Inclosure 1 in No. 146. Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford. 99 66 (Telegraphic.) August 4, 1888. WITH reference to my telegram of the 30th July, I am informed by the Minister of Fisheries that the schooners "Dolphin," "Grace, Ada," and "Anna Beck" will be sold at Port Townsend, in Washington Territory, on the 22nd August. Immediate intervention of Home Government, as previously asked for, is earnestly requested. (Telegraphic.) Inclosure 2 in No. 146. Lord Knutsford to Lord Stanley of Preston. Downing Street, August 7, 1888. I HAVE received your telegram of 4th August. Instructions sent 2nd August to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to ask United States' Government that, pending settlement of question of legality of seizure, sale of vessels might be postponed. Sir, No. 147. Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 18.) Downing Street, August 18, 1888. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 10th instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, a copy of a despatch from the Governor-General of Canada, forwarding a Minute of his Privy Council on the subject of the proposal of the United States' Government for the establishment of a close time for seals in Behring's Sea. In view of the explanations of the Dominion Government, which state very clearly the strong objections to the proposed close season, it appears to Lord Knutsford that. it will be necessary for the United States' Government to make some modified proposal if the negotiations are to have any useful result. I am, &c. My Lord, Inclosure 1 in No. 147. Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford. Citadel, Quebec, August 3, 1988. WITH reference to your Lordship's despatch of the 8th March last, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, with a note from the American Minister in London, submitting a proposal for regulating the seal fishing 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 protesting against this proposal. Report of a Committee of the Honourable Privy Council for Canada, approved by his Excellency the Governor-General in Council on the 14th July, 1888. THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch, dated the 8th March, 1888, from the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, transmitting a copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, with a note from the United States' Minister in London, submitting a proposal from Mr. Secretary Bayard for the establishment of a close season for the scal fishing in and near Behring's Sea, to extend from the 15th April to the 1st November of each year, and to be operative in the waters lying north of latitude 50° north and between longitude 160° west and 170° east from Greenwich, in which despatch Lord Knutsford asks to be favoured with any observations which the Canadian Government may have to offer on the subject. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the said despatch and inclosures were referred, submits a Report thereon, dated the 7th July, 1888, protesting against Mr. Bayard's proposal as an unjust and unnecessary interference with, or rather prohibition of, rights so long enjoyed to a lawful and remunerative occupation upon the high seas. The Committee concur in the said Report, and advise that a copy thereof, and of this Minute, if approved, be transmitted by your Excellency to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. (Signed) JOHN J. MCGEE, Clerk, Inclosure 3 in No. 147. Minute. Department of Marine and Fisheries, Canada, THE Undersigned has the honour to submit, for the consideration of the Governor-General in Council, the following observations in reply to a despatch from Lord Knutsford to Lord Lansdowne, dated the 8th March, 1888, and inclosing a proposal from Mr. Secretary Bayard for the establishment of a close season for the seal fishing in and near Behring's Sea, to extend from the 15th April to the 1st November of each year, and to be operative in the waters lying north of latitude 50° north and between longitude 160° west and longitude 170° east from Greenwich. Before entering upon the discussion of this proposition, the Minister desires to call attention to a sentence in a letter from Lord Salisbury to Sir L. S. West, dated the 22nd February, 1888, and forming a part of the above-mentioned despatch, in which Lord Salisbury says: "The United States' Minister called to-day at the Foreign Office and spoke to me about the question of the fur seals in Behring's Sea. He said that the difficulties in regard to the seal fisheries in that sea were mainly connected with the question of the close time, and that no attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States to stop the fishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate." This clearly implies that Lord Salisbury had been led by the United States' Minister to believe that there is a fixed close and open season for the killing of seals in Behring's Sea which is common to all vessels of all nationalities, and that during the open season these may legitimately and without molestation pursue the business of catching seals. The facts of the case appear to be that within the limits of the Territory of Alaska, which by the United States' contention includes the waters of Behring's Sea as far westward as a line drawn from a point in Behring's Straits south-west to the meridian of longitude 173° west, the killing of fur-bearing animals, amongst which the seal is included, is prohibited by law; that repeated warnings to this effect have been given by the United States' authorities, and that vessels both of Canada and the United States have within the past two years been seized and condemned for killing seals within these waters. It also appears that in the Islands of St. George and St. Paul, during the months of June, July, September, and October of each year, the United States' Government allows the slaughter of seals to the number of 100,000 by certain citizens of that country known as the Alaska Commercial Company, for which monopoly the United States' Government is paid a yearly revenue of more than 300,000 dollars. At no season of the year, and to no other