Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

J

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

THE BEHRING SEA DISPUTE. UST what stage has been reached at the close of the year 1892, in the preparation of the Behring Sea case for discussion before the tribunal of arbitration, is known only to the diplomatists; nor is it likely to be made public prior to the assembly of the arbitrators, who, it is now expected, will hold their first meeting in Paris in the latter part of February, shortly after the exchange of the counter cases. Both sides have, however, made good use of the time at their disposal for the gathering of such evidence as may strengthen their respective claims. The British agents have of late been especially active, and have obtained from American and Canadian poachers, who resent, perhaps naturally, the suspension of their industry, a mass of affidavits concerning the recent seizures, which they claim will materially strengthen their contention as to the absolute neutrality of the disputed waters and the legality of the operations upon which the seizures were based.

Owing to the far-reaching consequences of the principles involved, it may safely be assumed that the case will proceed only with that deliberation which insures adequate presentment and discussion. Thoroughness will not be sacrificed to speed. Of this

VOL. II.-26.

fact, the personnel of the Arbitration Commission is itself a sufficient guarantee. But, now that the issues have been narrowed down to well defined limits, it is the general wish that the end of the protracted dispute may come as speedily as possible. Neither side can gain material advantage from further delay, for, under the modus vivendi, so great are the difficulties and risks incurred, that poaching in the prohibited waters can be carried on, if at all, only at an almost inevitable loss.

Never before have prohibitive regulations been so strictly enforced in the waters of Behring Sea as during the season lately ended. During the months of October and November,special efforts were made to protect the rookeries on the islands of St. Paul and St. George. Armed vessels patrolled the neighboring waters for some distance out to sea; while the Adams and the Corwin watched for poachers just off shore, the force on the latter vessel being augmented by as many men as could be spared from the revenue cutter Rush. Awell arranged system of signals was established, whereby the guardson shore and at sea were prepared to cooperate in any emergency that might arise. The killing of pup seals for food, a practice commonly followed by the native hunters, was forbidden. As a result of these regulations, a marked increase in the number of seals on the

islands was noted as the season advanced; and attempts to plunder the rookeries became very rare. With the exception of a number of whalers returning from a successful season in the north, no vessels were seen in the vicinity of the seal islands during the month of October; and ere November had passed, the seals had left the poaching grounds. The further presence of the Adams and the Bear being thus unnecessary, those vessels, about the first of December, after seven months of hard service, left Behring Sea on their return to San Francisco.

From official returns, it is learned that comparatively few sealers ran the risk of capture during the season. The entire Canadian fleet numbered 65 vessels, as against 51 last year, but confined its operations, with the exception of the few vessels whose capture was mentioned in our last number (p. 218), almost exclusively to the waters of the North Pacific. Altogether the season proved most unprofitable. The total number of skins obtained numbered only 45,412, as compared with 52,995 secured in 1891; and the price has fallen off about onethird. With one exception, the investments of the sealers, represented in the season's work, resulted in a dead loss.

dor at London acted in complete mutual accord; and that in the further negotiations under the present Republican Administration, the most cordial relations existed, and a constant consultation was kept up, between Secretary Blaine and the Russian Minister at Washington. And when, a few months ago, as recorded in the last number of Current History, a Russian man-of-war, the Zabiaka, went so far as to seize a number of sealing vessels in the waters west of the treaty line, notwithstanding the fact that the said vessels were far outside of the three-mile limit from the Russian shores, it looked to many as if Russia's sympathy toward the American claims, theretofore merely passive, were beginning to assume a

more positive and activecharacter. It looked as if the American claim to jurisdiction over sealing operations in the eastern half of Behring Sea were being strengthened by the setting up of a similar claim on the part of Russia. But, in the face of the vigorous protests of the British authorities against the seizures, the Russian Government quickly disavowed responsibility for the action of Captain Delevron, the commander of the Zabiaka, who was adjudged insane. At the time of the seizures, this officer had stated that his Government claimed absolute sovereignty over all waters to the distance of 1,000 miles from shore. An authoritative account of the seizures, from the Russian point of view, which first appeared in the Official Messenger at St. Petersburg about the middle of October, declares that they were made outside of the ordinary limits only because the sealers took to flight on the approach of the Russian cruiser.

[graphic]

SIR JAMES HANNEN, BRITISH BEHRING SEA ARBITRATOR. From a copyright photo by A. Bassano, London, Eng.

