ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 47 



Those documents are too loiij? for me to read and it is not important 

 tliat I should read them, but I can briefly state their general nature. 

 They contain a great deal of evidence designed to make it appear that 

 the destructive nature of pelagic sealing is not as great as it had some 

 times been represented to be, and also some matter designed to show 

 that the destruction of seals is owing to the practices pursued on the 

 Pribilof Islands by the United States Government iu relation to the 

 herd. All that matter which, I presume, proceeded from ofticials of the 

 Canadian Government, is calculated to show that no extreme measures 

 of ])rotection were necessary. 



This communication of documents to the American Government by 

 Sir Julian Pauncefote on March 9, 1890 was, I think I am safe in say- 

 ing, the first intimation ever received by the Government of the United 

 States that the original measure of prevention suggested by Mr. Phelps 

 to the Marquis of Salisbury and accepted provisionally by him, was too 

 extreme a measure. More than two years had elapsed since that propo- 

 sition had been submitted and thus provisionally accepted by the Mar- 

 quis of Salisbury, and during all of that time, although it was known 

 that the adoption of the measure had been arrested in consequence of 

 the objection of Canada, no different measure had been suggested as 

 coming from Canada, and no criticism on the part of Canada upon the 

 character of that proposed restriction had been offered. On the 9th of 

 March, however, evidence showing differences of opinion in respect to 

 the effect of pelagic sealing was placed before the United States Gov- 

 ernment. Presumably it came from Canada. It is to the differences 

 of opinion expressed in these documents that Sir Julian refers when he 

 says : 



The great divergence of views which exist as to whether any restrictions of pelagic 

 sealing are necessary for the pi'eservatiou of the fur-seal species, and, if so, as to 

 the character and extent of such restrictions, renders it impossible in my opinion 

 to arrive at a solution which would satisfy public opinion either in Canada or Great 

 Britain, or in any country which might be invited to accede to the proposed arrange- 

 ment, witliout a full inquiry by a mixed commission of ex]>ert8, the result of whose 

 labors and whose investigations iu the region of the seal fishery would probably dis- 

 pose of all the points in dispute. 



The point, therefore, of Sir Julian is this: "We have now arrived at 

 a difference of view in reference to matters of fact connected with seal 

 life and with pelagic sealing. Those differences of view which now 

 exist between us are irreconcilable upon any evidence which is before 

 us. Our object is however, a common one, the preservation of the seal 

 species for the benefit of mankind. What is needed in order to enable us 

 to come to some arrangement which will accomplish that prime object is 

 that we should be thoroughly informed of the facts, and in a manner 

 which will leave no room for doubt. When we ascertain the truth upon 

 those points, then, presumably, at least, we shall find no difficulty in 

 coming to an agreement. We must recognize the truth as it shall finally 

 be discovered. Whatever measures of protection the truth thus ascer- 

 tained shall point out as necessary are the ones to be adopted." 



The instrumentality which he suggests — and it is the first suggestion 

 of a method of removing all doubts and ascertaining what the real 

 truth about the matter was — was a mixed commission of experts; and, 

 in saying that they were to be experts, of course it was understood 

 that they should be gentlemen perfectly competent to deal with all the 

 questions which arose in connection with that subject, and with the 

 question of natural history as well; iu other words, that they should 

 be men of science, should act under the obligations which attach to men 

 of science, should have no object iu view except the ascertainment of 



