The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-05
ENGLAND AND THE BERING SEA
AWARD.

The London Standard. the leading
Conservative organ in Great Britain. in
its comments on the Venezuelan passage
in the Presidents message, says: Even
II we are eager for arbitration the ex-'
perience in the Boring sea controversy
would hardly encourage u.s." The in
ference is that the United States has
repudiated, violated or in some way
failed to comply with the award Of the
arbitrators in the Boring sea dispute.
The implication shows either ignorance
of the facts on the part of the London
paper or a purpose to misrepresent
them. 1t evidently means to imply
that the ar5itrators awarded damages
against the United States which the lat
ter has refused to pay. This is not true.
If either party has violated the spirit
of the award that charge lies against
the British government
The award of the Boring sea tribunal,
as announced in August, 1893, and formu
lated in a treaty which was ratified by
both governments, was against the
United States on the claim of proprie-
tary right in the seals and exclusive
Jurisdiction over the animals beyond
the three-mile limit. 1t followed that a
claim for damages should lie against the
United States for seizures of British
sealing vessels which had been made
beyond that limit. The award estab-
lished this principle. but did not esti-
mate the damages. 1t made the United
States liable to pay something. but did
not say how much. The amount OF
damages was left open for further dip
lomatic action. The late Secretary
Gresham undertook to settle 1T by agree
ing on behalf of the United States TO
pay a lump sum of $4,000. but Con-
gress refused to ratify the agreement
on the ground that the sum was grossly
excessive. AS Congress had not author
lied the Secretary to settle the matter
in that way his agreement had no bind
ing force until approved by Congress.
and the refusal of Congress to ratify 1T
was in no sense the reputation Of an
obligation. Even Mr.. Cleveland, who
heartily approved of the Gresham agree
ment at the time 1t was made, tacitly
admits that it was not binding on Con-
gress. In his recent message he says:
The understanding by which the United
States was 10 pay. and Great Britain TO re-
ceive a lump sum OF $425,V0o In fuli settle
ment of all British claims for damages arts
ing from our seizure OF British sealing YES
seis unauthorized under the award or the
Paris tribunal of arbitration was not con-
firmed by the last Congress, which declined
10 make the necessary appropriation. / am
still of the opinion that this arrangement
was a judicious and advantageous one Tor
the government and / earnestly recommend
that IL be again considered and sanctioned.
II however, this does not meet with the
favor OF Congress, IL certainly Will hardly
dissent from the proposition that the gov
honor and good faith to provide for the
speedy adjustment OF these claims by arb.-
tration as the only other alternative.
The Presidents designation OF the
Gresham proposition as IAN understand
ing is disingenuoQs. There could be no
understanding In a proper sense until
Congress had ratified the proposition.
IL follows that the United States has not
repudiated any obligation. 1t recognized
its liability for damages. under the
award of the Paris tribunal. and will
pay whatever sum may finally be found
due either by ordinary diplomatic
means or by arbitration.
II does not lie with the British gov
eminent or with British paper to
charge the United States with having
violated the award of the Paris tribunal.