242 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



hnndred to my former estimate of their number. No pnps thiit had died recently 

 wore to be seen anywhere. It seems reasonably certain that all the dead pups seen 

 on this part of Tolstoi rookery died at about the same time. . . 



Of course, I do uot read the whole of Mr. Macoun's observations, — 1 

 do not propose to. That shows, however, that wheu Mr. Stanley Brown 

 left the Island, tlie mortality on the Tolstoi rookery was over, so that his 

 testimony, which I have before read, on this subject, was made with full 

 knowledge and observation of all the facts there were. 



Just cne other observation on this subject of dead pups. Of course, 

 it is not to be denied that in 1892 while the modus vivendi prevailed, 

 and while the number of nursing mothers that were killed must in all 

 probability have been small, there was a mortality on two rookeries of 

 the Islands greater or less — Mr. Macoun states it a good deal higher 

 than Mr. Murray and Staidey Brown state it. They are all witnesses 

 entitled to attention. Their testimony differs only to that extent; but 

 the decisive point has already been alluded to, that it was only on those 

 rookeries that any mortality of dead pups that was noticeable was to be 

 seen in 1892. Our witnesses testify that, as compared with former 

 years, it was very small. Mr. Macoun's testimony is different. 



Now then, the decisive point is, what was the cause of the death? 

 The evidence completely makes out, I think I am authorized in saying, 

 that in all the previous years the death of these i)ups was due to 

 starvation, because I do uot understand that there is any contradiction 

 of the numerous statements that have been made before, that the pups 

 were in an emaciated condition, and that in numerous instances when 

 they were dissected, and their stomachs opened, they were found to be 

 without any nourishment. In 1892 the dead pups were generally in 

 good condition, and not indicating death by starvation, aiid the testi- 

 mony of Mr. Macoun himself establishes that. He says this in his report 

 at page 1 47 of the same Appendix : 



That their deaths were not caused by starvation was very evident, as they were, 

 with few exceptions, lar<re and well developed, not small and emaciated, as is almost 

 invariably the case witli those that are known to have wandered away from the 

 breeding grounds and died of starvation. 



Now, Sir, by the testimony of Mr. Macoun himself, who very fairly 

 gives his observation on that point, it is plain that tlie seals that died 

 on these rookeries in 1892, did uot die of starvation. It is not attribu- 

 table to pelagic sealing. It is equally ])laln upon the evidence of 

 many witnesses, which is not contradicted, that in previous years on all 

 the islands and all the rookeries they did die of starvation. Now what 

 these pups died of on these two rookeries in 1892, it is quite out of my 

 power to tell — the evidence does not inform me. 



I leave that subject and I leave it with the observation that with the 

 exception of the difference which I have tried to state fairly between 

 Mr. Stanley Brown and Mr. Murray, on the one hand, and Mr. Macoun 

 on the other, as to the relative proportion of the dead pups in these two 

 rookeries, there is no contradiction. Their evidence must speak for 

 itself and I cannot assist the Tribunal to reconcile it. And as I am now 

 coming to a new topic, although it is a few minutes before the adjouru- 

 uient, perhaps you will allow me. Sir, to stop here for the moment. 



[The Tribunal then adjourned for a short time.] 



INIr. Phelps. — I thought I had done. Sir, with the subject of dead 

 pups; but there is one other suggestion from the other side that I want 

 to answer brieffy, if you will permit me to recur to it. The suggestion 

 is that on the Commander Islands no dead pups were seen in 1892, 

 which is the year when the pelagic sealing went over to the vicinity of 



