278 ORAL ARGUMENT ON HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



are lost. They .nre lost to ns just as iiiu(;h. Their effect upon the herd 

 is the same. It is only the question whether those who kill them get 

 the profit of the skins; and yet at the same time it is most uatural to 

 observe that you tind agreed all through this case, by those who have 

 commented ui)oii it, that the waste and destruction alone of this method 

 of sealing condemns it, if you are to look at nil at the interests of man- 

 kind in the preservation of this herd, or to the interests of commerce 

 in having the yearly product. If those considerations enter at all into 

 the question, then it is a. material consideration, tiiat, as we say, a very 

 large proportion variously stated by the witnesses (I will not undertake 

 to say what, for I have made no estimate of the result of the testimony) 

 are lost. 



Then you have unquestionably noticed another thing — that of all the 

 skins that go into the London market from what is called the "North 

 West Catch" — that is the pelagic catch — the uniform price is consider- 

 ably less than the skins of the same animals taken on the island, and 

 the reason is that they are lull of shot holes; — that is the only differ- 

 ence — except that they are largely the skins of females. That may 

 have something to do with it, but generally the reason given by the 

 witnesses is that they are lull of shot holes, .'^o that of the skins that are 

 saved, commerce is deprived of the real value of many of them. But 

 I pass over many of these points, rather than to weary you with what, 

 perhaps, is not very material. 



I want to say a word further on the subject in respect of which I read 

 from Mr. Elliott — the return ot these seals to the islands. There is a 

 theory — it is nothing but a theory — that there may be young seals that 

 do not go back till the instinct of nature takes them back for the pur- 

 poses of reproduction. What evidence does that rest upon? Who 

 knows, who can know, who pretends to know, that these seals do not 

 return? The evidence is just to the same effect as what I have read 

 from Mr. Elliott. iSTumbers of witnesses testify that young seals are 

 back there. This very business of driving that we have been discuss- 

 ing shows that. What is the trouble witli the driving in 1890 — what 

 is the objection to if? They drive up seals and let them go: what do 

 they let them go for? They cannot get the desired number of skins; 

 they can get but little more than one-fifth: they have not the number 

 which the contract entitles them to take: why do tliey let them turn 

 back*? Because they are too young. All this theory of Elliott's is 

 based on the presence of those young males on the islands. 



As to the young females, the evidence of their presence on the islands 

 is voluminous. 



Then there is another thing. The necessities of the change — the 

 shedding of the fur brings these animals back — which takes place every 

 year. I read from Mr. Grebnitzky's evidence, the Governor of the 

 islands whose exi)erience'is so long and who has no interest in this 

 case. It is to be found in the United States Counter Case page 3G3. 

 He says : 



I believe that at sometime dnrins tlie year every seal comes ashore. There is no 

 reason to believe that a certain numhor of any class rcmnin swiiinninjy about in the 

 neigbbonrhood of the islands all the summer without landin<ij, although there is con- 

 siderable difference in the time at "which different classes arrive. 



Writing about Mr. Grebnitzky, the British Commissioners say, at 

 section 202 that he, Grebnitzky, 



Believes the main reason of the hinding, at later dates, of the seals not actually 

 engaged in breeding, is tliat during tlie " shedding" or "stagey " season, their pelage 

 becomes too thin to afford a suitable jjrotection from the water. 



