Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.
Washington, February 8, 1892.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 6th instant, in which you observe upon the selection made by our respective Governments of the members of the joint commission which is about to sit at Washington for the purpose of investigating and reporting upon the facts having relation to seal life in Behring Sea with a view to the proposed arbitration.
The second paragraph of your note contains the following passage:
I deem it important to direct your attention to the fact that the Government of the United States, in nominating the commissioners on its part, selected gentlemen who were especially fitted by their scientific attainments and who were in no wise disqualified for an impartial investigation or determination of the questions to he submitted to them by a public declaration of opinion previous or subsequent to their selection. It is to he regretted that a similar course does not seem to have been adopted by the British Government.
While I have much pleasure in congratulating your Government on having secured on their side the services of two such distinguished gentlemen as Prof. Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam, I must express my surprise and regret that you should have thought fit to refer in terms of disparagement to the choice made by Her Majesty’s Government.
The British commissioners, Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. Dawson, are gentlemen whose scientific attainments and special qualifications for the duties intrusted to them are too well known to require any vindication on my part, But you complain of the fact that Dr. Dawson in 1890 wrote a paper on the protection of the fur seal in the North Pacific in which he committed himself to certain views. This shows that he has made the subject his special study, and it appears to me that he is all the more qualified on that account to take part in the labors of the joint commission, which, I beg leave to point out, is not a board of arbitration, but one of investigation.
Dr. Dawson’s note on the fur seal to which you refer was merely based upon such published material as was at the time available, and I have his authority for stating that he does not feel himself in any way bound to the opinions expressed from the study of that material, in the light of subsequent personal investigation on the ground.
You likewise complain that Sir George Baden-Powell had, previously to his selection as commissioner, made public his views on the subject, and also that he is reported to have stated in an address to his parliamentary constituents that the result of the investigation of the joint commission and of the proposed arbitration would be in favor of his Government.
Sir George Baden-Powell is particularly qualified to take part in the inquiry by reason of his personal investigation into the industrial part [Page 611] of the question, which he pursued in 1887 and 1889 in San Francisco and British Columbia. From the first he has advocated in all his public statements a full inquiry into the facts of seal life in Behring Sea before any final agreement should be arrived at, in order that the views of all parties should be tested as to the best method of protecting seal life. There is no just ground, therefore, for charging him with partiality. As regards the language imputed to him on the occasion of an address which he recently delivered to his constituents in England on the labor question, it appears that some introductory remarks in which he referred to the Behring Sea question were inaccurately reported. What he did state was that, thanks to the arrangement arrived at between the two Governments, the Behring Sea difficulty would now be settled in the true interests of all concerned and not of any one side or the other.
I may mention that the opinions of Prof. Mendenhall and Dr. Merriam on the fur-seal question were published in several journals in this country shortly after their return from Behring Sea, and were stated (I know not with what accuracy) to be opposed to the views which have been urged on the side of Her Majesty’s Government.
But I do not suggest that the United States commissioners on that account are disqualified from taking part in the labors of the joint commission. I claim that all the commissioners, British and American, are equally entitled to the confidence of both Governments, as men of science, honor, and impartiality.
The course which has been adopted for ascertaining what measures may be necessary for the protection of the fur-seal species is substantially the same as that which I had the honor to propose to you on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government nearly two years ago in the form of a draft convention, inclosed in my note of April 29, 1890.
I rejoice that the proposal I then made is now to be carried out, and I cordially unite in the hope expressed in your note under reply that the result of the labors of the joint commission will promote an equitable and mutually satisfactory adjustment of the questions at issue.
I have, etc.,