UNITED STATES. 





first, as ho had when a similar one was made in 

 tin- previous year, tint after long negot iat ion- it 

 .1 in a iiii'tlilinl form, tin- catch of the. 

 Ncirlli American Company being restricted to 

 7,500 seals, which they were allowed to kill as 



compensation fortl xpense of maintaining th 



:;i>0 or more natives on the islands. The innilim 

 '/. which was ratified l>y an act of the. 

 British Parliament and the necessary legislative 

 action of Congress, provided that American and 

 Mritish war vessel- should jointly patrol Bering 

 Sea and sei/c sealers of either American or 

 Canadian nationality. The agreement was 

 reached too late, for an unusual number of seal- 

 ing vessels had already reached the Alaskan 

 waters, and before their operations were stopped 

 hail destroyed more seals than in any previous 

 season. Tho bill giving the British Govern- 

 ment authority to forbid the killing of seals by 

 British subjects was read a third time in the 

 House of Commons on June 4, and it was not 

 till after that, and after the United States agreed 

 to rescind the permission allowing 60,000 seals to 

 be killed, and forbade the commercial killing of 

 seals altogether, limiting the number to the 7,500 

 seals necessary for the natives, that the English 

 Government took steps to forbid and arrest the 

 slaughter. Previous to the acceptance of the 

 modus vivendi the British Government had taken 

 steps to have the claim of Territorial jurisdic- 

 tion over the waters of Bering Sea, beyond the 

 three-mile limit, tested in the United States 

 courts by having a suit brought in the Supreme 

 Court in the case of the sealing schooner " Say- 

 ward" that had been seized by the American 

 authorities. The court adjourned the case till 

 October. 



The British Government was impelled to ac- 

 cede to a modus vivendi by the prospect of a 

 setttlement of the Bering Sea question by 

 arbitration. The first proposal to arbitrate had 

 come from Lord Salisbury, and had been rejected 

 by the Secretary of State. On April 14, 1891, 

 Mr. Blaine, in a note to the American minister 

 in London, made a counter-proposition, defining 

 the questions that the Unitea States Government 

 was willing to submit to arbitration as follow : 



1. What ex.-luMvc jurisdiction in the sea now 

 known us the I'.criiiL' Sen. and what exclusive r'urhts 

 in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and ex- 

 ercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska 

 to the t'nited States '. 



2. How far were the>e claims of jurisdiction as to 

 the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great 

 Britain ? 



8. Was the body of water now known as th- 

 in_r Sea included in the phrase " Pacific Ocean," as 

 used in the treaty of is-jr, between (ireat Britain arid 

 Russia; and what riirhts. if any, in the Merit 

 were Ill-Id and exclusively exercised by Russia utter 

 said treaty ? 



4. Did not all the riirhts of Russia iw to jurisdiction 

 and as to the seal fisheries in Bering Sea, cast <>f tho 

 water Boundary dcseril>cd in tin- treaty lietwecn tho 

 I'nited States and Russia of March 30, 1867, pass un- 

 impain-d to the Cnited States under that treaty? 



5. Has the United States any right, and, it so, what 

 riirht, of protection or property in the t'ur seals fre- 

 quenting the islands or the LJnitod States in Hcrinu 

 s'ea. when such seals are found outoide tho ordinary 

 three-mile limit ; 



6. If the determination of the foregoing questions 

 shall leave the subject in sueh position that the con- 



currence of (in at Britain b neccMrv in pfwctibtaf 



reguhr ,y nal 



ft tin- watep. of H, riliu' S.-u, thru it -1 ,. 



determined : Kir-t, how far, If at all. 



nary territorial limit* it W necenMTY that 



KtuU* hhould CM r. ic an excltttivc y.: 



order t. protect (In hen! for the time living u| 



I !:,!:!- of the I nit.. I StuU-n and feeding therefrom. 



.. In-tin r a . i..* t -d aeanon (during whi 

 killing of m-uls in the wuter- 

 tlie ordinary terit'.rriul limits shall In- pn.hil 

 necessary to save the seal tishing industry. HO valuable 

 and important to mankind, from detertol 

 struction. And, if M.. third. what months or part* of 

 months should In- included ii 

 what waters it should extend. 



The rights formerly claimed by Russia were 

 defined in a ukase of the Czar in fell, and were 



effectually exercised and acquiesced in, air 

 the British and American government* at that 

 time formally protested against treating Bering 

 Sea as mare clausum. The convention between 

 the American and Russian governments signed 

 on April 5, 1834, dealt with the rights of navi- 

 gation and fishery in the Pacific Ocean on the 

 northwest coasts of America. A similar treaty 

 was signed with England on Feb. 10, 1825, in 

 which the ^region affected was limited to tho 

 seas and coasts south of the sixtieth parallel and 

 east of the one hundred and forty-first degree of 

 longitude, as the Russian Government was fearful 

 lest the American treaty should be construed as 

 annulling the principle asserted in the < 

 ukase and conveying to Americans rights and 

 privileges in Alas'ka and Bering Sea. The Rus- 

 sian minister was instructed to advise the Gov- 

 ernment at Washington that such was not the 

 intention or effect of the treaty, and the State 

 Department took note of this communication. 



The negotiations with regard to arbitration 

 were continued in Washington. On June 25 Mr. 

 Wharton submitted a final dealing with the 

 question of indemnification to prevent the inter- 

 ests of the United States as owner of the seal 

 fisheries from being ignored. Lord Salisbury 

 objected to the proposition as prejudging the 

 question of liability, and on July 13 Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote submitted a form providing that not 

 only the facts, but the liability arising from 

 them, should be passed upon by the arbitrators. 

 Some of the modifications were accepted by Mr. 

 Wharton, acting for the Secretary of Stir 

 July 23. On Aug. 18 Sir Julian Pauneefote 

 asked for a reply regarding the question of in- 

 demnity for acts committed by the crni- 

 either nation. Mr. Wharton replied that "the 

 President thinks that it will be time to consider 

 the question of indemnity when occasion has 

 arisen to claim the same." The amended form 

 proposed by Mr. Wharton on July 23 was de- 

 clared on A iii:. -' tii be unacceptable t 

 British Government. In-cause it implied the ad- 

 mis-ion of the doctrine that government* are 

 liable for acts of their nationals, and proposed 

 that questions of fact should l>e referred to the 

 arbitrators. On the same day Sir Julian Pa 

 fote complained that the N'.-r.h 

 Commercial Company was violating the sp 

 the modutt vivtnai by killing a greater i, 

 of seals than 7,500 on the pretext that the lim- 

 itation dated from the signature of the JfW- 

 inent. Inquiry was made, and on Oct. 10 Mr. 



