UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (FOREIGN RELATIONS.) 



679 



The joint commission referred to shall be es- 

 tablished as follows: The President of the Uni- 

 ted States shall nominate two persons and the 

 President of Colombia shall nominate two per- 

 sons, and they shall proceed to a decision; but 

 in case of disagreement of the commission an 

 umpire shall be appointed by the two govern- 

 ments, who shall render the decision. All deci- 

 sions by a majority of the commission or by the 

 umpire shall be final. 



A dispute with Russia regarding the seizure of 

 4 American sealing vessels by a Russian war- 

 vessel in Bering Sea was referred before the con- 

 stitution of The Hague Court of Arbitration to 

 Dr. Asser, the Dutch jurist, but the award was 

 jiven under the sanction of The Hague Tribunal, 

 The vessels were chased and seized by the Russian 

 ruiser, and the American seamen were com- 

 elled to work. The seizures were made without 

 yarning, and were not afterward confirmed by 

 my court of maritime jurisdiction. The Russian 

 Government acknowledged that in two cases its 

 naval authorities were at fault, and the arbi- 

 trator awarded $38,750 and $1,488 respectively, 

 with interest at 6 per cent, from September, 1892. 

 In the other cases, in which $101,336 and $150,- 

 720 were claimed, the Russian Government con- 

 tended that the seizure of the vessels and the 

 iprisonment of Capts. Lewis and White were 

 legal, as they were guilty of illegal sealing in 

 Russian territorial waters. The American dele- 

 gate, Herbert Peirce, said the United States 

 Government claims rights in Bering Sea and ad- 

 jacent waters and will admit jurisdiction only 

 aver territorial waters, extending a marine league 

 from the coast, unless a different rule is fixed by 

 treaty, and in such case the treaty binds only the 

 parties to the agreement. M. Komaroff, the Rus- 

 sian delegate, claimed for Russia by custom a 

 rider extent of territorial waters and also the 

 right to chase and capture beyond territorial 

 raters vessels guilty of unlawful fishing within 

 the territorial waters. The arbitrator upheld the 

 sosition taken by the United States that the 

 right of seizure extends only to the limit of terri- 

 torial waters, one marine league from shore, and 

 condemned Russia to pay respectively $28,688 

 with interest from 1892 and $32,444 with inter- 

 est from 1893. The indirect claims for the pro- 

 spective catch of the illegally detained vessels was 

 disallowed. 



The United States Government failed to reach 

 & modus Vivendi with Great Britain with regard 

 to pelagic sealing before the season of 1902. It 

 was proposed in Congress to kill off the seal herd 

 on Pribilof Islands. On Jan. 24, 1903, a conven- 

 tion was signed by Secretary Hay and the British 

 ambassador, Sir Michael Herbert, for the refer- 

 ence of the Alaska boundary dispute to a tribu- 

 nal of 6 impartial jurists, 3 to be selected by the 

 United States and 3 by Great Britain, all ques- 

 tions at issue, including the final award, to be 

 decided by a majority vote of the tribunal. The 

 tribunal shall consider in the settlement of the 

 matter the Anglo-Russian boundary treaty of 

 Feb. 28, 1825, and the treaty of March 30, 1867, 

 etween the United States and Russia, by which 

 lussia coded Alaska to the United States. 



In interpreting the treaty of 1825 the tribunal 

 shall decide what is intended as the point of 

 commencement of the boundary-line, what chan- 

 lel is the Portland channel, what course should 

 the line take from the point of commencement 

 to the Portland channel, to what point on the 

 ifty-sixth parallel is the line to be drawn from 

 the head of the Portland channel, and what 

 course should it follow between those points. 



The tribunal will decide whether in extending 

 the line of demarcation northward from this 

 point, following the crest of the mountains par- 

 allel with the coast until its intersection with 

 the one hundred and forty-first degree of longi- 

 tude west of Greenwich, subject to the condition 

 that if the line should anywhere exceed the dis- 

 tance of 10 marine leagues from the ocean, then 

 the boundary should be formed by a line paral- 

 lel to the sinuosities of the coast and distant 

 therefrom not more than 10 marine leagues it 

 was the intention and meaning of the conven- 

 tion of 1825 that there should remain in the pos- 

 session of Russia a continuous fringe or strip of 

 coast on the mainland not exceeding 10 marine 

 leagues in width separating the British posses- 

 sions from the bays, inlets, and havens of the 

 ocean extending from the point on the fifty-sixth 

 parallel to the intersection of the line with the 

 one hundred and forty-first meridian. If this 

 question should be decided in the negative, and 

 in the event of the summit of the mountains 

 being found to be in places more then 10 marine 

 leagues from the coast, the tribunal shall decide 

 whether the lisiire which was to belong to Rus- 

 sia should be measured from the mainland coast 

 of the ocean, strictly so called, along a line 

 perpendicular thereto, or if not, Avhether it was 

 the intention of the convention that, where the 

 mainland coast is indented with deep inlets form- 

 ing part of the territorial waters of Russia, the 

 lisiere was to be measured from the line of the 

 general direction of the mainland coast or from 

 the line separating the waters of the ocean from 

 the territorial waters of Russia or from the 

 heads of the inlets. The tribunal shall also decide 

 what, if any exist, are the mountains referred to 

 as situated parallel with the coast that are de- 

 clared to be the eastern boundary. When the 

 high contracting parties shall have received the 

 decision of the tribunal on the questions sub- 

 mitted, which decision shall be final and binding, 

 they will each appoint one or more scientific ex- 

 perts who shall proceed together to lay down 

 the boundary-line in conformity with the deci- 

 sion. Should there be a failure by a majority 

 of the members of the tribunal to agree upon 

 any of the points submitted, or should a ma- 

 jority agree upon only a part of the questions, 

 they will report to their respective governments. 

 The first case submitted to The Hague Arbi- 

 tration Court since its institution was a dis- 

 pute between the United States and Mexico on 

 a question of the endow r ments of Catholic mis- 

 sions in California. While California was a part 

 of Mexico President Quesada in 1842 seized a 

 fund that was created for the support of Cali- 

 fornian missions, promising to pay an annuity 

 to the clergy, who received it as long as Cali- 

 fornia belonged to Mexico, but after its annexa- 

 tion to the United States the missions of Lower 

 California received their share, while the clergy 

 of Upper California, when they claimed from the 

 Mexican Government the continuance of their 

 stipends, were referred to the United States Gov- 

 ernment. The question was once decided by ar- 

 bitration, but Mexico, dissatisfied with the 

 award, paid only the exact sum awarded, and 

 has not since continued the payments, holding 

 that the Pious fund, as it is called, is a purely 

 Mexican fund that should be used only for the 

 benefit of the Mexican Church. On May 22. 1902, 

 Secretary Hay and Dr. Manuel de Azpiroz, the 

 Mexican minister, signed a convention for the 

 reference of the question to the decision of The 

 Hague Tribunal. The United States chose as 

 arbitrators Sir Edward Fry and Prof. Martens, 



