We often see Reports about the seal-hunters, with remarks of the way they capture seals, claiming that many were shot and wounded, and couched in the most endearing manner that the poor seals were slaughtered by the hunters with shot-gun and rifle, so as to carry the impression that it was the most cruel business on the part of private sealers, and a business that should not be allowed, it being cruel in the extreme and unnecessary. We will now turn the tables, and ask was there ever a more cruel and brutal method invented for killing dumb animals than is now practised in killing seals on the Islands of St. George and St. Paul. Imagine how these highly intelligent animals are gradually forced and driven away from the sea, their native element, driven inland as far as deemed practical. The slaughter then commences. Imagine a gang of men with clubs and bludgeons knocking out their brains right and left, and if the seal is not hit right at the first blow it is followed up and slaughtered, its brains being knocked out by a club. Who can imagine a more cruel method than this for killing dumb animals? Certainly the private sealer's method is the most humane of the two. Again, it is claimed that many seals are shot that sink and are lost. Undoubtedly there are some lost in this way, but the percentage is light, probably one in thirty or forty, not more than this. It is also claimed that ten are shot and wounded that die to one that is secured. This is also an error. Many seals are shot at that are not hit at all, but when a seal is wounded, so that in the end it will die, it is most always secured by the hunter who may have to shoot at it several times in order to get it, as the seal in the water exposes only its head, and when frightened exposes only a small portion of that, so that, together with the constant diving of the seal, the motion of the boat, &c., makes it very hard to hit. This is where it is claimed that ten are shot and wounded to one that is secured, but it is nearer the truth that one is lost to ten that are secured, for the reason that when a seal is wounded it cannot remain under water any length of time, and therefore the hunter can easily follow it up and secure it. We will now look at the Chart of the Behring's Sea and see on what grounds our Government claims this. You will notice a long chain of islands, called the Aleutian Islands, extending in the form of a circle to the westward, dividing the Pacific Ocean from the Behring's Sea. These islands are undoubtedly of volcanic formation, and while they extend some 1,200 miles to the westward, they do not inclose the Behring's Sea. The Island of Atton is our extreme western possession. The distance from the Island of Atton to Copper Island is 175 miles, and to the nearest point of the Kamchatka coast or Siberian side, 370 miles. Now if our Government can claim and control a sea with a passage 370 miles across, we want to know how she is going to do it, and on what grounds. Certainly not that it is an inclosed sea. More especially, when you again look at the Chart, you see that the Island of Atton is at the extreme end of the chain of islands, and as you follow this chain of islands back to the eastward as far as Unimak Pass, that between these islands are wide passages, allowing vessels of the largest dimensions to pass in and out of the Behring's Sea at will, a distance of some 1,200 miles to the Siberian coast, in a direct westward line. By carefully perusing this Chart it must convince the sceptical that our Government has no claim to the Behring's Sea as an inclosed sea. We now come to the question of the jurisdiction of the Behring's Sea as taken by our Government, caused by the seal question. For this reason the Chart of the North Pacific Ocean and the Behring's Sea is sent to you so that it may show just how broad the claim our Government has taken in this matter. You will notice on the Chart of the Behring's Sea the line called the United States' imaginary boundary-line, called this for lack of no better name. This line has been laid out or imagined to exist in an open sea 1,200 miles across in its widest part, something never before claimed by any other Power in the history of the world. The impression has gone out that the Bebring's Sea is an inclosed water, and under the full control of the United States and Russia. Just how or where this claim was first obtained no one seems to know. It sprang into existence like a mushroom, and apparently with about the same strength and standing. Our Government could, with the same consistency, all of a sudden claim the control of the Gulf of Mexico. It is considered by all maritime laws that a nation can only control a certain distance of the sea from her shores. This has been the established custom as a maritime law for an indefinite time, and our Government insists that our American fishermen shall have all right outside of the 3-mile limit from land in the controversy between the Canadian and American fishermen, and would not consider the 10-miles headland point as asked by the Canadians, but when they come on the Pacific in the Behring's Sea they go directly back on what they claim on the eastern side, and say, We own all this sea, and if you are found in it your vessels are subject to seizure and yourself fined, making no allowance whatever for what portion you may be in, whether 1 mile or 100 miles from land. Our Government then going directly back on what it claims from the Canadian authorities on the other side, we ask, can this claim be held when it comes to a final issue? So far it has been done by force, but might is