ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 73 



of Captain Bryant and Dr. W, H. Dall, on tlie subjecfc of 

 aquatic coition, are next combated by drawing attention p^^^^ggg^ 

 to depositions made in 1802, in which these witnesses "^°^ ' 



85 deny or endeavour to minimize the force of their pre- 

 vious statements. Captain Bryant is as definite in 



his former Reports respecting- the occurrence of coition at 



sea and its frequency as it is possible for language to be. 



Ho repeats these statements in three separate Reports, ^seopj^ituh 



dating fiom 18(39 to 1880, to which references are given in Report, pp. 52, 53. 



detail in the Report of the British Commissioners. He 



says, for instance: 



By taking a canoe and soiug a little off shore considerable nnrabors ." Mnnogra ph 

 may be seen pairing, and readily approached so near as to be fnlly c*n^pj'|5,i^™ds V, 

 observed. pp. 405, 406. 



Dr. Dall is almost equally precise, writing — 



They [the females] sleep in the water, lying on their sides, with the p-^"^',; Mus 

 two flip])ers [of the npper side] out of the water, and receive the |^°™P; j p- Jg^ 

 males in the same position. See also "Alas 



If these gentlemen have been in the wrong in regard toao\iiees,"y494! 

 opinions thus stated in scientific treatises, which are now 

 denied in afiBdavits lately obtained from them, can it be 

 assumed that the statements made in these affidavits are 

 correct ? 



On these pages ot the United States Counter-Case, vari- Page.s63,64. 

 ous arguments are advanced for the purpose of endeavour- 

 ing to show that coition at sea cannot occur. These can be ^^Bntkh^Coun- 

 shown in detail to be erroneous, and to be based on mis- dlcesf'''^' ^^^'*" 

 conceptions or on facts imperfectly stated; but as further Page 6.3. 

 and wholly conclusiA^e evidence, obtained since the com pie- ^e^cM^e' a^" "" 

 tion of the Report of the British Commissioners, is availa-tUx.voUjip.'iyg, 

 ble in the British Counter-Case to prove that coition at sea ^•*"- . 

 is often observed, it is not considered useful to follow fur- i25,'i26'.^''^' '' ^^' 

 ther the hypothetical statements and attempts at destruc- iwd , vol. ii, 

 five criticism of that Report, which are resorted to on thePP-^^-^^- 

 part of the United States. 



"Manageiment of the Prieyloff Islands as the 

 alleged cause op the decrease of the alas- 

 KAN Seal Herd." 



It is here stated in the United States Counter-Case that — Page 65. 



the British Commissioners, at several places in their Report, admit 

 that the Rognlatious in force, and the methods employed in taking 

 seals on the Pribyloff Islands, are the best that could have been 

 ado])ted, &c. 



86 It is then argued that, as the methods were good, ^ageos. 

 it is only to the manner of the execution that the 



criticisms of the British Commissioners apply; and on the 

 further assumption, that both were perfect during the 

 Russian regime, that the increased annual killing of seals 

 during the United States control is the only remaining ixnnt 

 of criticism to be met by the United States. 



But this apparently simple method of reducing the pritisii Com- 

 points in dispute to a single item does not, in fact, a(;cord ",'|j^f"pa\',ag^o- 

 with the statements made in the Report of the British cc2, ke. 

 Commissioners. The Report does not, as here stated by 



