for various municipal purposes by $12,200,000, was carried by a majority of 17,475 (see article in this number on "Affairs in Various States," subhead "Pennsylvania").

In Rhode Island, municipal elections were held in the five cities of the state. The Republicans elected mayors in Pawtucket, Central Falls, and Woonsocket. The Democratic plurality was reduced by about 4,500 in Providence, and a Democratic mayor was chosen in Newport. Republican city councils were elected in all the cities. The vote was small owing to a severe

storm.

In South Dakota an election for district judge was held in each of the eight districts of the state. Six of the Republican candidates were elected. Last year Mr. Bryan carried the state by a small plurality, and the Democrats and Populists, by fusion, elected the governor and railroad commissioners and carried the legislature.

In Virginia the vote is said to have been the smallest polled since the war. J. Hoge Tyler (Dem.) defeated Patrick McCaul (Rep.) for governor by a majority of about 50,000 in a total vote of only about 100,000. The legislature also went overwhelmingly Democratic, assuring probably the re-election of Hon. John W. Daniel as United States senator.

The Prohibitionists feel considerably encouraged at the showing made by their party at the polls, which indicated an advance all along the line. Noteworthy gains were reported from Ohio, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts. In the last named, one Prohibition member was elected to the state legislature. But it was in the Keystone state, Pennsylvania, as intimated above, that the Prohibition vote surprised all parties by passing even the expectations of Prohibitionists. The candidacy of Dr. S. C. Swallow, who ran nominally on the Prohibition ticket, but was avowedly opposed to both the Quay and the Hastings "rings," appealed very strongly to the independent voters of the state, and rallied a support on voting day numbering about 118,000. year the Prohibition vote in Pennsylvania was only 19,274.

THE BERING SEA DISPUTE.

The International Conferences.-A final decision was reached by the British government in the early days of October (p. 617), not to take part in any sealing conference with representatives of Russia and Japan at Wash

ington. This decision was communicated to the United States ambassador, Colonel Hay, October 6; but, at the same time, Lord Salisbury's government declared its willingness to confer with the United States alone. The reason of the refusal to treat with the representatives of Russia and Japan was that those governments are not interested in the Bering sea seals to a degree entitling them to representation in the conference. The telegram which conveyed the intelligence of the final refusal of the British cabinet to be represented in the conference, stated that the abstention of the British government was due entirely to Canada's opposition to meeting Russia and Japan, out of fear of being outvoted. Thus does England recede from her first position toward the conference, which was one of approval.

On receipt of Lord Salisbury's note of declination, Mr. Sherman, secretary of state, addressed a reply to the British foreign office, in which he recounts the facts of the case, namely, that up to September 23 the United States government had had every reason to expect that England would send representatives to the conference, though long before that date it was well known that Russia and Japan were to be represented. But now that England had definitely refused to take part with Russia and Japan, Secretary Sherman proposed to Lord Salisbury a conference between England and the United States alone. While Lord Salisbury's reply was awaited, the officials of the British foreign office expressed astonishment at "the tone of surprise" assumed by Secretary Sherman, thus implicitly denying that the British premier had ever agreed to be represented in a conference. to which Russia and Japan should be parties; and the London "Times" said:

"It is unnecessary to deal seriously with expressions of astonishment obviously intended to cover the failure of an attempt to bluff the British government."

Secretary Sherman's new proposition to the British government was to hold two conferences, one dealing with the broad aspects of the sealing question and the preservation of the herd, the other dealing with the narrower application of it to the regulations under the Paris award of 1893. This proposition was formally accepted by Lord Salisbury in a dispatch of October 15; and Pro-fessor D'Arcy Thompson and a Canadian expert, Pro

fessor Macoun, were ordered to attend the secondary or supplementary conference.

On October 23 the international fur seal conference assembled at the state department in Washington; present Pierre Botkine, M. de Routkowsky, and M. de Wallant, representing Russia; Shiro Fujita and Prof. Kakichi Mitsukuri, representing Japan; and John W. Foster (chairman), Charles S. Hamlin, and President David Starr Jordan of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, representing the United States. Mr. George A. Clark was appointed secretary.

On October 29 official announcement was made of an agreement reached by the conferees for complete suspension or material limitation of pelagic sealing.

The agreement consists of three main features of an alterna tive character. The first contemplates an absolute suspension of all pelagic sealing. Another is for restriction of such sealing within narrow limits. The nature of the third proposition was not made public.

A treaty was signed November 6 by the representatives of the three governments. Under this treaty there will be a suspension of pelagic sealing for such length of time as, in the opinion of experts, the condition of the seals will require in order to insure their continued existence. It was seen that the most difficult feature of the Bering sea negotiations would be to secure the assent of Great Britain to the treaty. The British experts refused to admit that there was any danger of the extinction of the seals through pelagic sealing; and Great Britain and Canada, it was foreseen, would decline to take any steps which might injure an industry of great profit to many Canadians.

In the other conference, that in which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada were represented, a counter concession was demanded on behalf of Canada in return for Canada's assent to the proposition of the United States for suppression or suspension of pelagic sealing. The Canadians held that the fish in Canadian and Newfoundland waters are as much the property of those colonies as are the seals on the Pribilof islands the property of the United States; hence Canada and Newfoundland have as much right to have the fish protected against United States fishermen as the United States has to have the seals protected against Canadians.

Statistics of the catch of seals for the year 1897 were presented to the conference. The statistics compiled by the American officials brought out two important features-namely, that the catch had fallen off one-half during the year-proof that the seal herd was being rapidly destroyed; and secondly, that the catch of seals from the American islands in Bering sea was about 15 to I as between the Canadian sealers under the British flag and the American sealers. The same proportion, it was aileged, existed throughout the waters of the North Pacific. The figures of the season's catch were:

Total catch of seals in the North Pacific, 38,700, as against 73,000 in the previous season.

The year's total catch was divided as follows: Taken by British vessels, 30,800; by American vessels, 4,100; by Japanese vessels, 3,800.

The season's catch in Bering sea was 16,650, against 29,500 the year before-a reduction of about one-half. Of the catch in Bering sea, British vessels took 15,600, and American vessels 1,050: the vessels designated as "British" are nearly all Canadian.

The end of this supplementary conference was reached November 16, when, in the final session, a unanimous report was submitted by the experts concerning the condition of the seal herds, and the diplomatic representatives of the United States, Great Britain, and the Dominion of Canada reached an understanding which it was hoped would at a later day lead to final adjustment not only of the Bering sea question, but of other pending controversies. But no final action was taken looking to the suspension of pelagic sealing. The Canadian representatives urged that other questions should be embraced in any plan of settlement, and suggested an international commission to attain that end. It was decided that the Canadians should put their views in writing after their return to Ottawa and submit them to the Washington authorities.

The unanimous report of the American, British, and Canadian experts on the condition of the fur seal herd in Bering sea, sets forth that the Pribilof herd has declined in numbers since 1884, and that its numerical strength is now from one-fifth to one-third what it was then; that specifically the number of breeding females was notably reduced between 1896 and 1897; that land killing of males as now practiced does no harm to the herd; that