sa, % IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 Icji •- 1^ l{j||2.2 li: 1^ 12.0 1.4 1= 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation iV 'qV ;\ \ *% .V o^ 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 "^^ % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliopraphic Notat/Notet tachniques at bibliographiquas Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain ttia baat original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may l>a bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. D Coloured covara/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covara damaged/ D Couvarture endommagAe Covers restored end/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque r~1 Coloured maps/ D D D D D Cartas gAographique!^ an coulaur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) rn Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou iiiuatrations en couieur Bound with other material/ RailA avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La rellure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge inttrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes lors d'une restauration apparalssent d;^ns le texte, mals. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires; L'Inatitut a microfilm* le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a At* poaaibia de se procurer. Les details da cat exemplaire qui aont paut-Atre uniquea du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la mAthoda normala de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I — I Colourt'd pagaa/ n D D D n Pages de couieur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagias Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurAes et/ou peliicuiies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dicolorAes, tachaties ou piquties Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Gualit6 in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du mat6riel suppKimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured Dy errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obicurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At4 filmAes A nouveau da fa9on A obtanir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fi!mA au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 1 1 y 1 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X 1 1 Th« copy filmad h^r* hat b««n r«produc«d thanki to tho gonorosity of: Library Division Provincial Archives of British Columbia L'oxomplair* filmi fut raproduit grica A la gAnArosit* da: Library Division 'Provincial Archives of British Columbia Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality potsibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha filming contract tpacifications. Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion, or tha back covar whan appropriate. All othar original copias ara filmad baginning on tha first paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad imprassion. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Las images sulvantas ont At* raproduitas avac la plus grand soin. compta tenu da la condition at da la nattet* da raxamplaira filmA, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmaga. Las exemplairas origmaux dont la couvarture en papier est imprimie sont filmAs en commengant par la premier plat et en terminant soit par la darniAre paga qui comporta una ampreinte d'imprassion ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, salon le cas. Tous las autras exemplairas originaux sont film6s en commenqant par la pramiire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »• signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Msps, plates, cherts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hsnd corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmA A pe:tir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite. et de hauf en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 i THE PASSING OF THE FUR-SEAL. BY HENRY LOOMIS NELSON. ll/'HATEVER may be the outcome of T T the ett'ort of the United States to prevent the extinction of the fur-seal, if will always be a signilicant fact in the history of international and colonial pol- itics that the Dominion of Canada for nearly eight years has been able to oppose successfully the interests of the United States, Great Britain, and Russia in the seal herds. The United States and Great Britain appeared to be reaching an agree- ment dictated by both commercial and humane considerations in 1888, but the Dominion government interfered in be- half of a few pelagic sealers, and nego- tiations were susj)ended. At that time Russia was desirous of obtaining for her herd the same protection it was lioped would be granted to the American herd. Here are tliret^ of the most powerful na- tions of the world restiained by a colony of one of the powers from doing not only what prudence suggests but wluit human- ity and good faith dei.iand. There was never a finer example v>f the wrongs thitt may be perpetrated by an irresponsible community possessing national powers, but not having internitional obligations. Two powers, tlie United Slates and Russia, owning the islands on whicli the seals of the two lierds breed, and where alone they can be hunted and killed with a proper regard for the preservation of the species, have lea.sed the right to kill to private cit- izens, and they are in honor bound to pro- tect tlie rights which they have granted. All the skins obtained either by pelagic or island iishing are dressed and dyed in London, so that the interests of citizens of England are identical witli those of the United States and Russia.