ORAL ABGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 373 



The President. — Inside have you any estimation? 



Mr. OouDERT. — !No, they were interdicted. 



The President. — But, in fact, they were there*? 



Mr. CoUDERT. — No, the seals did not come into our house; tlie scalers 

 intercepted them before they got througli the door. The report. Gen- 

 eral Foster says, is, that less than 500 were taken. 



The President. — The seizures were efit'ectual and prevented any sort 

 of pelagic sealing inside. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — No, it was the resnlt of the agreement under 

 the modus ■mvendi. 



The President. — But before the modus vivendi was agreed upon 

 there was no i^elagic sealing inside. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Yes. 



The President. — That is what I ask, what was the amount of pelagic 

 sealing previous to the modus vivendi. 



Mr. CouDERT. — I will ask the President to let me take the tables. 

 I cannot take each year alone. We have tables prepared on that point; 

 I will submit them to the Tribunal in a few minutes. 



I stated to the court from memory the efforts "taken by suppressing 

 noise and even smoking, to prevent a disturbance in the rookeries, and 

 I think there is evidence on that very i^oint. We have collated the tes- 

 timony on the subject of pelagic sealing, and I will submit it to the high 

 Court before the close of the argument. 



The President. — You will tell us that in your own time. It is bet- 

 ter jierhaps not to interrupt you. 



Mr. Coudert. — Yes, I confess the carrying of figures from 1876 to 

 1892 in my memory without memoranda I tind difficult, and possibly 

 misleading. 



The President. — I mean that, if you argue that the decrease is 

 exclusively imputable to pelagic sealing, and give us proportionate fig- 

 ures for that decrease, you must also give us proportionate figures for 

 the destruction by pelagic sealing — the destruction inside as well as 

 outside, if any took place. 



Mr. Coudert. — Yes, you will understand that I give the general fig- 

 ures. As I stated at the outset there was a small pelagic destruction 

 which grew up to 12,000, and eventually expanded to 00,000; and even 

 when there was an average, if you please, of only 12,000, and those 

 were entirely females or to a great extent, — say more than half, to jiut 

 it at the least, the cumulative eticct of that destruction in a few years 

 was sufficient, prima facie, to account for a decrease, while it is admitted 

 that before that time there was an increase. Taking this even at the 

 lowest figure, if there had been an average killing of females during all 

 those years of 12,000 and it extended over 8, 0, or 10 years with its 

 cumulative effects, other things being equal and no other cause being 

 apparent, we have a right to say we have made out our proof and to ask 

 what other cause was there than the one thus indicated 1 



Going back one moment (I will not ask the court to turn to the book 

 because the extract is very short), — in our collated testimony on page 

 232, the evidence will be found with regard to the care taken on the 

 islands. 



No person is allowed to go near a rookery unless by special order of the Treasury 

 Agent, and when driving from the Lauliiig grounds, the natives are forbidden to 

 smoke or make any unusual noise, or to do anything that might distiirb or frighten 

 the seals. 



Of course, the prohibition against smoking and drinking whisky 

 would make our field of operations restricted in choosing proper 



