"Declarations made by the Tribunal of Arbitration and Referred to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain for their consideration.

"I.

"The Arbitrators declare that the concurrent Regulations, as determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration, by virtue of article VII of the Treaty of the 29th of February 1892, being applicable to the high sea only, should, in their opinion, be supplemented by other Regulations applicable within the limits of the sovereignty of each of the two Powers interested and to be settled by their common agreement.

"II.

In view of the critical condition to which it appears certain that the race of fur-seals is now reduced in consequence of circumstances not fully known, the Arbitrators think fit to recommend both Governments to come to an understanding in order to prohibit any killing of fur-seals, either on land or at sea, for a period of two or three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the two Governments might think proper to admit of.

66

Such a measure might be recurred to at occasional intervals if found beneficial.

" III.

"The Arbitrators declare moreover that, in their opinion, the carrying out of the Regulations determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration, should be assured by a system of stipulations and measures to be enacted by the two Powers; and that the Tribunal must, in consequence, leave it to the two Powers to decide upon the means for giving effect to the Regulations determined upon by it. "We do certify this English version to be true and accurate and have signed the same at Paris this 15th day of August 1893.

"I approve declarations I. and III. "I approve declarations I. and III.

"ALPH DE COURCEL.
"JOHN M. HARLAN.

"HANNEN.

"JNO S D THOMPSON.
"JOHN T. MORGAN.
"VISCONTI VENOSTA.
"G. GRAM."

By an act of February 21, 1893,a it was provided that whenever the Government of the United States should conclude an effective

a 27 Stat. 472.

international arrangement for the protection of the fur seals in the north Pacific Ocean, by agreement with any other power or as the result of the pending arbitration, the laws of the United States for the protection of the fur seals and other fur-bearing animals within the limits of Alaska and in the waters thereof should by a proclamation of the President be extended over all that portion of the Pacific Ocean included in such international arrangement. The result of the arbitration having rendered this act inappropriate, an act was approved April 6, 1894, for executing the regulations of the Paris tribunal, and a similar act was passed in Great Britain." No agreement for the temporary suspension of sealing was effected.

The damages claimed by Great Britain as growing out of the controversy amounted to $542,169.26, without interest, Damages. which was demanded at the rate of 7 per cent. On August 21, 1894, Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, offered, as the result of a somewhat extended negotiation, the sum of $425,000 in full and final settlement of all claims, “subject to the action of Congress on the question of appropriating the money." "The President," said Mr. Gresham, " can only undertake to submit the matter to Congress at the beginning of its session in December next, with a recommendation that the money be appropriated and made immediately available for the purpose above expressed, and if at any time before the appropriation is made your [the British] Government shall desire, it is understood that the negotiations on which we have for some time been engaged for the establishment of a mixed commission will be renewed." The offer was accepted by Sir Julian Paunce fort on these terms. At the ensuing session Congress did not appropriate the money, and the negotiations for a mixed commission were renewed.

On February 8, 1896, a convention was concluded at Washington by Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, and Sir Julian Pauncefote for the appointment of two commissioners, one by the United States and the other by Great Britain, to meet and sit at Victoria, and also, if either commissioner should formerly so request, to sit at San Francisco for the purpose of determining the claims for damages. The convention included by designation the cases of the Wanderer (1887– 1889), Winifred (1891), Henrietta (1892), and Oscar and Hattie (1892), in addition to the cases mentioned in the findings of fact of the Paris tribunal.

As commissioners under this convention, the United States ap

a 28 Stat. 52; S. Ex. Doc. 67, 53 Cong. 3 sess.; For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 107–233. bH. Ex. Doc. 132, 53 Cong. 3 sess.

cAnnual Message of President Cleveland, Dec. 2, 1895.

d For. Rel. 1896, 281-285.

pointed the Hon. William L. Putnam, a judge of the circuit court of the United States, while the British Government named the Hon. George Edwin King, a judge of the supreme court of Canada. Any cases in which the commissioners might be unable to agree were, by the terms of the convention, to be referred to an umpire to be appointed by the two Governments or, if they should disagree, by the President of Switzerland. The commissioners, however, were able to reach a decision without resort to an umpire. Their award bears date December 17, 1897. In conformity with this award the Secretary of State delivered to the British ambassador at Washington, June 16, 1898, a draft for the sum of $473,151.26, the money having been duly appropriated by Congress."

An act to carry into effect the regulations prescribed by the arbitrators was approved by the President of the United Regulations. States April 6, 1894. An act called the Bering Sea award act, 1894, was passed by Parliament April 23, 1894, for the same purpose. Under the act of Congress, where a vessel was seized, having in its possession prohibited arms or implements, or sealskins, or the bodies of seals, in the closed season, the burden of proving innocence was placed upon the master. A similar presumption, though it was created by the British act of 1891, was omitted by that of 1894; and this and other questions created difficulties in the enforcement of the regulations."

The Japanese Government agreed to take measures to prevent

a Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 2123.

For. Rel. 1898, 371-373. The act of Congress of June 15, 1898, by which the money was appropriated, declared that the appropriation was made without admitting any liability for the loss of prospective profits by British vessels engaged in pelagic sealing, or for interest on the sums awarded to Great Britain, and without admitting the authority of the arbitrators to make any award for the arrest or detention of vessels not included in the submission contained in the treaty under which the arbitration was held.

c Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxii. See, also, United States v. The Jane Gray (1896), 77 Fed. Rep. 908: United States v. The James G. Swan (1896), 77 Fed. Rep. 473.

