Oakes weekly Republican. (Oakes, Dickey County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1898, 1891-05-15
BLAINE SPEAKS.
He Uses More Plain Language in the
Behring Sea COntrO.
versy.
Lord Salisbury's Notifications Are
Not Wholly Salts.
factory

Lord Salisbury's Notifications Are
Not Wholly Satls.
factory
And Mr.. Blaine Shows Where His
Arguments Are Most
Faulty.
The following note in addition to
the correspondence that he has al
ready passed in relation to the Be-
ring sea controversy is made public:
Mr.. BLAINE TO SIR JULIAN PAUNcE-
FoTE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASH
1NeToN, D. c., April 14.-Sir: The
notifications which Lord Salisbury
suggests in the questions 1or arbitra-
tion do not wholly meet the views OF
the president, but the president
changes the text of the third and fifth
in such manner, it is hoped, as will
result in an agreement between the
two governments. While Lord Sails
bury suggests different mode of pro.
ceedure from that embodied in the
sixth question, the president does not
understand him actually to object to
the question, and he therefore as
sumes that it is agreed to.
| The six questions as now proposed
by the president are as follows:
First-What exclusive jurisdiction
IN the sea now known as the Behring
sea, and what exclusive rights in the
seal fisheries therein, did Russia as
sert and exercise prior and up to the
time OF the cession of Alaska to the
United States?
Second-How far we're these claims
OF jurisdictions as to the seal fisheries
recognized and conceded by Great
Britain?
Third-Was the body of water
known as Behring sea included in the
phrase Pacific OCEAN, as used in the
treaty OF 1928 between Great Britain
and Russia; and what rights, ii any,
in the Behring sea, were held and ex-
cluslvely exercised by Russia after the
treaty?
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 described in
the treaty between the United States
and Russia of March 80, 1857, pass
unimpared to the United States un.
der that treaty?
Fifth-Has the United States any
right, and it 80, what right Of protec
ton or property in the fur seals fre.
N ha Sclo Nd 0e ~
States in Behring sea, when such seals
are found outside the ordinary three
mile limit.
Sixth-lf the determination of the
foregoing questions shall leave the
subject in such position that the
CONCURRENCE OF GREAT BRITAIN
is necessary in prescribing regulations
for the killing OF the fur seal in any
part of the waters of Behring sea.
then it shall be further determined:
First, how far, if at all, outside the
ordinary territorial limits it is neces-
sary that the United States should
exercise an exclusive jurisdiction in
order to protect the seal for the time
living upon the islands of the United
States and feeding therefrom; second,
whether closed season during which
the killing OF seals in the waters in
Behring sea, outside the ordinary
territorial limits, shall be prohibited)
is necessary to save the seal fishing
industry, 80 valuable and important
to mankind, from deterioration or
destruction? And if so, third, 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 additional question respecting al.
legged damages to English ships, pro-
posed by Lord Salisbury, if one con-
ditlon can be added, namely, that
after the issues of arbitration are
Joined, if the United States shall pre-
vail, all the seals taken by Canadian
vessels during the period shall be paid
for at the ordinary pricefor " Which SKINS
are sold. This seems to the president
to be the complement OF Lord Sails
bury's proposition, and he doubts
not that it will secure his lordship's
assent.
In the first paragraph ofLord Sails
bury's dispatch OF Feb. 22 he makes
the folio wing declarations:
"1t is now clear that the advisors OF
thepresident do not claim Behrlng sea
as mare clausem, and indeed, that
they repudlate that contention in ex-
press terms, Lord Salisbury's express
sion is put in such form as to imply
(whether he so intended I know not)
that the United States bad hitherto
been resting it's contention upon the
fact that Behring sea was mare clau-
sem. If that was his intention 1T
would have been we'll for his lordship
to specify wherein the United States
ever made the assertion. The en-
phatic denial in my dispatch of Dec.
II last was intended to put an end to
THE REITERATIoN OF THE CHARGE
and to eliminate it from the current
discussion.
Lord Salisbury claims that l did
not deal with certain protests, written
by Lord Londonderry and the duke
OF wellington in 1922, which before
quoted. If he will refer to the 2eth
and 27tn pages of my dispatch of Dec.
~ ne Will observe that l specially
dealt with these; ana I maintained
and, ! think, proved from the text
tha5 there was not single word
in those protests referring to
the Behring sea, but that they
referred, in the language of the duke
of wellington, OF the II of October,
1922, only the lands extending along
the shores of the Pacific ocean from
latitude 10 degrees to latitude so de-
grees north" In the first paragraph
OF Lord Londonderry's protest of
Jan. l8, 1922, addressed to Count
Lieven, OF Russia. he alluded to the
matters in dispute as Especially con-
nected with the territorial rights of
the Russian crown on the northwest
coast OF America bordering on the Pa
cific ocean, and the commerce and
navigation OF his imperial majesty's
subjects in the seas adjacent thereto"