ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 325 



the terms of tlie award. On the subject of the regulations of last 

 season it is stated that "the arrangeiuent in question lias not in prac- 

 tice beeu worked for the protectiou of I^ritish sealers from interference 

 as Her Majesty's Government had hoped would have been the case," 

 reference being- specially made to the seizure by United States officers 

 of the British schooners Wanderer and Favorite. 



Attention is further called to the fact that in making said seizures 

 the United States officers were under the erroneous impression that the 

 act of Congress of April (>, 18!)4, was applicable to British vessels, and, 

 in fact, cited said act as justification for the seizure, whereas its pro- 

 visions are applicable only to American vessels, the right to seize 

 British vessels being limited to offenses under the British act of Par- 

 liament only to be exercised by virtue of tlie power given in the order 

 in council of April 30, 1894. Bequest is also made that United States 

 officers engaged in patrolling the award area during the present season 

 be instructed accordingly. 



In reply, I have the honor to state that on December 15, 1894, a draft 

 of proposed concurrent regulations for the season of 1895 was trans- 

 mitted by you to the British ambassador for the approval of his Gov- 

 ernment. This draft had been jirepared by me and sent to you for this 

 purpose. Subsequently the British ambassador obtained your consent 

 to confer directly with me upon the subject, and a number of interviews 

 were accorded inm by myself and Assistant Secretary Hamlin upon 

 this matter. He submitted a draft, now in our possession, of proposed 

 concurrent regulations containing certain suggested improvements over 

 the draft submitted by myself; after j^reliminary negotiations covering 

 considerable period of time a draft was finally agreed upon satisfactory 

 to each of us, the understanding being that I should submit a copy 

 of the same to the President for his approval and promulgation and 

 that he, on his part, should forward a copy for the ap])roval of his Gov- 

 ernment and for insertion in an order in council shortly to be passed. 

 He stated that it would be necessary to insert the regulations in a new 

 order in council for the reason that the last order bearing upon the 

 subject was limited in its operations to the sealing season of 1894. 



I accordingly i)resented a copy ot the proposed regulations to the 

 President, who signed the same, understanding that they received the 

 approval of the British ambassador and would be forwarded by him to 

 his Government, as above stated. 



While I did not for a moment understand or believe that the British 

 ambassador had authority or had undertaken definitely to bind his 

 Government without aformal transmission of the proposed regulations, 

 yet I had every reason to believe that the draft agreed upon by us would 

 be promptly accepted by the British Government, or its declination as 

 promptly communicated. The order in council alluded to by the Brit- 

 ish ambassador was enacted February 2, 1895. On that date the copy 

 of said proposed regulations must have been in the possession of the 

 home Government, as it was given to Sir Julian on January 17 for trans- 

 mission. I would further call to your attention the fact that in said 

 order in council a reference is made to arrangements which have been 

 entered into by the respective Governments, which can only refer to 

 these ]>roposed regulations and which by necessary implication recog- 

 nizes the same as valid and subsisting. The preamble of this order 

 recites that — 



Whereas arrangements have been made between Her Majesty's Government and 

 the Government of the United States for gi\ iug eftect to articles 4 and 7 of the 

 schednled provisions, and it is expedient that effect should be given to those arrange- 

 ments by an order in council. * * * 



