ㄨ​ㄤ​ˋ
A54
CANADIAN QUESTIONS
ALASKAN FUR SEALS.
DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FUR-SEAL
QUESTION, AND THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
THE SEALING INDUSTRY,
1867-1906.
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BY
CHANDLER P. ANDERSON,
1906.
ASHINGTON:
ENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1906.


University of
Michigan
Libraries



1817
ARTES
SCIENTIA VERITAS
CANADIAN QUESTIONS.
ALASKAN FUR SEALS.
DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FUR-SEAL
QUESTION, AND THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
THE SEALING INDUSTRY,
1867-1906.
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BY
CHANDLER P. ANDERSON,
1906.
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
1906,
J
Documents
Expediter
6-21-51
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PART I.
Diplomatic negotiations for the settlement of the Alaskan fur-seal question.
Situation from 1867-1887
Page.
3
Proposed international measures-1887-1888.
Negotiations with Great Britain-1889-1892.
Paris Arbitration Tribunal award-1893.....
Arrangements between the United States and Great Britain for enforcing the
award regulations.......
Separate arrangements with Japan and Russia..
Arrangements with Japan.………….
Arrangements with Russia.
Invitations to other powers to adhere to the award regulations-1894………………………….
Proposals by the United States for a temporary suspension of sealing, for
revision of the award regulations, and for concurrent action by Great
Britain, Japan, and Russia extending the regulations to Asiatic waters-
1894-1897......
Negotiations with Canada-1897…………..
3 1 2
12
13
15
16
17
20
22
33
Proposal by the United States for a joint conference with Great Britain,
Japan, and Russia in 1897.........
+
34
Consideration of this question by the Joint High Commission-1898–99........
Diplomatic negotiations since the adjournment of the Joint High Commission
in 1899.......
Joint conference between the United States, Japan, and Russia, held at
Washington in October, 1897.......
38
44
45
PART II.
Position of the United States in regard to the killing of seals on the Pribilof
Islands.
Mutual rights and liabilities of the United States and the lessee under the
lease of the sealing privileges on the Pribilof Islands........
The lease........
Statutory provisions authorizing the lease..
53
53
54
Restrictions imposed by the Government..
55
Judicial construction of the lease....
55
Proposals for temporarily suspending the killing of seals on the Pribilof
Islands........
60
Proposals in Congress for settling the seal controversy by destroying the
seals on the Pribilof Islands.........
62
Report by Senate Committee on Territories recommending suspension of
killing of seals on the islands....
65
III
Canadian....
PART III.
The sealing industry.
Estimated value of vessels in 1898......
Present value of vessels, based on Canadian estimates....
American valuation.....
Value of business.......
Local interests at Victoria, British Columbia..
British interests....
American...…….
Pelagic sealing..
Pribilof Islands......
Income derived by the Government..
Diminishing rentals.....
Commercial interests.
Japanese......
Japanese seal rookeries..
Robben Island.....
Kurile Islands...
Pelagic sealing......
Japanese sealers in Bering Sea and foreigners sealing under Japanese
flag
Russian
Russian seal rookeries...
Pelagic catch....
Southern seas..
Historical review.
Present conditions..
APPENDIX.
A. Complete list of British Columbia sealing vessels, 1898.
B. Captain Thayer's report, "British Columbia Sealing Fleet for 1898”.
C. Canadian sealing fleet, 1898-1905....………….
D. Seal island and pelagic catch and average price per skin, with revenue
to Government from tax on seal skins, from 1870 to 1905, inclusive.....
E. Statement showing number of skins sold annually by Lampson & Co. at
the London sales and the localities from which they were taken..
F. Report on "Seals and Sealing in Uruguay"
G. Report on "Sealing at Falkland Islands"
IV
Page.
71
71
73
78
78
80
84
84
84
85
86
88
89
89
89
90
90
91
95
98
98
ΙΟΙ
102
103
103
109
III
113
114
115
116
117
PART I.
*
Diplomatic Negotiations for the Settlement of the
Alaskan Fur-Seal Question.
婚
​Diplomatic Negotiations for the Settlement of the
Alaskan Fur-Seal Question.
THE SITUATION FROM 1867-1887.
By the Treaty of 1867 Russia ceded to the United States all its
territory and dominion on the continent of America and in the
adjacent islands contained within certain geographical limits, which
included the Pribilof Islands and the greater part of Bering Sea.
By an act of Congress approved March 3, 1869, the Pribilof
Islands were made a special reservation for Government purposes
and no person was permitted to land or remain on either of them
except by authority of the Secretary of the Treasury.
On July 1, 1870, it was further enacted by Congress that no per-
son should kill fur seal or other fur-bearing animals within the limits
of Alaska Territory or in the waters thereof, which later, by the act
of March 3, 1889, were expressly declared to include "all the domin-
ion of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea within the
Russian cession."
This act of July 1, 1870, further provided for the leasing of exclu-
sive sealing privileges on these islands by the Secretary of the
Treasury under certain conditions and restrictions, and pursuant to
such provisions a lease was made to the Alaska Commercial Com-
pany for twenty years from May 1, 1870, and, upon the expiration of
that lease, a similar lease was made to the North American Com-
mercial Company for twenty years from May 1, 1890.
The Revised Statutes of 1873 reproduced the acts then in force
relating to the fur seals.
The United States was practically undisturbed in its possession
and control of the sealing fisheries in Bering Sea until the year 1883.
In that year pelagic sealing had its beginning, and with pelagic seal-
ing the seal question became an international one. In 1886 the
seizures of Canadian vessels engaged in pelagic sealing in Bering
Sea commenced.
PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL MEASURES-1887-1888.
On August 19, 1887, the United States invited Great Britain,
France, Germany, Sweden and Norway, Russia, and Japan to enter
into an arrangement with the United States to protect the fur seals
3
4
in Bering Sea. The United States at that time claimed exclusive
property in the seals and control of the seal fisheries in Bering Sea,
but in suggesting this arrangement it was stated that—
"Without raising any question as to the exceptional measures.
which the peculiar character of its property in fur seals might justify
this Government in taking, and without reference to any exceptional
marine jurisdiction that might properly be claimed for that end,
it is deemed advisable * * * to attain the desired ends by inter-
national cooperation." (Foreign Relations, 1888, Part II, p. 1824.)
No response was received from Germany.
Sweden and Norway responded (March 20, 1888; id., p. 1856)
that, having no interest in seal fisheries, there was no need for that
Government to take part in any treaty or arrangement in reference
thereto. The desire was expressed, however, that an accord might
be arrived at between the interested powers, and that powers not at
present interested might be permitted to join such an arrangement
in the future if they desired.
France responded (October 21, 1887; id., p. 1825) that the indus-
try in question was not engaged in by French shipowners up to that.
time, but that the Government was willing to confer, for the pur-
poses proposed, with the Government of the United States, and to
examine any draft of an international convention which might be
communicated to it.
Subsequently, on February 7, 1888 (id., p. 1825) the United States
ministers to France, Germany, Russia, and Sweden and Norway
were informed by the Secretary of State that Lord Salisbury had
acquiesced in a proposal for an agreement between the United States
and Great Britain in regard to the adoption of concurrent regula-
tions for the preservation of the Bering Sea seals, and a statement
describing the conditions of seal life as a preliminary to submit-
ting a scheme of regulations was inclosed for the consideration of
the Governments above named.
No further action in the matter seems to have been taken by
either of these Governments except Russia. The negotiations with.
Russia and Japan are reviewed separately below.
The response from Russia (November 25, 1887; id., p. 1855)
stated that the Russian Government concurred entirely in the views
of the Government of the United States; that its own pressing
interests in the matter had already suggested to it the idea of an
international agreement, and that the proposition met the sincere
sympathies of that Government and would receive its active sup-
port. The Russian ambassador at London thereafter undertook
negotiations on this subject with the British Government and the
United States minister there. It appeared in these negotiations,
which are outlined below in connection with the British negotiations,
5
that the Russian Government wished to have any regulations agreed
upon for Bering Sea extended so as to include the Commander
Islands and also the Sea of Okhotsk.
The response of Japan (October 8, 1887; id., p. 1847) stated that
the Japanese Government cordially approved of the suggestion, but
that they would wish to protect the sea otter and fur seals on the
coasts of Japan as well, and therefore desired to extend the princi-
ple of protection to their own waters. Subsequently, on being
advised that the representatives of the United States and Russia and
Great Britain were discussing the question at London, it was sug-
gested by the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs (id., p. 1852)
that if the negotiations there had assumed the character of an in-
ternational convention in which the views of the several powers
interested might be formally interchanged, the Imperial Govern-
ment would desire to instruct their representative at London to take
part in such negotiations. It further appeared (id., p. 1849) that
the Russian Government desired to conclude directly with Japan a
convention for the mutual protection of the seal and otter within.
their own seas and contiguous waters. This suggestion from Japan.
for a joint negotiation at London was not carried out, as the United
States had thought it desirable (id., p. 1852) to first settle in defi-
nie form the arrangements with Great Britain and Russia, and
the British Government had at this time-July, 1888-met with
obstructions from Canada, so that it did not appear that participa-
tion by Japan in the negotiations would promote their successful
conclusion.
For Great Britain, Lord Salisbury, as reported by the United
States minister (November 12, 1887; id., p. 1827), promptly acqui-
esced in the proposal submitted by the United States and requested
a sketch of a system of regulations considered adequate for the pur-
pose. In respose to this request it was suggested on the part of the
United States (February 7, 1888; id., p. 1829):
'The only way of obviating the lamentable result above pre-
dicted appears to be by the United States, Great Britain, and other
interested powers taking concerted action to prevent their citizens
or subjects from killing fur seals with firearms, or other destructive
weapons, north of 50° of north latitude, and between 160° of longi-
tude west and 170° of longitude east from Greenwich, during the
period intervening between April 15 and November 1.”
Mr. Phelps reported to Mr. Bayard (February 25, 1888) that
Lord Salisbury had assented to the United States proposition-
"to establish, by mutual arrangement between the Governments
interested, a close time for fur seals between April 15 and Novem-
ber 1, and between 160° of longitude west and 170° of longitude east,
in the Bering Sea." (Id., p. 1837.)
6
He also reported that Lord Salisbury would join in any pre-
ventive measures it might be thought best to adopt.
Subsequently, in April, 1888, the American minister and the
Russian ambassador at London met Lord Salisbury at the Foreign
Office to carry on the negotiations jointly. The conference was
called at the request of the Russian ambassador, who desired that
England should recognize Russian rights in Bering Sea as fully as
American rights had been recognized in the verbal agreement (id.,
p. 1837, quoted above) arrived at on February 25, 1888, between.
Lord Salisbury and Mr. Phelps (Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 453),
and he suggested that the proposed regulations be extended to
include that portion of Bering Sea in which the Commander Islands
are situated, and also the Sea of Okhotsk, where Robben Island
lies. (Foreign Relations, 1888, Part II, p. 1840.)
The American minister and Lord Salisbury both acquiesced in
this suggestion.
The Russian ambassador further urged the prohibition of the
importation or sale in the protected area of alcoholic drinks, fire-
arms, gunpowder, and dynamite. Lord Salisbury expressed no
opinion on this proposition. On the question of the duration of
the closed season he suggested that the period from April 15 to
November I might be unnecessarily long, and suggested that it termi-
nate October 1 instead of a month later, and he promised to have
prepared a draft convention for submission to the Russian ambas-
sador and the American minister. (Id., p. 1840.) He also sug-
gested that it might be necessary to bring other governments into the
arrangement, which suggestion had already been met by the invita-
tions sent out by the United States, and it was agreed that any con-
vention between the United States and Great Britain and Russia
should contain a clause providing for the subsequent adhesion of
other powers. (Id., p. 1841.) Subsequently (June 20, 1888; id., p.
1842), it was reported that Lord Salisbury had decided to await in-
formation from Canada before proceeding further with the conven-
tion, and later (July, 1888) it appeared that his views had met with
obstruction from Canada (id., p. 1853).
The course of the negotiations up to this point is reviewed by
Mr. Blaine in his letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated May 29,
1890, and it is there stated that after the negotiations were thus sus-
pended in June, 1888, the matter was repeatedly called to the atten-
tion of Lord Salisbury, and his answer was that in view of the
Canadian objection to the proposed restrictions the British Govern-
ment was unwilling to enter into the convention without Canadian
consent. (Foreign Relations, 1890, p. 427.)
It is interesting to note as a side light on these negotiations that
7
the "obstruction from Canada" which unexpectedly arose and de-
feated the settlement then in prospect followed almost immediately
after the report from the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was
made on May 7, 1888, adverse to the ratification of the Bayard-
Chamberlain fisheries treaty.
While these negotiations were in progress Canadian pelagic seal-
ing in Bering Sea was not interfered with by the United States.
The British minister at Washington, in a letter to Mr. Bayard
(April 2, 1888; Fur Seal Arbitration, Vol. II, Appendix, p. 177),
called attention to the extreme importance, for the success of the
negotiations, that he be able to inform Canada that no seizures
would be made during the season of 1888. No answer to this note
appears in the published correspondence, but as a matter of fact.
during the season of 1888 no seizures of foreign vessels were made
in Bering Sea.
After the negotiations proved fruitless Mr. Phelps wrote to Mr.
Bayard (September 12, 1888; id., p. 181) that unless the United
States Government was prepared to submit to have the seal fisheries
destroyed it must take measures to prevent their destruction by
capturing vessels employed in pelagic sealing. In a review of the
legal aspect of the question he reaches the conclusion that although
the United States control does not rest on the right of mare clausum,
which he does not conceive to be applicable to the case, yet for other
sufficient reasons the pelagic sealing as carried on by the Canadians.
is "unjustifiable and illegitimate." He recommends, therefore-
"that the vessels that have been already seized while engaged in this
business be firmly held, and that measures be taken to capture and
hold every one hereafter found concerned in it."
By an act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, it was declared.
that section 1956, Revised Statutes, prohibiting the killing of fur
seals and other fur-bearing animals "within the limits of Alaska
Territory," applied to all the dominion of the United States in the
waters of Bering Sea, and the President was required to cause the
arrest of all persons and the seizure of all vessels violating the pro-
visions of that section. Pursuant to such enactment the seizure of
Canadian vessels for pelagic sealing in Bering Sea was resumed in
the season of 1889 and continued until 1891, when the modus videndi
of that year went into effect, temporarily suspending pelagic sealing.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN-1889-1892.
In 1889, after the change of Administration at Washington, Mr.
Blaine, then Secretary of State, was informed that it would be agree-
able to Great Britain to discuss the whole question. At the outset,
1
8
owing to the renewal of seizures in the summer of 1889, the discus-
sion dealt chiefly with the jurisdictional rights of the United States.
in Bering Sea, which were subsequently settled by the Fur Seal
Arbitration Tribunal at Paris in 1893 and need not be considered
here.
Concurrently with this discussion, however, the negotiations for
a settlement were resumed, and on February 10, 1890 (Foreign
Relations, 1890, p. 370), Sir Julian Pauncefote wrote to Mr. Blaine
suggesting that if agreeable his Government would take steps con-
currently with the United States to invite the participation of Rus-
sia in the renewed negotiations. No answer to this suggestion of
Russia's participation in the negotiations appears in the published
correspondence. No such invitation was extended, however, for
the reason, among others, that Mr. Blaine had, as expressed in the
course of the negotiations, serious doubts if any arrangement could be
arrived at which would be satisfactory to Canada, and he therefore
had invited Sir Julian Pauncefote to first make a counter-proposition
on behalf of the Canadians.
On April 30, 1890, Sir Julian Pauncefote wrote stating that he
had undertaken this task. (Id., p. 410.) He assumed at the outset
that the sole object of the negotiation-
"is the preservation of the fur-seal species for the benefit of man-
kind, and that no considerations of advantage to any particular
nation or of benefit to any private interests should enter into the
question."
The difficulty in arriving at a solution was, as it seemed to him, the
divergence of views as to whether any restrictions on pelagic sealing
were necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal species, and in
order to arrive at a conclusion which would satisfy public opinion
in either country or in any other country which might be invited to
adhere to the arrangement a full inquiry of a mixed commission of
experts should be had. With this in view he was prepared to recom-
mend the acceptance of certain measures provisionally, pending the
report of such a commission. These provisional measures were:
"1. That pelagic sealing should be prohibited in the Bering Sea,
the Sea of Okhotsk, and the adjoining waters, during the months of
May and June, and during the months of October, November, and
December, which may be termed the migration periods of the fur
seals.
“2. That all sealing vessels should be prohibited from approach-
ing the breeding islands within a radius of 10 miles."
He submitted drafts of a preliminary convention providing for a
full examination and contemplating the conclusion of a further con-
vention after the report of the proposed mixed commission, and
9
providing for the ultimate settlement by arbitration of any differ-
ences which the commission failed to adjust, and providing further
that other powers should be invited to accede to the convention.
(Id., pp. 410-412.)
On May 29, 1890, Mr. Blaine answered, reviewing the course of
the negotiations at length and stating that he was instructed by the
President to say that—
"while your proposals of April 30 can not be accepted, the United
States will continue negotiation in hope of reaching an agreement
that may conduce to a good understanding." (Id., p. 429.)
On June 2 of the same year Mr. Blaine again wrote to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, stating that it was evident that an arbitration could not
be concluded in time for the coming season and that the President
anxiously desired to know whether Lord Salisbury—
"in order to promote a friendly solution of the question, will make
for a single season the regulation which in 1888 he offered to make
permanent. (Id., p. 429.)
On the following day Sir Julian Pauncefote replied that-
"the further examination of the question which has taken place
has satisfied his lordship that such an extreme measure as that pro-
posed in 1888 goes far beyond the requirements of the case"
And accordingly that Great Britain was not prepared to agree to
the regulation proposed. (Id., p. 430.)
On June 27, 1890, Sir Julian Pauncefote wrote to Mr. Blaine that
under instructions from his Government it was indispensable, before
the proclamation suspending sealing for the season could be issued—
"that the two Governments agree forthwith to refer to arbitration
the question of the legality of the action of the United States Gov-
ernment in seizing or otherwise interfering with British vessels
engaged in the Bering Sea, outside of territorial waters, during the
years 1886, 1887, and 1889." (Id., p. 436.)
On July 2, 1890, Mr. Blaine responded to this proposition that
an agreement to arbitrate requires careful consideration, and that the
United States could not consent that the form in which the arbitra-
tion shall be undertaken shall be decided without full consultation
and conference, an opportunity for which was not given by Lord
Salisbury's proposal that the United States should forthwith accept
a formal arbitration as a condition of issuing the proclamation.
(Id., p. 452.) The negotiations were not carried further at that
IO
time, but the discussion on the question of the right of the United
States to control the Bering Sea seal fishery was continued at length
by Mr. Blaine and Lord Salisbury. (Id., pp. 456-508; Foreign Re-
lations, 1891, pp. 542-552.)
The proposition for a settlement of the question by arbitration
was kept in view during this discussion, and in March, 1891, Mr.
Blaine proposed that a modus vivendi be agreed upon pending the
result of arbitration. This suggestion was approved by Lord Salis-
bury. (Id., p. 552.) Lord Salisbury at first was inclined to insist.
that seal killing be suspended on the land as well as on the sea.
Mr. Blaine pointed out, however, that under the lease to the North
American Commercial Company, then recently executed, the lessees.
were bound to feed and care for the natives at their own expense
and to incur other expenses which could not be met unless the kill-
ing of a substantial number of seals was permitted, and that over
300 people on the islands were dependent upon such support. He
therefore proposed that the number of seals to be killed on the
islands for the purposes just described be limited to 7,500 annually,
and that killing in the sea by either British or American subjects
be absolutely prohibited, such prohibition to continue until May 1,
1892, within which time it was anticipated that the arbitrators would
render the final award. (Id., pp. 553-555.)
On June 3, 1891, Sir Julian Pauncefote proposed a modus vivendi
practically in the form suggested by the United States, providing,
however, that "unless the assent of Russia be obtained to this
convention it shall not go into operation," and suggesting the ap-
pointment of consuls on the Pribilof Islands. The United States
questioned the pertinency of this last suggestion, and also requested
that Great Britain waive the suggestion of Russia's participation in
the agreement. The objection to this suggestion was stated to be
that Russia had never since the treaty of cession in 1867 asserted
any rights in these waters affecting the subject-matter of these nego-
tiations, and therefore could not be a proper party to them unless
they were improperly expanded. (Id., p. 560.) On these points.
Great Britain acceded to the wishes of the United States, and after
active discussion on various features of the question the modus
vivendi of June 15, 1891, was signed and proclaimed by the Presi-
dent on the same day. (Id., p. 570.)
Under this modus vivendi both Governments agreed to prohibit
until the following May pelagic sealing in the waters of Bering
Sea included within the boundaries of the cession from Russia in
the Treaty of 1867, and on the islands the number of seals to be
killed within the same period was to be limited by the United States
to 7,500.
I I
The negotiations for the submission of the main questions to
arbitration were continued throughout the following summer, and
after a substantial agreement had been arrived at the matter was
unexpectedly delayed by the suggestion on the part of Great Britain.
that any regulations to be adopted by the arbitrators should not
become obligatory on the part of Great Britain and the United
States until they had been accepted by the other maritime powers.
On this proposition Mr. Blaine, in a letter to Sir Julian Pauncefotel
(November 27, 1891), raised the objection that-
"It would require a long time-three years, at least—to get the
assent of all these powers. Mr. Bayard, on the 19th of August,
1887, addressed Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Sweden
and Norway, and Japan with a view to securing some regulations in
regard to the seals in Bering Sea. France, Japan, and Russia replied
with languid indifference. Great Britain never replied in writing.
Germany did not reply at all. Sweden and Norway said the matter
was of no interest to them. Thus it will be again. Such a propo-
sition will postpone the matter indefinitely." (Id., p. 599.)
Sir Julian Pauncefote replied (December 1, 1891) that the object
in view was to prevent the fur-seal fisheries in Bering Sea from
being placed at the mercy of some third power. His objection is
stated as follows:
"There is nothing to prevent such third power (Russia, for
instance, as the most neighboring nation), if unpledged, from step-
ping in and securing the fishery at the very seasons and in the very
places which may be closed to the sealers of Great Britain and the
United States by the regulations.
"Great circumspection is called for in this direction, as British
and American sealers might recover their freedom and evade all
regulations by simply hoisting a flag of a nonadhering power. (Id.,
p. 600.)
Mr. Blaine replied on the following day that the United States
Government did not apprehend the danger suggested. He pointed
out that the dispute had been in progress for more than five years,
during all which time Great Britain had maintained that Bering Sea
was open to all comers; that a German vessel had once made its
appearance in Bering Sea but had not returned, owing to the great
distance; that Russia, whose interference seemed to be specially.
apprehended, should not be expected to dissent from the agreement
because such dissent would hazard her own sealing property in Ber-
ing Sea, and that on the contrary Russia might be expected to
strengthen and sustain any agreement arrived at. He suggested
that upon the termination of the arbitration the two nations should
unite in a note to the principal powers of Europe, explaining to them
fully what had been done and asking their approval. He thought
that with such full explanation no attempt would be made to disturb
I 2
the agreement. If, however, there should be any interference by a
third power Great Britain and the United States could act conjointly
and agree upon what measures might be necessary to prevent the
destruction of the seals. (Id., pp. 601–602.)
In response Sir Julian Pauncefote explained (December 8, 1891;
id., p. 601) that Lord Salisbury's fear was not that the other powers.
would reject the regulations, but that they would refuse to allow
the arrest by British and American cruisers of vessels sailing under
the flags of such other powers which may be engaged in the fur-seal
fishery in violation of the regulations. He added:
"Such refusal is highly probable in view of the jealousy which
exists as to the right of search on the high seas, and the consequence
must inevitably be that during the close season sealing will go on
under other flags."
Mr. Blaine's answer, sent two days later (id., p. 602), took the
ground that the fact that France and Germany had never engaged
in sealing afforded a strong presumption that they would not engage
in it in the future; moreover, that the distance from France or
Germany to Bering Sea by the sailing lines is nearly 20,000 miles,
and to make such a voyage it would be necessary to use a larger
ship than could profitably be employed in sealing; the time con-
sumed would be exceedingly long and the voyage unusually haz-
ardous, and when such a vessel reached the fishing grounds there
would be no territory there to which it could resort for any purpose.
As to the other European countries, he argued that they had the
same disabilities; that Russia should be regarded as an ally and not
as an enemy, for the reasons stated earlier in the correspondence;
and as to the American countries, he did not regard it probable that
any one of them would lend its flag to vessels engaged in violating
the Bering Sea regulations. He considered it absolutely useless to
attempt to get foreign countries to agree that their ships might be
searched by American or British cruisers in Bering Sea.
On February 29, 1892, the arbitration agreement was finally
signed. (Id., pp. 615-619.)
On April 18, 1892, a convention was entered into for the renewal
of the existing modus vivendi, to continue during the pendency of the
arbitration. (Id., pp. 635–637.)
THE PARIS ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL AWARD.
On August 15, 1893, the Arbitration Tribunal rendered its deci-
sion and determined that the United States had no "right of pro-
tection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the
United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found outside the
13
ordinary three-mile limit." (Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I,
p. 112.)
In consequence of such decision the arbitrators adopted, pursu-
ant to the requirements of the treaty, a set of “concurrent regulations
outside of the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments,
establishing a protected zone of 60 miles around the Pribilof Islands,
providing for a closed season during the months of May, June, and
July, restricting sealing to sailing vessels, and prohibiting the use
of firearms. These regulations affected only the citizens and sub-
jects respectively of the United States and Great Britain and applied
only to that part of Bering Sea north of the 35th degree of north.
latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude and the west-
ern water boundary of the Russian cession in the Treaty of 1867.
It appears from the protocols (Protocol LIV) of the Paris Tribu-
nal that the preparation of these regulations was intrusted to the
three neutral arbitrators, and that as originally proposed by them
the regulations were to apply to all the waters of the Pacific Ocean
and Bering Sea north of the 35th degree of north latitude, thereby
including the Russian and Japanese seal islands. On the part of
Great Britain Lord Hannen objected to such extension on the ground
that Russia and Japan would benefit gratuitously by such prohibi-
tion against sealing in their waters imposed upon the British and
American sealers. The president of the tribunal stated on behalf of
the neutral arbitrators that in thus framing the recommendations
they had acted out of regard for Russia and Japan, who were not
represented on the tribunal and toward whose waters it did not
seem equitable to drive back English and American pelagic sealers
during the close season. Nevertheless, he acquiesced in Lord Han-
nen's objection, as he did not wish to prejudice the positions of
Great Britain and the United States in the negotiations which these
two Governments might ultimately engage in with Russia and Japan.
The article was unanimously agreed to in the form above stated.
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT
BRITAIN FOR ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS.
In the arbitration treaty of February 29, 1892, it was provided
by Article VII that the high contracting parties should cooperate in
securing the adhesion of other powers to the regulations.
It was found upon inquiry in several directions that the other
powers would have to be informed of the manner in which the regula-
tions were to be enforced before they could be expected to give their
14
adhesion to them.
It was necessary, therefore, first to determine
upon the means and adopt the measures for putting the regulations
into effect. This was not accomplished until after the beginning of
the period within which sealing was prohibited under the award,
which extended through May, June, and July. The responsibility
for this delay seems to rest chiefly upon Great Britain.
Immediately upon the decision of the Paris Tribunal the United
States urged upon Great Britain the necessity for prompt action,
and Mr. Bayard, the American ambassador at London, was instructed
to press the matter. It soon appeared that the British Government
would prefer to conduct the negotiations through Sir Julian Paunce-
fote, the British ambassador at Washington (Foreign Relations,
1894, Appendix I, pp. 119, 133), and the United States was asked
to admit a Canadian as a joint negotiator (id., p. 140), which was
not acceptable. Under these circumstances the progress of the
negotiations at London was exceedingly slow, and finally, upon the
express assurance that the negotiations would be conducted with
"greater expedition" at Washington, the United States, on December
5, 1893, consented to have them transferred there. (Id., p. 136, 149.)
A further delay was occasioned by a difference which arose as
to the steps to be taken to make the regulations effective.
For a
month and a half after the negotiations were transferred to Washing-
ton no definite communication in regard to them was received from
Great Britain, and on January 24, 1894, the United States Govern-
ment, "with a view to facilitate negotiations," proposed a draft con-
vention embodying the regulations for the purpose of rendering
them operative. (Id., p. 142.) On the 2d of March following Great
Britain responded that a convention did not seem advisable (id.,
p. 152) and insisted that concurrent legislation was the proper
method of enforcing the regulations. (Id., p. 153.)
The President was of the opinion that a convention was neces-
sary, and, as the sealing season was almost at hand, in order that the
obligation of the award might be observed, suggested the renewal
for another year of the modus vivendi of 1892, so enlarged as to pro-
tect all the waters embraced in the regulations, pending the negotia-
tions. This was refused by Great Britain, either in the form proposed
or so modified as to conform exactly to the terms of the regulations.
