Legation of
the United States,
London, January 24, 1891.
(Received February 4.)
No. 394.]
[Inclosure in No. 394.—From the London
Times, January 24, 1891.]
The Behring Sea fisheries.
Mr. Bryce asked the undersecretary for foreign affairs whether he could
give the House any information regarding the present position of the
negotiations between Her Majesty and the Government of the United States
of America regarding the seal fisheries in Behring Sea; whether, in
particular, he could state what was the nature of the proceedings
reported to have been recently taken in the Supreme Court of the United
States in connection with the seizure of a sealing vessel which was
sailing under the British flag; and when it was intended to present to
Parliament papers relating to this subject.
Sir J. Fergusson. Negotiations regarding the seal fisheries in the North
Pacific Ocean are proceeding in ordinary diplomatic course. A long note
was addressed by the United States Government to Her Majesty’s minister
at Washington on the 17th of December, to which a reply has not yet been
made. The proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of the United States
are a motion for a writ of prohibition to the district court of Alaska
in respect of alleged excess of jurisdiction by that court in condemning
a Canadian vessel which was engaged in seal fishery in the open sea.
That application has not yet been heard. This course was taken at the
instance of the Canadian Government, with the approval of Her Majesty’s
Government, and upon the advice of American lawyers. Its object is to
bring the case before the highest tribunal in the United States in the
fullest manner. It is desirable to point out that in this course there
is no interference in any sense with the diplomatic question. Diplomatic
negotiations have reference to a wrong which we say has been committed
against international law and can only be redressed by diplomacy. The
legal proceedings, on the other hand, before the Supreme Court have
reference to a wrong committed, as we believe, on British subjects
against the municipal law of the United States; and redress for that
wrong can only be maintained, at least in the first instance, from the
supreme tribunal of the United States. At present I am unable to say
anything as to the presentation of further papers. [Hear, hear.]
Mr. Bryce. Can the right honorable gentleman at all indicate when he
thinks any papers bearing on the question of the proceedings in the
Supreme Court will be presented?
Sir J. Fergusson. I think the honorable member will see that, as the
application has not been heard, it is quite impossible to make any
promise at present. [Hear, hear.]