74 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



It seems very clear that this conception of their powers and functions 

 was wholly erroneous. There were differences between Great Britain 

 and the United States respecting the subject of pelagic seal hunting- 

 but both nations were agreed that it was extremely desirable that the 

 capture of seals should be so regulated, if possible, as to prevent the 

 extermination of the species. It was extremely desirable to both 

 parties to know one thing, and that was, whether any, and if any, 

 what measures were necessary in order to prevent this threatened 

 extermination. This was a mainly scientific question; but whether the 

 measures which might be found to be thus necessarv could be acceded 

 to by both parties to the controversy was quite another question, the 

 decision of which was lodged with the political representatives of the 

 respective governments. If they should be prepared to accede to them, 

 all difficulty would be removed. If they should not be able to agree, a 

 tribunal was provided with power to determine what should be done, 

 and the reports of the Commissioners were to be laid before it for its 

 instruction. 



Such being the view which the Commissioners of Great Britain took 

 of their own functions, their report should be regarded as partaking of 

 the same character, and such it appears to be upon inspection. There 

 is in no part of it any purpose discernible to discover and reveal the 

 true cause which is operating to diminish the numbers of the fur-seal, 

 and to indicate the remedy, if any, which science points out. It is ap- 

 parent throughout the report that its authors conceived themselves to 

 be charged with the defense of the Canadian interest in pelagic sealing; 

 and it consequently openly exhibits the character of a labored apology 

 for that interest, particularly designed to minimize its destructive tend- 

 ency, and to support a claim for its continued prosecution. This being 

 its distinguishing feature, it is, with great respect, submitted that any 

 weight to be allowed to it as evidence should be confined to the state- 

 ments of facts which fell under the observation of its authors ; that 

 these should be regarded as the utterances of unimpeachable witnesses 

 of the highest character, testifying, however, under a strong bias; and 

 that the opinions and reasonings set forth in it should be treated with 

 the attention which is usually accorded to the arguments of counsel, 

 but as having no value whatever as evidence. 



In thus pointing out the general character of the Beport of the Com- 

 missioners of Great Britain, no reflection is intended upon its authors. 

 Similar observations would be applicable to the Beport of the United 



