Inclosure 4 in No. 270. STATEMENT of claim against the United States of America re boarding and threats to seize the schooner "Ariel" in Behring's Sea, July 30, 1889: 2,000 sealskins estimated catch for full season. 844 1,156 number actually taken. balance of estimated catch, claimed in damages at 8 dollars Legal and other expenses incidental to the making and submission of this claim.. Total Dollars. 9,248 250 9,498 And interest thereon at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum until paid. This is the Statement of claim referred to in the declaration of Samuel W. Bucknam, made before me the 29th November, A.D. 1889. (Signed) No. 271. A. L. BELYEA, Notary Public. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received January 22.) My Lord, Washington, January 9, 1890. WITH reference to my despatch of the 26th ultimo, I have the honour to inclose herewith copy of a Resolution which has been laid upon the table of the Senate by Senator Plumb in regard to the advertisement of the Secretary of the Treasury, inviting tenders for a new lease of the Alaska seal fisheries. Extract from the "Congressional Record" of January 7, 1890. Alaska Seal Fisheries. Mr. Plumb.-I offer a Resolution, which I ask may lie upon the table, and be printed. The Vice-President.-The Resolution will be read. The Chief Clerk read as follows: "Whereas the Secretary of the Treasury has, by public advertisement, invited bids for leasing the Islands of St. Paul and St. George, in the Territory of Alaska, for a period of twenty years; and "Whereas the law under which said proposal is issued was passed about twenty years since, and the circumstances and conditions existing in Alaska, and with reference to the seal industry, have materially changed during that period; and "Whereas it has been charged upon the authority of a late Governor of Alaska that the Alaska Commercial Company, now occupying said islands under lease from the Government, has exercised its privileges oppressively and against the interests of both the natives and the Government; and "Whereas said Company claims that it is the only person or organization which can successfully compete for the lease invited by the Secretary of the Treasury as aforesaid, and there is every reason to believe that under present legislation and conditions the lease proposed will be made to said Alaska Commercial Company substantially without competition. Therefore, "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested not to make a new lease of said islands until further action by Congress, or until the latest period made necessary by existing law, and that meanwhile he make full report to the Senate as to the manner in which the said Alaska Commercial Company has discharged its duties and obligations under the present lease, and also what additional legislation, if any, is necessary in order that the interests of the Government and those of the natives and citizens of Álaska may be more fully protected." The Vice-President.-The Resolution will lie on the table and be printed. No. 272. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received by telegraph, January 23.) My Lord, Washington, January 23, 1890. I HAVE the honour to inclose herewith copy of a note which I have received from Mr. Blaine, containing the answer of the United States' Government to the protest which Mr. Edwardes made by your Lordship's directions on the 12th October last against the seizure of Canadian vessels made by the United States' Revenue cutter "Rush" in Behring's Sea. Sir, Inclosure in No. 272. Mr. Blaine to Sir J. Pauncefote. Department of State, Washington, January 22, 1890. SEVERAL weeks have elapsed since I had the honour to receive through the hands of Mr. Edwardes copies of two despatches from Lord Salisbury,* complaining of the course of the United States' Revenue cutter "Rush" in intercepting Canadian vessels sailing under the British flag, and engaged in taking fur seals in the waters of the Behring's Sea. Subjects which could not be postponed have engaged the attention of this Department, and have rendered it impossible to give a formal answer to Lord Salisbury until the present time, In the opinion of the President, the Canadian vessels, arrested and detained in the Behring's Sea, were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bonos mores-a pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent injury to the rights of the Government and people of the United States. To establish this ground, it is not necessary to argue the question of the extent and nature of the sovereignty of this Government over the waters of the Behring's Sea; it is not necessary to explain, certainly not to define, the powers and privileges ceded by His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia in the Treaty by which the Alaskan territory was transferred to the United States. The weighty considerations growing out of the acquisition of that territory, with all the rights on land and sea inseparably connected therewith, may be safely left out of view while the grounds are set forth upon which this Government rests its justification for the action complained of by Her Majesty's Government. It cannot be unknown to Her Majesty's Government that one of the most valuable sources of revenue from the Alaskan possessions is the fur-seal fisheries of the Behring's Sea. These fisheries had been exclusively controlled by the Government of Russia, without interference and without question, from their original discovery until the cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867. From 1867 to 1886 the possession, in which Russia had been undisturbed, was enjoyed by this Government also. There was no interruption and no intrusion from any source. Vessels from other nations passing from time to time through Behring's Sea to the Arctic Ocean in pursuit of whales had always abstained from taking part in the capture of seals. This uniform avoidance of all attempts to take fur seal in those waters had been a constant recognition of the right held and exercised first by Russia, and subsequently by this Government. It has also been the recognition of a fact now held beyond denial or doubt, that the taking of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to their extinction. This is not only the well-known opinion of experts, both British and American, based upon prolonged observation and investigation, but the fact had also been demonstrated in a wide sense by the well-nigh total destruction of all seal fisheries except the onc in the Behring's Sea which the Government of the United States is now striving to preserve, not altogether for the use of the American people, but for the use of the world at large. The killing of seals in the open sea involves the destruction of the female in common with the male. The