ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 91 



received with respect, but we may be pardoned for doubt- 

 ing such a statement as that here attributed to him, par- 

 ticuhuly as it is unsupported by any details of fact, and 

 is entirely in opposition to other evidence. 



Messrs. C. AV. Martin and Sous are next referred to re- ^ifose ^conn'el 

 spectiug the sex of a lot of 1,028 skins supi)osed by them tiou with the 

 to have been taken at sea, and received from Petropaul^v- see'iTrftishCouu- 

 ski. It is stated that these were part of the 2,700 skins *«!• Case, Appen- 

 seized by Eussian cruizers on the Asiatic side of the Pacific, a^nd^" united 

 and upon which Messrs. Malonavonski and Grebuitsky ^g*^^**'^ case, p. 

 based their statements. Messrs. Martin and Sons, how- " liritish coun- 

 ever, give the percentage of females at 83.70; of males, •^"'^■'^'''P- ^"^• 

 1.06; and doubtful, 14.58, though M. Malonavonski p^„^^ 



110 had aliirmed that an expert found no difficulty in sep- ° 

 aratiug the male and female skins in the original 



lot of 2, 700. 



Lastly, certain depositions of a Mr. Behlow are referred 

 to in this connection, in which he professes to separate male 

 and female skins contained in certain relatively small 

 catches brought to San Francisco in 1892. 



It will subsequently be shown that the statements and jj^^^^^^pp®"*^'^ 

 depositions of this witness are wholly untrustworthy. 



Keviewing the evidence brought forward on the part of Page si. 

 the United States in their Counter-Case on the subject of 

 the proportion of females in the pelagic catch, we may, at 

 the least, set the statements of the few witnesses cited, 

 against those of a like number of witnesses representing a 

 similar number of seals among the numerous witnesses 

 cited by Great Britain. The whole number of seals spoken 

 of by Captain Hooper is too small to enable any just deduc- 

 tion to be arrived at; while the other witnesses referred to 

 by the United States are, without exception, interested in 

 the industry of sealing upon the breeding-islands, and, 

 therefore, it may reason ably be supjiosed, like wise interested 

 in decrying all sealing at sea. 



It has already been stated (p. 104) that the killing of 

 females j?er se is not admitted to be reprehensible, while the 

 complete analysis of the skins resulting from the pelagic 

 catch during the past twenty years, shows conclusively that 

 not over 38 per cent, of these could by any possibility have 

 been bearing females.* It has further been stated that_ j^^i|is^^^p"m. 

 one of the most important objects of any regulations which port.'paia! m. 

 may be proposed is that of eliminating the last-mentioned 

 element from the pelagic catch. 



Under the circumstances mentioned, it can be of little 



utility to pursue in detail any controversy resijecting the 



composition of various individual small lots of skins such 



as there cited on the part of the United States, even 



111 if the sexes included in them had been correctly deter- 

 mined, and the subject may rightly be dismissed here. 



* At p. 200 of the British Counter-Case this figure is given at 50 per 

 cent., but the calculation there given is based upon the a3aum]»tion 

 of only 15 per cent, of the catch being males, and this percentage 

 occurring uniformly throughout the whole bulk. As a matter of fact, 

 there are 20 per cent, of the catch which are too large to ha tlie skins 

 of ieuKiIes. The figure above given is based on a recalculation admit- 

 ting this correction. 



