The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1891-05-08
THAT BEHRING SEA MATTER.
Blaine Proposes Six Questions for Lord
SaliSburyS Consideration.
OUR CLAIM AGAIN CLEARLY DEFINED.
The Secretary shows Where His Lordship is
wholly in Error--A Practical Illustra-
tion Advanced.

WAsH1N0ToN. ID. c.. May 7.--Secretary
Blaine this evening made public his latest
communication ON the Behring sea matter
Itis addressed to Sir Julien Paunccfote, the
British Minister. and reads as follows:
WASHINGTON, D. c., April "A, 1891.
Sir The notifications which Lord Sails
nrrv suggests in the questions for arbitration
do NOT wholly meet the views of the Presi-
dent. but tho President changes the text Of
the third and fifth IN such % manner, IL is
Loped. AS will result in an agreement between
the two Governments. While Lord Salisbury
suggests a different mode of procedure from
+hot embodied in the sixth question the Presi-
dent does not understand him actually TO OBJ
ioct to the question, and be therefore assumes
that % IS agreed.
rHE QUESTION PROPOSED.
The SIX questions as now proposed by the
President are as follows:
First What exclusive jurisdiction in the
eoa now known as the Behrng sea, and what
e.olnsive rights in the seal fisheries therein
dA Russia assert and exercise pnOr and up TO
the time Of the cesslonO Of Alaska to the United
Statesy
second. How far were these claims of
jurisdiction rs 10 the seal fisheries recognized
and conceded by Great Britain;
Third Was the body of wafer now known
"a. the Behring sea included in the phrase
Pacific ocean as used in the treaty of 1925 be
tween Great Britain and Russia, and what
,-ehts If any. ia the Behring sea were held
AND exclusively exercised by Russia after said
Fourth. Did not all the rights of Russia as
to Jurisdiction and as TO the seal fisheries IN
Behring sea cast of water boundary described
In the treaty between the United States and
Russia Of March 80, 1867, pass unlmpared to
the United States under that treaty.
Fifth Has the United States any rights,
andi so. what right Of protection Is property
I'M the fur seals frequenting the islands Of the
limited States in Behring sea when such seals
are found outside the ordinary three-mlle
limit,
sixth. Ifthe determination of foregoing ques-
fi0ns shall leave the subject in such position
tbat the concurrence of Great Britain IS
necessary in prescribing regulations for tho
killing of fur seals IN any part OF the waters OF
Bebring sea then it shall be further deter
mined. First, How far, if at all, outside the
ordinary territorial limits It IS necessary that
the United States should exercise an eXclu-
siye jurisdiction in order TO protect the
seal for the time living upon the
islands Of the United States and feeding
therefroms Second, whether q closed sea-
son. during which the killing Of seals IN the
waters 0f Behrng sea. outside the ordinary ter
rtOral limits shall be prohibited, Is neces-
sary TO save the sealfishing industry. valuable
and important 90 mankind, from deterOratlon
or destruction. and if SO, Third, what
months or parts of months should be IN
oluded in such season and over what waters
should 10 exteudf
ONE CONDITION ADDED.
The President does not object to the addi-
tioual question respecting alleged damages to
English ships proposed by Lord Salisbury II
one condition can be added-namelY, That
after the issues of arbitration are loint, If the
United States shall prevail, all the seals taken
bv Canadian vessels during the period shall be
paid for at the ordinary price for which skins
are sold. This seems to the President TO be
the complement of Lord Salisbury PROPOSE
uon, and he doubts not that II Will secure Hls
Lordship's assent.
In the first paragraph of Lord Salisbury's
dispatch on February Dist he makes the fol
lowing declaration:
''It is quite clear that the advisors Of the
President do not claim Behring sea as mare
clausum, and indeed, that they repudiate
that contention IN express terms.
Lord Sahsbury's expression IS such as tc
imply whether he so intended or not that
the United States had hereto been resting
IFS contention upon the fact that Behrng sea
was mare clausum. II that was his intention
it would have been well for Ills LordshIp to
specify wherein the United States ever made
tle assertion The emphatic denial IN my
dispatch of December 18th last, was intended
t1 put an end to the iteration Of the charge
and to eliminate it from the current discus
SION.
BEFUTEs THE ASSERTION.
Lord Salisbury complains that / did not
deal with certain protests written by Lord
londonderry and the Duke Of Wellington IL
p. which he had before quoted. If he will
Tecur 10 the twentv-siXth and tWentY-seYenth
paragraphs of my dispatch of December 18th
le viii observe that / especially dealt wth
these. / maintained, proved from the text
that there was not a single word IN those pro
tests referring 70 the Behr1ng sea, but that
they referred in the language Of the Duke of
Wellington of the nth of April, 1882, only TO
the lands extending along the shores Of the
Pacific ocean from latitude 40 to longitude 90
degrees north.
ln the first paragraph Of Lord London
derrys protest of January IS. 1922, addressed
80 Count Leven of Russia he alluded 10 the
matters in dispute as especially corrected
with the territorial rights OF the Russian
CROWN ON the northwest coast of America
bordering on the Pacific ocean and TO com
merce and navigation Of Ills Imperial
Majesty subjects IN the seas adlOlned thereto.
From these and other pertinent facts it Is
evident that the protests OF Lord London
derry and the Duke of Wellington had moth
ing whatever 20 DO with the points now IN
issue between the American and British gov
enments concerning the waters Of Behring
sea. They both referred in different but sub
stantially identical phrases, 10 the territory
south of the Alaskan peninsula bordering on
the Pacific and geographically shut out from
the Behring sea. ] regret that my arguments.
in point which Lord Salisbury considers Of
great importance, should have escaped His
Lordsmp's notice.
THE MEANING MIsCONsTRUHD.
In Lord Salsbury's Judgment the cOnten-
ton Of the United States now rests wholly
upon the dkase Of 1897 by the Emperor Alex
ander ]. Of Russia. The United States has al
no time rested It's argument on the ground
mentioned and this Government regrets that
Lord Salisbury should have SO misaDpre-
hcnded the American position ~ 10 limit it's
basis of right in Behring sea 10 the
ukase of 1921. The United States has
among other grounds insisted without
recurring 10 anJ OF its superior
rights i'm Alaska that this Government has a.
full authority for going beyond the three
mile line in case of proved necessity as Great
Britain possesses Two or three instances of
power which Great Britain exercised beyond
the three-mile line have already been quoted
but have failed thus far 10 secure comment
OF explanation from Lord Salisbury. An
other case can be added, which, perhaps, is
still more 10 the point. Ia 1899
only two years ago the British
Parliament euacted a law the effect