jects for 100 miles' distance from the coast, which had been put forward in the ukase of 1821.

Mr. Blaine does not deal with these protests, which appear to Her Majesty's Government to be in themselves amply sufficient to decide the question whether Great Britain did or did not acquiesce in the Russian claim put forward by the ukase. He confines himself mainly, in the dispatch 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 which the text is printed at the close of Mr. Blaine's dispatch, does not contain a word to signify the acquiescence of Great Britain in the claim recently put forward by Russia to control the waters of the sea for 100 miles from her coast. There is no stipulation upon which this interpretation can be imposed by any process of construction whatsoever. But there is a provision having, in our judgment, a totally opposite tendency, which indeed was intended to negative the extravagant claim that had recently 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 first article and runs as follows:

ARTICLE 1. It is agreed that the respective subjects of the high contracting 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 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 articles.

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 Sea, she would have taken this opportunity of doing so; but that, in confining herself to stipulations in favor of full liberty of navigation and fishing in any part of the ocean commonly called the Pacific Ocean, she, by implication, renounced any claim that could arise out of the same set of circumstances in regard to any sea that was not part of the Pacific Ocean. And then Mr. Blaine goes on to contend that the phrase "Pacific Ocean" did not and does not include Behring Sea.

Even if this latter contention were correct, I should earnestly demur to the 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 we 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 Sea. I believe that in common parlance, then and now, Behring 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 recording 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 Bering Sea, Mr. Blaine adduces a long list of maps in which a designation distinct from that of "Pacific Ocean" is given Behring Sea; either "Belring Sea," or "Sea of Kamchatka," 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 the Atlantic Ocean, or that the Gulf of Lyons forms part of the Mediterranean Sea; and yet in most maps it will be found that to those portions of the larger sea a separate designation has been given. The question whether by the words "Pacific Ocean" the negotiators meant to include or to exclude Behring Sea depends upon which locution was esteemed to be the correct usage at the time. The date is not a distant one, and there is no ground for suggesting that the usage has changed since 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 dispatch a list of some thirty works of this class, of various dates from 1795 downwards, and printed in various countries, which combine to show that, in customary parlance, the words "Pacific Ocean" do include Behring Sea.1

If, then, in ordinary language, the Pacific Ocean is used as a phrase including the whole sea from Behring Straits to the Antarctic Circle, it follows that the 1st article of the treaty of 1825 did secure to Great Britain in the fullest manner the freedom of navigation and fishing in Behring Sea. In that case no inference, however indirect or circuitous, can be drawn from any omission in the language of that instrument to show that Great Britain acquiesced in the usurpation which the ukase of 1821 had attempted. The other documents which I have quoted sufficiently establish that she not 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 no strength or validity except what it might derive from the assent of any power whom it might affect, it results that Russia has never acquired by the ukase any right to curtail the natural liberty of Her Majesty's subjects to navigate or fish in these seas anywhere outside territorial waters. And what Russia did not herself possess she was not able to transmit to the United States.

Her Majesty's Government have, in view of these considerations, no doubt whatever that British subjects enjoy the same rights in Behring Sea which belong to them in every 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 he conceives 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:

(1) What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring 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?

The third question is expressed in the following terms:

Was the body of water now known as the Behring Sea included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia and what rights (if any) in the Behring Sea were given or conceded to Great Britain by the said treaty?

Her Majesty's Government would have no objection to referring to arbitration the first part of that question, if it should be thought desirable to do so; but they would give that consent with the reservation that they do not admit that the decision of it can conclude the larger ques

For appendix to this dispatch see Senate Ex. Doc. No. 55, Fifty-second Congress, first session, pp. 21-23.

tions which the arbitrator would have to determine. To the latter part of No. 3 it would be their duty to take exception:

What rights if any, in the Behring Sea were given or 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 recognize her natural right of free navigation and fishing in that as in all other parts of the Pacific Ocean. Russia did not give those rights to Great Britain, because they were never hers to give away.

(4) Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Behring 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 to 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 Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits, whether such rights grow out of the cession by Russia of any special rights or jurisdiction held by her in such fisheries or in the waters of Behring 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 the islands for food, or out of any other fact or incident connected with the relation of those seal fisheries to the territorial possessions of the United States ?

The first clause, "What are now the rights of the United States as to the fur-seal fisheries in the waters of the Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits?" is a question which would be very properly referred 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 Majesty's Government are not prepared to accede. The sixth question, which deals with the issues that will arise in case the controversy should be decided in favor of Great Britain, would perhaps more fitly form the substance of a separate reference. Her Majesty's Government have no objection to refer the general ques tion of a close time to arbitration, or to ascertain by that means how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the preservation of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain words appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter to the United States.

