Sec. 1963. When the lease heretofore made by the Secretary of the Right to take seal Treasury to "The Alaska Commercial Company," of the right to engage in may be leased. taking fur-seals on the Islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, pursuant to 1 July, 1870, c. 189, ss. 4, 5, and 6, v. 16, the Act of the 1st July, chapter 189, or when any future similar lease expires, pp. 180, 181. or is surrendered, forfeited, or terminated, the Secretary 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 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 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 every such lease shall be duly executed in duplicate, and shall not be transferable. Sec. 1964. The Secretary of the Treasury shall take from the lessees of such Bond. islands in all cases a bond, with securities, in a sum not less than 500,000 dollars, 1 July, 1870, c. 189, conditioned for the faithful observance of all the laws and requirements of s. 4, v. 16, p. 180. 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. Sec. 1965. No persons other than American citizens shall be permitted, by lease or otherwise, to occupy the Islands of Saint Paul and 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 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, benefit, or advantage, directly or indirectly, of any persons other than American citizens. who may lease. 1 July, 1870, c. 189, s. 5, v. 16, p. 181. 1 July, 1870, c. 189, Sec. 1966. Every lease shall contain a covenant on the part of the lessee Covenants in lease, that he will not keep, sell, furnish, give, or dispose of any distilled spirits or spirituous liquors on either of those islands to any of the natives thereof, such 8.5, v. 16, p. 181. person not being a physician and furnishing the same for use as medicine; and every Revenue officer, officially acting as such, on either of the islands, shall seize and destroy any distilled 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 islands, Penalty. or in the waters adjacent thereto, without authority of the lessees thereof, and 1 July, 1870, c. 189. every person who molests, disturbs, or interferes with the lessees, or either of s. 5, v. 16, p. 181. them, or their agents or employés, in the lawful prosecution of their business, under the provisions of this chapter, shall for each offence be punished as prescribed in section 1961; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, appurtenances, and cargo, who crews are found engaged in any violation of the provisions of sections 1965 to 1968, inclusive, shall be forfeited to the United States. 1 July, 1870, c. 189, 5, v. 16, p. 181. Sec. 1968. If any person or Company, under any lease herein authorized, Penalty upon lessees. knowingly kills, or permits to be killed, any number of seals exceeding the number for each island in this chapter prescribed, such person or Company 8. shall, in addition to the penalties and forfeitures 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 in every Tax upon seal-skins. lease, as provided in section 1963, a revenue tax or duty of 2 dollars is laid upon 1 July, 1870, c. 189, each fur-seal skin taken and shipped from the Islands of Saint Paul and Saint . 6, v. 16, p. 181. George, during the continuance of any lease, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States; 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. nated. Sec. 1970. The Secretary of the Treasury may terminate any lease given Lease may be termito any person, Company, or Corporation on full and satisfactory proof of the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations established 1 July, 1870, c. 189, by him. 8. 6, v. 16, p. 182. Lessees to furnish copies to masters of their vessels. 1 July, 1870, c. 189, 8. 4, v. 16, p. 180. Certain sections may be altered. 1 July, 1870, c. 189, 8. 8, v. 16, p. 182. Agents and assistants to manage seal fisheries. Sec. 1971. The 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 islands as the authority of the party for landing and taking skins. Sec. 1972. Congress may at any time hereafter alter, amend, or repeal sections from 1960 to 1971, both inclusive, of this chapter. Sec. 1973. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint one Agent and three Assistant Agents, who shall be charged with the management of the seal fisheries in Alaska, and the performance of such other duties as may 5 March, 1872, c. 31, be assigned to them by the Secretary of the Treasury. s. 1, v. 17, p. 35. Their pay, &c. 5 March, 1872, c. 31, s. 1, v. 17, p. 35. Not to be interested in right to take seals. 5 March, 1872, c. 31, s. 1, v. 17, p. 35. Agents may adminis Sec. 1974. The Agent shall receive the sum of 10 dollars each day, one Assistant Agent the sum of 8 dollars each day, and two Assistant Agents the sum of 6 dollars each day while so employed; and they shall also be allowed their necessary travelling expenses in going to and returning from Alaska, for which expenses vouchers shall be presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, and such expenses shall not exceed in the aggregate 600 dollars each in any one year. Sec. 1975. Such Agents shall never be interested, directly or indirectly, in any lease of the right to take seals, nor in any proceeds or profits thereof, either as owner, agent, partner, or otherwise. Sec. 1976. Such Agents are empowered to administer oaths in all cases ter certain oaths and relating to the service of the United States, and to take testimony in Alaska for the use of the Government in any matter concerning the public revenues. take testimony. 5 March, 1872, c. 31, 8. 3, v. 17, p. 35. No. 38. Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received May 17.) My Lord, I have, &c. My Lord, No. 39. Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received June 10.) Washington, May 30, 1887. 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. 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 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 profound conundrums to be proposed 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 captures. 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 "landlocked sea," as he calls it, has recently contributed to the prevailing wrong impressions 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 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 America, beginning from Behring Strait (the northern boundary of Behring Sea) 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 Strait to the south cape of the Island of Urup, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects," and foreign vessels are interdicted from approaching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and islands named under penalty of confiscation. Having this Ukase before him, John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, on the 25th February, 1822, wrote to M. Poletica, the Russian Minister, as follows (the letter is printed in the same volume of State Papers, p. 483): "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, 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 seizure 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 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." 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 distance from shore to shore on this sea in latitude 51° north is not less than 90° 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 Convention 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 Asiatic coast of Russia. But, even assuming that it could have been treated as a land-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 Russia sold 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 "Diplomatic 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 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 question of the 3-mile line which now forms so prominent a feature in our Canadian fishery troubles, and saying that by the laws in force 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. Sevard (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 instructions 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. Hoffman (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 as a 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 that the Revenue cutters "Bear" and "Rush," which have been ordered by the Treasury Department from San Francisco to the Behring Sea, have probably 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. Sir, No. 40. Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received June 28.) Downing Street, June 27, 1887. WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure 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. Sir, The Marquis of Lansdowne to Sir H. Holland. Government House, Toronto, May 21, 1887. 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 called 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 place in 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. 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 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 in the waters of the Pacific Ocean, adjacent to Queen Victoria Islands, Queen Charlotte Islands, and Alaska. 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. |
