hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
United States (United States) 16,340 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 6,437 1 Browse Search
France (France) 2,462 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 2,310 0 Browse Search
Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania, United States) 1,788 0 Browse Search
Europe 1,632 0 Browse Search
New England (United States) 1,606 0 Browse Search
Canada (Canada) 1,474 0 Browse Search
South Carolina (South Carolina, United States) 1,468 0 Browse Search
Mexico (Mexico, Mexico) 1,404 0 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History (ed. Benson Lossing). Search the whole document.

Found 258 total hits in 39 results.

1 2 3 4
Alaska (Alaska, United States) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
ell, in the first place, to examine the origin of the controversy. Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States in 1867, and in 1870 the sory or in the waters thereof, and it was claimed that the waters of Alaska embraced all that portion of Bering Sea east of the line designatedtreaty . . . are to be considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska, and all the penalties prescribed by law . . . must therefore attacmpt to secure a more precise and strict definition of the waters of Alaska by congressional legislation. A lengthy investigation was Had by aing the view taken by the Attorney-General and the federal judge in Alaska, and submitting a bill which declared that Section 1,956 of the Revereby declared to include and apply to, all waters of Bering Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary lines of the treaty with Russia. Thistude of the Attorney-General and the judge of the federal court of Alaska. In no part of that statesman's career did his devotion to his cou
Canada (Canada) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
ecided to be improper. The Hon. E. J. Phelps who, as minister to Great Britain, had conducted the negotiations with Lord Salisbury growing out of the seizures of 1886 and 1887, in a lengthy despatch to Secretary Bayard. reviewing the conduct of Canada which had prevented an adjustment once accepted by Lord Salisbury, made the following recommendation: Under these circumstances, the government of the United States must, in my opinion, either submit to have these valuable fisheries destroyed, ornt to many who have taken an interest in the preservation of the seals that these rules have been so lax and so imperfectly observed. The obstruction in these respects is now, as it has been from the beginning, the selfish and inhuman conduct of Canada. As it has been shown by the foregoing review that the Paris arbitration was not unwisely entered upon, that it was not altogether fruitless in its results for us, and that the administration which agreed to it cannot be held culpable for the
United States (United States) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
if that policy should be prejudiced in the United States for want of correct information or throughoversy. Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States in 1867, and in 1870 the seal islands in Bthese circumstances, the government of the United States must, in my opinion, either submit to haveich in the judgment of the counsel of the United States became the leading, if not the only, defen naming the arbitrators on the part of the United States, he chose, with the cordial approval of thtry, and with greater ability than was the United States by its agent and counsel. . . . If more wations, the decision was unfavorable to the United States. While the action of the government in maecision of the tribunal was adverse to the United States on the legal points in dispute, but the aw will be found to be more favorable to the United States than the regulations which Mr. Bayard prop which altogether ignored the claim of the United States for damages to the seals by improper pelag[14 more...]
Bering Sea (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
Bering sea arbitration. The United States stands distinguished among the nations as the foremosng the fur-seals of the Pribyloff Islands in Bering Sea; and the impression seems to prevail with mahe herd, and with occasional incursions into Bering Sea. There was gradually developed a contentiondown by Secretary Bout-well did not apply to Bering Sea, because Russia had claimed and enforced excaters of Alaska embraced all that portion of Bering Sea east of the line designated in the Russian tute, the first seizure of British vessels in Bering Sea took place under instructions of the Secretarcised jurisdiction over all that portion of Bering Sea . . . and that claim had been tacitly recognlared to include and apply to, all waters of Bering Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary linesminion of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea. The seizure and condemnation of vessels,ritish vessels engaged in pelagic sealing in Bering Sea. But this course had already been proposed [1 more...]
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
ent of the questions which had arisen with Great Britain respecting the fur-seals of the Pribyloff hat the accused parties may be subjects of Great Britain. Russia had claimed and exercised jurisdi wisdom of the policy. The complaint of Great Britain in 1887 was followed by a diplomatic corre The Hon. E. J. Phelps who, as minister to Great Britain, had conducted the negotiations with Lord rse which might bring about a rupture with Great Britain, the probable outcome of which would have d a rupture of our peaceful relations with Great Britain was adjusted by a resort to the arbitramenal issues involved in our controversy with Great Britain regarding them did not seem to justify thehan our government proposed to accept from Great Britain, the arbitration cannot justly be characteeferred serious claims for damages against Great Britain on account of the injuries done by Britishexecutive in agreeing to a settlement with Great Britain which altogether ignored the claim of the [3 more...]
