ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 109 



On both these snbiects mncli additional evidence is now, ^ritisii conn- 

 available, and tins is entirely oonhrniatory or the g'eneral niKi Appendix, 

 statements made by the Commissioners. la-iou^^" ^^"^'"' 



In respect to the Table, the complaint is made that it 

 inclndes but five years — 1887-91. But, for all practical 

 purposes, these later years are the most important, and 

 offer the best test of the matter under discussion. A]>art 

 from the changes introduced by increasing wariness of seals 

 and growing skill of hunters, other important changes in 

 methods have occurred concurrently with the growth of 

 pelagic sealing. The number of vessels in these years was 

 also larger: and for tliis reason, and those above alluded 

 to, the years in question appear to afford data of a more 

 nearly comparable character. Neither could it be known 

 to the Commissioners that the United States would in their 

 Case fix on the year 1885 as being that of the beginning 

 of a decrease in the number of seals. As the data, 

 134 so far as they exist, for the whole period of pelagic P"geio6. 



sealing, are given in the Appendix to the Eeport, the 

 suggestion of a wish to conceal the facts for 1885 and J 886 

 Las no validity. 



As the number of boats engaged in the fishing in 1885 is Pageio?. 

 not knoAvn, it was naturally impossible to present the aver- British Com- 

 age number of seals per boat taken in that year, while in Jlort'' Tppendi^ 

 188G several of the sealing- vessels were seized in Behringi'- 2o9- 

 Sea, and as there was no record of the number of seals 

 taken by such vessels there, and any averages based on 

 the total catch of the fleet must be inaccurate, they were 

 omitted. 



A singular train of reasoning is next entered into in the Pageios. 

 United States Counter-Case to justify the production of 

 new Tables, based on the British Commissioners' figures; 

 but in which these figures are separated and so manipulated 

 as to show a decreasing -'coast catch," with an increasing 

 catch in Behring Sea. If the statements urged in the 

 above argument — to the effect that the sealers only in later 

 years became conversant with all the resorts of the seals — 

 are correct, they aftbrd an excellent reason for the restric- 

 tion of the Commissioners' Table to these later years. 



In the Table printed on p. 411 of the United States 

 Connter-Case, 3,565 is given as the number of skins taken 

 on the "coast" in 1891, and this is made to correspond with 

 the "si)ring" catch of earlier years. The fact that fourteen 

 vessels are shown in the British Commissioners' Table to,n,^"|;',^)^i.gPii"; 

 have transhipped their skins at Sand Point, but to havepon, p.205. 

 made no return for the coast catch, is ignored in the prep- 

 aration of the Table in the United States Counter-Case. 

 These vessels had taken 6,364 skins before they reached 

 Sand Point, a great many of which were taken on the 

 "lower" or soutbern coast, and if this number were deter- 

 minable it should be added to the number, 3,565, used in 

 the Table appended to the United States Counter-Case. 

 The fact is that many sealing-vessels, after a short cruize 

 to the southward of Cape Flattery, return to Victoria to 

 refit, and there discharge their skins. These vessels con- 

 tinue sealing along the British Columbia coast, and that 



