The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-05-08

shall not he used within line drawn by Dun
cansin Head. in Caithness, TO Rattray Point, in
Aberdecnsbire. in any area or areas 20 be de-
fined IN such bye-law, and may from time 20
time make. alter. and revoke bye-laws for the
purposes of this section. but no such bye-law
shall be of any validity until II has been con-
frmed by the Secretary for Scotland.
Z. Any person who uses any such method
of fishing shall be liable Of conviction under
the summary jurisdiction Scotland Acts to a
fine not exceeding SO for the first ofense and
not exceeding 900 for the second or any sub
sequent oiiense and every net set or attempted
20 be set i'm contravention of any such bye-law
may be seized and destroyed or otherwise dis
posed Of as in the sixth section Of this act
mentioned.
IT NOT, WHY NOT?
If Great Britain may thus control an area Of
2,700 square miles Of ocean on the coast Of
Scotland. why may not the United States pre-
scribe a space around the Pribylof Islands
in which similar prohibitions may be enforced?
The following would be the needed legisla-
ton for such purpose by Congress, and 1t IS
but paraphrase of the act of Parliament:
The fur-Seal Board may, by bylaws, direct
that the methods of sealing known "a spear
ing or harpOOning, or with firearms, shall not
be used within line drawn from the shores
of the islands sixty miles in the Behrlng sea;
and said board may, from time 10 time, make.
this section, but no such bylaw shall be Of
any validity until it has been confirmed by
the Secretary Of the Treasury.
Any person who uses any such method
Of sealing in cOntravention Of such bylaws
shall be liable on conviction TO fine not ex-
ceeding 800 for the first offense, and not ex-
ceedinR $500 for the second or any subsequent
Offese, and every spear, harpoon or fre-arm
attempted 20 be used in cOntraventiOn of any
such bylaw may be seized and destroyed or
otherwise disposed Of as said Fur Seal Board
may direct.
Ii must not escape observation that the area
of water outside the three-mile line on the
coast of Scotland, whose protection IS assumed
by Great Britain. is as large as would be
bound inside line drawn from Cape Cod TO
Portland harbor on the New England coast.
A PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION.
Lord Salisbury reasserts his contention that
the words Pacific Ocean" at the time OF the
treaty between Russia and Great Britain, did
include Behring Sea. Undoubtedly the Pa
cific Ocean includes Behring Sea in the same
sense that the Atlantic Ocean includes
the Gulf of Mexico, and yet it would
be regarded as very inaccurate state
ment TO say that the Mississippi river
flows into the Atlantic Ocean. l think
Lord Salisbury fails to recognize the common
distinction between the Atlantic Ocean" and
the waters of Atlantic" While the Mexican
would, ! am sure. comport with general usage
TO say that it belonged 10 the waters of the
Atlantic. and while Behring Sea is not a part
of the Pacific Ocean il undoubtedly belongs
to the waters of the Pacific.
The English channel would not ordinarily
be understood az included in the term AT
lantic Ocean, One would not say that Dover
or Calias is on the Atlantic Ocean, and yet
clearly the English channel belongs to the
waters of the Atlantic In point OF fact,
therefore, according TO the usage Of the world,
there IS no dispute Of any consequence pc
tween the two Governments on the geographl-
cal point under consideration. The historical
point is the one at issue. The explanatory
note from Russia filed in the State Depart
ment of this country, specially referred TO III
Mr. John Quincy Adams diary and quoted III
nv note of December.17, 1890, plainly draws a
distinction between the Pacific Ocean on the
one hand and the Sea Of Okotsk, the Sea OF
Kamschata and the Icy Sea. ON the other
hand. so long as Russia drew that distinction
il must apply to and must absolutely decide
all the conditions between the two countries
as far as the waters of Behring Sea are con-
cerned. To discuss this point further would
in the opinion Of the President, contribute
nothing OF value to the general contention.
LORD SALISBURY IN ERROR.
In the opinion Of the President Lord Sails
bury is wholly in error in making the follow
'Nor do they (the advisers of the President
rely as a justification for the seizure Of the
British ships in the open sea upon the conten-
ton that the interest of the seal fisheries give
TO the United States Government any right
for that purpose, which according TO the In
ternational law ii would not otherwise pos
seSs. -
The Government of the United States has
steadily held Just the reverse Of the position
! which Lord Salisbury has insisted upon. 1t
holds that the ownership of the islands upon
which the seals breed, that the habit OF the
seals in regularly resorting thither and rear
ing their young thereon. that their going ont
from tie islands in search of food and regu-
larly returning thereto and all the facts and
! incidents of their relation 70 the islands give
! tothe nited Statesapropertyi interest therein;
that this property interest was claimed ana
exercised by Russia during the whole period
! of its sovereignty over the land and waters OF
Alaska; that England recognized this
prOperty-interest 50 far as recognition is I'M
| piled by abstaining from all interference with
! il during the whole period of Russia's owner
| ship of Alaska and during the first nineteen
wears of sovereignty of the United States. 1t
is vet to be determined whether the lawess
intrusion of Canadian vessels in 1886 and sub
quently has changed the law heretofore pre-
yailing
I have the honor TO be with the highest con-
sideration, sir, your most obedient servant.
Signed JAMES q. BLAINE.