POINTS IN REPLY TO THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 319 



the original Case, it was in substance admitted tliat the Alaskan herd 

 was entirely separate and distinct from the herd on the opposite side 

 of the Pacific Ocean. A good deal of matter is set forth in the Counter 

 Case tending to support the opposite notion, that the members of these 

 different herds commingle. 



It is enough to say in answer to all this, that the utmost which is 

 asserted is mere conjecture, and as such should be dismissed as wholly 

 unworthy of consideration. Surely this Tribunal will find other grounds 

 than conjecture upon which to base its decision. And besides, the ab- 

 sence of any commingling between the herds worthy of consideration 

 is fully proved by the evidence. 



It is suggested in the Counter Case that the distinctive features 

 which the Alaskan herd exhibits are probably those only which are 

 due to a long residence under peculiar geographical conditions. Let 

 this be conceded. How otherwise could they be denied? Upon the 

 speculative question whether these different herds of seal are of dif- 

 ferent species or not, or whether they were once derived from a com- 

 mon stock, we are at liberty to amuse ourselves with such conjectures 

 as may please us. It is of no importance how the Alaskan herd ac- 

 quires its distinctive physical peculiarities, if they have actually been 

 acquired so that they can be distinguished from others, and of this the 

 testimony of the furriers, to go no further, is conclusive. 



But what if it were proved even that the herds did commingle? It is 

 not perceived that this would be of any material consequence. Would 

 it be for this reason any the less a crime against the law of nature to 

 destroy them? Would it be any the less important that the seals 

 should be regarded generally as property or any the less important 

 that such regulations should be adopted as would prevent their exter- 

 mination ? 



Fifth. It is again insisted, as it was in the report of the British Com- 

 missioners, that it is not proved that the females go long distances 

 from the breeding places into the sea to seek for food while they are 

 nourishing their young. But in the face of the evidence that the 

 females actually do go into the water universally, that they are 

 destroyed there in large numbers, and that they have in numerous 

 instances been found and killed by pelagic sealers at long distances 

 from the shore with their breasts filled with milk, how can it be sug- 

 gested, with any expectation of belief, that the fact is not proved? 

 For what purpose do the females resort to the water? What is the 



