96 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



United States Coloiiel Munny, iu an affidavit, refers to the two first- 

 ApifeiuUx,p?379, uieiiti()iied raids as if the jjeople on the ishiiids liad been 

 tefcase'A^"en-^^8'"i^^^"t of them at the time, and as if one vessel had 

 (ilx, vor ii^^pp. been at once seized, and the other but a short, time after- 

 ^^sel^aiso United wards, but a reference to the passages cited will show that 

 states Case, Ap the raids mentioned only became known to the authorities, 

 |.endix, voi.i, P- indirectly, months after their occurrence. 

 Page 91. The bodies of pups examined by Dr. Ackerly were, as he 



British Com- ^*^^^^itted, too nuich decomposed for a correct autopsy, 

 missioners' Re- They wcrc, farther, those of pups which had died in Sep- 

 port, paras. 352, ^g„^|)gj. ]^g(jj^ when uo sealing-vcssels remained in Behring 

 Sea. 

 Ibid., paras. The bodv of Sh m\\) found dead by the British Oommis- 

 ' ■ sloners was examined by Dr. Giinther. This was in good 



condition, jjreserved in alcohol. Dr. Giinther was unable 

 to decide whether the absence of food or the condition of 

 respiratory organs was the primary cause leading to death. 

 United States Thougli it was at the Tcqucst of Mr. Stanley-Brown that 

 voui.t-^m"'''''' ^^- Ackerly's examination of the dead pups was made iu 

 1891 — and he was the Treasury Agent in charge of the 

 Pribylofif Islands in 1892, and admits that in that 

 117 year the number of dead pups on Tolstoi rookery 

 was beyond the normal — no record is found in his 

 affidavit of an examination in 1892 of any of the dead pups 

 by any authority. He seeks, however, to account for the 

 CfSntel^^cfi!e*^^ uuusual mortality in 1892 by an entirely novel expla- 

 ^oun ei as , p. jj^^j-j^j^^ ^j^ wliicli he statcs that the pups in learning to 

 swim had become exhausted, and, wandering off and ly- 

 ing down to rest, were overlooked by their mothers. A 

 comparison of the 1892 photographs of Tolstoi rookery 

 with those of 1891, show that the dead pups coveied 

 api)roximately the same area in both years, and were the 

 explanation now offered by Mr. Stanley-Brown the true 

 one, it would also account for the mortality among the 

 young seals in 1891. Mr. Stanley-Brown, however, states 

 that— 



Ibid., p. 389. the location and topographic character of this rookery have no counter- 

 part elsewhere on the island; 



Biiti.sii Conn- but as dead pups were reported to have been found in large 



dix,'i^oL ifp^. ue! numbers on another rookery on St. Paul in 1891, and Mr. 



Macoun reports as many on Polavina rookery as on Tolstoi 



in 189-', Mr. Stanley-Brown's explanation can hardly be the 



true one. 



A glance at the photographs which accompany the British 

 Counter-Case, will show that the ground on which dead pups 

 are to be seen on Tolstoi rookery extends along practically 

 the whole front of that rookery, and at the time the photo- 

 graphs were taken nearly all the living seals, old and young, 

 were behind this area, so that Mr. Stanley-Brown's state- 

 ment that he has — 



seen mother seals go up the entire slope seeking their pups 



may be taken as strictly true; but as they must have gone 

 uj) this slope in any case, it can hardly be taken as evidence 

 that the young ones had wandered away and so been lost. 

 But if it be true that the pups on this part of the rookery- 



