Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-01-14
TERMS OF THE DISPATCH.
pIrTsBURG. WEDNESDAY, JAN. IA, 1891
A SHARP DIPLOMATIC MOVE.

A SHARP DIPLOMATIC MOVE.
The course of the Salisbury Government
in bringing before the United States Su-
preme Court the international dispute as to
the right of the United States to capture
sealing vessels in the open waters OF Berlng
Sea, is probably one of the most novel and
original moves ever taken in the diplomatic
game While the result may be doubtful,
it certainly displays an originality, and COM
bines so many aspects Of an appeal to the
judicial fairness of American institutions
and reliance on the legal rights of the Brit
ish case as to compel the general recognl-
ton that it is a masterly move, and one
quite beyond the level Of ordinary diplo-
macy.
In its bearing on the recent fencing over
a proposed arbitration, it puts the British
Government in decidedly advantageous
position as regards its pacific attitude. By
this step the Salisbury Cabinet practically
SAYS to the world, that it is not only willing
TO arbitrate, but is SO determined TO arbi-
trate that il accepts an American court as
the arbitrator, and brings the action
IN order to force the arbitration in
that tribunal As public opinion is
of the greatest weight on both
sides of the ocean. in this issue, it puts our
own State Department in corner. 1t can
hardly take the attitude of refusing to sub
nit to the decision OF our own courts ques-
lion which England takes there. Yet the
professed fairness of the English move is
4har al s=a hu nrr nrfc
in favor of f ,gland would bind our Govern
ment; a decision in favor of the American
claim would technically bind the English
Government to nothing. The perception Of
this fact does not detract from the mastery
nature Of the move; but it is evident that
the proposition Is not necessarily tinality.
There is even more of the element of
pleasing au tacity in the character of Lord
SalisbQry's move as practical appeal from
the State Departments law to the Supreme
Courts law. The unspoker intimation that
the State Department has been indulging III
arguments that were faulty, and that the
English Government is content to have the
case cleared of that class OF matter by pro-
ceedings under the laws and before the courts
of the United States, has cool deliciousness
about il that must evoke the applause even
OF our most ultra anglophobists. The DIS
PATCH is not an admirer of Tory policy;
but it must recognize this original step,
pretty sharp turn on our State Depart
ment
On the legal aspects of the case there is
room lor the widest divergence of opinion.
1t might well be doubted that our Supreme
Court will hesitate to take jurisdiction over
international disputes. The most fatal OBJ
lection to such Jurisdiction is that already
pointed out-that the decision of the court
can bind but one party. excepting by the
consent of all. Yet, on :he other hand, there
is plenty of constitutional authority for
jurisdiction of the courts in such cases. The
jurisdiction of the United States Courts is
stated by the Constitution to extend "to
controversies to which the United States
shall be q party" and to treaties, which
latter are declared TO be ''the supreme law
OF the land" The construction of treaties
protecting vessels on the high seas from
search and seizure is the vital point in the
issue which the British Cabinet submits to
our Supreme Court. In fact, when the COM
plications of the question of jurisdiction are
added to those surrounding the dispute as a
matter Of international law, the whole SUBJ
ject is in fair way to be permanently mired
in a morass of legal disputes and judicial
doubts.
Finally it is to be observed that LORD
Salisbury submits to our courts only that
mare clauSUDl claim, which no one in this
country really believes in, and which Sec
retary Blaine no longer insists on; while he
carefully avoids the more reasonable claim
of our Government that we got the exclusive
rights to the seals from Russia, and that
Great Britain should, for the mutual inter-
est of both countries, join in an agreement
for the protection of the seals from extinc-
tion. But if there is any inconvenience to
the State Department in this, it is to blame
for it. 1t brought it on itself by at the start
combining its case with the plea that BODY
of water more open than the Gulf of New
Ioundland, or the German Ocean, was ab-
solutely a closed sea.