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



It will pass the ability of my learned friend Mr. Phelps to suggest 

 upon any evidence in tbis case that before 18S2 ])e]agic sealing bad the 

 slightest effect or could have had tlie sligbtest effect upon these bulls; 

 and yet tbere is the statement of the man who is vouched over and over 

 again as being a Avitness of accuracy. He says that after 1882 it 

 became from year to year more and more difficult to get, what? The 

 bulls. And in 1888 and 1889 every bull above five years old was spared. 

 Why, Mr. President the very affidavit proves my case. Take five 

 years off 1888, and where do you come back to? 1883. The bull 

 which is five years old in 1888 must have been qonceived in the year 

 1882; and nobody suggests, even in tiie oral, still less in the written, 

 argument, that up to the year 1882 yjelagic sealing had bad any effect 

 which could depreciate the number of breeding bulls at any time. 

 Certainly at that time no suggestion of the kind is made. 



Mr. Carter. — That suggestion has been made and will be repeated. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Mr. Carter says it, Mr. President, and of 

 course he is j)erfectly entitled to say it, though it is not germane to 

 what I was saying. But when the suggestion is repeated, we shall be 

 entitled to have the place where it has been originally made pointed 

 out. It is not in the stress of argument, it is not in the pinch of the 

 case, that counsel can make the suggestion. We can all make that. 

 We can all say that we do not believe witnesses that are against us; 

 we can all say we discredit people as to wliose testimony the only 

 objection is that it is adverse to our case. It is not to make a sugges- 

 tion ; it is to show upon what original document, where in the case, at 

 any time prior to reply, such a suggestion has been made. On page 165 

 of the United States Case it is put in this way: 



From tlie year 1880 to the year 1884 and 1885, the condition of the rookeries 

 showed neither increase or decrease in the number of seals. In 1884 however, there 

 ■was a perceptible decrease noticed in the seal herd at the islands. 



That is not a suggestion that the difficulty in getting breeding bulls 

 was greater after 1882 because of pelagic sealing. But I must put a 

 restraint upon my argument, whatever the allurements may be that are 

 held out by my learned friend Mr. Carter. 



Mr. I 'resident, in this connection let us approach at once — for I am argu- 

 ing this case at present quite independently of anything upon which 

 the slightest suspicion has been cast, — let us take the other limb of the 

 United States Commissioners argument, that which they thought of 

 sufficient importance to repeat it twice. It is true that the harems have 

 diminished in size? They admit that the two causes would be diminu- 

 tion in the number of virile males, and if there are sufficient virile 

 males, consequently smaller harems. Is it true that the harems have 

 diminished in size to each virile bull. I remind you, Sir, that the Com- 

 missioners rely upon the statement made to them by Mr. Webster that 

 whereas there used to be thirty now there were only fifteen. Mr. Web- 

 ster's affidavit will be found at page 179 of the second volume of the 

 Appeiulix, and tbere is not a reference to the size of the harems from 

 beginning to end. I give you the page in order that I may be checked 

 if I am wrong. The most important point, according to the United 

 States Commissioners own statement, is left unsupported by proof. 

 But let us see whether there is not some proof on the other side. 



The President.— Was it not given as a literal extract? 



Sir KiCHARD Webster.— Oh no; not at all. The affidavit had not 

 been made at the time. Oh no, it is not tliat. They had had a conversa- 

 tion witli Mr. Webster. If you will kindly look once more at page 349, 

 you will find it thus : 



