ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 21 



Upon them on the islands, because their dead bodies were found upon 

 the ishuids aiul trom that fact they then proceed to avgne and cite the 

 opinions of a number of persons upon the ishmds all I think without 

 exception Aleuts, or nearly all, and they say we attributed this enormous 

 death of pups, for it was a very large death indeed, there being no cause 

 to which to assign it, to the fact that the mothers of these pups were 

 killed at sea — that the pups were left without their natural sustenance 

 and so died. 



Now it they could establish that it would undoubtedly be a very 

 grave and important fact. But do they? 



I refer in this connection to the British Counter Case, page 213, where 

 the matter is gone into. On page 212 the fact is stated, and then there 

 is the reference to the British Commissioners' Report which deals with 

 this matter. It begins at the bottom of that page. 



The Commissioners then show, by reference to dates in detail, that the excessive 

 mortality, when lirst oljserved, had occurred at a time Loo early in the snniiucr to 

 he explained by the killing of mothers at sea; and point out that, although further 

 deaths of young occurred at later dates, there appeared every reason to believe that 

 the whole resulted from some one cause, which had extended from the original 

 localities, and had become more general. 



The Commissioners do not regard the available evidence as sufScieut to enable 

 them definitely to determine the cause of the mortality in 1891, but suggest the fol- 

 lowing as among probable causes: 



a. Disturbances connected with the collection of "drives," in which nursing 

 females were included, which animals, though eventually spared, did not succeed in 

 rejoining their young. 



b. Disease of an epidemic character. 



c. Stampedes and overrunning of the young. 



d. Raids upon the rookeries si^ecially atfected. 



I shall have a word to say about the raids on the rookeries a little 

 later. Then they proceed to observe this which I submit is practically 

 conclusive agaiust the view suggested. 



The circumstance that the mortality observed in 1891 was confined to St. Paul 

 Island, and was not found on tbe neighbouring Island of St. George, is in itself 

 sutlicient to indicate that it cannot be attributed to the killing of seals at sea. All 

 the witnesses cited in the United States Case in respect to the mortality in this year 

 speak of its occurrence on St. Paul Island only. 



Now surely, if I rested here, that would be an answer to the sugges- 

 tion that it was caused by pelagic sealing, because it is impossible to 

 suggest with any show of reason or of probability that the seals cap- 

 tured by pelagic sealing only came from St. Paul's Island and that a 

 proportion of them did not also come from St. George's Island. But 

 not only that — they go on to show that it was contined to particular 

 rookeries even upon St. Paul's Island itself. So much for the year 1891. 

 But we have got still further, and subject to the better oi)inion and the 

 more dispassionate opinion of the members of the Tribunal, what I sub- 

 mit is a conclusive answer to the suggestion, namely, that in 1802, when 

 there was practically no pelagic sealing in Behring sea, where there 

 may have been 300 or 400 or 500, seals, killed at sea — when the modus 

 Vivendi was in full operation, we have the very same mortality occur- 

 ring and manifesting the same features. Now it does, therefore, with 

 great deference to my learned frietids and those who put forward this 

 argument, seem to me impossible to maintain that thesis in connexion 

 with the death of pups in 181)1 and 1892, That latter matter in 1892 is 

 dealt with in the first volume of the Appendix to the Briti.sh Counter 

 Case, pages 145 to 148, and if my learned friend would be good enough 

 to read it for me, I would ask him to do so. 



