APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 353 
this time should have elapsed before any decision was reached, The actual seizures 
commenced in 1886, when three schooners were taken possession of, along with their 
fittings and cargoes, and sold. The crews were cast on their own resources in Alaska, 
and the masters and mates were not only heavily fined, but imprisoned as well. Mat- 
ters of losses were expected by every one in business; but every British Columbian 
felt that he was protected by the flag of England, under which many present were 
born, and thought it strange that he was not sheltered by the flag whose protection 
he had a right to expect. In 1887 nothing practical was done, and no restitution 
was made. In 1887 the number of seizures was doubled, six schooners being taken 
possession of. Coming to the present, in 1888 no seizures were made, and there was 
every reason to believe that the seizures would be discontinued. The Dominion 
Government had acted as promptly and as energetically as they possibly could. ‘They 
had placed all matters promptly and rightly before the Imperial Government. It 
was therefore easy to see where the responsibility rested. It was impossible for the 
Government of Canada to protect its citizens outside of the coast limit of a marine 
league. When the citizens of British Columbia sailed for the northern seas they 
passed beyond the protection of the Federal Government, fondly hoping that where- 
ever they went they were protected by the old flag of England. 
Mr. Baker proceeded to read an amount of correspondence in reference to the 
appeal for protection made by Mr. Morris Moss for the British Columbia sealers 
on 28th March, 1888, which the Minister of Justice replied to by saying that it was 
to Great Britain to whom the sealers should look for protection. The Dominion 
Government could not send armed ships on the high seas to protect Canadians. 
On the 28th July of this year the schooner ‘‘Triumph” arrived in port, and her 
captain brought the news of his being boarded by Lieutenant Tuttle, of the United 
States cutter ‘‘Richard Rush,” and warned him that if he was found in Behring’s 
Sea fishing or hunting for seals, not only would his catch of seals be forfeited, but 
his vessel and equipments would be confiscated, and sent with a prize crew on board 
to an American port. The “Triumph” also brought news of the capture of the 
“Black Diamond.” Immediately afterwards, on the following day, he (Mr. Baker) 
had telegraphed again to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, asking him if it was 
not possible to secure some protection for the twenty other British sealers in Behring’s 
Sea. The steamer ‘“Sardonyx” was going north with coal for Her Majesty’s war- 
ships, then in the north, in a few days, and it was suggested that instruction could 
be sent to them by the Imperial Government to protect the British sealers. An 
answer was received that the matter would receive immediate consideration. 
Having reviewed the whole history of the sealing question, Mr. Baker expressed 
the belief that all present could see for themselves how outrageous it was for any 
Government to arrogate to itself the exclusive control of a great body of water such 
as Behring’s Sea was—700 miles long from north to south, and 900 miles wide. The 
desire of the sealers of Victoria was, first of all, to secure a guarantee that tlie sei- 
zures would bestopped. They had alsoa reasonable right to expect compensation for 
the losses already sustained, and without further delay. They, further, wished to 
be secured in their right to prosecute the deep-sea fishing, of which fur-sealing was 
a branch. He would conclude by moving the following Resolution: 
‘Whereas in the year 1886, by order of the Government of the United States, 
claiming exclusive territorial jurisdiction over the whole of Behring’s Sea, east- 
ward of a line drawn from about the middle of Behring’s Strait south-westward till 
it crosses the 193rd meridian of longitude, three British vessels, while lawfully 
engaged in hunting seals, were seized in that sea at distances of from 65 to 70 miles 
from the nearest land; and 
“Whereas after protest by the British Government against such seizures, the 
Government of the United States ordered the unconditional release of the said ves- 
sels; and 
“Whereas by such a course the United States Government practically admitted 
the illegality of the seizures, and left it to be inferred that no further seizures would 
be made; and = 
319 ‘¢ Whereas in 1887 it again resorted to the seizure of sealing-vessels in Beh- 
ring’s Sea outside the 3-mile limit, and at distances from 15 to 92 miles from 
the nearest land, six vessels belonging to our citizens were seized by its orders and 
afterwards declared forfeited to the United States; and 
“‘ Whereas in the following year, 1888, sealing-vessels belonging to our citizens 
again entered Behring’s Sea, and took seals throughout the season without molesta- 
tion by the Revenue-cutters of the Government of the United States, which had 
distinctly that year, by its instructions to the commanders of its cutters in Belring’s 
Sea, ordered that no seizures of such vessels be made; and 
‘Whereas in the present year seizures of British scaling-vessels belonging to our 
citizens have again been made, practically in mid-ocean, in Behring’s Sea, by order 
of the Government of the United States, the vessels robbed of sealskins on board, 
and arms and ammunition: 
BS, PIT V 23 
