32 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



This correspondence was followed by further diplomatic communica- 

 tions looking to the establishment of regulations designed to restrict 

 pelagic sealing; and on the 22d of May, 1890, the Marquis of Salis- 

 bury addressed a note to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in the nature of an 

 answer to the note last above mentioned from Mr. Blaine, and it ap- 

 pears from this, very clearly, that he did not misunderstand the posi- 

 tions taken by Mr. Blaine. He thus expresses himself : 



Mr. Blaine's note defends the acts complained of by Her Majesty's 

 Government on the following ground: 



1. That "the Canadian vessels arrested and detained in the Behring 

 Sea were engaged in a pursuit that is in itself contra bonos mores — a 

 pursuit which of necessity involves a serious and permanent injury to 

 the rights of the Government and people of the United States". 



2. That the fisheries had been in the undisturbed possession and 

 under the exclusive control of Russia from their discovery until the 

 cession of Alaska to the United States in 1867, and that from this date 

 onwards until 1886 they had also remained in the undisturbed posses- 

 sion of the United States Government. 



3. That it is a fact now held beyond denial or doubt that the taking 

 of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to the extinction of the species, 

 and that therefore nations not possessing the territory upon which seals 

 can increase their numbers by natural growth should refrain from 

 the slaughter of them in the open sea. 



Lord Salisbury, in this note, insists that whatever may be the value 

 of the industry to the United States, they would not be authorized in 

 preventing by force the practice of pelagic sealing; but he does not 

 choose to enter into any discussion of the question whether the indis- 

 criminate slaughter of seals manifestly tending to the extermination of 

 the species could be justified. His lordship, however, in answer to the 

 alleged exclusive monopoly of Bussia in the fur-seal industry, referred 

 to the Russian nkase of 1821, as if Mr. Blaine had insisted upon claims 

 similar to those advanced in that document, and quoted some lan- 

 guage from a communication of Mr. John Quincy Adams, when Secre- 

 ary of State, to theUnited States minister in Russia, contesting the 

 pretension set up in the nkase. 1 



Meanwhile further diplomatic communications were - taking place in 

 relation to the establishment of restrictions designed to limit the prac- 

 tice of pelagic sealing and prevent, in some measure at least, its de- 

 structive operation; and it would seem that these efforts had been 

 nearly successful, and would have been entirely consummated, but for 

 objections interposed on the part of Canada. 2 



1 Case of the United States, Appexdix, Vol. I, p. 207. 

 •Case of the United States, Appendix, Vol. I, pp. 212-224. 



