many more of the British Columbian sealers for operating in the waters of Behring Sea. The controversy resulting, as yet unsettled, is the first on our list to claim attention.

The habits of the fur seals and the methods of capture are as follows: During the winter season the seals are widely scattered in the Pacific Ocean. In April they travel northward and repair to certain breeding islands lying in the Behring Sea. One group of these islands belongs to Russia, another to the United States. It has been the practice of our government to farm out its seal fishery to a company, under conditions of rental, tax per skin, and limitation of slaughter. This company's employees protect the seals in these Pribyloff Islands from depredation. After the females have landed they keep near shore with their young. The bachelors of a certain age are quietly driven inland and there killed. After some months when the bearing and breeding processes, thus rendered undisturbed, are completed the seals all put to sea again. It is in the spring and early summer when the seals are on their way to the rookeries, in the open sea, traversing the passages between the fringe of Aleutian Islands which mark off the Behring Sea from the Pacific, or cruising the coast, that latterly they have been intercepted by what we term the seal poachers. These men, belonging to the United States as well as to British Columbia, by their indiscriminate killing of females as well as of males, and losing many as they must through the sinking of the carcasses, have seriously diminished the source of supply.

Now it is of considerable importance to both Great Britain and the United States that this sealing industry should be preserved, for the skins are cured and dressed in London while the direct revenue is paid to this country. A close season and a regulated slaughter are probably essential to preserve this interesting animal from extinction. The real question then is whether such regulation shall be brought about through diplomatic agreement, or whether we can establish it through force as a matter of right. Over our own sealers, and over foreign sealers in our own coast sea, we undoubtedly have jurisdiction. But have we lawful jurisdiction over the operations of foreigners many

miles from land where most of our captures have been made? Such jurisdiction cannot arise from our ownership of the seals, for they are wild animals uninclosed, and can be owned by nobody.

It cannot arise from the contention that their slaughter by foreigners is contra bonos mores, for that is a meaningless phrase upon which no rights of capture can be founded.

Nor, once again, can it arise from the assertion that the Behring Sea is a mare clausum, and not a part of the high sea, since that assertion cannot be substantiated in fact. The Behring Sea is too vast to be under the control of any one nation. The territory of the United States borders less than half of it. Russia gave up a similar claim. It is inconsistent with the spirit of modern politics. If we have exclusive jurisdiction over the Behring Sea then it must spring from our ownership of adjacent land and from that alone. For it must always be kept in mind that jurisdiction is not a thing separate and complete in itself, but only an incident to the possession of certain territory. Our question therefore presents itself thus: Has the United States through its possession of Alaska acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the Behring Sea? Here it must first be remarked that the presumption is against us. The vast exclusive claims to jurisdiction over broad stretches of sea, once in vogue, have become obsolete. Portugal and Spain no longer assert peculiar rights in great tracts of ocean with a papal bull as a warrant. England no longer compels foreign ships to lower their topsails to her in the narrow seas. American fishermen may fish as freely as Canadians in the Gulf of St. Lawrence if they keep off shore. Even the waters of the Bay of Fundy, after tedious disputation with Great Britain, are agreed to form part of the high

seas.

But the Alaska purchase was made from Russia and it seems to be from Russia that we derive the rights of jurisdiction to which we lay claim. As expressed in its diplomatic correspondence, our government asserts that Russia had controlled the fisheries of those waters from their discovery until 1867; that until 1886 they had been in undisturbed possession of the United

States; that thereby an exclusive right had been acquired in them. Our exclusive jurisdiction being thus derived from Russia we must prove that she owned and exercised it and that the Alaska purchase treaty conveyed it.

It is a fact that Russia once claimed exclusive rights over the coasts and waters of the Behring Sea from the straits to the 54th degree of north latitude. But neither Great Britain nor the United States would submit to such pretensions. Chancellor Kent and John Quincy Adams denied and opposed the claim. The result of our diplomatic protests is seen in the treaty of 1824 between Russia and the United States. "It is agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens shall be neither disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or in fishing, or in the power of resorting to the coasts" at unsettled points for trading. In 1825 a similar treaty was made by Russia with Great Britain. Both treaties were to last ten years. It is not practicable to argue that the Behring Sea was not a portion of the Pacific Ocean in the view of these treaties. The Behring Sea is a body of water, three times as large as the Gulf of Mexico, separated from the Pacific by a string of one hundred and fifty islands, mostly mere islets, in a line measuring perhaps 2,500 miles, with spaces as wide as 200 miles between them, a separation only in name. The claim of our government that Russia had exercised undisturbed exclusive sovereignty over the Behring Sea until 1867, is upset therefore by two treaties and by our own diplomatic history. Moreover, as Lord Salisbury has urged, the fact of non-use of a right, even if proved, does not imply abandonment of that right.

