The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1891-01-08

Correspondence Seat To the House by the
President - Reported MassInK Of War
shspa.
WASHINGTON, Jan. THE president
has transmitted To the house OF repre-
sentatiyes further correspondence on the
subject of the Behring sea controversy
between the United States and Great
Britain. The message merely states
that In response 10 the resolution of the
house, the president transmits the CORE
spondence called for.
The correspondence consists OF a let
ter from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julien
Pauncefoot, Aug. 2, and one from Secre-
tary Blaine To the same minister Dec. IL
Both have copious appendices mad
OF past correspondence ON the subject
Lord Salisbury's letter Is confined to q
discussion of the Russian ukase and the
treaty OF 1895. lie argues that Blaine
has misinterpreted Adams position and
declares that the history of the case
shows: /. That England always denied
Russia's claim OF maritime Jurisdiction
la the Behring sea; that the convention
OF 1925 was q renunciation of that claim.
and that Behring sea was not then
known by that name, but part OF the Pa
eiflc ocean. He closes with q statement
that II differences still exist his govern
ment Is ready for an impartial arbitra-
ton by methods to be acted upon In con-
cert with Blaine.
Blaine's letter begins with inslstance
upon the correctness OF the position as
sumed by the United States. He be-
lteves the controversy turns upon one
point--whether the phrase Pacific
ocean" used in the treaties OF 1894 and
1895 included Behrfng sea, as contended
by Great Britain. Ii the United States
can prove 10 the contrary her case IL
complete and undeniable. Therefore,
Blaine enters into an exhaustive argn-
ment based on Bancrofts hlA tory and
maps to show that Adams and his con-
temporarles had . distinct understand
Ing that the phrase Pacific ocean" ex-
cluded the waters OF tho Behring sea,
then known TO all the world as the Sea
OF Kamschatka. The secretary
points 70 the large wealth
OF the Russlan-American com
pany, which, he says, would have been
carelessly thrown away by the Russian
nobility In the phrase which merged
Behrlng sea In the Pacific ocean. He
cites long years Of abstinence from the
seas by adventurous people Of the United
os1tC1 hhA UHN@S DNteAth as pES5AmP
tion of their lack OF right 10 enter. As
a stronger evidence of his correctness be
cites other points In the old negotiations.
He speaks OF the enormous injury In
tiicted by vessels under the British flag
upon the United States fisheries and
suggested that she send an intelligent
20 the seal islands. Again
he objects to the form OF the proposed
arbitration and says Il will amount
to something tangible II Great
Britain consents 70 arbitration on the real
questions discussed for the last four
years, What were the rights exercised
vas Tne DenrIuu sem fnEfuueu IN tnH Ia
ciflc ocean? Did not the United States
acquire all OF Rnssla's rights? What
are the present rights Of the United
States, and II the concurrence OF Great
Britain Is found necessary, then what
shall be the protected limits and closed
season? The secretary In conclusion
denies that the United States ever
claimed Behring to be closed sea, and
quotes Minister Phelps I'm 1883, where he
SAYS the question Is not applicable TO the
present case