tember, 1858, two female Russian subjects were abducted from the Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Cobb, Sec. of Treasury, Nov. 21, 1860, 53 An instruction in similar terms, with a view to give warning to the In 1868 a correspondence took place between the United States and Russia, in consequence of the alleged interference of Russian officials with the operations of American whalers in the Sea of Okhotsk. The Russian Government, stating that "foreign whalers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the Russian gulfs and bays at a distance less than three miles from the shore, where the right of fishing is exclusively reserved to Russian subjects," disclaimed any intention to interfere with whaling operations elsewhere. Dip. Cor. 1868, I. 462, 465, 467, 469, 470–473. As to whaling at the Falkland Islands, see correspondence with the VI. SEAL FISHERIES. 1. COASTS OF SOUTH AMERICA. "I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 18th ult., in which you represent that American vessels have interfered in the fishery of sea dogs and other amphibious animals, upon points occupied by Spanish subjects on the coast of South America, such interference having in many instances been supported by force; and you therefore signify by order of His Catholic Majesty, that he has determined to prevent for the future a repetition of the infractions in question. "The President of the United States, having been made acquainted with this representation, directs me to assure you that the United States are not inclined to countenance in any manner acts of their citizens in contravention of the rights of His Catholic Majesty nor to screen them from the lawful consequences resulting from such conduct, but, at the same time that he manifests this respect to the territorial sovereignty of Spain, he expects from the friendly relations of the two countries, that the rights of our citizens to navigate and use the seas, and to avail themselves of all the natural and common advantages incident to them, will be neither controverted nor interrupted." Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to the Marquis of Casa Yrujo, Span. min., 2. CASE OF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS. § 171. "Having by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, been appointed chargé d'affaires to the Republic of Buenos Ayres, you will embark as speedily as possible for the place of your destination, in the United States sloop of war, the Peacock, now lying at Boston. "On the ordinary duties you will have to perform as charged with the political interests of your Government, and the protection of your fellow-citizens in their lawful intercourse with the country to which you are sent, you need no particular instructions. Your general knowledge of the subject, the perusal of the instructions to your predecessors, and their correspondence with the Government, will be sufficient guides in that part of your duties. "There are, however, subjects in the relations between the two countries on which it is necessary to put you more particularly in possession of the views of your Government-some of which subjects, for your negotiations, will require the exercise of that discretion, industry, and talent you are known to possess, and which led to your selection for the present n.ission. "1. The first of these to which it is necessary to call your attention are the acts and pretensions of an individual at the Falkland Islands, pretending to or really possessing authority under the Government to which you are sent. "A certain Lewis Vernet, who appears to have formed an establishment at Soledad, one of the Falkland Islands, has, within a few months past, captured three American vessels-the Breakwater, the Harriet of Stonington, and the Superior of New York-under pretense that they had infringed some unknown laws of the Republic of Buenos Ayres, for the protection of the fisheries. By the affidavit of William Mitchel, copy of which is annexed, it appears that two of the vessels so captured have, without any form of trial, been appropriated to the use of Vernet, and fitted out with the avowed design of making them the instruments of further aggressions on the property of citizens of the United States pursuing their lawful commerce and business in those seas. “A copy of Vernet's circular to the masters of vessels arriving at the Falkland Islands, with a copy of the decree, real or pretended. under which he professes to act, has also been forwarded to the Department, by a person in Philadelphia (L. Krumbhaar), supposed to be the partner, but certainly the correspondent of Vernet. His letter, with Vernet's circular, and copy of the decree, are also annexed for your information. “The lawless and piratical nature of these acts, could not permit the President for a moment to believe that they were authorized by a friendly power. This persuasion was strengthened by the circumstances that, at the date of the alleged decree put forth by Vernet as his authority, we had an accredited agent of the Republic of Buenos Ayres, who was at the time in active correspondence with that Government, and with this Department, whose despatches bearing date. within a few days after that of the pretended decree, are entirely silent on the subject. "There are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of this paper. At the time it bears date, the Government was engaged in a perilous civil war, with an enemy in the immediate vicinity of the city, which was terminated only a few days after by a revolution changing their form of government, as well as their governors. The decree is in the name of a governor delegate, appointed during the absence of the regular chief, without the assistance of the council of government. "At this time (the 10th June 1829) we were on the most friendly terms with the Government of Buenos Ayres. It was known there that, from the earliest period of our political existence, our citizens. engaged in the fisheries had resorted to the Falkland Islands for shelter, for such necessaries as it afforded, and for the purpose of carrying on their business on its shores, and in its harbors, and bays, and it is entirely inconsistent with this knowledge and those friendly dispositions, that