176 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



It is hoped that Lord Salisbury will give it favorable consideration, 

 as there can be no doubt of the inii)ortance of preserving the seal fish- 

 eries in Behring Sea, and it is also desiiable tliat this should be done 

 by an arrangement between the governments interested, without the 

 United States being called upon to consider what si)ecial measures of 

 its own the exceptional character of the projjcrty in question might re- 

 quire it to take in case of the refusal of foreign powers to give their co- 

 operation. 



Whether legislation would be necessary to enable the United States 

 and Great Britain to carry out measures ibr the protection of the seals 

 would depend much upon the character of the legnlations; but it is 

 probable that legislation would be required. 



The manner of protecting the seals w(mld (l('])('nd upon the kind of 

 arrangement which (:ireat Britain would be willing to make with the 

 United States for the i)olicing of the seas and for the trial of British 

 subjects violating the regulations which the two Governments may 

 agree u])on for such protection. As it appears to this Government, the 

 connnerce carried on in and about Behring Sea is so limited in variety 

 and extent tluit the present efforts of this Government to protect the 

 seals need not be complicated by considerations which are of great im- 

 portance in highways of commerce and render the interference by the 

 officers of one Government with the merchant vessels of another on 

 the high seas inadmissible. But even in regard to those parts of the 

 globe where commerce is extensively carried on, the United States and 

 Great Britain have, for a common purpose, abated in a measure their 

 objection to such interference and agreed that it might be made by 

 the naval vessels of either country. 



Eeference is made to the treaty concluded at Washington ontheTth 

 of April, 1862, between the United States and Great Britain for the sup- 

 pression of the slave trade, under which the joint policing of the seas 

 by the naval vessels of the contracting parties was i)rovided for. In 

 this conventicm no limitation was imposed as to the part of the high 

 seas of the world in which visitation and search of the merchant ves- 

 sels of one of the contracting parties might be made by a naval vessel of 

 the other party. In tlie ])resent case, however, the range within which 

 visitation and search would be required is so limited, and the commerce 

 there carried on so insignificant, that it is scarcely thought necessary 

 to refer to the slave-trade convention for a precedent, nor is it deemed 

 necessary that the performance of police duty should be by the naval 

 vessels of the contracting parties. 



In regard to the trial of offenders for violation of tlie proj^osed regu- 

 lations, provision might be made for such trial by handing over the 

 alleged offender to the courts of his own country. 



A precedent for such procedure is found in the treaty signed at the 

 Hague on May (I, 18<S2, for regulating the police of the l!forth Sea fish- 

 eries, a. coi)y of which is inclosed. 

 I am, etc , 



T. F. Bayard. 



Sir L. 8. SacJcville West to Mr. Bayard. 



Washington, March 36, 1888. ( Kecei ved March 29.) 

 Sir: With rererenccto the proposal that concertetl action be taken by 

 Great Britain, the United States, and other interested po.\):evs,. iu o:cder 



