Rensselaer Republican, Volume 24, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 31 March 1892 — POACHERS. [ARTICLE]

POACHERS.

The Behring Sea Correspondence Laid Before the Senate. ? ' ■ * ( —— Lord Salisbury'* Reply Unsatisfactory—The President Says He Will Protect the Seals if it Requires the Military of the V. 8. to Do So.

President’s message transmitting Lord Salisbury’s reply to the last note from this Government relative to the modus vivendi was laid before the Senate in executive session at 1 o’clock on the 23d. Lord Salisbury’s reply, as already stated is a virtual reiteration of his declination to renew the modus vivendi on the same terms as existed last year. After half an hour’s discussion, the correspondence was referred to the committee on foreign relations, and the doors were reopened. The correspondence was not made public, The President id his letter, announced that he had made a rejoinder to Lord Salisbury’s reply. - L - ?- Lord Salisbury’s note may be described as a the detailed reply to th e State Department note, which is to follow by mail. His refusal to consent to a renewal of the modus vivendi is accompanied with several counter propositions, the reading of which was received withillsuppressed Irritation by the Senate. The general character of the note is described as evasive and equivocating.

The President’s rejoinder was also transthe Senate. The President broadly, but in diplomatic language, hints that Lord Salisbury has not met his overtures in a straightforward, business-like manner. The President insists upon a renewal of the modus vivendi, without reference to insignificant or irrelevent conditions, and closes his note with the stirring assertion that if the government of Great Britain declines to assist in the protection of the seals during the arbitration of the claims of the tJnited States he will proceed to enforce the laws and eicTude the poachers from Behring sea, if the military force of the United States is required to accomplish The.’note created a sensation in the Senate

The gravity of the case has led to a re" newal of the strongest efforts of Senators to prevent the public from being made acquainted with the facts until the correspondence has progessed further. There was no expression of opinion by thqPresident in his letter of transmittal; but this was not needed, in view of the clearly-de-fined position assumed by him in his rejoinder to Lord Salisbury, which appeared to meet with the unanimous approval of the Senators, although the debate itself was too short to disclose officially the standing of the Senate. Although there has been nothing in the nature of a direct vote upon the treaty of arbitration, and there is a well-defined opposition to it as a surrender by the United States .of her rights acquired by treaty from Russia, It can be stated that the treaty Will soon be ratified by the Senate. But a resolution will accompany lt,2reciting that there does not appear to be gny sufficient reason for the abatement by the United States of its claims to jurisdic' lion pending arbitration, authorizing the President to use all force of the military bf the. government tosecurethe protection cf therights of the United States. Lord Salisbury does not in his note refuse to enter into a modus vlvendi of some kind; he doesnot flatly refuse to be a party to some arrangement; but diplomatically speaking he “fails to consent” to the propositionmade by this Government. Inasmuch as the Senate has refused to make the correspondence public it is exceedingly difficult to get a clear statement of theexact Idea intended to be conveyed in thq diplomatic language of such correspondence as that laid before the Senate, but undoubtedly the impression generally conveyed by the reading was that Lord Salisbury has refused to renew the arrangement of last year. It can be stated that there is nothing in the nature of an ultimatum on the part of either Government in the correspondence laid before the Senate. The correspondence is still considered incomplete and the way is still open for further letter writing in the line of endeavor on the part of each'; side to show how far the other party is hi the wrong. Underlying the formal phrase ology of diplomacy, however, is an evident intention on the part, of this Government to bring the matter to the point of definite determination before the sealing season is far advanced. And the President’s reply, it is thought, will greatly tend to the attainment of the desired Result.