The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-03-10
PROTECTION FOR THE SEALS.
Correspondence Between the United
States and Great Britain.
ENGLANB'S DISPOSITION FOR DELAY.
President HarrisOR'S Determined POliey-imerican
Sealing Grounds to Be PrOteeted-IigOr.
GUS Measures TO Be Pursued.
Special 70 I'VE MoNNINa CALL


WASHINGTON. March 9.-The President
to-day sent to the Senate the correspondence
In regard to the Bering Sea question cover
Ing the period from April 90 1891, to the
date Of the recent correspondence. The
most important letters are two from Sir
Julian Pauncefote under dates of Febru-
ary 90 and March and his reply
sent yesterday. In his note of Febru-
ary 30 Sir Julian Informs Mr..
Blaine that Lord Salisbury does not admit,
as previously indicated by Mr.. Blaine, that
the delays lave been greater on the part of
Great Britain than the United States He
says the British Commissioners have re-
ported that there was DO danger of serious
diminution of the seals. and therefore the
necessity for q modus yiyendi is not ap-
parent. Still. he would not object to a pro-
hibition limited to a zone of not more than
thirty miles around Pribyloff islands. pro-
vided the catch on the islands be limited TO
10000
In his note of March Sir Julian pre-
sents arguments in support of Lord Sails
bury's refusal TO accede TO another modus
viviendi. He says he first agreed TO it under
the stipulation that the measure could not
be repealed, aud there is no apparent dam
ger to the seal species. He adds: The zone
proposed is more extensive than that men,
toned by Blaine on March 16, 1891, and the
anticipation OF conflicts, considered in the
note of May l. 1891, has been met by the
provision of tie Bering Sea act Of the court
and the order in council.
Wharton's Reply to Salisbury.
In the response sent yesterday Assistant
Secretary Wharton states that the President
notices with the deepest regret the indis-
of har iu'c tn
agree upon an effective moduS for the pres
eTvaticn of the seals in the Bering Sea
pending the settlement OF the respective
rights of the two Governments in these
waters and in the four seal fisheries therein
He calls attention to the fact that the
treaty OF arbitration awaits only the action
OF the American Senate. and the judgment
OF the arbitration tribunal cannot be stated
in time to control the conduct OF the sealers
during the present season. THE urgent
question" he says, "is what does good
faith to say nothing of international comity.
require of the parties to the arbitration?
Was it very hard before" he asked. that
one party to such a controversy, whether
nation or individual, could appropriate the
whole or any part of the income and profits,
much less the body of the contested prop
erty, pending litigation without acc0unta-
bility ?'
The Property Damaged.
1t is no answer for the trespasser it is
contended TO say the true owner will have
al undiminished harvest next year. Last
year the harvest was his also. and further.
this Government has already been advised
that Great Britain repudiates all obligations
to indemnify us for any invasion of the
jurisdiction or any injury done to its sealing
property by Canadian sealers.
In conclusion it is stated that this Gov
ernment will honoTably abide the
judgment of the arbitration tribunal
which has been agreed upon,
whether that judgment be favorable or
uBfavorable, and will not seek to avoid the
just responsibility for any ofsits acts which
by that Judgment are found to be unlawful.
But certainly the United States cannot be
expected to suspend its defense, by such
means as are within It's power of the
property and jurisdictional rights claimed
by 1t pending arbitration and to consent to
receive them from the tribunal il awarded,
shorn Of much their value by acts Of ire
epopsihla nprsnnS