U. S. REVENUE CUTTER

season shall be maintained "during the pendency of the arbitration." In a word, Great Britain agrees to use her best efforts to prohibit, until the arbitrators come to a decision, all sealing in the disputed waters by British subjects and vessels. The United States undertakes a similar responsibility, with the exception that a number of seals, not exceeding 7,500, may be taken to provide means of subsistence for the natives of the Pribilof Islands. Provision is made for the seizure of offending vessels, and for the continuance of the clause allowing British agents to visit the islands to study the facts of seal life. The fifth article, which fixes the liability for damages in the event of a decision adverse to the contention of either country, reads as follows:

ARTICLE 5. If the result of the arbitration be to affirm the right of British sealers to take seals in Behring Sea within the bounds claimed by the United States under its purchase from Russia, then compensation shall be made by the United States to Great Britain (for the use of her subjects) for abstaining from the exercise of that right during the pendency of the arbitration, upon the basis of such a regulated and limited catch or catches, as, in the opinion of the arbitrators, might have been taken without an undue diminution of the seal herds; and, on the other hand, if the result of the arbitration shall be to deny the right of British sealers to take seals within the said waters, then compensation shall be made by Great Britain to the United States (for itself, its citizens, and lessees) for this agreement to limit the island catch to 7.500 a season, upon the basis of the difference between this number and such larger catch, as, in the opinion of the arbitrators, might have been taken without an undue diminution of the seal herd. The amount awarded, if any, in either

-ལས་

case, shall be such, as, under all the circumstances, is just and equitable, and shall be promptly paid.

That is the arbitrators are to decide whether any, and if any, how many, seals may be taken this year without danger of unduly diminishing the seal herd. Upon this basis, Great Britain is to be compensated in the event of her contention being upheld. On the other hand, should the American contention prevail, Great Britain is to compensate the United States upon the basis of the difference between 7,500 seals and such larger catch, as, in the opinion of the arbitrators, might safely have been taken. The sixth and seventh articles provide for a termination of the agreement at any time after October 31, 1893, on two months' notice being given, and for the prompt exchange of ratifications.

Had this modus vivendi simply made provision for the renewal of a close season, without embodying any clause fixing liability for damages, a proclamation from President Harrison would have been sufficient to give it immediate effect; but, as it touched upon a matter regarding which an attempt had been made to insert a clause in the Treaty of Arbitration, its formal ratification by the Senate became a necessity.

Ratifications of both the Treaty of Arbitration and the modus vivendi were exchanged in London May 7.

Both Governments are already actively co-operating in the strict enforcement of the agreement. As early as April 16, in anticipation of the successful termination of negotiations, the revenue cutters Rush and Bear were ordered to patrol duty; and they have since been reinforced by the Ranger, the Corwin, and other vessels, including the United States war-ships Mohican and Adams. The British men-of-war engaged in the work are the Melpomene, Nymphe, and Daphne. The in

structions issued to the patrolling vessels are much more stringent than those which governed the operations of last year. No warning need be given to offending vessels-all such found sealing in Behring Sea being liable to immediate seizure. The mere presence of a vessel in the disputed waters with a sealing outfit is sufficient ground for seizure, although no actual sealing operations may have been carried on. And further, all persons on board vessels seized will be sent as prisoners with the vessels to suffer the penalty of the law. A $500 fine under British law, and a $1,000 fine under American law, together with six months' imprisonment at hard labor in either case, is the penalty provided.

It is too early in the season to learn of the extent to which illicit sealing is being attempted; but the increased stringency of this year's close season regulations, and the evident good faith in which both Governments have entered upon the work of their enforcement, will no doubt reduce to a minimum the chances of successful evasion which somewhat marred the effects of the modus vivendi of 1891. In spite of the risks, quite a large number of vessels have ventured upon the forbidden ground; and on June 28 the

seizure was reported of the Kodiack, the Lottie, and the Jennie, for violation of the modus vivendi. These vessels were seized near Cook's Inlet by the United States ship Mohican. They are said to be of American register, the property of the Alaska Sealing Company; and they have been taken to Sitka for legal trial.

It is rumored, that in order to prevent the loss which will follow a lengthy suspension of the sealing industry, many Canadian sealers contemplate selling their vessels to foreigners, who will sail them under foreign flags and look to their respective Governments for protection.

