A STATEMENT

SUBMITTED IN RE

THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA

TO THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

a

BY

HENRY W. ELLIOTT

DECEMBER 15, 1913

TO SUPPLEMENT AND COMPLETE THE REPORT AND
EXHIBITS OF THE SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPART-
MENT OF COMMERCE UPON THE CONDITION OF THE
FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA AND THE CONDUCT OF
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS,
AS ORDERED BY THE COMMITTEE JUNE 20, 1913

PL
A

WASHINGTON
1918

Dy ORD,
JAN 7 1914

SH 3%)

CMe
ha\ae

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

Wasuineton, D.C., December 15, 1913.

Hon. Joun H. RorHEerMEL,
Chairman Committee on Expenditures
In the Department of Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: I wish to submit for the information and the use of
your committee a carefully prepared statement of the facts which
bear upon the commercial ruin and near extinction of our fur-seal
herd of Alaska.

I believe that a statement which shall authoritatively cover the
causes of that destruction of this fine public property and the true
relation which the lessees of the seal islands and certain sworn
public officials and others have to that ruin of the same will be of
value to your committee.

I therefore inclose this statement herewith, duly addressed to the
committee and yourself.

Very respectfully, yours, Henry W. Ex.iorr.

3

= Fea Vaan lA FO 3

te r vy

STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN RE THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF
ALASKA,

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CoMMITTEE: I desire to
submit for your consideration a concise statement of facts, showing
the history and condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and the con-
nection of the officers and stockholders of the North American
Commercial Co., as lessees, and the officials of the United States
Government and others therewith since 1890 to date.

It is first in order to shvw how and why the fur-seal herd of
Alaska has been commercially destroyed and ruined as an asset of
value to the Government ever since 1890; I will lead by giving you a
brief but carefully studied statement of the reasons why this herd
has been reduced so as to be at the verge of complete extinction
when the act of August 24, 1912, prevented that end.

By order of this committee, a careful survey of the herd was made
by Mr. Gallagher and myself last July. We have given you in our
report of August 31 last an account in detail of its condition.

The condition of this herd as we found it last July on its breeding
rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska, is
one of complete commercial ru and of near extinction of virile
breeding male life.

Happily the act of August 24, 1912, prevents any repetition of the
deadly killing of young male seals for the next five years on the islands,
and makes it unnecessary to call upon Congress for any further
legislation in the premises until the lapse of this close time thus
provided for.

It now becomes in order to clearly show how and why this herd
of 4,700,000 seals in 1874 has been so managed by our own agents
as to bring it to the pitiful limit of less than 1,500 breeding bulls in
1913, as contrasted with 90,000 in 1874—with less than 30,000 non-
breeding seals—yearlings and males, 2, 3, 4, 5, and up to 6 years
old, against 1,250,000 of them in 1874, and less than 80,000 breeding
cows as against 1,633,000 of them in 1874.

It is an easy exhibition of cause which I am to give you, as follows:

I. The fur seal by its law of life breeds but once a year, and then
during one short period of that year only, viz, between July 4 and 25.

II. This makes its order of life entirely different fromcattle, sheep,
horses, and swine, with which it has been erroneously contrasted by
ignorant or scheming ‘naturalists,’ who have at great length
declared it to be similar, when in fact it is utterly and irreconcilably
different.

Ill. That two weeks of the year (between July 4—25) in which all
of the cows land, give birth to their young (a single pup), and are
impregnated for another 12 months of gestation, is now admitted to
be the “height of the season’’ by every observer who has had several
seasons of personal study of the question on the rookeries. <A few

5

6 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

seals are born as early as June 16-24—a few are born as late as
August 1-5, annually—but these are the natural exceptions to the
rule of their lives. ‘The fact remains that the breeding of these seals
is all begun and finished practically between July 4-20 annually—i. e.
nine-tenths of it.

IV. This fact determined, then it becomes clear to the investigator
that the breeding males which serve these breeding cows in that short
period, annually, and only then, should be the very finest of the
species, and—

(a) That they should not be overtaxed by having too many cows
in their harems at that period aforesaid, and—

(6) That this natural selection ordered by their law of life, which
enables only the finest of their kind to get into the rookeries as sires,
should never be interfered with by man—

(c) Who himself can not make that selection, as he can of the best
bulls, rams, stallions, and boars for his herds and flocks in domes-
tication.

V. To make this natural selection of the very finest sires for the
herd, these seals are born equal in number, males and females. The
male becomes mature and begins to breed when 6 years old—never
any earlier, and—

(a) The female becomes mature and receives her first impregnation
as a ‘‘nubile”’ on the rookery when she is 2 years old. This—

(6) Brings the female in as a breeder and requiring service four
years ahead of the male; and that—

(c) Seems to make the natural ltfe of the male from 15 to 18 years
and that of the female less, or from 10 to 12 years (reasoning by
analogy).

VI. The breeding males arrive on the rookery grounds from three to
six weeks in advance of the females; their habit is to locate thereon,
at intervals of 7 to 10 feet apart; these locations being made by
those bulls which can successfully fight for and hold their location
when obtained, and—

(a) This fighting between the bulls, which is done by them three
to six weeks before the cows come, eliminates all of the weaker or
nerveless bulls before the breeding begms, and—

(b) So secures for the cows only the very finest sires for the race,
without any injury to the females or the pups durmg the breeding
season, since—

(c) This fighting for those harem stations aforesaid entirely sub-
sides when the cows begin to haul out; and—

(d) This location of the breeding bulls in a normal and natural
state brings to each bull about 15 or 20 cows to serve, on an average,
throughout the whole rookery (a few bulls will have harems of 40 or
50 and a few will only have 4 or 5, perhaps, but the natural normal
average in 1874 was about 20 cows to a bull on the big rookeries).

VII. Any disturbance or interference with this natural order and
adjustment of these laws of breeding as set forth above will throw
the same out of balance and effect, and thus cause the birth rate
on the rookeries to become less and less annually, as long as this
interference is continued, up to the point of complete extinction of
the species, if it is not discontinued.

With the above statements of fact clearly in mind, when we turn
to view the conditions of the Pribilof fur seal herd as it was plain to

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. q

see last July, we found that this herd consisted of 80,000 breeding
cows, with only about 750 to 800 breeding bulls in real service on
the rookeries; the reason for that loss of perfect balance was at
once looked up. That one bull should have four times the strain
devolved upon him as a sire, which the natural law of his life orders
him to endure, is the cause of just concern for the future of this
species if it is to contimue; for that continuation means more and
more strain added annually until the harems will show 200, 250, yes,
500 to 1,000 cows to the bull, as they have been shown to the greedy
Russian agents in 1896; and, soon thereafter, their herd collapsed.

What was and is the cause of this practical extinction of the virile
male life on the breeding grounds of the Pribilof Islands ?

It is due wholly to the killing of all the young male seals that the
lessees could annually find on the islands, first begun in 1896, in
violation of regulations or the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, and
then continued up to 1904, when the Hitchcock rules of May 1 were
published, but ancl the lessees nullified completely by 1906, and
continued to do so to the end of their lease, May 1, 1910.

A plain statement of the facts which were given to Mr. F. H.
Hitchcock, chief clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
and upon which he ordered the ‘‘Hitchcock rules” of 1904, is of
interest at this point, to wit: On January 8, 1904, I gave him the fol-
lowing analysis of the reason why he must step in at once and check
that close killing of all the young male seals which his agents then
were permitting the lessees to take or face the complete extinction
of the breeding male life on the islands by 1907 or 1908:

On the seal island rookeries of St. Paul and St. George there were
(I wrote thus)—

In 1872-1874 there were some 90,000 breeding bulls and 1,250,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 1,125,000 pups.

In 1890 this herd was reduced to some 14,000 breeding bulls and about 420,000
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 380,000 pups.

In 1896 this herd was still further reduced to some 5,000 bulls and about 144,000
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 130,000 pups.

In 1903 this herd is reduced to some 2,200 bulls and about 75,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 68,000 pups.

These 2,200 breeding bulls of 1903 are the survivors of those young males which
were spared in 1890 and by the modus vivendi of 1891-1893, and thus allowed to
grow up to the age of 6 years, and then take their places in 1894, 1895, and 1896 on
the rookeries as 6 and 7 year old “seecatchie.’’

In 1894 and in 1895 a few hundred 4-year-olds may have escaped the club on the
killing grounds and thus came in as 6-year-olds in 1896 and 1897.

But in 1896 no 3-year-old seal was passed over the killing grounds which was not
killed in 1897 as a 4-year-old.

And in 1897 and 1898 no 3-year-old seal escaped the killer’s club, except to die on
the killing grounds as a 4-year-old in 1898 and 1899,

And in 1899 no 2-vear-old seal was permitted to escape on these grounds unless to
die as a 3-year-old in 1900.

And in 1900 no well-grown yearling seal was spared on these slaughter fields ex-
cept to perish as a 2-year-old in 1901.

And in 1901 every yearling that came ashore was taken, and if a few escaped they
met the club in 1902 sure, as 2-year-olds.

And in 1902 every young male seal that landed was taken, so that out of 22,199,
16,875 were “long’’ and average yearlings, or “5-pound’’ or “eyeplaster’’ skins.

In this clear light of the close killing of the young male life as given above, it will
he observed that no young or fresh male blood has been permitted to mature and
reach the breeding grounds since 1896.

The average life of a breeding bull is from 15 to 18 years; he does not keep his
place longer for good and obvious reasons. The youngest bulls to-day upon that

8 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

breeding ground are not less than 12 years old—most of them older. They are now
rapidly dying of old age—witness the following:

An official report in 1902 declares that these breeding bulls had decreased in num-
ber from 1901 to the end of 1902 at least 25 per cent.

An official report in 1903 again declares a decrease from 1902 to the end of this
season (1903) of 17 per cent; 42 per cent since 1901,
_ The close of the season of 1904 will show at least 20 per cent reduction again; and
in 1905 again 20 per cent at least, to entirely cease by 1907 unless steps are taken at
once to stop the run on this life by land (and sea killing) clubbing in 1904 of the
choice young male seals, yearlings and upward, to the end of the season of 1906—
stop it entirely. :

These facts of biological truth and improper violation of license to
kill on the islands, as above, were bitterly disputed by Dr. David
Starr Jordan and his “‘scientists,’’ who, as hi associates of the Jordan-
Thompson Commission in 1896-1898, all united in denying them. But
Mr. Hitchcock was impressed with the truth and sense of my state-
ment, and issued the orders, or ‘‘ Hitchcock rules,”’ which checked up
that close killing I complained of, May 1, 1904.

Then what happened? On the 26th of October, 1905, the very
men who, in 1904, had united with Dr. Jordan and his “scientists,”
Stejneger, Lucas, and Townsend, confessed in an elaborate report
that I was right—that these regulations of Hitchcock’s order had
been made just in time to save the breeding life of the rookeries from
ruin at the hands of the lessees. Witness the following:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, October 26, 1905.

Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905:

cS * ** * * * *

There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that,
by reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken up before the usual period and
bachelors were able to haul among the cows.

This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from
the breeding grounds by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired
to haul at all, only on the bachelor’s hauling ground.

This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rook-
eries generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the
cows that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls
been sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred.

* * * *£ * * *

A stop was made at Polovina on our way from Northeast Point on the 21st, and
Messrs. Judge and Redpath and myself visited that 1ookery. We were not able to
verify our assumption with regard to this rookery. By reason of the flatness of the
approach to it, only the rearmost harems could be inspected, and those only with
caution, lest the cows be stampeded. While we found six 2-year old bachelors in
two small harems at the rear, we found also the harem formations to be much better
preserved than at Hutchinson Hill. The bulls seemed active in preventing the
escape of the cows and in rounding them up into their harems.

The fact, however, remains that only 3 idle bulls were found on this rookery at the
height of the season. That the bulls present with cows were still able to maintain
their harems on the 21st is more a tribute to their vitality than proof that enough
adult males were present.

* #* * * * * *

As I was taking photographs of the rookeries, I went ahead to make the necessary
exposures before the formation of the cows should be disturbed by the counting of
the harems. Mr. Judge followed with two natives and made the count. He stated
that the bulls were practically docile and that no trouble was experienced in pene-
trating the mass of seals. He stated, also, that in his opinion the bulls were taxed to
such an extent as to have virtually lost control of the breeding grounds, and that this

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 9

was the reason for their unusual amiability. He noted also that a great proportion of
the supposed cows scattered about were bachelors.
* * * * * # *

The result of these regulations can not be felt before 1907, as has in effect been stated.
During the interval which must elapse before that time a steady decrease in bulls will
be encountered. The closest killing on land occurred during the seasons of 1902 and
1903. In the latter season the lessees released from the drives on St. Paul only 983
small seals. This practical annihilation of bachelors for this year will be felt on the
rookeries four years thereafter, or in 1907.

LIMIT TO PROCREATIVE POWER OF BULLS.

Much has been said of the wonderful procreative power of bulls, and the theory has
been advanced that a bull can serve without discomfort as many cows as he is able to
get and hold.

Our experience this summer has convinced us that there is a limit to a bull’s capacity
and that the bulls on.the rookeries at the height of the season had come nearer to
reaching it than ever before to our knowledge. When it was possible on July 138 to
penetrate the mass of breeding seals on the Reef, and on July 14 that on Zapaduni,
meeting with no more opposition than could be met successfully by two men armed
with light poles, it must be believed that the bulls at these places were taxed to such
a limit as to be shorn of most of their aggressiveness. On July 16 Mr. Judge with two
men went through the mass under Hutchinson Hill on the plateau near the shore line,
and experienced but little trouble. To have done this five years ago with the same
mass would have been impossible.

¥* es * * = * *

The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from
which not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain
the requisite proportion of bulls.

For the last two years, however, regulations have been in force on the islands as the
result of which a considerable number of bachelors are exempted from killing and
allowed to escape. The animals thus saved are not old enough to appear upon the
rookeries. It will be necessary for two more years to elapse before the animals may be
counted upon. From that time, however, with the continuance of the regulations,
it is believed that an ample supply of bulls will be present.

PRESENT REGULATIONS SHOULD BE CONTINUED.

Since it appears that a scarcity of bulls is threatened on the islands, and, in fact,
has occurred actually on several of the rookery spaces on St. Paul, any change in the
present regulations looking to a lessening of the restrictions placed on killing on the
islands would be wholly unwise.

Respectfully,
W. I. LEMBKEY,
Agent in Charge Seal Islands,
The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

So much for Mr. Lembkey in 1905. Did he continue these regu-
lations in 1906, which he says above are absolutely necessary to be
so continued? No! I had the following to say to your committee
July 30, 1912, to wit:

Now, what has become of that ‘‘64-pound” 3-year-old limit by which he has sworn
he ‘“‘saved the 3-year-olds” in June and July, to be again ‘‘saved” by him as such in
the autumn following by having this maximum limit of ‘‘64 pounds” put on the
taking of any ‘‘food skins”? Why, they are all killed.

Mr. Mappen. How many people are there on the islands?

Mr. Extiorr. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are
all killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of ‘‘84 pounds”’!
He thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very
rules of the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce.

The Hitchcock rules ordered a ‘‘permanent mark” to be put upon these reserved
seals, ‘‘and under no circumstances are they to be taken,’”’ etc. Why was it not
done? The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated
Lembkey as above—they got them.

10

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

How was that manipulation by Lembkey, in turn, done, so as to

get those ‘‘reserved”’ seals.

deceit:

I submit the following exposé of the

THE LESSEES SUBORN LEMBKEY AND THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, AND

THEN SECURE ALL OF THE ‘‘ RESERVED”
SWORN STATEMENTS

VIOLATION OF THE

OR ‘‘SPARED’’ SEALS, IN
OF THE LATTER.

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

Lembkey declares that a 64-
pound limit to food skins is or-
dered by the bureau, and that
saves the ‘‘reserved”’ seals from
subsequent killing by the lessees.

Mr. Exurotr. Now, Mr. Chairman, in
the matter of the nullification of the
Hitchcock rules, with this evidence duly
considered by your committee of the
illegal killing of those yearlings seals in
1910 (and that evidence of this guilt ap-
plies to every season’s work on the Pribi-
lof Islands ever since 1890 down to May
1, 1910), I desire to present the following
testimony, which declares that ever since
May 1, 1904, when the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules”
were first ordered by the Department of
Commerce and Labor, those rules have
been systematically and flagrantly vio-
lated by the agents of this department
who were specially sworn to obey and
enforce them.

On February 4, 1911, Chief Special
Agent Lembkey was ‘introduced by
Secretary Charles Nagel to the United
States Senate Committee on Conserva-
tion of National Resources, and during
his examination by that committee he
made the following statement, to wit, on
page 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959,
February 4, 1911, Committee on Con-
servation of ‘National Resources):

Dr. Hornapay. How many ‘‘short 2-
year-olds” were killed last year?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not understand
your term. No seals under 2 years old,
to my knowledge, were killed.

Dr. Hornapay. What would be the
age of the smallest yearlings taken?

Mr. Lempxey. Two-year-olds rarely, if
any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday,
that a great difference of opinion exists
between Mr. Elliott and the remaining
people who understand this situation.
There is a great gulf between their
opinions, and it can never be reconciled
on the question of the weights of skins of
2-year-olds.

Prof. Exzrorr. I will present my in-
formation in a moment.

Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight
is what?

Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds. During
food drives made by the natives, when

But the official instructions of
the bureau declare that that 64-
pound limit has been raised to
8$ pounds, and that Lembkey
has killed all seals having skins
under that limit.

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]

Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals —No seals
shall be killed having skin weighing less
than 5 pounds nor more than 83 pounds.
Skins weighing mroe than 84 pounds shall
not be shipped from the islands, but shall
be held there subject to such instructions
as may be furnished you hereafter by the
department. Skins weighing less than
5 pounds shall not be shipped from the
islands, unless, in your judgment, the
number thereof is so smail as to justity
the belief that they have been taken only
through unavoidable accident, mistake,
or error in judgment.

Sec. 10. Seals for food —The number of
seals to be killed by the natives for food
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906,
shall not exceed 1, 700 on the island of
St. Paul and 500 on the island of St.
George, subject to the same limitations
and restrictions as apply to the killing
of seals by the company for the quota.
Care should be taken that no branded
seals be killed in the drives for food.

[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.]
Identical with instructions of 1906.
[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908.]
Identical with instructions of 1907.
[Instructions issued Mar. 27, 1909.]

Sec. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions for 1906, 1907, and 1908, ex-
cept in addition is added ‘“The maximum
weight for food skins shall not exceed 7
pounds.”’

[Instructions issued May 9, 1910.]

Sec. 11. Seals for food—Driving for na-
tives’ food should not begin before Octo-
ber 20, and care should be exercised at
that date that the skins of seals killed be
no ‘‘stagey”’ to a degree that would im-
pair the commercial value of the skin.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

the seals killed are limited to 64 pounds,
in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds
branded during the summer, you under-
stand the natives do kill down a little
more closely than our regulations allow,
for the reason that they need the meat,
and since they have to exclude all these
fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they go for
the little fellows a little more closely.

The CHarrMAN. How many seals were
killed last year for food by the natives?

Mr. Lempxey. The limit was 2,500.
Speaking offhand, I think about 2 ,300
were killed.

Q. Were any females killed?—A. No,
sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated,
I carefully interrogated these two gentle-
men who had charge of this killing, and
they stated that to their knowledge no
female was killed.

Q. What class of males were killed by
by the natives for food?—A. Under 64
pounds

(Hearing No. 14, p. 907, puly 25, 1912,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C.& L )

Lembkey swears that he an-
nually reserves from slaughter
1,000 3-year old male seals, be
fore any killing is done, for the
season in June.

Mr. Lempxey. Before any killing was
done this summer, as has been the practice
for some years past following the bureau’s
instructions, 1,000 of the choicest 3-year-
olds appearing in the first drives of the
season were reserved for future breeders
and marked by shearing their heads, so as
to render their subsequent recognition
during the season an easy matter. These
seals; thus marked, were immune from
clubbing and were not killed. These
3-year- -old seals the following year became
4-year-olds, the killing of which class in
general is prohibited. Only after the
1,000 3-year-olds, known as the breeding
reserve, is secured and marked does the
killing of seals for skins begin. The kill-
ing is confined only to the 2 and 3-year-
old immature males not required for pur-
poses of reproduction. To obtain these,
the breeding rookeries are not disturbed,
but the bachelors hauling grounds on
either island were driven every fifth or
sixth day if seals-were found thereon in
sufficient numbers to justify driving.
The killing season begins on July 1 and
ends July 31, but one drive is always
made subsequently on August 10 to fur-
nish the natives with fresh meat during a
portion of the so-called ‘‘stagey’’ season
(when the seals shed their hair), which
begins August 10 and ends October 20,

iia §

Drives for food should be made not oftener
than the needs of the natives in that re-
spectrequire. Drives for food on rookeries
remote from the villages should not be
made unless the carcasses actually are
necessary for natives’ food or for food for
foxes, or for some other sound reason,
and in any event, care should be taken
to preserve for future use the carcasses of
such seals as are not immediately d’s-
posed of. The number of seals to be
killed for natives’ food for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1910, should not ex-
ceed 1,700 on St. Paul and 500 on St.
George. No female seal or seal having a
skin weighing under 5 pounds cr more
than 7 pounds shall be killed during the
so-called ‘‘food - killing season.” “Care
shall be taken that no reserved or marked
bachelors be killed in the drives for food
or at any other time.

{Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.]

Identical with instructions of 1910.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 483-486, April,
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

But Clark reports that these
reserved seals of June are all killed
as food seals in October following
or in the following spring.

3. The reserve of bachelors —Beginning
with the season of 1904, there has been set
aside each spring a special breeding re-
serve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years
of age. These animals have been marked
by clipping the head with sheep shears,
giving them a whitish mark readily dis-
tinguishing them to the clubbers. They
are carefully exempted on the killing
field and released.

This method of creating a breeding re-
serve seems open to considerable criti-
cism, and has apparently been only mod-
erately successful. The mark put upon
the animal is a temporary one. The fur
is replaced during the fall and winter, and
the following spring the marked seals can
not be recognized. The animals being 2
and 3 years of age are still killable the
next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the
second season. A new lot of 2,000 is
clipped the next season, and these are
carefully exempted, but, except in so far
as animals of the previous season’s mark-
ing are reclipped, they have no protection
the second season, and without doubt are
killed.

If such is not the case, it is difficult to
understand what becomes of them. The
annual reservation from 1904 to 1907, both
seasons included, would aggregate 8,000
animals. These animals would be of ages
ranging from 8 to 5 years thisseason. The

r2 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

and during which no killing is done.— _ only animals present in 1909 which could
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 362, 363, Feb. 29, have resulted from this reservation were
1912. House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and the 513 idle and half bulls. Even if we
Labor.) assume that they have in the meantime
replaced the entire stock of breeding bulls,
this would account for only 1,900 of them,
and the active bulls were for the most
part of a distinctly older class.—(Report
G. A. Clark to Secretary Nagel, Sept. 30,
1909, p.847, Appendix A, House Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.)

Were these regulations continued? No. Assoon as Mr. Hitchcock
was promoted to the Postmaster General’s office in 1905 a person
named EH. W. Sims, “‘solicitor” of the department, was put in charge
of the fur-seal business, and then this same Mr. Lembkey was pre-
vailed upon to nullify the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules,” so that in 1906 the
lessees secured every young male seal that hauled out, over, and
under 1 year of age and upward.

This close killing was continued on the islands up to the passage of
the act of August 24, 1912, which stops it completely for five years.

And this close killing since 1896, when first ordered, has been done
in violation of the regulations forbidding it, up to date, and is re-
sponsible for this wreck of the herd as we find it to-day.

What is the loss which the public Treasury has suffered since 1896
by reason of that violation of law and regulations then and since (i. e.,
reduced to a matter of dollars and cents)? I answer as follows:

I. This excessive close killing of the young males has so disturbed
the balance of natural order and the system of the breeding rookeries
that instead of having a herd of 1,000,000 seals on them to-day we ‘
have only 190,555.

il. Had it not been for the work of the pelagic sealer since 1896
to December 15, 1911, the harems on the islands to-day would be at
the ratio of 250 to 500 cows (yes, even 1,000) to 1 bull, and that
would have fairly destroyed the species by 1907-1909.

III. Therefore this killing so close and in violation of the regula-
tions since 1896 to date has cost us the loss of over 120,000 seals taken
in flagrant, criminal trespass by the lessees and in violation of their
contract; but it has also cost us vastly more in the loss of the earning
power of this herd, which should have been, and would have been,
properly conserved had it not been for the greedy interference of
these private interests when foreign governments were approached
with negotiations for the elimination of pelagic sealing and all private
interests in the killing of seals on land and in the sea.

IV. The sum total of loss actually suffered by the public Treasury
through this combination between the lessees and our own agents
and officials may be summed up fairly as follows, to wit:

To loss of 120,000 ‘‘yearlings,”’ (or ‘‘eyeplaster” skins), at $30......------ $3, 600, 000
To loss of annual earnings of a fully restored herd (as it would have been

had it not been for interference of lessees in 1890-91), of 4,700,000 seals
from 1897 to 1913—16 years’ output of 60,000 prime skins annually. . -- - - 48, 000, 000

Mopalloss ess ate Ses, NA eae Les orci Su eee Ne PET er Toe ener 51, 600, 000

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 13

Or, in short, and to be nearly exact, we have lost $3,600,000 by
criminal trespass of lessees since 1896, and fully $48,000,000 by
improper interference of lessees and others with negotiations which,
but for them, would have been successfully consummated in 1891-92,
and the herd fully restored by 1897.

The following illustration of loss suffered on the rookeries and the
hauling grounds of St. Paul Island holds good for the smaller sister
island of St. George:

The acreage of the breeding rookeries on St. Paul Island in 1872-
1874, when there were 1,500,000 breeding cows and 90,000 bulls
thereon, was 144 acres.

The acreage of the hauling grounds of St. Paul Island in 1872-
1874, when at least 1,500,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old
males were out on them intermittently during the season, was
3,200 acres,

In 1890 this acreage of the breeding rookeries was reduced to
one-third of 1874, or to 46 acres.

In 1890 the hauling grounds of 1872-1874 were practically aban-
doned, because there were less than 100,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
6 year old males out on them. The entire area then visited by the
holluschickie was not more than one-tenth of the breeding grounds
in 1890, or 5 acres.

In 1913 this acreage of the breeding seals had decreased from its
form in 1890 at least five-sixths, or to 74 acres.

In 1913 the hauling grounds of 1890 were about half the same
area as then, with less than 40,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year
old males, or to 3 acres.

The object in view which has stimulated this destruction, as above
shown, is in turn exposed to view, as follows:

Statement of the net profits of the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska from 1870 to 1910,
inclusive. From items gathered during the seasons of 1872-738, 1874, 1876, 1890, to
date. July 29, 1910, by Henry W. Elliott.

PROFITS OF FIRST LESSEES, ALASKA COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.

(First lease.)

1870-1890 (20 years): Total catch, 1,856,224 seals; of these when

taken during the seasons of 1870-1878, 1884, and 1885, inclusive,

the catches aggregated 969,374 seals; the average price per skin

realized in London for them was nearly $11.20 per skin, or........ $10, 746, 989. 80
The balance when taken during tle seasons of 1879-1883 and 1886—

1889, the catches aggregated 886,850 seals; t! e average price realized

in London for them was nearly $18.50 per skin, or................ 16, 407, 225. 00

BuO waneis Prods cimn Lota) Ofis | sioner Siege ate st ey dS eee 27, 153, 514. 80
From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $4.524 as incurred
by tle lessees for tax, rental, and other charges incidental, must
HemMpikacyed” of the sumone) «Mec se A ee aE 8, 399, 603. 60

Weclamae anet: prot, et ooet- ppas Foxes - aor ds coe wo hecwin cee 18, 753, 911. 20

PROFITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FROM THIS WORK OF THE LESSEES, AS
ABOVE STATED.

Gross revenue derived from said catch of 1,856,224 seals, each skin

paying a tax of $3.17 (tax, rental, and bonus).................----- $5, 894, 230. 08
Less cost of supervision, patrol, and protection of the seal herds from

1889-1890, 21 years, inclusive, was an average of $30,000, or in round

MAMAS LS STORE hale Olle paieo l= hoe = creator a wd cede eed 630, 000. 00

Declaring a net profit to the Government of..........-...---- 5, 264, 230. 08

14 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

PROFITS OF THE NORTH AMERIACN COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO.

(Second lease.)

1890-1910 (20 years): Total catch, 343,365 seals. With the exception of the sea-
sons of 1894-1898, inclusive, the average price has been $28 per skin; the highest
average was in 1890, when it went to $36.50 (due to all ‘‘prime skins”), and the low-
est was in 1897, when it fell to $15.50; the last sale, 1909, was $30 and made up of
“small pup” or ‘‘eyeplaster”’ skins chiefly.

This record of the second lease declares that its aggregated catch of

343. 365) skims sold an! Momdonickory yas me ane sche ce ep ea $9, 614, 222. 00
From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $13.45 for tax, rental,

and other incidental charges must be subtracted, or the sum of..... 4, 637, 646. 00

Declarme/a net proit OFAise. eae es See ee eee i 4, 976, 574. 00

Profit of the United States Government from this work of the lessees

as stated above, derived from said catch of 343,365 seals, each skin

Dayne a tax renital-ramd bo muisrottlOs2 2am see ost ype 3, 509, 190. 30
Less cost of patrol, supervision, and protection of this seal herd from

1889 to May 1, 1910, 20 years, at an average cost from start to finish of

250. OOOVarim ellie: ees nl oss Ry Ve ee SIN Ae Baie cash cep Aa Sosa oye 5, 000, 000. 00

Meclarine a net loss Ole wea en eel es Ge ee ne eae eee 1, 491, 809. 70

This in brief is the loss fairly and conservatively stated, which the
Public Treasury has suffered by the mismanagement of our fur-seal
herd of Alaska since 1890-91 to date:

I have this to say anent that remarkable combination which has
been made in Washington, on the seal islands, and elsewhere to loot
and ruin this fine public property.

Whenever facts were courteously given to Secretary Nagel and his
associates, these men either denounced the action as an “imperti-
nence” and ‘“‘meddlesome”’ or ignored them.

Of course this is the natural result of a partnership between the
Government and private business interests. Such a partnership is a
close corporation, into which no one else has a right to intrude.

To oppose the wishes of this combination, to question the facts
upon which it relies, to suggest that any others, or the people have .
any rights that ought to be considered, even to seek for information
outside this circle of the interests involved by the lease, all this was
very ‘‘tiresome”’ and ‘“‘impertinent.”’

The men on the inside, Liebes, Mills, Jordan, Elkins, Clark, Lemb-
key, Bowers, et al., had made up their minds that certain things must
be true, and all they wanted was that ‘‘evidence” which “ proved”
their theory; they furnished the ‘‘ evidence.”

They did not want the truth as it actually exists, but the “truth”
only in so far as it conformed to their preconceived ideas of what it
should be.

With the foregoing statements carefully made, I now desire to
submit the several items of fact which bear directly on the effect of
killing yearling seals as has been done by the lessees and our own
agents and others, upon the life of the fur-seal herd, and this show-
ing I arrange as

EXHIBIT I.

In Exhibit III, following, are the itemized lists of more than 120,000
yearling seals which have been taken by the lessees since 1896, on
the Pribilof Islands, in criminal trespass.

The sole object of prohibiting the killing of yearlings by law and
regulations was and is to prevent the killing of female seals, since
the sex cf seals can not be told apart when as yearlings they haul
out upon the islands. The yearling female is precisely of the same
size, shape, and outward appearance and behavior, frcm every point
of view, as is the male yearling. Unless she is caught and ex-
amined by eur hand her sex can not be told truly by us or by any
human being—only guessed wildly.

Therefore, as tt is utterly impracticable to capture, examine, and
separate the male and female yearlings on the hauling grounds or
killing grounds, the killing of them as a class has been prohibited
and wisely ordered, since this class is easily recognized on the slaugh-
tering field. ;

In spite of this prohibition, when the numbers of 2 and 3 year
old male seals as secured ran down year after year to zero, the lessees
in order to get the full number allowed them of 2 and 3 year old seals,
entered into a combination with the agents of the Government
and slaughtered the yearlings by the tens of thousands; but falsi-
fied that work to the Government, declaring that no seals had been
taken under 2 years of age since 1896. The details of this malfea-
sance and fraud on the part of the Government agents and the lessees
are fully given in Exhibit III (pcsted).

In order that an adequate idea may be fc rmed of what the loss
to the herd is when female yearlings are killed (and half of the 120,000
yearlings taken since 1896 were females), the following table of
mcrease which 4,500 slaughtered yearling cows in 1896 would have
brought to the herd is given, to wit:

Table showing the natural increase of 4,500 yearling cows from 1896 to 1909 if they had
been suffered to live undisturbed on the Pribilof rookeries.

: P ‘ Two- Three- Four-
Year. eacune Pups. aeetune vein year-old | year-old | year-old Remarks.
i 5 og males. males. males.
UN IOe sacle gates | 2 == <a 6 LG DDN bake. pia Bae fa rnc eae a Lage ai el Dar eT
1897 UES (bee re tS eel eee eee ea fas rie Meuse owe eth 8 no Nee go
1898. . 4,327 A, Sod emeeaecel |e Sete reytis| Sericcnix soe) qanreatecs! sce cones
1899 4,241 4,241 1,031 SOS LEE poate Mletsan.c odes | ok nett te
1900 5, 238 4,157 1,001 1,001 DQ Os | ee eee rac | eee oe le
1901 6,106 5, 136 1,010 1,010 1,000 GOOn a8 Ree
1902 6, 997 5, 984 1, 250 1, 250 1,000 1,000 840
1903 8,143 6, 859 1, 450 1, 450 1,350 980 850 | The 5-year and 6-year
1904 9,477 7, 981 1, 700 1,700 1,650 1,294 800 old bulls are not car-
1905 11,073 9,369 1,990 1,990 1,800 1,500 1,000 ried in this table,
1906 12, 846 10, 851 2,342 2,342 2,250 1, 760 1, 200 which is to express
1907 14, 912 12,590 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,200 1,500 the loss in value of
1908 17,324 14, 614 3s 3, 000 2, 850 2,600 2,000 commercial skins; all
1909 20, 225 16, 978 3, 600 3, 600 2,940 2,750 2,250 male skins over 4
years have no real
commercial value.

15

16 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The above exhibit declares that by 1909, or in 12 years’ time from
their initial or first impregnation, July, 1897, these 4,500 yearling
cows of July, 1896, would have increased five fold—to 20,225 breeding »
adult females and to 16,978 pups born July, 1909, to 3,600 yearling
cows of 1909 to 3,600 yearling bulls of 1909, to 2,940 2 year old bulls
of 1909, to 2,750 3-year-old bulls of 1909, and to 2,250 4-year-old bulls
of 1909, being the increase of 4,500 yearling cows to 52,348 seals in
12 years—from 1897 to 1909.

When Lembkey and the lessees killed yearlings, they knew that
they were females after they had killed them and that they could
not tell the sex until after they had killed them. In his report, 1904,
page 55, Appendix A, Lembkey says: ‘One yearling was killed by
me during the summer to determine the weight of that class of skins.
The entire animal—a female * * * .” Agaim im his repors
he tells us that the yearling females are in the drives with the yearling
males, and that he killed one to ascertain its weight and sex (p. 77,
Appendix A), to wit: “On July 1, there were three yearling seals in
the drives at North East Point. One of them, a typical specimen,
was knocked down at my direction to ascertain the weight of the
skin. It was found to beafemale * * * .”

Dr. Jordan also knew that the yearlings hauled out males and
females together, and that they could not be told apart as to sex by
outward survey unless caught and handled. He is officially recorded
as follows in that connection:

St. Pauts Isnanp,
Saturday, August 1, 1896.

Dr. Jordan, assisted by the natives * * * drove up part of one and two year old
seals from the Reef Rookery: they were examined with a view to determining whether
or not yearling seals were to be found among these young bachelors. It is now con-
ceded that yearling females do not haul out on the rookeries but among the hollus-
chickie.”’ (Official Journal Government Agent, St. Pauls Island, Alaska, p. 465.)

These 128,000 yearlings which were taken by ‘criminal trespass”
between 1890-1909 were so taken in violation of law and regulations
and by collusion with certain public agents, who had guilty knowledge
of this work.

One-half of this number of yearlings by the natural law of their
birth were female seals, which were to become nubile mother seals
one year later, and which as such would each live from 10 to 12 years,
bearing annually one pup during that period of their lives.

Therefore this killing by criminal trespass and in guilty knowledge
of these 60,000 yearling cows has cost the Government the full value
of that annual increment to the seal herd which those cow seals would
have made since 1896, plus that increase in turn which their offspring
would have made, and so on in turn annually up to the season of 1912.

Upon a basis of calculating that particular loss from this single
killing of those 4,500 yearling cows in 1896, for example, thus suffered
by the Public Treasury, we find that this loss from a systematic killing
of yearlings which was begun by the lessees, in violation of the Car-
lisle rules of May 14, 1896, in June-July, 1896 (and continued by them
up to the end of their lease in 1909), to be fairly stated as follows:

We start with 4,500 yearling cows which were killed in 1896; in
1897, if not so killed, they would have returned less 2 per cent of that
number from natural death rate, or as 4,415 two-year-old cows; they g°
directly to the breeding grounds and are there impregnated for the
first time as ‘‘ nubiles.”

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 17

In 1898 they return again as 3-year-old cows, or “primipares,”’
less 2 per cent of their number from natural death rate, or 4,327 new
cows, and each one bears one pup. They are again served and leave.

In 1899 they return again, less 2 per cent from natural death rate,
or as 4,241 ‘“‘multipares,” and bear their (le dy of them. In
the meantime the 4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned to the haul-
ing grounds as “yearlings,” less 50 per cent of their number, or 2,163
of them.

In 1900 these cows return again, less 2 per cent natural death rate
or 4,157 of them, and bear 4,157 pups; their number is now increased
by the ‘‘nubiles,” or their own daughters, which come out with them
as 2-year-old cows from the yearlings of 1899, or 1,000 ‘‘nubiles,’’
making 5,238 cows as breeders this year.

In 1901 these cows return exactly as in 1900, bear their pups, and
are again ingreased in numbers by the ‘‘nubiles,”’ or ‘‘yearlings,’’ of
1900, making 6,106 cows as breeders this year; in the meantime the
4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned, less 50 per cent of their num-
ber in 1899, as 2,163 ‘‘yearlings,” and in 1900 these ‘‘yearlings”’ have
returned, less 2 per cent of their number from natural death rate, as
2-year-olds; one-half of them being females are ‘‘nubiles”’ (1,030 of
them), and have gone upon the breeding grounds, never to be on the
hauling grounds again, with the young males.

The foregoing table, showing the annual increase of those 4,500
yearling cows if not disturbed by man on the islands and in the sea,
declares the fact that from 1896 to 1909 that that single killing of
4,500 yearling cows in 1896, in violation of the Carlisle rules, actually
caused the loss of 20,225 adult female seals and 20,000 2-year-old
male seals from the herd’s total life.

Upon this basis of fact, in calculating the actual loss to the Public
Treasury from the effect of taking 60,000 yearling cows from the
Pribilof Island seal herd between 1890-1909, in criminal trespass by
the lessees, it appears that—

I. That that killing of 60,000 yearling cows has had the full effect
of taking 200,000 choice 2-year-old male seals from the Pribilof herd
between 1890-1909, and it has also destroyed 200,225 adult breeding
cow seals, or, summed up—

II. A property loss of 400,000 seals; the value of their skins is not
less than $20,000,000, to say nothing about the loss of the annual
earning capacity. Then Elliott having charged the killing of these

oung yearling seals, males and females alike, Lembkey deplared that
it could not be so, since all the killing was done under his direction by
the natives, who never made any mistake about the age of seals when
they were killing them. Lembkey testified, January 25, 1907, to the
Ways and Means Committee (MS. Notes, Hearing on Fur Seals, p.58):

Mr. Lempxey. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the clubbers on the islands are
expert in their business and they can determine the weight of a skin on a live seal to
within a fraction of a pound.

Mr. GrosvENor. That’s all I wanted to know.

Mr. Lemsxey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance.

The seal island natives, in a sworn statement made to the agents
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce, on St. Pauls Island, July 24, 1913, declared that they not
only knew seals by ages, but that when they killed them they knew

21588—13——2

18 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

it then, and that in 1896 they first began to kill yearling seals for the
lessees under the orders of the lessees and the Government agents.
(See Exhibit D, Report Special Agents, House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the Department of Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.)

The following proof is submitted that the pups are born equal in
number as to sex, and that brings them as ‘‘yearlings” onto the
islands males and females alike entirely as to numbers, outward
shape, coats, size, and weights, as seen when driven and killed:

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Friday, June 2, 1911.

The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.

Mr. Exxrotr. Now, Mr. Chairman, how do we know that yearlings are females and
males equal in sex? How do we know, when we kill yearlings, that we are apt to kill
as many females as males without examining them? How do we prove it? I prove
it in this way first, and it has been affirmed even by this ‘‘advisory board.’’ I said
in 1881, in my official monograph, that from my calculations, in round numbers, a
million pups are born every year on these islands.

Mr. McGuire. When was this?

Mr. Exxiorr. In 1874 that I prepared it, but it was published officially in 1881.
They have been carefully elaborated by the Government. That a million pups are
born every year on these islands, and of this million one-half are males. How did I
know that? In November, 1872, I stood over a killing of these pups, which were then
44 to 5 months old, which was allowed by the Treasury Department for ‘‘native’s
food” [and that has been allowed for some time by the Russians], and just before these
pups were departing for the winter, and the solitude of winter was to come over the
islands, there being no birds, or fish, or anything, the natives wanted some choice
food to hang up, some meat, and as the pups are the sweetest and most toothsome
seal meat, they naturally desired pup meat. So they killed in the autumn, under my
eyes, several squads, altogether some 10,000 pups; but I tallied 9,000 pups between
November 15 and November 25, 1872, at St. Pauls village. of which 4,800 were males.
The “‘advisory board,” represented by Mr. F. A. Lucas, in 1897, addressed me a note
saying: ;

“Dear Mr. Eviiorr: Can you give me the exact number of pups you counted for
sex and the proportion of males and females? Looking over my own notes makes
me wish to quote you exactly.

(CP, Avda@@ase?

IT sent him this memorandum:
[Memorandum for Lucas.]

“Nine thousand pups driven November 15-25, 1872, 1,670 tallied by myself, 855
of which were males; the rest tallied by Church; average weight 39 pounds; some
as high as 50 pounds and some as low as 28 pounds.”’

Then I received another note from Mr. Lucas, as follows:

‘‘Derar Mr. Eviiotr: Your figures on pups came in finely and make it certain that
there is a small preponderance of males; our figures were, males, 388; females, 362—
a total of 750, not far from yours.

‘CRAY Trocsige?

