AKGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 87 



practically fixed, and that no reg-ard to seal life was had 

 in eiideavonriiig to till the "quota." 



If any rights exist to seal on the high seas, it is absurd 

 to charge the pi lagic sealers with the results of the over- 

 driving practised to secure a "quota" on the islands. 

 Even if no such right exists, it shows an entire absence of 

 proper care, to have permitted damaging practices on the 

 islands in the endeavour to secure a "quota," before the 

 question of rights and protection had in any way been 

 settled. 



"Pelagic Sealing." 



It appears to be assumed by the United States, in deal- Page so. 

 ing with pelagic sealing, that the statement that killing at 

 sea is "indiscriminate" — i. e., that it includes both sexes — 

 is sufficient in itself to condemn such sealing. The supi)0- 

 sition that large numbers of males alone might be killed 

 without any i)rejudicial effect on seal life, and which arose 

 during the Kussian regime, appears to have still a very case'p^iui*^^^* 

 firm hold ; while the principles of " natural selection " which 

 have come to be recognized during the past twenty or thii-ty 

 years, with other scientific facts alluded to in the Report of 

 the British Commissioners and in the Counter-Case of Her 

 Britannic Majesty, appear to be disregarded in the Coun- 

 ter-Case of the United States. Further, the commonly 

 recognized fact that, even in the case of domestic animals, 

 as well as in that of wild animals artificially preserved, 

 large numbers of females are usually and necessarily killed, 

 is ignored. 



Care is further taken, in this first paragraph, to ^ndeav- jj^j^j|*'j^^^j.g9*']^g; 

 our to prejudice the Court by characterizing the evidence jioit, paiaa. 627, 

 quoted by the British Commissioners as "interested." It^^'*' 

 will be observed, however, that the British Commissioners 

 have fully recognized and allowed for any motives of self- 

 interest which may have affected the evidence obtained, 

 and that in their endeavour to present the facts, they have 

 not assumed as indubitably correct all the statements made 



to them. 

 105 It is next stated in the United States Counter- 



Case that the "three i^ropositions," forming the 

 "apology" of the British Commissioners for pelagic seal- 

 ing, will be treated "in the order of their importance as 

 recognized in the Beport." 



No apology is offered or required for killing animals at 

 large upon the ocean, in theabsenceof International Agree- 

 ments prohibiting such killing. As to the order followed 

 in the United States Counter-Case, it appears to be based 

 on that referred to in paragraph 77 of the British Commis- 

 sioners' Report, where, however, two i)ropositions, not three, 

 are fornuilated, and these two are there stated to be the 

 princii)al allegations of those opposed to pelagic sealing, 

 not to rei)re.sent the order of in)])()rtance in fact. The 

 actual order and wording of the headings found in the 

 British CDmmissioners' Report under the chai^ter on pelagic Page 9? etteq. 

 sealing is as follows: 



(«.) Origin and Development. 