Sitka (Alaska, United States) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
e limits of Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof, and it was claimed that the waters of Alaska embraced all that portion of Bering Sea east of the line designated in the Russian treaty of cession. Under the foregoing construction of the treaty and the statute, the first seizure of British vessels in Bering Sea took place under instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury by the revenue vessels in 1886, and other seizures followed in 1887. Suits were instituted in the federal court at Sitka under the act cited, and the vessels were condemned. The judge, whose tenure of office under the practice in vogue as to that Territory was limited to the political administration which appointed him, following the line of argument submitted by the district attorney in a brief prepared in the office of the Attorney-General, held that all the waters within the boundary set forth in the treaty . . . are to be considered as comprised within the waters of Alaska, and all the penalties prescrib
Department de Ville de Paris (France) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
use of peace and civilization in the world if that policy should be prejudiced in the United States for want of correct information or through partisan bias. One of the last arbitrations in which the United States participated was that held at Paris in 1893 for the settlement of the questions which had arisen with Great Britain respecting the fur-seals of the Pribyloff Islands in Bering Sea; and the impression seems to prevail with many of our people that this arbitration was unwisely entere waters of Bering Sea. The seizure and condemnation of vessels, as stated, constitute the origin and foundation of the complaint of the British government, and of the lengthy correspondence and negotiations which resulted in the arbitration at Paris. These seizures were the act of the administration of President Cleveland. and had the endorsement of the executive, politico-judicial. and legislative departments of that administration. In so far as the views of the opposing political party
Arkansas (Arkansas, United States) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
xercised jurisdiction over all that portion of Bering Sea . . . and that claim had been tacitly recognized and acquiesced in by the other maritime powers of the world. The seizure and condemnation of the British vessels were followed by an attempt to secure a more precise and strict definition of the waters of Alaska by congressional legislation. A lengthy investigation was Had by a committee of the House of Representatives in 1888; in in January, 1889, a report was made by Mr. Dunn, of Arkansas, chairman of the committee, fully sustaining the view taken by the Attorney-General and the federal judge in Alaska, and submitting a bill which declared that Section 1,956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States was intended to include and apply to, and is hereby declared to include and apply to, all waters of Bering Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary lines of the treaty with Russia. This bill was passed by the House, but in the Senate it was sent to the committee on foreign
Russia (Russia) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
It is well, in the first place, to examine the origin of the controversy. Alaska was ceded by Russia to the United States in 1867, and in 1870 the seal islands in Being Sea were leased by the govertention that the principle laid down by Secretary Bout-well did not apply to Bering Sea, because Russia had claimed and enforced exclusive jurisdiction over all its waters, that it had been acquiesced in by the maritime nations, including G/un>reat Britain, and that all the rights of Russia therein passed to the United States by the cession. The act of Congress of 1868 (Section 1,9）56) made it unnational law, it makes no difference that the accused parties may be subjects of Great Britain. Russia had claimed and exercised jurisdiction over all that portion of Bering Sea . . . and that claim ply to, all waters of Bering Sea in Alaska embraced within the boundary lines of the treaty with Russia. This bill was passed by the House, but in the Senate it was sent to the committee on foreign r
London (United Kingdom) (search for this): entry bering-sea-arbitration
l partisanship. In naming the arbitrators on the part of the United States, he chose, with the cordial approval of the Chief-Justice and his associates, Mr. Justice Harlan. of the Supreme Court, as senior American member of the tribunal. In filling the second place he selected Senator Morgan, the recognized leader of all international questions in the Senate of the party whose officials had originated the subject-matter of arbitration. Hon. E. J. Phelps, President Cleveland's minister in London, an experienced diplomatist, and a lawyer of national repute, had been consulted by the President several months before the treaty had been agreed upon, and when the cease came to be prepared he was named as senior counsel. With him was associated James C. Carter, of New York, the recognized leader of the American bar; and before the tribunal was organized Frederic R. Coudert, an accomplished French scholar and a prominent jurist, was added to the list. These three gentlemen were the polit
1 2 3 4