92 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



The second proposition formulated for denial by the 

 United States is in their Counter-Case presented as 

 follows : 



"2. That pelagic sealing in Behring Sea is not so destructive 

 to seal life as pelagic sealing in the North PaciJicJ^ 



British Com- The Statement here attributed by the United States to 



port,'*paj^iia. ^'ss, the British Commissioners was not, however, made by them. 



648.' ' They have stated that the spring catch was more destruc- 



tive than any other in proportion to the number of skins 

 obtained; but the spring catch is not the equivalent of the 

 entire catch made to the south of Behring Sea, which em- 

 braces much of the summer, and lasts till about the end of 

 June. The statement actually made by the British Com- 

 missioners, as employed as a basis of argument in the 

 United States Case, is therefore not only inverted, but 

 substantially changed. 

 British Com- The circumstauce that practically no gravid females are 



p!,\%"pliras. 045- taken by pelagic sealers in Behring Sea is characterized as 



''^BritisiiCoun- ^^^ " assuuiption " of the British Commissioners, though it 



ter-case,Ap- rests OH ample evidence. 



pp.'i4^2oJ"^' "' "^'^'^ question as to the killing of females in milk in Beh- 

 ring Sea, and the effect of this upon pups on shore, next 

 alluded to in the United States Counter-Case, will be dis- 

 cussed in connection with the more detailed treatment of 

 this subject found in folloAving pages of the Counter-Case 

 of the United States. 

 Page 85. The argument advanced in this page of the United 



States Counter-Case against the general proposition at the 

 head of this Chapter, depends on a series of assumptions, 

 to discuss which is unnecessary, because they have else- 

 where been treated at length. The fallacy that the killing 

 of females is in itself reprehensible appears to underlie the 

 statements, but it is in addition ap])arently assumed that 

 all females met with at sea are fertile, i. e., that there are 

 no virgin or barren females; that in stating the period of 

 British Conn- gestatiou of the furseal as nearly twelve months, full 



25i-:257Tii5^^^^' twelve mouths is meant; that, for instance, eleven 



112 months would not be "nearly twelve months," that 

 all females are covered on land, and that a female 

 just fertilized may be described as a "gravid female," 

 the injury to seal life being equally great in the killing of 

 each class. 



It is next asserted that the "designed implication" of 

 certain statements made by the British Commissioners is 

 to show that "very few nursing females are taken by pe- 

 lagic sealers," and is based on "pure assumption," a refer- 

 ence being given to para. 649 of their Beport. But in the 

 immediately preceding paragraphs of the Beport, proof has 

 British Conn- becu adduccd to this effect, and further proof is brought 



ter-case, pp.218, ^- ,j,^^..jj.j .^„^| discusscd iu the Couiiter Case of Great Brit- 

 ibid., Appen-ain aud its Api)endice8 to the same effect, antl to the 



22J'23'^^' "' P^' effect that such few females in milk as may be killed in 

 Behring Sea are often " running dry." It is also shown 

 that their ])resence at sea may be accounted for by various 

 causes of disturbance upon the breeding-islands, in most, 



