[Inclosure 2 in No. 782.] Mr. Elliott to Mr. Bayard. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D. C., December 3, 1887. SIR: During the course of my extended studies of the fur seal on its breeding and hauling grounds in Behring Sea, I was led naturally into a very careful examination of the subject of its protection and perpetuation. This investigation caused me to give much attention then to the effect which pelagic sealing would have upon the well-being and the conservation of these anomalous and valuable interests of our Government as we view them upon the Pribyloff group. When preparing, in 1881, a final arrangement of my field-notes and memoranda for publication in my Monograph of the Seal Islands of Alaska (Tenth Census United States of America), the late Professor Baird suggested that I omit the discussion of this theme of pelagic sealing, because it might serve to invite an attack which otherwise would never be made upon these preserves of our Government. This attack, however, has recently been made, and the thought occurs to me now that a brief epitome of my study of the effect which this plan of sealing will have upon the integrity and value of our fur-bearing interests in Behring Sea-that such a brief yet accurate statement will be of service to you. I therefore venture to present the following transcript: It is now well understood and unquestioned (1) That the fur seal of Alaska is obliged to haul cut annually upon the Pribyloff Islands for the purpose of breeding and shedding its pelage. (2) That from the time of its departure from these islands in the autumn of every year up to the time of its return to them in the following spring it lands nowhere else. (3) That it arrives en masse upon these islands in June and July and departs from them in October and November. (4) That when leaving the islands in the fall it heads directly for and rapidly passes out from Behring Sea into the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Its paths of travel are bee-lines from the Pribyloff group to and through the numerous passes of the Aleutian Archipelago; the passes of Ooninmak, Akootan, Oonalga, Oomnak, and the Four Mountains are most favored by it. (5) That it returns from the broad wastes of the North Pacific Ocean by these same paths of departure. Therefore, if you will glance at the map of Alaska you will observe that the convergence and divergence of these watery paths of the fur seal in Behring Sea to and from the Seal Islands resembles the spread of the spokes of a half wheel-the Aleutian chain forms the felloe, while the hub into which these spokes enter is the small Pribyloff group. Thus you can see that as these watery paths of the fur seal converge in Behring Sea they, in so doing, rapidly and solidly mass together thousands and tens of thousands of widely-scattered animals (as they travel) at points 50 and even 100 miles distant from the rookeries of the Seal Islands. Here is the location and the opportunity of the pelagic sealer. Here is his chance to lie at anchor over the shallow bed of Behring Sea, 50 and 100 miles distant from the Pribyloff group, where he has the best holding ground known to sailors, and where he can ride at any weather safely swinging to his cable and in no danger from a lee shore if it should slip. The immediate vicinity, however, of the Aleutian passes is dangerous in the extreme to him. There he encounters terrible tide-rips, swift currents, and furious gales formed through the entrances, with the very worst of rough, rocky, holding ground. But up here, anywhere from 3 to 100 miles south of the Seal Islands, in Behring Sea, in that watery road of the returning fur-seal millions, he has a safe and fine location from which to shoot, to spear, and to net these fur-bearing amphibians, and where he can work the most complete ruin in a very short time. His power for destruction is still further augmented by the fact that those seals which are most liable to meet his eye and aim are female fur seals, which, heavy with young, are here slowly nearing the land reluctant to haul out of the cool water until the day and hour arrives that limits the period of their gestation. The pelagic sealer employs three agencies with which to secure his quarry, viz: He sends out Indians with canoes and spears from his vessel; he uses rifle and ball, shotguns, and buckshot; and last, but most deadly and destructive of all, he spreads the "gill-net" in favorable weather. With gill-nets, under run by a fleet of sealers in Behring Sea, across these converging paths of the fur seal, anywhere from 3 to 100 miles southerly from the Seal Islands, I am extremely moderate in saying that such a fleet could and would utterly ruin the fur-seal rookeries of the Pribyloff Islands in less time than three or four short seasons. If these men were unchecked every foot of that watery area of fur-seal travel in Behring Sea above indicated could and would be traversed by these deadly nets, and a seal would scarcely have one chance in ten to safely pass such a cordon in attempting to go and return from its breeding haunts. Open these waters of Behring Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing, then