its interests and those of the Government in the preservation of the fur seal industry being indentical. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 27, 1893. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge your dispatch of the 30th ultimo, in which you state that, on Lord Rosebery's return to London from Balmoral, you will continue your efforts for adequate and concurrent action on the award of the Paris Tribunal. You also say: To suspend wholly, even for a single year, the seal catch on the islands might be highly prejudicial to the United States or their lessees, and, as in the provisional or temporary arrangement of May, 1893, between Russia and Great Britain, a limit of 30,000 seals on the Russian islands was agreed to, it would seem a very reasonable figure to adopt for the catch on the Pribilof Islands, whose product has been supposed to be about double that of the Russian islands. I would respectfully ask for an expression of your views on this subject, and how far we ought to go in restricting the seal catch on these islands. I sent you yesterday copy of the contract which secures to the North American Commercial Company the exclusive right to take seal on the Pribilof Islands, thinking it advisable that you should know the precise relations between the United States and that company. The President is not now prepared to say how far we ought to go in limiting the seal catch should Great Britain make a demand of that kind. You are well informed on the subject of the seal industry and all matters relating to it, and we rely with confidence upon your judgment in dealing with Lord Rosebery. If Great Britain firmly insists that only a limited number of seals shall be taken on the islands, and you must yield or fail in the effort to obtain a satisfactory understanding for concurrent action, you can report the fact to me, and I will communicate it to the President for his direction. I have no doubt you will be impressed by the reply of the Japanese minister when I asked him, in an informal conversation, if his Government was willing to give its adhesion to the regulations recommended by the arbitrators. You have the substance of that conversation in my instructions of the 24th instant. I must say that the position of Japan seems to be reasonable. An agreement between the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, of the character suggested by the minister of the latter country, for the protection of the seal north of a line reaching from California to Japan, along the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude, would likely be respected by other powers. It is very important that the two Governments should come to an understanding which will secure the desired result before the next sealing season begins, and it is not doubted here that you are striving to accomplish that end. The Russian minister told me a day or two ago that, when informed of the means adopted by the United States and Great Britain to give practical effect to the regulations, his Government would without delay determine whether or not it could give its adhesion, as requested. It may be that other powers will not be willing to be bound by the regulations recommended by the tribunal without knowing what means will be employed by the two Governments for their enforcement. I am, etc., No. 20. W. Q. GRESHAM. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham. EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, London, November 1, 1893. (Received November 11.) SIR: I have the honor to state that, pursuant to your directions, the copies of the protocols of the arbitration in the Bering Sea question have just been sent to me from the embassy of the United States at Paris. The oral arguments of counsel, save and except that of James C. Carter, esq., have not yet been published, as I am as yet informed, and I would like to receive them as soon as they are in print. As attendant upon framing legislation and coming to an international agreement to carry out the decisions and recommendations of the Paris Tribunal in their award upon the business of fur-seal fishing in Bering Sea, I have also the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a telegram which appeared yesterday in the London newspapers, which indicates the extent to which "pelagic" sealing was carried on in the present season, and likewise suggests a method by which it is proposed to evade the duties and obligations imposed by the treaty and the award of the arbitrators, only upon the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, leaving depredation upon seal life under other flags not only unchecked, but in effect affirmatively legalized by the text of the award and decisions. Up to this date "pelagic" sealing has been carried on only under the flags of Great Britain and the United States, but what may be done under the flags of other nationalities hereafter can not be definitely anticipated. Therefore, as at present instructed, and in anticipation of cooperative penal enactments by the United States and Great Britain against killing seal in the sea, in violation of the award, it would seem highly expedient to caution the Governments of Japan and Korea, as well as the Sandwich Islands, against attempts which may be made to carry on under their flags, fur seal fishing, contrary to the letter and intent of the Paris decision and recommendations. In this connection I take leave to remark that the avowed reason for the contention against pelagic sealing on the part of the United States has always been the preservation of the seal species for the use of civilized mankind, and the gist of the argument against killing seal in the water has been the impossibility of discrimination between sexes and ages, as well as the insecurity of capture of a large proportion of the seals when so killed. This rule is not local, but necessarily applies to the fur-seal species everywhere; so that the Government of the United States, in order to be consistent, should be prepared to show its unwillingness to kill seal in the water anywhere, and at all seasons; that is to say, "pelagic" sealing is destructive to the species, and it is only on land that proper discrimination can be exercised. Therefore, in asking the adhesion of other nations to the regulations prescribed, and recommendations suggested by the arbitrators at Paris, as is stipulated by Article VII of the treaty of February 1892, between the United States and Great Britain, the United States should be prepared to extend the proposed rules into those regions of the high seas adjacent to the sealing islands and sealing resorts of other nations. The interests of Russia and Japan are almost identical with those of the United States, and what is desirable for one is so alike to all. Each of these powers possesses territory to which the fur seal resort when breeding, and equally with the United States need protective regulation. I venture therefore, to submit to your judgment the advisability of instructing the representatives of the United States in Japan, Korea, and the Sandwich Islands, to intimate confidentially to those Governments the present condition of affairs, and that the United States and Great Britain are about unitedly