POINTS IN REPLY TO THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 321 



upon the general questions of property interest or what regulations 

 were necessary in order to preserve the herd? 



All the points above enumerated, made by the British Counter Case, 

 are, it is conceived, essentially immaterial. They might be decided the 

 one way or the other without touching the merits of the real question 

 of the controversy. In saying this, however, we by no means intend to 

 intimate that anything is contained in this Counter Case, by way of 

 evidence, which in any way modifies or weakens the proofs which the 

 United States have in their principal Case adduced to support the post 

 tions taken by them. 



There are, however, some points which the Counter Case deals with 

 which are of greater importance; but in respect to these, although the 

 points themselves are material, the new evidence which is brought for- 

 ward or the new views which are suggested are not perceived to be 

 material. Some brief observations should be bestowed upon them. 



First. Pelagic sealing is again defended, but how is it defended? Is 

 it denied that it is in its nature destructive as involving the killing of 

 females to a much greater extent than males? Is it denied that the 

 the greater part of these females are either pregnant or nursing, and 

 sometimes both ? Is it denied that a great many victims are killed and 

 wounded which are never recovered? Is it denied that many young 

 perish on account of the death of the mothers? There is no denial upon 

 either of these points. What then is asserted or suggested in the 

 Counter-Case? Simply that the statements upon this subject are exag- 

 gerated. 



It would enable counsel for the United States to better answer any 

 position taken on the part of the Government of Great Britain upon 

 these points if the counsel for the latter would commit themselves to 

 some definite proposition or assertion, but this is carefully avoided by 

 them. They say, indeed, that the statements upon this head are ex- 

 aggerated; but ichose statements are exaggerated? And how much are 

 they exaggerated? The evidence given in the Case of the United 

 States in great abundance shows that from 75 to 90 per cent of the 

 entire pelagic catch is composed of females. If it be this which it is 

 insisted on the part of Great Britain is an exaggerated statement, then 

 how much is it exaggerated? Is it exaggerated 5, or 10, or 20, or 40, 

 or 50 per cent? What, according to the best information obtainable 

 by the counsel for Great Britain, is the most reasonable statement of 

 the proportion of females in the pelagic catch ? They give us no infor- 

 14749 21 



