XTa CT 1TT TI:/NITO HH NE O H
i ./ om e t, o ot mate h cwrte o
C.n ... ,,/nn i ct hrn, \he r
EXTRACT FrU TUE THIRTELNUTI ObF TiE BTLES, Fon TIFE
LIBIARY AN!) rEADING iIG01 <1F TUE BOSTON ATHUZ <,EU3M,
ltIf any) book hnll be lost or injured, or if any
notes, ceninients, or other matter shalt be written, or
in any manner inserted therein, the person te wlhom it
stands charged shall replace lt by a new volume, or
set, lt it belongs t' a set."
der officiellen Actenstiicke
Geschichte der Gege w7\art.
Aegidi uni Klauliold.
Seei. sindfiiinfurzig er Itan
Verlag von Duneker & Humblot.
Biindnisse, Conventionen, Vertrge, Protokolle etc. (Vergl. Bd. 54.)
1892. Juni 20. Deutsches Reich und Uruguay. Handels- und Schiff-
fahrtsvertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reiche und
der Orientalischen Republik Uruguay . . . 10129.
Juli 23. Deutsches Reich und Kolumbien, Freundschafts-, Handels-
und Schiffahrtsvertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich
und dem Freistaate Kolumbien . . . .. 10373.
Aug. 21./9. Deutsches Reich und Serbien. Handels- und Zollvertrag
zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Serbien 10371.
1893. 8. Deutsches Reich und Spanien, Handels- und Schiffahrts-
vertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Spanien. 10369.
Oct. 3. Frankreich und Siam. Vertrag. . . . 10399.
21. Deutsches Reich und Rumnien. Handels-, Zoll- und
Schiffahrtsvertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und
Rumnien . . . . . . .. 10370.
Nov. 23. Deutsches Reich. Aus der dem Deutschen Reichstage bei
der Einbringuug der Vertrge mit Serbien, Spanien
und Rumnien vorgelegten Denkschrift . . 10372.
1894. Mrz 20. Deutsches Reich und Russland, Handels- und Schiffahrts-
vertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reiche und Russland.
(Nebst Denkschrift) . . . . . . 10428.
Hlandels-Vertrige, siehe: Bnidnisse', Conventionen etc.
Der Kounlikt zwischen Frankreich und Siamn (1893).
1889. April 3. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Frankreich schlgt die Neutrali-
sation Siams vor . . . . . . 1043u.
Aug. 27. Der engl. Minister des Auswrtigen an den franzs.
Botschafter. Die Grenzen Siams . . . 10131.
1892. Febr. 16. Minister des Auswrtigen an die indische Regierung.
Frankreich will die engl. und franzs. Machtsphre
durch den Mekong begrenzen . . . . 10432.
April 5. Indische Regierung an das Auswrtige Amt. Frank-
reich soll seine Vorschlge nher auseinandersetzen. 10433.
,, Mai 10. Minister des Auswrtigen an die engl. Botschaft in
Paris. Frankreich wiederholt seine Vorschlge . 10434.
14. Auswrtiges Amt an die Indische Regierung. Frank-
reich hat seine Vorschlge przisirt . .. 10435.
27. Indische Regierung an das Auswrtige Amt. Ableh-
nung der franzsischen Vorschlge. . . .. .10436.
Oct. 26. Minister des Auswrtigen an den engl. Botschafter in
Paris. Frankreich kommt auf seinen Vorschlag zurfick 10437.
Dec. 23. Minister des Auswrtigen an den franzsischen Bot-
schafter in London. Die Abgrenzung der Interessen-
sphren . . . . . . . 10438.
1893. Febr. 22. Frankreich. Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Auswrtigen. Das englisch-siamesische
Abkommen widerspricht der Erklarung Salisburys und
Roseberys, dass Englands Einfluss den Mekong nicht
uberschreiten werde . . . . . . 10439.
Mrz 8, Grossbritannien, Minister des Auswrtigen an den eng-
lischen Botschafter in Paris. Frankreich behauptet,
die Ostseite des Mekong gehre nicht zu Siam 10410.
IV Sachregister: Der Konflikt zwiscben Frankreich und Siam (1893).
1893. April 3. Grosabritannien, Minister des Auswrtigen an den franz.
Botschafter in London. Ablehnung des franzsischen
Vorschlages ber die Begrenzung der Interessen-
sphren . . . . 10141.
12. Minister des Auswrtigen an den engl Gesandten
in Bangkok. England kann nicht zwischen Frank-
reich und Siam interveniren .. .. . . 10442.
13. Der englische Gesandte in Baugkok an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Frankreichs Forderungen an Siam 10143.
14. Der englische Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Sians Vorschlge . , 10144.
24. Der englische Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Frankreich besteht auf seinen For-
derungen . . . . . . . 10445.
24. Der Minister des Auswrtigen an den englischen Ge-
sandten in Bangkok. Siam soll vorsichtig vorgehen 10446.
1 30. rrakreich. Botschafter in London an den englischen
Minister des Auswrtigen. Die Erklrungen Rose-
berys iiber die Begrenzung der Interessensphren
widersprechen denen Salisburys . .. . 10447.
Mai 12. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an die fran-
zsische Botschaft in London. Die Unterhandlungen
zwischen Waddington und Salisbury iber die Ab-
grenzung der Interessensphren . ...... 10448.
16. Botschafter in Paris an den englischen Minister des
Auswrtigen. Zusammenstoss zwischen Franzosen
und Siamesen . . . . . . . 10449.
Juni 4. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Gesandten in Bang-
kok. Siam soll den Bruch mit Frankreich vermeiden 10450.
6. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Siam will den Kapitn Thoreux aus-
liefern . . . . . . . 10467.
17. Botschafter in Paris an den englischen Minister des
Auswrtigen. Ermordung Grosgurins durch Siamesen 10451,
19. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Siam will Genugthuung fr die Ermordung
Grosgurins geben . . . . . . 10452.
19. Der englische Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Die franzsischen Forderungen 10453.
19. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in
Paris. England hofft, nicht in den franzsisch-siame-
sischen Konflikt verwickelt zu werden . ... 10454.
19. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Minister
des Auswrtigen . . . . . . 10455.
27. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Offizieller franz. Bericht ber den Tod Grosgurins 10456.
28. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Frankreich will die Unabhngigkeit und Neutralitt
Siams nicht gefhrden . . . . . 10457.
29. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Englische Matrosen in Siam . . . . 10458.
29. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Dasselbe . . . . . . 10159.
29. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Bewegungen der franzsischen Flotte . .... 10460.
30. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Unterredung mit dem franz. Minister des Auswrtigen 10461.
30. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Englische Matrosen in Siam . . ....... 10462.
30. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister dos Auswrtigen.
Frankreich verlangt von Siam uur Abstellung von
drei Beschwerden . . . . . . 10464.
Juli 1. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
England hat Siam nicht zum Widerstande ermuthigt. 10463.
Sachregister. Der Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Siam (1893). V
1833. Juli 3. Grossbritanuien. Minister desAuswrtigen an dieBotschaft
in Paris. Unterredung mit dem franz. Geschftstrger. 10465.
5. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Dem franzs. Minister ist mitgetheilt, dass England
Siam nie ermauthigt hat . . . . . 10466.
>, ,, 8. Frankreich, M, Develle, Minister des Auswrtigen, an
M. le Myre de Vilers, franzs. Bevollmchtigen in
Siam. Die franzsischen Forderungen . 10374.
S 8. M. Develle an M. Pavie, franz. Gesandten in Bangkok.
Verstrkung des franzs. Geschwaders. .. 10375.
S 9. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Geschwader fremder Mchte
in Siamn. . . . . . 10376.
11. Grossbritannien. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Frankreich will zwei weitere Kriegs-
schiffe in die siamesischen Gewsser schicken . 10468.
11. Frankreich. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Verhandlung mit Siam 10377.
12. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Bot-
schaft in Paris. England glaubt nicht an ein feind-
liches Vorgehen Frankreichs . . . .. 101tl9.
,. 13. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Unterredung mit dem franz. Minister des Auswrtigen 10170.
,, 13. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Dasselbe ................ 10471.
13. Frankreich, M. Develle an M. Pavie. Verhandlung mit
Siam . . . . . ... 10378.
S 13. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Siam weist) die franzs.
Forderungen ab ............ 10379.
S13. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Angriff auf die franz. Schiffe 10380.
14. M. Develle an M. Pavie. Protest . . . 10381.
,, 14. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Bot-
schaft in Paris. Fordert Aufklrung ber das Vor-
gehen zweier franzsischer Kriegsschiffe . . 104172.
14. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister desAuswrtigen. Die
franz. Schiffe haben die Instructionen nicht erhalten 10173.
14. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Note an den franzs. Minister des Auswrtigen ber
die Haltung der franzs. Schiffe in Siam . . 10474.
15. Frankreich, M. Pavie an M. Develle. Pliinderung eines
Schiffes . . . . . . . 10382.
15. Grossbritannien. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Die franzsische Regierung hat seit
dem 13. keine Nachricht aus Siam . . . 10475.
, 17. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Erklrung der Regierung im Parlament . 10476.
17. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Frankreich fordert die Abtretung des linken Mekong-
ufers . . . . . . 10477.
17. Frankreich M. Pavie an M. Develle. Misshandlung eines
franzsischen Offiziers . . . . . 10383.
, 17. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Ge-
sandten in Bangkok. Siam bittet um die Vermitt-
lung Englands ... . . . . . 10478.
17. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Uebersendet den Schriftwechsel zwischen
Frankreich und Siam. . . .... . . 10519.
,, 18. Frankreich. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Die siamesische
Regierung htte den Angriff vermeiden knnen 10384.
19!. M. Develle an M. Pavie. Franzsisches Ultimatum 10385.
19. Grossbritannien, Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Die franzsischen Forderungen . 10479.
20. Minister des Auswrtigen an die Botschaft in Paris.
Wnscht nhere Bestimmung der ersten franzsischen
Forderung . . . . . . 10480.
-, 20, Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Die nhere Bestimmung ist noch nicht mglich 10481.
VI Sachregister: Der Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Siam (1893.)
1B93. Juli 20. Grossbritaniena, Minister des Auswrtigen an den engl.
Botschafter in Paris. Er soll nach Paris zurckkehren 10482,
20. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wirtigen . . . .. . . .. 10483.
1 20. Frankre ih. M. Develle an M. Pavie. Mittheilung der
Abreise von Myre de Vilers . .. . . 10386.
1 21. Grossbritannien, Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Nhere Bezeichung der ersten franz.
Forderung . .. . .............. 10484.
1 21. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Kriegerische Nachrichten ans Bangkok . . 10485.
22. Frankreii. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Siam lehnt das
Ultimatum ab . . . . . . . 10387.
,, ,, 22. M. Develle an M. Pavie. Frankreich besteht auf seinen
Forderungen . . . . . . 10388.
23- M. Develle an M. Pavie. Die niederlndische Regierung
soll den Schutz der franzsischen Interessen ber-
nehmen . . . . . . . 10389.
23. Grossbritannien. Minister des Answrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Die Interpretation des Ultimatums
muss mit den franz. Erklrungen ibereinstimmen 10486.
23. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Antwort Siams auf das franz. Ultimatum 10487.
23. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Der franzsische Gesandte will Bangkok
verlassen . . . . . . . 10488.
S ,, 23. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Unterredung mit dem franz. Minister des Auswrtigen 10489.
25. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Geschftstrger. 10490.
25, Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Minister des Aus-
wrtigen ber die Haltung Englands 10491.
26. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Frankreich schlgt einen Bufferstaat am linken Me-
kongufer vor ............... 10492.
26. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Uebersendet den Schriftwechsel zwischen
Frankreich und Siam . . . . . .. 10525.
S 26. Frankreich. M. Pavie an M. Develle. Abreise des franz-
sischen Gesandten . .. . . . . 10390.
27. Grossbritannien, Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Kann er ankndigen, dass Frank-
reich einen Bufferstaat errichten will? . . 10493.
27. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Ankndigung des Bufferstaates . . . . 10494.
S ., 27. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Austausch von Noten ber den Bufferstaat ist wn-
schenswerth . . . . . . 10495.
27. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Fordert Erklrung ber die Blockade der siamesischen
Kste . . . . . . .. 10496.
27. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Gesandten in Bang-
kok. Siam soll die franzs. Bledingungen annehmen. 10197.
27. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Minister ber den
iBufferstaat, Battambang und Angkor . . . 10498.
28. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Die Blockade soll eine friedliche sein . . 10499
n 28. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Die Blockade soll am 31. beginnen ...... 10500.
28. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris,
England sieht die Blockade als eine kriegerische an 10501.
, 28. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
England besteht auf der Errichtung des Bufferstaates 10502.
Sachregister: Der Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Siam (1893). VII
1893. Juli 28. Grossbritannien, Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des
AuswTrtigen. Mittheilung einer Note an den franzs.
Minister wegen des Anfangs der Blockade . . 10503.
,, 29. Minister des Auswrtigen au den Botschafter in Paris.
Siam hat die franzsischen Bedingungen angenommen 10504.
S 29. Frankreich. M. Develle an M. Pavie, durch Vermittlung
des niederlndischen Generalkonsuls in Bangkok.
Siam gieht nach . . . . . . 10391.
29. Siam,. Der Gesandte Siams in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Annahme der franzsischen Vorschlge 10392.
29. Grossbritannien. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Unterredung mit dem franzsischen
Minister ber Battambang und Angkor .... 10508.
S 30. Frankreich. M. Develle an Prinz Vadhana, Gesandten
Siams in Paris. Antwort auf 10392 . . .. 10393.
30. Grossbritannien. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Unterredung mit dem franzsischen
Minister ber die Aufhebung der Blockade . 10509.
31. Siam. Die siamesische Gesandtschaft in London an den
englischen Minister des Auswrtigen . . .. 10505.
31. Grossbritannien. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Unterzeichnung eines Protokolls
ber die Errichtung einer neutralen Zone . 10500.
31. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Gesandten in Bang-
kok. Siam soll die franzsischen Garantieforderungen
bewilligen . ............... 10507.
,, 31. Botschafter in I'aris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Annahme des Ultimatums durch Siam. Protokoll ber
den Bufferstaat . . . . . ... 10510.
August 1. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen, Siam hat die von Frankreich verlangten
Garantien bewilligt . . . . . .. 10511.
... I. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Nimmt die sofortige Aufhebung der Blockade an 10512.
,, 1. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Minister
tler den Buffoerstaat . . . . . . 10513.
S 1. Prankreich, M. Develle an M. Le Myre de Vilers, durch
Vermittlung des franzsischen Konsuls in Singapore.
Instruction zu den Friedensverhandlungen . . 10394.
1. M. Develle an M. Pavie, durch Vermittlung des nieder-
lndischen General-Konsuls in Bangkok. Dasselbe 10395.
2. Grossbritannien, Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Billigt das Verfahren des Bot-
schafters . . . . . . 10514.
4. Frankreich. Franzs. Botschaft in London an den engl.
Minister des Auswrtigen. Aufhebung der Blockade 10515.
4. Grossbritannien. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister
des Auswrtigen. Uebersendet eine vom franzsischen
Minister des Auswrtigen erhaltene Note ber den
Anfang der Blockade . . . .. . 10516.
5. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Bemerkungen ber seine Unterredung mit Waddington 10517.
5. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Die Unterhandlungen ber die neutrale Zone sind zu
verschieben . . . . . . 10518.
,, 6. Frankreich, M. Pavie an M. Develle. Offizielle Annahme
des Ultimatums durch Siam . . . . 10396.
.. ., 21. Grossbritannien. Der Gesande in Bangkok an den Mi-
nister des Auswrtigen. Frankreich weisstjede Inter-
vention ab . . . . . . . 10520.
S 21. Derselbe an denselben. Besetzung von Chantaboon 10521.
S 23. Derselbe an denselben. Fortgang der Verhandlungen
zwischen Siam und Frankreich . . . . 10522.
VIll Sachregister: Der Konflikt zwischen Frankreich und Siamn (1893.)
1893. August 24. GrosA ritannien, Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Mi-
nister des Auswrtigen. Franzs. Vertragsentwurf 10523.
S ,, 25. Derselbe an denselben. Der franzische Unterhndler
ndert seine Haltung . . . . . .. 10524.
Sept. 1 Minister des Auswrtigen an den Gesandten in Bang-
kok. Erkundigung nach dem Vertragstext. . 10526.
1. Botschaft in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Die Sprache der engl. Presse erregt Aufsehen in Paris 10527.
2. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in
Paris. Summarische Darstellung der Ereignisse 10528.
2. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Text des Vertrages zwischen Siam und
Frankreich . . . . . 10520.
5. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in
Paris. Antwort auf Nr. 10527 . . . . 10530.
5. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Grundlose lBeschwerden des franzsischen
Unterhndlers . . . . . . .. 10531.
S 7. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Die Verhandlungen in Bangkok. Differenz zwischen
dem Ultimatum und den Forderungen le Myres . 10532.
7. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Der franzsische Minister will die Unter-
handlung ber den Bufferstaat verschieben . . 10583.
9. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Die Verhandlungen ber den Bufferstaat sind zu be-
schleunigen . . . . . 10534.
S 13. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Unterredung mit dem franzsischen Geschftstrger
in London ber die Verhandlung in Bangkok. . 105835.
14. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Der franzsische Minister erklrt le Myres
Erffnungen fr Vorschlge, nicht fr Forderungen 10536.
15. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Gesandten in Bang-
kok. Siam soll die Verpflichtungen peinlich erfllen. 10537.
25. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Fortgang der Verhandlungen . . 10538.
28. Derselbe an Denselben. Neuer franzsischer Vertrags-
entwurf . . . . . . . 10539.
29. Derselbe an Denselben. Einwnde Siams gegen den
Entwurf . . . . . . 1040.
30. Derselbe an Denselben. Modifikation des franz-
sischen Entwurfes . . . ... . 10541.
Oct. 1. Trankreich, M. le Myre de Vilers M. Develle . . 10397.
2. Grossbritannien. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Vertrag zwischen Frankreich und Siam 10542.
2. Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Erluterungen zur Konvention zwischen
Frankreich und Siam . . . . . . 10543.
3. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Besprechung mit dem franzsischen Minister
ber Chantaboon und den Bulferstaat . . .1054.
3,. Frankreich und Siam, Vertrag zwischen Frankreich und
Siam . . . . . . . 10399.
5. Frankreich. M. Le Myre de Vilers an M. Develle. Be-
richt ber eine Audienz beim Knige von Siam . 10398.
25. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Verhandlung mit dem franz-
sischen Geschftstrger ber den Bufferstaat . 10545.
,, 27. Minister des Auswvrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Langsamer Fortschritt der Verhandlungen . 10546.
S31. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Verhandlung mit dem franzsischen Minister
ilber den Bufferstaat . . . . . 10547.
Nov. 9. Derselbe an denselben. Ibimning von Chantaboon. 10548.
Sachregister: Die Neufundlnder Fischereifrage. IX
1693. Nov. 11. Grossbritannien, Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des
Auswrtigen. Befriedigender Verlauf der Verhand-
lungen mit Frankreich . . . . . 10550.
14. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Der Botschafter soll mit dem franzsischen Minister
ber den Bufferstaat verhandeln .. . .. 10549.
S20. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Uebersendet zwei Protokolle iber den Bufferstaat 10552.
21. Derselbe an Denselben. Verhandlung mit dem fran-
zsischen Minister ber den Buflerstaat . . 10553.
,, 26. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
China soll an dem Abkommen ber den Bufferstaat
theilnehmen . . . . . . 10551.
Dec. 1. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. bersendet die unterzeichneten Protokolle
ber den Bun'erstaat und den Notenwechsel mit dem
franzsischen Minister . . . . . 10554.
,, 7. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Genehmigung der Abkommen ber den Bufferstaat 1l555.
8. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Kommission zur Abgrenzung des Bufferstaates muss
bald zusammentreten . . . . . 10556.
9. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswr-
tigen. Note an den franzsischen Minister ber die
Bufferstaatskommission . . . . .. 10557.
1, 11. Derselbe an Denselben. Antwort des franzsischen
Ministers . . . . . . . 10558.
16. China. Chinesische Botschaft in London an den englischen
Minister des Auswrtigen. China wtinscht an der Er-
richtung des Bufferstaates theilzunehmen . . 10559.
1. 11 20. Grossbritannien. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Bot-
schafter in Paris. Beginn der Arbeiten der Buffer-
staatskomnmission . . . . . 10560.
1 ,1 22. Botschafter in Paris an den Minister des Auswrtigen.
Dasselbe . . . . . . . 10561.
1894. Jan. 18. Derselbe an Denselben. Verhandlungen zwischen
Frankreich und Siam iiber einen liandelsvertrag. 10562.
1 Febr. 2. Minister des Auswrtigen an die chinesische Botschaft
in London. Antwort auf Nr. 10559 . . . 10563.
23, Der Gesandte in Bangkok an den Minister des Aus-
wrtigen. Prozess der Mrder Grosgurins . .10504.
Mrz 17. Derselbe an Denselben. Dasselbe . . . 10565.
,, April 25. Minister des Auswrtigen an den Botschafter in Paris.
Rumung von Chantaboon . . . . . 10566.
Die Neufundlnder Fischereifrage. (Vergl. Bd. 54.)
1891. Mrz 22. Frankreich., Botschafter in London an das franzsische
auswrtige Amt. Einbringung des Gesetzes zur Aus-
fhrung des Abkommens vom 11. Mrz seitens der
englischen Regierung . . . . . . 10400.
> April 15. Botschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Text des Gesetzes . . . . . 10401.
23. Botschafter in London an das franz. auswrtige Amt.
Die Neufundlnder Delegation im engl. Oberhause 10402.
28. Botschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Verhandlung ber das Gesetz im Oberhause 10403.
S Mai 12. Derselbe an dasselbe. Annahme des Gesetzes im
Oberhause . . . . . . . 10404.
28. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London. Die
Durchfhrung des Schiedsspruches ist zu sichern, un-
abhngig von den Verhandlungen zwischen Colonie
und Mutterland . . . . . ... 10405.
,s 29. Vice-Consul in Neufundland an das franzsische aus-
wrtige Amt. Gesetz, beschlossen von der Legislatur
Neufundlands . . . . . . . 10406.
X Sachregister: Die Neufudlnder Fischereifage.
1891. Mai 29. Frankreich Botschafter in London an das franz. auswartige
Amt. Stellungnahme der franzsischen Regierung 10407.
30. Derselbe an Dasselbe. Resolution desUnterhauses 10408. 10409.
Juni 2. Derselbe anDasselbe. Antwort desenglischenPremiers
auf das Schreiben des franzsischen Botschafters vom
28. Mai. (Nr. 10407 Anlage.). 10410.
3. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London. Ent-
gegmnng der franzsischen Regierunn auf das vorige 10411.
8. Botschafter in London an das franzsische ausw:irtige
Amt. Derselbe Gegenstand . . . . .1012.
11. Derselbe an Dasselbe. Mndliche Verhandlung mit
dem englischen Premier tber denselben Gegenstand 10113.
S 20. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London, Ver-
letzungen des Modus vivendi in Neufundland . 10414.
22. B- otschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Derselbe Gegenstand, Englische Erklrung 10415.
23. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London. Die
englische Regierung allein wird verantwortlich gemacht
fr die Durchfhrung der Vertrge und Abkommen. 10416.
24. Botschafter in London an das auswrtige Amt. Eng-
lische Ansicht zur Sache . . . . 10417.
28. Derselbe an Dasselbe. Erklrung der englischen
Regierung . . .. . . .. 10418.
29. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London.
Franzsische Antwort auf das vorige .... 10410.
Juli 16. Botschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Mndliche Verhandlung mit dem englischen
Premier zur Sache . . . . .. .. . 1020.
1892. Febr. 5. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London,
Wiederaufnahme der Verhandlung betreffend den
Schiedsspruch . . . . .. .. 10421.
>, 18. Botschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Derselbe Gegenstand . .. . . 10422.
April 5. Derselbe an Dasselbe. Erneuerung des modus vivendi 10423.
Mai 17. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London.
Ausfhrung des Abkommens vom 11. Mrz 1891 10214
20. Botschafter in London an das auswrtige Amt. Der-
selbe Gegenstand . . . . . . 10425.
20. Auswrtiges Amt an den Botschafter in London.
Gesetzesvorschlag fr die Legislatur von Neufundland 10426.
29. Botschafter in London an das franzsische auswrtige
Amt. Vertagung der Sache . . . . 10127.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. (Vgl. Bd. 52.)
1890. Dec. 17. Vereinigte Staaten, Der Staatsaseretr an den englischen
Gesandten. Antwort auf die engl. Note vom 2. August 10362.
1891. Febr. 21. Grossbritannien. Auswrtiges Amt an den englischen
Vertreter in Washington. Antwort auf das Vorige.
Englische Bedingungen fr ein Schiedsgericht 10363.
Mai 4. Vereinigte Staaten. Der Staatssecretr an den englischen
Gesandten. Vorschlge ber einen modus vivendi 10364.
1 Juni 11. Grossbritannien. Gesetz v. 11. Juni 1891, betr. den Robben-
fang im Behringsmeere. 54. Vict. Ch. 19. Chapter 19 10365.
1892. Febr. 29. Grossbritannien und Vereinigte Staaten. Vertrag zwischen
England und den Vereinigten Staaten ber Einsetzung
eines Schiedsgerichts . .. .......... 10366.
1 April 18. Grossbritannien. Convention zwischen Grossbritannien
und den Vereinigten Staaten lber einen modus. ti-
vendi im Behringsmeer . . . ... 10367.
1893. August 16. Grossbritannien und Vereinigte Staaten, Urtheil des
Schiedsgerichts ber den RobbenfangimBehringsmeere 10368,
Der Robbenfang im Behriugsmeere*).
Nr. 10362. VEREINIGTE STAATEN. Der Staatssecretr an
den englischen Gesandten. Antwort auf die eng-
lische Note vom 2. August (Staatsarchiv Nr. 10132.)
Department of State, Washington, December 17, 1890.
Sir, 11 Your note of the 12th August, which I acknowledged on the Ist Nr. o1032.
September, inclosed a copy of a despatch from the Marquis of Salisbury, dated Staate
the 2nd August, in reply to my note of the 30th June. |1 The considcration ii.1711890.
advanced by his Lordship have received the careful attention of the Presi-
dent, and I am instructed to insist upon the correctness and validity of the
position which has been earnestly advoeated by the Government of the Uni-
ted States in defence of American rights in the Behring's Sea. 1| Legal and
diplomatie questions, apparently complicated, are often found, after prolonged
discussion, to depend one the settlement of a single point. Such, in the judg-
ment of the President, is the position in which the United States and Great
Britain find themselves in the pending controvcrsy touching the true construe-
tion of the Russo-American and Anglo-Plussian Treaties of 1824 and 1825.
Great Britain contends, that the phrase "Pacific Oceal," as used in the Trea-
ties, was intendcd to inelude, and does inlunde, the body of water which is
now known as the Behring's Sea. The United States contends, that the
Behring's Sea was not mentioned, or even referred to, in either Treaty, and
was in no sense included in the phrase "Paeifie Occan." If Great Britain
can maintain her position, that the Behring's Sea at the time of the Treaties
with Russia of 1824 and 1825 was included in the Paeifie Ocean, the Govern-
ment of the United States has no well-grounided complaint against her. If,
on the other hand, this Government can prove beyond all doubt, that the
Behring's Sea, at the date of the Treaties, was understood by the three Sig-
natory Powers to be a separate body of water, and was not included in the
phrase "Pacific Ocean," then the American case against Great Britain is com-
*) Vgl. Bd. 52 Nr. 10132 bis Nr. 10188. Die nachfolgenden Documente sind
entnommen den englischen Blaubichern, United States Nr. 1 und 2 (1891), Nr. 2
(1892) und anderen Parlamentspapieren.
Staatsarchiv LVI. 1
2 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Sr. 10os2. plete and undeniable. |1 The dispute prominently involves the meaning of thbe
S t atn. phrase "north-west coast," or "north-west coast of America." Lord Salisbury
17.Dmc. 1s0. assumes, that the "north-west coast" has but one meaning, and that it includes
the whole coast stretehing northward to the Behring's Straits. The conten-
tion of this Government is, that by long prescription the "north-west coast"
means the coast of the Paceifice Occan, south of the Alaskan Peninsula, or
south of the 60th parallel of north latitude; or, to define it still more aecura-
tely, the coast, from the northern border of the Spanish possessions, ceded
to the United States in 1819, to the point where the Spanish claims met the
claims of Russia, viz., from 420 to 600 north latitude. Tlie Russian authori-
ties for a long time assumed, that 59 30' was the exacet point of latitude;
but subsequent adjustments fixed it at 600. The phrase "northwest coast,'
or "north-west coast of Ameriea," has been well known and widely recognized
in popular usage in England and America from the date of the first trading
to that coast, about 1784*. So absolute has been this prescription, that the
distinguished historian Hubert Howe Baneroft has written an accurate history
of the north-west coast, which at different times, during a period of seventy-
five years, was the scene of important contests between at least four Great
Powers. To render the understanding explicit, Mr. Bancroft has illustrated
the north-west coast by a carefully prepared Map. The Map will be found
to include preeisely the area which has been steadily maintained by this
Government in the pending discussion.