(Id., p. 153.) Finally, all efforts in other directions proving fruit-
less, the United States determined to put into effect so much of the
regulations as could be made effective by independent legislation
without waiting for cooperation by Great Britain, and on April 5,
1894, a bill containing the provisions of the award was passed by
Congress and approved the same day. (Id., p. 165.) On the 18th
of the same month Parliament passed a somewhat similar bill, which
15
originally was designed to exempt from its operation for that season
the Canadian sealers who had already started for Bering Sea, but
after serious objection by the United States to this exemption an
official interpretation by the British Government was announced
which eliminated this feature of the bill. (Id., pp. 167, 173, 175.)
The order in council carrying this act into effect was not made until
July, 1894.
The United States Government charged that neither the letter
nor the spirit of the regulations was observed in this or in subse-
quent legislation and orders in council putting the regulations into
effect, and an active correspondence on the subject was carried on
between the two Governments during the two following years.
SEPARATE ARRANGEMENTS WITH JAPAN AND RUSSIA.
The regulations having thus been put into effect, the time had
arrived for inviting the adherence of the other powers. But before
taking up for consideration the concurrent action of the United States
and Great Britain in that direction it is necessary to review some
separate arrangements made with Japan and Russia.
Soon after the award of the Paris Tribunal Mr. Gresham, then
Secretary of State, expressed the fear that, whatever was done in the
way of enforcing the regulations, Canadians and perhaps Americans.
would transfer the ownership of their sealing vessels to citizens or
subjects of other powers, thus avoiding the effect of the regulations.
(Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I, p. 108.) Soon afterwards it
was reported from British Columbia that many of the Canadian ves-
sels were going to Japan the following season and were likely to
transfer their allegiance to the Japanese flag. (Id., p. 130.)
The same question was discussed by Mr. Bayard in his dispatch.
to the Secretary of State November 1, 1893. (Id., p. 128.) He
pointed out that the obligations of the treaty and the award were
imposed "only upon the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain, leaving depredations upon seal life under other flags.
not only unchecked, but in effect affirmatively legalized by the
text of the award." He therefore suggested that-
"it would seem highly expedient to caution the Governments of
Japan and Korea, as well as the Sandwich Islands, against attempts
which may be made to carry on under their flags, fur-seal fishing."
He further suggested that Russia and Japan, having almost iden-
tical interests in the sealing question with the United States, be
asked to adhere to the regulations without waiting for cooperative.
action by Great Britain, and that as a matter of justice to those
16
countries and to be consistent with the expressed policy of the
United States of preserving the seals for the benefit of mankind;
this Government should agree to extend the operation of the Paris
regulations, so far as United States citizens were concerned, to Rus-
sian and Japanese waters. Of Russia's adherence he seemed to have
no doubt, and he expressed the opinion that—
"the participation of Sweden and Norway, France and Italy in the
composition of the Paris Tribunal and framing its decrees would
seem to render it impossible that those Governments would permit
their flags to be used." (Id., p. 129.)
Arrangements with Japan.
The Japanese minister at Washington had already been asked
whether his Government would give its adhesion to the regulations.
His reply (October 24, 1893) was that—
'his Government would gladly come to an understanding with the
United States, Great Britain, and Russia for protecting the seal in
the Pacific Ocean north of the 35th degree of north latitude, between
California and Japan," but "could not fairly be expected to give its
adhesion to the regulations recommended by the arbitrators, and
thus prohibit Japanese subjects from taking seal during the months
of May, June, and July
[in Bering Sea] while citizens of
the United States and subjects of Great Britain, as well as subjects
of all the other powers, are permitted to engage in pelagic sealing
[in Japanese waters]." (Id., p. 121.]
* * *
The question of Canadian sealing vessels sailing under the Japa-
nese flag was brought directly to the attention of the Japanese
Government by the American minister in Japan. The Japanese Gov-
ernment promptly agreed to take measures to prevent foreign vessels
from using the flag of Japan to evade the seal-fisheries regulations,
but declined to require bona fide Japanese vessels to observe the regu-
lations unless the protection asked for should be given Japanese seal
fisheries (id., p. 135), and instructions were issued by the Japanese
Government to its consuls at San Francisco, Vancouver, and other
ports to prevent the use of the Japanese flag by foreign vessels.
(Id., p. 137.)
Subsequently, Japan formally offered to become a party to the
regulations and to enter upon negotiations for that purpose, on con-
dition that the regulations should be extended to cover Japanese
waters. (Id., p. 137.)
The propriety of a treaty between the four powers extending the
regulations to Russian and Japanese waters was recognized by the
United States Government, and at that time the British Govern-
ment was also in favor of it (id., pp. 122, 132, 140, 153), but no
17
further action in that direction was taken pending the completion of
the arrangements between the United States and Great Britain for
enforcing the regulations.
Arrangements with Russia.
Great Britain and Russia had entered into a separate agreement
in the spring of 1893, providing that seals were not to be killed by
their respective subjects within 10 miles of the mainland coast of
Russia or within 30 miles of the Russian seal islands, and that the
Russian Government should not permit more than 30,000 seals to be
killed annually on the islands. This agreement was to remain in
force only until December 31, 1893, but it has been renewed from
time to time (id., p. 201; Foreign Relations, 1895, pp. 632, 681), and
was still in force during the Russian-Japanese war in 1904 (Foreign
Relations, 1904, p. 340).
Prior to entering into this agreement Russia had seized some
British vessels hunting seals on the Russian side of Bering Sea, but
outside of the 3-mile limit, asserting the right to forbid the hunting
of seals anywhere on the Russian side of Bering Sea. These seizures
were made the subject of a claim for damages by Great Britain,
which claim was finally admitted by Russia and an indemnity was
allowed and the agreement above referred to entered into while the
Paris Arbitration Tribunal was in session.
This action on the part of Russia was regarded as exceedingly
prejudicial to the interests of the United States before the Paris
Tribunal. The special right to protect the seals beyond the 3-mile
limit as claimed by the United States was based partly on the ground
that such right had always been exercised by Russia prior to the
cession of Alaska, and had passed to the United States under the
treaty of cession, and the payment by Russia of an indemnity for
seizing these British vessels in Bering Sea was construed as an aban-
donment of her earlier claim of exclusive jurisdiction over the fur
seals in such waters and an admission that such jurisdiction did not
extend beyond the ordinary 3-mile limit.
In commenting on this action on the part of Russia Mr. Gresham,
then Secretary of State, said, in his letter of July 14, 1893, to the
American minister at St. Petersburg:
"If it be true that Russia sympathizes with the United States in
the present controversy submitted to the Paris Tribunal, and believes
the right which we asserted is well founded, it is difficult to under-
stand why that Government agreed to make indemnity for the seizure
of two British vessels poaching in the Bering Sea near the eastern
shore."
F S- -2
18
•
In the same letter he stated the grounds upon which Russia jus-
tified such action, as follows:
"When I called the minister's attention to information which had
been received indicating a purpose on the part of his Government to
make concessions to Great Britain inconsistent with the right asserted
by the United States before the Paris Tribunal, he informed me that
Mr. Blaine positively refused to allow the Russian Government to
become a party to that treaty, and it was therefore obliged to take
care of itself as best it could; that his Government did not believe
the right asserted by the United States to property in the seals on the
high seas was valid, and that Russia could not, therefore, assume
the attitude of the United States on that question. I can not resist
the belief that in these statements the minister represented the real
position of the Russian Government." (Moore's International Law
Digest, vol. 1, p. 923, sec. 173.)
:
In January, 1894, Russia proposed a similar arrangement with
the United States, suggesting at the same time the need of a more
comprehensive understanding in the future. (Foreign Relations,
1894, Appendix I, p. 141.) In March the Secretary of State re-
sponded, pointing out the necessity for deferring a joint under-
standing until the concurrent regulations with Great Britain had
been established, when the invitation to adhere would be extended.
(Id., pp. 153, 161.) Subsequently, it seemed advisable not to await
action by Great Britain, and on March 28, 1894, the United States
proposed a modus vivendi with Russia in substantially the form of the
Anglo-Russian agreement of 1893. (Id., pp. 157, 158, 161.) In mak-
ing this proposal Mr. Gresham reasoned that inasmuch as Russian
subjects had never taken seals on the United States side of the Pacific
since the cession of Alaska, there was no cause to apprehend that
they would now do so, and therefore that the United States need
exact nothing in the way of reciprocity from Russia. (Id., p. 161.)
The agreement, being substantially the same as Russia's proposal,
was accepted and signed at Washington on May 4, 1894. In accept-
ing this agreement, however, Russia made certain reservations,
which were as follows:
"I. It is understood, in the first place, that the understanding
established between our two Governments leaves unimpaired all the
rights of Russia in its territorial waters.
"2. In delivering to the authorities of the United States the Ameri-
can ships engaged in hunting fur seals in the prohibited waters, we
do not in any way intend to prejudice the question of the rights of
maritime power to extend its territorial jurisdiction in certain special
cases beyond territorial waters properly so called.
"3. The Imperial Government reserves its entire liberty as to the
choice in the future between the two systems of protecting fur seals,
either by means of a prohibited zone or by means of complete pro-
hibition of pelagic hunting, or by regulating it on the high seas.
19
J
4. The present arrangement shall only be in force until further
orders, will only have an essentially provisional character, and shall
in no way be used as a precedent.' (Id., p. 163.)
It will be observed that the right to extend territorial jurisdiction
in special cases beyond territorial waters and to prohibit or regulate.
the hunting of fur seals on the high seas, thus reserved by Russia,
was inconsistent with the position taken by Russia in the settlement
of the British sealers' claims and with the then recent decision of the
Paris Tribunal. The explanation of Russia's insistence upon these
reservations will be found in the fact that, notwithstanding the pay-
ment of the indemnity to the British sealers, Russia had refused to
indemnify certain American sealers seized under like conditions, and
had based its refusal on the ground that the United States had com-
mitted itself before the Paris Tribunal to the position that Russia
had jurisdiction to make such seizures in Bering Sea. These claims.
were ultimately settled in favor of the United States by arbitration.
In commenting on Russia's position in this matter Secretary of
State Olney, in his letter of April 25, 1896, to the American minister
at St. Petersburg, called attention to the fact that since the decision
of the Paris Tribunal Russia had indicated unquestionably her
acceptance of the decision in her adoption of a general policy in
consonance with its findings.
(The correspondence on this question, so far as published, will
be found in Moore's International Law Digest, vol. 1, p. 926, sec. 173.)
The agreement above referred to was never formally terminated,
but in 1897 it was superseded by an act of Congress, passed in that
year, prohibiting American citizens and persons belonging to
American vessels from killing or capturing seals in the Bering Sea
and the Sea of Okhotsk, thus protecting both the Japanese and
Russian seal islands. No agreements on this subject were made
with Japan by either Great Britain or the United States.
At the time of signing the American-Russian modus vivendi in
Washington, May 4, 1894, the Russian minister took occasion to
make the following statement in writing:
"In signing to-day this essential provisional arrangement, I hereby
reiterate to you, in writing, the declaration that the Imperial Gov-
ernment is, for its part, prepared to negotiate and sign with the
United States, England, and Japan a treaty in virtue of which the
principles and regulations of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration shall
be applicable indifferently to all the waters of the Pacific Ocean
situated north of the 35th parallel of north latitude." (Foreign
Relations, 1894, Appendix I, p. 190.)
It thus appears that both Russia and Japan refused to give adher-
ence to the regulations of the award unless the United States and
20
Great Britain would agree that such regulations should be "applica-
ble indifferently to all the waters of the Pacific Ocean situated north
of the 35th parallel of north latitude." Great Britain's consent to
this arrangement has never been given, and consequently the adher-
ence of Russia and Japan has never been secured.
INVITATIONS TO OTHER POWERS TO ADHERE TO THE
REGULATIONS.
In compliance with the provisions of Article VII of the arbitration
treaty of February 29, 1892, requiring the two Governments to
cooperate in securing the adhesion of other powers to the regula-
tions established by the tribunal, the United States and Great
Britain agreed upon a form of identic note requesting such adhesion.
On July 30, 1894, Great Britain submitted for the approval of the
United States the following list of powers to whom it was sug-
gested that the identic note should be addressed (Foreign Relations,
1894, Appendix I, p. 213): Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary,
Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Guate-
mala, Hawaii, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands,
Nicaragua, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden and
Norway, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela. It was finally decided,
however, that the following should be omitted from the list: China,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Salvador,
Uruguay, and Venezuela.
On August 20, 1894, both Governments sent separately to each
of the other powers in the above list the identic note agreed upon,
informing them of the situation under the Paris award and inviting
their adhesion to the regulations prescribed. Great Britain also.
sent one of these notes to the Danish legation at London. The
notes sent by the United States Government were addressed to the
Washington representatives of the powers named. (Id., p. 217.)
The response from the representatives of most of these Govern-
ments was merely an acknowledgment of the receipt of the note,
with a statement of its transmission to their respective Govern-
ments. The Governments which took action in the matter were
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hawaii, Italy, Japan, Portugal,
and Russia, and their respective answers were as follows (id., pp.
218-224):
2 I
The Belgian minister responded, December 23, 1894:
"As no Belgian vessel ever visits the regions in question, my
Government thinks-and it has instructed me to so inform your
excellency that there is no reason for proposing any special meas-
ure to the legislative body of Belgium.
"It adds that it nevertheless renders sincere homage to the
efforts that are made by the United States, together with Great
Britain, in behalf of a cause which interests the entire world.'
p. 219.)
(Id.,
The Danish Government replied to Great Britain, July 3, 1895,
that as it had been ascertained that no Danish ships participate in
the fur-seal hunting in the waters referred to they did not, at least
for the moment, find sufficient reason to ask the Danish Parliament
to pass the law authorizing them to give effect to the regulations in
question. (Foreign Relations, 1895, p. 661.)
The French ambassador responded, October 5, 1894, that he was
informed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the question had
been submitted to the competent authorities for examination, and
as soon as a decision had been reached it would be communicated.
No further communication appears to have been received, however.
(Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I, p. 220.)
The German ambassador responded, October 29, 1894, that—
"Upon investigation, it is shown that German shipping has never
taken part in seal hunting in Bering Sea, and that under these cir-
cumstances the Imperial Government does not consider it sufficiently
important to resort to imperial legislation for the protection of the
seals in the manner proposed.
"The Imperial Government, however, will gladly take occasion,
through public notices, and by executive means, to issue warnings
to its people interested in shipping, in conformity with the laws
enacted by Great Britain and the United States.” (Id., p. 220.)
The Hawaiian minister responded, August 22, 1894, that he had
forwarded the communication to his Government, and added:
"I venture to predict that the earliest possible action will be
taken by the authorities at Honolulu in issuing the necessary orders
to the masters of Hawaiian vessels and to citizens of the Hawaiian
Republic to observe the regulations prescribed, and that every aid
will be given the high contracting parties by legislation and other-
wise, looking to the protection of the fur seal in the territory
described." (Id., p. 221.)
The Italian ambassador responded, November 5, 1894, that he
was instructed-
“to announce the adhesion of the King's Government to the rules
established by agreement between the Federal Government and that
of Her Britannic Majesty for the regulation of seal fishing in Bering
Sea." (Id., p. 221.)
22
The Portuguese minister responded, October 15, 1894, that his
Government "had decided to give its adherence to the regulations,
and he added, however, that his Government-
"desires that it be distinctly and clearly established that its adhe-
rence is restrictive simply as regards the taking of the fur seal, and
in the waters comprised within the limits traced by the Tribunal
of Arbitration of Paris, this act of the Government implying no
recognition on its part of any principle tending to regulate fishing
outside of the territorial waters of each nation. (Id., p. 223.)
The position of Japan and Russia with respect to this question
had already been defined in the negotiations preceding this formal
invitation, in the course of which they both had refused their adher-
ence unless the regulations were extended to the Asiatic waters.
The Russian ambassador, in acknowledging the receipt of the
invitation, restated this requirement as a condition of adherence by
his Government (id., p. 224), and the Japanese minister merely
acknowledged the receipt of the note and referred it to his Govern-
ment (id., p. 221). No further response was received.
President Cleveland, referring to this matter in his annual mes-
sage of December 3, 1894, said:
"Thus far only France and Portugal have signified their willing-
ness to adhere to the regulations established under the award of the
Paris Tribunal of Arbitration."
As appears from the above responses, Italy should be substituted
for France in this statement.
PROPOSALS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR A TEMPORARY SUSPEN-
SION OF SEALING, FOR REVISION OF THE REGULATIONS, AND
FOR CONCURRENT ACTION BY GREAT BRITAIN, JAPAN, AND
RUSSIA EXTENDING THE REGULATIONS TO ASIATIC WATERS—
1894-1897.
The Paris Tribunal appended to its award the following declara-
tion, which was not binding upon the two Governments, but was
recommended for their adoption:
'In view of the critical condition to which it appears certain
that the race of fur seals is now reduced in consequence of circum-
stances not fully known, the arbitrators think fit to recommend both
Governments to come to an understanding in order to prohibit any
killing of fur seals, either on land or at sea, for a period of two or
three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the
two Governments might think proper to admit of.
"Such a measure might be recurred to at occasional intervals if
found beneficial." (Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I, p. 117.)
23
The United States arbitrators accepted this recommendation,
but the British arbitrators refused to approve, because, as stated in
Protocol LIV of the tribunal—
"although approving the spirit in which it is conceived, and although
regarding as very desirable that the destruction of the fur seal might
be entirely suspended during a certain period of time"-
yet they did not feel authorized to express an opinion officially on
the subject.
Promptly after the award was made Secretary Gresham asked the
concurrence of Great Britain in adopting this recommendation and
suggesting that Russia should be asked to join. (Id., pp. 107, 119.)
In connection with this proposition Mr. Bayard, then ambassador
at London, suggested to Secretary Gresham the following consid-
eration:
"To suspend wholly, even for a single year, the seal catch on
the islands might be highly prejudicial to the United States, or their
lessees, and as in the provisional or temporary arrangement of May,
1893, between Russia and Great Britain, a limit of 30,000 seals on
the Russian islands was agreed to, it would seem a very reasonable
figure to adopt for the catch on the Pribilof Islands, whose product
has been supposed to be about double that of the Russian islands.
(Id., p. 119.)
In answer Secretary Gresham wrote (October 27, 1893):
"I sent you yesterday copy of the contract which secures to the
North American Commercial Company the exclusive right to take
seal on the Pribilof Islands, thinking it advisable that you should
know the precise relations between the United States and that com-
pany. The President is not now prepared to say how far we ought
to go in limiting the seal catch should Great Britain make a demand
of that kind. You are well informed on the subject of the seal indus-
try and all matters relating to it, and we rely with confidence upon
your judgment in dealing with Lord Rosebery. If Great Britain
firmly insists that only a limited number of seals shall be taken on
the islands, and you must yield or fail in the effort to obtain a satis-
factory understanding for concurrent action, you can report the fact
to me, and I will communicate it to the President for his direction."
(Id., p. 127.)
No response from Great Britain was received, however, and on
January 24, 1894, Secretary Gresham renewed the suggestion to the
British ambassador at Washington, stating:
"The United States would be glad to prohibit entirely, for a
period of three years, or for two years, or for one year, the killing
of seals.'
It does not appear that any response was ever made to this propo-
sition. (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 286.)
24
It has already been shown that the neutral arbitrators proposed
that the regulations under the award should apply to the Asiatic seal
fisheries, and that this suggestion was not adopted because subse-
quent negotiations on the subject by the United States and Great
Britain with Japan and Russia might thereby be prejudiced. It has
also been shown that both Japan and Russia were willing to have
such regulations extended to include their seal fisheries and had
made the concurrence of the United States and Great Britain in such
extension a condition of their adhesion to the regulations. When,
therefore, the United States found it impossible to secure Great
Britain's consent to a temporary suspension of sealing for either
one, two, or three years, as recommended by the Paris Tribunal, it
became necessary to take up the question of extending the regula-
tions to Asiatic waters. It also seemed desirable to the United
States at the same time to raise the question of a general revision of
the regulations.
It was provided in article 9 of the award—
'The concurrent regulations hereby determined with a view to
the protection and preservation of the fur seals shall remain in force.
until they have been, in whole or in part, abolished or modified by
common agreement between the Governments of the United States
and of Great Britain.
"The said concurrent regulations shall be submitted every five
years to a new examination, so as to enable both interested Govern-
ments to consider whether, in the light of past experience, there is
occasion for any modification thereof." (Foreign Relations, 1894,
Appendix I, p. 113.)
The result of the first sealing season under the award regula-
tions, however, suggested the necessity for an immediate revision.
of the regulations if their stated purpose to secure "the protection
and preservation of the fur seal" was to be accomplished.
At the close of the 1894 sealing season it was found that the
total pelagic catch for the season had been about 142,000 skins, the
largest ever made in the history of sealing. Of this catch about.
50,000 skins were known to have been taken on the Japanese coast
and about 7,000 on the Russian coast. In addition to these there
were about 20,000 skins which were not otherwise identified and
presumably were taken from the Russian and Japanese herds. The
total catch in those waters during that season was considerably more
than twice the number taken in the preceding year. The number of
skins taken in Bering Sea was about 8,000 more than the catch of
1891, the last open season, which was the record catch up to that
date. (Id., p. 226; Foreign Relations, 1895, PP. 594, 611, 620, 649.)
This being the situation, Secretary Gresham, on January 23,
25
1895, wrote to Sir Julian Pauncefote, stating that under the circum-
stances the President deemed it advisable to suggest to the British
Government and to the Governments of Russia and Japan that a
commission of scientists be appointed to secure further scientific
information on the subject, and he added:
"I am further directed to suggest that during its deliberations
the respective Governments agree upon a modus vivendi, as follows:
'That the regulations now in force be extended along the line of
the 35th degree of north latitude from the American to the Asiatic
shore, and be enforced during the coming season in the whole of
the Pacific Ocean and waters north of that line. Furthermore, that
sealing in Bering Sea be absolutely prohibited pending the report
of such commission. (Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I,
p. 228.)
No answer was received from Great Britain, and the proposition
was again urged by the United States Government on May 10, 1895.
In the letter of that date to Sir Julian Pauncefote renewing the pro-
posal, the closing paragraph is as follows:
"In thus communicating to you, by direction of the President,
the proposals and suggestions of this Government, I desire, by way
of recapitulation, to lay especial stress upon (1) the necessity of
immediate agreement to close Bering Sea absolutely to pelagic seal-
ers pending consideration of the proposition for extending the pro-
tective area of the North Pacific Ocean along the 35th parallel to
the Asiatic coast, with the concurrence of Russia and Japan; (2)
the proposal for a modus vivendi whereby the effective concurrence of
Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and the United States shall be lent to
the protection of the fur-seal herds; (3) the appointment of a joint
commission, as suggested in Mr. Gresham's note of January 23, 1895;
and (4) the advisability, if not the proven necessity, for amending
the concurrent legislation of the two countries for the expansion and
more precise definition of the scope of the Paris award, and the duty
of the two Governments thereunder." (Foreign Relations, 1895,
p. 615.)
On May 27, 1895, the reply of Great Britain was received. After
reviewing the results of the sealing season of 1894 it was stated that
"the condition of affairs is not of so urgent a character as the Presi-
dent has been led to believe" (id., p. 619); "that increased pelagic
catch on the Japanese coast does not constitute a serious menace to
the seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands" (id., p. 620); and, finally,
that-
"Taking all these circumstances into consideration, Her Majes-
ty's Government can not agree that any sufficient evidence as yet
exists to show that the regulations have failed in their effect or that
there is such urgent danger of total extinction of the seals as to call
for a departure from the arbitral award by which the two nations
have solemnly bound themselves to abide." (Id., p. 621.)
26
It was further stated:
"As regards the proposed modus vivendi for this season, Her
Majesty's Government regret that they find themselves unable to
accept this proposal."
And further:
'Nor can Her Majesty's Government believe that the appoint-
ment at present of an international commission, such as is suggested
by Mr. Gresham, would lead to any useful result." (Id., p. 622.)
It was suggested, however, that the United States and Great
Britain might appoint agents to reside upon the seal islands for the
next four years, which would complete the five-year period for the re-
vision under the Paris award, by which time the revision of the
regulations could be approached in a thoroughly scientific manner.
It was further suggested that similar arrangements might be made
with Russia for the appointment of agents on the Commander
Islands. (Id., p. 623.)
On June 24, 1895, Secretary Olney, who had succeeded Mr.
Gresham, again brought the subject to the attention of the British
Government. He pointed out that in view of the fact that the Paris
Tribunal had not made any finding on the question of the comming-
ling of the Asiatic and Bering Sea herds, this must still be regarded
as a disputed question which required most careful consideration;
that nevertheless, even if the United States was right in its conten-
tion, urged before the Paris Tribunal, that these herds did commingle,
yet the suggestion that the protective regulations be extended over
Asiatic waters was not founded on selfish considerations on the part
of the United States. He stated that the desire of the President
was "to protect the fur-seal fisheries on both sides of the North
Pacific Ocean, Asiatic as well as American, for the benefit of man-
kind” (id., p. 650); but from the ascertained facts it was evident
that commercial extermination of both the American and Asiatic
seal herds was imminent. Under the circumstances, therefore, the
British suggestion of a four-year investigation seemed inadequate,
and he suggested as a modification-
"That three agents each be appointed by the respective Govern-
ments of Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and the United States, twelve
in all, who shall be stationed on the Kurile, Commander, and Pribi-
lof islands, respectively; that these agents be instructed to examine
carefully into the fur-seal fishery and to recommend from time to
time needful changes in the regulations of the Paris award and desir-
able limitations of the land catches of each of the said islands; that
within four years they shall present a final report to their respective
Governments; and that, pending such report, a modus vivendi be
entered into, extending the award regulations along the line of the
35th degree of north latitude from the American to the Asiatic
shores." (Id., p. 653.)
27
In answer to this suggestion Secretary Olney was informed,
August 19, 1895, that—
"Her Majesty's Government can not recognize that Russia and
Japan have any interest in the seal fishery on the American side of
the North Pacific, and that they can not, therefore, take part in any
inquiry on the Pribilof Islands in which those powers are associated,
but Her Majesty's Government is ready to appoint at once an agent
to inquire, conjointly with an agent of the United States alone, as
already proposed; and they would also be ready to consider any
request from the two powers concerned to join in an inquiry on
similar terms with Russia and Japan, respectively, in the Com-
mander and Kurile islands." (Id., p. 666.)
Ten days later he was asked if it would be convenient to resume
negotiations the following October and was informed that Sir Mac-
kenzie Bowell was prepared to come to Washington to take part in
the discussion of the Bering Sea question. (Id., p. 666.) To this
suggestion a noncommittal answer was sent on September 5, 1895.
(Id., p. 669.)
The negotiations seem to have been suspended at this point until
the spring of 1896.
On April 2, 1896, Mr. Olney informed Mr. Bayard that-
"The Russian Government is about to initiate negotiations
through its ambassador at London for an extension of the Paris
award fur-seal regulations of 1893 by a treaty to which Great Britain,
the United States, Russia, and Japan shall be parties, over the Bering
and Okhotsk seas and the North Pacific Ocean from latitude 35'
north from one continent to the other. It has also made request
through the Russian minister at this capital that the United States
shall cooperate in such negotiations." (Foreign Relations, 1896,
p. 285.)
Mr. Olney expressed the opinion that such a treaty would be of
great, if not of equal, value to the United States, and directed Mr.
Bayard to aid in the negotiations. (Id., p. 285.)
On April 29, 1896, Mr. Bayard reported that the Russian ambas-
sador expressed satisfaction at the prospect of the cooperation of
the United States with Russia in procuring an expansion of the seal-
ing regulations, and approval of his suggestion that a résumé of the
events connected with fur sealing in Bering Sea and the North
Pacific for the past eight years be laid before Lord Salisbury. It
does not appear that such a résumé was prepared. In the interview
nothing was said on either side with relation to the participation of
Japan in the proposed negotiations. Mr. Bayard stated in his letter,
however, that he did not doubt "the ready and friendly cooperation
of that Government." (Id., p. 286.)
28
Lord Salisbury was notified of the authority of our ambassador
to undertake these negotiations on April 18, 1896. (Id., p. 288.)
In reply, on May 14, 1896, Lord Salisbury wrote that his Govern-
ment wished to dispatch an agent-"a properly qualified naturalist".
to the Commander Islands during the approaching season to observe
the conditions of seal life there and to collect information as to the
working of the existing arrangement with Russia, and that pending.
his report the British Government was not in a position to enter
upon negotiations.
At this point the negotiations were temporarily suspended, and
during the following summer Prof. D'Arcy W. Thompson, with
Messrs. Macoun and Barrett Hamilton as assistants, was sent out to
the seal islands by the British and Canadian Governments to investi-
gate the conditions of seal life. The United States sent Dr. David
Starr Jordan to make a similar investigation. The reports of these.
scientists showed a wide divergence of opinion. Doctor Jordan's
observations led to the positive conclusion that pelagic sealing would
ultimately result in the practical extinction of the herd and showed
the necessity for an immediate revision of the regulations. Pro-
fessor Thompson's report, on the other hand, supported the Cana-
dian view that there was nothing alarming in the conditions under
the existing regulations and that very slight modifications would be
sufficient.
