the Alaskan and Again, in considering this question, after mak- Intermingling of ing practically the same statement, that the mi- Russian herds. gration routes are distinct, the Commissioners add 66* * * it is believed that, while to a certain extent transfers of individual seals or of small groups occur probably every year between the Pribiloff and Commander tribes, that is exceptional rather than normal" (Sec. 453). In spite, however, of these admissions that all intermingling of the two herds is abnormal and infrequent, they still assert that such interchange takes place (Sec. 170). In support of such an assertion two charts are presented in the Report (Nos. III Charts Nos. III and IV, facing p. 150) purporting to give the distribution of seals in Bering Sea during two periods, namely, July 15 to August 15 and August 15 to September 15 (Sec. 213). The chart Chart No. II of also, which purports to show the resorts and migration routes of fur-seals in the North Pacific (No. II, facing p. 150), assumes a similar distribution. and IV of the Re port. the Report. the charts were The data, from which these charts as to the Data from which distribution of seals in Bering Sea were con- compiled. structed, are stated in the Report to be the sealing logs kept by the American and British cruisers in Bering Sea during the season of 1891 and "information on the same subject. * sought in various other ways, such as by inquiry 12364 the charts were compiled. data. Data from which from the captains and hands of sealing vessels met in Victoria and Vancouver and from the inhabitants of various places touched at during the Insufficiency of summer" (Sec. 210). The United States deny that the data collected by the American and British cruisers warranted such construction of the charts Nos. III and IV or of that part of chart No. II which purports to give the summer resort of the two great seal herds. And the United States claim that the "information" obtained "in various other ways" should have no influence upon the Tribunal, inasmuch as the evidence or statements thus relied upon are not presented and the Commissioners have even failed to give the names of their informants. Principal data It is evident, from the particular manner in which the Report describes the way in which the data collected by the war ships of the two nations were taken (Secs. 210, 212, 213), that such data were their principal source of information; but it is contended that the observations of seals, reported by the vessels, do not sustain the assumed density and distribution of seal life in Bering Sea which is made to appear by the charts above referred to. In support of these denials the United States produce the copies of the data relied upon, compiled from the seal logs of the British cruisers by the British Commis relied upon. logs of the American vessels. relied upon. sioners, and by their courtesy furnished to this Principal data Government, and the data compiled from the seal The attention of the Arbitrators is particularly directed to the area of sea between the Pribilof and Commander Islands, the extent covered by the cruises in that section, and the number of seals there observed. in Bering Sea in The United States also present in support of Chart of cruises their contention on this question a chart showing 1892. the cruises of American vessels in Bering Sea during the summer of 1892, which vessels made particular observations as to the density and locality of seals in Bering Sea. This chart is compiled by the Navy Department of the United States from the logs of the American Bering Sea squadron on file in that Department, and it demonstrates how completely the sea areas about the Pribilof Islands were covered by the observations of 1892. 1892. The United States also present in support of Sealing chart, their position on this question a chart, compiled from the seal logs of said vessels, kept in the same manner as those of 1891 by each vessel of the squadron, which chart shows the num Charts of cruises and seals seen, 1891, Nos. 1 and 2. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Counter Case of the United States. 2 Chart of cruises, 1892. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Counter Case of the United States. 1892. Sealing chart, ber of seals seen, the locality where observed, and the date of the observations. A comparison of this chart with the sealing chart submitted with the Case of the United States,2 the charts giving the data from which the British Commissioners drew their inferences, and the chart showing the cruises of the American squadron in 1892, demonstrates conclusively the lack of evidence to sustain the Commissioners' assertion, and shows that the assumed distribution of seals in Bering Sea, exhibited by charts Nos. II, III, and IV of the Report, is unwarranted and misleading. It may also be noted that the Commissioners in chart II make it appear that the - Commander and Robben Island seals intermingle; this is, however, specifically denied by Mr. Grebnitzki, the Russian official so often quoted in the Report. 6 5 Seal Chart, 1892. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Counter Case of United States. Sealing chart. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Case of the United States. No. 4. 3 Charts of cruises and seals seen 1891, Nos. 1 and 2. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Counter Case of the United States 4 Chart of cruises, 1892. Portfolio of maps and charts appended to Counter Case of United States. 5 See also Capt. Hooper's investigations in 1892 as to range of Pribilof seal herd in Bering Sea. Report September 6, 1892, post p. 216. 6 Post p. 363. Mr. Grebnitzki, the Russian military chief on the Commander Islands, is so often cited by the British Commissioners that the attention of the Arbitrators is particularly directed to his statements, hereto appended, post pp. 362–367. 2. The alleged promiscuous nursing of pups by female seals. nursing denied. The United States deny that the statements Promiscuous made in the Report, in support of the assertion that a cow will nurse pups other than her own, are based on evidence sufficient to establish the facts alleged. Elliott and Bryant as authorities The two most prominent authorities relied on in the Report are Mr. Henry W. Elliott and in the Report. Capt. Charles Bryant, the former being quoted over fifty times in the first one hundred and fortyfive pages, and the latter forty times in the same space. Yet the opinions of these two observers are to the contrary on this point; and, while their opinions are taken without reservation on all points favorable to the conclusions of the Commissioners, they are, in respect to this question, characterized as a "theory" (Secs. 320, 322, 323) and "not proven" (Sec. 321).1 for her young. The Report attempts to disparage Mr. Elliott's Cow's affection opinion by quoting him to the effect that the female seems to possess no natural affection for her offspring (Sec. 322), but fails to state that Sir F. McCoy, F. R. S., also quoted in this connection (Sec. 324), publishes, in his article referred to in the Report, a letter from an in See also N. A. Grebnitzki, post p. 366; Dampier's statement, Report, Sec. 848. |