THE BERING SEA CONTROVERSY. 655 



Nor does Dr. Mendenhall leave his meaning obscure in this regard. 

 He says, " It is difficult to see what good will come from further dis- 

 cussions, investigations, or declarations " ; and his conclusion is, " It 

 will be impossible to know absolutely which group of scientific experts 

 (American or British) was right in regard to pelagic sealing," this 

 last subject being the rock on which the commission of 1892 split. 



It is not necessary here to go into the details of this first commis- 

 sion. These are given in Dr. Mendenhall's article. Two things only 

 are essential to bring this meeting into contrast with the one of 1897. 

 These are the instructions under which it was organized and its final 

 report. Both are brief. The first is comprehended in the following 

 statement, quoted from the Treaty of Arbitration of 1892: " Each 

 Government shall appoint two commissioners to investigate conjoint- 

 ly with the commissioners of the other Government all facts having 

 relation to seal life in Bering Sea, and the necessary measures for its 

 protection and preservation." 



The commissioners duly visited the fur-seal islands in Bering Sea, 

 made their investigations, and were called together at Washington 

 to deliberate upon the results obtained, and to prepare a joint report 

 for the guidance of the Tribunal of Arbitration then about to con- 

 vene at Paris. "With Dr. Mendenhall was associated, on behalf of 

 the United States, Dr. C. Hart Merriam. Great Britain was repre- 

 sented by Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. George M. Dawson. 

 The commission began its labors on the 8th of February, and com- 

 pleted them on the 4th of March following. Its final report, shorn 

 of verbiage, consists of the following colorless statement : " We find 

 that since the Alaska purchase a marked diminution in the numbers 

 of the seals on and habitually resorting to the Pribilof Islands has 

 taken place; that it is cumulative in effect, and that it is the result of 

 excessive killing by man." One half of the work set for the com- 

 mission — namely, measures for protection — was left wholly un- 

 touched. 



In view of this meager and unsatisfactory result, it is perhaps 

 not to be wondered at that Dr. Mendenhall should grow skeptical of 

 the value of expert scientific evidence. But had he sought a cause 

 of the failure of 1892 he might easily have found one more rational 

 than the alleged " handsome retainer," or other " incentive." 



It is manifestly true that the man of science can legitimately 

 appear as an " expert " only when his evidence is desired on some 

 line along which he has done work. An invertebrate morphologist 

 is not an expert in electricity; nor a physicist in the habits of pinni- 

 peds. One only of the four gentlemen, called upon in 1892 with- 

 out their own consent to act as experts, had even a passing knowledge 

 of the life history of marine mammals. Dr. Mendenhall was a 