As we go to press, news is received of the seizure, on June 22, by the Corwin, of the supply steamer Coquillan, at Port Etches, Prince William Sound, in United States waters. The seizure hardly comes within the limits of the Behring Sea dispute, although it grows out of that question. Port Etches is a point on the coast of Alaska far below the entrance to Behring Sea, in fact only some ten miles from Sitka. The seizure was therefore made, not for violation of the modus vivendi, but on the ground of an alleged infraction of the revenue laws of the United States, in trading, towing, transferring supplies, and taking sealskins aboard

within American waters without entry or permit. The Coquillan belonged to the Union Steam-ship Company of Vancouver, B. C., and had been chartered to carry supplies to the British sealing fleet. She had a blank manifest showing neither cargo nor passengers, and yet had 6,000 sealskins on board, valued at $45,000. At the time of the seizure, there were twentyfive British schooners also in the port, all of which were ordered out of the harbor. By the seizure of the Coquillan, it is said, the whole British sealing fleet in the northern waters is cut off from its supplies; and the Canadians allege as the motive of the American officers, the desire to cripple sealing operations in Behring Sea. The Sealers' Association has informed the Dominion Government of the situation, and further complications may be looked for.

Of the seven arbitrators provided for in the treaty (see p. 3), four have already been chosen, two each by Great Britain and the United States. The American arbitrators are Justice John M. Harlan, of Kentucky, of the United States Supreme Court, and Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama. For fifteen years Justice Harlan has applied himself with tireless industry to his duties on the Supreme Court bench. He has made a specialty of international law, and possesses in an eminent degree the qualifications requisite for an able and dignified representation of his Government in the distinguished Commission to which he has been appointed. Senator Morgan is a well known Democrat. As leader of the minority in the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, he has for many years rendered his country distinguished service. His broad knowledge of international polity, his clearness of discrimination, and freedom from illogical bias, commend the wisdom of President Harrison in selecting him as the colleague of Justice Harlan.

The British arbitrators are Lord Hannen, formerly President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, and Sir John S. D. Thompson, Canadian Minister of Justice.

Both appointments have given general satisfaction. Lord Hannen is one of the ablest of English judges, and, through his connection with the Admiralty Court, has acquired a mastery of maritime and international law. Sir John Thompson is the recognized power in the Conservative Government of Canada to-day, and is one of the ablest jurists the Dominion has ever produced. He was knighted for his services as Canadian representative on the Fishery Commission at Washington, which negotiated the Bayard-Chamberlain Treaty of 1887.

General John W. Foster, of Indiana, formerly United States Minister to Spain, and recently appointed to succeed Mr. Blaine in the Secretaryship of State, has been appointed agent of the United States. As such, it will be his duty to prepare the case and counter-case, and to represent his country officially before the Board of Arbitrators. He is learned in international comity, and thoroughly familiar with the diplomatic history of the country.

The counsel of the United States will consist of Ex-Minister Edward J. Phelps, of Vermont; James C. Carter, of New York, and Judge Henry W. Blodgett, of Chicago, Ill. As Minister to England during the Administration of President Cleveland, Mr. Phelps displayed great powers as a diplomat in his firmness and tact during the awkward incident which ended in the recall of the British Minister at Washington, Lord Sackville-West. An authority on constitutional law, he is pre-eminently fitted to act as the adviser of the American_arbitrators. Of his colleagues, Judge Blodgett has won respect at home and abroad by his decisions in admiralty cases, while Mr. Carter, of the New York bar, is well remembered for his distinguished services in connection with the famous Tweed trials.

Hon. C. H. Tupper, Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a son of Sir Charles Tupper, Canadian High Commissioner in England, will act as agent to represent the British Government before the Board of Arbitrators; while Mr. C. Robinson, Q. C., of Toronto, Canada, and Sir W. H. Cross,

M. P. for the West Derby Division of Liverpool, have been appointed British counsel.

The work of preparing the main cases of the two Governments is now in progress. The active official labors of the Arbitration Commission will not begin until that work is completed. One effect of the long continued Behring Sea Dispute has been to call renewed attention to a question which has at various times aroused the consideration of British statesmen-the question of the relation between Great Britain and the different members of her Empire. Several of these bear the character of semi-independent States, contributing little or nothing to the imperial strength, related to one another and to the mother country by few ties other than those of loyal sentiment, and, in their material policy, even standing to one another and to the mother country in the relation of commercial antagonists. Speaking to a deputation from the Imperial Federation League, Lord Salisbury recently said:

"From time to time we have to exercise great vigilance lest we should incur dangers which do not arise from any interests of our own, but arise entirely from the interests of the important communities with which we

are linked."