a fleet of hundreds of vessels-steamers, ships, schooners, and whatnot-would immediately venture into them bent upon the most vigorous and indiscriminate slaughter of these animals. A few seasons then of the greediest rapine, then nothing left of those wonderful and valuable interests of the public which are now so handsomely em bodied on the Seal Islands. Guarded and conserved as they are to-day they will last for an indefinite time to come, objects of the highest commercial value and good to the world, and subjects for the most fascinating biological study. It is also well to note the fact that not an eligible acre of land is barred out from settlement or any other fit use by our people, and not a league of water is closed to any legitimate trade or commerce in all Alaska by this action of our Government in thus protecting the fur-bearing rookeries of the Pribyloff group. Such are the facts in this connection. They are indisputable. No intelligent, unselfish man will advocate for a moment the policy of destruction in this instance-he never will if fully aware of the facts bearing on the question. There are only two parties in this controversy. The party of destruction demands the full right to unchecked pelagic sealing in Behring Sea, while the party of preservation demands the suppression of that sealing. Comment is unnecessary. Very truly, etc., HENRY W. ELLIOTT. No. 9. No. 690.] Mr. Pheips to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, February 18, 1888. (Received February 28.) SIR: I received yesterday your instruction No. 782, under date of February 7, relative to the Alaskan seal fisheries. I immediately addressed a note to Lord Salisbury, inclosing for his perusal one of the printed copies of the instruction, and requesting an appointment for an early interview on the subject. I also sent a note to the Russian ambassador, and an interview with him is arranged for the 21st instant. The whole matter will receive my immediate and thorough attention and I hope for a favorable result. Meanwhile I would ask your consideration of the manner in which you would propose to carry out the regulations of these fisheries that may be agreed upon by the countries interested. Would not legislation be necessary; and, if so, is there any hope of obtaining it on the part of Congress? I have, etc., No. 10. E. J. PHELPS. No. 692.1 Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard. [Extract.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, February 25, 1888. (Received March 6.) SIR Referring to your instructions, numbered 782, of February 7, 1888, in reference to the Alaska seal fisheries, and to my reply thereto, numbered 690, of February 18, I have the honor to inform you that I have since had interviews on the subject with Lord Salisbury and with M. de Staal, the Russian ambassador. Lord Salisbury assents to your proposition to establish, by mutual arrangement between the Governments interested, a close time for fur seals, between April 15 and November 1, and between 160° of longitude west and 170° of longitude east, in the Behring Sea. He will also join the United States Government in any preventive measures it may be thought best to adopt, by orders issued to the naval vessels in that region of the respective Governments. I have this morning telegraphed you for additional printed copies of instructions 782 for the use of Her Majesty's Government. The Russian ambassador concurs, so far as his personal opinion is concerned, in the propriety of the proposed measures for the protection of the seals, and has promised to communicate at once with his Government in regard to it. I have furnished him with copies of instructions 782 for the use of his Government. SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 690, of the 18th ultimo, in relation to the Alaskan seal fisheries, and have pleasure in observing the promptitude with which the business has been conducted. It is hoped that Lord Salisbury will give it favorable consideration, as there can be no doubt of the importance of preserving the seal fisheries in Behring Sea, and it is also desirable that this should be done' by an arrangement between the Governments interested, without the United States being called upon to consider what special measures of its own the exceptional character of the property in question might require it to take in case of the refusal of foreign powers to give their cooperation. Whether legislation would be necessary to enable the United States and Great Britain to carry out measures for the protection of the seals would depend much upon the character of the regulations; but it is probable that legislation would be required. The manner of protecting the seals would depend upon the kind of arrangement which Great Britain would be willing to make with the United States for the policing of the seas and for the trial of British subjects violating the regulations which the two Governments may agree upon for such protection. As it appears to this Government, the commerce carried on in and about Behring Sea is so limited in variety and extent that the present efforts of this Government to protect the seals need not be complicated