The record-union., 1891-05-09

fishery. By all the equities. by natural
laws, by common reason Of man, Mr..
Phelps claims, the seals must be held to
be the property of the United States, and
as such it must be respected while in
transit from one shore to another. Mr..
Blaine emphasizes this property claim in
his letter published yesterday, by notify
ing Lord Salisbury that the President has
held for the United States throughout the
controversy that the property interest in
the seal is in the United States; that the
claim was exercised by Russia and was
recognized by England during the whole
period of Russa's assertion of it, and for
nineteen years after its acquisition by the
United States.
The sixth question involves action and
agreement dependent upon the decision
of the preceding ones. If they are deter
mined in manner to require the con-
currence of England in regulations for
the taking of seals in Behring Sea, then
the arbitrators are to say how far from
the shore line the exclusive jurisdiction
Of the United States shall extend for the
protection of the seals living upon United
States soil for time. Also, is closed
season necessary, and, if so, what months
shall it include? These last are matters
relating wholly to natural history, and
have no political significance.
The President consents, if arbitration
is had, that the question of damages to
English ships that have been seized and
prevented from fishing shall be submit
ted. But this is to be done only on con-
dition that the compensating question
shall accompany it, the provision that
if the decision is in favor of the United
States the Canadian fishers shall pay
| damages to the United States for the
catches they have made at the ordinary
price for which the pelts have been sold.
This is so sharp rap and yet SO just
that it excites the sense of humor. Ger
tainly if the United States is wrong and
should pay to England damages for
| seized vessels taken for sealing III Beh-
ring Sea, SO, too, if the English claim is
error, that country should pay US for the
sealskins wrongfully taken. AS to the
| closed sea question, that is now out of
issue, Mr.. Blaine declaring that the Gov
ernment of the United States has not
preferred it in the correspondence. So,
too, Mr.. Blaine denies that the United
States has based its contention solely on
the ukase of the Car issued in 1921. He
adds that, on the contrary, the United
States has contended without recurring
to any of it's inherited and superior rights
in Alaska, that it has as full authority for
going beyond the three mile line in case of
proved necessity as Great Britain pos
sesses. He then cites a case in which
England established precedent, where
| only two years ago by Parliamentary
Act Great Britain attempted to control
body of water situated beyond the
northeastern section of Scotland, 2,7G0
square miles in extent, and to direct that
certain methods of fishing shall not be
used within that great body of water,
under prescribed penalty, the inhibi-
| ton being not alone against British sub
jects, but against any person.
In all the diplomatic correspondence
concerning this business no sharper an
swer has been made than this, and
which Mr.. Blaine clinches with this
argument:
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 the space around the Pribyloff Islands
in which similar prohibitions may be en-
forced? 1t must not escape observation that
the area of water outside of the three-mile
line of Scotland, whose control is assumed by
Great Britain, is as large would be found
inside the line drawn from Cape Cod to Port
land harbor.