The Hot Springs star. (Hot Spings [Hot Springs], Dakota [Dakota Territory, i.e. S.D.]) 1886-189?, 1891-05-15
Ih)RBFROMBLAINB
The Latest Communication on
the Behring Sea Matter.
PUTTING LORD SALISBURY RIGHT
Tho Proposition for Damage. to English
Ships May Join with One to Pay for
Seals Taken by Canadians-The His
torical Point.

| Seals Taken by Canadiaus-The His
\ torical Point.
WASHINGTON, May Secretary
Blaine made public his latest communi-
cation on the Behring sea matter. It is
addressed to Sir Julian sPauncefote, the
British minister, and reads of follows:
S1R-The modification which Lord Sails
bury suggests in the questions for arb;tra-
| tion, do not wholly meet the views of the
president. but the president changes the
text of the third and fifth questions in such
q ">enner, it is hoped, as will result in an
!. cement between the two govern
,>mcnts. y The president does not
object to the additional sestio1 respect
ing alleged damages to English ships, pro-
posed by Lord Salisbury. if one condition
can he added, namely: That the issues of
States shall prevail, all the seals taken by
Canadian vessels during the period shall
be paid for ut the ordinary price for
which skins are sold: This seems to the
president to be the complement of Lord
Salisbnry's proposition, and he doubts
not that it will secure his lordship's as
sent. In the first paragraph of Lord
Salisbury IS dispatch of Feb. q he makes the
following declarations: "It is now quite clear
that the advisers of the president do not
claim Behring sea rs mare clausum, and,
indeed. that they repudiatc that conten-
tion in express terms" Lord Salisbury's
expression is put in such form as to imply
whether he so intended know not) that
the United States had hitherto been rest
ing it's contention upon the fact that the
Behring sea was mare clausum. If that
was his intention it would have been well
for his lordship to specify wherein The
! United States has made the assertion. The
emphatic denial in my dispatch of Dec. IL
| last was intended to put an end to the it,
aration of the charge and to eliminate it
from the current discussion. Lord Sails
bury complains that did not deal with
certain protests. written by Lord London
derry and the Duke of Wellington in 1922,
which he had before quoted, If he will re-
cur to the twcaty-siXtb and twenty
seventh pages of my dispatch of Dec. IL,
he will observe that specially dealt with
these; that l maintained, and / think
proved from the text, shat 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 extending along the shores of the
Pacific ocean from latitude 40 degrees to
latitude 60 degrees north" In the first
paragraph of Lord Lonslonderry's protest
of Jan. 1s, 1899, addressed to Count Lieven
of Russia, he alluded to the matter in dis-
pute as Especially connected with tho
| territorial rights of the Russian crown on
on the Pacific ocean, and the commerce
and navigation of his imperial maiesty's
subjects i'll the seas adjacent tllereto.''
From these and other pertinent facts it
is evident that the protests of Lord Lo,l-
donderry 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 the Behring sea- They both re-
ferred in different but substantially iden-
teal phrases to the territory south of the
A.laskan> peninsula, bordering ON the Pa
ciiic, and geographically shut out from
the Behring sea. regret that my argu-
mcnts on Il point which Lord Salisbury
considers of great Importance should have
escaped his lordship's notice. In Lord
Salisbury's judgment the contention of
the United States now rests wholly upon
the uknse of 1921 by the emperor, Alexan-
der ]. of Russia. Tho United States has
the ground mentioned, and this govern
ment regrets that Lord Salisbury should
have SO misapprehended the American po-
sition as TO limit it's basis of right in Bell-
ring sea to the ukase of 1921. The United
States has, among other grounds, insisted
without recurring to any of its inherited
and superior rights in Alaska, that this
government has as full authority for go
ing beyond the three-lnile line in case of
proved necessity as Great Britain pos
sesscs Two or three instances of the
power which Great Britain exercises be-
yond 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, per-
haps, is still more to the point In 1855
only two years ago-the British parla-
ment enacted q law, the effect OF which is
fully shown by Il map inclosed herewith.
Far outside the thrca-milc line the parlia-
ment of Great Britain has attempted to
control body of water situated beyond
the northwestern section of Scotland,
200 square miles in extent, and to direct
that certain methods of fishing shall not
be used within that great body of water
under prescribed penalty. 1t will be OBJ
served that the inhibition is not alone
against British subjects, but against stany
person." l here quote the pertinent sec
tion of the parliamentary act in question.
1t must not escape obscrva-
tion that tho area of water outside the
three-mile line Of the coust Of Scotland,
whose control isassumcd by Great Britain,
is as large rs would be found inside q line
drawn from CaFe Cod to Portland har.
bor, on the New England coast.