PEOPOSED INTERNATIONAL MEASURES, 18LI0. 209 



mentor citizens of the United States, oreveu other countries interented 

 in the seal trade, are h)sers by a certain course of proceeding', to render 

 that course an iiuiuoral one. 



Her Majesty's Government Avouhl deeply regret that the pursuit of 

 fur seals on the liigh seas by Britisli vessels should involve even tlie 

 slightest injury to the peoj^le of the United States. If the case be 

 proved, they will be ready to consider Avhat nieasui-es can be jiroperly 

 taken for the remedy of such injury, but they would be unable on that 

 ground to depart from a princii)le on which free commerce on the high 

 seas depends. 



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

 fisheries of Behring Sea had been exclusively controlled by tlie Govern- 

 ment of Kussia, witluHit interference and without ([uestion, from their 

 original discovery until tlie cession of Alaska to the United Htates in 

 18(J7," and that "from 1807 to 1880 tlie possession, in which liussia 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 Kussia. After liussia, 

 at the instance of the Russian American Fur Company, claimed in 1821 

 the pursuits of commer(;e, vvdialing, and fishing from Bering vStraits to 

 the fifty-first degree of north latitude, and not only prohibited all foreign 

 vessels from landing on the coasts and islands of the above waters, but 

 also prevented them from approaching within 100 miles thereof, JMr. 

 Quincy Adams wrote as follows to the United States Minister in Kus- 

 sia: 



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

 and fisliing is perfect, and lia.s been in constant exercise from the earliest times 

 throngliout the whole extent of tlie Sonthern Ocean, snliject only to the ordinary 

 exceptions and exclusions of the territorial jurisdictions. 



That the right of fishing tiius asserted included the right of killii>g 

 fur-bearing animals is shown by tlie case of the United States brig 

 Loriot. That vessel i)roceeded to the waters over which liussia claimed 

 exclusive jurisdiction for the ]>urpose of hunting the sea otter, the kill- 

 ing of which is now prohibited by tiie United States statutes ai)plicable 

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

 waters in question by an armed vessel of the Russian ISTavy. Mr. For- 

 sythe, 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, immemorially 

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

 of the first article of the convention of 1821, to fish in those seas, and to resort to 

 the coast for the prosecution of their lawful commerce upon points not already occu- 

 pied. 



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 monop- 

 oly. Having dealt with iur-beariug animals, he went on to treat of 

 fisheries, and after alluding to thepresenceof different species of whales 

 in the vicinity of the Aleutians, said: "N'o sea is now mare cJausum; 

 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 1880 the possession was 

 enjoyed by the United States with no interruption and no intrusion 

 from any source. Her Majesty's Government can uot but think that 

 '^7 



