Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-09-05
The kering Sen Question

EDITORS HERALD-The Boring sea
question is important and grave. It will
probably be determined by arbitration
upon the recognized principles of inter
national law. We cannot afford as q
nation to maintain propositions which we
would be ashamed to advance as indi'
vidusls. In your remarks upon the sub.
ject yesterday you advance some propo-
sitions which am afraid are untenable
in legal point of view. Blackstone, ii
is true, lays down the rule that "doves
from mans cote are his property
wherever they may be, with the inten-
ton of returning" but mark the limita-
tion. cote. As to "rabbits from a war
ren,n you omit the limitation, close.
Blackstone. in his 25th chapter, enun-
ciates the civil law rule: ga man may
be invested with qualified but not an
absolute property in creatures which are
ferde naturae" But he carefully dis
tinguishes between wild animals which
have been in manner domesti-
Gated and reduced to possession, and
those which roam at will, even within
large enclosures; and the latter he holds
not to be the subject of ownership.
As Won Savigny, the German civil
ist puts it: ''Wild animals are only
possessed, 30 long as some special dispo-
sition (custodia) exists, which enables
us actually to get them into our power.
The civil Law (and it is the foundation
of all law in the premises) was: "Eos
pisces, qui in stagno sunt, aut fera qua
in silvis circumseptis vsgantur, q nobie
non possideri." (Those fishes which
are in the pond, or wild beasts which
wander even in enclosed forests, cannot
be owned.) Hence seals having left our
territory would be the legitimate prey
of any one upon whose territory they
might be found, and of the whole world
if found upon the high sea.
The only real question is as to the
character of BeriDg sea. ] fail to see
any geographical reason why any por-
tion Of the so called Bering sea can be
called closed eea, except those portions
hereof known as Bristol, Kusquokim
I'D Norton bays. The three-mile zone
is recognized by all nations and all writer's
on international law, but with this i'm
portaut limitation-that the line runs
straight from beadland to headland
and does not follow the sinuosities
Of the shore. Upon this principle
England has exclusive jurisdiction
within line drawn from Lands End to
Stackpole Head, and within line drawn
from St. Williams q Head to st. Bees Head.
But this rule cannot be pushed too far.
For instance, what would be said Of a
claim on the part of Mexico that all the
water to the north of line drawn from
Cape st. Lucas to Cape Corrientes was
Mexican territory? Yet the whole of the
shore of the Gulf Of California is Mexican
Therefore it would seem clear that upon
the ordinary principles of international
law, our territory in Bering sea would
be only to the east of line drawn from
the western point of Akutan island te
Cape Arinoff; from Cape Smith to Cape
Nome, allowing q marine league, o.
course; also marine league around the
islands.
This would give us about one-tbird o
the so-called Bering sea. More we
could not claim unless it be because we
are the assignees of Russia, who had
acquired further rights. II it be found
that Russia claimed, and there we're
virtually conceded to her by the other
nations, further rights, Of course this
would present another question. But
have not seen any reference to . case oi