New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-17
:BEHRING SEA SEIZURES.
WHO GAVE THE ORDERS FOR THOSE MADE
IN 1sSG.'S7



ALASKAN WATERS DEFINED
IBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUEE.I
Washington, April 16.-"The Evening POST in u
recent issue, said:
1t often happens on vessel that mischief done DIR
Ing change of watch in the pesen: there was
devty Ship Of State during change Of Asminis
tration without warning TO American sealers In
Behrng Sea. American vessels seized in lSS6o1
for doing what the had for three years
them OF them Was that right or deeentI
Why warning given by Executive proclamation that
a sudden change Of policy coming Did any one Ut
Washington order the change1
And on the following day it continued as follows;
appears conclusive up this time that no orders
issued by the Treasury Department under the CeNe
hand Administration to seize British. German, or even
American vessels beyond the three mile limit ms sup
position becomes conclusive when we recall the iaee
that the Cleveland Administration ordered the release OF
vessels that had been seized in 1886 and 1887 and that
seized in 1888, although Tnge testified that the
Seeretry told him that the orders would be issued
for 1888 for the previous years The only rational
construction Of the chain of evidence is something lke
this:
l. Secretary Manning issued orders to the revenue cut
in 1885 to enforce the law to wit: Section 1885,
Revised ,Stat.t ties
2. In the summer OF 1896 somebody persuaded tho
captains OF the cutters to constue the waters OF
Alaska Territory to all the waters OF Behring sea
east Of the line ceded to by Russia The only party
having an interest IN such construction the Alaska
Commercial Company
The Cleveland Administration having released the seized
vessels the captains stopped selling until the Harrison
Administration came in.
T. Congress appealed TO by the Alaska Commereia
Company change the law prohibit sealing in all
Of Behrng of the line ceded to us by
Russia, and Congress refused to do so.
As early as March 10, 1881, II. F. French Acting
Secretary Of the Treasury, wrote to ID. A. d. Ancona
letter defining the extent Of the Alaskan waters, in
which he said
The law prohibits the killing OF any fur-bearing AMI
nal. otherwise therein provided within the limits
Alaska Territory the waters thereof and also pro-
hlbts the killing OF any fur seals the Islands Of st.
Paul and St. George, IN the waters adcent thereto,
except during months You inquire In regard to
the Interpretation Of the terms 'waters thereon and
'waters ad9cent thereto" used in the law, and how
far the jurisdiction OF the United states is to be under
stood extending.
Presenting your inquiry relate especially to tho
OF Alaska you Informed that the treaty
with Russia Of March go 1867 by which the Territory OF
Alaska coded to United States, defines the boundary
the Territory ceded. This treaty IS found pages
OIL to 073 Of the Volume of Treaties OF the Revised Stat
1t will be seen therefore, that the limit Of eesion
extends from line starting from the Arctic Ocean
and running through BehDg Strait the north OF St Law
Islands. The line thence in southweserly d.
recon to pass midway between the Island Of Alton
and Copper Island OF the Kormmandors cOupet group
in the North Pacific Ocean to meridian Of 1913 degrees west
longitude All the waters within that boundary TO the
Islands considered comprised within the waters OF
Alaska Territory. All the penalties prescribed by law
against the killing of furbearing animals would therefore
against any violation within the limits before
described Very respectfully
II. +. FRENCH Acting Secretary
And on March 16, 1886, Secretary Manning sent the
following letter of instruction to the Collector of the
Port Of Francisco:
Treasury Department., March 49, 1886.
Sir transmit herewith for your information a copy
1851 to D. A. D. Ancona concerning jurisdiction OF the
United States the OF the Territory OF Alaska and
the prevention Of the killing OF fur seals and other fur
Tearing animals within such prescribed by
Chapter Title o. OF the Revised Statutes. The atten
ton your predecessor in Office called TO this subject
on April a. 1881. This communication ia addressed
you nasmuch it is understood that certain parties at
your port contemplate the fitting out OF expeditions to kill
seals in these waters You are requested TO give
due publicity TO such letters In order that such parties
may be Informed the construction placed by this Depart
upon the provision Of law referred to- Respectfully
yours d. MANNING Secretary.
To Collector OF Customs, San Francisco
Captain L. G.. Shepherd OF the Revenue Marine Ser
vice. in his testimony before the Dunn committee,
second session of the Lth Congress- testified that in
1887 he was in command OF the revenue cutter Rush
that while cruising in Behring Sea, under orders Of
the Treasury Department, he seized twelve vessels
which were found taking fur seal in Behrng Sea.
These vessls afterward taken to sitka and con-
demned in court.
Question by Mr. Macdonald-In tina. pamphlet that
have mentioned Is letter signed by II. f. French. Acting
Secretary Of the Treasury dated March H. 1881 constru
ing the law the killing Of these furbearnS an
finals upon The Islands Of St. George and St. Paul State
whether this letter the instructions constructions OF
the Treasury Department that you refer basis Of ref
erence.
The wncss-They republlsh that letter each with
proclamation stating the claims Of the United States and
It has never been changed.
Q-ThiS letter contains the construction OF te Depart
ment upon the law2
Ayes sir.
This letter. has Just been quoted practically in
full
CAPTAIN Charles A. Abbey testified before the same
committee that In 1886, being in command Of the
revenue cutter Corwn, he seized the Thornton, Caro-
lima and Onward and took them to Ska, where they
were condemned by the court lie also seized the san
Diego an American vessel and turned her over to tho
Deputy United states Marshal at ounalaska. lie was
asked as the printed testimony shows:
Did you have any orders to make any distinction be
NV en- English AID American vessels1 ANone whatever
o-You had no orders to treat them differently A
M SIR had simply the law with orders to seize any
one violating those laws
The law directed the secure of all vessels found VIC
latng It's provisions within the limits Of Alaska Ier
ritory or the waters thereof" and the Treasury De,
n1rtnent as has Just been shown, mad in 1851 deneu
the extent Of ss SSs dr S is publication at all
the Pacific ports in each succeeding year. let
POST asserts that without any warning 10 Aclicn
reaers i'm Berng Sea ten American vessels were seZeo
In 1ssCs7 for doing what the revenue cutters had iOf
three years seen them, or most OF them 10. Inc ne
decision OF the Department IN 1901 was IesPeSseu 10y
ali nartes and II was not until 1884 tat poachng be
san and then it was confined to few G9 ic1 an
smugglers that engaged In barterug wh'hey an!
arsarns for peltry with the indians on the coasts
and. meeting with encouragement they returned the
foowng wear in increased numbers and p0acblnS be
orna a y1,iar buslness 1t was then that secretary
Manning in the spring Of 1896 repeated the decision 0I
the Department and ordered the cutters 40 Ell t
The maraudlng vessels. The statement that the CUT
ters in issS had witnessed the pOlchers taking seals
Tor three years is not true II IS plain, y u9 1o,g
sDcnf and the testimony OF Captains Abbey and shop
herd who the somebody was who persuIioeI t Sae
Of Alaska Territory 70 mean all the waters OF hes
o0r tn raason yhv no sealcrs were seized In 1So3
was because Bayar1 and LORD r SALISBURY 6e
Tdoitten Question: I'm acc rdancc herewith orders
were sent ont to mako seizures that season. ana
ceran vessels previously seized we ere Copsnmmao6