not always right, and can any one claim but what our Government will have yet to pay for the damages to the Canadians and her own citizens for the losses they have sustained by the seizure of their vessels and forfeiture of same by our Government in its raid among the sealers in the year 1887 in the Behring's Sea. By what other rights has the United States to the Behring's Sea? It is claimed that Russia ceded and sold to the United States the full and absolute right and control of all the waters of the Behring's Sea. The question is, did Russia do this? Did she sell this open sea, the public highway of the whalers, for an indefinite length of time in the past, to the whaling grounds in the Arctic-the highway of England via the Yukun River to her possessions in the far north. She did not do it. She sold her rights of the shore-line only, of which undoubtedly she had a right to do. Russia, despots and tyrants as they have proved themselves to be in all their dealings with nations and private individuals, never has and does not to this day claim or exercise jurisdiction of the Behring's Sea, except the shore-line. American, English, and vessels of all nations are allowed to hunt, fish, and trade without molestation in the waters of Behring's Sea, adjacent to Russian possessions, providing they respect the shore-line. The Russian Consul at Yokahama has in the past, and undoubtedly does at the present, issue orders to parties fitting out for hunting in the Behring's Sea, warning them not to intrude on the shore-line, within so many miles from shore, thus practically admitting that she had no claim to this open high sea. Is not this fact alone sufficient evidence that she never sold to the United States what is now claimed she sold? She sold what she owned, and that was the shore-line only. It seems that this imaginary boundary-line as set down on the Chart originated in imagination much the same as many stories, and after being told awhile is accepted as a fact and believed to be true, even by the person who first told the story. But when a thorough investigation is made, it is found that they will not hold water, and are matters of fiction only. Having now reviewed this question, we ask our eastern Congressmen and Senators and Eastern newspapers to examine the merits of this case, so that when this important measure comes up they will know the full value of the same, and will act in the way that will be for the best interest of the most people of the United States. When Alaska was purchased, it was undoubtedly designed to be for the benefit of the masses, and probably not to create a monopoly for the benefit of a few men only, thereby retarding the growth and development of this very valuable Territory. We also think the laws should be so amended that a person could acquire a title to property, and so changed that a white man could have the privilege of killing a mink or an otter for its skin without first marrying a squaw; as the law now reads, no white man is allowed to kill any fur-bearing animal unless he marries a squaw. This is not commonly understood, but is a fact, and is a queer state of affairs, and one that would not be relished by parents having sons that would like to go to Alaska, more especially if they should have seen the Reports of Miss Kate Field on the women of Alaska. It should not be forgotten that this is the first instance in the history of the Government of the United States in which it has ever pursued a policy tending to create a monopoly. All its laws relating to other portions of the public domain have been framed with a view to invite competition and prevent monopoly. Such is the spirit which has actuated and governed the pre-emption, homestead, mineral, and other laws relating to the public property. The theory has been that such public property has been vested in the Government, in trust, as it were, for all its citizens. The proposed legislation with respect to the Alaska seal fisheries will be the first exception to this universal policy. Indeed there is no species of the public property which has been more peculiarly regarded as the common heritage of all than the fisheries. Thus our Government has been for years past expending the most elaborate efforts, in time and money, to bring about such an adjustment of the Fisheries question on the North Atlantic coast as will open them to all American citizens. It is at least singular that, the moment we cross the continent, this established public policy should entirely change, and the waters of the Pacific be erected into a monopoly for the benefit of a single Corporation. In conclusion, we cannot help but review the fact that it would be vastly to the best interest of the Pacific coast, and to the whole of the people of the United States, that the Government should take charge of the seal islands, restrict the killing to 50,000 seals per year, abandon the present bad policy of the jurisdiction of the whole of Behring's Sea, and open the Territory to its full development. Our Eastern friends might ask us how it would benefit them. In the first place, it would open a profitable field for the employment of your idle capital. In the second place, half of the articles necessary to develop this Terrritory would be drawn from your manufacturers, such as hardware, canvas for sails, ship chandlery, guns, clothing of all description, such as waterproof and oil clothing, and, in fact, all branches of trade would derive some benefit from it. In the third place, it would open a field for the profitable employment of hundreds of your young men who are always on the watch for new