354 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
‘Be it therefore resolved, that the citizens of Victoria protest against the usurpa- 
tion of jurisdiction by the Government of the United States over the waters of 
Behring’s Sea, outside the universally acknowledged 3-mile limit, and express their 
indign: ation at the repeated outrages to which the persons and property of their fel- 
low- ‘citizens, lawfully exercising their rights on the high seas in that part of the 
globe, are subjected by the orders of the Government of the United States.” 
Lieutenant-Colonel Prior, M. P., was called upon to second the Resolution. He 
was very glad, he said, to do so. He considered the conduct of the United States in 
the matter of seizing vessels on the high seas the most outrageous that could be 
thought of. There was no necessity for 1 reviewing the question ‘the present meeting 
was called to consider. It had been fully gone “into already. The question was, 
what right had the American Government to seize our sealers? 
A Voice from the audience.—No right. 
Colonel Prior, continuing.—That was just the answer I was going to make. The 
press of both countries says they had no right. The most important papers of the 
United States says that the American Government will have to back down in their 
contention. The Russian Government, by Treaties with both the United States and 
Canada, gave up their claim to jurisdiction over Behring’s Sea in 1825. How then 
can the United States claim to have purchased their jurisdiction from Russia? The 
great 1aajority of Americans acknowledge that the claim advanced by their Govern- 
ment has nothing to rest on. Who is to blame then for not stopping these illegal 
seizures? The Dominion Government are not to blame. They have done all in their 
power. When the newsof the first seizure this year reached me, I was in Kamloops. 
J at once telegraphed to Ottawa, and expressed the hope that the Imperial Govern- 
ment would give Admiral Heneage orders to retake the captured vessels. The 
““Caroline” had orders to do this in 1887, but for some reason was recalled. If in 
1887, why not now? If the Behring’s Sea question is purely one of jurisdiction, 
why does not the American Government allow its own sealers to fish and hunt unmo- 
lested? It is not the reason. The United States Government is trying to bolster up 
a giant monopoly—the Alaska Commercial Company, who by tender acquired a lease 
of sealing rights on the Islands of St. George and St. Paul, the breeding-grounds, 
for twenty years. The true reason for their action is that the American Government 
is afraid to lose the 315,000 dollars paid them annually by the Alaska Commercial 
Company. Governor Swineford, of Alaska, has condemned the Company as the 
greatest and worst monopoly in America, but, as he says, it has its agents always at 
Washington to pull the strings in its interest. 
This is the last season of the Company’s lease, and there is no knowing what the 
Government propose to do next. This year, when we first heard of the outrages in 
Behring’s Sea, he had thought, and he was not the only one on the floor of the Honse 
of Commons who had thought the same, that it would not be poor policy to send the 
British fleet into Behring’s Sea to protect the interests of Canadians. If France set 
up a claim of jurisdiction over some particular part of the ocean, and seized a German 
sealer therein, do you think that it would have taken three vears to settle the ques- 
tion? Possibly, but they would be three very bad years forsome one! (Cheers.) If 
Beaconsfield had lived, would it have taken England three years and a-half to settle 
this question? No! (Cheers. ) He had pleasure i in seconding the Resolution intro- 
duced by his colleague. 
The Resolution was carried unanimously, with cheers. 
The Honourable Mr. Beaven was the next speaker. He touched upon the varions 
Treaties dealing with Behring’s Sea, and referred to the manner in which British 
subjects were taught, that they were protected by the flag of England while and 
wherever they were engaged in a lawful calling. The action of the United States 
was contrary to international law. It had been so pronounced by the Premier 
320. of England and a host of United States authorities. He thonght matters 
should be at once referred to arbitration, as there could be no disputing the 
legality as well as the justice of the Canadian claim. It was true that Canada had 
suffered in past arbitration with the States; but still, arbitration was far preferable 
to any other method in the settlement of existing disputes. He proceeded to review 
the value of the sealing fleet and industry to the province, and explain the dimen- 
sions it might assume if the present difficulties were settled. From a dollar-and- 
cents point of view, it was necessary that action should be taken at once. He 
begged to move the following Resolution: 
““Resolved,— That, as loyal British subjects, we resent the insult to our flag, and 
respectfully claim for our vessels and citizens on the high seas that protection by 
the British Government which for centuries has been the right and pride of even the 
meanest subject of the Empire, but which now seems to be denied us, causing great 
loss to the commerce of our city, and financial ruin to eur fellow-citizens engaged in 
the sealing industry.’ 
Mr. 8. Duck, M. P. P. ., seconded the Resolution. There should be no more delay. 
Some action should at once be taken to secure British subjects in pursuit of their 