That was a pretty close tally; you see I was right, and that I knew what I was about.
I also penned this memorandum, which was made on that pup-weighing day:

“St. Paun Istanp, BnRInG SHA,
““ November 20, 1872.

“A pup, average weight of 4,800 fur-seal pups, as tallied November 20, 1872, deter-
minéd on the killing grounds, average gross weight 39 pounds, thus: Clean skin,
2 pounds 11 ounces; all the blubber, 14 pounds; tendons, flesh, and flippers, 14
pounds and 5 ounces; bones and intestines, 7 pounds and 8 ounces—a total of 38
pounds and 8 ounces—”’

Or a weight of practically 39 pounds for a pup that was 44 to 5 months old. (Hear-
ing No. 1, pp. 25, 26.)

EXHIBIT II. AN EXHIBIT OF THE FACTS WHICH SHOW US
THE SOLE FIRST CAUSE OF THAT COMMERCIAL RUIN OF
OUR FUR-SEAL HERD WHICH WE NOW OBSERVE ON THE
PRIBILOF ISLANDS.

If it were not for these records elaborately and systematically made
on those desolate hauling grounds, which I published in 1874 and 1890,
it would be fairly impossible to get an adequate idea of what an im-
mense herd of fur sa was in existence at the time and when we took
possession of Alaska in 1867.

Then, when that idea is grasped, and it is made clear that ever since
1857, up to the hour of 1867 when the herd became ours, this wild
life had remained at about a steady annual number of 4,700,000 seals
of all classes, we ask, What have we done to reduce it, so by this year
of 1913, all that we find surviving of it are only 190,555 seals of all
classes ?

Why did we lose this herd, when the Russians easily kept it from
1857 to 1867 in that fine form and number ?

The answer is made easy in the light of the following facts:

I. It is a fact of indisputable record, that the Russians never killed
or disturbed the female seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St.
George Island, from start to finish of their possession of them.

II. It is a fact of indisputable record, that from 1786-87 up to 1800
the Russians annually took from 120,000 to 60,000 young male, and
yearling seals from these hauling grounds; and durimg all that time
never took any seals at sea, nor were these seals taken at sea by any
other people save the few annually secured by the northwest coast
Indians.

III. It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians, beginning
in 1800 with an annual catch of 40,000 young male seals and year-
lings, by 1817 had the greatest difficulty in getting that number then;
and notes of protest against the killing on the islands were sent to
Sitka by the caretaker, Kazean Shaishnikov, of St. Pauls Island,
urging the governor of the R. A. Co. to rest the seals from killing for
a term of years. No pelagic sealing was known to the Russians
during this period of any kind.

IV. It is a fact of indisputable record that while the protest of
Shaishnikov was noticed favorably by the governor, yet the direc-
tors of the R. A. Co. at St. Petersburg did not consent; that they
renewed their orders to kill and sent one of their number, Gen. Yah-
novsky, out from St. Petersburg in 1818 to the seal islands, charged
with the business of examining into the cause of this loss of surplus
male life on the islands.

V. It is a fact of indisputable record that Yahnovsky in 1820,
after spending the entire season of 1819 on the Pribilof hauling
grounds and rookeries, made a confidential, detailed report which
declared that this immense decline in the life of the fur-seal herd was
due entirely to the annual killing of all of the young male seals and

19

20 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

yearlings which the drivers of the company could secure; he urged a
complete cessation of it for a term of years.

VI. It is a fact of indisputable record that this request of Gen.
Yahnovsky was ignored by the directors, and the orders to get all of
the young male seals and yearlings were annually renewed; and

VII. It is a fact of indisputable record that at the end of the season
of 1834 instead of getting 20,000 holluschickie they secured with the
‘atmost exertion’? only 12,000 ‘‘small’”’ (yearling) seals; and that
with the end of this season’s work the herd was so reduced that. the
directors were obliged to order a 10 years’ rest to all commercial kill-
ing on the islands, which went into effect in the summer of 1834, and
was faithfully enforced; so that by 1844 commercial killing was re-
sumed of a relatively small number, beginning with 10,000 to 13,000,
increasing gradually annually up to 1857, when this herd yielded
that year 62,000 ‘‘choice young male” seals, and the herd itself had
regained its natural and normal maximum number, viz, from 4,500,000
to 5,000,000 seals of all classes.

VIII. It is a fact that during all this period of decline and restora-
tion of the Russian herd from 1800 to 1857 there was nothing known
of or hinted at which is now so well known as ‘‘pelagic sealing.”

TX. It is a fact that when we took possession of the herd we
leased them to a corporation, with a permit to take annually 100,000
young male seals, or 40,000 more every year than had been the
average number taken by the Russian management since 1857.

X. It is a fact of indisputable record that by 1883 our lessees had
great difficulty in getting their quota this year of 100,000 ‘‘prime”
3 and 4 year old skins; that they began to scour the hauling grounds
for them and increased the rigor of that search and driving annually
thereafter.

XI. It is a fact of indisputable record that up to this time of first
difficulty since 1870 of getting annually 100,000 fine young male seals
no pelagic sealing of the slightest consequence was in operation.
Only six or seven small vessels, busy for a few weeks in the year off the
Straits of Fuca and west coast of Vancouver Island, had appeared in
the sea up to the opening of the season of 1886.

1. Therefore in the light, as above clearly and fairly thrown by ~
these records of past experience, we now know that the Pribilof herd -
was reduced to the very same commercial ruin by 1834 which we now
find our herd reduced to in 1913.

2. And that this ruin of 1834, and again in 1913, was caused by the
very same close killing annually of all the young male seals and year-
lings that could be secured by the greedy Russian contractors and by
our lessees. ;

3. And that the Russians to save and restore the herd were com-
pelled to stop this excessive and improper killing in 1834 and suspend
any commercial killing on the islands for 10 years thereafter, or up to
1844-1846.

4. And that the experiment of annually taking 100,000 choice,
young male seals since 1870 up to 1890 by our lessees, as against the
habit of taking 60,000 annually by the Russian lessees, was a bad
one; and that this number of 100,000 “surplus male seals’”’ was an
excessive and destructive killing, which has led to a complete elimi-
nation of the breeding male life of the herd, as we see it to day, and
which policy if continued will surely exterminate the species itself.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. reat

I now reach in due order a very serious question which involves the
intelligence and the honor of Dr. David Starr Jordan, who, as the
chairman of the commission of 1896-7, visited the seal islands and
lee to the United States Government upon the condition of
this life.

In this report Dr. Jordan has deliberately falsified the authentic
Russian records, which-declared to him as they declare to us the
fact that female seals were never killed by the Russian authorities
on the seal islands of Alaska—never from start to finish of their
régime.

DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN’ RECORD IN RE
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS.

Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian killing
of seals from the time the old Russian-American Co. took charge
of the Pribilof herd in 1800, up to the day we received it from them
in 1867, never permitted the killing of female seals. He, with that
full knowledge in his possession, after holding it for nearly two years,
has the following untruthful statement to finally report under date
of February 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of this work of killing
seals by the Russian management of the herd, to wit:

On page 25, Fur Seal Investigations, Part 1, 1898, under head of
“The company’s management,”’ he says:

At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian-American Co. put a
stop to the ruthless slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction

* * * They still continued to kill males and females alike. The injury to the
herd naturally continued * * *.

That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial
of the only authority which he has used and knows, is hard to
believe, when on page 222 following, of this same report above cited,
part 3, appears the following translation of Bishop Veniaminov’s
account of this killing, which was originally published in St. Peters-
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit:

The taking of fur seals commences in the latter days of September * * *. The
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. e., 2 years and older) having been removed, the
others are divided into small squads, and are carefully driven to the place where
they are to be killed, sometimes more than 10 versts distance * * *. When
brought to the killing grounds, they are rested for an hour or more, according to
circumstances, and then killed with aclub * * *. Of those 1 year old, the males
= ae from the females, and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the

each.

Here is the explicit clear-cut statement made by Veniaminor, who,
writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Paul Island, denies Dr.
Jordan’s assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd.

And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted was made
by Leonhard Stejneger, one of Dr. Jordan’s own associates on the seal
islands in 1896-97.

There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises.
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is ee stated
by the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan’s final
report, and correctly translated, as above cited.

22; FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page
25 Jordan’s own statement is:

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the imperial Government, after an inspection of the
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and
leaving only the adults as breeders. He writes: ‘“‘If any of the young breeders are
not killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring.”

Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor-
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in
his mouth. Witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky:

In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky in giving an account
of his inspection of the operations on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, observes
that every year the young bachelor seals are killed and that only the cows, seekatchie,
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species. It follows that only the old seals
are left, while if any of the bachelors are left alive in the autumn they are sure to be
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration: Letter No. 6; p. 58, Mar. 15, 1821.)

Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a “‘scientist”’
like Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr. Jordan attempt to deceive
his Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the
herd between 1800-1837? Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily
brought up to confound him ?

He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified this
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and ruin of that
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official
report to our Government dated February 24, 1898, and published
by the Secretary of the Treasury in January, 1898, under title of
‘Fur Seal Investigations,” parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898.

Why does Dr. Jordan substitute the word ‘“‘breeders”’ for Yanov-
sky’s word “bachelors” in his quotation from that Russian agent?
Because a ‘breeder’? must be either a male or a female seal and
“breeders”? must be both male and female seals—the very idea that
Yanovsky clearly denies—the idea of killing female seals. He
denies it clearly by saying that the “‘young bachelors” are killed,
and they only. .

This substitution of ‘‘breeders’”’ for ‘‘bachelors” by Jordan is a
guilty attempt to conceal the truth as told by Yanovsky, and plainly
told by that Russian.

At this point, and with special regard to the killing of yearling seals,
Dr. Jordan, in 1909, when the charges were being put up to him that
those young seals were being taken in violation of law and to the
injury of the herd, made no denial himself, but urged Secretary Nagel

to send his own associate and assistant, George A. Clark, up to islands
to investigate and report upon.the charges, etc. (See Appendix A,
pp- 815, 816; June 24, 1911, House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

In this connection I now ask the committee to observe the following
record of that report and its result, to wit:

On April 26, 1909, Henry W. Elliott addressed a detailed letter of
specific charges to Secretary Charles Nagel, declaring that the agents
of the Government, in collusion with the lessees, were killing yearling
seals in open, flagrant violation of the law and regulations.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

23

Mr. Nagel made no answer to Mr. Elhott, but on May 7, 1909, he
selected and appointed George A. Clark as an agent of the department
to proceed to and investigate these charges on the seal islands of
Alaska (said Clark being urged for this work by Dr. Jordan).

On September 30, 1909, Clark filed an elaborate report and con-
firmed Elliott’s charges in re killing yearlings without any qualifica-
tion, thus; and I contrast it with that of his associate, Lembkey, up
there in 1909, who denies the same, to wit:

LEMBKEY, UNDER OATH, DECLARES THAT
HE DOES NOT KILL YEARLING SEALS—
AND NEVER HAS.

CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF Com-

MERCE AND LasBor, HOUSE OF

3 REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., Thursday,
February 29, 1912.

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m.,
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.

Testimony of Walter I. Lembkey, agent
Alaska Seal Fisheries, Bureau of Fish-
eries, Department of Commerce and
Labor.

. Mr. Lempxey. Our killing is confined
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively.
The seals which they desire to kill are
dispatched at once by means of a blow on
the top of the head with a heavy club, and
the seal struck is rendered unconscious
immediately, if not killed outright.

Briefly, Mr. Elliott has accused those
charged with the management of the seal
fisheries with malfeasance in office in
that—

1. They have allowed the killing of
thousands of yearling seals.

Mr. McGitiicuppy. What do you calla
yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that
is 12 months old and no more?

Mr. Lempxey. A yearling seal, in the
island nomenclature, is a seal which has
returned to the islands from its first
migration.

Mr. McGruicuppy. It may be more
than 12 months old then?

Mr. Lemspxey. It may be more, it may
be a trifle less.

Mr. McGinuicuppy. How much more
than 12 months could it be?

Mr. Lempxey. It could not be but a
little more, because all these seals are
born during a period of three weeks, gen-
erally speaking, from the 25th of June to
the 15th of July. Now, they return to
the islands in a mass about the 25th of
July.

Mr. Mappen. Ii they were killed it
would be a violation of law.

BUT CLARK, SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF
SECRETARY NAGEL, REPORTS THE KILL-
ING OF YEARLINGS BY LEMBKEY AND
LESSEES!

The yearlings of both sexes for the sea-
son must number about 12,000 each.

This question of the proportion of the
sexes surviving to killable and breeding
age is a fundamental one. It could be
settled in a very few seasons by such regu-
lation of killing for the quota as would
limit it to animals of 3 years of age and
over, leaving the 2-year-olds untouched.
The quota would then fall where it be-
longs, on the 3-year-olds, and give a close
approximation of the survivals among the
young males, which in turn could be ap-
plied to the young females. This was the
method used in 1896-97, when a minimum
of 6 pounds in weight of skins prevailed.
During the present season and for some
seasons past a minimum of 5 pounds has
been in force, the skins taken ranging in
weight all the way from 4 to 14} pounds,
bringing all classes of animals from year-
lings to 4-year-olds into the quota.

The result of this manner of killing is
that we have no clear idea from the quota
of the number of younger animals belong-
ing to the herd. From the irregularity of
the movements of the vearlings of both
sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can
not be counted or otherwise accurately
estimated on the rookeries. (Report of
George A. Clark to Secretary Charles Nagel,
Sept. 30, 1909 (suppressed Nov. 17, 1909).
See pp. 850-851, Appendix A, June 24,
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. & L.)

24. FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. Lempxeny. It would; if the reeu-
lations permitted it, however, it would be
in accordance with existing law.

It should be remembered also that the
law does not prohibit the killing of any
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age,
although regulations of the department
do prohibit the killing of anything less
than 2 years old, or those seals which have
returned to the islands from their second
migration. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 360, 371,

.372, Feb. 29-Mar. 1, 1912.)

We now come to the point in Secretary Nagel’s agent’s report
where Mr. Nagel is specifically and clearly told that the lessees are
taking yearling seals—are taking everything that comes into the
drives—taking these little seals just as Klhott has charged they were
taken on April 26, 1909, and taking them in open, flagrant violation
of the law and regulations. The following description of that illegal
and injurious slaughter is given to Mr. Nagel, September 30, 1909,
and Mr. Secretary Nagel shut his eyes to it, and presumed to deny it
to the Senate and House committees, February 4 and May 31, 1911,
to wit:

July 23.—Attended the killing at Northeast Point and looked over the rookeries
again after the drive. There are 5 harems to-day on the west side of Sea Lion Neck
where only 3 were found on the 14th.

* * * * * * *

The killing at the point this morning yielded 475 skins. The total number of
animals driven was 712. Of these, 136 were shaved heads; 48 were rejected because
too big, 53 because too little. Out of the 712 animals, therefore, only 53, or 74 per
cent, are available for next year’s quota.

With this may be compared a killing made at Northeast Point in 1897. The total
number killed was 1,322. The full drive numbered 3,869. There were no shaved
heads. Of the 2,547 exempted from killing, 500 were too large, 2,047 too small. The
2,047 small seals, or 55 per cent of the whole drive, were left for the quota of 1898.
Contrast with this the 74 per cent left for the quota of 1910.

A killing was made at Halfway Point as usual on the return trip. It yielded 32 skins.
Fifteen animals—young bulls—too large for killing and 9 shaved heads were exempted,
but no small seals whatever. As the end of the killing season approaches it is plain
that no seal is really too small to be killed. Skins of less than 5 pounds weight are
taken and also skins of 8and 9 pounds. These latter are plainly animals which escaped
the killing of last year because their heads were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem
clear how they did escape.

July 24.—A killing was made this morning from Reef and Lukanin. ‘Tolstoi has
ceased to yield any bachelors. The killing yielded 685 skins; 135 shaved heads
were turned back. The total number of animals driven was 941. Of the remaining
exemptions, 81 were too big for killing, 40 too little. In short, only slightly over
4 per cent of the animals driven were left for the quota of 1910. The actual percent-
age killed was 72. If weadd the number of killable size marked for breeding reserve,
135, the percentage of killable seals in this drive rises to 87 percent. Ina drive made
from these same rookeries on this date in 1897 the percentage of killable seals was 23.
(Report of Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909; Appendix A, pp. 887-888; House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911.)

Then again, this same agent of Secretary Nagel, and expert, as
above cited, George A. Clark (also Dr. Jordan’s assistant), says in a
letter to W. T. Hornaday, dated August 26, 1911, that the lessees
killed yearlmgs in 1909, and “defends” the act. He sends a copy
to the Hon. J. H. Rothermel, and asks that it be “brought to the
attention of your committee,” under date of August 28, 1911. In

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 25

it occur the following statements in re killing yearling seals (1909),
to wit:

Aside from this I approved rather than objected to the close killing * * * in
1909. It was a wise business policy in that season and in the seasons immediately
preceding and following to take every possible male on which the North American
Commercial Co. would pay the tax of $10, and it must not be forgotten that the lessees
paid this tax on every animal taken by them whether yearling or 3-year-old.

I criticized the close killing ef the season of 1909 on two specific grounds. First,
that it is economically wasteful to kill at 2 or 1 year old an animal which at 3 will
produce a larger and a betterskin. Second, that the lapping of the quota over the 3-
year-olds tended to obscure an important scientific fact in the life of the herd which
ought to be solved, and which I had hoped to throw some light upon. I objected to
the killing of the younger seals upon these grounds only, and recommended that
the killing be confined to the age of 3 years.

This shows that the killing of yearlings which Secretary Nagel
denies in his letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones, February 23, 1911, was
well known to and stated to Nagel by his own special investigator,
George A. Clark, who was sent by him in 1909 to report upon this
killing, and who did so report under date of September 30, 1909;
his report appears to have been suppressed by Bowers (with Nagel’s
consent), and as stated on pages 82-84, Report of Elliott and Gal-
lagher, agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce (Aug. 31, 1913).

IN PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND KILLING BY THE LESSEES HAS
BEEN INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT PROPER RESTRAINT, THE FOLLOW-
ING RECORD IS MADE, TO WIT (BY SECRETARY NAGEL’S OWN SPECIAL
AGENT, SEPT. 30, 1909):

In 1896, Dr. Jordan and his assistant, George A. Clark, made an
elaborate denial of the charge that excessive killing or too close
killing of the young male seals had injured and if continued would
exterminate the herd. (Pp. 33-36, Report, 1896: Treasury Doc.,
1913.) In this argument they united in saying:

In all these regards (i. e., as to killing seals) the interests of the lessees of the islands
must be identical with those of the herd itself and therefore with those of the Govy-
ernment of the United States.

George A. Clark, sent up in 1909 by Secretary Charles Nagel, and
at Dr. Jordan’s urgent request, to make an investigation into the
condition of the herd, after the effect of 13 years’ killing by the
lessees as licensed in 1896, by Dr. Jordan, has this to say, as against
the above, anent the interests of the lessees. (Report, 1909: Ap-
pendix A, p. 854.)

The history of the killing field since 1900 strongly suggests the wisdom of reserving
to the Government in the future more complete control of work of taking the
quota. The interests of the lessees and those of the herd are by no means identical,
and the latter are paramount.

It is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a guiding and controlling
hand is shown. In 1896-97 the Government agents ordered the drives. This season
they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for
breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they
could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing
on the hauling grounds.

* * * * * * *
A diminished breeding reserve has therefore been possible. But we must consider

a reversed condition of things, if pelagic sealing is to be done away with. The herd
will then begin to grow. It will require a constantly increasing reserve of breeding

26 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

males, which must be saved from the killing fields. A leasing company will be just
as eager to get all possible skins and will press the product of the hauling grounds,
rising all too slowly, to its limit unless restrained.

ky With a fixed legal quota, and a limited time in which to secure it from a
failing herd, there naturally results close, severe driving. In the eagerness to see that
no possible bachelor escapes, the edges of the rookies are encroached upon and cows
included in the drives. Fifty of them appeared in drives toward the close of this
season. <A drive that can not be made without including cows should be omitted.
A drive which appears on the killing field with 15 to 20 cows in it should be released
rather than incur the danger of clubbing any such cow by mistake. There should be
some one in charge of the herd with power and discretion to do this. With a limited
killing season, however, this would be unfair to the lessees. There should also be
power and discretion to waive the limit and extend the time of killing if necessary.

There has been on the killing grounds since 1900 a constant struggle on the part of
the leasing company in the closing years of its concession to get every possible skin
from the declining herd. Its work has been aided by a high arbitrary legal quota and
by a lowered minimum weight of skin, enabling it to gradually anticipate the quotas
of succeeding years by killing younger animals. As a result there has occurred in
these years probably the closest killing to which the herd has ever been subjected.
Aside from the diminished supply of male life on the breeding grounds in 1904, this
is shown in the fact that though the herd has declined two-thirds in size, the quota has
never fallen more than one-third in size as compared with that of 1897.

Opposed to this struggle of the lessees has been the counter struggle of the Govern-
ment’s representatives to rescue a breeding reserve. Fortunately it has been suc-
cessful.

The yearlings of both sexes for the season must number about 12,000 each.

This question of the proportion of the sexe: surviving to killable and breeding age
isafundamentalone. * * * During the present season and for some seasons past
a minimum of 5 pounds has been in force and skins taken ranging in weight all the
way from 4 to 144 pounds, bringing all classes of animals from yearlings to 4-year-olds
into the quota.

The result of this manner of killing is that we have no clear idea from the quota of
the number of younger animals belonging to the herd. From the irregularity of the
movements of the yearlines of both sexes, and the 2-year-old cows, they can not be
counted or otherwise accurately estimated on the rookeries. (Report of the special
investigation ordered by Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor; filed Sept.
30, 1909, by Geo. A. Clark, pp. 850-851, 866, Appendix A, June 24,1911. House Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

For this change in 1909, from serving the lessees in 1896, Clark’s
report was suppressed, and edited by the lessees’ men, Bowers and
Lembkey, thus, November 17, 1909:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BuREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, November 17, 1909.
Mr. W. I. LemBKey,
Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C.

Str: Assuming that you have read and carefully considered the fur-seal report
recently made by Mr. George A. Clark, who visited the islands during the past summer,
I desire that you prepare a statement of your views regarding the report, particularly
with reference to such data and conclusions contained therein as do not agree with
your understanding of the facts and conditions.

Kindly let me have this statement in form convenient for use at the conference of
the advisory board next Tuesday.

Respectfully, GEO. M. Bowers,
Commissioner.

This baneful result of Dr. Jordan’s work in 1896-97, which was to
assert positively that no killing by the lessees had been at fault or
was the cause of the decline of the fur-seal herd or would be, is thus
au admitted by his own man, in 1909—this man, Geo. A.
Clark.

Leading up to this killing without any restraint (as stated truly
by Clark) in 1896, and contimued to 1909, by the lessees, is the fol-
lowing inside light on the cause and warrant which permitted that

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 27

illegal work to be eagerly and energetically prosecuted by both
lessees and agents of the Government concerned, to wit:
WasuHinecTon, D. C., September 25, 1900.

It is understood in this year’s catch there is a much larger number than usual of
2-year-olds; the officials are very anxious that the young males in the herd should
be weeded out as closely as possible, and as has been stated. * * * The depart-
ment would be glad if a way could be found to induce the lessees to lall a considerable
number of the 5-year-old bulls. (Fur Trade Review: New York City, October,
1900, p. 513.)

This utterly absurd and untruthful statement being made to con-
ceal the truth that during this very season of 1900, there were so few
2-year-olds and 3-year-olds, and still fewer 4-year-olds, with no
5-year-olds left, that the lessees had issued orders to get every year-
ling seal that hauled out, every one save the ‘‘runts” (. e., the
‘Hix. Ex>Sm. Pups’’).

Then, to soberly and boldly come into the presence of the House
committee, and swear that no yearlings had ever been killed, from
May 31, 1911, untu the truth had been forced out of them April 13,
1912, was the business of Secretary Charles Nagel and his entire
staff of fur-seal officials and ‘‘experts.”’

PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF UNLAWFUL TAKING OF YEARLING
SEALSKINS, 1896-1912.

That Charles Nagel, Geo. M. Bowers, Barton W. Evermann, Dr.
David Starr Jordan, Geo. A. Clark, and the entire fur-seal service
under their control had full and authoritative knowledge of the real
weights of one, two, three, four, five, and six year old sealskins
when fresh removed and properly skinned forsalt curing, is well proven
by the following facts of official record in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, when they prosecuted and directed the killing of fur
seals on the Pribilof Islands during the seasons of 1909, 1910, 1911,
1912, and 1913, to wit:

I. On April 17, 1874, Congress passed an act, which was approved
on the 22d following, entitled ‘‘An act to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury to gather authentic information in regard to the condition
of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and for other purposes,’’ etc.

II. In obedience to the order of this act the Secretary appointed
and instructed a special agent charged with that duty; his report was
rendered to the Secretary November 16 following, and the Secretary,
in June, 1875, published it as the accepted and fully established
authority on all questions regarding the fur-seal herd and the con-
duct of the public business on the seal islands of Alaska. This
official publication is entitled ‘‘A Report Upon the Condition of Af-
fairs in the Territory of Alaska: November 16, 1874. S8vo. pp. 277.
Washington. Government Printing Office. 1875. By Henry W.
Elhott, special agent Treasury Department.”

This was printed, and bound in cloth beards, and distributed by
the department to all of its customs agents on the Pacific coast and in
Alaska, on the seal islands, and very generally to the customs agents
of the department in Washington, D. C., New England, New York, and
Baltimore.

28 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

III. On page 150 of this publication is the following table of the
measurements and weights of fur seals, one, two, three, four, five, and
six years old, and of their skins when removed from their bodies:

Table showing the weight, size, and growth of the fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), from the
pup to the adult, male and female.

Gross F
Age. Length. | Girth. |weight of Welt Remarks.
body. | of skin.
Inches. Inches. | Pounds. | Pownds.
lewoekvons bios. 12-14 10-104 6-74 1; | A male and female, being the only ones of the
class handled, June 20, 1873.
6 Months.-......- 24 25 39 3 | A mean of 10 examples, males and females,
alike in size, Nov. 28, 1872.
Lear ec ae eee 38 25 39 43 | A mean of 6 examples, males and females,
alike in size, July 14, 1873.
2 VAS eaten cle 45 30 58 53 | A mean of 30 examples, all males, July 24,1873.
Unicel Sbsae cones 5. 52 36 87 7 | Amean of 32 examples,all males, July 24, 1873.
WVCars- soc -ee04- 58 42 135 12 | A mean of 10examples,all males, July 24, 1873.
biyears- 23.2514 65 52 200 16 , A mean of 5 examples, all males, July 24, 1873.
BiVears tees sch aes 72 64 280 25 | Amean of 3examples,all males, July 24, 1873.
8 to 20 years. .... 75-80 70-75 | 400-500 45-50 | Anestimate only, calculating on their weight
when fat, and early in the season.

On May 31, 1911, Mr. Henry W. Elliott made the following sworn
statement to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce and Labor (Hearing No. 1, pp. 12, 13, House Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. & Labor), to wit (Secretary Nagel was present) :

Mr. Exuiorr. I want the committee to understand the part which was taken by
the lessees in 1872, with the Treasury agents, of whom I was one, in fixing an official
standard whereby we could recognize every seal officially reported to the Treasury
Department as it was sold in London, because the London classifications were dif-
ferent from ours as to phraseology.

The London people knew nothing and still know nothing about the age of seals,
and they cared nothing about it. They were interested in the size and the quality.
They ascertained and formed their idea of the skin’s value primarily by its measure-
ment, and, secondly, by its weight. The weight would vary. Sometimes more
salt and blubber are used, and sometimes less. But the measurements were reason-
ably steady and constant. They measure their sealskins. We weighed ours on the
islands. To reconcile those differences, it became very important in 1872 to know
exactly what we were doing on the islands, so that we would understand exactly what
they were doing in London when they sold them. I want the committee to fix this
in their minds, because the whole thing turns on this proposition. I said to the
superintendent, ‘‘Why do you kill all those big seals? Do they ask you to kill all
the big seals and let all these smaller seals go? Why don’t you take them all?” He
said, ‘‘They do not want them. They want those large seals. They call them ‘mid-
dlings’ and ‘smalls,’ etc.’’ Then I said, ‘‘Can we not have some arrangement made
whereby we can avoid this culling of the herd? Don’t yousee, Dr. McIntyre, ina short
time, if this is kept up, that no good male seal will ever get past your firing line to
go onto the breeding rookeries?”” He said, ‘‘Oh, yes, Brother Elliott, but just look
at them out there—millions of them. You do not need to worry about that.’’

Well, I admitted that there was no need to worry then, but I said to my associ-
ates: ‘‘Gentlemen, we have got to have some understanding when we officially report
to our Government what the grades of these seals are which the lessees are killing,
80 we can trace the record of their work from the islands to London and back again.
Let us get together now and form a complete agreement as to what constitutes the
skin of a ‘yearling’ seal, the skin of a ‘2-year-old,’ and a ‘3-year-old,’ and a ‘4-year-
old, a ‘5-year-old,’ and so on.’’ We worked over that thing through the whole sea-
son of 1872. That was something that these men took hold of with a great deal of
pleasure. We renewed this discussion, comparison, and study on the skin weights,
ages, etc., of the seals in 1873. Mr. McIntyre went to London and got the weights
and measurements of aset of skins, which he took over as samples, of 1, 2, 3, 4, and
5 year olds. He brought them back to us with the stamp on them as ‘‘small pups,”’
and so on. So there was no doubt of what we were doing. Officially, we had no

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 29

business with the sale or nomenclature of the skins in London. So, therefore, we
eliminated that from our report, and we spoke of the settled standard on the islands;
that they killed ‘‘prime,”’ or ‘‘short” skins or ‘‘7-pound” or ‘‘6-pound” skins, as
the case might be. We never alluded to them as being ‘‘middlings”’ or ‘‘smalls.’’
We prepared a table, which you will find on page 81 of Special Bulletin No. 176 of
the United States Fish Commission. That is the official publication which was agreed
upon by the four Treasury agents with whom I was associated, the seven agents of
the lessees (who were very much interested, indeed, in what we agreed upon), and
a special commissioner of the United States, Lieut. Commander Washburn Maynard,
United States Navy, who was with me in 1874. In that table you will find that a
~ “vearling”’ seal weighs 44 pounds.

Mr. TownsEeNpD. You mean the pelt or hide?

Mr. Extrotr. Yes; with a small amount of blubber which is attached, varying all]
the way from a quarter of a pound to a pound, as the agent orders it ‘‘loaded.”’

In 1882 the elaborated and final notes of Mr. Elhott’s work of 1874,
published by the Department of the Treasury in 1875, were again
republished by order of the Government in Volume VIII, Tenth
Census, United States of America, and in Special Bulletin No. 176,
The original table, as above, of 1874-75 publicationis on page 46,
Then on page 81 appears the elaboration of those grades of fur which
belong to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old skins, as follows, to wit:

GRADATION OF THE FUR OF CALLORHINUS URSINUS.

The gradation of the fur of Callorhinus may, perhaps, be best presented in the
following manner:

One-year-old male, well grown, at July 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as to
uniform length and thickness and evenness of distribution; it is lighter in color and
softer in texture than hereafter during the life of the animal; average weight of skin
as removed by the sealers from the carcass, 44 pounds.

Two-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length and thickness and uniformity of distribution; it has now attained the
darker buff and fawn color, sometimes almost brown, which it retains throughout the
rest of the life of the animal; it is slightly and perceptibly firmer and stiffer than it
was last year, not being at all “fluffy” as in the yearling dress now; average weight of
skin as taken from the body, 54 pounds.

Three-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length, but a shade jonger over the shoulders, where the incipient “‘wig”’ is
forming; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribution; this is the
very best grade of pelt which the seal affords during its life; average weight of skin,
as taken from the body, 7 pounds.

Four-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length, except a decided advance in length and perceptible stiffness over the
shoulders, in the ‘‘wig”; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribu-
tion; this grade is almost as safe to take and as good as in the 3-year-old; average weight,
of skin, as removed, 12 pounds.

Five-year-old male, well grown, at May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully devel-
oped, but much longer and decidedly coarser in the “wig” region; otherwise uniform
in thickness and distribution; the coarseness of the fur over the shoulders and dispro-
portionate length thereon destroys that uniformity necessary for rating Al in the
market; in fact, it does not pay to take this skin; average weight, 16 pounds.

Six-year-old male, well grown, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully
developed, still longer and stiffer in the “wig” region, with a slightly thinner dis-
tribution over the post-dorsal region, and shorter; this skin is never taken—it is
profitless; average weight, 25 pounds.

Seven-year-old and upward male, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully
developed, but very unevenly distributed, being relatively scant and short over
the posterior dorsal region, while it is twice as long and very coarse in the covering
to the shoulders especially and the neck and chest; skins are valueless to the fur
trade; weight, 45 to 60 pounds.

Then follows, on page 168, same publication, the following recapit-
ulation of the above-cited growth and weights of fur seals.

30 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Table showing the relative growth, weight, etc., of the fur seals.

{Compiled from the field notes of the author, made upon the killing grounds of St. George and St. Paul.]

, F ; 1day |6months.| 1 year 2 years | 3 years
Gr owth of fair average example. cia old. aa va. ora.

Length: !

Callorhinus ursinus (male)..-.--..------ inches..| 12-13 24 38 45 52

Callorhinus ursinus (female).......-.-.--.- do....| 12-13 24 37 42% 48
Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3

Callorhinus ursinus (male).........------- doses 9-103 25 25 30 36
__ Callorhinus ursinus (female).......-..----- dora 9-10 25 25 30 34
Weight (avoirdupois): 4

Callorhinus ursinus (male)....-......-- pounds. . 5- 74 39 40 58 87

Callorhinus ursinus (female).....-....----- dose 5- 7 39 39 56 60

: a ; 4 years | 5 years | 6 years | 7 years | 8 years
Growth of fair average example. Aah old: ld! ort Sh.

Length: 1

Collorhinus ursinus (male)......---..--.- inches. . 58 65 72 75-80 (2)

Collorhinus ursinus (female)......-......-- dozeae 50 C2) Se SSNs Le ees
Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3

Callorhinus ursinus (male).........------- doze 42 S2ultere 64 70-80 80-84
__ Callorhinus ursinus (female)...........---- do...- 36 37 (() ete eee Sate aces ce
Weight (avoirdupois): 4

Callorhinus ursinus (male)....-...------ pounds.. 135 200 | 280-350 | 400-500 500-600

Callorhinus ursinus (female)..........-.--- dose 62 75 (yin else cates ers

1 Direct from tip of nose to root of tail.

2 Ceases.

3 Hight year old citation an estimate only.

4 Seven and 8 year estimates are not based upon actual weights; an opinion merely.

Nortr.—All fur seals, from yearlings to puberty, are termed ‘‘bachelors,’’ or “holluschickie,’’ and :all
male fur seals from the age of 5 years on are termed (‘‘virile’’) bulls, or ‘‘seacatehie.’’ All female
fur seals from 1 year and upward are termed ‘‘cows,” or ‘“‘matkamie’’ (“‘mothers’’). All the young under
yearlings are termed ‘‘pups,”’ or “‘kotiche”’ (“little cats’’).

Since this publication by the Government of the above tables of
fur.seal skin weights in 1875 and 1882, there has been no other
attempt made to do so. There has been no witness before the House
committee who has been able to show that an error of any kind is
published in those tables.

_ The Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, as well as the Carlisle rules of
May 14, 1896, were based upon those records of the weights of fur-
seal skins taken from seals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old.

The attempt made to deny the accuracy of these tables by Nagel’s

confederates, Bowers, Lembkey, Evermann, and Lucas, ended

instantly when those men were put under oath. Bowers declared he
did not know what a yearling skin weighed. Lembkey has admitted
its weight was 44 pounds. He testified as follows:

ae Lempxey. I have taken the weights on the island of all seal skins weighed
there. ’

Mr. Exxiorr. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights?

Mr. Lempxey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there.

Mr. Exxtiotrr. What is the weight of a yearling fur seal skin?

Mr. Lempxey. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up
to 4 or 42 pounds. (Hearing No. 9; p. 435, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

No other member of the advisory board save Lembkey knew what
a yearling seal skin weighed or measured, and all confessed their

ignorance under oath to the committee. (See pp. 914-919; hearing
No. 14, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp., Dept. C. & L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. a1

Therefore when Secretary Straus in 1906, 1907, and 1908, and
Secretary Nagel were plainly and clearly advised of the fact that
their agents and the seal contractors or lessees were busy in violating
the regulations of the Government on the seal islands, and falsely
certifying the illegal catch of yearling male and female seals into
them as “‘the skins of male seals not under 2 years of age,’ it was
their sworn duty to have investigated into that fraud at once.

They did not; they shirked the responsibility; first, as Mr. Straus
did, and who threw it upon an advisory board of “‘scientists,’’ who,
in turn, shamefully failed to do their duty im the premises, and who
also found that Secretary Nagel wanted them to shield those men
who had been guilty of that criminal trespass upon the fur-seal herd
of Alaska. Having found this spirit of Nagel, these scientists weakly
and improperly allowed their names to be used by Nagel as his justi-
fication, or “high scientific’’ authority-for continuing that fraudulent
killing.

Dbeonve the manner in which Charles Nagel uses these ‘‘scientists”’
as “‘experts”’ to justify his ruinous and illegal slaughter of the year-
ling male and female seals annually. When taxed with this crime,
he says to Senator Dixon, Chairman Senate Committee on Conserva-
tion of National Resources:

The CHarrMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. Exuuiorr. Here is something that will interest you, because politicians and
lawyers have a regard for ‘‘scientists” that is really unduly exalted. Most scientists
are not as wise as some people wiser than they are, seem to think they are. Here is
a letter from Secretary Charles Nagel in answer to an inquiry by the Committee on
Conservation of National Resources as to his authority for his work of killing fur seals
on the Pribilof Islands in violation of law and rules, and who puts this killing as done
squarely upon Jordan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al.: ,

(Copy.)

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 14, 1911.

My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing Sen-
ate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled ‘‘An act to protect the seal fisheries of
Alaska, and for other purposes.”’

The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period
of five years from and after the Ist day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your
committee last year I have had some occasion to consider this question with the
result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened.

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it 1s
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number of
female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male
seals killed by the Government. If that be true, one and perhaps the chief argu-
ment which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation.

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso-
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per-
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion.

I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal
killing, namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign countries
as proof of our disinterestedness, and that such a course would serve to promote the
consummation of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of
course, advocate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Depart-
ment that such a course on our part would have the plightest bearing upon pending

32 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

negotiations. I can not undertake to speak upon this phase of the question, but no
doubt that information can be readily obtained from the State Department.

Tam glad to say that the results of the first year’s experience under the law enacted
last year are now at hand. Compared with the amounts received under the contract
system the showing is, I think, a very satisfactory one. At the same time I would
not be understood as saying that.a gain in the receipt of a few hundred thousand dollars
ought to be conclusive in determining the Government’s policy. On the contrary,
I am of the opinion that the primary consideration to have in mind is one of conserva-
tion, namely, the preservation of the herds. If I could believe that the policy which
the Government now pursues in any sense endangers the herds I should advocate
a change. My recommendation with respect to the bill now pending is based upon
the opinion that the Government is now killing only such male seals as may be
regarded as surplus, and that the preservation of the herds is not in any degree affected
by this policy.

If it is proposed to have a hearing upon this bill I respectfully ask that as much
notice as possible be given, so that I may make sure to have present those representa-
tives of the bureau and such members of the boards and commissions as are more
especially conversant with the question.

Very sincerely, yours,
(Signed) CHARLES NAGEL.

Hon. Josera M. Dixon,

United States Senate.

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 914-918, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

What did “those representatives of the bureau and such members
of the boards and commissions,” when put under oath and duly
examined, say ?

Why, each and every one of them, save Lembkey, declared them-
selves totally ignorant of what the killing of a yearling seal meant;
they did not know what its size or its skin weight was; they did not
know what Bowers, Nagel, and Lembkey were doing.

But Lembkey knew—and the truth was extorted from this most
unwilling and shifty and evasive witness under close, determined
cross-examination—Nagel was killing and had been killing yearling
seals, females and males alike, by thousands and tens of thousands
in 1909-10; yes, until checked by the law of August 24, 1912, from
further illegal and ruinous slaughter. ‘

Further proof of the guilty knowledge of the Bureau of Fisheries
and of the advisory board on fur-seal service of the real and proper
weights of sealskins when correctly removed from the bodies of 1,
2, 8, 4, 5, and 6 year old seals, is given in the following letter written
to the President of the United States by Dr. David Starr Jordan,
chairman of said board.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Stanford University, Cal., January 16, 1906.

Hon. THroporEe Roosevett,
The White House, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: * * * Tf the memorandum referred to by Mr. Elliott as the Hitch-
cock rules of 1904 be enforced, as I suppose they have been, the matter will soon
regulate itself. * * * JI note that Mr. Elliott states with reference to the ‘‘Hitch-
cock rules” that ‘‘the Department of Commerce and Labor engaged to order them”
at his instance. This may be true, but these rules were drawn up by myself in Mr.
Hitchcock’s office in 1904._They seemed to me to represent a fair conservatism, and it
is gratifying to find that for once I was in agreement with Mr. Elliott in a matter in-
volving executive procedure.

* * * * * * *

Very respectfully, yours,
Davin Starr JORDAN,
Former Commissioner in Charge Fur Seal Investigations.

(Appendix A, p. 331, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 38

Here is the unqualified statement made by Dr. Jordan that he has
fully agreed upon a minimum weight of ‘‘54. pounds” for skins to be
taken on the Pribilof Islands; that this order represents ‘‘a fair con-
servation,” and he is gratified to find ‘‘that for once” he ‘‘was in
agreement with Mr. Elliott” on this ‘‘matter involving executive
procedure.”

With that full knowledge and great satisfaction on his part, over
the fact that ‘‘54 pounds” was a minimum weight of a correctly
skinned seal’s pelt which cculd be safely and properly taken without
injury to the herd, January 16, 1906, as above declared, why did this
chief authority on March 9, 1906, immediately following, agree to the
lowering of this minimum weight to ‘‘5 pounds” on that day? And
that lowering down done by his fellow-citizen and neighbor, Victor
Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who lived only a few
miles away from Palo Alto, at Oakland, Cal.!

Why did he agree to it? And still more and worse for Dr. Jordan
and Secretary Charles Nagel’s agents, as well as for Nagel himself, on
November 23, 1909, these men all united in a unanimous recom-
mendation that this improper ‘‘5-pound’”’ minimum for seal pelts be
continued in a new lease for the islands to be made May 1, 1910!

