Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 6, 1897
Mr. Foster to Mr. Sherman.
Sir: I have the honor to report that, in accordance with your instructions, I had an informal interview on the 16th ultimo with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, prime minister, and Sir Louis H. Davies, minister of marine and fisheries, of the Dominion of Canada, who were in Washington in attendance on the conference of fur-seal experts. There was also present at the interview Mr. C. F. Frederick Adam, of the British embassy.
The primary object of the interview was to agree, if possible, upon some tentative method of settlement of the fur-seal question, with a view to its formal consideration by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain; but in the course of the interview various other unsettled questions between the United States and Canada were discussed, including the protection of fish in the waters of rivers and lakes contiguous to the two countries, the alien labor law, the American tariff on lumber and logs, commercial reciprocity, and the Northeast sea fisheries. At the close of the interview I submitted a proposition as a basis of settlement, of which I inclose a copy.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said it would not be possible to give a definite answer until he had taken the advice of his council, and that it would be sent to me soon after his return to Ottawa. This answer was received on the 30th uitimo and my response thereto was sent through the British embassy on the 2d instant. The correspondence, of which copies are inclosed, shows that the Canadian Government is unwilling to agree to a modus vivendi suspending the killing of seals while the proposed negotiations were in progress.
I am, etc.,
Mr. Foster’s proposition.
At the conference with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Louis Davies, and Mr. Adam, of the British embassy, Mr. Foster proposed:
- First. That the Governments of Great Britain and the United States agree at once to a modus vivendi providing for a complete suspension of the killing of seals in all the waters of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea for one year from December, 1897, and for a suspension of all killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands for the same period.
- Second. That the British ambassador and one or more representatives of the Canadian Government on the one part, and such representative or representatives as may be designated by the President of the United States on the other part, shall, with as little delay as possible, take up for consideration, with a view to settlement by means of treaty stipulations, the fur-seal question, the protection of fish in the waters of rivers and lakes contiguous to the United States and Canada, the subject of reciprocal immigration, commercial reciprocity, or any other unsettled question between the United States and Canada which either of the Governments may see proper to bring forward.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Mr. Foster.
Canada, Ottawa, November 24, 1897.
Dear Mr. Foster: Your memorandum embracing the substance of proposals made by you at a conference held between you and myself, Sir Louis Davies, and Mr. Adam, of the British embassy, has been submitted by me since my return to Ottawa to my colleagues.
Your second proposition practically embodies the suggestions made by myself and my colleague, and meets, I need hardly say, with the full approval of the Canadian Government. Though the regulations prepared by the Paris Tribunal for the killing of seals in Bering Sea and in the Pacific Ocean have been made revisable only at the end of five years, we are quite willing to enter at once, and without waiting for the end of the period thus fixed, into an agreement to review the whole seal question, for the object of settling by treaty stipulations, not that question alone, but all others in which at present the relations between the two countries are not as satisfactory as they ought to be, viz: “The protection of fish in the waters of rivers and lakes contiguous to the United States and Canada, the subject of reciprocal immigration, commercial reciprocity, or any other unsettled question between the United States and Canada which either Government may see proper to bring forward.”
This proposition, however, is made by you contingent upon and subject to the condition contained in the first: “That the Governments of Great Britain and the United States agree at once to a modus vivendi providing for a complete suspension of the killing of seals in all the waters of the Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea for one year from December, 1897, and for a suspension of all killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands for the same period.”
There are difficulties in agreeing to that proposition which, I fear, will be found insuperable.
