308; Garcia vs. Lee, 12 Pet., 511, 520; Williams vs. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet., 415; United States vs. Yorba, 1 Wall., 412, 423; United States vs. Lynde, 11 Wall., 632, 638). It is equally well settled in England. (The Pelican, Edw. Adm. a px. D.; Taylor vs. Barclay, 2 Sim., 213; Emperor of Austria vs. Day, 3 DeG., F. & J., 217, 221, 233; Republic of Peru vs. Peruvian Guano Co., 30 Ch. D., 489, 497; Republic of Peru vs. Drayfus, 38 Ch. D., 356, 359). All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the Government whose laws they administer, or of its recognition or denial of the sovereignty of a foreign power, as appearing from the public acts of the legislature and executive, although those acts are not formally put in evidence nor in accord with the pleadings. (United States vs. Reynes, 9 How., 127; Kennett vs. Chambers, 14 How., 38; Hoyt vs. Russel, 117 U. S., 401, 404; Coffee vs. Grover, 123 U. S., 1; State vs. Dunwell, 3 R. I., 127; State vs. Wagner, 61 Maine, 178; Tay lor vs. Barclay, and Emperor of Russia vs. Day, above cited, 1 Green 1, Ev., 6.) It has been further contended on the part of the defense that this vessel was especially privileged to engage in the sealing business in Bering Sea by reason of the fact that her owner and crew of Indians are of the Makah tribe, and by virtue of the treaty made with said tribe of Indians, whereby "the rights of taking fish and of whaling and sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the United States and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed land." (12 U. S. Statutes, 940.) It is obvious, however, from the language above quoted, that the treaty secures to the Indians only an equality of rights and privileges in the matter of fishing, whaling, and sealing. The guaranty is of rights in common with all citizens of the United States, and certainly such treaty stipulations give no support to a claim for peculiar or superior rights or privileges denied to citizens of the country in general. A decree of forfeiture as prayed for in the libel of information will be entered. C. H. HANFORD, Judge. NOTES ON THE FUR INDUSTRY OF BERING SEA AND THE ADJOINING REGIONS. From the discovery of the Aleutian Islands in 1741 until the year 1783 the operations of the Russian fur hunters and traders were confined exclusively to the islands, coasts, and waters of Bering Sea. It was not until after the establishment of the first permanent settlement on the islands of Kadiak in 1783 that the initiatory steps were taken toward extending the business to the mainland of North America. On the extent and value of the operations on the Aleutian Islands and in Bering Sea during these first forty years but few figures can now be had. Reliable data are, however, found in the work of Lieut. Vassili Berg, of the Russian navy, who commanded several vessels belonging to the Russian American Company in the course of the first two decades of the present century. Berg had access to the custom-house records at Petropavlovsk, Okhotsk, and other ports, at which incoming furs were counted and a royalty paid to the Government. This system was in vogue until the establishment of the Russian American Company in 1799. According to Berg the catch of sea-otters between the years 1745 and 1796 is placed at 58,618,' and that of fur-seals from the date of the discovery of the islands to the year 1796 at 417,758,' which latter figure represents probably not more than one-quarter of the number killed, as, owing to the crude processes of treating the skins, fully three-quarters were spoiled before they could be brought to market. The following extract from Berg's Chronological History' throws much light upon the early state of the fur trade in and about Bering Sea: "In regard to the furs imported by the various companies from 1745 to 1823 the reader should be informed that the valuation of the cargoes was not always equal to the real value of the furs. This was due to the devices resorted to by some shipowners to lessen the amount of royalty. "In looking over the list of furs imported by any vessel we can determine how far its voyage extended. Blue foxes indicate that the hunting was done on the Bering Islands; black foxes that the vessel reached Unalaska, Umnak, and Unimak. Land-otters and beavers were obtained from the Aliaska Peninsula. "A large shipment of fur-seals indicated that the ship had been to the islands of St. Paul and St. George. These islands, discovered in 1785, yielded in a short time more than a million fur-seal skins, and they still abound in the animals. There were cases, however, where during heavy northerly gales as many as 50,000 fur-seals and 5,000 walrus were driven to the nearest Aleutian islands. In 1776 a multitude of fur-seals were driven to the islands of Atka and Amlia. The ship Prokopy, which was hunting there, brought about 40,000 skins to Okhotsk. * * 1 See Table 1, Berg's appendix. * 308; Garcia vs. Lee, 12 Pet., 511, 520; Williams rs. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pet., 415; United States vs. Yorba, 1 Wall., 412, 423; United States vs. Lynde, 11 Wall., 632, 638). It is equally well settled in England. (The Pelican, Edw. Adm. a px. D.; Taylor vs. Barclay, 2 Sim., 213; Emperor of Austria vs. Day, 3 DeG., F. & J., 217, 221, 233; Republic of Peru vs. Peruvian Guano Co., 30 Ch. D., 489, 497; Republic of Peru vs. Drayfus, 38 Ch. D., 356, 359). All courts of justice are bound to take judicial notice of the territorial extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the Government whose laws they administer, or of its recognition or denial of the sovereignty of a foreign power, as appearing from the public acts of the legislature and executive, although those acts are not formally put in evidence nor in accord with the pleadings. (United States vs. Reynes, 9 How., 127; Kennett vs. Chambers, 14 How., 38; Hoyt vs. Russel, 117 U. S., 401, 404; Coffee vs. Grover, 123 U. S., 1; State vs. Dunwell, 3 R. I., 127; State vs. Wagner, 61 Maine, 178; Taylor vs. Barclay, and Emperor of Russia vs. Day, above cited, 1 Green 1, Ev., 6.) It