THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE 



49 



political and territorial integrity and in- 

 dependence of the governments in this 

 hemisphere. 



The policy has promoted the peace of 

 the Western Hemisphere. It has pro- 

 moted the principle of self-determination 

 here, and it has minimized for the United 

 States danger of conflict with European 

 and other nations. It does not rest, how- 

 ever, on the legal right of the United 

 States. It is based on no principle of in- 

 ternational law which the United States 

 could invoke in a court. 



So, too, the question of whether the 

 Japanese or the Chinese shall be admitted 

 to the United States or shall be admitted 

 to naturalization in the United States is 

 not a question involving principles of in- 

 ternational law. 



Every nation by international law is 

 given the absolute right to admit whom it 

 will and to exclude whom it will from its 

 shores or from the privileges of its citi- 

 zenship. The claim of the Chinese and 

 the Japanese to admission or to citizen- 

 ship must rest on the issue whether 

 neighborly feeling and good-fellowship 

 and international brotherhood require 

 this country to admit races like the Chi- 

 nese and the Japanese, with their racial 

 qualities and traditions, to share with the 

 present residents of this country the ma- 

 terial benefits of residence here or the 

 political advantages of its citizenship. 



In issues over the Monroe Doctrine or 

 Chinese or Japanese exclusion the case 

 must go to the Council of Conciliation. 

 It can have no place in a court. The 

 question how a recommendation of such 

 a council adverse to the Monroe Doctrine 

 or Oriental exclusion would affect either 

 must depend on the provision for dealing 

 with recommendations of the council in 

 the plan of the League. 



A CASE LOST AND WON BY THE UNITED 



STATES 



Let me give a concrete case of a judg- 

 ment of a court, of a recommendation of 

 a commission or Council of Conciliation, 

 and a settlement in accordance with the 

 recommendation. 



The United States, by a transfer from 

 Russia, became the owner of the Prybi- 

 lofr* Islands, in the middle of the Bering 

 Sea. Upon those islands was the breed- 



ing place of the largest herd of fur-bear- 

 ing seals in the world. They were a val- 

 uable property and a considerable annual 

 income was derived by the United States 

 from the sale of the fur. 



Canadian schooners began what was 

 called pelagic sealing. They shot the 

 seals in the open Bering Sea. This indis- 

 criminate hunting killed the females of 

 the herd and was decimating it. 



Revenue cutters of the United States, 

 by direction of the government of the 

 United States, seized such sealing vessels, 

 brought them into a port of the United 

 States, where were instituted proceedings 

 to forfeit them. 



Great Britain objected on the ground 

 that the United States had no legal juris- 

 diction to do this. The case was sub- 

 mitted to an arbitration. The treaty con- 

 tained a provision that the arbitrators, 

 should they reach the conclusion that the 

 United States had no legal right, mir\t 

 recommend a basis of compromise. 



The United States asserted its right, 

 on the ground, first, that it had territorial 

 jurisdiction over the open waters of the 

 Bering Sea by transfer from Russia, 

 which had asserted, maintained, and en- 

 joyed such jurisdiction, and, second, that 

 it owned the seals while in the sea in such 

 a way that the Canadian schooners were 

 despoiling its personal property. 



The court of arbitration held against 

 the United States on both points, decid- 

 ing that Russia never had any territorial 

 jurisdiction over the open Bering Sea to 

 transfer to the United States, and that 

 when the seals left the islands and swam 

 out into the open sea they were the prop- 

 erty of no one and were subject to cap- 

 ture by any one. The judgment of the 

 court, therefore, was against the United 

 States and awarded damages. 



Pursuing, however, the recommenda- 

 tion of the treaty, the court made itself 

 into a council of mediation. It said that 

 while the killing of seals in the open sea 

 was not a violation of the legal rights of 

 the United States, of which the United 

 States could legally complain, it was 

 nevertheless a great injury to the com- 

 mon welfare of the world to destroy this 

 greatest seal herd of the world, first, be- 

 cause the fur was valuable and useful for 

 the garments of men and women, and, 



