77 APPENDIX TO ARGUMENT. 



No. 1. 



Criticism of Part Second of the Counter- Case of the United 

 States, ivhich is entitled, " Reply of the United States to 

 that portion of the Case of Great Britain contained in the 

 Report of the British Commissioners." 



It is observed with regret, that throughout the second 

 portion of the Counter-Case of the United States, reflec- 

 tions on the impartiality, comi)etence, and even on the hon- 

 esty of the British Commissioners are repeatedly made. 

 It is, for instance, many times asserted that the British 

 Commissioners endeavour to support various preconceived 

 opinions or "positions" by evidence selected for the pur- 

 pose. But a reference to the Commissioners' Eeport will 

 show that no such course was adopted, and that various 

 points upon which the available evidence was found to be 

 inconclusive have been so characterized by them. 



It is only necessary to draw attention to the fact, that at 

 a (late as late as November 1890, the Canadian Govern- 

 ment, relying- on evidence contained in official Keports of 

 the United States Government, denied any decrease in the 

 seals met with upon the Pribyloff Islands; while one of 

 the main conclusions of the Commissioners proved to be in 

 direct opposition to this contention, and was to the effect 

 that a nearly continuous decrease had occurred during the 

 entire period of the control of these islands by the United 

 States. 



There is surely nothing remarkable in the circumstance 

 that some of the conclusions arrived at by the British Com- 

 missioners should agree with previously advanced con- 

 tentions of the British and Canadian Governments. It 

 might, on the other hand, be ciiaracterized as remarkable, 

 that for the purposes of the present submission to 

 78 arbitration the United States Government have dis- 

 carded their own previous official Keports, and have 

 substituted a number of statements and aflidavits procured 

 after the conclusion of the Treaty, upon which to base 

 their contention; the evidence contained in latter being 

 often at variance with the previous and contemporaneous 

 Reports thus discarded. Though a special Act of Congress ^^^^* u'lti^ixf 

 was passed to authorize an investigation of the sealing "'^*^^" 

 industry on the Pribyloff" Islands in 1890, and such investi- 

 gation was carried out, it is at least worthy of note that the 

 Report detailing the result of this investigation has not 



67 



