76 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Secretary of State that with questions relating to the exercise of ex- 

 clusive jurisdiction by the United States for the protection of seals 

 they had nothing to do, and that they were " not authorized to con- 

 sider or discuss them." Their function was especially restricted to 

 the consideration of facts, causes, and remedies as suggested in the 

 treaty quoted above. 



It thus appears to have been clearly the intention of both Gov- 

 ernments to regard the commission as one organized purely for the 

 ascertainment of facts and the recommendation of such remedies 

 and regulations as would be suggested by the facts. There is no 

 assumption of any diversity of interests in the matter; the problem 

 is submitted to the commissioners as it might have been if the whole 

 affair had concerned the United States alone, or Great Britain alone. 

 Certain methods of taking seals, at sea and on shore, are followed; 

 it is claimed that these methods, one or both, or other causes are 

 accomplishing the extermination of the herd; the commission is to 

 investigate all the facts, and if it concludes that the herd is in 

 danger of extermination it is to suggest such regulations as it may 

 agree upon for its preservation not a word or a hint about national 

 or international or traditional rights or " compensatory provisions." 



It is of the utmost importance to note these facts, as they appear 

 in the letters of instruction to the commissioners, for they are the 

 basis of the assertion, which might as well be made now as later, 

 that the American commissioners alone, and from the beginning, 

 considered the subject from a scientific or judicial standpoint, while 

 their colleagues, also from the beginning, treated the problem as if 

 it were diplomatic in character, not omitting an occasional attempt 

 to use " dexterity and skill in securing advantages." A small part 

 of the evidence available will suffice to make good this possibly 

 extreme statement, and in attempting to do so it must be understood 

 that not the slightest reflection upon the distinguished gentlemen, 

 who so ably represented and maintained what they believed to be 

 the best interests of the British Government, is intended, or criti- 

 cism of the course which they followed during the conferences; it 

 is only meant to draw attention to the fact that they were in the 

 attitude of the expert witness whose vision and judgment are unde- 

 niably, though unconsciously, influenced by the necessary demands 

 of a previously accepted hypothesis. It is extremely likely that 

 they have precisely this view of their American colleagues, and it is 

 with a view to a fair adjudication of this question that the facts are 

 herewith submitted. 



To begin with, there was necessarily a difference in the state of 

 mind of the two commissions in approaching the problem, due to the 

 fact that the British commissioners had already made public ex- 