by considerations which are of great importance in highways of commerce and render the interference by the officers of one Government with the merchant vessels of another on the high seas inadmissible. But even in regard to those parts of the globe where commerce is extensively carried on, the United States and Great Britain have, for a common purpose, abated in a measure their objection to such interference and agreed that it might be made by the naval vessels of either country. Reference is made to the treaty concluded at Washington on the 7th of April, 1862, between the United States and Great Britain for the suppression of the slave trade, under which the joint policing of the seas by the naval vessels of the contracting parties was provided for. In this convention no limitation was imposed as to the part of the high seas of the world in which visitation and search of the merchant vessels of one of the contracting parties might be made by a naval vessel of the other party. In the present case, however, the range within which visitation and search would be required is so limited, and the commerce there carried on so insignificant, that it is scarcely thought necessary to refer to the slave-trade convention for a precedent, nor is it deemed necessary that the performance of police duty should be by the naval vessels of the contracting parties. In regard to the trial of offenders for violation of the proposed regulations, provision might be made for such trial by handing over the alleged offender to the courts of his own country. A precedent for such procedure is found in the treaty signed at the Hague on May 6, 1882, for regulating the police of the North Sea fisheries, a copy of which is inclosed. I am, etc., No. 12. T. F. BAYARD. Mr. White to Mr. Bayard. [Telegram.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, April 7, 1888. (Received April 7.) Mr. White stated that on the following Thursday he was to meet Lord Salisbury and M. de Staal to discuss the question of the protec tion of the seals. On April 7 he had had an interview on the subject with M. de Staal, from whom he learned that the Russian Government wished to include in the proposed arrangement that part of Behring Sea in which the Commander Islands are situated, and also the sea of Okhotsk. Mr. White supposed that the United States would not object to this. No. 720.] No. 13. Mr. White to Mr. Bayard. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, April 7, 1888. (Received April 17.) SIR Referring to your instructions numbered 782 of February 7 and 810 of March 2, respecting the protection of seals in Behring Sea, I have the honor to acquaint you that I received a private note from the Marquis of Salisbury this morning stating that at the request of the Russian embassador he had appointed a meeting at the foreign office next Wednesday, 11th instant, "to discuss the question of a close time for the seal fishery in Behring Sea," and expressing a hope that I would make it convenient to be present, and I have replied that I shall be happy to attend. Subsequently I saw M. de Staal, the Russian embassador, at his request. He referred to the interviews which Mr. Phelps had had with him, of which I was, of course, cognizant, and stated that his full instructions on the subject would not reach London until to-night or tomorrow, and that he was about to leave town until next Wednesday, but meanwhile he could say that his Government would like to have the regulations which might be agreed upon for Behring Sea extended to that portion of the latter in which the Commander Islands are situated, and also to the sea of Okhotsk (in which Robben Island is situated). As both these places are outside the limit laid down in your instruction numbered 782 (1700 of longitude east from Greenwich), I have thought it best to send you the telegram, of which I inclose a copy herewith.* I am, etc., No. 14. HENRY WHITE. Mr. Bayard to Mr. White. [Telegram.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Mr. Bayard stated, in reply to Mr. White's telegram of April 7, that this Government did not object to the extension of the arrangement for the protection of the fur-seal fisheries to the whole of Behring Sea. No. 15. Mr. Bayard to Mr. White. [Extract.] No. 849.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: I have to acknowledge your No. 720 of the 7th instant, inclosing copy of your telegram of the same date in which you informed the Department that Lord Salisbury, the Russian ambassador, and yourself were to meet on Thursday, the 12th instant, to discuss the protection of seals, and that the Russian Government desired to include in the proposed arrangement that portion of Behring Sea in which Commander Islands are situated, and also the sea of Okhotsk. On the 9th instant I sent you a telegram stating that this Government did not object to the extension of the arrangement for the protec tion of the fur-seal fisheries to the whole of Behring Sea. Owing to an error in transmission of your telegram, Okhotsk Sea did not appear to be included in the suggestion, but there is no objection to such inclusion. I am, etc., *For inclosure see supra No, 12. T. F. BAYARD. |