PROrERTY IN THE ALASKAN SEAL HERD. 73 



These gentlemen were, some of them at least, men eminent 

 in the world of science, and acknowledged experts upon the 

 subject committed to them for examination. The language of the 

 treaty simply called for their opinions and advice upon a question 

 mainly scientific. What was the reason which prevented them from 

 coming to an agreement? Was it that the question was a difficult and 

 doubtful one upon which men of science might well differ 1 ? It would 

 seem not. It is described in the joint report as being " considerable 

 difference of opinion on certain fundamental propositions." What it 

 really was appears from the separate Report of the Commissioners of 

 the United States. 1 They conceived, as is therein stated by them, that 

 the only subject which they were to consider was the facts relating to 

 seal life in the Bering Sea, and what measures were necessary to 

 secures its preservation. If there were any question of property, or 

 international right, or political expediency, involved, it was, presumably, 

 to be determined by others. They had no qualifications for such a task, 

 and were not called upon to perform it. But the Commissioners of 

 Great Britain took a different view. In that view the question of 

 the respective national rights of Great Britain and the United States 

 was one of "fundamental importance," and no measures were entitled 

 to consideration which denied or ignored the supposed right of subjects 

 of Great Britain to carry on pelagic sealing. Their understanding of 

 the question upon which they were to give an opinion was not simply 

 what measures were necessary to preserve the seals fro m extermination 

 but what were the measures most effective to that end which could be 

 devised consistently with a supposed right on the part of nations generally 

 to carry on pelagic sealing. It is not surprising that no agreement could 

 be reached. There was a radical difference of opinion between the Com- 

 missioners in respect to their functions. According to the views of the 

 United States Commissioners, a question mainly scientific was sub- 

 mitted to them; but their associates on the part of Great Britain 

 thought that legal and political questions were also submitted, or, if 

 not submitted, that they were bound to act upon the view that the 

 range of their scientific inquiry was bounded and limited by assump- 

 tions which they were required to make respecting international rights; 

 in other words, their functions were not those of scientific seekers for 

 the truth, but diplomatic agents, intrusted with national interests, and 

 charged with the duty of making the best agreement they could con- 

 sistently with those interests. 



l lhid., pp. 316-318. 