persons whatever, is it permitted to kill a single seal within what is claimed as the limits of the Territory of Alaska. It is evident, therefore, that there is no part of the year when citizens of any country, with the sole exception of the Alaska Commercial Company, can legitimately kill seals. within the limits named; and when Mr. Phelps stated to Lord Salisbury that "no attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States to stop the fishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate," his statement should be read in conjunction with the fact that there is no period of the year when it is legitimate for any vessels to fish for seals in the waters of Alaska. The proposal to fix a close time is based by Mr. Bayard upon the alleged necessity of immediate measures to prevent the destruction of the seal fishery in Behring's Sea and the North Pacific Ocean. It is not clear from any information at present possessed that any pressing and absolute necessity exists for any such measures, so far as shown by the present condition of that fishery in the North Pacific. From a Report made by the Special United States' Treasury Agent in Alaska,* dated the 31st July, 1887, it appears :— 1. That none but young male seals are allowed to be killed on the Pribyloff Islands, and of these only 100,000 annually. 2. That a careful measurement of the breeding rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands showed 6,357,750 seals, exclusive of young males. 3. That 90 per cent. of the pups bred by these go into the water, leaving a mortality of but 10 per cent. at the place of breeding. 4. That fully one-half of the above 90 per cent. of pups returned the following year as yearlings to the rookeries, leaving thus a total mortality of 45 per cent. from various causes at sca. It needs but a slight consideration of these figures to demonstrate that an addition of millions each year must be made to the surviving seal life in the North Pacific Ocean. The Agent in his Report says: "This vast number of animals, so valuable to the Government, are still on the increase. The condition of all the rookeries could not be better." Against the enormous yearly increase of scal life may be placed the average annual slaughter as given in the Memorandum attached to Mr. Bayard's letter, viz., 192,457 for the whole world, or for the scals near to Behring's sea as follows: With an annual clear increase of millions, and an annual slaughter of less than 200,000 in the North Pacific Ocean, it surely cannot be contended that there is any necessity for such stringent and exclusive measures as the one proposed in order to preserve the seal fishery from threatened destruction. Not only would it appear that the present rate of catch could be permitted, and a continual increase of the total number of seals be assured, but it would seem that this annual take might be many times multiplied without serious fears of exhaustion so long as the present conditions of breeding on the Pribyloff Islands are preserved. The time proposed as close 15th April to the 1st November. sealers are concerned, it might 31st December. months deserves consideration, viz., from the It is a well-known fact that seals do not begin to enter the Behring's Sea until the middle or end of May; they have practically all left those waters by the end of October. The establishment of the proposed close season, therefore, prohibits the taking of seals during the whole year. Even in that case, if it were proposed to make this close season operative for all on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George as well as in the waters of the Behring's Sea, it could at least be said that the close time would bear equally on all. But the United States' Government propose to allow scals to be killed by their own citizens on the rookeries, the only places where they haul out in Alaska, during June, July, September, and October, four of the months of the proposed close season. The result would be that while all others would be prevented from killing a seal in Behring's Sea, the United States would possess a complete monopoly, and the effect would be to render infinitely more valuable and maintain in perpetuity the seal fisheries of the North Pacific for the sole benefit of the United States. It is to be noted that the area proposed by Mr. Bayard to be affected by the close * Executive Document No. 31, 50th Congress, 1st Session. season virtually covers the whole portion of the Behring's Sea in which the exclusive right of sealing has, during 1886 and 1887, been practically maintained by the United States Government. To this is added a part of the North Pacific Ocean, north 50° of north latitude, and which commands the approach of the scals to the passes leading into Behring's Sea. By the adoption of this area and close season the United States would gain, by consent, what she has for two years held in defiance of international law and the protests of Great Britain and Canada. And while this area would be held closed to all operations except to those of her own sealers on the Pribyloff Islands, the north-west coast of North America up to the 50th parallel of north latitude and the sealing areas on the north-eastern coast of Asia would be open to her as before. The device, if successful, would feed and perpetuate the rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands, and add immensely to their value, while it cuts off at one blow the most valuable portion of the high seas from all participation by the sealers of all other nations. It is to be borne in mind that Canada's interest in this industry is a vital and important one, that she has had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it, and that while by the proposed plan the other Powers chiefly interested have their compensations, Canada has none. To her it would mean ruin so far as the sealing industry is concerned. Mr. Bayard appeals to the Government of Great Britain on the grounds of the labour interested in preparing the seal-skins in London. It is not necessary that the Alaska Commercial Company should do the sole catching of seals in order to retain this advantage to London labourers. The