The United States regarded Professor Thompson's report as
untrustworthy, and questioned its good faith and impartiality, in
view of the fact that it had been held back until after Doctor Jordan's
report had been presented and examined, and was apparently
designed to controvert his views, rather than to present an unbiased
opinion. In writing to Ambassador Hay (May 10, 1897) Secretary
Sherman comments on the course of the British Government in this
matter as follows:
'But it seems to have better suited the purposes of Her Majesty's
Government to withhold Professor Thompson's report until an oppor-
tunity was afforded to examine that of Doctor Jordan, and thus
enable the former to pass the latter in review, criticise its state-
ments, and, as far as possible, minimize its conclusions. It is not
pleasant to have to state that the impartial character which it has
been the custom to attribute to the reports of naturalists of high
standing has been greatly impaired by the apparent subjection of
this report to the political exigencies of the situation." (Foreign
Relations, 1897, p. 281.)
The British Government nevertheless maintained the position
that "there is apparently no reason to fear that the seal herd is
threatened with early extermination." At the same time the belief
was expressed that "some modification of the sealing regulations
will be required at the expiration of the five-year term" named by
29
the Arbitration Tribunal, which period would expire at the close of
the season of 1898. It was therefore proposed that scientists be
again sent out, in order that the two Governments might be pre-
pared to discuss modifications of the regulations in 1898 and secure.
their adoption before the 1899 season. (Id., p. 261.) In connection
with this suggestion it was officially stated that "no revised regu-
lations will be adopted without previous communication with the
Dominion Government." (Id., p. 263.)
In response to this suggestion for further preliminary investiga-
tion the United States Government notified Great Britain (August
9, 1897) that, relying upon Doctor Jordan's report and other ascer-
tained facts and statistics, the President is forced to express his strong
dissent from the conclusion reached by the British Government "that
there is no such imminent danger of the early extermination of the
seal herd as to call for any action by the two Governments before
the close of the season of 1898," and it was proposed and urgently
requested-
"that a modus vivendi should be agreed upon, with equitable provi-
sion for the interests involved, suspending all killing for the season
of 1897, and that this should be accompanied by an arrangement for
a joint conference, at an early day, of the powers concerned, to agree
upon measures necessary to preserve the seals of the North Pacific
Ocean from extermination and to restore them to their normal con-
dition for insuring continued existence." (Id., pp. 266, 267.)
The Russian ambassador in London was informed at the same
time and expressed the particular interest of his Government in the
project. (Id., p. 267.)
The answer of the British Government to this urgent request for
an immediate suspension of pelagic sealing is found in two dispatches
from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote (April 21 and May 7,
1897) which were communicated to the Secretary of State. (Id.,
Pp. 270, 277.) In them Lord Salisbury calls attention to the amount
of British capital and the number of British subjects employed in
the sealing industry, to show the natural anxiety of Great Britain to
establish proper regulations for the preservation of the industry, and
he then takes the extremely optimistic view that "there is no indis-
putable evidence that the herd has quite recently been decreasing,
and that there is no ground therefore for immediate alarm." (Id.,
p. 280.) Incidentally, he comments on the repeated predictions of
the imminent extinction of the seals advanced on the part of the
United States as follows:
"Similar statements as to the immediate disappearance of the
herd have been made in previous years, but experience has shown
that the fears then expressed were groundless, and Her Majesty's
Government are convinced that they will prove to be equally so on
the present occasion." (Id., p. 271.)
30
And he reaches the familiar conclusion "that further investigation.
is required before the question of revising the regulations can be.
considered" (id., p. 272), and-
"The interests of this country [Great Britain] in the question
are too serious to warrant Her Majesty's Government in imperiling
them by the adoption of any hasty decision." (Id., p. 280.)
On the question of the modus vivendi prohibiting pelagic sealing
pending the revision, he says that owing to unfavorable conditions
the preceding year many of the owners of sealing vessels are on the
verge of bankruptcy, and to prohibit pelagic sealing altogether for
the next season would mean their probable ruin. He adds, however:
"Of course, if the United States Government are prepared to
give adequate compensation to the sealing fleet on account of its
enforced abstention from the fishery this season, Her Majesty's Gov-
ernment would have no reason for refusing their assent to the pro-
posal for a modus vivendi, but they do not gather that such is the case,
and it would be impossible for them to submit a note to Parliament
for the purpose, holding, as they do, that no sufficient reason has
been shown for its necessity." (Id., p. 271.)
This question of compensation, which later became the leading
question in the negotiations, is brought into the discussion for the
first time by the suggestion in the letter of Secretary Sherman (April
9, 1897, above), then under consideration by Lord Salisbury.
suggestion was for a modus vivendi "with equitable provision for the
interests involved, suspending all killing for the season of 1897,"
etc. (id., p. 266), which was correctly understood by the British Gov-
ernment to mean compensation to the interests involved in pelagic
sealing (id., p. 273), but did not specify whether the compensation
should be made by the Canadian or United States Governments.
It is also to be noted that at this time the suggestion of branding
the female seals, so as to destroy the skins for commercial purposes,
was first announced. (Id., p. 270.)
This suggestion of compensation was not carried further at that
time by the United States, but the hope of securing Great Britain's
consent to a conference was not altogether abandoned, and to that
end a critical review of Great Britain's action in the matter was sub-
mitted for its consideration. This review is contained in Secretary
Sherman's letter of May 10, 1897, to Ambassador Hay (id., p. 280),
in the course of which the situation as it then stood is summarized
as follows:
"In no respect has the United States Government failed to
observe the exact terms of the award or to accept its recommenda-
tions in their true spirit and full effect, even though they have
entailed heavy expense and caused great damage to long-established
interests of this nation.
31
'On the other hand, I think I have shown that the British Gov-
ernment has from the beginning and continuously failed to respect
the real intent and spirit of the tribunal or the obligations imposed'
by it.
This is shown by the refusal to extend the regulations to the
Asiatic waters; by the failure to put in operation the recommenda-
tion for a suspension of the killing of the seals for three, for two, or
even for one year; by the neglect to put the regulations in force
until long after the first sealing season had been entered on; by the
almost total evasion of the patrol duty; by the opposition to suitable
measures for the enforcement of the prohibition against firearms;
by the omission to enact legislation necessary to secure conviction
of the guilty; and by the refusal to allow or provide for an inspec-
tion of skins in the interest of an honest observance of the regula-
tions." (Id., p. 289.)
In the course of this letter he also calls attention to the fact that—
"The effect of Lord Hannen's amendment of article 2 of the regu-
lations has been to bring about the state of affairs which the neutral
arbitrators desired to avoid, to wit, to transfer the sealing vessels to
the Asiatic waters during the closed season in the American waters,
which they expected would be prevented by negotiations between
the interested Governments. Such negotiations Great Britain has
steadily omitted and declined to enter upon." (Id., p. 285).
In conclusion, he says:
"One of the evil results is already indicated in the growing con-
viction of our people that the refusal of the British Government to
carry out the recommendations of that tribunal will needlessly sac-
rifice an important interest of the United States. This is shown by
the proposition seriously made in Congress to abandon negotiations.
and destroy the seals on the islands, as the speedy end to a danger-
ous controversy, although such a measure has not been entertained
by this Department." (Id., p. 290.)
No reply having meanwhile been received from Great Britain the
project of a conference of the powers interested was again proposed
to Great Britain in July, 1897 (id., p. 299), and on the 28th of that
month Lord Salisbury responded, in answer both to Secretary Sher-
man's letter of May 10 (above cited) and to the renewed proposal
for a conference, that the British Government was willing "to agree
to a meeting of experts nominated by Great Britain and Canada
and by the United States" to meet in October after the investiga-
tions then undertaken had been completed. As to the other por-
tions of Secretary Sherman's dispatch of May 10, he stated that so
far as they required any reply they had already been answered by
anticipation in his earlier dispatches. (Id., p. 300.) Lord Salis-
bury's attention was promptly called to the expectation of the United
States Government that both Russia and Japan would be represented
at the conference (id., p. 301), and no objection was then made.
Meanwhile, former Secretary of State John W. Foster was ap-
pointed special ambassador to Russia and Great Britain to secure
32
their participation in the proposed conference, and during the
summer of 1897 he had, with the knowledge and presumed consent
of Great Britain, arranged with Russia to take part in the con-
ference to be held in the following October, and Japan was also
invited and accepted.
As the time for the conference approached, however, Great
Britain raised objections to having Russia and Japan represented at
the conference on the ground that neither of those countries had
any direct interest in the Pribilof Islands herd, or any experts
familiar with the question. (Id., pp. 303, 304.) The United States
protested against this course, but the protest was ineffective and
Great Britain persisted in its refusal to take part in a general con-
ference with Japan and Russia and insisted that a general inter-
national inquiry would be premature and that the conference should
be limited to merely a meeting of experts in which no "useful pur-
pose would be served by the participation of Russia and Japan."
(Id., p. 306.)
It was, therefore, arranged that a conference of experts repre-
senting the United States and Great Britain should be held in
Washington, in October, 1897, and the result of that meeting is
embodied in a joint statement setting forth a series of propositions
relating to the conditions of the Pribilof Islands seal herd, in which
all the delegates concurred. This report is not dated, but was
transmitted to the United States Government on November 17,
1897. In it all reference to the regulations of the Paris Tribunal
was omitted by mutual consent. (Id., p. 314.)
Some of the propositions agreed upon were as follows:
"12. The large proportion of females in the pelagic catch in-
cludes not only adult females that are both nursing and pregnant,
but also young seals that are not pregnant and others that have
not yet brought forth young, with such also as have recently lost
their young through the various causes of natural mortality." (Id.,
P. 317.)
66
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
15. In this greater reduction of the pelagic catch compared
with the gradual decrease of the herd there is a tendency toward
equilibrium, or a stage at which the numbers of the breeding herd
would neither increase nor decrease." (Id., p. 317.)
“16. The diminution of the herd is yet far from a stage which
involves or threatens the actual extermination of the species, so long
as it is protected in its haunts on land. It is not possible, during
the continuance of the conservative methods at present in force upon
the islands, with the further safeguard of the protected zone at sea,
There is
that any pelagic killing should accomplish this final end.
evidence, however, that in its present condition the herd yields an
inconsiderable return either to the lessees of the islands or to the
owners of the pelagic fleet." (Id., p. 318.)
33
Notwithstanding Great Britain's refusal to meet Japan and
Russia, the arrangements for a conference with those countries
without Great Britain were perfected by General Foster, and the
representatives of the United States and those two powers met at
Washington in October, 1897, to arrange as far as possible for joint
action on the seal question. The proceedings and results of this
conference are reviewed below at page 34 et seq.
NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA.
Immediately after the close of the conference of the British,
Canadian, and American experts, General Foster, on behalf of the
United States and acting for the Secretary of State, entered into
negotiations with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Canadian Prime Minister,
and Sir Louis Davis, Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Cana-
dian Cabinet, for the purpose of agreeing, "if possible, upon some
tentative method of settlement of the fur-seal question," and in the
course of the negotiations various other unsettled questions between
the United States and Canada were discussed. (Id., p. 320.)
It was proposed at that time by General Foster that the United
States and Great Britain-
"agree at once to a modus vivendi providing for a complete suspen-
sion of the killing of seals in all the waters of the Pacific Ocean and
Bering Sea for one year from December, 1897, and for a suspension.
of all killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands for the same period."
It was also proposed that a joint conference be held—
to take up for consideration, with a view to settlement by means
of treaty stipulations, the fur-seal question, the protection of fish in
the waters of rivers and lakes contiguous to the United States and
Canada, the subject of reciprocal immigration, commercial reci-
procity, or any other unsettled question between the United States
and Canada which either of the Governments may see proper to
bring forward." (Id., pp. 320, 321.)
The latter part of this proposition was stated to be entirely
acceptable by the Canadian representatives, but as it was made con-
ditional upon their consent to a temporary suspension of pelagic
sealing pending the result of the negotiations, they were forced to
decline, for the reason, stated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that—
"The prohibition of pelagic sealing for a year would practically
destroy the business for several years, because the masters, the
mates, and the white crews, for the larger part belonging to other
parts of Canada, would leave British Columbia. The sum which
would likely be demanded as compensation is far beyond what it
would be possible for us to induce Parliament to vote, even if we
could recommend it." (Id., p. 321.)
•
F S3
34
A general conference on all unsettled questions without a sus-
pension of sealing meanwhile was urged instead by the Canadians.
(Id., p. 322.) In responding General Foster said:
"We seem to have failed to impress upon the Canadian Govern-
ment, past or present, our view that pelagic sealing ought to be
voluntarily given up because it is unneighborly in that it is destroy-
ing a valuable industry of our Government, and inhumane because
it is exterminating a noble race of animals useful to the world."
(Id., p. 323.)
And also:
"When it is proposed to negotiate for the surrender of the legal
right of pelagic sealing, we are told that this can not be brought
about by a fair compensation to those engaged in the industry, but
that the question must be included with a number of other subjects
having no relation to it whatever, and that it must await the fate of
all these matters, some of which, as commercial reciprocity and the
tariff, are very complex in their character, and others, as the north-
eastern sea fisheries, of long standing and very difficult of adjust-
ment." (Id., p. 324.)
These negotiations were not carried further at that time, but were
subsequently renewed and led to the meeting in 1898 of the Joint
High Commission between the United States and Great Britain for
the discussion of all unsettled Canadian questions.
•
PROPOSAL BY THE UNITED STATES FOR A JOINT CONFERENCE
WITH GREAT BRITAIN, JAPAN, AND RUSSIA IN 1897.
In the summer of 1897 the United States invited Great Britain,
Japan, and Russia to meet at Washington in October of that year
for the purpose of considering and agreeing upon measures for the
better protection of the fur seals.
Hon. John W. Foster, former Secretary of State, went as a spe-
cial ambassador to arrange with Great Britain and Russia to par-
ticipate in this conference, and Hon. Charles S. Hamlin went on a
special mission to Japan for the same purpose.
Mr. Foster's report of the result of his mission was filed in the
· Department of State on August 7, 1897.
In this report it is stated that Count Mouravieff, the Russian
Minister for Foreign Affairs, had announced "that his Government
would be ready to cooperate with the United States for the adoption
of such measures as might be agreed upon for their common benefit,"
and had directed Professor Martens, the president of a commission
then recently created by the Emperor for the study of the seal ques-
tion, and Mr. Kotzebue, the Russian minister at Washington, then.
35
in St. Petersburg, to confer with Mr. Foster as to the measures to
be agreed upon by the two Governments.
The following programme of action submitted by Mr. Foster
was agreed upon by these gentlemen:
"1. It is proposed that a conference be held in Washington, about
October 1, 1897, of the four powers interested in the seal question-
to wit, the United States, Russia, Great Britain, and Japan—for the
purpose of considering and agreeing upon the measures necessary
for the better protection of the fur seals in which the respective
Governments are interested.
“2. If Great Britain participates in the conference, an effort shall
be made to bring about an agreement for an absolute prohibition of
pelagic sealing in all the waters of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
north of the 35th degree of latitude and between the continents of
America and Asia.
"3. If it shall be found not possible to bring about an agreement
for an absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing, an effort shall be made
to agree upon a suspension of pelagic sealing for a period of five,
or at least three, years, with provision for amended regulations for
pelagic sealing thereafter.
4. If absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing can not be brought
about, then it shall be proposed that pelagic sealing be prohibited
from the 1st of April to October 15, and, at the least, from May 1 to
October 15, and that the zone about the Russian and Kurile Islands
be increased to not less than 60 nautical miles.
"5. Finally, if neither of the foregoing propositions can be
agreed upon, then an effort shall be made to make applicable to the
entire ocean and sea, north of the 35th degree of latitude and between
the two continents, the regulations adopted by the Paris Tribunal
of 1893, with a prohibited area of not less than 60 nautical miles
around all the seal islands.
"6. In case of a failure of Great Britain to participate in the
conference, or to agree to an absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing,
then, and in either case, the Governments of the United States, Rus-
sia, and Japan shall agree to enact the necessary laws to prohibit
their citizens and subjects from engaging in pelagic sealing and to
prevent their ports from being used for the purpose of fitting out
vessels for pelagic sealing or the landing of seal skins taken in the
waters named.
"7. It is to be understood that if one of the above-named powers
enters into a separate agreement with another of them on the sub-
ject of the foregoing propositions, that agreement shall be made
applicable to and be enjoyed by the other powers interested in the
question."
Mr. Foster then had an audience with the Emperor, Nicholas II,
who advised him that a satisfactory agreement respecting the seal
question could undoubtedly be reached with his Minister for Foreign
Affairs. On June 15 Count Mouravieff notified Mr. Foster that by
order of the Emperor "the Imperial Government adheres to the
36
propositions of the Federal Government enumerated in the memo-
randum above mentioned," and further that "the Imperial Govern-
ment is therefore quite disposed to participate in the conference
which is to meet about October 1 at Washington," adding: “We do
not object that the conference in question be held, even if the British
Government should refuse to participate." During the conferences
held with Messrs. Martens and Kotzebue, Mr. Foster had informed
them-
"that in an interview which our ambassador, Mr. Hay, had held
with Mr. Chamberlain, British Minister for the Colonies, the latter
had suggested that it appeared to him the best settlement of the seal
question was to pay to the Canadian sealers an agreed sum in com-
pensation for the absolute surrender of their right to pelagic sealing."
Mr. Foster stated to them that, although having no authority to
bind his Government to such an arrangement, he thought it worth
while to consider this phase of the subject "for the purpose of con-
currence of views, should the matter arise during subsequent nego-
tiations with Great Britain."
Shortly thereafter Mr. Kotzebue suggested that Mr. Foster pre-
pare a paper on the subject of compensation of pelagic sealers, to bet
read at the Russian Council of Ministers. Mr. Foster accordingly
prepared and submitted to him the following paper, at the same time
stating to him that the views therein expressed must be regarded as
unofficial:
"The position of the United States before the Paris Tribunal of
Arbitration was that no pelagic sealing could be permitted with safety
to the continued existence of the seal herd. The operation for the
past three years of the regulations adopted by that tribunal confirms
the correctness of the position of the United States. Doctor Jordan,
the American scientist, and others who have made a study of the
seals agree that pelagic sealing must be stopped entirely or the herd
will be ultimately destroyed, at least for all commercial purposes.
'The past two years have not proved profitable for the pelagic
sealers, as the number of seals taken in the water has largely de-
creased and the price of seal skins has also fallen so low that the
business has ceased to be profitable. An intimation has been thrown
out from London recently that possibly, under the circumstances, a
settlement of the vexed question of pelagic sealing might be reached
by the payment to the Canadian Government, through that of Great
Britain, of a sum sufficient to justify the owners of the Canadian
sealing vessels in abandoning the business. They claim, with some
show of reason, that the taking of seals in the water having been
declared a legitimate business by the Paris Tribunal, they ought not
to be deprived of it without some compensation by the interested
Governments.
"It is believed that the Governments of Russia and the United
States would be amply justified in agreeing to this claim, if the
37
amount demanded should not be excessive. If the British Govern-
ment would agree to absolutely prohibit its subjects from engaging
in pelagic sealing and adopt the necessary measures to make that
prohibition effective, Russia and the United States would at once be
relieved from the necessity of maintaining their naval and other ves-
sels in patrol of the waters along their coasts and in the vicinity of
the seal islands, and thereby save annually a large sum of money.
The prohibition of pelagic sealing would result in a speedy restora-
tion of the seal herd to its normal conditions and they would again
yield the respective Governments a valuable revenue. If the seals
of the Russian islands should be thus restored they would yield the
Russian Government, at the rate paid by the lessees of the Pribilof
Islands to the United States, the approximate sum of $600,000 an-
nually for an indefinite number of years. Such an arrangement
would have the still greater political advantage of settling a very
troublesome international dispute.
"It is estimated that the total cost or value of the Canadian ves-
sels engaged in pelagic sealing would not exceed $300,000 or
$350,000, and it might fall considerably below this amount. If the
Russian Government should furnish one-third of that sum (which
would be approximately in proportion to the size of its seal herd
compared with the American herd) it would not cost the imperial
treasury more than $100,000 or $116,666. If the two Governments
could bring about a permanent settlement of this very annoying
business at such a comparatively small cost, it is believed it would
be a very wise and economical adjustment of the question."
During his visit Mr. Foster also had a conference with Mr. Yer-
moloff, Minister of Imperial Domains, to whose Department the
Russian seal islands pertain, and also with Mr. Witte, Minister of
Finance, "both of whom seemed to concur in the desirability of a
final settlement of the question by a money compensation to the
Canadian sealers if a reasonable sum should be proposed." It does
not appear, however, that any official action was taken by Russia on
this proposition.
Mr. Foster then returned to London, where he had conferences
with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Canadian Prime Minister, and Sir
Louis Davies, the Canadian Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and
also with Sir Richard Webster, Attorney-General of the British
Ministry, "the result of which was that an agreement was reached
that the British and Canadian Governments would be represented at
the conference which under the agreement with the Russian Govern-
ment was to be held at Washington in October." Subsequently,
however, Lord Salisbury informed Mr. Hay (July 28, 1897; Foreign
Relations, 1897, p. 300) that "Her Majesty's Government are willing
to agree to a meeting of experts nominated by Great Britain and
Canada and by the United States in October," after the further
investigations then undertaken had been completed. Lord Salisbury
was promptly advised that Russia and Japan were expected to be
38
represented at the conference, but the British Government declined
to take part in a general conference with Japan and Russia or to
admit the experts of those countries to the proposed conference of
experts from the United States and Great Britain, which was held
at Washington in October of that year contemporaneously with the
joint conference between the United States, Japan, and Russia.
No report from Mr. Hamlin of his mission to Japan on this ques-
tion has been found in the records of the Department of State.
JOINT CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, JAPAN, AND
RUSSIA, HELD AT WASHINGTON IN OCTOBER, 1897.
On October 3, 1897, the delegates of the United States, Japan,
and Russia met at the Department of State at Washington. These
three Governments were represented respectively as follows:
The United States, by John W. Foster, Charles S. Hamlin, and
David S. Jordan.
Japan, by Shiro Fujita and Kakichi Mitsukuri.
Russia, by Gregoire De Wollant, Pierre Botkine, and M. de
Routkowsky.
As appears from the protocols of the conference and a résumé of
the daily proceedings and the report of the United States delegates,
filed in the Department of State on November 8, 1897, the course of
the negotiations was as follows:
It was stated at the outset on behalf of the United States that in
inviting the Governments of Russia, Japan, and Great Britain to a
conference for the purpose of considering and agreeing upon meas-
ures for the better protection of the fur seal in which these Govern-
ments were interested, it had been intimated that if Great Britain
should decline to enter upon a consideration of a change in the exist-
ing regulations or other propositions submitted, the United States.
would propose that the three other Governments should agree to
enact the necessary laws to prohibit their citizens and subjects from
engaging in pelagic sealing or the landing of seal skins taken in the
waters named.
The United States accordingly proposed the following alterna-
tive measures:
"1. An agreement for an absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing.
in all the waters of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea north of the
35th degree of latitude and between the continents of America and
Asia.
2. If it should not be found possible to bring about the abso-
lute prohibition of pelagic sealing, then a suspension for a period of
five or three years, with a provision for amended regulations.
thereafter.
39
3. If neither of these measures could be secured, then a closed
season from April 1 or May 1 to October 15, with a zone of at least
60 miles about the Russian and Japanese seal islands and an exten-
sion of the Paris regulations to the entire ocean and sea.” (Protocol
II, October 25, 1897.)
On behalf of Russia, Mr. Botkine stated:
“After careful examination on behalf of my Government I wish
to make the statement that Russia approves the proposition of the
United States for the abolition of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea and
the North Pacific Ocean north of latitude 35°. I simply make this
statement now, reserving the right to discuss the details at a later
time." (Abstract of Discussion, October 25, 1897.)
The delegates of Japan found themselves unable to agree to the
proposition of the United States. The position of Japan was stated
at some length by Mr. Fujita and may be briefly summarized as
follows:
There was no difference of opinion about the desirability of
establishing some system of concerted protection, and the only
question was the means which the several Governments possessed of
promoting the desired end.
The proposition to agree to the absolute prohibition of pelagic
sealing presented a twofold difficulty to Japan. In the first place,
the existing policy of the Government, supported by a strong public
sentiment, was to encourage deep-sea fishing, which included pelagic
sealing, and, in the second place, the consular jurisdiction then in
force of foreign powers over their own subjects in Japan made it
practically impossible to enforce any restrictions against the use of
Japanese ports and the violation of protective regulations by foreign
sealing vessels.
The protection of the fur seal was not a new subject in Japan.
As early as 1884 a proclamation was issued forbidding the killing of
fur seals and sea otter except under Government licenses, and in
1888 an exclusive license was issued to a Japanese company for a
period of five years. During this period the Canadian and
American pelagic sealers were excluded from Bering Sea by the
agreements between the United States and Great Britain, and com-
menced sealing in Asiatic waters and raiding the Japanese seal rook-
eries. On account of the difficulties arising out of the existence of
consular jurisdiction no efficient method of protection could be
enforced.
In consequence, the Japanese sealing interests were greatly in-
jured and there was no longer any advantage to Japan in prohibiting
pelagic sealing. For that reason, as well as because of the pressure
40
of public sentiment that deep-sea fishing should be encouraged, the
Government enacted a fisheries law which, by means of a bounty
granted to certain classes of fishing vessels, indirectly assisted pelagic
sealing. The bounty paid was 5 yen, or $2.50, per ton for sailing
vessels up to 200 tons and for steam vessels up to 350 tons, no ad-
ditional allowance being made for higher tonnage. Meanwhile, the
Government came to the conclusion that the then existing law
should be modified and an endeavor should be made to arrive at
some understanding with other powers to protect the seals and sea
otter more effectively. To this end scientific experts were sent out
in 1893 and 1894 to study sealing conditions on the islands and
foreign hunting on the coasts, and as a result a law was promul-
gated in 1895 vesting in the Government the power of prescribing
restrictions as regards the period of hunting, the hunting grounds,
the sex of the seals to be killed, and the instruments of capture.
Under this law the Government was prepared to enforce the neces-
sary measures regulating pelagic sealing in case an international
arrangement was agreed to.
1
It would be impossible, however, for Japan to enter into any
agreement absolutely prohibiting pelagic sealing unless Great Brit-
ain was a party, particularty so long as consular jurisdiction con-
tinued. Japan could hardly be expected to prohibit its subjects
from pelagic sealing while foreigners were permitted to freely en-
gage in it.
On the other hand, even if Great Britain joined in the
agreement, as the matter then stood Japan would derive no particu-
lar advantage to compensate it for the loss which its sealers would
suffer. All the seal rookeries within Japanese territory had been so
greatly depleted that even the most sanguine of the experts doubted
the possibility of restoring them to a paying basis, except at an
expense to which the results obtained would be not at all commen-
Furthermore, public sentiment was strongly in favor of
pelagic sealing and the policy of the Government had been to
encourage it, in consequence of which a small fleet of sealing vessels
had been built up in good faith, and it would be difficult to deny
them the advantages which under existing laws they reasonably had
the right to expect.
surate.
Nevertheless, the Japanese Government did not favor unrestrained
pelagic sealing. On the contrary, they were prepared to recommend
reasonable and proper measures for the control of pelagic sealing.
They believed, however, that any agreement which the conference
decided upon should not be enforced until Great Britain consented
to unite in its observance. (Abstract of Discussion, October 26,
1897.) With this understanding they proposed, ad referendum, the
following proposition:
41
{
"1. The absolute prohibition of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea,
including the sea about the Commander Islands.
"2. A close season in the Pacific Ocean from the American coast
to the 180th degree of east longitude, the said season to extend from
May 1 to October 15.
3. A close season in the Pacific Ocean from the Japanese coast
to the 180th degree of east longitude, the said season to extend from
June 15 to December 31.
"It was to be stipulated that whatever restrictions were establishėd
for the Pribilof and Commander Islands should also extend to four
of the Kurile group-Sredonoi, Musir, Raikoke, and Broughton
Islands. The enforcement of any arrangement growing out of this
proposition was also to be conditioned upon the assent of Great
Britain to it." (Protocol III, October 26, 1897.)
After a full discussion it was found that the delegates of the
United States and Russia could not accept the proposition of Japan.
This discussion also dealt largely with the question of extraterri-
toriality, which has since been removed (in 1899), so that it is not
now necessary to go into that part of it. It is important to note,
however, that Mr. Fujita stated, in the course of the discussion,
that the prohibition of pelagic sealing by Japan would require the
enactment of a new law. On this point he said:
"Under the present law the Government has the right to pre-
scribe the time, place, sex, and method of capture, but the spirit of
the law is not prohibitive. Another act would be necessary.
At the session on the following day (October 27, 1897) Mr.
Foster presented, on the part of the United States, for consideration
by the conference, the following proposition:
"The Governments of the United States, Japan, and Russia
agree to a modus vivendi suspending all pelagic hunting of fur seals
and sea otter during the coming season of 1898; and they further
agree to unite in an invitation to Great Britain to meet them in a
conference for the consideration of adequate protection of the fur
seals and sea otter, and to ask that she join in suspending pelagic
hunting for the coming season or until the conference has concluded
its labors." (Protocol IV, October 27, 1897.)
