Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

DISPUTE WITH CHILI; BEHRING SEA DISPUTE.

was denied by the sailors and the United States demanded reparation and indemnity. This the Chilean government refused, claiming that the Americans had incited the riot, but the government offered to punish the guilty and subsequently did punish two. But this did not satisfy the United States and preparations for war were rushed. On January 12, 1892, an ultimatum was sent to Chili demanding an apology and indemnity, and rather than risk a war the Chilean government apologized and paid an indemnity of $75,000.*

From the time Alaska had been purchased by the United States there had been constant and continual wrangling between our country and Great Britain over the extent of marine jurisdiction possessed by the United States in Alaska, under the cession from Russia. The Behring Sea and its coasts were first visited by Vitus Behring, a Danish navigator, for Peter the Great of Russia, and on July 8, 1799, Czar Paul I. granted to the Russian-American Company "various important rights on the Russian coasts in America, including that of fishing." On September 4, 1821, Czar Alexander endeavored to extend Russia's rights "beginning from Behring's Strait to the fifty-first degree of north latitude, also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well

* See President Harrison's messages of December 9, 1891, and January 25 and 28, 1892, Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., pp. 183-185, 215-226, 227; Theodore S. Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy, pp. 180–188; Hamil- · ton's Blaine, pp. 675-677; Stanwood's Blaine, pp. 318-320; Ridpath's Blaine, pp. 435-439.

VOL. X-5

61

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Russia also granted the United States the privilege of frequenting for ten years "without any hindrance whatever the interior seas, gulfs, harbors, and creeks upon the coast for the purpose of fishing and trading with the natives of the country." The southern limits of Russian territory were defined by this treaty as 54° 40' north latitude. But when the ten year period expired Russia refused to renew the grant, though all the other provisions of the treaty remained in force. The American vessels, however, still continued to navigate the Behring Sea without interference from Russia, who never again "actually asserted the right of mare clausum over that body of water."

[blocks in formation]

Such was the situation in 1867, and after the transfer of the Russian possessions in America to the United States, the rights of the latter in Behring Sea were not questioned until fur-seals became scarce in other regions and foreign fur-traders began to send their ships to the breeding grounds on the Pribilof Islands. These breeding grounds were under American protection, and according to the generally accepted code of international law, foreign vessels could not kill seals there nor within three miles of the shore. But these foreign vessels hovered just outside the threemile limit and intercepted large herds of the seals on their way to the shores of the breeding grounds. The value of the fishery was thus imperiled, and as the taxes levied upon the sealing company brought large revenues into the treasury of the United States, our government could not afford to allow foreigners to destroy an industry that was most profitable.* During 1886 several British vessels were seized and condemned by the Alaskan courts to be sold for poaching or taking seals in the conterminous waters over which the United States claimed jurisdiction, but in January, 1887, Secretary Bayard ordered the Alaskan authorities to release these vessels, as he did not wish to bring the Behring Sea dispute into the Canadian fishery dispute which was at that time being brought forward by the United States for adjustment.†

* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, PP. 9-13.

For the argument of both sides see Snow,

In order to make provisions for the better protection of the seals Secretary Bayard on August 19, 1887, directed the United States ministers in England, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Norway and Sweden to ask these governments to send representatives to a conference in the United States. States. All the powers appealed to, except Sweden, acted favorably on the suggestion and the negotiations for international agreement seemed at last to promise a successful issue, but in June, 1888, the Marquis of Salisbury withdrew from the proceedings and the negotiations were unfortunately abandoned.

In March, 1889, the Harrison administration came into power and after several more seizures of British vessels by the American government, Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British minister at Washington, on June 14, 1890, presented a note of protest.* Secretary of State Blaine then engaged in a long controversy with Salisbury in an attempt to settle the dispute. The correspondence finally resulted in the establishment of a modus vivendi on June 15, 1891, by the terms of which each country agreed to prohibit sealing in the disputed area until May, 1892, and agreed to allow offenders to

Treaties and Topics, pp. 477-480; Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 15-18. For text of treaties of 1783 and 1818 see Snow, pp. 62-67, 79-81.

* Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 492-493.

See House Ex. Doc. No. 450, 51st Congress, 1st session: House Ex. Doc. No. 144, 51st Congress, 2d session; Senate Ex. Doc. No. 55, 52d Congress, 1st session; Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 481-497.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION.

be tried by the courts of the country to which they owed allegiance. Both Both nations sent vessels to the Behring Sea to enforce the agreement.*

It was also agreed that with a view to submitting the case to arbitration, Great Britain might send representatives to the seal islands to examine and secure data regarding the fisheries. The United States also sent representatives. Sir George BadenPowell, M. P., and Professor George M. Dawson were sent by Great Britain and Dr. C. Hart Merriam and Professor Mendenhall by the United States,

The diplomatic agents of the two countries then entered upon negotiations in the hope of securing a mutually advantageous treaty and after some disputes over minor terms a treaty was signed at Washington on February 29, 1892. Both countries agreed to submit the dispute to a tribunal of seven arbitrators, two to be appointed by the President of the United States, two by Her Britannic Majesty and one each by the President of the French Republic, the King of Italy and the King of Sweden and Norway. This tribunal was to meet at Paris within a stipulated time. The settlement, therefore, went over into another administration and President Cleveland had been inaugurated before the arbitrators met. On May 9,

* Hamilton'a Blaine, pp. 659-672; Snow, pp. 497-498; Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., p. 146.

Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 18-31; Snow, pp. 103-105; McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1892, pp. 148-151.

63

1892, President Harrison issued a proclamation renewing the modus vivendi until the dispute was settled.

