The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-04-12
BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY.
Reply 10 the Recent Article Of EX-MiniSttP
Phelps.
Els POSITION CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
Biunders Which hc IL Bclicvedto Have Made.
No Mare ClausuD-Ihe Claim 70
Property iu Seals.

EDITOR Of The Times:
Permit inc 20 comment upon the 'Behring
Sea Controversy" although in so doing ]
tako issue with your editorial Of a late day.
To an observer of international questions,
the article Of eN- Minister Phelps in Ilnrper's
Of this month must create surprise and re-
grot. Surprise that a gentleman Of his repu-
tGtion and experience should So blunler, and
regret that the position therein assumed must
bo roceded from II this question is 70 be set
led upon basis Of peace and lava con-
summation dovoutly TO be wished for"
STATEMENT or THE suE5EcT.
Tho subject of this controversy between
England and the United States IS susceptible
20 precise statement As IL well known, seals
a-e ampmbiOus mammals. During their
periods q CESSATION and shortly before par
frfl0n they migrate from their rOckcrios on
te Alaskan shores 20 the Pnhylov islands,
lo.ated many miles from the coast Of that
territory ln making these accustomed mi
gnuous, and when they have passed more
Tran tlree marine miles from The coast, they
are me', and Fanny Of them killed. by Cana
diam seal hunters OF course | svMp0thlZe
with Mr.. Phelps condemnation of the killing
oi seals 40 time so critical, and SO necessary
for the perpciuHtion Of the species. Those
engaged in such "a work az cXte animation must
be- ap0statC~ 10 nature.
SO our grievance Is that these seals ore thus
periodically killed within am area on 5he high
seus more than three marine miles from the
coast Of Alaska
RIGHTs or CANADA
Mr.. Phelps insists that this killing must be
stopped. and stopped by force Of arms If
necessary. But before we rush into this in
ternauonai duel We should at least contriye 10
have little right ON our side. What right
has the United States 90 ehcct such "a stOppagc;
And why has not Canada the same right a
property in these wild seals so long as found
within this ocean area as is claimed boy Mr..
Blaine for our @ 0vcrnment> In other words,
Whit right has one sovereign power TO pre-
sgube regulations for another sovereign power
v4oI territory and property common to all;
Mr.. Blaine cssaycd to answer tins momen-
t0u- question by asserting that the segment
of She Behrug Sea IN which these seals ara
kleI although more than three marine
miles from the coast is the property OF the
United States. and that We obtained the same
by tle purchase OF Alaska from Russia IN
l5i7.
IL is tho settled law of nations that the high
soas beyond tie line of three marine miles
from fle shore is uon-territorial property. II
4. aa the arp. Therefore. 10 IS conclusive that
Russia claim 10 such territorial rights is as
tlo llseleSs fabric Of dream and that
gouwmont never lawfully having such
rights. % necessity could not cede them to the
United States.
NO VA 0AUHUM.
" is unfortunate for the consistency Of orr
Republic that IL should at;this day assert juris-
dicton over the Bohriug Sea, and under color
thereof g seize and coufscate, in times of
pe8ce. the private vessels Of u friendly
nation" For IN response q such proprie-
tary claim, embodied in the ukase Of Russia IN
1871, John Quincy Adams, then Secretary Of
State. contested every point thus assumed by
Russia But 10 should be borne in mind that
81 this time Russia owned all the land adj
jacent 20 the Behring Sea, and II has been
le.d that when q nation owns all the land
surrounding a sea, though such sea have an
erIt into the ocean. IL Is a mare clausum. For
euunple, when Rome owned all the land adj
lac.nt t1 the Mediterranean this sea, by
Vuue thereof was under its proprietary con-
tfoL but how prepOsterOus would II be for
lie Rome Of our day 70 assert such a
control Therefore, upon what ground can
the United States make such claim over this
Segment of the Bchrng Sea even though the
violent concession il made that Russia once
owned II?
And later, when the question as to the pur-
chase Of Alaska came before the Senate Mr.
Sumner said mo sea is now mare clau>um.
an IF these may Dee pursued 10y "a ship under
any flag. except directly on tho coast, or with
I'm It's territorial limit When consideration
Is given o. the part that Senator played m
TINS purchase. and 20 his former territorial
ayance IN the light Of the above eXpressiOnlt
Us clear that he never dreamed that the pur-
chase Of Alaska carried with 1t control over
the Behring Sea.
CONTRA BoNos MoREs.
However. in a letter 10 Sir Julian Paunce-
f0tc January. 1900 Mr.. Blaine seemingly
departed from this position, which he had
heretofore advocated with magnetic per-
s-t-ucy and advanced new reason for the
.f la nf - Inv
land This ground was that such killing Of
&. ..- was contra bOnos mQres. One must be
curious 20 know whence Nh. Blaine derived
tt doctrine 1t l- uuques hOnably gro
t.lue innovation upon al the principles of
International law IL is now incXombly in
clcut o. sovereignty g. fix It's
own standard of what is and what Is not con-
fr4 b1u0s mOrCsi And can ono sovereign
prescribe % another sovereign It's standard;
u nation can thus dictate t. another nation,
then international Jurisprudence Is a farce,
a1t sovereignty Is an 'irridescent dream.
Whence is the ultimate tribunal 10 come 70
decree such astandardin any given casef Even
the seizure Of slave ships upon the high seas.
q prevent this inhumap trade, has been
distinctly denied 10 be within this ethical
doctrine. Mauifestly. therefore, no reasoning
can assign higher plano of law 20 seal than
70 "a man. Piracy affords the only instance
even akin 20 the doctrine and OF this Presi-
dent Tyler, IN a special message 90 Congress,
Raid. Win TINS single exception no naJlOn
has, in time of peace, any authority 10 detain
the ships Of another upon the high seas, on
any pretext whatever outside the territorial
jurisdiction"
PROPERTY ~ WILD SEALS.
After lending the weight Of his name and
ability 10 the support of these doctrines. Mr..
Phelps advances a step farther, and upon the
tree Of diplomacy he would engnit an exotic |
unknown IN the forests of international Juris- |
prudence. II Is this. that these wild seal are |
tue property Of the United States. and there |
fore that Government can protect It's property |
wherever found on the ocean. No one viii |
deny the conclusion If this proposition, but /
80 would require rare termerity 70 accept its |
Promise And Mr.. Phelps, anticipating that |
ts doctrine was indeed "a stranger IN |
strange land. says 1t Is true that no precedents |
ara - be found 90 sustain it but that "precc |
dents illustrate principles, but do not create |
t.rr.
yet he Immediately onbarra,ses this propo- |
suou hy bringing forward an unknown prece-
heIt created by no principal 1t Is the COM
mon law of England and America that man
has only a qualified and defeaslble propertyin |
wild animals. and II extends only over the 1
time within which such animals are in the
possession or under the control OF man.
deer lralnne the earth az the WHIT Of the arrow