ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 103 



was lost by sinking. Captain Hooper then says: "Oar 



total loss by sinking and wonnding was 36 per cent." But 



in what way a knowledge was gained that any seals were 



seriously wounded, or wounded at all, and so lost, is not 



stated. No reference is made in the United States' Conn- c|^"ut^,.^*^*s^e 



ter-Case to the sealing operations carried on by the United Appendix, p.'234. 



States ship "Kush" during the month of Angust, wliich 



resulted in the taking of seven seals, with none lost by 



sinking, thongh Ave were reported to have been wounded; 



how this was known is not stated. 



In view of such statements as those above noticed, the ^^s^^^' 

 United States here sum u]) by denying — (1) that the per- 

 centage of female seals in the pelagic catch is not large; 



(2) that pelagic sealing in Behring Sea is not as 

 126 destructive to seal life as in the North Pacific; and 



(3) that the waste of life resulting from pelagic seal- 

 ing is iusiguificaut. 



" Second." 



"Matters upon which the Eeport relies to estab- 

 lish Conclusions advanced therein, and to for- 

 mulate the Kegulations recommended, which 

 matters have not been dealt with in the case 

 OF THE United States." 



"Habits of the Fur seals." 

 "1. That the Alaskan Seal-herd has a definite winter habitat.''^ 



The title above quoted, given to this section of the Pageioo, 

 United States Counter-Case, which is stated to be in dis- 

 cussion of a proposition conveyed in the Report of the 

 British Commissioners, contains the ex])ression "Alas- 

 kan seal-herd," which it has been pointed out in the British British Conn- 

 Counter Case is in its terms wholly misleading, and is notter^ase, p.ii9. 

 admitted as an appropriate name for the fur-seals of the 

 eastern part of the North Pacific. 



It is to be noted that the migration chart (No. 3) origi- 

 nally i)resented with the United States Case is incorrect, 

 as is shown by the changes introduced in the new chart 

 now substituted for the first in the Counter-Case of the 

 United States. This latter chart approximates more nearly 

 to that originally presented by the British Commis<ioners, 

 but in the light of evidence obtained by these Commission- 

 ers and that afforded by additional facts set forth in the 

 British Counter-Case, it still requires further correction. 



It is i)articularly to be noted, that neither the migration 

 charts produced by the United States is vouched for by 

 any scientific or ex])ert authority. They are said merely 

 to be "compilations based on evidence," &c. Though both 

 charts (with other maps contained in the United States 

 Case and Counter-Case) bear the signature of T. C. Men- 



