The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1892. The Behring Sea Difficulty

Feilding Star, Volume XIII, Issue 115, 26 March 1892, Page 2

The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, MARCH 26, 1892. The Behring Sea Difficulty

The Behring Sea difficulty continues to give the American President opportunities for indulging in the national pastime of " highfalutin," The latest development is shat although Lord Salisbury has refused politely to renew the modus vivandi, and suggested other ways whereby the affair may be definitely settled, the president insisted on the unconditional removal of the modus vivendi, and in the event of refusal, he will exclude " poachers" from the Behring Sea, even if the naval and military forces are required to do this. Before this dreadful threat was uttered. Lord Salisbury had accepted as a condition of renewing the modus vivendi that the American Government should indemnify the Canadian sealers for their losses in the event of the decision upon legal points being in their favour. President Harrison is not, however, inclined to give way. Of course not. It is not likely he will surrender his "pet and only grievance" against England so cheaply. He wants "battle, murder and sudden death " very much indeed. We may state for the information of our readers that this trouble between England, Canada, and the United States began as far back as 1886. On August 2nd of that year some vessels belonging to British Columbia was seized by the United States revenue cutters while sealing in the Behring Sea. Their masters and mates were fined and imprisoned. In 1887 five more schooners were seized and confiscated. The master of the fifth entered a demurrer and his vessel was released after bonds had been given. In 1888 a Russian steamer seized a schooner which was at the time close to the Russian shore. In 1889 more vessels were annexed. The captures by the United States were defended chiefly on the ground that the Behring Sea was a mare clansum. Canada contended that this claim was unfounded and that the seizing of the vessels was a gross violation of international law, and a vigorous protest was entered against the highhanded, and illegal action of a power nominally on friendly relations with Great Britian. For some time little notice was taken in diplomatic circles until the Canadian Minister of Marine went to Washington to confer with the British Ambassador with the view of placing, jointly with him, Canada's case before the United States Government. Meanwhile the latter, whose claims to sole jurisdiction over the Behring Sea had been questioned even by some United States authorities and jurists, fortified its case by the additional contention that the rapid extermination of the seals absolutely necessitated the regulations of the industry. The American minister, Mr Blain, contended that the fisheries had been exclusively controlled by Russia from their discovery till the cession of Alaska in 1867, and since from that date till 188G they had been in the undisturbed possession of the United States, therefore the exclusive rights of the latter had been established. Lord Salisbury replied that the British had always claimed freedom of navigation and fishing in the Behring Sea outside the three mile limit, and that the non-using of a lawful occupation was not the same as the total abandonment of it, and further he declared that he would hold the United States responsible for the consef|uenccs that might ensue from acts that were contrary to the established principles of international law. In the clays of Russian rule in Alaska, Russia put forward a similar contention to that now made by the United States, and it was successfully resisted by the Washington authorities. Negotications to settle the dispute by arbitration were resumed in 1891. The outcome was the passing of a Bill in the House o£ Commons with the object of stopping seal hunting on the part of the British subjects in the Behring Sea, to enable the Government to come to an agreement with the United States to suspend sealing pending the investigations of a special commission, which was to be appointed by both countries, to examine and report upon all bearings of the qnestion. The Commissioners had five hundred interviews with persons interested or engaged in the industry, and one of them reported that :i settlement of the difficulty would be easy "if all the commissioners looked only to the absolute interests of the seal industry, and an arningen'ent could be come to in five minutes." The arbitrators were not however appointed. From the

< foregoing it will be seen that the dis- | pute is a very trivial one, and of easy : settlement without threats of " the . stern arbitrament of war."