slaughter of a female seal is reckoned as an immediate loss of three seals, besides the future loss of the whole number which the bearing seal may produce in the successive years of life. The destruction which results from killing seals in the open sea proceeds, therefore, by a ratio which constantly and rapidly See Nos. 228 and 229. increases, and insures the total extermination of the species within a very brief period. It has thus become known that the only proper time for the slaughter of seals is at the season when they betake themselves to the land, because the land is the only place where the necessary discrimination can be made as to the age and sex of the seal. It would seem then, by fair reasoning, that nations not possessing the territory upon which seals can increase their numbers by natural growth, and thus afford an annual supply of skins for the use of mankind, should refrain from the slaughter in open sea, where the destruction of the species is sure and swift. After the acquisition of Alaska, the Government of the United States, through competent agents, working under the direction of the best experts, gave careful attention to the improvement of the seal fisheries. Proceeding by a close obedience to the laws of nature, and rigidly limiting the number to be annually slaughtered, the Government succeeded in increasing the total number of seals, and adding correspondingly and largely to the value of the fisheries. In the course of a few years of intelligent and interesting experiment, the number that could be safely slaughtered was fixed at 100,000 annually. The Company to which the administration of the fisheries was intrusted by a lease from this Government has paid a rental of 50,000 dollars per annum, and, in addition thereto, 2 dol. 624 c. per skin for the total number taken. The skins were regularly transported to London to be dressed and prepared for the markets of the world, and the business had grown so large that the earnings of English labourers, since Alaska was transferred to the United States, amounts in the aggregate to more than 12,000,000 dollars. The entire business was thus conducted peacefully, lawfully, and profitably; profitably to the United States, for the rental was yielding a moderate interest on the large sum which this Government had paid for Alaska, including the rights now at issue; profitably to the Alaskan Company, which, under Governmental direction and restriction, had given unwearied pains to the care and development of the fisheries; profitably to the Aleuts, who were receiving a fair pecuniary reward for their labours, and were elevated from semi-savagery to civilization, and to the enjoyment of schools and churches provided for their benefit by the Government of the United States; and, last of all, profitably to a large body of English labourers who had constant employment and received good wages. This, in brief, was the condition of the Alaska fur-seal fisheries down to the year 1886. The precedents, customs, and rights had been established and enjoyed either by Russia or the United States for nearly a century. The two nations were the only Powers that owned a foot of land on the continents that bordered, or on the islands included within, the Behring's waters where the seals resort to breed. Into this peaceful and secluded field of labour, whose benefits were so equitably shared by the native Aleuts of the Pribyloff Islands, by the United States, and by England, certain Canadian vessels in 1886 asserted their right to enter and, by their ruthless course, to destroy the fisheries, and with them to destroy also the resulting industries which are so valuable. The Government of the United States at once proceeded to check this movement, which, unchecked, was sure to do great and irreparable harm. It was cause of unfeigned surprise to the United States that Her Majesty's Government should immediately interfere to defend and encourage (surely to encourage by defending) the course of the Canadians in disturbing an industry which had been carefully developed for more than ninety years under the flags of Russia and the United States, developed in such manner as not to interfere with the public rights or the private industries of any other people or any other person. Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 1886 that which they had refrained from doing for more than ninety years? Upon what grounds did Her Majesty's Government defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the Behring's Sea which she had carefully avoided ever since the discovery of that sea? By what reasoning did Her Majesty's Government conclude that an act may be committed with impunity against the rights of the United States which had never been attempted against the same rights when held by the Russian Empire? So great has been the injury to the fisheries from the irregular and destructive slaughter of seals in the open waters of the Behring's Sea by Canadian vessels, that whereas the Government has allowed 100,000 to be taken annually for a series of years, it is now compelled to reduce the number to 60,000. If four years of this violation of natural law and neighbour's rights has reduced the annual slaughter of seal by 40 per cent., it is easy to see how short a period will be required to work the total destruction of the fisheries. the course of the Canadian vessels, rests upon the fact that they are committing their acts of destruction on the high seas, viz., more than 3 marine miles from the shore-line It is doubtful whether Her Majesty's Government would abide by this rule if the attempt were made to interfere with the pearl fisheries of Ceylon, which extend 20 miles from the shore-line, and have been enjoyed by England without molestation ever since their acquisition. England has felt authorized to sell the fishery rights from year to year. Nor is it credible that modes of fishing on the Grand Banks, altogether practicable but highly destructive, would be justified or even permitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious acts were committed more than 3 miles from shore. There are, according to scientific authority, "great colonies of fish on the Newfoundland banks. These colonies resemble the seats of great populations on land. They remain stationary, having a limited range of water in which to live and die." In these great "colonies," it is according to expert judgment comparatively easy to explode dynamite or giant powder in such manner as to kill vast quantities of fish, and at the same time destroy countless numbers of eggs. Stringent laws have been necessary to prevent the taking of fish by the use of dynamite in many of the rivers and lakes of the United States. The same mode of fishing could readily be adopted with effect on the more shallow parts of the banks, but