has been further contended on the part of the defense that this vessel was especially privileged to engage in the sealing business in Bering Sea by reason of the fact that her owner and crew of Indians are of the Makah tribe, and by virtue of the treaty made with said tribe of Indians, whereby "the rights of taking fish and of whaling and sealing at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the United States and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed land." (12 U. S. Statutes, 940.) It is obvious, however, from the language above quoted, that the treaty secures to the Indians only an equality of rights and privileges in the matter of fishing, whaling, and sealing. The guaranty is of rights in common with all citizens of the United States, and certainly such treaty stipulations give no support to a claim for peculiar or superior rights or privileges denied to citizens of the country in general. A decree of forfeiture as prayed for in the libel of information will be entered. C. H. HANFORD, Judge. NOTES ON THE FUR INDUSTRY OF BERING SEA AND THE ADJOINING REGIONS. From the discovery of the Aleutian Islands in 1741 until the year 1783 the operations of the Russian fur hunters and traders were confined exclusively to the islands, coasts, and waters of Bering Sea. It was not until after the establishment of the first permanent settlement on the islands of Kadiak in 1783 that the initiatory steps were taken toward extending the business to the mainland of North America. On the extent and value of the operations on the Aleutian Islands and in Bering Sea during these first forty years but few figures can now be had. Reliable data are, however, found in the work of Lieut. Vassili Berg, of the Russian navy, who commanded several vessels belonging to the Russian American Company in the course of the first two decades of the present century. Berg had access to the custom-house records at Petropavlovsk, Okhotsk, and other ports, at which incoming furs were counted and a royalty paid to the Government. This system was in vogue until the establishment of the Russian American Company in 1799. According to Berg the catch of sea-otters between the years 1745 and 1796 is placed at 58,618,' and that of fur-seals from the date of the discovery of the islands to the year 1796 at 417,758,' which latter figure represents probably not more than one quarter of the number killed, as, owing to the crude processes of treating the skins, fully three-quarters were spoiled before they could be brought to market. The following extract from Berg's Chronological History' throws much light upon the early state of the fur trade in and about Bering Sea: "In regard to the furs imported by the various companies from 1745 to 1823 the reader should be informed that the valuation of the cargoes was not always equal to the real value of the furs. This was due to the devices resorted to by some shipowners to lessen the amount of royalty. "In looking over the list of furs imported by any vessel we can determine how far its voyage extended. Blue foxes indicate that the hunting was done on the Bering Islands; black foxes that the vessel reached Unalaska, Umnak, and Unimak. Land-otters and beavers were obtained from the Aliaska Peninsula. "A large shipment of fur-seals indicated that the ship had been to the islands of St. Paul and St. George. These islands, discovered in 1785, yielded in a short time more than a million fur-seal skins, and they still abound in the animals. There were cases, however, where during heavy northerly gales as many as 50,000 fur-seals and 5,000 walrus were 'driven to the nearest Aleutian islands. In 1776 a multitude of fur-seals were driven to the islands of Atka and Amlia. The ship Prokopy, which was hunting there, brought about 40,000 skins to Okhotsk. "From an examination of the tables of furs imported by the various companies from 1743 to 1823 it appears that within a period of eighty years their numbers, including Government tribute, were as follows: "The tables of the importations of private companies show that the cargoes of their various vessels were valued at 7,000,000 rubles, but to this we must add at least 2,000,000 rubles, because the value of cargoes of seven vessels which made long voyages is not given for want of record, and it may be safely assumed that at least ten more made voyages of which no record exists. The furs imported by the Shelikof Company were appraised at 1,500,000 rubles. The cargoes brought by the vessels of the Russian American Company were worth 35,500,000 rubles.1 Thus there were obtained by Russian hunters and traders in eighty years from the Aleutian Islands, and the coast immediately adjoining, furs to the value of 46,000,000 rubles. Of all this quantity of furs more than half was traded off with the Chinese at Kiakhta, and the Government received in duties from this trade more than 10,000,000 rubles. In addition the Government received large numbers of skins as tribute from natives. From every cargo of the early private companies one-tenth was set aside for the Government, and the number of seaotters alone thus secured from 1745 to 1799 was 12,000, worth 720,000 rubles at the low price then prevailing." The seal catch at the Pribilof Islands between 1817 and 1837 is illustrated by the following table compiled by Veniaminof:3 TABLE I IN PART II of Veniaminof's "Notes on the Islands of the Unalaska District,” showing the seal-catch during the period of gradual diminution of life on the Pribilof Islands, from 1817 to 1887. Taken from 1817. 1818. 1819. 1820. 1821. 1822. 1823. 1824. 1825. 1826. 1827. St. Paul Island 47,860 45, 932 40, 300 39, 700 35, 750 28, 150 24, 100 19, 850 24, 600 23, 250, 17, 750 12,328 13, 924 11, 925 10, 520 9,245 8,319 5,773 5, 550 5,500 Total...... Taken from 60, 188 59,856 52, 225 50, 220 44,995 36, 469 29,873 25, 400 30, 100 23,250 17,750 1828. 1829. 1830. 1831. 1832. 1833. 1834. 1835. 1836. 1837. In regard to the fur trade with China see also Coxe, pp. 354-357, and House Ex. Doc. 177, pp. 145, 178. 3 See appendix to his "Notes on the Islands of the Unalaska District." |