Instructions to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

No. 93.]

[Handed to Mr. Uhl by Sir Julian Pauncefote, May 27, 1895.]

Sir: I have received your excellency’s dispatch, No. 29, of the 24th January, Inclosing a note from Mr. Gresham, of the 23d January,1 relative [Page 619] to the operation of the regulations laid down by the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration for the fur-seal fishery, and the view entertained by the President of the United States that, the regulations having failed in their object, further provisions are required to preserve the herd from extermination.

In order to avert this result Mr. Gresham had been directed to propose:

That a commission should be appointed by the Governments of Great Britain, the United States, Russia, and Japan, consisting of one or more men from each country, eminent for scientific knowledge and practical acquaintance with the fur trade. This commission should visit the Asiatic side of the North Pacific as well as the American, and also the islands which the seals frequent, and report to their respective Governments as to the effect of pelagic sealing on the herd and the proper measures needed to regulate such sealing so as to protect the herd from destruction and permit it to increase in such numbers as to permanently furnish an annual supply of skins.

That during the deliberations of this commission the respective Governments should agree upon a modus vivendi as follows:

“That the regulations now in force be extended along the line of the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude, from the American to the Asiatic shore, and be enforced during the coming season in the whole of the Pacific Ocean and waters north of that line. Furthermore, that sealing in Bering Sea be absolutely prohibited pending the report of such commission.”

Her Majesty’s Government have given the facts set forth by Mr. Gresham in support of these proposals their most serious consideration, but after examining attentively the figures and information at their disposal they have come to the conclusion that the condition of affairs is not of so urgent a character as the President has been led to believe.

In the second paragraph of his note Mr. Gresham states:

It would appear that there were landed in the United States and Victoria 121,143 skins, and that the total pelagic catch, as shown by the London trade sales and careful estimates of skins transshipped in Japanese and Russian ports, amounts to about 142,000, a result unprecedented in pelagic sealing. It would further appear that the vessels engaged in Bering Sea, although only one-third of the total number employed in the North Pacific, in four or five weeks killed 31,585 seals—not only over 8,000 more than were killed in Bering Sea in 1891 (the last year the sea was open), but even more than the total number killed during the four months on the American side of the North Pacific this season.

He goes on to say—

This startling increase in the pelagic slaughter of both the American and Asiatic herds has convinced the President, and, it is respectfully submitted, can not fail to convince Her Majesty’s Government, tha tthe regulations enacted by the Paris Tribunal have not operated to protect the seal herd from that destruction which they were designed to prevent, and that unless a speedy change in the regulations be brought about, extermination of the herd must follow. Such a deplorable result should, if possible, be averted.

I must, in the first place, observe that arguments based on figures which include the pelagic catch on the Asiatic or western side of the Pacific are calculated to lead to erroneous conclusions as to the working of the regulations, and as to their effect on the seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands.

There can be no doubt that there has been a large increase in the number of seals taken off the Japanese coast last year in comparison to any previous year. The total number taken there in 1893 was only a [Page 620] little over 29,000, while last year it appears from the returns to have been not less than 51,000.

But no point has been more constantly insisted upon by those who have examined and argued the question on behalf of the United States than that the seals frequenting the eastern and western sides of the Pacific form two absolutely distinct bodies or “herds,” and do not intermingle. In the opinion of the experts and counsel employed on behalf of Great Britain this doctrine was pushed too far. They held that a certain amount of intermingling might and indeed did take place in Bering Sea. But though our knowledge of seal life is still far from complete, it may certainly be held as tolerably established that the two main bodies of seals are distinct, and that increased pelagic catch on the Japanese coast does not constitute a serious menace to the seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands.

Whether that increased catch can be continued without serious diminution of seal life on the Asiatic side is a question which has still to be tested by experience.

For the present the regulations apply to the eastern side only, and their success or failure must be judged solely by their effect on the herd which they were intended to protect. I proceed, therefore, to examine that effect as shown by the figures in the possession of Her Majesty’s Government.

From the table printed at page 207 of the report of the British commissioners, it appears that in the years 1889, 1890, and 1891 the pelagic catch on the eastern side was as follows:

1889 42,870
1890 51,560
1891 68,000

These figures include the catch of both British and American vessels.

