seal could go to the Aleutian Islands and back, in all a distance of 300 or 400 miles, in less than two days.

"On the Pribilof Islands themselves, where the killing is at present under the direction of the Alaska Commercial Company, which by the terms of its contract is not permitted to take over 100,000 skins a year, no females, pups, or old bulls are ever killed, and thus the breeding of the animals is not interfered with. The old bulls are the first to reach the islands, where they await the coming of the females. As the young bulls arrive they are driven away by the old bulls to the sandy part of the islands, by themselves. And these are the animals that are driven inland and there killed by clubbing, so that the skins are not perforated, and discrimination is exercised in each case.

"That the extermination of the fur seals must soon take place unless they are protected from destruction in Behring Sea is shown by the fate of the animal in other parts of the world, in the absence of concerted action among the nations interested for its preservation. Formerly many thousands of seals were obtained annually from the South Pacific Islands, and from the coasts of Chile and South Africa. They were also common in the Falkland Islands and the adjacent seas. But in those islands, where hundreds of thousands of skins were formerly obtained, there have been taken, according to the best statistics, since 1880, less than 1,500 skins. In some places the indiscriminate slaughter, especially by use of firearms, has in a few years resulted in completely breaking up extensive rookeries. "At the present time it is estimated that out of an aggregate yearly yield of 185,000 seals from all parts of the globe, over 130,000, or more than two-thirds, are obtained from the rookeries on the American and Russian islands in Behring Sea. Of the remainder, the larger part are taken in Behring Sea, although such taking, at least on such a scale, in that quarter is a comparatively recent thing. But if the killing of the fur seal there with firearms, nets, and other destructive implements were permitted, hunters would abandon other and exhausted places of pursuit for the more productive field of Behring Sea, where extermination of this valuable animal would also rapidly

ensue.

"It is manifestly for the interests of all nations that so deplorable a thing should not be allowed to occur. As has already been stated, on the Pribilof Islands this Government strictly limits the number of seals that may be killed under its own lease to an American company; and citizens of the United States have, during the past year, been arrested and ten American vessels seized for killing fur seals in Behring Sea. "England, however, has an especially great interest in this matter, in addition to that which she must feel in preventing the extermination of an animal which contributes so much to the gain and comfort of her people. Nearly all undressed furseal skins are sent to London, where they are dressed and dyed

for the market, and where many of them are sold. It is stated that at least 10,000 people in that city find profitable employment in this work; far more than the total number of people en gaged in hunting the fur seal in every part of the world. At the Pribilof Islands it is believed that there are not more than 400 persons so engaged; at Commander Islands, not more than 300; in the Northwest coast fishery, not more than 525 Indian hunters and 100 whites; and in the Cape Horn fishery, not more than 400 persons, of whom perhaps 300 are Chileans. Great Britain, therefore, in co-operating with the United States to prevent the destruction of fur seals in Behring Sea would also be perpetuating an extensive and valuable industry in which her own citizens have the most lucrative share.

"I inclose for your information copy of a memorandum on the fur-seal fisheries of the world, prepared by Mr. A. Howard Clark, in response to a request made by this Department to the United States Fish Commissioner. I inclose also, for your further information, copy of a letter to me, dated December 3d last, from Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who has spent much time in Alaska, engaged in the study of seal life, upon which he is well known as an authority. I desire to call your especial attention to what is said by Mr. Elliott in respect to the new method of catching the seals with nets.

"As the subject of this dispatch is one of great importance and of immediate urgency, I will ask that you give it as early attention as possible."1

Mr. Phelps at once presented to Lord Salisbury a copy of these instructions and arranged for an interview with the Russian ambassador; and on the 25th of February he reported that Lord Salisbury had assented to the proposition to establish by mutual arrangement "a close time for fur seals, between April 15 and November 1, and between 160° of longitude west and 170° of longitude east, in the Behring Sea," and that his lordship would join the United States Government in any preventive measures which it might be thought best to adopt, by orders issued to the naval vessels of the respective governments in that region.2 Mr. Phelps also reported that the Russian ambassador concurred, so far as his personal opinion was concerned, in the propriety of the proposed measures, and had promised immediately to communicate with his government in regard to them.

On the 2d of March 1888 Mr. Bayard, in response to an inquiry as to the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the regulations for the protection of the seals, and as to

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 88.

2 Cf. Fur Seal Arbitration, V. 610.

whether legislation by Congress would be necessary for that purpose, stated that whether legislation would be required would depend much upon the character of the regulations, but that it was probable legislation would be needed. The manner of protecting the seals would, he said, also depend upon the kind of arrangement which might be concluded. As the matter appeared to the Government of the United States, the commerce carried on in and about Behring Sea was so limited in variety and extent that the effort to protect the seals need not be complicated by considerations which were of great importance in highways of commerce, and which rendered the interference by the officers of one government with the merchant vessels of another on the high seas inadmissible. In this relation Mr. Bayard referred to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain concluded April 7, 1862, for the suppression of the slave trade by the joint policing of certain seas by the naval vessels of the contracting parties; but in the present case he did not deem it necessary that the performance of police duty should be by the naval vessels of the contracting parties. As to persons charged with violating the proposed regulations, provision might, he said, be made for handing them over for trial to the courts of their own country. For such procedure he found a precedent in the treaty signed at The Hague on May 6, 1882, for the regulation of the police of the North Sea fisheries.1

Negotiations in London.