The phrase "north-west coast of America" has not infrequently been used
simply as the synonym of the "north-west coast"; but it has also been used
in anotber sense as including the American coast of tlie Russian possessions
as far northward as the Straits of Behring. Confusion has sometimes arisen
in the use of the phrase "north-west coast of America"; but the true meaning
can always be determined by reference to the context. || The Treaty between
the United States and Russia was concluded on the 17th April, 1824, and
that between Great Britain and Russia was concluded on the 28th February,
1825. Tle fll and accurate text of both Treaties will be found iu Inelo-
sure (A). The Treaty betweon the United States and Russia is first in the
order of time; but I shall consider both Treaties together. I quote the first
Articles of each Treaty, for, to all intents and purposes, they are identical
in meaning, though differing somewhat in phrase.
The Ist Artiele in the American Treaty is as follows:-
"Article I. It is agreed, that, in any part of the Great Ocean, commonily
callcd the Paeific Oeean or the South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects
of the Higl Contracting Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restraineod,
The same designation obtained in Europe. As early as 1803, in a Map publi-
shed by thlie Geographie Institute at Weimar, the coast from Columbia River (490) to
Cape Elizabeth (00r,) is designated as the "Nord West Kste."
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 3
either in navigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, hr. 103G.
npon points which may not already have been occupied, for the purpose of suaten.
trading with the natives, saving always the restrictions and conditions deter- 17.D'Dc'c1.
mined by the following Artioles."
The Ist Artiele in the British Treaty is as follows:-
"Article I. It is agreed, that the respective sunbjects of the High Con-
tracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested, in any part of the ocean,
commonly called the Pacific Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing
thereiu, or in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not lave. bcen al-
ready occupied, in order to trade witb the natives, under the restrictions
specified in the following Artieles."
Lord Salisbury contends, that-
"The Russian Government had no idea of any distinction between Beh-
ring's Sea and the Pacifie Ocean, which latter they considered as reaching
southward from Behring's Straits. Nor throughout the whole of the subse-
quent correspondence is there any reference whatever on either side to any
distinctive name for Behring's Sca, or any intimation that it conld be con-
sidered otherwise tlian as forming an integral part of the Pacific Ocean."
The Goverinment of the United States cordially agrees with Lord Salis-
bury's statement, that throughout the whole correspondence connected witli the
formation of the Treaties there was no reference whatever by either side to
any distinctive name for Behring's Sea, and for the very simple reason which
I have already indicated, that the negotiation had no reference whatever to
the Behring's Sea, but was entirely confined to a "strip of land" on the
north-west coast and the waters of the Pacifie Ocean adjaccnt thereto. For
future reference I call special attention to the phrase "strip of land." |1 I ven-
ture to remind Lord Salisbury of the fact that Behring's Sea was, at the
time referred to, the recognized name in some quarters, and so appeared on
many anthentic Maps several years before the Treaties were negotiatcd. But,
as I mentioned in my note of the 30th June, the same sea liad been presen-
ted as a body of water separate from the Paeific Occan for a long period
prior to 1825. Many names had been applied to it; but thie one most fre-
quently used and most widely recognized was the Sea of Kamschatka. Eng-
lish statesmen of tle period when the Treaties were negotiated had complete
knowledge of all the geographical points involved. They knew, that on the
Map published in 1784 to illustrate the voyages of the most eminent English
navigator of the eighteentli century thlie "Sea of Kamschatka" appeared in
absolute contradistincetion to the "Great South Sea" or the Pacifice Ocean. And
the Map, as shown by the words on its margin, was "prepared by Lieutenant
Henry Roberts under the immediate inspection of Capitain Cook." Twenty
years before Capitain Cook's Maps appeared, the "London Magazine" contained
a Map on which the Sea of Kanschatka was conspicuously engraved. At a
still earlier date-even as far back as 1732-Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Russian
4 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 10362. expedition of Shestakof in 1730 (who, even before Behring, sighted the land
Staaten. of the American continent), published the sea as bearing the name of Kam-
i;.Dec. s9O.schatka, Muller, who was Historian and Geographer of the second expedition
of Behring in 1741, designated it as the Sea of Kamschatka in bis ,Map
published in 1761. I| I inclose a list of a large proportion of the most authen-
tic Nlaps published during the ninety years prior to 1825 in Great Britain,
in the United States, the Notherlands, France, Spain, Germany and Russia-
in all 105 Maps-on every one of which the body of water now known as
Behring's Sea was plainly distinguished by a name separate from the Pacific
Ocean. On the great majority it is named the Sea of Kamsehaltk, a few
use the name of Behring, while several other designations are used. The
whole number, aggregating, as they did, the opinion of a large part of the
civilized world, distinguished the sea, no matter under what name, as alto-
gether separate from the Pacific Ocean. (See Inclosure B.) Il Is it possible,
that with this great clond of witnesses before the eyes of Mr. Adams aud
Mr. George Canning, attesting the existence of the Sea of Kamschatka, they
would simply include it in the phrase "Paeifie Ocean," and make no allusion
whatever to it as a separate sea, when it was known by almost every edu(a-
ted man in Europe and America to have been so designated numberless
times? Is it possible, that Mr. Canning and Mr. Adams, both oducated in
the common law, could believe that they were acquiring for the TUnited States
and Great Britain the enormous rights inherent in the Sea of Kamschatka
without the slightest reference to that sea, or without any deseription of its
metes and bounds, when neither of them would have paid for a village house
lot unless the deed for it should recite every fact and feature necessary for
the identification of the lot against any other piece of ground on the surface
of the globe? When we contemplate the minute particularity, thie tedious
verbiage, the duplications and the reduplications employed to secure unmista-
kable plainness in framing Treaties, it is impossible to conceive that a fact
of this great magnitude could have been omitted from tle instruetions written
by Mr. Adams and Mr. G. Canning as Seeretaries for Foreign Affairs in their
respective countries-impossible that such a fact could have eseaped tho
notice of Mr. Middleton and Count Nesselrode, of Mr. Stratford Canning and
M. Poletica, who were the negotiators of the two Treaties. It is impossible,
that, in the Anglo-Russian Treaty, Count Nesselrode, Mr. Stratford Canning
and M. Poletica could have taken sixteen lines to recite the titles and honours
they had received from their respective Sovereigns, and not even suggest the
insertion of one line, or even word, to secure so valuable a grant to England
as the full freedom of the Behring's Sea.
There is another argument of great weight against tle assumption of
Lord Salisbury that the phrase "Pacifie Ocean," as used in the Ist Article of
both the American and British Treaties, was intended to inelude thlie waters
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 5
of the Behring's Sea. It is true, that, by the Treaties with the United States Nr. 10362.
and Great Britain, Russia practically withdrew the operation of the Ukase Staaten.
of 1821 from the waters of the north-west coast on011 the Pacific Ocean; but lt Dec.sto.
the proof is conclusive, that it was left in fall force over the waters of the
Behring's Sea. Lord Salisbury cannot have ascertained the value of the
Behring's Sea to Russia when he assumed that, in the Treaties of 1824 and
1825, the Imperial Government liad, by mere inclusion in another phrase,
with apparent carelessness, thrown open all the resources and all the wealth
of those waters to the citizens of the United States and to the subjects of
Lord Salisbury has, perhaps, not thought it worth while to make any
examination of the money value of Alaska and the waters of the Behring's
Sea at the time the Treaties were negotiated and in the succeeding years.
The first period of the Russian-American Company's operatious had closed
before the Ukase of 1821 was issued. Its affairs were kept secret for a long
time, bhut are now accurately known. The money advanced for the capital
stock of the Company at its opening in 1799 amounted to 1,238,746 roubles.
The gross sales of frs and skins by the Company at Kodiak and Canton
from that date up to 1820 amounted to 20,024,698 roubles. The net profit
was 7,685,000 roubles for the twenty-oue years-over 620 per cent. for the
whole period, or nearly 30 per cent. per annum. || Reviewing these facts, Ban-
eroft, in bis "HIistory of Alaska," a standard work of exhaustive research,
says:- II "We find this powerful monopoly firmly established in the favour
of the Imperial Government, many Nobles of high rank and several members
of the Royal Family being among tle sharelolders."
And yet Lord Salisbury evidently supposes, that a large amount of wealth
was carelessly thrown away by the Royal Fainily, the Nobles, the courtiers
the capitalists and the speculators of St. Petersburgh in a phrase which
merged the Behring's Sea in the Paeific Ocean. That it was not thrown away
is shown by the transactions of the Company for thie next twenty years.
The second period of the Russian-American Company began in 1821 and en-
ded in 1841. Within that time tle gross revenues of the Company exceeded
61,000,000 roubles. Besides paying all expenses and all taxes, the Company
largely inereased the original capital, and divided 8,500,000 roubles among
the shareholders. These dividends and the increase of the stock showed a
profit on the original capital of 55 per cent. per annum for the whole twenty
years-a great inerease over the first period. It must not be forgotten, that,
during sixteen of these twenty years of constantly increasing profits, the
Treaties which, according to Lord Salisbury, gave to Great Britain and the
United States equal rights with Russia in the Behring's Sea, were in full
force. II The proceedings which took place when the second period of the
Russian-American Company was at an end are thus described in Baneroft's
"HIistory of Alaska":-
0 Der Robbonfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 10362. ". . . 'In the variety and extent of its operations/ declare the
s Ltaat members of the Imperial Couneil, 'no other Company can compare with it.
17.Doc.i'S.j"In addition to a commercial and industrial monopoly, thie Government has
invested it with a portion of its own powers in governing the vast and distant
territory over which it now holds control. A change in this system would
now be of doubtful benefit. To open our ports to all hunters promiseuously
would be a death-blow to the fur trade, while the Government, liaving trans-
ferred to the Company the control of the Colonies, could not now resume it
without great expense and trouble, and would have to create new financial
resources for such a purpose.'"
The Imperial Council, it will be seen, did not hesitate to call the IEussian-
American Company a monopoly, which it could not have been if Lord Salis-
bury's construction of the Treaty was correct. Nor did thlie Council feel any
doubt that to open the ports of the Behring's Sea "to all hunters promis-
cuonsly would be a deatli-blow to the fur trade."
Baneroft says further:-
. "This opinion of the Imperial Council, together with a Charter
defining the privileges and duties of the Company, was delivered to the Czar,
and received his signature on the llth October, 1844. Thle new Charter did
not differ in its main features from that of 1821, though the boundary was
of course, changed in accordance with the English and American Treaties.
None of the Company's rights were curtailed, and the additional privileges
were granted of trading with certain ports in China and of shipping tea
direct from China to St. Petersbourgh."
The Russian-American Company was thus chartered for a third period
of twenty years, and at the end of the time it was found that the gross re-
ceipts amounted to 75,770,000 roubles, a minor part of it from the tea trade.
The expenses of administration were very large. The shareholders received
dividends to the amount of 10,210,000 roubles-about 900 per cent. for the
whole period, or 45 per cent. per annum on the original capital, At the
time tlie third period closed, in 1862, the Russian Government saw an oppor-
tunity to sell Alaska, and refnscd to continue the Charter of the Company.
Agents of the United States liad initiated negotiations for the transfer of
Alaska as early as 1859. The Company continued, practically, however, to
exercise its monopoly until 1867, when Alaska was sold by lussia to the
United States. The enormous profits of the Russian American Comnpany in
the fnr trade of the Beliring's Sea continued under the Russian flag for more
than forty years after the Treaties of 1824 and 1825 had been concluded.
And yet Lord Salisbury contends, that during this long period of exceptional
profits from the fur trade Great Britain and the United States had as good
a right as Russia to take part in these highly luerative ventures. f] American
and Englisl ships in goodly numbers during this whole period annmmally visi-
ted and traded on the nortl-west coast on tlie Pacific Ocean. And yet, of
Der Robbenfaag im Behringsmeere. 7
all these vessels of the United States and Great Britain, not one ever sought r. 10362-
to disturb the fnr- fisheries of the Behring's Sea or along its coasts, either Staaten.
of the continent or of the islands. So far as known, it is believed, that 3"c' 1. "o.
neither American nor English ships ever attempted to take one fur-seal at
the Pribyloff Islands or in the open waters of the Behring's Sea during that
period. The 100-mile limit was for the preservation of all these fur animals,
and this limit was observed for that purpose by all the maritime nations that
sent vessels to the Behring waters. [} Can any one believe it to be possible
that the maritime, adventurous, gain-loving people of the United States and
of Great Britain could bave had such an inviting'field open to them forty
years and yet not one ship of either nation enter the Behring's Sea to com-
pete with the Russian-American Company for the inordinate profits which had
flowed so steadily and for so long a period into their treasury from the fur
trade? The fact that the ships of both nations refrained, during that long
period, from taking a single fur-seal ineide the shores of that sea is a pre-
sumption of their lack of right and their recognized disability so strong that,
independently of all other arguments, it requires the most authentic and con-
vineing evidence to rebut it. That English ships did not enter the Behring's
Sca to take part in the eatching of scals is not all that can be said. Her
auquiescence in Russia's power over the seal fisheries was so complete, that
during the forty years of Russia's supremacy in the Bohring's Sea (tliat follo-
wed the Treaties of 1824-25) it is not believed that Great Britain even made
a protest, verbal or written, against what Bancroft describes at the "Russian
monopoly." 11 A certain degree of confusion and disorganization in the form of
the goverument that had existed in Alaska was the inevitable accompaniment
of tle transfer of sovereignty to the United States. The American title was
not made complete until tlie money, specified as the price in the Treaty, had
been appropriated by Congress and paid to tle Russian Minister by the Exe-
cutive Department of the Government of the United States. This was effee-
tod in the latter half of the year 1868. The acquired sovereignty of Alaska
earried with it by Treaty "all the rights, franchises and privileges" which
had belonged to Russia. A little more tlian a year after the acquisition, the
United States transferred certain rights to the Alaska Commercial Company
over the seal fisheries of Behring's Sea for a period of twenty years. Russia
had given the same rights (besides rights of still larger scope) to the Russian-
American Company for three periods of twenty years each, withont a protest
from the British Government, without a single interference from British ships.
For these reasons this Government again insists, thiat Great Britain and the
United States recognized, respected and obeyed the authority of Russia in
the Behring's Sea; and did it for more than forty years after the Treaties
with Russia were negotiated. It still remains for England to explain why she
persistently violates the same rights when transferred to the ownership of the
8 Der Robbenfang im Behring.meere.
Vr. 1oa88. The lind Article of the American Treaty is as follows: -
Staaten. "Article II. With a view of preventing the riglhts of navigation and of
'I7.ec.is9o.filshing exercised upon the Great Oeean by the citizens and subjeets of the
High Contracting Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is
agreed that the citizens of the United States shall not resort to any poiat
where there is a Russian establishment, without the permission of the Governor
or Commander; and that, reciproeally, the subjeets of Russia shall not resort,
without permission, to any establishment of the United States upon the north-
The IInd Artiele of the British Treaty is a. follows: -
"Article II In order to prevent the right of navigation and fishing,
exercised upon the ocean by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties,
from becoming the pretext for an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the
subjects of His Britannic Majesty shall not land at any place where there
may be a Russian establishment, without the permission of the Governor or
Commandant; and, on the other hand, the Russian subjects shall not land,
without permission, at any British establishment on the north-west coast."
In the IInd Artieles of the Treaties it is recognized that both the Uni-
ted States and Great Britain have establishments on the "north-west coast,"
and, as neither country ever claimed any territory north of the 60th parallel
of latitude, we uecessarily have the meaning of the north-west coast signi-
ficantly defined in exact accordance with the American contention.
An argument, altogether bistorical in its character, is of great and, I
think, conelusive force touching this question. It will be remembered that
the Treaty of the 20th October, 1818, between the United States and Great
Britain, comprised a variety of topies, among others, in Article III, the
"It is agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on
the north-west coast of America, westward of the Stony IMountains, shall,
together with its harbours, bays, and ereels, and the navigation of all rivers
within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten years from the date
of the signature of the present Convention, to the vessels, eitizens, and sub-
jects of the two Powers; it being nnderstood that this Agreement is not to
be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two High
Contracting Parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it
be taken to affect the claims of any other Power or State to any part of the
said country, the only object of the High Contracting Parties, in that respeet,
being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves."
While this Artiele placed upon a commnon basis for ten years the rigbts
of Great Britain and America on the north-west coast, it made no adjustment
of the elaims of Russia on the north, or of Spain on the south, which are
referred to in the Artiele as "any other Power or State." Russia had claimted
down to latitude 550 nnder the Ukase of 1799. Spain had claimed .in-
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 9
definitely northward from the 42nd parallel of latitude. But all the Spanish Nr. 10362.
claims had been transferred to the United States by the Treaty of 1819, Staaten.
and Russia had been so quiet until the Ukase of 1821 that no conflict was17.Dec.18so.
feared. But after that Ukase a settlement, eithler permanent or temporary,
was imperatively demanded. i The proposition made by Mr. Adams which I
now quote shows, 1 think, beyond all doubt, that the dispute was wholly
touching the north-west coast on the Pacific Ocean. I make the following
quotation from Mr. Adam's instruction to Ir. Middleton, our Minister at
St. Petersburgh, on the 22th July, 1823:-
"By the Treaty of the 22nd February, 1819, with Spain, the United
States acquired all the rights of Spain north of latitude 42; and by the
IlIrd Article of the Convention between the United States and Great Britain
of the 20th October, 1818, it was agreed that any country that might be
claimed by either party on the north-west coast of America, westward of the
Stony Mountains, should, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and the
navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for the term of ten
years from that date, to the vessels, eitizens, and subjects of the two Powers,
withont projudice to the claims of either party or of any otler State.
"You are authorized to propose an Artiele of the same import for a
term of ten years from the signature of a Joint Convention between the
United States, Great Britain, and Russia."
Instructions of the same purport were sent by the same mail to Mr. Rush,
our Minister at London, in order that the proposition should be completely
understood by each of the three Powers. The confident presumption was
that this proposition would, as a temporary settlement, be acceptable to all
parties. But before there was time for full consideration of the proposition,
either by Russia or Great Britain, President Monroe, in December 1823,
proclaimed his famous doctrine of excluding future European Colonies from
this continent. Its effect on all European nations holding unsettled or dis-
puted claims to territory was to ereate a desire for prompt settlement so
that each Power could be assured of its own, without the trouble or cost of
further defending it. Great Britain was already entangled with the United
States on the southern side of her claims on the north-west coast. That
Agreement sle must adlere to, but sle was wholly unwilling to postpone a
definite understanding with Russia as to the northern limit of her claims on
the north-west coast. Hence a permanent Treaty was desired, and in both
Treaties the "ten-year" feature was recognized-in the VlIth Artiele of the
British Treaty and in the IVth Artiele of the American Treaty. But neither
in correspondence nor in the personal conferences that brought about the
Agreement was there a single hint that the settlement was to include anything
else whatever than the north-west eoast on the Pacific-Ocean, south of the
GOtl parallel of north latitude.
10 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Er. 1os2,. Fortunately, however, it is not necessary for the united States to rely on
satet. this suggestive definition of the north-west coast, or, upon the historical facts
17. Dec.ls5o. above given. lt is easy to prove from other sources that in the Treaty bet-
ween the United States and Russia the coast referred to was that which I
have defined as the "north-west coast" on the Pacific Ocean so'uth of 600
north latitude, or, as the Russians for a long time believed it, 59 30'. Wie
have in thie Department of State the originals of the Protocols between our
Minister at St. Petersburgh, Mr. Henry Middieton, and Count Nesselrode, of
Russia, who negotiated the Treaty of 1824, I quote, as I have quoted in
mny note of the 30th June, a Memorandum submitted to Count Nesselrode by
Mr. Middleton as part of the 4th Protocol: -
"Now, it is clear, according to the facts established, that neither Russia
nor any other European Power has the right of dominion upon the Continent
of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north latitude. | "Still less
has she tle dominion of the adjacent maritime territory, or of the sea which
washes these coasts, a dominione which is only aceessory to the territorial
dominion. 1[ "Therefore, she has not the right of exclusion or of admission on
these coasts, nor in these seas, which are free seas. 1 "The right of navi-
gating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to every independent nation,
and even constitutes an essential part of this independence. [j "The United
States lhave exercised navigation in the seas, and commerce upon thie coasts
above mentioned, from the time of their independence; and they have a per-
feet right to this navigation and to this commerce, and they can only be
deprived of it by their own act or by a Convention."
Mr. Middleton deelares that Russia lad not the right of dominion "upon
the Continent of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north lati-
tude." Still less has she the dominion of "the adjacent maritime territory
or the sea which washes these coasts." HIe further declares that Russia had
not the "right of exclusion or of admission on these coasts, nor in these soas,
which are free seas" that is, the coast and seas between the 40th and
60th degrees of north latitude on the body of the continent.
The following remark of Mr. Middleton deserves special attention: -
"The right of navigating all the free seas belongs, by natural law, to
every independent nation, and even constitutes an essential part of this inde-
This earnest protest by Mr. Middleton, it will be noted, was against the
Ukas of Alexander whiieh proposed to extend Russian sovereignty over the
Pacifie Ocean as far south as the 51st degree of latitude, at which point, as
Mr. Adams reminded the Russian Minister, that ocean is 4,000 miles wide.
It is also to be specially noted that Mr. Miiddleton's double reference to "the
free seas" would have no meaning wlatever if he did not reeognize that
freedom on certain seas had been restricted. Ile could not have used the
phrase if lie had regarded all seas in that region as "free seas."
Der Robbenfaug im Behringsmeere. 11
In answer to my former reference to these facts (in my note of the Em- 1oe2.
30th June) Lord Salisbury makes this plea: Staaten.
"Mr. Blaine states that when Mr. Middleton declared that Russia bad no 17-I 1890.
right of exelusion on the coasts of America between the 50th and 60th de-
grees of north latitude, nor in the seas which washed those coasts, he in-
t.ended to make a distinction between Behring's Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
But on reference to a Map it will be seen that the 60th degree of north
latitude strikes straight across Behring's Sea, leaving by far the larger and
more important part of it to the south; so that I confess it appears to me
that by no conceivable construction of bis words can 3Ir. Middleton be sup-
posed to have excepted that sea from those which he declared to be free."
If bis Lordship had examined his Map somewhat more closely, he would
have found my statement literally correct. When Mr. Middleton referred to
"tlhe Continent of America between the 50th and 60th degrees of north lati-
tnde," it was impossible that be could bave referred to the coast of Behring's
Sea, for the very simple reason that the 50th degree of latitude is altogetler
south of the Behring's Sea". The fact that the 60th parallel "strikes straight
across the Bebring's Sea" has no more pertinence to this discussion than if
his Lordship had remarked th at the same parallel passes througl the Sea of
Okhutsk, which lies to the west of Behring's Sea, just as the arm of the
North Pacific lies to the east of it. Mr. Middleton was denying Russia's
dominion upon a continuous line of coast upon the continent between two
specified points and over the waters washing that coast. There is such a
continuous line of coast between the 50th and 60th degrees on the Pacific
Ocean; but there is no such line of coast on the Behring's Sea, even if you
measure from the sonthernmost island of the Aleutian chain. In a word, the
argument of Lord Salisbury on this point is based upon a geographical im-
But, if there could be any doubt left as to what coast and to what
waters Mr. Middleton referred, an analysis of the last paragraph of the
4th Protocol will dispel that doubt. When Mr. Middleton declared that "the
United States have exereised navigation in the seas, and commerce upon the
coasts above mentioned, from the time of their independence," he makes the
same deelaration that had been previonsly made by Mr. Adams. That decla-
ration could only refer to the north-west coast as I lave described it, or
as Mr. Middleton phrases it, "tle Continent of America between the 50th and
GOth degrees of north latitude."
Even his Lordship would not dispute the fact that it was upon this
coast and in the waters washing it that the United States and Great Britain
had exercised free navigation and commerce continuonsly since 1784. By no
possibility could that navigation and commerce have been in the Behring's
Sea. Mr. Middleton, a close student of history, and experienced in diplomacy,
could not have decclared that the United States had "exercised navigation" in
12 Der Robbefang im Behringsmeere.
Sr. 10362. the Behring's Sea, and "commeree upon its coasts," from the time of their
Staten. independence. As a matter of history, there was no trade and no navigation
1,. Dect0o.(except the navigation of explorers) by the United States and Great Britai
in the Behring's Sea in 1784, or even at the time these Treaties were nego-
tiated. Captain Cook's voyage of exploration and discovery through the waters
of that sea was completed at the cose of the year 1778, and bis "Voyage
to the Pacific Occan" was not published in London until five years after bis
death, which oecurred at the Sandwich Islands on the 14th Febrnary, 1779.
The Pribyloff Islands were first discovered, one in 1786 and the other in
1787. Seals were taken there for a few years afterwards by the Lebedef
Company of Russia, subsequently consolidated into the Russian-American
Company; but the taking of seals on those islands was then discontinued by
the Russians until 1803, when it was resumed by the Russian-American
At the time these Treaties were negotiated there was only one Settle-
ment, and that of Russians, on the shores of the Behring's Sea, and thle only
trading vessels which had entered that sea were the vessels of the Russian
Fur Company. Exploring expeditions had, of course entered. It is evident,
therefore, withont further statement, that neither the vessels of the United
States nor of Great Britain nor of any other Power than Russia had traded
on the shores of Behring's Sea prior to the negotiations of these Treaties.
No more convincing proof could be adduced that these Treaties had reference,
solely to the waters and coasts of the continent south of the Alaskan Penin-
sula-simply the "Pacific Ocean" and the "north-west coast" named in the
The HIrd Article of tle British Treaty, as printed in the British State
Papers, is as follows: -
"The line of demareation between the possessions of the Iigh Con-
tracting Parties upon the eoast of the continent and the islands of Ameriea
to the north-west shall be drawn in the manner following: -
~Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prinee of
Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 540 40' north latitude, and
between the 131st and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of
Greenwich), the said line shall aseend to the north along the channel called
Portland Channel, as far as the point of the eontinent where it strikes the
56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point the line of de-
mareation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the
coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longi-
tude (of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection
the said meridian line of the 141 st degree, in its prolongation as far as the
Frozen Ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and the British
possessions on the Continent of Ameria to the north-west."
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 13
It will be observed that this Article explicitly delimits the boundary Nr- 10362.
betweeBritish America and the Russian possessions. This delimitation is in inigte
between British Ameriea and the Russian possessions. This delimitation is in Staaten.
minuite detail from 540 40' to the northern terminus of the coast known as lT.Dec.ISo.
the north-west coast. When the boundary-line reaches that point (opposite 600
north latitude) where it interseets the 141st degree of west longitude, all
particularity of description ceases. From that point it is projected direetly
northward for 600 or 700 miles without any reference to coast-line, without
any reference to points of discovery or occupation (for there were none in
that interior country), but simply on a longitudinal line as far north as the
Frozen or Arctie Ocean,
What more striking interpretation of the Treaty could there be than this
botndary-line itself? It could not be elearer if the British negotiators had
been recorded as saying to the Russian negotiators:-
"Here is the north-west coast to which we have disputed your claims-
from the 51st to the 60th degree of north latitude. We will not, in any
event, admit your right south of 540 40'. From 540 40' to the point of
junction with the 141st degree of west longitude we will agree to your
possession of the coast. That will cover the dispute between us. As to the
body of the continent above the point of interseetion, at the 141st degree of
longitude, we know nothing, nor do you. It is a vast unexplored wilderness.
We have no Settlements there, and you have none. Wo have, therefore, no
eouflicting interests with your Government. The simplest division of that
territory is to accept the prolongation of the 141st degree of longitude to
the Aretie Ocean as the boundary. East of it the territory shall be British.
West of it the territory shall be Russian."
And it was so finally settled.
Artiele IV of the Anglo-Russian Treaty is as follows:-
"With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding
Artiele it is understood:
"1. That the island called Prince of Wales Island shall belong wholly
"2. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direo-
tion parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the
point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to
be at the distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit
between the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to
Russia, as above mentioned, shall be formed by 'a line parallel to the win-
dings of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine
The evident design of this Artiele was to make certain and definite the
boundary-line along the line of coast, should there be any doubt as to that line
as laid down in Artiele III. It provided that the boundary-line, following the
windings of the coast, should never be more than 10 marine leagues therefrom.
14 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 1m. The Vti Article of the Trcaty between Great Britain and Russia reads
l.Dce.esoo. "It is, moreover, agreed that no establishment shall be formeed by either
of the two Parties within the limits assigned by the two preeeding Artieles
to the possessions of the other. Consequently, British subjeets shall not form
any establishment either upon the coast or upon the border of the continent
comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions, as designated in the
two preceding Artieles; and, in like manner, no establishment shall be formed
by Russian subjects beyond the said limits."
The plain meaning of this Article is that neither Party shall make Settlements
within the limits assigned by the IIIrd and IVth Articles to the possession of
the other. Consequently, the IlIrd and IVtl Articles are of supreme impor-
tance as making the actual delimitations between the two countries, and
forbidding each to form any establishments witbin the limits of the other.
The VIth Article of Russia's Treaty with Great Britain is as follows:-
"It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from
whatever quarter they may arrive, whether from the oeean or from the in-
terior of the continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely,
and without any hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams whieh, in
their course toward the Paeific Ocean, may eross the line of demareation
upon the line of coast described in Artiele III of the present Convention,"
The meaning of this Article is not obsenure. The subjects of Great
Britain, whether arriving from the interior of the continenut or from the
ocean, shall enjoy the right of navigating freely all the rivers and streams
which, in their course to the Pacific Ocean, may cross the line of demareation
upon the line of coast described in Artiele III. As is plainly apparent, the
coast referred to in Article III is the coast south of the point of junetion
already deseribed. Nothing is clearer than the reason for this provision.
