The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-23
IS HONOR NOTHING,

To the Editor of the Globe.
The general American view, and have no
doubt it is the administration view, OF our
position in the seal controversy Is, think,
that the seals are our property and that we
bought them from Russia with the Alaskan
territory, they being at the time of the pur-
chase the only thing of known value in the
entire territory. Our neighbors, the Canad-
ians, claim the right to kill cur seals on
their way from the common of the open sea
to their homes on our islands. To find
parallel case, let us suppose that farmer
buys farm from a nonresident and with 1t
buys the cattle and hogs upon 1t. 1t Is the
habit of the animals to wander on the farm
and feed upon the open land lying round
about, but they return to their home place
at regular intervals. Near by lives neigh
Dor who insists on treating these animals as
wild game when he finds them upon the
commons on the highway leading to. their
owners farm, and who goes out and slaugh-
tiers them for his own benefit. In vain the
owner protests that they are not Wild game,
but are his private property. The neighbor
continues to depredate upon the stock. Has
he any moral right to do so, and has not the
owner Of the animals right to restrain MIN
by force, if necessary?
For the sake Of making a few thousand
dollars from the sale Of seal skins, the
Canadians are willing to destroy all the seal
life in the North Pacific. Must the United
States, from feeling Of neighborly friend
ship, allow them to commit this outrage?
-E. V. Smalley.
We find Mr.. Smalley's position not
merely untenable, but simply unintel-
ligible, supposing US TO be an honorable
nation. The question that he raises as
to the nature Of the fur bearing seal,
whether these animals are ferae ma
turae or not, was submitted to the arbi-
tration tribunal, and all that straw was
threshed out there. It does not make
any difference whatever, 1t has no pos
sible application to the case, whether
his analogy between the seal and the
domestic animal is true one or not.
The sole question that applies to the
issue that he raises is-shall a man or
a nation that has submitted case to
a tribunal Of last resort and found the
verdict unfavorable, submit to the de-
passes our comprehension to under
stand how any one can so much as ask
the question.
1t was open to US, when the Canadian
poachers began to ravage the seal herds
in the waters about our Alaskan pos
sessions, to go to war about it If we
wished We did apprehend their YES
sells and confscate cargoes, and both
sides claimed damages. That was the
time to fight if we meant to fight. We
said that we would submit the matter
to arbitration. Since that consent In
wolves and solemnly pledges assent to
the decision Of the arbitrating body,
there is nothing more left to talk about.
The arbitrator went over the whole
subject matter and considered all the
matters presented by Mr.. Smalley.
They gave their decision against u.s.
We may still think that we were right,
but hoW, as self-respecting people,
can we dream Of or even hint at refus-
ing to abide by the decision of the
court Of our own election? Not only
would such a course be the end Of all
possible arbitration in the future, not
only would it run counter to the ten
dency of civilization, but it would brand
the United States throughout the civil
lied world as liar and defaulter on
its pledged word. The proposition no
more admits Of discussion than the sug-
gestion that. as between individuals,
a man may deliberately break an obi
cation entered into with every solemn
covenant when he finds that it would be
to his pecuniary interest to do so. 1t
is question of honor. Is that nothing?