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



of their own representatives and agents, the United States Government 

 has not afforded efficient protec':iou against raiding. 



I will not stop to read these aathoritii'S, but I would ask the Tribunal 

 to take note of them. They are at pages 290 and 291 of the British 

 Counter Case. Mr. Taylor in 1881; Mr. Kimmel in 1882 — both agents 

 on the islands. Mr. Gliddeu from 1882 to 1885; Mr. Wardman in 188.'); 

 Mr. Kyan from 1885 to 1887, and so forth. A note of their evidence is 

 to be found on the images I have already given. Then, Mr. President, I 

 submit I am now justified in saying that I have, so far, established two 

 things: That although 1 do not deny at all (and we never have denied) 

 that pelagic sealing has some operation — is a factor in the question of 

 reduction of seal life — that it is not the case with which we are dealing. 

 The main factor — the principal cause — is the mode in which the man- 

 agement has been carried on upon the islands, and the f;ict that regard- 

 less of warning the United States lessees have, over a series of years 

 gone on further and still further and yet further depleting the herd. 

 It is I think an expressive thing — a very significant thing — to look at 

 the figures of the killing upon the Pribilof Islands as they were pur- 

 sued under the Russian regime, with the system as x)nrsued under the 

 United States regime. Those figures are to be found in a convenient 

 tabular form, at i)age 132 of the Report of the British Commissioners; 

 and whereas during the Russian period beginning from 1817 down to 

 1867 the year of the cession — I have not got the numbers averaged — 

 anyhow the average is considerably less than 40.000. Considerably 

 less than 40,000 were killed when the Russian Government possessed 

 these Pribilof Islands. The highest year but one is the earliest year of 

 which we have actual record. In that year, 1817, it was G0,(>00 odd. 

 In 1807 it was 75,000, but in the intervening years the nund)er was 

 40,000; 150,000; 10,000; 6,000; 8,000; 10,000; 11,000; 26,000; 21,000; 

 34,000; 40,000; and so forth — an average far less than during the 

 American period. 



Now let me pause here for one instant. It being clear that man can 

 do nothing to increase the breeding of the seals — nothing I mean in a 

 positive way. He can by leaving them undisturbed ; he can by abstain- 

 ing from killing them — but I mean except by negations he can i)osi- 

 tively do nothing to advance them. We admit therefore that when the 

 Russians had this management (and they had considerable ex])erience 

 in it), that they were taking as much on an average as they thought 

 right; but what is more noticeable in these figures is this — that they 

 have observed the necessity for varying the number taken, not treating 

 it on a uniform system as if you were calculating upon a crop of hay 

 which you mowed every year, and from which you expectt to get the 

 same result per acre — they regarded it as a period during whi(;h it 

 required absolute rest; so that you will find in the years 1835, is3fi, 

 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, the lowest number taken was (),000; 

 the highest 8,000. Again, in 1850, 1851, 1852, the highest number is 

 between 6,000 and 7,000; in 1855, 8,000, and so forth through the whole 

 period of their management. Then we come down to 1867, and in the 

 years succeeding the cession, we have that admitted serious attack 

 upon this race amounting to 242,000 in 1868. 



In 1869 the killing amounted to 87,000; in 1870 to 23,000; in 1871 to 

 97,000; in 1872 to 101,000; in 1873 to 101,000; in 1874 to 107,000; in 

 1875 to 101,000; in 1876 to 89,000; in 1877 to 77,000; and so on, right 

 down to 1889, with the single exception of 1883, when 77,000 odd were 

 killed an excess over 100,000 per year. And let me observe this: that 

 whereas the Russian figures include the number of pups killed for the 



