The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-07-24

be interfered with during the negotitions,
and expresses the hope that his decision is /
not final and that while thereis yet time
the commanders of United States revenue |
cruisers will be instructed to abstain.
However, the minister, with regret, |
falling to secure "a favorable reply, pre-
sents the formal protest of the BRUSH gov |
eminent. In the protest he says IN part:
. The British government cannot. admit the |
right of the United States, OF their own |
sole motion, to restrict the freedom OF |
navigation in Behring sea, nor to enforce |
municipal legislation against British YES |
sells on the high seas. Her Britannia |
maiesty's government is therefore unable
TO pass over, without notice, the public an
nouncement of an intention on the part of
the United States to renewed acts OF inter
ference with British vessels navigating
outside the territorial waters of the United
States, of which they had previously to
complain.
1.-The minister is in consequence, INSTRUCT
ed formally to protest against such inter
ference, and to declare her Britannia
maiesty's government must hold the gov
ernment of the United States responsible
for any consequence 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
proposition by her majesty's government
that British vessels shall not enter Behrlng
sea the coming season. The minister
writes that Lord Salisbury says he regrets
the present constitutional difficulties,
which would preclude her majesty's gov
ernment from acceding to it except as part
of a general scheme for the settlement OF
the controversy and on certain conditions,
which are: That the government agree
forthwith to refer to arbitration the ques-
ton of the legality of the action OF the
United States in Selling or otherwise inter
fering with British vessels engaged in Behr
ing sea outside of territorial waters
during 1886, 1887 and 1889. That
pending an awar1 all interference with
British sealing vessels absolutely cease;
that the United States, if the award should
be adverse to them, will compensate Brit
ish subjects for toe losses they may sus-
tain by reason of their compliance with the
British proclamation.
In the next communication, dated the lst
of the present month, Lord Salisbury, re-
ferring to Blaine's criticism upon the alb
rupt close of the London negotiations,
quotes from the statement made to him by
United States Minister Phelps as follows:
Under the peculiar political circumstan-
ses of America at this moment" said
Phelps, with a general election pending,
it would be of little use, and indeed, hardly
practicable to conduct any negotiation to
an issue before the election had taken
place.
Ga the last of June Secretary Blaine
addressed TO the British minister very
long letter in answer to Lord Salisbury's
communication, in which the latter stated
that Secretary John Quincy Adams pro-
| tested against Russia's claim to exclusive
| jurisdiction over BenrIng sea. Secretary
Blaine says: ''The quotation which
Lord Salisbury MAKES is fortunately a
defective, erroneous and mis- leading one.
The conclusion is separated from the
premise, a comma is turned into period
aud an important qualification as 10 tune is
entirely erased without even suggest; on
that it had ever formed part of the text,
and out OF Gig aty four words logically and
inseparately connected thirty five are ex-
copied from Mr.. Adams paragraphs in
Lord Sallsbury's quotation.'@
The secretary Says further: 'Neither
| by the treaty with Russia of 1925 nor its
renewal of 1915, nor by it's second renewal
in 1859, did Great Britain gain any right to
take seals in Behrng sea- In fact those
treaties were prohibition upon her which
she steadily respected so long as Alaska
was Russian province. 1t 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 States.
During all the time between the treaty
to the United States in 1867, Great
Britain never affirmed the right of her sub
jectS to capture fur seals in Behring sea,
and as matter of fact her subjects did not
during that long period attempt to catch
seals in Behring sea. [ am justified there
fore i'll repeating the questions which | ad-
dressed to her majestys government on the
22d of January, and which still remain I'M
answered, viz, whence did the ships oil
Canada derive the right to do in 1856 that
which they had refrained from doing for
nearly ninety years. Upon what grounds
did her majesty's government defend in
1856 the course of conduct in Behring sea
which had been carefully avoided ever
since the discovery of that sea. BY VIVA
reasoning did her majesty's government
conclude that an act may be committee
with impunity against the rights of the
United States which had never been at
tempted against the same rights when helC
by the Russian empire.'
The thirtieth and last letter of the cor
respondence, which would, ii printed en-
tire, I'LL over twenty newspaper columns
was addressed by Mr.. Blaine to Sir Julian
Pauncefote from Bar Harbor last Satur
day. In 1t the secretary says: ~ am in
| structed by the President to say that tn,
United States is willing to consider all tn
/ proceedings of April 49, 1888, as cancelled
So far as American rights may be con
cerned, this government will ask Grea
Britain to adhere only to the agreement
t made between Lord Salisbury and Mr.
Phelps on the 18th of February 1888. Ina
t was agreed to and made directly between
3 the two governments and did not includ
2 the rights of Russia. In asking Lord Sal
9 lsbury to adhere to the agreement of Feb
ruary %, we leave tue agreement of Apri
10 to be maintained, ii maintained at all, b.
Russia, for whose cause and for whose ad
vantage it was particularly designed"
/ Blaine also refers to Lord Salisbury
f statement that political events in tn
United States had caused an interrupto
of negotiations and not Canada objection
+ and closes the vOluminous correspondence
t as follows:
n 81 am satisfied in assuming that Lor
- Salisbury cannot recur to the remark o
Y MIR. Phelps as one of the reasons for break
Y ing off negotiations because negotiation
were in actual progress for more than fou
d months after the remark was made an
4 Mr.. Phelps himself TOOK a large part in il
u ''Unpon this recital of facts | am unabl
e to recall or in any way qualify the state
n ment which | made in my note of June t
a the effect that Lord Salisbury abrupt
a closed negotiations because the Canada
government objected and that he assigne
e no other reason whatever.
s Lord Salisbury expresses the belief thf
e even If the view | have taken of thes
T. transactions is accurate, they would M
G bear out the argument which found upo
J. them. The argument to which Lord Sail
b bury refers is, presume, the remonstranC
which l made by direction of the Presider
{: against the change of policy by be
t majesty's government without notice an
y against the wish of the United State
II The lnterposition of the wishes of BIRTHS
Il province against the conclusion of COZ
q
o cording to Mr.. Phelps, had been virtual
e dgrecd upon ercept as TO details, was in til
S Presidents belief, a grave injustice to I'll
ocnuern rnent of the IInitnd Statnc y