sealskins taken by Canadian sealers find their way to London to be dressed, just as surely as do those taken by the United States' Company. So long as the fishery is not exhausted, London will, other things being equal, retain the advantage she now possesses in this respect. But Mr. Bayard must misapprehend the sense of justice of Her Majesty's Government if he supposes that they would consent to an unjust deprivation of Canadian rights, because of the alleged prospect of perpetuating some small pecuniary advantage to a limited section of her subjects in London. Under this proposal Russia would lose nothing. Her vessels do not now pursue seals in that part of Behring's Sea ceded by her to the United States in 1867. Russia has valuable seal islands of her own: the Commander Islands in Behring's Sea, and Robben Reef in the Okhotsk Sea, on which there are valuable rookeries, and the Russian Government draws a considerable revenue therefrom, as they are under lease to this same Alaska Commercial Company. This part of Behring's Sea does not fall within the proposed closed area. It has been already shown that the United States would gain largely by the establishment of this close period. From her rookeries on the Pribyloff Islands she draws now a yearly revenue of over 300,000 dollars. This would not only not be interfered with, but would be enormously increased by reason of the perpetual monopoly she would enjoy under the proposed arrangement. But while this is true as to Russia and the United States, Canada would lose the enjoyment of a lucrative right long possessed, and this loss would be fatal to her prosecution of the seal industry, and would be unrelieved by a single compensation. It is manifest, from a perusal of Mr. Bayard's letter, that the proposition is to prevent the killing of seals during the close time by any process whatever within the area set apart, except, of course, upon the Pribyloff Islands. Experienced scalers aver that by the present methods of hunting with gun and spear not more than one in ten of the seals struck is lost, and it is not believed that these methods are so destructive as Mr. Bayard alleges. The method of taking seals by means of the net is not a destructive method, and yet it is proposed to prohibit this as well. It appears, therefore, that what Mr. Bayard intends is to entirely prevent the killing of seals within the area proposed by any methods or by any persons except by the methods employed upon the Pribyloff Islands and by the citizens of the United States, who may, for the time being, enjoy the monopoly of taking seals thereon. Against this unjust and unnecessary interference with, or rather prohibition of, rights so long enjoyed to a lawful and remunerative occupation upon the high seas, the Undersigned begs to enter his most earnest protest. GEO. E. FOSTER, Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries. (Signed) No. 148. Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 20.) Sir, Downing Street, August 18, 1888. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 10th instant, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, copies of two despatches from the Governor-General of Canada respecting the proposed sale at Port Townshend of four of the British sealing-vessels captured last year in Behring's Sea. Lord Knutsford hopes that the Minute of the Canadian Government, inclosed in Lord Stanley of Preston's despatch of the 26th July, will receive Lord Salisbury's attentive consideration. I am at the same time to request that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington may be desired to report when the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the "W. P. Sayward" is likely to come on, and to report generally on the progress of the case. (Signed) I am, &c. JOHN BRAMSTON. Inclosure 1 in No. 148. Lord Stanley of Preston to Lord Knutsford. My Lord, Citadel, Quebec, July 26, 1888. WITH reference to previous correspondence relative to the pending proceedings in the case of Canadian sealing-vessels seized in Behring's Sea, I have the honour to forward to your Lordship an extract of an approved Minute of the Privy Council, based upon Sir L. West's despatch of the 19th March, a copy of which, together with other correspondence, noted in the margin, is inclosed herewith. I have, &c. (Signed) STANLEY OF PRESTON. Inclosure 2 in No. 148. Extract from a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor-General in Council, on July 7, 1888. THE Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch dated the 19th March, 1888, from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, relative to pending proceedings in the cases of Canadian sealers seized in Behring's Sea. The Sub-Committee of Council to whom the question was referred report as follows: In the despatch of the 19th March, 1888, Sir Lionel Sackville West states that the Attorney-General of the United States had intimated that Rule 10 of the practice in Admiralty and Rules of the Supreme Court (1887) make it plain that the confiscated sealing-ships seized in Behring's Sea can be bonded pending appeal; and Sir Lionel Sackville West further states that, as to the question whether such vessels can be bonded without obligation to appeal, he is advised that, since it was agreed in the Conference that the question of damages should be reserved, any such request would open up the whole question of damages on each side. The Sub-Committee observe that the obligation sought to be imposed upon the owners of the Canadian vessels seized in Behring's Sea of appealing from the decision of the Magistrate of Sitka to the Supreme Court of the United States, is obviously one which cannot with justice or propriety be enforced. Some doubt exists as to the right of appeal, and if it be held that no appeal will lie, the bonds will be forfeited. Apart from this risk, however, which the owners of the vessels are asked to take upon themselves, it appears that the giving of bonds of such a nature would involve the admission that the Courts of the United States had jurisdiction in regard to the seizures, and that the laws of the United States applied to the cases of these vessels, * See No. 110. |