811.114/1182
The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador ( Geddes )
Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note No. 973 of December 30, 1922, stating that your Government desires you to make it clear that it is unable to acquiesce in what it understands to be the ruling of the United States Government, namely, that foreign vessels may be seized outside the three-mile limit if it can be shown that they have established contact with the shore for illegal purposes by means of their own small boats. You state that your Government must reserve the right to lodge a protest [Page 593] in any individual case in which action may be taken by the United States Government in cases of this character.
I have the honor to state that consideration has been given to the statements contained in your note and the conclusion has been reached that the Government of the United States should adhere to the position it has previously taken that foreign vessels outside the three-mile limit may be seized when it is established that they are using their small boats in illegal operations within the three-mile limit of the United States. This conclusion is supported by the position taken by the British Government in the case of the British Columbian schooner Araunah, which was seized off Copper Island, by the Russian authorities in 1888, because it appeared that members of the crew of the schooner were illegally taking seals in Bering Sea by means of canoes operated between the schooner and the land, and it was affirmed that two of the canoes were within half a mile of the shore. Lord Salisbury stated that Her Majesty’s Government were “of opinion that, even if the Araunah at the time of the seizure was herself outside the three-mile territorial limit, the fact that she was, by means of her boats, carrying on fishing within Russian waters without the prescribed license warranted her seizure and confiscation according to the provisions of the municipal law regulating the use of those waters.” (Volume 82, British and Foreign State Papers, page 1058.)
I may add that it is not understood on what grounds the decision of His Majesty’s Government in this matter was reached, in view of the position taken by Lord Salisbury in the Araunah case and the statement in your note No. 781 of October 13, 1922, that His Majesty’s Government “are desirous of assisting the United States Government to the best of their ability in the suppression of the traffic and in the prevention of the abuse of the British flag by those engaged in it”.
As you are doubtless aware, the case of the Grace and Ruby, to which you refer, is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States and I shall be glad to inform you of its decision as soon as it is rendered.
Accept [etc.]