New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-03-21
AS TO BEHRING SEA:
xMrNIsTER PHELPS WARMLY SUSTAINs
THE ADMINISTRATION.
EXPLAINS THE ISSUES INVOLVED, AND THE
LAW APPLICABLE TO THEM, AND URGES
UNITY OF SENTIMENT AND
RESOLUTE ACTION.

APPLICABLE III AND URGES
UNITY OF SENTIMENT AND
REsOLUTE ACTION.
,n. Apr,i number OF IIarper's Monthly which ap-
= .bis morning, contains an article from the pen of
- w,rster f. j. Phelps on the Behring Sea contro-
- After describing the sealing industry and its
IaHor 10 America afoFdng property rights, he
says: Observation-Disclosures.
80 Government has a right to protect its property
e tbe business of its people from this wantOn and
and ae destruction by foreigners which il has made
bsrbarolS ac Of Congess or whether the fact that
IT take " sea affords an immunity to the parties en-
OF Ia in which the Government is bound to respect
Tho ordinary mind this question would not appear TO
~ ee,sended with much difficulty.
be ssd that the Government is prevented from dis
barpinC this obvious duty Ctlat IS the duty of pro
s. undertake to close the ocean against the ships of
r other nation. nor to exercise over them, beyond
S.ee miles from the coast, any paramount jurisdiction
INV - In what does the freedom OF the consists
;,,.t l. the use Of ii that individual enterprise IS
Sorized 10 make, under that International law when
nny the common consent of civilization? Is IL he
Estimate pursuit Of its own business or the wan09
s.rncfion of the valuable interests of nations III
~ Geyenment of the United states is restrained by
INV principle law from protecting itself and lis clti-
cons against this great loss, ii must be because ue
Canadian shipowners have right to inlet H.
THE SEAS ARE NOT FREE TO MARAUDERS.
That is to say that these acts prohibited By Amer
.an law unlawful TO Canadians wherever territorial
lawful within their territory if any seals existed
.hss and which are wanton and destructive every
~bsre become lawful and right if done in the open
.,a and are therefore proper incident TO the fIee-
son Of the sea The clear statement of this proposition
,.htss H. in the minds OF all who arc capable OF
ssne Of Justice and able TO discriminate between right
.nd wrong The freedom of the is the right to
49,. and repass upon ii without hindrance molesta
Hon in the pursuit OF all honest business ana pleasure,
and it extends no further 1t never autoEzgS injury
=
sscred at on shore. This colony OF IeaiS mas
Ing their home on american SOL amd uaee no nro
nrstoys OF the soil, and are part OF thelf properly
and do not lose this quality by passing IRON one Pali
~ the territory to another in regular ana perIOulC;i
migration necessary their life even though III max
Ing il they pass temporarily through water 'n"V -
more than three miles from land'
PRINCIPLES GOOD WITHOUT PRECEDENTs.
Doubtess in that case Fishing with explosives III the
spen SEAL as in this lawyers would be prepared
N demonstrate that much as the calamity might be
seulored there was really precedent to be iouho Ill
the books for any interference to prevent H. because o
such wrong had ever been attempted befUe' anu 70
mint out that to proceed without precedent would be
10 set all jurisprudence at naught PreceueDtS Illus
trate principles but do not create them. Ihey arc
only valuable so far they display the application Oh
principles to new cases. They do not a'ise out OF
rights but ont of attempted wrongs. right cannot
obtain the sanction of precedent until it is invaded
And an invasion of right is not without ieuiesS'
though it may never have been invaded In the same
way before. There must always be a hrst Ctse, bpt
NOT necessarily Therefore a remedless When the
case arises that Ustes precedent, the occasion 1Or
making should be availed or Tor e sake Oh 'ne la"'
as well as for the sake of the right. 1900,
When the extent to which the sea may be used ana
the purposes for which it, p Pat s of rue that
have been established by the general consent OF man
kind 1t will be seen that the freedom OF ule sea Svd r
been free for any purpose whatever injurious 70 'e
rights the property. or the hon& OF hatloh aoie ~
defend itself or even TO those interests OF nation
which are paramount in Importance to the mere pioht
10 be made out of otherwise lawful act that ell
dangers them.
ENGLAND WOULD ACT QUICKLY ENOUGH.
II the case of the Alaskan seal fishery was reverseo
II Great Britain was the proprietor of it, and American
noacbers were attempting its determination as pre-
tended incident to the freedom of the sea if emon-
STRANGE addressed to Government had ELECTED the
admission that the acts complained Of ought TO De re-
strained but that the Government for political reasons
was unable to effect it, ii is perfectly certain tat te
,ubect would pass very speedily out of the domain OF
NEGOTIATIONS In abstract international law and our
Government wOuld be apIsised That IL unspe 10 re-
strain its citizens nom an outrage upon ri'sn s
measures would lie taken by the injured party 10 pro-
INT il is to be borne in mind in this discussion that
Great Britain has never yet in all the correspondence
H. has takenplace asserted the right OF te tdhdudhs
20 do what thCy have been engaged IN. Inc question:
is not one Of abstract theory. IL Is wheuef INC
Canadian ships have an indefeasibe right 10 90 Pr
eey Someone's that must follow. This is the
issue In the case TO which all other inquiries are GUY
sustain it, And if il be supposed TO be sustilaDo
by presidents il Tor those who assert 10 produce
, Meh' whether The Titled states Government is to
understand that Her Maiestys Government haiI'gIi'n
that the right contended for by CanaHa g&St 70 dbtan
direct reply As before stated. that Government mas
once conceded the Justice and expectancy OF cOhVel
ton BY which such claim would be prohloiteo.
UNPATRIoTIC PAETT sANsHIP AND ITS RUIN
Gus RESULTS.
u.r yaiaetv,s ministers tempOrize and delay; they
engage In the discussion of abstract ana m'luehta
enestions or transmit the contentious OF the COLONIAL
government without committing themselves dliecuy
upon the decisive point on which the oohtO'cI9' ouii
They courtcously, slowly, and dpomaucany cVauc 'i0
real issue and decline TO ooncede that inc ooonS - "
the wrong we'll knowing by experience that WHATEVER
administration may be charged for the time Delhs WIN
IN. ,,rar,,nent az the United States will, in The
efforts II makes 10 assert its rights, encounter the
hearty condemnation Of the political party opPoscu
TO IT. that the arguments ii addresses 10 inc IoIeie
government will be abundantly answered anu reiu"u
BY American writers, and their authors heIu up ="
derson; and that the next eleclon Is 'ofS bic% may
bring into power a new administrator, winch nIoy ,
ABANDON the contentious OF their predecessors anu pun
In tho a. IN Sll other international controversies,
one remark holds good nation ulVId d',cce as"'A
government that is not backed up by the uii.i i
Sentiment Of lis people, but is opposed IN us qess
with foreign nations ny large snare VI t ndo II
seeks at least in all the means IT takes 10 oDtdin
Them will never be a formidable figure In diplomacy,
especay when its force is found TO eXpend ltseu IN
argument rather than in action. l., .,.o,o
II Government is demanding wldI 10 1s ~ E
fhe demand should at once be abandoned. III IL 10
claiming what is right and what IS worth c,sI hehet
an the points taken and all the arguments by wmch
II endeavors to support its case, prove universally
convincing or not.
rs ARBITRATION WISE OR FEAsIBLE7
Arbitration has been spoken of as means Oh coih-
posing the dispute. But that has been already pIo
posed nv the United States, without success. The
offer has been met by counter proposal 10 arbitrate
the matter in hand but incidental and collateral
question That resource is therefore out of the queS