File No. 861.0145/10.

The American Ambassador to the Secretary of State .

No. 173.]

Sir: Referring to your instruction No. 59 of January 19, 1912, I have the honor to report as follows:

My predecessor did not report, as therein stated, in his despatch of June 21, 1911, that the Duma and the Council of Empire had passed any project of law in connection with an extension of the control of fisheries to a twelve-mile limit on the shores of the Archangel Government and the White Sea. His despatch referred only to the Pacific coast.

The whole matter is most complicated and confusing, but conferences with the British and Japanese Embassies and with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs have helped me to a clearer understanding of the question.

Russia proposes ultimately to extend her control in every way to a distance of twelve miles from all her coasts bordering on the ocean. This has not yet been fully accomplished, but only in part. The question naturally groups itself into three divisions:

1. The exercise of customs authority to a distance of twelve miles from all her coasts on the open sea.

This law was approved by the Emperor December 10/23, 1909, promulgated January 1/14, 1910, and is now in force. As yet, so far as can be ascertained, no case calling for special international protest has occurred under it.

2. The extension of Russian jurisdiction over all open-sea fisheries on the Pacific coasts within twelve miles of the lands of the Russian Empire.

This law was passed May 29/June 11, 1911, and went into force December 25/January 7, last.

3. The law extending jurisdiction over fisheries conducted in the White Sea and within twelve miles of the Archangel Government was reported favorably by the Committee to the Duma last June, but has not yet been passed. It lies on the table and it is reported that English influence is responsible for the delay in its passage.

England has formally protested against all three of these laws in particular and against the attitude of Russia in general in regard to the extension of jurisdiction from three miles to twelve. Not being, however, specially interested in the Pacific Coast fisheries, England has confined vigorous action to the Archangel and White Sea fisheries, where her interests are large. England hopes to be able to get this proposed law postponed long enough to permit the matter to be presented before the next Hague Conference in 1915. The President of the Duma has assured the British Ambassador that the project can not be reached by the present Duma, and M. Sazonov practically admitted the same thing to me.

Japan also has protested in general against the whole proposition of extension of jurisdiction to twelve miles from shore in the open sea, but she has confined her vigorous action to the fisheries in the Pacific, where her direct interests are enormous. The annual Japanese catch [Page 1305] of fish in what are now claimed to be Russian waters is valued in gross by the Japanese Embassy at 80,000,000 roubles.

Japan contends that the section of these laws dealing with Pacific fisheries is not only in violation of international law, but is also a violation of the spirit of the existing Russo-Japanese Fishery Agreement.

Two Japanese delegates representing the fishing fleet of Japan are now here seeking amelioration of present conditions.

The Japanese Embassy filed a formal note of protest on October 31 last in regard to Russia’s action in the Pacific Fisheries, but as yet has received no answer.

The item mentioned by you from the American press of December 13 in regard to the abandonment by Russia of this policy is an error.

On the contrary, M. Sazonov in a long interview last night assured me that Russia proposed to maintain the twelve-mile limit as a permanent policy, though he hinted that it might be modified in detail, and frankly stated that Russia had agreed to hold conversations with the representatives of Japan and of England, especially on the points in which the two countries were respectively interested.

Russia contends that the three-mile limit is obsolete. The distance of three miles having been set as the conventional range of a cannon, it is claimed that with the extension of the range of modern ordnance the limit of jurisdiction should be increased to correspond.

M. Sazonov stated further that though this matter is not in his own department, but, being a matter of territorial jurisdiction, is being handled by the Department of Land and Agriculture, he thought nevertheless he could assure me now that Russia would not under any circumstances consent to refer such a question to The Hague tribunal.

Upon my venturing to suggest that grave complications might arise, especially in case of war, unless there was a common agreement among all the nations, at least as to some common limit of jurisdiction on the open sea, in case the three-mile limit is abandoned, he stated that Russia regarded this question in general as one of domestic (interior) legislation. He added that though the Russian Government is quite willing to discuss the matter, any modification must be taken by Russia’s own act of volition and not by the decree of any outside tribunal.

I have to thank Mr. Frederick Sterling, Third Secretary, for valuable collaboration in this report.

I have [etc.]

Curtis Guild.