San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-07-14
THE SEAL Controversy.
Matters Not As They
Should Be.
SECRETARY SHERMAN WRITES
A LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS
TO MINISTER HAY.
Says England Has Not Performed
Her Duty In The Matter And
Wants Her Urged To Do
So Immediately Quotes
Authority.


Important and exhaustive instruc-
lions have recently been sent by Sec
rotary Sherman to Ambassador Hay
for his guidance in urging the British
government to comply with the pro-
visions of the Behring Sea award,
which looked to the preservation of
seal life in Alaskan waters. The in
structions We're prepared as a reply to
recent note from Lord Salisbury
handed to Secretary Sherman by Sir
Julian Pauncefote a few days before
the British ambassador sailed from
New York to London. They show
England's policy of procrastination,
her continued failure and her refusal
to support this government in its eff
forts to prevent the determination of
the seal herd and the anxiety of the
United States, frequently made known
in the London foreign office, that steps
should be taken to preserve the seals
as an obligation imposed by the Paris
tribunal.
The instructions are in part as fol-
Aows:
His Excellency John Hay, etc, Lon
don: The British ambassador has
handed me copy of dispatch to him
from Her Majesty's principal secretary
of state for foreign affairs, which dis
patch constitutes the reply of the
British government to the proposals
of the president, as presented in note
to your embassy, for modus vivendi
for the suspension of all killing of seals
for the present season and for a joint
conference of the powers concerned,
with view to the necessary measures
being adopted for the preservation OF
the fur seal in the North Pacific. II
will be seen that both proposals are
rejected.
Il need hardly to say that the presi-
dent is greatly disappointed at this ac-
ton, especially when it is based upon
such unsubstantial and inadequate rea-
sons. The presidents concern, in view
of the depleted condition of the seal
herd, was occasioned not alone from
an examination of DR.. Jordan's report |
of 1886, and what he had reason to
suppose were the conclusions of Prof. |
Thompson, but it was based upon
series of observations and statistics |
covering a much longer period than |
that treated by these gentlemen and |
the state of facts beyond REPUTATION |
and which is in part set forth in my |
note to the British ambassador of the |
same date as my cablegram to you. |
1t is therefore quite surprising that |
Her Majesty's secretary should base |
his rejection of the proposals of this
so impressively presented, |
upon the report of one scientist, whose
are incorrectly apprehend-
ed and the delayed report of another
which is for the first time made pub
lie, concurrently with the receipt of
his lordship's note.
1T would have been gratifying to |
me, and useful to my government in
the important subject under
if Prof. Thompson's re-
port could have been made public with
the promptness which marked the ap-
pearance of that of Dr. Jordan. In
hat case there would have been ample
line for both governments to have ex-
lmined the reports of these two emin-
ent scientists before the opening of
another seal season. But it seems to
nave better suited the purposes Of Her
government to withhold
Professor .Thompson's report until an
was afforded to examine
hat of DR.. Jordan and thus enable the
'ormer to pass the latter in review,
,riticize its statement, and as far as
possible minimize it's conclusions.
1T is not pleasant to have to state
hat the impartial character which it
las been the custom to attribute to the
eports of naturalists of high standing
las been greatly impaired by the ap-
aren't subsection of this report to the
'Olitical -exigencies of the situation. 1t
5 further to be regretted that the re-
'ort was so long delayed that no op- {
was afforded this govern
nent to examine it before the definite ]