Immediately on my return I requested my colleague, Sir Louis Davies, to obtain information as to the number of sealers who are fitting out for the coming year’s operations, and as to the approximate compensation which would be expected to be paid to them in case pelagic sealing was prohibited for a year. The information furnished me is to the effect that the fleet is preparing as usual; that the prohibition of pelagic sealing for a year would practically destroy the business for several years, because the masters, the mates, and the white crews, for the larger part belonging to other parts of Canada, would leave British Columbia. The sum which would likely be demanded as compensation is far beyond what it would be possible for us to induce Parliament to [Page 322] vote, even if we could recommend it. Under these circumstances, and in view of the finding of the experts at the late conference, that “In the greater reduction the pelagic catch” of late years “compared with the gradual decrease of the herd, there is a tendency toward equilibrium, or a stage at which the numbers of the breeding herd would neither increase nor decrease,” and, further, that “the diminution of the herd is yet far from a stage which involves or threatens the actual extermination of the species, so long as it is protected in its haunts on land.” I am in hopes that you will agree to the proposition submitted at our verbal conference by Sir Louis Davies and myself, and not press for the immediate suspension of pelagic sealing.
The coast catch during the months of January, February, March, and April, as gauged by the catches of the past few years, is very small. Last year the catch of the Canadian sealing fleet amounted only to 6,100, and in the year before to 8,350. If the fleet, therefore, are permitted to prosecute pelagic sealing for these four months, but little comparative harm would be done to the herd. Following these months is the close season, embracing May, June, and July, during which, of course, no pelagic sealing can be carried on, except on the Asiatic coast. It appears to me, therefore, as highly probable that the joint commission suggested could finally conclude its labors long before the time when, under the Paris regulations, pelagic sealing could begin in Bering Sea. If that commission reached a satisfactory conclusion, and the Congress of the United States approved of it, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the necessary Imperial legislation to carry out whatever recommendations might be agreed to with respect to the suspension or cessation of pelagic sealing in time to prevent the prosecution of the business in Bering Sea next year. It is obvious, however, that any conclusion which might be reached by the joint commission must, to be effective, be ratified by Congress as well as by Imperial legislation, and unless, the session of Congress which opens in the coming month of December and closes, I understand, about the 4th of March, ratifies any treaty which might be agreed to before its termination, it would necessarily lie over for another year. This would involve the renewal of the suspension for a second year, with a further claim for compensation on the part of the sealers.
I would also the more strongly urge upon you the view here presented, because pelagic sealing, being at present a legitimate business, carried on under the sanction of the Paris regulations, can not be stopped until the Imperial Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation prohibiting it; and, as that Parliament will not meet until early in February next, it seems obvious that such legislation could not be hoped for until, at any rate, late in the month of February. At that date the result of the labors of the joint commission, if it was constituted at an early day, would be known and could be submitted for approval at the coming session of Congress.
Under all these circumstances, therefore, we do not see how it is possible to agree to the suggested suspension, but we see no reason to doubt, if the appointment of a joint commission results in the submission of a treaty which Congress would ratify, the necessary Imperial legislation could be procured in time to carry out its recommendation with regard to Bering Sea sealing before the close season ends and pelagic sealing begins, and so attain the object you have in view.
Yours, respectfully,
Mr. Foster to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Washington, December 2, 1897.
Dear Sir Wilfrid: I received on the 30th ultimo, through the British embassy, your letter of the 24th, in which you kindly communicate your answer to the proposition which I submitted in the conference which I had the pleasure to hold with you, your colleague, and Mr. Adam of the British embassy, on the 16th ultimo.
Your answer is in effect a declination of my proposition and a renewal of the proposal made in the conference by Sir Louis Davies and which at the time I stated my Government could not accept. The considerations in support of your colleague’s proposal restated by you have been submitted to the President, and he directs me to express his regret that they are not of such a nature as to justify him in reversing the position taken by me in our conference.