fields to enter, so as to acquire wealth and a competency. We ask your careful attention of the facts set before you, and trust our efforts may not be in vain. Copies of this can be obtained by addressing C. D. Ladd, 529 and 531, Kearny Street, San Francisco, California. Salmon and Seal. The provisions of the Law to be strictly enforced. IN referring to the order, as reported, of the 15th March,* in regard to the salmon fisheries, this mention of dams would be supposed to apply to the present method of taking salmon, called fish-traps. This order, if carried into effect, will undoubtedly work great hardships to the salmon canneries now engaged in this business in Alaska. Section 3 reads that the publication of notice of seizure and confiscation of vessels shall be published one month in the papers at each United States' port of entry on the Pacific coast. With regard to this publication, it is earnestly hoped that it shall be plain, and clearly define just what the Government claims as its domain, whether it claims the shore-line or the whole Behring's Sea. 1887 similar notices were published in San Francisco, but did not define what the Government claimed. In this year the Government vessel "Richard Rush," commanded by Captain Shepard, seized ten or twelve American and English schooners engaged in fur-seal hunting in the Behring's Sea, taking them wherever found, about 15 miles from land being the nearest that any was found and seized. One English vessel was 98 miles from land when seized, and others from 20 to 70 miles from land, and in * Washington, March 15.-In company with D. Brown Goode, of the United States' Fisheries Commission, Senator Stockbridge, Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, to-day called upon Secretary Windom with reference to the Act recently passed for the protection of the salmon fisheries in Alaska. The Act makes it unlawful to erect or maintain any obstruction in the rivers of Alaska with the purpose or result of impeding or preventing the ascent of salmon to their spawning grounds, and affixes a minimum penalty of 250 dollars a day for violation thereof. Last year, it is said, certain parties, by the aid of dams, captured millions of fish, and they are reported to be making ready for another campaign this year. The matter has been referred to the Law Officers of the Treasury Department, who will at once prepare the necessary orders for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The last section of the Act, Senator Stockbridge says, will be carried out by the President in due time. Its adoption was a matter of serious concern to Congress, and its phraseology was changed by the Senate on Foreign Relations, and it was enacted into law as follows. no ease was any vessel within the 3-mile limit, which is supposed to be what a nation holds and controls of the high seas. Captain Shepard in one instance when remonstrated with said: "We do not care where you are, whether 1 mile or 500 miles from land, we are going to take you anywhere in the Behring's Sea." This high-handed proceeding on the part of our Government caused a great deal of criticism from our newspapers and public men, and the public sentiment, wherever the case was fully understood, was that these seizures were illegal and could not be sustained. In 1888 the "Richard Rush" left San Francisco the 3rd July for its cruize in the Behring's Sea, and it was currently reported that the Captain's instructions were the same as in 1887. Upon the vessel's arrival at Ounalaska this policy was changed, and no vessels were seized in 1888, the supposition being that none were found within the 3-mile limit. By this action the Government receded from the grounds taken in the year 1887, thereby practically admitting that the seizures of 1887 were wrong and illegal. Great injustice was done to the owners of American vessels engaged in this business in 1888 by the withholding of what the order was to be with regard to the Behring's Sea until the arrival of the “Richard Rush" in Ounalaska, thereby keeping out the American vessels. The English masters at Victoria claim that they had advices from their Government at Ottawa, that no seizure would be made outside the 3-mile limit. The result was that the English vessels went in, while the American vessels stayed outside. Hence this publication should by all means be explicit on this point in order that no one can be misled as they were last year. We now come to that part of the Revised Statutes (section 1956)* where the killing of any otter, mink, martin, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof, it reads: "Any person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, and all outfits confiscated." We ask, was there ever in the whole history of the world, a Law passed that showed quite the injustice that this does? Can you find its parallel? We doubt it when you look at the actual offence as compared with the value of the property taken. For instance, a miner on the Yukou kills a mink, its market value being less than 1 dollar, he is subject to a fine of possibly 1,000 dollars and imprisonment for six months, with the confiscation of his boats, blankets, provisions, &c. The same Law would apply to a prospector should he kill a beaver or a bear and use it for food: both are fur-bearing animals, and are common in Alaska. The question comes up-for what reason has such a Law been passed? Is it to protect the furbearing animals of Alaska?