A strip of land, at no point wider than 10 marine leagues, running alnng
the Pacifice Oceau from 54 40' to 60 (320 miles by geographical line, by
the windings of the coast three times that distance), was assigned to Russia
by the IlIrd Article. Directly to the east of this strip of land-or, as
miglit be said, behind it-lay the British possessions. Tos hut out the in-
habitants of the British possessions fromn the sea by this strip of land, would
bave been not only unreasonable, but intolerable to Grcat Britain. Russia
promptly conceded the privilege, and gave to Great Britain. The right of
navigating all rivers crossing that strip of land from 54 40' to the point of
interseection with the 141st degree of longitude. Without this concession the
Treaty could not have beoon made. It do not understand that Lord Salisbury
dissents from this obvious constrnuction of the VIth Artiele, for in his des-
patch he says that the Article has a "restricted bearing,"' and refers only to
"the line of coast described in Artiele III" (the italices are bis own), and the
only line of coast described in Artiiel III is the eoast from 540 40' to 60.
Der 1obblenfang im Behringsmeerc. 15
There is no deseription of the coast above that point stretching along the Nr. 10ein.
,Bering's Sea from latitude 60' to the Straits of Behring. Ytauteo,.
The VIIth Article of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, wliose provisions have 17.t)eC.11'
led to the principal contention between the United States and Great Britain,
is as follows: -
"It is also understood that for the space of ten years from the signature
of the present Convention the vessels of the two Powers, er those belonging
to their respective subjects, shall mutually be at liberty to frequent, without
any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas, the gulfs, havens, and creeks on
the coast mentioned in Article III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading
witli the natives."
In the judgment of the President the meaning of this Article is alto-
gether plain and clear. It provides that for the space of ten years the
vessels of the two Powers should mutually be at liberty to frequent all the
inland seas, &c., "on the coast mentioned in Article III, for the purpose of
fishing and trading with the natives." Following out the line of my argument
and the language of the Artiele, I lave already maintained that this privilege
cotuld only refer to the coast from 54 40' to the point of intersection with
the 141st degree of west longitude; tliat, therefore, Britisli subjeets were not
granted the right of frequenting the Behring's Sea.
Denying this construction, Lord Salisbury says: -
"I mast further dissent from Mr. Blaine's interpretation of Article VII
of the latter Treaty (British). That Artiele gives to the vessels of the-two
Powers 'liberty to frequent all the inland seas, gulfs, havens, and creeks on
the coast mentioned in Artiele III, for the purpose of fishing and of trading
with the natives.' The expression 'coast mentioned in Article III' can only
refer to tle first words of the Article, 'the line of demarcation between the
possessions of the IHigh Contracting Parties upon the coast of the continent
and the islands of Amcrica to the north-west shall be drawn,' &c., that is to
say, it included all the possessions of the two Powers on the north-west
coast of America. For there would have beein no sense whatever in stipula-
ting that Russian vessels should have freedom of access to the small portion
of coast which, by a later part of the Artiele, is to belong to Russia. And,
as bearing on this point, it will be noticed that Article VI, which lias a
more restricted bearing, speaks only of 'the subjects of His Britannic Majesty'
and of 'the line of coast described in Article III.'"
It is curious to note the embarassing intricacies of his Lordship's language
and the erroneous assumption upon which bis argument is based. Ile admits
that the privileges granted in the VItli Artiele to the subjects of Great Bri-
tain are limited to "the coast described in Article III of the Treaty." But
when he reaches the VITth Artiele, where the privileges granted are limited
to "the coast mientioned in Article III of the Treaty," his Lordship maintains
that the two references do not mean the same coast at all. The coast de-
i6 Der Robbenfang im Behringsaeere.
Nr. los62. scribed in Article 111 and the coast mentioned in Artiele III are, therefore, in
Staatn. his Lordhip's judgment, entirely different. The "coast deseribed in Artiele III"
1i.Dec.is9O. is limited, he admits, by the intersection of the boundary-line with the 141st
degree of longitude, but the "coast mentioned in Article III' stretches to the
Straits of Behring.
The IIIrd Article is, indeed, a very plain one, and its meaning cannot
be obscured. Observe that the "line of demarcation" is between the pos-
sessions of both parties on the coast of the continent. Great Britain had na
possessions on the coast-line above the point of junction with the 141st
degroe, nor had she any Settlements above 600 north latitude. South of 600
north latitude was the only place where Great Britain had possessions on the
coast-line. North of that point her territory had no connection whaterer
with the coast either of the Paeific Ocean or the Behring's Sea. It is thus
evident the only coast referred to in Article III was this strip of land south
of 60 or 59 30'.
The preamble closes by saying that the line of demareation between the
possessions on the coast "shall be drawn in the manner following," viz.: From
Prince of Wales Island, in 54 40', along Portland Channel and the summit
of the mountains parallel to the coast as far as their intersection with the
141st degree of longitude. After having described this line of demarcation
between the possessions of both parties on the coast, the remaining sentence
of the Article shows that, "finally, from the said point of intersection, the
said meridian-line . . shall form the limit between the Russian and British
possessions on the Continent of America." South of the point of interseetion
the Article describes a line of demareation between possessions on the coast;
unorth of that point of intersection the Article designates a meridian-line as
the limit between possessions on the continent. The argument of Lord Salis-
bury appears to this Government not only to contradict the obvious meaning
of the VIIth and IIIrd Artieles, but to destroy their logieal eonnection with
the other Artieles. In fact, Lord Salisbury's attempt to make two coasts out
of the one coast referred to in the Illrd Article is not only out of harmony
with the plain provisions of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, but is inconsistent
with the preceding part of his own argument.
These five Articles in the British Treaty (the Ilrd, IVth, Vth, VIth, and
VIIth) are expressed with an exactness of meaning which no argument can ehange
or pervert. In a later part of my note I shall be able, 1 thiuk, to explain
why the Russian Governmnet elaborated the Treaty with Great Britain with
greater precision and at greater length thian was employed in framing the
Treaty with the United States. It will be remembered that between the two
Treaties there was an interval of more than ton months--the Treaty with the
United States being negotiated in April 1824, and that with Great Britain in
February 1825. During that interval something occurred which made Russia
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 17
more careful and more exacting in her negotiations with Great Britain than Nr. 10362.
she had bcen with the United States. What was it? Staaten.
It is only necessary to quote the IIIrd and IVth Articles of the Americair17 -Dec.as10.
Treaty to prove that less attention was given to their consideration than was
given to the formation of the British Treaty with Russia. The two Articles
in the American Treaty are as follows:-
"Article III. It is, moreover, agrccd that hereafter there shall not be
formed by the citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the
said States, any establishment upon the north-west coast of America, nor in
any of the islands adjacent, to the north of 540 40' of north latitude; and
that, in the same manner, there shall be none formed by Russian subjects,
or under the authority of Russia, south of the same parallel.
"Article IV. It is, nevertheless, nnderstood that during a term of ten
years, counting from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of
both Powers, or which belong to their citizens or subjects respectively, may
reciprocally frequent, without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs,
harbours, and creeks upon the coast mentioned in the preceding Article, for
the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country."
Lt will be noted that in the British Treaty four Articles, with critical
expression of terms, take the place of the IlIrd and IVth Articles of the
American Treaty, which were evidently drafted with an absence of the caution
on the part of Russia which marked the work of the Russian Plenipotentiaries
in the British negotiation.
From some cause, not fully explained, great uneasiness was felt in certain
Russian circles, and especially among the members of the Russiau-American
Company, when the Treaty between Russia and the United States was made
public. The facts leading to the uneasiness were not accurately known, and
from that cause they were exaggerated. The Russians who were to be
affected by the Treaty were in doubt as to the possible extont implied by
the phrase "north-west coast of America," as referred to in the IlIrd and
IVth Articles. The phrase, as I have before said, was used in two senses,
and they feared it might have such a construction as would carry the
American privilege to the Straits of Behring. They feared, moreover, that
the uncertainty of the coast referred to in Article III might, by construction
adverse to Russia, include the Behring's Sea among the seas and gulfs men-
tioned in Artiele IV. If that construction should prevail, not only the
American coast, but the coast of Siberia and the Aleutian coasts, might also
be thrown open to the ingress of American fishermen. So great and genuine
was their fright that they were able to induce the Russian Government to
demand a fresh diseussion of the Treaty before they would eonsent to
It is easy, therefore, to diseern the facts which caused the difference in
preecision between the American and British Treaties with Russia, and which
Staatsarcbiv LVI. 2
18 )Der Robbenfang im Behriugsmeere.
ar. 10362. at the same time give conehlusive force to the argument steadily maintaine4d
taaten, by the Government of the United States. These facts have thus far onily
e.Ler.soo. been hinted at, and I have the right to presume that they have not yet
fallen under the observation of Lord Salisbury. The President hopes that
after the facts are presented the American contention will no longer be
denied or resisted by Her Mlajesty's Government.
Nearly eight months after the Russo-American Treaty was negotiated,
and before the exehange of ratifications had yet taken place, there was a
remarkable interview between Secretary Adams and the Russian Minister. I
quote from Mr. Adam's diary, the 6th December, 1824:-
"6th, Monday. Baron Tuyl, the Russian Minister, wrote nme a note
requesting an immediate interview, in consequence of instructions recceived
yesterday from his Court. He came, and, after intimating that he was under
some embarrassment in executing bis instruetions, said that the Russian-
American Company, upon learning the purport of the North-West Coast Con-
vention coneluded last June by Mr. Middleton, were extremely dissatisficd
('a jetde de hauts cris'), and, by means of their influence, had prevailed upon
his Government to send him these instructions upon two points. One was
that he should deliver, upon the exchange of the ratifications of the Con-
vention, an explanatory note purporting that the Russian Government did not
understand that the Convention would give liberty to the eitizens of the
United States to trade on tle coast of Siberia and the Aleutian Islands. The
other was to propose a modification of the Convention, by which our vessels
should be prohibitod from trading on the north-west coast north of latitude
570. With regard to the former of these points he left Wvith me a Minute
With this preliminary statement Baron Tuyl, in accordance with instrue-
tions from bis Government, submitted to Mr. Adams the following note: -
"Explanatory Note from Russia.
"Explanatory note to be presented to the Government of thle United
States at the time of the exehange of ratifications, with a view to removing
with more certainty all occasion for future discussions; by means of which
note it will be seen that the Aleutian Islands, the coasts of Siberia, and the
Russian possessions in general on the north-west eoast of America to 590 30
of north latitude are positively excepted from the liberty of hunting, fishing,
and commercc stipulatcd in favour of citizens of the United States for
"This seems to be oinly a natural consequencee of the stipulations agrecd
upon, for the coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea
of Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by tle South Sea mentioined in the
Ist Artiele of the Convention of thie 5tl (17th) April, 1824. The Aleutian
Islands are also wasled by the Sea of Kamschatka, of Northern Ocean.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 19
"It is not the intention of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Nr. 10362.
Pacifie Ocean. She would be satisfied with causing to be recognized, as well Staaten
understood and placed beyond all manner of doubt, the prineiple that beyond -.Dec.1890.
59' 30' no foreign vessel can approach her coasts and her islands, nor fish
or hunt within the distance of 2 marine leagues. This will not prevent
the reception of foreign vessels which have been damaged or beaten by
The course pursued by Mr. Adams, after the Russian note had been
submitted to him, is fully told in his diary, from which I again quote:-
"I told Baron Tuyl that we should be disposed to do every thing to
accommodate the views of his Government that was in our power, but that a
modification of the Convention could be made no otherwise than by a new
Convention, and that the construction of the Convention as concluded belonged
to other Departments of the Government, for which the Executive had no
authority to stipulate. . I added that the Convention would be submitted
immediately to the Senate; that if anything affecting its construction, or, still
miore, modifying its meaning, were to be presented on the part of the Russian
Government before or at the exchange of the ratifications, it mtust be laid
before the Senate, and could have no other possible effect than of starting
doubts, and, perhaps, hesitation, in that body, and of favouring the views of
those, if such there were, who might wish to defeat the ratification itself of
the Convention. . If, therefore, he would permit me to suggest to hirn
what I thought would be bis best course, it would be to wait for the
exchange of the ratifications, and make it purely and sirmply; that afterwards,
if the instructions of his Government were imperative, he mnight present the
note, to which I now informed himr what would be, in substance, my answer.
It necessarily could not be otherwise. But, if his instructions left it dis-
cretionary with him, he would do still better to inform his Government of
the state of things bere, of the purport of our conference, and of what my
auswer must be if lhe should present the note. I believed his Court would
then deem it best that he should not present the note at all. Their appro-
hension had been excited by an interest not very friendly to the good under-
standing between the United States and Russin. Our inerchants would not
go to trouble the Russians oan the coast of Siberia, or north of the 57th
degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such fancies into their heads.
At least the Imperial Government might wait to see the operation of the
Convention before taking any further steps, and I was confident they would
hear no complaint resulting from it. If they should, then would be the tinie
for adjusting the construction or negotiating a modification of the Con-
vention." . .
The Russian Minister was deeply impressed by what Mr. Adams had
said. He had not before clearly perceived the inevitable effeot if he should
insist on presenting the note in the form of a demand. He was not prepared
20 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
St. Lo362. for so serions a result as the destruetion or the indefinite postponement of
steitng the Treaty between Russia and the United States, and Mr. Adams readily
17.Dec.eo.convinced him that at the exelhange of ratifications no modifieation of the
Treaty could be made. The only two courses open were, first, to ratify; or
second, to refuse, and annul the Treaty. Mr. Adams reports the words of
the Minister in reply:-
"The Baron said that these ideas lihad occurred to himself; that he had
made this application in pursuance of bis instructions, but he was aware of
the distribution of powers in our Constitution, and of the incompetcncy of the
Executive to adjust such questions. He would therefore wait for the exchange
of the ratifications without presenting his note, and reserve for future con-
sideration whether to present it shortly afterwards or to inform his Court of
what he has done and ask their further instructions upon what he shall
definitely do on the subject." .
As Baron Tnyl surrendered bis opinions to the superior judgment of
Mr. Adams, the ratifications of the Treaty were exchanged on the llth day
of January, and on the following day the Treaty was formally proclaimed.
A fortnight later, on the 25th January, 1825, Baron Tuyl, following the
instructions of bis Goverument, filed bis note in the Department of State.
Of course, bis act at that time did not affect the text of the Treaty; but it
placed in the hands of the Government of the United States an unofficial
note which significantly toll what Russia's construction of the Treaty would
be if, unbappily, any difference as to its meaning should arise between the
two Governments. But 1%M'r. Adams' friendly intimation removed all danger of
dispute, for it conveyed to Russia the assurance that the Treaty, as nego-
tiated, contained, in effeet, the provisions which the Russian note was designed
to supply. From that time until Alaska, with all its rights of land and water,
was transferred to the United States-a period of forty-three years-no act oer
word on the part of either Government ever impeached the full validity of
the Treaty as it was understood both by Mr. Adams and by Baron Tuyl at
the time it was formally proclaimed.
While these important matters were transpiring in Washington, nego-
tiations between Russia and England (ending in the Treaty of 1825) were in
progress in St. Petersburgh. The instructions to Baron Tuyl coneerning the
Russian-American Treaty were fully reflected in the care with which the
Anglo-Russian Treaty was costructed, a fact to which I have already adverted
in full. There was, indeed, a possibility tbat the true meaning of the Treaty
with the United States might be misunderstood, and it was therefore the
evident purpose of the Russian Government to make the Treaty with England
so plain and so clear as to leave no room for doubt and to baffle all
attempts at misconstruction. The Government of the United States finds the
full advantage to it in the eaution taken by Russia in 1825, and can there-
fore quote the Auglo-Russian Treaty, with the utmost confidenee that its
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 21
meaning cannot be changed from that clear unmistakable text which, throughout Nr. 10306.
all the Artieles, sustains the American contention. Staaten.
The "explanatory note," filed with this Government by Baron Tnyl, is so 17.-ee.1890.
plain in its text that, after the laspe of sixty-six years, the exact meaning
can neither be misapprehended nor misrepresented. It draws the distinetion
between the Pacific Ocean and the waters now known as the Behring's Sea
so particularly and so perspicuously that no answer can be made to it. It
will bear the closest analysis in every partionlar. "It is not the intention
of Russia to impede the free navigation of the Pacific Ocean!" This frank
and explicit statement shows with what entire good flith Russia had with-
drawn, in both Treaties, the offensive Ukase of Alexander, so far as the
Pacific Ocean was made subject to it. Another avowal is equally explicit,
viz., that "the coast of Siberia, the north-west coast of America to 59 30'
of north latitude [that is, down to 59 30', the explanatory note reckoning
from north to sonth] and the Aleutian Islands are positively excepted from the
liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipulated in favour of citizens of
the United States for ten years." The reason given for this exclusion is
most significant in connection with the pending diseussion, namely, that the
coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, the Sea of Kamschatka,
and the Icy Sea, and not by the "South Sea" [Pacific Ocean] mentioned in the
Ist Artiele of the Convention of the 5th (17th) April, 1824. The Aleutian
Islands are also washed by the Sea of Kamschatka, or Northern Ocean
(Northern Ocean being used in contradistinction to South Sea or Pacific
Ocean). The liberty of hunting, fishing, and commerce mentioned in the
Treaties was therefore confined to the coast of the Pacific Ocean south of
59 30' both to the United States and Great Britain. It must certainly be
apparent now to Lord Salisbury that Russia never intended to include the
Beliring's Sea in the phrase "Pacific Ocean." The American argument on that
question has been signally vindicated by the official declaration of the Russian
In addition to the foregoing, Russia claimed jurisdiction of 2 marine
lcagues from the shore in the Pacific Ocean, a point not finally insisted upon
in either Treaty. The Protocols, howcver, show that Great Britain was willing
to agree to the 2 marine leagues, but the United States was not; and, after
the coneession was made to the United States, Mr. G. Canning insisted upon
its being made to Great Britain also.
In the interview bctween the American Secretary of State and the Russian
Minister, in December 1824, it is worth noting that Mr. Adams believed that
the application made by Baron Tnyl had its origin "in the apprehension of
the Court of Russia which had been caused by an interest not very friendly
tho the good understanding between the United States and Russia." I pre-
same no one need be told that the reference here made by Mr. Adams was
to the Government of Great Britain; that the obvious effort of the Britisli
.2 Der Robbenfang im Bebringsmeere.
Sr. ,oa2. Government at that time was designed to make it eertain that the United
vereinigte States should not have the power in the waters and on the shores of Behring's
uTs..Ieco. Sea which, Lord Salisbnry now argues, had undoubtedly been given both to
the United States and Great Britain by the Treaties.
It is to be remembered that Mr. Adams' entire argument was to quiet
Baron Tuyl with the assuranee tbat the Treaty already negotiated was, in
effect, just what the Russian Government desired it to be by the incorporation
of the "explanatory note" of which Baron Tuyl was the bearer. Mr. Adams
was not a man to seize an advantage merely by cunning construction of
language which might have two meanings. He was determined to remove
the hesitation and distrust entertained for the moment by Russia. He went
so far, indeed, as to give an assurance that American ships would not go
above 57 north latitude (Sitka), and le did not want the text of the Treaty
so changed as to mention the faets contained in the explanatory note, because,
speaking of the hunters and the fishermen, it "was wisest not to put such
fancies into their heads."
It is still further noticeable that Mr. Adams, in his sententious ex-
pression, spoke of the Treaty in bis interview withi Baron Tuyl as "the North-
West Coast Convention." This closely deseriptive phrase was enough to
satisfy Baron Tuyl that Mr. Adams had not taken a false view of the true
limits of the Treaty, and had not attempted to extend tbe privileges granted
to the United States a single inch beyond their plain and honourable intent.
Thie three most confident assertions made by Lord Salisbury, and regarded
by him as unanswerable, are, in bis own language, the following:-
1. That England refised to admit any part of the Russian claim asserted
1)y the Ukase of 1821 of a maritime jurisdiction and exclusive right of fisbing
throughout the whole extent of that claim, from Behring's Straits to the
2. That the Convention of 1825 was regarded on both sides as a renun-
ciation on the part of Russia of that claim in its entirety.
3. That, though Behring's Straits were known and specifically provided
for, Behring's Sea was not known by that name, but was regarded as a part
of the Paeific Ocean.
Tlhe explanatory note of the Russian Government disproves and denies
in detail these three assertions of Lord Salisbury. I think they are eom-
ldetely disproved by tlie facts reeited in this despatch, but the explanatory
note is a speeific contradicetion of each one of them.
The inclosures which accompanied Lord Salisbury's despatch, and which
are quoted to strengthen bis argnments, seeom to me to sustain, in a remar-
kable manner, tlie p)ositin of the United States. The first inclosure is a
despatch from Lord Londonderry to Connt Lieven, Russian Minister at London,
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 23
dated Foreign Office, the 18th January, 1822. The first paragraph of this Nr. ](1362
despatch is as follows:- sta3ten.
"Thc Undersigned has the honour to acknowledge the note addressed to I.ee.'c's'1
hirn by Baron de Nicolai of the 12th September last, covering a copy of a
Ukase issued by bis Imperial Master, Emperor of all the Russias, bearing
date the 4th September, 1821, for various purposes therein set fortli, especially
connected with the territorial rights of his Crown an the north-west coast of
America bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and tle commerce and navigation of
His Imperial Majesty's snbjects in the seas adjacent thereto."
Tt is altogether apparent that this despatch is limited to thlie withdrawal
of tie provisions of the Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander, especially
connected with the territorial riglits on the north-west coast bordering on the
Pacific Ocean. Evidently Lord Londonderry makes no reference, direct or in-
direct, to the Behring's Sea. The whole scope of his contention, as defined
by himself, lies ontside of the field of the present dispute betwcen tle British
and American Governments. This Government beartily agrees with Lord
Londonderry's form of stating the question.
The Duke of Wellington was England's Representative in the Congress
of Verona, for which place he set out in the autunin of 1822. IIis instructions
from Mr. G. Canning, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, followed tlie precise
line indicated by Lord Londonderry in the despatch above quoted. This is
more plainly shown by a "Memorandum on the Russian Ukase" delivered by
the Dnke on the 17t1 October to Count Nesselrode, Russia's Representative
at Verona. The Dnke was argning against the Ukase of Alexander, as it
affected Britisli interests, and bis language plainly shows that he confined
himself to the "north-west coast of Ameriea bordering on the Pacific Ocean."
To establish this it is only necessary to quote the following paragraph from
the Dukc's Memorandum viz.:-
"Now, we can prove that the Englisl North-West Company and the
fludson's Bay Company have for many years established forts and other tra-
ding places in a country called New Caledonia, situated to the west of a range
of mountains ealled the Rocky Mountains, and extending along the shores of
the Pacific Ocean from latitude 49' to latitude 600 north."
The Dnuk of Wellington always went directly to the point at issue, and
he was evidently not concerning himnself about any subject otler than tlie pro-
tection of the English territory south of tle Alaskan Peninsula, and on the
north-west coast bordering on tlie Pacific Ocean. England owned no territory
on tlie coast north of the Alaskan Peninsula, and lience tliere was no reason
for connccting the coast above thle peninsula in any way with the question
before the Congress. Evidently the Duke did not, in the remotest manner,
connect the subjeet he was discussing with the waters or the shores of the
The most significant and important of all the inclosures is No. 12, in
24 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
sr. 10362. which hr. Stratford Canning, the British negotiator at St. Petersburgh, commu-
Sttrn., nicated. under date of the 1st March, 1825, to Mr. G. Canning, Minister
)7.Dec.1soa.of Foreign Affairs, the text of the Treaty between England and Russia.
Some of Mr. Stratford Canning's statements are very important. TIn the second
paragraph of bis letter he makes the following statement:-
"The line of demarcation along the strip of land on the north-west
coast of Amerika assigned to Russia is laid down in the Convention agreeably
to your directions." . .
After all, theu, it appears that the "strip of land," to which we have
already referred more than once, was reported by the English Plenipotentiary
at St. Petersburgh. This clearly and undeniably exhibits the field of contro-
versy between Russia and England, even if we had no other proof of the fact.
It was solely on the north-west coast bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and
not in the Behring's Sea at all. It is the same strip of land which the
United States acquired in the purchase of Alaska, and runs from 54 40' to
600 north latitude-the same strip of land which gave to British America,
lying behind it, a free access to the ocean.
Mr. Stratford Canning also communicated, in bis letter of the Ist March,
"Witli respect to Behring's Straits, I am happy to have it in my power
to assure you, on the jcint authority of the Russian Plenipotentiaries, that the
Emperor of Russia has no intention whatever of maintaining any exelusive
claim to the navigation of those straits or of the seas to the north of themn.'
This assurance from the Emperor of Russia is of that kind where the
power to give or to withhold is absolute. If the Treaty of 1825 between
Great Britain and Russia had conceded such rights in the Behring waters as
Lord Salisbury now elaims, why was Sir Stratford Canning so "happy" to
"have it in his power to assure" the British Foreign Office, on "the autbo-
rity of two Russian Plenipotentiaries," tbat "the Emperor had no intention
of maintaining an exclusive elaim to the navigation of the Behring's Straits,"
or of the "seas to the north of them." The seas to the south of the straits were
most significantly not included in the Imperial assurance. The English states-
men of that day had, as I Lave before remarkcd, attempted the abolition of
the Ukase of Alexander only so far as it affected the coast of the Pacific
Ocean from the l51st to the 60th degree of north latitude. It was left in
flill force on the shores of the Behring's Sea. There is no proof whatever
that the Russian Emperor annulled it there. That sea, from east to west, is
1,300 miles in extent; from north to south it is 1,000 miles in extent. The
wholc of this great body of water, under the Ukase, was left open to the
world, except a strip of 100 miles from the shore. But with these 100 miles
enforced on all the coasts of the Behring's Sca it would be obviously impossible
to approach the Straits of Behring, which were less than 50 miles in extreme
width. If enforced strictly, the Ukase would eut off all vessels from passing
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 25
through the straits to the Arctic Ocean. If, as Lord Salisbury claims, the Nr. 1036n.
Ukase had been withdrawn from the entire Behring coast, as it was between eraite
the 51st and GOth degrees on the Pacific coast, what need would there have 7.Deec. 1g0o.
been for 3Mr. Stratford Canning, the English Plenipotentiary, to seek a favour
from Russia in regard to passing through the straits into the Arctic Ocean,
where scientifice expeditions and whaling vessels desired to go? 1| I need not
review all the inelosures, but I am sure that, properly analyzed, they will all
show that the subject-matter touched only the settlement of the dispute on
the north-west coast, from the 51st to the 60th degree of nortl latitude.
In other words, they related to the contest which was jinally adjusted by the
establishmecnt of the line 540 40', which marked the boundary between. Russian
and Englisli territory at the time of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, as to-day it
marks the line of division between Alaska and British Columbia. But that
question in no way touched the Behring's Sea; it was confined wholly to the
Pacific Ocean and the north-west coast. 1| Lord Salisbury has deemed it proper,
in his despatch, to eall the attentior of tle Government of the United States
to some elementary prineiples of international law touching the freedom of the
seas. For our better instruction he gives sundry extracts from Wheaton and
Kent-our most eminent publicists-and, for further illustration, quotes from the
despatches of Secretaries Seward and Fish, all maintaining the well-known
principle that a nation's jurisdiction over the sea is limited to 3 marine miles
from its shore line. Commenting on these quotations, his Lordship says:--
"A claim of jurisdiction over the open sea which is not in accordance
with the recognized principles of international law or usage may, of course,
be asserted by force, but cannot be said to have any legal validity as against
the vessels of other countries, except in so far as it is positively admitted in
Conventional Agreements with those countries.'
The United States, having the most extended sea-coast of all the nations
of the world, may be presumed to have paid serious attention to the laws
and usages which define and limit maritime jurisdiction.. The course of this
Government has been uniformly in favour of upholding the recognized law of
nations on that subject. While Lord Salisbury's admonitions are recceived in
good part by this Government, we feel justified in asking bis Lordship if the
Government of Great Britain has uniformly illustrated these precepts by
example, or whether she has not established at least one notable precedent
which would justify us in making greater demands upon Her Majesty's Govern-
ment tonebching tlie Behring's Sea than either our necessities or our desires
have ever suggested? The precedent to which I refer is contained in the
Napoleon Bonaparte fell into the power of Great Britain on the 15th
July, 1815. The disposition of the illustrious prisoner was primarily deter-
mined by a Treaty negotiated at Paris on the 2nd of the following August
between Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. By that Treaty "the
26 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
rS. o3$s. custody of Napoleon is specially intrusted to the British Government." The
VStrigte, choice of the place and of the measures which could best seeire the prisoner
n7.D.c.isio. were especial]y reserved to His Britannic Majesty. In pnrsuance of this po-
wer, Napoleon was promptly sent by Great Britain to thl Island of St. Helena
as a prisoner for life. Six months after he reacbed St. helena the Britisli
Parliament enacted a special and extraordinary Law for the purpose of making
his detention more secure. It was altogether a memorable Statute, and gave
to the British Governor of the Island of St. Helena remarkable powers over
the property and rights of other nations. The Statute contains eight loug
sections, and in the 4th section assumes the power to exelude ships of any
nationality, not only from landing on the island, but forbids them "to hover
within 8 leagues of the coast of the island." Thie penalty for hovering within
8 leagues of the coast is the forfeiture of the ship to His Majesty the King of
Great Britain, on trial to be had in London, and the offence to be the same as
if committed in the County of Middlesex. This power was not assimed by a
military commander, pleading the silence of law amid thie clash of arms; nor
was it conferred by the power of civil goverument in a erisis of public
danger. It was a Parliamentary enactment in a season of profound peace
that was not broken in Europe by war among the Great Powers for eight-and-
thirty years thereafter. (See Inelosure C.)