During the month of April Mr. Henry White, secretary of the legation of the United States, acting as chargé d'affaires in the temporary absence of Mr. Phelps, held several interviews at the foreign office with Lord Salisbury and M. De Staal, the Russian ambassador. The latter expressed the wish of his government for the extension of any regulations which might be agreed upon for Behring Sea to the Sea of Okhotsk, or at least to that portion of it in which Robben Island is situated. The United States assented to this proposal. M. De Staal also urged that measures be taken to prohibit the importation by merchant vessels into the seal protected area, for sale therein, of alcoholic drinks, firearms, gunpowder, and dynamite. In regard to the latter proposal Mr. White reported that Lord Salisbury expressed no opinion, but that, with a view to meet the Russian Government's wishes respecting the waters surrounding Rob

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 97.

ben Island, his lordship suggested that, besides the whole of Behring Sea, those portions of the Sea of Okhotsk and of the Pacific Ocean that lie north of the forty-seventh degree of north latitude should be included in the proposed arrangement. His lordship further intimated that the period proposed by the United States for a close time (April 15 to November 1) might interfere with trade longer than was absolutely necessary for the protection of the seals, and suggested October 1 as the termination of the period of seal protection. These subjects were discussed at an interview of the 16th of April, and Mr. White, in concluding his report of the conversation, stated that Lord Salisbury had promised to have a draft of a convention prepared for submission to the Russian ambassador and himself. Mr. Bayard deemed it advisable to take the 15th of October instead of October 1 as the end of the close season, though he considered the 1st of November safer than either. The restriction of the sale of firearms and liquor he thought it preferable to regulate by a separate convention."

tiations.

On the 20th of June 1888 Mr. White reported Suspension of Nego- that on the 16th of the preceding month he had called with the Russian ambassador at the foreign office for the purpose of discussing with Lord Salisbury the terms of the proposed convention, and that his lordship had just received a communication from the Canadian Government stating that a memorandum on the subject would shortly be forwarded to London, and expressing the hope that, pending the arrival of that document, no further steps would be taken in the matter by Her Majesty's goverment. Mr. White said that he had since inquired several times whether the communication had been received, but it had not yet come to hand, and Lord Salisbury felt bound to await the Canadian memorandum before proceeding to draft the convention.

Suggestion of Mr.
Phelps.

The next report from the legation on the subject was made by Mr. Phelps. It bears date the 12th of September. In this report Mr. Phelps stated that he had had an interview with Lord Salisbury on the 13th of August, one of the objects of which was to urge the completion of the convention between the United States, Great Britain, and Russia for the protection of

1S. Ex. Doc. 106, 50 Cong. 2 sess. 100.

2 Id. 100-101.

the fur seals. This convention had, said Mr. Phelps, "been virtually agreed on verbally, except in its details," but the consideration of it had been suspended at the request of the Canadian Government; and he expressed the opinion that the British Government would not execute it without the concurrence of Canada, and that the concurrence of Canada could not reasonably be expected. Mr. Phelps continued:

"Under these circumstances the Government of the United States must, in my opinion, either submit to have these valuable fisheries destroyed or must take measures to prevent their destruction by capturing the vessels employed in it. Between these alternatives it does not appear to me there should be the slightest hesitation. Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the abstract question of the right of mare clausum. I do not conceive it to be applicable to the present case. Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly managed, permanent industry, the property of the nations on whose shores it is carried on. It is proposed by the colony of a foreign nation, in defiance of the joint remonstrance of all the countries interested, to destroy this business by the indiscriminate slaughter and extermination of the animals in question, in the open neighboring sea, during the period of gestation, when the common dictates of humanity ought to protect them, were there no interest at all involved. And it is suggested that we are prevented from defending ourselves against such depredations because the sea at a certain distance from the coast is free. The same line of argument would take under its protection piracy and the slave trade, when prosecuted in the open sea, or would justify one nation in destroying the commerce of another by placing dangerous obstructions and derelicts in the open sea near its coasts. There are many things that cannot be allowed to be done on the open sea with impunity, and against which every sea is mare clausum. And the right of self defense as to person and property prevails there as fully as elsewhere. If the fish upon the Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering poison in the open sea adjacent, with some small profit to those engaged in it, would Canada, upon the just principles of international law, be held defenseless in such a case? Yet that process would be no more destructive, inhuman, and wanton than this. If precedents are wanting for a defense so necessary and so proper it is because precedents for such a course of conduct are likewise unknown. The best international law has arisen from precedents that have been established when the just occasion for them arose, undeterred by the discussion of abstract and inadequate rules." 1

Case of the United States, Appendix I, 181-183, Fur Seal Arbitration, II.