The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-07-21

Although tho expense to which our Gov
rnmen is put in trying to protect the
Pribylov herd from the ravages Of poachers
is not the main element In the Behring Sea
controversy, yet Secretary SHERMAN was
justified In pointing out to England,
through Ambassador HAY, that she is
not doing now, and never has done, her
share Of the patrol duty made necessary by
the Paris decision.
When the British Parliament passed, In
1894, its bill for carrying into execution
the Paris award, the ground was that Eng
land had been put no less under obligation
than our country to make that award ef-
fective. But practically she has left to us
most Of the task Of policing the waters, and
O costly task IL has proved to be. She did
at the outset hurry vessels into the North
Pacific to warn the Canadian sealers Of the
regulations made by Parliament, but then
her zeal slackened.
During 1894, when our patrol feet COM
prised twelve vessels, Great Britain con-
tributed not more than one as It's share Of
the nominally equal task. Our Govern
ment, desiring to carry out effectively the
Paris regulations, inadequate though they
were, called upon the navy to assist
the revenue cutter fleet. The Petrol,
during one season., was taken from the
Asiatic station, where she was needed, and
the Mohican and the Ranger were sent
north from the Pacific station, although
there were calls that season for vessels at
Samoa, Corinto and Callao. Our remem-
brance is that no fewer than eight or nine
naval vessels were added to the revenue
cutters assigned to patrol service.
The expense and Inconvenience of these
d~etcchments were so great that our Gov.
ernment was forced to rely, in succeeding
years, on five or six cutters, the Grant
heing sent all the way from New York
Tor the purpose, and the Perry from Lake
Erie. Great Britain, however. did not seek
20 bear her share of the labor. Although
,y far the greater part of the pelagic seal
,rs arc British, the work of arrest, with
'are exceptions, has been performed by
,ur vessels. Great Britain keeping on duty
:wo or three craft only, to which our
,ruisers and cutters turn over their cap
lures. Mr.. CURzoN, in the House of Com
mons, says there were two British vessels
IN duty in 1895 and three in 1896. with
Two assigned for thisp present year.
Mr.. SHERMAN therefore was justified in
pointing out. in his diplomatic correspond
ence. that while the Canadian pelagic seal.
Frs have nearly ruined our island posses
sions in Behring Sea, England thrusts upon
us the chief burden and cost Of maintaining
the wretchedly insufficient Paris rules. If
shc were a minor naval power, with no
SHIPS TO spare for this duty, her conduct
might be more excusable but as she has
a vastly more numerous and powerful feet
than any other nation on the globe, she
Is certainly able to do her share of the
police work required.
But in this matter, as in the instructions
given to her cruisers and the requirements
imposed upon the Victoria ~sealers, she does
the least practicable. She leaves us to
scour the seas in search of poachers, and OBJ
jects to making, before the maximum period
fixed by the Paris award for revision, any
change in the present regulations for open
sea hunting.