The British Government thus assumed exclusive and absolute control
over a considerable section of the Soutli Atlantice Ocean, lying directly in the
path of the world's commerce, near the capes which mark the southernmost
points of both hemispheres, over the waters which for centuries had connected
the shores of all continents, and afforded the commercial highway from and
to all the ports of the world. The body of water thus controlled, ii the
form of a circle nearly 50 miles in diameter, was scarcely less than 2,000
square miles in extent; and whatever ship dared to tarry or hover within
this area might, regardless of its nationality, be forcibly seized and sunmmarily
forfeited to the British King. || The United States had grave and special
reasons for resenting this pereinptory assertion of power by Great Britain.
On the 3rd day of July, 1815, a fortnight after the Battle of Waterloo and
twelve days before Napoleon became a prisoner of war, an important Commer-
cial Treaty was concluded at London between the United States and Great
Britain. It was the sequel to the Treaty of Ghent, which was concluded
some six months before, and was remarkable, not only from the character
of its provisions, hut from the eminenee of the American negotiators-John
Quiney Adams, Henry Clay, and Albert Gallatin. Among other provisions
of tlis Treaty relaxing the stringent colonial policy of England was once
which agreed that American ships should be admitted and hospitably reeeived
at the Island of St. llelena. Before the ratifications of the Treaty were
exchanged in the following November, it was determined that Napoleon should
be sent to St. HIelena. England thereupon declined to ratify the Treaty un-
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 27
less the United States should surrender the provision respecting that island. Nr. 10mOe.
After that eame the stringent euaetment of Parliament forbidding vessels to staaten.
hover within 24 miles of the island. The United States was already a great17.~ e1.-1s
Commercial Power. She had 1,400,000 tons of shipping; more than 500
ships bearing her flag were engaged in trade around the capos. Lord Salis-
bury has had much to say about the liberty of the scas, but these 500
American ships were denied the liberty of the seas within a space of 50 miles
wide in the South Atlantie Ocean by the express authority of Great Britain.
The Act of Parliament which asserted this power over the sea was to be in
foree as long as Napoleon should live. Napoleon was born the same year
with Wellington, and was therefore but 46 years of age when he 'was sent
to St. Helena. His expectation of life was then as good as that of the Duke
who lived until 1852. The order made in April 1816 to obstruet free
navigation in a section of the South Atlantie might, therefore, have been in
force for the period of thirty-six years, if not longer. It actually proved to
be for five years only. Napoleon died in 1821. | It is hardly conceivable
that th.e same nation which exercised this authority in the broad Atlantic,
over whiel, at that very time, 800,000,000 of people made their conmmercial
exchanges, should deny the right of the United States to assume control over
a limited area, for a fraction of each year, in a sea which lies far beyond
the line of trade, whose silent waters were never cloven by a commercial
prow, whose uninhabited shores have no port of entry, and eould never be
approached on a lawful errand under any other flag than that of the United
States. Is this Government to understand that Lord Salisbury justifies the
course of England? Is this Government to understand that Lord Salisbury
maintains the riglit of England, at her will and pleasnre, to obstruct the
highway of commercee in mid-ocean, and that she will at the same time inter-
pose objeetions to the United States exercising her jurisdiction beyond the
3-mile limit, in a remote and unused sen, for the sole purpose of preserving
the most valuable fur-seal fishery in the world fron) remediless destruction?
If Great Britain shall consider that the precedent set at St. Helena of
obstruction to the navigable waters of the ocean is too remote for present
quotation, I invite her attention to one still in existence. Even to-day, while
Her Majesty's Government is aiding one of her Colonies to destroy the American
seal fisheries, another Colony, with her consent, has establishod a pearl fishery
in an area of the Indian Occan 600 miloes wide. And so complete is the
assumption of power that, according to Sir George ]aden-Powell, a lieence-
fee is collected from the vessels engaged in the pearl fisheries in the open
ocean. The asserted power goes to the extent of making foreign vessels that
have procured their pearls far outside the 3-mile limit pay a heavy tax when
the vessels enter an Australian port to land cargoes and refit. Thus the
foreign vessel is hedged in on both sides, and is bound to pay the tax under
British law, beeause, as Sir George Baden-Powell intimates, the voyage to
28 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
sr, lose. another port would probably be more expensive than the tax. 1 quote further
staaten. from Sir George to show thie extent to which British assumption of power
n.nec.lSBo.over the Oceau has gone:-
"Tle right to charge these dues and to exereise this control outside the
3-mile limit is based on an Act of the Federal Couneil of Australasia, which
Federal Council Act, 1885, sec. 15) enaets that the Counceil shall have legis-
lative authority, inter alia, in respeet to fisheries in Australian waters outside
territorial limits. In 1889 this Couneil passed an Act to 'regulate the pearl-
shell and bkehe-de-mer fisheries in Australian waters adjacent to the Colony
of Western Australia.' In 1888 a similar Act had been passed, dealing with
the fisheries in the seas adjacent to Queensland (on the east coast)."
I am directed by the President to say that, on behalf of tle United
States, he is willing to adopt the text used in the Act of Parliament to ex-
clude ships from hovering nearer to the Island of St. Helena than 8 marine
leagues, or he will take the example cited by Sir George Baden-Powell,
where, by permission of Her Majesty's Government, control, over a part of
the ocean 600 miles wide is to-day authorized by Australian law. Tlhe
President will ask the Government of Great Britain to agree to the distance of
20 marine leagues-within which no ship shall hover around the Islands of St.
Paul and St. George, from the 15th May to the October of eaeh year. This will
prove an effeetive mode of preserving the seal fisheries for the use of the civilized
world-a mode which, in view of Great Britain's assumption of power over
the open oceau, she cannot witl consistcncy decline. Great Britain prescribed
8 leagues at St. Helena; but the obvious necessities in the Behring's Sea
will, on the basis of this preecedent, justify 20 leagues for the protection of
the American seal fisheries. |] Tle United States desires only such control
over a limited extent of the waters in the Behring's Sea, for a part of each
year, as will be suffieient to insure the protection of the fur-seal fisheries,
already injured, possibly, to an irreparable extent by the intrusion of Canadian
vessels, sailing with the encouragement of Great Britain and protected by her
Hlag. Thle gravest wrong is committed when (as in many instances is the
case) American eitizens, refusing obedience to the laws of their own country,
have gone into partnership witli the British flag and engaged in the destruc-
tion of the seal fisheries which belong to the United States. So general, so
notorious, and so shamelessly avowed has this practice become that last season,
according to tle Report of the American Consul at Victoria, when the intruders
assemblcd at Ounalaska on the 4th July, previous to entering Behring's Sea,
the day was celebrated in a patriotie and spirited manner by the American
citizens, who, at the time, were proteeted by the British fiag in their violation
of the laws of their own country. || With such agencies as these, devised by the
Dominion of Canada and protectod by the flag of Great Britain, American rights
and interests have, within the past four years becn, damaged to the extent of
millions of dollars, with no corresponding gain to those who caused the loss.
Der Robbenfang im Belringsmeere. 29
From 1870 to 1890 the seal fisheries-carefully guarded and preserved-'Nr. 10362.
yielded 100,000 skins each year. The Canadian intrusions began in 1886, Veseiigt
and so great lias been the damage resulting from their destruction of seal 17.eis o.
life in the open sca surrounding the Pribyloff Islands, that in 1890 the Govern-
ment of the United States limited the Alaska Company to 60,000 seals. But
the Company was able to secure only 21,000 seals. Under the same evil
influences that have been active now for five.seasons the seal fisheries will
soon be utterly destroyed. Great Britain has been informed, advised, warned
over and over again, of thie evil effects that would flow from her course of
action; but, against testimony that amonunts to demonstaition, she has preferred
to abide by personal representations from Ottawa, by Reports of Commissioners
who examined nothing, and hcard nothing, except the testimony of those
engagcd in the business against which the United States has earnestly
protested. She may possibly be convinced of the damage if she will send an
intelligent Commissioner to the Pribyloff Islands.
In general answer to all these facts, Great Britain announces that she
is willing to settle the dispute by arbitration. IHer proposition is contained
in the following paragraph, which I quote in fll:
"I have to request that you will communicate a copy of this despatch, and
of its inclosures, to Mr. Blaine. You will state that IHer Majesty's Govern-
ment bave no desire whetever to refuse to the United States any jurisdiction
in Behring's Sca which was conceded by Great Britain to Russia, and which
properly acerues to the present possessors of Alaska in virtne of Treaties or
the law of nations; and that, if the United States' Government, after exa-
mination of the evidence and arguments which I lave produced, still differ
from them as to the legality of tlie recent captures in that sea, they are ready
to agree that the question, with the issues that depend upon it, should be
refered to impartial arbitration. You will in that case be authorized to con-
sider, in concert with M3r. Blaine, the method of procedure to be followed."
In bis annual Message, sent to Congress on the Ist of the present month,
the President, speaking in relation to the Behring's Sea question, said:-
"The offer to submit the question to arbitration, as proposed by Her
Majesty's Government, has not been accepted, for the reason that the form
of submission proposed is not thought to be calculated to assure a conclusion
satisfactory to eitler party."
In the judgment of the President, nothing of importancc would be settled
by proving that Great Britain conceded no jurisdiction to Russia over the seal
fisheries of the Behring's Sea. It might as well be proved that Russia conce-
ded no jurisdiction to England over the River Thames. By doing nothing in
each case everything is conceded. In neither case is anything asked of tlie
other "Concession," as used here, means simply acquiescence in the rightfullness
of the title, and that is the only form of concession which Russia asked of
Great Britain, or which Great Britain gave to Russia.
g0 Der Robbenfang im Behringsweere,
Sr. IoaC2. The second offer of Lord Salisbury to arbitrate amounts simply to a sub-
Staatn. inission of the question whetlher atly country has a righlt to extend its jurisdietion
iT.-nec.iso.-ore than one marine leagne from the shorc? No one disputes that, as a
rule; but the question is whether there may not be exceptions whose enforcement
does not interfere with those highways of commerce which the necessities
and usage of the world have marked out. Great Britain, when she desired
an exception, did not stop to consider or regard the inionvenience to whieh
thlie conimercial world might be subjected. 11er exception placed an obstacle
in the highway between continents. The United States, in protecting the seal
fisheries, will not interfere with a single sail of commerce on any sei of the globe.
It will mean something tangible, in the President's opinion, if Great Britain
will consent to arbitrate the real questions whieh have been under discussion
between the two Governments for the last four years. 1 shall endeavoar to
state what, in the judgment of the President, those issues are:-
1. What exclusive jurisdietion in tle sea now known as the Behring's
Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries thereiu, did Runssia assert
and exercise prior and up to time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?
2. Ilow far were these Claims of jurisdietion as to the seal fislheries
recognized and conceded by Great Britain?
3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sen ineluded in
the phrase "Paeific Ocean," as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great
Britaiu and Russia; and what rights (if any) in the Behring's Sea were given
or conceded to Great Britain by the said Treaty?
4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as the seal
fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between
the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to
the United States under that Treaty?
5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the far-seal
fisheries in tlie waters of thlie Behring's Sea ontside of the ordinary territorial
limits, whether such rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any speeial
rights or jurisdietion held by her in such fisheries or in the waters of
Behring's Sea, or out of the ownership of the breeding islands and the habits
of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their young thereon and going
out from thle islands for food, or out of any other fact or incident connected
with the relation of theose seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the
6. If thlie determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject
in such a position that tle concurrenee of Great Britain is necessary in
prescribing Regulations for tlie killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters
of Blhring's Sea, then it shall be further determined: (1) HIow far, if at all,
outside the ordinary territorial limits it is neeessary tlat the United States
should exereise an exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect tle seal for the
time living upon tle islands of tle United States and feeding therefrom?
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 31
(2) Whether a closed season (during which the killing of seals in the waters Nr.- 1062.
of Behring's Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be prohibited) is staaten.
nceessary to save the seal fishing industry, so valuable and important to17.D-cb11O1.
mankind, from deterioration or destruction? And, if so, (3) What months or
parts of months should be included in such season, and over what waters it
should extend? |1 The repeated assertions that the Government of the United
States demands that the Behring's Sea be pronounced mare clausum are
without foundation. The Goverument has never claimed it and never desired it.
It expressly disavows it. At the same time the United States does not lack
abundant authority, aceording to the ablest exponents tof international law, for
holding a small section of the Behring's Sea for the protection of the fur-seals.
Controlling a comparatively restricted area of water for that one speeific purpose
is by no means the equivalent of deelaring the sea, or auy part thereof, mare clau-
sum. Nor is it by any means so serions an obstruction as Great Britain assumed
to make in the South Atlantic, nor so groundless an interference with the
common law of the sea as is maintained by British authority to-day in the
Indian Ocean. The President does not, however, desire the long postponement
which an examination of legal authorities from Ulpian to Phillimore and Kent
would involve. He finds his own views well expressed by Mr. Phelps, our
late Minister to England, when, after failing to secure a just arrangement
with Great Britain touching the seal fisheries, he wrote the following in his
closing communication to his own Government, 12th September, 1888:-
"Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the abstract
question of the right of mare elausum. I do not conceive it to be applicable
to the present ease. 1| "IIere is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly
managed, permanent industry, the property of the nations on whose shores it
is carried on. It is proposed by the Colony of a foreign nation, in defiance
of the joint remonstranee of all the eountries interested, to destroy this
business by the indiscriminate slaugther and extermination of the animals in
question, in the open neighbouring sea, during the period of gestation, wlien
the common dietates of humanity ought to protect them, were there no interest
at all involved. And it is suggested that we are prevented from defending
ourselves against such depredations because the sea at a certain distance from
the coast is free. 1| "The same line of argument would takc under its protection
piraey and the Slave Trade when prosecuted in the open sea, or would justify
one nation in destroying the commerce of another by placing dangerous
obstructions and dereliets in the open sea near its coasts. There are many
things that cannot be allowed to be done on the open sea with impunity, and
against which every sea is mare clausum: and the right of self-defence as to
person and property prevails there as fully as elsewhere. If the fish upon
the Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering poison in the open sea
adjacent with some small profit to those engaged in it, would Canada, upon
the just principles of international law, be held defenceless in such a case?
32 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
-N. 1036 2 Yet that process wonld be 110 more destructive, inhuman, and wanton than this.
Staaten. 'If precedeuts are wanting for a defenee so necessary and so proper, it is
n.Dec.isDo. because precedents for such a course of conduct are likewise unknown. The
best international law bas arisen from precedents that have been established
when tle just occasion for them arose, undeterred by the diseussion of abstract
and inadequate rules."
I have, &c.
James G. Blainc.
Couvention* between the United States and Russia relative to Navigation,
Fishing, and Trading in the Pacific Ocean, and to Establishments on
the North-West Coast. Concluded April 17, 1824; Ratifications ex-
changed at Washington, January 11, 1825; Proclaimed January 12, 1825.
In the Name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.
The President of the United States of Ameriea and Bis Majesty the
Emperor of All the Russias, wishing to cement the bonds of amity which
unite them, and to secure between them the invariable maintenance of a perfect
concord, by means of the present Convention, have named as their Pleni-
potentiaries to this effect, to wit:
The President of the United States of Ameriea, Henry Middleton, a eitizen
of said States, and their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
near His Imperial Majesty; and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias,
his beloved and faithful Charles Robert, Count of Nesselrode, Actual Privy
Counsellor, Member of the Council of State, Secretary of State directing the
administration of Foreign Affairs, Aetual Chamberlain, Knight of the Order of
St. Alexander Nevsky, Grand Cross of the Order of St. Wiadimir of the first
class, Knight of that of the White Eagle of Poland, Grand Cross of the Order
of St. Stephen of Hungary, Knight of the Orders of the Holy Ghost and
St. Michael, and Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour of France, Knight
Grand Cross of the Orders of the Black and of the Red Eagle of Prussia,
of the Annunciation of Sardinia, of Charles III of Spain, of St. Ferdinand and
of Merit of Naples, of the Elephant of Denmark, of the Polar Star of Sweden,
of the Crown of Wrtemberg, of the Guelphs of Hanover, of the Belgic Lion,
of Fidelity of Baden, and of St. Constantine of Parma; and Pierre de Poletica,
Actual Counsellor of State, Knight of the Order of St. Anne of the first
class, and Grand Cross of the Order of St. Wladimir of the second;
Who, after having exehanged their full powers, found in good and due
form, have agreed upon and signed tbe following stipulations:-
It is agreed that, in any part of the Great Ocean, eommonly called the
*) Translation from the original, which is in the French language.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 33
Paeific Ocean or South Sea, the respective eitizens or subjects of the High Nr.10362.
Contracting Powers shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation staaten.
or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts, upon points which.17.De.18 o.
may not already bave been occupied, for the purpose of trading with the natives,
saving always the restrictions and conditions determined by the following
With a view of preventing the rights of navigation and of fishing exer-
eised upon the Great Ocean by the citizens and subjects of the High Con-
tracting Powers from becoming the pretext for an illicit trade, it is agreed
that the eitizens of the United States shall not resort to any point where
there is a Russian estallishmcnt without the permission of the Governor or
Commander; and that, reciprocally, the subjects of Russia shall not resort,
without permission, to any establishment of the United States upon the north-
It is moreover agreed that, hereafter, there shall not be formed by the
citizens of the United States, or under the authority of the said States, any
establishment upon the north-west coast of America, nor in any of the islands
adjacent, to the north of 540 40' of north latitude; and tbat, in the same
manner, there shall be none formod by Russian subjects, or under the autho-
rity of Russia, south of the same parallel.
It is, nevertheles, understood that during a term of ten years, counting
from the signature of the present Convention, the ships of both Powers, or
which belong to their citizens or subjeets respeectively, may reciprocally frequent,
without any hindrance whatever, the interior seas, gulfs, harbours and ereeks
upon the coast mentioned in the preceding Artiele, for the purpose of fishing
and trading with the natives of the country.
All spirituous liquors, fire-arms, other arms, powder, and munitions of
war of every kind are always excepted from this same commerce permitted by
the preceding Artiele; and the two Powers engage, reciprocally, neither to
seil nor suffer tihem to be sold to the natives by their respective eitizens and
subjects, nor by any person who may be under their autliority. It is likewise
stipulated that this restriction sliall never afford a pretext, nor be advanccd
in any case to authorize either search or detention of the vessels, seizure of
tho merchandize, or, in fine, any measures of constraint whatever towards the
merchants or tle crews who may carry on this commerce; the High Contracting
Powers reciprocally reserving to themselves to determine upon the penalties
to be incurred, and to inflict the punishments in case of the contravention of
this Artiele by their respective eitizens or subjects.
Staatsarchiv LVI. 3
34 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.,
Nr. 0362. Article VI.
Staatsn. Whcin this Convention shall have been duly ratified by the President of
1. Dec.is the United States, with the advice and conscnt of the Senate on the one part,
and on the other by His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the rati-
fications shall be exchanged at Washington in the space of ten months fromi
the date below, or sooner if possible.
In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this Con-
vention, and thereto affixed the seals of their arms.
Done at St. Petersburgh the 5th (17th) April, of the year of Grace one
thousand eight hundred and twenty four.
Le Comte Charles de Nesselrode.
Pierre de Poletica.
Convention between Great Britain and Russia. Signed at St.
Petersburgh, February 16 (28), 1825; Presented to Parliament
May 16, 1825.
In the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, being desirous of drawing
still closer the ties of good understanding and friendship which unite themi, by
means of an Agreement which may settle, upon the basis of reciprocal con-
venience, different points eonnected with the commeree, navigation, and fisheries
of their subjects on the Pacific Ocean, as well as the limits of their respective
possessions on the north-west coast of America, have named Plenipotentiaries
to conclude a Convention for this purpose, that is to say:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, the Right Honourable Stratford Caiining, a Member of Iis said
Mlajesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, &c.
And His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, the Sicur Charles
Robert, Count de Nesselrode, His Imperial Majesty's Privy Councillor, a
Member of the Council of the Empire, Secretary of State for the Department
of Foreign Affairs, &c.; and the Sieur Pierre de Poletica, Bis Imperial
Majesty's Couneillor of State, &c.;
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers,
found in good and due form, have agreed upon and signcd the following Articles:-
It is agreed tliat the respective subjects of the High Coutracting Parties
shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean, commonly called
the Pacific Ocean, cither in navigating the same, in fishing therein, or in landing
Der Robenfang im Behringsmeere. 35
at such parts of the coast as shall not have been already occupied, in order Nr. 10362.
to trade with tbe natives, under th6 restrictions and conditions specified in statn
the following Artieles. 17. ue. 190.
In order to prevent the right of navigating and fishing exercised upon
thlie oeean by the subjects of the High Contracting Parties from becoming the
pretext for an illicit commerce, it is agreed that the subjects of His Britannie
lMajesty shall not land at any place where there may be a Russian estab-
lishment, without the permission of the Governor er Commandant; and, on the
other hand, that Russian subjects shall not land, without permission, at any
British establishment on the north-west coast.
The line of demarcation between the possessions of the High Contracting
Parties, upon the coast of the continent and the islands of America to the
north-west, shall be drawn in thie manner following:-
Commeneing from the southernmost point of the island called Prinee of
Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 540 40' north latitude, and
between the 131st and the 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of
Greenwich), the said line slall ascend to the north along the channel called
Portland Channel, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the
56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point the line of de-
marcation shall follow tle summit of the mountains situated parallel to the
coast, as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude
(of the same meridian); and, finally, from the said point of intersection, the
said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Fro-
zen Oeean, shall form the limit between the Russian and British possessions on
the Continent of America to the north-west.
With reference to the line of demarcation laid down in the preceding
Artiele, it is understood:-
1. That the island called Prinee of Wales Island shall belong wholly to
2. That wherever the summit of the mountains which extend in a direction
parallel to the coast, from the 56th degree of north latitude to the point of
intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude, shall prove to be at the
distance of more than 10 marine leagues from the ocean, the limit between
the British possessions and the line of coast which is to belong to Russia,
as above mentioned, shall be formed by a line parallel to the windings of
the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of 10 marine leagues
86 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Xr. 1036. Article V.
Staten. It is, moreover, agreed that no establishment sball be foroed by either
Dec. io.of the two Parties within the limits assigned by the two preceding Articles
to the possessions of the other; consequently, British snbjects shall not form
any establishment either upon the coast or upon the border of the continent
comprised within the limits of the Russian possessions, as designated in the
two preceding Articles; and, in like mianner, no establishment shall be formod
by Russian subjects beyond the said limits.
It is understood that the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, from whatever
quarter they may arrive, whether from the ocean or from the interior of the
continent, shall for ever enjoy the right of navigating freely, and without any
hindrance whatever, all the rivers and streams which, in thoir courso towards
the Pacific Ocean, may oross the line of demarcation upon the line of coast
desoribed in Artiele III of the present Convention.
It is also understood that, for the space of ten years from the signature
of the present Convention, the vessels of the two Powers, or those belonging
to their respective subjects, shall mntually be at liberty to frequent, without
any hindrance whatever, all the inland seas, thlie gulfs, havens, and creeks on
the coast mentioned in Article III, for the purposes of fishing and of trading
with the natives.
The port of Sitka, or Novo Archangelsk, shall be open to the commerce
and vessels of British subjects for the space of ten years from the date of
the exchange of the ratifications of the present Convention. In the event of
an extension of this term of ten years being granted to any other Power, the
like extension shall be granted also to Great Britain.
The above-mentioned liberty of commerce shlall not apply to the trade
in spiritunous liquors, in fire-arms, or other arms gunpowder, or other warlike
stores; the High Contracting Parties reciprocally engaging not to permit the
above-mentioned artieles to be sold or delivered, in any manner whatever, to
the natives of the country.
Every British or Russian vessel navigating the Pacific Ocean, which may
be compelled by storms or by accident to take shelter in the ports of the
respective Parties, shall be at liberty to refit therein, to provide itself with
all necessary stores, and to put to sea again, without paying any other than
port and lighthouse dues, which shall be the same as thoso paid by national
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 37
vessels. In case, however, the master of such vessel should be under the Nr. o0362.
necessity of disposing of a part of his merchandize in order to defray his staaten.
expenses, he shall conform himself to the Regulations and Tariffs of the place 7-Dec.189o.
where he may have landed.
In every case of complaint on account of an iufraction of the Articles
of the present Convention, the civil and military authorities of the High
Contracting Parties, without previously acting or taking any forcible measure,
shall make an exaet and circumstantial report of the mnatter to their respee-
tive Courts, who engage to settle the same in a friendly manner, and accor-
ding to the principles of justice.
The present Convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be
exchanged at London, within the space of six weeks, or sooner if possible.
In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same,
and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms.
Done at St. Petersburg the 16th (28th) day of February, in the year
of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and twenty five.
The Count de Nesselrode.
Pierre de Poletica.
List of Maps, with Designation of Waters now known as the Behring's
Sea, with Date and Place of Publication.
[In these Maps the waters south of Behring's Sea are variously designated as the
Pacific Ocean, Ocean Pacifique, Stilles Meer; the Great Ocean, Grande Mer, Grosse
Ocean; the Great South Sea, Gross Sd-See, Mer du Sud. And they are again further
divided, and the northern part designated as North Pacific Ocean, Partie du Nord de
la Mer du Sud, Partie du Nord de la Grande Mer, Grand Ocean Bordal, Nrdlicher
Theil des Grossen Sd-Meers, Nrdlicher Theil des Stillen Meers, Nrdliches Stilles
Meer, &c. In all the Maps, however, the Pacific Ocean, under one of these various
titles, is designated separate from the sea.]
Place of D
Name of Map, &c. Name of Sea. Publication. Date.
Accurate Chliarte von Nord Amerika, Sea of Anadir Unknown
from the best sources
Map made under direction of Mikhael KamtschatskischesMeer St. Petersburgh 1743
Gvosdef, Surveyor of the Shestakof
Expedition in 1730
Mappemonde, by Lowitz .... Mare Andiricum Berlin 1746
Geographieal Atlas of the Russian Kamtschatka or Beaver St. Petersburgh 1748
Empire, Alexander Vostchinine j Sea
8gg Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Sr. 10362. -- l -- -
vrinigte Name of Maps, &c. Name of Sen. Pub tiDate.
17,Dec.lS,0. l 'll c t e d a o a.
Carte de l'lsle de leso, corrected to Mer de Kamtschatka Paris 1754
date, by Philippe Buache, Academy
of Sciences, and Geographer to the
Mllers's Map of the Discoveries by Sea of Kamtschatka St. Petersbargh 1758
the Russians on the Eorth-West
Coast of America, prepared for the
Imperial Academy of Sciences
D'Auville's Map of the Western Ilemi- Sea of Anadir Paris 1761
Map of Hemisphlre Septentrional, by Mer Dormant Berlin 1762
Count Redfern, published by Royal
Academy of Sciences
Map published in the "London Sea of Kamtschatka London 1764
Map by S. Bellin, Engineer of the ,, ,, ,, ,, 176
Nouvelle Carte des Dicouvertes par Mer de Kamtschatka Amsterdam 1766
les Vaisseaux Russes aux ctes and Mer d'Anadir
inconnues de l'Am rique Septen-
Jeffery's American Atlas, printed by Sea of Kamtschatka and London 1768-72
R. Sayers and J. Bennett Sea of Anadir
Road Map from Paris to Tobolsken Sen of Kamtschatka Paris 1769
Dowle's Atlas; Map of the World Sea of Anadir London 1770
Map of the Eastern part of the Rus- Mare Kamtschatkiensae St. Petersbnrgh 1771
sian Territory, by J. Truscott
Map ofthe NewNorthernArchipelago, Sen of Kamtschatka and London 1774
in J. von Staehlin Storcksburg's Sea of Anadir
lately discovered by the Russians
in the Seas of Kamtschatka and
Samuel Dunn's Map of North America Sea of Anadir 1774
Chart of Russian Discoveries from the Sea of Kamtschatka ,, 1775
Map published by the Imperial
Academy ofSt. Petersburgh (Robert
Sayer, printseller), published as the
Jeffery's Atlas; Chart containing part ,, ,, ,, 1770
of Iey Sea and adjacent Coasts of
Asia and America; published in
1775, according to Act ofParliament,
by Sayer and Bennett
Jeffery's Atlas; Chart of the Russian ,, 1776
Discoveries, from Map published
by Imperial Academy of Sciences;
published by Robert Sayer, March 2,
Atlas, Thomas Jcffery's (Geographer ,, ,, ,, ,, 1776
to King), American; Chart containing
the Coasts of California, New
Albion, ;nd the Russian discoveries
to the North
Map in th<: French Encyclopmdia ,, ,, Paris 1777
Schmidi's Atlas . . 1777
Jeflfcry's Atlas .... .. London 1778
(arte der Entdeckungen zwischen KamtschathisciesMeer 1780
Silbria aund Amerika to the year 1780
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 39
S- of _-_ -- Nr. 10362.