The following sworn testimony proves it, to wit:

Mr. Bowers. On November 23, 1909, there was a meeting of the advisory board
with the fur-seal board and the Commissioner of Fisheries and Deputy Commissioner
of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M. Smith), at which were present also Mr. Chichester and Mr.
George A. Clark. After mature deliberation these gentlemen unanimously agreed
upon the following recommendations:

1. It is recommended that the agent in charge, fur-seal service, shall, under the
direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, have full power to limit or restrict
the killing of fur seals and blue foxes on the Pribilof Islands to any extent necessary
and that no specified quota be indicated in the lease.

2. It is recommended that, for the present, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 84
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be taken, and that not more than 95 per cent of the
3-year-old male seals be killed in any one year. (Hearing No. 2, p. 110, July 9, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

Here is the change of a “fair” and proper minimum weight of 54
pounds to one of ‘‘5 pounds,”’ aironerty made, ordered so as to
facilitate the ‘‘loading” of yearling 44-pound skins into the 2-year-
old class or 54-pound skins.

In spite of all the protests made since 1906 against this trick of
regulation continuing so as to permit an easier criminal trespass by
the lessees upon the seal herd, yet in 1909, these men in charge who
are public officials, all sworn to protect and conserve that fine public
property on the seal islands of Alaska, actually combined with the
lessees, cn November 23, and sought to continue that public imposi-
tion in a new lease.

Charles Nagel, David Starr Jordan, George M. Bowers, George A.
Clark, B. W. Evermann, W. I. Lembkey, Isaac Liebes, S. B. Elkins,
and D. O. Mills all had then guilty knowledge of this trespass by
them, as above cited, in the past, in the present, and for the future,
when this meeting was held November 23, 1909, in the city of Wash-
ington, D.C., office of the United States Commission of Fisheries, and
then adjourned to Charles Nagel’s office in the Department of Com-
merce Building the same day. :

The men who were present at this remarkable meeting and voted
as a unit to renew that lease and public imposition were David Starr

21588—13——3

84 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Jordan, Leonhard Stejneger, Frederic A. Lucas, Edwin A. Sims,
Charles H. Townsend, Barton Warren Evermann, Walter I. Lembkey,
Millard C. Marsh, George M. Bowers, Hugh M. Smith, H. D. Chiches-
ter, and George A. Clark. (See the official record of that presence
and vote, p. 814, Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L., June 24,
1911.)

Secretary Nagel, in his letter to Senator Dixon dated January 14,

1911, and before he issued his orders through Bowers and Lembkey
to kill seals on the Pribilof Islands, 12,002 of them in June and July
following, has this to say in justification of that order for this killing
of 6,247 yearling seals, which followed his directions.
_ Remember he had the specific protest of April 26, 1909, and proof
-of its charge September 30, 1909, before him, against the work of
his agents in 1909 and 1910—that work of killmg female and male
yearling seals in violation of the law, and of the regulations pledged
to the Congress of the United States March 9, 1904 (the Hitchcock
rules). With those protests and proof thereof in his hands, he stated
to the Senate committee January 14, 1911:

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me
.to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number
of female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male
seals killed by the Government. If that the true, one and perhaps the chief argument
which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation.

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso-
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per-
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report,
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion.

Here he tells the committee that he believes in killing those small
seals ‘‘in the manner in which it is being done.”

Then he declares that while his “personal judgment is without
value, IJ am relying upon the advice of experts who have been ap-
poimted to inquire and report, and who have given the department
the benefit of their opmion.”’ :

When those “‘ experts,’ Stejneger, Merriam, Townsend, Lucas, and

Evermann came up before the House committee in April and May,
1912, each and every one of them declared themselves ignorant of
what Nagel had done with regard to killing yearling seals. They
did not know what a yearling sealskin was. (See Hearmg No.14,
pp.-914-919, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
. When Secretary Nagel in order to fortify himself against attack,
called the “advisory board on fur seal service’’ into session at Wash-
ington, D.C., November 23, 1909, and got from that body of ‘‘ experts’’
(Jordan, Lucas, Townsend, Evermann, Bowers, Hugh Smith, Stej-
neger, Clark, and Lembkey) the “unanimous recommendation”
that he renew the seal lease and continue this improper killing of 95
per cent of the male life, it will be noticed that Dr. C. Hartt Merriam
and Frank H. Hitchcock did not attend and join in that “unanimous”’
recommendation.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 35

The reason why Dr. Merriam did not is perhaps best stated in his
testimony on May 4, 1912, to the House committee. He was opposed
to the killing of yearling seals under any circumstances, to wit:

Mr. McGuire. Then, in case anyone in the House of Representatives has used
your name as a person who would be opposed to the killing on the islands they were
wrong about your position?

Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I have never taken any such position. I have
always held the contrary. I have always stated, since the first time I went there,
that conservative killing on the islands was a benefit to the herd and not an injury,
but I should not allow the killing of yearlings under any circumstances, and I should
not kill more than 75 per cent of the young on land at any one time. I would be sure
to leave more than enough for possible contingencies. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 694-695,
May 4, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

So it is very evident that Secretary Nagel did not take the advice
of Dr. Merriam, and as for Mr. Hitchcock, his well-known opposition
to this violation of: the rules of the department—the Hitchcock rules
of May 1, 1904, needs no further comment here.

Then why did Secretary Nagel persist in killing these yearling
seals, males and females alike? Of 7,333 of them in 1910 and 6,247
of them in 1911?

Because there was nothing left that the agents could find to kill,
and this continued improper killing would make the false reports of
1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, which the lessees had written, “regular,”
and hide the sudden collapse in killing which would appear instantly
if no yearlings were taken in 1910; also in 1911.

That is why he persisted in-this criminal trespass—to prevent the
sudden exposure of it by contrast between the unlawful killing of 1909
with a lawful killing in 1910; and again in 1911.

SAMPLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC “ AUTHORITY’? QUOTED BY SECRETARY
CHARLES NAGEL, JAN. 14, 1911, AS HIS WARRANT FOR KILLING 7,733
YEARLINGS IN 1910.

The peculiar and particular ‘‘science’’ which those lawless lessees

and their agents on the islands and in Washington had complete

regard for in the persons of Dr. Jordan and his assistants, 1s well
exhibited in Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, whose remarkably frank testi-
mony follows.

Stejneger, strangely enough, has no knowledge of what the agents

of the Bureau of Fisheries, Bowers, et al., have been doing as to illegal

killing of yearling seals on the Pribilof Islands, season of 1910. And
he had no official consultation with Bowers or Nagel about it, he
swears. _

Then, in the next breath, he declares that if the law did not pre-
vent, he would kill pearls: In other words, he would do exactly
as Bowers and Nagel did do. reas

- Dr. Stejneger is unfortunate in his “‘scientific’’ advice to those men
when he says:

I hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July—that is the season prac-
tically when the killing is done—in the season you can kill all the males without
any detriment to the herd. I wili say all the usable skins, three years and less; that
is my. opinion, my deliberate opinion.

‘The CHarrman. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised
Mr. Bowers?

Dr. StesnecerR. I may have said that very thing.
The CuarrMan. Kill all the killable seals?

36 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. Exuiorr. That is, all he can find.
Dr. StEJNEGER. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a
thing, and should advise it now.

He actually goes to the following extreme limit of license to destroy,
to wit:

INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Houser or REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, May 4, 1912.

sane committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire.

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.

: pa STEJNEGER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as
ollows:

The Cuairman. Do you know whether, of your own personal knowledge, seals have
been killed that were too small or too young, under the act of Congress?

Dr. StesnecER. I do not know, because I have not been on the island since 1897—
since 1896.

Tf I may be allowed to make a statement, since you ask whether I had any statement
to make, the law is the law, and has to be lived up to; but whether seal is killed as
1-year old or when older could not affect the seal herd to any extent and could not
hurt it at all; you might just as well kill 1-year olds or 2-year olds or 3-year olds. As
a matter of fact, you could not kill as large a percentage of 1-year olds as of 2 or 3 year
olds. The 1-year olds would be 2-year olds the next year, and then you would kill
them anyhow. The Government would realize a little less money for the smaller
skins. That would be the whole result.

The CHarrMAN. Dr. Evermann, do you or anyone else wish to ask the doctor any
questions? p

Dr. EvERMANN. I have no questions.

The CHarrMAN. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions? :

Mr. Extiorr. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd?

Dr. StesnecER. I could not tell you.

Mr. Ex.tiotr. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd?

Dr. STEJNEGER. No.

Mr. Exirorr. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling
seal as taken from the body?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling .
seal killed on the American islands.

Mr. Exxrorr. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910?

Dr. SresNEGER. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers?

Mr. Exxiorr. Did Mr. Bowers——

Dr. SreynecerR. Not outside of what I have said in the board.

Mr. Exxiorr. No, no. I asked you, did Mr. Bowers advise with you?

Dr. StEJNEGER. Personally?

Mr. Exurorr. Not when he issued his order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910?

Dr. StesneceER. I do not quite understand whether it was with me personally or
as a member of the board.

Mr. Exxiorr. Well, as a member of the board, do you remember any consultation
with him about issuing those orders?

Dr. SteyNEGER. No; I do not remember.

1 He makes a flat statement that if the law did not prevent, he would kill yearlings. This ‘‘scientist”
has been loudly finding fault with the pelagic sealers because they kill female seals, yet he, too, would kill
female seals, for half of the yearlings are females. This is ‘‘science’’ with a vengeance, and just the kind
that Nagel, Bowers, Lembkey, and Jordan appreciate as the tools of the lessees—Mills, Elkins, fot ober

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 37

Mr. Extiorr. Then, Dr. Stejneger, I have no further questions to ask you, except
this: I would like to ask about the Fur Trade Review, issue of September, 1900.
On pages 456, 457, and 458 you are cited as the authority for the following [reading]:

‘“STEJNEGER’S ‘AUTHORITY’ FOR EXCESSIVE LAND KILLING,

‘“WASHINGTON, May 25, 1901.

“The best authorities here (Stejneger and the Treasury officials) agree that there is
no necessity for a limit to the killing of the lessees on the islands for two reasons: First,
because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the taking of as
many killable males per annum as can be found; and, second, because * * * the
proposed agreement between the United States and Great Britain would leave this
Government the sole proprietor of the sealing industry in the eastern half of the
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.’’ (Fur Trade Review, June, 1901, pp. 285-286.)

Do you still think it is the best thing to do to kill everything that can be found
up there?

Dr. STEJNEGER. It depends upon the way—the exact words—in which you put it.

Mr. Extiorr. Here is the sentiment; is this your idea?—

“That there is no necessity to the limit of the killing of the lessees on the islands
* * * because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the
taking of as many killable males per annum as can be found.”’

Dr. StesneceR. The point is ‘‘as can be found.’’ If you eliminate that, I can
well conceive that I had advised as stated.

Mr. Exuiorr. I am willing. You can eliminate everything and anything you have
done. I do not object. But I want to know if you gave him that impression, that
he could go up and kill everything he could find and do no harm.

Dr. STEINEGER. Not everything and ‘‘do no harm.”’

Mr. Extrotr. I mean ‘‘killable seals.”’

Dr. StesNEGER. Killable seals?

Mr. Exiiotrr. I mean killable seals—everything he could find.

Dr. StEJNEGER. That must he within the proper season for the killing.

Mr. Exuiorr. 1910.

Dr. SteJNEGER. You want to pin me down to—

Mr. Exuiorr. You are a scientist, and you can not be pinned down.

The CHarrMAN. He is referring to the statement.

Dr. StesNEGER. I have nothing to do with that. It is hearsay of a report of some-
thing; I have nothing to do with that.

Mr. Extiorr. I ask you if you hold those views?

Dr. StesNEGER. Let me state what I hold and what I don’t hold, in my own words;
I hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July—that is the season practically
when the killing is done—in the season you can kill all the males without any detri-
ment to the herd. I will say all the usable skins, three years and less; that is my
opinion, my deliberate opinion.

§ The CuarrMAN. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised Mr.
owers.

Dr. StesNEGER. I may have said that very thing.

The CuarrMaNn. Kill all the killable seals?

Mr. Ettrorr. That is, all he can find.

_ Dr. StesNEGER. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a
thing, and should advise it now. ;

fae aoe Do you think all the killable seals should be taken for the good of
the herd?

Dr. Stesnecer. All the killable seals that you can take there at that time. The
fact is that you can not take all of the killable seals.

The CHarRMAN. It seems to me—I am only trying to clear it up so that we will not
have a misunderstanding when it is over—you should state whether you think it is
best for the herd to take all of the killable seals.

Dr. StesJNEGER. With that reservation, all the killable seals that you can kill within
the season. I do not mean that you can——

The CHarRMAN. That you can find?

Dr. SteJNEGER. The ones that you can catch.

Mr. Exuiorr. That is perfectly clear; that is all I wanted.

38 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

THE SUBORNATION OF SCIENCE TO SERVE A CRIMINAL TRESPASS
ON THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

(To justify the killing of all the young male seals, the false argu-
ment was used that if they did not do so they would only grow up, go
onto the breeding grounds, fight there, ‘‘and tear the cows to pieces
and trample the pups to death.”” Dr. Stejneger was one of the scien-
tific authorities quoted for this nonsense and fraud.)

Dr. Stejneger denies in his report of 1898, his own sworn statement
made to the House committee of May 4, 1912, in re trampled pups.
He does so in the most explicit language, and he is now quoted below
from his finished and ‘‘elaborate report,’’ which he handed to the
chairman when he was sworn and examined. He says in it that the
pups are not harmed by severe, prolonged trampling, to wit:

It is certainly significant that on Bering Island over a thousand pups are yearly
driven to the killing ground, there to be released, without any visible harm coming to
them worth mentioning. If these newly born seals can stand to be driven three-
fourths of a mile from Kishotchnoye and to be repeatedly trampled upon by the larger
ones piling up four high or more on top of them, it stands to reason that the vigorous
holustiaki, or even the females as a whole, can suffer but little injury from the same
cause. (The Fur-Seal Investigations, Pt. [V, 1898, p. 101, by Leonhard Stejneger.)

After having deliberately published the above as ‘‘facts” of his
own observation in 1898, yet Dr. Leonhard Stejneger in 1912 denies
it under oath to the House committee as follows.

Witness the following sworn proof of it, to wit:

INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, May 4, 1912.

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding. :
Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire.

‘

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.

Pena STEJNEGER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as
follows:

Dr. StrsneGER. In that case, I should say I first came to the Commander Islands in
1882 and stayed until the fall of 1883, remaining the winter.

Mr. McGurre. Continuously?

Dr. StesneceR. Yes. I saw the whole business from beginning to end during two
seasons. I mapped the rookeries, and I have made a very elaborate report on that.
This [handing book to the chairman] gives all the data. !

In 1896 I was appointed a member of the Fur-Seal Investigation Commission, of
which Dr. Jordan was the chairman. We went up early in the season and I stayed on
the Pribilof Islands for 10 days with the other members of the commission and went
all over the rookeries at that time, and did part of the counting of the rookeries on the
American islands, and then went over to the Commander Islands again and inspected
the rookeries there, mapped the distribution of the seals on the rookeries then as com-
pared to what they were in 1882, 1883, and 1895.

*

* * * * * *

Mr. McGuire. According to your observation, now, Doctor, if those herds were left
alone untouched by man, what would you regard as the principal agencies of destruc-
tion of that animal life?

* * * % * * %*

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 39

Dr. STEJNEGER. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups.

Mr. McGutre. Then, where they were left untouched until they had accumulated
large numbers of males, would there have been trampling under those conditions?

r. STEJNEGER. That is the greatest danger to the herd.
* * * * * * *

Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony with respect to the killing of the pups by the
fighting of battles by the males is based upon not only your general information, that
you have been able to obtain in general way, but as well upon two years’ actual stay -
upon seal islands?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual observation?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Surveys of the rookeries.

Mr. McGuire. You have personally observed those conditions, have you?

Dr. SteJNEGER. Yes, sir. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 699, 700, 703.)

On May 16, 1912, a few days following the above date of Stejneger’s
strange testimony as to the ‘‘destruction”’ caused by the killing of
pupe by the trampling of them by-fighting males, his own associate,

r. F. A. Lucas, on the Indian Commission, 1897—98, swears that he
knows better—that he never saw a bull trample a pup to death:

The CHarrman. What experience have you had as to the fur-seal industry in
Alaska or as a member of the advisory board?

Dr. Lucas. I was a member of the Fur-Seal Commission in 1896 and 1897. In 1896
I was on the islands or on the revenue cutter visiting the pelagic sealers from July 8 to
September 5. In 1897 I was on the islands, on the revenue cutter visiting pelagic
sealers and going to and from St. Paul and St. George from July 1 to August 17. The
records of the work are here, Mr. Chairman [exhibiting books].

Mr. Exuiorr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you see up there a pup trampled to death by a
bull?

Dr. Lucas. No. (Hearing No. 12, May 16, 1912, pp. 706-719.)

DR. JORDAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF YEARLINGS BY THE OLD
LESSEES IN 1889, BUT HE PERMITS AND APPROVES THAT KILLING
BY THE NEW LESSEES IN 1896-97, AND EVEN WHEN SO DONE IN
VIOLATION OF LAW AND REGULATIONS.

That Dr. Jordan knew that the killing of yearlings was wrong and
injurious to the life of the fur-seal herd, he gives the following proof
of in his final report of February 24, 1898, to-wit: Speaking of the
result of the work of killing by the lessees of 1870 during the last
years of their lease, Dr. Jordan writes:

For a time these more vigorous methods had the desired effect, but the scarcity of
bachelors as a result of the decreasing birth rate made it necessary finally to lower
the age for killable seals, so as to include first, the 2-year-olds, and in the end many
of the larger yearlings, in order to secure the requisite 100,000 skins. By these
methods it happened in 1889 that practically the whole bachelor herd of 4 years
and under down to the yearlings was wiped out. The result was the abnormal drop
to 21,000 in the quota of 1890. * * *

It is not the intention here to justify the methods of killing employed in the clos-
ing years of the Alaska Commercial Co. Such killing ought never to have been
allowed. (Fur-Seal Inves. pt. 1, 1898, p. 124.)

With this full understanding of the impropriety of killing those
small seals thus given to us by Dr. Jordan, as above quoted, this gen-
tleman actually has stultified himself by that writing as above, for he
has approved and licensed in 1896 and 1897 the same injurious and
eal alive He has done so in the following report, dated Novem-
ber 1, 1897, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to wit:

Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals;

during the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been

40 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, 1896. This year it was
extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August 11. The quota to be
taken was left to our discretion, and every opportunity was given to the lessees to take
the full product of the hauling grounds. Notwithstanding all their efforts, the quota
of 1897 shows a decrease of 30 per cent in the class of killable seals, and when we take
- nto account the increased number of drives, and the extension of the times of driving,
the difference between the two seasons is even greater. (Fur Seal Investigations, Pre-
liminary Report of 1897, Treas. Doc. No. 1994, p. 18, Nov. 1, 1897.)

Again, Dr. Jordan knew what yearlings were taken for skins,
for he described that taking in 1889 as follows, when reviewing the
tables of killmg made by the lessees in 1889 as compared with that
killing by them in 1890. Dr. Jordan says:

The contrast here visible between 1889 and 1890 is by no means a measure of cor-
responding decrease in the breeding herd. The fact is that the fictitious quota of
1889 was made up largely of yearlings which belonged properly to the quota of 1891.
(Fur Seal Inves., 1898, pt. 1, p. 202.)

_ When Dr. Jordan certified the catch of 1896 (80,000) to the Secre-
“tary of the Treasury on November 7, 1896, as being made up of 3 and
2 year olds, and did not tell the truth that over 8,000 of these 30,000
skins taken by the lessees were yearlings, he knew better. (Treas.
Doc. No. 1913, p. 21.)

~ He knew better because the lessees did not take any smaller skins
in 1896 than they did in 1899. They took the yearlings or ‘small
pups” and ‘‘Ex.sm. pups’’ in 1889, just as Jordan says they did. They
took the same ‘‘Small pups” and ‘‘Ex. sm. pups”’ in 1896—8,000 of
them—and Jordan denies the fact; he denies it by ignoring it, and
asserting that ‘‘22,000 of these’’ (30,000) were 3-year-olds, when in
truth not quite 7,500 of them were.

The London sales records, which proves the truth of Jordan’s state-
ment, that the lessees killed yearlings in 1889, also proves the untruth
of Jordan’s statement that the lessees did not kill yearlings in 1896.
They convict Dr. Jordan of deceit in the matter and of falsifyine the
record of that killing in 1896 and 1897.

DR. JORDAN ATTEMPTS TO DENY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE HARLY
ARRIVAL OF THE YEARLING SEALS ON THE HAULING GROUNDS AND
THEIR APPEARANCE ON THE KILLING GROUNDS; HE IS FLATLY CON-
TRADICTED BY RECORDS OF THE SAME.

In his final report of February 24, 1898, Dr. Jordan says:

From the killing during the present season (1896), 15,000 animals too small to kill
were turned back. As in the case of the young bulls, some of these, perhaps many,
were driven and redriven, several drives being made from each hauling ground during
the season. The actual number represented by this total of rejected animals can
not be exactly determined. From this it would seem necessary to suppose that by
no means all the younger seals appear on the hauling grounds during the killing
season. In fact, the records of the drives show that it is only after the middle of July
that the yearlings begin to arrive in numbers, and by the time the killing season is
over the great majority of the killable seals are secured, leaving the population of
the hauling grounds almost exclusively yearlings and 2-year-olds. (Fur Seal Inves.
pt. 1, 1898, rept. Feb. 24, p. 99.)

With the following official ‘‘Records of the drives” staring Dr.
Jordan in the face, 1t seems fairly incredible that he should have
written so much untruth as above concerning them in re yearlings.

FUR-SHAL HERD OF ALASKA, _-

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1890.

Made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill; killed 274; turned away 19 hali-grown
bulls. As many yearlings as choice seals killed, and half as many 2-year-olds as
yearlings were allowed to return to the sea. This is a fair average of the work so far
this season. (Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St.
Paul Island, p. 239.)
: Monpay, JUNE 23, 1890.

The N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill, killing 521 seals.
Seventy-five per cent of the seals driven to the village were turned back into the
séa; 10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds; balance yearlings. (Official Journal Chief
Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St. Paul Island, p, 231.)

TurEspDay, June 24, 1890.

N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Reef and Zotoi and killed 426 seals; about 65 per
cent of this drive was turned back into the sea, about all of these were yearlings.
(Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St. Paul Island,
p. 231.) :

= THurRspay, June 26, 1890.

The N. A. C. Co. made a drive of seals Southwest Bay and killed 117 seals; about 62
per cent of those driven were turned back into the sea; of those turned away one-half
were yearlings, one-fourth 2-year-olds, and one-fourth old bulls. (Official Journal
Chief Special Agent Chas. J. Goff, in charge of St. Pauls Island, p. 231.)

Then independent of the above official record, which not only
declares that the yearlings are out in full force as early as June 18,
on the killing grounds, driven up with the others, we have the fol-
lowing sworn proof of the unwarranted denial of Dr. Jordan in re
early appearance of the yearlings, to wit:

Mr. Exvtiorr. Now, as to yearlings on the islands. Here is an official report detailed
day after day during the killing season of 1890, put on the files of the Treasury Depart-
ment, and printed, and until the lst of December, 1907, not a line had been issued
from the Governmeni officialism in charge of this business—not a line that says a
single record of this work as to the killing on those islands in 1890 is improperly stated
here. The only objection they make to it was that I officially assumed that driving
these young and old seals hurt them. They claimed it did not hurt them, but that
it did them good. We will leave that open. But the killing has hurt them; they
admit that now officially. Let me read, on page 170:

“Monday, June 23, 1890. * * * Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up; 110 of
them killed or one-fifth taken, or 80 per cent turned away. All under 7-pound skins,
with the exception of a few wigged 4-year-olds and a dozen or two old bulls. This
gives a fair avecage of the whole drive to-day, some 2,500 animals, since 518 only were
taken.

‘“* * * Those turned away (nearly 2,000) were 95 per cent at least ‘long’ and
‘short’ yearlings.”

That has never been disputed to this hour.

‘June 21, 1890. * * * At7a.m. I went down to the killing grounds and fol-
lowed the podding and clubbing of the entire drive brought up from the Reef crest
and Zoltoi Bluffs this morning. The Zoltoi pod arrived on the ground: long before
the Reef pod—two hours sooner. It was made up largely of polseecatchie and
yearlings.

“* * * Seventy-five per cent of this drive was rejected. Every 3 and smooth
4 year old taken and every long 2-year-old. Nothing under or over that grade.

“The seals released this morping were erclusively yearlings, ‘short’ 2-year-olds,
and the 5 and 6 year old half bulls or polseecatchie. No ‘long’ 2-year-old escaped,
and so, therefore, many 54 and 6 pound skins will appear in this catch.

* “Tn the afternoon I took a survey of Lukannon Bay and itshauling grounds. * * *
Thence over to Tolstoi sand dunes, where I saw about 600 or 709 yearlings, conspicu-
ous by their white bellies.

* * * * * * *

“June 26, 1890 (on p. 174). I walked over to the Zapadnie killing grounds this
morning, arriving there about 9 o’clock. The drivers had collected a squad of about
- 340 holluschickie, which were clubbed thus—total 344 number driven, and num-
ber taken, 97, or about 72 per cent unfit to take, being made up chiefly of yearlings,
‘short’ 2-year-olds, and ‘wigged’ 4-year-olds, and 5-year up to 7-year old bulls.”’

42 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

I knew what I was talking about, and so did the lessees. They rejected the year-
lings and the short 2-year-olds.

“June 27, 1890. The drive to-day from Middle Hill, Tolstoi, and Bobrovia Yama
(of Tolstoi near the point) panned out as follows: Total number driven 1,652; total
number taken 394.

‘Deduct 24 overcounted, leaves the whole number of animals driven 1,628; number
en 394, or 78 per cent rejected. Nothing taken under a 6-pound or ‘long’ 2-year-
old skin. ”’

Nothing was taken that day.

“Sixteen of the 394 skins taken in the killing grounds, as above cited, were rejected,
in the salt house by the company’s manager because th2y were too small. They were
ee 2-year-olds, 53-pound skins. Perhaps they will be glad to get them later.”’

2y were.

‘June 28, 1890. The superb sealing weather still continues. The natives are bring-
ing up a small squad from the Reef as I write (5 p. m.).

“The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive from Reef and
Zoltoi Bluffs, June 28, 1890:

‘‘Whole number of animals driven, 1,417; number taken, 203, or 85 per cent
turned out. * * * Everything taken in this day’s killing above a normal 2-year-
old * * * i. e., all 6-pound skins and upward.

“June 30, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive
from Middle Hill, English Bay, Tolstoi, Lukannon, and Ketavie:

‘“Whole number of animals driven, 1,262; number taken, 203, or 844 per cent re-
jected. * * * Everything taken that was above 54-pound skin, under those of
the 5-year-olds and ‘wigged’ 4-year-olds. * * * How many of those yearlings
and ‘short’ 2-year-olds that were released this morning will again be driven before this
season ends? Nearly all of them.

* * * * * * *

“July 1, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive
made from every section of the reef, everything in back of Zoltoi Bluffs, Garbotch,
and the entire circuit of the reef:

‘““Whole number of animals driven, 1,998; number taken, 245, or 89 per cent re-
jected. Last drive from this place, June 28, when 85 per cent were rejected. Every-
thing taken over a 5-pound skin and under the ‘wigged’ 4 and 5 year old pelts. Nznety
per cent of the seals rejected to-day were yearlings.”

There are no yearlings on the islands now, we are told by these gentlemen. They
have disappeared; they have gone to sea. There is no loss from pelagic sealing there
now.

“This is the largest number yet driven in any one drive from this place thus far this
season, and the catch among the smallest. The yearlings driven before, plus the new
arrivals, are making the ratio.”’

The yearlings keep coming up and increasing this aggregate drive.

“Tuly 2, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of a drive
made from every section of Polavina and Stony Point:

‘‘Whole number of animals driven, 1,929; number taken, 230, or 884 per cent reject-
ed. There were also 10 ‘‘road” and ‘‘smothered” skins, which made a total of 240
taken; last drive from this place, June 25, when 800 animals were driven and 263
taken, or 65 per cent rejected.

“This drive to-day covers a whole week’s interval since the last drive from Pola-
vina, and it shows that as the season advances the numbers driven rapidly increase,
while the proportionate catch diminishes. In other words, the new ariivals, plus
those redriven, will continue to steadily swell the gross aggregate driven day by day
from now on, and not proportionately increase the catch. Rather, I believe that
the catch will markedly diminish.

“To-day every good 2-year-old, every 3, and every ‘‘smooth” 4-year-old was knocked
down out of the 1,929 animals; every one. Where, at this rate of killing, is the new-
blood left for the rookeries now so desperately needed there? Hardly a young bull.
left, between the effects of driving and the deadly club, save a few hundred of those
demoralized and worthless half bulls, which I make note of as they come up in every
drive; and these, the natives truly declare, will never go upon the rookeries.

“Thus far this season every seal that is eligible in weight, froma “‘long” 2-year-old
male up to 5-year-olds, has been ruthlessly slain within a few days after its appearance
on these desolate hauling grounds of St. Paul Island. They were asruthlessly knocked
down last year, and. to-day the yearlings and everything above to 5-year-olds would _
be knocked down did not the new $10.22 tax per sealskin save their lives.”

They were afraid to take these yearlings, and they gave orders to let them alone.
They said, ‘‘They will not pay our taxes and our expenses.”

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 43

Mr. McGuire. The point you are developing now is, as I understand it, that the
yearlings at that time were on the islands at this certain season of the year mentioned

de Radio, Yes; admittedly.

Mr. McGuire. The claim by certain persons now is that seals of this age and type
are not at that season found on the islands. Is that what you are developing now?

Mr. Exxiorr. I am claiming that that is an untruthful and improper report to make;
that they are not there means that they have been killed and certified falsely into
the books of the Government as 2-year-olds. Do not make any mistake about that.

As above quoted from Dr. Jordan’s studied, elaborated, and final
report of February 24, 1898, he gives as proof of the fact that he
knew them—he knew the yearling seals as a class, and knew them well.

So knowing them, he could not have failed to witness the killing
of yearlings in 1896-1897, thousands and thousands of them, in open,
flagrant violation of the “Carlisle Rules” of May 14, 1896, which
were duly posted on the Pribilof Islands, June 17, 1896.

That he knew the significance and the evil effect of killing year-
lings in 1898 he also gives us full proof of in his final report of
February 24, 1898. In criticizing the close and improper killing
by the lessees during the season of 1889 he says, on page 103:

Finally it was necessary successively to lower the grade of killable skins until, in
1889, to get the quota of 100,000 nearly the entire bachelor herd down to and including
most of the yearlings was taken. In 1890 the collapse came, when only 21,000 skins
could be secured. .

With this full knowledge possessed by Dr. Jordan of what a year-
ling seal was, and what it signified to kill down to that lowest grade,
he actually falsifies the record of killing 30,000 seals in 1896, as
done under his eyes. In his report of the killing on the Pribilof
Islands during June and July, 1896, he denies that any yearling
seals were killed, and repeats that untruth for the season’s work of
1897, on the same grounds, in the following statements, to wit:

Tn 1896, 30,000 killable males were taken, 22,000 of these to the best of our informa-
tion, being 3-year-olds.:

Think for a moment of this studied untruth—the same London
sales records which gave Dr. Jordan his warrant for truthfully stating
the fact that yearlings were taken in 1889, as above cited—these
sales records of this 1896 catch of 30,000 declare the fact that not
quite 7,500 3 year olds were taken, and, moreover, they tell him that
some 8,000 or 9,000 yearlings were also taken.

In 1897 the lessees took 20,890 skins—all that they could get—
and Jordan again stands over that work on the islands. Again he
falsifies the record of this killing as follows:

The quota of the year is made up practically of 3-year-old bachelors; some 2-year-
olds are killed and some 4-year-olds, but the majority of those taken are 3-year-olds.

Not quite 7,000 of that 20,890 skins taken in 1897 were 3-year-
olds. More than 8,000 yearlings were again taken in its total, and
all of those little 30-34 inch yearling skins actually ‘‘loaded” with
blubber in 1896 and 1897, so that they weighed as much as 3-year-
old skins or 2-year-old skins. This fraud of ‘‘loading” those little
skins was to cover the Carlisle limit of a minimum taken ‘‘not less
than 6 pounds weight.”

This loading of those small skins in 1896-97, when Dr. Jordan
was on the islands (and continued ever. since), and so done then,
first, to evade the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, could not have

44 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

escaped Dr. Jordan’s notice unless he was physically blind. He was
not, but he actually shut his eyes to the illegal and injurious work.

On July 24, 1913, the native sealers who took part in this ‘‘load-
ing” of those small yearling skins in 1896-97, testified to the agents
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce that this season of 1896 was the first one in which they
ever received orders to take yearling seals, and that they have been
taking them ever since and “‘loading” them also. (See pp. 93-100,
Rept. Agents House Committee on Expenditures, Dept.of Com.,
Aug. 31, 1913.)

Dr. Jordan, however, was not content with merely ignoring the
fact that in 1896 he had permitted the lessees to kill more than
8,000 yearling seals in open flagrant violation of the Carlisle rules
of May 14, 1896; he went further. On page 206 of his Final Report
Fur Seal Investigations, part 1, 1898, he has this studied statement
of untruth made in review of the figures which show the daily kill-
ing made during June and July, 1896, and also those of 1897, to wit:

In this year (1896) more normal driving was permitted, but the increased quota is
not wholly due to this fact * * *.

The quota of 1897 was left indefinite under the direction of the commission, and
the driving was planned with a view of making the quota represent the full product
of the kauling grounds. For tle same reason the killing was continued into August
(to Aug. 11).

This is the language which Dr. Jordan uses to conceal the fact
that in 1896 the lessees were permitted to illegally take 8,000 small
yearling seals, and in 1897 over 7,000 of them in turn, to get the
‘full product of the hauling grounds:”’

Why did Dr. Jordan and his associates in 1896 and 1897 fail to publish a table show-
ing the sizes and weights of fur-seal skins as they were taken from the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
year old seals?

Because if they had, they would have been obliged to publish the fact that the
lessees took 8,000 yearling sealskins in 1896, under their eyes, and in violation of the
law and regulations published May 14, 1896. And again, that over 7,000 yearling
skins were taken by the lessees under their eyes, and with their permission in 1897,
in violation of those Carlisle rules of 1896.

The lack of attention given to the subject of the sizes and weights
of fur-seal skins which is so marked in the preliminary reports of the
Jordan-Thompson fur-seal commission’s work, and its final report,
1898, is due to the fact that the lessees were killing yearling seals on
St. Paul Island in 1896, when Jordan was there in full control of the
business.

These seal-island lessees (D. O. Mills, United States Senator Elkins,
and the Liebes, Isaac and Hermann), could not get their quota allowed
them of 30,000 2,3, and 4 year old seals, they unlawfully took, there-
fore, 8,000 yearling seals to fill up the number. They took them in
spite of the regulations ordered May 14, 1896, by Secretary Carlisle
prohibiting that work.

If Jordan and his associates had measured and weighed those skins
as taken, they would have made a record (which they desired to con-
ceal, and did then conceal), very plain, and self-evident of this ulegal
slaughter by these lessees. -

That is the reason why the authentic and official tables of 1873-74,
which show the size and weight of yearling seals and their skins, were
not alluded to or questioned by Dr. Jordan. He found them accu-
‘rate, and beyond his power to question. He then ignored the whole

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 45

subject in his labored, elaborated final report of 1898. (Fur Seal
Investigations, pts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1898.)

But when this final report was prepared, Dr. Lucas was obliged to
present at least the suggestion of a table which should show the size
of the fur seal as it grows from birth to full maturity. (See p. 7,
pt. 3, Fur Seal Investigations, 1898.)

Instead of taking up a dozen or twenty examples of a yearling, he
takes but one; he measures it, and it conforms exactly to the average
which Elliott has published nearly 26 years earlier, it so happens.

But when he takes a single 2 year old, he makes it to be only
42 inches long, instead of that average of 45 inches which Elliott
gets from the measurements of 30 specimens. (See Elliott’s Mono.
Seal Islands, p. 46, 1873-74.)

On the other hand, Dr. Lucas’s associate on this Indian commis-
sion at the same time (1896), George A. Clark, measures also a single
2. year-old, and publishes its length as 48 inches. (See p. 510, pt. 2,
1898, Fur Seal Investigations.)

That difference naturally exists between a “‘short”’ or small 2-
year-old and a “long” or large specimen of the same age. Lucas
measures one and Clark the other. But Elhott, in 1872-73, taking
note of those extremes, gathered up 30 specimens and took the
average length, and publishes it as 45 inches.

Elhott found that large yearlings were 41 inches long and small
ones only 29 to 30. He took an average of 20 or 30 specimens and
placed the correct figure of 38 inches for a yearling’s length in his
table of 1873.

In the same mistaken manner Lucas took the measurements of
but a single 3-year-old seal’s body. He made it 49 inches long.
It was a “‘short”’ or small specimen. But Clark, on the other hand,
gets a “long” or large 3-year-old, and he makes it 54 inches long.
Elhott, however, took an average of 20 or 30 specimens, and he finds
the real average size to be 52 inches in length, which makes a stable
conclusion for a 3-year-old.

Lucas and Clark fail in their work of getting result of sense or
value by not going out into the field and getting the measurements
of 30 or 40 specimens of these 1, 2,3, and 4 year-old seals’ bodies.
Elliott made no such blunder which both Lucas and Clark admit
they have done in the following statements:

I agree with Mr. Lucas on looking at these bachelors that it is necessary to readjust
our ideas * * * what we have called ‘‘4-year-olds” are probably ‘‘5-year-
olds.”,—G. A. Clark, p. 436, pt. 2.

Isee that my tendency has been to underestimate the age of the smaller seals * * *
(F. A. Lucas, p. 441, pt. 2.)

THE INITIAL FRAUD ON THE SEAL ISLANDS, AS PERPETRATED BY THE
LESSEES AND OTHERS IN 1890-91.

There is an official record of the killing of seals on St. Pauls
Island by which the lessees were enabled illegally to take 3,856 skins
in violation of the orders of the President of the United States—so
enabled by the subornation of the Government agents in charge of
the Seal Islands. The limit of 6,000 skins was posted on St. Pauls
Island June 10, 1891, and 1,500 skins on St. George was posted June
13,1891. (Rept. Agts. H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce, pp. 128-132,
Aug. 31, 1913.)

46 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

When the limit of 6,000 skins for the entire season of 1891, on St.
Paul was posted June 10, 1891, just 810 skins had been taken, and by
June 18, 1891, at the close of the killing on the reef that day, 6,622
skins had been taken, or an excess then of 622 skins for the whole
season.

The killing, however, in spite of this peremptory order of the
President prohibiting it after 6,000 seals had been taken, was con-
tinued in open defiance of that order by the lessees up to August 10,
1891, when they had secured 3,856 skins above the ascii limit on
St. Paul and 961 skins above their lawful limit on St. George
Island. Then they resumed this unlawful excess killing on November
2, 1891, and continued it to December 5, 1891, taking 800 skins in
addition to the exceess above stated.

This record of that unlawful killing and criminal trespass declares
that these lessees, in collusion with the Government agents in charge,
W. H. Williams and Joseph Stanley-Brown, took 4,817 prime seal-
skins during the season of 1891 in open flagrant violation of the law
and their instructions.

The motive for that particular criminal trespass was to profit by the
sale of those excess skins at $60 per skin, or $289,020, which was a net
euilty profit realized by said lessees.

The British commissioners, when they landed July 29, 1891, on
St. Pauls Island and found the lessees busy killing seals in violation
of the proclamation of President Harrison and the agreement of
June 14 with the Government of Great Britain, put a stop to it, and
refused to be satisfied with the false denial of it by Charles Foster’s
men, Brown and Williams. They dispatched a note to Lord Salis-
bury covering the same, which was speedily made public, and caused
infinite humiliation to the American case in the controversy.

These British commissioners at first determined to return in 1892
and get the proof of the fact that this killmg was done im violation
of the law. This hint so disturbed the official tools of the lessees in
the Treasury Department that the following ‘‘directions”’ were given
to Chief Special Agent Williams by Charles Foster. The object of
writing these ‘‘directions”’ was to enable Williams to do all he could
to prevent any light being thrown on the real order of killing as it
was done. (See entry as below, on p. 455 of the official journal,
Government agent’s office, St. Paul Island, under date of “‘ May 27,
1892.’’)

Unitep States TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, D. C., May 2, 1892.
Maj. W. H. Witi1aMs,
Umited States Treasury Agent.

Sir: Your attention is called to the unfortunate representations made to Lord
Salisbury last year by the British commissioners.

Their statements concerning the alleged violation of the modus vivendi in the
matter of seal killing were based upon their misinterpretation of the terms of the
modus and their misunderstanding of the facts. Especial effort should be made,
therefore, to present with exceeding clearness any facts that you may deem necessary
or proper to communicate to any British official visiting either island. All affidavits
taken by such agents from the natives or other persons on the islands must be taken
in the presence of a Government officer, and the foreign agents must conform to such
tule of conduct concerning the rookeries as are required of citizens of the United

tates.
CHARLES Foster, Secretary.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 47

Williams refused to return to the islands. He knew that he had
falsified the facts July 29, 1891, to these British agents, and that
they would convict him of it if he attempted to deny it. So he
asked Foster to transfer him to another post. He was at once trans-
ferred to London and J. Stanley Brown put in his place. This man
had no scruples in the matter and no responsibility ‘‘officially’”’ in
1891, since Williams was his chief at that time.

RECAPITULATION OF THE FRAUD PERPETRATED BY THE LESSEES IN
1891, ON THE SEAL ISLANDS, WITH THE COLLUSION OF THE UNITED
STATES’ AGENTS IN CHARGE OF THE SAME.

May 3. The President vetoes and cancels permit for lessees to kill
seals issued by Secretary Charles Foster, April 11, 1891.

May 27. By order of the Secretary of Treasury from the President,
lessees are allowed to take 7,500 “food seals” during entire season of
1891.

June 13. To-day the order of May 27, limiting the killmg on the
Pribilof Islands to 7,500 for the entire season is posted and served on
‘the lessees in St. Paul village, by the United States agent in charge.
The catch on St. Paul is restricted to 6,000 seals, and the catch on
St. George is restricted to 1,500.

June 13. Three thousand seven hundred and thirty seals were taken
by the close of this day, and left 2,270 seals only for the lessees to
lawfully take during the rest of this year on St. Paul Island.

June 15. Nine hundred and forty-one seals were taken by the close
of this day on St. George Island, leaving only 559 seals for the lessees
to lawfully take during the rest of this year on this island.

June 18. Six thousand six hundred and fifty-one seals were taken
at the -close of this day on St. Paul Island, and 651 seals had been
taken to-day in violation of the President’s order (duly posted here -
June 13 last), yet, in spite of that order, the killing was contimued in
violation of it, as follows: June 20, 119 seals; June 25, 215 seals; June
29, 400 seals; July 8, 100 seals; July 13, 121 seals; July 15, 122 seals;
July 21, 177 seals; July 27, 248 seals; August 3, 118 seals; August 5,
407 seals; August 10, 100 seals; November 2, 31 seals; November 9,
37 seals; November 14, 142 seals; November 19, 188 seals; November
21, 2 seals; November 24, 133 seals; November 25, 102 seals; Novem-
ber 29, 162 seals; December 5, 3 seals.

