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 captian 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. Extract from the "Daily Colonist," Victoria, B. C., of September 13, 1887. List of Vessels Arrived, with their total Catch; those to Arrive; Schooners 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 : The number of seals caught by American schooners and sold in this city is as 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 brought into port for this season will represent in dollars, at 6 dol. 50 c. per skin, the handsome sum of 140,302 dol. 50 c. My Lord, No. 64. Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received October 10.) Washington, September 28, 1887. IN pursuance of the instructions contained in your Lordship'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) Inclosure 1 in No. 64. L. S. SACKVILE WEST. Sir L. West to Mr. Bayard. Sir, Washington, September 28, 1887. 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 February 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) Inclosure 2 in No. 64. L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. 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 Sea seizures. 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. "I 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. 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 record 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 Company. 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. No. 65. Note from United States' Minister at Stockholm to Swedish Government.-(Communicated by M. d'Adelborg, October 10, 1887.) THE Government of the United States recognizes the necessity of taking 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. 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 so 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. d'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 enough to leave at the Foreign Office. Her Majesty's Government have not received any similar communication from the Government of the United States regarding the protection 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 Government. Foreign Office, October 11, 1887, No. 67. Foreign Office to Baron Plessen. ر 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 protection of seals in Behring's Sea. The Marquis of Salisbury would be glad to be informed of the decision which may be adopted in the matter by the German Govern ment. Sir, Foreign Office, October 11, 1887. No. 68. Admiralty to Foreign Office.-(Received October 14.) Admiralty, October 13, 1887. WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the seizure 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. I am, &c. Rear-Admiral Seymour to Admiralty. "Triumph," at Esquimalt, September 23, 1887. Sir, 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 removal. 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. 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. 6 "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,' 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 extermination of furbearing animals in Alaska. The Act is directly against killing seals 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. "In 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 citizens, subjects of the High Contracting Powers, should be neither disturbed 6 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.' "A 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 conditions specified in the then following Articles.' These restrictions are not dissimlar 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 Behring's Straits to the south Cape of the Island of Uruck, namely, 45° 50′ northern latitude 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 trangressor'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. restriction. And Russia's claim was never revived until she purported to cede to the United States a portion of 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 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 extravagant 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 jurisis 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 limitation of a marine league for general territorial jurisdiction by authorizing the District 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 sbores, with the exception of any waters or bays which are so landlocked 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. "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. Tassara, 16th December, 1862, tersely |
