APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 763 
3 Two or three instances of the power which Great Britain exercises beyond 
the 3-mile line have already been quoted, but have failed thus far to secure 
comment or explanation from Lord Salisbury. 
Another case can be added which, perhaps, is still more to the point. In 1889, 
only two years ago, the British Parliament enacted a Law the effect of which is fully 
shown by a Map inclosed herewith. 
Far outside the 3-mile line the Parliament of Great Britain has attempted to con- 
trol a body of water situated beyond the north-eastern section of Scotland, 2,700 
square miles in extent, and to direct that certain methods of fishing shall not be 
used within that great body of water under a prescribed penalty. It will be 
observed that the inhibition is not alone against British subjects, but against ‘‘ any 
person.” I here quote the pertinent section of the Parliamentary Act in question: 
“7,—(1.) The Fishing Board may, by Bye-law or Bye-laws, direct that the 
methods of fishing known nas beam trawling ‘and otter trawling "shall not be used 
within a line drawn from Duncansby Head, Caithness, to Rattray Point, Aberdeen- 
shire, in any area or areas to be defined in such Bye-law, and may from time to time 
make, alter, and revoke Bye-laws for the purposes of this section, but no such Bye- 
law shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland. 
*«(2.) Any person who uses any such method of fishing in contravention of any 
such Bye-law shall be liable, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction (Seot- 
land) Acts, to a fine not exceeding 51. for the first offence, and not exceeding 201. for 
the second or any subsequent offence, and every net set, or attempted to be set, in 
contravention of any such Bye-law may be seized and destroyed or otherwise 
disposed of as in the 6th section of this Act mentioned.” 
If Great Britain may thus control an area of 2,700 square miles of ocean on the 
coast of Scotland, why may not the United States prescribe aspace around the Priby- 
loff Islands in which similar prohibitions inay be in force? The following would be 
the needed legislation for such a purpose by Congress, and it is but a paraphrase of 
the Act of Parliament: 
“The Fur Seal Board may, by Bye-law or Bye-laws, direct that the methods ot 
sealing known as spearing or harpooning, or with fire-arms, shall not be used within 
a line drawn from the shores of the Pribyloff Islands 60 niles in le Behring’s Sea; 
and said Board may from time to time make, alter, and revoke Bye-laws for the pur- 
pose of this section; but no such Bye-law shall be of any validity until it has been 
confirmed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Second. Any person who uses any such 
method of sealing in contravention of such Bye-laws shall be liable, on conviction, 
toa fine not exceeding 100 dollars for the first offence, and not exceeding 500 dollars 
for the second or any subsequent offence; and every spear, harpoon, or fire-arm 
attempted to be used in contravention of any such Bye-law may be seized and 
destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, as said Fur Seal Board may direct.” 
It must not escape observation that the area of water outside the 3-mile line on 
the coast of Scotland, whose control is assumed by Great Britain, is as large as would 
be found inside a line drawn from Cape Cod to Portland Harbour, on the New England 
coast. 
Lord Salisbury reasserts his contention that the words ‘‘ Pacific Ocean” at the 
time of the Treaty between Russia and Great Britain did include Behring’s Sea. 
Undoubtedly the Pacific Ocean includes Behring’s Sea in the same sense that the 
Atlantic Ocean includes the Gulf of Mexico, and “yet it would be regarded as a very 
inaccurate statement to say that the Mississippi River flows into the Atlantic Ocean. 
I think Lord Salisbury fails to recognize the common distinction between the ‘Atlan- 
tic Ocean” and “the waters of the Atlantic.” While the Mexican Gulf is not a part 
of the Atlantic Ocean, it would, I am sure, comport with general usage to say that it 
belonged to the waters of the Atlantic, and, while Behring’s Sea is not technically a 
part of the Pacific Ocean, it undoubtedly belongs to the waters of the Pacific. The 
English Channel would not ordinarily be understood as included in the term ‘Atlan- 
tic Ocean.” One would not say that Dover or Calais is on the coast of the Atlantic 
Ocean, and yet clearly the English Channel belongs to the waters of the Atlantic. 
In point of fact, therefore, according to the usage of the world, there is no dispute 
of any consequence between the two Governments on the geographic: al point under 
consideration. The historical point is the one at issue. The explanatory note from 
Russia filed in the State Department of this country, specially referred to in Mr. 
John Quincey Adains’ diary and quoted in my note of the 17th December, 1890, plainly 
draws a distinction between the Pacific Ocean on the one hand, and the ‘Sea of 
Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea” on the other; and so long 
4 as Russia drew that distinction it must apply to and must absolutely decide 
all the contentions between the two countries as far as the waters of the Beh- 
ring’s Sea are concerned. ‘To discuss this point further would, in the opinion of the 
President, contribute nothing of value to the general contention. 
In the opinion of the Pr esident Lord Salisbury is wholly and strangely in error in 
making the following statement: ‘‘ Nor do they [the advisers of the President] rely 
