The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-03-14
No: Wholly q Behring Sea Question.

No. Wholly q Behring Sea Question.
Lord SAb1sBuRY's proposal in lieu OF a
renewal OF the modus rircndi. pending arbi-
tration OF the Eehring Sea dispute. Is char
actc,iacd rs prcposterous by most OF our
contemporaries who arc not habitually in
sympathy with tho efforts OF British diplo-
macy. 1t is ptcposterous. but 1t is very
Rdroit. 1t serves to raise n new point that
divcrts attention from the treaty itself.
willie that document Is yet unratitled.
Instead Of continuing lust years agree-
mcnt to prevent poaching and the reckless
destruction of the seals until the questions
involved are settled. Lord SALISBURY pro-
poses n thirty-n,ile radius Of protection
around the islands. Outside OF that thirty
milo line the slaughter would go on unre-
strictcd. to the immediate profit Of the
Canadian poachcrs and to the certain and
speedy extinction of an animal immensely
valuable to the human race.
Tho right to protect the lives OF the seals
away from the Pribylov islands depends
on one OF two things: First, American iu-
risdiction over the entire waters OF Behring
Sea east Of the line defined at the time OF
purchase from Russia: or. secondly. tho
right and duty to interfere anywhere on
tho high seas with II pursuit shown to be
nyainst public policy. good morals. and the
common welfare. Tho suppression OF piracy
and tho suppression Of the slave trade are
instances in which this underlined and In
delinnbc right have been exercised. Mr.
BLAINE has added another striking Illus
tration In his supposed cnse Of the whole
sale destruction with dynamite of the fish
colonies on the Newfoundland banks.
The first proposition. namely. that our
maritime jurisdiction covers Behring Sea.
Is strenuously denied by Great Britain. II
Russia had the right to convey to us exclu-
sive jurisdiction in Behring Sea beyond the
threc-m!r limit We undoubtedly acquired
tho right to exercise such jurisdiction. But
although exclusive jurisdiction has not been
asserted very asgressively from Washing
ton during the negotiations preliminary to
tho proposed arbitration. tho arbitration.
us shaped by the provisions OF the treaty
a. 1t stands. will concern itself chiefly with
that aspect OF tho case. Four Of the five
questions formulated for decision at Paris
refer to the question OF exclusive American
jurisdiction in Echring Sea. The fifth
merely asks whether tho United States have
any property right In the seals when the
animals are found in Behring Sea outside Of
the thrce-milc limit.
Mr.. HENRY W. ELLIOTT Of the Smithso-
ninn Institution. the man who OF all men
living knows most about the habits OF
the Alaskan fur seal. and whose devoted
and disiuterestcd study Of the question for
more than twenty years makes his utter
ances OH the subject authoritative. il not
final. has shown very clearly that some
thing more than the effective policing OF
BChrlng Sea is required II the fur seal is to
be preserved from determination by Cana
dian greed. The eeals from the Pribylov
islands make great sweep annually down
through the Aleutian islands. southwark
to tho latitude OF San Francisco and be-
yond, and back along the American. Cana
dian, and Alaskan coast line to their place
of breeding
The plain fact. so strangely overlooked by
most of those who undertake to discuss the
subject. is that even IL the pelagic slaughter
of the seals should be prevented in Behring
Sea- either by the establishment OF our ex-
elusive jurisdiction there or by a joint ar
rGnsemcnt with Great Britain, the Cana
dian industry OF determination would only
be transferred to the open Pacific. south OF
the AleItian archipelago. We could prevent
1t in tho open Pacific as against our own
citizens. We could not prevent it there as
against the Canadians. or any other for
egIers. particularly after we had gone
through tho form and farce Of an arbitra-
ton that did not touch the vital point OF the
question.
Instead Of getting into heat over the
matter OF the renewal of the modus rirendi
md the fairness or unfairness. logical
soundncss or unreasonablcncss. OF Lord
SALIsEURT'S present attitude. it is high
time that attention was turned to the merits
Of the treaty Itself.
1t looks very much as though we were
preparing either for probable diplomatic
defeat ut Paris on tho on-essental Ques-
ton OF exclusive Jurisdiction. or for pos
sih'o diplomatic victory on that question.
barren in its results rs affecting the future
VI tho fur SEAL and therefore disastrous to
tho most valuable part OF our Alaskan
y0espssiDns