APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 239 
well as in the waters of the Behring’s Sea, it could at least be said that the close 
time would bear equally on all. 
But the United States Government propose to allow seals to be killed by their own 
citizens on the rookeries, the only places where they haul out in Alaska, during June, 
July, September, and October, tour of the months of the proposed close season. The 
result would be that while all others would be prevented from killing a seal in 
Behring’s Sea, the United States would possess a complete monopoly, and the effect 
would be to render infinitely more valuable and maintain in perpetuity the seal 
fisheries of the North Pacific for the sole benefit of the United States. 
It is to be noted that the area proposed by Mr. Bayard to be affected by the 
215 close season virtually covers the whole portion of the Behring’s Sea in which 
the exclusive right of sealing has, during 1886 and 1887, been practically main- 
tained by the United States’ Government. ‘To this is added a part of the North 
Pacific Ocean, north 50° of north latitude, and which commands the approach of the 
seals to the passes leading into Behring’s Sea. By the adoption of this area and 
close season the United States would gain, by consent, what she has for two years 
held in defiance of international law and the protests of Great Britain and Canada. 
And while this area would be held closed to all operations except to those of her 
own sealers on the Pribyloff Islands, the north-west coast of North America up to 
the 50th parallel of north latitude and the sealing areas on the north-eastern coast 
of Asia would be open to her as before. 
The device, if successful, would feed and perpetuate the rookeries on St. Paul and 
St. George Islands, and add immensely to their value, while it cuts off at one blow 
the most valuable portion of the high seas from all participation by the sealers of all 
other nations. 
It is to be borne in mind that Canada’s interest in this industry is a vital and 
important one, that she has had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it, 
and that while by the proposed plan the other Powers chiefly interested have their 
compensations, Canada has none. To her it would mean ruin so far as the sealing 
industry is concerned. 
Mr. Bayard appeals to the Government of Great Britain on the grounds of the 
labour interested in preparing the seal-skins in London. It is not necessary that 
the Alaska Commercial Company should do the sole catching of seals in order to 
retain this advantage to London labourers. Thesealskins taken by Canadian sealers 
find their way to London to be dressed, just as surely as do those taken by the United 
States Company. So long as the fishery is not exhausted, London will, other things 
being equal, retain the advantage she now possesses in this respect. But Mr. Bayard 
must misapprehend the sense of justice of Her Majesty’s Government if he supposes 
that they would consent to an unjust deprivation of Canadian rights, because of the 
alleged prospect of perpetuating some small pecuniary advantage to a limited section 
of her subjects in London. Under this proposal Russia would lose nothing. Her 
vessels do not now pursue seals in that part of Behring’s Sea ceded by her to the 
United States in 1867. Russia has valuable seal islands of her own: the Commander 
Islands in Behring’s Sea, and Robben Reef in the Okhotsk Sea, on which there are 
valuable rookeries, and the Russian Government draws a considerable revenue there- 
from, as they are under lease to this same Alaska Commercial Company. This part 
of Behring’s Sea does not fall within the proposed closed area, 
It has been already shown that the United States would gain largely by the 
establishment of this close period. From her rookeries on the Pribyloft Islands she 
draws now a yearly revenue of over 300,000 dollars. This would not only not be inter- 
fered with, but would be enormously increased by reason of the perpetual monopoly 
she would enjoy under the proposed arrangement. But while this is true as to Rus- 
sia and the United States, Canada would lose the enjoyment of a lucrative right 
long possessed, and this loss would be fatal to her prosecution of the seal industry 5 
and would be unrelieved by a single compensation. 
It is manifest, from a perusal of Mr. Bayard’s letter, that the proposition is to 
prevent the killing of seals during the close time by any process whatever within 
the area set apart, except, of course, upon the Pribyloff Islands. 
Experienced sealers aver that by the present methods of hunting with gun and 
spear not more than one in ten of the seals struck is lost, and it is not believed that 
these methods are so destructive as Mr. Bayard alleges. 
The method of taking seals by means of the net is not a destructive method, and 
yet it is proposed to pr ohibit this aswell. It appears, therefore, that what Mr. Bayard 
intends is to entirely prevent the killing of seals within the area proposed by any 
methods or by any persons except by the methods employed upon the Pribylotf 
Islands and by the citizens of the United States, who may, for the time being, enjoy 
the monopoly of taking seals thereon. Against this unjust and unnecessary inter- 
ference with, or rather prohibition of, rights so long enjoyed to a lawful and 
remunerative occupation upon the high seas, the Undersigned begs to enter his most 
earnest protest. 
(Signed) GEO. E. FOSTER, 
Acting Minister ef Marine and Fisheries. 