Mr. Fujita, on the part of the delegates of Japan, stated that they
were unable to accept this proposition. The reasons were, briefly,
that owing to the difficult position in which the Government of
Japan was placed it would be very hard to secure a modus prohibiting
pelagic sealing even for one year. He pointed out, moreover, that the
pelagic sealing done by the Japanese was small compared with that
done by other nations, and that the danger from that source was
very slight. He felt that Japan had gone as far as circumstances
42
would permit in making the proposition submitted by him; that the
general attitude of the Japanese Government was that it should be
passive in the matter and should not join even in inviting other
nations to do anything. Their breeding grounds had been de-
stroyed, and the initiative should be taken by the United States and
Russia as the owners of breeding grounds of value, and Japan
could act only after Great Britain had assented. (Abstract of Dis-
cussion, October 27, 1897.)
After some discussion Mr. Foster, on behalf of the United States,
submitted the following proposition:
"The Governments of the United States, Japan, and Russia
agree to suspend all pelagic hunting of the fur seal and sea otter dur-
ing the coming season of 1898, with a view to an international con-
ference for securing adequate protection of these animals.
"This agreement is to take effect as soon as the adhesion of
Great Britain shall be given thereto."
The Russian delegates signified their approval of this proposi-
tion, expressing the wish, however, to communicate with their
Government on the subject. The Japanese delegates undertook to
submit the proposition to their Government and to report the answer
at the next meeting. (Protocol IV, October 27, 1897.)
During the discussion it appeared that the Japanese delegates
were apprehensive that Great Britain might be induced to adhere
to the proposition for the suspension of sealing only upon condition
of a money compensation or other valuable consideration, and under
such circumstances felt that they should not be asked to agree upon
less advantageous terms. At their request, therefore, the United
States delegates gave them a written assurance that should a com-
pensation be paid to induce the adherence of Great Britain an
equivalent consideration should be granted to Japan. The Russian
delegates made no objection to this arrangement, but took no part
in it.
With this understanding the Japanese Government consented to
the proposition then under consideration, and an agreement was
entered into on November 6, 1897, by the representatives of these
three countries prohibiting the killing of the fur seal and sea otter
in all the waters of the North Pacific Ocean, including the seas of
Bering, Okhotsk, and Kamchatka outside the territorial limits, for
the period of one year from its date, on condition, however, that it
should not take effect unless the adhesion of the Government of
Great Britain was given. This agreement contained a declaration
that under the existing regulations the fur seals were threatened
43
{
with extinction, and that an international agreement of all the inter-
ested powers was necessary for their adequate protection, which was
regarded at that time as an important step in the direction of the
final settlement of the question.
Pursuant to the understanding in regard to compensation, a let-
ter, of which the following is a copy, was given by the United States.
delegates to the Japanese as part of the agreement:
"Hon. SHIRO FUJITA,
"Prof. KAKICHI MITSUKURI,
"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
"Washington, November 6, 1897.
"Delegates of Japan to the International Fur-Seal Conference.
'GENTLEMEN: In response to your inquiry we take pleasure in
stating that should the adhesion of Great Britain be secured to the
convention this day signed by us and the delegates of Russia pro-
viding for a suspension of seal and sea-otter hunting for the coming
season of 1898, and should this adhesion be accompanied by a modi-
fication of the terms of the said convention or by compensation for
such suspension apart from such modification, in such case the same
or equivalent modifications or compensation should be granted to
Japan. It is to be understood, however, that this assurance only
applies to the proposed arrangement for the coming season, and not
to a permanent settlement of the question involved.
"Very respectfully, .
"JOHN W. FOSTER.
"DAVID STARR JORDAN.
"CHARLES S. HAMLIN."
This conditional treaty was submitted by both the American and
Russian ambassadors in London to the British Government, with an
invitation to adhere thereto, which was declined by Lord Salisbury.
By its terms this treaty terminated with the expiration of the year
from its date, and the contingent liability undertaken by the United
States with respect to the compensation to be paid to Japan termi-
nated at the same time.
The reason for the refusal of the British Government to adhere
to this agreement was stated by Lord Salisbury, in his letter of Jan-
uary 12, 1898, to Mr. Hay, which closed the correspondence on the
subject, as follows:
"It has been the wish of Her Majesty's Government that an
agreement should be arrived at on the seal-fishery question, as well
as on other matters pending between the United States and Canada,
but they can not in the present circumstances adhere to the conven-
tion, which would inflict a serious injury on Her Majesty's Canadian
44
subjects, and which in their opinion is not required for the protec-
tion of the seals in the open sea, while it makes no provision for
restricting the destruction of the seals on the Pribilof Islands by
the American company."
Upon inquiry at the Foreign Office it was subsequently stated,
as reported by Mr. White on February 15, 1898, "that suspension of
killing seals on Pribilof Islands during cessation of pelagic sealing
would not suffice to remove grounds of the British Government's
refusal to accede to the convention."
Meanwhile, the joint conclusions of the expert scientists of the
United States and Great Britain, who were in conference in Washing-
ton contemporaneously with the sessions of the conference between
the United States, Japan, and Russia, were announced, and upon
Great Britain's refusal to join with the other powers in suspending
pelagic sealing, negotiations for the revision of the Paris award regu-
lations at the expiration of the first five-year period were renewed.
These negotiations resulted in the organization of the Joint High
Commission of 1898 for the consideration of this question and all
other unsettled questions between the United States and Canada.
CONSIDERATION OF THIS QUESTION BY THE JOINT HIGH
COMMISSION—1898–99.
A settlement of this question was substantially agreed upon by
the Joint High Commission of 1898–99.
On the part of the United States it was insisted, as it always had
been, that the only adequate and effective measure for the preserva-
tion of the fur seal was the total prohibition of pelagic sealing.
Great Britain and Canada thereupon proposed that the United
States compensate the sealers for giving up their business, and also
compensate the Canadian Government for relinquishing the national
right of sealing. It was finally agreed that the United States should
make a cash payment as compensation for those engaged in the seal-
ing industry, and should also give an annual percentage of the gross.
receipts from the sealing business for the surrender of the national
right. The amounts were not determined. For the cash payment
the United States tentatively proposed $500,000 and Canada asked
$750,000, and for the percentage 10 per cent was proposed and 25 per
cent was asked. A draft article embodying this plan was prepared,
with the amounts left blank, and it was expected that the differences
would be adjusted, but the proceedings of the Joint High Commis-
sion were suspended at this point, on account of the disagreement.
on the Alaskan boundary question.
45
DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS SINCE THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE
JOINT HIGH COMMISSION IN 1899.
After the adjournment of the Joint High Commission in 1899,
except for occasional bills and resolutions introduced in Congress
proposing regulations ranging all the way from prohibiting all kill-
ing of seals on the islands to killing off all but enough to form a
nucleus for breeding purposes, none of which was finally adopted,
the sealing question was held in abeyance until after the treaty of
January 24, 1903, was entered into, providing for the settlement
of the Alaskan boundary question.
On July 27, 1903, Secretary Hay wrote to the British ambassador
proposing the article tentatively agreed upon by the Joint High
Commission, "with some needful verbal changes," as a draft of the
essential features of a convention for the prohibition of pelagic seal-
ing. This article, he stated, appeared to cover the subject fully and
in its present shape "would be entirely acceptable to this Govern-
ment." The verbal changes referred to in no way alter the general
scheme of the article, and the amount of compensation and percent-
age of receipts was still left blank.
Accompanying this proposal was a memorandum presenting "in
convenient form the facts now established to show the disastrous
effects of unrestricted pelagic sealing and the rapid diminution of
the fur-seal herds to the verge of their commercial extinction.”
This memorandum quoted Mr. Henry W. Elliott as authority for
the statement that the Pribilof Islands herd had dwindled from
4,700,000 seals of all classes in 1874 to a scant million in 1890 “as
the result of pelagic sealing and the killing of seals on the islands,"
giving details showing the disastrous result of unchecked pelagic
sealing.
The memorandum also calls attention to the proven ineffective-
ness of the Paris award regulations "to secure the Pribilof seal herds
from ravages of pelagic sealing which threaten, at no distant day,
their utter destruction for commercial purposes." The joint conclu-
sions of the conference of experts of the United States, Great Britain,
and Canada in 1897 are cited in confirmation of the position held by
the United States that these regulations are entirely inadequate and
that the notable decrease in the size of the herd has been brought
about entirely by pelagic sealing, which involves the excessive kill-
ing of the females and consequent loss of the young.
Dr. David Starr Jordan, one of the members of this joint commis-
sion of experts, is also quoted in support of this proposition, show-
ing that in his opinion the responsibility for the decrease of the seal
herd rests entirely upon pelagic sealing and that the joint report of
46
the experts in 1897 establishes that the methods of killing on land
are not even in part responsible.
No reply was received to the proposal made in this letter, which
was probably due to the fact that Sir Michael Herbert, the Brit-
ish ambassador, died in the autumn of 1903 before returning to
Washington.
At the following session of Congress an act was passed (April 8.
1904) appropriating such amounts as might be necessary for investi-
gations and procuring information on the seal question and under-
taking diplomatic negotiations with a view to an international
agreement for the protection and preservation of the seals.
Under the authority of this act Mr. Hay took up the question
again, and in concurrence with the views expressed by the Senate
Committee on Territories, in a memorandum submitted by them, he
proposed to the British ambassador, Sir Mortimer Durand, in his
letter of February 28, 1905, a suggestion for the modification of the
Paris award regulations. With this letter a memorandum was sub-
mitted following substantially the argument of the memorandum of
the Senate Committee. It was there shown that pelagic sealing in
the open months of August and September is particularly cruel as
well as destructive to the herd, owing to starvation of the seal pups
whose mothers are killed while ranging the sea for food.
It was
further shown that the Governments are not limited under the Paris
award to the five-year periods for revising the regulations, but may
exercise the right of revision at any time by common consent. It
was therefore proposed that the regulations be revised at once as
follows:
"Two ways appear in which to meet the disastrous conditions
which arise from the regulations in question:
“A. To change the closed season prescribed by article 2 so as to
embrace the average period from the birth of the sealing pup to its
weaning.
"B. To enlarge the zone of absolute prohibition about the Pribi-
lof Islands sufficiently to permit of the nursing mother seals ranging
safely in search of food.
'The latter alternative, requiring a great enlargement of the pro-
hibitive zone, would involve a corresponding increase of the closed
areas, and greatly, if not impracticably, augment the task of effective
patrol.
On the other hand, to extend the closed season of pelagic seal-
ing to five months instead of three would work obvious hardship to
law-abiding seal hunters, owing to the conditions of navigation in the
far northern seas. This may be averted by a rational compromise.
"The foregoing considerations move the Government of the
United States to propose the amendment of the concurrent regula-
tions so as to open the now closed months of May and June to the
pelagic hunter, when the slaughter of the adult female seal merely
47
involves the sacrifice of the unborn offspring; and to close to him
the months of August and September, which are now open to his
hunting with the result of cruel and unjustifiable destruction of the
nursing seal by starvation.
"It is therefore proposed that article 2 be changed by common
agreement to read as follows:
'ARTICLE 2. The two Governments shall forbid their citizens
and subjects, respectively, to kill, capture, or pursue, in any manner
whatever, during the season extending each year from the 1st of
July to the 31st of September, both inclusive, the fur seals on the
high sea, in the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of the Bering
Sea, which is situated to the north of the 35th degree of north lati-
tude, and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich
till it strikes the water boundary described in article 1 of the Treaty
of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and following that
line up to Bering Straits.'
"It is earnestly desired that an agreement on this point may be
reached at an early day, so as to become effective during the present
pelagic season.”
Within a month after this proposition was submitted the United
States consul at Victoria, British Columbia, reported (March 27,
1905) that he had received information from the managers of the
Sealing Company there that an official communication had been
received from the Canadian Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries at
Ottawa asking if the company would be willing to accede to this
proposition, and that the directors of the company had met, and,
after discussion, had decided that the proposition was not accepta-
ble, and the company had emphatically declined to willingly accede
to such agreement.
Thereafter, on October 5, 1905, the British ambassador answered,
declining to accept the proposition. The reason assigned was that-
"The Government of the Dominion of Canadą, after due consid-
eration with the Department interested, are of opinion that the pres-
ent restrictions imposed upon pelagic sealing as the result of the
Paris award are a sufficient protection to the seals, and they consider
that any further restrictions would have the effect of destroying the
Canadian sealing industry.
*
*
*
*
*
*
"In view of these circumstances the Canadian Government regret
that they are unable to agree to the new proposal,
etc.
On March 17, 1905, Senators Dillingham, Nelson, and Burnham,
of the Senate Committee on Territories, wrote to the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor, stating that in their opinion the cooperation.
of the Canadian Government was necessary for the settlement of
the question, and that in order to secure such cooperation conces-
sions must be made. They inclosed a memorandum embodying
48
their ideas with regard to the material concessions which should be
agreed to, and suggested that it be placed in the hands of the Brit-
ish ambassador, with a full descriptive text showing the recupera-
tive capacity of the herd.
This memorandum was as follows:
(1)
"Memorandum, from the American point of view, as to an Anglo-American
joint control of the killing of the Pribilof fur-seal herd, with special
regard to its restoration and economic value.
"I. Under existing laws and regulations the Pribilof fur-seal
herd will be so diminished by 1906 that its care and maintenance
thereafter will constitute an annual charge and burden upon the
public treasury and also include the support of some three hundred
natives of the aforesaid Pribilof Islands.
"II. Without the cooperation of Canada this fur-seal herd can
not be restored to its natural full form and number. Unless it is so
restored, it is of no value to us. The seal islands of Alaska are
barren of all agriculture and of mineral lands, with no fish or fisheries,
and lay far out of the path of commerce.
"III. We can not reasonably expect the Canadian Government.
to unite with us unless we make certain concessions. These con-
cessions must be of a character which the Canadian Government
can accept as a positive gain to it over existing conditions, and so
publish that fact to its own people.
"IV. We can not buy the rights of British subjects vested in
pelagic sealing, but we can share our rights with their rights in a
joint control of the killing of this fur-seal life on the land and in the
sea.
"V. We can have this joint control without a waiver of our sov-
ereignty on the Pribilof Islands. We can arrange it as specified in
Articles II and III of the following memorandum:
(2)
'Memorandum, from the British point of view, as to an Anglo-American
joint control of the killing of the Pribilof fur-seal herd, with special
regard for its restoration and economic value.
"I. Under existing rules and regulations the Pribilof fur-seal
herd will be so diminished in number that the pelagic hunting of
that herd by the end of 1906 will cease to be profitable for the fleet
now engaged in that business, and its importance as an industry will.
end. Four or five vessels, out of the twenty-two now engaged, will
continue to hang on the flanks of the remnant of that herd, annu-
ally, and secure a small annual catch of a few thousand seals into
the indefinite future.
"II. If the Canadian Government unites with that of the United
States in a joint control of the killing of this Pribilof fur-seal herd,
on the land and in the sea, then the small nucleus of it, now alive,
can be restored to its natural fine form and number in ten or twelve:
49
years from date, if all killing on the islands and in the sea is sus-
pended by joint agreement to that end by the two Governments.
aforesaid.
"Then when this herd, by natural agencies, is fully restored to
its normal form and number an annual killing of the surplus young
male life can be done on the islands, and only by agents of the Gov-
ernment of the United States. A Canadian inspector should be resi-
dent on the islands, and his certificate as to the work done and of
the number of skins taken annually shall go with those of the Ameri-
can agents from the islands and be of equal official warrant and
record value. The skins shall be sold at public auction, in the best
market of the world, and in strict accord with the established usage
of the fur trade.
"III. The Canadian Government should bear, say, 25 per cent
of the amount of the annual cost of maintenance of the care and
conservation of the herd when killing is resumed on the land, and it
should receive, say, 25 per cent of the annual net proceeds from the
sale of all skins sold when taken from the islands.
"The cost and maintenance, including support of the natives,
will not exceed $50,000 annually; the entire cost of the transship-
ment of the skins to London from the islands, including sales com-
mission, will not exceed $2.50 per skin.
"When the herd is restored to its natural form and number,
between 75,000 and 80,000 young male seals can be annually taken
on the islands, without doing any injury to the full limit of natural
increase on the breeding grounds. These skins will be worth, in
seasons of dullest trade, not less than $1,500,000 and in seasons of
good trade, as to-day, they will sell for $2,000,000 to $3,000,000.
"Therefore, when the herd is restored and proper killing resumed,
the Canadian treasury will receive at least $300,000 annually in seasons
of dull trade and some $600,000 annually in seasons of prosperity.
"IV. Unless the Canadian Government unites in this manner
with that of the United States, it will never derive anything from
this industry. Thus far it never has derived a single cent from it
for its public treasury.
This letter and memorandum from the Senators above named
were transmitted to the Department of State, but no action was taken
in the direction proposed pending the receipt of Great Britain's
answer to Mr. Hay's proposition of February 28, 1905, above referred
to. That answer was made, as above stated, on October 5, 1905,
and on October 21, 1905, this memorandum, as an expression of
the views of the Senate Committee in charge of the question, was
sent to the British ambassador, to be considered "not as a formal
proposition, but as a nucleus from which such a proposal may be
developed."
F S4
PART II.
Position of the United States in Regard to the Killing
of Seals on the Pribilof Islands.
51
>
Position of the United States in Regard to the Killing
of Seals on the Pribilof Islands.
MUTUAL RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
LESSEE UNDER THE LEASE OF THE
THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS.
SEALING
PRIVILEGES ON
The lease.
On March 12, 1890, the Secretary of the Treasury and the North
American Commercial Company executed an agreement leasing to
the company for twenty years from May 1, 1890, the exclusive right
to take fur seals on the islands of St. George and St. Paul in Alaska
and to send vessels to said islands for the seal skins. In considera-
tion of this lease the company agreed:
(1) To pay an annual rental of $60,000.
(2) To pay the revenue tax of $2, and the further sum of $7.62½
for each seal skin taken and shipped from the islands.
(3) To pay the sum of 50 cents per gallon for each gallon of seal
oil made from the seals taken on the islands and sold during the
term of the lease.
(4) To furnish the native inhabitants of the islands with certain
food supplies, fuel, and dwellings; to establish and maintain school-
houses and a suitable house for religious worship and to provide
competent teachers, physicians, and medical supplies; also to pro-
vide the necessaries of life for the widows and orphans and aged
and infirm inhabitants-all of the above to be free of cost to the
inhabitants or the United States and at the expense of the company.
(5) To give the native inhabitants on the islands suitable employ-
ment, and to pay a just compensation, to be fixed by the Secretary
of the Treasury, and generally to secure by all reasonable efforts
the comfort, health, and education, and to promote the morals and
civilization of the inhabitants.
(6) The lease also contained a provision prohibiting the use of
spirituous liquors or opium on the islands except for medicine, and
a provision giving the Secretary of the Treasury the right to termi-
nate the lease upon proof of the violation by the company of any
of its provisions or any laws of the United States or any Treasury
regulations respecting fur seals on the islands.
53
54
(7) It was further expressly provided:
"It [the company] also agrees to obey and abide by any restric-
tions or limitations upon the right to kill seals that the Secretary of
the Treasury shall judge necessary, under the law, for the preserva-
tion of the seal fisheries of the United States; and it agrees that it
will not kill or permit to be killed, so far as it can prevent, in any
year a greater number of seals than is authorized by the Secretary
of the Treasury."
And further:
"It is understood and agreed that the number of fur seals to be
taken and killed for their skins upon said islands by the North
American Commercial Company during the year ending May 1, 1891,
shall not exceed sixty thousand."
The statutory provisions authorizing the lease.
It is recited in the lease that it is made in pursuance of Chapter
III of title 23 of the Revised Statutes. By section 1962 in this
chapter of the Revised Statutes it was provided that for the period
of twenty years from July 1, 1870, the number of seals which might
be killed for their skins on the island of St. Paul was limited to
75,000 per annum and on the island of St. George to 25,000, but the
Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to limit the right to kill
if it became necessary for the preservation of such seals, "with such
proportionate reduction of the rents reserved to the Government as
may be proper."
The Revised Statutes were approved June 22, 1874, and by the
last section of the Statutes (sec. 5601) provision was made that legis-
lation between December 1, 1873, and the date of enactment should
take effect as if passed after the approval of the Revised Statutes.
During the period referred to the act of May 24, 1874, had been
passed, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the
months during which seals might be taken and the number to be
taken on or about each island, respectively. This act, therefore,
operated as an amendment to the Revised Statutes and removed the
restrictions imposed by section 1962, above referred to, which was a
reenactment of similar provisions in the act of July 1, 1870.
Immediately upon the passage of the act of May 24, 1874, the
Secretary of the Treasury entered into an agreement with the Alaska
Commercial Company, the predecessor of the North American Com-
mercial Company and the lessee of the sealing privileges on these
islands at that time, amending its lease so as to provide that not
more than 90,000 seals should be killed per annum on the island of
St. Paul and not more than 10,000 on the island of St. George.
There is no express legislative provision limiting the maximum
number of seals to be taken to 100,000, except the limitation above
55
referred to restricting the catch on the island of St. Paul to 75,000
and on the island of St. George to 25,000, making together the
100,000 limit. It will be noticed, however, that the Secretary of
the Treasury, in reapportioning the number to be taken on each
island, observed the limitation of 100,000 as a maximum.
Restrictions imposed by the Government.
On June 15, 1891, after the lease to the North American Commer-
cial Company was made, the United States and Great Britain entered
into a modus vivendi, which was announced in a proclamation by the
President on the same day, whereby the killing of seals in Bering
Sea or the islands therein was prohibited "in excess of 7,500 to be
taken on the islands for the subsistence and care of the natives"
until May, 1902.
This was an Executive agreement and was not
submitted to the Senate for approval. Before the expiration of this
agreement it was renewed by a modus vivendi entered into on April
18, 1892, which was approved by the Senate April 19, 1892, and pro-
claimed by the President May 9, 1892. This agreement limiting the
number of seals to be taken on the islands to 7,500 annually con-
tinued in force during the pendency of the fur-seal arbitration and
until the termination of the sealing season for the year 1893.
Since then the number of seals to be taken on the islands annually
under the lease has been fixed from year to year by regulations
issued by the Secretary of the Treasury and, since the transfer of
the jurisdiction over this matter to the Department of Commerce
and Labor, in 1903, by the Secretary of that Department.
From 1894 to 1906, inclusive, the maximum number allowed each
year under such regulations has been as follows:
1894......
1895.
20, 000
1896......
1897.........
1898 to 1903, inclusive.....
1904 to 1906, inclusive...
15,000
30, 000
20, 000
30, 000
15,000
The killing of the female seals is absolutely prohibited under the
Government regulations.
Judicial construction of the lease.
During the three years when the restrictions under the modus
vivendi continued the number of seals taken by the lessee. on the
islands were respectively as follows: In 1891, 13,482; in 1892, 7,549;
and in 1893, 7,500. On account of the restrictions so imposed by the
Government the Secretary of the Treasury reduced, during the years.
1891 and 1892, the stipulated amount of $60,000 rental and the bonus
56
of $7.62½ per skin in the proportion that the maximum number of
100,000 seals under the statutory limit bore to the actual number
taken on the islands by the company. In 1895 the then Secretary
of the Treasury came to the conclusion that the action of his prede-
cessors in so reducing the rental and bonus was without warrant of
law and he so notified the company, demanding the difference be-
tween the amount paid and the full rental and bonus provided for
in the lease. At that time the rent for the year 1893 was still unad-
justed and had not been paid by the company, and the Secretary
also demanded that it be paid at the full amount of the rental and
bonus per skin provided for in the lease. The company tendered to
the United States for the rental for that year the sum of $23,789.50,
being $15,000 for a tax on 7,500 skins, $4,500 for three-fortieths of
the annual rental, and $4, 289. 50 for three-fortieths of the royalty on
the skins, claiming that it was entitled, on account of the limitation
to 7,500 skins, to a proportionate reduction of the rent reserved—
that is, in the proportion that 7,500 bears to 100,000—and that this
reduction applied to the per capita of $7.62% for each seal skin as
well as to the $60,000 annual rental.
An adjustment of these differences proved to be impossible,
and suit was then commenced by the Government in the United
States District Court for the southern district of New York to re-
cover the whole amounts claimed as due for the year 1893. (United
States v. North American Commercial Company, 74 Fed. R., 145.)
The court found for the United States in the sum of $94,687.50,
with interest, and judgment was entered against the company for
$107,257.29, principal, interest, and costs. A counterclaim against
the United States for breach of the lease was disallowed by the
Circuit Court, but not on the merits and without prejudice. The
company took a writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals and
that court certified a certain question arising in the cause to the
Supreme Court, whereupon the Supreme Court ordered that the
whole record and cause be sent up for consideration. (North Ameri-
can Commercial Company v. United States, 171 U. S., 110.)
to
The decision of the Supreme Court on the question of the claim
for a proportionate reduction of the rent was as follows:
(1) No reduction in the per capita charge of $7.62% for each
seal skin taken should be allowed, because it is not part of the rental.
The annual rental is explicitly stated in the lease to be the sum of
$60,000, and it is provided that in addition the lessee shall pay the
revenue duty of $2 per skin, and also the further sum of this royalty
on each skin. On this point it is stated in the opinion of the court
(p. 126):
57
"We think the rent reserved as such was this specified annual
rental, and that the per capita payment was in the nature of a bonus
in the sense of an addition to the stated consideration.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
'The reduction of what the company agreed to pay, so far as the
per capita was concerned, regulated itself. The smaller the number
of skins the less the company would pay; the larger the number the
more. We conclude that there is no adequate ground for holding
that there should be any reduction on the per capita, which neces-
sarily had to be paid.'
(2) A reduction of the $60,000 rental should be allowed in the
proportion that the number of skins permitted to be taken by the
Government regulations bore to the maximum number of 100,000.
It was argued on behalf of the Government that the limitation
of the maximum number to be taken terminated with the expiration
of the lease for the twenty years from 1870 to 1890, inasmuch as
such limitation was expressly made only for a period of twenty years.
from July 1, 1870, and the act of May 24, 1874, removed such restric-
tion, leaving the number in the discretion of the Secretary of the
Treasury, and, consequently, that the provision for a proportionate
reduction of rental in case of such a limitation did not apply to the
later lease. The court admitted that there was force in this argu-
ment, but it pointed out that the Secretary, in reapportioning the
numbers to be taken on each island under this act, had still observed
the limitation of 100,000, and that undoubtedly the removal of the
restriction was intended to apply only to such distribution of the
number to be taken on each island. In the language of the court:
"It would be going much too far to hold that the original provision
for a maximum number, and a proportionate reduction of the fixed
rental in case of a limitation, was done away with by implication.”
The conclusion of the court on this point is stated in the opinion
as follows:
"Our opinion is that, assuming that the lessee took all the risk
of the catch, reduced by natural causes, yet that when the number
that might be killed was limited by the act of the Government or its
agent, the Secretary, the company was entitled to such reduction
on the rental reserved as might be proper, and that the rule to be
observed in that regard would be a reduction in the same proportion
as the number of skins permitted to be taken bore to the maximum.
This would reduce the annual rental for the year under considera-
tion from $60,000 to $4,500."
A further point at issue in the case was the company's claim that
the prohibition by the Government under the agreement with Great
Britain against killing seals on the islands in excess of 7,500 relieved
the company from its covenants for the payment of rent and royalty,
58
and that no action could be maintained therefor on the lease by the
Government. The argument on the part of the company on this
point was that the limitation under the modus vivendi was not such a
designation by the Secretary as was contemplated in the lease, but
was a direct intervention by the Government, and that the 7,500
skins were taken, not by the company, but by the Government “for
the subsistence of the natives," as provided in the modus vivendi, and
that such skins were turned over to the company as part compensa-
tion to it for a breach of its agreement.
On this point the Supreme Court held that the Secretary in mak-
ing the lease had acted under the direction of the Government as
the real contracting party, and that the Secretary in making the
regulations merely exercised the power of the Government, so that
it was immaterial whether the Secretary on his own judgment or in
compliance with the will of the Government limited the number of
seals to be taken in 1893 to 7,500. As stated in the opinion (p. 134):
Undoubtedly the Government could have directed the Secre-
tary by law to restrict the killing to 7,500 seals, and the treaty was
nothing more."
As further stated in the opinion, it appeared that-
"The company was offered 7,500 skins for 1893; took them; paid
the amount fixed by the Secretary under the lease for compensation
to the natives for taking and loading the skins, and subsequently
tendered the sum of $23,789.50 as, according to its computation, the
full amount due under the lease.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
“The Government did not regard the lease as broken, but pro-
ceeded under it, and delivered the 7,500 skins as full performance of
the covenant on its part, for the privilege of taking the seals was
subject to such limitation on the number as the Government believed
it necessary to impose; and the company acquiesced in that view by
taking the 7,500 skins without dissent.
It appeared, therefore, that on the facts the lessee was not in a
position to claim a breach of the contract against the Government.
The court held, in conclusion, on this point that-
"The power to regulate the seal fisheries in the interest of the
preservation of the species was a sovereign protective power, subject
to which the lease was taken.
"
The court seems to intimate that when the Government found it
necessary to exercise that power the company might thereupon have
treated this contract as rescinded, but in this case the company took
no such position. On the contrary, it accepted the performance
involved in the delivery of the 7,500 skins.
