ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 17 



which my learned friends have themselves adopted as indeed being 

 more favorable to their contention than the figures set out in their 

 own volumes. 



Mr. Carter. — We do not concede the accuracy of those figures, 



Sir Charles Eussell. — No, no; I am not saying you do. But 

 you have referred to them, and you have recognized the fact, as it is 

 the fact, that they are figures which are larger than the figures that you 

 yourself put forward. 



Mr. Carter. — Only in some particulars. 



Sir Charles Kussell.— They will be found at page 207 of the 

 British Commissioners' Report. I quite admit — I wish not to be mis- 

 understood on this relation, or in any relation — I quite admit that all this 

 is subject to discount because until we come to comparatively recent 

 years the figures are not a very reliable guide. I quite admit also that 

 an addition, and a not inconsiderable addition, is to be made to these 

 figures by reason of what has been called the loss of seal life at sea, 

 namely, loss in respect to seals which are Khot at, which may be mor- 

 tally wounded, but which sink and which cannot be recovered. The 

 figures therefore are open to these criticisms. But in reference to 

 such criticism, I have to observe that there is a very wide divergence 

 between the views put forward by the witnesses on the part of the 

 United States and those i)ut forward by the persons actually practically 

 engaged in jielagic sealing, as to the amount of loss in that way occa- 

 sioned — so wide a margin of difference, indeed, between the two, that 

 one looked about for some explanation of it; and I think the explana- 

 tion is to be found in this: that the witnesses called on the part of the 

 United States appear to have assumed that when a charge of the gun 

 was fired at a particular seal, and that seal was not caught, that that 

 was to be treated as a seal that had been wounded and was lost. I 

 may call attention to the evidence cited in Professor Elliott's report, in 

 which he cites a great number of instances of that kind, for he is very 

 strong against pelagic sealing; and when you come to examine the 

 instances that he cites, he does not mention them as instances where 

 there is any reason to suppose the seal lost was a seal that had been 

 mortally wounded at all. 



Now, taking these figures, Sir, and presenting them to you; taking a 

 later year than 1878, the amount pelagically killed in 1880 was 4,800; in 

 1881, 0,000; in 1882, 12,000; and I stop at 1882. 



Mr. Foster. — It is about half of what the American Commissioners 

 report in their table. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — I do not think that is ad rem to what I am 

 now ui)on. 



Mr. Foster. — You say we adopted your figures. 



Sir Charles Russell.— Will you give me the reference? 



Mr. Foster. — Page 30G, just following the maps that you are using. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Do they give any figures alter that? 



Mr. Foster. — Oh yes; each year. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I thought our figures were more favorable. 



Mr. Foster.— On page 366 you will see that in 1870 it is 12,500. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will just look at this. Yes; I see some 

 of them are more favorable. 



Mr. Foster. — Take, for instance, up to 1878. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will examine these later; but for the 

 present I will take the ones that I am upon. It will not materially 

 interfere with the point I am submitting. I think it will not be found 

 to materially interfere. 



B S, PT XIV 2 