* Opposed to the citizens of the United States and Russia who are regularly en- gaged in the business of seal-hunting un- der proper restrictions imposed by their governnsents, and who pay for the priv- ilege, which they have the right to enjoy, are a few Canadian vessel-owners, with their masters and crews. In 1894 the British North American sealing fleet con- sisted of lifty-nine vessels; in 1895 it con- sisted of sixty-live vessels. It is unfortu- nate that citizens of the United States engage in pelagic sealing, but they have as an excuse tiic fact that the United States have :igreed to an open season dur- ing which the seals may be slaughtered in Bering Sea and Nortlj Pacific Ocea«i. There are about half as many ve.ssels in the sealing Heel of the Uiiited States as in the Canadian ileet. The commercial importance of ))elagic sealing, and the injury that is inllicted by means of it on the lessees of tlie governments of the United Stjiles and Russia, may be judged from the fact that in 1894 142,000 skins were taken by the pelagic .sealers, and only 15,03;? on the I'ribyloH" Islands. It is tlie intention of tiiis paper to make clear the interests involve*' in the Bering Sea controversy, the inadequacy and injus- tice of the Paris award, the powerlessness under it of the executive branch of our government to guard the seals, and the manner in which Great Britain has sliiit- ed from one ground to another, until now * Of 142,7'2.'i skiiiB tnlteii by fielapic Hcalers in 180-1, i:J8,;i2;< were (Iregsi'd and dyed in Loniion. i \^ MAP SHOWINO THE LOCATION OF THE AMERICAN HEHD DURING EVERT MONTH IN THE YEAR. \ i lier sUitesiTien seem not only to liave sur- rendered to the demands of the little fleet of Britisii North American sealers, but to have determined, by inaction at least, to permit the destruction of the seals, thus ridding themselves of a controversy, and retaining for the empire the atfectionate loyalty of such British subjects as are en- gaged in the ownership and navigation of some threescore schooners. It was in 1887 that Mr. Bayard, then Secretiiry of State, wrote to the ministers of Great Britain, Russia, Japan, Ger- many, and Sweden and Norway, inviting their governments to enter into stich an arrangement with tli?? United States "as will prevent tiie citizens of either of these countries from klMing seals in Bering Sea ....by such methods as at present are pursued, and whicli threaten the speedy extermination of tiiose animals, and con- .sequent serious loss to mankind." Lord Salisbury pron)])tiy acquiesced in the hu- mane suggestion that the United States and Great Britain should adopt a code of regulations " for the pre.servution of the seals in Bering Sea." He thus admitted that the seals were in danger of destruc- tion, and that rules and regulations, to be adopted and enforced by the two govern- ments, were essentir.l to their pi-eserva- tion. In February, 1888. Mr. Phelps, then our minister to Great Britain, informed Mr. Bayard that Lord Salisbury consent- ed to a close season in Bering Sea for fur- seals, to extend from April 15th to Novem- ber 1st. The Russian anibassitdor asked that whatever regulations might be agreed upon for Bering Sea should be extended to that part of it in which the Commander Islands are situated, and also to the Sea of Okhotsk, in which Robben Island is situ- ated. These island.s. it should be ex- plained, are the breeding-grounds for the Russian herd, as the PribylofF Islands are the breeding-grounds for the American herd. Tlu; two herds of .seals have substan- tially the same habits. At the conclusion of the breeding .sea.son they set out on what is cal'fd their " long swim." The Pribylott" Is'.a 's are a little north of r^Tt" latitude, near the coast of Alaska, and the Commander Islands are in al)out o4° 40' latitude, near the coast of Kamchatka. The seals start south in October, the American herd swimming through the passes of the Aleutian Lslands. southaast- wardly. until they each the latitude of 3r)° in the neighborhood of San Francisco. TIkmi they turn eastward and tlieii north- ward, and follow the trend of the coast until they i-each the passes of the Aleu- tian Islands again, through whicli they swim to their breeding-ground. Tlie Rus- sian herd swim southerly to a point south of latitude 35°. turn in toward" " Jap- anese coast in the vicinity '^f Y' ama, and tlien swim north aloi. ist of Nippon, past Yezo and the K.