132 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
[Inclosure in No. 76.] 
Myr. Bayard to Sir L. West. 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 18, 1887. 
Srr: I have the honour to acknowledge your note of yesterday in relation to the 
cases of the seizure of the British schooners “ Onward,” ‘‘ Carolina,” and ‘‘ Thornton,” 
in Behring’s Sea, by United States Revenue vessels in August 186, and also your 
instructions to include by similar representations the cases of the British Columbian 
vessels “Grace,” Dolphin,” and ‘* W. P. Sayward,” seized by the United States 
Revenne authorities in Behring’s Sea, with notification that Her Britannic Majesty’s 
Government reserve all right to compensation on behalf of the owners and crews of 
the above-mentioned vessels. 
The attidavit of the mate of the ‘‘W. P. Sayward” has been read, and the facts 
therein stated will be at once investigated. 
Ihave, &e. ; 
(Signed) THowAs F. BAYARD, 
Noite 
Sir L. West to the Marquis of Salisbury.—-( Received October 24.) 
WASHINGTON, October 14, 1587. 
My Lorp: I have the honour to inclose to your Lordship herewith 
copies of the brief recently filed in the Court at Sitka by the counsel for 
the United States Government which has appeared i: the “ New York 
Herald,” as well as an article thereupon from that Journal. 
I have, &e. 
(Signed) L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. 
{Inclosure 1 in No. 77.] 
Extract from the “New York Herald,” October 18, 1887. 
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, October 12, 1887. 
The Government here are in receipt of advices from Sitka which contain the brie 
which is understood to have been prepared at Washington and recently filed 
113 inthe Court at Sitka by Mr. A. K. Delaney, as counsel for the United States 
Government. 4 
The following is a verbatim copy of the brief: 
“© CASE. 
‘‘The information in this case is based on Section 1956 of Chapter 3 of the Revised 
Statutes of the United States, which provides that ‘No person shall kill any otter, 
mink, martin, sable or fur seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of 
Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof.’ 
“‘The offence is charged to have been committed 130 miles north of the Isiand of 
Ounalaska, and therefore in the main waters of that part of the Behring’s Sea ceded 
by Russia to the United States by the Treaty of 1867. The defendants demur to the 
information on the ground— 
‘1, That the Court has no jurisdiction over the defendants, the alleged offence 
having been committed beyond the limit of a marine league from the shores of Alaska. 
“‘2. That the Act under which the defendants were arrested is unconstitutional in 
so far as it restricts the free navigation of the Behring’s Sea for fishing and sealing 
purposes beyond the limits of a marine league from shore. The issue thus raised by 
the demurrer presents squarely the questions: 
““(1) The jurisdiction of the United States over Behring’s Sea. 
“‘(2) The power of Congress to legislate concerning those waters, 
. 
