The Portland daily press., 1891-01-14
Our Rights In sehring sea,

Inc questions brought before the Supreme
by the Sayward case are these "a Has the
United States the right to seize Canadian
schooner on the high seas? ~ Was the
Sayward, being 50 miles from the shore, on
the high seas? 1t is perfectly evident that
If the court answers these questions directly
1t must answer the first in the negative and
the second in the affirmative. No civilized
nation of the present day would claim for
moment The right to seize a vessel Of an
other nation, with which 1t was at peace, On
the high seas. And the law of nations is
well settled that the jurisdiction of a ma
tion does not extend more than three marine
leagues from the coast. Our state depart
ment in its negotiations with Lord Salisbury
has set up no claim to jurisdiction over Beh-
ring Sea. In his last letter Mr. Blaine ex-
pressly negatived any intention on the part
of our government to contend that Behring
Sea was closed sea, and the headland the
ory by which England undertook years ago
to shut mp certain bays on the Atlantic coast
has always been resisted by our government.
The United States is estopped, therefore, by
It's own words and acts from claiming that
BehriDg Sea is a closed sea, and of course 1t
would not be guilty of contending for mo-
ment for the general right to seize foreign
vessels on the open sea. If then the court
confines itself simply to answering the ques-
tions asked its answers will seem inferen-
TALLY to condemn the Sc zure of the Say
ward.
The justification which our government
sets up for the seizure of the Sayward and
the other sealers is that the United States
obtained from Russia property right in the
seals that breed upon the Alaskan island and
the right also to protect them from capture
in the open sea. Our government contends
that the British government admitted that
Russia possessed both these rights.
and therefore is bound to admit that
we possess the same rights, inasmuch
as Russia transferred all her owner
ship to us. Our government says in effect,
the Tn ted States does not claim that Beh-
ring Sea is shut sea, it does not claim the
right to forbid vessels to enter it for ordin-
airy purposes, but it does claim the right to
prevent the vessels of its own and other ma
lions from catching seals in that sea, and the
seizure of the Sayward was an exercise Of
that right. 1t is very doubtful, however, if
the right to prevent seal poaching can be ex.
ercised without the commission of acts
which are tantamount to declaration Of a
general right to board and search vessels of
other nations in this sea. 1t is easy to see
how theoretically the former may exist with
out the latter, but practically it is exceedingly
difficult to exercise one Independently from
the other. AS a rule the evidence that a
vessel has been engaged in poaching is only
found after the vessel is boarded and
searched. The presence Of skins on board
is generally the proof on which they are
condemned. The boarding and searching
frequently take place before there exists
anything more than a suspicion that the
vessel so boarded and searched has been en-
gagng in an unlawful occupation. We say
that we do not claim the right to interfere
with vessels going into Behring Sea for any
purpose except seal poaching, yet we exer-
else the right Of going forclbly on board Of
them to determine whether or not they have
been engaged In this business. Thus while
theoretically we limit our rig to seize YES
sells in Behring Sea to vessels that have been
engaged in seal poaching, we do as
matter of fact-and must probably if
the law against p0aching is to be
enforced WIFI any cJESiutIdDle u6-
gree of effeetiveness-boa and search
vessels to determine whether they are en-
gagged in unlawful business. But to board
and search vessels In the high seas is just as
much an infraction of the law of nations as
to seize them. Therefore while it is easy
theoretically to differentiate the claim of
right to interfere with vessels engaged in
sealing from the claim of right TO interfere
with all vessels entering the sea, in prac-
tice it is virtually impossible to exercise the
former without committing acts which are
tantamount to an assertion of the latter. If,
however, Russia was accustomed to exercise
the former right-and the same difficulties
would surround the exercise of it in her case
as in ours-and England acquiesced, it is
difficult to see how England can now con-
sistently object to our exercising it.