WHALERS SOMETIMES SEAL-HUNTERS. The following evidence with reference to sealing and whaling in Okhotsk Sea given before the Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Representatives at Washington (3rd May, 1876), shows that whalers were also engaged in taking seals: Q. Who are Williams, Haven & Co. ?-A. Williams, Haven, & Co. H. R., 44th are Mr. Henry P. Haven, of Connecticut, who died last Sunday, and Cong., 1st Sess., Report 623. Richard Chapel. They are whalers. They took seals and whales, and had been at that business in the Pacific for a great many years. Q. They had an interest in these skins?-4. Yes, sir. They had a vessel in the waters of the Okhotsk Sea, I think, seal-fishing in 1866. While their vessel was at Honolulu in 1866, the captain became acquainted with a Russian captain who put in there in distress with the remainder, or a portion, of the Alaska seal-skins taken by the old Russian Company, and there this captain learned of this interest. He left his vessel at Honolulu, went to Connecticut, and conferred with his employers. Then Mr. Chapel, one of the concern, went out to Honolulu and fitted out this vessel and another one and sent them to the Alaska Islands as early as April, 1868. The United States Minister at St. Petersburg, Mr. Hoffman, writing in 1882, thus refers to this sea: Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Frelinghuysen, March 14, 1882. 50th Cong., 2nd A glance at the map will show that the Kurile Islands are dotted across the entrance to the Sea of Okhotsk the entire distance from Sess., Senate Ex. Japan on the south to the southernmost Cape of Kamtchatka on the Doc., No. 106, p. 260. See Appen. north. dix, vol. ii, Part In the time when Russia owned the whole of these islands, her Rep- II, No. 14. resentatives in Siberia claimed that the Sea of Okhotsk was a mare 114 clausum, for that Russian jurisdiction extended from island to But about five years ago Russia ceded the southern group of these islands to Japan, in return for the half of the Island of Saghalien, which belonged to that Power. As soon as this was done it became impossible for the Siberian authorities to maintain their claim. My informant was not aware that this claim had ever been seriously made at St. Petersburgh. And in another letter he says: I do not think that Russia claims that the Sea of Okhotsk is a mare March 27, 1882. clausum, over which she has exclusive jurisdiction. If she does, her 50th Cong., 2nd claim is not a tenable one since the cession of part of the group of Sess., Senate Ex. the Kurile Islands to Japan, if it ever were tenable at any time. The following appears as an introductory statement in "Papers relating to Behring Sea Fisheries," published at the Government Printing Office in Washington, 1887: OKHOTSK SEA SUBJECT TO UKASE OF 1821. This sea [of Okhotsk] is a part of the waters to which the Ukase of 1821 applied, and which M. Poletica, in his subsequent correspondence with Mr. Adams, prior to the Treaty of 1824, said His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, might have claimed as a close sea had he chosen to do so. As has been seen, all questions as to the right of citizens of the United States, as well as of the subjects of Great Britain, to navigate and fish in those waters, was given up by Russia once for all in the Treaty of 1824 with the United States, and of 1825 with Great Britain. The following correspondence between Russia and the United States in the years 1867 and 1868 contains an explicit disavowal by Russia of any claim to interfere with the fishing operations of citizens of the United States in the Sea of Okhotsk. Doc. No. 106, p. 261. See Appen dix, vol. ii, Part II, No. 15. "Europa." INTERFERENCE WITH UNITED STATES VESSELS. The correspondence referred to shows that the captain of the "Europa," a United States whaling vessel, complained to the Department of State at Washington that the Captain of a Russian armed steamer had stated that he was authorized to drive United States whalers away from the vicinity of the Settlement of Okhotsk, in the Sea of Okhotsk, and "Endeavour." that he had fired on the ship's boat of the bark "Endeavour" of New Bedford. "Java." Seward to Clay, February 24, 1868, vol. ii, Part II, No. 12. United States It appears also from the same correspondence that on the 27th of July, 1867, the United States bark "Java" was cruizing for whales in Shantar Bay and standing towards Silas Richard's Bluff, when a Russian Commander ordered him out of the bay, and thereupon Mr. Seward 115 inquired of the Russian Government what instructions had been issued relating to fisheries in this sea. EXPLANATIONS BY RUSSIA. Westmann to In reply to this inquiry, the following explanation was Secretary of received from M. de Westmann, Acting Minister of Foreign State July 31, Affairs at St. Petersburg, which shows the claim of juris1868, 50th Cong., 2nd Sess., Senate diction of Russia to have been confined to 3 miles only in Ex. Doc., No. 106, Russian gulfs and bays, in this part of the very waters covered by the Ukase of 1821: p. 253. NO CLAIM OF JURISDICTION BEYOND 3-MILE LIMIT. These are the circumstances: The schooner "Aleout," under the command of Lieutenant Etoline, had been sent in commission from Nicolaievsk to Oudrk. The abundance of floating ice having forced him to enter into the Gulf of Tougoursh, he there met, the 14th July, at about 20 miles to the south of the Straits of Chautarsk, near the eastern coast, the American whaler "Java," occupied in rendering the oil of a captured whale. Considering that foreign whalers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the Russian gulfs and bays at a distance of less than 3 miles from the shore, where the right of fishing is exclusively reserved to Russian subjects, Lieutenant Etoline warned ("invita") the captain of the "Java" to "bear off" from the Gulf of Tougoursh, which he at once did. The same day the "Aleout" made for the Bay of Mawgon, where arrived, on the next day the American whale schooner Caroline Foot," whose captain, accompanied by the captain of the "Java," called on Lieutenant Etoline, and declared that he had no right to prevent them from fishing for whales wherever they liked. Lieutenant Etoline replied that there were in that respect established rules ("règles"), and if they insisted, absolutely, upon breaking them, that he would be compelled to prevent them. The captain of the schooner "Caroline Foot" pretending ("ayant prétendu") that he had entered into the Bay of Tougoursh in consequence of "deviations from his course," Lieutenant Etoline offered at once all assistance in his power; and, upon request, delivered him 7 pouds of biscuit from the stores of the Aleout," after which the two ships again went to sea. The 19th of July, that is, four days afterwards, the schooner "Aleout" met a whale, upon which the Commander caused a trial fire to be made. At the same moment was seen, at about 16 miles distance, a sail, name unknown, and, nearer, three "chaloupes," the nearest of which was at least 3 miles in advance in the direction of the cannon fire. In the evening all these ships had disappeared. That incident is registered in the books of the "Aleout" in the following terms: "The 19th of July, at 9 in the evening, at anchor in the Bay of Mawgons, fired a cannon shot for practice at a whale afloat." From these facts General Clay will be convinced that the incident alluded to has been exaggerated, and even perverted (“dénaturé”) much in order to be represented as a cause of grievance against the Commander of the "Aleout" on the part of the American whalers. 66 116 Sess., Senate Ex. The explanation was considered satisfactory. Mr. 50th Cong., 2nd Seward observing that "the captain of the "Java," Doc. No. 106, p. spoke unwarrantably when by implication he denied that 255. the Russian authorities have the right to prevent foreign vessels from fishing for whales within 3 marine miles of their own shore." In the year 1881 the Russian Consul at Yokohama issued, on behalf of the Russian Imperial Government, a notice, of which the following is a translation: Notice. Russia notice of November, 1881, respecting At the request of the local authorities of Behring and other islands, Okhotsk and the undersigned hereby notifies that the Russian Imperial Government Behring Seas. publishes, for general knowledge, the following: "1. Without a special permit or licence from the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, hunting, fishing, &c., on the Russian coast or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring Seas, or on the north-eastern coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary line. "2. For such permits or licences, foreign vessels