APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 345 



Secretary Manning', in 1880, indorsed and adopted this view. Eaily 

 in 1887 President Cleveland ordered the discontinnance of proceedings 

 against three British sealers which had been seized, the discharge of 

 the vessels, and the release of the persons arrested. But seizures did 

 not cease. Indeed, Secretary Bayard announced to the British Minis- 

 ter that the above action was taljen "without conclusion of any ques- 

 tions whicli may be found to be involved." 



At the last Session of Congress an Act was passed (approved the 

 2nd March, 188U) "to provide for the protection of the salmon fisheries 

 of Alaska." In its third section it provides that "Section 1956 of the 

 1-levised Statutes of the United States [quoted in part], above, is hereby 

 declared to include and ai)ply to all the dominions of the United States 

 in the waters of tlie Behring Sea." It makes it the duty of the Presi- 

 dent each year to make proclamation accordingly. 



On the 22nd March last President Harrison issued his Proclamation, 

 warning " all persons against entering the waters of Behring Sea 

 within the dominion of the United States for the ])urpose of violating' 

 the provisions of said section 105C, lievised Statutes," and declaring' 

 that "all persons found to be or to have been engaged in any violation 

 of the laws of the United States will be arrested and punished as 



above provided." 

 93 Now, whatever may be the nature of our acts of which the 



British comi>lain, it is obvious that we have not been claiming 

 an exclusive juiisdiction for all purposes over Behring Sea, as in 1821 

 Russia claimed it for 100 Italian miles from the coast all the way from 

 Behring Strait down to the 51st degree of latitude. The Czar, by his 

 Ukase, excluded foreigners from pursuing "commerce, whaling, fish- 

 ing, and all other industry" in those waters and on the adjacent lands. 

 Under Mr. French's ruling, followed by Mr. Manning, our revenue- 

 cruizers have been directed to arrest foreign vessels only to prevent 

 them from killing fur-bearing aninuils. The chief object of the legisla- 

 tion by Congress is to })revent the indiscriminate slaughter and early 

 extinction of the fur-seals, which chiefly resort to the Pribyloff Islands 

 to breed. If sealers are allowed to catch tliem ad libitum, while they 

 are on their way to their breeding' place, these animals will soon be 

 exterminated, as they have been elsewhere. Therefore the number 

 that the Alaska Commercial Company, which has the exclusive x)rivi- 

 lege of taking seals on the Islands of St. Paul and St. George of the 

 Pribyloft' group, is allowed by contract with the Government to catch 

 is limited to 100,000 a-year. It is, of course, for the interest of many 

 nations that the race of seals should not be destroyed. It is especially 

 for the interest of Great Britain that the race should be peri)etuated, 

 for all the seal-skins procured by us in Behring Sea are sent to London 

 to be dressed and prepared for use. 



The question is, whether for this laudable purpose of preserving the 

 fur-bearing seals from extinction, and maintaining our undisputed right 

 to control the takijig of these animals on the Pribyloft" Islands, we may 

 rightfully board, search, and seize foreign vessels in Behring Sea more 

 than 3 miles away from land. The equal right of all nations to use the 

 high seas for any lawful purpose of commerce, navigation, fishing, or 

 hunting is now so universally recognized; the United States have been 

 so constantly the staunch defender of this right; we have so vigor- 

 ously opposed all attempts of Great Britain to search our vessels in 

 time of peace; we have claimed so vehemently the right of fishing in 

 (/aimdian waters sharply up to 3-mile line from shore, that obviously 

 we must show some very plain and cogent reasons to justify our course 

 in Behring Sea. What reasons have been or can be given? 



