| Show diplomatic PROBLEMS washington may 7 there to la a vast accumulation of matters requiring atte tion from the state debart department just now and secretary blaine will probably be a very busy man dur ing the summer recent events in the chilian situation have added to the complexity of affairs and there is now along a long dockett of unsolved diplo diplomatic mittic problems as follows the rhe italian and bering sea complications actions canadian reciprocity newfoundland fisheries negotiations chilian troubles spanish agreement venezuelan treaty haitian coaling station refusal of china to receive our minister trouble over the failure of the consul at victoria to toast the queen and quite a number of minor matters including the claim of the barrundia family A BERING SEA NOTE another note from secretary blaine to sir julian under date of april is made public it says in part the modifications which lord salisbury suggests in the questions for arbitration do not wholly meet the views of the president but the president changes the text of the third and fifth in such a manner it is hoped as will result iu in an agreement between the two governments while lord salisbury suggests a different mode of procedure from that embodied in the sixth question the president does not understand him to actually object to the question and therefore assumes that it is agreed to the six questions now prop proposed osei by the president are first abat exclusive J jurisdiction u rw lotion in the bering sea and what exclusive rigte in the seal fisheries therein did emja assert and exercise up to the time of the conlon cession of alaska to the united states second how were those claims conceded by great Brit britain BID third was bering sea included in the phrase Pact pacific fic ovean ocean in the treaty of 1850 between great Bri britain and russia and what rights if any in the abe bering sea were held and ex elusively elua ively exercised by russia after said treaty fourth did not all the rights of russia PAM pass unimpaired to the united states mates under the treaty ot 1867 fifth has the united states any right and if so what right of protection of property in fur seals frequenting the imandi of the united states in bering ses flea when such seals are found out outside gide the ordinary three mile limit sixth if the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such a position that the concur rence fence of great britain to is necessary in prescribing regulations for the killing of fur seal in any part of the waters of bering sea then it shall be further determined ter mined one how far if at all outside the ordinary territorial limits it is necessary that the united states should exercise exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect the seal for the time living upon If Alb elands lauds of the united states and feeding thereon two whether a closed season during which the killing of seals I 1 in a the waters of bering sea outside the ordinary limits shall be prohibited is necessary to save the seal fishing industry so 0 o valuable and important to mankind from deterioration or destruction I 1 and it if so 80 three what mouths months or parts of months should he be included in the season and over what waters should it extend the president does not object to an additional question respecting the alleged damage to english ships if the condition can be agreed to that if the united states shall prevail in the arbitration all beals taken by canadian vessels during dering the period shall be paid for at the ordinary prices for which the skins kins are sold IN LORD SALIS SALISBURY BURYS DISPATCH of february he makes the declaration that it ii is now quite clear that the advisers of the president do not claim bering sea as a mare and i indeed n repudiate that cun contention in express rem terms mr blaine says lord salisbury Mis burys expression is in a form to JIM imply I 1 that the united states has betterto bitter hitherto to been setting its contention upon the act that bering sea was a mare ol clau ausum eum if that was the intention it would have been well for hie hi lordship to specify aherin the united 13 states ever made the assertion lord disbury complains that I 1 did of lord londonderry duke of wellington iu in 1822 rh in my dispatch of december I 1 fully dealt with them maintained and I 1 think proved from the text that there was not a single ingle word in those protests referring to the behring sea but that they re berred IL the language of the duke of wellington only to lands extending along the shores of the pacific ocean from latitude 40 to latitude 60 degrees north in londonderry protest he alluded to matt matters ets in dispute as connected with the territorial rights of the russian crown in the northwest coast of america bordering on the pacific ocean and the commerce and navigation of his I 1 imperial rup erial majesty Maje s subjects in the seas adjacent thereto both protests protests referred to territory south of g he e alaskan peninsula bordering on the pacific and geographically south from berl bering ng son sea in lord Salis burya burys judgment the contention of the united states now rests wholly upon the ukase of 1821 by the emperor of russia the united states has at no time rested its mett solely on the ground mentioned and this government regrets that lord salisbury should have so 80 misapprehend ed the american position as to limit its basis of right t I 1 in n berl bering ng sea to the ukase of 1821 the united states has among other grounds insisted without recurring to any of its inherited and superior rights in alaska that this government has as full authority for going beyond the three mile limit in case of proved necessity as great britain possesses two or three instances of power which great britain exe exercises beyond the three mile line have already been quoted but failed thus far to secure comment or explanation from lord Sali salisbury abury ANOTHER CASE CAN BE CITED perhaps still more to the point in 1889 only two years ago the british parliament enacted a law the effect of which is fully shown by a map enclosed herewith par far outside of the three mile line the parliament of great britain has attempted to control a body er situated beyond the northeastern section of scotland 2700 square squar e miles in extent and to direct that tain methods not be aped within that great body of water under a pres prea bribed penalty the inhibition hibi tion is no alone against british subjects but against any person mr blaine quotes from the carlt parliamentary a act in question and adus adds if great britain may thus thug control a great area of 2700 square miles of ocean on the coast of scotland why may not the united states prescribe a space around the biloff islands in which a similar prohibition may be enforced it must not escape observation that the area of water outside the three mile line of scotland whose control is assumed by great britain is as large as would be found inside a line drawn from cape cod to portland harbor lord salisbury reasserts his contention that the words pacific Pari fic ocean at the time of the treaty between russia and groat great britain did include bering sea in the same sense that tte ft atlantic ocean includes the gulf of mexico and yet it would be regarded as a very inaccurate statement to say that the mississippi river flows into the atlantic oceana in point of fact therefore according to the usage of the word there is ie no dispute of any consequence on geography THE historical POINT is the one at issue an explanatory note from russia to the state department especially referred to in john quincy adams diary and quoted in my note of december plainly draws the distinction between the pacific ocean on the one hand and the sea of the sea of Kamsch and the ley icy sea on the other and so long as russia drew that distinction it must mast apply boand absolutely decide all contention between the two countries as far as the waters of bering sea are concerned IN THE OPINION OP OF THE presidency PRESIDENT DENTy lord salisbury to is wholly and strangely in error in making the following abate mont ment nor jo do they the advisers n ot 1 the president rely for justification of amm tha seizure of british ships in iii the open sh upon the contention that the into interests of the seal fisheries give the united states government any right for that purpose which accord according ing to international law liaw it would not otherwise possess the government of the united states has haa steadily held just the of the position lord salisbury imputes to it it holds that the ownership of the islands upon which seals amle breed that the habit of the seals in regularly resorting thither and rearing their young thereon that their going out from the islands in search of food and regularly returning thereto and all the facts and incidents of their relation to the islands give to the united states a property interest therein that this property interest was claimed and exercised by russia that england recognized th this is pro property perty I 1 interest ante rest so far as recognition is implied by abstaining from all interference with it during the whole period of Rus russians sias ownership and during the first nineteen years of the sovereignty of the united states it is yet to be determined whether the lawless intrusion of canadian vessels in 1886 1686 and subsequent years has changed the law and equity of the case theretofore prevailing pro availing vai ling ff |
