The “C. H. White.’

With reference to the third case, the defendant party also sets forth that the affair presents itself as a difference arising between the two Governments in opposition to the bilateral understandings entered upon in the course of negotiations since 1887, and which answered the common purpose sought for. In the opinion of the defendant party, the understandings under discussion and the attitude assumed by the party claimant at that time in the whole matter ought to be decisive in the examination of the case at issue. The attitude then assumed by the party claimant gave rise to disputes between it and England, with whom the defendant party was treating on the same question, in the same spirit as the Government of the United States, without, however, emulating the latter in the very extensive claims which it brought. But in the present arbitration England is not the party claimant; it is the Government of the United States that finds itself at present in the position then occupied by the London cabinet, and is thus led by this reversion of rôles, as is stated in the American memorandum and rejoinder, to avail itself now of the arguments then invoked by the British Government. The defendant party deems that the case of the C. H. White should be considered as taking into account the special tie created between the American and Russian Governments by their common attitude with England, as well as of the point of view sustained by the Washington Cabinet, which found expression with regard to the suppression of maraud in the Presidential proclamation of 1889, above mentioned, and in the legislation of the United States.

With regard specially to the American vessels, the Russian Government could not suppose that the well-founded measures taken by it would some day be contested by the party claimant, and that it might find itself confronted by a controversy arising from actions condemned at that time by the Government of the United States. There could not be injuria in the case of the party claimant, when it is a question of acts not overreaching the limits assigned by it to the principles it had proclaimed as being the jus, and which it had introduced in its own legislation.

Captain de Livron, commander of the Russian cruiser Zabiaka, stated that the American schooner C. H. White had aboard seal skins and seals newly killed, guns, powder, and other accessories of the hunting of these animals. He furthermore stated that at a certain time the C. H. White had passed at 3 miles off the southern extremity of Medny Island. As is mentioned in Exhibit G, if it was question of efficacious suppression of maraud, it could not be hoped, considering the small number of war ships, to always overtake the marauders at the precise moment they were engaged in sealing. The suppression would thus [Page 403]have to be illusory. Captain de Livron acted in conformity to Russian governmental instructions, published in 1881–82, as well as in the spirit of the agreements between the Russian and American Governments, in confiscating the schooner C. H. White, which decision was submitted to the highest maritime authority, who found it perfectly regular.

The defendant party rejects, for the same reasons as in the case of the James Hamilton Lewis, the argument drawn from the fact that an admiralty court had not been instituted, and it again protests against the allegations of ill treatment claimed to have been inflicted upon the crew of the C. H. White.

Concerning the fact that the log book of the C. H. White was not presented conjointly with the counter memorandum of the Imperial Government and the statement of circumstances and motives of the arrest is supported by the report of the Russian commander who made the seizure, the defendant party deems it well to observe the following: The said report of Captain de Livron states that the log book of the C. H. White showing that the vessel had remained in the proximity of the Medny Island, and that the course followed by her on her return led her to pass 3 miles off that island, has the appearance of a Russian official document whose authenticity is certified to by the Imperial Government, which, through the medium of its highest maritime authorities, attested the correctness of the allegation of Captain de Livron set forth in the above-mentioned report.

For the above reasons, the defendant party again requests that the demands of the party claimant be rejected in all its points.