ORAL- ARGUMENT OP JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 17 



On the 3d February Mr. Bayard iuformed you that the record of the, judicial pro- 

 ceedings which he had calh'd for was shortly expected to reach VVashiu,i!;ton, and 

 tliat, without conclusion at that time of any questions which might be found to be 

 involved in these cases of seizures, orders had been issued by the President's direc- 

 tion 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. 



On the 4th of April, under instructions from me, you inquired of Mr. Bayard, in 

 view of the api)roaching tishing season in Behring's Sea, whetherthe owners of British 

 vessels might rely when not near land on being unmolested by the cruisers of the 

 United States, and you again asked when the record of the judicial proceedings 

 might be expected. 



Mr. Bayard informed you, in reply (12th April), that the papers referred to had 

 reached him and were being examined; that there had bt-en unavoidable delay in 

 framing ai)pr()priate regulations and issuing orders to the United States vessels to 

 police the Alaskan waters; that the Revised Statutes relating to Alaska, sections 

 1956 and 1971, contained the laws of the United States in relation to the matter; and 

 that the regulations were being considered, and he would inform you at the earliest 

 day possible what had been decided, so that British and other vessels might govern 

 themselves accordingly. 



In view of the statements made by Mr. Bayard in his note of the 3d February, to 

 which I have referred above. Her Majesty's Government assumed that, pending a con- 

 clusion of the discussion between the two Governments on the general question 

 involved, no further similar seizures of British vessels would be made by order of the 

 United States Government. They learn, however, from the contents of Mr. Bayard's 

 note of the 13th ultimo, inclosed in your dispatch. No. 2'15, of the 15th ultimo, that 

 such was not the meaning which he intended should be attached to his communica- 

 tion of the 3d February; and they deeply regret to find a proof of their misinterpre- 

 tation of the intentions of the IJnited States Government from an announcement 

 recently received from the commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in the 

 Pacific, that several more British vessels engaged in seal hunting in Behring's Sea 

 have been seized when a long distance from land by an American revenue vessel. 



Her Majesty's Government have carefully considered the transcript record of the 

 judicial proceedings in the United States district court in the several cases of the 

 schooners Carolina, Onivard, and Thornton, which were communicated to you in July, 

 and were transmitted to me in your dispatch. No. 196, of the 12th of that month, and 

 they can not find in them any justification for the coudenniatiou of those vessels. 



The libels of information allege that they were seized for 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 the United States Naval Com- 

 mander Abbey certainly aSJrnied that the vessels were seized within the waters of 

 Alaska and the Territory of Alaska, but according to his own evidence, they were 

 seized 75, 115, and 70 miles, respectively, south-southwest of St. George's Island. 



It is not dis}>uted, therefore, that the seizures in question were eifected at a dis- 

 tance from laud far in excess of the linut of niaiitinie jurisdiction, which any nation 

 can claim by international law, and it is hardly necessary to add that such limit can 

 not be enlarged by any muui(;ii)al law. 



The claim thus set up appears to be founded on the exceptional title said to have 

 been conveyed to the United States bj' Russia at the time of the cession of the Alaska 

 Territory. 



The pretention which the Russian Government at one time put forward to exclusive 

 jurisdiction over the whole of Behring Sea was, hovvever, never admitted either by 

 this country or the United States of America. On the contrary, it was strenuously 

 resisted, as I shall presently show, and the American Government can hardly claim to 

 have received from Russia rights which they declared to be inadmissible when asserted 

 by the Russian Government. Nor does it appear from the text of the tieaty of 1867 

 that Russia either intended or ])urported to make any such grant, for by Article I of 

 that instrument Russia agreed to cede to the United States all the territory and 

 dominion then possessed by Russia " on the continent of America and in the adjacent 

 islands" within certain geogra))hical limits described, and no mention was made of 

 any exclusive right over the waters of Behring Sea. 



Moreover, whatever rights as regards their respective subjects and citizens may 

 be reciprocally conferred on the Russian and American Governments by treaty stijiu- 

 lations, the subjects of Her Majesty can not be thereby aifected, except by special 

 arrangement with this country. 



With regard to the exclusive claims advanced in times past by Russia, I transmit 

 to you documents communicated to the United States Congress in 1822, which show 

 the view taken by the American Government of these pretentions. 



In 1821 the iuii]ieror of Russia had issued an edict establishing "rules for the 

 limits of navigation and order of QOmwuuictitiou iiloug tUe Coast of the eustcm 



B S, PT XH w' 



