| OCR Text |
Show 228 229 "it appears to Her Majesty's government that there are but two questions by which the claim of compensation could be tested: neutral to a belligerent. The award was contrary to the contentions of the United States. Nevertheless, it served to put an end to the dispute. In 1892 occurred the wellslmown arbitration of the Fur Seal controversy between Gr xat Britain and the United States before the Paris Tribunal. The issues were of a legal character involving primarily whether the United States rightfully exer- cised exclusive jurisdiction over the waters of Beringr Sea. Our country had assert‘d a right of property and control over the fur seals frequenting certain islands in Bering Sea when such seals were found outside of the ordinary threeanile mark. Great Britain denied the lawfulness of that claim, and attacked the validity of an interest which the United States had regarded as of vital consequence. The award, favorable to Great Britain, swept away the foundations of the American contentions. Our government bowed to the decision and justice was promoted. \Vhenever a state a crts over any area, whether land or water. a claim of jurisdiction or control the validity of which is denied by any other nations, the controversy is usually regarded as involvingr the vital interests of one of the parties concerned. Such a controversy is none the less capable of adjustment by judicial means. because its solution is always to be had by refer- ence to existingr rules of international conduct. During." the present year. a special agreement has been con- cluded between Great liritain and the United States for the submission of the northeastern fishery dispute to arbitration before a tribunal chosen from the general list of members of the Perma- nent Court at The Hague. The controversy is one involving the interpretation of Article l of the Treaty of 1818, affecting inter- ests which ever since that date have been regarded by both nations as most vital. it concerns the extent of the right of British authorities to regulate or restrain the fishingr industry within certain portions of British America: it involves the wel- fare and prosperity of our New England fishermen as well as that The one is, Have the British government acted \v1th due dill- genee, or, in other words. in good faith and honesty, in the maintenance of the neutrality they proclaimed? The other is, Have the law officers of the Crown properly understood the foreign enlistment act when they declined, in June, 1862, to advise the detention and seizure of the Alabama, and on other oeeasrons when they were asked to detain other ships building or fitting in British ports? It appears to Her Majesty's government that neither of these questions could be put to a foreign government with any regard to the dignity and character of the British Crown and the British nation. Her Majesty's government are the sole guardians of their own honor:"* It may have been true that these questions did involve the national honor of Great Britain. "'hether they did or not. however, public sentiment in that country strongly believed that the issues involved substantial questions of law and practice and questions of international conduct which the British government. according to Professor Moore. might consider "without abatincr anything of the ‘dignity and character' of the Crown. and without ceasing to be ‘the sole guardians of their own honor.'"i in May, 187 . a treaty for the arbitration of the Alabama claims was concluded. The accom- plishment of the Geneva tribunal is too well known to require comment During the War of 1812 the American privateer General Armstrong. while in the harbor of Fayal, was destroyed by British warships. The United States demanded indemnification from Portugal on the ground that that nation in failing to pro- tect the vessel had also failed in its duty as a neutral. The issue was referred to arbitration before Louis Napoleon. then President of the French Republic. who, in November, 1852, rendered a decision adverse to the American claim. The question at issue was one of public law and one of great importance, because it involved an inquiry concerning what acts by a belligerent warship forfeited its right to demand protection by a neutral; also an inquiry into the question concerning the extent of the duty of a ‘ Moon. lid. Arbitrations. l. 490. ‘lMuure, lnt. Arbitrations, l. 497. of the fishermen of ("anada and Newfoundland. Nevertheless, the nations concerned have believed that the complicated contro- versy is capable of adjustment by a judicial tribunal of five judges", three of whom are to be neutral. ft is significant that the United States and Great Britain have reached an agreement |
