The record-union., 1891-05-09
THE BEHRING SEA QUESTION FOR
ARBITRATION.


The United States Government has, in
a letter by Mr.. Blaine to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, submitted six questions to
the British Government as the basis upon
which arbitration of the Behring Sea
difficulty may be had. These questions,
1t will be observed, cover precisely the
ground taken by ex-Minister Phelps in
his recent essay, correspond with the
views of ex-Secretary Bayard as ex-
pressed in his essay in the Forum, and
are directly in line with the policy Presi-
dent Harrison has announced in the
earlier letters issued by Mr.. Blaine.
The first question upon which arbitra-
tors may find is the ascertainment of
what was the exclusive jurisdiction ex-
ercised by Russia in the sea prior to the
cession of Alaska and the marine terri
tory2 AS the facts are historical, this will
not be difficult of determination. The
only involvement concerning the point
will arise under the second question:
'How far was this exercise of jurisdic-
ton, or claim Of Russia, conceded by
Great Britain?" Of course, the conten-
ton on the part of the Government will
be that it has not at any time conceded
any of these claims. But the response
viii be that acquiescence in their exercise
and preferment, for long term of years,
must be taken as admission of them.
The third question will be more diff
cult of adjustment: "Was Behring Sea
included in the phrase Pacific Ocean, as
used in the treaty of 1926, between Great
Britain and Russia and what rights were
held and exercised exclusively by Russia
after said treaty?" The determination of
the latter clause of the question must
shape the Interpretation of the first
clause. The American Government has
persistently contended that there was no
material change made in Russia's claims
by the treaty of 1925, and that thereafter,
and until 1867, when the United States
succeeded to her title and rights, Russian
was conceded by all maritime nations.
The fourth question it would seem an
swers itself. Did not all the rights of
Russia pass, unimpaired, to the United
States by the treaty of 1S67?'' Many will
hold that the submission of this question
is unnecessary; that it is a claim the Uni
ted States cannot afford m oo,, fasS os l,,;,,.
within the realm of dispute. But reflec-
tion will reveal that the factor involved
must fall within the deliberations of arbi-
traitors, and that therefore it is wiser to
submit it afirmatively. Indeed, it could
not be omitted, since it is involved in the
contention of Great Britain that Russia
had not rights capable of transfer, and
that whatever her claims, they were sub
ject to the rights of all nations in open
waters.
The fifth question concerns the right of
the United States to protect fur seals
found in the sea, outside of the three-mile
limit, which frequent the islands of the
United States lying along and within the
sea. This question covers the whole able
argument made by Mr.. Phelps, and which
the RECoRD-UNIoN has very fully set
forth. That is, that whatever the charac-
ter of Behring Sea may be under the in
fernational code, it cuts no figure in the
right of the United States to protect its
property wherever found within the sea.
The seal breeds its young upon the land
OF the United States, and by the law of
its natural history passes with them for
feeding and for rearing of the young, to
another shore ofthe United States. By that
passage through deep waters, Mr.. Phelps
claims, the property right of the United
States in the seal is not lost It invests
the seal when it leaves one shore, it is at
tached to it when it reaches the other, and
it is not lost at any moment during the
passage from shore to shore. This, be-
cause this passage is not tickle or fugitive,
but regular, in the natural order of life of
the seal, and a necessity to its propagation
and the preservation of the species. If,
in said passage, the property character is
lost, and English and Canadian hunters
may take the seal, so may those of all
other nations, and as result the asser-
ton of such a claim of right win work
the determination of the seal family, and
thus claim of international right be
made to work the destruction of the very
thing for which it is preferred-the