Debate for Thursday, Feb. 23, 1893.
Brief for the affirmative.A. S. APSEY and W. H. DAVIS.
Best general references: Stanton, Behring Sea Controversy, ch. IX; Amer. Hist. Leaflet, No. 6. Letters of Mr. Blaine, Foreign Rel., 1890. pp. 437, 477; Correspondence between the U S. and Great Britain, Bering Sea, 24 93; E. J. Phelps, Harp. Mag. LXXXII, 766, (Apr. 1891); H. H. Bancroft's Alaska ch. XXI; Wharton, Internat. Law, I pp. 70, 109, 113; Welling, B. S. Arbitration, 10.
I. The real question is has the U. S. a right to protect the seals outside the three mile limit?; Am. L'f't, 26.
II. Exclusive jurisdiction over large bodies of water is not uncommon, e. g. Ceylon, pearl fisheries, fisheries off the north of Scotland, St. Helena, etc.; Am. Hist. L'f't, 17,23; Behring Sea, 24; Wharton, Inter. Law pp. 70, 109, 113.
III. The U. S. has a special right to exclusive jurisdiction over Behring Sea. - (a) Ruasia had such a right before 1867. - (1)She claimed the right: Am. Hist. L f't, 4-6-(2) The U.S. and Great Britain admitted the claim: Am. Hist. L'f't, 8-10; Sec'y Blaine, For. Rel., 1890. pp. 437. 477. - (b) Russia transferred her rights unimpaired to the U. S.; E. J. Phelps. Harp. Mag. LXXXII, 766; Treaty of 1807. Am. Hist. L'f't, 10. 11.
IV. There are special reasons for the interest of the U. S. in the seal fisheries in Behring Sea. - (a) Immediate action by U. S. is necessary to prevent extermination of seals: U. S. Doc. House Report p. 3883, 2nd Ses. 50th Cong.; Bancroft's Alaska, ch. XXI; Behring Sea, 93; Am, Hist L'f't, 16, 17. - (b) A nation's first duty is to maintain the existence of its inhabitants, and a large number of the inhabitants would starve if Gov. did not protect seal fisheries: Hall, 42; Fur Seal Fisheries of Alaska, 6-7; B. S. Con., 90. - (c)Parallel of the Newfoundland Banks' fisheries: Blaine, For. Rel. 1890, 369.
Brief for the Negative.R. C. LARRABEE AND W. J. H. Strong.
Best general references: American Hist. Leaflets, No. 6; Stanton, Behring Sea Controversy; Yale Review, I, 162-166 (Aug., 1892); Forum VIII, 224-236 (Nov., 1889); Atlantic Monthly, LXV, 178-186 (Feb., 1890); Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the U. S. pp. 26-32, 300-308, 327; U. S. Documents Behring Sea, 2 vols. (correspondence); Robert Rayner, Answer to the Hon. E. J. Phelps's Paper on the Behring Sea Controversy.
I. The claims of the U. S. violate the principle of mare liberum: Atlantic Monthly LXV. 184.- (a) Behring Sea not an enclosed sea: Forum VIII, 231; Stanton supra. - (1) Size: Forum. VIII, 231. - (2) Width of the entrance: Atlantic Monthly LXV, 185. - (3) Shores owned by two nations: Stanton supra 76. - (b) Canadian vessels have been seized outside the marginal belt: Atlantic Monthly LXV, 184; Stanton supra, Chap. 1.
II. The action of the U. S. is without modern procedent. - (a) Contrary to our own former position: Atlantic Monthly, LXV, 183; Stanton, Chap. X. - (b) Unlike claims made by other nations: Stanton, Chap. IV. - (c) Not comparable to - (1) Suppression of privacy or slave trade; Am. Hist. Leaflets, No. 6, 18. - (2) Protection of poor fishermen: Forum VIII. 232.
III. U. S. received no exclusive jurisdiction from Russia - (a) Russia did not formally assert or exercise such rights over the whole of Behring Sea: Stanton, 30-31 - (b) Russia's claims not recognized by - (1) U. S.: Stanton, 34, -(2) England: U. S. Doc., Behring Sea, 1892, pp. 17-18, - (3) Abrograted by treaties of 1824-25: Stanton, 36-37 - (c) Behring Sea part of the Pacific Ocean; Stanton; 35-39. - (D0 Russia's alleged "rights by nature" not transferable: Stanton, 54.
IV. The United States would be benefited by the loss of the care. - (a) Gains goodwill and cooperation of other nations: Am. Hist. Leaflets. No. 6, p. 26. - (b) A less pretentious foreign policy encouraged: Boston Herald, Feb. 4, 1892, p. 8; Yale Review, I, p. 162.