University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Foreign Relations of the United States

Page View

United States Department of State / Foreign relations for the United States 1902. Whaling and sealing claims against Russia.
(1902)

Surrejoinder of the party defendant to the rejoinder of the party claimant to the counter memorandum of the Russian government presented to the honorable arbitrator, Mr. T. M. C. Asser, Counselor of State of the Netherlands.,   pp. 363-404 PDF (18.9 MB)


Page 400

400     WHALING AND SEALING CLAIMS AGAINST RUSSIA. 
guilt on the part of the American vessel.     It rejects in the present 
case all allegations as to ill-treatment inflicted on the members of the
crew of the James Hamilton Lewis, as also all damages on account of 
their arrest. 
With regard to the similarity which the party claimant undertakes 
to set up between the present case and those of marine prizes in alleg- 
ing that an admiralty court was not instituted, the defendant party 
again declares that it does not come under the head of marine prize 
cases, properly speaking. The seizures were made in consonance with 
the Russian law according to the notice published in San Francisco; 
it is for the Imperial Government to determine whose shall be the 
authority to decide as to-the legitimacy of the seizure. 
For all of the above-mentioned reasons the defendant party repeats 
its request that the demands of the party claimant on all the points be 
rejected. 
EXHIBIT G. 
TELEGRAM-FROM THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF RUSSIA TO THE CHARGE' 
D'AFFAIRES AT WASHINGTON, DATED MAY 25 (JUNE 7), 1889. 
According to your opinion, that our cruisers should proceed on the high seas
to 
inspect and seize vessels in flagrante delictu regarding prohibited sealing,
it seems to 
us improbable that seizures can be made under these conditions, and besides,
the 
proclamation of the President of the United States announcing that all persons
and 
vessels engaged in or having engaged in prohibited hunting shall be liable
to arrest 
and seizure. The term "having engaged in "implies according to
us the idea that seiz- 
ure will result not only in cases of vessels taken in flagrante delictu,
but will also extend 
to vessels convicted of having engaged in sealing, which may be proved by
the presence 
on board of sealing equipments, skins of animals, etc. 
Seeing the necessity of avoiding all misunderstandings and of insuring the
efficacy 
of protective measures, I advise you to clear up 'this point without delay.
EXHIBIT H. 
TELEGRAM FROM THE CIARG]l D'AFFAIRES OF RUSSIA AT WASHINGTON TO THE MIN-
ISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AT ST. PETERSBURG OF MAY 26 (JUNE 8), 1889. 
Your interpretation of the proclamation of the President is perfectly correct,
and 
Blaine has just repeated to me that American cruisers have instructions to
carry it 
out to the letter. 
We certainly may seize vessels convicted of having practiced prohibited sealing
without fear that the Americans will not do likewise on thieir part. The
terms 
"engaged in sealing," or, according to the English, "engaged
in hunting fur seals," 
used in paragraph 9 of the memorandum draft, are sufficiently general to
include the 
cases of flagrante delictu, as well as those wherein can be shown by conclusive
proofs 
that a vessel had engaged in prohibited hunt before being sighted by a cruiser.
It 
appeared to us, in discussing terms, inopportune and superfluous to further
particu- 
larize even in the text of the memorandum, the proclamation of the President
being 
very explicit in this respect and our executive administrative orders issued
since 
1882 being of the same tenor, 


Go up to Top of Page