162 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



and they made it their business to seek out all the actual 

 or alleged facts on which such sweeping' statements were 

 based. They have referred to all those which a thorough 

 niid., para. 614. search of the published documents enable them to dis- 

 cover up to the date in question, and it will be observed, 

 on inspection of these statements, that not one of them 

 depends on personal experience; but, on the contrary, that 

 all are merely given by their authors as matters of opinion, 

 while in all but a single instance, it is not even claimed by 

 the author of the statement that he ever saw a single seal 

 killed at sea. Percentages and ratios are thus alone 

 spoken of, and actual numbers are not known, or if known 

 are not quoted. 



REMARKS OF THE BRITISH COMMISSIONERS ON THIS 



EVIDENCE. 



The British Commissioners write: 



Ibid, para. 615. Nothing more precise than the statements just quoted, every one of 

 them made by those presumably interested in, or engaged in, 



186 protecting the breeding-islands, but without personal experi- 

 ence in this matter, has been found as authority lor the theory 



which has been so diligently propagated, that excessive waste of seal 



life results from the practice of pelagic sealing. 



In opposition to the hypothetical statements above 

 referred to, the British Commissioners adduce a mass of 

 expert testimony, which will subsequently be alluded to, 

 and which, without a single exception, entirely and specifi- 

 cally contradicts the theory alluded to. 



IN 1892, NEW EVIDENCE ADVANCED BY THE UNITED 



STATES ON THIS MATTER. 



At a later date, however, in 1892, the United States has 

 obtained from various sources a considerable number of 

 afildavits and statements intended to bear out the theory 

 of excessive losses of seals at sea, all of which have seen 

 the light for the first time in the Case of the United States, 

 or among the documents appended to it, and respecting the 

 character and value of which some critical remarks will 

 subsequently be made. 



THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT QUOTED 

 IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT IN 

 THE UNITED STATES CASE. 



United states rpj^^ United Statcs Commissioners present no direct evi- 



Case, pp. 370, 371. ^ ■ j_ -, .t ■ •• • i. j. t • 



deuce on this subject, and their opinion is not quoted in 

 support of the assertions made in the Case itself of the 

 United States. 



PROFESSOR Allen's definite statement. 



Ibid., p. 101. Professor J. A. Allen is, however, prominently cited, 

 being upon this as upon most other subjects perfectly defin- 

 ite, though claiming no i^ersonal experience or special 