The arbitrators met at Paris, France, March 23, 1893. Associate Justice John M. Harlan, of the Supreme Court, and Senator John T. Morgan, represented the United States; Baron de Courcel, of the French Senate, represented France; Lord Hannen, and Sir John S. D. Thompson, of Canada, represented England; Marquis Emilio ViscontiVenosti, represented Italy; and Judge Gregers W. W. Gram represented Sweden and Norway. Baron de Courcel, the French representative, was chosen president of the court. Edward J. Phelps, James C. Carter, Frederic R. Coudert and Henry W. Blodgett were counsel for the United States; and Great Britain was repre-~~ sented by Sir Charles Russell, Sir Richard Webster and Mr. Christopher Robinson.

The court rendered its decision August 15, 1893, and on the legal points and points of international law it was wholly in favor of Great Britain. The court denied that the United States possessed exclusive jurisdiction in Behring Sea, and decided that the United States could not lay claim to an exclusive right of property in the seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands. It was also decided that as Behring Sea was a part of the high seas it could not be held as a preserve and that as the seals were feræ naturæ they might be caught by anyone.

* Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions,

But it was unanimously decided that the herds of seals ought to be protected by law, and regulations binding for five years were prescribed (Articles I and II of the award) which prohibited all pelagic sealing within 60 miles of the Pribilof Islands, or from the first of May to the 31st of July in the North Pacific east of the 180th degree of longitude and north of the 35th degree of latitude.* An act was passed by Congress April 5, 1894, to enforce the award as to American citizens and orders in council were enacted on April 18, 1894, by the British Parliament in relation to British subjects.

The United States and Great Britain were to enforce the restrictive provisions of the treaty co-jointly, but the officials in charge of the work were lax and the restrictions became absurdly ineffective. The number of seals caught during the next few seasons was so great that the herds began to show signs of extinction, but Great Britain would not listen to any change in the regulations until the stipulated five years had elapsed.†

The United States, Japan and Russia then agreed to prohibit pelagic sealing if Great Britain would do the same, but the British government re

pp. 31-39; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 99104, 212-213; Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy, p. 215.

* Snow, Treaties and Topics, pp. 500-509, gives the award in full. See also Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 40-41; Woolsey, America's Foreign Policy, p. 216 et seq.

Senate Ex Doc. No. 177, 53d Congress, 2d session; Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 42--46.

fused to do this, laying all the trouble to the abuse of privilege on the part of the North American Company which had had a monopoly of the sealing.

A new administration (McKinley's) had now come into power (March, 1897) and John Sherman was Secretary of State. tary of State. Congress, thereupon, in order to destroy the market for skins caught by Canadians, prohibited the importation of any sealskins unless accompanied by consular certificates showing that they were not seacaptures, but this did not have the desired effect, as the British government still refused to agree to the provisional treaty. On November 17, 1897, however, a meeting of experts from the United States, Canada and Great Britain was held, and the American claims were unanimously upheld.* On June 14, 1898, Congress appropriated $473,151.26 to pay for the Canadian vessels that had been seized many years before.†

In August, 1898, a joint American and Canadian commission, which had been authorized by agreement on May 30 preceding, met at Quebec, but it adjourned to meet at Washington in the following November; was then adjourned to February, 1899, and was again postponed until the summer, but it never reassembled. Unfortunately this commission had not decided any of the issues before adjournment and as the Paris regulations had expired

*Henderson, pp. 46–57.

Moore, American Diplomacy, p. 104; Hender son, pp. 60-61.

CHINESE IMMIGRATION QUESTION.

and none had been established to take their place the seals are now entirely unprotected.*

During all these years the Chinese immigration question had been a source of anxiety to the government. After the ratification of the Burlingame treaty of 1868, a strong prejudice against the Chinese sprang up on the Pacific coast, chiefly because of their alleged monopoly of labor at reduced prices," cheap John " being a popular phrase applied to them. In 1876 a joint committee of both Houses of Congress was sent to the Pacific Coast to investigate the matter. Two reports were submitted-one by Senator Sargent, of California, who, after the death of the chairman, Senator Morton, of Indiana, assumed charge of the investigation, and the minority report consisting of notes prepared by Senator Morton before his death.†

The matter was brought to the attention of Congress, and a bill to restrict Chinese immigration was introduced early in December, 1878, and was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. It was reported to the House January 14, 1879, and on the 29th was passed by a vote of 155 to 72. After prolonged debate in the Senate, that body amended and passed it February 15, by a vote of 39 to 27,

*Henderson, American Diplomatic Questions, pp. 58-62.

Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 287-293, gives an epitome of the two reports. See also Senate Report No. 689, 44th Congress, 2d session; Miscellaneous Doc. No. 20, 45th Congress, 2d session.

Foreign Relations, 1870, p. 307, Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. vi., p. 690.

65

and the House concurred in the amendments on the 22d.* The principal feature of the bill was the prohibiting of any vessel from bringing more than fifteen Chinese passengers to any port of the United States.† President Hayes vetoed this bill on March 1, as being contrary to the Burlingame Treaty, and because by its terms immigration was so restricted that it fell "little short of its absolute exclusion." Congress failed to secure the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill over the veto.

Therefore in 1880 a commission was sent to China to negotiate a new treaty. This was signed in November, 1880, and ratified by the Senate July 19, 1881. The treaty gave to the United States the right to "regulate, limit or suspend" the further immigration of Chinese laborers, but this country did not have the right to absolutely prohibit it. The treaty also allowed those Chinese then in the country to remain and travel around at their pleasure, and prohibited molestation with Chinese merchants, teachers, students or travelers. § The commissioners also negotiated a treaty relating to general commercial * McPherson, Handbook of Politics, 1880, pp. 39-41.

Foster, American Diplomacy, p. 293; Hamilton's Blaine, pp. 449-451.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »