APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. A779 
same time (American and English), and that ‘‘there were constantly more or less of 
ships’ crews stationed here for the purpose of taking fur-seals’ skins,” from 1793 to 
1807. 
It is contended by the Canadian Government that areference to the history of this 
island is entirely beside the contention on the part of the United States that it is 
necessary to keep sealing craft hundreds of miles away from rookeries in order to 
preserve the seal life on the breeding-grounds. 
The cause of injury is the same in Pall the cases mentioned, and Mr. Chapel, in the 
Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter, now under consideration, at p.5 well says: 
“Tt is stated that at the Shetlands alone {which never equalled the present condi- 
tion of the Pribylov group, mentioned by Hon. C. A. Williams, already quoted], 
100,000 per annum might have been obtained and the rookeries preserved if taken 
under proper restrictions; but, in the eagerness of men, old and young male and 
female seals were killed, and little pups a 1 few days old, deprived of their mothers, 
died by thousands on the beaches”—[it may here be observed that not a case of dead 
pups was ever found on the Pribylov group,so far as the Reports on the islands 
show ]—“‘careases and bones strewed on the shores.” 
This statement, cited in the United States Case, is direct authority for the Cana- 
dian contention. It illustrates three important points: 
1. That indiscriminate slaughter on the breeding-grounds is injurious and in time 
destructive. 
2. That when the mothers are killed, the young pups, dying in consequence, are 
found on the island. 
3. ‘Lhat Regulations of the number to be killed on the island, with careful super- 
vision, will maintain the rookeries independently of prohibiting sealing i in the waters. 
The Report of the House of Representatives states: 
“The only existing rookeries are those in Alaska, another in the Russian part of 
Behring’s Sea, and a third on Lobos Island, at the mouth of the River Plate, in South 
America.” 
The statement is incorrect. Important omissions occur, since the cases left out, 
when examined, show that, notwithstanding all of the extraordinary and indis- 
criminate slaughter of past years, it is possible, by careful supervision of the rook- 
eries alone, and of the seals while on Jand, to revive, restore, and maintain lucrative 
rookeries. 
Quoting from an extract from a Russian Memorandum respecting the hunt- 
ing of seals, communicated by M.de Staal to the Marquis of Salisbury, and 
437 dated the 25th July, 1888, it is found that other rookeries are by no means 
deserted. ‘Ihe extract reads as follows 
“The places where fur-seal hunting is carried on may be divided into two distinct 
groups. The first group would comprise Pribylov Islands, Behring’s Sea, 100,000 
killed in 1885; Commander Islands (Behring and Copper Islands, 45,000; Seal Islands, 
Okhotsk Sea, 4,000); total, 149,000. 
' “The second group, the sea near the coast of Victoria, 20,000; Lobes Islands, 15,000; 
islands near Cape Horn and the South Polar Sea, 10,000; islands belonging to Japan, 
7,000; Cape of Good Hope, 5,000; total, 57,000.” 
An important omission is the case of Cape of Good Hope, in reference to which 
the Committee of the House of Representatives, previous to their Report, had been 
informed (see H. R. Report No. 8883, 50th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 114) that from the 
Cape of Good Hope Islands, under protection of the Cape Government, a yearly sup- 
ply of 5,000 to 8,000 skins is derived, and that from Japan, it was stated, sometimes 
15,000 and sometimes 5,000 a-year are received. These islands are now rigidly pro- 
tected by the Governments of the countries to which they belong; but neither does 
the Government of the Cape,of Japan, nor of Uruguay, in the case of the Lobos 
Islands, consider it necessary to demand the restriction of the pursuit of seals in the 
open sea, : 
United States vessels have visited the islands off the Cape of Good Hope from 1800 
to 1835, and have taken on some days 500 to 700 skins, securing several thousands of 
skins annually. In 1830 Captain Gurdon L. Allyn, of Gale’s Ferry, Connecticut, 
mentions finding 1,000 carcases of seals at one of the islands, the skins of which 
had been taken. He landed and took seals in considerable numbers. He was again 
on a sealing voyage on this coast in 1834, and shot seals on the rookeries. 
In 1828 a plague visited these rookeries, and 500,000 seals perished during the plague 
(Clark in the Report of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries, 1887, 
section 5, vol. ii, pp. 415, 416), and yet to-day we find a renewal of the industry by 
Regulations applied solely to the rookeries, and exclusive of the deep-sea operations. 
Upon p. 7 of the Appendix now under review, the Report of the Congressional Com- 
mittee on Alaska seal fisheries refers to testimony of United States Government 
Agents regarding the number of seals shot and not secured, and a calculation is 
referred to, to the effect that one in every seven is alone secured by the hunter who 
follows seals on the sea, The experience of Canadian hunters is directly opposed 
