"ANNEX C. "The following table shows the names of the British sealing-vessels seized or warned by United States revenue cruizers 1886-1890, and the approximate distance from land when seized. The distances assigned in the cases of the Carolena, Thornton and Onward are on the authority of U. S. Naval Commander Abbey (see 50 Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Executive Documents No 106, pp. 20, 30, 40). The distances assigned in the cases of the Anna Beck, W. P. Sayward, Dolphia and Grace are on the authority of Captain Shepard U. S. R. M. (Blue Book, United States No 2, 1890.— pp. 80-82. See Appendix, vol. III).' (1) Neah Bay is in the State of Washington, and the Pathfinder was seized there on charges made against her in the Behring Sea in the previous year. She was released two days later. "And whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty did ask the said Arbitrators to find the said facts as set forth in the said statement, and whereas the Agent and Counsel for the United States Government thereupon in our presence informed us that the said statement of facts was sustained by the evidence, and that they had agreed with the Agent and Counsel for Her Britannic Majesty that We, the Arbitrators, if we should think fit so to do might find the said statement of facts to be true. "Now, We, the said Arbitrators, do unanimously find the facts as set forth in the said statement to be true. "And whereas each and every question which has been considered by the Tribunal has been determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators; "Now We, Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Mr. Justice Harlan, Sir John Thompson, Senator Morgan, the Marquis Visconti Venosta and Mr. Gregers Gram, the respective minorities not withdrawing their votes, do declare this to be the final Decision and Award in writing of this Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty. "Made in duplicate at Paris and signed by us the fifteenth day of August in the year 1893. "And We do certify this English Version thereof to be true and accurate. "ALPH. DE COURCEL. "JOHN M. HARLAN. "JOHN T. MORGAN. "HANNEN. "JNO S D THOMPSON. "VISCONTI VENOSTA. "G. GRAM.". "Déclarations faites par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage et Présentées aux Gouvernements des États-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne pour Étre Prises en Considération par ces Gouvernements. "I. "Les Arbitres déclarent que les Règlements communs tels qu'ils sont établis par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage, en vertu de l'article VII du Traité du 29 février 1892, n'étant applicables que sur la haute mer, devront, dans leur pensée, être complétés par d'autres Règlements applicables dans les limites de la souveraineté de chacune des deux Puissances intéressées et qui devront être fixés par elles d'un commun accord. "II. "Vu l'état critique auquel il paraît constant que la race des phoques à fourrure se trouve actuellement réduite par suite de circonstances incomplètement éclaircies, les Arbitres croient devoir recommander aux deux Gouvernements de se concerter en vue d'interdire toute destruction de phoques à fourrure, tant sur terre que sur mer, pendant une période de deux ou trois ans, ou d'une année au moins, sauf telles exceptions que les deux Gouvernements pourraient trouver à propos d'admettre. "Si cette mesure donnait de bons résultats, elle pourrait être appliquée de nouveau, à certains intervalles, suivant les circonstances. " III. "Les Arbitres déclarent en outre que, dans leur pensée, l'exécution des règlements établis par le Tribunal d'Arbitrage devra être assurée par un ensemble de stipulations et de mesures qu'il appartiendra aux deux Puissances d'arrêter, et que le Tribunal doit s'en remettre en conséquence à ces deux Puissances pour rendre effectifs les règlements établis par lui. "Fait et signé à Paris, le 15 août 1893. "ALPH. DE COURCEL. "JOHN M. HARLAN. "JOHN T. MORGAN. "J'approure les déclarations I. et III. "HANNEN. "J'approuve les déclarations I. et III. "JNO S D THOMPSON. "VISCONTI VENOSTA. "G. GRAM." "[English version.] "Declarations made by the Tribunal of Arbitration and Referred to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain for their consideration. ❝I. "The Arbitrators declare that the concurrent Regulations, as determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration, by virtue of article VII of the Treaty of the 29th of February 1892, being applicable to the high sea only, should, in their opinion, be supplemented by other Regulations applicable within the limits of the sovereignty of each of the two Powers interested and to be settled by their common agreement. "II. "In view of the critical condition to which it appears certain that the race of fur-seals is now reduced in consequence