Mr. Adee to Mr.
Roosevelt.
Department of State,
Washington, July 8,
1895.
No. 780.]
Sir: Referring to the Department’s note of May
10 to Sir Julian Pauncefote, Her Majesty’s ambassador at Washington,
copy of which was inclosed in the Department’s No. 713, of the 23d of
that month, on the subject of sealing up arms and recommending
concurrent recognition of presumption of illegal use of arms from their
presence on board, I inclose herewith a copy of a letter from the Acting
Secretary of the Treasury, calling attention to the significant omission
from the proposed British bill, inclosed with your No. 450, of the 14th
ultimo, regulating sealing in Bering Sea, of the sixth clause of the
first section of the seal-fishery act of 1893, which expired by
limitation on the 1st instant, in which the presumption of illegality is
drawn from the presence of implements or seal skins on board.
The Acting Secretary of the Treasury observes that if the pending bill
should reenact this clause referred to “it would be possible by
subsequent orders in council to bring the British law into harmony with
that enacted by Congress upon this question, to which I have had the
honor in previous communications to call your attention. Should,
however, the pending bill become law with said clause omitted, it is
feared that it may prove a source of embarrassment in the eifort to
properly enforce the provisions of the Paris award in the future.”
The Department has since received your No. 467, of the 25th ultimo,
saying that the bill in question had passed both houses of Parliament
without amendment.
This circumstance does not, however, preclude this Government from
expressing its deep regret, in view of the importance of the question
involved, that the clause referred to in the Treasury letter should not
have been reenacted, and it is earnestly hoped that some means may yet
be provided whereby this omission may be remedied and the two
Governments brought into a more harmonious attitude on the subject.
I am, etc.,
Alvey A. Adee,
Acting Secretary.
[Page 658]
[Inclosure in No. 780.]
Mr. Hamlin to
Mr. Olney.
Treasury Department,
Office of the
Secretary,
Washington, D.
C., July 3,
1895.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your communication of June 25, inclosing a copy of a
dispatch, No. 450, of the 14th ultimo, from the United States
ambassador at London, in regard to proposed British legislation with
reference to sealing in the North Pacfic Ocean. I have further to
acknowledge the inclosures therein contained, namely, a copy of the
said proposed act (seal fishery, North Pacific, act) and of the
merchants’ shipping act of 1894.
I have carefully read the same, and desire to call to your attention
the significant omission in said pending bill of the sixth clause of
the first section of the seal fishery (North Pacific) act of 1893,
which expired by limitation on the 1st instant, and for which the
present pending bill is to be substituted. This clause is as
follows:
If during the period and within the seas specified by the
order a British ship is found having on board thereof;
fishing or shooting implements, or seal skins, or bodies of
seals, it shall lie on the owner or master of such ship to
prove that the ship was not used or employed in
contravention of this act.
A similar provision was contained in the seal fishery (Bering Sea)
act of 1891, upon which the modus vivendi of 1891 and 1892 was
founded, clause 5 of section 1 of which provided as follows:
If a British ship is found within Bering Sea having on board
thereof fishing or shooting implements, or seal skins, or
bodies: of seals, it shall lie on the owner or master of
such ship to prove that the ship was not used or employed in
contravention of this act.
Inasmuch as the pending bill expressly states that its provisions
shall not be in derogation of the provisions of the Bering Sea award
act of 1894, but in addition thereto, this omission is significant
and becomes of the utmost importance.
Under the Bering Sea award act of 1894, enacted to carry out the
provisions of the Paris award, the subject-matter of orders in
council is strictly limited to provisions for carrying into effect
the scheduled provisions (that is, the Paris award and the
merchants’ shipping act), and for giving the necessary authority to
United States officers to seize British vessels which have violated
the award provisions. The scope of such orders in council as may be
issued under said act is also limited to the area designated in said
award.
The seal fishery (North Pacific) apt of 1893, however, extends the
scope of orders in council to all of the Pacific Ocean and Bering
Sea north of the forty-second parallel of latitude, and further,
gives the widest latitude to said orders as to limitations,
conditions, qualifications, and exceptions which appear to Her
Majesty in council expedient for carrying into effect the object of
this act as expressed in the title, “For prohibiting the catching of
seals at certain periods in Bering Sea and other parts of the
Pacific Ocean adjacent to Bering Sea.”
If, therefore, the pending bill should reenact the clause above
quoted in which the presumption of illegality is drawn from the
presence of implements or seal skins on board, it would be possible
by subsequent orders in council to bring the British law into
harmony with that enacted by Congress upon this question, to which I
have had the honor in previous communications to call to your
attention. Should, however, the pending bill bocome law with said
clause omitted, I fear that
[Page 659]
it may prove a source of embarrassment in the effort to properly
enforce the provisions of the Paris award in the future. I have the
honor to request, if such course be approved by you, that our
ambassador at London be instructed to present these views to the
British Government.
I have, etc.,
C. S. Hamlin,
Acting Secretary.