59
The defendant's counterclaim was urged on the ground that at
least 20,000 skins could have been taken during the season of 1893
without unreasonable injury to or diminution of the seal herd, and
that the United States unreasonably prevented the company from
taking the difference between 7,500 and 20,000 skins. The fact that
20,000 skins could have been so taken was one of the findings of fact
by the court below, and on this question that court was of the
opinion that the enforcement of the prohibition was a breach of the
contract by the Government and an invasion of the company's privi-
lege in the nature of an eviction, and that the Government having
entered into a contract with an individual had divested itself of its
sovereign character so far as concerned the particular transaction
and had taken the character of an ordinary citizen, with no immunity
which would permit it to recede from the fulfillment of its obligations.
The counterclaim was not sustained, however, by the court below,
owing to a technical defect in its presentation, but it was dismissed
not on the merits and without prejudice. The Supreme Court held
that the Circuit Court had erred in not finally disposing of the
counterclaim on the merits. The reasons why the Supreme Court
did not regard the company as in a position to urge a breach of con-
tract appear from the statement of its position on the preceding
points. The court, however, adds, in response to the argument in
the opinion of the court below and as a final ground for disposing
of this question, the following:
'The seal fisheries of the Pribilof Islands were a branch of com-
merce, and their regulation involved the exercise of power as a sov-
ereign and not as a mere proprietor. Such governmental powers
can not be contracted away, and it is absurd to argue that in this
instance there was any attempt to do so, or any sheer oppression or
wrong inflicted on the lessee by the Government in the effort to
protect the fur seal from extinction."
The court sums up its position on all of these propositions in the
concluding paragraph of the opinion, as follows (p. 137):
"The privilege leased was the exclusive right to take fur seal,
but it was subject, and expressly subjected, from the beginning to
whatever regulations of the business the United States might make.
If those regulations reduced the catch the company was protected
by a reduction of the rental, and paid taxes and per capita only on
the number taken. The other expenses to which it bound itself were
part of the risk of the venture. The catch for 1893 was lawfully
limited to 7,500, and the company accepted and disposed of the skins.
It can not now be heard to insist that that limitation was in breach
of the obligations of the Government, for which, though still claim-
ing the contract to be outstanding, it is entitled to recover damages."
60
The following propositions seem to be established by the decision
of the Supreme Court in this case:
A restriction imposed by treaty, or act of Congress, or order of
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, limiting the number of seals
which may be taken under this lease in any one year, entitles the
lessee to a reduction of the $60,000 rental in the proportion that
the maximum number of 100,000 seals under the statutory limit
bears to the restricted number permitted to be taken.
Such restriction in the number permitted to be taken does not
entitle the lessee to any reduction of the tax of $2 per seal or the
bonus of $7.62½ per seal, or of the other expenses which the com-
pany assumed under the lease.
It seems that the lessee would be entitled to treat the contract as
rescinded if such restriction amounted to a prohibition against the
taking of any seals. So, also, in case the number permitted to be
taken was less than could as a matter of fact be taken without injury
to the herd, or if the number permitted was insufficient to make it
profitable to continue the lease, it seems that then the lessee would
be entitled to treat the contract as rescinded.
The Government, however, is not liable to damages for breach
of the contract under any of these contingencies. This exemption
from liability was based, in the decision of the Supreme Court, on
the ground that the regulations presumably would be made by the
Government in an effort to protect the seals from extinction and
that the regulation of that branch of commerce involved the exercise
of governmental power as a sovereign and not as a mere proprietor,
and that such governmental power could not be contracted away.
PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE KILLING OF
SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS.
Apart from the regulations under the lease the question of
temporarily prohibiting the killing of seals on land has been dis-
cussed in diplomatic correspondence and before Congress on several
occasions.
The question first came up in the negotiations with Great Britain
for the modus vivendi of 1891, which was renewed and continued in
1892. On the part of Great Britain there was a disposition to insist
that seal killing be suspended altogether, on land as well as at sea;
but it was urged on the part of the United States that inasmuch as
the lessees of the islands were obliged under the lease to feed and
care for the natives, and to incur other expenses, it was necessary
that they be permitted to kill a substantial number of seals for the
61
support and maintenance of the inhabitants of the islands.
A maxi-
mum of 7,500 seals annually was therefore agreed upon, as appears
from the terms of the modus vivendi.
The question again came up in 1893, after the award of the Paris
Arbitration Tribunal. Appended to this award was a declaration
recommending that the two Governments agree to prohibit-
any killing of fur seals either on land or at sea for a period of two
or three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the
two Governments might think proper to admit.”
The arbitrators on the part of the United States accepted this
recommendation, but the British arbitrators refused to approve it.
Promptly after the award was made the United States asked
the concurrence of Great Britain in adopting this recommendation,
although the total suspension of the killing of seals on the land was
not regarded as essential to the safety of the herd, and it was well
understood that such total suspension of land killing might be at
distinct disadvantage to the interests of the United States. This is
clearly pointed out in the correspondence exchanged at that time
between the Secretary of State and Mr. Bayard, the American am-
bassador at London. On September 30, 1893, Mr. Bayard wrote:
"To suspend wholly, even for a single year, the seal catch on
the islands might be highly prejudicial to the United States or their
lessees, and as in the provisional or temporary arrangement of May,
1893, between Russia and Great Britain a limit of 30,000 seals on
the Russian islands was agreed to it would seem a very reasonable
figure to adopt for the catch on the Pribilof Islands, whose product
had been supposed to be about double that of the Russian islands."
On October 27, 1893, Mr. Gresham responded that—
The President is not now prepared to say how far we ought to
go in limiting the seal catch, should Great Britain make a demand
of that kind.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"If Great Britain finally insists that only a limited number of
seals shall be taken on the islands, and you must yield or fail in the
effort to obtain a satisfactory understanding for concurrent action,
you can report the fact to me and I will communicate it to the Presi-
dent for his direction."
Great Britain made no response to this suggestion, and it was
renewed in January of the following year, Secretary Gresham stating
to the British ambassador at Washington that-
"The United States would be glad to prohibit entirely for a
period of three years, or for two years, or for one year, the killing
of seals."
62
No response was made to this proposition by Great Britain, and
the United States found it impossible to secure Great Britain's con-
sent to a suspension of sealing, even temporarily, on any terms, and
it therefore does not appear what Great Britain's position on the
question of killing the seals on land was at that time.
PROPOSALS IN CONGRESS FOR SETTLING THE SEAL CONTROVERSY
BY DESTROYING THE SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS.
Congress has twice given serious consideration to the question of
putting an end to pelagic sealing by putting an end to the seal herd,
unless Great Britain should come to some satisfactory agreement
on the subject. The proposition first came up in 1896, when a bill
was introduced providing that if the President found himself una-
ble to secure an agreement with Great Britain, Japan, and Russia
for the protection of the seal herd the Secretary of the Treasury
should kill, once for all, every seal on the Pribilof Islands and sell
their skins for the profit of the Government. There was no provi-
sion for the preservation of even a nucleus for breeding purposes.
This bill was favorably reported in the House by the Ways and
Means Committee. Mr. Dingley, then chairman of that Committee,
said in the course of the report, after pointing out that Japan and
Russia were ready to join in an agreement:
“It is believed that it is Canada that is standing in the way and
holding back Great Britain from cooperating with us in the preser-
vation of the seal herd, and that when Canada sees that we propose
to take summary measures to end not only the inhumanity that con-
signs thousands of young seals to slow starvation, but also the farce
by which we are expending large sums of money to police Bering
Sea practically to aid her pelagic sealers in the work of extermina-
ting seals, she will no longer endeavor to prevent England from
uniting with us in efficient measures to save the seal herds to the
world.
"If, however, we fail in this, as we have failed under present con-
ditions, notwithstanding we have been urging Great Britain for
more than a year to unite with us in measures to preserve seal life,
then considerations of mercy, as well as of economy and justice,
demand that we should stop the further cruel starvation of thou-
sands of seal pups by taking what seals are left and disposing of
their skins and covering into the Treasury the proceeds, which would
probably reach $5,000,000.
The bill passed the House unanimously.
In the Senate, however, the bill failed to pass, although it was.
favorably reported by a majority of the Foreign Relations Commit-
Senator Morgan, one of the members of the Fur-Seal Arbitra-
tion Tribunal, made a minority report from the Foreign Relations
Committee, in which he said:
tee.
63
"It can not be too firmly stated, or too often, it seems, in view of
the apparent indifference to the fact, that the award of the Tribunal
of Arbitration had no other purpose, result, or effect than to insert
in that treaty and to secure by its sanctions the mutual and definite
rights and obligations of both the high contracting powers as to
which they had been unable to come to an agreement.
"In this award certain rights of the United States were left
undisturbed and unquestioned, the same not having been submitted
to the Tribunal of Arbitration. Among these are:
"I. The free and full assertion of every right and claim of right
to the ownership and control of the Alaskan seal herds that the
United States may choose to assert, as against any Government
except Great Britain.
((
2. The right to regulate and restrain our own people in all their
conduct in reference to fur seals in any waters of the oceans or seas,
and to punish their violation of those legal restrictions.
"3. The right to regulate the conduct of all persons on land and
within the 3-mile limit around the Pribilof Islands, in respect of the
fur seals.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
'The protection of the seal herds was the sole object and purpose
of the many diplomatic communications between the Governments
that led up to the treaty and to the award and to the subsequent
statutes and additional regulations for their enforcement.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"If the treaty, as it is completed by the award, is not satisfactory
to the United States, the remedy is by its abrogation, and not the
violation of it by destroying the subject to which it relates.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"The treaty and the Paris award which completed it set forth
those mutual interests and purposes (preservation of seals and seal-
ing industry) as the consideration upon which the mutual obligations
and duties rested. None of them included or contemplated the
destruction of the seal herds in any emergency, and such destruction
by either Government, or through its permission or neglect, violates
the whole spirit and purpose of the treaty and the award made under
its authority by the Paris Tribunal.
"Great Britain has the clear right to insist that this bill, if it
becomes a law, is a violation of the treaty rights of that Government
in respect of the fur seals."
Senator Sherman joined in the minority report, expressing his
views as follows:
"I place my opposition to this bill upon the ground that the pro-
posed destruction of the seals by the United States is a cruel act,
not to be justified even though the same result may be brought
about by pelagic sealing. The measure proposed is dictated by ap-
parent spite because some other power will destroy them in another
way. It is better to take the chances that Great Britain will give
to the subject kinder and more generous treatment and join with the
United States in making new regulations to preserve seal life." (For.
Rels. Committee Reports, vol. 8, pp. 380-387.)
64
In 1902 the question again came up, when a bill was introduced
in Congress providing for a revision of the Paris award regulations
with the object of abolishing pelagic sealing, and in case a modus
vivendi for the suspension of sealing pending such revision was not
agreed to before the beginning of the following season the Secretary
of the Treasury was authorized, with the approval of the President,
to kill the entire Alaskan fur-seal herd, with the exception of 1,000
males and 10,000 females. This bill was favorably reported to the
House by a majority of the Ways and Means Committee, who held
that-
"Unless we stop the pelagic hunter in his work of destroying the
female seals in Alaskan waters outside of the 60-mile zone, which
entails the starvation of their pups left on the Pribilof Islands
awaiting their return from the feeding grounds, there is no justifica-
tion in our trying to preserve the seal herd for him to destroy."
(H. R. Report, No. 2303, 57th Cong., 1st sess.)
A minority report was also made from this Committee, which,
after citing the minority report above referred to of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, concluded as follows:
"If the British Government, abusing the freedom of the seas, is
willing to allow its subjects to destroy one of the choice gifts of
Providence to mankind and to annihilate the herd, it should be per-
mitted by the Government of the United States to bear the respon-
sibility unaided and alone. Certainly this Government should not
assume a heavy share by taking part in the final act of extermina-
tion." (H. R. Report, No. 2303, part 2, 57th Cong., 1st sess.)
The bill failed to become a law. While this bill was under con-
sideration in Congress the British Columbia Legislative Assembly
on June 11, 1902, passed the following resolution with reference to it:
"Whereas, British subjects have faithfully observed the regula-
tions made pursuant to the award, dated the 15th August, 1893, for
the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal in the Ber-
ing Sea;
"And whereas, it is announced that the Government of the United
States of America have lately passed an act in effect that unless a
modus vivendi prohibiting the killing of seals be secured at the open-
ing of the pelagic season of 1902, authority will be given to kill all
the male and female seals, with the exception of 10,000 females and
1,000 males;
"And whereas, the exercise of such a presumed authority is con-
trary to the finding of the Bering Sea Tribunal, and a direct violation.
of the spirit of the agreement entered into between the Governments
of Great Britain and the United States, and an unwarrantable inter-
ference with and infringement upon the undoubted rights of British
subjects:
65
"Be it therefore resolved, That this House would view with regret
the commission of such act, and in the opinion of this House an
humble address be presented to His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor,
asking him to communicate with the Dominion Government, protest-
ing against such action, and urging that all proper steps be taken to
bring this matter to the attention of the Imperial Government."
Apparently, it has not occurred to the Canadian sealing interests
that if the destruction of the seal herd on land by the United States
is "a direct violation of the spirit of the agreement entered into
between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States,"
then it is equally a violation of such agreement for the Canadian
sealers to destroy the seal herd by pelagic sealing. Heretofore the
answer of the Canadians would have been that pelagic sealing was
not a menace to the existence of the herd. Under the present con-
ditions, however, such an explanation can hardly be regarded as
sufficient.
Notwithstanding the introduction in Congress of the two bills
above referred to for the destruction of the seal herd, this Govern-
ment is not committed to that plan. So far as Congress is con-
cerned the bills were defeated on Senator Morgan's report, which
distinctly affirmed the obligation of both Governments to preserve
the seals as long as the treaty existed. So far as the Executive
branch of the Government is concerned, Secretary of State Sherman,
in his letter of May 10, 1897 (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 290), which
was communicated to Lord Salisbury, stated that although the
proposition to abandon negotiations and destroy the seals on the
islands had been seriously made in Congress as the speedy end to
a dangerous controversy, yet such a measure had not been enter-
tained by the Department of State.
REPORT BY SENATE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES RECOMMENDING
SUSPENSION OF KILLING OF SEALS ON THE ISLANDS.
In January, 1904, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
Territories, consisting of Senators Dillingham, Burnham, Nelson,
and Patterson, who had visited the seal islands during the preced-
ing summer, made a report on the fur-seal industry. After briefly
reviewing the question and stating as a fact that the killing of
young seals on the islands since 1896 has been so close that no young
male life has been permitted to pass over the slaughter fields on to
the breeding grounds," they made the following recommendation:
"The committee therefore recommend that a suspension of all
killing by the lessees of the seal islands be made at once and indefi-
nitely, and that the Government of the United States shall attempt
to reopen and conclude negotiations with the Government of Great
F S5
66
Britain looking to a revision of existing rules and regulations which
govern the taking of seals in the open waters of the North Pacific
Ocean and Bering Sea, and to enter upon negotiations with the
Governments of Russia and Japan to the end that all pelagic sealing
may be stopped; and if, after a reasonable length of time, the Gov-
ernment fails to secure a proper revision and enforcement of such
rules and to conclude such negotiations, then the Secretary of Com-
merce may, with the approval of the President, reduce the surplus
female life of the herd on the Pribilof Islands to 10,000."
During the same session of Congress a joint resolution was intro-
duced directing the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to suspend
all killing of male fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, to continue indefi-
nitely, providing, however, that 5,500 male seals might be killed
under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to pro-
vide food for the natives and the skins to be sold by him and the
proceeds covered into the Treasury. The Committee on Ways and
Means, having this resolution under consideration, took testimony
on the subject on March 9 and 10, and examined, among others, Mr.
Frank H. Hitchcock, Chief Clerk of the Department of Commerce
and Labor, Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, representing the lessees of
the islands, and Mr. Henry W. Elliott. Mr. Elliott urged strongly
the adoption of the resolution on the ground that the killing on
land had become so close that even the seals under two years were
now taken, and that if the herd was to be preserved land killing
should be stopped altogether. Meanwhile, the question of pelagic
sealing could be taken up with Great Britain with good chances of
success, if the resolution was passed eliminating commercialism on
the American side.
Mr. Faulkner, on behalf of the North American Commercial
Company, controverted Mr. Elliott's statement that seals under two
years old were being killed on the islands, and cited the unanimous
opinion of all the other seal experts in support of the position that
the number of male seals on the islands could be still further reduced
without threatening the existence of the herds. He showed that
the restrictions which had already been imposed upon the killing
on land were due to the injury to the herd resulting from pelagic
sealing, and he urged that instead of passing the proposed resolu-
tion, which in effect would destroy the lease without compensation
to the company, negotiations be again undertaken with England,
Japan, and Russia to stop pelagic sealing.
Mr. Hitchcock, representing the Department of Commerce and
Labor, opposed the adoption of the resolution. The position of the
Department was stated to be that if the herd could be saved without
a complete suspension of killing by the lessee it would be a mistake
to take such action, because the result would be a larger surplus of
67
male seals to become the prey of pelagic sealers. He denied Mr.
Elliott's statement that seals under two years old were taken by the
lessees to any extent, and stated that the Government proposed to
cut down their present quota of 30,000 annually to 15,000, and
to reserve out for breeding purposes 1,000 three-year old males and
1,000 two-year old males, and absolutely prevent the killing of any
under two years old. He was very doubtful if the lessee under such
regulations would get the full 15,000 allowed, and this has since
proved to be the case. He pointed out that the regulation of the
seal business on land was already under the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, with adequate power to impose restrictions, and
the adoption of this resolution requiring the Secretary to do what
under existing laws he was at liberty to do in his discretion would
deprive this Government of the advantage which it now has in
negotiating with Great Britain, in that it could no longer offer to
suspend killing on land as an inducement for similar action at sea.
The resolution was not adopted.
PART III.
The Sealing Industry.
"
69
The Sealing Industry.
CANADIAN.
Estimated value of vessels in 1898.
As appears from the diplomatic negotiations reviewed elsewhere,
the settlement of the sealing question by the payment of an agreed
sum to the Canadian sealers had been suggested by the United
States in 1897 and favorably received by the Canadian representa-
tives. Soon thereafter the Canadian sealers organized themselves
into an association known as the "Victoria Sealers' Association,"
with the Hudson Bay Company and R. P. Rithet & Co., of Victoria,
as trustees.
*
With respect to this organization the United States consul at
Victoria reported (January 6, 1898) that the owners of the sealing
vessels were ready to sell the entire fleet, numbering over fifty
vessels, for $500,000 and to guarantee that the Canadian Govern-
ment would not allow any vessels to clear for sealing from Canadian
ports thereafter. It was represented that the organization was
sufficiently powerful to make good this guaranty and that the com-
manding position of its members and the additional strength result-
ing from organization would enable them to control the political
situation and public policy of British Columbia and exercise an
important influence over the action of the Dominion Government.
He further reported that it was understood at Victoria that the
North American Commercial Company, the lessees of the Pribilof
Islands, would supply the money and be the real purchasers of the
fleet in the proposed settlement.
Subsequently, after the negotiations then in progress had led to
the formation of the Joint High Commission between the United
States and Great Britain on Canadian questions, these sealers ap-
pointed Capt. J. G. Cox, of Victoria, as their representative to
present their interests and conduct the negotiations on their behalf
before the Joint High Commission. A statement was accordingly
prepared by him (see statement marked "A" in the appendix, p. 109),
71
72
showing that the sealing fleet at that time consisted of 54 vessels,
having an aggregate tonnage of 3,713 tons. The value of these
vessels was estimated as follows:
Value of hull, spars, and rigging......
Value of equipment (not including Bering Sea trip)………………………….
Total value of vessels and equipment......
$445, 935. 60
174, 445. 25
620, 380. 85
These values, as appears from this statement, were given on the
basis of $165 per ton as the average value of vessels and equipment,
without provisions or sea stores.
In addition to the value of the vessels a further sum was claimed
on behalf of the sealers as compensation for being compulsorily
deprived of their occupation.
These figures were submitted by the Commissioners for critical
examination to two experts on the value of vessels-Capt. Herbert S.
Taylor, selected on the part of Canada, and Capt. I. E. Thayer,
selected on the part of the United States.
Captain Thayer and Captain Taylor differed so entirely in their
estimates that they found it impossible to agree on a joint report.
(For Captain Thayer's estimates, see Table "B" in the appendix,
P. III.)
Captain Taylor (Canadian) reported that in his opinion the cost
of sealing schooners in Victoria-hull, spars, sails, anchors, and
full equipment for sea, without sealing outfit-averaged, per ton,
$139.35, and that the value of the sealing outfit would average
$41.52, making a total valuation per ton of $180.87.
From this,
however, he made a deduction for depreciation of an average per
ton of $16.72, leaving the value at an average per ton of $164. 15.
In arriving at the amount to deduct for depreciation he adopted
the following rule:
Depreciation per ton on vessels-
Up to 5 years.......
From 5 to 10 years..
From 10 to 15 years..
From 15 to 20 years..
From 20 to 25 years..
Over 25 years.....
On this basis Captain Taylor's valuation was as follows:
54 vessels, tonnage 3,713:
$5.00
10.00
15.00
25.00
40.00
50.00
First cost....
$495, 048
Depreciation...
61, 575
Value after depreciation.....
433, 473
Value of outfit.........
138, 888
Total value of vessels and outfit.....
572, 361
73
Captain Thayer's valuation, on the other hand, was as follows:
33 vessels:
Present value, exclusive of outfit....
Present value of outfit......
21 vessels:
Present value, exclusive of outfit...
$125, 450
67, 910
57,055
Present value of outfit......
Total value, 54 vessels and outfits.......
29, 458
279,873
A revaluation was called for on 33 vessels, which presumably
were the only ones then regularly engaged in the business. Captain
Taylor's revaluation of these 33 vessels, including outfit, was
$455,611; Captain Thayer's revaluation of these 33 vessels, including
outfit, was $187,410—a difference in valuation of $268, 201.
With these figures as a basis the British Commissioners announced
that after giving every consideration to the facts and circumstances
they had concluded that $750,000 should be paid for the money claim
on behalf of the Canadians. It was stated that this amount-
“includes the value of the fishing fleet of 54 vessels of a tonnage of
3,713 tons, including outfit, and also an allowance for the good will,
as it were, of their business, based upon three years' profits and a
reasonable sum to pay a gratuity or allowance to the captains of
the fleet and a few others who have been for many years engaged
in this sealing business and made their living by it." (Letter,
December 6, 1898, Sir Louis Davies to General Foster.)
It was further stated that additional compensation would be
expected for the relinquishment of sealing as a national right.
The United States Commissioners made a counter proposition,
proposing $500,000 in full settlement for the sealers' interests, and as
an additional concession proposed to leave the vessels in the posses-
sion of the Canadian owners, although their full value was repre-
sented in the amount offered, in addition to a substantial amount
for profits, good will, and bonus to captains.
At the time the negotiations were suspended it was thought that
the British Commissioners were prepared to accept the proposal of
$500,000 made on the part of the United States, if a satisfactory
compensation was also made for the abandonment of the national
right of sealing.
Present value of vessels, based on Canadian estimates.
The Sealers' Association above referred to was reorganized in
1900 into a corporation known as the "Victoria Sealing Company."
This company owned 44 vessels, which, with three owned outside of
the company, comprised the entire Victoria sealing fleet at that time.
This company has an authorized capital stock of $500,000, divided
74
into 40,000 shares of the par value of $12.50 each, of which 33,479
shares were issued at par when the company was organized, repre-
senting an outstanding capital of $418,487.50. Of this amount.
$394,558.35 was carried on the books of the company as the cost of
the schooners acquired on the formation of the company. The
schooner account shown on the balance sheet of the company
November 30, 1905, appears as follows:
"By schooner cost account acquired on formation of company
(after deducting value of Hatzic, Triumph, Penelope, and
C. D. Rand lost and Mermaid sold)...
$351,005.85"
This amount, therefore, is now carried as the book value of the
remaining 39 vessels after deducting the values of the four lost and
the one sold. The accounts of the company show, however, that
no deduction in this account has been made since the organization
of the company for depreciation of values for use and age.
The necessity for making a substantial deduction for deprecia-
tion will be evident from an examination of the present condition
of the fleet, which in brief is as follows:
Fifteen vessels, including most of the oldest vessels, of the fleet
are no longer in regular use and with probably a few exceptions.
have had very little, if anything, spent on them for repairs since the
organization of the company. Of this number eight have not been
sealing since 1902, two of them made their last voyages respectively
in 1901 and 1900, and the other five have not been out since 1898, or
prior to the organization of the company.
One of the vessels included in the above valuation, the Fawn,
was reported lost in 1905, so that its entire value must be deducted.
The remaining 23 vessels belonging to the company have been.
used with considerable regularity for the past eight years and pre-
sumably the amounts spent by the company for repairs, averaging
about $8,000 annually, have been spent on them, although a propor-
tionate share of such repairs must be apportioned to the five vessels
lost and the one sold. (See Table "C" in the appendix, p. 113.)
Nevertheless, a considerable amount must be deducted from their
book value on account of depreciation. Five of them are between 10
and 15 years, eleven are between 15 and 20 years, five are between
20 and 25 years, and one is over 25 years. In the five years which
have elapsed since the values of these vessels were entered on the
books of the company each of these vessels has passed into the next
lower class in value, and according to the rule adopted by Captain
Taylor, the Canadian expert, in 1898, the deductions which should
now be made in the values for these vessels for depreciation on
account of age are as follows:
75
The Casca....
Between 5 and 10 years, $10 per ton.
Between 10 and 15 years, $15 per ton.
1. Ida Etta, 12 years....
2. Ocean Rover, 10 years...
3. Sadie Turpel, 14 years..
4. Victoria, 14 years
5. Zilla May, 10 years..
Total
1. Ainoko, 15 years..
Between 15 and 20 years, $25 per ton.
2. C. G. Cox, 15 years...
3. Carrie C. W., 18 years..
4. Diana, 17 years
5. Director, 16 years...
6. Dora Sieward, 15 years
7. Florence M. Smith, 18 years
8. Libbie, 17 years
9. Otto, 17 years..
10. Vera, 19 years...
Deduction.
$670
Tons.
67 X $10
=
73
63
61
68
66
331 X 15 =
4,965
76
82
92
54
87
98
99
93
86
67
Total
Between 20 and 25 years, $40 per ton.
1. Allie I. Alger, 21 years
2. Annie E. Paint, 21 years..
3. E. B. Marvin, 22 years
4. Geneva, 22 years…….....
....
5. Oscar and Hattie, 22 years.
6. Teresa, 23 years..
Total
834 X 25 = 20, 850
79
82
123
107
85
70
546 X 40 = 21, 840
Over 25 years, $50 per ton.
City of San Diego......
51 X
50 =
2, 550
50,875
From Captain Taylor's report it appears that deductions for
depreciation on account of age are not affected by ordinary repairs,
which are a constant necessity in sealing vessels, so no account need
be taken here of the expenditures for repairs.
In addition to the foregoing deductions the value of the Fawn,
reported lost last season, as above noted, must also be deducted.
This vessel was valued by the sealers in their statement submitted
to the Joint High Commission in 1898 at upwards of $10,000. Pre-
sumably it was entered on the books of the company at a somewhat
lower valuation than was proposed as a selling price to the United
76
States. It appears from the company's accounts, as above stated,
that the entire fleet of 44 vessels was valued by the company at
$394,558.35, which shows an average valuation per vessel of about
$9,000. This vessel was smaller than the average, being only 63
tons, but it was also newer than the average, being only 8 years
old in 1900.
It is, therefore, fair to assume that it was entered at
about the average price of $9,000. As no depreciation in value
has been deducted from the book values in the company's accounts
as shown the full original value on the books is the amount to be
deducted.
A further deduction from the book value of the company's vessels
must be made for the depreciation of the 15 vessels above referred
to as out of repair and no longer in use. According to Captain
Taylor's report sealing vessels depreciate at a regular rate with age,
even when kept in good repair and a seaworthy condition. It is
fair to assume, therefore, that vessels will depreciate more and faster
when no repairs are made and, as in this case, they are allowed to lie
idle and rot in the harbor. Five of these 15 vessels, as above stated,
have never been used by the company and their average age is
upwards of 26 years, and their aggregate tonnage is 318 tons.
Under Captain Taylor's rule their depreciation, even if kept up by
repairs, would be $50 per ton. It would not seem unreasonable,
under the circumstances, to add 50 per cent additional to this de-
preciation, making a total deduction of $75 per ton. The deduction
for these five vessels, therefore, would be 318 × $75,
amounting to......
The average age of the other 10 vessels no longer
in use is upwards of 22 years, and their aggregate ton-
nage is 668.
The deduction for these, under Captain
Taylor's rule, even if kept in good repair, would be $40
per ton, but for the same reason as before an additional
deduction should be made for their more rapid depre-
ciation in their neglected condition. Under the cir-
cumstances $15 per ton additional does not seem
unreasonable, making a total of $55 per ton. The
deductions for these vessels, therefore, would be
668 X $55, amounting to....
Making a total depreciation for these 15 vessels of......
$23,850.00
36,740.00
60, 590.00
The foregoing amounts, therefore, must be deducted from the
valuation at which the vessels of the company are now carried on
its accounts.