should apply to Vladivostock exclusively. "3. In the port of Petropaulovsk, though being the only port of entry in Kamtchatka, such permits or licences shall not be issued. "4. No permits or licences whatever shall be issued for hunting, fishing, or trading at or on the Commodore and Robben Islands. "5. Foreign vessels found trading, fishing, hunting, &c., in Russian waters, without a licence or permit from the Governor-General, and also those possessing a licence or permit who may infringe the existing bye-laws on hunting, shall be confiscated, both vessels and cargoes, for the benefit of the Government. This enactment shall be enforced henceforth, commencing with A. D. 1882. "6. The enforcement of the above will be intrusted to Russian men-of-war, and also to Russian merchant-vessels, which, for that purpose, will carry military detachments and be provided with proper instructions. "YOKOHAMA, November 15, 1881." "A. PELIKAN, Ibid., p. 259. The firm of Messrs. Lynde and Hough, of San Francisco, Ibid., p. 259. was in 1882, and had been for years, engaged in the Pacific Hynds and Hough to Folger, coast fisheries. They yearly sent vessels to the Sea of February 15, 1882. See Appendix, Okhotsk, fishing from 10 to 20 miles from shore. The atten- vol. ii, Part II, tion of the firm being called to the above notice, they wrote No. 13. to the Secretary of State of the United States calling 117 attention thereto. Sess., Senate Ex. Mr. Hoffman to The Secretary of State (Mr. Frelinghuysen), on 50th Coag., 2nd the 7th March, 1882, inclosed their letter, together Doc. No. 106, p. with the regulations "touching the Pacific coast fisheries," 258, as he termed them, to Mr. Hoffman, the United States Min- Mr. ister at St. Petersburg. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged the se receipt of this despatch, in reference to what he also called 261. See Appen"our Pacific Ocean fisheries." APPLIED ONLY TO TERRITORIAL WATERS. Frelinghuy March 27, 1882. Ibid., p. dix. Vol. ii, Part II, No. 15. Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Hoffman, having made inquiry of M. de Giers, the Ibid., p. 262. Russian Foreign Minister, the latter, in his reply, dated M. de Giers to the 8th (20th) May, 1882, explained that these Regulations May 8 (20), 1882. applied only to "territorial waters of Russia," and, in a vol. ii, Part II, subsequent letter of the 1st (13th) June, quoted Article No. 16. 560 of the Russian Code, which is as follows: See Appendix, ARTICLE 560. Ibid., p. 262. The maritime waters, even when they wash the shores, where there M. de Giers to is a permanent population, can not be the subject of private possesJune 1 (13), 1882. sion; they are open to the use of one and all. Mr. Hoffman, See Appendix, vol. ii, Part II, In a letter to Mr. Frelinghuysen of the 14th March, 1882, No. 17. Ibid., p. Mr. Hoffman shows what he understood to be the meaning dix, vol. ii, Part applied by M. de Giers to the words "territorial waters." He writes: 260. See Appen JI, No. 14. Ibid., pp. 262, 263. See Appen II, No. 16. The best whaling grounds are found in the bays and inlets of the Sea of Okhotsk. Into these the Russian Government does not permit foreign whalers to enter, upon the ground that the entrance to them, from headland to headland, is less than 2 marine leagues wide. Indeed, M. de Giers, in the letter of the 8th (20th) May, dix, vol. ii, Part 1882, already quoted, makes it clear that, as to fishing and hunting, the rule was the same, and that the prohibition of vessels engaged in these pursuits extended only over the marine league from the shores of the coasts "and the islands called the 'Commander' and the 'Seals."" The island referred to as the "Seals" is Robben Island, and the reference to this and the Commander Islands indicates that M. de Giers, under the term of "hunting," was referring specially to the sealing industry. CASE OF THE "ELIZA.” On the 21st July, 1884, the United States schooner "Eliza" was seized by the Russian cruizer "Razboïnik" in 50th Cong., 2nd 118 Sess., Senate Ex. Doc. No. 106, p. 263. Ibid., p. 270. Appendix, the Anadir River, which runs into Anadir Bay, a northern portion of Behring Sea. It was repre sented to the United States that she was there trading and hunting walrus. The United States Vice-ConsulGeneral at Japan termed the seizure "an act of piracy." General Vlangaly, writing