British foreign policy has, in fact, become largely a colonial policy, and is most frequently dictated from the extremities of the Empire. England, as Lord Rosebery pithily expressed it in a recent speech before the Liberal Club of London, has been "pulled out of Europe." The world-wide distribution of the Empire multiplies its vulnerable points; and it isnot strange, therefore, to hear British statesmen raise such inquiries as those recently uttered by the London Times:

How long is this to go on? How long are we to fight the battles and settle the quarrels of semi-independent States that lend us no helping hand, and treat us in all other respects as a foreign country?"

Of course no one can definitely answer this great, living question. But this much may be said-that sentiment, however strong a binding tie that may be, will, in the end, if it conflict with material interests, give way

to the latter, and that the occurrence of a great national crisis will precipitate a final decision on the question. It was to avert a national danger, that the legislative union of England and Scotland was consummated; it was a national crisis that replaced the old bond between the British provinces in North America by the firmer one of a Confederation; it was in the face of a great issue that the German Confederation was born; it was only the danger of national disintegration, which, at a critical period in the history of the United States, revealed the weakness of the early Confederation; while a later and greater crisis riveted more firmly the bonds of the present fundamental Constitution. And judging from analogy, the final settlement of the relations between the members of the British Empire, and, as a consequence, of their relations to other countries, will be reached on the occasion of a great national crisis. Such a crisis may outstrip the foresight of the wisest statesmen.

THE DISPUTE WITH ITALY.

The breach in the friendly relations of Italy and the United States, which resulted from the massacre of Italian subjects at the Parish Prison in New Orleans on March 14, 1891, has at last been mended. On April 12, diplomatic relations were fully re-established; and, two days later, by publication of the official correspondence, the current rumors as to the probably successful termination of negotiations were publicly confirmed amid universal rejoicing.

Under instructions from President Harrison, Mr. Blaine, on April 12, wrote to the Marquis Imperiali,Chargé d'Affaires of the Italian Legation in Washington, tendering the payment of 125,000 francs ($25,000) to the Italian Government, for distribution among the relatives of the victims of the massacre. He expressed the hope that this indemnity would be accepted as sufficient reparation, and that, by its acceptance, the old and friendly relations of the United States and Italy would be fully and permanently restored. "While," said Mr. Blaine, "the injury was not inflicted directly by the

United States, the President nevertheless feels that it is the solemn duty, as well as the great pleasure, of the National Government, to pay a satisfactory indemnity."

With the Marquis Imperiali's cordial note of reply, also dated April 12, accepting as wholly satisfactory this act of international reparation on the part of the United States, the unhappy New Orleans incident was finally closed. The indemnity money being taken from the contingent fund of the State Department, no legislative action was required to authorize its payment. It has already (June 30) been transmitted to the Italian Government, and distributed as intended.

The money, it will be noted, has been given not in discharge of an express obligation recognized by the United States Government, but as a voluntary offering designed to heal an unpleasant rupture. Its payment was foreshadowed in President Harrison's late message to Congress, as indeed it was in the whole volume of correspondence from the American State Department,

which it is to be expected that legislative provision will ere long be made.

Both United States Minister Albert G. Porter and Baron Fava have returned to their respective posts. The former arrived in Rome May 13; the latter reached Washington May 15.

THE RECIPROCITY POLICY.

During the quarter ended June 30, the reciprocity policy, which ranks as the most important feature of President Harrison's Administration, has increased its field of operations by several important extensions.

The negotiations with Austria-Hungary and the Republic of Honduras, begun ere the close of last quarter

commencing with the earliest dispatches of over a year ago. The reparation has been made on moral grounds, in token of the sincere desire of the United States adequately to fulfill her treaty obligations, and to observe the principles of international justice. The difficulty in dealing with the demands of Italy, arose from the fact that the United States Constitution gives the Federal Government no jurisdiction in criminal cases in any of the States. That the treaty-making power in the land should thus be without the means of enforcing the provisions of its treaties, so far as they guarantee protection to the lives and property of foreign subjects residing in the country, is an anomaly for

(see page 7), have been carried to a successful issue. When the McKinley bill became a law, the importations of beet-sugar from Austria-Hun

gary were not sufficient to afford an extensive basis for reciprocity with that country, being only $1,659,251 in 1890, as compared with $16,098,224 imported from Germany; but the recent rapid development of sugar production has impressed upon the Austrian authorities the necessity of having the American market opened for the present surplus. They have accordingly consented, in return for a free market for their sugar, to admit the United States to all the preferential advantages secured by the recent Zollverein arrangements with Germany, Italy, and Belgium (see Vol. I., p. 489). The American manufacturer obtains a reduction of duties on a long and varied list of products. And this, following the conventions with Germany and France, places the United States in an exceptionally advantageous position as compared with England, when competing for the European market. Its serious effects upon the commer