240 FUR-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 



Mr. Dunn. There is no discrimiuatiug between an American and a 

 British vessel. One would have been seized under precisely the same 

 circumstances as the other? — A. The law makes a little distinction be- 

 tween an American and a British vessel in regard to the killing of fe- 

 male setils and seals under one year of age. 



Mr. DiNGLEY. The law makes a distinction or the Treasury Depart- 

 ment; which? 



The Witness. I understand the construction the Treasury Depart- 

 ment puts on the law is that thej' can prohibit the killing of female 

 seals or seals less than one year old by an American vessel anyicherej 

 but they could not enforce that regulation on a foreign vessel. 

 By Mr. Dunn : 



Q. You understand the Treasury Department puts that construction 

 upon the law. Is there a diflerent construction embodied in the orders 

 given officers of revenue vessels % — A. Yes, sir ; they prohibit the kill- 

 ing of female seals and seals less than one year old by American ves- 

 sels anywhere. 



Mr. DiNGLEY. If I understand you correctly British vessels were 

 allowed to do certain things that American vessels were not allowed 

 to do. 



Mr. Dunn: He states the Treasury Department places a construction 

 upon the statute which does discriminate between an American and a 

 British vessel. 



By Mr. Macdonald : 



Q. Here is a pamphlet containing the rules and regulations and 

 orders relating to lease of the seal islands to the Alaska Commercial 

 Company and the regulations governing the Government agents in 

 charge of the seal fisheries, published by the Government. Does that 

 contain what you refer to ? — A. This defines the Territory of Alaska 

 more particularly. I understand the Treasury Department claims the 

 light to prohibit American vessels anywhere in the Pacific or elsewhere 

 from killing female seals or seals less than one year old, but the Govern- 

 ment can not enforce this regulation against foreigners in neutral waters. 



Mr. Dunn. The distinction does not apply to Bering Seaf— A. No, 

 sir. The Government simply claims the right over American vessels 

 which they can not claim over British vessels. 



Mr. DiNGLEY. Has there been any attempt or necessity for enforcing 

 these laws as to vessels otherwise than in Bering Sea, or in the waters 

 where the United States, under the cession from the Eussian Govern- 

 ment, claim exclusive jurisdiction over % 



The Witness. 1 would say that a seizure made In 1887 was thrown 

 out of court by Judge Dawson, as he claimed the United States had no 

 jurisdiction over American vessels outside of American waters. 



Mr. Dunn. In the Pacific "?— A. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Dingley. Does not that decision run counter to the claims this 

 Government has put forth, that Bering Sea is a closed sea? 



The Witness. This decision did not relate to exclusive jurisdiction 

 over Bering Sea. It was simply a question as to the extent of juris- 

 diction that the United States might exercise over an American vessel 

 outside of American waters. 



Mr. Dingley. The whole controversy lies in the question as to 

 whether Bering Sea are closed waters. 



Mr. Macdonald. Or whether the vessels were in there or not. 



Mr. Dunn. My information is that there have been some steps taken 

 by the administration, or the executive department of the Government, 



