 39,547. The
eatch of vessels and sold in British Columbia was no less than 43,315 skins. The
catch from the Siberian coast is reported to be large. Judging from recent years
the catch will be, at Commander Islands, 45,000; Lobos Islands, 15,000; islands near
Cape Horn and South Polar Sea, 10,000; Seal Islands, Okhotsk Sea, 4,000; Japan,
7,000; Cape of Good Hope, 5,000.

These statistics, while meeting the fears of all interested in the preservation of
seal life, are undoubtedly alarming to the lessees of the Pribylov group, who, relying
upon securing a monopoly of the fur-seal industry of Behring’s Sea, were induced to
make a contract with the United States Government, whereby they agreed to pay
the enormous and unprecedented royalty of 10 dol. 25 c. on every seal taken by them,
upon which their predecessors and unsuccessful tenderers for the present lease gave
only 2 dol. 624. a-skin. It is consequently quite likely that these lessees cannot
afford with such a royalty to catch their full quota of 60,000 this year, and so a reduc-
tion of the number actually put upon the market tends to increase the price of those
skins sold. It may not be out of place in this connection to make further reference
to the energetic manner in which those interested in the monopoly endeavour to excite
alarm regarding the probable extinction of fur-seals.

Mr. D. O. Mills, of New York, is supposed to be the most largely interested of the
present lessees of the Seal Islands in Behring’s Sea. He does not pretend to expert
knowledge nor to have visited the seal rookeries. An article written by him in the
“‘ North American Review” for September 1890 isremarkable for the following extraor-
dinary statements connected with seal life, and unsupported by any other authority
than his signature:

“There is the best evidence that the poachers confine themselves almost exclu-
sively to this commercially precious female portion of the herd, . . . for the
male seal is strong and alert, and no hunter can get within shooting distance of him,
as he can generally escape from the fastest boat pursuing them. . . . In two
or three years most of the females would be destroyed, with their young, and in a
comparatively short time the entire family would be extinguished. . . . They
live only upon fish, and must therefore go to the water for their food. The large
fishing banks on which the Pribylov seals must depeud for subsistence are from 30
to 60 miles distant from the islands, and if the females are killed by the hunter there
while feeding, the pup left on the island, which does not become able to take care of
itself until after September, loses its protector and dies. . . . Fire-arms are
freely used by the poachers, however. Indeed, that is their chief instrument of
slaughter, and the ettect of attacking the herds in the water with flotillas of boats,
while the air is filled with the sharp reports of guns, is injurious in the extreme.”

These statements are, in the main, contradicted by the Reports of the United
States officials, to which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries refers in his Memoran-
dum hereinbefore mentioned.

The Minister, so soon as the communication of Messrs. Sir C. Lampson and Co. was
referred to him, at once caused thorough and careful investigation through the Col-
lector of Customs at the port of Victoria, British Columbia, to be made into the
experience of the British Columbian sealers who have hunted in Behring’s Sea dur-
ing the season of 1890. The result of this investigation establishes—

That, owing to stormy and boisterous weather in Behring’s Sea, the prevalence of
much fog, and particularly to a change by the seals of their usual haunts, as here-
eee mentioned, the early sealers of this season returned with ashorter catch than
usual.

Volcanic disturbances on Ounalaska and neighboring islands are said to have

occurred this season.
68 The vessels which remained in the sea, after finding the main body of the
seals on their new grounds, made the best catches, and all the masters of the
Canadian sealers testify to the extraordinary number of seals still frequenting
this sea.

More seals were found to the north and eastward of the Islands of St. Paul and St.
George, distant therefrom between 40 and 60 miles, than formerly. Heretofore they
had been more plentiful to the westward of these islands, and distant therefrom
about 40 miles.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 657

The old Alaska Company, which now holds a lease of Copper Island, on the Rus-
sian side, killed no less than 42,000 seals.

The present lessees of the Pribylov group, instead of taking 60,000 on the leased
islands, and paying the enormous royalty of 10 dol. 25 c. upon each skin, took only
21,000 from these islands. They, however, bought the whele coast and Sand Point
catch of the pelagic sealers, at from 10 to 11 dollars for each skin, and so the price
of skins in London is kept high.

Appended to this Report is a Table showing the catch of— Appendix (C),

1. The Canadian sealing fleet, 1890.

2. Foreign vessels’ catch sold in Victoria, showing a total catch of
the above (1 and 2) for 1890 of 43,315 skins, worth 493,160 dollars,
against 35,310 skins in 1889, worth 247,170 dollars.

3. Names and value of Canadian sealing-vessels, with outfit, crews,
boats, and canoes.

4. Vessels carrying part Indian crews.

5. Vessels and catch of Victoria sealing fleet for 1890.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries desires to take advantage of
this opportunity to draw attention to further testimony corroborating
the views previously expressed by the Canadian Government upon
the subject of the seal fishery, and given in the Memorandum to which
reference has already been made in this Report. Since the date of
that paper evidence taken by the Committee of Congress appointed Relations with
to inquire into the relations of the United States with Canada has Canada, p. 314 of
been published. Evidence.

James G. Swan, Esq., of Port Townsend, is described before the
Committee as a man who has given much attention to the fisheries of
Bebring’s Sea, both for his own information and for that of the United
States Fish Commission.

He produced a Report of the Board of Trade of Port Townsend, yy:q p. 265
Washington Territory,in which this Chamber of Commerce denounce peas
the closing of Behring’s Sea as a ‘species of class legislation for the
benefit of the wealthy few.”

Mr. Swan advocated free fishing in the open sea, and explained at yy jq. p. 265
length that a valuable Report of his, wherein he expressed views ers eS
opposed to those of Mr. Elliot, was suppressed; and, he adds: ‘‘The Ipid., pp. 268
arguments and assertions of the Alaska Commercial Company that 269.
the fur-seals all go to the Pribylov Islands, and would be extermi-
nated if that Company did not have the care and protection of them,
would easily be disposed of if both sides of the argument could be
heard and the real facts made known.”

Further on he says: ‘‘Congress and the country [have] been sys- Ipbid., p.269.
tematically kept in darkness regarding the fur-seal fisheries in Beh-
ring’s Sea, for those who have had the information to impart have had
an interest directly opposed to imparting it.”

Mr. Swan denies there is any danger of extermination of seals,and yy iq p. 269
produces sworn declarations touching the existence of seals at places taba
which witness now claims the seals have abandoned. Finally, Mr.

Swan is asked by Senator Pugh:

“You do not think it is of any importance to prevent the destruc- yyjq. p. 289,
tion of seals?” He answers, ‘‘I do, on the islands, but not on the
outside, because the proportion of seals that are destroyed is a very
sinall fraction of what the whole number is. ‘There are millions of
seals in the Pacific Ocean. You have no conception of the vast
myriads of thew.” ]

The Statistical Agent of the United States Fish Commission, Mr, 1id., p. 215.
Wm. A. Wilcox, was asked by Senator Hall, ‘‘ Do you think the seal
is manifestly disappearing?” and he replied, ‘‘I have no reason to
think so. I think they have been seen this past year in almost as
innumerable numbers as ever.”

Mr. Swan did not believe that for every seal taken several were Appendix (D).
killed. He refers to the shyness and intelligence of the seal, and to Zr bnendix oo
the fact that they are never taken when in motion. PSDs

Captain Joshua Brown said as follows: Appendix (G).

(See Appendix G).

This testimony, it will be seen, supports the statements of the Canadian sealers

already pleaded before Her Majesty’s Government, and affords further assurance

69 that the pursuit of seals in the deep waters of Behring’s Sea does not tend to
extinguish seal life,

BS, PT V 42

658 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Committee, concurring in the above Report, recommend that your Excellency
be moved to forward a copy hereof to the Principal Secretary of State for the Col-
onies for submission to Her Majesty’s Government, and that a copy be also sent to
the High Commissioner for Canada in London for his information.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) Joun J. McGEr,
Clerk, Privy Council.

APPENDIX.
APPENDIX (A).
Seal Fishery of Behring’s Sea. Washington, 1890.
[Pages 41, 42, and 43.]

Mr. George Tingle, a Special Agent of the Treasury, gave his evidence before the
same Committee, and he is put forward by Mr. Blaine in support of the United
States contention. (Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, 1st
March, p. 17.) :

Confirming Mr. Gliddon’s opinion, as above quoted, Mr. Tingle says:

“From Mr. Elliott’s statement I understand that there are no more seals now than
there were in 1872. I am ata loss to know how Mr. Elliott got his information, as
he had not been on the islands for fourteen years.”

The same Mr. Tingle in 1887 reported to Secretary Fairchild that—

“He found the lines of occupancy extending beyond those of last year, and the
cows quite as densely packed on the ground on most of the rookeries, whilst on two
rookeries there is some falling-off. It is certain, however, this vast number of ani-
mals, so valuable to the Government, are still on the increase. The condition of all
the rookeries could not be better.” (Appendix to Report, Congressional Committee,
1888, p. 359.)

ae Report of the Alaska Commercial Company (13th December, 1887), it is stated
that Mr. George R. Tingle, the Agent appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury,
substantially confirms Mr. Elliott in his view referred to above, excepting that, upon
a careful survey by himself in 1886, he estimated that the fur-seals upon the two
islands had increased in number about 2,000,000 up to that time. Mr. Tingle’s esti-
mate for 1886 is 6,537,750 (H. R. Ex. Doe. No. 31, 50th Congress, Ist Session), and in
December the Alaska Commercial Company, in their Report. said that the seals were
on the increase.

The latest definite information appearing in the United States documents regard-
ing the condition of the rookeries is contained in the Report of Mr. Tingle, who, as
Special Agent of the Treasury Department, wrote from St. Paul Island, Alaska, the
3lst July, 1888, as follows:

“Tam happy to be able to report that, although late landing, the breeding rook-
eries are filled out to the lines of measurement heretofore made, and some of them
much beyond these lines, showing conclusively that seal life is not being depleted,
but is fully up to the estimates given in my Report of 1887.”

From the above United States officials it is clear that, with only partial protection
on the islands, the seals have increased in an amazing degree. These islands, con-
taining in 1874 the largest number of seals ever found in the history of sealing at
any place, contain to-day a more astounding number.

When the number was less than half of what itis at present, Lientenant Washburn
Maynard, of the United States navy, was instructed to make an investigation into
the condition of the fur trade of the Territory of Alaska, and in 1874 he reported
that 112,000 young male seals had been annually killed in each year from 1870 to 1874
on the islands comprising the Pribylov group, and he did not think that this dimin-
ished the numbers. Lieutenunt Maynard’s Report (44th Congress, Ist Session, H. R.
No. 43), as well as that of Mr. Bryant in 1869 (Ex. Doe. No. 32, 41st Congress, 2nd Ses-
sion), largely supports the contention of the Canadian Government respecting the
productiveness of the seal and their habits during the breeding season.

It is not denied that seals enter Behring’s Sea for the purpose of resorting to the
islands to propagate their species, and because the immense herd is chiefly confined
to the islands for this purpose during the breeding season it is that the seals have so
constantly increased.

Notwithstanding the lax efforts on the part of the United States to guard or patrol
the breeding islands, the difficulty of approaching the rongh coasts thereof, the
prevalence of fogs, and other causes, have in a large degree prevented too destruc-
tive or too numerons raids being made upon the rookeries.

The Canadian Government contends that while seals in calf are taken on and off
the coasts of British Columbia and California, and also during their migrations near

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 659

the Aleutian Islands by Indians and Aleuts, the bulk of the seals taken in the open

sea of that part of the Pacifie Ocean called Behring’s Sea are bulls both old and

young—but chiefly young—and that most of the cows when taken are known as

“dry cows,” i. e., cows that have nursed and weaned their young, or cows that are
barren, or those that have lost pups from natural causes,

70 It must also be noted that there are more females than males in a herd of
seals. (‘‘Trip to Alaska,” Wardman, p. 94.)

The position taken by the Canadian Government is supported— i

1. By the histories of the rookeries as above given, and the great increase shown
despite the constant killing and raids upon the islands during the past century.

2. By the fact that the old bulls that have been able to hold their position on the
rookeries go into the water at the end of the rutting season between the Ist and 10th
August. (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress, Ist Session, Appendix, p. 132.)

Mr. Clark, on the Antarctic seal fisheries, in ‘f The Fisheries and Fishery Industries
in the United States,” 1887, pp. 425-424, says:

‘fn very stormy weather, when they (the seals) are driven into the sea, they are
forced to betake themselves to the sheltered side of the island, hence the men find
that stormy weather pays them best. Two or three old males, termed ‘ beach mas-
ters,’ hold a beach to themselves and cover it with cows, but allow no other males to
haulup. The males fight furiously, and one man told me that he had seen an old
male take up a younger one in his teeth and throw him into the air. The males show
fight when whipped, and are with great difficulty driven into the sea.

“They are sometimes treated with horrible brutality. The females give birth to
the young soon after their arrival.

“ After leaving the rookeries the bulls do not return to them again that season.”

3. By the fact that two-thirds of all the males that are born are never permitted
to land upon the same ground with the females. ‘This large band of bachelors, when
it visits land, herds mile away from the breeding-grounds. (W.H. Elliott, H. R. No.
3883, 50th Congress, p. 112.)

They are driven oft into the water. (Clark’s article on Antarctic seal fishery indus-
tries of the United States, section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p. 431.)

Young seals are prevented from landing on rookeries. (Ex. Doc. 83, 44th Congress,
Ist Session, p. 23; see also Elliott, H. R., 44th Congress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)

Yearling seals arrive about the middle of July, accompanied by a few of the mature
males, remaining a greater part of the time in water. (H.H. McIntyre, 41st Con-
gress, 2nd Session, H. R. No. 36, p. 14; also H. R. Ex. Doe. No. 43, 44th Congress, Ist
Session, p. 4.)

Mr. Samuel Falkner, Assistant Treasury Agent, writing from St. George Island, Ist
August, 1873, to Mr. Bryant, Treasury Agent for the Seal Islands, says:

**T notice on some of the rookeries the passage-ways formerly occupied by young
bachelors in hauling upon the back-ground are completely blocked up by females,
thus preventing the young seals from landing, and as the greater portion of this
island shore is composed of high cliffs, it renders it difficult for any great number
to effect a landing. There are also numerous old males constantly guarding the
shore-line, which makes it still more difficult for the young ones to work their way
on the back-ground.”

Then, again, it must be remembered that the non-breeding seals, consisting of all
the yearlings and all the males under 6 or 7 years of age, nearly equal in number the
breeding seals; and Mr. Elliott estimated, when there were 4,700,000 seals on the
islands, 1,500,000 of this number were non breeding seals. (Elliott, Appendix to
H. R. Ex. Doe. No. 83, 44th Congress, Ist Session, p. 79.)

On thick foggy days bachelor seals, numbering over a million, will often haul out
on different hauling-grounds, and on the recurrence of fine weather disappear into
the water. (Elliott, p. 144, H. R., 44th Congress, Ist Session, Ex. Doc. No. 83.)

The young bachelors do not remain on shore long at a time (p. 4, 44th Congress, Ist
Session, Ex. Doc. No. 43). They are so numerous, however, that thousands can be
seen upon the hanling-grounds, as all of them are never either on shore or in the
water at the same time (ibid., p.44). By the fact that the cows remain with their
pups and suckle them until all have left.

They do not go on the rookeries until 3 years of age. (H.R. Ex. Doce. No. 43, 44th
Congress, Ist Session, p. 4.)

They do not go far from shore until the young are reared. Peron says that both
parent elephant seals stay with the young, without feeding at all, until the young
are 6 or 7 weeks old, and that then the old ones conduct the young to the water.
(Clark’s article on Antarctic seals, p. 424.)

The young are suckled by the females for some time and then left to themselves
lying on the beach, where they seem to grow fat without further feeding. (‘The
Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States,” section 5, vol. ii, 1887, p. 424.)
For this reason, those that are pupped in June are off in the water in August.

660 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

So also on the African coast the seal remains until the young can take care of them-
selves. (Jbid., p. 416.)

The bulk of the seals are confined to the islands until ice surrounds them. (H.R.
Ex. Doe. No. 45, 44th Congress, Ist Session, p. 2.)

The seals never leave their places, seldom sleep, and never eat anything from May
to August, when they take to the water, but, it is believed, take no food until their
final departure in November. (H.H. McIntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Congress,
2nd Session, vol. v.) Mr. Elliott says ‘‘ Perhaps she feeds” (p. 180 of his Report on
Alaska). (1874, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Congress.)

The bulls while on the island prevent the mothers taking to the water. (‘‘Marine
Mamunals,” by Captain Shannon, United States Revenue Marine, 1874, p. 152.)

From the 10th to the 25th July the rookeries are fuller than at any other time during
the season, as the pups have all been born, and all the bulls, cows, and pups remain
within their limits. (H.R. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Congress, Ist Session, p. 3.)

It has been shown that when in the rookeries mothers were destroyed, the young
were found dead, &c., but Professor Elliott, in reference to the Pribylov Islands,
says:

y With the exception of those animals which have received weunds in combat, no

sick or dying seals are seen upon the islands.
71 “Out of the great numbers—thousands upon thousands—of seals that must
die every year irom old age alone, not one have I ever seen here. They evi-
dently give up their lives at sea.” (His Report on Alaska, 1874, H. R. Ex. Doc.
No. 83, 44th Congress, p. 150.)

APPENDIX (B).

Extract from Letter from Captain Solomon Jacobs, from on board the Schooner ‘‘ Mollie
Adams,” Port Townsend, Washington, May 6, 1889.

Relations with As I intend to sail to-day on a voyage north for fishing and sealing,
Canada, p-314- J shall not be able to see you regarding the fisheries of the North
Pacific Ocean, Behring’s Sea, and Alaskan waters, but will refer you
to James G. Swan, Esq., of Port Townsend, who has given more atten-
tion to obtaining information about these fisheries, both for his own
satisfaction and for the United States Fish Commission, with whom
he has corresponded, and acted ever since it was first formed, than
any man I have seen on the Pacific coast, and you can rely entirely
upon the information he may give you.
I will also refer you to Mr. Joshua Brown, of Salem, Massachusetts,
owner of schooner ‘‘ Henry Dennis,” who is now here; also to Captain
Lavender, of schooner ‘‘Henry Dennis,” who can give information
regarding the fur-seals at Cape Horn, as he has recently arrived from

there.
* * * * *®

James G. Swan.

Thid., p. 265. Behring’s Sea must be declared free and open to all our citizens
except the adjacent waters to the Pribylov Islands, which should not
exceed in limit the distance from the shores of those islands of 1
marine league, inside of which limit the seals should be preserved
during the months of breeding, as belonging to the rookeries owned
by the United States, but outside of that limit the waters should be
free to all of our citizens.

* * * * »

Extract from Report of Board of Trade of Port Townsend.

Ibid. We do not believe that the lease of the ‘‘ Pribylov Islands and adja-
cent waters” ever was meant or intended to mean the whole waters of
Behring’s Sea, but that the limit of 1 marine league from the shore is
the recognized limit, outside of which the waters are known to the
civilized world as the high seas, where our citizens should be encour-
aged to pursue their avocations of fishing and hunting.

It isshown by the Reports of Government officials in the publications
of the Tenth Census, that the destruction of fish life by seals, sea-lions,
and other animals whose sole food is fish, is very largely in excess of
the amount of fish taken by the whole of the fisheries of the United
States, and to protect these ravenous animals is to cause the destruc-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

tion of enormous quanties of nutritious food which should be utilized
as a means of supporting the lives of the millions of people in these
United States.

The Chamber of Commerce consider that the order of the Govern-
ment by Act of Congress closing the Behring’s Sea is an Act not for
the benefit of the people to secure them a cheap article of food, but
is for the sole benefit of a simple monopoly, to enable them to supply
articles of luxury for the fashionable clothing of the rich.

We believe this Act of Congress to be a species of class legislation
for the benefit of the wealthy few, and as such is opposed to the prin-
ciples of sound public policy, and we protest against its further

continuance.
* * * * *

James G. Swan.

In reply to a communication received by me from the Committee on
Relations with Canada, under date of the 4th April, 1889, inviting
information from me on the general subject of their investigations,
and especially to the fisheries of the Pacific coast, I have the honour
to submit the following:

On the 26th November, 1879, Professor Spencer F. Baird wrote me
from Washington: ‘‘I should be very glad to have you undertake
the work of collecting the fishery statistics for Puget Sound. Your
Report may be as you choose to make it, particular attention being
paid of course to the statistics of capture and yield. . . . Of
course, I should wish you to take up the local seal fisheries as well as
the others.” Acting upon this invitation, I prepared and forwarded
to Professor Baird a Report on the fur-seal fishery off the entrance to
the Strait of Fuca and west coast of Washington Territory, which
was sent from Neah Bay to him by mail on the 20th July, 1880; also
a paper on the food fishes of Capé Flattery, Washington Territory,
September 1880, and an exhaustive monograph of the halibut fishery
of Cape Flattery and Puget Sound, under date of the 20th October,
1880.

On the 16th November, 1880, I received at Neah Bay a letter from
Professor G. Brown Goode, dated Washington, 29th October, 1880, in
which he says: ‘* Your Report on fur seal fishery is at hand, and is of
great importance to us. I am very much surprised at the extent of
the business in your district.” This Report was attacked in a most
virulent manner by Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who, like myseli, had been

employed by the Smithsonian Institution to make investigations
72 on the habits of the fur-seals. Mr. Elliott, in his Report on the

seals of the Pribylov Islands, says the pups of the fur-seal cannot
swim, but will sink like a stone if thrown into the water. I showed
that the pups of the fur-seal at Cape Flattery do swim as soon as born,
and adduced proof to show that in this respect the seals of Cape Flat-
tery differ from those of Behring’s Sea. This statement of mine was
in direct opposition to the statements of Mr. Elliott, and constantly
reiterated by the Alaska Commercial Company for the past twenty
years, that all the seals of the North Pacific go to Behring’s Sea, and
congregate principally on the Pribylov Islands. The remarks of Mr.
Elliott, which can be found in ‘‘A Monograph of the Seal Islands of
Alaska,” a special Bulletin No. 176 of the United States Fish Commis-
sion, 1882, p. 166, were so personally offensive to me that I remon-
strated with Professor Baird for allowing the objectionable paragraph
to be published, and by his request I prepared another paper on the
fur-seal, which was published in the Bulletin of the United States
Fish Commission, 1885, vol. iii, pp. 201 to 207, in which I proved by
various witnesses, Government officers, masters of sealing-vessels,
white traders, and Indians that I was correct in my assertions con-
tained in my Report of 1880 above referred to.

These Reports of mine, although published by the Government,
seem for some reason to be systematically kept out of sight whenever
information regarding seals and the fur-seal fishery is desired by
Members of Congress.

The arguments and assertions of the Alaska Commercial Company
that the fur-seals all go to the Pribyloyv Islands, and would be exter-
minated if that Company did not have the care and protection of
them, would easily be disproved if both sides of the argument could
be heard and the real facts made known.

661

Ibid, p. 268.

662

Relations with
Canada, p. 269.

Ibid

Thbid.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I wish to make no charge against the Alaska Commercial Company.
They are a commercial organization, and they follow out their true
instincts to make all they can out of their very profitable lease.
They are only repeating the policy of the Hudson’s Bay Company,
which for more than 100 years deceived the British Parliament by the
same arguments now used by the Alaska Commercial Company, until
when, in 1858, they applied to Parliament for a renewal of their Char-
ter. those wise and far-seeing statesmen, Roebuck, Gladstone, Lord
Bury, and Sir E. B. Lytton, exposed the shallow sophistry of the
pretensions of that Company and a renewal of their Charter was
denied them.

Although my Report on the fur-seals of Cape flattery in 1880 was
published by the Government in the Fisheries Exhibit of the Tenth
Census, and sneeringly criticised by Elliott, as alluded to, I have been
unable to procure asingle copy, although I have made diligent search
in Pee the volumes of the Tenth Census. Report.

In like manner has Congress and the country been systematically
kept in darkness regarding the fur-seal fisheries in Bebring’s Sea, for
those who have had the information to impart have had an interest
directly opposed to imparting it.

¥ *

It is constantly asserted in Washington that the indiscriminate
slaughter of seals will exterminate them, and cases are cited of the
Islands of Massafuero, Lobos, and others'on the Pacific coast, where
the slaughter by crews of vessels from New London, Connecticut, and
other New England ports has entirely exterminated the fur-seals at
those islands and at Cape Horn. I assume that fur-seals can no more
be exterminated than herring or codfish. They may be driven off
from a rookery, but they are not exterminated; and, in proof of my
assertion, I respectfully ask permission to file the sworn statements
of Richard Dupuis relative to the fur-seals of Cape Horn, and of
Edward Thomas Biggs relative to the fur-seals of the Falkland
Islands, which I have respectively marked ‘‘ Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.”
The statements show that the fur-seals have not been exterminated at
those places, but are taken in considerable numbers every season,
and, although at one time were almost driven entirely away, are now
returning to their former haunts.

* * * *

x * *

APPENDIX (C).

Recapitulation (1889).

Vessels. Coast Catch,| Bebring’s | Total.

12, 463
2,318
240

15, 497
3, 403
1, 461

27, 960
5, 721
1, 701

35, 382

20, 361

15, 021

Total v ae at 7

dollars per skin, 247,674 dollars.

CO ee ae

a ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

E63

73 Catch of Canadian Sealing Fleet, 1890.
+ Spring 5 F Behring’s
Name. Gath Sand Point. Saar Total.
WiGiay OS ssa 35eeeespooedeossodossaee de bescoe= 104 302 592 998
Henfinder (Pioneer) paises care geen cones se eee 235 716 984 1, 935
Wititbesseobeceddéadescuaper Gab 56ea68 (SSeS bOCoaEeHee 262 436 2,015 2) 713
PINRO En eee ata it a stan eateieieis aye se oicl= mere ate 182 1,018 473 1, 673
NAVIN Senne ceeces jase s coacines sone cisiceeies 368 878 918 2, 164
Nap pinire semen mere stra: S21) 2k Soe ase eae 119 1,378 745 2, 242
merle peneeeer et ce seeiece ne cee ee fale coc ec caeeicielaws ors Seeeone 571 796 1, 367
LOG 2 SSA 50S BO CBS CORE BeInO CO r GSR BCnO aor be crea aecrc 156 511 250 897
MU MOLEUGH mite et atitts.a tice a cic Cres tai SE wate 356 981 1,116 2,453
Aurora ... 165 OUT seers oo sees 962
RO UEICG Bata srictelsls Soo thas sice oe aa asacise aaena's 220 710 854 1, 784
Katherine 380 365 945 1, 670
DM rete eee oles Sec Ses eee cmc ae) ae = Seas Oil nia cisterna 500 622
OnClOPe S222 5 scae Ssiosd seas soee ee eee Soe Se eee 148 578 445 1,171
W.P.Sa wand oes ase eee isms aera 154 339 459 952
aoe Meas occa ae Samias see) ssi see Sassen o| actemcescs-s 1, 200 752 1, 952
PLATING sh i< oSaiciaioe ae aie Bisicitte tas ayciseeels e S 2aESle one -97 311 770 1, 178
PAG ONTO ORG een aise eCiea= Sine Se oe soislomiem ee 2 90 703 630 1, 423
EPNGLON AE ae Nemec eas ane tesa sees eons = ones cree 175 569 450 1,194
PAWIG ey eRe eer came he ancc Steisals sso eels 220 349 1,137 1, 706
MTT eee ore sess sas) ae eiee Sk See ese ee wien aioe 300 764 1, 467 2, 531
Sea Lion 254 817 774 1, 845
VA ElhiGi el by Nae Ease ae eae ses ances See 122 562 633 1,317
OgenneBelleee sense amen coset obscene ste sraee cite siewieeinecincees 946 480 1, 426
Wienderersa 2 neh ease ccoe sneak ones Meckee Sheeee ates SOU eee eeesetneel canines mae 82
PMENIUUT OG iehee oo ciiee eae ola fb ostarisie ccm octets ersfeieee = Ce GERaac osc sl ae oennOee nen 94
Miamypi len erases ataae > scociar econ see eeeieas= 115 SiS? Sidon ahaeiss 1, 066
Moun Taine Chieh see bees neces aac Alisa (qt) | GARR egese se Renee eosoneS 60
EAU A Rae oe See aie ach wiciae saci ovis avn es isis cls 10» beceeae eeter ees Soe siete 70
4, 650 16, 732 18, 165 39, 547
* Indian owners.
Foreign Vessels whose Catch was sold in Victoria.
Names. Coast Catch. Belping’s Total.
American—
INGO Is ID RES eg sacrse toapeae coeat denn SeeoaoU ae EOOsSbe CE neHGeReeSseS 74
Shin JOG) acesboSs6o-cac be aa deds personas sesducueSasooec sells Scoc5oeraned 579 579
(Cres) Ae ilibhiies han odaceboncbansoe ce onean ua eAaen Se Eee | Seeesarcis' sia ciats 400 400
Henry Dennis. --....-=- Japa iehata yal ara isia ci ators ie etal ne erate tarars Aictepsteva ie ais ais a erases 1,500 1, 500
Venture ...... BRS ORAgaOr Ce nasboras a SC oORda a OOa Coen DSSS MEeroaaperaas 564 564
74 | 3, 043 S107
German— Pay | i
PN GIG ciate crete Scfotaratsicvaleraa ols ata rors aia ath orsisiarosisix w,ccieieterciee aracyene ore 220 431 651
GRAND TOTAL
Spring odtel ee ee ee ea ee Ea ee Oe a Tae Pere neh clei ata a teiaine neice Teste sey atlas 4,944
SAN CPE OI bse eee see Sere aejae cine seamen Sao Sere moeeme sac etionesmecetegecceee Apadoacesecsenoseuces 16,732
IS GMINA IOs eee oe recta aoc ce ame cise aaa cine otatomie leisine wtataalsceareneccije/see Suis sais sae ieee 21,639
FDO Gal Eyam tare teeters eetee sere referee estas ies ie eta let cers Sea ermine ore aleeieisnia nici) ea si aralnainisiateiaiciiemleatars 43,315
Skins Per skin. Value.
Sidhe teeta ie a ee 7 PE 4, 944 $10 $49, 440°
Cosstion sand bointi cateh:ceceseeesn eee eet os occ we ccuhe dees 16, 732 11 184, 052
TENA SCH CALC Hae eee eats oe enact e inne cannes ceeicane 21, 639 12 259, 668
APO O | scicis nim cle mcistes 498, 160
Skins. Value.
Total catch of fleet OTE SOU ee Ne ee as see Sao je inc clos daacidbseimnee 48, 315 $493, 160
PS BO Me mercer oP o else he antec s tise Disa G creciee so ecm nel 35, 310 | 247, 170
Balance in favour of 1890.........-...--..- 8, 005 | 2

i | 245, 890

664

74

1890.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Value of Canadian Sealing Vessels, with Outfit, also showing Tonnage, Crews carried, and
value of Boats and Canoes separately. :

Value
of Num- | Value | Num- | Value | Num
Name. Owners. Tons. | vessel, | ber of of ber of of ber of
with | boats. | boats. | canoes.| canoes.| men
outfit.

CoH tupper.--.----- Walker and Co. ..... 99 | $13, 000 7 POON ewcwisie| ce mene ae 23
Waly cates ciiseaectnas Carne and Munsie.. 92 | 12, 000 6 C00 FE Se Sitters ae ae 23
TUR emagcanetaeeosade Wie barnseeeseee eer 69 | 8,500 1 100 8 $400 25
FAM IelE Bcce eee tenis S. W. Buckinan .-..- 90 | 9,000 il 100 11 500 28
Ga tOMe ewido «<0 te = S! Collins: s-2 eee eee 50 | 7,000 5 BOOM Re ees see 18
Mary Taylor!--.-.-.. Carne and Munsie.. 42 | 8,000 1 100 10 500 23
Annie C. Moore...--- Hachett and Co .--. 113 | 15,000 7 (OOM eo ee Res ee mee 22
Walter L. Rich...--- Cameron and Mouro- 79 | 7,000 6 6000-3 Ss Elst ceees 20
JUS epee ee eae aes Ratzand' Cor =.= 50 | 5,000 6 (thal Been etal 18
LOB eed Ab eel as oe Marvin and Co...... 117 | 12, 000 7 OOF | aro sees | eee 26
ate cicas he eae ee G@aSprin eye sss-- eae 58 4, 000 5 500 ial 500 27
Pioneer (Pathfinder)-.| Carne and Munsie.- - 66 | 10,000 5 BO Oh |ee tat | Sees 20
THA OLUGG |< eoicis cise a CASPrN ps ee se boee G4) 98,000) |e aect celeememeee 13 500 32
Ocean Belle...--.-... R. Hall andi Co------ 83 | 10, 000 tf ROO Sesser eee ae 23
Mheresacc. see Babington and Co. . 63 | 10, 000 7 ROO: Fi ece | eee 23
Sapphires-sos-c-e-cer Marvin and Co.....- 124 | 14, 000 1 100 18 900 42
Amm phi a-sceeeee DRG O eee 98 | 14, 000 7 HOO: | assets ose 23
Maggie Mac .......-. Modsand' Coss ses--2- 70 | 10, 000 6 W200 asieio: alee oes 20
DUAN Ase asses eee din ikGinitiinetesscdoaoc 49 | 6,000 1 100 9 450 22
W.. P. Sayward.::...- Lang and Moss..... 59 | 8, 000 1 100 8 400 22
Katherine <-2--2222-0 UP Am benno yeee serine 8L | 5,500 1 100 10 500 23
IBEALTIGE aos se eee WriGranticc.ecceee: 66 NAOUO See reere a eee earee 12 600 29
Mary-Hilen--s-s- ree WESIMIOSS! 22 22) «crete Wd | aneo0) 7 100) (2 2 nae | ee eee 23
Penelope. - =e. 82 oes Ditlomteeeeece scene 69 | 10, 000 5 O00! |Roeeeeee| sees 22
MinniC hss sseceea eee Veciaicobsenes see 46 | 8,000 1 100 8 400 21
PATOL seas caeace ee Oe eATON se ee epee ae 41 8, 000 1 100 10 500 24
p\WidnGerer sceeeeeeee H. Paxton and Co... 32 | 5,000 il 100 8 400 29
WMenture<-)2026. sane D. Urquhardt.....-. 48 | 5,000 4 PATO tea seaea | eis a! Ss 15
Mountain Chief*....| J. Hawassund ...... 23:3| F15000"/2 ev enee |S. eee 4 160 10
fe titiasoee case eeree Py @Quachannd =se-- DBO seal 00) een |e 5 200 12

Totals’ ss Mekal Peas secenes Osos sees 2,042 248, 250 107 | 10, 825 145 | 6,910 678

* Indian schooners.

The following named Schooners carried part Indian Crews (1890).

Names.

Number of
Indians.

Favorite
Mary Taylor

PATIOL Nae Cee ciate cae eee Oat nearer eemtnaee

Sapphire

ee ee i i i i ee er

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

665

75 List of Vessels and Catch of Victoria Sealing Fleet for 1889.
| . ’
Vessels. | Coast Catch. sere = Total.
|
British—
IDR thtind Ole sate ate eae aie eG aciem oeinc saweceee ces we seemintas 942 48 990
PRRETIOS Meet eee oaiae ie eels cinciinaine octet ele ac oxo sicinisiseisteisiniosaee 482 828 1,310
VARIED ease See SSE soe a en IRE CS 1, 481 2, 882 3, 643
FAMICOM OOLGne aa masai nese lasiacion co le Se etice sie cine seme 802 1,318 2,120
PONGlOD Arete oe oe oa era oes aan Aesae mae saeco eneensils 384 1, 796 2, 180
Nap phine re ce oe eam scise ce ccc ceisicleis © seis eaicin herein segeremcte 1, 364 1, 626 2, 990
Orinda sae oo soit Are tee ae tet. Beh ec eee toes ee eh S164) Beers 816
SULLA NE eae Be ae oes hse es oe ee SSeS Sass. aa ee See 135 29 164
IW ford tik (Dae Bepeeseee a eee ono senaceppacres cocrac cee aae AGH Ban. Seceiseriee 747
IMGT TOM ac celeste aie lee tite ae ocae oie de men Slncmeenaeueben 200 500 700
Vian Merely): A-tssssen seeks eee SS aces eee See DB i ctw aretalsectee 178
VATE) AE ee SEIS EE ES ee = SORES... See eRe Oa eR eee 841 844 1, 685
BAD ye ost Sis se See ie eee as atatewin, Sieicisin inst sievawisalsig/- ls elnaie | 280 74 354
Black Diamond eee eee eee eee eee ens 629 Do 684
ECU ei cht ore Rete GOSS RI Ere id te DETERS Ter Sa Seals Sai pean aes 624 800 1, 424
aVOTIORe ore eee nee sees eae Sees ts ee be 340 1, 764 2, 104
MOn MAG NiO hese mses = pein cisicieceinisiscioc aici tcee Sane Pal |Seeedombeaace 210
SiG) -coucBBe ewe SESS eae eS aaa a See ea eeras =e See eee SO bse oc eesosse- 80
WEES Wal Gere men marae eae e en ahaa acetcem eccrine 557 1, 643 2, 200
Warmnitnedine ye: Se See se oi SPARE ee ea et ee QD iecctete sesso’ 22
POMC Ows ence arses ae conte aati cnie Mae che Samcicise hie Dome aes 500 700 1, 200
INIA WIRY sae oc asc sodaore BE Oet BBE pBC Ene BoEE nO REC ECOnA sae Ti7 1, 290 2, 067
TTD nemncoisocinqsacnooaaue GEaneenoenesaGsopddssue CABAL | UP) lonceecscedese 72
12, 463 15, 497 27, 960
American—
AVVO TRL OM ers «.<(rararcic' sc sjaisis o.cre lai ts inl paieleca.c ciasniviclcielerepeeieeiciac se 1, 419
SADEDIOT Oc eee ee ot tice ck Sana aera sis law Chin aoaie osiosema ees s 69
MEDAN CONKITG WASH Phas oe cae eat re eisote lacerations 242
DVIGINUUT ES ott it yclainic So wicic Mntniclo ae Dcraieo eam eneiemss Se oo ajsiclnce 317
PANT COM ANC OP: <2. clic. ccis a2 ceisieninemie ste cltens tice else teene es 253
Henny D ennis2 speck sss acm Sess sees sssceee se cneece 718
TL) Ne i a Raa Aaa ee Se a oe ee ee y 625
MMolligvAdamBhare ass totes e eta cee ke tA cine dee dele ice al seat a sae 1, 553 1, 553
IBOSSIOPE ule eee aan et Nae ee Se eee Ae na Re Se ee eee ee ek 525 525
2,318 3, 403 5; 721
iGreen eerste letersi he eae toc lao ticle a ne Se mine ate iwla ele cleiwia cles aie eieterslaldinra ae 240 1, 461 1, 701

Q. That is the pointin my question.

APPENDIX (D).

Mr. James G. Swan’s Evidence.

Yousay thatitis nottrue that Relations with

for every seal taken by fishermen several are killed?—A. I do not Canada, p. 281.
believe it; I have no evidence of it.

Q. Do you not think a great many more are killed than they get the
skins of ?—A. No, I do not; I think they say so, and I know the
Alaska Commercial Company will try to have you believe so, but all
the evidence I have from the sealers is directly to the contrary.

*

Q. How are those seals taken at Cape Flattery?—A. Most of them

* * *

APPENDIX (FE).

Mr. James G. Swan’s Evidence.

are taken by the Indians, but of late years they have been shooting
them a good deal, and, as a consequence, seals have been very shy, so
that when they see a boat or canoe coming, they will get out of the

way.

They are very intelligent animals.

Q. When they are shot, are they always brought ashore?—A. Yes,

Sir.
*

* * *

Ibid., p. 285.

666 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

APPENDIX (F).
Mr. James G. Swan's Evidence.

Ibid., p. 286, They are never taken in motion.
* * * * *

16 APPENDIX (G).
Captain Joshua Brown’s Evidence.

Xelations with Let the Government place proper people on those islands, and estab-
Canada, p. 346. Jish open and close months, then say that no sealers should go within
3 leagues of these islands, for the females that nurse their young never
go farther away {from the islands than that; there is an abundance of
fish there for them to eat. The females go back to the islands two or
three times every day to nurse their young. But let no fishermen go
in there, and let there be close months, and let them have a fair and
equal chance, and then I do not think they will ever exterminate
those seals, because they reproduce themselves every year properly
protected.

Foreign Office to Sir C. Lampson and Co.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 2, 1891.
GENTLEMEN: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowl-
edge the receipt of your letter the 50th ultimo on the subject of the
3ehring’s Sea seal fishery and the trade in seal-skins with the United
States.
lam, We.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received January 3.)
{[Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, January 2, 1891.

Tam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before
the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a letter from the High Commis-
sioner for Canada, and of a despatch from the Governor-General of
Canada, on the subject of certain statements in Sir J. Pauncefote’s
despatch of the 24th July respecting the progress of the Behring’s Sea
negotiations.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 24.J
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Housk, Ottawa, November 22, 1890.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 4th October last,
inclosing copy of a despatch from Sir Julian Pauncefote to the Foreign Office on the
subject of the Behring’s Sea seal fisheries, I have the honour to forward, for your

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 667

Lordship’s information, a copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, embody-
ing the comments of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the views expressed
in Sir Julian’s despatch.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 24.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 19th November, 1890.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a Colonial
Office despatch dated the 4th October, 1890, transmitting a despatch to the Foreign
Office from the British Minister at Washington, Sir Julian Pauncefote, on the subject
of the Behring’s Sea fisheries question.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosure were
referred, states that he has read with interest and satisfaction Sir Julian Paunce-
fote’s clear statement on the course of the Behring’s Sea negotiations, and of the
present situation of the controversy.

The Minister, while recommending that these despatches be filed for future
77 reference, deems it advisable to call your Excellency’s attention to the follow-
ing remarks in Sir Julian Pauncefote’s despatch, viz. :

“The result of the careful consideration which I gave to the evidence on both
sides was to satisfy my own mind that while measures are called for to protect female
seals with young from slaughter during well-known periods of their migration to
and from the breeding islands, and also to prohibit the approach of sealing-vessels
within a certain distance of those islands, the inquiry had failed to establish the
contention of the United States Government that the absolute prohibition of pelagic
sealing is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species.”

The Minister further states that if Sir Julian Pauncefote means by this that it is
necessary to restrict the hunting and killing of seals at all times when found out-
side of the islands or breeding resorts of the Behring’s Sea, and the territorial
waters surrounding them, or to prohibit the killing of seals found beyond the ordi-
nary 3-mile limit in Behring’s Sea, he (the Minister) desires to say that, having given
considerable attention to the various arguments adduced in support of the conten-
tions that measures are required to protect female seals, and that the approach of
sealing-vessels within certain limits of the sealing islands should be prohibited, he
has failed to observe any satisfactory evidence from which it could be established
that regulations are necessary to protect the female seals with young within the
Behring’s Sea before they reach the breeding islands. While there appears to be no
good reason for doubting that considerable destruction by sealers of different nations
takes place during the months of January, February, March, and April, along the
coasts of the United States and British Columbia, before the seals begin what may
be termed the direct journey to the breeding rookeries, the best authorities known
to the Minister of Marine and [Fisheries go to show that female seals with young
proceed with extraordinary rapidity on entering Behring’s Sea direct to the breed-
ing rookeries, and that during such time it is impossible for the hunters to secure
them by shot or spear, neither can he accept the opinion that it is necessary to
restrict pelagic sealing beyond the distance of the 3-mile limit.

The Minister, however, while holding strong views upon these points, does not
pretend that a full and thorough investigation on the subject by those especially
qualified to make such an examination would not support the impression apparently
entertained by Sir Julian Pauncefote touching these phases of the question.

The Minister, while differing from Sir Julian Pauncefote on the foregoing points,
cordially concurs in the concluding paragraph of Sir Julian’s despatch, wherein he
states:

“That if the United States Government persist in their endeavour to exclude
British subjects from any participation in the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, on
the plea that such exclusion is necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species,
they assume a position which will not bear the test of an impartial inquiry.”

The Committee, concurring in the above Report, recommend that a copy of this Min-
ute be forwarded to the Right Honourable Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State
for the Colonies, for submission to Her Majesty’s Government, and also that a copy
be forwarded to the High Commissioner for Canada in London, for his information.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) Joun J. McGEF,
Clerk, Privy Council.

668 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 25.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received January 8.)

DOWNING STREET, January 8, 1891.

Srr: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis
of Salisbury, a vopy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
forwarding a further Minute of the Privy Council, submitting a letter
from the Collector of Customs at British Columbia as to the catch of
seals in Behring’s Sea during the season of 1890.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

78 [Inclosure 1 in No. 25.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HouskE, Ottawa, December 12, 1890.
My Lonrp: With further reference to the subject of my despatch of the 28th ultimo
in regard to the catch of seals in the Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to inclose a copy
of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, submitting a letter from the Collector
of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, containing supplementary information as
to the season’s catch of seals by British Columbian vessels.
Thave, &e.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 25.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governer-General in Council on the 5th December, 1890.

On a report, dated the 1st December, 1890, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, Submitting, with reference to the Minute of Council of the 15th November,
1890, respecting this season’s catch of seals by vessels sailing from British Columbia,
in supplement thereto a letter received from the Collector of Customs of the Port of
Victoria, British Columbia, under date the 11th November, 1890, and which is annexed:

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Minute to the Prin-
cipal Secretary of State for the Colonies for submission to her Majesty's Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 25.]
Mr. Milne to Mr. Tupper.

VicToria, BRITISH COLUMBIA, November 11, 1890.

Sir: I have the honour, in further reference to your telegrams of the 15th and 16th
ultimo, to say that since my letter of the 30th ultimo I have had interviews with
those masters of schooners that remained the latest in the Behring’s Sea, and who
were most fortunate in getting a large catch. Amongst the masters, W. E. Baker,
master of the schooner ‘ Viva,” whose catch was 2,015 in Behring’s Sea, and also
V. J. Jacobsen, master of the schooner ‘‘ Minnie.” These men being intelligent and
careful mariners, on being questioned by me.separately declared that they have never
seen the seals more plentiful than just before they left Behring’s Sea; Jacobsen say-
ing that with his Indian crew, the few days before leaving the sealing-grounds, the
Indians would bring 250 to 275 on board daily, but that the weather was very boister-
ous, foggy, and bad, interfering very much with their operations.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 669

And I can now safely repeat what I have already said and written, that owners
and masters do not entertain the slightest idea that the seals are at all scarcer, and
all interested in the sealing industry are of the opinion that the howlings of the
American press about the scarcity of seals caused by the ‘‘seal poachers” (as they
term our vessels) is simply manufactured by the paid agent of the new Company,
“The North American Trading Company,” both here and in San Francisco, no doubt
to gain some advantage for themselves. It is a fact well known to our sealers that
during this year the only vessel that attempted to raid any islands was the American
schooner ‘‘Geo. R. White,” on Copper Island, and last year two American schooners
raided, but without much success. That our schooners have been most careful I can
safely assert, {rom my acquaintance and knowledge of the character of masters and
owners, that no attempt would be made by any of them to commit any breach of
law or international regulations.

Various reports have been telegraphed from here and San Francisco regarding the
reported sailing of our schooners on a second cruize to Behring’s Sea, as reported for
the express purpose of raiding the seal islands of St. Paul and St.George. 1 inclose

you a cutting from one of our newspapers that gives the story.
79 On the 20th September the Canadian schooner ‘‘ Triumph” cleared from this

port for a second cruize in the North Pacific and Behring’s Sea. The same
vessel was the first to return from Behring’s Sea, owing to lack of success caused by
boisterous weather, and the owners thought best, rather than have her laid up to
January, the time for spring outfit, to make reasonable terms with the crew, and
send her out for a second voyage, as it was considered that the seals might move to
the westward and be later. At this time it was known that the seals were found to
the north and eastward of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George.

On the sailing of this schooner, which was done in open day, without any attempt
at concealment, telegrams were flying all over the continent that a fleet of British
poaching schooners had cleared for Behring’s Sea, to raid the Pribyloy Seal Islands.
A few days after a small German schooner, named the ‘‘ Adéle,” cieared from here
to Yokohama, Japan. She was also reported as having gone to raid the Seal Islands.

This having been reported to San Francisco, lam creditably informed that H.
Liebes (of H. Liebes and Co., the Resident of the North American Trading Com-
pany, the lessees of the Seal Islands), telegraphed to the United States Consul here,
and who seems to have been controlled by others, and he made representations to
his Government, which I understand he has since denied, but which, I think, there
was no doubt, as Lieutenant Wooley, of the United States eutter ‘‘ Wolcott” came
over to obtain further information from the Consul, and he also called at the Custom-
house, and when he left me he was, I think, satistied that the whole matter had been
misrepresented to his Government.

You will see by the inclosed newspaper cutting a copy of the order given to the
revenue-cutter by the Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, O. S. Spaulding:

“Didn't eatch them.

“The United States Government spends a lot of money foolishly.

“The steamer ‘ Bertha’ lay at anchor in Port Townsend Bay all day Sunday. She
was not attached to a British sealer either, as some thought she would be, when she
came back to Puget Sound. She arrived early in the morning from Aiaska, where
she went three weeks ago in charge of Captain Russel Glover, of the revenue-cutter
‘Wolcott, and Lieutenant Benhem, of the Revenue Marine Service, stationed at
San Francisco. Captain Glover was seen by a reporter, and he stated that he went
only as far as Ounalaska on his cruize. There he found the cutter ‘Bear’ in charge
of Captain Healy, and delivered to that officer all orders in his possession.

“Tt will be remenibered that quite a ripple of excitement was caused some weeks
ago by the report that the United States cutter ‘Wolcott’ had been ordered to
Behring’s Sea, and that the steamer ‘Bertha’ went in her place. The following
orders were the ones sent on to Captain Glover:

‘WASHINGTON, D. C., September 22, 1890.

**Captain Russel Glover, Revenue cutter ‘Oliver Wolcott,” Port Townsend, Wash-
ington:

«The schooners “ Triumph,” ‘‘Adéle,” ‘Mary Ellen,” ‘‘ Pathfinder,” and proba-
bly others, are reported to have left Victoria for the Seal Islands within the past
three days, for the purpose of raiding them. You are hereby instructed to promptly
proceed to cruize about the islands as long as the weather will permit, and spare no
effort to protect the rookeries.

““*You are not instructed to warn raiding vessels off, but are instructed to dis-
cover them in the act. If tuey are taking seals on land at the islands, seize and
bring them to Sitka, In brief, get them with evidence to convict,

670 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

“Give a copy of these instructions to the ‘‘ Rush,” or “ Bear,” who are hereby
instructed to be governed by them.

*««Tti may be well for you to obtain additional information concerning the raiding
of vessels from United States Consul at Victoria, if you can do so without delaying
your departure.

(Signed) “¢O. 8S. SPAULDING,
«<< tssistant Secretary, Treasurer,’

“The ‘Bertha’ took the place of the ‘Wolcott’ on account of the latter’s unsea-
worthiness, and supplies and men were transferred to the ‘Bertha,’ the Gov-
80 ernment paying 200 dollars per day for her, and the steamer started north.
After meeting the ‘Bear’ at Ounalaska, the ‘Bertha’ was Jaid up for a few
d: for some slight repairs, and while transferring coal and supplies taken up for
the Dading Compa uny. She also picked up thirteen seamen belonging to the wrecked
whaling-schooner ‘Thomas Pope.’ These will be taken to Seattle by the ‘ Bertha,’
which is now lying in Port Townsend Harbour.

“The cutter ‘ Bear’ proceeded at once to Behring’s Sea, in charge of Captain Healy,
to carry out the orders of Spaulding. From the last sentence of his official despateh
it is evident the original intormation was sent out from Victoria.

“Lieutenant Willey admits having gone to Victoria to see what could be found
out regarding the matter, and he was told the ‘Triumph’ and ‘Adéle’ had both
cleared. ‘The former was flying the British flag, and had cleared for Behring’s Sea.
The ‘Adéle’ was flying the German flag, and was on the way to Behring’s Sea.”

The only vessels of our sealing fleet that have cleared, up to this date, from this
port are as follows:

Canadian schooner ‘‘Triumph,” Cox, master, North Pacific and Behring’s Sea.

German schooner ‘‘Adéle,” Hansen, master, Yokohama, Japan.

Canadian schooner ‘‘ Mary Taylor,” Petit, master, South Pacific and Galapagos
Islands.

The ‘‘Triumph” clearing on the 20th September, the ‘“‘Adéle” on the 23rd Septem-
ber, and the ‘‘ Mary Taylor” on the 11th October last.

The master and owners of the ‘“‘ Triumph” assured me that the vessel will likely
circle out of Behring’s Sea towards the Kurile Islands, and endeavour to follow the
track of the seals, probably returning by way of Sandwich Islands. The German
schooner ‘‘Adele,” I am satisfied, went towards the Kurile Islands, on the Asiatic
side, and from thence, I believe, goes to Yokohama, Japan, where her owner resides.
I have endeavoured to make clear to you the movements of the only vessels of our
sealing fleet that have left our port (the rest all being laid up here until January),
as a refutation of the many absurd rumours that have appeared in the American
press as to the number of our vessels that had left on a second cruize, for the express
purpose of raiding the Seal Islands.

In my letter of the 30th ultimo I inclosed a statement of the number of seals caueht
by each of our vessels, as well as the number sold here by foreign vessels. I would
now most respectfully beg to point out to you the number of seals taken on our
coast, which I have designated as the Coast and Sand Point ecateh, which are both
coast catches. Before this year there were only two divisions made, that is, the early
spring and the Behring’s Sea catches, and consequently the seals taken from Van-
couver Island northward were taken into Behrinog’s Sea, and, on the vessel's return,
were credited as being taken there. This was manifestly wrong, as you will observe
by my statement that 16,732 seals were taken from Vancouver Island to Sand Point,
on the Shumagin Islands, and only 18,165 altogether in the sea.

The statement sent you is correct, being carefully compiled by myself, and whieh
will constitute the manner in which we will keep record of future operations, as ly
this year’s statement it is clearly proven that sealing is not altogether confined to
Behring’s Sea, and that we have in the North Pacific a considerable portion of this
industry.

The statement reads as follows:

Janadian vessels—

Spring coast: Cateh.: 22 Cit! /2 oS ee RA ee a ee pee eter Sao) eh a)
pandoRoint coasticatch=2: 2s 3. eens: oeeree eee seisere ena dee veec Beek 16, 732
21, 382

BehTine7s Seacn cee sts 5 pie Bas aw SCE EAE Eee coe en ee a eRe eee 18, 165
Difference in favour. of coast catch... ...i2---- <<< ee ee eee or ee Le

Referring to my letter of the 30th ultimo, I would beg to make some small correc-
tion as to the purchasers of sealskins this year at this port. I wonld now say: That
nearly the whole coast and Sand Point catches (that is, 4,870 and 16,732 this year)
were principally purchased by Morris Moss, the resident agent of the firm of H. Liebes
and Co., of San Francisco, California; the said H. Liebes being the President of the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 671

North American Trading Company, who are the present lessees of the Seal Islands
in Behring’s Sea. The portion of the Behring’s Sea catch purchased by the said
Morris Moss for the said H. Liebes and Co., of San Frane isco, as reported to me, were
as follows: ?

81 Canadian Vessels.

Schooners— Skins.
CRC O UUme nt: Merit a msteima ata Wale aikta Siew stortala leas asic says ett bits casi alee ese oO
CCG TENE Rep COMUUTT EAL TSN 2 ME A ee al es Oe PS 8) RE re eet ee 1, 116
CO INGISIIG! 4 Ae as eS ites er Se Sa pe ee ee RE eS er eres ee omen ea 431
CU ReaD) DENS IRB OP OAS BES SOE Se SOSEST ARO O Se ae eis cr tee Came oe es 445
SONY ISTE 1H ieee er eR er eae Seer A59
ET ACTS TG nee tah sae OR eee ee Re eT Ee eng BSC carly foe te A it Sy, MES 1, 137
COS Ca maT OU 5 oe an = ee ee ene ae RS Sees Cee nh me Sey 774

The other portion of the Behring’s Sea catch which was sold here was purchased
principally by M. J. Davis, agent of Joseph Uhlmann, New York, but a consider-
able portion of them was sent to London by the owners direct.

I would further beg to point out that the price of skins last year, 1889, was 7 dol-
lars, while this year the prices have ruled high, the early spring catch at 10 dollars,
the Sand Point catch 11 dollars, and the Behring’s Sea 12 dollars, and in some small
lots 13 dollars per skin, the agent of H. Liebes and Co. being active competitors,
but those who could afford to send their skins to London did better.

Value of Vessels.

I would beg further to call your atteation to the statement already sent you as to
the value of vessels and outtits, crews, boats, &e., engaged in the sealing business.
I have seen some adverse statements made as to the value of our se: vling vessels in

eastern papers, and, as usual, without any knowledge of the subject. T can assure
you that our sealing- vessels are a credit to our port, the greater part of them fine
schooners taken round from Nova Scoti: v, and others that have been built here.
They are all well found in every particular: their outfits, boats, guns, &c., are
excellent. They are all fleet and excellent sea vessels, remaining out at sea on the
Pacific during the fierce gales that prevail during the spring of ‘the year.

I have taken considerable care to ascertain the ‘value of new vessels built here at
present with the high price of labour, and I find that 100 dollars per registered ton
is as low asa good vessel can be built for in this province. Some have doubted this,
but experience has shown that in some cases it has cost 125 dollars, but at the present I
am assured that 100 dollars per registered tonis a fair figure, while in Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick the usual price is 50 dollars per registered ton, being double in this
proviuce to what itis east. So it is with the boats, which cost from 125 to 160 dol-
lars. They are made and adapted to the sealing business, and vessels will carry from
six to ten boats. The other portion of their outfit is likewise expensive, more
especially regarding the particular kind of guns and costly rifles that experience has
taught the hunter to be best adapted to ocean seaiing. ‘These guns cost 55 to 65 dol-
lars. each, and the rifles are also expensive, so that when these lar, ger vessels are ready
for sea ‘their outfits will be between 3,000 and 4,000 dollars, and “smaller ones I have
been informed, on best authority, are not less than 2,500 dollars. It must be borne in
mind that these schooners will carry a crew, including hunters, of twenty-three or
twenty-five men.

Five schooners will be added to our fleet from Nova Scotia this year. They have
already sailed vid Cape Horn, and also one schooner purchased in Yokohama, Japan.
They are all schooners from 70 to 110 tons register. I understand that each of the
schooners that has left Halifax brings a full crew of hunters. I have also seen it
stated that a number of American schooners were going to sail under our flag in seal-
ing. This is absolutely not true. There are no American schooners changing their
flag at present, and none contemplated. As a fact, the American schooners have not
been as successful as our own Canadian vessels, and fewer of them have visited our
port last year than formerly.

I have the honour to inclose you some further information as to the,Owners and
Masters Association. I send the newspaper cutting, whic . I believe, is correct, but
I am promised a full copy of the proceedings, w hich, if I receive in time, I will
inclose herewith.

The terms are:

Any hunter procuring 400 seals and upward..... eee cineie eysteiajeicie niars. a ste $2.50 per skin.
UU OUD eee cictes Beas a SOIC rae ane ee eee 2. 00 oe
if <e ZOCOR U0 peemre erase ta iy ah Spe I B() £

ee ce lesapihanes QO peers ase eicera ates iee ee ecient at OO ce

672 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

82 The owners have bound themselves, in the event of the hunters not accepting
this scale, to import new hunters from the east, and no schooner to engage, in
any case, more than three of the old hunters.

“Interesting to Sealers.

‘On Tuesday a meeting was held by the owners and masters interested in the seal-
ing industry of this port, the gathering having been called to deal with several mat-
ters of vital interest to all parties concerned. Captain Warren was asked to take
the Chair, Mr. Richard Hall, of Hall and Goepel, acting as Secretary. The outlook
for the next season was discussed at considerable length, as was the result of the past
one. It was the opinion of all that the price of skins this year was considerably
above the average, and that it was highly probable that a drop in prices would take
place next year. The reason for the increased prices for the past season’s catch was
held to be due to the fact that the bad weather had been against a big catch, and
that the shortage naturally made a livelier demand.

“The question of pay for hunters and boatmen then came up, and the adoption of
a scale per sealskin was discussed. It was admitted by the owners, many of whom
are practical men, that the business of seal-hunting was a dangerous and arduous
one, and one that should in all fairness be paid for in a liberal way, but, at the same
time, the great risks in the sealiag business, together with the uncertainty of the
markets, made the payment of an excessive rate entirely out of the question. It
was also shown that a good hunter, one who was able to get many seals, was a
cheaper man at better pay than was apoor one. An indifferent man occupied a boat
and kept two boatmen at work, while the result of his season’s work might not be
sufficient to pay interest on the capital invested. In view of these facts, the follow-
ing scale of wages was unanimously adopted:

1 Pay per

Catch. Skin
(WiprbovlOge Sse acces ance ee cee Selene aintatetsie eae eeciacesioetaie satHesc Maare Sonn eaTesoSrocsn se $1.00
BE eR eer ciel or O aa OnE en a HOt Soe Oe nono “sane eS cnO oR eaOnns|o BE RSME Ca ciao ASOD Mana se 1.50
OG) URE ad Secon eka Ses Gs IDR OG OCOOROeCS ADEE OU AOS EOS eDoDona sdadobostnScHe coc sosaons 2. 00
YO RON Ge se cose Antibes panedoe semeeeoa soe sasdao se coonss Sadaccocssecspaqe 2 scbode osSocetcDs 2.50
Grey pulps, @acheeemcesmceo = =-= ede le ia) siec(sislee ciae a iers otal wisn .o see ian eeiar ates sae isjaLeneeeeds 1. 00

“Tt will thus be seen that the hunter who captures less than 200 only gets 1 dollar
each, while the good shot and experienced man who gets 400 or over has 2 dol. 50 ¢.
each. This scale has been agreed to by all the owners.

‘* Boat pullers are to be paid 30 dollars per month, or 15 dollars per month and 25
cents per skin taken, This will be an incentive to the boatmen to work with the
hunter for a good catch.

“Another matter of importance came up, and that was the employment of old
hands. It was shown that there were not experienced hunters enough to man the
fleet, and it has been agreed upon by the owners to limit the number of old hands
in each vessel to three, the others to be made up of new men composed of porpoise
hunters from the east. This plan will give each of the owners an equal change for a
good crew. One exception only was made, and that in the case of a schooner which
is owned almost exclusively by the hunters. In this case the rule as to limit in the
number will not be enforced. The scale of wages will, however, be the same.”

Every year our sealers are becoming better acquainted with seal life, both in the
North Pacific Ocean and in Behring’s Sea, and I have endeavoured to find out from
the most intelligent many matters on which there have been conflicting opinions.
One of those, as to the number of females caught; and even persons in this province
have been ready to give extravagant opinions on this subject, as to the excessive
numbers of females taken. Now it is well known to our best and most intelligent
sealers that a considerable proportion of cow or female seals taken are barren, quite
barren, that is, they have not borne young for one or more seasons. This the hunt-
ers well know from the absence of any appearance of lacteal fluid in the animal: it
is now well known that the young seal will take to the water as soon as born, con-
trary to the, theory advanced by Elliot. On this and many other like matters I
endeavour to elicit all information that I think might be of service to the Govern-

ment at any future time.
83 Iam very happy to say that the owners and masters of our sealing fleet are
always ready and anxious to confer with me at any time in regard to any matter
appertaining to the sealing industry, and appear to be satisfied that the Government
are doing everything possible to bring about an honourable settlement of this impor-
tant question.
Ihave, &c, :
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customa,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 673

{Inclosure 4 in No. 25.]
Report of Proceedings.

We, the undersigned, members of the Victoria Ship-owners and Masters Sealing
Association, hereby agree and pledge ourselves to strictly adhere to the tariff of
prices agreed on at our meetings, and which said tariff is hereinaiter specified, and
we also bind ourselves on our word of honour not to violate this agreement by offer-
ing any bonus or inducements of any kind whatever, outside the letter of this
Agreement, and also we bind ourselves to assist each other in every possible manner
to carry out this Agreement and preserve the integrity of our Association. The fol-
lowing is the tariff of wages and lay to be allowed hunters, boat-pullers, and steerers
for the season 1891:

Hunters—
On catch of 199 skins or less®............---- Bae ee sci itierre -- $1.00 per skin,
gs 200=299 Seieinacr an omee Om prs oee See oie tis's See tel ot
fe SU si) eee ene anes FC SC SEE CRE 8 ei eee HY) sf
us AN Ojamdanp wand ssc sos cece sachs = om cio aie Seen 2.50 s¢

Excepting in every instance grey pup-skins, for which will be paid 1 dolar each.
The catch referring to the number of skins secured by each hunter in his respective
boat, and delivered to the captain or officer in charge of hisschooner. Any skin show-
ing grey marking under the fur about the shoulder is to be considered a grey pup-skin.

Boat-pullers and Steerers.

Wages only, not to exceed 30 dollars per month. Wages and lay, 15 dollars per
month, and 25 cents per skin. Lay only, 50 cents per skin (grey pups excepted) all
caught in their respective boats, and delivered to the captain or officer in charge of
the schooner. On each grey pup for lay only the price shall be 25 cents.

Second Officers.

Wages not to exceed 35 dollars per month. We also bind ourselves not to take more
than three experienced hunters in the sealing business on each vessel represented by
us, said hunters to be engaged at the scale or lay adopted by this Association, as
hereinbefore particularly described; and we also agree that all hunters required in
excess of the three hunters above mentioned for each vessel shall be new men at the
business of seal-hunting and shall be engaged at the same scale or lay hereinbetore
mentioned, and this clause shall apply to all vessels owned or controlled by the mem-
bers of this Association, whether clearing from the port of Victoria, or other ports
in Canada or the United States, or any port where any vessel owned or controlled by
any member of this Association may be fitting out for sealing on this coast. We also
bind ourselves that the scale for Indian hunters shall be as follows:

For the spring engagement, for each seal-skin (grey pups excepted, for which will
be paid the sum of 1 dollar [sic]), all to be delivered to the captain or officer in charge
of the schooner; and we further bind ourselves to offer no further bonus or induce-
ment whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in excess of the above prices for the spring
engagement.

On the Northern and Behring’s Sea catch we agree to pay not more than 3 dollars
for each seal-skin (grey pups included) delivered to the captain or officer in charge
of the schooner, and, if necessary, also not more than 10 dollars for each canoe pro-
cured, aud also a bonus of not more than 10 dollars to the Chief or Headman for
procuring such canoes; and we bind ourselves that the above shall be the only
moneys paid out in excess of the cost of the skins, viz., 3 dollars for the Northern
and Behring’s Sea engagement.

And, lastly, we agree not to advance or in any way exceed the scale or lay
84 of any hunters, should those in Victoria decline to accept the hereinbefore-
mentioned lay, but to procure hunters elsewhere.

In the faithful performance of the within Agreement, we hereby sign our names,
and the names of the schooners represented by us.

BS, PTV 43

674 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received January 16.)

WASHINGTON, January 6, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to ineclose herewith copies of the
President’s Message to the House of Representatives, transmitting a
letter from the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by the cor-
respondence which has taken place since the 23rd July, 1890, on the
Behring’s Sea question.

This correspondence consists of your Lordship’s despatch to myself
of the 2nd August last, and of Mr. Blaine’s note in reply of the 17th
December, copy of which I had the honour to transmit to your Lordship
in my despatch of the 19th ultimo.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 26.]}
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE.

Seal Fisheries of Behring’s Sea.

To the House of Representatives :

In further response to the Resolution of the House of Representatives, requesting
me, if in my judgment not incompatible with the public interest, to furnish to the
House the correspondence since the 4th March, 1889, between the Government of the
United States and the Government of Great Britain, touching the subjects in dispute
in the Behring’s Sea, I transmit herewith a letter from the Secretary of State, which
is accompanied by the correspondence which has taken place since my Message of
the 23rd July, 1890.

(Signed) BENJAMIN HARRISON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 5, 1891.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 5, 1891.
To the President:

In response to your direction, I submit herewith the official correspondence between
the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, touching
the seal fisheries of the Behring’s Sea, since the 19th July last.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 27.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 20.)
[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1891.

Behring’s Sea.

With reference to my telegram of the 17th instant, I have the honour
to inform your Lordship that I saw Mr. Blaine yesterday, and he showed
me a statement which had appeared in the “Times” of the 5th January
respecting the naval preparations of the United States in the Pacific.

This statement was, he said, based on a mischievous telegram from
the Philadelphia correspondent of the “ Times,” and explained the tem-
porary excitement in London, The telegram was absolutely and entirely
false.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 675

85 No. 28.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received January 30.)

{Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, January 29, 1891.

With reference to a Report, received through the Admiralty, * from
the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station on the subject of the
seal fishing in the Behring’s Sea, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to
transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, an extract
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, with a Minute of
his Privy Council, submitting a Report by the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries on the Commander-in-chief’s letter.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 28.—Extract.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, January, 1891.

I have the honour to forward to your Lordship a copy of an approved Minute of
the Privy Council, submitting a Report by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on
the letter from the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station as to the seal fishery
in Behring’s Sea, copy of which was inclosed in your Lordship’s despatch of the
5th November last.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 28.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 31st December, 1890.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch,
dated the 5th November, 1890, from Lord Knutsford, transmitting a copy of a com-
munication, received through the Foreign Office from the Admiralty, inclosing a
Report from the Commander-in-chief.on the Pacific Station concerning the seal
fishery in Behring’s Sea.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch and inclosures were
referred, submits the annexed Report thereupon, in which the Committee concur.

The Committee advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Report to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State, for the information of Her
Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellenvy’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEn,
Clerk, Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 28.—Extract.}
Mr. Tupper to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, CANADA,
Ottawa, November 27, 1890.

The Undersigned has the honour to acknowledge your Excellency’s reference, cov-
ering a letter ‘from Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies,
transmitting a copy of a communication received by Lord Knutsford through the
Foreign Office from the Admir: alty, inclosing a Report from the Commander-in-chief
on the Pacific Station concer ning the seal fishery i in Behring’s Sea.

The Undersigned has ec: weftully perused the letter of the Commander-in-chief of
the Pacific Station, in which he reports to the Admiralty the return of the sealing
schooners from Behrin g’s Sea, and certain information which he has gathered from

* See No. 13.

676 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the captains of the schooners respecting the nature and extent of this season’s catch
of seals.

The Undersigned would observe that after full inquiry through the Collector of
Customs at the Port of Victoria, British Columbia, he submitted a Report upon the
subject of this season’s catch, which your Excellency approved, on the 17th and
19th November, 1890, and that the information thus conveyed to Her Majesty’s
Government is supplemented by a further Report from the Undersigned based on
additional particulars from the Collector of Customs at Victoria, under date the

11th November.
86 Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Admiralty from the Commander-in-chief
on the Pacific Station, to which special attention is directed by the Admiralty,
is as follows:

‘They (the captains of the sealing vessels) also mentioned that two-thirds of their
catch consisted of female seals, but that after the Ist July very few indeed were cap-
tured ‘in pup,’ and that when sealing outside the Behring’s Sea round the coast on
the way up (where this year the heaviest catches were made) they acknowledged
that seals ‘in pup’ were frequently captured.”

The Undersigned would remark upon this, that seal-hunters are in the habit of
classifying seals as males and females when assorting their catches for the markets,
regardless of the sexes of the seals; in other words, all seals of a standard size and
over are classed as males, those under the standard size being classed as females.

It does not appear from Rear-Admiral Hotham’s Report, that in his investigations
any special examination was made as to the sexes, and the Undersigned would
remark, in passing, that very careful investigation is necessary in order to distin-
guish the male from the female seals.

Reading paragraph 6, however, as applicable to the experience of the hunters pre-
vious to their entering Behring’s Sea, the views conveyed by Rear-Admiral Hotham
to the Admiralty are not inconsistent with information received from time to time
by the Undersigned, to the effect that a considerable number of female seals and
seals ‘‘in pup” have been taken outside of the Behring’s Sea, in the great waters of
the Pacific Ocean, and along the coasts of British Columbia, California, and Wash-
ington territory. The Undersigned upon this phase of the sealing industry, more-
over, would remark that neither the United States nor any other nation has yet
expressed willingness to consider a close season, covering the great waters of the
Pacific Ocean outside of Behring’s Sea, so as to prevent the destruction of seal life.

The Undersigned is of the opinion that, upon investigation by experts, it might
possibly be found necessary, for the preservation of the fur-seal species, to establish
Regulations in order to prevent this slaughter upon the coasts above mentioned.
There is evidence that the slaughter of the females when “in pup” occurs while the
seals are travelling slowly up the coasts on their way to the rookeries in Behring’s
Sea, when resting, playing, or feeding, before they have begun the more immediate
and direct journey to the breeding islands. ‘There is, however, it is submitted, no
satisfactory evidence to establish that when the seals have once passed through the
Aleutian Islands on their course to the breeding rookeries, that it is possible for
hunters to shoot or Indians to spear them; on the contrary, there is reliable authority
for stating that the journey through the Aleutian Islands and to the breeding grounds
is direct and swift. It is known, moreover, that the pelagic sealers in Behring’s Sea
obtain their catch chiefly from the ‘‘ bachelor” seals and the ‘‘ barren cow” seals,
found at different points off the rookeries, at periods when the breeding seals are
mostly confined to the islands, and the waters immediately surrounding the islands.

No. 29.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 10.)

{Telegraphic. }

WASHINGTON, February 9, 1891.
In an interview which I had to-day with Mr. Blaine he told me that
he had been intending to write to me to ask whether he was to consider
the diplomatic correspondence on the Behring’s Sea question suspended
or closed in view of the legal proceedings in the “Sayward” case now
before the Supreme Court.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 677

I said that [ had no instructions on the subject, but that in view of
the reported reply of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to a question
in the House of Commons that the legal proceeding in question was in
the nature of a private suit, and did not interfere with the pending
negotiations, I did not think that your Lordship oe the diplo-
matic correspondence closed or even suspended. I added, however,
that I would inform your Lordship of the inquiry he had made,

No. 30.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 10, 1891,

With reference to your telegram of yesterday, I have to inform you
that my reply to Mr. Blaine’s note of the 17th December, on the
87 subject of Behring’s Sea, will be sent very shortly. I have
delayed it with the object of obtaining information on a few
points.
There is not, in my view, any connection between the legal proceed-
ings in the case of the “W. P. Sayward” and the diplomatic corre-
spondence with regard to Behring’s Sea.

No. 31.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 21, 1891.

Str: The despatch of Mr. Blaine, under date of the 17th December,
has been carefully considered by Her Majesty’s Government. The
effect of the discussion which has been carried on between the two
Governments has been materially to narrow the area of controversy.
It is now quite clear that the advisers of the President do not claim
Behring’s Sea as a mare clausum, and indeed that they repudiate that
contention in express terms. Nor do they rely, as a justification for the
seizure of British ships in the open sea, upon the contention that the
interests of the seal fisheries give to the United States Government
any right for that purpose which, according te international law, it
would not otherwise possess. Whatever importance they attach to the
preservation of the fur seal species,—and they justly look on it as an
object deserving the most serious solicitude,—they do not conceive that
it confers upon any Maritime Power rights over the open ocean which
that Power could not assert on other grounds.

The claim of the United States to prevent the exercise of the seal
fishery by other nations in Behring’s Sea rests now exclusively upon
the interest which by purchase they possess in a Ukase issued by the
Emperor Alexander I. in the year 1821, which prohibits foreign vessels
from approaching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and islands
then belonging to Russia in Behring’s Sea. It is not, as I understand,
contended that the Russian Government, at the time of the issue of
this Ukase, possessed any inherent right to enforce such a prohibition,

678 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

or acquired by the act of issuing it any claims over the open sea beyond
the territorial limit of 5 miles, which they would not otherwise have
possessed. But it is said that this prohibition, worthless in itself,
acquired validity and force against the British Government because
that Government can be shown to have accepted its provisions. The
Ukase was a mere usurpation; but it is said that it was converted into
a valid international law, as against the British Government, by the
admission of that Government itself.

Tam not concerned to dispute the contention that an invalid claim may,
as against another Government, acquire a validity which in its incep-
tion it did not possess, if it is formally or effectively accepted by that
Government. But the vital question for decision is whether any other
Government, and especially whether the Government of Great Britain,
has ever accepted the claim put forward in this Ukase. Our conten-
tion is, that not only can it not be shown that the Government of Great
Britain, at any time since 1521, has admitted the soundness of the pre-
tension put forward by that Ukase, but that it can be shown that it
has categorically denied it on more than one occasion. On the 18th
January, 1822, four months after the issue of the Ukase, Lord London-
derry, then British Foreign Secretary, wrote in the following terms to
Count Lieven, the Russian Ambassador in London:

Upon the subject of this Ukase generally, and especially upon the two main prin-
ciples of claim Jaid down therein, viz., an exclusive sovereignty alleged to belong to
Russia over the territories therein described, as also the exclusive right of navigat-
ing and trading within the maritime limits therein set forth, His Britannic Majesty
must be understood as hereby reserving all his rights, not being prepared to admit
that the intercourse which is allowed on the face of this instrument to have hitherto
subsisted on those coasts and in those seas can be deemed to be illicit; or that the
ships of friendly Powers, even supposing an unqualified sovereignty was proved to
appertain to the Imperial Crown, in these vast and very imperfectly occupied terri-

tories, could, by the acknowledged law of nations, be excluded from navigating
within the distance of 100 Italian miles, as therein laid down, from the coast.

On the 17th October in the same year the Duke of Wellington,
Ambassador at Verona, addressed to Count Nesselrode a note con-
taining the following words:

Objecting, as we do, to this claim of exclusive sovereignty on the part of Russia,

I might save myself the trouble of discussing the particular mode of its exer-

88 cise as set forth in this Ukase. But we object to the sovereignty proposed to

be exercised under this Ukase not less than we do to the claim of it. We cannot

admit the right of any Power possessing the sovereignty of a country to exclude the vessels
of others from the seas on its coasts to the distance of 100 Italian miles.

Again, on the 28th November, 1822, the Duke of Wellington addressed
a note to Count Lieven containing the following words:

The second ground on which we object to the Ukase is that His Imperial Majesty
thereby excludes from a certain considerable extent of the open sea vessels of other
nations. We contend that the assumption of this power is contrary to the law of
nations; and we cannot found a negotiation upon a paper in which it is again
broadly asserted. We contend that no Power whatever can exclude another from
the use of the open sea; a Power can exclude itself from the navigation of a certain
coast, sea, &c., by its own act or engagement, but it can not by right be excluded
by another. This we consider as the law of nations; and we cannot negotiate
upon a paper in which a right is asserted inconsistent with this principle.

It is evident, therefore, that so far as diplomatic representation went,
the King’s Government of that date took every step which it was in
their power to take, in order to make it clear to the Russian Govern.
ment that Great Britain did not accept the claim to exelude her sub-
jects for 100 miles distance from the coast, which had been put forward
in the Ukase of 1821.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 679

Mr. Blaine does not deal with these protests, which appear to Her
Majesty’s Government to be in themselves amply sufficient to decide
the question, whether Great Britain did or did not acquiesce in the
Russian claim put forward by the Ukase. He confines himself mainly,
in the despatch under consideration, to the consideration of the Treaties
which were subsequently made between Great Britain and Russia and
America and Russia in the year 1825; and especially of that between
Russia and Great Britain. This Treaty, of which the text is printed at
the close of Mr. Blaine’s despatch, does not contain a word to signify
the acquiescence of Great Britain in the claim recently put forward by
Russia to control the waters of the sea for 100 miles from her coast.
There is no stipulation upon which this interpretation can be imposed
by any process of construction whatsoever. But there is a provision
having in our judgment a totally opposite tendency, which indeed was
intended to negative the extravagant claim that had recently been made
on the part of Russia; and it is upon this provision that the main part
of Mr. Blaine’s argument, as I understand it, is founded. The stip-
wlation to which I refer is contained in the Ist Article, and runs as
follows:

Article I. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the High Contracting Parties
shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean, commonly called the
Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing at such
parts of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order to trade with the
natives, under the restrictions and conditions specified in the following Articles.

Tunderstand Mr. Blaine’s argument to be that if Great Britain had
intended to protest against the claim of Russia to exclude ships for 100
miles from her coasts in Behring’s Sea, she would have taken this oppor-
tunity of doing so; but that in confining herself to stipulations in favour
of full liberty of navigation and fishing in any part of the ocean, com-
monly called the Pacific Ocean, she, by implication, renounced any
claim that could arise out of the same set of circumstances in regard to
any sea that was not part of the Pacific Ocean. And then Mr. Blaine
goes on to contend that the phrase “ Pacific Ocean” did not and does
not include Behring’s Sea.

Even if this latter contention were correct, I should earnestly demur
to the conclusion that our inherent rights to free passage and free fish-
ing over a vast extent of ocean could be effectively renounced by mere
reticence or omission. The right is one of which we could not be
deprived unless we consented to abandon it, and that consent could not
be sufficiently inferred from our negotiators having omitted to mention
the subject upon one particular occasion.

But Lam not prepared to admit the justice of Mr. Blaine’s contention
that the words “ Pacific Ocean” did not include Behring’s Sea. I
believe that in common parlance, then and now, Behring’s Sea was and
is part of the Pacific Ocean; and that the latter words were used in
order to give the fullest and widest scope possible to the claim which
the British negotiators were solemnly recording of a right freely to

navigate and fish in every part of it, and throughout its entire
89 extent. In proofof the argument that the words ‘“ Pacific Ocean”

do not include Behring’s Sea, Mr. Blaine adduces a long list of
Maps in which a designation distinct from that of ‘ Pacific Ocean” is
given to Behring’s Sea; either ‘“‘ Behring’s Sea,” or “Sea of Kam-
schatka” or the “Sea of Anadir.” The argument will hardly have any
force unless it is applicable with equal truth to all the other oceans
of the world. Bnt no one will dispute that the Bay of Biscay forms part
of the Atlantic Ocean, or that the Gulf of Lyons forms part of the

680 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

Mediterranean Sea; and yetin most Maps it will be found that to those
portions of the larger sea a separate designation has been given. The
question whether by the words “ Pacific Ocean” the negotiators meant
to include or to exclude Behring’s Sea depends upon which locution
was esteemed to be the correct usage at the time. The date is nota
distant one, and there is no ground for suggesting that the usage has
changed since the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 was signed. The
determination of this point will be most satisfactorily ascertained by
consulting the ordinary books of reference. I append to this despatch
a list of some thirty works of this class, of various dates from 1795
downwards, and printed in various countries, which combine to show
that, in customary parlance, the words “ Pacific Ocean” do include
Behring’s Sea.

If, then, in ordinary language, the Pacific Ocean is used as a phrase
including the whole sea from Behring’s Straits to the Antarctic Circle, it
follows that the Ist Article of the Treaty of 1825 did secure to Great
Britain in the fullest manner the freedom of navigation and fishing in
Behring’s Sea. In that case no inference, however indirect or cir-
cuitous, can be drawn from any omission in the language of that instru-
ment to show that Great Britain acquiesced in the usurpation which
the Ukase of 1821 had attempted. The other documents which I have
quoted sufficiently establish that she not only did not acquiesce in it,
but repudiated it more than once in plain and unequivocal terms; and
as the claim made by the Ukase has no strength or validity except what
it might derive from the assent of any Power whom it might affect, it
results that Russia has never acquired by the Ukase any right to cur-
tail the natural liberty of Her Majesty’s subjects to navigate or fish in
these seas anywhere outside territorial waters. And what Russia did
not herself possess she was not able to transmit to the United States.

Her Majesty’s Government have, in view of these considerations, no
doubt whatever that British subjects enjoy the same rights in Behring’s
Sea which belong to them in every other portion of the open ocean;
but it is, nevertheless, a matter of sincere satisfaction that the Presi-
dent is willing to refer to arbitration what he conceives to be the mat-
ters which have been under discussion between the two Governments
for the last four years. In regard to the questions as they are proposed
by Mr. Blaine, I should say that as to the first and second, no objection
will be offered by Her Majesty’s Government. They are as follows:

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise
prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and
conceded by Great Britain?

The third question is expressed in the following terms: ‘‘ Was the
body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase
‘Pacific Ocean,’ as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain
and Russia; and what rights (if any) in the Behring’s Sea were given
or conceded to Great Britain by the said Treaty?”

Her Majesty’s Government would have no objection to referring to
arbitration the first part of that question, if it should be thought desir-
able to do so; but they would give that consent with the reservation
that they do not admit that the decision of it can conclude the larger
questions which the Arbitrator would have to determine. ‘To the latter
part of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception:

What rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain
by the said Treaty?

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 681

Great Britain has never suggested that any rights were given to her
or conceded to her by the said Treaty. All that was done was to recog-
nize her natural right of free navigation and fishing in that as in all
other parts of the Pacific Ocean. Russia did not give those rights to
Great Britain, because they were never hers to give away.

4, Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in

Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between the United
90 States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpared to the United States
under that Treaty?

This fourth question is hardly worth referring to an Arbitrator, as
Great Britain would be prepared to accept it without dispute.

The fifth proposed question runs as follows:

5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the
waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such
rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held
by her in such fisheries or in the waters of Behring’s Sea, or out of the ownership of
the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their
young thereon, and going out from the islands for food, or out of any other fact or

incident connected with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial posses-
sions of the United States?

The first clause, ‘What are now the rights of the United States as to
the fur-seal fisheries in the waters of the Behring’s Sea outside of the
ordinary territorial limits?” is a question which would be very properly
referred to the decision of an Arbitrator. But the subsequent clause,
which assumes that such rights could have grown out of the ownership
of the breeding islands, and the habits of the seals in resorting thereto,
involves an assumption as to the prescriptions of international law at
the present time to which Her Majesty’s Government are not prepared
to accede. The sixth question, which deals with the issues that will
arise in case the controversy should be decided in favour of Great Brit-
ain, would perhaps more fitly form the substance of a separate refer-
ence. Her Majesty’s Government have no objection to refer the general
question of a close time to arbitration, or to ascertain by that means
how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the preser-
vation of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain
words appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter
to the United States.

There is one omission in these questions which I have no doubt the
Government of the President will be very glad to repair; and that is
the reference to the Arbitrator of the question, what damages are due
to the persons who have been injured, in case it shall be determined by
him that the action of the United States in seizing British vessels has
been without warrant in international law. Subject to these reserva-
tions, Her Majesty’s Government will have great satisfaction in joining
with the Government of the United States in seeking by means of
arbitration an adjustment of the international questions which have so
long formed a matter of controversy between the two Governments.

I have to request that you will read this despatch to Mr. Blaine, and
leave a copy of it with him should he desire it.

Lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

682 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

APPENDIX.

Malham, John. Kamschatka Sea, is a large branch of the Oriental or North Pacific
Ocean.
“Naval Gazet- Beering’s Straits, which is the passage from the North Pacific Ocean
teer,”’ 1795. to the Arctic Sea.
Brookes, R. Beering’s Island. An islana in the Pacifie Ocean. [Behring’s
Island is in Behring’s Sea. }

Pe ee Kamschatka, Bounded east and south by Pacific.
, Montetior eS Kamtschatka. Bounded on the north by the country of the Koriacs,
ea a eee on the east and south by the North Pacific Ocean, and on the west by

1803. the Sea of Okotsk.

“Geographical Beering’s Island. In the North Pacific Ocean.
Dictionary.” London, 1804.

peeotewell, &. Beering’s Island. An island in the North Pacific Ocean.
Gazetteer Kamtchatka. River, which runs into the North Pacific Ocean.
1808. Kamtchatka. Peninsula, bounded on the east and south by the

North Pacific Ocean.

Mangnall, R. Jslands in the Eastern or Great Pacific Ocean: Bhering’s Isle.
“Compendium of

Geography.” 1815.
jones ae. a Stilles Meer. Vom 5 ndérdl. Br. an bis zur Beringsstrasse aufwarts
SRORO EON feta stets heftige Stiirme. [Behring’s Strait is at the northern extremity
buch.” Pestb, Of Behring’s Sea. ]
1822.

“Edinburgh 91
Gazetteer,” Edi-
tion 1822, vol. i, p. 432.

“General Gaz. Beering’s Island. In the North Pacifie Ocean.
etteer.” London, 1823.

‘New London Beering’s Island. In the Pacific.
Universal Gazettcer.”” 1826.

“Dictionnaire Mer Pacifique. Il s’étend du nord au sud depuis le Cercle Polaire
poeta idee Arctique, c’est-a-dire, depuis le Détroit de Behring, qui le fait com-

J muniquer & Océan Glacial Austral.

yee Dr. A. ee Stilles Meer. Vom 30 siidlicher Breite bis zum 5 nérdlicher Breite
Re ee an verdient es durch seine Heiterkeit und Stille den namen des Stillen
Handwirter Meers; von da an bis zur Beringsstrasse ist es heftigen Stiirmen

buch.” Halber- unterworfen.
stadt, 1829. :
“Penny Na. Beering’s Island. In the North Pacific Ocean.

tional Library: Geography and Gazetteer.’’ 1830.

Arrowsmith. Bhering’s Strait connects the Frozen Ocean with the Pacific;
“Grammar of Lhe Anadir flows into the Pacific Ocean.
Modern Geography.” 1832.

The principal gulfs of Asiatic Russia are: the Gulf of Anadir,
near Bhering’s Strait; the Sea of Penjina, and the Gulf of Okhotsk,
between Kamtchatka and the mainland of Russia—all three in the
Pacific Ocean.

‘“Précis de la J/Oeéan Pacifique Boréal s’étend depuis le Détroit de Behring

Géographie Uni- ; , sewees ,
verselle,” parvusquau tropique de Cancer.

Malte-Brun, vol. ii, p. 181, Edition 1835.
Ditto, vol. viii, Le Détroit de Behring. A commencer par ce détroit, le Grand
1s Océan (ou Océan Pacifique) forme la limite orientale de |’ Asie.

Langlois.“Dic- Behring (Détroit célébre). Il joint ’Océan Glacial Arctique au

tionnaire de Géo- ~ VS,
graphie.” 1838. Grand Océan.

“Penny Cyclo- The Pacific Ocean. Its boundary-line is pretty well determined by
pedia,” 1840. the adjacent continents, which approach one another towards the
north, and at Behring’s Strait which separates them, are only about
36 miles apart. This strait may be considered as closing the Pacific

on the north.

“Dictionnaire Behring (Détroit de) 4 l’extrémité nord-est de l’Asie, sépare ce Con-
Paiverel d ee tinent de PAmérique et ’Océan Glacial Arctique de Océan Pacifique.
ographie,” par Behring (Mer de), partie de l’Océan Pacifique.

. N. Bouillet. Paris, 1842,

Behring’s Island. An island in the North Pacifie Ocean.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 683

Behring (Détroit de). CanaldeVocéan , . . unissantleseaux de “Dictionnaire

l’Océan Pacifique a celles de ?Océan Arctique. Sra aus et
. __., statistique,” par

Adrien Guibert. Paris, 1850,

Pacific Ocean. Between longitude 70° west and 110° east, that is “The New
for a space of over 180°—it covers the greater part of the earth’s sur- American Cyclo-
face, from Behring’s Straits to the Polar Circle, that separates it from Bee by
the Antaretie Ocean. and Chanies A.
Dana. New York, 1851.

Behring (Détroit de). Canal du Grand Océan unissant les eaux de “Grand Die-

Océan Pacifique A celles de ’Océan Glacial Arctique. tionnaire de_Gé-
Oographie Uni-
verselle,”” par M. Bescherelle Ainé. 4-vols. 1855,

Behring’s Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamtchatka, is that por- ‘Imperial Gaz-
tion of the North Pacific Ocean lying between the Aleutian Islands and &tteer,” 1855.
Behring’s Strait. , ,

Beliring’s Island. An island in the North Pacific Ocean. Wullacéonta

“Gazetteer of the World.” 1856.

Behring’s Strait, which connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean, ,, rir

is formed by the approach of the Continents of America and Asia. Gia ee
Charles Knight: 1856.

Pacific Ocean. Its extreme southern limit is the Antarctic Circle, MeCull J
from which it stretches northward through 132 degrees of latitude to ( Geoeen Aiecal
Behring’s Strait, which separates it from the Arctic Ocean. Dictionary,”

edited by F. Martin. 15366.

Behring (Détroit de). Canal ou bras de mer unissant les eaux de ‘“‘Grand Dic-

vee oENars : x ) : . tionnaire Uni-
VOcéan Glacial Arctique 4 celles de Océan Pacifique. veraclgt nace

Pierre Labousse. Paris, 1867.

Behring’s Strait. The narrow sea between the north-east part of ‘Encyclopedia

Asia and the north-west part of North America, connecting the North Britannica,”1875.
Pacifie with the Arctic Ocean.

Bering (Détroit de). Passage qui unit Océan Glacial Arctique au , St- Martin,

“Nouveau Dic-
Grand Océan. tionnaire de

Géographie Universelle.”’ Paris, 1879.

Behring Sea, or Sea of Kamchatka, is that part of the North Pacific __Lippincott’s

Ocean between the Aleutian Islands in latitude 55° north and Behring ..G22etteer of the

eae : ie : A ; oy > World. Phila-
Strait in latitude 66° north, by which latter it communicates with the delphia, 1880.

Aretie Ocean.

92 Behring, or Bhering. A strait, sea, island, and bay, North Bryce and
Pacitic Ocean. Johnston, * Cy-

clopedia of Ge-
ography.” London and Glasgow, 1880.

Bering’s Meer. Der norddéstlichste Teil des Stillen Ocean’s. Brock haus’
‘Conversations

Lexicon.” Leipzig, 1882.

Beringsstrasse. Meerenge das nordéstlichste Eismeer mit dem Stil- Ritter’s “Geo-
len Ocean verbindend. 5 graphisch-Statis-
tisch Lexicon.” Leipzig, 1833.

Behring’s Sea. North-east part of the Pacific between Asia and | “Pocket Ency-
America clopedia.” Samp-
G son Low, 1888.

Behring Strait connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean. Cham bers’

Behring Sea. A part of the Pacific Ocean, commonly known as the De ack
Sea of Kamchatka. i

Behring’s Strait, connecting the North Pacific with the Arctic Ocean. Blackie’s

Behring’s Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamchatka, is that por- ‘‘Modern Cyclo-
tion of the North Pacific Ocean lying between the Aleutian Islands P@dia,” 1889 Edt
and Behring’s Strait. se

In support of his argument that the term ‘‘ Pacific Ocean” was not understood at
the time as including Behring’s Sea, Mr. Blaine has quoted a note which, it appears,
was presented by the Russian Minister at Washington after the ratification of the
Treaty of the 5th (17th) April, 1824, between the United States and Russia.

In this note Baron Tuy]! stated that ‘‘the Aleutian Islands, the coasts of Siberia,
and the Russian possessions in general on the north-west coast of America to 59° 30!
of north latitude were positively excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing, and
commerce stipulated in favour of United States citizens for ten years.” The rights
alluded to could not be those contained in the Ist Article of the Treaty, which is
unlimited in duration, but those of frequenting the interior seas, harbours, and
creeks conferred by Article IV.

684 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Baron Tuy] grounded this construction of the Treaty on the argument that “the
coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and
the Icey Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the Ist Article of the Conven-
tion,” and that ‘‘the Aleutian Islands were also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka
or Northern Ocean.

He added that ‘‘it was not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation
of the Pacific Ocean, and that she would be satisfied with causing to be recognized,
as well understood and placed beyond all manner of doubt, the principle that beyond
59° 30’ no vessel could approach her coasts and islands, nor fish or hunt within the
distance of 2 marine leagues.”’*

Mr. Adams, on being shown the draft of the note, stated to Baron Tuy] that, if it
were presented, he should return an answer to the effect that ‘‘the construction of
Treaties depending here upon the Judiciary Tribunals, the Executive Government,
even if disposed to acquiesce in that of the Russian Government, as announced by
him (Baron Tuyl), could not be [? make it] binding upon the Courts or upon this
nation.” He went on to say that it would be much better not to present the note,
as the United States merchants would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of
Siberia or north of the 57th degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such
fancies into their heads.

The incident, therefore, shows nothing material to the present issue except that
the Russian Minister attempted in a note, which has hitherto been kept secret, to
argue that Behring’s Sea was not a part of the South Sea (a term which is not
employed in the British Treaty), and that Mr. Adams stated that, even if the United
States Government were disposed to acquiesce in this view, they could not bind the
nation or the Courts to it.

On the other hand, the Regulations of 1881, under which the American schooners
“liza” and ‘‘ Henrietta” were seized by the Russian authorities, are headed:

“Notice of Order relative to Commerce on Russian Pacific Coast:

“Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia,
foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c., on the
Russian coasts or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring’s Seas, or on the north-eastern
coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary-line.”

(Memorandum in Mr. Lothrop’s despatch to Mr. Bayard of the 7th March, 1882.
Exec. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 271.)

M. de Giers, in his subsequent note of the 8th May, 1882, speaks of these Regula-
tions as ‘‘a notice published by our Consul at Yokohama relative to fishing, hunting,
and to trade in the Russian waters of the Pacific.” (Ibid., p. 262.)

Mr. Frelinghuysen also speaks of the matter as ‘‘touching the Pacific coast fisher-
ies.” (Ibid., p. 258.)

*Tt does not appear, however, that the proposed limit of 2 leagues was observed
or enforced, for in 1868 the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, explaining the
treatment of theAmerican sealer ‘‘ Java” in the Sea of Okhotsk, writes:

“Considering that foreign sealers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the
Russian gulfs and bays at a distance less than 3 miles -from the shore.” (M. West-
mann to Mr. Clay, 3lst July, 1868, Ex. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session,
p. 253.)

eS EDS EAP ES. No: 2) (1898):

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

RESPECTING THE

BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERIES.

[In continuation of “United States No, 1 (1891):” 0. 6253, ]

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND
OF HER MAJESTY.

eho W IN EG, 1 SOT.

685

fh igle ,
J ig Bae
ere

ee DS ue
fe r eal : aa i
im a 79)

TABLE OR CONTENTS:

No.

Name.

1

2

13

14

15

16

Date.

1891.
April 17

April 22

April 23

April 27

May 5

April 27

-|May 10

May 16

May 20

May 21

To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic. -
Sir J. Pauncefote-...-.|.--.- dos ese
Zapp OO) macwiesceaasecioc|sse-GOccaccenc
Boek GM pe oeonneEcenUener pacts Ob podescn
wae (MBapSteeeoenoosdes Snned (UO sqesnsee
feats COS ereteosiee sce all euisehcicarcc eset
SEE do.....-....--.-.-| Telegraphic
Onere (BRE OB COCSCR DOTS) BAObE OU eam SaHee
Dahon COMe Reese ceasese cel cascconoecceele
ecm CEES ppe COnCCOCOE IHeCHSOunerOneEa
Secon 10 2020-2 ececeeee se! oe-------------|---00 =.
To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic ..
Sir J. Pauncefote.....|..... GOeeeescce
To Sir J. Pauncefote..|.....do........
Sir J. Pauncefote .....|..... dovsss eae
aes UOtscoceeeucwescceeleoscnGO.2cacets

May 25

Subject.

Mr. Blaine’s susepatan for stopping
seal-fishing by land and sea pending
award of arbitration seems worthy
of consideration. Would he prefer
that proposal should come from Her
Majesty's Government?

Mr. Blaine absent. On his return, will
pres him to give answer withas little

elay as possible.

Mr. Blaine prefers that proposal should
come from Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment. He wishes to consult Presi-
dent.

President suggests reservation in pro-
posed modus vivendi, allowing Ameri-
can Company to kill enough seals to
support natives. Mr. Blaine will not
agree to arrangement being put in
qeree till terms of arbitration are set-
tled.

Is sending by mail note from Mr.
Blaine justifying reservation made
by President, and submitting detailed
proposal for modus vivendi. Gives
latter.

Reports communications with Mr.
Blaine on proposal for modus vivendi
and President’s reservation.

Is sending by mail text of Professor’s
Elliott’s Report on seal-life in Beh-
ring’s Sea, in which stress is laid on
necessity for cessation of seal-killing.
Importance of early reply to Mr.
Blaine’s proposal.

Gives Memorandum received from
trustworthy source ‘on President's

reservation in proposed modus vivendi.

Detailed account of communications
with Mr. Blaine with regard to pro-
posed modus vivendi.

Copy of note from Mr. Blaine contain-
ing detailed proposals for modus
vivendi, and defending President's
reservation.

Cop

wal reply to his telegram as soon as
Canadian Government bave answered
further communication addressed to
them.

President anxious for reply to Mr.
Blaine’s proposal of 4th May. When
may decision of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment be expected?

No definitive reply yet received from
Canada with regard to proposed
modus vivendi.

Mr. Blaine’s proposal involves some
loss of revenue to the United States
Government, as well as considerable
loss to American Company.

President much concerned at not hay-
ing received reply from Her Majesty’s
Government. United States Govern-
ment cannot detain cruizers or Com-
pany’s vessels any longer.

687

of reply to Mr. Blaine’s above note.

|
Page.

10

10

10

10

688 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

No. | Name. Date. Subject. Page.
| 1891.
17 | Sir J. Pauncefote....- Telegraphic..| May 27| Note received from Acting Secretary of 11

State to the same effect as communi-
cation reported in above. Revenue
steamer ‘* Rush” has started for seal
islands. ‘‘Corwin”’ will very shortly
start, but she could still take orders
if agreement is arrived at before her
departure.

18 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... do....----| May 28] Bill to be introduced in Parliament, 11
giving Her Majesty’s Government
powers for prohibiting seal-fishing in
Behring’s Sea. Her Majesty's Gov-
ernment can do nothing till Bill is

passed.
APPENDIX.
1891.
1 Sir Ji Pauncefote .< 222 |2m crise enn =- Feb. 20} Reports of United States Treasury 12

Agents on affairs in seal islands, and
fur-seal fisheries in 1890.

74 l6RGoe CO) oom im winisicts sielalatataa | atclatia’emisial= ='niaiaie May 11] Introduction to Professor Elliott’s Re- 52
port on condition of seal-life at the
Pribyloff Islands in summer of 1890.

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE BEHRING SEA
SEAL FISHERIES,

No. 1.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphice. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 17, 1891.
Behring’s Sea. Mr. Blaine’s suggestion, which you mention in your
private letter of the 7th April, that, pending the award of the Arbitra-
tion on the Behring’s Sea question, all seal fishery should be stopped,
both by sea and land, seems worthy of consideration.
If we approve of it, would Mr. Blaine prefer that the proposal should
come from us?

No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 22.
[Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, April 22, 1891.

IT have the honour to inform your Lordship that Mr. Blaine left this
city for the sea-side on the 15th. As the date of his return was uncer-
tain, [ addressed a letter to him on the 20th in the sense of your Lord-
ship’s telegram of the 17th, making the inquiry which I was therein
instructed to make. I am now informed that his return is expected in
a few days.

Tam informed that it is in the power of the United States Govern-
ment to cancel the lease of the islands at any time.

I will lose no time in pressing Mr. Blaine to send me an answer with
as little delay as possible.

No. 3.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—-(Received April 23.)
(Telegraphic. }

WASHINGTON, April 23, 1891.

I have the honour to report that the Secretary of State returned to
Washington to-day. aad invited me to call on him.
He expressed hiuself as gratified at the favourable consideration
given by Her Majesty’s Government to his alternative suggestion, and
BS, PL V—--—44 689

690 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

in answer to your Lordship’s inquiry he said he would prefer that the
proposal, which seemed to him very fair, should come from Her Majesty’s
Government.

He added that he wished, however, before going any further, to com-
muniecate the proposal by telegraph to-day to the President, who is
absent from Washington.

bo

No. 4.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received April 27.)
[Telegraphice. ]

WASHINGTON, April 27, 1891.

Mr. Biaine informed me to-day that the President had suggested a
small reservation in the proposed modus vivendi to the effect that per-
mission should be given to the Company to kill a small number of seals
sufficient to compensate them for the support of the natives in their
employ during the modus vivendi, but he did not appear to insist strongly
on it.

As, however, he will not agree to put the arrangement in force until
the terms of the arbitration are settled, I fear it may only be applied
when it is too late to be of any service.

A full report of the interview above mentioned will be found in my
despatch of this day’s date, which I am sending by mail to-morrow.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 5.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, May 5, 1891.

Behring’s Sea. With reference to my telegrain of the 27th ultimo,
IT have the honour to inform your Lordship that I forward by messen-
ger to-day copy of a note from Mr. Blaine which I received last night,
containing a lengthy justification of the reservation made by the Pres-
ident, and submitting for communication to your Lordship the follow-
ing detailed proposal for a modus vivendi for the season of 1891:

1. The United States authorities to issue orders limiting the num-
ber of seals to be killed on the islands to 7,500 solely in order to pro-
vide for the support of the resident natives, who number 300 souls.
Pending the result of the arbitration, all seal-killng for commercial
purposes to be prohibited.

2. The United States Government to guarantee to Great Britain
that no seals shall be killed in any part of the open waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea by any person on board of any vessel flying the United
States flag, or by any United States citizen on board of any vessel
flying any other flag.

3d. Mutatis mutandis, a similar guarantee to be given by Her Majesty’s

Government as regards British subjects and vessels.
"4, The above prohibitions to continue in force up to the Ist May,
1892, before which date the Arbitrators are to render to both Govern-
meuts their final award,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 691
No. 6.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 8.)

WASHINGTON, April 27, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegam of the 22nd instant, I
have the honour to inclose a copy of the note which | addressed to Mr.
Blaine, as reported in my above-mentioned telegram, informing him
that your Lordship was disposed favourably to entertain his alterna-
tive suggestion for a modus vivendi pending the result of the Behring’s
Sea arbitration, namely, to stop all sealing, both at sea and on land,
and inquiring whether, in case the proposal be finally accepted, he
would prefer that it should be made by Her Majesty’s Government.

In my telegram of the 25rd instant I had the honour to report to your
Lordship the verbal reply which I had received from Mr. Blaine to that
communication. It was to the effect that he would prefer that the pro-
posal should come from Her Majesty’s Government, but that before
taking any further step he desired to communicate by telegraph with
the President, who was absent from Washington. I called to-day on
Mr. Blaine to inquire whether he was now prepared to proceed with the
proposal. He informed me that the President felt some difficulty aris-
ing from the fact that the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands are under con-

tract to maintain a large number of natives (Aleuts) engaged in
3 their sealing operations, and these they would have to support at

a heavy loss during the whole period of the modus vivendi. This
loss would ultimately fall on the United States Government, and he
had, therefore, suggested whether it might not be stipulated that a
moderate number of seals might be killed on the islands, sufficient to
cover the loss in question. I replied that I did not think such a sug-
gestion would commend itself to your Lordship. The proposal that
sealing should be stopped, both at sea and on land, was based on the
recommendation of the United States Government Agents, whose
Reports had been laid before Congress, and copies of which I trans-
mitted to your Lordship in my despatch No. 41 of the 20th February
last.

In acceding to the proposal, Her Majesty’s Government would give a
striking proof of their solicitude for the preservation of the seal species,
and of the spirit of conciliation with which they were animated. There
was to be an equal sacrifice on both sides, and it would be unreason-
able that the proposed modus vivendi should be saddled with any
special reservation for the benefit of either party.

I further observed that, in view of the fact that the opening of the
fishery season is already at hand, no time should be lost in putting it into
force, if it is to be of any value this season.

I suggested that it might be agreed to put it in force for this season,
irrespectively of the arbitration, and that in such case it would be a
convenient time to send a Joint Commission of Experts to the Islands
to collect evidence for the purposes of arbitration. I failed to perceive
how any Arbitrators would undertake to pronounce an award on the
question of a close time without proper materials on which to found
their judgment, and these materials could alone be supplied by a Joint
Commission. I added that I had no authority from your Lordship to
make such a suggestion, but that [ ventured to throw it out for con-
sideration. Mr. Blaine replied that, as regards the reservation of the
right to kill a limited number of seals on the islands to cover the loss
which would result to the Company for the support of the Aleuts in
their employ, that was a condition which might perhaps not be insisted

692 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

on; but he was absolutely opposed to the suggestion of sending a Joint
Commission of Experts to Behring’s Sea, or to putting in force the modus
_vivendi until the terms of the arbitration had been definitely agreed to.

I pointed out that if this were to be a condition of the arrangement,
it would probably be too late to put it in force this season, in view of
the time which might elapse before the preliminaries of the arbitration
had been settled, and I reminded him that his proposal was simply that
it should take effect ‘“‘pending the result of the arbitration.”

He replied that his proposal, as understood by the President as well
as himself, was subject to that condition, and he seemed to attach
importance to it as being calculated to accelerate your Lordship’s
acceptance of the terms of arbitration proposed by his Government.
I therefore explained to him that all your Lordship knew at present
respecting the proposal was-that it had been made by the United States
Government, obviousiy in their own interest, and that Her Majesty’s
Government had certainly nothing to gain by acceding to it. I begged
him to disabuse the mind of the President of the idea that your Lord-
ship, in giving the proposal afavourable consideration, had been actuated
by any other sentiment than that of friendliness to the United States
Government.

IT added that if owing to delay in the settlement of the terms of arbi-
tration, the proposed modus vivendi should not be put in force this
season, and the predictions of the United States Government Agents
as to the consequences which must ensue from the non-cessation of
sealing should be verified, the blame would certainly not attach to Her
Majesty’s Government.

I have, Xc.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 6.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1891.

Dear Mr. Buarne: I informed Lord Salisbury in a private letter of your alterna-
tive suggestion for a modus vivendi, pending the result of the Behring’s Sea arbitra-
tion, namely, to stop all sealing both at sea and on land.

Lord Salisbury seems to approve of that alternative, and he asks whether, in
4 case Her Majesty’s Government should accept it, you would prefer that the
proposal should come from them.

I thought you would like to know Lord Salisbury’s view of your proposal as soon
as possible, and that must be my excuse for troubling you with this letter during
your repose at Virginia Beach.

May I ask you to be so good as to let me know, as soon as you conveniently can
do so, what answer you would wish me to return to Lord Salisbury’s inquiry.

Hoping that you have already benefited by the change of air, I remain, &c.

Signed JULIAN PAUNCEFQTE.
oD

Note
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 10.):
(Telegraphic. }
WASHINGTON, May 10, 1891.

A newspaper has just published the text of Professor Elliott’s intro-
duction to his Report on the condition of seal life on the United States
seal islands in Behring’s Sea, which he addressed in November last to
the Secretary of the Treasury.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 693

I will transmit a copy to your Lordship by the mail of the 12th instant.

In this Report Professor Elliott insists strongly on the necessity of
the cessation of seal killing, both on land and at sea, and on the appoint-
ment of a Joint Commission of American, British, and Russian experts
to proceed to the rookeries this summer to verify the precise condition
of affairs.

The usual date for the revenue-cruizers and the Company’s steamer to
sail is the 15th instant, and it is very important that I should, as early
as practicable, be in a position to reply to Mr. Blaine’s proposal.

No. 8.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 10.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, May 10, 1891.

I have just received, from a trustworthy authority, the following
Memorandum on the subject of the reservation in the proposed modus
vivendi desired by the President, which throws a new light on the pro-
vision in question.

It is as follows:

Food Skins.—The slaughter for food of 5,000 small seals annually on St. Paul
Island, and 2,000 on St. George Island, will be amply sufficient to keep the natives
of the seal islands in good condition physically. The profit to the United States
Governinent from the sale of these food skins would be not less than 70,000 dollars
a year, which is 20,000 dollars more than it would cost to provide them with fuel,
clothing, and other necessaries.

To kill mpre than these 7,000 young male seals would be simply a wanton and
uncalled-for destruction of life, and would imperil the restoration of the rookeries
to their former condition.

The Memorandum quoted above shows that it is necessary for the
health of the natives to supply them with seals for food.

No. 9.
Sir J, Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 14.)

WASHINGTON, May 4, 1891.
My Lorp: Owing to the communications which have passed between
Mr. Blaine and the North American Commercial Company (the present
lessees of the seal islands in Behring’s Sea) respecting the proposed
cessation of the killing of seals both at sea and on land during the
approaching fishery season, the rumour has found its way in the press
that such a proposal has either been made by Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, or that they are willing to assent to it, and that Mr. Blaine is
prevented from carrying it out by the vehement opposition of the
Company.
5 It may be convenient that I should place on record what took
place between Mr. Blaine and myself on the subject of his second
or alternative proposal for a modus vivendi, which I communicated to
your Lordship privately on the 7th April last.

694 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Blaine made his first proposal on the 16th March. He then stated
that, as there now seemed to be a prospect of agreeing to the terms of
an arbitration, it was desirable to arrange for a modus vivendi pending
its result, and he threw out a suggestion of a radius of 25 miles within
which sealing-vessels should be prohibited from approaching the seal
islands. I acquainted your Lordship with that proposalin my telegram
of the 16th March.

About a fortnight afterwards, at an interview which Mr. Blaine was
good enough to give me at his house when he was confined by indis-
position, he reverted to the subject of the modus vivendi, and he asked
me to ascertain whether your Lordship would prefer as an alternative
proposal that the killing of seals should be stopped both at sea and on
Jand pending the result of the arbitration.

IT should here observe that for some time past I had been pressing
Mr. Blaine most urgently, but in vain, for a reply to your Lordship’s
despatch of the 21st February, in which certain modifications were
proposed in the questions which he had formulated in his note of the
17th December, 1890, for the purposes of the arbitration. The delay
in returning a reply to your Lordship’s despatch appeared to me dis-
quieting, and he spoke somewhat despondingly in the presence of Sir
Charles Tupper of the prospect of an adjustment of the questions for
arbitration. I therefore informed Mr. Blaine that I hesitated to trans-
mit to your Lordship any further proposals respecting a modus vivendt
until there was reason to believe that the arbitration proposals con-
tained in your Lordship’s despatch above referred to would be accepted;
and I suggested that the most satisfactory course would be for him to
make his proposals for a modus vivendi concurrently with his reply to
that despatch.

Mr. Blaine assented to my suggestion, and said that he would ‘ pro-
ceed ia that order.” But neither in his reply to your Lordship’s
despatch, which was delivered on the 14th April, nor in the substituted
note delivered the 27th April, is there anything to be found in relation
to a modus vivendi. In the meanwhile, I had informed your Lordship
privately, by the mail of the 7th April, of Mr. Blaine’s alternative pro-
posal for the cessation of seal-killing both at sea and on land, and on
receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 17th April, I addressed a
note to him, of which I had the honour to inclose a copy in my despatch
of the 27th April.

In that despatch I reported the difficulties which were afterwards
raised by the President and by Mr. Blaine, and which appeared to me
to render hopeless the timely application of the proposed modus vivendi.
Since then, as before stated, the subject has been discussed in the pub-
lic press.

The opposition journals criticize severely the non-publication of Pro-
fessor Elliott’s Report on the condition of the seal islands during the
season of 1890, and also the dismissal of Mr. Goff, the Treasury A gent
in charge of the islands, who had last summer exercised his official
authority to stop the killing of seals by the Company, owing to the
indiscriminate slaughter practised there, and to the alarming diminu-
tion of seal life. Mr. Blaine is violently attacked by those journals for
hesitating to put in force at once the proposed modus vivendi in the face
of the Reports of the United States’ Government Agents, and in view
of the readiness of Her Majesty’s Government to accept the proposal.

I have, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAN BRITAIN. 695

No. 10.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.——( Received May 14.)

WASHINGTON, May 5, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose a copy of a note which I
received last night from Mr. Blaine containing detailed proposals for a
modus vivendi during the approaching fishery season in Bebring’s Sea,
based on the principle of a cessation of seal killing both at sea ‘and on
land. The note contains a lengthy defence of the reservation desired

by the President of the right to kill 7,500 seals for the support of
6 the native residents of the Pribyloff Islands, a reservation which

seems to me seriously to detract from the equality and simplicity
of the original proposal. As regards Mr. Blaine’s narrative of what
passed between us in relation to the proposed modus vivendi, your Lord-
ship will perceive from my despatch of yesterday’s date that he appears
to have forgotten that the reason why I did not telegraph to your Lord-
ship his alternative proposal for a modus vivendi was that it had been
arranged between us, at my suggestion, that he should make the pro-
posal concurrently with his reply to your Lordship’s despatch of the
21st February, for which I had so urgently pressed him.

IT cannot call to my mind that the President’s name was ever mentioned
in the course of our two interviews, which Mr. Blaine correctly describes
as ‘a conversational exchange of views.”

If the President was so anxious that the alternative proposal should
be telegraphed at once to your Lordship, it is to be regretted that Mr.
Blaine did not apprize me of the President’s wishes, as | should have
certainly complied with them.

Mr. Blaine’s reply to your Lordship’s despatch of the 21st February
was not delivered until the 14th April, and then it was not accom-
panied by the proposal for a modus vivendi. But fortunately I had
informed your Lordship of the proposal by letter a few days after it was
made, and I received a prompt reply by telegram which I communicated
to Mr. Blaine on the 20th April.

Mr. Blaine, therefore, cannot justly complain of any delay on my part,
or on the part of Her Majesty’s Government, in relation to this matter.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 10.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

WASHINGTON, May 4, 1891.

Sir: During the month of March last, a few days after the adjournment of Con-
gress, acting under the instructions of the President, I proposed to you that a modus
vivendi be agreed upon touching the seal fisheries pe nding the result of arbitration
of the question atissue between the two Governments. ‘The President's first proposal
which I submitted to you was that no Canadian sealer should be allowed to come
within a certain number of miles of the Pribyloff Islands.

It was, however, the conclusion of the President, after reading Lord Salisbury’s
despatch of the 21st Febr uary, that this modus viv endi might possibly provoke conflict
in the Behring’s Sea, and to avoid that result, he instructed me to propose that seal-
ing both on land and sea, should be suspended by both nations during the progress
of arbitration, or during the season of 1891. On both occasions it was aconversational
exchange of views, the first at my office at the State Department, the second at my
1esidence.

696 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The President was so desirous of a prompt response from Lord Salisbury to his
second proposition, that I ventured to suggest that you request an answer by cable
if practicable. Especially was the President anxious to receive an answer, which he
trusted would be favourable, before he should set out on his tour to the Pacific States.
He left Washington on the night of the 13th April without having heard a word from
your Government. It was then a full month after he had instructed me to open
negotiations on the question, and the only probable inference was that Lord Salis-
bury would not agree to his proposal.

The silence of Lord Salisbury implied, as seemed not improbable, that he would
not restrain the Canadian sealers from entering Behring’s Sea, and as all intelligence
from British Columbia showed that the sealers were getting ready to sail in large
numbers, the President found that he could not with justice prevent the lessees from
taking seals onthe Pribyloff Islands. The President therefore instructed the Secretary
of the Treasury, who has official charge of the subject, to issue to the lessees the
privilege of killing on the Pribyloff Islands the coming season the maximum number
of 60,000 seals, subject, however, to the absolute discretion and power of an agent
appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to limit the killing to as small a number

as the condition of the herd might, in his opinion, demand.
7 On the 22nd April, eight days atter the President had left Washington, you
notifie 1 me when I was absent from the capital that Lord Salisbury was ready
to agree that all sealing should be suspended pending the result of arbitration.