& The Oscar & Hattie v. The Queen, 23 Canada Supreme Court, 396.

As to the enforcement of the regulations, see For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 107-233; S. Ex. Doc. 67, 53 Cong. 3 sess.; For. Rel. 1895, I. 590-592, 615, 616, 643–660; For. Rel. 1896, 255-281; For. Rel. 1897, 258-289; S. Doc. 40, 55 Cong. 2 sess.

As to the cases of the Wanderer and the Favorite, see Harmon, At. Gen.. Oct. 3, 1895, 21 Op. 234, 239; Griggs, At. Gen., May 4, 1898, 22 Op. 64; For. Rel. 1895, I. 677.

As to the unsuccessful efforts of the United States to secure assent to the prohibition of pelagic sealing, see For. Rel. 1894, App. I. 228; For. Rel. 1895, I. 610, 615, 665–666; President Cleveland, ann. message, Dec. 7, 1896; Report of Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to the President, Dec. 7, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, lxxii ; President McKinley, ann. message, Dec. 6, 1897; For. Rel. 1897, 258–289; S. Doc. 40, 55 Cong. 2 sess.

foreign vessels from using the flag of Japan to evade the regulations, but declined to require Japanese vessels to observe them unless protection should in like manner be given to the Japanese seal fisheries." President Cleveland stated, in his annual message of December 3, 1894, that only France and Portugal had signified their willingness to adhere to the Paris regulations. The Danish Government declined to do so on the ground that no Danish ships were engaged in seal hunting in the waters in question." The Russian Government consented to adhere to the regulations only on condition that they be extended to the whole of the Pacific Ocean north of the 35° of latitude.

An order in council was issued on the 21st of November, 1895,

British-Russian

arrangement.

under the seal fisheries act, 1895, to give effect to an arrangement with Russia. It prohibited the catching of seals by British ships in certain "prohibited zones," namely, (1) a zone of ten marine miles on all the Russian coasts of Bering Sea and the North Pacific Ocean, and (2) a zone of thirty marine miles around the Kormandorsky Islands and Tulenew (Robben) Islands. Provision was made for the visit and seizure of British ships by Russian officers in the designated zones, subject to certain conditions. Where a Russian officer detained a British ship or her certificate of registry he was required, as soon as possible, to hand over the ship or transmit the certificate, as the case might be, to the commanding officer of a British cruiser or to the nearest British authority, and also to satisfy such officer or authority that there were reasonable grounds for the seizure and that the case was proper to be adjudicated in a British court, as well as to furnish the evidence sufficient for such adjudication.

Diplomatic corre

4. UNITED STATES AND RUSSIAN ARBITRATION.

§ 173.

"I have had a number of interviews with Prince Cantacuzene, the Russian minister, on the same subject [i. e., Russia's position as to the protection of fur seals on the high spondence. seas]. . . . When I called the minister's attention to information which had been received indicating a purpose on the

a Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, tel., Nov. 27, 1893, MS. Inst. Japan, IV. 147, replying to Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dun, min. to Japan, tel., Nov. 22, 1893, MS. Inst. Japan, IV. 145.

b For. Rel. 1895, I. 660–661.

e For. Rel. 1895, I. 585; II. 1117. See also For. Rel. 1896, 285-289.

As to the arrest in the autumn of 1895, and the conviction and imprisonment, by the Russian authorities, of seventeen persons, including five citizens of the United States, for seal poaching on Robben Island, see For. Rel. 1896, 495–507. e For. Rel. 1895, I. 681-682.

part of his Government to make concessions to Great Britain inconsistent with the right asserted by the United States before the Paris tribunal, he informed me that Mr. Blaine positively refused to allow the Russian Government to become a party to that treaty, and it was therefore obliged to take care of itself as best it could; that his Government did not believe the right asserted by the United States to property in the seals on the high seas was valid, and that Russia could not, therefore, assume the attitude of the United States on that question. I can not resist the belief that in these statements the minister represented the real position of the Russian Government."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to Russia, No. 112, July 14, 1893, MS. Inst. Russia, XVII. 177.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 109 of the 6th ultimo, transmitting the inquiry of the director of the Asiatic department of the foreign office of the Imperial Government, as to whether the United States will object to the seizure by Russian cruisers of American vessels poaching Russian seals.

"In view of the questions submitted to the Paris tribunal of arbitration and the probability of an early determination of the same, I think the matter may be safely left in abeyance. The long and uninterrupted friendly relations between the United States and Russia, is a guaranty that neither will do anything which would make the solution of any question arising between them, growing out of poaching in the Bering Sea, difficult of solution.

"If it be true that Russia sympathizes with the United States in the present controversy submitted to the Paris tribunal, and believes the right which we asserted is well founded, it is difficult to understand why that Government agreed to make indemnity for the seizure of two British vessels poaching in the Bering Sea near the eastern shore."

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. White, min. to Russia, No. 113, July 14, 1893, MS. Inst. Russia, XVII. 179.

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 205 of January 22, 1896, in reply to the Department's instruction No. 146 of November 22, 1895.

"In that instruction you were directed to ascertain with special reference to the seizure in 1892 of the American fishing vessels Kate and Anna, C. H. White, and James Hamilton Lewis, whether the Imperial Government accepts the Paris tribunal's decision as a correct statement of the limits of Russian jurisdiction in Bering Sea at that time.

"In the note from the Russian foreign office inclosed in your No. 146, that question is not specifically answered, but the right of Russia