388 OKAL AEGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



the seals in tliese logions liad been protected and only a certain number 

 of young males allowed to be killed, these lands and coast would be 

 again populous with seal life, and that may be a subject for the con- 

 sideration of this high Tribunal, wliether the decision you will give in 

 this case will not extend much further than to the ])rotection of the 

 seals in tlie North Pacihc and tlie Behring Sea, but Avlietlier it will not 

 extend so far that the rights of the property owners or of the owners 

 of the industry being conceded and the value of the industry to the 

 whole world being ascertained and stated, such protection would not 

 extend over that large part of the world and whether there w^ould 

 not be a restoration in time of these valuable herds of animals and the 

 rights of those who have rights there, be, efficiently though indirectly, 

 IH-otected. 



With regard now to tlie results, and to show how injurious and 

 destructive they are. I read these statements in our case from page 210 : 



The iujmioiis and destructive effects of open sea sealing, as demonstrated above, 

 can be siunnied np as follows : Between eighty and ninety per cent of the seals taken 

 are i'emales; of these at least seventy five per cent are either pregnant or nursing; 

 that the destruction of these feauxles causes the death of the unborn pup seals 

 or those on the rookeries de[)endeut on tln^ir mothers for nourishment; and, tiiuilly 

 that at least sixty six per cent of the seals killed by white hunters are never 

 secured. 



As to this last figure, it is fair to say there is a considerable diver- 

 gence of opinion among the witnesses. 



Besides this the females taken in Behring Sea have certainly in the majority of 

 cases been impregnated and their death means not only the destruction of the pups 

 on the island hut also of the ftetus. 



Hence, if 10,000 females are killed in one season, this fact means not only the 

 dei)letion of the herd by at least 17,500 tliat year but also the reduction of the 

 annual birth-rate by 7,500 each following year for probably fifteen years — 



it seems to be almost incalculable — 



besides the added loss of the young born to the female portion of the pups destroyed 

 which would be an ever increasing quantity. 



Now what do our friends on the other side say with regard to that? 



Do they say that females are not taken? Not at all. Do they deny 

 that a large projjortion ot the seals taken are females"? Not at all. Do 

 they deny that a large proportion are gravid ? Not at all. All this they 

 concede. They do not agree that our numbers are correctly stated, 

 there maybe a difference — and wiien we say that as many as 90 per cent 

 are females, and gravid or nursing females, they differ from us and say 

 that our statements are exaggerated. Practically I think that makes 

 no difference provided the i^roportion is large. 



But how many females do they say are actually taken'? 



That is a question which will probaVdy trouble the Court, 



Much testimony is collated in tlie British Counter Case, pages 202 to 

 207. We summarize the testimony upon that point to which 1 have 

 called attention in this way: that of the witnesses (130, I think they 

 number in all) — 54 said that they took an equal number of males and 

 females; 45 took a greater number of females than males; and 37 of 

 tliem out of this total number, took 50 per cent of females, or over. In 

 making tliese calculations it has been assumed that those who state that 

 they took more males than fenuiles in the Pacific, and more females 

 than nmies in the Behring Sea, without giving us any ligures, took an 

 average or equal number of males and females. 



Now I shall not read this testimony, but the High Court will find it, 

 I think, as we have found it, inextricably confused and misleading. It 

 would seem that the parties either had most varied and singularly 



