Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-04-10
PASSED THIRD READING.
The Bering Sea Bill in the House o.
Commons.

The Berfng Sea Bill In the House of
Commons.
The Boring sea bill, which is causing so
much discussion in Washington, was one of
the first measures to be discussed yesterday
in the house of commons.
Sir George Baden-Powell asked whether
Canada had. agreed to the full detail Of the
Boring sea bill, and, If not what points, in
the opinion of the government of Canads.
need reconsideration. Sir George also asked
whether the government could present the
house with the text of the American bill as
passed at Washington.
Mr.. Sydney Buxton. parliamentary secre-
tary Of the colonial office. in reply said that
communication from Canada on the SUBJ
ject had not been received.
Sir Charles Russell, replying to questions
as to the differences between the American
bill and the British bill, said that he would
explain them on going into committee.
The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain askeS
whether 1t was true that serious difficulties
had arisen between the United States and
Great Britain in reference to the bill, and
he was assured by Sir Charles Russell that
no such difficulties existed. Sir Charles
Russell added that such language was an
exaggeration, and that there was little or
no difference between the two bills.
English and American Bills.
After the house had gone into committee
Of the whole on the measure, Sir Charles
Russell, attorney general, who was of Brit
lsh counsel before the tribunal of arbitra-
ton in Paris, said that certain questions
had been put in the house and certain
statements had appeared In the newspa-
pers which impelled him to make a very
brief statement. He said that If the COM
mittee would permit him he would point out
the differences between the British and
American bills. In section of the Ameri-
can bill was provision for the forfeiture
of a vessel infringing the act. In the Brit
ish bill vessel infringing the terms of the
act was liable to forfeiture, or to be con-
demned to pay a fine of $500.
Inc American bill threw the onus of
PROOF on the accused. In certain cases. Sir
Charles added, that was really more a mat
ter OF form, which did not exist in the En-
British bill.
The latter contained a clause giving the
commander of a British cruiser power to
lndorse a certificate and send the captain
or an offending vessel to port for trial
Sir Charles said that the only other diff
ference he had to note was the clause to
which reference had been made by the
morning papers. That clause had been en-
tirely misunderstood by those who COM
mented upon it in the American papers
subsection Of clause enacted a penalty
against person who sailed for the sealing
grounds before the publication of the pro-
visions or the bill, ana upon whom notice
had been served, but if il was proved that
such captain did not receive notice he would
be acquitted. The comments of the Ameri-
can press contained several serious mis-
takes and misapprehensions in regard to
the effect of this subsection. 1t was said
that vessels might sail for the prescribed
zone before the PRONUNCIATION of the provi-
sionS of the bill. Nothing of the kind would
occur. 1t had been attributed by gentle
man of the United States, who was one of
the arbitrators in Paris, that this clause
had been introduced in bad faith.
This was misrepresentation on the part
of the Senator to whom he referred Tie
clause was in the draft of the bill as orig
lnally drawn up by the Washington gov
eminent AS there was no amendment to
the bill, he hoped the measure would be
allowed to pass its third reading
Sir George Baden-Powell said that the
statement made by Sir Charles was on the
whole. satisfactory, but American Senators
mad seen very serious objections to clause
a. and he failed to understand Sir Charles
explanations in respect to it.
Mr.. Thomas c. Bowles asked whether the
canadian government had agreed unre-
servedly to the bill.
Sir Charles replied: yes there is no uro-
vision for compensation annexed to the
bill"
Continuing, he said that the Canadian
government had most carefully studied the
measure, but he would remark that the
bill was a matter of imperial obligation He
believed that Canada was a consenting
pa y ~ 'iLS UNI II WAS tne ueSlre or the
government TO locally carry out the meas
ure.
Sir Richard Webster, who was attorney
general in Lord Salisbury's last admins
tratlon, and who was also of British coun-
sci before the tribunal of arbitration, sug-
gested that clause might be modified in
the house OF lords so as to make the pro-
vision IL regard to publication more defin-
lite.
Sir Charles Russell assented 10 this
course.
Sir William Vernon Harcourt chancellor
)f the eXcheQuer, and government leader
In the house. appealed to the house to pro-
coed TO the third reading of the measure
The Right Hon. Arthur J. Balfour leader
OF the opposition, said that nobody desired
TO carp at the award. All felt that the
honor of the country was concerned in the
passage OF the bill.