to enforce protective measures, by the establishment of a zone of interdiction around the Pribilof group, and a close season from May 1, to July 31, in the Pacific Ocean north of the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude and invite their adhesion to the regulations proposed by the award as published. You will observe that I have not referred to the fact that, by article 2, of the Paris award, the water boundary described in article 1, of the treaty of 1867 (Alaskan purchase), between the United States and Russia, is the limit in Bering Sea within which the interdiction is to be enforced, but it seems very clear that justice and self-consistency demand of the United States that this interdiction against killing seal at sea would extend to all waters, including those adjacent to the territorial possessions of other countries, and to which the seal resort. Russia and Japan are the two nations territorially interested, and the Sandwich Islands and Korea can justly be appealed to not to allow their flags to be used for purposes unfriendly to the United States. Of course by the treaty of February, 1892 (Article VII), Great Britain is bound to cooperate with the United States in securing adhesion to the regulations, and it is assumed that of course (it) will do so. And at the proper time, and in such mode as may be deemed most advisable, such cooperation will be claimed by the United States; but at the present writing the point I desire to make is the word of friendly notification and caution to Japan, Korea, and the Sandwich Islands, lest the use of their flags might be obtained by the solicitation of furseal hunters from the United States or Great Britain and her colonies. The interests of Russia are so entirely similar to those of the United States and so involved in a similar fate that I can not imagine any such warning would be requisite in that quarter. The participation of Sweden and Norway, France and Italy in the composition of the Paris Tribunal and framing its decrees would seem to render it impossible that those Governments would permit their flags. to be used as a cover of depredations against the interests which they themselves had so benevolently adjudicated. So that I think all that need be done in the light of the enormous extent of pelagic sealing during the current year, as shown by the inclosed telegram, and the suggestion of a transfer of the sealing fleet to Japanese waters, and possibly under the Japanese flag, will be a notification and warning by our representative to that Government of the possibility of such attempt and the necessity of preventing its success. You may pos sibly think it worth while, informally, and in conversation at Washington, to broach the subject to the Japanese minister. I shall proceed as speedily as possibly in the duty assigned me of coming to such an agreement of cooperation with Her Majesty's Government as will give efficient force to the award of the Paris Tribunal. I have the honor, etc., T. F. BAYARD. [Inclosure in No. 20.-Press telegram.] THE BERING SEA FISHERIES, Victoria, British Columbia, October 25. The British Columbia sealing catch, including the take of two American vessels, amounts to 70,000 skins. Many of the schooners will go to Japan next season, about half their number setting out before Christmas. It is stated that some of these vessels are likely to transfer their allegiance to another flag. No. 21. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham. EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES, London, November 11, 1893. (Received November 20.) SIR: Referring to my dispatch of November 1, I have now the honor to acknowledge your several instructions of October 18, 24, 26, and 27, all having relation to the fur-seal fishery in Bering Sea, and all of which have been perused with great interest. My dispatch above referred to was mailed just in advance of the arrival of the several instructions above alluded to, but it gave me no little satisfaction to discover that the expression of views I had the honor of submitting therein to you were quite in line with your own, and that in fact you had anticipated certain suggestions I had made therein. It was quite important for me to possess copies of the contracts of the United States with the lessees of the Pribilof group, and also copies of the Treasury instructions, in 1890 and 1892, to the general and special agents in charge of the Seal Islands. The report of your conversations with the representatives of Japan, Russia, and Great Britain is impressive and valuable, and I quite concur in the views, as conveyed, of the President and yourself as to the necessity for a general plan of international arrangement in order to give substantial efficacy and value to the regulations and recommendations of the Tribunal of Arbitration. I venture to draw your attention to the terms of these Treasury Department instructions relating to the number of seal (7,500) which may be taken on the islands under the modus vivendi, which continued in force "pending the arbitration of the Bering Sea question, unless otherwise provided for after October 31, 1893." The arbitration having now closed, and a decision having been reached, there does not appear to be any provision whatever now in force limiting the number of seals which may be taken on the Seal Islands of the United States; but by the contract of March 12, 1890, between the United States and the North American Commercial Company it is expressly stipulated that during the year ending May 1, 1891, "the number of fur seals to be taken and killed for their skins shall not exceed 60,000." With this exception, as to the single year 1891, the Secretary of the Treasury is vested with sole discretion and authority to impose restrictions or limitations upon the seal catch on these islands. I assume that the Secretary of the Treasury will not fix the number of seals which may be taken in the islands during the next season until the desired international arrangement shall have been made. May I ask to have obtained for me, at the Treasury Department, a summarized statement of the number of seals taken in the Pribilof Islands in each year since 1871. I suppose no seals have at any time been taken by the lessees of the United States, excepting on those islands, and that no other leases or licenses were ever granted by the United States for sealing elsewhere. The fact, however, might as well be stated authoritatively by the Treasury Department in connection with the number of seals taken annually since 1871. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD. No. 22. Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, The President is anxious that an agreement should speedily be reached for carrying out the decision and recommendations of the Paris Tribunal. If Lord Rosebery has met you in a proper spirit we do not doubt results. Are you hopeful? No. 23. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham. [Telegram.] LONDON, November 18, 1893. Assure President commencement formal negotiations hitherto prevented by circumstances beyond my control. Secretary of state for foreign affairs just returned. Shall proceed promptly as possible. Good reason to expect efficient cooperation. |