350 DIPLOMATIC CORRT^SPONDENCE. 



son. are ccentlemen whose scientific attainments and special qualifica- 

 tions fur the duties intrusted to tliem are too well known to require 

 any vindication on iny part. But you complain of the fact that Dr. 

 Dawson in 1890 wrote a paper on the protection of the fur seal in tlie 

 North Pacific in which he committed himself to certain views. This 

 shows that he has nuide this subject his special study, and it appears to 

 me that he is all tlic more qualified on that account to take part in the 

 labors of the Joint Commission, whidi, I beg leave to point out, is not a 

 board of arbitration, but one of investigation. 



Dr. Dawson's note on the fur seal to which you refer, was merely 

 based upon such published material as was at the time available, and 1 

 have his authority for stating that he does not feel himself in any way 

 bound to the ox)inions expressed from the study of that material, in the 

 light of subsequent personal investigation on the ground. 



You likewise complain that Sir George Baden-Powell had, previously 

 to his selection as Commissioner, made public his views on the subject, 

 and also that he is rei)orted to have stated in an address to his parlia- 

 mentry constituents that the result of the investigation of the Joint 

 Commission and of the proposed Arbitration would be in favor of his 

 Government. 



Sir George Baden-Powell is particularly qualified to take part in the 

 inquiry by reason of his personal investigation into the industrial part 

 of the question, wliich he pursued in 1887 and 1889 in San Francisco 

 and British Columbia. From the first he has advocated in all his pub- 

 lic statements a full inquiry into tlie facts of seal life in Bering Sea 

 before any final agreement should be arrived at, in order that the views 

 of all parties should be tested as to tlie best method of protecting seal 

 life. There is no just ground, therefore, for charging him with partial- 

 ity. As regards the language imputed to him on the occasion of an 

 address Avhich he recently delivered to his constituents in England on 

 the labor (juestion, it api)ears that some introductory remarks in which 

 he referred to the Behring Sea question were inaccurately reported. 

 What he did state was that, thanks to the arrangement arrived at be- 

 tween the two Governments, the Behring Sea difficulty would uow be 

 settled in the true interests of all concerned and not of any one side or 

 the other. 



I may mention that the opinions of Prof. Mendendall and Dr. Mer- 

 riam on the fur-seal question were published in several journals in this 

 country sliortly after their return from Behring Sea, and were stated (I 

 know not witli what accuracy) to be opposed to the views which have 

 been urged on the side of Her Majesty's Government. 



But I do not suggest that the United States Commissioners on that 

 account are disqualified from taking part in the labors of the Joint Com- 

 mission. I claim that all the Commissioners, British and American, are 

 equally entitled to the confidence of both Governments, as men of 

 science, honor, and imijartiality. 



The course Avhich has been adopted for ascertaining what measures 

 may be necessary for the protection of the fur-seal species is substan- 

 tially the same as that which I had the honor to propose to you on be- 

 half of Her Majesty's Government nearly two years ago in the form of 

 a draft convention, inclosed in my note of April 29, 1890. 



I rejoice that the proposal I then made is now to be carried out, and 

 I cordially unite in the hope expressed in your iiote uiuler reply that 

 the result of the labors of the Joint Commission will promote an equi- 

 table and mutnally satisfactory adjustment of the ([uestions at issue. 

 I have, etc., 



Julian Pauncefote. 



