88 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



(6.) Methods. 



{€.) Proportion of Seals lost. 

 {d.) Composition of Catch. 

 {€.) Future of the Industry. 

 • The first subject selected for attempted rebuttal is thus 

 expressed iu the Counter-Case of the United States: 



^'1. That the percentarje of female seals in the peJagic catch 

 is not large.^'' 



In the opening paragraph below this heading, is found 

 one of numerous instances of insinuations as to motive on 

 the part of the British Commissioners for which 1 here is, 

 in fact, no justification. Part of the evidence i>rinted by 

 the British Commissioners is characterized as — 



so-called "evidence," alleged to have been obtained from Indian 

 hnnters, .... and in which there la a careful avoidance of 

 names of informants. 



Pago 81. But on the next page, the statement by the same Com- 



missioners respecting the possible existence of self interest 

 in some of the witnesses examined by them, is en- 

 106 deavoured to be employed as a means of minimizing 

 the importance of that part of the evidence. 

 It is scarcely necessary to state that the British Com- 

 missioners did not consider it their mission to procure 

 sworn evidence on all subjects investigated by them. 

 Their mission was purely scientific and practical, and on 

 British Com- ^'^'f'6'^'i'"'8' ^o the first part of their Report, it will be found 

 missioiiers' Re- that tliev fullv recoguizcd this fact. They write: 



port, para. 23. J j & j 



It may be observed further, that in obtaining e\'idence from persona 

 of experience or knowledge of the subject, we adopted, in general, 

 the intornial plan of free interviews and independent conversation. 

 In this way we acquired very distinct and trustworthy knowledge of 

 their opinions and experiences. 



In SO doing, they followed the same plan with that 

 adopted by their colleagues from the United States, who 

 similarly write: 



United States Although the testimony gathered by ns on this and other points 

 Case, pp.334, 335. was not given under oath, its value, in our judgment, is not iu the 



least lessened by that fact In short, the investigation 



was conducted precisely as it would have been had the question been 

 one of scientific rather than diplomatic importance. 



The only difference wliich must be noted between the 

 procedure of the British and United States Commission- 

 ers, is that indicated in the last-quoted remark, i. e., that 

 the United States Commissioners appear to have regarded 

 the questions examined by them rather as of di[)lomatic 

 than as of scientific importance, though adopting a scien 

 tific method of investigation. 



There can be no doubt that in both cases, if furtlier 

 particulars respecting tlie evidence collected should be 

 required, these can besui)plied by reference to the notes of 

 interviews, &c., held by the respective Commissioners at the 

 time; and it is submitted that statements made in good 

 faith, and respecting matters of fact or evidence, shouhl 

 be accex)ted as true to the best of the knowledge and belief 



