194 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



animal. And while the United States would be subjected to a particu- 

 lar injury in being deprived of the profit coming from the sealing in- 

 dustries on the Pribilof Islands, Canada, one of the dependencies of 

 Great Britain, would lose the supposed benefit of pelagic sealing; and 

 England would be subjected to the far greater loss which would come 

 from the breaking up of her industry in the manufacture of the seal- 

 shins, in which some thousands other people were engaged. 



These considerations naturally led to the suggestion that both nations 

 possessed such a common interest in the preservation of the herd as to 

 make it expedient for them to make an effort to reach some agreement 

 designed to bring about that result, which, if successful, would not only 

 terminate the existing dispute, but subserve the permanent interests 

 of the parties. 



In the absence of full and correct information by the diplomatic rep- 

 resentatives of the two governments of the nature and habits of the 

 animal and of the laws governing its reproduction and increase, the pe- 

 culiar device for the preservation of wild animals by restricting their 

 slaughter to a limited time was suggested, and apparently accepted on 

 both sides, almost immediately, as being likely to furnish a sufficient 

 safeguard against the apprehended destruction. The time during 

 which such a restriction should be enforced, the only point upon which 

 difference of opinion might have been anticipated, was at once agreed 

 upon, and there can be little doubt that a formal agreement would have 

 been immediately framed and ratified, had not Canada, moved, presum- 

 ably, by the remonstrances of her pelagic sealers, interposed and pressed 

 an objection. 1 It is fortunate, in the view of the United States, that 

 such an agreement was not consummated. It would have proved 

 wholly illusive. 



The foundation of this concurrence in the device of a close season was 

 the predominating necessity of preserving the animals from extinction; 

 and there is no reason to suppose that, had it then appeared that ab- 

 solute prohibition of pelagic sealing was requisite to that end, such pro- 

 hibition would have been acceded to in the absence of remonstrance 

 from Canada, originating in the present interest of persons engaged in 

 pelagic sealing, an interest which regarded with comparative indiffer- 

 ence the eventual fate of the animal. It is not to be supposed that the 

 enlightened statesmanship of Lord Salisbury, unembarrassed by any 



1 Diplomatic Correspondence, Case of the United States, Appendix, Vol. I, pp. 175 

 to 183, inclusive. 



