76 MANAGEMENT. 



Alleged sum- III of the Appendix to the Case of Great Britain 



raarv of a report 



by h. w. Elliott (Parliamentary Paper C— 6368, No. 2, 1891, p. 

 60) discloses the fact that this statement appears 

 after the signature of Henry W. Elliott, and it 

 can not, therefore, be construed as a portion of 

 such report. Furthermore, how the Commis- 

 sioners can question Mr. Elliott's power to com- 

 pute the number of seals on the Islands, as they 

 have done, and still rely at all on his computa- 

 tion as to the number of barren females needs 

 explanation. 

 Alleged recogni- The second mode by which they endeavor to 



by lessees. show a decrease in the seal herd prior to 1880 



is by pointing to an alleged recognition thereof 

 on the part of the lessees in the reduction made 

 by them of their catch in 1875, and to an alleged 

 lowering of the standard of weights of skins. 

 The Report proceeds as follows: "In the same 

 year [1875] the number of skins obtained was 

 considerably reduced in the face of a steady 

 market and before the decline in prices of the 

 two succeeding years " (Sec. 44). This state- 

 ment is clearly incorrect, as is shown by the 

 references cited. 1 Another allegation as errone- 

 ous as the foregoing is contained in the state- 



1 British Coinrs. Rept., p. 132. Appendix to Case of the United 

 States, Vol. II, pp. 558, 585. Table of seals taken on Pribilof 

 Islands for all purposes, post p. 427. 



