!

T

THE BEHRING SEA DISPUTE.

T

HAT England and the United States should go to war over the seal fisheries in Behring Sea, is, happily, very improbable, in spite of the fact that the almost seven years of active negotiations between them have yet borne no final fruit. During the opening months of 1892, however, there has been a revival of the exaggerated rumors which seem to mark every season of approach to active sealing operations; and, in the present political situation of the two countries —both entering upon the throes of a bitter electoral campaign, and partisan feeling consequently running high -a certain degree of anxiety regard ing the outcome has been inevitable. It is true, that in neither country would a resort to extreme measures find any great support among the upper circles of general public sentiment. Yet it is a cause of universal satisfaction to note, that, during the three months ended March 31, 1892, more substantial progress has been made toward a final friendly understanding, than during any similar period since the trouble began.

As far back as November 10, 1891, the announcement had been made during argument in the Sayward case (see Vol. I., p. 473), that an arbitration agreement had been reached.

VOL. II.-1.

This was subsequently confirmed in President Harrison's annual message to Congress, and in the Queen's speech on the occasion of opening the British Parliament. It turned out, however, that the agreement referred to was not a formal one, officially binding upon the respective Governments, but merely a series of propositions subject to revision, which had been assented to by the diplomatic representatives of the Powers. It was not until February 29 of the present year, that the formal instrument was signed, nor until a month later that it received the ratification of the United States Senate. The delay in signing the treaty is understood to have been due. to the fact that Secretary Blaine's original proposition for an Arbitration Commission consisting of five members was not assented to by Lord Salisbury, on account of it making no provision to meet the demands of Canada for a special representative on the Commission to guard the interests of Canadian sealers. It was, therefore, necessary, in order that the United States and the British representation might be equalized, to increase the proposed number of arbitrators from five to seven.

The Joint Commission sent last season to Behring Sea to gather all possible information that might bear upon the proposed arbitration, met for the

first time in Washington, February 8. It was expected that the four Commissioners would be able to formulate a joint report which would be accepted by the Board of Arbritrators as an ultimate criterion of all points raised regarding the character and extent of the sealing industry. There were, indeed, not a few people, who, for a time, had hoped that this Joint Commission might effect such a settlement as would dispense with the need of arbitration altogether. The result of their labor was, however, otherwise; and no broad agreement was reached. The deliberations of the Commissioners continued until March 4, when a report of less than 500 words was transmitted to Secretary Blaine, announcing that it had been decided to make separate reports to the respective Governments, instead of a common report to both. The investigations of the Commissioners were carried on without any reference to the political issues involved, such as the question of marine jurisdiction in the disputed waters. They concerned merely the facts bearing upon the present condition and future prospects of the sealing industry. There was little difference of opinion as to the present existing condition of things in regard to the seal herds, but a serious difference of opinion as to the causes of the decrease in fur-bearing animals. Since the purchase of Alaska, it was admitted, the number of seals had perceptibly diminished; and such decrease was to be attributed, not to predatory animals, but to the "hand of man." However, while the United States Commissioners upheld the opinion which the American authorities have long asserted, namely, that the depletion of the seal herds is due to the pelagic or deep-sea killing carried on largely by Canadian sealers, the British Commissioners, on the other hand, found the destructive cause in the killing of the seals at the rookeries, permitted under contracts with the Treasury Department of the United States. The Pribilof Islands are the headquarters of the northern ursine seal, or sea-bear (Callorhinus ursinus), which supplies most of the fur seal skins of commerce. The rookeries on the islands of St. Paul and St.

George frequently contain millions of seals. The adult males begin to arrive at the islands about May 1, the great body following about June 1, and the females about June 15, giving birth to their young soon after landing. Nearly all leave the islands about the end of October or middle of November, and spread out over the North Pacific, following shoals of fish, or frequenting shallow places and banks where cod are abundant. It is when the animals are on their way back to the rookeries, that the poachers reap their richest harvest.

An unforeseen obstacle arose to check, for a time, the progress of negotiations for an arbitration treaty. It being apparent that the outcome of arbitration, whatever it might be, could not possibly be operative during the approaching sealing season, steps were taken by the United States to secure a renewal of the modus vivendi which was to expire on the coming first of May. President Harrison, in the meantime, February 19, issued the usual proclamation warning all persons of their liability to arrest and punishment if they should be found engaged in sealing in the waters of the Behring Sea within the dominion of the United States.

A renewal of the modus vivendi was considered necessary for the same reasons as heretofore, to check the indiscriminate ravages of the Canadian poachers, whose operations, it was alleged, threatened the sealing industry with destruction. Of course, the establishment of a close season would militate against the pecuniary interests of those who had locked up capital in sealing outfits; and it was due to representations made in the interest of Canadian sealers, that Lord Salisbury announced the policy of Great Britain to be one of opposition to the desired renewal. This policy was not definitely revealed until the receipt of Lord Salisbury's note of February 29. The report of the two British Commissioners had intimated that sealing in the open sea did not endanger the species, pointing thus to the conclusion that another year's suspension of sealing was not necessary to prevent an undue diminution of the herds. Hence the Brit

ish disinclination to enter again into the close season arrangement. The American demands were met by a counter-proposal-that sealing should be forbidden within thirty miles of the Pribilof Islands, and that the catch within that belt, i. e., by American citizens, should be limited to 30,000 seals. On the same day on which this proposal of Lord Salisbury was written (February 29), a treaty was signed at the State Department, in Washington, by Sir Julian Pauncefote and Secretary Blaine, relegating the long controversy to an International Arbitration Commission of seven members. It was sent to the Senate for consideration March 8. The same day, at a meeting of the Cabinet, it was decided to reiterate the position of the United States in regard to a renewal of the modus vivendi; and, in reply to Lord Salisbury's proposal of Fehruary 29, Acting Secretary Wharton delivered to the British Minister a note insisting on the renewal of a close season arrangement similar to that of 1891, as a matter not only of comity on the part of Great Britain, but of obligation.

The next day, March 9, the provisions of the treaty, and all the correspondence between the two countries from May 4, 1891, up to date, were made public. The treaty, in summary, provides as follows:

The preamble, after expressing the desire of the two Governments for an amicable settlement, states that the arbitration is to cover the questions of the jurisdictional rights of the United States in Behring Sea, of the preservation of the fur seal in the sea, and of the rights of the citizens or subjects of either country as to the taking of seals. The separate articles provide as follows:

1. The tribunal of arbitration shall be composed of seven members-two to be named by the President of the United States, and two by Her Britannic Majesty (one presumably from Canada), one by the President of the French Republic, and one each by the King of Italy and the King of Sweden, all to be jurists of distinguished reputation in their respective countries; and the last three to be appointed within two months after request, otherwise in such manner as the high contracting parties shall agree upon.

II., III., IV., and V. These articles provide that the arbitrators shall meet at Paris within six months and twenty days, or at most eight months and twenty days, after ratifications have been exchanged; that a majority vote of the seven judges shall de

3

3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring Sea included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean " as used in the Treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in Behring Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty?

4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in Behring Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia of the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and if so what right, of protection of property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary threemile limit?

VII. If these questions be so answered as to render Great Britain's concurrence necessary to the establishment of regulations for the preservation of the seal, the judges are to ordain the regulations, and both parties are to abide by them and to co-operate to give them effect.

VIII. The arbitrators may be asked to decide on questions of fact in claims for inju