The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-22
The Sealing Controversy.

The publication If the correspond
rncp on the sealing question recently
.rxchargcd between Sir Wilfred l.auri-
cr. l,presc"'ing the government "l
Canada. and John w. Foster, repre-"
Santinc the government Of the United
states. affords an interesting insight
into This much mootcd subject. 1t also
presents ofIiciall! the American posi-
tion. enabling the public to judge Of it
mtcllig"ntly.
When the Caradian premier and min
istor Of fisheries were in Nashington
~ November. Alr Foster on behalf OF
the Uritpd States. submitted to them a
memorandum cmbodying the substance
of this governments proposals for a
settlement Of existing differences Win
Canada. The memorandum consisted
of two items: first, that the govern
ments of Great Britain and the United
States agree nt once To a nlOdus Vivcn-
di providing for a complete suspension
OF The killing of seals in all the waters
Of the Pacific ocean and Bcring sea
fer one year from December. 1897. and
for, a suspension of al killing of seals
cu the Probilcf islands for the same
period: second that these govern
mcnt,. enter into an agreement t. re-
view the whole seal question ana at the
SANE time to frame treaty settling
amicahly that and other questions At
issue between canada and the United
States. as. for instance. the fisheries
disput,. the immigration question, re-
ciprocity. etc. They took the memor-
andum 30 Ottawa. thought over it and
on Nov. a wrote to Mr.. Foster accept
ing the second proposition but express
iuc their inability u consent to the
first.
To this letter Mr. Foster replied On
| Dee , virtually asserting tat the
Unitel States could not waive the one
condition t. which Canada objected,
| on this point tc explained why sus
pension of pelagiC sealing pending the
sc;t!ement of the other subjects of ne
gotiation was essential To the preserva-
tion Of the sealing industry, and he
| added rather SuggCstively:
w seem tn have failed to impress upon
! tn" Canadian government, past or pres
cnt our view that pclagic scaling ought
| t. he voluntarily given up because II j.
| umneighborly in that ii is destroying q
| valuable industry of our government, ana
| iuhumanr becal So ii iS CNtrrminatiug 4
! noble race of animals useful To the world
| We paid Russia "A largo sum for Alaska
| aad the chief pl Irrespective return then Nis'
iblc was the seal industry which had
! yielded the Russian government and sub,
! i"Cts larg" profit. We enjoyed the indus,
try uudisturbcd for about fifteen years
| Tcdping a rich return to the government
| and the lcsSees. the revenue to the fed,
rral treasury uu to 1891 beng estimated
J at over Sll ,OOO.oOo a sum much larger thar
| was paid to Russia for the entire terri
/ tory, Suddenly the pciagiC ScalCrs ,n
tered upOn the work of destruction, nnr
they have brou ght the industry to tn,
point where it is no longer prOtitapl"
| 7 his work OF deStruCtiOr has been pros"
outed as "A conceded legal vocation, unC
| when we have called attention to tht
rapid diminutiCn of the herd and III,
| treaty obligation to protect ana preserr,
| IL, We have been met by the declaration
that its actual cNteTmination is not I'M
| mediatcly threatened, When il ls pro
posed to negotiate for the surrender o
the legal right of EolaEic sealing, We ar
"A fair compensation to those engaged il
| the industry, but that the question m ~
be included with a number of other sub
icct~ having no relation to 1t whatever
and that il must await the fate of al
these matters, some Of which. as com
mercial reciprocity and the tariff ar
very complex i'm their character, AM
others, as the northeastern sea fisheries
of long standing ana very difficult of ad
| mStmCnt,
Mr. Foster added that while the pres
idant did not cOnCede the proprety q
compliCating the subject of the propc
protection of the seals with these 0the
questions of intricate public policy an,
conflicting interests, yet his desire fo
more friendly state OF relations be
tween the two neigl boring countrie
was so strong that he was willing L
lump the subjects of negotiation
meanwhile a mudus vivendi could b
laErcei upon which would save the seal
from destruction while the negotiation
We're in progress. But the inferenc
conveyed by Mr.. Fosters letter is tina
this condition is indispensable 10 fur
ther progress in the proposed negotia
tions, Meanwhile the bill to prohibi