182 COUNTER-CASE OF GREA.T BRITAIN. 



THE QUOTATIONS OF EVIDENCE RELIED ON ARE MORE- 

 OVER IMPERFECT. 



Mr. Morgan's evidence is, however, very imperfectly 

 quoted in the United States Case. He says : 



Ibid., Appen- YoT instance, dnriug tbe period of my residence on St. George Island 



dix, vol. ii, p. 64. j-|jggjjjQjjjg jj^ 1874], down to the year 1884, there were always a 



number of dead pnps, the number of which I cannot give exactly, as 



it varied from year to year, and was dependent upon accidents or the 



destructiveness of storms But from the year 1884 down 



to the period when I left St. George Island [in 1887] there was a 

 marked increase in the numl)er of dead pup seals, amounting, perhaps, 

 to a trebling of the numbers observed in former years, so that I would 

 estimate the number of dead pups in the year 1887 at about 5,000 or 

 7,000 as a maximum. 



He then proceeds to argue that the increased number of 

 dead pups resulted from jtelagic sealing. 

 Ibid., p. 39. Mr. Loud was on the islauds each year from 1885 to 1889. 



He speaks of seeing dead pups in all these years, and 

 believes the mortality to have occurred in consequence of 

 pelagic sealing. 



Dr. Hereford has been stationed on the islands at various 

 times from 1880 to 1891. He says: 



Ibid., p. 32. The loss of life of pup seals on the rookeries up to 1884 or 1885 was 



comparatively slight, and was generally attributed to the death of the 

 mother seal from natural causes (or irom tiieir natural enemies in the 

 water, or, as sometimes happened, sudden storms with heavy surfs 

 rolling in from certain directions on the breeding rookeries, but never 

 at any time would a sufficient number of pups be killed to make it a 

 subject of special comment, either among the natives or the employes 

 of the Company). Coincident with the increase of hunting seals in 

 the sea, there was an increase in the death-rate of pup seals on the 

 rookeries, &c. 



United States 211 The portiou of this Statement here placed in pareu- 



ase, p. 214. tlicses is omittcd from the citation as given in the 



Case of the United Slates. 



BUT CONTENTION HELD DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE 

 DATE OF SEALING IN BEHRING SEA. 



If, then, the recollection of these three gentlemen of cir- 

 cumstances which pass;ed unrecorded at the time of their 

 occurrence, both by themselves and all other officials on 

 the islands in these years, be accepted as substantially in 

 accordance with the facts, we find that an increasing num- 

 ber of dead pnps occurred each year since about 1884. In 

 the Case of the United States, it is claimed that this took 

 place concurrently with increased sealing in Behring Sea 

 and in consequence of the death of suckling female seals. 

 m^sioners'^R™- But iu 1884 oiily owB Canadian sealing-schooner is known 

 port, paras. 67, to havc entered Behring Sea, and in 1885 but two schooners, 

 and it was not till 1880 that as many as sixteen vessels 

 entered the sea, and the number of seals taken there became 

 large. 



