New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-07-15
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE SEALS.

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE SEALS.
The American side of the sealing controversy
with Great Britain Is now set forth. 1t appears
ir the letter of instructions sent by the Secre'
tary of State at Washington to the United
States Ambassador at London, which was made
publlc Yesterday exclusively in the cOlu ms
of The Tribune The presentation is anthor-
tatiye and, whoever may or may not DE con-
vjnced nv its logic, must be regarded by all as
comprehensive and explicit. There can be no
mistaking It's meaning. nor complaint OF eva
sions or omissions. Every essential point inns
far raised Is dealt with fully and straghtior-
wardIy. Technical details are not disregardcd
but neither are they permitted TO cralnp the ar
guInent within petty and incOnsequental i'in''s.
The American case Is based upon the mahifcst
spIrit as well as the letter Of the Paris award.
and comprehends broad principles OF CONNER
cial. political and humanitarian policy, us w"ii
as mere local and temporary advantage
That part of the discussion which VIII DE
least pleasing TO the British Government Is
probably that which relates to the reports or
Professor Thompson and I'r. Jordan These
were supposed to be purely scientific reports
on the condition Of the seal herds 1urnisn'u 10
the respective governments simultaneously OF
practically so. and early enough to serve as
bases for action during the present year. Hr.
Jordans report was thus furnished 10 the
United States Government. But PROFESSOR
Thompson's was held back until later ha'e'
and then took largely the form or cohtroVer-
sial reply to DR.. Jordans. 1t thus became more
bit of special pleading than a scientific ie-
port and appeared mt date too late to be re-
piled to by Dr. Jordan or to serve as basis
If action this year This Is not an agreeable
characterization to make of q British Govern
ment report. but the Secretary deems 1t Justified
by the date and text Of the document in cues
ton.
Even thus. Professor Thompson's report does
not seem to warrant a refusal by the British
Government to entertain proposals for more
nerfect regulation of the sealing industry It
explicitly declares ''there is abundant need Tor
"care and for prudent measures of conserva-
"tion 1t Is not difficult to believe That
"tbe margin of safety is narrow one, II II be
"not already in some measure Overstepped.'
What Is that margin Of safety! Not that OF
biological safety against determination. That
has not vet been reached. nor sighted. 1t Is the
margin of safety Of commercial profit In great
industry: the industry Of pelaglc sealing, II you
will. MS well as of culture at the rOOkeres. How
narrow that margin Is statistics demonstrate.
In 1894 the average catch Of pelagic seal"rs
was S53 for each vessel. In 1895 1t was 14S. In
1S9, II was only 40. The decline from 1874
TO 1895 was more than II per cent, from 1879
TO 1896 more than Al per cent and from 1874 10
1896 more than 4S per cent. This reduced av-
erage is partly explained by the increased num-
Der of vessels engaged. But 1t Is significant
fact that the total number Of seals taken cvcn
| by the increased number Of vessels, Is rapidly
| decreasing In 1895 1t was 44,160 and III 1896
ONLY $500. decrease of more than AZ per cent.
| Surely at such n rate the margin or sarety
| is in danger Of total elimination.
A strong case Is also made against the Brit
| ish Government for It's failure TO furnish ade-
| ouate patrols In Behrlng Sea for the enforce
| ment of its own regulations. In 1894 this coun-
try furnished twelve patrol ships and Great
Britain only one. Suppose the United States
| also had sent only one, is 1t suppoSaDle mat
| the two ships could adequately have afrolled
| those waters? If, as the British Government
| SAYS "the force employed has been SUFFICIENT
| that Is because the United States has provided
tbe force far beyond the letter Of its obligation.
For the obligation rests equally upon both coun-
| fries If the United States had furnished no
more patrols than Great Britain has. the Brit
ish Government could scarcely have said that
1.-The force employed has been sufficient Com
plaipt is also made Of the British failure or re-
fusal TO enforce the prohibition Of the use OF
firearms in sealing The Paris award forbade
sucb use. and for one year the British Gov
eminent co-operated with this In placing arms
and ammunition under seal; but II now declines
10 do so. or even to inspect the skins taken. to
determine whether firearms have been used or
not. In brief, then, It's policy seems TO be to
abolish patrols and to permit free use OF fire.
ar,ns-that is. TO abrognte every essential reg'l-
| lation for the conservation Of the seal herds.
No wonder. then, that the Secretary of State
deems Great Britain to have drought to naught
"the patient labors and well-meant conclusions
| .of the Tribunal Of Arbitration" The award
OF that tribunal was In the main adverse to
the claims OF the United States. Yet II was
Loyalty accepted by this country. and this Gov
ernmcnt hos ever since II was made been sim
cerely and theoretically endeavoring to enforce
II In letter and in spirit. 1t Is strange, indeed
and unfortunate that the Government which
won the case before the tribunal should now
appear in the attitude Of repudating or null-
! flying the award. That such an attitude Is de-
liberately assumed and will be persisted In Is
, not to be believed. On the simple ground OF
pccuniary pro6t Great Britain will scarcely