300 OEAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON. Q, C. 



have known that there never has been in the southern ocean the exter- 

 mination of any seal herd by pehigic seah'iig, and that there was no 

 chance of there being a repetition of what had ha]>pened in the Southern 

 Ocean, except by raids on the ishinds. It was either want of informa- 

 tion, I say, or forgetfuhiess ; but if this was inaccurate information, 

 does it show proper care? They say: 



In short, if wo do not wish the history of the fur-seal in Behring Sea to be a 

 repetition of that of the rookeries of the southern Ocean and of other localities 

 where seals once nourished, measures adequate to the existing evil, heroic, if need 

 he, must be adopted. 



And then they repeat what must have been told by others about the 

 rookeries of the south seas. Now we know perfectly well how those 

 rookeries were destroyed, and we know there is no possibility of there 

 being a repetition of what had happened there, in the case of the 

 Pribilof l-slands. Then they say at page 378 : 



It may be worth while to add that the suggestion has been made that the decrease 

 in the number of seals is due to piratical raids upon the islands themselves during 

 the breeding se.ason. 



While it IS un<iuestionably true that such raids have occasionally occurred during 

 the past and that some skins have been obtained in that way, the number of these 

 is so trifling in comparison with the annual pelagic catch as not to affect in any way 

 the question under consideration. It is also difficult for one familiar with the 

 rookeries and the habits of the seal to conceive of a raid being made without its 

 becoming known to the officers in charge of the operations upon the islands. The 

 "raid theory", therefore may be dismissed as unworthy, in our judgment, of serious 

 consideration. 



I do not desire to accejit that as anything but the best judgment 

 they could form, and an honest judgment, but 1 say the judgment is of 

 very little value unless it is supported by evidence, and unless the 

 evidence is produced; because our Commissioners coming to a contrary 

 conclusion have produced before the Tribunal the evidence upon which 

 they found it, and unless that evidence is displaced it entirely supports 

 such conclusion. Whether it is right or wrong I am not here to say, 

 nor does it make any difference. I am not discussing it in that light 

 just now. It was read to the Tribunal yesterday, and they will form 

 their judgment upon it. 



That is the nature then, of the Report of the United States Com- 

 missioners. And I ask, am I not justified in saying simply, that upon 

 subjects which are still in doubt — upon subjects which nobody can 

 sjieak of as positively known — upon subjects, I will say, as to which 

 the weight of evidence is on some of them at least the other way — 

 they have adopted positive conclusicms every one of which is in favor 

 of the contentions of their own country'? Now I do not charge them 

 witli bias, I do not charge them with being blinded by ])rejudice, but I 

 say we have least as good a right to charge them and as strong evidence 

 to found such a charge upon as exists for charge made by my learned 

 friends against our Commissioners. I am very glad then that we have 

 abstained from any such charge against gentlemen whom we believe 

 to be entitled to respect. In the same way of Mr. Stanley Brown I will 

 only say I have not a shadow of doubt that Mr. Stanley Brown went there, 

 observed to the best of his ability, and reported to the best of his 

 judgment. But 1 have equally no doubt that upon some subjects it is 

 impossible (if evidence is to carry any weight whatever), for his con- 

 clusions to be adopted. Mr. Stanley Brown, for instance says, upon 

 the question of coition at sea, he believes it to be impossible. As a 

 matter of fact we have the evidence of 38 witnesses who speak of it 

 from actual observation under circumstances which make it impossible 



