tribute to the restoration of friendly relations between the belligerent powers, they will, upon proper intimation, be promptly offered.

While, therefore, no instructions are given you to tender officially any advice to the Government of Chili which is unsought, you will, on such opportunity as may occur, govern your conduct and representations by the considerations to which I shall now call your attention.

Without entering upon any discussion as to the causes of the late war between Chili on the one side and Peru and Bolivia on the other, this government recognizes the right which the successful conduct of that war has conferred upon Chili; and, in doing so, I will not undertake to estimate the extent to which the Chilian Government has the right to carry its calculations of the indemnities to which it is entitled, nor the security for the future, which its interests may seem to require. But if the Chilian Government, as its representatives have declared, seeks only a guarantee of future peace, it would seem natural that Peru and Bolivia should be allowed to offer such indemnity and guarantee before the annexation of territory, which is the right of conquest, is insisted upon. If these powers fail to offer what is a reasonably sufficient indemnity and guarantee, then it becomes a fair subject of consideration whether such territory may not be exacted as the necessary price of peace.

But at the conclusion of a war avowedly not of conquest, but for the solution of differences which diplomacy had failed to settle, to make the acquisition of territory a sine qua non of peace is calculated to cast suspicions on the professions with which war was originally declared.. At this day, when the right of the people to govern themselves, the fundamental basis of republican institutions, is so widely recognized, there is nothing more difficult or more dangerous than the forced transfer of territory, carrying with it an indignant and hostile population ; and nothing but a necessity proven before the world can justify it. It is not a case in which the power desiring the territory can be accepted as a safe or impartial judge.

While the United States Government does not pretend to express an opinion whether or not such an annexation of territory is a necessary consequence of this war, it believes that it would be more honorable to the Chilian Government, more conducive to the security of a permanent peace, and more in consonance with those principles which are professed by all the republics of America, that such territorial changes should be avoided as far as possible; that they should never be the result of mere

force, but, if necessary, should be decided and tempered by full and equal discussion between all the powers whose people and whose national interests are involved.

At the present moment, the completeness of the victory of Chili seems to render such a diplomatic discussion impossible. The result of the conflict has been not only the defeat of the allied armies, but the dissolution of all responsible government in Peru. . . .

An effort, and apparently a very earnest and honest one, has been made to create a provisional government, which shall gradually restore order and the reign of law. But it is obvious that for such a government to succeed in obtaining the confidence either of its own people or foreign powers, it must be allowed a freedom and force of action which cannot be exercised while Chili holds absolute possession and governs by military authority. This government, therefore, has been glad to learn from its minister in Chili, whom you succeed, that the Chilian authorities have decided to give their support to the efforts of Señor Calderon to establish on a steady footing a provisional government in Peru.

You will, as far as you can do so with propriety and without officious intrusion, approve and encourage this disposition on the part of the Chilian Government, and this Department will be exceedingly gratified if your influence as the representative of the United States shall be instrumental in inducing the Government of Chili to give its aid and support to the restoration of regular, constitutional government in Peru, and to postpone the final settlement of all questions of territorial annexation to the diplomatic negotiations which can then be resumed with the certainty of a just, friendly, and satisfactory conclusion.

In any representation which you may make, you will say that the hope of the United States is that the negotiations for peace shall be conducted, and the final settlement between the two countries determined, without either side invoking the aid or intervention of any European power.

The Government of the United States seeks only to perform the part of a friend to all the parties in this unhappy conflict between South American republics, and it will regret to be compelled to consider how far that feeling might be affected, and a more active interposition forced upon it, by any attempted complication of this question with European politics.

House Executive Documents, 47 Cong., I sess. (Washington, 1882), I, No. 1, pt. 1, pp. 131-133 passim.

178. Bering Sea Arbitration (1893)

BY PRESIDENT BARON ALPHONSE DE COURCEL, JAMES LORD

HANNEN, AND SENATOR JOHN TYLER MORGAN

In 1892 Great Britain and the United States submitted to arbitration the question as to the jurisdictional rights of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea, especially her right to regulate or prohibit pelagic sealing. The treaty further provided that, in case the award was against the claims of the United States, the arbitrators should decide upon a set of concurrent regulations for the protection and preservation of the fur seals resorting to Bering Sea; and the two nations agreed to cooperate in securing the adhesion of other powers to such regulations. The award was against the claims of the United States; regulations were drawn up and included in it, but they proved ineffectual. This extract is taken from the speeches of the arbitrators at the time of the presentation of the award. — Bibliography as in No. 175 above.

