The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-05-08
BERING SEA SEAL SKINS.
BLAINE'S LAST LITTER TO SIR
PAUNCEFOTE.


DISQUALIFICATION That Grow Out
of Them.
WASHINGTON, May An addition to
the Bering sea correspondence between
Secretary Blaine and Lord Salisbury is
made public by the state department. II
is letter from Secretary Blaine to the
British minister, Sir Pauncefote, dated
April IA, 1891, in reply to Lord Salisbury's
latest communication. heretofore published.
Secretary Blaine says:
SIR-The notifications which Lord Salisbury
suggests in the questions for arbitration do not
wholly meet the views of the President; but the
President changes the text of the third and
fifth in such manner, IL is hoped, as will result
in an agreement between the two governments.
While Lord Salisbury suggests different mode
of procedure from that embodied in the sixth
question, the President does not understand
him actually to object to the question, and he.
therefore, assumes that it Is agreed TO.
The six questions as now proposed by the
President are as follows:
1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now
known as Bering sea, and what exclusive rights
in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert
and exercise prior aud up to the time OF the
cession Of Alaska to the United States?
2 How far were these claims OF jurisdiction
as TO the seal fisheries recognized and conceded
by Great Britainf
g. Was the body of water now known as
Bering sea included in the phrase Pacific
oceann as used in the treaty of 1925 between
Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, If
any, in the Bering sea were held and exclusive
ly exercised by Russia after said treaty?
4 Did not all the rights of Russia as to juriS-
diction. and as to the seal fisheries in Bering
sea, east OF the water boundary described
in the treaty between the United States and
Russia of March so, 1867, pass unimpaired to the
United States under that treaty?
s. Has the United States any right andif so,
seals frequenting the islands of the United
States in Bering sea, when such seals are found
outside the ordinary three mile limit?
g. II the determination Of the foregoing ques-
tions shall leave the subject in such position
that the concurrence of Great Britain is neces-
sary In prescribing the regulations for the kill.
ing of fur seals in any part of the waters of
Bering sea. then it shall be further determined:
l. How far, il it all, outside the ordinary ter
ritorlal limits IL is necessary that the United
States should exercise an exclusive jurisdiction
in order TO protect seals for the time living upon
the islands of the United States and feeding
therefrom?
2. Whether a closed season during which the
killing of seals in the waters of Bering sea in
the ordinary territorial limits shall be prohib-
ited) is necessary to save the seal fishing indus
try, so valuable and important to mankind,
from deterioration or destruction? and. if So
3. What months or parts of months should
be included in such season, and over what
waters it should extend?
The President does not object to the add-
tional questions respecting alleged damages to
English ships, proposed by Lord Salisbury, If
one condition can be added namely, that after
the issues of arbitration are joined If the United
States shall prevail, all seals taken by Canadian
vessels during the period shall be paid for at the
| ordinary price for which skins are sold This
seems to the President to be a complement OF
| Lord Salisbufys proposition, and he doubts
| not that it will secure his lordships assent.
In the first paragraph Of Lord Salisbury's dis.
| patch on Feb. q he makes the following dec
| faration: tits now quite clear that the advisers
| of the President do not claim Bering sea as O
mare clausum, anu, indeed, that they repudiate
| that contention in express terms. Lord Sails
| bury's expression is put in such form as to
| imply (whether he so intended know not) that
| the United States had hitherto been resting its
contention upon the fact that Bering sea was a
mare clausun. If that was his intention it
would have been well for his lordship to specify
wherein the United States ever made the
assertion.
The emphatic denial in my dispatch of Dec.
II last was intended to put an end TO the itera-
tion of the charge and to eliminate il from the
current discussion.
The remainder Of the letter is In reply to
the arguments and citations presented by
Lord Salisbury in his communication last
made public.
WHAT BLAINE SAYS.
Mr. Blaine says:
| Lord Salisbury complains that did not deal
| with certain protests written by Lord LONDON
| derry and the Duke of Wellington in 1922,
| which he had before quoted If he will recur to
| the twenty sixth and twenty-seventh pages OF
my dispatch of Dec IL, he will observe that |
| specially dealt with these; that maintained,
and l think proved from the text that there was
| not single word In those protes referring to
| BeriDg sea, but that they referred to territory
south of the Alaskan penlnsular bordering on
the Pacific and geographically shut out from
Bering sea.
Secretary Blaine regrets that his argus
ment on the point which Lord Salisbury
considered vital should have escaped the
latter's notice. He then proceeds TO say:
In Lord Salisbury's judgment the contention
| of the United States now rests wholly upon the
| the ukase of 1891, by Emperor Alexander l, Of
| Russia The United States has at no time
| rested it's argument upon the ground above
| mentioned, and this government regrets that
| Lord Salisbury should have so misapprehended
the American position as to limit its basis Of
! right in Bering sea to the ukase OF
1921 The United States has, among
| other grounds. insisted, without recurring
to any Of it's inherited and superior rights, that
beyond the three mile line IN case of proved ne
cessity as Great Britain possesses. Two or
| three Instances of power which Great Britain
exercises beyond the three mile line have already
| been quoted but have failed, thus far,
| to secure comment or explanation from
| Lord Salisbury. Another case can be
added, which, perhaps, is still more to the point.
| In 1889, only two years ago, the British parlia-
| ment enacted law, the effect of which is fully
| shown by the map enclosed herewith
| NorE.-The map referred 70 represents a
! triangular sbest of water, with an apex formed
| By three small firths or bays. The great body
| Of the water is nameleSs on the map. Across
| the base of the triangle is line OF exclusion
| measuring eighty-five miles, and the two
| sides are flfty-six miles and sixty
two miles long, making the total
| inclosed area 400 square miles. Far outside
| the three mile line the parliament Of Great
| Britain has attempted to control a body OF
/ al, al ha baag farU
of Scotland, 9, 200 square mile in extent, and to
| direct that certain methods of fishing shall not
| be used within that great body Of water under
| prescribed penalty. IL will be observed that
| the inhibition applies not alone Rgsist British
| subjects but against ''any persons"
PARAPHRAsE.
Secretary Blaine here quotes pertinent
sections Of the parliamentary act IN ques-
tion and proceeds:
II Great Britain may thus control an area o.
25O0 square miles of ocean on the coast oi
| Scotland, why may not the United States pre-
| scribe the space around the Pribylon Islands, it
| which similar prohibitions may be enforced
The following would be needed leg isatiof
for such purpose by congress, and IL is but 9
paraphrase Of the act Of parliament. The fui
seal board may. by by-law or by bylaws, direct
that the methods Of sealing known as spsarnR
and harpooning, or with firearms, shall not be
used within line drawn from the shores Of
Pribyloff Islands sixty miles in Bering sea, and
sad board may, from time % time, make
| alter aud revoke the bylaws for the purpose oi
this section; but no such bylaw all be Of auy
validity until Il has beon confirmed by ths
Hsf... n