150 COUNTEE-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



DATA ASSUMED BY UNITED STATES I]VrPLY THAT OB- 

 SERVED DECREASE MUST BE DUE TO KILLING SOME 

 YEARS BEFORE THE DECREASE. 



It is tlius apparent, in coiifonnity M'itli the position as- 

 sumed in the Case of the United States itself, tliat any 

 scarcity of seals observed on the Pribyloft" Islands, if due 

 to ])elagic sealing', cannot have resulted from the killings of 

 such animals at sea in the same year, but must have been 

 the effect of the killing of females with young, or of nurs 

 ing females, three or four years befoie the actual scarcity 

 of ''killables" complained of on the islands became mani- 

 fest. 



Thus, in accordance with the contention now advanced 



by the United States, the difficulty in obtaining the ''quota" 



in 1884 must not be attributed to any killing" at sea 



112 in that year, but must have been consequent on such 



killing in 1881 and in preceding' years. 



STATISTICS IN UNITED STATES CASE ITSELF SHOW THAT 

 ALLEGED FIRST DECREASE WAS NOT DUE TO PELAGIC 

 SEALING. 



TJnitert^^states rp^^^ accuracy of statlstics of seals killed at sea given in 



ase, p. . ^^^ C^ase of the United States is not conceded; but, even 



assuming these as a basis of argument, it is found that the 



total pelagic catch in 1879, 1880, and 1881 averaged but 



13,200 skins; and, as shown elsewhere, the first pelagic 



British Co in -ggaliug withiu the liuiits of Behring Sea (by the United 



port'pTra! G7. '^ States vcsscl " Sau Diego") was attempted in 1881, while 



it was not till 1884 that a Canadian vessel (the "Mary 



Ellen") first entered that sea for ])uri)oses of sealing. 



In the years preceding 1871) the whole number of seals 

 killed at sea (still employing the figures given by the 

 United States) had been comparatively insignificant. 



Thus, the diminution in "killables" claimed to have been 

 first observed on the islands in 1881, must have been due 

 to the loss of at most 0,600 male pups in the years 1879, 

 1880, and 1881.* When it is borne in mind that the legal 

 "quota" upon the Pribyloft' Islands in each year was 

 100,000, the unfounded nature of the contention now held 

 by the United States in respect to the efiect of pelagic 

 sealing becomes sufficiently apparent. 



BUT IF CORRECT DATA BE EMPLOY^ED, THIS BECOMES 

 STILL MORE OBVIOUS. 



But if the new contention alluded to (here accepted 

 merely for purposes of discussion) is discarded, and the 

 facts disclosed in the official Kepoits of the United States 

 jire regarded instead, the extraordinary character of the 

 accusation levelled against pelagic sealing, and pelagic 

 sealing alone, becomes still more apparent. These facts 



*Tbis is on tlie assumption that all tlie seals killed at sea were 

 gravid feiuales, aud that the sexes of th« young lost were equally 

 divided on this point (see pp. 200 et seq.). 



