The Portland daily press., 1891-01-07
THE BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY.
Questions Which Mr.. Blaine Thinks
Should be ArbItrated.
what Some of the London Papers
Have to Say About Them.
They Are More Inclined to Discuss
Mr.. Blaine himself.

WASHINGTON, January 6.-Mr. Blaine In
bis letter to Lord Salisbury after reviewing
the history of the seal controversy, submits
the following as questions which, In the
opinion of the President, are the real ques-
tions which should be arbitrated upon:
First When exclusive jurisdiction In the
sea now known as the Behring Sea, and what
exclusive rights In the seal fisheries therin,
did Russia assert and exercise prior to and
up to the time Of the cession Of Alaska to
the United States?
Second. How far were these claims Of
jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized
and conceded by Great Britain?
Third. Was the body of water now known
as the Behring Sea included In the phrase
"Pacifc Ocean," as used In the treaty Of
1926 between Great Britain and Russia; and
what rights, IL any. In the Behring Sea were
given or conceded to Great Britain by the
Fourth. Did not all the rights Of Russia
as tO jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries
In Behring Sea east of the water boundary,
in the treaty between the United states and
Russia Of March 80, 1867. pass unimnaired to
the United States under that treaty?
United States as to the fur seal fisheries in
the waters of the Behring Sea outside Of the
territorial limits, whether such rights grow
out Of the cessi0n by Russia of any special
rights or jurisdiction held by her In such
fisheries or In the waters Of Behring Sea, or
out of the ownership Of the breeding ISLANDS
and the habits Of the seals in resorting
thither and rearing their young thereon and
going out from the islands for food. or out OF
any other fact or incident connected with the
relation of those Seal Fisheries to the terri
torial possessions of the United States?
Sixth. If the determination OF the fore
going questions shall leave the subject in
such position that the concurrence Of Great
Britain Is necessary In prescribing regula-
tions for the killing of the fur seal In any
shall be further determined: First, how far,
IL at all. outside the territorial limits IL Is
necessary that the United States should ex-
ercise an exclusive jurisdiction in order to
protect the seal for the time living upon the
islands Of the United States and feeding
there 'nf Second, whether a closed season
during which the killing of seals In the
waters Of Behring-Sea outside the ordinary
territorial limits shall be prohibited) Is nec-
essary to save the seal fishing industry, so
valuable and important to mankind. from
deterioration or destruction? And. II so,
third, what months or parts Of months
should be Included In such season, and over
what water, it should extend?
The repeated assertions that the govern
ment of the United States demands that the
Behring Sea be pronounced mare cLdusuDs,
are without foundation. The government
has never claimed IL and never desired it. IL
expressly disavows 1t. At the same time the
United States does not lack abundant au-
thority, according to the ablest exponents of
International law, for holding a small sec
tion OF the Behring Sea for the protection Of
the far seals. Controlling a comparatively
area of water for that one specific
purpose is by no means the equiva ent OF
declaring the sea, or any part thereof mare
ctausaun Nor Is IL by any means so serious
as obstruction as Great Britain assumed to
make In the South Atlantic, nor so ground
less an Interference with the common law of
the sea as is maintained by British authority
today in the Indian Ocean. The President
does not, however, desire the long POSTPONE
ment which an examination of legal author
tiles from Ulpian to Phillimore and Kent
would involve. he finds his own views well
expressed by Mr.. Phelps, our late minister