The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-05-11
THE BEHRING SEA CASE.

|
! held the opinion that the whole business
was a piece OF Jingoism got up by MI
blaine in conformity with his ineradica-
bic propensity for the sensational VII"
no merit whatever I'm the posiuoh ne
took. The leading article In the "ay
number OF the North American Review
is an elaborate exposition OF the United
| States side Of the case by the Hon.
| BENJAMIN w. Tracy. Secretary OF the
| Navy during Mr. Harrison's administra-
| ton. MIR. Tracys department was es-
pecially concerned in the discussion whilst
Z, was in its diplomatic form, and II may
therefore. be confidently assumed that
| Mr. Tracy was fully apprised OF all the
facts and the American views on those
facts. In reading his article we feel
therefore that we are considering all
that is worth attention that Will be pre-
scented 10 the international court
Whilst Mr.. Blaine was conducting the
controversy with Great Britain he placed
the right Of this Government to seize Cam
adam sealers upon three grounds. First
that Behring Sea was a closed sea- De
longing Jointly 10 the United states anu
Russia. Second. that the seals were our
property. and we had the right to protect
our property I'm any and all places ana
third. that the dictates Of humanity au-
thorized us to protect them from the
brutal and indiscriminate slaughter OF
the mother seals aimed at by the sealers'
Mr.. Tracy very wisely wholly aban-
dons the "closed sea" proposition, ana
the humanity one is used only as an ac-
cessory TO the third He places his whole
case upon the proposition that the seals
are our property, and that we have the
right to protect our property in the open
sea. outside the three-miles line, within
which the law Of nations gives us
jurisdiction.
BY the laws OF England and America
and, we believe, by the laws OF every
civilized country, a man may undoubtedly
acquire property rights in wild animals
animals ferae naturae, as they are called.
And under certain conditions this prop
erty right in these animals must be re-
spected by other men. If wild swans
frequent pond on man $
farm in Worcestershire. England,
and the owner Of the pond succeeds
in getting hold Of them and marks them
as his own, his neighbor must respect
his property rights in those swans If
they happen to fly over and ahght IN
the pond Of that neighbor.
SO. If a man in Worcestershire have
wild animals Of any sort on his property
which have habit Of wandering of. but
always with an intention of coming back
as pigeons and bees, for instance, all
other persons in England must respect
his property rights in those creatures.
In the one case his property grows out
Of the fact that he has actually taken
possession Of the creature at one time,
and marked him for his own, and in the
other, that his land is the home which
the animal has adopted for his home, and,
whenever he leaves 1t, it is with the in
tention of returning TO that home. The
mark makes the property in the one in
other. Mr.. Tracy argues that our islands
are the seals home and that whenever
they leave, It is with the intention Of
returning TO their home, and that this
justihes us in going out to sea TO meet
them on their return as far as the neces-
stiles Of the case require.
This is very plausible and taking way
Of stating the case, but it wholly ignores
a most important factor in the problem.
The law-makng power Of England
makes law for every foot Of English
soil. It may. therefore, ordain that
property right belonging to a man in
Gloucestershire shall be respected by
another I'm Herefordshire, because all
are under the central jurisdiction, and it
can make the law what it pleases for
all.
But, suppose the swan instead Of
alighting in Herefordshre. flies across the
channel. and alights upon the farm of a
Frenchman. Would any one contend that
the Frenchman was under an obligation |
to respect the Englishman's right OF
property? OF course not 1t would be
the same II he alighted upon the ocean |
five miles away from English territory /
He would then be upon common domain, |
and whoever passed would be subject 10 |
the laws of his own country, owing no |
obedience whatever TO the laws Of any |
other country. And though, when swim |
ming there upon the bosom Of the ocean. |
an Englishman would be required to re-
spect the mark Of the so-called owner |
Of the bird. to the subject of any other |
power he would be wild game. This. then. |
is exactly the case Of our seals. TO |
Americans. they are property of the |
United States Government. To citizens |
or subjects Of all other powers they are |
simply wild game.
A word, now. as TO Mr.. Tracy's PROPOSE !
tion that the laws of nations justify us /
in going beyond the three-mile line. if the !
necessities Of the case demand it. Mr. |
Tracy is totally wrong about this. The |
laws Of nations justify us in using force /
within the three-mile line only
Cases such as he puts are cases in /
which a nation may prefer TO 80 TO war |
rather than abide by the laws of nations |
but international law does not therefore /
Justify the act For instance he cites this |
case:
Suppose, says he. Englishmen should