ORAL ARGUME]XT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 253 



Mr. Cautee. — It is not too large for ISSl). 



Mr. Phelps. — No. The table is right as it is headed. It shows the 

 loss in 1889, but when you come to carry that forward, 3 years longer, 

 to 1891, you must take into account the deaths from natural causes of 

 these young seals maturing during that period. That ligure has not 

 been nmde, but it would not change the result. 



On the other hand the killings of 1890 and 1891 are not included, 

 which would more than balance, because if they are not included then 

 the number of fenuiles would be increased rather than diminished. 



]S^ow this is Table U, the last one, which shows the loss in the number 

 of female seals which would be effected by 10 years of pelagic sealing- 

 based on the supposition that 20,000 breeding females were killed 

 annually during that period. 



This is a hypothetical table not founded on actual catch, showing 

 what would be lost if 20,000 breeding females are killed by pelagic 

 sealing each year: you will see readily from the table how that is fig- 

 ured out, and the total loss in 10 years of female seals would be 301,840. 

 The diftereuce between this table and the last is that the last is at- 

 temi)ted to be founded on the actual destruction as reported. This is 

 based on a hypothetical destruction of 20,000 female seals in each year. 

 I am talking exclusively of fenuxle seals in these tables. They take no 

 account of anything else. It is the loss of breeding females. I should 

 have remarked that there is a total loss of females, and a loss of breed- 

 ing females, the difference being of course that females are not breeding 

 females till they are three years old, and the loss of breeding lieniales 

 is 220,820, and the total loss of females at the end of the period is 

 361,840. 



The American Commissioners do not assume to number the herd^ but 

 they give a hypothetical herd in which there is supposed to be 1,500,000 

 females, of which 800,000 are capable of breeding. That i^ a total herd 

 of 3,000,000. It is seen, therefore, assuming the Pribiloff herd to cor- 

 respond in numbers to the Commissioners' hypothesis, that in 10 years 

 of pelagic sealing which destroyed 20,000 breeding females a year, the 

 number of I'emales in the herd would be reduced by 361,840, or over 24 

 per cent of the whole number of females, while the breeding females 

 would be reduced by 220,820. If you take it at 3,0U0,000 as its nor- 

 mal condition, and assume half of those are females, and that of the 

 1,500,000 females, 800,000 are ca])able of breeding, the figures tell the 

 consequence, that 27 per cent of the breeding cows are gone in 10 years. 

 Of course, it may be said these figures are upon the hypothesis of the 

 Commissioners, because an exact census cannot be taken, but it is the 

 best hypothesis that the case admits of. I do not think that examin- 

 ing this tftble, in connection with the evidence in the case, it will occur 

 to members of the Tribunal that the premises are in any respect erro- 

 neous, that the hypotheses are not the most just and reasonable that 

 the materials of the Case enable us to make; and from this source as 

 well as from all the others we arrive at a conclusion that I confess, to 

 my mind, would be just as apparent before I heard a word on the sub- 

 ject from scientific, or practical men, from tables, from exi)erience else- 

 where, as it is now. Anyone who will give a moment's attention to 

 the geometrical progression of aninuil life — aniinals of this class I 

 mean, or animals that are analogous to those with which we are con- 

 cerned — must see, if he is no more of a nuithematiciah than I am, what 

 result takes x)lace. 



Cast your eyes back for one moment to the growth of the population 

 of this world. The conditions of increase are nothing like those w© 



