ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 197 



We do not pretend that the United States can continue to take 

 100,000 annually from that herd if pelagic sealing is permitted, if 

 pelagic sealing is carried on to the extent of taking five or ten thou- 

 sand annually it would be perfectly impossible for the United States 

 to take that number of young males. My assertion is that if all other 

 attacks by man are prevented, and if pelagic sealing is prohibited, it 

 is possible for the United States to take 100,000 annually. And expe- 

 rience pi'oves it. They did it for ten years and always without any 

 diminution. In 1S84, or perha])s a little later, it may have been in 1887, 

 they began to find it difficult to obtain these 100,000 young males. They 

 were not easily discoverable on the sealing grounds. Drives had to be 

 made more and more frequently in order to procure that number, and 

 difiiculty was experienced, in getting it. Prior to that time the same 

 number of young males was taken, and still tliere remained large num- 

 bers of the same class untouched. But when the ravages of pelagic 

 sealing began to extend, then, the birth-rate being diminished, the 

 young males were fewer in number. Still the drafts were continued — 

 they ought not to have been — they were continued until 1890, when, in 

 consequence of the difticulty of making the drafts and of the certainty 

 which then became manifest that too large a draft was being taken 

 from the herd, the taking was stojjped when the number of 23,000 had 

 been reached. 



The President asked how this stoppage occurred. 



Mr. (Barter. This was done by order of the Government Agent 

 representing the United States on the islands, who had charge of the 

 fishery and was clothed with discreti(mary power to diminish the num- 

 ber when such a step was thought to be necessary. The time had 

 arrived when he thought it was necessary to take a smaller number, and 

 he stopped the killing when the number of -!3,000 had been reached. 

 But during the three years preceding that date more and more diffi- 

 culty had been experienced in easily finding the 100,000 young males to 

 be taken. Had due consideration been given to the subject of pelagic 

 sealing, had full account been taken of the serious ravages which it 

 made on the herd, it would have been the part of prudence to stop 

 before that time. But the subject was new, the practice of pelagic 

 sealing was new, and the matter did not challenge the attention of the 

 authorities on the islands until it had reached considerable proportions. 

 It was not until the year 1883 that pelagic sealers had ventured into 

 Bering Sea. Up to that time they had only carried on their operations 

 in the I^^orth Pacific Ocean south of the Aleutian Islands. In that 

 year sealers entered Bering Sea, and from that time onwards the prac- 

 tice gradually increased of entering Bering Sea. But I think it is quite 

 clear that it is possible, if pelagic sealing were prohibited, to take 100,000 

 annually. Such a draft would not aftect the regular normal increase 

 of these animals. That number and possibly a larger number may be 

 taken, but I think the figure I have given is substantially correct. I 

 think a larger draft could be made. 



I quote from page 80 of my printed Argument, and continue with 

 our propositions of fact: 



Fifth. Omitting from view, as being inconsiderable, such killing of seals as is 

 carried on by Indi.ans in small boats from ihe shore, there are t^vo forms of capture 

 at present pursued: That carried on under the authority of the United (States upon 

 the Pribiiof Islands, and that carried on at sea by vessels with boats and other 

 appliances. 



Sixth. The killing at the Pribiiof Islands if confined, as is entirely practicable, 

 to a properly restricted number of non-breeding males, and if pelagic sealing is 

 prohibited, does not involve any danger of the extermination of the herd, or of 