^.. i Islands, 103637 464 HARPERS NEW MONTHLY MxVGAZINE. to the Cointuaudei* Islands and Rubben Island. The accoiiipanyiiig map shows the course of the two herds, and the posi- tion of the American herd during each month of its journey. While the two lierds have been considered to be distinct, there is now reason to suppose tliat the slaughter of the seals on the eastern side of Bering Sea has driven American seals to the western side. The absolutely close season maintained in American waters during the existence of the modua vivemli led to the inauguration of pelagic sealing on the Russian and Japanese coasts. The Russian government's desire that its lierd should receive whatever measure of pro- tection might be accorded to the Amer- ican herd wilt be understood from this explanation of seal habits. It was agreed then, in the spring of 1888, bj' the statesmen who liad taken part in the negotiations, that the close season ought to extend over all of Bering Sea, and over that ])art of the Okhotsk Sea in which is Robben Island, from April 15th to November 1st. It is true tl.at the agreement was not ofllicial or formal, but it is clear that the minds of the corre- spondents had met. So interested was M. de Stael, the Russian ambassador at Lon- don, that he suggested that the powei-s should prohibit the importation into the protected area of "alcoholic drinks, lire- arms, gunpowder, and dynamite.'' The shooting of seals had begun to be gen- eral, and this method of destroying the animals has always been frowned upon, not merely because of the fact that the use of shot-guns facilitates pelagic seal- ing, but because many seals, especially those heavy with young, sink after they are shot, and thus the destruction of the species is greatly hastened. The jxisition taken by M. de Stael in 1888 is especially interesting in view of the recent attitude of his government in the controversy. In April, 1888, Lord Salisbury sug- gested tliat the (;Iose season should ter- minate on the 1st of October instead of the 1st of Noveml)er, and Mr. Bayard suggested, in turn, tiie 15th of October as the date of termination, adding, however, "although, as I am now advised, the 1st of November would be .safer." Matters stood thus when, in June, 1888, Mr. White, our Secretary of Legation in London, informed Mr. Bayard that Lord Salisbury had received "a communica- tion from the Canadian government stating that a memorandum on the sub- ject would shortly be forwarded to Lon- don, and expressing the hope that, pend- ing the arrival of that document, no further teps would be taken in the mat- ter by Ijer Majesty's government." Negotiations wore not resumed until 1890, when Mr. Blaine was Secretarj' of State. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present article to follow the cor- resi>ondence that took place between Sec- retary Blaine and Assistant- Secretary Wharton, on one side, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, speaking for Lonl Salisbury, on the other side. Notwithstanding the devices that were attempted by each side, with a view of gaining a diplonuitic ad- vantage over the other, it was clear that the question in the minds of all who par- ticipated in the controversy, except of course the Dominion authorities, was out of humanity and good faith. It is proba- ble tliat Lord Salisbury' wished to go as far as he could for the protection of the seals from destruction without disappoint- ing the pelagic sealei-s of Canada. The Dominion government had taken up the cause of these sealers, and was pushing it with energy. Its agents were in London, and they had the ear of the Premier. At any rate, in June, 1890, he denied that ho had ever given to ivir. Phelps the assur- ance that he would agree to a close season lasting from the 15tli of April to the 1st of November, and he was literally right. There was carried on at the same time a correspondence concerning the seizure of Britisli sealers by the United States. The result of these negotiations was the estab- lishment of the modiiH viveudi, which lasted for two yeai-s (1892 and 1893), and this was followed by the agreement be- tw"en the two governments that the que.stions between them should be sub- mitted to arbitration. The result of the arbitration was the award made by the Paris Tribunal, Au- gu.st 15, 1893. The findings of the Tribu- nal on questions of right were adverse to the United States. Coming to the ethical question, as to the duty of the two gov- ernments to prevent the citizens of Iwth from exterminating the seal, the Tribunal decided that the "concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of regulations for the proper protection and pre.servation of the fur-scrl in or habitually resorting to the Bering Sea." Nine articles were then adopted, embody- THE PASSING OF THE FUR-SEAL. •H!*) f I in^ re}(ulutioii8, so fur as rules could be presci'ibetJ by the Tribunal. These rejfu- lations were not self - operative. Opera- live re^rulutioiis could be adopted only by the governments of the two countries concerned. The articles adopted by the Tribunal embodied the ends that were to be attained through the joint regulations to be agreed upon by the two countries. The means for protecting the seals were not adequate, and the British government did not e.v^ert itself in IBiH to nmkc even those means etl'ective.