Mr. Olney to Lord Gough.
Washington, June 24, 1895.
My Lord: On the 27th ultimo Her Majesty’s ambassador handed to Mr. Uhl a printed copy of an instruction from the foreign office, No. 93, dated May 17, 1895, in answer to Mr. Gresham’s proposals of the 23d of January last, touching the necessity of further provisions to preserve the fur-seal herd of the northern Pacific and Bering Sea extermination in view of the inadequacy of the regulations laid down by the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration, and specifically replying to the proposal of this Government for the appointment of an international commission by the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, respectively, to investigate the fur-seal fisheries of those waters, and, pending a report by said commission, for a modus vivendi prohibiting sealing in Bering Sea and extending the regulations of the Paris award along the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude to the shores of Asia.
With regard to Mr. Gresham’s statements concerning the startling increase in the pelagic slaughter of both the American and Asiatic herds, I note that the reply of the foreign office takes the position that this Government, because of its contention before the Paris Tribunal that the Asiatic and American fur-seal herds are distinct and do not commingle, can not now with propriety draw any inference as to the effect of pelagic sealing on the American fur-seal herd from figures indicating increased catches over previous seasons in the total of seals killed on the Asiatic and American sides of the North Pacific Ocean.
The claim is further advanced that, although the catch of fur seals during last season on the Asiatic side was greater than in any previous year, yet the catch taken from the American herd (that is, within the Paris award area), while admittedly larger than in most previous seasons, was, in fact, not as large as that of the season of 1891. And in this connection this Government is further reminded that the success or failure of the regulations established by the Paris Tribunal must be judged solely by their effect on the herd which they were “intended to protect.”
I have the honor to reply that during the hearings before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris it was earnestly contended by counsel representing Great Britain that the Asiatic and American herds did commingle. That fact was disputed by the American counsel in the light of the evidence before them. The Tribunal, however, was not called upon to make any definite finding upon this important question. While I do not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion upon the subject, yet, in view of the admission contained in the note of your Government, in which I cordially join, that “our knowledge of seal life is still far from complete,” I feel that this disputed question as to whether said herds commingle still requires most careful consideration [Page 650] and study. It has been suggested that the American seal herd, even if not naturally commingling with the Asiatic herd, may have been driven over to Asiatic shores by incessant slaughter during the past seasons. If such were found to be the fact on careful investigation, which investigation is unfortunately refused by Her Majesty’s Government—it might appear that the total slaughter of fur seals on both sides of the North Pacific Ocean has a more intimate connection with the present condition of the American fur-seal herd than is now admitted.
However this may be, the foreign office seems to have fallen into the serious error of assuming that the proposition of the United States Government, contained in Mr. Gresham’s note of January 23 last, was selfish’ in its character, having application only to the material interests of the United States Government in the American, as distinguished from the Asiatic, fur-seal herd. Nothing could be further from the truth. The President acted in the desire to protect the fur-seal fisheries on both sides of the North Pacific Ocean, Asiatic as well as American, for the benefit of mankind. Incidentally, it is conceded, this might have resulted in benefit to the interests of the United States, but the proposition was based on broad humanitarian principles, no peculiar benefit or gain being sought save what would have occurred to all mankind from the proper regulation of these valuable fisheries. It will be recalled that a proposition of similar nature, limited to Bering Sea, was made by my predecessor, Mr. Bayard, through the United States ministers in England, Japan, Russia, and Sweden and Norway to those respective Governments in 1887, and that subsequently, at the request of Lord Salisbury, then Her Majesty’s secretary for foreign affairs, its scope was broadened so as to embrace the whole northern Pacific Ocean, including Bering Sea, from the Asiatic to the American shores north of the forty-seventh degree of north latitude. Unfortunately, and apparently at the dilatory instance of the Canadian Government, this proposal was indefinitely postponed by Her Majesty’s Government in June, 1888.
The development of valuable fur-seal fisheries off the coasts of Japan and Russia, followed by the closed season established by the Paris award, has induced many sealing vessels to frequent those waters, thus causing a notable increase in the pelagic slaughter off the Asiatic shores. The figures given by the foreign office included only the slaughter in Japanese waters. Adding the seals killed in Russian waters we have a total of over 73,000 in 1893 and over 79,000 in 1894. It was to regulate the killing in those waters, as well as within the Paris award area, that Mr. Gresham’s proposition of January 23 was made.