+ On the face of it, it would seem so, but really such is not the case. A Law like this has a tendency to discourage all parties from going to Alaska to trap, hunt, prospect for mines, and this is what is wanted by those who control the trade of Alaska. It is not desirable that Alaska should become settled, and its resources fully developed. It is more desirable to their interests that white men should be kept away, and for this reason a Law like this is pushed through by some means or other, which on the face of it looks sincere, but when understood shows plainly the injustice of it, and the detriment to the best interests of Alaska, injustice to all residents of Alaska, and to all parties who would like to go there. It is an understood fact that no vessel can go to Alaska for trade and make a success; it is impossible to buy furs from the natives to any extent. Why is this? Simply, when a native sells his furs to an outside trader, he is cut off from trading at the various ports, and is virtually considered an outcast, hence they dare not do it. The longer that white men are kept out of Alaska, so much the longer this trade is controlled. White hunters and traders hunt and send their furs where they choose, hence it is desirable that all such persons should be kept out if possible. It seems that these Laws are so framed in order to exclude competition and retard the development of Alaska instead of developing its resources as they should be, and open this vast country for the benefit of the whole people and not for the exclusive use of a few rich and powerful Companies. An earnest appeal is made that these Laws shall be amended so that a white man can at least live in the country without being a criminal. Simple justice asks this, as the only practical resources of Alaska are its furs, fisheries, and mines. No. 206. Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 10.) Sir, Section 3. That Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the waters of Behring's Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in each year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for one month in at least one newspaper, if any such there be published, at each United States' port of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said waters for the purpose of violating the provision of said section, and he shall also cause one or more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize in said waters and arrest all persons, and seize all persons found to be, or to have been engaged in any violation of the laws of the United States therein. + Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: "No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof, and every person guilty thereof shall, or each offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1,000 dollars, or imprisonment not more than six months, or both, and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, found engaged in violation of this section, shall be forfeited, but the Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the killing of any such mink, marten, sable or other fur-bearing animals, except fur-seala, under such regulations as he may prescribe, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal, and to provide for the execution of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law, nor shall he grant any special privileges under this section." of Salisbury, a copy of a further telegram from the Governor-General of Canada, respecting the seizure of the "Black Diamond" and "Triumph ": "It appears from a telegram, dated the 8th August, from Ottawa, that all additional information respecting Black Diamond' and 'Triumph' is being sent to-day; steps have been taken to secure sworn affidavits as to exact location of seizures and boarding of those vessels." Sir, No. 207. Colonial Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 15.) Downing Street, August 14, 1889. WITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 3rd instant respecting the seizure by the United States' authorities of the "Black Diamond" in the Behring's Sea, I am directed by Lord Knutsford to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquis of Salisbury, and for such action upon it as his Lordship may think proper, a copy of a further letter from the High Commissioner for Canada inclosing a copy of a Petition to the President of the United States from the owners of the American schooner" San Diego," which appears to support the Canadian view respecting such seizures. The Orders in Council of the Canadian Government referred to Sir Charles Tupper were forwarded to the Foreign Office in the letters from this Department of the 18th August last year and the 9th instant respectively. I am, &c. My Lord, Inclosure 1 in No. 207. Sir C. Tupper to Lord Knutsford. 9, Victoria Chambers, Westminster, London, August 9, 1889. WITH reference to my letter of the 2nd instant on the subject of the seizure of British vessels in the Behring's Sea by the United States, I now have the honour to transmit, for your Lordship's information, a copy of a Petition to the President of the United States from the owners of the American schooner "San Diego," which seems to support the Canadian view of the matter. With regard to the American proposal for the establishment of a close time for the Behring's Sea in relation to the seal-fishing, I should like to refer your Lordship to the Order in Council of the Canadian Government, dated the 4th July, 1888, which deals very fully with this part of the question. I think both Lord Salisbury and your Lordship, after a careful perusal of this document, will come to the conclusion that the adoption of the proposal that is discussed would practically mean the exclusion of our fishermen from the Behring's