* During the sea- son of 1895 it even declined to join in regtilations similar to tho.se agreed upon in li'^fl-1 for the proper enforceinenl of the regulations enacted by the Tribunal. The Tribui\al settled nothing that had not been ncognized as just by both parties, but wh( u it was determined that the Brit- ish Emp re had discretion in the matter as to fran ing regulations to carry out the scope and intent of the award — regula- tions which had been enacted into law by both countries — the imperial government was at the mercy of the Dominion, and declined to exercise that discretion in the manner plainly demanded by the s)>iril of the award. The articles forbade the killing of seals within sixty milen of the Priby loll' Islands, or in the Ameri -an part of the North Pacilic Ocean and Bering Sen, north of the thirty-lifth deg,-ee. duriiur 'he months of May, June, and July. From the 1st of August until the 1st of May licensed sealers might catcli seals under the award of the Tribunal under certain con- ditions. Sailing-ves.si Is alone were to be employed in llie business; each ves.'iel was to be provided with a special license, and was to l!y a distinguishing tiag; the number and character of the catch were to be noted in his log-book by the cap tain of eaise of nets, fire-arms, and explosives was forbidden. The main objection to these articles is th'.u the closed season is not long enough, and that the prohibition of sealing within a /.one of sixty miles is of very little value. In his first proposition, which was conveyed to Mr. Bayard February 25, 1888, Lord Salis- * Only one Rritij'li eriiist'i', 11. M.S. P/ieniiatt/, pa- trolled licriii^ S<'a in 18!*4. In 1895 liiu Kumc ves- 8el wuB the onl,v oiiu in Bering Scii. bury suggested that the close season should extend from April 15th to Novem- ber 1st. This was in answer to a pro])- osition made by Mr. Bayard that there should be a close season extending from April Ist to November 1st. Subsequent- ly Lord Salisbury suggested that October 1st would be late enouuii for the termi- nation of the season, and Mr. Bayard ex- pressed liis wiirngncss to accep' October 15tli as the date. It does no seem to have occurred to any one connected with the negotiations on either side during Mr. Cleveland's first administration that a close season extending from the 1st of May to the 1st of August would suflicient- ly " protect and preserve" the fur-seal of tlie North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The Canadians, indeed, in 18!I0, persuaded Lord Salisbury to suggest a close season in May and June, and another in October, November, and December; but, as was long since discovered, the Canadians are more desirous to kill than to ])reserve the seal. As a matter of fact, under the award of the Tribunal, the pelagic sealers are able to follow the seals on their way home treaty of arbitration on May 7, 1892, Rus- sia was silent. It will be recollected that in 1888 the Russian ambassador to Great Britain was so much interested in the subject and so much concerned as to the welfare of the Russian herd that he not only asked for a close season for his side of Bering Sea and for a part of the Ok- hotsk Sea, to correspond with that which might be agreed upon for the eastern side of Bering Sea, but he suggested that the regulations should forbid the impor- tation of fire-arms within the protected area. At that time every commercial in- terest in the seal fi.sheries received the friendly countenance of its government. It was not until the predatory sealers of the Dominion interfered that the imperial government began to show signs of an in- disposition to do anything for the preser- vation of the seals. It was then, too, that Russia becajie strangely silent. Mr. Blaine did not underestimate the importance of an alliance between the two countries whose interests are com- mon, because they own the breeding- grounds of the two herds. The represent- ative of the Russian government then in charge of its legation at Wasliington was Baron Rosen. He supposed that Russia was of the mind that was expre.ssed by her ambassador at London in 1888; and it was natural, in any event, that he should assume that the two countries would be glad to co-operate. The necessity of such co-operation was made more pressing because it was clear from the time 'hat Mr. Bayard's efforts were che "ced by the interference of the Dominion that tlie imperial government did not propose to risk its infiuence with this im])ortant British colony by interfering with the Canadian pelagic sealers and poachers. In view of all this it is not strange that Baron Rosen should have assumed that a treaty of alliance would be gratifying to his government. He therefore entered into a negotiation with Mr. Blaine that resulted in an agreement between the two, which was formulated in a proto- col. The t'igreement was that the two countries would act together for the protection of seal life, and to tl\at end would prohibit any pelagic sealing in Bering Sea. The protocol was sent to St. Petersburg, but Baron Rosen never lieard from it officially, and it was a long time before any woi-d concerning it was received from Russia. Then our minis- ter to Russia, on inquiring at the Russian Foreign OlHce as to the fate of the proto- col, was told that the Czar's government would not think of becoming a party to any arrangement concerning the seal herds in Bering Sea without pi-evious consultation with the British govern- ment. If this