Or a total of 9,579 seals taken, 3,579 of which were taken by the
lessees in open flagrant violation of the law and order of the President
of the United States (dated June 15), and posted in advance on the
islands June 13, 1891.

July 1. 1,548 seals were taken at the close of this day on St. George
Island, being 48 seals in excess of the limit ordered by the President,
duly posted here on June 15 last; yet in spite of that order, this
killmg of seals was continued in violation of it, as follows: July 3, 30
seals; July 6, 119 seals; July 16, 54 seals; July 20, 54 seals; July 24,
72 seals; July 25, 181 seals; August 1, 26 seals; August 6, 15 seals;
August 13, 83 seals; August 17, 55 seals; September 24, 36 seals;
October 23, 104 seals; October 28, 25 seals; November 23, 71 seals;
November 23, 26 seals.

Or a total of 2,461 seals taken, 960 of which were taken by the
lessees in open flagrant violation of the law and order of the President

48 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

of the United States (dated June 15), and posted in advance on the
islands June 14, 1891.

The above certified daily entry of killmg, as made on the official
journals of the agents of the Government in charge of the Seal Islands
of Alaska, show that the lessees with the connivance and permission
of the United States Government agents whom they suborned took
12,040 seals, or 4,540 seals in excess of their right to do so, and in open
flagrant violation of the law and.regulations.

The daily killing records are published on page 203 of the (Report
of Fur Seal Investigations, part 1, 1898) Treasury Document 2017,
published by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, June, 1898.
The record of the posting of the President’s order restricting all kill-
ing on the islands to 7,500 seals for the entire season of 1891, as given
above, is found in Report of Special Agents, House Committee on
Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913, page 128.

The motive for this criminal trespass by the lessees as above related
was that those 4,540 illegally taken skins brought them an average of
$60 per skin, or $272,400, which was net gain to them. They took
nothung after the order of the President was posted except the very finest
young 3 and 4 year old seals that hauled out, and they took every one of
them that did haul out up to the close of this season of 1891.

It now becomes in order to show by an exhibit taken from the
official records, the sworn testimony, and authentic letters, what
relation—

Charles Nagel, as Secretary of Commerce and Labor;

Geo. M. Bowers, as United States Commissioner of Fisheries;

David Starr Jordan, as chairman Advisory Fur Seal Board;

Walter I. Lembkey, as chief special agent in charge of seal islands;

Isaac Liebes, president N. A. C. Co., lessees, and his associate lessees ;

Jos. Stanley Brown, dual agent of the Government and lessees,
had and have, to this unlawful and complete destruction of the
fur-seal herd of Alaska.

To do so, briefly, clearly, and faithfully as to truth of record, I
have prepared the following statement, which I submit as Exhibit IIT;
all citations of the records and sworn testimony have been carefully
verified, and will stand as made.

EXHIBIT III.

A certified list of 120,600 yearling sealskins taken by the lessees
of the Seal Islands of Alaska between 1896 and 1910, in open self-con-
fessed violation of the law and the regulations governing their con-
tract, said illegal work being done in combination with certain sworn
agents of the Government whose duty was to prevent it.

Said agents, instead, connived with said lessees and enabled this
illegal and ruinous slaughter to be made annually from 1896 to 1910.

And this illegal and ruinous slaughter and criminal trespass by the
lessees! upon the fur-seal herd of Alaska was duly pointed out to
Secretary Oscar Straus in detail December 19, 1906, again on May 18,
1908, again on December 7, 1908, and repeated in detail to Secretary
Charles Nagel April 26, 1909, again May 9, 1910, and again May 24,
1910. All of said detailed specific charges and proof of this illegal
mus ruinous killing were ignored and evaded by said Straus and

agel,

ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES WHICH GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF KILLING
AND TAKING FUR SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS, BERING SEA,
ALASKA, FROM 1869 TO 1913, INCLUSIVE.

March 4, 1869. Public resolution declaring the Pribilof group of
seal islands are a Government reservation.

July 1, 1870. Act ordering a lease made for 20 years of the seal
islands—1870-1890. It places the entire control of the killing and
taking of fur seals in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, only
fixing a maximum limit of 100,000 seals annually and prohibiting the
killing of female seals and seals less than one year old. (See Hearing
No. 10, pp. 462-463.)

May 1, 1890. Lease of 1870-1890 expires; new lease for 20 years
1890-1910; no change in act of 1870 made which permits this renewal
of said lease to highest bidder, and reserves complete control for the
Secretary of the Treasury as to killing and taking seals. (See Hearing
No. 10, pp. 466-467.)

May 14, 1896. Secretary Carlisle orders ‘‘no yearling seals or seals
having skins weighing less than 6 pounds” killed. Posted on the
islands June 17, 1896. (See Report of Agents of House Committee
on Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913, pp. 75, 76.)

May 1, 1904. ‘‘Hitchcock rules” ordered to-day by Secretary of
Commerce and Labor, who does not know of the existence of the
‘“‘Carlisle rules” of 1896, and which have been ignored by all officials
and the lessees since the day they were posted in 1896.

1 A conspiracy is a continuing offense, according to the United States Supreme Court. Two men who
were the agents in bringing the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Co. within the power of the Sugar Trust,
which kept the refinery idle for years, sought to escape punishment for their part in a conspiracy to re-

strain trade and establish a monopoly by pleading the statute of limitations. That act would have run
against the inception of the conspiracy, and the trial judge held that they could not be tried. But the
Supreme Court holds, very rationally, that the statute does not protect them, for they continued their
conspiracy in restraint of trade within the statutory period.—Philadelphia Record, December 14, 1910.

21588—13—-4 49

50 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

These ‘‘Hitcheock rules” prohibit the taking of ‘‘any seals under
2 years of age, and having skins weighing less than 54 pounds.”
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 482, 483.)

March 9, 1906. The ‘‘Metcalf rules,’’ ordered to-day, change the
53-pound minimum weight of the Hitchcock rules to 5 pounds;
otherwise no change is made in the order of the same. (See Hearing
No. 10, p. 483.) |

April 21, 1910. Act repeals leasing section of act of 1870; other-
wise does not change the full control hitherto given the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor to govern by regulations the seal killing on the
islands, etc. (See Hearing No. 10, pp. 480-481.)

February 29, 1912. Chief Special Agent Lembkey, in charge of the
seal islands, swears that the regulations of the department bind him
not to kill seals ‘‘under 2 years of age” and that they are in effect,
to wit:

Mr. Mappen. If they were killed it would be a violation of law.

Mr. Lempxey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be in
accordance with existing law.

It should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of.any male
seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, although regulations of the department do prohibit
the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned to the
islands from their second migration. :

Mr. Townsenp. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?

Mr. Lempxey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir. (Hearing No. 9, p. 373.)

A list of 128,000 yearling sealskins taken on the seal islands of Alaska
by the lessees thereof during the term of thewr lease from May 1, 1890, to
May 1, 1910.

One hundred and twenty thousand of these one hund.ed and
twenty-eight thousand yearling seals have been taken in open,
flagrant violation of the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, and the
Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, which rules of the Treasury and
Commerce and Labor Departments have the force of law.

These 120,000 sealskins, itemized in Elhott’s list, are the skins of
“small pups” and “extra small pups,” as listed in the sales at Lon-
don, each and every one of which has been measured there and
certified to the trade there as being less than 34 inches long, and, so
certified, sold upon that certification as to its size and class as a
“small pup” or ‘‘extra small pup.”

These measurements of the London sales classification are ad-
mitted by the Bureau of Fisheries as being absolutely accurate.

Under oath, the Bureau of Fisheries agent and man who has taken
all the skins with the cooperation of the lessees on the Prikilof
Islands since 1899 up to 1910—this agent admitted that a yearling
sealskin of his own identification and measurement as such was 364
inches long. (See Hearing No. 9, pp. 442, 443. Apr. 13, 1912.
H. Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 5}

INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY oF ALASKA.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, July 11, 1911.

ee committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.

The CHaiRMAN. I have some questions to ask. A great deal has been said before
the committee about the illegal killing of seals on these islands, and I have therefore
requested Prof. Elliott to make out a statement of what he considers a proper estimate
of such illegal killing in the last 20 years of the lease. I told him to make the estimate
year by year, and to submit it to the committee, and he has this statement here, I
will ask you, Prof. Elliott, to take it up and discuss it with the committee, and I do
this upon the theory that if the lessees were guilty of any illegal killing of seals, or
were guilty of bringing this herd to partial destruction, that, under the securities that
are lodged with the Government, as I understand it, they ought to make good what-
ever they did in the way of injury to the Government by any violation of the law,
administration orders, or the provisions.of the lease. I want the witness to state as
an expert how many such killings of seals there may have been, and what he con-
siders has been the injury done to the Government during the last 20 years.

Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Chairman, I will read the statement in detail:

MEMORANDUM, FOR HON. JOHN H, ROTHERMEL, IN RE SEAL SKINS TAKEN BY LESSEES
IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

Minimum numbers of yearling seals taken in violation of law by the North American
Commercial Co., or lessees of the seal islands of Alaska. Figures taken from the sales
catalogues of Messrs. C. M. Lampson’s Sons, London, during period of lease held by
the N. A. C. Co. aforesaid.

Total Total
skins oe skins oo
taken. 8 taken. &
20,310 22,672 13, 000
13, 473 22,304 14,500
7,554 19,374 15, 600
7,492 13,128 6,500
16, 030 14, 368 6,918
15, 002 14, 478 6, 837
30, 004 14, 888 7,000
20,762 14, 965 6,500
18, 032 14, 350 7,000
16, 804 ae
22,473 354, 413 128, 478
iT

1 Modus vivendi. 2 Standard lowered this year for first time to ‘‘5-pound skins,” or ‘“‘ yearlings.”

Henry W. Ex.iort,
Juxy 10, 1911.

Mr. CaBie. May I ask one question?

The CuarrMan. Certainly.

Mr. Caste. Is it now against the law,-or has it ever been against the law, to take a
seal 1 year old? May I ask what is the understanding of the committee on that ques-
tion? I want to get straight on it myself. Has it not always been perfectly legal to
take seals a year old or more than a year old?

Mr. Exuiorr. That is absolutely true. These seals are taken in June and July,
but until the 1st of August following no one can tell what is a yearling seal.

Mr. Case. Then, is it your contention that this list you have read is based on
seals that are killed under | year of age?

Mr. Exuiorr. They must be under 1 year old. If you kill them in June or July,
the benefit of the doubt belongs to them. If you kill a yearling seal on the 9th day
of July, how do you know that it was born on the 9th day of July a year ago?

Mr. Casie. I am not a seal expert.

Mr. Extiorr. You nor no other man could determine that.

5g FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. Caste. Do you claim that this list you have read is based upon seals that are
under | year old?

Mr. Exrrorr. Under 2 years old.

Mr. Case. Is there anything illegal in killing the year-old seals?

Mr. Exxrorr. Not if you know it is a year old.

Mr. Caste. What do you call a yearling seal?

Mr. Exxiorr. A yearling seal is a yearling until it is 2 years old.

The CHarRMAN. What is a yearling seal?
Mr. Extrorr. A yearling seal is one not under | year of age nor over 2 years of age.
That isa yearling. You can not get away from that definition. A yearling is a year-
ling until it is 2 years old.
Mr. McGinuicuppy. What is your understanding as to the law on the subject?
Mr. Exsiorr. The law does not allow the killing of a seal under 12 months of age.
Mr. TownsEeNnpD. Under 2 years of age, according to that ruling of 1904?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes, sir; I put that in the department rules in 1904 to stop those
butchers.
Mr. McGituicuppy. Then, it is agreed on all sides that it is legal to kill anything
over 12 months old?
Mr. Exurorr. Yes, sir; I admit that, but you must prove it.

That this killing of seals under 2 years of age was in violation
of law and the regulations i is admitted under oath by the Bureau of
Fisheries agent, W. I. Lembkey, who has killed all the seals under
the instructions of the T reasury, Commerce and Labor Departments,
and Bureau of Fisheries since 1899 to date of July 7, 1913, thus:

On page 372, Hearing No. 9, he testified as follows:

‘““Mr. McGinuicuppy. What do you:call a yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that
is 12 montls old and no more?

‘“Mr. Lempxkey. A yearling seal, in the island nomenclature, is a seal which has
returned to tle islands from its first migration.

“Mr. McGitticuppy. It may be more than 12 months old then?

“Mr. Lempxey. It may be more; it may be a trifle less.

“Mr. McGmurcuppy. How much more than 12 months could it be?

“Mr. Lempxey. It could not be but a little more, because all these seals are born
during a period of 3 weeks, generally speaking, from the 25th of June to the 15th of
July. Now, they return to the islands in a mass about the 25th of July.

“Mr. Mappen. If they were killed, it would be a violation of law?

“Mr. Lempxey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be
in accordance with existing law.

“Tt should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of any
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, although regulations of the department do
prohibit the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned
to the islands from their second migration.

‘““Mr. TOWNSEND. That isa regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?

“Mr. LempxKey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir.’

He testified as follows, on page 442, Hearing No. 9:

“Mr. Exirorr. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its
nose to the tip of its tail?

“Mr. Lempxey. No, sir; not offhand.

‘Mr. Extiotr. You never measured one?

“Mr. LemBkey. Oh, yes; I have measured one.

““Mr. Exxrotr. Have you no record of it? 5

‘““Mr. Lempxey. I[ have a record of it here.

“Mr. Extiorr. What is its length?

“Mr. Lempxey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be, from the
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 393 inches in one instance and 394 in another
instance——

‘‘Mr. Huuiorr. Yes.

“Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three.’’

* * * * * * *

Also on page 443:

“Mr. Exuiorr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off?

“The CHairMAN. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 53

“Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain
amount is left on.

‘“Mr. Lemsxey. I stated about 3 inches.

“Mr. Extrorr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long.

“Mr. Lempxey. No; if it was 394 inches long, it would leave it 364 inches. That
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 394 inches
long. Three inches off that would leave 364 inches.”’

On the 13th of April, 1912, while Special Agent Lembkey was
testifying, the following admission was made by him that he knew
that the London measurements of the skins taken by him on the
seal islands of Alaska, were the reliable and indisputable record of
their sizes, and that the weights of the same were not, to wit:

Mr. Lempxey. You might make a yearling skin weigh 9 pounds by the adding of
blubber, yet when it got to London it would be only so long and so wide.

Mr. Exiiorr. That is it.

Mr. Lempxey. And of course it would develop in the classification when the skins
would be exposed for sale.

(Hearing No. 9, p. 447, Apr. 13, 1912.)

The CHAIRMAN. What is the question to this witness?

Mr. Exutorr. I asked if he does not know that the sizes are established by meas-
urements?

The CHAIRMAN. Just answer that question. Do you know it?

Mr. Lemsxkey. I have been so informed.

Mr. Extrorr. Do you doubt it?

Mr. Lempxkey. Oh, no.

(Hearing No. 9, p. 441, Apr. 18, 1912; Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

The fact that Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
had full prior knowledge of the falsifying of these skin weights into
the books of the department as the weights of 2-year-old male seals
when in truth they were not, is fully set forth in the following records
of his office, to wit, and also that he was confronted with the indis-
putable proof of the fraud by the lessees in giving their lease, viz;

17 Grace AVENUE, LAKEWOOD, OHIO,
December 19, 1906.
Hon. Oscar STRAUS,
Secretary Department Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: In the report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor recently trans-
mitted by the President to Congress, a discussion of the condition of the fur-seal
herd of Alaska appears, and reference is made to the report of E. W. Sims, who made
an investigation into the status of this herd last summer.

The Secretary repeais the words of Mr. Sims, and says that the fur-seal herd is
rapidly disappearing as the result of pelagic sealing; he also adds that in his judgment
the ‘‘destructive effect of this method of taking seals has not been fully realized ”’—
i. e., by anyone until this season.

The Secret ary is right in saying that this herd is ‘‘rapidly disappearing,” but is
entirely wrong in saying that ‘the destructive effect of pelagic sealing has not been
fully realized; he does not seem to know that on the strength of my showing of the
full effect of pelagic sealing under existing law and regulations which I gave to the
Ways and Means Committee of the House December 21, 1894, that that committee and
the House took action February 22, 1895, to suppress and put the pelagic hunter out
of business; but this wise, sensible, and merciful action of the House was defeated
in the Senate by sworn agents of the Governme nt, who denied this danger and injury
incident to pelagic sealing, claiming that the rules of the Bering Sea tribunal were
sufficient to avert it.

Again I brought this danger of pelagic sealing forward in 1898, after the Jordan-
Thompson agreement of November 16, 1897, had utterly denied it. Again my charges
of this real danger were officially denied by sworn agents of the United States Gov-
ernment in the service of the Treasury Department end indorsed by the Secretary
of that department in a letter dated February 7, 1902, addressed to the chairman of
the Ways and Means Committee of the House.

I answered this erroneous official statement of Secretary Shaw by making an exhibit
for the committee which declared that by the end of the season of 1907 the male

54. FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

breeding life on the Pribilof Islands would be extinct. (See Rept. Ways and Means
Com., 2303; 57th Cong., Ist sess., pp. 4, 5.

The committee overruled the Secretary of the Treasury and agreed with me; it
reported and passed a House bill, February 2, 1903, which would have put an end
to the inhuman and indecent business of the "pelagic hunter had it not been again
defeated in the Senate by a false statement made to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee by Senator Fairbanks, February 17, 1903, who assured his colleagues that
an agreement to a satisfactory settlement had ‘been ‘reached in the Anglo-American
Joint High Commission, and that that commission would publish it soon after it
reconvened; that that reconvention would take: place soon after the 4th of ——
1903; hence the House bill was not necessary.

I knew that this statement of Senator Fairbanks was without warrant and said so to
his colleagues in the Senate at the time, but the sine die adjournment on March 4
prevented action, and so this second attempt to suppress the pelagic hunter failed.
‘And it failed not from any want of understanding of the destructive effect of pelagic
sealing, as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor says existed until the Sims report
of 1906 had been made. Mr. Metcalf was himself a member of the Ways and Means
Committee in 1902, when I gave that body the full understanding of this work of
pelagic sealing, and he was also a member when I again reenforced my argument of
1902 with figures and facts, March 9-10, 1904.

He also heard my indictment of the excessive land killing by the lessees before this
committee in 1904; he heard it denied by the lessees, and only partly agreed to by
the Department of Commerce and Labor, solely on the strength of my showing March
9-10, 1904, did the department pledge to the committee the annual reservation of
2,000 choice young male seals from slaughter by the lessees on the Pribilof Islands.

On the 26th of October, 1905, the agent of the department in charge of the seal
islands of Alaska, in an official report admits that my charge of injury through
excessive land killing by the lessees is correct. (See p. 81, S. Doc. No. 98, 59th
Cong., Ist sess.)

On page 33 of Secretary Metcalf’s report for 1906 he tells us that the lessees during
the season of 1906 “took 14,643 fur-seal skins, including 281 skins taken during the
previous season.’’ Then, in this same paragraph, and immediately following, he says
that only 10,942 seals were killed on St. Paul Island and 1,685 seals were killed on
St. George Island during the season of 1906. This analysis which he makes of his
own figures declares the fact that 2,016 skins, and not ‘'281 skins,’’ came over into
the catch of 1906 from 1905.

The significance of this you will at once observe when you understand that these
2,016 skins were the ‘‘food seals,’’ which were killed in October and November, 1905,
and still more, they were the 2,000 choice young male seals ordered spared and sheared
(not branded) in June and early July, 1905, this sheared mark having entirely disap-
peared by the middle or end of September, since every fur seal by the end of Septem-
ber annually completely renews it own hair—sheds and grows it anew in August and
September.

That this is not even faintly understood by the Secretary is plain, for in the next
penn he proceeds to tell us that “in addition to the branded seals reserved for

reeding purposes, 4,724 small and 1,944 large seals were dismissed from the drives
as being ineligible for killing under the department’s regulations.”’

More misinformation with regard to the subject can not be put into fewer words.
Witness the following:

I. These seals were not branded; they were sheared instead, in June and early July.
Then by the end of September they completely lose this mark of reservation, and
each and every one of them that hauls out on the Pribilof Islands during October—
November is killed as a ‘‘food” seal, and the lessees get the skins, which are carried
over into the catch for the next season. (See the official proof of this on pp. 8, 64, 65,
and 86 of 8. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., 1st sess.)

Il. These ‘'4,774 small” seals do not represent in fact more than 800 or 1,000 such
seals. Most of these seals have been recounted over and over again as they were
redriven and then dismissed during the season. Some of them have reappeared in
this fictitious total six or seven times.

III. These ‘1,944 large seals” were the sheared and spared seals of 1906 so marked
in June and early July. Last October and November they were killed as they hauled
out, as “food” seals, and their skins will appear in the quota or catch of the lessees for
1907, if these men are permitted to kill next season.

With regard to the report of Mr. Sims, I shall not dwell upon the many obvious and
plain errors of statement and conclusion which appear in it. I do not do so because
he admits that his experience in the premises is limited to a short week on the seal
islands during the summer of 1906. No man, it matters not how great his inherent
ability, can master this question and intelligently discuss it with so little experience.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 55

With the single exception of correctly speaking of this immediate danger of com-
plete extinction of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, under existing conditions, Mr. Sims is
completely at sea and in profound errot over everything that he brings into conclusion
and recommends in his report of August 31, 1906.

Very sincerely, your friend and servant,
Henry W. Exxrorr.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 2, 1907.
Mr. H. W. Ex.iott,
No. 17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.

Str: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, comment-
ing upon that portion of the Secretary’s last annual report which refers to the Alaskan
fur-seal service, and to thank you for the information therein contained. ;

Respectfully,
LAWRENCE O. Murray,
Assistant Secretary.

No. 17 Grace AVENUE, LAKEWoopD, OHIO,
May 18, 1908.
Hon. Oscar Srravs,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: On the 19th of December, 1906, I addressed to you a letter in which I
pointed out to you certain pronounced errors of statement made in an official report
to you by one E. W. Sims on the condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska. That I did
so was fairly imperative on my part, since these errors of statement and recommenda-
tion, which this inexperienced and wholly untrained agent made, were entirely
subversive of the trufh, and most injurious for those public interests at stake, if acted
favorably upon by you:

On the 2d of January, 1907, I received an official acknowledgment of the receipt of
that letter aforesaid, with the simple ‘thank you for the information contained.”
That acknowledgment was enough; it made no suggestion of an error in any statement
on my part. There was none, and I knew it when I addressed you.

My chief protest in that letter was against the grave misstatement by Mr. Sims, who
said that all of those seals ordered spared by the Hitchcock rules were duly ‘ branded,”’
and so exempted from slaughter ever afterwards by the lessees; that this “ branding”’
was faithfully done, and those spared seals thus permitted to live, grow up into breed-
ing bulls for the rookeries; all this officially and explicitly reported to you, when in
fact it was not true.

Therefore I described to you the manner in which these seals were not branded—not
one of them—and how they were sheared instead. How this sheared mark was entirely
lost a few weeks later when the seal went into its natural annual molt and renewed all
of its body hair. So that those sheared seals thus “branded”’ in June and July and
spared then, when they hauled out again in October and November following were
without any mark of exemption and were killed then by the lessees as “‘food”’ seals;
that in this manner those land butchers were actually nullifying the regulations of
the department, which Mr. Sims erroneously declared the faithful observance of
to you.

What has been the result of this truthful and clear statement on my part to you
made December 19, 1906? What has been done with regard to the conduct of affairs
on the islands during the season following?

1 have the official answer of the agents—your agents—now in.my hands. It is
printed as Senate Document No. 376, Sixtieth Congress, first session. Since I have
myself officially reported to my Government on this life, and as I have so reported
up to date that no man or official following me or prior to my work has thus far been
able to successfully impeach the entire truth and sense of my published official rec-
ords in 1881 and in 1890 (Monograph Seal Islands of Alaska, Government Printing
Office, 1881), and (H. Doe. No. 175, 54th Cong., 2d sess.), [am constrained to review
these reports of your agents for the seasons of 1906-7, inclusive. That review is here-
with inclosed for your information and use. If I have made an error in it and it is
publicly presented to me, I will be most happy to acknowledge it; but I desire to
say that I do not believe it can he questioned seriously by any authority. I challenge
the correction confidently.

56 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Your agent, Mr. Lembkey, has no warrant or even the shadow of authority to ignore
or dispute that table of skin weights which I officially published on page 81, Mono-
graph Seal Islands of Alaska in 1881. He can not and will not be permitted to set
aside in this idle manner, as he does on page 84, Senate Document No. 376, that
long-established and standard agreement of all the United States Treasury agents,
the | agents of the lessees, and myself, upon these skin weights, from 1872 up to 1881
and, still more, his attempt to deny that record so officially published is in turn flatly
denied by the life and erowth of the fur seal itself to-day. That life and growth has
not changed one hair’s “breadth from its order when I, first of all men, accurately
recorded it in my published work—offcially recorded it in 1872- 90, inclusive.

I desire to say that it is with great reluctance that I take up this matter; but I can
not let any officialism of to-day reflect ever so little upon my own of yesterday and
which I shall defend against all ignorant or venal criticism, now and in the future,
just as successfully as I have done soin the past. I refer especially to the ‘‘scientific ”
vagaries of Merriam and Jordan in 1891 and 1896-7 and the venal and calumnious
work of John W, Foster before the Bering Sea Tribunal in 1893.

In the light of this letter, herewith ‘inclosed, and which can not be truthfully
clouded by 2 any man, it must be clear to you that the lessees can not be permitted by
you to safely killa seal next summer on the Pribilof Islands; but your agents can be
directed to permit the natives to kill some 2,500 or 3,000 small male seals for food
without any risk to mention of doing injury to the public interests concerned.

Iam, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
Henry W. ELLiort.

The back-room officials managed to keep Mr. Straus very quiet—so
quiet that Elhott jogged him up a few months later, thus:

1232 FourRTEENTH STREET, NW.,
Washington, D. C., December 7, 1908.
Hon. Oscar STRAUS,
Secretary Commerce and Labor.

Dear Sir: On the 18th of May last I addressed a letter to you, in which I called
your attention to the salient errors of statement made to you in the 1906-7 reports
of your seal-island agent, as printed by order of the Secretary. (S. Doc. No. 376, 60th
Cong., Ist sess.)

In this letter aforesaid I inclosed a published review of that work of your agent.
(Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, May 17, 1908.) I charged the lessees in this article
(as inclosed) with the violation of their contract, since 1n taking their catch for 1907
they had killed yearling seals, and had done so because they were obliged to kill them
or fail to get the 15,000 skins you allowed them to get under the terms of the Hitchcock
rules. To eet them they have openly violated those regulations of the department, and
the inclosed evidence of their own sales agent in London convicts them of that
charge—indisputably convicts them.

Even if we were to admit for sake of argument on this score that Special Agent
Lembkevw’s classification of skin weights is correct, as published on page 84, Senate
Document No. 376, above cited, even then this London classification declares that at
least 6,000 yearlings were killed in the total catch of last season (1908). They must
take these yearlings or have nothing—there is nothing left. That is the fact, and these
men are draining the very dregs of that life up there to get the quota you allow them to
have.

Very sincerely, yours, Henry W. Exziorr.

Mr. Straus however, growing embarrassed over this plain and
direct offer of proof of fraud in the Bureau of Fisheries, put up the
following evasion of his responsibility in the premises; he issued an
executive order transferring the whole business into the hands of
the Hon. Geo. M. Bowers, as the directly responsible agent of the

Government, to wit:
DECEMBER 28, 1908.
To the Commissioner of Fisheries, the agents charged with the management of the seal
fisheries in Alaska, and others concerned:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Revised Statutes of the United
States, sections 1973 and 161, and by the organic act creating this department, ap-
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the
head of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the
general management, supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 57

administration of the laws relating to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska; that the agents
charged with the management of the seal fisheries of Alaska, together with such
other persons in the employ of the department as may hereafter be engaged in the
execution of the said laws, shall be subject to the immediate jurisdiction and control
of the Commissioner of Fisheries, and shall, in addition to the duties required of
them by law, perform such other duties as he may, with the approval of the Secre-
tary of Commerce and Labor, prescribe; that the appropriations for “Salaries, agents
at seal fisheries in Alaska,’’ 1908 and 1909, ‘‘Salaries and traveling expenses of agents
at seal fisheries in Alaska,’’? 1908 and 1909. and ‘Supplies for native inhabitants,
Alaska,’’ 1908 and 1909, shall be expended under the immediate direction of the
Commissioner of Fisheries, subject to the supervision of the Secretary; and that
all records, papers, files, printed documents and other property in the department
appertaining to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska shall be transferred from their present
custody to the custody of the Bureau of Fisheries.
Oscar 8. Srraus. Secretary.

This relieved Oscar Straus from answering Elliott directly, and
threw it upon his successor, Charles Nagel, who appears on the scene
March 4, 1909. *

In the meantime Mr. Bowers, finding that the scent was growing
ety strong out of this fraud in killing seals, persuaded Secretary

traus to appoint a “high scientific advisory board’ on fur-seal
service, so that troublesome questions of citizens like Elhott could
be ‘‘authoritatively’’ answered. Accordingly, on January 15, 1909,
he appointed “Dr. David Starr Jordan (chairman), Dr. Leonhard
Stejneger, Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Mr. Frederic
A. Lucas, and Mr. Charles H. Townsend”’ as “‘the advisory board,
fur-seal service.’’ All the men named promptly accepted this appoint-
ment, and the board was formally commissioned February 6, 1909.
oe Appendix A, pp. 811-813, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
). & L.)

Mr. Elliott taking due notice of this shift, and waiting patiently
until the successor of Secretary Straus had been in office long enough
to get his hearings, addressed the Hon. Charles Nagel a letter covering
specifically the subject of fraud on the part of the lessees, as follows:

LAKEWOOD, Onto, April 26, 1909.
Hon. Cuas. R. NaGet,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: On the 8th of May, 1908, I addressed a letter to your immediate prede-
cessor, inclosing a copy of a recent publication of facts over my own signature. In
this letter I urged him to shut down that work of the lessees on the seal islands of
Alaska, since it was being done in open and self-confessed violation of the regulations
of the Government. The published statements, which I took the trouble to arrange
and present in this responsible manner to him, demanded that action from him. But
he took none. And still more, he did not even acknowledge the receipt of my letter
aforesaid, which gave him this information, lacking on his part in the premises.

However, I know that such silence is the common refuge of that particular official-
ism which is both unable and unwilling to dispute a statement of fact running counter
to its order. But I simply did my duty in the premises, as a good citizen should do.

Now, it is both my duty and my pleasure to renew this request and address it to
you, and to inclose copies of the publications as sent to Mr. Straus last May. Also,
in this connection, I desire to add that on December, 7 1908, I again submitted addi-
tional figures and facts to Mr. Straus, in a letter of that date, which declared that the
lessees had again violated the specific terms of their contract during the season of
1908 by killing thousands of seals specifically prohibited from such killing by the
express order of the Hitchcock rules. To this letter and its indisputable serious
charge no acknowledgment has been made; no attempt to deny its statements has
been even hinted at. The reason for that silence is good. The truth of my charge
has been self-confessed by the lessees in London.

I therefore, on the strength of those figures and facts which I have submitted to
the department, as above cited (May 18 and Dec. 7, 1908), respectfully renew
my request that this work of the lessees be wholly suspended, and at once. I do so

58 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

in the clear light of the inclosed statements of fact. I also recommend that the law
which bonds and binds this corporation leasing the seal islands of Alaska be enforced
before it shall be too late to reach the lessees with those fines and penalties ordered
by it for the public good.
Iam, very respectfully, your friend and servant,
Henry W. Exxiorr.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, April 29, 1909.
Mr. Henry W. Exuiort,
Lakewood, Ohio.

Sir: This bureau has received, by reference from the department, your letter of the
26th instant, in which you invite attention to the condition of the seal herd on the
Pribilof Islands, and inclosed clippings on the same subject from the Cleveland
Plain Dealer, together with your comments thereon. Your communication, with its
inclosures, has been placed on file.

Very respectfully, Gero. M. Bowers,
Commissioner.

These specific charges thus made by Mr. Elhott stirred Secretary
Nagel to appoint a special “expert investigator,’ one Geo. A. Clark,
who was urged for this work by Dr. David Starr Jordan. This
appointment of Clark was made on May 7, 1909 (see pp. 819-820,
Appendix A, H. Com. on Exp. Dep. Com. & Labor). Clark went to
the Pribilof Islands; made his report September 30, 1909.

In this report (on pp. 850, 851, Appendix A) he confirms the truth
of Elhott’s charges in re killing yearlings, as follows:

The yearlings of both sexes for the season must number about 12,000 each.

This question of the proportion of the sexes surviving to killableand breeding age
isa fundamental one. It could be settled in a very few seasons by such regulation of
killing for the quota as would limit it to animals of 3 years of age and over, leaving
the 2-year-olds untouched. The quota would then fall where it belongs, on the
3-year-olds, and give a close approximation of the survivals among the young males,
which in turn could be applied to the young females. This was the method used in.
1896-97, when a minimum of 6 pounds in weight of skins prevailed. During the
present season and for some seasons past a minimum of 5 pounds has been in force,
the skins taken ranging in weight all the way from 4 to 144 pounds, bringing all
classes of animals from yearlings to 4-year-olds into the quota.’

The result of this manner of killing is that we have no clear idea from the quota of
the number of younger animals belonging to the herd. From the irregularity of the
movements of the yearlings of both sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can not be
counted or otherwise accurately estimated on the rookeries.

With this proof of the truth of Elhott’s charges in his hands, Mr.
Secretary Nagel actually, on May 9, 1910, again renews the same
killing orders of 1909, and again sends this guilty agent, Lembkey,
up to kill 13,000 seals during June and July, 1910.

Lembkey kills 12,920 seals in 1910, and then when put under oath,
April 13, 1912, before the House Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce and Labor, he admits that 7,733 of them
are the skins of yearling seals, taken by him in open, flagrant violation
of the law and regulations which he was compelled to quote and
confess that he had full knowledge of at the time he was busy in this
malfeasance! (See pp. 372, 429, 434, 441, 442, 443, 446, 447, Hear-
ing No. 9, Feb. 29, April 13, 1912, House Committee on Expendi-
tures im the Department of Commerce and Labor.)

There is nothing ambiguous or indefinite in Mr. Elhott’s letter of
April 26, 1909, above quoted. Mr. Nagel was a lawyer of long-
established practice and fully grasped the sense and point of Elliott’s
indictment, but he made no reply. Thinking it possible, however,

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 59

that he had not been specific enough, and to put Mr. Nagel beyond
doubt as to his meaning, Elliott again addressed Nagel as follows:

LAKEWOOD, Onto, May 9, 1910.
Hon. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary Commerce and Labor.

Dear Sir: The reason why a new and competent audit of the seal-island books must
be made in your department, and why it is demanded imperatively for the public good,
is as follows, briefly stated:

I. The law has been openly violated on the killing grounds of the islands, and the
terms of the lease ignored by the lessees thereof at frequent intervals, and repeatedly,
from July 17, 1890, up to the close of the season of 1909. This violation of the law
and the contract has been chiefly by the act of killing female and yearling male seals;
said killings have not been in negligible numbers, but have run up into the tens of
thousands of female and yearling male seals.

II. This illegal and improper killing has been ordered by the lessees, and falsely
certified into your department as the taking of male seals according to law and the
rules of your department.

III. The full and complete proof of this illegal killing as specified above exists on
the islands and in the records*6f the sales of those skins. Any competent and honest
auditor of those records will lay them open and so disclose the truth of those charges
as made in Items I and II.

Very truly, yours, Henry W. Euiorr.

Giving Mr. Nagel full time to answer and knowing well why he
did not answer, Elliott, on May 24, 1910, closed this record made as
above, of timely, courteous warning to high officials of fraud practiced
in their names on the seal islands, by sending the following square
charge of the same to Charles Nagel, Secretary, to wit:

LAKEWooD, Onto, May 24, 1910.
Hon. Cuas. NAGEL,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: As a good citizen and being possessed of abundant knowledge, based
upon indisputable fact, I addressed a letter dated December 18, 1906, to your imme-
diate predecessor, Hon. Oscar Straus. In this letter to him I specified certain grave
and inexcusable errors of official reports made to him by his subordinates and cer-
tain specific acts of official malfeasance by the same, in re conduct of the public
business on the seal islands of Alaska.

On the 2d of January, 1907, I ceceived a single acknowledgment of the receipt to
this letter, above cited, with ‘‘thanks for the information contained ’’; but taking
notice of the fact that in spite of the indisputable truth of my charges and propriety
of prompt reform to be made by him in the premises, Mr, Straus had made no move
to do so, again I addressed a cautious letter May 18, 1907, to him, in which I renewed
those charges and request for reform. To this letter I have never received even that
perfunctory acknowledgment which was the entire return for my first one.

Of course I know why it was not answered—that subordinate officialism was guilty
as indicted. It pigeonholed my letters; yet I had charity for Mr. Straus. I knew
how hard it is for one in his position to get at the truth. so I quietly gathered an addi-
tional statement of fact bearing on this guilty officialism aforesaid, and again on Decem-
ber 7, 1908, I addressed a letter, courteously but firmly renewing my charges and
request that he put an end to this malfeasance specified.

Did I receive ananswer? No. Why? Because that guilty officialism again silently
pigeonholed my letter, since it convicted and dismissed certain officers if acted upon,

Mr. Straus went out of office March 4, 1909. You succeeded. Knowing that you
could not have any definite knowledge of this fur-seal business under your direction,
except as you gathered it from this same guilty officialism aforesaid, I addressed you
in turn a letter dated April 26, 1909, exposing that malfeasance under your hand. On
the 29th following your perfunctory acknowledgment of its receipt came to me.

But to this day no attempt has been made since by you to answer its grave, explicit,
and indisputable charges of official malfeasance on the part of your subordinates. Of
course there is good reason for this silence on the part of that officialism thus indicted,
It is guilty. But yet what are you sworn to do in the premises?

On the 9th instant I have addressed to you a final brief of this malfeasance on the
per o your seal-island subordinates. Will continued silence on your part vindicate
them?

Very truly, yours, HENRY W., Ewiiort.

60 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Taking full notice of the fact that the Hon. Nagel did not intend to
recognize the facts in the premises, Mr. Elhott rearranged the salient
items of fraud in re of the lessees and mailed them on July 12,
1909, to President Taft, as follows, to wit:

The President wants nothing but the facts—he will attend to nothing else, coming
from anyone, no matter how close that person may be to him personally. (News
item. ) :

BRIEF.

Analysis of the sworn official evidence which John Hay transmitted to Congress
in 1902, which convicts the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska of gaining their lease
from the Government. on March 12, 1890, by fraud and perjury, and which is self-
confessed in tais publication by those lessees aforesaid.

This proof is detailed in the testimony given to the Ways and Means Committee
of the House of Representatives by Henry W. Elliott, on January 14, 26, and 28,
1907. (Said testimony is found in the record of that fur-seal hearing given to Mr.
Elliott by that committee on those dates and duly preserved on the files.)

Respectfully submitted for the information and the use of the President by Henry
W. Elhott, July 12, 1909.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT IN RE FUR-SEAL FRAUDS.

The evidence which has heen sent in to Congress by John Hay that convicts the
lessees of the seal islands of Alaska of fraud and perjury March 12, 1890, in securing
their lease from the Government, is found as follows:

In February, 1890, Secretary Windom invited bids for the renewal of the lease of
the seal islands of Alaska, said lease to run from May 1, 1890, 20 years.

On February 20, in the presence of the agents and representatives of the bidders
for this lease, he opened nine proposals. These bids were all carefully scheduled
and referred by the Secretary to a board of survey, composed of three chiefs of divisions
in the Treasury Department. This board was directed to report to the Secretary
the best bid offered as above stated for the Government to accept.

This board of survey found that the bid of the North American Commercial Co.,
of San Francisco, Cal., was the best for the public and so reported to Mr. Windom.
This finding was unofficially made known to the bidders, and the Secretary informed
the president of the North American Commercial Co., Isaac Liebes, that on the 12th
of March this lease aforesaid would be awarded to him then if he appeared at the Treas-
ury Department at that time and complied with the stipulations and regulations
demanded by law and the department.

Mr. Liebes appeared as desired and above cited. Mr. Windom then said to him
that he had been credibly informed by good authority that Mr. Liebes and his asso-
ciate bidders, in the name of the North American Commercial Co., were owners of
pelagic hunting schooners and interested in the buying and selling of fur-seal skins
taken at sea. If that were true then Mr. Windom said that he had a plain duty to
perform and would throw out the bid of the North American Commercial Co.

President Liebes replied that this charge that he and his associates then owned a
pelagic hunting schooner or schooners or were then interested in the buying and
selling of pelagic skins was not true. He said that he and his associates had disposed
of all their interests in pelagic sealing vessels and skins and came into this bidding
entirely clean and free of any association with or interest In that business of pelagic
sealing as charged.

Secretary Windom then told him that he (Liebes) must make oath to that declara-
tion; that if he did so then this lease aforesaid would be duly awarded to the North
American Commercial Co.

Mr. Liebes replied and said that he was then ready to do so; and he did so in the
presence of the Secretary and the several chiefs of division, who formed the Board of
Survey, asabove stated. This oath having been duly made and recorded, Mr. Windom
then, on March 12, 1890, formally executed the lease and awarded it to the North
Pa Commercial Co. aforesaid. (See pp. 142-148, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong.,
2d sess. )

When Mr. Isaac Liebes swore, on the 12th day of March, 1890, that neither he nor
any of his associates in the North American Commercial Co. owned pelagic hunting
vessels or were interested in the business of pelagic sealing, on that day and date
aforesaid he committed deliberate perjury, and by so doing he secured that lease from
the Government, as above described, in a fraudulent manner.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 61

The official sworn proof of this perjury aforesaid is found in the following: Report
on the foreign relations of the United States, 1902, Appendix I, etc., sent into Con-
gress by John Hay. This Appendix I is also published as House Document No. 1,
Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.

On page 203 of this House Document No. | aforesaid is the sworn official oath of sole
ownership of the pelagic hunting schooner James Hamilton Lewis, executed January 10,
1890, by Herman Liebes, the partner of Isaac Liebes and associate member and director
of the North American Commercial Co. aforesaid.

This record of the ownership’ of the James Hamilton Lewis as above cited, in the
name of Herman Liebes, associate incorporator and director of the said North Amer-
ican Commercial Co. (with Isaac Liebes, D. O. Mills, and Lloyd Tevis), stands with-
out change on the books of the United States customhouse, office of the collector of
the port, San Francisco, Cal., as quoted above, up to September 17, 1890. Then this
sealing schooner, the James Hamilton Lewis, is sold by H. Liebes to H. Liebes &
Co. (Inc.). So that, then, this said vessel stands on the collector’s books as the prop-
erty of Herman and Isaac Liebes. (See p. 120, ‘‘Exhibit A,’’ H. Doc. No. 1, aforesaid.)

