The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-26
NO CASE.

Mr.. Blaine in his dispatch of June 80.
1890. formally abandoned the claim that
Boring sea is "closed sea-" that is, from
shore to shore the property of the United
States. E. J. Phelps, Democratic law
yer, minister to England under President
Cleveland, holds that the United States
has right to police the whole of Boring
sea, and to treat all seal-catchers found in
it as marauders, on the ground that the
community on whose soil wild animals
bring forth their young has property
right in them and their offspring wherever
they go, which follows them to the open
sea and makes the killing of them 200
miles from shore gross trespass.
Outside of Mr.. Phelps no eminent law
yer in Europe or America Endorses this
doctrine, and yet it seems to be expected
that the United States. government will
send our navy to enforce the United
States statute i'll all parts of Boring sea
outside the three-mile limit. To do this
would be to capture and confiscate British
vessels on the high seas in time of peace,
and if We do it we may be sure that Lord
Salisbury will call US to account by renew
ing his peremptory demand of June 27,
1890, that call interference with English
sailing vessels should absolutely cease"
To permit the capture of British ships
engaged in lawful occupation on the high
seas in time of peace by foreign cruisers,
Lord Salisbury could not afford. Sub
mission to such captures would send any
English ministry into retirement tomor-
row. If our cruisers capture British
sealers we shall get prompt protest and
warning from Lord Salisbury. To per-
sist after such warning would mean war,
and all the disasters that war implies be-
tween two great commercial nations who
have every motive of humanity and sound
political policy to be lasting friends.
The truth might as well be spoken at
once; We have no case in this Boring sea
matter outside of the three-mile limit. ex-
cept what the general consensus of in
terested nations, like Great Britain, may
choose to grant US. As right We can
claim nothing; and we are in no condi-
ton to extort anything by might that we
cannot fairly claim as right.
Lord Salisbury has consented to arbi-
trate; he can afford it, he knows that on
its merits We have no case, for
no sound master of international
law will for moment entertain
seriously f. J. Phelps fantastic claim
that the United States can claim any more
extensive rights for the protection of her
seals than she can for any other repre-
sentatives of ferGe ndtWae: the common
law view place seals with whales, shad,
salmon, and this is common-sense. 1t is
go" but go he must unless Great Britain
and other interested countries choose to
grant some special concessions TO secure
his preservation. As matter of riqht
there is nothing TO srbitrate, and Lord
Salisbury knows that the tribunal of
arbitration will say so as promptly as
jury that reaches verdict without leaving
their seats.
As n matter OF prudence, our govern
ment will do well to refrain from seizing
any British sealers in Bering sea. unless it
desires TO hear q renewal of the orders
Hands oar from Lord Salisbury. To
obey this order would be humiliating; to
disobey it would be dangerous. If our
government is wise We will not give Lord
Salisbury chance to put US in the wrong,
and then force US either 10 call off our dog,
which will be notifying, or to see him
put 10 flight.