Evening star., 1938-02-27

amended was passed by the House. The
Senate refused to concur in the House
amendment and in conference it was
agreed to report the bill with the provision
that section 1856 ofsthe Revised Statutes
should include and apply to all the do-
minion of the United States in the waters
Of Bering Sea-" and it was made the duty
Of the President to warn all persons against
entering those waters for the purpose Of
violating the provisions of that section. It
Is apparent that in this instance, Congress
made the complete circle and came out at
the exact point of entry, and hence before
the Bering Sea Tribunal we were con-
fronted with the refusal Of Congress to
even claim by statute the right to protect
the seals in the waters Of Bering Sea. Sir
Charles Russell, one of the counsel for
Great Britain, with reference to the amend
ment which had been adopted in the
House, but which was not agreed to in
the Senate and was changed as above in
dicated on the bill as passed, made the
most of the failure Of Congress to claim
by legislation what was claimed before the
q lUulldl I1c Sdlu 4NOW ACdAly AAoNC W
ask, what was the reason for the change?
Was it intended that the change should
mean anything, or was it intended that
it should mean nothing?"
Claim Special Property Right.
He invited attention to the fact that
Senator Morgan, a member of the tribunal.
had opposed the House amendment And
he further pointed out lid. 265) that title
in things must take its root in municipal
law"
S. Moreover, a part of our claim here is
that we have a special property right in
the salmon which are spawned and hatched
in the waters of Alaska. One provision of
the bill declares them to be the property
of the United States. The property right
so claimed is, of course, subject to an i'm
piled trust, but the trust does not invalidate
or weaken the right It is fundamental
that property rights are created, or de-
clared, or maintained, not by international
law, but by municipal law. Without ade-
quate municipal law property rights, in
practice. disappear. Hence. the necessity
of municipal law to establish and maintain
our property right in the salmon Of Alaska
is clearly evident.
1t is fortunately true that We have as
serted the claim of our superior and exclu-
sive right to the Alaska salmon by the con-
versations which were held during or
about the year 1881 in which the Japanese
announced their intention of fishing for
and packing crabs in Bristol Bay. The
question at once arose about the salmon
and the japanese assured our authorities
that the salmon would not be molested.
We were solicitous and jealous for the pro-
lection of the salmon, and at that time
the individual japanese who took part in
the discussion thoroughly understood that
we claimed the exclusive right to protect
our salmon in all of the seas adjacent to
Alaska.
Make Claims EffectuaI.
What now remains to make our rights
and claims effectual is to assert by act Of
Congress our exclusive property in the
salmon of Alaska, and the right to exercise
Jurisdiction over the waters of Bering Sea
adjacent to the coast Of Alaska up to the
edge Of the continental Shelf for the pur-
pose of protecting and preserving the
salmon fishery. That is what is proposed
by H. R. 8344.
The striking differences between the facts
presented to the fur seal tribunal with re-
spect to seals, and those which exist with
respect to the Alaska salmon are such as
to make the decision in the fur seal case
of slight If any value as precedent. The
proposed legislation for the protection of
salmon which expressly provides that it
shall not affect any treaty obligation has
not been tried and found wanting" as
applied to the fur seals. Due to the factors
above listed a similar proposal was really
never tried in the fur seal dispute. The
salmon bill is really in entire harmony
with universally approved principles of
international law.
The payment Of compensation to the
Japanese for the purpose of securing their
consent to thuAexercise by us of our un-
doubted rights to protect and preserve the
Alaskan salmon fishery would be in the
nature Of tribute, and, therefore, un-
thinkable. ANTHONY j. DIMOND,
Delegate from Alaska.