Then and thereafter, up to July 29, 1891, this sworn proof of the ownership of that
vessel, as above cited, stands without change; but on this date a bill of sale is made
of that vessel by H. Liebes & Co. (Inc.) to Max Waizman, etc. (See p. 120, Exhibit A,
H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.)

Thus the State Department, in this form and time, sends the proof clear and undis-
putable to Congress that Isaac Liebes, president of the North American Commer-
cial Co., of San Francisco, Cal., did, on the 12th day of March, 1890, utter fraud and
perjury in the presence of the Secretary of the Treasury, William Windom; that by
said utterance he fraudulently secured the lease of the seal islands of Alaska, as above
stated, from the Government.

Henry W. Evsorr.

JuLy 12, 1909.

All of which is respectfully submitted on this 12th day of July, 1909, for the informa~
tion and the use of the President of the United States.

Henry W. EL.iorr,

The President, after studying them, on July 29, 1909, sent them
to Secretary Nagel for examination and report, and on the 6th of
August following Elliott finally was recognized as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, August 6, 1909.
Sir: The receipt is acknowledged, by reference from the President, of your commu-
nication of the 12th ultimo, in which you make certain charges against the North
- American Commercial Co. in connection with its lease of the seal islands.
In reply you are advised that your letter and the statements contained therein will
receive proper consideration.
Respectfully, Ormssy McHare,
Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Henry W. E.tiort,
17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.

Did Secretary Nagel ever make any “examination” into these
grave charges and official proof cited of the truth of them? Not a
line has ever been put upon the files of his office which declares that
he did so, but he did authorize a newspaper scout named Gus Karger
to publish the following improper and untruthful statement, to wit:

I. Secretary Nagel has instructed them (the officials of the United States Fish
Commission) to pay no attention to his (Elliott’s) charges. * * *

II. Elliott has made charges against James G. Blaine, John Hay, and Charles
Foster. * * * He has also made charges against Hon. John W. Foster. * * *

III. He (Elliott) was thrown almost bodily out of the Ways and Means Committee
on account of getting into a controversy there with the Hon. Sereno Payne, the chair-
ene 2

IV. He used to be an authority 20 years ago, * * * but he is now getting
somewhat confused. * * *

The officials of the Bureau of Fisheries have a most intense dislike for this
man * * *-(Cincinnati Times-Star, Aug. 30, 1909.)

62 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

The last effort made by Charles Nagel as Secretary of Commerce
and Labor to shield these guilty lessees and his own subordinates
from exposure and punishment is found fully made in the following
letter to Hon. Wesley L. Jones, chairman Senate Committee on
Fisheries. Mr. Nagel Hiipnne uses a series of “‘loaded’’ skin

weights to deceive Senator Jones, thus:
FEBRUARY 23, 1911.
Hon. Westey L. Jonszs,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant,
inclosing a communication to you from Henry W. Elliott relative to the sealskins
taken on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1910. Mr. Elliott sends you a
memorandum giving certain data which he wishes you to believe were taken from
the Fur Trade “Review for February, 1911, showing that 8,000 skins out of the 12,920
sold in London in December last were taken in violation of the regulations of "the
department.

Mr. Elliott’s statements relative to fur seals and the fur-seal question have for many
years been characterized by reckless extravagance. As long ago as 1886 the governor
of ers in his official report to the President of the United States for that | year (p.
22) sal

“The fact is either Mr. Elliott entertains a mistaken idea of the duty he owes to his
employers (the Alaska Commercial Co., by whom I am unwilling to believe him
prompted in his persistent misrepresentations of Alaska and her people), or else he
must be governed by a malicious hatred of the people of this Territory, among whom
he is chiefly noted on account of the colossal impediment with which his veracity
seems to be afflicted. It is incomprehensible why the statements of this man under
the circumstances should be accepted by committees of Congress in matters pertaining
to a Territory he has not seen for a dozen years in preference to those of officers of the
Government who are on the ground and sworn to faithfully and conscientiously guard
the interests committed to their care.’

The memorandum of Mr. Elliott states:

“On pages 61 and 62 of the New York Fur Trade Review for sree TO, coats
is the following official classification of the sale made December 16 last of the fur-
seal skins taken as above cited, to wit:

78 Ssmmailis. VOR e=ViearOld some ee tn Alaa Vee Olen SES gi ine ee tegen eete 74 to 8 lb. skins
793 large pups, or ‘‘short” 3-year-olds and ‘‘long” 2-year-olds..... 64 to 7 1b. skins
3,775 ‘‘middling pups” or ‘‘short” 2-year-olds and ‘“‘long” yearlings. 53 to 6 lb. skins
GL05 ema puis: Ot Weak eins 232 ees oe = ea eae ts 41 to 5 lb. skins
ILO) Soc. seal, FOROS” Ore “slvr,” ARNON oo Se ose cock se bce snes 34 to 4 lb. skins

270 (not well classified).

It is believed that you will be interested in learning that the foregoing figures, sub-
mitted by Elliott as being contained in the issue of the Fur Trade Review, do not
appear therein but have been deliberately supplied for the purpose of influencing you
and the members of your committee. The Fur Trade Review article gives a detailed
statement of the sales of sealskins in London, but differs from the Elliott quotation
thereof in the following particulars, as you may readily ascertain by consulting the
publication: (1) The official record of the sales of the various sizes of sealskins shows a
material difference from Elliott’s figures, of which not a single one is correctly given;
(2) The official statement contains no reference whatever to the ages of the seals, and
all the ages inserted in Elliott’s alleged quotation are fictitious; ‘and (3) the printed
record makes no mention whatever of the weights of the skins, all the figures given by
Elliott being supplied by him for his own purposes.

As you are doubtless aware, the trade designations of the sealskins (‘‘smalls,”’ “‘large
pups,” “small pups,’’ etc.) have no reference to the actual ages of the seals. Thus,
the term “‘small pups” include seals 2 years old whose skins weigh over 5 pounds and
less om 6 pounds, while the term ‘‘large pups”’ is applied to skins that weigh over 64
pounds

For your information, there is appended hereto a statement received from Messrs.
Lampson & Co., of London, dated November 9, 1910, by which firm these skins were
sold, showing the number, ‘weights, and classification as to size of the skins to which
Elliott refers. These weights correspond with those taken on the islands before
shipment. The smallest weights reported by Lampson are 4 pounds 10 ounces, of which
weight there were only 11 skins. The next smallest weight thus reported was 4 pounds
15 ounces, or within 1 ounce of the size prescribed by ‘the departmental regulations,
and these embrace only 81 skins; this immaterial underweight was due to the excessive

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 63

care of the natives in removing from the skins every vestige of fatty tissue for food.

There were thus only 92 skins which, while taken in conformity with law, were under

the limit of 5 pounds prescribed by the department, and of these between 70 and 75

es cent were taken for food purposes by the natives after the close of the regular
illing season.

When the ‘Aetna of error in judgment as to weight of pelts not yet removed
from the seals and of unavoidable accidents incident to the killing of thousands of
animals are considered, the wonder is that there are so few undersized animals killed.
The results indicate careful supervision by the agents and also accuracy on the part
of the clubbers. -

The law forbids the killing of seals less than 1 year old except when necessary to
secure food for the natives. This necessity did not arise in 1910, and, consequently,
no seals under 1 year old were killed in that year.

Respectfully, CHARLES NAGEL, Secretary,

To heighten the meanness and deceit employed by Secretary
Nagel in the foregoing letter, he uses a retracted and self-confessed
slander uttered by “the governor of Alaska’”’ (A. P. Swineford). The
“governor” was haled before the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries to answer for the libel above quoted by Nagel,
and then and there made a complete and full retraction of it. ‘TI
have been misled and misinformed,” he told the chairman. (See
H. Rep. 3883, 50th Cong., 2d sess, App. A, pp. XX V—XXVIII.)

And furthermore, and in proof of the Bact that Charles Nagel,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, was specifically informed of the
illegal and improper killing being done on the Seal Islands of Alaska
under his authority and by his authority, the following additional
sworn proof of that guilty knowledge possessed by Mr. Nagel, is
offered, to wit:— j

Exursir A,

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE CAMP FIRE CLUB TO SECRETARY NAGEL.

[Italics ours.]
BEDFORD Park,
New York City, May 10, 1910.
Hon. CHartes NAGEL,
Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
Washington, D. C.

Srr: I am sorry to be obliged to pursue the interests of the fur seal any further; but
a recent publication of news from Washington compels me to do so.

Closely following the information that you have placed the seal islands in charge of
the Bureau of Fisheries, I am confronted by this alleged statement by Commissioner
Bowers, as published by Mr. Ashmun Brown, regular correspondent, in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, on Sunday, May 1:

Commissioner Bowers said to-day:

“ Certainly there will be no wholesale killing; but some seals in the herd ought to be
killed from time to time, and that is all that is intended.”’

To all those who know that the situation demands, for at least five years, a complete
cessation of all seal killing on the Pribilof Islands, coupled with the knowledge that
Commissioner Bowers and his advisers on the fur seal hold to the view that a certain
percentage of fur seals should be killed each year—‘for the good of the herd’’—the
publication quoted above is rather startling. I would be glad to know whether Com-
missioner Bowers has been correctly quoted, and also whether it really is his intention
to kill seals ‘‘from time to time.”’

At the hearing before the Senate Committee on Conservation, on March 22, I
became painfully conscious of the fact that Mr. Lembkey, who is one of Commis-
sioner Bowers’s chief advisers, earnestly desires that the killing of seals shall go on,
and that evidently it was through his advice that a very large appropriation was
asked for, for the purchase of a plant which would facilitate such operations. It
seemed to me perfectly evident that Mr. Lembkey is anxious to have the job of super-
intending the killing of the seals on the islands; and therefore I regard his presence
on the fur-seal board of the Fisheries Bureau, and as an adviser to Fish Commissioner
Bowers, as dangerous to the interests of the fur seal.

64 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

While I am on this subject I desire to respectfully call your attention to the fact
that at least a majority of the advisory board of the fur-seal service—if not indeed
the whole body—is of the opinion that the killing of surplus male seals should go on
to the extent of 95 per cent each year. This fact is fully attested in recommendation
No. 2, as adopted on November 23, 1909, at a full meeting of the board. You will
find it in the copy of the recommendations now on file in your office. The advisory
board of seven persons and the fur-seal board of the Fisheries Bureau, also consisting
of seven persons, not only jointly approved the making of a new killing lease, as shown
by recommendation No. 1, but also, by direct implication, approved the killing of
“95 per cent of the 3-year-old male seals.’’ The advisory board completely failed
to recommend a close season for the fur seals, or for any restriction on commercial
killing, beyond a paltry 5 per cent per annum of the 3-year-old males.

In view of the present situation, i respectiully suggest that, because of his personal
interests in the killing of fur seals for commercial purposes, it is to the interest of the
Government that Mr. Walter I. Lembkey be dropped from the fur-seal board, and
that Mr. Henry W. Elliott, of Cleveland, Ohio, should be appointed to a position on
the advisory board. I think it is no more than fair that among the 14 persons who
hold the fate of the fur seal in their hands there should be at least one person who can
represent the views of a very large number of sportsmen and naturalists who are inter-
ested In seeing the fur-seal industry restored by the most thorough and expeditious
methods, but whose views are not at present represented in any manner whatsoever
before your department.

Yours, very respectfully, :
W. T. Hornapay,
Chairman, ete.

Mr. Nagel replies deliberately to Dr. Hornaday in the following
letter, which is both arrogant, and insulting, to wit:

Exursit B
LETTER FROM SECRETARY NAGEL TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE CAMP FIRE CLUB.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 15, 1910.

Srr: I have read your letter of the 10th instant with some surprise. As you know,
you have been given the fullest opportunity to give your advice as to the management
of the seal herds before the congressional committees, and with respect to the par-
ticular subject which you now have in mind your advice was not accepted. If you
had not had the opportunity to present your views, and urged them for the first time
now, I might have some questions as to the propriety of my course. But since all the
phases were presented to the committee, and Congress by unanimous vote charged
me with the responsibility of determining what should be done by way of killing,
you will appreciate that I must regard the question as closed.

I may add that as far as I know there are only two persons who manifest any interest
in this matter and who differ from the view which has been accepted by Congress
and. by the department. I have reason to believe that members of the Camp Fire
Club who have had an opportunity to visit the islands and to see the seal herds—a
privilege of which I believe you have not availed yourself—entertain views directly
opposed to yours. In fact, I would be glad to know whether you are writing in your
own person, or as representative of the club, when you sign yourself as chairman.

Now, Mr. Hornaday, you have considerable responsibilities in your official employ-
ment, and I shall endeavor not to molest you. I hope that you will accord me the
same privilege in my capacity. I always welcome advice; I do not fear criticism;
but I do discourage unnecessary comment upon other men engaged in my bureau
who are charged with responsible duties, who are expected to be loyal, and who are
not in a position to defend themselves. I regard it as my part to speak up for them.

Respectfully,
CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary.
Mr. W. T. Hornapbay,
Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation,
The Camp Fire Club of America.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 65

This threat of Mr. Nagel “to molest’? Dr. Hornaday if the latter
did not drop this: business of lookimg at the manner in which those
ublic interests were being destroyed, did not prevent Dr. Hornaday
rom continuing that observation, for the following answer by him
was quickly made, which gave Secretary. Nagel full knowledge and
ample warning of what he might expect if he pursued this seal herd
with illegal slaughter, to wit:

ExuHisir C.
LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE TO SECRETARY NAGEL.

BEDFORD PARK,
New York City, May 18, 1910.
Hon. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 15 in reply to my inquiry regarding the accuracy
of the published interview qudéting Commissioner Bowers as saying that fur seals are
to be killed by your department this year on the Pribilof Islands confirms my worst
fears. You do not contradict the published information that. seal-killing operations
are to proceed this year under your authority and direction. You and the friends of
the fur seal are-now literally at the parting of the ways, and only your calmest judg-
ment can save you from making a very grave mistake.

If the English language has any meaning, your own letter clearly indicates that
it is your intention to go on killing seals. It means that you will not permit the harried
herds anything in the nature of a close season. You say that my advice on this point
‘‘was not accepted.’’ You assume that Congress agrees with you regarding the con-
tinued killing of seals, and you say that you ‘‘regard the question as closed.”’

I think the inclosed printed report of the Camp Fire Club’s committee on game
protective legislature will show you whether or not I represent the Camp Fire Club,
or at least all of it except the one member who is known to share your views.

Your implied threat to me if I pursue this matter any further is of no effect
anywhere. You are welcome to ‘‘molest”’ me if you can. But it happens that I am
not on trial in this matter or in any other. I do not write you now to threaten you,
but only to give you, in the friendliest spirit in the world, a solemn warning not to
commit an act that will be a grave error. If you have read the newspapers during the
past three months, you must know that the acts of even a Cabinet officer are subject to
review by the public he issupposed to serve, and no threats of yours, either expressed

or implied, will for one moment deter me and the hundreds of strong and capable men

I represent from holding you accountable for your future acts regarding the fur seal.
We do not propose that our work shall be nullified in the manner that you calmly
propose.

You say my ‘‘views were not accepted.’’ This would be important if it were true.

Why did President Taft send a special message to Congress to provide against the
making of a new killing lease?

To stop the killing of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands.

Did the President, or did Senator Dixon’s committee, or the United States Senate,
intend for one moment that you should go right on in the bloody killing business
without a halt?

No! A thousand times no, and you know it!

Was it not partly for the purpose of clearing our hands of fur-seal blood and clearing
Pe road we treaties by the State Department that the new law was driven through

ongress?

You now propose to nullify the whole act, and set up Lembkey in the killing business
in place of the North American Commercial Co.

When you and I were before the Senate Committee I saw clearly what was in Lemb-
key’s mind, and at last I suspected what was in yours. It was then that I demanded
of you a positive assurance regarding your intentions, some proof that you were giving
the committee a square deal. And what did you reply?

You were careful to give no assurance whatever. You merely shifted uneasily in
your chair and said, ‘‘I would like to have the right to kill seals, for I think it would
om a hte thing to hold it as a club over the heads of the pelagic sealers,’’ or words to

at effect.

21588—13——5

66 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Now, what is it that you are really going to do?

You propose to use the bloody club on the seals themselves forthwith; and you
propose to pay good Government money for a lot of old junk with which to carry on
the seal-slaughtering business.

I tell you, Mr. Secretary, that the records of the last 15 years of fur-seal history are
black with official blunders, and some other things even more serious. The records are
all accessible for publication, if necessary. I had hoped that through President Taft’s
wise, prompt, and very statesmanlike initiative anew erahad dawned. I know that the
United States Senate intends that there shall be a change for the better, and I know
that in the Senate my views regarding the stoppage of seal killing just now are accepted.
If you doubt it, we can very easily have that question decided in the Senate Chamber.
I warn you that if you permit any seals to be killed on those islands during your term
of office it will be a breach of the fa?th that has been reposed in you by the Senate
Committee on the Conservation of National Resources. As to the consequences of
this course, it is not necessary for me to make any predictions just now.

Yours, very truly,
W. T. Hornapay,
Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation and Preserves.

Approved by—

Jutius H. Srymour,
Council for the Camp Fire Club.
May 18, 1910.

This vigorous, square, truth-telling letter, as above quoted, of Dr.
Hornaday, stung Secretary Nagel into the following answer, which at
once squarely puts him in the light of having full knowledge of what
the nature of the illegal killmg he was about to perpetuate was, to wit:

Exaurpit D.
LETTER FROM SECRETARY NAGEL TO THE COMMITTEE.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 23, 1910.

Dear Sir: I have read your letter of the 18th instant. It is apparent that further
correspondence will not aid the situation. You are entitled, however, to know the
position of the department, and I shall endeavor to state it as briefly as possible.

That pelagic sealing ought to be stopped is admitted by everyone, and every effort
is being made to put a stop to this brutal and uneconomic practice. So far nothing
positive has been accomplished. You are of the opinion that in the meantime the
preservation of the seal herds would be furthered by a closed season upon the islands
for a certain number of years. As to this there is, to say the least, a difference of
opinion. Those who have been charged with the responsibility to investigate these
conditions advise that a cessation to the killing will only play into the hands of pelagic
sealers. They are of the opinion that the killing of a large proportion of male seals
is not only safe, but conduces to the preservation of the herd. It is proposed, for the
present, to proceed upon this theory, as Congress is understood to have contemplated
when the new law was enacted. The President and the State Department are fully
advised of what it is proposed to do. I think it right to inform you because you seem
to contemplate steps to have the policy of this department reversed. Inasmuch as
the season is approaching, any action of that kind ought to be taken promptly.

In your letter of the 10th instant you said that ‘‘because of his personal interests
in the killing of fur seals for commercial purposes it is to the interests of the Govern-
ment that Mr. Walter 1. Lembkey be dropped from the fur-seal board.’’ More es-
pecially because of the use of that language, I asked you whether you were writing
in your own person or as representative of the club. You now assure me that you
represent the club, and I must call on you to specify your complaint against Mr.
Lembkey. If your objection is based merely upon a difference of opinion between you
and Mr. Lembkey as to the wisdom of killing seals, it will serve no purpose to discuss
the matter further with me. If, however, you mean to say that Mr. Lembkey is
disqualified as an official because of personal or financial interests in the killing of fur
seals for commercial purposes, then it is fair that he should be notified of that charge,
and that the department should be advised at once in order that it may investigate.
If you are prepared to specify so that this matter may be made the subject of an

ee

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 67

inquiry, I shall be obliged to have you do it promptly, because Mr. Lembkey is
expected to leave for Alaska in the near future, and after he has gone it will be diffi-
cult to make a change or even to communicate in time to take action.
Respectfully,
CHARLES NaGEL, Secretary.

Dr. W. T. Hornapay,
Camp Fire Club of America, New York City.

P. S8.—Since dictating the above, Mr. Bowers has shown me your letter to him of
the 19th instant. You make serious comments upon one or more of the fur-seal
experts or expert advisers. Of course, I do not know what you have in mind, but
inasmuch as these advisers occupy positions of some responsibility, especially at this
time, it is of great importance to me to know the facts just as promptly as possible,
and you are therefore invited to put in my possession all such statements as you may
be willing to give that will enable me to make a proper inquiry.

CHARLES NAGEL, Secretary.

To this letter asking for specific charges, Dr. Hornaday at once sent
the following direct, pointed specifications, to wit:
¢

Exuisit C.
LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE TO SECRETARY NAGEL.

BeEprorpD Park,
New York City, May 18, 1910.
Hon. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 15 in reply to my inquiry regarding the accuracy
of the published interview quoting Commissioner Bowers as saying that fur seals are
to be killed by your department this year on the Pribilof Islands confirms my worst
fears. You do not contradict the published information that seal-killing operations
are to proceed this year under your authority and direction. You and the friends of
the fur seal are now literally at the parting ‘of the ways, and only your calmest judg-
ment can save you from making a very grave mistake.

li the English language has any meaning, your own letter clearly indicates that it is
your intention to go on killing seals. It means that you will not permit the harried
herds anything in the nature of a close season. You say that my advice on this point
““was not accepted.’’ You assume that Congress agrees with you regarding the con-
tinued killing of seals, and you say that you ‘‘regard the question as closed.”’

I think the inclosed printed report of the Camp Fire Club’s committee on game
protective legislation will show you whether or not I represent the Camp Fire Club,
or at least all of it except the one member who is known to share your views.

Your implied threat to me if I pursue this matter any further is of no effect anywhere.
You are welcome to ‘‘molest” me if you can. But it happens that I am not on trial in
this matter or in any other. I do not write you now to threaten you, but only to give
you, in the friendliest spirit in the world, a solemn warning not to commit an act that
will be a grave error. If you have read the newspapers during the past three months,
you must know that the’acts of even a Cabinet officer are subject to review by the public
he is supposed to serve, and no threats of yours, either expressed, or implied, will for
one moment deter me and the hundreds of strong and capable men I represent from
holding you accountable for your future acts regarding the fur seal. We do not propose
that our work shall be nullified in the manner that you calmly propose.

You say my ‘‘views were not accepted.’’ This would be important if it were true.

Why did President Taft send a special message to Congress to provide against the
making of a new killing lease?

To stop the killing of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands.

Did the President, or did Senator Dixon’s committee, or the United States Senate,
intend for one moment that you should go right on in the bloody killing business
without a halt?

No! A thousand times no, and you know it!

Was it not partly for the purpose of clearing our hands of fur-seal blood and clearing
the road for treaties by the State Department that the new law was driven through
Congress? : é

I respectfully suggest that the American people will be interested in knowing
through your investigations how many female seals and very young seals were killed
during the past eight years when on outsiders were visiting the islands to observe

68 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

and report. It appears to be a fact that the sales of skins from our islands have shown
the slaughter of many yearling and pup seals, contrary to law. Now, who is to blame
for permitting that slaughter?

I will also point out to you that the report of the total number of. seals surviving
last year, as made to you by Mr. Clark and published by you, is manifestly erroneous
and absurd in that it reports a number of living seals far in excess of existing facts.
At present I will do no more than draw you attention to the fact (officially published)
that on December 17, 1903, Mr. Walter I. Lembkey declared to his chief in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock), in the presence of Mr.
Henry W. Elliott, “that at the close of the season of 1903, August 1, the whole num-
ber of fur seals alive then on the Pribilof Islands was not to exceed 150,000.”

Now, Mr. Secretary, I ask you: Where is the man of intelligence who will have ~
the hardihood to say that the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, harried constantly, as
they have been by a powertul fleet of pelagic sealers, have not decreased more than
10 per cent since December, 1903? Look at the London market reports of the annual
catches of the pelagic sealers of “‘Alaskan”’ seals; consider that according to your
own Mr. Lembkey two seals are killed and Jost for every one killed and secured by
the pelagic sealers; then decide whether you think the total number of seals has not
enormously decreased during the past seven years. And yet your Mr. Clark has
officially reported to his chief that the seals on the islands ‘‘now number less than
140,000” (see your annual report). Why should ‘‘140,000” be suggested, when the
real figure can hardly be one-half that? Was it not to deceive you into thinking that
the number so deftly suggested is approximately the real number living? I claim that
it was.

Who is there that will go before the American people and assert that there are now
more than 60,000 seals belonging to our islands, except the men who wish to make a
living by killing them? That there were only 14,336 killable seals on the islands
last year, when 15,000 were desired, is very significant.

We are now at the parting of the ways; for I see clearly that you and the Camp Fire
Club of America do not agree on any one essential point. We shall feel it our duty
to appeal to the President, asking him to take the responsibility of directing a sup-
pression of hostilities by your department. We shall tell him that when you were
before Senator Dixon’s committee that committee unsuspectingly approved your
bill (clothing yourself with most absolute powers) in the belief that no seals were to
be killed by your orders in the immediate future. Fortunately, it was first promised
that you should have $100,000 for the purchase of the effects of the North American
Commercial Co. Then it was pointed out that if no seals were killed and no wages
pad the natives therefor the entire support of the natives must be provided by

ongress.

As you will undoubtedly remember, and as the records will show, there exists
abundant documentary proof of this fact. It was your Mr. Lembkey who then said:
‘“Well, gentlemen, if there is to be no seal killing then we will need,a larger appro-
priation to enable us to take care of those natives.’’ Thereupon some one finally pro-
posed $50,000 as the additional amount necessary for the support of the natives because
no seals were to be killed by them, and they would receive no wages as they hereto-
fore have done. The $100,000 you originally proposed was then and there increased
to $150,000 for that purpose. It was appropriated by Congress, promptly and cheer-
fully, and you have it to-day.

But the unquestionable ‘‘gentleman’s understanding” on which that extra $50,000
was granted you does not rest on my memory, nor even upon the stenographic report
of the hearing before the Senate Committee on Conservation. What the committee
expected of you and the purpose of that extra $50,000 was clinched on the floor of the
Senate by Chairman Dixon in the following words, explaining to Senator Hale why
your appropriation was to be so large as $150,000:

“But in the meantime, if we put into effect the closed season, these Indians will be
living on the islands with nothing to live upon, with no physicians or schools; and in
view of their support and maintenance temporarily, until the killing again takes place,
the Secretary felt that the Government should make some provision to take care of
them in the meantime.’”’ (Congressional Record, Mar. 23, 1910, p. 3655.)

The ‘‘Secretary” referred to was Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and
Labor, who, with $50,000 to his credit especially to enable him to maintain 300 natives
without paying them wages for butchering seals, now calmly proposes to accept the
advice of the evil genius of the fur seal, and go right on with killing operations.

__ As indisputable evidence I will attach to this letter a portion of the Congressional
Record containing Senator Dixon’s exact language.

Now, what was the intention of President William H. Taft, when he penned his
special message to Congress in behalf of the fur seal? Here are his exact words, as
published in Senate Document No. 430, March 15.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 69

“The policy which the United States has adopted with respect to the killing of
seals on the islands is not believed to have had a substantial effect upon the reduction
of the herd; but the discontinuance of this policy is recommended in order that the
United States may be free to deal with the general question in its negotiations with
foreign countries. To that end it is reeommended that the leasing system be aban-
doned for the present, and that the Government take over entire control of the islands,
including the inhabitants and the seal herds. The objection which has heretofore
been made to this policy, upon the ground that the Government would engage in pri-
vate business, has been deprived of practical force. The herds have been reduced
to such an extent that the question of profit has become a mere incident, and the con-
trolling question has become one of conservation.’

As any man may see from the foregoing, the President and Congress intended, and
still do intend, that the slaughter of fur seals on our islands shall immediately cease!
Just when they will be willing for killing to be resumed is a question that the future
alone can determine. Congress, as representing the people of this Nation, desires
that the international fur-seal disgrace shall end immediately, and that plundering
shall cease. The good intentions of the President and Congress are entirely beyond
dispute. They accepted your bill without question; and they gave you $50,000 for
the first year’s maintenance of the natives whe no longer would draw wages from seal
butchery. They even gave-fyou, most generously, ‘and almost without question,
$100,000 ) with which to buy up the old property of the outgoing lessees—old junk, we
call it—at prices to be fixed by your representatives.

All this was done in the belief that you honestly intended to take the first and
most important step in ending the great scandal.

We warn you not to make a . false step in this matter. If you carry out your present
intention blame will fall heavily, and it will fall upon you and Commissioner George
M. Bowers. The public will not care who advised you two to break faith with Congress
or who ‘“‘concurs”’ init. You will be arraigned on the floors of Congress and in the press
of America, and if the terms of your arraignment are severe you will have only your-
self and the evil genius of the fur seal to thank for it.

The moderate tone of your last letter has made me feel deeply sorry that you are
being led by blind guides into a totally false position, and one which quickly will
prove very hateful to you. JI am taking all this trouble to warn you because Senator
Dixon has assured me that at heart you are a very conscientious man. You have
not followed the fortunes of the fur seal for 30 years, as I have. You are depending
upon the advice of men who are giving you bad advice—for several different reasons.
The one man whose advice would be worth most to you—Mr. Henry W. Elliott—is
cordially disliked by some of the ‘‘iur-seal”’ experts whose mistakes he has merci-
lessly exposed.

If the Secretary of State really wishes you to slaughter seals in order to facilitate
the making of treaties against seal slaughter (?), then may Heaven help his ‘‘nego-
tiations,”’ for assuredly they will need it. In the well-nigh annihilation of the fur-
seal industry the Department of State already has many failures to answer for, and
it is high time for those failures to give place to one diplomatic success.

Yours, very truly,
W. T. Hornapay,
Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation and Preserves,
Camp-Fire Cluh of America.
Approved and signed by—
- Juuius H. Srymour,
Counsel.
A. 8. Hovueuron.
CHARLES D. CLEVELAND.
MANHALL McLEAN.
GeEorGEe WM. BuURLEIGH.
Wriuram B. GREcLEY.

Did Charles Nagel attempt to answer and deny those specific
charges of fraud and wrongdoing put up to him in the above responsi-
ble and authoritative form seit record? No. He issued his orders
as usual to Walter I. Lembkey, and killed in the following June and
July 12,920 seals, out of which 7,733 were self-confessed yearling
seals—self-confessed by his own agent, Lembkey. (See Hearing No.
e ae 435, 486-442, 443, Apr. 18, 1913; H. Com. Exp. Dept.

sy

70 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

In conclusion, and cumulative proof of this charge against Charles
Nagel as above made May 18, 1910, is the following letter of United
States Senator Dixon, chairman of the Committee on Conservation
of National Resources, United States Senate, who exposes the fact
that he has been deceived by Charles Nagel with regard to this very
subject of Dr. Hornaday’s letter of above quotation, to wit: —

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION OF NATIONAL RESOURCES,
May 23, 1910.

My Dear Dr. Hornapay: I had a personal talk with Secretary Nagel the other
day regarding the matter of killing some of the male seals, and after he had explained
to me the circumstances, I felt better contented. I think you can rest assured that
the killing will only be to make a show, with the understanding that this move is
done at the instance and request of the State Department, in order to cover certain
phases of the international treaty negotiations, which Secretary Nagel says are now
pending. I wish I could quote you some of his statements made, but he says that the
understanding between Knox and himself is thorough regarding the matter, and he
feels positive that he is pursuing the right source at this special time.

I do not believe, from his statement, that any great number of seals will be killed,
and that as soon as the pending negotiations are settled the policy of killing will be
reversed.

Yours, very truly,

Jos. M. Dixon.

Dr. W. T. HorBaDAy, Z
2969 Decatur Avenue,

Bedford Park, N. Y.

This letter of Dixon to Hornaday shows that Nagel had deliberately
deceived Senator Dixon as to his intended purpose of violating the
close time in 1910, which he had promised the Senate Committee on
Conservation of National Resources March 22, 1910, he could order
for the season right ahead, and for which close time he received $50,000
from the committee to support the natives during the year in that
idleness which would follow.

De Hornapay. The same date; that is to say, in the hearing of March 22, 1910
reading]:

‘Present: Senators Dixon (Chairman), Dick, Jones, Briggs, Dillingham, Guggen-
heim, Heyburn, Dolliver, Clark of Wyoming, Bankhead, Overman, and Smith of
South Carolina.

‘Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor; Solici-
tor Charles Earl; George M. Bowers, Commissioner of the Bureau of Fisheries; Dr.
B. W. Everham, of the Bureau of Fisheries; Walter I. Lembkey, agent of the seal
fisheries; and Dr. W. T. Hornaday appeared.”’

The first appropriation asked for by Mr. Nagel, with which to carry out the terms
of the bill which he had drafted, was $100,000. That sum was to be used chiefly in
buying the properties and paraphernalia of the outgoing North American Commercial
Co., in order that with that paraphernalia the business of killing seals could be
continued.

In behalf of the Camp Fire Club I called attention to the fact that it was desirous
that the killing should cease for a time, and there should be a closed season, which
we demanded should be 10 years. That matter was discussed; and it was tacitly
agreed upon by members of that committee that there should be a closed season, and
that is what prompted: Senator Dixon to use the expression that he did. Then, said
Mr. Lembkey, ‘‘Gentlemen, if there is to be a closed season, we must have more
money; we must have money with which to support those natives during their idle

eriod.’’ I will read to you the words that I wrote down at the time:

‘Well, gentlemen, if seal killing has to stop, we will have to have a larger appro-
priation in order to support those 300 natives, whose wages will stop.”’

Mr. TownsEeND. You are quoting Mr. Lembkey now?

Dr. Hornapay. Yes, sir. On being asked how much more he thought would be
necessary he said, ‘‘We will need about $50,000 more,’’ and that amount was agreed
to then and there, for the purpose of supporting those idle natives whose wages would
stop.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 71

Mr. TownsEeNpD. That is tl e explanation Senator Dixon gave to Senator Hale when
the bill came in with $150,000?

Dr. Hornapay. Precisely, and that is a matter of record in the records of Congress.
Now, if that does not prove an understanding that seal killing should stop, then the
English language is absolutely worthless.

Mr. Seymour. And tle $50,000 was appropriated?

Dr. Hornapay. The $50,000 was appropriated, and Secretary Nagel sat there and
accepted it. :

Mr. Srymour. For the express purpose of taking care of the Indians during the
closed season?

Dr. Hornapay. Precisely, and for no otler purpose.

Mr. Seymour. And Secretary Nagel Leard it and understood it and agreed to it,
did he?

Dr. Hornapay. He did, and he has the money now, undoubtedly.

Mr. TownseEND. This debate that you introduced in your testimony, covering
explanations by Senator Dixon to Senator Hale as to why this $50,000 in addition
was eranted, you took from the Congressional Record?

Dr. Hornapay. Certainly, and from no other source. I clipped pages from the
Record itself. I did not quate it. (Hearing No. 6, pp. 267, 268, July 27, 1911: H.
Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)

Secretary Charles Nagel had full knowledge of the fact that on
March 9-10, 1904, the Department of Commerce and Labor pledged
itself to the Ways and Means Committee not to allow any seals killed
on the Pribilof Islands “under 2 years of age,” and this pledge was
also given to the Senate subcommittee in charge of Alaskan Affairs.
(Goy. Dillingham, chairman, on Mar. 8, 1904.)

Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock appeared before the Ways and Means Com-
mittee on March 9, 1904, and said that he had been sent to represent
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and to make the following pro-
posal to the committee. On page 35, Hearings on Fur Seals, Ways
and Means Committee, Fifth-eighth Congress, second session, on
House Joint Resolution 124, appears the following:

Page 35:

Mr. Hrrceucock. First of all we propose to limit still further the ages at which seals
can be taken. We will prohibit altogether the killing of seals under 2 years of age.

We will also prohibit the killing of seals above 4 years of age. Killing will thus be
restricted to seals between 2 and 4 years old.

Page 36:

Mr. Wi1uiAMs of Mississippi. You propose to forbid the killing of seals under
2 years old?

Mr. Hircucock. Yes.

Mr. Wriuurams. At 2 years of age that is the very time you can tell the difference
between the bull and the cow. In other words, if you kill nothing under 2 years old
there should be no reasonable excuse for a mistake in that respect?

Mr. Hircucock. You are quite right; that isthe point. The great objection to the
killing of these small seals, and I take it the only objection, is the difficulty in dis-
tinguis\.ing the males from the females.

On July 28, 1910, Secretary Charles Nagel received from the
Bureau of Fisheries a marked copy of the above hearing, and sends
that notice of this reception to the House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24,1911, see page 987,
Appendix A, and the following published charges had also been sent
to Secretary Nagel as early as June 26, 1909, to wit:

MEMORANDUM FOR HON. CHAS. NAGEL.

With special regard for the subject of my letter to you of April 26th instant, I have
eg the following to-day, for which I have the complete warrant and proof in
and.
Henry W. ELuiorr,
17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.
JUNE 26, 1909.

72 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

CHARGES MADE ARE RECORDS—PROF. ELLIOTT DECLARES THEY ARE NOT PERSONAL
WITH HIM—INVOLVE QUESTION OF SEAL SLAUGHTER—-WHY HE TAKES MATTER UP
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

‘““Those are not my charges,’’ said Prof. Henry W. Elliott, when questioned Saturday
by the News concerning the letter he sent to Attorney General Wickersham, and
which was published in the News Friday.

“ The charges are statements of official record and sworn affidavits in the files of the State
and Treasury Departments which convict and order the punishment of those men. I
have merely made an arrangement of them, so that they become at once intelligible
and indisputable in their showing,’’ replied Elliott. “‘I found that these men had
gotten into complete control of the officialism which succeeded John Hay in the
Department of State, and I had no other way at my command of removing them than
this one of showing them up.”’

ASKED BURTON TO HELP.

“You say that mutual friends of President Roosevelt and yourself assured you that
the former would surely act on this showing of yours. Do you mind telling who these
friends were?”

‘‘No, I do not object; and I will tell if you press the question: It is a natural one,
because so many have asked me why Mr. Burton has not insisted on this being done,
which I now urge upon the Attorney General. Mr. Burton did try to get Secretary
Root to make a date on which to meet with him and myself, in the State Department;
this attempt was made by Mr. Burton on March 6, 1907. Root peremptorily refused
todo so. Mr. Burton was very much surprised, and when he reported that refusal to
me, I at once told him why Root did not meet us in his (Burton’s) presence. Root
- knew I would bring these matters up.”’

‘‘What is the particular offense of those men whom you desire the Attorney General
to proceed against and punish?”

“Those men are the men who, in 1890-91, seduced Mr. Blaine from the path of his
plain duty in the premises; and that lapse on his part cost us that fiasco at Paris which
resulted in the award of the Bering Sea tribunal; that award put the fur seal herd of
Alaska into the hands of the land and sea butchers of it completely; just what it was
not supposed to do, by the people, and not intended to be; that result has cost us the
loss of over 5,000,000: of fur seals—a property loss of over $30,000,000 up to date, and
still this question is unsettled. Now yet, and worse, it has inflicted the most indecent
and cruel killing of those seals that has ever been licensed by a civilized government;
_ all this sin and shame fairly fastened on us by those men. Do you wonder why I want
them punished?”

WHY HE DIDN’T GO.

‘““Couldn’t Senator Burton have gone to see President Roosevelt?”

‘Yes, and, no; necessarily there is a distinct line drawn between the legislative and
executive officers of our Government; a Senator or a Congressman has no right to go
down to the office of a Cabinet member and personally order business; and no Cabinet
officer has the right to go up to a committee in Congress and personally lobby or pro-
mote his business there. True, some Senators and certain Congressmen and certain
Cabinet officers do violate this proper rule; but Mr. Burton would not. Mr. Burton
understands that I am right in this Alaskan fur seal business; he has frankly admitted it,
and he has explained to my complete satisfaction why he thought it would be useless on his
part to try and get Roosevelt to act. Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Howland both so understand
it now, as they would have understood it then,’’ replied Mr. Elliott.

‘‘Then you believe that these men can be punished on that evidence which you
ask the Attorney General to order out of the Ways and Means Committee?”

“‘There is not a shadow of doubt of it. Why has it been suppressed if that fact of its
power to convict those men was not well known to certain men close to President
Roosevelt?” said the professor. (Evening News, Cleveland, Ohio, June 26, 1909.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. (ie

RECAPITULATION OF THE PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF CHARLES
NAGEL IN RE KILLING YEARLING SEALS IN VIOLATION OF LAW
AND THE REGULATIONS.

[See Exhibit III for details.]

April 26, 1909—Henry W. Elliott gives Secretary Charles Nagel
specific details of the killing of yearling seals by the agents of the
Government on the seal islands of Alaska. He urges Nagel to stop
it and punish the lessees for this criminal trespass. (See pp. 74, 75,
Dixon Hearings, Rothermel letter, May 20, 1911.)

May 7, 1909.—Secretary Nagel appoints George A. Clark as a
special investigator and sends him to the seal islands to report upon
the truth of Elhott’s charges in re killing yearling seals. (See pp.
819-820, Appendix A, June 24, 1911.)

September 30, 1909.—George A. Clark reports that Lembkey has
killed yearling seals during this season of 1909 and in past seasons.
October 8, Nagel receives this report, and on October 9 he turns it over
to Lembkey. Jt 1s suppressed. (See pp. 850, 851, Appendix A,
June 24, 1911.)

May 9, 1910.—With this proof of the truth of Elliott’s charges of
April 26, 1909, in his hands, furnished by his own agent, Clark, Nagel
to-day again sends Lembkey to the islands to kill seals just as he had
done in 1909. Lembkey kills 12,920 seals in June and July, 1910.
On April 13, 1912, he confesses to House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and Labor that 7,733 of them were
yearlings. (See pp. 485, Hearing No. 10.)

February 4, 1911—May 31, 1911.—Secretary Charles Nagel attends
sessions of the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of
Natural Resources and of the House Committee on Expenditures in
the Department of Commerce and Labor, and his agents admit that
Lembkey has again been sent with orders to kill in 1911 just as he
had killed in 1910. And they entera studied and emphatic denial on
February 4, 1911, and June 9, 1911, that they have ever killed any
yearling seals. (See pp. 82, Hearing No. 20,:p. 360, Hearing No. 9,
pp. 434-444, Hearing No. 9.)

December 15, 1911.—The London sales records show that 12,002
Pribilof Island fur sealskins were sold to-day, taken last June and
July (1911), by Nagel, Bowers, and Lembkey; that 6,247 of these
skins were less than 34 inches long and were thus yearling skins.
(See pp. 731-733, Hearing No. 12.)

