APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 929 
[Inclosure 4 in No. 226.] 
Sir J. Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine. 
WASHINGTON, February 8, 1892. 
Str: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 6th instant, 
in which you observe upon the selection made by our respective Governments of the 
members of the Joint Commission which is about to sit at Washington for the pur- 
pose of investigating and reporting upon the facts having relation to seal life in 
Behring’s Sea with a view to the proposed Arbitration. 
The second paragraph of your note contains the following passage: 
‘T deem it important to direct your attention to the fact that the Government of 
the United States, in nominating the Commissioners on its part, selected gentlemen 
who were especially fitted by their scientific attainments, and who were in no wise 
disqualified for an impartial investigation and determination of the questions to be 
submitted to them by a public declaration of opinion previous or subsequent to their 
selection. It is to be regretted that a similar course does not seem to have been 
adopted by the British Government.” 
While I have much pleasure in congratulating your Government on having secured 
on their side the services of two such. distinguished gentlemen as Professor Menden- 
hall and Dr. Merriam, I must express my surprise and regret that you should have 
thought fit to refer in terms of disparagement to the choice made by Her Majesty’s 
Government. 
The British Commissioners, Sir G. Baden-Powell and Dr. Dawson, are gentlemen 
whose scientific attainments and special qualifications for the duties intrusted to 
them are too well known to require any vindication on my part. But you complain 
of the fact that Dr. Dawson in 1890 wrote a paper on the protection of the fur-seal 
in the North Pacific, in which he committed himself to certain views. This shows 
that he has made the subject his special study, and it appears to me that he is all 
the more qualified on that account to take part in the labours of the Joint Commis- 
sion, which, I beg leave to point out, is not a Board of Arbitration, but one of 
Investigation. 
Dr. Dawson’s note on the fur-seal, to which you refer, was merely based upon such 
published material as was at the time available, and I have his authority for stating 
that he does not feel himself in any way bound to the opinions expressed from the 
study of that material, in the light of subsequent personal investigation on the 
round, 
. You likewise complain that Sir George Baden- Powell had, previously to his selec- 
tion as Commissioner, made public his views on the subject, and also that he is 
reported to have stated in an address to his Parliamentary constituents that the 
result of the investigation of the Joint Commission and of the proposed Arbitration 
would be in favour of his Government. Sir G. Baden-Powell is particularly quali- 
fied to take part in the inquiry by reason of his personal investigation into the 
industrial part of the question which he pursued in 1887 and 1889 in San Francisco 
and British Columbia. From the first he has advocated in all his publie statements 
a full inquiry into the facts of seal life in Behring’s Sea before any final agreement 
should be arrived at, in order that the views of all parties should be tested as to the 
best method of protecting seal life. There is no just ground, therefore, for charging 
him with partiality. As regards the language imputed to him on the occasion of an 
address which he recently delivered to his constituents in England on the labour 
question, it appears that some introductory remarks, in which he referred to the 
Behring’s Sea question, were inaccurately reported. What he did state was 
149 that, thanks to the arrangement arrived at between the two Governments, the 
Behring’s Sea difficulty would now be settled in the true interests of all con- 
cerned, and not of any one side or the other. 
I may mention that the opinions of Professor Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam on the 
fur-seal question were published in several journals in this country shortly after 
their return from Behring’s Sea, and were stated (I know not with what accuracy) 
to be opposed to the views which have been urged on the side of Her Majesty’s Gov- 
ernment. 
But I do not suggest that the United States Commissioners on that account are dis- 
qualified from taking part in the labours of the Joint Commission; I claim that all 
the Commissioners, british and American, are equally entitled to the confidence of 
both Governments as men of science, honour, and impartiality. 
The course which has been adopted for ascertaining what measures may be neces- 
sary for the protection of the fur-seal species is substantially the same as that which 
I had the honour to propose to you, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, nearly 
two years ago in the form of a draft Convention, inclosed in my note of the 29th 
April, 1890. 
B 8S, PT V——9d9 
