The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1891-01-28

% eaS 10 not contra 6onoS moreS, or immoral
tba nr" seals are wild animals and are NOT
else p upt OF the United States Or anyone
SaIishnnI lney are caught. Further, LoIu
SS sal claims that sealing in the open
septs 10 NOT SO destructive as Mr.. Blaine as.
seal anu That the great destructlOns OF
wator ny III Ia other places has not been on tne
tion Of ~ On tne rookeries. upon thls qHMsS S
am ,a,ne and Lord Salisbury bring large
St atas tv Oh conflicting testimony, OF Onitea
agants sieasury agents, scientists, Canauiah
asSuts and others.
sa Dut even supposing that the pursuit OF
9e n.S on the high seas Is contra bonos mores,
LORD LORD Salisbury holds that even then the
s riiaude on Tn. high seas of the vessels Oh
snnry nation would not be justihed. IN
0Jbppoas OF this he cites President Tyier;
that S Saia IN message to Congress IN ioao
ssnu Win the exception of cases OF piracy
+hn, natlon has, in time Of peace, any au-
th hoiht ny u detain the ships of another upon
siSo Iisn seas, on any pretext whatever, OUT
I iaH lne territorial Jurisdiction" Lord Sal
the sia points out that even in the case Oh
o one save trade, a practice much worse than
e oai seals. the right of arrestlng the YES
ss toL another country Is exercised only by
sfTciai International agreement.
~; In reply to Mr.. Blaine's second point,
S So,u oallspury holds that both the United
HIsdsus and england refused to admit tne
claims to jurisdiction over the high seas
.iaae IN the Russian ukase of 1921, that Rus
sla did not adhere to those claims. and there
tols tnat the Jurisdiction of the waters OF
t ISen nng Sea to distance Of 100 miles from
tne coast was not part of the rights con-
Alaska ""''' ~
In support of his contention Lord Sails
Jury cites protests made by Mr.. Adams, the
d Hnddfican secretary of state; OF LORD Lon
9IonGerry, the Duke of Wellington and other
Ehgnsh 0fhcials; and the treaties Oh 1874
wherein Russia abandoned on "the north
Mest coast OF America" among other claims
Inst OF the right OF dominion over the seas TO
a, o.seance OF 100 miles from the coasts: ne
also cites speech of Charles Sumner In the
oenate upon the purchase of Alaska, where.
IN MI. sumner, speaking of the pursuit OF
.sIIies near the Aleutian Islands, said:
NO sea Is now mare clGuSltn1; all OF these
may oe pursued by a ship under any flag.
except directly on the coast or Within Its
territorial limit"
In returning to the discussion Mr.. Blaine
has not, so far as the correspondence already
published shows returned to the contra bonos
fn0res argument: but he dev0tes himself ex-
clusively to the argument that the United
States have derived from Russia jurisdiction
over Behring Sea to distance of 100 miles
from the coast. To sustain this Mr.. Blaine
sets up the contention that the phrases
northwest coast of America" and north
west coast. used by the negotiators of the
tAOotiOo VI 1oSt WcEo u0ucTSLOOQ DY LQbm TO
mean only part of the northwest coast of
America, that is, only so much as lies south
OF the Alaskan peninsular and that from the
failure to mention Behring Sea specifically
It follows, he claims, that 1t was understood
Dy the negotiators OF 1924 that Russia re
OF the sea to distance of 100 miles from the
shores. Upon this point the amount of
diplomatic corresponce is very large, and is
not yet ended.
While this correspondence reaches no con-
clusi0D there have been made, In the course
OF 1t, certain offers of arbitration, from
which settlement may result. The favora-
Die offer which Lord Salisbury made to Mr..
bayard In regard to a close time has not been
repeated to Mr.. Blaine. On the other hand,
the English have offered to arbitIate. Last
April they proposed mixed commission to
determine what steps might be necessary to
prevent the determination of the seals by
''peiagic sealing" Again Lord Ealisbury
sends this offer:
ever to refuse to the United States any jurisdic-
ton In Behrng Sea which w IS conceded fy Great
t Britaln TO Russia, and which properly accrues to
treaties OF the law Of nations; and that If the
United States government after examination of
the evidence ana arguments which 1 have pro-
duced, still differ from them as to the legality If
the recent captures In that year they are ready to
agree that the question, with the issues that de-
pend upon 1t, should be preferred to impartial ar
bitratioD.
This offer of arbitration Mr. Blaine re-
fused. But later in his letter of last Dec am,
Der, Mr.. Blaine offered to arbitrate upon tn e
following questions:
First-What exclusive Jurisdiction In the sea
now known as tn Behring Sea. and what exclu-
sVe rights In the seal fisheries therein, did Rus
sla assert and exercise prior aud up to the time of
the cession OF Alaska TO the United States?
Second-How far were these Claims Of iurisdic
ZION as TO the seal fisheries recognized and con.
ceGed by Great Britain?
Ihird=Was the body of water now known as
the Behring Sea included In the phrase ssPacifc
&c. an as used In the treaty Of IS25 between
Gr Eat Britain and Russia and what rights If any
Great Britain by the said treaty?
Fo9rtn-Dld 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 be,
tween the United States ana Russia OF March so.
ts, pass unmpaired to the United States under
:. Fifth. What are now the rights of the United
states as to the fur seal fisheries IN the waters of
the Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territor.
al limits, whether such rights grow out of the ces
sion oy Russla q any, special rights or jurisdic-
OF benr1ng sea, or out of the ownership Of the
breeding ISLANDS and the habits OF the seals in re-
sorting thither and rearing their young thereon
aud going out from he isa DIS for food, or out OF
any other fact or incident connected with the re-
lation OF those seal fisheries to the territorial pos
sessions OF The United States?
Sixth. II the determination of the foregoing
durstions snail leave the subject in such position
tnat the concurrence of Great Britain is necessa-
~ In prescribing regulations for the killing Of fine
fur seal In any part of the waters Of Behrng Sea.
tnen IL shall be further determined: First,
now lar, II at all, outside The
ordinary territorial limits it is pecessarv
that the United states should exercise an excln.
slve Jurisdiction in order TO protect the seal for
S sne time nvlng upon the Islands OF the United
States and feeding therefrom? Second. whether
closed season during which the killing of seals
In the waters OF Behrlng sea outside the Ordinary
territorial limits shall bs prohibited) is necessarv
TO save the seal fishing industry so valuable and
imp rtanE to mankind, from deterioration or de-
struction? And II so, third. what months or
parts OF months should be incluGed In such sea-
son, and over what waters it should extend?
XII.
>, Here ends the published correspondence.
to our Supreme Court, which appeal is about
10 be passed upon by the Court.