The guilty knowledge of George M. Bowers, who stated June 9,
1911, under oath, that the fur sealskins are classified and sold by
weights in London, said statement being a falsehood and made to
deceive the committee, and so confessed by his confederate, Chief
Special Agent Lembkey April 13, 1912, under oath, to the commit-
tee, to wit:

Mr. Bowers. Mr. Chairman, may I add one word? In Mr. Elliott’s statement. it
appears that ‘‘In 1873, early in June, Dr. McIntyre returned to the seal islands with
this classification, by measurement, of his Pribilof skins in London.’’ Those meas-
urements are shown in the monograph—measurements and weights—prepared in
those days by Mr. Elliott, and in that monograph a yearling skin, a large yearling,
if I quote the language correctly, is presumed to weigh 44 pounds, and he shows the
weight each year of the skins from that up to 7$.and 8, or more. I do not know how

to tell the age of a sealskin—that is, the exact and correct age to the day or month—
any more than a farmer could tell the age of some other fellow’s pig if he were not

74 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

present at the time the pig came into existence, and I can only base the correctness:
of these weights upon the evidence that was submitted by Mr. Elliott and his mono-
‘raph.
. Mr. TownsEnpb. Mr. Commissioner, will you proceed and read the weights of the
kill of 1910, as certified by Mr. Lembkey?

Mr. Bowers. I have both the weights on the islands and the weights in London.

Mr. TownsEND. I will examine you now as to the killing of seals after the expi-
ration of this lease and when the killing was made, as it has been called here by the
Government. The report shows that in the year 1910, 12,920 seals were killed. and
the evidence before the committee is that of those 8,000 were yearlings.

Mr. Bowers. Well, that evidence is false.

Mr. TownsEnp. That is your answer to that, is 1t?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. Here are the weights on the basis, you understand, that
a 44-pound skin isa yearling. There are the weights for 1909, the island weights and
the London weights. I think, probably, you will find one skin weighing less than
41 pounds. (Hearing No. 3, pp. 129, 130.)

C. M. Lamrson & Co.,
London, November 19, 1910.

Assortment of Alaska salted fur sealskins for account of United States Government,
Department of Commerce and Labor.

[New York, Ck, 1/228.]

Lbs. Ozs
MB, SUNS 2 ew GARI ees RE UL ae PLA Ree ae Ne ice UA fa a ON NR ae 7 15
AAG MAYES DAMPS eyed crassa’ Lie He SOP ete Bk ee ek a ee Sas a ree aa a 12
SxQoZ smn CLC WIS TOUS a = esse 2) kk epee oops We aca 2) ci oe 6 7
4-899) small yup sigs ose es Bk Ieee A TS ta ete Sere et, Oe 5 12
l2OG:ex emma PUpse Tee Sh a Rk sh AE SO et oe Reh 5 5
HM seieey ex Seine ou pS sss Meee ee chk Ie eens ey re ie ee peal laaie 4 10°
RS RSI0UET Us PeplKON Teens HEM eee ab etre ape anu aN UR er ee ee aL ae 7 11
139 large pups, JOW. see is eee eee eee Ee oe ee ae eee 6 a
AQS amid dlinex pups, low sae vetes cese- «Seams a wells: Speasyel eye) s) rene) a ae 6 1
oO small pupstlow?. (ets Ove ea eee dee ae eee Chie ee ee 5 9
SSiexismaall Spupss lowe See eee esi ee bey Pe cia ny ps ee ee 5) 0
SL. jy es DD a att ag Re Veit cera eee a ge ea ee) ala pe 7 2
(amo e rp UWS ae UGs ses ial Say eon ea eA jee arcs ie Bits Si Des e. meres 3
259) TOG GAS PUPS CU ee ala see cles erie etme eet oaae I een 6 2
AZ lasma ll pups, rCwtt 222M S AU CLONE Seed A RA eee Ss le A ee ee 5 6
SivexsismieililqouPsreyeuit eb eee a ee ae ee ae eR on ae 4 15

Coy spaceUl LAM UH Oy oXeye lear cmeeatecs: Pe ersen i MEHR aiid 1 uN acca ge ey a ota een PISS i 0

Soi laree pups; TWD bed As 22 a kplan eee toe ae eee a og ee eee 6 14
Lo middling pups mu bede eS. 2k = Secs ye eg ce ap ee eee 6 6
290) small pups rub medkyy Ne = Gees ere yg Le 0 Ek nk fons ac 5 11
Lexi sniall pps rub ped Sg. 2 ee eee ohpee Se seco es SECT ta) Ue 5 3

36 faulty.

12,732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/.

5 small.
21 large pups.
48 middling pups.
94 small pups.
18 ex. small pups.
2 faulty.

188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/.

12,920

Subject to recount.

Mr. Parron. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the
selling in London?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the
skins for the United States Government.

Mr. Parron. And they pay on that weight?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 15
!

ai Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those
ye wiki, Right there I want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh
those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 6, p. 291.)

In this distinct and positive statement the United States Commis-
sioner of Fisheries tells the committee that the London classification
of its 12,920 fur-seal skins, which have been taken on the seal islands
during its season of 1910 and sold in London December 16, 1910—that
this classification is done there by the weights of the skins.

He does this in full personal knowledge of the fact that those Lon-
don agents have classified those skins by measurement, so as to get at,
their size; that the buyers care nothing for the weight of the salt cured
skins—they are buying the skins according to their size.

That he made this statement to the committee for the purpose of
deceiving them, and that he knew better, for he had personally at-
tended the classification and selling of those skins in London Decem-

_ ber 16, 1910, is attested by his own official record, as follows:

[Appendix A, p. 1009.]

Lonpon, December 16, 1910,
Hon. CHartes NAGEL,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have just wired you the total results of the fur-seal-

~ skin sale which has just taken place:

“Conditions considered, have had a remarkably successful sale. Total amount,
89,424 pounds.”’

When we take into consideration the average grading of the skins as compared
with last year, there is a loss of only about 3 per cent.

I am inclosing you a copy of the advertisements for the year 1909 as well as for
1910. J think it is well to have these for office reference. I had hoped for a larger
amount, but, after conference with the fur dealers of London, was prepared to receive
10 per cent or even 15 per cent less than last year’s prices, and [ think, as I have
said above, that we had a very successful sale.

I leave the latter part of the week for Germany and will go direct to Bad Nauheim,
I regret to say that my condition has not improved.

ishing you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year,
I am, with renewed assurances of my highest personal esteem and regard,
Very truly, yours,
Gro. M. Bowers.

Here he tells the Secretary that he has been busy with the buyers
and that he had also been busy with the Lampsons, who did the clas-
sifying and selling of those small skins to the buyers aforesaid, as his
own agents. Mt

That a man of common sense and average ability should personally
attend this sale as the representative of the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor and then make that dogmatic statement of untruth in
good faith as to the classification of the skins, as above, is simply
unbelievable: he knew better; he never had a buyer tell him or his
own agent tell him that untruth which he tells to the committee
under oath.

In further proof of the personal understanding which Mr. Commis~
sioner Bowers had of what ordered the conduct of the sale of those
skins, the additional letters are submitted. It is fairly incredible to
believe that a subject which affected the prices of his skins—the
‘“‘orading” of them as he calls it, or the classification of them—was

76 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

not fully explained to him by his agent, the Lampsons, and those
buyers, whom he speaks of, to wit:

[Appendix A, pp. 1009-1010.]

Lonpon, December 16, 1910.
Hon. CHarues NaGest,
Secretary of Commerce qnd Labor,
Washington, D. C., U.S. A.

My Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find catalogues showing the
prices received at the auction this day for the fur seals of Alaska and elsewhere, and
when we take into consideration the number of skins offered for sale and the climatic
as well as financial conditions, I think we have had, as far as our skins are concerned,
an exceptionally good sale.

Lot No. 1 sold at a decline of 20 shillings as compared with last year—this gave me
the blues. The second lot, 400 large pups, sold at a decline of 9 shillings; this of
course was better, but when 6.200 small pups and extra small pups sold at a loss of
1 shilling as compared with last year. this very much improved the situation. Un-
fortunately our skins did not grade so well as heretofore. You will observe that the
664 skins of the North American Commercial Co. did not bring prices nearly so good
as those gotten by the Government. You will further observe that the skins of the
northwest coast sold at an average of at least 74 per cent less as compared with the
prices received by us, notwithstanding the fact that the skins of the northwest coast
this year graded a little better than usual.

Under the terms of the sale a remittance by C. M. Lampson & Co. will be made on
December 30. I shall leave London on the 19th, and my address for the next three
weeks will be Hotel Kaiserhot, Bad Nauheim, Germany,

With assurances of personal esteem and regard, believe me,

Sincerely,
Gro. M. Bowers.

Lonpon, December 19, 1910.
Hon. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C., U.S. A.

Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find several statements for
record in the department, one showing the number of skins sold, the prices realized
for each lot, and the average weight of the skins; then another statement showing by
whom purchased. I also inclose a report showing the prices received for all other
skins sold, with last year’s prices, for the purpose of comparison; also a statement
issued by C. M. Lampson & Co., as well as two other statements, one by Phillips,
Pollitzer & Co., and the other by Blatspiel, Staup & Haycock, the principal London
buyers of the Alaskans. These reports will show the situation so far as London and
the Continent are concerned. I+ pleases me to state that the gross proceeds from the
sale for the 12,920 skins is £89,624 i6s., an advance of £200 more than the amount given
in my cableeram. The amounts received, as shown in this report, differ some little
from the statement I sent you some days ago, but on the whole our Government gains
an additional £200.

Your cablegram of congratulations was greatly appreciated, and I feel much relieved
after a hard year’s arduous labor. I leave for Berlin to-night, and will proceed from
there to Bad Neuheim immediately alter Christmas and make a strenuous endeavor to
recuperate, or, in other words, to recover my health.

With the complimenis of the season, believe me,

Sincerely, Geo. M. Bowers.

P. S.—In a personal letter to Mr. Cable I stated I would send him a list of pur-
ehasers. This is found in a catalogue which I have marked ‘‘Document 4.” My
address will be Hotel Kaiserhof, Bad Neuheim.

That Mr. Commissioner Bowers knew better, that he had full
knowledge of the fact that those skins had been classified by measure-
ment in London, is given below by the sworn admission of his own
agent, W. I. Lembkey.

Mr. Youne. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green

skins on the islands, and then measure them in the markets in London. What is
your purpose in weighing, and what is their purpose in measuring?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. Tt

Mr. Lempxey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within
the weights prescribed by the regulations. . Our regulations prescribe maximum and
minimum weights. These weights are 5 pounds

Mr. Youne. Does that relate to the question of age?

Mr. LemBxey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds.

Mr. Youne. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose
in measuring?

Mr. Lempxer. They measure them, I fancy

Mr. Youne. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too?

Mr. Lempxey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on
the animal.

Mr. Youna. They care nothing about the question of age there?

Mr. Lempxey. Nothing at all.

Mr. Young. That is all I care toask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449.)

* * *

*

Mr. Bowers. Mr. Lembkey is not a member of the advisory board, but is a member
of the fur-seal board.

Mr. Exxiotr. We want that distinctly understood. We want to find out where he
comes in, and where to put the responsibility. Is not Mr. Lembkey responsible for
anything? Did he not get his.érders from you?

Mr. Bowers. He did, under those instructions.

Mr. Etxrorr. Does he not get his orders from that advisory board, through you?
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 116-117.)

Mr. Bowers. He gets his orders from me as approved by the Secretary.

Mr. Exxiorr. And he is bound by them?

Mr. Bowers. He is.

Mr. Exvzrorr. Then, Mr. Chairman, I want Mr. Bowers to explain right here why
Mr. Lembkey, introduced by Secretary Nagel, said on February 4 last, at a hearing of
the conservation committee of the United States, on page 10, in answer to this question;

“The CHaIRMAN. How many did you kill last year?

“Mr. Lempxkey. We killed 12,920.

‘“Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age?”

Mr. Bowers. Where is that?

Mr. Exuiorr. I hope you will get that. I want Mr. Bowers to get these questions,
Nothing would please. me less than to appear as a prosecuter here, because I am not,
I want to get at the facts. On page 10 the chairman of this Senate committee asked
certain questions of Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Lembkey is introduced to that committee by
Secretary Nagel as the responsible agent of the Department of Commerce and Labor
to speak for him; and for you, of course.

‘The CHatrMAN. How many did you kill last year?

“Mr. Lempxey. We killed 12,920.

““Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age?

‘“A. Two years:old..’

There we have the official statement of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
without doubt or equivocation, without any question of law or anything, given to the
Senate committee, that they had killed none of those seals, 12,920, under 2 years of age,
Are you ready to certify to that statement here before this committee?.

Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey’s statement.

Mr. Exutiorr. No; but, my dear sir, he is your agent. I want you to certify to it,

Mr. CaBLe. Do you want him to certify to it, or are you asking whether he does?

Mr. Exuiotr. Excuse me if I am arguing, but I want to get at the responsibility for
this statement. If Mr. Lembkey is irresponsible, why was he brought up there? If
he is responsible, why are you evading the responsibility?

Mr. Bowers. I am not evading anything; I want that distinctly understood,

Mr. Exuiorr. Then you certify to that statement?

Mr. Bowers. I do not have to certify to any statement made by another man,
That is his statement. That is the statement as it comes to the Bureau of Fisheries
from the officials. That is an official record as it comes to me,

We now come into the immediate relation of the United States
Bureau of Fisheries to this fur-seal business of the Government,
When Dr. Jordan and his associated scientists, Stejneger, Lucas, and
Townsend finished their work of completely approving the most
rigorous and injurious driving and close killing of the seals by the
lessees, they then published, in 1898, this approval in their final report
on fur-seal investigations; the lessees then determined to have a

78 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

continuation of such ‘‘scientific’? indorsement. Prior to this the
naturalists, generally, had secured the insertion of a clause in an
appropriation bill as early as March 38, 1893 (27 Stat., 583), which
reads as follows:

The Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is authorized and required to investigate
under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and when so requested report
annually to him regarding the conditions of seal life upon the rookeries of the Pribilof
Islands; and he is also directed to continue the inquiries relative to the life h‘story
and migrations of the fur seals frequenting the waters of Bering Sea.

This caused the sending of several naturalists to the islands in
1894 and 1895 on that errand. The lessees had not found any of
them at all troublesome, and when Dr. Jordan closed his initial service
to them in 1897 as a scientist, they resolved to have no succeeding
naturalist get up there who might not be as tractable.

So, the astute and active lessee, United States Senator Elkins, in
the full determination to have a man at the head of this Bureau of
Fisheries on whom he could rely, secured the appointment and the
confirmation of one George M. Bowers, as United States Commissioner
of Fisheries, in February, 1898.

Here was.a man notoriously ignorant of every detail of this office,
and yet selected and confirmed in spite of the law which declares
that he ‘‘must be learned as a fish culturist,”’ and ‘‘an educated
scientist’’—just because lessee Elkins wanted it done for this per-
sonal reason. And that man Bowers came before the House com-
mittee with a pitiful attempt to tell them that Elkins did not order
his appointment and confirmation, to wit:

Mr. Bowers. I never asked a single man in the United States to indorse me for the
Commissionership of Fisheries.

Mr. Townsenp. If you will impart information to this committee as to how to secure
such good positions without indorsements, it will be interesting.

Rea Bowers. I had the indorsements for the collectorship of Senator Elkins and
then—
, Mr. TowNnsEND (interposing). That is all right. Now, we will go on from that point.
Senator Elkins, at the time he indorsed you for that office, and when he found ——

Mr. Bowers (interposing). Not for that office; he did not indorse me for the col-
lectorship at all.

Mr. Townsenv. Did he indorse you for this position of Commissioner of Fisheries?

Mr. Bowers. I presume he did, as did the entire West Virginia delegation, as well
as ex-Senator Faulkner, at that time a member of the Senate.

Mr. TownsEnD. I have no doubt they were perfectly justified in doing so, because
you have the reputation of being a very skillful and useful man, and there is no re-
flection implied in this question. I am simply trying to get before the committee
whom your political backers were.

Mr. Bowers. Well, Senator Elkins and I were warm friends.

Mr. Townsenp. And he was at that time a stockholder, was he not, in the company
that had the contract for the seal killing?

Mr. Bowers. I was not aware of that, sir, and I am not to-day. And I never heard
that Senator Elkins held an interest in the seal contract until I was told so on the
islands in 1906.

- Mr. McDermott. What did they say to you at that time?

Mr. Bowers. I was told by one of the employees of the North American Commercial
Co., when I was there with Mr. Sims, that ‘“your Senator from West Virginia is a stock-
holder in this company.”

Mr. TownsENpD. That was before the transfer was made to your department that
you became aware of that?

Mr. Bowers. Well, I was told that at that time.

Mr. TownsEenp. Now, that is satisfactory. You took charge of the affairs of this
contract something like 15 or 16 months before the expiration of the contract, did you
not?

Mr. Bowers. Yes; something like that. (Hearing No. 2, pp. 70, 71, June 9, 1911.
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 719

By getting their own man into this office, armed with that “duty”
and authority of making ‘‘scientific”’ studies of that herd, and of the
lessees’ work annually, it became easy for Mr. Senator Elkins and
Mr. D. O. Mills to control that arm of inquiry, and report. Then,
with that ‘scientific’? control on the one hand, with the control of
the civil agents on the other, the lessees had nothing to concern them-
selves about over reports that might be annually filed in the Treasury
Department, or in the Bureau of Fisheries.

he results that followed amply. paid them for their trouble in
getting this unfit man Bowers installed. They kept him there, too,
in spite of protests and proof of his unfitness pued mountain high.

The lessees also had another object in sight, and Bowers was the
man to reach it for them. They knew that they would have great
opposition to a renewal of their lease in 1910, so they banked upon
Bowers in this office as being able to secure that renewal for them.

In order that Bowers should not be hampered, they persuaded
Theodore Roosevelt and “Oscar Straus to put all of the details of this
fur seal business into Bowers’s control by an Executive order dated
December 28, 1908, as follows, to wit:

DECEMBER 28, 1908.

To the Commissioner of Fisheries, the agents charged with the management of the seal
jisheries in Alaska, and others concerned:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Revised Statutes of the United
States, sections 1973 and 161, and by the organic act creating this department, ap-
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the
head of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the
general management, supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and
administration of the laws relating to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska; that the agents
charged with the management of the seal fisheries of Alaska, together with such other
persons in the employ of the department as may hereafter be engaged in the execution
of the said laws, shall be subject to the immediate jurisdiction and control of the Com-
missioner of Fisheries, and shall, in addition to the duties required of them by law,
perform such other duties as he may, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor, prescribe; that the appropriations for ‘‘Salaries, agents at seal fisheries in
Alaska,’’ 1908 and 1909, ‘‘Salaries and traveling expenses of agents at seal fisheries
in Alaska,’’ 1908 and 1909, and ‘‘Supplies for native inhabitants, Alaska,’’ 1908 and
1909, shall be expended under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Fisher-
ies, subject to the supervision of the Secretary; and that all records, papers, files,
printed documents and other property in the department appertaining to the fur-seal
fisheries of Alaska shall be transferred from their present custody to the custody of the
Bureau of Fisheries.

Oscar 8S. Straus, Secretary.

The story of how United States Commissioner of Fisheries, George
M. Bowers, used every arm of his office to secure a renewal of this
lease for his patrons, 1s one of the most remarkable exhibitions, self-
confessed, of arrogant, official malfeasance that has ever been put
into sworn testimony; and how he failed is equally interesting. It
is all set forth in Hearing No. 3 (pp. 147-162, July 6, 1911, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor). <A brief excerpt of this amazing testi-
mony is given below:

Mr. Extrorr. And I want Mr. Bowers to pay some attention to this, because this
+ important, at least some good lawyers have told me that it is very important to

1m—

‘Being an official letter covering a ‘memorandum’ addressed to George M. Bowers,
commissioner, urging him to take steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon fur-seal

resolutions introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Joseph M. Dixon.
(S. Res. 90, 91, 92.)

80 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

‘‘December 7, 1909. This letter from the ‘bureau,’ dated December 16, 1909, and
signed by Barton W. Everman, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to
‘educate’ the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the ‘bureau’s idea of
renewing the lease,’ as follows:

“EH xHipiT No. 6.

“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
‘““BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
“* Washington, December 16, 1909.
“THE COMMISSIONER:

“‘The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Camp Fire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation
designed to prevent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on -
the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food, and to secure the opening of negotia-
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904.

‘“As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members
of the Camp Fire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object of correctly
informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing
its cooperation to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau !

‘““The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated.

‘“BaRTON W. EVERMANN.
‘‘“Exbibit No. 7. Being the official letter of ‘George M. Bowers, commissioner,’ to
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease and giving the reasons of the writers for
such renewal, to wit, H. H: Taylor, president N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for ‘fur seal advisory board,’ dated January 31} 1910.
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as follows:

X. When Cleveland replaced Harrison, March 4, 1893, it. became
necessary to put a Democrat in the place of chief special agent: in
charge of the seal islands, Joseph Stanley-Brown.

So Joseph B. Crowley was appointed chief; First Assistant Agent
Murray, Republican, was dropped for James Judge, a Democrat; but
the lessees were careful of their man, Murray. They had him made
a salmon fishing inspector for Alaska, without a moment’s loss of
time.

Then when McKinley came in, March 4, 1897, it was in turn neces-
sary to drop Crowley, Democrat, and back came the subservien
Murray to the office of chief special agent:

Murray died in Colorado October, 1898, and was succeeded by
John M. Morton, who was as subservient in turn :as Murray had been:
Morton died on St. Pauls Island July, 1900, and he was succeeded by
one W. J. Lembkey, as chief, who has been equally subservient to the

1 COMMITTEE-ON ‘EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
HOovusE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, June 9, 1911.

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon: John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE M. BOWERS, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.

Mr. Bowers. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under governmental supervision.

Mr. TOWNSEND. You will be questioned about that later. After the first suggestion of this bill you know
of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legislation?

Mr. Bowers. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legislation.

Mr. TOWNSEND. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it would surprise you?

Mr. BOWERS. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned it would the Bureau
of Fisheries and the department. (Investigation of fur-seal industry of Alaska, p. 73.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 81

seal contractors, and has been steadily m office as such ever since, up
to August 1, 1913. We will later have to consider Lembkey again.

But this selection and appointment of these Government agents by
the lessees is not all that those contractors have had to do in the
premises; it was not enough; so they have had that particular ‘‘back-
room” officialism in the Treasury Department, which is the direct and
immediate annex to the Secretary’s office; also in their control and
hire, because it was necessary that the reports and work of these res-
ident seal-island agents be insured of a friendly interpretation and
official reception in the United States Treasury Department, so that
whenever any ‘‘impertinent”’ or pertinent questions were asked of the
Secretary as to the conduct of the lessees or the public business on
the islands, either by citizens or by Congress, no ‘‘official’”’ blunder as
to a proper answer would be made; it has been managed as follows:

A standing order of the department put this seal island business,
reports, etc., all in the gare of the ‘‘chief special agent in charge of
the islands’’; the then “‘assistant agents’’ were all ordered to report
to him; he then used his discretion as to how much or how little of
these reports he was to use or forward to the department; then, when
this report of the chief special agent in charge of the seal islands was
sent to the Treasury Department it was received and filed in the
‘office of the chief special supervising agent’’; to this man the Sec-
retary of the Treasury looked for all the official information and
advice he had at his command; and from this man the Secretary
always received the draft of that part of his annual report to Congress
which related to the seal islands of Alaska.

Therefore, the importance to the lessees of having such a man in
their control is easy to understand; they got him. When Special Agent
Elliott came down from his investigation into the condition of affairs
on the islands, September 7, 1890, he found that a man named A. K.
Tingle was this “chief supervising special agent.’”’ He was a cousin
of George R. Tingle, the superintendent of the lessees, and ‘‘ general
manager’? on the islands. Of course Elliott found him ‘deeply
interested,” but, in favor of the public interests? Not at all.

Then when Cleveland came in, a ‘‘ Democrat”? was put in Tingle’s
place, and he (Tingle) went into the hire of the Sugar Trust. When
Cleveland went out, of course, a ‘‘Republican” had to come back
into this ‘‘office”’ of ‘‘chief supervising special agent,” and one W. S.
Chance, a docile tool of the lessees, took that place. Elliott calls him
a ‘‘tool,” with all of the proof of that fact in his hands.

With this official machinery in their hands, and in complete control
of it, the lessees have actually written every annual report of the Sec-
retary of the Treasury to Congress on the condition of this fur-seal
herd, and their own conduct, since 1890, up to the hour that this
business went to the Department of Commerce and Labor, July 1,
1903.

XI. We pass now from the “‘ divided” control of the lessees to the
single control of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. Do we find any
improvement? No, if anything, it became quite as bad; fully as
much so.

The moment the renewal of the lease was defeated, March, 1910,
and the lessees put out of business, these scientists of the Bureau of
Fisheries resolved to have the sealskin business continued just the

21588—13——6

32 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

same, only they would do it themselves. The work of slaughtering
seals in 1910 was, therefore, taken up and pushed as hard, and close
by them on the islands, as it had been by the greedy lessees in 1909.

Vigorous protests were made Secretary Nagel by good citizens, but
without the least avail. He had determined to continue the “‘ benevo-
lent” killing by the lessees, so as to appear “regular” in his indorse-
ment of that injurious work when backing those butchers during the
lease. He stimulated Dr. Jordan and his old ‘‘scientific’”’ authorities
who had shielded that illegal work of the lessees since 1896 to again
come forward and deny this improper killing and vouch for its con-
tinuation in 1910 and 1911, under United States Commissioner
Bowets’s and Mr. Lembkey’s direction, as being done wholly right in
every respect.

The proclamations by Jordan and his subordinate scientists, were
used by Secretary Nagel as his righteous, sensible warrant for killmeg
as ) 5 eo Cs FA ) 4

small” seals; that “‘it was necessary for the good of the herd,” ete.

This stirred up an investigation into that killing, by order of Con-
gress in May, 1911, and the following salient evidence of an organ-
ized attempt to deceive the Committee on Expendicures in the De-
partment of Commerce and Labor by the scientists associated with
the bureau, and Dr. Jordan’s commission, known as the ‘‘advisory
board,” was quickly exhibited.

This attempt to deceive the committee was made with reference
to—

First. The regulations of the department governing the taking of
seals and their skins.

Second. The classification of these skins when taken.

Third. The behavior of breeding fur-seal bulls.

1. With regard to the law and regulations which governed the
taking of fur seals on the islands, the Bureau of Fisheries prepared
an elaborate statement, and presented it under oath to the com-
mittee, and in that statement made the following distinct, and spe-
cific false, and improper denial of the ‘‘Carlisle rules” issued May 14,
1896, and quoted above under Section VI, to wit: ;

CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LaBor,
Houser or REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, April 19, 1912.

The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
»presiding.

Present: Representatives McDermott, Young, McGuire, and Patton.

Testimony of Barton W. Evermann.

The witness was sworn by the chairman.

‘The CHatrMaAn. Doctor, you may state your official position.

Dr. EvermMann. My official position is assistant in charge of the Alaska fisheries
‘service, in the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor.

The CuarrMan. Now, if you desire, you may proceed to submit whatever facts you
have for the consideration of the committee.

Dr. Evermann. * * *

2. The second charge is that at least 128,478 yearling male seals were killed by the
lessee from 1890 to 1909, both inclusive, contrary to law and the regulations.

In answer to this charge it should be sufficient to say that the law has never made
it illegal to kill yearling male seals; nor has it ever been contrary to the regulations
to kill yearling male seals, except in the seasons of 1904 and 1905, as is shown by the
regulations for the various years to which I have called your attention. Therefore,
even if 128,478 yearling male seals have been killed since 1899 (which is not admitted)
they could not have been killed illegally, because there was no law against killing
‘yearling male seals, and there has been no regulation against killing yearling male
seals, except in 1904 to 1909.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 83

The fact that the ‘Carlisle rules’’ prohibiting the killing of year-
lings in distinct terms, were issued May 14, 1896, and duly pub-
lished and recorded on the Seal Islands is here vainly denied, and
concealed from the committee in a carefully written statement pre-
pared by the Bureau of Fisheries, and given to it under oath; and,
the fact that those orders of Secretary Carlisle have never been
amended or revised until the “‘ Hitchcock rules” of 1904 were ordered,
is also concealed from the committee by that false statement.

2. With regard to the classification of these fur-seal skins when
taken on the islands, and then shipped to London for sale, there,
the Bureau of Fisheries made a series of statements when first before
the committee which were found later to be entirely false, and which
said Fisheries Bureau had to admit were such.

When the question was first directly put to George M. Bowers,
United States Commissioner of Fisheries, as to how these skins taken
under his orders on the Seal Islands, were classified, so as to show
their sizes and ages inf.ondon, he said (Hearing No. 3, p. 128, June
28, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor):

Mr. TownseEnp. I will examine you now as to the killing of seals after the expira-
tion of this lease and when the killing was made, as it has been called here by the
Government. The report shows that in the year 1910, 12,920 seals were killed, and
the evidence before the committee is that of those 8,000 were yearlings.

Mr. Bowers. Well, that evidence is false.

Mr. TownsEND. That is your answer to that, is it?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. Here are the weights on the basis, you understand, that a

3-pound skin is a yearling. There are the weights for 1909—the island weiglits and
the London weights. I think probably you will find one skin weighing less than 44
pounds.

C. M. Lampson & Co., London, 19th Nov., 1910.

Assortment of Alaska salted fur sealskins for account of United States Government,
Department of Commerce and Labor.

[New York, Ck. 1/228.]

Lbs. Ozs.

ops s 2s Sees Se rere ar eee te. Se Ye saa — a 15
IR MOS HED. ERS oe ee te Uses RNS Dae bls Poin atte Eee nce es bs alee 7 2
Cremrnann sonia.) wre Soe rh eh OP ghee clits asledel lake See 6 T
Beamer t ee ete ee ot oe ee oa otc Soa ed aw Soe he obs we ef 5 12
Rae ee ene MMAENE Le Oe DOR a ewe tee lee gee betes ee sepa 5 5
‘Ti ex. ex. small pups..:...-.-.-. jiggetinin s/s ike: ae MeN ee iat A Le eye ERS Ae 4 10
Sorat Se ween some y Leys ah seek De ee oe slabs ay 7 11
1a5 large pups, low ::.--.- 2-252 2.2426, SGA DN En ee ene COR ie ae 6 9
eS MAGNA PAINE: OWS oS et aa oo ce pe ok a ga coos aoe se it sea laele 6 a
Pemba L EOS, WelWe eo oo ne ns ae as Se Ee igh eat rh Pa ae col Be 5 9
Bere rouael [lpia AO W oo eee sane ee re tN eee feb OI 5 0
eran Cetiyees ete ne Ae ach. gy a as eeu lees SARE UIE 7 2
OU eg TUDES SS ETI RS aL Soe a Rain adlpsy t nph eeA oe i Be WA WL ee 6 13
ieee reer aA NTs Sard cine! ak Lice oe She ap avin oa Eisele leit ds oie ee 6 2
Pen R RIERA MERIT es Seren nas RY Ey, UR PES ho, BRT SS 5 6
cgley sort obi GG s Sa Si Tea tk oc Ege ele yl a Aa ae Sie 4 15

CVS ao AMS ATRLIY ON OVETC ieee Su. 1, SP oe es dr I ee ee a a eo Seine ee 7 0
anliekee PUpsrine RO: mel ones eee Fe. ao tek ep Steals tel ein oie weain rete 6 14
UPS is UR Wereag Cy afeiags fil 2) 6 la ee ie Raa as ee ae Pa 6 6
CSET A RE LIM OC ps FLA EO bel Ce Aiello a ee a ee 5 11
CRU STUD WEG. x20 oh sche eee Rene ne tee at « oe 2 ele PRES 5 3

36 faulty.

125732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/.

$4. FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

5 small.
21 large pups.
48 middling pups.
94 small pups.
18 ex. small pups.
2 faulty.

188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/.
12,920
Subject to recount.

(Hearing No. 6, p- 291, July 27, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.
and Labor.)

Mr. Parron. You mean ii isa report that is sworn to by the people who do the sell-
ing in London?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the
skins for the United States Government.

Mr. Parron. And they pay on that weight?

Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those
_ weights.

Mr. Exniorr. Right there | want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh

those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 374-375.)
- Mr. Lempxey. These skins which were sent to London, during the years 1909 and
1910, were weighed by the factors after their arrival in London and the weights found
to correspond with those taken on the island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., is essen-
tially a disinterested person, being concerned not the least with the question of weights
or regulations, but wholly with the sale of the skins and the payments therefor, their
verification of these weights may be taken as conclusive of their accuracy.

So far, therefore, as concerns compliance with the regulations and the law in the kill-
ing of male seals, no malfeasance can be proven, because not only the records of the de-
partment but the weights of the same skins in London, taken by an independent and
responsible body of experts, prove that the limits of weight laid down by the instruc-
tions of the department have been complied with as closely as it is possible for human
agency to do so. The weights of skins taken on the islands show this, and further-
more these weights have been verified in London by an independent and responsible
body of men.

Here is the man who has been placed in full charge of this pubhe
business, the commissioner himself, under oath, actually swearing to
a deliberate falsehood of his own invention. He swears that these
skins, which have been taken under his orders, are sold in London
by weight. What was this man’s object in so testifying?!

To conceal the fraud of taking yearling sealskins on the islands
which weigh only 44 pounds each, clean skinned, as the work was
done by different men and at different times, this weight was raised
by blubber to 5, 54, 6, 64, 7, and 8 pounds.

The committee has under its control a series of 400 sealskins taken
in 1913 just as these skins were taken and sold in 1910. Their

1That Mr. Bowers had full knowledge of the fact that he was deceiving the committee is given by his own
associate and subordinate, most unwillingly, to the committee, and goes completely to declare the proof
of Mr. Bowers’s possession of guilty knowledge and use of it to deceive. Chief Special Agent Lembkey
swears:

Mr. YounG. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green skins on the islands and
then measure them in the markets in London. What is your purpose in weighing, and what is their pur-
pose in measuring .

Mr. LEMBKEY. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within the weights pre-
scribed’ by wie regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and minimum weights. Those weights
are 5 pounds——

Mr. YouNG. Does that relate to the question of age.

Mr. LeMBkey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds.

Mr. YouNG. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in measuring.

Mr. LEMBKEY. They measure them, I faney——

Mr. Youna. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too.

Mr. LemMBKEY. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the animal.

Mr. YounG. They care nothing about the question of age there.

Mr. LEMBKEY. Nothing at all.

Mr. YounG. That is all I care toask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449, Apr. 13, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. c° he

exhibition declares every detail of that fraudulent classification by
weight which the Bureau of Fisheries and the lessees managed so as
to falsify the returns of their illegal killing on the islands annually
to the Government.

The scientists of the Bureau of Fisheries, who have aided Mr.
Bowers in this false statement as to classification, and whom he cites
to the committee as his *‘authority”’ for making it in the following
words, are (Hearing No. 2, p. 111, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and

Labcr)—

Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting the best talent I could; I expected probable
criticism.

Mr. TownsenpD. Lam not criticizing you now.

Mr. Bowers. I endeavored to get the best talent it was possible to get and to act
upon their advice in this fur-seal matter.

Mr. CaBLE. Give the names of the members of the advisory board.

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal
service, are as follows (Hearing No. 2, pp. 109-110):

‘““PUR-SEAL BOARD, BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

‘‘In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following:

“Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the
fur-seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and
Bering Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal.

“Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, who has been in immediate charge of the seal islands for
many years; appointed March 22, 1899.

‘“‘Mr. James Judge, who, as assistant agent, fur-seal service, has spent many years on
the islands; appointed April 30, 1894.

“Mr. A. B. Alexander, Chief of the Division of Statistics and Methods of the Fish-
eries, who, as fishery expert on the steamer Albatross, visited the seal islands often,
and who has made a more careful study of pelagic sealing than any other man.

‘Mr. M. C. Marsh, pathologist of the Bureau of Fisheries, who spent the season of
1906 on the seal islands making a study of the seal herd.

“The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following:

“Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of
the International Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance
of the treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the
most comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published
on all matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most
distinguished and best-known naturalist in the world.

‘Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum,
for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the Fur Seal Commis-
sions of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied all the fur-seal
rookeries of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal islands is the
most critical and thoughtful that has been written.

“Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently chief of the Biological Survey, member of the
Fur Seal Commission of 1890, and the greatest living authority on mammals. d

“Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum of Natural History,
member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most
discerning, and best-known naturalists.

“Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur Seal Commissions of
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Townsend
made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic sealing.

“Hon. Edwin W. Sims, United States attorney for the northern district of Illinois
in 1906, when Solicitor for the Department of Commerce and Labor spent the season
= we seal islands, where he made a very careful study of the conditions on the
islands. :

“on. Frank H. Hitchcock, Postmaster General, who, when chief clerk of the
Department of Commerce and Labor, had charge of the administration of the seal
service.

86 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

“Tn addition to the above the department had the advice of—

“Dr. F. W. True, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who spent the
season of 1895 on the seal islands as a special commissioner for the Government to study
the fur seal. Dr. True is one of the most distinguished mammalogists, and has given

special attention to marine mammals.

“Mr, George A. Clark, secretary of Stanford University, who, as secretary of the Fur
Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, spent many months on the seal islands, when there
was made, under his immediate supervision, the most careful census of the fur-seal
herd that has ever been made. Mr. Clark was again on the seal islands during the
entire season of 1909, where he was sent by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as
an expert to study the seal herd during the last year of the North American Co.’s
lease.’’

Here is an imposing list cf names who are thus cited by Mr. Com-
missioner Bowers as being his ‘‘advisers”’ and as the men who have
enabled him to make that false declaration of classification by weights
in Lenden (by his “loaded” green-skin weights on the islands).
What did these men do when summoned and put under cath by the
committee and questioned as to this charge made against Commis-
sioner Bowers of killing yearling seals in violation of the rules of the
department—did they deny the charge? No. They all swore that
they did-not know anything about it; that they did not know how
to describe the length or weight of a yearling sealskin. Witness the
following:

I. Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 679-680, Hearing No. 11, House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, May 4, 1912):

The CHatrMan. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions?

Mr. Exxrotr. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd?

Dr. STEJNEGER. I could not tell you.

Mr. Extiorr. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd?

Dr. SteEJNEGER. No.

Mr. Exxrorr. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling
seal as taken from the body?

Dr. STEJINEGER. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.

Mr. Ex1sorr. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the killing
of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910?

Dr. StesNEGER. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers?

Mr. Eniiorr. Well, as a member of the board do you remember any consultation
with him about issuing those orders?

Dr. Srrsnecer. No; I do not remember.

Il. Dr. C. Hartt Merriam, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (p. 692, Hearing No. 11):

The CHatrMaANn. Well, how long have you been on the advisory board?

Dr. Merrtam. Since the beginning. I do not remember the date; but I have been
absent from the city during a number of the sittings of that committee, as | am
engaged in field work in the West at least half of every year, and therefore have not
been in Washington at the time most of these meetings were held.

The Cuatrman. Were you at the meeting of the advisory board that the previous
witness referred to in his testimony?

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember any such meeting.

The CHairman. Are you a member of the board now?

Dr. Merriam. Yes.

On page 99, Hearing No. 11: j

Mr. Etniorr. Doctor, while you were on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?

Dr. Merriam. I did not.

Mr. Exiiorr. Do you know anything about the length and the weight of a yearling
sealskin?

Dr. Merriam. Nothing.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 87

Mr. Exxiorr. One question more. I understood you to say that you had not been
in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he issued his orders for killing 13,000 seals in
1910?

Dr. Merriam. I do not think I was present at any conference when that matter
was up.

i Dr. Barton W. Evermann, member of Fur-Seal Board, Alaska Seal Fish.
eries, Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 622, Hearing No. 10):

Mr. Exuiorr. I know; I have not disputed that, but I want to find what you did
on the island. You didn’t do anything, you say.

Dr. Evermann. I didn’t say that.

Mr. Exxiotrr. You didn’t weigh or measure a seal on the islands, did you?

Dr. Evermann. My recollection is that I did not.

On pages 639, 640, Hearing No. 10:

Dr. EverMANN. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing:
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them?

Mr. Exuiotr. No; he hasn’t said so anywhere. Now, Mr. Lembkey said on page
442 that he had measured a yearling seal—three of them. He says here [reading]:

“Mr. Lempxey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be, from the
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 393 mches in one instance and 393 inches in
another

“Mr. Extiotr. Yes.

“Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another. I measured only three.

“Mr. Extiotr. Yes.”

Do you dispute those measurements?

Dr. Evermann. I do not dispute them.

On page 639, Hearing No. 10:

Mr. Extiorr. Now, you can find exactly what was in Mr. Lembkey’s mind by turn~
ing to page 428, at the bottom of the page [reading]:

“The CHAIRMAN. What is your answer?

“Mr. Lempxey. I certified that they were all over 2 years with the exception of
the negligible few that were taken through accident.

“Mr. Exuiorr. In the spring of 1910 you took 12,920 seals. You killed them there
under your directions, and you took the skins.

“The CHAIRMAN. Let him answer the question.

“Mr. Lempxey. Is that a question or a statement? He is making a statement, as
I understand it.

“The CHARMAN Answer the question.

“Mr. Lempxey. I did. |

“The CHARMAN. That settles it.

“Mr. Exxiorr. Out of the 12,920 skins which you took through the season of 1910,
how many of them exceeded in length 34 inches?

“Mr. Lempxey. I do not know.”’

Then he tells the committee on page 434 that 7,733 of them, according to this London
certificate, are the skins of ‘‘small pups” and ‘ “extra small pups.’’ And then he re-
news that statement on page 441 and quoted Mr. Fraser as his authority.

Dr. EVERMANN. So far as I know, Mr. Lembkey has not denied, and I can say I
have not denied, the classtfications as given by Lampsons.t If hey say that there are
so many extra small pups and so many small pups, I presume that classification is
correct. I am also convinced that the statement which Lampson & Co. gave me,
that a skin 35 inches long which they certified as an extra small pup is an extra small
pup, and that the skin 374 inches long which Lampson & Co. certified to the Bureau
of Fisheries as being a small pup is a small pup skin.

Mr. Exxiorr. Were they salted skins?

Dr. EVERMANN. Those were dressed skins.

Mr. Exuiotr. They were ‘‘doped” and dressed and fixed up. They were not these.
skins, salted skins.

Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by ‘‘doped and dressed?’’

Mr. Ex11orr. They are ‘‘stretched” and ‘“‘doped” when they are dressed. The
dressers ‘‘dope’’ them with soap and sugar, and grease and all sorts of things; pull
and tread them backward and forward and stretch them into all sorts of shapes. That.
is what they eall ‘“‘doping.”’

V. Dr. Charles H. Townsend, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 736, 737, Hearing No. 12):

Mr. McGiurcuppy. Is there any way to determine the age of a seal from an exam-
ination of the skin after it is taken off the body?

Dr. TownsEenD. Oh, yes. I think a person handling a considerable number of
them would be able to throw out the different ages.

88 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. McGituicuppy. There seems to have been two ways of determining the age of
a seal, one is by the measurement of the skin and the other by the weight. You are
familiar, I suppose, with both methods?

Dr. TowNsEND. Only from hearsay. I do not know that I ever measured one or
ever weighed one.

