THE BERING-SEA CONTROVERSY, 83 



taking seals, and one not inconsistent with the continued preserva- 

 tion of the herd in normal extent. The several methods by which 

 this was sought to be accomplished were striking illustrations of how 

 far the work of the joint commission departed from the lines along 

 which it was originally laid out, leaving the region of scientific in- 

 vestigation for that of partisanship and diplomacy. 



As every one knows, the whole question with the joint and sepa- 

 rate reports of the commissions went to arbitration before the tri- 

 bunal at Paris in the summer of 1893. The report of the American 

 commissioners was completed and submitted about the middle of 

 April, 1892; that of their British colleagues was received by Lord 

 Salisbury on August 14th. These dates are significant. In recent 

 diplomatic correspondence relating to the present state of the con- 

 troversy there has appeared a vigorous protest against a policy of 

 delay in submitting reports which were to be simultaneous or con- 

 current, and it has been plainly intimated that advantages are ex- 

 pected to accrue from such delay. This is but history repeating itself. 

 The strictures of Messrs. Phelps, Carter, Blodgett, and Coudert, 

 counsel for the United States in 1893, upon the great and unjust 

 advantage taken by the Government of Great Britain in this way 

 might furnish useful, if not interesting, reading for some of the 

 severer critics of the recent action of the Department of State. 



The Bering-Sea arbitration, with its disastrous consequences to 

 the sealing industry, can hardly be referred to with satisfaction by 

 those who so earnestly desire the reference of all international dis- 

 putes to similar tribunals. It serves, however, as an excellent illus- 

 tration of the fact that international arbitration is now and must 

 be for a long time little more than an elaborate and costly means of 

 reaching a compromise. The Paris award gave to the United States 

 somewhat more protection of seal life than Great Britain had offered 

 through her commissioners, but vastly less than was asked as neces- 

 sary and just. The British commissioners had suggested a protected 

 zone about the islands of ten miles width, and were willing to con- 

 sider a close season during that period in which pelagic sealing is 

 unprofitable; the arbitration tribunal gave a zone of sixty miles and 

 a close season of possible consequence, if only it could be enforced, 

 together with a few minor restrictions which have proved to be of 

 really little value. It is difficult to find a compromise between life 

 and death, and even so dignified and learned a body as the Paris 

 tribunal failed in this instance. The experience of three or four 

 years has shown the signal failure of the remedies proposed. And 

 this must not be attributed alone to the lack of perfect application 

 of these remedies. The United States has maintained a fleet of 

 Bering-Sea police at once efficient and expensive. Great Britain 



