144 COUNTEE-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Dr. Alfred Nebriiig, points out that the pursuit of the 

 fur-seal in its southern winter quarters may be justified on 

 the ground of its destructiveness to fish. 



Professor Eobert Collet, believes the matter to be one for 

 an International Agreement for a close time,-simdar to that 

 in force respecting the seal fisheries of the North Atlantic. 



Dr. Gustav Hartlaub, writiug api)arently with no other 

 knowledge of the matter than that afforded by Dr. Mer- 

 riam's Jetter, briefly states his agreement with its general 

 conclusions, but regrets that for practical reasons the pro- 

 hibition of hunting for a few years cannot be thought of. 



Professor Count Tommaso Salvadori, points out that, 

 m addition to the effects attributed to i)elagic sealing, he 

 believes the killing upon the islands to have been too great. 



Dr. Leopold von Schrenck, in brief terms, records his full 

 agreement with the statements presented to him. 



Dr. Henry H. Giglioli, likewise fully agrees with Dr. 

 Merriam, but takes occasion to deplore the killing of "pups" 

 on the islands, which, it will be remembered, was allowed 

 to continue till 1891. 



Dr. Raphael Blanchard, points out that the killing of 

 young males on land re<i|uires to be regulated and severely 

 limited, as well as the killing at sea. He believes the mat- 

 ter to be one for an International Commission. 



Professor Wilhelm Lilljebord and Baron A. E. Norden- 

 skiold, point out that the protection required clearly 

 divides itself into that on land and that of seals at sea, 

 where near to or connected with the breeding rookeries. 



Dr. A. von Middendorf, states that international protec- 

 tion is necessary. 



Dr. Emil Holub, likewise believes that protection 

 160 c must be accorded equally at sea and on the breed- 

 ing islands. He suggests an International Congress. 



Dr. Carlos Berg, in a few lines, agrees entirely with Dr. 

 Merriam's conclusions. 



The statements made by two other naturalists, to whom 

 it does not appear that Dr. Merriam's " Circular letter" 

 was sent, must, in conclusion, be mentioned. These are 

 Professor T. H. Huxley and Dr. P. L. Sclater. 



Professor Huxley's opinion as given in the Appendix of 

 the United States Case, constitutes a fair statement of con- 

 clusions and recommendations, such as may well have been 

 based on the published evidence available u]) to the time 

 at which it was written, but which, of course, did not include 

 the Report of the investigations of the British Behring Sea 

 Commissioners or other later evidence. 



Professor Huxley admits the manifest rights of British 

 and all other sealers at sea, and of the United States, on 

 the I^ribyloff" Islands. He points out that it is the interest 

 of both parties to preserve the seals, but that even the con- 

 currence of both Governments would be insufficient, as this 

 would not exclude sealers under other flags. He suggests 

 that a Joint Fishery Commission might be established to 

 deal with, and make laws for, the Pribyloff, Behring, and 

 North-west Coast fisheries, under the terms of a General 

 Treaty, to which other Powers would probably agree. 