Mr. McGitutcuppy. You have no practical information on that subject?

Dr. TownseEnp. I have no practical information on that subject. I do not remem-
ber that that matter was ever in my instructions at any time. I do not remember
that I ever went into it.

Mr. McGiturcuppy. So far as your information goes, which do you regard as the
more reliable way of determining the age of a seal, by measurement or by weight?

Dr. TownsEenD. I can not say. I have not gone into that subject.

On page 801, Hearing No. 13:

* * * * * + *

The CHarrman. It has been suggested that I ask a few questions as to your bio-
logical knowledge, and, therefore, I proceed along that line. What have you pub-
lished officially as to the size and weight of fur-seal skins as taken on the seal islands
of Alaska?

Dr. TownseEnp. I do not remember to have published anything on that point.

The CuarrmMan. What do you know of the composition of the catch of 12,920 fur-
seal skins taken by orders of Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
and Mr. George M. Bowers, United States Fish Commissioner, during the season of
1910 on the Pribilof Islands?

Dr. Townsenp. I am not posted on the composition of that catch.

Hearing No. 14, pages 914-919, as summed up below:

IV. Dr. David Starr Jordan, president Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, etc.,
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 580, Hearing No. 10):

Mr. Exuiorr. Are you quoting Dr. Jordan?

Dr. EvERMANN. I am quoting some things that Dr. Jordan has said.

Mr. Exuiorr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of truth?

The CuarrMan. You are quoting from Dr. Jordan?

Mr. Exxrorr. I want to find if Dr. Jordan isa man of truth?

The Cuairman. That is not for the witness to determine.

Mr. Exiorr. He is assailing me in that matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.

x The CuairmMan. The witness can not say whether he is telling the truth or whether
é is not. ‘

Mr. Exutorr. I would like to have it go in the record whether he considers Dr. Jordan
a man of truth.

The Cuairman. The witness will proceed.

(And Dr, Evermann proceeds without being able to answer Elliott.)

VI. Dr. Frederic Augustus Lucas, member Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service,
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 726, Hearing No. 12):

Mr. Exziorr. Yes; I find no fault with that record, either. It is exactly as I
published it nearly 40 years before. Now, Dr. Lucas, when you take the skin off that
yearling seal and salt it down, how long is it?

Dr. Lucas. Idonct know. Ihave never measured a skin after salting.

Mr. Exxtiorr. You never measured it before salting, did you?

Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin before salting.

Mr. Exuiotr. Neither before nor after? Then how do you know that in the killing
up there they are not killing yearling seals?

Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the skins.

Mr. Exuiorr. Are you acquainted with the tables of salted weights published by one
of your associates, of 275 skins, which give a complete denial to your statement?

Dr. Lucas. I am not.

Mr. Exxrorr. You have never seen the table of Mr. Judge?

Dr. Lucas. I presume I have seen the table, but I never noticed it.

Mr. Extiotr. Two hundred and seventy-five salted skins which he weighed shows
that a salted skin 33 inches long will weigh as much as a green skin 374 inches long.
Does that agree with your statement?

Mr. McGuire. Doctor, right there, you say sometimes——

- Dr. Lucas. That is equivalent——

Mr. Extiorr. The table states it; he (Mr. Judge) says these sizes of those skins are
not fixed by weight. ;

Dr. Lucas. May I make a statement? In all these sales of skins the skins are ad-
vertised by weight and not by size. ;

Mr. Exxiotr. Are they advertised by weight? Find an advertisement by weight in
the Lampson catalogues and you will find something I have never been able to find.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 89

Finally one man associated with these experts of Secretary Nagel’s
appointment, W. I. Lembkey, appeared. He did know what a year-
ling seal skin was, and after a determined attempt to deny that he
did, the following admission was made by him under cross-examina-
tion, to wit (Hearing No. 9, Apr. 13, 1912):

On page 443:

“Mr. Exuiotr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off?

“The CuarRMAN. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?

“Mr. Exuiotr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain
amount is left on.

“Mr. Lemspkey. I stated about 3 inches.

“Mr. Extiorr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long.

“Mr. Lempxey. No; if it was 394 inches long it would leave it 364 inches. That
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 393 inches
long. Three inches off that would leave 364 inches.’’.

In this distinct affirmation and statement, Mr. Lembkey tells the committee that a
“vyearling’’ fur-seal skin of higeown identification and measurement is 364 inches long.
It then became, in order to understand what the lengths of those 12,920 fur-seal skins
were, which he took during the season of 1910 on the Pribilof Islands, and then certified
them into the record of his work as being—all of them—‘‘taken from male seals not
under 2 years of age.’’ (See testimony Apr. 13, 1912, pp. 428, 429, Hearing No. 9).

With the exhibition as above, of that complete ignorance of the
‘scientists,’ we come to the testimony of the one man who directed
and did the killing, and who does know, to wit: (Hearing No. 14, p.
905; July 25, 1912; Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

Mr. Lembkey having thus identified “7,733” of his 12,920 skins as ‘‘small pups”
and ‘‘extra small pups,’’ the committee then examined him as to the lengths of those
“small pup” and ‘“‘extra small pup” skins; he then testified as follows, page 441,
Hearing No. 9: é

“Mr. Exuiotr. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given
here already. You have given in a statement here that 8.000 of them were ‘‘small”
and ‘‘extra small.’’

“Mr. LEMBKEY. 7,700.

“Me Himmort. 7.7002. .

“Mr. LeMBKEY, 7,733 were small and extra small pups.

“Mr. Eniiotr. Mr. Fraser tells us that those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.

“Mr. LemBkery. The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states
that small pups measured 333 inches in length.’’

The CHarrMan. What would that indicate as to age?

Mr. Extiorr. I am coming to that ;

“Mr. Exxiorr. From there [indicating] to there [indicating] on that diagram

“Mr. LEMBKEY. 33} inches in length, and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in length.

“Mr. Extiotr. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8.000?

“Mr. LemBxery. Only 11 of those.

“Mr. Extiorr. It does not amount to anything.

“Mr. LemsBxey. It just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number.

“Mr. Exxiorr. That is the reason I used those round numbers. It does not amount
to anything one way or the other.

“Mr. Lempxey. The actual number is 300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott.”

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own summary and official record of the meas-
urements of “7,733 fur seal skins,’’ which he took during the season of 1910 on the
Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that not one of them exceeds in length 34 inches.
That fact determines them—all of them—to have been the skins taken from yearling
seals

Mr. Mappen. Let me ask you a question. According to Mr. Lembkey’s testimony
read by you, he testified that the length of a yearling would be 394 inches, and when
it was skinned the skin itself would be 364 inches. Does it always follow that a year-
ling seal measures just the same or within an inch or two of the same length?

90 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Mr. Euurorr. I think the range is about 3 to 4 inches; a small yearling skin goes
30 inches, a good average yearling skin 34 inches, and a “long’’ yearling 36 inches.
There are three grades.

Mr. Manpen. All seals are not of the same size?

Mr. Exxrorr. No; but there is the general average, and you can very easily keep
within the limit.

3. As a warrant for the urgent need of killmg annually on the
islands, practically all of the young male seals that could be secured,
the Bureau of Fisheries issued statements to the press, and made a
sworn statement as follows to the committee, April 20, 1913 (Hearing
No. 10, p. 521, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor):

6. Ii the surplus males are not killed, they not only become valueless for their skins,
but they grow up into bulls not needed for breeding purposes, but which nevertheless
pass on to the rookeries, where they do great damage to the breeding herd by fighting
among themselves for possession of the cows, often tearing the cows to pieces, so injuring
them that many of their pups are still-born, trampling the helpless pups to death,
exhausting their own vitality and virility, and rendering themselves less potent than
they would be without such useless struggle—in short, causing infinite trouble and
injury to the rookeries without a single compensating advantage.

That this statement was absolutely without foundation in fact,
that it was deliberately put up to the committee to deceive, and so
warrant this excessive and illegal killing on the islands since 1890,
to date of its making, as above, has been made a matter of repeated
record in the hearings held from May 31, 1911, to July 31, 1912.

The spectacle of 22 ‘‘distinguished scientists’? beg mvoked by
the Bureau of Fisheries to sustain that untruthful statement, when
each and every one of those ‘‘authorities’’ have never given out a
word touching it, in all of their writing and talking, that even faintly
asserts the same.

Nothing of the kind has ever been witnessed on the breeding
rookeries by any competent authority, and nothing of the kind ever
will be, since it is not the habit of these animals to ‘‘tear the cows to
pieces,’’ and ‘‘trample the helpless pups to death.”

All of this fighting between the bulls takes place, and is over prac-
tically, every season, long before the cows arrive; it was accurately
observed and published by Elliot 40 years ago. (See Mono. Seal
Islands, 1874-1882.)

The foregoing briefed selections from the sworn testimony cited,
declares that a combination has existed between the officials of the
Seal Islands and the lessees’ agents from 1891 to 1909, which was con-
tinued in Washington between said contractors and the Bureau of
Fisheries to deceive the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce
and the House committee.

It declares the fact that this officialism and the lessees have not
succeeded in deceiving the committee, and the committee is fully
warranted in asking the House to approve its findings of fact and
recommendations as set forth in its report, No. 1425, on Jan. 31, 1913.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. O91

DR. DAVID STARR JORDAN AND HIS ASSOCIATE ‘‘SCIENTISTS”’ STEJ-
NEGER, LUCAS, TOWNSEND, AND EVERMANN CONSPIRE WITH THE
LESSEES (LIEBES, ELKINS, AND MILLS) TO CONCEAL THE FACT THAT
THIS KILLING ON THE ISLANDS WAS RAPIDLY DESTROYING THE
FUR-SEAL HERDS THEREON, AS SAID LESSEES WERE PROSECUTING
THAT SLAUGHTER, 1896-1910, INCLUSIVE.

Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies the Russian reccrds and the rec-
ords cf the slaughter by the lessees, 1896-97, to shield those public
enemies and enable them to continue their illegal and ruinous werk.
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 65, 66, June 8, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. & Labor.)

Mr. Exrrorr. Way back as far as 1826 the Russians themselves aaa the fact
that they were culling the herds too closely
the land killing of all the choice males; they Rae that they alone on the islands were
to blame, because no such thing as hunting fur seals in the water by white men then
was dreamed of, much less done.

In December, 1820, Gen. Yanovsky, the Imperial Russian agent, sent over to Sitka
from St. Petersburg in 1818 to examine into the question of that decline of the fur-
seal catch, then wrote to his Government that ‘‘so severe is this practice of” culling
the best males for slaughter, ‘‘that if any of the young breeders are not killed by
autumn, they were sure to be killed by the following spring,’’ and urged the reforma-
tion of this work then on the islands.

Here is this evil of overdriving and culling the herd presented and defined 50 years
before I saw it and nearly 70 years before Jordan denies its existence in 1898. Think
of it. We have sent two investigating commissions since 1890 up to our ruined fur-
seal preserves on the Prifilof Islands, one in 1891 and the other in 1896-97, and yet
in spite of this plain Russian record and my detailed and unanswerable indictment
of that particular abuse in 1890, these commissioners blindly and stupidly deny it.
They attempt to set aside the Russian record by saying that the Russians then killed
females as well as males and drove them up to the shambles in equal numbers.

The Russians did nothing of the sort. They began the season early in June by
driving from the hauling grounds precisely as we do to-day and continued so to drive
all through the rest of the season; they never went upon the rookeries and drove off
the females; they never have done so since 1799. How then did the females get
into their drives?

The females fell into these drives of the Russians because that work was protracted
through the whole season, from June 1 to December 1. In this way the drivers
picked up many cows after August 1 to 10 to the end of November following, since
some of these animals during that period leave their places on the breeding grounds
and scatter out over large sections of the adjacent hauling grounds, so as to get mixed
in here and there with the young males. Thus the Russians in driving across the
flanks of the breeding grounds, going from the hauling grounds, during every August,
September, October, and November, would sweep up into their drives a certain pro-
portion of female seals which are then scattered out from the rookery organization and
are ranging at will over those sections of the hauling grounds driven from. What that
proportion of this female life so driven was, in Russian time, no man to-day can pre-
cisely determine. From the best analysis I can make of it I should say that the
Russian female catch in their drives never exceeded 30 per cent of the total number
driven at any time, and such times were rare, and that it ranged as low as 5 per cent
of female life up to the end of August annually.

Now, what does Jordan say to-day about this work which the Russians condemned

70 years ago and I in 1890?
_ “As land killing has always been confined to the males, and as its operations are
to-day what they have been since the herd came into the American control, except in
so far as they have been improved, this means that land killing is not and has not
been a factor in the decline of the herd.”’

I went up in 1890 prejudiced against the pelagic sealer. I am yet; but prejudice
ean not make answer to the following facts:

In 1890 I found in the place of 3,193,670 breeding fur seals and their young, enly
959,455.

In the place of a round million of nonbreeding young male seals on the hauling
grounds in 1872-1874, I found a scant 100,000.

92 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

It is and was easy to account for the heavy shrinkage of life on the rookeries, for the
pelagic sealer has been hard at work on the female life since 1885-86; he has killed
im the water 75 to 80 females to every 20 males, and this proportion in killing ought to
be shown on the breeding grounds. It was.

But what about that infinitely ¢ greater loss among the young males on the hauling
grounds? If the pelagic sealer was all to blame (as. Jordan says he is) for this ruin of
the herd, why should this class of seals of which he kills the fewest be the one class
most fearfully decimated.

I began on the ground in 1890 to review every season’s work on the islands since
1874. I found that in 1883 the supply of surplus male seals had so dwindled on the
islands that the driving was then extended to all of the hauling fields; that extension
declared increased difficulty in getting the supply long before the pelagic sealer had
entered Bering Sea or had really, begun destructive work in the North Pacific Ocean.

If the pelagic sealer had not caused this trouble on the islands in 1883— 1887, of get-
ting the full supply of killable young male seals, what had? An epidemic or disease?
No, not a trace of it. Then there remained but two reasonable answers; either too
many seals were annually killed by the lessees, or the method of driving’ to cull the
herds so driven was at fault.

The effect of killing annually 100,000 young male seals of a single high grade upon
the whole herd as begun in 1870 was an experiment. It went far beyond the Russian
limit and method, for it added a much greater danger. It called for the systematic
culling out of all the seals driven under 3 years of age and over 4 years.

This act of steadily killing every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old male that comes
up annually 1 in the drives began i in a few years to create a serious interference with that
law of natural selection in the life of the herd which enables the fur seal to be so
dominant. a pinniped. This interference is at once seen by a thoughtful naturalist
when the continued culling out of the very finest young male seals from the herd
takes place annually. How long would any stock breeder keep up the standard of
his herd in this State if he annually slaughtered all of the very finest young males
that were born into it or brought into it?

Yet Dr. Jordan comes forward in his final report with tls plain confession of his
inability to grasp a well-established truth in regard to the life of wild animals. Laisten
to him (Chap. LX, p. 128):

“The whole matter (theory of overdriving) is too absurd for serious consideration,
and might be passed by with the silent contempt which it deserves were it not for
the fact that it was accepted by the British commissioners in 1891 and made the
chief foundation of the British contention before the Paris tribunal of arbitration.’

Yet, curiously enough, Dr. Jordan, on page 120, immediately preceding this dog-
matic deduction, cuts all the eround out from under his own feet in the following
statement:

“But suppose the killing was continued through a series of years, every 3-year-old
being killed, the reserve would in time be cut off and the stock of breeding bulls
die cut. It is impossible to say how long it would take to produce this effect, because
we do not know the length of the life of a bull. We may infer, however, that it is
not less than 15 years, and therefore the injurious effects of this excessive killing,
begun in any given year and continued indefinitely, would not be seen within 10
years at least. a

This he publishes under the caption of “A hypothetical case.’

It is not hypothetical. It is the real story of the driving and. killing on the islands
from 1880: up to 1890. During all those years I know, from the records of the work
and the direct personal testimony of the men who did the work, that they never allowed
a 3-year-old seal to escape that they could get. That in 1883 they first began to
fall behind in their run of 3-year-old seals from the hunting grounds of 1872-1874,
which had so abundantly supplied them. Then they began to extend their driving
to the hitherto untouched hauling grounds of the islands, until by 1896 they were
driving from every nook and corner on the islands where a young male seal hauled
out, and by 1889, in spite of the frantic exertions that they made, they got less than
one-quarter of their quota of 3-year-old skins. They had to make it up in yearlings
and. “‘short”” 2-year-olds for that year.

In the face of this positive truth about the wok of 1889, which appears in my
report of 1890, Dr. Jordan, in 1898, makes the following strange blunder of statement:
“To destroy this class (3- -year- olds) or any considerable number of them would at once
weaken the herd. But there would be no object in such killing, and it has never
been thought of” (p. 120).

Never been thought of. Why, it was the sole aim and thought of the land butchers
to, get. every fine 3. -year-old and 4-year-old seal that could be secured in the seal
drives from 1872 to 1890 When the supply of this grade dwindled on the original

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 93

sources of supply then the work of driving from the hitherto untouched reservoirs was
regularly increased with vigor and tireless persistency.

But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that this overkilling
is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: ‘‘In the hypothetical case above cited
we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in theory
this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. There are certain
hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Seevitch Rock, and
Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven. ‘lhe
young males frequenting there were left undisturbed. ”

This emphatic statement by Dr. Jordan is wholly and completely untrue. I have
the recora and the proof that each and everyone of these places of retreat which
he names above have been annually visited by the sealing gangs on St. Paul Island
since 1884; and these ‘‘undisturbed” seals have been regularly driven off from those
particular places, so that they would haul out on other places where they could be
taken more advantageously, or they were killed, thousands and tens of thousands of
them, right on the ground itself, notably on Southwest Point in 1884-1886. They were
entirely tunted off from other islands because the law and the lease does not allow
the lessees to kill seals there. And this particular secret work was in progress right up
to the hour when I stopped it, July 20, 1890.

Now, who has imposed upop Dr. Jordan with this bald untruth? Who has so com-
pletely and shamefully misled him? What avails his high personal character or his
deserved reputation as a naturalist when he makes a gross and a monumental blunder
like ae A blunder upon which he bases his whole defense of an abuse which I
condemn?

It is in order now to submit the proof that Dr. Jordan has falsified
this island work as to not driving or taking of seals by the lessees to
slaughter from certain ‘“‘reservations”’ and “inaccessible places.”’ It
is given in Hearing No. 14, July 25, 1912 (pp. 923-924, H. Com.
Dept. Com. & Labor), thus:

Mr. Exuiorr. One of the most flagrant and inexcusable matters of ‘‘scientific”’
malfeasance as to conduct of t! e public business on the seal islands of Alaska is that
repeated and untruthful statement made by Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896-1898,
and which I Lave made the following review of (see pp. 66, 67, Hearing No. 2, June
9, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor), and continued by his associates ever
since, to wit:

‘But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that tl is over-
killing is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: ‘In the hypothetical case above
cited we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in
theory this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. ‘Tlere are cer-
tain hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Seevitch Rock,
and Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven.
The young males frequenting there were left undisturbed.’”’

Mr. Exxiorr. I submit herewith, appended, the following proof of that erroneous
statement made by Dr. Jordan, as above cited, to wit:

Those ‘‘whistles” used on St. Paul, in 1890, and for driving off those seals as stated
in my notes following these of St. George, were not unknown, it is clear, to the lessees
at least six years before I knew anything about them.

[Wardman’s Entries. ]

Sr. Georce Istanp, July and late June.

June 28, 1884. * * * First driving off of the young seals from under High
Bluffs just west of Stony Arteet. The natives set up small, noisy windmills, spilled
coal oil on the rocks, and set a number of small flags. * * *

But a few days afterward I [Wardman] was astonished to see the young seals all
back there laying in and around these windmill ‘‘screechers” and the fluttering
flags, showing no fear of them whatever. * * * ;

Natives sent down every few days with boats and whistles to drive the holluschickie
off, since they can not round them up, and kill on the beach margin—too narrow.

[Elliott’s diary, St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.]

Tuurspay, July 3, 1890.
Palmer, back from Nort! east Point ti is evening, reports that all the native sealing
gang used tl eir whistles and stampeded tle lolluschickie under the bluffs at Lukanin
and on Katavie Point, as tt ey came down with him; he says that they told him that

94 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

they all had these whistles and used them to drive seals out of the rookeries, especi-
ally under these bluffs of Lukanin, of the Reef and Seevitchie Kammers; also of the
shelf on Zapadnie and Poloyina Bluffs.

Saturpay, July 5, 1890.

Tingle drove all the holluschickie off from the landing (at Otter Island) as soon as
we came ashore.

JuLy 9, 1890.
Three natives driving holluschickie under the ‘“‘drop” at Zapadnie. They told
me tlat they had killed several tlousand down there on tle slelf in 1887-88, and
carried the skins off in the baidar; only a few here to-day, and so drove them off,
rather than make a killing; also that every one of the S. W. Point seals were slaugh-
tered there on the ground in 1887-88; finest lot seals ever rounded up, not one under
size, and all secured.

[Elliott’s diary on St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.]

Tuurspay, July 3, 1890.

Mr. Goff | asked me to-night if I was aware of the fact that the natives had been
ordered to sweep the bluff margins at Zapadnie and strew broken bottles, coal-oil
cans, etc., on the rocks. I told him that I was; that this work of hustling out every
young male seal that could be found hiding in the shelter of the rookery margins and
under the high bluffs at Zapadnie, Polavina, Lukannon, and west side of Reef Point,
Sieviethie Kammen, and Otter Island was begun here in 1884, and also on St. George.

Mr. Goff also asked me if I knew that the natives were supplied with whistles for
stampeding the holluschickie on the rookery margins next to the surf, and that squads
were employed secretly at the work. I told him, yes; that Palmer ! had witnessed
and heard such a ‘‘drive” under Lukannon bluffs, when he was coming down from
Northeast Point, 4th instant. Palmer reported the occurrence to me.

What shall we do? As matters stand, do nothing but record it; it simply shows
the extreme diminution of the young male life.

Fripay, July 4.
Booterin and Artamonov both shrugged their shoulders this morning when I asked
them about the whistles—‘‘Excuse me, please,’ and off they shuffled with very
wise grins. é
I cornered Aggie Cushing to-day, and he admitted that he had been ordered to
“salt” the bluff rocks at Zapadnie in 1889; that every seal had been killed at 8. W.
Point and ‘‘Kursoolah” by the end of the season of 1888; that this hauling ground
was not driven; the baidar came direct from the village and the men rounded the
seals all up on the ground itself, killed and skinned them there, “‘all big seals;’’ “‘fine,
very fine seals; none got away.’’ ‘‘When did you first come, Aggie?” ‘‘June, 1886,
we came first time.’’ ‘‘Why?” ‘‘Big, fine seals, sir; get ’em; every one, too.”’
‘‘Tts pretty well grass grown over there now; when did you quit killing there? ‘“‘We
got them all in 1888, sir.’’ ‘‘Why haven’t any seals hauled there since?” ‘‘There
ain’t any left—they have all gone, maas lucken.’’ ‘‘When do you think the trouble
began here, Aggie?” ‘‘It first became hard, Mr. Elliott, in 1883, and it has been
getting harder and slower all the time.”’ ‘‘Have you got a whistle, Aggie?” ‘‘Yes,”’
and showed it to me, slung under his shirt by a neck string; it was a regular pewter
dog whistle. Aggie begged off when asked as to details of the work of the whistle
brigade, and I dropped the subject.

DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN RECORD IN RE
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS.

Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian luilling
of seals from the time the old Russian American company took
charge of the Pribilof herd in 1800, up to the day we received it
from them in 1867, never permitted the killing of female seals.
He, with that full knowledge in his possession, after holding it for

1 Chas. J. Goff, named above, is dead. W.S. Palmer, however, also named and quoted above, is now
employed as one of the curators and preparators in the United States National Museum, Washington,
D.C. (May 13, 1913).

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 95

nearly two years, has the following untruthful statement to finally
report under date of February 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of
this work of killing seals by the Russian ‘management of the herd, to
wit.

On page 25, Fur Seal Investigation, Part I, 1898, under head of
the “‘Company’s management,” he says:

At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian American company put
a stop to the ruthless slaushter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction.

fe. They. still continued to kill males and females alike. The injury to the
herd naturally continued. * * *

That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial of
the only authority which he has used, and knows, is hard to believe,
when on page 222, following, of this same report above cited, part
third, apne the following translation of Bishop Veniaminoy’ S ac-
count of this kiling, which was originally published in St. Peters-
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit:

_ The taking of fur seals commenced in the latter days of September. * * * The
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. e., two years and older) having been removed,
the others are divided into small squads and are carefully driven to ‘the place where
they are to be killed, sometimes more than ten versts distant. * *

When brought to the killing grounds they are rested for an hour or more, according
to circumstances, and then killed withaclub, * * * Ofthose 1 year old, the males

are separated from the females and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the
beach.

Here is the explicit, clear cut statement made by Veniaminoy,
who, writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Pauls Island, denies
Dr. Jordan’s assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd.

And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted, was made
by Leonhard Stejneger, one of Dr. Jordan’s own associates on the
Seal Islands, in 1896-97.

There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises.
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is positively stated by
the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan’s final
report, and correctly translated, as above cited.

In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page
25, Jordan’s own statement is— :

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the Imperial Government, after an inspection of the
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and

leaving only the adults as breeders. He writes: “If any of the young breeders are not
killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring.”’

Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor-
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in
his mouth; witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky:

In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an account
of his inspection of the operations on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, observes
that ‘‘every year the young bachelor seals are killed, and that only the cows, -seekatchie,
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species.’’ It follows that only the old seals
are left, while if any of the bachelors are left alive i in the autumn they are sure to be
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration, Letter No. 6, p. 58, Mar. 5, 1821.)

96 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a ‘‘scientist”’ like
Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr. Jordan attempt to deceive his
Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the herd
between 1800 and 1834? Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily
brovght up to confound him ¢

Why does Jordan substitute “breeders” for Yanovsky’s ‘“ bache-
lors’? to deceive; for a “‘ breeder” is a female-seal as well as male,
and that is precisely what Yanovsky has stated—that female seals
are not killed, but the “‘ young bachelor” seals are; and are all killed -
in the spring if they are not so killed m the autumn prior.

He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified the
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and ruin of that
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official
report to our Government dated February-24, 1898, and published
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in January, 1898, under title of
‘‘Fur Seal Investigation, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898.”

The record of Dr. Dawid Starr Jordan on the killing grounds of the
Seal Islands in 1896-97, clothed with full authority to regulate the killing
of seals, then:

VII. On July 11, 1896, less than one month after the publication
of those ‘“‘Carlisle rules,” above quoted, Dr. David Starr Jordan
landed on the Seal Islands, clothed with a supervising power on the
part of the Government over all this killing of the seals. He sends
to the department a report on this subject, and conceals from it the
fact that those “Carlisle rules” of May 14, 1896, have been openly
and flagrantly violated during the very first season of their publication.
(See Preliminary Report No. 7, 1896, p. 21, Treas. Doc. No. 1913, by
David Starr Jordan.)

The department has every confidence in Dr. Jordan as a naturalist,
who could not be deceived as to what “yearling” seals were, and
accepted his indorsement of this work by the lessees who killed those
yearling seals as above cited, in violation of that specific prohibition
by the department and under Dr. Jordan’s supervision.

But Dr. Jordan did know what a yearling seal was, and the following
entries made in the official journal declare it, for he was busy in
securing them as specimens for his own use, to wit: Under date of
Sunday, September 27, 1896, the following entry appears on page 53
of the official journal of the Government agents on St. Paul Island:

13. The skin of a yearling bull, smothered in the food drive trom Lukannon was
taken for Stanford University.

8. A yearling holluschak shot on reef, supposed to be a virgin cow; the skin taken
for Calitornia Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Jordan had with him three naturalists, who served as his
subordinates on the occasion of his visit in 1896 and again in 1897 to
the Seal Islands. These associates, Messrs. Stejneger, Lucas, and
Townsend, all united with Dr. Jordan in that report of 1896 (Treas.
Doc., No. 1913, Nov. 7, 1896), which gave this illegal killing of year-
lings in 1896 a clean bill of health and which is so faithfully recorded
in the London sales sheet, December following, as being in violation
of those rules of May 14, 1896, above cited.

That Dr. Jordan, at the head of a great university, should thus
attempt to conceal the truth about that killing as above stated, seems
fairly unreasonable. What influence could the lessees have over

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 97

him? Leland Stanford, Jr., University was then governed by a board
of trustees, and chief on that board was one of the lessees, D. O. Mills.
That lessee was a commanding figure. It might have been very un-
leasant in result for Dr. Jordan had he stopped the lessees’ work, as
ie should have done, and reported their violation of the Secretary of
Treasury’s order to the department, as was his sworn duty to do.

Whatever may have béen the cause of Jordan’s dereliction in the
premises, the fact remains that he was derelict, and not from want
of knowledge of what a yearling seal was.

On July 24, 1913, the natives of St. Paul Island, during the course
of a meeting with the agents of the House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce, on St. Paul Island, had this to say
of Dr. Jordan and this illegal work of 1896 (this statement is a depo-
sition duly taken):

Question. When, after this year (1890), did you get orders to kill those small seals—
to kill all of them that came in the drives?

Answer. In 1896 we commenced to take the 5-pound skins, to the best of our rec-
ollection.

Question. Who directed this work of killing the small seals on the killing grounds?

Answer. We do not remember; but J. Stanley Brown was the company’s agent at
that time.

Question. Did the Government agents object?

Answer. We do not remember.

This shows that no objection on the part of the Government agents
was made, or those natives surely would have recalled it, just as they
remembered that this particular work was begun, as stated.

VIUI.—This work of Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896, was repeated
by him in. 1897, and the same covering given to the killing of small
seals; and, on page 18 of his second preliminary report, dated
November 1, 1897, he says:

Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals.
During the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been
done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, in 1896. This year it
was extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August 11. The quota

to be left to our discretion, and every opportunity was given the lessees to take the
full product of the hauling of grounds.

ISAAC LIEBES SECURES THE APPOINTMENT OF LEMBKEY THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF DR. JORDAN ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1900, BY SECRE-
TARY GAGE.

We have shown how the lessees managed to get rid of Chief Special
Agent Goff and Assistant Agent Lavender, and then to suborn
Assistant Agents Murray and Nettleton, who at first had joined with
Goff. We have shown how they secured the appointment of Williams
to succeed Goff, and Ziebach to take Ponrettler's place. We have
shown how they secured the appointment of J. Stanley Brown to take
Williams’s place after the latter had expressed his dislike of the course
which he had been ordered to pursue as Goff’s successor. We have
shown how Brown promptly made an official order July 8, 1892,
turning the whole business of driving, selection, and killing of seals

on the killing grounds to the lessees; and we have shown how Brown,

for this guilty subserviency and malfeasance as a United States
agent, had been made the ‘‘superintendent of the North American

21588—13——7

98 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

‘Commercial Co ,”’ or the lessees’ work on the islands in 1894. We

have shown how Murray was rewarded by being made chief special
agent in 1887; and when he died in 1888 how John Morton, another
subservient man, was put in charge as ‘‘United States chief special
agent”? by the lessees. It now becomes necessary to show how
Liebes had W. J. Lembkey appointed as Morton’s successor Septem-
ber 30, 1900, which was soon after Morton’s death on the island of
St. Paul, July 15, 1900.

This record of Liebes’s and Elkins’s (lessees) influence is important
_ at this juncture, because Lembkey has been the active official instru-
ment which those men have used to secure illegally more than 100,000
‘“small pup,” or yearling seals, since 1899 up to May 1, 1910.

When Mr. Lembkey was put under oath, April 13, 1912, he swore
that he did not know who recommended his appointment as John
Morton’s successor. He testified to the committee as follows:

Mr. Extiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you were appointed when?

Mr. Lempxey. Appointed to what position, sir?

Mr. Extiorr. To your office of assistant agent in the seal islands of Alaska.
Mr. Lempxey. In 1899.

Mr. Exuiotrr. From what place where you appointed?

Mr. LemBxey. From what place?

Mr. Exnrort. Yes, from what position?

Mr. Lempxey. I was appointed
Mr. Exuiorr. What position were you holding?

Mr. Lempxey. I was holding a clerkship in the Treasury Department at the time
of my appointment.

Mr. Ex1tiorr. That appointment was dated when?

‘Mr. Lempxey. I do not know; I do not remember.

Mr. Extrorr. About what time did you go to the islands in 1899?

Mr. Lempxey. I got there some time in May or June—I forget which; I think May.
Mr. Exuiorr. Who was the chief special agent in charge of the islands?

Mr. Lempxey. John M. Morton.

Mr. Extiorr. When were you appointed as chief special agent in charge of the seal
islands?

Mr. LemBxey. Some time in 1900. I think in October.

Mr. Exxiorr. You were appointed to take the position of whom?

Mr. Lempxey. John M. Morton.

Mr. Exurorr. Who asked for your appointment?

Mr. Lemspxey. I do not know.

Mr. Exuiorr. Is it true that Mr. Isaac Liebes asked Dr. Jordan to telegraph Secre-
- tary Gage that you be appointed to Mr. Morton’s place?

Mr. Lempxey. I did not know Mr. Isaac Liebes at that time, and, of course, I do
not suppose he did. However, as I have stated, I do not know who made the recom-
mendation. Iam under the impression the recommendation was made by the super-
vising special agent.

Mr. Extiorr. It was not made by Dr. Jordan?

Mr. Lemsxey. IJ do not know anything about it. Dr. Jordan himself has denied
that he ever made any recommendation in the case. So faras I know I can not answer
the question. I was on the seal islands at the time of my appointment.

Mr. Etuiorr. You were on the seal islands at the time of your appointment?

Mr. Lempxey. At the time of my appointment as agent in charge.

Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Morton died when?

-’Mr. Lempxey. He died during my absence from the islands. I think it was in
July, 1900, or June; I am not certain which—either June or July of 1900. Z

Mr. Exuiorr. You do not know who asked for your appointment?

Mr. Lempxey. I have not any knowledge whatever on that subject. (Hearing No.
9, p: 425, Apr. 18; 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept., C. &. L.).

Lembkey swears that he does not know who asked for his appoint-
ment, as above-cited testimony attests. The following statement of
fact shows that Isaac Liebes, for the lessees, asked Dr. Jordan to urge
Lembkey as Morton’s successor, and that Jordan did Liebes’s bidding,

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 99

and Secretary of the Treasury Gage, September 30, 1900, in response
to Jordan’s request, appointed Lembkey.

In April, 1899, W. i Lembkey, a $1,200 clerk in the Customs
Division, United States Treasury Department, was appointed to the
vacancy of an assistant special agent for service on the seal islands.
At the same time John Morton, assistant agent, was promoted to the
chief special agent’s office, made vacant by the death of Joseph
Murray, October, 1898, at Fort Collins, Colo.

Morton and Lembkey went up together from San Francisco, and
landed on St. Paul Island on June 10, 1899. Morton, in August fol-
lowing, went back to Washington for the winter, and left Lembkey
on St. Paul Island in charge.

When Morton returned, June 11, 1900, to St. Paul Island, he found
Lembkey ul and suffering from an ulcerated jaw, or threatened
necrosis of his jawbone. Lembkey obtained an immediate leave of
absence and left the island at once, on June 13, proceeded direct to
San Francisco on Liebes’s chartered ship, Homer, to go under a sur-
geon’s treatment when he arrived there (on or about June 27 or 28,
or early in July, 1900).

In the meantime Morton became ill, and died July 15, 1900. He
died in the Government agent’s house on St. Paul Island. The news
of Morton’s death reached Washington and San Francisco on or
about August 1 to 8 following. Lembkey, who had in the meantime
been relieved by surgical treatment, had started back to the islands
on the same vessel of the lessees which had carried him down, the
Homer. She sailed on or about August 8 for this return trip to St.
Paul. Before he left San Francisco, and while down there on this
errand, as above stated, he was a frequent visitor to the office of Isaac
Liebes, on those matters of business which were connected with his
living on the islands with his family free of all cost for board, together
with service for not himself, but for his wife and daughter. He also
had the business of his passage up and down free for his wife and
daughter on that vessel, and himself, if his allowance of $600 per
annum for traveling expenses did not meet his own trip costs to and
from Washington.

Thus Mr. Lembkey became very well acquainted with Mr. Liebes,
and the seals never failed to form a common bond of interest. Liebes
soon knew Lembkey well.

When Liebes learned of Morton’s death, as usual, he at once looked
for a ‘“‘proper successor’? for the man whom he could trust as a
United States agent in charge. He sent word to David Starr Jordan,
then at Palo Alto, that he (Liebes) desired him (Jordan) to telegraph
Secretary Gage of the immediate need for selection of a fit successor
to John Morton, and that he (Jordan) desired the appointment of
W. J. Lembkey; that was done by Jordan, on or about August 25
or 28, or thereabouts. On September 30, 1900, Gage ordered, as
Morton’s successor, the appointment of Lembkey, and notified Ezra
W. Clark that he had done so at the request of Dr. Jordan. Clark
nee been promised the place and did not fail to tell why he had
ost it.

_ -It will be observed that Lembkey swears that he does not know
who urged his appointment; he was on the seal islands at the time
of his appointment; he arrived on the islands—after leaving San
Francisco on the Homer, August 8—on the 19th of August, 1900.

100 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Since his appointment was not made until September 30 following,
at Liebes’s and Jordan’s inspiration, he did not get news of it until
the following season, early in May.

Now let us see what Dr. Jordan has to say about this, after he had
been charged with this nomination of Lembkey (by Henry W.
Elliott). He addressed a letter to President Roosevelt, dated
January 16, 1906, in which he made the following evasive reference,
to wit:

I may say incidentally, with reference to the concluding remark of Mr. Elliott in
his letter, that while I formed a very favorable opinion of Mr. Lembkey during his
incumbency of a position in the Treasury Department tn 1896-97, it is not just to
him to say that ‘‘he owes his appointment” to my nomination. Nor is it fair to
hold Mr. Lembkey responsible for the failure to solve these scientific questions.
They demand a training which he doubtless has not had, and in any event they could
not have been worked out successfully in addicion to the ordinary duties and respon-
sibilities of his position. The natualist who is to understand the herd must spend
practically all his time in observation of the rookeries.

Against this evasive answer (no denial) of his part in securing
Lembkey’s appointment, the files of the Treasury will show, in the
appointment clerk’s office, that telegram from Jordan, which urged
the appointment of Lembkey, and which secured it.

Later, in 1905, Lembkey, fearing the result of an examination into
his work at the islands by Mr. F. H. Hitchcock, in 1905-6, ‘“‘cast an
anchor to the windward,” and told the truth October 26, 1905, about
the effect of the killing by the lessees (pp. 157-179, Appendix A.).

The moment that Lembkey understood that the lessees had pre-
vented Hitchcock from visiting the islands (early in 1906), he
(Lembkey) returned to his service of the lessees, abjectly and shame-
fully; ate his own words of truth, and joined with Jordan in the
usual annual eulogy of the ‘‘benevolent killing” on the islands, and
the hypocritical cry of ‘‘terrible destruction by the pelagic sealers,”
etc., as the following exhibit clearly declares, to wit:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, October 26, 1905.

Str: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905:

There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that, by
reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken wp before the usual period and bachelors
were able to haul among the cows.

This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from
the breeding ground by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired to
haul at all, only on the bachelor’s hauling ground. as

This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rookeries
generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the cows
that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls been
sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred.

The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from which
not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain the
requisite proportion of bulls. ;

Respectfully, '. W. I. Lempxey,
Agent in Charge Seal Islands.
The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND Lasor.

But, in 1913, he has another ‘‘report” to make—to-wit:

Mr.-LemBxey. The number of breeding bulls on the island, as found by the fore-
going census, is 1,356 active and 329 idle, a total of 1,685 bulls ready for service. With
39,400 breeding and 10,297 virgin females, occupied with 1,356 active bulls, the
average harem is only 36.. The 329 idle bulls which did not secure cows during the summer
will serve some of the 2-year-old or virgin cows coming in for their initial umpregnation

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 101

in the fall, and would reduce the size of the average harem to 30, a perfectly normal
ratio of the sexes.

- It might be claimed that the size of the herd of idle bulls is very small, and that
therefore not enough male seals escape the killing grounds to maintain an ideally
healthy relation between breeding males and females. It is true that the number of
idle bulls is small, but proportionately it is as large as any true friend of the seals
would desire. With a total of only 1,685 adult bulls present, the idle, 329, represent
19 per cent, or nearly one-fifth, of the whole number present. This number has not
been estimated, but has actually been counted one by one, so that the presence of
these bulls is not in the least a matter of conjecture, but is an assured fact. With
1 bull idle out of every 5 present, not even the most radical critic could fail of conviction
that an ample surplus of male life exists, and for this reason the killing of male seals
on land has not been of such a nature as to endanger in any way the safety of the herd or
eeypeee increase.—(Hearing No. 9, p. 368, Feb. 29, 1912,.H. Com. Dept. Com. &

abor. )

Note.—tThere is no breeding after August 1, annually, and no one knows it better
than Lembkey.—H. W. E.

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

That the Bureau of Fisheries had complete knowledge of the fact
that these ‘‘loaded”’ weights which are certified into the skin records
of killing and taking by the lessees did not govern the size or value of
them when sold is admitted, under oath, as follows:

Mr. Mappen. The point is, does the weight of the skin have anything to do with the
value of the skin?

Mr. Lempxey. The weight of the skin, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the
value of the skin.

Mr. Mavpew. Is it sold by the pound, or how?

Mr. Lempxey. Not by the pound, by the size—the amount ofturonit. Ifweshould
leave 5 pounds of blubber on the skin there would only be so much fur on it for the
garment maker to make the garment of.

Mr. McGtuicuppy. If you took a young skin and for the purpose of making it appear
by weight older, you could deceive?

Mr. Lempkery. We certainly could deceive. We could fill it with any sort of substance.

Mr. McGruicuppy. You say measurement would not be reliable because it might
be stretched. Suppose you did not stretch it, suppose you take it honestly, then
would it be, if honestly taken, would it be a test?
~ Mr. Lempxey. I tried to make that clear to the committee.

The CuarrMan. That is a direct question. Why do you not answer it?

Mr. Lempxey. I am attempting to. It is impossible; of course all our actions up
there are honestly:

Mr. MapvpeEn (interposing). Answer the question right straight. Do not try to
explain it.

Mr. Lempxey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is impos-
sible to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may curl
up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened by salt.

Mr. McGuuicuppy. Then it will not stretch?

Mr. Lempxkey. Certainly not.

Mr. McGruicuppy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff?

Mr. LemsBxey. Certainly.

Mr. McGituicuppy. You can not then stretch or shrink it?

Mr. LemBxey. No, sir.

Mr. McGrmuicuppy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin would it not deter-
mine the age?

Mr. Lempxey. I fancy, yes.

Mr. McGruicuppy. Is there any doubt about it?

Mr. Lempxkey. Ido not think so. I say fancy, because I never attempted to judge
of age by the measurements.