Place of De Vereinigte
Name of Map, &c. Name of Sea. Publication. Date. staten.
__ 17. Dec. It91
Map of the New Discoveries in the Kamtschatka or Beaver St. Petersburgh 1781
Eastern Ocean Sea
St. Petersburgh Atlas ... Sea of Kamtschatka 1782
Halbkugel der Erde, by Bode . Kamtschatka Sea Berlin 1783
Chart of the North-West Coast of Sea of Kamtschatka London 1784
America and the North-East Coast
of Asia, prepared by Lieutenant
HenryRoberts, underthe immediate
inspection ofCaptain Cook; published
by William Faden
Map of the Empire of Russia and Kamtschatkische oder Nuremburg 1786
Tartary, hy F. L. Gulsefeld Biber Meer
Map of Discoveries made by the Rus- Sea of Kamtschatka St. Petersburgl 1787
Dunn's Atlas; Map of the World ,, ,, London 1788
D'Auville's Atlas; Map of the World, ,, ,, ,, 1788
wvith improvements; prepared for
J. Harrison, as the Act directs
Meares' Voyages; Chart of North- ,, 1790
West Coast of America
Chart of the World, exhibiting all ,, ,, ,, 1790
the new discoveries to the present
time, with the tracts of the most
distinguished navigators from the
year 1700, carefully collected from
the best Charts, Maps,Voyages, &c.,
extaut, by A. Arrowsmith, Geo-
grapher, as the Act directs
Chart of the Great Ocean, or South Sea of Kamtschatka Paris 1791
Sea, conformable to the account
of the voyage of discovery of the
French frigates "La Boussole" and
"L'Astrolahe"; La Prouse
lKarted.Nordensv. Amerika;G. Forster Kamtschatka Sea Berlin 1791
Greenough's Map inWilkinson's At- Sea of Kamtschatka London 1791
lasMap ofthl North-Easternpartof Kamtschatka Sea St. Petersblurgh 1791
Siberia, the Frozen Sea, tle Eastern
Ocean, and North-Western Coasts
of America, indicating Billing's
Arrowsmith's Map of the World Sea of Kamtschatka London 1794
Charte von Amerika, F. L. Gulsefeld Kamtschatkisches Meer Nurnberg 1796
Atlas of Mathew Carey; Map of the Sea of Kamntschatka Philadelphia 1796
World from the best authorities,
and Map of Russian Empire in
Europe and Asia
Chart of North Amerika, by J. Wilkes, ,, ,, ,, London 1796
"as Act directs"
Halbkugel der Erde . . . Nuremberg 1797
Chart von Nord Amerika, by F. L. Kamtschatka Sea
Gulsefeld Kamtschatkiscbes Meer Nurnberg 1797
C.F.Delmarche's Atlas; Mappemonde, Sea of Kamtsehatka Paris 1797
by Robert du Vaugondy, including
new Discoveries of Captain Cook
LaP&rouse's Chart of the Great Ocean, London 1798
er South Sea, conformably to the
discoveries of the French frigates
"La Boussole" and "L'Astrolabe",
40 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. lai36. --- -
eregte Name of Map, &c. Name of Sea. Pla o Date.
1l.Dec.1 SP. -- -j- -
published in conformity with the
Derree of the French National
Assembly, 1791, translated and
printed by J. Johnson.
W. Heather's Marine Atlas Sea of Kamtschatka London 1799
Greenongh's Atlas: Map by Vibrecht Mer de Kamtschatka Edinburgh 1800
entitled "Carte de la Gote Nord-
and showing the liscoveries of
the Russians and Portlock and
Willinson's General Atlas; a new Sea of Kamtschatka London 1800
Mlercator's Chart drawn from the
Map of the World; Graberg . Bacino di Behriug Geneva 1802
Map Magazine, composed according Beaver Sea or Sea of St. Petersburgh 1802
to the latest observations of foreign Kamtschatka
navigators, corrected to 1802
Map of Meer von Kamtschatka, with Meer von Kamtschatka Weimar 1808
the routes of Captain Jos. Billings
and Mart. Sauer, drawn by Fred.
Gotze, to accompany Report of
Billings' Russian Official Visit to
Aleutia and Alaska.
Atlas des Ganzen Erdkreises, by Meer von Kamtscbatka 1803
Christian Gottlieb Reichard
Arrowsmith's General Atlas Sea of Kamtschatka London 1804
Map of Savrilia Sarytscheff's journey ,, ,, Leipsie 1805
in the North-East Sea
JedediahMorse'sMapofNorthAmerica ,, ,, Boston 1805
Robert Wilkinson's General Atlas; ,,,, London 1807
new Mercator's Chart
Atlas of the Russian Empire, adopted Kamtschatka or Beaver St. Petersburgh 1807
by the General Direction of Schools. Sea
General Map of the travels of Captain Kamtschatka Sea ,, 1807-9
Map in Carey's Atlas ... . Sea of Kamtschatka London 1808
Lieutenant Roberts' Chart, improved ,, ,, ,, ,, 1808
Mappemonde in Atlas of Malte-Brun Bassing de Behring Paris 1809
Dunn's Atlas . ........ ... Sea of Kamtschatka London 1810
Karte des Grossen Oceans, usually Kamtschatkisches Meer Hamburg 1810
the South Sea; Sotzmann
Chart von Amerika; Streits . Sea of Kamtschatka Weimar 1810
Arrowsmith's Map of North Amerira ,, ,, London 1811
Map of the World in Pinkerton's Atlas ,, ,, ,, 1812
Map by Lapie .. Bassin du Nord Paris 1812
"Carte d'Amnrique, rddigde d'aprbis Bassin de Behring 1813
celle d'Arrowsmith, cn quatre plan-
ches et sonmise aux observations
astronomiques de M. de Humboldt";
Map of Occania, or the Fiftli Part of Bassin du Nord Paris 1814
the World, including a portion of
America and the coasts ofAsia, by
Neele's General Atlas; Samuel and Sea of Kamtschatka London 1814
Der Robbenfang im Bebringsmeere. 41
N- -r. 10362.
Name of Map, &c. Name of Sea. plat of Date. rtn
,.. 17. Dec. 190.,
*Chart v. Amerika; Geogr. Institute Meer von Kamtschatka Weimar 1814
Map ofthelWorld, byVonKrusenstern Meer von Kamtschatka St. Petersburgh 1815
Encyproptype de l'Amnrique Septen- Bassin du Nord Paris 1815
trionale, by Brue
Smith's General Atlas . .. Sea of Kamtschatka London 1815
Allgemeinewelt Charte, with Voyage , ,, ,, 1815
Grand Atlas Universel, edited by Bassin du Nord Paris 1816
Desray; Mappemonde, by Goujon,
AtlasEldmentaire, by Lapie et Poirson Bassin du Nord ou ,, 1816
Amrrique Septentrionale et Meridio- Mer de Behring on ,, 1816
nale; Lapie Bassin da Nord
Map in Thompson's Atlas . .. Sea of Kamtschatka Edinburgh 1817
Fielding Lucas' Atlas . .. ,, ,, Baltimore 1817
Reichard,andVonHaller'sGermanAtlas ,, ,, Weimar 1818
Map in Greenongh's Atlas . . ,, ,, Edinburgh 1818
John Pinkerton's Modern Atlas ,, ,, Philadelplhia 1818
Map engraved by Kirkwood and Sons ,, ,, Edinburgh 1819
Chart of the Russian and English Dis- , London 1819
coveries in the Nortli Pacific Ocean,
by Captain James Burney, F.U.S.
Carte Genrale de l'Amrique; 1De Mer de Behring ou Paris 1819
Lamarche Bassin du Nord
Carte de l'Amrique Septentrionale Bassin du Nord 1820
et M6ridionale; Ilennon
Chart of Alaska, by J. K. Eyries and Behring Sea ,, 1821
Chart of thie Arctie Ocean and North ,, ,, Weimar 1821
America, by Lapie
Carte Genurale du Globe; Brue . Mer de Behring Paris 1821
Mappemonde; Tardieu . . Mer de Behring ,, 1821
Atlas of La Vogne; M. Carey . Sea of Kamtschatka Plhiladelphia 1821
Atlas Universel of A. H. Brum Mer de Behring Paris 1822
Mappemone; HIerisson . .. Mer de Behring ,, 1823
Map to illustrate the Voyage of Sea of Kamtschatka St. Petersburgh 1823
Fielding Lacas' Atlas . ... ,, ,, Philadelphia 1823
Fielding Lucas' Atlas . . ..,, ,, Baltimore 1823
Amnrique Septentrionale; Lapie . Mer de Behring Paris 1824
Atlas Classique et Universel, by Mer de Behring ot 1824
M. Lapie . . . . Bassin du Nord
Anthony Finley's Atlas ..... Sea of Kamtschatka Philadelphia 1824
Atlas of Buchon; Cartes des Posses- Bassin da Nord Paris 1825
Map in Butler's Atlas .. .. Sea of Kamtschatka London 1825
Atlas Historique de la Sage Mer de Behring Paris 1829
*) This Chart also disignates the coast from Columbia River (490) to Cape Eliza-
beth (6t0) as the "Nord-West-Kuste".
Seetion 4 of "An Act for regulating the Intercourse with the Island of St.
Helena during the time Napoleon Bonaparte shall be detained there, and
for indemnifying Persons in the cases therein mentioned (lth April, 1816)."
Section 4. And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for
42 Der Robbenfang im Behringsneere.
Nr. 103o2. the Governor, or, in his absence, the Deputy Governor, of the said Island of
Staaten. St. Helena, by all necessary ways and means, to hinder and prevent any ship,
18. Dec.iso0. vessel, or boat from repairing to, trading, or touching at said island, or having
any commnnication with the same, and to hinder and prevent any person or
persons from landing upon the said island from such ship, vessel, or boats,
and to seize and detain all and every person and persons that shall land
upon the said island from the same; and all such ships, vessels, or boats
(except as above excepted) as shall repair to, or touch at, tbe said island, or
shall be found hovering within 8 leagnes of the coast thereof, and which shall
or may belong, in the whole or in part, to any subject or snbjeets of His
Majesty, or to any person or persons owing allegiance to His Majesty, shall
and are herehy declared to be forfeited to His Majesty, and shall and may
be seized and detained, and brought to England, and shall and may be prosecuted
to condemnation by IIis Mlajesty's Attorney-General, in any of His lajesty's
Courts of Record at Westminster, in such manner and form as any ship,
vessel, or boat may be seized, detained, or prosecuted for any breach or
violation of the Navigation or Revenue Laws of this country; and the offence
for which such ship, vessel, or boat shall be proceeded against shall and may
be laid and charged to lave been done and committed in the County of Midd-
lesex; and if any ship, vessol, or boat, not belonging in the whole or in part
to any person or persons the subject or subjects of, or owing allegiance to,
His Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall repair to, or trade or touch at,
the said Island of St. Helena, or shall be found hovering within 8 leagues
of the coast thereof, and shall not depart from the said island or the coast
thereof when and so soon as the master or other person having the charge
and command thereof shall be ordered so to do by the Governor or Lieute-
nant-Governor of the said island for the time being, or by the Commander
of His Majesty's naval or military force stationed at or oft the said island
for the time being (unless in case of unavoidable necessity or distress of
weather), such ship or vessel slall be deemed forfeited, and shall and may
be seized and detained and prosecuted, in the same manner as is herein before
enacted as to slips, vessels, or boats of or belonging to any subject or subjeets
of His Majesty.
Nr. 10363. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Auswrtiges Amt an den eng-
lischen Vertreter in Washington. Antwort auf das
Vorige. EnglischeBedingnngen fftrein Schiedsgericht.
Foreign Office, February 21, 1891.
.Yr. 10o.3. The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir J. Pauncefote.
Gro-n. Sir, The despatch of bir. Blaine, under date of the l7th December, Las
L.Fru.tlsl. been carefully considered by Her 'ajcsty's Government. The effect of the
discussion whiich lhas been carried on betwcen the two Governments has been
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 43
materially to narrow the area of controversy. It is now quite clear that the Ir. 1os2..
advisers of the President do not claim Behring's Sea as a marc clausum, and ritaniosn.
indeed that they repudiate that contention in express terms. Nor do they21.Febar.l1.
rely, as a justification for the seizure of British ships in the open sea, upon
the contention that the interests of the seal fisheries give to the United
States' Government any right for that purpose which, according to inter-
national law, it would not otherwise possess. Whatever importance they attach
to the preservation of the fur-scal species,-and they justly look on it as an
object deserving the most serions solicitude,-they do not conceive that it
confers upon any Maritime Power rights over the open ocean which that
Power could not assert on other grounds. 1| The elaim of the United States
to prevent the exercise of the seal fishery by other nations in Behring's Sea
rests now exclusively upon the interest which by purchase they possess in a
Ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander I. in the year 1821, which prohibits
foreign vessels from approaching within 100 Italian miles of the coasts and
islands then belonging to Russia in Behring's Sea. It is not, as I under-
stand, contended that the Russian Government, at the time of the issue of
this Ukase, possessed any inherent right to enforce such a probibition, or
acquired by the act of issuing it any claims over the open sea beyond the
territorial limit of 3 miles, which they would not otherwise have possessed.
But it is said that this prohibition, worthless in itself, acqnired validity and
force against the British Government beeause that Government can be shown
to have accepted its provisions. The Ukase was a mere usurpation; but it
is said that it was converted into a valid international law, as against the
British Government, by the admission of that Government itself. |1 I am not
concerned to dispute the contention that an invalid claim may, as against
another Government, acquire a validity which in its inception it did not
possess, if it is formally or effectively accepted by that Government. But the
vital question for decision is whetlier any other Government, and especially
whether the Government of Great Britain, has ever accepted the claim put
forward in this Ukase. Our contention is, that not only can it not be shown
that the Government of Great Britain, at any time since 1821, has admitted
the soundness of the pretension put forward by that Ukase, but that it can
be shown that it has categorically denied it on more than one occasion. On
the 18th January, 1822, four months after the issue of the Ukase, Lord
Londonderry, then British Foreign Secretary, wrote in the following terms to
Count Lieven, the Russian Ambassador, in London:-
"Upon the subject of this Ukase generally, and especially upon the two
main prineiples of claim laid down therein, viz., an exclusive sovereignty
alleged to belong to Russia over the territories therein deseribed, as also
the exelusive right of navigating and trading within the maritime limits therein
set forth, His Britannic Majesty must. be understood as hereby reserving all
bis rights, not being prepared to admit that the intercourse which is allowed
44 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
.r, 1L)03. on the face of this instrument to have hitherto subsisted on those coasts and
.ross- in those seas can be deemed to be illicit; or that the ships of friendly Powers,
2t.Febr.1891.even supposing an unqualified sovereignty was proved to appertain to the
Imperial Crown, in these vast and very imperfectly oeeupied territories, could
by the acknowledged law of nations, be excluded from navigating within the
distance of 100 Italian miles, as thercin laid down, from the coast."
On the 17th October in the same year the Duke of Wellington, Ambas-
sador at Verona, addressed to Count Nesselrode a note containing the following
"Objecting, as we do, to this claim of exelusive sovereignty on the part
of Russia, I might save myself tle trouble of discussing the particular mode
of its exereise as set forth in this Ukase. But we object to the sovereignty
proposed to be exercised under this Ukase not less than wo do to the elaim
of it. We cannot admit the right of any Power possessing the sovereignty
of a country to exclude the vessels of others from the seas on its coasts to
the distance of 100 Italian miles.."
Again, on the 28th November, 1822, the Duke of Wellington addressed
a note to Count Lieven containing the following words:-
"The second ground on which we object to the Ukase is that His Im-
perial Majesty thereby excludes from a certain considerable extent of the
open sea vessels of other nations. We contend that the assumption of this
power is contrary to the law of nations; and we cannot find a negotiation
upon a paper in which it is again broadly asserted. We contend that no
Power whatever can exclude another from the use of the open sea; a Power
can exelude itself from tle navigation of a eertain coast, sea, &c., by its own
act or engagement, hut it cannot by right be excluded by anothler. This we
consider as the law of nations; and we cannot negotiate upon a paper in
which a right is asserted inconsistent with this principle."
It is evident, therefore, that so far as diplomatie representation went, the
King's Government of that date took every step which it was in their power
to take, in order to make it elear to the Russian Government that Great
Britain did not accept the elaim to exelude her subjeets for 100 miles
distance from the coast, which had been put forward in the Ukase of 1821. |
bIr. Blaine does not deal with these protests, whieh appear to Her Majesty's
Government to be in themselves amply sufficient to deeide the question,
whether Great Britain did or did not acquiesce in the Russian claim put
forward by the Ukase. IHe confines himself mainly, in the despatch under
consideration, to the consideration of the Treaties which were subsequently
made between Great Britain and Russia and America and Russia in the year
1825; and especially of that between Russia and Great Britain. This Treaty,
of wich tlhe text is printed at the close of Mr. Blaine's despatch, does not
contain a word to signify the acquiescence of Great Britain in the claim
recently put forward by Russin to control tlie waters of the sea for 100 miles
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 45
from her coast. There is no stipulation upon which this interpretation can Nr. 10363,
be imposed by any process of construction wliatsoever. But there is a provi- britannien.
sion having in our judgment a totally opposite tendency, which indeed to'21'Febr.189]'
negative the extravagant claim that had reccently been made on the part of
Russia; and it is upon this provision that the main part of Mr. Blaine's
argument, as I understand it, is founded. The stipulation to which I refer is
contained in the Ist Artiele, and runs as follows:-
"Article I. It is agreed that tle respective subjects of the High Con-
tracting Parties shall not be troubled or molested in any part of the ocean,
commonly called the Pacifie Ocean, either in navigating the same, in fishing
therein, or in landing at such parts of the coast as shall not have been
already occupied, in order to trade with the natives, under the restrictions
and conditions specified in the following Artieles."
I understand Mr. Blaine's argument to be that if Great Britain had
intended to protest against the claim of Russia to exclude ships for 100
miles from her coasts in Behring's Sea, she would have taken this opportunity
of doing 'so; but that in confining herself to stipulations in favour of fall
liberty of navigation and fishing in any part of the ocean, commonly called
the Pacific Ocean, she, by implication, renonnced any claim tliat could arise out
of the same set of circumstances in rcgard to any sea that was not part of
the Pacific Ocean. And then Mr. Blaine goes on to contend that the phrase
"Paeific Ocean" did not and does not include Behring's Sea. |1 Even if this
latter contention were correct, I should earnestly demur to tlie conclusion
that our inherent rights to free passage and free fishing over a vast extent
of ocean could be effectively renounced by mere reticence or omission. The
right is one of which we could not be deprived unless wo consented to abandon
it, and that consent could not be sufficiently inferred from our negotiators
having omitted to mention the subject upon one particular occasion. But I
am not prepared to admit the justice of Mr. Blaine's contention that the
words "Pacific Ocean" did not include Behring's Sea. I believe that in common
parlance, then and now, Behring's Sea was and is part of the Pacific Ocean;
and that the latter words were used in order to give the fullest and widest
scope possible to the claim which the British negotiators were solemnly recor-
ding of a right freely to navigate and fish in every part of it, and throughout
its entire extent. In proof of the argument that the words "Pacific Ocean"
do not include Behring's Sea, Mr. Blaine adduces a long list of Maps in which
a designation distinct from that of "Pacific Ocean" is given to Behring's Sea;
either "Behring's Sea," or "Sea of Kamschatka" or the "Sea of Anadir." The
argument will hardly have any force unless it is applicable with equal truth
to all the other oceans of the world. But no one will dispute that the Bay
of Biscay forms part of tle Atlautic Oceau, or that the Gulf of Lyons forms
part of the Mediterranean Sea; and yet in most Maps it will be found tliat
to those portions of the larger sea a separate designation has been given.
4g Der Robbenfang im Behringeere.
Nr. o103s. The question whether by the words "Paific Ocean" ithe negotiators meant to
britauien includc or to exelude Behring's Sea depends upon whieh locution was esteeied
l-.Febr.ilI.to be the correct usage at the time. The date is not a distant one, and
there is no gronnd for suggesting that the usage has ehanged sinee the
Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 was signed. The determination of this point
will be most satisfactorily ascertained by consulting the ordinary books of
reference. I append to this despatch a list of some thirty works of this class,
of various dates from 1795 downwards, and printed in various eountries,
which combiue to show that, in customary parlance, the words "Paeific Ocean"
do include Behring's Sea. |j If, then, in ordinary language, the Pacific Ocean
is used as a phrase including the whole sea from Behring's Straits to the
Antarctic Cirele, it follows that thlie Ist Article of the Treaty of 1825 did
seeure to Great Britain in thlie fullest manner the freedom of navigation and
fishing in Behring's Sea. In that case no inference, however indirect er
cireuitons, can be drawn from any omission in the language of that instrument
to show that Great Britain acquiesced in the usurpation which theUkase of 1821 had
attempted. The othor documents which I liave quoted sufficiently establish that she
only did not acquiesce in it, but repudiated it more than once in plain and
unequivocal terms; and as the claim made by the Ukase has 1o strength or
validity except what it miglit derive from the assent of any Prower whom it
might affeet, it results that Russia has never acquired by the Ukase any
right to curtail the natural liberty of Her Majesty's subjcets to navigate or
fishl in these seas anywhere outside territorial waters. And what Russia did
not herself possess she was not able to transmit to the United States. ]j Her
Majesty's Government have, in view of these eonsiderations, no doubt whatever
that British subjeets enjoy the same rights in Bohring's Sea which belong to
them in evory other portion of the open ocean; but it is, nevertheless, a matter
of sincere satisfaction that the President is willing to refer to arbitration
what hle eoneeives to be the matters which have been under discussion between
the two Governments for the last four years. In regard to the questions as
they are proposed by Mr. Blaine, I should say that as to the first and second,
no objection will be offered by Her Majesty's Government. They are as follows:-
"l1. What exelusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring's
Sea, and what exelusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert
and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the
"2. IIow far were these claims of jurisdietion as to the seal fisheries
recognized and conceded by Great Britain?"
The third question is expressed in the following terms: "Was the body
of water now known as the Beliring's Sea included in the phrase 'Paeific
Ocean,' as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia;
and what rights (if any) in the Behring's Sea were given or conceded to
Great Britain by the said Treaty?"
Der Robbenfang im Behringstmeere. 47
Her Majesty's Government would have no objcction to referring to X.T- 1063.
arbitration the first part of that question, if it should be thought desirable britannion.
to do so; but they would give that consent with the reservation that they 2.Febr.1s91.
do not admit that the decision of it can conclude the larger questions which
the Arbitrator would have to determine. To the latter part of No. 3 it
would be their duty to take exception:-
"Wlat rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea were given er conceded to
Great Britain by the said Treaty?"
Great Britain has never suggested that any rights were given to her or
conceded to her by the said Treaty. All that was done was to recognizc her
natural riglit of frcee navigation and fishing in tlat as in all other parts of
the Pacific Ocean. Russia did not give those rights to Great Britain, because
they were nover hers to give away.
"4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal
fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary in the Treaty between
the United States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass unimpaired to
the United States under that Treaty?"
This fourth question is hardly worth referring to an Arbitrator, as Great
Britain would be prepared tu accept it without dispute.
The fifth proposed question runs as follows:-
"5. What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal
fisheries in the waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary territorial
limits, whether such rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special
rights or jurisdiction held hy her in such fisheries er in the waters of
Behring's Sea, er out of the ownership of the breeding islauds, and the hlabits
of the seals in resorting thither and rearing their young thereon, and going
out from the islands for food, er out of any other fact or incident connectcd
with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the
The first elause, "What are now thlie rights of the United States as to
the fur-seal fisheries in the waters of the Behring's Sea outside of the ordinary
territorial limits?" is a question which would be very properly refcrred to
the decision of an Arbitrator. But the subsequent clause, which assumes that
such rights could have grown out of the ownership of the breeding islands,
and the habits of the seals in resorting thereto, involves an assumption as
to the prescriptions of international law at the present time to which Her
M.ajesty's Government are not prepared to accede. The sixth question, which
deals with the issues that will arise in case the controversy should be deeided
in favour of Great Britain, would perhaps more fitly form the substance of
a separate reference. Her lMajesty's Goverument have no objection to refer
the general question of a close time to arbitration, er to aseertain by that
ineans how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the preser-
vation of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain words
48 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Xr. ioa03. appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter to the
ritanien. United States. [| There is one omission in these questions which I have no
a.lebr.is9. doubt the Goverinment of the President will be very glad to repair; and that
is the reference to the Arbitrator of the question, what damiages are due to
the persons who have been injured, in case it shall be determiaed by hirn
that the action of the United States in seizing British vessels has been
without warrant in international law. Subject to these reservations, Her
Majesty's Government will have great satisfaction in joining with the Govern-
ment of the United States in seeking by nmeans of arbitration an adjustmient
of the international questions which have so long formed a matter of controversy
between the two Governments. || I have to request that you will read this
despatch to 3Ir. Blaine, and leave a copy of it with hirn should he desire it.
I am, &c. Salisbury.
Kamschatka Sea, is a large brauch of the Oriental or North Pacifie
Beering's Straits,which is the passage from the North Pacifice Ocean to the.
Arctic Sea. (.lMahai, John. "Kraa Gazetieer," 1795.)
Beering's Island. An island in tle Pacific Ocean. [Behring's Island is in
Kamschatka. Bounded east and south by Pacific. (Brookes, B. "General
Kamtschatka. Bounded on the north by the country of the Koriaes, on
the east and south by the North Pacific Ocean, and on the west by the Sea of
Okotsk. (Montefiore. "Commercial Diction ary." 1803.)
Beering's Island. In the North Pacifie Ocean. ("Geogrhical Ditlionary."
Beering's Island. An island in the North Pacific Ocean.
Kamtchatka. River, which runs into the North Pacific Ocean.
Kamtchatka. Peninsula, bounded on the east and south by the North
Paeific Ocean. (Crultwell, C. "NecwUniversal Gaecitecr." 1808.)
Islands in the Eastern or Great Paeific Ocean: Bhering's Isle. (Ma nall,
R. "Compendium of Geography." 1815.)
Stilles Meer. Vom 5 nrdl. Br. an bis zur Beringsstrasse aufwrts stets
heftige Strme, [Behring's Strait is at the northern extremity of Behring's
Sea.] (Galleiti, J. G. A. "Geographisches Wrterbuch." Pesth, 1822,)
Behring's Island. An island in the North Pacific Ocean. ("Edinburgh
Gazettecr," Edition 1822, vol. i, p. 432.)
Beering's Island. In the North Paeific Ocean. ("General Gazetleer." Lon-
Beering's Island. In the Pacific. ("New London Universal Gazelteer." 1826.)
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 49
Mer Pacifique. 11 s'etend du nord au sud depuis le Cercle Polaire Arctiquc, Kr. 1O362
c'est--dire, depuis le D6troit de Behring, qui le fait communiquer l'Ocan brtanm.
Glacial Austral. ("Dictionaire G7ographigque Universel, 18s98.) 21.Febr.1891,
Stilles IMeer. Vom 30 sdlicher Breite bis zum 5 nrdlicher Breite
verdient es durch seine Heiterkeit und Stille den namen des Stillen Meers;
von da an bis zur Beringsstrasse ist es heftigen Strmen unterworfen. (Seitz,
Dr. J. C. "Geographisches-Sftaistisches Handwirterbuch." I[alberstadt, 1829)
Beering's Island. In the North Pacific Ocean. ("Penny National Library:
Geography and Gazetteer." 1830.)
Bhering's Strait connects the Frozen Ocean with the lPacific. (Arrowsmith).
The Anadir flows into the Pacific Ocean. ("Grammar of Mlodern Geo-
The priucipal gulfs of Asiatic Russia are: the Gulf of Anadir, ncar
ihcring's Strait; the Sea of Peujina, and the gulf of Okhotsk, between
Kamntchatka and the mainland of Russia-all thrce in the Pacific Ocean.
L'OcIan Pacifique Boreal s'ktend depuis le DUtroit de Behring jusqu'au
tropique de Cancer. ("Pricis de la Geographice Universelle," par Malte-Brun,
vol. II, p. 181, L'dition 1835).
Le Detroit de Behring. A commencer par co dEtroit, le Grand Oc6an
(ou 0can Pacifique) forme la limite orientale de l'Asie. (Ditto, vol. VIII, p). 4.)
Behring (DAtroit c6lbre). II joint l'Ocean Glacial Arctique au Grand
Oc6an. (Langlois. "Dietionnaire de GroyrapJie." 1838.)
The Pacific Ocean. Its boundary-line is pretty well determined by the
adjacent continents, which approach one another towards the north, and at
Behring's Strait which separates them, are only about 36 miles apart. This
strait may be considered as closing the Pacific on the north. ("Peiny Cyclo-
Behring (Detroit de) l'extr6mit6 nord-est de l'Asie, s6pare co Continent
de l'Amerique et l'Ocean Glacial Arctique de l'Ocean Pacifique.
