Acknowledges note of June 7 last, touching a Transmits official statement of the American British claims for damages on account of the 156 157 158 160 161 No. 1. Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Gresham. [Telegram.] NEWPORT, R. I., August 22, 1893. Lord Rosebery proposes to lay before Parliament at once Bering Sea award. He presumes your Government have no objection. Can I reply in that sense? No. 2. Mr. Gresham to Sir Julian Pauncefote. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, I see no reason why Bering Sea award should not be laid before Parliament, although we have received no official copy. No. 3. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. [Telegram.] WASHINGTON, September 12, 1893. The two powers should, without delay, come to an understanding which will make the regulations found to be necessary by the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration practically effective before the next sealing season. Concurrent legislation and supplemental regulations seem indispensable. You are instructed to inform the British minister that the United States desire to take the matter up at once with the ambassador here, or in some other way satisfactory to both Governments. Efforts to obtain adhesion of other powers to the regulations should be promptly made. The arbitrators recommend that no fur seal be killed on land or sea for one, two, or three years. If this suggestion is adopted the concurrence of Russia should be had, if possible. No. 4. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham. EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, London, September 13, 1893. (Received September 21.) SIR: I avail myself of the mail pouch, which closes to-day, to send you two pamphlets on the Bering Sea question and the award thereon of the tribunal at Paris. I have written to the secretary of state for foreign affairs asking an interview, in order to lay before him the purport of your instruction in relation to proceeding, without delay, to agree upon the regulations in fur sealing, made necessary to effectuate the award of the arbitrators. I shall communicate to you as soon as possible the result of the interview with Lord Rosebery on the subject. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 5. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham. EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, London, September 13, 1893. (Received September 21.) SIR Referring to my previous dispatch of this date, I have now the honor to inform you that I have just had an interview with Her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs in which I acquainted him with the purport of your instruction of to-day by cable in relation to the expediency of the two Governments coming at once to an understanding under which the award of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration upon the Bering Sea questions would be rendered practically effective before the next sealing season. His Lordship expressed his willingness to act promptly, and also the opinion that the arrangements for that purpose would be wisely made at Washington, and that the British ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote, would be eminently qualified to conduct them in behalf of his Government. But Lord Rosebery told me that he was awaiting a note upon the subject of the award from Sir Charles Tupper, high commissioner for Canada, who has just gone hence to Canada, and was, therefore, not prepared to discuss the matter further until he had heard from him. I suggested the expediency of the two Governments acting promptly, in which his Lordship expressed his full concurrence, and said he would telegraph Sir Charles Tupper this afternoon and acquaint me with the nature of his reply as soon as it was received. His Lordship concurred also in my suggestion that it would be highly expedient that no intimation of delay or obstruction should be attributable to Canada, and said in substance that there could be none. I had a long interview with Sir Charles Tupper on the 12th of August. on the general subject of Canadian relations with the United States, which I propose to make the subject of a separate dispatch, in which he expressed the strongest desire to strengthen amicable relations between the United States and Canada; so that I apprehend a ready and willing cooperation in the the arrangements suggested by your cable instruction looking to the effective execution of the award of the Paris Tribunal. T. F. BAYARD. I have, etc., No. 6. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 13, 1893. SIR: Any benefit that this Government derives from the action of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration will depend upon the regulations and the willingness of Great Britain to cooperate with us in making them practically effective. Concurrent legislation should be obtained and supplemental rules or orders agreed upon and published before the next sealing season begins. Owners of sealing vessels should know in advance the restriction under which they will have to act. * I fear that whatever is done Canadians, and perhaps Americans, will transfer the ownership of their sealing vessels to citizens or subjects of other powers, thus avoiding the effect of the regulations. It remains to be seen whether other powers will now give their adhesion to the regu lations. It would seem that the situation calls for both legislation and another treaty, and perhaps you had better sound Lord Rosebery on that point; also, as to how other powers are to be approached for their adhesion to the regulations. I am, etc., No. 7. W. Q. GRESHAM. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. [Telegram.] WASHINGTON, September 16, 1893. Your familiarity with the Bering Sea controversy, the treaty and award, suggests the propriety of intrusting to you the effort to obtain from Great Britain an agreement for the adoption of appropriate means for carrying into effect the regulations, and the President directs me to instruct you to exert yourself in that behalf. It is earnestly hoped that the British Government realizes the importance of prompt action and that it will speedily come to an understanding upon the subject of concurrent legislation, supplemental regulations, and joint effort for obtaining adhesion of other nations. No. 8. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 19, 1893. SIR: Referring to my telegram of the 16th instant instructing you in regard to the framing of regulations and legislation on the part of the United States and Great Britain to govern sealing in Bering Sea, I send you for your further information copies of the final decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration with the recommendations made by the tribunal to the two Governments. I am, etc., W. Q. GRESHAM. [Inclosure 1 in No. 8.] [English version.] Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under the treaty concluded at Washington, the 29th of February, 1892, between the United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Whereas by a treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain, signed at Washington, February 29, 1892, the ratifications of which by the Governments of the two countries were exchanged at London on May 7, 1892, it was, amongst other things, agreed and concluded that the questions which had arisen between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea, and 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 seals in or habitually resorting to the said waters, should be submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration to be composed of seven arbitrators, who should be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: two should be named by the President of the United States; two should be named by Her Britannic Majesty; His Excellency the President of the French Republic should be jointly requested by the high contracting parties to name one; His Majesty the King of Italy should be so requested to name one; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway should be so requested to name one; the seven arbitrators to be so named should be jurists of distinguished reputation in their respective countries, and the selecting powers should be requested to choose, if possible, jurists who are acquainted with the English language; And whereas it was further agreed by Article II of the said treaty that the arbitrators should meet at Paris within twenty days after the delivery of the counter cases mentioned in Article IV, and should proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide the questions which had been or should be laid before them as in the said treaty provided on the part of the Governments of the United States and of Her Britannic Majesty respectively, and that all questions considered by the tribunal, including the final decision, should be determined by a majority of all the arbitrators; And whereas by Article VI of the said treaty, it was further provided as follows: In deciding the matters submitted to the said arbitrators, it is agreed that the following five points shall be submitted to them in order that their award shall embrace a distinct decision upon each of said five points, to wit: 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Bering 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 Bering 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 Bering Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty? 4 Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Bering Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia, of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty? 5. 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 Bering Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit? And whereas, by Article VII of the said treaty, it was further agreed as follows: If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal in or habitually resorting to the Bering Sea, the arbitrators shall then determine what concurrent regulations, outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments, are necessary, and over what waters such regulations should extend; The high contracting parties furthermore agree to cooperate in securing the adhesion of other powers to such regulations; And whereas, by Article VIII of the said treaty, after reciting that the high contracting parties had found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which should include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims presented and urged by it, and that "they were solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of the main questions," the high contracting parties agreed that "either of them might submit to the arbitrators any question of fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation;" And whereas the President of the United States of America named the Hon. John M. Harlan, justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Hon. John T. Morgan, Senator of the United States, to be two of the said arbitrators, and Her Britannic Majesty named the Right Hon. Lord Hannen and the Hon. Sir John Thompson, minister of justice and attorney-general for Canada, to be two of the said arbitrators, and His Excellency, the President of the French Republic, named the Baron de Courcel, senator, ambassador of France, to be one of the said arbitrators, and His Majesty, the King of Italy, named the |