Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-01-06

4 THE PACIFIC OCEAN REFUTED-OUR RIGHTS TO
THE SEAL FISHERIES UNDER EXISTING TREAT
les SET FoPrH-As TO ARBITRATION.
The correspondence between the United
States and Great Britain in relation to the Beh-
ring sea controversy gives no indication that
any settlement is near at hand. Through the
long official correspondence given to the public
there is nothing that indicates O change Of
position on either side. Mr.. Blaine rejects the
proposition for arbitration on the plan laid
down by the British government, but outlines
a series Of questions that might properly be
settled by arbitration. In u word he repre-
sents that the question Great Britain would
submit to arbitration Is one which there could be
no dispute about and not the one upon which
| this controversy turns. The correspondence
transmitted is made up of two very long letters
and number Of Enclosures comprising treaties,
notes and extracts from previous correspond
| ence. which Secretary Blaine says conclude the
correspondence touching the fur seal question
| up to date. One of these letters is from Lord
Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. the British
minister, dated August 2. 1890, and the other
was addressed by Secretary Blaine to tine British
minister December IL last.
LORD sALIsBURYs VIEW OF THE RUSSIAN con-
cEss1oS.
Lord Salisbury begins his letter by a refer
ence to Mr.. Blaine's statemeflt that certain of
Mr.. Adams expressions omitted by him (Salis-
bury) for the sake Of brevitv in quotation give
different meaning to the dispatch, which
actually supports the present claim of the
Unl,ed States. He says this makes ii necessary
to refer IN greater detail to the correspondence,
an examination Of which will show that the
passage In question cannot have the signifca-
ton which Mr.. Blaine seeks to give to it; that
the omitted words do not in reality affect the
point at issue, and that the view which Mr..
aEfs mot ha ila1x Ia
patches. Entering into the history Of the case
Lord Salisbury recites the Russian concession In
1879 to the Russian-American company TO hunt
fish and trade on the northwest coast of
America from Behring strait to the fif,y-fifth
degree. with permission to extend to the south.
provided they did not encroach upon the terri
tory occupied by other powers. This southern
limit agreed approximately with the ultimate
boundary between the British and Russian pos
sessions. 1t comprised not only the whole
American coast of Behring sea, but long reach
of coast line To- the south of the Alaskan penn-
sula as far as the level of the southern portion
of Prince of Wales Island. No claim to ex-
elusive jurisdiction was made under this char
ter. but the ukase of 1871 pushed some 80
miles south. as far as Vancouver island the ex-
elusive dominion claimed by Russia, a claim to
maritime jurisdiction regarded in England and
the UOitei States as extravagant. Objections
were made tonce.
NO BEHRYSG SEA THEN.
The correspondence which ensued between
Mr.. Adams. the Secretary of State of the
United States. and the Russian government is
quoted at length by Lord Salisbury.
He says: 1T Is perfectly clear from the
above that the privileges granted to the Rus
sian-Ameriean company in 1899. whatever
effect they may have had regards other
Russian subjects, did not operate to exclude
American vessels from any part of the coast.
and that the attempt to exclude them in 1921
raN s1s...
sian government had no idea Of any distinction
between Behring sea and the Pacific ocean,
which latter they considered reaching south
ward from Behring straits. Nor throughout
the whole of the subsequent correspondence is
there any reference whatever on either side to
any distinctive name for Behring sea. or any
inti-nation that it~could be considered other
wise than as forming an integral part OF the
Pacific ocean"
LORD SALISBURY CONSTITUTES MR.. ADAMS MEANING.
Lord Salisbury quotes at length Mr.. Adams
dispatch of 1923 to Mr.. Middleton, the person
charged with the negotiations for the United
States, and saws:
Mr.. Blaine has argued at great length to
show that when Mr.. Adams used there clear
and fOrcible expressions he did not mean what
he seemed to say; that when he stated that the
United States could admit 10 part of these
claims he meant that they admitted all that
part of them which related to the coast north
of the Aleutian Islands; that when he spoke o.
the Southern ocean he meant to except Behring
sea, and that when he contended tina. the or
binary exceptions and exclusions OF the terri
torlal jurisdictions had no existence so far as
Russian rights were concerned on the CONT
nent Of America, he used the latter term not in
geographical, but III a territorial sense. and
tacltly excepted, by very singular petitio
principn. the Russian possessions. In order
to carry out this theory it is necessary for him
also to assume that the negotiators i'll the
course OF the discussions made indiscriminate
use of the term northwest coast of America
with variety of Specification which he admits
to be confusing, and. at certain points, appar-
emily contradictory aud irreconciliable.'
These passages sufficiently illustrate Mr..
Adams meaning any evidence be required
that he used plain language in its ordinary
sense. Clearly he meant to deny that the Rus
sian settlements or discoveries gave Russia any
claim as Of right to exclude the navigation
fishery of other nations from any part of the
seas on the coast Of America. and that her
rights IN this respect were limited to the terri
torial waters of certain islands of which she
was IN permanent and complete occupation"
THE RUSSIAN TREATY OF 1924.
Lord Salisbury next discusses at length the
construction which Mr.. Blaine puts upon the
treaty of 1924 between Russia and the United
States, which he says is an entirely novel
one There Is, he says. no trace of its having
been known to the various publcists who have
given an account of the controversy in treaties
on international law, and il is contrary to that
construction which the British negotiators
placed on it when they adopted the first and
second articles for insertion in the British
treaty of 1925. The ukase of 1893 did not
mention sovereignty over the sea, and the
separate article which Mr.. Blaine says reserved
the rights OF Russia does not bear that intcrpre-
tation, which is too improbable to require any
heightened discussion.
SAYS BRITAIN NEVER CONCEDED RUSSIA JURIs-
DIcTIoS OVER BEHRISG SEA.
He denies that jurisdiction of Russia over
Behring sea was ever conceded. He says that
the correspondence extracted from the archives
OF the British foreign office show "that not
only did her majesty's government formally
protes. against the ukase on its first issue as
contrary TO the acknowledged law of nations
but that the Russian government gave a verbal
assurance that the claim of jurisdiction would
not be exercised In the subsequent negotia-
tions great importance was attached to obtain
ing a more formal disavowal of the claim III the
manner least hurtful 10 Russian susceptibilities.
but so rs effectrally to preclude its revival
And this security the British government I'M
doubleday considered that both they and the
United States had obtained by the conven-
tons Of 1924 and ls25."
REPLY TO MR.. BLAINE.
In conclusion Lord Salisbury cites the in
structions given to the British plenipotentiary,
who negotiated the treaty of 1928, and says:
These extracts show cOnclusively: "a That
England refused to admit any part Of the Rus
sian claimed asserted by the ukase of 1871 to ~
maritime Jurisdiction and exclusive right Of