COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 145 



The whole teiiour of the statement is einineiitly practical, 

 endeavouring' to deal with the facts of the case as they exist 

 and must be met, and is in this respect in singular contrast 

 with the schemes of protection and control which are prom- 

 inently advocated in other parts of the United states Case. 



Dr. Sclater's aflSdavit consists of three short clauses em- ca^e,' AppemUx! 

 bracing: many theoretical assertions, and making no effort voi.i', p. 411. 

 whatever to deal with the actual circumstances, or to pro- 

 vide a means of control of shore and sea sealing, both of 

 which, he admits, must be regulated. The third clause, in 

 fact, shows that the author was not aware of the actual 

 character of the management of the breeding-islands and 

 mode of killing there, as explained in another part of this 

 Counter-Case. In this respect, it is in accordance with 

 the similar theoretical assertions elsewhere found 

 1G6 D in the Case of the United States, and cannot be 

 admitted to have more weight than these. 



Upon any discussion before the Tribunal upon the sub- 

 ject of Eegulations, Her Majesty's Government will refer, 

 if necessary, to a Supplementary Report of the British 

 Commissioners, which is now in course of preparation, and 

 will, it is believed, be presented to Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment by the 31st January, 1893. 



The succeeding chapters have been j^repared in order 

 that the Arbitrators may be put in possession of the true 

 facts material to the consideration of the question of Keg- 

 ulations, and of tlie reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment to the arguments and allegations of fact contained 

 in the Case of the United States with reference to pelagic 

 sealing and the management of the islands in the past. 



B S, PT VIII 10 



