28 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. V. 



by inhnmaiiity and cruelty, aiul that it is difficnlt also to say tliat they 



are not followed by waste, when you have j^ot the statements by inde- 



I)endent persons, representatives of and connected with the Executive 



of the United States, pointing' to the h)ss by thousands of seals 



753 which, subjected to this unusual pressure of locomotion on land, 

 for which nature never intended them, are then separated from 



the herd, and many of them die? They die immediately from the 

 injuries they receive, and many become utterly useless for tlie purpose 

 of breeding, their courage and virility being unduly affected. 



One point remains. It is still to be said for their methods on the 

 Islands that they make the attempt to discriminate and do discriminate 

 between the sexes; but, even as regards that, the facts show, as I shall 

 proceed to demonstrate at this moment, that they have of late years 

 on the Islands themselves been committing that grievous moral crime 

 of killing females. 



Now, how is that established? It is established by the evidence 

 referred to yesterday and also at a previous sitting by my friend Mr. 

 Coudert; but he only read (I am not making it a matter of complaint) 

 quite naturally the passages in that evidence which were ad rem to the 

 particular points that he was discussing. But I have to call your 

 attention now to some of the other evidence, and I refer for this pur- 

 pose to the second Volume of the Appendix to the Counter-Case of the 

 British Government. I will begin at page 245. This is the evidence 

 ■which my learned friends have been praying in aid, quite justifiably, 

 upon another part of the case, — endeavouring to make out a distinction 

 between the Alaskan and the Eussian herds, as they have been called. 

 I am not dealing with that point, as, of course the Tribunal under- 

 stands, I am on the point that, according to the existing methods, there 

 is inhumanity, there is waste, and there is not absolute discrimination 

 as to sexes on the Islands. 



I refer, first, to the gentleman who has received, I have no doubt 

 quite justifiably, a high laudatiou from Mr. Coudert, — I mean, Mr. 

 Stamp; and, if , you read paragraph 5 of his affidavit, you will see that 

 he says : 



A noticeable feature about the consigumeiits from tbe Pribilof Islands has been 

 tbat, while formerly the consignments were entirely composed of male skins, of late 

 years, from 1883 np to 1890, female skins have appeared among them each year in 

 increasing numbers. 



Then, on page 249, — I am only selecting those who are the most con- 

 siderable witnesses referred to by my learned friend, Mr. Coudert, — in 

 the declaration of Mr. Bevington, paragraph 3, he says: 



As regards the Alaska Catch, I have during the last four or five years noticed 

 amongst them a small quantity, — say from 10 to 15 per cent. — of female skins. 



And Mr. AUhusen, on the same page, paragraph 3, says: 



There is another feature in relation to the Alaska skins, namely, that they, for the 

 most piirt, are entirely composed of male skins. Of late years, that is to say, from 

 the year 1883 or 1884, I have noticed fimongst this consignment a certain percentage 

 of female skins, which percentage has increased in later years. 



The same thing is to be found in paragraph 9, page 250, of the 



declaration of Mr. Henry Poland ; and there are several more in the same 



sense, but I will not trouble the Tribunal by referring to them. 



754 I say, therefore, that it stands thus: I do not at all concede (I 

 am sure the Arbitrators will understand this) that these con- 

 siderations — and I will give the reasons when the proper time comes — 

 have anything to do with the question of affirming the right of prop- 

 erty, or the right of protection, which of course can be only incidental 



