ARGUMENT OF GEEAT BRITAIN. 



125 



Herbert Shelley Beviugton. — As to prohibition of pelagic sealing; 



The deponent further said that . . . 

 the continual supply of fur-seal sl\in, 

 which it is imjiortant should be constant 

 and regular iu supply, is absolutely 

 necessary to the niaiutcnance of this in- 

 dustry 



He has no hesitation in saying that the 

 best way to accomplish that object would 

 be to prohibit absolutely the killing of 

 all seals except upon the islands, and 

 furthermore to limit the killing of seals 

 in the islands to the male specie* at 

 particular times, and to limit the num- 

 ber of the males to be so killed. If, how- 

 ever, the rights of individuals are to be 

 considered, and sealing' in the open seals 

 to be allowed, then deponent thinks that 

 the number of vessels to be sent out by 

 each country onght to be limited, and 

 the number of seals which may be caught 

 by each vessel should be specihed. — 

 (United States Case, Appendix, vol. ii, 

 p. 553.) 



Herbert Shelley Bevington. — As to intermin£>ling: 



I am not in favour of its [North-west 

 catch] total su})pression. 



I am of opinion that the North-west 

 catch is a useful element in the market, 

 and I think the trade would object to its 

 disapjjearance. Its total suppression, in 

 my opinion, would tend to create a mo- 

 nopoly, and would place the whole busi- 

 ness in the hands of the persons for the 

 time being owning the islands, and this 

 I should object to. - (British Counter- 

 Case, Appendix, vol. ii, p. 249. ) 



That the ditil'erences between the three 

 several sorts of skins last mentioned 

 [Alaska, Copper, and North-west] are so 

 marked as to enable any person skilled in 

 the luisiness, or accustomed to handle the 

 f^ame, to readily' distinguish the skins of 

 one catch from those of another, espe- 

 cially in bulk, and it is a fact that when 

 they reach the market the skins of each 

 class come separately and are not found 

 mingled with those belonging to the 

 other classes. — (United States Case, Ap- 



lu my opinion, at least 2,5 per cent, of 

 the skins found amongst Copper Island 

 skins are undistinguishable from Alas- 

 kas, and in the same way at least 25 per 

 cent, of the skins found amongst Alaskas 

 are undistinguishable from Coppers. In 

 both consignments I have noticed also a 

 considerable (luantity of skins which in a 

 less marked manner resembled the other 

 class, but I consider the bulk can be dis- 

 tinguished. — (British Counter-Case, Ap- 

 pendix, vol. ii, p. 249.) 



pendix, vol. ii, p. 551.) 



Leon Revillon, member of the firm of Kievillon Freres, of Paris. — As 

 to prohibition of pelagic sealing: 



We firmly believe that if the slaughter 

 of the Norlh-west coast fur-seals is not 

 stopped or regulated, the Alaska fur-seals 

 will disappear entirely. 



[The marginal note to this paragraph is : 

 " If pelagic sealing is not stopped, xMaska 

 fur-seals will disappear."] ^ ( United 

 States Case, Apx^endix, vol. ii, p. 590.) 



5. Q. The next point, M. Revillon, is as 

 to the last paragraph of your deposition, 

 of which the marginal note reads: ''If 

 l^elagic sealing is not stopped, Alaska fur- 

 seals will disappear." Does that mar- 

 ginal note fairly represent what you 

 meant to convey? — A. No; I do not think 

 it does. I did not intend to convey that 

 I was in favour of any partictilar way 

 of regulating the question. All that I 

 meant was that if what 1 heard was true, 

 I thought some sort of Regulation was 

 necessary for the ])rotection of the seals. 



6. Q. Would not the total suppression 

 of all pelagic sealing have the effect of 

 giving the Company leasing the islands 

 an absolute monopoly of the business in 

 this class of seals? — A. This might be so; 

 I do not know. 



7. Q. Well, assuming that it would be 

 so, do you think it would be a result that 

 Vt'ould be beneficial to the fur-seal busi- 

 ness? — A. It depends upon how the mo- 

 nopoly is managed, but, speaking gen- 

 erally, I am against monopolies, and in 

 favour of a free market. I think monopo- 

 lies injure the progress of business. — 

 (British Counter-Case, Apipendix, vol. ii, 

 p. 230.) 