On the 23rd April I telegraphed Lord Salisbury’s proposition to the President.

He replied on the 25th April, expressing great satisfaction at Lord Salisbury’s
message, but instructing me to inform you that ‘‘some seals must be killed by the
natives for food;” that ‘‘the lessees are bound under their lease from the Govern-
ment to feed and care for the natives, making it necessary to send a ship to the
Pribyloff Islands at their expense;” and that for this service—a very expensive one—
the ‘“‘lessees should find their compensation in taking a moderate number of seals
under the lease.” The President expressed his belief that this allowance would be
readily agreed to by Lord Salisbury, because the necessity is absolute.

You will remember that when I communicated this proposition from the President
to you on the evening of Monday, the 27th April, you did not agree to the President’s
suggestion. On the contrary, you expressed yourself as confident that Lord Salis-
bury would not accept it; that, in your judgment, the killing of seals must be cut
off absolutely on the land and in the water; and that it could not be stopped on
either unless stopped on both.

The narrative of facts which I have now given, absolutely necessary for clearly
understanding the position of this Government, brings me to a further statement
which I am directed by the President to submit. The President refuses to believe
that Lord Salisbury could possibly maintain the position you have taken when his
Lordship is placed in full possession of the facts, which I shall now submit to you
somewhat in detail.

When the privilege of killing seals on the Islands of St. George and St. Paul in
Behring’s Sea was leased to the North American Company for a certain sum per skin
to be paid to the Government, other duties of an onerous, costly, and responsible
character were imposed upon the Company.

Under their lease, the Company is obliged ‘‘to furnish to the inhabitants of the
Islands of St. George and St. Paul annually such quantity or number of dried salmon,
and such quantity of salt and such number of salt barrels for preserving their neces-
sary supply of meat, as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time
determine.”

The Company is further obliged to ‘furnish to the inhabitants of these islands 80
tous of coal annually, and a sufficient number of comfortable dwellings in which
said natives may reside, and shall keep such dwellings in proper repair.”

The Company is further obliged ‘‘to provide and keep in repair such suitable school
houses as may be necessary, and shall establish and maintain during eight months
of each year proper schools for the education of the children on said islands, the
same to be taught by competent teachers, who shall be paid by the Company a fair
compensation, all to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury.”

The Company is further obliged to “‘maintain a suitable house for religious wor-
ship, and will also provide a competent physician, or physicians, and necessary and
proper medicines and medical supplies.”

The Company is still further obliged ‘‘to provide the necessaries of life for the
widows and orphans, aged and infirm inhabitants of said islands, who are unable to
provide for themselves.”

And it is finally provided that ‘‘all the foregoing agreements shall be done and
performed by the Company free of all costs and charges to the said native inhabit-
ants of said islands, or to the United States.”

And it is made still further the duty of the Company ‘to employ the native
inhabitants of said islands to perform such labour upon the islands as they are fitted

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 697

to perform, and to pay therefor a fair and just compensation, such as may be fixed
by the Secretary of the Treasury.” And also the Company ‘‘agrees to contribute as
far as in its power all reasonable efforts to secure the comfort, health, education,
and promote the morals and civilization of said native inhabitants.”

In short, then, the means of living, the facilities for education, the care of health,
the religious teaching, the training of the young, and the comfort of the old, in a
community of over 300 persons, are all imposed upon the Company as its solemn
duty by specific Articles of the lease. I inclose you a copy of Census of 1890, giving
every name of the 303 persons, old and young, male and female, who constitute the

whole community of the Pribyloff Islands.*
8 The duties thusimposed upon the Company must be discharged annually with

punctuality and exactness. The comfort, possibly the safety, of all these
human beings, peculiarly helpless when left to themselves, is dependent upon the
Company under the lease, and the lessees are paid therefor by the Government in the
seal-skins which the Company receive for the service. If the Company shall, asyou
say Lord Salisbury requests, be deprived of all privilege of taking seals, they cer-
tainly could not be compelled to minister to the wants of these 300 inhabitants for
an entire year. If these islanders are to he left to charity, the North American
Company is under no greater obligation to extend it to them than are other citizens
of the United States. It evidently requires a considerable sum of money to furnish
all the supplies named in the lease—supplies which must be carried 4,000 miles on a
specially chartered steamer. If the lessees are not to be allowed payment in any
form for the amount necessary to support these 300 people on the islands, they will
naturally decline to expend it,

No appropriation of money has been made by Congress for the purpose, and the
President cannot leave these worthy and innocent people to the hazard of starvation
even to secure any form of Agreement with Lord Salisbury touching seal life. Seal
life may be valuable, but the first duty of the Government of the United States in
this matter is to protect human life.

In this exigency, the President instructs me to propose to Lord Salisbury that he
concede to the North American Company the right to take a sufficient number of
seals, and no more than sufficient, to recompense them for their outlay in taking
care of the natives, and that, in the phrase of the President, all ‘‘commercial killing
of seals be prohibited pending the result of arbitration.”

The Secretary of the Treasury has a right to fix the number necessary to the end
desired. After full consideration, he has limited the number to 7,500 to be killed
by the Company to repay them for the outlay demanded for the support of the 300
people on the Pribyloff Islands.

He further directs that no females be killed, and that thus the productive capacity
of the herd shall not in the slightest degree be impaired.

This point being fixed and agreed to, the proposed Arrangement between the two
countries would be as follows:

The Government of the United States limits the number of seals to be killed on
the islands for purposes just described to 7,500.

The Government of the United States guarantees that no seals shall be killed in
the open waters of Behring’s Sea by any person on any vessel sailing under the
American flag, or by any American citizen sailing under any other flag.

The Government of Great Britain guarantees that no seals shall be killed in the
open waters of Behring’s Sea by any person on any vessel sailing under the British
flag, and that no British subject shall engage in killing seals for the time agreed
upon on any vessel sailing under any other flag.

These prohibitions shall continue until the Ist day of May, 1892, within which
time the Arbitrators shall render final award or awards to both Governments.

These several propositions are submitted for the consideration of Lord Salisbury.
The President believes that they are calculated to produce a result at once fair and
honourable to both Governments, and thus lead to the permanent adjustment of a
controversy which has already been left too long at issue.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) J. G. BLAINE.

*¥or Inclosure, see Inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch, dated February 20,
1891: Appendix, No. 1.

698 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No alt:
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 14.)

WASHINGTON, May 5, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my immediately preceding despatch, I
have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which I have this
day addressed to Mr. Blaine in answer to his communication of yester-
day relative to a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

9 [Inclosure in No. 11.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, May 5, 1891.

Sir: [have the hononr to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday, in
which you haye formulated, for the consideration of the Marquis of Salisbury,
detailed proposals for the modus vivendi during the approaching fishery season in
Behring’s Sea on the principle of a cessation of seal killing both at sea and on land,
an arrangement to which, as I informed you in my note of the 20th ultimo, his
Lordship was disposed to give his favourable consideration. I have forwarded to
Lord Salisbury by this day’s mail a copy of your note, and I have telegraphed to
his Lordship the precise terms of the proposal with which it concludes.

I much regret to find that a misconception has arisen as regards your complaint of
delay on my part in acquainting Lord Salisbury with your second or alternative
proposal for a cessation of seal killing at sea and on land, which you originally
made to me verbally. On that occasion, you may remember that I expressed some
reluctance at sending any further proposals to his Lordship while his despatch cf
the 21st February last (submitting amendments on the questions for arbitration)
remained unanswered, and that I suggested that it would be more satisfactory if
this new proposal were made concurrently with your reply to that despatch, which
I hoped to receive with the least possible delay.

I understood you to assent to that suggestion, and to say that you would “ proceed
in that order.”

If you had informed me that the President for any reason desired that this alter-
native proposal should be telegraphed to Lord Salisbury, I need hardly say that I
should have complied at once with his wishes.

But I cannot call to mind that. the President’s name was ever mentioned at our
interview, which you correctly describe as ‘‘a conversational exchange of views.”

Fortunately, however, no appreciable loss of time occurred. I acquainted Lord
Salisbury with your alternative proposal by the mail of the 7th April, a few days
only after it was made, and I received a prompt answer by telegraph, which enabled
me to inform you by my note of the 20th April that his Lordship was disposed to
consider the proposal favourably.

At an interview at your residence on the 23rd April you expressed your satisfaction
at Lord Salisbury’s reply, and you stated that before taking any further steps you
desired to communicate by telegraph with the President.

At a further interview at your residence on the 27th, you informed me that the
President desired that the modus vivendi should contain a reservation of the right to
kill a certain number of seals for the support of the natives of the Pribyloff Islands.

At first sight this reservation caused me some disappointment. It certainly
appeared to me open to exception as detracting from the principle of equality, which
was a feature of the original proposal. But I was more concerned at your stating
that it never was the intention of the President or of yourself that the modus vivendi
should be put in force until the terms of arbitration had been settled.

This I feared would prevent the timely application of the modus vivendi, and I so
informed Lord Salisbury by telegraph on the same day.

I notice with satisfaction that no such condition is affixed to your present pro-
posal, although the reservation as to the killing of a limited number of seals on the
island is maintained.

Iam glad to think that there is yet time to carry out for this fishery season any
arrangement which may promptly be agreed to, and I hope that the above explana-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 699

tion may remove the impression you appear to have formed, that there has been any
delay on my part in expediting the consideration of the modus vivendi which you have
proposed.
Iremain, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

10 No. 12.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 16, 1891.

As soon as the Government of Canada have answered communica-
tion addressed to them I will reply to your telegram.

No. 13.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received May 21, 9 a.m.)

{Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, May 20, 1891.

Ihave just received a letter from the Acting Secretary of State inform-
ing me that the President wishes to know the reply of Her Majesty’s
Government to the proposal made on 4th May by Mr. Blaine.

In order to allay the President’s anxiety, I shall be obliged if your
Lordship can give me some intimation as to when the decision of Her
Majesty’s Government may be expected.

No. 14.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauneefote.

[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 21, 1891.
No definitive reply has yet been received from Canada with regard
to the proposed modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

No. 15.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 22, 6 p.m.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, May 22, 1891.

I omitted to inform your Lordship that Mr. Blaine’s proposal involves
to the United States Government a loss of revenue from the Seal Com-
pany at the rate of 10 dollars per skin, which amounts to about half-a-
million dollars in all. In respect of the arrangements made for this
season, the Company would also be great losers,

700 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 16.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 26, 10.15
a. M.)

[‘Lelegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, May 25, 1891.

I received a visit to-day from the Acting Secretary of State, who
came, by desire of the President, to express his deep concern that no
reply to Mr. Blaine’s proposal had been received from Her Majesty’s
Government. By each day’s delay more detriment was caused to the
United Statesinterests. Owing tothe unprotected state of the islands,
and to their being unprovided with rations and stores, the United
States Government are unable any longer to detain their cruizers or the
vessels of the Company.

I begged him to assure the President, in reply, that all possible expe-
dition was being used by your Lordship; but the form of Mr. Blaine’s
proposal, as well as the lateness of the time when it was made, had
given rise to grave difficulties, some of which I explained to him. I
told him that I hoped in a day or two to receive the reply, but that I
would telegraph the substance of his communication to your Lordship.

11 INO, 17.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 27,8 p.m.)
{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1891.

The Acting Secretary of State has just written me a aves to the
same effect as his verbal communication which I reported in my tele-
gram of the 25th May.

He adds, however, that the United States Government have found it
necessary to dispatch the revenue-steamer “ Rush” to the islands, and
that the “Corwin” is nearly ready to sail at San Francisco, and will
very shortly put to sea.

Should an agreement, as proposed, be arrived at before her departure
to limit the seal catch, she can still take appropriate orders.

No. 18.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, May 28, 1891.
Thave to inform you that to-night notice will be given of a Bill giving
power to Her Majesty to prohibit for a limited time the hunting of seals
in Behring’s Sea.
Itis hoped that the House of Commons will sanction this Bill within
a few days, but until this has been done it is impossible for Her Maj-

re ™

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 701

esty’s Government to agree formally with that of the United States as
to a modus vivendi, or to send cruizers with instructions to prevent the
sealing-vessels from entering Behring’s Sea.

12 APPENDIX.
No. 1.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 2.)

WASHINGLON, February 20, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copies of Reports of Special
Treasury Agent C. J. Goff, and Assistant Treasury Agents A. W.
Lavender, S. R. Nettleton, and J. Murray, with accompanying docu-
ments, concerning the condition of affairs in the Seal Islands of Alaska
and the fur-seal fisheries for 1890.

These Reports have been transmitted to the Senate by the Treasury
Department in response to a Resolution of that body, but your Lord-
ship will perceive that they do not include the Report of Professor
Elliott, to which reference has frequently been made, and which, up to
the present time, has been withheld from publication.

I am, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 1.]
(51st Congress, 2nd Session.—Ex. Doc. No. 49.)
SENATE.

Letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, in response to a Resolution
of the Senate, Reports concerning the Condition of the Seal Islands of Alaska.

FEBRUARY 10, 1891.—Referred to the Committee on Commerce and ordered to be
printed.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., February 9, 1891,

Sir: In pursuance of the Resolutions of the Senate of the United States dated the
10th and 12th ultimo respectively, I have the honour to transmit herewith copies of
the following Reports of Special Treasury Agent Charles J. Goff, and Assistant Treas-
ury Agents A. W. Lavender, 8. R. Nettleton, and Joseph Murray, with their accom-
panying documents, concerning the condition of affairs in the Seal Islands of Alaska,
and relating to the fur-seal fisheries for the year 1890, &c., viz.:

1. Letter of Charles J. Goff, dated July 31, 1890, submitting Annual Report, with .
the following inclosures:

(A.) Annual Report, 1890, dated July 31, 1890.

(B.) Report of Joseph Murray, dated July 31, 1890.

(C.) Report of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, dated July 26, 1890.

(D.) Statement of seals killed for year ended July 20, 1890, on St. Paul Island.

(E.) Statement of seals killed for year ended July 20, 1890, on St. George Island.

(F.) Statement of seals killed for food on St. Paul Island during the year ended
May 21, 1890.

(G.) Statement of seals killed in 1889 on St. Paul Island by the Alaska Commercial
Company, and by the North American Commercial Company in 1890; also daily
Weather Report.

(H.) Statement of skins accepted on Seal Islands from 1870 to 1890.

(1.) Statement of liabilities of North American Commercial Company to natives

of St. Paul Island to August 1, 1890.
13 (J.) Account current of North American Commercial Company with United
States on Island of St. Paul, 1890.

702 APPENDIX TO GASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

(K.) Account current of North American Commercial Company with United States
on Island of St. George, 1890.

(L.) Census of St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 31, 1890.

(M.) Census of St. George Island, July 31, 1890.

(N.) Statement of accounts transferred to the North American Oommercial Com-
pany by the Alaska Commercial Company for natives of St. George, May 24, 1890.
List of accounts due natives of St. George Island by North American Commercial
Company.

(0.) Receipts of Agents Lavender and Murray, August 9 and 11, 1890, for seals
shipped from islands.

(P.) Protest of George R. Tingle, Superintendent of North American Commercial
Company, against closing season, July 20, 1890, and reply of Charles J. Goff, Treas-
ury Agent.

(Q.) Statement of skins taken on St. Paul Island from 1870 to 1890 by Alaska Com-
mercial Company; also seals killed for food for natives, &e.

2. Report of $. R. Nettleton, Assistant Treasury Agent, July 31, 1890, of affairs on
St. Paul Island, 1890.

3. Report of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, of August 25, 1890, of
affairs on St. George Island, 1890.

4, Report of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, October 24, 1890.

5. Report of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, October 30, 1890.

6. Report of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, March 19, 1890, as to
schooners seized by the Government from 1886 to 1889, their condition, &c.

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) A. B. NETTLETON, Acting Secretary.

The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE,

Washington, D. C.

1. Letter of Charles J. Goff, submitting Annual Report.

Sr. Paun Isuanp, ALASKA, July 81, 1890.

Srr: I herewith respectfully submit my Annual Report of the condition of the seal
fisheries for the year 1890. Also such tabulated statements and communications as
should be in the hands of the Department, as follows:

(A.) My annual written Report.

(B.) Mr. Joseph Murray, First Assistant Treasury Agent’s Report, St. George
Island.

(C.) Mr. A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent’s Report, St. George Island.

(D.) Statement of St. Paul Island daily killing.

(E.) Statement of St. George Island daily killing.

(F.) Statement of fur-seals killed for food upon St. Paul and St. George Islands,
and disposition of the skins.

(G.) Table comparing daily killing of 1889 with that of 1890, also giving daily
Weather Report for each year.

(H.) Table showing the beginning of each sealing season on the islands from 1870
to 1890 inclusive, and number of fur-seals accepted by the lessees up to July 20 of
each year.

(1.) Showing the distribution of natives’ earnings for season of 1889 and 1890;
also amount transferred by the Alaska Commercial Compauy to the North American
Commercial Company, and the amount to the credit of the natives in the hands of
the North American Commercial Company, August 1, 1890, and my instructions to
the representatives of the Alaska and North American Commercial Company.

(J.) Account current St. Paul Island.

(K.) Account current St. George Island.

(L.) Census St. Paul Island.

(M.) Census St. George Island.

(N.) Distribution of natives’ earnings St. George Island.

(O.) Steamer “ Arago,” Captain H. C. Thomas, receipts for season’s catch of fur-
seals, 1890.

(P.) Mr. George R. Tingle’s communication protesting against the order stopping

the killing of seals, July 20, and my reply.
14 (Q.) Table showing the number of seals killed by the Alaska Commercial
Company yearly, for the twenty years of their lease. The distribution of the
natives’ earnings for same period, &c., for the Islands of St. Paul and St. George.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) CHARLES J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent in charge of the Seal Fisheries,
Hon. WILLIAM WINDOM,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 703

(A.)—Annual Report, 1890.

. St. Pau Istanp, ALASKA, July 31, 1890.

Srr: Pursuant to instructions, I sailed from San Francisco on the 6th May on the
North American Commercial Company’s steamer ‘‘Arago,” accompanied by Mr. A. W.
Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent, who, after his arrival, was stationed upon St.
George Island to assist Mr. Joseph Murray in the discharge of his duties during the
killing season, and who will have charge of the island during the coming winter.
We arrived at Ounalaska on the 18th May, and on the 20th Mr. George R. Tingle,
Mr. Rudolph Newman, and myself sailed on the Alaska Commercial Company’s
steamer ‘‘Dora” for the Seal Islands, to take an inventory of the property on St.
George and St. Paul, belonging to the Alaska Commercial Company, according to an
Agreement signed by and between the Alaska Commercial Company and the North
American Commercial Company on the 12th March, 1890.

The Alaska Commercial Company was represented by Mr. Newman, and the North
American Commercial Company by Mr. Tingle, and I acted as Unipire, as per your
instructions, bearing date the 16th April, 1890. We arrived at St. Paul Island on
the 21st May, and immediately commenced to take stock. After several days’ labour
the business was well in hand, and we proceeded to St. George Island per steamer
“‘Dora,” and made a complete inspection and inventory of all the property there
belonging to the Alaska Commercial Company. After our return to St. Paul there
was one difference referred to me; and satisfactorily adjusted, then the entire busi-
ness was settled by the representatives of their respective Companies.

The following property was transferred to the North American Commercial Com-
pany: sixty-three native houses on St. Paul and nineteen upon St. George, and upon
both islands all buildings and other property belonging to the Alaska Commercial
Company.

Won St. Paul Island the sum of 9,213 dol. 58 ¢. belonging to the natives and
deposited with the Alaska Commercial Company was passed to the North American
Commercial Company with the consent of the natives, and credited to their “ pass
book” accounts. Also several special individual deposits amounting to 12,117 dol.
2c., drawing interest at 4 per cent. per annum, leaving in the hands of the Alaska
Commercial Company 3,404 dol. 99 c. to the credit of Mrs. Alexarfder Milevedoff, who
did not wish to make a change. On St. George 5,391 dol. 17 ec. was transferred to
the North American Commercial Company, but from this amount the sum of 1,700
dollars, belonging to the priest, must be deducted, leaving a balance of 3,691 dol. 87 ¢.
to the credit of the natives. The transfer was made and dated the 24th May, 1890.

The past winter was unusually mild, the sanitary condition of the village was
good, the people were blessed with good health, and they passed the time pleasantly.
They were under the combined charge of Mr. 8. R. Nettleton, Assistant Treasury
Agent; Dr. C. A. Lutz, resident physician, and Mr. J. C. Redpath, resident agent
for the Alaska Commercial Company.

With the spring came that dreaded disease to this people, pneumonia, which caused
the death of three sealers; other ailments prevalent among them carried off seven
others, women and children, making a total of ten deaths since the 1st January, 1890,
the date of the census, leaving at present a total population of 208. The population
of St. Paul Island in 1872, as far back as the official records go, was 218. Arrivals
since then, seventy-six. Had it not been for this influx of immigration the native
population would have been about extinct. ‘The established rule of thoroughly
cleaning the village in the spring and fall presents a marked contrast to the condition
of the place a few years ago. All along the green sward, in front of the dwellings,
which was then a depository for filth and offal, the children romp and play. Gradu-
ally, too, the people are becoming more reconciled to cleaner methods in their dwell-

ings, and many of them take great pride in their personal appearance and
15 cleanliness. The school on this island was taught by Simeon Milevedoff, a

native, who was educated in San Francisco. It was opened on the 1st Sep-
tember, 1889, and closed Ist May, 1890—total number of school days, 172; number
taught, 120.

Mr. Milevedoft was energetic and untiring in his efforts to advance the pupils, but
there is very little interest taken by them in English-speaking schools, so that there
was but little progress made,

The North American Commercial Company have commenced repairing the native
dwelling-houses, and so far have complied with all the requirements of their lease.
The United States cutter the ‘‘ Bear,” Captain M. A. Healey, anchored off this island
on the 20th June and left on the same day. Captain Healey reported ‘‘ No pirates in
Behring’s Sea.” The ‘ Bear” delivered to this island the boat and fixtures complete
asked for by me from the Department.

The Rey. Sheldon Jackson was passenger on board the “‘ Bear,” and came ashore
and inspected the village and school-house; he received a copy of the School Report,
and was well pleased with the condition in which he found things,

T04 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

On the 31st July, in company with Mr. Tingle and Professor Elliott, I visited Otter
Island, and found, to my surprise, that there were no seals hauled out, as was usual
in the past.

The United States cutter ‘Richard Rush,” Captain W. C. Coulson, arrived here
on the 17th of July, and reported ‘‘no pirates in Behring’s Sea.” Professor H. W.
Elliott, your recent appointee as Treasury Agent, has spent the season here, dividing
his time between the two islands, and giving his entire attention to the state of the
rookeries and the methods used at present in driving and killing the seals, and his
Report will, no doubt, be of the utmost importance, and of great value to the
Department.

Mr. William Palmer, a representative of the Smithsonian Institution, has, by your
permission, spent the season on St. Paul collecting specimens of various birds and
animals, and his incessant labours have been abundantly rewarded.

‘The merchantable seal-skins in the salt-houses on St. Paul and St. George Islands,
taken from the seals killed for food for the natives during the winter of 1889-90, will
be shipped as per instructions bearing date the 5th May, per United States cutter
‘Richard Rush,” Captain W. C. Coulson commanding, which will leave here early
in September, consigned to the Collector of Customs at San Francisco, The matter
will be reported directly to you by Mr. Joseph Murray, who has charge of St. Paul
Island for the coming winter. The accompanying communications from the repre-
sentatives of the Alaska Commercial Company and the North American Commercial
Company will fully explain my actions in the matter. ;

The total number of fur-seals killed and accepted upon this island by the lessees
was 16,830, and the total amount earned by the natives and distributed to them was
6,783 dol. 30 c. Your instructions to me upon the subject of dividing the earnings of
the natives, and looking after their welfare financially, I endeavoured to follow, but
was prevented from doing so by Mr. George kK. Tingle, general manager for the les-
sees. His reasons for so doing are inclosed.

I regret that Iam compelled to report that the seals are rapidly diminishing in
numbers, and to such an alarming extent that to check the decrease will require, in
my opinion, the most careful consideration of the Department.

To have a correct understanding of how the annual catch is taken, it will bo
necessary to bear in mind the following facts: (1) By the Acts of Congress govern-
ing the seal fisheries the season opens on the Ist June and closes on the 31st July,
unless otherwise restricted by the Secretary of the Treasury. (2) The bull seals
arrive at the island between the 1st May and the 10th June, and the cows between
the 10th June and the 10th July. (8) The large young seals, whose skins are mer-
chantable, commence coming about the middle of May, gradually increasing in num-
bers as the cows appear, and with the large young seals come a small portion of the
pups born the summer before; but the greatest majority of the yearlings put in their
appearance in the month of July. Now, in opening the season it is customary to
secure all the two-year-olds and upwards possible before the yearlings begin to fill
up the hauling-grounds and mix with the killableseals. By so doing it is much easier
to do the work, and the yearlings are not tortured by being driven and redriven to
the killing-grounds. Heretofore it was seldom that more than 15 per cent. of all the
seals driven the latter part of June and the first few days in July were too small to be
killed, but this season the case was reversed, and in many instances 80 to 85 per cent.
were turned away. The accompanying percentage examples will show the disposi-
tion of this year’s drive. ‘The first killing of fur-seals by the lessees was on the 6th
June, and thescarcity of killable seals was apparent to all.

The season closed on the 20th July, and the drives in July show a decided

16 increase in the percentages of small seals turned away, and a decrease in the

killables over the drives of June, demonstrating conclusively that there were

but few killable seals arriving, and that the larger part of those returning to the

islands were the pups of last year. The average daily killing for the season was 400,
or a daily average of 522 including only the days worked.

In 1889 the average daily killing from the 1st June to the 20th July inclusive was
1,516, or a daily average of 1,974 including only the days worked. With this unde-
niable decrease in merchantable seals, and knowing the impoverished condition of
the rookeries and hauling-grounds, and believing it to be inimical to the best inter-
ests of the Government to extend the time for killing beyond the 20th July, Iadhered
to the letter and spirit of your instructions to me, and elosed the killing season on the
20th July, against the bitter protestations of Mr. George R. Tingle, General Manager
for the lessees; his communication to me upon the subject and my reply are inclosed.
Had there been a reasonable probability of the lessees securing their quota of 60,000
seals, I should have deemed it my duty to extend the time for killing to the 31st July.

The killing of the 6th June, the first of the season, was from the Reef Rookery,
with drive of about 700 seals: the total killed, 116, 834 per cent. being turned away
as too small. On the 11th June, the drive was from the Reef Rookery, about 1,000:
total killed, 574, 424} per cent. turned away. On the 24th June the drive was from

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 705

the Reef Rookery and Zoltoi hauling-grounds combined, and about 1,417 were driven:
total killed, 206, 85} per cent. turned away. This exhausted Zoltoi hanling-grounds
for a period of twenty-one days, and it was not available until the 19th July, when
again, in connection with the Reef Rookery, the last drive was made, and about
3,956 seals were driven, 556 were killed, and 86 per cent. turned away. The seals
turned away from the several drives invariably returned to the hauling-grounds and
rookery from which they were driven only to be redriven to the killing-field, and
culled of the few killables that chanced to join them upon their return to the sea
from each drive. By referring to the Table marked (D), showing the daily killing
for this year, and also comparing the same with that of last year, vou will see that
from all of the drives the same percentages were turned away as from those I have
cited.

We opened the season by a drive from the Reef Rookery, and turned away 834 per
cent., when we should have turned away about 15 per cent. of the seals driven, and
we closed the season by turning away 86 per cent.,a fact which proves to every
impartial mind that we were redriving the yearlings, and considering the number of
skins obtained that it was impossible to secure the number allowed by the lease,
that we were merely torturing the young seals, injuring the future life and vitality
of the breeding rookeries to the detriment of the lessees, natives, and the Government,

On Sunday, 20th July, all the rookeries presenting any male seals were driven from
English Bay, Middle Hill, Tolstoi, Lukaunon, Keetavia, and Rocky Point, and about
4,620 seals were brought to the killing field; 780 were killed, and 83 per cent. were
turned away. On the same day at North-east Point they killed 466, which, added to
those taken at the other rookeries, makes a grand total of 1,246.

This, and the killing on the 19th July, are the only instances recorded during the
season when the daily killing reached 1,000. Comparing the killings with those of
the same dates last year, we find that on the 19th July, 1889, from South-west Bay
hauling-grounds alone, 1,987 were killed, and on the 20th July, 1889, from the Reef
Rookery and Zoltoi hauling-grounds 1,913 were killed, and never were there such
percentages turned away during the entire season nor in any previous season, to my
knowledge, as in that of 1890. Itis true, however, that the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany could and did take smaller seals last season than the present lessees can take,
because of the differences in the tax paid by them, yet there have been no two-year-
olds of an average size turned away this season, they were all immediately clubbed
to swell the season’s catch, which is far below the number allowed for this year, a
condition of affairs that will convey to the Department in language far more con-
vineing than mine the fact that the seals are not here.

The North American Commercial Company’s agent, Mr. George R. Tingle, used
every effort to have the drives made so as to have no unnecessary loss of seal life,
and he would have made the season a most successful one for the Company if the
seals had returned to the rookeries as in the past.

It is evident that the many preying evils upon seal life—the killing of the seals in
the Pacific Ocean along the Aleutian Islands, and as they come through the passes
to the Behring’s Sea, by the pirates in these waters, and the indiscriminate slaughter
upon the islands, regardless of the future life of the breeding rookeries, have at last

with their combined destructive power reduced these rookeries to their pres-
17 ent impoverished condition, and to such an unequal distribution of ages and

sexes, that it is but a question of a few years, unless immediately attended to,
before the seal family of the Pribylov group of islands will be a thing of the past.
Notwithstanding the fact that the seals were looked upon as inexhaustible, and
were officially reported to be increasing as late as 1888, the time has suddenly come
when experiment and imagination must cease, and the truth be told.

Absolute protection is the only safeguard for the rookeries, and the only step to be
taken with safety. The seal meat necessary for the natives’ food is all that should
be killed under existing circumstances. Much can be written on this subject, many
theories may be advanced, all of which we have had for the past twenty years, to the
evident loss of seal life; but the facts presented in the accompanying Tables demon-
strate with mathematical certainty the fearful decrease of the seals; and here I will
say I heartily concur with my worthy predecessor, Mr. George R. Tingle, who, in his
official Report of 1887, used the following language:

“The Department cannot place too high an estimate on the value of this seal
property, and the Government, I am sure, will not yield to any demands which
would make it possible to accomplish the destruction of her seal rookeries and seal
life, which under judicious management and protection by law may be perpetuated
indefinitely.”

There is but one authority upon seal life, especially the seals of the Pribylov
Islands, and this is the work of Professor Henry W. Elliott, who surveyed these
rookeries in 1872 and 1874, and his work was verified by Lieutenant Maynard, and I
am satisfied was as near correct when made as was possible for man to chronicle,
but to-day there is a marked contrast in the condition of now and then. On p. 54

BS, PT V 45

706 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of the Professor’s monograph you will find he places the number of seals upon
North-east Point Rookery at 1,200,000. Standing on a prominent elevation known
as ‘“‘Hutchinson’s Hill,” in the month of July, and facing the north, I had before
me a sea margin of over 2 miles, turning and facing the south I had a sea margin of
over 1mile. I could view entire this once famous rookery, and it was simply impos-
sible to realize there was ever such a moving mass of living animals as Professor
Elliott describes; his estimate seems incredible. Yet his writings have never been
refuted.

To-day there is not to be seen over 250,000 seals of all ages and sexes.

To the extreme south-west of the island is the Reef Rookery, reported to have (by
Professor Elliott) 301,000 seals in 1874. It has not over 100,000 seals to-day. ‘‘ Gar-
botch,” the adjoining rookery, where the Professor says he stood on Old John Rock
and saw ‘10,000 fighting bulls, I ean stand and count every bull in sight. This
rookery with the reef is an extending point running out into the sea sloping east
and west with a large surface of tableland in the centre. This was once a parading
or playing ground where the seals met as they came from the east and west sides;
it was the resort of over 200,000 seals, now the resting-place for a few cows and
pups and now and then a worn-out sleeping bull. The number now visiting these
rookeries (the Reef and Garbotch) find ample room on the two slopes, without
pushing back on the plateau above.

Zoltoi Sands, once a favourite hauling-ground for the bachelor seals, from where
thousands have been driven and killed for their skins, is entirely deserted, only,
however, a short time in advance of all the hauling-grounds and rookeries, if imme-
diate steps are not taken by the Department to nurse and protect these rookeries.
Tukannan, a rookery on the east side of the island, between the Reef and Pola-
vania, the most picturesque sea] grounds of them all, where the seals were wont to
haul upon the cliffs and in the interstices between the rugged rocks for over half-a-
mile on the sea frontage, a most inviting home for this mysterious pelagic family,
where, in connection with Keetavia Rookery, with the same sea range, there were
$35,000 of these animals, presents at present to the most careful estimate not over
75,000 seals.

Polavania Rookery, with 4,000 feet of sea margin, with a seal life of 300,000 in
1874; Tolstoi Rookery, with 3,000 feet of sea margin, with 225,000 seals in 1874;
and Zapodine, with 5,880 feet of sea margin, with 441,000 seals in 1874, all present a
most deplorable condition, and do not show over one-eighth of the seals as reported
by Professor Elliott.

With these facts in.view, I am convinced there will be a greater decrease in seal
life next year than this, for it will not be in the power of human ingenuity to check
the rapid advance towards extermination now going on in that length of time.

In conclusion, I respectfully suggest that there be no killing of fur-seals for their
skins on these islands, nor in the waters of Behring’s Sea, for an indefinite number
of years, to be named by the Secretary of the Treasury, and let Nature take her
course in replenishing the rookeries, and that the Department take the entire matter

of protecting these rookeries under its immediate supervision, for I regard any
18 other system of protection dangerous to the future of all interested. The

limited number of seals killed this season by the lessees will, undoubtedly,
leave the majority of the natives in absolute want, and their condition will appeal
to the Department for aid. The amount distributed to the natives upon the Islands
of St. Paul and St. George was 6,783 dol. 30 c. and 1,644 dol. 80 c. respectively. This
wili not be sufficient to provide them with the necessaries of life until the steamers
return in the spring, especially so with the natives of the St. George Island.

With this fact in view, I made the following arrangements with the North Ameri-
can Commercial Company, through their manager, Mr. George R. Tingle. ‘The North
American Commercial Company’s resident agent, together with the ‘Treasury Agent
in charge, are to adjudge what supplies are positively needed for the support and
maintenance of the natives; the Company receiving from the Treasury Agent a
certificate that such supplies have been furnished, but said certificate merely to be
accepted as a voucher of correctness. The matter to be adjusted in the future with
the Department by the North American Commercial Company.

The Department will have to make some provision for the support and maintenance
of these people, as their mode of making a living has been destroyed for the pres-
ent, and their future is only what the charity of the Government will make it.
There is utterly nothing here upon which they can depend for a livelihood, until the
much-wished-for return of seals takes place, an event too far in the future to give
even a promise of better times to these unfortunate people.

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) CHARLES J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent in charge of the Seal Islands.
Hon. WILLIAM WINDOM,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, TO7

(B.)—Report of Joseph Murray.

OrFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. George Island, Alaska, July 31, 1890.

Str: I have the honour to report that the health of the natives here has been
unusually good during the past year, and is at present far better than any other
time in many years. ‘There is not a case of sickness on the island, excepting those
of Jong standing, due to scrofula and other chronic diseases.

With one single exception all the workmen are well and hearty.

We had a full term of school from September until May, and under the care of
the teacher, Dr. L. A. Noyes, it was as well conducted as any public school of its
size in the country; but, after all, I find the children made next to no progress in
acquiring the simplest rudiments of our language. It seems incredible, but it is
true, that young men and women who have been to school here for seven years do
not know how to speak or read a sentence of the English language. Looking over
their shoulders as they write in their copy-books, and observing the ease with which
they follow the head-lines, one would think they were making rapid progress, but
ask any one of them to read what he or she has been writing, and they cannot do it.

It was long suspected that the older people secretly influenced the children against
American schools, and encouraged them to learn the Russian language in preference
to any other; but I find that they are just as ignorant of Russian as they are of
English, and as backward in learning it. °

There has been one day of each week devoted to the Russian school, which, in my
opinion, has a bad effect upon the children in their attempt to master the English
tongue, and I therefore respectfully suggest that the practice of teaching Russian to
the school children be abolished. After a year’s residence here, I am able to say that
the people as a whole have conducted themselves very well indeed; not a lond, vul-
gar, or angry word has been spoken in my hearing or to my knowledge by a native
man or woman on the Island of St. George. Not one case of drunkenness or drink-
ing, nor anything approaching to it, has come to my knowledge. A case of wrong-
doing by two white men, employés of the Alaska Commercial Company, compelled
me and my assistant, Mr. A. P. Lond, to complain to Mr. Sloss, the President of the
Company, who immediately removed and discharged the offenders. Excepting one
instance, there has not been one word of complaint from any quarter.

The men who wintered in the service of the Alaska Commercial Company are all

good and worthy, especially the agent, Mr. Daniel Webster, and the physician,
19 Dr. A. L. Noyes. I take pleasure in thus testifying to their worth, for I have

found them to be upright and honourable at all times, in all their transactions
with the natives, with whom they are deservedly very popular.

I have endeavoured to promote a more perfect sanitary system in the village, and
I find it is not so hard, as was expected, to prevail on the people to adopt. better
methods, if one will be patient and treat them kindly.

It will be an impossibility, however, to do much toward establishing a sanitary
system of value until we have better water and a more abundant supply than is pos-
sible under existing conditions.

The present supply of water for domestic purposes is obtained from a well into
which the drainage of half the village finds its way, and the wonder to me is that
the people are not constantly sick while they have to use such drinking water.
There is a nice fresh-water lake within 2,000 feet of the village, and fully 50 feet
higher, from which a constant and never- failing supply of good water can be taken
if you can have 2,000 feet of 2-inch pipe and the necessary hy drant and fixings sent
here.

A drain is the next essential to success, and one of 700 feet in length can be dug

easily, and will suffice to carry all the dirt and offal of the village into the sea. It
will be necessary to have 700 feet of 12-inch drain-pipe.

The total absence of water-closets on this island is a disgrace. and is beyond all
question the cause of more immorality, disease, and death than all other things com-
bined. That such a state of things has been allowed to exist for twenty years is a
disgrace to our civilization, and Tdo hope you will insist on the present lessees or
on the Department to have it altered at once.

The subject is so abominable I dare not write it in a public Report.

It is absolutely necessary, too, that at least six of the dwelling-houses be enlarged,
as the families now occupying them have not room to live as human beings should.
It may be true, as many assert, that under Russian rule the natives were not housed
one-half so well as they are now; but such arguments are of no avail ina country
like ours. When a family of seven persons, of all ages and sexes, are packed in a
sleeping apartment measuring 10 by 10 feet they are not treated right, nor does our
Government intend to have such things existing where it has jurisdiction.

The dwelling-houses are badly in need of repairs, and the attention of the local
agent, Mr. Webster, has been called to their condition; but as he is to leave the

708 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

island this year, it may be necessary for you to mention it to the General Manager
of the North American Commercial Company.

Mr. A. W. Lavender arrived on the 26th, and immediately entered upon his duties.
On the 12th July the watchman reported a schooner in sight off Zapodine, and I
armed the men and sent a squad to exposed rookeries, Mr. Lavender going to Zapo-
dine with four men, the second chief and four men to "East Rooker y; and I went with
four men to Starri- “Arteel. We all watched until next morning without seeing an
enemy. ‘To facilitate the guarding of the rookeries it is necessary to have some sort
of shelter for the w atchmen ; asmall hut on each of the three rookeries would be
sufficient, and they need not cost over 50 dollars each.

On Sunday, 11th May, the schooner “ Alton” (Captain Worth), of San Francisco,
touched at the island, and the captain came ashore and informed us of the new lease
and new Company. On learning of the change the natives held several meetings,
and afterwards came to the Government House to have my advice as to how they
should act in case any material changes were made in their mode of working, gov-
ernment, or the amount of their pay.

The meeting was adjourned from time to time until they had thoroughly discussed
the most important questions raised, and at the last meeting, held 23rd May, they
unanimously declared that it was their firm belief and honest. opinion that the seals
had diminished and would continue to diminish from year to year, because all the
male seals had been slaughtered without allowing any to grow to maturity for use
on the breeding ground.

I made a note of the suggestion on the journal that day, and Iam now fully con-
vinced by personal observation that it is onky too true, and that the natives were
correct in every particular.

In 1889 the full quota of 15,000 skins was obtained here, but I know now (what I
did not understand then) that in order to fill the quota they lowered the standard
towards the close of the season and killed hundreds of yearling seals, and took a
greater number of small skins than ever before.

The first seals of this season appeared upon the hauling-ground on the 26th
20 April, and the first killing for food was on the 13th May. ‘The killing season
for skins opened on the ond June, and they killed seventy-one.

I inclose a full statement of all the killings of the season, from the 2nd June to the
20th July, inclusive, and you will observe that the greatest number killed at one
killing—excepting those of the 19th and 20th July—was only 394, although the driy-
ing and killing were under the immediate supervision of Mr. Webster, who is admitted
to be the most experienced and most careful sealer on the islands.

Until the 19th July, an attempt was made to keep to a standard of not less than
7-lb. skins, but when it was apparent beyond question that there were no large
young seals on the hauling-ground, the standard was lowered and skins of 5-lbs.
were taken wherever found. It was thus the last two killings were swelled to their
present proportions. ;

For the whole season we obtained a total of 4,112 skins, against a total of 10,138 on
the same date last year.

That the seals should have disappeared so oats sinee the Report of your prede-
cessor in 1888 is so astounding that those who cannot sce the rookeries and hauling-
grounds for themselves may well be pardoned for doubting what is, [am sorry to say,
only painful though it be to all who are interested, the whole truth must neverthe-
less be told, and that is that the seals have been steadily decreasing since 1880, and
the days are passed and gone when they could be counted on the Tookeries by the
million. I have carefully examined the rookeries and hauling-grounds at Starri-
Arteel north and east, and I find somewhat less than half the eround covered when
compared with former years. I accompanied the natives when they went to make
a drive from East Rookery, and we walked along the beach from Little East to East
Rookery without finding one seal till we came to the breeding-grounds proper.
Either Mx. Lavender or I was present at every killing made; we saw the numbers
that we turned away, and we counted the skins of all that were killed, and we find
that what is true of one rookery is trae of them all—the seals are not on them.

Now that the seals have disappeared the natives are very much alarmed, and they
anxiously inquire what will the Government do for them in their destitution. ‘They
have earned during the present season 1,644 dol. 90 c., which, I need scarcely add,
will be entirely in: adequate to supply food and clothing for a year for a population
of ninety people. I never knew a people so attached to a church as these poor crea-
tures, and now they are in great tribulation because they have no means to contrib-
ute to its support, nor to the support of the priest and his family. At one of their
many meetings they req uested me to write for them to the Russian-Greek Church
Consistory at San Francisco, and appeal for aid for their priest and church until such
times as the seal fisheries should recover and make them self- supporting. In justice
to the priest, I may tell you that he was the first to say he should not have any share
of the earnings of this season, and that he would not take any money from the people

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 709

until times mended, and that he could afford to pay; otherwise he shouid apply to
the Consistory for a position in another locality.

Ihave endeavoured to impress upon them the fact that they are not to be abandoned
to their fate; that the Government will not allow them to starve or sutfer, but will
take care of the people and of the rookeries until the rookeries are built up and fully
replenished, when prosperity and happiness will return to the island once more.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

(Signed) JOSEPH MuRRay,
Iirst Assistant Agent, St. George Island.
Hon. CHar_LeEs J. GOrr,
Agent in charge of Seal Island, Alaska.

(C.)—Teport of A. W. Lavender, Assistant Treasury Agent.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. George Island, Behring’s Sea, July 26, 1890.

Sm: [have the honour to make you the following Report of this season’s sealing
by the North American Commercial Company, and to offer such recommendations as
in my judgment should be enforced by the Government for the protection of these
rookeries during the next six or seven years; also to report to you the condition of

the natives and their houses, and to ask that such repairs to their houses as are
21 absolutely required be furnished as soon as possible; also to request of you in
your Report to the Secretary of the Treasury to ask for 350 dollars for repairs
to the Government House, and such other articles as I shall mention in this Report.

In accordance with your letter of the 20th instant, asking me to ship the 630 food
skins in the United States Revenue Marine cutter ‘‘ Rush,” I will state that I have
complied with the same, and inclose you a receipt signed by the Captain, a dupli-
cate of the same I have in this office on file. I will also state there are twenty road
skins here in the salt-house.

The killing of seals on this island was stopped on the 20th; a list of each number
killed out of each drive I inclose also to you, and you will see that the last drive
from North and Starri-Arteel Rookeries and also from Zapodine that there was a
larger number of seals killed than from any other drive; this I will assure you was
not owing to the greater number of large seals being driven at this time, but the
standard weight of skins being reduced on that day from 7 to 5 lbs., and even less.

The writer was surprised when he first visited the rookeries to find no young bull
seals upon them; this looked strange to him, and he began to look up the cause,
and it occurred to him that the constant driving of young male seals and the killing
of all the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds, that there were no young bulls left to go on the
rookeries, and without young blood the fur-seal industry will be something of the
past in a very few years.

The Government should take absolute control of these islands and permit no seal to
be killed more than are needed by the natives for food for the next. six or seven
years, and then all the male seals driven should be killed, as it is my opinion that
not over one-half ever go back upon the rookeries again. In this way there would
be killed upon this island about 2,500 each year. These skins sold in the market
would pay all the expenses of the island and furnish such supplies to the natives to
keep them from want, and they would be as well satisfied as they are now under
the management of the North American Commercial Company. Without something
of this kind being done, the natives will soon have to move from these islands, for
there will be nothing to keep them here.

The North American Commercial Company has landed and turned over to this
officer 30 gross tous of coal for the use of the natives and ten barrels of salt salmon,
and also state that there are 10 tons of coal in the coal-shed for the Government
house.

Most all of the native houses need repairing; some need a new floor, others a new
roof, and I would recommend that at least four of these houses be made larger by
the addition of one more room.

The Government or Company, whichever has charge of this island, the next season
should send at least 10,000 feet of siding and-10,000 feet of flooring on the first
steamer that comes up in the spring; also 35,000 shingles, and nails enough to do
the work.

The natives are in better health than they have been for the past year. I am not
aware of there being a sick person on the island. Their sanitary condition is bad,
and to each house there should be a small outbuilding, which they could use for a
closet. Such a thing seems to be unknown here.

710 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The repairs required by the Government House are as follows: The front platform
needs rebuilding, and part of the roof needs shingling, and the whole roof to be
painted; also the house needs painting and papering on the inside, and the fence

repainting.
The articles required for the use of this Office are as follows:
One letter-press and book. One carpet for Government House.
One bill file. Oue platform scales,
One letter file. One spring balance.

Paper and pens.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) ALBERT W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Agent.
Cuar_es J. Gorr, Esq.,
Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Islands.

22 Nortu AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 1, 1890.

Sir: As per request of T. Liebes, Esq., President North American Commercial
Company, contained in his letter to me dated at San Francisco, 9th June, 1890, I
hereby ask permission to kill and take for the use of said Company, for exhibi-
tion only, to be stuffed and set up, five specimen seals of different ages, including one
cow and one young black pup.

Iam, &c.

(Signed) GEORGE R. TINGLE,
Superintendent North American Commercial Company.
CHARLES J. GOFF, Esq., ;

Treasury Agent in charge.

(Note in red ink.)—Consent orally given, and this letter copied in journal, p. 256,
Sth July, 1890. .

23 (D.)—Annual Statement of Fur-Seals killed on St. Paul Island, Alaska, during the-
year ending July 20, 1890.

Number

: Number of Seals
of penis Billed killed by Lessees for Aggregate.
Natives’ Food. kins.
eS | Skins
a reject-|Accepted.| Rejected.* fs
Date, Rookery. 3 Kee ed. a 5 )\ ee
em 5 = b=
op | ao : £ oa!
B|s2ls 2\¢ a |e) a
lo) ao AN fod js} ad 2 oS
i= 1 feel bese Plbeeg beste fs 3
gj2 | 8 ee ieiles ad]o2f[a|-a
mite we] Sleeper En c/o foes | BN et, eel ae
Coes 5 i=) 5 | i |
gia IPlo| & |jelplélal @ lala
1890.
May 28 Be nice Bay §242.202 2405-208 119 ji15 3} 1 115 Bee, pel 4 a 4 18
une 6 Reef 23 2-5..fec Saht Gabe Boece lasceleoss|iscslose 115 1 11 al
s 11 LSA pe ee eeeneny Segied tes Osea hse eetoellooed sec see beO sees oon ane iso. 539 | 35 574 _
ue MS. | SOUSTOL Sc - sere aor ete oe ee ere eee Spoo|Saclac = RH Ih Nees sso|iesoc SO Hees 182
ie Git RESLE. «ass ae eee Se ee ees mos bocdeoclagc BO erate lk Iter 2 315 2 317
ae ia North-east! Pomiti-o0es 2 eee Soe ee eae |e UG acl dese eee) soc UE oon 16
Soe eld alieelalt-wrary 2 Ointe-;-= 526 seom see cere Peoapeealtecelasch | Bea| eee Ae sol (Preise aly
rE 18 | Tolstoi and Middle Hill ....-...-..| Bees ose soaloos HM Neoelsaae ¢! 4 270 4 274
we Ss SNOrth-eash Lome. oe scee eee eee [Sp eet ieee Vis3)| Wea Gee less boos AO 78
“20 | Reef and Lukannon.....--....--- Borer Sea eecloc|t) Sea Ue eles sAlles | oenc 239 |....| 339
Ss 20) North-east Point -..2..- 2252.22 Bepolesos aaa aes AS Be |e been. eee s ARSE leer 438
ee 21 u | ESouth-west: Bay, qc. << ck - Heken een ootelesos see eee 290) eles alee 2 290 2 292
WE als North-east Poimiba-2)-002--5- noe aes see| ae eee Cite see ilo sileees O67 non-< 96
ae 23 | English Bay and Lukannon...--. Bera Iogeral (aS Pa Sale} ooo lcd 3 518 3 521
Se oonleNorth-eastieoint ce ste: eee souls ee Bee es Tae Sr irtay |moaite cite elf. al 178 | 1 179
es 249 eReefsiand Zoltoisss-8: 212.8 dace also calerantsloee lis 414 }_..] 10 | 2 | 12 414 | 12 426
ce 24) North-east) Poimt-.3-9.cs-s20s- -2- Boe lesaciteorlsan 202i:(/ S:4)\'acealeeesleerme 205 }..-.| 205
oo) Zon) Halt-wayie OMnt sone am see eee ene sodbacse| sce se ol) = Oe cred Sales ae 263 | 3 266
Ste) 2D) SNorth-eastieOinbacssecoe nn cen ene eee seee eee LEA) 64D al SS ee 166 j....! 166

* Rejected for other reasons, 156.

Mad)

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. TE

(D.)—Annual statement of Fur-Seals killed on St. Paul Island, Alaska, ete.—Cont’d.

Number

_ Number of Seals
of Seals killed killed by Lessees for Aggregate.
Natives’ Food. Skins.
. |2 |Skins
2 reject-/Accepted.| Rejected. :
Date. Rookery. & |s ed. : 3
wm |e. ro 2 | =
ep [Ee ci 8 \3| 3
A lsals ala Bil | She
= ISOmIinN = N oO 3 I
SO le Olen Olcsa eS = sS
RB a|e beled Selig:
Oo Im B o a| 3 = D D aan
SU INS) IG || ASI Si ase |i reer es by we) Py eben
ce ly als 2 o| & |S] 0° ay) ae) iS)
Hin |PIO; & |m/}/P JO/aA D m| A
1890.

June 26 | South-west Bay .........--------- pBeclisa an Asay eae 2) pam Ife al 116; 1 17
‘« 27 | English Bay and Middle Hill..--- Sete |e eas eee cones len lOmin TZ 0 376 | 20 396
be 2fa\eNorth-east Loin... sc~.s5222---= Be eo Were te Q20U Moelle ee Son eee PA) Ne ece 230
OG BIS hed ES es alr sk Ro I an oar erat ee fee toe [een ee eee Cb elu (Seer sec eecte BA0ONIPe| a 206:
gs DOR WE INOGLE-CaNo IE.OM Geena ae ea s= l= Beal aea ees sae 9) Sere ora atl se = lessee 1h )a eee 79
“30 | Tolstoi, English Bay, Middle

Hall andeKeitawie: 2:22. =s-5-52-|s2-clo-s-|a-4}ee)) 200) | We) 2"/.2-) 42 207 | 2 209
ut SULIPNOLGR-Casb ROlMMtem antlers miei Weise leer lies al eee SH (alt a Sees eel eee OSU oc 98

SiTISS SORT TSC cleat a ee ee See SE EAP HIAMIED “OMG Gs [oe st apres 1B Fone
Wk th eNorth-easteloint:.22.2<-+-- .-S6e erate Sisco [ie ese SOM leat ce ralttete| eye Big eee 131
Ye 2p | pelaliawraryy Ont == sels ata vase iatal peers tsteyacl|nce tere AON SSS erne lies 240 | 2 242
Re Jel NGRiN-GASbEE OMNbie eee emcictete se erates alee eee 96 ed lnovel =m see OGM see 96
Bo 3 | South-west 'Bay..-......---..2--- RSS SS| earl ee If ee) ar aoe be 181 | 2 183
uC on PP NOrth-CasteOllibaes eo see esas Re) Nes | Sorel hears INN ee ale ol ers) ees LS OR Eee 180
ss 4 | Tolstoi, English Bay, and Middle

alee hee hey Pica see auo ees. pee eee | a ATO eee Qiallese | aoo 472 | 22 494
we 40 North-easteb omens. sne esac seer acc|es: lee s[ess|= oLOs| oy leans) al ees | ers sees we Pal
oe DulWReebet ea asm as cen See cc t ots Saleen Be eel (tele Dl eal) ae 1 525 1 526
us 5uleNorth-east Points. -< =) s-- 2-25. os Ila er (ee ee | Stec Pee (seer Aen | Serer 74
7 | English Bay, Mid ile Hill, Tol- |

Aten uukannon: and) Kets |5---|sass\ee sea 400K ac el ik ss | ob 400 | 11 411
oe 7 ee ee = Ne Bell 6\ ect hoe ol Ae AU aH DD licce alt 400 | 11 4)1
ee Teh NOnbh-CastchOmt..o5.- saan sae sc ER eee et ee SoG a ee a See leseeers: BEIT lgoac 336
et Sh PHialtewaye Ont seis aateisiarec el a =tai Bee PAS eoraleeale rs: ||! 4| 257) 4 261
up Sil North-east Pomtens-sse.cs2ces ose Besile cetlinealncs Bits) ed Ua epee pee IA SHCA ec ae 379
ce 9 | South-west Bay.......:......--.- Pe Babee Ball 2 GON ore alae 1 162'| 1 163
cs 9 eNorth-east bomb seon.--522-5>2e-5 Beals Sos| ene lees eee lm eee alias seal : Papal esate opal
2 WOR MRC OL Sete settcten sosmecaeee Secu oes 2 5 Oe RSS ie es) 373 | i 2) 2 4 374 4 378
at 10% North-east Point 2-45-56 ce se Jel leare % 112 Selle As MUD) 2 ee 112
“12 | English Bay, Middle Hill, ‘ol-

stoi, Lukannon, and Ketavie.-..|....|---.|..-|-.-| 624]5]| 4 |---| 4 629 | 4 633
Hf Sh Gklaliwaycekointtsses=.- ete. sols: Eee a ee PON ed esc etal sei mma 1 al oa eee ATh
& 137) North-east Points. o-sssece soe =- Feel | cee ae eve ti CS OT Pe EI HY fen ia Ly 641 | 17 658
se 4 ERG Olen cateaec atresia ce Sq uete lice Beet tera [eee | Pernt ben SIO | A ree RA re Kt? Sl ee 104
fs 15 | English Bay, Middle Hill, ‘Vol-

stol, Lukannon, and) Ketavie).-.|s.2-))...|-2-|-- - SIGs 3 asec eae aaa (mea! day eee 315
. tale NOrth-east EOmMbtastc. cs. a-see o.. = ie a eees ee OU bile Pe Gee eel alma ull este
‘ 16 ae Mets CS ae ny a ee ene ae La ese eda Eee ee 311 1 312
“17 | Polavnia, Lukannon, and Ke- |

Ua CO rige epee SE CRG OCRCESE - SE nneE Bae |e a ees SOOM PSU aoe eae BPW asd 372
es Iv, \eNorth-east-Lointes+:----- 05-20. Peer nee lameliemes |i AGO eaele See See Bl Pera RD) |S eee 7480
w 18 a Clee ee ee tere tere epore AQHA S| Seo eees)| tears O55 ser 405
ss ASH EAaApOCIN Gay =... ~oaeee so ea ecced aa A ee eieess POR eG BOM ool aced eee 56 80 |156 236
“ 19s Reetand Zoltiols isa 2 eee cae =s | 2-2 SBE a | Oval eai asus faa 549 | 7 556
as LOM PNOrth:6asurl Ointesece- eases cele. = tec BEA ete fo Bead lon a \acoe 446 |.... 446
re 20 | English Bay, Middle Hill, Tol-

stoi, Lukannon, Ketavie, aud |

PointMRockyeeeaaacseee ese se swe esec |e. Sealscel eozn| G) letSh pa eee eos ipae 780
of ZOMPNOLth-east) BOinb-c.. ae cess cos oe | oecloee- ee: 507 | 2] 47 |---|----| 509 | 47 556

1
Total..........-...-.---.----|119 [115 | 3 | 1 |16,783 50 |185 |50 /344 |16, 833 /391 |17, 724
|

G12 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

24 Table showing disposition of the rejected Skins of 1890, which I refuse to destroy.

Gotel wumber of aking rejected |.o50- 2 .c-e-2 occ ce eee see oeeees eee eee 391
July 10, accepted by lessees at North-east Point................2..20.----0- 22
ce 20, “ec “e “ec OE Pee ceo orc = ee Oe ee 43
‘sx, accepted. by lessees ab willage: ...220.5-2 ove eae eee cae 34
Now in'salt at North-east ;Point.<- 25.2. ee es see ne eee 47
Now: ansaltiat' villager 24 eco bee oy ae bee eee oe a ee eee 2
Received by North American Commercial Company to make suits for three
employés who are to winter on St. Matthew’s Islands establishing a trading
Stapion tor said Company ec ic ede. foes emcee eet eee oe ene 41
Prof ssor William Palmer, of the Smithsonian Institution.............-..-- 4
Spolledion the held. 222 ve senda ote te ene ae oe eee eee ate en ee ee 156
Give fo the natives. F272. 25 2c Sa Aes ok he eter cry a eee 42
— 391

The North American Commercial Company asks for five specimens for exhibition
as per accompanying letter, and reported killing one cow, one pup, one bull, large,

three males of different ages; total, six.

(E.)—Annual Statement of Fur-Seals killed on St. George Island, Alaska, during the year

ending July 20, 1890.

Number of Seals killed by Lessees

for Skins. Aggregate.
Accepted. Rejected
Date. ookery. Fae Sa | ee Pan LOE
y other saa Skins | g);,, | Total
5 Second | Te#sons. otal. ac- enna Seals
Prime. + Died cepted. |'& ‘| killed.
Class. | on the Pp
road.
1890.

MUNG ees ONG uN see cae cent ree 71 i (ileal Vesa am Ae 71
sf GH PMastsceee ssa ee acess 218 Q18i4 Aeestes be 218
i Sa PNorthite eset eecoos sacs 118 shits 1 118
ss 19 | East and Little East..-... 181 oko) I Be aS 181
eel 204 Zapodimey.2e-<a-ec2eee ae 394 DOLD wets lols 394
i 23 | Starri-Arteel and North. 164 164) hares! 164
ue 25 | East and Little East..... 184 1845 ee eee 184
ne 28 | Starri-Arteel and North. 189 Te ee eee ee 189
vy BO ZA pOUING heen eseee ae ee 189 1893 |S 189

July 1] East and Little East..-... 149 145 4 149
oC 3 | Starri-Arteel and North - 238 234 4 238
se 5 | East and Little East...-.. 57 OE Ne cet oa dee 57
oo Walelapodinemasoee ce sees cece 58 57 a 58
ee 8 ; East and Little East..... 24 23 1 24
se 9 | Starri-Arteel and North - 193 186 7 193
a DS BM ASb ceo ee mee bets Moe oe 60 59 1 60
oH 12 | Starri-Arteel and North - 103 102 1 103
Se tA || PZAPOGANG azn acteeererces cee 53 OB |b o a castes 53
ae 5) | Mast asses a see oe 132 131 1 132
us 16 | Starri-Arteel and North 119 PLO eect 119
te 10.) Sasti: S4:ane> eeeceese on vel WL lees 71
ss 20 | Starri-Arteel and North - 641 (We Ser eae oe 641
cu 20)|*Zapodine!s4--<s-ceeeceee 527 HP ih ices nee 527

Mabaliesoz baecietos 4,133 4,112 21 4,133

Note.—One rejected skin was given to the Chief, and the remaining twenty were salted down in the

salt-house till further orders.

(Signed) JosePH Murray, First Assistant Agent.

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5, 1890.
Shonld any doubt arise concerning pups’ skins, claimed by Alaska Commercial
Company, under instructions to Agent Nettleton of the 11th March last, you will
cause all such skins, together with the merchantable skins specified in your instrue-

ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 713

tions of the 26th March last, to be shipped to Collector at San Francisco, and there-
upon report facts to Department for determination.
(Signed) Gro. C. TICHENOR, Assistant Secretary.
CHARLES J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent, Seal Islands,
(Care Collector of Customs, San Francisco, California),

25 ALASKA COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
St. George Island, Alaska, May 26, 1890.

Str: Herewith I would ask permission to ship, per steamer ‘‘ Dora,” 482 fur-seals,
at present stored at our village salt-house, and 109 at our salt-house at Zapadine.
These 591 fur-seals were killed by the natives for food during the winter 1889 to
1890, and have been salted and cared for by the Alaska Commercial Company before
the transfer of its property to the North American Commercial Company, the present
holders of the lease for the Seal Islands.
I have, &c.
(Signed) RUDOLPH NEUMANN,
General Agent, Alaska Commercial Company.
Hon. CHARLES J. GOFF,
Uniled States Treasury Agent in charge of the
Seal Islands St. Paul and St. George.

ALASKA COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, May 31, 1890.

Sir: Herewith I would ask permission to ship, per steamer ‘ Dora,’ 3,196 fur-seals,
794 stagy skins being included in this number, and stored at present at our village
salt-house, and 298 at our salt-house at North-east Point.

These 3,494 fur-skins were killed by the natives for food during the winter of
1889 to 1890, and have been salted and cared for by the Alaska Commercial Company
before the transfer of its property to the North American Commercial Company, the
present holders of the lease for the Seal Islands.

I have, &c.
(Signed) RuDOLPH NEUMANN,
. General Agent, Alaska Commercial Company.

Hon. CHARLES J. Gorr,

United States Treasury Agent in charge of the
Seal Islands St. Paul and St. George.

Sir: In reply to your communications bearing date the 26th and 31st May, respec-
tively, asking permission to remove the fur-seal skins now in the salt-houses on St.
Paul and St. George Islands, I will say, in pursuance to instructions received by
me from the Secretary of the Treasury, I will have to respectfully decline to allow
you to remove the skins in question, and herewith inform you that all of the said
skins will be shipped per United States eutter, care Collector of Customs, San Fran-
cisco, California, to be disposed of by the Department as the Secretary may deem
advisable. :
(Signed) CHARLES J. GOFF, Treasury Agent.
Hon. RupoLPH NEUMANN,

General Agent, Alaska Commercial Company.

NortH AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY,
St. Paul Island, July 8, 1890.

DEAR Str: The North American Commercial Company will accept as part of their
quota of 60,000 seal-skins for 1890 such of the food skins of 1889 as they may find
on examination to be merchantable and acceptable to them.

The skins being now stored in our warehouses on this and St. George Island, we
hereby claim the privilege of availing ourselves of the offer made us by the Hon-
ourable Secretary of the Treasury at Washington, as contained in and being a part
of his instructions to you dated the 26th March, 1890, a copy of which by his request
you were kind enough to furnish the Company, which instructions in our opinion
were not changed by any subsequent order made by the Honourable Secretary, so
far as our right to accept food skins is concerned. If the food skins claimed by us

7714 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

should not be delivered to us here so as to enable us to ship them with the Com-
pany’s skins taken under their lease this season, we could not get them in
26 London in time for our fallsale, were they tendered the Company at San Fran-
cisco after the cutter’s arrival from Alaska in the fall. Being thus deprived of
the skins, a heavy loss to the Company in prospective profits would result, which
loss we would feel should be made good to us by the Government of the United
States.
IT respectfully request you to communicate to me in writing the result of your con-
clusions in the matter.
Iam, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE R. TINGLE,
Superintendent, North American Commercial Company.
CHARLES J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Fisheries, St. Paul Island, Alaska.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, July 8, 1890.

DrAR Sir: Your communication of later date, in which you ask permission to assort
and examine the skins of the seals killed for food during the winter of 1889 and 1890,
and to take such as you may adjudge acceptable to your Company as part of your
season’s catch for this year, has been carefully considered and your request respect-
fully declined, as I have no option in the matter other than to strictly obey the
orders of the Secretary of the Treasury.

T avail myself of this opportunity to notify you that on and after the 20th July I
shall require you to conform to that clanse in my instructions which prevents killing
of fur-seals for their skins after that date.

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) CuHaries J. Gorr, Treasury Agent.

GEORGE R. TINGLE, Esq.,

General Manager, North American Commercial Company.

27 (F.)—Annual Statement of Fur-Seals killed for Food on St. Paul Island, Alaska,
during the year ending May 21, 1890.

Seals killed for Native Food.
Skins Skins rejected.
Date. Rook cry. Large ac- ——$<—$—
Pups. | Young} Total. | cepted
Seals. b Vader Stagy.| Cut.
Lessees.
1889
Avil abel) Zolli eecsenespecoddesrpeasacoorsllseccénos 160 160 IWS |RSosoasaleaesecac 4
Aug. 6] Liukannon....- PERSO Oe cena Hoes bseneo0° 163 163 TUB Ee Resa S4| Beacosedeeecccce
Be 11 | Balance over shipmentin salt-
NOUSC ss ascmns oe de ee eee eee eee Rees 58 58 5S) |e avet 2 leno etasten sees
es AT ZOMCOUS acm. decniecle sc one Se elo eee eee 131 131 123 Baretta 5
te 22 Eee My Bic laele aly Mois wie sree eee ae eee eee 141 141 TSO Me Se aeee |e 2
i) SI ARO WO 2 sacccc. tee senses ae Sele eee 179 179 87 1 2) al RS ee
Sept--<:9! || Zolton.-6 2. sso Sas ace see eee | seeeeeee 141 AY. 0 1G Ree Seer ea WAT NE oo eet
me 18 Sle Merete anisms cies antepia = Se ietene earns 110 al (Os | Paeaasea iapaassoe ATO Wo seeeee
Y 25 ee Mba d eeloeie aiacmin eet meee coal moet 107 LOR Ertetets oat i 106) |pcoseses
Oct. 5 Oe cain Sete eee hemes Slee eee see eee 120 IPA eBaocec 1 IW le seisosac
a 15 $80 ainic Sain ple wide Ate aa oe ae ee 103 OBS ees 4 99) | soc ose
aS 26 | Lukannon ...... Ss AE eee eres {aN che 132 132 44 2 805|-<cenee
NOW) 24 |-Zoltoiee cet Soc sceen ee eee | 1,044 125 125 80 3 ADn | Saeeeee
cf 19j)| Polstoiss.-sssceee seco aero | 1,286 224 224 223 UM Reson sos aaooscoo
ad 21 S|) Rees. oo eee ee eee ie Sse 347 347 BAC slkGis ee aoe Nircfatecte ee |e ctttacies
ee 27 teh) famed ieee Gee ee ee tees cts oe 192 192 189 Dllpssoooeaiwacasscs
Bee eT || AAPOGING)« <5 see eee coe enon | cee eee 10 10 a0 Sarees Hoemcsee cicisoe
iy BU | RECO OL neta tej eee ee ere \iarale eee 240 240 236 Ase. 5 5 - creel ee Seetee rs
Wee. yi! |, Zapodines::.-- me ss ceeenen eee ae | eee 243 243 240 Bt osiasse| Sesaoo 5
1890.
Daneeo274\. Sea dion: Rock. ..-.s2-s5-s25 eel ee enone 175 175 170 OW eee odo horace
IE 7 2 Dt ee see ee eee eaineR RVR Cay EG. 131 131 131 lo ohg-e Ree Pea es
2, 280 3, 232 3, 232 2, 396 3L 794 | 11
Skins at North-east Point, killed
fOrswalchimGueasssesae ses poe eee eee Ce Pe Sasa Pose Sees Pe eseaecal ere scsce lahoceare
Grand total of food skings-.|.-..-..-.. Bh ORB Y Begecced| Secaeoee|lanecemo-|aaasseo5 cos=c2 Se

* These skins will be shipped on board United States cutter ‘t Richard Rush,” and consigned to Col-
lector of Customs, San Francisco, as per your instructions bearing date May 5, 1890. The steamer
will leave the Seal Islands early in September.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ts

(F.)—Annual Statement of Fur-Seals killed for Food on St. Paul Island, ete.—Cont’d.

Seals killed for Native Food.

Skins Skins rejected.
Date. Rookery. Large ac- oe -
Pups. | Young} Total. | cepted s
Seals. by ee oe Stagy.| Cut.
Lessees. ae
1889.

Atri 0) |) WSO UD. ScescesSecesccceseesedsocdd|seecsscr is) leeagdea lecbence Esoocee. | |acedeose leacessa
oe 19 Oe wee RR OAS ANS OSR So aAee oUoeo abReeAaees {iV ReOESORe lPaEEace d tcec eae Edene co aa oreese as
re 30 Ce OP ce acme wisineinels astela-e.cmcabe aa ell cermin amare ASP rateymrcteterall tebe sialatee | see tare ASijeissss ce

Semis of | ORs at casesescbecaonedessenacs: esosasos (Hl essass| bospdced|easacber OI SEE nbee
ee, all Bi Meese a tapers ayaa nts a Bia Sm de Rea eMnee Aacce ceva BOP te stcresers allem cere aiacs |e citeteterace 50: |S aaceae
ue SOMICNONGM Sods aejer= seis a coe a. Saale <5 siswereeters SB ISO COCRS SES SBecm RaGac see OO lela cite

Oct. 11 Oe Sido nec cosneoheodicoesstecsbecedcnd Bil "| Somosewal Hocber collooopeeies BT) ||-ncak ees
toe Olu | Start-Arteel 22-2. eos = se einais | ee oe cae SPOS Reece |e lected [ea ener Lee ea Ee
a SLU RNOTtN ee scsccasws Sachs seas lees] (saceimetals (ls Bs ee [gaa pee eal sos e cee erect eveneec

Nov 6 WO Sonbadsessepesascaeorsesec 600 icsssaceallaaacaeaaeeneeos lotcraare on oa eens
= 12 titi SECS ECO tb co uenacGr 471 Gi er are mt eterna ol terete rere EES IER lh Gene Soe
ct De OTAEGAMbeOh cece sents ion ata afl ice ierciale (il | SSabeese Mesercaa Eoaaecee eats al bee Pes

Wiagge TG} ORAS eke Hea. SeeeeEe sen aae less seees ESTE ey Sag | Bk oO lense ee HOC Sg Tl ies one te
ae st Dies leinteisefora straial ole iste mie ae eel eternal Cade Neto crstersietetl sierans aise eee es saa nats CEI Lhe eee

For the watchmen at Zapodine
for the whole season.-.--.---.-.].------- MO OME a oynnie sae mereyors [otcccc ec ite ete e cele nese ee
Piptaleeeesns. cc) ete ce wae 1,071 Pai Sie De [eae / 282 [epee

* These skins (630) will be shipped on board United States cutter ‘Richard Rush,” and consigned to

Collector of Customs, San Francisco, as per your instructions bearing date May 5, 1890.

will leave the Seal Islands early in September.

28

The steamer

(G.)—Table showing the killing of Fur-Seals on St. Paul Island up to July 20,

1889, by the Alaska Commercial Company, and up to July 20, 1890, by the North
American Commercial Company; also Daily Weather Report from June 1 to July 31 of
each Year.

VILLAGE.
Number Number
Date Killed. Date. killed.
1889 — 1890—

MOM De sis; se acto cine oD siete ey 201 JUNG! 6. saeco sarees eeeee ee seco 116
De Lies, cyatate ateneoa ta crmis ns Sia etcieiee ee nieae 120 At i ea ae Se 574
RA PiatScjcrerces sides cease ese as 947 SEW SE Se oan sot ee eer reese 182
OE iV: GER ee a ee oe ars cate eee ae 762 OO 1G oa itrste eas Soe tat ora otereaferet= 317
Cr] (ya Sa ee ea Ee Teeter 340 Obes OTe cee Seiten Me = Ae efoe waysieieais! 167
COP eiase tases here ae ote oxic Saale 895 aoe oe Sa eee, a ee 274
Con Sit eae Neass cca Se eee cine eee 1, 161 Se DOES 2 rata cian eis ete Cera Se asia = 339
Ce OM ems ctehinw sees aeons 1, 561 GEIR 7) Eas Seo eats Senet ates ee 292
SN AO ciaatnicreis ace ore Sais ne aye tale ee cies 253 yn Bis Seen seo Cee e eee BoA
Oe cleiare ale are Stam 2 (cia) seere liars eioceeele 1, 353 ee ad Sart Seo. a nines tobe Sietetere. wale 426
Seas alee aimee siaje ne Sarai cna che hesitate 2, 578 SOO ee Dae ENR pics oele tak cis se 266
BO oD erae etaie nace bat nine ore crletates a olatie 979 Cee Oe S85 a cere Uae cae ee 117
Ree Oe rare faassen aeiw Sas mcrae tones eters 1,314 CH feta Der SISO OE EMD oeenOe 396
oe poesia ie eicieinis ose bre sree cierto Scimitar 311 SOLS ee a cee odlate la oe eeleisiscatticlekcrstctes 206
wpe) faGeieji= aie sista aiste joie aoe are Saveretelshee 1, 349 OEMS O Bre See ais ioe ated ciareieeiaitieeleins 209
OS AOE are omic leet tis etre s ovslcicia clare Sa take 1, 038
Totalley: csiminespvas s/a[ieects crete ee 15, 162 Mo tally 42 oe Sse aa:0%s Ain sates 4, 402

Uys al eee sé ceeeasecScsecsshde shee 1, 023 UwK? , Aleessanpooceccbscotengoacede 246
a PBS SO ESE SCE Sa SECTS 834 oe Doe Soke Hoes ce A Ane led 242
wt 8) SS c OS HOBO ROOUR ED abate 1, 841 ee Bie sb So Se ceenae acetic 183
of (SE os AEE e ees eee toe 1, 716 AS (SS OR PT es ere ete 494
oe UT SEE RGSS Saree ieee ae ee 1, 255 as Bee, ae es Rae ae de 526
oe Ge see eat ne cocina ce cob ce 1, 302 ub Mh Ss See eee ails cee o sec iclet 411
SS Co) COR ee Tee Bees 814 OS be OBIE Catt ECCT Eee 261
ef OF sem as aisioee wets a asia eines Sede 1, 314 ac Qre ses Taceya ape nsOuslaacce oc ae 163
gf Meets She magna en oe oe 654 ss ORS ete Se aes She te 378
BG #1) 5 5 ots Ug ee ea 2, 004 CUSIP Gey Eat eee el ae ae 633
Sriaieg Ree etre se ete sine avai wee niece 1, 006 CORO ee ae etek c Tee Bea ee ek 211
Sete Ota eee har etine coe docs ct fuk 3, 085 Ae deme noses ae ee aes 104
ite ANS iar a be. Maen tala Mh aie 1,911 at lise 1c, eee ee ne Renee ee 315
Ma Wiis See ap ase ss eee ee ae 1, 931 ee ReeE® Soak cee Aseem ers Hoe = 372
SAL UG rarer cteiee tee at tm Sl 2, 046 Ma At Ro Ea ge AS es a = de 236
se 10 eee ape Re Re Re eae, 2, 017 LOO TIGL Gs cy anne eee ne aie earn 556
Se) DOR meer neee Seen = aes 1, 913 SGA) pe een eee Mes Be SL 780
Potala son ccecaeecies ec eck ace bene 6, 6€6 tO ball ieratetoee cee cates ccimwceces 6, 111

716 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

(G.)—Table showing the killing of Fur-Seals on St. Paul Island, ete.—Continued.

29 ; NORTH-EAST POINT.
Number Number
Date. killed. | Date. killed,
1889— 1890—

ATEN iicicis cteie'mla'ninie.c ciate me ie sclnicite 1, 054 NMS Las Stews ae sewe memes eee 16
BOB cotta e oreitos arsine a/emte 10 )3 catasion 1, 270 HN Gas pee See. aa eae sea eee 78
Ce CI? eas 52 Ee aR Bed to 5 Pero 494 | ee ena ee ees eae, 438
CU 2 Vie ee ert le BS es oe 1, 205 OY AQT. ence eas aes faeeeee 96
Bee et 4s Pao 2 eee eee 754 eee Oe ee ee ee sk ee 179
Sten ee ost welatehe see ce eee ete 1, 407 Gane? A Oh Se en eet are mco ese 205
8 Gt So). SeL ej oes Seen came ee 441 FOr DO Rassias tice one ee esensae 166
ROO ioe arial cea ie ne eae Ee 844 FOOT RE Ree TAL eee eer ee 230
Bey Deselak ee es tases ence Le 479 SISO B Usadkine oe Bc ecto os oeee se eer 79
oe ers cic RES isaac o ciseeeeoeeRe 355 pik BOR aries it ony A eee 98

1, 200 Tals Toe eee eee ee 131

968 2 DLESSE sh eis MGS E ee eee 96

1, 559 ee Oe occem Seeeeee se eres Ae ce ee 180

1, 524 4 Bea. Dore? eee eee eee 321

376 Std hb vee 2 Cee sehen Se eee ee 74

914 se Nis See ee eee eke ag nee eee 336

641 3 ee se Sher ae a Omen An 379

800 of Le Se Ses one eae ae ay Sey 271

793 teen | ae epee Eee Suva epee acces 112

CO Ge es SOE SB OO ADC ECO 1, 838 ee BOE ae Se ae arn he ee ae 658
adi ie eae ees ee Te awe a a eae 1,156 ff Ulbes aes seca tes oe Man eee eee 245
biel Uy (ear bc fa eS SE oT ae Bh aoe 948 Mh wi Gta eee ak a eae Saree Bi PAg
LOAN) oer aa ereee tee yo ae SE 1, 282 FELL (eee Sart opel MADE i= 485
pine ee RR Ene reat ad ce MONS rei 834 SS URL Boer ace cecae bare pice 405
SA ki ie alg SREP Ao he EY Noa ia 243 ee eee ee ee ee ees ae

pa tee tee See, ie ene Late Eien St 2 55:
Motal ss. eee n anette ease che 15, 076 Lotalize Ssh SNe 5, 007

* 243 this day to make the full quota of 100,000.

RECAPITULATION.

Total number of fur-seals killed by lessees on St. Paul Island from Ist June to
20th July—

SSO he scale eebirc selon a toe cette ets Be Seo OTS ACIS TO Ia ONS Case eSoosocebos 65, 187
SSO are oe ass Sa ta so yoo cinta ke Sis eee Sle tase te eT ee ne 17, 105
1
rors June 1889. July 1889. June 1890. July 1890.
lan — —_________—
A Ss Max.| Min.) Weather. |Max. | Min. Weather. | Max. | Min. | Weather. |Max.|Min.| Weather.
1 42 33 | Foggy.--| 45 40 | Clear....| 37 33 | Snow ....| 40 40 | Fog.
2 40 35 | Cloudy ..| 48 40 | Hazy....| 34 32 | Hazy ....| 48 40 ee
3 44 38 vi Sc 48 42 facets 41 33 | Clear .... 46 40 | Clear.
4 48 40 ice ee 48 ate} Clear=-s.)h eae 316) PHine seas 47 39 uf
5 47 39 OS) So ree|1 ©7249. 40 | Hazy ....| 42 32 | Clear ....| 50 40 se
6 50 34 ae 53 42 40 OSE © 43 SIE leo essen se 51 40 te
7 44 43 beo Seca) 2189 42 | Thickfog| 44 SSi|| Hazy oes |) 9 (bl! 41 s
8 47 36 oat e 50 40); Rain_. .=: 48 SO Maine see 44 40 a
9 | No record. ere es fee ie 42 | Hazy ....| 48 89 | Thickfog| 46 41 | Hazy.
10 44 38: | Rain... - 49 42 | Thick fog 44 34 ce 47 42 He
11 43 40 a se 51 r BUC ed eyes See 43 37 ue 48 43 | Fog.
12 43 38 sansa 50 42 | Clear 42 Sia HOE ee 51 41 se
13 38 37 Se ererate 50 40 Sete 43 37 HABE ES Hes 48 43 f
14 43 37 SSic ae 49 40 ee 43 38 ease 44 43 | Rain.
15 42 37 | Thickfog] 52 42 COmGoad| ho Ck 39 | Rain... .. 45 43 | Fog.
16 43 of | Raine. oe 50 42 oo oeee 43 36 | Fog.-.-.. 44 41 Sf
17 46 38 | Cloudy ..| 47 43 | Hazy -- 45 Si || paM ee er 47 AD | ele
18 49 38 | Rain..-.. 48 42 sre 44 OU |/KOl Ghee a ao 47 42 er
19 49 36 | Clear 52 42) | HOos se. ee 40 Ciel ARGyen sae ee 50 40 f
20 45 37 | Cloudy ..| 49 41 | Clear....| 48 39 |} Fine-.... 49 405i
21 46 38 - ae 49 43 | Thick fog 45 40 | Rain... .. 54 44 ss
22 45 38 AN esl e133) 44 | Rain..--. 49 40'| Clear'-.2:| 56 CB 0
23 40 38 | Rain... 48 42 | Hazy ....| 49 39) | Hazy 225. 53 45 ss
24 42 39 | Thickfog| 46 42)| Hope ss ee 42 BO) PHOT es soc 52 46 ae
25 46 40 2 50 42 | Hazy .... 45 4) UOT nano 52 45 Hs
26 49 40 | Cloudy -. 44 44 | Thick fog 42 38 OF 2 S55 53 43 ee
27 51 41 | Clear .-.. 49 43 | Hazy ..-. 44 39 Se Soci 53 46 pe
28 50 41 Se Feces 348 43 | Rain...-. 44 38 | Hazy ....| 49 45 ef
29 50 40 | Cloudy -- 48 42 | Fog..-..- 43 40 LT Bal wee $3 44 st
30 50 40 te oe 50 43 | Hazy 42 39 ss Seel wo 40 ss
oD bl en Bon SS Sean anne etcisc 49 ¢. Vl ie OU sees Sse OG) aris |aaeocee mane 51 za ae
nd ee dS le ee eee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

Tit

(H.)—Table showing the beginning of each Sealing Season on the Islands of St.

Paul and St. George, from 1870 to 1890 inclusive, and the number of Lur-Seals

[Laken by Alaska Commercial Company.]

St. Paul. St. George.

Season Skins Season Skins

began— |accepted.

began— |accepted.

Total

Skins ac-

cepted.

30
accepled by the Lessees up to July 20 of each year.
Year.
TOUS son od Gon noco seco soccpsspbsssosepsecousecasesc
SSIVL, conocogoones opsous SS scSeesrodoceseedoconesoenas
UO os tace+ code togdecbs So eee perce secsbseSserocees
1873

June 1 29,788 | June 4 12, 604
*f iL 65, 499 os 3 21, 563
Be 3 68, 035 COP ese! 17, 362
Ob 3 88, 058 os 1 8, 554
us 1 83, 890 us il 10, 000
ee 3 69, 3867 oe 1 10, 000
ee 4 58, 732 He 1 15, 000
ut 8 78, 570 Leak!) 16, 709
ee 2 80, 572 Ms 3 20, 569
u 1 80, 000 sf 3 20, 000
se 6 80, 000 es 9 20, 000
“* 9! 30,000] 6] 20,000
oe 4 60, 101 oe 4 11, 123
OY 3 83, 092 se 4 11, 152
Go 8? 70, 451 yo i 15, 000
by 4 72, 120 ce 8 13, 335
He 1 77, 389 sf 9 13; 381
ch 2 73, 808 Ce 6 13, 187
BE 1 68, 485 s 4 10, 138
Ct 6] +16, 833 cs 2 {4,112

* No Record.

t Taken by North American Commercial Company.

95, 279
+101, 141
100, 000
100, 000
100, 000
71, 224
94, 244
85, 451
85, 455
90, 770
86, 995
78, 623
$20, 945

t Accepted but not shipped in one year; balance carried over.

(1.)—Statement of Liabilities of the North American Commercial Company to the Natives
of St. Paul Island, after the division and distribution of 1890, showing the Amount due
to each individual on the Ist August.

Name. Amount.
Artomonoff, Kerrick......--.........-- $182. 37
PAshshofivATsenynjs-25-=-- Joneses sc5-- 153. 85
Burdukofsky, Apollon.........-.------ 196. 04
eshte EAR. Store oesercoeeeae 207. 42
Bogadanoff, Nicoli.-.....-2...2.2.2. 5: 155. 22
IBUtrin KOnp rece. cceaaeecacceae == sei=i 228.19
Bellaglazoff, Ellen ....................- 65. 00
IN AOL OrEOT EO eee lassie ocantee sie 220. 42
irahinticiohinie ss. 2e 2 eee esr tal 6h oe, 172. 37
GromonyNicoliececsssceae= ssc eae 229. 04
Glototidohmnecea pees seeaa ss sae eee ee 158. 85
GalaicianotirAlext sto eens jaa a2 163. 92
Taberoue PAU. cose sees sc soeee 145. 78
Hapoi, John estate of... 2.232228 .5--- 67. 05
Mousen;Alex-so-20 fses..ss5/osenace2e 218. 97
iKozerol, Stepan. cesses 2-2 22228522520 186. 04
inshins Ate pie sere peer amie aa aaa 175, 24
KootchutensJiacob. --2---222cosec-esn- 182. 04
mMorukom eNICOli-ss= see -eesseecee ceases 188. 79
Kernkon. Mascim ae eect as caaceiaes 166. 65
Rernikcon wb eterecececoee ane onan aes 259. 04
KW ZINEZON ON: see aeetr-5 Sara anes seaee 81. 27
Kusheorsshoff, Eupheme .....--...---- 193.19
Kootchuiten)/ George 222 552522 = eens 217. 04
Kootchuten; ohne is -sce occ eccccesce 148. 22
Kootchuten, Empheine .............--. 165. 42
Kozeroff,, Paul; estate: of. --.....-:-..-. 302. 85
Kuznitzoff, Pemin, estate of........... 735. 30
KrukofeNataliae sens «coc. sesseo ose ce 37. 00
KozelofiParascowia) oso. -226-4c2a00 ea. 7.50
IMerculitt pAlle xe sane se ceo. sine see 79.10
Melovidoil, "Antone.=-5---sacs-se02---- 415. 59
Melovidofl, Simeonocssa== o- 5. 2. scel as. 714. 74
Melovidottwiirs WA re so seesee ccaee 203. 85
MoerculitieD oratiyen see see sos ance 103. 00
Mandregan, Ustenia..-.--............- 60. 00
Merculitt -Agcxinsaes seer eos sass sece ale 27. 74
Nederazoff, Stepan..:2. 2-222 8200552. 188.19
Nederazofi, Martintecn 2. coe cceeccaes 175. 04

Name.

OustivofiTP eter asec essai
Pushinkoff, Peter, estate of...........
Prokopuf, Viadimer
Paraushin, Daniel
Pankofi searhivit ee ecee eee eee ee
Popoft, Afanasia--.s..--- se es/0s ac- 5
Mandrigan NevUlo-<-s--secc esc ceee
IMrelovadotieAllox= eee aetcesnacne nee
IPopott Nod obiaesssor eee = sere ae
Rookarishnakoff, Zachar...........-..-
RezanzotevAmng. seer se soto eee eae

Stepeteni, Dorafay-......---. PERE ee.
Sidiek yiheodores- ote 5-20 eee
Sedule, Vasila
Shabolin, Necon
Stepetini, Elarey
Shutyagan, Metzofan...........--.-.-
Sharshinkoti Reva Pawlesaseessa. eee
Saroken, John
Shapashinkoff, Agatay ......-...-.-.-
Shabolia, Ceaser, estate of....--........
Shaishinkoit, Valerian. --.
Shaishinkoff, Matrona
Shaishinkoff, George........--..
Shane: Catheninesesena ne ecree ce coeeee
Rarralkanoty cern Gh. secen oa ss. sane
TetofAPetereweee eect ose occ sk oeee ne
MotofiNeyneescencee ccs scees ce a scene
Tetof, Fedosia
MoerrustarayAMnae. so> sass cee se aees
MolkotraMiarkeltee cess poseeecee cece
Wolkofiebillont-<22 teeeesnee eet eereees
Yetzamauff, John, estate of RE
ZAharaotie KWerealeas= acces cee shee oe oe

31

Stepeteni, Terrenti, estate of........-- |

Amount,

$193.
68.
331.
186.
185.
66.
178.
271.
28.
189.
122.
257.
437.
196.

190. 42

145.
274.
155.
158.

20.

Widows) fund <-s bese ces tos sclcsce ns

13, 378.

—

123
00
00

90

718

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

(1.)—Statement of Liabilities of the North American Commercial Company, ete.—Cont’d.

Nane. Amount. Name. Amount.
Bank Account drawing 4 per cent. Bank Account drawing 4 per cent—
Continued,

OHNE b ra tiswe sae = on siete eceiae $1, 488. 30

Rev. Paul Shaishinkoff.........----=-- 3, 041. 74 || Nedesda Shaishinkoff...........-.--.. $165. 09
Catherine Shutyagara ..............--- 224.75 || Kerrick Arlamanoff ........-.....-.-.. 2, 281. 09
Warkel VWiolkOftssencece cee soe cae 983:168)|| KMermck BUutesines.- snes eeeereee 2, 948. 33
LOE VON ies SS Gees ene Beewadnoeceeace 200, 00 =
Ad Oia Sele Kees cceeeete eae eles 104.17 11, 884. 94
HMlizabeth Sediek. -- -/.4- see sc0ene nine 93. 61 ===
WashariSedielkerssacat yee cee see 104. 18 otal caer sesane anaes eee 25, 263. 84

Nore.—From the North American Commercial Company ten widows receive weekly rations, and

others will have to be added soon.

List of Accounts transferred to the North American Commercial Company by the Alaske
Commercial Company for Natives of St. Paul Island, May 24, 1890.

Name.

Occupation or

Condition.

Amount.

Peter Krukoff
IN CON Keranlwotte a asics piace. otis oo ae iseasine se & serene sep Sa ceinese fe ise tearoom
‘Miasim: Korakott-s 3-40 ects a Seek oe eer ble ees eeioe ane ee a oie beete ieee
Hstate ot Pemin iKoznelzoit (for minor heirs): - 4-22 -4-ceee eee ere eer
Aggie Kushin
John Koznelzoff
Natalia Krukoff
Parascovia Kozeroff
NeoneM andre camer eer ass cee eee ee ene ee eee a eer ere
Vasili Sedule
TestenuriayMandrecan 324555522 Ske Bowe sees cise eee ae Dean See. Se eS
AM bone Mel ev id Otte -2oc2se.2 bam siohise re jancbia ecient see cs teeta sonore eae
Simeon’ Melovid Ofbac ese conse a oeic sae Sacrocisio heisoc ose Seis ae See ae Seen
Alex Melevidoff
EAH exe nice ore mle eee io xiaecice yee cparcus Seen are EIS ee Sere ee re eee ee eee
MMexanderiMerculifte seca cs occ swans ce cea e oe cee See wee Cee reeies
Akoolena Nedarazotf
MiainiimuNed oraz. So cas. Soak eee as see none eee ee eee ee tereeias
Daniel Parauchin
Barbara Pohomoff
Rarianlaieaw Kol. cee sale e eee ee ee FR tao as anrie eiaiaie ie eho ee

Afanasia Popott
Ard Oba OpOlhee wit ocie Cee eos RR SE tn aee ease ce eee eee ee aan eee
Fachar,Rookoorshimicort =o secece he eueeee aoe aceon ae nee ea eee emcees
Anna Rezauzoff
AcativiShaposhin kofl os. sccckcicise see eer Bees eee eele ee ores see
Mhreodore:Sédisk..-=-. 22:8. 4233 2k pee eee See Renee ee ee eee nae
Metrofan Shutyagin
Rev. Paul Shaishinkoti
Agratina Shabolin
Neon Shabolin
Hlarcy Stepe uno 21s. ee seme else De elon is See See el: Bota te eee Soe
Marina’ Stepebiny: <2.) Ss.ccoe's -enes me ae ace eee Oe Saae ase ene ee eee
Dorafay Stepetin
Malioian'Shaishinkotits. 225 o22. it iaa eek setio sees re See e eee Seas e ce eene
IN ERA Rage THis) oe aie| ODD ANC h cote pee ars tere oe ee DAN? ON Das Ee a Gabe osees
George Shaishin kof 022 ct 25 Hecee ne tc oe eee Ebene Stee ee eee
Gatherine Shanesa. 22 nok we cians ee ye a ee ae Se
Kernick Tarrak anotte saz.o. 32 seer ee Ee ey eee eee ee

Markelaviollkoiiiic sgn6-< «tee Sac eae See Ee ee ee eee:
Estate of John Yatzaamauff, held for minor heirs.-----.-.-.---------
Martha Saroken 53s costes ac cote. ee ere ee eee ea es

32

Hedosia Koshronu oft ss scl. sche 6 <ceee eae eee eee Dee eases
SOTGICK AT PAIN AN Of ere aa ls tees une e Ro oM eee ee ee ee ze
ATACNOY. AT KAShOLis2ese> wsmoastonaes' teenie 5 oe eee e Meee eee ERC Eee meenee
eter Onster onc che «sn se ace ws = aise bs lyemtels sie ae eee ee eee
UNMET TICK eB UUCSIN Ea er co ote cine tan ale Jone Saleiaf sees Geet ce Ose eee Maree
AD OMOMBOULdEAKOTS kyeeccms. aoc “ee haar oe aoc cate eee ee meee Coee enn
INT COMMBOp Od anifieso 2. ie/teseers Jae SoSaee se oseee nc meen ame enon eee enene
dilen:Belaglazottcce ceca ese ecce n-ne POO ACOD ABS GOCE aMOSoNSSoba Sc Enaaos 556

ue

(Main or) se eeeaee

iPriestiesesce o:

Sealers capes
“ee

Widow

MEMO sae. see
Widow ...-..-
Sealer

Widow

Unmarried -.- -
Sealer

sete eee

$192. 85
80. 60

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ihe

List of Accounts transferred to the North American Commercial Company, ete.—Cont’d.
, pany,

Occupation or

a Condition, | Amount.

SGOT RUINED seco cece odo seine os Sone Sse eeto pees see S Son eos ee Soee Cosep sae Sealer !cce saat $128. 05
JIN PEGS. 256 - So sede dee e te cote soonay coouces espe asaSdecb see ose ober USBEoe NS hacien: 185. 55
INIT@ DL (SID INO. CoS seen seceaosoSeo sone Sees JanSocer tsacnoume -Sogescenseoccs DLE eaB Cee 135. 85
MindimarAeLokop Ut. soar oeeae saecks since Soe cicemes hep ae eels s 5 ocieclaies wees cide Dee SAD 302. 52
TTT. (GAGs oe ar Se AO 6 Me OR Er Re RE i ee Cen mr te 82. 29
IeGyeil BOA GWOT pA CaS ASB Oooo soo SeSsOr SES onSECOS One S eee See a SBEEs Genesee Boee At ghuiasec es 75. 05
oN SH: GOO assossape caso aonr cbs Sp EOS SONaD Seen Sb cae acu obtESSEaSsaGaoe Widonyye oe sec 75. 05
Jesse. EER Gis <b Seem socebos DeScte bed BEES eSeseecccbacsonelo pocodsmoeEonee Waisicen Gy. Seaeaee 114. 40
JID OATS EIN YON 2 ES eS Sa IRR oS ORs SSOn EPS nine US So seco oe O aaET ee nasnaese soc Oe ee Scees 87.49
UE) aK ONG Noobs padnbon seas qecnas5 Jog SS pesOsSBSs ane scnens sn SdoeseapseaS| ne ee ar 73. 8D
Eupheme Katchooten-.--.---------------------.=-------- SSoSS Ser EE SSSee=pae Pes aa Ben 73.05
CSG ONO lOny IG tlesacoesesoasassuesace - eon sceenn@achGosssocom ese neue se Hee es Oh sore 113. 85
Stepan Kozeroff. ..-. soase ces sec SSorbesss woos sseboesec nos aeroesassucesbeNece oe 77. 85
LSGNV GLEE WANG DOR hor gas ste be e785 sobs SObUBEH Gan onSc am ShebbpoceteoenEeneese 93. 00
UGH) LEST oon snecnoged Saonsspeoba ss senases cents ce oso neo SuSemSSonsoosoe 113. 85
Stepan Nedarazoff -..-.-- aosscs scoeeescasscacusias 83. 85
Eupheme Koshroenkott 86. 85
8, 870. 73

On Special Deposit at 4 per cent. per annum.

Reernic kp Am bam an Othe secre eee ae alelclclel emia aio ado cars onescasoesbonashe pegler ssesas=- 2, 281. 09
JST TSIEN aeons son See pO Or OD De HEM Ee ScOn tes 52 pep been soob SaenaAaeaooe OM Pte 2, 948. 33
JIG LOR OUTS. ponng odes none be S6er Babe SOS ONe Sar Danes SOnpoTo seas osece oS verses paren fees Sree 1, 525. 00
hai, LEST SONS Ani ooh oebecs coe cee oee bende qe pose seek Goenene ae aener (EPriestisc. toss 3, 341.74
(Canina) SIMRO. 2 5 soe aa eee ne codes scone aces apabo nosso soe booeenee Widow ...-.. 227. 05
VEAL VOUKOTD pemaneeteataia.- cea See Sct e tie ela rae alate Se leretel ea (Saleremicel Sea's Healer pease 983. 68
EVISTA VOLO Litem ote srreiay= elect ee le otwarnlelcins Mectemiece anise aeessasos Skee eas | Unmarried .-.. 343. 08
ERED EY SYR UC he SS ae ree Em ea ee ie eT ea Nee en evn OT) seo see 104.17
ALZADO PHDSOGIC Ky a eee oi.) meee aise ee Se eel ten eeasemccs eens ccoues Tr fas A 93. 61
ACHAT SO GLO KE aoe tse ci cee ce aise aac Se. 4 see ates 104. 18
Nedesda Shaishinkotf i deeer ict Sa 165. 09

12, 117. 02

Tio ial eee ene erate ee St IE te BM eae Be SSS ae SE Sa SMa aoe Ee 20, 987. 75
Distribution of Proceeds from Fur-Seals taken on St. Paul Island, 1890.

August 1, 1890—
NOWieSeul-skeins atta 0 Cents oceans eee scams sos meee ~-- $6, 710. 80
Daredl=slams Cubs auras Contsines sana es aes ee oe Oe kee es Ee 10. 60
TSGESe ale SicinS LE] OCUCU setae rar yuo ae Sah Se ie ey es ae 62. 40
AQisea-Wonksl<ans abele dollaie = 24. secre octane ees oe esis wees 40. 00
WESSupuOVASHONS Ea beN surly Ola ears sererset ne reer in ie ee ere eer or 40. 50
MG taller Set se eee ste eee eee ate ne eae te Ney ee 6. 783. 30

FIRST CLASS.

IPG vem am SATS HIM KOfieepRLCS as an can = t eens Soe. Ae ecco a 158. 19
PEpATILONEI VO] Ova Ol gins ti Ollie s v5 <a. asim ee os re Sey ice Seale Bee 158. 19
3. Karp Buterin, second chief_-.-......-- Se Noein eae. eget eee 158.19
Ae CO De CO OCNUTEN Ease iaasemins eee See See See mee Cae 2 as 2 ee cee ee ees 158. 19
3, CEDHEE ROS) MS Ness SAA s5 555 Ss Seo aera eae ey eee Sees welarne A 158. 19
GEM B OMS CCN emer ines Mere reve me ncreiet va. Sees 2a be ce ea 158. 19
pee ote SIN cane ese eee eta Se Phe ab ae ane e ge Mee 158. 19
ly WIGneDti INGER EVI aR oS ries ete Senos aoicees Sete eee ona 158. 19
OF PSLCD AMG IS OZ CTO Me mjaeien cistesclor= nerd) sree = Manel ipa 2 TA eae a ae ei eee 158. 19
33 LOMN Gong Man Gre east eee Ss, oe asa arn see es SERIES Rs SPS 158. 19
Tiles TEREST LRT DY ECON Tee aE ah a Se RE Ie a wags rs Peete See ae 158. 19
JE UNINC OU UTR OBES =o ehh ace eter, ane AER Be Pay eco Pete ie RES pe eet 158. 19
TG} INGTRICL TDN RAT Otero an = eee Bee eee ene Om oc aa nage een ae 158. 19
lal. ID Wave) JPR NG Y IO ahs Aan Ser ieee eit aes cis Skates, ee eee ie Bie 158. 19
TUS) ANP AKON ray WENO RANG LON GEST ERY ee ie eae a eel te ee 158.19
iG Aacharnoolwarishinlko fiser mat see ese eee es Si. Ss ae ee = cee Sioees 158. 19
eer NOT ay Kors NEETU O thes te ae ge ys a ore cee en eee Se Saisie shoe 158. 19
SSS Le pane Ned AnaZ0 ieee eee ea oy oe miro ae ae eyes a ceil sta.e Sears 158. 19
1S. PACHE Me oOnMenn ti. tat oe ea gre Cece Oe oc Se cc ce eceas cece « 158. 19

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

- Nicoli Gromott
. Elarey Stepetein

. Peter Tetoff
. Peter Onstigoit

. Simeon Melevidoff
. George Emenoflf
. Markel Volkoff

. Kerrick Buterin
. Vasili Sedule
. Eupheme Koochuteu
. John Fratis

CAD OU Co bo

eee ee ee ee ce eee we ee ee eee ee eee ee ee cee oH wees ee ee ee ee

. Metrofan Shntyogan
Arseney Arkoshotf
John Glototf

2 UR 99 No

Se ee i i i i any

. Darofay Stepetein
John Koolechutin
. Nicoli Bogodanoff
. Vladimer Prokopeiff
. Paul Haberoff

OUR Oo bor

hoe

SPECIAL CLASS.

Antone Melovidoft,wirstichietas-cn-ssee pa eee eee ee ee eee
Karp Buterin, second chief
Mrs. Terrinti Stepetein
Mrs. Peter Peeshenkoff
Mrs. John Hopoff

tt tee ee ee ee eee mee ee ee te ee ee eee we meee weet ee eee eee et cers

$158. 19
158. 19
158.19
158.19

3, 638. 37

34

No.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

121

Table showing Distribution of Earnings on St. Paul Island for taking Fur-Seals

in 1889.

12

.

CONAUF Cre

SOmI Skew e

Fe cota kt OTe co bo S

wore

wre

FIRST CLASS,

PB MLOTIN GT ICAnD yeeCOnts CHiGhsos= = sels = sismisisacicerclur eierelot ine ctels elon Se eicee ene see eaidis or.
co ARTO OW ECO asc scasearidupeucdortes scaguapoo SSA ed susan saBugdeccD naatsbsanauoonee
PEKCOLEH COLON Cre OL 0 aaa aacre al ete ee minima erlae ae cnic-\s ost ee ee eee eee eeeee te aeee
5 Ube ele, A Mn lets soc so sneou ao De eb nOb rg Oba ben or bop rie Bos penbe CHUSESEEoe onus ye
> DIRE, ING RCTS oatone seeaeesc coe sour cis seb As anno se OsoGn-doseeH Suede anesSsncbe
in NGGR HOE EEN yi Boocnsoqe onc deena pad HORS oEoSndSsnc asnecesHaaLdeeu soreesuneeeas
PP RMEIS HIT ACN Ole tare aie aie aleinnisyocleiow eas eie coi saat nan se ciae ee noe cee me eee ae

NOU ORAZO Le ANAL Lxcctyece sae eweicine ioe ame Salas oe SL ee Seah ee Ueme een: Raa

MNelovidot Antone mrs bt: ChiOh-aae alee cera eee meee nile tne Seen Lee iene
5 DERG V ACT EEE Le Se RO eMCOn: - ABE See See OCG hs seers Tey oper emt nee ee lye
PINGZOTOM SUC PA. He semen cesina eee a aaiseeeeea sash asec Seer telefon tare Ce ore aie aie
3 WET baer NCO ce mon mebocises OUEr Son c Oca sUeO cL DEA se bash See uacbGGsebonnbent oa lon
b LEGRMNKO SIE J Ree. See ose oo 5256 Joao OES on 5 4 SoSuee denon So osbco esas hasoaeena ee
GHEE INO Me conpocsebe bc ORUUHS ILORDOO BCDB EEE AD ESE Cone ee oe a coe es sateen ener eae
LOT aAKAN OT PMOLEIG on Se = icc = Sey. mons shai namic umcie ose cece ede oomn cece
PL HLANC HIN MAI Ols sae csi e me tne ass semaine eis cee nae See Oe ee Ree EE |
SPB OUTCOnKOts Kye AunOlLO Ness = terete 2 sata = toe See a nee See Bees se Re poe a onin see Oaks
SeROokHreshinkofi, ZAcharests ne a= Sab seis cations Susanne Se isch em umoee nee Boek
bs LOS MAO i) BT OUST ey ome mcare coos yodocded BoASaA epee cons aS AOSD O ease Lede ne Sheu eoioeme |
. Nedarazoff, Stepan
21. Fratis, John.-....-...
. Pankoff, Porfiri --.
PE SUGHOLID PUNY i. Seas amine ee aie seitae eee see ciat aise Naseer. oon Gndis ak Sersels ci eh ae cat
PE MGLOTSC OM SHINE ON taaccs Pace = = oe foams Sees cmap ees cee de ee anise cenmodocc erase toe
DPR ELON MU OLele mete os vei ncte pe eh oat tare shapes teers Seis see sain aie Gee oe ie

SECOND CLASS.

5) WON Sei Iu Fy RoE See ob oocbaBcsdesoddag oc sce toeicostog cus SeeedHegenkeeeae Cabusssseie
PPATTOMION OT RAMIOMGe woo tno meine 7s = a\ae 1s cal ieta sateen ae ee eee COLE oe cee need
Bers Tal GRAD ee COLTON nore win cle ne ae yoisic ae SC ToeIS Scie cle wisi RS cic See aide aie coe ates
. Peeshinkoff, Peter--...-.-..-. SEE ODE SOD GGUS Gat senna SUSUS EC Sa pep EenSe BedeeesSaneee

HV OKORO Ue eh els a ates eee cee othe es crue sacle aS ayia a eocls ol Nom nee Madea eae, oee

o JEGGIIES \WRSHG)7 Sec Bebo Secece aeons pose SSeade 0 tb on baa me SOC oS SEA SHB ost ecbobosen |
Pe ROlEHOO LEN HMUPNOMOs sens see a~ cen ciocsece © acto secs wees tate clean me meee erence:
o UBS VION = Sosngccbe 32 sees aa se Sense He Ae ac ae Se bedo aUdbO a Iaisan oo aeoBSoceLonsSnbeE
PEE MANO fley Ge ORE CBr craic on steers ela aleioe ae nema een erer oc ee ese e eee
BROMUS GIS Os He OUOI sister oie oistein einra es iniorsl= e aim ole eeicininte imine lee elsio oe Sine oeleloaeiicietc mabe oo coe

INIT ers WIG TRO Epp soe seibass cose aoe J0SC0u Sedu 50 aaOsh poe auoReebdbesecenerecole

> ANKE OGHE ANSON sc ocesecpaccaune JnepE A oGaEanEoS sHoKe sooE send ono sebones ondbeeesene

Glotot ohne aseemcee ante ae amaala ners ane ae eereciaae 4a ney neue eRe Sane Sa

> DHEYOR UN IDFIRG thy Soon ciseaceSooed oe 20S00C re Baas on 06 Hes See IE AG Sas oases asSoeeSeaee
5 SOUP IG GIN Gan eeose sdoncc a6 Aboncon Sons > -OGaee Seacea § Seen anemia ne pe eae
EO sd ano tewNN COM anal mesial amines lel nite amceete omen one nee eee cea eon ane

ee er COM MUU MN se eration amici arctan telate etna aan ie, cieinfa ie eh wise Se wks ooees aces ese
. Galakinotl, Alexander ...-.. Boce SR OCO DOR e- COD SHOU RENE SOAS S BES AOS EeCnee sae eeae
bs Melovidott Aloxandena? sass ot sock tm sett count Cece eseciece snc one un ue neces wee nee

SIXTH CLASS.

. Shaishukoff, Alexander... --.. Re eaie(aloalsiaiots c\sieaie OE Rte = te eale eee eee eee Tee ee
Pe MGrcuiblitiepanl oan cl Ox ater ctarapsme eee ote clu iaje ce'a eleivicie slavctayn cuits ebigene re be recon ame emiee
SUP SCIZ TINE ZO Here OM eeian slate noe setae wee wie a aie sla vine ctete anise ele em eae eerie nee ene eee

SPECIAL CLASS.

Shaishm kone aul: (priest) rs saseme sae seas Ge tek skies eee See sete eee Dak tb oarewie wens
EwOcinets reaches lOO Olarsucem ts stwsc cess selec. ca vale etal oe a ele oo eas eee eeoce,
EStakenote Cw ShabOlinmeeese es te aceistcctca ick = sisinet ooh ete terse ee at eon Ce antec eee
EES Leto tue Aves Creu Kal Tae sie aid ns eats tiaiats ciahttaa coe aial ote teehee areas ora oe eve aetbooiocie Salons

Vd OWA tude Wacenise oaejsnce ce saacisea ence cae sehiea seteeies ous Hate haetelescu en acuisens ts

BS, PT V——46

Amount,

$627, 85
627. 85

502. 29
502. 29

439. 49
439. 49
439. 49
439. 49

376.73
376. 73
376.73

251.17
251.17
251.17

1, 000. 00
200. 00,
250. 00
250. 00

2,000. 00

32, 330. 00

22 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Table showing Distribution of Earnings on St. Paul Island, ete.—Continued.

35 RECAPITULATION.

83,724 seal-skins, at 40 cents.----..----- ------ -- 2 - 2-22 e we ee een ween $33, 489 60
1,276 seal-skins-(cut), at-20 cents 2... --- 6-2 == 6 - ene a9 eee nen ee ane 255. 20
2) EDA Rona enn Ue ais ee coe Sooo orem sence scueSedanoooesasoos 15. 00
33, 759. 80

cess, denprovisions to N. Eis Pesce cem essere ewan een $129. 80

1, 300. 00
—— 1,429.80
INOUE SS ba06 Gonos oS 0550S5 6555 SNES case Gods acocns Goosonaoee son osl[s 32, 330. 00

Those in the first class should have received 234 dollars, leaving to their
era thee een Os Bmore mater ce sane sake Nasa SoSSSes wean lots 171. 00

Those in the second class should have received 208 dollars, leaving to their
(REGU eaciest Some on bbe ce. Jom ope soebnn pamacesagcoSesSoOU ecoD SS aONSSEs0¢ 152. 00

Those in the third class should have received 182 dollars, leaving to their
Oa Chl nasa SOS nee emanosns cna toaadss ouS0 o5e5qG esses S55 Spee ros sone 133. 00

Those in the fourth class should have received 150 dollars, leaving to their
CHE No goods SOO SOS er aSUUn SS aaa bores PIS SU Coa phdooon ESA sotood boobs 144. 00

Those in the fifth class should have received 1438 dollars, leaving to their
Crediibpeses eee eee a ener See ee rie cp erieer Soe eee eee eee ee eee 132. 00

Those in the seyenth class should have received 104 dollars, leaving to
(HIB OC ie eee MS seer assoc nade ciou coGKEGosboab oso odeesonadscor o70¢ 96. 00

If the accompanying instructions of the Treasury agent in charge had been com-
plied with, the natives would have been in circumstances, financially, to meet their
unfortunate, but not unexpected, condition, as is clearly shown by the amounts
which should have been to their credit.

Dr. ACCOUNT CURRENT. CR.
(J.)—The North American Commercial Company in account with the United States at St.
Paul Island, Alaska.

May 24, 1890—
To oil fund transferred by Alaska Commercial Company..-.--.---------- $124, 87
To nabivessseneral tum... = aoe es eos eee ea eee tase Soe eee eee 182. 55

Dr. ACCOUNT CURRENT. CR.
(K.)—The North American Commercial Company in accownt with the United States at St.
George Island, Alaska.

May 24, 1890—
To natives genera) fund). nn e5 sec icin cia ss ciniese oe kee cere e cele see ee eer empl Gomes

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. (23

(L.)—Census of St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 31, 1890.

Age.
Names. ee seen eee of Bini g)| CCcena,
Males. | Females. Heke
Amlamono teri G heer sce sincere mere cleseie l= ce mneal= G5) eGacssescs St. Paul Island ...) Sealer.
‘Ariamonoit. Alexander WilO- saa. -2 ccecn nao -cnnsee|cecaesc nine 39 |.St. Michael’s -....
Arlamonoff, Anxeima, daughter ..............-----|.......... 24 | St. Paul Island...
MAN Of yO aka, SISUOD: =a /at<la!ale)ale aim m o)= elaine faiminrala-i<i= |aiclm cine = aie 18 | St. Michael’s -..-..
PAT ICASHOfee Amon yaeeeee sae neh snni melee nceeawies Dial Se seon see St. Paul Island ...) Sealer, °
JARS UO LP OG AVE bt) Goons oeobe sso peceSoeoaéel |-eoososese 30 5 seit
JMTBUIRO th TRONS Se en os kano osooUeSe can eDeneSeeoere Till siete ese St. George Island.
SATSHOS Ole AAS CONIA, WLC ia = ole am mma mm iforeim mia -feiele imi nlmim a)ninalninls 23 | St. Paul Island ...
Austegoff, Stepanida, mother.........-.-....-.---.]..--.-.--- 56 | St. George Island.
MranO te CAT ASUASTAN MICCE s\x,<\sctete sisters lsi<oiuisiiaisieis elaieisicfsmelisersiciais 12 | St. Paul Island -.-
Sharshurkoff, George, adopted........-.-.--.-----.|.-.-..---- 9 oe pr See
ister bye aN ic be 5 secs see ocone aeeedasssasoase5 DOM Rocscse ace St. George Island.
Bapdanofiy HF eronia ys wil Oceans slecieieeetie see eenlac nesses 21 | St. Paul Island -.-.
Bogdanoff, Zoehar, son. .-...--------------.-------- eleneeoanao= i a5N Ser
Bourdukopsky, Appolyon ........--.-------------- BOE sacs =a Oonalaska .-.-..... Sealer.
Bourdukopsky, Chioni, wife...-.............------ leriSansee se 31 | St. Paul Island -..
Bourdukopsky, Peter, son .-...-...---------------- 12 |..-.------ oe So AOS
Bourdukopsky, Onleta, daughter ..............----|.....-.--- 7 te Mike
Madoshuskon. Kvdokia, adopted. <. <<. --- lee = eon sc%ne nic 15 | Oonalaska........
“TBA in, TEN) Shape conseecormesDSoSeBnarsesonocsre } St. Paul Island -..) Sealer.
Butavin, Parascovia, wife Oonalaska .....--.
36 Butavin, Constantine, son St. Paul Island ..-
EUG al Ti ee Mav tS OMe ate ater = = =o lateraia]o te cin cai= sree taora 7 et a et Soi
Mezukin, Mary, adopted .........-....-----.....--- ‘t Ao oc
Tania, (Rr specs esp eareseopncasgs esse Seonoe OD |Seoceseicc se ‘Ores sealer:
Butarin, Catherine, daughter..-.-.-..-..--..-------|---:-.---- 18 ee fonts ee
pByrer sat Ota COLE Oem ea ai a ee Zell soascoded Zetec ss --| Sealer.
PIMAn OL eAT Na MNO tensa sae Helene amelie esteem ales | = miele ace 60 | Oonalaska........
Koznetzon. John, nephews.. «ic s<..<-st--cceeccace DY eee See St. Paul Island .-.
KGZNG i701 sea ay MOCO - sarc m eo eecmiciqe sess Seems alee nee 12 $s tea pa
LOT) UIGHIN eo con saci gb obecdosbe saenedapsesdc05506 AGI Beoseeeeee Sadrone Islands ..) Sealer.
Tiberi, AN nants) Copp cecgesooo aooneo Cop eSsoCUH booceasan- 20 | Oonalaska.--......
Onan Seeley, GE Tel) gee seme oncposeceeo se osse=5\ssoccsnaes 13 | St. Paui Island -..
IMA EL UIO BON So 4escodo serene sone sueses sea sae 8) lladooccaghe a fe REC e
Gilototisohneeers- career cine sce scee acini me saa 24M he aschecee We (See alsealers
GlotohyMarymothercoanc- ace sseceo == enn ee =a =| i= eae = 63 | Oonalaska........
Grains ISbOMh a5. en osococnspencapanEnoSseosaboora 246 |e eneeeee Altone na. 22-35 555 Sealer.
Gromot,,Onleanna pwil@ sass. see === eee Reeee eee | aaa eee oe 23 | St. Paul Island -..
Medinkwilizabech adoptediic 2 ..csen sack eae osneGs bones oar | eseke anes secre oe eee eeeion
TAH OrON ee WU linac stsete cote loess cans sccsee sone eoee AOu os saasee Iodtalke ee seisee See Sealer.
Kotehootin, Enphemia......:.......---.-....---..- USS Ee eaoasade St. Paul Island --..| Sealer.
IKGLehooummrelooian wile: sccm: <1e-cianecitias cece reea=| eee senae 40) \OonalasKae=-ceee.
Bogdanoff, Mary, adopted - - Sessemaets 17 | St. George Island.
Kotehootin, George (GM aseeouess St. Paul Island ...} Sealer.
Kotehootin; Maria, wile: =... 6... .55-sehsceesscelastewcecs- 29|| Oonalaska .----...
Kotehootin; Peter; som 2.55.02 scecoccececccmcncas V2 | esseecess St. Paul Island -..
Kotehootiny Prepon, S0l- 22-22 .<ce2 ess sce nes so-= on ° GAlaceceucee ie ee aan
Kotehootin; Matrona, daughter. --....-.-.--:--2---|--s-.<---- 4 th Ae freee
Kotehootin, daughter intanh ree remereccees nese reeseclsecccs car ef As 5 ies
Kotenoouins SAcODi-c saccnco-a- ore ceo eee aes ee AQH Remon “ Senta oe|onlers
icotehootin, Hevroma, Wile telociciestiesa- camienecleisniccs|sasceeesee Bia) Oba. Sea aSa Neen
iKotehootin Onletay danghter <2. 2-262 -s-=c5e55|4esemee- a2 17 | St. Paul Island -.-
Kotehootin, Ellen, daughter ee CEPR EN
Kotehootin, Theodore, son ....-...-----.-.---.----- ot ge
Kotehootin, PSODMINCAN GD eta wib reas strstr te oe at esee teen |saceeeces s s ihn we ais
Sodoshmkoff, Natalia, adopted) ..-.--...-s0--2s..-2c|ecccsccce- TPA MOM eae cacaaceee one
KOO WwiINKOf, HRP HeM ree oe sas sae eee lesen Bip easissne ine St. George Island.| Sealer.
KoohwinkofieArdoliavwator jocss sete esa Sancmaclaacceecenc 31 | St. Paul Island --.
Koohwinkot-Paalsisom case eaesncen site sees chcsce SiiRocwee sees OL SO hae
Kiezerott Stop ani =a ctecosss sea saacee cence ceassics BO oaecncmee Oonalaska..---... Sealer.
iKezeroi Anastasia. wite:. ccc-ce. ascesaten et ce eb tcdlecaaccteene 40 1 Oo itv haeieeas
IKeZErols ELOPOUs SOM .iae/<-c cases ausseee cee eeseleac Wales Germsiere St. Paul Island ...
iKezerof.teonaby, daughter. 22-2 .csecs-242cee sects ceseeme ee 3 ts Cts eae
Nozekoff, Semion, stepson .---.---.......-.....-... 15) Vos mciies ste Oonalaska ......-.
Krokonwwuokernay adoptedisj-c.sisisace- shone cidaw ee lseccceoes 16 PS Rig ge aes
Ke noft cP Gbelie a micas ale Soe a tocts neice hae sicacee er 39} se asee See Sitkaiesnccs eee Sealer.
Kern O fs PAM aS eWitOmoc omces ainisiselce ein acinatee cals te aes [Sneeeeeces 35 | St. Paul Island ---.
RTO LE OMe orto k ale ora eomtne ne oaineconicne asics 41 |..........| At sea near Sitka.| Sealer.
KrikOn CRENeTING A WilOsswe sisas Sakic se sac ce ne seb. |seinneee eee SIP olla eeceeceteeee.
KrnkotieMetmorantisony cee as. Gace ee ees cece ecawees 8h Peesseasee Stabranlisiind se.
Krukoff, ‘Onsteans, daughter’... .2....0.-25.----2--leensecsse- a ue it $53
Kirk ote Maxam rescence ccene ee ise soca as aocce SB Gaieeeeee: SIESitkakeceseeeeceee
Rerulkcoff-sMeoetostay. wit@sces sm... se sescesbeen.=|cccseCecke 26 | St. Paul Island ...
Krukofiy John soneere-: sscecssses se sasas sees eee UU aie Slates chores “ Be Shae
Krukoff, MAOMMINLAM Gh se ce cic Saseis cen veces esl se eee meee e|teasaaeee. 4 SO 2
Ignis AVERIG): bac ceacn qe Soo den sab sae eeenOe oes ee Cit eee ee Kroosle Island....| Sealer.
KushingMaryewitor coercsetasaceosnsccscce coca nel ssesecnecs 36 | St. George Island.
Kushin) SUkemaTqGauonler qatcssacess tiene eee on eee sm ane cbse T4c|EStebaulemesseeoon
Kushin’ Michaeliveonsae-a-osconsteccen te cece ae | Mi etteseice St. George Island.
Shoposhmkoff, Yatiana, adopted .............0.c.0.|/2ceccceces 17 | Oonalaska ........

