This letter does not explicitly refer to the waters of Behring

Sea.1

Mr. French's Letter of 1881.

Those waters were, however, expressly referred to in a letter of Mr. H. F. French, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, of March 12, 1881, addressed to a Mr. D. A. Ancona, No. 717 O'Farrell street, San Francisco, who had made an inquiry as to the interpretation of the terms "waters thereof" and "waters adjacent thereto," in the laws prohibiting the killing of fur-bearing animals in Alaska.2 Mr. French said:

"Presuming your inquiry to relate more especially to the waters of western Alaska, you are informed that the treaty with Russia of March 30, 1867, by which the Territory of Alaska was ceded to the United States, defines the boundary of the territory so ceded. This treaty is found on pages 671 to 673 of the volume of treaties of the Revised Statutes. It will be seen therefrom that the limit of the cession extends from a line starting from the Arctic Ocean and running through Behring Strait to the north of St. Lawrence Islands. The line runs thence in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and Copper Island of the Kormaudorski couplet or group in the North Pacific Ocean, to meridian of 193 degrees of west longitude. All the waters within that boundary to the western end of the Aleutian Archipelago and chain of islands are considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska Territory. All the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of fur-bearing animals would therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits before described."

Mr. Manning's Letter of 1886.

On the 16th of March 1886 a copy of this letter was communicated by Mr. Manning, then Secretary of the Treasury, to the collector of customs at San Francisco, with the request that, as

In a letter of January 18, 1888, to Mr. W. W. Eaton, then one of the representatives of the Alaska Commercial Company, Mr. Boutwell, referring to the letter which he had written as Secretary of the Treasury, said that, when compared with the letter to which it was a reply, it was apparent that it "had reference solely to the waters of the Pacific Ocean south of the Aleutian Islands." (House Report 3883, 50 Cong. 2 sess. XII.)

The letter of Mr. French to Mr. Ancona has often been printed and referred to as a communication addressed to the collector of customs at San Francisco. This is an error. In response to an inquiry whether Mr. Ancona held that position in 1881, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury, under date of September 1, 1896, writes that "he was not in the service as such officer at the date mentioned."

3S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 281.

5627- -49

certain persons at San Francisco were understood to contemplate the fitting out of expeditions to kill fur seals, he would give the letter publicity in order that such persons might be informed of the construction placed by the Treasury Department on the statutes of the United States.1

On the 27th of September 1886 Sir Lionel S. Seizures in 1886. Sackville West, then British minister at Washington, informed Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, that Her Majesty's government had received a telegram from the commander in chief of Her Majesty's naval forces on the Pacific station respecting the alleged seizure of three British Columbian sealing schooners by the United States revenue cutter Corwin, and that he was in consequence instructed to ask to be furnished with any particulars which the Government of the United States might possess on the subject. On the 21st of October, no reply to this inquiry having been made, Sir Lionel West, by direction of the Earl of Iddesleigh, then principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, protested against the seizures, reserving all rights to compensation; and on the 12th of November he left at the Department of State another protest, dated the 30th of October and signed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, in which it was stated that further details in regard to the seizures having been received, Her Majesty's government considered it incumbent on them to bring to the notice of the United States the facts of the case as they had been derived from British sources. Lord Iddesleigh said that according to the depositions of the officers and men the vessels, whose names were the Carolena, Onward, and Thornton, were all in the open sea in Behring Sea, more than sixty miles from the nearest land; that on being seized they were towed by the Corwin to Unalaska, where, with the seal skins on board at the time of the capture, they were detained by the United States authorities, and that the crews of the Carolena and Thornton, with the exception of the captain and one man on each vessel, who were also detained, were sent to San Francisco and turned adrift, while the crew of the Onward were kept at Unalaska. Lord Iddesleigh then quoted from a Sitka newspaper of the 4th of September 1886 a report to the effect that the master and mate of the Thornton were on the 30th of August brought before Judge Dawson, of the United States district court at that place, for trial; that the evidence given by the officers of the revenue

House Report 3885, 50 Cong. 2 sess. xi.

cutter showed that the vessel was seized about sixty or sev enty miles southeast of St. Georges Island for the offense of hunting and killing seals in that part of Behring Sea east of the water line in the treaty of 1867; that the judge in his charge to the jury, after quoting the first article of that treaty, declared that all the waters east of the line in question were "comprised within the waters of Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by law against the killing of furbearing animals must therefore attach against any violation of law within the limits heretofore described;" and that, the jury having found a verdict of guilty, the master of the Thornton was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of $500, and the mate to imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of $300. Lord Iddesleigh further said that there was reason to believe that the masters and mates of the Onward and Carolena had since been tried and sentenced to undergo similar penalties. From these facts, observed his lordship, the authorities of the United States appeared to lay claim to the sole sovereignty of that part of Behring Sea lying east of the westerly boundary of Alaska, including a stretch of sea extending in its widest part some 600 or 700 miles westerly from the mainland. He said Her Majesty's government did not doubt that the United States would admit the illegality of the proceedings against the British vessels and British subjects in question, and cause reasonable reparation to be made for the wrongs and losses to which they had been subjected.'

