434 APPENDIX TO CASE OF: GREAT BRITAIN. 
tries which are so valuable. The Government of the United States at once proceeded 
to check this movement, which, unchecked, was sure to do great and irreparable 
harm. 
It was cause of unfeigned surprise to the United States that Her Majesty’s Govern- 
ment should immediately interfere to defend and encourage (surely to encourage by 
defending) the course of the Canadians in disturbing an industry which had been 
carefully developed for more than ninety years under the flags of Russia and the 
United States, developed in such manner as not to interfere with the public rights or 
the private industries of any other people or any other person. 
Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 1886 that which they 
had refrained from doing for more than ninety years? Upon what grounds did Her 
Majesty’s Government defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the Behring’s 
Sea which she had carefully avoided every since the discovery of that sea? By 
what reasoning did Her Majesty’s Government conclude that an act may be com- 
mitted with impunity against the rights of the United States which had never been 
attempted against the same rights when held by the Russian Empire? 
So great has been the injury to the fisheries from the irregular and destructive 
slaughter of seals in the open waters of the Behring’s Sea by Canadian vessels, that 
whereas the Government has allowed 100,000 to be taken annually for a series of 
years, it is now compelled to reduce the number to 60,000. If four years of this 
violation of natural law and neighbour’s rights has reduced the annual slaughter of 
seal by 40 per cent., it is easy to see how short a period will be required to work the 
total destruction of the fisheries. 
The ground upon which Her Majesty’s Government justifies, or at least 
398 defends, the course of the Canadian vessels, rests upon the fact that they are 
committing their acts of destruction on the high seas, viz., more than 3 marine 
miles from the shore-line. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty’s Government would 
abide by this rule if the attempt were made to interfere with the pearl fisheries of 
Ceylon, which extend 20 miles from the shore-line, and have been enjoyed by Eng- 
land without molestation ever since their acquisition. England has felt authorized 
to sell the fishery rights from year to year. Nor is it credible that modes of fishing 
on the Grand Banks, altogether practicable but highly destructive, would be justi- 
fied or even permitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious acts were com- 
mitted more than 3 miles from shore. 
There are, according to scientific authority, ‘‘great colonies of fish on the New- 
foundland banks. These colonies resemble the seats of great populations on land. 
They remain stationary, having a limited range of water in which to live and die.” 
In these great ‘‘ colonies,” it is according to expert judgment comparatively easy to 
explode dynamite or giant powder in such manner as to kill vast quantities of fish, 
and at the same time destroy countless numbers of eggs. Stringent laws have becn 
necessary to prevent the taking of fish by the use of dynamite in many of the rivers 
and lakes of the United States. The same mode of fishing could readily be adopted 
with effect on the more shallow parts of the banks, but the destruction of fish in pro- 
portion to the “catch,” says a high authority, might be as great as 10,000 tol. Would 
Her Majesty’s Government think that so wicked an act could not be prevented, and 
its perpetrators punished, simply because it had been committed outside of the 3-mile 
line? 
Why are not the two cases parallel? The Canadian vessels are engaged in the 
taking of fur seal in a manner that destroys the power of reproduction, and insures 
the extermination of the species. In exterminating the species an article useful to 
mankind is totally destroyed,in order that temporary and immoral gain may be 
acquired by a few persons. By the employment of dynamite on the banks, it is not 
probable that the total destruction of fish could be accomplished, but a serious dimi- 
nution of a valuable food for man might assuredly result. Does Her Majesty’s 
Government seriously maintain that the law of nations is powerless to prevent such 
violation of the common rights of man? Are the supporters of justice in all nations 
to be declared incompetent to prevent wrongs so odious and so destructive? 
In the judgment of this Government, the law of the sea is not lawlessness. Nor 
can the law of the sea and the liberty which it confers and which it protects be per- 
verted to justify acts which are immoral in themselves, which inevitably tend to 
results against the interest and against the welfare of mankind. One step beyond 
that which Her Majesty’s Government has taken in this contention and piracy finds 
its justification. The President does not conceive it possible that Her Majesty’s 
Government could, in fact, be less indifferent to these evil results than is the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. But he hopes that Her Majesty’s Government will, 
after this frank expression of views, more readily comprehend the position of the 
Government of the United States touching this serious question. 
This Government has been ready to concede much in order to adjust all differences 
of view, and has in the judgment of the President already proposed a solution not 
only equitable, but generous, Thus far, Her Majesty’s Government has declined to 
ee 
