People's Pilot, Volume 3, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 August 1893 — BEHRING SEA CASE. [ARTICLE]

BEHRING SEA CASE.

Arbitrators Finally RmHi * Deeialo* *a the Vexed Question— England Favored on Moot Points— Pelagic Sealing Practically Prohibited. Paris, Aug. 18. — The Behring sea court of arbitration on Tuesday renI dered its decision in the dispute between the United States and Great Britain concerning seal fishing. The decision is in favor of Great Britain upon every point of real dispute, although it is freely stated by those in interest that in securing the 60-mile limit and the practical prohibition of pelagic sealing the United States have gained the great result toward which effort was bent—proteqtion of seals during the breeding season. In a general way the tribunal rejects the claim of the United States that the Behring sea is a mare clausum and , denies to the United States exclusive j property rights in the seal fisheries. ' On the other hand, the arbitrators sus- ; tain positively the contention of the | United States that pelagic sealing should be stopped and that the seal | herds should oe protected from extermination by poachers. To effect this end the tribunal rules that there shall be maintained a closed season, I beginning May 1 and ending July 21, ! during which no seals may-be killed, j This prohibition applies not only to Behring sea, but to the north j Pacific oceax To save the seals from slaughter at their breeding places in the Pribylov islands a protective zone extending 60 miles around the islands is established, and sealing outi side this zone is to be permitted only after August 1. Further protection l from indiscriminate slaughter is provided in the prohibition by the terras of the decision of the use of firearms by sealtakers. ; Each fur-sealing vessel must be provided with a special license issued for the purpose by its government and ; must carry a distinguishing flag prescribed by its government An accurate account must be kept by vessel i masters of the date and place of each operation, and the number and sex of j seals captured daily. These regu- | lations are to remain in force until abol- ; ished by mutual agreement between ! the governments of the United States ; and Great Britain, and they shall be submitted every five years lor examination in order that both governments may consider whether, in the light of past experience, there is necessity to make any modification therein. Arbitrators make a special finding on the facts agreed upon by the agents of 1 both governments with reference to the seizure of British vessels in Behring sea in 1887 and 1889. In addition the arbitrators make certain suggestions to two governments, the most important being that they should come to an understanding to prohibit the killing of seals on land or sea for a period of from one to three years, and should enact regulations to carry out the findings of the arbitrators. The contentions of the United States as to its exclusive jurisdiction in Behring sea, acquired from Russia by the purchase of Alaska, and its property rights in the seal fisheries are contained in the following five points of article 6 of the treaty creating the tribunal of arbitration: 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea dow known as Behring sea and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of ! the cession of Alaska to the United States? 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain? 3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring sea iucluded in the phrase “Pacific ocean.” as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring sea were hold 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, 1#67, pass unimpaired to the United States under thaft 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 Senile limit? While the tribunal rejects the categorical proposition of property contained in the fifth point, it admits by implication the assertion by the i United States as to> the urgent ne- I cessity of protecting the seals outside the 3-mile limit. It decrees, however, that this protection shall be by international agreement rather than by awarding to the United j States either exclusive jurisdiction ' or police powers. The decision es- j tablishes for the seal fisheries the conditions and imposes on the sealers i the restrictions which,, aside from the questions of exclusive jurisdiction and property rights, made tip the important points of the American case. The seal \ industry is thus preserved from the destruction that threatened it. The American arbitrators, E. J. Phelps, of Vermont, and Senator Morgan, of Alabama# said after the adjournment of the tribunal that they were satisfied with the terms of the decision. The action of the tribunal means the end of pelagic sealing, the Americans say. and they add that ; the terms made by the decision of the tribunal are more favorable to the United States than those offered by* Great Britain as a settlement of the disrpute. London, Aug. 16.— Mr. Gladstone announced in the bouse of commons that his advices from Paris were that with a few exceptions the Behring sea tribunal awards were satisfactory to British interests.