But even if it be assumed that the American and Asiatic herds are distinct and have never commingled, the fact still remains that the slaughter of the so-called “American” or “Alaskan” herd during the past season has been greater than in any season in the history of pelagic sealing. The foreign office’s instruction states that about 12,500 fewer seals were killed from this herd in the award area in 1894 than in 1891. There is good ground, however, to conjecture that the British computation of seals killed in Bering Sea in 1891, namely, 29,146, swelling their total computation to 68,000, comprised a number of seals taken on the western side of that sea in the vicinity of the Russian islands. The figures for the catch in the same sea in 1894 (31,585) it should be remembered, are limited to seals killed on the eastern side within the area of the Paris award.
It was a matter of evidence before the Paris tribunal that after the promulgation of the modus vivendi of June 15, 1891, 41 British vessels [Page 651] were warned out of the American side of Bering Sea by American cruisers between the dates of June 29 and August 15 of that year. It is believed that many of the vessels so warned went over to the Russian side of Bering Sea and made catches there. From statistics in the possession of this Government it would appear that some 8,432 seals were so taken—6,616 by British vessels and 1,816 by American vessels. There should be deducted, therefore, from the British figures 6,616, leaving about 23,000 as the catch of British vessels in the award area in Bering Sea during the season of 1891. A closely similar result is reached by careful examination of all the reported catches of 1891, and of the affidavits scattered through the cases and counter cases of the United States and Great Britain, whereby, deducting from the catch stated in the United States counter case, 28,605, the number of seals estimated to have been killed off the Russian coasts, 5,847, a result of 23,041 is reached. Adding to this computed British catch in Bering Sea during 1891 the number of seals computed as killed in Bering Sea by American vessels in that year, 4,920, the total number of seals killed and recovered within the award area in Bering Sea for the season of 1891 falls below 28,000.
The communication of the foreign office states the total catch of the American and British vessels within the award area, comprising the North Pacific, in addition to Bering Sea, in 1891, as 68,000. A careful computation made by the Treasury Department of the total catch for 1891, based on an elaborate calculation of all the evidence disclosed in the case and counter case of each Government, estimates the number of seals known to have been killed within the award area at 45,000, leaving about 18,000 undetermined as to the locality of the slaughter. Taking, however, the figures as given by the foreign office, 68,000, and subtracting the number estimated by other computations by the Treasury Department to have been killed in Russian waters, 8,432, we have left 59,568 as the maximum catch within the award area for 1891.
The official statement of the catch for 1892 contained in the report of the Canadian department of marine and fisheries credits 14,805 out of a total of 53,912 to the Asiatic shores; the report for 1891 gives only a total of 52,995, none being credited to Russian waters; neither does the report of the British commissioners of the catch of 1891 give any number as killed in said waters. While admittedly these Russian catches were relatively small in this year, and hence may by inadvertance have escaped the attention of the Canadian authorities, yet it is clear that the British computations of 1891 and 1892 are reached by different methods, omission, if not error, to the extent stated above being distinctly imputable to the, figures of 1891.
In computing the catch of 1894, the instruction of the foreign office states that 55,602 seals were killed within the award area, including 17,558 as the catch of American vessels. It should be remembered, however, that in the Treasury Department tables, from which the details mentioned in Mr. Gresham’s note of January 23 were taken, 6,836 skins taken by American vessels were stated as undetermined as to location. Assuming that these unlocated catches were divided between the American and Asiatic herds in the same proportion as the other skins landed during the season of 1894 at American ports by United States vessels, we should have for the total catch within the award area 55,686, plus 6,152, or 61,838 in all, representing the bodies actually recovered, disregarding those killed but not recovered, from two to five times as many, according to the evidence before the Tribunal at Paris.
This total of seals killed and recovered justifies the repetition of the [Page 652] statement previously made that the pelagic catch within the award area during the last year’s season was the largest in the history of pelagic sealing, the nearest approximation being the season of 1891, in which, even on the theory of the British figures, not more than 59,568 seals were killed and secured. The significance of this catch of 1894 will be better appreciated when it is considered that only 95 vessels were employed as against 115 in 1891.