protocol had been followed by a treaty eni!?aging the two powers to protect tiie seals by preventing all pelagic .sealing in the waters of the Bering and Okhotsk seas, the question that has so long vexed the diplomatic representatives of the United States and Great Britain would now bo settled, for it cannot be suppos"! that the BritLsh Empire would undertake to maintain what the two pow- ers forbade. But a great change Imd come over Russia, for events had been happening in her diplomatic relations with Great Britain which made the main- tenance of friendly relations with that power of the gravest importance. Rus- sia's desire was cleverly taken advantage of by the British minister at St. Peters- burg to effect a settlement of the seal-fish- eries question on llie west side of Bering Sea that has enured to British interests in negotiations with the United States; and for some years to come it is not likely that Russia can be induced to tlnvart England's purposes in Bering Sea. At fli-st it was the situation in Central Asia and the question of the establishment of a buffer state between India and the Ru.ssian ad- vance that caused the silent indifference of Russia to the peril of her seals and of the rights of her lessees. Now it is the sit- uation in the far East and the doubt as to what relations shall be established be- tween herself and Great Britain as a re- sult of the defeat of China by Japan. Again it is the resurrection of the Eastern question as a con.sequence of the mas- sacres in Armenia, and the possible inter- ference with the Sultan's government by the Berlin treaty powers, or, if not by them, by England in union with Russia and France. The complications in Asia THK PASSING OF THE FUH-SEAL. 467 n a proto- it tlie two P for the > tRat end sealing in %8 sent to sen never vas a long ing it WHS )ur minis- le Russian tlje proto- vernnient I party to the seal previous govern- followed powers to II pelagic ;ring and it lias so ientatives t Britain an not be re would two pow- nge had lad been relations he main- ''itli that e. Rus- I vantage . Peters- ieal-fish- f Bering erests in es; and ely that 1 gland's t it was md the I buffer iian ad- tference 1 and of i the sit- oubt as bed be- is a re- Japan. Eastern e mas- e inter- leat by not by Russia n Asia i have deprived tlio United States of an al- liance Hint is natural, and that was once supposed to be almost roulixcd. Not only that, but, for the purpose of aiding the Doniinioii's case against this country, Great Britain has luado apparent conces- sions to Russia in Bering Sea that are not concessions at all, while Russia has apparently been willing to throw at least her passive influence, not only against the United Slates, but against those who pay her for the privilege of hunting seals on the Coniuuinder Islands. These negotiations between Great Brit- ain and Russia were |)ending and were concluded while the Paris Tribunal was in session. The Bi'itish government con- ceded to Russia a nrotectcd zone of ten miles along Russian shores and of thirty nnles around the Cotnmander and Rob- ben i.'slands. It was not a generous con- cession ; indeeil, it was far from adequate; but its willing acceptance by Russia great- ly weakened the American case befoi-e the Paris Tribunal. If Russia accepted a pro- tected zone of thirty miles around her rookeries, why should not the United States be content with a i)rotected zone of sixty miles? The answer to the question is that Russia's herd had been only recently in- vaded by pelagic sealers, that her seals liad never been i)rotected beyond the three-mile liiuit, partly because they had not been attacked, and that therefore the concession was a real gain. Above all, however, Russia felt but little interest in her fisheries, and was willing to accept any price that Great Britain offered to keep her in good-humor. As to Great Britain, the ves.sels of her Canadian sub- jects had been .seized by Russian ollicials off the Commander Island", .'Mid some- thing had to be done not only to limit but to define their rights. By lixiiig tliis inadequate zone she obtained for the Canadians the right to kill Russian seals on the high seas. Moreover, she aLso gained a strong argument against the contention of the United States that a protected zone of sixty miles around the PribylofF Islands would not be siillicient. How eager the home government was in this matter is shown by the fact that its representatives at St. Petersburg neglected, in their first arrangement with the Rus- sian Foreign OHice, to induce the latter to persuade the United States to become a party to the arrangement concerning the Vol. XCII.-No 540.