724

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

(L.)—Census of St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 31, 1890—Continued.

Age.
Names. Place of Birth. CreUDaS
Males. | Females. LOR.
Mandnean wAGOneee sees set aa eee ne ee nae name stem BA le oteee ese St. George Island-.| Sealer.
Mandreau, Maria, wife ......---.----.--.2-00ceeses}---------- 28) CAGOn eames setae
Mandreau, Mary, daughter. .........--------------|---------- 7 | St. Paul Island -..-.
Mandreau, Zova, daughter.........----------------|---.------ 5 33 ipbee ct
SedichwArdolianmisterss ccs qessscas-cee cece nse See aero 10 “ oS ae
Sedich:, Zachar: Nephew .ewla- emailer = Sallie elalelal i ocitegooocc if aie
Mishaniliin Abii psson cee oobeeecsbessospodocsscsec B10) BSscuec sec ING ISN He Soo SotSr Sealer.
Mel yudots AematenarnwilOeca= sees ae ame ee emer eel t ee S£))) CO\GlGa, Ieeae eee
Melvudoft, Alexandria, daughter..-.-.--..-.-...-.)-----...-- 10 | St. Paul Island --.
MelynudotOlesn idanehters-sse. ss -beeee=eere | see -eeee 6 “ Cie ltt
Melvudoff, Mary, daughter .-.-----------.---------|---.------ 4 is oa Sees
Moelivudott., Alexandraniovhen:.s-4.sc=sseeem esse Pe eteneer 56 | California ...---..|
Melvudoff, Alexander, brother .-..........---.---. EL | eeceetetestetete St. PaullIsland .. Sealer.
Sharohmkoff, Matrona, adopted---....-.--.--...---|....--- gia 7 z Om Pace
Nederozott. Martinemesaseoteoacsaee ese etree neers Ball esate a ee ..| Sealer.
Nederozoi, Stepan cacemss) Weisser = =e =e BiH Regqde cacao ||Sessnstocosahoccots = Sealer.
37 INederozOtt. Alexam (UGA, walls acc saee ee eee | erate 29) Alton: teeue nue eae
Nederozott,;Miamiy, qi CC Ciera ele tae iat ee eee 10 ; St. Paul Island....
Nederozoff, Prokopy, nephew.....---------.----.-- Bul eae nee “ cae aps
Nederozoff, Dormedont, nephew-.-....---.----------- 7 Wee gE “ iI Frakes
pan kOfty POtaria ja. - 6 sass ae eet ee eee meee ae PY) ecgoncn$ se os sin ce wealer.
Lens T A OUGES Wy Ali = 5 Soot oseesecedee copes seieceass sls5a55aq6q5 29 |) St. George --.-:.-:
IPamicot WVallSi®s SON seeseees semis aaa enema BS ecseeccoce St. Paul Island. .-.
Kezanzoff, Natalia, mother-in-law...----.--.---<<=|-.5------s Of 4) SixGeorteessese ee
iParanchineDanielessst soe eases nes eee oases ee | 33950 ee eel St. Paul Island....| Sealer.
RaranchinsAlexand ra. witesase-sc soso cere ses seco eee 30!) ‘Oonalaskai--csa22-
Prokopreote cH lademanessese ee sa eseeeneee ees ae ee ZO atest toes Alton.=<2csesenes Sealer.
Rookoorshmkofh, dachaters s-eseenee ose eee ae ee esa 38 ceceeeee as St. Paul Island-..-..) Sealer.
Rookoorshmkoff, Anissia, wife.-:------5222222-5--- ese Bie 26 | Oonalaska .....---
Kookoorshmkoff, Stepan, son.-...-.--.------------- | NOMS Aeeeee ss St. Paul Island....
Rookoorshmkoft, Paroscovia, daughter.-.----.-----|.......... 2 a Hb vate
Sedich: Whe0dorers.. 22 sees ccc cise so ce scateecues sce pV hale oe ie #6 Cee CTS GalOIes
Hedieb want hati Oeste ees meses sama ee eae el eer eee 37 | Oonalaska..-.....- Sealer.
DPedieht Amn ac AUS NGM er alee lair sae eae ee eee 21 | St.Paul Island. ...
Negich -Amashasia, dame hbers ceca ein eee ene lseeweences 17 ee Dea Se
MeGaG les Miamy ad al aiiue terre ae miaatele lela tele ee ai melee =P [ett ee 5 ie nt 3
Sedich pin nokeuti) SOMses ese. oe <n siamese cece ian evatatetatotetetss ¥ ee Be
Seach, Wushi iad aus hbo ems s cae eeeeeascree | Saath eeee 3 es ce 2
Sedich enn, Me PMG Wises = sca eeae ae Vey eereconece, ee eS
Shaeshmikof, chev. antlers se en seein acim aitalelanmte reir ON eee encocop st Og DAES BPO sibs
Greek
Church.
Shaeshmikott. pNadesda, mice) cacine cos sence see eae: |p eee eenere 14 | Oonalaskay.-.-..-.-
Shaeshmkoff, Valerian, nephew-------------------- Li leeks eevee | St. Paul Island. --.
Shabolin, ‘T'recon - ---- Joop sosccomeubecenseseessese= OE) oiatctanleeea - (Oo S| Sealer.
Shabolin | Onitilatiwite reser snemesace = asm seem salt eee eee 22 ef 0
Shabolin, Agrefena, daughter ——-.----- 2-2 - -.ses-celonsecetces 3 A ob
Shabolin#Alcretena, mother see. e-eesse- === eee ee |peeeoeenne 50: | Oonalaska ..-..-:.
SHUtyagins Cathwerim Caress = ete mle eee eel eee renee | ame St. Paul Island....
Shutyagin, Metrofan --2--..-.----.-_-- 25) -- =... Si) isceccoosee tt Ste OSS. MN OALOR:
Shutyapin-Onlita switetses=- sees sse eee Ceri ee Eee eee 24 | St. George ---.....
Shutyagin: Paroscoviay Sister sso cee ot eee eee cer Ree eeece en seamen St. Paul Island..-.
Sedule, Vasely.---...---.- ce BAS eli g Seem A eo eee Kodiak escet neeee | Sealer.
Sedule; Hlizabeth wifes. s.cc =< sen dieses cece cote ere eee 51.| Oonalaska ........
sedulenV oraidaughter t=. 22. 2 eeeisieeee eee eeclseaeen eee 11 | St. PaulIsland....
SLCPEtINe, eh amyi seeeeiices eee eee eee DBE statainiatetaeter os tf Sealer.
Stepetine, Amna, wiles c= cece iene eae ee eee a Pee ese eres 21 |"Oonalasica tees es
Stepetine,Ontannay daughter so. e=- se eee ene eeeen ace 3 | St. Paul Island....
‘Bratis, Mllen mietes cect, ssc Care eeeecece ee eeee a eee 7 ee “s
tepeiine; HOT Otayier net ecs selec a eee eae eee 21 iieeelelietayoate ‘ ee Sealer.
Stepetine; A rdotia,; mother —-2 see eee eae eee ee lee cece eee 56 ut ue
Darakanof, Kernich 2.2) 5-0 2-bee eee eee eee SB ocietretaress uC Ke Sealer.
Tarakanon, Anna, wife.-.2:-fote.-oce. seen cose Teveeweee 34 || Stfikajieceeisaseeee
Metof, Jonas... sie skecelceceseseecaseeseescece QO memes St. Paul Island..-..| Sealer.
SON WP eter aoc: sos scones ce See eee eee eee eee Parka) eae eo EE ue Sealer.
Retort Many, WTO. --1.2 seeks mic pea ase eee tear son eeneeee 31 | St. George Island.
Neto Zachar brother. .\..se i225 ocaaee eee eeee eee TN eee anton St. Paul Island. ...
Letom rA lexan dra visisterigve. 2s cce casein. See nee Eee 14 ee of
Gleboff, Chronia, mothersim-law+..--.-3-..5--scec|ssoseeceer 51 | St. George Island.
Gilebotf Tassavsistersinalatre - uc, aacmac een eel eeeee meee 18 OF BS
MolkotheMarkeletoa 22. tie ccs vides cscs ater eee eeoeee ATA Wire Sete era Atk Mela e eee Sealer.
Molkof Alexandra: wwil0re t= acemccssecoscooeeeeeree Se See aye 38 | Oonalaska -:-.2<--
Melkoimntant- PON .misee-co-b serosne ote seers Infant ..||--..25..-. St. PaulIsland....
wipows.
PAS DOL NCAR UMA tence iene ecisoacine ioe ce oben ee ss ane ot |sOonalaskay..--eee
Zatzmenon, Anxemia, niece... ..-..--..0cceusesse-s losesbocas 14 | St. Paul Island...
Zabzmenoi. Lassia, Sister-i-law:s -oc---s-necs cooeecloconecnoee 25 ue 2
Balakis hin sMiatrontes a= ose bist asiceee eels nee oe eimiee aeeeeeiee ers 42 ee s
ipalakishin Awapia MiCcte sc seccesree.-sceseeeseemelcnsteeneee 13 s se

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

— (L.)—Census of St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 31, 1890—Continued.

125

Age.
Names. ] Place of Birth. te
Males. | Females. Rove
wipows-— continued.
Shopoohinkoff, Parascona, adopted ......-----------|---+-+---- DOME ecm wtne wehbe cts ace
Belglazott, Ellen ..-....-.----------------++-+-2+++-|---------- 56 | St. Paul Island. -
Tarakanoff, Mary, adopted. ....-.-..----------------|---------- = 5's ee SER See eee te es
Kerukoff, Natatia.........-------0+.-----0--+-------]---20- ==: 39 | St. Paul Island. ...
Krukoff, John, son..-.-..--.-------------+------++-- el; |RSS ee encase
Hopoff, Anissia.......-...-----------+ +2222 eee ee --]ee ee eee ee: 24 | Oonalaska .....--.
Hopoft, Nekita, son.......--..------------+-+++------ piece Ococrec St. Pan) Island. .-.
IKOZERO, OCOD. <.0:0 mia aia are oiwinimwe Spice ceEe cons s||lasascsacs 30 | St. George Island.
THOTT) Bee aE eer e Mere eet eseecee -Ssbecarppcs| |sesqreroer 33°| Oonalaskai---=--=-
Kezloft, Teodotia, daughter. --.----6.9--- 25 eee fee e wwe eee 13 | St. Paul Island. .-.
Kero te Machaele SOM a. 25.- = lar aatwiet sree == Adis vers ciciaae a a &
38 KG 7] Of INCOM 8 OTN sal apeie ste mr ora sne)o oat net =i Silieseeeoveice St. Paul Island. -..
Serebremkoff, Olga, sister -.-----.-----------|---------- 27 + So iigcoe
Mandregin, Yestemia........-----+----- +--+ 2222-22 |-- eee eee 29 ef ager ae
Rookoorskuskoff, Anna, adopted ........---.-------|---------- 6 Fe Pa
Whi nni@in VWI) seo acne easier Ho Coen Oe COODOse noldnooobEs 35 ss ea
Murenhoff, Alexander, son ...--..--.-------------- AG Reroteleremmerts US {Co tee. .|)sealors
MMirrenho fa Mia GL ss8 OD) ate ote miele miei ln ini =tm= Hl Or eaccentraroe oe LS
Murenhoff, Ellen, daughter.......-.-...-----------|-----+----- 12 Se (Gee
Maurenhoff, Tutofi; daughter...--...---..-------+--|---------- 14 ae See erate
Murenhot, mfant; Son 25.6.6 ces no so cee ne nami fits etleertaeee ee us Le
Jinan TURN pase soo Reee on onoen Ss oeeoeeed sseccgesos 45 ae a ec
J ei, I NERD Se A eens Be ne app OOe tecec ees] pacoeuse.. 23 $f Sieeerayets
Arderazoff (infant son of Agrofena) ..-..-..-------|.-..------|---------- oe se ;
TPorilinnie, Sid tit pagan soceen cas Se a UrOmbEDSCo SDE po leceoroomes 41 ss UE
TEGAN SHIGIss ac cane oar Seb oeeeeclecEeerecooces||soceeromac 16 | ue oes
IGE Ee BIO EG Ky Cy DERE OSES RR econcpesececas jaecougsacd Docecrosss a Oe
PTS HMMS Ths Vi ASSOLOS eerste stele a slalate ol otaiaelalaiclatalalorerata)||aletnlefeler=/a/ale 32 a HS ‘
BLO POLE PA OHO Bees erie tera ya ate rete at tre wtf lolol tal otal otal etelatmtal a =e = =I / aime SP vbr Nees sce saaeecc
Popoff, Evrosenia, daughter ........-.-.-----------!---------- 1 | St.Paul Island....
Bhi ej utey Awa, OE ed Mel tee ee eee ce eescoccs| esiceeseocs 8 us ese
iepyaie, ASO See 55 5 Senne oes Senseo cen sdeen |scoeeceLur 46 UG SO ory
Shityapan, Dana, adopted ono jee erent |= a= 11 of He Bsc
TRG AS We Te popSiren Seo SeeS COs eA SSE DRO Se SebEeDesan EEceEoneon 58 | Koskogrume....--
Galaldconot C land ae perme aes smm ares oe la= = 1 Se eiie = = 12, | Oonalaska --....--
BICC tay) A Bi a etal tafora a alanine elafel= mie elele mel~iei=i=!=(=}|[e wlajaiazisl=l= 48 POP RASA eo cte
ea tehootiny J Gh sS OD. - eee araters oreo =i ee Oe ereweeet: St.Paul Island....| Sealer.
Katehootin, Zenoria, daughter ........-..---------|.--------- 23 UG ines)
Katehootin, Ellen, daughter-.....-. Bena scossoccos5s5|poeecebSDe 17 st Ke
Wonoicon ss aniline se aise ce aneemnietieneneiieseeemeee eats ao cie= sere 21. | Oonalaskay.=...- 2
SineiiGy CE liadin® 4 Sse cpopceeduu sceese acoeedooss |peeeeeeuee Si NSitkasse.c- see eee
Shane, Mary, daughter. --.--2----.---2-- se. 22 | ose ne n=- 12 | St. George Island.
Shane, Freokla, stepdaughter .............------..|----.----. 22 ¢ (Gas
Shane, Parascoria Yuoklad, daughter...-.....-...|..-.--.--- 4 ae OS ie
Shane, Elevery Yuoklad, son.....-.........---.--- BAe siaes Ot St. Paul Island..-.
DNS TN OE S55 Sooo odd oad mobos seseuSes||sacsceoeee 34 | Kiverle Island....
DELO Te PET ORG. O AUP UW bOL ae eee cae ela =esia orate elnlele ele mite | otal a ein minral t= 7 | St. Paul Island. ...
etotecotas dam Gnbebe sen -)5- aise ae a cae ccc cocci avala\aleeels 5 a Dace
Tetoff, Anxemia, daughter (dead)................-|.---0----- 2 uf eS
Kotchergin, Ardotea, daughter..............--.--.|---------- 17 a Meese
Ataaands, Ji tea IS SSeS Se oe Soc eapoarosorel Bassesccar 72 ag es
MorentoraqeAniay CAMSN OL oem «ey tla a laeetelcie oe =| seieinslajas 39 OF Sf
WOK OLPE NON eee eo eecinmie Oe ninis HOR elec ocr otra ine (52 noses se 36 s -
iKerohine Mera alGCOscenncstaceee-n goes taceerremsse basoeces =e 11 se Re
Pacha. Wearach ae acccescscas soccer ES ered SHer Cee oe 45 | Oonalaska ...-..-..
Wacharot. MMAanuel sono ees ceet he ia'se steele UW ee ee ccces St.Paul Island-....
Zacharoft, Heodosia, daughter .. 2. - 0. --cececee-s| secs soe==- 15 Ct ae
RECAPITULATION.
SE iw OM UMA GION, AU Lynch, MSs cei se tectonics = atcyeis arctan cis ciemrel ee are Serna IarS Sem meee tee 213
Males—
PANINI RINE hee ce Se ON ee oa areas area erate oeirera ee ak. dysnetts ta 42
Sint IG SORE cots ae OP SRO a oee tae ne Sie ee nye ee eee a aa cep egeeererd trl ne oye ee ae 23
(indent beyearsrssees ast eet ace cae fs MHD ea nae Mie tn eS We nae cuttin nites 12
Females-—
PAVCLIMI DA eer et eas sete, ee ee. Soe Ses SRS Scio beess its eave tae tae te 73
BabOM Mie eal sprees ys wa cers <tr ae las rte cia c res cas eee asa tee eas Be 41
Oars sy Caen eer A ete SRN re Sr cht Ain cae ee ee oe Sane ees 22

726 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

39 (M.)—Census St. George Island, Alaska, July 31, 1891,

Names.

Lestenkoff, Rev. Inokenty...-..............----..----- wee eter ence eee e ence ee cee-- Bi) ie seene soo
MEGS CEM KOM G LS AN Oe, WRLC a aa arn ais clinics late cle me etm wale a eee eo et ate to 55
MGSO TUCO My MCU LON OTN eae am l= dl el a Wi sosinea eon
eStenkoi, elena Cale HON: weenie em = talola nine eee oe emer seen ae ee ee eee 24
Mestonkone Mary, aug tensa n-e-cc-seciaeeinh meen ee ee aee seen eese see SAC Carica onsacoSs 20
IDG Saray ders aa a) Gt Wed its) BoE ac ono oecoresobasaceonssons= aneaoscesdce
Shankingkoif, Julia, grand-daughter. .... Uae cutee aie caneaecnen oeone 2
Heéstenkoti, Demetri; widower: 9 aire eae oem laciele we lala eine mis iaeiei=iniote sialetein state icin PAM eeirecoe ci *
estenko, Anna, dauohtens 2 pens cewicite cone enceist mee enone eemenn ere ees eer er eern|aeeeeEeeee 2
Munenliei Mark, adopted ses. eeeeaa= =< seemee= see ae Renee ener e eee ee ee ser eneer Beene
Philamonoff, Andronies< j.255 22.2 ses 2 sceieaseieciasaie\anicisele sistnseasee ewer bem ceeeree 23 \oo 3s een
Philamonon, Zenvoia,wite-s-2- 9. -escce sass coecee cee ee nee meee Reese eee ab acadonc| pao ssecccl 25
Philamonoff,infant.< 325-25. bcianececeisetcsewasee hoc e dec epeeoc be oot eee tea ee | See eee | aaa
Galanin | Oelinasywidowett -tAsecee con ac ec cose tec cecmote at cas sane omc ane tneee Deere 27
Galanin, Evan, SOD.<% 2S sah eco es come cece sabes eee ease Bene ee renee Sete anseee Bi ieiecers cteersts
ProkoplefPeters b5.. «.!iscsicee sack cen eenete sles sane coo meee hate eee e eee oeeneaa PM er cee ss
Prokopief Medosia; wiles.-25- steels cc.= zncjade ces acsekwennne coe eme ete Saeee eee een eee 19
Prokopief; Apanasia. brother. sc. - o-oo cites ce eeepc nen a eee ne eee ce eeeeeeee tO eee ee
KezanzantsWedosia, wid 0 Wractsiccmacsoacedess ooec cece cet basen sees ED esse eee er Cee ees 46
Kezanzait, Anokenty, SOW sn-nat essicce seciniseriesciee tice pe em sees ani seme ee eee WP) eagsecesne
Kezanzatt, Leraimia, orand- dangshter. 215.2 neeiece 5p eeseeee eae ese eee ene ee eer eee eae ceeeee wa
Onstecoff, Alexa: widower: == 2 deleses: so- cneesae smacneenesecieopmeenicn Meroe eee 40) || seb jeae ate
Galaktianoff ‘A lexan derss saci ciccc eee coc ene eee elec ener Cen ee ene ee BO ate
Galaktianoff, Oxenisnwwito. 2} tert ncn = seca eae a Ser cece set ener nr cD Ree RE COC ERE An eaee En eeee 18
Smetzofi; Mustin se soe ec cc eens ance oe sam ames setae Sites RES ee ran ee ene eee ee Gf) lEcscesec 25
Smoetzoff; Krestina, wiles se. cscs ccclcs see secs be cee eeesee ee eee Se eee Eee eee 33
Smetzoti Guezoriewson-.- =a pieee cis cen ceca reete bene seer eens Seep cea ee ye Beeemocian
Philamonostt, Hott widOwersc--ceises 20 occa actos 0 hee one ence eee TASTE pee ora
Philamonoff Gregorio; sons. +s. c2e-c@enes secede. Goh eer cee cence te Hoare rene EEee ALT a | eiatstotol state
Philamonoit yD emetriafconoensaec cee seen reer e Cee eee een en ae eon Sh) sees secs
Philamonoff, Eogime, daughter
Gorokott, Corinalle=as-eesee eee Boome
Gorokoff. Kiateninaxiwateis-sasmne secre tases ners See eee oreo ee ee oie ee nae
Gorokoff, Anna daighter.-2<qetecos -s2 so-ee ses tecenes se oseee eer eee reba aeenene
Galaime, Perfor, brother-in-law
Galaime; Alexanderjadopted! s.¢--2 cere ce cicac bane ce oees te ciees come ae peeleaneee
Bare UH Fes CERES jie Ohno hs ey ae ee GY al oe a ag ae ey ee Se ee me ee
Kalikni eh Wiarvara awit evo. ccceiecmie somicerec noon soe coo eee oe eee anee teenee
ATO Hrdokiajadophedseaacs. sos sseseaneee cere
Shane, Raisha, widow.-.........-.- By oe
Shane; Ouletta, daughter. 2:2. 5.25. jscesshesnctun cee er cut ess acon Soa OE eRe DE See
phane) Michselsones--cee-- asses ee = ie cfaratnieistalalojttaiee as bbe kak woe claw aciewe cemee wens
iMorenliett, Natalia sistem sate ES. toss eas tae ee eee eee a ne ee
Morenliefi,Nedesda,adopted)2t22. se. co -sacue csoee sem cceeee cnc com ce nem selnceeee leeeinecaee
Qusteroff, Olletia; wid Own jac e ne tee macetecn sins anlen ee So eee a ea ee ae ee eee ee ea ae Speer
OQuster ott Simson, step-Somanc- Sach san ge tas ecacute ne ke secon ae ae eee onan seer
Oustesoft: Aprafenal dauphtére-o- ese ocoeen ae ose no cee eee eee se eer eceeee
Oustecoth Mproxia daughter aspen coos test encenece CECE Eee ene
Oustegoff, Michael, son -..-....-.. sSecuee Sle cibaniuisiats seiioe hicks we Mee sae Seas ances See
QOusteroi, Sosania, dani ghtens sao.- - 2-1 teiisie enc ee eee ace aen ee satleee cae eee
Oustegoff, Pelicia daughter =. -02 ac sccs sn ceuseaceee ous cece aceon sae Re ane ee eeeee
dA elst AV A0y aie aXe (2) ae LRM EAL Sam AU es a ead ee neacacoadesse
Reganzoir; Matromar wile ce.ccie eae cee eo eee een ee eee eoee Seen Enea aes
Reganzoff, Fatiana, daughter -.........--...---- meee ene a rae S Uae anaes ascent
Philamonofl, Simeone... 2. scab se on saeco eee one eee ee eee eee eee
Bhilam onotf, Hodolkia, wile; oc scat < oc se ojo to cle ao ee oe RE eee one eer ee eee
Philamonoti; Miriam sonics ces somes ores tee Oe re Oe ene es ae
Philamonofi; Tmakenbydsones sco seco ncck eo cercekeee Soete econ san ee ac nao eee eee
Philamonoff, Medosia daughiters= = 2. esc necoeeseemeneese peereeme sce cece cere see | Seeeeeeeee 8
Philamonoff, Acad rian25 022 cattle eee tee elon oe ee eee oe ee ee eee een 3 23 Sete ee
Philamonotfh *Paragcoviay swale: sec se en ee ee re ee ear one ane eee me | eee 26
Philamonoff, Peligia,.2 =.= =< sccens son awe sos tees see ooo ee Eee Poon OR are cnn EreeeeE eee 2
Malavansky, Mary, “wid Ow. 2 ccc case cone lee oe tate ae ee See esr pee Deen ee | oon 54
Mialavansicy, Meole:son! :\- scscncs sone mee ce etec inna ne etree nee ene eee DF penoeacacs
Malavansky, Wassa,\daughters-sess onsets ceecee poser eee deee eee Soebodsdllsscuooascs 15
Malavansky, Repseima, daughter. 225.2500 semacscoen nce sass ieee cnn er Seeee ene ener |-oneeeeees 30
Malavansky, Stepmeda, prand-daughter -_---seecce css seen ceeenee te aeeeee eeneen eenenmeree 10 .
Malavansky, Kleopatra, crand-daughter-\-s-ccneaceest ener eeceneee soot eeaeee easel eeemoeeet 7 ;
Mala vans key) Ober, SO1= o/c acc aio oe oaks Oe ete Se Setanta Tl Be eseenece :
ederaz0l cA Tien Gy). x <ccictete ins cc </ois same eter Oe ee eRe ee ee BBC lt sessccce-
INGterazot SHOP ena, WLS. <sc- 5 sc ccic cca cee ee SER ee oe oe eon Sa Bete e eee eee eee eeneee 36
Nederazofi, Malima, daughter
40 iNederazofaMieoli: SON’ 22-2. 2s coc cane moe ee WOW eeimmcconcic
Mmenlief, Hrovonis, Wid OW ic sc - cs -cek cco cee ee ee Cee enone ence eeeee Soacos cee 36
Mitrenliati JOSE plas OMe a... cr nr.s0 6. kos Senne wee nee eee ee Eee eee eee LS) pe tence
Mirren leit George sO. <--ice ccm caine ds noose anasccctee ot eat eS Ean enh Eee Eee 16) |\Seenmereil
Wiuenlietstepenida,ddughter’=-ccc-co..enecec tone cet ater ase toe soe ee bees ane ee eelaaacicaeees 13
Marenliefi<dohn, son (infant) ajsccseecleen ce ocwetwececosdeace week oe oe eee Cente ln anen cere meme amen
Muenlicf; Helens, daughter ss.ccs sa cocascinn catccscewcccstcessaecweoeente Reenecaaenloscine Rees 5

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. T27

(M.)—Census St. George Island, Alaska, July 31, 1891—Continued.

Age.
Names.
Males. | Females.
SMGHZO MWe OlO LONI, SISCOM see tete re etala lala allers(o clal='= aieleim teen miarola a atetalS (ai stetha alatela Safar = =lat= "=| =a l=in\ar= alnl=r= 30
SHTG ATE LO ep oriy GE a NG eA CE Bee sos cen DDO SOE EESO nD Tap SOP ROB OOM DS a Ieee sar cass bosoenne. 12
SITATTMD A SGID NE oe ESS sabe Soba neeosodguadoesddababdsondoooonscdeeneacospoceseccene QU is seetekite
SHGRMO EIA bans (air cas Saat can AaB acon OgeeoSa 44 Hoo dose An sesnS bas aBunobaaossugces joceeeeeeee 21
MEODIOM MOMENTA Gece Asoc Reta lenis a arent ata Seale ne tiie em sielcien ccs siecle neistaicici| clotmeraeimeists|ersie sieiicmiere
Merenlioff, Waselesia, widow. ......- Lamia Gate ban Geiomiowm name acts sm aocblawehmnacteueneee EE Ge tied cia 38
IMGRTTATINS TE] UNTO SS Ces SEES BRODIE A EMbOa ce See TGCS SOLE Bea ee sace SrACeDECRraa. LS (Seeekeases
MenenG HT eA EXAn Orr GC AUPNCOR ssaisc am cance ane cae late sitet orate wei oe siete snmeee sins Semmes alee 11
GRE UNOTE I8yT GE Eye Nis) Hee eo aceme ness seocrcoosee HooSecSeacemodonesooocenicod pobpeter caer 6
DiGaml hh die 1s Erh sO iid Niles Secaemtacee Sambo] SancoemeniconaciaccsSaSogcodos pp bETopcanedaoss 3
MMerenhioieA nna (infant) ) oc secs ccce ccc tecneaiiceitemiccee cise ncmisctesicclncicsraeccac [fers cre rel | archaea eve ots
RECAPITULATION,
Total population........... Jamnassodousn soso asdeag soudS S53 oaS5S0b0ea0e samnae 6 ly
Males— .
PAC AMUN te teratetetate teranlcinyere aievcinslawibloisic siornlcglsiewie se aisle oe alee nisteisicis Siereerigemie cients 19
B WOU GRIRS S656 soehad senaspoeasd auc Boob DOGS bonooneAHaUSineea CoS pdam cade 10
Winter D VeMhsouscesdeseoesesadosoaae ves bdo DooSE Bono eoDS Spocoe eS eSdnebooT 8
Females—
AUG cra hiss sere pera tet ee create ea ate ne woos oie et ninte ie eave wiaretarn win ieee sie cies sae nieve loaea eleioes ete 24
DRUOMI RY CULS eee eee eroticy aie scree ecio a ine acieis Sa ciatsiots sie siniere ciel sais Pe Ae 19
Windentory Career sence scetlonct seer at ecigietslsoeiecian micine winters slecicieim sas ssieisele 10

(N.)—List of Accounts transferred to the North American Commercial Company by the
Alaska Commercial Company for the Natives of St. George, May 24, 1890.

Names. Amount. Names. Amount.
|

yanenculikalifijse sec aacccnesecce ee ceees $58. 71 || Meoli Maluoansky ...........--------- $187. 00
Joseph Merenliff.........-..-- -penaoDoaC 1000) | /MDemetrieRestrakoih...-22--esen--e-- 6 265. 69
Peterphrokopeetcs-ss- sec. ce anaes 20.51 |) Gregorie Philamanoff ...-.-..---.----- 7.25
Okelena Galamu, widow ..............-. 40:'00 ||, George: Merenlift. 5.52 5.--)-2 =< oo-scine 10. 25
SlLepaneWakanoltys yt teeniciesece niet misine 125.00 || Andronie Philamanoff................. 123. 50
UUASA SUAEN):, WAC OW:= 6 ocscecseac ceca siee 61.50 || Serafinea Rezanzoff, orphan .....-..--- 61. 20
Andreanee nilamanott pes eceasccieeice see 125. 00 || Nedesda Muenliff, orphan...........-. 201. 49
HoteehilamanOfteece a2 scmehecces ea\eceesr 149.65 || Ardokia Kikoliff, orphan...........--- 232. 69
Mrs. Sebastin Merenliff................. 146.00 || Mark Merenliff, orphan ......... cedars 211.39
IB SteLwNOZAN ZO ac, eee aceite oni: snacis cist SLO0n eArdokiavh opotsoeucssenis eee cess eee ae 74.46
ArkentyeNGUarAazotr tecccs cn cccesccesee. 164.00 || Ogefinia Onstigoff, orphan .........-.. 18. 05
Alex. Galaktonoit. cms cmssccsiscesnclese cee 128.53 || Fedoria Rezanzoff, widow-......-...--- 50. 00
Simeon Philamanotf 2: coe eeceeecen --e << 166. 00 —— —
IBS GIS Wil US ZOlk or aero oie cle conte a ase iaeeicie 164. 00 3, 691. 87
MilkewDRestinkoffs sss. ts csetees oconoee 10. 50 ————
Naiballi @uMrerce nlite areata a stataleiatel eee toe Parra 60. 00 || Rev. Irmokenty Testinkoff, priest ..-.| 1, 700. 00
Irmokenty: Rezanzoft .-. 2... .--32--.- 95.50 || St. George Church ........ Beit Sateen 1, 394. 55
Mrs. Zachor Onstigott, widow........ .- 127.50 ——_———
Won |Gorokoft- 2 sase- soc o- cee ce eee 167. 00 8, 094. 55
Alexia Onstigott 25-2. <1. a -enans eee 163. 50 SSS
SimcomlOngshiPolice: soence cesses os ane se 125. 00 Total..... Seieisicisia'gats Ggceromdgsane 6, 786. 42

728

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

é1 North American Commercial Company, San Francisco, Cal. Division of proceeds
of Sealing at St. George Island for the Season of 1890.
(4,112 seal-skins at 40 cents, 1,644 dol. 80 c.]
FIRST CLASS.
Lestankoff, Dimetra. ..-- nORUO CRE nebecornos Sone cee cons iocan teearc $85. 56
Nederozoff, Arkenty...---- PRUE O EMO BHO ce ona ooo Hoc oobdohSus teHaee 85. 56
AmstekoiiAlexaves: srs jcehok ccs sien icnn sine bine eine miei ae ears 85. 56
Philamonolt, Hoftee ol oo8 ee ascee ee ere cette ee cee ere 85. 56
Bhilamonof, Simeon. . 2..2/.:<002 5 sca Sane elamiom aetee eee meee eae 85. 56
Gorokoff, ‘Corneal... sic. ois la nee eee eee eae one eee eee 85. 56
Swetzoff, Ensten ....:..... BR ME yy aS Sy ric SO DO CHON AGE ase deeose 85. 56
$598. 92
SECOND CLASS.
Moalaransict; Meolia 2.05 ete spice ne sane canes eens scldsidenceteeee (BY
Philamonoit, Andronie-:. 5.5. ossee meee cee ee ee ae eee 72. 12
Philamonoff,Andrean..23e2 sods ce eon ci ecsae cae ceee eee eCeneoaes 72.71
Sekarnoff, Stepan’... 522.022.0514 See aoe- & eee eee ECE ere cee 72.71
- 290.86
THIRD CLASS.
Kulikolofi, P vanes = cccsiee. cess cee yee ach erace see oe eee nee 64.17
Rezanzoirt, Peters im. ct cot aaemas ote once oe Shiee ee RRC Oe Ee EE ere 64.17
Onstekofi; Simeon est seater see nies See eae ee ee ee ee ee 64.17
Merculiff, Joseph..... i eiStsia ciara lata Sate co icle Seige Siete ae oe Sete ee ee ee 6457
ProkoplotisRebets cet oon sac eas a an ae ences Bene ae eae see eee 64.17
Westanlcofl Mike os-22 .o. cas asec cae ae cioe scam on See eee teers 64.17
385. 02
SPECIAL CLASS.
Lestankofi Rey. Innakentz= sss on. ocietee come eiioe eee sete cone 200. 00
Philamon off, 'Grovorie see soz. se ee ese Emenee ease ee eee ee 25. 00
Philamonoti Ep anal sees =a. seen cor Gece nee nee eon en ae rene 25. 00
Merculift George hes iinet Re ee coe eerie a ete 25. 00
Galanin Wbatara pers sess ecole ote Se ce Nan ars Caan e eet eer aes 25. 00
(Re Zamz ors Tm M EO MIG yy) ayes = ase eet = erate aerate eee Ro yee 25. 00
NederazomeMeols setee asine amen eae ae wee See en he are yee ee 15. 00
Mercultti, Sohn Sz: cata: nes a Sa oe A a ee eo Urea apnea irae 15. 00
Philamonoft, Innalcenty-: te Soe Se ae ee eae eee eee ne See eee 15. 00
—- 370.00
Total. so. oea sce ose ese EEE See tae his Sao a nae ce maine eee 1, 644. 80

List of Natives’ Accounts due them by North American Commercial Company.

Names.

Simeon: Philamonof.. ..\ss2 622. 22- cee ee
Alex. Onstegof
Andrean Philamonof..as.csascscecone
Andronie Philamonof..........-.---.-
Hof Philamonor: Jes veccecs cee sy aneeeee
DGEsHMerculifs acs scacsessese sees
Stepan Sekhanof
Peter Prokopie 2 -- 1...

Simeon Onstegof...........
WiStomioweizOl-— -.--2-06-ee cacnccenee

Corneal Gorokhof
Meoli Malaranski

Gregory pbbilamonolseses<sc-scssse5e
Goorpemerculefe tao tsess. cect ce:
Innakenty Rezanzof..-..............-
Evan Kulikoloff

Balance Cr. Names.
$216.56 || Ephraim Philamonof
216.06 || Pafara Galanin .....-
170. 21 || Meoli Nedarazof...---
170. 22 || John Merculef..-.....
202.21 || Innakenty Philamonof
112.17 || Rey. Innakenty Lestankof
123.17 || St. George Church ..-...-..-
170. 21 || Sebastian Merculif.....-..
64.17 || Nadesda Merculif -.-
166.92 || Zahar Onstelkof. -----
209. 56 || Sorapheme Rezanzof
208.56 || Ruse Shane..---.-...-
213.56 || Fedosia Rezanzof....
233.72 || Okalina Galanin......
286. 25 || Andotia Papoff .....-
66.67 || Eflokie Vickloff......
25.00 || Agzafina Onstekof ..
27.00 || Natalia Merculeff....
98.50 || Mark Merculif ...-...
102. 88

Balance Cr.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 129

42 (0.)—Reecipts of Agents Lavender and Murray.

ISLAND OF Sr. PAUL, BEHRING’S SEA, ALASKA,
August 9, 1890.
This is to certify that 16,874 fur-seal skins have this day been shipped on board the
steam-ship ‘‘Arago,” Captain Thomas commanding, and consigned to the North
American Commercial Company of San Francisco. This being the total catch on St.
Paul Island for the season of 1890.
(Signed) JosEpH MURRAY,
Assistant Treasury Agent.

ISLAND OF ST. PAUL, ALASKA, August 9, 1890.

Received this day on board the steam-ship ‘‘Arago,” for the North American Com-
mercial Company of San l’rancisco, 16,874 fur-seal skins.
(Signed) H. C. THOMAS,
Captain-commanding ‘‘Arago.”

ISLAND OF ST, ———, BEHRING’S SEA, ALASKA
, , ,
August 11, 1890.

This is to certify that 4,121 fur-seal skins have this day been shipped on board the
steam-ship “Arago,” Captain Thomas commanding, and consigned to the North
American Commercial Company of San Francisco. This being the total catch on
St. George Island for the season of 1890. ,

(Signed) ALBERT W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Agent.

ISLAND OF ST. GEORGE, ALASKA, August , 1890.

Received this day on board the steam-ship ‘‘Arago,” for the North American Com-
mercial Company of San Francisco, 4,121 fur-seal skins.
(Signed) H. C. THOMAS,
Captain commanding ‘‘Arago.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 29, 1890.
In case of absolute necessity, caused by scarcity of natives or otherwise, use best
judgment and discretion in allowing killing seals for skins after the 20th July.
(Signed) W. WINDOM, Secretary.
CHARLES J. GOFT,
Treasury Agent, Seal Islands,
(Care Collector of Customs, San Francisco, California).

(P.)—Protest of George R. Tingle.

NortH AMERICAN COMMERCIAL COMPANY,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 18, 1890.

Sir: Your communication of the 8th instant was received, in which you notify
me, as Superintendent of the North American Commercial Company, that said Com-
pany must cease killing seals on the 20th instant. The delay in replying thereto
was with the hope that, as a result of our several verbal discussions of the propriety
or necessity of your order, you would be convinced of the untenable position you
have assumed and revoke the order, thus allowing the lessees to go on with their
business as the law provides. Your announcement to me this evening that you will
not revoke your order, and that your decision is final, leaves me but one thing more
to do, viz., file this protest against the wisdom, justice, or necessity of enforcing on
the lessees what we consider an arbitrary abridgment of our rights under and by
virtue of the law.

The lease was executed by the Government of the United States in pursuance of
Chapter III, Title 23, Revised Statutes. This law authorized the Secretary of the

Treasury to prescribe from time to time the Rules and Regulations by which
43 the Treasury Agents in charge of the seal fisheries shall be governed. There
is nowhere in the Law any provision authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury,

730 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,

after he has fixed upon the number of seals the lessees shall kill in any. one year, to
cut down the time to such a date as to make it impossible for them to secure the
number allowed to be taken.

The date you fix, the 20th instant, it is true, was named by the Secretary of the
Treasury on your recommendation, but you received subsequently an order to extend
the time or ‘‘use your best judgment.” On the receipt of said telegraphic order the
day before our ship sailed, you told the President of the Company, I. Liebes, and
myself, that “it would be all right; it was as good as we wanted,” &c., satisfying
the President of the Company and myself that you would extend the time, other-
wise we would not have sailed until we received from the Secretary a positive revo-
cation of that part of his instructions which cut us off on the 20th from killing
seals.

You said to-day that seeing that seals were so scarce determined you to stop the
killing on the 20th, and yet you admit of having ordered Colonel Murray, on St.
George Island, the Treasury Agent in charge, to stop our agent there from killing.
This order was issued to Colonel Murray at an early date, before the killing of seals
had hardly commenced, and it was not known whether they would be few or many.
The law says the lessees shall give the natives a maintenance out of the taking of the
sealskins. How can that provision of the law be carried out when the Government
steps in and stops the lessees from killing when they are taking 1,000 seals a-day?
By the enforcement of your orders as the Representatives and Agents of the United
States, you deprive the natives of a maintenance. You deprive the Government of
large revenue. You cause the North American Commercial Company great loss.
You turn over to the marauders and other natural enemies of the seals in the water
many thousands of fine killable merchantable seals, which we could take without
any detriment whatever to the rookeries.

We have every reason to believe, from the marked increase of new arrivals of fine
seals, that if we were allowed by you to continue our killing under the law, we could
fill our quota of 60,000 seals. Believing this, we will claim damages from the Gov-
ernment of the United States equal to the loss we sustained by your act limiting the
time to the 20th instant when we shall cease killing. This limitation of time has
no precedent in the past twenty years, while the quota for St. George and St. Paul
Islands was several times changed. The law fixed the time when the killing shall
cease, but the Secretary can fix the number to be kilied each year—not exceeding
100,000.

In view of the foregoing facts, the North American Commercial Company respect-
fully claim the right to be allowed to proveed with the execution of their business
under and by virtue of their lease, ©

Iam, &c.
(Signed) GEO. R. TINGLE,
Superintendent, North American Commercial Company.
C. J. Gorr, Esq.,
Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Fisheries.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 19, 1890.

My Drar Str: Your communication bearing date the 18th instant received, and,
in reply, will say, as a subordinate of the Treasury Department, I do not desire to
discuss the subject-matter contained in your letter. I respectfully refer you to the
Honourable William Windom, Secretary of the Treasury, to whom your letter has
been referred. ;

Respectfully yours,
(Signed) CHARLES J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent in charge of the Seal Fisheries.
Hon. GEORGE R. TINGLE,
General Manager, North American Commercial Company.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

44

731

(Q.)—Table showing Number of Pur-Seals killed for skins on the Island of St. George

by the Alaska Commercial Company, and also for natives’ food, from 1870 to 1889,
inclusive; the Amount of Larnings received by the natives of this Island for taking and
curing these skins; also Amount earned by St. George men on St. Paul Island and the
distribution of said earnings; the Total Number of Fur-Seal Skins shipped from St.
George Island by the Alaska Commercial Company from 1870 to 1889, inclusive.

Year.

Paid to
Ts Natives for
Skins taking and
shipped. wheels
Skins.

20, 000

Total
Fur-seals
killed.

Total
rejected
stagy.

20, 000 8, 000. 00 20, 358 275
20, 000 8, 000. 00 20, 233 126
20, 000 8, 090. 00 20, 316 291
15, 000 6, 000. 00 NOT Oh seme eerettess
15, 000 6, 000. 00 MEST Seeeiesosseee
15, 000 6, 000. 00 15, 145 120
15, 000 6, 000. 00 15, 083 29
15, 000 6, 000, 00 15, 166 76
15, 000 6, 000. 00 15, 179 113
5, 000 6, 000. 00 15, 082 40
317,077 | 126, 830. 80 319, 914 2, 269
Distribution of Natives’ Earnings for taking and curing Fur-seal Skins.
Years Be Gtoiee Received | Received | Received eycoiNies Beco ed Received Reepived
: | Mi yi M4 i St. Ge y y
iranerertet St. George | St.George St. George pepegree Bh eeoree, Oonalaska} St. Paul
Spepaal! Church, Priest. | Widows. and Sick. | as Salary. Priest. Priest.
ITO" cooSsa||\Gancodocoroacecoceactie| |loscecd ocned coocdsc0R sal loncboosedes Henocoreeee ocsonpeebas lous aooedane
GVA 2 eos eee are PALEXU RLU Nal es ete Bt Le See ea Sa eel (eats es nese
1 essence cal Rapcepeeoee PAU OW bcSecceuonn laasaosnensd acossosobdn Escosnancose
eV ssocdond loon bse ooend lboodsos sods) | Joeqccco sod Sedcouesd acl |orsoobo scr ldaacreaadcebaoeeenouse oodarercme,
1 Eta Snecse SONOOONOO Eh ye so mreepaie o |rsts asieteicteyeis| Sense iets ice se seteiste sis/-te | ote wnseinte lauwe| saciawte eee ee oo eee
TOTO ee. 5HGOOS00) Reno O400M Bema since cl erie tss a eeeteicrecesals $300. 00 $340. 00
SG Meee etcetera) mee LOOM OOM Sc mami since |sotie <elnciec=| tes ovine seri se 160. 00 160. 00
WTiiemsalstnla -\| sinancetataaatel eae 2O0U OOM So. = Sesion ee aoee| scoot ef scees b
Sate metas | meta at el | eee SOU OU he sac crcttnclmacace cuicee|(seueeees ser
NSO ee aces asses ete UCU. OO dere saicsicineicreleisieeiats cise a| em ciereicis astete
WRB OR sepetoa ergata stoteteiasl hel OOON 00k | Emetarere = crave | eicteieieieislerwie =| ac aetcreiaielae
Te CHE Sen asl oneccees Seis] fee tne Ura) DR St ane Ste en Sek (ee pesias fear Re = ne
MS zertaaearatal | et ateteet telat intl| ee LOU OOH teh LOS OO) |e ante eetel= ays! cle eietemlele sieye
Ih Bisse Set s|\pootaasceeditanoopogade)|. Oba Ui) Peed eanered aetaaapoece
fete SS ASBISS PAR Ba Beceqe socal i AGH SU) | Reaamessscer bobsceceses
TS8bes<-sner S1OSONOD) | Pemateinee sae er OOO OOM ee atid nc eeteee soe es
[886M 2 5 SS. 3, 000. 00 |.--- ae $100. 00
IY (- BaSbAae 2,500. 00 |.. DOSOOR Reema cree
SSB a aac wats i OUOR00R anenict-teirs lau oR GUCKOO) ae caterer a sn 34 eeito nace
IY he apoogs 1, 300. 00 250. 00 Jrtteee sees
Total.| 25,780.40 | 2,702.00 | 5, 675.00 450. 00 100. 00 670. 00 710. 00 1, 425. 50

*No record of seals killed on St. George Island in 1870.
+19 dol. 25 ¢. unaccounted for.
{15,000 fur-seal skins shipped from St. Paul to St. George and credited to St. George.
é 14,000 fur-seal skins shipped from St. Paul to St. George and credited to St. George.

732 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

45 RECAPITULATION.
Fur-seals killed for skins on St. George Island by the Alaska Commer-

cial Company, and for natives’ food, from 1870 to 1889, inclusive.... .- 319, 914
Fur-seal skins shipped by the Alaska Commercial Company from St.

George Island trom 1870 to 16892 ee coe en ee eee nee = melanie ale 317, O77
Fur-seal skins rejected and stagy ---.2- << ~~ on oe ernie ae eee ee ee oe 2, 269
Destruction to seal life in securing catch on St. George from 1870 to 1889. - 568

319, 914
Earnings received by natives for labour on—

St: George Island fromalsi0Mto S89 eeea eee ae eens nie ee tee $126, 830. 80
St. Paul Island a Sig ITT Neda aance mo aleainiace ae cio ae eee 25, 780. 40
152, 611. 20
Monations..2.34/2 2.2 saktisee ets chee eee eee eeee tere oce tee eee eee 11, 732. 50
Wnacconnted: for... hee ote gow et eee cae Seek eet ween rane 19. 25
Expended by natives trom 1870 fo t88oee sence en eee eee aeee eee = 134, 073. 03

Balance to natives’ account on May 24, 1890, and turned over by Alaska
Commercial Company to North American Commercial Company..-.-... 6, 786. 42

~ 152, 611. 20
Nore.—Total number of fur-seal pups killed for natives’ food on St. George Island
from 1870 to 1889, inclusive, 29,060.

Consolidated Report. showing the Total Number of Fur-Seals killed for skins on the Islands
of St. Paul and St. George by the Alaska Commercial Company from 1870 to 1889, inclu-
sive; also the Number of large young Seals and Pups killed for natives’ food on the
Islands of St. Paul and St. George from 1870 to 1889. inclusive; the Total Number of
Fur-Seal Skins shipped from St. Paul and St. George Islands by the Alaska Commercial
Company from 1870 to 1889, inclusive; the Amountof Earnings received by the natives of
St. Paul and St. George for taking and curing skins and the distribution of said earnings.

Fur-seals killed for skins on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George by
the Alaska Commercial Company, and also for natives’ food, from 1870

10 1889, in ClUSIV@ aciseie oecie an sista oatecisnitiece Aten aeemeeeis ne eione moe e 1, 877, 030
Fur-seal skins shipped from St. Paul and St. George by the Alaska Com- ae
mercial Company from 1870 to 1889, inclusive.........-....--.....--. 1, 840, 364
Fur-seals rejected as stagy at St. Paul and St. George from 1870 to
1S89.inclusivie f5. 6s Ae ee et a ce ee ae hee 20, 393
Tur-seals destroyed on St. Paul and St. George in securing the catch from
L8i0: to) 1889 sn Clusives i. coscses woes ce eam oes ees eees Sean eee 16, 273
1, 877, 030
Earnings received by natives of St. Paul and St. George from 1870 to ca
1889; -NCISiVERy. cesses oso eee eel ee ae ee eae Oe ee oe ees $755, 672. 87
Donations by natives of St. Paul and St. George from 1870 to 1889, inclu- oe!
BIN 0 aioe sei 5 foe cat ee em A Oe ea a Lee ee 50, 608. 11
Paid to Chiefs on St. Paul Island (St. George’s is included in donations). 3, 050. 00
Paid to St. George men for work done on St. Paul Island..........-..-. 25, 780. 40
Paid to Kodaik men for work done on St. Paul Island..........-....-.. 680. 00
Wnaecountedi itor. 4 ee SNe see oe ee eee ce 19. 25
Paid to school. teacher. .2- <-> saan eee nee eee a eee 50. 00
Expended by the natives of St. Paul and St. George from 1870 to 1889,
ANGCIMBSIVE oo ce oS a ec tee eee eT CL ee ren eran yh oe ae 643, 963. 10
Balance due to natives May 24, 1890, now held by the North American
Commercial: Company oo 22. Pate cece ee ace ee ere ee 28, 117. 02
Balance held by Alaska Commercial Company for Mrs. Melevidoff...... 3, 404. 99
"755, 672. 87
Fur-seal pups (five months old) killed for natives’ food on—
St. Paul and St. George Islands from 1870 to 1889, inclusive........ 92, 864
St. Paul Island from 1870 to 1889, inclusive..................------ 63, 804
St. George Island from 1870 to 1889, inclusive...............------- 29, 060

92, 864

46

APPENDIX

TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

733

Table showing the Number of Fur-Seals killed for skins on the Island of St. Paul by

the Alaska Commercial Company, and also for natives’ food, from 1870 to 1889,
inclusive ; the Amount of Earnings received by the natives of this Island for taking and
curing these skins, and the distribution of said earnings; the Total Number of Fur-Seal
Skins shipped from St. Paul Island by the Alaska Commercial Company from 1870 to

IS89, inclusive.

Paid to Paid to
Total Fur- | Natives for N tiv fi Total Fur-| Rejected
Years. seal Skins | taking and pang seals stagy
shipped. curing SyOHE killed. Skins.
Skins. 2

TSS. 5 S25 Oe ee coo Gero OODSOE G..OLe | S27406580) eno ec a scee CAR OE ese a a
Usyil 22-SAS6E SbGqecoan sonecbonre Camodoo score 76, 184 30, 853. 60 $580. 40 77, 925 431
en ia ciaaco sa hiaeclea sie cein sin cs lei ae 74, 941 30, 416. 00 221, 97 76, 698 1, 536
WinS) Since ates sa boddssie -sosScndeée0ssosuees 74, 485 29, 597. 80 76. 80 76, 488 736
PBT Sarre owe ee case einacce ese eciccictinasios 89, 924 29, 849. 60 217. 53 97, 932 596
1 Eee ae seo: Sono ORD mOnG Doda none Ie aac 89, 687 30, 098. 00 276. 03 91, 215 451
TST A Agee Ce mge Stee ann eer Set ine a nce sen 80, 000 31, 848. 20 113. 40 79, 199 1,979
LIOTTA ap See's soe Sa Sbases rior Geaoceenepea 60, 199 23, 981. 60 146. 40 62, 813 1, 088
GAS - 5a eb ee eeu eeeacubeD beceaaoraasocod 82, 000 32, 654. 00 2, 218. 38* 83, 034 981
DSO eee aaa a cleie ele sie cin sicieies oe sinle aie ai= = 80, 000 31, 908. 60 1, 910. 86+ 86, 592 1, 977
Tie) BA dG ebb eeooe DEac ob SUSE Ese onECaS 80, 000 31, 889. 00 215. 40 80, 276 275
Loh 52 s-cepadusopacsse sacseoossodouseec 79, 905 31, 825. 60 54. 00 81, 501 1,341
IM EG) cE Seg BRE S SSS Soe See OEE a ee 80,000 | 31,750. 80 250.50 81, 420 1,414
MOR dtr eee seek ect tine tondstacc secs cacs et 60, 000 23, 896. 80 97.00 61, 987 1,775
Leo Oe oe eS SOO E noe ao CSS SU ReAaeoS 85,000 | 33,785. 60 240. 00 86, 013 941
THREH) o.- 26 socee SO OOOC OO SOS a DUD BOSS BLOUeS 84,995 | 33, 933. 00 12.00 86, 364 1, 182
TEU She Saeed ode bet OnE nO SoEnDeSece eres 85, 000 33, 941. 80 134. 00 85, 689 635
iets pesoecSeedduasocone sss sapcsacuoToEODS 85, 000 33, 839. 80 203. 40 85, 629 590
URS Be eters ois elotete ie lfefee cintelett a (efateie aletercinictate 85, 000 33, 834. 60 15. 60 85, 271 196
TIS) <5 pA CQRa Sr OAORDE GEE Sap dpsocsecogad 85,000 | 33, 744. 80 15. 00 SONOS eeseriaeeaeer

abalee: Of ccs aer se acse cece cae s 1, 523, 287 | 596,056.00 | 7,005.67 | 1,557,116 18, 12

Distribution of Natives’ Earnings for taking and curing Fur-seal Skins.

: gta : : Received

Years, | Received ges Received rege os Received eae ag ed Gore

. b Yy Vv ; ure i ,

St. Paul St. Paul | St. Paul St. Faul fortrans- Chiefs Oona- Oona- Men for

Church. | Priest. | Widows Aged and lation of jas Salar laska laska Work

: oy) Reitol i Chaech “TY! Church. | Priest. | done on

Service. ae
WTOC Ss. = SISON00. sae cess iO | Rees eerie eee Saree ese sec cocelstace emacs $1095 30) ease sea
RSL STON Gi o- era GTAS 82 aes eee | See kre eae eee ee Alek ony ate §455N08i5 cee cee
W872) 225 902. 45 RAD alate eee le cictew ne ee lose sce eeeles cee seer | saan -seelescre staal heres ose oee
Oise sac 870. 62 (Oe eee ee ocd Mb aeaco mad (See seco deo neens EgeeRe had FARBGerereG Mee ae asm
W774. -. 56 859. 06 ALO OD ap ickict sists | Seema teal Selpace wailea Sores Ltn G] Seta memtea he pwecerelas \|$6, 000. 00
STB Gece 432. 07 Bou Oils mepts Salers | neuron </o\a iss | tele sees Se citemrc cress $432: 07}. .2.--.c0% | 5, 600. 00
HSOs ose c= FN fel WP) A SR set RA ee BIAS 5 [hes eon | SESS SIE, 1 Res OSE 378. 40 756; 80st chen ac
TORT Jse8 621. 50 G2TRAG | Becitema cara ee cioscetne | omen cto lenbic erases SOE TE) ajsccosed ls soskesces
855. 78 EOE Sn sects BSSncisc sis $300: 00|5252-=-1- 25 855: 78 |saece eos ©
. 50 A00LOO| Reeve = ale be ase aee 450. 00 450300| R205 525 -|osccee seers
-10 150.05; $200.00) $1, 219. 65 45000 e cee eile eb eck Sons Spec
SGGlE ee epee. coce area 428. 83 220 00sec ebeiecl| 'saienicie ohne nee mckercloete
MOU 2. GOUNUG | miarst sme cere] oe sinc cate see igaeisis ore | oe eisinlete mel cere orem tere cic eee
. 00 BONO Soc cane ce’ Saco oreate 22D H00'S Seiseceve «cis lee selene eee
. 00) BOONOO Sse se asset eke BOOK0O Soe ceeealceecc tees 2, 844.35
Ola steesecee HG00N00 eS sce. << 300; 00) acseee al eect oeteise 3, 086. 05
. 00 200. 00 60000), sess: 200 00h so ae- ckadlcteeoesene 3, 000. 00
MOOR OOUSOU oan aeteicraie s| cio mwioctarste 200500| ooo ceccce taste oeaeen 2. 500. 00
MOO|Rame 150500 Beeman a. leseee eae 200) 00/220. 2 eee, 1, 500. 00
SOR be 2AOOONO0S 2 2eO. Fike teh 200K00 | Hose | a Seas 1, 300. 00
Total §1, 800. 00] §1, 648. 48| 3, 050. 00] §1, 571.21) 92,176.96. 25, 780. 40

-| §8, 851. 76518, 467. 45| §8, 892. 07

a
1, ‘666 dol. 06 c.
se

0 collars received by sopuel teacher.

,022 dol. 92 c. received by natives for making oil, under head of general labour.

734 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

47 RECAPITULATION.

Fur-seals killed for skins on the Island of St. Paul by the Alaska
Commercial Company, and also for natives’ food, from 1870 to 1889,

SNOINSIVO\ 2-2) ean eine ee = ae ain ee ee eee eee 1, 557, 116
Fur-seals killed for skins shipped from St. Paul by the Alaska Commer-
cial’ Company fronv 1870 (01860 oe ee cee eee Sere eee oe 1, 523, 287
Fur-seal skins from St. Paul rejected, stagy.......-......--.......----- 18, 124
Destruction to seal life on St. Paul Island in securing catch from 1870 to
1889, INCLUSIVE! . 55. - 5... <'pm ge)emcee eine bl ae ne ee ane eee eee iene 15, 705
1, 557, 116

Fur-seals, of all classes, killed for natives’ food on St. Pavl Island from
1870 to 1839, INCLUALVOr- 22 sare ree mes sense Seas ae eee eee 144, 801

Fur-seals (large young seals) killed for natives’ food, of which the
Alaska Commercial Company accepted and shipped 62,873 skins...... 80, 997
Fur-seal pups (five months old) killed for natives’ food from 1870 to1889. 63, 804
144, 801

Earnings received by natives of St. Paul Island from 1870 to 1889, inclusive $603, 061. 67

—_—__.

Donations received by natives of St. Paul Island......-............--.. 38, 875. 61
Paid to Chicis. 2es.- taacepecetas sapien tee ee tee oe eee re eee ee 3, 050. 00
Raiddost..George mentorda )ouonot. lai lee see ssa) ee eee 25, 780. 40
Paid:to Kodiak men ee cec: 5.3 4e eh Sa see ee aa tito espa ore ere eee 680. 00
Paid torschoolteacherns! yes sere ae eee cron eee e tees alee eee 50. 00
With Alaska Commercial Company for Mrs. Melevidoff.......-......... 3, 404. 90
Expended by natives;from 1870 to 1889... 22:2 3. Jee. sooo eee eee 509, 890. 07
Balance due to natives May 24, 1890, with North American Commercial
Compaliynsazct-nacises go seere tote sneer ees eect o aanis seen eee 21, 330. 60
Totalsess. de iseek foc scenees ceseeecs See ee scan eaeeee rc eae semen abe, Uoleon

2. Report of S. R. Nettleton.

St. Pau IsLanp, ALASKA, July 31, 1890.

DrAR Sir: I have the honour herewith to submit my annual Report of the condi-
tion of affairs on this island during the time in which I had charge, to wit, from the
23rd September, 1889, the date of your departure, until June of this year, and also
to comment briefly upon the condition of the seal rookeries and hauling-grounds of
this island during the season which closed on the 20th instant.

I have found the natives of this island an exceedingly easy people to govern and
control, The Government Agent in charge, being the sole representative and execu-
tive of the law, is, as you are aware, necessarily brought into very close and inti-
mate relations with these people, having to do with the minutest details of their
everyday life.

My comparatively brief experience in governing them convinces me that a policy
of kindness with firmness, and an appeal to their manhood and womanhood, hold
the best promise of good results, having in view their happiness and their advance-
ment to a higher and a better civilization.

I believe that it would be difficult to find anywhere within the jurisdiction of our
Government any people so easy to control, considering that they are kept in enforced
idleness ten months of each year.

I regard their readiness to comply with any and all Rules and Regulations of this
Office tor their government as testifying to their manhood and good citizenship.

In this connection, it affords me great pleasure to report that during the time that
IT have had immediate charge there have been but three instances of violation of any
Rule or Regulation. These were mild cases of partial intoxication during their
holiday festivities.

There has been no drunkenness or brawling in the village streets or in the homes
of the people, not a single breach of the peace.

It is a source of gratification to be able to state that the journals of this Office
show that in this regard the winter just closed presents an exception to those of any
of the preceding twenty years.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 135

The fact is patent that but little advancement has been made by the natives of
this island towards an intelligent American citizenship during the twenty years that
they have been nominally citizens of the Republic; that not to exceed 10 per cent.
of them, who during the time mentioned, have attended English schools, speak the
English language. This may be explained by the well-known objection of the par-
ents to their children learning to speak English, and to the further fact that the
services of their Church, the Greek Catholic, are conducted wholly in the Russian

and Aleutian language.
48 The small advancement made by the pupils in the schools is attributable
also in large measure to the fact, that the schools have been conducted by per-
sons not trained to the profession of teaching.

It is, in my opinion, to be regretted that the Department, in granting the new
lease of the Seal Islands, did not reserve to itself the employment of the school
teachers, who should hold certificates showing their qualification to teach, at least,
the primary branches in our common schools.

In relation to the condition of the seal rookeries and hauling-grounds of this
island, I do not feel called upon to go into details in view of the full and exhaustive
manner in which the subject is treated in your Report of this year, and also in view
of the forthcoming Report of Professor H. W. Elliott, who was sent by the Depart-
ment especially to examine and repott upon the condition of seal life on this and
the Island of St. George.

But I desire to add my testimony to that of my associate as to the deplorable con-
dition of the seal grounds upon this island. The large grass-grown areas of these
grounds, until a comparatively recent period occupied en masse by seals, to be num-
bered by the millions, and now wholly deserted, the driving and redriving from all
of the haunling-grounds on this island by the lessees during the present season in
their efforts to obtain their quota, and the meagre results attained, tell, in stronger
language than I can command, the sad story of the very near approach to the entire
destruction of seal life upon this island.

It is hardly worth while for me to attempt to theorize as to the probable cause of
the condition of affairs. I deem it sufficient for me, at this time, to corroborate and,
if possible, to emphasize what you say in your own Report, as to the past, present,
and the threatened future condition of seal life upon these islands.

The present depleted condition of the seal rookeries on this island urgently calls ~
for prompt action by the Government to save this important industry from immediate
and complete destruction.

I heartily concur with your views expressed in your Annual Report of 1889 in regard
to the killing of pup seals for natives’ food. The skins of these pup seals belong to
the natives, to be disposed of by them as they choose, the only restriction imposed
being that they shall not be exchanged for contraband goods. I desire, through
you, to call the attention of the Department to the fact that these pup sealskins,
being largely held by the natives for the purpose of barter for spirituous liquors with
the seamen of any craft that may anchor in these waters, are a source of evil, and
only evil, to the natives. In view of this fact, and also in view of the further fact
that the seal life on this island is rapidly approaching extinction, I respectfully
suggest that the best interests of the natives and the best interests of the Govern-
ment will be the most eftectually served by prohibiting the killing in the future of
any pup seals for native food.

Some more economical substitute can, in my judgment, be readily supplied.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) S. R. NETTLETON,
Assistant Treasury Agent.
CHARLES J. Gorr, Esq.,
United States Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Island,

3. Lteport of A, W. Lavender.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. George Island, August 25, 1890.

Str: I have the honour to report to you that on the 14th August, and while the
United States revenue-steamer ‘‘ Rush” was lying at anchor off our village, a schooner
came in sight close in to the east end of the island. This was at 5.30 Pp. mM. The
“Rush” at once got under way and steamed towards him, and followed him in to the
anchorage in front of the village, where she lay all night between the cutter and the
shore. She proved to be the American schooner ‘Nettie Martin,” Captain Ohlmitz,
belonging to Kodiak. She is about 16 tons measurement, and has a crew of four
white men and four Kodiak natives. She had on board ten sacks of salt and four

736 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

shot-guns, also two sea-otter boats. The captain said that he was from Kusoquim,

bound to Oonalaska. His papers show that he had cleared from Kodiak on the 20th
June, bound on a trading and coasting voyage along the coast of Alaska, and

49 for a further excuse he said that he was short of provisions, and the wind had
been blowing so long from the south that he must be supplied.

I did not take any stock in what he said, and would not allow him to come on shore,
and told him that the cutter could supply him with all the provisions he required.
I believed him to be a seal poacher, but there was nothing on board that we could
attach. We were obliged to let him go, for which I have been mad at myself ever
since, and as I had men watching the Kast Rookery, the only place where he could
land upon the island, I had no fear of his ever going on shore; but early on the
morning of the 15th I sent extra men around the island from Garden Coye to the east-
ward, and under the high bluffs at the east end of the island, about 2 miles from
East Rookery, they found four dead cows and four dead pups, also three clubs, one
of which was broken. These were made of drift wood, and two of them had a little
flesh upon them. At this time of the year the cows and pups are scattered along the
rocks on most all parts of the sea-shore of the island, and by chance the boat’s crew
that landed came upon a few of these, which they killed, and the schooners, while
beating to windward to get into an anchorage under the high cliffs, came in sight
from the cutter, and it is my opinion that the men on shore got into their boat as soon
as they could and went on board the schooner.

They did not take any seal with them, and had to get out of the scrape the best
they could, which they did to perfection. Had the schooner not been away at the
time the natives brought the clubs into the village, I would have had them caught,
but the schooner and cutter both being gone, I coulddo nothing but kick. If I again
come across Captain Ohlmitz this far, I will endeavour to make it uncomfortably warm
for him. If he had landed upon East Rookery he would have done some damage.
It was blowing very hard at the time, and I have no doubt but he intended to anchor
close under the cliffs, and go upon therookery at night and get all the seals he could.

Since that time I have established a watch-house at Garden Cove, and keep two
men there all the time. No vessels can come near the island on either side without
~being seen. There never was a watchman at Garden Cove before.

The seal are very scarce on this island, and in order to get enough for food for the
natives I am obliged to kill seal whose skins will not weigh over 44 to 54 1bs., and
these the Company will not accept, and I am salting them for Government account,
and shall probably have some 600 or 700. They are all good skins. Please obtain
an order from the Secretary to ship them on one of the first Government vessels going
to San Francisco the next season. I also request that you obtain permission to pur-
chase a new carpet for the Government House on this island, as the carpet we now
have on the floor is nearly worn out. Also please obtain from the Department for
this island the following seeds: 4 lbs. good turnip seed, 4 lbs. good lettuce seed, and
4 lbs. good radish seed. I have never seen vegetables grow better in my life than
they do here, and it would surprise you to see now what a fine bed of lettuce and
radishes we have here now. In obtaining the seed, please get seed that has been
grown as far north as possible. The natives of the island are a much superior race
of people to what I expected to find, and I do not anticipate any trouble here this
winter.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) A. W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Agent.
CHARLES J. GOFF, Esq.,
Treasury Agent, Clarksburgh, Washington, Virginia.

50 4. Report of A. W. Lavender.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. George Island, October 24, 1890.

Sir: [have the honour to report to you that United States revenue-steamer “ Bear”
returned to this island on the 22nd instant from Oonalaska unexpected to us here.
Captain Healy told me that orders had been sent from the Department to watch the
rookeries very close, as there had been two schooners cleared from Victoria for Beh-
ving’s Sea, and that they were going to raid these islands. I have not seen a schooner
around here since I last wrote you, nor doI think that there is a single schooner
taking seals in Behring’s Sea at this writing, and unless they come within the next
two weeks there will not be any seal upon the rookeries for them to kill. I have
again torequest you todo your best to obtain arms and ammunition for these islands,
and hope that you will be able to secure them, for without them the rookeries cannot

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. AaT

be protected in a proper manner. The old rifles that answered for the protection of
the rookeries belong to the natives, and are of but littleuse. In addition to the five
rifles owned by the natives, the Company has found small Colt’s rifles and one large
Sharp’s, with very little ammunition for any of them.

We have had three deaths here this last week, all three females. At this writing
every adult native on this island is either sick in bed or convalescent. Both church
and school have been closed for the last two weeks, and I have been obliged to have
boys only on guard at the rookeries. I think that the worst is now over, and do not
apprehend that we shall have more deaths. There has not been any sickness among
the white men up to this date, and everything upon the island is going along smoothly.
On account of so much sickness, I have been obliged to issue coal to the natives
sooner than I should have done under more favourable conditions, for these people
must be provided with more fuel now that the catch of seal is so small they can-
not secure near blubber enough, with what little drift wood they can collect, to
last them through the winter, and to purchase coal from the Company at 30 dollars
per ton of 2,000 lbs. is more than they can stand out of their earnings for killing
seal. Their houses are small, with only two rooms each, and with a large family to
be all sick at one time is almost certain death with nothing more to keep them warm
than the few pounds of coal furnished them by Government, and the little water-
soaked drift wood that they have been able to pick up around the island and bring
home on their backs, for they have no other means of transportation; the fact is that
the only places that drift wood can land upon this island is at the breeding rookeries,
where they are not allowed to go during the season when the seals are there, and it
is my o;-inion that these islands will soon be depopulated unless the Government
comes to their rescue, for the few seal they will be able to kill here the next few
years will not keep them from suffering.

Of Captain Healy, of the “Bear,” and Captain Calson, of the ‘‘Rush,” I cannot
speak but in the highest terms. These gentlemen have been very courteous and
obliging to the Government officers in charge of these islands, and have also extended
all possible favours to the Company agents when it was not interfering with their
instructions.

The weather here the past month has been very bad, and we have had three very
heavy gales of wind, so that I cannot think it possible that a schooner should stop
in Behring’s Sea at this season of the year.

But I do think that they will follow the seal into this sea very early in the spring.
As the seal begins to come upon the rookeries the last of April, I think the schooner
will follow them very close. I would suggest that you place this letter before the
Secretary, as well as my letters to you under the folhowing dates, 14th August, 10th
September, and Ist October, that he may know the true state of affairs upon this
island.

Very respectfully, &e.
(Signed) ALBERT W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Agent.
CuaARLes J. GOFF,
Treasury Agent, Clarksburgh, Washington, Virginia.

51 5. Report of A. W. Lavender

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. George Island, October 30, 1890.

Sir: I have the honour to report to you that the United States revenue-cutter
“Bear” is still in these waters, and at this writing is lying at anchor at Zapadine.

We have not seen but one schooner since the 18th ultimo, and that was the whaling-
schooner “Alton,” which anchored at Garden Cove to secure brine boats previous to
leaving these waters for San Francisco. The only enemy the sealand seal-pups have
around these islands now is the kitten whales, which are in large schools destroying
pups in large numbers.

We have had very severe weather here most all the year, and I cannot think it pos-
sible that there is a sealing-schooner on Bebhring’s Sea at this time.

The natives are most all on the improve, and we have only had one death since I
last wrote you, and that was a young girl of 11 years old, and she died with scrofula
and general debility.

The natives on these islands must have more furs, or they will suffer next season
much more than they will this, as most of them have a little money to purchase
wood, three sticks for 60 cents. ‘They should have at least 70 tons of coal for this
island alone; drift wood is very scarce, and they have no blubber this season.

B Sy PE. v 47

738 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Secretary, in his instructions, should say how many rations are to be furnished
to the widows and orphans on this island for every week in the year, and this also
should be left in the hands of the officers in charge.

The seal are nearly all gone from the rookeries now, and it is almost impossible to
get enough for native food.

I shall have about 600 rejected skins here in the spring, for which please get orders
to ship on one of the first ships that goes down.

The Company will not take skins less than 64 lbs., which is the cause of my having
so many rejected. In order to get enough for food, I have been obliged to kill small
seal.

I hope that you will be able to secure arms and ammunition for these islands, as
they are needed here very badly, I will assure you.

If it is possible to change the school system here, it should be done, as the schools
lhere now are only a farce, and I think if they were put under the charge of the Rey.
Sheldon Jackson that it would be a big improvement; in fact, there could be no
change that would not be for the better.

It looks strange to me that after twenty years’ teaching that there is not a single
one of the scholars on this island that can speak English, and most of them have
no knowledge of the world outside of these islands. Hoping to see you up here early
the coming season.

(Signed) ALBERT W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Agent.
CuArirs J. GOFF, Esq.,
Treasury Agent, Clarksburgh, Washington.

6. Report of A. W. Lavender.

OONALASKA, March 19, 1890.

My Dear Sir: I am in receipt of yours of this date, asking me to visit the con-
demned schooner now lying near the head of this harbour, and to make you a Report
as to the valuation of each one when new, also the present condition and valuation
of each one as they now remain; and, in reply to same, I will say that upon receipt
of yours of even date I went at once on board the steam-schooner ‘‘Thornton,” of
Victoria, British Columbia, and found her to be a small steam-schooner of about 45
tons measurement, built of soft wood, mostly Oregon pine, her engines about eight-
horse power, her bottom yellow metalled; all her running gear was down in her
hold among iron rust and dirty water, and of no value whatever. I did not find
any sails on board, her anchors and chains are both attached to her, but are very
light and rusty, most of her small spars are gone. I should think, when new, that
7,000 dollars would be a fair price for her, including her engines and all other
accoutrements, ready for sea. Her present value is nothing more than her old rigging
and metal would sell for, less freight and expenses, and 200 dollars would be a good
price for her.

From the ‘ Thornton” I went on board the schooner “Carolina,” of Victoria,
52 British Columbia, and found her to be a small kee) vessel of about 32 tons.
The running gear was all down in the hold among iron rust and sea water,
and is of no earthly use; her main boom and gaff and boom to the jib were all the
small spars I could find belonging to her, only one small anchor and chain was on
board, which is covered with rust, and is very small and of little value; her stand-
ing rigging is of wire, and, I should say, that when new and ready for sea that her
cost would not exceed 2,500 dollars at the outside. I did not see any of her sails on
board. The present valuation is nothing more than she would sell for as firewood,
and 25 dollars is more than I would be willing to pay, and more, in my opinion, than
the Government will ever receive for her. She is built of soft wood, mostly Oregon
pine.

From the ‘‘Carolina” I went on board the “ Angel Dolly,” of San Francisco, and
found her to be a small centre-board schooner of about 40 tons measurement. The
main masthead was broken off, the standing rigging is of wire. The running gear
was down in the hold, and in the same condition as that on the ‘‘Carolina” and
‘Thornton ;” all her small spars are on board, both anchors and chains are attached.
There were none of her sails on board. She probably cost when new 3,000 dollars
all ready for sea; her present value is very little, and 100 dollars would be a good
price for her as she now lies. She is also built of soft wood. The water rises and
falls in her and in all the others as the tide ebbs and flows. I understand that her
sails are in the Government warehouse here, also three of her boats.

From the ‘Angel Dolly” I visited the schooner ‘‘Onward,” of Victoria, British
Columbia, and found her to be a small two-masted schooner of about 35 tons, with

cat ey A

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. tao

hemp rope standing rigging; her small spars are on board, both anchors attached
and in fair condition; her running gear was down in the hold, and worthless as the
rigging of the other three schooners; there were none of her sails to be found on
board. I should say that this schooner was built in Nova Scotia; she ismade mostly
of soft wood, principally pine, and when new was a fine little vessel, and probably
cost ready for sea about 4,500 to 5,000 dollars. At thg present time she is almost
worthless, and I do not think that she would sell for more than 200 dollars, although
she could be made, with about 1,000 dollars paid out in repairs, a vessel that would
sell for about 2,500 dollars, provided her sails are in good condition. I also found
nine canoes on the shore near the schooner which belongs to some of them, but,
like the vessels, have gone to ruin through want of care. Should you require a
more detailed Report than this please let me know, and on my return to Oonalaska
I will be pleased to make it for you; and in the meantime I remain, &c.
(Signed) ALBERT W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Treasury Ageit.
CHARLES J. GOFF, Esq.,
Chief Treasury Agent, Seal Islands.

No. 2.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received May 21.)

WASHINGTON, May 11, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday, I have the
honour to inclose an extract from the Cleveland “ News and Herald”
of the 4th instant, purporting to give the full text of Professor Elliott's
Report to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 17th November last,
on the condition of seal life at the Pribyloff Islands during the summer
of 1890,

Your Lordship will remember that Professor Elliott was appointed
Special Commissioner for the purposes of the above inquiry by Act of
Congress, and that, as stated in my despatch of the 20th February last,
his Report was not included among those of the other Government
Agents which were transmitted to the Senate by the Secretary of the
Treasury on the9ch February. It has not been yet officially published.

Iam informed that the document published in the inclosed extract
from the Cleveland “News and Herald” is incorrectly styled Professor
Elliott’s Report, and that it is only the introduction to his Report in
the form of a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury.

The report itself is a much more voluminous document, but the intro-
duction gives its substance and its recommendations.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

53 [Inclosure in No. 2.]
Extract from the ‘* Cleveland Leader and Morning Herald” of May 4, 1891.
{Special Despatch to the ‘ Leader.’’]

WASHINGTON, May 3, 1891.

The negotiations between Secretary Blaine and the British Minister for the settle-
ment of the Behring’s Sea troubles are likely to be resumed as soon as the ‘‘ Say-
ward” case, taken into the United States Supreme Court from the District Court of
Alaska, is disposed of. Mr. Blaine is now in possesston of exact and reliable infor-
mation as to the condition of the sealing industry not at his disposal before, and
which cannot fail to impress the British Minister, Lord Salisbury, and everybody
else, with the necessity of an immediate enforcement of the policy adopted by our

740 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Government in seeking to prevent the killing of seal in the open waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea. The information referred to shows a good deal more than that. It
shows, what was perhaps unexpected, that the threatened extermination of the
seal is due in large part to the legalized driving and killing on land by the lessees
of the sealing grounds, which must also be suspended if seal life is to be preserved.
With these facts established by evidence that no one can dispute, there ought to be
no great difficulty in effecting an agreement between the United States and Great
Britain for the immediate prohibition of any seal-killing by anybody the coming
season, and a subsequent arrangement that will avoid any further conflict over this
question.
, When the “Sayward” case-was appealed to the United States Supreme Conrt,
the negotiations were in what appeared to be a confused and unsatisfactory state.
Sir Julian Pauncefote had embarrassed Mr. Blaine by quoting President Cleveland’s
Special Agent at the sealing grounds, Mr. George R. Tingle, who affirmed before a
Committee of Congress that the seal was increasing in number, and that the rook-
eries were never in better condition; and Mr. Blaine was dilating at length upon
the historical rights of the United States in Behring’s Sea. But he was quietly
doing a good deal more than that. He was having the actual condition of affairs at
the sealing grounds thoroughly investigated by Professor Henry W. Elliott, of the
Smithsonian Institution, a Special Commissioner appointed in pursuance of the Act
of Congress approved on the 5th April, 1890, who is the best living authority on seal
life; so that he might be able to demonstrate the falsity, or gross inaccuracy, of
Mr. Tingle’s testimony, which could not be refuted in any other way.

Following is Professor Elliott’s Report, submitted to the late Secretary Windom,
in November last, and which is now made public:

CLEVELAND, OHI0, November 17, 1890.
Hon. WILLIAM WINDoM, Secretary of the Treasury.

Str: On the 7th April last I received from your hands my appointment as the
Special Agent created in Act of Congress, approved the 5th April, 1890: this Act
orders and provides for a thorough examination into the present status of the fur-
seal industry of our Government as embodied on the seal islands of Alaska, so as to
make known its relative condition now as compared with its prior form and well-
being in 1872, and for other kindred lines of inquiry.

I may as well frankly confess at the outset that I was wholly unaware of the
extraordinary state of affairs which stared me in the face at the moment of my first
landing, last May, on the seal islands of Alaska. I embarked upon this mission
with only a faint apprehension of viewing anything more than a decided diminution
of the Pribyloff rookeries, caused by pelagic sealing during the last five or six years.

But from the moment of my landing at St. Paul’s Island on the 21st May last until
the close of the breeding season those famous ‘‘rookeries” and “hauling grounds”
of the fur-seal thereon, and of St. George’s Island, too, began to declare and have
declared to my astonished senses the fact, that their utter ruin and extermination is
only a question of a few short years from date unless prompt and thorough measures
of relief and protection are at once ordered on sea and on land by the Treasury
Department, and enforced by. it.

Quickly realizing, after my arrival upon these islands, that a remarkable change
for the worse had taken place since my finished work of 1874 was given to the public

in that same year and the year also of my last survey of these rookeries, I
54 took the field at once, carrying hourly and daily with me a series of note
books opened under following heads:
The ‘‘rookeries,” their area, position, and condition, in 1872, 1874-90.
The “‘hauling grounds,” their appearance in 1872, 1874-90.
The inethod of ‘‘driving” and taking fur-seals in 1872, 1874-90.
The selection of skins, grade, and supply, in 1872, 1874-90.
Character, condition, and number of natives in 1872, 1874-90.
). Conduct of native labour and pay in 1872, 1874-90.

To these heads I add the following sections in their order as mentioned, thus con-
stituting the full body of my Report, which is preceded by this letter of transmissal:

7. The protection and preservation of these fur-bearing interests of our Govern-
ment on the Pribyloft Islands, the immediate action necessary, viewed in the fnll
light of existing danger.

8. Appendix, in which the author’s daily field notes appear, verbatim et literatim,
in order of day and date.

9. Revised general Maps of St. Paul and St. George, showing the area and position
of the hauling grounds of the fur-seal thereon in 1872-74, and again in 1890.

10. A series of special Maps showing the exact topography, area, and position of
the breeding rookeries of St. Pau) and St. George Islands in 1872-74, and again in
1890, together with an illustration of each rookery drawn from life by tbe author.

oO aS ite

ets:

Ca

yoo Ea

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 741

Although IT was unable to detect any sign of existing danger or injury to these
interests of our Government on these Islands of Pribyloff in 1872-74, yet the need of
caution on the part of the Agents of the Government and their close annual serutiny

was pointed out and urged in my published work of 1874* in the following language

pp. 75-77
- Ry Until ee arrival on the seal islands, April 1872, no steps had been taken towards
ascertaining the extent or the importance of these interests of the Government by
either the Treasury Agent in charge or the agent of the Company leasing the
islands, This was a matter of no special concern to the latter, but was of the first
importance to the Government. It had, however, failed to obtain definite know ledge
upon the subject on account of the inaccurate mode of ascertaining the number ‘of
seals which had been adopted by its agent, who relied upon an assumption of the
area of the breeding ‘rookeries,’ but who never took the trouble to ascertain the
area and position of these great seal grounds intrusted to his care.

“After a careful study of the subject during two whole seasons, and a thorough
review of it during this season of 1874, in company with my associate, Lieutenant
Maynard, I propose to show plainly and in sequence the steps which have led me to
a solution of the question as to the number of fur-seals on the Pribyloff Islands,
together with the determination of means by which the Agent of the Government
will be able to correctly report upon the condition of the seal-life from year to year.

‘At the close of my investigation for the season of 1872, the fact became evident
that the breeding seals obeyed implicitly a fine instinctive law of distribution, so
that the breeding ground occupied by them was always covered by seals in an exact

ratio, greater or less to the area to be held; that they always covered the ground
evenly, never crowding in at one place and scattering out at another; that the seals
lay just as thickly together where the rookery was a small one of only a few thou-
sand as at ‘Nah Speel,’ near the village, as they did where a million of them came
together as at North-east as Point.

“This fact being determined, it is at once plain that, just as the breeding grounds
of the fur-seal on these islands expand or contract in area from their present dimen-
sions, so the seals will have increased or diminished.

“‘Tmpressed, therefore, with the necessity and the importance of obtaining the
exact area and position of these breeding grounds, I surveyed them in 1872-73 for
that purpose, and resurveyed them this season of 1874. The result has been care-
fully drawn and plotted out, as presented in the accompanying Maps.

“The time for taking these boundaries of the rookeries is during the week of
their greatest expansion, or when they are as full as they are to be for the season,
and before the regular system of compact even organization breaks up, the seals
then scattering out in pods or clusters, straying far back, the same number covering
then twice as much ground in places as they did before, when marshalled on the

rookery ground proper; the breeding seals remain on the rookery perfectly
55 quiet, and en masse, for a week or ten days during the period of greatest

expansion, which is between the 10th and 20th July, giving ample time for
the agent to correctly note the exact boundaries of the area covered by them. ‘This
step on the part of the Government officer puts him in possession every year of
exact data upon which to base a Report as to the condition of the seal-life as com-
pared with the year or years previous. In this way my record of the precise area
and position of the fur-seal breeding grounds on St. Paul's Island in the season of
1872,-and that of St. George in the season of 1873, correctly serves as a definite
basis for all time to come upon which to found authoritative Reports from year to
year as to any change, increase, or diminution of the seal life. It is, therefore,
very important that the Government should have an Agent in charge of these novel
and valuable interests, who is capable, by virtue of edueation and energy, to cor-
rectly observe and report the area and position of the rookeries year by year.”

Therefore, in the light of the foregoing you will observe that, although I was
unable to detect myself any danger to or diminution of the seal life on the “Priby loff
Islands after three seasons of close study in the field, ending with the season of 1874,
yet I was deeply impressed with the need of an intelligent ‘careful search every year
for the signs of or real existence of such danger, that I urged the Department to
select men who were fit to make such a search, and who could be trusted to do it
honestly and thoroughly. I made this request on the 16th November, 1874, as I gave
in my detailed Report above cited to the Secretary of the Treasury, who ordered it
to be published at once, and caused it to be widely circulated by the Department.

Tn 1872-74, I observed that all the young male seals needed for the annual quota
of 75,000, or 90, 000 as it was ordered in the latter year, were easily obtained ever y
Beason, between the lst June and the 20th July following, from the ‘ hauling grounds ”

*A Repent upon the Condition of Affairs in the Territory of Alaska, by Henry w.
Elliott, Special Agent, Treasury Department. Government Printing Office, 1875.
(Pp. 277-80.)

742 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of Tolstoi, Sukannon, and Zoltoi Sands, from these hauling grounds adjacent to the
rookeries or breeding grounds of ‘Tolstoi, Sukannon, Reef, and Garboteh, all of these
points to supply being not more than 14 miles distant from the St. Paul village kill-
ing grounds, the Zoltoi drive being less than 600 feet away.

At North-east Point on this island Webster got all the seals desired towards fill-
ing the above-cited quota of 90,000 from that sand-reach between the foot of Cross
Hill and the Big Lake sand drives on the north-shore beach.

Then, that immense spread of hauling grounds covered by swarms of young male
seals, at Zapodnie, at South-west Point, at English Bay beyond Middle Hill west, at
Polavina, and over all that 8 long miles of beach and upland hauling grounds
between Sukannon Bay and Webster’s House at Novostoshnoh—all of this extensive
sealing area was not visited by sealing gangs, or spoken of by them as necessary to
be driven from.

Therefore, when attentively studying in 1872-74 the subject of what was the effect
of killing annually 100,000 young male seals on these islands (90,000 on St. Paul and
10,000 on St. George), in view of the foregoing statement of fact, I was unable to
see how any harm was heing done to the regular supply of fresh blood for the breed-
ing rookeries, since those large reservoirs of surplus male life, above named, held at
least just half of the young male seal-life then belonging to the islands: these large
sources of supply were never driven from—never even visited by the sealers, and out
of their overwhelming abundance, I thought that surely enough fresh male seal-life
did annuaily mature for service on the breeding rookeries.

Therefore, when summing up in my published work of 1872-74, I was positive in
declaring that althoueh I was firmly convinced that no increase to the then existing
number of seals on these islands would follow any effort that we might make (giv- -
ing my reasons in detail for so believing), yet I was as firmly s satisfied that as mat-
ters were then conducted, nothing was being done which would injure the regular
annual supply of male life necessary for the full demand of the rookeries. I then
declared ‘‘that provided matters are conducted on the seal island in the future as
they are to-day, 100,000 male seals under the age of 5 years and over 1 may be safely
taken every year from the Pribyloff Islands without the slightest injury to the
reeular birth rates, or natural increase thereon, provided also that the fur-seals are
not visited by any plague, or pests, or any abnormal cause for their destruction,
which might be beyond the control of men.” (‘Monograph of the Seal Islands of
Alaska,” p. 62.)

I repeatedly called attention to this fact in my published Renort, that all of the
killable seals required were easily taken in thirty working days, between the 14th
June and the 20th July in every year, from those points above specified, and that
those reservoirs of surplus male life at South-west Point, Zapodnie, English Bay,
Polavina, Tonkie Mees, &c., were full and overflowing, that more than enough was

untouched which sufficed to meet the demands of nature on the breeding
56 grounds. But to make certain that my theory was a good one, and would be

confirmed by time, for I qualified my statement at that time as a theory only,
I made a careful and elaborate triangulation of the area and position of the breeding
erounds in 1872-73 on St. Paul and St. George Islands, aided and elaborated by my
associate in 1874, Lieutenant Washburn Maynard, United States navy; this I did in
order that any increase or diminution following our work could be authoritatively
stated—that a foundation of fact and not assumption shouid exist for such a com-
parison of the past order with that of the present or the future.

Sixteen years have elapsed since that work was finished; its accuracy as to the
statements of fact then published was at that time unquestioned on these islands,
and it is to-day freely acknowledged there; but, what has been the logic of events?
Why is it that we find now only a scant tenth of the numbers of young male seals
which I saw there in 1872? When did this work of decrease and destruction, so

marked on the breeding grounds there, begin, and how? This answer follows:

Seale eOT overdriving ‘without heeding “its warning first begun in 1879, dropped
then until 1882, then suddenly renewed again with increased — energy from year to
year, until the end is abruptly reached, this season of 1890.

«2, From the shooting of fur-seals (chiefly females) in the open waters of the North
Pacific Ocean and Behring’ s Sea begun as a business in 1886, and continued to date.”

Thus the seal-life candle has been literally ‘‘ burning at both ends” during the last
five years.

That day in 1879 when it became necessary to send a sealing gang from St. Paul
village over to Zapodnie to regularly drive from that hitherto untouched reserve was
the day that danger first appeared in tangible form since 1870—since 1857, for that
matter.

The fact then that that abundant source of supply, which had served so well and
steadily since 1870-81, should fail to yield its accustomed return to the drivers—that
fact ought to have aroused some comment—ou ght then to have been recorded by the
officer in charge in behalf of the Government at the close of the seasou’s work in

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 743

1882, but it did not; possibly, the gravity of the change was not then fully appreci-
ated by the sealers themselves, either through ignorance or inattention.

But, when in 1882 it became absolutely necessary to draw from that time on until
the end of the present season, heavily and repeatedly, upon these hitherto untouched
sources of supply for the rookeries, in order to get the customary annual quota—at
that time that fact, that glaring change from the prosperous and healthy precedent
and record of 1870-81, should have been—it was ample warning of danger ahead;
it seems, however, to have been entirely ignored—to have fallen upon inattentive or
incapable minds; for not until the Report of 1889 from the Agent of the Government
in charge, who went up in the spring of that year for his first season of service and
experience—not until his Report came down to the Treasury Department has there
been the slightest intimation in the annual declarations of the officers of the Goy-
ernment of the least diminution or decrease of seal-life on these islands since my
work of 1874 was finished and given to the world.

On the contrary, strange as it may seem, all the Treasury Agents since 1879 have,
whenever they have spoken at all, each vied with the other in their laudation of the
“splendid condition of the rookeries,” ‘‘fully up to their best standard,” &c., and
one Report in 1886 and 1887 declares a vast increase over the large figures which I
published in 1872-74, which is again reiterated by the same officer in 1888.

But how could these gentlemen reconcile their statements with that remarkable
evidence of the decrease in supply of young males from the records made and before
them—staring them in the face—of 1872-74? When they saw and daily reeorded the
fact that sealing gangs were being daily sent out from the village, miles and miles
away to hitherto undisturbed fields, for killable seals—the regular customary haul-
ing grounds, then at the point of exhaustion, from which an abundant supply had
been easily secured during the last thirty years, and grass growing all over the haul-
ing grounds of 1871, how, indeed, did that fact escape their attention? It did, how-
ever; it was utterly ignored.

I can see now, in the light of the record of the work of sixteen consecutive years
of sealing, very clearly one or two points which were wholly invisible to my sight
in 1872-74. I can now see what that effect of driving overland is upon the physical
well-being of a normal fur-seal, and, upon that sight, feel warranted in taking the
following ground.

The least reflection will declare to an observer that, while a fur-seal moves easier
on land, and freer than any or all other seals, yet, at the same time, it is an unusual
and laborious effort, even when it is voluntary; therefore, when thousands of young

male seals are suddenly aroused to their utmost power of land locomotion, over
57 rough, sharp rocks, rolling clinker stones, deep loose sand, inossy tussocks, and

other equally severe impedimenta, they in their fright exert themselves most
violently, crowd in confused sweltering heaps one upon the other, so that many are
often ‘‘smothered” to death; and, in this manner of most extraordinary effort, to be
urged along over stretches of unbroken miles, they are obliged to use muscles and
nerves that nature never intended them to use, and which are not fitted for the
action.

This prolonged, sudden, and unusual effort, unnatural and violent strain, must
leave a lasting mark upon the physical condition of every seal thus driven, and then
suffered to escape from the clubbed pods on the killing grounds; they are alternately
heated to the point of suffocation, gasping, panting, allowed to cool down at inter-
vals, then abruptly started up on the road for a fresh renewal of this heating as
they lunge, shamble, and creep along. When they arrive on the killing grounds,
after four or five hours of this distressing effort on their part, they are then suddenly
cooled off for the last time prior to the final ordeal of clubbing; then when driven
up into the last surround or “ pod,” if the seals are spared from cause of being unfit
to take, too big or too little, bitten, &c., they are permitted to go off from the kill-
ing ground back to the sea, outwardly unhurt, most of them; but I am now satisfied
that they sustain in a vast majority of cases internal injuries of greater or less degree,
that remain to work physical disability or death thereafter to nearly every seal thus
released, and certain destruction of its virility and courage necessary for a station
on the rookery even if it can possibly run the gauntlet of driving throughout every
sealing season for five or six consecutive years; driven over and over again as it is
during each one of these sealing seasons.

Therefore, it now appears plain to me that those young male fur-seals which may
happen to survive this terrible strain of seven years of driving overland are rendered
by this act of driving wholly worthless for breeding purposes—they never go to the
breeding grounds and take up stations there, being utterly demoralized in spirit and
in body.

With this knowledge, then, the full effect of ‘‘driving” becomes apparent, and that
result of slowly but surely robbing the rookeries of a full and sustained supply of
fresh young male blood, demanded by Nature imperatively, for their support up to
the standard of full expansion (such as I recorded in 1872-74),—that result began, it

744 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

now seems clear, to set in from the beginning, twenty years ago, under the present
system.

Had, however, a check been as slowly and steadily applied to that “driving” as it
progressed in 1879-82 upon those great reserves of Zapodnie, South-west Point, and
Polayina, then the present condition of exhaustion, complete exhaustion of the
surplus supply of young male seals, would not be observed—it would not have
happened.

But, however, no attention was given whatever to the fact that in 1882 the reserves
were suddenly, very suddenly, drawn upon, steadily and heavily for the first time,
in order that a prompt filling of the usual annual quota should be made before or by
the usual time of closing the sealing season for the year, viz., 20th July; and until
the Report for 1889, above cited, of the Treasury Agent in charge, came into the
Treasury Department, not a suggestion ever had been made in official writing, from
1872-74 to that hour, of the slighest prospect even of the amazing diminution of seal-
life which is now so painfully apparent.

Naturally enough, being so long away from the field, on reading Mr. Charles J.
Goff’s Report for the season’s work of 1889, I at once jumped to the conclusion that
the pelagic sealing, the poaching of 1886-88, was the sole cause for that shrinkage
which he declared manifest on those rookeries and hauling grounds of the Pribylott
Islands—such a great shrinkage as to warrant him in the declaration which he makes
in that Report, that he believes that not over 60,000 young male sealscan be secured
here in 1890, and if more can be, that they should not be taken.

Still, even then, charging it in this manner all to the poachers was not quite satis-
factory to my mind. I could figure out from the known number of skins which these
hunters had placed on the market a statement of the loss and damage to the rook-
eries—to the females and young, born and unborn, for that is the class from which
the poacher secures 85 per cent. of his catch; and I was prepared to find by these
figures that the breeding grounds had lost heavily, but that did not even then satisfy
me as to his statement, which came so suddenly in 1889, that little more than half of
the established annual quota of 100,0C0 hollenschickie suitable for killing could or
would be secured here in 1890; for, great as my estimated shrinkage on the breeding
grounds was, due to the work of the poachers, yet that would not, could not, explain
to my mind tlie nine-fold greater shrinkage of that supply from the hauling grounds
which must exist, or else 60,000 young males might beeasily taken, judging from my
notes of such work in 1872. Therefore, I landed here much confused in thought as

to what I should observe.
58 I began at once, and finished by the 9th June, an entire new topographical

survey and triangulation of the landed area of the seven rookeries of the St.
Paul’s Island and those of the St. George Island on the 19th and 20th July, so as
to have these charts ready for instant use when the time came in which to observe
the full form and number of the breeding seals as they laid upon this ground, viz.,
10th to 20th July inclusive; thereafter until the closing of the season on St. Paul,
19th July, and on St. George up to 4th August, I have daily recorded the full details
of the hauling, the driving, and the killing of seals there, the condition of the
breeding animals, their arrival and behaviour, &e. A thousand varied incidents
have been faithfully observed, as my field notes will testify, and which appear in all
their detail in the following Appendix to this Report.

The present condition of these fur-seal preservers is nothing new to the history of
their case while in the hands of the Russians. Twice before, in the comparatively
short period of a century since they were first opened to the cupidity of man, have
they been threatened with the same ruin that threatened them to-day; in 1806 and
1807 all killing was stopped to save them, but resumed again in 1808—too soon; for,
after seventeen years of continual adoption of half-way measures, the full and nec-
essary term of rest was given to them in 1834; the story of this ‘‘Zapooska” of the
Russians in 1834, and the causes which led them to the threatened extermination of
those fur-seal interests on the Pribyloff Islands, is one that is now timely in its repe-
tition, and should be heeded.

When these islands were first discovered, in 1786-87, an indiscriminate rush was
made to them by the representatives of every Russian trading organization then in
Alaska—by every one then able to fit out a vessel and hire a number of men. These
eager, greedy parties located on and near all of the large rookeries and hanling
grounds, and killed as many as they could handle; in those days all the skins were
air-dried and not salted, and that made the work of sealing then far slower and much
more difficult than it is now, since the present system of salting skins practically
offers no delay whatever to the work of killing and skinning. In my mind, there is
no doubt but that this inability to cure rapidly the skins for shipment in 1786-1805,
as fast as they could then be killed and skinned—not one-tenth as fast as they can
be to-day,—that this delay alone saved the Pribyloff rookeries from utter extermina-
tion in those early days. Certainly it was and must have been the cause, for at least
thirteen different trading organizations had their vessels and their men around, and

olds

r,s

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 745

on these two islands of St. Pan] and St. George engaged to their utmost ability
throughout full seventeen years in unbroken succession in taking fur seal-skins.

Had these early Russian fur hunters then possessed the knowledge and means of
curing skins in salt that we now have, together with those appliances i in use to-day
on the seal islands of Alaska, I am well satistied in my own mind that they would
have killed every fur-seal th: it remained to show itself in less than three years after
they began operations—that they would have swept every animal from these grounds,
long, long before the old Russian America Company assumed autocratic control of
these interests in 17 799, and all Alaska as well.

But fortunately for us, and the world as well, they did not know anything about
curing skins in salt—they had but one method, and that was to stretch ont the green
skins and air-dr y them upon frames in long low-drying honses, or in bright weather
during August, September, and October to peg them out upon the eround.

Thus, this tedious process in a climate as damp, foggy, and stormy as is that
peculiar to the seal islands of Alaska made these Slavonian sealers spend ten times
as much time in the act of curing their fur-seal pelts as it took them to drive and
kill; then, too, in those early days they were remote from a market, had no prompt,
economical means of transportation to London, and depended wholly upon the
idiosyncrasies of the Chinese trade via Kiachta; but even with this extraordinary
hindrance, it seems that they took in that laborious and risky manner at least 100,000
fur seal-skins every year.*

They took so many that by 1803 several hundred thousand of these air-dried pelts
had accumulated over the ability of the old Russian Company to dispose of them in
time to prevent their decay—moulding and damp, then abruptly decaying—rotting

in huge pilesas they were stacked up in the warehouses at Kodiak, so ‘“‘it became
59 necessary to cut or throw into the sea 700,000 pelts” during that year. Natur-

ally this loss of labour, time, and money cooled the ardour of the sealing
gangs which were working the Pribyloff Islands—they worked slower when they
did work, and most likely never worked at all in wet weather; obliged to bow to
the eaprices of the climate or lose their labour, they were thus obliged to spare the
seals, and this enforced delay in 1788-1806 has saved the Pribylotf rookeries from
that swift destruction which the keen, quick-witted American and English sealers
visited in 1806-26 upon the great breeding grounds of the fur-seal in the Antarctic;
they, our countrymen, then used the kench and salt; they never were bothered with
the question of how to dispose of their skins after killing and skinning so as to save
them, and they brought their methods of 1806-26—the same methods of to-day—up
to tlfese seal islands of Alaska for the first time in 1868.t

No one can state, with more than mere estimation on his part, the full number of
fur-seals slaughtered by the Russians on the Pribyloff Islands from 1786 to 1817; no
lists, no checks whatever on it appear to have been made, and the record certainly
never was made, since Bishop Veniaminoyv, who, from 1825 up to 1838 was at the he: ad
of all matters connected with the Church in this Oonalashka district, where the seal
islands belonged, and who had the respect and confidence of the old Russian-American
Company, made a zealous search for such a record in 1834-35 among the archives of
the Company at Sitka, where he had full access; but the result of his painstaking
search he sums up in the following terse statement: ‘Of the number of skins taken
up to 1817 I have no knowledge to rely upon; but from that time up to the present
writing I have true and reliable accounts,” which he puts into the Appendix of his
published work.t

The Bishop (who is the only Russian who has given us the faintest idea of how
matters were conducted in his time upon these islands) seems to have witnessed them
in a steady condition of decline as to yield, for in the time of his writing and up to
its closing in 1837 the record was one of steady diminution until 1854; the killing
seems to have been permitted with all sorts of half measures since 1817, adopted one

*< Ty the first years on St. Paul’s Island from 50,000 to 60,000 were taken annually,
and on St. George from 40,000 to 50,000 every year. Such horrible killing was neither
necessary nor demanded. The skins were frequently taken without any list or count.
In 1803, 800,000 seal-skins had accumulated, and it was impossible to make advanta-
geous sale of so many skins, for in this great number so many were spoiled that it
became necessary to cut or throw into the sea 700,000 pelts! ”—( Bishop Veniaminovy,
““Zapieskie,” &c., 1848, vol., chap. xii.)

+tThey began at once that system of disciplined exhaustive slaughter which has
proved so effective in their hands throughout the Antarctic—took nearly 300,000 seal-
skins on these islands in the short space of four months, ceased then only for want of
salt; but, happily, the Government intervened before they could resume their work
of swift destruction.

t “ Zapieski ob Oonalashkenskaho Otdayla:” St. Petersburgh, 1842; 2 vols,80. A
ae translation of that chapter which treats of this question will follow this intro-

uction.

746 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

after the other, to no good result whatever; finally, however, the supply abruptly
fell from an expected 20,000 to 12,000 only from both islands in 1834—‘‘ all that could
be got with all possible exertion.”

Then the Russians awoke to the fact that if they wished to preserve these fur-
bearing interests of the Pribyloff Islands from ruin, that they must stop killing,
wholly stop for anumber of years—stop until the renewal of the exhausted rookeries
was manifest, and easily recognized; this Zapooska of 1835, which they then ordered,
is the date of the renewed lease of life which these rookeries took, and which by
1857 had restored them to the splendid condition in which they were when they
passed into the hands of the United States; and which now, after twenty-two years
of killing since 1868 and under the recent Regulations of 1870, together with the
pelagic sealing since 1886, we find again threatened with speedy extinction unless
full measures are at once adopted for their preservation and restoration on land, and
in the sea—half measures will not do—they failed in the Russian period signally,
an they will as signally fail with us if we yield in the slightest degree to any
argument for their adoption,

It is interesting, therefore, to study the figures which Veniaminoy gives us of the
yield from these islands during that period extending down from 1817 to 1887—study
it in connection with his statement of what those attempts were, and which were
being made, futile efforts by the old Company to build up the business, and yet con-
tinue sealing; until, finally, after seventeen years of continual diminution and
repeated introduction of half-way methods of restoration, the end came abruptly, and
what ought to have been done at first was finally forced in 1834—the absolute rest of
the rookeries in 1835 came, and practically continued until 1846-50; then a gradual
rise above 10,000 ‘‘holluschickie” or young male fur-seals per annum began to be
safely taken; and, by 1854, the exhausted and nearly ruined rookeries of St. Paul
and St. George were able to yield 35,000 prime fur-seal pelts without the slightest
injury to them, and by 1857-60 they were so numerous that the Russians ceased to
regard them as objects of care, and thereafter governed their annual catch by the
demand outside alone—taking as the market called for them any where from 40,000 to

80,000 annually.

As matters stand to-day on the seal islands the situation is very much the same as
it wasin 1834. Then it was expected that 20,000 seals would be taken, but only 12,000

were secured ‘‘with all possible exertion.” This year it was expected that
60 60,000 fine skins would be taken, but only 21,000 have been secured with all pos-

sible exertion, nearly half this catch being small, or 54-63 1b. skins—raking and
scraping the rookery margins without a day’s intermission from the opening to the
closing of the season; of this work of 1890 I give you in this Report the fullest detail
of its progression, day to day, the merciful ending of it, ordered so happily by you.

It will be promptly observed from astudy of this record of the Russians which has
been so plainly and so honestly given to us by Veniaminov and Shaiesnickoy, that the
Russians, during their control, were faced at two periods with the prospect of a
speedy extermination of these fur-seal rookeries of Alaska; in 1806 and in 1807 they
stopped all killing on these Islands of St. Paul and St. George, but began to kill
again in 1810—too soon. Veniaminov’s record and account shows that from 1817, in
spite of everything that they could do, save stopping short of all killing, ‘only
made matters worse.”

Finally, in 1854, with the second and positive threat of swift extermination again
facing them, the Russians reluctantly surrendered, and ordered a rest which lasted
seven years, ere any beginning was fairly made to kill more than a few thousand
young male seals annually. In the first year only 100 of such animals were taken,
the number being very slowly raised year after year until 1847-50.

A careful review of my investigation, therefore, warrants me in respectfully
urgine—

1. That no driving and killing of fur-seals for tax and shipment on the seal islands
of Alaska be permitted by the Government for a period of at least seven years from
date; and

2. That the co-operation of Great Britain and Russia be secured in perfecting our
international close time, by which all killing of fur-seals in the open waters of
Behring’s Sea will be prohibited during the breeding season of these animals, and
in order that the Representatives of Great Britain and Russia may see the truth of
my statement as to what threatens to exterminate these animals if pelagic sealing
as well as terrestrial sealing is not at once stopped; that a Commission of British,
Russian, and American experts be invited to visit the seal islands next summer and
report fairly upon the subject.

In concluding this introduction to my work of the past season, and its result, I
desire to say that I have been exceedingly careful in gathering my data upon w hich
I base all statement of fact and opinion, and to secure these data I have literally
lived out upon the field itself, where those facts alone can be gathered honestly, or
else they had better not be gathered at all.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Che

I now submit, most respectfully, my detailed Report covering the above-men-
tioned heads, together with those field-sketches and maps which | deem necessary
to give a more distinct, clear, and full idea of my meaning and understanding of
the subjects treated.

Trusting that it will meet with your approval, I am, &e.

Henry W. ELmiorr.

To the above may be added, furnished by Professor Elliott, the following Table
showing numbers of fur-seals on the breeding grounds of the Pribyloff Islands,
Alaska, during 1872-74, and again in 1890:

Seals, Seals,
Male, Female,| Male, I’emale,

HGH Rookerics. and Young, | and Young,
1872-74. 1890.

IRC6E nope aenlececewciete scene 301, 000 140, 500

Garbotchtieaceceee sees ee 183, 000 84, 000

Waroonia ese ns ecsesses se cee 37, 000 9, 000

PROISTOI See nce cnet eens ~ 225, 000 62, 400

LAN AONIO eR esc wc see scoe 441, 000 121, 205

GCA VIL = sce seca setaseaes 165, 000 28, 000

TUM ANTION eo cece cee eee 170, 000 72, 500
IPolavinaGecweccsiensacnen: 300, 000 142, 000

North-East Point .........-- 1, 200, 000 217, 875
Nahspeelieas-cecsstisceee cas 8,000 | Disappeared.

ZAMAUNIC) somes ce onic ces 18, 000 12, 500

Stamny Amteeles 22s 30, 420 16, 000

INOrthoe: a2. oeoen. 77, 000 38, 500

Little Eastern 13, 000 4, 800

Great Easterm:22--2----2-5.- 25, 000 9, 000

Grand} total. =-- --.--- 3, 198, 420 959, 393

61 The grand total of 5,193,420 breeding seals and their young for 1872-74 rep-

resents a division of its sexes and ages of about 1,600,000 breeding females or
“cows,” 1,450,000 newly-born seals or ‘“‘pups,” and some 145,000 to 160,000 able-
bodied virile males or “bulls” over 6 years of age (the proportion of farrow or
“barren” cows too small for notice then).

The grand total of 959,393 breeding seals, male and female, for 1890 is divided into
diiferent proportions as to sex and age, owing to deadly causes at work on land and
sea since 1874. The proportion of the above total for 1890 is 350,000 bearing females,
and some 250,000 not bearing, or not served last year and this; 350,000 pups, and
between 8,000 and 9,000 old males, many of them absolutely impotent at the begin-
ning of the season of 1890, most of them becoming wholly so as the season advanced,

In 1872-74 Elliott and Maynard estimated the number of surplus young males or
“killable” seals at 1,500,000; this year of 1890 Elliot makes a rigid calculation
which shows a scant 100,000 males left above 1 year old.

iene Eh) SIA PES INo. 3 (£392).

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

BEHRING SEA SEAL FISHERIES.

[In continuation of “ United States No. 2 (1891):” C. 6368; and including the Papers
contained in “ United States Nos. 1 and 2 (1892):” C, 6633 and 6634. ]

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND
OF HER MAJESTY.

920 ei 8p bs Pees oye

749

TABLE .OER GONDLEN Es.

Subject.

No. Name. Date.
1891.
1 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....} .............-- Apr. 15
2 | WEA, (C5 LR Agta joaee 55) | boo SoSabeSneSoe Apr. 29
By Colonialy Oficersamecins|| seer ie~ eile = May 27
Cd eee CO) CRS Cer ABE Bn cca | Sere eance May 29
5 | To Sir R. Morier...... Telegraphic ..| June 2
6 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..}.-...- does 2002
7 | Sir'Jd. Pauncefote -.-..|..-.-. doe se2ne ==200
8 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|....-. Govsese ss edor
9h TomMisde: Staal 28 S255) eeecte close cs abd! (Ne
10 | Sir J. Pauncefote ..-... Telegraphic..| June 3
[lel ROWSE oe Malotesseses||sshacsestecnesel a doy
12 | Sir R. Morier......... Telegraphic... June 4
13 | Sir J. Pauncefote-.....|....- doses Spee) Oise
14 To Sirs ReMoriers.=---i):sce- (lsabcodee June 5
15 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... dosst sass? aa Yen e
16 | Sir J. Pauncefote.-.--|....-. dosent June 6
7G \aeets GIN) Beco Seogosssac| ac RodosoncoossT May 28
1SilnGoloniall Officese.thas)| eee esaeeee eee June 8
19 | Sir R. Morier ......... Telegraphic. .|....do
20 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... dorte.sit< == 200)
7 eee OO re Sec gS. pose seek | See Gorse sete =:do}2
22 | Sir J). Rauncefote-.....|.-..- do-ee-2se5 =200:-
PB lakes DOs As Fe cae dorseessec June 9
24 | To Sir R. Morier......|..... OO siormerseieta ect do
25 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... ike aacarce June 10
26 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....}....- Dowson tee - do
Di lteter GO) scieseeassenee seh. cc! dozcess=en |S 5- do

Note from Mr. Blaine of the 14th April,
with alternative suggestions for Arbi-
tration Convention.

Information as to killing of seals, and
risk of extermination of the species.

Advises joint inquiry into whole ques-
tion of sealing at sea and on land.

Canadian Government agree to modus
viverdt on certain conditions.

To ask Russian Government if they
would join in proposed modus vivendi.

Proposes terms of modus vivendi...-.--

Possible objections to clause 1 of above

proposal.
Auswer to No.1. Accepts first five
points proposed. Alternative for

sixth point and suggested compensa-
tion clause.

Asks consent of Russia to temporary
suspension of sealing.

Answer to Nos.6and 8. Communica-
tion made to United States Govern-
ment.

Is German Government sufficiently in-
terested to be invited to coneur in
suspension of sealing?

Answer to No. 5. Russian Government
have not heard from United States
Government on the subject of modus
vivendi.

Answerto No.6. Alternative proposals
of United States Government for
terms of modus vivendi.

Refers to No. 12. Would be glad to
know views of M. de Giers.

Answer to No. 13. Observations on
United States proposals.

Answer to above. ‘Terms of modus vi-
vendi as finally proposed by United
States Government.

Note from United States Government
asking for early reply to their com-
munication of 4th May proposing
modus vivendi, and reply thereto.

Protest against modus vivendi from
British Columbian Board of Trade,
and proposed reply.

Views of M. de Giers on modus vivendt.

Answer to No.16. Her Majesty's Gov-

ernment will assent to modus vivendi
in terms of following No.

Terms of modus vivendi.........-......

Draft of modus vivendi delivered to
United States Government.

Reply of United States Government to
above. Further alterations desired.
Grounds on which Russia is asked to

forbid sealing this year.