of circumstances not fully known, the Arbitrators think fit to recommend both Governments to come to an understanding in order to prohibit any killing of fur-seals, either on land or at sea, for a period of two or three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the two Governments might think proper to admit of. "Such a measure might be recurred to at occasional intervals if found beneficial. "III. "The Arbitrators declare moreover that, in their opinion, the carrying out of the Regulations determined upon by the Tribunal of Arbitration, should be assured by a system of stipu lations and measures to be enacted by the two Powers; and that the Tribunal must, in consequence, leave it to the two Powers to decide upon the means for giving effect to the Regulations determined upon by it. "We do certify this English version to be true and accurate and have signed the same at Paris this 15th day of August 1893. "I approve declarations I. and III. "I approve declarations I. and III. The Result of the "ALPH DE COURCEL. "JOHN M. HARLAN. "HANNEN. "JNO S D THOMPSON. On the various questions of right submitted to the tribunal its decision was against the United States; but to anyone who has read the foregoing pages it must be evident that this result was not due to any lack of ability or of effort on the part of the Ameri can agent and counsel. It must be equally evident that it was due to certain historical and legal antecedents, among which we may mention the following: 1. That when the first seizures were reported in 1886 the Department of State not only possessed no information concerning them, but was unable to give any explanation of them; and that when the circumstances of the seizures were ascertained, even though the full judicial record had not then been received, the vessels were ordered to be released.' 2. That the court in Alaska, in condemning the vessels and punishing their masters and crews, proceeded on a doctrine of mare clausum, which the United States had never asserted and which the government afterwards disavowed." 3. That the treaty ceding Alaska to the United States did not purport to convey the waters of Behring Sea, but in terms conveyed only "the territory and dominion" of Russia "on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands," and drew a water boundary so as to effect a transfer of the islands, many of them nameless, which lay in the intervening seas.3 4. That the ukase of 1821, which contained the only distinctive claim of mare clausum ever put forward by Russia, did not assume to treat the whole of Behring Sea as a close sea, but only to exclude foreign vessels from coming within one Supra, 772, 773. 2 Supra, 797. 3 Supra, 763. hundred Italian miles of the coast, from the fifty-first parallel of north latitude to Behring Straits, without discrimination as to localities.1 5. That against this ukase both the United States and Great Britain protested; and that by the treaties of 1824 and 1825 Russia agreed not to interfere with their citizens or subjects either in navigating or in fishing in any part" of the Pacific Ocean, thus abandoning the exclusive jurisdictional claim announced in the ukase." 6. That it was declared in the diplomatic correspondence that if the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in those treaties, included Behring Sea, the United States had" no well-grounded complaint" against Great Britain; and that it was unanimously found by the arbitrators that the phrase Pacific Ocean did include Behring Sea. 7. That while the tribunal, by six voices to one, found that there was no evidence to substantiate the supposition that Russia had asserted exceptional claims as to the fur seals, there was affirmative evidence that she had not done so in recent years. 8. That it was admitted that no municipal law of the United States had treated the species, individually or collectively, as the subject of property and protection on the high seas.5 9. That it was also admitted by the representatives of the United States that, for the claim of property and protection on the high seas, there was no precise precedent in international law, though it was strongly maintained that the claim was justified by analogies." 10. That the effort to support this claim was embarrassed by its relation to the subject of visitation and search on the high seas. The question of regulations stood on different grounds. It Supra, 756. 2 Supra, 760, 762. 3 Supra, 796. 4 Supra, 823-826, 914. Supra, 857. 6 Supra, 844, 862, 918, 934. 7 Supra, 842, 843, 845, 898, 902. "They [the neutral arbitrators] were confronted with a question novel in its facts and with a claim on the part of the United States which to them seemed in conflict with the accepted doc. trine of the freedom of the seas." (Final Report of the Agent of the United States, 10.) |