The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-08-18
The Effect of the Behring Sea Decision.

Among those thoroughly acquainted with
the antecedent circumstances. there can be
no difference Of opinion regarding the pur-
port OF the decision rendered in the Behring
Sea affair by the Tribunal OF Arbitration.
The arbitrators were appointed to settle
questions in international law pending be-
tween the United States and Great Britain.
The United States had seized certain Cana
dian vessels engaged In seal fishing out
side OF the thrce-mile limit. which has been
usually held to mark the maritime jurisdic-
tion Of the nation owning the nearest land.
This act must have been regarded as
casus belli. unless it had been atoned for
by apology and indemnity. or unless an
. agreement could be reached that dis
interested third parties should decide on
the rightfulncss OF the seizure. Tho
latter course was followed and our State
Department instructed counsel to con-
tend. FIRST that Behring Sea was virtually
q mare cinusum. over which. by ccssiop
from Russia. the United States had ac-
Qulred exclusive jurisdiction; secondly,
that. waving the question of jurisdiction,
the United States possessed a special right
OF property In the seals resortlng for breed
ing purposes to tho Pribylov Islands. on
the ground that such seals were not ferB
nature. but were governed by peculiar
"homing instinct" and were 80 far domes-
tlcated animals as to give rise to a right OF
property In them. such as would justify the
owner in following and protecting them on
the high seas. without regard to tho ordl-
narythree-mile limit. Both OF these claims
have been pronounced untenable by the ar
bitrators. and 1t follows that our seizure OF
Canadian vessels must be atoned for by a
pecuniary indemnity.
Such was the primary and fundamental
purpose OF the arbitration. The regulation
OF seal fishing 30 far as this can be regu-
lated by u decision binding on only the two
powers represented before the arbitratng
tribunal. was essentially an afterthought.
Had the arbitrators sustained the claims
OF the United States seal fishing within
Behrng Sea would have been regu-
lated by American municipal law. Appre-
bending. however. an adverse decision, our
State Department prevailed upon tho
British Foreign Ofice to agree that, In case
the arbitrators should reject our pretensions
to exclusive Jurisdiction over Behring Sea,
and to special property In the seals. they
should be empowered to frame regulations
OF the seal fishery which would. of course, DO
binding 80 far as the United States and
Great Britain are concerned. That this was
an afterthought Is clear from the fact that
a resort to arbitration was not tho natural
or most effective method OF safeguarding
seal life. That purpose could have been
best carried out by a conference. not OF two
powers. but OF all the powers having terri
tories bordering upon the North Pacific.
AS 1t is neither Russia. nor Japan. nor
China. nor Spain. nor Holland-we mention
these last-named two powers because YES
sci could be equipped for tho seal fishery as
well In Manila or Batavia as 1t can be In Vic !
toria-is In the least affected by the regu-
lations prescribing close season and a pro-
tected zone Unless all tho powers contigu- |
ous to the North Pacific choose to accept the |
regulations binding on Gloat Britain and |
tho United States alone-and they would |