74 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and use his experience and skill to convince others that the assump- 

 tion is sound; he must also be able to discredit and put to shame 

 another scientific expert who is doing the same thing for the other 

 side. This is not an overstrong statement as applied to the greater 

 portion of modern scientific expert work as utilized in legal contro- 

 versy. Generally one and often both sides in such a controversy 

 will hope to avoid a full exposition of fact or a clear presentation of 

 the whole truth; and just as the able lawyer receives emoluments 

 far beyond those of the abler judge, the expert witness who can 

 prove his case is made much more comfortable in this world than 

 one who sees all sides and no side, but only the truth. Men of sci- 

 ence must not be held entirely responsible for this condition of 

 things, however, for they have long and strenuously urged a change 

 in the system to which it is due. Nor must it be assumed that any 

 special moral obliquity exists in such cases, for always and every- 

 where judgment is unconsciously influenced by personal interests. 



It has not often happened that men trained to scientific methods 

 of investigation and modes of thought have been called upon, on 

 that account, to take part in diplomatic negotiations. Indeed, there 

 is at first blush something ill-fitting about such an arrangement, for 

 the word " diplomacy " in theory and in practice, as well as in the 

 dictionary, stands for a certain " dexterity or skill in securing ad- 

 vantages," for which there is no real use in science. 



The dispute with Great Britain over the Alaskan seal herd has 

 given opportunity for the utilization of scientific training and expert 

 knowledge in the determination of the fundamental facts and condi- 

 tions upon which the whole question should turn. The conclusions 

 regarding these facts and conditions which have been reached by 

 the several investigating commissions appointed by the two great 

 powers involved are so different and so directly opposed to each 

 other that a review of the work of one of them ought to be of general 

 as well as special interest. 



For this purpose it is not necessary to present a historical narra- 

 tive of the origin and growth of the sealing industry at the Pribilof 

 Islands under the direction first of Russia, and since 1867 of the 

 United States; nor to trace the beginnings of the international dis- 

 pute concerning the right to control the taking of seals from the 

 water, either in Bering Sea or in the North Pacific Ocean. It is 

 well known that after the Executive of the United States Govern- 

 ment, supported by Congress, had for several years assumed the 

 right to prevent pelagic sealing in Bering Sea, vigorous protest was 

 made by Great Britain, and that there resulted the agreement upon 

 the modus vivendi of 1891, and the concurrence on the part of the 

 United States in the proposal of the British Government for " a 



