ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 77 



brought about a decrease similar to that which is alleged 

 by the Uuited States to have resulted from pelagic sealing. 

 The facts show that iu this event provisions would have 

 been equally wanting to meet such a case. Therefore, the 

 methods of control and managemeut upon the islands were 

 clearly imperfect and unfitted to meet contingencies. 



The statement made on this page of the United States Page 69. 

 Counter-Case, that the killing of 100,000 young males annu- 

 ally could only have been injurious by leaving an insuffi- 

 ciency of males to fertilize the females, is incorrect; neither see British 

 is the excessive killing alone referred to by the British Kepo™t^p!,°"jf_395 

 Commissioners for proof of bad management on the islands. «< «^?'. 674-693, 

 The attempt made to narrow down the issue to this one '^'^^' 

 point in one of its aspects is thus again entirely misleading. 



Special attention is then paid, and at some length, to 

 endeavour to weaken the force of a statement, made by 

 Captain Bryant in an official Report, as to excessive kill- 

 ing on the islands in 1875, which is quoted by the British 

 Commissioners. 



As is stated in the United States Counter-Case on this 

 page that: 



The reasons for his [Bryant's] Report of 1875 are clearly shown by 

 an examination of his testimony before a Committee of the House of 

 Representatives in 1876. 



In reply to the question — 



Your opinion, then, is that the number of 100,000 on the two islands, ^ jj 44th 



authorized by law, can be regularly taken without diminishing the Cong., 1st. Sess., 



crop or number of seals coming to the island? — Keport No. 623, 



^ >=> p. 99. 



Mr. Bryant replied : 



91 I don't feel quite sure of that, as will be seen in my detailed Page 69. 



Report to the Secretary of the Treasury, included in the evi- 

 dence which has been laid before the Committee. There were indica- 

 tions of diminution iu the number of male seals. I gave that and 

 another reason, which 1 explained at large in that Report. 



The other reason then follows, and is that quoted in the h. r.,^ 44th 

 United States Counter-Case. That this other reason was ex°%"oc* No!*8^3; 

 considered by Captain Bryant to have been of slight im- pp-^^*^'^"- 

 portance, is very evident when his Eeport is referred to. 

 After writing of the frequency with which the hauling- 

 grounds are driven from, he says: 



Thus, it will be seen the method of MUiiig does not admit of the set- 

 ting apart of a special number and taking the remainder for the quota 

 for tbe market, and the only possible way to preserve the requisite 

 number for breeding purposes is to restrict the number to be killed so 

 far within the product as to iusure enough escaping for this object. 



Immediately following this comes the passage quoted in 

 the Keport of the British Commissioners (para. 078). 

 Bryant then treats at some length of the great number of 

 seals that by natural causes lose their lives while they are 

 absent from the islands, and concludes his remarks on this 

 subject in these words : 



One other cause should be stated that has directly contribnted to 

 diminishing tlie present stock of breeding males. During the season 

 of 186X, before the enactment of the prohibitory law, the several 

 parties sealing there took 240,000 seals monthly [? mostly] of the 

 products of the years 1866 and 1867. Those would have matured and 

 been added to the present stock of breeding males in the years 1872 



