Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1891-01-09
BEHRlNG SEA DISPUTE.
Correspondence Between Secretary
Blaine and Lord Salisbury.


WASHINGTON, Jan. 6.-The president
today transmitted to the house of repre-
sentatives further correspondence on the
subject of the Behring sea controversy be-
tween the United States and Great Britain.
The presidents message is altogether
| formal and merely states that in response
to the resolution of the house of represent
atives, he transmits the correspondence
called for.
The correspondence consists of letter
from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Paurce-
fote, dated August 2, 1890, and one from
Secretary Blaine 10 tho same minister of
date December II last. Both have copious
appendices made up of past correspondence
on the subject.
Lord Salisbury's letter is confined TO a
discussion of the Russian ukase and the
treaty of 1925. He argues that Mr.. Blaine
has misinterpreted Mr.. Adams position
and declares that the history of the case
shows-frst, that England always denied
| Russia's claim of maritime jurisdiction in
! Behring sea, that the convention Of 1925
was remuneration of that claim, and that
| Behring sea was not then known by that
name but as part of the Pacific ocean. He
! closes with the statement that If differences
still exist. his government is ready for i'm
partial arbitration by methods to be agreed
upon in concert with Mr.. Blaine.
Secretary Blaine's letter begins with an
insstance upon the correctness of The posi-
ton assumed by the United States. He
believes that the controversy turns upon
one point-whether the phrase Pacific
ocean" used in the treaties of 1924 and 1925
included the Behring sea, as contended by
Great Britain. If the United States can
/ i. z1,t1
and undeniable. Therefore Mr.. Blaine
enters into characteristic argument based
on Bancroft's history and maps to show
/ that Mr. Adams and his contemporaries
/ had a distinct understanding that the
! phrase "Pacifc Ocean" excluded the
waters of Behring Sea of Kamtchatka.
The secretary points to the large wealth of
/ the Russian American company which he
/ says would not have been carelessly thrown
away by the Russian nobility if phrase
merged Behring Sea in the Pacific ocean.
| He cites the long years of abstinence from
! the seal waters by the adventurous people
/ of the United States and Great Britain as
a presumption of their lack of right TO en-
| ter. AS stronger evidence of his correct
ness. Mr.. Blaine cites the protocols Of the
| treaty of 1924 to show that Russia's relin-
punishment of jurisdiction applied only to
| the territory between the fifth aud sixth
degrees. Also an explanatory note from
| Russia to Mr.. Adams in 1924, positively
excepting the Aleutian Islands and country
north of so o 3 from the concession TO the
United States of right to fish and trade.
He also cites the action of Great Britain
excluding vessels from the waters within
eight leagues of st. Helena when Napoleon
was confined there, and again refers &c the
protection exercised over the Ceylon pearl
fisheries by Great Britain. saying that he
is willing to accept those provisions for the
protection of the seal fisheries He speaks
of the enormous injury inflicted by vessels
under the British flag upon the United
States fisheries and suggested that she send
an intelligent commissioner to the seal
islands. Again, he objects to the form of
the proposed arbitration and says it will
amount TO something tangibleif Great Brit
ain consents to arbitrate the real questions
discussed for the last four years: What
were the rights exercised by Russia in Beh
ring Sea? How far were they conceded by
Great Britain ? Was Behrlng Sea included
in the Pacific ocean ? Did not the United
States acquire all of Russia's rights
What are the present rights of the United
States and If the concurrence of Great
Britain is found necessary, then what shall
be the protected limits and close season?
Secretary Blaine, in conclusion, denies
that the United States ever claimed Beh
ring Sea to be a closed sea, and quotes
Minister Phelps in 1888, where he says
that the question is not applicable TO the
present case.