482 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
necessary to protect the seals in Behring’s Sea, as well as on the islands, is not based 
upon much practical knowledge. He further stated that not much hunting was 
done in the Pacific. 
Honourable Mr, Williams, at p. 107 of Evidence before the Congressional Com- 
mittee, says: 
“Three miles beyond land (in Pacific) you do not see them; where they go no one 
knows.” 
The British Columbian sealers and the record of their catches in the Pacific for 
twenty years weakens the standing of these witnesses as experts. 
Mr. Taylor, another witness, ascribes to the fish of Behring’s Sea a very high 
order of intelligence. He deposes that in Behring’s sea the seals eat a great many 
fish every twenty-four hours, and as ‘the fish have become well aware of the fact 
that there is a good many seals on the Seal Islands, they keep far out to sea.” He 
stands alone in testifying so positively to what can, at best, be a matter for con- 
jecture, and he fails to show he had the slightest means of ascertaining this knowl- 
edge. He further stated that the bulls remain on the islands all summer. 
This is contradicted by writers and other United States witnesses, as will be seen 
hereafter. It is, therefore, evident that this gentleman was testifying simply to his 
own peculiar theories regarding seal life upon very limited experience. He says, 
at one place, that while the cows are out (and they go, he tells us, 10 to 15 miles, 
and even further) the sealers catch them; while at another place, he states: 
“The sea is black with them around the islands, where they pick up a good many 
seal, and there is where the killing of cows oceurs—when they go ashore.” 
So that, evidently, he may have seen cows killed when around the islands, the only 
place at which he apparently could observe them, and he has merely conjectured the 
distance that they go from land and the number actually shot in deep water. 
This witness “‘ thinks there is some damage done in killing and shooting of the cows 
and leaving so many young without their mothers.” There would be less doubt 
respecting the cows being shot or lost if it was satisfactorily shown that large num- 
bers of young pups were found dead in the rookeries. The witness, if able, would 
have certainly pointed to this. The reverse, however, is the fact; and, with the 
exception of one witness before the Congressional Committee, whose evidence will 
be examined again, not an Agent of the Government nor a writer ever stated that 
pups were found dead in any numbers on the islands from loss of mothers; the fact 
being that mothers never go far from their young until the young are well able to 
care for themselves. This witness, notwithstanding his allusion to supposed damage 
by the killing of mothers, the killing of cows by vessels in shore—where the sea is 
black with them—had to admit, ‘‘ the numberof seal, in the aggregate, is not appar- 
ently diminished.” His knowledge is contined to one year (1881), and we have 
better and undisputed testimony that long after this a great increase had taken 
place—an increase of millions. Mr. Taylor, it should be observed, however, gave 
other testimony than that quoted by Mr. Blaine. He said that— 
“These predatory vessels are generally there (in Behring’s Sea) in the spring of 
the year, when the cows are going to the island to breed; . . . most of the 
seals that are killed by these marauding vessels are cows with young.” 
He estimates the number taken in 1881 at from 5,000 to 8,000. 
“These vessels will take occasion to hang around the islands, and when there is 
a heavy fog to go on the rookeries very often.” 
The chief damage, according to Mr. Taylor, is not the killing of mothers out at 
sea when their young are on shore depending upon the return of ‘heir mothers, as is 
contended, but it is due, he says, to the insufficient protection of the island. This 
can, as will be pointed out, be remedied if the suggestions of Government Agents 
are acted upon in the line of better police guarding of the rookeries. 
Mr. Williams’ testimony is next referred to on p. 10 of the Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s 
letter. This gentleman was engaged in the whaling business for forty years (p. 73 
of Evidence before Congressional Committee). As regards fur-seals, his knowledge 
is not based upon experience, but ‘‘from reading and from conversations with my 
captains” (p. 73). He was called by request of attorney for the Alaska Commercial 
Company, of which Mr. Williams was a stockholder. 
No importance, it is submitted, can be attached to his testimony regarding the 
habits and nature of the seal after such a frank confession. 
His evidence that females in pup mass together in the sea before landing may 
therefore be dismissed, since he does not produce any authority for a statement 
which is contradicted by expert testimony. Neither is his statement that hunters 
admit that out of eight shots they would save one seal only correct. 
On pp. 11 and 12 of the Appendix Mr, Williams naturally gives his view for hold- 
ing the control over seal life in Behring’s Sea. It is not denied that every lessee of 
the Pribylov group would agree entirely with him in this. It may be remarked that 
he does not share the theory of the United States that the chief danger lies in 
ns the mothers when out in the deep sea for food, having left their nurslings on 
shore. 
————— es CO 
