ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 277 



it because the Governments liave i)roponnded these questions to the 

 Arbitration in the Treaty. But Mr. Elliott shows that the true enemy 

 of the tishery is the dog-lish, and that the seal is the devourer of the 

 dog-tish. You will see on page 307 — 



Suppose for aronmcnt that we conld and did kill all the seals, we would at ouce 

 give the deadly do<j-lish (Squalno-aucarthias) which fairly swarms in these waters, 

 an immense nnixtns to its present extensive work of destruction of untold millions 

 of young food fishes such as herrinj;', cod, and salmon. 



A dog lish can and does destroy every day of its existence hundreds and thdusands 

 of young cod, salmon, and other food iishes — destroys at least douldc and tiuadriiple 

 as 'much as a seal; what is the most jiotcnt factor to the destruction of the dog-lish 

 first, he will he doing positive injury to the very cause he preten<ls to champion, if 

 he is permitted to disturb this equilibrium of miture and destroy the seal. 



Now 1 have said more than I ought about Mr Elliott; and what is 

 the conclusion of the whole? It will be seen that we have neither 

 desired to suppress tliis Eejiort, nor had we the least inclination to do 

 so. If you strike it out of this case, you strike out nine parts of the 

 evidence that are in our i'avour, in order to get the one — the only one 

 that is against us, so f-ir as it goes; and that is destroyed, and the mis- 

 taken theory of Mr. Elliott on that subject is exi)osed when we find his 

 conclusion is one that is not warranted by any evidence; — that the kind 

 of driving he objects to had never taken place till 18!)0, and that 

 only in several years afterwards could it be ascertained whether his 

 preposterous idea, as we think it is, of an injury to the vitality of the 

 seals is made by causes so slight. 



Let me say one word on the subject, however of the waste and de- 

 struction by killing and by the sinking of seals that are killed — the fatal 

 wounding of seals that escape. There is a great deal of evidence on 

 that point. It is evidence on both sides, and it would take a long time 

 to go through and estimate it. The evidence on the part of Great 

 Britain is from the sealers, not only swearing- in their own behalf, but 

 swearing to their own marksmanship and success in killing seals. That 

 it has been universally understood, until that testiuu)ny was brought 

 forward in this case, that the result was a vast waste, we have seen 

 from everybody's statement who has made any statement earlier than 

 this. 



It never was doubted before that it must be so; and it will be trans- 

 parent to any person who will reflect on the circumstances. It will be 

 n)ore transparent to anyone who has ever had anything to do with the 

 business of shooting at all, and above all of shooting game or animals 

 in the water. No man who has had any such experience will be per- 

 suaded otherwise than that a very large number of animals under the 

 best circumstances must be lost — always are lost. No man who has 

 shot a deer in the water, or who has shot at ducks in the water and not 

 upon the wing — at animals that frequent the water — does not under- 

 stand how large a percentage necessarily must be lost. And you will 

 bear in mind that this Scaling Association agreement among each otlier 

 requires that only a certain number of "old hands" in the business 

 shall be employed on each vessel, whatever the reason of that is; and 

 that even many of the witnesses that attempt to make out that a very 

 large proportion of seals are saved out of those that are killed, make 

 this qualitication — ''the c/reen hands lose." They need not say that. 

 We know that green hands lose the seals. It is a very expert marks- 

 man indeed that would not lose a great many; — the green hands lose 

 on their own showing. But I pass over this lightly for the reason that 

 this, like so many points that have been discussed, really does not bear 

 on the issue. If they are to destroy the animals, tliey are not any more 

 destroyed because they sink to the bottom of the sea, and their skins 



