New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-03-19

fere with the trade that her protected corpora
ton was building up Her jurisdiction in Behr-
ing Sea had not been disputed. nor her rights
there invaded; so that there was no occasion for
her to assert these things. Nor were they dis
cussed.
Mr. Adams objected, first. to Russia's :" new pre-
tenton, Of sovereignty from the Doth degree
down to the 5Ist degree on the American coast
and secondly to any regulation which had lhc
effect of making closed sea OF the North
Pacific Ocean. lie held that TO prohibit our
vessels from going within 100 miles OF the con-
tincntal coast was practically to shut us out oil
the ocean. The Russian Government replied that
this was true thus proving that the dominion she
was alleging was over Bchrlng Sea. plus some
thing more, and she attempted TO Justify her
new claims by representing that the extent Of
sea Of which these possessions form the limits
conprehends all the conditions which arc ordinar-
ily attached to shut seas Mr.. Adams disposed
of this suggestion rather brusqucly. 1t may
suffice to say" he wrote, that the distance from
shore to shore this sea. in latitude II degrees
north is not less thas 1000 miles, a remark
that plainly proves that he raising no OBJ
lection TO the Behring Sea authority. but only TO
that which prevented our trade along the coasts
of the Pacific. His position prevailed, both for
us and for England. and in the treaties when
followed all that he claimed was secured to both
the United States and Great Brifain-all and no
more. Russia still held exclusive jurisdiction
in Bchring Sea, and the fact that this contro-
versy ended in treaties which gave us what we
asked. certainly warrants the presumption That
what we land England. also didn't ask we were
willing Russia should enjoy.
This bit of history places England in an awk-
ward position for the making of any demands
upon us now as to rights in the sea. Ky her
Treaty of 1925 she left Russia supreme In those
waters. thereby performing an act which tactly
acknowledged that the sea was closed. This act
of acquiescencc is the more embarrassing 10
England now because it creates for lis in the law
of nations new right to guard, defend and en-
clusively enjoy the seal fisheries, which holds good
even if it be admitted that the sea is common
highway. vattel expresses this right in his stand
ard work on international law in these words ::
when a nation that is in possession of the navi-
CATION and fishery in certain tracts of sea claims
an exclusive right to them and forbds all partici
patton on the part of other natons-if the Others
obey that prohibition, with sufficient marks of
acauiescence, they tacitly Tenounce their own
right in favor of that nation and esa bsh for her
a new right which she may afterward lawfully
maintain against them, especially when it is con-
1rmed by long use"
II this had been written by Vattcl a dcscrp-
ton of the present situation in Bchring Sea, it
could not have been more appropriately expressed
To our quotation of il English statesmen may pos
sibly reply that our own authority. Mr.. Wheaton,
ntimateS that it is of questionable force. So
indeed he does appear to do, but Sir Robert Phil
.imore. the latest accepted English writer on the
law of nations, quotes it approvinely. The rca-
soning of Vattel." he says. does not seem 10 he
unsound." Perhaps Sir Robert was the quicker
TO perceive its excellence because he knew that
England was bound TO maintain 1t, and TINS
brings us back to the remark that the situation
in Behring Sea has no parallel on earth, except Ill
body of water wherein England exercises the
very authority which she seeks 10 deny TO us
TIE Gulf of Manar is an immense body of water
separatng India southeastern extreme from tcy-
lon 1t connects the Arabian Sea with the Sea OF
Bengal, two arms of the Indian Ocean. The
mouth through which it opens into the former Is
500 miles WIDE and into the latter it is twenty
miles Here England conducts, far out al sea-
her famous pearl fisheries. For nearly 100 years
she has operated these fisheries, claiming all tie
rights which are necessary to justify us IN filling
Behring Sea with gunboats and in protecting Its
fisheries against all comerss No argument avails
for England in the Cult of Manar which is not
equally strong in supporting our authority IN
Bchring Sea. Every blow shat England strikes
al us in the sea is an invitation to tic world 10
share in the rich rewards of her pearl fisheries III
the gulf Both claims century Old. Both
are maintained by actual possession. Both have
been acknowledged by the longcontinued absti-
nence of other nations with especial marks of ac-
quiesccnce Certainly if these conditions cstab-
lished new right which may be lawfully
maintained" do not need 10 shut the world
from Behring Sea in order 10 assert the right 10
the ownership of the Pribilof seal
But suppose we feel compelled 10 admit that
the sea is in no sense a mare clousum, and that
Vattes assertion OF right 10 fisheries made ont
by long-continued and conceded possession is i'll
founded. Does our case fall with those adn.is
sons? We think not. 1t is undoubtedly the
law that the contents of the high seas are pub
lie property. but the reason Of that law is that
such contents, commonly called fish. exist every
where and are inexhaustibc. In other words, 1t
is physically impossible to make private property
of them. nor can any nations draft upon the
supply materially affect its abundance. But these
reasons do not apply to the seal. and where the
reason of the law fails the law ceases. Since II