ORAL ARGUMENT OP FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 380 



varied experience, or tliat some of tlicm, at least, were unscrupulous 

 and simply testilyiug according to the exigencies of what they sup- 

 posed to be their case. It is fair to the British Commissioners them- 

 selves to say that they give very little credit to them, and admit that 

 eveu allowing for diversity of interest in this matter, it is impossible to 

 reconcile the testimony of these parties. The High Tribunal will 

 observe that these men, assuming that they were testifying — (I am 

 speaking of the sealers) — according to the interests of the case were in 

 a most embarrassing position. They were likely to be impaled on either 

 horn of the dilemma, whether more females or more males; because, if 

 they say there is an enormous number of males, on the high seas, it 

 being proved that all these males were born upon our shore and allowed 

 to leave without being put to death, what becomes of the reproach that 

 we were killing an excessive number of males'? If, on the other hand, 

 there is an excessive number of females killed, then the point that we 

 make, that it is a brutal, cruel, and barbarous business, is established. 

 I sympathize with these men. There was only one way of extrication, 

 which was to tell the truth; and let us assume that many of them tried, 

 but failed. 



But this embarrassment was not only confined to the witnesses. The 

 dilemma was the dilemma of Counsel themselves, because Counsel would 

 not try to mislead the Court. Counsel would not, even for the purpose 

 of winning their case, lead the Court one single step astray, and ask 

 the Court to believe what evidently, manifestly, and palpably was 

 untrue. So that when our friends on the other side comment on the 

 testimony, (much of which shows that the number of males killed is 

 enormous — some say they killed ten males to one female), they dismiss 

 it in silent contempt, and here is what they say. 



I will read from the British Counter Case, page 258. 



From the oiitliues above given relating to the persistent killing of males npon the 

 breeding islands, it is likewise easy to nnderstand that the allegations respecting the 

 large proportion of female seals inclnded in late years in the pelagic catcli may, to 

 some extent at least be fonnded on fact; the actual ratio thus brought about as 

 between the sexes rendering it certain that in sea sealing a much larger number of 

 females than of males must be met with. 



I might, perhaps (and I think if this were an ordinary case tried 

 before a Judge and a Jury I should), stop here and say: Here is an 

 admission that more than half the seals killed are females; and what 

 difference does it make really to this Tribunal, what difterence does it 

 make to this Court or to the Counsel, if instead of 9G, it is 5G? The 

 evil is not quite so great for to-day, but the destruction is just as cer- 

 tain for the future; and we are trying to provide for the future. And 

 when our friends on the other side say there are more females because 

 you killed the males, the fact, nevertheless, remains that, whatever 

 may be the cause, you are going to the fountain of life and extinguishing 

 the possibilities of the future. 



I am now going to ask the learned Tribunal to i)ermit me to hand up 

 a collation of the testimony that I shall read from. It has been printed 

 for the use of the Court, and it will save frequent references. I will 

 hand a copy of it to my friends on the other side. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I think it ought to have been handed to us 

 before now. 



Mr. CouDERT. — I will read from the evidence if you prefer it. 



Sir Charles Russell. — ISTo. 



Mr. CouDERT. — It is simply taken from the book. The reason is 

 this, that as many witnesses are referred to, it would occupy the time 

 of the Tribunal to turn over the various pages. It is merely for con- 

 venience; it does not change the situation of the case at all. 



