Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-09-18
THE BERING SEA DISPUTE.
The London Times Publishes the Corespon-
dence About Il.



iohuon' sept. lh-Ihe Ilmes TINS
morning publishes the gist of the cor
respondence betwaen secretarv sbar-
,,,,, -, es,,-,i'.'.' -. 49, -.
''''''' ''iiu i1''u "a''spuiS d" ''e Peii"s
sea controversy. The book covers a
period beginning in 1895 and ending
with JuIv 90th of tho nrassrt ,,oar Al
,..,.t,>, -. = - a.
'os't"ei 'here are tWeh'E-seNeh us
patches winch show that the United
States has pressed for revision since
January. 1895.
The Times remarks; "Though Mr..
sherman SO far forgot himself as TO
sign the famous dispatch, we cannot
suppose that he actually wrote il"
only the concluding parnrrnnh of the
dispatch Is repubIished ri The terms
deemed discoilrteous being omitted.
The Times then adds: Lord Salisbury
wisely refrained from answering this
dispatch i'm detail. He confined himself
to impartinc n short note to Embassa-
dor TInv dated JuIv 2s 1897. stating
that the government was willing to
agree to meeting of EXPERTS in Octo-
her. preferably in Washington, and
that other portions of MIR, ShermanS
dIspatch in so far ms they required
any reply from her matesty's govern
ment. had been answered by anticipa-
tion in dispatches he Gord Salisbury
had addressed to Sir Julian Paunce-
fote on April 22nd and May It'll, which
had been communicated to the govern
ment of the United States ON July
2Gth"
In long letter from the colonial
office to the foreign office, signed Ed
ward Wingfleld, occupying four col
umns of small print, the Times deals
with Mr.. Shermnn's dispatch In detail.
In this document, which Is prepared by
Mr. Chamberlain. the Inter points out
that Mr.. Sherman's contention that the
hoo a
been practically accomplished cannot
have come to pass, ms in that case
there would be nothing at all to form
the subject matter or negotiations
The document proceeds; Lord sal
isburY pointed out IN May that the
English interests had Tor some years
exceeded the American IN the III seal
Ing industry II cannot therefore, be
for the advantage oil the BRUSH gov
ernment or those Whum II fepreseits
that the seals snoulu ne eNteIinlnuttu'
MI ChhnperlalhcontehuS TINT hreut
Britain has taken adequate measures
much more complete in some dlrec-
tons than those ADOPTED ny the I.rl'eH
states Tor securing the enforcement OF
the Paris regulations ana says II was
never intended by the rlnuhal OF arpl-
tratlon that the uhl'eu states o'l, Srs
should be given t"e power OF SUI VS.
ing and controlling the action OF hIlt-
| ish naval ana customs oitcers with re-
The British government, he asserts.
| mas poriormedwith me utmost ilsot
a' tne requirements OF ne aWur-i p ti
IL mas hah TO NUKE cohtihuhl uHuNt,l-
| inE protests agnlhst tne alIet'ipts o! the
United states 10 h1mper anu emnai ass
the operations or BRUSH SUBJECTS pur-
suing their ihwiul Nocauohs;
| But tne ihct' continues Mr' Sna'n-
perlalh, that IN splte OF these ehiohr-
| easements BRUSH senlers nave been
able to prosecute their industry sue
cesstully mas ied 10 continued eio.t py
the unitd stats TO obain such iur-
ther regulations as would effectively
prevent that result without regard TO
the objects OF the award:
| TheColonial office concludes MS fol-
| lows The government has never
argued that the regulations are perfect;
| but 1t has maintained that before they
can be revised. accurate information as
I N npprpuSn