328 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



How the evident iiucertainty of a mother-cow could be explained to 

 this scientific gentleman, I am also at a loss to understand. 



Instances similar to these were noted whenever any considerable time was spent 

 in watching a particular part of a rookery. 



This is, in every case a number of pups pursued the mother and were 

 driven away, and finally she consented that one of the pups should 

 draw food from her. 



At any time pups might be seen nursing everywhere on the rookeries, but it was 

 not often that a female was actually seen to come from the water, and, within a 

 short time, find a pup to nurse, as would be expected if it were true that she had 

 been a long distance out at sea, and perhaps many days absent from the rookery. 

 When females were seen to come from the sea and soon afterwards allow a pup to 

 nurse, it was generally under circumstances such as those above referred to. 



If this happened only in the case of the cows coming from the sea 

 and not of those that were remaining on land, possibly a suggestion that 

 I have heard made, but which I cannot give as evidence, for I do not 

 know that it is in the C«se, may suggest itself to the mind of the Court, 

 viz, that on coming from the sea, being still drenched with the water, 

 they refuse for some reason that nature has given them, to allow the 

 pup to suckle. We know in the domestic life of animals there are cer- 

 tain reservations, and wise masters will not allow a heated animal to 

 suckle her young, but there the master interposes, the proprietor, who 

 is intelligent enough to understand these rules and laws of nature. 



On the 16th July, at Starry Arteel Rookery, St. George Island, I watched five 

 femiile seals come from the water at difteront times. All called out at intervals as if 

 for their young ones, As they slowly made their way among the harems many pups 

 attempted to nurse, but none were allowed to do so, and every one of these cows, 

 after wandering about for some time in an apparently aimless manner, lay down and 

 went to sleep without having given up any milk. 



What can be stronger than that? Does it not outweigh any specu- 

 lation as to the mental operations of the cow? Here, with nature 

 clamouring to the cow that she should be rid of this which was given 

 to her for distribution and not to preserve — with this embarrassing 

 material to distress her, with all these pups clamouring for food, she 

 refuses, and finally goes to sleep with her udders distended, because 

 nature had instructed her, when she was born, that she should give this 

 only to her young. And in connection with this I would like to cite, 

 and I take great pleasure in citing, a gentleman as to whose intelli- 

 gence and character there can be no dispute, and whom we are happy 

 to call our friend. I allude to Mr. Tupper in Appendix, Volume 3 Beh- 

 ring Sea Arbitration, papers presented to the British Parliament, page 

 430 — the title is U. S. No. 2 — Mr. Tupper in his memorandum on Mr. 

 Blaine's letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated March 1st, says, in con- 

 nection with the statement that indiscriminate slaughter destroyed 

 them by thousands, 



This statement, cited in the United States Case, is direct authority for the Cana- 

 dian contention. It illustrates three important points. 



That indiscriminate slaughter on the breeding grounds is injurious, and in time 

 destructive. 



Which we accept, which we claim, and which we insist upon, that . 

 the indiscriminate slaughter on the breeding grounds is injurious, and 

 must in time be destructive. It has been destructive in the past in 

 every sealery excei)t this of Bering Sea. 



2. That when the mothers are killed, the young puj)8 dying in consequence, are 

 found on the island. 