Seizures.

In regard to the seizures the Department. Lack of Official In- of State then possessed no information, and formation as to on this ground Mr. Bayard, immediately on the receipt of Lord Iddesleigh's protest, explained his failure to reply to the British minister's notes of the 27th of September and the 21st of October, saying that he had promptly applied to his colleague, the Attorney-General, to procure an authentic report of the judicial proceedings, and that the delay in furnishing them doubtless had arisen from the remoteness of the place of trial. And he promised, as soon as he should be able to do so, to communicate "the facts as ascertained in the trial and the rulings of law as applied by the court." On the 7th of December 1886 the British minister again called attention to the subject. He said that

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 7.

vessels were, as usual, equipping in British Columbia for fishing in Behring Sea; that the Canadian Government, in the absence of information, were desirous of ascertaining whether such vessels, fishing in the open sea and beyond the territorial waters of Alaska, would be exposed to seizure, and that Her Majesty's government at the same time would be glad if some assurance should be given that, pending the settlement of the question, no such seizures of British vessels would be made in Behring Sea. Writing yet again, on the 9th of January 1887, the British minister adverted to the "grave representations made by Her Majesty's government," and expressed "the hope that the cause of the delay complained of in answering the representations of Her Majesty's government on this grave and important matter may be speedily removed." On the 12th of January Mr. Bayard, expressing regret that he should not have obtained copies of the judicial proceeding in time to have made the urgent and renewed application of the Earl of Iddesleigh superflous, informed the British minister that he had from week to week been awaiting the arrival of the papers from Sitka, and that telegraphic instructions had been sent to expedite the furnishing of them. His delay in meeting the questions involved had been enforced "by the absence of requisite information as to the facts," the Department of State not having as "yet been placed in possession of that accurate information which would justify its decision in a question" which the British minister was "certainly warranted in considering to be of grave importance." "I shall," said Mr. Bayard, in conclusion, "diligently endeavor to procure the best evidence possible of the matters inquired of, and will make due response thereupon when the opportunity of decision is afforded to me. You require no assurance that no avoidance of our international obligations need be apprehended."2

Orders for Release of Vessels.

On the 3d of February 1887 Mr. Bayard, replying to yet another inquiry of the British minister, stated that information had been received that the judicial documents had left Sitka and were on their way to Washington, and added: "In this connection I take occasion to inform you that, without conclusion at this time of any questions which may be found to be involved in these cases of seizure, orders have been issued by the Presi

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 7.

* Id. 11.

dent'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."

Request for Assurances Against Seizures in Future.

On the 4th of April 1887 the British minister, adverting to the circumstance that the fishing season in Behring Sea was approaching, inquired whether the owners of such vessels as were fitting out for operations in those waters might "rely . on being unmolested by the cruisers of the United States when not near land." On the 12th of April Mr. Bayard replied that the "remoteness of the scene of the fur-seal fisheries and the special peculiarities of that industry" had "unavoidably delayed the Treasury officials in framing appropriate regulations and issuing orders to United States vessels to police the Alaskan waters for the protection of the fur seals from indiscriminate slaughter and consequent speedy extermination;" that the laws of the United States on the subject, as found in sections 1956-1971 of the Revised Statutes, had been in force for upwards of seventeen years, and that prior to the seizures of 1886 "but a single infraction is known to have occurred, and that was promptly punished;" that the "question of instructions to Government vessels in regard to preventing the indiscriminate killing of fur seals" was under consideration, and that information would be given at the earliest day possible as to "what has been decided, so that British and other vessels visiting the waters in question can govern themselves accordingly."2

Reception of Judi

cial Proceedings at Washington.

A copy of the judicial proceedings in the cases of the Carolena, Onward, and Thornton was received at the Department of State on April 9, 1887. A copy of it was communicated to the British minister on the 11th of July.3 It embraced the proceedings against the vessels, but not those against their officers. It disclosed the fact, however, that the three vessels were condemned on October 4, 1886, for having been "found engaged in 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 that, after some further proceedings, they were, on February 9, 1887,

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 12.

2Id. 13.

3 Id. 17.