from the Department of Set. Part II, Foreign Affairs on the 19th (31st) January, 1887, explained that the "Eliza" was arrested, "not for the fact of seal hunting," but for violating the prohibition touching trading, hunting, and fishing on the Russian coasts of the Pacific without special licence. No. 19. Ibid., Ibid. See Ap The crew, it was found, were trading with the natives on the coasts of Kamtchatka, as well as hunting walrus. This appears to have been accepted as a valid explanapendix, volfi, tion; but with reference to the seizure of this ship and of the "Henrietta," Mr. Lothrop, United States Minister at St. Petersburg, writing to Mr. Bayard, the United States Secretary of State, on the 17th February, 1887, remarks: Part II, No. 19. I may add that the Russian Code of Prize Law of 1869, Article 21, and now in force, limits the jurisdictional waters of Russia to 3 miles from the shore. Ibid., p. 267. Ibid., p. 269. The United States schooner "Henrietta" had been seized on the 29th August, 1886, off East Cape in Behring Strait by the Russian corvette "Kreysser." Explanations from from the Russian Government were See Appendix, promptly demanded by the United States, and it was alleged she was arrested for illicit trading on the Russian coasts. Vol. ii, Part II, VIEWS OF MR. BAYARD. Nevertheless, Mr. Bayard, writing to Mr. Lothrop on the 16th March, 1887, observed: 1887, p. 121. If, as I am to conclude from your despatch, the seizure of the "Hen- Papers relat rietta" was made in Russian territorial waters, then the Russian ing to Behring Sea Fisheries, authorities had jurisdiction; and if the condemnation was on pro- published at the ceedings duly instituted and administered before a competent Court Government and on adequate evidence, this Department has no right to complain. Printing Office But if either of these conditions does not exist, the condemnation can in Washington, not be internationally sustained. The first of these conditions, viz, that the proceedings should have been duly instituted and administered, could not be held to exist if it should appear that the Court before whom the proceedings were had was composed of parties interested in the seizure. On general principles of international law, to enforce a condemnation by such a Court is a denial and perversion of justice, for which this Government is entitled to claim redress. The same right to redress, also, would arise if it should appear that, while the seizure was within the 3-mile zone, the alleged offence was committed exterior to that zone and on the high sees. 119 You are therefore instructed to inquire, not merely as to the mode in which the condemning Court was constituted, but as to the evidence adduced before such Court, in which the exact locality of seizure should be included. NO ASSERTION BY UNITED STATES OF EXTRAORDINARY JURISDIC- The instructions given from time to time to Commanders of the Revenue Service, or of ships of war of the United States cruizing in Behring Sea, and guarding the interests of the Alaska Commercial Company upon the islands leased to the Company, do not even suggest the intention of that Government to assert a claim so vehemently disputed when advanced by Russia. On the contrary, while vessels from British Columbia and elsewhere were trading and fishing generally in the Behring Sea, and while vessels-chiefly those of the United States were actually raiding the rookeries, the instructions relating to the fisheries given to Revenue Marine vessels by the United States Government, until 1886, were confined, as has been shown, to the immediate protection of the seal islands. 66 REPORT OF CRUIZE OF THE CORWIN," 1885. The seizure of British sealers in the open sea followed the report on the cruize of the Revenue Marine steamer "Corwin" in the year 1885. 153, 49th Cong., In this report, it is among other things stated, that while, H. R., Ex. Doc. shaping a course for St. Paul a special lookout was kept ist Sess. for vessels sealing. The Captain writes: While we were in the vicinity of the seal islands a lookout was kept at masthead for vessels cruizing, sealing, or illicitly trading among those islands. But no such vessels were seen. Having drawn attention to the number of vessels which had taken, or had endeavoured to take seals on the shores of the islands, and illustrated the great difficulty of pre |