COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 143 



Tn the introductory paragraph of his "Circular letter" 

 Dr. INIerriani writes as follows, dating from Washington, 

 April 2nd, 1892: 



Dear Sir: The Goverunient of the United States having 

 166 a selected me as a naturalist to investigate and re])ort npon the 

 condition of the inr seal rookeries on the Prih.yloff Islands in 

 Behring Sea, with special reference to the causes of decrease and the 

 measures necessary for the restoration and ])ernuine7it jireservation of 

 the seal herd, I visited the Pribylotf Islands and made an extended 

 investigation of the subject, the results of which are here briefly 

 outlined. 



And in the concluding paragraph writes: 



Having been selected by my Government solely as <a naturalist, and United states 

 having investigated the facts and arrived at the abovis conclusions C-**^^; App<^ndix, 

 and recommendations from the standpoint of a naturalist, I desire to ^'^ ' '' ^' 

 know if yon agree or differ with me in considering these conclusions 

 and recommendations justified and necessitated l)y the facts in the 

 case. I shall be greatly obliged if you will favour me with a reply. 



ISTo mention is made of the Agreement entered into by ibid., p. 417. 

 the (iovernments of Great Britain and the United States 

 in respect to the joint character of the investigation of the 

 facts of seal life; and, in the absence of other sources of 

 information, the naturalists to whom these explanations 

 were addressed would, it is submitted, naturally assume as 

 correct the facts stated by Dr. Merriam. 



To the mere fact of the submission of the question at 

 issue resi)ecting the fur seal, and the methods a])propriate 

 foritspreserv^ation, to the judgment of well-informed natu- 

 ralists, no exception can be taken. But on examining the 

 body of the "Circular letter," it is found to be a precis of 

 the more important concliasions contained in the Several 

 Report of the United States Commissioners. It thus con- 

 sists of a series of assertions and arguments, some of which 

 are in direct opposition to the conclusions and opinions 

 formed by the British Members of the Joint Commission, 

 and many of which involve assumptions of fact which are 

 directly controverted. 



Dr. Merriam was, at the time of writing and dispatching 

 this Circular letter, well aware of the different views held 

 on many points by the British Commissioners. The date 

 of the letter is nearly one month later than that of the 

 conclusion of the joint Conferences of the Commissioners. 



It is unnecessary here to discuss the statements made in 

 the Circular letter itself, as they are considered in detail in 

 other parts of this Counter- Case. Neither would it serve 

 any good purpose to criticize at length the nature of the 



replies published. 

 16G B It is, however, to be noted that several of the natu- 

 ralists, whose replies are given, do not wholly agree 

 with the conclusions placed before them. 



Thus, Dr. Alphonse Milne Edwards, does not commit 

 himseltto Dv. Merriam's conclusions respecting the required 

 mode of protection of the seals. He parallels the con- 

 ditions, very appropriately, with those atfecting migratory 

 birds. In conclusion, he states that only an International 

 Commission can lay down Bules for the protection of the 

 fishery. 



