APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. pea! 
of taking salmon, called fish-traps. This order, if carried into effect, will undoubt- 
edly work great hardships to the salmon canneries now engaged in this business in 
Alaska. 
Section 3 reads that the publication of notice of seizure and confiscation of ves- 
sels shall be published one month in the papers at each United States port of entry 
on the Pacific coast. With regard to this publication, it is earnestly hoped that it 
shall be plain, and clearly define just what the Government claims as its domain, 
whether it claims the shore-line or the whole Behring’s Sea. In 1887 similar notices 
were published in San Francisco, bu& did not define what the Government claimed. 
In this year the Government vessel ‘ Richard Rush,” commanded by Captain Shep- 
ard, seized ten or twelve American and English schooners engaged in fur-seal hunting 
in the Behring’s Sea, taking them wherever found, about 15 ‘niles from land being 
the ne arest that any was found and seized. One English vessel was 98 miles 
289 from land when seized, and others from 20 to 70 miles from land, and in no 
case was any vessel within the 3-mile limit, which is supposed to be what a 
nation holds and controls of the high seas. Captain Shepard in one instance when 
remonstrated with said: ‘‘Wedo not care where you are, whether 1 mile or 500 
miles from land, we are going to take you anywhere in the Behring’s Sea.” ‘This 
high-handed proceeding on the part of our Government caused a great deal of criti- 
cism from our newspapers and public men, and the public sentiment, wherever the 
case was fully understood, was that these seizures were illegal and could not be 
sustained. In 1888 the ‘‘ Richard Rush” left San Francisco the 3rd July for its cruize 
in the Behring’s Sea, and it was currently reported that the Captain’s instructions 
were the same as in 1887. Upon the vessel’s arrival at Ounalaska this policy was 
changed, and no vessels were seized in 1888, the supposition being that none were 
found within the 3-mile limit. By this action the Government receded from the 
grounds taken in the year 1887, thereby practically admitting that the seizures of 
1887 were w rong and illegal. Great injustice was done to the owners of American 
vessels engaged in this business in 1888 by the withholding of what the order was 
to be with regard to the Behring’s Sea until the arrival of the “Richard Rush” i 
Ounalaska, thereby keeping out the American vessels. The English masters at Vie- 
toria claim that they had advices from their Government at Ottawa, that no seizure 
would be made outside the 3-mile limit. The result was that the English vessels 
went in, while the American vessels stayed outside. Hence this publication should 
by all means be explicit on this point in order that no one can be misled as they 
were last year. 
Wenow come to that part of the Revised Statutes (section 1956) * where the killing 
of any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the 
limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof, it reads: 
“Any person guilty thereof shall, for each offence, be fined not less than 200 dol- 
Jars nor more than 1,000 doHars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both, 
and all outfits confiscated.” 
We ask, was there ever in the whole history of the world, a Law passed that 
showed quite the injustice that this does? Can you find its parallel? We doubt it 
when you look at the actual offence as compared with the value of the property 
taken. For instance, a miner on the Yukon kills a mink, its market value being less 
than 1 dollar, he is subject to a fine of possibly 1,000 dollars and imprisonment for 
six months, with the confiscation of his boats, blankets, provisions, &c. The same 
Law would apply to a prospector should he kill a beaver or a bear and use it for 
food: both are fur-bearing animals, and are common in Alaska. 
The question comes up—tor what reason has such a Law been passed? Is it to pro- 
tect the fur-bearing animals of Alaska?t On the face of it, it would seem so, but 
*Section 3. That Snetion 19560f the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby 
declared to include and apply to all the dominions of the United States in the waters 
of Behring’s Sea, and it shall be the duty of the President, at a timely season in each 
year, to issue his Proclamation and cause the same to be published for one month in 
at least one newspaper, if any such there be published, at each United States port 
of entry on the Pacific coast, warning all persons against entering said waters for 
the purpose of violating the provision of said section, and he shall also cause one or 
more vessels of the United States to diligently cruize in said waters and arrest all 
persons, and seize all persons found to be, or to have been engaged in any violation 
of the laws of the United States therein. 
t Section 1956 of the Revised Statutes is as follows: ‘‘ No person shall kill any otter, 
mink, marten, sable or fur-seal, or other fur-bearing animal within the limits of Alaska 
Territory, or in the waters thereof, and every person guilty thereof shall, for each 
offence, be fined not less than 200 dollars nor more than 1 ,000 dollars, or imprison- 
ment not more than six months, or both, and all vessels, their tackle, appar el, furni- 
ture, and cargo, found engaged i in violation of this section, shall be forfeited, but the 
Secretary of the Treasury shall have power to authorize the killing of any such 
BSP P Y: 21 
