ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 249 



decrense in the rookeries on the Pribiloff Islands; and I (}nite agree with you in 

 retaining that nnlcss the malpractice of pelagic sealing he prevented or greatly 

 checked, both in the North Pacific and in the Behring Sea, the economic extermina- 

 tion of Callorhinus ursinus is merely the matter of a few years. 



The rest of the letter is equally interesting:. 



The next letter is from Dr. lv;i])hael Blancliard of Paris, Professor of 

 the Faculty of JNIcdicine and General Secretary of the Zoological 

 Society of France. It is to the same efilect, and I only call attention 

 to it. 



Then the letter from Dr. William Lilljoborg', of TJpsala, Sweden, and 

 Professor Nordonskiold, of the Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, is a. 

 joint letter; and I will read an extract from that: 



We do not, therefore, hesitate to declare that the facts about the life aaid habitrs 

 of the Fur Seal, stated by you in your said letter under 1-20, should servo as a base 

 for the regulations necessary to preserve this gregarious animal from its threatened 

 extinction in a comparatively short time. 



These regulations may be divided into two categories, namely, firstly, Regulations 

 for the killing, etc., of the Fur Seals on the rookeries in order to prevent the gradual: 

 diminution of the stock; Secondly, Regulations for the Pelagic Scaling or for the > 

 hunting of the Seals swimming in the ocean in large herds to and from the rookeries, , 

 or around the rookeries during the time when the females are suckling the pups on.'. 

 land. 



Then the last paragraph : 



As to the Pelagic Sealing, it is evident that a systematic hunting of the Seals iin 

 the open sea on the way to and from or around the rookeries, will very soon cause 

 the complete extinction of this valuable, and from a scientific point of view, sO' 

 extremely interesting and important animal, especially as a great number of the 

 animals killed in this manner are pregnant "cows," or "cows" temporarily sepa- 

 rated from their pnps while seeking food in tlie vicinity of the roolcery. Every one^ 

 having some experience in Seal-hunting can also attest that only a relatiA'cly small 

 part of the Seals killed or seriously wounded in the open sea can in this manner b<y 

 caught. We are, tlierefore, persuaded that a prohibition of Pelagic Sealing is a> 

 necessary condition for the prevention of the total extermination of the Fur-Seal. 



There are other letters, with which I must not detain you, from gen- 

 tlemen of eminence in various countries of scientific position and high 

 repute. 



Now this is scientific testimony; these are not seal-hunters or super- 

 intendents. This is the scientific branch of the case ; on the other hand 

 we have a great mass of testimony that I cannot stop to review. There 

 is a vast amount of evidence in the case from i)ractical men. In the 

 Collated Testimony appended to the American Argument from pages 

 300 to 312 you will find the testimony of 174 practical sealers; 25 of 

 them are masters of vessels, 30 are seamen, 86 are Indian hunters, 8 

 others are intelligent observers from those resident on the Islands. I 

 shall not read a word of their testimony. I refer you to it. It is all 

 concurrent. 



It is nothing but a repetition of the statement that in their judg- 

 ment the decrease that has taken jilace is owing to this destruction of 

 females and young, and that the extermination of the seal will be the 

 consequence. They come to the exact conclusion from their practical 

 point of view that the scientific men do from theirs. These witnesses 

 are no more scientific men than those scientific men are practical seal- 

 ers, and the concurrence of their judgment is extraordinary. 



What is there on the other side? Among all the scientific men of 

 eminence in this world, even including those in England like Professor 

 Sclater, Professor Huxley and Professor Flower, whose letter was read 

 the other day, where is the man who comes to contradict the testimony 

 of these gentlemen and to express any different view? Where is the 

 practical evidence to the contrary "? What is it that my learned friends. 



