Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-03-11


ForE GOING OVER TIE SUBJECT Al LESarH--
ESaLANp's POSITION As TO DAMAGES FOR BRIT
| ISL VESSELS SEIZED BY THE UNITED STATES.
Mr.: Blaine has won victory over his diplo-
matte adverRries in the case of the Boring sea
dispute. and his propositions for arbitration
practically on his own basis have been acceded
| to by Lord Salisbury. The latter has addressed
letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated at Lon
don, February q, 1891, with request that it
be laid before Mr.. Blaine. The letter is as fol-
| lows:
| Sir: The dispatch of Mr.. Blaine, under date
of the 18th December, has been carefully con-
sidered by her majesty's government. The
| effect Of the discussion which has been carried
| on between the two governments has been ma
terially TO narrow the area of controversy 1t
| is now quite clear that the advisers of the
President do not claim Bering sea as a mare
| clausum, and indeed that they repudiats that
contention IN express terms. Nor do they re-
ply, Justification for the seizure of British
ships in the open seq, upon the contention that
! the interests OF the seal fisheries give to the
| United States government any right for that
| purpose which, according to international law,
| IT would not otherwise possess. Whatever i'm
portance they attach to the preservation of the
fur seal species-and they justly look on it as
an object deserving The most serious solcitude
| they do not conceive that il confers upon any
maritime power rights over the open ocean
which that power could not assert on other
grounds.
The claim of the United States to prevent the
exercise of the seal fishery by other nations in
Boring sea rests now exclusively upon the in
terest which by purchase they possess in a
Gkase issued by the Emperor Alexander in
the year 1921, which prohibits foreign vessels
| from approaching within 100 Italian miles of
tine coast and islands then belonging to Russia
in Boring sea-
1t is not, as understand. contended that the
Russian government. at the time OF the issue of
this ukase, possessed any inherent right to en-
force such a prohibition, or acquired by the act
OF issuing it any claims over the open sea be-
yond the territorial limit of three miles which
| they would not otherwise have possessed. But
1t Is said that this prohibition worthless in il
SELF, acquired validity and force against the
British government because that government
can be shown to have accepted its provisions
The ukase was a mere usurpation, but ii is said
that 1t was converted into a valid international
law, as against the British government, by the
admission of this government itself.
am not concerned to dispute the contention
| that an invalid claim may, as against another
government, acquire validity which in its i'll
ception 1t did not possess, il it is formally or
effectively accepted by that government. But
the vital question for decision is whether
any other government, and especially
whether the government of Great Britain, has
ever accepted the claim put forward in this
nkase. Our contention is that not only can it
not be shown that tho government of Great
Britain at any time since 1921, has admitted the
soundness Of the pretension put forward by
that ukase, but that it can be shown that it
has categoricaliy denied it on more than one
occasion.
To sustain this contention Lord Salisbury
quotes from letter (January, 1929 from Lord
Londonderry to Count Lieven, the Russian am
bassador In London, a reservation of British
rights to the navigation Of the waters described
In the ukase, and also from a note by the Duke
of Wellington to Count Nesselrode October
1929, refusing to admit Russia's right to ex-
clude foreign vessels for 100 miles from the
coast
Lord Salisbury continues: II is evident,
therefore, that so far as diplomatic representa-
ton went the kings government of that date
took every step which it was in their power to
take in order to make it clear to the Russian
government that Great Britain did not accept
the claim to exclude her subjects for 100 miles
from the coast, which had been put forward in
the ukase of 1921.
Mr.; Blaine does not deal with these prostests
which appear in themselves amply sufficient to
decide the question, whether Great Britain did
or did not acquiesce in the Russian claim put
forward in the ukase. He confines himself
mainly. in the dispatch under consideration,
to the consideration of the treaties which were
subsequently made between Russia and Great
Britain. This treaty, of which the text is
printed at the close of Mr.. Blaine's dispatch,
does not contain a word to signify the acquies-
cence of Great Britain in the claim recently put
forward by Russia to control the waters Of the
sea for 100 miles from her coast There is no
stipulation upon which this Interpretation can
be imposed by any process Of construction
whatsoever. But there is a provision having.
In our Judgment, totally opposite tendency
which, indeed, was intended to negative the ex-
travagant claim that had recently been made on
the part of Russia, and it is upon this provision
that the main part of Mr.. Blaine's argument.
as l understand it, is founded. The stipuia-
ton to which refer is contained in the first
article IAgreeing that the respective subjects
of the two nations shall not be molested III the
navigation Of or fishing in any part Of the
Pacific ocean.l
1 understand Mr.. Blaine's argument to be
that If Great Britain had intended to protest
against the claim Of Russia to exclude ships for
lOO miles from her coasts in Boring sea she
would have taken this opportunity for doing
so, but that in combining herself to stipulations
In favor Of full liberty of navigation and fishing
in any part Of the ocean, commonly called the
Pacific ocean, she. by implication. renowned
any claim that could arise out of the same set
OF circumstances in regard to any sea that was
not part OF the Pacific ocean. And then Mr..
Blaine goes on to contend that the phrase
Pacific ocean" did not and does not include
Boring sea.
Even il this latter contention were correct. I
should earnestly demur to the conclusion that
our inherent rights to free passage and free
fishing over a vast extent of ocean could be eff
fectiveiy renowned by mere reticence or omis-
sion. The right is one of which we could not
be deprived unless we consented to abandon it,
and that consent would not be sufficiently in
ferred from our negotiators having omitted to
mentlon the subject on one particular occasion.
But am not prepared to admit the Justice of
MIR. Blaines contention that the words pacific
ocean did not include Boring sea- / believe
that in common parlance, then and now Boring
sea was and is part OF the Pacific ocean; and
that the latter words were used in order TO give
the fullest and widest scope possible to the
claim which the British negotiators were
soemnly recording Of right freely to nayi-
gate and fish in every part of it. aud through
out ITS entire extent In proof of the argu-
ment that the words Pacific ocean, do not
include Boring sea, Mr.. Blaine adduces a
long list OF maps in which designation dis
tinct from that OF Pacific Ocean" is given TO
Boring sea; either "Bering sea- or '.Sea of
hamschatka. or the Sea OF Anabir.'' The
argument will hardly have any force unless it
is applicable with equal truth to ali the other
oceans of the world. But no one will dispute
that the Bay Of Biseay formS part of the At
lantic ocean or that the Gulf of Lyons forms
par: of the Mediterranean sea- and vet in most
maps 1t will be found that to those portions of
the larger sea separate designation has been
gwen. The question whether by the words
Pacific ocean the negotiators meant to III
Guide or exclude Boring sea depends upon
which location was esteemed to be the correct
usage at the time. The date is not distant
one and there Is no GROUND for suggestion that
the usage has changed since the Anglo-R,lssian
treaty OF 1926 was signed. The determination