ORAL ARGUMENT OP HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 255 



this indiislry by a great nation not wanting in intelligence, anxious to 

 preserve this herd, largely interested in preserving it — that in this 

 industry as in every other pursuit that man ever set his hand to, exj^eri- 

 ence has shown, as it advanced and grew, that earlier methods were in 

 some respects deficient — that the first ideas were uot always the best — 

 that time has developed uot only the necessity, but the means of 

 improvement. Is there an industry to which that does not apply? 

 Can there be? Can any man undertake to say that the time will ever 

 come when the oldest handicraft will have reached a point at which 

 improvement is impossible? 1 fancy that no man who has a common 

 acquaintance with the history of his race will venture to assert such a 

 conclusion. Suppose it is true that the number it was estimated might 

 be taken from the seal herd without harming it, had proved too great — 

 suppose it was true that in the manner of taking them the best pos- 

 sible manner is shown by experience not to have been observed and 

 'that improvements are needed, is there any doubt that they will be 

 adopted? May not the interest and intelligence of the nation which, 

 with such sedulous care, has managed this industry during the short 

 period since 18G9 when they began, make it certain that tlie improve- 

 ments will take place? Are the difficulties that are suggested difficul- 

 ties that cannot be overcome? Is it like the killing of the female seal 

 in the water, — something that cannot be helped if you are to kill seals 

 there at all? Very far from it. Therefore, I might well dismiss this 

 suggestion of the accountability of the management on the Islands for 

 a part of the decrease with the single remark : — Granted that experience 

 has taught us better intelligence, and that some things must be cor- 

 rected which are easy of correction, what has that to do with the 

 certain and inevitable means of extermination with which we are deal- 

 ing in this case? It almost needs an apology for carrying this enquiry 

 any further; and it is only because I am not wdling to leave anything 

 that I conceive to be wrong — without allusion. 



Now, what are the points in the managenient on the Islands which 

 are claimed by my learned friends to have been mischievous in the 

 past? They are two. They say, we have killed too many male seals. 

 The draft that we set out with of 100,000 is too great. You will remem- 

 ber that the Statute authorises the Secretary of the Treasury at any 

 time to restrict it, if it is found that they are taking too many. You will 

 remember that under the Orders of the Secretary in 181)0, the number 

 was restricted to 22,000; and, tlierefore^ it is perfectly plain that, if 

 any restriction is necessary for the preservation of this race, it will be 

 made. The United States here is not struggling for the privilege of 

 prior extermination, because that would be quite in their power without 

 any license at all. 



The second objection is that in the manner of driving the seals, at 

 times I will allude to presently, they have been injured; those that are 

 not killed have been so injured as to affect the reproductive power of 

 the race, and so to diminish the birth rate by affecting the opposite sex 

 from that which is exposed to pelagic sealing. 



If that were true it does not touch the question of extermination at 

 all. It simply shows that we have somewhat hastened it by ill-advised 

 conduct which it is to be presumed will certainly be checked and be 

 corrected if the race can be preserved. But there is no just foundation 

 for that assertion. It stands principally upon the statements of a gen- 

 tleman about whom more has been said than would have been said if 

 he were here present to be (examined orally, who has been i:>romoted in 

 this case by my friends to the office of Professor, — a gentleman who has 



