Restriction in the number of seals to be taken. (Secs. 151-154.) limitations pro The Report presents suggestions whereby it is Unfairness of proposed to limit the number of seals taken. It posed. is observable that the limitations proposed for the Islands are for a fixed number and class of seals; while the restrictions for pelagic sealing are prohibitions as to time and place, no provision being made as to number or kind of seals taken. The unfairness of such proposals is manifest. (c) Specific scheme of regulations recommended. ommended. The Commissioners, after this generalization Regulations recas to the methods of restriction necessary, present specific limitations "at shore and at sea," which they believe would afford the requisite degree of protection, in view of the actual condition of seal life as it presents itself to them at the present time. (Sec. 155.) quota on Pribilof The first restriction proposed is to limit the Limitation of number of seals to be taken on the Pribilof Islands. Islands to a fixed maximum of 50,000 (Sec. 155a). This proposed regulation, being applicable to the territory of the United States is, as already noticed, without the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The second proposition is to create a zone about Protective zone the Pribilof Islands with a radius of 20 nautical proposed. Protective zone miles, within which pelagic sealing shall be pro proposed. Close season proposed. hibited (Sec. 155b). The Case of the United States has fully dealt with this plan of zonal protection,1 and the Report itself practically admits the difficulty of enforcing such a prohibition (Secs. 160, 768). The third proposal of the Commissioners is a close season for pelagic sealing, extending from the 15th of September to the 1st of May in each year, with the additional provision that no sealing vessel shall enter Bering Sea before the 1st of Basis of pro-July in each year (Sec. 155c). posed close season. Close season would have little effect. This is based on the assumption that males and barren females constitute substantially the whole of the pelagic catch in Bering Sea (Sec. 648). If, however, this could be established, it is at once evident that, if the alleged faults in the management of the Pribilof Islands were corrected, the class of barren females, alleged as forming a large percentage of the Bering Sea catch (which assertion is advanced as an apology for pelagic sealing), would entirely disappear. Thus the excuse for open-sea sealing is based on the alleged mismanagement of the seal rookeries by the United States. The period in which sealing is allowed by the regulations proposed is substantially the same as Case of the United States, pp. 256-263. season would have little the time occupied by the sealers in taking the Close Bering Sea before sion. As to the further concession of the Report, Not entering that sealing vessels may be prohibited from enter- July 1, no concesing Bering Sea till the 1st day of July in each year, it is to be noted that the Commissioners state that the sea is "now usually entered by pelagic sealers between the 20th of June and 1st of July" (Sec. 649). It can not be that such a useless restriction can be suggested in the Report, except for the purpose of appearing to make a concession when none is really made. "Compensatory adjustments" pro The Report further proposes that for every decrease of 10,000 seals taken on the Islands an posed. increase of 10 nautical miles be given to the width of protected waters about the islands (Sec. 156). As this is simply an extension of the zonal question to a larger area, it is considered to be unnecessary to further discuss this proposed "compensatory adjustment." A second proposal of the same nature is to curtail the open season for pelagic sealing by seven days if the quota "Compensatory on the Islands is reduced 10,000. adjustments" proposed. ic catch, 10,000 a week. The Commis sioners evidently consider that this suggestion is แ a just scale of equivalency as between shore and sea sealing" (Sec. 156); that is, that one Supposed pelag week of pelagic sealing equals 10,000 seals killed. As the open season proposed by them consists of over twenty weeks, this presupposes a pelagic catch of 200,000 seals, or four times as many as are contemplated by their regulations to be allowed to the Pribilof Islands. It would also make the combined number of skins derived from the Alaskan herd 250,000, which certainly would be more damaging to seal life than the present condition of affairs, even if the United States allowed 100,000 skins to be taken on the Islands. Un fairness of Commissioners shown. Alternative methods of regulations. The recommendation by the Commissioners of a series of regulations such as those above considered is clearly indicative of the bias and partisan spirit which appear in nearly every section of their Report. The alternative regulations proposed (Secs. 163-168), such as entire prohibition of killing seals on the breeding islands and periods of rest, with the necessary governmental charge thereby imposed, are not regarded by the United States as subjects requiring attention in the Counter Case. They are manifestly inadmissible. BRITISH CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES. In regard to the schedule of claims for damages appended to the Case of Great Britain, upon which findings of fact are asked under the provisions of Article VIII of the Treaty of Arbi tration: ted. The United States admit that a portion of the Seizures admitvessels named in the schedule were seized by their cruisers at or about the time stated, that the vessels were at the times of such seizures in the waters of Bering Sea and more than one marine league from any land owned by or within the jurisdiction of the United States; but such seizures were made upon the waters included in the treaty of cession of March 30, 1867, between Russia and the United States. As to others of the vessels mentioned in the schedule, the United States admit that they were ordered by the cruisers of the United States to leave Bering Sea, where they were unlawfully engaged in taking fur-seals; and, as to others, that they were about to enter that sea for the same unlawful purpose and were warned not to do so by the cruisers of the United States. But, whether the vessels so ordered out of Bering Sea, or warned not to enter the same, left it, or refrained from entering it, by reason of such Prohibition sealing in Bering Sea admitted. |