Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-09-18

this revenue through future years, the
protection OF the seals from illegal cap
ture or disturbance on their annual vis-
its to the Islands is an absolute necessity
hence the prohibition against approach
ing or landing on the Islands, and the
vigilance Of the United States revenue
cruisers in the Behring Sea. How far
Our cruisers may be justified in OBTAINING
Canadian vessels that are found killing
seals on the open sea, miles away from
the Alaskan Islands or coasts, is ques
ton which is likely to lead to discussion
between our own and the British Govern
ment
'The killing OF fur seals and the valu-
able sea otter in the waters of the Pacific
is an industry which is quite extensively
pursued from Victoria British Columbia,
several small steamers and fleet OF
schooners being engaged in the business.
| The temptation to pursue their game
into the more northern seas is naturally
alluring, and unless we can establish
clear right to exclude them from the
Behring Sea, they may give us trouble,
particularly while the right to catch fish
off the coast OF British North America is
in dispute"
In support Of the DEMOCRATS position
that the Government owns these seal
fisheries and the adjacent waters, and
can legally seize all intruders, in conse-
quence, we publish the following from
Henry w. Elliott, of Cleveland, in ans
wer to some questions on the subject by
the Sun. Mr. Elliot is an acknowledged
authority, and his opinions will have
great weight with the Department in de-
termining any future action resulting
from the seizure of the British schooners
"While you admit that | lam technically
right yet you seem to reproach me
without telling the whole story You
are right still the brevity forbade the ex
tension of my letter which you so hand
somely published in your issue OF the 4th
inst. presumed that the statutes of
1870, which do interest and protect the
Alaska Commercial Company, were ia
millar with YOU, while | wish to make
the point clear that the statute of 1868,
under which the seizure of British vessels
was made, does not interest or protect
the A. G. Co.
"If the statutes of 1868 were repealed to-
day, such action would not in the slight
est degree affect the tenure and prosperity
OF theAlaska Commercial Company.
That corporation exists solely by virtue
of the law of 1870, but the law of 1870
J does not cover anything in Alaska but
the Seal Islands and the rocks and
waters adjacent TO them; the law OF
| 1868 is far more sweeping than Mr..
Hutchinson ever dreamed of advising
yet, in my opinion it is the wisest piece
of Congressional work connected with
the entire Alaska business.
"To my mind, whether the Alaska
, Commercial Company, or any company
whatever, is protected or not in Alaska
has nothing, primarily, to do with the
question. Does the Government own
these fur-bearing interests of Behring
Sea, or not? 1t does most emphatically
and absolutely control their manage
ment, rs it should; and, owning them,
it is wisely protecting its property from
unwaTanted invasion and piracy.
'If the Government does not protect
the seal islands OF Alaska, and patrol the
sea otter hunting grounds, who shall? |
do not think the power ought to be dele
gated to any person or corporation.
"Again, you raise in your paper OF
, August 3Oth, another most interesting
question. DO we own Behring Sea-?
, think the terms OF our purchase of Alaska
give us as definite boundary in this
| body OF water between Siberia and
, Alaska as that so well understood ou
, here in Lake Erie, opposite, between
, Canada and the United States. Bu
when you pass into the Arctic Ocear
through Behring Straits, presume the
high sea of international law is again at
, | tanned"