The Portland daily press., 1891-11-12

ensue from acts Wnlcn are contrary to
the established principles of international
law" The English said in effect. "You
will send your cutters after our sealers at
your peril" In the ridiculously feeble
condition of the United States navy sncb
language as this is troublesome for Sac-
retary Of State. Mr.. Blaine did not signify
formally to the British Minister what ba
would do about this protest; but no SELL.
ures nave been made since In Behrinp Sac
and there have been no further reopests
from the English for assurances as to tbe
conduct of our cutters.
The letter writing of the two din,oro
lists, which continued scarcely interrupted
by this incident. was chiefly a fencing for
the benefit OF spectators In both countries
Mr. Blaine defended the seizures. resting
the Justification on these grounds:
l. That the killing of seals on the onen
seas is contra bonos mores. That is. that
1t involves wasteful destruction of seal
life pre1udicial to the property which the
United States holds in the rookeries of st.
George and st. Paul. In support of this.
Mr.. Blaine calls attention to the fact that
all other seal fisheries, except those in
Behring Sea, have been almost totally de-
stroyed. Therefore, he argues that the
United States has right to prevent seal.
Ing, not only on the land and within the
three-mile limit. but also on the seas be-
yond.
III. That the United States derived from
Russia the right to control the waters of
BehriDg Sea to distance Of 100 miles from
the coasts that Russia had claimed this
right by the ukase of 1921, and that Eng
land had admitted it; and that the right
was transferred, unimpaired. to the United
States by the treaty of 1867. This is not
claim that Behring Sea is mare clousum,
which Mr.. Blaine disavows.
In reply. Lord Salisbury contended:
L. That the killing Of seals In the open
seas is not contra bonos mores. or immoral,
because seals are wild animals and are not
the property of the United States or any
one else until they are caught. Further,
Lord Salisbury claims that sealing in the
open seas Is not so destructive as Mr..
Blaine asserts; and that the great destruc-
tion of seal life in other places has not
been on the water but on the rookeries.
Upon this question of the destruction of
seal life both Mr.. Blaine and Lord Sails
bury bring large amount of conflicting
testimony, of United States treasury
agents, scientists, Canadian agents and
others.
But even supposing that the pursuit Of
seals on the high seas Is contra bonos mores
Lord Salisbury holds that even then the
seizure on the high seas of the vessels of a
friendly nation would not be justified. In
support Of this he cites President Tyler,
who said in message to Congress In 1S43,
that with the exception of cases of piracy,
mo nation has, in time of peace, any au-
thority to detain the ships of another upon
the high seas, on any pretext whatever,
outside the territorial jurisdiction" Lord
Salisbury points out that even in the case
Of the slave trade, practice much worse
than catching seals, the right of arrestipg
the vessel of another country is exercised
only by special International agreement.
III. I'm reply to Mr.. Blaine's second point,
Lord Salisbury holds that both the United
States and England refused to admit the
claims to jurisdiction over the high seas
made in the Russian ukase of 1921, that
Russia did not adhere to those claims, and
therefore that the jurisdiction of the wa
ters of Behring Sea to distance of 100
miles from the coast. was not part of the
rights convey ed to the United States by
the cession of Alaska.
In support of his contention Lord Sails
bury cites protests made by Mr.. Adams, the
American secretary of state; of Lord Lon
donderry, the Duke of Wellington and 9TH
er English officials; and the treaties of
1924 wherein Russia abandonded on ''the
northwest coast of America" among other
| claims that of the right of dominion over
the seas to distance Of 100 miles from the
coasts. He also cites speech Of Charles
Sumner In the Senate upon the purchase of
Alaska, wherein Mr.. Sumner, speaking of
the pursuit of whales near the Aleutian
Islands, said: mo sea is now mare
| ctGusuy1; all of these may be pursued by
ship under any flag, except directly
en- the coast or within its territorial lin
it."
In returning to the discussion Mr.. Blaine
has not, so far as the correspondence al
ready published shows returned to the
contra bonos na0res argument; but he de-
votes himself exclusively to the argument
that the United States have derived from
Russia jurisdiction over Behring Sea to a
distance of 100 miles from the coast. To
tention that the phrases "north-
west coast of America" and "north-
west coast" used by the negotiators of the
treaties of 1924 were understood by them
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 1t follows, he claims, that il
was understood by the negotiators of 1924
that Russia retained the right to dominion
over the waters of the sea to distance OF
one hundred miles from the shores. Upon
| this point the amount of diplomatic cor
respondence is very large.
While this correspondence reaches nc
conclusion there have been made, in the
course of 1t, certain offers Of arbitration,
from which settlement now seems likely
/ w loouit' 1uo ldfOTdDlo Uu6I WHICH AUio
Salisbury made to Mr.. Bayard in regard tt
close time has not been repeated to Mr.
Blaine. On the other hand, the English
have offered to arbitrate. Last April they
proposed mixed commission to determine
what steps might be necessary to prevent
the determination of the seals by "pelagit
sealing" Again Lord Salisbury sent thi
offer:
Her Majesty's government have no desir,
whatever to refuse to the United States any
jurisdiction In Behring Sea which was conceded
by Great Britain to Russia, and which properl,
accrues to the present possessors of Alaska Ii
virtue of treaties OF the law Of nations; ant
that If The United States government, after ex
animation OF the evidence and arguments
which have produced, still differ from then
as to the legality Of the recent captures In tha
| year they are ready to agree that the question
| with the issues that depend upon it, should bt
preferred to impartial arbitration.
This offer OF arbitration MIR. Blaine re-
fused. But later in his letter Of last De
cember he accepted conditionally, stipula
ting as to certain details of the arbitration
This arbitration is now practically ar
ranged. 1t is announced, and the long case
Is soon to be settled.
NEW PUBLICATIONS