48 



appeared like an assertion of the marc dauswn doctrine, wliich I coald 

 hardly believe would be revived at the present day by his (loverument 

 or any other, to which he replied that his Government had not officially 

 asserted such a claim, and therefore it was nunecessary to discuss it. 

 As a matter of fact there had been no interference with any Canadian 

 vessels in Bering Sea except such as were found engaged in the capture 

 and destruction of fur seals. But his Government chiimed the exclusive 

 right of seal fishery, which the United States, and Eussia before them, 

 had practically enjoyed for generations without any attempt at interfer- 

 ence from any other country. Tlie fur seal was a species most valuable 

 to mankind and the Bering Sea was its last stronghold. The United 

 States had bought the islands in that sea to which these creatures 

 ])eriodically resort to lay their young, and now Canadian fishermen 

 step in and slaughter the seals on their passage to the islands, without 

 taking heed of the Avarnings given, by Canadian officials themselves, 

 that the result must inevitably be the extermination of the species. 

 This was an abuse, not only reprehensible in itself, and opposed to the 

 interests of mankind, but an infraction of the rights of the United 

 States. It inflicted, moreover, a serious injury on a neighboring and 

 friendly State, by depriving it of the fruits of an industry on which vast 

 sums of money had been expended, and which had long been pursued 

 exclusively and for the general benefit. The case was so strong as to 

 necessitate measures of self-defense for the vindication of the rights ot 

 the United States and the i)rotection of this valuable fishery from des- 

 truction. I replied that as regarded the question of right I could not 

 admit that the seizure of the Can;idian vessels was justified under the 

 terms of the act of Congress or of the proclamation of the President. 

 Municipal legislation could have no operation against foreign vessels be- 

 yond territorial waters. A claim of exclusive fishery on the high seas 

 was opposed to international law, and no such right could be acquiied 

 by prescription. Mr. Blaine observed that he thought Great Britain 

 enjoyed such a right in relation to pearl fisheries in some parts of the 

 world. I said I was not aware of any such case. As regarded the 

 question of fact, namely, the extermination of the fur seal species and 

 the necessity for a ' close season,' there was unfortunately a conflict of 

 opinion. But if, uj)on a further and more complete examination of the 

 evidence, Her Majesty's Government should come to the conclusion 

 that a 'close season' is really necessary, and if an agreement should be 

 arrived at on the subject, all ditferences on questions of legal right 