Behring (Mer de), partie de l'Ocean Pacifique. ("Dictionnaire Universel
d'Hisfoire et de Geographie," par 1M. N. Bouillet. Paris, 1842.)
Behring (Ddtroit de). Canal de l'oc6an . . unissant les eaux de l'Ocean
Pacifique celles de l'Oean Aretique. ("Dictionnaire Giograplhique et Statis-
tique," par Adrien Ghtibert. Paris, 1850.)
Pacific Ocean. Between longitude 700 west and 1100 east, that is for a
space of over 180-it covers the greater part of tbe carth's surface, from
Behring's Straits to the Polar Circle, that separates it from the Antarctic
Ocean. ("The New American Cyclopaedia," edited by George Bipley and
Charles A. Dana. New York, 1851.)
Behring (D6troit de). Canal du Grand Oc6an unissant les eaux de l'Ocan
Pacifique celles de l'Ocean Glacial Arctique. ("Grand Dictionnaire de Geo-
graphie Universelle," par lf. Bescherelle AinM. 4 vols. 1855.)
Behring's Sea, sometimes called the Sea of Kamtchatka, is that portion
Staatsa rchiv LVI. 4
50 Der Eobbenfang im Behringsmeele.
Ns. 106.- of the Nortli Pacific Ocean lying between the Aleutian Islands and Behring's
briuni Strait. "Imperial Gazeteer," 1855.)
l.Erbr.ig9i. Behring's Island. An island in the North Pacific Ocean. (F Zlartons "Gazet-
teer of the World." 1856.)
Behring's Strait, which connects the Pacifie with the Aretic Ocean, is
formed by the approach of the Continents of America and Asia. ("Cylopaedia
of Geograpihy," by Charles Knight. 1856.)
Pacific Ocean. Its extreme southern limit is the Antarctie Cirele, froin which
it stretches northward through 132 degrees of latitude to Behring's Strait,
which separates it from the Aretic Ocean. (1cCulloch's "Geograplhical Dic-
tionary," edited by F. Martin. 1866.)
Bering (D6troit de). Canal ou bras de mer unissant les eaux de l'Ocean
Glacial Arctique celles de l'Ocan Pacifique. ("Grand .Dictionnaire Unierscl,"
par 21. Pierre Labousse. Paris, 1867.)
Behring's Strait, The narrow sea between the north-east part of Asia and
the north-west part of North America, connecting the North Pacific with the
Arctic Ocean. ("Encyclopaedia Britannica," 1875.)
Behring (D6troit de). Passage qui unit l'Ocean Glacial Aretique au Grand
Oc6an. (St.-Martin. "ouveau Lictionnaire de Gographie Uiverselle." Paris, 1879.)
Behring Sea, or Sea of Kamchatka, is that part of the North Paeific
Ocean between the Alentian Islands in latitude 550 north and Behring Strait
in latitude 66"1 north, by which latter it communicates with the Arctie Ocean.
(Lippincott's "Gazetteer of the World." Phildelphia, 1880.)
Behring, or Bhering. A strait, sea, island and bay, North Pacific Ocean.
(rycce and Johnston, Cyelopaedia of Geography." London and Glasgow, 1880.)
Bering's Meer. Der nordstlichste Teil des Stillen Ocean's. (Brockhaus'
"Conversations-Lexicon" Leipzig, 1882.)
Beringsstrasse. Meerenge das nordstlichste Eismeer mit dem Stillen Occau
verbindend. (Ritter's "Gcographisch-Statistisc.hes Lexicon." Leipzig, 1883.)
Behring's Sea. Nortli-east part of the Pacific between Asia and America.
("Pocket 1Encyclopaedia." Sampson Low. 1888.)
Behring Strait connects the Pacific with the Arctic Ocean.
Behring Sea. A part of the Pacifie Ocean, commonly knowin as the Sea
of Kamchatka. (Chamnber's "Encyclopaedia", 1888.)
Behring's Strait, connecting the North Pacifie with the Aretic Occau.
Behring's Sea, sometimes callcd the Sea of Kamchatka, is that portion of
the North Pacifie Occan lying between the Aleutian Islands and Behring's Strait.
(Blakie's "Mfodern Cyclopacdia", 1889. Edition.)
In support of liis argument that the term "Pacifie Ocean" was not under-
stood at the time as including Behring's Sea, Mr. Blaine has quoted a note
which, it appears, was prcscnted by the Russian Minister at Washington after
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 51
the ratification of the Treaty of the 5th (17th) April, 1824, between the Unitedr. uss.
States and Russia. britnnien.
In this note Baron Tuyl stated that "the Aleutiau Islands, the coasts of21.Vebr.1891.
Siberia, and the Russian possessions in general on the north-west coast of
Ameriea to 590 30' of north latitude were positively excepted from the liberty
of hunting, fishing, and commerce stipnlated in favour of United States'
citizens for ten years." The rights alluded to could not be those contained
in the Ist Artiele of the Treaty, which is unlimited in duration, bhut those of
frequenting the interior seas, harbours, and creeks conferred by Article IV.
Baron Tuyl grounded this construction of the Treaty on the argument
that "the coasts of Siberia are washed by the Sea of Okhotsk, tle Sea of
Kamschatka, and the Icy Sea, and not by the South Sea mentioned in the Ist
Artiele of the Convention," and that "the Aleutian Islands were also washed
by the Sea of Kamschatka or Northern Ocean."
He added that "it was not the intention of Russia to impede the free
navigation of the Pacific Ocean, and that she would be satisfied with causing
to be rocognized, as well understood and placed beyond all manner of doubt,
the principle that beyond 590 30' no vessel could approach her coasts and
islands, nor fish or hunt within the distance of 2 marine leagues." *
Mr. Adams, on being shown the draft of thc note, stated to Baron Tnyl
that, if it were presented, he should return an answer to the effect that "the
eonstruction of Treaties depending here upon the Judiciary Tribunals, the
Executive Government, even if disposed to acquiesce in that of the Russian
Government, as announced by him (Baron Tuyl), could not be [? make it]
binding upon the Courts or upon this nation." He went on to say that it
would be much better not to present the note, as the United States' merchants
would not go to trouble the Russians on the coast of Siberia or north of the
57th degree of latitude, and it was wisest not to put such fancies into their heads.
The incident, therefore, shows nothing material to the present issue except
that the Russian Minister attempted in a note, which has hitherto been kept
secret, to argue that Behring's Sea was not a part of the South Sea (a term
which is not employed in the British Treaty), and that Mr. Adams stated that,
even if the United States' Government were disposcd to acquiesce in this view,
they could not bind the nation or the Courts to it.
On the other hand, the Regulations of 1881, under which the American
sehooners "Eliza" and "Henrietta" were seized by the Russian authorities,
It does not appear, however, that the proposed limit of 2 leagues was observed
or enforced, for in 1868 the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, explaining the treat-
ment of the American sealer "Java" in the Sea of Okhotsk, writes:-
"Considering that foreign sealers are forbidden by the laws in force to fish in the
Russian gulfs and bays at a distance less than 3 miles from the shore." (M. West-
mann to Mr. Clay, 31st July, 1868, Ex. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, 253.)
52 Der Robbenfaug im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 10363- "Noticc of Order relative to Commerce on Russiau Pacific Coast:-
Borin. "Without a special permit or licencc from the Goveraor-General of Eastern
21.Frer.iU11.Siberia, foreign vessels are not allowed to carry on trading, huntinig, fishing,
&c., on the Russian coasts or islands in the Okhotsk and Behring's Seas, or
on the north-eastern coast of Asia, or within their sea boundary-line."
(Memorandum in Mr. Lothrop's despatch to Mr. Bayard of the 7th March,
1882. Exec. Doc. No. 106, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 271.)
31M. de Giers, in his subsequent note of the 8th May, 1882, speaks of
these Regulations as "a notice published by our Consul at Yokohama relative
to fishing, hunting, and to trade in the Russian waters of the Pacific." (Ibid.,
Mr. Frelinghuysen also speals of the matter as "touching the Pacific
coast fisheries." (Ibid., p. 258.)
Nr. 10364. VEREINIGTE STAATEN. Der Staatssecretr an don
englischen Gesandten. Vorschlge ber einen modus
Washington, May 4, 1891.
1r. 10364. Sir, During the month of March last, a few days after the adjournment
Sttten. of Congress, acting under the instructions of the President, I proposcd to you
1. Mai 189a that a modus vivendi be agreed upon touching the seal fisheries pending the
result of arbitration of the question at isssue between the two Governments.
The President's first proposal which I submitted to you was that no Canadian
sealer should be allowed to come within a certain number of miles of the
Pribyloff Islands. |l It was, however, the conclusion of the President, after
reading Lord Salisbury's despatcli of the 21st February, that this modus
vivendi might possibly provoke conflict in the Behring's Sea, and to avoid
that result, he instructcd me to propose that sealing, both on land and sea,
should be suspended by both nations during tle progrees of arbitration, or
during the season of 1891. On both occasions it was a conversational ex-
change of views, the first at my office at the State Department, the sccond
at my residence. ]| The President was so desirous of a prompt response from
Lord Salisbury to bis seecond proposition, that I ventured to suggest that yon
request an answer by cable if practicable. Especially was the President
anxious to reeceive an answer, which he trusted would be favourable, before
he should set out on his tour to the Pacific States. He left Washington on
the night of tle 13th April without hlaving licard a word from your Government.
It was then a full month after lie had instructed me to open negotiations on
thie question, and the only probable inference was that Lord Salisbury would
not agree to his proposal. |1 The silence of Lord Salisbury implied, as seemed
not improbable, that be would not restrain thie Canadian sealers from entering
Behring's Sea, and as all intelligence from British Columnibia showed that the
Der robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 53
sealers were getting ready to sail in large numbers, the President found that Nr, 10864.
he could not with justice prevent the lessees from taking seals on the Priby- staaten.
loff Islands. The President therefore instructed the Secretary of the Treasury, 4. Mai 1891.
who has official charge of the subject, to issne to the lessees the privilege of
killing on the Pribyloff Islands the coming season the maximum number of
60,000 seals, subject, however, to the absolute discretion and power of an
agent appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to limit the killing to as
small a number as the condition of the herd might, in bis opinion, demand.
On the 22nd April, eight days after the President had left Washington,
you notified me when I was absent from the capital that Lord Salisbury was
ready to agree that all sealing should be suspended pending the result of
arbitration. 1| On the 23rd April I telegraphed Lord Salisbury's proposition to
the President. || He replied on the 25th April, expressing great satisfaction
at Lord Salisbury's message, but instructing me to inform you that "some
seals must be killed by the natives for food;" that "the lessees are bound
under their lease from the Government to feed and eare for the natives,
malking it necessary to send a ship to the Pribyloff Islands at their expense;"
and that for this service-a very expensive one-the "lessees should find
their compensation in taking a moderate number of seals under the lease."
The President expressed his belief that this allowance would be readily agreed
to by Lord Salisbury, because the necessity is absolute. ]1 You will remember
that when I communicated this propositiou from the President to you on the
evening of Monday, the 27th April, you did not agrco to the President's
suggestion. On the coutrary, you expressed yourself as confident that Lord
Salisbury would not accept it; that, in your judgment, the killing of seals
naust be eut off absolutely on the land and in the water; and that it could
not be stopped on eitier unless stopped on both. il The narrative of facts wich
I have now given, absolutely necessary for elearly understanding the position
of this Government, brings me to a further statement which I am directed by
the President to submit. The President refuses to believe that Lord Salisbury
could possibly maintain the position you have taken when his Lordship is
placed in full possession of the facts, which I shall now submit to you some-
what in detail. || When the privilege of killing seals on the Islands of St.
George and St. Paul in Behring's Sea was leased to the North Americau
Company for a certain sum per skin to be paid to the Government, other
duties of an onerous, costly, and responsible character were imposed upon the
Company. || Under their lease, the Company is obliged "to furnish to the
inhabitants of the Islands of St. George and St. Paul annully such quantity
or number of dried salmon, and such quantity of salt and such number of
salt barrels for preserving their necessary supply of meat, as the Secretary
of the Treasury shall from time to time determine." 11 The Company is further
obliged to "furnish'to the inhabitants of these islands 80 tons of coal annually,
and a sufficient number of comfortable dwellings in which said natives may
54 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 10N4. reside, aund shall keep such dwellings in proper repair." T| The Company is
Staaten. further obliged "to provide and keep in repair such suitable school houses
4. Mi is as mav be neeessary, and shall establish and maintain duriig eight months of
each year proper schools for the education of the children on said islands,
the same to be taught by eompeteut teachers, who shall be paid by the Company
a fair compensation, all to the satisfaction of the Secretary of fle Treasury."
The Company is further obliged to "maintain a suitable house for religious
worship, and will also providc a competent physician, or physicians, and
necessary and proper medicines and medical supplies." 1j The Company is still
further obliged "to provide the necessaries of life for the widows aud orphans,
aged and infirm inhabitants of said islands, who are unable to provide for
themselves." |1 And it is finally provided that "all the foregoing agrcements
shall be done and performed by the Company free of all costs and charges
to the said native inhabitants of said islands, or to the United States."' | And
it is made still further the duty of the Company "to employ the native iin-
habitants of said islands to perform such labour upon the islands as they are
fitted to performn, and to pay therefor a fair and just compensation, such as
may be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasnry." And also the Company
"agrees to contribute as far as in its power all reasonable efforts to secure the
comfort, health, education, and promote the morals and civilization of said
native inhabitauts." || In short, then, the means of living, the facilities for
edncation, the care of lealth, the religions teaching, the training of the young,
and the comfort of the old, in a comununity of over 300 persons, are all
imposed upon the Company as its solemn duty by speeific Articles of the
lease. I inclose you a copy of Census of 1890, giving every name of the
303 persons, old and young, male and female, who constitute the whole com-
munity of the Pribyloff Islands.
The duties thus imposed upon the Company must be diseharged annually
with punctuality and exaetness. The comfort, possibly the safety, of all these
human beings, p1eculiarly helpless when left to themselves, is dependent upon
the Company under the lease, and the lessees are paid therefor by the Govern-
ment in the scal-skins which the Company receive for the service. If the
Company shall, as you say Lord Salisbury requests, be deprived of all privi-
lege of taking seals, they certainly could not be compelled to minister to thc
wants of these 300 inhabitants for an entire year. If these islanders are to
be lcft to charity, the North American Company is under no greater obliga-
tion to extend it to them than are other eitizens of the United States. It
evidently requires a considerable sum of money to furnish all the supplies
namcd in the lease-supplies which must be carried 4,000 miles on a specially
chartcred steamer. If the lesseus are not to be allowed payment in any form
for the aimount neccssary to support these 300 people on the islands, they
will naturally decline to expend it. j| Ko appropriation of money has been
mkcde ly ('ongress for the purpose, and the President cannot leave these,
Der Kobhbenfang im Behringsmeere. 55
worthy and innocent people to the hazard of starvation even to secure any Nr. 10364.
form of Agreement with Lord Salisbury touching seal life. Seal life may be staaten.
valuable, but the first duty of the Government of the United States in this 4- Mai 1s1.
matter is to proteet human life. 1[ In this exigency, the President instracts me
to propose to Lord Salisbury that he concede to the North American Company
the right to take a sufficient number of seals, and no more than sufficient,
to recompense them for their outlay in taking care of the natives, and that,
in the phrase of the President, all "commercial killing of seals be prohibited
pending the result of arbitration." 11 The Secretary of the Treasury has a right
to fix the number necessary to the end desired. After full consideration, he
has limited the number to 7,500 to be killed by the Company to repay them
for the outlay demanded for the support of the 300 people on the Pribyloff
Islands. |1 He further directs that no females be killed, and that thus the pro-
ductive capacity of the herd shall not in the slightest degree be impaired.
This point being fixed and agreed to, the proposed Arrangement between the
two countries would be as follows:-
The Government of the United States limits the number of seals to be
killed on the islands for purposes just described to 7,500. |I The Government
of the United States guarantees that no seals shall be killed in the open
waters of Behring's Sea by any person on any vessel sailing under the Ame-
rican flag, or by any American citizen sailing under any othler flag. |I The
Government of Great Britain guarantees that no scals shall be killed in the
open watcrs of Behring's Sea by any person on any vessel sailing under the
British flag, and that no British subject shall engage in killing seals for the
time agreed upon on any vessels sailing under any other flag. || These prohi-
bitions shall continue until the Ist day of May, 1892, within which time the
Arbitrators shall render final award er awards to both Governments. 1| These
several propositions are submitted for the consideration of Lord Salisbury.
The President believes that they are calculated to produce a result at once
fair and honourable to both Governments, and thus lead to the permanent
adjustment of a eontroversy which has already been left too long at issue.
I have, &c.
J, G. Blaine.
Nr. 10365. GROSSBRITANNIEN.- Gesetz v.11. Juni 1891, betr. den
Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 54. Viet. Ch. 19.
An Act to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make Special Provision Nr. 10 Gi-
for prohibiting the Catching of Seals in Behring's Sea by Her Majesty's Goss-
Subjects during the Period named in the Order. (llth June 1891.)i.junuisa,.
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the ad-
vice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
5g Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeerc.
No. 10365. 1.-1l.) Her Majesty the Queen may, by Order in Conncil, prohibit the
britaznien. catching of seals by British ships in Behring's Sea, or such part thereof as
llu.ni 1 is dcfined by the said Order, during the period limited by the Order.
(2.) While an Order in Conncil under this Act is in foree-
(a.) A person belonging to a British ship slall not kill, or take, or bunt,
or attempt to kill or take, any seal within Behring's Sea during the period
limited by the Order; and
(b.) A British ship shall not, nor shall any of the equipment or crew
thereof, be used or employed in such killing, taking, hunting, or attempt.
(3.1 If there is any contravention of this Act, any person committing, pro-
euring, aiding, or abetting such contravention sliall be guilty of a misdemeanor
within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and the ship and
her equipment, and everything on board thereof shall be forfeited to Her
Majesty as if an offence had been committed under section one hundred and
three of the said Act, and the provisions of seetions one hundred and three
and one hundred and four, and Part Ten of the said Act (which are set out
in the Schedule to this Act) shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted,
and in terms made applicable to an offcunce and forfeiture under this Act.
(4.) Any commissioned officcer on full pay in thle naval service of Her
Majesty shall have power, during the period limited by the Order, to stop
and examine any British ship in Behring's Sea, and to detain her, or any
portion of her equipment, or any of her crew, if in his judgment the ship is
being or is preparing to be used or employed in contravention of this section.
f5.) If a British ship is found within Behring's Sea having on board
thereof fishing or shooting implements or seal skins or bodies of seals, it shall
lie on the owner or master of such ship to prove that the ship was not used
or employed in contravention of this Act.
2.-(1.) Her Majesty the Queen in Council may make, revoke, and alter
Orders for the purposes of this Act, and every such Order shall be forthwith
laid before both Houses of Parliament and published in the London Gazette.
(2.) Any such Order inay contain any limitations, conditions, qualifieations,
and exceptions which appear to Her Majesty in Couneil expedient for carrying
into effect the object of this Act.
3.-(1.) This Act shall apply to the animal known as the fur seal, and to
any marine animal specified in that behalf by an Order in Council under this
Act, and the expression "seal" in this Act shlall be construed accordingly.
2.) The expression "Bebring's Sea" in this Act means the seas known
as Behring's Sea within the limits described in an Order under this Act.
(3.) The expression "equipment" inthis Act includes any boat, tackle, fishing
or shooting iistruments, and other things belonging to the ship.
(4.) This Act may be cited as the Seal Fishery (Behirinig's Sea) Aet, 1891.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 57
Schedule. No. 103o5.
Euactements of Merchant Shipping act (17 & 18 Viet. c. 104.) Applied. britannien.
And in order, that the above provisions as to forfeitures may be carried
into effect, it shall be lawfal for any commissioned officer on full bay in the
military or naval service of Her Majesty, or any British officer of Customs,
or any British Consular officer, to seize and detain any ship which has, either
wholly or as to any share therein, become subject to forfeiture as aforesaid,
and to bring her for adjudication before the High Court of Admiralty
in England or Ireland, or any court having Admiralty jurisdiction in Her
Majesty's dominions; and such court may thereupon make such order in the
case as it may think fit, and may award to the officer bringing in the
same for adjudication such portion of the proceeeds of the sale of any for-
feited ship or share as it may think right.
No such officer as aforesaid shall be responsible, either civilly or crimi-
nally, to any person whomsoever, in respeet of the seizure or detention of any
ship, that has been seized or detained by him in pursuance of the provisions
herein contained, notwithstanding that such ship is not brought in for ad-
judication, or, if so brought in, is declared not to be liable to forfeiture, if
it is shown to the satisfaction of the judge or court before whom any trial
relating to such ship or such seizure or detention is held, that there were
reasonable grounds for such seizure or detention; but if no such grounds are
shown, such judge or court may award payment of costs aud damnages to any
party aggrieved, and make such other order in the premises as it thinks just.
Part X.-Legal Procedure.
The Tenth Part of this Act shall in all cases, where no particular country
is mentioned, apply to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions.
Legal Procedure (General).
In all places within Her Majesty's dominions, except Scotlaud, the offenees
herein-after mentioned shall be punished and penalties recovered in manner
following; (that is to say,)
(1.) Every offence by this Act declared to be a misdemeanor shall be
punishable by fine or imprisonment with or without hard labour, and the court
58 Der Robbenfing im Bebringsmeere.
No. 1os6. before which such offence is tried may in England make the same allowances
britannien. and order payment of the same costs and expenses as if such misdemeanor
11.Jniss.11 had been enumerated in the Act passed in the seventh year of His late Majesty
King George the Fourth, chapter sixty-four, er any other Aect, that may be
passed for the like purpose, and may in any other part of Her Majesty's
dominions make such allowances and order payment of such costs and expenses
(if any) as are payable or allowable upon the trial of any misdemecanor under
any existing Act or Ordinanee or as may be payable or allowable uIder any
Act or law for the time being in force therein:
(2.) Every offence declared by this Act to be a misdemeanor shall also
be deemed to be an offence liereby made punishable by imprisonment for any
period not exceeding six montlis, with er without hard labour, er by a penalty
not exceeding one hundred pounds, and may be prosecutcd accordingly in a
summary manner, instead of being prosecnted as a misdemeanor:
(3.) Every offence hereby made punishable by imprisonment for any period
not exceeding six months, with or withont hard labonur, or by any penalty not
exeeeding one hundred pounds, shall in England and Ireland be prosecuted
summarily before any two or more justiees, as to England in the manner
directed by the Act of the eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of IHer
Majesty Queen Vietoria, chapter forty-three, and as to Ireland in the manner
directed by the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of IHer
1MIajesty Queen Victoria, chapter ninety-thrcc, or in such other manner as may
be directed by any Act or Acts, that may be passed for like purposes: And
all provisions contained in the said Acts shall be applicable to such prose-
cutions in the same manner as if the offenees in respeet of whieh the same
are instituted were hereby stated to be offences in respeet of which two or
more justices have power to convict summarily or to make a snmmary order;
(4.) In all cascs of summary convictions in England, where the sum ad-
judged to be paid excceeds five pounds, or the period of imprisonment adjudged
exceeds one month, any person who thinks himself aggrieved by such conviction
may appeal to the next court of general or quarter sessions.
(5.) All offenees under this Act shall in any British possession be punish-
able in any court or by any justiee of the peace or magistrate in whiich or
by whom offenees of a like eharaeter are ordinarily punishable, or in such
otlier manner, or by such other courts, justices, or magistrates, as may from
time to time be determined by any Aet or Ordinancee duly made in such
possession in such manner as Acts and Ordinances in such possession are
required to be made in order to have the force of law.
Any stipendiary magistrate shall have full power to do alone whatever
two justices of the peacc are by this Act authorised to do.
Der RoIbenfang img Behringsineere. 59
Seetion 520. No. lo023.
For the purpose of giving jurisdiction under this Act, every offence shall be b'itannien.
deemed to have been committed, and every cause of complaint to have arisen,i1.JunusSi.
either in the place in which the same actually was committed or arose, or
in any place in which the offender or person complained against may be.
In all cases wliere any district within which any court or justice of the
peace er other magistrate has jurisdictioun, either under this Act or under any
other. Act or at common law, for any purpose whatever, is situate on the
coast of any sea, or abutting on or projecting into any bay, channel, lake,
river, or other navigable water, every such court, justice of the peace, or
imagistrate shall have jurisdiction over any ship or boat being on or lying or
passing off such coast, or being in or near such bay, channel, lake, river, or
navigable water as aforesaid, and over all persons on board such ship or boat
or for the time being belonging thcreto, in tle same manner as if such ship,
boat, or persons were within the limits of the original jurisdiction of such
court, justice, or magistrate.
Service of any summons or other matter in any legal proceeding under
this Act shall be good service, if made personally n the person to be served,
or at his last place of abode, or if made by leaving such summons for hirn
on board any ship to which he may belong with the person being or appear-
ing to be in command or charge of such ship.
In all cases where any court, justice or justiccs of the peace, or other
imagistrate, has or have power to make an order directing payment to be
made of any seaman's wages, penalties, or other sums of money, then, if the
party so direeted to pay the same is the master or owner of a ship, and the
same is not paid at the time and in manner prescribed in the order, the
court, justice or justices, or other magistrate, who made the order, may, in
addition to any other powers they or he may have for the purpose of com-
pelling payment, direect the amount remaining unpaid to be levied by distress
or poinding and sale of the said ship, her tackle, furniture, and apparel.
Any court justice, or magistrate imposing any penalty under this Act,
for which no specific application is herein provided, may, if it or he thinks
fit, direct the whole or any part thereof to be applied in compensating any
person for any wrong or damage which he may have sustained by the act or
default in respect of which such penalty is imposed, or to be applied in or
towards payment of the expenses of the proceedings; and, subject to such
60 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
So. 1oss0. directions or speeific application as aforesaid, all penalties recovered in the
brita ie. United Kingdom shall be paid iuto the receipt of 11er Majesty's Exchequer in
1I.JunisgI. such mawier as the Treasury may direct, and slall be carried to and form
part of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom; and all penalties
recovered in any British possession shall be paid over into the public treasury
of such possession, and form part of the public revenue thereof.
The time for instituting summary proceedings under this Act shall be
limited as follows; (that is to say,)
(1.) No conviction for any offence shall be made under this Aet in any
summary proceeding instituted in the United Kingdom, unless such proceed-
ing is commenced within six months after the commission of the offenee;
or, if both or either of the parties to such proceeding happen during such
time to be out of the United Kingdom, unless the same is commenced within
two months after they both first happen to arrive or to be at one time within
(2.) No conviction for any offence shall be made under this Act in any
proceeding instituted in any British possession, unless such proceeding is com-
menced within six months after the commission of the offence; or if both or
either of the parties to the proceeding happen during such time not to be
within the jurisdiction of any court capable of dealing with the case, unless
the same is commenced within two months after they both first happen to
arrive or to be at one time within such jurisdietion:
(3.) No order for the payment of money shall be made under this Act
in any summary proceeding instituted in the United Kingdom, unless such
proceeding is commenced within six months after the cause of complaint arises;
or, if both or either of the parties happen during such time to be out of
the United Kingdom, unless the same is commenced within six months after
they both first happen to arrive or to be at one time within the same:
(4.) No order for the payment of money shall be made under this Act
in any summary proceeding instituted in any British possession, unless such
proceeding is commenced within six months after the cause of complaint
arises; or, if both or either of the parties to the proceeding happen during
such time not to be within the jurisdiction of any court capable of dealing
with the case, unless the same is commenced within six months after they
both first happen to arrive or be at one time within such jurisdiction:
And no provision contained in any other Act or Acts, Ordinance or
Ordinances, for limiting the time within which summary proceediugs may be
instituted shall affect any summary proceeding under this Act.
Any document required by this Act to be excouted in the presencee of or
to be attested by any witness or witnesses, may be proved by tle evidenee of
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 61
any person who is able to bear witness to the requisite facts, without calling No. 10365-
the attesting witness or witnesses or any of them. britannien.
Whenever any injury has, in any part of the world, bceen caused to any
property belonging to Hier Majesty er to any of Her Majesty's subjects by
any foreigi ship, if at any time thereafter such ship is found in any port or
river of tho United Kiugdom or within three miles of the coast thereof, it
shall be lawful for the judge of any court of record in the United Kingdom,
er for the judgc of the High Court of Admiralty, er in Scotland the Court
of Session, or the sheriff of the county within whose jurisdiction such ship
may be, upon its being shown to him by any person applying summarily, that
such injury was probably causcd by the misconduct or want of skill of the
master eor mariiiers of such ship, to issue an order directed to any officer of
Customs or othor officer named by such judge, requiring him to detain such
ship until such time as the owner, master, or consignee thereof has inade
satisfaction in respect of such injury, or has given security, to be approved
by the judge, to abide the event of any action, suit, er other legal proceeding,
that, may be instituted in respect of such injury, and to pay all costs and
damages that may be awarded thereon; and any officer of Customs or other
officeer to whom such order is directed shall detain such ship accordingly.
In any case where it appears, that before any application can be made
under the foregoing seetion such foreign ship will have departed beyond the
limits therein mentioned, it shall be lawful for any commissioned officer on full
pay in the military or naval service of IHer Majesty, or any British officer
of Customs, or any British consular officer, to detain such ship until such time
as will allow such application to be made and the result thereof to be com-
municated to hirn; and no such officer shall be liable for any costs er damages
in respect of such detention unless the same is proved to have been made
withount reasonable grounds.
