APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. B25 
The American schooner “San Diego,” of 86 tons burthen, owned by Messrs. L. N. 
Handy and Co., American citizens and merchants at San Francisco, was cleared at 
that port for a general hunting and fishing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean, on 
or about the 28th February, 1886. She commenced seal killing off the Farallone 
Islands, about 20 miles from the Golden Gate; continuing north, she hunted and 
fished on that ocean up to Ounalaska Pass, which she entered about the 24th June. 
Turning westward toward Copper Island, in the Russian waters of Behring’s Sea, 
then heading eastward and south of the Aleutian Group, she made her way into the 
Pacific Ocean, and sailed eastward till Ounalaska Pass was again sighted. While 
operating outside this Pass, a coming storm induced the vessel to run through the 
Pass into Behring’s Sea for safety, where she was befogged and without observa- 
tion for three days. When the fog lifted, she was found to be off Ounalaska Island, 
12 or 15 miles from any land. Here she was boarded from the Revenue-cutter ‘ Cor- 
win” [?] 17th July, 1886, and was seized because the boarding officer mistook the 
purpose of the mister’s answer, that he had killed a few seals in Behring’s Sea; the 
master referring to some thirty seals taken near Copper Island, in Russian waters, 
and the boarding officer supposing him to admit that he had been sealing within the 
water boundary of the United States. The boarding officer was also misled by the 
presence of skins of recently killed seals on board, the explanation being that some 
twenty-two sealskins had beer taken in the Pacific Ocean, off Ounalaska Pass, before 
running in for shelter, and had not been salted, because rough weather and fog had 
prevented the careful process of cleaning, saiting, and folding from being carried 
upon the deck of so small a vessel as the ‘‘San Diego.” 
It appears that the owners of the ‘‘San Diego” had expressly instructed the mas- 
ter not to interfere with the privileges of the Alaska Commercial Company, nor 
violate the law in any particular, and, although we hold that, under the ruling of 
Mr. Secretary Boutwell, the diplomatic contention of one Government, and the dog- 
.trine recognized in the recent release of the British sealing vessels, our vessel might 
lawfully have taken seals in the very place where the officer found her with fresh 
sealskins on board, we are obliged to adhere to the contention that she did not take 
any seals in that place nor anywhere thereabouts, because the evidence shows that 
not a skin was obtained in the whole of Behring’s Sea, except near Copper Island, 
in the Russian jurisdiction. When discovered by the Revenue-cutter the vessel was 
entirely inactive, her sealing boats lashed on deck, waiting for an opportunity to 
get out upon the ocean to continue her business. 
It would appear from the testimony of Lieutenant Cantwell, of the Revenue- 
cutter, that he asked the master of the schooner if he did not know it was illegal 
to take seals around here, and he answered that he did not know that it was against 
the law so long as he kept a marine league from the shore. This answer suggests 
a possible intention of taking seals in that vicinity if opportunity offered, but the 
fact is that no seals were taken, nor does it appear that any could have been taken 
up to the time of the seizure of the vessel if the wish and purpose to take them 
293 had existed. Itis very evident from the whole record that we, the present 
petitioners and sole prospective losers by the seizures of the vessel, never 
intended nor contemplated the taking of a single sealskin on that voyage in an 
unlawful or clandestine manner. Having openly cleared our vessel for a hunting 
voyage in the North Pacific, we knew that, in due course of administration, that 
fact would reach the Alaska Company, and the Revenue vessels employed for their 
protection; hence it would be folly on our part to assent beforehand to any dubious 
or risky transaction by our agent, the master. 
Your Excellency will not fail to consider the United States Attorney-General for 
Alaska against our application for the restoration of our vessel and cargo. The 
grounds of his opposition and our answers are as follows: 
1. The finding of the vessel in Behring’s Sea, equipped for fishing, with tresh skins 
on board, together with the admission of the master that a few had been taken in 
Behring’s Sea, raises a presumption against our present evidence that no seals were 
taken in Behring’s Sea except near Copper Island. ‘lo this we answer, the vessel 
was openly fitted and dispatched for seal-tishing; that the fresh skins on board could 
not reasonably have been cleaned, salted, and packed before seizure, and that the 
master had reference to his sealing operations near Copper Island when he said he had 
taken a few seals in Behring’s Sea. 
2. The District Attorney says that the answer of the master, that he thought seal- 
fishing lawful outside of a 3-mile limit, raises a presumption that he had been fishing 
outside, though within the water boundary of the United States; to which we reply 
that this argument makes for rather than against our present application, because 
if the master thought he had the right to seal outside the 3-mile limit, his doing so 
would be innocent, in fact even if illegal at law. 
3. Says the District Attorney, the allegation that the vessel was driven through 
we Pass into Behring’s Sea is improbable, and throws suspicion upon the merits of 
e case. 