ENTLEMEN: Now we have come to the

[Baron Courcel.] Gend of our task. We have done our best to

accomplish it, without concealing from ourselves the difficulties which complicated it, nor the heavy responsibilities which it has imposed upon us. Selected from various nationalities, we have not considered ourselves the representatives of any one in particular, nor of any government or any human power, but, solely guided by our conscience and our reason, we have wished only to act as one of those councils of wise men, whose duties were so carefully defined by the old capitularies of France. To assist us, we have had at our disposition a library of documents, compiled with extreme care, and in order that we might not lose our way among so many sources of information, men holding a high rank among the most learned jurists and eloquent orators of which the Old or New Worlds could boast have been willing so liberally to bestow upon us their advice.

During weeks and months our labors have been prolonged, and it constantly appeared that some new matter had risen before us and that some new problem pressed upon our attention.

To-day... we are assembled to inform you of the result of our labors, hoping with all our hearts that they may be profitable to man, and conformable to the designs of Him who rules his destiny. . . .

We have felt obliged to maintain intact the fundamental principles of that august law of nations, which extends itself like the vault of heaven above all countries, and which borrows the laws of nature herself to protect the peoples of the earth, one against another, by inculcating in them the dictates of mutual good will.

In the regulations which we were charged to draw up we have had to decide between conflicting rights and interests which it was difficult to reconcile. The Governments of the United States of America and Great Britain have promised to accept and execute our decisions. Our desire is that this voluntary engagement may not cause regret to either of them, though we have required of both sacrifices which they may, perhaps, regard as serious. This part of our work inaugurates great innovation.

Hitherto, the nations were agreed to leave out of special legislation the vast domain of the seas, as in times of old, according to the poets, the earth itself was common to all men, who gathered its fruits at their will, without limitation or control. You know that even to-day, dreamers believe it possible to bring back humanity to that golden age. The sea, however, like the earth, has become small for men, who, like the hero, Alexander, and no less ardent for labor than he was for glory, feel confined in a world too narrow. Our work is a first attempt at a sharing of the products of the ocean, which has hitherto been undivided, and at applying a rule to things which escaped every other law but that of the first occupant. If this attempt succeeds, it will doubtless be followed by numerous imitations, until the entire planet, until the waters as well as the continents will have become the subject of a careful partition. Then, perhaps, the conception of property may change amongst men.

[Lord Hannen.] . . . Mr. de Courcel, I have to discharge a duty which gives me peculiar satisfaction. I have to express to you our high appreciation of the manner in which you have presided over our deliberations. The public has had the opportunity of witnessing the sagacity, the learning, and the courtesy with which you have guided the proceedings during the arguments. Your colleagues only can know how greatly those qualities have assisted us in our private conferences. Let me add, that our intimate relations with you have taught us to regard you with the warmest esteem and affection. Permit me to say that you have won in each of us an attached friend.

I must not conclude without an allusion to the remarkable occasion which has brought us together. We trust that the result will prove that we have taken part in a great historical transaction fruitful in good for the world. Two great nations, in submitting their differences to arbitration, have set an example which I doubt not will be followed from time to time by others, so that the scourge of war will be more and more repressed. Few can be so sanguine as to expect that all international quarrels will be speedily settled by arbitration, instead of by the dread arbitrament of

war; but each occasion on which the peaceful method is adopted will hasten the time when it will be the rule and not the exception.

One of our poets has said that every prayer for universal peace avails to expedite its coming.

We have done more than join in such a supplication; we may hope that we have been the humble instruments through whom an answer has been granted to that prayer which I doubt not ascends from the hearts of these two kindred nations, that peace may forever prevail between them. . . .

[Senator Morgan.] The arbitrators on the part of the United States most sincerely unite in the very happy expressions that have fallen from Lord Hannen, of grateful appreciation of the splendid hospitality of the French Government and people. . . .

If we should take a narrow view of the results of this arbitration, the United States would have a regret that the important judicial questions. we have been considering were not stated in a broader form in the treaty between these great Powers. The opportunity was offered when the treaty was in process of formation to have presented in a more equitable light the rights of the nations to whose islands and coasts the fur-seals habitually resort for places of abode and shelter in the summer season; to control and protect them under the legal rules and intendments that apply universally to the animals that are classed as domestic, or domesticated animals, because of their usefulness to men.

My colleague and I concurred in the view that the treaty presented this subject for consideration in its broadest aspect. Our honorable colleagues, however, did not so construe the scope of the duty prescribed to the Tribunal by the treaty. They considered that these questions of the right of property and protection in respect to the fur-seals were to be decided upon the existing state of the law, and, finding no existing precedent in the international law, they did not feel warranted in creating one. As the rights claimed by the United States could only be supported by international law, in their estimation, and inasmuch as that law is silent on the subject, they felt that under the treaty they could find no legal foundation for the rights claimed that extended beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

This ruling made it necessary to resort to the power conferred upon the Tribunal to establish, by the authority of both Governments, regulations for the preservation and protection of the fur-seals, to which the treaty relates. In this new and untried field of experiment, much embar