52 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



Her Majesty's Government would deeply regret that the pursuit of fur-seals on the 

 high seas by British vessels should involve even the slightest injury to the people 

 of the United States. If the case be proved, they will be ready to consider what 

 measures can bo properly taken for the remedy of such injury, but they would be 

 unable on that ground to depart from a principle on which free commerce on the 

 high seas depends. 



The second argument advanced by Mr. Blaine is that the "fur-seal fisheries of 

 Behriiig Sea had been exclusively controlled by the Government of Russia, without 

 interference and without question, from their original discovery until the cession of 

 Alaska to the United States in 1867," and that '' from 1867 to 1886 tlie possession, in 

 which Russia had been undisturbed, was enjoyed by the United States Government 

 also without interruption or intrusion from any source". 



I will deal with these two periods separately. 



First, as to the alleged exclusive monopoly of Russia. After Russia, at the instance 

 of the Russian American Fur Company, claimed in 1821 tbe pursuits of commerce, 

 whaling, and fishing from Bering Straits to the hfty-iirst degree of north latitude, 

 and not only proliil)ited all foreign vessels from landing on the coasts and islands of 

 the above waters, but also prevented them from approaching within 100 miles thereof, 

 Mr. Quiucy Adams wrote as follows to the United States Minister in Russia: 



"The United States can admit no part of these claims; their right of navigation 

 and fishing is perfect, and has been in I'onstant exercise from tlie earliest times 

 throughout the whole extent of the Southern Ocean, subject only to the ordinary 

 exceptions and exclusions of tlie territorial jurisdictions." 



That the right of fishing thus asserted included the right of killing fur-bearing 

 animals is shown by the case of the United States brig Loriot. That vessel proceeded 

 to the waters over which Russia claimed exclusive jurisdiction for the purpose of 

 hunting the sea otter, the killing of which is now prohibited by the United States 

 statutes applicable to the fur-seal, and was forced to abandon her voyage and leave 

 the waters in question by an armed vessel of the Russian Navy. Mr. Forsythe, 

 writing on the case to the American Minister at St. Petersburg on the 4th of May, 

 1837, said: 



"It is a violation of the rights of the citizens of the United States iramemorially 

 exercised and secured to them as well by the law of nations as by the stipulations of 

 the first article of the convention of 1824, to fish in those seas, and to resort to the 

 coast for the prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not alreadj' occupied." 



From the speech of Mr. Sumner, when introducing the question of the purchase of 

 Alaska to Congress, it is equally clear that the United States Government did not 

 regard themselves as purchasing a monopoly. Having dealt with fur-bearing ani- 

 mals, he went on to treat of ti.sheries, and after alluding to the presence of different 

 species of whales in the vicinity of the Aleutians, said: "No sea is now mare clausum; 

 all of these may be pursued by a ship under any flag, except directly on the coast or 

 within its territorial limit." 



I now come to the statement that from 1867 to 1886 the possession was enjoyed by 

 the United States with no interruption aud no intrusion from any source. Her 

 Majesty's Government can not but think that Mr. Blaine has been misinformed as to 

 the history of the operations in Behring Sea during that period. 



The instances recorded in inclosure 1 in this dispatch are sufficient to prove from 

 official Unite<l States sources that from 1867 to 1886 British vessels were engaged at 

 intervals in the fur-seal fisheries with the cognizance of the United States Govern- 

 ment. I will here by way of example quote but one. 



In 1872 Collector Phelps reported the fitting out of expeditions in Australia and 

 Victoria for tlie purjiose of taking seals in Behring Sea, while passing to and from 

 their rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands, and recommended that a steam 

 cutter should be sent to the region of Unimak Pass and the islands of St. Paul and 

 St. George. 



Mr. Secretary Boutwell informed him, in reply, that he did not consider it expedient 

 to send a cutter to interfere with the operations of foreigners, and stated: "In addi- 

 tion, I do not see that the United States would have the jurisdiction or power to 

 drive oft" parties going up there for that purpose, unless they made such attempt 

 'within a marine league of the shore". 



Before leaving this part of Mr. Blaine's argument, I would allude to his remark 

 that " vessels from other nations passing from time to time through Behring Sea to 

 the Arctic Ocean in jiursuit of whales have always abstained from taking part in the 

 capture of seals", which he holds to be proof of the recognition of rights held and 

 exercised first by Russia and then by the United States. 



Even if the facts are as stated, it is not remarkable that vessels pushing on for the 

 short season in which whales can be captured in the Arctic Ocean, and being fitted 

 especially for the whale fisheries, neglected to carry boats and hunters for fur-seals 

 or to engage in an entirely different pursuit. 



The whalers, moreover, ])ass through Beliring Sea for the fishing grounds in the 

 Arctic Ocean in April and May as soon as the ice breaks up, while the great bulk of 



