St. Paul daily globe., 1892-03-13

tinct from the Pacific ocean. This is
the Judgment of the civilized world as
to what was commonly called the Pa
cific ocean" at that time, and is conelu-
Sive.
. The Baron Tuyl Incident.
q 1t appears that some months after the
Russo American treaty had been negO-
tiated, but just before the exchange of
ratifications, Baron Tuyl, the Russian
minister to the United States, under in
structions from his government. sub
nitted to Mr.. Adams the following
note: "EXplanatory note to be pre-
sented to the government of the United
States at the time of the exchange OF
ratifications, with view to removing
with more certainty all occasion for
future discussions; by means of which
note it will be seen that the Aleutian
islands, the coasts of Siberia and the
Russian possessions in general on the
deg 80 min of north latitude are pos
itiyely excepted from the liberty of
hunting, fishing and commerce stipu-
lated in favor of the citizens Of the
United States for ten years.
''ChiS seems to be only natural con-
sequence of the stipulations agreed
upon. for the coasts of Siberia are
washed by the Sea of OkhotSk, the Sea
of Kamtschatka and the Icy sea, and
not by the South sea mentioned in the
first article of the convention of April
5-l7, 1924. The Aleutian islands are
also washed by the Sea of Kamtschatka,
or Northern ocean.
sit is not the intention of Russia to
impede the navigation of the Pacific
ocean. She would be satisfied with
causing to be recognized, as well as un-
derstood and placed beyond all manner
of doubt, the principle that beyond
[south of SO deg 80 min no foreign
vessel eau approach her coasts and her
islands, nor fish or hunt within the dis
tance of two marine leagues. This will
not prevent the reception Of foreign
vessels which have been damaged or
beaten by Storm"
Salisbury Lays Down the Law.
In his letter of Aug. 2, 1890, Lord
Salisbury aptly says:
A claim of jurisdiction over the open sea,
which is not in accordance with the recog-
niZed principles OF international law or
usage, may of course, be asserted by force,
but cannot be said to have any legal validity
as against vessels of other countries, except
in so fer as it is positively admitted by con-
ventional agreements between those coun-
tries.
But, it may be observed in this con-
nectiOn, that where conventional
agreement, on its face. bears a reason
able construction in favor OF such
claim, and where the same is openly
maintained for long term of years
without notice or protest from the other
party to the convention, in such a case
it is fair to conclude that the said party
recognizes the claim.
g Conclusions.
= 1t thus appears that Russia exercised
exclusive jurisdiction in Behring sea up
to the year 1867, and that the said right
was recognized by conventions with the
UNITED States and England. In another
sale of that jurisdiction to the United
States, its full and formal assertion by
congress, and how it is today maintained
unmolested by Russia in her part of
Behring sea.
In the presence of such prima facie
rights as the United States have in Beh-
ring sea, the question arises as to what
fright England has to enter upon and en-
/ JOY the profits of the sealing industry
there, pending discussion as to the
validity of the rights claimed by the
United States. When she insists upon
sharing our property while we discuss
the question of ownership, and boldly
asks us to restrict sealing on the land
and inside the three-mile limit where
there is no question as to our right, it
begins to look as though "the boot were
Oh the wrong foot"
And furthermore, in the face of posi-
biIity that the United States have no
exclusive rights in Behring sea, possi-
bility which we seem to be extremely
anxious to discuss with other nations
who would have right to catch seals
there, whati is the use of carrying on the
discussion with England alone? How
has she come to be the agent for all of
the maritime nations of the world? To
what extent are the rights of the United
States jeopardized as against those ma
ti0ns by confning the discussion to one
OF them? w. A. JONES.