The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1901-08-25
Some Diplomatic History.

1ectS are taken up. namely, the BeDIln
Sea award. the inter-oceanic canal prob
lem. the Samoan question, the Monro
Doctrine. and the northeast coast fisher
les. The book will prove interesting t
anyone concerned with the matters o
which ii treats. In regard to the sea
question the author says:
In the early days of Spanish
and Portuguese exploration and con-
quest, vast oceans were demanded as
the property of the State. With the
growth of the British navy certain eN-
aggerated claims to marine proprie-
tary rights were, for a period ad-
vanced by England. but the spirit of
modern times has been so decidedly
hostile to all attempts to establish do
minion over the sea that TO-DAY civil
ized nations are disposed to tolerate
no infraction, however slight. of the
broad principle of mare liberum. The
ultimate extent to which territorial
waters may be urged in accordance
with the present law of nations in
cludes only marine belt of three
miles along the open coast, and all
harbors and bays whose openings TO
the sea do not exceed in width ten or
twenty miles, or. in general, such
inland bodies of water. the narrowness
of whose entrances from the sea and
whose configuration clearly indicate
them to be closed seas. The United
States has always been conspicuously
foremost in the advocacy of freedom
of the high seas: she was, indeed. the
first to protest against Russian unwil-
lngness to accept these enlightened
principles in the Pacific 1t is to be
regretted that in this matter the
United States should have appeared
before the tribunal and the civilized
world in the unfortunate light OF tax
ing a step backward in order to re-
suscitate and reclothe defunct me-
dieval doctrine.
THE American case supported the
contention that Russia had acquired
dominion over Rehring Sea by prescrlp-
tion-a right or tit,e gained by imme-
mortal use. Alexander had made
formal proclamation of this title IN ms
ukase or III. and counsel contended
that Russia had ever after enjoyed full
and undisturbod possession of her as
serted proprietary right over SehrinE
Sea until by treaty of ldbt she mao
parted with such rights to the United
States. And it was urged that the long
period of time that Russia had remain
ed in open adverse possession OF those
waters, exercising all the privileges a
nation enjoys over territorial eN-
panse of sea without protest or hind
lance. had given her full and com
plote pre- scriptive title-whlch tltle
passed unimpaired to the United
States.
..'The question of Russias undisputed
ring Sea came before the tribunal as
an issue of fact to be proved or dis
proved by weight of evidence, and the
legal aspect of the question OF pre-
scription, its applicability TO the pres
ent case, and its scope ana force as a
principle of the law OF nations, were
not touched upon by the arDitrators.
it may well be doubted that even had
Russia really been left undisturbed,
as alleged in her occupation of Behrlng
Co IN nreSg-rlD-
tive right to its waters would conse-
Quently ensue. There is abundant au-
thority in international law to demon
strate that rights gained through I'M
memorial use do not appertaln TO the
sea All rights of navigation, fishing,
etc. upon the high seas are of ma
ture that do not depend upon constant
use for their validity. They may be
used at will. or never used at an
for non-use cannot imply relinquish-
ment Because nation never sailed
a vessel across the sea may she be
forever denied the privilege? Because
q nation has alone iished In distant
sea NAV she forever bar her neighbor
from fishing there as well? Again, ii
is conceived that prescripuve titles
may be acquired only in such things
as are inherently capable of acqulsi-
ton. always implying an original or
prior grant constituting at least a
color of title. 1t is Incompatible with
the doctrine of the freedom of the high
seas to suppose any one nation IS ca
pable of acquiring rights therein above,
or greater than the common rights OF
all nations Few in time past, and
none today. venture to assert that
Behring Sea falls within that class of
enclosed water which forms an eXcep-
ton to the general rule of mare
iiberum. or open free sea SUCH then,
being the case, IL is almost certain
that even had the fact of universal
acquiescence in Russia's claims OF do
minion north of the Aleutian Islands
been satisfactorily proved, a resulting
prescriptive title would not nave been
accorded by any impartial tribu nal.
The author adds in the conclusion of
his chapter:
IF the seals were in danger of ex-
termination even under the protecting
laws of the Paris award, as Is gener-
ally believed to have been the case,
that danger must now be vastly in
creased, since all restrictions have
been removed. Now, still further to
eggravate the situation, while Cana
dian vessels are accorded perfect free
dom to kill seals in Behring Sea
waters, American vessels are barred
from all participation in pelaglc seal
ing The laws to this effect passed by
Congress in the winter of 1897 remain
in force. and thus. in the final slaugh-
ter which is promised. the Canadians
will reap all the profits.
in consequence of the unequal laws
governing their operations. American
pelagic sealing vessels have been
driven from the field Danger Of
further conflicts in Behring Sea is les
sened, but the unjust conditions which
are imposed upon the Americans re-
main as a sequel to the closing OF
diplomatic incident which from first to
last has been disastrous to American
interests"
The author gives a somewhat detailed
history of the inter-oceanic canal pro-
,lem. which. as he says. has existed all
most ever since the discovery of Ameri-
"a The history of the De Lesseps Com
,any. and other companies connected
With this project, is briefly given, and the
problems, diplomatic questions and COM
nercial considerations connected with the
building of the canal are treated at con-
iderable length. The conclusion to which
he author comes is in part as follows:
Assuming that It were possible so
effectively to guard the channel that
its use could be preserved to the
United States in time of conflict, and
closed against the enemy, the fact yet
remains that the United States is
wholly unprepared to maintain with
safety the exclusive control over the
route. The protection of the American
coasts depends. after ALL upon the
strength of the navy, and all outlying
posts which must be guarded are of
value only as they may be defended
without too great division of
strength.
While the policy of the United
States calls for an annual increase in
the nay;, there are other Powers
whose needs will require them, not
only TO keep pace with the general ad-
vance in armament. but 10 maintain
FOR many years to come larger naval
fleets than that of the United States.
Such being the case, American efforts
TO retain position OF exclusiveness
on the isthmus may prove. after all,
TO be OF doubtful expediency
1T may often be asserted that Eng
lands military occupation OF Egypt
and her fortihcations along the route
to India. together with her ownership
of controlling interest in the SueZ
lNa.,ol i.sclf ..i..a -.