The record-union., 1891-01-26
BEHRING SEA.
Questions of Jurisdiction Gov
erned by Consent.
sidney Webster Explains the Pending
Controversy Between Our Govern
ment and That of Great Britain in
the Matter of SeaI-Killing.

vi lie be0rlng sea controversy, fcceiltly
sent to the Senate, show that the diff
culties of last summer have any of them
been removed?p / asked Sidney Web
ster, says a writer in the New York Her
aid.
1.-THE answer must depend,o he replied,
''on your view of the situation last sum-
mer. One phase of the pending contro-
versy," be added, lis a natural outcome
of rivalries in a money-making industry.
The Canadian and the American owners
OF sealing vessels have common interest
against the Commercial Company, which
holds monopoly of seal-killing on the
Pribyloff Islands. The Commercial Com
pany naturally wishes our Government
to prevent seal-hunting beyond marine
league from those islands. And yet
neither the Government nor the people of
the Uuited States can, according to pres
ent law, receive any pecuniary benefit
from the fur seal industry excepting such
as flows from the annual rent paid by the
company"
Butt 1 asked, "have not our Govern
mcnt and people a pecuniary motive in
preserving unlmpaired, at the expiration
OF the lease, the conditions of seal life
now existing on the Pribyloff rock
cries ?''
Yes answered Mr.. Webster, sbut
the Canadian and American hunters,
operating outside the t.lree-nile zone
making common cause, insist that the
peril to that seal life comes from wreck
less killing on the islands, while the
lessee contends that, on the contrary, the
peril comes of reckless killing elsewhere
than on the islands. 1t is not to be ex-
pected that an international Commission
to ascertain the truth will spend a season
lra IeTiN Il l. 6, DO.
with their own eyes. The commission
will naturally rely on affidavitS made by
those familiar with seal life and the do
lngS OF the hunterS-the native Aleuts-
whose atfidavits can probably be had on
either side for a guinea each.''
And" l said, lis it not true after all
that the jurisdictional question is the
turning point OF the controversy
I'm one sense, yes; but in another sense,
no. was Mr.. Webster's response. If,
under the statute of 1866, which uses the
phase within the limits Of Alaska Terri
tory or waters thereof or that of 1870,
saying upon the islands Of ST. Paul and
st. George, or in the waters adjacent
thereto or that of 1880, which mentions
the dominion of the United States in the
waters of Behring Sea'-all of which
statutes command the Secretary of the
Treasury to seize guilty vessels and ar
rest guilty men. a vessel is seized and a
HAL lS aIT6SLtu III our sea. IIacD
must be taken before our Federal courts
for final condemnation. If the place OF
seizure be outside of the marine league.
the United States must establish-first
that the statutes cover the place Of seizure,
and second, then that those statutes are
not forbidden by our Federal Constitution
and the law OF nations.
EMBELLISHMENTS IN NEGOTIATING.
''OHe of the chief difficulties which the
x-p1
countered has come Of their endeavor TO
unite in the result indemnify for the
past and security for the future. Our
Congress has commanded the Treasury
Department to seize all vessels billing
fur seals in certain areas of Behring Sea.
Seizures were actively begun during
Cleyeland'S administration. In 1886 OF
tawa and London protested at Washing
ton against the seizures. In February
1888, President Cleveland ordered the re-
lease of seized vessels, and during the
same month presented to the British
Governments plan for international regu-
lation of seal killing on the basis of the
North Sea fishery arrangements. Seizures
We're intermitted for year, but afterward
began again. Ottawa asked assurance
that no revenue cutters be sent into Behr-
ing Sea and no seiZing. Washington re-
piled by requesting that no Canadian
poachers be permitted to sail from Cana
bury urged that mixed commission in
vestigate and decide on compensation
due owners of seized vessels. Near the
end of 1889 England protested against the
seizures, and denounced them as wholly
unjustitied by international law Then
came more earnest effort to arrange for
the future by the continuance of close
season. Secretary Blaine intimated that
If it could be accomplished there should
not be serious difficulties over payment
ofindemnity for the past. The close sea-
SON negotiations broke down. AT the
beginning of 1890 England presented
a bill of 5000 to Secretary Blaine, and
was little peremptory in asking pay
ment. Mr.. Blaine told Sir Julian that
the bill was so big that Congress would
never vote the money till after the award
of an arbitrator In February, 1890, ne
gotiations were begun for a tripartite
agreement in regard to area and duration
of close season. including Russia. The
Canadian Minister of Marine was sum-
moned to Washington. Early in Nav,
1890, the second effort for close season.
having failed, owing to Canadian require
ments, Lord Salisbury sent to Washing
ton his long note of May p, 1890, and pro-
tested vehemently against the then
threatened new seizures. After it came
Mr.. Blaine's elaborate note of June 80,
1890, and Lord Salisbury's reply OF
August 2, 1890. to which Mr.. Blaine has
recently made rejoinder. Mr.. Blaine,
in his note of June so, 1890, measured as
to England the rights and duties of the
United States in our Behring Sea by the
standard used by Russia and accepted by
England before 1867. But Lord Salisbury
only accorded to the United States amy
jurisdiction in Behring Sea which was
conceded by Great Britain TO Russia, and
which properly acerues TO the present
possession of Alaska in virtue of treaties
or the law of nations
THE PROPOSITION TO ARBITRATE.
"There is, l think" said Mr. Webster.
ga popular confusion over the sort OF
arbitration which has been proposed,
inasmuch as Lord Salisbury finally pro-
posed to refer only the question of in
,dennity for past seizures. He said:
If the United States Government,
after the examination of the evidence and
argument which l have produced, still
differ from us as to the legality of the re-
cent captures in that sea we are ready to
agree that the question, with the issues
that depend upon it, should be referred to
impartial arbitration
Secretary Blaine, on the other hand,
did not in his December note accept arbi-
tration of indemnity for past conduct,
but adroitly suggested arbitrations in the
sense of new devices for the future. His
otherwise powerful note is, perhaps,
open to the criticism that it betrays a
nllsgiying as to whether or not the exist
ing law OF nations tolerated the seizures.
THE DIPLOMATIC ASPECT.
!" But there isl said Mr.. Webster, ga
diplomatic aspect OF the controversy
which suppresses the jurisdictional ques-
ton. AS to that our people will have to
calmly await the slow process of diplo-
mending, when the result shall have
been announced There have been for