COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 155 



not exceed 500 sldus. Wliile many of the vessels returned 

 to Victoria on l»einj^ notified, and thus curtailed tlieir ordi- 

 nary sealing season, some went across to the Asiatic side; 

 but, in consequence of the time consumed in the voyage 

 over, or of other circumstances, the catch obtained there 

 averaged much less than that made in tlie eastern part of 

 Behring Sea in 1801, being, in fact, 477 skins per vessel 

 instead of 077. 



If, however, the effect of the modus rivendi on the catch 

 be eliminated, by instituting a comparison between the 

 number of skins taken on the eastern side of the North 

 Pacific to the south of Behring Sea alone, in 1S91 and 1892 

 respectively, the catch will be found to be actually greater 

 in 1892. In the region specified, the average catch per ves- 

 sel was, in fact, 419 in 1891, but rose to 485 in 1892, and 

 this in face of the employment of a larger number of Ca- 

 nadian vessels. There is, therefore, good reason to believe 

 that there has been a substantial increase in the number of 

 seals met with at sea in 1892 as compared with 1891. 



EVIDENCE CITED BY UNITED STATES TO SHOW DECREASE 

 AT SEA THROWS LITTLE LIGHT ON THE QUESTION. 



It will be noted, that nearly all the statements quoted in united states 

 the Case of the United States respecting the scarcity of •^'"''•''^'■^'^ '"'^■•^• 

 seals on the open sea, are derived from Indians, whose 

 kno«' ledge is chiefly that obtained in canoes in the vicinity 

 of the coast, and tlierefore corresponds generally with that 

 given by similar witnesses to the British Commissioners, 

 and affords little, if any, real information as to the general 

 abundance of seals at sea. 



These Indians, inhabiting the coast of the continent, are 

 in most, if not in all cases, necessarily ignorant of the 

 enormous annual slaughter of seals made on the 

 178 breeding-islands; and, for this reason, the fact that 

 they attribute any scarcity of seals observed by 

 them to the acts of their rivals, the pelagic sealers, (of 

 which besides their own hunting they are alone cognizant,) 

 must be accepted with great reservation, as evidence 

 respecting the effects of pelagic sealing. 



It is further to be remarked, that the evidence obtained 

 from Indian witnesses, and printed in the Cp.se of the 

 United States, appears to have been cither very incor- 

 rectly translated or very imperfectly set down. Thus, for 

 example, of twelve Indians examined by the United States 

 Agents at Barclay Sound, eight have since been examined Appendix, vol. 

 by Mr. Sherwood, and on important points contradict the"'^'"'' 

 statements i)reviously attributed to them. 



METHODS PRACTISED ON THE ISLANDS DRIVE THE 



SEALS TO SEA. 



The greater proportionate number of seals now met with 

 at sea, as comi)ared with those on the breeding-islands, is 

 largely explained by the disturbances to seal life incident 



