Gram, being a majority of the said Arbitrators, do decide and determine as follows:

By the Ukase of 1821 Russia claimed jurisdiction in the First point. sea now known as the Bering's Sea to the extent of 100 Italian miles from the coasts and islands belonging to her, but, in the course of the negotiations which led to the conclusion of the Treaties of 1824 with the United States and of 1825 with Great Britain, Russia admitted that her jurisdiction in the said sea should be restricted to the reach of cannon shot from shore, and it appears that from that time up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States Russia never asserted in fact or exercised any exclusive jurisdiction in Bering's Sea or any exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein beyond the ordinary limit of territorial waters.

As to the second of the said five points, We, the said Second point. Baron de Courcel, Mr. Justice Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, being a majority of the said Arbitrators, do decide and determine that Great Britain did not recognize or concede any claim, upon the part of Russia, to exclusive jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries in Bering Sea, outside of ordinary territorial waters.

As to the third of the said five points, as to so much Third point. thereof as requires us to decide whether the body of water now known as the Bering Sea was included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" as used in the Treaty of 1825, between Great Britain and Russia, We, the said Arbitrators, do unanimously decide and determine that the body of water now known as the Bering Sea was included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" as used in the said Treaty.

And as to so much of the said third point as requires us to decide what rights, if any, in the Bering Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after the said Treaty of 1825, We, the said Baron de Courcel, Mr. Justice Harlan, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, being a majority of the said Arbitrators, do decide and determine that no exclusive rights of jurisdiction in Bering Sea and no exclusive rights as to the seal fisheries therein were held or exercised by Russia outside of ordinary territorial waters after the Treaty of 1825.

As to the fourth of the said five points, We, the said Arbitrators, do unanimously decide and determine that all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal

Fourth point.

Fifth point.

Concurrent Regulations de

by Tribunal.

fisheries in Bering Sea, east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th of March, 1867, did pass unimpaired to the United States under the said Treaty.

As to the fifth of said five points, We, the said Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Sir John Thompson, Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, being a majority of the said Arbitrators, do decide and determine that the United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit.

And whereas the aforesaid determination of the foretermined upon going questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States mentioned in Article VI leaves the subject in such a position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the Bering Sea, the Tribunal having decided by a majority as to each Article of the following Regulations, We, the said Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, assenting to the whole of the nine Articles of the following Regulations, and being a majority of the said Arbitrators, do decide and determine, in the mode provided by the Treaty, that the following concurrent Regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary and that they should extend over the waters hereinafter mentioned; that is to say:

ARTICLE 1.

The Governments of the United States and of Great Britain shall forbid their citizens and subjects respectively to kill, capture, or pursue, at any time and in any manner whatever, the animals commonly called fur seals, within a zone of sixty miles around the Pribilof Islands, inclusive of the territorial waters.

The miles mentioned in the preceding paragraph are geographical miles of sixty to a degree of latitude.

ARTICLE 2.

The two Governments shall forbid their citizens and subjects respectively to kill, capture, or pursue, in any manner whatever, during the season extending, each year, from the 1st of May to the 31st of July, both inclusive,

Regulations de

by Tribunal.

the fur seals on the high sea, in the part of the Pacific Concurrent Ocean, inclusive of the Bering Sea, which is situated to the termined upon north of the 35th degree of North latitude, and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article 1 of the Treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and following that line up to Bering Straits.

ARTICLE 3.

During the period of time and in the waters in which the fur seal fishing is allowed, only sailing vessels shall be permitted to carry on or take part in fur-seal fishing operations. They will, however, be at liberty to avail themselves of the use of such canoes or undecked boats, propelled by paddles, oars, or sails, as are in common use as fishing boats.

ARTICLE 4.

Each sailing vessel authorized to fish for fur seals must be provided with a special license issued for that purpose by its Government and shall be required to carry a distinguishing flag to be prescribed by its Government.

ARTICLE 5.

The masters of the vessels engaged in fur seal fishing shall enter accurately in their official log book the date and place of each fur seal fishing operation, and also the number and sex of the seals captured upon each day. These entries shall be communicated by each of the two Governments to the other at the end of each fishing season.

ARTICLE 6.

The use of nets, firearms, and explosives shall be forbidden in the fur seal fishing. This restriction shall not apply to shotguns when such fishing takes place outside of Bering's Sea, during the season when it may be lawfully carried on.

ARTICLE 7.

The two Governments shall take measures to control the fitness of the men authorized to engage in fur seal fishing; these men shall have been proved fit to handle with sufficient skill the weapons by means of which this fishing may be carried on.

Concurrent Regulations de

by Tribunal.

ARTICLE 8.

The regulations contained in the preceding articles shall termined upon not apply to Indians dwelling on the coast of the territory of the United States or of Great Britain and carrying on fur seal fishing in canoes or undecked boats not transported by or used in connection with other vessels and propelled wholly by paddles, oars, or sails, and manned by not more than five persons each, in the way hitherto practiced by the Indians, provided such Indians are not in the employment of other persons, and provided that, when so hunting in canoes or undecked boats, they shall not hunt fur seals outside of territorial waters under contract for the delivery of the skins to any person.

This exception shall not be construed to affect the municipal law of either country, nor shall it extend to the waters of Bering Sea or the waters of the Aleutian Passes.

Nothing herein contained is intended to interfere with the employment of Indians as hunters or otherwise in connection with fur sealing vessels as heretofore.

ARTICLE 9.

The concurrent regulations hereby determined with a view to the protection and preservation of the fur seals shall remain in force until they have been, in whole or in part, abolished or modified by common agreement between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain.

The said concurrent regulations shall be submitted every five years to a new examination, so as to enable both interested Governments to consider whether, in the light of past experience, there is occasion for any modification thereof.

And whereas each and every question which has been considered by the Tribunal has been determined by a majority of all the Arbitrators;

Now, We, Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Mr. Justice Harlan, Sir John Thompson, Senator Morgan, the Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, the respective minorities not withdrawing their votes, do declare this to be the final Decision and Award in writing of this Tribunal in accordance with the Treaty.

Made in duplicate at Paris and signed by us the fifteenth day of August, in the year 1893.

And We do certify this English Version thereof to be

true and accurate.

ALPH. DE COURCEL.

JOHN M. HARLAN.

JOHN T. MORGAN.

HANNEN.

JNO. S. D. THOMPSON.

VISCONTI VENOSTA.

G. GRAM.

RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT.

(Opinions of Attorney-General U. S., Vol. XXII, p. 32, etc.)

The following extract is from an opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States, in which it is held that the imprisonment of a United States citizen by a foreign official because of alleged disrespect of that official's authority, and without judicial process or allegation of a violation of law, is such an injury as to render that official's government liable in damages:

On January 4, 1886, a citizen of the United States, Mr. Thomas J. Culliton, the treasurer of the dredging company then doing work on the Isthmus of Panama, was arrested and imprisoned by the acting prefect of Colon without judicial process and without any allegation of a violation of law, but simply because Mr. Culliton's conduct was alleged by the prefect to be in disrespect of his authority. The United States consul at Colon and Admiral Jouett, who happened to be in port at that time, intervened, and Culliton was released by the order of the prefect after five hours' detention in the common jail.

The imprisonment of a citizen of the United States by an officer of a foreign government, without judicial process, or allegation of a violation of law, but because of an alleged disrespect of such official's authority, is such an injury as to render such government liable in damages.

The loss of time, the absence from business, the personal humiliation, the bodily and mental suffering, resulting