77
This valuation for 39 vessels is given in the balance
sheet of November, 1905, as.
Deductions:
(1) Depreciation on 23 vessels, shown
above to be………..
(2) The book value of the Fawn, lost
in 1905, estimated at
(3) The depreciation on the 15 vessels.
not in use, shown above to be...
Balance ..
$50,875.00
$351,005.85
9,000.00
60, 590.00
120,465.00
This valuation would give an average value of about
$3,000 each for the 15 vessels, amounting in all to...
And an average value of about $8,000 each for the
remaining 23 vessels, amounting in all to....
Total
230,540.85
45,000.00
184,000.00
229,000.00
In addition to the value of vessels the company carries as assets
in its balance sheet of November, 1905—
A gun account of..
A boat account of
And some miscellaneous items not exceeding
Making a total of about.....
·
$15,336.62
3, 176.05
I, 500.00
20,012.67
The entire assets of the company, therefore, as shown by its own
accounts, after making the deductions for depreciation of values on
the basis proposed by the representative of the sealing interests in
1898, would at the present time not exceed:
Vessels and equipment...
Boats, guns, stores, etc....
Total
$230,540.85
20,012.67
250,553.52
The three vessels owned outside of the Sealing Company do not.
require much attention. Two of them, the Enterprise and the Jessie,
were reported in December, 1903, by the United States consul at
Victoria as really owned by citizens of the United States, and ap-
parently they have not been sealing since. The other vessel is the
Umbrina, of 99 tons and 18 years old. The three together would
not average more, on the sealers' own estimate and with deductions
for depreciation, than the other vessels of the fleet. Their value,
therefore, may be taken as about $8,000 X 3, or $24,000 in all.
It appears, therefore, that from the Canadian point of view,
giving full credit to their figures for original values and estimating
78
deductions for depreciation by a method adopted by their own ex-
perts, the present value of the entire Victoria fleet and sealing outfit
would not exceed $275,000.
American valuation.
On the other hand, from the American point of view any such
valuation as $275,000 would be regarded as much too high.
From
the reports of the United States consul at Victoria it would appear
that the sealing fleet is now composed chiefly of rotten old hulks;
that those not in use are thoroughly unseaworthy and of no value
whatever, and that the balance are fast approaching the same con-
dition. It will further be noted that Captain Thayer, the American
expert on vessels in 1898, valued the 54 vessels then composing the
fleet at only $279,873 and also that he valued the 33 best vessels of
these, including outfit, at only $187,410. These figures certainly
would not bear out a valuation of $275,000 for 41 vessels, 15 of which
are wholly useless and the remaining 26 are mostly vessels which Cap-
tain Thayer included in the 33 valued by him eight years ago.
At that time the United States consul at Victoria investigated
for the American Commissioners the cost of building sealing vessels
at Victoria and reported (September 7, 1898) that—
"Contractors say they would be glad to take contracts to build
such schooners now for one hundred ($100) dollars per ton 'com-
plete, hull and spars,' provided they were not rushed."
For work under pressure they "would require $115 or $120 per
ton."
Schooners which cost no more than that new would be worth,
after the depreciation for the age which the present vessels have
reached, considerably less than the total computed on the Canadian
figures, to say nothing of the additional deduction for loss of value
from lack of repairs.
Value of business.
It appears that the business of pelagic sealing has not been
a profitable one for some years past and it is rapidly growing
worse. As early as 1897 Lord Salisbury wrote (Foreign Relations,
1897, p. 271) that unfavorable conditions the preceding year had
brought "many of the owners of sealing vessels to the verge of
bankruptcy." Yet the pelagic catch of the Canadians for the pre-
ceding season from all sources was over 55,000 skins, which is nearly
30 per cent larger than the largest catch of any year since. The
catch for the past three years has been less than 15,000 skins each
year. Obviously, there can not be much profit in the business under
present conditions. The Victoria Sealing Company has paid but two
dividends on its stock during the six years of its existence. One of
79
50 cents per share, or 4 per cent on its outstanding capital, was
declared at the close of the 1903 season. This was due to an unex-
pected catch of 1,794 skins at Cape Horn. Nevertheless, in the fol-
lowing year the company's balance sheet shows in its liabilities an
overdraft of $69,526.82. The second dividend was declared at the
close of the past season. This was a dividend of 20 per cent and
was due to the high price of skins at the sales in London, owing to
a scarcity of skins from other sources. In this connection it is
important to note that no sealing was done by the Japanese sealers
last season in Bering Sea. Notwithstanding this dividend the man-
agers of the company have recently assured the United States con-
sul at Victoria (report of January 9, 1906) that they were still ready
to dispose of their vessels and stop pelagic sealing on the basis pro-
posed before the Joint High Commission. This has been the attitude
of the Victoria sealing interests ever since 1898. They organized
themselves into an association and afterwards into a company partly
for the purpose of arranging for a sale of their business, and the
reports of the United States consul at Victoria have shown that from
time to time they have informed him voluntarily of their desire to
sell out.
In connection with this question the following extract from a
report made by Mr. Lembkey, agent in charge of the Pribilof
Islands, to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor (January 6, 1906)
may be of interest:
"As to the approximate amount which will be required to com-
pensate the Canadians in case a discontinuance of pelagic sealing
on their part should be required, I learned the following in 1903
from confidential sources:
"The person alleged to be the principal owner of shares in the
sealing company is R. P. Rithet, of San Francisco. About May or
June, 1903, when it was thought the High Joint Commission would
convene the following winter to consider the Bering Sea question,
Mr. Rithet was approached by a gentleman, who called Mr. Rithet's
attention to the depletion of the seal herd and the probable early
collapse of the company. It was suggested to Mr. Rithet that it
would be better for the company to take what it could get from this
Government for its sealing interests, in consideration of a cessation
of pelagic sealing, rather than to have these interests on its hands a
dead loss.
"Mr. Rithet was favorably impressed with the proposition and
the following plan was suggested to him as the best means of accom-
plishing the required end:
"1. Mr. Rithet, or some other person in the confidence of the
Canadian Government, was to obtain an option on the shares of
the Sealing Company.
"2. After obtaining this option, the holder thereof (being practi-
cally the sole owner of the Canadian sealing industry) was to go
before the Canadian Government, assuming the position that the
80
depletion of the seal herd had rendered pelagic sealing unprofitable;
that its continued decrease would, of itself, soon put the Canadian
sealers out of business; that the sealing vessels were fast deteriora-
ting, and that it was obviously better to sell out for a good, round
sum than to permit the business to die of its own accord; that, as
the sole owner of the industry, he had the right to ask his Govern-
ment to cooperate to effect a sale of the company's holdings to the
United States Government.
"3. The holder of this option was to induce the Canadian Govern-
ment, in consideration of the sale of the stock, to (a) abandon seal-
ing, to (b) pass laws prohibiting British subjects and vessels from
engaging in that pursuit, and to (c) bind the matter by treaty between
Great Britain and the United States.
"The question of price was then considered, the gentleman
asserting that $5 a share would be ample payment, but Mr. Rithet
contending that $5 was too little; he thought, however, that the
deal might be put through on a basis of $7.50 per share.
At $7.50
per share, it would require $251,092.50 to purchase the entire issued
stock.
"Mr. Rithet told his visitor he would give the matter his atten-
tion, and would soon leave for Victoria, where he would endeavor
to tie up by option as much of the stock as he could.
"Nothing further is known by me as to Mr. Rithet's subsequent
action in the matter."
The United States consul at Victoria reported (January 6, 1905)
that the Sealing Company stock was offered for sale there at $2.50
per share.
In 1904 it was quoted at $6 per share in San Francisco.
No more recent quotations have been reported.
The invasion of Bering Sea by the Japanese sealers is a recent
development in the situation which may be expected to further de-
press the value of the Canadian sealing interests. The Japanese,
being unaffected by the Paris award regulations, are free to hunt
with firearms and whenever and wherever they find seals outside of
the United States territorial limits, which of course gives them great
advantages over the Canadians, who are much hampered by these
regulations in competing with them.
Moreover, the Japanese hunting not only diminishes the number
of seals available for Canadian hunting, but it is reported that the
use of firearms by the Japanese so alarms the seals that hunting
with spears, to which the Canadians are restricted, has become
much more difficult. The coming of the Japanese may be bad for
the seals, but it is likely in one way or another to hasten the settle-
ment of the seal question.
Local interests at Victoria, British Columbia.
It is shown by the official records of the sealing industry that
at the time of its greatest prosperity only about six hundred white
men and a like number of Indians were employed as hunters and
crew. At the present time the number has shrunk to less than half.
81
It appears, however, on the authority of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that
the white men so employed did not strictly represent local interests.
Sir Wilfrid stated on this subject, in writing to Mr. Foster (Novem-
ber 24, 1897):
"The prohibition of pelagic sealing for a year would practically
destroy the business for several years, because the masters, the
mates, and the white crews, for the larger part belonging to other
parts of Canada, would leave British Columbia." (Foreign Rela-
tions, 1897, p. 321.)
Apart from the question of the men actually employed on the
vessels, however, the people of Victoria have had a substantial inter-
est in the past in having the business continued. It was stated at a
meeting of the Victoria Board of Trade in December, 1903, that the
industry then gave employment to over six hundred men and was
the support of nearly two thousand persons and nearly two hundred
thousand dollars was disbursed annually by the company among
Victoria people.
The accounts of the company show that this statement of the
amount expended annually was substantially correct in 1903, but in
the past two seasons the amount has diminished to less than $150.000
each year.
The people of Victoria until the past year have always vigorously
opposed any movement for the termination of the sealing business,
as appears from the reports made from time to time by the United
States consul there.
At the extra session of Congress in November, 1903, a resolution
was introduced in the Senate urging a readjustment of the sealing.
regulations. The United States consul at Victoria, British Colum-
bia, reported (December 8, 1903) that this had created an impression
there that steps would soon be taken to wind up pelagic sealing, and
that-
"Repeated meetings have been held by the Victoria Board of
Trade on the subject, and some bitter language used by residents
and business men of Victoria, in the fear that this industry, which
as stated by them gives employment to over six hundred men, is the
support of near two thousand persons, and the fountain from which
near two hundred thousand dollars is disbursed here, may be
abolished."
As appears above, the sealing interests, which in 1900 had been
organized into a corporation known as the "Victoria Sealing Com-
pany," were more than willing to dispose of their entire fleet on the
same basis which was agreed to by the Joint High Commission. The
fleet had cost a large amount for repairs and had greatly depreci-
ated in value since then; not more than half the vessels were in use
FS6
82
and no new ones had been added; the company had not declared a
dividend up to that time; and the Japanese, who were not subject,
to the restrictions of the Paris award regulations, had invaded
Bering Sea and cut into the Canadian profits. At these meetings at
Victoria, therefore, the members of the Sealing Company “stoutly
defended their right to sell their property if they saw fit.” Never-
theless, the Victoria Board of Trade, by a vote of 3 to 1, adopted
the following resolution:
6
Whereas, the Victoria, B. C., Board of Trade has reason to
believe that powerful influence, alien in sympathy and character, is
being brought to bear upon the Imperial and Dominion Governments
to secure the abolishment of pelagic sealing under the British flag;
"And whereas, the sealing industry being of great importance as
a source of revenue to the city of Victoria, its abolishment would be a
serious blow to the business interests of this community:
"Be it therefore resolved, That the Victoria, B. C., Board of Trade
does hereby urge upon the Imperial, Dominion, and Provincial Gov-
ernments the great necessity of fostering, safeguarding, and per-
petuating the sealing industry, and that this board most earnestly.
protests against consideration being given to any proposal whatever
that shall tend to the abolishment of the rights of pelagic sealing to
British subjects:
"Be it further resolved, That copies of this preamble and resolu-
tion be sent to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to the Colonial Secretary of the
Imperial Government, to the Hon. Richard McBride, and to each
Victoria member of the Dominion and Provincial Governments, and
that the provincial government be urged to do all in its power to
further safeguard the interests of Victoria and the Province.
Afterwards, the following additional resolution was unanimously
adopted:
"Be it resolved, That no consideration be given to a long close
season that shall not be equally binding upon all who are engaged
in sealing on land or sea, and would further urge the necessity for
the removal of such restrictions as at present place British subjects
on an unequal footing with other nations in the sealing industry.
"Be it further resolved, That a delegation be appointed to wait
upon the provincial government to present this resolution and to
report to this board from time to time.
"Be it further resolved, That this be embodied in the resolution
just passed."
On March 21, 1905, however, the United States consul at Victoria
reported a change of feeling on the part of the people of Victoria.
His report runs as follows:
The sentiment of the people of Victoria in regard to the dis-
posal of the fleet and surrender of Canadian claim to pelagic sealing,
which in 1903, as shown by action of Victoria Board of Trade, was
strongly adverse, has altered greatly. The feeling is now not unfa-
vorable to a settlement of this matter.
83
A
"It is also felt that events have so changed that the cessation of
sealing would not have so disastrous an effect on the commercial
interests of Victoria. The fisheries of British Columbia in halibut,
salmon, etc., have so developed that employment could now more
easily be secured for schooners and hunters now engaged in sealing.
The removal of restrictions on salmon traps is also regarded as open-
ing a new and extensive field for fishermen of this Province.
In answer to a request from the Secretary of State for data show-
ing a "comparison between the value of 20 per cent of the killing on
land from a restored herd and the value of the present pelagic seal-
ing," the Secretary of Commerce and Labor wrote (January 7, 1906)
as follows:
'The restored herd would probably yield 60,000 annually. At
$10.222 per skin this would amount to a revenue of $613,500; 20
per cent of this would be $122,700. The gross value of the pelagic
catch for 1904 was approximately $185,000, but the working net
balance, after deducting the cost of operating the schooners, would
not exceed $30,000. In 1905, however, owing to the large advance.
(40 per cent) in the market price of pelagic skins over the preceding.
year, they probably received for their catch in the neighborhood of
$300,000, an increase in gross receipts over 1904 of over $100,000.
It is surprising to note that while the price of the Pribilof Islands
skins (known to the trade as 'Alaskas) remained stationary, the
price of pelagic skins taken from the same herd advanced 40 per
cent. It is believed that 1905 was the most successful year for the
Sealing Company occurring for some time past.
“The annual statements of the Victoria Sealing Company (Lim-
ited) give the working balances for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904
as follows:
“1902...
"1903...
"" 1904...
$11, 331. 17
19, 852. 41
27, 949. 71
"These working balances are taken from the company's own
figures, and in arriving at them the cost of operating the schooners
is first deducted from the gross income."
In the 1905 account this item, which is called in the accounts
'Balance from working account," was $102,228.53.
In this connection it is stated in the company's annual report for
1905 that the prices for skins that year were "the highest ever
obtained since the commencement of pelagic sealing, and must not
be considered a criterion for future prices, and can only be accounted
for in the shortage of skins on the market, as, owing to the war,
there was a very small catch of Japan and Copper Island skins; also
a shortage from other sources."
84
British interests.
The world's market for seal skins has always been at London.
Practically the entire annual catch of skins from all over the world is
shipped there to be sold, and all but a very small percentage of the
skins are dressed and dyed there for the furriers. In the case of
the United States before the Paris Tribunal in 1893 it was stated
that at that time £1,000,000 was invested in the seal-skin industry
in the city of London, and between two thousand and three thousand
persons were employed directly in the business there. The average.
wages paid to those employed in the British industry alone was about
$947,000 per annum. Mr. Dingley estimated that the total number
given employment in London in 1896 on account of the seal-skin
industry was 50,000 persons. (H. R. Report No. 2303, 57th Cong.,
Ist sess.) The Canadian industry at that time represented a capital
of about $500,000 and gave employment to about six hundred white.
men.
Most of the skins which were not dressed and dyed in London
were prepared for the furriers in France, and between five hundred
and six hundred persons were dependent upon the seal-skin industry
there in 1892. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, pp. 269-285.)
The number of persons now actually employed in the business in
London is estimated by Mr. Alfred Fraser, of Lampson & Co., the
London dealers, at less than five hundred, and the number of skins
sold annually from all sources has diminished from about 200,000 in
1891 to about 65,000 in 1905.
THE AMERICAN SEALING INDUSTRY.
Pelagic sealing.
The act of Congress approved December 29, 1897, prohibited
pelagic sealing by citizens of the United States, or persons owing
obedience to the laws or treaties of the United States, or persons
belonging to or on board of a vessel of the United States, in the
waters of the Pacific Ocean north of the 35th degree of north lati-
tude, including Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.
This prohibition does not include pelagic sealing in southern
waters, but no sealing vessels under the American flag have been
reported in those waters since 1897, with the exception of one in
1898.
It has been rumored that American capital is still invested and
American citizens or persons owing obedience to the laws of this
country have been engaged in sealing since 1897 under the British
85
and Japanese flags.
Inquiry as to the accuracy of these reports
has been made from time to time, and the matter is still under
investigation.
Pribilof Islands.
The Secretary of Commerce and Labor is empowered by law and
under the lease of the sealing privileges on these islands to impose.
restrictions limiting the number of seals which may be taken annually.
The killing of female seals has always been prohibited.
Under the lease from 1870 to 1890 the maximum number per-
mitted annually was 100,000. As a matter of fact, as shown by
statistics prepared by the Department of Commerce and Labor, the
number actually taken every year, except the first year and four
others, exceeded this maximum, but the total number taken for the
twenty years amounted to about 1,956,239, making an average of
less than the maximum limit allowed for each year.
Under the lease for twenty years from 1890, which is still in
force, the lessees were restricted by the terms of the lease to 60,000
for the first year. The number actually taken was between 25,000
and 30,000.
For the three following years the number was restricted
by the modus vivendi with Great Britain to 7,500, although the num-
ber actually taken in 1891 was in excess of this number, owing to
the fact that the officials on the island were not notified of the re-
strictions until after more than the permitted number of skins had
been taken.
Thereafter, regulations were imposed by the Government limit-
ing the number of skins to be taken annually as follows: In 1894,
20,000; 1895, 15,000; 1896, 30,000; 1897, 20,000; and thereafter
30,000, until 1904, when the limit was reduced to 15,000, and the
killing of seals under two years old was forbidden, and 2,000 two
and three year bachelors were reserved. The official reports show
that during the ten years from 1894 to 1903, inclusive, the lessees
were unable in any year to get the full quota allowed, except in
1896, when they took 30,654 skins. The number for five of these
years averaged about 17,000, and for the other four years the aver-
age was about 22,000. The numbers varied so from year to year
that no regular rate of decrease can be shown by them. Under the
new regulations in 1904 the number of skins taken was 13,128, and
in 1905 the number was 14,386. It appears, therefore, that under
present conditions the lessees are unable to get even the very lim-
ited number allowed, from which it may be inferred that the num-
ber actually taken represents every available seal that can be found.
The above figures are taken from statistics furnished by the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.
86
The following table shows the decline of the Alaskan fur-seal
herd from 1874 to 1905:
Seals of all classes.
Year.
Surveys, etc.
Bulls, cows,
and pups.
1874
Surveys of Elliott and Maynard, ordered by act approved April 22, 1874, on
breeding grounds or rookeries.......
1890
Survey of Elliott, ordered by act approved April 5, 1890.
Survey of Canadian Commissioners
1891
Survey of American Commissioners
1897
Survey of Jordan-Thompson Commission…....
1900
1902
1904
1905
Survey of United States Fish Commission (a decline of over 20 per cent since
1897)..........
Estimate, based on ratio of decline, as above........
4,700,000
959,655
*1,000,000
*1,000,000
450,000
360,000
224,000
243, IOI
223,009
* Estimated.
NOTE. This table is taken from the report of the Committee on Ways and Means, June 2, 1902,
printed as H. R. Report No. 2303, 57th Cong., 1st sess., with the numbers for 1904 and 1905 added
from the reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor printed as Senate Doc. No. 98, 59th
Cong., 1st sess.
Income derived by the Government.
Under the lease from 1870 to 1890 the United States received
$5,981,036.50, and under the lease of 1890 up to April 1, 1906, $2,852,-
901.17, making a total of $8,833,937.67.
These are the figures given in the letter of January 7, 1906, from
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State and
are intended to show only the payments made by the lessees to the
Government.
In addition to the amounts received by the Government from the
lessees the Government is relieved of part of the expense of caring
for the natives on the islands, which is imposed upon the lessees by
the terms of the lease and should figure in the income account.
I
The number of inhabitants on the islands has averaged about
three hundred during the American occupation, and for the twenty
years under the first lease they were paid as their earnings about
$755,672.87. (Report of Charles J. Goff, Treasury agent, July 31,
1890, printed at p. 221, H. R. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.)
In addition to this the lessees constructed buildings and provided
tools, live stock, sealing plant, boats, and furniture for their use,
which were sold to the new lessees in 1890 for $67,264.02, appraised
at that time as the full cash value. (Id., p. 225.) The earnings of
the natives have decreased since that time with the falling off in the
number of seals taken, but the expense of supporting the natives
still represents a considerable annual outlay.
87
The customs duty of 20 per cent ad valorem which the United
States Government received from the importation of seal skins
dressed and dyed in London was stated in 1890 to amount to aboút
$375,000 annually. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 270.)
The expenses of administration were stated by Mr. Hitchcock,
then Chief Clerk in the Department of Commerce and Labor, in his
testimony before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of
Representatives in 1904, to be about $30,000 a year. Mr. Hitchcock
further stated:
"The expense of revenue cutters in Alaska waters last year I
understand aggregated about $160,000, but only a portion of this
sum can be properly charged to the seal service. Just how much I
do not know. On the other hand, the amount of revenue derived
from the seals has averaged about $200,000 a year."
On the question of the cost of the patrol maintained in Bering
Sea by the United States, Hon. John W. Foster stated in his letter
of December 2, 1897, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Foreign Relations,
1897, p. 323) that the expense "for the past four years has averaged
about $150,000 annually."
In arriving at the net return to the United States Government
from the sealing industry the cost of policing Bering Sea, the
Treasury agents on the islands, the Bering Sea Arbitration Tribunal
and Claims Commission and award for damages, and of the numer-
ous investigations of the seal herd and conferences and reports on
the same, and other considerable expenses incurred in connection
with the negotiations on this question must also be deducted. Some
of the expenses chargeable against this Government on this account
between 1890 and 1895, inclusive, with some estimated amounts to
1901, are given in an official statement of the Secretary of the Treas-
ury printed in House Document No. 197, 54th Congress, 1st session,
as follows:
"As to the cost of policing Bering Sea and the North Pacific each
year since 1890, I have to state that the honorable the Secretary of
the Navy, upon request, has informed this Department that the cost
of maintaining vessels of the United States Navy in these waters
since 1890, including pay and rations of officers and crews and re-
pairs to the vessels during and immediately following the perform-
ance of said patrol duty, was as follows:
((
...
1890
1891
1892....
1893....
1894....
""
1895.....
No patrol by Navy.
$133, 281. 64
233, 931. 31
183,067.74
452, 768. 18
No patrol by Navy.
88
"The expenses incurred by revenue cutters in patrolling Bering
Sea from 1890 to 1895, inclusive, including pay and rations of
officers and men, are as follows:
เ.
1890.....
1891.
(เ
1892.
...
$36, 846. 66
51, 650. 70.
66, 672.57
47, 385. 79
""
1893....
1894..
1895....
56, 439. 63
148, 677. 74
"From these figures it would seem that the total cost of policing
these waters during the period in question is $1,410, 721.96.
"The amounts which have been expended by the Government
for the support of the native inhabitants of the seal islands of Alaska
follow:
"
"
1893....
1894.....
1895.....
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
$11, 337. 32
18, 319. 44
25, 563. 21
"Amounts expended.
"
Policing waters.....
"
Support of natives...
((
Salaries and expenses of agents..
$1, 410, 721. 96
* 55, 219.97
*227, 163. 04
""
Cost of Paris Tribunal, 1893……..
Damages paid pelagic sealers, Halifax, 1896, and cost of counsel,
United States...
Cost of revenue marine patrol, 1896–1901.
"Cost of natives' support, 1896-1901..
Cost of Treasury agents, 1896–1901..
'Cost of Jordan-Thompson Commission, 1896–97.
"Total cost, 1890-1901
Diminishing rentals.
234, 000. 00
+486, 000. 00
892, 062. 00
150, 000. 00
90, 000. 00
30, 000. 00
3, 575, 166. 97"
Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the
case of North American Commercial Company v. United States (171
U. S., 110) the lessees are entitled to a reduction of the $60,000
annual rental fixed by the lease, in the proportion that the number
of 100,000 limited by statute as the maximum number of seals to be
taken bears to the number permitted to be taken under the restric-
tions imposed. No reduction is allowed, however, in the tax of $2
per skin and the bonus of $7.62½ per skin fixed by the lease.
The Government is at liberty, without liability for damages for
breach of contract, to prohibit absolutely the taking of seals, if
In that
deemed necessary to prevent the extermination of the herd.
case, however, it seems that the lessees would be entitled to treat
* Five hundred and seventy-two thousand and sixty-six dollars and thirty-eight cents expended
by the Government from 1870-1905 for maintaining agents and for support of natives independently
of the amounts expended by the lessees. (Lemky's Report to Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
December 6, 1905.)
+ The amount finally paid to Great Britain in settlement of these claims was $473,151, from which
should be deducted $83,073.72 and interest, being the amount realized by the United States from the
sale of the Canadian vessels and property seized.
89
the contract as rescinded.
The question of whether or not the Gov-
ernment would be required to compensate the company for the
diminished value of its plant and equipment resulting from such
action was not passed upon by the Supreme Court in the case
referred to. The decision in that case is reviewed more fully at
page 56 et seq. of this report.
Commercial interests.
It does not appear that the sealing industry as now carried on bene-
fits directly any important commercial interests in this country. The
work of dressing and dyeing the skins and preparing them for the
furriers never became of any importance here. That branch of
the business has always been almost wholly carried on in London.
It is stated in the proceedings before the Fur Seal Arbitration Tri-
bunal at Paris that about three hundred persons were then employed
in dressing and dyeing seal skins in this country. (Fur Seal Arbi-
tration, vol. 3, p. 538.) Since then that branch of the business has
diminished rather than increased. The extent and value of the busi-
ness in London is shown elsewhere in connection with the British
and Canadian interests in the sealing industry.
The act of December 29, 1897, forbids the importation into this
country of skins taken by pelagic sealers in the waters of the Pacific
Ocean north of the 35th degree of north latitude. This excludes all
but the skins taken on land from the American and Asiatic herds
and those taken either on land or at sea south of the specified degree
of latitude.
In 1890, when the business had reached its highest point of pros-
perity, the furriers, manufacturers, and merchants of the United
States realized annually on Alaskan skins consumed in the United
States the sum of $2,100,000, and the aggregate amount annually
paid as wages to those employed in the American manufactories was
$490,000, and the profit to the lessees annually was $325,000 over
and above the wages paid to the natives on the island, amounting
to about $40,000 annually. The number of persons employed in the
manufacture and handling of seal skins in the United States at that
time was estimated at 3,360. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 280.)
THE JAPANESE SEALING INDUSTRY.
Japanese seal rookeries.
The only seal rookeries which Japan has controlled since the seal
question became an international one are the rookeries on Robben
Island and those which formerly existed on the Kurile Islands. In
both instances these islands came into the possession of Japan by
cession from Russia. In 1875 Russia ceded to Japan the middle
90
and northern Kurile Islands where the rookeries of the Kurile seal
herd were located, taking in exchange the southern end of Sakhalin
Island, which in turn at the close of the Japan-Russian war in 1905
was re-ceded to Japan and carried with it Robben Island, lying in
close proximity to its shore.
Robben Island. In the history of the seal question this island has
always been grouped with the Commander Islands (Copper and
Bering Islands), which belong to Russia, and its relation to the
question will for convenience be considered herein elsewhere in con-
nection with those islands. Attention is directed at this point, how-
ever, to the fact that the acquisition of this island by Japan may be
expected to give that country an interest in protecting the seals,
which it has not had since the destruction of its Kurile Islands herd.
Kurile Islands. It was estimated that there were about 22,000
seals in all on the rookeries of these islands in 1881, when they first
attracted the attention of foreign sealers. In that year the rookeries
were raided and about 7,750 seals were taken.
750 seals were taken. During the three
following years about the same number was taken in all by the
Japanese and foreign sealers, and in 1885 the foreigners again raided
the islands and took about 6,500 skins. This "practically cleaned
out" the principal rookeries. In the two following years the for-
eigners again visited the islands and took what was left, getting
about 1,000 skins in each year. In 1896 it was reported that the
remnant of the Japanese herd possibly amounted to fifty, but proba-
bly to not more than thirty seals all told. (Report on Fur Seal
Investigations, 1897, pt. 4, pp. 237-260, Stejneger's Report; Memo-
randum issued in 1891 by Japanese Government on Seal Fisheries
in Japan, Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 6, p. 228; and Report of British
Commission, 1892, id., p. 135.)
The responsibility for the raiding seems to have been about
equally divided between the Canadians and Americans.
