Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-05-14
BEHRING SEA MATTER.
Secretary Blaine's Latest Com
munication on the Subject.
He Presents Some Hard Nuts for Lord
Salisbury to Crack in the Way of
English Precedents for the
American Claims.

| Blaine last evening made public his
| latest communication on the Behring
sea matter. 1t is addressed to Sir
Julian Pauncefote, the British minister,
| and reads as follows:
SIR: The notifications which Lord Sails
bury suggests in the questions for arbitra-
| ton 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 be-
tween the two governments. While Lord
Salisbury suggests different mode of pro-
cedure from that embodied in the sixth
question the president does not understand
him actually to object to the question, and
he therefore assume that it is agreed to that
the six questions as now propounded by the
president are as follows:
First-What exclusive jurisd lotion in the
sea now known as the Behring sea, and
what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries
therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior
and up to the time of the cession of laska
to the United States?
SecOnd-HOw far were these claims of iur-
isdction as to the seal fisheries recognized
and conceded by Great Britain?
Third-Wa as the body of water now known
as the Behring sea included i'll the phrase
Pacific ocean" as used in the treaty of 1925
between Great Britain and Russia and what
rights, il any, in the Behring sea were held
and exclusively exercised by Russia after
said 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 de-
scribed in the treaty between the United
States and Russia of March 30. 1867, pass I'M
impaired to the United States under that
treaty?
Fifth-Has the United States any right,
and if so, what right of protection over
property in the fur seals frequentng the
islands of the United States in Behring sea,
when such seals are found outside the or
binary three mile limit?
Sixth-If the determination of the forego-
ing questions shall leave the subject in such
position that the concurrence of Great Brit
ain 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 terrific rial limits it
is necessary 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 sea-
son During which the killing of seals in the
waters of Behring sea outside the ordinary
territorial limits shall be prohibited) is nee
eSsary to save the seal fishing industry, so
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 should it extend?
The president does not object to the addi-
tional question respecting alleged damages
to English ships, proposed by Lord Sails
bury, if one condition can be added, namely
That after the issues of the arbitration are
Joined, if the United States shall prevail, all
the seals taken by Canadian vessels during
the period shall be paid for at the ordinary
price for which skins are sold. This seems
to the president to be the complement of
Lord Salisbury's proposition, and he doubts
not that it will secure his lordship'S assent.
In the first paragraph of Lord Salisbury's
dispatch of February Fl he makes the fol-
lowing declaration: ''It is now quite clear
that the advisers of the president do not
claim Behring sea as mare clausum, and in
deed that they repudate that contention in
express terms"
Lord Salisbury's expression is put in such
form as to imply (whether he so intended, 1
know not) that the United States had hith-
erto been resting its contention upon the
fact that the Behring sea was mare clausum.
II that was his intention it would have been
well for his lordship to specify wherein the
United States ever made the assertion. The
emphatic denial in my dispatch of Decem-
Der II last, was intended to put an end to the
iteration of the charge and to eliminate it
from the current discussion.
Lord Salisbury complains that did not
deal with certain protests, written by Lord
Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington in
1922 which he had before quoted. If he will
recur to the twenty sixth and twenty sew
enth pages of my dispatch of December II,
he will observe that 1 specially dealt with
these; that 1 maintained, and 1 think /
proved, from the text, that 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
18th of October, 1922, only to the lands eek
tending along the shores of the Pacific
ocean, from latitude 40 degrees to latitude
50 degrees north"
In the first paragraph of Lord London
derry's protest on January 1s,ls22, addressed
to Count Lieven, of Russia, he alluded to the
matters in dispute as especially connected
with the territorial rights of the Russian
crown the northern coast of America
bordering on the Pacific ocean, and the
commerce and navigation of his imperial
maiesty's subjects in the adjacent
thereto" From these and other pertinent
facts it is evident that the protests of Lord
Londonderry and the Duke of Wellington
had nothing whatever to do with the points
now in issue between the American and
British governments concerning the waters
of Behring sea. They both referred, in diff
ferent but substantially identical phrases,
to the territory south of the Alaskan PENN
sula bordering on the Pacific and geograph-
caily shut out from the Behrfng sea. L re-
greet that my arguments on point which
Lord Salisbury considers of great impor-
lance should have escaped his lordships no.
tice.
In Lord Salfsbury's Judgment the conten-
ton of the United States now rests wholly
upon the ukase of 1921 by the Emperor AL
exander I. of Russia. The United States has
at no time rested its argument solely on the
ground mentioned, and this government re-
grets that Lord Salisbury should have so
misapprehended the American position as
to limit it's base of right in Behring sea to the
ukase of 1921. The United States has, among
other grounds, insisted without recurring to
any of it's inherited and superior rights in
Alaska, that this government has as full au-
thority for going beyond the three mile
line i'll case of proved necessity as Great
Britain possesses.
Two or three instances of the power which
Great Britain exercises beyond the three
mile line have already been quoted, but
have failed thus far to secure comment or
explanation from Lord Salisbury. Another
case can be added which, perhaps, is still
more to the point. In 1sS9-only two years
ago-the British parliament enacted law,
the effect of which is fully shown by map
incIosed herewith. Far outside the three
mile line, the parliament of Great Britain
has attempted to control a body of water
situated beyond the northeastern section of
Scotland. 2,700 square miles in extent, and to
direct that certain methods of fishing shall
not be used within that body of water under
a prescribed penalty. 1t will be observed
that the inhibition is not alone against Brit
ish subjects, but against ANY person." I
here quote the pertinent section of the par
liamentary act in question:
az U). The fishing board may, by Law
or bylaws, direct that the methods of fish
ing known as beam TRAVELLING and otter
TRAVELLING shall not be used within a line
drawn from Duncansby head, in Caithness,
to Rattray point, in Aberd eenshire, in any
area or areas to be defined in such by law
and NAV from time to time make, alter and
revoke by laws for the purposes of this sec
ton: but no such bylaws shall be of any
validity until 1t has been confirmed by the
secretary for Scotland.
"S2.) Any person who uses any such
method of fishing in contravention of any