Answer to No. 23. Assents to altera-
tion of Articles 2 and 3. Arrange-
ment as to Joint Commission cannot
be left in doubt.

Refers to No. 23. Recommends accept-
ance of first four Articles with altera-
tions suggested.

Insertion made by United States Gov- |

ernment in Article 2.

751

Page.

oOo mano Nn oo

APPENDIX TO CASE

OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No Name.
28 | Sir R. Morier .......-.
29 | To Sir R. Morier..--..-
30 | To Colonial Office..--..
31 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..
32 | Sir J. Pauncefote ..--.
33 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..
34. | Colonial Office ........
35 | To Sir J. Pauncefote. .
36 | Sir J. Pauncefote .....
37 | To Sir J. Pauncefote. .
38 | Sir J. Pauncefote .....
BO ace CO's ocdcsiewaseceee
AOU reer C0 jens cemececssece
41° Sir Ro Morier -=-22--22
42.) Sir H..Malet 2.24: seee
43 | Sir J. Pauncefote ....-.
44 | Admiralty...........-.
45 | To Sir R. Morier.-.-.-..-
46 | Sir J. Pauncefote..... Z
BT Neaece OO0y-cceseaneeeeeeer
48 | Colonial Office........
49 seize CO 2esac cess Sate
50 | To Sir R. Morier.....-
oD eee WO iecicee catesesemiae
52 | To Colonial Office.....
53 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....
54 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..
55 | Sir J. Pauncefote..-...
ne aae do
57 | Sir E. Malet

Telegraphic. .

eee ee rd

Date.

1891.
June 10

June 12
June 13

oeeQO reer

weed Ose

June 14

were Oey

June 5

eaiieser

June 10
June 12

June 15
June 16

June 17

-| June 9

2510 Ounce

June 17

June 18

eas AOvase

June 19

June 20

Ar One

June 21

June 12

June 18

oe Koes ek

Subject.

Refers to No. 24. Could Russia stop
British sealers?

Answer to above in affirmative ..-......

AnswertoNo.18. Concursin proposed
reply to British Columbian Board of
Trade.

To obtain written assurance as to Joint
Commission before signing modus vi-
vendi.

Answer to above. United States Gov-
ernment will sign Agreement for
Joint Commission simultaneously
with Arbitration Agreement.

Answer to No.17. Approves reply to
United States Government.

Telegram to Canada asking views as to
selection of Behring’s Sea Commis-
sioners.

May sign modus vivendi Agreement on
understanding that there is no delay
in appointment of Joint Commission.

Answer to No. 31. Reply of United
States Government as to Joint Com-
mission. Proposes to sign modus
vivendi Agreement.

Answer to above. Authority to sign
modus vivendi.

Modus vivendit sigued...-....--..:-.----

Memoranda delivered to United States
Government respecting modus vivendi
and Arbitration Agreements.

Note from United States Government
of the 4th June respecting modus
vivendt.

Communications with M. de Giers re-
specting modus vivendi.

Answer to No. 11. German Govern-
ment not sufliciently interested to
take steps for obtaining assent of
Reichstag to modus vivendi Agree-
ment.

Proclamation of President embodying
modus vivendi.

Telegrams sent to Commander-in-chief
in China and Senior Naval Officer at
Esquimalt.

Conyersation with Russian Ambassa-
dor as to suspension of sealing.

Memorandum delivered to Tiated
States Government respecting modus
vivendi.

Note of the 6th June from United States
Government respecting modus
vivendi.

Protests against modus vivendi from
Board of Trade and Premier of Brit-
ish Columbia, and from owners of
sealers. Proposed reply.

Reters to No. 34. Reply from Canada
as to British Commissioners. Concur
in selection of Sir G. Baden-Powell
and Dr. Dawson.

Sends copies of text of modus vivendi.
Copy as signed will be sent for com-
munication to Russian Government.

Approves proceedings as reported in
No. 41

Answer to No. 48. Concurs in proposed
reply to protests from British Colum-
bia

President returns to Washington on
23rd June, when negotiations will be
resumed.

Approves Memorandum to United
States Government inclosed in No. 46.

Summary of instructions to United
States cruizers under modus vivendi.

Correspondence with United States
Government respecting modus
vivendt.

Refers to No. 42. Modus vivendi willbe
published in official Gazette with
injunction to German subjects to
observe Regulations.

28

29

30

30
30

30

31
31
31

35

78

79

80

83
84

85

87

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Subject.

BS, PL v——48

Name. Date.
1891.

To Sir J. Pauncetote..| Telegraphic--.| June 22
Admiralty ns. —+ sale arot bb bbescaden| eee do
GouncilOmcessesae sc sitsaceee = ceca ee June 24
Sir R. Morier........- Telegraphic. .|..-. dome.
Poy SiriGabaden-2 OWe!|\s~osc~ ween se ccc acc do

ell and Dr. Dawson.
DIP tr LAaUNCelotee -=..||bacess sacccess June 16
eee COP e ee carer eee Slnatctes Sees ae ALOCe ef
Ee 2. (Nis Hone BaceeOGbe IbcaoS SDSS bASscs been Ores.
oS do <......-....-...| Telegraphic_-| June 25
Morir k-oWlorier)-----|+=<- QOS eecee ere 3 (ens
To Sir J. Pauncefote..|....- dozer se June 26
Sir J. Pauncefote .--..|..... Goveatases Sac yee
aese Care a COR! ieee |) agence Da Sd (0 ea
No|Sir J.bauncefole: -|'s-sece-c2-ce5-. Gene ir aes
AS oe GOK asc ceas ees ea Sel Secec eee eoklcee|ssecQO:.
Sir J. Pauncefote. - -.- Telegraphic ..| June 27
To Sir G--Baden-Pow- |\--:-.-----+2--- wee Orene

ell and Dr. Dawson.
DILPRANOMers- seen lances reses June 19
Silt Se AUN COLOLO sane. |e icterce Soe tessa June 21
Scie AO be entre eae eae scosnciceeaes eae LOlUne 22
wees COR sons ceo e ee at ee] teccaet sooaccs | UlUDe ge
Sonnet COP occ sesseneas5| Lolepraphics.|chuliy 4
To Sir J. Pauncefote. -|----- Cosse-ceee July 5
Dild eeAUNCOTOLO =. ni. | ame recite oe ee June 26
ere COs tse deces hee clam ceseeeeenr saan GO <5.
Sir G. Baden-Powell...| Telegraphic...) July 6
To Sir J. Pauncefote..|....- OUR anSSe P20! .<
Sir vw. Pauntefote--..-|-. 2-2 2.42 228 we Om ce
To Sir G. Baden-Pow- | ....- CUCABIeS 3 July 7

ell and Dr. Dawson.
ColonialvOfice!...- Slee s.... ecaee dO eee

Summary of instructions to British
cruizers.

Copy of instructions to Senior Naval
Officer at Esquimalt.

Copy of Behring’s Sea Order in Council. .

Asks if Contracting Parties to modus
vivendi can seize vessels or persons
other than British or American.

Appointment as Commissioners, and
general instructions.

Notes to United States Government as
to condition on which modus vivendi
will be signed.

Modus vivendi Agreement as signed. ...

Proclamation of President giving efiect

to modus vivendi.

Substance of note from United States
Government of 25th June respecting
Arbitration Agreement (see No. 82).

Answers to No. 61. Powers of seizure
under modus vivendi Agreement con-
fined to subjects or citizens of two
Contracting Powers.

To obtain leave for British Commis-
siouers to visit Pribyloff Islands.

Leave to visit Pribylotf Islands will be
sent to-day.

Letter received giving leave to British
Commissioners to visit Pribyloff
Islands.

Refers to No. 56. Approves notes to
United States Government.

Copy of telegraphic instructions to Brit-
ish cruizers (see No. 44).

Suggests compensation clause, and pro-
poses to sound United States Govern-
ment respecting it.

Informs of permission to visit Pribyloff
Islands.

Question of Russia joining in modus
vivendi still under consideration.

Copy of instructions to United States
naval officers.

Correspondence in ‘‘ Washington Post”
and *‘ New York Times,” containing
protest of North American Commer-
cial Company against limitation of
seal catch,

Memorandum of instructions to British
cruizers delivered to United States
Government.

United States Government are about to
appoint two Commissioners to visit
Belring’s Sea. Suggests that they
should make observations jointly
with British Commissioners.

Answer to above. Ship already en-
gaged to convey British Commission-
ers. They will be instructed to co-
operate with United States Commis-
sioners.

Interview with Mr. Wharton, and post-
ponement of negotiations till return
of President to Washington.

Note from United States Government
of the 25th June, with proposals for
clauses as to close season and com-
pensation, and form of Joint Commis-
sion Agreement.

Asks for permit to visit Russian
islands.

Approves compensation Article sug-
gested in No.73,and accepts 6th Ar-
ticle as proposed by United States
Government.

Asks if Joint Commission Agreement
is accepted by Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment.

Copies of Nos. 79and 80. To co-operate
as much as possible with United
States Commissioners.

Sends supplement to Annual Report of
Canadian Department of Fisheries,
calling attention to passages respect-
ing seal fisheries.

43

49

49

50

APPENDIX TO CASE OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

100

101
102

103
104

105

106
107

108

109
110
lll

113
114

115
116

117

118

119
120

121

Name. Date.
1891.
To Sir R. Morier...... Telegraphic..| July 8
SirJ. Pauncefote......|....-. eCCAECOeF June 27
To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic..| July 9
Molin he MOLGl eee aa- |iaanenee ee ene SeEAGY Aes
Colonial (Ofice: eee csea|teaseeaeeeee SeEe ls Se
seis GO occ chcesaemseseel|lecmete esse ceel eee Ours
To Sir J. Pauncefote ..| Telegraphic..| July 10
Sir J. Pauncefote .....|....- GO a2 Hat. asta LON <=
ColonialtO fice: saceme-leaaces ace aeee Bessey sae
LL hy. MOTION om ieinierersele teeta tater July 7
ee OW ressSsccnocoseselaceescacassecad| Tula tf)
To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic ..| July 13
ColonialiOmce esas --s | ea seee eee eee July 14
Tol Sus, AVOrier= 4-5) ls ssaasee sean July 15
To ‘Colonial! Office: -2-|)-es5s4sseeese ee lae a do -
siriG. Baden=Powell) || S2-sseees4-6-e July 5
Sir R. Morier ..-..-.-- Telegraphic..| July 17
Mo Sir R. Moriers- 35] == esata cee | sees do
Behring sw Sess Comms. seme eee July 7
missioners.
saecs GOS Roe cease seer len sae etree ster CO
ColonialiOMceyases=-4 eae raaie ste July 21
Bebringisy seas Comen -.~ ec crate aos July 9
missioners.
Siri Pan cetotescnss|ienneeeeecee cee July 14
=5dde do)-..2--------5---|| Lelegraphic=-|J uly) 23
To Mr. Fraser. --..--.-|--..- Gl osehecc July 24
NIPRR. Monier seca eer | hens cemeteeretet July 22
To SirJ-Pauncetotes:||25-- 1 anes July 27
Mir. Howard! --.22.-5-- Telegraphic ..| July 29
Mo Mne Howard Seosscs|(semnoe cen eeisiee July 31
Sin ws eaaNCOrote. .aia0'| mse mes soles July 24
iE ONvan ls eee ciate |lamain ele stsecieei ee July 29
@olonialiOM cen - css |jaesnece aac Aug. 1
Behring’s Sea Com- |....---.......- July 16

missioners.

Subject.

Asks permission for British Commis-
sioners to visit Russian islands.

Refers to No.78. Memorandum of in-
structions to British naval officers
acknowledged by United States Gov-
ernment.

Answer to No.85. Joint Commission

Agreement accepted by Her Majes-

ty’s Government. j

Sends copy of modus vivendi Agree-
ment.

Telegram from Governor-General as to
movements of British Commissioners.

Telegram sent to Governor-General in
reply to above.

Informs of above telegrams.--...-..-----

Discussion as to compensation clause.
Inquiry of the President, and pro-
posed reply.

Assent of Her Majesty’s Government
to Russian proposals conditional on
the agreement of the United States.

M. de Giers’ reply to notes transmitted
in No. 41.

Copy of noteto M. de Giers in the sense
ot No. 88.

APPLOVeS (NO.95)5- shoes cot eeeneeeeeeee

Copy of despatch from Governor-Gen-
eral of Canada, inclosing letter from
British Columbia Sealers’ Associa-
tion, setting forth objections to the
passing of the Behring’s Sea Seal
Fishery Act. Proposed reply to Govy-
ernor-General.

Approves action reported in No. 98.....

Concurs in reply to Governor-General as
proposed in No. 100.

Paraphrase of telegram requesting per-
mit to visit Russian islands.

Instructions will doubtless be sent to
Governor of Vladivostock to grant
facilities to our Commissioners.

Acknowledges No.97. Her Majesty’s
Government do not think that such
an arrangement as that proposed by
M. de Giers would be desirable.

Acknowledges No.62)<-.-2-s--e-saseee

Acknowledges No.74. Copy of letrer
from Treasury Department, Washing-
ton, giving permission to visit the
Pribyloff Islands.

Copy of despatch from Governor-Gen-
eral of Canada reporting the publica-
tion of the Agreement for a modus
vivendi.

Information required from Japanese
Government.

Copy of note to Mr. Wharton in sense
of No. 99.

Refers to No. 110. Summary of note
from United States Government (In-
closure in No. 117, infra.).

Asks for information requested in No.
109.

Copy of note to M. de Giers in sense of
No. 105.

Approves No. 110

Refers to No. 104. Russian Government
have given necessary permission for
British Commissioners to visit the
Russian seal fisheries.

Acknowledges No.115. Tothank Rus-
sian Government.

Copy of reply from United States Gov-
ernment to note of 13th July (sent in
No. 110.)

Refers to No. 115.
M. de Giers.

Copy of despatch from Governor-Gen-
eralof Canada on Mr. Hawkins’ letter
(No. 2).

Report of proceedings..........---..---

Copy of note from

66

1
oa

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 155

No. Name. Date. Subject. Page.
1891. -
122 | 7'o Sir J. Pauncefote.-| Telegraphic --| Aug. 12 | Refers to No.118. Her Majesty’s Gov- 76

ernment cannot accept doctrine im-
plied in modification of the VIIth
Article as proposed by Mr. Wharton.

108 sce (IO) cScbaeguoponGand Haneeiingencooes Aug. 22 | To recapitulate grounds on which Her 77
Majesty’s Government cannot agree
to modification of Article VII as ex-
plained in above, and make new pro-

posal.
123*| Sir G. Baden- Powell. .-}..-... (lonss.s82- Aug. 5 | Take of sealsis in excess of 7,500......- 77
124 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....|.-..- dose ee Aug. 23 | Is writing unofficially to Acting Secre- 7
tary of State in sense of No. 123.
125 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..-|..-.- dOsgseeeee Aug. 26 | To inform United States Government 77

of Sir G. Baden-Powell’s report of ex-
cessive number of seals taken, and ask
that the Agreement may be strictly
observed.

LICH Sito. eauneetoteseersqli- aise eccticee Aug. 20 | President does not consider it necessary 78
to raise question of mutual indemni-
ties unless it should arise.

Nowell eee COieri sas ssecese ous) eects siasevinclec Aug. 28 | Refers to No. 124. Private and unoffi- 79
cial letter to Mr. Wharton suggest-
ing compensation clause.

12Gal eos dO isosascssseoesece leaned aud Secor ....do...| Inquiry from Mr. Wharton when re- 80
ply as to compensation clause may be
expected.

19h | sBehnine si sea Com | 5.5. snes ee Aug. 5 | Seals killed in excess of 7,500 limit. Re- 80

missioners. sult of inquiries, and letter to United
i States Treasury Agent.

Nai) |ieace- (lt) Se anas ee coos aoue| | AosaceTeeecenad Aug. 6] Reports visit to Pribyloff and other 82
islands.

131 | Sir J. Pauncefote...-- Telegraphic..) Sept. 8 | Substance of private and unofficial note 82

from Mr. Wharton respecting com-
pensation clause (see No. 135).

T1325 eColontaliOiicezaens--- |i eooeeiee ere ee Sept. 10 | Report by Minister of Marine and Fish- 83
eries relating to seal life on Pribyloff
Islands.

133 | To Behring’sSeaCom-| ............-.. Sept. 12 | Approves proceedings reported in No. 88

missioners. 130.

IS4AESiridl-peawancetotes. = -\|\-o--ce ees ene ae Sept. 4 | United States Government informed of 88
excessive number of seals killed.

iB) |basec Gl) coddsneceouaee se leacenacos Pean56 Sept. 10 | Private and unofficial note from Mr. 88

Wharton. President’s reply to pro-
posals in No. 123.

136 | Sir G. Baden-Powell..| Telegraphic..| Oct. 8 | Reports return of Commission to Esqui- 89
malt.
137 | Sir J. Pauncefote..--..|....- doze s2tn2 Oct. 12 | United States Government press for re- 89

ply to their note of 23rd July. Pro-
poses replying oflicially in sense of
private letter to Mr. Wharton of 26th
August (see No. 127).

138 | To Sir J. Pauncefote. -|----. Gk Seer eee Oct. 15 ILS WEE toabove. To proceed as pro- 89
posed.

139G Ee ColomialiOffice ses. 22 |kF ees sok sce Oct. 16 | Communications with British Columbia 90
Sealers’ Association.

140 Benning isn Sean Cam lisse ieee oe Sept. 17 | Report visit to Russian islands...-...-- 91

missioners.
oY R) eeeae GO ere cece salii= cease aa .---do ...| Report of proceedings up to date......-. 92
142 | Sir J. Pauncefote --.--. Telegraphic..| Oct. 19 | Refers to Nos. 137 and 138. Alternative 93

proposals of United States Govern-
ment respecting compensation clause.

143 | Memorandum by Sir | ---.--.......... Aug. 10 | Limitation of catch of fur-seals under 93
G. Baden-Powell. modus vivendi Agreement.

144 | To Sir J. Pauncefote.| Telegraphic..| Oct. 20 | Answers No. 142. Second clause sug- 97
gested by United States Government
accepted.

145 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....).--.. Obese mien pee do ...; Asks if Joint Commission Article may 97

; be signed.

146 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|----- dose os Oct. 21 | Answers above. May sign Joint Com- 97
mission Article.

VA Fel ode aAlncelot@sessc|t secs xce-niec te. Oct. 12 | Reply of United States Government re- 97

specting excessive number of seals
taken, and observations thereon.
T48u|seece DON ase realtors siawicieac|iaiatee ace tosis we Oct. 13 | Letter from Mr. Wharton pressing for 101
reply to United States Government’s
note of the 23rd July (see No. 137).

AO | eee (OSS Sc SEE CeO ne ae Telegraphic..| Oct. 23 | Interchange of notes recording adop- 102
tion of seven Articles of Arbitration.
Agreement.

1505 LOeMisH owed eeeeter||| sac cocneccenae SS eedOne ae lueko: thank Russian Government for re- 102

ception of British Commissioners on

Russian islands.

151 |: ColonialOmicessec.o.c|\eens- en eoee ac Oct. 26 | Memorial from British Columbian Seal- 102
| ers’ Association.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. Name. Date.
1891.

152 | Sir J. Pauncefote-.-.-|.--ce0----.0--- Oct. 19

15Bh| (ColontaliOMicer ce. -)-s%| Welaela cite elmore i= Oct. 29

154 | ToBehring’sSeaCom-| .......--.----- Oct. 30
missioners.

155 | To Sir G. Baden-Pow: | ........-------.|----do
ell.

156 | Sir J. Pauncefote:.-.-. Telegraphic..| Oct. 31
157 | Behring’s Sea Com- | .-....--.---.--- Oct. 14
missioners. !

[5S nesses COW sods cteceese =| See cosseeee eee Oct. 19
Te eE Se MO wise eeanse= eo ee ences ase Oct. 21
160" Sind. auncefote= 2... |\scg-co44 eae oe Oct. 23
161 | To Colonial Office. - --- Ing FBT MER fe Nov. 2
162 ToiSinwd. Panncetoters|(Seeeeee sence Nov. 6

163 | To Behring’sSeaCom- | .......--...--- -do

missioners. i

164 |\=-%2 AOis Baise s TeSae eee al Stee beeen oe = .d0

1655 (Admiral tyasetenteeos kaa see ceeeeeeere Nov. 10
166 | Sir J. Pauncefote --- -- Telegraphic-..) Nov. 16
Gia eorAdmimalltye = seas) tonite ers Noy. 19
168 | Sir J. Pauncetote --..- Telegraphic..| Nov. 21

| us
169 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... dots: Nov. 22
POMS sir. Lean Celole ece-elle cee ate oe Nov. 13
IAs ee errs UO) cooansenoosas soe Telegraphic..| Nov. 24
2 ees Gi iemps sem erecernel eecee dO. 4a-925 Nov. 27
173 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..|..... Oi eeeS Nov. 29
1745 || Sinwis Ramncetotess Joe seneeess seecee Nov. 23
TW Vea dO\resrecee eee Telographic..| Dec. 3
176 | Behring’s Sea Com- | -.............: Nov. 25
missioners.

ime DO itis. Lanuncetotess|| acess eee Dec. 5
MS) Sir/d:.Panncetote: -.\-4)\2.ecs-eeesere Nov. 27
TO 4 (Chote Gees cere eae | Re Ses ReMi 5 ae al Nov. 27
180 | To SirJ. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic ..| Dec. 7
11 Sirk). Pauncefote:. 22+. .s203 feet see Dee. 1
LSZH aes UG adatbbeoecodese Telegraphic ..} Dec. 10
183 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..!..... He So abose Dec, 11
184 | Sir J. Pauncefote...../..... WOszenee Dec. 14

ment in reply to their note of 23rd
July.

Return of Behring’s Sea Commissioners
to Ottawa.

Copy of reply of United States Govern-
ment respecting excessive number of
seals taken (see No. 147). Asks for
observations. j

Acknowledges Memorandum on limita-
tion of seal catch (see No. 143) with
thanks.

Proposals by Mr. Blaine for constitu-
tion of Tribunal of Arbitration.

Report of proceedings.

completed.

Subject.
Official reply sent to United States Gov-
Investigations

ers’ Association, and reply.

Sends notes recording adoption of seven
Articles of Arbitration Agreement.
Copy of No. 156. Asks views as to con-

stitution of Arbitration Tribunal.

Approves note respecting seven Arti-
cles of Arbitration Agreement (see
No. 160).

Approves reply to Vancouver Sealers’
Association (see No. 159).

Acknowledges No. 157. Approves pro-
ceedings.

Copy ot Report from Commander-in-
chief on Pacific Station. Proposes to
approve proceedings of Commanders
of ‘*Nymphe,”
““Pheasant.’”

Mr. Blaine’s views as to choice of Arbi-
trators and place of sitting.

Concurs in proposal conveyed in No. 165.

Date appointed for signature of the
Arbitration Agreement and Joint
Commission Article. Suggested head-
ings for these Articles.

Authority to siga, making at the time
two reservations in regard to Clause 6.

Copies of a narrative by a correspond-
entof the ‘‘New York Herald” of his
voyage to Behring’s Sea.

Mr. Blaine’s objections to reservations
in No. 169, and inquiry as to the ces-
sation of sealing after Ist May, pend-
ing the adhesion of the other Powers.

Mr. Blaine’s reply to reservations in No.
169 (Inelosure in No. 179, infra).

Refersto No. 172. The tirstreservation
may be waived. Suggests a provision
to be substituted for tbe second res-
ervation.

Copy of note to Mr. Blaine in sense of
No. 169.

Substance of Mr. Blaine’s reply to pro-
posal in No. 173.

Observations on correspondence trans-
mitted in No. 154 respecting the num-
ber of seals killed on the Pribyloff
Islands during season of 1891, in ex-
cess of 7,500.

Approves terms of No.174...........-.-

Further details of interview reported in
No. 171.

Mr. Blaine’s reply to note in No. 174....

Refers to No.175. Her Majesty’s Goy-
ernment agree to drop the second res-
ervation at this stage, retaining the
right to raise the point before the Ar-
bitrators.

Copy of note to Mr. Blaine in sense of
No. 173.

Substance of Mr. Blaine’s reply to No.
180.

Shall he sign agreement subject to
reservation mentioned in No. 180?

Authority to sign as suggested in No> 182.

Mr. Blaine’s note objecting to any res-
ervation.

and

Observations on excessive number of
seals killed on islands.
Sends Memorial from Vancouver Seal-
‘* Porpoise,”’

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 157

No. Name. Date. Subject. Page.

1891,
185 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic..| Dec. 16 | Didnotmake any reservation. Author- 128
ity to sign the Agreement.

186 | Sir J. Pauncefote.-.....|....- COzns-5 552 Dec. 17 | Is addressing a note to Mr. Blaine as 129
instructed in No. 185.

1b Vielicsaee UW) eacsopcoosssccsclo saps (Ve arineie Dec. 18 | Reports signature of Arbitration A gree- 129
ment and Joint Commission Article.

B betsy eesciete (LOM seere stesso eiets elaine | Reais tw sicisieleiaicss Dec. 10} Text of notes exchanged with Mr. 129

Blaine on the subject of the proposed
reservations to Article VI.

nS} al Maes MOMs 5 5s aise eas ee Sei Sea ..--do ...| Extract from President’s Message to 131
Congress.

OOM. ake Ore. cSt soak ce sl RR Sac ee Dec. 11 | Note to Mr. Blaine in sense of Nos. 180 132
and 183.

TOM ese CC hee see ees ee Telegraphic ..| Dec. 22 | Mr. Blaine’s suggestion as to the num- 132
ber of Arbitrators.

HOD SS ee Oy eed AP ee we ble ssw ot ee Dec. 15 | Text of Mr. Blaine’s note of 14th De- 133
cember, and of Sir J. Pauncetote’s

- reply.
EO: | parece CO eens cee see Ne ie Sefer ore -.---| Dec. 18 | Text of note to Mr. Blaine of 18th De- 134

cember. Reports signature of Arbi-
tration Agreement and Joint Com-
mission Article.
194 | 2% 5< CU Bosna ner oanseca [Ree te pena Seee te ere do ...| Text of the seven Articles of the Beh- 134
ring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement,
and of the Joint Commission Article
as signed.
195 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic..| Dec. 29 | To make it clear that Her Majesty's 136
Government urge the appointment
of seven Arbitrators.
ital Bsns Ge) Gosh Sano csbeed) poste doeeererrs Dec. 30 | Can any date be fixed for the meeting 136
of the Joint Commission ?

1892.
197 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....|..-.. doses sae Jan. 2 | Joint Commission can meet at the 126
earliest date permitted by the other
public duties of the American Com-
missioners.
1891
L9Sh| ese MOr sae awsseem aot s We clas cesses Dec. 23} Census bulletin relating to marine 136
mammalia fishing industry of United
States.
1892.
1999) 25.2% dO: 22<;--2s522sseee 2 Telegraphic..| Jan. 4 | President cannot consent to meeting of 137

the Joint Commission until the re-
maining details of the Arbitration
Agreementare settled.

2008 OO foam cece ce sens|bee ee dousssse-2 Jan. 13 | Mr. Blaine most anxious for the imme- 137
diate meeting of the Joint Commis-

sion at Washington.

OIE | See Se GOs Sete ae eee oes dO} 552552 Jan. 14 | Important that the British Commis- 137
sioners should proceed to Washing-

ton at once.

202) ||| No Sir'G: Baden-Pow- |\2s--.-<22-0-0- ----do..-| Desirable that he should proceed to 137
ell. Washington as soon as possible.

203 | To Behring’s SeaCom- | -.----.----.---- Jan. 15 | Transmits Queen’s Commission, and 138
missioners. gives instructions.

204 | Sir G. Baden-Powell..| Telegraphic..) Feb. 1 | Arrival at Washington with Dr. Daw- 138

P son.
205 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....|/..--.. doe ssa-cee ----do ...! Reports arrival of British Commis- 139
sioners.
2068 lea -1 WO saretenn ne nem set | seeeaceeaeetor | Jan. 29 | Copy of note to Mr. Blaine of 21st Jan- 139

uary accepting proposal as to choice

of foreign ebientors:

OT | ratero = CW eesaancocesecse. Telegraphic ..| Feb. 8 | Has forwarded a draft Arbitration Con- 139
: vention embodying Joint Commis-

sion. Mr. Blaine pressing for renewal

of modus vivendi.

208 | Behring’s Sea Com- |..-.- GOSS. =a Feb. 9 | Have begun informal meetings with 139

missioners. American Commissioners.

20971 Coloniak Offices # «i 62|-s22eneshecetcs Feb. 10 | Suggests consulting Canadian Govern- 140
ment as to renewal of modus vivendi.

210 | Behring’s Sea Com- |.......-....-.- Jan. 29 | Acknowledges No. 203. Are proceed- 140

missioners. ing to Washington.

2a See GOS ee sae ak cs Goes Meek eh ted Keb: 1 Report arrival at W: ushington....-.-=-- 140

212 | Sine eauncefoteck.-.-|icce=-c se so Feb. 4 | Text of draft Arbitration Convention 141
proposed by Mr. Blaine.

PAB STE So Ose et sees ee tld see ces eee Feb. 5 | Mr. Blaine pressing for another modus 141
vivendi, to take effect from the expi-
ration of the present one.

214 | To Sir J. Pauncefote..| Telegraphic..| Feb. 16 | Draft Convention submitted to Law 142

oie ers. Entire prohibition of seal-
x does not seem necessary.

215 | Sir J. Pauncefote.....|....- Gee cocer Feb. 17 Mie: 3slaine urges consideration of modus) 142

vivendi by Joint Commission. Can

necessary authority be given?

158

218
219

223

242

Name.

To Sir J. Pauncefote..

Behring’s Sea Com-
misssioners.

Lord Stanley of Pres-
ton to Lord Knuts-
ford.

Sir J. Pauncefote...-.

Sir G. Baden-Powell..
Sir J. Pauncefote....
pee GO Reeesecseseesese

To Sir J. Pauncefote. -

Sir J. Pauncefote.....

Sir G. Baden-Powell . -

Sir J. Pauncefote ...-.

To Sir J. Pauncefote..

Lord Knutsford to
Lord Stanley of
Preston.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF

GREAT BRITAIN.

Date.

Subject.

1892.
Telegraphic..| Feb. 18
sedan do........| Feb. 20
SpApoaaaoscisous Feb. 12

ada do..-..---| Feb. 25
foes do.....---| Feb. 26
sein Oe cpécel pass tres
eae dOs.2cesee | Leb. (27
Saisee dosseeeee al eHebeme
seeds dose cease heb. san
5 fans Ee Feb. 18
Ws Jase ste Bees do.

SAE doseeeee |p iar
a raaciceeceee Mar. 3
Sanesbcossdodos Feb. 23
Telegraphic..| Mar
seen. eee 2 Feb. 236
Telegraphic ..| Mar
ieee do..-.----| Mar.
soank One 2-22 |2- 5-00
Hapcobacodonine Mar

Telegraphic ..| Mar. 15

Mar. 18

Joint Commission may consider modus
vivendi, but Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment must reserve right of action.

Her Majesty's Government prepared to
accept draft Convention in No. 212
subject to certain amendments.

Began formal meetings on 11th February

Canadian Government have no informa-
tion showing necessity of modus vi-
vendi. If Her Majesty’s Government
have such information Canada would
not object to zone of 25 miles, if accom-

sles by restrictions as to sealing on
and,

Communication made to Mr. Blaine in
sense of No. 214. Substance of his re-
ply pressing for modus vivendt.

Sends verbatim paragraph from Mr.
Blaine’s note referred to in above.

Opinion of British Commissioners as to
modus vivendi. No serious risk of
depletion this year, but limited tem-
porary measure recommended.

Her Majesty’s Government have no in-
formation to show necessity of modus
vivendi two years running. Compro-
mise suggested in No. 222 may be pro-
posed.

Mr. Blaine learns that forty-six sealers
have cleared for Behring'’s Sea.

Convention will be signed on Monday..

Notes exchanged with Mr. Blaine as to
the meeting of the Joint Commission.

Correspondence with Mr. Bhane and
the British Commissioners as to power
of Joint Commission to discuss the
question of a modus vivendi for next
season.

Arbitration Convention signed. Shall
exchange of ratifications take place
in Washington or London?

Exchange of ratifications can be carried
out more quickly in London. ‘To tel-
egraph when Conveuticn is approved
by Senate.

Approves proceedings reported in his
despatch of 18th February.

President has issued the Bebring’s Sea
Proclamation in the same terms as
heretofore.

Have signed Joint Report to-day. .-.---

Text of notes summarized in No. 220...

Reply of United States Government to
proposal in No. 223. Urges necessity
for modus vivendi in order to preserve
value of property pending arbitra-
tion.

To repeat above to Governor-General
of Canada.

Convention sent to Senate yesterday
and referred to Committee on Foreign
Affairs.

Text of note to Mr. Blaine in sense of
No. 223.

Expresses opinion that renewal of
modus vivendi, though not necessary,
would be beneficial.

Text of Behring’s Sea Arbitration Con-
vention as signed.

To repeat to Governor-General of Can-
ada telegram from Sir G. Baden-
Powell of 9th March.

Answers No. 234. Renewal of modus
vivendi. May give ground of com-
plaint by British sealers if Arbitra-
ters decide in their favour. Sug-
gests that sealing should be permit-
ted to vessels giving security for any
damages awarded by Arbitrators.

To direct port authorities on Pacitic to
warn owners of vessels who have
cleared, or are clearing, for Behring’s
Sea, that they do so at their own risk.

144

144
144

145

160

awa he

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. Name. Date. Subject.
1892.

SUSI eAUNCELOUG =~ 5+) seccceie~(sisisico cs Mar. 10 | Note from Mr. Wharton of 8th March
respecting modus vivendi. Substance
telegraphed (see No. 234).

CO eee (kt) oaesnsbce ore be: Telegraphic..| Mar. 23 | Communication made to United States
Government in senseof No.241. Re-
ply received stating that renewal of
modus vivendt is the least that can be
accepted, and that United States
Government must maintain their
rights.

225) | Loisin dd. ee aancefote. |. =. <00sj- <r ence Mar. 26 | Two alternative proposals by Her
Majesty’s Government as to the con-
ditions on which sealing might be
prohibited this season.

246 a |Get Ove sonaisc sees. c|eece CV RSSESSaE See do ...| Proposed form of reference to Arbitra-
tors of question of damages.

APPENDIX.
1892.
ColonvallOmiceee=--eee lene ea- eae) csiae Mar. 2 | Despatch from Canada, with Order in

Council, and aftidavits from British
Columbia respecting pelagic sealing.

165

166

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE BEHRING SEA
SEAL FISHERIES.

[IN CONTINUATION OF “UNITED STATES No. 2 (1891):” C. 6368.]

Nox,
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received April 27.)

WASHINGTON, April 15, 1891,

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a note
which I received yesterday from Mr. Blaine in reply to your Lordship’s
despatch of the 21st February last,* of which I left a copy in his hands
on the 3rd March.

In this note Mr. Blaine states that the modifications suggested by
your Lordship in the questions for arbitration do not wholly meet the
views of the President, and he sets out the questions in the form in
which they are now proposed by him.

For convenience of reference, I inclose a paper showing, in opposite
columns, the original six questions suggested by Mr. Blaine in his note
of the 17th December last, and the questions, as altered and now pro-
posed by him, on behalf of the United States’ Government. In his note
transmitted herewith Mr. Blaine reverts to several points which have
been long under discussion, and adduces further arguments in support
of his contentions.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 1.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 14, 1891.

Sir: The modifications which Lord Salisbury suggests in the questions for arbi-
tration do not wholly meet the views of the President, but the President changes the
text of the third and fifth in such manner, it is hoped, as will result in an agreement
between the two Governments. While Lord Salisbury suggests a different mode of
procedure from that embodied in the sixth question, the President does not under-
stand him actually to object to the question, and he therefore assumes that it is
agreed to.

The six questions as now proposed by the President are as follows:

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior
and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

* “United States No. 1 (1891),” p. 87.
761

762 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction us to the seal fisheries recognized and
conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase
“ Pacifie Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia,
and what rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea were held and exclusively exercised by

Russia after said Treaty?
2 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fish-
eries in the Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between
the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United
States under that Treaty ?

5. Has the United States any rights, and, if so, what right, of protection or prop-
erty in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring’s Sea
when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?

6. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such
position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing Regula-
tions for the killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters of Behring’s Sea, ‘then
it shall be further “determined (1) how far, if at all, outside the ordinary territorial
limits it is necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive 5 urisdiction
in order to protect the seal for the time living upon the islands of the United States,
and feeding therefrom? (2) whether a close season (during which the killing of seals
in the waters of Behring’s Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be pro-
hibited) is necessary to save the seal-fishing industry, so valuable and important to
mankind, from deterioration or destruction; and, if so, (3) what months or parts of
months should be included in such season, and over what waters it should extend?

The President does not object to the additional question respecting alleged dam-
ages to English ships proposed by Lord Salisbury, if one condition can be added,
namely, that after the issues of the arbitration are joined, if the United States shall
prevail, all the seals taken by Canadian vessels during the period shall be paid for
at the ordinary price for which skins aresold. ‘This seems to the President to be the
complement of Lord Salisbury’s proposition, and he doubts not that it will secure
his Lordship’s assent. In the first paragraph of Lord Salisbury’s despatch of the
21st February he makes the following declaration:

“Tt is now quite clear that the advisers of the President do not claim Behring’s
Sea as mare clausum, and, indeed, that they repudiate that contention in express
terms.”

Lord Salisbury’s expression is put in such form as to imply (whether he so
intended I know not) that the United States had hitherto been resting its conten-
tion upon the fact that the Behring’s Sea was mare clausum. If that was his inten-
tion, it would have been well for his Lordship to specify wherein the United States
ever made the assertion. The emphatic denial in my despatch of the 17th Decem-
ber last was intended to put an end to the iteration of the charge, aid to eliminate
it from the current discussion.

Lord Salisbury complains that I did not deal with certain protests, written by
Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington in 1822, which he had before quoted.
If he will recur to the 26th and 27th pages of my despatch of the 17th December, he
will observe that I specially dealt with these; that I maintained, and, I think,
proved from the text that there was not a single word in those protests referring to
the Behring’s Sea, but that they referred, in the language of the Duke of Welling-
ton of the 17th October, 1822, only to the lands ‘‘extending along the shores of the
Pacific Ocean from latitude 49° to latitude 60° north. In the first paragraph of
Lord Londonderry’s protest of the 18th January, 1822, addressed to Count Lieven,
of Russia, he alluded to the matters in dispute as ‘especially connected with the
territorial rights of the Russian Crown on the north-west coast of America border-
ing on the Pacific Ocean, and the commerce and navigation of His Imperial Majesty’s
subjects in the seas adjacent thereto.” From those and other pertinent facts it is
evident that the protests of Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington had
nothing whatever to do with the points now in issue between the American and
British Governments concerning the waters of the Behring’s Sea. ‘They both referred
in different, but substantially identical phrases, to the fterritor y south of the Alas-
kan Peninsula bordering on the Pacific, and geographically shut out from the Beh-
ring’s Sea. I regret that my arguments on a “point which Lord Salisbury considers
of ereat importance should have Pescaped his Lordship’s notice. In Lord Salisbury’s
judgment the contention of the United States now rests wholly upon the Ukase of
1821 by the Emperor Alexander J of Russia. The United States has at no time
rested its arguments solely on the ground mentioned, and this Government regrets
that Lord Salisbury should have so misapprehended the American position as to
limit its basis of right in the Behring’s Sea to the Ukase of 1821. The United
States has, among other grounds, insisted, without recurring to any of its inherited
and superior rights i in Alaska, that this Gov ernment has as full authority for going
beyond the 3- mile line in case of proved necessity as Great Brifain possesses.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 763

3 Two or three instances of the power which Great Britain exercises beyond
the 3-mile line have already been quoted, but have failed thus far to secure
comment or explanation from Lord Salisbury.

Another case can be added which, perhaps, is still more to the point. In 1889,
only two years ago, the British Parliament enacted a Law the effect of which is fully
shown by a Map inclosed herewith.

Far outside the 3-mile line the Parliament of Great Britain has attempted to con-
trol a body of water situated beyond the north-eastern section of Scotland, 2,700
square miles in extent, and to direct that certain methods of fishing shall not be
used within that great body of water under a prescribed penalty. It will be
observed that the inhibition is not alone against British subjects, but against ‘‘ any
person.” I here quote the pertinent section of the Parliamentary Act in question:

“7,—(1.) The Fishing Board may, by Bye-law or Bye-laws, direct that the
methods of fishing known nas beam trawling ‘and otter trawling "shall not be used
within a line drawn from Duncansby Head, Caithness, to Rattray Point, Aberdeen-
shire, in any area or areas to be defined in such Bye-law, and may from time to time
make, alter, and revoke Bye-laws for the purposes of this section, but no such Bye-
law shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.

*«(2.) Any person who uses any such method of fishing in contravention of any
such Bye-law shall be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Seot-
land) Acts, to a fine not exceeding 51. for the first offence, and not exceeding 201. for
the second or any subsequent offence, and every net set, or attempted to be set, in
contravention of any such Bye-law may be seized and destroyed or otherwise
disposed of as in the 6th section of this Act mentioned.”

If Great Britain may thus control an area of 2,700 square miles of ocean on the
coast of Scotland, why may not the United States prescribe aspace around the Priby-
loff Islands in which similar prohibitions inay be in force? The following would be
the needed legislation for such a purpose by Congress, and it is but a paraphrase of
the Act of Parliament:

“The Fur Seal Board may, by Bye-law or Bye-laws, direct that the methods ot
sealing known as spearing or harpooning, or with fire-arms, shall not be used within
a line drawn from the shores of the Pribyloff Islands 60 niles in le Behring’s Sea;
and said Board may from time to time make, alter, and revoke Bye-laws for the pur-
pose of this section; but no such Bye-law shall be of any validity until it has been
confirmed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Second. Any person who uses any such
method of sealing in contravention of such Bye-laws shall be liable, on conviction,
toa fine not exceeding 100 dollars for the first offence, and not exceeding 500 dollars
for the second or any subsequent offence; and every spear, harpoon, or fire-arm
attempted to be used in contravention of any such Bye-law may be seized and
destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, as said Fur Seal Board may direct.”

It must not escape observation that the area of water outside the 3-mile line on
the coast of Scotland, whose control is assumed by Great Britain, is as large as would
be found inside a line drawn from Cape Cod to Portland Harbour, on the New England
coast.

Lord Salisbury reasserts his contention that the words ‘‘ Pacific Ocean” at the
time of the Treaty between Russia and Great Britain did include Behring’s Sea.
Undoubtedly the Pacific Ocean includes Behring’s Sea in the same sense that the
Atlantic Ocean includes the Gulf of Mexico, and “yet it would be regarded as a very
inaccurate statement to say that the Mississippi River flows into the Atlantic Ocean.
I think Lord Salisbury fails to recognize the common distinction between the ‘Atlan-
tic Ocean” and “the waters of the Atlantic.” While the Mexican Gulf is not a part
of the Atlantic Ocean, it would, I am sure, comport with general usage to say that it
belonged to the waters of the Atlantic, and, while Behring’s Sea is not technically a
part of the Pacific Ocean, it undoubtedly belongs to the waters of the Pacific. The
English Channel would not ordinarily be understood as included in the term ‘Atlan-
tic Ocean.” One would not say that Dover or Calais is on the coast of the Atlantic
Ocean, and yet clearly the English Channel belongs to the waters of the Atlantic.
In point of fact, therefore, according to the usage of the world, there is no dispute
of any consequence between the two Governments on the geographic: al point under
consideration. The historical point is the one at issue. The explanatory note from
Russia filed in the State Department of this country, specially referred to in Mr.
John Quincey Adains’ diary and quoted in my note of the 17th December, 1890, plainly
draws a distinction between the Pacific Ocean on the one hand, and the ‘Sea of

Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea” on the other; and so long
4 as Russia drew that distinction it must apply to and must absolutely decide

all the contentions between the two countries as far as the waters of the Beh-
ring’s Sea are concerned. ‘To discuss this point further would, in the opinion of the
President, contribute nothing of value to the general contention.

In the opinion of the Pr esident Lord Salisbury is wholly and strangely in error in
making the following statement: ‘‘ Nor do they [the advisers of the President] rely

764 APPENDIX ''TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

as a justification for the seizure of British ships in the open sea upon the contention
that the interests of the seal fisheries give to the United States Government any
right for that purpose which, according to international law, it would not otherwise
possess.” The Government of the United States has steadily held just the reverse
of the position Lord Salisbury has imputed to it. It holds that the ownership of
the islands upon which the seals breed, that the habit of the seals in regularly resort-
ing thither and rearing their young thereon, that their going out from the islands in
search of food and regularly returning thereto, and all the facts and incidents of
their relation to the islands, give to the United States a property interest therein;
that this property interest was claimed and exercised by Russia during the whole
period of its sovereignty over the land and waters of Alaska; that England recog-
nized this property interest so far as recognition is implied by abstaining from all
interference with it during the whole period of Russia’s ownership of Alaska, and
during the first nineteen years of the sovereignty of the United States.

It is yet to be determined whether the lawless intrusion of Canadian vessels in
1886 and subsequent years has changed the law and equity of the case theretofore
prevailing.

I have, &c.

(Signed) J. G. BLAINE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 1.]

Sketch of North-Eastern Section of Scotland.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 1.]

Original Six Questions suggested by Mr.
Blaine in his Note of December 17, 1890.

Questions as allered and now proposed by
Mr. Blaine.

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the 1. The same.
sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries
therein, did Russia assert and exercise
prior and up to the time of the cession of
Alaska to the United States?

2. How far were these claims of juris-
diction as to the seal fisheries recognized
and conceded by Great Britain?

2. The same.

3. Was the body of water now known
as the Behring’s Sea included in the
phrase ‘‘ Pacific Ocean,” as used in the
Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and
Russia; and what rights (if any) in the
Behring’s Sea were given or conceded to
Great Britain by the said Treaty ?

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as
to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fish-
eries in Behring’s Sea east of the water
boundary, in the Treaty between the
United States and Russia of the 30th
March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the
United States under that Treaty ?

5. What are now the rights of the

United States as to the fur-seal fish-
5 eries in the waters of the Behring’s

Sea outside of the ordinary terri-
torial limits, whether such rights grow
out of the cession by Russia of any spe-
cial rights or jurisdiction held by her in
such fisheries or in the waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea, or out of the ownership of the
breeding islands and the habits of the
seals in resorting thither and rearing
their young thereon and going out from
the islands for food, or out of any other
fact or incident connected with the rela-
tion of those seal fisheries to the terri-
torial possesions of the United States?

5. Was the body of water now known
as the Bebring’s Sea included in the
phrase ‘ Pacific Ocean,” as used in the
Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain
and Russia; and what rights (if any) in
the Behring’s Sea were held and exclusively
exercised by Russia after said Treaty ?

4. The same.

5. Has the United States any right, and,
if so, what right, of protection or property
in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of
the United States in Behring’s Sea when
such seals are found outside the ordinary
3-mile limit?

Es

CHA

An Act to amend th
Acts; and for othe

fannets sarwsronne]

NORTH EASTERN SECTION OF SCOTLAND.

LSS

Extract from

CHAPTER 23.
An Act to amend the Herring Fishery (Scotland)
Acts ; and for other purposes relating thereto.

[26th July, 1889.)

PENTLAND FIRTH

7.—{1.) The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws
direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling
and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn
from Duncansby Lead, in Caithness, to Rattray Point, in
Aberdeenshire, in any area or areas to be defined in such
byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke
byelaws for the purposes of this section, but no such bye-
law shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by
the Secretary for Scotland,

TO FACE P 4.

~Y RATTRAY
POINT

Sackett 8 Wij helms Lithe Oo M

(2.) Any person who uses any such method of fishing
in contravention of any such byclaw shall be liuble, on
conviction under the Snmmary Jurisdiction (Scotland)
Acts, to fine not exceeding five pounds for the first
offence, and not exceeding twenty pounds for the second
or any subsequent offence ; and every net eet, or attempted
to be set, in contravention of any such byelaw may be
seized and destroyed or otherwise disposed of as in the
sixth section of this Act mentioned.

Me pe ware’ cd 5 cate feat qponkell, OD: Chm aT cpwetnd ? he mting,
dtieesd nn bieoruty sgaatals ban wbertbqus odd S01, FOMGTD alee bo Tobie, oon
: ‘yfboes nintiw ines og tom Hectacrypltyniesy noth Sama Alwii, (Bocahomet) ate, tone,

M Sboypabish 90 crenitdtieO Ros Lely hh gtiannamll: is Per the tend 5
| oyhipesmemapatiemtiip sien ere: als outed Bs 5 AaTIARD
: epee anager rasan qio-yduenr pak. canpramim 223 gomel odf hepa of A oA

Bh B0u tad sesticvte aivht kom ooenjriny ot © feds
iy Pawar ctiesd ead tt Yar yarininy yna to roth ae _) edith yaiaaton eowoecing nebo A Bm: aa
; 7) Sot -sfgsabpeet am gendarme od? [eRat o¢lnt see)

Te ae a2
Ter ee (ter eee hay

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 765

6. If the determination of the forego- 6. The same.
ing questions shall leave the subject in (For Additional Article as tou damages,
such a position that the concurrence of see Mr. Blaine’s note.)
Great Britain is necessary in prescribing
Regulations for the killing of the fur-
seal in any part of the w ‘aters of Beh-
ring’s Sea, then it shall be further deter-
mined: (1) How far, if at all, outside the
ordinary territorial limits, it is necessary
that the United States should exercise an
exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect
the seal for the time living upon the
islands of the United States and feeding
therefrom? (2) Whether a closed sea-
son (during which the killing of seals in
the waters of Behring’s Sea outside the
ordinary territorial limits shall be pro-
hibited) is necessary to save the seal-
fishing industry, so valuable and impor-
tant to mankind, from deterioration or
destruction? And,if so, (3) What months
or parts of months should be included in
such season, and over what waters it
should extend?

No. 2.
Mr. C. Hawkins to- the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received May 1.)

THE GLEN, AVENUE ROAD, Anerley, April 29, 1891.

My Lorp: In consequence of the negotiations being carnied on
between the United States Government and our own to bring about a

satisfactory settlement of the Behring’s Sea Seal Fishery question, I
beg to offer you the following facts, trusting they may be useful to you
as emanating from one with a practical knowledge extending over a
period of eighteen years.

I also inclose herewith a cutting from the “Daily Chronicle” of the
above date, which induces me to take this liberty, supposing the state-
meut therein detailed to be correct.

Since about the year 1885 we have received in this country large
numbers of seal-skins known in the trade as north-west coast skins, the
same having been taken in the open sea, and, from appearances that are
unmistakable to the initiated, are exclusively the skins of female seals
pregnant; these are all shot, and I have been informed that for every
skin recovered five or six are lost through sinking when struck by the
shot; this wholesale slaughter of the females will, in a short time, bring
about the extermination of the seal in that district if not arrested.

We, on the other hand, during my experience, have had annually large
numbers of seal-skins from Alaska, and also from the Copper Island,
which are killed by being clubbed on land, and are selected with
judgment, being the skins of young male seals; the older fighting and

breeding males are spared.
6 I feel sure that this which I have written would be corrobo-
rated by the principals of the following firms, if applied to, or any
others, with sufficient intelligence, who have to deal with the skins in
the salted state: Messrs. C. M. Lampson and Co., Queen Street, City;
Messrs. C. W. Martin and Sons, 4, Lambeth Hill, City; Mr. e& hice,
Great Prescott Street, Whitechapel.
I beg, &e.

(Signed) C. HAWKINS.

766 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 2.]
Lxtract from the ‘Daily Chronicle” of April 29, 1891.
THE BreuRING’s SEA FISHERIES.

{From our Correspondent. }

New York, Tuesday.

Now that the ‘‘Sayward” case is postponed till October, much interest attaches to
the question as to the steps that will be taken with regard to the coming sealing
season. The ‘ Herald” says that from present indications, the sealing industry will
be free to all. In the summer the revenue steamers will proceed to the Behring’s
Sea, but with private orders to molest no vessel sealing beyond 3 miles from the
shore. Mr. Blaine and Sir Julian Pauncefote have for a week past been in negotia-
tion in respect of a modus vivendi for the season, but they have not yet arrived at any
conclusion. Professor Elliott, the Government expert, wishes for a suspension of
marine sealing for one or two years, as suggested by Lord Salisbury, but the Treasury
has not given its assent to this proposal,

The Tre easury Officials state that the Government lost 385,000 dollars in the revenue
from the islands last year, by reducing the catch from 100, 000 to 60,000 seals by way
of precaution. There was, in addition, a loss of 375,000 dollars throngh the timidity
of the Treasury Agent at the islands instopping the killing of seals when only 21,000
skins had been taken. The lessees of the islands had expected to recoup themselves
this year for last year’s losses, and they are alarmed at the prospect of suspension
this year. According to the present outlook, the total catch for the year will be little
short of 300,000 seals.

The ‘‘ Boston Herald” says that the Honourable §. B. Elkins, who was Mr. Blaine’s
Manager in the Convention of 1888, and the nominator of President Harrison, has,
through his influence, stopped the Behring’s Sea negotiations, which were about to
terminate successfully. Mr. Elkins is lar gely interested in the Sealing Company, aud
when he heard that Great Britain had verbally promised to join the United States
to put a stop to the killing of seals for one year, he proceeded to Washington and
induced Mr, Blaine to postpone the Agreement to the autumn, so that his Company
could secure the 60,000 seals allowed by the Contract. Sir Julian Pauncefote has dis-
covered the underhand move, and, while addressing a remonstrance to Mr. Blaine, he
has also hastened to put a proposal to him in writing, so that it cannot be ignored.

No. 3.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office—( Received May 27.)

DOWNING STREET, May 27, 1891,
Sir: Lam directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 22nd instant,* forwarding copy of a despatch from
Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington inclosing copy of a letter
addressed by Professor Elliot to the United States Secretary to the
Treasury, on the condition of seal life on the Pribyloff Islands during
the summer of 1890.
I am to observe, in reply, that this letter of Mr. Elliot’s bears out in
a remarkable manner the contention of the Dominion Government that
the principal danger to the seal species arises not from pelagic sealing,
which would appear to be comparatively harmless, but from ill. regulated
killing on land.
ef In these circumstances, it is for consideration whether Her
Majesty’s Government should not insist that the question of the
future regulation of sealing on land, as well as at sea should be sub-
mitted to the proposed Arbitration Tribunal.

* “United States No. 2 (1891),” Appendix, p. 52.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 767

In any ease, Lord Knutsford is of opinion that an exhaustive joint
inquiry should be made into the whole question, the results of which
should be laid before the Arbitrators to enable them to arrive at a
sound decision.

Lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

No. 4
Colonial Office to Foreign Offiee.—(Received May 29.)

DOWNING STREET, May 29, 1891.
Str: With reference to previous correspondence, [ am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, paraphrase of a telegram from the Governor-General of
Canada, stating that the Canadian Government acquiesce in the pro-
posed modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea subject to certain conditions.
Iam, &c.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

{Inclosure in No. 4.—Telegraphice. ]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

OrTawa, May 27, 1891.

With reference to my telegram of the 18th May, I forward the Minute of the Privy
Council:

With reference to your telegrams of the 17th and 23rd instant, the Government of
the Dominion accede to the proposition of Her Majesty’s Government, provided that
compensation be given to the sealers who may be prevented from prosecuting their
avocation, and that the authorities of the United States accept at once the terms
suggested by her Majesty’s Government, and concurred in by the Dominion Govern-
ment in August last, as an essential part of the same Agreement.

As, however, the Canadian Government does not possess the means of giving the
proposed warning, and as the time for doing so appears inadequate, the Dominion
Ministers cannot undertake to be answerable in the event of such warning proving
ineffective.

There would be ample time to give due notice to all concerned if an alternative
suggestion to the proposals referred to were made for a close seascn next year.

No. 5.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 2, 1891.
Ask the Russian Government whether they would be disposed to
join in an Agreement which has been proposed by the United States
Government and accepted by her Majesty’s Government for a suspen-
sion until May 1892 of seal hunting in the islands and waters of Beh-
ring’s Sea.

768 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

It is believed that an engagement will be entered into by both Powers
to do their best to prevent their respective subjects and citizens from
taking part in seal hunting, with the exception of a catch of 7,500
seals destined for the support of the Aleuts in the service of the North
American Commercial Company. The Agreement cannot, of course,
be signed unless Russia is prepared to adhere to it.

8 No. 6.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic. }

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 2, 1891.

T have to instruct you to make the following proposals to the United
States Government with regard to a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea:

1. The two Governments to prohibit, up to May 1892, the killing of
seals in Behring’s Sea or any of the islands thereof, and to insure, to
the best of their ability, that this prohibition shall not be infringed by
their subjects, or by vessels flying their respective flags.

2. During the time named the United States shall have the right to
kill 7,900 seals.

3. An exequator will be granted by the United States Government
to any Consul who may at any time be appointed by Her Majesty’s
Gover nment to the islands in Behring’s Sea.

. The above Convention shall not come into operation unless the
eae of Kussia is given to it.

No. 7.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 2.)
. {Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, June 2, 1891.

I have received your telegram of to-day. I will lose no time in act-
ing on your Lordship’s instructions. With reference to clause J, I beg
to observe that the prohibition extends to the whole of Behring’s Sea,
and I apprehend objection on the ground that the United States Gov-
ernment is not empowered by Act of Congress to prohibit sealing
beyond that part of it which, they contend, is, by virtue of their Treaty
with Russia, ‘“‘ within the dominion of the United States.”

No. 8.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 2, 1891.
With reference to your despatch of the 15th April last, I have to
request you to inform the Government of the United States that Her
Majesty’s Government are prepared to assent to the first five points

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 769

which Mr. Blaine proposes should be submitted to arbitration in his
note of the 14th April.

Her Majesty’s Government are unable to assent to the sixth point.

They propose as an alternative the appointment of a Commission
consisting of four experts, of which two should be nominated by Great
Britain, and two by the United States, and of a Chairman nominated
by the Arbiters.

This Commission to examine and report on the following question:

What international arrangements, if any, between Great Britain, the
United States, and Russia, or any other Power, are necessary for the
purpose of preserving the fur-seal race in Behring’s Sea from extermi-
nation?

With regard to the question of compensation, Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment propose the following Article:

“Tf it shall be shown to the Arbitrators that seal-hunters, subjects
of either Power, have been damnified in the pursuit of that industry by
the action of the other Power, it shall be competent for the Arbitrators
to award such compensation to the said subjects as in their judgment
shall seem equitable.”

No. 9.
The Marquis of Salisbury to M. de Staal.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 2, 1891.

M. L’ AMBASSADEUR: I have the honour to inform your Excellency

that Her Majesty’s Government have agreed to a proposal made
9 to them by the Government of the United States that seal hunt-

ing should be suspended in the islands and waters of Behring’s
Sea until May 1592. We believe that an engagement will be entered
into by both Powers to do their best to prevent their subjects and
citizens from taking part in the seal hunting, exception only being
made for a catch of 7,500 destined for the subsistence of the natives in
the service of the Alaska Company. <A proposal has been made to the
United States Government to that effect.

This Arrangement cannot be put in force without the adherence of °
the Russian Government, and the Agreement will not be signed until
this has been obtained. Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburgh
has been instructed by telegraph to make a communication in the above
sense to M. de Giers, and to express our earnest hope that the Russian
Government will consent to a measure which appears to be necessary
in order to prevent the early extermination of the fur-seal.

I have, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 10.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 3.)

[Telegraphic.]
WASHINGTON, June 3, 1891.

I have to-day communicated to the Acting Secretary of State, in the
form of Memoranda, the substance of your Lordship’s telegrams of
yesterday’s date, relative to Behring’s Sea, which I received last night.

BS, Pr V——49

770 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Nios, It:
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir EB. Malet.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 3, 1891.

Str: Her Majesty’s Government have agreed to a proposal made by
the United States Government for the suspension for one year of, seal
hunting in the islands and waters of Behring’s Sea; and have expressed
their readiness to enter into an Agreement whereby the two Govern-
ments shall prohibit the killing of seals up to May 1892, and ‘shall
undertake to use their best endeavours to prevent the infringement of
the prohibition by their respective subjects and citizens or by vessels
flying their respective flags, with the exception of a catch of 7,500 seals
destined for the support of the Aleutian islanders in the service of the
North American Commercial Company.

The Russian Government have been invited to join in the Arrange-
ment.

It has been suggested that it would be desirable to obtain the con-
currence of the German Government in the suspension of seal-taking
on the ground that the German flag has appeared on fishing-vessels in
the Behring’s Sea. According to the Report of the Canadian Minister
of Marine for 1889, it appears that one such vessel was engaged in
fishing during that year.

I should wish you to ascertain whether the interest taken by the
German Government in the seal fishery is such as to make it advisable
to invite their concurrence in the suspension.

Tan, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 12.

Sir Rk. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 4.)
[ Telegraphic. }

St. PETERSBURGH, June 4, 1891.

I have this day communicated to M. de Giers a note in the sense of
your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant. I am informed that his
Excellency has not yet heard from the United States Government on
the subject.

10 No. 13.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 4.)

[Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, June 4, 1891.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant, con-
taining the draft of a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour
to inform you that I have to-day received a reply to your Lordship’s
proposal from the Acting Secretary of State, which is to the following
effect:

[See text of Mr. Wharton’s note of the 4th June in Sir Julian Pauncefote’s despatch
of the 5th June, 1891: Inclosure in No. 40, infra.]

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. CEL
No. 14.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 5, 1891,

I have received your telegram of yesterday.

We should be glad if M. de Giers would inform us of his views with
regard to the proposed Agreement for the preservation of the seals in
Bebsying’s Sea without waiting to receive a communication from the
Government of the United States on the subject.

No. 15.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 5, 1891.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration the
counter-proposals of the President of the United States for a modus
vivendi in Behring’s Sea, as reported in your telegram of the 4th instant.

They agree to accept the proposal, that officers of either Government
may seize and hand over to their national jurisdiction offending vessels
under either flag.

We thus give power to cruizers belonging to the United States to
supervise the conduct of Englishmen in keeping the modus vivendi at
sea. On the other hand, we ought to receive corresponding power
from the United States of supervising the proceedings of Americans
on the islands resorted to by the seals. The equality of the proposed
Agreement is dependent on the fidelity with which the Americans
observe the condition, that not more than 7,500 seals shall be killed.
In the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, it is indispensable that
the right should be reserved to them of satisfying themselves that this
condition is fully observed.

If the United States Government object to the appointment of a
permanent British Consul on the islands, they can, under their Statute,
specially authorize the presence there during the present fishing sea-
son of a British agent.

Her Majesty’s Government will not insist that Russia shall be a
party to the proposed modus vivendi. But I earnestly press upon the
United States Government the extension of the prohibition to American
ships over the whole of Behring’s Sea; in that case, Her Majesty’s
Government will similarly extend the prohibition to British ships.

If it is lawful that seals may be hunted on one side of an imaginary
line in the open ocean while it is unlawful on the other side, it will, in
many cases, be impossible to prove the fact of unlawful sealing, or to
infer from the possession of skins or tackle that it has taken place.

It is, in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, of great impor-
tance that an Agreement should be arrived at as to the terms of the
arbitration at the same time that the modus vivendi is arranged. We
should be unable to repeat the suspension of seal-tishing operations for
another year.

2 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Wal No. 16.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 6.)
{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1891.

This morning I delivered to the Acting Secretary of State a Memo-
randum communicating the contents of your Lordship’s telegram of
yesterday, and I have just received a reply to the following effect:

[See text of Mr. Wharton’s note of the 6th June in Sir Julian Paunceiote’s despatch
of the 9th June, 1891: Inclosure in No. 47, infra. ]

No. 17.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received June 8.)

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copy of a note which I have
received from Mr. Adee, Acting Secretary of State, expréssing the
earnest desire of the President for an early response to the proposal
contained in Mr. Blaine’s note of the 4th instant for a modus vivendi
during the coming sealing season in Belring’s Sea.

Mr. Adee, as your Lordship will perceive, informs me of the departure
of the United States revenue-steamer “Rush” for the sealing islands
and of the approaching sailing of the “Corwin” for the same destination.

I have also the honour to inelose copy of the reply which I have
returned to Mr. Adee’s communication.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 17.]
Mr. Adee to Sir J. Pauneefote.

DEPARTMENT OF StatTE, Washington, May 26, 1891.

Sir: In my personal note of the 20th instant, and on several other occasions in
oral communication, I have had the honour to express the desire of the President to
be informed, at the earliest possible moment, of the response of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment to the proposal, which formed the subject of Mr. Blaine’s note to you of
the 4th instant, that seal-taking on the islands and in the waters of Behring’s Sea
be limited, as in said note expressed, as to citizens of the United States and subjects
of Great Britain, pending the arbitration of certain questions in controversy between
the two Governments.

In several interviews with you since the 20th instant, the desire of the President
for an early response to the note of the 4th May has been reaffirmed.

The situation evidently calls for prompt action. Each day’s delay increases the
existing difference in the ability of the respective Governments to make the pro-
posed limitation of seal-taking effective. It is reported that a large fleet of Cana-
dian sealers has been for some weeks or months on the seas. They are daily going
further out of reach. The revenue-cruizers have awaited definite orders. Their
presence is urgently needed in the Behring’s Sea. Any further delay tends to defeat
the very purpose for which the Agreement is sought. It is quite incompatible with
fairness and justice to our citizens that this should be permitted to continue.

Ample opportunity has been afforded to Her Majesty’s Government to bring this
condition to a close by an effective Avreement; but the result is still uncertain, and
to all appearances remote, The President would be glad to know that it is near at

——

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ile

hand and certain; but he can no longer hold back, in furtherance of a vague hope,
to the detriment of the legitimate interests of the Government and citizens of the
United States.
Iam, therefore, directed by the President to inform you that orders have been
given to the revenue-steamer “Rush” to proceed to the sealing islands.
Another revenue-steamer, the ‘‘ Corwin,” is at San Francisco, nearly ready to sail,
and will very shortly put to sea. Should an Agreement be rez ached before her depar t-
ure, appropriate orders may still be sent by her to the islands. I mention

12 this, in order that you may comprehend how fully this Government desires to

effect an arrangement for this season, and that you may realize how each day’s
delay lessens the ability of Her Majesty’s Government to effectively co-operate with
regard to British subjects, and tends to destroy the practical utility of an Agree-
ment to limit the seal catch.
Ihave, &c,
(Signed) ALVEY A. ADEE, Acting Secretary.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 17.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Adee.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1891,

Sir: I have the hononr to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday’s
date, and to inform you that I have communicated the substance of its contents to
the Marquis of § Salisbury by telegram. I feel assured that his Lordship will greatly
regret any inconvenience which may be caused to your Government by the imprac-
ticability of returning an immediate reply to the proposal contained in Mr. Blaine’s
note to me of the 4th instant.

Lord Salisbury, as I had the honour to state to you verbally, is using the utmost
expedition, but the lateness of the proposal and the conditions attached to it have
given rise to grave difficulties, as to which his Lordship has necessarily been in com-
munication with the Canadian Government. His reply, however, may now arrive
at any moment.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 18
Colonial Office to oreign Office.—( Received June 8.)

DOWNING STREET, June 8, 1891.

Str: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to beJaid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a letter from the Acting
High Commissioner for Canada, forwarding copy of a telegram from
the British Columbian Board of Tr ade, protesting against the proposed
prohibition of sealing in Behring’s Sea this season.

Lord Knutsford proposes, with Lord Salisbury’s coneurrence, to
inform the Acting High Commissioner, in reply, that, as the total ces-
sation of sealing in Behring’s Sea will greatly enhance the price of the
produce of the coast fishery, Her Majesty’s Government do not antici-
pate that British sealers will suffer to any great extent by exclusion
from Behring’s Sea; but that they will be prepared to consider any
case in which it is clearly established that loss has been suffered by a
British subject through the enforcement of the prohibition.

J am, &c.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

714 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure in No. 18.]
Mr. Colmer to Colonial Office.

VICTORIA CHAMBERS, 17, VICTORIA STREET,
London, June 3, 1891.

Sir: Iam directed by the High Commissioner to quote, for the information of Her
Majesty’s Government, the following telegram which has been received from Mr.
Robert Ward, the President of the British Columbia Board of Trade:

“British Columbia Board of Trade respectfully asks you protest strongest possible
manner against proposed legislation prohibiting British sealers Behring’s Sea this
season. Sealing fleet equipped and cleared months since at heavy outlay. Result
peremptory prohibition serious injustice and ruin to many engaged in industry here.”

Lam, &c. ‘
(Signed) J. G. COLMER.

13 No. 19.

Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 8.
q , y

[ Telegraphic. ]
ST. PETERSBURGH, June 8, 1891.

IT had a long conversation yesterday with M. de Giers at his country
place in Finland, relative to the proposed Agreement between the Goy-
ernments of Great Britain and the United States for the protection of
seal-hunting in the islands and waters of the Behring’s Sea. His
Excellency’s views with regard to the proposal are entirely in accord
with those of Her Majesty’s Government, but it appears that the ques-
tion is not treated of by him, but by the Minister of Domains, who has
just terminated negotiations for a contract with an influential Russo-
American Seal Company.

His Excellency informed me that he would do his utmost to pursuade
his colleague to agree to the proposal, and he expressed the hope that
he would be able to give me a final answer during the coming week.

No. 20.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 8, 1891.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under consideration the counter-
proposals of the President of the United States for a modus vivendi
during the present seal-fishing season in Behring’s Sea, as reported in
your telegram of the 6th instant.

I have to inform you that they are prepared to assent toa draft
Agreement drawn up in the terms which you will receive in my further
telegram of to-day.

iP LY

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Ce
No. 21.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]
FOREIGN OFFICE, June 8, 1891.

The following Articles of Agreement contain the terms to which Her
Majesty’s Government are prepared to assent for the establishment of
a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

You are authorized to submit them for the consideration of the Gov-
ernment of the United States:

For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote
friendly settlement of the questions pending between the two Governments touch-
ing their respective rights in Behring’s Sea, and for preservation of seal species, the
following Agreement is made without prejudice to the rights or claims of either
party:

i Eler. Majesty’s Government will prohibit antil May next seal-killing in that part
of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in Article I of
the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly use best
efforts to insure observance of prohibition by British subjects and vessels.

2. If the United States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period
in the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof the property
of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands as food skins, and
not for tax and shipment), and will ‘promptly use best efforts to insure observance of
prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

3. Every offending vessel or person may be seized and detained by the naval or
other duly commissioned officers of either of the High Contracting Parties, but they
shall be handed over as soon as practicable to the authorities of the nation to which
they respectively belong, who shall alone have jurisdiction to try the offence and
impose the penalties for the same, The witnesses and the proofs necessary to estab-
lish the offence shall also be sent with them.

4, In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make, with the view to the presentation of the Case of that Government
before Arbitrators, and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration may be
arrived at, itis agreed that suitable persons, designated by Great Britain, will be
permitted at any time, upon application, to visit, or to remain upon, the seal islands

during the present sealing season for that purpose.
14 5. A Commission of four experts, two nominated by each Government, and
a Chairman nominated by the Arbitratorsif appointed, andif not by the afore-
said Commissioners, shall examine and report on the following question:

What international arrangements, if any, between Great Britain, United States,
and Russia, or any other Pow er, are necessary for the purpose of preserving the fur-
seal race in the Northern Pacific from extermination ?

6. The Government of the United States will join with that of Her Majesty in
requesting Russia to forbid her subjects from sealing to the east of the line indicated
in Article 1 of the present Agreement until the Ist May, 1892.

No. 22.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received June 8.)
{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 8, 1891,

T have to-day delivered a note to the Acting Secretary of State com-
municating to him, with the request that he will submit it to his Gov-
ernment for their consider: ation, the draft Agreement for a modus vivendi
contained in your Lordship’s telegram of to-day.

776 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 23.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 9.)

[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1891.

The draft of a note in answer to the proposals for a modus vivendi
contained in your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday, which will be
addressed to me to-morrow, has just been shown to me.

The words in Article 2 ‘as food skins, and not for tax and shipment,”
are objected to by the President on the grounds that such a provision
would preclude the export and sale of the skins for the purpose
described in Mr. Blaine’s note of the 4th May, 7. e., to cover the cost of
clothing, food, and fuel for the native inhabitants of the island.

The President insists on the limitation of the power of seizure pro-
vided for in Article 3 to the waters “outside the ordinary territorial
limits.” On this point I beg to refer your Lordship to my telegram of
the 6th instant.

He objects to the provision in Article 5 for the appointment of a Joint
Commission as having no proper place in the modus vivendi, but he will
give the suggestion ‘‘a full consideration in connection with the nego-
tiation for arbitration.”

Article 6, as to a joint note to Russia, is objected to on the ground
that, westward of the line of demarcation, the United States Govern-
ment has no power to agree to reciprocal action if Russia should make
it a condition of adhesion.

The note concludes by stating that the President is prepared to sign
at once the first four Articles proposed by your Lordship, with the
omission in Article 2 and the additional clause in Article 3 specified
above, if the Agreement can be immediately put into force.

I fear that lack of time will prevent us carrying the negotiation
further, but I will use my best efforts to induce the United States Gov-
ernment to agree positively, as one of the terms of arbitration, to a
provision for a Joint Commission.

No. 24.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Rh. Morier.

{Telegraphic.]

ForEIGN OFFICE, June 9, 1891.

In consequence of the existing statutory limitations to the powers of
the United States Executive, Her Majesty’s Government propose that
there shall be a close time in Behring’s Sea for this season on land and
sea only, to the east of the line of 1867.

They are only asking, therefore, that Russian subjects shall be for-
bidden during this year "tr om sealing to the east of that line by sea, as
Russia has no land to the east of it; and that we shall be allowed to
stop vessels sailing under the Russian flag which are so employed.

But as the United States Government maintain that they have a
15 right to exclude all ships of whatever nation from that part of

Behring’s Sea, they can hardly join in this request without
stultifying themselves.

“ss.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. vey

A close time to the east of the line in the result will also recruit the
seal fishery to the west of it, and Russia, therefore, will find her interest
in acceding to our request.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 10, 1891.

Behring’s Sea modus vivendi. I have received your telegram of yes-
t-rday.

We assent to the insertion in Article 3 of the words, ‘ outside ordi-
nary territorial limits,” and also, though reluctantly, to the omission
from Article 2 of the words, ‘as food skins, and not for tax and ship-
ment.”

We cannot, however, consent to leave the Joint Commission in doubt.
It may be recorded in the form of a separate note; but if the United
States will not agree in principle that inquiry shall be made by a Joint
Commission as to what permanent measures, if any, are necessary for
the preservation of the seal species, it is useless for us to involve our
people in the inconvenience and cost which a close time for this year
would entail.

The modus vivendi is rendered much less valuable by the reply of the
President with regard to Russia.

No. 26.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 10.)
{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1891,

With reference to my telegram of last night, relative to Behring’s
Sea, [ have the honour to inform your Lordship that I called this morn-
ing on Mr. Wharton, the Acting Secretary of State. I explained that
the words, “ food skins, and not for tax and shipment,” had been inserted
in Article 2 for the purpose, not of preventing the sale of the 7,500
seal-skins, but of prohibiting the process which has been described by
the United States agents as the chief cause of the depletion of male
seal life, namely, the driving and re-driving for selection. I was
informed that the President still objects to the words, but that he would
probably agree to the substitution of the phrase, ‘to cover the cost of
food, fuel, clothing, and other 1ecessaries for the natives,” which I sug-
gested in order that the humanitarian object of the reservation might
appear on the face of the document.

1 presume that your Lordship will not object to the substitution of
this phrase, or to the insertion in Article 3 of the words, “ outside the
ordinary territorial limits.” Should your Lordship have no objection
to these alterations, I venture to urge strongly that I may be at once
authorized to sign the Agreement for a modus vivendi, to consist of the
preamble and the first four Articles, as contained in your Lordship’s
telegram of the 8th instant, with the alterations given above, and the

778 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

omission, which is agreed to by the State Department, of the last por-
tion of Article 5, relating to the application of fines imposed by the
Courts, this not being provided for in the Behring’s Sea Act just
passed.

Mr. Wharton assures me that the settlement of the terms of arbitra-
tion will be greatly expedited by the immediate signature of the A gree-
ment, and he expresses the opinion that a Joint Commission may be
rendered practicable this year by our signing at once.

No. 27.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 10.)
[Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, June 10, 1891.
With reference to my telegrams of yesterday and to-day respectively,
I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I received the official
note to-day the draft of which was shown me last night. It is
16 identical with the draft, except that in Article 2 the words, ‘ for

the subsistence and care of the natives,” have been inserted after
“in exvess of 7,500 seals to be taken on the islands.”

No. 28.
Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 10.)

[‘Lelegraphice. ]
St. PETERSBURGH, June 10, 1891.
With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday, I presume
that, if we claim right to stop ships under Russian flag catching seals

to the east of the 1867 line, we are prepared to allow Russia, under
similar circumstances, to stop our own ships.

No. 29.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.
{ Telegraphic. |
FOREIGN OFFICE, June 10, 1891.
The answer is “Yes” to the question asked in your telegram of to-day.

No. 30.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 10, 1891.
Sir: I have laid before the Marquis of Salisbury your letter of the
8th instant, inclosing a protest from the Board of Trade of British
Columbia against the proposed prohibition of sealing in Behring’s Sea
during the present season.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. Ci

Tam to state, in reply, that Lord Salisbury concurs in the answer
which Lord Knutsford proposes to return to this communication.
Iam, We.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

INGsol.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauneefote.
{ Telegraphic. }

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 11, 1891.

Behring’s Sea modus vivendi.

Before you can be authorized to sign the Agreement, as suggested in
your telegram of yesterday, you must obtain a written assurance in
some form from the United States Government that they will agree to
the proposed reference to a Joint Commission of Experts.

INO: 32;
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 11.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 11, 1891.

Tlost no time in addressing a note to the Acting Secretary of State
in the sense your Lordship’s telegram of to-day relative to Behring’s
Sea.

This afternoon I received a reply in the followin terms:

The United States Government, recognizing the fact that full and adequate meas-
ures for the protection of seal life should embrace the whole Behring’s Sea and
portions of the North Pacific Ocean, will have no hesitancy in agreeing, in connection
with Her Majesty’s Government, to the appointment of a Joint Commission to ascer-
tain what permanent measures are necessary for the preservation of the seal species
in the waters referred to; such an Agreement to be signed simultaneously with the
Convention for Arbitration, and to be without prejudice to the questions to be sub-

mitted to the Arbitrators.
17 A full reply to your note of the 3rd June relating to the terms of arbitration
will not be long delayed.

(The note of the 3rd June quoted above conveyed the sense of your
Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd June.)

On receipt of this reply, which was handed to me by Mr. Wharton, I
expressed my regret and disappointment at the stipulation contained in
it that the Agreement for a Joint Commission should be signed simul-
taneously with the Convention for Arbitration, as the Commission’s
appointment might be thereby indefinitely delayed, with the result
that we should lose this year’s season. He replied that the object
of the stipulation was to make it clear to the public that the Joint
Commission had not been accepted by the United States Government
until it had been definitely agreed that the settlement of the legal
rights in dispute between the two nations should be referred to arbitra-
tion. He assured me that the President was most anxious that the
appointment of the Commission should be early enough to permit 1t to
commence its work during the season. In order to secure this result

780 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

he would do everything in his power to expedite the signature of the
Convention for Arbitration.

I await your Lordship’s further instructions as to the steps I should
now take.

No. 33.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Paunecefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 12, 1891.

Sir: I have received your despatch of the 28th ultimo, inclosing
copies of correspondence with the Acting Secretary of State respecting
the proposed modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

Your note to Mr. Adee of the 27th May is approved by Her Majesty’s
Government.

Tam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 34.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 13.)

DOWNING STREET, June 13, 1891.

Str: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
ae of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which
has been sent to the Governor-General of Canada, respecting the selec-
tion of two British experts on the Joint Commission of inquiry into
the seal fishery in Behring’s Sea.
Iam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 34.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, June 72, 1891.

Shall be glad to know views of your Ministers as to selection of two British
experts Behri ing’s Sea Arbitration.

We think Baden-Pow ell, Member of Parliament, who has studied the question,
would be valuable, and conelude he would be ace eptable to Canada. The other
should have special scientific or practical knowledge of seals and their habits. Can
your Ministers propose well-qualified person ?

18 No. 35.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[ Telegraphic. ]

; FOREIGN OFFICE, June 13, 1891.

Modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

You are authorized to sign the Agreement, recording that you do so
on the clear understanding that there will be no delay in the appoint-
ment of the Commission of Experts.

We will send instructions to our cruizers as soon as we hear that you
have signed.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 781
No. 36.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 13.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, June 13, 1891.

Immediately on the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 13th
instant on the subject of the modus vivendi in Behlring’s Sea, L addressed
a note to the Acting Secretary of State, informing him that I had
received your Lordship’s authorization to sign the modus vivendi, on
the clear understanding that there would be no delay in appointing
the Joint Commission.

The following are the terms of the note which I have received, in
reply, from Mr. Wharton:

The President directs me to say, in response to your note of this date, that his
assent to the proposition for a Joint Commission, as expressed in my note of the 9th
June, was given in the expectation that both Governments would use every proper
effort to adjust the remaining points of difference in the general correspondence
relating to arbitration, and to agree upon the definite terms of a submission, and of
the appointment of a Joint Commission without unnecessary delay.

He is glad that an agreement has finally been reached for the pending season.

The note proceeds with an invitation to call on Monday next, at 10
o’clock, at the State Department, in order to sign the Agreement. I
have received a positive assurance at the State Department that the
President will be prepared to proceed to discuss the terms of arbitra-
tion immediately after the signature of the Agreement.

As this reply appears to me to be satisfactory, I propose to sign on
Monday; but before doing so, [ should be glad if your Lordship would
send me your final authority by telegraph.

INOS ots
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[ Telegraphic. |

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 14, 1891.
Behring’s Sea modus vivendi.
In reply to your telegram of to-day, I have to inform you that you
are authorized to sign the Agreement.

No. 38.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 14.)

|Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, June 14, 1891.

The Acting Secretary of State and [have just signed the Agreement
for a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

I am now awaiting an appointment to continue the discussion of the
terms of arbitration.

The above has been repeated to Lord Stanley.

782 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
19 No. 39.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 15.)

WASHINGTON, June 5, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 3rd instant, I have
the honour to inclose copies of the Momoranda based on your Lord-
ship’s telegrams of the 2nd instant, on the subject of the modus vivendi
in Behring’s Sea, and of the terms of arbitration respectively, which I
left yesterday morning with the Under-Secretary of State.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 39.]
MEMORANDUM.

Proposal of Her Majesty’s Government for a modus vivendi in the Behring’s Sea during
the present Fishery Season.

The Governments of Great Britain and of the United States shall prohibit, until
May 1892, the killing of seals in Belring’s Sea or any islands thereof, and will, to
the best of their power and ability, insure that the subjects and citizens of the two
nations respectively, and the vessels flying their respective flags, shall observe that
prohibition.

2. During the period above specified the United States Government shall have the
right to kill 7,500 seals.

3. Consuls may, at any time, be appointed to the islands in the Behring’s Sea, and
the United States Government will grant an exequatur to any such Consul.

4, Unless the assent of Russia be obtained to this Convention it shall not come
into operation.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1891.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 3$.]
MEMORANDUM.

The Undersigned has been instructed by the Marquis of Salisbury to inform the
United States Government that Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to assent to
the first five questions proposed to be submitted to arbitration in the note of the
Honourable James G. Blaine to the Undersigned, dated the 14th April last.

Her Majesty’s Government cannot give their assent to the sixth question formu-
lated in that note. In lieu thereof they propose the appointment of a Commission
to consist of four experts, of whom two shall be nominated by each Government,
and a Chairman, who shall be nominated by the Arbitrators. The Commission shall
examine and report on the question which follows:

“For the purpose of preserving the fur-seal race in Behring’s Sea from extermina-
tion, what international arrangements, if any, are necessary between Great Britain
and the United States and Russia or any other Power ?”

As regards the question of compensation Her Majesty’s Government propose the
following Article:

“Tt shall be competent to the Arbitrators to award such compensation as in their
judgment shall be equitable to the subjects and citizens of either Power who shall
be shown to have been damnified in the pursuit of the industry of sealing by the
action of the other Power.”

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1891.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 783
20 No. 40.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.*—( Received June 15.)

WASHINGTON, June 5, 1891,

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 4th instant, I have
the honour to inclose a copy of a note which I received yesterday from
the Honourable William Wharton, the Acting Secretary of State, in
reply to the counter-proposals of Her Majesty’s Government for a modus
vivendi in Behring’s Sea, communicated by me to the United States
Government in accordance with the instructions contained in your Lord-
ship’s telegram of the 21d instant.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 40.]
Dlr, Wharton to Sir J, Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 4, 1891.

Srr: I am directed by the President to say, in reply to your note of the 3rd instant,
conveying to the Government of the United States the response of Her Majesty’s
Government to the proposal of Mr. Blaine for a modus vivendi, relating to the seal
fisheries in Behring’s Sea during the present season:

First. In place of the first and second sub-divisions of the Agreement as submitted
by you, the President suggests the following:

1. The Government of Great Britain shall prohibit until May 1892 the killing of
seals in all that part of Behring’s Sea lying east, eastwardly or south-eastwar dly of
the line described in Article I of the Convention between the United States and
Russia of date the 30th March, 1867, and- will promptly take such steps as are best
calculated etfectively to insure the observance of this prohibition by the subjects
and citizens of Great Britain and all vessels flying its flag.

2. The Government of the United States shall prohibit, until May 1892, the killing
of seals i in that part of Behring’s Sea above described, and on the shores and islands
thereof, the property of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the
islands) ; and the Government of the United States will promptly take such steps as
are best calculated effectually to insure the observance of this prohibition by the
citizens of the United States and the vessels flying its flag.

These changes are suggested in order that the modus vivendi may clearly have the

same territorial extent with the pending proposals for arbitration; that the stipula-
tion for a prohibition of seal-killing upon the islands of the United States may rest
upon its own order, and that the obligation of the respective Governments to give
prompt and vigorous effect to the Agreement may be more clearly apparent.

Secondly. The pertinency of the ‘suggestion contained in the third sub-division
of Lord Salisbury’s proposal is not apparent to the President. The Statutes of the
United States explicitly prohibit the landing of any vessels at the seal islands, and
the residence thereon of any person, unless specifically authorized by the Secretary
of the Treasury. .It is, therefore, obvious that no Consular functions could be dis-
charged upon the islands by any Representative of Her Majesty’s Government. The
President regards this Law, as declaring an exception as to the residence of Consuls,
within the meaning of Article IV of the Convention of Commerce and Navigation
of the 22nd December, 1815, between Her Majesty’s Government and the United
States. If the proposal is intended to relate to the Islands of St. Paul and St.
George, and has for its object access for such Agents of the Government of Her
Majesty as may be appointed to investigate facts that may be involved in the pend-
ing proposals for arbitration, or in the hearing before the Arbitrators, I am directed
by the President to say that, in the event of an agreement for arbitration of the
questions in dispute between Great Britain and the United States, he would be will-
ing to extend reasonable facilities to Great Britain for the investigation at the
islands of any facts involved in the controversy.

Thirdly. The fourth clause of the proposal of Her Majesty’s Government, limiting
the taking effect of the modus vivendi upon the assent of Russia, presents what

* Substance telegraphed and received June 4,

184 APPENDIX TO ‘CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

21 seems to the President an insuperable difficulty, as an adherence to that sug-
gestion by Her Majesty’s Government will, in his opinion, prevent the couclu-
sion of any Agreement, and will inevitably cause such a delay as to thwart the
purposes which he must suppose both Governments have had in view. He is sur-
prised that this result did not suggest itself to Lord Salisbury, and does not doubt
that it will be apparent to him on a re-examination. I am also directed to remind
you that the contention between the United States and Great Britain has been lim-
ited to that part of Behring’s Sea eastward of the line of demarkation described in
our Convention with Russia, to which reference has already been made, and that
Russia has never asserted any rights in these waters affecting the subject-matter of
this contention, and cannot, therefore, be a necessary party to these negotiations, if
they are not now improperly expanded. Under the Statutes of the United States,
the President is authorized to prohibit sealing in the Behring’s Sea within the limits
described in our Convention with Russia, and to restrict the killing of seals on the
islands of the United States; but no authority is conferred upon him to prohibit or
make penal the taking of seals in the waters of Belring’s Sea westward of the line
referred to or upon any of the shores or islands thereof. It was never supposed by
any one representing the Government of the United States in this correspondence or
by the President, that an agreement for a modus vivendi could be broader than the
subject of contention stated in the correspondence of the respective Governments.

Negotiations for an arbitration have been proceeding between the United States
and Great Britain, and if these Powers are competent to settle by this friendly method
their respective rights and relations in the disputed waters upon a permanent basis,
it would seem to follow that no question could arise as to their competency to deal
directly with the subject for a single season. If Great Britain now insists upon
impossible conditions, viz., that the conclusion of the modus vivendi is to be delayed
until, and made contingent upon the assent of Russia to stop the killing of seals on
its own islands and in its own waters, and upon the exercise by the President of
powers not conferred by law, this would be, in his opinion, a practical withdrawal
by Great Britain from the negotiations for a modus vivendi. This he would very much
regret, and he confidently hopes that a reconsideration will enable Lord Salisbury
to waive the suggestion of Russia’s participation in the Agreement, and the inclu-
sion of other waters than those to which the contention between the United States
and Great Britain relates.

In case the terms of the modus virendi are agreed upon, the President suggests that
a provision heretofore considered in another connection in the general correspond-
ence, by which the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either party may
arrest any offending vessel and turn it over at the nearest port of the nation whose
flag it carries, for such judicial proceedings as the law provides, should be incorpo-
rated here, the more effectually to carry out the stipulations of the respective Gov-
ernments to prohibit their citizens and vessels from taking seals in the specified
waters of Behring’s Sea.

Having, with a view to an exigency which he has several times caused to be
explained to you, promptly responded to the suggestions of your note of yesterday,
the President directs me to say that he will be pleased to kave from Lord Salisbury
a prompt response to these suggestions.

I am further directed by the President to say that your note of the same date refer-
ring to the conditions of the proposed arbitration, and stating the objection of Lord
Salisbury to some points in the proposal of Mr. Blaine, will have the early attention
of the President.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM F. WHARTON,
Acting Secretary.

No. 41.
Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 15.)

ST. PETERSBURGH, June 10, 1891

My Lorp: When your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant,
respecting the seal question in the Behring’s Sea, reached St. Peters-
burgh on Wednesday morning, I chanced to be in Finland, whither I
had gone for an indispensable change of air. M. de Giers also intended
to proceed thither at the end of the week. The places where we were
respectively staying were a considerable distance apart, and as I was

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 785

not sure which day M. de Giers was leaving St. Petersburgh, I did
22 not know whether to go to the capital or to his country house.

I accordingly telegraphed to Mr. Howard to at once address a
note to the Foreign Office in the sense of your Lordship’s telegram,
and arranged to meet M. de Giers at his country house on Sunday. By
this means no time was lost, for as early as Thursday night) M. Shish-
kine, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had telegraphed the con-
tents of Mr. Howard’s note to M. de Giers, who, when [ reached him on
Sunday, had had the papers connected with the subject sent up to
him, and was in a position to give a provisional reply.

His Excellency’s statement was to the following effect.

The question of seal-hunting in the Behring’s Sea had formed the
subject of continuous negotiation between tie United States Govern-
ment and his own for a very considerable time, and many proposals had
been submitted to him by the United States Department, to none of
which, however, had he been able to give his assent. So far as he could
see, your Lordship’s proposal was very reasonable, and its principle—
namely, to give the seal fisheries a year’s rest, in order to come to a
definite arrangement as to the best means for preventing the destruc-
tion of these valuable animals—was one with which he had the fullest
sympathy. It was impossible, however, to give me au answer off-hand,
because the matter lay not with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but
with that of the Domains. Now it so happened that quite lately the
former Contract of the Government with the Alaska Company had
terminated, and a new Contract with a Russian Company had been
substituted for it. Whether M. Ostrowski, the Minister of the
Domains, would be in a position to put this Contract in abeyance for
the next twelve months, and whether, if he could, he would be able to
do so without bringing the matter again before the Committee of Min-
isters, which would require some time, his Excellency could not tell me
till he received a reply from his colleague. He had written to him to
urge expedition in the matter, and hoped to be able to give me a defi-
nite answer by the middle of the week.

On my return to St. Petersburgh I called upon M. Veshniakoff, the
alter ego of the Minister of Domains, and urged on him the desirability
of expedition. I found him well disposed towards the proposal, and I
may therefore hope that a favourable answer will be given.

On the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 9th instant this
morning, I addressed to M. de Giers a note embodying its contents, and
called in the afternoon on M. Shishkine to urge that it should be imme-
diately sent to the Ministry of Domains. He was not in a position to
discuss the merits of this new departure.

I have the honour to transmit herewith copies of Mr. Howard’s note
of the 4th instant and of mine of to-day’s date.

I have, We.
(Signed) kh. B. D. Monier.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 41.]
Sir R. Morier to M. de Giers.

St. PETERSBURGH, May 23 (June 4), 1891.
M.1LE MINIsTRE: I have been instructed by Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to inform your Excellency that Her Majesty’s Government
have agreed to a proposal of the United States Government to suspend seal-hunting
in the waters and islands of the Behring’s Sea until the month of May next year.

BS; PP y——_50

786 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The two Powers engage to prevent, to the best of their ability, seal-hunting of every
kind on the part of their subjects, with the exception, however, of allowing 7,500
seals to be taken for the support of the Aleuts employed by the Alaska Company.
Lord Salisbury adds that, of course, there can be no question of this Agreement being
signed unless Russia is willing to become a party to the same, and I am accordingly
instructed to inquire of your Excellency whether the Imperial Government would
be disposed to co-operate with the other two Powers concerned in effecting the pro-
posed suspension.

I avail, &c. (For Sir R. Morier),
(Signed) Henry Howarp.
23 {Inclosure 2 in No. 41.]

Sir R. Morier to M. de Giers,

Sr. PETERSBURGH, May 29 (June 10), 1891.

M. Le Ministre: With reference to my note of the 23rd May (4th June), I have
now the honour to inform you that I have received instructions from the Marquis of
Salisbury to point out to yonr Excellency that, owing to the Constitutional limits
placed upon the powers exercised by the Executive Government of the United States,
the proposal of Her Majesty’s Government is limited to the enforcement of a close
season on land and sea, east of the line fixed by the Treaty of 1867. They are accord-
ingly only anxious that Russia should prohibit her subjects from sealing this year to
the east of that line in the open sea (seeing that there is no Russian land on the
eastern side of this boundary), and should authorize us to stop vessels under her
flag engaged in seal-hunting in those waters. The American Government would
appear to be precluded from associating themselves in this request, as they contend
that they have a right to exclude ships of every nationality from this portion of the
Behring’s Sea.

It will clearly be to Russia’s interest to grant this request, as a close season to the
east of the 1867 line will naturally benefit the fishing on its western side.

Tavail, &e.
(Signed) R. B. D. Monier,

No. 42.
Sir #. Malet to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 15.)

BERLIN, June 12, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 3rd
instant, instructing me to ascertain whether the interest taken by the
German Government in the Behring’s Sea seal fishery was such as to
make it advisable to ask their concurrence in the suspension of the
fishery, I have the honour to inform your Lordship that Baron von Mar-
schall told me to-day that his Government did not take sufficient interest
in the matter to make it worth their while to enter upon the lengthy
but necessary process of submitting the matter to the Reichstag for its
sanction to their participation in an Agreement for the suspension of

the fishery.
I have, &e.
(Signed) EDWARD B. MALET.

No. 43.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Reccived June 15.)

| Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1891.

A proclamation has to-day been issued by the President, of which I
Shall send the text by mail to-morrow, embodying the terms of the
Agreement for the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

Kee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. T87

No. 44.
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—(Received June 17.)

ADMIRALTY, June 16, 1891.

Sim: With reference to previous correspondence respecting the Beh-
ring’s Sea seal fishery, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of
the Admiralty to transmit herewith, for the information of the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs , copies of telegrams which have this
day been sent to the Commander: in-chief in China and the Senior Offi-
cer at Esquimalt, directing Her Majesty’s ships “ Porpoise,” ** Nymphe,”
and “ Pheasant” to proceed to Behring’s Sea for fishery duty, and to
carry out the provisions of ‘“¢*The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act,
Tso?

Lam, Xe.
(Signed) Evan MACGREGOR.

24 [Inclosure in No. 44.]

TELEGRAMS SENT TO COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN CHINA AND THE SENIOR OFFICER
AT ESQUIMALT.

To Senior Officer, Esquimalt.

The following Act of Parliament has been passed:

Article 1, clause 1. Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order in Council, prohibit the
catching of seals by British ships in Behring’s 8 Sea, or such part thereof as is defined
by the said Order during the period limited by the Order.

Clause 2. While an Order in Council under this Act is in force, a person belonging
to a British ship shall not kill or take or hunt, or attempt to kill or take, any seal
within Behring’s Sea during the period limited by the Order, and a British ship shall
not, nor shall any of the equipment or crew thereof, be used or employed in such
killing, taking, hunting, or attempt.

Clause 3. If there is any contravention of this Act, any person committing, pro-
curing, aiding, or abetting such contravention shall be guilty of a misdemeanour
within meaning of ‘‘‘The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,” and the ship and her equip-
ment, and ey erything on board thereof, shall be forfeited to Her Majesty as if an
offence had been committed under section 103 of the said Act, and the provisions
of sections 103 and 104 and Part 10 of the said Act shall apply as if they were herein
re enacted, and in terms made applicable to an offence and forfeiture under this Act.

Clause 4. Any commissioned officer on full pay in the naval service of Her Majesty
shall have power, during the period limited by the Order in Council, to stop and
examine any British ship in Behring’s Sea and to detain her or any portion of her
equipment or any of her crew, if in his judgment the ship is being or is preparing
to be used or employed in contravention of this section.

Clause 5. If a British ship is found within Behring’s Sea having on board thereof
fishing or shooting implements or sealskins or bodies of seals, it shall lie on the owner
or master of such ship to prove that the ship was not used or employed in contra-
vention of this Act.

Article 3, clause 1. This Act shall apply to the animal known as the fur-seal, and
to any marine animal specified in that behalf by an Order in Council under this Act,
and the expression ‘‘seal” in this Act shall be construed accordingly.

Clause 2. The expression ‘‘ Behrine’s Sea” in this Act means the seas known as
Behring’s Sea within the limits dese ribed i in an order under this Act;

Clause 3. The expression ‘‘equipment” in this Act includes any boat, tackle, fish-
ing or shooting instruments, and other things belonging to the ship.

Clause 4. This act may be cited as “The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891.”

Order in Council accordingly has been approved. It will only “apply to Behring’ 8
Sea, and only that part of Behring’s Sea which is east of the Russian- American
line: description in se parate telegram.

Your instructions are to proc eed at once with “Nymphe” and Pheasant” Beh-
ring’s Sea and cruize to eastward of above-named line as may be necessary. Every
ship under british colours which in your judgment is hunting seals or preparing to

788 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

do so, if you think she is acting in ignorance of the prohibition or believes herself
to be outside prohibited waters, you may let her go with warning. If a ship is
found deliberately offending, confiscate all her equipment necessary tor sealing, and
record names of ship and master for prosecution afterwards. If you find American
vessel deliberately offending, you are authorized by Convention just signed to arrest
her, and you should record name of captain and vessel, and proof of offence, inform-
ing American authorities. If you can, it will be your duty to co-operate with
American cruizers, who will have similar orders. ‘‘Nymphe” and ‘‘ Pheasant” to
proceed at ounce on this duty. ‘‘Porpoise” will proceed to Hiuliuk Harbour, Ouna-
laska, from China, to be under command of ‘‘ Nymphe,” who will give copy instruc-
tions for guidance. These vessels to remain on this service until close fishing season.
Text of American Proclamation in newspapers of 16th June. Ask for further infor-
mation on any points not clear to you. Acknowledge receipt by telegram.

To Senior Officer, Esquimalt.

With reference to my telegram of 16th June, line of demarcation proceeds in a

course nearly south-west through Behring’s Strait and Behring’s Sea, so as to pass

midway between the north-west point of the Island of St. Lawrence and the

25 south-east point of Cape Tchukotoki to the meridian of 172° west longitude;

thence from the intersection of that meridian in a south-westerly direction so

as to pass midway between the Island of Attou and the Copper Island of the Kor-

mandorski couplet or group in the North Pacific to the meridian of 167° east longi-

tude, so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian Islands
east of that meridian.

To Commander-in-chief, China.

Order ‘‘ Porpoise” to proceed to rendezvous at Iliuliuk Harbour, Ounalaska, Beh-
ring’s Sea, for service on fishery duties; will receive orders from ‘‘ Nymphe.” Order
necessary charts Hong Kong if ‘‘Severn,” ‘ Leander,” have not got them. Coal
ordered from Esquimalt. ‘‘ Severn,” ‘‘ Leander,” ‘“‘ Mercury” are no longer required,
and available for ordinary station work. ‘‘Porpoise” to report by telegraph date
sailing and probable arrival destination.

To Senior Officer, Esquimalt.

Arrange locally to send 1,800 tons coal Hinlink Harbour, Ounalaska, Behring’s Sea,
for ‘‘Nymphe,” ‘‘ Pheasant,” “‘Porpoise.”” Half in time to meet ‘‘ Nyimphe,” ‘‘ Pheas-
ant,” remainder ‘as necessary. ‘‘ Porpoise” joins from China. Report by telegraph
arrangements.

‘ No. 45.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 17, 1891.

Str: The Russian Ambassador to-day explained to me that it was
impossible that his Government should forbid seal-hunting during the
present year upon Russian lands and in Russian waters, because they
had quite recently leased the seal fisheries to a Company, and as the
lease had been solemnly confirmed by the Council of State, it was not
in their power to go back upon it now.

I explained to his Excellency that the American Government, not
possessing the necessary legal power for arresting American vessels in
the western part of Behring’s Sea, had restricted its consent to that
part of Behring’s Sea which lay to the east of the line described in the
Russian-American Treaty of 1867. It consequently followed that all
that we now had occasion to ask of the Russian Government was that
they would permit us to turn back and hinder from seal-hunting any
vessels under the Russian flag which might appear to the east of the
line to which I have referred.

lord

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 789

His Excellency replied that it had been the policy of the Russian
Government to discourage pelagic seal-hunting altogether, and to con-
fine it to the Russian islands, as far as they were concerned; aud that,
as a matter of fact, Russian vessels were not in the habit of hunting
seals to the east of the Russian-American line, and were certainly never
encouraged to do so. He said that he would transmit to M. de Giers a
pressing request.

Tam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 46.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 18.)

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copy of the note which, on
receipt of your Lordship’s telegrain of the 5th instant, I addressed to
the Acting Secretary of State inclosing a Memorandum, copy of which
is likewise inclosed, giving the substance of your Lordship’s above-
mentioned telegram on the subject of the proposed modus vivendi in
Behring’s Sea.

1 have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

26 [Inclosure 1 in No. 46.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

; WASHINGTON, June 6, 1891.

Sir: Immediately on the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, relative to the
proposed modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, I communicated its contents to the Marquis
of Salisbury by telegraph.

I have now the honour to inform you that late last night I received a telegraphic
reply from his Lordship, of which the substance is contained in the inclosed Memo-
randum.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure 2 in No. 46.]
Memorandum.

Her Majesty’s Government accept the proposal of the President that the modus
vivendi, if agreed upon, should provide that the naval or other duly commissioned
officers of either party may arrest any offending vessel and turn it over at the near-
est port of the nation whose flag it carries, for such judicial proceedings as the law
provides.

By accepting this proposal, Her Majesty’s Government give to the cruizers of the
United States the power of supervising the conduct of British subjects in observing
the proposed agreement at sea. This is a concession which, in Lord Salisbury’s
opinion, entitles Her Majesty’s Government to ask from the United States the cor-
responding power of supervising the proceedings of United States citizens on the
Seal Islands. It is on the fidelity with which the condition of not killing more than
7,500 seals is observed that the equality of the proposed agreement depends.

Her Majesty’s Government, therefore, regard it as indispensable that they should
have the right of satisfying themselves that this condition is fully observed by citi-

790 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

zens of the United States. If there be an objection on the part of the United States
Government to issuing an exequatur to a permanent Consul on the Seal Islands, Lord
Salisbury suggests that they can under the Statute specially authorize the residence
thereon of a British Agent during the present season.

His Lordship will not insist on the condition that Russia shall be a party to the
Agreement, but he must earnestly press the United States Government to extend the
prohibition to their citizeus and vessels over the entire area of Behring’s Sea. In
that case Her Majesty’s Government, on their part, will similarly extend the pro-
hibition to British subjects and vessels.

Lord Salisbury points out that, if seal-hunting bé prohibited on one side of a purely
imaginary line drawn in the open ocean, while it is permitted on the other side of
the line, it will be impossible in many cases to prove unlawful sealing, or to infer it
from the possession of skins or fishing tackle. In conciusion, Lord Salisbury states
that Her Majesty’s Government consider it a matter of great importance that the
two Governments should agree on the terms of arbitration at the same time as on a
modus vivendi. ‘The suspension of sealing is not a measure which they could repeat
another year.

No. 47.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.*—( Received June 18.)

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 6th instant, I have
the honour to inclose copy of the note which I received on that day from
the United States Government respecting the proposed modus vivendi
in Behring’s Sea.

I have, &e.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
27 {Inclosure in No. 47.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote. .

WASHINGTON, June 6, 1891.

Sir: Iam directed by the President to say that he has received with great satis-
faction the note of Lord Salisbury of to-day’s date in reply to my note of the 4th
instant. He directs me to ask you to remind Lord Salisbury that the limitation of
the killing of seals upon the islands is absolutely within the control of the United
States, as a daily count is made by sworn officers, and to inform him that already,
in order to insure such control pending these negotiations, the agents of the Treas-
ury Department who have been dispatched to the Seal Islands, have been instructed
to stop the killing when 7,500 have been taken, and to await the arrival of further
orders; though ordinarily the taking of the seals on the islands does not begin until
about the Ist July. The enforcement of. an agreed limitation being so fully in the
control of the United States, the President is sure that Lord Salisbury will not ques-
tion the absolute good faith of this Government in observing its stipulation to limit
the catch to 7,500. This Government could not, of course, consent to any arrange-
ment that implied such a doubt, or involved any foreign supervision on the islands.

If the prompt and effectual recall of the fleet of Canadian sealers now at sea was
as fully within the control of Great Britain, the President would not have suggested
the provision for the arrest by either party of vessels violating the prohibition, but
would have rested confidently in the assurance given by Her Majesty’s Government.

But, in view of the fact that the evidence which the respective Governments will
present to the Arbitrators (if that happy solution of the pending difficulties shall be
attained) must be collected during the present season, and as the definitive Agree-
ment for arbitration cannot be concluded contemporaneously with this Agreement,
the President directs me to say that he is quite willing to agree that Her Majesty’s
Government may send to the Seal Islands with a view to collecting the facts that
may be involved in an arbitration, and especially facts relating to seal life and to

* Substance telegraphed on June 6,

weet el

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 791

the results of the methods which have been pursued in the killing of seals, a suit-
able person or persons to make the necessary observations. ‘The present and the
comparative conditions of the rookeries may become an important consideration
before Arbitrators in a certain event, and the President would not ask that the evi-
dence upon this subject should be wholly from one side. He is desirous that the
prohibition of the killing of seals for this season shall be as wide and absolute as
possible, and will not omit the exercise of any power confided to him by law to pro-
mote that end.

He directs me to assure Lord Salisbury that he is extremely desirous to bring to a
speedy conclusion the pending negotiations for the submission to impartial Ar bitra-
tors of the points of difference between the two Governments, and re erets that, for
reasons which have been explained to you, an immediate answer cannot be returned
to his Lordship’s note upon that subject of the 2nd instant. He feels sure, however,
that the prompt announcement of an agreement for a modus vivendi for this season,
while there is yet time to make it mutually effective, will not fail to have a happy
influence upon the final negotiation.

It is hoped that authority may be given to you, as the Representative of Her
Majesty’s Government at this capital, to conclude immediately, upon the passage of
the Bill now pending in Parliament, the following agreement:

For the purpose of avoiding irrit: ating differences, and with a view to promote a
friendly settlement of the questions pending between the Government of Great
Britain on the one side, and the United States ‘of America on the other, touching the
rights of the respective nations in the Behring’s Sea, the following agreement is
made, which shall have no effect to limit or prejudice the rights or claims of either
Power except as therein expressly stipulated and for the time therein limited:

1. The Government of Great Britain will prohibit until May 1892 the killing of
seals in all that part of the Behring’s Sea lying east, eastwardly, or south-eastwardly
of the line described in Article I of the Convention between the United States and
Russia, of the 30th March, 1867, and will promptly take such steps as are best calcu-
lated effectively to insure the observance of this prohibition by the subjects and
citizens of Great Britain, and all vessels flying its flag.

2. The Government of the United States will prohibit until May 1892 the killing
of seals in that part of Belring’s Sea above described, and on the shores and islands
thereof, the property of the United States (except that 7,500 seals and no more may

be taken on the islands), and the Government of the United States will promptly
28 take such steps as are best calculated effectively to assure the observance of

this prohibition by the citizens of the United States, and the vessels flying
its flag.

3. All vessels or persons violating the laws of their respective Governments in this
regard outside the ordinary territorial limits may be seized and detained by the naval
or other duly commissioned officers of either of the High Contracting Parties, but
they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to the ‘authorities of the nation to
which they respectively belong for trial and for the imposition of the penalties and
forfeitures provided by law.

4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make with a view to the presentation of the case of that Government before
Arbitrators, and in the expectation that an agreement for arbitration may ultimately
be reached, it is agreed that a suitable person or persons to be designated by Great
Britain will be permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon
the seal islands during the present sealing season, for that purpose.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. F. WHARTON.

No. 48.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 18.)

DOWNING STREET, June 17, 1891.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 10th instant, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you a copy of the reply which he
caused to be returned to the letter from the High Commissioner for
Canada, forwarding a protest from the British Columbia Board of Trade
‘against the prohibition of sealing in Behring’s Sea this season. I am,
at the same time, to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of

792 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. ‘I
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
forwarding copies of telegraphic protests against the prohibition from
the Premier of British Columbia, and from the British Columbian
sealers.

Lord Knutsford proposes, if Lord Salisbury concurs, to refer the
Governor-General to the despatch which has been sent to him contain-
ing the correspondence with the High Commissioner, and to desire him
to reply to these telegrams in similar terms to the reply addressed to
the High Commissioner on the 13th instant.*

I am, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 48.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Otlawa, June 3, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of to-day, I have the honour to ineclose
herewith copies of telegrams from the Premier of British Columbia, and from the
British Columbia sealers, protesting against the Bill prohibiting sealing in the Beh-
ring’s Sea.
I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 48.—Telegraphic.]

Mr. Robson to Mr. Dewdney.
JUNE 2, 1891.

British Columbia sealers strongly protest against close season this year as it would
ruin them, all their preparations and contracts having been made. Please wire me
when it is intended closed season shall commence.

29 [Inclosure 3 in No. 48.—Telegraphice. ]

Mr. Cox to Mr. Tupper.
JUNE 1, 1891.
3ritish Columbia sealers ask you to protest against Bill prohibiting sealing Beb-
ring’s Sea. Very unjust tous. Heavy capital invested; would ruin many here.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 48.]
Colonial Office to Six C. Tupper.

DOWNING STREET, June 18, 1891.

Sir: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 3rd instant, forwarding copy of a telegram from the President of the Board
of Trade of British Columbia, protesting against the proposed prohibition of sealing
in Behring’s Sea this season.

Iam to point out to you, in reply, that as the total cessation of sealing in Behring’s
Sea will greatly enhance the value of the produce of the coast fishery, Her Majesty’s
Government do not anticipate that British sealers will suffer to any great extent by
exclusion from Behring’s Sea.

They will be prepared, however, to consider any case in which it is clearly estab-
lished that direct loss has been suffered by a British subject through the enforce-.
ment of the prohibition against sealing in Behring’s Sea.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

* See No. 18, and Inclosure 4 in No. 48, infra.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 793

No. 49.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received June 18.)

DOWNING STREET, June 18, 1891.
Srr: Iam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a paraphrase of a telegram
which was sent to the Governor-General of Canada respecting the nom-
ination of the British members of the Commission of Experts, together
with a paraphrase of the reply which has been received.
Lord Knutsford presumes that Lord Salisbury will submit the names
of Sir G. Baden-Powell and Mr. Dawson for Her Majesty’s approval.
lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 49.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Knutsferd to Lord Stanley of Picsion.

DOWNING STREET, June 16, 1891.
Please inform me by telegraph as soon as you can of the name of Canadian expert
to be associated with Sir George Baden-Powell. The names have to be submitted to
Her Majesty. It is proposed that Sir G. Baden-Powell should proceed shortly to
Ottawa to consult with your Government.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 49.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT House, Oltawa, June 17, 1891.
My Lorn: I had the honour to send to your Lordship to-day a telegraphic message
in cypher, of which the following is the substance:
With reference to your message of yesterday’s date, Dawson, of the Geological
Survey of Canada, is recommended by the Dominion Government.
You could not, I think, have a better representative.
Baden-Powell’s appointment is concurred in by the Canadian Government.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

30 No. 50.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 18, 1891.
Sir: With reference to your despatch of the 10th instant, I transmit
herewith, for your Excellency’s information, two copies of the text of
an Agreement between this country and the United States which Sir
J. Pauncefote has been authorized to sign for a modus vivendi in Beh-
ring’s Sea until May 1892.
Sir J. Pauncefote has reported, by telegraph, that this Agreement
was signed at Washington on the 15th instant.
As soon as the Agreement is received as signed, a copy will be for-
warded to you for communication to the Russian Government.
I am, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

(92 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 51.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 19, 1891.
Sir: I have received your Excellency’s despatch of the 10th instant,
reporting a conversation with M. de Giers respecting the proposal that
Russia should join in the Agreement for a modus vivendi in Behring’s
Sea which was in negotiation, and has since been concluded between
this country and the United States.
Your Excellency’s proceedings with regard to this matter are
approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
Tam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 52.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 19, 1891.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, inclosing a copy of a despatch
from Lord Stanley of Preston, with copies of telegrams from the Pre-
mier of British Columbia and the British Columbian sealers protesting
against the prohibition of sealing in Behring’s Sea for this season.

I am to request that you will state to the “Secretary of State for the
Colonies that his Lordship concurs in the reply which it is proposed to
return to the Governor-General’s despatch.

lam, &e.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 53.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 20.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 20, 1891,

With reference to Behring’s Sea negotiations, the return of the Pres-
ident to Washington from the seaside is expected on Tuesday, the 23rd,
and at the State ‘Department Lam assured that he will then proceed at
once with the subjects that remain for negotiation. All preparations
for this purpose have been made, and I pressed urgently that during
his absence negotiations might still go on; but the President’s assent
could not be obtained.

31 No. 54.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir. J. Pauneefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 20, 1891.
Str: I have received your despatch of the 9th instant, inclosing
copies of a note and Memorandum addressed by you to the United
States Acting Secretary of State, on the proposed modus vivendi in
Behring’s Sea.

— Gearnotecatnt

sei

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 795

The terms of your communication are approved by Her Majesty’s
Government.
1am, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

INO. OD:
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received June 21.)
[Velegraphie.]

WASHINGTON, June 21, 1891.

The United States Government have furnished me with a copy of
the instructions issued to their cruizers, under the 5rd Article of the
modus vivendi.

Iam sending a copy of the note inclosing them to your Lordship by
next mail.

The following is a Summary of them:

The * Mohic an,” the “ Thetis,” and the “ Alert,” and possibly other
eruizers, will be employed in Behri ing’s Sea.

The “Thetis” i is to proceed immediately to Sand Point, the rendez-
vous of the Canadian sealers, before they enter Behring’s Sea, and dis-
tribute copies of the President’s Proclamation, giving notice to all
sealing-vessels, and taking a list of all vessels warned. She will pro-
ceed to Ounalaska as soon as the Canadian catch has been transhipped
at Sand Point, about July 1

The “ Mohican” and “ Alert” will proceed at once to the seal islands
and cruize two weeks in Behring’s Sea, distributing the President’s
Proclamation, and warn all vessels found engaged in sealing to leave
the prohibited waters immediately, recor ding, by an entry in the ves-
sel’s log, that she has been warned. Both will then rendezvous with
the “ Thetis” at Ounalaska, whither all persons and vessels seized are
to be sent. <A chartered steamer will be ready at this port with a
marine guard to assist in handing over the persons and vessels seized
to their respective authorities.

The United States Government would be glad to have a copy of the
instructions which have been issued to Her Majesty’s ships detailed for
service in Behring’s Sea.

No. 56.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 22.

WASHINGTON, June 12, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to my telegrams of the 9th, 10th, and 11th
June, | have the honour to inclose herewith copies of the correspond-
ence referred to therein, relative to a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea,
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

796 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 56.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, June 8, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 6th instant,
containing the terms of a proposed Agreeme nt for a modus vivendi during the present
seal fishery season in Behring’s Sea, which I communicated at once by “telegraph to
the Marquis of Salisbury.

I have this day received a reply from his Lordship, in which he transmits a draft
of the proposed Agreement, with certain modifications and additions.

I beg to inclose acopy of it, and to request that you will be good enough to submit
it to your Government for their consideration.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

32 : {Inclosure 2 in No. 56.)
Tr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 9, 1891.

Stmr: Iam directed by the President, in response to your note of the sth June,
delivered this morning, to say that he regrets that at the moment when the two
Governments seemed to have reached an agreement in this matter, which is one call-
ing for the utmost promptness of action, new conditions should be suggested by
Lord Salisbury. With the acceptance of the proposition submitted in my last note
relating to permission to British agents to visit the seal islands, an agreement had
been reached upon all the conditions that had been previously discussed or sug-
gested in this connection. The President does not object to the modification of his
proposal suggested in the first Article submitted by you, for he assumes that the
terms used, w vhile not as strong perhaps as those suggested by this Government, do
fully commit the Government of Great Britain to prompt and energetic measures in
the repression of the killing of seals by the subjects and vessels of “that nation.

The proposals submitted ‘by you on the 3rd June contain this clause:

“During the period above specified the United States Government shall have the
right to kill 7,500 seals.” Now his Lordship adds a most extraordinary and not
altogether clear condition (I quote): “ to be taken on the shores and islands as food
skins, and not for tax or shipment.”

