New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-17
m Tons of Roses
OU Years Success.
Colgate's
Soaps and Perfumes.
'fSEARCHING THE SEALERS'
MIR. OLNEY's ANSWER TO SIR JULIAN
g. PAUNCEFoTEs COMPLAINTS.
y,-srIryINC THE ACTION OF THE AMERICAN
REVENUE 9 NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. ~
BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS
fry TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBrSE.l

EN- fny TELEGRAPH THE TRlBrNE.l
Washington May l6-"Forelgn helauo"' i
. 1885" which is now out In book forin' contains 81
!, eral exceedingly interesting notes cXchaneeu y!
Secretary Oney and Sir Julian Pauncelo'e on 'ie
Behrins Sea question. In several OF the ho'es o V
. Mr. OInev and the British Ambassador employ
rather firm language. In one sir 'uii"i' az
making three distinct complaints, in'ina.es !"
,diplouatic language, OF course that BRUSH SUI
,ac,s engaged in fur-sealng have been treated d!
the naval representatives Of the United states as
- tbev were continually trying TO evade ana preah
the law. Sir Julian says the English sealers ha,e
been subjected to unnecessary loss ana "oup
Then he declares that the right OF searchiie ~
,sh vessels was conferred on the United Suites
officers on the assumption that they Wou'u eHe
cise their powers with the same consideration as
would In like circumstances, be SHOWN 10 suoh We.
, sells by English naval officers He conciuSeS wiz.
the suggestion that this Government shouu "
once issue orders 10 put end to the interference
with British vessels the high seas "nich mas
given rise TO many complaints. and wnich ID nut
warranted by the provisions OF British law,
THE particular complaints Of the British Amoas-
.eaor IN this note are. first. that the seizures OF
vessels for alleged offences were mace u! Si
c,,os oe,cers on evidence obviously inspfncieh',
.ocond TINT the right of search was eSerciseu
where there no just GROUND 10 su'p
oNence had been committed, and thru' uia' '
,nterference Of revenue cutters OF tnis count! ~
the operations or BRUSH sedii"s
tous and inquistoral. .o.u.
Omitting the Introductory remarks ol oe'ie'a.!
Olnev the following is his reply 10 Sir ouiian'
"a the first ground Of complaint tha' h'I. "
tro scbooners were seized for alleged ohehces Vi,
s ohvouslv insufficient it appears that
,hreo british sealing vessels were seized by Amer
lean cruisers during the last seasor--haiei!; VIZ
shelby in the North Pacific Ocean, May H. ana u'
Beatrice and the +. b. Marvin on Aususl ~
sentenber respectively. in Behrihs oea' VI - -
49,, ,,n shelby was condemned by British
courts. the E. f. Marvin was acquitted Dut WIFI
ont costs the Court deciding that there was iV"
sonable cause 10 believe that she had Noia'eu ''e
law and that the seizure, therefore, was J"e'
ond ,he Beatrice was acquitted on the grouho tna'
,ha ,e,,ure Of the master TO make the log enrles
required by the Paris award was not Vioa'ioh y,
the Behring Sea Award act Tor when INC ~ 80,
could he forfeited. These facts. II is DeheVeo' VIII
satisfactorily indicate the discretion ara sooo Juu
,nent shown by our rcvonue-cutter oIrcers III man
,ro ,baso seizures and will demonstrate that the
evidence Of guilt was not obviously ihsu'hc,en'
"As n the second ground of complaint that the
right of search resorted TO when no JUST susi,
con existed that an offence had been coinmitteu l.
onnears that information was received d! 'he ii'u
w., Denartment that during the season OF 1874 '"e
law was violated Systematically by pelasic Se"..l'
nv having shotguns concealed on Doaru Vi t"o '
e,s md using them in killing seals in BehrinG sea-
also that the log entries showing the sex Va "
els kil,od were Systematically falsined. Chue
snch circumstances, commanding officers OF reVe-
nue vessels could satisfy their suspicious on'. y!
