It is particularly annoying that we should be put in the wrong before the British public upon the question of peligie sealing, use essentially we' are in the right on that question, and it is Great Britain which is in the wrong. What Mr. Foster' his gone to London for is to arrange a mattis vivendi between the two governments upon the sealing question that will also be very literally a modus. vivendi for.the seals. Unless something is done, it is plain that within a. very short time the fur-seal will be as extinct asthe American buffalo. The seal is in imminent danger, first, because the Paris award -did-not: amount to an efficient measure of protection; and secondly, because the British government has not in good faith attempted to enforce even such a measure of protection as the award, did provides cie tod raat tind preparing seal-akins for mpeket he exclusively. British industry of dyeing,
important, one would say, as the proder antly Canadian industry of pelagic. sealing, which is what threatens the continuance of the species. But it is not so importunate, and accordingly: the course of the British government has been determined. by. the demands of the Canadian poachers.
We have a perfect right to complain of this, and the case which Mr. Foster has in charge is essentially a perfectly good case, The more is the pity that we should by our own action and inaction have converted it into a very dificult case. For: Great Britain has in relation to this matter an outstanding claim against us, the validity of which the Paris tribunal affirmed, Ina previous and more. timons.arbitration, in which @ like decision had been in our favour, Great Britain loyally discharged the liability which had been decided to be hers. If the subsequent history of the Alabuna claims and of our efforts to satisfy the individual claimants does not form a pleasing chapter of history, that is not the fault of Great Britain, which did what, the tribunal to the decision of which she. had. acceded in advance said. she ought to do. But when the case was reversed, and, the decision was against us, we did. not, show the same prompt acquiescence in a verdict to which we had submitted ourselves in advance. The, Executive Department, of our government, indeed,. showed a disposition to do so, and.' offered,. in satisfaction of all demands, 'a sum which was acceptable to. Great.' Britain, -But the Senate, at, the instigation' of the cheerful Senator Morgan, refused to appro-priv the money. "This. fact gives the gotiations on the. subject. which glo. of, ish the right to resent any further ne-
begin with making good our default.. The phrase is ngt diplomatic, but if the British, government voiced the sentiments of the ritish people on the subject, it would pro-Vably admonish us to pay up or shut up."
The bearing of this incident. upon the discussion ofa general arbitration is only too plain. The British journals point out that the general treaty would be of no use, since we could not be trusted to abide by. the results of it. One of them points to our failure to carry out the Paris award, "another lesson on the weakness of arbitration," and another as_an_illustration "how small respect Washington feels for "arbitration." The worst of these taunts is that they are deserved. It seems to be as well understood in London," as in New York that the fault in either case is not with the people of the United
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.