-5? •western watere of the Bering Sea. The consequence of this oversiglit was that American sealers had the right to liunt on the Russian side to the three-mile limit, while the Canadians were obliged to keep outside of the thirty-mile limit. While this did not make much diU'erence to the RiissiiMis, owing to the compara- tively small number of American .scalers, the Canadian government protested in the following year, and when the ar- rangement was renewed the Czar's gov- ernment agreed to jirocure the a.s.sent of the United States to the exclusion of American sealers from the thirty -mile zone. In the mean time the award regula- tions of the Paris Tribunal were enacted into law, and fiirtlier regulations were made by the United States and Great Britain for carryinjf out the articles of the award. By this time the United States stood alone. The inditrerence or defection of Russia had greatly aided the Canadians, and although the British gov- ernment continued to profess a desire to do all in its power for the preservation of seal life, the influence of the Dominion sealers was dominant. It is clear that the enforcement of the imub'.juate rules laid down by the Tribunal depends entire- ly on the good faith and earnestness of the two governments upon which rests the duty of making the laws and rules for realizing the objects of the award. If both nations had desired, regulations might have been adopted that would have rendered any evasion of the jirovisions of the award at least diflicult, but such reg- ulations, althc-.igh agreed to in 18S)4, were refu.sed by Grea* Britain for the .season of 1895. This was not the fault of the oHicers of the United States who were charged with the duty of helping to frame the regulations. The award forbade mere- ly the u.se of Hre-arms. It did not forbid the possession of them, nor did it make such i)ossession by a vessel navigating the treaty waters presumptive evidence of in- tended illegal use. Such a presumption is necessary for the enforcement of the law against the use of fire-arms, and it has always been recognized as an essential provision of protective acts. Such a pre- sumption was jji-omplly enacted into law by Congress, but this law ai)plies only to American citizens. The British act of 1801 for the enforcement of the modus vivciuli provided as follows: V ^ 468 IIAliPERS NEW MONTHLY MAOAZINE. i III "It'll HriliHli Hliip JH (oiiimI wiiliiii licrliiK Sen liiiviii({ on Imaril IIhti-oI' liHliiii)r or hIiooI- iii^ iiii|il)-iiiriitN, or (••■iil-MkiiiN, or lioilicH ol' HriilM,.il nIiiiII lii< oil lilt* owner or iiiiiHicr of HiK'li Hlii|> lo jirovc lliiil tin- h\\\\i wiih not iini'iI or ('iiiiiloynl ill coiilriivi'iiiion ot' lliix act ." The Hi-itiHli act of 18SM for the on force- nit'iil of llu! Paris award DinitU'd lliin pro- vision, ultlioiifrli tli«' inH'Ps.sily of sueli a rule of evidciHM' was rct'o^fnizod in the Britisli act of 180.S, wliicli was passed for tlio ciiforocintMit of tlic? agreoinent witli Russia, and in wliioh tlio provision of liio act of 1891 was iiK'orporatod. Tliis act repealed the act of 1891. and was made to apply to tlie American as well as lo the Russian side of the IJcrinp Sea. This rule of evidence was in existence, fhert-fore, when tlie Trihuiiai made its awanl. and it ninsl he ))resuined that when the arl)itra- tors laid down tiie rule that nets, lire- arms, and explosives shoiilil not he cm- ployed, they did so with the uiulerstand- ing that the existing laws i)rescribiiip this rule of evidence would remain in force, for it was known then as well as it is known now that the use of lire arms for killinj? the seals cannot he jirevented if Sealers are i)ermittcd to carry such wea- pons. The langua^re of tiie award, how- ever, enabled the Brili.sh povermnent to insist on chanfriuy the rule of evidence, while the President and his advisers were powerless. The effective ])o\ver which the United States pos.sessed over Cana- dian sealers was that which was obtained throuph the agreement with the British government in the forni of joint regula- tions, and if the Britisli government de- clined to prevent the use of fire-arms by making their ])ossession prima facie evi- dence of illegal intent, the United States, in loyalty to the arbitration lo which it had submitted, was obliged to yield. But the British government was not earnestly desirous of preventing pelagic sealing, or of attaining the objects which the Paris Tribunal declared to be desirable. This was shown by its eagerness to avail itself of the language of the award to change a rule of evidence, which it had itself de- clared to be es.",ential by embodying it in two acts of Parliament. Since this re- fusal, by an act ))assed .Tune 2(3, 1895, Great Britain has also changed the rule as it affects the arrangement witli Rus- sia. For more than a year the posses- sion of lire-arms by a Canadian sealer in the Russian zone was presumptive evi- dence of an intention to shoot seal, while on the American side there was no such presumption, although there was no such agreement between Russia and (Jreat I5rit- am as to the shooting of seats as there was and is between the United Slates and (treat Britain. During the seONon of 189.'i there was no such presumplitin as to sealers navigating either side of Bering Sea, except American sealers. The Con- gress of the United Stal«'s, int<'nt tin mak- ing the regulations of the Paris Tribunal ellective, and determined to carry out the objects of the award, presc-ribed the rule of evidence in the act of Ai)ril (i. 1894, which is the American act for the enf«)rce- ment of the award. Therefore, before the Paris Tribunal maresump- tion, to convict a sealer of the actual use of his arms for killing seal. Under the American rule the sealer must prove that he did not kill