266 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



driving that probably could not be carried on as a permanent tiling 

 from year to year without miscliievoiis results, but it had never taken 

 place before, and the reason was, because there was no occasion for it. 

 It was the result of the scarcity that had been brought about by this 

 pelagic sealing and for which no other reason is suggested. 



Mr. Justice IIarlan. — What year is that? 



Mr. PiiLLrs. — 1890. I say no v(Mson is suggested. T should ])erhaps 

 say that no reason is proved. There is a general talk by my leaiiied 

 friends about the consequences of driving; but when you look into the 

 evidence to see when it took place, 1890 was the first time, and then it 

 stoi)ped. 



The President. — What was the allowance made by the Government 

 for that year 1890? 



Mr. Phelps. — I believe it was G0,00() — I believe that was the first 

 year it was changed. Tliere was always a provision, you will remem- 

 ber in these leases, that the number allowed on the face of the contract 

 could be diminished by the Treasury Agent, and it was reduced, Gen- 

 eral Poster remiiuls me, to 00,0(10 by order of the Secretary of the 

 Treasury, and they were only able to get less than 22,000, so that less 

 than 22,000 was actually taken, though the Secretary's order would have 

 permitted them to take 00,000. 



The witnesses that are relied upon on this subject of redriving, every 

 one of them, refer only to the year 1890, when the fact is not in dispute, 

 but when, as I have said, it could have produced no possible effect. 

 This is what Mr. Goff said, who stopped this, and 1 read from Volume 

 III of the British Api)endix, part 111, page 10: 



We opened the season by a drive from the Reef Rookery, and turned away 83 1/2 

 per cent, when we should have turned away 15 per cent of the seals driven, and we 

 closed the season l)y turniuj;- away 86 per cent, a fact which ])roves to every iui])artial 

 mind that we were redriving tlie yearliiij;s. . . and that we were merely torturing 

 the young seals, injuring the future life and vitality of the breeding rookeries, to 

 the detriment of the lessees, natives and the Government. 



In 1890 that was true; that is what Mr. Goff reported to his Govern- 

 ment. 



In his affidavit, Mr. Goff says, in the United States Case, Volume 

 II, page 113: 



A few seals are injured by redriving (often confounded with overdriving and 

 sometimes so called), but the number so injured is inconsiderable and could have no 

 appreciable etl'ect upon seal life through destroying the vitality of the male. The 

 decrease, caused by pelagic sealing, compelled whatever injurious redriving haa 

 taken ]»lace on the islands, as it was often necessary to drive every two or three 

 days from the same hauling grounds, which caused nniiiy seals let go in a former 

 "drive" to be driven over again before thoroughly rested. If a "drive" was made 

 once a week i'rom a certain hauling ground, as had been the case before pelagic seal- 

 ing grew to such enormous proportions, and depleted the rookeries, there would be 

 no damage at all resulting from redriving. 



• Mr. Nettleton, another Treasury Agent, concurs in those views, 

 because in his deposition, United States Case, Volume II, page 76 

 he says: 



The result of my observations of the methods of driving the seals from the haul- 

 ing grounds to the killing grounds is that a very small i'raction of one percent of 

 the seals die from being overdriven or from being overheated in driving. 



Something is said about Mr. Pabuer, who had no knowledge of this 

 subject. He was there with Mr. Elliott, and partakes of the views of 

 Mr.' Elliott that I shall examine later. 



Qn the Russian Islands, as the iJritish Commissioners themselves 

 said, the driving was a great deal harder for the seals than on the 

 American. 



