ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 89 



of tlie Commissioners specially appointed to invostigjate 

 tlie subject, whether those of Great Britain or those of the 

 Uuited states. 



It is perhaps unnecessary again to draw attention 



107 to the manner in which a few words, separated from ^^^^ ^^' 

 their context and incorporated in a new sentence, 



maybe made to convey a false impression; but another 

 instance of this occurs in the particular page of the United 

 iStates Counter-Case here dealt with. The British Com- 

 missioners write: 



And while it is not maintained that the evidence of such practical British Com- 

 sealers is entirely iiutiuctured by motives of personal interest, it must missionfrs' lie- 

 be evident that these men know more on the subject than any others. ^"^ ' ^^'^^' 



This statement is employed in the following manner in 

 the Counter-Case of the United States: 



The second class of testimony presented to sustain the position of the United States 

 neport is obtained from sworn statements of Canadian sealers, which Counter-Case, 

 the Commissioners admit are not " entirely untiuctured by motives of ^' " 

 personal interest." 



On the next page we find the evidence cited by the 

 British Commissioners further characterized as admittedly 

 untruHtKorthy. 



liefes ring to the proportion of females taken in the pelagic 

 catch, and evidence on this point presented by the British 

 Commissioners, objection is made on the part of the United 

 States that this evidence varies greatly in different cases. 

 The British Commissioners, however, particularly note this 

 very point, writing: 



It ia only natural, and la entirely in accord with what miyht be British Com- 

 ex])ected, that the proportions of seals by sexes and a,i;es should be "''8'^i"n''i"s' i^e- 

 found to differ very considerably in different instances, even in a ''"J''' l';'""^' ^'.^' 

 sni>le year, in conformity with the dates or places in which the eis.^ ^^'^ ^'^''* 

 greater proportion of any particular catch waa secured, and the kind 

 of seals in each case fallen in with. 



And add: 



The very fact that these statements, though taken at different 

 times, and while varying considerably from the point of view of 

 numerical proportions, tally very well in the main, one with another, 

 is an inherent i)roof of their credibility. 



The ensuing argument, directed against this evidence. Pages si, 82. 

 and in which it is endeavoured to contrast it with the 

 statement that the methods and practices on the Pribyloflf 

 Islands have resulted in the existence of a large sur- 



108 plus of females, is based on various assumptions, 

 and is difficult to follow, as these assumptions are 



not set out. *The most im]»ortantof them however, appears 

 to be: — that the proportion between males and females in 

 the catch of any vessel should represent the average pro 

 portion of males and females existing everywhere, or at 

 the least that a mean of the catches should represent such 

 average. The explanations given in the British Commis- 

 sioners' Beport (some of which have just been quoted), are, 

 however, sufficient to show that the first is not a reasonable 

 hyi)othesis; while, as to the second, it is quite conceivable 

 that pelagic sealing, might, as a whole, be carried on at 

 such times or in su(;li i)laces as to include a lelatively very 

 great proportion of any particular age or sex of seals. 



