The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-11
Anglo-American Treaty on the
Bering Sea Question.
AWAITING sENATE's APPROVAL.
Attorney General Makes Announce
ment in the Supreme Court.
Judges Whose Decision Shall Be
Ffnal-The Victoria Fleet to Be In
creased by Nine Eastern Vessels.

WASHINGTON CITY, Nov. 10-The public
was taken into the confidence of the
diplomatic branch of the government this
afternoon in the continuation of the hear
ing in the Sayward case and the first an
nouncement made that the prolonged
diplomatic correspondence between Secre-
tary Blaine and Lord Salisbury had re-
suited in an agreement by which, with the
consent of the Senate, the pending dis
pute over the seal fisheries in Bering sea
would be definitely settled.
Solicitor-General Taft, who was address
ing the court, made the first intimation
that the correspondence between the two
countries had reached the point of agree
ment upon arbitration. He stopped at
this point, and when Justice Gray desired
some more explicit statement as to
whether agreement upon arbitration had
been actually reached, the solicitor gen.
eral hesitated to reply, and intimated
that perhaps he had revealed
more than he not being a cabinet officer
and being authorized to speak only on le-
gal questions, should have. There
upon Attorney General Miller himself in
terposed and not only substantiated all the
solicitor general hao said, but went fur
ther and announced that the government
had affected an agreement.
This was practically the first announce
ment made as to the progress of the Be-
ring sea negotiations since the last cores
pondence was made public, showing a diff
ference of opinion between the two gov
ernments as to the points of arbitration.
1t was surprising that the news should
first come out in an argument in court,
and the attorney general was asked after
adjournment if he wodld throw some light
on the subject. "It Is true an agreement
upon arbitration hes been reached" he
said.
"Yes," he added, 'the matter has been
settled between the two governments
that Is, subject to ratification by the SEN
ate."
What are the points of arbitration7"
81 cannot say any more than l said in
court. Why don't you go to the state
department? Yes, you can state as fact
that the agreement has been concluded. :"
Solicitor-General Taft was next seen, but
would only confirm what the attorney
general had said. "In the last corre-
spondence, you know" he said, "there
governments as to the points of arbitra-
has resulted in treaty which now only
needs to be ratified by the Senate"
The reporter suggested that it was some
thing unusual to hear the announcement
of such important news in an argument in
court. But it is fact" was the response.
Secretary Blaine positively declined to
make any statement touching the matter.
The inference drawn from the develop
ments today. including the statement
made by the attorney general to a repre-
sentative of the Associated Press, as
shown above is that the president will
submit to the Senate an agreement in the
nature of treaty between the United
States and Great Britain, by which the
parties bind themselves to accept as final
and conclusive the definition to be
given by the arbitrators of the extra rights
of the United States in the Bering sea, as
well as to pay any awards of damages
suffered by the nation declared to have
the true contention. 1t is also presumed
the arbitrators have been selected, but
none of the officials seen would discuss
the details Of the agreement, doubtless for
the reason that it has TO be submitted to
the Senate for ratification, and therefore
comes under the executive session rules of
the Senate, which require secrecy to be
observed.
When Taft had finished his argument
Mr. Choate, in behalf of Great Britain, ad-
dressed the court.
This celebrated case arises out of the seizure
of the Canadian sealer w. H. Sayward in Boring
sea for violation of the act of congress making
ii penalty TO catch seals within the waters OF
Bering sea. The vessel was libeled under the
admiralty laws OF the United States, and after
trial the United States district court of Alaska
declared the forfeiture of the vessel. The case
was then brought to this court on motion for
writ OF prohibition to stop the Alaskan court
from taking measures TO enforce the decree, the
ground for the motion being the contention
that the court had no jurisdiction to
try the offense for the reason that it was com
mitted more than three miles from shore, and
therefore under the law OF nations without
the jurisdiction of the United States BY this
method ii is sought TO secure an opinion from
the court on the question, which has been for
long time in controversy between the United
states and Great Britain, as 10 the right OF the
former country to the exclusive control of the
seal fisheries OF Bering sea. The opening
skirmish in this legal battle resulted in favor OF
Great Britain. the court deciding against the
prellm nary plea by the United States that the
supreme court could not entertain even a
motion for leave to file petition for writ of
prohibition. Since the legal proceedings began
an agreement mas been reached between the two
governments under which ii is hoped to secure
a final and definite solution of the long pending
diplomatic dispute, but this will not affect the
present case