110 



ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



part of tlieir catch taken on this portion of tlie coast should 

 also be included under theheadiiig " si)riiig catch " or ''lower 



coast" catch in the Table refeired to. It is thusevi- 

 I'ageioa. 135 dent that no proximately accurate separation can bo 



made of the "coast" and "spriiio" catches, and that 

 any Table prepared for the puri)()se of shoAving the average 

 catch per vessel or per boat, should include all the seals 

 known to have been taken south of the Aleutian Islands. 

 This has been done in the Table given below. Accuracy is 

 cl;)imed for the years 1889, 1890, and 1891 only, but in order 

 to show how misleading the Tal)le printed in the United 

 States Case is, the years 1886, 1887, and 1888 have also 

 been included in the Table. 



The explauation offered for the inclusion of but one part 

 of the "coast catch" in the Table presented in the United 

 States Counter-Case (p. 411) is that "prior to 1889 the 

 so called 'coast catch' did not im-lude skins taken north of 

 Vancouver Island, and it therefore corresponds to the 

 'spring catch' in the Table for 1889, and following years." 

 The British Commissioners are quoted as the authority for 

 this statement; but on turning to their Eeport (p. 211), it 

 will be found that what they really say is very ditVereut 

 from what is attributed to them : 



The Behriiioj Sea catch for tliis [1888] and previous yeai's inchidea 

 a certain number of skins tal<en on the coast of British Columbia, to 

 the north of Vanc(mver Island, the schooners having no opportunity 

 of landing the skins before entering Behring Sea. 



It is thus evident that the exact number of skins taken 

 on the "coast" i)rior to 1889 cannot be determined, but an 

 a|)j)roximate estimate may be obtained by adding together 

 the total of the catches made on the coast in 1889, 1890, 

 and 1891, and ascertaining what proi)ortion they represent 

 of the total catch for these years. It is by this means 

 found that the number of seals taken on the "coast" rep- 

 resents 40.0 of the total number taken in 1889, 1890, and 

 1891. 



In the Table given below 46.6 per cent, of the total catch 

 for each of the years preceding 1889 is assumed to have 

 been taken on the coast, this being the best avaihible means 

 of forming an estimate for these years: 



Page 109. The statement is made on this page of the United States 



Counter-Case, that the British Commissioners — 



assert that the seals found in Behring Sea are not seals which have 

 teni])orarily left the rookeries to feed, but are practically independent 

 pelagic herds. 



