344 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



3. It is further observed, on pnf^e 2 of the paper: "The argnment 

 that the kilhii^of every breeding' female decreases tlie herd ^ro tanto 

 in a geometrical ratio, is obviously untenable, otherwise those "indis- 

 criminate pelagic sealers" the killer whales .and the native Indians, 

 would have long since destroyed the herd." 



These observations indicate great misapprehension. There is an 

 enormous tendency to increase in all animal life; this tendency is mod- 

 erated and diminished by the various enemies to which such life is 

 subjected, and, in the case of seals, by such enemies as killer whales, 

 deficiency of food and the kilhng by native Indians pursued long 

 anterior to the discovery of the islands, and which is treated by the 

 United States Commissioners, as it properly should have been, as one 

 among the natural causes of diminution. Killing by the hand of man 

 in the sea and upon the land are additional causes brought to operate 

 ujion the herd after it Jiad reached its 7t,ormal condition of stability under 

 the operation of all other causes of diminution. 



4. The residue of the paper seems designed to show that the annual 

 taking of 100,000 young males in the manner practiced by the United 

 States was too great a draft upon the herd, even in its condition before 

 pelagic sealing was practiced. If there is any force in this view, it must 

 be in the assertion, or suggestion, that the reduction in a hypothetical 

 herd (numbering of all sexes and ages, 80,000), from 13,620 breeding 

 bulls to 1980, brought about by a killing of young males in the manner 

 and to the extent practiced on the islands, is fatally excessive, as 

 impairing the virile power of the herd. It is enough to say, in answer 

 to this, that the reduced number of 1980 gives one breeding bull to ten 

 females, there being in this hypothetical herd 20,960 females. The 

 known capacity of each breeding bull ranges, as the evidence shows, 

 from 20 to 50 females. 



5. It is observed in this paper (p. 5): "It is asserted by the United 

 States Commissioners that the 1980 bulls left can fertilize the cows as 

 effectively as 13,620. It seems hard to believe that, if this be so, Nature 

 should have created so many bulls to serve no purpose, or that natural 

 life can be interfered with to so large an extent without injuring the 

 reproductive powers of the herd." 



Nature undoubtedly has many inscrutable mysteries, but this does 

 not seem to be among the number of them. Does not nature do the 

 same thing in the case of horses and cows and bovine cattle, and many 

 other animals? In all these instances the same number of males and 

 females are born, and yet one male suffices for a much larger number of 

 females than even in the case of the seals. The purpose seems to be plain 

 enough. At all events, we know what the consequence is, and it is fair 

 to presume that such was the intended purpose of nature. It easily 

 enables a husbandry to be carried on by taking the superfluous male 

 life which would otherwise be expended in internecine conflicts, and 

 devoting it to the purjjose of man. Whenever in the case of these 

 domestic animals the numbers are increased, as they easily may be, to 

 such an extent as to become unprofitable, economic laws furnish a 

 remedy, and the owners proceed by the killing of females to diminish 

 the herds which have become too abundant for profit. These are the 

 conditions and the only conditions under which it is ever permissible 

 to slaughter the females of useful animals. Such conditions can never 

 arise in the case of the seals. The annual demand for them far exceeds 

 the supply, and even if this demand should cease, the feeding of the 

 herd is no burden upon the resources of man. 



