Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

Sir: I have your favor of the 3d instant. The President sincerely regrets that his considerate and most friendly proposal for adjustment of all troubles connected with the Behring Sea should be so promptly rejected. The paragraph in your note in which you refer to Lord Salisbury’s position needs explanation. I quote it in full:

It will suffice for the present purpose to state that the further examination of the question which has taken place has satisfied His Lordship that such an extreme measure as that proposed in 1888 goes far beyond the requirements of the case.

I do not know what may have been the “examination of the question” that has satisfied Lord Salisbury “that such an extreme measure as that proposed in 1888 goes far beyond the requirements of the case.” I only know that the most extreme measure proposed came from Lord Salisbury himself in suggesting a close season as far south as the forty-seventh parallel of latitude, to last from April 15 to October 1 in each year.

At the close of his negotiations with Mr. Phelps in September, 1888, His Lordship, still approving the “measures to prevent; the wanton [Page 431] destruction of so valuable an industry,” declared, apparently with regret, that “the Canadian Government objected to any such restrictions” (i. e., as those which His Lordship had in part proposed and wholly approved), and that “until its consent would be obtained Her Majesty’s Government was not willing to enter into the convention.” It is evident, therefore, that in 1888 Lord Salisbury abruptly closed the negotiations, because, in his own phrase, “the Canadian Government objected.” He assigned no other reason whatever, and until your note of the 2d was received this Government had never been informed that His Lordship entertained any other objections than those expressed in September, 1888.

It is proper to recall to your recollection that at divers times in personal conversation I have proposed to you, on behalf of this Government, a close season, materially shorter, in point of time, than was voluntarily offered by Lord Salisbury and much less extended in point of space. Instead of going as far south as the forty-seventh parallel I have frequently indicated the willingness of this Government to take the dividing line between the Pacific Ocean and the Behring Sea—the line which is tangent to the southernmost island of the Aleutian group—being as near as may be the fiftieth parallel of north latitude.

Early in April, you will remember, you suggested to me the advantage that might follow if the sailing of the revenue cutters for Behring Sea could be postponed till the middle of May. Though that was a matter entirely under the control of the Treasury Department, Secretary Windom promptly complied with your request, and by the President’s direction a still longer postponement was ordered in the hope that some form of equitable adjustment might be proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. Even the revenue cutter, which annually passes through Behring Sea carrying supplies to the relief station at Point Barrow in the Arctic Ocean—seventy-second degree of north latitude—was held back lest her appearance in Behring Sea might be misrepresented as a non-observance of the understanding between us.

It is perfectly clear that if your claim for British vessels to kill seals within 10 miles of the Pribylov Islands, directly after the mothers are delivered of their young, should be granted, the Behring Sea would swarm with vessels engaged in sealing—not forty or fifty, as now, but many hundreds, through the summer months. If that privilege should be given to Canadian vessels, it must, of course, be conceded at once to American vessels. If the rookeries are to be thrown open to Canadians, they would certainly, as matter of common right, be thrown open to citizens of the United States. The seal mothers, which require an area of from 40 to 50 miles from the islands, on all sides, to secure food for their young, would be slaughtered by hundreds of thousands, and in a brief space of time there would be no seals in the Behring Sea. Similar causes have uniformly produced similar effects. Seal rookeries in all parts of the world have been destroyed in that way. The present course of Great Britain will produce the same effect on the only seal rookery of any value left in the waters of the oceans and seas of the globe. The United States have leased the privilege of sealing because only in that way can the rookeries be preserved, and only in that way can this Government derive a revenue from the Pribylov Islands. Great Britain would perhaps gain something for a few years, but it would be at the expense of destroying a valuable interest belonging to a friendly nation—an interest which the civilized world desires to have preserved.

I observe that you quote Treasury Agent George E. Tingle in your dispatch of April 30 as showing that, notwithstanding the depredations [Page 432] of marauders, the total number of seals had increased in the Behring Sea. The rude mode of estimating the total number can readily lead to mistakes; and other agents have differed from Mr. Tingle. But aside from the correctness or incorrectness of Mr. Tingle’s conclusions on that point, may I ask upon what grounds do the Canadian vessels assert a claim, unless they assume that they have a tide to the increase of the seal herd? If the claim of the United States to the seals of the Pribylov islands be well founded, we are certainly entitled to the increase as much as a sheep grower is entitled to the increase of his flock.

Having introduced Mr. Tingle, who has very extensive knowledge touching the seals in Behring Sea, as well as the habits of the Canadian marauders, I trust you will not discredit his testimony. The following statement made by Mr. Tingle in his official report to the Treasury Department at the close of the season of 1887 is respectfully commended to your consideration:

I am now convinced from what I gather in questioning the men belonging to captured schooners and from reading the logs of the vessels, that not more than one seal in ten killed and mortally wounded is landed on the boats and skinned; thus you will see the wanton destruction of seal life without any benefit whatever. I think 30,000 skins taken this year is a low estimate on this basis; 300,000 fur-seals were killed to secure that number, or three times as many as the Alaska Commercial Company are allowed by law to kill. You can readily see that this great slaughter of seals will, in a few years, make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken on the islands by the lessees. I earnestly hope more rigorous measures will be adopted by the Government in dealing with these destructive law-breakers,

Both of Mr. Tingle’s statements are made in his official capacity, and in both cases he had no temptation to state anything except what he honestly believed to be the truth.

The President does not conceal his disappointment that even for the sake of securing an impartial arbitration of the question at issue, Her Majesty’s Government is not willing to suspend, for a single season, the practice which Lord Salisbury described in 1888 as “the wanton destruction of a valuable industry,” and which this Government has uniformly regarded as an unprovoked invasion of its established rights.

I have, etc.,

James G. Blaine.