New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-09-21

much trouble and Inconvenience in GonneGt nr
! with the patrol Of Behring Sea. The Britlsh poN-
| eminent made grlcvous complaint against the Sc
we're measures Of search resorted to by inc Ai1rr
| can cruisers which gave rise To a lengthy corr
| spcndence on July . 1896. Secretary Oncy SUD
mttcd n proposition TO put an end TO tne pohring
ycrsv hy an examnat ion OF vessels entering bc nc
| Sea ard an inspection by "A representative OF the
United States at British Columbian por'S Ui as
! skins taken In Pohrrg Sea. To discover Wnet,ien
! or not firearms used but this proposluohn Wa" 10
not accepted further attempt Wa eo, m,au for
/ Secretary Olncy to nroclre some agre'iilFh. 70
the sca SON of $50 when 1t was urged tnat A,r,
vessels frequenng fehr'ng sea rctrnIns to
their home ports their skins were c,e Cur, fy,.ad
srectcd. while ier Male'ay ~ arms and declines
tho insnccton OF skins measures whlci, ' f ne
eminent res'rnIi ~ destruci.on OF the seals. "
! Neverthee=s another season has Dceh e''.oi ae
! upon without any settlement % '"'
tion
THE PRESUMPTION or GUILT
:, ,,,s connection. I recall the serious defect,
pointed out in the correspondence, in the BRIT
,sh no, for tho enforcement Of the regulations.
Under the British act passed to carry OUT 'he
r,odrs vivcrdi of 1891 whereby all killing OF
ssaIe vos prohibited In Behring Sea, 1t was pro-
vided that the presumption Of guilt would lie
aroins, tho vessel having on board fishing or
sbo,tir. indictments or scaskins" provision
NJ q Kindred nature was inserted In the british
not for tho enforcement OF tho Russian modus OF
$50, The act OF Congress Of 1891 to enforce
the regulations Of the Paris award contained
si,,iIor proyision but the British act Of lNi FOR
tho eonlo purpose contained no provision what
ever as To oresumptive guilt respecting the
rosscssion Of firearms or skins ut forp'u"eh
times or In forbidden waters And to cmphasZe
It's nurpose In the matter when the BRUSH ACT
to enforce the Russian agreement was re-eiiacted
in 1885,. the provision Of the act OF lS!E' as 10
nresumptIvc iliegality was omitted. THIS action
OF the British Government vas made the SUD
iect Of an earnest protest on the part OF III!
predecessor but To no purpose. The pFac'ica
effect is to make It impossible In many cases 70
convict British scaling vessels. althoug there
may be the strongest presunptivc evidence OF
guilt. evidence which, under the act of Con-
rress would in most cases procure the convc-
ton Of mn American scaling vessel
I shall only cite one further instance OF the
failure and refusal Of the British Government
to give full effect ID the Paris regulations Art-
Gle ; provided that the vessels engaged IN seal
ing should enter daily in their official log BOOKS
the number ard sex Of the seals taken. and that
! these entries should be communicated ny each
| Government - the other a: the erd Of each sea-
son. This regulation was prescribed IN ordcr 10
| procure reliable statistics az to the proportion
| unsatisfactory and imperfect in It's practical
| operation Tho catch " American vessels was
subjected 90 an Official inspection al the home
| mort md il was found that they reported n
much greater proportion II female seals taken
than the British sealers. Although In many IN
| stances the British scalcrs were close TO the
American sea!crs yet tho American sealers re-
| ported from two 10 five times "a many females
as males a result entirely at variance with the
| British rcturna This state II facts led the Act
| Ing Secretary " state. MAY 10. 1893. to request
| ~ the British Government their consent to the
stationlng 81 United states inspectors at British
! Columbian ports. for the purpose OF verifying
the log entries OF British sealing vessels. with
! the offer 81 reciprocal privilege In American
| ,,orts to British inspectors 80 answer having
| been received on September IL and again on
! Scptcrnhor Il tho request made In the previous
| NAV was renewed. ON September 81 the British
Ambassador replied that the request for nspec-
| tors was not acceptable to Her Majesty's Gov
| eminent. "on the ground that the matter Is al
| ready provided FOR by the award regulations,
| the sealers being bound themselves 10 keep
| record Of sex.
| COMPULSORY EXAMINATION OF SKINS.
The measure was regarded by this Govern
| nent As so important that IN December IL.
| 1896 Secretary Olney recalled II to the aIten-
| ton Of the British Ambassador. in connection
| with the sealing OF arms. The answer OF the
| British Government 10 this second application
| was that the compulsory examination by eX-
| merits Of skins on landing nj British ports would
require legislation In Canada" and that the
views of the Canadian Government would have
| To be ascertained. In answer TO the inquiry OF
| Secretary Olney on January %. 1891. az to when
| Tho Canadian Government was likely 10 take ac-
| ton. the Ambassador replied on March ~ that
| Her Majesty's Government were still in cor
| resemblance with the Canadian Government"
and that a further communication would be
| made as soon as possible. No further com
| muncatIon has been made
| | regret that this statement has become 40
| lengthy but In view OF the fact that the Brit
ish Government when pressed for n remedy
| TO welI-established defects in the regulations
| or the acts and rules agreed upon for their
| enforcement, has appealed TO 'the arbitral
| award by which the two nations have solcmnly
| bound themselves To abide" have felt the
present occasion opportune to make review Of
| the events which have transpired since that
| award was rendered, and to challenge a COM
| harrison Of the conduct OF the two governments
| with regard To the final action OF the Interna-
| tional Tribunal Of Arbitration. In respect
| has the United States Government failed to OBJ
serve the exact terms OF the award or TO accept