93 



trade, growing out of the ownersliip of the seal islands by the United 

 (States, can be counteracted. 



The commercial attitude of the United States towards the supply of 

 the markets of the world with the pelts of the fur-seal, is the same 

 that all countries hold in respect of any valuable commodity that is a 

 l)eculiar product of the soil or climate. The incentive of commercial 

 interchange, the necessities of the consumers, and the laws of supply 

 and demand are simply left to regulate the outflow of such productions 

 into the open channels of commerce. 



If the United States, alone, produced fur seals, the Constitution of 

 that Government, which prohibits all duties on exports, aflbrds a 

 guaranty that no other nation has given against the possibility of a 

 monopoly in the pelts of that animal. 



But Eussia and Japan yet remain as active competitors in this and 

 other branches of the fur trade, and their care of this industry and the 

 distance of their sealing islands from the coasts of Canada and of the 

 United States and the difficulties of navigation in their seas are likely 

 to i)reserve a large proportion of their seal herds from destruction for 

 many years to come. Many peltries will be thus supplied to commerce, 

 in comi)etition with those that are taken by the United States. 



If the regulations of seal hunting, that are found necessary by this 

 tribunal to i^reserve the si)ecies, are adopted by those Powers along 

 whose coasts and islands the fur-seal formerly abounded, the number 

 of these animals will again increase in the southern hemisj)here until 

 the world will have, again, an abundant supply. 



The course of the United States in reference to the care and nurture 

 of seal life is directly opposed to the engrossment of this product in 

 the way of monopoly. On the contrary, that Covernment has shown 

 its anxiety to preserve and increase the stock by its regulation of kill- 

 ing on land, by forbearing, during three seasons, from taking seals in 

 excess of 7,500 which were reserved for the support of the natives, and 

 by reducing the number of seals that the lessees were entitled to kill 

 from 100,000 to 00,000 per annum, at the possible risk of i^ecuuiary lia- 

 bility to the lessees. 



Besides this, the expense of agents and superintendents of the islands 

 and of guarding them from the raids of poachers, is very considerable. 



It is difficult to conceive that a government could have done more, or 

 could have acted in better faith towards other powers, in a matter where 

 there is an acknowledged public trust arising from its possession of the 

 seal islands. 



