SEAL LIFE ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS. 



tion is possible. The only apology we can find comes from the fact, clearly appar- 

 ent upon nearly every page of their report, that the predominating interest which 

 they conceived themselves bound to regard was not the preservation of the seals, 

 but the protection of the Canadian sealers. This explanation at once accounts for 

 all their extraordinary recommendations, and all their varying inconsistencies. 

 Hence, every degree of restraint upon pelagic sealing is reluctantly conceded, and 

 yielded only when it is compensated for, and more than compensated for, by an 

 added restriction of the supply furnished to the market from the breeding islands. 

 As the work of the pelagic sealers is ou the one hand restricted in time or place, and 

 thus discouraged, it is on the other stimulated by the certainty of a better market 

 and a richer reward. So persistently and exclusively have they kept this policy 

 before them as their main object, that an ideal has been formed in their minds which 

 they openly avow, and to attain which is their constant effort. This ideal is that 

 all taking of seals on land should be prohibited, and pelagic sealing be made the 

 only lawful mode of capture. 



They thus express themselves: "It has been pointed out. and we believe it to be 

 probable, that if alJ killing of seals were prohibited on fche breeding islands, and 

 these were strictly protected and safe-guarded against encroachment of any kind, 

 sealing at sea might be indefinitely continued without any notable diminution, in 

 consequence of the self regulative tendency of this industry." 



And suggesting, as the only objection to this policy which occurs to them, that it 

 might be too much to expect of the United States to thus guard the islands and sup- 

 port a native population of 300 at its own expense, they continue : "It may be noted, 

 however, that some such arrangement would offer, perhaps, the best and simplest 

 solution of the present conflict of interests, for the citizens of the United States 

 would still have equal rights with all others to take seals at sea, and in consequence 

 of the proximity of their territory to the sealing grounds they would probably 

 become the principal beneficiaries. 7 ' 



And they finally come to the conclusion that any taking of seals at the breeding 

 places is an error for which there is no defense except long usage, and even that 

 they regard as a doubtful apology. They say : 



"While the circumstance that long usage may, in a measure, be considered as 

 justifying the custom of killing fur seals on the breeding islands, many facts now 

 known respecting the life history of the animal itself, with valid inferences drawn 

 from the results of the disturbance of other animals upon their breeding places, as 

 well as those made obvious bj T the new conditions which have arisen in consequence 

 of the development of pelagic sealing, point to the conclusion that the breeding 

 islands should, if possible, remain undisturbed and inviolate." 



These references to the opinions expressed in the report of the commissioners of 

 Great Britain, when taken together with the scheme recommended by them, leave 

 no room for doubt that the defense of the Canadian sealers was from first to last, 

 their predominating motive, and enable us to make for them the apology that they 

 conceived that this was the duty with which they were especially charged. If this 

 be the fact, it is easy to perceive how all their reasonings and recommendations 

 should receive a color and character. We feel obliged to say that we can perceive 

 nD other ground upon which their action may be made consistent with 'good faith. 

 (Argument of the United States, p. 209.) 



*##*### 



The real conflict between the report of the British commissioners and the case of 

 the United States seems to be as to the number of cows in a harein. The British 

 commissioners assert that the number is unduly large of cows served by one bull; 

 the United States produce credible and experienced witnesses to show that, on the 

 contrary, the number of females is decreasing. A comparison is invited between 

 the two statements and the quality of proof adduced in favor of each. It is plain 

 that the British commissioners could not admit the diminution in number of female 

 seals without admitting that decrease to be wholly due to pelagic slaughter. They 

 are therefore reduced to the necessity of insisting that there is a redundancy of 

 females and a deficit of males on the islands. They are kind enough to admit, how- 

 ever, that "the sparing of females in a degree prevented, for the time being, the 

 actual depletion of seals on the islands" (section 58). It is not probable that any 

 reasonable person will take issue with them on that point. The intelligence and 

 legislation of the civilized world, not to speak of humanity iu its broad sense, have 

 concurred that to spare the female was not the best but the only effective method of 

 preventing depletion and eventual extermination. 



Even if we should concede, for the sake of the argument and in direct disregard 

 of the fact, that the diminution is due to the smaller number of males, we would 

 venture to remind this high tribunal, if such a reminder were needed, that the 

 pirates or poachers who pursue and slaughter the pregnant and nursing females are 

 killing, by starvation in the one case, by the mother's death in the other, a large 

 number of males. Even, according to their own showing, the British commissioners 