seal with the tire arms on board his vessel; under the British law the sealer cannot be convicted unless the government can prove that the (irearnis were used to kill the seals. There could he no l)etter evidence than this deliberate change of tiie rule of evidence that the British government's intention was to se- cure for the C'anadian sealers the right to use lire-arms for the killing of seal, and to that extent to violate the sjiirit and pur- pose of the Paris award. In further suji port of this conclusion we have the cas<> of the British .schooner Wanderer, which was seized on the charge of shooting seals. Under the regulations of 189-1 her arms had been sealed by an ollicer of the United States. "When she wassubsequently search- ed by the captain of one of the American jiatrol fleet, an unsealed shot-gun and other evidences of shooting were discov- ered. She was taken and turned over to THE PASSING OF TIIK FUIl-SKAL. 409 I nil otik'or of tho Rritisli navy. She nnd lior ciiptuiii Nlioiild liiivi; Ixhmi triinl \>y a court of adiiiimlty, l»ut hIio wuh r«l«si.s<'(l without any trial wliatcvcr by lli»i lirilisii Admiral Stoplu'iison. A HiiiiiJar coiirso was taken l>y llu^ British naval aiitiioritics with reference to tlie cealer Fttvorite. It has Immmi cU'ar from lh(> lirst that the British government has chantred its mind since Lord HaliHl)ury assented to the prop- osition inadt f)V Mr. Bayard in 1887, and that, the award of th« Paris Tribunal to the contrary notwilhstandiii);, nothiii}^ will be done by the imperial power to prevent the pelajfic sealers of tho colony from uiurderiiifr the seals on the liifjrh .seas at their pleasure. The device of sealinjf proliibited arms was a principal feature of the rejrulations of 1894. It applied both to licen.sed .seal- ers and unlicensed vessels. It was in- tended to facilitate the enforcement of the regulations, and to protect the cap- tains of vessels iiavijfatin^r the North Pa- cilic and Bi^rin^r Hea from undue deten- tion. It was agreed that when a vessel was in the prohibited zone, or in the other parts of tho sea during tho prohibited sea- .s(ni, or if the vessel were not a licensed .sealer, but was navigating those waters, the arms whoso use was forbidden might be otlicially sealed. If tho .seals were broken, tho ])resumptioii that tho arms had been used illegally was strengthened. If they were not broken, the ves.sel was not unduly detained. This ])r )vision was of great importance both to innocent vessel-masters and to the otlicers of the navy and of the revenue marine who were charged with the task of protecting the seal herds from unlifwful invasion and attack. The British government de- clines to continue this regulation. In order to enforce the regulations of 1894, the British government sent only one vessel, tho Phcattniit, to Bei-ing Sea for patrol duty, although the majority of the vos.sels employed in pelagic sealing were Canadian. The President of the United States sent a lleet of twelve ves- sels. Could anything more clearly indi- cate British indiiFerenco to the enforce- ment of the Paris award? Another bit of evidence that the impe- rial government has no intention of aid- ing the government of the United States to piHJvent pelagic sealing and to preserve the fur-.seal is its refusal to accept the recommendatory declaration signed in Paris by Baron Coiireel, Justicn Harlan, and Senator Morgan. Tho declaration was as follows: "In view of the critical condition to which it ajipears <'ertaiii that the race of fiM'-seals is now reduced, in coiiseipienc'e of circumstances not fully known, tho ariiitrators think lit to recimimend both governments to <'ome to an understand- ing in order to prohibit any killing of fur seals, either on land or at sea, for a pe- riod of two or three years, or t\l least one year, subject to such (ixceptions as the two governments may think i)roj)er to admit of. Such a measure might be re- curred to at (x:casioiial intervals if found benelicial." The evils of the situation have been called to tho attention of the British gov- ernment, and they are as well understood at London as they are at Washington. It has been shown that the change in the rule of evidence as to the inference to be drawn from the i)o.sse.ssioii of forbidden arms during the close season, or in pro- hibited waters, nullifies the agreement that lire-arms shall not be used, but the British government not only refuses to restore the presumption that was once es- tablished bj- its law.s. but in June, 1895, it changed the rule also as to scalers in Ivussian and Japanese waters. Our government is not represented be- fore the tribunals which try the British sealers that are .seized by American cruis- ers for violation of the liiw. Therefore ,there is no one to watch and defend American rights in what we now know to be, so far as this question is concerned, an unfriendly jurisdiction. All the regulations requested by tho United States are essential for the proi)er carrying out of the Paris award, and tho fact that the British government has failed or refused to meet our own govern- ment must be accepted as evidence that the Canadian i)elagic sealers have suc- ceeded in forcing it to abandon the at- tempt to