FUR-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. XIII 



the masters of the vessels named were taking? fur seals in that portion 

 of Bering- Sea which is claimed by the United States under the treaty 

 with Russia of March, 1867. To the libel of iuformation the Queen's 

 counsel of British Columbia filed a demurrer, alleging that the district 

 court of Alaska had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the ac- 

 tion, for the reason that the schooner was more than 1 marine league 

 from the shore when seized, and that the act of Congress of July 27, 

 1808, is unconstitutional in that it restricts free navigation of the Ber- 

 ing Sea for sealing purposes. 

 In overruling the demurrer the court said : 



The question of the coiistitutiouality of the act of Congress of July 27, 1868, scarcely 

 dcHcrves notice, since it has been sustaiued by this court. (See United States vs. Ni-I- 

 sou, 29 Federal Reporter, p. 202. See same case affirmed by the United States circuit 

 court for Oregon, Weelily Federal Reporter of April 19, p. 112. See also tbe Louisa 

 Simpson, 2 Sawyer.) 



Here was a concession by counsel for Briti<^h Columbia that the act 

 of Congress extending the laws relating to customs, commerce, and nav- 

 igation over all the main-land, islands, and waters of the territory ced<'<l 

 to the United States by the Emi)eror of Russia, extended said laws over 

 all that portion of Bering Sea lying east of the sea boundary -line desig- 

 nated in the treaty. 



In its decision the district court said (Dawson, Judge) : 



The conclusion I have reached is that the deumrrcr must be overruled, and it is so 

 ordered ; au<l that the judgment of forfeiture to the United States be entered iigainst 

 each of the vessels separately, together with their tjudcle, apparel, furniture, and 

 cargoes, saving to the masters and mates their private property, such as nautical 

 iustruujeuts and the like, and that a stay of proceedings for ninety days be granted, 

 as per stipulation died. 



No appeal was taken from this decision. Our exclnsive jurisdiction 

 over these waters having thus been asserted and exercised by the leg- 

 islative and executive branches of the Governtnent, and their action 

 affirmed by the United States district court, is there now any reason 

 why that juri.sdiction should be relinquished ? 



The reasoning that would justify this Government in reversing its at- 

 titude on this question must be sufficient to convince the common under- 

 standing that justice and honesty demand it. The relinquishment of a. 

 vested right, repeatedly asserted and exercised by a great power, jeal- 

 ous of its honor.and dignity, coupled with a surrender of national ter- 

 ritory, acquired in good faith from a neighl)oring State, whose honor 

 would be questioned if we admit our title is defective, can only be jus- 

 tified by the adverse claimant assuming the burden of proof and estab- 

 lishing beyond question his own perfect title, the United States being 

 in possession and claiming ownership. Until it is demonstrated that 

 Russia, our grantor, had no title to these waters, or that she did not as- 

 sert or exercise dominion over them, our right must be conceded; for 

 it is admitted on all hands that whatever title Russia had at the date 

 of the transfer of the territory we acquired and still possess. 



The sixth article of the treaty oi cession provides that — 



The cession hereby made conveys all the rights, franchises, and privileges now be- 

 longing to Russia in the said territory or douiiaiou, and appurtenances thereto. 



For the period ofonf. Iin;itlred and fort^ years, dating from their dis- 

 covery, these Alaskan waters were under the exclusive jurisdiction of 

 Russia, and her dominion over the reserved half of Bering Sea is still 

 asserted and exercised ; and the same is acknowledged by the United 

 States and other nations. 