This new condition is entirely inadmissible, and, in the opinion of the President,
inconsistent with the assent already given by Her Majesty’s Government to the
proposition of the United States in that behalf.

tt had been particularly explained in the correspondence that the lessees of the
privilege of taking seals upon the islands assumed obligations to supply to the
natives the food and other things necessary for their subsistence and comfort, and
that the taking of the limited number of seals was not only to supply flesh to the
natives, but, in some part, to recompense the Company for furnishing other neces-

sary articles of food, clothing, and tuel. The President is surprised that it should
now be suggested that none of these skins should be removed from the islands, and
he cannot understand how British interests can be promoted by allowing them to
go to waste.

The previous communications of Her Majesty’s Government had, in the opinion of
President, concluded this matter.

As to the third clause of your proposition, | am directed to say that the contention
between the United States and Great Britain has relation solely to the respective
rights of the two Governments in the waters of Behring’s Sea outside of the ordi-
nary territorial limits, and the stipulations for the co-operation of the two Govern-
ments during this season have, of course, the same natural limitation.

This is recognized in Articles 1 and 2 of your proposal, for you will observe that
the obligation assumed by Her Majesty’s Government is to prohibit seal-killing in a
certain part of Behring’s Sea, whereas the obligation assumed in the second Article
by the Government of ‘the United States is to prohibit seal-killing in the same part
of Behring’s Sea, and the shores and islands thereof the property of the United
States.

The killing, therefore, of seals on the islands, or within the territorial waters of
the United States, falls only within the prohibition of this Government. His Lord-
ship will also see that it is altogether beyond the power of the President to stipu-
late that an offence committed in the undisputed territory of the United States

eect tA

APPINDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 97

against its laws shall be triable only in the Courts of another nation. The exten-
sion of this clause to the territory and territorial waters of the United States, there-
fore, involves an insuperable legal difficulty on our part, and a concession which no
independent Government could “be expected to make. The mutual police which 1s
to be stipulated for could not in the nature of things apply to the territorial waters
within the undisputed and exclusive jurisdiction of either.

To the fourth clause, which is in substance the same as the proposition made by
this Government, no objection is interposed.

As to the fifth clause, I am directed to say that the President regards the proposi-
tion to appoint a Joint Commission to investigate and report as to what Regulations
or International Agreements are necessary to preserve the seal fisheries to be one of
the incidents of the Agreement for Arbitration, and to have no proper place here.
This distinction seems to have been recognized by his Lordship, and his proposal of
such a Commission was made part of the separate note discussing the terms of arbi-

tration presented by you on the 3rd June, and has never until now appeared in
33 the correspondence relating to a modus vivendi. The President thinks the

fourth clause, which has been accepted, makes ample present provision, but
will give a full consideratiou to the suggestion of a Joint Commission in connection
with the negotiation for arbitration.

To the sixth and last clause, the President directs me to say that so far as he is
aware no vessel bearing the Russian flag has at any time intruded into the waters
described in the proposed Agreement. He is entirely in sympathy with the expressed
desire of Lord Salisbury to secure such limitations as to the hunting of seals in the
whole of Behring’s Sea as will preserve to mankind this valuable industry, but he
does not think that an agreement to unite in any joint note to Russia should be inter-
posed here and at this time. Moreover, Lord Salisbury will perceive that, in the
present state of the American law, if Russia should ask for reciprocal action by this
Government west of the Treaty line, the President would be confronted with the
same difficulty that prevented him from extending the Agreement with Her Majesty’s
Government to the whole of Behring’s Sea.

As the President understands, the adhesion of the two Governments has been given
in this correspondence to the following propositions:

“For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote
friendly settlement of the questions pending between the two Governments touching
their respective rights in Behriny’s Sea, and for the preservation of the seal species,
the following Agreement is made without prejudice to the rights or claims of either
party:

“Article 1. Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit until May next seal-killing in
that part of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in
Article Lof the Treaty of 1867 bet ween the United States and Russia, and will promptly
use its best efforts to insure the observance of this Deion by British subjects and
vessels.

“Art. 2. The United States Government will prohibit ‘seal- killing for the same
period in the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof the
property of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands tor the
subsistence and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure
the observation of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

“Art. 3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters
of Behring’s Sea, outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States, may
be seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of
the High Contracting Parties; but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable
to the ‘authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone
have jurisdiction to try the offence and impose the penalties for the same. The
witnesses and proofs necessary to establish the offence shall also be sent with them.

“Art. 4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government
may desire to make with a view to the presentation of the Case of that Government
before Arbitrators, and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration may be
arrived at, it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be
permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal islands
during the present sealing season for that purpose.”

The President directs me to inform you that the Government of the United States
is ready to conclude this Agreement if it can be put into force immediately. The
value of such an Agreement to the United States is daily lessening, and the President
therefore feels that he must ask that the negotiations be brought to a speedy deter-
mination.

I have, &c,
(Signed) W. F. WHARTON.

7198 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 56.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, June 10, 1891,

Srr: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th June,
delivered this day, in reply to my note of the 8th, in which I t1 ‘ansmitted, for the
consideration of your Government, the draft of the proposed Agreement for a modus
vivendi during the present fur-seal fishery season in Behring’s Sea, with certain modi-
fications and l additions suggested therein by the Marquis of Salisbury i

Ihave telegraphed the ‘substance of your note under reply to his Lordship, and I

hope to be able to communicate to you his observations thereon in the course
34 of to-morrow or the following day. In the meanwhile, with reference to the

complaint that new conditions should have been suggested at this stage by
Lord Salisbury. I would beg leave to point oat that all his ‘Lordship’ 8 suggestions
are obviously dictated by a “desire to render the modus virendi more effective, and to
do all that is possible in the common interest for the protection and preservation of
the seal species during the present season. In my humble opinion, therefore, it is to
be regretted that those suggestions should not have commended themselves to the
favourable consideration of the President. Thus, the object of the proposed inser-
tion in Article 2 of the words, ‘‘food skins, and not for tax and shipment,” which
you qualify as extraordinary, was not to prevent the export and sale of the 7,500 food
skins, of which the proceeds were intended to cover the cost of food, clothing, fuel,
and other necessaries for the natives. Its sole object was to stop the injurious prac-
tice of driving and redriving the herds to the killing grounds for selection, which is
resorted to in the case of seals killed for “tax and shipment,” and is stated by
experts to be the main cause of the depletion of male seal life on the islands.

I would refer you on this point to the Report of Special Treasury Agent Ch. J.
Goff, laid before Congress (Ex. Doc. 49), pp. 2 and 29. Also to the Report of Assistant
Treasury Agent Joseph Murray, at p.8, and that of Assistant Treasury Agent A. W.
Lavender, at p.9 of the same Congressional Paper.

As regards Lord Salisbury’s proposal of the Joint Commission, it is by no means a
new one. It has long been called for by public opinion in both countries. It was
inserted among Lord Salisbur y’s last proposals for the Arbitration Agreement, in the
expectation that the latter document would be s signed contemporancously with the
Agreement for a modus vivendi; but, as your Government is not prepared to bring
the arbitration negotiation to a conclusion without further consideration, and as it is
of the highest importance that the Joint Commission should be appointed at once,
in order to enter upon its functions during the present fishery season, Lord Salis-
bury has had no alternative but to urge the insertion of the Article providing for a
Joint Commission in the Agreement for the modus vivendi, of which it should, in the
opinion of Her Majesty’s Gov ernment, be a component part. The objection of the
President to that Article in the modus virendi appears to me to create the greatest
difficulty which has yet presented itself in the course of this negotiation, and I earn-
estly hope that if Lord Salisbury should be disposed to waive the other conditions
to which exception is taken in your note, the President will on his part accede to his
Lordship’s wishes in respect of the Joint Commission.

IT have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 4 in No. 56.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, June 17, 1891.

Srr: With reference to my note of yesterday, and especially to the concluding
part of it, I have the honour to inform you that I have this day received by tele-
graph from the Marquis of Salisbury a reply to the proposal for a modus vivendi dur-
ing the present fur-seal fishery season in Behring’s Sea contained in your note of the
9th June.

His Lordship states that the President’s refusal to adopt his suggestion with
respect to Russia renders the proposed modus vivendi much less valuable, and that he
is reluctant to abandon the words which he had proposed for insertion in Article 2
in relation to the reservation of the 7,500 seals to be killed on the islands.

Nevertheless, in view of the urgency of the case, his Lordship is disposed to author-
ize me to sign the Agreement in the precise terms formulated in your note of the 9th
June, provided the question of a Joint Commission be not left in doubt, and that your

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 199

Government will give an assurance in some form that they will concur in a reference
to a Joint Commission to ascertain what permanent measures are necessary for the
preservation of the fur-seal species in the Northern Pacific Ocean,

I have the honour, therefore, to inquire whether the President 1s prepared to give
that assurance, and, if so, I shall, on receipt of it, lose no time in communicating it
by telegraph to Lord Salisbury, and in applying to his Lordship for authority to sign
the proposed Agreement.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

35 {Inclosure 5 in No. 56.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 11, 1891.
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of to-day’s date,
and, in reply, 1 am directed by the President to say that the Government of the
United States, recognizing the fact that full and adequate measures for the protec-
tion of seal life should embrace the whole of Behring’s Sea and portions of the North
Pacific Ocean, will have no hesitancy in agreeing, in connection with Her Majesty’s
Government, to the appointment of a Joint Commission to ascertain what permanent
measures are necessary for the preservation of the seal species in the waters referred
to; such an Agreement to besigned simultaneously with the Convention for arbitra-
tion, and to be without prejudic e to the questions to be submitted to the Arbitrators.
A full reply to vour note of the drd June, relating to the terms of arbitration, will

not be long delayed.
I hay e, &e.
(Signed) WILLIAM I, WHARTON.

No. 57.
Sir 7. Malet to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June aaa)

BERLIN, June 18, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 5rd
instant, and to mine of the 12th instant, I have the honour to inform
your Lordship that Baron von Marschall told me to-day that he intends
to publish in the official Gazette a translation of the Agreement between
England and the United States in regard to the Behring’s Sea seal
fishery, and to accompany it with an injunction to German subjects to

observe its regulations.
I have, We.
(Signed) E. B. MALE’.

No. 58.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 22, 1891.

I have received your telegram of yesterday, containing a summary
of the instructions issued by the United States Government to their
cruizers for carrying into effect the modus vivendi Agreement in Beh-
ring’s s Sea,

800 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN

The following are the instructions issued to the Senior Naval Officer
of Her Majesty’s ships at Esquimalt:

He is to proceed with Her Majesty’s ship ‘“‘Nymphe” and Her
Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” to Behring’s Sea, to cruize to the eastward
of the line of demarcation as he may find necessary, and to warn all
British ships which he may find acting contrary to the Agreement
between the two Governments, and in ignorance of its provisions.
Should he find a ship deliberately offending, her sealing equipment is
to be confiscated, and the names of the ship and master are to be
recorded for the purpose of prosecution subsequently. Should he find
an American ship deliberately offending, he is to arrest her, the names
of the captain and vessel and proof of offence are to be recorded, and
the American authorities are to be informed.

He has orders to co-operate with the American cruizers.

Her Majesty’s ship “ Porpoise” will be also under his command, and
has for that purpose been ordered to join him from the China Station.

36 No. 59.
Admiralty to Forcign Office.—(Received June 23.)

ADMIRALTY, June 22, 1891.

Str: My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty having received a
copy of Sir J. Pauncefote’s telegraphic despatch of the 21st June, 1891,
giving the substance of the instructions issued by the Government of
the United States to cruizers about to proceed to Behring’s Sea, and
requesting that a copy of the British instructions may be sent, I am
commanded by their Lordships to transmit herewith a copy of the tele-
graphic instructions sent to the Senior Naval Officer at Esquimalt on
the 16th June.*

From this it will be seen that the five clauses of Article 1 and four
clauses of Article 3 of “The Seal Fishery’(Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891,”
have been telegraphed in full, together with the definition of the Russian-
American line of demarcation, with additional instructions, as marked
in red ink, in the margin of the inclosure to this letter.

Her Majesty’s ships “Nymphe” and “ Pheasant” will, under these
orders, leave Esquimalt on or about the 26th instant, and will be joined
by Her Majesty’s ship “ Porpoise,” from China, about the 21st July.

Iam, We.
(Signed) EvAN MACGREGOR.

No. 60.
Council Office to Foreign Office.—( Received June 24.)

COUNCIL OFFICE, Whitehall, June 24, 1891.

Str: I am directed by the Lord President of the Council to transmit
to you the accompanying Order of Her Majesty in Couneil of the 25rd
instant, entitled, ‘The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Order in Council,
1891.”

* See Inclosure in No, 44.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 8Ol

Directions have been given for the publication of this Order to-day
in a Supplement to yesterday’s “ London Gazette,” and [am to request
that you will lay the same before the Secretary of State for Horeign
Affairs.

Iam, Xe.
(Signed) C. L. PEEL.

{Inclosure in No. 60.]
At the Court at Windsor, the 23rd day of June, 1591,
Present:

THE QUEEN’S Most EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

Lord President. Earl of Limerick.
Marquis of Salisbury. Lord Arthur Hill.

Whereas by ‘‘The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891,” it is enacted that Her
Majesty the Queen may by Order in Council prohibit the catching of seals by British
ships in Behring’s Sea, or such part thereof as is defined by the said Order, during
the period limited by the Order:

And whereas the expression ‘‘ Behring’s Sea” in the said Act means the seas known
as Behring’s Sea within the limits described in an Order under the said Act:

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in virtue of the powers vested in her by the said
recited Act, by and with the advice of her Privy Council, is hereby pleased to order,
and it is hereby ordered, as follows:

1. This Order may be cited as the Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Order in Council,
1891.

2. From and after the 24th day of June, 1891, until the Ist day of May, 1892, the
catching of seals by British ships in Behring’s Sea as hereinafter defined is hereby

prohibited.
37 3. For the purposes of the said recited Act and of this Order the expression

‘‘ Behring’s Sea” means so much of that part of the Pacifie Ocean known as
Behring’s Sea as lies between the paralle} of 65° 30/ north latitude and the chain of
the Aleutian Islands, and eastward of the following line of demarcation, that is to
say, a line commencing at a point in Behring’s Straits on the said parallel of 65° 30!
north latitude, at its intersection by the meridian which passes midway between the
Islands of Krusenstern or Innalook and the Island of Ratmanotf or Noonarbook;
and proceeding thence in a course nearly south-west through Behring’s Straits and
the seas known as Behring’s Sea, so as to pass midway between the north-west point
of the Island of St. Lawrence and the south-east point of Cape Choukotski to the
meridian of 172° west longitude; thence from the intersection of that meridian in a
south-westerly direction, so as to pass midway between the Island of Attou and the
Copper Island of the Kormandorski couplet or group in the North Pacific Ocean, to
the meridian of 195° west longitude.

(Signed) C. L. PEEL.

No. 61.

Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 24.)
[Telegraphic. ]

Sr. PETERSBURGH, June 24, 1891.

I have the honour to inquire of your Lordship whether, by the 3rd
section of the Agreement to prohibit the killing of seals in certain parts
of the Behring’s Sea, the two Contracting Parties are empowered to
seize and detain vessels other than British or American, as also per-
sous other than American citizens or British subjects.

B.S, PPW ol

S02 APPENDIX 'TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 62.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir G. Baden-Powell and Dr, Dawson.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 24, 1891,
JENTLEMEN: The Queen having been graciously pleased to appoint
you to be her Commissioners for the purpose of oe ¢ into the con-
ditions of seal life in Behring’s Sea and other parts of the North Pacific
Ocean, I transmit to you herewith Her ee Rane Commission under
the Sign Manual to that effect.

The main object of your inquiry will be to pe eeciaint “What inter-
national arrangements, if any, are necessary between Great Britain
and the United States, and Russia or any other Power, for the purpose
of preserving the fur-seal race in Behring’s Sea from extermination ?”

Her Majesty’s Government have proposed to the United States that
the investigation should be conducted by a Commission to consist of
four experts, of whom two shall be nominated by each Government,
and a Chairman, who shall be nominated by Arbitrators.

If the Government of the United States agree to this proposal, you
will be the Delegates who will represent Great Britain in the Comnis-
sion.

But in the meanwhile it is desirable that you should at once com-
mence your examination of the question, and that for that purpose you
should proceed as soon as you conveniently can to Vancouver, from
whence the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have been requested
to provide for your conveyance to the various sealing grounds and
other places which it may be expedient for you to visit.

Application has been made to the United States Government for
permission for you to visit the seal islands under their jurisdiction, and
a Similar request will be addressed to the Russian Government in the
event of your finding it necessary to visit the Commander Islands and
other Kussian sealing grounds.

oe attention should be particularly devoted to ascertaining—

. The actual facts as regards the alleged serious Wee of seal
life on the Pribylofft islantls. the date at which such diminution began,
the rate of its progress, and any previous instance of a similar occur-
rence.

2. The causes of such diminution; whether, and to what extent, it is
attributable—

(a.) To a migration of the seals to other rookeries.

(b.) To the method of killing pursued on the islands themselves.

(c.) To the increase of sealing upon the high seas, and the manner in

which it is pursued.
38 I need scarcely remind you that your investigation should be
carried on with strict impartiality, that you should neglect no
sources of information which may be likely to assist you in arriving at
a sound conclusion, and that great care should be taken to sift the
evidence that is brought before - you.

It is equally to the ‘interest of all the Governments concerned in the
sealing industry that it should be protected from ail serious risk of
extinction in consequence of the use of wasteful and injudicious
methods. .

You will be provided with all the documentary evidence in the pos-
session of this Department which is likely to be of assistance to you
in the prosecution of your inquiry.

Mr. A. Froude has been appointed to be your Secretary, and will
accompany you on your tour.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 803

Separate despatches will be addressed to you with regard to the
expenses of your mission, and the form in which your correspondence
with this Office should be conducted.

Iam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 63.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 25.)

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 13th
instant, authorizing me to sign the Agreement for a modus vivendi in
Behring’s Sea, instructing me at the same time to record that I signed
it on the clear understanding that the Commission of Experts would
be appointed without delay to visit the seal islands, I have now the
honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of a note which I addressed
to the Honourable William Wharton, Acting Secretary of State, in the

above sense, as well as a copy of his reply thereto.
I have, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 63.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, June 13, 1891,

Sir: I lost no time in telegraphing to the Marquis of Salisbury the contents of
your note of the 11th June, couveying the assent of your Government to the
appointment, in connection with Her Majesty’s Government, of a Joint Commission
for the purposes mentioned in my note to you of the same date, such Agreement to
be signed simultaneously with the Convention for Arbitration, and to be without
prejudice to the questions to be submitted to the Arbitrators. I informed his Lord-
ship, at the same time, that in handing me the note under reply you had assured
me that the President was anxious that the Commission should be appointed in
time to commence its work this season, and that your Government would, on that
account, use their utmost efforts to expedite the signature of the Arbitration Con-
vention.

I now have the honour to inform you that I have this day received a telegraphic
reply from his Lordship, in which, while conveying to me authority to sign the
proposed Agreement for a modus vivendi contained in your note of the 9th June, Lord
Salisbury desires me to place on record that it is signed by me on the clear under-
standing that the Joint Commission will be appointed without delay.

On that understanding, therefore, I shall be prepared to attend at the State
Department, for the purpose of signing the Agreement, at such time as you may be
good enough to appoint.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

39 {Inclosure 2 in No. 63.]

Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, June 13, 1891.
Sir: The President directs me to say, in response to your note of this date, that
his assent to the proposition for a Joint Commission, as expressed in my note of the
9th June, was given in the expectation that both Governments would use every

804 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

proper effort to adjust the remaining points of difference in the general correspond-
ence relating to arbitration, and to agree upon the definite terms of a submission,
and of the appointment of a Joint Commission without unnecessary delay.

He is glad that an agreement has finally been reached for the pending season, and
I beg to say that, if you will call at the Departinent at 10 o’clock on Monday next,
I will be glad to put into writing and give formal attestation to the modus vivendi
which has been agreed upon.

I have, &c. Z
(Signed) W. F. Wiarton.

No. 64.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 25.)

W ASHINGTON, June 16, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit herewith copy of the A gree-
ment for the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, which I signed yesterday
in accordance with the instructions contained in your Lordship’s tele-
gram of the 14th instant.

I will torward the original Agreement by next mail.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 64.]

Agreement between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and the Government of the
United States for a Modus Vivendi in relation to the Fur-seal Fisheries in Behring’s
Sea.

For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote the
friendly settlement of the questions pending between the two Governments touch-
ing their respective rights in Behring’s Sea, and for the preservation of the seal
species. the following Agreement is made without prejudice to the rights or claims
of either party: ‘

1. Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit, until May next, seal-killing in that
partof Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in Article
I of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly
use its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects
and vessels.

2. The United States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period in
the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof the property
of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsist-
ence and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the
observance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters of
Behring’s Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States may be
seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the
High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to
the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who-shall alone have
jurisdiction to try the offence and impose the penalties for the same. The witnesses
and proofs necessary to establish the offence shall also be sent with them.

4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the Case of that Government
before Arbitrators, and in expectation that an Agreement for arbitration may be
arrived at, it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be per-
mitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal islands

during the present sealing season for that purpose.
40 Signed and sealed in duplicate at Washington, this 15th day of June, 1891, on
behalf of their respective Governments, by Sir Julian Pauncefote, G.C.M.G.,
K. C. B., Her Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,
and William #. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State of the United States.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
WILLIAM F. WHARTON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 805

No. 65.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received June 25.)

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I have
the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship copy of the Procla-
mation which has been issued by the President giving effect to the
Agreement for a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea for the present season.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 65.]
Modus Vivendi respecting the Fur-seal Fisheries in Behring’s Sea.
By THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A Proclamation.

Whereas an Agreement for a modus vivendi between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, in relation to the fur-seal
fisheries in Behring’s Sea, was concluded on the 15th day of June, in the year of our
Lord 1891, word jor word as follows:

“Aqreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty for a Modus Vivendi in relation to the Fur-seal Fisheries in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

“For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote
the friendly settlement of the questions pending between the two Governments
touching their respective rights in Behring’s Sea, and for the preservation of the seal
species, the following Agreement is made without prejudice to the rights or claims
of either party.

“1, Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit, until May next, seal-killing in that
part of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in Article
I of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly use
its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects and
vessels.

“2. The United States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period
in the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof the property
of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence
and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observ-
ance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

“3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters of
Behring’s Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States may be
seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the
High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to
the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone have
jurisdiction to try the offence and impose the penalties for the same. The witnesses
and proofs necessary to establish the offence shall also be sent with them.

“4. In order to facilitate such proper inquires as her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the Case of that Government before
Arbitrators, and in expectation that an Agreement for arbitration may be arrived at,
it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be permitted at
any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal islands during the

present sealing season for that purpose.
41 “Signed and sealed in duplicate at Washington, this 15th day of June, 1891,
on behalf of their respective Governments, by William F. Wharton, Acting
Secretary of State of the United States, and Sir Julian Paunecefote, G. C. M. G.,
kK. C. B., Her Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary.

[SEAL. ] “WILLIAM IF, WHARTON.
[SEAL. | “JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.”

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United
States of America, have caused the said Agreement to be made public, to the end

806 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

that the same and every part thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith
by the United States of America and the citizens thereof.

In witness whereof I have hereunto-set my hand and caused the seal of the United
States to be aflixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 15th day of June, in the year of our Lord
1891, and of the Independence of the United States the 115th.

[SEAL. ] (Signed) BEeNJ. HARRISON.
By the President :
(Signed) WILLIAM EF. WHARTON,

Acting Secretary of State.

No. 66.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 25.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 25, 1891.
Your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant: Behring’s Sea arbitra-
tion.
I have this evening received the following note from the Acting
Secretary of State:

[See Inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of the 26th June: Inclosure in No.
82, infra. ]

N0:167:.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

[ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 25, 1891.
In reply to your telegram of yesterday, I have to inform you that the
Agreement for a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea is only applicable to
the subjects or citizens of the two Contracting Powers.
General jurisdiction over the whole region specified in the Agreement
has been claimed by the United States, but this claim has been dis-
puted by Her Majesty’s Government.

No. 68.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

| Telegraphice. |
FOREIGN OFFICE, June 26, 1891.

Sir George Baden-Powell is waiting to start on his mission to inquire
into the conditions of seal life in Behring’s Sea, and the season is run-
ning out.

You should urge the United States Government to give the neces-
Sary permission to the British Commissioners to visit the Pribyloff
Islands without delay.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 807

No. 69.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 26.)
[Telegraphic.]
WASHINGTON, June 26, 1891.
The State Department have informed me, in reply to the inquiry
which I have made, in conformity with the instructions con-
42 tained in your Lordship’s telegram of to-day’s date, that the for-
mal permission to Her Majesty’ s Commissioners to land on the
Pribyloff Islands will be sent to me to-day.
I propose to send this permission to Consul-General Booker, and to
instruct him to deliver it to Sir George Baden-Powell immediately on
the arrival of the latter in New York.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received June 26.)
[Telegraphic.]
WASHINGTON, June 26, 1891.
With reference to my telegram of to-day, I have just received the
formal permission for the Commissioners to visit the seal islands. It
consists of a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury to Mr.
Williams, the Special Agent in charge of the seal fisheries, instructing
him to afford Sir G. Powell and Professor Dawson the facilities desired
to enable them to accomplish the object of their mission as defined in
Article 4 of the modus vivendi of the 15th instant.

No. 71.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Paancefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 26, 1891.
Sir: I have received your despatch of the 12th instant, inclosing
copies of correspondence with the State Department relative to the
Agreement for a modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.
Your notes to the Acting Secretary of State on this subject are
approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 26, 1891.
Str: With reference to your telegram of the 21st instant, and to my
reply of the 22nd instant, L travsmit herewith, for your information,
and for communication to the Government of the United States, a copy

808 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of the telegraphic instructions sent to the Senior British Naval Officer
on the North Wacifiec Station with regard to the steps to be taken to
prohibit the killing of seals in certain specified portions of Behring’s
Sea.*
Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

Norws.

Sir J. Paunecfote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received June 27.)

[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, June 27, 1891.

With reference to my telegram of the 25th instant, relative to the
Behring’s Sea arbitration, | venture to submit, for your Lordship’s
consideration, the following clause dealing with the question of com-
pensation, instead of that proposed by the Acting Secretary of State in
his note of the 25th:

Article 7. Either Government may submit to the Arbitrators any claim for compen-
sation which it may desire to prefer against the other Government, in respect of any
losses or injuries, in relation to the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea, for which such
other Government may be legally liable.

The Arbitrators shall decide on the legality of every such claim, and if it shall be
established, they may award such compensation as in their judgment shall seem
equitable.

If the above meets with your Lordship’s approval, may I sound the
United States Government as to whether they are prepared to accept it?

43 No. 74.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir G. Baden-Povell and Dr. Dawson.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 27, 1891.

GENTLEMEN: I have toinform you that a telegram has been received
this morning from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington stating that
he has received the formal permission of the Government of the United
States for your visiting the seal islands in Behring’s Sea, under Article
4 of the modus vivendi Agreement signed at Washington on the 15th
instant.

It consists of a letter to the Government Agent in charge of the
islands, directing him to afford you every facility in the accomplish-
ment of your mission.

Sir Julian Pauncefote proposes to forward this letter to the care of
Her Majesty’s Consul-General at New York, for delivery to the British
Commissioner, who is expected to arrive there per steam-ship ‘ Etruria”
about the 4th July.

Jl am, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

*Tnclosure in No. 44.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 809
No. 75.
Sir hk. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received June 29.)

ST. PETERSBURGH, June 19, 1891.

My Lorp: M. De Giers having, when I was at his country place
Sunday week, promised to let me have an answer on the subject of the
Behring’s Sea seal fisheries in the course of last week, and Saturday
having come without my receiving a reply, I wrote an urgent letter to
his Excellency Saturday night, reminding him of his promise.

On Monday I learnt his Excellency was coming up to town, and on
Wednesday I called at the Foreign Office to inquire whether any deci-
sion had been come to. I pointed out to his Excellency that your Lord-
ship’s last proposal communicated to him in my note of the 29th May
(10th June) seemed to me to have much simplified matters, and that I
regretted that there seemed so little prospect of a decision being come
to by the Imperial Government. His Excellency said that he regretted
more than he could say that he had not as yet succeeded in obtaining
an answer from the Minister of Domains; he had in a large measure
come up from Finland to see what could be done by personal discussion
with M. Ostrovsky and the Representative of the Ministry of Marine—
that Department having started difficulties as to the ships that would
be required to enforce the arrangement, and he had arranged a meeting
for this purpose that evening.

I did not see M. de Giers prior to his return to Finland, but M.Shish-
kine, whom | saw to-day, told me that the question had been referred
to a Committee, consisting of himself as Representative of the Minis-
try for Foreign Affairs, M. Wyshniakoff, the Under-Secretary of the
Ministry of Domains, as the Representative of that Department, and
Admiral Titacheff as the Representative of the Ministry of Marine.

He promised to let me know as soon as the result was come to, but
as yet I have heard nothing from him. He was himself, no Jess than
M. de Giers, most strongly in favour of Russia’s joining in the proposed
action not only for the sake of a year’s close season, but because, if the
Russian Government did not join with us and herself enforce a close
season, the sealing boats driven out from the waters to the east of the
line of 1867 would all swarm westwards and make war on Russian
seals. The present difficulty seemed to be that the Ministry of Marine
refused to provide the coals necessary for the naval operations; light
eruizers would not suffice; one large man-of-war at least would be
required to accompany the eruizers, and act as a central point from
which to direct the operations of the latter, but this would require her
to be continuously under steam for several months, and this was an
expense which at present they were not prepared to meet, but he had
every hope that the matter would nevertheless be settled in a satisfae-
tory manner.

I have, &e.
(Signed) Kt. B. D. MORTER.

P.S. JUNE 24.—I have not yet heard from M. Shishkine, and hav-
ing called at the Ministry to-day, which is the ordinary day of reception,
I did not find his Excellency in.

KiB: DM,

810 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

44 No. 76.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.*—( Received July 2.

WASHINGTON, June 21, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of this day’s date, giving
a summary of the instructions issued by the United States Navy
Department in pursuance of the Agreement between Her Majesty’s
Government and the United States Government for a modus vivendi in
Behring’s Sea, I have now the honour to transmit to your Lordship a
copy of the note which I received from the Acting Secretary of State,
communicating the above-mentioned instructions.

I have, Xe.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{[Inclosure 1 in No. 76.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF State, Washington, June 20, 1891.

Srr: I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copies of the instructions that
have been issued by the Secretary of the Navy in pursuance of the Proclamation of
the President, of the 15th June, 1891, relative to the modus vivendi respecting the fur-
seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

This Government would be pleased to receive, in exchange, copies of such instrue-
tions as may be issued by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government on the same subject.

T have, &c. ,
(Signed) W. F. WHARTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 76.]
Mr. Tracy to Mr. Wharton.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, [Vashington, June 19, 1891.

Sm: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the instructions which
have been issued by the Navy Department in pursuance of the Proclamation of the
President of the 15th June, 1891, containing the modus vivendi, with a view to their
exchange, should it be deemed desirable, for a copy of such instructions as may be
issued by the British Government on the same subject.

Very respectfully,
(Signed) B. F. Tracy, Secretary of the Navy.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 76.—Telegraphic.]

Mr. Tracy to Commanding Officer of United States Steamer ‘ Thetis,” San Francisco,
California.
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1891.

Proclamation of President closing Behring’s Sea has been telegraphed to Collector
of Port of San Francisco. Make immediate application for copies as soon as
received; proceed with “Thetis” to Sand Point, Popoff Island, distribute the Procla-
mation among the sealing vessels. Warn master of each vessel to whom you may
deliver Proclamation that name of vessel has been taken, and that vessel will be
liable to capture if found to have been or to be sealing in Behring’s Sea east of the
line of demareation; after notice, furnish all United States and British vessels of
war and revenue-cutters with lists of vessels warned. Remain in neighbourhood of

*Substance telegraphed.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 811

Sand Point until receipt of further instructions, which will be sent by ‘‘ Marion.”
Receive on board and transport to Sand Point C, H. Bullard, Deputy Collector of
Customs, but do not delay sailing on his account.

45 [Inclosure 4 in No. 76.—Telegraphic.]

Mr. Tracy to Commanding Officer of United States Steamer ‘‘ Mohican,” San Francisco,
; California.
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1891.

Obtain immediately from Collector of Customs, San Francisco, printed copies of
President’s Proclamation in reference to Behring’s Sea. On receipt of such copies
proceed with all dispatch to the vicinity of the Pribyloff Islands, St. Paul and St.
George. Notify all American and British persons and vessels you meet of the Procla-
mation, and give them copies of the same. Warn all persons and vessels of either
nationality engaged in sealing in Behring’s Sea east of the line of demarcation, as
shown on Hydrographic Office Chart No. 68, to leave those waters forthwith. Make
entry of warning on register or log of sealer. Seize any American or British persons
and vessels found to be or to have been engaged in sealing, after notice, within the
prohibited waters, and bring or send them in charge of a sufficient force to insure
delivery to nearest convenient port of their own country, together with witnesses
and proofs, and there deliver them to proper officer of Court in said port. Send, at
least, the master of the seized vessel, her mate or boatswain, all her cargo, and such
of her crew as you deem safe, in the seized vessel. At time of seizure, draw up
declaration in writing, showing condition of seized vessel, place and date of seizure,
giving latitude and longitude, and circumstances showing guilt. Sign declaration,
and send with ship’s papers and seized vessel to officer of Court. Deliver to master
of seized vessel signed and certified list of papers found on board. Officerin charge
of seized vessel will, at time of delivering vessel’s papers to Court, sign a certificate
stating any changes that may have taken place in respect to vessel, crew, or cargo,
since seizure.

Keep a list of all vessels to which notice of Proclamation has been given, and
furnish all United States and British war or revenue vessels with copies of list.

Before sailing get order from Alaska Commercial Company, San Francisco, to coal
at Unalaska.

After two weeks’ ernizing in neighbourhood of Pribyloft Islands, rendezvous at
Sand Point, Popoft Islands, one of the Shumagin group, with ‘‘ Thetis” and “Alert,”
and await there further instructions by ‘‘ Marion.”

Furnish copy of this order to Commanding Officer of ‘‘Alert,” and direct him to
comply with it.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 76.—Telegraphic. ]

Mr. Tracy to Commander Cotton, commanding United States Steamer “Mohican,” San
Francisco, California.
WASIUNGTON, June 16, 1897.

Until further instructed, you are placed in command of all United States vessels
of war cruizing in the neighbourhood of Behring’s Sea, and you will distribute the
force in such manner as in your judgment will best enable you to comply with the
orders of the Department, and the requirements of the President’s Proclamation.
Instruct vessels under your command to send all seized persons and vessels to Ouna-
laska, to which point chartered steamer will be sent from San Francisco with marine
guard, Steamer will be at your disposal. Instructions have been sent to revenue-
cutters to turn over persons and vessels seized by them to you at Ounalaska. Utilize
the chartered steamer to the best advantage to assist in executing the Proclamation,
and to hand over as soon as practicable all seized persons and vessels to authorities
of nation to which they respectively belong. Orders directing ‘‘ Thetis,” ‘ Alert,”
and ‘*Mohican” to rendezvous at Sand Point revoked. ‘‘Thetis” will proceed to
Sand Point as directed to distribute Proclamation and give notice, and will proceed
thenee to Ounalaska immediately after departure of British steamer, which visits
Sand Point abont Ist July to bring home coast catch of seal. ‘‘Mohican” and
“Alert,” after cruizing two weeks, as previously directed, in Behring’s Sea, will
rendezvous with ‘ Thetis” at Ounalaska instead of Sand Point. ‘‘ Marion” will
sail later, and join your command at Ounalaska at about same time. Has ‘‘ Thetis”
already sailed? If so, you must communicate with her at Sand Point, where her
orders of yesterday directed her to await your arrival. On receipt of this order,
proceed immediately to Behring’s Sea with ‘Thetis,’ ‘‘Mohican,” and “Alert.”
‘Telegraph departure.

812 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
46 INO ati

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 2.)

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose, with reference to previous
correspondence on the subject of the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea,
copy of a protest, as published in the “Washington Post” of the 20th
instant, which has been filed by the North American Commercial Com-
pany with the Treasury Department against the President’s Proclama-
tion limiting the catch of the Company for the current year to 7,500
seals, and for which indemnity is claimed. This protest also contains
a claim by the Company for an indemnity against the United States on
account of losses incurred during last year’s fishery season by reason of
their operations on the islands having been brought to a close on the
20th July before the expiration of the sealing season, by order of Mr.
Goff, the United States Agent.

I likewise have the honour to inelose a cutting from the “New York
Times,” commenting on this protest of the Company.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 77.]
Detract from the “Washington Post” of June 20, 1891.

The North American Commercial Company, through its attorney, Judge N. L.
Jeffries, filed the following protest with Acting Secretary Spaulding, of the ‘Treasury
Department, yesterday :

“Sirk: The North American Commercial Company, of San Francisco, California,
the lessee of the right to take fur-seals for their skins on the Islands of St. Paul and
St. George in Alaska, for a period of twenty years from the 1st May, 1880, respect-
fully represents:

“1. Thatit has at all times since the execution of said lease, in every particular,
faithfully performed the stipulations and convenants of the same, and has strictly
observed the law in regard thereto, and obeyed the regulations, orders, and direc-
tions of the Secretary of the Treasury relating to the same; that it is doing so now,
and will continue to do so in the future.

“‘Said Company further represents that previous to and at the time of the letting
of said Contract the Secretary of the Treasury, by public advertisement, assured
said Company that it would be permitted to take under said Contract on said islands
a quota of 60,000 seal-skins during the year 1890, and said Company, relying upon
that assurance, submitted its bid for said privilege and made its estimates upon that
basis, and agreed to pay to the United States a sum three times greater than paid by
the tormer lessee for said privilege, which proposal was accepted by the United
States, and a lease was thereupon executed and delivered in accordance with said
proposal submitted by said Company in response to said advertisement.

“That thereupon said Company, under directions of the Secretary of the Treasury,
purchased from the former lessee, the Alaska Commercial Company, its plant, prop-
erty, and fixtures on said islands, including a large number of dwelling-houses for
the native inhabitants, also warehouses, storehouses, salt houses, merchandize, goods,
provisions, boats, and implements, and paid therefor a large sum of money. Said
Company at the same time purchased a large stock of supplies, provisions, goods,
and merchandize for the wants of the inhabitants of the islands, and chartered a
steam-ship at great cost for the purpose of transporting said supplies from San
Francisco to the seal islands, a distance of over 2,000 miles, and to bring back to
San Francisco the 60,000 seal-skins, which, by its said Contract, it had been author-
ized to take dniing the season of 1890, and for which it incurred a great expense.

“Said Company further represents that, in violation of the terms and stipulations
of said Contract without good cause therefor, and without any assertion or pretence
by the United States or its Agents that said Company had been derelict or at fault
in any respect, the United States compelled said Company to cease taking seals on

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 813

the 20th day of July, 1890, when the sealing season had not expired, and when
47 said Company had obtained only one-third of the quota of seal-skins which

by law and the terms of said Contract it was authorized to take, and then and
there prohibited said Company from taking any additional number during said year,
on account of which said Company sustained a ioss in the sum of 400,000 dollars.

“Said Company further represents that at the time it was compelled to stop
taking seals at said islands it earnestly protested against such action by the United
States, and has continued to protest, and now again submits its formal protest
against the action of the United States in preventing it from taking its quota of
seal-skins it had aright to take by law and by the terms of said Contract. And said
Company respectfully submits that it is justly entitled to receive from the United
States such a sum as will compensate it for the loss it has sustained on account of
the action of the United States, as aforesaid.

“2. Said Company further represents that, acting under the authority of law and
the provisions of said lease, the Secretary of the Treasury, on the 15th day of April,
1891, determined and fixed the quota of seal-skins which said Company would be
permitted to take on said islands, according to the provisions of said Contract, dur-
ing the present year, at 60,000 skins; and that, relying upon that assurance, said
Company again purchased a large stock of supplies to the amount of 65,000 dollars,
and chartered a steamer at great expense to transport said supplies to the seal islands
for the maintenance of the native inhabitants, and to bring to San Francisco the
60,000 seal-skins which it had been authorized to take during the present season.

“And now, said Company having been notified by the Secretary of the Treasury
that it will not be permitted to take its said quota of 60,000 seals during this year
as it is authorized to do by its said Contract, and by the express direction of the
Secretary aforesaid, and it respectfully enters its protest against such action by the
United States, and gives notice to the Honourable the Secretary of the Treasury
that it will claim to be reimbursed by the United States to the full amount of the
loss it may sustain by reason of its being prohibited by the United States from taking
its full quota of 60,000 seal-skins during the year 1891.

“3. Said Company further represents that in providing for the maintenance and
education of the inhabitants of the Islands of St. Paul and St. George aforesaid, it
has expended a large amount of money, to wit, the sum of 150,000 dollars, for which
it has not been reimbursed in any part, and said Company has been assured by the
Secretary of the Treasury that the United States will liquidate the account so
expended by said Company, including as well the price of supplies and cost of
schools, medicines, and medical attendance during the years 1890 and 1891. Said
Company will be obliged to hereafter demand of the United States the full amount
so expended.

“Said Company respectfully invites the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury
to the fact that the Islands of St. Paul and St. George in Alaska belong to and are in
the undisputed possession of the United States; that the right of this Government
to dispose of fur-seals born on said islands has never been questioned. ‘This being
so, said Company assumes that the right of the United States or its lessee to take
fur-seals on said islands within our unquestioned jurisdiction is beyond dispute, and
not subject to question or interference by England or any other foreign State.

“The right of this Government to take fur-seals on its own territory is not one of
the questions to be submitted to arbitration, and has no relation to the contention
between the two countries. In that dispute Great Britain affirms and the United
States denies the right of English and Canadian poachers to slaughter fur-seals in
‘our part’ of Behring’s Sea, and this Company respectfully insists that the Agree-
ment between the two Governments set forth in the President’s Proclamation, in so
far as it prohibits said Company from taking its lawful quota of seal-skins, is in con-
travention of the vested rights of this Company, and subjects it to great loss.

“Tf it may be assumed, as England has asserted, and this Government has denied,
that the eastern portion of Behring’s Sea is not the marine territory of the United
States, but is the ‘high seas,’ the Company respectfully submits that it is not compe-
tent for Great Britain and the United States alone or for any other two Governments
to determine who shall be permitte:l to navigate these waters, or to prohibit fishing
or taking seals on the high seas; and the Company respectfully points out to the
Honourable the Secretary of the Treasury that its rights have been overlooked by
said Agreement between the two Governments, in that it deprives the lessee from
taking seals which it is authorized to take by law and its Contract with the United
States, thereby inflicting a severe loss upon said Company, in order to obtain the
consent of England to arbitrate the question as to the right of Canadian poachers to
destroy the seal industry by pelagic sealing.”

814 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

48 { Inclosure 2 in No. 77.]
Extract from the “New York Times” of June 20, 1891.

Tuk COMMERCIAL COMPANY PROTESTS.—The North American Commercial Com-~-
pany has entered its protest against the assent of the United States Government to
the closed season for sealing in Behring’s Sea, and has given notice that it claims to
be indemnified by the Goy ernment: for its losses not only for this year, but last year,
in having the number of seals that it was permitted to take under its Contract cut
down. It is evident that the Company which took the lease of the sealing privileges
of the Islands of St. George and St. Paul for a term of twenty years from the Ist
May, 1890, has a rather hard bargain. It is bound to incur a considerable expense
in maintaining the natives, without reference to the number of skins taken; and it
invested quite a large amount in the “plant” and property purchased from its pred-
ecessor. The preparation of each season’s work is, of course, an expensive matter.

The terms of the lease give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion in determin-
ing the number of seals that may be taken each season. Last year the number was
fixed at 60,000, but, on the 20th July, the operations of the Company were stopped
by the Agents of the Government, when only a little more than one-third of the
allotted number had been taken. ‘This year the Secretary of the Treasury again, on
the 13th April, issued an order permitting the capture of 60,000 seals, and prepara-
tions were made by the Company accordingly. But under the closed-season Agree-
ment the number has been cut down to 7,500, sufficient merely to cover the cost of
maintaining the natives. Now the Company claims that the Government had no
right to reduce the number after it had been once fixed for the year under the contract
of. lease, and it will claim to be indemnified for its losses. It says that the loss last
year was 400,000 dollars, and, of course, it will be much larger this year. Besides
this, the Company asserts that it has expended 150,000 dollars in the maintenance
and education of the natives, which should be reimbursed. It seems likely, there-
fore, to have a nice little claim upon the Government for 1,000,000 dellars or more.

The Company, through its counsel, has some remarks to make about the inter-
national and jurisdictional aspects of the case. which are sheer impertinence. As
to its legal claims, not being familiar with the exact terms of the Contract, we shall
not undertake to pass an opinion. Apparently, the Secretary of the Treasury
assumes that his discretion to fix the number of seals to be taken from year to year,
and to supervise and regulate the killing, includes the right to reduce the number
at any time during the season, while the Company denies this. But one thing is
very clear. If it was found necessary last year to stop the Company’s operations in
July, when only 21,000 seals had been taken, it was very poor policy this year to
fix the limit again, before the season opened, at 60,000, and that, too, after the pro-
posal for a closed season had been made and negotiations were on foot for giving it
effect. Does it not look as though the Government itself had prepared the way for
this claim for a large indemnity in case an Agreement for a closed season should be
made? Is not this protest another step in the process of laying the basis for a claim
upon the Government equivalent to the profits of a full sealing season of which the
order permitting a catch of 60,000 seals was the first step? If so, it may be that
Mr. Blaine, by his delays and his intlnence, succeeded in doing his friends of the
North American Commercial Company a very substantial service after all.

No. 78.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 2.)
[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, June 23, 1891.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday’s date, con-
taining the instructions issued to the British cruizers in Behring’s Sea,
I have the honour to inclose copy of a Memorandum which I this day
personally delivered to the Acting Secretary of State.

it aie

a ee ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 815

49 [Inclosure in No. 78.]
Memorandum.

The following instructions have been issued to the British Senior Naval Officer at
Esquimalt: :

He is to proceed to Behring’s Sea with Her Majesty’s steam-ships ‘‘ Nymphe” and
“Pheasant,” and cruize to the eastward of the line of demarcation mentioned in
Articles 1 and 2 of the modus vivendi, warning all British vessels found acting in
ignorance of the prohibition.

” He i is to confiscate the sealing equipment of any British vessel found deliberately
offending, recording her name and the name of her master, for prosecution after wards.

He is to arrest any American vessel found deliberately offending, and record her
name and the name of her captain, together with the proof of the offence for which
she is arrested, informing the United States eruizers.

Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Porpoise” will be ordered from China to join the other ships
under his command.

Her Majesty’s Government are of opinion that there should be an understanding
between the two Governments for mutual indemnities.

A cruizer of one nation arresting a vessel of the other can only be justified in
doing so as the agent of such other nation, and should therefore act in that character.

Her Majesty’s Government therefore suggest that the two Governments should
agree to indemnify each other in respect of any acts committed in pursuance of such
agency by the cruizers of one nation against the vesscls of the other in execution
of the modus vivendi.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received July 4.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, July 4, 1891.

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that Mr. Wharton, the
Acting Secretary of State, has addressed to me a note stating that the
President i is about to designate two persons to visit the Behring ©’s Sea
for the purpose of examining all questions connected with seal | life in
that sea and the adjacent waters. Mr. Wharton, therefore, proposes
that arrangements should be made to have the Agents of the Ee pera
Governments go together, so that they may make their observations
conjointly. He awaits such communications as Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment may desire to make on the subject.

Mr. Wharton informs me by word of mouth that the Agents whom
the President is about to appoint will be nominated as members of the
Joint Commission, and as he presumes that the same course will be
followed by Her Majesty’s Government with regard to Sir G. Baden-
Powell and Mr. Dawson, the object of the proposal is that all the mem-
bers of the Joint Commission should have the advantage of making
the necessary investigations and inquiries in the course of the present
seal fishery season.

I await instructions from your Lordship as to the reply I should
address to the United States Government.

816 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 80.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic. ] F

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 5, 1891.

I have received your telegram of yesterday, forwarding the proposal
of the United States Government that the inquiries respecting seal life
in Behring’s Sea should be conducted conjointly by the British and
United States Commissioners.

Her Majesty’s Government have already chartered a ship to convey
the British Commissioners, and they could not now cancel the engage-
ment. Instructions will, however, be sent to the British Commissioners
to co-operate as much as possible on their arrival at the seal islands with
the American Commissioners in their inquiries into the matters to be
investigated.

50 No. 81.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 6.)

WASHINGTON, June 26, 1891.

My Lorp: In my telegram of the 15th instant I had the honour to
report the signature of the Agreement between Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment and that of the United States for a modus vivendi during the pres-
ent fur-seal fishery season in Behring’s Sea, and I added that Il was
awaiting an appointment to proceed with the ‘discussion of the terms of
arbitration.

Immediately after the signature of the modus vivendi, I had requested
the Acting Secretary of State (the Honourable William Wharton) to
appoint an early day for resuming the above negotiations, and he
promised to use all expedition for that purpose.

The next day (the 16th) Mr. Wharton invited me to eall at the State
Department, and to my surprise informed me that the President was
compelled to devote the next few days to other urgent matters of State,
and had made arrangements to leave Washington immediately after-
wards for his sea-side residence at Cape May, but that he would return
on the 23rd, and would be prepared to proceed with the remaining sub-
jects of negotiation.

I expressed my concern at this unexpected delay, which I feared
might prevent the appointment of the Commission in time to commence
its labours during the present fishery season. Ireminded Mr. Wharton
of his assurances that the President was anxious to expedite the con-
clusion of the Arbitration Convention in order that the Joint Com-
mission should not lose this season, and I strongly urged that he should
obtain authority to proceed with the negotiations during the absence
of the President, whereby a whole week might be saved at a time when
every day gained would be of importance.

Mr. Wharton promised to report my observations to the President,
and I called again at the Department of State on the 18th in the hope
of obtaining a favourable reply to my proposal, but I was informed that
my representations had been of no avail, and that the President would
not consent to the negotiations being resumed until his return from
Cape May.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 817

The President returned to Washington on the 23rd, and on the fol-
lowing day I called on Mr. Wharton to urge the immediate resumption
of the negotiations. He promised to see the President at once on the
subject, and yesterday evening I received from him the official note
of which I at once telegraphed the substance to your Lordship, and of
which a copy is inclosed in my separate despatch No. 141 of this date.

In that note Mr. Wharton submits, on behalf of the President, the
text of two new clauses in the proposed Arbitration Convention with
reference to the questions of an international close season, and of the
claims for compensation, and also proposes a form of a separate and
contemporaneous agreement for a Joint Commission.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 82.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received July 6.)

WASHINGTON, June 26, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday’s date, I
have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of a note which I received
yesterday evening from the Acting Secretary of State, in answer to
the Memorandum (see my despatch of the 5th June) which I communi-
cated to him on the 8rd instant in conformity with the instructions
contained in your Lordship’s telegram of the 2nd instant, on the subject
of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration.

I have, “Sie.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

61 [Inclosure in No. 82.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

WASHINGTON, June 25, 1891,

Sir: The correspondence between this Government and that of Her Majesty has
happily resulted in an Agreement upon the first five propositions which are to con-
stitute the basis of a proposed Arbitration relating to the controversy which has
arisen as to the respective rights of the two Governments in Behring’s Sea.

In the note of Lord Salisbury of the 21st February last he states his objection to
the sixth proposition, as presented in the letter of Mr. Blaine of the 17th December,
1890, in the following words:

“The sixth question, which deals with the issues that will arise in case the con-
troversy should be decided in favour of Great Britain, would perhaps more fitly
form the substance of a separate reference, Her Majesty’s Government have no
objection to referring the general question of a closed time to arbitration, or to
ascertain by that means how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for
the preservation of the seal species, but such reference ought not to contain w ords
appearing to attribute special and abnormal right in the matter to the United States.”

I am now directed by the President to submit the following, which he thinks
avoids the objection urged by Lord Salisbury :

“No. 6. If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive juris-
diction of the United States shall leave the : subject in such position that the concur-
rence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the
proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the
Behring’s Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations
outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governinents are necessary, and
ever what waters such Regulations should extend, and to aid them in that determi-

BS, PTV 52

818 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

nation the Report of a Joint Commission to be appointed by the respective Govern-
ments shall be laid before them, with such other evidence as either Government
may submit. ‘

“The Contracting Powers furthermore agree to co-operate in securing the adhesion
of other Powers to such Regulations.”

In your note of the 3rd instant you proposed, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, the following Additional Article:

‘It shall be competent to the Arbitrators to award such compensation as, in their
judgment shall seem equitable, to the subjects and citizens of either Power who shall
be shown to have been damnified in pursuit of the industry of sealing by the action
of the other Power.”

The President cannot give his assent to this form of submitting the question of
compensation. It entirely omits notice of the important fact, that the Government
of the United States, as the owner of the seal fisheries on the Pribyloff Islands, has
interests which have been injuriously affected by the pelagic sealing of which com-
plaint has been made in this correspondence.

This Government has derived a very large annual income from this property, and
this income has, in the opinion of the President, been very seriously impaired and
imperilled by the destruction of the seal in the sea while passing to and from the
breeding grounds on these islands. The Government of Her Majesty has directly
interposed to support the Canadian sealers, and will not, the President assumes,
desire to avoid responsibility for any damages which have resulted to the United
States or to its citizens if it shall be found by the Arbitrators that the pursuit of
seals by these Canadian vessels in the sea was an infraction of the rights and an
injury to the property of thisGovernment. The proposal submitted by you distinctly
limits the liability of Her Majesty’s Government in case of a decision in favour of
the United States to compensation to the citizens of this country.

It will be apparent to Lord Salisbury that whatever damages have resulted from
pelagic sealing as pursued by vessels flying the British flag have accrued to the United
States or to its lessees. The President does not doubt that the purpose of Her Maj-
esty’s Governmentin the proposal under diseussion was to secure tothe party injured
equitable compensation for injuries resulting from what may be found by the Arbi-
trators to have been the unlawful and injurious act of either Government.

From the note of Lord Salisbury of the 21st February, to which reference has been
made, I quote the following:

“There is one omission in these questions which I have no doubt the Government |

of the President will be very glad to repair, and that is the reference to the
52 Arbitrator of the question what damages are due to the persons who have been

injured in case it shall be determined by him that the action of the United
States in seizing British vessels has been without warrant in international law.”

I am directed by the President to propose the following 7th and final clause in the
basis of arbitration:

“7, It shall be competent to the Arbitrators to award such compensation as in their
judgment shall seem equitable to the subjects or citizens of Great Britain whose
vessels may have been seized by the United States in the Behring’s Sea, if such seiz-
ures shall be found by the Arbitrators to have been unwarranted, and it shall also
be competent to the Arbitrators to award to the United States such compensation as
in their judgment shall seem equitable for any injuries resulting to the United States
or to the lessees from the Government of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribyloff
Islands, by reason of killing seals in the Behring’s Sea by persons acting under the
protection of the British flag outside of the ordinary territorial limits and since the
ist day of January, 1886, if such killing shall be found to have been an infraction of
the rights of the United States.”

It being understood that an arrangement for a Joint Commission is to be made
contemporaneously with the conclusion of the terms of arbitration, I am directed
by the President to propose the following separate agreement:

“Hach Government shall appoint two Commissioners to investigate conjointly
with the Commissioners of the other Government all the facts having relation to
seal life in behring’s Sea, and the measures necessary for its proper protection and
preservation.

“The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be able to agree, make a joint
Report to each of the two Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly or
severally, to each Government on any points upon which they may be unable to agree.

“The Reports shall not be made public until they shall be submitted to the Arbi-
trators, or it shall appear that the coutingeney of their being used by the Arbitrators
cannot arise.”

IT have, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM IF’, WHARTON.

sgmisctenta

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 819

No. 83.
Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 6.)

{Telegraphic.]
JULY 6, 1891.
In my opinion it is essential that in order to avoid delay I should
take with me to the North Pacific Ocean a permission from the Russian
Government to visit their islands should it seem necessary to do so.
I should be glad if it could be sent to me, if possible, by post on the
7th instant.

No. 84.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 6; 1891.
Her Majesty’s Government approve the wording of the 7th Article
respecting compensation in the proposed Arbitration Agreement sug-
gested in your telegram of the 27th ultimo. They have been awaiting
the assent of the Canadian Government, which has now been given.
Her Majesty’s Government accept the 6th Article as proposed by the
United States Government, and communicated in your telegram of the
25th ultimo.

No. 85.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 6.)
[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, July 6, 1891.
With reference to telegram from the Foreign Office of the 6th instant,
are the terms of agreement as to the Joint Commission referred to in
my telegram of the 25th ultimo accepted by Her Majesty’s Government?

53 No. 86.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir G. Baden-Powell and Dr. Dawson.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 7, 1891,

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith, for your information, paraphrases
of telegrams which have passed between Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington and this Department,* relative to a proposal made by the
Government of the United States that the Commissioners appointed
by Her Majesty’s Government and by that of the United States to visit
3ehring’s Sea for the purpose of examining into the conditions of seal
life should do so together, so as to make their observations conjointly.

*Nos. 79 and 80,

820 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

You will already have been informed of the contents of these tele-
grams by the Governor-General of Canada, to whom they have been
repeated by telegraph. In accordance with the assurance given to the
United States Government, I have to request that on your arrival at
the seal islands you will as much as possible co-operate with the Com-
inissioners appointed by the Government of the United States to inquire
into this subject.

lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 87.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received July 8.)

DOWNING STREET, July 7, 1891.

Str: Lam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, the inclosed “Supplement No.
1 to the Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries,” which has
been received from the Governor-General of Canada.

Iam to request that you will call his Lordship’s attention to the
passages relating to the seal fisheries contained at pp. 182-4 of this
volume.

Tam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 87.]

Extract from Supplement No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries.
FISHERIES STATEMENTS AND INSPECTORS’ REPORTS FOR THE YEAR 1890.
[Printed by order of the Canadian Parliament. ]

Marine Furs.

The value of the marine fur products is 510,111 dollars, being an increase of 157,661
dollars over the past year, due to the following causes:—An advance of 1 dollar per
skin in the price of fur seals, an increase of 11,181 skins in the catch, and an increase
of 3,200 in the catch of hair-seals.

IL append a schedule, showing the detailed catch of the sealing fleet for the season
of 1890:

821

TIT ‘oTS | £08 ‘Fe

002 ‘OT ZOT
0c9 ‘L 002 ‘OT
. 000‘s¢ 000 ‘¢
a FFG‘ 002
a of OL
E099, 09
fe 20'T 6
—Q G06 68
Z8e ‘OT 296 |
ei Ps ‘1 Tes %
<4 188 ‘I. ILI ‘T
<2) 92L ‘TT 990 ‘T
fs #29 ‘6T O82 ‘T
cdo) OLE ‘8T 019 ‘T
GLP ‘OT oc6
& 866 ‘ZI SLL ‘T
© GLF'lz 626 ‘T
60F ‘ST 619 'T
FE 799‘ rarcard
WM Fel ‘et F6L ‘T
SS ogo'ct =| Oa ‘T
OD #86 ‘9¢ ecr 'Z
S G8Z ‘TZ £6 ‘T
= 298 6 168
F08 ‘8% FOL ‘S
y L8t ‘FT LI i
ros 8G9 ‘GT Sor T
es26n0r 866
% 962 08 crs 'T
—}] 991 ‘81 90L ‘T
Gu areLg aco
jee GPS ‘6% €1L ‘2
< La0 ‘SI$ 198 ‘T
“ONTBA | ‘aqui yy
1e}0L 1807,

a

COT ‘ST G31 ‘OT 0¢9 ‘F 8L9 LOT
DOES ORAS ERI) Or rage
: 09 ral pe yereee
Pee gr | ea eee cL P
BRIS RE HE Fas par eel tFas 61 T
rae eraer| RAGL, CoOL FZ iE
LOFT TOL 008 T T
ChP 8L¢ SFI Zz G
IN ey eT £2 L
#S8 OTL rad 62 reicies 28s
Ch6 Cre ogg & T
6cF 688 FST ad 1
OLL TI 16 Be T .
GeL 002 ‘T ce cee al NOe 9
ELF 810 ‘T zs £3 i
CPL gLe ‘T 6IL GP T
OSF 69 CLI &% L
O8F 9t6 ape gener L
9IT'T 186 9c8 Ze Beemer es
#86 OTL Gk 03 ¢
08% TI¢ 9ST LZ g
816 818 898 9% L
89 29S Go 0a 9
0£9 €0L 06 G fh
G6S ZOE F0T £3 I
PLL LI8 Foo 8. ¢
ST T 6F8 022 8Z IE
00g Paes aa GOR c% IT
clo '% OSPF 293 &% 9
96L TL¢ oe dates MES L
"TINO *qoywo ‘
ey SULT qulog utes, o| 2° FO | ‘sa0urp \ssouvp jo) ‘syeog |'s}voq jo
-Yaq JO | puvg jo Shins Tequiny | JO onpe,~ Taquin NT

Joqmny | taquin jy

requinyy | Jo onyVA |

i PS ae

0S ‘8FZ | ZFO'Z ee en SG CR ea ES ee ea oe el (IKEA BP
al Beaie ie cle take. aipe ae pee eyes OER TON OS EOS 1
P99 ]901090 “s]vos aey jo oyeMIIA SA
sisYuisinlaleis]=)s}| siele/@iejaioiaie'«||/s/e\cleie\eiclsie/el- te civ etnieieinicinee eeisicce aces “=== sr9q40
puv savIpuy Wor paesvyoind s[ves-imj Jo ojeuyeqq
Ger anil |etemne are) akc e an eae ee OMINTMUGO CuO MM oT TRIOAT | MOLT
000 ‘L 8z StL ea aa OULU OR eve] Serie nite een
000 ‘T &@ i z : “""OUNSSVMBN |*""- JOITO Urequnoyy
000 ‘¢ SP oats ee eee ODABU MLM al Res 7 OLUATIONAG
000 ‘g Ze 43977777700 pus noyxXem “Ep "<5 "22-9" Ta1epue AK
000 ‘8 IP Sosao rc Sess oo O Senora :: --Br0Iny
000 ‘8 QF pian eal: Lewes ea LOSOU OOUIGG Eaacmmeices Sem OTM UCT
000 ‘OT 69 2 y 5 55557 O99 |°5 °° *>*7"> edojoueg
0c ‘2 €L Sg sonen 2 clnins ccna SOIT : “mer” Arey
000 ‘2 99 SS ae pa eaten EO) aa ANG me ieae ssl OO Tm Bon
00g ‘¢ 18 5 3 77; Auued “1 °¢ "7 T5755 5=* OUTLONZBD
000 ‘8 6¢ srececesses""-SSOTq pus Suey |-----premAeg ‘dM
000 ‘9 6P Den eR 2 iC ORNs LOF P| DOOIRe SEAaoS vyloene
000 ‘OT OL enters OO) OEP DOC “ORT Oo sey
000 ‘FT 86 pi UN iad Rue epee See ETON G [el POMBE SOOIS GIO E
000‘FE | Fat Tirtrti5 00 pue wrareyy |= *-------- orryddeg
090 ‘OT £9 Perot eee OD DUE TOT DIT ECy, Cols Siro eNedo Ue
000 ‘OT €8 Te OO SESE PRO ROO Ses 1 ahs bY)
000'8 #9 “--" Sutadg sopeyg |o7* "7" -OUTIOAB IT
000 ‘OT 99 “ oTsUN],, puv guIVD |-----°*-*----Teem0Ig
000 ‘F 8¢ => -dUTIdS SeplGqO) |7- 2s === eye yy
000 ‘ZI LIT corres ess ss) OD PUB ULAISYy |°""-"*-UrAIepE ‘gop
00 ‘L 6L “sees*"OlUN]T pue woromuy |°---- Tony yy 19978 A
009 ‘ST €IL “7 """O*) pue JJoxOVA, |--- -oL00P “OM oruuy
000 ‘8 GF “* oIsun]y puv ourwy |------- aopAuy, Areyy
000 ‘L 0g Fore ae ee SUTIO OSE |es mane Olul wens
000 ‘6 06 eas mane teen ROO LS LL CTR ANG CO ie “POL
00g ‘8 69 Joes pen ke re ee MOOG Ais lsicgaiisin Slose ele TECH
000 ‘ZI 26 - * OISUNTL puv OMIRD |---- 9-9-9 ooo BAL A
000 ‘eT$ | 66 wo eeeesssss "OF pus IOV |>------seddny, "yO
Paci ‘oSeuuog, “IOUMOQ JO oureNy ‘198804 Jo OMEN

aa = a es ls Ee i eS ee eS eee

wosvas ay} of ‘sanjv4 puv syonporg yn ‘haaysryT Ing aun

ih»

"068T f0

OTT 942 UW pabvbua uaty pun ‘saoung ‘synog ‘sjassag fo saqungyr ay) Burnoys Ungar

7g

8Z2 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

5d Return showing Iur-Seals caught by Poreiqn Vessels and disposed of in Victoria,
British Columbia.
Number of | Number of Total

Name of Vessel. Name of Owner. Sand Point} Behrin unhee

Catch. Sea Catch. 3
MSO UO RS tae ceetetiaaee ine aa ana ee AMCNICHUN: an a)saaeeaisina = UE eanbeec esse: 74
SES DEyE0) Ses8 Coan Ao pSae doneh Ec oolerose IMD ee Sesecasoach es cHelluocanssnacoc 579 579
FEO. Wille cece dec cide Soacse aera aeer WTO cece ee tetensre ae ae locates wnaemists 400 400
Biarny Daas pos eaten toe ie toneeacies DittO\~--<sine cae eee ae |ee seem ate ae 1, 500 1, 500
Weture sre See ts. .2 ee ek ace Dittoin8s sce code pete ee eee aces 564 564
A WOLOss. to2 a wep Sem Gaincarde aoaesyascnie ate German see eeeeeere re 220 431 651
Lotalics-heticedeeccsccmshceaeaean Geer eae pee en oe eee en eee 294 3, 464 3, 768

It will be noticed that the names of vessels and owners are given, together with
the tonnage, as in previous reports, while the number of boats “and canoes is kept
separate and the total values given. ‘The value of vessels comprises the fit-out with
firearms, ammunition, &c., when prepared for a hunting voyage.

The catch of seals has been divided into three classes, viz.:—Spring catch, Sand
Point catch, and Behring’s Sea cateh. The Spring catch comprises the seals cap-
tured after the vessels have left Victoria, say the Ist February, hunting as far south
as Lower California; Sand Point catch ineltides the skins taken off the west ccast of
Vancouver Island; and the Behrin g's Sea catch those killed in Behring’s Sea proper.
It will be noticed that the two first-named kinds exceed the Behring’s Sea cateh by
3,217 skins, and, as is usually the case, I learn from dealers that the percentage of
grey pups is larger in the Sand Point catch than in that of the Behring’s Sea.

On comparing the schedule with that of 1889, it will be seen that the sealing fleet
was increased by six vessels; and, from present outlook, there will likely be a much
larger increase daring the coming season. JI understand that there have already been
purchased three American, a Japanese, and five Nova Scotia schooners for this trade.
‘The names of the Nova Scotia vessels now on their way are—‘‘ Union,” ‘ Geneva,”
“Mand 8,” “Otto,” and ‘‘ Annie M. Paint,” besides a steamer recently fitted up for
the same purpose.

I was informed that the seals in Behring’s Sea changed their feeding-grounds last
season from the south-west to the north-east of St. George and St. Paul’s Islands, the
large catches being made at the north-east end. The cause of this change is said to
be on account of submarine voleanic eruptions, which drove away the feed from
the banks. I understand that Customs Collector Milne, of Victoria, has given a
detailed Report on this fishery, and there is no need of my dwelling further on it.
As I am situated here, and so seldom able to visit Victoria, I find it extremely diffi-
cult to get reliable information.

No. 88.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

(Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 8, 1891.

Itis thought by the two Commissioners whom Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment are sending to investigate the conditions of seal life in the North
Pacific Ocean and in Behring’s Sea that, in order to complete their
inquiry, it may be necessary for them to visit the seal islands belonging
to Russia. One of the principal reasons for their doing so is that they
will have to ascertain how far the alleged diminution in the number of
Seals is merely due to their emigration to other rookeries.

I have to request you to apply for the necessary permission to the
Russian Government, and it is desirable, if possible, that before they
leave Vancouver the Commissioners may be able to receive the permis-
sion by telegraph. Their names are Sir George Baden Powell and Pro-
fessor Dawson. A steamer has been specially chartered for them in
which they will visit the islands.

ae

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 823

56 No. 89.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received July 9.)
WASHINGTON, June 27, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 23rd instant, I have
the honour to report that I have received a communication from the
State Department, dated yesterday, informing me that the Memoran-
dum, copy of which was inclosed in my despatch above-mentioned, rel-
ative to the instructions given to Her Majesty’s vessels in Behring’s
Sea, was immediately communicated to the United States Navy Depart-
ment for their information.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 90.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(Telegraphic. ]
FOREIGN OFFICE, July 9, 1891.
In reply to the inquiry contained in your telegram No. 97, of the 6th
instant, I have to inform you that the terms of Agreement as to a Joint

Commission, contained in your telegram of the 25th ultimo, are accepted
by Her Majesty’s Government.

NosoI:
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 9, 1891.
Str: I transmit herewith, for your Excellency’s information, copies
of a despatch from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington,* inclosing
the Agreement signed at Washington on the 15th ultimo between Her
Majesty’s Government and that of the United States for establishing a
modus vivendi in relation to the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.
Tam, &c¢.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 92.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received July 10.)

DOWNING STREET, July 9, 1891.
Str: Lam directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a paraphrase of a telegram from the
Governor-General of Canada respecting the suggestion that the mem-
bers of the Joint Commission should proceed to the islands together.
Tam, &c.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

*No. 64.

824 - APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 92.—Telegraphic. ]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

(Received July 8, 1891, 4.20 pr. m.)

The following message was sent to-day to Sir J. Pauncefote:

“The Prime Minister of Canada suggests that the United States Government
should be informed that the British Commissioners are ready to start, and hope to
leave Ottawa on the 10th instant.

“Will United States Commissioners accompany them?”

67 No. 93.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received July 10.)

DOWNING STREET, July 9, 1891.
Str: With reference to the letter from this Department of the 9th
instant, [ am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, for the
information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a telegram which
he has sent to the Governor-General of Canada respecting the sugges-
tion that the British and United States members of the Joint Commis-
sion of Experts should proceed to Behring’s Sea together.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

{Inclosure in No. 93.—Telegraphic.]

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.

DOWNING STREET, July 9, 1891.

We have no objection to Commissioners of United States Government accompany-
ing British Commissioners, who should proceed in vessel chartered for them without
avoidable delay.

No. 94.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 10, 1891.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies communicated to me the tele-
gram sent to you by the Governor-General of Canada on the 8th instant,
suggesting that the United States Commissioners should accompany
the British Commissioners to Behring’s Sea.

_ Her Majesty’s Government have no objection to the proposal, but the
British Commissioners must goin the ship which has been chartered
for them, and should not postpone their departure.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 825

No. 95.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 10.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, July 10, 1891.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 6th instant on
the subject of Behring’s Sea arbitration, | have sounded the United
States Government unofficially on the subject of the new clause No. 7
respecting damages, which I submitted to your Lordship in my tele-
gram of the 27th ultimo.

Before arriving at any decision on this subject, the President wishes
to be officially informed of the precise grounds on which Her Majesty’s
Government object to clause 7 as proposed by him. With your Lord-
ship’s approval, I propose to inform him that Her Majesty’s Government
are of opinion that in a case like the present, it is unusual and inex-
pedient to make use of terms providing that compensation shall be
awarded on an hypothetical state of facts, and thus prejudging the
question of liability; that, further, they consider that the question
whether any legal liability arises out of any particular state of facts is
a matter which should be adjudged upon by the Arbitrators after dis-
cussion before them. Her Majesty’s Government would therefore pro-
pose that, in order to place both Governments in this respect on the
same footing, a new clause in the form submitted in my telegram of
the 27th June should be substituted for clause 7 as proposed by the
President.

I have the honour to request that I may be informed as soon as pos-
sible as to whether the above reply receives your Lordship’s approval.

58 No. 96.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received July 11.)

DOWNING STREET, July 10, 1891.

Sir: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 8th instant, inclosing a paraphrase of a telegram of
the 6th instant from Her Majesty’s Ambassador at St. Petersburgh
relating to the Behring’s Sea question.

In reply, I am to state, for the information of the Marquis of Salis-
bury, that Lord Knutsford is of opinion that, in considering whether
the Russian proposals should be accepted, it should be borne in mind
that, unless the United States agree to them also, United States seal-
ers would be free to catch seals to the west of the line of demarcation
in the Treaty of 1867, so that the assent of Her Majesty’s Government
would appear to be necessarily conditional upon the agreement of the
United States.

Lam, &e.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD,

826 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 97. z
Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 13.)

(Extract. ]

ST. PETERSBURGH, July 7, 1891.

I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith the inclosed
copy of a note, dated the 14th (26th) June, in which M. de Giers replies
to my two notes of the 23rd May (4th June) and 29th May (10th June),
transmitted in my of the 10th ultimo.

Owing to some accident in transmission, which is not yet explained,
this note only reached my hands yesterday. In it M. de Giers points
out, in reference to my second note, that it would be difficult to accede
to propositions the official text of which is not known to him otherwise
than through the public newspapers, and which have been brought to
his notice by one only of the two Contracting Parties. Nevertheless,
the Imperial Government would probably see nothing in the way of
prohibiting Russian subjects from hunting seals to the east of the
maritime line of 1867 if Her Majesty’s Government, in a spirit of just
reciprocity, would equally prohibit British subjects from fishing to the
west of that line. The cruizers of both countries could, in that case, be
authorized to stop on the high seas English and Russian subjects alike
found contravening this arrangement in the waters of the Behring’s
Sea and the Okhotsk.

The note closes by the significant hint that, under any circumstances,
the Governor-General of the Amoor had been instructed to take all
necessary measures for protecting the Russian hunting-grounds against
any dangers that might threaten them on the part of foreign hunters.

When I saw M. de Giers on Saturday he did not advert to the ques-
tion, being probably under the impression, as he must have supposed
that I had received his note, that I would be the first to introduce it.
I have therefore not had the opportunity of obtaining from his Excel-
lency any elucidation of the note.

{Inclosure in No. 97.]
M. de Giers to Sir R. Morier.

SAINT-PETERSBOURG, le 14 (26) Juin, 1891.

M.’AMBASSADEUR: J’ai eu Yhonneur de recevoir les deux notes de votre Excel-
lence en date du 23 Mai (4 Juin) et du 29 Mai (10 Juin) relativement A la chasse des
otaries.

Par la premiére de ces notes vous voulez bien m’informer que le Gouvernement de
Sa Majesté Britannique est tombé d’accord avec le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis de
Amérique du Nord quant 4 la prohibition de la chasse des otaries jusqu’au mois de
Mai de année prochaine et invite le Cabinet Impérial 4 s’associer a cette mesure.
Lord Salisbury a bien voulu ajouter que sans l’assentiment de la Russie il ne saurait
étre question de la mise en pratique de cet arrangement. Dans la seconde des deux
notes susmentionnées votre Excellence modifie la proposition de son Gouvernement
dans ce sens que la prohibition de la chasse des otaries ne s’étendrait plus qu’ lest
de la ligne maritime du Traité de 1467 conclu entre la Russie et les Etats-Unis. Le

Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Britannique nous demanderait en conséquence
59 d’interdire de notre c6té la chasse prohibée & Vest de cette ligne a des sujets

Russes et d’autoriser les croiseurs Anglais 4 saisir les bAtiments qui se livre-
raient 4 cette industrie sous notre pavillon.

Tout en remerciant votre Excellence de ces communications je crois devoir observer
qu’il nous serait difficile d’accéder A des propositions dont le texte officiel ne nous est
connu que par les journaux et qui d’ailleurs ne nous sont faites que par l’une des deux
Parties Contractantes. Quant 4 la ligne maritime du Traité de 1867, le Gouverne-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 827

ment Impérial ne verrait probablement pas d’empéchement 4 interdire aux sujets
Russes la chasse des otaries a lest de cette région si le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté
Britannique, dans un esprit de juste réciprocité, interdisait également a ses sujets la
chasse susmentionnée & Vouest de la méme ligne. Les croiseurs des deux pays pour-
raient, en ce cas, étre autorisés 4 arréter les contrevenants en pleine mer, Anglais ou
Russes, sans distinction, dans les eaux de Behring et d’Okhotsk, et de les livrer aux
autorités nationales compétentes.

En portant ce qui précede a la connaissance de votre Excellence je m’empresse
@ajouter que le Gouverneur-Général de la Province de Amour recevra dans tous les
cas Vordre de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour la protection des chasses Russes
@Votaries contre les dangers qui pourraient les menacer de la part des chasseurs
étrangers.

Veuillez, &c.
(Signé) GIERS.

[Translation.]

Sr. PETERSBURGH, June 14 (26), 1891.

M. L’AMBASSADEUR: [ have had the honour to receive your Excellency’s two notes,
dated the 23rd May (4th June) and the 29th May (10th ‘June), relating to the hunt-
ing of seals.

In the first of these notes you are good enough to acquaint me that the Govern-
ment of Her Britannic Majesty have come to an Agreement with the Government of
the United States of North America with regard to the prohibition of seal-huntinge
until the month of May next year, and that they invite the Imperial Cabinet to join
in that measure. Lord Salisbury was good enough to add that without the assent
of Russia there could be no question of putting this arrangement into practice. In
the second of the two notes above mentioned, your Excellency modifies the proposal
ot your Government in the sense that the prohibition of seal-hunting would only
hold good to the east of the maritime line of the Treaty of 1867 concluded between
Russia and the United States. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty conse-
quently asks us to prohibit Russian subjects on our side from the seal-hunting which
is forbidden to the east of that line, and to authorize English ecruizers to seize such
vessels as may pursue that industry under our flag.

While thanking your Excellency for these communications, I think it right to
remark that it would be difficult for us to agree to proposals of which the official
text is only known to us through the newspapers, and which, moreover, have only
been made to us by one of the two Contracting Parties. With regard to the mari-
time line of the Treaty of 1867, the Imperial Government would probably see no
difficulty in prohibiting Russian subjects from hunting seals to the east of that
region if the Government of Her Britannic Majesty would, in a spirit of just reci-
pr ‘ocity, equally prohibit their subjects from hunting to the west of the same line.
The cruizers of the two countries could in that case be authorized to arrest the
offenders in the open sea, English or Russian, without distinction, in the waters of.
Behring’s Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, and to hand them over to the competent
national authorities.

In making the above communication to your Excellency, I hasten to add that the
Governor-General ot the Province of the Amoor will in any case receive orders to
take the necessary measures for the protection of the Russian seal-hunting grounds
against the dangers by which they may be threatened on the part of foreign
hunters.

I have, &c.
(Signed) GIERS.

No. 98.
Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 13.)

ST. PETERSBURGH, July 9, 1891.

My Lorp: I received your Lordship’s telegram of the 8th instant

early this morning, and at once addressed a note, of which I have the
honour to transmit a copy herewith, to M. de Giers.

60 Not being able to spare the time, owing to the dispatch of my

messenger, I requested Mr. Howard to take it himself to M. Chich-

kine and to urge on his Excellency that the matter might be at once

taken in hand, so that a telegram of consent might be dispatched to

828 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Vancouver’s Island before the departure of the Commissioners. M.
Chichkine, who has a strong opinion on the subject of the extinction of
the fur-seal species, expressed his full concurrence with the mission of
Her Majesty’s Commissioners, and said he would do all he could to
obtain the necessary permission at once. There always remained, how-
ever, the difficulty of the three Ministers to be brought into connected

action.
I have, &e.
(Signed) Rh. B. D. MORTER.

[Inclosure in No. 98.]
Sir R. Morier to M. de Giers.

St. PETERSBURGH, June 27 (July 9), 1891.

M. te Ministre: In the Agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and that
of the United States, signed on the 15th June last, in connection with the question
of seal-hunting in the Behring’s Sea, it was stipulated that suitable persons desig-
nated by Great Britain should be permitted upon application to visit or remain upon
the American seal islands during the present sealing season for the purpose of making
such inquiries as might assist Her Majesty’s Government in presenting their case to
the Arbitrators, should an agreement for arbitration be arrived at, and with the
ultimate view of arriving at such data with regard to seal life as might facilitate a
general agreement for the preservation of the species.

I have now been instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to inform your Excel.
lency that Sir George Baden-Powell and Professor Dawson, men pre-eminently fitted
for the purpose, have been selected by Her Majesty’s Government to go out to the
Behring’s Sea and North Pacific for the purpose of investigating the conditions of
seal life in those seas; and they are very desirous that, in addition to the American
islands, these gentlemen should be permitted to complete their inquiry by a visit to
the Russian seal islands, an important reason for this being that it will be necessary
to ascertain how far the alleged diminution of seals is due merely to migration to.
other rookeries.

Her Majesty’s Government, in instructing me to make this application to the
Imperial Government, express their strong wish that the permission might be
granted as quickly as possible, in order that they may be in a position to telegraph
it to the Commissioners before they leave Vancouver's Island.

T avail, &c.
(Signed) R. B. D. Morrer.

No. 99.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 13, 1891.

I have received your telegram of the 10th instant relating to the
Agreement for arbitration in the Behring’s Sea question, and I approve
the reply you propose to make to the United States Government as to
the objections entertained by Her Majesty’s Government to the pro-
posed wording of clause 7 of the Agreement.

No. 100.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received July 14.)

DOWNING STREET, July 14, 1891.

Str: With reference to your letter of the 19th June, I am directed
by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 829

Salisbury, a copy of the despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
forwarding a copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries on behalf of the British Columbia Sealers’ Association, set-
ting forth their objections to the passing of the Behring’s Sea Seal

Fishery Act.
61 I am also to inclose the draft of a reply which his Lordship

proposes, with Lord Salisbury’s concurrence, to return to this
despatch.

Iam, &c.

(Signed) Robert G. W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 100.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Houss, Ottawa, June 24, 1891.

My Lonrp: I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of an approved Minute
of the Privy Council, submitting copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Marine
and Iisheries on behalf of the British Columbia Sealers’ Association, setting forth the
objections of that body to the passing of the Bill of the Imperial Parliament to
prohibit sealing in the beliring’s Sea.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 100.]}

Report of a Committee of the Honowrable the Privy Council, approved by his Bacellency
the Governor-General in Council, on the 22nd June, 1891.

On a Report, dated the 17th June, 1891, from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
stating that he has received from Messrs. E. B. Marvin and Co., of Victoria, British
Columbia, a letter on behalf of the British Columbia Sealers’ Association, detailing
the objections to the Bill then before the Imperial Parliament to prohibit sealing in
Behring’s Sea, which a meeting of the owners of sealing-vessels and other interested
parties discussed.

The Minister observes that the Association anticipate the effect of the Bill passing
in its present form will be ruinous to British subjects hitherto participating in the
industry.

They are much opposed to the stipulation allowing the lessees to take 7,500 seals
for food for the natives, and assert that the natives employed by the lessees are taken
from Oonalaska to the seal islands, and after the expiry of the killing-season are
taken back to Oonalaska, a limited number only being left on the islands during the
winter.

If allowed to take 7,500, it is feared this permission would be used as a cloak to
unlimited killing. They consider any close season adopted should be general, with-
out any exception.

The Minister further observes that in the last paragraph of the cemmunication
appended, the Association ask to be allowed to send two competent men to represent
their case before the Arbitrators.

The Minister appends a copy of the letter in question, together with a copy of his
reply thereto.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency bemoved to transmita copy of this Minute to the Right
Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the information of Her Majesty’s
Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGEr,
Clerk of the Privy Council,

830 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 100.]
Messrs. Marvin and Co. to Mr. Tupper.

VicTorRIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, June 5, 1891.

Dear Sir: A meeting of owners of sealing-vessels and others interested was held
last evening to take into consideration the present Bill, now before the Imperial Par-
liament, and the hardships that would arise from the Bill passing in the present
form, and if carried into effect will be ruinous to those British subjects engaged in

the business.
"62 There are some matters in connection with the passing of the Bill, and also
the demand made by the American Government for the privilege of taking
7,500 seals for the natives’ food, which we strongly object to. We therefore lay our
views before you with the object of future information and guidance of the Arbi.
trators in the settlement of this question, matters that are of vital importance to all
those engaged in the sealing business.

In taking up the demands made by the American Government for 7,500 seals for
food, for your information we beg to state that the natives employed by the lessees
of the Pribyloff Islands are taken from Oonalaska to the Islands of St. Paul and St.
George about the lst June, and remain there during the killing season, which con-
tinues until about the Ist September, when they are removed back to Oonalaska.
About six men are left on each island during the winter, to prevent any raid being
made after the Company have taken their seals. The natives living at Oonalaska
live as well as any white man can live. Those on the islands are also provided with
food for the season. The plea set up by the American Government, that they want
7,500 seals to feed the natives, is a blind, and only to gain that advantage over the
Imperial Government. That privilege being allowed them, what is to prevent them
from taking 70,000? There will be no check to prevent them doing so.

The principal lessees of the islands, Leibes and Co., havea large cannery at Kodiak,
also a fast steamer running between there and the seal islands. They can carry away
any quantity of seals when they want them. ‘The facts are not generally known,
only to those engaged in the business. In the settlement of this question, should
any such advantage be allowed the American Government, it will be all they would
ask, for, as they would be in a position to kill all the seals they require regardless of
preserving life; if it is decided to have a close season, let it be general. Give no
advantage to any one, under no plea, especially that set up by the American Govern-
ment, viz., food for natives.

The British Columbian sealers have exactly the same grounds to work on that the
American Government claim in regard to feeding our natives. We have in all 1,000
natives employed on our vessels that live principally on the seal during the sealing
season, and earn through their own industry from 500 dollars to 750 dollars while
employed seven to eight months in the year. They formerly were hostile to all
Whitemen. Life was not safe among them, but since the sealing industry has
become a legitimate business and profitable, the Indians have become civilized and
industrious, and look forward to the sealing season the same as our Eastern fisher-
men look forward to theirs. The change in their habits and mode of living is most
remarkable when compared with the savage state they lived in before the sealing
business commenced. They have now comfortable clothing, good homes, and plenty
to eat, all earned by their own industry. If our own Indians can earn their own
living and make money in this business, the natives of Behring’s Sea, employed by
the Sealing Company, can do the same, and do so, although not so well paid as our
Indians. The plea set up by the American Gov ernment, “food for the natives,” we
strongly protest against, as a dodge on the part of the Government to get the small
end of the wedge in. Another question in regard to the matter. Supposing there
should be a close season? We have fifty vessels engaged in this business, employing
about 2,000 men, half of them being natives, and “bringing in a revenue to those
employed sufficient to make them comfortable, and support ‘their families well: also
the supplies required for the vessels adds largely to the revenue of the Dominion,
and helps to make up the large amount of duty collected at Victoria. What will
become of the natives if this industry ts closed. It may cost the Dominion millions
to provide for them and keep them in order; now they are ha ppy and contented, hay-
ing comforts the same as Whitemen. If depriv ed of their living by the closing of
sealing, a man’s life would not be safe among them; also, what employment are we
going to give our Whitemen, a majority of them young men, that have taken up this
business for their future living, nearly all belonging to the Eastern provinces. Itis
too serious a matter to settle in haste, especi: ally” for the future prosperity of British
Columbia and the Dominion generally. It not only gives employment to men on
vessels, but has been the result of some ten new vessels being built here last year,
and a further increase provided no interference is allowed to closing the sea.

If the Americans are allowed their 7,500 seals, they will gain the main point they
have been seeking, while our vessels ‘will be laid up to rot, aud starvation to those

4

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 831

employed in the business. The seal is a migratory animal and does not belong to
any one nation. This outcry by the American Government of preserving seal-life is
well understood by us as meaning funds for Uncle Sam. Let the Dominion of Canada

have ashare. They have as much right as the other nations. If Canada will
63 only protect her subjects in matters of this kind, and not allow Uncle Sam to

take all the loaves and fishes, she will be a prosperous country. Having laid
the matter before you in rather a rough manner, we kindly ask your earliest con-
sideration in this matter, and would “call your ‘attention to the facts stated, not
prejudicially, but in a ealm and deliberate m: inner, fully realizing our position to be
bankruptcy and ruin to all engaged, if carried out.

We therefore humbly ask, on behalf of the sealers, that you will kindly use your
influence to have the Arbitration Committee allow the Sealers’ Association to send
two competent men, selected by them, as representatives on our behalf.

We have, &c,
(On behalf of the Sealers’ Association),
(Signed) i. B. MaRVIN AND Co.

_ [Inclosure 4 in No. 100.]
Mr. Tupper to Messrs. Marvin and Co.

OTTAWA, June 13, 1891,

GENTLEMEN: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant.
I observe what you say touching the proposal that the lessees of the United States
Government may, pending a close season, take 7,500 seals for food for the natives on
the Pribyloff Islands, and your suggestion that abuses might follow the concession
of such a privilege, and the expression of your desire that, if a close season be
adopted, it should be general without any exception.

I have considered the arrangements which you advance in support of this contention.

I also note your views touching the proposed compensation of British citizens,
who may suffer from the enforcement of a close season, and have to inform you that
I have inclosed a copy of your communication to his Excellency the Governor-Gen-
eral, and have requested his Excellency to cause your views to be communicated to
the Imperial authorities as soon as possible.

Yours, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES H. TUPPER.

{Inclosure 5 in No. 100.]
Draft of Despatch to Lord Stanley of Preston.*

DOWNING STREET, July 8, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the
24th ultimo, transmitting copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, inclos-
ing copy of a letter addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries by the British

Columbian Sealers’ Association, in which their objections to the Imperial Behring’s
Sea Seal Fishery Act are set for ‘th.

With regard to the anticipations of the Association as to the loss likely to be
suffered by British subjects through the operation of the Act, [ have already informed
your Lordship of the decision of “Her Majesty’s Government with regard to the pay-
‘ment of compensation in such cases, and need only refer you to the communications
which have already passed on the subject.

The only other question raised in the letter from the Association which appears to
call for notice is their wish to be heard before the Arbitration Commission.

As you are aware, a Joint Commission of Experts has been appointed to examine
all questions connected with seal life and the fur-seal industry for submission to the
Arbitrators, and I request that you will cause the Association to be informed that
they should lay any statements they may wish to make before this C ommission of
Experts in the first instance, and that, in the event of its being found necessary to
call evidence before the Arbitrators in addition to that which will be presented by
the Commission of Experts, Her Majesty’s Government will not tail to bear their
wishes in mind.

T have, &c.

Risen icity $$$ $ret

* This despatch was seut on July 16, 1891,

832 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
64 No. 101.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Rk. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 15, 1891.

Str: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency’s despatch
of the 9th instant, inclosing a copy of a note which you had addressed
to the Russian Government on the Behring’s Sea question, and to state
that your action, as reported in that despatch, is approved by Her
Majesty’s Government,

Tam, Wc.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 102.
Toreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 15, 1891.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, with its inclosures relating to
the objections entertained by the British Columbian Sealers’ Association
to the passing of “The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891.”

I am to state, for Lord Knutsford’s information, that Lord Salisbury:
concurs in the reply which it is proposed to return to Lord Stanley of
Preston’s despatch on this subject.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 103.
Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 16.)

NEw York, July 5, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that I have
this day transmitted to you a telegraphic despatch, of which the follow-
ing is a paraphrase:

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that Iam of opinion that itis necessary
that I should take with me in Behring’s Sea, so as to avoid delay, the permit of the
Russian Government to visit their islands should occasion arise.

I should be glad if this permit were forwarded to me—care of the Admiral, Esqui-
malt—if possible, by the mail leaving England on the 7th July.

I may add, in explanation of the above telegram, that as the Russian
islands are as much as 2,000 miles from civilized ports, I deemed it
advisable to carry with me the necessary permit in case I found it expe-
dient to make inquiries on those islands in accordance with clause 6 of
your Lordship’s letter of instructions.

I have, we.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 833
No. 104.
Sir It. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Receéved July 17.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

St. PETERSBURGH, July 17, 1891,

I have been informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs that he felt certain that, as soon as a decision had been come
to by the three Ministries interested in the question of the visit of our
Commissioners to the Russian seal islands in the Behring’s Sea, tele-
graphic instructions would be sent to the Governor of Vladivostok to
see that all facilities for the investigations required shall be accorded
to them.

65 No. 105.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir R. Morier.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 17, 1891.

Sir: I have received your Excellency’s despatch of the 7th instant,
inclosing a note from the Russian Government on the subject of the
Agreement which has recently been concluded between this country
and the United States for preventing the killing of seals during the
present season in a certain specified portion of Behring’s Sea.

In the course of this note M. de Giers alludes to the fact that the
text of the Agreement is not known to him otherwise than through the
public press.

Copies of the Agreement in the form in which it was signed were
forwarded you in my despatch of the 9th instant. I have to request
your Excellency to communicate a copy to M. de Giers, and to state
that, in order to guard against any possible inaccuracies, Her Majesty’s
Government were awaiting the receipt of the signed original from Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington before instructing you to place its
text in the hands of the Russian Government.

With regard to the conditions on which M. de Giers states that Rus-
sia would be willing to become a party to the Agreement, you are
authorized to state that, although Her Majesty’s s Government would be
very willing to enter into an arrangement with Russia and the United
States to prohibit sealing during this season to the west as well as to
the east of the line of demarcation mentioned in the Agreement, they
understand that the United States Government are unable to "do So
without fresh legislation, which is not possible at this moment, as Con-
gress is not in session. Any agreement of this nature for the present
season could therefore only be made by Russia and England alone,
and it would have the effect of leaving the western portion of Behring’s
Sea open to United States citizens, while closing it to British and
Russian subjects.

For this reason Her Majesty’s Government do not think that such
an arrangement as M. de Giers. proposes would be desirable, and they
believe that his Excellency, on consideration, will concur in their view.

Lam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.
Bs, PD y¥——o3

834 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 106.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
July 20.)
Orjrawa, July 7, 1891.

My Lorp: We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s despatch of the 24th June, informing us that the Queen has
been graciously pleased to appoint us to be her Commissioners for the
purpose of inquiring into the conditions of seal life in Behring’s Sea
and other parts of the North Pacific Ocean, and inclosing Her Majesty’s
Commission under the sign manual to that effect.

We have carefully noted the several instructions contained in your
Lordship’s despatch under reply, and trust that, acting under these
instructions, we shall successfully bring to a conclusion the matters
intrusted to our charge.

We may add, that Mr. Ashley Froude commenced his duties as See-
retary to the Commission on the 25th June.

We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAWSON,

No. 107.
The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
July 20.)
Orrawa, July 7, 1891.
My Lorp: As your Lordship has been already informed by a telegram
from Queenstown, dated the 28th June, your Lordship’s despatch of the
27th June, stating that formal permission to visit the Pribyloff Islands
will be handed to us by the United States authorities, has been duly
received. ;
66 We have also to report that Mr. Consul Fraser handed to us
at New York, on the 5th instant, a letter from the Treasury
Department at Washington, of which a copy is inclosed, for your Lord-
Ship’s information, empowering us to visit the Pribyloff Islands for the
purposes of our mission.
We have, &e.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAWSON.

{Inclosure in No. 107.]

Mr. Spaulding to Mr. Williams.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, June 25, 1891.

SIR: The 4th section of the modus vivendi respecting the fur-seal fisheries in Beh-
ring’s Sea, concluded on the 15th instant, provides as follows:

“In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make with a view to the presentation of the case of that Government before
Arbitrators, and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration may be arrived at,
it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Greai Britain will be permitted at
any time, upon application, to visit or ‘to remain upon the seal islands during the
present sealing season for that purpose.”

As it appears from a communication, dated the 23rd instant, from the Honourable
the Secretary of State, that Sir George Baden-Powell, M. P., and Professor George
Mercer Dawson have been appointed Commissioners on behalf of Her Britannic

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 835

Majesty to proceed to the Pribyloff Islands for the purpose of examining into the
fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea, and that the British Minister at this capital has
requested that the necessary permission may be granted to the above-named gentle-
men to visit and remain on the islands during the current fishing season, you are
directed to afford Sir George Baden-Powell, M. P., and Professor George Mercer
Dawson every facility to enable them to accomplish the object of their mission.
Iam, &ec.
(Signed) O. L. SPAULDING, Acting Secretary.

No. 108,
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received July 22.)

DOWNING STREET, July 21, 1891.

Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy
of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, reporting the
publication of the Agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and
the Government of the United States for a modus vivendi in relation to
the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

Iam, Wc.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 108.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOUuSsE, Ottawa, June 26, 1891.
My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith a copy of an approved Minute of
the Privy Council, authorizing the issue of a Proclamation giving publicity to the
Agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States of the
1th instant for a modus vivendi in relation to the fur-seal fisheries in Beliring’s Sea.
I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON,

67 [Inclosure 2 in No. 108.)

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council for Canada, approved by his
Hucellency the Governor-General in Council, on the 19th June, 1891.

The Committee of the Privy Council for Canada, on the recommendation of the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, advise that your Excellency do cause a Proclama-
tion to issue giving publicity to the Agreement between the Imperial Government
and that of the United States of the 15th June instant for a modus vivendi in relation
to the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 108.]
Extract from the ‘‘ Canada Gazette” of June 20, 1891.
Proclamation.
[L. 8.] STANLEY OF PRESTON.

Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
Queen, Defender of the Faith, &e.

To all to whom these presents shall come, or whom the same may in any wise con-
cern, greeting.

836 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

A Proclamation.

(Signed) JNo, 8. D. THompson,
Attorney-General, Canada.

Whereas an Agreement for a modus vivendi between our Government and the Goy-
ernment of the United States in relation to the fur-seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea
was concluded on the 15th day of June, in the year of our Lord 1891, on the follow-
ing terms, that is to say: ;

“Agreement between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and the Government
of the United States for a Modus Vivendi in relation to the Fur-seal Fisheries in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

“For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote
the friendly settlement of the “questions “pending between the two Governments
touching their respective rights in Behring’s Sea, and for the preservation of the
seal species, the following Avreement is made without prejudice to the rights or
claims of either party :

Scaler Majesty’ s Government will prohibit, until May next, seal-killing in that
part of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation ‘deseribed in Article
1 of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly
use its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects
and vessels.

“2. The United States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period
in the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof, the property
of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence
and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the obsery-
ance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

«*3. Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters
of Behrine’s Sea, outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States,
may be seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of
either of the High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as
practicable to the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who
shall alone have the jurisdiction to try the offence and impose the penalties for the
same. The witnesses and proofs necessary to establish the offence shall also be sent

with them.
68 “4. In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government
may desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the Case of that Gov-
ernment betore Arbitrators, and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration
may be arrived at, it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain
will be permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal
islands during the present sealing season for that purpose.

“Sioned and sealed in duplicate at Washington, this 15th day of June, 1891, on
behalf of their respective Governments, by Sir Julian Pauncefote, G.C. M.G., K.C. B.,
Her Britannic Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, and
William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State of the United States.

(Signed) “JULIAN PAUNCEIFOTE. [SEAL. ]
‘WILLIAM F. WHARTON.” [SEAL. ]

Now know ye, that we have by this our Royal Proclamation caused the said
Agreement to be made public, to the end that the same and every part thereof may
be observed and fulfilled with good faith by all our loving subjects.

Of all which our loving subjects and all others whom these presents may concern
are hereby required to take notice, and to govern themselves accordingly.

In testimony whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patent. and
the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness, our right trusty and
well-beloved the Right Honourable Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, Baron Stanley of
Preston, in the county of Lancaster, in the Peerage ot the United Kingdom, Knight
Grand Cross of our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Governor-General of Canada.

At our Government House, in our city of Ottawa, this 19th day of June, in the
year of our Lord 1891, and in the fifty-fourth year of our reign.

By command,

(Signed) J, A. CHAPLEAU, Seerctary of State.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 837

No. 109.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
July 23.)
OTTAWA, July 9, 1891.

My Lorp: We have the honour to request that your Lordship will
be good enough to move the Japanese Government to supply us with
information on the following points:

1. Records of fur seal-skins brought to Japan for any years in the
present century.

2. Localities where seal-skins are taken.

3. Whether taken at sea or on shore.

4, Details of any known breeding places.

5. Whether, and if so what, Regulations are in force on breeding
grounds.

6. List of vessels fitted out in Japan for fur-seal fishery in this and
past seasons, and from what ports.

7. Whether seal fishery has increased or decreased in recent years,
with causes of such increase or decrease.

8. Any other information concerning Japanese seal fisheries, espe-
cially documentary evidence.

We would venture to suggest to your Lordship that the Japanese
Government should be requested to send such information on the above
points as they may be able to procure direct to us, care of the Post-
master, Victoria, British Columbia.

We have, &e.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAWSON.

P. S.—I have ventured to senda copy of this despatch, privately, to
Mr. de Bunsen (Legation, Japan) to-day, in order to save valuable time.

G. B-P.

69 No. 110.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishbury.—( Received July 23.)

WASHINGTON, July 14, 1891.
My Lorp: Immediately on the receipt of your Lordship’s telegram
of the 13th instant, respecting the proposed compensation clause in the
Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, [ addressed a note on the sub-
ject to the Acting Secretary of State, of which I have the honour to
inclose a copy.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 110.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1891.

Sir: Since the receipt of your note of the 25th ultimo, of which I transmitted a
copy to the Marquis of Salisbury, I have been in telegraphic communication with
his Lordship respecting the two clauses (6 and 7) which, by direction of the Presi-
dent, you have proposed for adoption in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Convention,
and also respecting the form of agreement for carrying out the arrangement for the

838 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

appointment of a Joint Commission to inquire into the conditions of seal life in
Behring’s Sea. :

I desire at present to confine myself to the clause proposed in your note which
deals with the question of compensation, namely, clause 7. :

It is the only one which appears to me to raise any serious difficulty, and I trust
that, after considering the following observations, and with a view to expediting the
conclusion of this negotiation, the President will not object to the substitution of a
clause in the form which I shall presently kave the honour tosubmit. Her Majesty’s
Government have no desire to exclude from the consideration of the Arbitrators any
claim of compensation in relation to the Behring’s Sea fisheries which the United
States Government may believe themselves entitled to prefer consistently with the
recognized principles of international law. But they are of opinion that it is inex-
pedient, in a case involving such important issues and presenting such novel features,
to prejudge, as it were, the question of liability by declaring that compensation shall
be awarded on a hypothetical state of facts. Her Majesty’s Government consider
that any legal liability arising out of the facts as proved and established at the arbi-
tration should be as much a question for argument and decision as the facts them-
selves; and, in order that this should be made quite clear, and that both Governments
should be placed, in that respect, on the same footing, I am authorized by Lord
Salisbury to submit the following clause in substitution for the 7th clause proposed
by the President:

“7, Either Government may submit to the Arbitrators any claim for compensation
which it may desire to prefer against the other Government in respect of any losses
or injuries in relation to the fur-seal fishery in Behriny’s Sea, for which such other
Government may be legally liable.

“The Arbitrators shall decide on the legality of every such claim, and, if it shall
be established, they may award such compensution as in their judgment shall seem
equitable.”

IT have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No; att:
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 23.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, July 23, 1891.

With reference to my despatch of the 14th instant, on the subject of

the Behring’s Sea compensation clause, I have the honour to state that

after long discussions, in the course of which I have insisted on the

principle contended for in my above-mentioned despatch, I have to-day

received a note from the United States Government which is to the
following effect:

[See Inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of the 24th July, 1891: Inclosure in
No. 118, infra. |

70 No. 118.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Fraser.

(Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 24, 1891.
The following is urgent:
The British Commissioners in Behring’s Sea are anxious to receive
information on the following points:

[See despatch from Behring’s Sea Commissioners of the 9th July, 1891: No. 109.]

You should forward any information you can obtain to the Behring’s
Sea Commissioners, addressed to the care of the Postmaster, Victoria,
British Columbia, with as little delay as possible.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 839
No. 114.
Sir R. Morier to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received July 27.)

ST. PETERSBURGH, July 22, 1891.

My Lorn: I have this day received your Lordship’s despatch of the
17th instant, in reference to the Fur-seal question and the Behring’s
Sea, and have addressed to M. de Giers the note of which I have the
honour to inclose a copy herewith.

I have, We.
(Signed) R. B. D. MORIER.

{Inclosure in No. 114.]
Sir R. Morier to M. de Giers.

Sr. PETERSBURGH, July 10 (22), 1891.

M. LE Ministre: I have not failed to transmit to Her Majesty’s Principal Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs the note which your Excellency did me the honour
to address to me on the Mth (26th) June last, with reference to the Behring’s Sea
Agreement concluded between Her Majesty’s "Government and that of the United
States.

With reference to the conditions on which your Excellency states that Russia
would be willing to become a party to this Agreement, I am instructed to inform you
that, although Her Majesty’s Government would be’ very willing to enter into an
arrangement with Russia and the United States to prohibit sealing, during this
season, to the west as well as to the east of the line of demarcation mentioned in the
Agreement, they understand that the United States Government’are unable to do so
without fresh legislation, which is not possible at this moment, as Congress is not
in session.

Any Agreement of this nature for the present season could, therefore, only be

made by Russia and England alone, and it would have the effect of leaving the
western portion of Behring’ s Sea open to United States citizens while closing it to
British and Russian subjects.

For this reason Her Majesty’s Government do not think that such an arrangement
would be desirable, and they believe that your Excellency, on consideration, will
concur in their view.

LTavail, &c.
(Signed) R. B. D. Morter.

71 No. 115.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 27, 1891.

Str: I have received your despatch of the 14th instant, inclosing
copy of your note to the United States Government respecting the
compensation clause to be inserted in the proposed Agreement for arbi-
tration on the Behring’s Sea question.

The terms of your note are approved by Her Majesty’s Government.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

840 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 116.

Mr. Howard to the Marquis of Salishury.—(Received July 29.)
{ Telegraphic.]

St. PETERSBURGH, July 29, 1891.

With reference to Sir Robert Morier’s telegram of the 17th instant
respecting the visit of the British Commission to the Russian seal-
fisheries, I have the honour to state that I have received a note from
the Russian Government giving them the necessary permission and
stating that instructions had been sent to the Governor-General of the
Amoor Province to facilitate the object of their mission.

INO: ALT.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Howard.

FOREIGN OFFICE, July 31, 1891.

Srr: Ihave received your telegram of the 29th instant, ee that
the Russian Government have authorized the British Commissioners in
Behring’s Sea to visit the Russian seal fisheries, and that the Governor-
General at Amoor has been requested to afford them every facility.

I have to request you to convey to the Russian Government the
thanks of Her Majesty’s Government for their action in this matter.

Iam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY,

No. 418;
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 3.)

WASHINGTON, July 24, 1891.

My Lorp: In my despatch of the 14th instant.I had the honour to
transmit to your Lordship a copy of the note of the 13th which I
addressed to the United States Government, submitting the new clause
in the Arbitration Agreement which I had been authorized by your
Lordship to propose on the subject of damages. I have had several
discussions at the State Department, in the course of which I have
strongly contended for the principle that the validity of any claim put
forward by either party should be left to the decision of the Arbitrators.

This I consider a most important point, for it is highly improbable
that the United States Government should succeed in establishing their
claim to an exclusive right of fishery on the high seas, except under a
new rule of international law, based on exceptional circumstances, and
which the Arbitrators may lay down as applicable to the present case.
If so, it would seem inequitable that Great Britain should pay damages
for the infraction of an ex post facto rule of law. Moreover, a claim of
damages for injury caused to the property of the United States in the
seal islands alleged to have been caused by pelagic sealing may be open
to objection on the ground of its remoteness and of the impractica-
_ bility of fixing any correct measure of compensation.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 841

IT have felt much anxiety lest the President should persist in the
endeavour to obtain a previous admission of liability on the part
12 of Her Majesty’s Government in a case involving (as I stated in
my note to the United States Government) such important issues

and presenting such novel features.

It was not until yesterday that I received the official reply of the
United States Government to my note of the 13th instant, of which I
telegraphed the substance to your Lordship.

I have the honour to inclose a copy of that reply, from which your
Lordship will perceive that the President, while maintaining that the
United States would be justified in insisting that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment should admit responsibility in certain events, is willing to waive
that point, and to modify his proposals with a view to remove what
seems to be the last point of difference in this protracted discussion.

The President urges that the clause should contain a statement in
general terms of the claims which each Government desires to prefer,
and, in his reply, he proposes a new form in which the claims are so
stated and left for the decision of the Arbitrators, thus conceding the
principle for which I have contended.

The statement of the British claim in this new clause appears to me
to be too restrictive, as it would seem to exclude losses and injuries
arising from interference with our vessels as distinguished from actual
Seizures, and takes no account of the personal claims of the British sub-
jects imprisoned and otherwise damnified in the proceedings resulting
from those seizures.

I do not apprehend that the United States Government will object to
our claim being stated in our own terms; and, subject to that modifica-
tion, I venture to think that the clause now proposed by the President
will be acceptable to Her Majesty’s Government, and will practically
bring this long negotiation to a satisfactory termination.

I have, &e.
(Signed) : JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

{Inclosure in No. 118.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

WASHINGTON, July 23, 1891.

Sir: The President directs me to say, in response to your note of the 13th instant,
that he noticed with pleasure the good progress towards a full agreement upon the
terms of arbitration indicated by your statement that only the 7th el: Vuse, aS Pro-
posed by this Government, appears to you ‘‘to raise any serious difficulty.”

Yhat clause was thus stated in my note of the 25th June:

“Tt shall be competent to the Arbitrators to award such compensation as, in their
judgment, shall seem equitable, to the subjects or citizens of Great Britain whose
vessels may have been seized by the United States in the Behring’s Sea, if such
seizures shall be found by the Arbitrators to have been unwarranted; and it shall
also be competent to the Arbitrators to award to the United States such compensa-
tion as, in their judgment, shall seem equitable for any injuries resulting to the
United States, or to the lessees from that Government of the privilege ot taking
seals on the Pribyloff Islands, by reason of the killing of seais in the Behring’s Sea
by persons acting under the prote ction of the British flag, outside of the ordinary
territorial limits, and since the Ist day of January, 1886, if such killing shall be
found to have been an infraction of the rights of the United States.”

The objection you make to this clause is thus stated by you:

“Her Majesty’s Government have no desire to exclude from the consideration of
the Arbitrators any claim of compensation in relation to the Behring’s Sea fisheries
which the United States Government may consider themselves entitled to prefer
consistently with the recognized principles of international law; but they are of

842 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

opinion that it is inexpedient, in a case involving such important issues, and pre-
senting such novel features, to prejudge, as it were, the question of liability by
declaring that compensation shall be awarded on a hypothetical state of facts. Her
Majesty’s Government consider that any legal liability arising out of the facts as
proved and established at the arbitration should be as much a question for argu-
ment and decision as the facts themselves, and in order that this should be made
quite clear, and that both Governments should be placed in that respect on the same
footing,” &e.

The President was not prepared to anticipate this objection, in view of the fact
that Lord Salisbury, in his note of the 21st February last, had asked a specific sub-
mission to the Arbitrators of the British claim for seizures made in the Behring’s Sea,

His language, which was quoted in my note of the 25th June, was as follows:
73 “There is one omission in these questions which J have no doubt the Goy-

ernment of the President will be very glad to repair, and that is the reference
to the Arbitrator of the question, What damages are due to the persous who have
been injured, in case it shall be determined by him that the action of the United
States in seizing British vessels has been without warrant in international law?”

This could only be understood as a suggestion that the claims of the respective
Governments should be stated and given a specific reference. And so, in the 7th
clause proposed, the claim of Great britain for seizures made is defined and referred
in terms so correspondent to the request of Lord Salisbury that it cannot be sup-
posed objection would have been made to it if it had stood alone. But a particular
statement of the British claim for compensation certainly made proper, and even
necessary, a like statement of the claims of the United States, and the President is
not able to see that the reference proposed was in any respect unequal. If it should
be found by the Arbitrators that the United States had without right seized British
vessels in the Behring’s Sea, the Arbitrators were authorized to give compensation;
and if, on the other hand, these and other British vessels were tound to have visited
that sea, and to have killed seals therein in violation of the rights of the United
States and to the injury of its property interest, the Arbitr ators were authorized to
give compensation. One is not more subject to the objection that it presents a
hypothetical state of facts than the other, and both submit the question of the
lawfulness or unlawfulness of the acts complained of.

The President believes that Her Majesty’s Government may justly be held respon-
sible under the attendant circumstances for injuries done to the jurisdictional or
property rights of the United States by the sealing-vessels flying the British flag, at
least since the date when the right of these vessels to invade the Behring’s Sea and
to pursue therein the business of pelagic sealing was made the subject of diplomatic
intervention by Lord Salisbury. In his opinion, justice requires that Her Majesty’s
Government should respond for the injuries done by those vessels, if their acts are
found to have been wrongful, as fully as if each had borne a commission from that
Government to do the acts complained of. The presence of the master, or even of a
third person, under circumstances calculated and intended to give encouragement,
creates a liability for trespass at the common law, and much more if his presence is
accompanied with declarations of right, protests against the defence which the
owner is endeavoring to make, and a declared purpose to aid the trespassers if they
are resisted. The justice of this rule is so apparent that it is not seen how in the less
technical Tribunal of an international arbitration it could be held to be inapplicable.

The United States might well insist that Her Majesty’s Government should admit
responsibility for the acts of the Canadian sealers which it has so directly encouraged
and promoted, precisely as in the proposal the United States admits responsibility for
the acts of its revenue vessels. But with a view to remove what seems to be the last
point of difference in a discussion which has been very much protracted, the Presi-
dent is willing to modify his proposal, and directs me to offer the following:

“The Government of Great Britain having presented the claims of its subjects for
compensation for the seizure of their vessels by the United States in Behring’s Sea,
and the Government of the United States having presented on its own behalf, as well
as of the lessees of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribylotf Islands, claims for
compensation by reason of the killing of seals in the Behring’s Sea by persons act-
ing under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and decide
upon such claims in acvordance with justice and equity and the respective rights of
the High Contracting Parties, and it shall be competent for the Arbitrators to yaward
such compensation as in their judgment shall seem equitable.”

The President thinks that a particular statement of the claims of the respective
Governments is more likely to lead to asatisfactory result than the general reference
proposed by you. It is believed that the form of reference now proposed by him
removes the objections urged by you to his former proposal.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) W. F. WHARTON, Acting Secretary.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. §43
74 No. 119.
Mr. Howard to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 3.)

St. PETERSBURGH, July 29, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of this day’s date, I have
the honour to transmit herewith to your Lordship a copy of a note of
the 16th (28th) instant from M. de Giers to Sir Robert Morier, acquaint-
ing Her Majesty’s Ambassador that Sir George Baden-Powell and
Professor Dawson are authorized to visit the Russian fisheries in the
Behring’s Sea, and stating that Baron Korff, Governor-General of the
Amoor Province, has been informed of this fact, and has been requested
to facilitate, as much as possible, the object of the mission of the above-
named Cominissioners.

I have, &c.
(Signed) HENRY HOWARD.

{Inclosure in No. 119.]
M. de Giers to Sir R. Morier.

SAINT-PETERSBOURG, le 16 (28) Juillet, 1891.

M. V’AMBASSADEUR: En réponse a la note de votre Excellence en date du 27 Juin
(9 Juillet), je m’empresse de Vinformer que Sir George Powell et le Professeur Dawson
sont autorisés & visiter nos pécheries d’otaries dans la Mer de Behring.

Je n’ai pas manqué de porter cette autorisation 4 la connaissance du Gouverneur-
Général de la Province de l’Amour, Baron Kortf, en Vengageant 4 faciliter, autant
que possible, aux savants susmentionnés, l’accomplissement de leur tache.

Veuillex, &c.
(Signé) GIERS.

(Translation. ]

St. PETERSBURGH, July 16 (28), 1891.

M. VAMBASSADEUR: In reply to your Excellency’s note of the 27th June (9th
July), IT hasten to inform you that Sir G. Powell and Professor Dawson have been
authorized to visit our seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

IT have not failed to inform Baron Kortf, the Governor-General of the Province of
the Amoor, of this authorization, and to request him to assist the above-mentioned
gentlemen as far as possible in the accomplishment of their task.

IT avail, &c.
(Signed) GIERS.

No. 120.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received August 3.)

DOWNING STREET, August 1, 1891.
Str: With reference to your letter of the 9th May last, forwarding
copies of a communication from Mr. C. Hawkins respecting the seal
fishery in the North Pacific, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to trans-
mit to you, for the information of the Marquis of Salisbury, copy of a
despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, inclosing copy of a
Minute of the Privy Council on the subject of Mr. Hawkins’ statements.

lam, &e.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON.

S44 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 120.]

Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford

CASCAPEDIA RIVER, New RICHMOND, P. Q., July 3, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 20th May last, trans-
mitting a copy of a letter from Mr. Hawkins on the subject of the seal fishery in
Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to forward herewith a copy of an approved
75 Minute of the Privy Council, embodying a Report of the Minister of Marineand
Fisheries dealing with the question.
I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 120.}

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 27th June, 1891,

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration certain papers
from the Colonial Office on the subject of the seal fishery in Behring’s Sea.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the matter was referred, observes
that Mr. Hawkins states ‘‘since about the year 1885 we have received in this coun-
try (England) large numbers of seal-skins, known in the trade as the north-west
coast skins, the same having been taken in the open sea, and, from appearances that
are unmistakable to the initiated, are exclusively the skins of female seals pregnant;
these are all shot, and I have been informed that for every skin recovered five or six
are lost through sinking when struck by the shot. . . .”

The Minister further observes, in view of the numerous reports in which evidence
of practical hunters and of other well-qualified authorities was submitted, refuting
statements similar to the assertion made in the letter under review touching the per-
centage of seals struck and secured by the sealers, it would seem that no necessity
exists for a reiteration of the evidence embodied in the Minute of Council approved
by your Excellency on the 4th November, 1889.

The Minister, regarding the statement contained in Mr. Hawkins’ communication
as to what he terms the ‘‘north-west coast skins,” would advert to the contention
of the Canadian Government to the effect that real danger to seal life is to be found
in the operations upon the hauling-grounds and rookeries increased by the catch of
seals when slowly moving along or sojourning on the north-west coast of America,
the females being then unquestionably in pup, before the ultimate swift and direct
journey to the rookeries has begun. These seals are the first taken by the sealing
fleet on their way to the Behring’s Sea, and are distinguished by the sealers as the
“coast catch,” and by Mr. Hawkins as the “‘ north-west coast skins.”

The Minister submits that the testimony produced by Mr. Hawkins in this con-
nection is quite in accord with the information hitherto obtained, and is most valu-
able in support of the contention of Canada. It has been previously pointed out
that although great stress had been placed by the United States Government on the
alleged necessity for prohibiting pelagic sealing in the Behring’s Sea, yet no attempt
had ever been made by that Government for an arrangement to curtail similar opera-
tions along the coast previous to the entry of seals into that sea.

