The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1891-01-08

On the 10Th day of December last, Sec
rotary Blaine sent to the British Minister
at Washington long despatch on the
vexed question of the exclusive right OF
the United States to control the catching
Of seals in Alaska, which England dis
putes. The despatch covers two pages
of the New York Tribune and is substan-
TALLY history of the whole case, But
by far the most important part of it is
the new evidence which for the first time
is brought to light. This is in the form
of a note by the Russian government ac.
cOmpanying the treaty with the United
States in 1924, showing what interpreta,
ton that government put upon that
treaty.
1t seems that for sixty years previous
TO 1859, at which time sale of Alaska to
the United States. was in contemplation,
a Russian company had monopoly OF
seal catching in Alaska. This company,
composed of Russian mobiles and capital
lists, had found this monopoly a source
of great profit, and as early as 1924 sought
to protect themselves in its enjoyment.
By this note to the treaty, now brought
forward for the first time, the Russian
government did protect the company.
In subsequent treaty, made in 1925
with GIeat Britain, the Russian govern
ment put the substance of the note into
the treaty itself. To this treaty Great
Britain has adhered ever since, or until
1896, when Canadian sealers began to
poach on the fishing grounds of the
United States.
1t has all along been conceded by Eng
land that whatever rights Russia had
were conveyed to the United States
when Alaska was purchased; but Eng
land has denied that Russia ever claimed
any such rights as the United States
maintains. The note TO the treaty of
1924 shows conclusiyely that that was
precisely what Russia did claim and did
exercise as against all the world.
Back of all this, however, arises the
question how did Russia get the right in
the first place? On this point there
might be difference of opinion; but it
is a question that England is estopped
from raising. There is, too, the further
question of what right any nation has to
prohibit seal catching or any other fish
ing outside of its own waters. 1t is not
disputed that the United States
has the exclusive right to take seals on
Alaskan shores. How far out at sea
should this right extend? Russia exer-
cised it for 100 miles and England acqui-
esced. 1t appears, and all nations con-
cede, that unless the seals are protected
for long distance from land the animals
will soon become extinct. They have
been protected by Russia and America
now for some ninety years to the mani
fest advantage Of the whole world. Lon
don is the worlds great seal skin mar
ket; thousands of people of that city OBJ
tain living in dressing, dyeing and sell
ing the valuable covering of the fur seal.
That industry is likely to be destroyed as
matters are drifting. All this Mr.. Blaine
points out with minute particularly.
He proposes a scheme of arbitration to
settle the whole question, and in it one
of the chief points is this very protection
of the seal fishing so as that II may result
to the worlds advantage. He shows that
England cannot object to some one ma
ton having a right to close the open sea
to sealeIs during the breeding season OF
the seals, for England herself has more
than once closed part of the ocean
against all navigatOrs without her per-
mission. At st. Helena when she had
Napoleon a prisoner there, she forbid
any vessel from coming within eight
leagues of the land, except as he per
mitted it, and even now for 600 miles out
to sea in India she exercises exclusive
control of the pearl fisheries
The mouth of England is shut against
the exercise by the United States of such
rights az are necessary to protect the
seal from determination. All this the
Secretary of State makes as clear as the
tun light. The Earl Of Salisbury cannot