While it is thus true that within the waters of Behring Sea nothing has occurred during the quarter which can modify the course of diplomacy, several incidents have arisen elsewhere, which not only throw most important side lights upon the main issues, but which may even affect the final result. Some of these concern the attitude of Russia toward the American claims. While that attitude has nowhere yet been formally stated, it is generally assumed to be one of sympathy. It is known that in the negotiations undertaken during President Cleveland's Administration, United States Minister Phelps and the Russian Ambassa

However, although the seizures referred to cannot be cited in support of any claims to exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Behring Sea beyond the ordinary limits, it is possible to cite

another Russian seizure which has a much more direct bearing upon the special claims now set forth by the United States as to their property rights in the seals. In July last, the American whaling bark Cape Horn Pigeon, while cruising in the Sea of Okhotsk some 84 miles from land, was seized by a Russian man-of-war on suspicion of being engaged in hunting seals. With her crew she was taken to Vladivostock, where, on examination, it was found that the seizure had been unwarranted. The vessel was not equipped with the necessary appliances for seal hunting; and no evidence could be found on board that she had been engaged in that work. She was accordingly released by the Russian authorities, with promises of compensation for detention.

The significant point in the incident is the ground upon which the seizure was based. It is precisely similar to that upon which special stress is now laid by the United States in support of her claim to the right of protecting the seal in Behring Sea. It is not claimed by Russia that the Sea of Okhotsk is a mare clausum, nor that Russian jurisdiction extends beyond the usual marine limit for any ordinary purpose; and, in respect of Behring Sea, as the reader knows, such claims have been expressly disavowed by Secretary Blaine, and the legislation of the United States has sustained this disavowal. For all usual purposes, Behring Sea is admittedly a mare liberum; and no attempt has been made since the purchase of Alaska by the United States to prohibit whaling or ordinary fishing in its waters. Neither country sets up any claim to exclusive jurisdiction over the high seas; but both assert that they have the right to protect from destruction a great national interest in which they think they have special property rights. It was on this latter ground that the Cape Horn Pigeon was seized. The seals regularly make their home upon land within national jurisdiction. Their coming and going occur at regular and well known periods. They are cared for at great national expense, without which outlay they would be rapidly depleted. It is the consideration of

these special points which will make the coming arbitration quite unique.

From the British point of view, on the other hand, it appears sophistical to claim that because the fur seals breed on the Pribilof Islands, the United States has therefore jurisdiction over the animals while they are on their way to or from, or are swimming about, those islands. As well, it is argued, might Canada claim jurisdiction over the flocks of wild geese which hatch around Hudson Bay, or the shoals of mackerel which spawn within three miles of her Atlantic shores. And, even if it be granted that regulations for the protection of the seal fisheries are necessary in the general interest, it is the British contention that the authority to make regulations which affect the rights of the subjects of all nations does not belong exclusively to the Congress or Parliament of any one nation.

The reader will remember that there are five questions to be answered by the arbitrators (p. 3). They are all really involved in the last, which calls for a definition of the rights of the United States, if any such rights exist, to protect the seal herds beyond the ordinary three-mile limit. But this involves, as we have noted, more than the points covered in the first four questions, more than the history of the case, more than the universally accepted international law as to the equal rights of all nations to the contents of the open seas, and probably more than any precedents that may be cited bearing directly upon the special claims set forth by either side.

In whatever way the decision of the arbitrators may turn, little fear need now be entertained that unregulated and wanton killing of the seals will be longer allowed to threaten the industry with destruction. The controversy has awakened a sentiment on this question which is not confined to American subjects; and the participation of Canada in this necessary and friendly work seems assured. It is probable also that the protection will extend to the waters of the North Pacific, as well as to Behring Sea. It has been found by the experts on the Corwin, that the seals do not migrate

in families, but that the males and females congregate separately; and it is considered necessary for the protection of the species, to extend to those portions of the North Pacific frequented by the females, any regulations which may be enforced within the waters of Behring Sea. On December 20, a bill to this effect was introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Sherman, and was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. It provides that whenever the United States Government and any other Power reach an effective agreement for the protection of seals in the North Pacific, the provisions of the laws relative to the protection of the seals within the limits of Alaska or its waters shall be extended to such portions of the North Pacific as shall be designated in a proclamation of the President. And violations of these provisions shall be within the jurisdiction of the courts in Alaska, Oregon, California, or Washington.

Progress in the preparation of the case in behalf of the United States has been unfortunately hindered to some extent by the discovery, made in November, that, in the facts and figures relating to the sealing industry in Alaska, much of which information had been embodied in the original case submitted to the British agents on September 7, the United States Government had been grossly deceived through the dishonesty of a trusted official who had willfully falsified the data. Ivan Petroff, as the official is named, is a Russian by birth, who, during a residence of more than forty years in Alaska, had won the reputation of being an expert on all questions concerning that territory. In 1880 and 1890, he was employed by the United States Government as Special Agent for the territory in taking the Tenth and Eleventh Censuses. It was he who wrote the monograph on Alaska issued by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department; and even the historian Hubert Howe Bancroft, had found Petroff's familiarity with Alaskan subjects of inestimable service to him in the preparation of his "History of Alaska." Petroff was accordingly summoned from

