New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-06-09
TIE LANDLOCKED SEA.

"The Heraldp is striving needlessly to multi
ply Secretary Blsine's embarrassments in deal
ing with the Behring Sea question. we cheer
fully acquesced In its view that his predecessor
had weakened and diScredited the American
argument for exclusive dominion In those waters
by recommending the release Of the captured
poaching craft and by inviting the maritime
Powers to enter into an arrangement for the
protection of the fur-seal fisheries This does
not satisfy our candid friend, whose admissions
respecting Mr. Bayard's diplomacy were 50
damaging to his reputation. We are now asked
30 concede that one Of Secretary Blaine's prede-
cessors sixty years ago emphaically denied the
claim of exclusive jurisdiction, and thereby
fatally compromised the American case.
The reference doubtless is to Secretary
Adams's instructions to Mr. Middleton, who
negotiated the Treaty of 1924 with Russia The
scope Of that protest is shown by the conven-
ton itself 10 be mainly confined to the Pacific
south Of Behring Sea and 10 the territorial limits
claimed by Russia on the Asiatic and American
coasts. I'm the correspondence that led to the
treaties with the United States and Great Brit
ain there was not the slightest reference to
maritime privileges acquired by either Power
in the Sea Of Kamchatka or Behring. When
the Treaty Of 1924 expired by Limitation the
Russian Government refused to extend its
operation, and the reason assigned by Count
NesselrOde was the invasion Of Russian mar
thine privileges in those waters. Apparently
the question Of Jurisdiction in Behring Sea had
not been settled by the instructions OF Mr..
Adams TO tho American Minister, for when Mr.
Seward negotiated the Treaty OF Cession mar
thine as well as other territorial dominion was
purchased by tho United States. Article de-
fines the pelagic boundary separating Russia
from America, and cOnferS dominion and iuriS-
diction over the eastern half Of Behrng Sea
Mr. Sumner and all the Senators who discussed
the subject when the treaty was ratified rcoog-
nized this fact. No protest was received from
Great Britain or from any other nation against
this transfer Of jurisdiction, and thu act 81
Congress, passed July %, 1868, expressly dc
Clard:
That the laws Of mo United states rniasng TO Gus
toms, commerce and navigation b. and tho same arc
hereby extended 10 and over ell tho mInlanhs islands
and waters q the territory ceded TO the United stSes
BY the Emperor OF Russia By treaty far tho same
10 applicable thereto.
Secretary Seward Senator Sumner and Tho
lawmakers twenty years ago certainly DID not
act on the assumption that Secretary Adams III
1922 had invalidatcd for all time the right Of
jurisdiction over those waters as q landIockcd
sea. Secretary Blaine will not be embarrassed
by their record but in taking mp the American
case as they left il he will inevitably be con
fronted with Mr.. Bayard's concessions 10 the
British Foreign once aud with the invitations
to tho maritime Powers. There his embarrass-
ments will end, for THE HERALD has no
ground for the following contention
The act OF Congress OF Marh asserts the hight OF
control over all the dominion Of the Omitted states IN
The waters OF Behring Sea-" Now the extent Of the
dominion OF the United ststoS IN those waters Is the
very point In issue The previous act passed In 1865,
Immediately after the purchase applied 10 The waters
Of Alaska" II the Anenhatory act OF 1850 vas In
tended 10 assert larger domain than that OF 1863. 10
declare in favor OF exclusive Jurisdiction VIII not Mr.
Blaine 10 also confronted with the argument that this
claim was not asserted by Congress I'LL this year
No; the act OF 1868 a. quoted above applies
not TO the waters Of Alaska, but to the waters
coded by treaty and defined in Article l. There
has been no enlargement Of the scope OF legS'
lation since Mr.. Stewards time. The last Con
grcss simply recognized the right Of exclusive
jurisdiction which the Revised Statutes had
embodied for twenty years. 1t did not assert
any new claim, but merely reanirmed an old
privilege, against which no Power had pro
tested at the time Of the purchase. There vii
be no source Of embarrassment in arguing tho
American case except Mr.. Bayard's unfortunate
bunders.
|