Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-05-08
SECRETARY BLAINE
10 Sir Julian Pellchote on
Bshrips Sei Iittn.
Points Out SaIsfal InpoFtllt Ihns
0IeRlooked BY Sf JllIan.
Iotsssstirg Cossspccdsnos on the
Matter just llade Public

WARRINGTON, May I-Ths following
rots ia addition to ccr.espandsnce already
passed in relation to the Behsing Sea con
sfoversy, 10 made public:
! Mr.. Blaine to Sir julian PAuncefot
! April IA, 1891.
! SIR: TIE modifc caticns Lord Salisbury
suggests in questions for arbitration do not
| wholly met the views Of the President; but
the President changes the text Of the third
and nfth in such manner,
| il is hoped, ~ will result In
agreement eet~esn the two governmental.
While Lord Salisbury suggests . different
mode of procedure from that embodied In
| the sixth question, the President does not
understand him actually to object 70 the
| qaestion, and he therefore assumes thst il
is sgreed to. The six questions - no~
proposed BY the President are as follows :
Fnst-What exclusive jurisdic,ion in the
| sea now known a. Behring sea, and what
exclusive rights in seal fisheries therein,
did Russia assert and exercise prior and up
United Statsss
Jurisdiction as to seal fisheries recognized
Third-Was the body OF water now
known a, Behiing sex included in the phrsse
Pacific ocean," ss used in the treaty Of
1925 bstxeen Great Britain and Russia ;
Ard what rights, if any, in Behring Sea were
held and exclusively exercised By Russia
sitter said treaty?
Fourth--Did not all the rights of Russia
rs to jurisdiction knd 40 to the seal fisheries
in Benring ses. east of the water boundary
described in the treaty between the United
States and Russia. March 80. 1867. psss
unimpsirtd to the United States under that
treaty?
Flfth-Hss thu United States any right,
il 90, what right of protection or property
in fur seals freQueDiing the island of the
United States in Behring Sea, when such
seals are found outside the ordinary three
nils limit?
Sixth-If tie determination Of the FORE
goiog questions shall leave the subject in
such positioD that the concurrence Of
Great Britain is necessary in prescribing
regulations for killing fur seal 10 any part
of the Behring Sea, then it shAil be further
determined.
First-How far. if at all, outside the or
binary territorial limits is it necessary the
United States should exercise exclusive
jurisdiction in order to protect seal for The.
me living upon the islands Of the United
States and feeding therefron?
Second-Whether the closed season
during which the killing Of sesls in the
waters of Behring Sea outside the ordinary
territorial limits thall be prohibited) is
necessary to cave the seal fshiog industry,
50 vslusble and important to mankind, from
deterioration or destruction? Ard II go.
-third--what months or parts Of months
should be included in such ssason and over
what waters should IL extend?
The President does not object to the sd-
ditiopsl question rsspec ing the alleged
damages to Engli,h ships proposed by Lord
Salisbury, IL one cordition can be added,
namely; that after the issues Of arbitration
are joined, IL the United States shall pre-.
vail, sli seals taken by Canadian vessels
| during tbst period shall be paid for at the
ordinary price for which the skins are eold.
| This seems TO the President 10 be com
plenent to Lord Sslisbnry's proportion.
| In the first paragraph Of Lord Sali;bury' 3
dispatch Of Feb. 81, he makes the follow.
| ing declaration: II is now quite clear that
| ihs advisers of ihs President do not
claim the Bshring sea as mere
cisusum snd. indeed, they repudiste that
| contention in express terms.
| Lcrd Saiisbury's expression is put in
such form as TO imply that the United
States had hitherto been resting its con
ten'ion upon tie fact that BehfiUg SsS was
mare ciausUm II that is his intention il
would have bee we'll for his iordship 10
specify wherein the Uaited States ever
| made the assertion. The emphatic denial
in my despatch of Dec II last was in
tended to put an eud to iteration of charge
and eliminate 1t from current discussion
Lord Salisbury complains thxt did noi
deal with certain protests. written by
Lord Londonderry ard Duke of Wellina-
ton in 1922, which be before quoted.
If he will Yeepr 20 the 26lh and z7,h pages
Of my despatch of December 17ih, he will
observe that 1 specially deal, with these ;
| maintained, and think, proved from the
text there WAS not single word in those
protests referring 60 BehIing Sea, but they
referred, in langusge to the Duke Of Wei
| linp,on. On shs l7rh Of October 1922, orls
to lands "exsending along the shores OF tie
Pacific OaeSn from lst. 40 degrees TO lst
| 60 degrees north" In the fret para ispf
Of Lord Lof der derrys protest January Is
4 IcSGs kuutetStu " N'VuIt AieNSn VI Auss q
he alluded to matters in dispue as "especi.
ally connetted with territorial rights Of
| the Russian crown on the north~est eoas
of America bordering on the Pscifis Ocear
and the commerce ard navigation OF hi,
imperial msjsstys subjec. in seas adjscen
thereto
From those and o,hsr pertinent facts ii i.
eviden: thst the pretests Of Lori London
derry ard the Duke Of Wellington hsd
nothing whatever 10 60 with the points nos
n issue between the American ard British
governments concerning the waters O
Bshfing Ss. They both referred. in DIFF
4 ferent but substau,isliy identical phrases
to the territory south Of the Ala.ksn penia
suls bordering on the Pacific and eeoars
phicslly shut out from Behring Sea
regret that my arguments ON The poin
which Lord Salisbury considered of grea
Importance ehouid have escaped His Lord
ships notice. In Lord Salisbury's judge
msnt the contention Of the United State
now rests wholly upon the ukase Of 1921 b.
Emseror Alexander OF Russia. Th
=. United States has .. no time rested iss ar
guments solely on the ground mentioned
AMI this government regrets that Ler
i. Salisbury should hsve 40 misapprshen lee
tie American position ~ 10 the limit of Ii
basis Of right in the BehriDg Sea to Ukss
in 1921. The United States has, smcr
l 4. rw-rr