the Census Bureau to the State Department to assist in the preparation of the case for the United States by examining into and compiling certain facts relating to the sealing industry. An error in one of his statements was detected, and this led to an investigation; when it was found that almost all of the data supplied by Petroff had been falsified. The official confessed his guilt to Secretary Foster, but did not disclose his motive. He was promptly dismissed from the service of the Government, this being the only punishment to which he had made himself liable. The British authorities were immediately notified that the American agents had been led into errors of statement, and that these errors would be corrected in supplementary papers when the counter cases were exchanged. It is not probable that the incident will have any serious effect upon the result of the arbitration. It will, however, cause some unavoidable delay, and will also, possibly, have the effect of obscuring the issues in the popular mind by introducing complications that were totally unnecessary.

It is worthy of note, that as a result of the poll on November 8 last, the Behring Sea controversy will again pass into the hands of a Democratic Administration. During President Cleveland's former term, the ground taken by Secretary Bayard in reference to United States rights in Alaskan waters, differed somewhat materially from those upon which the United States Government now bases its claims. The personnel of Mr. Cleveland's coming Cabinet is, however, still problematical; and, until it is known who will be Secretary of State, no authoritative statement can be made as to the probable policy of the new Administration.

CHILIAN TREATY RATIFIED.

The treaty arrangements concluded at Santiago on August 7 last, whereby the United States and Chili agreed to submit to arbitration all outstanding claims of the subjects of either Government against the other (p. 220), were finally ratified by the United States Senate in executive session on Decem

ber 8. This prompt action was taken on the recommendation of President Harrison, who, in submitting the instrument to the consideration of the Senate at the beginning of the present session of Congress, had accompanied it with a communication from the Secretary of State, reminding him of the fact that by the terms of the treaty the ratifications were required to be exchanged not later than Februrary 7, 1893, i. e., within six months after its date. As the convention had already been unanimously ratified by both branches of the Chilian Congress, the approval of the United States Senate was the only remaining unfulfilled condition necessary to the immediate exchange of ratifications.

The terms of the treaty were outlined in our last number (p. 220). Some of the claims to be arbitrated originated over fifty years ago; others are due to incidents which occurred between 1850 and 1860; but the most important ones are based on alleged injuries to the interests of American subjects incurred during the ChilianPeruvian war of 1879-1883.

Unforeseen difficulties have arisen in the way of the distribution of the money paid by the Chilian Government as an indemnity for the outrage of October 16, 1891, upon the sailors of the Baltimore in the streets of Valparaiso. When United States Minister Egan arrived at New York in October last, he bore with him a draft for the full amount, $75,000, drawn upon the Bank of France. The collection was intrusted to the Paris agents of the New York firm of Messrs. J. & W. Seligman & Co.; and, on December 20, the money was safely deposited in the United States Sub-Treasury in New York, to the credit of the Secretary of the Navy.

It was thought that arrangements would soon be completed for its distribution. The appointment of a board of naval officers was suggested, who should consider all claims on file, and formulate a plan for the equitable pro rata distribution of the funds. However, it was found, on discussion of the matter, that neither the Secretary of the Navy nor any other Federal official is vested with sufficient legal power to

disburse the funds in any manner that would not expose the Government to the liability of tedious litigation in case any of the claimants should be dissatisfied with the portions allotted them; and it is the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government, that nothing short of a special act of Congress will insure the legal distribution of the indemnity in a way that will be final.

THE MIJARES INCIDENT.

In the early part of November, the friendly attitude of the newly established Government of General Crespo in Venezuela toward the United States was disturbed by an incident involving most important questions of international law. However, no very serious tension was at any time threatened, and all unfriendly agitation of feeling seems to have quickly subsided. The episode has served to define with clearness once more the jurisdictional rights of nations over foreign vessels touching at their ports, and over political refugees who have sought on those vessels the protection of foreign flags.

It appears that while the American merchant steamer Philadelphia, belonging to the Red D Line, was lying at the Venezuelan port of La Guayra on November 10, she was boarded by a man who asked and obtained from Captain Chambers, of the vessel, the protection of the American flag, on the ground that he was a political refugee. It turned out that the fugitive was General Pedro Vincente Mijares, who had been Governor of Caracas under President Palacio.

As soon as it became known to the police at La Guayra that Mijares had taken refuge on the American steamer, a company of Venezuelan troops was marched down to the pier; and a verbal demand was made for the surrender of the fugitive on the allegation that he was "an enemy of the Government." Captain Chambers, however, positively refused to deliver him, and forcibly repulsed an attempt. on the part of the soldiers to board the vessel. The Philadelphia was then moved and anchored some distance out from the pier; after which Captain Chambers landed, and submitted

« PreviousContinue »