Good offices, meditation or arbitration could not serve the purposes of imperial ambition.

THE FUR SEAL FISHERIES

The fur-seal fisheries in Behring's Sea gave rise to various questions between Great Britain and the United States, which the governments were unable to settle by diplomacy. The seals resorted to the islands to breed, but went far out on the sea where they were taken by fishermen. The United States claimed the right to regulate the taking and prevent the destruction of them. This claim was denied by Great Britain. A treaty was concluded February 29, 1892, submitting the questions on which the governments differed to seven arbitrators, two each to be appointed by the respective governments, one by the President of France, one by the King of Italy, and the other by the King of Sweden and Norway. The sixth article of the treaty states five points to be decided by the arbitrators:

"1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sca now known as Behring's 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 those claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?

3. Was the body of water now known as Behring's Sea included 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 held 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's Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia on the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that Treaty?

5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"15

The arbitrators decided "that the United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit." Pursuant to 15 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61st Congress, 47-748.

other provisions of the treaty the arbitrators decided that concurrent regulations outside the jurisdiction limits of the respective governments were necessary and included in their award nine articles providing among other things that both governments should forbid their citizens and subjects to kill, capture or pursue at any time seals within sixty geographical miles of the Pribilov Islands; or to kill, capture or pursue them during the season from May 1 to July 31 on the high sea in the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Behring Sea, which is situated to the North of the 35th degree of north latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article I of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia: that only sailing vessels should be permitted to take seals, and that each such vessel should procure a license from its government; that the use of nets, fire arms and explosives should be forbidden, except that shot guns might be used outside of Behring's sea.16

The award did not fully dispose of all matters of disagreement on the subject of the seal fisheries, but enabled them to agree on temporary regulations for the prevention of the extermination of the seals. It decided adversely to the United States all claims of exclusive jurisdiction over the high seas. Nor does it recognize any right in both governments acting in concert to make rules governing persons other than their own citizens and subjects. The high seas being the common property of all nations, the regulation of their use requires the joint action of all of them. The award did not dispose of the claims made against the United States for seizures and interference with the operations of British subjects. These claims were subsequently referred to a commission which on December 17, 1897, awarded the claimants $473,151.26 against the United States."

17

The two governments being unable to agree on the boundary line between Alaska and the British Dominions appointed a tribunal of six jurists, three of them named by each govern

16 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-751. 17 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-770.

ment, to determine the line. This tribunal, although composed entirely of nationals of the two parties, made an award which settled the controversy.

The success of these arbitrations and of those determining matters in difference between Great Britain and Venezuela, treaty of 1897, between the Argentine Republic and Chile, treaty of 1902, led to a feeling among diplomats of great confidence in the efficacy of arbitration as a means for the settlement of international disputes. The tripartite arbitration of the Samoan claims which, pursuant to the treaty concluded November 7, 1899, between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, was submitted to the King of Sweden and Norway as sole arbitrator, resulted in a decision in favor of Germany on October 14, 1902. King Oscar held that the military operations of Great Britain and the United States between I January and 13 May, 1899, were unwarranted under the treaty between the three powers concluded at Berlin June 14, 1889, and the principles of international law. This arbitration was notable because it submitted to a single arbitrator a question as to the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the military operations of two of the greatest nations in the world as affecting the subjects of a third great nation. There was plausible ground for making the claim that this was not a justiciable matter because it involved the honor of Great Britain and the United States, but no such claim was made and the controversy was settled by this award.18

The marked success of arbitration in bringing about speedy and complete settlement of so many controversies which might have been treated as grounds for war, induced the second Hague Conference to devote great care and attention to arbitration as a means to be resorted to by all nations for determining those questions that they were unable to settle by diplomacy. But the convention finally agreed on does not bind the nations to submit any class of disputes to arbitration. It merely approves and recommends it, provides a tribunal which may be resorted to if the parties so agree, and furnishes rules of pro

18 Senate Documents, 2d Session 61st Congress, 48-1591.

cedure to be followed where the parties do not make different provisions.

Recent history illustrates with equal force the need of other more drastic and efficient measures for the prevention of war than the facilities for arbitration afforded by the Hague tribunal. Only a short time before the meeting of the first Hague Conference there was war between China and Japan, 1894-1895. This was between Asiatic powers, who were not presumed by western nations to be familiar with this method of settling differences. But in 1898 there was war between the United States, which had been a party to so many arbitrations and was so thoroughly familiar with their uses and advantages, and Spain, the country with which it had made an arbitration agreement as early as 1795.

In October of the year of the first Hague Conference, 1899, Great Britain, the other party to these most notable arbitrations, had the Boer war in South Africa, which was not finally settled until 1902. Then followed the war between Russia and Japan and the fighting in the Balkans.

CHAPTER VII

THE HAGUE CONFERENCES

International coöperation seemed to be advancing by great strides during the last half of the nineteenth century. Conferences of diplomatic representatives of large numbers of the leading nations were held with great frequency for the purpose of making needed provisions in the interest of all. As results of these conferences governmental agencies acting in behalf of many and even of all the nations of the earth were established with various functions. The International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Paris gave exactness to the standard on which the metric system was founded and provided for prototypes by which the measures in use in the various countries could be tested. Though the use of this system was not universal it was most nearly so of any, and it was the most complete and scientific system ever adopted anywhere. The advantages of the convention are open to every nation not a party to it on the same terms as the signatory powers. The plan of formulating conventions applicable alike to the needs of all countries by the representatives of a considerable number of states and inviting the adhesion of those not represented at the conference appears to be a very modern and very excellent method of bringing about general agreements, and has come into quite general use. The Bureau is designed to be a permanent institution, available to all the nations. This was followed by the convention for the protection of submarine cables which dealt with the common property of all the nations, but did not establish any common governmental agency. The general act for the repression of the African slave trade dealt. with a subject very different from either of the others just named, covering a very wide field of great importance. It established an international office at Zanzibar, and made a branch of the foreign office at Brussels an agency for the col