prevent the destruction of the fur-seal by Dominion sealers. With Amerii'an sealers it is diU'erent, and it is reported that during the season of 1895 the British cruiser devoted all its en- ergies to preventing violations of the act of Congress by vessels from this country, notwithstanding tho fact that the Cana- dian sealers outnumbered our own at least two to one. Not only have the suggestions looking 4T0 HAllPEUS NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE. to tlio extoiisioii of the award and to tlio curt! of it.sdciiioii.sti-:il*-d itiU(liM|iiu<'i<>.s Im'cii iiejfativL'd l)y i\\v Hiilisli jfovcriiiiinil, l)ut in Muy, 18U5, after tliu soasoii liud bo- gun, tliiH (.Mivcriiiiicnt was noliiicd that t'Vfn tlie insiillicit'iil ri'jjiilations t)f 1H1(4 woiiUl not hi! rt'ni'wcd. This refusal was based on t)ic (froiind tinil llie award did not proiiihit llie possession of lire-arms by sealers, and therefoi-e the Hiitish jfovt^rn- nient declined to enter into an urninjre- nicnt which would make it well for Cana- dian vessels to seeuro the sealing of their orins. This deeision by the home govern- ment was re«'eived with great joy in tho Dominion, for it enor nously facilitated the US" of llri-urms in the killing of seals. The resiilt of the I'aris award has been disastrous to the seals and to the sealing ind.istry. Uefore the refusal of the Hrit- ish government to renew the regulations of 1894 the subject had been eonsideretl in Congress. In answer to n resolution introduced into llie House of Representa- tives by Mr. Dingley of Maine, Secretary Carlisle stated that from the stati~ilics of the pelagic catch of 1894 " it becomes ev- ident that during the present season there lias been an unprecedented increase over preceding yeai-s in tho number of seals killed by pelagic sealers, both in Amer- ican and Asiatic waters. This increase has caused an alarming decrease in the number of seals on the islands, as here- inafter explained. . . . The alarming in- crease in the number of seals killed by pelagic sealei-s . . . . em|)hasi7.es the con- clusion expressed in my a.Muial report to Congress that long before the expi- ration of the five \'ears. when the regu- lations enacted by the Tribunal of Ar- bitration are to be submitted to the re- spective governments for reexamination, the fur-seal will have been practically ex- terminated.' Bills were introduced in both Houses of Congress contemplating the destruc- tion of all seals by the government, and thereby a determination of the question. On one of these bills, that introduced by Hon. William L. Wilson, the Ways and Means Conmiittee made an inter- esting report. This bill provided that the President should invito the appoint- ment of a joint conmiission by the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, and an arrangement for a modus vivendi pending the proposed investigation. In the event of a refusal by Great Britain to agree to tlio ihixIiih ciiv-wf/i, and to make proper regulations to carry it out, the S«'cretary of the Treasin-y was to be authorised to arrange for the killing of the seals as they visitef the arbitrators. This conduct on his jiart was especially strange, because he had devoted his time and liis energies to insisting that the administra- tion was not doing all that it might do to enforce the award, although the admin- istration was really doing all tliat was possible in view of the regulations wliich liad been made by the Tribunal. So much for the efl'ort of Congress to come to the aid of the executive depart- ment of the government. In its report on tho Wilson bill the Ways and Means Committee presented tables showing tho etfect of pelagic sealing on the catch. It appears frears that the destruction of the Russian seals now exceeds that of tlie American seals, and that the pelagic catch in Asian watej-s has increased from 6847 in 1891 to 58,C21 in 1894. In the season of 1895 the catch fell oH". This was be- cause of perceptible diminution in the herds. It is evident that the .seals have already begun to disappear. The legiti- mate catcli on the Commander Islands for 1895 was 17,700, as against 27.300 in 1894. The catch on the Pribylott' Islands was about 15,000. The pelagic catch was as follows: Japiiiicsr coast 35,000 AinorioiUi iiortliwent coast, about. 12,000 Uering Sen 60,000 Total 97,000 PKKMONITIONS OF INSANITY. 471 In 1H04 tho pi'lntfu; catoli wiis li'i.WU. Tlu) coiiiiiHM'ciiil iiiU'P«'8tH arc miccuml)- iiij; to tln! pt'lujfic sfaln-. and il is u|>|)ar- cnl tlial tli<> Ncal is tloorncd unloHs (iruat iiriluin ami Utissiii can Ix^ porsiuulctl to defend tlic inlcTcsls of tinir ••itizo.ssil)le. Tiie inlcrosls of llii.s r'ou;itry cannot \n> pi'uliM^tcd nnd'T tlic I "is award unless Great llritain eiot onl • o uperates, hut airrees liial tlu^ lliidinfs shall bo extend- ed, and the i'cjjula'''>ii.s nride more etl'eo- tiv;iiaj,'e of tli(! uwiird is Klrictly n^luMvu to. At present, however, Great I?''itain is yield- lUK to the ina'iy:n i<.iltien<'o of tin- do- minion, and, so y.eldill^^ Ints practically defoate,'c>\ ernments, while now the jiritisli (Tovernment is opposed to re)f- ulations nntlcr the law passed to enforce the award. abHohileiy ne<'essary to pre- vent (.'ana