The figures of the American catch for later years are not available, but the Canadian catch on the eastern side in 1891, 1892, 1893, and 1894 are given in the official report as follows:

1891 52,995 1893 28,613
1892 39,107 1894 38,044

The American catch for 1894 on the eastern side is given in the table inclosed in Mr. Gresham’s other note, forwarded in your excellency’s dispatch No. 29, as 17,558, so that the total catch on that side last year was 55,602. This, as contrasted with the catch of 1891, shows a diminution of about 12,500.

In that year, though the modus vivendi was partly in force, the Canadian catch in Bering Sea was 29,146, whereas in 1894 it was only 26,425. This shows a diminution of about 10 per cent in the catch.

Her Majesty’s Government have no returns of the American pelagic catch in Bering Sea in the season of 1891, and are therefore unable to make a comparison between the total catch there in that year and in 1894. They are unable to understand on what grounds Mr. Gresham has stated the total in 1891 to have been less than 23,585 when, according to their information, the Canadian catch alone was 29,146.

Turning, now, to the number of vessels employed in the fishery, these do not appear to have increased, but, on the contrary, to have decreased.

There are no trustworthy figures available as to the United States sealing vessels previous to those now furnished for 1894 by Mr. Gresham, but there are full official returns with regard to the Canadian sealing [Page 621] fleet, and the following table, showing the numbers and operations of the fleet during the last four years, is interesting in this connection:

Year. Number. Tonnage. Number of hunters. Total catch on both sides of Pacific.
White. Indian.
1891 51 3,378 716 336 50,495
1892 66 4,456 961 511 46,362
1893 55 3,743 847 432 68,231
1894 59 3,866 888 518 90,485

It will be seen from these figures that the number of Canadian vessels and the number of hunters employed on them last season is below that of 1892, the great falling off in 1893 being due to wrecks and seizure of vessels in the previous year.

As regards the total number of vessels, both British and American, employed in the fishery, these are given at page 185 of the United States case before the Tribunal of Arbitration as 115 in 1891 and 123 in 1892, while in 1894 they were only 92—a most material decrease.

The number of vessels and of men employed on them having thus decreased, while the total catch on both sides of the Pacific has undoubtedly increased, it is clear that there has been a general increase in the average catch per man and per vessel. This is no doubt due in considerable degree to increased efficiency, to the fact that under the regulations the use of the spear has largely replaced that of firearms, and that consequently fewer of the seals shot or speared were lost. Much is probably the result of those accidental circumstances of weather and climate which go to make a good fishing season. But the fact tends also to show that more seals were met with than before, and from this point of view the increased catch does not point to any imminent danger of extinction of the species.

As regards the effect of the regulations on the number of seals frequenting the Pribilof Islands, it seems premature to attempt to form an opinion.

Her Majesty’s Government have noted the fact, which is not quoted by Mr. Gresham, but has been stated on authority, that only 16,000 seals were allowed by the United States Treasury agent to be killed on the Pribilof Islands during the last season. It is a feature of the question which deserves attention, but in the absence of information as to the standard weight of skins and other conditions fixed by that officer it is not possible to estimate the significance of this restriction. It does not, however, necessarily point to any grounds of immediate apprehension, as only 20,000 seals could be taken in 1890, though the standard in that year was undoubtedly low.

In any case, as the number of seals taken outside Bering Sea, on the American side was, owing to the regulations, much less than usual, and pelagic sealing does not begin in that sea till the 1st of August, by which time killing on the islands is over, it is evident that the small take on the islands was not due to the results of the pelagic catch of last year.

Taking all these circumstances into consideration, Her Majesty’s Government can not agree that any sufficient evidence as yet exists to show that the regulations have failed in their effect or that there is such urgent danger of total extinction of the seals as to call for a departure from the arbitral award by which the two nations have solemnly bound themselves to abide.

[Page 622]

The arbitrators had before them all the information both as to the condition of the herd and the results of pelagic sealing which the resources of both nations could supply, and after exhaustive consideration they, in the judicial exercise of their discretion, fixed five years as the period after which the regulations might be revised. Only one year has elapsed, and beyond the fact that though the sealers have scrupulously adhered to the regulations they have had a successful season, there is no substantial ground to support the contention that the period for revision of the regulations fixed by the arbitrators ought to be so materially curtailed.

To set aside their authority upon so slight a ground would, in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, be a most serious blow to the authority of arbitral decisions, and to the general principle of arbitration which both Governments have at heart to promote.

