POINTS IN REPLY TO THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 327 



of that government to consent to any such regulations, on account of 

 the objections of Canada, that this controversy has arisen and this ar- 

 bitration has been rendered necessary. The attitude of Canada on this 

 subject plainly shows that it quite well understands that any regula- 

 tions adopted for the preservation of the seal which would be at all ad- 

 equate for that purpose must substantially, if not entirely, put an end 

 to pelagic sealing. The object of the adventurers, which that Province 

 thinks it right to protect, is simply to make what profit is to be derived 

 out of the destruction of the fur-seals in the few years required for its 

 completion. 



2. In the British Counter Case, every objection possible to be 

 brought forward to the making or enforcing of any regulations, is 

 insisted on. The real position assumed is that of opposition to any 

 regulations that would be of sufficient value to be worth adopting. 

 Those proposed by the British Commissioners are for the benefit of 

 pelagic sealing and au enhancement of its profits, and its consequent 

 destruction by restricting the unquestioned right of the United States 

 to take the seals on its own territory. In answer to the proved charge 

 that pelagic sealing conduces to the inevitable extermination which it 

 has produced everywhere else, and that the methods employed by the 

 United States Government tend to the preservation of the animal 

 while making its product available to the world, it is gravely proposed 

 by the British Commissioners to adopt regulations which would dimin- 

 ish that use which is consistent with the protection of the seal, and 

 which is not called in question by the treaty, so as to increase the use 

 which is destructive; and to add to the losses already suffered by the 

 United States in its territorial interest, by increasing the profits of 

 those who are engaged in destroying it. It is difficult to deal seriously 

 with such proposals. 



E. J. Phelps. 

 James C. Carter. 

 II. W. Blodgett. 



F. II. Coudert. 

 O 



