The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-17
SECRETARY sHERMAN,s DISPATCH.

There is no occasion whatever for the
outburst of British buster and jingoism
over Secretary Sherman's dispatch regard
ing the course and attitude of Great
Britain on the seal question. The out
break is almost as violent as was that on
the Venezuelan question, and is as charac-
teristic bit of British turbulence. But a
little reflection will show how small occa-
sion there is for it. The comments of the
British press, it will be observed are di-
rected almost exclusively to the form and
phraseology of Secretary Sherman's letter.
They object to it's undiplomatic language,
it's studied discourtesy of expression, etc.
The secretary's dispatch may be in UNI
diplomatic form in the sense that it is in
plain, outspoken English, but there is moth
ing discourteous in it, still less anything in
sulting. 1t is couched in such language as
one business man or one attorney would
naturally use in urging a contention where
he thought he was right. The language of
diplomacy is different from any other lam
guage, it's main object generally being to
distort facts and cover up the truth in a
multitude of words. In this sense the sec
retarys dispatch may be in undipiomatic
language, for he puts his points in very
plain English. But admitting that it is not
couched in diplomatic language the British
press has no right to take offense at it. The
dispatch was not addressed to the British
premier, but to Minister Hay. 1t was a let
ter of instruction from the American secre-
tary of state to the American minister.
True, the minister to convey a copy of
the instruction to the British premier, but
the dispatch was addressed primarily to
the minister.
After all. however, the question of diplo
matte form or expression is of little conse-
quence. The real question is whether ecre-
tary Sherman is right or not in the main
contention that the British government has
pursued dilatory and disingenuous policy
on the seals question and has failed to do
it's part in carrying out a joint agreement
for the preservation of the seals. If this
is true, Secretary Sherman is justified in
stating the fact, and if he does it in plain
English rather than in diplomatic phrase
ology, so much the better. The gravamen
of the secretary's charge is that the British
government had rejected a proposition of
the United States for renewing the agree
ment for the protection of the seals and for
a joint conference of all the powers con-
cerned and had based it's action upon ''un-
substantial and inadequate reasons" One
part of this statement is certainly true,
viz, that the British government has re-
fused to renew the agreement for the pro-
lection of the seals. 1t is also true that the
British government did decline the PROPOSE
ton for joint conference of the powers
interested relative to the adoption of
permanent plan for the protection of the
seals. All this is matter of history, and
Secretary Sherman is justified in stating it
in plain terms. AS to whether the action
of the British government has been based
on "unsubstantial and inadequate reasons"
opinions may differ, but Secretary Sher-
man makes a strong on this point. The
plain truth is that the British government
never has accepted and observed in good
faith the award of the Boring sea tribunal
which sat in Paris in 1893, and Secretary
Sherman's frank reminder of the fact is
what hurts. The awaru offhe tribunal re-
ferred to contained the following:
In view of the critical condition to which
1t appears certain that the race of fur seals
is now reduced in consequence of circum-
stances not fully known, the arbitrators
think fit to recommend both governments
to come to an understanding in order to
prohibit any killing of fur seals, either on
land or sea- for a period of two or three
years, or at least one year, subject TO SUCH
exceptions as the two governments might
think proper to admit.
In pursuance of this recommendation an
agreement was entered into in 1894 between
the United States and Great Britain for the
Joint protection of the seals. This agree
ment was to last for two years. 1t expired
in 1896, and the United States has been try
ing ever since to have it renewed, while
Great Britain has been trying to evade the