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 Behrings' 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 shotgun, and shot seals at a range of from 10 to 15 yards. I lost 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 rifles. One hunter on the Triumph this year got over sixty seals and only lost one. I never saw a cow seal with her young beside her. Out of the twenty-three I got, five or six were cows carrying their young. VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 9, 1889. CAPT. J. D. WARREN. JAMES WILSON. I am a master 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 Pacific coast from 47° to 48° north latitude to 56° or 57° north latitude within Behring 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 nse rifles and shotguns entirely, Indian hunters use spears. Bullets weighing from 300 to 400-grains are used with rifles, and ordinary buckshot with guns. Both rifles and shotguns 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. Frequently 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 "travelers." "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 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 British 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 one hundred seals killed by white hunters are lost or escape. Experienced hunters seldom lose a seal; the losses are chiefly made by inexperienced hunters, only a few of whom are employed, for the reason that as hunters are paid so much a skin, inferior men can not make good wages. I have noticed 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 onehalf are females, and of the females not more than one-half are with young. In Behring Sea not one in one hundred 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 the 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. "Old bulls," ," "bachelors," "two-year-old pups," and "barren 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 Behring Sea. J. D. WARREN. VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, August 10, 1889. Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine. WASHINGTON, May 10, 1890. (Received May 13.) SIR: With reference to the authentication of documents in extradition cases, I have the honor, in obedience to instructions which I have FR 90-27 received from the Marquis of Salisbury, to transmit herewith copy of a dispatch from His Excellency the governor-general of India in council, forwarding the forms of certificate proposed to be adopted in British India in support of applications for the extradition from the United States of America of fugitives from justice. These forms appear to be in accordance with the certificate prescribed in your dispatch to the United States minister in London of the 25th of June last, a copy of which was communicated by him to Lord Salisbury, and I am directed to inquire whether they will be accepted as sufficient by the courts of the United States of America. I have, etc., [Inclosure 1.] JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE. FORT WILLIAM, April 1, 1890. MY LORD: With reference to Your Lordship's dispatches, marginally noted, regardNo. 29 (judicial), ing the authentication of documents to be used for the purpose dated the 19th Septem- of obtaining extradition from the United States of America, we ber, 1889. have the honor to forward, for Your Lordship's information, the No. 129. (public), dated the 21st Novem: forms of certificate which appear to us best suited for adoption in ber, 1889. British India. (2) These forms necessarily differ slightly from those received with Your Lordship's dispatches above mentioned, and we shall be glad to be informed whether they will be accepted as sufficient by the courts of the United States of America. We have, etc., To the Right Honorable VISCOUNT CROSS, G. C. B. LANSDOWNE. I, [Inclosure 2.] Form of certificate. , the consul-general for the United States in Calentta, hereby certify that the annexed paper, being (here state what papers are), proposed to be used upon an application for the extradition from the United States of charged with the crime of alleged to have been committed in properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received in evidence for similar purposes by the tribunals of as required by the act of Congress of August 3, 1882. are Draft of certificate. In forwarding the annexed papers to be used in support of an application for the surrender from the United States of -, charged with the crime of committed in British India, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowlege and belief, the signatures (“A. B.") on the warrant of arrest, and on the information and depositions on which the warrant was granted, are the signatures of a magistrate in British India having authority to issue and receive the same, and I further certify that such documents so signed by a magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the same were issued and taken, and authenticated by a secretary to government and sealed with his official seal, would be received in evidence for similar purposes in the tribunals of British India. Secretary to the Government of India. Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 10th instant, with which you transmit a copy of a dispatch from His Excellency the governor general of India in council, forwarding forms of certificates proposed to be used in British India in authenticating papers in support of applications for the extradition from the United States of fugitives from justice. As you observe, the form of certificate for the signature of the consuls of the United States is in accordance with that prescribed by this Department for the use of the legation in London, and it is believed that the form proposed for the signature of the secretary to the Government of India is in accordance with that employed by the home office in England. You inquire whether these certificates will be accepted as sufficient by the courts of the United States. In reply to this inquiry, I have the honor to say that the form of certificate prescribed by this Department for the use of the legation in London rests on the authority of several adjudicated cases and is the best that could be devised under the circumstances. It is proper to state that the Department was led to direct its employment in consequence of the decision of the commissioner in the recent case of Thomas Barton, who was examined in Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, on a charge of forgery alleged to have been committed in England. The commissioner rejected the documentary evidence for want of proper authentication, and the prisoner would have been discharged had it not been possible to adduce oral evidence. This led the Department to formulate a certificate founded on the adjudications of the courts upon the act of Congress of 1882. It is proper to say that this certificate was submitted to the commissioner in the Barton case, who stated that if such a form had been used in that case he would have admitted the documentary proofs. The Department will cause copies of this certificate to be sent to its consular representatives in those parts of the British Dominions in which they may be called upon to certify extradition papers. I have, etc., JAMES G. BLAINE. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. [Left at the Department of State on June 5 by Sir Julian Pauucefote.] No. 106.] FOREIGN OFFICE, May 22, 1890. SIR: I received in due course your dispatch No. 9, of the 23d January, inclosing copy of Mr. Blaine's note of the 22d 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 Sea. The importance of the subject necessitated a reference to the Government of Canada, whose reply has only recently reached Her Majesty's Government. The negotiations which have taken place between Mr. Blaine and yourself afford strong reason to hope that the difficul ties attending this question are in a fair way towards an adjustment 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 Behring 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 1867, and that from this date onwards until 1886 they had also remained in the undisturbed possession 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 from 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 resistance 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 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," 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 offense contra bonos mores; and secondly, whether, if such be the case, this fact justifies 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 distinctly laid down by President Tyler 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 circumstances, has never hitherto been considered as piracy by any civilized state. Nor, even if the United States had gone so far as to make the killing of fur-seals piracy by their municipal law, would this have justified them in punishing offenses against such law committed by any persons other than their own citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. In the case of the slave trade, a practice which the civilized world has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the right of arresting the vessels of another country is exercised only by special international agreement, and no one government has been allowed that general control of morals in this respect which Mr. Blaine claims on behalf of the United States in regard to seal-hunting. But Her Majesty's Government must question whether this pursuit can of itself be regarded as contra bonos mores, unless and until, for special reasons, it has been agreed by international arrangement to forbid it. Fur-seals are indisputably animals feræ naturæ, 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 Government or citizens of the United States, or even other countries interested in the seal trade, are losers by a certain course of proceeding, to render 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 Sea had been exclusively controlled by the Government 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. First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Russia. After Russia, at the instance of the Russian-American Fur Company, claimed in 1821 the pursuits of commerce, whaling, and fishing from Behring 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 waters, 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 throughout 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 |
