SEAL LIFE ON THE PHIBILOF ISLANDS. 119 



international law decided by it, I have nothing to do; but with all that 

 appertains to the practical side of the seal question and the measures 

 which should be adopted for the absolute protection of the seals, I have 

 t<> do, and 1 say. without the least hesitation, that the regulations 

 adopted lor that express purpose by the Tribunal of Arbitration are a 

 failure. 



That the two great nations directly interested in the questions laid 

 before the tribunal were honestly anxious to have a definite and mutually 

 satisfactory settlement is not to be doubted; that the questions at issue 

 were fully and ably presented by counsel on both sides can not be dis- 

 puted; that our own representatives were in full possession of all the 

 facts and testimony, and that they had a thorough knowledge and grasp 

 of the actual situation is shown by the able manner in which they pre- 

 sented their case and met the arguments of opposing counsel, and yet 

 notwithstanding all this, regulations have been made professedly for 

 the protection of the seals but practically for the benefit of the pelagic 

 sealer. 



No better proof of this could be given than the official figures already 

 quoted for 1894 a total pelagic catch in the North Pacific Ocean and 

 Bering Sea, from shore to shore, of 14U,000 seals, while only 16,031 were 

 killed on the Pribilof Islands from August, 1893, to August, 1894. 



Let it be remembered, too, that out of a total of 95 vessels employed 

 in pelagic sealing only 37 entered Bering Sea in 1894, and yet, in about 

 five weeks, these 37 vessels killed over 7,000 seals more than were taken 

 by the 95 vessels on the American side of the North Pacific Ocean, 

 exclusive of Bering Sea. in four months, from January to April, inclusive. 



That the regulations have already accomplished much good in the 

 Pacific Ocean outside of Bering Sea is freely admitted; but so long as 

 they allow the same seals to be killed in August in Bering Sea which 

 they protected in May, June, and July in the Pacific Ocean they can 

 not be of permanent benefit to the herd as a whole. The fault is not 

 the fault of the Tribunal of Arbitration nor of any of the American 

 gentlemen in any way connected with it, for they very clearly showed 

 that extermination would be the result of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea 

 at any time from May to September, as the following extracts from 

 argument of American counsel will show: 



PELAGIC SEALING. 



The British commissioners, in their report (section 132), say the coast catch is made 

 from February to June, inclusive, five months, while the Bering Sea catch is taken 

 during .July, August, and part of September, or two mouths and a half. 



For each of the 96 vessels engaged in the coast sealing, the average per month is 

 113, while tin- monthly average for each of the 86 vessels entering Bering Sea is 290. 



It is at once apparent that sealing in Bering Sea is over twice as damaging to the 

 seal herd as sealing in the North I'acilic, and that in three years 8,000 more seals were 

 taken in Bering Sea than along the coast in half the time by a fleet numbering ten 

 \ easels less than the coast fleet. 



Certain witnesses examined by the Tinted States give sufficient data to show the 

 time occupied in sealing along the coast and that occupied in Bering Sea, also the 

 catches made in each place, respectively, and in many instances the distance from the 

 islands at which seals were Taken. These have all been collated and arranged in 

 the form of a table, an examination of which will show that they fully corroborate 

 the statement that pelagic sealing is much more damaging in Bering Sea than in the 

 North Pacilic. The iirst four witnesses were examined at Victoria. The page refer- 

 ences are to the Tinted States case. Appendix, Vol.11. 



Such data as these appearing in the above table can not be found in the deposi- 

 tions appearing in the British counter case. It is unfortunate that this important 

 matter should have been left out of the British testimony. 



This testimony further corroborates the statement of the British commissioners 

 that the Bering Sea is not entered until about the 1st of July. 



