208 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE 



wliicli it confers do not justify acts wliieli are iniinoi al in tlieraselves, and 

 wliicli inevitably tend to results against tlie interests ;iiid against the 

 welfare of mankind; and lie proceeds to justify tlie forcible resistance 

 of the United States Government by the necessity of defending not only 

 their own traditional and long-established rights, but also the rights of 

 good morals and of good government the world over. 



He declares that while the United States will not withhold from any 

 nation the privileges which they demanded for themselves, when Alaska 

 was part of the Kussian Enii>ire, they are not disposed to exercise in 

 tlie possessions acquired from Russia any less power or authority than 

 they were willing to concede to the limperial Government of ilussia 

 when its sovereignty extended over them. lie <'laims from friendly 

 nations a recognition of the same rights and privileges on the lands and 

 in the Avaters of Alaska which the same friendly nations always con- 

 ceded to the Emxiire of Russia. 



With regard to the first of these arguments, naniely, that the seizure 

 of the Canadian vessels in the Behring's Sea was justified by the iact 

 that they were "engaged in apursuitthatisin itHQ]i coxtraboiw.s mores — 

 a pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and ])ermanent injury to 

 the rights of the Government and people of the TJnited States," it is 

 obvious that two questions are involved: hrst, whether the pursuit and 

 killing of fur seals in certain ] tarts of the open sea is, froi'n the point of 

 view of international morality, an offense contra ho)ios mores; and sec- 

 ondly, whether, if such be the case, this fact justitics the seizure on the 

 high seas and subsequent conliscation in time of peace of the private 

 vessels of a friendly nation. 



It is an axiom of international maritime law that such action is only 

 admissible in the case of piracy or in pursuance of special international 

 agreement. This principle has been universally admitted by jurists, 

 and was very distinctly laid down by President Tyler in his special 

 message to Congress, dated the 27th February, 1843, Avhen, after ac- 

 knowledging the right to detain and search a vessel on suspicion of 

 piracy, he goes on to say: "With this single exception, no nation has, 

 in time of peace, any authority to detain the shii^s of another upon the 

 higli seas, on any pretext whatever, outside the territorial jurisdiction." 



Xow, the pursuit of seals in the open sea, under Avliatever circum- 

 stances, has never hitherto been considered as piracy by any civilized 

 state. Nor, even if tlie United States had gone so lar as to make the 

 killing of fur seals i)iracy by their municipal law, Avould this have 

 justified them in punishing oll'enses against sucli law <*ommitted by any 

 persons otlier than their own citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction 

 of the United States. 



In the case of the slave trade, a practic e which the civilized world 

 has agreed to look upon with abhorrence, the right of arresting the 

 vessels of another country is exercised only by special international 

 agreement, and no one government has been allowed that general con- 

 trol of morals in this respect which JNIr. Blaine claims on behalf of the 

 United States in regard to seal-hunting. 



But Her Majesty's Government must (piestitm whether this pursuit 

 can of itself be regarded as contra honos snores, unless and until, for 

 special reasons, it has been agreed by international arrangement to for- 

 bid it. Fur seals are indis})utably animalsy"c^>Yt' natura\ and these have 

 universally been regarded by jurists as res nnJlhis until tliey are caught; 

 no person, therefore, can have ])ro[)erty in them until he has actually 

 reduced them into ])ossession by capture. 



Jt requires something more than a mere declaration that the Gon cm- 



