ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PllELPS. 241 



speaking- of Polaviua rookery, does not Tiimself state there were as 

 mauy dead pups on Polavina in 1892 as in 1891, because it does not 

 appear that he was on Polavina in 1891 at all, and he could not make 

 any comparison ; but he takes a native with him to the rookery, and he 

 quotes the native if he jDroperly understood him (or, rather, if the 

 native properly understood Mr. Macouu), to the effect that there 

 never had been before so many dead ])U])s in the rookeries. As to 

 Tolstoi rookery, Mr. IMacoun is the only witness who saw a greater 

 number of dead on Tolstoi in 1892 than there were in 1891. He was 

 on Tolstoi in the previous year, and he took a native along with him to 

 corroborate his opinion of 1892 and he quotes from the hitter's state- 

 ment. The photographer was asked to verify a statement of the native, 

 and the language of the ])hotographer, whatever was meant, is: 

 "When asked" — that is when the native was asked — "When asked 

 whether there were as many seals (not dead pups) in 1892 as in 1891, he 

 replied "more; more than ever I saw before". Mr. Macoun undoubt- 

 edly misunderstood him, because he gives it as supporting the claim 

 that there were more dead pups in 1892 than in 189 L; but the language 

 that is given would seem to indicate that the native did not so under- 

 stand the statement that he was making. It would be very plain that 

 the native says no such thing if it were not that Mr. Macoun cites him, 

 evidently understanding that that was what he meant to say. Mr. 

 Maynard says in the course of his affidavit: 



We walked to that part of Tolstoi rookery on -which dead pnps were lying in great 

 numbers, and while we were standing within a few yards of tlie limit of the ground 

 on which these dead pups were. Mr. Macoun asked Antou Melovedoli" — 



that is the native — 



whether he thought there were as mauy of them as there were last year, to which he 

 replied, "More; more than I ever saw before". 



I make that observation upon the evidence for what it is worth. It 

 is not conclusive by any means. It is an observation that is fair to 

 make upon the language of the witness. 



It is only fair, as I am dealing with the whole of this evidence, to read 

 something from Mr. Ma conn's report. 



Mr. Macoun, at page 14G of his Keport, which is in the 1st volume of 

 the Appendix to the British Counter Case says: 



Dead pups were first noticed by me on Tolstoi rookery the lOtli of August, though 

 photographs taken by Mr. Maynard on the 8th of August while I was on St. George 

 Island, show that at that date there were nearly, if not quite as many of them on 

 this rookery as there were ten days later. At the time I lirst noticed the dead pups 

 I counted over four thousand (4,000). . . The pups, when I first saw tliem, appeared 

 to have been dead not more than two weeks, and nearly all seem to have died about 

 the same time. . . This rookery was revisited ou the 21st of August. At tiiis time an 

 estimate was again made of the number of dead pups. A large band of holluschickio 

 on their way from the water to the hauling ground at the back of Tolstoi rookery, 

 liad stopped to rest on the gionnd on which the ])ups were lying, and hid a part of 

 them; so that on this occasion a low less than 3,800 were counted. . . My last visit 

 to Tolsloi rookery was made on tlie 11th of September. No living seals were to l)e 

 seen on tbat part of the rookery ground on which the dead jiups were, and it was 

 now apparent tliat they extended further to the left than is shown iji the photo- 

 graphs taken of them. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — You are not reading Mr. Macoun's Eeport 

 continuously? 



Mr. Phelps. — No ; I skip a passage, — I am reading an extract given 

 me. He goes on : 



That is to say, a part of the ground on which seals are taken in these photographs 

 Ifiad dead pups on it, which at that time could not be seen; this would add several 



? s, PT xy IG 



