200 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
[Inclosure in No. 94.] 
Extract from the ‘New York Herald” of February 8, 1888, 
CLosED Sras.—An Ottawa despatch states that Professor Dawson is on the way to 
Washington, as agent of the Canadian Government, in relation to complaints of that 
Government about wrongs suffered by some of ils people in Alaska, 
This refers probably to the seizure of a number of Canadian sealing-vessels in 
Behring’s Sea and their condemnation at Sitka. The ‘‘ Carolina,” “ Onward,” and 
‘“¢Thornton,” all confessedly Canadian sealers, were seized in August 1886 by an 
American Revenue-cutter, while over 60 miles from land, in Behring’s Sea, and were 
later condemned by the United States Court. About the same time several Amecri- 
can sealing-vessels—the ‘‘ San Diego,” ‘‘ Sierra,” and others—were also seized, under 
similar circumstances, and also condemned. 
Early in 1887 the President ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings against 
the Canadian sealers and their discharge, but the American vessels captured and 
condemned were held. Subsequently, in July 1887, five other Canadian sealers—the 
“Grace,” “ Dolphin,” ‘‘Alfred Adams,” “ W. P. Sayward,” and ‘‘Anna Beck ”—were 
seized, also at a distance from land. For all these seizures, and the losses inflicted 
on the owners and crews, damages are claimed by the British Government. In con- 
sidering these claims, the question whether the United States can hold Behring’s Sea 
to be a closed sea turns up. 
We suppose that if it were not for a desire to preserve the valuable fur seal fish- 
eries this question would not be raised, because Behring’s Sea, geographically, is 
plainly an integral part of the Pacific Ocean. Russia, when she owned both 
181 shores of it, may have claimed it as a closed sea, just as Spain once claimed the 
exclusive right to navigate the whole Pacitic Ocean. But in modern times 
such claims have been considered preposterous, and have been shelved. Our own 
Government has been in the past most persistent in its opposition to ‘‘ the headland” 
theory, and to the assertion by other Powers of exclusive rights to waters much 
more closely land-bound than the Behring’s Sea. The United States were the first 
to resist the claims of the Barbary Powers to a tribute for entering the Mediterranean. 
Our Government resisted the payment of the ‘‘Sound dues” to Denmark as “‘ incon- 
sistent with just principles of international law,” and asserted ‘ the freedom of the 
Baltic Sound,” and ‘insisted on the right of free transit into and from the Baltic.” 
Later, the United States even refused to acknowledge the right of Turkey to 
exclude our vessels from the Black Sea, and we have always refused to acknowledge 
Great Britain’s claim to make the Gulf of St. Lawrence a closed water. We do not 
suppose, therefore, that the Government will defend the seizure of the Canadian 
sealers on the ground that it can prevent foreign ships from entering Behring’s Sea, 
or from fishing or sealing in it beyond 3 miles from the shore. That northern exten- 
sion of the Pacific Ocean is, it seems to us, undoubtedly an open sea, in which all 
nations may freely sail and fish, keeping outside the 3-mile limit. 
The preservation of the seal fisheries is, of course, of interest to the Government, 
which draws a revenue from these fisheries sufficient, we believe, to pay the interest 
on the cost of Alaska. 
It has often been urged that, if any one may capture seals in the Behring’s Sea, 
the animals will soon become extinct. So the Canadians represent that if our mack- 
erel fishers are allowed to use the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the mackerel fishery there 
will be destroyed for the Canadians, the American seines destroying, as they allege, 
the young fish. We have not noticed that much attention has been paid here to this 
plea of the Canadians. 
Perhaps, if our fishermen will agree not to fish in Canadian waters, the Canadians 
will agree not to seal in Behring’s Sea? 
Meantime, there is a bill of damages on each side; for the Canadians have dealt 
with great severity, not to say brutality, with our fishermen in their waters. 