In any action, suit, er othlier proceeding in relation to such injury, the
person so giving security as aforesaid shall be made defendant er defender,
and shall be stated to be the owner of the ship, that has occasioned such damage;
and the productioi of the order of the judge made in relation to such
security shall be conclusive evidence of the liability of such defendant or
defender to such action, suit, er other proceeding.
02 Der Robbeafang imt Bebringsantere
So. 10365. Legal Procedure (Scotland).
bitantien. Seetion 530.
In Scotlaud every offence which by this Act is described as a felony
or misdemeanor may be prosecuted by indictment or crinmial letters at the
instance of Her Majesty's Advocate before the High Court of Justiciary, or
by criminal libel at the instance of the procurator fiscal of the county before
the sheriff, and shall be punishable with fine and with imprisoument, with or
without hard labour in default of payment, or with imprisonment, with er
without hard labour, or with both, as the court may think fit, or in the case
of felony with penal servitude, whcre the court is competent thereto; and
such court may also, if it think fit, order payment by the offender of the costs
and expenses of the prosecution.
In Scotland, all prosecutions, complaints, actions, or proceedings nnder
this Act, other thau prosecutions for felonies or misdemcanors, may be
brought in a summary form before the sheriff of the couuty, or before any
two justices of the peace of the county or burgh wherc the causc of such pro-
secution or action arises, or where the offender or defender may be for the
time, and when of a criminal nature or for penalties, at the instance of the
procurator fiscal of court, or at the instance of any party aggrieved, with con-
currence of the procurator fiscal of court; and tlhe court may, if it think fit,
order payment by the offender or defender of the costs of the prosecution or
In Scotland, all prosecutions, complaints, actions, or other proceedings under
this Act may be brought either in a written or printed form, or partly written
and partly printed, and where such proceedings are brought in a summary
form it shall not be necessary in the eomplaint to recite or set forth the
clanse or clauses of the Act on which such proceeding is founded, but it shall
be sufficient to specify or refer to such clause or clauses, and to set forthl
shortly the cause of complaint or action, and the rcmedy sought; and when
such complaint or action is brought in whole or in part for the enforcement
of a pecuniary debt or demand, the complaint may contain a prayer for warrant
to arrest upon the dependence.
In Scotland, on any eomplaint or other procceding brought in a suinmary
form under this Act being presented to the sheriff clerk or clerk of the peace,
he shall grant warrant to cite the defender to appcar personally before the
said sheriff or justices of the peace on a day fixcd, and at the same time
shall appoint a copy of tihe same to be delivcrcd to hirn by a sheriff officer
or constablc, as the case may bc, along with the citation; and such delivcranee
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere, 63
shall also contain a warrant for citing witnesses and havers to compear at the -o. 10365.
same time and place to give evidence and produce such writs as may be speeified briaon.
in their citation; and where such warrant has been prayed for in the complaint11.Juni1891.
or other proceeding, the deliverance of the sheriff clerk or clerk of the peace
shall also contain warrant to arrest upon the dependence in common form:
Provided always, that where the apprehension of any party, with or without
a warrant, is autlhorised by this Act, such party may be detained in custody
until he can be brought at the earliest opportunity before any two justices, or
the sheriff who may have jurisdiction in the place, to be dealt with as this
Act directs, and no citation or inducise shall in such case be necessary.
When it becomes necessary to execute such arrestment on the dependence
against goods or effects of the defender within Scotland, but not locally situ-
ated within the jurisdiction of the sheriff or justices of the peace by whom
the warrant to arrest has been granted, it shall be competcnt to earry the
warrant into execution on its being indorsed by the sheriff clerk or clerk of
the peace of the county or burgh respectively within which such warrant
comes to be executed.
In all proceedings under this Act in Scotland the sheriff or justices of
the peace shall have the same power of compelling attendance of witnesses
and havers as in cases falling under their ordinary jurisdiction.
The whole procedure in cases brought in a summary form before the
sheriff or justices of the peace in Scotland shall be conducted viv voce,
without written pleadings, and without taking down the evidence in writing,
and no record shall be kept of the proceedings other than the complaint,
and the sentence or decree pronounced thereon.
It shall be in the power of the sheriff or justices of the peace in Scotland
to adjourn the proceedings from time to time to any day or days to be fixed
by thoei, in the event of absence of witnesses or of any other cause which
shall appear to them to render such adjournment necessary.
In Scotland all sentences and decrees to be prononnced by the sheriff or
justices of the peace upon such summary complaints shall be in writing; and
where there is a decree for payment of any sum or sums of money against a
defender, such decree shall contain warrant for arrestment; poinding, and
imprisonment in default of payment, such arrestment, poinding, or imprison-
64 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
1o. l0365 ment to be carried into effcct by sheriffs officers or constables, as the case
bitannin. mav be, in the same manner as in.cases arising under the ordinary jurisdiction
i.JnnilSVI. in the sheriff or justices: Providcd always, that nothing herein contained shall
be taken or construed to repeal or affect an Act of the fifth and sixth years
of William the Fourth, intituled "An Act for abolishing, in Seotland, impri-
sonment for civil debts of small amount."
In all summary complaiuts and proccedings for recovery of any penalty
or sum of mnoney in Scotland, if a defender who has been duly cited shall
not appear at the time and place required by the citation, he shall be held
as confessed, and scntence or decree shall be pronouneed against hirn in terms
of the complaint, with such costs and expenses as to the court shall seem fit:
Provided always, tliat he shall be entitled to obtain himself reponed against
auy such decree at any time before the same be fully implemcnted, by
lodging with the clerk of court a reponing note, and consigning in his hands
the sum decerned for, and the costs which had been awarded by the court,
and o tlhe same day delivering or transmitting through the post to the pur-
suer or his agent a copy of such reponing note; and a ecrtificate by the
clerk of court of such note having been lodged shall operate as a sist of
diligence till the cause shall have been rcheard and finally disposed of, whieh
sliall be on the next sitting of the court, or on any day to which the court
shall then adjouru it.
In all sumrnary complaints or other proceedings not brought for the
recovery of any penalty or snm of money in Scotland, if a defender, bcing
duly cited, shall fail to appear, the sheriff or justices may graut warrant to
apprliehnd and bring hirn before the court.
In all cases where sentences or decrces of the sheriff or justices require
to be euforced within Scotland, hut bcyond the jurisdiction of the sheriff or
justices by whom such sontences or decrees hiave been pronounced, it shall
1)e competent to carry the same into execution upon the same being indorsed
by the sheriff clerk or elerk of the peace of the county or burgh within
which such execution is to take place.
No order, decree, or sentence prononeed by any sheriff or justice of the
ieacc in Scotland undcer the authority of this Act shall be quashed or vacated
for any inisnomer, informality, or defect of form; and all orders, decrees, and
sentences so pronounced shall be final and eonclusive, and not subject to
suspension, advocation, reduction, or to any form of review or stay of execu-
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 65
tion, except ou the ground of corruption or malice on the part of the sheriff No. 10365.
or justices, in which case the suspension, advocation, or reduction must be britannien.
brought within fourteen days of the date of the order, dccree, or senitence 1l-Jun 11S1
complained of: Provided always, that no stay of execution shall be competent
to the effect of preventing immediate execution of such order, decree, or
Such of the general provisions with respect to jurisdiction, procedure
and penalties contained in this Act as are not inconsistent with the spccial
rules herein-before laid down for the conduct of legal proceedings and the
recovery of penalties in Scotland, shall, so far as the same are applicable,
extend to such last-mentioned proceodings and penalties: Provided always, tliat
nothing in this Act contained shall be held in any way to annul or restrict
the common law of Scotland with regard to the prosecution or punishment of
offences at the instance or by the direction of the Lord Advocate, or the
rights of owners or creditors in regard to enforcing a judicial sale of any
ship and tacklo, or to give to the High Court of Admiralty of England any
jurisdiction in respect of salvage in Scotland which it has not heretofore had
Nr. 10366. Vertrag zwischen England und den Vereinigten
Staaten ber Einsetzung eines Schiedsgerichts vom
29. Februar 1892.
(Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7, 1892.)
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and No. 10366.
Ireland aiind the United States of America, being desirous to provide for an England und
amicable settlement of the questions which have arisen between their respective Stat n.
Governments concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the 29,Febr.)192.
waters of Behring's Sea, and concerning also the preservation of the furseal
in or habitually resorting to the said sea, and the rights of the citizens and
subjects of either country as regards the taking of fur-seal in or habitually
resorting to the said waters, have resolved to submit to arbitration the
questions involved, and to the end of concluding a Convention for that purpose
have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiarics:
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, Sir Julian Pauncefote, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., Her Majesty's Envoy Extra-
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States; and the President
of the United States of America, James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the
Who, after having communicated to eachl other their respective Full Powers,
which were found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concludcd
the following Articles:-
Staat tsrliv LV1. 5
66 Der lilbblefang im Beiringmeer.|
No. oses6. Article I.
Vereinigte The questions whieh lhae arisen between the Governnment of lHer Britannie
taaten. Majesty and the Governmeint of the United States conceriing the jurisdietional
rights of the United States in the waters of Belring's Sea, anid concerning also
the preservation of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said sea, and
the rights of the citizens and subjects of either country as regards the taking
of fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the said waters, shall be submitted to
a Tribunal of Arbitration, to be composed of seven Arbitrators, who shall be
appointed in the following manner, that is to say: two shall be named by
Hier Britannie Majesty; two slall be named by the President of the United
States; bis Execelleney the President of the Frenchi Republie shall be jointly
requested by the High Contracting Parties to name one; Ilis Majesty the
King of Jtaly shall be so reqnested to name one! and IHis Majesty the
King of Sweden and Norway shall be so requested to name one. The seven
Arbitrators to be so nained shall be jurists of distinguished reputation in their
respective countries; aud the selecting Powers shall be requested to choose, if
possible, jurists who are acquainted with the English language. | In case of the
death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any or either of the said Arbitrators,
or in the event of any or either of the said Arbitrators omitting or declining
or ceeasing to act as such, Her Britannie Majesty, er the President of the
United States, or bis Exeellency the Presideut of tle French Republic, or His
Majesty the King of Italy, or His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway,
as the case may be, shall name, or shall be requested to name forthwith, another
person to aet as Arbitrator in tle place and stead of thle Arbitrator originally
named by such hlead of a State.
And in the event of the refusal er omission for two montls after reecipt
of the joint request from the High Contracting Parties of his Excelleney the
President of the French Repnblie, or His Majesty the King of Italy, or His
iMajesty the King of Sweden and Norway, to name an Arbitrator, either to
fill the original appointment or to fill a vacancy as above provided, theu in
such case the appointment shall be made or the vacancy sball be filled in
such maimer as the High Contracting Parties shall agree.
The Arbitrators shall meet at Paris within twenty days after the dclivery
of the counter-cases mnentioned in Article IV, and shall proceed impartially
and carefully to examine and deeide the questions, tiat have been or shall be
laid before tihemn as Lereitl pruvided uot the part of the Governments of Her
Britannic MIajesty and the United States respeetively. All questions considered
by thle Tribunal, including the final decision, shall be determined by a majo-
rity of all tlie Arbitrators. || Each of the Iligh Contractiig Parties shall also
name one person to attend the Tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally
in all niatters connected with the arbitration.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 67
Artiele III. No. 10366.
The printed Case of each of the two parties, accompanied by the docu- vereinigte
mnents, the official correspondence, and other evidence on whichl each relies, 2.Febr.s592.
shall be delivered in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent
of the other party as soon as may be after appointment of the members of
the Tribunal, but within a period not exceeding four months from the date
of the exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty.
Within three months after the delivery on both sides of the printed case,
either party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of the said
Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other party, a counter-case, and additional
doeuments, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case, documents,
correspondence, and evidence so presented by the other party. 1] If, ho-
wever, in conscquence of the distance of the place from whielh the evidence
to be presented is to be procured, either party shall, within thirty days after
the receipt by its Agent of the case of the other party, give notice to the
other party, that it requires additional time for the delivery of such counter-
case, documents, correspondence, and evidence, such additional time so indieated,
hut not exceeding sixty days beyond the three months in this Artiele provided,
shall be allowed. || If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either party
shall have speeified or alluded to any Report or document in its own exclusive
possession, without annexing a copy, such party shall be bound, if the other
party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that party with a copy thereof;
and either party may call upon the other, through the Arbitrators, to produce
the originals er certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in
each instance notice thereof within thirty days after delivery of the Case; and
the original or copy so requested shall be delivered as soon as may be, and
within a period not exceeding forty days after receipt of notice.
It shall be the duty of the Agent of each party, within one month after
the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the counter-case on both
sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent
of the other party a printed argument showing the points and referring to
the evidence upon which his Government relies, and either party may also
support the same before the Arbitrators by oral argument of Counsel; and the
Arbitrators may, if they desire further elucidation with regard to any point,
require a written r printed statement or argument, er oral argument by
Counsel, upon it; but in such case the other party shall be entitled to reply
either orally or in writing, as the case may be.
68 Der Robbenfaig im Bebringiieere.
No. o1036. Article VI
Vereinigte In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, it is agreed that
29.Febr.1592. the following five points shall be submitted to themn, in order that their award
shall embrace a distinct decisioii upon each of said five points, tu wit:-
1. 1What exclnsive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring's Sea,
and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and
exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States?
2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries
recognized and conceded by Great Britain?
3. Was the body of water now known as the Bohring's Sea inelnded in
the phrase "Pacifie Ocean," as used in tle Treaty of 1825 between Great
Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea, were held
and exclusively cxerciscd by Russia after said Treaty?
4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal
fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between
the Unitcd States and Russia of the 30th March, 1867, pass nnimpaired to
the United States under that Treaty?
5. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of protcetion
or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in
Behring Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?
If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exelusive juris-
diction of the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the
concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the cstablishment of Regulations
for the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually
resorting to, the Behring Sea, tbhe Arbitrators shall then determine what con-
current Regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Govern-
ments are necessary, and over what waters such Regulations should extend,
and to aid them in that determination, the Report of a Joint Gommission, to
be appointed by the respective Governments, shall be laid before them, withi
such other evidence as either Goveriment may submit. i] The High Contracting
Parties furthermore agree to co-operate in sccuring the adhesion of other
Powers to such Regulations.
The Iligh Contracting Parties having found themselves unable to agree
uipon a refurence wvhich shall inelude the question of the liability of each for
the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its eitizens,
in conneutioni with the claims presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous
that this subordinate question silould not interrnpt or longer delay the sub-
mission and determination of the main questions, do agree that either may
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 69
submit to the Arbitrators any question of fact involved in said claims, and so. 1o066'
ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of eitler Goverument verninigto
upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation. Staaten.
The IHigh Contracting Parties having agreed to appoint two Commissioners
on the part of each Government to make the joint investigation and Report
contemplated in the preceding Article VII, and to include the terms of the
said Agreement in the present Convention, to the end that the joint and
several Reports and recommendations of said Commissioners may be in due
form submitted to the Abitrators, should the contingency therefor arise, the
said Agreement is accordingly herein included as follows:
Each Government shall appoint two Commissioners to investigate, con-
jointly with tlie Commissioners of the other Government, all the facts having
relation to seal-life in Behring's Sea, and the measures necessary for its
proper protection and preservation. |l The four Commissioners shall, so far as
they may be able to agree, make a joint Report to eaeh of the two Govern-
ments, and shall also report, either jointly or severally, to each Government
on any points upon which they may be unable to agree. 11 These Reports shall
not be made public until they shall be submitted to the Arbitrators, or it
shall appear that the contingency of their being used by the Arbitrators
Each Government shall pay the expenses of its members of the Joint
Commission in the investigation refered to in the preceding Article.
The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three
montls from the close of the argument on both sides.
It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by the Ar-
bitrators who may assent to it. i| The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy
whlereof shall be delivered to the Agent of Great Britain for his Government,
the other copy shall be delivered to the Agent of the United States for his
Each Government shall pay its own Agent, and provide for the proper re-
muneration of the Counsel employed by it and of the Arbitrators appointed
by it, and for the expense of preparing and submitting its oase to the Tribu-
nal. All other expenses connected with the arbitration shall be defrayed by
the two Governments in equal moieties.
The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and
may appoint and employ tle necessary officers to assist them.
70 Der Rob enfang im Behringsmeerea
. 30566. Article XIV.
veretiigle The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the pro-
tFebr.i8S. ceedipgs of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement
of all the questions referred to the Arbitrators.
The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her Britannie Majesty and
by the President of tle United States of America, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications sliall be exclhanged
either at Washington or at London within six months from the date hereof,
or earlier if possible.
In faith whereof, wo, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this
Treaty, and have hereunto affixed our seals.
Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 29th day of February, 1892.
James G. Blaine.
Nr. 10367. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Convention zwischen Gross-
britannien und den Vereinigten Staaten iber einen
Modus Vivendi im Behringsmeer. 18. April 1892.
[Ratifications exchanged at London, May 7, 1892.]
Nn. 0lose. Whereas, by a Convention concluded between Her Majesty the Queen of
brit:nnien. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of
1s8..priul]2. America on the 29th day of February, 1892, the High Contracting Parties
have agreed to submit to arbitration, as therein stated, the questions which
lave arisen between thcm concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United
States in the waters of Behring's Sea, and coneerning also the preservation
of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the said sea, and the rights of
the subjects and citizens of either country as regards the taking of fur-seal
in, or habitually resorting to, the said waters; and whereas the High Con-
tracting Parties, having differed as to wbat restrictive regulations for seal
hunting are necessary during the pendency of such arbitration, have agreed
to adjust such difference in manner hereinafter ientioned, and without preju-
dice to the rights of either party:
The said High Contracting Parties have appointed as their Plenipoten-
tiaries to conclude a Convention for this purpose, that is to say:-
lier Majesty tle Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, Sir Julian Pauneefote, Knight Grand Cross of the most distinguished
Order of St. Michael and St. George, Knight Commander oft the most hono-
rablc Order of the Batli, and Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipoten-
tiary of HeIrr i'ritannic Majesty to thie United States;
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 71
And the President of the United States of America, James G. Blaine, No. 10367.
Secretary of State of tho United States; britanniei.
Who, after having conmmunicated to each other their respective Full is.APrilS92.
Powers, found in good and dne form, have agrecd upon and coneluded the
Her Majesty's Government will prohibit, during the pendency of the ar-
bitration, seal killing in that part of Behrings's Sea lying eastward of the
line of demarcation described in Artiele I of the Treaty of 1867 between the
United States and Russia, and will promptly use its best efforts to insure
the observance of tliis prohibitoii by British subjects and vessels.
The United States' Government will prohibit seal killing for the same
period in the same part of Behring's Sea, and on tlhe shores and islands tliereof,
the property of the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the is-
lands for the subsistencc and care of the natives), and will promptly use its
best efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by United States'
citizens and vessels.
Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said
waters of Behring's Sea, outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the Uni-
ted States, may be seized and detained by the naval or other duly commis-
sioned officers of either of the HIigh Contracting Parties, but t.hey shall be
handed over as soon as practicable to the authorities of tle nation to which
they respcctively belong, who sball alone have jurisdiction to try the offence
and impose the penalties for the same. The witnesses and proofs neeessary
to establish the offence shall also be sent with them.
In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as lier Majesty's Government
may desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the case and argn-
ments of that Government before the Arbitrators, it is agreed that suitable
persons designated by Great Britain will be permitted at any time, upon ap-
plication, to visit or remain upon the seal islands, during the sealing season,
for that purpose.
If the result of the arbitration be to affirm the right of British sealers
to take seals in Pehring's Sea witlin the bounds claimed by the United
States, under its purchase from Russia, then compensation sball be made by
the United States to Great Britain (for the use of her subjects) for abstaining
from the exercise of that right dnriing the pendency of the arbitration upon
the basis of snch a regulated and limited catch or catches as in tlie opiniou
72 Der Roblhenfang im leliringsmeere.
Nr. losMM. of the Arbitrators might have been taken without an unduc diminution of the
brita niC. seal herds; and on the other hand, if the result of the arbitration shall be
1r.APriis92. to deny the right of British sealers to take seals within the said waters, then
compensation shall be made by Great Britain to the United States (for itself,
its citizens, and lessees) for this agreement to limit the island catch to
7,500 a season, upon the basis of the difference between this number and
such larger catch as in the opinion of the Arbitrators might have been taken
without an undne diminution of the seal herds. )| The amount awarded, if
any, in eitber case, shall be such as under all the circumstances is just and
equitable, and shall be promptly paid.
This Convention may be denounced by either of the High Contracting
Parties at any time after 31 st day of October, 1893, on giving to the other
party two months' notice of its termination, and at the expiration of such
notice the Convention shall cease to be in force.
The present Convention shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic Majesty
and by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate thereof; and the ratifications shall be exchanged,
either at London or at Washington, as early as possible. [i In faitl whereof,
we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, lave signed this Convention, and have
herennto affixed our seals.
Done in duplicate, at Washington, the 18 th day of April, 1892.
James Gr. Blaine
Nr. 10368. ENGLAND UND VEREINIGTE STAATEN. Urtheil des
Schiedsgerichts ber den Robbenfang im Behrings-
Mr. Tupper to the Earl of Rosebery. (Received August 16.)
MIy Lord, Paris, August 5, 1893.
Nr 1 4.w. I have the honour to transmit to your Lordship the deeision of the Belh-
Vnrr., r, ring Sea Tribunal of Arbitrators, whieh has been delivered to me this day in
. t accordance withl Artiele XI of tle Treaty of the 29th February, 1892.
I have, &c.
Charles II. Tupper.
*) Entnommen den ,Papers hy Cnmmand" (United States Nr. 10, 1893).
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 73
Sentence du Tribunal d'Arbitrage constitue en vertu du Traitd conelu Wa- Nr. 1036s.
shington, le 29 F6vrier, 1892, entre les Ltats-Unis d'Am6rique et Sa Vereinigte
Mlajeste la Reine du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande. Staaten.
Attendu que, par un Traite entre les ]tats-Unis d'Am6rique et la Grande-
Bretagne, sign6 Washington le 29 FEvrier, 1892, et dont les ratifications
par les Gouvernements des deux pays ont Wte echang6es Londres le 7 Mai,
1892, il a 6t6, entre autres stipulations, convenu et regl6 que les differends
qui avaient surgi entre le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique et le
Gouvernement de Sa Majest6 Britannique, au sujet des droits de juridiction
des lEtats-Unis dans les eaux de la Mer de Behring, et aussi relativement
la pr6servation des phoques A fourrure habitant on frequentant ladite mer et
aux droits des citoyens et des sujets des deux pays en ce qui concerne la
capture des phoques fourrure se trouvant dans les dites eaux ou les fr6-
quentant, seraient soumis un Tribunal d'Arbitrage compose de sept Arbitres,
qui seraient nommes de la maniere suivante, savoir: deux Arbitres seraient
dtsign4s par le President des Itats-Unis; deux Arbitres seraient design6s par
Sa Majestd Britannique; son Excellence le Prsident de la Rdpublique Fran2aise
serait priA, d'aun commun accord, par les Hautes Parties Contractantes de d6-
signer un Arbitre; Sa Majest6 le Roi d'Italie serait prie de la mme maniere
de d6signer un Arbitre; Sa Majeste le Roi de SuMde et de Norvege serait
prid de la meme manire de dUsigner un Arbitre: les sept Arbitres ainsi
nommis devant Utre des juriseonsultes d'une rlputation distingute dans leurs
pays respectifs, et les Puissances auxquelles leur dsignation serait remise
devant ktre prides de choisir, autant que possible, des jurisconsultes sachant
la langue Anglaise;
Et attendu qu'il a Wt6 pareillement convenu, par l'Article II du dit Trait6,
que les Arbitres se rduniraient Paris daus les vingt jours qui suivraient la
remise des Contre-Memoires mentionnUs 1'Article IV, qu'ils examineraient et
decideraient avee impartialit6 et soin les questions qui leur taient ou qui
leur seraient soumises dans les conditious prevues par ledit Trait6, de la part
des Gouvernements des Etats-Unis et de Sa Majest6 Britannique respectivement,
et que toutes les questions examindes par le Tribunal, y compris la sentence
finale, seraient d6cidees par les Arbitres la majoritd absolue des voix;
Et attendu que, par l'Article VI du dit Trait6; il a ete pareillement
oonvenu ce qui suit:-
"En vue de la d6cision des questions soumises aux Arbitres, il est entendu
que les cinq points suivants leur seront soumis, afin que leur sentence com-
prenne un ddeision distincte sur cliaceun desdits cinq points, savoir:-
"1. Quelle juridietion exclusive dans la mer aujourd'hui connue sous le
nom de Mier de Behring et quels droits exelusifs sur les pecheries de phoques
74 Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
5r. loses. dans cette mer la Russie a-t-clle affinrms et exere#s avant et juaqu' l'Npoque
ug^Lnd unde la cession de l'Alaska aux Etats-Unis?
staaten. "2. Jusqu' quel point la revendication de ccs droits de juridiction en ce
16A 3. "qui concerlne les p]cheries de phoques a-t-elle ett reconnme et concade par
la Grande-Bretagne ?
"3. L'espace de mer aujourd'hui connu sons le nom de Mer de Behring
4tait-il compris dans l'expression 'Ocean Pacifique', teille qu'elle a 6t6 employde
dans le texte du Traite conclu en 1825 entre la Grande-Bretagne et la Russie,
et quels droits, si droits il y avait, la Russie a-t-elle poss6dds et exclusivement
exerces dans la Mer de Behring, apres ledit Trait6?
"4. Tous les droits de la Riissie, en ce qui concerne la juridiction et en
ce qui concerne les pecheries de phoques, dans la partie de la Mer de Beh-
ring qui s'ktend l'est de la limite maritime d6termin6e par le Trait6 du
30 Mars, 1867, entre les tats-Unis et la Russie, ne sont-ils pas integrale-
ment passes aux fItats-Unis en vertu de ce mOme Traitd?
"5. Les Iltats-Unis ont-ils quelque droit, et, en cas d'affirmative, quel
droit ont-ils, soit la protection, soit la proprietd des phoques fourrure
qui frequentent les iles appartenant aux Itats-Unis dans la 31er de Behring,
quand ces phoques se trouvent en dehors de la limite ordinaire de 3 milles?"
Et attendu que, par l'Article VII dudit Trait6, il a 6t6 pareillement con-
venu ce qui suit:-
"Si la decision des questions qui pr6cdent, en ce qui concerne la juri-
dietion exclusive des iEtats-Uuis, laisse los choses en tel 6tat que le concours
de la Grande-Bretagne soit nicessaire pour l'dtablissement de 1Rglemients en
vue de la protection et de la prlservation convenables des phoques fourrure
habitant ou frKquentant la Mer de Belhring, les Arbitres auront ddterminer
quels Reglements communs sont nhcessaires, en dehors des limites de la juri-
dietion des Gouvernements respectifs, et sur quelles eaux ees Reglements
devraient s'appliquer . .
"Les IIautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent en outre unir leurs efforts
pour obtenir l'adh)sion d'autres Puissances ces Riglements;"
Et attendu que, par l'Article VIII dadit Traite, aprs avoir expos6 que
les Hautes Parties Contractantes n'avaient pu s'entendre sur ule formule qu(I
comprit la question des responsabilitis la charge de l'une d'elles, i raisoin
des prtjudiccs alltgus avoir dtd causds l'autre, ou aux citoyens de l'autre,
l'occasion des r6clamations pr6sentdes et soutenues par ladite partie, et
,|u'elles "d6siraient que cette question secondaire ne suspendit ou ne retardht
t1as plus longtemps la production et la decision des questions principales," les
Hautes Parties Contractantes sont eonvenues que "chacune d'elles pourrait
soumcttre aux Arbitres toute question de fait impliquec daus lesdites recla-
mations et demander une decision t cet dgard, aprcs quoi la question de la
responsabilitu de chacui des deux Gouvernements t raison des faits 6tablis
serait matitre n6gociations ultrieiures;"
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 75
Et attendu que le President des Stats-Unis d'Amirique a d6sigun l'Hono- Nr. 10368.
rable John M. Ilarlan, Juge de la Cour Supreme des Etats-Unis, et l'IIHono- vereinigte
rable John T. Morgau, Senateur des Etats-Unis, pour etre deux desdits Arbitres; Staa"en
qne Sa Majeste Britannique a d6sign6 le Trds Honorable Lord Hannen et
l'Honorable Sir John Thompson, Ministre de la Justicce et Attorney-Gdndral pour
le Canada, pour etre deux desdits Arbitres; que son Excellence le Prisident
de la Republique Frangaise a d(signu le Baron Alphonse de Courcel, Slna-
teur, Ambassadeur de France, pour Utre un desdits Arbitres; que Sa Majest6
le Roi d'Italie a designi le Marquis Emilio Visconti Venosta, ancien Ministre
des Affaires Etrangres et Senateur du Royaume d'Italie, pour etre un desdits
Arbitres; et que Sa Majesti le Roi de SuMde et de Norvege a dsigni M. Gre-
gers Gram, Ministre d'itat, pour etre un desdits Arbitres;
Et attendu que nous susnomm6s, Arbitres d(signis et investis de la ma-
nidre qui vient d'tre relatde, ayant accept6 de prendre la charge de cet Arbi-
trage, et nous tant diment rKunis Paris, avons procedd avec impartialit6
et soin l'examen et a la ddcision de toutes les questiois qui ont Wti sounmises
nous, Arbitres susnommis, en vertu du dit Trait6, ou nous presentdes,
au nom des Gouvernements des Etats-Unis et de Sa MIajeste Britannique re-
spectivement, de la maninre prdvue par ledit Trait6;
Nous Arbitres susnommis, ayant examind avec impartialitd et soin les-
dites questions, dkcidons et prononvons de mime, sur lesdites questions, par
notre pr6sente sentence, de la manire qui suit, savoir:-
En ce qui concerne les einq points mentionnis dans l'Article VT et sur
chacun desquels notre jugement doit comprendre une decision distinete, nous
decidons et prononcons ce qui suit:-
Sur le premier de cinq points susdits, nous, Arbitres susnommis, le Baron
de Courcel, le Juge Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, le Marquis
Visconti Venosta, et M. Gregers Gram, constituant la majorit6 des Arbitres,
dbcidons et pronongons ce qui suit:
Par l'Ukase de 1821 la Russie a revendiqui des droits de juridiction,
dans la mer connue aujonrd'hui sous le nom de Mer de Behring, jusqu' la
distance de 100 milles Italiens au large des ctes et iles lui appartenant;
mais, au cours de nigociations qui ont abouti la conclusion des Traitis de
1824 avec les ltats-Unis et de 1825 avec la Grande-Bretagne, elle a admis
que sa juridietion dans ladite mer serait limitic nne port6e de cauon de la
c6ite; et il apparait que, depuis cette 6poque jusqu' l'Npoque de la ceession de
1'Alaska aux Etats Unis, elle n'a jamais affirm6 en fait ni exere aucune juri-
diction exclusive dans la Mer de Behring, ni aueun droit exclusif sur los
picheries de phoques fourrurc dans ladite mer, au dela des limites ordinaires
des caux territoriales.
