368 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
The decision of the Court in the District of Alaska in the case of the ‘‘ Dolphin,” 
a case similar to all of the rest, proceeded upon the one ground, viz., that 
333 Behring’s Sea was ceded to the United States by Russia, and that the title in 
Russia at that time was exclusive. * 
It will be observed that none of the seizures in Behring’s Sea forming the subject 
of correspondence between Her Majesty’s Government and that of the United States 
involve the investigation of complicated facts. There is no pretension that any 
vessel seized was within the 3-mile or territorial limit. The sole question is the 
claim of the United States to the exclusive control over that part of the North 
Pacific Ocean known as the Behring’s Sea. 
The Undersigned submits that the fact that Russia once raised the same point 
does not establish on the part of the United States even a prima facie case, especially 
in view of the attitude of the latter country when such a claim was put forward 
by Russia. 
So long ago as July 1888, the views of the Canadian Government regarding the 
propriety of owners of seized vessels assuming the obligation and responsibility of 
appealing from the decision of the District Court of Alaska were communicated to 
the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies. 
The Report of that date dealt with a despatch of the 9th March, 1888, from Her 
Majesty’s Minister at Washington, relative to the then pending proceedings in the 
cases of the Canadian sealers seized in Behring’s Sea. 
The Committee deemed the obligation sought to be imposed upon the owners of 
Canadian vessels seized in the Behring’s Sea of appealing from the decision of the 
Magistrate at Sitka was ‘‘obviously one which cannot with justice or propriety be 
enforced.” The Report went on to say that ‘“‘some doubts exist as to the right of 
appeal; and if it should be held that no appeal will be, the bonds will be forfeited. 
Apart from this risk, however, which the owners of the vessels are asked to take 
upon themselves, it appears that the giving of bonds of such a nature would involve 
the admission that the Courts of the United States had jurisdiction in regard to the 
seizures, and that the Laws of the United States applied in the cases of these ves- 
sels. Such propositions conld by no means be adinitted. The vessels had not 
entered within the waters over which the Laws of the United States extend, and 
over which the Executive or Judiciary of that country have any authority. 
“The vessels in question were molested in their lawful occupation on the high 
seas, and were seized by vessels in the service of the United States, but possessing 
no right whatever to molest the people of Canada or their property on the ocean. 
“Similar outrages have been committed in the preceding year, and the vessels 
seized then were ordered to be surrendered by the United States authorities. In the 
present cases, therefore, the repetition of such acts of violence was a proceeding for 
which the owners of the vessels have the right to expect that Her Majesty’s Govern- 
ment will demand and exact redress. They should not be asked to seek that redress 
in the Courts of any foreign country whatever: the Courts of the United States 
have no more cognizance of their complaint than the Court of any other foreign 
country.” 
The Undersigned is not aware that Her Majesty’s Government at any time pre- 
vious to the cable message now under consideration intimated that the above ground 
was not well taken. On the contrary, previous to the receipt of this cable message 
the particulars of every seizure had been furnished by the Canadian Government to 
Her Majesty’s Government, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been 
obtained by Her Majesty’s Government, advising that the claims could be pressed, and 
the Marquis of Salisbury had in a despatch of the 10th September, 1887, to Sir L. S. 
West, dealt fully with the claim set up by the Administration of the United States in 
connection with these seizures, in which he stated: ‘‘ Her Majesty’s Government have 
carefully considered the transcript record of the Judicial proceedings in the United 
States District Court in the several cases of the schooners ‘ Carolena,’ ‘ Onward,’ 
and ‘ Thornton,’ which were communicated to you in July, and were transmitted to 
me in your despatch of the 12th of that month, and they cannot find in them any 
justification for the condemnation of these vessels.” 
It is to be remembered that these are the seizures of 1886, to which the cable 
message has special reference. 
The following vessels, while pursuing their lawful occupation in the North Pacific 
Ocean, have been wantonly seized and molested by Revenue-cutters of the United 
States: ‘‘Carolena,” 2nd August, 1886; ‘‘Onward,” 2nd August, 1886; ‘‘ Thornton,” 
2nd August, 1886; ‘‘W. P. Sayward,” 9th July, 1887; “Dolphin,” 12th July, 1887; 
“Anna Beck,” 2nd July, 1887; ‘‘Grace,” 17th July, 1887; ‘‘Ada,” 25th August, 1887; 
“Alfred Adams,” 6th August, 1887 (escaped); ‘‘ Black Diamond,” 11th July, 1889 
(escaped); ‘‘ Pathfinder,” 27th August, 1889; ‘‘ Minnie,” 15th July, 1889; besides 
334 =the ‘ Favorite,” warned off under threat of seizure, 2nd August, 1886; and the 
“Triumph,” searched 11th July, 1889. 
*See Report, Governor of Alaska, 1887. 
