ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 329 



J. Stauley-Brown {ibid., p. 14), says: 



I have sat upon the cliffs for hours and watched seals beneath nie at play in the 

 clear water. It is true that niauy of their antics mij;ht be mistaken for copulation 

 by a careless observer, and this may have given rise to the theory of jjelajjic coition. 

 I have never seen a case of the many observed upon which the facts could be so 

 properly construed. 



Captain Bryant's views upon tliis matter have already been cited. 



Such sport is very natural, and is to be seen among- many animals. 



Mr. Macoun in his report (British Counter Case, App., Vol. I, page 

 139) cites the same authorities given by the British Commissioners. 

 Mr. Macoun's views are mere inference and hearsay, and he was, equally 

 with the British Commissioners, unable to witness a single instance of 

 pelagic coition either in 1891 or 1892. 



The evidence submitted by the British Government (Brit. Counter 

 Case, App., Vol. II, pp. 43-121) consists of the affidavits of forty-six 

 sealers. These affidavits appeared for the first time in the British 

 Counter Case, so that the United States have had no opportunity to 

 reply. 



The following seventeen of these sealers swear that they have never 

 seen the act throughout from two to nineteen years of experience: 

 McGrath, two years experience; Ryan, ten years; Fanning, four years; 

 McKean, seven years ;<Shields, seven years; Lorenz, three years ; Baker, 

 five years; Christian, two years; A. C. Folger, nineteen years; C. 

 Peters, five years; A. J. Bertram, six years; A. McGarva, five years; 

 G. E. Miner, six years; H. J. Lund, two years; P. Carlson, four years; 



E. A. Lewis, three years. 



Seventy-five practical white hunters and sealers examined by the 

 British Government on other points are not asked to give their views 

 as to pelagic coition. The same is true as to thirty-one Indian hunters 

 in Behring Sea. 



Of those who swear that they have seen the act performed in the 

 water, the following speak of having only seen it once: A. S. Cami^bell, 

 three years experience; F. Campbell, five years; G. Robt^rts, four years; 

 W. O'Leary, six years; W. De Witt, four years; F. W. Strong, four 

 years; G. McDonald, six years; E. Cantilliou, four years. 



Three of the afore mentioned witnesses have seen it twice: T. Garner, 

 three years experience; W. G. Goudie, five years; A. Billard, two years. 



The following swear they have seen it, without saying how often : W. 

 Petitt; G. F.French; C.F.Dillon; C. J. Harris; R. S. Findley; H. B. 

 Jones; W. Heay; F. R. Warrington; T. Magiieson; A. Reppen; T. H. 

 Brown; G. Scott; G. Wester. 



Two of these witnesses, however, swear to a manner of coition which 

 is on its face impossible to the animal: A. S. Cami^bell (Br. Counter 

 Case, Vol. II, p. 48) and W. Petit {ibid., p. 43). 



Two others swear that this occurred in May, which is impossible: G. 



F. French {ibid., p. 45) and L. McGrath {ibid., p. 46). 



The true explanation of what the above-named witnesses saw is given 

 by those witnesses who state that they have seen movements of the 

 character here in question in the water, but could not tell and would 

 not swear that they amounted to coition. See H. E. Folger (Br. 

 Counter Case, Vol. II, p. 91); G. E. Miner (p. 97); E. Ramlose (p. 72); 

 W. Shields (p. 70); J. S. Fanning (p. 95). See also Dr. Dall, whose 

 statement is quoted supra. 



Only three witnesses swear to having seen the act performed often 

 or more than twice: A. Douglass (Brit. Couuter Case, Vol. II, p. 52); 

 O. Scarf (p. 07); C. Le Blanc (p. 51). 



