New-York tribune., 1891-05-01
FREE SEAS AND THE SEAL.

"Halpers Weekly attaches considerable inn
porance to the article it has reprinted from
the "St. Petersburg Journal" concerning the
Behring Sea controversy, assuming that it is an
official statement Of the views and position OF
the Russian Government. 1t is, of course, well
known that the Russian Foreign Office makes
frequent uso Of the Journal as the vehicle
of it's opinions and wishes, but it can scarcely
have done so in this instance. Russia's claims
of jurisdiction in the eastern half of Behring Sea
are precisely the same as ours in the western
half. Its ambassador at London heartily CO.
operated with Minister Phelps in all that was
done under the Cleveland Administration to Sc
cure our rights and its own, and there is no
reason to doubt its sympathy and support now.
The q" Journals" article bears internal evidences
of the most convincing kind not only that it
is not an expression of the Cars views, but
that it is merely a reprint of the entertaining
calculations Of the law of free seas which the
British press here as well as in Britain, have
so ably presented. These doctrines, interesting
and correct as undoubtedly they are, so far as
they CO. have, in the opinion of the Russian
Government as well as of our own, no sort Of
bearing on the case.
frce-if it be necessary 10 go into the elements
of tho matter-are partly physical and partly
moral. In the first place, it is not possible to
hold them, and, in the second. their common and
equal use does nobody any harm. These prin-
cpes apply to fisheries as well as to navga-
ton. As Vattel aptly remarks: Mature q" does
not give to man right of appropratng to HIM
self things that may be nnOcently used and
that are inexhaustible and sufficient for ALL"
1t inilicts no wrong upon one nation that Its
neighbors freely sail whittier they please or that
they take from the ocean as many fish as they
can consume. There is space enough left for
its vessels to come and go, and fish enough for
its consumers also. Therefore navigation and
fisheries are free.
But where and when and as often as the
principles fail upon which the law rests. the law
fails too The seas arc not free for purposes
that are not innocent nor when there is fair
presumption that they can he held in any ma
TONS exclusive jurisdiction. The So-called three
mile limit, which is not limit at all, expresses
the rule that over such portion OF the high
seas as are. contiguous 10 a sovereign's Shore
and as he may be able to defend from the shore
he holds full dominion. But he is in frequent
cases entitled to extend his jurisdiction
ceilor Kent and Sir Robert Phillimore have said
| "his dominion" They agree in the PROPOSE
ton, as Kent expressed it, " that the dominion
of the sovereign of the shore over the contig-
uous sea extends as far as is necessary for his
safety and for some lawful end" The protcc
ton of his revenue from smuggles is such an
end. 50, too is the protection of neutral
commercial marine from lowering warships
And so also, is the protection of such fishery
as one of pearls or sponges, which is not mex
hauStbe, and of which the free and common
use is prejudicia TO the sovereign Of the shore.
England at this moment in the Gulf of Manar
and in the waters Of Australia and around the