160 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



LON& BEFORE ITS DEYELOPMENT THE SEALS ON THE 

 PRIBYLOFF ISLANDS HAD ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BE- 

 COME MUCH REDUCED. 



782^8oV. ^^^^^' Perhaps the most importaut point omitted from the 

 United States Case, in connection with the contention now 

 held in respect to the effect of pehigic sealing-, is the fact 

 that on more than one occasion dnring the Knssian regime, 

 and many years before any seals were taken at sea, the 

 supply of seals on the Pribyloff Islands fell so short that 

 commercial extermination actually threatened. In these 

 recorded eases tlie dearth was due either to want of care 

 and proper restrictions in the slaughter on the islands 

 themselves, or to some natural cause, such as that of 

 climatically unfavourable years. It is the result of ex- 

 perience that, by means of excessive slaughter or dis- 

 turbance on the islands, the seals may without difiQculty 

 be seriously reduced in number, or driven away to sea or 

 to new breeding resorts, Avhile no such experience is avail- 

 able to substantiate the new contention advanced as 

 against sealing at sea. 



In his statement, printed in the Appendix to the 

 184 United States Case, Professor Huxley, on the subject 

 of the ])ossibility of destroying the seals when on 

 these breeding-islands, writes: 



United States j^^ ^.]jg (j.^g^^. ^f ^]jg far-seal fisheries, the destructive aiiencv of man 

 voi.i. pp'lll, 412. ^"^ ])repoteut on the Pribyloff Islands. It is obvious that the seals 

 might be destroyed and driven away completely in two or three sea- 

 sons. 



The British Commissioners record a very similar opinion 

 on this subject, and add: 



British Com- ^^ sealing at sea the conditions are categorically different, for it is 



missionens' Re - evident that by reason of the very method of hunting the profits must 



port, paras. 117, decrease, other things being eciual, in a ratio much greater thau that 



of any decrease in the number of seals, and that there is tlierefore 



inherent an automatic ])rincipleof regulation sufficient to prevent the 



possible destruction of tlie industry if practised only at sea. 



IT IS, HOWEVER, MAINTAINED IN THE UNITED STATES 

 CASE THAT PELAGIC SEALING IS THE SOLE CAUSE OF 

 DECREASE OBSERVED ON PRIBYLOFF ISLANDS. 



It is aijpareut from the quotations placed at the head of 

 this chapter, that it is maintained on the part of the United 

 States that pelagic sealing is the sole cause of the decreased 

 number of seals now found on or about the Pribyloff Islands; 

 and, as shown elsewhere, that the slaughter of seals upon 

 the islands themselves has had no effect in bringing about 

 such decrease. 



PELAGIC SEALING IS THERE CONDEMNED ON SEVERAL 



GROUNDS. 



In support of this proposition, a lengthened indictment 

 of the methods and results of the pelagic sealing is framed 

 in tbe Case of the T'nited States, of which the following 

 are the material allegations: 



