514 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
Before leaving this part of Mr. Blaine’s argument, I would allude to 
his remark, that “vessels from other nations passing from time to time 
through Behring’s Sea to the Arctic Ocean in pursuit of whales have 
always abstained from taking part in the capture of seals,” which he 
holds to be proof of the recognition of rights held and exercised first 
by Russia and then by the United States. 
Even if the facts are as stated, it is not remarkable that vessels 
pushing on for the short season in which whaies can be captured in 
the Arctic Ocean, and being fitted specially for the whale fisheries, 
neglected to carry boats and hunters for fur-seals, or to engage in an 
entirely different pursuit. 
The whalers, moreover, pass through Bebhring’s Sea to the fishing- 
grounds in the Arctic Qcean in April and May as soon as the ice breaks 
up, while the great bulk of the seals do not reach the Pribyloff Islands 
till June, leaving again by the time the closing-up of the ice compels 
the whalers to return. 
The statement that it is “‘a fact now held beyond denial or doubt 
that the taking of seals in the open sea rapidly leads to their extine- 
tion” would admit of reply, and abundant evidence could be adduced 
on the other side. But asit is proposed that this part of the question 
should be examined by a Committee to be appointed by the two Goy- 
ernments, it is not necessary that I should deal with it here. 
Her Majesty’s Government do not deny that if all sealing were 
stopped in Behring’s Sea except on the islands in possession of the 
lessees of the United States, the seal may increase and multiply at an 
even more extraordinary rate than at present, and the seal fishery on 
the islands may become a monopoly of increasing value; but they can- 
not admit that this is a sufficient ground to justify the United States 
in forcibly depriving other nations of any share in this industry in 
waters which, by the recognized law of nations, are now free to all the 
world. 
It is from no disrespect that I refrain from replying specifically to the 
subsidiary questions and arguments put forward by Mr. Blaine. Till 
the views of the two Governments as to the obligations attaching, on 
grounds either of morality or necessity, to the United States Govern- 
ment in this matter, have been brought into closer harmony, such a 
course would appear needlessly to extend a controversy which Her 
Majesty’s Government are anxious to keep within reasonable limits. 
The negotiations now being carried on at Washington prove the 
readiness of Her Majesty’s Government to consider whether any spe- 
cial international agreement is necessary for the protection of the fur- 
sealing industry. In its absence they are unable to admit that the 
case put forward on behalf of the United States affords any sufficient 
justification for the forcible action already taken by them against 
peaceable subjects of Her Majesty engaged in lawful operations on the 
high seas. 
“The President,” says: Mr. Blaine, “is persuaded that all friendly 
nations will concede to the United States the same rights and privi- 
leges on the lands and in the waters of Alaska which the same friendly 
nations always conceded to the Empire of Russia.” 
Her Majesty’s Government have no difficulty in making such a con- 
cession. In strict accord with the views which, previous to the present 
controversy, were consistently and successfully maintained by the 
United States, they have, whenever occasion arose, opposed all claims 
to exclusive privileges in the non-territorial waters of Behring’s Sea. 
The rights they have demanded have been those of free navigation 
