Morning journal and courier., 1891-05-08
THE BEHRING SEA MATTER. Additional Correspondence on the Controversy - Six Qestiens Asked Lord Salisbury by the President.
 fnlln

Additional COrrespOndence on the
 Controversy - Six Qestiens Asked
 Lord Salisbury by the President.
 WASHINGTON, May 7.-The following note in addition to the correspondence that has already passed between Mir. Blaine and Sir Julian Pauncefote in relation to the Behring sea controversy is made public:
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
 WASHINGTON, D. C.,
 April IA, 1890.
 Sir-The notifications which Lord Sails bury suggests in the question for al bitra- tion do not wholly meet the views of the president; but the president changes the text of the third and fifth in such manner, it is hoped, as will result in an agreement between the two governments. While Lord Salisbury suggests different mode of procedure from that embodied in the sixth question the president does not un- derstand him actually to object to the question, and he, therefore, assumes that it is agreed to. The six questions as now proposed by the president are as follows: First-what exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as the Behring sea, and what exclu- sive rights in the seal fisheries therein did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States? Second-How far were these claims of jurisdic- tion as to the seal fisheries recognized and con ceded by reat Britain?
 
 Behring included in the phrase Pacific | ocean, used in the treaty of 1895 between Great Britain and Russia, and what rights, if any, | in the Behrng sea were held and exclusively eX- | ercised by Russia after said treaty:
 Fourth-Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the s-al fisheries in Beh- | ring sea east of the water boundary described in the treaty between the United States and Rus | sia of March 30, 1869, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty?
 Fifth.Has the United States any right, al and l. if fl so what right of protection or property in the lc ft1rrf nf tha States in Behring s.a when such seals are found outside the ordinary three mile limit:
 l Sixth-If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such position | that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessa-
 Re if r n any psrt of the waters of BehEns sea- then it shall be further determined: First how far if at all outside the ord ordinary tsrrito,ia should exercise exclusive jurisdiction, in or der to protect the seal for the time living upor the islands of the United States and feeding therefrom? Second, whether closed seasoT (during which the killing of seals in the waters mts fir shg be @ s to the seal fishing industry, so valuable and i'm portant to mankind. from deterioration or de of months should be included in such season, and over what waters it should extend2
 The president does not object to the ad ditional question respecting alleged dam ages to English ships proposed by Lort Salisbury if one condition be added namely: That after the issues of the ar bitration are joined, if the United State shall prevail, all the seals taken by Cana dian vessels during the period shall b' skins are sold. This seems to the presi dent to be the complement of Lord Sails bury's proposition, and he doubts not tha it will secure his lordship's assent. In the first paragraph of Lord Sails bury's dispatch of February 21, he make
 the following declaration: ''It is now quit , clear that the advisers of the president d. not claim Behring sea as mare clusum ant
 indeed that they repudiate that contest il , expressed terms.
 Lord Salisbury's expression is put il such form as to imply (whether he so in tended know not) that the United State had hitherto been resting its contentioa uqon the fact that the Behring sea wa : mare clusum. If that was his intentio [ it would have been well for his lordship t specify wherein the United States eve : made the assertion. The emphatic denis in my dispatch of December F last wa
 intended to put an end to the iteration C the charge and to eliminate it from
 current discussion.
 After carefully reviewing the whole que' z ton the correspondence continues: In tt f opinion of the president, Lord Salisbury 5 | wholly and strangely in error in maxim
 the following statement:
 s Nor do they (the advisers of the presiden
 rely, justification for the seizure of Brltii
 ships in the open sea- upon the contention thi
 the interests of the seal fisheries give to u
 United States government any right M for it ti, tn !. not otherwise possess.
 y The government of the United Stat
 has steadily held just the reverse of u B. position which Lord Salisbury has ln l. puted to it. It holds that the ownershi
 of the islands upon which the seals bree' 5, that the habit of the seals in regularly T d sorting thither and rearing the rs young thereon, that their going out fro n the islands in search of fot re and regularly returning thereto, al re all the facts and incidents of their I ,e lation to the island give to the Unit, D. States 8 property interest therein; tn D, this property interest was claimed and e 1e ercised by Russia during the whole peri' re of it's sovereignty over the land. and W h. ters of Alaska; that England recogniz ne this property interest so far as recogniti 1g is implied by abstaining from all interf. ng ence with it during the whole period 's, Russia's ownership of Alaska and duri u- the first nineteen years of the sovereign ld of the United States. It is yet to be ( a. termined whether the lawless intrusion " Canadian vessels in 1886 and subseque a. years has changed the law and equity VI the case heretofore prevailing. as have the honor to be, with the high Ire consideration, sir, your most obedisnt s
 want, JAHs G. ELAINE