APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. $99 
3. We would point out that the frequent references in Mr. Wharton’s 
letter to “killing for food” are altogether beside the question. All 
skins of such seals, if of proper size and condition, are accepted by 
the lessees, and are always included in their annual quota, while much 
of the flesh is taken for the sustenance of the natives. But the 7,500 
limit was fixed as a sufficient number of skins to cover the cost of the 
care and sustenance of the natives, as indeed was acknowledged by 
the Treasury Agent, who, as reported by Mr. Wharton, called upon the 
lessees to bring in a sufficient supply of beef to carry the natives 
through the winter, although it might have been added that this beef 
would be purchased by the Government, and by them distributed to 
the natives. 
4. We observe that Mr. Wharton points out that the Treasury Agent 
had reported that up to the 2nd July, 9,042 seals had been killed. He 
does not explain that by the 20th June, killing had been stopped on 
the expressed plea that the 7,500 limit had been reached. 
5. Mr. Wharton points out that Major Williams consulted several 
American gentlemen, including the two United States Commissioners 
and the Senior Naval Officer, as to the correctness of his decision as to 
when the 7,500 limit was to be applied. We were informed that none of 
these gentlemen had seen the previous correspondence on the subject, 
so that their advice was merely on the facts as presented to them on 
the spot. 
6. We could do no more than explain to the Agent that the Procla- 
mation, correct as it might be in itself, did not contain the whole case. 
Neither Major Williams nor any of the American gentlemen he con- 
sulted had any information or instructions enabling them to understand 
the conditions to which the United States had previously agreed, and 
which were eventually embodied in the modus vivendi of the 5th June. 
7. Both Professor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam at the first expressed 
to us their decided agreement with us in the opinion that the 7,500 
limit must not be exceeded. It was only at a second chance interview 
that they explained that after looking into the question, they saw that 
the period could only begin on the 15th June. 
5. From this view we entirely dissented, as recorded in our letter to 
Major Williams of the 30th July, a copy of which was inclosed in our 
despatch of the 5th August last. 
9. In regard to the phrase “the catch this season” in our letter to 
Major Williams above mentioned, this was intended to include the 
same period as that covered in Mr. Blaine’s letter of the 4th May, 1891, 
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in which Mr. Blaine says: “If the Company 
shall . . . be deprived of all privilege of taking seals, they cer- 
tainly could not be compelled to minister to the wants of these 300 
inhabitants for an entire year. . . . In this exigency the President 
proposes to concede to the North American Company the right to take 
a Sufficient number of seals, and no more than sufficient, to recompense 
them for their outlay in taking care of the natives. . . . TheSecre- 
tary of the Treasury after full consideration has limited the number to 
7,000, torepay them for the outlay demanded for the support of the 300 
people on the Pribyloff Islands.” 
10. We do not understand that the United States Government in 
any way indorse the action of the Treasury Agent, who, as we have 
already pointed out, acted in perfect good faith, but was without the 
necessary instructions. 
11. We presume that all the skins taken this year in excess of 7,506 
will be held over for next year’s quota, inasmuch as if sold for the 
