The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-07-24

feTc0 Win 0ur1ux tHS uS8Ve48ttSkSss etAsA 49,
presses hope that the decision Is not hnas
and that while there il yet time the COM
manders Of the United States revenue
cruisers viii Be instructed to abstain Hom
making seizures.
On June IA. however. the minister, with
regret for falling to secure . favorable
reply. presents formal protest from the
British government In the protest be
says. in part, that the British government
cannot admit the right Of the United
States Of their own sole motion to restrict
the freedom of the navigation Of Behring
sea, nor TO enforce municipal legislation
against British vessels on the high seas.
Her Brittsnic majesty's government is,
therefore, unable TO pass over without
notice. the public announcement of an In
tention on the part of the United States
~ renew the acts Of interference with Brit
ish vessels navigating outside OF the terri
torial waters of the United States, OF which
they had previously to complain. The
minister is, in consequences, instructed
formally to protest against such interior
ence and to declare that her Brittanic
majessy's government must hold the gov
eminent of the United States responsible
for the consequences that may ensue from
acts which are contrary to the established
principles OF international law.
The minister next. on June q, replies to
Secretary Blaine's proposition looking to
q proclamation by her majesty's govern
ment that British vessels shall not enter
Behring sea the coming season. The min
lister writes that Lord Salisbury, says the
request presents constitutional difficulties
which would preclude her majesty's gov
eminent from acceding to it, except as part
of general scheme for settlement of the
controversy and of certain conditions,
which are:s
That the governments agree forthwith to refer
to arbitration the question OF the legality OF the
United States in seizing or otherwise interfering
with British vessels engaged IN Behring sea
outside of the territorial waters during 1886, 1857
and 1sSe; that pending the aNrd Gil interfer-
ance with British sealing vessels shall absolutely
cease, and that the United States, II the awa-d
should be adverse to them, viii compensate
British subjects for losses which they may sus-
tain by reason of their compliance with the
British proclamation
In the next communication. dated the
LIST of the present month, Lord Salisbury,
referring to Blaine's criticism upon the abb
rupt close of the London negotiations,
quotes from statement made to HIM by
United states Minister Phelps. as follows:
"Under the peculiar political circum-
stances of America at this moment" said
Phelps, "with general election pending.
it would be of little use, and indeed hardly
practicable, to conduct any negotiation to
its issue before the election had taken
place"
On the last of June Secretary Blaine adj
dressed to the British minister q very
lengthy answer to Lord Salisbury's COM
munication in which the latter states that
Secretary John Quincy Adams protested
against the Russian claim to exclusive ju-
risdiction over Behring sea, (which" Sec
rotary Blaine says. Lord Salisbury makes
unfortunately most defective. erroneous
and misleading one. The conclusion is
separated from the premises. comma Is
turned into period, and an important
qualification as to time is entirely erased
without even suggestion that it had ever
formed part of the text and out of eighty
four words. logically and inseparably con-
nected, thirty-five are dropped from Mr..
Adams paragraph in Lord 6alisbury's
quotation
The secretary further says:
Neither by the treaty with Russia of 1925. nor
by its renewal of 1843, nor by its second renewal
in 1859, did Great Britain gain any right to take
seals in Behring sea- In fact, these treaties were
. prohibition upon her which che steadily re-
spected 90 long as Alaska was q Russ an prov.
ince. It is for Great Britain now to show by
what law she gained rights in that sea after the
transfer Of its sovereignty to the United ststes.
During the time between the treaty of 1925 and
the cession of Alaska to the United States in
1867, Great Britain never afirmed the right of
her subjects to capture fur seal in
Behring sea, and a. matter Of
fact her subjects did not, during
this long period, attempt to
catch in Behring sea am justified. therefore,
in repeating the questions which addressed to
her majestys government oa the I'D of Janu.
airy, and which still remain unanswered, viz:
whence did the ships OF Canada derive right
to do, in 1886. that which they had refrsined
from doing for nearly ninety years7 Upon
what grounds did her majesty's government
defend, in the year 1886, q course of conduct in
Behring sea which had been carefully avoided
ever since the discovery Of that seal? By what
reasoning did her majesty's government con-
clude that an act may be committed with I'm
punity against the rights of the United Sta es,
which had never been attempted against the
same rights when held by the Russian empire?"
The thirtieth and last letter of the CORE
spondence, which would. if printed entire.
fill our twenty newspaper columns. was ad-
dressed by Mr.. Blaine to Sir Julian Paunce-
tote from Bar Harbor last Saturday.
In it the secretary says:
/ am instructed by the president to say that
the United States Is willing to consider all the
proceedings of April l6, 1855, as Cancelled SO far
as American rights may be concerned. This
government will ask Great Britain to adhere
only TO the agreement made by Lord Salisbury
aud Mr.. Phelps on the 18th OF February, 1883
That was an agreement made directly between
the two governments. and does not include the
rights of Russia Asking Lord Salisbury to
adhere to the agreement of February IS we
leave the agreement OF April Is to be main.
tanned, ii maintained at all, By Russia, for
whose cause and for whose advantage it was
particularly designed
Blame also refers to Lord Salisbury's
statement that political events in the
United States had caused an interruption
of the negotiations, and not Canadian OBJ
lection, and closes the voluminous cor
respondence as follows:
am justified in assuming that Lord SALISBURY
can not r cur to the remark of Mr.. Phelps as one,
OF the reasons for breaking of the negotiations,
because the negotiations were in actual progress
for more than four months after the remark was
made, and Mr.. Phelps himself took large part
in it Upon this recital of facts I am unable to
recall. or in any way TO qualify, the stat ment
which made N my note of June 4, to the effect
that Loru Salisbury abruptly closed the negctia-
tons because the Canadian government OBJ
jeeted Lord Salisbury expressed q belief that
even If the view have taken of these iran sac
tons is accurate they would not bear out the
argument which found upon them. The argu-
ment TO which Lord Salisbury refers is l pre-
Eune, the remonstrauce which made by direc-
tiou OF the president against q change of polio y
by her maiesty's government without notice
and against the wish OF the United States. The
interposition Of the wish IS OF British D. oyinoe
against the conclusion of a convention bet yeen