The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1893-04-01
Claims OF Contending Parties.

| NEW YORK, March 25-[ Herald's Paris
cable AT the meeting Thursday of the
BehriDg sea arbitrators, it was decided
the sIttings would not be held behind
closed doors. This will permit the
making public of the exact points of the
contention. Briefly stated, the case of
the United States is that Alaskan fur
seal is begotten, born and reared only
upon Prlbyloff islands, TO which the seal
return each spring to spend several
months consorting together; that while
a; these islands the seals are easily con.
trolled; that Discrimination can be and
has Deen exercised; that while absent
from these islands during migration,
which reaches as far south as the coast OF
California, they land on no other shore
and mingle with no other herd of fur
seals; that because of these habits the Al
askan herd and each individual of it is
the property of the United States. The
methods employed by open sea sealers is
attacked by the American government as
destructive, wastetul and exterminatlng.
1t is claimed lerge percentage of the
seals killed by open sea hunters are ie-
males, majority of which are about TO
become or are mothers. The destruction
of the pregnant female causes the death
of the unborn young. The death of
the mother seal, killed while in search
of food III the waters of Behring sea, de-
stroys the offspring on the Prbyloff ISL
ands.
FURTHER CLAIMS MADE.
t. IL
shot in open sea by hunters escape NOR
tally wounded, or sink before the hunter
reaches them. Open sea sealing, il is ar
gued, will result in the destruction of the
herd in the near future. On the islands
only limited number of the male seals
are killed. As the seal is polygamous,
large number of males can be killed
without affecting the birth rate OF the
herd. On these facts the American gov
ernment claims. from the nature of the
industry established on the Pribyloff
islands, that the United States has the
right to protect and preserve these seals
wherever they may be found, as the an
imals can only be killed on the United
States territory. without danger of exter
mination. 1t is also claimed, owing to
the long period of CESSATION, that pelaglc
sealing cannot at any time be otherwise |
than destructive, dangerous and waste
full, and should be prohibited.
GREAT BRITAIN CASE.
The case of Great Britain, on the other |
band, is that Alaskan seals have not the |
of animals that can be |
made subject to property; that it is not |
certain they land only upon the Pribyloff |
islands, or that they do not intermingle
with the Russian seal herd; or that they
are pelagic in nature, and therefore
should be treated as fish rather than land
that many of the propositions !
essential to the position taken by the I
United States are unproven or contrary to
facts. As to pelagic sealing, it Is claimed
the destructiveness and wastefnlDess
has been greatly exaggerated; that it is
q legitimite and proper method of tax
ing seals, and can be taken without dan
ger OF exterminating the herd. Much
Importance is also given by the British
government to the Jurisdiction 1t claims
over Behring sea, but this appears to be
treated by the United States as second
ay question Both NATIONS concede the
,eals have decreased, the Unite States
changing such decrease to the destruction
IF open sea sealing, and Great Britain
claiming the present condition has been
:su;ed by the excessive number of males
killed on the islands and the injurious ef
'ect of the methods there employed.