APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 297 
United States to the territory south of the designated line. But that Russia did not 
so understand the Article is conclusively proved by her having entered into a simi- 
lar Agreement (1825) with Great Britain, and having, in fact, acknowledged in that 
instrument the right of possession of the same territory by Great Britain. ‘The 
United States can only be considered as acknowledging the right of Russia to acquire 
by actual occupation a just claim to unoccupied Jands above the latitude 54° 40/ 
north, and even this is mere natter of inference, as the Convention of 1824 contains 
nothing more than a negation of the right of the United States to occupy new points 
within those limits. 
“Admitting that this inference is just, and was in contemplation of the parties to 
the Convention, it cannot follow that the United States ever intended to abandon 
the just right acknowledged by the Ist Article to belong to them under the law of 
nations, to frequent any part of the unoccupied coast of North America for the pur- 
pose of fishing or trading with the natives.” : 
The Committee having endeavoured to show that the correspondence between 
1822 down to the Treaty of Cession with Russia had no reference to Behring’s Sea, 
were compelled to reconcile with their contention the opinion of Mr. Seeretary Bout- 
well, of the Treasury Department at Washington, given on the 9th April, 1872, 
wherein he held that the taking of fur-seals was not unlawful unless attempted 
within a marine league of the shore. Accordingly, Mr. Boutwell was called upon to 
explain his previous letter, and this he has attempted to do.* 
It will be observed, however, that, while Mr. Boutwell now claims that his letter 
of 1872 referred only to that portion of the Pacific south of the Aleutian range of 
islands, the letter is in reply to a direct question from the Collector at San Francisco, 
founded upon an extract from a newspaper. 
This newspaper expressly states that parties in Australia are fitting out for an 
expedition for the capture of fur-seals ‘in Behring’s Sea.” The Collector incloses 
this extract to Mr. Boutwell, and suggests that, as the seals reach St. Paul and St. 
George Islands uniformly by the Ounimak Pass and through the narrow straits near 
that pass, that a cutter be placed in the region of Ounimak Pass, where it could 
render most efficient service in preventing foreigners slaughtering fur-seals in the 
water on their way to the islands. 
Mr. Boutwell’s letter conveyed his opinion that a Revenue cutter could not protect 
the seals in the narrow pass referred to, since they went in pairs or singly and not in 
droves, and covered ‘‘a large region of water in their homeward travel to these 
islands,” and he added: ‘I do not see that the United States would have the juris- 
diction or power to drive off parties going up there for that purpose unless they 
made such attempt within a marine league of the shore.” 
It is impossible, in the light of the present contention of the United States, to sup- 
pose that Mr. Boutwell did not know that the slaughter of the seals in the waters of 
the Behring’s Sea was the fear of the collector and that the suggestion of the latter 
was to prevent foreign vessels pursuing seals through the pass in question.t 
Notwithstanding this explanation, it is to be observed that no vessel of any 
kind was ever seized by the American Government for violation of section 1956, 
Revised Statutes before mentioned, until 1884, when outside of the 3-mile limit in 
Behring’s Sea. 
The list of seizures produced before the Committee is hereto appended.} 
269 The Minister of Marine and Fisheries feels assured that arguments such as 
he has referred to cannot do more than aggravate the situation and expose the 
weakness of a claim of jurisdiction which for nearly three years the Government of 
the United States have been permitted to maintain against the interests and rights 
of British subjects. 
It is to be regretted that some of the leading Representatives in the Canadian 
Parliament have already been induced to express the opinion that the British Gov- 
ernnent would not actively protect the rights of British subjects resident in Canada 
in cases wherein the United States were concerned, and while he, the Minister, 
believes such opinion to be entirely erroneous and unfounded, he desires to express 
the hope that these extreme views may be in nowise strengthened by any unnecessary 
delay in vigorously and etfectively pressing the Canadian claims against the American 
Government for the illegal and unjustifiable action now under consideration. 
The record of the claims having been completed on the 12th day of January, 1888, 
and then forwarded to the Imperial authorities, the Minister recommends that Her 
Majesty’s Government be urged to take such further steps as will promptly secure 
from the Government of the United States not only full and ample reparation for the 
loss and damage sustained, but also a complete and immediate retraction of the claim 
of that country to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of the Behring’s Sea. 
*Report of Committee on Marine and Fisheries, p. 12,50 Congress, Session 2, No 
3883, Appendix (F). 
t Appendix (G). 
¢ Appendix (C). 
