APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 385 
No. 246. 
Sir. J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.—( Received November 12.) 
WASHINGTON, November 1, 1889. 
My LorpD: I lost no time, after my arrival here on the 15th ultimo, 
in seeking an interview with Mr. Blaine on the Behring’s Sea question. 
He was much engaged at the time with the Maritime Conference, but 
he ultimately appointed Thursday, the 24th, for a preliminary conver- 
sation on the subject. 
We had a great deal of friendly discussion, in the cvurse of which 
he stated that the seizures of the Canadian seal-fishing vessels had 
been effected by the Treasury Department, which is charged with the 
protection and collection of the revenue (including that derived from 
the Alaska Company), and the measure had been resorted to under the 
belief that it was warranted by the Act of Congress and the Procla- 
mation of the President. In this view, the Department had been con- 
firmed by the Judgment of the District Court of Alaska, 
I observed that this appeared like an assertion of the mare clausum 
doctrine, which I could hardly believe would be revived at the present 
day by his Government or any other; to which he replied that his 
Government had not officially asserted such a claim, and therefore it 
was unnecessary to discuss it. As a matter of fact, there had been no 
interference with any Canadian vessels in Behring’s Sea except such 
as were found engaged in the capture and destruction of fur- 
351 ~—seals. But his Government claim the exclusive right of seal- 
fishery, which the United States, and Russia before them, had 
practically enjoyed for generations without any attempt at interference 
from any other country. The fur-seal was a species most valuable to 
mankind, and the Behring’s Sea was its last stronghold. The United 
States had bought the islands in that sea, to which these creatures 
periodically resort to lay their young, and now Canadian fishermen 
step in and slaughter the seals on their passage to the islands, without 
taking heed of the warnings given by Canadian officials themselves, 
that the result must inevitably be the extermination of the species. 
This was an abuse, not only reprehensible in itself, and opposed to the 
interests of mankind, but an infraction of the rights of the United 
States. It inflicted, moreover, a serious injury on a neighbouring and 
friendly State, by depriving it of the fruits of an industry on which 
vast sums of money had been expended, and which had long been pur- 
sued exclusively, and for the general benefit. The case was so strong 
aS to necessitate measures of self-defence for the vindication of the 
rights of the United States and the protection of this valuable fishery 
from destruction. 
I replied that, as regarded the question of right, I could not admit 
that the seizure of the Canadian vessels was justified under the terms 
of the Act of Congress or of the Proclamation of the President. Munic- 
ipal legislation could have no operation against foreign vessels beyond 
territorial waters. A claim of exclusive fishery on the high seas was 
opposed to international law, and no such right could be acquired by 
prescription. Mr. Blaine observed that he thought Great Britain 
enjoyed such a right in relation to pearl fisheries in some parts of the 
world. I said I was not aware of any such case. As regarded the 
question of fact, namely, the danger of extermination of the fur-seal 
species and the necessity for a ‘‘close season,” there was unfortunately 
B Ss, PL V——25 
