98 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Page 92. 119 Professor Evermanii's Statement, iioxt quoted in 



tlie United States Counter-Case, as to the number 

 British Conn- of dead ])ups ou PoUivina rookery, refers to a visit made by 

 d^i^vo^■ifp.l45. '>i"» to that rookery early in the season (2L'nd July), in com- 

 pany wiiii Mr. Macoun. His statement of number seeyi at 

 that time practically agrees with that given by Mr. Macoun, 

 who says — 



Ibid D 146 Professor Evermann, .... who was with me at this time, and 



who counted 129 dead pnps, thon<jht, with me, that, if so many were 

 to be seen at the outer edge of the rookery-ground, the whole iium- 

 ber must be very ^''^'^t, and about a mouth later (20th August) I had 

 ample proof that this was the case. 



Ibid. Mr. Macoun, however, further says that later in the sea- 



son there were nearly or quite as many dead |)ups on Pola- 

 vina rookery as on Tolstoi; and a native who was with him 

 at the time of his visit told him that there were then more 

 dead pups on Polavina than were on Tolstoi in 18i)l. 



Tjnited States Professor Evcrmauu made but this one visit to Polavina 

 DD"264-27f '*'*''' (-^-"d July). He visited Tolstoi rookery the following day 

 (L^yrd July), and hually left St. Paul Island (24th July) 

 more than two weeks before the time dead pups in con 

 siderable number were lirst noted on Tolstoi rookery. 



Page 93. The statement made in the United States Counter-Case 



to the effect that sealing-vessels were not present in Beh- 

 ring Sea in 1892, coincides with that specially adverted to 

 in tiie British Counter-Case (p. 213); but it is maintained 

 that the recurrence of a like mortality of pups in that year, 

 absolutely confirms the deduction arrived at by the British 

 Commissioners in 1891, that this could in no way be con- 

 nected with pelagic sealing; and that it therefore cannot 

 be interpreted in the manner now endeavoured to be done 

 in the Counter-Case of the United States. 



The alleged increase, next afflrmed in the United States 

 Counter-Case, in number of dead pups on the Commander 

 Islands in late years, is not confirmed by Mr. Macouu's 

 inquiries on these islands made in 1892. No such increase 

 was admitted, by those on the islands, to have occurred, 



^(;.*se^ A^*"en ^hough j)elagic sealing had then for the first tiuie been prac- 

 dix, voi.'i, p. 148. tised to a considerable extent in the vicinity of these 

 islands. 



Pages 93, 94. 120 It is next stated in the United States Counter- 



Case that — 



the destructiveness of the Behring Sea catch, as compared with that 

 in the North Pacific, is further shown by the relative sizes of such 

 catches. 



With the object of endeavouring to prove the assertion 

 just quoted, attention is drawn to certain Tables contained 

 in the Api)endix to the United States Counter-Case, com- 

 piled from statistics given in the British Commissioners' 

 Ei'port. In these Tables the annual totals of skins are cor- 

 rect, and the proportions taken within and without Behring 

 Sea are also correct, — the number of vessels is correctly 

 given in one instance; but, as the average catch per vessel 

 and per day for the total number of years has apparently 

 been obtained by the erroneous method of averaging the 