You intimate that if pelagic sealing is continued during the earlier months of the year the catch would not exceed 6,000, which you think would do little harm to the herd. This might be the case if it was in its normal condition, but such a catch now would be approximately equal to 30,000 in normal times, and in its present depleted condition would create a serious inroad on the herd. The state of “equilibrium” contemplated by the experts to which you refer was at a still more depleted stage than even now exists. It is admitted that the industry is at present unprofitable for both the lessees and the pelagic sealers. Should the herd reach the “equilibrium” pointed out by you it will have passed the period when negotiations will be of any avail. But in addition to the injury that a continuance of early pelagic sealing will do to the herd it will also entail on the United States the heavy expense of the patrol during the entire summer, even though a settlement should be reached, as you think possible, before August, as the Victoria fleet will be at sea, an expense which for the past four years has averaged about $150,000 annually.
In view of your statement that the Imperial Parliament will not convene till February, we should be quite willing to have the proposed suspension of sealing take effect at such date in February as would enable the necessary legislation to be passed provided a modus vivendi could be signed at once. Such an arrangement would, it is believed, obviate the legal difficulties to which you refer. There is no disposition on our part to embarrass the Dominion Government by asking impossible or unreasonable conditions. This is the more apparent when I recall the fact that four years ago when the Paris Tribunal rendered its award that body, “in view of the critical condition” to which the herd was then reduced, recommended the two Governments to suspend the killing of seals for a period of two or three years. If such a measure was called for then, how much more reasonable is the request for a single season’s suspension now, after four more years of disastrous slaughter of female seals, during which period the experts agree the herd has steadily declined.
Your frank and courteous letter reveals the fact to which I had occasion to refer during your recent friendly visit to this city, and which constitutes a serious obstacle to our negotiations. We seem to have failed to impress upon the Canadian Government, past or present, our [Page 324] view that pelagic sealing ought to be voluntarily given up because it is unneighborly in that it is destroying a valuable industry of our Government, and inhumane because it is exterminating a noble race of animals useful to the world. We paid Russia a large sum for Alaska and the chief prospective return then visible was the seal industry, which had yielded the Russian Government and subjects large profit. We enjoyed the industry undisturbed for about fifteen years, reaping a rich return to the Government and the lessees, the estimated revenue to the Federal Treasury up to 1891 being over $11,000,000, a sum much larger than was paid to Russia for the entire territory. Suddenly the pelagic sealers entered upon the work of destruction and they have brought the industry to the point when it is no longer profitable.
This work of destruction has been prosecuted as a conceded legal avocation, and when we have called attention to the rapid diminution of the herd and the treaty obligation to protect and preserve it, we have been met by the declaration that its actual extermination is not immediately threatened. When it is proposed to negotiate for the surrender of the legal right of pelagic sealing, we are told that this can not be brought about by a fair compensation to those engaged in the industry, but that the question must be included with a number of other subjects having no relation to it whatever, and that it must await the fate of all these matters, some of which, as commercial reciprocity and the tariff, are very complex in their character, and others, as the northeastern sea fisheries, of long standing and very difficult of adjustment.
Notwithstanding the President feels that the subject of the proper protection of the seals should not be complicated with other questions of intricate public policy and conflicting interests, in his earnest desire to promote a more friendly state of relations between the two neighboring countries he has consented that all those questions should be embraced in one series of negotiations, if meanwhile a modus vivendi could be agreed upon which would save the seals from destruction while the negotiations were in progress. You have been misinformed as to the duration of the coming Congresses it will continue beyond the 4th of March next without constitutional limitation. But it could hardly be anticipated that the subjects which you desire to have considered would be adjusted by treaty stipulations and the necessary resulting legislation with the dispatch indicated in your letter, even with the most friendly spirit of conciliation. The variety of questions to be considered and the interests to be consulted would compel deliberation in the negotiations and might create discussion before legislation could be secured.
I have explained at some length the reasons which control the President in adhering to the position which, under his instructions, I assumed during our informal conference, because of my earnest wish to have you understand that we are greatly desirous of bringing about a better understanding with your Government. I am extremely sorry and greatly disappointed that your visit to Washington gives so little promise of satisfactory results, but I entertain the hope that it may yet bear good fruits.
I remain, etc.,