It is further contended in the foreign office note that the increased catch, with proportionately fewer vessels, indicates an increased number of seals in 1894 as compared with 1891, and consequently a better condition of the fur-seal herd. When, however, the startling decrease of seals on the Pribilof Islands, pronounced by experts to be at least one-half since 1890, taken in connection with the great destruction of pups from starvation on the islands last season, caused by the slaughter of their mothers at sea, is considered, it will appear, it is respectfully suggested, conclusively demonstrated that the increased catch is but a measure of the increased efficiency of the crews employed as hunters on the sealing vessels; that the seal herd is rapidly diminishing in numbers and that it is in danger of speedy extermination unless changes are made in the regulations established by the Paris award as proposed by this Government.
It is correctly stated by the foreign office note that the catch in the award area of last season outside of Bering Sea was less than during the season of 1893. It should be remembered, however, that it falls only a little short of the catch of 1893, and that it was taken during four months, January to April, while the catch of 1893 was taken during seven months, January to July. The prohibition in the award regulations of pelagic sealing during the months of May, June, and July, however, was calculated undoubtedly to do much good to the herd, and some favorable results might naturally have been expected early in the season on the islands. Nevertheless, alter the sealing fleet had finished its work in Bering Sea, the alarming increase in the number of dead pups found on the islands (amounting by accurate estimate to about 20,000), revealed unmistakably the fatal error of the award regulations in opening said sea to pelagic sealing.
The marvelously increased efficiency of the pelagic seal hunters in the use of the shotgun and spear, as shown by the enormous catches of late years, and especially of the last season under the award regulations, can not fail, it is again submitted, to speedily deplete the fur-seal herd. This depletion has already necessitated a reduction of the land catches on the Pribilof Islands of 85 per cent since 1890, and the pelagic catches must soon decrease in like degree on peril of complete extermination. Reports of the coast catch of the present season of 1895 would seem to indicate that this decrease is already observable. It is to be presumed, however, that for some few years the pelagic slaughter in Bering Sea, the great nursery of the fur-seal herd, can be maintained at figures approximating to or possibly exceeding those of last year. But the end can not be far off. It is respectfully submitted that such slaughter as has taken place within the last year—largely of nursing females—affords conclusive evidence that the regulations as established by the Paris award are not giving that measure of protection that the arbitrators intended. Commercial extermination of the fur-seal herd—Asiatic as well as American—is imminent. It is to be deeply regretted, therefore, that Her Majesty’s Government has declined our propositions for the appointment of an international commission, and for an efficient modus vivendi pending a more comprehensive agreement in which all the parties in interest may justly share.
[Page 653]While thus rejecting the suggested international commission and modus vivendi, the foreign office instruction suggests that resident agents be appointed by the United States and Great Britain to be stationed on the Pribilof and Commander islands, there to make joint investigation during the next four years, and to report from time to time as to the condition of the fur-seal fisheries.
Although this Government firmly believes that this suggestion of Her Majesty’s Government is inadequate and can not satisfactorily take the place of an international commission of scientists, nor supply the need of all asked for in said modus, it is unwilling to block the way to abetter approximate understanding of the important conditions of seal life. It is thought, however, that the British suggestion may be advantageously modified in the interest of all concerned, and I am directed by the President to make a new proposition to Her Majesty’s Government, based largely upon that now submitted by the foreign office, to wit: That three agents each be appointed by the respective Governments of Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and the United States, twelve in all, who shall be stationed on the Kurile, Commander, and Pribilof islands, respectively; that these agents be instructed to examine carefully into the fur seal fishery and to recommend from time to time needful changes in the regulations of the Paris award and desirable limitations of the land catches of each of the said islands; that within four years they shall present a final report to their respective Governments, and that, pending such report, a modus vivendi be entered into extending the award regulations along the line of the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude from the American to the Asiatic shores.
The importance of the subject, of which the Governments interested must by this time be abundantly convinced, leads me to hope for the early and favorable attention of Her Majesty’s Government to this amended proposal.
I have, etc.,