There is one omission in these questions which I have no doubt the Government of the President will be very glad to repair; and that is the reference to the arbitrator of the question, what damages are due to the persons who have been injured, in case it shall be determined by him 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 Government of the United States in seeking by means of arbitration an adjustment 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 dispatch to Mr. Blaine, and leave a copy of it with him should he desire it.

I am, etc.,

SALISBURY.

Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, April 14, 1891. SIR: The modifications which Lord Salisbury suggests in the questions for arbitration do not wholly meet the views of the President; but the President changes the text of the third and fifth in such manner, it is hoped, as will result in an agreement between the two governments. While Lord Salisbury suggests a different mode of procedure from that embodied in the sixth question, the President does not understand him actually to object to the question, and he therefore assumes that it is agreed to.

The six questions as now proposed by the President are as follows: First. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring 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?

Second. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain ?

Third. Was the body of water now known as the Behring Sea included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty?

Fourth. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea, east of the water boundary described in the treaty between the United States and Russia of March 30, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty?

Fifth. Has the United States any right, and, if so, what right, of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?

Sixth. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing regulations for the killing of the fur seal in any part of the waters of Behring Sea, then it shall be further determined: First, how far, if at all, outside the ordinary territorial limits it is necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect the seal for the time living upon the islands of the United States and feeding therefrom? Second, whether a closed season (during which the killing of seals in the waters of Behring Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be prohibited) is necessary to save the seal-fishing industry, so valuable and important to mankind, from deterioration or destruction? And, if so, third, what months or parts of months should be included in such season, and over what waters it should extend?

The President does not object to the additional question respecting alleged damages to English ships, proposed by Lord Salisbury, if one condition can be added, namely, that after the issues of the arbitration are joined, if the United States shall prevail, all the seals taken by Canadian vessels during the period shall be paid for at the ordinary price for which skins are sold. This seems to the President to be the complement of Lord Salisbury's proposition, and he doubts not that it will secure his lordship's assent.

In the first paragraph of Lord Salisbury's dispatch of February 21 he makes the following declaration:

It is now quite clear that the advisers of the President do not claim Behring Sea as mare clausum, and, indeed, that they repudiate that contention in express terins.

Lord Salisbury's expression is put in such form as to imply (whether he so intended I know not) that the United States had hitherto been resting its contention upon the fact that the Behring Sea was mare clausum. If that was his intention it would have been well for his lordship to specify wherein the United States ever made the assertion. The emphatic denial in my dispatch of December 17 last was intended to put an end to the iteration of the charge and to eliminate it from the current discussion.

Lord Salisbury complains that I did not deal with certain protests, written by Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington in 1822, which he had before quoted. If he will recur to the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh pages of my dispatch of December 17, he will observe that I specially dealt with these; that I maintained, and, I think, proved from the text that there was not a single word in those protests referring to the Behring Sea, but that they referred, in the language of the Duke of Wellington of the 17th of October, 1822, only to the lands "extending along the shores of the Pacific Ocean from latitude 49° to latitude 60° north." In the first paragraph of Lord Londonderry's protest of January 18, 1822, addressed to Count Lieven, of Russia, he alluded to the matters in dispute as "especially connected with the territorial rights of the Russian Crown on the Northwest Coast of America bordering on the Pacific Ocean, and the commerce and navigation of His Imperial Majesty's subjects in the seas adjacent thereto." From these and other pertinent facts it is evident that the protests of Lord Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington had nothing whatever to do with the points now in issue between the American and British governments concerning the waters of the Behring Sea. They both referred, in different and substantially identical phrases, to the territory south of the Alaskan Peninsula bordering on the Pacific and geographically shut out from the Behring Sea. I regret that my arguments on a point which Lord Salisbury considers of great importance should have escaped his lordship's notice.

In Lord Salisbury's judgment the contention of the United States now rests wholly upon the ukase of 1821 by the Emperor Alexander I of Russia. The United States has at no time rested its argument solely on the ground mentioned, and this Government regrets that Lord Salisbury should have so misapprehended the American position as to limit its basis of right in Behring Sea to the ukase of 1821. The United States has, among other grounds, insisted, without recurring to any of its inherited and superior rights in Alaska, that this Government has as full authority for going beyond the 3-mile line in case of proved necessity as Great Britain possesses.

Two or three instances of the power which Great Britain exercises beyond the 3-mile line have already been quoted, but have failed, thus far, to secure comment or explanation from Lord Salisbury. Another case can be added which, perhaps, is still more to the point. In 1889, only two years ago, the British Parliament enacted a law, the effect of which is fully shown by a map inclosed herewith. Far outside the 3-mile line the Parliament of Great Britain has attempted to control a body of water situated beyond the northeastern section of Scotland, 2,700 square miles in extent, and to direct that certain methods of fishing shall not be used within that great body of water under