70 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



subjects connected with seal life, and have been fully ])u])- 



?5"J^^«^^.^p^^'j^lislied in United States oflicial IJeports. AY here actual 



po\*t "paras. 321^0 /as tT?v?//<ms aiB stated, doubt is seldom, if ever, cast on 



"*2'-- them 5 but when deductions are drawn from observations, 



it is quite fair to criticize these, even where the 



Page 53. 81 obscrver may be perfectly unprejudiced. The data 



quoted by Bryant and Elliott on the question of the 



suclcling of pups, leave their conclusion evidently in the 



position of a not proven deduction or theory. 



The further com])laint in the United States Counter- 

 Case, that the British Commissioners quote Elliott as to 

 the want of affection of female seals for their young, while 

 they do not quote reiiuirks contained in a publication by 

 Sir F. McCoy, is pointless. Tlie British Commissioners 

 (luote Elliott, because his ol)servations agree with those 

 made by themselves on the Pribyloff Islands. They state 

 as much. 

 Page 55. In the British Commissioners' Rp])ort, Mr. C. H. Jackson, 



Government Agent in charge of the Seal and Guano Islands 

 of Cape Colony, is quoted as making a detinite assertion, to 

 the effect that in that region — 



the cow [seal] will suckle auy of the young seals, whether her own or 

 not. 



Mr. Jackson is consequently designated in the United 

 States Counter-Case as a "questionable authority," and it 

 is added that — 



an examination of the Re])ort of this gentleman fails to reveal upon 

 wliat knowledge he bases such a statement; and there is no proof that 

 he has ever seen the seal islands of Cape Colony, or even been informed 

 by experienced individuals respecting the habits of the fur-seals found 

 there. 



It is tlien insisted that his evidence is unworthy of con- 

 sideration. Mr. Jackson, however, actually says in his 

 Eeport : 



British Com- I have availed myself of information kindly furnished by the best 

 niiss:oiic'r8' lie- piactical experts in the Colon v. 

 poit, Appendix, ' '- 



^^'pagcs5G,57. All attempt is here made in the United States Counter- 

 Case, to show that the British Commissioners attributed a 

 statement on the sauje subject to Sir F. McCoy, which was 

 ^^"■I'"^,'. ''^ V'l ' ^^^^^ made by him. A reference to the Report will show that 

 pm^^.para^32i." the British Commissioners merely allude to the statement 

 and cite a work by Sir F. McCoy, in which it is contained. 

 It is not implied that the statement was made by Sir F. 

 McCoy personally, but the fact that he included it in his 

 work may probably be assumed as showing that he believed 

 in its inherent credibility. 

 rrfgooG. 82 It is also asserted, in concluding this subject, that 



the position taken by the United States, i. e., that a 

 female seal will suckle no pup but her own, is supported 

 by "ample evidence." This evidence is referred to in a 

 foot-note. 

 cYi'ill't'' ^c>^.^^ ^^' ^^rebnitsky is among the authorities thus quoted, 

 Appei'idixlp/m but the remark made by him is only incidental, and he 

 advances no proof. So also with the evidence in the 

 Appendix to the United States Case which is here referred 