In an attempt to vindicate the methods of the lessees of the seal islands, Mr. Haw-
kins proceeds: ‘‘ We, on the other hand, during my experience have had annually
large numbers of seal-skins from Alaska, and also from the Copper Islands, which
are killed by being clubbed on land, and are selected with judgment, being the skins
of young male seals: the older fighting or breeding males are spared.”

This is another presentation of the case of the United States Government for the
prohibiting of every other character of sealing but that adopted by the lessees, so
frequently combated by your Excellency’s advisers. While the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries (loes not deem it necessary to dwell at any length upon the -point, he
would, in passing, invite attention to the fact that notwithstanding this statement,
the United States Treasury agents now assert the contrary, and the Government of
the United States appear to be acting on the Reports of their Agents.

The Minister further observes that a Minute of Council dated the 6th June, 1891,
dealt at considerable length with this subject, and it included the Annual Report
(1890) of Special Agent C. J. Goff, in which an alarming state of affairs at the rook-
erles was revealed, due, it was stated, to the indiscriminate slaughter of seals and
improvident operations of the lessees. In the opinion of the Agent and his assist-
ants it had become necessary to enforce a total prohibition of the killing of seals
for an indefinite period.

se

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 845

The Minister submits that whatever significance Mr. Hawkins’ statement may
have upon the abstract question of the protection of seal life in the Pacific waters,
it can have but little, if any, on the controversy between Great britain and
76 the United States, as the evil complained of, even if as great as alleged, occurs
outside the disputed area, as he himself implies in his reference to the “ north-

west coast skins.”

‘The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this Minute to the Right
Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the information of
Her Majesty’s Government.

All whieh is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk, Privy Council.

No. 12

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
August 3.)

STEAM-SHIP “ DANUBE,” AT VICTORIA, Ee aicn COLUMBIA,
July 16, 1891,

My Lorpb: We have the honour to report that we met at Ottawa on
the 6th instant, and on the same evening consulted with the Premier
of Canada, Mr. Abbott, and the Minister of Marine, Mr. Tupper, on the
subject of our mission.

The Governor-General was absent from Ottawa, but kindly placed
Government House at our disposal.

We spent the 7th, 8th, and 9th July in Ottawa in consultation with
Ministers and in collecting information and evidence.

On the evening of the 9th instant we left Ottawa by-train direct for
Vancouver, where we arrived on the loth instant, and found the char-
tered steam-ship ‘ Danube” awaiting us at the wharf according to our
instructions.

Admiral Hotham, C. B., had crossed from Esquimalt to meet us, and
informed us as to the very complete arrangements he had made for Her
Majesty’s ships in Behring’s Sea to assist. us in every way.

Shortly after our arrival a deputation, headed by Mr. Oppenheimer,
Mayor of Vancouver, waited upon us on behalf of the sealing-vessel
owners in the city, with whom we had a most satisfactory conference.

We left Vancouver at 6 P. M., and arrived at Victoria this day at 1
A.M. At 10 A. M. we received, as by previous arrangement, an impor-
tant deputation of the Board of Trade and Sealers’ Association, who
gave us most valuable information, and willingly promised to procure
more on certain points pending our return. We have also consulted
other authorities in Victoria, and completed the equipment of the
* Danube.”

We leave the port this evening bound for the Pribyloff Islands.

We have, We.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAWSON.

846 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 122.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 12, 1891.

I have received your despatch of the 24th ultimo.

The modification of the 7th Article of the Arbitration Agreement
proposed by the President of the United States, and communicated in
Mr. Wharton’s note to you of the 23rd ultimo, contains the following
words:

The Government of the United States having presented on its own behalf, as well
as of the lessees of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribyloff Islands, claims for
compensation by reason of the killing of seals in Behring’s Sea by persons acting
under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and decide
upon such claims. . .

These words involve the doctrine that Her Majesty’s Government are
liable to make good losses resulting from the wrongful action of per-
sons sailing outside their jurisdiction under the British flag.

It would be impossible for Her Majesty’s Government to accept such

a doctrine even at the hands of an Arbitrator. Nor can they
17 admit that, by having asserted diplomatically the right of any

persons to do that which an Arbitrator subsequently decides
such persons cannot do, they are made liable in damages.

This 7th Article, which deals with the question of compensation, is
therefore likely to give occasion for lengthy negotiations, and the ques-
tion arises whether it would not be better, if the Government of the
United States will agree to such a course, to sign the other six Articles
as to which an agreement has been arrived at, and to proceed with the
arbitration, leaving the 7th Article to be treated separately?

No. 123.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Lelegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, August 22, 1891.

IT am of opinion that it will be better for you to clearly recapitulate
the grounds, as set forth in the telegram from this Office of the 12th
instant, on which Her Majesty’s Government cannot agree to the word-
ing of the 7th Article proposed by the President, and that, in lieu of
it, you should propose one somewhat as follows:

Either of the two Governments may submit to the Arbitrators any question of
fact which it may wish to put before them in reference to the claims for compen-
sation which it believes itself or its nationals to possess against the other.

The question whether or not, and to what extent, those facts, as determined by
the Arbitrators, and taken in connection with their decision upon the other ques-
tions submitted to them, render such claims valid according to the principles of
international law, shall be a matter of subsequent negotiation, and may, if the twe
Powers agree, be referred in whole or in part to the Arbitrators.

This is not to be taken as a definitive wording, and the proposal
should be so made as to leave either side free to amend it.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 847
No. 123.*

Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 23.)
[Telegraphic.]

SEAL ISLAND, August 5, 1891.
Have ascertained that this year’s take of seals is already consider-
ably in excess of 7,500. On the assumption that the limitation of catch
begins only from the date of the signature of the modus vivendi, the
United States Agent continues to kill the seals. I am posting despatch
on this subject.

No. 124.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 23.)

[Telegraphic.]
NEWPORT, August 23, 1891.
With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday respecting
the clause in the Behring’s Sea Agreement on the question of damages,
IT have the honour to inform your Lordship that I am writing an unofficial
letter, marked Private, to the Acting Secretary of State, based on the
telegram above mentioned.

No. 125.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[ Telegraphic. ]
FOREIGN OFFICE, August 26, 1891.

IT have to request you to communicate to the United States Govern-
ment Sir G. B. Powell’s telegram of the 5th instant, repeated in my
preceding telegram, stating that the United States Agent at Seal
Island continues to kill seals, although the number already killed this
year is materially in excess of the limitation agreed upon by the modus
vivendi of the 15th June last.

You should state that Her Majesty’s Government are convinced that
the President will not permit any departure from the true spirit of the
Agreement, and will take such measures to insure its strict observance
as may seem to him to be requisite.

78 No. 126.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received August 31.)

NEWPORT, August 20, 1891.
My Lorp: I transmitted to your Lordship in my despatch of the
23rd June last a copy of the Memorandum which I communicated on
the 24th of that month to the Acting Secretary of State, embodying

848 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

the substance of instructions issued to the British cruizers in Behring’s
Sea in pursuance of the modus vivendi, and suggesting that an Agree-
ment should be come to between the Governments of Great Britain
and the United States for mutual indemnities in respect of acts com-
mitted by the cruizers of one nation against the vessels of the other in
execution of that modus vivendi.

As I informed your Lordship in my despatch of the 27th June, I
received a communication from the Acting Secretary of State in reply,
acquainting me that the above Memor: andum had been immediately
transmitted to the United States Navy Department, for their infor-
mation.

No answer, however, being received to the proposal contained in the
latter portion of the Memorandum, I addressed a note on the 8th
instant to Mr. Wharton, copy of which I have the honour to inclose,
requesting to be informed, at his earliest convenience, of the views of
the United States Government with respect to the suggested A gree-
ment, and i have now received a note from him, in reply, of which I
have also the honour to inclose a copy.

I have, we,
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.,

{Inclosure 1 in No. 126.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

NEWPORT, August 8, 1891.

Sir: On the 23rd June last I had the honour to place in your hands a Memorandum,
embodying the substance of the instructions issued to British cruizers in Behring’s
Sea in pursuance of the modus vivendi signed on the 15th of that month.

The Memorandum also contained a proposal for an Agreement between the Goy-
ernments of Great Britain and of the United States for mutual indemnities in respect
of acts committed by the cruizers of one nation against the vessels of the other in
execution of the modus vivendi. To that proposal I have not as yet been favoured
with areply, and I should be extremely obliged if you would be good enough to
inform me, at your earliest convenience, of the views of your Government with
respect to the suggested Agreement.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 126.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 17, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 5rd instant,
in which you refer to a Memorandum of the 23rd June, left with me the 24th June,
in which you submitted a proposal for an Agreement between the Governments of
Great Britain and the United States for mutual indemnities in respect of acts com-
mitted by the cruizers of one nation against the vessels of the other in execution of
the modus vivendi.

The President desires me to say, in reply, that it seems to him to be quite unnatural
that the twv Governments, having come to a friendly understanding as to a modus
vivendi, and the method of its enforcement, should anticipate or attempt to provide
against possible breaches or violations of duty by the vessels of either country. It
will be time enough, in the President's opinion, when either Government lodges
against the other a complaint in this regard, to consider the question of indemnity.
The President desires me to state that he hopes that no such question may arise, but
that he will be prepared to meet it in a fricudly spirit, if, unfortunately, differences
should develop.

I have, &c.
(Signed) W. WHARTON.

hee oe

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 849

79 No. 127.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 7.)

NEWPORT, August 28, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 22nd
instant, I have the honour to inclose copy of the private and unofficial
letter which I[ have addressed to the Acting Secretary of State, relating
to the compensation clause in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 127.—Private and Unofticial.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

NEWPORT, August 26, 1891,

DEAR Mr. WHARTON: In my reply to your official note of the 22nd instant I stated
that I hoped to be able to send an answer to your note of the 23rd ultimo in a few
days.

Before doing so, however, I am anxious to explain to you privately and unofficially,
as I would do verbally were I in Washington, the objection which my Government
entertain to the latest form of clause relating to compensation, which has been pro-
posed by the President for adoption as Article 7 in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration
Agreement. Such a private and unofficial exchange of views at this point of the
negotiations may abridge the official correspondence, and facilitate a solution of the
present difficulty, on the basis of a suggestion which you made when we discussed
the question informally at Washington. My Government are unable to accept the
form of clause proposed by the President, because it appears to them, taken in con-
nection with your note of the 23rd ultimo, to imply an admission on their part of a
doctrine respecting the liability of Governments for the acts of their nationals or
other persons sailing under their flag on the high seas, which is not warranted by
international law, and to which they cannot subscribe.

Ineed hardly say that the discussion of such a point (which after all may never
arise) must prolong the negotiation indefinitely. Moreover, it seems premature to
enter into such a discussion before the other questions to be submitted to the Arbi-
trators have been determined, and all the facts on which any liability can arise have
been ascertained.

Your suggestion, to which I have referred, was to leave out altogether the ques-
tion of damages from the Arbitration Agreement, and you may remember that, at
the time, I did not encourage the idea, not apprehending that the clause would give
rise to such protracted discussion, and being, moreover, anxious that the settlement
to be arrived at should embrace and finally dispose of every point in controversy.

There is a middle course, however, which appears to me to commend itself, from
every point of view, as a practical and logical solution of the present difficulty. It
is to omit the 7th clause as to compensation, and to insert, in its place, a clause
referring to the Arbitrators any question of fact which either Government may put
to them with reference to the claims for compensation it believes itself to possess.
The application of the facts to international law might be a matter for negotiation
after they are determined, and, if the two Governments agree, might be referred, in
whole or in part, to the Arbitrators. The clause might be worded as follows:

‘“Clause 7. Either of the two Governments may submit to the Arbitrators any
question of fact which it may wish to put before them in reference to the claims for
compensation which it believes itself or its nationals to possess against the other.

“The question whether or not, and to what extent, these facts as determined by
the Arbitrators, and taken in connection with their decision upon the other ques- ,
tions submitted to them, render such claims valid, according to the principles of
international law, shall be a matter of subsequent negotiation, and may, if the two
Powers agree, be referred, in whole or in part, to the Arbitrators.”

I do not, of course, propose the above wording as definitive. It should be open to
amendment on either side. But if, after submitting it to the President, you should
be able to inform me privately that such a clause, under the circumstances, would
be acceptable to your Government, I would then address you officially in reply to
your note of the 23rd ultimo, and formally make the above proposal, stating the
ground on which it is based.

BeSopk Boy: OL

850 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

80 Hoping that this mode of settlement of the last point in dispute will meet
with your approval, and that this effort, on my part, to bring the negotiation
at once to a satisfactory termination may be successful, I remain, &e.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

No. 128.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received September 7.)

NEWPORT, August 28, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to my other despatch of this date, I have
the honour to transmit herewith copy of the note of the 16th instant
from the Acting Secretary of State, referred to in the inclosure to my
above-mentioned despatch, in which Mr. Wharton inquired when an
answer may be expected to his note of the 23rd ultimo, relating to
the proposed compensation clause in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration

Agreement.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 128.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF SraTE, Washington, August 22, 1891.

Str: Referring to my note to you of the 23rd ultimo, relative to the proposed
agreement of Arbitration of certain matters affecting the seal fisheries in Behring’s
Sea, I would be extremely obliged if you would be kind enough to inform me when
an answer to the same may be expected.

I have, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM F, WHARTON,
} Acting Secretary.

No. 129.

Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
September 8.)

STEAM-SHIP “‘ DANUBE,” AT ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA,
August 5, 1891,

My Lorp: We venture to think it desirable that we should at once
report to your Lordship on certain points which have come to our knowl-
edge in relation to Article 2 of the modus vivendi, and we inclose copy
of a letter which we deemed it right to address to the Treasury Agent
representing the United States Government on the Pribyloff Islands.

We send with this despatch to the nearest telegraph office, which is
2,000 miles distant, a telegram of which the following is a paraphrase:

Pribyloff Islands, 5th 4ugust.—Have the honour to inform your Lordship that this
year’s take of seals already considerably exceeds 7,500.

The agent of the United States Treasury continues to allow seals to be killed on
the assumption that the limited catch is to commence from the date of the signing
of the modus vivendi. Despatch follows by mail.

Immediately on our arrival here we established relations with the
officials of the Government and of the North American Commercial
Company of a most friendly character, and they have given us every

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 851

aid and assistance in our inquiries. But we speedily discovered that
before the date of our arrival here (28th July), at the lowest estimate
8,800 seals had been killed this season, and that it was in contemplation
to kill at least several hundred more.

We had understood especially from Mr. Wharton’s letter to Sir J.
Pauncefote of the 6th June, 1891, that the Agents of the Treasury
Department had been instructed by order of the President to stop the
killing when 7,500 seals had been taken, and that the Government of
the United States had taken every precaution to insure the observation
of the stipulation to limit the catch to 7,500.

At St. Paul we were informed that the Treasury Agent had

81 been instructed on the 27th May to keep the quota of skins taken

by the Company under 7,500, and that en route to the islands he

was advised by telegraph to interpret his instructions in accordance

with the United States Proclamation. He arrived at the Pribyloff

Islands on the 10th June, but the said Proclamation did not reach the

islands until the 2nd July. In the meantime, we find that when the

quota of 7,500 seals had been killed (by the 2Uth June), all killing for
the Company was stopped.

The Treasury Agent explained to us that he had much difficulty in
interpreting the Proclamation when it arrived, as he received no sup-
plementary instructions with it. After full consideration he decided to
permit killing ‘for food” to continue apparently on the assumption
that the limit of catch to 7,500 was to commence from the date of sign-
ing the modus vivendi, that is on the 15th June.

We have been informed that already 1,400 seals have been killed in
excess of the above number as “food seals,” and that on the same
assumption it is contemplated that perhaps 2,000 more will be killed
this season.

The agent has given orders that no killing shall take place during
the coming “stagey” season (which lasts from the beginning of August
until the end of October), the skins being then of little value, but
he has explained that the killing would be again resumed after that
interval.

We may add that the skins killed for food become the property of the
Lessee Company, and that therefore the total number of seals to be
killed and placed to the credit of the Company during this season
would exceed by 3,000, the 7,500 contemplated under the modus vivendi.

We may observe that the market value of 7,500 skins would probably
reach a total of 50,0001. The Lessee Company are bound to provide
dwellings, church, school accommodation, and 100 tons of coal for the
natives, and to support the widows and orphans and the aged and
infirm, but they are under no legal obligation to furnish food for the
inhabitants generally. We learned, however, that they have made
every preparation to provide the necessary food, and that the whole
expenditure on all counts until next spring would not exceed 5,000.

We examined the stores on the two islands and found ample supplies
for all demands of the coming winter. Whether the ultimate charge of
feeding the natives will tall on the Government of the United States or
on the Lessee Company, it is equally certain that in addition to the
flesh of 7,500 seals, the value of their skins will far more than repay
any expenditure incurred in default of the wages earned when the full
quota of seals is killed.

We feel it to be our duty, in view of the submission of the whole
question to arbitration, to take the speediest means of drawing your
Lordship’s attention to the manner in which we have found that clause

852 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

2 of the modus vivendi is being dealt witb on the Pribyloff Islands, in
order that, if necessary, the promptest steps may be taken to draw the
attention of the authorities at Washington to the matter.

We may add that as our means of communication are very uncertain,
we have inclosed a copy of the telegram, as quoted above, in a despatch
to the Governor-General of Canada, with a request that he will be good
enough to inquire by telegraph whether it has duly reached your Lord-
ship, and in the event of ‘its not having done so, that he will transinit
it in cypher through the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

We have, &ce.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M, DAWSON.

[Inclosure in No. 129.]
Behring’s Sea Commissioners to Major Williams.
g t)

STEAM-SHIP ‘‘ DANUBE,” AT ST. PauL, July 30, 1891.

DEAR Sir: With reference to our conversation of the 28th instant, relative to the
limitation of the number of seals to be killed under the agreement come to by the
Governments of the United States and Great Britain, we think you may be glad to
receive this expression of our opinion, based upon the information in our possession,
that the intention of the two Governments as conveyed by Article 2 of the modus
vivendi was, that on the part of the United States the stipulation would be strictly
observed to limit the catch this season to 7,500 seals, and to stop the killing when
that number had been taken.

As you were good enough to invite our opinion on the above subject, we
82 venture to place it in your hands, although the question is apart from the
immediate scope of our inquiry.
We remain, &e.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. Dawson.

No. 130.

Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received
September 8.)

STEAM-SHIP “DANUBE, ” aT ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA,
August 6, 1891.

My Lorp: In continuation of our despatch of the 16th July, we have
the honour to report that after a passage of seven and a-half days from
Victoria we reached Kiuliuk Harbour, Oonalaska Island, on the 24th
ultimo. There we gathered information from various residents, and
arranged future plans with the Senior Naval Ofticer in Behring’s Sea,
Captain Turner, RK. N., of Her Majesty’s ship “‘ Nymphe.”

As we were leaving for the Pribyloff Islands, the United States sur-
veying-vessel “Albatross” arrived at Oonalaska, having on board Pro-
fessor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam; we therefore delayed our departure

for a few hours in order to make their acquaintance. We then pro-

ceeded direct to the Pribyloff Islands, being accompanied by Mr. Tingle,
Superintendent of the North American Commercial Company, whom
we met at Oonalaska, and to whom we offered a passage to St. Paul
Island.

We investigated all the seal rookeries and hauling-grounds on the
island, and obtained a large mass of evidence from the officers of the
United States Government and of the Company, as well as from the

natives, on the subject of seal life.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 853

The “Albatross” arrived at St. Paul on the evening of the 28th July,
and in a conference with Professor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam, we
explained to them the terms of our commission; they, however, informed
us that, having as yet received no formal commission from their Govern-
ment, they were unable to enter into any formal discussion with us on the
subject of our inquiry, but that they hoped at some future date to meet
us for this purpose at Washington or elsewhere, their object in the mean-
time being to acquire for themselves such local knowledge as would
enable them better to understand the lar ge quantity of documentary
evidence respecting seal life in the possession of the United States
Government.

On the 31st July we left for St. George Island, taking with us Dr.
Merriam. We examined all the breeding-grounds on that island and
obtained much additional information from the Government Agents
and employés of the North American Commercial Company there.

After full and careful inquiry into the various questions connected
with the habits and treatment of the seals on the Pribyloff Islands, we
are this day proceeding to cruize at sea for the purpose of examining
the habits of the fur-seals in those parts of Behring’s Sea, where we
gather from the information we have received that there will be the
best opportunities for such observations.

Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” has been detailed to cruize with us,
and we shall thus obtain valuable assistance in our investigations, while
at the same time she will have the best opportunities of falling in with
any schooners still remaining in Behring’s Sea.

We have, &e.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAwson.

INO: 131.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Iteceived September 8.)

['Telegraphic. |

NrEwport, September 8, 1891.

I have the honour, with reference to my despatch of the 28th ultimo
on the subject of the compensation clause in the Behring’s Sea Arbitra-
tion Agreement, to inform your Lordship that I have received a private
and unoflicial answer from the Acting Secretary of State to the following
effect:

[See Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote, September 7, 1891, Inclosure in No. 135.]

83 No. 132.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received September 11.)

DOWNING STREET, September 10, 1891.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada,
inclosing copy of a despatch from Sir Julian Pauncefote, together witb

854 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

an approved Minute of his Privy Council, concurring in a Report by
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the subject of certain Reports
and papers relating to the conditions of seal life in the Pribyloff Islands.
Lam, We.
(Signed) R. H. MEADE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 132.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

STANLEY House, New Richmond, P. Q., August 18, 1891.

My Lonp: I caused to be referred, for the consideration of my Government, a copy
of adespatch from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, covering copies of Reports
of the United States Government Agents stationed on the Pribyloff Islands, which
were laid before Congress in February last; also an extract from the ‘Cleveland
News and Herald” of the 4th May, 1891, containing the introduction to Professor
Elliot’s voluminous Report on the condition of seal life in the Pribyloff Islands
during the summer of 1890, which did not accompany those presented to Congress;
and I have now the honour to transmit to your Lordship a copy of an approved
Minute of the Privy Council concurring in a Report appended thereto by the Minister
of Marine and Fisheries on the subject.

I have also the honour to inclose a copy of the above despatch from Sir Julian
Pauncefote; and for the inclosures I would refer your Lordship to the British print,
“United States No. 2 (1891):” ‘(Further Correspondence respecting the Behring’s
Sea Seal Fisheries,” p. 12, Appendix, Inclosure in No. 1; also p. 53, Inclosure 2.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2in No. 132.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 5rd August, 1891.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch,
dated the 22nd May, 1891, from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, covering
copies of Reports of the United States Government Agents stationed in the Pribyloft
Islands, which were laid before Congress in February last; also an extract from the
‘““Cleveland News and Herald” of the 4th May, 1891, containing the introduction to
Professor Elliot’s voluminous Report on the condition of seal life on the Pribyloff
Islands during the summer of 1890, which did not accompany those presented to
Congress.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the despatch was referred, submits
the annexed Report, dated the 25th July, 1891, upon the subject under consideration.

The Committee concur therein, and on the recommendation of the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy of this
Minute to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the
information of Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk of the Privy Council

84 {Inclosure 3 in No. 132.)
Report.

To his Excellency the Governor-General in Council.

The Undersigned has had referred to him a despatch from Her Majesty’s Minister
at Washington, dated the 22nd May, 1891, covering copies of Reports of the United
States Government Agents stationed on the Pribyloff Islands, which were laid
before Congress in February last; also an extract from the ‘‘ Cleveland News and
Herald” of the 4th May, 1891, containing the introduction to Professor Elliot’s
voluminous Report on the condition of seal life on the Pribyloff Islands during the
summer of 1890, which did not accompany those presented to Congress.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 855

It will be remembered that on the 27th May last the Undersigned had the honour
of reporting to your Excellency upon the statement of Special Agent Goff and his
assistants, in which he at some length reviewed the statements therein contained.
‘This Report was approved by your Excellency on the 6th June, 1891, and the Under-
signed would now invite attention thereto.

He had at that time occasion to regret that the ex parte Report of Mr. Henry W.
Elliot, to which reference had frequently been made, had been withheld from publi-
cation, and not communicated to the Canadian Government.

The newspaper extract now referred to the Undersigned, however, contains a
lengthy introduction to this Report of Mr. Elliot, apparently embracing the princi-
pal features dealt with in detail in the body of his Report.

This article is prefaced by the statement that Mr. Blaine is, through this Report,
in possession of information not previously at his disposal, which, it is argued,
cannot fail to impress upon all concerned the necessity for immediately preventing
the killing of seals in the open waters of Behring’s Sea; but it is to be noticed that
the preponderance of the evidence referred to in the Report is entirely opposed to
that particular view. It is submitted that the Report really aims at the operations
on the breeding islands by the lessees of the United States Government.

Mr. Elliot says:

“T embarked upon this mission with only a faint apprehension of viewing any-
thing more than a decided diminution of the Priblyloft rookeries, caused by pelagic
sealing during the last five or six years, but from the moment of my landing at St.
Paul’s Island on the 2ist of last May, until the close of the breeding season, those
famous ‘rookeries’ and ‘hauling-grounds’ of the fur-seals thereon, and of the St.
George Island, too, began to declare, and have declared, to my astonished senses the
fact that their utter rnin and extermination is only a question of a few short years
from date, unless prompt and thorough measures of relief and protection are at once
ordered on sea and on land by the Treasury Department and enforced by it.”

He enters into a lengthy explanation of the reasons for the discrepancy between
his present statement and the views expressed by him with regard to the inexhausti-
ble supply of seals upon the rookeries during the term of 1872-74, when he was “‘ firmly
satisfied that, as matters were then conducted,” there was no reason to fear injury
to the regular annual supply of male life necessary to the perpetuation of the rook-
eries.

He gives as reasons for his complete change of opinion, and for now finding ‘ only
ascant tenth of the number of young male seals which I [he] saw there in 1872,”
the following:

“1, From over-driving without heeding its warning first begun in 1879, dropped
then until 1882, then suddenly renewed again with increased energy from year to
year until the end is abruptly reached, this season of 1890.

“2. From the shooting of fur-seals (chiefly females) in the open waters of the
North Pacific Ocean and Behring’s Sea, began a business in 1886, and continued to
date.”

It will be observed that this second reason is given for the decrease principally of
young males, while further on in the same Report, and throughout the whole contro-
versy, pelagic sealing is and has been held to be particularly destructive to females.

Unlike all previous Reports of the United States Treasury Agents, this takes the
initiative in ascribing the alleged enormous decrease of seal life on the rookeries
primarily to the lessees of the breeding-islands; but, like all others, it reiterates the
oft-refuted statement that the shooting of fur-seals (chiefly females) in the open
waters of Behring’s Sea and the North Pacific Ocean is responsible, though second-

arily, for the alleged diminution of seals on the breeding-grounds.
85 - Itis worthy of notice that this appears to be the first occasion upon which
United States Special Agents have attributed the falling-off to the operations
of sealers in the North Pacific Ocean outside Behring’s Sea; and to this, no doubt, is
due the extension of the ground recently proposed by Mr. Blaine to be covered by
the arbitration.

It will not be forgotten that the Undersigned, when refuting the statements as to
the killing of females in Behring’s Sea (the only waters under dispute), has fre-
quently shown that it might be true that the pursuit of seals along the coast and
outside Behring’s Sea was destructive by reason of the killing of females with pnp,
during their slow movements before they enter that sea, but that, after entering, the
females made a swift passage to the rookeries in a bee-line, and the danger no longer
existed.

The question in dispute is not as to the destruction of seal life outside Behring’s
Sea, but the right of the United States to monopolize the seals in Behring’s Sea to
the extent of excluding other nations from their pursuit in those waters. The
authorized Agents of that Government have, in the past, either failed in their duty,
or were unable to appreciate the significance of the gradual and certain decline of
the seals dwelt upon by Mr. Elliot; for he now reports that not until 1889 has there

$56 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

been the slightest intimation in the annual declarations of the officers of the Gov-
ernment of the least diminution or decrease of seal life on these islands since his
work of 1874 was given to the world.

He discredits the statements of these Agents as irreconcilable with the evidence
of the decrease in the supply of young male seals.

The Undersigned calls attention to the striking fact that the serious decrease now
alleged has occurred, it is stated, principally in ‘the case of young males, while the
United States Agents still persist in blaming pelagic sealing for its alleged disas-
trous results to females.

This position would appear to be as difficult of reconciliation as the statements of
the other Agents are thought by Mr. Elliot to be.

A glance at his figures, ‘which he states are so carefully and accurately compiled,
discloses the fact that the percentage of the decrease in females is 624, while that in
young seal pups is over 75.

Mr. Elliot proceeds: “Naturally enough, being so long away from the field, on
reading Mr. Charles J. Goff’s Report for the season’s work of 1889, I at once jumped
to the conclusion that the pelagic sealing, the poaching, of 1886-88 was the sole cause
of the shrinkage which he declared manifest on those rookeries and hauling-grounds
of the Pribyloff Islands. . . . ” And he goes on to say that even then, after cal-
culating the number of skins placed on the market by pelagic sealers, he could not
satisfactorily charge the whole decrease to them. He states that the class from
which 85 per cent. of the pelagic catch is drawn are “ females and young-born and
unborn;” and while he expected this to work damage to the rookeries, he was wholly
unprepared for an establishment of the correctness of Mr. Goff’s Report.

“After an entire new and topographical survey and triangulation of the landed
area of the seven rookeries of St. Paul Island and those of St. George Island,” Mr.
Elliot is impressed with the bad effect of ‘‘ driving” the seals for years, which prac-
tice, in his opinion, renders them unfit for service on the breeding-rookeries, ‘‘ being
utterly demoralized in spirit and body,” and this is now admittedly the principal
cause of the reported decrease in seal life.

According to Mr. Elliot, pelagic sealing, or ‘‘poaching,” as he terms it, commenced
in 1886. It continued under the harassing and embarrassing interference of the
United States anthorities down to and including the year 1889—just four years. He
describes the rookeries to have been ‘‘in splendid condition,” . . . when ‘ they
passed into the hands of the United States.” Now, after twenty-two years of kill-
ing operations on the islands, he suddenly discovers reasons to fear extermination of
the seal species, and attributes the falling-off in a great degree to four years of
pelagic sealing, beginning in 1886; in the face of this Statement, in the same Report,
that ‘“‘that day in 1879 when it became necessary to send a sealing gang from St.
Paul village over to Zapodnie to regularly drive from that hitherto untouched
reserve, was the day that danger first appeared in tangible form since 1870—since
1857 for that matter.” That is to say, seven years before much-abused pelagic seal-
ing, according to Mr. Elliot, had begun.

Thus, in the opinion of the Undersigned, in the light of this and similar Reports,
are his repeatedly expressed views vindicated, as also is the fact established that the
protection to seal life on the islands, provided by the United States Government, is
and has been wholly inadequate.

The Reports, however, reveal another fact entirely opposed to the contentions of

the United States authorities and Agents, and of Professor Elliot himself.
86 This fact is, that the whole system of conducting the sealing industry, on the

only places where it has been held seals could be protected, has been con-
ceived and based upon lamentably erroneous ideas.

The state of affairs thus recorded affords a fitting commentary upon a system of
protection which will admit of the constant interference, dealing torture and death
to these animals in a wild state, on grounds chosen by them for annually performing
their functions of procreation. It is opposed to the first instinct of all animal
nature—that of self-preservation—and is admirably adapted to toa the seals
from the breeding-rookeries to seek other haunts.

While the Undersigned does not consider it necessary in this connection to refer
to the question of right raised by the term ‘ poacher,” as applied by Mr. Elliot to
pelagic sealers, this question being one affecting an entirely distinct feature in the
controversy in no way connected with the question of the preservation of seal life, he
desires in passing to briefly state the following:

It has been clearly established that no attempt has ever been made by any of the
Canadian sealing fleet to operate within the territorial waters of the United States.
The unwarranted interference by United States revenue-cutters has in every case
been out in the open waters of the sea, free to them and to the subjects and citizens
of all other nations.

In his Report Mr. Elliot dwells at considerable length upon the history of the seal-
ing industry of the Pribyloff Islands under the Russian rule previous to the acquisi-

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 857

tion of these islands by the Government of the United States. He argues that to
the fact that in those earlier days the skins were air-dried (not salted as now) is due
the fact that the seals were not years ago exterminated, the work of sealing being
then far slower and much more difficult than now.

In his opinion the inability to rapidly cure the skins for shipment alone saved the
Pribyloff rookeries from utter extermination, as at least thirteen trading organiza-
tions were engaged on these islands continuously for seventeen years in taking the
tur-seal skins; and he believes, had they possessed the knowledge of salt curing now
in vogue, they would have killed every fur-seal which showed itself. Yet further on
he quotes from Bishop Veniaminoy, that, in 1803, 800,000 seal-skins had accumulated,
of which 700,000, having spoiled, had to be cut or thrown into the sea. Thus on one
occasion enough skins were destroyed to cover seven years of the total take of the
former American lessees, or nearly twelve years’ take of the present Company, under
the terms of their lease, adopting the basis of 60,000 skins per annum. :

The system, or even want of system, which permitted such drains as this upon the
seal life of these islands by so many Companies must have been less hurtful to seal
life than the organized methods pursued under the supervision of the United States
Government; for though the earlier sealers did not know how to preserve the skins
when they got them, the present lessees, it is alleged, cannot get them to preserve,
though only one organization has been engaged for twenty-two years, as against thir-
teen organizations indiscriminately working for seventeen years; and the one organi-
zation began operations with the rookeries admittedly in ‘splendid condition,” and
considered by Mr. Elliot to be practically inexhaustible.

This opinion of Mr. Elliot might have been correct in the main, but it is evident
some other and more provident method of reaping the seal harvest on the islands
must be devised if the stock is to be perpetuated.

The Undersigned sees no reason to reverse his opinion as to the relative effect upon
the rookeries of hunting seals in the open waters of Behring’s Sea, nor can he con-
ceive it possible that such method of sealing could materially assist in bringing
about the disastrous results now alleged. In his opinion it could have no more
effect upon the permanency of the sealing industry than would the legitimate pur-
suit of any other business in like manner.

Mr. Elliot concludes by stating that, after a careful review of his investigations,
he is warranted in urging—

“1. That no driving and killing of fur-seals for tax and shipment on the seal
islands of Alaska be permitted by the Government for a period of at least seven
years from date (1890); and

“2. That the co-operation of Great Britain and Russia be secured in perfecting
our international close time, by which all killing of fur-seals in the open waters of
Behring’s Sea will be prohibited during the breeding season of these animals, and
in order that the Representatives of Great Britain and Russia may see the truth of
my statement as to what threatens to exterminate these animals if pelagic sealing

as well as terrestrial sealing is not at once stopped, that a Commission of
87 British, Russian, and American experts be invited to visit the seal islands next
summer, and report fairly upon the subject.”

The first of these propositions, which does not affect the Canadian sealers, the
Undersigned considers calls for no further reference beyond the remark (even in the
light of Mr. Elliot’s Report) that it is somewhat remarkable that only at this late
date, after over twenty years of annual operations under Government supervision,
that the United States Government is possessed of information upon which it bases
the necessity for such a drastic measure.

On the second proposition the Undersigned remarks that the recent negotiations,
resulting in the present modus vivendi, and the departure of the British and Canadian
experts for the seal islands to report upon the conditions of seal life, dispose for the
time being of the main feature contained therein.

Before leaving the subject, however, the Undersigned desires to invite the atten-
tion of your Excellency to the words, ‘‘in perfecting our international close time, by
which all killing of fur-seals in the open waters of Behring’s Sea will be prohibited
during the breeding season of these animals,” contained in the second proposition.

The words italicized by the Undersigned appear to imply the existence of an inter-
national close time for seals in the open waters of Behring’s Sea, which it is proposed
to perfect. This is misleading, as no such close time exists, and the only Regulations
pertaining to the seal fishery of Behring’s Sea are provided by enactment of the
United States Congress, and applicable to the citizens of that nation alone.

With regard to the remainder of the quotation, the Undersigned observes that this
question is included in the subject of the inquiry now proceeding. ‘The Undersigned,
however, would again revert to the proposal forwarded by Sir Julian Pauncefote to
Mr. Secretary Blaine, 13th April, 1890, which provided for just and equitable close
times for seals in Behring’s Sea, covering the migrations to and from the breeding-
grounds; and which was rejected by the United States Government.

858 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

A close season based upon the wording of the present proposition, ‘‘during the
breeding season,’”’ might, by a strained or technical interpretation of what length of
time the breeding season covered, be made practically exclusive by fixing the dates
to cover the whole term, beginning with the first entrance into Behring’s Sea, and
ending with the departure of the seals from that sea.

This would be simply an assertion of the doctrine of mare clausum in another form.

The Undersigned therefore desires to impress upon your Excellency this aspect of
the matter, with a view to avoiding, in any close season which might ultimately be
agreed upon, a practical or actual surrender of participation in the sealing industry
by Her Majesty’s subjects; and establishing the fact that the carefully considered
proposal already rejected by the United States contained the full measure of close
time that your Excellency’s advisers are at present prepared to entertain in the
interest of Canadian sealers.

He therefore recommends that a copy of this Report be transmitted to the Right
Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the information of
Her Majesty’s Government.

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) CHARLES H. TUPPER,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, :
Canada, Ottawa, July 25, 1891.

(Inclosure 4 in No. 132.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Lord Stanley of Preston.

WASHINGTON, May 22, 1891.

My Lorn: In accordance with instructions which I received last night by tele-
graph from the Marquis of Salisbury, I have the honour to transmit herewith to
your Excellency an extract from the ‘ Cleveland News and Herald” of the 4th
instant, containing Professor Elliot’s introduction to his Report on the condition of
seal life at the Pribyloff Islands during the summer of 1890. His Report, which 1
am informed is very voluminous, was not included among those of the other Goy-
ernment Agents which were laid before Congress in February last. I take this
opportunity of transmitting, at the same time, copies of the last-mentioned Reports,
in case they should not be in the possession of your Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

88 No. 133.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

FOREIGN OFFICE, September 12, 1891.

GENTLEMEN: In reply to your despatch of the 5th ultimo, I have
to state to you that Her Majesty’s Government approve your note to
the United States Agent at St. Paul Island respecting the limitation
of the number of seals to be killed under the agreement come to by
the Governments of Great Britain and the United States.

Your further proceedings, reported in the above-mentioned despatch,
are also approved.

lam, We.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 859

No. 134.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received September 14.)

NEWPORT’, September 4, 1891,

My Lorp: I have the honour to inform your Lordship that [addressed
a note on the 26th ultimo to the United States Government in the sense
of your Lordship’s telegram of the 26th ultimo,* complaining of the
violation of the Agreement of the 15th June, 1891, with regard to the
killing of seals by the United States Agent in the seal islands, and
expressing the conviction of Her Majesty’s Government that the Presi-
dent will not countenance any evasion of the true spirit of the Agree-
ment, and will take the necessary measures to insure its. strict
observance.

I have now received a note from the Acting Secretary of State, in
reply, in which he informs me that my statement will receive the
immediate attention of his Government.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

No. 135.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received September 21.)

NEWPoRT, September 10, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my despatch of the 28th ultimo, trans-
mitting copy of the private and wnofficial letter which I addressed to
the Acting Secretary of State on the subject of the compensation clause
of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, I have now the honour to
inclose a copy of the reply which I received from Mr. Wharton to that
communication, and the substance of which I reported to your Lord-
ship in my telegram of the 8th instant.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 135.—Private and Unoflicial.]

Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 7, 1891.

My Drar Sir JULIAN: Your private and unofficial note of the 26th August was duly
received, and I desire now to reply to it in the same private and unofficial manner.
The President is unable to see how the damage clause last proposed by him can be
held to imply an admission on the part of Great Britain ‘of a doctrine respecting
the liability of Governments for the acts of their nationals or other persons : sailing
under their flag on the high seas, which is not warranted by internationallaw.” T he
proposition was expressly framed so as to submit to the Arbitrator the question of the
liability of Great Britain for the acts of vessels sailing under its flag. It did not
assume a liability, but was framed expressly to avoid this objection, which had been

urged against the previous proposal. I quote from my note of the 23rd July:
89 “The United States might well insist that Her Majesty’s Government should
admit responsibility for the acts of the Canadian sealers which it has so directly
encouraged and promoted, precisely as in the proposal the United States admits

* See No. 125.

860 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

responsibility for the acts of the revenue-vessels. But, with a view to remove what
seems to be the last point of difference in a discussion which has been very much
protracted, the President is willing to modify his proposal, and directs me to offer
the following 46

The claim of the United States was stated in my note of the 23rd July accompany-
ing the proposal, and the President does not see how the claims of the respective
Governments could be more fairly or fully submitted. This Government proposes to
submit to the Arbitrators the question whether Great Britain is liable for the injury
done to the seal fisheries, the property of the United States, by the Canadian vessels
that have, under the stimulation and support of the British Government, been for
several years engaged in the Behring’s Sea. The proposal of this Government was
that the Arbitrators should consider and decide such claims in accordance with
justice and equity and the respective rights of the High Contracting Parties.

The President is unable to accept the last suggestion which you make in your note,
as it seems to him to be entirely ineffectual. ‘The facts connected with the seizure
of Canadian sealers by the revenue-vessels of the United States on the one hand, and
with the invasion of the sea and the taking of seals by the Canadian sealers on the
other, are well known, and doubtless could be agreed upon by the respective Goy-
ernments without difficulty. It is over the question of liability to respond in dam-
ages for these acts that the controversy exists, and the President can see no other
course for this Government than to insist upon the submission of the question of the
liability of Great Britain for the acts it complains of to Arbitrators. This Govern-
ment does not insist that Great Britain shall admit any liability for the acts com-
plained of, but it may well insist, if this arbitration is to result in any effectual
settlement of the differences between the two Governments, that the question of
Great Britain’s liability shall go to the Arbitrators for decision.

If you have any suggestions. to make in support of the objection that the proposal
made by the President assumes a liability on the part of Great Britain, the President
will be very glad to receive them and, if necessary, to reconsider the phraseology ;
but upon a ‘careful and critical examination of the proposition he is unable to see
that the objection now made has any support in the terms of the proposal.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM F, WHARTON.

No. 186.
Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 9.)

[Telegraphic.]

VICTORIA, October 8, 1891.

Commission to-day returned Esquimalt. Await instructions in Vie-
toria.

No. 137.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 12.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1891.

The United States Government urgently press for a reply to their
note of 23rd July. Shall I send official reply in the sense of my private
letter of 26th August to Mr. Wharton?

The middle course therein proposed, which I presume is acceptable
to Canada, might yet be accepted by the President, in order to arrive
at a settlement.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 861
No. 1388.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 15, 1891.

In accordance with the suggestion in your telegram of the 12th

instant, you are authorized to repeat officially to the United

90 States Government the proposal made in your privateletter of the

26th August to Mr. Wharton respecting the Behring’s Sea
arbitration.

No. 139.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 17.)

DOWNING STREET, October 16, 1891.

Str: With reference to your letter of the 15th July, respecting the
objections of the British Columbia Sealers’ Association to the passing
of the “Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891,” I am directed by Lord
Knutsford to transmit to you, for the information of the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch and its inclosures from the Governor-
General of Canada on the subject.

Iam, We.
(Signed) EDWARD WINGFIELD.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 139.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HOousE, Ottawa, October 1, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 16th July last rela-
tive to the objections entertained by the British Columbia Sealers’ Association to
the legislation proposed by Her Majesty’s Government with the object of establish-
ing a close season for seal in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to forward to your
Lordship herewith copy of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, to which is
appended copy of a letter addressed to the Sealers’ Association by the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries in the sense of your Lordship’s despatch above referred to.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 139.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 21st September, 1891.

The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a despatch dated the
16th July, 1891, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies
acknowledging. the receipt of a Minute of the Canadian Privy Council inclosing
copy of a letter from the British Columbia Sealers’ Association.

The Minister of Marine and Fisheries to whom the matter was referred, now states
that a reply has been forwarded by him to the Association in the sense indicated (a
copy thereof is appended hereto).

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy hereof to the Principal
Secretary of State for the Colonies for the information of Her Majesty’s Government.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) * JOHN J. MCGEK,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

862 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

A

[Inclosure 3 in No. 139.]
Mr. Tupper to Sealers’ Association.

Orrawa, September 10, 1891.

GENTLEMEN: Reverting to my letter to you of the 15th June on the subject of your
communication of the 5th of that month, on behalf of the Sealers’ Association of
Victoria, remonstrating against the proposed modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, I have
now the honour to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government is of opinion that the

total cessation of sealing in Behring’s Sea will greatly enhance the value of
91 the produce of the coast fishery, and does not anticipate that British sealers
will suffer to any great extent by exclusion from Behring’s Sea.

Her Majesty’s Government, however, will be prepared to consider any case in which
it is clearly established that direct loss has been suttered by a British subject through
the enforcement of the prohibition against sealing in Behring’s Sea.

With reference to the wish of the Association that it should be heard before the
Arbitration Commission, the Secretary of State for the Colonies intimates that, as
the Joint Commission of Experts has been appointed to examine all questions con-
nected with seal life, and the fur-seal industry, for submission to the Arbitrators,
you should lay any statements you desire to make before the Commission of Experts
in the first instance, and that, in the event of its being found necessary to call evi-
dence before the Arbitrators, in addition to that which may be presented to the Com-
mission of Experts, Her Majesty’s Government will not fail to bear the wishes of the
Association in mind.

I have, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES H. TUPPER.

No. 140.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
October 19.)

‘¢ DANUBE,” AT OUNALASKA, September 17, 1891.

My Lorp: For the purpose of our inquiry into the conditions of seal
life in Behring’s Sea and other parts of the North Pacitic Ocean, we
deemed it advisable to visit the Russian seal islands, and we were
pleased to receive at Ounalaska on the 21st August a telegram from
your Lordship informing us of the receipt of a note from the Russian
Government authorizing us to visit their seal fisheries, and stating that
the Governor-General at Amoor had been requested to afford us every
facility.

2. We accordingly visited the-Commander Islands, arriving off Beh-
ring’s Island on the Ist September.

3. The Administrator, M. Grebnitzky, had not heard of us from the
Amoor, but on learning of our mission, showed us every courtesy and
hospitality, and from his own ample experience and observations gave
us most valuable information as to the conditions of seal life in Russian
waters. On Copper Island, the Government Superintendent, M. Till-
mann, acting on instructions from M. Grebnitzky, gave us full informa-
tion, and accompanied us to the rookeries, extending to us the most
friendly courtesy.

4. We then proceeded to Petropaulowski, and there from the Com-
mandant, M. Homyakoff, and Captain Brandt, of the Russian Imperial
steam-ship “Aleut,” we again received much courtesy and assistance
in our inquiries.

5. We venture to hope that the Russian Government will be intormed
of the extremely satisfactory character of our visit to the Russian
sealing-grounds, and we would take this occasion of expressing our
opinion of the great value to the elucidation of the conditions of seal

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 863

life, of the information and opportunities for observation which we were
afforded by the Russian authorities on the Commander Islands and in
Kamschatka.

6. We inclose herewith, for your Lordship’s information, copies of
the letters which we addressed to the Administrator of the Commander
Islands and the Commandant at Petropaulowski, expressing our sense
of the valuable facilities they have afforded us.

We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAwson.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 140.]
The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Administrator of the Commander Islands.

“DANUBE,” AT BEHRING’S ISLAND, September 2, 1891.

Str: Having been appointed Her Britannic Majesty’s Commissioner to hold an
inquiry into the conditions of seal life in Behring’s Sea and other parts of the North
Pacific Ocean, with a view to the arbitration pending on the subject between the
Governments of the United States and Great Britain, we considered it to be of much
importance to the success of our mission that we should obtain full information con-
cerning the facts of seal life and the methods of killing adopted on the Commander

Islands.
92 We received a confirmatory telegram from the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs in England, stating that the Russian Government had been good
enough to authorize us to visit their seal fisheries, and that the Governor-General at
the Amoor had been requested to afford us every facility in the prosecution of our
inquiries.

Not having time to communicate with the Governor-General at the Amoor, we ven-
tured to come to Behring’s Island, and we have had the good fortune to meet with
you, and now would beg to tender this expression of our best thanks for the courtesy
with which you have received us, and for the valuable and full information which
your long experience and accurate knowledge of all connected with sealing enabled
you to afford us.

We have, &c¢,
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. Dawson.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 140.]
The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to Mr. Homyakoff.

‘‘ DANUBE,” AT PETROPAULOWSKI, September 9, 1891,

Sir: We have the honour, before we leave Petropaulowski, to convey to you our
thanks for the courtesy with which you have received us during our visit to your
command, and for the information which you have so freely placed at our disposal.

Having been appointed Her Britannic Majesty’s Commissioners to investigate the
conditious of seal life in the North Pacific Ocean, with a view to the preservation
of the fur-seal, we deemed it specially advisable to obtain full information concern
ing the Russian seal islands.

We received a telegraphic despatch from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
in England stating that the Russian Government had been good enough to authorize
us to visit their seal fisheries, and that the Governor-General at the Amoor had been
requested to afford us every facility in the prosecution of our inquiries.

As the limited time at our disposal did not admit of our communicating with the
Governor-General at the Amoor, we would beg you to be good enough to inform his
Excellency of our visit here, and to convey to him our high appreciation of the
manner in which you have received us.

We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. Dawson.

864. APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 141.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
October 19.)

“DANUBE,” AT OUNALASKA, September 17, 1891.

My Lorp: In continuation of our despatch of the 6th August last,
we have the honour to report that since that date our proceedings have
been as follows:

2. Our first cruize was to the eastward and northward, with a view
to observing the facts of seal life in those directions, and acquiring
trustworthy information as to the northern limit of the fur-seal.

3. We visited the native and other settlements on Nunivak Island,
Cape Vancouver, St. Matthew Island, St. Lawrence Island, and Plover
Bay. On our voyage northwards, and on our return journey to the
Pribyloff Islands from a north-westerly direction, we carefully recorded
all seals seen at sea. On this cruize we received valuable assistance
from Lieutenant-Commander Hadley in Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant.”

4, On reaching St. Paul Island on the 19th August we again exam-
ined some of the rookeries to note the difference in their appearance
after a fortnight’s interval, and then, proceeding to Plimlink Harbour,
Ounalaska, to consult with the commanding officers of the English and
United States war-ships as to future movements, we left that port on
the 24th August for the westward, calling at the Islands of Atka and
Attoo, on which are the only remaining native settlements of the west-
ern part of the Aleutian chain.

5. Our ultimate object being to visit the Russian seal islands, Her
Majesty’s ship “ Porpoise” was detailed to accompany us, she being on
her way back to the China Station.

6. The “ Porpoise,” under the command of Captain J. Leslie

93 Burr, from whom we received every assistance and attention,

keeping a more northerly course to look for seals and schooners,
joined us at Attoo on the 29th August.

7. We proceeded to the Commander Islands and to Petropaulowski,
and on this portion of our cruize we are addressing a separate despatch
to your Lordship.

8. Leaving Petropaulowski on the 10th September, we shaped our
course for the Pribyloff Islands, so as to strike them from a westerly
direction, keeping an accurate record of all seals observed..

9. Paying our final visit to the rookeries on St. Paul Island after a
further interval of twenty-six days, we found that Mr. Stanley Brown,
having completed his full observations of seal life on behalf of the
American Commissioners, had just left the island.

10. We thus secured the opportunity of making the latest observa-
tions of several important points in relation to our inquiry.

We now propose to continue our investigations by the collection, on
our return journey to Victoria, of evidence fr om those engaged in sealing
on the coast of British Columbia.

We have, Xe.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAwson.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 865
No. 142.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 19.)
{Telegraphic.]

» WASHINGTON, October 19, 1891.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 15th instant, I
addressed a note to the Acting Secretary of State on the 17th instant,
in the sense of my private letter to him, and officially repeated the pro-
posal made by your Lordship.

I called by request at the State Department to-day, and Mr. Wharton
asked me informally to submit two alternative clauses to your Lordship.

A disclaimer is contained in the first clause of any admission of the
liability of Great Britain being implied from the terms of the President’s
clause 7.

The second is a clause to be substituted for the President’s clause,
and is in the sense of your Lordship’s proposal.

The text of the two clauses follows:

[See Inclosure 1 in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of October 23, 1891: Inclosure 1 in
No. 160, infra.]

Will your Lordship authorize me to inform the United States Gov-
ernment that you accept the second clause, in which case they will at
once propose it in answer to my note of the 17th instant?

It will be left to further negotiation to settle the choice of Arbitrators
and place of sitting.

No. 143.

Memorandum by Sir G. Baden-Powell on the Limitation of the Number
of Fur-seals to be taken on the Pribyloff Islands in 1891.—( Received at
the Foreign Office, October 20.)

LIMITATION EXCEEDED.

By Agreement between the United States and Great Britain not
more than 7,500 seals were to be taken on the Pribyloff Islands in
1891.

2. On visiting the Pribyloff Islands in July and August 1891, the
British Commissioners found that since the opening of the season and
up to the 4th August about 9,100 seals had been taken, and that it was
in contemplation to kill about 2,900 more before the close of the season,
making a total for the year of 12,000.

3. The explanation of this excessive killing is to be found in the
interpretation placed by the authorities in the seal islands on the terms
of the modus vivendi of June 1891.

4, The clause (No. 2) of the modus vivendi runs thus: “The United

States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period ”
94 (until May 1892) ‘“‘in the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the

shores and islands thereof the property of the United States (in
excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence and care
of the natives). . . .”

Bs, PT V——5dd

866 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
INTENTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN IMPOSING LIMIT,

5. The intention of the President of the United States in insisting
upon this proviso as to 7,500 is evident in the various statements offi-
cially made on behalf oF the United States.

6. On the 25th April, 1891, the President instructed Mr. Blaine, the
Secretary of State, to inform Sir Julian Pauncefote: “ . . . Some
seals must be killed by the natives for food; . . . the lessees are
bound under their lease . . . to feed and care for the natives,

and for this service, a very expensive one, . . . the lessees
should find their compensation in taking a moder ‘ate number of seals.”

7. Mr. Blaine, in his letter to Sir Julian Pauncetote of the 4th May,
1891, correctly explains that under their lease the Company is bound
to furnish to the natives—

.) Dried salmon.

2.) Salt and barrels for preserving meat.
) 80 tons of coal.

) Dwellings in good repair.

) Schools ‘and teachers.

) Chureh.

) Physicians and medical stores.

(8.) Necessaries of life for widows and orphans, aged and infirm, who
are unable to provide for themselves.

8. Mr. Blaine adds: ‘The comfort, possibly the safety, of all these
human beings is dependent on the Company. . . . Ifthe Company
shall . . . be deprived of all privilege of taking seals, they cer-
tainly could not be compelled to minister to the wants of these 300
inhabitants for an entire year. If these islands are to be left to charity,
the North American Company is under no greater obligation to extend
it to them than any other citizens of the United States. It evidently
requires a considerable sum of money to furnish the supplies named in
the lease. . . . If the lessees are not to be allowed payment in
any form for the amount necessary to support these 300 people on the
islands, they will naturally decline toexpend it. . . . No appropria-
tion of money has been made by Congress for the purpose.”

9. Mr. Blaine continues, in conclusion: ‘In this exigency the Presi-
dent (proposes to) concede to the North American Company the right
to take a sufficient number of seals, and no more than sufficient to recom-
pense them for their outlay in taking care of the natives, and that

all commercial killing of seals “be prohibited pending the result
of arbitration. . . The Secretary of the Treasury .. . after
full consideration has limited the number to 7,500 to be killed by the
Company to repay them for the outlay demanded for the support of the
300 people on the Pribyloff Islands.

10. On the 6th June, 1891, Mr. Wharton, the Acting Secretary of

State, writes to Sir Julian Pauncefote: “I am directed by the President
to inform Lord Salisbury that . . . inorder to insure such
control pending these negotiations, the Agents of the Treasury Depart-
ment who have been dispatched to the seal islands have been instructed
to stop the killing when 7,500 have been taken, and to await the arrival
of further orders; though ordinarily the taking of seals on the islands
does not begin until about the lst July. . . . The President is sure
that Lord Salisbury will not question the absolute good faith of this
Government in observing its stipulation to limit the catch to 7,500.”

11. It is quite evident, “ther efore, that the total of 7,500 was to include

all seals killed for native’ Ss food or for the purposes of the Company, as

(1
(2.
(3.
(4.
(5.
(6.
Ci

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 867

the skins in both cases would become the property of the Company,
and by their sale the Company would recoup itself for the expenditure
it was under obligation to make on behalf of the natives, and also for
any additional expenditure which it might incur in providing food for
the natives during the rest of the autumn and winter. But all com-
mercial killing of seals was to be prohibited. In brief, the limit of
7,500 was to include all seals killed on the islands within the year, the
skins thus obtained being considered of sufficient value to provide for
all expenses incurred for the subsistence and care of the natives over
a period during which the prohibition of the usual killing would deprive
the natives of their means of earning a livelihood.
12. It is to be noted that the President and Mr. Blaine had been mis-
informed as to the actual obligations of the Company under their
95 lease. The Company is not bound ‘to feed the natives,” nor is
the “‘safety of the natives dependent on the Company.” In real-
ity the State alone is responsible if by an act of State the natives are
deprived of their means of livelihood and threatened with starvation.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISLANDS.

13. It is also to be noted that Colonel Murray, the Sub-A gent of the
Treasury in charge of the islands, informed the British Commissioners
on the 19th August, 1891, at St. Paul Island, that the Company had
already made a charitable advance of 2,700 dollars to the natives
towards their winter’s support, but that he had informed the Company
that he was authorized to provide the natives during the rest of the
year with everything that they really required, at the Government
expense, and that therefore the natives might spend the Company’s
advance on whatever they pleased. He also explained to the Commis-
sioners that the Treasury was formally committed to such expendi-
ture, and that the money would be provided out of the general vote,
which would be passed in the usual course by Congress in the Appro-
priation Act.

14. Colonel Murray also stated that absolute orders had been made
to stop this year all killing of seal pups, which in previous years had
provided the natives with 4,000 or 5,000 carcasses for food, and also to
stop all killing of “blue” foxes, which had hitherto afforded wages to
the natives during the winter.

15, This year there will necessarily be a shorter supply of seal meat,
as comparatively few seals have been killed; but there are still many
to be killed for winter storage, and there will be no check on the other
ordinary local food supplies, viz., sea lion, fish, and birds.

ACTION OF COMPANY ON ISLANDS.

16. Both at St. Paul and St. George I examined the stores, and found
that the Company, in anticipation of the winter’s needs, had ample
stocks of provisions, special in some cases, including salt salmon, beef
and pork, flour, biscuits, sugar, and tea.

17. In regard to the cost of providing for the natives, Mr. Tingle, the
Company’s energetic Superintendent, informed me that he was author-
ized to expend up to 25,000 dollars (5,0001.), but that he did not antici-
pate a much greater expenditure than 16,000 dollars (3,2001.) to 18,000
dollars (3,6001.) to completely provide for the natives during the coming
winter. This estimate gives about 1s. per day per man, woman, and
child for food and necessaries, and is exclusive of housing and fuel, nor
does it include such wages as may have been earned already or may

868 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

yet be earned in seal-killing, house-painting, and other work on which
it is contemplated to employ the natives. Mr. Tingle added that if the
Company chose to refuse supplies the Government was bound to sup-
ply them, but that he had special instructions, if necessary, to provide
for all the needs of the natives, and that he was prepared so to do.

FINANCIAL RESULTS.

18. In regard to the actual number of seal-skins available to meet
this expenditure, I found, after careful examination of the books of
the Company and Government, and inquiry of the officials, that the
approximate numbers were as follow S:

On stock fromlastiyear (1890) ste sas! hee ee eee eee ee eee eee eee 3, 500
Kalledabeforei5thy imme; Sole Seep ene aie eee AEE Pe SAE AOS 4,500
Killed between T5thands 20th Jumercesas se aee ese ee eee eee eeeeee eee eee 3, 000
Killed between 20th June and 4th Augnst .........-.--..-..---.------------ 1, 600
Tobe killed in‘autumn s. 5). 59S. SS5-0 sae ts Sa aoe aes ene ee aac eee 2, 900

Total skinsiavailables (Soil) hese nee es eee eae eee eee eee 15, 500

The stock brought over from the previous year comprises the skins
taken in excess of that year’s permitted quota, and is customarily car-
ried to the account of the next year’s quota. The estimated number
of 4,500 killed before the 15th June, 1891, was made by the Treasury
Agent, and would leave 3,000 killed before the 20th June, on which
day there is entered in the official Government log the note, “This
killing filled the quota of 7,500.”

The Treasury Agent infor med me that he was permitting a total of
7,500 to be killed after the 15th J une, so that there remained 2,900 to
be killed in the autumn, seeing that 4,600 had been killed between the
15th June and the commencement of the ““stagey” season early in

August.
96 19. The Company will thus have for sale this year not less

than 15,000 skins, of a probable value, at 20 dollars the skin, of
300,000 dollars (60,000/.), about one-half of which would accrue to the
Government for taxes. The expenses on the islands, on behalf of
the natives, would not exceed 5,000 dollars (1,000/.). The additional
expenses of providing food for the natives, which the Government of
the United States have undertaken, are estimated not to exceed a
total of 20,000 dollars (4,0001.).

20. The Government of the United States are presumably entitled
to insist that the quota for this year had been fixed at 7,500, with the
special objects of defraying certain expenses, and of preventing any
killing for purely commercial purposes, and that therefore any skins
accruing to the Company in excess of this 7,500 must be stored to the
account of next year’s quota. Even if this rigid view were taken, the
Company would secure a trade revenue of 15,0001. to cover an expendi-
ture of 1,000/., while the Government would receive a tax revenue of
15,0001. to cover an expenditure of 4,000/. But if this reservation be
not insisted on, the respective revenues would yield net profits to the
_ Company of 29,000/., and to the Government of 26,000I., a result cer-
tainly not contemplated by the President.

ACTION OF TREASURY AGENT ON ISLANDS.

21. In regard to the action of the local United States authorities,
I found that Major Williams, the Treasury Agent for the Pribyloff
Islands, before leaving San Francisco for the islands, that is before the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 869

27th May, 1891, had been instructed to keep the Company’s quota of
skins under 7,500 until further orders. Subsequently he was instructed,
by telegraph, to “ modify his instructions in accordance with the Proe-
lamation.” On the 20th June he recorded in the official log that the
Company’s quota of 7,500 had been reached. He permitted, however,
two killings to take place for “food skins” on the 25th and the 29th
June, yielding 609 skins, before he received the Proclamation on the
2nd July. The Treasury Agent did not seem to be aware that all
accepted food skins are placed to the account of the Company’s quota.

On receipt of the Proclamation, Major Williams, having no other
instructions, stopped all killing, and, as he told us, thought the matter
over for three days, consulting with Captain Cotton, the United States
Senior Naval Officer in Behring’s Sea, and others. He came to the con-
clusion that the limit of catch was to be within the period between the
signing of the modus vivendi and May 1892. Between the 15th June
and the 5th July about 3,600 skins had been taken, and Major Williams
decided that 3,900 more skins were to be taken before next May. Up
to the beginning of August, when the skins became ‘“stagey” and
unmarketable, about 1,000 more skins had been taken, leaving a total
of 2,900 skins to be taken in the autumn, after the “‘stagey” season ends
in November.

22. On discussing the matter with Professor Mendenhall and Dr
Merriam, the Behring’s Sea Commissioners (designate) of the United
States, we found they had talked over matters with the local officials,
but had no previous knowledge of the subject or of the correspondence
in which the President’s intention was expressed. On the 5th August,
1891, Dr. Merriam again opened the subject to me, saying that Colonel
Murray had explained that only 6,000 had as yet been killed, adding,
“Of course it only means after the date of signing the modus vivendi.”
Professor Mendenhall, chancing to come up at the same time, concurred
in Dr. Merriam’s view. In reply to my inquiry they did not know that
Major Williams had been instructed on the 27th May, on his way to the
islands, to stop killing at 7,500; nor thatin the official log was the entry
on the 20th June, ‘‘This filled the quota of 7,500.”

23. It would therefore appear that the United States authorities on
the islands had not been in any way specially instructed beyond the
clear order given on the 27th May, 1891, long antecedent to the 15th
June, to stop killing when 7,500 had been taken—an order obviously in
keeping with the agreement come to preliminary to the signing of the
modus vivendi, that on the President’s suggestion the Company should
be permitted this year to take 7,500 skins and no more, and these only
for a specific purpose.

SUMMARY.

24. Mr. Blaine wrote on the 4th May, 1891: “The President cannot
leave these worthy and innocent people to the hazard of starvation,
even to secure any form of agreement with Lord Salisbury touching
seallife.” The President therefore suggests, and Lord Salisbury accepts,
the proviso that the Company should be allowed, in the words of the

President, ‘“*to take a sufficient number of seals, and no more
97 than sufficient, to recompense the Company for their outlay in

taking care of the natives.” Major Williams, the particularly
able Treasury Agent on the islands, was placed in a position of much
complexity and difficulty, and decided to the best of his judgment.
Indeed, every one concerned has acted in perfectly good faith. It was
entirely due to the meagreness and misunderstanding of instructions
that the remarkable results above detailed have been brought about.

870 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In a word, the Company receives skins of a market value of 30,0007.
to defray expenses not exceeding 1,0001. The Government secures a
tax revenue of 50,0001. to meet expenses not exceeding 4,0001.

25. It is a matter for much satisfaction that there are thus secured
funds more than ample to provide for ‘the subsistence and care of the
natives.” Itis a matter for regret that when, with a view to the pres-
ervation of seal life, an agreement had been come to to prohibit for this
year, so far as possible, the killing of fur-seals, there should have been
sanctioned on the Pribyloff Islands the killing of 4,500 seals in excess
of the very liberal limit permitted under the Agreement.

The disposal of the excess of skins thus obtained is a matter for the
immediate consideration of the Governments concerned.

(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
August 10, 1891.

No. 144.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 20, 1891.

I have received your telegram of the 19th instant, containing the
text of two alternative clauses suggested by the United States Goy-
ernment with regard to the submission to arbitration of claims for
compensation arising out of the killing of seais in Behring’s Sea.

You are authorized to accept the second of the two clauses proposed.

No. 145.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 20.)

{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, October 20, 1891.

Referring to your Lordship’s telegram of to-day, I presume that
there is no objection to the Joint Commission Article being also signed
by me.

No. 146.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 21, 1891.
You are authorized to sign the Article providing for a Joint Commis-
sion to investigate the facts relating to seal life in Behring’s Sea, as
suggested in your telegram of the 20th instant.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 871

No. 147.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received October 22.)

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1891.

My Lorp: In my despatch of the 4th September last I had the
honour to report that, in accordance with your Lordship’s instructions,
I addressed a note to the United States Government calling their
attention to the violation of Article 2 of the Behring’s Sea Agreement
for a modus vivendi, signed on the 15th June last (which limited the
killing of seals on the islands until May 1892 to 7,500), and expresing
the conviction of Her Majesty’s Government that the President would
not countenance any evasion of the true spirit of the Agreement, and

would take the necessary measures to insure its strict observance.
938 I have now the honour to inclose copies of that note, and of

the reply of the United States Government, which I received on
the 10th instant. In transmitting these documents I venture to submit
to your Lordship the following observations.

No question can reasonably arise as to the meaning of the Agreement
as understood by the two Governments. Your Lordship will remember
that when Mr. Blaine first proposed a reservation of the right to kill a
limited number of seals on the islands for the care and subsistence of
the natives, I objected to the suggestion as detracting from the principle
of equality which was a feature of the original proposal. Mr. Blaine,
in his note to me of the 4th May, 1891 (of which a copy was inelosed
in my despatch of the 5th of that month),* dwelt at great length on
the various grounds, principally humanitarian, upon which the proposal
was based, and coneluded as follows:

‘‘Tn this exigency the President instructs me to propose to Lord Salis-
bury that he concede to the North American Company the right to take
a sufficient number of seals, and no more than sufficient, to recompense
them for their outlay in taking care of the natives, and that, in the
phrase of the President, all ‘commercial killing of seals be prohibited
pending the result of arbitration.’

‘““The Secretary of the Treasury has a right to fix the number neces-
sary to the end desired. After full consideration, he has limited the
number to 7,500 to be killed by the Company to repay them for the
outlay demanded for the support of the 300 people on the Pribyloff
Islands.”

Her Majesty’s Government consented to the reservation, on the terms
and for the purposes above mentioned, and, in the course of the further
negotiations, they pointed out that “it was on the fidelity with which
the condition of not killing more than 7,500 seals was observed that the
equality of the proposed Agreement depended.” They therefore asked
for facilities for the supervision by British agents of the proceedings of
the Company on the seal islands. To this the Acting Secretary of
State, in his note to me of the 6th June, 1891 (of which a copy was
inclosed in my despatch of the 9th June), replied as follows:

“He” (the President) ‘‘directs me to ask you to remind Lord Salis-
bury that the limitation of the killing of seals upon the islands is abso-
lutely within the control of the United States, as a daily count is made
by sworn officers, and to inform him that already, in order to insure
such control pending these negotiations, the agents of the Treasury
Department who have been dispatched to the seal islands have been

*See “United States No. 2 (1891),” p. 5.

be 4 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

instructed to stop the killing when 7,500 have been taken, and to await
the arrival of further orders; though, ordinarily, the taking of seals on
the islands does not begin until about the Ist July. The enforcement
of an agreed limitation being so fully in the control of the United States,
the President is sure that Lord Salisbury will not question the absolute
good faith of this Government in observing its stipulation to limit the
catch to 7,500.”

The two Governments therefore agreed that, up to May 1892, only
7,500 seals should be killed for the support of the 300 people on the
Pribyloft Islands, and that all “commercial killing” (to use the language
of Mr. Blaine) should be stopped. It is important to note that the
agents of the United States Treasury Department, who had been dis-
patched to the seal islands long before the signature of the Agreement,
had been instructed as far back as the 27th May “to stop the killing
when 7,500 had been taken.”

The following are the Articles of the Agreement relating to the restric-
tion on the killing of seals:

1. Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit, until May next, seal-killing in that
part of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of dem areation described in Article
I of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly use
its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects and
vessels.

2. The United States Government will prohibit seal-killing for the same period in
the same part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof the property
of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence
and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observ-
ance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

It is difficult to understand by what process of reasoning the United
States Treasury Agent at the seal islands can have come to the con-
clusion that he was authorized under the above Agreement to permit
the killing of 12,071 seals.

Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. Dawson, the British Commissioners

sent to Behring’s Sea, in a telegram "from the Pribyloff Islands
99 dated the 5th August, reported to your Lordship that this year’s

catch of seals had already considerably exceeded the number of
7,500, the limit fixed in the Agreement; and, in a despatch of the
same date, they stated that. at St. Paul they had been informed that
the Treasury Agent had been instructed, as far back as the 27th May,
to keep the quota of seals taken by the Company under 7,500, and that
en route to the islands he was advised by telegram to interpret his
instructions in accordance with the United States Proclamation, which
embodied the Agreement of the 15th June verbatim. This accor ds
entirely with what i is stated in the Acting Secretary of State’s note to
me of the 6th June, which I have quoted above.

The British Behring’s Sea Commissioners, in their despatch above
referred to, state that the Treasury Agent, Major Williains, arrived at
the Eribylom Islands on the 10th June, and that, on the 20th June, the
quota of 7,500 seals having been killed, he stopped all further killing
for the Comp: Wy.

Up to the 20th June, therefore, the Treasury Agent entertained no
doubt as to the limit of seals to be killed, and as to his instructions and
his duties under the Agreement. It was only when a copy of the
President’s Proclamation arrived at the islands on the 2nd July that he
entertained doubts as to whether he ought not to allow 7,500 seals to
be killed from and after the 15th June, the date.of the signature of the
Agreement, ignoring all the killing of seals which had taken place
prior and up to that date. On the 28th J uly he imparted his doubts to

a on

“~y

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 873

the British Commissioners, who replied, on the 30th, in writing, that,
in their opinion, the intention of the two Governments, as conveyed by
Article 2 of the modus vivendi, was that, on the part of the United
States Government, the stipulation would be strictly observed to limit
the catch this season to 7,500 seals, and to stop the killing when that
number had been taken. A copy of that letter is inclosed in the
despatch of the British Commissioners.

Nevertheless, Major Williams read the A greement otherwise, although
it in no way conflicted with his previous instructions, but, on the con-
trary, entirely confirmed them.

The consequence of this proceeding on his part is given in detail in
the reply of the United States Government to the complaint of Her
Majesty’s Government.

The numbers of seals killed are as follows:

Bromplsu May boulOth June. sie sss eee ee lee ene eee eae jess Je 1, 651
Hiromp it hetoRlo thy une. ae saatee., See eta naie pia Stns hath (LEN ein sincere ots 2, 920
HromelpthuJunerto:2nd. July <2 ye. sae j2e tase eee and ea ck soe ae ceclen = lle cutee 4,471
BILOMpon Gr ly oOMOChPATVOTIS tee ec essetce cee ea te eee rain Inert tenets omen 1, 796
Permission stvenn 66 lil inad ditions 52s. S252 ass 2ae ses SY e e.s Codes 1, 233

PD OPA Re Reset Atta eS Poet seat Dateien sta ete es, See ER Re cheat 12, 071

The United States Government do not in terms deny that there has
been a violation of the Agreement. They content themselves with
transmitting the explanations of the Treasury Agent, and expressing
the hope that they will convince Her Majesty’s Government that there
has been no disposition on his part to violate the stipulations of the

Agreement. i
I have, &c. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 147.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

NEWPORT, R.I., August 26, 1891.

Sir: In accordance with instructions which I have received from the Marquis of
Salisbury, I have the honour to inform you that the British Behring’s Sea Commis-
sioners have reported, in a communication dated from the seal islands on the 5th
August, that they tind that this year’s catch of seals already materially exceeds
7,500, and that the United States Agent permits the killing of seals to continue,
assuming that the limitation agreed upon commences from the date of the signature
of the modus vivendi.

In bringing this information to your notice, 1am at the same time instructed to
express the conviction of Her Majesty’s Government that the President will not
countenance any evasion of the true spirit of the Agreement, and that he will take
whatever measures appear to him to be necessary to insure its strict observance.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

100 {Inclosure 2 in No. 147.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 10, 1891.
Str: It is a source of regret that an answer has been so long delayed to your note
of the 26th August last, relating to the communication of the British Behring’s Sea
Commissioners as to the alleged killing of seals on the seal islands in excess of the
number fixed by the Agreement of the 15th June last. This delay has been occa-
sioned by the necessity of receiving from the United States Agent in charge of the
islands a full Report on the subject.

874 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Agent reports that he reached the islands on the 10th day of June last; that
from the Ist January to the Ist May, 1891, no seals were killed on the islands; and
that from the Ist May to the 10th June, the date of the Agent’s arrival, there were
killed by the natives for food 1,651 seals. On the morning of the 11th June the
Agent gave permission to the lessees to commence killing under the Contract with
the Government of the United States, and he states that, from the 11th to the 15th
June, 2,920 seals were killed; and that, from the 15th June to the 2nd July, the date
of the arrival of the steamer ‘‘ Corwin,” bringing the Proclamation of the President
of the United States, containing the notice and text of the modus vivendi, there were
killed 4,471 seals. From the 2nd July to the 10th August there were killed, for the
use of the natives as food, 1,796 seals; and, on leaving the islands, the Agent gave
instructions to limit the number to be killed by the natives for food up to the 1st
May, 1892, to 1,233.

The instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Agent, received by the
steamer “Corwin,” were that, if in any way his previous instructions were incon-
sistent with the President’s Proclamation and the Agreement embraced in it, he
should be governed by the latter. The Agent reports that, after careful considera-
tion of the text of the Agreement, he decided that the seals killed since the 15th
June, the date when that instrument was signed, should be deducted from the 7,500
named in Article 2, thus leaving 3,029 seals to be taken ‘‘ for the subsistence and care
of the natives” from the 2nd July, 1891, to the lst May, 1892. He says that, in his
desire to carry out with absolute correctness the modus vivendi, he consulted the two
United States Commissioners, Messrs. Mendenhall] and Merriam, the Commanders of
the United States vessels ‘‘Mohican,” ‘ Thetis,” and ‘‘ Corwin,” the United States
Special Agent, and the Special Inspector, and that they all concurred in his inter-
pretation of paragraph 2 of the Agreement: that seals killed prior to the 15th June
did not form part of the 7,500 named in the modus vivendi. He further says that, in
his first meeting with the British Commissioners, Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr.
G. M. Dawson, on the 28th July, he submitted the same question to them. Their
reply was that it was the understanding of the British Government that only 7,500
seals should be taken during the season, but on examining the text of the Agree-
ment, they admitted that the Agent’s interpretation of it was correct. This state-
ment as to the views of the British Commissioners is confirmed by the Report of
Protessor Mendenhall.

The Agent claims that his action is not only strictly in accord with the language
of the Agreement, but with the true intent and spirit of the same, as he understood
that intent and spirit in the light of all the facts in his possession. He understood
that the object of the Agreement in allowing 7,500 seals to be killed was for the sub-
sistence and care of the natives.” The 1,651 seals killed by the natives for food from
the 1st May to the 10th June were almost immediately eaten by them, as is their
custom after the scanty supply of meat during the winter and spring months, and
no part of these seals was salted or preserved for future use. During the killing
season by the lessees, under their quota for commercial purposes, the natives are
kept very busy, and have no time to prepare meat for future use, and only so much
is used for food as is cut off for present use; so that the seals killed between the
10th June, when the season commenced, and the 2nd July, when the notice of the
modus vivendi was received, were not available for the future subsistence of the
natives. As stated, there only remained 3,029 seals to be taken for their subsistence
from the 2nd July, 1891, to the lst May, 1892. The Agent cites the fact that, from
the close of the commercial killing season of 1890 on the 20th July, there were killed
by the natives for food up to the 3lst December, 1890, 6,218 seals, including 3,468
pup seals, the further killing of the latter being now prohibited. It was plain to
the Agent that, under the construction which he had placed upon the modus vivendi,

the supply of meat for the natives during the coming winter would be entirely
101 inadequate, and before his departure from the islands he called upon the

lessees to bring in a sufficient supply of salt beef to carry the natives through
the winter and up to the Ist May, 1892.

The Agent had no means of determining the scope and meaning of the phrase of
the British Commissioners as used in your note, “this year’s catch,” or “the catch
of this season,” as used in their communication to him dated the 30th July, except
by the interpretation to be given to the text of the modus vivendi, as contained in
paragraphs 1 and 2. The ‘‘same period,” found in paragraph 2, he understood to
refer to the period within which the British Government undertook to prohibit seal-
killing in Behring’s Sea. The British Commissioners informed the Agent that, as
to the British Government, this period did not begin until a reasonable time after
the 15th June (the date of signing), sufficient for the naval vessels to reach the sea.
The Agent interpreted the paragraphs cited as mutually binding, and he could not
assume that it would be claimed that their provisions were to take effect on one date
a the interest of the British sealers, and on another in the interest of the United

tates.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 875

T have thus taken pains to communicate to you in some detail the action of the
Agent of the United States on the subject complained of by the British Commission-
ers, and I hope what has been set forth will convince your Government that there
has been no disposition on the part of the Agent to evade or violate the stipulations
of the Agreement of the 15th June last.

Thave, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM F. WitaRrTOoN,
Acting Secretary.

No. 148.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 22.)

WASHINGTON, October 13, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday, I have the
honour to inclose copy of a semi-official note which I have received from
the Acting Secretary of State pressing for a reply to his note of the
23rd J uly last, which contained the form of clause proposed by the
United States ‘Government for the settlement of claims for damages to
be inserted in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, together with
a copy of the semi-official note which I have sent him in reply.

I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 148.]
Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 12, 1891.

My Drar Sir JULIAN: On the 23rd July last I wrote you a note presenting a
proposal for the settlement of claims for damages, which was to form part of the
proposed Agreement of Arbitration of certain matters affecting the seal fisheries
in Behring’s Sea.

On the 22nd August I wrote requesting you to be kind enough to inform me when
an answer to my note might be expected, On the 24th August you wrote me
acknowledging the receipt of mine of the 22nd Au gust, and expressing the hope that
you would be in a position to reply to my note of “the 23rd July in the course of the
next few days. More than ten weeks have elapsed since sending you my note of the
23rd July, and no answer to it has yet been received.

The President is very desirous to have a conclusion reached in the negotiations
concerning the Behring’s Sea matters, and has requested me to draw your attention
again to the importance of an early reply to his latest proposal.

The period fixed by the agreement for a modus vivendi expires on the 2nd May next.
The time within which it is hoped to obtain a final settlement of the questions in
dispute between the two Governments is fast going by, and the President feels that
if any effective action is to be had in the matter before the next fishing season opens,
all the terms of the Agreement of Arbitration should be disposed of immediately.

Very truly yours,
(Signed) WILLIAM F, WHARTON.

102 [Inclosure 2 in No. 148.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

: WASHINGTON, October 13, 1891.
My Drar Mr. WHARTON: On receipt of your letter of yesterday asking for a reply
to your note of the 28rd July last, containing a form of clause proposed by your
Government to be inserted in the Be hring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, to settle the
long-debated question of damages, I telegraphed to Lord ‘Salisbury for further
instr uctions, informing him of the substance of your communication.

876 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I understand that his Lordship is expected in London this week from the south of
Europe, and I shall probably, therefore, reeéive an answer to my telegram before
many days.

Although, as you observe, more than ten weeks have elapsed since the date of
your official note above referred to, I need hardly remind you that the intervening
time has been taken up with infor mal discussions between us with a view to finding
a solution of the difficulty without unduly lengthening the official correspondence.
This informal interchange of views, which, no doubt, had the approval of the Presi-
dent, has not been without advantage in throwing light on the troublesome ques-
tion which still impedes the conclusion of the Agreement, and I now hope I may
soon be in a position to resume the official correspondence.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 149.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received October 23.)

[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, October 23, 1891.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 20th instant,
formal notes have been exchanged between Mr. Wharton and myself
recording the adoption of the seven Articles of the Behring’s Sea Arbi-
tration Agreement as formally settled by both Governments.

Copies are sent by post.

No. 150.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Howard.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 23, 1891.

Str: With reference to your despatch of the 29th July last, I trans-
mit herewith a copy of a despatch from tle Behring’s Sea Commission-
ers recording their high appreciation of the manner in which they
were received by the Russian authorities at the Commander Islands
and Petropaulowski.* Ihave to request you to convey to the Russian
Government the thanks of Her Majesty’s Government for the courte-
ous reception accorded to the British Commissioners by the Russian
officials.

lam, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 151.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 27.)

DOWNING SYLREET, October 26, 1891.

Str: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
the Secretary of State for the Colonies to transmit to you, to be laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Gov-
ernor-General of Canada, inclosing a Memorial to Lord Salisbury from
the British Columbian Sealers’ Association.

Lam, We.
(Signed) ROBERT G. W. HERBERT.

*No. 140.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 877

103 [Inclosure 1 in No. 151.)
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT HouskgE, Ottawa, October 3, 1891.
My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship herewith a copy of an
approved Minute of the Privy Council of Canada, submitting a Memorial addressed
to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign “Affairs by the Sealers’
Association of Victoria with reference to the loss occasioned to Canadian vessels by
reason of the enforcement of the modus vivendi, together with copy of the reply of
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the representations of the Association.
Lhave, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 251.)

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Kxcellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 29th September, 1891.

On a Report, dated the 19th September, 1891, from the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries, stating that he has received the appended letter from Mr. Richard Hall,
Secretary of Victoria Sealers’ Association, covering a Memorial signed by the own-
ers, managing owners, and agents of the’ Canadian sealing fleet, addressed to the
Right Honourable Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

This Memorial represents the position of the Canadian sealing fleet as affected by
the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea during the present season.

The Minister also submits a copy of his answer to the Secretary of the Associa-
tion thereto.

The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
advise that your Excellency be moved to forward copies hereof, together with the
Memorial in question, to the Right Honourable the Principal Secretary of State for
the Colonies, for the information of Her Majesty’s Government.

All which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. McGER,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

APPENDIX (A).

OFFICE OF THE VICTORIA SEALERS’ ASSOCIATION,
Victoria, B. C., September 1, 1891.

Str: On behalf of the Sealers’ Association of Victoria I do myself the honour to
transmit herewith a Memorial addressed by them to the Imperial Government, and
most respectfully to request that you will be pleased to forward it in the proper course,
accompanied by such representations on the part of the Dominion Government as you
may deem proper.

2. Although it may appear at first sight that a large sum would be involved in
granting our prayer—some of the vessels having been ordered home before they entered
Behring’s Sea, and consequently without any catch at all, and others very shortly
after entering, when their catch was small—some are now returning with full aver-
age catches, whose claim will consequently be nil, and it is to be presumed that many
others may follow, equally fortunate, so that in all probability the amount required
to meet our claims, although to us of very material importance, will to the British
Government be comparatively insignificant.

3. We cannot, of course, give a complete list of our exact claims until all our ves-
sels have returned, but will then forward them promptly.

4, Permit me to remind you that in 1885, when the Canadian Government excluded
the United States fishermen from participation in Canada fisheries, six months’
notice was given, whereas no such courtesy was extended to us.

5. Iam further directed to convey to you the expression of our grateful apprecia-
tion of the full and energetic manner in which you have hitherto supported our
interests, and of our hope that you will feel justified in fully indorsing and urging
the prayer of our present Memorial.

6. If you will be so good as to aftord us any advice or suggestions which may occur
to you as to any further steps which we can take in this matter, we will feel duly
grateful.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) RICHARD HALL,
Secretary to the Victoria Sealers’ Association.
The Hon. the MINISTER OF MARTNE AND FISHERIES,

878 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

104 APPENDIX (B).

Memorial.

To the Most Noble the Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, Premier.
The humble Memorial of the undersigned British Columbia Ship-owners
interested in Fur-seal hunting,
Most respectfully sheweth:

That your memorialists desire to approach your Lordship with assurances of their
loyalty to the British Crown, their attachment to the institutions of their country,
and their personal respect for your Lordship.

That, cherishing such sentiments, your memorialists have viewed with surprise
and pain the recent action of the Imperial Government in dealing with their interests,

That an Act prohibiting fur-seal hunting in Behring’s Sea has been passed through
Parliament, and has received the Royal Assent with unusual haste, whose effect has
been to protect a large politico-commercial monopoly, belonging to a foreign State,
at the expense and to the serious detriment of British interests.

That your memorialists regret that you can have no confidence in the sincerity of
the United States Government in desiring the protection of fur-seals, inasmuch as
they have never made any effort to preserve animal life from the licence of their own
citizens.

That at the present time they are conniving at the extermination of the whale
and the sea-otter, Canadian fishermen having no part or share in those industries,
and that your memorialists confidently believe that, had not Canadians shared in
the fur-seal fishery, no complaint of extermination would ever have been heard of
by the public.

That such Government, judged by its actions, has established little claim to any
generosity or forbearance on the part of the British, but more especially of the
Canadian people. ae

That the allegation publicly made by a prominent statesman that the Victoria,
British Columbia, fur-seal industry is largely conducted by American capital and
enterprise, is, so far as your memorialists are concerned, absolutely erroneous and
without foundation.

That your memorialists have seen, with humiliation and sorrow, the flag of their
country, to which they have ever been accustomed to look for protection, perverted
on the behest of a foreign Power from its legitimate functions into an instrument of
oppression, and your memorialists have been driven from their lawful avocations on
the high seas with the loss of the entire season.

That in the year 1886 vessels, the property of your memorialists, were seized by
the American cruizers on the high seas, upwards of 60 miles distant from land, their
property confiscated and their crews imprisoned, the hardships and cruelties (unwor-
thy of a civilized nation) suffered by them resulting in the death, during his cus-
tody, of the captain of one of the vessels, and that to this day the losses and
indignities endured by your memorialists remain unredressed.

That the alleged diminution in the number of seals is, if true (although every
evidence proves the contrary), far more likely to have resulted from the operations
of the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands in slaughtering them by hundreds of thou-
sands at their breeding-places, than from the comparatively insignificant operations
of your memorialists, scattered over a vast area of the Pacific Ocean.

That under all the circumstances of the case, your memorialists having been
deprived of the profits of their whole season’s business, for which they were per-
mitted to clear at British Custom-houses, most earnestly appeal to your Lordship’s
sense of right and justice to grant them compensation for their losses.

That it is the custom of the trade to pay hunters engaged in it at a rate of so much
per skin for all skins taken, and sailors at so much per month, the voyage generally
lasting until about the end of September.

That many of your memorialists’ vessels have been in port for weeks, their voyage
ended, and crews paid off at rates wholly inadequate to their winter maintenance,
and in many cases insufficient to pay their passages back to Eastern Canada, where
their homes are.

That in asking compensation your memorialists have in view the losses of their
men as well as their own, and if awarded compensation on the basis hereinafter
suggested, will undertake to pay all hunters and sailors employed by them at such
rates as they would have been entitled to receive had the usual average number of
seals been taken in Behring’s Sea, and the voyage been completed at the end of
September.

That your memorialists respectfully suggest, as the only equitable method of com-
puting such compensation, that they be allowed the value at current prices of such
number of seal-skins as they would presumably have killed in Behring’s Sea had

cnet

ss

Sp ae ape Oe

a ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 879

their voyage not been arrested, estimated at the average take per boat or canoe car-
ried for the last three years (exclusive of such vessels as were seized or driven out
of Behring’s Sea in 1889).

That such principle, if accepted by the Imperial Government, will save the expense
of further inquiry, and, by obviating a delay in payment, will confer a boon upon
your memorialists.

Your memorialists, therefore, humbly pray that your Lordship will be pleased to
take such prompt action for their relief as in your wisdom you may deem right and
just.

; And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
(Signed) E. B. MARVIN AND Co.
(And 17 others.)
VANCOUVER, British COLUMBIA, September 1, 1891.

105 APPENDIX (C).

OTTAWA, September 19, 1891.

Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the Ist
instant, forwarding, on behalf of the Sealers’ Association of Victoria, British Colum-
bia, a Memorial addressed to the Right Honourable Her Majesty’s Principal Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, signed by the owners, managing owners, and agents
of the Canadian sealing fleet.

I have brought the Memorial to the attention of his Excellency the Governor-
General, with the view of communicating the same to Her Majesty’s Government.
I may add that any further representations which it may be deemed necessary to
make on any branch of the question will at all times receive my prompt attention.

I may state, for the information of the Association, that, in the negotiations lead-
ing up to the present modus vivendi, the Government of Canada has not neglected to
represent the great interest of Canadians engaged in the fur-seal industry.

Your Association is, I take it, already aware of the views of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment on the question of compensation, since they were communicated through
another channel, in answer to former protests.

I will, however, repeat that Her Majesty’s Government has intimated that, while
they incline to the belief that the closure of Behring’s Sea to all sealing operations
both on land and at sea will so enhance the value of the catch that the prices
realized will compensate the sealers for their loss of the Behring’s Sea catch, they
will be prepared to consider claims to recompense where it can be shown that actual
loss has accrued by reason of the legislation under review.

Formal protests on behalf of some eight or ten returned vessels have already
reached me, and have been brought to the attention of Her Majesty’s Government.

I observe that your letter intimates that in some instances no claims can lie, as the
vessels returned with full catches.

I have noted your desire that I should advise your Association touching any
further steps that might be taken.

I have, &c.
(Signed) CHARLES H. TUPPER:

RicHarpD Hatt, Esq.,

Secretary, Victoria Sealers’ Association, Victoria.

No. 152.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received October 27.)

WASHINGTON, October 19, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to transmit «a copy of anote in relation
to the compensation clause of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement
which, in accordance with the instructions contained in your Lordship’s
telegram of the 15th instant, I addressed to the Acting Secretary of
State.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

880 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 152.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASHINGTON, October 17, 1891.

Sir: Immediately on the receipt of your note of the 23rd July last, relative to the "
form of compensation clause to be inserted in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agree-
ment, I transmitted a copy of it to the Marquis of Salisbury. Since then I have been
in correspondence with his Lordship respecting the new form of clause on that sub-
ject proposed in your note as Article 7. :

I regret to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government, after the fullest considera- r
tion, have arrived at the conclusion that this new clause could not properly be f
assented to by them.

In their opinion it implies an admission of a doctrine respecting the liability of
Governments for the acts of their nationals, or other persons sailing under their flag, 7
on the high seas, for which there is no warrant in the law of nations. Thus it con-
tains the following words:

“The Government of the United States having presented on its own behalf, as
well as of the lessces of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribyloff Islands,
claims for compensation by reason of the killing of seals in Behring’s Sea by persons
acting under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and

decide upon such claims,” &c.
106 These words involve the proposition that Her Majesty’s Government are liable
to make good losses resulting from the wrongfui action of persons sailing out-
side their jurisdiction under the British flag.

Her Majesty’s Government could not accept such a doctrine.

The Article dealing with the question of compensation is therefore likely to give
occasion for lengthy negotiations, which must retard indefinitely the decision of the
main questions of law on which the validity of the claims of either Government
entirely depend.

Both Governments being equally desirous to find a prompt solution of the difficulty
which now impedes the conclusion of the Arbitration Agreement, Lord Salisbury has
authorized me to make the following proposal:

His Lordship suggests that the six Articles of the Arbitration Agreement already
accepted by both Governments should be signed now, and also an Article providing
for the reference to the Arbitrators of any question of fact which either Government
may desire to submit to them regarding the claims for compensation to which it con-
siders itself to be entitled. The application of international law to those facts would
be left as a matter for further negotiation after they shall have been ascertained,
and might be subsequently referred to the Arbitrators, in whole or in part, if the two
Governments should agree to do so.

The above proposal presents so logical and practical an issue out of the difficulty
that I cannot but think that it will commend itself to the favourable consideration
of the President, and I hope it will meet with his acceptance.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 153.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received October 30.)

DOWNING STREET, October 29, 1891.
Str: I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, tobe laid
before the Marquis of Salisbury, with reference to. previous correspond-
ence, a copy of a telegram from the Governor-General of Canada stat-
ing that the Behring’s Sea Commissioners are awaiting instructions at
Ottawa.
Iam, &e. (Signed) . JOHN BRAMSTON.

{Inclosure in No. 153.—Telegraphic.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

OTTAWA, October 24, 1891.
Baden-Powell and Dawson returned and await instructions here.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 881
No. 154.
The Marquis of Salisbury to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 30, 1891.

GENTLEMEN: With reference to your despatch of the 5th August
last, [ transmit to you herewith a copy of a despatch from Her Majesty’s
Minister at Washington,* inclosing correspondence with the United
States Government respecting the number of seals killed during the
recent fishing season in Behring’s Sea. °

I shall be glad to receive any observations you may have to make on
this despatch.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

107 No. 155.
Foreign Office to Sir G. Baden-Powell.

FOREIGN OFFICE, October 30, 1891.

Sir: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your Memorandum, dated the 10th August, on the limitation
of the number of fur-seals to be taken on the Pribyloff Islands during
the season of 1891.

His Lordship desires me to convey to you his thanks for this commu-
nication.

Iam, &c.
(Signed) P. CURRIE.

No. 156.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received October 31.)

[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, October 31, 1891.

I saw Mr. Blaine to day on the subject of the Behring’s Sea arbitra-
tion. He told me that he approved of my last proposal to the effect
that the seven Arbitration Articles and the Article providing for a
Joint Commission should be signed at once provisionally, with a view
to their being subsequently embodied in formal documents. He added
that he was ready to proceed at once to discuss with me the Articles of
the Arbitration Convention which still remained unsettled respecting
the appointment of Arbitrators and other matters, and he asked me
whether I could give him any information as to your Lordship’s views
on this subject. On my expressing my inability to do so, he threw out
the suggestion that it would be best, in view of all the circumstances of
the case, if the Court of Arbitrators were to be composed of English
and Ameriéan jurists of repute, two on each side, with an Umpire to
be chosen by some foreign Power to be agreed on between the two
Governments. He said he would have no objection to Holland, Swe-

*No. 147.

BS, PI V——o6

882 . APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

den, France, or Switzerland. In his opinion, the appointment of
English and American jurists as Arbitrators was advisable on account
of the community, not only of language, but of the principles of law, of
Great Britain and the United States. He asked me to inform your
Lordship of this suggestion, and to ascertain the views taken of it by
Her Majesty’s Government.

No. 157.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received
November 2.)

VANCOUVER, October 14, 1891.

My Lorp: In continuation of our despatch of the 17th September
last, we have the honour to report that, after leaving Behring’s Sea, we
visited Kodiak Island, Sitka, and Shakan, making inquiries of both the
natives and White residents at those places.

2. Her Majesty’s ship “Nymphe,” on her way to Esquimalt, following
a different course, met and assisted us at Sitka.

3. Continuing our cruize of investigation, we called at the following
places on the coast of British Columbia, viz.: Fort Simpson, Metlakatla,
Port Essington, Masset (Queen Charlotte Islands), Bella Bella, Nawithi,
Clayoquot Sound, and Barclay Sound, where, by personal inquiries, we
amplified the written statements which, in compliance with our previous
request, had been forwarded to us by the various Indian agents on the
coast.

4, We have thus been enabled to acquire a direct knowledge of the
fur-sealing industry, both past and present, as it affects the Indians of
South east Alaska and British Columbia.

5. We also visited the Indian Settlement at Neah Bay, on the
American shore of the Straits of Fuea, where we obtained valuable
information.

6. Reaching Esquimalt on the 8th October, we reported our arrival
to the Commander-in-chief on the Pacific Station.

7. While at Victoria and Vancouver deputations from the Sealers’
Associations met us, and from them and from others we made final
inquiries in order to obtain authoritatively the views of all persons con-
nected with the fur-seal fishery on the facts of seal life, and on the

protective measures to which they would agree.
108 8. We also paid a special visit to the American port of Seattle,
the chief centre of the American pelagic sealing industry in Puget
Sound.

9. Such is the record of our local inquiries in the North Pacific Ocean,
in which we availed ourselves of every known source of information
likely to assist us in arriving at sound conclusions.

10. We now proceed direct to Ottawa, completing our Report to Her
Majesty, and awaiting further instructions.

We have, Xe.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M, DAWSON.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 883
No. 158.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received
November 2.)

Port WILLIAM, ONTARIO, October 19, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s despatch of the 12th
September last, respecting the limitation of the number of seals to be
killed on the Pribyloff Islands this year, we have the honour to inform
your Lordship that on the 18th instant we received a private letter
from Sir Julian Pauncefote informing us that ‘The United States Gov-
ernment have replied to our” (Her Majesty’s Government’s) ‘ complaint
of the violation of the modus vivendi. They admit that Major Williams
allowed no less than 12,071 seals to be killed. They do not say that
they approve his action, but they merely give his explanations, and
hope Her Majesty’s Government will be satisfied that he had no dispo-
sition to violate the Agreement.”

Major Williams informed us on the islands early in August that
nearly 9,000 seals had been killed by that date, and that the killing
would be stopped until the “stagey” season was over, but resumed in
October.

We therefore assume that 3,000 of the 12,071 are to be killed this
autumn, and have this day addresssed to your Lordship a cypher tele-
gram of which the following is a paraphrase:

OCTOBER 19, 1891.

Sir Julian Pauncefote informs us that the United States Government admit that
permission has been given to kill 12,000 seals on the seal islands this year. We
understand that about 3,000 of these remain to be killed this autumn; wherefore we
hope that the United States Government have agreed to send instructions to the
islands to stop killing at once until May 1892.—BaDEN-POWELL.

We noticed in the newspapers a report that the United States reve-
nue-cruizer “Rush,” on arrival at San Francisco, was unexpectedly
ordered to return to the Pribyloff Islands in the early part of October.
The United States Government thus had an opportunity, of which they
possibly availed themselves, of sending to the seal islands the nee-
essary orders to stop all further killing this year. We can hardly
suppose that they would neglect so good an occasion, at all events to
mitigate the effects of the misunderstanding of clause 2 of the modus
vivendi, but we had ourselves no information as to any such action hay-
ing been taken by the United States Government, and as Sir Julian
Pauncefote did not mention the point we felt it our duty to at once
communicate our views by telegraph to your Lordship.

We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL,
GEORGE M. Dawson.

No. 159.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
November 2.)
OTTAWA, October 21, 1891.
My Lorp: We have the honour to transmit, for your Lordship’s con-

sideration, a copy of a Memorial which was handed to us on the 14th
instant by the Sealers’ Association of Vancouver, stating their special

$84 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. t
claims for compensation on account of the Proclamation issued for this |
year against the taking of fur-seal in Behring’s Sea. ;

109 We informed the Association that the subject was one outside

the precise scope of our Commission, but that we would have
pleasure in laying the Memorial before your Lordship. |

We have also, in compliance with the request of the Sealers’ Associa-

tion, transmitted a copy of the Memorial to the Governor-General of
Canada.

We have, &e.

(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M, DAWSON.

{Inclosure in No. 159.]
The Vancouver Sealers’ Association to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

[No DATE.]

GENTLEMEN: We, the undersigned owners of the sealing fleet of the city of Van-e
couver, have the honour to make the following representations:

That while all owners of sealing-vessels in the province must have suffered from
the operation of the modus vivendi, we, the owners of the sealing fleet helonging to
the city of Vancouver, have probably felt the hardship the most severely from the
reason that the industry is entirely a new one, the whole fleet of vessels having been
built within the last few months, and equipped by us for the sole purpose of pro-
ceeding to Behring’s Sea in the past season.

That at the commencement and during the construction of these vessels we had no
reason to suppose that any restriction would be placed upon their movements.

That having completed them, we in good faith went to the great expense of fitting
them out for the fisheries, and in fact had no intention [? intimation] of the effects
of the modus vivendi until after their arrival in Behring’s Sea.

That the industry being a new one with us, and not having the profitable results :
. of previous years as an offset, we, as before stated, are the greatest sufferers by the
action of the Government in this respect.

We would also call your attention to the fact that the hunters employed in the
above-named vessels were engaged for the voyage, and received no other recompense
than an amount per skin saved, as agreed upon, and consequently they have made a
claim upon the owners for compensation based upon earnings of former years.

We have not thought it necessary to burden you with further details of our case,
as you must be already fully cognizant of it, but shall be glad at any time to supply
any information in our power,

We have, &c.

(Signed) D. OPPENHEIMER, President.
(And others.)

No. 160.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received November 2.)

WASHINGTON, October 23, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 19th instant, I
have the honour to inclose copies of notes which I have exchanged with
the Acting Secretary of State, recording the adoption by both Govern-
ments of theseven Articlesof the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement
as finally settled.

Mr. Wharton informed me yesterday that the President is of opinion
that no formal instrument should be signed until all the other provis-
ions relating to the number and choice of Arbitrators and the time
and place of their sitting, We., have been settled, so that the whole may
be embodied in a Convention to be laid before Congress.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 885

T suggested that, in the meanwhile, copies of the seven Articles and
of the Joint Commission Article, which have been agreed to, should be.
. signed by him and me on behalf of our respective Governments.

He said that he would submit that course to the President.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

110 [Inclosure 1 in No. 160].

Mr. Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 22, 1891.

Sir: I have laid before the President your note of the 17th instant, and he directs
me to express his regret that your Government has not seen fit to accept the modi-
fied form of the 7th clause which was proposed in my note of the 23rd July last.

This modification of the clause in question was made with a view to obviate the
objection urged in your note of the 13th July, and the President is unable to see how
it can be held to imply an admission on the part of Great Britain ‘‘of a doctrine
respecting the liability of Governments for the acts of their nationals or other per-
sons sailing under their flag on the high seas for which there is no warrant in inter-
national law.”

The proposition was expressly framed, so as to submit to the Arbitrators the
question of the liability of each Government for specified acts complained of by the
other, and its language no more implies an admission of liability on the part of one
Government than on the part of the other. It is precisely because the two Govern-
ments cannot agree as to the question of liability that arbitration becomes neces-
sary. The facts upon which the respective claims for compensation rest are not
seriously in dispute; to wit, the seizureof vesscls and the killing of sealsin Behring’s
Sea, and it would probably not require the aid of Arbitrators for their ascertain-
ment. Butit is the more important and difficult question of liability respecting
which the two Governments find it necessary to invoke the interposition of impartial
arbitration. It was not the intention of this Government to require of Great Brit-
ain any admission of liability for the acts complained of, but it has felt that if the
arbitration was to result in a full settlement of the differences between the two
Governments, the question of respective liability for these acts should go to the
Arbitrators for decision.

In the informal Conferences which have taken place between us since the date of
my note of the 23rd July, you will remember that 1 have solicited from you any sug-
gestions in support of the objection that the modified clause assumes a liability on
the part of your Government, having in view on my part an amendment of the
phraseology to overcome the objection, and I have to express disappointment that
no such suggestions were found in your note of the 17th instant. It was for this
reason, and in the hope that the clause might be made acceptable to your Govern-
ment, that, after the receipt of your note, I submitted to you informally the follow-
ing amendment to be added to the 7th clause, as proposed in my note of the 23rd
July:

“The above provision for the submission to the Arbitrators by the United States
of claims for compensation by reason of the killing of seals by persons acting under
the protection of the British flag shall not be considered as implying any admission
on the part of the Government of Great Britain of its liability for the acts of its
nationals or other persons sailing under its flag.”

We have now been informed by you that your Government is unwilling to accept
the clause even with this addition by way of amendment.

When in your note of the 21st February last you communicated the desire of Lord
Salisbury for a ‘“‘reference to the Arbitrator of the question of damages due to per-
sons who have been injured, in case it should be determined by him that the action
of the United States in seizing British vessels had been without warrant in inter-
national law,” the President cheerfully accepted the suggestion, and, coupling with
it the claim of damages preferred by the United States, proposed to submit both ques-
tions, as presented by the respective Governments, to arbitration, thus making a com-
plete and final settlement of all differences between the two Governments connected
with the seal fisheries. To withdraw this comprehensive submission of specified
claims, and substitute for it a mere reference to the Arbitrator of questions of facts
touching the same claims, which are not to be held binding upon either Government,
as you propose, is, in the opinion of the President, an imperfect, and, he fears, may

886 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

prove, an ineffectual disposition of the question of claims. But having failed in his
efforts by modification and amendment to secure the acceptance by your Government
of the clause for a full adjustment of these claims, and heartily participating in the
desire expressed in your note for a prompt solution of the difficulty which impedes
the conclusion of the arbitration, he has thought it best to terminate the discussion
by proposing to you the following, to constitute the text of clause 7:
“The respective Governments having found themselves unable to agree upon a

reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the
111 injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in con-

nection with the claims presented and urged by it, and being solicitous that
this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and
determination of the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the Arbi-
trators any question of fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon,
the question of the lability of either Government upon the facts found to be the
subject of further negotiation.

Thave, &e.

(Signed) W. F. WHARTON.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 160.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Wharton.

WASTIINGTON, October 23, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday’s
date in reply to mine of the 17th instant, in which I stated the grounds on which
Her Majesty’s Government found themselves unable to accept the form of clause
relating to damaves, proposed in your note of the 25rd July last for insertion in the
Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement.

In that note, I informed you that I had been authorized by the Marquis of Salis-
bury, with a view to a prompt settlement of the difficulty, to make the following
suggestion, namely, that ‘the six Articles of the Arbitration Agreement already
accepted by both Governments should be signed now, and also an Article providing
for the reference to the Arbitrators of any question of fact which either Government
may desire to submit to them regarding the claims for compensation to which it con-
siders itself to be entitled. The application of international law to those facts
would be left as a matter for future negotiation after they shall have been ascer-
tained, and might be subsequently referred to the Arbitrators in whole or in part if
the two Governments should agree to do so.”

In your note under acknowledgment, in which you reply to the above suggestion,
you advert to the discussions and informal conferences, which have taken place on
the subject of the clanse dealing with the question of damages, and you state that
the President is unable to see how the seventh clause, proposed in your note of the
23rd July last, can be held to imply an admission on the part of Great Britain ‘ of
a doctrine respecting the liability of Governments for the acts of their nationals, or
other persons sailing under their flag on the high seas, for which there is no warrant
in international law.” Those are, no doubt, the terms in which I stated generally
the objection of Her Majesty’s Government to the form of clause in question. But
Iam relieved from explaining their objection in greater detail by the proposal of
the President, with which your note concludes, to substitute a new clause, which
substantially carries out Lord Salisbury’s suggestion.

You state that the President has thought it best to terminate the discussion by
proposing to me the following to constitute the text of clause 7:

“The respective Governments, having found themselves unable to agree upon a
reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries
alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with
the claims presented and urged by it, and being solicitous that this subordinate
question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of
the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the Arbitrators any question
of fact involved in said claims, and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the
liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further
negotiation.” ;

Tam glad to be able to announce to you that I have received by telegraph the
authority of Lord Salisbury to accept the above clause on behalf of Her Mijesty’s
Government, and, in doing so, I beg to expressmy gratification at this satisfactory
solution of the difficulty which has delayed the conclusion of the Arbitration
Agreement.

Ihave, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, 887

112 NO. 16H.
Foreign Office to Colonial Office.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 2, 1891.

Str: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit, to be laid
before Secretary Lord Knutsford, a paraphrase of a telegram from Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington, * reporting an interview with Mr.
Blaine respecting the Behring’s Sea arbitration.

His Lordship will be glad to be favoured with Lord Knutsford’s opin-
ion on Mr. Blaine’s suggestion that British and United States jurists of
repute, two on each side, should be appointed as Arbitrators, and that
an Umpire should be selected by one of the foreign Powers named.

Lord Salisbury is of opinion that the proposal to appoint jurists as
Arbitrators might be accepted by Her Majesty’s Government, and he is
disposed to think that the choice of the foreign Power with whom the
selection of the Umpire is to rest should be decided by lot.

lam, We.
(Signed) P, CURRIE.

No. 162.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFicn, November 6, 1891.

Str: I have received your despatch of the 23rd ultimo, inclosing
copies of the notes which you have exchanged with the Acting Sec-
retary of State, recording the adoption by the British and American
Governments of the seven Articles of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration
Agreement as finally settled.

In reply, I have to state that Her Majesty’s Government approves
the terms of your note, as well as the suggestion made by you to Mr.
Wharton respecting the signature of the Articles as reported in the
last paragraph of your despatch.

Lam, We.

(Signed) SALISBURY.

No, 165.
The Marquis of Salisbury to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 6, 1891.
GENTLEMEN: I have received your despatch of the 21st ultimo, for-
warding a copy of a Memorial from the Sealers’ Association of Van-
couver, in which the latter state their special claims for compensation
ou account of the Proclamation issued against the taking of fur-seal in
Behring’s Sea.
The answer which you returned to the Association, as reported in the
same despateh, is approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
Tam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

*No. 156. _

888 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No, 164.
The Marquis of Salisbury to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 6, 1891.
GENTLEMEN: I have received your despatch of the 14th ultimo report-
ing your movements, in the prosecution of the inquiry with which you
have been charged, between the 18th September and the 14th October.
I have to state that your proceedings are approved by Her Majesty’s
Government.
Iam, We. (Signed) SALISBURY.

113 No. 165,
Admiralty to Foreign Office.—( Received November 12.)

ADMIRALTY, November 10, 1891.

Srr: Tam commanded by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
to transmit, for the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, copy of the remarks of the Commander-in-chief on the Pacitie
Station, dated the 1st October, in forwarding the Report of Her Maj-
esty’s ships in the Behring’s Sea in 1891, received from Commander
Turner, of Her Majesty’s ship ‘“‘ Nymphe.”

My Lords propose, with the concurrence of Lord Salisbury, to approve
of the proceedings of Commander Turner, of Her Majesty’s ship
“Nymphe,” Commander Barr, of Her Majesty’s ship “ Porpoise,” and
Lieutenant Hadley, of Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant.”

Iam, Xe.

(Signed) ivan MACGREGOR.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 165.]
MRear-Admiral Hotham to Admiralty.
{General Report of Proceedings of Her Majesty’s ships in the Behring’s Sea, 1891.]

“WARSPITE,” AT ESQUIMALT, October 17, 1891.

Forwarded, observing I am glad to be able to bring to their Lordships’ notice the
good feeling that existed between Her Majesty’s ships and those of the United
States; also that the Commissioners of Seal Fishery question (Sir G. Baden-Powell,
K.C.M.G., M. P., and Professor Dawson, of Canada) have represented to me by letter
their appreciation of the aid they received from Commander Burr, of Her Majesty’s
ship ‘‘ Porpoise,” and Lieutenant-Commander Hadley, Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheas-
ant,” in carrying out their work, under the superintendence of Commander Turner,
Senior British Naval Officer.

(Signed) Cuas. F. HOTHAM.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 165.]
Commander Turner to Rear-Admiral Hotham.

“NYMPHE,” AT ESQUIMALT, October 8, 1891.
Str: I have the honour to report that on arriving at Esquimalt from a cruize on the
16th June, I found awaiting me telegraphic orders from the Admiralty to proceed
with Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” to the Behring’s Sea as soon as possible, and

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 889

there co-operate with the United States men-of-war in warning sealing-vessels to
leave the Behring’s Sea, and in seizing those who might fail to heed the warning,

I received later telegrams, ordering me to charter steam-collier ‘‘ Costa Rica” to
take to the Belring’s Sea 2,000 tons of coal for the use of Her Majesty’s ships, and
also to charter steam-ship ‘‘ Danube” for the use of Sir George Baden-Powell, K. C.
M. G., and Dr. Dawson, Her Majesty’s Cominissioners.

On the 27th June I proceeded to Iliulink Harbour, Ounalaska, after leaving orders
for Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Pheasant” and steam-ship ‘‘Costa Rica” to leave tor the
same port as soon as they were ready for sea, and on my arrival I found in harbour
the British schooner ‘‘E. B. Marvin,” which had been seized by the revenue-steamer
“Rush” for sealing in the Behring’s Sea after being warned.

The United States force in the Behring’s Sea was United States ships ‘‘ Mohican,”
‘‘Alert,” “Thetis,” and the revenue-steamers ‘‘Corwin” and ‘‘Rush.” United States
ship ‘‘Marion” did not arrive until the 17th August; steam-ship ‘‘Alki” was also
chartered to bring up a detachment of marines, and they used her as a receiving-ship
for the crews of captured sealers and as an escort for taking schooners, which had
been seized, to Sitka.

I took from the ‘‘E. B. Marvin” all their guns, ammunition, and seal-skins, and
sent her down to Victoria with orders to report herself on arrival to the Collector of

Customs.
114 Steam-ship ‘‘Costa Rica” arrived at Ounalaska on the 9th, Her Majesty’s
ship ‘‘Pheasant” on the 12th, and Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Porpoise” from the
China Station on the 27th July.

Before leaving Ounalaska I left orders for Her Majesty’s ships ‘‘Porpoise” and
“Pheasant” to coal immediately on arrival, and cruize on the stations agreed upon
(Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Nymphe” and United States ship ‘‘Alert” on the eastern, and
Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Pheasant” and United States ship ‘‘Mohican” on the western
side of the Pribyloff Islands), and seize ail vessels which had been previously warned,
letting go with a warning those which had not been boarded before.

With my orders, I sent to each ship a letter of warning, to be given to the masters
of schooners boarded, a form of certificate to be written in the log or register of
each vessel warned, and instructions for the boarding officer, copies of all of which
are inclosed herewith.

On the 12th July, after receiving from United States ship ‘‘Mohican” a list of all
vessels which had been warned, and copies of which I left for Her Majesty’s ships
“‘Porpoise” and ‘‘ Pheasant,” I sailed for the Pribylofft Islands, and cruized to the
northeast of them, according to arrangement with Commander Cotton, Senior
American Naval Officer.

On the 18th July, I anchored off St. Paul’s village, and United States ships ‘‘ Mohi-
can” and ‘‘Thetis” arrived the same day, United States ship-‘‘Alert” and Her Maj-
esty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” arriving on the 19th. United States ship ‘“‘ Mohican” reported
5 vessels warned by herself, 2 by United States ship *‘Thetis,” 6 by United States
revenue-steamer “Corwin,” and 3 by United States revenue-steamer ‘‘ Rush,” while
I warned 1 vessel and Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” 5.

The Captains of all the men-of-war in port called on the Government and Seal
Company’s agents at St. Paul’s, and visited the rookeries in company with them. It
was especially pointed out that the seals were decreasing, as on the largest rookery
a great tract of land, which a few years ago had been covered with seals, and the
boulders and rocks on which had been worn smooth by them, was now totally
deserted, and no increase of seals had been observed on other rookeries to compensate
for this deficiency.

On arriving at Ounalaska on the 25th July I found there steam-ship ‘‘ Danube,”
with Her Majesty’s Commissioners on board, and Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant.”

Steam-ship ‘‘ Danube” sailed for the Pribylott Islands on the 26th July, and on the
29th July Isent Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” to meet her there, so that she might
place proper boats, &c., at the disposal of Sir George Baden-Powell.

United States ship ‘‘Albatross” with the United States Commissioners, Professor
Mendenhall and Professor Dall, arrived at Ounalaska on the 25th July, and a few
days afterwards proceeded to the Pribyloff Islands.

On the Ist August I ordered steam-ship ‘‘ Costa Rica” to proceed to Sitka, and from
there fetch mails and stores which steam-ship ‘‘Queen” was bringing up for Her
Majesty’s ships in the Behring’s Sea.

On the Ist August, after leaving sailing orders for Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Porpoise”
to proceed to sea on the 7th, eruize around the Pribyloff Islands, and return on the
19th, I left Ounalaska and anchored at St. Paul’s on the 8th August, having warned
two sealing-schooners during the cruize.

I proceeded trom St. Paul’s on the 10th August and cruized till the 18th, touching
at the Islands of St. Matthew and St. Lawrence, and at the former place I met steam-
ship ‘‘Danube” in company with Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Pheasant.”

Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Porpoise” arrived at Ounalaska from her cruize on the 19th,

890 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

and steam-ship ‘Costa Riea” with mails from Sitka, and Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheas-
ant” on the 20th August.

Steam-ship ‘ Danube” arrived on the 2lst August, and sailed again for the Island
of Attou on the 24th. I ordered Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Porpoise” to proceed to the
same destination, so that she might render the same help to Her Majesty’s Commis-
sioners as Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Pheasant” had on their last cruize. I also ordered
Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Porpoise” to proceed to the China Station as soou as steam-ship
“Danube” started to return to Ounalaska,

On the 28th August I sailed from Ounalaska and proceeded to the westward,
anchoring again at Ounalaska on tle 6th September. During this cruize, a record
of all seals seen was kept for the information of Her Majesty’s Commissioners.

I ordered Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘Pheasant” to proceed towards St. George’s, Priby-
loff Islands, on the 1st September, to cruize from there to Cape Newenham, and

return on a zigzag course to Ounalaska.
115 On the Ist September the United States ship ‘‘ Mohican” towed into port
the British schooner ‘‘ Otto,” in accordance with my letter to Commander C. 8.
Cotton, United States Navy, dated the 26th August, 1891, a copy of which is herewith
inclosed. Her Majesty’s ship ‘‘ Pheasant” was in harbour at the time, and after
taking charge of her papers sent her down to Victoria.

