Mr. Gresham to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
Washington, April 10, 1894.
Excellency: Owing to illness, from which I have not fully recovered, I shall at this time content myself with a partial reply to your note of the 5th instant.
It was after Her Majesty’s Government had refused its assent to one or more offers of this Government to enter into a modus vivendi (the [Page 170] terms of which seemed not unfair to you) for the protection for one year of the waters described in the first and second regulations reported by the Tribunal of Arbitration, thus affording the two Governments more time for the enforcement of the award by appropriate legislation or otherwise, that I informed you on the 2d instant the President, in view of the near approach of the close season, had arrived at the conclusion that negotiations for a temporary agreement had better be abandoned and our efforts directed to obtaining the requisite legislation before the first of May.
I also informed you at the same time of my confident belief that a bill fully satisfying the requirements of the award on the part of the United States would speedily pass Congress, and that the President would not permit himself to doubt Her Majesty’s Government would be equally prompt in obtaining similar legislation from Parliament.
The bill, a copy of which I inclose herewith, passed the Senate on the 3d instant, the House of Representatives two days later, and on the 6th instant was approved by the President.*
Her Majesty’s Government will not fail to see in its provisions evidence of an earnest desire and fixed determination on the part of this Government to observe and enforce the treaty and award in letter and spirit, and I need hardly say the President heard with satisfaction your assurance that British legislation of a similar character was proceeding with the utmost rapidity, with the view of having it in force before the beginning of the close season. In this connection I venture to repeat some of the observations which I made in one of our interviews a few days after you unofficially placed in my hands, on the 8th ultimo, a draft of a bill which you informed me Her Majesty’s Government proposed to introduce into Parliament to give effect to the Paris award.
After providing that the regulations shall have the same force and effect as if therein set out, the first section declares that any person violating its provisions shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor within the meaning of the merchant’s shipping act of 1854, and the ship employed in such contravention, and her equipment, and everything on board thereof, shall be liable to be forfeited as if the offense had been committed under another merchant act, “provided that the court, without prejudice to any other power, may release the ship, equipment, or thing on payment of a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds.” The penalty prescribed in the shipping act for a misdemeanor is a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
Should this bill become a law, the court will have discretion to punish offenders with nominal fines, and release ships employed in contravention of the act on payment of like fine. In the opinion of this Government these penalties are not sufficiently severe to deter lawless men from trespassing upon the inhabited waters, and you will observe that the act of Congress referred to provides for the absolute forfeiture of ships employed in taking or hunting seals in violation of the award.
In reply to my statement that, while the draft authorized any commissioned officer on full pay in the naval service of Her Majesty to seize offending ships, it nowhere made it the duly of such officers to do so. You stated that, although you did not think the draft was fairly open to this objection, orders in council and instructions which would be issued to the proper officers would impose that duty upon them.
[Page 171]Subsection 2 of section 7 reads:
Where, on any proceeding against a person or ship in respect of any offense under this act, it is proved that the ship sailed from its port of departure before the scheduled provisions were published there, and that such person, or the master of the ship, did not subsequently and before such alleged offense receive notice of these provisions, such person shall be acquitted and the ship shall be released and not forfeited.
This provision is doubtless intended to protect against loss Canadians who may engage in sealing in the inhibited waters during the approaching close season, and when I informed you it was for that reason disappointing to this Government, you stated that it would be unfair to forfeit ships for violating a law which their owners and masters did not know was in force, and that you thought each Government was at liberty to enact such legislation as in its judgment would fully execute the award. I replied that when the Canadian sealers left their home ports their masters were hot ignorant of the provisions of the treaty and the award; that they then knew both Governments were bound to adopt measures for the enforcement of the regulations before the first of May; that they no doubt departed contemplating this would be done; that this Government would provide no immunity for its citizens during the approaching close season, and that Her Majesty’s Government should seek none for her subjects. I remarked further that the two Governments were alike bound to give effect-to the award; that each was interested in the means employed by the other for that purpose, and you expressed, as you had on former occasions, the gratifying assurance that Great Britain would not fail to enact a law for due and timely execution of both the treaty and the award.
In your note you say you are instructed by Lord Kimberley to propose that we at once proceed to discuss the best mode of carrying out articles 4 and 7 of the regulations prescribed by the award, and request that I name a day for that purpose, as you desire a Canadian shall come to Washington to assist in the details in question, which are now very pressing, and as to which it is manifestly desirable the two Governments should secure as much similarity of treatment as possible.
In reply to your request I am instructed by the President to suggest that the proposed negotiations can be entered upon to so much better advantage when the statutes of both Governments are before us, that it is advisable to postpone the conference until the bill now pending in Parliament has become a law, and its exact provisions have been ascertained.
I do not anticipate difficulty in then reaching an understanding alike satisfactory to both Governments upon any remaining questions growing out of the treaty and award or properly related to them.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Mr. Ambassador,
Your obedient servant,