Again, by Art. I. of the Convention for the cession of Alaska, was surrendered "all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth.” Lines are drawn across the ocean "within which the territories and dominion conveyed are contained," but no mention is made of jurisdiction over a great stretch of sea as a thing granted. No jurisdiction was or could

be granted, except what attached to the land ceded, and that passed as a thing of course. Whatever rights we have in Behring Sea away from land, exist only by virtue of ownership of that land, and are not distinguishable from similar rights attaching to governmental possession of land elsewhere.

Russia based her claim to exclusive jurisdiction over these waters, upon her ownership of all the territory inclosing them. Her claim was successfully resisted. We now own less than half the coast that Russia did, and yet are now found setting up the same claim.

Are not these principles clear?

The Behring Sea is part of the high seas, and sealing, beyond the three-mile limit in it, can be prevented only by an exercise of sovereignty over it. Such right of sovereignty we denied to Russia. Such right we now claim, as derived from Russia. Such right, if Russia possessed it, could only be an incident to the ownership of the coasts, and could not exist and be conveyed independently. There is no evidence of an attempt to convey it independently. Its territorial right in a portion of the coast bordering the Behring Sea, does not give this country exclusive jurisdiction over the said sea for a certain purpose, or for any purpose. Our fishery disputes with Canada, the precedents in our own history, maritime law, common sense, all discredit the idea. It is a great and an undue stretch of the jurisdiction of the United States, to capture twelve ships and warn off a great many more for engaging in a species of fishery, many miles from land.

THE BARRUNDIA AFFAIR.

Barrundia, formerly minister of war in Guatemala, had been exiled in 1885 and resided in Mexico. Taking up weapons against his native state, he was disarmed by the Mexican authorities and conducted to Acapulco, there being requested to leave the country whose neutrality he had violated. He accordingly took passage on the Pacific Mail Steamer Acapulco for Salvador. She touched at Guatemalan ports but Barrundia felt secure under the United States flag. At the first port, Champerico, the Guatemalan authorities demanded Barrundia's sur

render, but the captain of the Acapulco refused to allow any officers on board.

The Guatemalan government then requested the American minister, Mr. Mizner, to direct Capt. Pitts of the Acapulco to surrender his passenger, charging him with sedition, treason, and conspiracy against the government. Mr. Mizner asked for and received assurances of a fair trial and no death penalty, in Barrundia's behalf, as Guatemala was then under military law.

The Acapulco came into port at San José Aug. 27, 1890. Commander Reiter of the Ranger boarded her and was asked by Pitts to protect his passenger. He replied that he could not act without authority from the governor of the port. Pitts then wired Mr. Mizner who answered that the Acapulco was within the jurisdiction of Guatemala, and that the authorities had a right to arrest any one charged with offenses against the laws of their country. To the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs, he made a similar reply, that the United States could not object to the exercise of local jurisdiction over the Acapulco while in Guatemalan waters; and then reminded him of his promise. Col. Torielle then boarded the Acapulco with a few soldiers, and demanded Barrundia. Pitts again appealed to the officers in the American man-of-war, who replied that the matter was out of their jurisdiction. The arrest was then attempted. Barrundia drew pistols, fired at Col. Torielle, and in a scuffle was shot by the Guatemalan soldiers. Mr. Mizner protested against the shooting as in violation of the promise made him. Shortly after, Barrundia's daughter shot at Mizner in the legation, charging him with being the cause of her father's

There is nothing very unusual in this petty tragedy. Nothing is clearer than that a merchant ship within the waters of a foreign state is under that state's jurisdiction. One of our men-of-war could have furnished Barrundia an asylum had he reached it, but surely it is not the business of our navy to exert itself actively in rescuing political exiles from the laws of their offended states. Asylum when it ceases to be passive, is rescue, a very different matter.

Both Commander Reiter and Mr. Mizner then, judged by the