152 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



thonsaiids on the rookeries, was due to pelagic sealing. Tliis is a part 

 of the case toadied upon only in outline by my learned friend, the 

 Attorney General, l)ut is of so much importance, and admitted by the 

 United States Case to be of so much imi)ortance, that 1 do not make 

 any apology, for bringing it to the attention of the Court. 



The facts are these. In 1891, ui)on two certain particular rookeries, 

 an extraordinary and abnormal death of seals occurred. In 1892, when 

 there was no pelagic sealing in Behring Sea, and at a time when the 

 same cause could not have produced the same effect, a greater death of 

 pups on the same place is discovered, — on particular spots on the 

 Island; and, if I establish that, 1 submit to this Tribunal, and subject 

 to any argument that may be heard on the other side, that the state 

 ment on which the United States Advocates have pinned their case is 

 completely demolished ; I will use no stronger expression than that. 



Now, first, that you may kindly follow me, would you be good enough 

 to take the Chart n" 2 of the United States Case. You will notice 

 there St. Paul's Island and, beginning at the top, there is the North- 

 east Eookery; then there is the Little Polavina Eookery; then the 

 Polavina Point Eookery; then Lukannon Eookery; then Ketavie Eook- 

 ery; then Garbatch Eookery; Eeef Eookery; Lagoon Eookery; Tolstoi 

 Eookery and Zapadnie Eookery,— (I may say on St. George's Island, 

 there are the Great P^ast, the Little East, the North Eookery, the 

 Starry Arteel, and the Zapadine): — in all 8 or 9; by far the largest 

 being the Northeast Point Eookery. The only places in which the 

 excessive mortality of pups on the Eookeries occurred are at Tolstoi 

 Eookery, both in 1891 and 1892, which is just to the left of the village, 

 a little above and Polavina Point Eookery, which is the one underneath 

 Little Polavina. 



If I am not asking the Tribunal too much, I will ask tliem to put a 

 mark against those two places. They will find that the testimony upon 

 both sides, both the United States and the British, is that the Eook- 

 eries upon which an abnormal quantity of dead pups were seen in 

 either 1891 or 1892 are those two; and they were seen in the same 

 places in the two corresponding years. I have said, and my words 

 may be presently criticised, I will prove this from the United States 

 Case as well as our own. 



I will also mention — and I should like it to be noted now, you will 

 see just above the words "Eeef Eookery" a little bay I shall be able 

 to show you by testimony also coming from the United States that 

 some seals killed by surf evidently were observed in the year 189U by 

 Mr. Palmer in 1892 in another bay outside Zapadnie by Mr. Macoun 

 just by the South-West bay it is called, and I shall show you that that, 

 has nothing to do with this extraordinary mortality u[)on the rookeries. 



Now if I make my point good, nobody will deny it is of very great 

 significance with regard to tliis argument. I will only remind you of 

 what Williams says in his affidavit. He stated that large numbers — 

 thousands, had been been killed at the sea, the mothers having been 

 killed, and that was proved by the dead pups found in 1891, he draw- 

 ing the conclusion from what he believed to be, I have no doubt, the 

 facts at that time. First, I ask, if this is true, is it not sufficient in 

 itself to dispose of the contention tliat pelagic sealing could have been 

 the cause. Does anybody suggest that the action of pelagic sealers 

 would differentiate between Ketavie Eookery or Polavina or Lucannon 

 and Polavina Point or Garbatch, or in fact the seven or eight other 

 rookeries in many cases for the largest is the North East extending for 

 some three miles all the way round and admitted upon the United 



