New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-21
Cashmere
Bouquet
TOILET SOAP and PERFUTlE.

ditons admitted OF boarding operations by the feet
i i%s'''-''' '''' )" 1870 anu
An examination and comparison Of the logs Of Of
sealing vessels for 1925 and 1926 confirms Naptadh
Hooper's report. The above figures wtn the sra va
tistcs contained in my note OF the 9th ul' 10 IhG
herd is becoming rapidly depleted and that the
margin OF safety, Professor Thompson express S
Inferred that the margin OF safety is intended to
signify the point at which peagic sealing seh i"og
| cal determination, for that point could NOT havs
been reached so long as single "u'i ana n"re"'
| existed o,.A,o
The point when sealing ceased - he profitable
10 nSCf TO Sc report shows that the
product of the pelaGc catcn Of S6 N tne 30 rs
and Lord Salisbury informs us that this result mas
brought many owners Of the sealing vesse i5at 70 me
condition Of things predicted by the Government OF
the United States, as quoted below, na ,i ~ no
seals If pelagc sealing continues to he tolerated
limited number OF vessels will carry on the inds-
cruise of recoupns the losses Of the previous years
and the rookeres on the island WI be SUI ui 1
seal may still be continued and Her Maiestys
may repeat the IRA fher SO Ho
son to fear that the seal herd is threatened with
| cary eXtermiration.
| THE PARIS ARBITRATION.
In this connection it may not be Improbable 20
recall the action Of the two Governments respect
ing the efforts made to revise the regulations
adopted at Paris. The expressed object OF inc
| Paris arbitration was "the preservation oil 'he
fur seals" and the regulations adopted by the
Tribunal were framed with view to "the
| proper protection and preservation Of The fur
seal resorting to Behrng Sea" On
| January 33 1895 Secretary Gresham addressed
| note to the British Ambassador stating thai
| the first years experience had convinced the
| President that the regulations enacted by the
| Paris Tribunal have not operated to protect the
| seal herd from the destruction which they were
| designed to prevent" and nc asked that COM
mission 81 scientists and experts be appointed
| 10y the Governments of the United states. Great
! Britain Russia and Japan 10 report upon the
proper measures 10 be adopted and. pending
| the deliberations Of the Governments. modus
| vvendi be agreed upon suspending sealing IN
| Behring Sea. Nearly four months elapsed with
| out an answer from the British Government.
when on May II, 1895. second note was sent.
reiteratng the Presidents spcitude. urging
reply and predicting that unless some further re-
strictions were ad opted the seals would "be ex-
| terminated for all commercial purposes within
very few years" On May 81 the British answer
was received. In which 1t compacently
stated that the condition of affairs is not OF so
| urgent a character as the President has been led
| to believe" and that there was no such urgent
danger Of total extinction Of the seals az to call
for departure from the arbitral award by which
| the two nations have solemnly bound themselves
| TO abide"
| Secretary Olney, on June ~. 1895 by direction
Of the President. renewed the proposition in DIFF
| ferent terms, but the British Government re-
| poated its decnation to make ANY extension
If the regulations solemny lad down by an
| international Board of Arbitration"
| After second years experience Of the regu-
|
| called the attention Of the British Ambassador
| to the catch Of 1895 in Bchring Sea Uhe largest
| ever made in that sea). and expressed the hope
| that the British Government would realize the
| absolute necessity Of consonting for the coming
| season TO some further regulation 10 the end
| that the valuable herd he saved from total cx-
tinction" On April - Sir Julian Pauncetote
| replied that Her Majcsty's Government saw no
| reason TO believe the catch In Behring Sea was
| $50 large TO threaten early determination"
and that there was no necessity for the i'm
mediate imposition Of increased restrictions"
This dependence is recalled TO show that
| from the first year the Paris regulations were
| put in force each succeeding President and Sec
| rotary OF State has been firmly convinced that
| they were inadequate for the purpose for which
| they adopted. and that the British Gov
| eminent has just firmly resisted all overtures
| for even conference OF the Governments con-
cerned for the purpose Of considering whether
| further regulations were required TO protect the
seals. and has rested its refusal upon the ar
| bitral award by which the two nations have
solemnly bound themselves to abide"
THE RESPONSE TO THE TRIBUNALS ACTION
In view OF this attitude Of the British Govern
| inent deem IT opportune 10 make an cxamna-
ton (even at the risk Of being somewhat tedious)
| into sh1
the action Of the Paris Tribunal. and to what
extent and in what spirit It has observed the
decision and recommendations OF that Tribunal
perusal Of the protocols OF that Tribunal will
show that the preparation Of the regulations
was intrustcd TO the three arbltrators mammal,
| ed by the neutral Governments and when ,boir
| unanimous report was presented II was pro-
vidcd IN Article III that the regulations should
be applied TO all the waters OF the Pacific Ocean
| ana Bchring Sea north OF the thirty-hfth degree
~ north latitude. thereby including all the
| waters east o, Japanese and Russian territory
! Lord Hammer. the British arbitrator. objected
| 10 this provision, and moved amendment
| limiting tho area 10 all that part OF the ocean
and sea east OF the 1SMh meridian. Baron
courcel president OF the Tribunal. stated on be-
half Of the neutral arbi,rators that In framing
Article II. they had acted out Of regard for
| Russia and Japan, Powers not represented he
fore the Tribunal Of Arbitration, and toward
the waters OF whom 1t appeared not equitable
to drive back the English and American pelagic
! sealers during the whole time Of the close sea-
| son. But he acqulesced In Lord Hannen's
amendment. and 1t was adopted protocol
LIV) II Ii plain from the proceedings that the
| Tribunal regarded the extension Of the rcgula-
lions 10 the Asiatic waters az a matter of JUS
iice to Russia and Japan. and they would have
| been 80 extended II those Powers had been
| parties to the arbitration.
| when. In accordance with Article VII Of the
treaty Of 1892. the Russian and japanese gov
,rnments were approached with n view 10 &C.
| curing their adhesion TO the regulations they