The raids on these rookeries and their threatened destruction
resulted in the enactment of laws by Japan intended to protect its
seal herd and the sea otter, in which Japan was even more inter-
ested than in seals. The attempt was futile, however, because Japan
was unable to control her own ports or punish foreigners for violat-
ing her laws, owing to the system of consular jurisdiction which was
then in force. International cooperation was the only solution of
the difficulty, and in 1887-88, when the United States attempted to
secure the concurrence of Great Britain, Japan, and Russia in the
protection of the Alaskan herd, Japan agreed, on condition that
like protection be given to the Japanese seals and sea otter. At
that date the Japanese herd might have been saved, but the pro-
posed arrangement came to nothing, owing to the objections of the
Canadians.
91
The Japanese legislation on the subject up to that time was
briefly as follows:
As early as 1884 an imperial decree was issued forbidding the
hunting of the fur seal and sea otter in Japanese waters or territory
except by persons with a special permit, and in 1886 a further impe-
rial decree was issued requiring that all skins must be stamped on
landing at Japanese ports, and forbidding the sale of unstamped
skins, excepting, however, the skins of seals and sea otter caught
within the territory of Russia or the United States with the permis-
sion of those Governments. Owing to the consular jurisdiction
above referred to, however, Japan was unable to enforce this law, as
Great Britain refused to observe it. This action by Great Britain
was cited by the Japanese delegates at the conference in 1897 at
Washington between Russia, Japan, and the United States as an
illustration of the difficulties encountered by Japan in dealing with
this question on account of extraterritoriality. With reference
to this law it was stated at that conference:
"Japan wanted to pass a law to stop seal skins from coming into
her ports except with a stamp on them. The consent of the powers
was asked and given by all but Great Britain. She made no answer.
Assuming a tacit consent the ordinance was issued and the skins on
a British vessel were seized, but Great Britain said she had not
agreed to the measure, and nothing could be done.”
In 1888 regulations were issued by the Japanese Government
providing, in brief, that there should be an open season between
April 15 and October 31; that the hunting in any one year should
be permitted only in one of the three divisions into which the Kurile
Islands were divided, the other two divisions being given in turn a
two years' rest; and that sealing vessels must be specially licensed
and fly a special flag. These regulations remained practically inop-
erative. (Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, p. 322.) In the
same year an exclusive license for sealing was issued to a Japanese
company for a period of five years.
Pelagic sealing.
Until 1891 pelagic sealing was almost unknown on the Asiatic
side of the Pacific, although foreign sealers had frequently visited
and raided the rookeries, as above stated. In that and the following
year, when Bering Sea was first closed to the Canadian and Ameri-
can pelagic sealers by the modus vivendi with Great Britain, they began.
to cross over to the Asiatic waters. In 1892 eight schooners, all
American, visited the Japanese coast and caught between 12,000 and
14,000 seals.
These seals taken in these waters, although technically
known as the Japanese coast catch, in reality belonged to the Russian
92
herd from the Robben and Commander Islands, from which at cer-
tain seasons the seals pass along the Japanese coast and frequent
certain feeding grounds there. The Japanese herd at this time had
already been almost wholly destroyed, as above noted.
In the following year (1893) it was reported that 22 Canadian and
31 American vessels visited these waters and caught, respectively,
about 30,000 and 25,000 seals. Up to this time no vessels owned
by the Japanese had engaged in pelagic sealing, but the success of
pelagic sealing in Asiatic waters had attracted the attention of the
Japanese Government, and in 1893-94 an investigation of the seal
question was made by scientific experts and a report on the subject,
including a review of the proceedings of the Arbitration Tribunal at
Paris in 1893, was prepared. As a result the policy of the Govern-
ment on the seal question was changed. It appeared that the Japa-
nese herd was no longer worth protecting and that the existing laws
favored the foreigners at the expense of the Japanese.
The old laws, therefore, were repealed and a new law was enacted,
taking effect January 1, 1896, which vested in the Government the
control of sealing and sea-otter hunting and made it necessary for
anyone wishing to engage in the business to procure an official
license. By this law the Government put itself in a position to enter
upon negotiations for an international agreement for protecting the
seal and sea otter, if an opportunity offered, and meanwhile opened
a way for encouraging, under governmental control, pelagic sealing
by its subjects on equal terms with foreigners.
With respect to the sea otter, the Japanese position was more
difficult. The protection of the sea otter had always been a matter
of even more interest to Japan than the protection of the fur seals,
and this was particularly true at this time, as the Japanese seal
herd had already been practically exterminated. Experience had
shown, however, that to impose restrictions would merely serve to
give the foreigners a clear field at the expense of the Japanese, under
the prevailing system of consular jurisdiction which continued until
1899. As a choice of evils, therefore, this law put the sea otter in
the same class with the seals, and anyone with a license was free to
hunt them. It is understood that the licenses during the continu-
ance of consular jurisdiction were issued to anyone as a matter of
course. Whether or not the law has been administered with less
liberality in the case of the sea otter since 1899 does not appear.
At about the same time the Japanese adopted the policy of en-
couraging deep-sea fisheries, and a law for that purpose was enacted
which, by means of a bounty granted to certain classes of fishing
vessels, indirectly encouraged pelagic sealing. The provisions for
"encouragement money," as it is termed, in force April 1, 1898,
were in brief as follows: An annual subsidy of 10 yen, or $5, per
93
C
ton for sailing vessels up to 200 tons, and 15 yen, or $7.50, per ton
for steam vessels up to 350 tons (with no increase for higher ton-
nage) was to be paid, provided that four-fifths of the crew were
Japanese and that the vessel was registered as Japanese and belonged
to a Japanese subject or mercantile company of which the partners
or shareholders were exclusively Japanese. It was further provided
that the following vessels were not qualified to receive the subsidy:
I
"(1) Vessels of foreign make registered as Japanese after the
coming into operation of this law, and being 5 years old at the date
of register.
66
(2) Vessels more than 15 years old."
A further bounty of 10 yen was to be paid to each of the crew
according to a fixed schedule regulating the size of the crew allowed
in proportion to the tonnage of the vessel. (Report of Lieutenant-
Commander Marsh on Sealing in Japan, January 20, 1902, inclosed
with Minister Buck's letter of same date; MSS., State Department.)
In October, 1905, it was reported that this subsidy had been increased
to 18 yen per ton register, with the same annual subsidy of 10 yen to
each member of the crew.
It is reported by the American consular agent at Hakodate,
Japan, that—
"The subsidy as now paid is large enough to pay all expenses
for a season, the crew being on a lay; everything that is caught is
profit and, unless the vessel is lost, there can be no loss to the
owners."
This action of the Japanese Government was taken, apparently,
after the acquisition of Robben Island in 1905, and indicates that for
the present at least the possession of the seal rookeries on that island
has made no change in the policy of the Government on the seal
question. In this connection it must also be noted that during the
Japanese-Russian war some of the Japanese sealers raided Robben
Island and killed off nearly all the seals found there. A permanent
guard has now been stationed on the island by the Japanese Gov-
ernment, but it will be some time before it is of any value to the
Japanese, and the protection of the herd against pelagic sealing
enters largely into the question of its recovery. (Report from U. S.
consul-general at Yokohama, January 29, 1906.)
In addition to this system of bounties the Japanese sealers had
great natural advantages over the Canadian pelagic sealers in hav-
ing close at hand the waters in which the seals of the Russian herd
were hunted in the periods of their migrations, and also in having
their home ports about one thousand miles nearer than the Cana-
dians to the hunting grounds in the vicinity of the Russian seal
94
rookeries. The effect of the bounties, together with these natural
advantages, was to increase rapidly the number of the Japanese
fleet, and it soon became unprofitable for the Canadians to compete
with them in the Japan coast hunting, although they still continued
their operations in the vicinity of the Russian islands. The number
of Canadian vessels engaged on the Japan coast dwindled from eleven
in 1897 to a single vessel in the following year, and since then the
Canadians have practically abandoned those hunting grounds,
although on two occasions (1901 and 1902) eight or nine Canadian
vessels again tried their luck on the Japan coast but without any
particular success, getting in all an average of about 325 each,
which hardly justified the expense. (See Annual Reports, Cana-
dian Deputy Minister of Marine.)
The following table is made up from information found in reports
of United States consuls at Japan and Victoria, British Columbia,
and in diplomatic correspondence and official publications and the
records of the Department of Commerce and Labor. The infor-
mation available is not complete and is somewhat conflicting; the
figures, therefore, can not be relied on in detail, but serve to show
in a general way the growth and condition of the Japanese pelagic
sealing business.
Japanese pelagic sealing, 1893–1905.
1893..
Year.
Number of
vessels.
Japan
coast catch.
Russian
islands
catch.
Number of
vessels.
Bering Sea
award area
catch.
Total.
1894
1895...
3 60
965
2,898
1896.
9
3,319
3,319
1897...
14
4,616
(833?)
4,616
1898....
16
4,757
4,757
1899..
I2
6,518
6,518
1900...
I901.....
15
7,533
7,533
*19
7,045
5 (about 60?)
7,045
1902....
1903....
1904.
1905...
18
9,780
(+)
9,780
19
5,661
(?)
6,726
3,495
+9,749
(?)
2,222
I1,378
(?)
349
16,824
830
3,101
|| 7,906
**
11,406
* It was reported that the Russian patrol had seized six Japanese schooners in 1901 for sealing
within the 30-mile zone around the Russian islands.
+ Some; number not reported.
Four thousand six hundred and fifty-four taken in a raid on Robben Island.
During the Japanese-Russian war two Japanese sealing vessels were captured by Russians and
another vessel was lost at sea.
Five thousand five hundred taken in a raid on the rookeries.
One Japanese vessel took 399 on American northwest coast.
**Seventeen sea otter were taken on the Kurile Islands and 155 in the vicinity of Copper Island.
The total number caught by Japanese and foreign vessels between
1890 and 1897, inclusive, on the Japanese coast was about 228,052.
(Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, p. 267.)
95
Japanese sealers in Bering Sea and foreigners sealing under the
Japanese flag.
The first appearance of the Japanese sealers in Bering Sea was
reported in 1901 and marked an important development in the
Alaskan seal question.
Ever since the Canadian and American pelagic sealers were ex-
cluded from Bering Sea under the modus vivendi with Great Britain
in 1891-1893 and later subjected to the regulations of the Paris
award in 1894, reports have been current that their operations were
to be carried on in the protected area under the Japanese flag.
The matter was one of considerable importance to the United
States, and the cooperation of the Japanese Government was asked
in enforcing the observance of the award regulations. In November,
1893, the Japanese Government responded that measures would be
taken to prevent foreign vessels using the flag of Japan to evade the
seal-fisheries regulations, but they declined to require bona fide
Japanese vessels to observe the regulations unless they should be
extended to include the Japanese seal fisheries. (Foreign Relations,
1894, Appendix I, p. 135.) The regulations were not extended to
Asiatic waters for reasons which have been reviewed elsewhere, but
the instructions desired were issued by the Japanese Government to
the Japanese consuls at San Francisco, Vancouver, and other foreign
ports, calling attention to the reported plan of securing a Japanese
registry for sealing vessels for purposes of deception, and they were
directed “to act in the matter with strict caution, so that no certifi-
cates shall be granted to parties carrying on such dishonorable.
business." (Id., p. 137.)
The measures taken by Japan at that time and since to prevent
the improper use of the Japanese flag for pelagic sealing in the award.
area have not prevented Americans and Canadians from participating
in the Japanese sealing industry, but the extent of their participation
was not a matter of any particular consequence to this Government
prior to 1901, when sealers under the Japanese flag first appeared
in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands.
During the years between 1893 and 1897 there was a group of
sealing vessels varying from seven to three in number, of Canadian
or American ownership, sailing from Japanese ports and classed as
"vessels domiciled in Japan," but in each case the vessels carried
the flag of the country of ownership and were employed only on the
Japan coast. In 1897 but three of these were left—one Canadian
and two American. The Canadian vessel was lost at sea during that
season and the two American vessels were debarred by the act of
Congress of December 29, 1897, above referred to, from sealing
under the American flag north of the 35th degree of latitude. Just
96
what ultimately became of them and the other four does not appear,
and they may have continued in the business under Japanese owner-
ship and different names.
The situation as disclosed by the investigations made in 1901
and thereafter is in brief as follows:
On October 24, 1901, it was reported by the United States con-
sul at Victoria, British Columbia, that two vessels, the Josephine and
the Henry Dennis, formerly of American register, were taking seals
in Bering Sea under the Japanese flag and that former residents of
the United States were large owners of Japanese sealing vessels.
With respect to the Josephine, however, he further reported on hear-
say information that she had been sold for debt in Hakodate in 1894
and purchased by some Japanese, and it appeared later (report of
October 31, 1901) that she was one of the six Japanese vessels seized
by the Russian cruiser Yakut for sealing within the proscribed lim-
its around the Russian rookeries. Later information about the
Henry Dennis showed that she was at that time one of the Japanese
sealing fleet under a Japanese name, but that she was American
owned was not shown. (Report of Lieutenant-Commander Marsh,
naval attaché at Tokyo, January 20, 1902, inclosed with letter of
Minister Buck of same date.)
It proved to be true that five vessels of the Japanese sealing fleet.
had engaged in pelagic sealing in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands
during the season of 1901, and not being subject to the Paris award
regulations had felt free to disregard them. It further appeared
that some Americans and Canadians were employed on these ves-
sels as navigators and hunters. Subsequent inquiry indicated that
on a number of Japanese vessels the nominal captain, who acted as
captain in port, was Japanese, as required by Japanese law, but the
actual captain at sea was the navigator, who was either a Canadian
or American, and on vessels so equipped white hunters were gener-
ally shipped. (Lieutenant-Commander Marsh's report, supra.) On
this subject the United States consul at Victoria, British Columbia,
reported March 5, 1906:
"There are several (not over twenty) Victorians now employed
as hunters and navigators' (really captains) on Japanese sealing
schooners.
With respect to American ownership it was reported that two
Americans were the principal owners of the Japanese sealing fleet.
Their names were given as McLaughlin and King-the former a
naturalized Japanese subject residing at Yokohama, and the latter.
an American citizen residing at Hakodate, having a Japanese wife
in whose name two schooners owned by him were registered. (Re-
port of U. S. consul at Victoria, B. C., October 24, 1901.) On
97
further investigation it was reported that these two men, whose full
names were given as J. M. Laffin and E. J. King, the latter being in
a way the agent of the former, were interested on their own account
in three vessels, the Sei-toku, Sei-fu, and To-ro Maru, which vessels
were not used in the award area. Their interest in the sealing busi-
ness generally was as commission merchants or purchasers of the
catch, and in that way, and by advancing money to the sealers for
their outfit and supplies, they practically controlled the whole seal-
ing business. (Report of Lieutenant-Commander Marsh, July 16,
1902.)
While these investigations were in progress the several questions
involved were brought to the attention of the Japanese Government.
On November 21, 1901, the United States minister at Tokyo, Mr.
Buck, was instructed by the State Department to—
"strongly urge upon the Japanese Government its friendly action
in requiring Japanese subjects to observe the same regulations as
imposed by the Paris award, which operate to restrain American
citizens and the subjects of Great Britain, and to end, if possible,
the practice of American citizens sealing under cover of the Japa-
nese flag."
In compliance with these instructions the situation as reported
was called by him to the attention of the Japanese Government on
December 26, 1901. No response was made. On April 14, 1902,
Mr. Buck again wrote to the Japanese Government and urged prompt.
action in view of the near approach of the sealing season. At the
same time he pointed out that Japanese sealing operations in the last
season on the eastern side of Bering Sea were so insignificant as to
have brought little profit-probably a loss-so that the adoption of
the proposed restrictions would involve little if any loss to Japanese
subjects. (Letter of April 14, 1902, Mr. Buck to Mr. Hay.)
On June 7, 1902, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote
in answer, stating that considerable time had necessarily been con-
sumed in making an investigation through the Department of Agri-
culture and Commerce, to which the matter had been referred. He
stated further that this investigation had not disclosed among the
vessels licensed by the Imperial Government to engage in sealing
and otter hunting the existence-
"of any vessel which could reasonably be regarded as having nomi-
nally been transferred to Japanese register while actually remaining
under the command of the United States citizens."
It was further stated that great caution has been and will be exer-
cised to prevent the issuing of licenses to American sealing vessels.
nominally transferred to Japanese register but actually in the employ
F S7
98
of and under the command of United States citizens. In this cor-
respondence no reference is made to the use of the Japanese flag by
Canadians.
In reply to the request on the part of the United States that the
Imperial Government take appropriate steps so that Japanese sub-
jects, in taking seals, may be required to observe the same regula-
tions imposed by the Paris award, the Minister for Foreign Affairs
called attention to the well-known attitude of his Government on
the subject and stated that—
"From the correspondence which has passed between your lega-
tion and this Department and between His Imperial Majesty's
legation in Washington and the Department of State in 1893 and
1894, as well as from the declarations made by the Japanese dele-
gates in the International Fur Seal Conference of 1897 in which the
United States, Russia, and Japan participated, it will be seen that
Japan has always expressed her readiness, under certain conditions,
to become a party to an international agreement or regulations for
the protection of the fur seals. The conditions which Japan deems
essential for the protection of her legitimate interests are already
known to your excellency's Government. An international agree-
ment on the basis of the mutual interests involved having unfortu-
nately not been arrived at, the Imperial Government find themselves
unable, in the absence of some reciprocal arrangement, to take leg-
islative measures to make the regulations imposed by the Paris
award of 1893 operative upon Japanese subjects and vessels. Nev-
ertheless, I am happy to assure your excellency that the Imperial.
Government will be prepared to consider favorably any scheme of
international character which will afford effectual protection to fur-
seal life in Bering Sea and the adjacent waters. (Inclosure in letter
of June 10, 1902, Mr. Buck to Mr. Hay.)
THE RUSSIAN SEALING INDUSTRY.
Russian seal rookeries.
The principal rookeries of the Russian herd are found on the Com-
mander Islands, consisting of Bering and Copper islands, and on
Robben Island, which is now a Japanese possession.
In 1871 the Russian Government leased the trading and sealing.
rights on these islands to the firm of Hutchinson, Kohl, Philippeus
& Co. for a period of twenty years on practically the same condi-
tions upon which the Alaskan Commercial Company leased the
Pribilof Islands from the United States. The majority of the mem-
bers of this firm were also members of a San Francisco firm which had
already acquired extensive property and trading rights in Alaska.
In order to obtain a lease from the Russian authorities it was neces-
sary to have at least one member of the firm Russian, and Mr. Phil-
ippeus, a Russian, was given a large interest in the firm for the use
99
of his name.
The Russian law was thus complied with and the
firm was nominally Russian, but practically American, and their
vessels were American property, and during the twenty-year period
of its lease this firm, with headquarters in San Francisco, managed
the seal fisheries on the Russian islands.
Upon the expiration of this lease in February, 1891, a new lease
was awarded to a Russian company, whose name officially rendered
in English was "The Russian Sealskin Company." This new lease
by its terms was to expire on February 19, 1901. (Fur Seal Inves-
tigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, pp. 15-190.)
In February, 1901, a new lease was made, the terms of which
have not been reported.
The United States consul at St. Petersburg in December, 1901,
reported that the "farming out" of the seal hunting on these islands.
was about to take place, and in this connection he inclosed a clip-
ping from the London Daily Mail (December, 1901) from which the
following is quoted:
"It is doubtful, however, whether the farming out of this Crown.
property will bring in the price it used to, since the enormous
destruction of the last ten years has terribly decreased the catch.
"The following figures issued by the governor of East Siberia
are significant:
"In 1890 the number caught on the Commander Islands was
54,591; in 1892 only 30,000 were caught; in 1894 only 25,000; in
1898 only 2,925; and in 1899 only 1,000.
'These figures show that the time is approaching when this
magnificently furred animal will be almost extinct in this region."
It does not appear on what authority these figures are based and
they can not be considered as reliable in view of the fact that at the
auction sales of seal skins in London in 1898 and 1899 over 9,000
skins were sold in each year as skins taken from the Russian islands.
The size of the Commander Islands herd at present or in the past
can not be accurately given. It is reported that the flatness of the
islands makes it practically impossible to count the seals on the rook-
eries, and no reliable census has been taken. The number has been
roughly arrived at, however, by assuming that its size each year
bears approximately the same relation to the number killed on the
islands annually as the Pribilof Islands herd bears to the number
killed there. On this basis the herd at its best, when 50,000 skins
were taken annually, was approximately half the size of the Pribi-
lof Islands herd when 100,000 skins were annually taken there.
There are certain differences in conditions, however, which make
any such comparison of doubtful value. This herd is practically
unprotected against pelagic sealers, for there is no close season and
100
no prohibition against the use of firearms, as in the Paris award
area, and the feeding grounds for this herd are beyond the area
now protected by the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1893. (Fur Seal
Investigations, 1896–97, pt. 4, pp. 112, 194, 221, 227, 231.)
The following table shows the number of fur-seal skins shipped
from the Commander Islands and Robben Island from 1871 to 1897,
inclusive:
Year.
Bering Copper Robben
Island. Island. Island.
Total.
1871
3,658
3,658
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876.
1877
1878...
1879
1880
14,392
14,964
29,356
13,044
14,661
2,694
30,399
13,406
15,480
2,414
31,300
12,712
20,440
3,127
36,279
10,358
15,074
1,528
26,960
7,192
II, 392
2,949
21,533
8,130
20,070
3,140
31,340
13,572
25,166
4,002
42,740
15,160
30,014
3,330
48,504
'1881
16,078 23,237
4,207
43,522
1882
18,512 22,002
4,106
44,620
1883
13,480
13,170
2,049
28,699
1884
21,384
28,060
3,819
53,263
1885
20,966
20,771
1,838
43,575
1886...
24,555
30,036
54,591
1887
21,298
25,049
46,347
1888...
1889
1890
26,456 20,906
47,362
23,783
29,076
52,859
19,996 32,328
1,456
53,780
1891
1892
1893..
189+
1895
1896
1897
Total.....
17,884
18,065
540
36,905
16,590
14,654
31,244
13,992
17,294
13,165
13, 122
I, 532
1,000
32,818
9,526
7,301
6,893
7,171
I, 300
269
27,287
17,719
14,741
5,026
6,309
214
IJ,549
397,958
499,062
45,514
942,534
NOTE. To this table should be added 2,568 skins taken from vessels seized within Russian terri-
torial waters in 1891 and 1892. The total number of skins, therefore, shipped from the Russian seal
islands from 1871 to 1897, inclusive, is 945, 102. The figures for 1897 are taken from Stejneger's Re-
port, Treasury Department publication, 1897.
As appears from the above statement the lessees refrained from
taking any skins on Robben Island during the years 1871, 1872,
1886 to 1889, inclusive, and 1892. This was largely due to the fact
that at intervals the rookeries on this island had been extensively
raided, and in order to save the herd it was necessary to altogether
suspend the killing on land.
The number of seals reported to have been killed illegally by the
raiders on Robben Island between 1878 and 1895 amounts to at
least 53,000 seals of both sexes. These figures are entirely apart.
from the number of seals taken by pelagic sealing. (Fur Seal In-
vestigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, pp. 127, 172.)
ΙΟΙ
The number of skins sold in London annually since 1897 as Cop-
per Island skins are reported in the sales reports of Lampson &
Co., through whom all sales were made, as follows:
1898......
1899....
1900...
1901..
1902
1903.
1904..
1905....
9,487
9, 786
قمر
13, 237
II, 298
7,733
7, 720
8,315
9, 000
Pelagic catch.
Russian subjects are prohibited by law from engaging in pelagic
sealing. Prior to 1891 Canadian and American vessels had visited
and raided the Russian seal islands from time to time, but no pelagic
sealing had regularly been done in those waters up to that time.
In 1891, however, the eastern part of Bering Sea was closed to
the American and Canadian sealers by the modus vivendi between the
United States and Great Britain, and in that year several and in the
following years a large number of the pelagic-sealing fleet visited
the Asiatic side of the Bering Sea and engaged in pelagic sealing
there. In 1895 the Japanese pelagic sealers first appeared in those.
waters.
In consequence of this invasion by the pelagic sealers an agree-
ment was entered into in May, 1893, between the Russian and Brit-
ish Governments prohibiting seal killing-
"within a zone of 10 marine miles on all the Russian coast of Ber-
ing Sea and the North Pacific Ocean, as well as within a zone of 30
marine miles around the Komandorsky Islands and Tulenew (Rob-
ben) Island."
The agreement also limited to 30,000 the number of seals which
might be killed annually on the Russian islands.
A similar agree-
ment was entered into the following year between the United States
and Russia. These agreements were extended from time to time,
the agreement with the United States being finally superseded by
the act of Congress approved December 29, 1897, prohibiting pelagic
sealing in those waters and the agreement with Great Britain being
still in force.
The catch in those waters from 1891 to 1897, inclusive, is stated
as follows in the Fur Seal Investigations, part 4, page 202 (see also
statistical tables prepared by the Treasury Department in 1897):
102
Russian catch.
Seals taken by vessels sailing from-
Year.
1891
1,816
6,616
1892
4,450
17,222
1893
604
12,052
1894
1,786
7,688
1895
766
6,281
1896
272
1,306
1897
1,382
1898*
50
1899*
699
1900*
Total.
Japan
United
States.
Canada. Japan. (foreign
flag).
8,432
21,672
12,656
9,474
1,087
8,134
3,084
650
2,865
50
699
208
208
I, 506
833
....
1901*
1902*
1903*
*
1904
1905*
Total.......
3,397
3,397
I, 340
I, 340
1,910
£,790
I,972
3,495
+ 9,749
+7,906
5,405
II,539
9,878
98,833
* Taken from consular reports and official returns from British Government.
+ Four thousand six hundred and fifty-four of these were taken in a raid on Robben Island.
Five thousand five hundred of these were taken in a raid on Copper Island.
SEALING INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN SEAS.
The sealing interests in South American waters and among the
islands in the Southern Seas have an important bearing on the
Alaskan fur-seal question and must necessarily be considered in
connection with any permanent settlement of that question.
In
The relation of these interests to that question is twofold.
the first place the South American countries which have within their
jurisdiction breeding grounds for the fur seal stand in relatively the
same position with reference to the sealing question generally that
Russia occupies. Their seals in recent years have been attacked in
the same manner as the Russian seals by the sealing vessels of the
Victoria Commercial Company, which now sends two or three ves-
sels annually to engage in pelagic sealing in southern waters. Con-
siderable success has attended this new departure by the sealers,
thereby contributing materially to the prosperity of the sealing
company. In 1903 a catch of 1,794 seals at Cape Horn enabled the
sealing company to pay an otherwise unearned dividend which was
the first and with one exception the only dividend ever declared by
that company.
In the second place, the citizens of the South American countries
are as much at liberty as the Japanese to engage in pelagic sealing
in Bering Sea and such sealing, if carried on there, would not be
subject to the restrictions of the Paris award regulations, which
103
apply only to the citizens and subjects respectively of the United
States and Great Britain. Moreover, the cooperation of the South
American countries is necessary to prevent the use of their flags as a
cover for sealing operations in Bering Sea by the citizens or subjects
of other countries.
Historical review.
The subject of the fur seals and sealing in the Southern Seas up
to the year 1892 is presented in affidavits and reports in the records
of the Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings at Paris, from which the fol-
lowing statement, showing briefly the situation, has been prepared:
At the beginning of the last century fur seals existed in great
numbers in southern waters. The principal rookeries were located
on small islands lying near the southern coasts of South America,
South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and in the Antarctic Seas.
Seal hunting in those localities was actively engaged in as early as
1780, and the method pursued was to raid the breeding grounds and
kill male and female seals indiscriminately. This process speedily
exhausted the different rookeries, and by the year 1830 it was re-
ported that all the known sealing grounds were so depleted that
new grounds must be discovered. The total number killed during
this period is not known, but it is stated that actual records show a
total of at least 16,000,000 skins. From that time on the only con-
stant sources of supply of any importance were the rookeries on the
Falkland Islands (until 1870), Lobos Island, and in the neighbor-
hood of the Cape of Good Hope, all of which had been taken under
governmental protection to some extent. The Australian grounds.
supplied a small number with some regularity, and casual hunters
occasionally made a killing on some of the old rookeries where a
remnant of the herd was left, and in later years pelagic sealing has
been carried on in the vicinity of Cape Horn.
The Governments which have established sealing regulations are
Uruguay, Argentine Republic, Chile, and the British colonies of
Falkland Islands, Cape of Good Hope, Victoria, New Zealand, and
Tasmania. The rookeries under the jurisdiction of Chile and the
Argentine Republic were not considered of any commercial impor-
tance in 1892. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 218; App., p.
393; vol. 3, PP. 540, 542; vol. 6, pp. 209–216, 221, 267, 290; vol. 8,
P. 902.)
Present conditions.
In November, 1902, the United States consul at Victoria, British
Columbia, reported that the Victoria Sealing Company, owning the
entire Canadian sealing fleet with the exception of three vessels,
104
was sending a number of schooners to hunt in southern waters dur-
ing the following season.
He says:
"For this purpose they are selecting their best schooners and
most trusted masters. Members of the Victoria Company now own
some of the vessels and are interested in others of those sailing
from Halifax for sealing in the South Atlantic. The sealing grounds
there comprise the coast of Chile, around Cape Horn, and the coast
of the Argentine Republic. The principal headquarters of the Vic-
toria sealers there will be at Port Stanley, in the Falkland Islands,
and at Montevideo."
