292 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



ian of lonoitiide 173° west, the killing of fur bearing animals, amongst ■which the 

 seal is included, is prohibited by law; that repeated warnings to this effect have 

 been given by the United States authorities, and that vessels both of Canada, and 

 the United States have within the past two years been seized and condemned for 

 killing seals within these waters. It also appears that in the Ishmds of St. George 

 and St. Paul during the mouths of June, .July, September and October of each year, 

 the United States Government allows theslaugliter of seals to the number of 100,000 

 by certain citizens of that country known as the Alaska Commercial Company, for 

 which monopoly the United States Government is paid a yearly revenue of more than 

 300,000 dollars. At no season of tlie year, and to no other persons whatever, is it 

 permitted to kill a single seal within what is claimed as the limits of the Territory 

 of Alaska. It is evident, therefore, that there is no part of the year when citizens 

 of any country, with the sole exception of the Alaska Commercial Company, can 

 legitimately kill seals within the limits named; and when Mr. Phelps stated to Lord 

 Salisbury tluit "no attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States 

 to stop the tishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate" his state- 

 ment should be read in conjunction with the fact that there is no period of the year 

 when it is legitimate for any vessels to fish for seals in the waters of Alaska? 



And then, after citing some other things to show the killing on the 

 Islands, it proceeds to say : 



The time proposed as close months deserves consideration, viz., from the 15th April 

 to the 1st November. For all practical purposes, so far as Canadian Sealers are con- 

 cerned, it might as well read from the 1st .January to the 3lst December. 



And then it explains the reason, and says: 



But the United States Government propose to allow seals to be killed by their 

 own citizens on the rookeries, the only ])laces where they haul out in Alaska, during 

 June, July, September, and October, four of the months of the proposed close sea- 

 son. The result would be that while all others would be prevented from killing a 

 seal in Behring's Sea, the United States would jjossess a complete monopoly, and the 

 effect would be to render infinitely more valuable and maintain in perjietuity the 

 seal fisheries of the North Pacific for the sole benefit of the United States. 



It is to be noted that tbe area proposed by Mr. Bayard to be affected by the close 

 season virtually covers the whole portion of the Behring's Sea in which the exclu- 

 sive right of sealing has, during 1886 and 1887, been x^ractically maintained by the 

 United States Government. 



To this is added a pan of the North Pacific Ocean, north of 50° of north latitude, 

 and which commands tbe approach of the seals to the passes leading into Behring's 

 Sea. By the adoption of this area and close season the United States would gain, 

 by consent, what she has for two years held in defiance of international law and the 

 protests of Great Britain and Canada. 



And while this area Avould be held closed to all operations except to those of her 

 own sealers on the Pribilof Islands, the north-west coast of North America up to the 

 50th parallel of north latitude and the sealing areas on the north-eastern coast of 

 Asia would be open to her as before. 



Then: 



It is to be borne in mind that Canada's interest in this industry is a vital and 

 important one, that she lias had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it, 

 and that while l)y the proposed plan the other Powers chiefly interested have their 

 compensations Canada has none. To her it would mean ruin so far as the sealing 

 industry is concerned. 



Upon that, of course, when received by England any idea of accepting 

 that proposal was rejected. 



Now I ask again is there any i-eason why the United States should 

 find iault with the course Canada took? Is there not ou the contrary 

 every reason to say that Canada rather deserves their thanks, because, 

 if that proposal had been made with knowledge of the facts, could it 

 have been termed a fair proposal? If they had said to England, or 

 l)roposed to England, instead of putting it in that form, what it really 

 and inevitably means, — " Let us settle this matter amicably by pro- 

 viding that you shall never seal in Bebring Sea at all", — the proposal 

 would liave been a mockery. That is all tlint Cnnada did and pointed 

 out. It is for this that Canada seems to be blamed as she has been; 



