duct of the seal at auction, and it was awarded to the highest bidder, wherever he might dwell.

The effect of this was, also, as we shall have occasion to see in the course of this discussion, to build up and maintain an important industry in Great Britain. It was there that the sealskins were manufactured and prepared for sale in the market, and thousands of people were engaged in that industry, many more, indeed, than were engaged in the industry of gathering the seals upon the Pribilof Islands. That particular benefit was secured to Great Britain in consequence of this industry.

In the few years preceding 1890, the Government of the United States was made aware of a peril to the industry which had thus been established, and which it was in the enjoyment of, a peril to the preservation of this race of seals, a peril not proceeding from what may be called natural causes, such as the killing by whales and other animals which prey upon the seals in the water, but a peril proceeding from the hand of man. It was found that the practice of pelagic sealing, which had for many years, and indeed from the earliest knowledge of these regions, been carried on to a very limited extent by the Indians who inhabited the coasts for the purpose of obtaining food for themselves and skins for their clothing, and which had made a limited draft upon the herds in that way it was found that this practice was beginning to be extended so as to be carried on by whites, and in large vessels capable of proceeding long distances from he shore, of encountering the roughest weather, and of carrying boats and boatmen and hunters, armed with every appliance for taking and slaughtering the seals upon their passage through the seas. That practice began, I think, in the year 1876, but at first its dimensions were small. The vessels were fitted out mostly from a port in Bristish Columbia, and confined their enterprise to the North Pacific Ocean, not entering Bering Sea at all; and their drafts upon the seals even in the North Pacific Ocean were at first extremely small, only a few thousands each year. But the business was found to be a profitable one, and, of course, as its profit was perceived, more and more were tempted to engage in it, and a larger and larger investment of capital was made in it. More and more vessels prosecuted the fishery in the North Pacific Ocean, and in 1883, for the first time, a vessel ventured to enter Bering Sea.

The learned Arbitrators will perceive that up to this time, during the whole of the Russian and the whole of the American occupation of these islands, there had been no such thing as pelagic sealing. Those two nations had enjoyed the full benefit of this property, the full benefit of these herds of seals, in as complete a degree as if they had been recongized as the sole proprietors of

them, and as if a title in them, not only while they were ashore and upon the breeding islands, but while they were absent upon their migrations, had been recognized in them during that whole period; or as if, there had been some regulation among the nations absolutely prohibiting all pelagic sealing. Up to the period when pelagic sealing began to be extended, as I have said, those advantages were exclusively enjoyed by Russia and the United States; and at first, as I have said, these enterprises did not extend into Bering Sea, but were carried on in the North Pacific Ocean, and south and east of the Aleutian chain.

Why Bering Sea was thus carefully abstained from, it may perhaps be difficult at the present time altogether to say. It may be for the reason that it was farther off, more difficult to reach. It may be for the reason that the pelagic sealers did not at first suppose that they had a right to enter Bering Sea and take the seals there, for it was well known that during the whole of the Russian occupation, Russia did assert for herself an exclusive right to all the products of that region of the globe; and it was also of course well known to all Governments, and to these pelagic sealers, that the United States had, when they acceded to the sovereignty over these islands, asserted a similar right, and made the practice of pelagic sealing, in Bering Sea, at least perhaps farther, but in Bering Sea, at least-a criminal offence under their law. But from whatever cause, it was not until the year 1883 that any pelagic sealers ventured into Bering Sea. During that year a single vessel did enter there, took a large catch, was very successful, and was not called to any account; and this successful experiment was, of course, followed during the succeeding years by many repetitions of the same enterprise.

The extent to which pelagic sealing was thus carried on in Bering Sea, its probable consequences upon the herds which made their homes upon the Pribilof Islands, was not at first considered either by the United States, or by the lessees of the Islands. There was no means by which they could easily find out how many vessels made such excursions, and they did not at first seem to suppose that their interests were particularly threatened by it. Consequently, for the first two or three years no notice seems to have been taken of these enterprises by the Government of the United States, although she had laws made against them. But in 1886, this practice of taking seals at sea became so largely extended that it excited apprehensions for the safety of the herd; and it was perhaps thought at that time that there was already observable in the condition of the herd some damaging, destructive consequence of that pursuit of them by sea.

The attention of the United States having been called to the

practice, that Government determined to prevent it, and the first method to which it resorted was an enforcement of the laws upon her statute-book, which prohibited the practice and subjected all vessels engaged in it to seizure and confiscation. Instructions were accordingly given to the cruisers of the United States to suppress the practice, and to enforce those laws. The result was that in the year 1886 three British vessels and some American vessels were taken engaged in the pursuit illegally under the laws of the United States. They were carried in and condemned.

These seizures were in 1886. They were followed by protest on the part of Great Britain and that protest was made by a note addressed by Sir Lionel Sackville West to Mr. Bayard.

Sir Charles Russell. Give us the reference, Mr. Carter, please, as you go along.

