Inclosure in No. 15.

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

(Telegraphic.) 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.

Sir,

No. 16.

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

Foreign Office, November 18, 1886.

I HAVE to inform you that inquiry has been made by the Government of Canada as to what reply has been received from the Government 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' Revenue 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 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.

Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.-(Received by telegraph, November 19.)

My Lord,

Washington, November 19, 1886.

UPON the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of yesterday'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 Behring'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, &c.

(Signed)

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Gentlemen,

No. 18.

Foreign Office to Messrs. Lampson and Co.

Foreign Office, November 19, 1886.

I AM directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, relative to the seizure of certain British-owned seal-fishing vessels by the United States' Revenue 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.

I am, &c.

No. 19.

Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.-(Received November 26.)

My Lord, Washington, November 14, 1886. WITH reference to my despatch of the 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 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 Government against such seizures contained in my note of the 21st ultimo, copy of which was inclosed in my above, mentioned despatch.

Sir,

I have, &c.

Department of State, November 12, 1886. 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, I 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 in the trial, and the rulings of law as applied by the Court.

I take leave also to acknowledge your communication of the 21st 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.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

T. F. BAYARD.

No. 20.

(Telegraphic.)

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

Foreign Office, December 6, 1886. CANADIAN Government 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.

(Extract.)

I

Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.-(Received December 24.)

Washington, December 10, 1886.

HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of the 6th instant, and to inclose to your Lordship herewith copy of a note which I addressed to the Secretary of State in the sense of it.

Sir,

Inclosure in No. 21.

Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard.

Washington, December 7, 1886. 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 possible 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 fishing in that sea. 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 be made in Behring's Sea.

Sii,

Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received January 5.)

Downing Street, January 4, 1887. WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure by the United States' Revenue-steamer "Corwin" of certain Canadian 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 the 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.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

JOHN BRAMSTON

Inclosure 1 in No. 22.

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

Sir, Government House, Ottawa, November 27, 1886. 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 "Caroline," "Onward," and "Thornton " by the United States' Revenue steamer "Corwin" while fishing for seals in Behring'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 furbearing 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 Government 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 between Russia and the United States of the same year 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 pretensions 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 down in that Memorandum that " the existence of territorial rights to the distance of 100 miles from the coasts upon two opposite continents, and the prohibition 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 regulated 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 freedom of commerce and navigation.'

Under the Treaty of 1867 Russia ceded to the United States "all the rights, franchises, 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 Columbia have for some years past frequented the waters of Behring's Sea without molestation, 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 extraterritorial authority," and as an "interference with the unquestionable rights of the American fishermen to pursue their business without molestation 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.

I have, &c.

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 communication from Mr. E. C. Baker, M.P., Vice-President of the British Columbia Board

Inclosure in No. 15.

The Marquis of Lansdowne to Mr. Stanhope.

(Telegraphic.) 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.

Sir,

No. 16.

The Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. West.

Foreign Office, November 18, 1886.

I HAVE to inform you that inquiry has been made by the Government of Canada as to what reply has been received from the Government 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' Revenue 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 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.

Sir L. West to the Earl of Iddesleigh.-(Received by telegraph, November 19.)

My Lord,

Washington, November 19, 1886. UPON the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of yesterday'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 Behring'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, &c.

(Signed)

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

Gentlemen,

No. 18.

Foreign Office to Messrs. Lampson and Co.

Foreign Office, November 19, 1886.

I AM directed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, relative to the seizure of certain British-owned seal-fishing vessels by the United States' Revenue 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.