50 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



after made public in England, found substantially the same 

 facts and conditions as were reported by Dr. Jordan, but he 

 deduced therefrom a less startling conclusion. He saw no im- 

 mediate cause for alarm in the continuation of pelagic sealing,, 

 but believed the killing of young males, the "bach- 

 elors," on the islands, as practised by the chartered Amer- 

 ican Company, to be highly destructive to the herd and 

 altogether a pernicious method. Basing its action upon these 

 findings and conclusions, the( British Government failed to 

 see any urgent necessity for a modification of the regulations 

 before the end of the stipulated five years ; it declined flatly 

 to consider the matter at that time.) 



This refusal of the British Government to heed the warn- 

 ings so plainly written in all the statistical reports of sealing 

 operations since 1894, and their stubborn determination not to 

 yield to the solicitations of the United States for a revision 

 of the laws, caused much disappointment at Washington. 

 Being thoroughly convinced that the Paris regulations 

 were ineffectual, indeed, that they utterly failed to fulfil 

 the expressed object of their creation, the United States 

 received with less grace each year the refusal of Great Britain 

 to consent to their revision. There was little consolation in 

 the reflection that Great Britain, in thus declining to act,, 

 stood squarely upon her rights under the Paris rules. These 

 only called upon the parties to submit the regulations " every 

 five years to a new examination in order to enable both 

 governments to consider in the light of past experience if 

 there is any occasion to make any modification thereof." 

 England was consequently under no legal obligation what- 

 ever to reopen the question before the close of the season of 

 1898, and by that time it was feared in the United States 

 there would be no seals left to consider in any light whatso- 

 ever. 



Apart from her legal exemption, it was felt in Washington 

 that Great Britain was at least under a moral obligation to- 

 consent to an immediate reexamination of rules that were 

 manifestly so defective. It was urged that the rules were 

 created for a definite purpose ; they had since been proven to 



