Sacramento daily record-union., 1890-07-25
THE BEHR1NG SEA CORRESPONDENCE


of the British Government, upon the sub
iect of the Behring Sea seal fisheries, has
been made public, and constitutes very
interesting chapter in our history.
The Secretary, in behalf of the Ameri-
can Government, appears to have main
tanned from the outset a position which
may thus be succinctly stated: Behring
Sea is closed sea it was SO held by
Russia undisputedly from the date of its
discovery until portion of it wvs sold to
the United States England alone, and
not until recently, has denied to the
United States the soundness of this claim
it is marine territory that we purchased
from Russia; whatever title Russia had we
bought; her title was the same as that
by which she now exercises exclusive
jurisdiction over the Russian half of the
sea the preservation of the seal fisheries
can not be accomplished if there is indis.
criminate taking of seal, and already the
unlawful taking has decreased the seal
families materially and threatens the early
extinction of the fisheries But the Uni
ted States all along has been, and still is,
disposed to arrange a settlement with
England that will be honorable to both
nations and preserve the fisheries, with
out abandoning the claim of the United
States to the right to control absolutely
the taking of seal in these waters.
While it is true that Canada and the
Imperial Government did protest to the
United States against the seizure of YES
sells fishing in those waters in violation of
the laws of the United States, the latter
has not conceded at any time, as England
now claims, that pending negotiations and
diplomatic correspondence such seizures
should be discontinued. On the contrary,
1t is the part of England, according to Mr.
Blaine's view, to cease making inroads
upon the sealing fields pending the nego-
tiations, and not for the United States to
suspend the operation of her laws and
permit the destruction of the seals to 60
on indefinitely until the negotiations are
concluded. The Secretary adds, with a
vigor and application of parallel that is
very inspiring. that Great Britain herself
maintains an exclusive claim to the Ceylon
pearl fisheries that has never been dis
puted, aud that, too, though the fisheries
are far without the three-mile- -from-the-
shore limit, for which Great Britain now
contends in our northern waters England
has not only for century held these pearl
fisheries, but has exercised the right to
sell leases upon them, and to legislate con-
cerning the marine territory, as if it were
land upon her own island.
The response of Great Britain to these
claims appears to be denial of the claim
that the Behring waters constitute closed
sea. That they are not SO encompassed by
land as to come within the definition of
closed sea as laid down in the code of in
ternational law. That pending these ne
gotiations the Government OF the United
States did agree there should be no more
seizure of British vessels in Behring Sea.
That the seizures made were accomplished
far outside the lawful maritime iurisdic-
tion OF the United States, that is to say.
outside the three-mile limit. That the
Govern 'nent of the United States and of
Great tain ought to agree upon closed
season or the fisheries, navigation and
fshins J the ships and crews of all ma
tions.
The United States replied to this that
the taking Of seals in violation of its laws
was never condoned, and that, IN fact, the
taking by other than authorized parties is
contrary to goofmorals and the policy of
international law. Nevertheless, the Presi-
dent is anxious for speedy settlement of
the matter, and solicits from the repre-
sentative of Great Britain counter pro-
posals.
England replied to this that such seiz-
ures as it complained of could only be
made by virtue of international agreement
In times of peace, because the seizures
were made upon the high seas. This was
simply a restatement Of the case of Great
Britain and renewed denial of our title to
the marine territory ceded to us by Russia.
1t is true, that as the English Minister in
sisted even in the case of the suppression
of the slave trade, seizure of the vessels of
another nation is justified only by inter-
agreement but the instance is
not in point, because in the pursuit of
slayers the question of marine territory
and closed seas has never entered in. The
also cited the case of the protest
of the United States in 1921, presented to
Russia against her act warning our ships.
as well as others, to keep off the shores of
Straits for 100 miles and up to 51o
north, and again he protested to Mr.. Blaine
against the continued seizure of English
fishing vessels.
To this the Secretary replied that the
United States protested in turn against
the action of the British Government in
giving aid and encouragement to the
illicit fishers. At this point the CORE
spondence appears to have become very
sharp and to be flushed with considerable
feeling Mr.. Blaine conveyed to the Min
lister the surprise Of the President that
her Majesty's Government, after admit
ting the necessity for a close season for the
OF the seal fisheries, should
enter the protest referred to, and the re-
fusal to enter into any convention for the
settlement of the dispute until Canada
had been heard from, since the latter OBJ
iected TO any restriction suggested. Such
an excuse the President compares, says
Mr.. Blaine, to such thing as refusal by
the United States to enter into convention
with England for the settlement of some
dispute until California should acquiesce.
The Secretary then proposed that Eng
land forbid British ships entering the sea
Tor sealing until the two nations can ar
range for the final settlement of the issue
by convention. This suggestion was made