182 DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 



desirous to have it complotcd. The consideration of it liad been sns- 

 ])ended for eoniniunieation by the J>ritish Government with tlie Cana- 

 dian Government, for wliich purpose an interval of several months liad 

 been allowed to elapse. ])iiriii^' this time the attention of Lord Salis- 

 bury had been repeatedly recalled to the subject by this legation, and 

 on those occasions the ansAver received from him was that no reply 

 from the Canadian authorities had arrived. 



In the conA'ersation on the 13th, above mentioned, I again pressed for 

 the com])letion of the convention, as the extermination of the seals by 

 Canadian vessels was understood to be rapidly proceeding. His lord- 

 ship in reply did not question the propriety or the imi)ortance of taking 

 measures to prevent the wanton destruction of so valuable an industry, 

 in which, as he remarked, England had a large interest of its own, but 

 said that the Canadian Government objected to any such i-estrictions, 

 and that until its consent could be obtained. Her Majesty's Government 

 was not wilhng to enter into the convention; that time would be re- 

 quisite to bring this about, and that meanwhile the convention must 

 wait. 



It is very apparent to me that the British Government will not exe- 

 cute the desired convention without the concurrence of Canada. And 

 it is equally apparent that the concurrence of Canada in any such ar- 

 rangement is not to be reasonably ex]>ected. Certain Canadian vessels 

 are making a profit out of the destruction of the seal in the breeding- 

 season in the waters in question, inhuman and wasteful as it is. Tliat 

 it leads to the speedy extermination of the animal is no loss to Canada, 

 because no part of these seal tisheries belong to that country; and the 

 only profit open to it in ('onn.ection with them is by destroying tlie seal 

 in the open sea during the breeding time, although many of the animals 

 killed in that way are lost, and those saved are worth much less than 

 when killed at the proper time. 



Under these circumstances, the Government of the, Uiuted States 

 must, in my opinion, either submit to have these valuable fisheries de- 

 stroyed or must take measures to prevent their destruction by captur- 

 ing the vessels employed in it. Between these alternatives it does not 

 appear to me there should be the slightest hesitation. 



Much learning has been expemled upon the discussion of the abstract 

 question of the rigiit of mare claiisnm. I do not conceive it to be ap- 

 X)li('able to the present case. 



Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if i)roi)erly managed, per- 

 manent industry, the property of the nations on whose shores it is car- 

 ried on. IL is ])roposed by the colony of a foreign nation, in detiance of 

 the joint remonstrance of all the countries interested, to destroy this 

 business by the indiscriminate slaughter and extermination of the ani- 

 mals in question, in the open neighboring sea, during the p(niod of 

 gestation, when the common dictates of humanity ought to protect 

 them, were there no interest at all involved. i\nd it is sugg( stcd that 

 we are prevented fiom defending ourselves against such depiechitions 

 Ix'cause the sea at a ceitain distance from the coast is free. 



Tlic same line of argument would take nmh'r its ])rote('tion piracy 

 and tlie slave trade, wIumi ])rosecuted in the open sea, or wonid justily 

 one nation in destroy ing the eommerc(^ of anctther by placing danger- 

 ous obstructions and derelicts in the open sea near its <'oasts. There 

 are many things that, can not be allowed to be don(i on the ojien sea with 

 imi>unity, and against which every sea is nuoy chdininii. And the light 

 of sell" defens(i as to jK-rson aiul i»roi>erty i)re\ails there as fully as else- 

 where, If the fish upon the Canadiaji coasts could be destroyed by 