On January 28, 1903, he further reported that there were ten or
twelve other small schooners, carrying flags of different nationali-
ties, engaged in pelagic sealing in that vicinity, and that the Cana-
dian schooners had been very successful in hunting off the rookeries
near Sandy Point, Chile, and the east coast of the Argentine Re-
public. From this it would appear that the seal herds located there
had thrived under the protection extended by these Governments to
the rookeries under their control. What the effect of the pelagic
sealing has been upon them has not yet been reported.
Lobos Island, situated at the mouth of La Plata and owned by
Uruguay, has yielded regularly an average of about 14,000 skins
annually for the past twenty years until 1903, when the Canadian
pelagic sealers began an attack on the herd. Since then the num-
ber taken on the island has been, in round numbers, about 11,000 in
1903, 8,000 in 1904, and 2,000 in 1905.
It is reported by the Canadian deputy minister of marine and
fisheries that in 1904 the Canadian sealing schooner Agnes G. Donahoe
had been seized at Montevideo by the authorities of the Uruguayan
Government for illegal sealing. (See also Foreign Relations, 1905,
pp. 912-918.) The seizure of a Chilean vessel there has been recently
reported in the public press.
The number of seals taken by Canadian sealers in southern
waters does not appear further than that in 1902 two vessels from
Victoria, the E. B. Marvin and the Florence M. Smith, took, respec-
tively, 2,474 and 3,321 skins, or 5,795 in all; the following year,
1903, the E. B. Marvin took 1,794 skins and in 1904 the same vessel
secured 2,349 skins there. It has further been reported in the pub-
lic press (Colonist, Victoria, March 8, 1906) that "the schooner
Enterprise was recently destroyed by fire at Rio do Sul," with her
catch on board, and that the schooner Beatrice L. Corkum, of Victoria,
had reported a good catch there.
It was subsequently reported by the United States consul at Vic-
toria, British Columbia (May 8, 1906), that the catches by Cana-
dian-owned vessels in South American waters during the season of
1905 were as follows:
105
Markland......
E. B. Marvin.........
Edith R. Balcom.
Baden Powell..
Beatrice L. Corkum...
Skins.
I, 025
I, 180
588
600
I, 278
The last three of these schooners sailed from Halifax, Nova
Scotia.
A table marked "E" is printed in the appendix at page 115, which
shows the number of fur-seal skins from all sources sold annually at
the London sales since 1871, and the localities from which they were
taken.
In March, 1906, the Department of State requested a report from
the United States consular representatives at the several South
American countries having local sealing interests, giving information
on the following points:
I
"(1) The number of fur seals annually frequenting, in recent.
years, the seal rookeries under the control of the respective govern-
ments and the location of seal rookeries.
"(2) The local laws for the protection of fur seals and regulating
the killing of seals on land and at sea.
(3) If the privilege of killing on land is leased by the govern-
ment, thè terms of such lease and the income, if any, derived by the
lessee and by the government.
"(4) The number of seals from the respective herds killed annu-
ally on land and at sea under governmental regulations or otherwise.
"(5) The nationality of pelagic sealers, if any, preying upon such
herd and the time and places of hunting.
"(6) The local commercial value of the sealing business and the
number of persons locally employed.
"(7) The market to which the skins are shipped."
In answer to this request reports have been made by the United
States consuls at Montevideo and at Stanley, Falkland Islands, which
reports are printed in the appendix and marked "F" and "G," at
pages 116 and 117.
}
1
APPENDIX.
107
1
APPENDIX.
“A.”
Complete list of British Columbia sealing vessels, 1898.
No.
Name.
Ton-
nage.
Age.
Present value
of vessel, in-
cluding an-
chors, chains,
spars, and
rigging.
Present value
of equipment,
additional,
required for
Bering Sea,
including
sails.
Total value
of vessel and
equipment.
I
Ada
97
18
$11,446.00
$4,559.00
$16.005.00
2
Ainoko....
76
7
8,968.00
3
Allie I. Alger.......
79
12
9,322.00
3,572.00
3,713.00
12,540.00
13,035.00
4
Amateur
19
6
2,242.00
893.00
3,135.00
5
Annie E. Paint.....
82
13
9,676.00
3,854.00
13,530.00
6
Arietis....
86
II
10, 148.00
4,042.00
14,190.00
7
Aurora
43
ΙΟ
5,074.00
2,021.00
7,095.00
8
Beatrice......
66
7
7,788.00
3, 102.00
10.890.00
9
Borealis....
48
7
5,664.00
2,256.00
ΙΟ
C. D. Rand...
67
7
7,906.00
3,149.00
любит
II
C. G. Cox *.
82
7
9,811.40
3,951.88
7,920.00
I1,055.00
13,763.28
12
13
Carrie C. W………..
City of San Diego.....
92
195
ΙΟ
10,856.00
4,324.00
15, 180.00
SI
17
6,018.00
2,397.00
8,415.00
14
Diana
54
9
6,372.00
2,538.00
8,910.00
15
Director....
87
8
10,266.00
4,089.00
14,355.00
16
Hatzic *
76
16
10,795.96
3,586.85
14,382.81
17
Dora Sieward.
98
7
II,564.00
4,606.00
16,170.00
18
Doris....
64
6
7,552.00
3,008.00
10,560.00
19
E. B. Marvin......
123
14
14,514.00
5,781.00
20,295.00
20
Enterprise *
74
6
II,644.71
3, 109.68
14,754.39
21
Favorite
80
30
9,440.00
3,760.00
13,200.00
22
Fawn
63
6
7,434.00
2,961.00
10,395.00
23
Fisher Maid..
22
5
2,596.00
1,034.00
3,630.00
24
F. M. Smith...
99
IO
II,682.00
4,653.00
16,335.00
25
Geneva
107
14
12,626.00
5,029.00
17,655.00
26
Ida Etta.....
73
4
8,614.00
3,431.00
12,045.00
27
Kate
58
36
6,844.00
2,726.00
9,570.00
28
Kilmeny..
18
5
2,124.00
846.00
2,970.00
29
Libbie...
93
9
10,974.00
4,371.00
15,345.00
30
Mary Ellen......
69
35
8,142.00
3,243.00
I1,385.00
3I
Mary Taylor..
43
23
5,074.00
2,021.00
7,095.00
32
Mascot....
40
23
4,720.00
1,880.co
6,600.00
33
Mermaid
85
35
10,030.00
3,995.00
14,025.00
34
Minnie ......
50
9
5,900.00
2,350.00
8,250.00
35
Mountain Chief..
27
21
3,186.00
I,269.00
36
Ocean Belle......
83
15
9,794.00
3,901.00
4,455.00
13,695.00
37
Oscar and Hattie....
85
14
10,030.00
3,995.00
38
Otto..........
86
9
10, 148.00
4,042.00
39
Ocean Rover*.
63
2
7,107.01
3,384.54
40
Pachewallis
22
4
2,596.00
1,034.00
14,025.00
14, 190.00
10,491.55
3,630.00
45
Penelope
42 Pioneer
87
15
10,266.00
...
70
II
8,260.00
4,089.00
3,290.00
14,355.00
II,550.00
109
IIO
Complete list of British Columbia sealing vessels, 1898—Continued.
No.
Name.
Ton-
nage.
Age.
Present value
of vessel, in-
cluding an-
chors, chains,
spars, and
rigging.
Present value
of equipment,
additional,
required for
Bering Sea,
including
sails.
Total value
of vessel and
equipment.
43
Sadie Turpel *.
61
6
$10,450.52
$2,633.30
$13,083.82
44
Saucy Lass.....
42
6
4,956.00
I,974.00
6,930.00
45
South Bend........
22
II
2,596.00
1,034.00
3,630.00
46
Teresa
70
15
8,260.00
3,290.00
II,550.00
47
Triumph
тоб
ΙΙ
12,508.00
4,982.00
17,490.00
48
Umbrina
99
IO
II,682.00
4,653.00
16,335.00
49
Venture
48
ΙΟ
5,664.00
2,256.00
50
Vera
67
II
7,906.00
3,149.00
5I
Victoria
68
6
8,024.00
3,196.00
52
Walter L. Rich.......
84
21
9,912.00
3,948.00
7,920.00
11,055.00
II, 220.00
53
Zilla May....
66
2
7,788.00
54
Viva......
93
13
10,974.00
3, 102.00
4,371.00
13,860.00
10,890.00
15,345.00
Total.........
3,713
445,935.60
174,445.25
620,380.85
The values of all the vessels in the above list, excepting the five marked with an
asterisk, thus *, viz, C. G. Cox, Hatzic, Enterprise, Ocean Rover, and Sadie Turpel,
are fixed and given on the basis of $165 per ton as the average value of pelagic
sealers and equipment without provisions or sea stores.
The division between the
value of the vessel per se and the equipment is made by Captain Cox. The above
sum of $620,380.85 is submitted as the present actual value of the sealing fleet and
equipments, but, as stated at the meeting of the Commissioners, a further sum is
claimed on behalf of the sealers, in respect of their being compulsorily deprived of
continuing their industry.
MEMORANDUM OF REFERENCES.
The estimate of the value of the pelagic fleet of the United States Census Bulle-
tin No. 123 (1891) places the value per ton, including outfit, at $160.54.
See also British estimate of the value of the fleet, supposed to be made up from
the report of the British Commissioner, Gleadowe, sent to British Columbia in
1892, to be found in United States version Bering 'Sea Papers, volume 8, pages
846-863.
See also vol. 8, id., p. 919.
III
No.
*
"B."
[Captain Thayer's report.]
British Columbia sealing fleet of 1898.
Name.
Tonnage. Age.
Value.
Approximate
value on basis
of $100 per ton
for new, with 5
per cent yearly
depreciation.
$2,910.00
I
2
Ada...
Ainoko.......
97
18
$1,500
75
7
4,500
4,875.00
3
Allie I. Alger.........
79
12
3,500
3,555.00
4
Arietis
86
ΙΙ
3,500
4,085.00
5
Beatrice
66
II
3,000
3,135.00
6
Carrie C. W….....
92
ΙΟ
4,000
4,600.00
7
C. D. Rand........
67
7
4,000
4,355.00
8
City of San Diego.......
51
17
I,500
1,637.50
9
Diana.....
54
9
3,000
2,970.00
ΙΟ
Director
87
8
5,000
5,220.00
I I
Dora Sieward......
98
7
6,000
6,370.00
12
Doris.........
64
13
Enterprise
74
10 10
6
4,000
4,480.00
6
5,000
5,180.00
14
Favorite
80
30
3,000
2,000.00
15
Geneva
107
14
3,500
4,280.00
16
Hatzic
76
16
2,500
2,660.00
17
Ida Etta.....
73
4
5,000
5,840.00
18
Libbie
93
9
5,000
5,115.00
19
Mary Ellen....
69
35
I,500
I,725.00
20
Mary Taylor.
43
23
2,000
I,075.00
21
Mermaid..
83
35
3,500
2,150.00
22
Minnie..
30
9
2,500
2,750.00
23
Ocean Belle......
87
15
4,000
3,262.50
24
Ocean Rover...
63
2
6,000
5,670.00
25
Otto
86
4,000
4,730.00
26
Penelope...
82
13
3,500
3,075.00
27
Saucy Lass....
42
6
3,000
2,940.00
28
Teresa
70
13
2,000
2,625.00
29
Umbrina....
113
ΙΟ
3,000
3,650.00
30
Victoria...………….
·
68
6
5,000
4,760.00
31
Viva.....
92
13
2,500
3,910.00
32
Walter L. Rich......
84
21
2,000
2,100.00
1
33
Zilla May......
66
2
5,500
5,940.00
Total.......
2,519
418
119,500
125,550.00
NOTE.-Pioneer sailed with the fleet. but had not returned at last
Average age of 33 vessels.........
Average price per ton per valuation...
Average price per ton per approximation....
Vessels.
Vessels sealing in 1898……………..
Vessels not sealing in 1898....
16 only of above....
Vessel not reported......
Total......
report.
•
years... 12 to 23
Num-
ber.
Tons. Value.
233
20
33
2,519 $119,500
1,138
$47.44
$49.88
Approximate
value on basis
of $100 per ton
for new,
with
5 per cent
depreciation.
$125,650
57,053
45,300
I
73
54
3.730
164,800
182,703
•
#
No.
II 2
Vessels that had been sealing previous to 1898, but not out that season.
Amateur
Name.
Tonnage. Age.
Value.
Approximate
value on basis
of $100 per ton
for new, with 5
per cent yearly
depreciation.
$1,330.00
I
19
6
2
Annie E. Paint.....
32
13
$3,000
3,485.00
3
Aurora....
43
ΙΟ
2,000
2,150.00
4
Borealis..
D
50
7
2,500
3,250.00
56
70
Carlotta G. Cox......
82
7
5,000
5,330.00
E. B. Marvin....
123
14
5,000
4,920.00
Fawn
63
5
3,500
4,410.00
8
Fisher Maid...
22
5
I,750.00
9
Florence M. Smith..
99
ΙΟ
5,000
4,950,00
ΙΟ
Kate
58
36
I,000
I,450.00
II
Kilmeny
18
5
800
I, 350.00
I 2
Mascot.....
40
23
740
I,000.00
13
Mountain Chief....
27
17
877.50
14
Oscar and Hattie.....
86
14
3,000
3,440.00
IS
Pachewallis....
22
4
1,760.00
16
Sadie Turpel..
бл
6
3,000
4,270.00
17
South Bend.....
22
17
750
715.00
18
Triumph
тоб
II
4,500
5,035.00
19
Venture....
48
IO
2,500
2,400.00
20
Vera..
67
II
3,000
3,182.50
Total.....
1,138
232
45,300
57,055.00
Average age of zo vessels......
Valuation per ton of 16 vessels, 1,138-90-1,048 tons
Estimated valuation per ton of 20 vessels, 1,138 tons……………….
years...
IITO
$43.23
6
51.36
The Fawn and Oscar and Hattie have had sealing accommodations removed and have been
fitted with berths, evidently for Klondike passengers.
ESTIMATE OF SEALING OUTFIT FOR FLEET OF 1898-33 VESSELS.
Ballast for 33 vessels, at $50 each.........
Chronometers for 33 vessels, at $100 each...
Barometers, marine glasses, charts, etc., at $50 each.
Extra galley for 30 vessels with Indian hunters...
Medicine chests, at $20 each....
Signal guns, at $60 each....
$1,650
3, 300
I, 650
I, 500
660
I, 980
Knives and tools, at $25 each...
Flooring, ballast, and building extra accommodations, including
825
salt room, etc., 33 at $250 each.......
8, 250
Tankage, extra average 2,000 gallons per vessel (one-half wood at 5
cents, 33,000 gallons; one-half iron at 10 cents, 33,000 gallons)... 4,950
Sundry equipments of galley and cabin, spears, gaffs, and small
gear, etc., 33 vessels at $130 each.....
4,950
$29, 715
Boat outfits:
Whole number of boats at sea..
84
One on each vessel valued with hull..
Leaving for sealing outfit......
33
SI
51 boats, with masts and sails, oars, rowlocks, water breakers, etc.,
at $110 each………………….
5, 610
Ammunition boxes for 84 boats and 324 canoes..
Compasses and fog horns for 84 boats and 324 canoes
Guns (2 for each boat, I for each canoe, and 50 spare), 544 at $50... 27, 200
Brass shells (100 each gun), 54,400 at 5 cents...
...
615
2,030
2, 720
38, 195
Above outfit for 33 vessels of total gross tonnage of 2,519 tons........
Average cost of outfit per ton...
67,910
26.95
113
No.
Name.
"C."
Canadian sealing fleet, 1898-1905.
Sealing voyages, 1898-1905.
Tonnage.
Year
built.
1898.
1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
1905.
Total
voyages.
Vessels of Victoria Sealing Company.
I
Ainoko
76
1887
X X
X X
X
2
Allie I. Alger...
79
1886 X
X
X
X
3
Annie E. Paint..
82
1885
X
X
X
XX
XX
XX
6
7
5.
4
Arietis......
86
1887 X X
X
X X
5
5
Aurora...
43
1887
X
X
X
6
Beatrice....
66
1891 X
X
X
7
Borealis ....
48
1891?
X
X
8
Casca
67
9
C. D. Rand *.
67 1891
X
ΙΟ
C. G. Cox......
82
1891?
X
X
II
Carrie C. W……...
92
1888
X
X
12
City of San Diego.
51
1881 X
X
X X
13
Diana
54
1890
X
X
X X
14
Director.....
87
1890 X
X
15
Dora Siewerd......
98
1891
X X
X X
16
E. B. Marvin...
123
1894
X
X
X X X X X X X X
XXX X X X X X X
3
5
4
Χ
4
X
5
X
6
X
7
8
8
00 00
Χ
X
X
X
7∞
8
X
X
5
17
Favorite.....
80 1868 X
X
X
X
5
13
Fawn +.....
63 1892?
X
19
Florence M. Smith....
99
1888?
X
X
XX
2
X
20
Geneva.......
107
1884 X
21
Ida Etta....
73
1884
X
22
Hatzic‡.
76
X
23
Libbie.....
93
1894
X
24
Mary Taylor.....
43
1875
X
25
Mermaid §.....
85 1853 X
26
Ocean Belie......
83
1883
Χ
27
Ocean Rover........
63 1896 Χ
XX
X X X X X X X
X
X
X
15 50
6
X
Χ
Χ
X
X X
XXX
X X
X
X
7
X X
X
8
5 2
5
XX
X X
5
X
X
4
28
Oscar and Hattie...
85
1884?
X
Otto....
29
86
1889 X
30
Penelope..
87
1882
X
沁沁
​X
X
31
Sadie Turple.........
61
1892?
32
Saucy Lass.......
42 1892
X
33
Teresa
70
X
1883
X
34
Triumph *
35
Vera
36
Victoria
a
тоб
67 1887?
68 1892 Χ
1887
37
Viva...
93 1885
38
Walter L. Rich....
84
1877
39
Zilla May...
66 1896
40
Ada
97
1880
X
4I
Doris........
64 1895
X
42
Mary Ellen.......
69 1863
X
× × × ×
X X X X × × ×
X
Χ
XXXXXXXXXXX
X
XXXX
3
X
7
Χ
7
Χ
5
4
X X X X X
X
XXX
XXXX
X
7
5
X
6
X
8
4
X
X Χ X X X
X X
3 co
8
I
I
I
43
Mascot
40
1875?
44
Venture
48
1888?
Vessels of outside ownership.
45
Enterprise.........
74 1892
X
X X X X
X
6
46
Jessie..........
47
Umbrina
60
99
X
I
1887 X X
X
X
X
X
X X
8
* Lost, 1904.
+ Lost, 1905.
F S8
+ Lost, 1903.
$ Sold.
114
"D."
Seal island and pelagic catch and average price per skin, with revenue to Government
from tax on seal skins, from 1870 to 1905, inclusive.
Pribilof Island
catch.
Pelagic catch.
Year.
Skins.
Average
price.*
Skins.t
Average
price.*
Revenue to
Govern-
ment de-
rived.‡
1870
8,686
$101,080.00
1871
102,960
$10.50
16,911
$2.40
322,863.38
1872
108,819
II.20
5,336
2.40
307,181.12
1873
109, 177
13.00
5,229
327,081.25
1874
110,585
13.10
5,873
8.50
317,494.75
1875
106,460
12.75
5,033
9.00
317,584.00
1876
94,657
8.75
5,515
5.25
291, 155.50
1877
84,310
9.75
5,210
253,255.75
1878
109,323
9.80
5,544
317,447.50
1879
110,411
21.20
8,557
13.00
317,400.25
1880
105,718
22.25
8,718
14.00
317,594.50
1881
105,063
19.75 10,382
7.80
316,885.75
1882
99,812
13.60 15,551
5.10
1883
79,509
20.20 16,557
6.30
317,295.25
251,875.00
1884
105,434
1885
105,024
12.75
14.20
16,971
6.75
317,400.25
23,040
6.50
317,489.50
1886
104,521
17.10 28,494
7.00
317,452.75
1887
105,760
14.00 30,628
7.70
317,500.00
1888 ...
103,304
19.50 26,189
7.80
317,500.00
1889
102,617
17.00 29,858
9.75
317,500.00
1890
28,059
36.50 40,814
15.25
214,673.88
1891
12,040
30.00 59,568
15.75
46,749.23
1892
7,511
30.00 46,642
17.00
23,972.60
1893
7,396
1894
16,270
27.00 30,812
20.50 61,838
12.50 96,159.82
163,916.97
1895
14,846
20.25
56,291
1896
30,654
17.00
43,917
8.75
IO.25 153,375.00
8.00 306,750.00
1897
19,200
15.50
24,321
6.50
212,332.35
1898
$18,032
16.00
28,142
6.50
184,377.20
1899
|| 17, 189
26.00
34,645
10.25
224,476.47
1900
22, 114
32.00
35,315
16.00
229,755.75
1901
23,291
34.00
18,895
15.25
231,821.20
1902
22,346
32.50
II,472
19.25 286,133.40
1903
20,126
29.50
12,791
18.50
197,260.70
1904
11,726
37.00
12,922
19.25 134,233.80
1905
¶ 13,853
37.00
12,205
27.35 146,912.80
*The average prices obtained in London for skins are taken from Report of Hearings before
Ways and Means Committee, March 9 and 10, 1904.
+ Figures of pelagic catch are taken from vol. 1, Report of Fur Seal Investigations, page 222, with
the exception of those for the years 1898 to 1905, both inclusive, which are taken from the official
British returns. They do not agree with the report of the London Trade Sales, which shows a larger
number of skins.
Statement of revenue derived taken from official records in Treasury Department.
§ The skins taken this year were not given in agent's report. The number here given is the com-
pany's quota actually shipped.
The number killed in 1899 was taken from a letter from the Department of Commerce and
Labor to the State Department, dated January 14, 1905.
The number given is exclusive of the fall killing for 1905, which can not be ascertained until
1906.
The foregoing table is Exhibit A, inclosed in the letter of January 7, 1906, from
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State.
115
“E."
Statement showing number of skins sold annually by Lampson & Co. at the London sales,
and the localities from which they were taken.
[Prepared from the sales lists of Lampson & Co., March 14, 1906.]
Year.
Alaska.
Copper Northwest
Island.
coast.
Lobos
Island.
Cape Horn.
Cape of
Good Hope.
Falkland
Islands.
Skins.
Skins.
Skins.
Skins.
Skins.
Skins.
Skins.
1871
104,899
1872
96,283
1,729
1873
103,724
40
1874
99, 150
30,349
5,071
1875...
99,634
34,479
2,224
1876.....
90,276
33,198
3, 104
II,353
1877.
75,410
25,380
772
13,066
1878,
99,911
18,686
2,698
12,301
1879.
100,036
28,215
14,609
12,295
1880....
100, 161
38,900
13,501
14,865
1881
99,921
45,209
15,887
13,569
1882....
100, 100
39,311
22,886
13,200
1883....
75,914
36,480
8,704
12,422
1884
1885...
99,994
26,675
19,357
14,580
....
99,874
48,929
10,148
10,862
1886......
99.947
41,750
49,079
15,049
2,171
1887
99,949
54,584
39,419
14,831
2,867
1888...
100,037
46,296
30,285
17,774
4,662
1889.
100,031
47,411
39,884
13,205
3,812
1890...
25,152
52,765
47,467
14,241
3,627
2,306
456
1891.
13,494
90,427
63,733
13,634
4,389
3,304
1892....
7,554
31,380
72,973
12, 202
6,386
1,969
1893
7,500
32,832
106,368
13,624
2,131
I, 141
1894
16,030
27,298
135,686
12, 145
62
1,528
1895
...
15,002
17,721
102,460
12,017
1,888
1,059
1896....
30,004
14,415
71,033.
19,172
2,510
2,767
1897
20,762
13,727
40,280
15,926
3,45I
312
1898
18,032
9,487
31,407
14,422
4,204
136
1899...
16,804
9,786
42,857
14,918
6,908
651
1900
21,924
13,237
44,379
15,116
8,765
I, 131
1901
22,672
II,298
31,476
12,831
II,329
1,538
!
1902.....
22,306
7,733
26,480
16,376
16,063
1,282
1903
19,378
7,720
26,511
IO,994
28,785
4,827
1904.
13,128
8,315
30,207
8,349
22,495
7,803
732
1905..
14,368
9,000
25,319
2,025
II,074
2,654
130
NOTE. The comparative value of the skins from these several sources is stated to be, first, the
Pribilof Islands skins, known in the trade as Alaskan; next, the Copper Island skins, which include
all the Russian islands supply; then the Northwest coast catch, which by trade custom comprises all
the pelagic catch in the North Pacific and Bering Sea; after that the Lobos Island skins, followed by
those from Cape Horn, and last of all 'the Cape of Good Hope skins. Those technically known as
South Sea skins are rare and valuable.
116
C
"F."
Report on Seals and sealing in Uruguay."
[Transmitted by United States consul at Montevideo, John W. O'Hara, May 16, 1906.]
It is definitely known that both hair and fur seals have been taken along the
coast of Uruguay for more than fifty years, but the local people have taken but
little interest in the industry, and I am informed that no calculation has ever been
made as to the number of fur seals annually frequenting the seal rookeries under
the control of the Government of Uruguay.
The seal rookeries are chiefly located on the islands of Lobos and Balano and
along the eastern coast of Uruguay, the principal rookeries being situated upon the
first-named island. These rookeries are frequented by both the fur seals and
the hair seals, but chiefly by the latter.
There is no statutory law in this country for the protection of seals or to regu-
late sealing. The Government has merely issued an order prohibiting the taking
of seals along the coasts of the country or upon or near the islands adjacent thereto,
except by the lessees having concessions from the Government.
The privilege of killing seals upon the mainland or in the waters or islands
adjacent is leased by the Government to the highest bidder at public auction, and
is granted for a period of eight years. Under the present contract the Government
receives an annual sum of $46,300 as rent for the concession, and there is, in addi-
tion to this amount, a duty of 19 cents levied by the Government upon each skin
exported, and an additional amount of 40 cents upon each seal taken-a municipal
tax levied by the Departments of Maldonado ånd Rocha, the Departments adjacent
to which the seals are taken, and to which the islands belong.
The number of seals taken within the past ten years is as follows:
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1004
Pelagic sealers.......
1905
Total......
Year.
Fur seals. Hair seals.
21,824
2,341
16,324
2,967
15,265
2,432
14,бог
3,035
14,865
3,964
12,938
3,330
16,386
4,781
11,084
2,744
8,336
2,544
9,000
3,019
2,635
143,632
30,773
Until a little more than a year ago no complaint had ever been made of pelagic
sealers, but since that time two vessels in particular have been taken, charged with
taking seals from the rookeries of Uruguay without authority. The first was the
Agnes G. Donahoe, a Canadian vessel, and the second the Emma, a Chilean. Both
were captured, brought into port, and held for some time, the Emma being still in
custody. It was claimed by the captured sealers that they had taken their seals on
the high seas, and as the Uruguayan Government had no definite penalty prescribed
for the punishment of pelagic sealers the Agnes G. Donahoe was released. It is
complained by the concessionnaires that they have been particularly damaged by
the pelagic sealers because the seals alleged to have been illegally taken were killed
during the breeding season, and that therefore a permanent injury was inflicted.
117
The killing season extends, according to the Government concessions, from the 15th
of May until the 15th of October of each year. The concessionnaires got but 3,019
fur seals during the year 1905, on account of the raids that they claim were made
by the pelagic sealers, from whom were captured 9,000 fur seals, found on board
their vessels.
The hair-seal skins have a very small value and are usually sold locally at
something less than a dollar each. The fur-seal skins are all exported, there being
no local market in this country for them. The lessees employ about fifty hands.
during the killing season. These men are transferred to the various islands and
have their homes on the mainland in the vicinity of the rookeries. No one except
those actually employed is permitted by the Government even to visit or approach
the islands either in sealing season or at any other time.
This is one of the stipu-
lations of the concession,
The seal skins in the past have all been shipped to the English market, and are
similar in quality to those taken in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands.
The com-
pany at present holding the exclusive right to the seals in Uruguayan waters is the
"Uruguay Lobos Fishing Company (Limited)," of 102 Victoria street, Westminster,
London.
The Government now has under consideration a bill recently introduced for a
law for the protection of the seal fisheries and providing a punishment for pelagic
sealing. The necessity for this law was made apparent in the litigation that fol-
lowed the capture of the Canadian vessel, the Agnes G. Donahoe.
Report on
"G."
Sealing at Falkland Islands."
[Extract from letter of August no, 1906, from H. E. W. Grant, Colonial Secretary, to J. E. Rowen,
United States consul at Stanley, Falkland Islands.]
With regard to the sealing interests, I am to inform you that there are only
four small fur-seal rookeries in the colony, and that the number of seal skins
exported in 1905 was 151. The number allowed to be caught is strictly limited.
There are several rookeries of hair seal, but practically no hair skins are exported.
There appears to be no present market for this article in England.
No fur-seal skins were imported in 1905 for the purpose of transshipment or
exportation, owing to the duty of 10 shillings on each skin. The duty was reduced
in May last to I shilling.
I am to inclose for your information a copy of the Seal Fishery Ordinance, 1899.
:
·
J
}
1


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 02267 6723