APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 483 
At pp. 10, 11, and 12 of the Appendix Mr. Williams is quoted to show that the 
danger to the females lies in the journey through the Aleutian Islands, with young, 
to the breeding-grounds. On p. 90 of his Evidence before the Committee, he illus- 
trates the ineffective means of protecting the rookeries by stating: 
‘Last fall a schooner landed at one of the rookeries and kilied seventeen cows and 
bulls right on the breeding rookeries.” 
440 Again, at p. 106, he says: 
“That the present measures are somewhat insufficient is shown by the fact 
that for the last three or four years there have been increased depredations annually 
upon the rookeries. 
‘‘A revenne-cutter goes upon the grounds and then is ordered north for inspection, 
or for relief of a whaling crew, or something of that kind, and they are gone pretty 
much the whole time of the sealing season, and there appears to be insufficiency of 
the method of protection.” 
On p. 108 he says: 
“They shoot them as they find them. . . . A vessel can approach within less 
than half a mile or a quarter of a mile of the island and not be seen (on account of 
the fog), and can send her boats on the beaches and get off fifty or a hundred skins 
before the inhabitants can find it out.” 
Evidently Mr. Williams does not consider the shooting of females far from land is 
much indulged in, as he insists that the damage is done inshore, where no police pro- 
tection is enforced, 
The history of the rookeries given on pp. 12,13, and 14 of the Appendix has been 
dealt with already in this paper. 
On pp. 14 and 15 of the Appendix an article on fur-seals, from ‘‘ Land and Water,” 
written in 1877 by a Mr. Lee, is referred to. 
He merely alludes to the indiscriminate slaughter which was practised on the 
rookeries, which no one defends or justifies. 
Mr. Me{ntyre, Superintendent of the seal fisheries of Alaska for the lessees, is then 
brought forward by Mr. Blaine. 
This gentleman went to the island as a Government Agent to inspect the operations 
of the Company. His reports were favourable to and highly eulogistic of the Com- 
pany, and they were iminediately followed by his resignation as a Government official 
and his appointment to a lucrative position under the Company. 
His testimony is naturally more in favour of the Company and of the Govern- 
ment’s contention, which is so directly in the interest of the Company, than the 
testimony of any other witness. 
He thinks only one-fifth of the seals shot are recovered, and his reason is that he 
has found seals with bullets in their blubbers on the islands. He attributes a defi- 
ciency in the number of seals in 1888 to the fact that cows were killed. He men- 
tions that if cows are killed in August, and their young deprived of their mothers’ 
care, the young perish. The young perish also if the mother is killed before they 
are born. In this way he endeavours to represent such a practice obtains, but it is 
to be borne in mind that he does not go so far as to say that pups are found dead on 
the islands in any number. When this officer was reporting on the operations of the 
Company, and before the present contention was raised, he gave a glowing account 
of the increasing numbers of seals at the islands, as will be shown; but at p. 116 of 
the evidence before the Congressional Inquiry he labours to reduce the estimates of 
both Elliott and Dall by one-third or one-half. He concludes that the number of 
seals has largely decreased in the last two years (1887 and 1888). The Company, 
however, killed their 100,000 in each of these years. The Government had the dis- 
cretion to reduce the limit. The Government did not deem it necessary to do so. 
The number, this witness says, was increasing until 1882, and then other parties 
began the killing of seals, especially since 1884.” All this told upon the rookeries, 
and, he added, ‘‘a considerable percentage” of the killing was made up of male 
seals (Evidence, p. 117). 
Mr. McIntyre attempted to count the catch in 1886 and in 1887, and stated that 
40,000 skins a-year were taken, nearly all in Behring’s Sea water,and in a few 
instances by raids on the land. How he obtained this information is not shown. 
From his position on the Island of St. Paul during all that time his statement is 
obviously a mere surmise. 
He could only know personally of the catch from raids which were made on the 
island in 1886 and 1887, and which were due to ineffective protection of the islands. 
After telling us that a large percentage of the catch of the marauders was made up 
of adult males, he entirely forgets this, as we find him saying (at p. 118): 
“A majority of the skins taken by marauders, in fact 80 or 90 per cent., are from 
females.” 
It is submitted that this witness, whose interest on behalf of the Company (the 
lessees) is shown in his confession that it was at times necessary, in order to control 
the price in the markets, for the Company to take less than 100,000 seals (Evidence, 
