The sun., 1892-03-06
LORD SALISBURY AND THE Fur sEAIs
The Grave Complications In Prospect should
Great Britain stop the Modus vivsudi.

LORD SALISBURY AND THE FUR SEALS
The Grave Complications In Prospect shouia
Great Britain stop the Modus vivsudi.
WASHINGTON. March 5.-The renewal OF last
years mod,,s rirend for Dchring Sea. either in
It's original form or with additional security
Aguinst the threatened determination OF the
seals. lias until now been generally assumed
as matter OF course Accordingly. tho cur
ront nows Of Great Britain's refusal to extend
the acrooment OF 1891 for another season
comes "a q surprise. not to say as u shock.
such refusal must ut once conplicate tho
Bohring Sea question and render It critical.
Apart from its practical side. as endangcrinG
tho senl herd by exposing 1t to tho slaughter
OF u hundred crows Of poachers. 1t may have n
greater Importance on its political side. Tho
Inv against seal killing In the waters Of
Alaska remains unrcpcaled on our statute
books. The obligation to execute that law.
itcratcd by Congress few years ngo. is still
imperative on tho President. and he is rcquir-
ed by tho express mandate OF Congress to
warn oil poachers ont Of those waters by
proclamation to be issued early each year.
Such proclamation was issued u few weeks
ago. and II Lord Salisbury has refused to rc-
now last years motlts rirendi. he practically
do1es o,,r Government to enforce its law ac-
cordinG 10 its own Interpretation. Having now
secured the adhesion OF tho United States
70 the agreement to refer to arbitration the
question rs to how much area the waters OF
Alaska include. ho will make no further
concession to our custom. sanctioned prima
Cdcie by n quarter Of n century OF mainten-
ancc, OF considering tho whole treaty area OF
our side Of Buhrng Sea as included In those
waters. This is forcing tho hand OF our Gov
ernmcnt. 1t is true that We still hnvo tho
Board OF Arbitration to rely upon as the flnnl
umpire on tho respective claims. But since
tho very object Of last years agreement was to
prevent private sealcrs from entering the dis
puted waters until this Board OF Arbitration
should DO appointed and should ronder its de-
cision. tho necessity for tho renewal OF that
agreement is precisely IS great as the neces-
sity for originally making 1t.
Even assuming thnt Grcat Britain would not
undertake to protect the British Columbia
eeacrs against our revenue cutters. in the due
execution OF their orders. tho action now
attributed to her would be unfriendlJ in COM
pellirg our Government to tnko increased
risks Of indemnifying those sealers Last year
no such liability was incurred. because the
vessels wore kept out or driven out by the Joint
action Of Great Britain and the United States.
But should the decision Of tho Board Of Arbitra-
tion be against our Government. 1t might incur
serious respons ibilitios by expellng them this
year. OF course II We are to suppose that
Great Britain means also to resist our cruisers.
Tint Is something incomparably more serious.
b 1t was hardly to be presumed that Lord
Salisbury would refuse to renew tho modus
tirendi OF 1901 without further suggestions.
Tho substitute attributed to him is that OF
establishing closed zone Of thirty miles in
width around the Pribylov Islands. This may
perhaps be interpreted as indicating also tho
permanent compromise which he would be
- LA.
tion. Our Government would then he at lib
erty to remove its restriction OF last year
against It's own lcssees o{ the islands. He
may even think it generous on his part to con-
cedo closed zone Of thirty miles. in place OF
the marno lcnGue. which is all that the Brit
ish view would allow US to claim under inter-
national law.
But tho actual result would lie menace OF
ruin to tho seal hcrd. More than hundred
vessels. encouraged by this action OF Great
Britain. and looking upon her as their pro-
tector. would enter Behring Sea and slaughter
the seal herd. sparing neither age nor sex.
throughout the long course from the Aleutian
archipelago up to tho isles OF st. Paul and st.
George. or rather. to the limits Of the closed
zone around them The difference between
this and the total exclusion OF private scaling
vessels from Behring Sea would DO enormous
upon seal life. The Far Trade Rerie,r. In n re-
cent issue. says that. had tho pelagic fleet
becn permitted to enter Behring Sea last sum-
mer. it would have taken at least 100000
eeals there. and nearly oil OF these would
have been female seals" 1t adds the further
calculation that as ut least three seals are
destroyed by the pelagic so0ler for every one
that no secures. the n,odus rirendi in forco
clearly saved the enormous total OF at least
from $4,000 to 100000 seals. old and young.
unborn and born. That would have left upon
our rookcries only half million seals at the
close OF the season OF 1901. and nearly half this
number would have been tho pups OF that
years birth" Tho same authority believes
that In consequence Of last years restriction
there woro between 100000 and 100000 seals
on tho islands Just before they took their de-
parture southwark for the winter.
This beneflcent arrangement Lord Sails
bury is now. 1t appears. unwilling to renew.
We can perhaps surmise that his Government
II it has agreed with the Dominion to indrm-
Nifty the ntters vessels for all last year's
losses resulting from tho modus riprndi. docs
not wish to be- saddled with another years OK
pense Of that sort. But tho answer is that
now it could be renewed in season to notify
the greater part OF the Victoria feet before
leaving port for the season. Had such n no.
ticc been given two months ago it would have
saved even the preparation OF outfits. But
even II Great Britain has assumed. OF her own
accord. some expense under tho mod,ls rirrndi
our Government probably lost much moro last
year by foregoing its usual revenue from tho
islands, and perhaps making itself liabo to
tho lesscos. Unioss tho damages conceded to
the British sealers aro prepostcrous. 1t Cavo
up moro than tho British Government. in its
desire to protect seal life. and this would bo
still moro true Of tho present year.
Perhaps another ground for Lord Sallsbury's
action may bo that his consent to tho mOdns
rrcnd last year was not given through appro-
hension rs to tho danger to senl ife from
pelaglc killing. which he has always rcfusod
to admit. but only for tho purpose OF gaining
information preliminary to arbitration. 1t Is
we'll known that the British Commissioners
who visited BchrinG Sea rofusod TO concur
with ours on the all-esscntal point MS to
whether tho private sealers arc extcrminating
the animals. Iie may now hold that he can
not discard their report In favor Of TINT OF our