262 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



The President. — Tbere can be uo objection to any error being rec- 

 tified, I slioulcl think. 



Sir Charles Ktssell. — Of course, we* should propose to hand to 

 my learned IViends a copy of whatever figures or criticisms we put 

 down before handin<>' it in to you. 



Now, only one other thino-; my learned friend said yesterday that I 

 had, in my criticism which 1 addressed upon the figures, lost sight of 

 the gexunctrical progression that would apply to the consideration of 

 thisquestion. I am not much concerned to defend myself; but I want 

 to point out that I was dealing with the question of whether pelagic 

 sealing could have occasioned the great decrease said to have been 

 manifested in 1884; and, for that purpose, it was not necesary to con- 

 sider the question of geometrical increase, because these animals do not 

 begin bearing until tliey are three years of age. That is all I meant, 

 and before the 3 years, before 1884, the amount of pelagic sealing was 

 almost nil. 



The President. — There is no question of the propriety of bringing 

 in the geometrical i)rogression as Mr. Phelps did. 



Sir Charles Russell. — There are two sides of that account, Sir — 

 that is a criticism — only one of which has been looked at by my learned 

 friend — there is a debit and a credit side. 



The President. — As to the paper you propose to hand in after you 

 have been in comnuinication with yonr friends on the other side we 

 will take it and see what it is and reserve to ourselves the right of 

 determining what use is to be made of it. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Certainly. 



The President. — Now, Mr. Phelps, will you please to resume your 

 argument and continue after your own plan, and we shall be pleased to 

 hear you. 



Mr. Phelps. — In respect of the map which my learned friend has 

 properly produced, since it has come into their possession, I have only 

 to repeat the observation I made before, and which was substantially 

 made by Sir Richard Webster, that this map, from its date, could not 

 have been in the possession of thgi negotiators of the American Treaty 

 and that it is extremely improbaljle that it should have been in the 

 liossession of the British negotiators. 



With regard to the table of figures submitted yesterday to which 

 my learned friend refers, I have nothing further to say. The document 

 will vindicate itself upon examination. If it does not vindicate itself, 

 it would be quite impossible to set it up, and I have no fear of any 

 criticism that it will be in the power of any one upon the facts of this 

 case to make. 



As to the other point my learned friend refers to. 



I do not know that I quite comprehend what he means to say. If he 

 only means that if the females that were killed in the water were unpro- 

 ductive females who never could have any young, I quite concur with 

 him that the ravages of pelagic sealing would then become slow and 

 that would be a question which this case has not i)resented. But the 

 objection to it on economical grounds, aside from any question of 

 humanity is that every female that is killed is not only the probable 

 immediate mother of young, but the future mother of young to an 

 extent only bounded by the age of the animal. 



Now I return. Sir, to the subject I was considering yesterday at the 

 time of the adjournment, and to which I am afraid I am giving more 

 time than it justifies, because I think it is all sufliciently answered by 

 the suggestion I have already made, that even if it were found to be true 



