APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 655 
66 [Inclosure 2 in No. 22.] 
Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency 
the Governor-General in Council, on the 15th November, 1890. 
The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a despatch 
dated the 24th September, 1890, from the Colonial Office, transmitting a copy of a 
letter from Sir C. M. Lampson and Company to the Foreign Office, under date the 
6th September, 1890, on the subject of a close season for seals in Behring’s Sea. 
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom the papers were referred, submits 
the following observations thereon: 
That Sir C. Lampson and Co. state in effect: 
1. That the total extinction of the fur-seal has come within measurable distance, 
and unless a close season can be arranged immediately the animal will become extinct 
in a very short time. 
2. That as the seals taken by the Canadian schooners at sea are females and pups 
of those visiting the breeding islands, this industry will of necessity disappear with 
the extinction of the seal. 
3. That the fur-seal fishery in Behring’s Sea has been a failure this season, the 
total catch being far below those of preceding years, although the fishing-vessels do 
not appear to have been molested by United States Government cruizers. 
The Minister observes that statements similar to those contained in the paragraphs 
marked 1 and 2 above were made before the Committee of Congress in 1889, and 
repeated in despatches of the Government of the United States to the British Gov- 
ernment at different times since 1885. 
That at the recent Conference in Washington (1890) these allegations were form- 
ally reiterated in a paper prepared by Mr. Blaine, i i having been understood at this 
time that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would put before the Conference the 
authorities upon which the Canadian Government denied their accuracy, so that the 
evidence on each side might be discussed, examined, and compared. 
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries accordingly prepared a Memorandum in 
which he, among other things, proved from United States authorities that the seals 
were still frequenting the islands in Behring’s Sea in enormous numbers, and were 
actually on the increase. It was also shown that the seals taken by Canadian seal- 
ers in Behring’s Sea were, for the most part, males. Appended to the present Report 
will be found an extract from the Memorandum mentioned above containing refer- 
ences to authorities touching these points (marked Appendix ‘‘A”). 
The Minister deems it important to mention that, after those authorities were 
placed before the Conference, Mr. Blaine declined to proceed with the discussion of 
the two briefs. 
It was then proposed by the British Representative that a joint inquiry into the 
facts in controversy should be made by experts on the islands and in the sea, and 
that a temporary close season should be agreed upon for a period of two years and 
a-half. This proposition was also declined by the Government of the United States. 
Meanwhile, however, it appears that the Secretary of the Treasury of the United 
States appointed Henry W. Elliot a Special Agent to the Treasury to make an ex 
parte examination in regard to the Alaska fishery interests, under the provision of a 
special Act Congress, approved the 5th April, 1890. 
While the Minister has not enjoyed the advantage of perusing Mr. Elliot’s special 
Report, nevertheless, from the press of the United States, and from the leading 
reviews published in that country, it is evident that the present lessees of the 
Pribylov group have not been less zealous than their predecessors in circulating 
alarming statements concerning the fur-seals. Mr. Elliot has perhaps again con- 
cluded that the rookeries are being ruined, and that his opinions given to Congress 
before this mission to the islands have been confirmed. 
In the ‘New York Herald” of the 16th August, 1890, a letter appeared purporting 
to emanate from D. H. James, of the United States cutter ‘‘Rush,” dated Ounalaska, 
the 26th July, in which that gentleman says: 
“A startling state of affairs exists at the Seal Islands this year. . . . This year 
the rookeries are almost deserted, . . . rocks that were once covered with seals 
are now being grown over with moss. . . . The cause assigned is that the seal- 
ing fleet, which is now increased and composed of larger and better vessels, has fol- 
lowed the seals so closely and pursued them so ruthlessly.” 
67 This writer adds: 
“Tt is thought the sealers will not catch enough to pay expenses.” 
Before dealing with such sensational reports from those interested in the mainte- 
nance of a monopoly of the fur-seal business, it is well to note that from the first of 
the discussion to the present time not a suggestion has been made by the United 
States authorities that it would be advisable to restrict the pursuit of the fur-seal 
ou the Californian and British Columbian coasts, where it is admitted that many 