Mr. Carter. It is on page 153, Vol. 1 of the Appendix to the American Case:

Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, September 27, 1886.
(Received September 28.)

SIR: I have the honor to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have received a telegram from the commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces on the Pacific station respecting the alleged seizure of the three British Columbian seal schooners by the United States revenue cruiser Corwin, and I am in consequence instructed to request to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government may possess relative to this occurrence. I have etc.,

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

That was the first note addressed by the British Government in consequence of these seizures and, as the learned Arbitrators will perceive, it called only for information. Mr. Bayard, who was then the American Secretary of State, did not immediately respond to this note. He could not give the requisite information. The locality as you will perceive, is exceedingly remote from Washington and communication with it could only be had on rare occasions. The opportunities for communication were very few, and therefore it was necessary, it was unavoidable, that a very considerable period of time would elapse before the United States could procure the information desired by the British Government, and inform it of the particulars. But, of course, at that time the United States Government was called upon to consider questions that would thus be likely to arise and to determine the course it would be best to pursue in reference to those questions; and they were called at that time they perhaps had been considerig it before, but upon at least at that time

to consider the exigency with which they were

thus confronted. What was it? Here had been an industry carried on by Russia before the acquisition by the United States for three-fourths of a century. It had been continued by the United States for twenty years, and continued with all the benefits to the United States and to the world which I have mentioned.

threatened by this practrice, which was rapidly extending itself, of pelagic sealing. What was pelagic sealing — for that was the thing which at first arrested the attention of the United States Government — what was pelagic sealing, and what were its obvious and its necessary consequences?

I must say a single word or two upon that point, although it will subsequently form a subject of more extended discussion; but right upon its face, pelagic sealing appeared to be, as it undoubtedly was, simply a method of destroying the race of seals.

Senator Morgan. Before you proceed to argue that, I would like to ask a question about the sealers in Bering Sea.

Mr. Carter. Certainly.

Senator Morgan. I find a table in this Appendix to the Case of the United States, which states that the "City of San Diego ", a schooner, was seized by the American Government on July 17th, and it was an American ship.

Mr. Carter. Yes.

Senator Morgan. And then the Thornton, the Carolina, and tke Onward were seized subsequently, on August first and se cond, and they were British. Is that the proper statement as you understand it?

Mr. Carter. I so understand it. The first seizures that were made were both American and British.

Senator Morgan. The first seizure that was made, according to this table and that is the reason I call your attention to it — was an Americain ship, on July 17th, and then the next seizure was August 1 st of British vessels.

Mr. Carter. Doubtless that is correct. I have not carried in my mind the fact which is of course true that the first seizure made was of an American vessel. It would appear to be so by the statement which was read by the learned Arbitrator.

I have said that pelagic sealing seemed to be simply destruction. It was destruction because it was not regulated. It was destruction because it proceeded in defiance of the obvious and well known laws which govern the protection and preservation of the race of seals. If it continued it seemed to the United States that it would as surely result in the destruction of seals as the indiscriminate slaughter of them on the islands of the southern ocean had resulted in the destruction of the herds in that quarter of the globe. They could not imagine that that could be right. They

could not imagine that it was right or proper for any nation, or any men anywhere upon the globe, on the sea or on the land, to sweep out of existence one of the bounties of Providence. They could not imagine that, when there was an industry established and in full operation and which had been for nearly a century, by which the whole benefit of this race of animals was secured, and permanently secured to man, without any peril to the stock, any man or any nation could rightfully, on the sea, or anywhere else, come in and by an indiscriminate and destructive pursuit of the animal take away that benefit forever from mankind. So it seemed to them, and so therefore they had no hesitation in giving the instructions which resulted in the seizure of these vessels; and those seizures resulted in the demand which I have just read.

I have said that there was no immediate answer to this call of the British Government, because owing to the remoteness of the situation the necessary information could not be procured. It was followed up, therefore very properly by Her Majesty's representative, and on the 21st of October, 1886 he addressed to Mr. Bayard another note, which will also be found on page 153 of the same volume, as follows:

Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard.

WASHINGTON, October 21, 1886.
(Received October 22.)

SIR With reference to my note of the 27th ultimo, requesting to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government may possess relative to the seizure in the North Pacific waters of three British Columbian seal schooners by the United States revenue cruiser Corwin, and to which I am without reply, I have the honor to inform you that I am now instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, Her Hajesty's principal secretary of State for foreign affairs, to protest in the name of Her Majesty's Government against such seizure, and to reserve all rights to compensation.

I have, etc.,

L. S. SACKVILLE WEST.

The state of mind in which the representatives of the British Government appear to be at this time is represented by a note from the Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir Lionel Sackville West, which preceded the sending of the note which I have last mentioned. That was written on the 30th of October 1886. It begins with mentioning the fact that Her Majesty's Government was still awaiting the result of the application to the United States for information.

Sir Charles Russell. It did not precede the other. It is later.