powers should have been given to an individual, and that individual not a citizen of the country, to interrupt this trade at his pleasure, and even making it his interest so to do, at the same time that the decree was kept secret from the agent of our Government who was on the spot. "With these reasons for believing the pretence of a decree a mere color for piratical acts, the President has directed the Secretary of the Navy to send all the force he could command to those seas, with the orders of which a copy is annexed to these instructions; and he also communicated the representations he had received, and the measures he had adopted in consequence of them, to Congress by a message, copy of which is also annexed. "This statement of facts puts you in possession of the position of this important affair, at this period. "While the Executive takes measures for the immediate protection and relief of our fellow citizens, it will be your duty, first, to justify these measures to the Government of Buenos Ayres in case you should find on your arrival that the authority set up by Vernet has really been given to him, and is avowed by the Government, and afterwards to place our claim to the fisheries in a proper point of view, and secure it from future interruption, by a formal acknowledgment of our right, and by procuring proper stipulations guarantying its undisturbed exercise hereafter. "The directions from the Navy Department, dated 29th November, 1831, are general-to afford protection to our citizens engaged in the 'fisheries, and in their lawful commerce, and particularly if they are molested in their usual pursuits and trade.' "The orders given on the 4th January, are in answer to a request by the commander of the squadron for more particular instructions. The circumstances of the case are there stated, and the orders given in consequence of them are infinitely more moderate than those circumstances would have justified. The commander is to inquire whether the acts have been done under the allegation of authority from the Government, and in that case he is merely directed to prevent our ships from capture, to retake those that have fallen into the hands of Vernet, and keep them until the return of a despatch vessel he is ordered to send to you for instructions. The most friendly forbearance alone dictated these orders. The circumstances of the case would have justified immediate acts of hostility against the perpetrators of such outrageous acts, which we would have had good right to suppose unauthorized. But the more moderate and friendly course has been pursued. There was a possibility that Vernet might under false pretenses have obtained from the delegate governor the decree which he sets up as his authority, and being vested ostensibly with a national character, we thought it right before proceeding further to ask for a disavowal of the acts in which we must suppose he has exceeded his powers. You will not fail to cause the friendly spirit which dictated this course to be perceived, and duly appreciated, before you proceed to demand a disavowal of the acts of Vernet, and restoration, with indemnity, of the property he has seized. This you are to do on the following grounds: "First. That without entering here into the question of right, which will be hereafter discussed, the seizure of our vessels can not be justified under the decree from which Vernet pretends to derive his authority, because, at the period he was so appointed, we were in actual use of the shores, bays, and harbors of those islands for the purposes of shelter and fishery. We had been in such use for more than fifty years, undisturbed when there were settlements on the island, unmolested when there were none. We had in consequence of this undisturbed use increased our capital employed in the fisheries, and had good reason to believe that, whatever right any nation might have to interfere with a use so extensively important to us, and so long enjoyed, that we should specially be informed of such conflicting claim, more especially if the claim were set up by a friendly nation with whom we were then connected in the usual diplomatic intercourse, and who, not being ignorant that we had made this use of the shores they claimed, had suffered us uninterruptedly, and without asking any permission, to enjoy it as a common right. To give the first notice of such interfering claim by a seizure and confiscation of our vessels unsuspectingly engaged in what they deemed a lawful occupation, partakes more of a hostile act than of the assertion of a right as used among civilized nations. "Still stronger would be the reasoning if the act is considered not as one emanating from the immediate authority of the nation for the assertion of a public right claimed by them, but as the delegation of an authority to an individual to exercise that national right at his own discretion, and for his own benefit, in the manner claimed by the person who has, as we think, abused the authority, if any, and whatever it may be, that has been vested in him. “The decree in question, supposing it to be authentic, is dated the 10th of June, 1829. Mr. Forbes, our chargé d'affaires, was then in Buenos Ayres. Had the decree been communicated to him, had he been told that the islands could no longer be made use of in the accustomed manner, under the penalty of confiscation of the vessels resorting there, he would have communicated the information to his Government, and measures would have been taken to inquire into the right, and, if it were acknowledged, to warn our citizens that it ought to be respected. Nothing of this kind was done, and our ships are seized and confiscated for the violation of a right (supposing it to be one) of which our Government had no notice, and our citizens no warning. "Should it be said, in answer to this branch of the argument, that the decree in question was published in the gazette of the day, at Buenos Ayres, (which is not however believed, as Mr. Forbes, very minute in his general correspondence, takes no notice of it,) and should this prove to be the fact, the reply is easy: First, the communication ought to have been special. It interfered with an existing and most extensive use, and therefore not only a friendly disposi |