The Bering Sea Arbitration: A Moral Victory for the Seal
A Paris tribunal rules against American claims of exclusive jurisdiction, yet grants the U.S. the stringent conservation regulations they sought to save the fur seal from extinction.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The decision of the Bering Sea arbitrators effectively secures a larger protection for the seal than Great Britain had been disposed to grant. To that extent, it is a victory for the American case, and a vindication of the statesmanship of James G. Blaine, who rested his argument not upon exclusive marine jurisdiction, but upon international morality and comity. The zone of protection, sixty miles around the Pribilof Islands, is double the limit Lord Salisbury was once willing to concede. The arbitrators decided the U.S. derived no rights of exclusive jurisdiction from Russia, and that seizing Canadian sealers outside the three-mile limit was illegal—obliging the U.S. to pay compensation. However, the American goal of protecting the seal is achieved through the prohibition of firearms, nets, and explosives in the sea. Our case was technically defeated on legal points of law, but the practical result is a victory for seal conservation.
“The arbitrators rose to the level of Mr. Blaine's argument, the victory on technical law points is with Great Britain, but the practical purpose of the arbitration is obtained.”
This 1893 legal battle over the Bering Sea highlights the early struggles of international environmental law and the tensions between national resource control and international waters—a debate that remains central to Pacific Northwest commerce and ecological policy today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.