318 ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 



attention with the request that you communicate with the Britivsh Gov- 

 ernment and endeavor to secure by mutual arrangement approi)riate 

 legislation in order that the object of the award — the preservation of 

 the fur-seal fisheries — may be more effectually accomplished. 



The contention of the British Grovernment that regulations framed 

 for the purpose of carrying out the award should be coextensive with 

 and limited by the terms of the award would seem to be sound. It 

 therefore only remains to consider certain aspects in which the award 

 fails to provide for contingencies which, in the opinion of this Depart- 

 ment, should be promptly guarded against by concurrent legislation 

 not attainable with the assent of Great Britain in the form of regula- 

 tions because of the limitations hereinafter referred to. 



The most radical defect in the award is Article VI, which prohibits 

 the use of nets, firearms, and explosives in fur-seal fishing, the only 

 exception being that of guns when used outside of Bering Sea. The pro- 

 hibition is directed simply to the use of these weapons for one partic- 

 ular purpose — seal fishing — leaving both the possession and use lawful 

 for all other purposes, such as killing whales, walrus, sea otter, hair 

 seal, and other animals found within said sea. 



Experience has shown it to be almost a practicable impossibility to 

 detect a sealing vessel in the act of using such firearms for this one 

 prohibited purpose. Although the searching officer may be morally 

 certain that firearms have been used and may properly consider the 

 mere presence of firearms on the vessel, if accompanied with bodies of 

 seals, seal skins, or other suspicious evidences, sufficient justification 

 (even apart from the provisions of section 10 of the act of Congress of 

 April 6, 1894, which is applicable only to American vessels) for the 

 seizure of such a vessel, it must be apparent that in proceedings for 

 condemnation brought in a court thousands of miles away from the 

 place of seizure it will be almost an impossibility to secure conviction 

 and forfeiture on the ground of illegal use of weapons. Furthermore, 

 under the procedure necessary following the seizure of a British vessel 

 the United States seizing officer delivers the vessel, with such witnesses 

 and proof as he can procure, to the senior British naval officer at 

 dnalaska. At the trial no representative of our Government is present, 

 and the British Government must conduct the prosecution and must 

 trust to such proofs and witnesses as the American officer could collect 

 and furnish at the time. Under such circumstances forfeiture of the 

 vessel could not be secured except in the clearest cases of guilt. 



The prohibition of the use of firearms in seal fishing in Bering Sea 

 was effectually accomplished only by prohibiting the possession of fire- 

 arms in said sea for any purpose whatever. 



The provisions of section 10 of the act of Congress of April 6, 1894, 

 raising a presumption of illegal use from the possession of implements 

 forbidden then and there to be used, is of great value in enforcing the 

 award, but the act is limited to American vessels. It is to be regretted 

 that there is no equivalent provision in the British act of Parliament 

 enacted April 18, 1894, for carrying out said award. 



In this connection it is significant that in the act passed by Parlia- 

 ment for carrying out the modus vivendi of June 15, 1891, prohibiting 

 all sealing in Bering Sea (54 and 55 Victoria, Chap. XIX), a provision 

 similar to that contained in the act of Congress above cited was 

 inserted, as follows : 



If a British ship is found within Bering Sea having on board thereof fishing or 

 sealing implements or seal skins or bodies of seals it shall lie on the owner or master 

 of such ship to prove that the ship was not used or employed iu contravention of 

 this act. 



