ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 421 



that the United States Groverument was oblio-ed to restrict its killing 

 because of the killiug on high seas and the reduction of the biith rate. 

 They were no longer born as they were before. Taking 12, 13, 14, 15, 

 20 thousand female seals a year for 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 years naturally caused 

 an enormous decrease in the birth-rate so as actually to threaten and 

 begin extermination. 



Does anyone undertake to justify pelagic sealing! Does any man 

 but the British Commissioners themsehes, witli their new born zeal in 

 favor of this industry, say that pelagic sealing is a good method and 

 that killing on the islands is a bad method? 



There are passages in their report in which they speak of this as the 

 ideal system, the system of the United States. They say the system 

 as commenced by Kussia was an excellent system and that it was con- 

 tinued by the United States, and that it is practically the ideal system; 

 but they say the contrary at section 76, and I will give you both their 

 opinions, and the Arbitrators will choose and attribute to them sin- 

 cerity in whichever they like. 



It ia thus clear that the killing of seals upon the breediug-islautls is in itself an 

 essentially critical and dangerous method of killing, which although established by 

 long custom can scarcely be otherwise justitied. 



There is a plain statement that killing where you can discriminate is 

 wrong. 



I now read section 660 of these same gentlemen now giving their 

 opinions: 



Theoretically and apart from this question of number and other matters incidental 

 to the actual working of the methods implied these were exceedingly proper — 



That is our methods on the islands which they have just condemned — 



These were exceedingly proper and well conceived to insure a large continual 

 output of skins from the breeding islands, always under the supposition that the 

 lessees of these islands could have no competitors in the North Pacific. 



I do not ask to i)ut it in stronger language. I ask for no better mode 

 of expressing our view upon that subject, that these methods were 

 theoretically exceedingly ])roper and well conceived, not only to keep 

 the herd in good order but to secure a large continual annual output, 

 "always under the supposition that the lessees of these islands could 

 have no competitors in the North Pacific." 



That is to say, the system on the islands would be an admirable 

 system, would continue to work in the future as it has worked in the 

 past, provided pelagic sealing did not interfere. With that we will 

 agree. We will admit that our system cannot co exist with the pelagic 

 system, and that you have to condemn the one or the other in youi- own 

 judgment. Tliere is no circumscribing it. There is no limitation for 

 it. You cannot say to the pelagic sealers you will do this for twenty 

 miles or 30 or 40 or 50 miles beyond the islands. Either you nuist con- 

 demn or you must iiermit. To say that you are to give us a zone of 20 

 miles or 50 miles, you might as well apply a bread and milk poultice to 

 the bite of a rattle snake, to cure the man who is suffering. It has to 

 be scotched and killed, the whole business, or let alone. 



There were a number of paragraphs which I had laid out but shall 

 not undertake to read. But there is a paragraph that I want to read 

 becauvse it may be seriously intended. Whether it is actmdly seiious 

 or is an exhibition of grim humor on the part of these gentlemen, I 

 do not know. 



