The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-10
SEALS MUST BE PROTECTED.


Latest Behring Sea Letter.
WASHINGTON, March 9.-The President
day sent to the Senate the correspond
ence in regard to the Behring sea question,
covering the period from April 90. 1891. to
date. Of the recent correspondence, the
most important letters are two from Sir
Julian Pauncefote, under dates Of Feb. 20
and March Z and the reply sent yesterday.
In his note of Feb 90 Sir Julian inf rms
Mr.. Blaine that Lord Salisbury does not
ad mt, as previously Indicated by Mr..
Blaine. that the delays have been greater
on the part of Great Britain than on the
part of tie United States. He says that
the British commissioners have reported
that there is no danger of serious diminu-
ton of seals, anu. therefore. the necessity
of a modus viyeudi is not apparent. Still
he would not object TO the prohibition
limited to zone not more than thirty
miles around the Pr by loft islands. pro-
vided the catch on the islands be limited to
10000
In his note of March z, Sir Julian pre-
sents arguments In support Of Lord Sails
bury's refusal to accede to another modus
vivendi. He says the first was agreed to
not be repealed, and that there is no ap-
parent danger to the seal species. He adds
that the zone proposed Is more extensive
than that mentioned by Mr.. Blaine on
March 16. 1891, and that the anticipation of
conflicts. considered in the note of May 4.
1891, has been met by the provisions of the
Behring sea act of Parliament and an order
of Council
In the response sent yesterday, Assistant
Secretary Wharton states that the Presi-
dent notices with the deepest regret the ill.,
disposition of her Maiesty's governmental
agree upon an effective modus for the pres
ervatiOn of the seals in the BshrinS sec,
pending the settlement of the respective
rights of that government and of tho gov.
eminent of the United States in those
waters and in the fur-seal fisheries therein.
The United States claims an exclusive
right to take seals in q portion of the Behr-
ing sea. while her Majesty's government
claims q common right to pursue and take
tho seals in those waters outside the three.
mile limit. This serious and protracted
controversy it has now been happily agreed
shall be submitted to the determination of
o tribunal of arbitration, and the treaty
only awaits the action of the American
Senate.
PROMPT ACTION NECESSARY.
''The judgment of the arbitration tri-
bunal cannot, however. be reached and
stated in time TO control the conduct of the
respective governments and of their cIti-
zens during the sealing season of 1892; and
the urgent question now is what does good
faith, to say nothing of international
comfy. require of the parties to the arbi-
tratiOnf If the contention of this govern.
ment is sustained by the arbitrstors. then
any killing of seals by the Canadian
sealers during tins season in these waters
is an injury to this government in its juris-
dictlen and property. The injury is not
measured by the SKINS taken. but affects
the permanent value of our property.
"Was it ever heard before that one party
to such controversy, whether nation or
any part of the income and profits, much
less the body of the contested property.
pending the litigation, without accounta-
biiityf Usually q court of chancery would
place receiver or trustee IN charge and
hold the income of the property for the
benefit of tho prevailing party. You say
that Lord Salisbury. rejecting the illustra-
ton used by Mr. Blaine, -suggests that the
case Is more like one OF arbitration respect
ing title 10 meadow. While the arbitra-
tion is going on We cut the grass. and quite
rightly too, for the grass will be repro
dneed next year. and SO will the seals He
can hardly mean by this illustration that
being III contention with neighbor re-
gardinQ the title to meadow he could by
any precedent IN the equity courts, OF by
any standard OF common honesty, be justl-
fed in perfecting the whole or any part of
the gains of a harvest without accounta-
billty to the adverse claimant whose eX-
elusive title was afterward established.
lit is NO answer for the trespasser TO say
that the true owner will have an undimin-
ished harvest next year. Last years bar
vest was his also. If by the use of the
plural pronoun mis- iordship means that the
harvest of the contested meadow le to be
divided between the litigants. beg to re-
remind him that the title of the United
States to the Pribyl0tf islands has not yet
been contested, and that orr flag does not
float over any sealing vessel The iliustrs-
ton Is lnSpt in the further particular that
the seals not taken this year may be taken
next, while the grass must be harvested or
lost.
THE QUESTION OF INDEMNITY.
This government has already been ad-
vIsed in the course of this correspondence
that Great Britain repudiates all obliga
tions to indemnify the United States for
any invasion of its jurisdiction or any in
| jury done to it's sealing property by the
| Canadian sealers. The attempt to make a
| damage clause one of the articles of the
| arbitration agreement failed. because Her
| Majesty's government would not consent
| that the question of its liability to indern-
| mfg the United States for injuries done by
| the Canadian sealers shall be submitted.
| Two extracts from the correspondence will
| sufficiently recall the attitude of the re-
| spective governments
Mr. Wharton then reviewed the CORE
spondence of the summer respecting liabll-
| tiles for damages. and says: The Pres-
] dent cannot believe that. while holding
1 this view of it's accountability. the gov
eminent of Great Britain will. pending the
| arbitration. eOuntenance. much less Justify
or defend. the continuance of pelagIc seal
ing by its subjects. 1t should either as
| sumo responsi bility for acts of these
sealers. restrain them from q pursuit
the lawlessness of which is to be de-
| termined by arbitration.
| In Your note of Feb. % you state that
her Nalesty's government has been in
] formed by the British Commissioners that
| 80 far as pelagic scaling Is concerned, there
Is no danger of serious diminution of the
fur-seal species as q consequence of this
years hunting and upon this ground
Lord Salisbury places his refusal TO renew
the modus of last year. His LordshiD
seems to assume a determn alton of the ar
| bitration against the United States and in
favor OF Great Britain, and that IL IS al
| ready more question of so regulating a
| common right to take seals than to preserve
1 6DeCle6. BY what rialt dOea h0 do thigf