Sea, while, at the same time, it would operate entirely to the benefit of the Alaska Commercial Company, with whose privileges it would not interfere. It also demonstrates, in my opinion, that there is no scarcity of seals; that any indiscriminate slaughter that takes place occurs on the islands on which the American Company pursues its operations, and that the seal-fishing industry might be extended considerably without any appreciable effect upon the supply. Supposing, however, that a necessity was found for some measures for protecting the seals, a proposition of the kind should be made upon a proper basis, which would operate equally against all, and not be a partial measure such as that suggested by the American Government, the adoption of which would be tantamount to the exclusion of British vessels from participation in the industry. I have no doubt that your Lordship has seen by this time the further Order in Council of the Canadian Government approved by his Excellency the GovernorGeneral on the 29th June, 1889. This also contains information, much of it from American sources, proving beyond doubt the justice of the British claim to equal rights with the United States in the open waters of Behring's Sea. The right of the American Government to make Regulations with regard to the fishing on the islands and the mainland, and in the waters within the 3-mile limit from the shore, is not disputed, but before the purchase of the territory, the United States dissented in the strongest possible manner to any claim of exclusive jurisdiction by another Power in the open waters of the sea in question, and it is only comparatively recently that they have advanced their claim to regard the open sea as United States' property. Her Majesty's Government have always resisted such a contention, and I cannot doubt that they will now take such steps as will insure the prompt settlement of the question by the withdrawal of the United States' Government from the position they have taken up, and not only thus enable British vessels to engage peacefully, without molestation in the fishery industry, in accordance with the rights conceded by international law, but also demand reparation in favour of those persons whose vessels, equipment, and cargo have been seized, and of those who have in other ways suffered injury in consequence of the harsh, arbitrary, and unjust acts of the United States' Revenue cruizers. Messrs. Handy and Co. to the President of the United States. 32, Clay Street, San Francisco. UNDER the provisions of Article 2, Section 2, of the Federal Constitution, as expounded in six opinions (Attorneys-General, p. 393), and in the case of ex parte Garland (4 Wall, 333), we herewith respectfully apply to you to remit the forfeiture adjudged against our vessel, the American schooner "San Diego," her tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, in the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska, as appears by the papers on file in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, by reference, are made a part of this Petition. The offence for which our vessel and cargo were judicially condemned was the killing of fur-seals in the waters of Alaska, contrary to the Statute in such cases made and provided. Remission and pardon are invoked upon the following grounds : 1. That the offence was not, in fact, committed. 2. That, owing to the distance and inaccessibility of the place of seizure, trial, and condemnation, and the ignorance of the master of said schooner, a fair opportunity did not offer itself to us to make an adequate defence against the condemnation. 3. That although the trial and condemnation were had under a belief shared by all parties to the proceeding that an appeal would lie for either party against the decision of the District Court of Alaska, and although such an appeal was duly taken in our behalf from the Judgment of Condemnation, it now appears exceedingly doubtful whether the Act of May 17, 1884, which organizes a judicial system for the territory of Alaska, permits rights of appeal in any case not strictly criminal. 4. Because the Attorney-General, in opinions rendered to the Secretary of the Treasury under dates of the 19th March and 16th April, 1887, has held that the remissory power conferred upon the Secretary of the Treasury by sundry provisions of the Revised Statutes does not extend to our case. From the foregoing summary of the grounds of this Petition, it will be seen that we are in danger of being for ever deprived of our property upon a doubtful state of facts without a full though a legal hearing, under an apparently mistaken belief on the part of the trial Judge and Council that means to review the decision of such Judge had been provided, and with no other effectual remedy now left to us than to resort to the constitutional power of the President to grant pardons and remissions. It has been said by Mr. Attorney-General Cushing (6 Opin., 488), that the power of remission is proper to be exercised in cases where doubtful questions of law are involved, or where parties are so situated that a due process of law cannot or has not been had. Our case is at least within the spirit of this opinion on both points, firstly, because we had not had, and seemingly cannot have, one fair day in Court, and secondly, because if our vessel had been engaged in killing seals in the waters alleged (a fact which we deny), it would be extremely doubtful if such killing would be an offence against any law of the United States. Upon this point we refer to the decision of Mr. Secretary Boutwell, of the Treasury |