New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-05-26
THOSE BEHRlNG SEA CLAIMS
SENATOR MORGAN AMAZED AT ihH
ADMINISTRATIONS ACTION

NEGOTIATIONS AND THEIR VALIDITY
WAS NOT PASSED UPON
fry TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuNEl
v.s,,,c,,n Nav g-Speakng of some recent
-has.s ~ the Behring controversy. senator
Morgan, OF Alabama. says; - .Xo
.tr nearly all of the newspaper discussions Oh 'n
present attitude Of the Behring sea an" ~
question IL Is assumed. without the ie"s'
IN the real state Of facts that the aw"'u MAJ -"
p.r,s cxoa a liability on the United states lof 'ne
..I,ure NJ vessels made by President CIe'eianu
order during his first Administration nv 80
t,on of such liability expressly withui""" ~
the consideration Of the Tribunal of Arbtra''on' !"
,ha, auard II was stated that In pursuance vi an
.a,..,nsnt between tho two Governments. the pueS-
t,on az IN the value OF the said vessels OF 'he' gun
tents or either OF them, ana the qu's'o" .
whether the vessels mentioned IN the S'",'. f.,
the British case. any Of them were "noy V,
mart the actual property OF citizens OF the 'h''e
Go h,v. becn Withdrawn from and have no,
boen considered by the tribunal II being uhders,oo"
that II IL open to the United states TO ra'Se ''
questions or any Of them. II they think nt' IN any
future negotiations as to the liability OF the h''"
States Government to pay the amounts '''"'
an the schedule to the British case >,
81, could not be possible that the trbunai cou'n
directly or indirectly fix liability upon ,ne '"'e'
States for the seizure Of those vessels me W.
zion OF such Liability was left entirely open ny Wv
award which followed the agreement OF the TWO
Governments for future negotiations. heko''"
.,o, 70 no binding on the Government or the 'h'eu
States must take the form Of an agreement anu
must be ratified by vote OF tWo-'hl'uS Vi '''' W
ate before 1t can become obligatory upon '.' Wv
eminent This alleged liability arose out OF po'
lev tina, Mr. Cleveland originated In the seizure OF
49, reaching vessels of the Canadians That poncy
met nv earnest approval and support anu wa"
kept steadily in view at least ny nv ~ =.
were dealing with the questions supih''eu ~ Wv
rribunal of Arbitration | was greatly SURPRISED
have
rri,a,n N nav s,c5 900 as damages, without any
s,atement or exposition from that Government OF
the grounds on which such claim was fouhueu' y
negotiation would have disclosed the grouhds o'
which the claim ~ based and would proven, many
POSSIBLE controversies in the future as TO such mat
ters 49,,
"This diplomatic procedure was evidently based
On the ground that the award OF the aro'ra'ors hau
decided the question Of liability FOR these aIes'"
Injuries adversely TO the United states. ihsIs'
most earnestly that such an admission by our 'oV-
eminent is not warranted by the facts No such
effect can be gwen 10 the award. either as res adj
3udicata or az settling any principle adversely TO
The United States from which such judgment
could properly result.
"Article s Of the Treaty under which the arh-
tration was held provides that, the high contract
Ing parties having found themselves unable 10
sgree upon reference which shall include the
question OF the liability OF each for injuries aieseu
70 have been sustained by the other. or 10y It's
citizens in connection with the claims presented
Nv and urged by II. and being sol.cous that this
subordinate question should not interrupt or longer
DELAY the submission and determination or the
main question. do agree that either may suoini,
TO the arbitrators any question OF fact involved
IN said claims and ask for finding thereon; the
question OF the liability OF either Government
upon the facts found to be the subject OF further
negotiation The award was exactly In pursuance
o, this treaty stipulation. and the facts FOUND
we're agreed upon by both Governments as OASIS
OF further negotiations without any reference TO-
or any effect upon. the question OF the liability
Of either Government to the other, or 10 the cil-
Gems o subjects OF either.
Fearing that some disadvantage to the United
States might arise out OF the finding OF facts. so
that they might be made TO pay their own citizens
for the violation OF their laws committed under
the shelter the British flag. the award provided
carefully against such result by leaving that
matter and all others relating TO the liability OF
either Government for any act done before the
arbitration held as an open subject Tor future
negotiations The tribunal was very cautious
not to assume any legislative functions In provid-
ing regulations for pelagc hunting. The TWO
Governments expressed the most sincere desire TO
protect seal life. and the tribunal could not assume
that either OF them would omit TO do all that was
needful to carry inro effect the restrictions upon
pe,agic hunting that were enjoned upon them by
the award The alleged determination by the TIL
bunal OF rights or principles that relate TO the
the question OF the liability OF the United States
for these supposed injuries. are as conclusive OF
the right OF the United States and her citizens 10
damages for injuries sustained In connection with
the claims presented and urged by it as they are
IN connection with such claims presented and
urged by Great Britain for the seizure OF their
fishing vessels Such claim was presented In
the OF the United States. az submitted to the
arbitrators. amounting TO as much as 10000. That
claim was left open by the treaty and the award
Cor further negotiation 1t IL still open ana IL
stili valid. II 1, was ever valid and Is not affected
by anything that was Included In. or omitted from.
the award of the Tribunal OF Arbitration.
"That Tribunal could not conclusively settle any
question Of international law. II could only Apply
the principles OF law. whether they were municipal
between Great Britain and the United States.
Both Governments agreed IN the treaty that the
fur seals should be protected and preserved against
determination or undue depletion of numbers. The
United States claimed the right and power TO pro
tect them owner. either In fun property right
or under qualified right OF property based on the
port and OF selecting them for slaughter so as not
Britain controversial this alleged right Of property
and protection. except within the territorial do,
Of the right Of the United States TO protect the
seals against the British pelagic hunter on the
srnment In the event that this contention of the
United States was disallowed by the tribunal 1t
was agreed that then the arbtrators should deter
mine what concurrent regulations. outside the
1rsdiconal limits OF the respective
walton Of the fur seal In or habituay resorting TO
the Rehring Sea.
"These regulations were 10 be executed and en-
forced by both Governments because the Tribunal
could not enact laws for either Government But
the regulations Did not establish international
laws and they left every subject and every ques-
tion untouched. except only the concurrent regua.
tions that each Government agreed to adopt and
enforce when II agreed. in advance of the award
10 accept II a final and conclusive settlement
of the duties 1t owed to the other Government
The Tribunal of Arbitration in declaring these
duties with reference to pe,agc seal huntin used
the mandatory form OF entoning their enforcement
tpon the respective Governments thus: THE Gov
ernments OF the United States and OF Great
Britain shall forbid their citizens and subjects
respectively. to KILL capture or pursue at any time
and In any whatever the animals com
monty called fur seals within OF sixty miles
around the Pribylon Islands. inclusive OF the terri
torlal waters
the governments. with qualifications to Other
ocean areas. This is not International law. II IL