A86 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
The witness answered that— 
“We have no means of knowing that.” 
He was then pressed in this way: 
“It is a mere matter of estimate, of course, but I wish it based upon as reliable 
information as you have.” 
When the witness said— 
“T think the first season the revenue-cutter captured 15,000 stolen skins (p. 191); 
where they were stolen, whether in the sea or out of it, no agent could truthfully say.” 
He also showed that the lessees of the islands were not so particular as other Agents 
pretend, when he tells us (p. 191) that they bought from the natives at Ounalaska 
5,000 seals killed by them, there (p. 196). The United States puts forward this officer 
as a reliable witness, and it is, therefore but fair to attach importance to a statement 
which weakens the force of the ex parte statement and opinion of the Special Agents 
sent from time to time to the islands, and who have now been brought forward on 
behalf of the United States as witnesses in support of a case which concerns not 
merely the Government, but most directly the lessees. The witness stated that one 
of the employés of the Company told him that when a Government officer came there 
and got along with the Company it was profitable. Upon being asked by the Com- 
mittee, before whom he was giving evidence, to explain, he replied that— 
“(A man could draw two salaries, like Mr. Falkner and Judge Glidden, one from 
the Government and one from the Company” (p. 191). 
Mr. Moulton’s evidence is next presented (p. 19 of Appendix). He was a Govern- 
ment Agent from 1877 to 1885. He said that there was an apparent increase during 
the first five years, i.e., to 1882, then a decrease to 1885 (Evidence, p. 255). In this 
statement he has been contradicted by official Reports, as will be shown. 
The witness admits, however, that female seals, after giving birth to their young, 
scatter out in Behring’s Sea; and he is of opinion that lawless hunters kill all they 
find, and that they find mothers away from their nurslings. No special reason for 
this opinion is given, however. 
A sailor, Edward Shields, of Vancouver, formerly on the sealing-schooner ‘‘Caro- 
line,” is said to have testified, where and when it is not stated (p. 20 of Appendix to 
Mr. Blaine’s letter), that in 1X86 out of 686 seals taken by the ‘‘Caroline” the seals 
were chiefly females. Upon this, it may be said that it is the custom among hunters 
to class all seals the skins of which are the size or near the size of the female as 
“females,” for their guidance as to the quality of skinsin the catch. It may also be 
remarked that it does not appear that these females were in milk, and this is always 
known when skinning the seal. ‘ Dry cows” are caught, as has been admitted, and 
taking this evidence, given ex parte as it was, it is at best, if true, an exceptional 
case in a very small catch. 
Mr. Glidden was recalled by the Committee, and explained that his estimate of 
40,000 skins was based on newspaper reports of the catch of the sealers. He was, of 
course, unable to show how many of these were taken near the Aleutian Islands, in 
the North Pacific, or on the west coast of British Columbia, or in the Puget Sound, 
but he evidently credits the whole estimated catch to Behring’s Sea. Consequently 
he was of opinion that sealing in Behring’s Sea should be ended, to lead to the better 
preservation of seal life. 
It is to be observed that not one of these witnesses, whose opinions are relied upon 
both as to the catch, the habits, and sex of the seal in deep water and the method 
of shooting, &c., has had any experience as a hunter or with hunters. They were 
not experts. They were sent to the islands to see that the lessees performed their 
obligations as covenanted in the lease. The experience of most of them was limited 
to a few years’ residence on the Seal Islands, associated with and under the natural 
influence of a Company admittedly a monopoly and desirous of restricting the catch 
so as to control the market of the world as far as seals are concerned. 
None of the witnesses were, moreover, submitted to a cross-examination, 
443 and they were to a large extent led by the examiners in the questions put to 
them. ‘The only facts that were possibly within their knowledge relate to seal 
life on the islands, to the mode of killing, and to the times when killed there, and 
to their habits when in and upon the rookeries. 
The opinions of the gentlemen given before the Congressional Committee in 1888, 
for the most part, though sometimes contradictory, are in favour of the under- 
mentioned theories: 
1. That the female seals while nursing their young go great distances in search of 
food. 
2. That when out a great distance female seals are shot, and the pups on shore are 
lost for want of their mothers’ care. 
3. That the greater part of the catch in Behring’s Sea is made up of female seals. 
4. That the destruction of the seals when hunted on the sea is great in consequence 
of many wounded seals being lost. 
— =. oo 
or, 
