St. Paul daily globe., 1891-05-08

make, alter and revoke bylaws for the pur-
poses of this section; but no such bylaw
shall be of any validity until ii has been con-
firmed by the secretary for Scotland. Any
person who uses such method of fishing in
contravention of any such bylaw shall be
liable ON conviction, under the summary
jurisdiction (Scotland) acts. to a fine not eX-
ceeding &500 for the first offense, and not ex-
ceeding f20 or any subsequent offense;
and every net set for attempted to be
set in contravention of any such bylaw may
be seized or destroyed, or otherwise dis
posed of as in the sixth section of this act
mentioned"
II Great Britain may thus control an area
OF 200 square miles of ocean on the coast of
Scotland, why may not the United States pre-
scribe q space around the Pribyloff islands in
which similar prohibitions may be enforced?
The following would be the needed legiSla-
tlon for such purpose by congress, and it is
but paraphrase of the act of parliament:
''The fur seal board may, by bylaws or bye
laws, direct that the methods of sealing
known as spearing or harpooning, or with
firearms, shall not be used within a line
drawn from the shores of the Pribyloff isl
andS sixty miles IN the Behring sea; and said
board may, from time to time make. alter
and revoke bylaws for the purpose of this
section; but no such by law should be Of
any validity until it has been confirmed by
the secretary of the treasury. Any person
who uses any method of sealing in contra
ventlon of such bylaws shall be liable, on
conviction. TO fine not exceeding 500 for
the hrst ofense, and not exceeding 500 for
the second or any subsequent offense, and
every spear, harpoon or tirearm attempted to
be used III contravention of any such bylaw
be seized and destroyed, or otherwise dis
posed Of, as SAID fur seal board may direct"
1t must not escape observation that the area
OF water outside the three-mile line on the
coast OF Scotland, whose
Control Is Assumed
by Great Britain, is as large as would be
found inside line drawn from Cape Cod to
Portland harbor of the New England coast.
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 1t would be re-
garded as very Inaccurate statement to say
that the Mississippi river flows into the At
lantic ocean. / think Lord Salisbury fails TO
recognize the common distinction between
the Atlantic ocean" and the waters of the
Atlantic" While the Mexican gulf is not
part of the Atlantic ocean. 1t would,
L am sure, comport with general
usage to say that it belonged to
the waters of the Atlantic. and, while Behr
ing sea is not technically part of the Pacific
ocean, it undoubtedly belongs to the waters
OF the Pacific. The English channel would
not ordinarily be understood as included in
the term Atlantic ocean, One would not
say that Dover or Calais is on the coast
of 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 between the
two governments on the geographical point
under consideration. The historical point is
the one at issue. The explanatory note
from Russia, fled in the state deI artment
G5 % oSn s c9Gn onnSy SPgey GfeTFed refer .d9 to
quoted in my note Of December II, 1890,
plainly draws distinction between the Pa
clfc ocean on the one hand and the Sea of
Okhotsk. the Sea of Kamchatka and the Icy
sea on the other; and so long as Russia drew
that distinction it must apply to, and must
absolutely decide
All the Contentious
between the two countries as far as the
waters of the Behring sea are concerned To
discuss this point further would. in the opin-
ion Of the president contribute nothing of
value to the general contention. In the opin-
ion of the president, Lord Salisbury is
wholly and strangely in error in making the
following statement:
Nor do they Ohe advisers OF thespresidenD
rely, as a justification for the seizure of Brit
lsh ships in the open sea, upon the conten-
ton that the interests of the seal fisheries
give to the United States government any
right for that purpose which, according to
international law, it would not otherwise
possess"
The government of the United States has
steadily held just the reverse of the position
which Loru Salisbury has imputed to it, 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
out from the islands in search of
food and regularly returning thereto, and
all the facts and incidents of their relation to
the islands give to the United States a prop
erty interest therein; that this property in
terest was claimed and exercised by Russia
during the whole period OF its sovereignty
over the land and waters of Alaska; that
England recognized this property interest so
far as recognition is implied by abstaining
from all interference with it during the
whole period of Russia's ownership of
Alaska and during the first nineteen years
of the sovereignty of the United States 1t is
yet TO be determined whether the lawless in
trusion of Canadian vessels in 1886 and sub
sequent years has changed the law and
equity of the case heretofore prevailing. /
have the honor to be, with the highest con-
sideration, sir, your most obedient servant,
JAMES g. BLAINE.