On arriving at Ounalaska on the 6th September, I found in port United States
ships ‘‘ Mohican,” ‘‘ Marion,” ‘ Alert,” and “Thetis,” and as United States ship
“ Alert” had received telegraphic orders for China, and could not obtain either coal
or oil at Ounalaska, I sold her the amount of each she required.

United States ship ‘‘ Marion” sailed on the 7th, and the United States ship “ Alert ”
on the 10th August, for China, and later United States ship ‘‘ Mohican” and United
States ship ‘‘ Thetis” went out for a cruize, Commander Cotton intending to sail for
San Francisco after his return to Ounalaska.

Steam-ship ‘‘ Danube” arrived at Ounalaska on the 17th September. As vessels
coming in brought news that the usual heavy weather had set in, and I considered
there was no further chance of sealing in open boats for the remainder of this year,
and as Sir George Baden-Powell informed me that he intended to proceed to Sitka, I
sailed from Ounalaska for that port on the 20th September, at the same time as
steam-ship ‘‘ Dannbe ” and steam-ship ‘‘ Costa Rica.”

After coaling at Sitka from steam-ship ‘‘Costa Rica,” Lordered her to proceed to
Esquimault on the 26th September. Steam-ship ‘‘ Danube” left Sitka on the 27th
September, and went down by the outside route, calling at various ports for sealing
information.

I sailed from Sitka on the 27th September, and arrived at this port on the 2nd
October.

Before leaving the Behring’s Sea, I thanked Commander Cotton and the officers in
command of United States men-of-war for the efficient manner in which they had
co-operated with me. Her Majesty’s ships ‘‘ Porpoise ” and ‘‘ Pheasant” also materi-
ally aided me in my mission.

The weather experienced on the whole was very foggy and rainy, and the fogs
greatly aided the sealing-schooners in escaping observation.

I have, &c.
(Signed) Cuas. T. TURNER.

{Inclosure 3 in No. 165.]
Leiter of Warning addressed by Commander Turner to the Masters of Sealing Schooners.

“ NYMPHE, Behring’s Sea, é

Sir: In accordance with the Proclamation of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government,
a copy of which is herewith handed you, and in compliance with the orders of the
British Admiralty, you are hereby warned not to engage in the killing or taking of
seals in that part of Behring’s Sea lying east of the boundary-line between United
States and Russian waters, referred to in the Proclamation, and the position of which,
traced upon a Chart, will be shown you by the officer who delivers this.

The name of your vessel] will be furnished to all vessels of war (British and United
States) and revenue-vessels in this sea, and you will be subject to seizure if you fail
to heed this warning, and are found to be, or to have been, engaged in sealing in the
prohibited waters since its delivery to you.

I have, &e,
(Signed) Cuas. T. TURNER.

a as il al a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 891

[Inclosure 4 in No. 165.)
Form of Certificate to be copied in Register or Log by Boarding Officer.

H.M.S

Date

I certify that I have this day delivered the Proclamation of Her Britannic Majesty

and letter of warning of to leave these waters forthwith to this vessel,
and that there are now skins on board.

116 Data.

Date. Place or position (when boarded), name of vessel, name of owner, name of
master, nationality, port of register, tonnage, number of skins taken, number of
skins on board. Remarks.

[Inclosure 5 in No. 165.]
Instructions for Boarding Officer.

“NYMPHE,” AT OUNALASKA, July 12, 1891.

The boarding ofvicer will deliver the Proclamation of Her Britannic Maiesis and
the letter of warning to masters of vessels, read the letter to them, and make entry
on register or log (preferably the register) ‘of all vessels engaged in, or equipped for,
sealing, certifying to the delivery.

He will ascertain, if possible, the number of skins taken, and the number on board,
if the vessel be a sealer or equipped as one. If the master states there are none, he
willtake his statement as correct, but if he states that a certain number are on board,
he will satisfy himself that the number is not less than that stated. If the master
declares any intention as to his future movements, the boarding officer will make a
note of it. 5

A tracing showing the line of demarcation between the United States and Russian
waters is to be furnished for his information, and that of masters of vessels boarded,

(Signed) Cuas. T. TURNER,
Commander and Senior Officer.
The COMMANDING OFFICERS,
Her Majesty’s ships ‘“Porpoise” and “Pheasant.”

[Inclosure 6 in No. 165.]
Commander Turner to Commander Cotton, U. S. Ny

“NYMPHE,” AT OUNALASKA, August 26, 1891.
Str: I have the honour to inform you that since I told you by word of mouth only
that I considered schooner “ Otto” to be a just and lawful capture for any vessel of
war of either nation, as she had saijed for the Behring’s Sea for sealing purposes
after 1 had told the Collector of Customs, Mr. Milne, of ‘the Proclamation, I now put
this in writing for your guidance.

I have, &e. (Signed ) Cuas. T. TURNER.

No. 166.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Reccived November 16.)
['Tclegraphic. }

WASHINGTON, November 16, 1891.
Mr. Blaine informed me to-day that he was ready to agree to the
following arrangements:
The Arbitrators, who must all be jurists of repute, and understand
English, are to be seven innumber. Two British subjects (one may be

892 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

a Canadian) shall be appointed by Her Majesty’s Government. Two
Americans shall be appointed by the United States Government. The
other three shall be appointed by foreign Governments. He has no
objection to selection by France, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico,
or Brazil.

He thought Paris would not be objected to as place of sitting, but he
could not pledge himself, as he had omitted to consult the President.

Copies of the Articles of the Arbitration Agreement and the Joint
Jommission Article, as agreed on in correspondence, are being prepared
for signature.

11% No. 167.

Foreign Office to Admiralty.

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 19, 1891.

Str: I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, inclosing a general Report of
the proceedings of Her Majesty’s ships in the Behring’s Sea, which
has been sent home by the Commander-in-chief on the Pacifie Station.

I am to state that Lord Salisbury concurs in the proposal of the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to approve the proceedings of
Commanders Turner and Barr and Lieutenant Hadley, of Her Majesty’s
ships “¢‘ Nymphe,” “ Porpoise,” and “ Pheasant.”

I am, &e.
: (Signed) T. H. SANDERSON.

No. 168.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 21.)

[Telegraphie.]

WASHINGTON, November 21, 1891.
With reference to the last paragraph of my telegram of the 16th
instant, Monday next has been appointed by Mr. Blaine for signature.
The following headings have been agreed upon:
The following is the text of Articles for insertion in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration

Agreement, as settled in the diplomatic correspondence between (the two Govern-
ments respectively).

For the Joint Commission Article the same headings, mutatis mu-
tandis.
Are they approved by your Lordship?

No. 169.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 22, 1891.
You are authorized to sign the Arbitration Agreement and the Joint
Commission Article with the headings suggested in your telegram of
yesterday; but you should hand in a note containing the following
reservations at the time of doing so:

Cia eel

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 893

Firstly, that it is understood by Article 6 that the question of the
necessity of any Regulations for the proper protection and the pres-
ervation of fur-seals in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring’s Sea
is left to the decision of the Arbitrators, as well as the nature of those
Regulations, if the necessity, in their judgment, is proved to exist.

Secondly, that the observance of the Regulations will not become
obligatory on the United States and Great Britain until the other
Maritime Powers also shall have accepted them.

Great Britain and the United States would otherwise simply hand
over to the nationals of other countries the right of exterminating the
seals.

No. 170.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received November 23.)

(Extract. ]

WASHINGTON, November 13, 1891.

I have the honour to transmit herewith copies of a narrative by a
correspondent of the ‘“* New York Herald” (published in that journal
on the 8th instant) of his voyage to Behring’s Sea during the last seal
fishery season, undertaken for the purpose of inquiring into the facts
connected with that industry.

A part of the narrative which is of special interest is that which
appears at the close under the heading, ‘‘ How to save the Seal.”

118 ‘ {Inclosure in No. 170.]
Extracts from the ‘New York Herald” of November 8, 1891.

Inuicir SEALING.—ITS RISE AND INCREASE IN THE LAsr TEN YEARS IN BrH-
RING’S SuA.—There are two systems of seal hunting: one with Indian hunters, who
get paid from 2 dollars to 4 dollars for every skin a canoe brings in, and the other
with White hunters, who are paid a little less. The Indians hunt in canoes, two in
each, and use the spear almost exclusively ; the White hunter has asteerer and a boat
puller, and uses the gun, loaded with five drams of gunpowder and about twenty
buckshot. It is the latter method that is so complained of by those who wish to
prevent the extermination of the seal, as they say with truth a very large percentage
are shot and either killed or mortally wounded, without being recovered.

On the 2nd July we left Victoria, intending to make our first call at a Settlement
of Indians called Clayoquot. Itseemed strange that, although the Queen’s Proclama-
tion forbidding the killing of seals by British subjects had already been announced,
no difficulty was made by the authorities in giving the captain of the ‘‘ Otto” his
clearance for the Behring’s Sea. Neither was he ofticially informed of the Procilama-
tion, notwithstanding the fact that Her Majesty’s steam-ships ‘‘ Pheasant” and
“ Nymphe” had already sailed from Esquimalt to the sea to carry out the orders of
the Queen’s Government. Before going into the history of the cruise of the “ Otto,”
a short account of the rise and development of the seal-poaching industry will be
necessary. Although the poachers, to give them the name accorded to them by the
public generally, ave styled Canadian, a large number hail from San Francisco,
Seattle, Portland, and Port Townsend, in the United States; and many of those sail-
ing from Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia, under the British flag, are partly
owned by American citizens.

The first schooner on record to enter the Behring’s Sea in pursuit of seals was the
American-owned ‘ Santiago,” of San Francisco, in 1879. It was not until the fall of
1883 that the ‘‘ Favourite,” with the present captain of the “Otto” on board, pio-
neered the way for the Canadian sealers. In 184 there were only six schooners from
San Francisco and Victoria combined that entered the sea. Year by year the seals
have been driven further north, and each suecessive year has seen an increase in the
number of poachers. Last year (1890) twenty-three schooners sailed from Victoria,
and this year the number reported had increased out of all proportion,

894 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Every port on the Pacific coast, from San Francisco to Victoria, appeared to have
sent out its quota, and on the day the ‘‘Otto” left the latter place it was stated that
fifty-three schooners were already on their way to the famous sealing grounds from
that port. The ‘ Victorian Colonist” gave the names and owners of that number,
although I afterwards found out there were over eighty-nine sealers in the sea this

Fear.

d It is hard to explain this large increase, in the face of both the American and
British Governments proclaiming a close season. One reason given was that neither
the Americans nor British cruizers intended to interfere, and that the Proclamation
and sending of men-of-war to the sea were only done to satisfy the American public.
Another reason is a most unaccountable one. Somehow the rumour gained currency
that a bounty or compensation will be paid to the owner of every schooner that is
stopped from sealing.

* * * * * * *

The Indians, with their spears, did not lose more than 1 per cent. of what they hit,
as the fact of losing their game meant losing their harpoon and line as well. On the
other hand, the Indians complained that the White hunters with their guns had
scared the seals from the coast of the islands, and that they lose at the very least
20 per cent. of what they shoot and kill or wound, to eventually die. ‘‘A few years
ago,” said the Father, ‘‘the Chuckelset Indians caught over 1,600 seals off the coast
of the island in their canoes, but they cannot do that now. The guns of the White
hunters have scared them all away.

“The seal,” said Father Brabant, ‘‘is a most intelligent animal; they even wake
the sleepers when they see danger approaching, and there is no doubt they have left

our coast owing to theguns. Why, the Indians themselves used to have a law against

the use of guns. Another thing that I cannot see the equity of,” said the Father,

‘is that the American Company have been allowed 7,500 skins this year for the

support of their Indians. If the Aleuts are to be supported, why should the Van-

couver Indians be debarred from their chief source of livelihood. The Aleuts,
as a fact, do not require the Company to look after them. If they were left

119 alone on their own islands, instead of being moved about as they are, they
could hunt for themselves.”

Father Brabant said he hardly knew how the future extermination of the seals
was to be prevented, unless the two Governments were to take sealing under their
supervision; that is, provided the Behring’s Sea was not a closed sea. They could
license sealers, restrict them as to the number of seals caught, and make a close
season during the breeding time, as there was no doubt that large numbers of females
bearing young were killed.

* x * * * * *

Wednesday, the 26th August, was a good sealing day, and I was for some hours out
in the Indian canoe. The result of the day’s work gives a fair example of the fright-
ful percentage of seals that are killed and never recovered. The two boats and the
canoe started out early in the forenoon and returned at six. The captain had one
seal and had _ lost six others, either killed or wounded. Phillip, who was doing the
shooting in the other boat, said that they had got up on to no less than seven seals
and shot them, but they had all sunk. The men said the water was covered with
blood, but they could not get the animals.

The two Indians, who used nothing but the spear, returned with ten. They had
missed fifteen or twenty, but, as one of them philosophically remarked to the captain,
“Tt does not matter, they are not hurt like with the gun, or killed, and they will do
for another day or year.” We managed to take sights this day, and found we were
75 miles west by north of the voleanoes on the peninsula. On the 27th and 28th
August very little was done, as the weather was too rough for the boats to go out.
Three seals were captured in the forenoon of the 27th before it came on to blow,
when we were once again under storm trysail and double reefed foresail.

On the following day, the 28th, the boats were out all day and returned without
catching anything, the captain thinking we were too far to the northward and east-
ward. He said he wanted the wind to get to the west. On the next day the boats
were out the greater part of the day, and our catch for the day was seventeen seals.
The captain brought in three, having lost four, killed or wounded. The other boat
brought in three, having killed five, and the Indians ten, making a total of seventeen.

During the skinning of the seals on deck, which is always done at night after the

boats return, the schooner’s decks were covered on this occasion, as on many pre=.

vious ones, not only with blood, but with large quantities of milk, showing that
many seals that had been killed were nourishing their young at the time, the result
being that the pups on the island would starve for want of nursing, as no seal will
feed any young ones except her own.

* * * * * * ¥*

HOW TO SAVE THE SEAL: A PLAN TO PREVENT ITS EXTERMINATION IN THE NEAR
fUTURE.—At present the question of whether Behring’s Sea is open waters or not is

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 895

in statu quo. In the event, however, of its being declared a part of the high seas by
the arbitration yet to be held, it would be absolutely necessary to propose a plan to
prevent the future extermination of the seal, which there is little doubt would
happen within a few years, unless some very strenuous measures are taken for its
protection. The close season idea would hardly be practicable, as it is during the
season of breeding that the lessees of the islands kill their seals, who are then found
on the rookeries, and it is only during this season that the seals to any large extent
are found there. Of course, on the islands they killnothing but the young bulls. To
make a close season for the open sea, and allow the seals to be killed on their breed-
ing places, would be almost an impossibility.

The following plan, which I submitted to many of the largest fur-tradergs in both
Victoria and San Francisco, the members of the Alaska Commercial Company—the
late lessees of the island—as well as many of those who were absolutely employed
in the hunting, seems to be the most feasible method of protecting the very neces-
sary animals, which, perhaps, though they are a luxury, are still to a certain extent
a necessity. The North American Commercial Company, who now lease the seal-
breeding islands known as the Pribyloft group, pay the United States 100,000 dollars
per year, and 9 dol. 62 c. per skin for everything they take from the island.

When there was no limit to the number of seals that they were allowed to kill,
before the present modus vivendi was agreed upon between the United States and
Great Britain, their payments brought into the American Government a revenue of

about 800,000 dollars per year. This is a very small item in the revenue of
120 such a great nation, and it has been suggested that the Government of the

United States shall refrain from leasing the Pribyloff Islands to any Company
whatever; that no seals shall be killed on the rookeries, which shall be retained
to allow the fur-bearing seal a safe breeding place.

On consideration of the United States refraining from leasing the islands, the
right of deing which they would, of course, still legally retain, an international
agreement could be entered into between the different nations, making it a criminal
offence for any poacher to be found sailing within a prescribed distance of the
island—say, from 60 to 80 miles around them—which would give female seals lots of
space to feed in. Those to whom I suggested this solution, even although inter-
ested in seal schooners, said they w ould be perfectly w illing to accept such a law,
and that they could catch outside of the 80-mile limit sufficient seals to make seal-
hunting as good a paying business as it was heretofore. In addition to this, it has
been sugwested that all ‘sealing-schooners should be licensed, and any vessel found
hunting the seal in Behring’s Sea or outside of it without a licence should be seized,
and no shooting should be allowed. The cost of maintaining cruizers to see that
this was done would be very small, as there would be a very restricted area of the
Behring’s Sea to patrol. The above, of course, would only be feasible in the event
of the sea being declared open, for if the Arbitration Committee rule that it is a
closed sea, and belongs to the United States, of course all poachers would be liable
to seizure.

WoW;

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 25.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, November 24, 1891.

I addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, as instructed by your Lordship’s
telegram of the 22nd instant, and this morning had a long interview
with him. He has postponed the signing until he has referred the
matter to the President and Cabinet, “who. sit to-day. Both reserva-
tions are objected to by him, especially the second, which he said
imposed a new condition ney er before suggested during the negotia-
tions. He said he would advise the President not to accept it.

I stated that your Lordship only desired to obviate doubts or differ-
ences at a later stage, and was most anxious. for the arbitration. I
repeated your Lordship’s reasons for the reservation, and pointed out
that it was only in the event of the Arbitrators, by their decision, pro-
claiming to the world that pelagic fishery was free to all flags that the

596 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

question would arise. In that case we could not stultify ourselves by
submitting to Regulations not obligatory on all.

Mr. Blaine then asked me what Her Majesty’s Government weuld con-
sent to do after the lst May, pending the adhesion of the other Powers.
Would a cessation of sealing be agreed to by them? I informed him,
in reply, that I could not say what their action would be, but that
probably the Regulations recommended by the Joint Commission or
the Arbitrators, pending the result of the invitation to the Powers,
would be voluntarily conformed to. Mr. Blaine then took my note with
him to the Cabinet, and promised to send me a reply.

No. 172.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 28.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, November 27, 1891.
With reference to my telegram of the 24th instant, Mr. Blaine’s reply
has just been received. Copy transmitted by post. It is to the follow-
ing effect:

[See Inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of the 27th November: Inclosure in
No. 179, infra.]

121 No. 173.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, November 29, 1891.

I have received your telegram of the 27th instant,

Mr. Blaine’s statement, in his note of which you report the receipt,
that my first reservation is unnecessary answers the end which that
reservation was intended to answer, and it may, therefore, be waived.
I did not by my second reservation intend to propose that the practical
execution of the Regulations should be delayed, but that the two Govy-
ernments should protect themselves from being placed at the mercy of
some third Power, which, if not pledged to observe the Regulations,
might step in and secure the fishery at the times and places where the
United States and England would bind themselves by their Agree-
ment to abstain from it. It is necessary that some precaution should
be taken in this direction, otherwise the vessels, both British and
American, at present engaged in sealing, might all, by simply procur-
ing a Russian register, recover their entire freedom.

I should, therefore, wish you to ascertain whether the United States
Government would be prepared to agree to some provision of the fol-
lowing nature:

If, after the expiration of one year from the date of any decision of
the Arbitrators as to the necessity of concurrent Regulations, it should
appear to either of the two Powers that such Regulations are being
violated under the flag of a third Power, to the serious injury of the

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 897

fishery, the complaining Power shall have the right to give notice that
the Regulations will be suspended during the ensuing year, until
arrangements are made by which the evil can be remedied. If, how-
ever, there should be any difference of opinion between the United
States and Great Britain as to the fact that serious injury is being done
to the fishery, or as to any other fact involved, such difference may be
decided by referring the matter to the arbitration of two Admirals, une
of the British and the other of the United States navy, who may choose
an Umpire in case they are unable to agree. .

No. 174.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishbury.—(Received December 3.)

WASHINGTON, November 23, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday,
I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which I have this
day addressed to Mr. Blaine, stating the two reservations which your
Lordship desires to make in regard to clause 6 of the Behring’s Sea
Arbitration Agreement.
I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 174.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, November 23, 1891.

Sir: I informed the Marquis of Salisbury of our proposal to sign the text of the
seven Articles to be inserted in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement and of the
Joint Commission Article, as settled in the diplomatic correspondence, in order to
record the progress made up to the present time in the negotiation.

Lord Salisbury entirely approves of that proposal, but he has instructed me,
before signing, to address a note to you for the purpose of obviating any doubts
which might hereafter arise as to the meaning and effect of Article VI, which is as
follows:

“Tf the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of
Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper pro-
tection and the preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Beh-
ring’s Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations outside
the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over
what waters such Regulations should extend; and to aid them in that determination

the Report of the Joint Commission to be appointed by the respective Gov-
122. ernments shall be laid before them, with such other evidence as either Govern-

ment may submit. The Contracting Powers furthermore agree to co-operate
in securing the adhesion of other Powers to such Regulations.”

Lord Salisbury desires to make the following two reservations on the above
Article:

His Lordship understands, first, that the necessity of any Regulations is left to the
Arbitrators, as well as the nature of those Regulations, if the necessity is in their
judgment proved; secondly, that the Regulations will not become obligatory on
Great Britain and the United States until they have been accepted by the other
Maritime Powers, otherwise, as his Lordship observes, the two Governments would
be simply handing over to others the right of exterminating the seals.

I have no doubt that you will have no difficulty in concurring in the above reser-
vations, and, subject thereto, I shall be prepared to sign the Articles as proposed.

Tha e, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

BS, Pt V——57

898 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 175.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received December 4.)
[ Telegraphic. |

WASHINGTON, December 3, 1891.

I received last night a reply to my note of the Ist instant to Mr.
Blaine, containing the substance of your Lordship’s telegram of the
29th ultimo, copy of which was forwarded in my despatch of the same
date.

It is to the following effect:

The President of the United States is unable to see danger of a third
Power engaging in fishery regardless of Regulations. The dispute has
been in progress more than five years. During all that time no Euro-
pean nation has engaged in sealing while Great Britain was maintain-
ing that Belring’s Sea was open to all commerce. A German vessel
once appeared, but never returned, presumably finding sealing there
unsuccessful on account of great distance. Russia will not dissent,
because such dissent would put to hazard her own sealing property
in Behring’s Sea. On the contrary, she will sustain and strengthen
whatever Agreement Great Britain and United States may conjointly
ordain. President therefore thinks your Lordship’s apprehensions not
well grounded, but he believes that whatever may be the issue of the
arbitration, ‘it will be wise for the two Governments to unite in a note
to the principal Powers of Europe advising them in full of what has
been done, and confidently asking their approval. He does not believe,
with full explanation, any attempt will be made to disturb the Agree-
ment. If, contrary to his firm belief, the Agreement.shall be disturbed
by the interference of a third Power, Great Britain and United States
can act conjointly, and they can then far better agree on what measure
may be necessary to prevent the destruction of the seals than they can
at this time.”

President hopes that the arbitration ‘‘ will be allowed to proceed on
the Agreement regularly and promptly. It is of great consequence to
both nations that the dispute be ended, and that no delay be caused by
introducing new elements into the Agreement to which both nations
have given their consent.”

No. 176.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
December 5.)

GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Ottawa, November 25, 1891.
My Lorp: We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
Lordship’s despatch of the 30th ultimo, inclosing a copy of a despatch
from Her Majesty’s Minister at Washington, transmitting correspond-
ence with the United States Government regarding the number of
seals killed on the Pribyloff Islands during the season of 1891 in excess
of 7,500, and inviting from us any further observations we may desire
to offer on the subjeeé.
2. We notice that in the said despatch, Sir Julian Pauncefote has
given a complete answer to many of the points in Mr. Wharton’s
123 letter of the 10th October. We would venture, however, to add
some observations, the outcome of our special inquiry, in case
the question is pursued further.

a

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. $99

3. We would point out that the frequent references in Mr. Wharton’s
letter to “killing for food” are altogether beside the question. All
skins of such seals, if of proper size and condition, are accepted by
the lessees, and are always included in their annual quota, while much
of the flesh is taken for the sustenance of the natives. But the 7,500
limit was fixed as a sufficient number of skins to cover the cost of the
care and sustenance of the natives, as indeed was acknowledged by
the Treasury Agent, who, as reported by Mr. Wharton, called upon the
lessees to bring in a sufficient supply of beef to carry the natives
through the winter, although it might have been added that this beef
would be purchased by the Government, and by them distributed to
the natives.

4. We observe that Mr. Wharton points out that the Treasury Agent
had reported that up to the 2nd July, 9,042 seals had been killed. He
does not explain that by the 20th June, killing had been stopped on
the expressed plea that the 7,500 limit had been reached.

5. Mr. Wharton points out that Major Williams consulted several
American gentlemen, including the two United States Commissioners
and the Senior Naval Officer, as to the correctness of his decision as to
when the 7,500 limit was to be applied. We were informed that none of
these gentlemen had seen the previous correspondence on the subject,
so that their advice was merely on the facts as presented to them on
the spot.

6. We could do no more than explain to the Agent that the Procla-
mation, correct as it might be in itself, did not contain the whole case.
Neither Major Williams nor any of the American gentlemen he con-
sulted had any information or instructions enabling them to understand
the conditions to which the United States had previously agreed, and
which were eventually embodied in the modus vivendi of the 5th June.

7. Both Professor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam at the first expressed
to us their decided agreement with us in the opinion that the 7,500
limit must not be exceeded. It was only at a second chance interview
that they explained that after looking into the question, they saw that
the period could only begin on the 15th June.

5. From this view we entirely dissented, as recorded in our letter to
Major Williams of the 30th July, a copy of which was inclosed in our
despatch of the 5th August last.

9. In regard to the phrase “the catch this season” in our letter to
Major Williams above mentioned, this was intended to include the
same period as that covered in Mr. Blaine’s letter of the 4th May, 1891,
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in which Mr. Blaine says: “If the Company
shall . . . be deprived of all privilege of taking seals, they cer-
tainly could not be compelled to minister to the wants of these 300
inhabitants for an entire year. . . . In this exigency the President
proposes to concede to the North American Company the right to take
a Sufficient number of seals, and no more than sufficient, to recompense
them for their outlay in taking care of the natives. . . . TheSecre-
tary of the Treasury after full consideration has limited the number to
7,000, torepay them for the outlay demanded for the support of the 300
people on the Pribyloff Islands.”

10. We do not understand that the United States Government in
any way indorse the action of the Treasury Agent, who, as we have
already pointed out, acted in perfect good faith, but was without the
necessary instructions.

11. We presume that all the skins taken this year in excess of 7,506
will be held over for next year’s quota, inasmuch as if sold for the

900 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

account of the Company this year they would provide funds very much
“more than sufficient to recompense them for their outlay in taking
care of the natives” for this entire year, which would be in direct con-
travention of the expressed intentions and wishes of the President of
the United States.
We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL,
. GEORGE M. DAWSON.

124 No. 177.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 5, 1891,
Str: I have received your despatch of the 23rd ultimo, inclosing copy
of a note which, in compliance with instructions contained in my tele-
gram of the 22nd ultimo, you have addressed to Mr. Blaine, setting
forth the two reservations made by Her Majesty’s Government with
regard to clause 6 of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement.
I have to state, in reply, that the note addressed by you to Mr. Blaine
is approved by Her Majesty’s Government.
lam, &e.
(Signed) SALISBURY.

No: 78.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 7.)

WASHINGTON, November 27, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 24th instant, I have
the honour now to report in greater detail what took place at the inter-
view which I had with Mr. Blaine on that day respecting the two
reservations which your Lordship instructed me to make before signing
the clauses for insertion in the Behring’s Sea Agreement.

Mr. Blaine, whe had before him the note which I had addressed to him
on the subject, and of which I transmitted a copy to your Lordship in my
despatch of the 25rd instant, took exception to both reservations, which
he said he could not advise the President to accept. I said that these
reservations imposed no new conditions whatever, and were intended
simply to obviate any doubt as to the meaning and effect of the 6th
clause, and thus to prevent any disagreement at a later stage.

Mr. Blaine asked what was the object of the first reservation. I
replied that the 6th clause appeared to me to imply that Regulations
for the control of pelagie sealing were necessary—a proposition which
was opposed to the contention of Canada—and I presumed that it was
on that ground that your Lordship desired to make it clear that it
would be open to the Arbitrators to hold that no such Regulations at
all were necessary.

Mr. Blaine observed that he did not think the language of the clause
precluded such a finding. He proceeded to express the strongest
ubjection to the second reservation, which he said was calculated to

ee ee:

ta i nie i aia

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 901

wreck the whole arrangement. How many maritime Powers, he asked,
were to be invited to adhere to the Regulations? What prospect was
there of obtaining their adhesion, seemg that they had declined the
invitation of Mr. Bayard to join in an international arrangement for
the protection of the fur-seal fisheries? It had never been suggested
before in the course of the negotiations that the Regulations to be
framed should not be obligatory on the two Governments until they had
received the adhesion of the other Powers. What were Her Majesty’s
Government prepared to do pending such adhesion? Would they con-
sent to a cessation of pelagic sealing? To these questions I replied
that if, after a careful investigation and study by the Joint Commission,
it should be established by the Commission, or, in case of disagree-
ment, by the arbitration, that certain Regulations are necessary for the
preservation of the seal species, it would be unreasonable to doubt that
the Great Powers would acquiesce at once in those Regulations, or that
the minor Powers would hesitate to follow their example.

I pointed out that no International Regulations would be made unless
the award of the Arbitrators should have previously proclaimed to the
world that the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea is free to all flags. In
that case, if the other Powers were, as Mr. Blaine apprehended, to refuse
their adhesion to the Regulations, the result would be, in the words of
your Lordship, that the two Governments most interested had simply
handed over to others the right of exterminating the seals. Her Maj-
esty’s Government could hardly be expected to place themselves in
such aposition. They could not stultify themselves by submitting per-
manently or for any length of time to Regulations which were not
equally obligatory on other Governments. What they would do, pend-
ing the adhesion of the Powers, I was not prepared to say, but I

thought it probable that they would voluntarily observe the Regu-
125 lations pending the result of the invitation of Great Britain and

* the United States to the Powers, or so long as circumstances, in
their judgment, might render it practicable.

Mr. Blaine said he would send a reply to my note after laying the
matter before the President and the Cabinet which was then sitting,
and, in the meanwhile, the signature of the clauses was postponed.

L have, &c. |
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Now 179;
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.*—( Received December 7.)

WASHINGTON, November 27, 1891.

My Lorp: In my despatch of the 23rd instant I transmitted a copy
of the note which I addressed to Mr. Blaine, informing him of the res-
ervations which your Lordship had instructed me to make respecting
clause 6 of the proposed Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, before
signing the text of the seven clauses as settled in the diplomatic cor-
respondence.

I now have the honour to inclose a copy of Mr. Blaine’s reply to that
note, which I received to-day.

* Substance telegraphed.

902 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ile appears to attach some weight to the fact of my having left with
him, at his request, a paper containing the text of the seven ‘clauses as
they appear in my copy of the diplom: itic correspondence, and which IT
had caused to be prepared for the purpose of comparison and verifica-
tion. He had himself handed me a few days before, and for the same
purpose, a similar paper containing the text of the clauses taken from
his copy of the diplomatic correspondence.

I am at a loss to understand how that exchange of courtesies, which
isa common practice under similar circumstances, ean possibly affect
the questions under consideration.

I have, we.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 179.]
Mr, Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 27, 1891.

Sir: In the early part of last week you furnished the exact points which had been
agreed upon for arbitration in the matter of the Behring’s Sea negotiation. You
called later, and corrected the language which introduced the agreement. In facet,
the two copies framed were taken entirely from your Minutes. It was done with a
view that you and I should sign them, and thus authenticate the points for the Arbi-
trators to consider.

You inform me now that Lord Salisbury asks to make two reservations in the 6th
Article. His first reservation is that ‘‘ the necessity of any Regulation is left to the
Arbitrators as well as the nature of those Regulations, if the necessity is in their
judgment proved.”

What reason has Lord Salisbury for altering the text of the Article to which he
had agreed? It is to be presumed that if Regulations are needed they will be made.
If they are not needed, the Arbitrators will not make them. The agreement leaves
the Arbitrators free upon that point. The first reservation, therefore, has no special
meaning.

The second reservation which Lord Salisbury makes is that ‘‘the Regulations shall
not become obligatory on Great Britain and the United States until they have been
accepted by the other Maritime Powers.” Does Lord Salisbury mean that the United
States and Great Britain shall refrain from taking seals until every Maritime Power
joins in the Regulations? Or does he mean that sealing shall be resumed on the Ist
May next, and that we shall proceed, as before the arbitration, until the Regulations

have been accepted by the other ‘‘ Maritime Powers”?
126 “Maritime Powers” may mean one thing or another. Lord Salisbury did

not say the principal maritime Powers. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Aus-
tria, Turkey, Kussia, Germany, Sweden, Holland, Belgium are all Maritime Powers
in the sense that they maintain a navy, great orsmall. In like manner, Brazil, the
Argentine Confederation, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Japan are Maritime Powers. It
would require a long time, three years at least, to get the assent of all these Powers.
Mr. Bayard, on the 19th August, 1887, addressed Great Britain, Germany, France,
Russia, Sweden and Norway, and Japan, with a view to securing some Regulations
in regard to the seals in Behring’s Sea. France, Japan, and Russia replied with
languid indifference. Great Britain never replied in writing. Germany did not
reply at all. Sweden and Norway said that the matter was of no interest to them.
Thus it will be again. Such a proposition will postpone the matter indefinitely.

The President regards Lord Salisbury’s second reservation, therefore, as a material
change in the terms of the arbitration agreed upon by this Government, and he
instructs me to say that he does not feel willing to take it into consideration. He
adheres to every point of agreement which has been made between the two Powers,
according to the text which you furnished. He will regret if Lord Salisbury shaii
insist on a substantially new agreement. He sees no objection to submitting the
agreement to the principal Maritime Powers for their assent, but he cannot agree
that Great Britain and the United States shall make their adjustment dependent on
the action of third parties who have no direct interest in the seal fisheries, or that
the settlement shall be postponed until those third parties see fit to act.

I have, &c
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

eee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 903

No. 180.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauneefote.
[ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 7, 1891.

J have received your telegram of the 4th instant.

The President of the United States does not, I think, rightly under-
stand the exact nature of the danger against which I think it necessary
to make provision.

Her Majesty’s Government do not fear that Regulations which have
been made by the Arbitrators will be rejected by any of the Maritime
Powers; but they think there is much ground for apprehension that
those Powers may refuse to accept Treaties framed for the purpose of
enabling our cruizers to arrest ships which are violating the Regula-
tions while sailing under their flag. It must be expected that, under
these circumstances, sealing will be pursued under their flags ‘during
the close times.

In signing the proposed Agreement, it certainly is not the intention
of the two Powers to arrive at such aresult. But should you find, after
making a representation in the above sense, that the President con.
tinues to hold the opinion that the danger I have indicated is too remote
to justify our incurring delay by guarding against it now, Her Majesty’s
Government are willing to yield to his appeal, and will not at this
stage press for further discussion of the point. In that case, you are
authorized to sign the Agreement as already settled.

Her Majesty’s Government will, of course, retain their right of rais-
ing the point before the Arbitrators when the time arrives for determin-
ing the question of the Regulations; and it is understood that full
discretion will be vested in the Arbitrators to attach to any Regula-
tions they may decide upon such conditions as, in view of this difficulty,
they may judge to be necessary and just to the interests of this country
and of the United States.

No. 181.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishbury.—( Received December 9.)

WASHINGTON, December 1, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose copy of a note which, on
receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 29th ultimo, I
127 ~=addressed to the Secretary of State in reply to his note of the
27th ultimo, objecting to reservations which Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment desire to make with respect to the 6th clause of the proposed
Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreeinent.
I have, We.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 181.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, December 1, 1891.

Sir: I communicated by telegram to the Marquis of Salisbury the substance of
your note of the 27th ultimo respecting the two reservations which Her Majesty’s
Government desire to make in relation to the 6th clause of the proposed Behring’s

904 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Sea Arbitration Agreement, as stated in my note of the 23rd ultimo, and I have now
the honour to inform you that I have received a reply from his Lordship to the
following effect.

As regards the first reservation, Lord Salisbury observes that the statement con-
tained in your note, that the clause leaves the Arbitrators free to decide whether
Regulations are needed or not, assures the same end as the proposed reservation,
which therefore becomes unnecessary, and may be put aside.

With respect to the second reservation, his Lordship states that it was not the
intention of Her Majesty’s Government to defer putting into execution any Regula-
tions which the Arbitrators may prescribe. Its object is to prevent the fur-seal “fish-
ery in Behring’s Sea from being placed at the mercy of some third Power. There is
nothing to prevent such third Power (Russia, for instance, as the most neighbouring
nation), if unpledged, from stepping in and securing the fishery at the very seasons
and in the very places which may be closed to the sealers of Great Britain and the
United States by the Regulations. Great circumspection is called for in this diree-
tion, as British and American sealers might recover their freedom, and evade all
Regulations by simply hoisting the flag of a non-adhering Power.

How is this difficulty to be met? Lord Salisbur y suggests that, if after the lapse
of one year from the date of the decree of Regulations it sball appear to either Gov-
ernment that serious injury is occasioned to the fishery from the causes above men-
tioned, the Government complaining may give notice of the suspension of the
Regulations during the ensuing year, and in such case the Regulations shall be
suspended until arrangements are made to remedy the complaint.

Lord Salisbury further proposes that, in case of any dispute arising between the
two Governments as to the gravity of the i injury caused to the fishery, or as to any
other fact, the question in controversy shall be referred for decision to a British and
an American Admiral, who, if they should be unable to agree, may select an Umpire.

Lord Salisbury desires me to ascertain whether some provision of the above
nature would not meet the views of your Government.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 182.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 11.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, December 10, 1891.

Immediately on receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 7th instant
relative to Behring’s Sea I addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, as instructed,
in the sense of the first part of the telegram above mentioned, conclud-
ing with the words “at such a result.”

I referred to a previous conversation which I had held with him on the
same subject, and added that I did not understand him to deny my
contention that if the arrangement arrived at between the two Govern-
ments were, as your Lordship apprehended, violated by ships under
foreign flags, to the serious injury of the seal-fishery, the Agreement
must in that case collapse, as the two Governments could not be expected
to enforce the Regulations on their nationals while such violations were

taking place. For these reasons I expressed the hope that, on
128 further consideration, the President would recognize the impor-

tance of arriving atsome understanding of the nature suggested
by your Lordship.

I have to-day received a reply from Mr. Blaine to the following effect
(see inclosure in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of the 10th December).

Shall I now reply to Mr. Blaine in the sense of the second part of
your Lordship’s telegram above mentioned, and offer to sign the A gree-
ment, subject to the1 reser vation and understanding set forth in the last
para e raph?

[ await your Lordship’s instructions.

—- ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 905
_ No. 183.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 11, 1891.
In reply to the inquiry in the last paragraph of your telegram of the
10th instant, I have to inform you that you are authorized to sign the
Articles providing for the Behring’s Sea Arbitration and Joint Com-
mission, as already settled, subject to the understanding explained in my
telegram of the 7th instant.

No. 184.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 15.)
(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, December 14, 1891.

I addressed a note to Mr. Blaine on receipt of your Lordship’s tele-
gram of the 11th instant, as proposed in the last paragraph of my
telegram of the 10th instant.

Following reply has just been received:

[See Inclosure 1 in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of December 15: Inclosure 1 in
No. 192, infra. ]

I will of course let Mr. Blaine know that, pending further instruc-
tions, I cannot sign.

No. 185.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 16, 1891.

I have received your telegram of yesterday.

Owing to the difficulties ‘of carrying on negotiations by telegraphic
communication, I am afraid that the President of the United States
has imperfectly understood my meaning.

At his request I have consented to defer any further discussion for
the present as to the course to be pursued in the event of the Regula-
tions determined on by the Arbitrators for the preservation of the seal
species being evaded by means of a change of flag.

It was necessary in so doing that I should guard myself against the
supposition of having narrowed by that consent the rights which
accrue to the litigants or the Arbitrators under the Arbitration Agree-
ment. But I did not, as the President appears to think, make a reser-

vation in my last communication, or use that word. That a reservation
may be operative in respect to an Agreement, it must have the assent
of both parties to that Agreement, and I have not asked for any suck
assent in the present instance of the United States Government,

906 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

IT am in entire accord with the President in objecting to the submis-
sion of any points to the Arbitrators which the Agreement does not
embrace.

Whenever Mr. Blaine is willing to do so you are authorized to sign
the Agreement.

129 No. 186.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 17.)

[Telegraphic].

WASHINGTON, December 17, 1891.

Your Lordship’s telegram of yesterday received last night.
I am addressing a note to Mr. Blaine in that sense, and expressing
my willingness to sign.

No. 187.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 18.)
[Telegraphic].

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1891.

I have the honour to report, with reference to my telegram of yester-
day, that Mr. Blaine and I signed this morning the text of the seven
Articles to be inserted in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Convention,
and also the text of the Joint Commission Article.

No. 188.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 19.)

WASHINGTON, December 10, 1891.

My Lorp: On receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 4th instant
I sought an interview with Mr. Blaine. Owing to the pressure of
business connected with the opening of Congress, I was unable to see
him until the morning of the 8th, when I had a long discussion with
him at the State Department on the subject of his note of the 2nd
instant respecting the 6th Article of the proposed Behring’s Sea Arbi-
tration Agreement. I pointed out to him that the danger which your
Lordship apprehended was not so much from the non-acceptance by
other Governments of the Fishery Regulations as from the practical
difficulty of enforcing them without the power being given to British
and American cruizers of arresting vessels under foreign flags found
to be violating the Regulations. That was a power which foreign Gov-
ernments would be unlikely to grant in view of the jealousy which
exists respecting the right of search on the high seas. If your Lord-
ship’s apprehensions should be realized to such an extent as to cause
serious injury to the fishery, the Agreement must necessarily collapse,
as it could not be expected that either Government should continue to
enforce on its nationals Regulations which were being violated with
impunity under foreign flags.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 907

Mr. Blaine readily admitted that in such case there would be an end
of the Agreement, and said that every one would then be free to go in
and make havoc of the seal fishery; but he persisted in treating it as
a most remote contingency. He deprecated making arrangements to
meet the evil before it arose, and thought the mere suggestion of such
interference by other Powers would be mischievous. ‘Che point had
not been raised before, and he could not understand why it should be
introduced at this late hour when we were on the point of signing the
Agreement.

L replied that the difficulty of protecting the seal fishery otherwise
than on the basis of an international agreement among all the Powers ©
had been repeatedly pointed out in the press of both countries, and by
every writer on the subject. It was, indeed, admitted by the last para-
graph of the 6th Article itself, whereby the two Governments agreed
to invite the adhesion of the other Powers to the Regulations. -Kven
if the contingency in view were so remote, as Mr. Blaine contended, I
could not see what harm it could do to have such understanding as
that suggested by your Lordship, and proposed in my note of the 1st
instant, which would provide for the case of any difference of opinion
arising as to the gravity of the injury caused to the fishery by the
violation of the Regulations under foreign flags.

Mr. Blaine said that he could not consent to add a new term to the
6th Article as already agreed to after so much correspondence and
discussion.

I replied that there could be no agreement if the two Governments
were not ad idem as to its meaning. The arrangement proposed by

your Lordship was in no way inconsistent with the 6th Article.
130 It was merely intended to make it clearer, and to regulate the

action of the two Governments in certain events which might
cause difficulties hereafter.

Mr. Blaine, however, insisted that it would be time enough to deal
with those difficulties if and when they should arise.

I then brought the interview to a close, and on the same day I
addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, of which a copy is transmitted herewith.

I received this day a reply thereto, of which I have the honour to
inclose a copy.

This correspondence does not carry the matter any further, but it
places on record the fact that while the United States Government
admit that the proposed Regulations may be rendered nugatory by their
violation under the flags of other Powers, they decline the reasonable
proposal of Her Majesty’ s Government to settle beforeland the con-
ditions under which the Regulations shall be deemed to have lapsed
or to be suspended.

The conclusion would seem to be that each Government will be free
to form its own judgment of the situation, and to take such action as it
shall think fit under the circumstances.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 188.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 2, 1891.
Sir: I have attentively read your note of the 1st instant, and submitted it to the
President. ‘The President is unable to see the danger which Lord Salisbury appre-
hends, of a third nation engaging in taking seals regardless of the Agreement

908 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

between Great Britain and the United States. The dispute between the two nations
has now been in progress for more than five years. During all that time, while
Great Britain was maintaining that the Behring’s Sea was open to all comers, at any
time, as of right, not another European nation has engaged in sealing.

A German vessel once made its appearance in Behring’s Sea, but did not return,
being satisfied, I suppose, that at the great distance they have to sail, the Germans
could not successfully engage in sealing. Russia, whose interference Lord Salisbury
seems to specially apprehend, will not dissent from the Agreement, because such
dissent would put to hazard her own sealing property in the Behring’s Sea. On the
contrary, we may confidently look to Russia to sustain and strengthen whatever
agreement Great Britain and the United States may conjointly ordain.

It is the judgment of the President, therefore, that the apprehension of Lord Satis-
bury is not well grounded. He believes that, however the arbitration between Great
Britain and the United States may terminate, it will be wise for the two nations to
unite in a note to the principal Powers of Europe, advising them in full of what has
been done and confidently asking their approval. He does not believe that, with
full explanation, any attempt will be made to disturb the Agreement. If, contrary
to his firm belief, the Agreement shall be disturbed by the ‘interference of a third
Power, Great Britain and the United States can act conjointly, and they can then
far better agree upon what measure may be necessary to prevent the destruction of
the seals than they can at this time.

The President hopes that the arbitration between Great Britain and the United
States will be allowed to proceed on the Agreement regularly and promptly. It is
of great consequence to both nations that the dispute be ended, and that no delay
be caused by introducing new elements into the Agreement to which both nations
have giv el. their consent.

“Lhave, &e.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 188
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, December 8, 1891.

Sir: The Marquis of Salisbury, to whom I telegraphed the contents of your note
of the 2nd instant on the subject of the 6th Article of the proposed Behring’s
181 Sea Arbitration Agreement, is under the impression that the President has
not rightly understood his Lordship’s apprehension with reference to the
Regulations to be made by the Arbitrators under that Article. His fear is, not that
the other Powers will reject the Regulations, but that they will refuse to allow the
arrest by British and American cruizers of ships under their flag which may engage
in the fur-seal fishery in violation of the Regulations. Such refusal is highly prob-
able in view of the jealousy which exists as “to the right of search on the high seas;
and the consequence must inevitably be that, during the close season, sealing will
go on under other flags.

It cannot be the intention of the two Governments, in signing the proposed A gree-
ment, to arrive at such a result. I do not understand you to dispute that, should
such a state of things arise, the Agreement must collapse, as the two Governments
could not be expected to enforce on their respective nationals Regulations which are
violated under foreign flags to the serious injury of the fishery. I hope, therefore,
that, on further consideration, the President will recognize the importance of arriv-
ing at some understanding of ‘the kind suggested in my note of the 1st instant.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure 3 in No. 188.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 10, 1891.
Sim: In reply to your note of the 8th instant, I have the following observations
to make:
1. Ever since the Behring’s Sea question has been in dispute (now nearly six
years), not one ship from France or Germany has ever engaged in sealing. This
affords a strong presumption that none will engage in it in the future.

ant i ti

”_—

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 909

2. A still stronger ground against their taking part is that they cannot afford it.
From France or Germany to Behring’s Sea by the sailing lines is nearly 20,000 miles,
and they would have to make the voyage with aI: wger ship than can be profitably
employed in sealing. They would have to start from home the winter preceding
the sealing season and risk an unusually hazardous voyage. When they reach the
fishing grounds they have no territory to which they could resort for any purpose.

3. If we wait until we get France to agree that her ships shall be searched by
American or British eruizers we will wait until the last seal is taken in Behring’s Sea.

Thus much for France and Germany. Other European countries have the same
disabilities. Russia, cited by Lord Salisbury as likely to embarrass the United
States and England by interference, I should regard as an ally, and not an enemy.
Nor is it probable that any American country will loan its flag to vessels engaged in
violating the Behring’s Sea Regulations.

To stop the arbitration a whole month on a question of this character promises ill
for its success. Some other less important question even than this, if it can be
found, may probably be started. The effect can only be to exhaust the time allotted
for arbitration. Wemust act mutually on what is probable, not on what is remotely
possible.

The President suggests again that the proper mode of proceeding is for Regula-
tions to be agreed upon between the United States and Great Britain, and then sub-
mitted to the principal Maritime Powers. That is an intelligent and intelligible
process. To stop now to consider the Regulations for outside nations is to indefi-
nitely postpone the whole question. The President, therefore, adheres to his ground
first announced, that we must have the arbitration as already agreed. He suggests
to Lord Salisbury that any other process might make the arbitration impracticab!e
within the time specified.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 189.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 19.)

[Extract. ]

WASHINGTON, December 10, 1891.

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that, in alluding to the
Behring’s Sea question, the President’s Message states that he

132 ~=is glad to be able to announce that terms of arbitration satis-
factory to the United States Government have been arrived at,

and that an agreement as to the Arbitrators is all that is necessary to
the completion of the Convention. He also adds that, ‘in view of the
advanced position which this Government has taken upon the subject
of international arbitration, this renewed expression of our adherence
to this method for the settlement of disputes such as have arisen in the
Behring’s Sea will, I doubt not, meet with the concurrence of Congress.”

No. 190.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 19.)

WASHINGTON, December 11, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of to-day, I
have the honour to inclose copy of a note which I have addressed to Mr.
Blaine in the sense of the second part of your Lordship’s telegram of
the 7th instant, offering to sign the Behring’s Sea Arbitr ation Agree-
ment and Joint Commission Article on the “understanding mentioned
in that telegram.

I have, &e. (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE

910 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure in No. 190.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, December 11, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that I telegraphed to the Marquis of Salis-
bury the substance of your note of yesterday respecting the 6th Article of the pro-
posed Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, and that I have received a reply from
his Lordship to the following effect:

In view of the strong opinion of the President, reiterated in your note of yester-
day, that the danger apprehended by Lord Salisbury, and explained in my note of
the 8th instant, is too remote to justify the delay which might be incurred by guard-
ing against it now, his Lordship will yield to the President’s appeal, and not press
for further discussion at this stage.

Her Majesty’s Government of course retain the right of raising the point when the
questionof framing the Regulations comes before the Arbitrators, and it is understood
that the latter will have full discretion in the matter, and may attach such conditions
to the Regulations as they may a priori judge to be necessary and just to the two
Powers, in view of the difficulty pointed out.

With the above observation Lord Salisbury has authorized me to sign the text of
the seven Articles and of the Joint Commission Articles referred to in my note of the
23rd ultimo, and it will give me much pleasure to wait upon you at the State Depart-
ment for that purpose at any time that you may appoint.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 191.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received December 28.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, December 22, 1891.

The question of the number of Arbitrators was reopened to-day by
Mr. Blaine.

He stated that he was of opinion, as was also the President, that
seven was too large a number, and that it would suffice, as three are to
be appointed by foreign Governments, if the United States and Great
Britain should each appoint one. He was anxious that the above con-
sideration should be urged on your Lordship, and he expressed the hope
that efforts might be made to expedite as much as possible the remaining
arrangements.

133 No. 192.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 28.)

WASHINGLON, December 15, 1891.
My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday, I have the
honour to inclose copy of a note which I have received from Mr. Blaine,
in which he states that the President objects to your Lordship making
any reservation atall in regard to the Behring’s Sea Arbitration A gree-
ment; together with a copy of the reply which I have returned thereto.
I have, &c. :
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 911

{Inclosure 1 in No. 192.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pawncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 14, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to advise you that I submitted your note of the 11th instant
to the President. After mature deliberation, he has instructed me to say that he
objects to Lord Salisbury making any reservation at all, and that he cannot yield to
him the right to appeal to the Arbitrators to decide any point not embraced in the
Articles of Arbitration. The President does not admit that Lord Salisbury can
reserve the right in any way to affect the decision of the Arbitrators. We under-
stand that the arbitration is to proceed on the seven points which are contained in
the Articles which you and I certify were the very points agreed upon by the two
Governments.

For Lord Salisbury to claim the right to submit this new point to the Arbitrators
is to entirely change the arbitration. The President might, in like manner, submit
several questions to the Arbitrators, and thus enlarge the subject to such an extent
that it would not be the same arbitration to which we have agreed. The President
claims the right to have the seven points arbitrated, and respectfully insists that
Lord Salisbury shall not change their meaning in any particular. The matters to be
arbitrated must be distinctly understood before the Arbitrators are chosen. And,
after an arbitration is agreed to, neither of the parties can enlarge or contract its
scope.

an prepared now, as I have been heretofore, to sign the Articles of Agreement
without any reservation whatever, and for that purpose I shall be glad to have you
eall at the State Department on Wednesday, the 16th instant, at 11 o’clock a. M.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

{Inclosure 2 in No. 192.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, December 15, 1891.

Sir: [have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of yesterday’s date,
in reply to mine of the 11th instant, respecting t the signature of the seven Articles
of the proposed Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement therein referred to.

I will transmit a copy of that reply to the Marquis of Salisbury by to-day’s mail,
but I beg to state that, pending his Lordship’s further instructions, it is not in my
power to proceed to the signature of the Articles in question, as proposed at the
close of your note.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

134 No. 193.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received December 28.)

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1891.

My Lorp: Immediately on receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the
16th instant I addressed a note to Mr. Blaine, of which I have the hon-
our to inclose a copy, and [ delivered it to him in person yesterday.

After reading it, he at once made an appointment for this morning at
11 to sign the text of the seven Articles of the Behring’s Sea Ar bitr a-
tion Agreement and of the Joint Commission Agreement, as settled in
the diplomatic correspondence.

Accordingly, I proceeded to the State Department at the appointed
time, and, after the usual verification, the document was signed in
duplicate by Mr. Blaine and myself.

I shall have the honour to transmit a copy of it to your Lordship by
this mail in a separate despatch.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

912 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

{Inclosure in No. 193.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, December 17, 1891.

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that I conveyed tothe Marquis of Salisbury,
by telegram, the substance of your note of the 14th instant respecting the 6th Article
of the proposed Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement, and that I have received a
reply from his Lordship in the following sense.

Lord Salisbury is afraid that, owing to the difficulties incident to telegraphic cor-
respondence, he has been imperfectly understood by tho President. He consented,
at the President’s request, to defer for the present all further discussion as to what
course the two Governments should follow in the event of the Regulations prescribed
by the Arbitrators being evaded by a change of flag. It was necessary that, in doing
so, he should guard himself against the supposition, that by such consent he had
narrowed the rights of the contending parties or of the Arbitrators under the A gree-
ment. But in the communication which was embodied in my note of the 11th instant,
his Lordship made no reservation, as the President seems to think, nor was any such
word used. A reservation would not be valid unless assented to by the other side,
and no such assent was asked for. Lord Salisbury entirely agrees with the Presi-
dent in his objection to any point being submitted to the Arbitrators which is not
embraced in the Agreement, and, in conclusion, his Lordship authorizes me to sign
the Articles of the Arbitration Agreement, as proposed at the close of your note under
reply, whenever you may be willing to do so.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 194.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received December 28.)

WASHINGTON, December 18, 1891.

My Lorp: With reference to my immediately preceding despatch of
to-day, I have the honour to inclose herewith the text of the seven
Articles of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement and of the Joint
Commission Article, as signed by Mr. Blaine and myself.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

135 {Inclosure in No. 194.]

Text of Articles for insertion in the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Agreement as settled in the
Diplomatic Correspondence between the Government of Great Britain and the Govern-
ment of the United States. i

I.
What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea, now known as the Behring’s Sea, and what

exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and
up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

II.

How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and
conceded by Great Britain?

IOUT.

_ Was the body of water, now known as the Behring’s Sea, included in the phrase
“Pacific Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;
and what rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea, were held and exclusively exercised
by Russia after said Treaty?

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 913

1a

Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries in
Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States
and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that
Treaty? =

Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right of protection or property
in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring’s Sea when
such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit? i

Wake

If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of
Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protec-
tion and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring’s
Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations outside the
jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over what
waters such Regulations should extend, and, to aid them in that determination, the
Report of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the respective Governments, shall
be laid before them, with such other evidence as either Government may submit.

The Contracting Powers furthermore agree to co-operate in securing the adhesion
of other Powers to such Regulations.

Vil.

The respective Governments having found themselves unable to agree upon a refer-
ence which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged
to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims
presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous that this subordinate question
should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of the main
questions, do agree that either may submit to the Arbitrators any question of fact
involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of
either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation.

(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.
DECEMBER 18, 1891. JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

136 Text of the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission Agreement as settled in the Diplomatic
Correspondence between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of
the United States.

Each Government shall appoint two Commissioners to investigate conjointly
with the Commissioners of the other Government all the facts having relation to
seal life in Behring’s Sea, and the measures necessary for its proper protection and
preservation.

The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be able to agree, make a joint
Report to each of the two Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly or
severally, to each Government on any points upon which they may be unable to
agree.

“These Reports shall not be made public until they shall be submitted to the Arbi-
trators, or it shall appear that the contingeucy of their being used by the Arbitra-
tors cannot arise.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,
JAMES G. BLAINE.
DECEMBER 18, 1891,

No. 195.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

(Telegraphic.]
FOREIGN OFFICE, December 29, 1891.

Your telegram of the 22nd instant.
You should make it clear to Mr. Blaine that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment urge the appointment of seven Arbitrators,

BS, PT V——d8

914 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 196.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphice. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, December 30, 1891,
Behring’s Sea.
I have been asked by Sir G. Baden-Powell to ascertain whether any
date can be fixed for the meeting of the Joint Commission.
He is ready to start on the 6th January if necessary.

Noi Si. 7:
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 4.)

[ Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, January 2, 1892.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 30th ultimo, rela-
tive to the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission, Mr. Blaine has no objec-
tion to its meeting at the earliest date which may be permitted by the
other public duties of the American Commissioners. What that date
will be he hopes to be in a position to inform me on the 4th instant.

No. 198.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 4, 1892.)

WASHINGTON, December 23, 1891.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith Census Bulletin No.
123 relative to the fishing industry of the United States connected with
marine mammalia.*

The business pursued by the Alaska Commercial Company is not
given in the Report.

Exclusive of the operations of this Company, it appears that the
capital invested in the fur-seal and sea-otter fishery in 1889 was 152,757

dollars; the value of the products landed in the same industry
137 was 124,983 dollars; the number of persons engaged, 422. Of

the fur-seal and otter fleet, 11 vessels hailed from San Francisco,
7 from Port Townsend, Washington; 1 from Santa Barbara, California;
and 1 from Salem, Massachusetts.

Of the employés, 285 were natives of the United States, 5 of Canada,
18 of Great Britain, 29 of Japan, and 51 of Norway and Sweden.

The number of the fur-seal skins taken was 228.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

* Not printed.

df tt i

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 915
No. 199.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 4.)
[ Telegraphic. ]
WASHINGTON, January 4, 1892.
With reference to my telegram of the 2nd instant, 1 have the honour
to state that I was informed to-day by Mr. Blaine that the President
cannot consent to the meeting of the Joint Commission until a definite
settlement has been arrived at as to the remaining details of the Arbi-

tration Agreement, which formed the subject of my telegram of the
2nd instant.

No. 200.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received January 13.)

[Telegraphice. ]

WASHINGTON, January 13, 1892.

J have the honour to inform your Lordship that Mr. Blaine is now
most anxious for the immediate meeting of the Joint Commission, and
begs that instructions may be sent to the two British Commissioners to
proceed with as little delay as possible to Washington, which, in his
opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is the most con-
venient place of meeting. I should be glad to be informed whether Sir
George Baden-Powell has left for America.

No. 201.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received January 14.)

(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, January 14, 1892.

Behring’s Sea Joint Commission.

I think it of the greatest importance that Sir G. Baden-Powell and
Dr. Dawson should be authorized to proceed to Washington atonce. I
will telegraph to Lord Stanley, begging him to request the latter gen-
tleman to hold himself in readiness to start.

No. 202.
Foreign Office to Sir G. Baden-Powell.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 14, 1892.

Str: Iam directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to inform you that
Sir J. Pauncefote has reported, by telegraph, that the United States
Government are now anxious that the Joint Commission should com-
mence its sittings at once.

It is therefore desirable that you should proceed to Washington as
soon as you conveniently can,

Tam, &e. (Signed) T. V. LISTER.

916 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

138 No. 203.
The Marquis of Salisbury to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

FOREIGN OFFICE, January 15, 1892.

GENTLEMEN: I have to inform you that Her Majesty’s Minister at
Washington has sent home the text of seven Articles, signed by him-
self and Mr. Blaine on the 18th ultimo, which are to be embodied in a
formal Agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the
United States for referring to Arbitrators certain questions at issue
between the two Governments in regard to the jurisdiction claimed by
the latter over the waters of Behring’s Sea in connection with the fur-
seal fisheries therein.

Sir J. Pauncefote has also forwarded the text of an Agreement
signed on the same day for the appointment of two Commissioners by
Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States respectively,
to investigate, conjointly with the Commissioners of the other Govern-
ment, all the facts relating to seal life in Behring’s Sea, and the neces-
sary measures for its proper protection and preservation.

A copy of Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch, inclosing both of these docu-
ments, is forwarded herewith for your information.*

I now transmit the Queen’s Commission under the Sign Manual
appointing you to be Her Majesty’s Commissioners in accordance with
the provisions of the Joint Commission Agreement, and I request that
you will proceed to Washington as soon as you can conveniently do so,
in order to draw up the Report indicated in the second paragraph of
the Agreement.

The information which has been obtained by your American col-
leagues and yourselves during your recent visit to Behring’s Sea will
supply you with material for the preparation of your Report.

There are, however, a few points to which Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment consider it desirable that your special attention should be directed.

You will observe that it is intended that the Report of the Joint
Commissioners shall embrace recommendations as to all measures that
should be adopted for the preservation of seal life. For this purpose,
it will be necessary to consider what Regulations may seem advisable,
whether within the jurisdictional limits of the United States and Can-
ada, or outside those limits. The Regulations which the Commissioners
may recommend for adoption within the respective jurisdictions of the

_two countries will, of course, be matter for the consideration of the
respective Governments, while the Regulations affecting waters out-
side the territorial limits will have to be considered under clause 6 of
the Arbitration Agreement in the event of a decision being given by
the Arbitrators against the claim of exclusive jurisdiction put forward
on behalf of the United States.

The Report is to be presented in the first instance to the two Goy-
ernments for their consideration, and is subsequently to be laid by those
Governments before the Arbitrators to assist them in determining
the more restricted question as to what, if any, Regulations are essen-
tial for the protection of the fur-bearing seals outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the two countries.

In the event of any points arising on which the Commissioners are
unable to arrive at an understanding, they should report jointly or
severally to each Government on such points.

* No. 194.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. S17

In conclusion, I have to state that Her Majesty’s Government place
every reliance on your tact and discretion in the conduct of your
investigations with your American colleagues, who will, no doubt, be
equally desirous with yourselves of arriving at a common agreement
on the questions to be discussed.

lam, We. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 204.

Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received February 1.)
[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, February 1, 1892.
Arrived Washington with Dawson 31st January.

139 No. 205.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 1.)
{ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, February 1, 1892.

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that Sir George Baden-
Powell and Dr. Dawson have arrived here. I called with them to-day
on Mr. Blaine, who promised that the place and time of meeting of the
Joint Commission should be arranged at once.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 7.)

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1892.
My Lorp: L[ have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which
I addressed to Mr. Blaine, informing him of the acceptance by Her
Majesty’s Government of his proposal that the Behring’s Sea foreign
Arbitrators shall be chosen by France, Italy, and Sweden.
I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure in No. 206:]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, January 21, 1892.

Sir: I have the honour to inform you that immediately after my interview with
you on the 15th instant in regard to the question of the countries who are to name
the Arbitrators in the Behring’s Sea controversy, I telegraphed to the Marquis of
Salisbury that you did not insist on the knowledge of English by the Arbitrators
as a condition, but merely as a desirable qualification.

I have now received a telegram from his Lordship, stating that Her Majesty’s
Government accept your proposal that the Arbitrators shall be chosen by France,
Italy, and Sweden.

I have, &ce, (Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

918 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 207.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received February 8.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 8, 1892.

I forwarded, by bag, on the 5th instant, for your Lordship’s approval,
a draft Behring’s Sea Arbitration Convention which has been proposed
by Mr. Blaine. The Joint Commission is embodied in it, and Mr.
Blaine insists that the proceedings of the Joint Commissioners shall
be informal until it is signed. After much delay, they meet to-day for
the first time. A modus vivendi during the next fishery season is
pressed for by Mr. Blaine, and he hopes that Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment will be prepared to put into force any Regulations which may be
recommended by the Joint Commission for immediate application.

No. 208.

Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
February 10.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 9, 1892.

We beg to report, for your Lordship’s information, that we have

commenced to hold meetings of an informal nature with the American

Commissioners, clearing the ground where possible, but until the

140 Arbitration Convention is signed we have decided that it is not

expedient to commence formal work, or exhibit any of the con-
clusions at which we have arrived.

No. 209.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—( Received February 10.)
[Extract.]

DOWNING STREET, February 10, 1892.

I am directed by Lord Knutsford to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 9th instant, inclosing paraphrase of a telegram from Her
Majesty’s Minister at Washington respecting the Behring’s Sea nego-
tiations.

Lord Knutsford desires me to state that he thinks it desirable, if the
Marquis of Salisbury sees no objection, to consult the Canadian Govern-
ment as to the proposals for a renewal of the modus vivendi, and the
enforcement of such Regulations as the Joint Commission may recom-
mend for immediate application.

- eee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 919

No. 210.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
February 11.)

OTTAWA, January 29, 1892.

My Lorp: We have the honour to Pernomledce the receipt of your
Lordship’s despatch of the 15th instant, inclosing the Queen’s Commis-
sion under the Sign Manual appointing us to be Her Majesty’s Com-
missioners in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Commission
Agreement of the 18th December, 1891, between Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment and that of the United States.

We are not aware whether the United States Commissioners have as
yet been appointed, but we were informed on the 28th instant by Sir
Julian Pauncefote that Mr. Blaine agrees to the meeting of the Joint
Commission on the 1st February.

We are therefore proceeding at once to Washington, where we will
endeavour to the best of our ability to carry out the instructions
embodied in your Lordship’s despatch under acknowledgment.

We have, Se.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAWSON.

No. 211.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
February 11.)

WASHINGTON, February 1, 1892.

My Lorp: We have the honour to report that we arrived here on
the evening of Sunday, the 3lst January.

We called on Sir Julian Pauncefote the same evening, and he cour-
teously arranged for an interview with the Secretary of State on Mon-
day, the 1st February.

This morning Sir J. Pauncefote formally introduced us to Mr. Blaine,
who told us that he would at once make the necessary arrangements
for us to meet our fellow Commissioners, but he did not anticipate that
a meeting could take place before Wednesday, the 3rd instant.

We took the opportunity of explaining that we were fully prepared
to commence work to-day.

We have, &e.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAwson.

141 No. 212,
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 15.)
[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, February 4, 1892.

As I had the honour to report in my despatch of the 29th ultimo, I
informed Mr. Blaine, in a note dated the 21st ultimo, that Her Majesty’s
Government had accepted his proposal, that the three foreign members
of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Tribunal should be chosen by France,
Italy, and Sweden.

920 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

On the 50th ultimo, not having received any further communication
from Mr. Blaine on the subject, I addressed a note to him (of which a
copy is inclosed), inquiring whether he was now prepared to proceed at
once to the preparation and signature of the Arbitration Convention.

On the 2nd instant Mr. Blaine invited me to call on him, when he
placed in my hands the draft of a Convention which he requested me
to examine, and which is based on the Arbitration Articles of the
Treaty of Washington, and incorporates the Articles already signed,
and also the Joint Commission Agreement.

It was arranged that I should go over the draft the following day
with Mr. Alvey A. Adee (Second Assistant Secretary of State), by
whom it had been prepared, so that it should be put into such a form
as I should approve before submitting it to your Lordship. I accord-
ingly had several interviews with Mr. Adee, at which I suggested vari-
ous alterations which were adopted, and [ now have the honour to
inclose a copy of the draft, as amended, for your Lordship’s consider-
ation.*

The reason assigned for including the Joint Commission Agreement
in the Arbitration Convention is that, as it entails an expenditure ot
public money, it must be laid before the Senate, as well as the Arbitra-
tion Convention, and it is more convenient that the whole arrangement
should be comprised in the same instrument.

If your Lordship should approve substantially of the draft, Mr.
Blaine suggests that it would save a great deal of time if I were
instructed, by telegraph, to sign the Convention (with such modifica-
tions as your Lordship may desire) nune pro tunc, and without awaiting
the arrival of my full powers, which can be communicated later on.

{Inclosure in No. 212.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, January 30, 1892.

Str: All the details of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration having now been finally set-
tled by the understanding arrived at as to the Governments who shall be invited to
select the three foreign Arbitrators, I have the honour to request you to be good
enough to inform me whether you are prepared to proceed at once to the preparation
and signature of the formal Arbitration Convention and of the Joint Commission
Agreement, in accordance with the text of the Articles to be inserted therein, which
was signed by us on the 18th December last.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 213.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 15.)

WASHINGTON, February 5, 1892.

My Lorp: At the interview which I had with Mr. Blaine on the

subject of the draft Arbitration Convention transmitted in my previous

despatch of this date, he strongly pressed upon me the impor-

142 tance of being prepared to put in force during the next fishery

season in Behring’s Sea such Regulations as might be recom-

mended by the Joint Commission which is about to commence its
sittings in Washington.

*For Convention as signed, see No. 246.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 921

He observed that it was now quite certain that the arbitration would
not be concluded for many months, and no time, therefore, should be
lost in devising another modus vivendi, to take effect from the expira-
tion of the present one.

In answer to his inquiry as to the power of Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment to put in force any Regulations which might temporarily be agreed
upon, I stated that for such purpose it would be necessary to have
recourse again to Parliament.

He then requested me to invite your Lordship’s immediate attention
to the importance of taking immediate powers for that purpose, as the
sealing fleets were already reported to be clearing out.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 16, 1892.

The draft Convention, inclosed in your despatch of the 5th instant,
for referring to arbitration the questions at issue between Her Majesty’s
Government and that of the United States in connection with the seal
fisheries in Behring’s Sea, has been referred to the Law Officers of the
Crown, who have been asked to furnish a Report on its terms at their
earliest convenience.

Her Majesty’s Government cannot express an opinion upon Mr.
Blaine’s proposal for a fresh modus vivendi during the present year until
they are further informed as to what the provisions of the modus vivendi
are to be. It does not seem to be at all necessary for the preservation
of the fur-seal species that sealing should be entirely prohibited.

No. 215.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salishury.—( Received February 18.)

[Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, February 17, 1892.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 16th instant, Mr.
Blaine presses that the question of the modus vivendi should be con-
sidered and reported on by the Joint Commission. I have informed
him that, in my opinion, it has no power to do so under its present
mandate. Will your Lordship inform me whether you are willing that
the necessary authority shall be given to the Commission, provided
that no obligations will be imposed upon either Government by its
report?

922 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 216.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 18, 1892.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration Mr.
Blaine’s proposal, reported in your telegram of yesterday, that the
Joint Commission should examine and report on the question of arrang-
ing a fresh modus vivendi during the next seal-fishing season in Beh-
ring’s Sea.

They have no objection to its being considered by the Commission
whether, in case the decision of the Arbitrators is not obtained before
June on the points to be submitted to them, any modus vivendi will be
necessary, and, in that case, what should be its provisions.

Her Majesty’s Government must, however, reserve absolutely their
right of action in respect to any recommendations that may be made
by the Commissioners.

In the present state of Parliamentary business, it seems unlikely that

it would be possible to obtain any fresh powers from Parliament.
143 “The Seal Fishery (Behring’s Sea) Act, 1891,” is still in force,

but it only gives power to prohibit sealing in Behring’s Sea by
Order in Council within limits and for a period to be specified in the
Order itself.

You should communicate to the Canadian Government the substance
of your telegram of the 17th instant, and of my reply.

No. 217.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 20, 1892.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration the
draft of a Convention, forwarded with your despatch of the 4th instant,
for arbitration on the question of the seal fisheries in Behring’s Sea.

They are prepared to accept it, subject to certain amendments which
I have telegraphed to you.

No. 218.

The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received
February 25.)

ARLINGTON HOTEL, Washington, February 12, 1892.
My Lorp: In continuation of our despatch of the 1st instant, we
have the honour to report that after informing the Secretary of State
of our readiness to commence work on the Joint Commission on the 1st
February we received no further intimation as to our conferences until
Sir Julian Pauncefote communicated to us the information that in let-

Oe ee eee ee ee

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 923

ters dated the 4th and 6th February Mr. Blaine had pointed out to
him that we could not proceed officially to the discharge of our duties
or formulate our Reports until the Arbitration Convention was signed,
but that he would interpose no objection to our holding preliminary
and informal conferences.

2. On the 8th February we accordingly held our first preliminary con-
ference, and much preparatory work was got through. It was then
arranged to hold a second conference on the 11th instant.

3. The decision on Mr. Blaine’s suggestion that, pending the signa-
ture of the Arbitration Convention, the meetings of the Joint Commis-
sion were to be informal, we communicated to your Lordship on the 9th
instant, in a telegram of which a paraphrase is inclosed herewith.

4, On the 10th February, however, Sir J. Pauncefote received and
communicated to us a further letter from the Secretary of State, dated
the previous day, in which Mr. Blaine unexpectedly took up quite a
new position, stating that the United States Commissioners had now
been instructed to make known to us their readiness formally to arrange
for a joint conference, and proceed without further delay to the dis-
charge of the duties assigned to them.

5. We ventured to suggest to Sir Julian Pauncefote that in view of
the strong opinion expressed by Mr. Blaine in his letters of the 4th and
6th February it might be well if notes were exchanged between the two
Governments, declaring that all work and conferences of the Joint
Commission undertaken before the signing of the Arbitration Conven-
tion would be regarded by them as formal and efficient in character.

6. On Thursday, the 11th instant, after consultation with Sir J.
Pauncefote, we held the second conference, at which we communicated
our respective powers, and decided to regard that and future meetings
as formal pending the signing of the Arbitration Convention, and on
the understanding that the respective Governments have so determined.

7. We have now decided to meet de die in diem, and there seems to
be every prospect of our progressing well with our work.

8. The United States Government have very courteously provided
accommodation for our conferences in rooms at the State Department.

We have, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL.
GEORGE M. DAwsSoNn.

144 No. 219.
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.*—(Received February 24.)
[Telegraphic.]

OTTAWA, February 23, 1892.

With reference to your telegram of the 16th instant respecting the
modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, my Ministers do not possess any intor-
mation to show that a modus vivendi is necessary, or that it can be rea-
sonably demanded. If, however, such information has reached Her
Majesty’s Government, the Government of the Dominion would not
oppose such a modus vivendt provided that it were confined to a zone of
moderate limits, say, 25 miles, around the seal islands, and provided
that it is accompanied by stringent restrictions against the killing of

* Repeated to Sir J. Pauncefote.

924 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

seals on em with better supervision than during the modus vivendi of
last ye Any arrangement of a more extended character would
Buiive cadepenantin to the sealing-vessels, and for this, of course, Can-
ada could not be expected to make provision from the funds of the
Dominion.

No. 220.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 25.)

[ Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, February 25, 1892.

Behringts Sea modus vivendi.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 16th instant, I
have informed Mr. Blaine that your Lordship could not give an opinion
until you learned what modus vivendi was proposed.

Following is the substance of a note which I have received in reply:

The arbitration cannot possibly be concluded within the period of
time which was contemplated originally. The delays which have
occurred have been much more by Great Britain than by the United
States.

The President suggests that the modus should be similar in terms to
that of last year, but that it should be more fully executed. More effi-
cient measures on the part of Her Majesty’s Government will be prac-
ticable this year owing to the earlier date. More seals than ever were
taken last year, the departure of the sealing-vessels having taken place
previous to the agreement as to the modus vivendi. The prevention of
sealing in the North Pacific Ocean would be the most effective measure
for Her Majesty’s Government to adopt. The large number of sealers
preparing to go forth from British Columbia would have to receive
notice of this. The number of sealers is reported to be larger than ever,
and without regulations there will be an immense destruction of females
heavy with young.

Mr. Blaine urgently requests me to send the contents of the note to
your Lordship by telegraph. I have not yet mentioned the question of
authorizing the Joint Commission to report on the modus vivendi on the
conditions mentioned in your Lordship’s telegram of the 18th instant.

No. 221.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received February 26.),
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 26, 1892.
My telegram of yesterday.
Mr. Blaine specially desires me to telegraph to your Lordship ver-
batim the following paragraph contained in his note of the 24th instant
respecting the modus vivendi:

Holding an arbitration in regard to the rightful mode of taking seals, while their

destruction goes forward, would be as if while an arbitration to the title to timber--

land were in progress, one party were to cut remove all the trees.

He attaches much importance to this illustration.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 925

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 27.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 26, 1892.

With reference to your Lordship’s telegram of the 25th instant, the
opinion of the British Behring’s Sea Commissioners as to a modus vivendt
may be convenient to your Lordship at this juncture. They report as
follows:

145 We do not apprehend any danger of serious further depletion of the fur-seal

resorting to the Pribyloft Islands, as the result of hunting this year, unless exces-
sive killing be permitted on the breeding islands. As a judicious temporary measure
of precaution, however, for this season, and looking to permanent regulations for the
fishery asa whole being established in time for the season of 1893, we would recommend
the prohibition of all killing at sea during this season, within a zone extending to,
say, not more than 30 nautical miles around the Pribyloff Islands, such prohibition
being conditional on the restriction to a number not to exceed 30,000 as amaximum
of the seals killed for any purpose on the islands.

I believe that the necessity for the total cessation of pelagic sealing
will be insisted on by the American Commissioners, if the question be
referred to the Joint Commission; but I submit that it is not necessary
for us to go beyond the opinion of our own experts, peuding arbitration.

No. 223.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, February 27, 1892.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration your
telegrams of the 25th and 26th instant, dealing with the question of
the modus vivendi proposed by Mr. Blaine for the approaching seal-
hunting season.

They cannot admit in any degree the correctness of Mr. Blaine’s
statement that there have been greater delays on the part of this country
in the negotiations for settling the Behring’s Sea difficulty than there
have been on that of the United States.

The consent of Her Majesty’s Government was given last year to a
modus vivendi solely on the ground that the preservation of the seal
species in those waters was supposed to be endangered unless some
interval were given during which there would be a cessation of hunting
both on land and sea,

No information has reached Her Majesty’s Government to lead them
to suppose that so drastic a measure is requisite for two successive
Seasons.

Indeed, they are informed by the British members of the Joint Com-
mission now sitting at Washington that there is no danger, so far as
the sea fishery is concerned, of any serious diminution of the numbers
of the fur-seal species as a consequence of hunting them during the
approaching season.

You are, however, authorized to offer to the Government of the United
States the compromise suggested by the British Commissioners, and
reported in your telegram of the 26th instant, viz., that during the

926 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

present year the killing of seals at sea should be prohibited within a
given radius not exceeding 30 nautical miles round the Pribyloff Islands
on condition that the number of seals to be killed for any purpose on
the islands shall be restricted to a definite amount, not exceeding 30,000
atthe utmost. A speedy decision is necessary, aS we are informed that
the sealing vessels are already leaving port.

Mr. Blaine’s comparison of the present situation to a question of
ownership of timber land does not appear to me to be applicable. The
case resembles rather an arbitration on the title to a meadow. While
the arbitration is pending the party in actual possession cuts the grass,
and rightly so, inasmuch as next year the grass will be reproduced,
This will equally be the case with the seals.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 28.)
[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 26, 1892.

I am requested by Mr. Blaine to inform your Lordship that he has
received the following Report from the United States Consul at Victo-
ria: ‘Forty-six sealing vessels cleared to date. Six or seven more to
go. At the same date last year only thirty-one cleared.”

146 No. 225.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received February 28.)

[Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 27, 1892.
The Convention will be signed on Monday, at 11 A. M.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 1.)

WASHINGTON, February 18, 1892.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith copies of a corre-
spondence which has taken place between Mr. Blaine and myself on
the subject of the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission.

Your Lordship will remember that the British Commissioners were
summoned to Washington at the request of Mr. Blaine, who, after hay-
ing persistently refused to agree to the meeting of the Joint Commission
until after the signature of the Arbitration Convention, informed me
on the 13th January (as I had the honour to report to your Lordship
by telegraph on the same day) that he was now anxious that the Com-
mission should sit at once, and he proposed Washington as the most
convenient place of meeting. Accordingly Sir George Baden-Powell,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 927

who was then in England, started by the first opportunity for New
York, and, after visiting Ottawa, arrived in Washington with his Cana-
dian colleague, Dr. Dawson, on the 31st ultimo. On the following day
’ (Monday, the 1st instant) I presented them formally to Mr. Blaine at
the State Department as the British Commissioners, and I understood
from him that they would be placed immediately in communication
with their American colleagues with a view to proceeding at once with
the business of the Joint Commission.

It was not, however, until the evening of Friday, the 5th, that I
received a note from Mr. Blaine informing me of the formal appoint-
ment of the American Commissioners, and stating that as soon as he
should have been ‘officially advised” by me of the appointment of
Commissioners on the part of the British Government, the United
States Commissioners would be ready to confer with them ‘ inform-
ally,” but that until the Arbitration Convention should have been
signed, the Commissioners would not be expected to agree upon or for-
mulate any Report. This communication, which I received with sur-
prise under the circumstances above mentioned, led to the correspond-
ence which I have the honour to inclose, from which your Lordship
will perceive that Mr. Blaine ultimately agreed that the Commission
should proceed formally to business. But the first meeting of the Com-
mnission did not take place until the 15th instant, and a whole fortnight
was lost by delays, for which it appears to me that the United States
Government are alone responsible.

I beg to draw your Lordship’s particular attention to Mr. Blaine’s
remarks in his letter of the 6th February on the selection of Commis-
sioners made by Her Majesty’s Government, and I trust that the answer
which I returned to that letter will meet with your Lordship’s approval.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 226.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 4, 1892.

Srr; I have the honour to inform you that the President has this day aaunited
and commissioned Thomas Corwin Mendenhall and Clinton Hart Merriam to act as
Commissioners on the part of the Government of the United States in accordance
with the Agreement which I signed with you on the 18th December, 1891, to inves-
tigate and report, conjointly with Commissioners to be appointed by the British
Government, upon the facts having relation to the preservation of seal life in Beh-
ring’s Sea, and the measures necessary for its protection and preservation, with a
view to the submission of their conclusions to the Board of Arbitrators, whose
constitution has already been agreed upon by us.

Until the Convention for Arbitration shall have been signed the Commissioners
will not be expected to agree upon or formulate any Reports, but after I shall be

officially advised by 4 you of the appointment of Commissioners on the part of
147. the British Government, the Commissioners on the part of the United States
will hold themselves ready to confer informally with their British colleagues at
such time as may suit their convenience,
I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

928 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 226.]

Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 6, 1892.

Sir: Ihave the henour to acknowledge the receipt of your note dated the 4th
February (but only delivered yesterday evening), in which you inform me that the
President has appointed Mr. Mendenhall and Mr. Merriam Commissioners, on the
part of the Government of the United States, on the Joint Commission therein
referred to.

Sir George Baden-Powell and Professor Dawson, whom I had the honour to present
to you on the 1st instant, have been duly appointed Commissioners on the part of
Her Majesty’s Government, and, as I have already stated to you verbally, they are
furnished with their credentials in due form.

On the 13th ultimo, at your request, I communicated to the Marquis of Salisbury,
by telegraph, your desire that the British Commissioners should proceed at once
to Washington. Accordingly, Sir G. Baden-Powell left England for that purpose by
the first steamer, and arrived here with Dr. Dawson on the Ist of the month. They
have been awaiting ever since to be placed in communication with the United States
Commissioners, and I trust that arrangements will be made for the meeting of the
Commission on Monday next for the purpose indicated in the last paragraph of
your note under reply, although the British Commissioners came prepared, not for
an informal conference, but to proceed officially to business.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 226.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 6, 1892.

Sir: I am in receipt of your note of this date, in which you give me the official
notification of the appointment of Sir G. Baden-Powell and Professer Dawson as
Commissioners on the part of the British Government on the Joint Commission
created in view of the proposed fur-seal Arbitration. .

In acknowledging your note, I deem it important to direct your attention to the
fact that the Government of the United States, in nominating the Commissioners on
its part, selected gentlemen who were especially fitted by their scientific attainments,
and who were in no wise disqualified for an impartial investigation and determina-
tion of the questions to be submitted to them by a public declaration of opinion
previous or subsequent to their selection. It is to be regretted that a similar course
does not seem to have been adopted by the British Government. It appears, from a
document which you transmitted to me under date of the 9th March, 1890 (Inclosure
4), that one of the gentlemen selected by your Government to act as a Commissioner
on its part has fully committed himself in advance on all the questions which are to
[be?] submitted to him for investigation and decision.

I am further informed that the other gentleman named in your note had, previous
to his selection, made public his views on the subject; and that very recently he has
announced, in an address to his Parliamentary constituents, that the result of the
investigation of this Commission and of the proposed Arbitration would be in favour
of his Government.

I trust, however, that these circumstances will not impair the candid and impartial
investigation and determination which was the object had in view in the creation
of the Commission, and that the result of its labours may greatly promote an equi-
table and mutually satisfactory adjustment of the questions at issue.

The Commissioners on the part of the United States have been instructed to put

themselves in communication with the British Commissioners to tender them
148 anapartment at the Department of State for the joint conference, and, if it

shall suit their convenience, to agree with them upon an hour for their first
conference on Monday next, the 9th instant.

It is proper to add that, when I indicated to you on the 13th ultimo that the Brit-
ish Commissioner then in London might come at once to Washington, I supposed
that we should before this date have signed the Arbitration Convention, and thus
have enabled the Commissioners to proceed officially to a discharge of their duties.
But as it became necessary to await the approval of the draft of that instrument,
which you have forwarded to London, I have interposed no objection to preliminary
conferences of the Commissioners, anticipating the signature of the Convention
within a very brief period.

Ihave, &c. (Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 929

[Inclosure 4 in No. 226.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 8, 1892.

Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 6th instant,
in which you observe upon the selection made by our respective Governments of the
members of the Joint Commission which is about to sit at Washington for the pur-
pose of investigating and reporting upon the facts having relation to seal life in
Behring’s Sea with a view to the proposed Arbitration.

The second paragraph of your note contains the following passage:

‘T deem it important to direct your attention to the fact that the Government of
the United States, in nominating the Commissioners on its part, selected gentlemen
who were especially fitted by their scientific attainments, and who were in no wise
disqualified for an impartial investigation and determination of the questions to be
submitted to them by a public declaration of opinion previous or subsequent to their
selection. It is to be regretted that a similar course does not seem to have been
adopted by the British Government.”

While I have much pleasure in congratulating your Government on having secured
on their side the services of two such. distinguished gentlemen as Professor Menden-
hall and Dr. Merriam, I must express my surprise and regret that you should have
thought fit to refer in terms of disparagement to the choice made by Her Majesty’s
Government.

The British Commissioners, Sir G. Baden-Powell and Dr. Dawson, are gentlemen
whose scientific attainments and special qualifications for the duties intrusted to
them are too well known to require any vindication on my part. But you complain
of the fact that Dr. Dawson in 1890 wrote a paper on the protection of the fur-seal
in the North Pacific, in which he committed himself to certain views. This shows
that he has made the subject his special study, and it appears to me that he is all
the more qualified on that account to take part in the labours of the Joint Commis-
sion, which, I beg leave to point out, is not a Board of Arbitration, but one of
Investigation.

Dr. Dawson’s note on the fur-seal, to which you refer, was merely based upon such
published material as was at the time available, and I have his authority for stating
that he does not feel himself in any way bound to the opinions expressed from the
study of that material, in the light of subsequent personal investigation on the

round,
. You likewise complain that Sir George Baden- Powell had, previously to his selec-
tion as Commissioner, made public his views on the subject, and also that he is
reported to have stated in an address to his Parliamentary constituents that the
result of the investigation of the Joint Commission and of the proposed Arbitration
would be in favour of his Government. Sir G. Baden-Powell is particularly quali-
fied to take part in the inquiry by reason of his personal investigation into the
industrial part of the question which he pursued in 1887 and 1889 in San Francisco
and British Columbia. From the first he has advocated in all his publie statements
a full inquiry into the facts of seal life in Behring’s Sea before any final agreement
should be arrived at, in order that the views of all parties should be tested as to the
best method of protecting seal life. There is no just ground, therefore, for charging
him with partiality. As regards the language imputed to him on the occasion of an
address which he recently delivered to his constituents in England on the labour
question, it appears that some introductory remarks, in which he referred to the
Behring’s Sea question, were inaccurately reported. What he did state was
149 that, thanks to the arrangement arrived at between the two Governments, the
Behring’s Sea difficulty would now be settled in the true interests of all con-
cerned, and not of any one side or the other.

I may mention that the opinions of Professor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam on the
fur-seal question were published in several journals in this country shortly after
their return from Behring’s Sea, and were stated (I know not with what accuracy)
to be opposed to the views which have been urged on the side of Her Majesty’s Gov-
ernment.

But I do not suggest that the United States Commissioners on that account are dis-
qualified from taking part in the labours of the Joint Commission; I claim that all
the Commissioners, british and American, are equally entitled to the confidence of
both Governments as men of science, honour, and impartiality.

The course which has been adopted for ascertaining what measures may be neces-
sary for the protection of the fur-seal species is substantially the same as that which
I had the honour to propose to you, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, nearly
two years ago in the form of a draft Convention, inclosed in my note of the 29th
April, 1890.

B 8S, PT V——9d9

930 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

I rejoice that the proposal I then made is now to be carried out, and I cordially
unite in the hope, expressed in your note under reply, that the result of the labours
of the Joint Commission will promote an equitable and mutually satisfactory adjust-
ment of the questions at issue.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure 5 in No. 226.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 9, 1892.

Sir: [have been informed by the American Seal Commissioners that, in an informal
meeting with their British colleagues yesterday, the latter expressed an unwilling-
ness to enter upon conferences of any other than an official character, and they there-
fore proposed that their joint conferences be postponed until after the Arbitration
Convention shall have been signed.

I beg to state to you that the Government of the United States is very anxious to
expedite as much as possible the consideration of the important questions submitted
to the Commissioners; and in view of the fact that it regards the Arbitration Con-
vention as substantially agreed upon, the American Commissioners have been
instructed to make known to the British Commissioners their readiness to formally
arrange the joint conference and proceed without further delay to the discharge of
the duties assigned to them.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE,

[Inclosure 6 in No, 226.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 11, 1892.

Sir: I had the honour to receive yesterday your note of the 9th instant, in which
you state that you have been informed by the American Seal Commissioners that, in
an informal meeting with their British colleagues on the 8th instant, the latter
expressed an unwillingness to enter upou conferences of any other than an official
character, and they therefore proposed that their joint conferences be postponed
until after the Arbitration Convention has been signed.

The British Commissioners, to whom I communicated your note, have informed me
that, at the preliminary conference of the Commissioners on the 8th instant, they
discussed with their colleagues what work of a preparatory character could be got
through at once. The meeting was informal, according to the conditions laid down
in the last paragraph of your note to me on the 4th instant; and it was arranged by
the Commissioners to hold a second preliminary conference this day at the State
Department, at3 o’clock, at which they could discuss certain matters which they had

undertaken to consider in the interval, and to do other preparatory work.
150 In consequence of your note of the 9th instant, the British Commissioners
hope, at the conference to-day, to arrange with their colleagues that the joint
conference shall proceed to business formally.
Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

No. 227.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 1.)

WASHINGTON, February 18, 1892.
My Lorp: With reference to my preceding despatch of to-day, relat-
ing to the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission, I have the honour to inclose
copies of an informal note which I received from Mr. Blaine on the 12th

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 931

instant respecting the refusal of the British Commissioners to deal with
the question of a modus vivendi, and of the reply which I returned
thereto. Also a copy of a letter addressed to me on the 15th instant by
the British Commissioners, inquiring whether the Commission is author-
ized to consider and report on measures of seal preservation within the
territorial jurisdiction of either Power.

I took the opportunity of a visit to the State Department on Mon-
day, the 15th instant, to show the last-mentioned letter to Mr. Blaine,
who, after reading it, expressed his surprise that, looking at the wide
terms of the Joint Commission Agreement, the Commissioners should
entertain any doubt as to the scope of their powers; and he suggested
that they should all be invited to meet him and me at the State Depart-
ment the following morning to explain their difficulty. The meeting
accordingly took place, but all discussion was rendered unnecessary by
the announcement that the American Commissioners had, since the
date of the letter, arrived at the conclusion that they were free to con-
sider all measures, even though they might relate to matters within
national jurisdiction.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

{Inclosure 1 in No. 227.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

17, MADISON PLACE, Washington, February 12, 1892.

My Dear Sir JULIAN: The motive you have always urged upon me for assem-
bling the Commissioners on Seal Fisheries at an early date was that they could pro-
vide a modus vivendi that would be sufficient, while the Arbitration should go on with
plenty of time to consider the various points.

I was surprised to hear that your Commissioners yesterday declined to discuss the
modus vivendi, on the allegation that that was a subject reserved for you and me.
This puts an entirely new phase upon the work of the Commission, and largely
diminishes its value.

Will you have the goodness to advise me of the precise scope of the work which
you have assigned to your Commissioners?

Very truly, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 227.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 13, 1892.

DEAR MR. BLAINE: In reply to your letter of yesterday, I beg to state that, in my
opinion, the British Commissioners are right in holding that they have no power
under their present mandate to discuss the question of a modus vivendi for the next
fishery season. Their authority is limited by the terms of the Joint Commission

Agreement, the text of which we signed on the 18th December last. That
151 authority is confined to reporting their views on what Fishery Regulations of
a permanent character may be necessary with a view to arbitration. The
question of a modus vivendi pending the result of the Arbitration is one for the two
Governments to discuss. I have certainly urged, as an additional reason for the
early meeting of the Joint Commission, that its Reports would furnish our Govern-
ments with valuable materials for such discussion; but it can hardly be contended
that the Commissioners can properly deal with such a question without special
authority from their respective Governments. I communicated to Lord Salisbury
the proposal you made to me at our interview of the 2nd instant, that our two Gov-
ernments should agree to a modus vivendi, and I am awaiting his Lordship’s reply.
Very truly, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

932 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 227.]
The Behring’s Sea Commissioners to Sir J. Pauncefote.

ARLINGTON HOTEL, Washington, February 18, 1892.

Sm: We have the honour to inform you that our colleagues on the Behring’s Sea
Joint Commission have to-day explained to us that their original letter of instruc-
tions has now lapsed, and that they have no further instructions than those con-
tained in the text of their Commission.

We are now holding daily conferences, and are anxious not to waste time by
discussing matters outside the scope of our mutual instructions, which should, we
presume, be identical.

We agreed with our colleagues to ask whether you would obtain from the Secre-
tary of State information as to whetber the United States Commissioners are, like
ourselves, authorized to consider, and, if they see fit, to report in favour of, measures
of seal preservation in general, or whether they are restricted to measures outside
the territorial jurisdiction of either Power.

We haye, &c.
(Signed) GEORGE BADEN-POWELL,
GEORGE M, Dawson.

No. 228.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 1.)

{Telegraphic.]

WASHINGTON, February 29, 1892.

Behring’s Sea. The Arbitration Convention was signed by Mr. Blaine
and myself this morning. Is it desired by your Lordship that the
exchange of ratifications should take place in Washington or in
London?

No. 229.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

|Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 1, 1892.

In reply to your telegram of the 29th ultimo, the exchange of ratifi-
cations of the Behring’s Sea Convention could be carried out more
expeditiously if made in London than at Washington. You should
telegraph when the Convention is approved by the Senate.

152 No. 230.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauwncefote.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 3, 1892.

Srr: I have received your despatch of the 18th ultimo, inclosing
copies of correspondence with Mr. Blaine in regard to the meeting of
the Joint Commissioners appointed under the Agreement of the 18th
December last to report on the facts having relation to the preserva-
tion of seal life in Behring’s Sea.

—— a, ne

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 933

Your proceedings, as reported in that despatch, and the terms of
your note to Mr. Blaine of the 8th February, are approved by Her
Majesty’s Government,

Iam, &e. (Signed) SALISBURY.

No. 231.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 5.)

WASHINGTON, February 23, 1892.

My Lorp: I have the honour to report that on the 15th instant the
President issued the usual Behring’s Sea Proclamation in the same
terms as heretofore. :

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure in No. 231.]
By THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A Proclamation.

The following provisions of the Laws of the United States are hereby published
for the information of all concerned:

Section 1956, Revised Statutes, Chapter 3, Title 23, enacts that: ‘No person shall
kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within
the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof; and every person guilty
thereof shall, for each offence, be fined pot less than 200 nor more than 1,000 dollars,
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, their tackle,
apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this section shall be
forfeited; but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the kill-
ing of any such mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur-seals,
under such regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Secre-
tary to prevent the killing of any fur seal, and to provide for the execution of the
provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law; nor shall he grant
any special privileges under this section.”

Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the Protection of the Salmon
Fisheries of Alaska,” approved March 2, 1889, provides that:

“Section 3. That section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of Behring’s Sea; and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely sea-
son in each year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for
one month in at least one newspaper, if any such there be, published at each United
States port of entry on the Pacitic coast, warning all persons against entering said
waters for the purpose of violating the provisions of said section; and he shall also
cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize said waters and
arrest all persons, and seize all vessels found to be, or to have been, engaged in any
violation of the laws of the United States therein.”

Now, therefore, I, Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States, pursuant to
the above recited Statutes, hereby warn all persons against entering the waters of
Behring’s Sea within the dominion of the United States for the purpose of violating

the provisons of said section 1956, Revised Statutes; and I hereby proclaim
153 += that all persons found to be, or to have been, engaged in any violation of the

laws of the United States in said waters will be arrested and punished as
above provided, and that all vessels so employed, their tackle, apparel, furniture,
and cargoes, will be seized and forfeited.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this 15th day of February, 1892, and of the Inde-
pendence of the United States the 116th.

(Signed) BrENJ. HARRISON.

By the President:

(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE, Secretary of State.

934 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
No. 232.
Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 5.)

[Telegraphic.] :

WASHINGTON, March 4, 1892.

We have to-day, 4th March, signed our Joint Report.
Unless instructed to remain, we shall leave Washington next week.

No. 233.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 7.)

WASHINGTON, February 26, 1892.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of yesterday, I have the
honour to inclose copies of the notes exchanged between Mr. Blaine and
myself on the subject of the modus vivendi therein referred to.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 233.]
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 19, 1892.

Srr: On the occasion of our interview on the 2nd instant, when you handed mo
the draft of the Behring’s Sea Arbitration Convention, which I forwarded to London
for the consideration of Her Majesty’s Government, you asked me whether they were
prepared to agree to a modus vivendi for the next fishery season in Behring’s Sea. In
transmitting the draft of the Arbitration Convention to the Marquis of Salisbury I
did not fail to inform him of your inquiry, and I havenow received a reply from his
Lordship to the effect that Her Majesty’s Government cannot express any opinion on
the subject until they know what modus vivendi you desire to propose.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 233.]
Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 24, 1892.

Str: I am in receipt of your note of the 19th. You therein inform me that Lord
Salisbury cannot express any opinion on the subject of the modus vivendi until he
knows what we desire to propose.

I am glad to hear that Lord Salisbury contemplates a modus, for it is obvious that
it is impossible to conclude the Arbitration within the time originally set. Indeed,
we shall hardly beable to enter upon it. The delays have been much greater on
the part of Great Britain than on the part of the United States.

In reply to your inquiry, the President suggests that the modus should be much

the same as last year in terms, but that it should be better executed. It was
154 very ineffective last year, for there was a larger number of seals in Behring’s

Sea taken then than ever before. The vessels had already set out before the
modus was agreed to, and it was impossible to give them notice in time to avoid their
taking seals. Her Majesty’s Government did not take such efficient measures as an
earlier date this year will render practicabie.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. S39)

If Her Majesty’s Government would make their efforts most effective, the sealing
in the North Pacific Ocean should be forbidden, for there the slaughter of the
mothers heavy with young is the greatest. This would require a notice to the large
number of sealers which are preparing to go forth from British Columbia. The
number is said to be greater than ever before, and without any law to regulate the
killing of seals the destruction will be immense. All this suggests the great need
of an effective modus. Holding an Arbitration in regard to the rightful mode of
taking seals while their destruction goes forward would be as if, while an Arbitra-
tion to the title to timber-land were in progress, one party should remove all the
trees.

I shall have to ask you to transmit the contents of this note to Lord Salisbury by
telegraph. Every day that is lost now entails great trouble upon both Governments.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) JAMES G. BLAINE,

No. 234.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 9, ;
11.15 a. m.) :

{Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, March 8, 1892.

The Acting Secretary of State has to-day delivered to me on behalt
of Mr. Blaine (who is unwell) a note on the subject of the renewal of
the modus vivendi, with a request from the President that I should tele-
graph it to your Lordship. I accordingly send a full summary:

[For text of the Note see Inclosure 1 in Sir J. Pauncefote’s despatch of March 10:
infra, No. 243.]

No. 235.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
{ Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 9, 1892, 6.30 p.m.

I should wish you to repeat to Lord Stanley your telegram of yester-
day, about Behring’s Sea.

No. 236.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 9,
10.30 p.m.)

(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1892.
Behring’s Sea Convention sent to Senate yesterday, and referred to
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

936 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 237.
Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 10.)

WASHINGTON, March 1, 1892.

My Lorp: With reference to the question of the renewal of the
modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, I have the honour to inclose copy of the
note which, upon receipt of your Lordship’s telegram of the 27th ultimo,
[ addressed to Mr. Blaine on the subject.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

155 [Ineclosure in No. 237.]

Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

WASHINGTON, February 29, 1892.

Sir: Immediately upon the receipt of your note of the 24th instant, respecting a
renewal of the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea, and in accordance with the wish
therein expressed, I telegraphed its contents to the Marquis of Salisbury.

In that note, after observing that it is impossible to conclude the Arbitration
within the time originally set, and that the delays have been much greater on the
part of Great Britain than on the part of the United States, you proceed to inform
me that in the view of the President the new modus vivendi should be much the same
as that of last year in terms; that owing to the earlier date this year it could be
more effectively executed; but that ‘‘if Her Majesty’s Government would make their
efforts most effective, the sealing in the North Pacific Ocean should be forbidden.”

After pointing out ‘‘the great need of an effective modus,” you state that ‘‘ holding
an Arbitration in regard to the rightful mode of taking seals while their destruction
goes forward, would be as if, while an Arbitration to the title to timber-land were
in progress, one party should remove all the trees.”

I have the honour to inform you that I have received a reply from Lord Salisbury
to the following effect:

In the first place, his Lordship states that he cannot in any degree admit that the
delays have been greater on the part of Great Britain than on the part of the United
States.

As regards the necessity for another modus vivendi, Her Majesty’s Government con-
sented to that measure last year solely on the ground that it was supposed that there
would be danger to the preservation of the seal species in Behring’s Sea unless some
interval in the slaughter of seals were prescribed both at sea and on land. But Her
Majesty’s Government have received no information to show that so drastic a remedy
is necessary for two consecutive seasons. On the contrary, the British Commissioners
on the Behring’s Sea Joint Commission have informed Her Majesty’s Government that,
so far as pelagic sealing is concerned, there is no danger of any serious diminution
of the fur-seal species as a consequence of this year’s hunting.

Nevertheless, Lord Salisbury would not object, as a temporary measure of pre-
caution for this season, to the prohibition of all killing at sea within a zone extend-
ing to not more than 30 nautical miles around the Prybiloff Islands, such prohibition
being conditional on the restriction of the number of seals to be killed for any pur-
pose on the islands to a maximum of 30,000.

Lord Salisbury, referring to the passage in your note in which you compare the
case to an Arbitration about timber-land from which the trees are being removed by
one of the parties, observes that he hardly thinks the simile quite apposite. His
Lordship suggests that the case is more like one of Arbitration respecting the title
toa meadow. While the Arbitration is in progress, he adds,-we cut the grass, and
quite rightly, for the grass will be reproduced next year, and so will the seals.

I have, &c.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 937

No. 238.
Sir G. Baden-Powell to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received,March 10.)

(Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1892.

With reference to the modus vivendi, I am of opinion that the taking
of one season’s limited crop cannot injure the seal herd, but that,
although not necessary, the renewal of last year’s prohibition and the
7,500 limit would be beneficial.

As the Arbitration Convention conditions ocean rights, I hope that
the Canadian Government has warned the British Columbian sealers
that the ultimate ownership of the seals taken this year in Behring’s
Sea depends upon the verdict of the Arbitrators.

The alternatives for the sealers appear to be either to incur the expense
of the catch subject to this risk, or to forego, without compensation,
one season’s catch of, say, 20,000 (in Behring’s Sea), on condition that
7,500 instead of 30,000 are taken on the islands, increased numbers of
seals in future seasons, and enhanced prices for this spring, being also
insured by such restrictions.

156 No. 239.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received March 14.)

WASHINGTON, March 4, 1892.

My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose herewith the Behring’s Sea
Arbitration Convention, which was signed by Mr. Blaine and myself
on the 29th February.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

[Inclosure in No. 239.]

Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America for Arbitration concerning
the Seal Fisheries in Behring’s Sea. Signed at Washington, February 29, 1892.

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and
the United States of America, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement
of the questions which have arisen between their respective Governments concerning
the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea, and con-
cerning also the preservation of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said
sea, and the rights of the citizens and subjects of either country as regards the taking
of fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said waters, have resolved to submit to
arbitration the questions involved, and to the end of concluding a Convention for
that purpose have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries :

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Sir
Julian Pauncefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B., Her Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States; and the President of the United
States of America, James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective Full Powers, which
were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following
Articles:

ARTICLE I.

The questions which have arisen between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty
and the Government of the United States cencerning the jurisdictional rights of the
United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea, and concerning also the preservation

938 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said sea, and the rights of the citi-
zens and subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in or habitu-
ally resorting to the said waters, shall be submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration, to
be composed of seven Arbitrators, who shall be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: two shall be named by her Britannic Majesty; two shall be named
by the President of the United States; his Excellency the President of the French
Republic shall be jointly requested by the High Contracting Parties to name one;
His Majesty the King of Italy shall be so requested to name one; and His Majesty
the King of Sweden and Norway shall be so requested to name one. The seven
Arbitrators to be so named shall be jurists of distinguished reputation in their
respective countries.

In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any or either of the said
Arbitrators, or in the event of any or either of the said Arbitrators omitting or
declining or ceasing to act as such, Her Britannic Majesty, or the President of the
United States, or his Excellency the President of the French Republic, or His
Majesty the King of Italy, or His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, as the
case may be, shall name, or shall be requested to name forthwith, another person to
act as Arbitrator in the place and stead of the Arbitrator originally named by such
head of a State.

And in the event of the refusal or omission for two months after receipt of the
joint request from the High Contracting Parties of His Excellency the President of
the French Republic, or His Majesty the King of Italy, or His Majesty the King of
Sweden and Norway, to name an Arbitrator, either to fill the original appointment
or to fill a vacancy as above provided, then in such case the appointment sha!l be
made or the vacancy shall be filled in such manner as the High Contracting Parties
shall agree.

157 ARTICLE II.

The Arbitrators shall meet at Paris within twenty days after the delivery of the
counter-cases mentioned in Article IV, and shall proceed impartially and carefully
to examine and decide the questions that have been or shall be laid before them as
herein provided on the part.of the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the
United States respectively. All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the
final decision, shall be determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators.

Kach of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to attend the
Tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the
arbitration. 5

ARTICLE III.

The printed case of each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the
official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered
in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other party as soon
as may be after the appointment of the members of the Tribunal, but within a
period not exceeding three months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications
of this Treaty.

ARTICLE IV.

Within three months after the delivery on both sides of the printed case, either
party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and
to the Agent of the other party, a connter-case, and additional documents, corre-
spondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evi-
dence so presented by the other party.

If, however, in consequence of the distance of the place from which the evidence
to be presented is to be procured, either party shall, within thirty days after the
receipt by its Agent of the case of the other party, give notice to the other party
that it requires additional time for the delivery of such counter-case, documents,
correspondence, and evidence, such additional time so indicated, but not exceeding

. sixty days beyond the three months in this Article provided, shall be allowed.

If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either party shall have specified or

alluded to any report or document in its own exclusive possession, without annexing
- a copy, such party shall be bound, if the other party thinks proper to apply for it,
to furnish that party with a copy thereof; and either party may call upon the other,
through the Arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any papers
adduced as evidence, giving in each instance notice thereof within thirty days after
delivery of the case; and the original or copy so requested shall be delivered as soon
as may be, and within a period not exceeding forty days after receipt of notice.

Se ae a et Te

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 939

ARTICLE V.

It shall be the duty of the Agent of each party, within one month after the expi-
ration of the time limited for the delivery of the counter-case on both sides, to
deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other
party a printed argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon
which his Government relies, and either party may also support the same before the
Arbitrators by oral argument of counsel; and the Arbitrators may, if they desire
further elucidation with regard to any point, require a written or printed statement
or oral argument by counsel, upon it; but in such case the other party shall be
entitled to reply either orally or in writing, as the case may be.

ARTICLE VI.

In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, it is agreed that the follow-
ing five points shall be submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace
a destinct decision upon each of said five points, to wit:

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise
prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

158 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recog-
nized and conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase
“Pacific Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;
and what rights, if any, in the Behring’s Sea, were held and exclusively exercised by
Russia after said Treaty ?

4, Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries
in Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States
and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that
Treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of protection or prop-
erty in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea
when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?

ARTICLE. VII.

If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of
Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protec-
tion and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring Sea,
the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations outside the juris-
dictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over what waters
such Regulations should extend, and to aid them in that determination, the Report
of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the respective Governments, shall be laid
before them, with such other evidence as either Government may submit.

The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to co-operate in securing the
adhesion of other Powers to such Regulations.

ARTICLE VIII.

The High Contracting Parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a
reference which shall include the question of the lability of each for the injuries
alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with
the claims presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous that this subordinate
question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of
the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the Arbitrators any ques-
tion of fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the question of
the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further
negotiation.

ARTICLE IX.

The High Contracting Parties having agreed to appoint two Commissioners on the
part of each Government to make the joint investigation and Repori contemplated
in the preceding Article VII, and to include the terms of the said Agreement in the
present Convention, to the end that the joint and several Reports and recommenda-
tions of said Commissioners may be in due form submitted to the Arbitrators,
should the contingency therefor arise, the said Agreement is accordingly herein
included as follows:

Each Government shall appoint two Commissioners to investigate, conjointly with
the Commissioners of the other Government, all the facts having relation to seal

940 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

life in Behring’s Sea, and the measures necessary for its proper protection and
preservation.

The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be able to agree, make a joint
Report to each of the two Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly or
severally, to each Government on any points upon which they may be unable to
agree.

“These Reports shall not be made public until they shall be submitted to the Arbi-
trators, or it shall appear that the contingency of their being used by the Arbitra-
tors cannot arise.

ARTICLE X.

Each Government shall pay the expenses of its members of the Joint Commission
in the investigation referred to in the preceding Article.

159 ARTICLE XI.

The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from
the close of the argument on both sides.

It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who
may assent to it.

The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered to the
Agent of Great Britain for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered to
the Agent of the United States for his Government.

ARTICLE XII.

Each Government shall pay its own Agent and provide for the proper remuneration
of the counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrators appointed by it, and for the
expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. AJ1l other expenses
connected with the arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal
moieties.

ARTICLE XIII.

The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and may appoint
and employ the necessary officers to assist them.

ARTICLE XIY.

The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of
the Tribunal of Arbitration, as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the questions
referred to the Arbitrators. :

ARTICLE XY.

The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic Majesty and by the
President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at Washington or
at London within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.

In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty, and
have hereunto affixed our seals.

Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 29th day of February, 1892.

[1. s.] JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
[u. 8.] JAMES G. BLAINE.
No. 240.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[ Telegraphic. }

WASHINGTON, March 15, 1892.

I should wish you to repeat to the Governor-General the telegram I
have received from Sir G. Baden-Powell, dated the 9th March.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 941

No. 241.
The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.

{Telegraphic.]

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 18, 1892.

Her Majesty’s Government have had under their consideration, and
have consulted the Governor-General of Canada in regard to, the argu-
ments in favour of arenewal of the modus vivendi of last year, contained
in Mr. Wharton’s note of the 8th instant, the substance of which is
given in your telegram of that day. The necessity of reference to
Ottawa has caused a delay in returning an answer.

The information which has reached Her Majesty’s Government does
not lead them to believe that, in order to prevent an undue diminution
of the number of fur-seals, any necessity exists for the suspension of
sealing for another year.

Beyond this question, however, I understand that the Government of
the United States consider that, should free sealing be permitted this
year, and the United States claim to jurisdiction in Behring’s Sea be
upheld by the Arbitrators, they have a right to be protected from the

loss that they will have suffered by the sealing operations.
160 Her Majesty’s Government do not dispute that there will be
some foundation for this contention when the Arbitration Agree-
ment has been ratified.

But there is this defect in the prohibition of all sealing as a remedy,
that if the British contention shall be upheld by the Arbitrators, there
may be ground for complaint on the part of the British sealers who will
have been excluded from Belring’s Sea.

Further, no security exists that the Arbitrators will have given their
decision before the sealing season of 1895 arrives.

As you are aware, there has been an arbitration pending for four
years between this country, the United States, and Portugal, which is
not yet approaching conclusion.

Serious damage would be caused to the sealing industry by a suspen-
sion of hunting for a prolonged period.

As a more equitable arrangement, might it not be agreed that sealing-
vessels shall be at liberty to hunt in Behring’s Sea on condition that
security is given by the owner of each vessel for satisfying the award
of damages, if any, which the Arbitrators may eventually pronounce?

No. 249,

Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston.
[Telegraphic. ]

DOWNING STREET, March 18, 1892.

Please direct the proper port authority at all harbours on the Pacifie
coast to inform owners who are clearing or have cleared this year for
Behring’s Sea that her Majesty’s Government and the United States
Government have agreed, subject to the ratification of the Senate, to
submit to arbitration the question whether sealers have a right, with-
out permission of the United States, to seal in the eastern half of Beh-
ring’s Sea, east of the Russian line, and that it is possible the sentence

942 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

of the said Tribunal may be given within the present fishing season.
Moreover, that both Her Majesty’ s Government and the United States
Government have made propositions for intermediate Regulations
restraining the catch of seals in the said waters in case the said Arbi-
tration Agreement should be ratified. Neither the Arbitration A gree-
meut norany intermediate Agreement have yet been definitively adopted
between the two Governments, and whether they are adopted, and at
what date, is necessarily a matter of uncertainty. But notice is hereby
given to all sealers proposing to seal in the said waters that they do so
at their own risk, and after warning of the liability to interruption to
which they may be exposed in consequence of either of the said
Agreements.

No. 243.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.*—( Received March 21.)

WASHINGTON, March 10, 1892.

My Lorp: With reference to my telegram of the 8th instant, I have
the honour to inform your Lordship that I called by request at the State
Department on Tuesday afternoon, where, owing to the illness of Mr.
Blaine, I was received by Mr. Wharton, the Acting Secretary of State,
who put into my hands a note, copy of which is inclosed herewith, con-
taining the reply of the United States Government to my notes of the
29th ultimo and 7th instant respectively, on the subject of the renewal
of the modus vivendi in Behring’s Sea.

Mr.Wharton informed me at the same time that he had been instructed
by the President to request me to telegraph the whole of this note to
your Lordship.

I pointed out to Mr. Wharton that I could hardly telegraph verbatim
a note of such great length, and he replied that he thought it would be
sufficient to telegraph all the leading arguments contained in the note,
which I promised I would do.

I have, &e.
(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE,

101 [Inclosure in No. 243.]
Acting Secretary Wharton to Sir J. Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 8, 1892.

Sir: Iam directed by the President to say, in response to your two notes of the.
29th February and 7th March, that he notices with the deepest regret the indisposi-
tion of Her Majesty’ s Government to agree upon an effective modus for the preserva-
tion of the seals in the Behring’s Sea pending the settlement of the respective rights
of that Government and of the Gouernment of the United States in these waters and
in the fur-seal fisheries therein.

The United States claims an exclusive right to take seals in a portion of the
Behring’s Sea, while Her Majesty’s Gov ernment claims a common right to pursue and
take the seals in those waters outside a 3-mile limit. This serious and protracted
controversy, it has now been happily agreed, shall be submitted to the determina-
tion of a Tribunal of Arbitration, and the’ Treaty only awaits the action of the
American Senate. The judgment of the Arbitration Tribunal cannot, however, be
reached and stated in time to control the conduct of the respective ‘Governments
and of their citizens during the sealing season of 1892; and the urgent question now

* Substance telegraphed,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 943

is, What does good faith, to say nothing of international comity, require of the par-
ties to the arbitration? If the contention of this Government is sustained by the
Arbitrators, then any killing of seals by the Canadian sealers during this season in
these waters is an injury to this Government in its jurisdiction and property. The
injury is not measured by the skins taken, but affects the permanent value of our
property.

Was it ever heard before that one party to such a controversy, whether a nation
or an individual, could appropriate the whole or any part of the income and profits,
much less the body of the contested property, pending the litigation, withont
accountability? Usually a Court of Chancery would place a receiver or trustee in
charge, and hold the income of the property for the benefit of the prevailing party.
You say that Lord Salisbury, rejecting the illustration used by Mr. Blaine, ‘‘sug-
gests that the case is more like one of arbitration respecting title to a meadow.
While the arbitration is going on we cut the grass; and quite rightly, for the grass
will be reproduced next year, and so will the seals.”

He can hardly mean by this illustration that, being in contention with a neigh-
bour regarding the title to a meadow, he could by any precedent in the Equity Courts
or by any standard of common honesty be justified in pocketing the whole or any
part of the gains of a harvest without accountability to the adverse claimant whose
exclusive title was afterwards established. It is no answer for the trespasser to say
that the true owner will have an undiminished harvest next year. Last year’s har-
vest was his also. If by the use of the plural pronoun his Lordship means that the
harvest of the contested meadow is to be divided between the litigants, I beg to
remind him that the title of the United States to the Pribyloff Islands has not yet
been contested, and that our flag does not float over any sealing-vessel. The illus-
tration is inapt in the further particular that the seals not taken this year may
be taken next, while the grass must be harvested or lost.

This Government has already been advised in the course of this correspondence
that Great Britain repudiates all obligations to indemnify the United States for any
invasion of its jurisdiction, or any injury done to its sealing property by the Cana-
dian sealers. The attempt to make a damage clause one of the Articles of the Arbi-
tration Agreement failed, because Her Majesty’ s Government would not consent that
the question of its liability to indemnify the United States for the injuries done by
the Canadian sealers should be submitted. Two extracts from the correspondence
will sufficiently recall the attitude of the respective Governments.

