23 AUGUST 1890, Page 5

THE BEHRING SEA QUESTION.

THIletters of Mr. Blaine on the Behring Sea seal- shery will no doubt be interesting to diplomatists as a finished example of how to make the worst of a fairly good cause. But the bad taste, bad grammar, and bad temper of the United States Foreign Secretary have left the case in such a tangle, that before attempting to follow the shifting moods of Mr. Blaine's diplomacy, it may be well to restate the first question at issue between this country—or rather, our Canadian fellow-subjects—and the United States Government. It is alleged, and the contention is hardly denied, that the Canadians, by fitting out vessels for the capture of seals at sea, while migrating to their breeding-places on the islands of Behring Sea, are destroying the valuable seal- preserve which was included in the cession of Alaska by Russia in 1867. In their migration the males precede the females, travelling singly ; but the vast body of mother- seals travel together, and. are then waylaid by Canadian vessels as they pass between the channels of the Aleutian Islands, and slaughtered with their unborn young. On land the females are spared, though the young males are knocked on the head by thousands by the Indians and half-castes of the Alaska Company, in which "peaceful and secluded field of labour," to quote Mr. Blaine's elegant despatch, they are now interrupted by the ruthless pro- ceedings of the Canadians. The natural remedy was to agree to a dose-time during which the killing of all seals should be illegal. But the United States Government took a different course. They claimed that by the purchase of Alaska in 1867, they had gained from Russia the exclusive right to the fisheries of Behring Sea within a hundred miles of the coast, and with this the power of securing to the Alaska Company, to whem they had let the seal-preserves on the Aleutian Islands, the sole power of taking seals in those waters. Acting on this contention, they seized first three, and later eight, Canadian vessels flying the British flag, imprisoned and fined the officers, and. left the crews to find their way home from the extreme north of the continent in a pitiful state of want and destitution. Strong feeling was excited in Canada, and after repeated remon- strances from the British Government, the President of the United States issued orders for the release of the vessels and of the imprisoned men. Claims for compensa- tion were next pressed by Canada ; and the Plenipoten- tiaries at the Fisheries Conference, then sitting at Washington, were instructed to include the question of a close-time for seals in their deliberation. But the time was not considered favourable for its discussion, and Mr. Phelps frankly expressed his opinion that the coming Presidential election would make any such negotiations abortive.

Mr. Blaine, however, on being appointed Foreign Secretary in succession to Mr. Bayard, dropped the mare clausum claim, and consented to a negotiation as to a close-time. The Russian Minister at Washington was invited to join the representatives of England, Canada, and the United States ; but their deliberations were carried on in a hopeless spirit of non-concession. Canada refused to see the need for any close-time at all. Mr. Blaine, on the contrary, insisted on a five months' close-time at sea, from May to October, which would exclude Canada from any benefit in the fishery at all, as the seals scatter to Southern waters after that date. Canada then presented a bill for $500,000, for compensation to the owners and crews of vessels seized. Mr. Blaine was " astounded " at the magni- tude of the sum, but offered to submit the question of compensation alone to arbitration, adding, "that as his Government had asserted no claim to the Behring Sea as a mare clausum, no principles of international law would be in dispute." Sir Julian Pauncefoot then submitted a draft convention, which had received the assent of Canada, in which the close-time was so fixed as to cover the period of migration of the breeding seals, but left the Canadians free to kill all they could outside the three-mile limit during the two months which the seals spend upon the "rookeries." This very reason- able proposal was summarily rejected by Mr. Blame; and, without any counter-proposal, orders were given to seize and dismantle all British sealers found in Behring Sea. To justify this arbitrary conduct, Mr. Blime did not at once reassert the mare clausum theory, but contended that "the Canadian vessels arrested and detained in Baring Sea were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bona* mores," which he interprets to mean any pursuit detri- mental to the rights of the people of the United States. But although stating that the territorial question might be "safely left out of view," he went on to assert that the seal-fisheries had been exclusively enjoyed by Russia till 1867, and by America till 1886. "There was no interrup- tion or intrusion from any other source."

Lord Salisbury!s reply completely traversed the two contentions put forward by Mr. Blaine to justify the seizures. Even if the occupation of the Canadian vessels does injure the people of the United States, it is open to question whether the killing of seals in the open sea is contra bonos mores in international law. But granting that this is so, it does not justify the seizure on the high seas in time of peace of the vessels of a friendly nation. Such action is only admissible in case of piracy, or in consequence of a special agreement. Then, as to the alleged right purchased from Russia to exclude all foreign vessels from fishing within a hundred miles of the coast, Lord Salisbury proved from existing documents that this very claim had been energetically resisted by the United States authorities themselves previously to the purchase. He quoted a despatch of Mr. Quincy Adams to the United States Minister in Russia, stating that his Government "could admit no part of these claims ;" more than this, Mr. Sumner, when explaining the purchase of Alaska to Congress, and explaining the oppor- tunities for whale-fishing, said : "No sea is now mare clausum; all of these [i.e., whales] may be pursued by a ship under any flag, except when directly on the coast or within its territorial limit."

Mr. Blaine seems to have looked upon this reply as a challenge to him to adopt the mare clausum theory pure and simple. The main argument by which he endeavours to defend this third change of position, is that the Alaskan Seas are partly private property and partly not. Russia, he declares, did retain exclusive rights north of the 54th degree of latitude ; and these were purchased by America. That he is not satisfied with his contention, seems clear from the temper which he throws into his later despatches, and the absurd assumption that a verbal and provisional agree- ment made by Lord Salisbury that a five months' close- time should be discussed by the representatives of the Powers concerned, had the force of a treaty conceding such a close-time. Mr. Blaine not only lectures Lord Salisbury for venturing to differ from this view, but also insinuates that he broke faith with his Government in deference to the wishes of Canada. "The British Government would assuredly and rightfully complain if an agreement between her [sic] representative and the representative of the United States should without notice be broken off on the ground that the State of California objected," says Mr. Blaine. The absurdity of this is not limited to the comparison of the cases of Canada and California. As we have said, this is mainly a Canadian question, and it is a mark of Mr. Blaine's narrow- mindedness that he objects to our consulting Canada at all. Lord Salisbury, whose tone has been most moderate throughout, contents himself with again pointing to the Convention of 1825, which was regarded by all parties as an entire renunciation of Russia's claims to the exclusive right of fishing in Behring Sea. Meantime, the English protest against the proposed seizures stands. But Lord Salisbury offers Mr. Blaine a way of backing out of the difficulty by submitting the question to arbitra- tion. If it is accepted, much will depend upon the agreement as to the questions to be deliberated upon. It would be much more satisfactory to see the mare clausum theory abandoned by America, and the work of the Commission confined to the settlement of a close-time and the compensation to be paid for the Canadian vessels. England has reason to complain not only of the decisions, but of the methods of former arbitrations. On the other hand, the Halifax award in 1878 gave a compensation in a similar case of £1,100,000 to Canada ; and possibly this influences Lord Salisbury's advisers.