the destruction of fish in proportion to the "catch," says a high authority, might be as great as 10,000 to 1. Would Her Majesty's Government think that so wicked an act could not be prevented, and its perpetrators punished, simply because it had been committed outside of the 3-mile line ? Why are not the two cases parallel? The Canadian vessels are engaged in the taking of fur seal in a manner that destroys the power of reproduction, and insures the extermination of the species. In exterminating the species an article useful to mankind is totally destroyed, in order that temporary and immoral gain may be acquired by a few persons. By the employment of dynamite on the banks, it is not probable that the total destruction of fish could be accomplished, but a serious diminution of a valuable food for man might assuredly result. assuredly result. Does Her Majesty's Government seriously maintain that the law of nations is powerless to prevent such violation of the common rights of man? Are the supporters of justice in all nations to be declared incompetent to prevent wrongs so odious and so destructive? In the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea is not lawlessness. Nor can the law of the sea and the liberty which it confers and which it protects be perverted to justify acts which are immoral in themselves, which inevitably tend to results against the interest and against the welfare of mankind. One step beyond that which Her Majesty's Government has taken in this contention and piracy finds its justification. The President does not conceive it possible that Her Majesty's Government could, in fact, be less indifferent to these evil results than is the Government of the United States. But he hopes that Her Majecty's Government will, after this frank expression of views, more readily comprehend the position of the Government of the United States touching this serious question. This Government has been ready to concede much in order to adjust all differences of view, and has in the judgment of the President already proposed a solution not only equitable, but generous. Thus far, Her Majesty's Government has declined to accept the proposal of the United States. The President now awaits with deep interest, not unmixed with solicitude, any proposition for reasonable adjustment which Her Majesty's Government may submit. The forcible resistance to which this Government is constrained in the Behring's Sea is, in the President's judgment, demanded not only by the necessity of defending the traditional and long-established rights of the United States, but also the rights of good morals and of good government the world over. In this contention, the Government of the United States has no occasion and no desire to withdraw or modify the positions which it has at any time maintained against the claims of the Imperial Government of Russia. The United States will not withhold from any nation the privileges which it demanded for itself when Alaska was part of the Russian Empire. Nor is the Government of the United States disposed to exercise in those possessions any less power or authority than it was willing to concede to the Imperial Government of Russia when its sovereignty extended over them. The President is persuaded that all friendly nations will concede to the United States the same rights and privileges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which the same friendly nations always conceded to the Empire of Russia. No. 273. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.-(Substance telegraphed.) Foreign Office, January 28, 1890. Sir, I HAVE received your telegram of the 23rd instant, giving the substance of a note you had received from Mr. Blaine, in reply to the proposals made to the Government of the United States for the reopening of negotiations on the Behring's Sea question. Her Majesty's Government will be prepared, when the text of the note reaches them, to give it their careful consideration, and to return a formal reply. So far as they are at present able to judge, it lays down doctrines in international law to which they would be unable to subscribe. Meanwhile, they would be glad to know whether, in your opinion, it would be desirable that, in reply to Mr. Blaine's assurance that "the Government of the United States await with deep interest, not unmixed with anxiety, any suggestion for a reasonable adjustment of the points at issue between the two Governments," you should now make proposals in the sense explained in your despatch of the 1st November last, with the modifications which, after consultation with the Colonial Office, have been considered necessary. The following are the terms which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to anthorize you to propose to Mr. Blaine : (a.) That the tripartite negotiation for securing a close time in Behring's Sea for the protection of the fur-seals should be resumed at Washington. (b.) That all well-founded claims for compensation on the part of British subjects for seizures in the past of their vessels by authorities of the United States should be dealt with by a separate negotiation as speedily as possible, but that it should be understood that Her Majesty's Government must be satisfied on this point before they can come to any settlement in regard to a close season. (c.) Lastly, that an assurance should be obtained from the Government of the United States that there shall be no further seizures of British ships in Behring's Sea while negotiations are proceeding. I am, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY. No. 274. Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.-(Received by telegraph, January 30.) My Lord, Washington, January 30, 1890. I HAVE the honour to inform your Lordship that I think it is important that I should know the total amount of compensation which is claimed for the seizures of British vessels in Behring's Sea up to date before making the proposals indicated in your Lordship's telegram of the 28th instant. I have told Mr. Blaine that Her Majesty's Government must have satisfaction on this point before they can agree to any settlement on the other question. Arguing from his stand-point he denies any right of compensation, but he is willing, for the sake of settling so grave a dispute, to consult the President of the United States as to a gratuitous offer of a lump sum in full satisfaction, in order that discussions on items involving principles on which the views of the two Governments appear irreconcilable may be avoided. He has, therefore, asked me to obtain the above information as soon as possible. If this difficulty be surmounted, negotiations for a close season might be commenced at once, subject to adequate assurances against further seizures, which, I think, I might be able to obtain. I have, &c. |