,raknc a thorough search OF the seaHrs N''
Ne. with during the patrol. 1t would plainly DC
almost impossible to detect a vesse ac'ualS Ill ',
90, =, violating the law by killing seals III 'He
o,oe.d season or by firearms in Behrlng sea II
% therefore became necessary 10 poaro '"e '
break out the cargo and TO inspect the shih' me-
-ooroughly to ascertain whether they appeareu "
.-haxe been shot If in BehrnG Sea, or whe,hei ' ny
onnoarod IN have been freshly killed, II III uio
flosed =, a..
"In view OF the dissatisfaction expressed IN 'he
communication of Your Excellency' ths uoVe e.n
men, can only repeat the expression heretofore
ID o., &c deem regret tina, the regulations for the
seasonss6r 1894 agreed upon by Great Britain ana
the United States, as TO sealing up arms anu cup
ments could not have been continued curing 'iio
season of 1885 Those regulations oieer
1hst no breach OF law had been or could nave peen
Domm much angoysnce which otherwise would be
inevitable, was avoided by potn ne liasfT asmnch
however as Her Majestys Government reIusen 10
for the season OF l? upon aaanS nn Of arms
and equipments. or in fact upon any DanaTmen
h ss only IN order m oders in all
and thorough search as to O5 re or in
'1s Whether by the use OF contraoahu "eapo"' u ~
this Connection it may proper 10 state that
during the last season the masters OF twenty eight
British vessels at Unalaska applied to the Officers
sta ns IRE anS 20 H
the refusal of the officers to accede 10 their requests
oeers 70 Of '1 the Patrol eei had been guilty Of
tous and inouisitoria interference it seems neces-
sary only 10 renew the assurance that there was no
interference except careful ,Sn sn Of hs
and To % nsn of the award
the british act OF Parliament and orders in council
dess 1esss sHen 10 oceT Of the
States by the Behrng Sea Award act and the orders
10 search: and IL is further submitted that the right
OF search thus implied is as complete as In the
sells for contraband OF Until the vessel is Wis
tied and searched /, cannot appear wheihor It's pur-
&c legai Lori l,Pa VIII Is n
licensed. whether. in short 1t has violated the law
1T is further claimed in the communication Of
Your Excellency that seizures under the act of Par
Get has beer Violated; that under the British act
and orders in council there Is no PoweT q seizure
ing apparatus and implements Nothing is con-
tanned In the instructions 10 the revenue cutter off,
these officers have been carefully instructed that the
Of the British act ana must be exercised under Brit
ish orders in council. II the officer has reasonable
ne is authorized. as this Government understands,
seize the vessel under the British law. To
the officer must examine the vessel for otherwise
there could be seizure except when the vessel il
caught in the very act of violating the law, which
would rarely happen"
Secretary oney concludes his note by quoting
the orders OF an English admiral 10 his subordi-
mates in which British naval naval Officers are clearly
oifsy says, on this point: ''' ''1''' ''''e'''
AS @ ss H n on the
n the year 1891 that he distinctions to officers Of
the Jnted states snOud De slInlldr 10 tnoSe given
10 the officers OF the British Navy your attention
is invited to the following extract from the insruc;
tons 10 British naval officers engaged in the patrol
for the year 1894, transmitted TO this Department
by the Hon ". y. Roberts. The letter Of Mr. Rob-
erts also incloses copy OF letter from the secre
tary Of Rear-Admiral Stevenson, Of the British
navy, in which IL is stated that the instructions
for 1886 precisely similar 10 those OF 1894
"If the vessel which appears TO be sealing
vessel is found In any waters IN which at the time
hunting is prohibited, the officer I'm command OF
Her Majesty's ship should ascertain whether she
Is there for the purpose Of hunting whether she
has hunted whether she carried through BY
stress of weather or by a mistake during fog
or Is there in the ordinary course of navigation
her massage 10 any place. IL he Is satisfied thai
the vessel has hunted contrary to the act. he vii
seize her and order her TO proceed TO n British
port hereinafter mentioned; but II the officer Is o
The opinion that offence has been committed
he should warn her, and keep her. as far ht