Her Majesty’s Government are, however, anxious to do all in their power to contribute to a fair and thorough examination of the facts connected with the seal fishery, and to the adoption in useful time of any measures which may be necessary for the preservation of the species. They have examined carefully the specific proposals contained in Mr. Gresham’s note, in order to see how far any portion of them could be accepted with this view, having due regard to the important British interests involved.

As regards the proposed modus vivendi for this season, Her Majesty’s Government regret that they find themselves unable to accept this proposal.

Even if some adequate grounds had been furnished for its adoption in the interest of the fishery, it is to be remembered that the sealers have already almost all started and are now scattered over the whole breadth of the North Pacific, where it is impossible to warn them.

They have made their preparations oh the assumption that the interference and interruption to which their industry has been subject more or less for the last ten years had at length come to an end, and that the conditions under which it might be prosecuted had at last acquired some permanence and stability. To spring upon them again in the midst of their operations so stringent a proposal as that of the United States would be an act of great injustice, and would involve Her Majesty’s Government in the payment of heavy compensation.

The measure suggested would in fact put an end to pelagic sealing, as it would have only the first four months of the year, when from various causes comparatively few seals are caught, while the sealers would have to lay their vessels up during the remaining two-thirds of the year. The adoption of such a restriction under present circumstances, and upon the only grounds which can be adduced to justify it, would be almost tantamount to an announcement that whenever there has been a successful pelagic fishing, steps will at once be taken to prevent the recurrence of such an event.

Nor can Her Majesty’s Government believe that the appointment at present of an international commission, such as is suggested by Mr. Gresham, would lead to any useful result.

It will be remembered that the commissioners appointed by the United States and Great Britain, who visited the islands in 1891 to examine this same question, found themselves unable to agree, except as to a few vague general statements, and presented reports in which they differed widely, not only as to the remedial measures necessary, but even as to many of the most important facts in seal life, and only the same result can be expected from a second more numerous commission.

[Page 623]

Such commissioners, it must be borne in mind, can only be on the islands for a few weeks at most, while the period during which the seals frequent the islands extends from May to October or November, and the phases of seal life exhibited are constantly changing.

The question to be dealt with is the progress and the growth or decrease of the herd, and the information required to enable it to be effectively grappled with can only be gathered by continuous observations carried on constantly during the greater part of the period that the islands are resorted to by the seals, and extending over a series of years. The new commission might, no doubt, be able to gather some new facts as to seal life, but nothing but continuous and comparative study could qualify it to form a judgment as to the effects which the pursuit of the seals at sea and the slaughter on land is producing on the herd, and to suggest any remedial measures with confidence and authority.

Instead of appointing such a commission, though possibly as a preparatory step to its appointment, Her Majesty’s Government would propose the appointment of agents to reside on the seal islands and to collect authoritative information by observations, which should extend over such a period as will be sufficient to enable a judgment to be formed of the effect of the fishing upon the preservation of the herds.

If such agents appointed by the United States and Great Britain were to conduct investigations jointly during the next four years, both Governments would by that time have, With the particulars derived from the sealers’ logs and other sources, a body of information which would enable the two nations to approach the question of revising the regulations in a thoroughly scientific manner, and to protect, as far as possible, the numerous and varied interests involved in the seal fishery.

Her Majesty’s Government do not wish, however, to be understood as desiring to postpone all discussion until that date. The agents would naturally make their reports at regular and not too distant intervals, and if the facts disclosed in these reports, or information obtained from other sources, should at any time show a state of things urgently calling for remedial measures, Her Majesty’s Government would be willing at once to examine with the Government of the United States the method in which such measures could best be applied. Similarly they will be ready to do what is in their power to obtain early returns of the results of the fishery during the present year, in order that they may be examined by the two Governments at the first practicable moment.

If these proposals recommend themselves to the Government of the United States it might be desirable also to approach the Russian Government with a view to the appointment of similar agents on the Commander Islands. There is little independent information available in regard to the conditions of seal life on these islands, and as the Russian Government desire that the regulations made by the arbitrators for the western side of the Pacific should be extended to the eastern side, it seems reasonable that there should be inquiry how far such extension is necessary and applicable.

Your excellency is authorized to read this dispatch to Mr. Gresham, and if he should so desire, to hand him a copy of it.