Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, Whaling and Sealing Claims Against Russia, On Account of Arrest and Seizure of the American Vessels “Cape Horn Pigeon,” “James Hamilton Lewis,” “C. H. White,” and “Kate and Anna,” Appendix I

EXHIBIT A A.

[February 12, 1893]

Copy of a Note from the Privy Counselor Chichkine to the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg dated February 12, 1893, No. 509.

In your note of the 11th (23d) January you kindly informed me that several captains of vessels engaged in sealing in Bering Sea having asked to be informed as to the limits in which it would be lawful to practice their industry, the British Government proposed to reply to them that sealing would remain until further order completely interdicted within the limits of the line of demarcation agreed upon in 1891 between England and the United States of America, but that they were at liberty beyond those limits, except the Russian territorial waters.

At the same time your excellency asked me to communicate to him the eventual objections which the Imperial Government might be disposed to make to this statement.

Thanking you, Mr. Ambassador, for the manner in which the Imperial Government takes action, I hasten to inform you that the question of measures to be taken to prevent the destruction of the seals having been for some time the subject of investigation, I have had to await the preliminary results of that work before replying to the note which you were good enough to address to me.

In touching to-day upon the question of sealing, I believe I should first call your excellency’s attention to the fact that the insufficiency of the strict application of general rules of international law, relative to territorial waters, has been demonstrated by the very fact of the negotiations opened since 1887 between the three powers principally interested, to the end that special and exceptional measures be agreed upon.

The necessity for such measures has since been confirmed by the Anglo-American agreement established in 1891.

In lending itself to these pourparlers and to that agreement the British Government itself admitted the occasion for a contingent abrogation of the general rules of international law.

One point to which it would be well to call particularly the attention of the British Government is that of the absolutely abnormal and exceptional situation created for Russian interests by the Anglo-American stipulations. In fact the prohibition of sealing within the limits drawn by the modus vivendi agreed upon in 1891 had the effect of increasing the destruction of seals on the Russian coasts in such proportion that the complete disappearance of the species was only a question of a short time unless efficacious measures for their protection were taken without delay.

The following figures demonstrate this clearly:

The number of seals to be killed annually being fixed by the administration proportionately to their quantity the years 1889 and 1890, before the establishment of the modus vivendi (Anglo-American), gave the number of 55,915 and 56,833, while for the years 1891 and 1892, after the above-mentioned understanding, these figures fell to 30,698 and 31,315. Moreover, according to the statistical data which the Imperial Government was able to procure, the quantity of seal skins of Russian production delivered to the London market increased during these two years in an infinitely greater degree. The number of vessels engaged in sealing and seen about the neighborhood of Commander and Tulienew (Robin Island) must also have increased considerably, according to the observations made by the local administration. The savage and lawless methods of these traders are shown by the fact that of the seizures made more than 90 per cent of the skins carried off by them are the skins of females, which seldom go to any distance from the coast during the sealing season, and the destruction of which entails that of all the young they may be suckling. The number of seals wounded and abandoned on the shore or in the territorial waters and afterwards found by the local authorities also testify to the destructive character of the sealing.

In such a state of things we believe ourselves justified, Mr. Ambassador, in expressing pur entire confidence in that the British Government will admit the urgency for restrictive measures until an international regulation of sealing can be established by an agreement between the principally interested powers.

The Imperial Government, on its part, does not hesitate to acknowledge that the protection can not be brought about in any really efficacious manner until after such agreement.

Therefore it is disposed from this moment to enter into a conference to that end with the Governments of Great Britain and the United States of America; but it recognizes at the same time the absolute necessity for immediate provisory measures, as much on account of the proximity of the sealing season as to be in ample time to answer to the question asked in your excellency’s letter of 11th (23d) January.

To that effect and after a minute examination the Imperial Government believed it necessary to draw up the following measures which would be applicable for the year 1893:

1. Sealing will be prohibited for all vessels not furnished with a special permit, to a distance of 10 miles along all of the seacoast belonging to Russia.

2. This prohibited zone will be 30 miles around the Commander and Tulienew (Robin Island) according to the Russian official charts, which implies the closing for sealing vessels the straits between the Commander Islands.

These measures shall be justified, with regard to the zone of 10 miles along the seacoast, from the fact that vessels engaged in sealing station themselves generally at a distance of from 7 to 9 miles from the coast, while their boats and their crews engage in sealing as often on the coast itself as in the territorial waters; as soon as a cruiser, is sighted from afar, the vessels spread sails and endeavoring to recall their crew, sail away beyond territorial waters.

Concerning the zone of 30 miles around the islands, this measure is prompted by the necessity of protecting the banks designated by sealers as “sealing grounds” which are found around the islands, and are not sufficiently distinct upon the charts. These banks serve at certain seasons, as stations for the females, the killing of which is particularly destructive to the seal race at the time of year when the females tend their young or go to seek their own food on the banks called “sealing grounds.”

Praying you, Mr. Ambassador, to bring the foregoing to the knowledge of the British Government, I believe it well to insist upon the essentially provisory character of the above-mentioned measures, which are delayed by an exceptional press of circumstances known as a case of force majure and similar to the case of legitimate defense.

Be it understood that in no way does it enter into the intention of the Imperial Government to dispute the rules generally acknowledged with regard to territorial waters. In its opinion, far from infringing the general principles of international law the measures it believes necessary to take, should on the contrary prove them as the exception proves the rule.

The weight of the arguments hereinbefore set forth will certainly not escape the enlightened appreciation of the British Government and I am firmly confident that it will not refuse to take steps with regard to the English vessels engaged in sealing, in conformity with the measures which the Imperial Government proposes to take for the year 1893.

For its part the Imperial Government will not fail to give to these measures in ample time the publicity they require.

Moreover in order to avoid as far as possible misunderstandings and contentions in case of infraction of the aforesaid provisory measures as well as of the general principles of international law, cruisers will be furnished with precise instructions clearly defining the cases wherein the right to pursue, to inspect, and to seize offending vessels should be exercised.

As has been stated, while remaining outside territorial waters and sometimes even at a distance exceeding 10 miles, the vessels engaged in sealing send a portion of their crew and their boats even to the coasts of territorial waters or nearly so; it will be prescribed in the above-mentioned instructions to pursue and to subject to inspection all vessels whose passengers or crew may have been seen or taken while engaged in sealing on the coast or within the zone prohibited by the provisory measures for the year 1893.

A strong presumption resulting from the fact of the presence of the crews near the coasts in the prohibited zone, even when at first it might be impossible to state whether or not these crews had engaged in sealing, it will be lawful to pursue and subject to inspection all vessels to which such crews belonged.

The seizure on vessels subjected to search of instruments specially used in sealing, even on land, as well as of seal skins of which the greater number might be skins of females, would constitute sufficient reasons for the seizure of the vessel since the female seals seldom go more than 10 miles from the shore (excepting to the banks situated around the islands) during the time they are tending their young.

In informing the captains of vessels destined for sailing of the provisory measures set forth for the year 1893, the British Government may perhaps deem it well to acquaint them also with the emphatic tenor of the instructions with which the Russian cruisers will be provided, by adding that the right of surveillance will be equally given to coast vessels upon whose mainmasts the governor of the Commander Islands will hoist the customs flag of Russia when he is aboard in the exercise of his duty.

Please accept, etc.