Mr. Clark's interesting and, on the whole, fair review of my article
on Expert Testimony in the Bering Sea Controversy, printed in this
journal in 1897, might be allowed to stand, without comment, as the
best possible vindication of the work of the Bering Sea Commission of
1891-'92, and as strong corroborative evidence of the soundness of the
position taken in the article referred to. One or two quotations which
he makes, however, are placed in such relation to other parts of the
paper as to imply meanings which a reading of the article as a whole
will show were never intended. This is notably true of the description
of the frame of mind in which a scientific man should approach or
conduct any investigation, which Mr. Clark quotes, and the further
statement that, unfortunately, he often fails to come up to the
standard set, and especially when his own interests are involved.
It might easily be inferred that these remarks were meant to have
special application to the members of one or both Bering Sea
commissions, while as a matter of fact they were a part of the general
introduction, occurring some time before any reference is made to the
commissions. I should greatly regret having any one understand that
there was the slightest intimation of the existence of a "handsome
retainer," or anything of the sort, in connection with any or all of
the Bering Sea investigations.
As far as the American representatives on the first commission are
concerned, it is no harm to say that the pecuniary residual was
unfortunately affected by the wrong sign, and this was doubtless the
case as well with Dr. Jordan and his colleagues.
As to the truth of the statement regarding the "scientific expert," no
evidence need be offered here, for it is furnished by every court in
the land, and not a day passes that does not witness a struggle
between "experts" who have nearly always started from the same
premises, but whose conclusions are diametrically opposed to each
other. What I do want to say is that this is quite consistent with the
perfect honesty and good intent of the experts themselves. It is the
result of the limitations to which the operations of the human
intellect are still subjected, and it is a fact always to be reckoned
with in matters of this kind. There should be no skepticism as to the
honesty and frankness of Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. George M.
Dawson in assuming an attitude so opposed to that of the American
commissioners in 1892.
Mr. Clark regards my article of 1897 as a "prediction of failure for
the new commission," an assumption quite unjustified and unsustained
by the article itself, in which the fullest recognition is shown of
the great value of the work of Dr. Jordan and his colleagues. Indeed,
the article was purposely prepared and published before the meeting of
the second commission, that it might not seem to be in any way a
criticism upon its work. Now that both commissions have made public
their findings, the whole matter is easily accessible, but Mr. Clark
is hardly just to the first commissioners on either side, by the
slight reference he makes to their separate reports to their
respective governments. A more careful study of both might have led to
some modification of his views, even concerning the partition of
authorship which he has ventured to make. It is no mean compliment,
however, to find him admitting, in regard to the report of the
American commissioners, that "not a single statement of fact in it has
proved fallacious, and the more exhaustive investigations of 1896 and
1897 corroborate its conclusions in every particular." And this
admission lies adjacent to his assertion that "the investigations
conducted by the two commissions [of 1891] were, from a scientific
point of view, of the nature of a farce." The fact is, Mr. Clark seems
to have strangely misunderstood the character of the investigations
which were contemplated and desired. The natural history of the fur
seal was not the question submitted to the joint commission, except
in so far as it specially affected seal life in Bering Sea and the
measures necessary for its proper protection and preservation.
"Facts, causes, and remedies" were the subjects to be considered.
There is an old saying that the flavor of the pudding may often be
revealed by chewing the string, and no long and exhaustive
investigation was necessary to enable the American commissioners to
arrive at what Mr. Clark admits to be the "facts, causes, and
remedies" for the Bering Sea problem. Not many weeks were occupied in
the field, it is true, for the commission was delayed in its
appointment and notification, and the season was nearly over when it
reached the islands. But, as Mr. Clark justly remarks, one member of
the commission, Dr. Merriam, was already exceptionally well informed
concerning the habits of the fur seal, and some things may be so in
evidence that even a physicist can see them.
It is true that the _joint_ report of the commission of 1891-'92 was
meager, and the explanation lies close at hand in the unwillingness of
the American commissioners to swerve from what they were convinced was
absolutely true. Mr. Clark will look in vain for the "handwriting of
diplomacy mingled with that of science," for the appearance of which
in the report of the commission of 1897 he offers apologies, except,
indeed, it be the diplomacy of going straight at the facts without
concealment or evasion, on which Americans have sometimes prided
themselves.
The joint report was limited to that, and only that, on which the
commissioners were actually agreed, and the American commissioners
have explained in their separate report that had they been willing to
concede certain points the joint report would have been greatly
augmented in volume. Mr. Clark has reviewed the conclusions of the
commission of 1897, which he justly considers a most important and
valuable document. It has not escaped his attention that in a number
of the paragraphs of this report the American commissioners have
committed themselves to the approval of several doubtful statements,
such as that "the pelagic industry is conducted in an orderly manner,
and in a spirit of acquiescence in the limitations imposed by law";
that a certain number of females may be killed without involving the
actual diminution of the herd; the "tendency toward equilibrium
theory"; that the herd is still far from a stage that threatens
extermination, and others. These statements he excuses as "balm for
the wounded feelings of the pelagic sealer"; "a concession to
diplomacy"; "a diplomatic concession to take the sting out of the real
admission"; "another concession to diplomacy," etc. I do not wish to
be understood as questioning the necessity or wisdom of inserting
these paragraphs in the joint report, but is it not a little strange
that with them in, and apologizing for them as he does, Mr. Clark
should have selected this as a model of what the report of a
scientific commission ought to be and sufficient of itself to forever
fix the value of the scientific expert in the settlement of government
disputes? As I have already intimated, no one appreciates more highly
than I the great work done by Dr. Jordan and his associates in the
study of the natural history of the seal. May not the work of the two
commissions, as _bearing on the problem of the fur-seal industry_, be
summed up about as follows?--The report of the American members of the
first commission related facts, declared causes, and proposed
remedies. The American case at the Paris arbitration rested on these.
As almost universally happens, arbitration resulted in compromise,
unsatisfactory to both parties, and, as has since turned out,
decidedly unfavorable to one. The commission of 1897 has made a joint
report of considerable length and much importance, in which the
"facts, causes, and remedies" of the report of 1892 are in a sense
confirmed, but with a number of concessions that do not strengthen the
American contention regarding pelagic sealing, the justice of which
seems to be admitted by Mr. Clark. But the practical question is, What
has been the effect of either or both of these commissions upon the
fur-seal industry? It would be unkind to press this question upon one
who characterizes the work of the first commission as above quoted,
and who speaks of the second as having, after being in joint session
one week, "concluded its labors, reaching a full and satisfactory
agreement." If he really wishes to know what progress is being made
under such an agreeable state of affairs, let him inquire of the
International Joint Commission, which is endeavoring to arrange all
outstanding differences between this country and Canada.