94 ARGUMENT OP G^EAT BRITAIN. 



'the brcccliug-ground or sand beach bordering the rookery proper, and 

 extending into the border of the rookery itself. The slramje sight 

 occasioned much surviise at the time as to the 2)robable cause of it. 



Mr. Barnes then states that some days afterwards 

 rage 86. 114 hc weut with Mr. Fowler to Polavina rookery, where 



he found similar conditions with respect to mortality 

 of young to prevail. He adds: 



United States This condition of the rookeries in this regard was for some time a 

 Case, Appeudix, common topic of conversation in the village by all parties, including 

 vol. 11, p. 102. j.jjg more intelligent ones among the natives, &c. 



Page 87. The evidence referred to on this page of ^he United 



States Counter-Case to endeavour to show the occurrence 

 of an annually increasing- number of dead pups since 1885, 

 has already been treated in the Counter-Case of Great 

 Britain, p. 208 et seq., and has been there shown to be 

 ■wholly inconclusive in that respect, and to rest on erro- 

 neous statements. 



The extracts above given are alone suificient to. show 

 that the mortality in 1891 was unprecedented, as stated by 

 the British Commissioners; and that it had not existed, as 

 aflirmed by the United States, for '• several years." 



The statement as to the existence of the opinion on the 

 islands that pups had died in former years because of the 

 killing females at sea, is endeavoured to be supported by 

 the retrospective affidavits already dealt with in that part 

 of the British Counter- Case above referred to. 



Pages 88,89. Mucli strcss is here laid on the discovery of two passages 

 in previous Eeports, in which H. H. Mclntyre and J. H. 

 Moulton have made general statements to the effect that 

 killing females atsearesulted in death of pups on theislands. 

 No facts or instances are cited in support of these state- 

 ments, to which no importance was attached at the time, 

 and to which attention has only now been drawn. They 

 are now brought prominently forward for the purpose of 

 maintaining that the cause of the mortality of pups in 1891 

 alleged by the United States had long been recognized. It 

 is there said : 



This expl.-mation [death of mothers] of the cause of death of pup 

 seals is not recognized by the Report except to contradict it. 



Eritisii Com- As a matter of fact, the explanation referred to is dis- 

 pJ^,parr355.*' cussed in some detail, and is found to be untenable by 

 reason of the date of the mortality, and on other rational 

 and fully explained grounds. 

 Kespecting the causes of death of young suggested as 

 probable by the British Commissioners: 

 115 {a.) This is described in the United States Counter- 



Case as "driving and killing of mothers." But while 

 the British Commissioners state tiiat it is quite possible 

 that females were driven from their young, and — 



though turned away from the killing-grounds .... never after- 

 wards found their way back to tlieir original breeding-places, but 

 either went off to sea or landed elsewhere, 



they do not allege that the females so driven were Idllcd. 

 IMessrs. J. Stanley-Brown and W. H. Williams are referred 

 to as stating that no drives were made (in 1891) nearer to 