Sur le second des cinq points susdits, nous, Arbitres susnommds, le
Baron de Conrcel, le Juge Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, le
NMarquis Visconti Venosta, et N. Gregers Gram, constituant la majorit6 des
76 Der Iobbenfang im Behringsme(re.
s1. oas. Arbitres, d6cidons et prononaons que la Grande-Bretague, n'a reco}niu iii
vereinigt concde h la Russie aucuu droit t une juridiction exelusive sur les picheries
Staaten. de phoques dans la Mer de Behriiig, en dehors des caux territoriales ordi-
I g.Ang.1 3.
Sur le troisieme des cing points susdits, et quant la partie dudit troisieme
point oil nous est sonmise la question de savoir si l'espace de mer aujourd'lmi
connn sous le nom de Mer de Behring 6tait compris dans l'expression "Oea l
Pacifique" telle qu'elle a etc employ e daas le texte du Trait6 de 1825 eutre
la Graude-Bretagne et la Russie, nous, Arbitres susnommns, d&cidons ct pro-
nonvons a l'unanimite que l'espace de mer aujourd'hni eonun sous le nom de
Mer de Behring etait compris dans l'expression "Ocan Pacifique" teile qn 'le
a t6 employde dans ledit TraitA.
Et quant la partie dudit troisieme point d'apres laquelle neus avons
d&cider quels droits, si droits il y avait, la Russie a possddds et exclusivemient
exereds apres ledit Traite de 1825, nous, Arbitres susnomm6s, le Baron de
Courcel, le Juge Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, le Marquis Viseonti
Venosta, et M. Gregers Gram, eonstituant la majorit6 des Arbitres, desidons
et pronongons que la Russie u'a poss6d6 ni exerc6, apris le Trait6 de 1825,
aucun droit exclusif de juridiction daus la M1er de Behring ni aucun droit
exclusif sur les pecheries de phoques dans cette iner, an dela de la limite
ordinaire des eaux territoriales.
Sur le quatrime des eing points susdits, nous, Arbitres susnommi s, d&-
cidons et pronongons a l'unanimit6 que tous les droits de la IRssie, en ce qui
coneerne la juridietion et en ce qui concerne les pchleries de phoques, dans
la partie de d la Mer de Behring qui s'dtend l'est de la limite maritime de-
terminee par le Traite du 30 Mars, 1867, entre les iEtats-Unis et la Rassie,
sont int6gralement pass6s aux Etats-Unis en vertu de ce meine Traiti.
Sur le cinquieme des cinq points susdits, nous, Arbitres susnommis, le
Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, le Mlarquis Visconti
Venosta, et M. Gregers Gram, constituaunt la majorit des Arbitres, ddeidons
et prononcons que les tats-Unis n'ont aucun droit de protection ou de pro-
p]riet6 sur les phoques fourrure qui fr6quentent les lies appartenant aux
fEtats-Unis daus la MIer de iBehring, quaud ces phoques se trouvent en dehors
de la limite ordinaire de 3 milles.
Et attendu que les deisions ci-dessus relat6es, sur les questions concer-
lnant la juridiction exclusive des Etats-Unis meutionnes dans l'Article VI,
laissent les choses en tat tel que le concours de la Grande-Bretagne est
nueessaire pour l'6tablissement de Reglements en vue de la protection et de
la presurvation convenables des phoques fourrure habitant ou frKquentant la
Mer de Behring, le Tribunal ayant ddeid la i majoriti absolue des voix sur
chliaun des Articles des Riglements qui stivent, nous, Arbitres susnommds, le
Baron de Courceel, Lord IIannen, le Marquis Visconti Venosta, et MW. Gregers
Gram, domnant notre assentiment l'cnsemible des Artieles des R1glements qui
Der Robbenfang im lBehringsmeere. 77
suivent, et coustituant la nmajoritd absolue des Arbitres, dceidons et prononcons, Kr. 10369.
d'aprds le mode prescrit par le Trait6, que les Reglements communs qui suivent, noreinigte
applicables eni dehors des limites de la Juridiction des Gouvernements respec- sta te.
tifs, sont nicessaires, et qu'ils doivent s'6tendre sur les eaux ci-aprbs d6ter- i.Aug.s193.
Article 1. Les Gouvernements des ftats-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne
interdiront A leurs citoyens et snjets respectifs de tuer, prendre ou poursuivre,
en tout temps et de quelque maniere que ce soit, les animaux communument
appeles phoques A fourrure, dans une zone de 60 milles autour des Iles Prib-
byloff, en y comprcnant les eaux territoriales.
Le milles mentionn6s dans le paragraphe pr6cedent sont des milles gdo-
graphiques de 60 au degri de latitude.
Artiele 2. Les deux Gouvernements interdiront leurs citoyens et sujets
respectifs de tuer, prendre ou poursuivre les phoques fourrure, de quelque
maniere que ce soit, pendant la saison s'6tendant cliaque annke du 1Jl Mai au
31 Juillet inclusivement, sur la haute mer, dans la partie de l'Oean Pacifique,
en y comnprenant la Mer de Bohring, qui est sise au nord du 350 degrd de
latitude nord, et Fest du 180O degrd de longitude de Greenwich jusqu' sa
rancontre avee la limite maritime dcrite dans l'Article 1r du Trait6 de 1867
entre les Etats-Unis et la luissie, et ensuite l'est de cette ligne juqu'au
Dftroit de Behring.
Article 3. Pendant la p6riode de temps et dans les eaux o la pechc
des phoques fourrure demeurera permise, les navires voiles seront seuls
admis A l'exercer ou s'associer aux op6rations de cette p che. Ils auront
cependant la facult6 de se faire assister par des pirogues ou autres einbar-
eations non pontes, mues par des pagaics, des rames ou des voiles, du genre
de celles qui sont commundment employdes comme bateaux de peche.
Article 4. Tout navire voiles autoris6d se livrer la peche des
phloques A fourrure devra dtre muui d'une licence spiciale dilivrde eet efilet
par son Gouvernement et devra porter un pavillon distinetif qui sera dUter-
min6 par ledit Gouveriement.
Artiele 5. Les patrons des navires engagds dans la peche des phoques
fourrnre devront mentionner exactement sur leurs livres de bord la date et
le lieu de chaque operation de pche des phoques fourrure, ainsi que le
nombre et le sexe des phoques capturds chaque jour. Ces mentions devront
tre communiqudes par eliaeun des deux Gouvernements l'autre la fin de
chaque saison de pAche.
Article 6. L'emploi des filets, des armes A feu et des explosifs sera
interdit dans la pAehe des phioques fourrure. Cette restriction ne s'ap-
pliquera pas aux fusils de chasse, quand cette peche sera pratiqule en deliors
de la Mer de Behring et pendant la saison oft elle ponrra ftre 14gitimement
Article 7. Los deux Gouvernements prendront des mesures en vue de
78 Der Eobbenfang im Behringsmeere.
tr. loses. contrbler l'aptitude des hommes autoris6s exercer la p1che des phoques
Vereinigte fourrure; cos omnimes devront 6tre reconnus aptes l manier avec une habileot
staaten. suffisante les armes au moyen desquelles cette p1che pourra ttre faite.
Artiele 8. Les ERglements contenus dans les pre6dents Articles ne s'ap-
pliqueront pas aux Indiens habitant sur les ctes du territoire des Etats-Unis
on de la Grande-Bretagne et pratiquant la pAche des phoques it fourrure dans
des pirogues ou embarcations non pontdcs, neu transportees par d'autres na-
vires, ni employdes A l'usage de ceux-ci, mues exclusivement a l'aide de pa-
gaies, d'avirons on de voiles, et manoeuvr6es chaeune par cinq personnes au
plus, de la manibre jnsqu' prdsent usit6e par los Indiens; pourvu que ceux-ci
ne soient pas enigages au service d'autres personnes, et qu'alors qu'ils cliassent
ainsi dans des pirogues ou embareations non pontees, ils ne poursuivent pas
les phoques fourrure, en dehors des eaux territoriales, en vertu d'engage-
ments contractWs pour la livraison des peaux une personne quelconque.
Cette exception n'aura pas pour effet de porter atteinte la legislation
nationale de l'un ou de l'autre des deux pays; elle ne s'dtendra pas aux eanx
do la Mer de Behring, ni aux eaux des passes Alaoutiennes.
Aucune des dispositions qui prdcedent n' pour objet de s'opposer ce
que les Indiens soient employds, comme chasseurs ou a tout autre titre, ainsi
qu'ils l'ont et6 jusqu' prdsent, sur des iiavires se livrant la poursuite des
Artiele 9. Les RBglements communs itablis par los Articles pr6cedciits,
en vue de la proteetion et de la preservation des phoques l fourrure, de-
meureront en vigneur jusqu'a, ce qu'ils aient 6(t en tout ou partie abolis on
modifies par un accord entre les Gouvernements des Itats-Unis et de laGrando-
Lcsdits Reglements communs serout soumis tous los cinq ans umi nonvel
exaien, pour que les deux Gouvernements intdresses so trouvent en mesure
d'apprecier, la lumiMre de l'dxp6rience acquise, s'il y a lieu d'y apporter
Et attendu que le Gouvernement de Sa Majestd Britannique a soumis au
Tribunal d'Arbitrage, par application de l'Article VIII dudit Traitd, certaines
questions de fait impliqudes dans los rclamations dont il est fait mention audit
Artiele VIII, et a soumis 6galement a nous, formant ledit Tribunal, un expos |
des faits dans los termos suivants:-
"Coiiclusions de fait proposecs par l'Agent de la Grande-Bretagne, acceptdes
par l'Agent des litats-Unis, qui eon admet l'exactitude, et soumises a
l',:xamcn du Tribunal d'Arbitrage.
"1. Que les diverses visites et saisies de navires ou de marhlandises et
les diverses arrostations de patrons et d'iquipages, mentiomnnds dans l'Annexe
au Mdmoire Britannique (pages 1 l 60 inclusivement), out 6td faites par auto-
riti du Gouvernement des Eitats-Unis; los qnestions so rapportant a la valeur
Der IRobbenfang im Behringsmeere. 79
desdits navires on de lcur contenu, ensemble ou separ6ment, et la question Nr. o106s.
de savoir si les navires dEsignds dans l'Annexe au Memoire Britannique, on vereinigte
certains d'entre eux, dtaieut, cn totalit6 ou en partie, la propriete de citoyeus staaten.
des lEtats-Unis, out 6te retirdes et non pas Wte l'objet de l'examen du Tri-
bunal, saus cette r6serve que les Etats-Unis gardent le droit de soulever ces
questions ou quelqu'une d'entre elles, s'ils le jugent propos, daus toute nd-
gociation ult6rieure pouvant engager la responsabilitd du Gouvernement des
Etats-Unis, en ce qui touche le payement des sommes mentionnies dans l'Annexe
au Minmoire Britannique.
"2. Que los susdites saisies, sauf en ce qui concerne. le 'Pathfinder,' saisi
Neah Bay, out Wt6 effeetudes dans la Mer de Behring, aux distances de la
cte mentionnees an Tableau ci-annex6, sous la lettre (C).
"3. Que lesdites visites et saisies de navires out 6t6 faites par des naviros
armds pour le service public des Ltats-Unis, deuot les Commandants avaient
regu, toutes les fois qu'elles ont eu lieu, du Pouvoir Executif du Gouverne-
ment des 1tats-Unis, des instructions dont un exemplaire est reproduit en
copie ci-aprcs, Annexe (A), les autres exemplaires desdites instructions tant
conformes t ce modle sur les points essentiels; que, dans toutes les occasions
o des poursuites entamies devant les Cours de District des Etats-Unis unt
&t, suivies de condamnations, ces poursuites ont d6butA par le dp6t d'un acte
d'accusation, dont un modele est annexe ci-dessous, Annexe (B), les actes
d'accusation deposds dans les autres procadures etaut, en tous points essentiels,
semblables ce modele; que los actes on dMlits, all6guds comme motifs de ces
visites et saisies, out Wte aucomplis ou commis dans la Mer de Behring, aux
distances de la cte ddj indiquies; que, dans tous los cas o une condam-
nation a dtd proaoncde, excepte eeux on les navires ont Wtt relachbs aprs
condamuation, la saisie a etd approuve par le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis,
et que, dans les cas o les navires ont Wte rellchis, la saisie avait 6te opl)rde
par autoritc du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis; que les amendes et emprisonne-
ments susdits ount eteL prononeds raison d'infractions aux lois nationales
des Etats-Unis- infractions toutes commises dans la Mer de Behring, aux
distances de la cte dj indiqu6es.
"4. Que los diff6rents ordres mentionn6s dans l'Annexe ci-jointe sous la
lettre (C) enjoignant certains navires de quitter la Mer de Behring, ou de
ne pas y entrer, ont ett donnes par des navires armes pour le service publie
des Etats-Unis, dont les Commandants avaient toutes los fois qu'ils ont donn6
ces ordres, des instructiouns conformes cellcs mentionu6es si-dessus sous le
No. 3, et que les navires qui ont recu ces injouctioni 6taient occupes la
chasse des phoques ou faisaient route pour entreprendre cette chasse; et
que cette fagon de proc6der a Wt6 sancetionnue par le Gouvernement des
"5. Que les Cours de District des Etats-Unis, devaut lesquelles des pour-
suites out htd entamies ou suivies pour obtenir des condamnations contre les
so Der Robbenfang im Bebringsmeere.
.Nr. 0oas. navires saisis, dont il est fait mnention dans l'Annexe au Mimoire de la Grande-
Ver-inigte Bretagne (pages 1 a 60 inclusivenent), avaient tous droits de juridiction et
8tat>n. pouvoirs appartenant au Cour d'Amiraute, y compris la juridietion de Tri-
bunaux de Prises, mais que, dans eliaque cas partieulier, la seIltence proionce
par la Cour s'appuyait sur les causes mentionn6es dans l'acto d'aecusation.
"(Traduction.)" DMpartement du Trosor, Cabinet du Secretaire, Washington,
"Monsieur, "21 Avril, 1886.
"Comme suite une lettre du DWpartement, en date de ce jour, vous
enjoiginant de vous diriger avcc le vapeur du Service des Douanes 'Bear',
place sous votre commandement, vers los iles aux phlques, vous etes par les
pr6sentes investi de tous les pouvoirs necessaires pour assurer l'exdcution de
la Loi dont les termes sont contenus dans la Seetion 1956 des Statuts Revis6s
des f-tats-Unis, et ordre vous est donn6 de saisir tout navire et d'arreter et
livrer aux autorites compftentes tout individu ou toutes personnes que vous
trouveriez agissant en violation de la Loi susmentionnie, apres qu'un avertisse-
ment suffisant leur aura Ut6 donn6.
"Vous saisirez egalement tous spiritucux et armes fen que l'on cher-
cherait introduire dans le pays sans une permission en regle, en execution
de la Section 1955 des Statuts Revis6s et de la Proclaniation du Pr6sident en
date du 4 F6vrier, 1870.
"Respectueusement vous. "C. S. Fairchild,
"Seer6taire par interim.
"Au Capitaine M1. A. IHealy,
"Commandant le vapeur du Service des Douanes 'Bear',
"l San Francisco (Californie).
"Devant la Cour de Distriet des fItats-Unis pour le District d'Alaska.
"Session (Special Term) d'Aoit 1886.
"A l'Ilonorable Lafayette Dawson, Juge de ladite Cour de District.
"Le rdquisitoire A fin d'information par lcquel M. D. Ball, Attorney des
1tats-Unis pour le Distriet d'Alaska, poursuivant au nom des litats-Unis et
prgseint ici devant la Cour, en sa personne, comme Representant des IEtats-
Unis et en leur nom, contre la goMlette ,Thornton,' sos agres, apparaux, embar-
cations, cargiison et mat6riel, et contre tontes personnes intervenalit comnme
ayant des intirvts engag6s dans ce navire, en poursuite fin de confiseation,
pr6sente les all(gations et d6clarations suivantes:
Der Robbenfang im Behliringsmecre. 81
"Que Charles A. Abbey, officier du Service des Donanes Maritimes des Xr. 10368.
Etats-Unis, charge d'une mission speciale dans les eaux du District d'Alaska, Vereinigtt
auitdrieurement au pr&seut jour, savoir le 12r Aot, 1886, dans les limites staaten.
du territoire d'Alaska et dans ses eanx, et dans les limites du district eivil et
judieiaire d'Alaska, savoir dans l'tendue des eaux de cette partie de la NMer
de Behring qui appartient audit district, dans des eaux navigables pour des
navires venant de la haute mer et jaugeant 10 tonneaux onu au-dessus, a saisi
le vaissean ou navire commiunlenit d6iomm6 goelette, le 'Thornton', ses agres,
apparaux, embarcations, cargaison et matdriel, lesquels taient la propriWte
d'nne ou de plusieurs personues inconnues dudit attoruey, et les a confiquds an
profit des Etats-Unis pour les causes ci-aprs:
"Que ledit navire ou godlette a &t trouv6 se livrant la destruction des
phoques fourrure, dans s l limites du territoire d'Alaska et de ses eaux,
en violation des dispositions de la Section 1956 des Statuts Revisis des
"Et ledit attorney dcJlare que toutes les propositions ci-dessus inoncees
ct ehacune d'elles sont et Ataieut vraies, et qu'elles tombeut sons la juridiction
maritime et d'amiraute de cette Cour, et que, pour cette raison, et on execu-
tion des Statuts des Etats-Unis tablis et ddict6s pour de tels cas, le navire
ou la goalette mentionnue et d6crite ci-dessts, jaugeant plus de 20 tonueaux,
ses agrAs, apparaux, embarcations, cargaison et materiel ount W6t et sout con-
fisqu6s au profit des ftats-Unis, et que ladite goalette se tronve maintenant
dans le district susdit.
"Oe pourquoi ledit demaide que l'honorable Cour de Justice proclde et
avise comme d'usage en cette affaire, et que toutes personuues ayant un intirt
dans ladite goelette ou navire soient citles par voie d'assignation g6nrale on
speciale, afin de r6pondre aux propositions susunoncies, et que, la suite de
la procdure ce nAcessaire, ledit navire ou goalette, ses agres, apparaux,
embareations, cargaison et mat&riol soient condamnus pour ladite cause on tout
autre qu'il apparattrait juste, par a'rdt formel et d6cret de cette honorable
Cour, et confisquds au profit desdits Etats-Unis, selon la forme des Statuts
desdits Etats-Unis, 6tablis et ddietls pour de tels cas.
D"I. D. Ball,
"Attorney des Itats-Unis pour le district d'Alaska.
An exe (C).
"La Table ci-dessous coutient los noms des navires Britanniques employ.s
la chasse des phoques qui ont 6td saisis ou avertis par les eroiseurs du
Service des Douanes des Etats-Unis, te 1886 i 1890 et la distanee approxi-
imative de la terre ot ces saisies ont en lieu. Ces distances sont iudiques,
en ce qui concerne les navires 'Caroleia', 'Tlornton', et 'Olward', d'aprts le
temoignage du Commandant Abbey, de la Marine des Etats-Unis (voir 50" Con-
Staatsarchlv LVI. 3
82 Der .Robbenfang im Behringsmeere.
Nr. 10os. gr5s, 20 Session, Senat, Doculmeuts Ex6cutifs, No. 106, p)p. 20, 30, et 40).
Yereinigte Elles soet indiquees, en co qui concerne les naves s 'Anna Beck', ,W. P. Say-
staate,. ward', 'Dolphiu', et ,Grace', d'aprs le tdmoiguage du Capitaine Shepard, de
.Aug.3.Jla Marine du Tr6sor des Etats-Unis (Livre Bleu, Etats-Unis, No. 2, 1890,
PIl. 80-82 (voir 'Appendice au M6moire Britannique', vol. Il) "
Date ilistance approximative de Terre au ta-Unis qdes
Nom du Navire e la Saisie. moment de la Saisie. lat Sis
Carolena 1"~Aoft, 1880 75 milles . . . . . .orwin.
Thornton le" 1886 70 milles . . . . . Idex.
Onward 2 1886 115 milles .......... dem.
Favourite 2 ,, 1886 Averti par le Corwin, peu pres dans
la mAme position que "l'Onward,"
Anna Beck 2 Juillet, 1887 66 milles . . . . . Rush.
W. P. Sayward 9 ,, 1887 59 milles. . . . .. Iem.
Dolphin 12 ,, 1887 40 milles . . . . . Idem.
Grace 17 ~ 1887 96 milIes . . . . . Idem.
Adolf Adams 10 Aoit, 1887 62 milles . . . . ... Idem.
Ada 25 1887 15 milles . . . . .... Bear.
Triumph 4 1887 Averti par le "lhusl" de ne pas entrer
dans la Mer de Behring.
Juanita 31 Juillet, 1889 66 milles ........... Rush.
Pathfinder 29 1889 50 milles . . . . .. Idem.
Triumph 11 1889 Averti par le "Rush" d'avoir quitter
la Mer de Behring. Position au
moment de l'avertissement (?)
Black Diamond 11 1889 35 milles . . . . ... Idem.
Lily 6 Aofit, 1880 66 milles . .. ... . Idem.
Ariel 80 Juillet, 1889 Averti par le "Rush" d'avoir quitter
la Mer de Behring
Kate 13 Aot, 1889 Idem.
Minnie 15 Juillet, 1889 65 milles . . . . . Idem.
Pathfinder 27 Mars, 1890 Saisi dans la liaie de Neal>*) Corwin.
Et attendu que le Gouvernement de Sa Majest6 Britannique a demainde &
nous, Arbitres susnorlm6s, de d6cider sur lesdites questions de fait, telles
qu'elles resultent de l'expose susmeutionn6; que l'Agent et les Conseils du
Gouvernement des Stats-Unis out, en notre pr6sence et s'adressant nons,
d6clard quc ledit expose6 des faits 6tait confirmn par les d6positions des timoins,
et qu'ils s'6taient mis d'accord avcc l'Agent et les Conseils de Sa Majest |
Britannique pour s'en reinettre a nos Arbitres de dire et prononcer vritable,
en tant que nous le jugerions propos, ledit exposu des faits.
Nous, Arbitres susnommis, disons et prononaons l'unanimitd que lesdits
faits, tels qu'ils se trouvent dans ledit expos6, sout vdritables.
Et attendu que toutes et chacune des questions qui ont 6td examinecs
par le Tribunal ont 6te dcid6es A la majorit6 absolue des voix,
Nous, le Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, le Juge Harlan, Sir John
Thompson, le Snateur Morgan, le Marquis Visconti Venosta, et M. Gregers
Grain, taut entendu que les Arbitres qui se sont trouv6s en minorit6 sur
1) I.a laie de Neah est situne dans l'Etat de Washington et le "Pathfinder" y a
ti smaii du chef dc delits commis par lui dans la mer de Behring l'annde prceddente.
Der Robbenfang im Behringsmeere. 83
certaines questions, ne retirent pas leurs votes, dclarons que le pr6sent acte Nr. 10368.
contient la decision finale et la sentence kcrite du Tribunal, conformdment vereinigte
Sdu Trai Staaten.
aux preseriptions du Trait. i6.Aug.ls9s.
Fait en double Paris, et sign6 par nous, le 15 jour d'Aont de l'annde
Alph. de Courcel. John M. Harlan.
John T. Morgan. Hannen.
Ino. S. D. Thompson. Visconti Venosta.
Declarations faites par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage et presentees aux Gouverne-
ments des tats-Unis et de le Grande-Bretagne pour Stre prises en con-
sidAration par ces Gouvernements.
1. Les Arbitres ddclarent que les Reglements communs tels qu'ils sont
etablis par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage, en vertu de l'Article VII du Traitd du
29 Fvrier, 1892, n'tant applicables que sur la haute mer, devront, dans
leur pens6e, etre complktds par d'autres Reglements applicables dans les limites
de la souverainet6 de cliacune des deux Paissances intdress6es et qui devront
Utre fixes par elles d'un commun accord.
2. Vu /etat eritique auquel il parait constant que la race des phoques
fourrure se trouve acetuellement r6duite par suite de circonstances incomplite-
ment dclaireies, les Arbitres croient devoir recommander aux deux Gouverne-
ments de se concerter en vue d'interdire toute destruction des phoques
fourrure, tant sur terre que sur mer, pondant une priode de deux ou trois
ans, ou d'une annde au moins, sauf telles exceptions que les deux Gouverne-
ments pourraient trouver propos d'admettre.
Si cette mesure donnait de bons rdsultats, elle pourrait Utre appliqude de
nouveau, certains intervalles, suivant les circonstances.
3. Les Arbitres d4clarent en outre que, dans leur pens6e, l'exceution des
Reglements etablis par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage devra etre assurde par un
ensemble de stipulations et de mesures qu'il appartiendra aux deux Puissances
d'arrSter, et que le Tribunal doit s'en remettre en consquence ces deux
Puissances pour rendre effeetifs les Rdglements etablis par lui.
Fait et sign6 Paris, le 15 Aoftt, 1893.
Alph. de Courcel. John M. Harlan. John T. Morgan.
J'approuve cls Declarations 1 et 3.
J'approuve les DWelarations 1 et 3.
Jno. S. D. Thompson. Visconti Venosta. G. Gram.
Nr. 10369. DEUTSCHES REICH und SPANIEN. Handels- und
Schiffahrtsvertrag zwischen dem Deutschen Reich
Nr. lo039. und Spanien.*) 8. August 1893.
Reich und Seine Majestt der Deutsche Kaiser, Knig von Preussen, im Namen des
Spanien. Deutschen Reichs, und Ihre Majestt die Knigin von Spanien, im Namen
'. Ag. 93. Ihres Erhabenen Sohnes, Seiner Majestt des Knigs Don Alfonso XIII., von
dem Wunsche geleitet, die zwischen beiden Lndern bestehenden Bande der
Freundschaft enger zu schliessen und die Handels- und SchiffahrtsbeziehMngen
zwischen beiden Lndern zu erleichtern und zu vermehren, haben beschlossen,
zu diesem Behufe einen Vertrag abzuschliessen und zu Bevollmchtigten er-
Seine Majestt der Deutsche Kaiser, Knig von Preunssen: 1 Aller-
hichstihren Wirklichen Geheimen Rati und ausserordentlichen und be-
vollmchtigten Botschafter bei Ihrer 3Majestt der Knigin Regentin von
Spanien, Joseph von Radowitz, und
Ihre Majestt die Knigin Regentin von Spanien, jj Allerhchstihren
Staatsminister, Don Segisinundo Moret y Preudergast,
welche, nach Austanseh Ihrer in guter und gehriger Form befindlichen Voll-
machten, folgende Artikel veroinbart haben:
Zwischen den vertragschliessenden Theilen soll volle und gunzliche Frei-
heit des Handels und der Schiffahrt bestehen. Die Angehrigen jedes der ver-
tragschliessenden Theile sollen gegenseitig in dem Gebiete des anderen Theiles,
soweit nicht der gegenwrtige Vertrag Ansnahmen festsetzt, in Bezug auf
Hlandel, Schiffalirt und Gewerbebetrieb dieselben Rechte, Privilegien und Be-
gfllistignuien aller Art geniessen, welche den Inlindern zustehen oder zustehen
werden, und keinen anderen oder lstigeren, allgemeinen oder rtlichen Ab-
*) Vnn den Cortes bis zumn Moment der Drncklegung noch nicht angenommen. -
Ucubr die Eilitiosgriindstze vgl. Bd. LII Nr. 10201 Aumerkmiig.