COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 247 



289 In the Case of the United States, it is attempted 

 to minimise the frequency of raids with their attend- 

 ant consequences on the Pribylofi" Islands. Statements 

 are farther quoted in support of the assertions that raid- 

 ing must be so difficult, and the chances of detection so 

 many, that it is necessarily very seldom practised. 



The contention thus advanced forms part of a general 

 defence of the methods employed on the Pribyloff" Islands, 

 which is made the preliminary to the assertion that the 

 killing of seals at sea is the sole cause of the decrease in 

 numbers observed on the islands. 



ALL AUTHORITIES CONCUR IN CHARACTERIZING- PRO- 

 TECTION OF PRIBYLOFF ISLANDS AS INEFFICIENT. 



It requires, however, only a reference to the various offi- 

 cial Reports of the United States Government to find, that 

 however diverse the oinnions expressed by those who have 

 held official positions on the Pribyloff" Islands, whether 

 under the Government or under the Company, they are 

 almost completely in accord in stating that the measures 

 taken to protect the islands have been insufficient from 

 first to last. In a large proportion of these Eeports, and 

 in evidence given at various times, this insufficiency of pro- 

 tection has in fact been a chief subject of complaint. To 

 substantiate this statement a few particulars will be given, 

 and some specific complaints from among many cited. 



EARLY INSTANCES OF SUCCESSFUL RAIDING UNDER 

 UNITED STATES MANAGEMENT. 



The excessive slaughter of seals on the Pribyloff Islands 

 by men who were virtually raiders in 1868, is elsewhere 

 alluded to. Numerous vessels are known to have engaged 

 in raiding these islands as early as 1873, some years after 

 the date at which, according to the United States Case, 

 efficient possession and control of the islands had become 

 assured. 



Mr. H. W. Elliott may be quoted as authority on this united states 

 point, and to establish the fact that not until 1877, andCase,p.i33ei*?g. 

 then only as the result of his own persistent endeavours to 

 that end during four years, was a revenue-cutter detailed 

 for the purpose of giving a certain measure of i^rotection 

 to the rookeries as against these raiders. 



DIFFICULTY IN INDUCING UNITED STATES GOVERNIVIENT 

 TO SEND REVENUE-CUTTER FOR PROTECTION. 



Mr. Elliott's statements are contained in his official 

 Eeport, published by the Government, and are as follows: 



Early in 1873 it became well known on the Pacific coast that tlie TJnited States 

 officers of the law on the seal islands had no means of enforcing the ^^'"'^"^ irq^^*'^^' 

 Regulations protecting the seal life on the same or in waters adjacent; ^P" ' 

 hence, a nnmber of small craft, fitted out at San Francisco and 



290 contiguous ports, which cleared for the North-west coast and 

 the Aleutian Islands on "fishing ventures;" but, in reality, 



these vessels proceeded directly to the waters and rocks adjacent to 

 the seal islands, where, in plain sight of the village on either islet, 

 they shot the swimming seals with assumed indifference and great 

 affectation of legality ' 