In my note of the 23rd July I said: ‘‘The President believes that Her Majesty’s
Government may justly be held responsible, under the attendant circumstances, for
injuries done to the jurisdictional or property rights of the United States by the
sealing-vessels flying the British flag, at least since the date when the right of these
vessels to invade the Behring’s Sea and to pursue therein the business of pelagic
sealing was made the subject of diplomatic intervention by Lord Salisbury. In his
opinion, justice requires that Her Majesty’s Government should respond for the
injuries done by those vessels, if their acts are found to have been wrongful, as fully
as if each had borne a commission from the Government to do the act complained of.
The presence of the master, or even of a third person, under circumstances calcu-
lated and intended to give encouragement, creates a liability for trespass at the com-

mon law, and much more, if his presence is accompanied with declarations of
162 right, protests against the defence which the owner is endeavouring to make,

and a declared purpose to aid the trespassers if they are resisted. The justice
of this rule is so apparent that it is not seen how, in the less technical Tribunal of
an international arbitration, it could be held to be inapplicable.

“The United States might well insist that Her Majesty’s Government should admit
responsibility for the acts of the Canadian sealers, which it has so directly encour-
aged and promoted, precisely as in the proposal the United States admits responsi-
bility for the acts of its revenue vessels. But, with a view to remove what seems
to be the last point of difference in a discussion which has been very much pro-
tracted, the President is willing to modify his proposal, and directs me to offer the
following:

“The Government of Great Britain having presented the claims of its subjects for
compensation for the seizure of their vessels by the United States in Behring’s Sea;
and the Government of the United States having presented, on its own behalf as well
as of the lessees of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribyloff Islands, claims for
compensation by reason of the killing of seals in the Behring’s Sea by persons acting
under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and decide
upon such claims in accordance with justice and equity, and the respective rights of
the High Contracting Powers, and it shall be competent for the Arbitrators to award
such compensation as, in their judgment, shall seem equitable.”

In your note of the 17th October you say :

“1 regret to inform you that Her Majesty’s Government, after the fullest considera-
tion, have arriyed at the conclusion that this new clause could not properly be

944 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

assented to by them. In their opinion, it implies an admission of a doctrine respect-
ing the liabilities of Governments for the acts of their nationals or other persons
sailing under their flag on the high seas, for which there is no warrant in the law of
nations. Thus it contains the following words:

«The Government of the United States having presented on its own behalf, as
well as of the lessees of the privilege of taking seals on the Pribyloff Islands, claims
for compensation by reason of the killing of seals in Behring’s Sea by persons acting
under the protection of the British flag, the Arbitrators shall consider and decide
upon such claim.’

‘“‘These words involve the proposition that Her Majesty’s Government are liable
to make good losses resulting from the wrongful action of persons sailing outside
their jurisdiction under the British flag. Her Majesty’s Government could not accept
such a doctrine.”

The President cannot believe that, while holding this view of its accountability,
the Government of Great Britain will, pending the arbitration, countenance, much
less justify or defend, the continuance of pelagic sealing by its subjects. It should
either assume responsibility for the acts of these sealers, or restrain them from a
pursuit the lawfulness of which is to be determined by the arbitration.

In your note of the 29th February you state that Her Majesty’s Government has
been informed by the British Commissioners ‘‘ that, so far as pelagic sealing is con-
cerned, there is no danger of serious diminution of the fur-seal species as a conse-
quence of this year’s hunting,” and upon this ground Lord Salisbury places his
refusal to renew the modus of last year. His Lordship seems to assume a determina-
tion of the arbitration against the United States and in favour of Great Britain, and
that it is already only a question of so regulating a common right to take seals as to
preserve the species; by what right does he do this? Upon what principle does he
assume thatif our claims are established, any diminution of the seals, whether serious
or not, during this season, or indeed, any taking of seals, is to be without recom-
pense? In the opinion of the President, it is not consistent with good faith that
either party to an arbitration should, pending a decision, in any degree diminish the
value of the subject of arbitration or take any profit from the use of it without an
agreement to account.

Before an agreement for arbitration had been reached, the prohibition of pelagic
sealing was a matter of comity; from the moment of the signing of that Agreement
it became, in his opinion, a matter of obligation.

During the season of 1891, notwithstanding the restrictions resulting from the modus
adopted, the Canadian sealers took, in the Behring’s Sea alone, 28,763 skins, or nearly
four times as many as the restricted catch upon our island. This Government is now
advised that fifty-one vessels from British Columbia and sixteen from Nova Scotia
have sailed, or are about to sail, for the Behring’s Sea to engage in taking seals.
This large increase in the fleet engaged makes it certain, in the absence of an effect-
ive restrictive agreement, that the destruction of seal life during this season by

pelagic sealing will be unprecedented, and will, in the opinion of our Com-
163 missioners, so nearly destroy the value of the seal fisheries as to make what

willremain of so little value as scarcely to be a worthy subject for international
arbitration.

The proposition of Lord Salisbury, to prohibit the killing of seals at sea “‘ within
a zone extending to not more than 30 nautical miles around the Pribyloff Islands,”
is so obviously inadequate and so impossible of execution that this Government can-
not entertain it. In the early part of the discussion of the subject of a modus for
last year this method was tentatively suggested, among others, in conversation
between yourself and Mr. Blaine. But it was afterwards, in effect, agreed by both
Governments to be inadequate, and was not again referred to in the correspondence.
In the Memorandum furnished by you with your note of the §th June you say,
“Lord Salisbury points out that if seal-hunting be probibited on one side of a purely
imaginary line drawn in the open ocean, while it is permitted on the other side of
the line, it will be impossible in many cases to prove unlawful sealing, or to infer it
from the possession of skins or fishing tackle.”

This was said with reference to the water boundary of our purchase from Russia,
but it is quite as applicable to the 30-mile zone which he now suggests. The preva-
lence of fogs in these waters gives increased force and conclusiveness to the point
made by his Lordship against an imaginary water-line.

The President cannot agree, now that the terms of arbitration have been settled,
that the restrictions imposed shall be less than those which both Governments deemed
to be appropriate when it was still uncertain whether an early adjustment of the
controversy was attainable. He therefore hopes that Her Majesty’s Government
will consent to renew the arrangement of last year with the promptness which the
exigency demands, and to agree to enforce it by refusing all clearances to sealing-
vessels for the prohibited waters, and by recalling from those waters all auch vessels
as have already cleared.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 945

This Government will honourably abide the judgment of the High Tribunal which
has been agreed upon, whether that judgment be favourable or unfavourable; and
will not seek to avoid a just responsibility for any of its acts which by that judgment
are found to be unlawful. But certainly the United States cannot be expected to
suspend the defence, by such means as are within its power, of the property and
jurisdictional rights claimed by it pending the arbitration, and to consent to receive
them from that Tribunal, if awarded, shorn of much of their value by the acts of
irresponsible persons.

Ihave, &c.
(Signed) WILLIAM F, WHARTON.

No. 244.

Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—(Received March 24.)
{Telegraphic. ]

WASHINGTON, March 23, 1892.

Last night I received the reply of the United States Government to’
my note embodying the substance of your Lordship’s telegram of the
18th instant on the Behring’s Sea question. The President requested
that it should be telegraphed to your Lordship. The substance of it is
as follows:

The President had given immediate attention to my note, on account
of the extreme gravity and urgency of the matter, growing out of the
fact that any modus vivendi will be made ineffectual for the protection
of the interests of the United States by much further protraction, and
that, by reason of the impossibility of communicating with the Cana-
dian sealers, immunity will be given to them. These vessels have
hastened their departure, as is known, in order to escape notice of any
modus vivendi being served upon them. Forty-seven vessels have
already cleared, and if measures be not made to stop them, they will
pursue the slaughter of gravid female seals to the very shores of the
breeding islands. This is a crime against nature. If the arbitration
proceeds, the United States Government expect to be able to show
that the larger percentage of the pelagic catch consists of female seals.
It is surprising and disappointing, in view of the above, that your
Lordship should assume that suspension of such sealing for another
year is not necessary, in order to prevent the undue diminution of the
seal herds, and that you should insist that it should continue. If Her
Majesty’s Government pays so little regard to the contentions of the
United States Government as to refuse to respect them for a single
season, the President is unable to understand for what reason it should
have been proposed and agreed to by your Lordship to give them the
status implied by the agreement to submit them to arbitration. It was
open to neither party to disregard the contention of the other from

the date of the signature of the above Agreement. It must be
164 assumed that the object which the two Governments had in view

was the promotion of good-will and peace; but if, while arbitra-
tion is pending, the subject-matter is dealt with by either of them on
the basis of its own contention only, this purpose is not attained; on
the contrary, and even if it should be possible under such circumstances
to proceed with the arbitration, a new sense of injury aud injustice is
added.

If Her Majesty’s Government proceeds this season on the basis of
its contention as to the rights of the Canadian sealers, no choice remains

BS, Pr V——60

946 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

for the United States but to proceed on the basis of their own confident
contention, that pelagic sealing is an infraction of its jurisdiction and
proprietary rights. This, in the opinion of the President, constitutes
the gravity of the situation, and he is not willing to be found responsi-
ble for such results as may follow from an insistance on the part of
either Government during this hunting season on the extreme rights
claimed by it. The two great Governments interested in the question
would be discredited in the eyes of the world if the friendly adjust-
ment of their difficulties, which is so nearly concluded, were to be
thwarted, or even disturbed, on account of the paltry profits of a sin-
gle season. But if your Lordship persists in refusing to join the Gov-
ernment of the United States in stopping pelagic sealing promptly,
and insists upon the maintenance of free sealing for British subjects,
the question no longer is one of pecuniary loss or gain, but one of honour
and self-respect, so far as it affects the Government of the United States.

The United States have proposed to take no profit from the island
catch, notwithstanding that their right to take seals on the islands is
neither disputed nor involved in the arbitration, and to engage that
the take should be limited to the necessities of the natives. Whether
with or without indemnity, they are unable to consent that the rights
of British subjects in Behring’s Sea, which are contested, shall continue
to be exercised while arbitration is pending. The President finds it
difficult to believe that your Lordship is serious in proposing that bonds
against the injury which may be inflicted on the jurisdiction or property
of the United States shall be taken by the United States Government
from the owners of about 100 Canadian vessels, and he must decline to
discuss a suggestion which only his respect for your Lordship, and his
belief that the gravity of this discussion is fully realized by your Lord-
ship, enables him to treat seriously.

In order to secure the proposed bonds, the United States would have
to pursue owners upon the sea, and as the condition is to be that “any
damages which the Arbitrators shall adjudge” shall be paid by the
owners, while no power to adjudge such damages is given to the Arbi-
trators by the Treaty, the transaction would be of no value to the
United States, and without risk to theowners. But however adequate
the security offered, the United States Government cannot consent to
have its rights impaired, pending their determination by a Tribunal
of Arbitration. The reference in Mr. Blaine’s last note to the incon-
sistency of Her Majesty’s Government in denying responsibility for the
acts of Canadian sealers was not meant to imply that the United States
would be willing to consent to the conversion of their property into a
claim for damages, particularly as the Arbitrators cannot determine such
a claim unless the Treaty be revised. Your Lordship should bear in
mind, whilst making your present proposal, that the fact of the Arbi-
trators not having jurisdiction as to damages is the result of conces-
sions made by the United States Government to your views.

The President fails to see how claims can, by law or equity, be brought
by subjects of either Power against their respective Governments, on
account of restraints imposed with a view to the promotion of the public
good or of international peace. There is full provision in the Treaty
itself against the suggestion, that the conclusion of the arbitration will
not be reached before the season of 1893. As to the Delagoa Bay Arbi-
tration, your Lordship is in error in thinking that it has been proceed-
ing for four years. It dates from a period of less than one year ago.
If the Treaty is promptly ratified, mutual interests will be a sufficient
guarantee against delay. The sole obstacle to such a consummation is

le a

een asso. . See

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 947

the prevalent belicf, that Great Britain’s refusal to preserve the status
quo of the property, and her insistance on continuance of pelagic sealing
during the arbitration, to the injury of the rights of the United States,
largely defeats the object for which the Treaty was made.

The note ends with the following words: “The President directs me
to say, in conclusion, that the modus vivendi of last year is the least
that this Government can accept. In reason, the restraints after a
Treaty of Arbitration should be more absolute, not less. He does not
desire to protract the discussion, and having now, in the most friendly
spirit, submitted the considerations which support the just demand of

this Government, that the property which is now the subject of
165 = an agreed arbitration shall not be subject to spoliation pending

the abitration, he expresses the hope that Lord Salisbury will
give a prompt and friendly assent to the renewal of the modus vivendi.
The President will hear with regret that Her Majesty’s Government
continues to assert a right to deal with this Subject precisely as if no
provision had been made tor the settlement of the dispute; and in that
event, this Government, as has already been pointed out, will be com-
pelled to deal with the subject upon the same basis, and to use every
means in its power to protect from destruction or serious injury property
and jurisdictional rights which it has long claimed and enjoyed.”

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
(Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 26, 1892.

In reply to your telegram of the 25rd instant.

Notice has been given to the owners of ships sailing for Behring’s Sea,
that both the Agreements which are at present under discussion between

xreat Britain and the United States—that as to Arbitration and that
as to an intermediate arrangement—may affect the liberty of sealing in
Behring’s Sea. They have, therefore, notice of their liability to possible
interruption, and will sail subject to that notice.

The question of time is not, therefore, urgent.

Inform President that we concur in thinking that when the Treaty
shall have been ratified there will arise a new state of things. Untilit
is ratified our conduct is governed by the language of your note of the
14th June, 1890. But when it is ratified both parties must admit that
contingent rights have become vested in the other, which both desire
to protect.

We think that the prohibition of sealing, if it stands alone, will be
unjust to British sealers, if the decision of the Arbitrators should be
adverse to the United States. Weare, however, willing when the Treaty
has been ratified, to agree to an arrangement similar to that of last year,
if the United States will consent that the Arbitrators should, in the
event of a decision adverse to the United States, assess the damages
which the prohibition of sealing shall have inflicted on British sealers
during the pendency of the Arbitration; and, in the event of a decision
adverse to Great Britain, should assess the damages which the limita-
tion of slaughter shall, during the pendency of the Arbitration, have
inflicted on the United States or its lessees.

948 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

As an alternative course we are also willing, after the ratification of
the Treaty, to prohibit sealing in the disputed waters, if vessels be
excepted from the prohibition which produce certificate that they have
given security for such damages as the Arbitrators may assess, in case
of a decision adverse to Great Britain; the Arbitrators to receive the
necessary authority in that behalf. In this case the restriction of slaugh-
ter on the islands ‘vill not, in point of equity, be necessary.

Her Majesty’s Government are unable to see any other than one of
these two methods of restricting seal-hunting in the disputed waters
during the Arbitration, which will be equitable to both parties.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
[Telegraphic. ]

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 26, 1892.

With further reference to your telegram of the 25rd instant.

Iam not prepared to admit, as I gather that the President thinks,
that we have objected to the Arbitrators having jurisdiction as to
damages inflicted in the past by the party against whom the award is
given. I only objected to make Her Majesty’s Government liable for
acts which they have not committed. Iam ready to consent to a refer-
ence on this point in the following terms:

That in case the Arbitrators shail decide in favour of the British
Government, that Government may ask them, further, to decide whether
the United States Government have since 1885 taken any action in
Behring’s Sea directly inflicting a wrongful loss on British subjects,
and, if so, to assess the damages incurred thereby.

That in case the Arbitrators shall decide in favour of the Govern-
ment of the United States, that Government may ask them to decide,
further, whether the British Government have since 1885 taken any
action in Behring’s Sea directly inflicting a wrongful loss on the
United States or its lessees, and, if so, to assess the damage incurred
thereby.

166 APPENDIX.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office.—(Received March 2.)

DOWNING STREET, March 2, 1892.
Sir: With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by
Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of
Salisbury, a copy of a despatch trom the Governor-General of Canada,
forwarding copy of an Order in Council, to which are appended affida-
vits taken before the Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia,
with regard to certain points in connection with pelagic sealing.
lam, We.
(Signed) JOHN BRAMSTON,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 949

[Inclosure i.]
Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford.

GOVERNMENT Houss, Oltawa, February 10, 1892.

My Lonrp: I have the honour to transmit herewith, for your Lordship’s informa-
tion, copy of an Order in Council, to which are appended affidavits taken before
the Collector of Customs at Victoria, British Columbia, with regard to certain
points in connection with pelagic sealing. i

Copy of the Order in Councii has heen sent to Her Majesty’s Minister at Wash-
ington for communication to the Behring’s Sea Commissioners.

I have, &c.
(Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON.

[Inclosure 2.]

Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency
the Governor-General in Council on the 9th February, 1892.

On a report, dated the Ist February, 1892, from the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, stating that, upon the receipt of a letter from the Behring’s Sea Commis-
sioners, Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. George M. Dawson, asking for additional
documentary evidence regarding certain points which have been put forward among
the main indictments of pelagic sealing, he communicated with the Collector of
Customs at Victoria, with a view to eliciting information on the following points:

1. The proportion of seals lost as compared with those hit in pelagic sealing.

2. The proportion of females to males in the number killed in the different fishing
seasons.

3. The abstention of Canadians from all raiding on the seal islands.

The appended affidavits, taken before A. R. Milne, Collector of Customs at Vic-
toria, have been received from the following parties:

Cereno Jones Kelley, master of the schooner ‘‘C. H. Tupper.”

Captain William Petit, master and part owner schooner ‘‘ Mischief.”

Captain Wentworth Evelyn Baker, master schooner ‘‘C. H. Tupper,” and formerly

aster of schooner ‘ Viva.”

Clarence Nelson Cox, master of schooner ‘‘E. B. Marvin.”

Captain Alfred Bissett, master of schooner “ Annie E. Paint.”

Captain Theodore M. Magnesen, in command of schooner ‘‘ Walter A. Earl.”

Henry Crocker, hunter on board schooner ‘‘ Annie E. Paint.”

George Roberts, hunter on board schooner ‘‘ Annie E. Paint.”

Richard Thomson, hunter on board schooner ‘‘ Annie E. Paint.”

Andrew Laing, seal hunter.

William Cox, master schooner ‘‘ Sapphire.”

The Minister recommends that copies of these affidavits be transmitted to the

Behring’s Sea Commissioners withont delay.
167. The Committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fish-
eries, advise that your Excellency be moved to forward a copy hereof to the
Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies for the information of Her Majesty’s
Government.
All of which is respectfully submitted for your Excellency’s approval.

(Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE,
Clerk of the Privy Council.

{Inclosure 3.]
Mr. Milne to Mr. Tupper.

Customs, CanaDA, Victoria, B. C., January 22, 1892.

Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the
7th instant, relative to a joint letter from Sir George Baden-Powell aud Dr. George
M. Dawson, Beliring’s Sea Commissioners.

I beg to state that I have endeavoured to supply the information, and herewith
transmit the first lot of affidavits of some of the most reliable of our sealing men,
ra I am continuing to take all I can obtain, which will be forwarded from day
to day.

950 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.-

I trust the information is what is wanted, as I have endeavoured to frame the ques-
tions so that the answers would show reasons for their intelligent answers on the
three questions:

1. The proportion of seals lost as compared with hit. |

2. The proportion of females to males killed in the different months.

3. The abstention of Canadians from all raiding, &c.

I have &ce.
(Signed) A. BR. MILNr, Collector.

{Inclosure 4.]
Depositions taken before A, R. Milne, Collector of Customs, Port of Victoria, B. C.

Cereno Jones Kelley, master of the Canadian schooner ‘‘C. H. Tupper,” of Shel-
bourne, Nova Scotia, having been duly sworn:

1. Mr. Milne.—How many yexrs have you been engaged in sealing, Captain Kel-
ley?—A. I have been sealing for two years as master of the ‘‘C. H. Tupper.”

2. Q. Have your voyages been reasonably fortunate, in comparison with those of
other vessels?—A. About an average.

3. Q. Have you gone south of Cape Flattery in hunt for seals?—A. Yes, Sir; and
have followed the seals all along the coasts of British Columbia to Behring’s Sea.

4, Q. During last year, to your observation, were the seals as plentiful from the
coast to Shumagin Islands as they were the previous year?—A. I think there was no
material difference.

5. Q. Did the seals last year appear to be frightened or more timorous than in
previons years on account of the number of vessels?—A. I observed no material
difference.

6. Q. In shooting seals, what is your experience?—A. My experience is that unless
a seal is mortally wounded—hit in a vital spot—it is practically uninjured, and
appears to be as full of vitality as before it was shot. The shot-wounds will rapidly
close up, if not made in a vital part, and the seal will swim away as though nothing
had happened. The flow of blood stops very quickly, and the seal moves off at a
very rapidrate. I picked shot from the bodies of seals, previously wounded in other
than a vital part, and the animal in every other way appeared to be in a healthy
coudition.

7. Q. So you believe that a seal when shot, if not mortally wounded, does not sink
or seek a place—a rookery, or some place to die?—A. A wounded seal will not alter
its course in the slightest. It will go along the same as before, its wound healing

rapidly, very rapidly, too. Itis astonishing how quickly such wounds will heal.
168 Ionce shot a seal which had been speared by Indians, and the spear had made

an apparently mortal wound. There was a cut about 24 by 3 inches a little
above the side behind the flipper. This wound appeared to have been made about
three days previously, and in that.time it had healed half an inch all round.

8. Q. Arethere more seals shot sleeping than in motion?—A. I should say that the
larger proportion of seals are shot whilst sleeping, that is, as far as my own expe-
rience goes.

9. Q. What do you consider the vital part of a seal? Where do the hunters aim
for generally—the head or the heart?—A. It depends largely upon the position of
the seal. The vital parts are in the head, in the vicinity of the heart, and, if a seal
is shot so as to bleed internally, the hunters are sure of securing it. ‘The head is the
usual mark.

10. Q. What is usually a safe shooting distance?—A. It depends largely upon the
circumstances of the case. Somewhere between 10 and 30 yards would be about the
distance. I should say that it is the average with sleeping or travelling seals. The
sleeping seal is often approached to within even less than 10 yards, but the average
is from 10 to 20 yards for sleeping seal and from 10 to 30 yards for travellers.

11. Q. The seal is very sensitive, is it not?—A. Yes; we have to approach them
from the leeward always. Their sense of smell is very acute.

12. Q. Do the seals generally travel far when wounded?—A. That will depend
upon where it is wounded. If it is vitally wounded in the head, it will hardly move
from its position, for it is likely to die right there, but it will not sink. Thisis from
my own observation. There is only one way that a seal will sink after being shot,
that is, when it is shot in such a manner as to be thrown backwards, sinking tail
first, thus allowing the air to escape out of its mouth. I might say, further, that I
have never seen a seal sink which was shot while sleeping.

13. Q. Will you state the proportion of seals lost as compared with those hit in
sealing ?—A. My own personal experience during the past two years is that my loss
by seals sinking would not average 3 per cent. During last year (1891) I actually

Fr
:

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 951

lost only twe seals out of seventy-seven—that is, I shot seventy-nine, and secured
seventy-seven.

14. Q. In hunting seals, what is the direction in which they usually travel?—A.
In the spring months they are leisurely travelling towards the north, when they
change their position.

15. Q. In hunting seals, have you ever met with pups in the water?—A. Not gen-
erally; but during the season of 1890, while off Middleton Island, the hunters
reported seeing two seal pups, probably a week old, but they appeared to be only
just born.

16. Q. What is your opinion of the proportion of males to females killed during
the hunting season? Are there any months in the year when there are more females
than males killed?—A. It depends upon circumstances. My experience is that
groups of bachelor bulls will travel together, and sometimes groups of females,
including barren cows, will travel together, and again groups of yearling pups
apparently travel together. That is my experience, and the experience of a number
of others. The catch of any schooner coming into contact with groups of bulls, or
of femaies, would be no criterion of the catch of other schooners as regards the num-
ber of females. In the year 1890, while in Behring’s Sea, one day we took seventy-
five seals, and the next day we took eighty, and in the whole of that number I
observed only one female, and the hunters particularly informed me that they did
not see any female seals at all; that they were all vigorons young bulls.

17. Q. Would anything lead you to think, Captain Kelley, that there is a likeli-
hood of more females than males being killed between here and Shumagin Islands?
That is, from January to June?—A. I can safely say that my personal experience
has been on the side of the males, largely—both on the coast and in the Behring’s
Sea the number of seals caught is made up largely of males.

18. Q. Are there any months of the year during which there are more females
eaught than males?—A. I should say that, as far as my own observation has gone,
there is no difference; but in every month, during my voyages, I have had more
males than females.

19. Q. Do you know of any Canadian vessels who have raided the seal islands
during any year in which you have been engaged in the sealing industry ?—A. I
have every reason to believe that none of the Canadian fleet have ever raided, or

attempted to raid, or made any preparations to raid, any seal islands in. the
169 Behring’s Sea. If any such thing had happened, I should most certainly have

heard of it, and I believe it to be true that the American schooners ‘‘George R.
White” and “Daniel Webster” did raid these islands, as also the ‘‘Mollie Adams.”
That they did raid the seal islands is a fact well known to all Canadian sealers. I
also heard that the German schooner ‘‘Adele” raided the Pribylott Islands, which
action met with the strong disapprobation of every Canadian sealer.

(Signed) C. J. KELLEY.
Sworn to at Victoria, British Columbia, this 22nd day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

Before A. I. Milne, Collector of Customs, Victoria, B. C., January 23, 1892.

Captain William Petit, present master and part owner of the steamer “‘ Mischief,”
haying been sworn:

1. Q. (Mr. Milne.)—Captain Petit, how many years have you been engaged in
sealing?—A. Six years, Sir.

2. Q. Continuously ?—A. Yes, Sir.

3. Q. What vessels did you command?—A. In 1886 I commanded the ‘‘W. P. Say-
ward,” in 1887 the steamer ‘‘Grace,” in 1888 the schooner Sapphire,” and in 1889,
1890, and 1891 the ‘“‘ Mary Taylor.”

4. Q. Have your catches during these six years been reasonably successful in
comparison with other vessels?—A. About an average.

5. Q. You have sealed south of Cape Flattery, have you not, and followed the seals
along the coast of British Columbia and into Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes.

5*. Q. During last year, to your observation, were the seals apparently as plenti-
ful from the coast to Shumagin Islands as they were in previous years?—A. I found
them more plentiful last year than I have any other year since 186, that is, Cape
Jlattery, north.

6. Q. How did you find them in Behring’s Sea?—A. I found them there in Beh-
ring’s Sea as plentiful as in former years.

7. Q. Are the seals now more {frightened or more timorous than they have been on
account of more vessels, or from any other cause?—A. I have seen no material dif-
ference.

952 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

8. Q. In shooting seals, what is your experience?—A. My experience is that unless
a seal is mortally wounded—hit in the head or in the region of the heart—the shot
does not appear to injure it.

9. Q. Do you believe that a seal, when shot, and not mortally wounded, does not
sink, or seeks some place to die—a rookery, or some such place?—A. No, Sir; a
wounded seal will not alter its course in the slightest. It will move along as before,
its wound healing rapidly.

10. Q. What do you consider the vital part of a seal? Where do the hunters gen-
erally aim for?—A. For the head or the heart; it depends upon the position of the
seal, but usually the head.

11. Q. What is the distance at which you shoot seals?—A. It depends upon cir-
cumstances.

12. Q@. Are more seals shot while sleeping than in motion?—A. There are more
shot sleeping, Sir. It is my opinion that the larger proportion of seals are shot
while sleeping. The seals taken by the Indians are nearly all killed while sleeping.

13. Q. What is the shooting distance?—A. It depends upon circumstances; 10 to
20 yards for sleepers, and a little more, 10 to 30 yards, for travellers.

14. Q. You have seen the hunters and Indians approach even nearer than 10 yards,
have you?—A. Yes, I have seen them approach to within less than 10 feet.

15. Q. When seals are vitally wounded, say in the head, will they move far from
the position in which they are shot?—A. No, Sir.

16. Q. They are likely to die right there, are they?—A. Yes, Sir.

17. Q. And they will not sink?—A. With few exceptions, such as when a seal is
shot aud thrown backwards, thus allowing the air to escape out of its mouth.

18. Q. Will you state your opinion, Captain Petit, of the proportion of seal lost
by sinking after being shot?—A. My personal experience during last season with

white hunters would not exceed 5 per cent., and with Indians in former years
170 =I doubt if it amounts to even 1 per cent. The reason of this percentage in

favour of Indians is because they were caught with a spear, and consequently
could not get away.

19. Q. Have you ever seen a seal sl:ot wuile sleeping sink?—A. I have never
known one to sink,

20. Q. Then you are clearly of the opinion that seals will not sink for some time
unless thrown backwards?—A. Iam. When they do sink, even to 10 or 15 feet, they
can be reached with the gaff.

21. Q. When the hunters return to the vessel at night, do they usually discuss
their day’s proceedings, and particularly mention the loss of seals, when such loss
occurs?—A. Yes.

22. Q. Then, Captain Petit, you conscientiously adhere to the statement that the
loss by sinking of seals hit will not exceed 5 per cent. ?—A. I certainly do; but there
are seals hit and not mortally wounded, and these escape, but they are not “ost,” as
they are quite as vigorous as before, because their wounds heal very rapidly. Ihave
often found shot in the skin.

23. Q. What is your opinion of the proportion of females to males killed during
the last hunting season?—A. Last year, out of my catch of 765, I had only 18
females carrying young—not quite 24 per cent. Of course, as in other seasons’
catches, we had a number of barren cows—about the usual run, 10 per cent., and 124
per cent. of grey pups. These grey pups are always bulls, and one year old.

24. Q. Your catch, then, would be about 75 per cent. of males last season?—A. Yes,
Sir; including the yearlings it was more than 75 per cent.

25. Q. You say grey pups are always males; will you explain this?—-A. The
Indians called my attention to this fact years ago, but the reason is not quite known,
still it is a fact. I have observed very closely, and have never yet seen a female
grey pup one yearold. I try to account for this by the supposition that the yearling
grey male pups are driven early out of Behring’s Sea by the old bulls.

26. Q. Last year, did you hear any remarks about the number or proportion of the
males to females caught, from any one or any source?—A. Yes, Sir; I heard that a
much larger percentage of males were caught last year than in any former year.

27. Q. I would ask you, Captain Petit, if in any former years there was a similar
preponderance of males—do you remember of any such fact?—A. Yes,I do. In 1886,
when off Barclay Sound, in one day we had taken 104 seals, of which 3 only were
females. In the following year, 1887, when off Portlock Bank, we took 79 in one
day, and only 2 females were found in that number.

_ 28. Q. How do seal cows travel? Singly or in pairs?—A. They travel singly or
in pairs

29. Q. How do bulls travel?—A. They travel in bands, as do also the bull pups.
They travel singly too.

30. Q. Are female seals carrying young very timid?—A. Yes, Sir; they are. They
sink their bodies, so that nothing but their noses and eyes are out of water, and are
therefore smaller marks for the hunters.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 958

31. Q. Barren cows travel with bulls, do they?—A. Yes, Sir; barren cows usu-
ally travel with the bulls.

32. Q. Are there any months in the year during which there are more females
than males killed? Any particular time that you have observed?—A. No, Sir.

33. Q. Is it your candid opinion that there are more barren cows killed than seal-
bearing cows?—A. Yes, Sir; I think there are more.

34. Q. Do these barren cows, from the knowledge you have of seals—do you think
that they ever become bearing?—A. I think they do,

35. Q. That they will have periods of bearing?—A. I don’t think that a seal will
bear before she is 4 years old.

36. Q. How long does a seal carry her young?—A. It is understood to be eleven
months.

37. Q. Were there any circumstances occurred to you upon your last voyage
which would indicate a marked decrease in the number of seals?—A. None what-
ever, Sir. On the contrary, I should say there were more, ‘There seemed to be more
last year, at least we saw more that year than for several years previously.

38. Q. In your observation as to the habits of the seals, they appear to be like the
salmon—that they return from no known cause in larger numbers?—A. Well, I don’t
know, Sir; I think that they have their annual migrations; but there is question
whether they follow the same track every year. You will find them on some grounds

one year, and in other years on other grounds.
171 39. Q. Do you think that the number of female seals killed in the hunt is
materially injuring the reproduction of seals?—A. No, Sir. ;

40. Q. Can you give a reason for that?—A. From the small percentage of females
killed, I don’t think it would injure reproduction in any way.

41. @. Were you in Behring’s Sea last year, and were you ordered out?—A. And
was ordered out by the United States ship ‘‘ Corwin.”

42. Q. Before being ordered out, what was your usual fishing distance from land ?—
A. 60 to 100 miles.

43. Q. You found seals all along that distance from land?—A. Yes, in large numbers.

44. Q. You had the prospects of a fair catch?—A. Yes, Sir; I had the prospects of
a very fair catch up to the time I was warned.

45. @. You consider if a very material loss, being warned at the time out of Beh-
ring’s Sea?—A. I do, Sir; I consider it a very heavy loss.

46. Q. You still adhere to the statement that the seals between 60 and 100 miles
from land were as plentiful as in any previous years in your experience?—A. As
plentiful as they were in any year since 1886.

47, Q. Did you observe in your catch in Behring’s Sea any preponderance of females
over males, or vice versé?—A. Yes, Sir; the males were in excess.

48, Q. Can you state from recollection an average day’s hunt in Behring’s Sea?—
A. Forty-eight was about the largest I made while in Behring’s Sea.

49. Q. Do you remember hearing any of the hunters speak of losing any seals by
sinking?—A. No, Sir; I don’t remember any instances of such loss.

50. Q. Did you cross from the American side of the Behring’s Sea into the Russian
side?—A. No, I didn’t, I came straight home to Victoria through Ounimak Pass.

51. Q. During the year, did you hear from any sonrce that any Canadian vessels
had raided the seal islands or any of them?—A. No, Sir; I never heard of any
British or Canadian vessels, not during the past year, or any year I have been
engaged in sealing.

52. Q. Captain Petit, do you believe any of the stories that are told about the
“Geo. R. White,” the ‘Daniel Webster,” and the “Mollie Adams” raiding these
islands?—A. Yes, Sir; I believe those reports.

53. Q. These were all American vessels, were they not?—A. Yes, Sir.

54. Q. During the last two years it is reported that the American sthooners
“J. Hamilton Lewis,” formerly the British schooner ‘‘ Aida,” and the “City of
San Diego,” raided the Copper Islands?—A. Yes, Sir.

55. Q. Do you believe that is trne?—A. I do, Sir; and also in 1886 or 1887, the
American schooner ‘‘ Look-out,” raided the Pribyloff Islands, so that the history of
raiding the seal islands is peculiarly American, and solely by American schooners.

56. Q. Was not the British schooner ‘‘ Aida” seized by the American Government
and sold?—A. Yes. Sir. In 1887, and renamed the ‘“ J. Hamilton Lewis.”

57. Q. Is not this same vessel, the ‘‘J. Hamilton Lewis,” the same vessel as was
seized by the Russians this year, in the vicinity of Copper Island?—A. Yes, Sir; and
served her right too.

58. Q. If any of the Canadian vessels had raided either the American or Russian
seal islands, your long experience in the sealing fleet here would have insured your
being aware of it?—A. Yes, Sir; I should certainly have heard of it—learned it from
hunters, masters, or seamen. It would have been sure to have leaked out.

59. Is it your opinion that ship-masters or ship-owners have been most careful in
instructing their masters or captains to avoid any interference whatever with the

954 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

seal islands?—A. I have seryed with different owners, and I have been instructed to
carefully avoid approaching the islands within the international limit. In fact, all
the sealing I have conducted has been done outside at least of the 20 miles from land.
Mr. Milne.—Vhat will do, Captain Petit. ‘Thank you very much.
(Signed) WILLIAM PETIT, Master.

Sworn to before me, at Victoria, British Columbia, this 23rd day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

172 ~=Before A. R. Milne, Collector of Customs, Victoria, B. C., January 22, 1892.

Captain Wentworth Evelyn Baker, present master of the Canadian schooner “‘C, H.
Tupper,” and formerly master or the schooner “ Viva,” of Victoria, being duly sworn:

1. Mr. Milne.—How many years have you been engaged in sealing, Captain
Baker?—A. Four years.

2. Q. What Canadian schooners have you commanded during those four years ?—
A. The schooner “ Viva.”

3. Q. During the four years have you been more than reasonably successful as a
seal-hunter?—A. Yes, Sir.

4, Q. How many white men would your vessel usually carry ?—A. Twenty-three,
all told.

5. Q. You have hunted all along the coast, and also every year in Behring’s Sea?—
A. Iivery year except 1891. During last year I was always outside of the line of
demarcation between Russian and American waters.

6. Q. During last year, to your observation, were seals as plentiful along the coast
to Shumagin Islands as they were the year before?—A. In some places I found them
as plentiful; in others I found them more plentiful. In some places where I never
found any before | found them last year, and I found none where I had previously
found some.

7. Q. Then, Captain Baker, you think there is no material diff-rence, on the aver-
age, during the four years? That is to your observition?—A. I sl.ould say, to my
observation, there was no material difference.

8. @. Your coast catch last year was equal to that of former years, was it?—A. It
was equal to the first two years, and better than the third year by almost as many
more skins, having 698 skins in 1890, and in 1891 I had 1,260 skins.

9. Q. Owing to the number of vessels, do the seals appear to be more timorous ?—
A. Well, I did not find them so, except in some places. It is a great deal owing to
the position in which you find them. I found that the nearer the coast the wilder
they are, and the further at sea you go they don’t seem to be any wilder than pre-
viously. I think that what makes them wilder along the coast is the increase of
traffic, steamers and so on being very numerous.

10. Q. It is said that seal travel in groups of females and groups of bachelor bulls
and young bulls—not mixed. Is that so?—A. I have always found it so.

11. Q. So you think that the number of male or female seals caught would depend
entirely upon the schooner falling in with groups of males or females?—A. Entirely.

12. Q. How is that?—A. It is much harder to keep the run of females than of the
males or barren cows. Females with young appear to be much more timid, and when
you get among them and commence shooting, they disappear very quickly, and show
only the nose and eyes above water when travelling, and do not expose their bodies
as inuch above the water as the bulls and barren cows do, as if the maternal instinct
to preserve their young was apparent. This fact is well known to all seal-hunters.
I have often been in a group of cows with pups during the afternoon, and at night
they would all disappear, and, apparently from maternal instinct, they will travel
away as quickly as possible.

13. Q. Do you consider it more difficult to shoot females, so little exposed as they
are, than males?—A. It is decidedly more difficult, particularly on the coast.

14. Q. You have observed a number of barren females?—A. Yes; quite a [?.]

15. Q. How do they travel?—A. Usually by themselves, or mixed with bulls; I
have never found a cow with pups among the buils.

16. Q. Have you any idea what the percentage would be of the nuinber of barren
cows to the number of seals caught?—A. I could not say exactly, but the percent-
age is considerable.

17. Q. What is the accepted theory among the sealers as to the barrenness of
cows?—A. I don’t know as I have heard of any theory—unless they are like other
animals.

18. Q. When you speak of barren cows, you mean those who have been more than
one season barren?—A. Yes; because before that they are called pups. ‘The barren
cows are those who are old enough to have pups, but didn’t.

> ware

.) 77a.

7

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 955

19. Q. You are quite of a clear opinion then, Captain Baker, that there is a con-
siderable percentage of barren cows?—A. Yes, Sir.
173 20. Q. Are there more seals shot whilst sleeping than in motion?—A. Yes,
Sir; my experience has been that there are more seals shot whilst sleeping, and
that is the experience of most of my hunters, by their report.

21. Q. What do you consider the vital part of a seal?—A. The head or the heart,
or in the neck.

22. @. Do your hunters prefer to shoot the seal in the head?—A. Yes, Sir; on
account of preserving the skin, and also that, the moment the seal is shot in the
head, the head sinks and the wind cannot escape. Then, if the seal is not killed,
the shot will stun it, and its head will drop below water, so that it cannot sink.

23. @. What is usually a safe shooting distance?—A. For sleeping seals the dis-
tance would be about 10 yards, and for travelling seals the distance would be about
10 to 30 yards.

24. @. Considering that the seals are shot in the head, and the greater portion
whilst sleeping, will you state the proportion of seals lost, as compared with those
hit, in sealing ?—A. The proportion is very small, because, as the usual distance for
shooting is about 10 yards for a sleeping seal, we most always kill them instantly,
and being so near the seal—even if they are inclined to sink—they are gatfed before
they have time to sink. If they even did sink 15 feet, say, we could catch them, as
when sinking they go very slowly. The only time I know of when a seal is likely
to sink is after it has been chased around in the boats and winded, then shot again,
so as to be thrown backwards, allowing the wind to escape from its mouth, when it
sinks tail first. Every boat is supplied with a long pole, about 15 feet, and a spear
and gaff on the end, so that we can reach that distance. It is very seldom that a
seal will get away. I would say, therefore, from personal experience, that the per-
centage of loss, as compared with those hit in sealing, would not exceed 3 per cent.
Last year I killed, myself, on the coast, fifty-five seals, and out of that number I
lost only one by sinking.

25. Q. As a general thing, is the percentage of loss more now than it was four years
ago, or is it smaller?—A. From personal experience, I think about the same, and
from the reports of the hunters I should judge it was the same, as they all report
their experiences on their return to the vessel each night, and when a seal is lost it
is always spoken about. From a record kept by hunters during two voyages the
aggregate loss by each hunter is shown, and the percentage is not greater, on an
average, than 3 per cent.

26. @. How many hunters do you usually carry?—A. Six; and I hunted myself.
The ship’s company consists of twenty-three persons.

27. Q. What size shot do you use in shooting seal?—A. No. 2 buek-shot, or “S”
Canadian shot; and the guns are of the very best material and very expensive,
costing from 70 to 100 dollars.

28. Q. What do you think is the proportion of females to males in the number
killed in the different months of the fishing season?—A. I don’t know, I am sure.
It depends upon circumstances. My experience last year was very largely on the
bull side on the coast; that is, the proportion taken were largely male seals. I can
conscientiously say that it must have been three bulls to one female, and I had a
larger number of seals than any other vessel on the spring catch.

29. Q. In the Behring’s Sea, to your observation, were the males or females in the
preponderance?—A. My experience is that they are very much as they are on the
coast. Sometimes I would meet with groups of all bulls, and again with groups of
all cows.

30. @. While in Behring’s Sea last year, what would be your usual sealing distance
from the land?—A. 1 was not in Behring’s Sea last year, but in previous years it
would be from about 30 to 90 miles from land. The usual distance is about 60 miles.
Sometimes we are inside of that, sometimes outside of it.

31. Q. Last year, I understand you to say, Captain Baker, you were not in the
Behring’s Sea on the American side?—A. No.

32. Q. Do I understand you to say that on the Russian side the same observations
will apply to the habits and shooting of seal as on the coast?—A. Precisely the same
as to their grouping and habits.

33. Q. During the four years that you have been sealing, Captain Baker, I would
like you to state explicitly if you saw or heard of any Canadian vessels raiding the
American seal islands?—A. No, Sir. To my knowledge I have never heard of any,
and I have every reason to believe that there has never been any Canadian schooner

raiding any of them.
174 34. @. If anything like this had happened, you would have heard of it?—
A. Most certainly I would have.

35. Q. You have never heard any information of any of our sealers conniving to
raid the seal islands?—A. I never did.

36. Q. ‘Two years ago it was reported that some American schooners had raided
seal islands. Did you hear such a report?—A. Yes, Sir; I heard a report that cer-

956 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

tain American schooners had raided these islands. The ‘‘Geo. R. White,” ‘‘ Daniel
Webster,” ‘‘Mollie Adams,” and for two years the “J. Hamilton Lewis,” have been
raiding the Copper Islands on the Russian side, and it is reported that the American
schooner ‘‘City of San Diego” also raided the Copper Islands last year.

37. Q. You have heard of the German schooner ‘‘Adele” raiding these islands ?—
A. Yes; in 1889, with poor success. ‘These illegal acts meet with the strong disap-
probation of every Canadian sealer, ' ;

38. Q. And if Canadian sealers had done acts of that kind, you think it would
most certainly have leaked ont?—A. It most certainly would have,

39. Q. You are quite satisfied, then, that not a single Canadian schooner at any
time has raided the seal islands?—A. Not to my knowledge. I don’t know of one
single case.

40. Q. What was your entire catch last season?—A. 1,991 for the whole season.

41. Q. Giving your opinion in confidence, what is your opinion of the seals on the
coast and in Behring’s Sea? Are they decreasing or increasing ?—A. From my expe-
rience, I have not seen any decrease, but I have noticed also that they change their
grounds from time to time, and where you find them this year you may not find them
the next. This was very remarkable during the year 1890, for the seals were all
found to the eastward of Pribyloff Islands, while in former years they were found to
the westward.

42, Q. When did you find them to the eastward of St. Paul’s Island? I understand
you to say that you found them very numerous?—A. More so than I ever did before.

43. Q. Have you any opinion to offer as to the return of the seals to the coast last
year?—A. I have no direct opinion, but certainly the seals were more plentiful on
the northern coast last year than the previous years.

(Signed) W. E. Baker, Master.
Sworn to before me, at Victoria, British Columbia, this 22nd day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

January 19, 1892.

Clarence Nelson Cox, master of the schooner “ E. B. Marvin,” of Victoria, exam-
ined by Collector Milne:

1. Q. What vessels have you commanded on this coast and in Behring’s Sea, Cap-
tain Cox?—A. I have been two years master of the ‘‘ Triumph,” and one year mate
of the ‘‘ Sapphire” with my brother.

2. Q. This makes your fifth or sixth year?—A. This makes my fourth year. I was
in Behring’s Sea so late last year; that is probably why it may seem I have been out
oftener than others.

3. Q. The inquiry, Captain Cox, is to elicit, first, the number of seals lost by
being hit. It is alleged that you lose a large proportion of those that are shot, and
we wish to get at the facts. Also to establish the number of females caught during
the last and previous years, and also to investigate if there were any Canadian
sealers raiding the seal islands. In the spring of the year, when you leave port, you
go down to meet the seals along the coast?—A. Yes.

4, Q. Ihave been given to understand that the seals travel in bands?—A. Yes;
all the cows together, and all the bulls together, and the grey pups together.

5. Q. I suppose they are quite distinctly separated?—A. Yes; we get the grey
pups closer to shore, always inside of the large seals.

6. Q. As a matter of fact, you do not find many female seals bearing young
175 travelling with the bull seals?—A. I have never seen them in company
together. J have found the barren cows and bulls in company.

7. Q. This separation is from natural selection, or instinct?—A. Yes; while carry-
ing their young they are never found with the bulls. The barren cows occasionally
do travel with the bulls.

8. Q. During what months have you found more females carrying young as com-
pared with other months of the sealing season?—A. In the winter, when we first go
out—February, March, and April.

9. Q. That is, both bearing cows and barren cows too?—A. No; bearing cows.
There are also grey pups about at that time.

10. Q. What do you mean by “grey pups” ?—A. The yearling seal. After that it
is called a ‘‘ brown pup,” then a “ two-year-old.”

11. Q. Along the coast, from the time you strike them in the spring, do you shoot
the larger proportion of the seals sleeping, or are there more shot while travelling ?—
a Yes; the larger portion of the seals killed during the season are shot while
sleeping.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 957

12. Q. You say you find the bearing cows travelling continually ?—A. If the
weather is rough, they are travelling, but if fine, they are usually seen sleeping or
resting.

13. Q. Is it a fact that the females with young swim low down in the water ?—
A. Yes; the bulls and barren cows keep their heads well up, looking around.

14. Q. When you come upon a group of seals, your catch, then, will depend upon
whether the group is composed of males or females?—A. Yes; very much.

15. Q. As a matter of experience, Captain Cox, have you come upon more groups
of males than of females during the last year, say ?—A. I have caught more bulls the
last season—a great deal more. I had 848 seals coming up the coast before entering
Behring’s Sea, and of these about 75 per cent. would be males.

16. Q. Have you any private opinion as to the reason of this preponderance of the
males last year as compared with previous years?—A. I cannot account for it. In
fact, I could hardly advance any idea of the cause. I get the most of them from
Queen Charlotte Island coast northwards.

17. Q. You think, though, with some of the other sealers, that at about May the
cows are well in advance, going to Behring’s Sea, to the breeding grounds, conse-
quently the males would be left behind?—A. That is the only reason I can see for it,
becanse we get very few females ‘‘ with pup” in May.

18. Q. What do you consider a sufficient shooting distance, that is sufficiently
close range, for sleeping seals?—A. A great many are shot inside of 15 yards. I
think about 15 yards.

19. Q. As a professional sealer, what is your honest and candid opinion about the
percentage of seals lost, that is, the number lost after being hit—those that sink ?—
A. With the Indian hunters it would not amount to one in a hundred. They kill
with the spear, and I know it would not amount to 1 per cent. I was only one
season with Indian hunters. Last year] had whites. I do not think the loss would
be more than 4 or d per cent. with shooting by the white hunters.

20. Q. The spear of the Indian sealer is barbed, is it not, and fastens in the
animal?—A. Yes, it has two barbs, and a line attached, so that they are sure of their
seal unless their line breaks, or the spear is not stuck in far enough to hold, neither
of which happens often.

21. Q. You can quite confidently state that the loss of seals killed by white hunters
would not exceed 4 or 5 per cent.?—A. I can.

22. Q. This you base upon your own personal knowledge?—A. Yes.

23. Q. How many of a crew do you carry on your vessel?—A. Six boats, that is,
six hunting boats, and a stern boat, seven in all.

24. Q. Your ship’s company would be how many ?—A. Twenty-three men.

25. Q. And the number of hunters?—A. Six hunters, or, counting the stern boat,
seven hunters.

26. Q. Your catch last year was how many skins?—A, On the coast, 848 skins.

27. Q. Of that number, how many would be breeding seals?—A. I do not think
there would be more than 15 per cent.—about 126 female skins.

28. Q. What percentage of them would be barren femala skins?—A. About 10 per
cent.

29. Q. Is the percentage of bearing cows greater than of barren cows?-—A. Yes;

every year in my experience there have been more bearing cows than barren.
176 30. Q. About 15 per cent., then, would be bearing cows, and 10 per cent.
barren ones?—A. Yes.

31. Q. You stated that it would entirely depend upon the groups you struck along
the coast whether you got-males or females?—A. Yes.

32, Q. And you base your figures upon four years’ experience?-—A. Yes.

33. Q. Then you know the percentage of bearing cows would be 15 per cent., and
the barren cows 10 per cent.?—A. Yes. The first year I was with my brother I
believe we had not more than 10 per cent. of cow seals; one of our seasons we had
at least 90 per cent. bulls.

34. Q. That statement applies to Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes.

30. Q. What year was that?—A. 1889, when I was with my brother as mate of
ee Sapphire.” The catch on the coast up to Behring’s Sea was about 90 per cent.
yulls.

36. Q. In the Behring’s Sea, what percentage of females had you, as compared
with males—I am told there are.less bulls?—A. I think the percentage of bulls in
Behring’s Sea is less than on the coast.

37. Q. Bachelor bulls?—A. Yes. The greater percentage would be cows—bearing
cows; after they have dropped their young we don’t get them in Behring’s Sea.

38. Q. Do you not find a lot of bachelor bulls hovering about the outskirts of the
groups of seals?—A. Yes, we get some, but there are more females in Behring’s Sea.

39. Q. Did you find it so last year?—A. Of course I was not in Behring’s Sea long
enough to know.

40. Q, Your remarks, then, would not apply to last season?—A. No.

958 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

41, Q. You think there would be about an equal number of cows and bulls in
Beliring’s Sea?—A. Yes; I think that the bulls and cows are about equally divided.

42. Q. It is well known among sealers that the old bulls keep their herds, and
drive the ‘‘bachelor” bulls off ?—A. Yes.

43. Q. Do you find many groups of bachelor bulls in Behring’s Seaf—A. We do
not find them so much in groups as on the coast. .

44, Q. Taking your whole catch for the past year, skin for skin, what percentage
of females had you?—A. We had not more than 25 per cent. barren and bearing
cows. That would leave us about 75 per cent. bulls.

45. Q. 25 per cent. females, including barren cows?—A. Yes.

46. Q. In the years before last would that percentage hold good?—A. I think the
previous years would not differ very much.

47. Q. In the months of February, March, and April you think that the females
killed are more numerous than in Behring’s Sea?—A. I think so. We get a great
many more grey pups in the winter.

48. Q. Among all the hunters it is pretty well known that the average of loss by
being hit would not exceed 3 to 5 per cent?—A. Yes; that is well known.

49. Q. Wounding a seal so it escapes, you don’t consider that lost?—A. No; they
carry a lot of shot, and the hunters don’t just shoot at it and leave it if it does not
die on the spot, but give chase, and if wounded badly it has not much chance of
getting away.

50. Q. Considering the hazardous occupation of sealing, the men get very expert
in it?—A. Yes; I have aman aboard who does not lose tive seals during the whole
season.

51. Q. Is it your opinion that the female seals with young are somewhat timid,
and more on the alert than the old bulls?—A. Yes; they are.

52. Q. That is one reason why the percentage of females is so small, I suppose ?—
ARIES:

53. Q. In Bebring’s Sea you say the percentage of loss would be more than on the
coast?—A. I think the percentage of loss in Behring’s Sea is less than on the coast,
because the sealers get more seals asleep in the sea. They seem to be right at home
there, and not travelling about so much.

54. Q. Have you at any time known any of our vessels (that is, Canadian vessels),
registered Canadian vessels, landing on the seal islands for the purpose of raiding
and killing seals?—A. I can conscientiously say that I have never known of any of
our vessels landing there.

55. Q. And have never heard our masters or sailors encourage that sort of prac-

tice?—A. No.
177 56. Q. Have you heard of any vessel having done so?—A. Yes; I have.
57. Q. What vessels?—A. The ‘‘Mollie Adams,” ‘‘George R. White,” and the
“O.S. Fowler,” of San Francisco, I heard, raided the Pribyloff Islands.

58. Q. That fact is well known to the whole fleet?—A. Yes, Sir.

59. Q. You were not in Behring’s Sea last season?—A. I was in, but didn’t stay
long; I was ordered out of it.

60. Q. You left as soon as ordered to leave?—A. I did; came direct home.

61. Q. Who warned you?—A. The British steamer ‘‘ Pheasant.”

62. Q. You didn’t try to seal after that?—A. No.

63. Q. Or lowered your boats?—A. I didn’t lower any boats after receiving the
order.

64. Q. You have heard of some American schooners raiding Copper Island?—A, I
have.

65. Q. Do you know the McLean brothers?—A. Yes; and the ‘‘ City of San Diego”
here, and the ‘‘Webster” and ‘‘J. Hamilton Lewis,” three American vessels who
raided Copper Island.

66. Q. You have no idea of why the seals were more plentiful along the coast last
year than other seasons?—A. I have no idea.

67. Q. There has been no practical theory advanced as to why last year the seals
were more plentiful close in shore than in other years?—A. I have none, except that
it is on account of their food fish. The seal follows the food. The earlier those fish
strike along the coast, and the closer in shore, the earlier and closer to the coast we
get the seals.

(Signed) C. N. Cox.
Sworn before me, this 18th day of January, A. D. 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Custms.

Captain Alfred Bissett, master of the Canadian schooner ‘ Annie E. Paint,” of Vic-
toria, British Columbia, being duly sworn, says:

20. Mr. Milne-—How many years have you been engaged in sealing?—A. Two
years; this is my third year—have been master, mate, and hunter.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 959

21. Q. You have had about average luck?—A. Yes, about the average.

22. Q. You have followed the seals from south of Cape Flattery north, haven’t
you?—A. Yes, Sir.

23. Q. During last year, to your observation, were the seals as plentiful along the
coasts as they were the previous years?—A. They were.

24. Q. Did the seals appear more frightened than usual ?—A,. I think not; I noticed
no difference.

25. Q. Did you notice last year, or any year, in hunting seals, that the cows travel
together by themselves, and the bulls by themselves, in herds?——A. I did notice that
the bulls, in a general way, travel together, and the cows together, and small seals, as
a rule, pups, travel together.

26. Q. When hunting, of course, if you struck a band of bulls, the catch that day
would be principally bulls?—A. Yes; principally bulls.

27. Q. Do you think more seals are shot while sleeping than when in motion?—A.
Oh, yes; far more, about 80 per cent., I think.

28. Q. What do you consider a safe shooting distance for a sleeping seal?—A. For
a sleeping seal about 20 to 30 feet is a sure distance.

29. Q. And when they are on the move, what is the distance?—A. Well, from 25 to
30 yards.

30. Q. What is your poten of the proportion of seals that are lost after being
hit?—A. I think from 3 to 5 per cent. would cover everything.

31. Q. Where do you aim for, in shooting a seal?—A. I aim for the head.

32. Q. So when a seal drops his head dow n, the air is stopped from escaping ?—A.
Yes; that is the reason we shoot in the head.

33, Q. During last year did yon notice the proportion of females to males killed ?—
A, From counting the skins, and noticing the seals coming on board the ship, I

should form 75 to 80 per cent. were bulls, and the remainder females.

178 34. @. Doyou know the reason of that?—A. I don’t know, unless the cows
travel a little faster than the bulls, who follow the coast. I have always
ree that there are more bulls killed on the coast than there are females.

Q. Have you ever noticed when the number of females predominate?—A. I
ee know, but I have noticed that during the months of March and April that
there were more cows than males in the months of May, June, and July.

36. Q. Can you form any idea from what you have heard, whether there are more
females killed than males?—A. I should say that there are decidedly more males.
That is from what I have heard and seen myself. There is no doubt that the low
price obtained in London this year is due to the large number of small bull skins
taken, the skins of the females being larger and better.

38. Q. During the two years that you have been engaged in sealing have you ever
known any Canadian vessel to raid any of the seal islands?—A. No, sir.

39. Q. If there had been any such thing going on, it would have leaked out?—A.
It would certainly have leaked out, and I would have heard of it. It is almost
impossible to keep it quiet.

(The above having been carefully read over to Captain Bissett, he corroborates
and substantiates the same. )

(Signed) ALFRED BISSETT.

Sworn before me at Victoria, British Columbia, this 18th day of November [sic],
1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

January 19, 1892.

Captain Theodore M. Magnesen, in command of the schooner ‘‘ Walter A. Earl,”
of Victoria, examined by Collector Milne:

1. Q. How many years have you been sealing in Behring’s Sea, Captain Magne-
sen?—A. Three years; this will be my fourth.

2. Q. You have had very good success last year?—A. Yes, very fair success.

3. Q. Did you notice last year any perceptible decrease in the number of seals
compared with previous years?—A. I think they were more plentiful last season
than I ever saw them before.

4. Q. Do you mean in Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes, both along the coast and in the Sea.
The biggest catch I have ever made was last year, on the coast as well as in the Beh-
ring’s Sea.

5. @. You have noticed the habits of the seals—how they travel?—A. They travel
in batches, the bull seals by themselves, and the cow seals by themselves, and the
yearling pups by themselves.

560 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

6. Q. As a matter of fact, are'there more seals shot while sleeping than while they
are travelling?—A. That is hard tosay, but I think there are just as many shot while
moving as there are sleeping seals. : ;

7. Q. When you shoot seals by sleeping, what is the safe shooting distance?—A.
About 25 yards.

8. Q. And when travelling?—A, About 45 to 50 yards.

9. Q. The usual mark you shoot at is the head of the seal?—A. Yes.

10. Q. When hit in the head, the seal does not sink ?—A. No; sometimes he does,
though, if he is shot when short of wind at the moment, and he will sink if you are
too far away to pull it out.

11. Q. You have noticed them sinking ?—A. Yes; they generally sink tail first.

12. Q. If the seal is shot in the head, he drops his head, and that confines the
breast, and it floats?—A. Yes, that is the way I have accounted for them floating.

13. Q. How many seals, in your experience, do you think a hunter loses out of,
say, 100 shot at?—A. I know my head hunter killed 498 seals last year, and 17 of
them sunk,

14, Q. That would be about 34 per cent.?—A. Yes.

15. Q. Do you consider that a fair average on the number of seals lost?—A. As

an experienced hunter, I think it is a fair average.
179 16. Q. Would you say that a man who loses, say, 5 per cent. of the seal he
shoots would not be an experienced huuter?—A. He could not lose more than
that.

17. Q. Will that percentage of loss apply to the travelling seals as well as to the
sleeping seals?—A. Yes, the most of the seals lost are the ones shot by the ones moy-
ing or travelling.

18. Q. Your boats carry pole, spear, and:gaff?—A. Yes; and if the seal sinks down
10 or 15 feet they are easily recovered.

19. Q. If you were on your oath, now, and heard any one say that for every seal
that was killed, male or female, one was lost, you would say it was a missiatement ?—
A. Yes; that is not so.

20. Q. If any one came here and said that for every seal you hit you killed another
seal—— ?—A. That is nonsense.

21. Q. The highest percentage of loss, you say, would be 5 per cent. for sinking
seals?—A. Yes; and I may say that I have taken seals with shot in them, dropped
out when skinning, and they seemed as strong and healthy as ever.

22. Q. That is to say, that unless you shoot a seal in a vital part, the wound heals
quickly ?—A. Yes; and unless you hit it hard the seal gets away.

23. Q@. You have seen females with young?—A. No; I never saw them carrying
their young in the water.

24, Q. Down the coast the seals are pretty well divided, are they not?—A. Yes.

25. Q. The cows travel by themselves, and the bulls by themselves?—A. Yes.

26. Q. Did you say that you have caught more bull seals than cow seals during the
season?—A. Yes, along the coast; but when I got up and up I got more bulls than
cows.

27. Q. What months have you seen more cows in proportion than other months ?—
A. In February, March, and April.

28. Q. But even when you see more cows the average of the seals killed is in
favour of the bulls, is it not?—A. No; it is about equal.

29. Q. Yousay the cows travel quicker towards the Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes; when
we get further up the cow seals seem to leave the bulls behind.

30. Q. Has it always been so?—A. Yes; J have got 181 seals in a day, and nota
cow amongst them, but you sometimes get one. I think the average is abont one in
ninety.

31. Q. You always get more bulls than cows?—A. Yes, up there.

32. Q. How many out of every hundred seals you had on board your vessel last
year would be females?—A. I think fully a half of them would be cows.

33. Q. How many of them would be bearing cows, and how many of them would
be barren cows?—A. Of bearing cows, I think about 18 or 20 per cent. would be
bearing cows. Ido not think there would beso many as that. I had 2,000, and I
think there would be only about 12 or 14 per cent. with pups; the others would be
what are called barren cows, and a lot of them would be dry cows.

34. Q. With the barren cows and the ones bearing young you say would make up
about half your catch?—A. Yes; about half and half.

35. Q. The proportion of males and females, though, depends upon the crowds or
groups you get into?—A. Yes; it depends upon the band you strike.

36. Q. You never, at any time, had more females than males in any of your
catches?—A. No, never.

37. Q. While in Behring’s Sea during the last four years had you ever heard of any
Canadian schooners ‘‘raiding” the Pribyloff Islands?—A. No. I never heard of any
of my crew being engaged in such. Several of my crews told me of the American
sealers raiding them, but I never heard of a Canadian vessel doing so,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 961

38. Q. If you were bound to make a statement on your oath, you would say you
believed no Canadian vessels ever raided the Pribyloff Islands fo seals ?—A. Not as
far as I know.

39. Q. You believe, asa matter of fact, that the owners of Canadian sealers and
their masters have never countenanced this raiding ?—A. I believe that is the feeling
that prevails among them all.

40. Q. You have heard mentioned the names of the American vessels that raided
those islands?—A. Yes; I heard of the ‘‘Mollie Adams” and ‘‘George R. White,”

but not any others.
180 41. Q. You have not heard of any others?—A. No; I have not heard of any
others.

42. Q. You have heard of vessels raiding the Copper Islands?—A. Yes; I have
heard of the ‘‘ Hamilton Lewis” and ‘ Webster” raiding Copper Island.

43. Q. Those vessels you name are all American vessels?—A. Yes.

44, Q. Manned by American crews?—A. Yes.

45. Q. Have you any recollection of seeing any of those vessels in this (Victoria)
Harbour?—A. No.

(Signed) Tnro. M. MAGNESEN.
Sworn befure me, this 23rd day of January, a. D. 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

Henry Crocker, hunter on board the schooner ‘Annie EK. Paint,” having been
sworl:

65. Q. How long have you been engaged in sealing?—A. I have been hunting now
for three years; this is my fourth.

66. Q. From your observation, do you think that the seals were as plentiful last
year as they were during the previous seasons?—A. Yes; from what I saw of them I
am sure they were just as many as before.

67. Q. In what months do the female seals seem to be the most plentiful in the
sealing-grounds?—A. I believe that from lebruary to May the females seem to pre-
dominate in numbers; that is, when the cows are getting heavier with young, they
make for the islands sooner than the bulls.

68. Q. Is it more difticult to shoot a female seal than it is a bull?—A. The males
are more easily killed than the feinales, owing to the inquisitiveness of the males,
and the females being more shy, and also as they move along the water with only
their nose visible.

69. Q. As an experienced hunter, what percentage of loss have you had by seals
sinking ?—A. It is very rarely that a seal willsink. I have been a whole season and
have not had more than half a dozen sink during the whole season.

70. Q. Can you form any estimate of what your loss has been?—A. I would say not
more than 3 to 4 per cent.

71. Q. Was the loss last year more than in previous years?—A. I could see no
difference.

72. Q. As a reason for the small percentage of loss, you get very near the seals
before shooting ?—A. Yes, sir; the usual distance is within about 20 feet to a sleeping
seal.

73. Q. If a man has a higher percentage of loss than that, he must be careless, you
think?—A. Yes, I should say so, and not a first-class huuter, for there is no necessity
for losing a seal.

74. Q. Does your percentage of loss agree with other hunters with whom you have
conversed?—A. Yes.

75. Q. So that on the coast and in Behring’s Sea the same percentage would
apply ?—A. Well, on the coast one does not very often sink a seal; but in Behring’s
Sea, if a cow, having delivered her pups, is shot, she will be more apt to sink, as the
blubber is very much thinner. But, on the whole, I think the percentage will not be
more than 3 or 4 per cent. of loss.

76. Q. Have you taken notice in hunting ‘whether there are more females than
males, or the reverse, taken ?—A. There is fully 80 per cent. of bull seals killed off
the coast, as well asin Behring’s Sea. I think the reason for this is that the younger
bulls are driven off by the older ones, who guard their particular herds.

77. Q. In the three years you have been in Behring’s Sea has it always been your
experience that there were more males caught than females? And in what propor-
tion?—A. J say about the same as this year; I don’t see any difference.

78. Q. Does your percentage of females taken agree with that of other hunters
with whom you have conversed?—A. Yes.

79. Q. As an experienced hunter, then, you adhere to the statement that for

181 the whole seasons’ catches for the years you have been hunting, that the per-

centage of seals caught will be about three males to one female?—A. Yes;
about that.

BS, PT vV-——61

962 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

80. Q. Do you include in that statement barren cows?—A. Yes. -

81. Q. Have you any idea or reason of your own why the males come to predomi-
nate so much?—A. I think it is because the females make for the islands earlier
than the young bulls and barren cows. baa .

82. Q. Have you ever heard of any Canadian vessels raiding the seal islands?—
A. No, Sir.

83. Q. You have never heard of any Canadian master or owner offering any
inducement to hunters to raid the islands?—A. No, Sir.

84. Q. There has never been any bonus offered you to raid the islands?—A. No,
Sir; while in Behring’s Sea we are always too anxious to get away from the islands.

85. Q. If any Canadian vessels had raided the islands you would have likely
heard of it?—A. Yes; I think it is impossible to keep it as quiet as that. :

86. Q. You have heard of American vessels raiding the Copper and Pribyloff
Islands?—A. I have heard it. I have known of the American vessels going into
Sand Point just after they had raided the islands, and I was in Sand Point when
one vessel was fitted out for the purpose of making a raid.

87. Q. The masters with whom you have sealed all seem to have avoided the
islands?—A. Oh, yes; they keep away from the islands between 50 and 100 miles.

(The foregoing having been read over to the said Henry Crocker, he corroborates
and substantiates the whole of the said statements. )

(Signed) Hrnry Crocker, Hunter.

Sworn to before me, at Victoria, British Columbia, this 18th day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A. R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.

George Roberts, hunter on board the schooner ‘‘Annie E, Paint,” being duly sworn,
says:

55. Q. How long have you been engaged as a sealer?—A. I have been at seal-
hunting for three years, one season as a hunter.

56. Q@. Were the seals more plentiful last year than in previous years?—A. They
were just about the same as regards number.

57. Q. How do the seals generally travel—in mixed numbers, males and females
together?—A. The seals travel in bands of bulls and hands of cows, both by them-
selves.

58. Q. What is the proportion of seals lost by sinking after being shot?—A. Well,
I should say that 3 to 5 per cent. would cover the whole loss. It is not more.

59. Q. What is the distance you are off a seal when you shoot, generilly?—A.
Well, from 20 to 30 feet for a sleeper, and for a traveller from 25 to 30 feet.

60. Q. What part of the seal do you aim at?—A. [ aim at the head, as the best
place, being the surest.

61. Q. Do you think there were any more female seals shot than males last year ?—
A. No; I think there were more males shot; in fact, I think that since I have been
engaged in the business there have been more males killed than females.

62. Q. What months have you noticed more females than males?—A. In the months
of March and April there are more females than at any other time. There are more
females killed during those months than there are any other time.

63. Q. Have you ever heard of any of the Canadian vessels poaching on the seal
islands?—A. I never did; I would have heard of it if there had been any. I have
heard of the American raiders; but I do not know of a single Canadian vessel raid-

ing a seal rookery.
182 64. Q. If a seal is sinking, does it go quickly or slowly?—A. If it is not too
far away it can always be secured, as it does not go too quickly to get it.

(The above having been read to the said George Roberts, he corroborates and sub-
stantiates all of the foregoing statements. )

(Signed) GEORGE ROBERTS, Hunter.
Sworn to before me at Victoria, British Columbia, this 18th day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A. R. Minn, Collector of Customs.

Richard Thomson, hunter on board the schooner ‘‘Annie E. Painter,” being duly
sworn, says:

40. Q. How long have you been engaged in sealing ?—A. I have been engaged as a
hunter for two years.

41. Q.. Were the seals as plentiful last year as they were the previous year, to your
observation?—A. Yes; I believe they were.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 963

42, Q. Were the seals apparently harder to approach than they were in previous
years?—A. No; I can’t say that I saw any difference,

43. Q. How do the seals generally travel ?—A. Asarule the bulls travel separately,
and quite a distance apart generally.

44. Q. What is your experience in hunting as to the number of seals lost after
being hit?—A. I shou!d think from 3 to 5 per cent. would cover all.

45. Q. What is the usual manner in which seals are lost?---A. Well, if the seal is
in a certain position and shot so as to allow the air to escape, the seal will be lost.
As long as the head sinks below the water first, the seal will not sink. ‘They very
rarely sink in any case.

46. Q. You carry a spear on a gaff, don’t you?—A. Yes; it is carried to spear the
seals when they are going down.

47. Q. From your experience in sealing, you consider that from 38 to 5 per cent.
would cover the total loss of seals, after being shot, through sinking?—A. Yes.

48. Q. When you shoot a seal at a distance, and do not shoot them in a vital part,
they make off, do they?—A. Yes.

49, Q. You don’t consider that lost, then?—A. No; we don’t consider the seal lost
unless it sinks.

50. Q. Have you handled more males than females during the past twotyears?—
A. I should say more males.

51. Q. Have you any idea of the proportion of males—would there be two males
to one female?—A. I should say from 70 to 80 per cent., or about three males to one
female.

52. Q. In what months do you consider that there are most females killed ?—A.
During the months of April and May. There are apparently more females, but not
as many as males.

53. Q. You have never known of any Canadian schooners raiding the seal islands
have you?—A. I have never heard of a Canadian, but I have of the American.

54. Q. During the time that you have been to Behring’s Sea, you would have heard
of it?—A. I would certainly have heard of it.

55. Q. You have always sailed out of this port?—A. Yes, Sir.

(The above having been read over to Richard Thomson, he corroborates and sub-
stantiates the same.)

(Signed) R. THoMson, Hunter.
Sworn to at Victoria, British Columbia, before me, this 18th day of January, 1892.
(Signed) A, R. MILNE, Collector of Customs.
183 Victoria, B. C., January 22, 1892.

Andrew Laing, called and examined by Collector A. R. Milne:

1. Q. You are one of the oldest seal-hunters in the province, Mr. Laing ?—A. I have
been ten years at it.

2. Q. Your knowledge of sealing really goes beyond the present knowledge of the
average sealer?—A. I have had as much experience as any of them; I think I know
as much as any of them.

3. Q. Your observations on the west coast extend beyond the advent of the sealing
business in Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes. I went on the coast in 1871, and have been seal-
ing with natives for the last twenty-one years.

4. Q. You had ample opportunity of observing the life and habits of the seals?—A.
Yes.

5. Q. From those observations last year did you notice any perceptible or material
decrease in the number of seals?—A. None whatever. °

6. Q. It was generally reported last year they were more numerous than the year
before?—A. Yes. I think if anything they were a little more numerous than 1890.

7. Q. Does that remark apply to full-grown?—A. To full-grown and mid-sized.

8. Q. What direction do the seals on the coast usually come from?—A. They come
from the south, following the herring, which spawn on the west coast and different
places, and the seal follow those fish into the shore or far out, as the case may be.
The natives get a great number of these seals among a school of herring.

9. Q. What is the usual distance which the natives hunt away from shore?—A. In
the spring they will hunt 10 or 15 miles off, later in the season 20 or 25 miles. I have
seen them 40 miles from the land.

10. Q. How long does the hunting of the seal on the west coast usually last?—A,
Commences in February, or the latter end of January, and lasts till the Ist June,
when you get more or less seals; you can get a few stragglers in July.

11. Q. And the tendency of the seals is from the south?—A. Yes, following their
food fish,

964 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

12. Q. You have been down the coast to where you meet the seals in their migra-
tion?—A. I have gone down as far as Shoal Water Bay, Columbia River,

13. Q. How do you mect the seals—in large bands or batches?—A. Yes, in schools,
from two to twenty in a school.

14. Q. Do they seem to travel in pairs?—A. No, Sir.

15. Q. Do you find in these schools, or bunches, they are all males or females?—
A. They are mixed. I remember an instance—I think in 1886—when we got on the
coast off Cape Flattery either 104 or 109, am not positive, and out of that there were
over 100 bull seals, and the next day we got about 86, and out of that number over
70 were bulls. That was in the year 1886.

16. Q. Would your observation lead you to suppose that your catch would depend
entirely upon the group of bulls or females as to which your catch would be composed
of principally ?—A. As we get amongst them; yes.

17. Q. But taking one year with another—from 1886 to the present time—have you
seen any more females killed than of bulls?—A. No, Sir. I think we have got about
three males in five, and when we get up about the Bank, about Middleton Island, I
think they will average more males than females.

18. Q. When you strike the seals on the coast about 40 or 50 miles from shore, do
you find a large proportion of them sleeping?—A. They are generally sleeping. The
Indians get none but sleeping seals. I have never been working with Whites.

19. Q. The natives approach the seals very close?—A. Yes; and he comes to the
leeward of them, and if there is any sea on they get into the trough of the sea and
make no noise. If he went to windward the seal would scent him, and get away.

20. Q. When he gets close enough he throws his spear, and seldom misses?—A.
Yes; he don’t miss one in ten.

21. Q. And when once his spear is fastened, the seal never gets away ?—A. No.

22. Q. If an Indian loses more than what you say, he would not be a good hunter ?—
A. No good at all. It would not pay to “ pack” him.

23. @. Do the Indians ever shoot?—A. Sometimes. They never shoot if the seal

is sleeping.
184 24. Q. Does that percentage of loss apply to the sleeping seals only ?7—A. Yes.
25. Q@. You mean by ‘‘loss”’—what?—A. By sinking.

26. Q. If the seal is wounded so it gets away, you don’t consider it lost?—A. No.

27. Q. If speared and wounded, and scurried off, you don’t consider it lost?—A.
Oh, no; not lost.

28. Q. The Indian hunter is very close to the quarry, and rarely misses his aim ?-—
A. Well, he will get within 25 or 30 yards of it.

29. Q. Have you noticed any marked ditference in the manner in which the females
carrying young travel as compared with the males?—A. The only difference I could
see is that they will travel very fast for a i.ttle distance, and then turn up and rest.

30. Q. I mean, do they sink their bodies more?—A. No; they do not.

31. Q. Do you think the female is more shy than the male, that is those ‘‘ with
young” ?—A. No. I think they arenot anymore shy. The female is always inclined
to be sleepy. The male is always on the watch, and will rise till his head and shoul-
ders are out of the water.

32. Q. One hunter has said that the female lies deep in the water, exposing only a
portion of her head?—A. I have never noticed that. When lying asleep one-half
of the head is under water.

33. Q@. Then you will say that the percentage of loss of the Indian hunters is not
more than how many in the hundred?—A. Not more than one in ten; not more than
10 per cent.

34. Q. You say you never hunted with white men until this year?—A. No.

35. Q. If any person made a statement that there is a greater amount of loss than
what you say, you would not regard it as correct?—-A. I would say it was not correct,
with Indian hunters.

36. Q. Your statement is based upon actual experience?—A. Yes.

o7. Q. In going down the coast in the spring, in February, March, and April,
have you noticed that females are more plentiful than in the following months ?—
A. I do not think they are.

38. Q. But as they come from the south, you think they are not?—A. Between
January and June, and between the south and the Shumigan Islands, have you
noticed any time or place where there were any more females killed than others ?—
A. I think in May, I have noticed one thing: you will not find, take one in ninety,
you will never find a female pup. Where the female young go to is something that
the Commissioners ought to have found out before they came down from the sea.

39. Q. It has been stated that the Indians say there is no such thing as a female
grey pup?—A. I have never seen one yet, and cannot account for it, unless the
females go one way and the males another. :

40. @. Among all yearling grey pups, there has never been any one known to
have found a female?—A. Yes, it isa fact. I have heard a great deal of talk of

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. _ 965

females having young on the kelp, too, but I don’t think that isso. Some hunters
report of seeing pups off Middleton’s Island, but I think that is impossible.

41. Q. Have you ever seen them cut a pup out of the female seal?—A. Yes; and
Ihave seen the pup so cut out walk or move about the deck of the vessel, and I
have tried to raise it. I have also thrown it into the water, and have seen it swim
about like a young dog; I have seen it keep afloat for fifteen minutes, as long as the
vessel was within sight. On the islands, the mother seal will take the young and
force them into the water to teach them to swim. They will never take the water
freely themselves for from six weeks to two months.

42. Q, You think they will swim 50 yards probably, or 100 yards?—A. Yes; but
don’t think they could live continually in the water if they were born in it.

43. Q@. When you strike the seals on the west coast, what would you say was the
usual distance per day that the seals travel?—A. That is impossible to say; it
depends upon their food.

44, Q. That is, they linger longer over good food than otherwise?—A. Yes; I —
remember in, I think, 1888, where an Indian threw his spear at aseal, and his line
broke, it was near the Shumigan Isiands, and he took the same seal the next day—
we lay-to all night—and he recovered his own iron spear-head. That might show
the distance they move in, say, « night, because it did not travel far.

45. @. When you lower - your boats two Indians go to a canoe?—A. Yes, and both

paddle.
185 46. Q. The Indian in the bow keeps his spear right before?—A. Yes.

47, Q. And he throws it at the animal, and strikes it where?—A. It makes no
difference where they are hit. They try when shooting to hit in the head.

48. Q. When a seal is struck, or wounded, what time does it require to heal?—A.
It heals very rapidly.

49. Q. What time does it require to get the seal aboard after it is speared?—A.
Not more than two minutes when they spear, and not as long as that when they
shoot it.

50. Q. What is the usual length of the sealing-boat?—A. About 20 feet.

51. Q. And the canoe?—A. About 22 feet.

52. Q. Isit not a fact that sealing in these small boats in the stormy spring months
is a very hazardous undertaking ?—A. Yes.

53. Q. It is commonly reported that our seal-hunters, both Whites and Indians,
are more expert than any others on the coast?—A. That isso. They are the most
expert.

54. Q. It is said also that unless the weather is very tempestuous nothing will
retard them?—A. Yes; they go out every chance they can get.

55. Q. The loss of a full-sized skin meant the last two years how much to the
hunter?—A. About 3 dollars per skin.

56. Q. What is the largest number which you ever saw an Indian canoe bring
aboard in one day?—A. Forty-eight in one canoe, in Behring’s Sea.

57. Q. On the coast, how many ?—A. Thirty-four; that is over the average.

58. Q. In leaving the schooner, how far do the hunters, both Indians and Whites,
go?—A. They go as far as 10 or 12 miles, sometimes 15 ‘miles, from the vessel, till
they can just see the tops of her sail.

59. Q. And this in pretty rough weather?—A. Yes; pretty rough. It might be
smooth when they go out, but it often comes on rough before they can get back.

60. Q. In following the seals up the coast in February, March, and April, and
May and June, where do you begin to get them in larger numbers?—A. Off Queen
Charlotte Islands.

61. At this time, are the females in advance of the males, seemingly hastening
to the sea?—A. They get through as soon as they can, the males in advance of
the females—they haul out first.

62. Q. Some sealers think the cows go ahead?—A. The males haul out and each
one gets his batch of females, and as the cows come in they make up their herd of
females,

63. Q. Have you ever, when with sealers, heard the percentage of loss talked of ?—
A. No; I have never heard it mentioned with sealers.

64. Q. You speak from your experience with Indians? Your percentage of loss of
1 in 10 would be based on actual experience with Indian hunters?—A. Yes; 1 in 10.

65. Q@. You have stated that in the month of May you think there would be more
females than in the other months of the season? At that time what part of the ocean
would you be?—A. Up off Queen Charlotte Island.

66. Q. You have alk stated that the more plentiful the food, the slower the seals
travel?—A. Yes; they stay longer where the food is.

67. Q. At the end of any of your seasons, have you actually counted the number
of females you had in your cargo?—A. I have never done so.

68. Q. Have you any idea of your last year’s catch, what proportion of females
you had in the coast catch?—A. I think there would be about 3 males in 5—3 males
to 2 females,

966 ‘APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

69. Q. That applies to the coast catch only?—A Yes; up to Kodiak.

70. Q. In the Behring’s Sea, what proportion would it bear?—A. I think about 4
males in 5—4 males to 1 female.

71. Q. Were you in Behring’s Sea last year?—A. The vessel was. The way I
account for getting so many males was, during the beginning of July and August,
when the females would be ashore nursing their young a greater part of the time.

72. Q. At any time in Behring’s Sea, what has been your nearest point of hunting
to the seal islands?—A. I have never been closer in hunting than 30 miles—usually
30 to 90 miles off. We got blown in there once, the only time I saw the island; we
were within 10 miles of them then.

73. Q. You never saw or heard of any schooners, or spoke any schooner, who made

a boast of raiding the islands?—A. None belonging to us. I heard of the
186 ‘‘ Webster,” ‘Mollie Adams,” the ‘‘ Hamilton Lewis,” and the German
schooner ‘‘ Adele” raiding the islands.

74, Q. All these were American schooners?—A. Yes; except the ‘‘Adele.”

75. @. There is no doubt, then, among sealers, that these vessels did actually
raid the islands?—A. It has been commonly reported, and I have no reason to
disbelieve it.

76. Q. Did any of those vessels at that time belong to Victoria?—A. No; they
did not.

77. Q. Can you advance any idea as to when the seals leave Behring’s Sea?—A. To
the best of my knowledge, about the middle of October.

78. Q. Isit the accepted idea that those seals which leave Behring’s Sea in the
fall are the same that return in the spring?—A. That is my opinion.

79. Q. You have never heard at any time any inducement ever offered by a captain
or sailor from Victoria to ship men or to perform any work with the intention of
raiding those islands?—A. Not from a Canadian vessel.

80. Q. It is a fact that every ship-owner and master of Canadian vessels has
deprecated the raiding of the islands, that is, have never agreed with it?—A. They
do not agree with it at all. Every one I have spoken to are very well satisfied to go
into the sea and get their catch legitimately.

81. Q. You think there is ample field for hunting seals without raiding the
islands?—A. Yes, I do.

82. Q. Is it your opinion, Captain Laing, that with the increased number of
schooners here and in San Francisco, there will be any material injury to the sealing
industry ?—A. I do not think so.

83. Q. From observations made last year, you are quite of the opinion that the
seals were more plentiful than you had ever seen them before?—A. They were more
plentiful last year, 1891, than the year before, 1890.

84. Q. Is there any way you can account for that?—A. None whatever, unless it
is the same as with any species of fish; some years you get more than others. There
is no accounting for it.

&. Q. Referring to the number of females caught in the spring, there are quite a
number of the female scals barren, or have never borne young? You have noticed
it?—A. Yes; some are barren that have had young, and others that have not borne.

86. Q. When you speak of the proportion of females killed, you mean the barren
cows as well as those that are bearing young?—A. Yes.

87. Q. Have you formed any idea of the general average or percentage of females
carrying young killed in April and May ?—A. I could not form any idea.

&&. Q. Nor of barren cows?—A. No, Sir.

89. @. Would you hazard a statement that all the females, both bearing and barren
cows, were certainly less than the male seals taken?—A. Yes; certainly less in
number,

90. Q. If any one were to make the bold statement that for every male seal killed
there is a female killed, would it be correct?—A. That would not be correct.

91. Q. You have not heard any estimate of the percentage of barren females as
compared with the bearing cows killed?—A. There are less of the barren cows killed
in the spring than there are in the fall. I don’t think that they go as far south as
the cows that bear young.

92. Q. You say that in Behring’s Sea the males preponderate?—A. Yes.

93. @. You cannot account for this, you say, except it be that the females are all
ashore bearing young?—A. The males we get in the sea are all 3- or 4-year-olds,
which the old wigs would not let ashore at all.

94. Q. Are there any ‘ rookeries” along the coast of any extent?—A. | have never
heard of one this side of the Shumigan Islands.

95. Q. Year after year, hunting then, do you find them travelling along the same
course ?—A. Yes, where their food is, from 15 to 35 miles out.

96. @. Your opinion is that the percentage of loss as compared with those hit
would not exceed 10 per cent. with Indian hunters?—A. How do you mean lost?

97. Q. Yousay a seal hit and not killed is not lost if it escapes?—A. Yes,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 967

98. Q. Then the propertionof lossin proportion to those killed is about how much—
10 per cent?—A. It does not exceed that.
99, Q. In the number killed during the different months of tho season, what is the
proportion of males to females?—A. Three males to two females.
187 100. Q. As tothe abstention of Canadian sealers from raiding the seal islands,
you are quite positive that from your knowledge of sealing-vessel owners and
masters, you give it as your direct opinion that no Canadian sealers ever raided
those islands. You would say so upon oath in Court?—A. They never did to my
knowledge.

101. Q. If such a thing had been attempted, it would, as a matter of fact, have
leaked out?—A. Yes; it stands to reason the crews would have been unable to keep
it to themselves.

102. Q. They would tell it either to their associates on board or after getting
ashore?—A. They could not keep it.

103. Q. After the hunters get aboard at night, they usually recount whether they
lost any seals, and in speaking of their loss, it would mean those seals that would
sink, not those that escape?—A. If they lost any, they would not tell it at all, but
if they sunk any, they would speak of it.

104. @. You are at present a ship-owner, Captain Laing?—A. Yes.

105. Q. You have had great opportunities of hearing from all sources matter rela-
tive to the seal fishing?—A. Yes.

106. Q. Has it been noticed that the skins taken last year in the Behring’s Sea
were smaller than usual?—A. About the same general size.

107. Q. Is it generally known that the seals caught on the Copper Island are bet-
ter than the average ?—A. I have never seen them, but it is reported they are better.

108. Q. It is reported also that seals caught in January, March, and April are
better than any in Behring’s Sea; they say the fur is better?—A. They say so, but I
don’t know that you can see any difference.

109. Q. It has been said that the fur of the seals caught during the winter and
spring months is light? The fur of all animals in cold climates is thicker in win-
ter?—A. I have never noticed that with seals.

110. Q. A few years ago it was said that the Behring’s Sea skins were the best ?—
A. It has been so reported, but I don’t think there is any difference.

111. Q. The “ grey pup” of this year will be a ‘‘ brown pup” next year?—A. Yes;
a ‘*2-year-old” or “ brown pup.”

112. Q. Do the hunters usually follow the grey pups with the same zeal as they
do the other seals?—A. They can’t tell the difference till they are actually ‘ on top
of them.”

113. Q. And they are apt to shoot little as well as big?—A. Yes; everything they
come across.

114. Q. Were the Indian hunters more successful last year than Whites?—A. No,
they were not. It was a “stand off” between them. ‘The only difference is that
the Whites will risk more than the Indians.

115. Q. The expensive wages, cost of outfitting schooners, considered, don’t you

‘think that 4 dollars per skin a high figure for hunters?—A. It is.

116. Q. How many boats does the average schooner carry ?—A. About six and the
stern boat.

117. Q. And each boat takes three white men?—A. Yes, a huntey, a boat-puller,
and a boat-steerer.

118. @. The ship furnishes the boat, guns, and outfit?—A. Yes, the whole outfit
of guns, ammunition, provisions, wages for the two men, and pays the hunter so
much per skin.

119. Q. At the present time, how much per skin?—- A. 5 to 4 dollars.

120. Q. With Indian crews?—A. They furnish their own canoe, spears, and outfit;
one Indian steers; but the vessel finds them in provisions only. The last two or
three seasons some vessels have supplied guns and ammunition.

121. Q. Does the Indian get 4 dollars per skin; does he out of that pay his own
boat-helper?—A. Yes, he pays out of his rate per skin. The ship pays the steerer
nothing.

122. iy Therefore, if the Indian crews were as profitable, they are the cheapest;
if they get as many skins?—A. Yes, if yon can get them.

123. Q. Is the Indian a good hunter, in your experience?—A. Yes, Sir.

124. Q. Bold and intrepid?—A. Yes, when he is in his canoe nothing will seare
him. I have seen an old bull seal capsize a canoe, and the Indians would get into it
again, bail the water out, and go on hunting as though nothing had happened.

125. Q. Is the Indian lazy, or does he seem anxious to proceed in the hunt from
188 day to day?—A. In fine weather, yes, but when the sea is ‘‘ choppy” he would
usually rather stay aboard.

126. Q. His canoe is not quite so strong as the sealing-boat?—A. No, not quite.

127. Q. Have there been many accidents among the Indians—loss of life?—A. Not
since, I think, 1887, when a schooner foundered with all aboard.

968: APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

128. Q. Do you think that as the years pass along the Indians, as well as the
Whites, get more expert in seal-hunting?—A. Yes, they do.

129. Q. Notwithstanding all the ships in the fleet on the ocean, you would adhere
to your statement that you don’t think there is any noticeable decrease in the num-
ber of seals?—A. Yes; I do not think so. If the vessels had been let alone in Beh-
ring’s Sea last year, we would have had a bigger catch than any previous year.

130. Q. Do you think, Captain Laing, if they would cease killing seals in the
Pribyloff Islands it would increase the number of seals on the coast?—A. I think it
would.

131. Q. If the rookeries were undisturbed by anything, you think the seals would
be more plentiful?—A. I do.

132. Q. Have you any opinion to offer as to killing seals on the islands doing more
harm than anything else?—A. I think the American people are doing more harm by
killing seals and interfering with them on their rookeries or seal islands than we
hunters do on the coast.

133. Q. You have never heard of any rookery along the coast?—A. I never heard
of one. There is a rookery of sea lion off Queen Charlotte Island, but I never heard
of any of seals.

(Signed) A. D. LAING.
Sworn before me, this 25th day of January, A. D. 1892.
(Signed) A. R. Mine, Collector of Customs.

January 25, 1892.

William Cox, present master of the schooner ‘‘Sapphire,” of Victoria, called and
examined by Collector Milne:

1. Q. You are engaged in the sealing business, Captain Cox?—A. Yes, I have been
master of the sealing schooner ‘‘ Sapphire” for the last four years.

2. Q. How many boats do you carry in your outfit?—A. I carry canoes and an
Indian crew.

3. Q. With the exception of how many white men to navigate?—A. Seven white
people I carry for navigating the vessel.

4. Q. The number of Indians?—A. The last two years I have had twenty-eight
north to Behring’s Sea.

5. Q@. And how many canoes?—A. Fourteen canoes.

6. Q. Had you more canoes on the coast?—A. Yes, I have had twenty-four canoes
while on the coast.

7. Q. When you finally leave for Behring’s Sea, you drop a number of the Indians,
and only take about fourteen canoes with you?—A. Yes.

8. Q. Do you prefer Indian crews to white men?—A. Yes, I do.

9. Q. What are your reasous for the preference?—A. Well, I get along better with
them for one thing; there is more honour among them than among the average white
crew in this business. They don’t make an agreement to-day, and break it to-mor-
row if they seé a chance to make a little more.

10. Q. And they don’t quarrel among themselves?—A. No; and you can generally
trust them more.

11. Q. They are more profitable too, are they not?—A. Yes, a little more.

12. Q. They furnish their own canoes?—A. Yes, and spears and boatmen; and it
is not such a heavy outtit, but their canoes are light and easily broken by the heavy
seas,

13. Q. They are better then aboard a large vessel?—A. Yes, but you have to be
very careful—the canoes are ‘‘dug-outs” and easily shattered.

14. Q. Apart from getting along easier with the Indians, the experience is
189 just about the same as with a white crew?—A. Yes, the skins cost about the
same in the end.

15. Q. Do the Indian crews venture out during the stormy weather as much as the
white men?—A. Yes, almost as freely. I have had the same crew so long now that
they will do anything I wish them to do.

16. Q. Do you take them down the coast?—A. Yes, and up the coast and on into
Behring’s Sea.

17. Q. They spear all their seals?—A. The greater number of them, yes, but some-
times shoot; they spear all the ‘‘ slecpers.”

18. Q. What proportion do you think they shoot?—-A. They shoot, probably, twenty
out of the hundred; but I think now the fleetis getting so large there are more wake
seals, that consequently they did more shooting with me last year than ever before.
They never shoot a sleeping seal.

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 969

19. Q. Do you think the seals are getting more shy on account of the larger fleet of
vessels?—A. Yes, they are much more shy.

20. Q. Do the Indians approach the seals from leeward ?—A. No; the Indian always
goes “across on the wind;” he pulls up almost in range of it, and goes across the
wind. They have a sort of idea that the seal sleeps with one eye open, hence the
way they approach.

21. Q. When they heave the spear, the barb holds fast?—A. Yes; if they strike the
sea] at all, they cannot lose it.

22. Q. Therefore the percentage of seals killed by Indians and lost would be very
small?—A. I would really count it nothing. If they did lose one by the spear pull-
ing out of the blubber it would not kill the seal, as it heals so quickly again.

23. Q. The barb holds them, and they have no chance to sink?—A. Yes

24, Q. Therefore the percentage of loss is nothing ?—A. I would not reckon it any-

25. Q@. The loss they make is only when firing at a travelling seal?—A. Yes.

26. Q. And that loss would be by the animal escaping ?—A. Yes.

27. Q. You would not consider it lost, then?—A. No. If not hit in a vital part it
is not lost, for the Indian fires at a close range, and there are two in a boat, and
almost sure of it before the shot is fired, because they can’t sink far before they are
right on to it.

28, Q. So the percentage of the seals lost by Indian hunters, ‘‘ sleeping” and not
“travelling,” would be how much?—A. With sleeping seals there i is no loss. In trav-
elling seals there are none lost, only in escaping. Last year I saw a great number of
seals brought in that had been shot before.

29. Q. From personal knowledge and observation, you are satisfied that a flesh-
wound made in the seal would heal rapidly and not injure the seal?—A. Yes; the
shot seems te strike in the fatty parts or blubber, and does not seem to hurt the ani-
mal, as it closes over and scon heals.

30. Q. In the months of February, March, and April, have you seen a marked num-
ber of female seals bearing young killed?—A. Yes; in winter there are a number.

31. Q. Does that mean “ barren” cows?—A. No; on the coast we get them ‘ with
young.” I have not seen many ‘‘ barren cows” out here in winter.

32. Q. During the months of February, March, and April, what would you say was
the proportion of males to females?—A. I have only done one winter’s sealing, and
that winter they would be fully one-half females during February and March.

33. Q. That is, there would be as many females as bulls and grey pups?—A. Yes;
I have never seen a female grey pup on the coast. That is a yearling grey female
seal; that is corroborated by the Indians. All the yearlings seen by me have been
males.

feet Q. That is well known, you say, by the Indians?—A. Oh, yes. They remark
this.
* * * * * * *

38. Q. But there is a larger number of males killed than females in April, May, and
June?—A. Yes; in those three months we get a larger number of males; bulls from
3 to 4 years old; all about the same size.

39. Q. Your opinion is that the females, after the month of May, hasten on to the
Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes.

40. Q. Now, from the beginning of the sealing season, when you start out

190 this time of year (January ); till the time you enter Behring’s Sea, what is

your opinion as to the percentage of female seals, including both bearing and

barren cows, killed? What would be the proportion of female seals, including both

bearing and barren cows, killed? What would be the proportion of females as com-
pared with the bulls?—A. Right up to the Shumigan Islands?

41. Q. Yes. Would it be 60 per cent., or 70 per cent., or what?—A. Yes, I think it
would be about 65 or 70 per cent. of males, and the remainder mixed cows—bearing
and barren cows.

42 Q. About what percentage of barren cows?—A. I think about equally divided:
about 15 per cent. of barren and 15 per cent. of bearing cows, and 70 per cent. of
bulls, would pretty near represent the catch on the upper and lower coast.

43. Q. There is an opinion expressed that a seal pup will not swim; some people
say s0?—A. I have seen three with their dams in the water on the Alaskan coast.

44, Q. How far from shore?—A. 40 or 50 miles from shore, in the month of June.

45. Q. Isit your opinion that they would be born in the water?—A. Yes, or on
the kelp. Seals mate in the water, sleep in the water, and I have seen pups taken
from the dead mother on the vessel, and thrown overboard and swim about awhile
inthe water. I have watched such pups swim about for half-an-hour ormore. They
seemed to have no difficulty in swimming.

46. Q. You have never seen or heard of a Canadian sealing-schooner attempting to
raid the Pribyloff Islands?—A. I have never heard of one.

970 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

47. Q. If such a thing had been done or attempted it would be sure to be known
among sealers?—A. Yes; it would be impossible to keep it a secret.

48. Q. Is it your opinion that our ship-owners and masters have done everything
they could possibly do to discourage anything of that kind?—A. Yes; everything.

49, Q. What has been the general distance you have sealed—the distance from the
seal islands?—A. From 100 to 140 miles. I was within 80 miles of them last year;
that was the nearest I was to them. ;

50. Q. Of course your men on board would, if they had ever been engaged in such
raiding of the islands, certainly have told their fellows?—A. Yes, it would soon have
become known. ;

51. Q. It is well known to all sealers that certain schooners have raided those
islands?—A. Yes, during 1889 and 1890.

51*. Q. Do you remember what their names are?
‘<Mollie Adams,” ‘George R. White,” and others.

52. Q. Do you remember any other schooner raiding the islands?—A. Yes; the
German schooner ‘ Adele.”

53. Q. It was well known that it was a German vessel?—A. Oh, yes.

54. Q. Those American vessels that raided the Pribyloff Islands recruited their
erews—where?—A. | think the ‘‘ Mollie Adams” recruited her crew at Gloucester.

55. Q. In the United States?—A. Yes; she fitted up in Port Townsend, Washington.

56. Q. Did you ever hear of any American vessels fitting out at Sand Point to raid
the islands?—A. I do not remember it.

57. Q. Were you ordered out of Behring’s Sea last year?—A. Yes.

58. Q. By whom?—A. The British steamer ‘‘ Porpoise.”

59. Q. On being ordered out of the Sea, you immediately complied?—A. Yes; I
came right away.

60. Q. Did you lower your boats afterwards?—A. I did not. I came right out of
the Sea.

61. Q. What month was that?—A. 9th August.

62. Q. Had you not been ordered out, were you in good hunting ground?—A. Oh,
yes.

” 63. Q. Were the seals plentiful at the time you were warned; that is, as plentiful
as you had previously seen them?—A. Yes; just as thick as ever.

64. Q. What was your catch up to the time you were warned out?—A. 2,434 in
Behring’s Sea.

65. Q. What was your coast catch?—A. 1,008 on the coast, and 2,434 in the Sea.

66. Q. Had you been unmolested for another thirty days your chances were
191 good for a large catch?—A. Yes; our chances were good for quite doubling
our catch.

67. Q. Your principal ground for sealing you found—where?—A. About 100 miles
westward of the Islands of St. George and St. Panl. I took 1,000 in four days there.

68. Q. During that time, when you were getting seals so quickly, was your per-
centage of loss greater there than on the coast?—A. No; they were very quiet.

69. Q. You have stated that, from your personal observation, you think the seals
were as plentiful last year as you have ever seen them in Behring’s Sea?—A. Yes;
much more so than I ever saw them before.

70. Q. More so at a distance of 100 to 130 miles from the nearest seal island ?—
A. Yes.

71. Q. What course would that lie from the Pribyloff Islands?—A. About west.

72. Q. At the time you were sealing there were there any other Canadian schoon-
ers in your company ?—A. Yes; the ‘‘Annie C. Moore,” the ‘ Carmelite,” and the
“Ariel.” They had all an average catch.

73. Q. Have you ever heard of the McLeans raiding Copper Islands?—A. Yes.

74. Q. Do you believe they did actually raid them?—A. Yes.

75. Q. Did you hear the story of their going, with three boats of the ‘‘ Webster ”
and ‘*City of San Diego” in a crowd, landing at a passage between the rocks and
the mainland of the island, and standing there, where the water was swift, and
shooting the seals as they passed through?—A. Yes; but they lost a great many.
The captain of the ‘‘San Diego” said that they didn’t get one-tenth of what they
shot.

76. Q. It is the prevailing opinion among the sealers that the “J. Hamilton
Lewis” was seized for landing on the islands?—A. Yes; the Russians had been
watching her. She was seized for actually raiding the islands.

77. Q. You didn’t go to the Copper Island side at all?—A. I did not.

78. Q. In leaving Behring’s Sea, where did you come out through?—A. Through
the Four Mountain Pass.

79. Q. After you had been warned out, did you speak any other cutter?—A. I did:
not.

80. Q. Did you see any seals from the time you were warned out till the time you.
came through the pass?—A. They were just as thick as ever within 40 miles of the:

A. Yes; the American schooner

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 971

Four Mountain Pass. We were two days sailing through them. It grieved us very
much, I can tell you, to sail through seals and couldn’t touch them.

81. Q. The Four Mountain Pass is about what longitude?—A. ‘‘172 Pass” we
call it.

82. Q. But you say there were plenty of seals from the time you were warned up
to within 40 miles of this pass?—A. Yes; just as thick as where we had left.

83. Q. Will you state in direct evidence, as though in Court, that, as far as your
knowledge goes, no Canadian sealer, directly or indirectly, ever raided or attempted
to raid the seal islands?—A. I have had ample opportunity of learning if such had
been the case, and I know of none.

Captain Cox, continuing, said: I didn’t take one ‘‘ bearing” female seal last season
in Behring’s Sea. I have taken a few which were evidently ‘‘ with milk.”

84. @. What percentage do you say?—A. There might be 5 per cent. of what I
took which had had young; there was evidence of having had young; whether they
had last year or not I do not know.

(Signed) WILLIAM Cox.

Sworn before me this 25th day of January, 1892.

(Signed) A. R. Mitne, Collector of Customs.

A Ye Sk Tf hSs Nios 6. 2S; 93.

TREATY AND CONVENTION

BETWEEN

GREAT BRIPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RELATING TO

BEHRING’S SEA.

Signed at Washington, February 29 and April 18, 1892.
Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7, 1892.

PRESENTED TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BY COMMAND
OF HER MAJESTY.

IVAN MD. es

973

TREATY AND CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RELATING TO BEHRING’S SEA,

ING:

TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. ARBITRATION RESPECTING THE SEAL FISHERIES IN
BEHRING’S SEA.

Signed at Washington, February 29, 1892.
[Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7, 1892.]

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and the United States of America, being desirous to provide
for an amicable settlement of the questions which have arisen between
their respective Governments concerning the jurisdictional rights of
the United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea, and concerning also
the preservation of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said
sea, and the rights of the citizens and subjects of either country as
regards the taking of fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said
waters, have resolved to submit to arbitration the questions involved,
and to the end of concluding a Convention for that purpose have
appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries:

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, Sir Julian Pauncefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B., Her Majesty’s
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United
States; and the President of the United States of America, James G.
Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective Full
Powers, which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed
to and concluded the following Articles:

2 ARTICLE I.

The questions which have arisen between the Government of Her Britannic Maj-
esty and the Government of the United States concerning the jurisdictional rights
of the United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea, and concerning also the preser-
vation of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said sea, and the rights of the
citizens and subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in or habitu-
ally resorting to the said waters, shall be submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration, to
be composed of seven Arbitrators, who shall be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say: two shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty; two shall be named
by the President of the United States; his Excellency the President of the French
Republic shall be jointly requested by the High Contracting Parties to name one;
His Majesty the King of Italy shall be so requested to name one; and His Majesty
the King of Sweden and Norway shall be so requested to name one. The seven Arbi-
trators to be so named shall be jurists of distinguished reputation in their respective
countries; and the selecting Powers shall be requested to choose, if possible, jurists
who are acquainted with the English language,

975

976 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any or either of the said
Arbitrators, or in the event of any or either of the said Arbitrators omitting or
declining or ceasing to act as such, Her Britannic Majesty, or the President of the
United States, or his Excellency the President of the French Republic, or His Maj-
esty the King of Italy, or His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, as the case
may be, shall name, or shall be requested to name forthwith, another person to act
as Arbitrator in the place and stead of the Arbitrator originally named by such head
of a State.

And in the event of the refusal or omission for two months after receipt of the
joint request from the High Contracting Parties of his Excellency the President of
the French Republic, or His Majesty the King of Italy, or His Majesty the King of
Sweden and Norway, to name an Arbitrator, either to fill the original appointment
or to fill a vacancy as above provided, then in such case the appointment shall be
made or the vacancy shall be filled in such manner as the High Contracting Parties
shall agree.

ARTICLE II.

The Arbitrators shall meet at Paris within twenty days after the delivery of the
counter-cases mentioned in Article LV, and shall proceed impartially and carefully
to examine and decide the questions that have been or shall be laid before them as
herein provided on the part of the Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the
United States respectively. All questions considered by the Tribunal, including
the final decision, shall be determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one person to attend the
Tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all matters connected with the
arbitration.

3 ARTICLE III.

The printed Case of each of the two parties, accompanied by the documents, the
official correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered
in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other party as soon
as may be after the appointment of the members of the Tribunal, but within a
period not exceeding four months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications
of this Treaty.

ARTICLE IV.

Within three months after the delivery on both sides of the printed case, eitheT
party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and
to the Agent of the other party, a counter-case, and additional documents, corre-
spondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents, correspondence, and evi-
dence so presented by the other party.

If, however, in consequence of the distance of the place from which the evidence
to be presented is to be procured, either party shall, within thirty days after the
receipt by its Agent of the case of the other party, give notice to the other party
that it requires additional time for the delivery of such counter-case, documents,
correspondence, and evidence, such additional time so indicated, but not exceeding
sixty days beyond the three months in this Article provided, shall be allowed.

If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either party shall have specified or
alluded to any Report or document in its own exclusive possession, without annex-
ing a copy, such party shall be bound, if the other party thinks proper to apply for
it. to furnish that party with a copy thereof; and either party may call upon the
other, through the Arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified copies of any
papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance notice thereof within thirty
days after delivery of the Case; and the original or copy so requested shall be deliv-
ered as soon as may be, and within a period not exceeding forty days after receipt
of notice.

ARTICLE V.

It shall be the duty of the Agent of each party, within one month after the expira-
tion of the time limited for the delivery of the counter-case on both sides, to deliver
in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other party a
printed argument showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his
Government relies, and either party may also support the same before the Arbitra-
tors by oral argument of Counsel; and the Arbitrators may, if they desire further
elucidation with regard to any point, require a written or printed statement or argu-
ment, or oral argument by Counsel, upon it; but in such case the other party shall
be entitled to reply either orally or in writing, as the case may be,

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 977

4 ARTICLE VI.

In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, it is agreed that the follow-
ing five points shall be submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace
a distinct decision upon each of said five points, to wit:

1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring’s Sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise
prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?

2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and
conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring’s Sea included in the phrase
“Pacific Ocean,” as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;
and what rights, if any, in the Behring Sea, were held and exclusively exercised by
Russia after said Treaty ?

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in
Behring’s Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States
and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that
Treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of protection or prop-
erty in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea
when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?

ARTICLE VII.

If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of
Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper pro-
tection and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring
Sea, the Arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations outside the
jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and over what
waters such Regulations should extend, and to aid them in that determination, the
Report of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the respective Governments, shall
be laid before them, with such other evidence as either Government may submit.

The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to co-operate in securing the
adhesion of other Powers to such Regulations.

. ARTICLE VIII.

The High Contracting Parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a refer-
ence which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged
to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the

claims presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous that this subordinate
5 question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determina-
tion of the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the Arbitrators
any question of fact involved in said claims, and ask for a finding thereon, the
question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the sub-
ject of further negotiation.
ARTICLE IX.

The High Contracting Parties having agreed to appoint two Commissioners on the
part of each Government to make the joint investigation and Report contemplated
in the preceding Article VII, and to include the terms of the said Agreement in the
present Convention, to the end that the joint and several Reports and recommenda-
tions of said Commissioners may be in due form submitted to the Arbitrators, should
the contingency therefor arise, the said Agreement is accordingly herein included as
follows:

Each Government shall appoint two Commissioners to investigate, conjointly with
the Commissioners of the other Government, all the facts having relation to seal-
life in Behring’s Sea, and the measures necessary for its proper protection and pres-
ervation.

The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be able to agree, make a joint
Report to each of the two Governments, and they shall also report, either jointly or
severally, to each Government on any points upon which they may be unable to
agree.

These Reports shall not be made public until they shall be submitted to the Arbi-
trators, or it shall appear that the contingency of their being used by the Arbitrators
cannot arise.

ARTICLE X.

Each Government shall pay the expenses of its members of the Joint Commission
in the investigation referred to in the preceding Article.

BS, PT V. 62

978 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ARTICLE XI.

The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from
the close of the argument on both sides,

It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who
may assent to it.

The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be delivered to the
Agent of Great Britain for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered to
the Agent of the United States for his Government.

ARTICLE XII.

Each Government shall pay its own Agent, and provide for the proper remunera-
tion of the Counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrators appointed by it, und for
the expense of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All other
expenses connected with the arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments
in equal moieties.

6 ARTICLE XIII.

The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and may
appoint and employ the necessary officers to assist them.

ARTICLE XIV.

The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings
of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the
questions referred to the Arbitrators.

ARTICLE XV.

The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic Majesty and by the
President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at Washington
or at London within six months from the date hereof, or earlier if possible.

In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty,
and have hereunto affixed our seals.

Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 29th day of February, 1892.

[L. 8.] JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
[L. 8.] JAMES G. BLAINE.
No. 2.

CONVENTION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES
oF AMERICA. Mopus VIVENDI IN BEHRING’S SEA.

Signed at Washington, April 18, 1892.
[Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7, 1892.]

Whereas, by a Convention concluded between Her Majesty the Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United
States of America on the 29th day of February, 1892, the High Con-
tracting Parties have agreed to submit to arbitration, as therein stated,
the questions which have arisen between them concerning the jurisdic-
tional rights of the United States in the waters of Behring’s Sea, and
concerning also the preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resort-

ing to, the said sea, and the rights of the subjects and citizens of
7 either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in, or habitually
resorting to, the said waters; and whereas the High Contracting
Parties, having differed as to what restrictive regulations for seal
hunting are necessary during the pendency of such arbitration, have

CO ee

eo

APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 979

agreed to adjust such difference in manner hereinafter mentioned, and
without prejudice to the rights of either party:

The said High Contracting Parties have appointed as their Plenipo-
tentiaries to conclude a Convention for this purpose, that is to say:

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, Sir Julian Pauncefote, Knight Grand Cross of the most dis-
tinguished Order of St. Michael and St. George, Knight Commander
of the most honorable Order of the Bath, and Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty to the United
States;

And the President of the United States of America, James G. Blaine,
Secretary of State of the United States;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective Full
Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon aud concluded
the following Articles:

ARTICLE I.

Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit, during the pendency of the arbitration,
seal killing in that part of Behring’s Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation
described in Article l of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and
will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by Brit-
ish subjects and vessels.

ARTICLE II.

The United States Government will prohibit seal killing for the same period in the
saine part of Behring’s Sea, and on the shores and islands thereof, the property of
the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence
and care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observ-
ance of this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.

ARTICLE III.

Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters of
Behring Sea, outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States, may be
seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the
High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to
the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone have
jurisdiction to try the offence and impose the penalties for thesame. The witnesses
and proofs necessary to establish the offence shall also be sent with them.

8 ARTICLE IV.

In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the case and arguments of that
Government before the Arbitrators, it is agreed that suitable persons designated
by Great Britain will be permitted at any time, upon application, to visit or remain
upon the seal islands, during the sealing season, for that purpose.

ARTICLE VY,

If the result of the arbitration be to affirm the right of British sealers to take seals
in Behring’s Sea within the bounds claimed by the United States, under its purchase
from Russia, then compensation shall be made by the United States to Great Britain
(for the use of her subjects) for abstaining from the exercise of that right during the
pendency of the arbitration upon the basis of such a regulated and limited catch or
catches as in the opinion of the Arbitrators might have been taken without an undue
diminution of the seal herds; and, on the other hand, if the result of the arbitration
shall be to deny the right of British sealers to take seals within the said waters, then
compensation shall be made by Great Britain to the United States (for itself, its citi-
zens, and lessees) for this agreement to limit the island catch to 7,500 a season, upon
the basis of the difference between this number and such larger catch as in the
opinion of the Arbitrators might have been taken without an undue diminution of
the seal herds.

The amount awarded, if any, in either case, shall be such as under all circumstances
is just and equitable, and shall be promptly paid.

980 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

ARTICLE VI.

This Convention may be denounced by either of the High Contracting Parties at
any time after the 3lst day of October, 1893, on giving to the other party two months’
notice of its termination, and at the expiration of such notice the Convention shall
cease to be in force,

ARTICLE VII.

The present Convention shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic Majesty and by the
President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged, either at London or at Wash-
ington, as early as possible.

In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Convention,
and have hereunto affixed our seals.

Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 18th day of April, 1892.

(Signed) JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
JAMES G. BLAINE.

BEHRING SKA ARBITRATION,

— ———

AUP PrN Dix

TO

Case oF Her MAsesty’s GOVERNMENT.

WO LA VEE EV.

CONTENTS “Ole 7 OLA

Part 1.—Map of the North-West Coasts of America, and the Aleutian and Kurile
Islands, published in the Quartermaster-General’s Department, St.
Petersburgh, 1802.

Part 2.—Map of the Northern Portion of the North Pacific Ocean.

982
°

SS

oe

esge Sey
Ure eer SY
hrs A 5

eS —

in Mayr
i | A Guer Gf 40% oe
\ q "a

th

ee Ou h

ee ne

Sir Ci Prasets Aap: 0%
KAPTA
MOPCKITX’) OTKPDbITII

POCCINCKHMH = MOPEMAABATEAAMH
Ha

THXOMDb » AEAQOBUTOM) MOPAX'’b

BL PAGHAINA 1 4 XB XUMHHEMH MND.
- —+

CTBEHHOME

Ca
. 19.

Hof. 17-1321.

men oc

Ero UMMEPATOI

| heviligriioe Die WD. IS.

a

|

A

S tenn

E M 10)

SKATO BEANYECTBA

a
| | | \\ 1710 ‘

7

|

ee ee iniell tiaiad intel nied iaeind nied
5

ee

a ee
| | | 4815 |

igo

igs

M

eS ee

200

a om bagncn
[4 Seer ame (Dndleg ase hoy?) can Cm |
seg ale AG

Lfsann verwial|

ye font

| Prcantoe

Ne
|
IP 0 B
|
—
|
he in
LGA a
Lett. Inn em e| Be A on hem

Peta fleck) Dra

li 15

HAW

Aoarota os crroma Purro |

ae
a5 |

=<. ee ee

ofrk
ic (ae lev & dla Paar loft

Ce d Hts Ink de Gerry conv h|

Frets Da vkaserd

I Xx O

280

Mispoit Auch '

(a a ae

|
Le Setar Kayak sh Afegrak
cache fant Schuliohris 17 I3-G7.

pa A RRC fee Se pe eR Re

52 |

a a Ce Kk

pr el nag sen. tn Cn me
ee Vancon vir

|
wa th Punt Ehonebek

Se

Hin &

{Pinta bovaky, Arte, O

Arn Ua reenen

a? At SLi aor

Ro enter

x
Fob had fa
fm 1 Sethe veers

Ate

|i tua easy
Aa Fant hw

Aeftacta em ore Spa oe FA ome

c

A fur Lfragne

sec CCRC

SS" clhped B compose

4

a8 1 et xin rst Oak, ‘

P's i f

ee

aa —— _ . <$

‘a
: Sa Va STRAIT

ys q NORTON

ereryOre yy
shee Brat

10
Soho
S &E£E A
Islands North
te of Lat SOMGWimed by ——
. Uhase of 1799"
PROCS oF Pune
ousr or wie re Sf Wren LOTTE
sci e, o 9 CHAAL
Anon OTEK! cove OQ , A < ag BS
at* Bort og ¢ Ay > ISLANDS:
ae ° Peeve, o +
/ artou Ss Rrra. .* a 2 ae $
A Aan = 2 os a ieee yok 9
ff ect Tee) @ Nope ae Son en s
5 7 tur We u b
b

J s ———

/ 4 L a a

E = =
ue ees ae a ee ee = = + ss
7 > 7 yn NICOLAY. oC

DERED

2 VHICH RUSSIA 7

c1oseo EA WHEN

M OF >
1ERN LiMiT_?.

4 (slinds Northward

a 1 from Jepen (idined’by Ukex maAF OF TH

ke a ’ ‘ 7
NORTHERN PART eee, |
OF THE

NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN

50 60 [= | ae
| r

=S=

I——— ~—lL_, L SS eS = x — = a —— =< —— = ——_——— = | —=——1 —
LOWOITUDE LAST OF OREEMWICH 1BQ LONGITUDE WERT OF OREKW WICH 110 160 150 140 1

ote
eae
Iie?

NAT