"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 Ounalaska on the 8th July bound to San Francisco.

"Nineteen Indians and three sailors, belonging to the the Challenger's' crew, left Sitka in the early part of the and one boat, en route for Victoria and Seattle. They took provisions furnished by the commander of the 'Sayward.'

W. P. Sayward,' and two of week on board several canoes with them a large supply of

"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 Erickson, 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."

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 diplomatic relations whatsoever. The vessels in question were released upon representations 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 Government 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 way if the facts are as alleged. The claim that Behring's Sea is a mare clausum upon which the seizure of 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 impossible to maintain the mare clausum theory.'

What course of 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 lawlessness on the part of the American authorities, and their regret that better protection 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

It was reported that Captain Miner, of the schooner "Penelope," had overpowered the men put on his schooner as a prize crew, and was now on his way to Victoria with his unwilling passengers.

Sir,

No. 53.

The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. West.

Foreign Office, September 10, 1887. BY a despatch of the 30th October last the late Earl of Iddesleigh instructed you to call the attention of the United States' Secretary 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 rights to compensation.

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 seizures, orders had been issued by the President'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.

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 reply (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, contained 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 seizures 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-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in 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 "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 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 American 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 geographical 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' Congress 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, 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'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 American Secretary of State by the Russian Minister at Washington on the 11th February, 1822; whereupon Mr. Quincy 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 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 that 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 American citizens from the shore beyond the ordinary distance to which territorial 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 recognized by the laws and usages of nations, which can warrant the claims and Regulations."

The Russian Minister, in his reply, dated the 28th February, after explaining how Russia had acquired her possessions in North America, said :

"I 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. 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 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 pretension advanced in regard to territory, it must be considered not only with reference to the question of territorial rights, 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. 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 navigate 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 latitude 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 prosecution 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 an end, 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 Government in 1821 and 1822, which for your more particular information I inclose herein.

Her Majesty's Government feel sure that, in view of the considerations which I have set forth in this despatch, which you will communicate 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 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.

No. 54.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

SALISBURY.

Sir H. Holland to the Marquis of Lansdowne.

My Lord, Downing Street, September 14, 1887. 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 correspondence which has passed repecting 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, 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.

My Lord,

Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received September 15.)

Washington, September 6, 1887. I HAVE the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith an article from the "New York Times" on maritime jurisdiction in Behring's Sea.

I have, &c.

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 on a 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. It is 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 exclusive 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 a bargain. 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 Behring's Sea. Great Britain's rights in the western half are therefore based on the same title as ours in the eastern. She cannot 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.

No. 53.