Mr. McGiuuicuppy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive,
because you say they could not stretch it?

Mr. Lemspxey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days,
because the skin then is not very pliable.

102 FUR-SEAL HERD OF. ALASKA,

' Mr. McGutuicuppy. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a certain
number of days?

Mr. Lempxeny. Yes, after it has been in salt, but when the skin is green it would not
be a reliable test. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 399-400, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Lab.)

Here the chief special agent of the Bureau of Fisheries in charge
of the seal islands distinctly tells the committee that when those
skins taken by him have been in salt ‘“‘four or five days” they can not
be stretched or shrunken; that they are then fixed for a reliable
Se eee and so fixed when they leave the islands for the London
sales.

Then, later on, this chief special agent in charge of the seal islands,
when asked by the committee to give his measurements made by
himself of a yearling seal of his own identification as such, he swears
(on pp. 442, 443) as follows (Hearing No. 9.): ;

Mr. Lemspxey. Now, Mr. Elliott, proceed.

Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its
nose to the tip of its tail?

Mr. Lempxey. No, sir, not off-hand.

Mr. Ex.iotr. You never measured one?

Mr. Lemrxey. Oh, yes, I have measured one.

Mr. Exvuiorr. Have you no record of it?

Mr. Lempxey. I have a record of it here.

Mr. Exxiotr. What is its length?

Mr. LemBxey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be. from the tip
of the nose to the root of the tail, 394 inches in one instance and 394 in another instance——

Mr. Euuiotr. Yes.

Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three.

Mr. Exurotr. When you take a skin off of that yearling seal, how much of that skin do
you leave on there?

Mr. Lempxey. You do not leave very much on the tail end there [indicating]; not
nearly so much as your sketch would show.

Mr. Exiotr. It does not matter.

Mr. Lempxey. We leave about 3 inches, perhaps, on the head.

Mr. Ex.tiorr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken the
skin off?

The CHairmMAN. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?

Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain amount
is left on.

Mr. LemsBxey. J stated about 3 inches.

Mr. Exutorr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long.

Mr. Lempxey. No; tf it was 394 inches long it would leave it 364 inches. That is, all
the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 394 inches long.
Three inches off that would leave 364 INCHES.

In this distinct and explicit statement, Mr. Lembkey tells the com-
mittee that a yearling seal skin of his own identification and measure-
ment is 364 inches long, and that its measurement as such is fixed
and constant after ‘‘four or five days in salt.”

On page 447, he admits to the committee that the official classifi-
cation of his catch of 12,920 seal skins taken by him in 1910 and
measured in salt carries 7,733 skins which are less than 34 inches
long (or are yearling skins), any one of them, as follows:

Mr. Extiorr. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given here
already. You have given in a statement here that 8,000 of them were ‘‘small” and
“fextra small.”’

Mr. LemBxkey. 7,700.

Mr. Exiiorr. 7,700?

Mr. LemBKEY. 7,733 were small and extra small pups.

Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Fraser tells us that those seals none of them measured more than
34 inches nor less than 30 inches.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 103

Mr. LemsBxkey. The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states that
small pups measured 33} inches in length.

Mr. Exuiorr. From there [indicating] to there [indicating].

Mr. Lempxey. Thirty-three and three-quarters inches in length, and extra small pups
measured 30 inches in length.

Mr. Exutiotr. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8,000.

Mr. Lemspxey. Only 11 of those.

Mr. Ex.iotr. It does not amount to anything.

Mr. Lempxey. It just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number.

Mr. Lembkey can not sensibly dispute the fact that he has taken
7,733 “yearling” seals in 1910; and this done in open violation of
the law and regulations of the department which he is sworn to obey
= enforce, and which he quotes to the committee (on p. 372) as
ollows:

Mr. Mapven. If they were killed it would be a violation of law.

Mr. Lemspxey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be in
accordance with existing law.

It should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of any male
seal over 1 year or 12 months 6f age, although regulations of the department do prohibit
the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned to the
islands from their second migration.

Mr. TownsEND. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?

Mr. LemBxey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir.

Mr. Youna. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green
skins on the islands, and then measure them in the markets in London. What is your
purpose in weighing, and what is their purpose in measuring?

Mr. LemMBKey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within
the weights prescribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and
minimum weights. Those weights are 5 pounds——

Mr. Youne. Does that relate to the question of age?

Mr. LemsKey. [ive pounds and eight and one-half pounds.

Mr. Youna. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in
measuring?

Mr. LemBxey. They measure them, I fancy——

Mr. Young. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too?

Mr. SETS: They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the
animal.

Mr. Youne. They care nothing about the question of age there?

Mr. Lemsxey. Nothing at all.

Mr. Youna. That isall I care to ask.

That these natives know what they are doing when directed by
the lessees to kill seals, the following testimony of Chief Special Agent
Lembkey fully attests; it is found on page 58 of manuscript notes
of Ways and Means hearing, January 25, 1907.

Mr. LemsBxey. J may say, Mr. Chairman, that the clubbers on the island are expert
in their business, and they can determine the weight of a skin on a live seal to within
a fraction of a pound.

Mr. Grosvenor. That is all I wanted to know.

Mr. Lemspxey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance.

Manuscript notes, page 59:

Mr. CLark. These experts can tell a 4-year-old irom a 3-year-old, can they?

Mr. Lempxey. By looking at him.

Mr. Cuiarxk. By looking at him?

Mr. LemBxey. Yes.

Mr. Cuiark. They are pretty expert.

Mr. NEEDHAM. Are these killers, ‘‘natives’’?

Mr. LemBxey. Yes, they are natives. I can state positively that they arrive at
that degree of experience. ;

104 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

We find that on May 14, 1896, the Secretary of the Treasury in-
structed the agents in charge of the seal islands to permit “no taking
of seals that had skins less than 6 pounds in weight,” or “ yearlings.’
This order is entered at length, at page 14, of the official record or
journal, of the special agent, St. Paul Island, on June 17, 1896. In
1900, Chief Special Agent Lembkey (suceeeding John Morton, who
died that year) submits a report to the Treasury Department for this
season’s work of 1900 (as well as 1901), in which he says:

' In 1900 the standard was lowered from 6 pounds to 5 pounds, being the first time in -
the history of this business, and as many 5-pound skins as could be found were taken.

An inspection of the official journal of the chief special agent, St.
Paul’s Island, for the season of 1900, fails to show. any entry of any
order from the Secretary of the Treasury which rescinds that official
order of May 14, 1896, and which would be in the same official log
book if made. By what authority was this killing which Mr. Lemb-
Key, and which the London records certify to—by what legal or moral
authority was that killing, as well as ‘the taking of skins weighing
less than 6 pounds or yearlings,’’ made during this season? None,
whatever.

In 1904, following the visit of Senators Dillingham, Nelson, Burn-
ham, and Patterson (this killing of those yearling seal having been
noticed by those Senators on the islands August 3, 1903), they intro-
duced a bill which suspended entirely the work of the lessees on these
islands. That caused the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Mr.
Cortelyou, to come forward and engage to check up this work of killmge
the small seals and yearlings, and on his pledge the Senators refrained
from pressing that bill. He accordingly issued what is known as the
Hitchcock Rules, ordered May 1, 1904, which forbade the killing of
‘any seal having a skin weighing less than 54 pounds or any seals un--
der 2 years of age.”’

We now reach that combination made between the lessees and the
Government agents to evade this order of the Hitchcock Rules; when
Hitchcock left the Department of Commerce and Labor early in 1905
these men went to work as follows:

An unwillmg confession was made by Lembkey of that guilt of

nullification, when cross-examined, under oath, before the House
Committee on Expenditures Department Commerce and Labor, Feb-
ruary 20-Apri 13, 1912. (See pp. 363, 458, Hearmeg No. 9.)
‘ This conspiracy to enable D. O. Mills, United States Senator Elkins,
and Isaac Liebes, as lessees, to enrich themselves at the public cost
and credit, has been shielded and approved by the ‘“‘scientific”
‘‘Advisory Board on Fur-Seal Service,’ with Dr. David S. Jordan,
as ‘‘president”’ of the same.

Liebes and Lembkey got together to nullify the Hitchcock Rules
in 1906, which ordered the reservation of 2,000 young male seals
(1,000 2-year-olds and 1,000 3-year-olds), annually before the
lessees’ kuling began, this reservation being ordered thus, to pre-
vent the swift impending ruin of all male breeding seal life on the
rookeries.

In further proof of the fact that Lembkey knew he was killing
those ‘‘reserved”’ 3-year-old seals, so as to meet the wishes of Liebes,
the following official evidence is submitted.

In 1905 First Assistant Agent Judge, finding that he was killing
in October and November, 1904, all of the 3-year-old seals which

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. *° 105

had been “‘reserved” and ‘“‘immune” from slaughter in June and July
previously, he made a clear pointed statement to that effect in his
annual report, dated June 5, 1905, to wit:

To remove all possibility of killing branded seals in the fall on which the brands
have become indistinct it will be necessary to prohibit the slaughter of any animal
the skin of which weighs over 6 pounds. (Rept. Agt. Jas. Judge, p. 180; Appendix
A; H. Com. Exp: Dept. Com. & Labor, June 24, 1911.)

Now, in the face of this distinct proof given him as above, that he
must make a 6-pound maximum limit for food skins, or let the lessees
continue to nullify the Hitchcock Rules, does W. I. Lembkey do so?
Observe the following sworn statement by him that he does not—
that he kills them all:

Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lembkey, did you prohibit their killing them?

Mr. Lempxey. I did.

Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?

Mr. Lempxey. I did.

Mr. Exiorr. In 1904? =

Mr. LemBxKey: Yes.

Mr. Exxiiorr. Did you do it in 1905?

Mr. Lemsxey. Yes.

Mr. Exuiotr. How did you do it? You had no brand on them.

Mr. Lempxey. By fixing a limit of 84 pounds on the skins to be taken. (Hearing
No. 9, p. 458, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT SWORN TESTIMONY WHICH DECLARES THIS
GUILTY COLLUSION—-IN NULLIFYING THE HITCHCOCK RULES.

Lembkey, February 4, 1911, declares ‘‘the weight of a 3 year old
skin is 7 pounds,” and to ‘save the 3 year-olds,” he has ordered ‘no
skins taken which are over 64 pounds.”

[Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July 25, 1912.]

Mr. Exuiorr. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the nullification of the Hitch-
cock rules, with this evidence duly considered by your committee of the illegal
killing of those yearling seals in 1910 (and that evidence of this guilt applies to every
season’s work on the Pribilof Islands ever since 1890 down to May 1, 1910), I desire to
present the following testimony, which declares that ever since May 1, 1904, when
the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules” were first ordered by the Department of Commerce and Labor,
those rules have been systematically and flagrantly violated by the agents of this
department who were specially sworn to obey and enforce them.

n February 4, 1911, Chief Special Agent Lembkey was introduced by Secretary
Charles Nagel to the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National .
Resources, and during his examination by that committee he made the following
statement, to wit, on page 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, February 4, 1911, Com-
mittee on Conservation of National Resources):

*“Dr. Hornapay. How many ‘short 2-year-olds’ were killed last year?

‘‘Mr. Lempxey. I do not understand your term. No seals under 2 years old, to
my knowledge, were killed.

““Dr. Hornapay. What would be the age of the smallest yearlings taken?

*‘Mr. Lempxey. Two-year-olds rarely, if any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday,
that a great difference of opinion exists between Mr. Elliott and the remaining people
who understand this situation. There is a great gulf between their opinions, and
it can never be reconciled on the question of the weights of skins of 2-year-olds.

“Prof. Exiiorr. I will present my information in a moment.

“Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight is what?

‘““Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds. During food drives made by the natives, when
the seals killed are limited to 64 pounds, in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds branded
during the summer, you understand the natives do kill down a little more closely than
our regulations allow, for the reason that they need the meat, and since they have to
ee all these fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they go for the little fellows a little more
closely.

“The CHAIRMAN. How many seals were killed last year for food by the natives?

106 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

“Mr. Lempxey. The limit was 2,500. Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300
were killed.

‘“Q. Were any females killed?—A. No, sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated,
I carefully interrogated these two gentlemen who had charge of this ‘killing, and
they stated that to their knowledge no female was killed.

““Q. What class of males were killed by the natives for food?—A. Under 64 pounds——”’

Then, soon after stating that “63 pound” limit, Lembkey admitted
that he did not put that reservation down to 64 pounds” until
proof had been given him, that an 84 pound skin limit did not spare
those 3. year. olds (and, he did not fix that limit even tee), to wit:

[Dixon Hearing, p. 19, Feb. 4, 1911.]

Senator HEyBuRN. State the document and the page from which you read.

Prof. Extiorr. Senate Document No. 98, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, page
86. Here is the official report of Mr. W. I. ‘Lembkey, in which the preservation and
protection and conservation of this seal life, which he so graphically described to
you a moment ago, is blown clear out ot water by its own force of official denial.

REPORT OF AGENT JAMES JUDGE.

St. GzorGEe Isnanp, June 5, 1905.

Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report of Affaire on St. George
Isiand, covering the interval from August 14, 1904, to date:

SEALS.

On October.7 Little East Rookery was carefully gone over for the purpose of counting
dead pups, but none were found.

At that season foxes in greater or less numbers are always present on the rookeries
and quickly eat the pups or older animals that may happen to die. Pup skulls were
frequently found during September in the rear of the rookeries, where they had
undoubtedly been left by the foxes, the bodies having been devoured.

Further counting of dead pups was therefore not attempted, as it seemed a disturb-
ance of the seals to no good purpose.

The first food drive was made October 19; killed, 59; dismissed, 6 large, 197 small,
and 6 brands. Two of the latter were from St. Paul. While all brands were very
faint, those made with shears were less discernible than those made with hot irons.
Just the slightest-trace of a brand on one of the dead informed us that the wrong animal
had been knocked down. The skin weighed 8 pounds. That other 3-year-olds branded in
the spring, on which the fur had grown out so that the brand had become obliterated, were
also killed is more than probable, as 69 per cent of the dead skins weighed 7 pounds and
over, the heaviest weighing 9 pounds.

Mr. Lempxery. May I interrupt the gentlemen just a second to ask whether the
report does not state that Mr. Judge at once took measures to prevent the killing of any
more of these branded seals by limiting the weights of skins to 64 pounds, a practice which
has been followed ever since?

Did Lembkey tell the truth? No; he deliberately denies under oath,
April 13, 1912, what he asserts as above in re a “64-pound limit” and
thus admits his guilt in the premises, as below, to wit:

Mr. Exxiorr. Now, what follows, gentlemen of the committee—does he make that
order of reservation? No; he actually nullifies it, and unwittingly confesses that mal-
feasance in the following sworn statement made to your committee April 13 last, on
page 458, Hearing No. 9, Lembkey affirms:

“Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lembkey, did you prohibit killing them?

“Mr. Lempxey. I did.

‘Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?

“Mr. Lempxey. I did.

“Mr. Extiotr. In 1904?

“Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes.

“Mr. Exxriotr. Did you do it in 1905?

“Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes.

‘““Mr. Extrotr. How did you do it? You had no brand on them.

“Mr. LemBxey. By fixing a limit of 83 pounds on the skins to be taken.”’

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 107

Now, what has become of that ‘‘64-pound” 3-year-old limit by which he has sworn he
“saved the 3-year-olds” in June and July, to be again ‘‘saved”’ by him as such in the
autumn following by having this maximum limit of ‘64 pounds” put on the taking
of any ‘‘food skins”? Why, they are all killed.

Mr. MappEen. How many people are there on the islands?

Mr. Exxiotrr. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are all
killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of ‘84 pounds”! He
thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very rules of
the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce.

The Hitchcock rules ordered a ‘‘permanent mark” to be put upon these reserved
seals, ‘‘and under no circumstances are they to be taken,’’ etc. Why was it not done?
The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated Lembkey as
above—they got them.)

The natives made no mistake—not at all—‘‘they took those 4-
year-olds for .3-year-olds’”’ just because the lessees’ agents ordered
them to doso. E. W. Clark is not telling all of the truth—only part
of it, for good reasons of his own, perhaps!

Sr. Grorce Istanp, August 14, 1907.
Dear Mr. LemBKEY. [f€ has occurred to me that you may wish a formal statement
regarding the marking of the young male seals at this island for a breeding reserve.
The following is a statement in detail:

Date. Rookery. BTS | 8 ee hy ae

ANISH IO MN STAT AVA ARCO ee sets noone see ae maw atic cach eitbrelies Ga. 29 32 20
Vine Ne@ithies she t ts See Shek SES Ue Ra cincises ties cscieescScaceecee 14 14 11
Ouibeeadivie, Soot oae et 5h. Bo 2 eta ee Dee ht 14 18 15

90 al 83 OPS Fe SR eA eae OSS rain iar eA ae eee eee 26 28 15

PAR ReERy AT UCL sare Slee e a tein ne lene ee eels ins ccteemicieaie dtae sme's 68 61 6

PAE |p AOE Ce Ee RS Cg) ee Oe 6 ee ee 38 37 14

Baia) AMON cyop 5 ai claioers Ses sis eas satsialais anid ase cans vc sees oes See e ss 11 12 4

ROCA eae edain oct 2 oe tee oe Ov alere eons cemened seleces 200 202 85

While the marking of 4-year-old seals is not enjoined. I deemed it wise to mark these
which the natives caught, believing that if they would make the error of taking these
seals for three years old when we were branding they were likely to make a similar
error when we came to killing, and it was a good plan to render such seals immune
for the season.

Our selection of seals for breeding was of the first class, and the marks remain as
conspicuous now as when first applied.

Very respectfully, Ezra W. CruaRK,
Assistant Agent in Charge.

1 The manner in which they were ‘“‘reserved”’ and then taken is set forth as follows:

3. The reserve of bachelors.—Beginning with the season of 1904, there has been set aside each spring a
ae breeding reserve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years of age. These animals have been marked by
¢ ipping the head with sheep shears, giving them a whitish mark readily distinguishing them to the club-
bers. They are carefully exempted on the killing field and released.

This method of creating a breeding reserve seems open to considerable criticism, and has apparently been
only moderately successful. The mark put upon the animal is a temporary one. The fur is replaced
during the fall-and winter, and the following spring the marked seals can not be recognized. The animals
being 2 and 3 years of age are still killable the next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the second season. A new
lot of 2,000 is clipped the next season, and these are carefully exempted, but, except in so far as apimals
of the previous season’s marking are reclipped, they have no protection the second seasoa, and without
doubt are killed.

If such is not the case, it is difficult to understand what becomes of them. (Report of G. A. Clark, p. 847,
Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)

108

(Appendix A, p. 533, House Committ
Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

ee on Expenditures in the Department of

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

_ Lembkey says the 3-year-olds
and other holluschickie are not
driven out from shelter of the breed-
ing cows.

Chief Special Agent LEMBKEY:

“Furthermore, the 3-year-olds, having
passed the age of puberty, are not found
on the hauling grounds during the fall,
but are hauled among the cows on the
rookeries when they can not be driven.
This is an additional safeguard against
their killing, and of itself would disprove
any allegation that these marked seals are
subsequently killed.’’ (Report, Dec. 14,
1906, S. Doc. 376, p. 18, 60th Cong, Ist
sess. ) ;

But his assistant tells him that
they are so ‘‘pulled out from among
the cows.”

Assistant Agent JAMES JUDGE:

“Seals —Four hundred and fifty-eight
seals of the quota of 500 allowed the na-
tives of this island for food were obtained.
The first drive was made on October 19,
from Staraya Artel, and 220 seals were
killed; 209 small, sixty-five 3-year-olds,
five 4-year-olds,- six 5-year-olds, two
6-year-olds, and 4 branded were turned
away. Three other drives were made as
follows: October 31, Staraya Artel rook-
ery, 148 seals were killed; twelve 3-year-

olds released; November 9, Staraya Artel

and North, 44 seals killed; November 16,
North rookery, 25 seals killed; October 20
to November 10, Zapadni Guards, 21 seals
killed.

“The last three drives were made up
entirely of seals pulled out from among
the cows by the natives, and as very care-
ful selection had taken place on the rook-
ery very few were turned away from the
killing field.’? (Report June 3, 1907, 8S.
Doc. 376, p. 105, 60th Cong., 1st sess.)

And in final and complete proof of this guilty knowledge possessed
by Liebes, Lembkey, Evermann, and Bowers, as lessees and officials,
that these ‘‘reserved’”’ seals were being taken in violation of regula-
tions, the deadly parallel is drawn upon them, thus:

Lembkey declares that the reg-
ulations “order no food skins taken
over 64 pounds’’; and that he faith-
fully obeys them:

Mr. Lempxey:

Notwithstanding repeated allegations to
the contrary, the regulations of the depart-
ment fully protect the breeding herd and these
regulations are carefully and thoroughly
observed. They require that no female or
marked male should be killed, and no male
seal having a pelt weighing less than 5 or
more than 84 pounds. During the food
killing season of the fall and spring seals
having skins weighing over 64 pounds or
under 5 pounds may not be taken, this
extra limitation being enforced to prevent
the killing of those males marked for breeding
pur poses after the new hair has grown in and
obliterated the mark which 1s placed upon
their hides at the beginning of the season.

But Evermann furnishes the
committee with copies of these
regulations which order “no food
skins taken over 84% pounds’’—
and thus confessing the deceit of
Lembkey! (and himself. also).

Dr. EVERMANN:

I wish to call particular attention to
these paragraphs of the instructions re-
garding reservations to be made:

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]

Src. 8. Sizes of killable seals—No seals
shall be killed having skins weighing less than
5 pounds nor more than 84 pounds. Skins
weighing more than 84 pounds shall not be
shipped from the islands, but shall be held
there subject to such instructions as may
be furnished you hereafter by the depart-
ment. Skins weighing less than 5 pounds
shall not be shipped from the islands, un-
less, in your judgment, the number thereof

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Mr. Mappen. Right there, let me ask a
question.

Mr. LemBxkeEy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mappen. I do not think it will
interfere. You said that seals two or
three years of age were killed?

Mr. LemBxeEy. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mappen. And that noskin weighed
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds?

Mr. Lemsxey. More than 84 pounds.

Mr. MappENn. Except during a certain
period of the season when the higher weight
was reduced to 64 pounds?

Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mappen. What becomes of the
seals more than 3 years of age?

Mr. Lempxey. They are allowed to
mature as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p.
363, Feb. 29, 1912, House Com. Exp. Dept.
Commerce and Labor.)

109

is so small as to justify the belief that
they have been taken only through un-
avoidable accident, mistake, or error in
judgment.

Src. 9. Killing season.—The killing
season should begin as soon after the Ist of
June as the rookeries are in condition for
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the
lessee later than July 31. No seals what-
ever shall be taken during the stagey sea-
son. The killing of pups for food for the
natives, or for any other purpose, is not to
be permitted.

Sec. 10. Seals for food.—The number of
seals to be killed by the natives for food for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, shall
not exceed 1,700 on the island of St. Paul
and 500 on the island of St. George, sub-
ject to the same limitations and restrictions
as apply to the killing of seals by the com-
pany for the quota. Care should be taken
that no branded seals be killed in the
drives for food.

[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.]

Sec. 6. Quota.—Identical with instruc-
tions of 1906. ;
Sec. 7. Reservation of young males.—

Identical with instructions of 1906.

Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals —No seals
shall be killed having skins weighing less
than 5 pounds nor more than 8} pounds.
Skins weighing less than 5 pounds or more
than 84 pounds shall not be shipped from
the islands, but shall be held there subject
to such instructions as may be furnished
you hereafter by the department.

Sec. 9. Killing season—The_ killing
season should begin as soon after the Ist of
June as the rookeries are in condition for
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the
lessee later than July 31. The killing of
pups for food for the natives, or for any
other purpose, is not to be permitted.

Sec. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions of 1906.

[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908.]

Sec. 6. Quota.—Identical with instruc-
tions of 1907.

Sec. 7. Reservation of young males.—
Identical with instructions of 1906 and
1907.

Src. 8. Sizes of killable seals.—Identical
with instructions of 1907.

Src. 9. Killing season.—Identical with
instructions of 1907. :

Src. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions for 1907. (Hearing No. 10,
pp. 483-484, Apr. 19, 1912, House Com.
Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor.)

110 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

When the Hitchcock rules were first published the lessees were
shocked, and at once took Lembkey to task—how could he do such
an act ?

Lembkey tells them that Elliott did it—that HE was not to blame, and
that Elliott was the “pest” that prevented Lembkey from fully serving
Liebes. Under examination April 13, 1912, he testifies—

[Hearing No. 9, p..455.]

Mr. Extiorr (reads from Lembkey’s letter to Hitchcock, May 20, 1904):

‘“When I pointed out that my instructions were not discretionary, he stated. that
he would at once protest to the department. He requested that I inform him by
official letter of the requirement, which I did, and, at his urgent request, inclosed a
copy of your letter. I have taken pains to explain to him the situation that existed
in Washington last winter, and that the attitude of the department is not one of hos-
tility to the company, but necessary to avoid sinister results.”’

Mr. Lempxey. Sinister results?

Mr. Exurorr. Yes. [Reading:]

‘‘While admitting 1n one breath ‘a knowledge of the Elliott campaign

You told him I did this thing, did you not?

Mr. Lempxey. I certainly did.

Mr. ExuiotTr. I am glad you did.

Mr. Lempxey. J told him that you were the greatest pest the department ever had.

Mr. Exxrotr. I am glad to hear that. That is music to me.

Before this order was made, May, 1, 1904, we find Lembkey busy
with Jordan and working with Liebes for the illegal killing of small
seals.

Lembkey tried to prevent the “53-pounds limit” being ordered in
1904, and confesses the attempt, under cross-examination to the
committee, thus—

[Hearing No. 9, Pp 449, Apr. 13, 1912]

Mr. Exitorr. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the Hitchcock rules were first published, I believe.
Have they been changed since then?

Mr. LemBxey. Yes, they have.

Mr. Exxtort. “As to killing any seal under 2 years of age?

Mr. Lempxery. Not so far as to killing any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906 they
were changed so as to make the manamum weight 5 instead of 5% pounds.

Mr. Exuiorr. Why did the department fix 54 pounds in 19062

Mr. Lempxny. Now you are asking me something, Mr. Elliott, I do not believe I
am qualified to answer; just how the department arrived at an opinion of that kind
would hardly be a question for me to testify to.

Mr. Exxrotr. You were not consulted?

Mr. LemsBxey. I was not consulted when the order was written.

Mr. Exstiotr. That is all I wanted to get at, sir. In 1900 and——

Mr. Lempxey. J will state, however, that I made a recommendation to the effect that the
weight be decreased from 54 pounds to 5 pounds, if that 1s what you have reference to.

Mr. Exstiorr. Oh, you did. Did you make that recommendation in 19042

Mr. Lempxey. If [remember correctly [recommended to Mr. Hitchcock that the mini-
mum weight in 1904 be fixed at 5 pounds.

Mr. Exutotr. Yes; and Mr. Hitchcock overruled you.

Mr. Lempxey. I do not say that he overruled me. He fixed the weight, according
to his published statement, at 54 pounds so that there would be absolutely no question as to
the fact that the seals taken were over 2 years of age.

Mr. Extiorr. Were ‘“‘not under 2 years of age?”

Mr. LempxKey. Over 2 years of age.

Mr. Exrrorr. Does not this regulation say ‘‘under 2 years of age?”

Mr. LemBxey. I guess we are talking about the same thing only we do not recognize
it. He said there should be no question of the fact that the skins taken were over 2
years of age. I presume that is what you mean, too.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, Lik

Finding that they could not get any change in the rules cf May 1,
1904, ordered, so that they might be easier to nullify on the islands
(for nullify them the lessees at once did), they sets to work and
Lembkey got busy with Liebes in planning a change in the rules of the
Hitchcock Order of May 1, 1904, which prevented them from taking year-
lings, without a good deal of trouble.

They succeeded in 1906, after Hitchcock left the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, and not until then.

After Mr. Hitchecck went into the Pcstmaster General’s cffice,
March, 1905, Lembkey succeeded in lowering the minimum 54-peund
standard weight set by ‘‘ Hitchecck rules,’ to 5 pounds by March 9,
1906, and so took the “yearlings” for the lessees, easier, as ‘‘2-year-
old male seals,’ and falsely certified them as such! The lessees not
only objected to the 53-pound limit which shut out the yearlings, but
they claimed the right to kill all the 4-year-olds as well! as shown by the
following testimony in*Hearing No. 9, p. 454, April 13, 1912, to wit:

Mr. Exxtorr. When these Hitchcock rules were published in 1904, and you went out to
San Francisco, was any protest made to you by the lessees?

Mr. Lempxkey. You know perfectly well that there was, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Exuiorr. What did you tell them, Mr. Lembkey?

Mr. Lempxkey. Perhaps since you have in mind my report for 1904 which makes
mention of those protests from the company, I had better refer to those so that the com-
mittee may know just exactly what was done. On page 81 of Appendix A of these
hearings in which is published my annual report as agent in charge of the seal fisheries
for the year 1904 I discuss the following under the subheading “protests from the
company”:

“While the North American Commercial Co. complied in every particular this sum-
mer with the regulations of the department, I received from its officers several protests
against the department’s action in restricting the catch of the company.”’

This report is addressed to Mr. Hitchcock:

“Upon receipt of your letter of May 12 last prescribing a 54-pound limit on 2-year-old
skins, I notified Mr. Taylor, the president of the company, of the contents of the letter.
He at once entered a vigorous protest. Upon my informing him that I had no option
in the matter, he appealed directly to the department, and held the company’s vessel
in Sausalito for half a day until the receipt of the department’s reply. With that mat-
ter, however, you are familiar.

“Upon arrival at the islands, while discussing the coming season’s work with Mr.
Redpath, the company’s general agent, I mentioned the prohibition against the killing
of 4-year-olds, and stated that, to give effect to this prohibition, I would place a limit
on large skins of from 83 to 9 pounds. Mr. Redpath at once expressed surprise at the
existence of this prohibition and entered a vigorous protest against any interference
with the killing of 4-year-olds. He produced a copy of the department’s instructions
to me and quoted from the clause relating to the restriction of killing in support of his
argument.”’ :

Then finding that there was an easy way to nullify these ‘‘reserva-
tions’’ of the Hitchcock Rules, the lessees quickly used a pair of
sheep shears and ‘‘branded”’ the ‘“‘spared”’ seals as follows: All this
done with the servile collusion of the agents of the Government:

To provide a definite reserve of male life for breeding purposes the agents tell me
they drove up in the early part of the season, and before killing was begun by the
company, 2,000 bachelor seals of 2 and 3 years of age and shaved their heads with sheep
shears, thus marking them so that they can be identified by the clubbers and exempted
on the killing field. These shaved heads constitute a large part of the animals turned
back at each killing. It is to be noted that among those turned back without brand
there are none which show evidence of the clipping of last season. It may be inferred,
therefore, that the fur and water hair is replaced during the winter. The identification
mark is not a permanent thing, but one designed to serve for the current killing season.
To insure these animals exemption for breeding purposes next year they must be again
shaved next June.

112 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

In the killing this morning it may be noted that 27 animals with shaved heads,
designated as 3-year-olds, were released, but of the unbranded animals released only
5 are designated as 4-year-olds. It is only a supposititious case, but if we assume that
twenty-seven 3-year-olds were exempted by the shaving of last season, here are only
5 that have successfully run the gauntlet of the second year.

In a word the marking of a 2 or 3 year old seal by a temporary mark which is obliter-
ated by the following season, the animal still being killable as a 3 or 4 year old, is futile
for the purpose of establishing a breeding reserve. :

There is another criticism that may justly be brought against this method of marking;
that is, clipping or shaving the head—it does not in any way impair the value of the
skin. Undoubtedly this is a provision to prevent loss through carelessness. If a
clubber accidently strikes a shaved seal its skin is as good as any other, and such
accidents occur, although infrequently.

The criticism, however, lies in this: The skin is just as valuable to the pelagic sealer
asifit were not marked. The shaving of the head is a good plan for identification by
the clubber. It would be unwise to attempt to burn a brand on the seal at this point,
but while the animal is caught for the purpose of shaving, a permanent burned brand
should be placed on the back or shoulder which will mar the value of the skin to the
pelagic sealer. Ifit mars the value of the skin also from the company’s point of view,
then greater care should be taken in clubbing the animals. The present plan puts a
premium on carelessness, and an animal exempted this season is liable to be killed
next season. The only way to prevent this is to shave the head of this year’s 2-year-old
next year as a 3-year-old, and again as a 4-year-old the third season; all of which is a
useless waste of energy. (Report Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 885, 886; Appen-
dix A, June 24, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)

In getting the Hitchcock minamum limit of “54 pounds’’ REDUCED to
“5 pounds,’ Lembkey and Liebes succeeded in getting rt done without any
warrant, in 1906, and so confess it, when cross-examined, to wit:

[Hearing No. 9, pp. 449-451, 450, April 13, 1912.]

Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Lembkey, when you made that statement in 1901, you went to
Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5-pound limit. What did he tell you im 1904?

Mr. Lemexey. I do not remember just what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Exuiorr. Did he not tell you that you were taking yearling skins?

Mr. Lemsxey. No, sir; he told me that you had made the charge that we were taking
yearling skins. :

Mr. Exitiotr. Was he not: impressed with the fact that you were taking yearling
skins?

Mr. Lempxey. No, he was not.

Mr. Exuiorr. Yet he fixed the limit five and one-half pounds?

Mr. Lempxey. He did it solely as I have stated—to place the limit so high that you
nor any other man could make any objection to the policy of the department.

Mr. Extiorr. That was very correct on his part, was it not?

The CHarrMAN. Never mind about that.

Mr. Exuiotr. When Mr. Hitchcock left the department who succeeded him?

Mr. Lemepxey. As chief clerk? I think Mr. Bowen did.

Mr. Extiotr. Mr. Bowen. Did you again renew your recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember that I recommended that the weight be reduced
to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Exuiorr. That order of reduction was made in 1906?

Mr. Lempxey. In 1906.

Mr. Exiiorr. Who was the chief clerk then?

Mr. Lempxey. I presume Mr. Bowen was.

Mr. Exsiorr. And you again made the recommendation?
. Mr. Lemspxey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no. The recommendation was made, I think, to
the Secretary, but it was made through Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, who
then had charge of the seal business. ; :

Mr. Exxiotr. Have you any table of weight measurement of your own making which
warranted you in making that recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. J had not. I expressed that as my opinion.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. * 113

THE ‘‘SALT WEIGHT’’ DECEPTION BY LEMBKEY, IN 1904; REPEATED BY
MARSH, 1911; AND SWORN TO, BY EVERMANN, JULY 30, 1912, IN
ORDER TO DECEIVE AND FALSIFY THE RECORD OF KILLING YEARLING
SEALS.

The trick.—He ‘shakes all the salt off,” then weighs them after six
days’ curing. ;
[P. 79.—Appendix A; Lembkey, Sept. 7, 1904.]

EXPERIMENTS IN WEIGHTS OF SALTED SKINS.

In connection with the weighing of individual skins on the killing field, it was
thought wise to determine whether or not skins gained or lost weight after being salted.
Should any discrepancy of this kind occur. the weights of these skins in London
would not coincide with those taken on the islands.

On July 17, 107 skins taken at Tolstoi were weighed individually. and, after being
immersed in salt water to keep them moist during the journey from the field to the
salt house, were salted. Their aggregate weight on the field before wetting was 705
pounds. On July 23 they were taken out of salt and reweighed, when their aggregate
weight was 7594 pounds, a gain of 544 pounds on 107 skins, or one-half pound a skin,
As the salt was thoroughly shaken off these skins, the accretion of water from dipping
them in the lagoon may be represented by the gain in weight.

On July 26 I weighed 100 skins, nearly dry, on a platform scales at the salt house,
finding them to weigh 6444 pounds. They were then salted. On July 30 they were
hauled out of salt and reweighed, when their combined weight was 643} pounds, a
loss of 1 pound on 100 skins. These may be taken as typical to show the effect of
salt and water upon skins. I was not able to experiment with perfectly dry skins
after the date mentioned, but I believe the latter will show a slight loss of weight
after being in salt for a period.

Very truly, yours, W. I. Lempxey,
Agent in Charge Seal Fisheries.
Mr. F. H. Hrrencocx, [
Chief Clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor.

)
Lembkey has not truthfully stated this experiment: He made the
following entry himself, in the official journal of his office on St. Paul
Island and did not water those skins, then (that was an afterthought)
he does not shake off all the salt, either. (P. 149.)

SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1904.

On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed and salted. To-day they
were hauled out of the kench and reweighed. At the time of killing they weighed
705 pounds, and on being taken out they weighed 7594 pounds, a gain in salting of
544 pounds, or one-half pound per skin.

Then, Lembkey swears, April 13, 1912, that he has never weighed
these skins after salting.—(p. 446 Hearing No. 9, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. & Labor.)

Mr. Exxriorr. Mr. Lembkey, you say you have never weighed
these skins after you have salted them? You have never weighed
them ¢

Mr. Lempxey. I have never weighed them after the salting on the
islands; no, sir.

Lembkey’s trick is repeated by Marsh and Evermann, 8 years
later. (Hearing No. 14; pp. 974, 975; July 29, 1912.)

Dr. EveRMANN. Last year, when Mr. M. C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went
to the Pribilof Islands, he was instructed to make certain investigations, one of which

was to determine by actual experiment the effect that salting has upon the weight of
fur-seal skins. He made a very careful investigation of the matter, and his report

21588—13 8

114 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

has just been received. It is so interesting and valuable that I wish to put it in the
record. [is investigation settles the question conclusively and for all time. It shows
that salting causes fur-seal skins to lose weight. The report is as follows:

* * * * * * *

‘‘ The average loss of weight for the whole 60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces. This
is an understatement of the average loss of weight, which, I believe, is at least an ounce
greater. The reason is that it 7s practically vmpossible to mechanically remove all the
salt from the skins before reweighing. They were shaken, swept, and brushed, but a few
' grains and crystals of salt were always left adhering to each side of the skin. Obviously
it would not do to wash them off. By more carefully cleaning a few of the re-
weighed skins and then again weighing them, | estimate this residual salt to average
an ounce or something more.”’

Against the above, observe the following facts, to wit:

In the village salt house, St. Paul Island, July 29, 1913, 400 fur-
seal skins which had been taken July 7, 1913, weighed ‘‘green,” and
put into salt there, were taken out of the kench, salted, and bun-
dled for shipment, and then weighed. This weighing declared the
fact that the salt-cured skins had been increased over their ‘‘green”’
weights all the way from a minimum of one-half pound to a maxi-
mum of 14 pounds per skin. (See table of 400 skins; pp. 102-105;
Rept. Spl. Agents; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.)

SELF-CONFESSED OFFICIAL DECEIT IN RE YEARLING SEALSKINS.

To show that Mr. Lembkey in his report to the Secretary of Com-
merce for 1904 was deliberately deceiving the department as to the
size and weight of yearling sealskins, the following deadly parallel on
himself is drawn, since it 1s of his own making.

On September 7, 1904, Lembkey says in his official report (p. 77.
Appendix A):

On July 1 there were 3 yearling seals in the drives at Northeast Point. One of them,
a typical specimen, was knocked down at my direction to ascertain the weight of the
skin. It was found to be a female. The carcass before sticking weighed 34 pounds,
and the skin taken off hurriedly, with considerable loose blubber adhering, weighed
44 pounds. The removal of this loose blubber left the skin weighing only 3$ pounds.

While no further effort was made to determine the weight of yearling skins,
this instance shows that the skins of this class of animals are far below the limit of
weight now prescribed by the department, and are too small to have appeared in
the company’s catch at any time, except by an accident in clubbing.

Then, on April 13, 1912, to the House committee, he testifies that
he knows that yearling sealskins weigh from 4 to 4$ pounds (see p.
435, Hearing No. 9), to wit:

Mr. Lempxey. As I stated to the committee, | knew nothing whatever about the
measurements.

Mr. Exxiorr. How do you know anything about the weights?

Mr. Lempxey. Because I have taken the weients.

Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, you have?

Mr. Lempxey. I have taken the weights on the island of all sealskins weighed there.

Mr. Extiorr. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights?

Mr. Lempxey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there.

Mr. Exiiorr. What is the weight of a yearling fur-seal skin?

Mr. Lempxey. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up
to 4 or 42 pounds.

On April 13, 1912, when under oath before the House Committee
on Expenses in the Department of Commerce and Labor, Mr. Lembkey
testified that the length of a yearling seal of his own identification

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 115

and measurement was 394 inches, thus (p. 442, Hearing No. 9, House
Committee on Expenses in the Department of Commerce and Labor;
Hearing No. 10, pp. 639, 640, May 2, 1912):

Dr. EverMann. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them?

Mr. Extiottr. No; he hasn’t said so anywhere. Now, Mr. Lembkey said, on page
442, that he had measured a yearling seal—three of them. He says here [reading]:

‘*Mr. LemBkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be from the tip
of the nose to the root of the tail, 39} inches in one instance and 393 inches
in another——

““Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.

‘‘Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another. I measured only three.

“Mr. Exiiotr. Yes.’’

Do you dispute those measurements?

Dr. EverMANN. I do not dispute them.

Here we have the Bureau of Fisheries joining in with Lembkey in
declaring that the length of a yearling seal is 394 inches. Now, Mr.
Lembkey, on page 443, Hearing No. 9, tells the committee that the
length of the skin of this yearling seal as he (Lembkey) removes it
is 364 inches long, thus:

Mr. Exxiorr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long?

Mr. Lempxey. No; if it was 393 inches long it would leave it 363 inches. That is,
all of the animal, from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, would be 394 inches
long. Three inches off that would leave 363 inches.

Now, what is the weight of Mr. Lembkey’s yearling skin which he
has taken and declared to be 364 inches long? He tells the depart-
ment on September 7, 1904, in a carefully prepared report, as quoted
above, that it is ‘‘only 3} pounds.”

Is he telling the truth? Observe the following part of list of 400
tagged 32-36-inch long skin weights which he made himself July 7,
1913, on St. Paul Island, and affixing the tags thereto himself,
declaring those weights duly registered by himself:

Record of seals taken and weights recorded of skins, July 7, 1913, made by W. J.

Lembkey.
|
| Measurements
| (length) of
| re api oe
| ae skins (taken
Tagged No. of skin. | Greaimerent and weighed
‘ i by Lembkey),
made July 29,
| 1913, by Elliott
and Gallagher.
| es
| Lbs. Ors. Inches.
eRe RP SS et ML EE ay AE ea ot a SY OL 4 ho Se 5 113 32
LRU Rc seems opin 20 ok Feel ae ee aed Stat a yn eae ae oe eae ee ee 7 114 34
CONGR Vie SOs e SE RS Pe ES Oe ae eee ts eee a he ee ee 6 10 34
BAGG RNS a ETAT GR SES LTE Riri Re See gOh Ps OLN oth opie, Fis hi et | 6 11 34
ADAMS EER. Soh Wes AACR CRS | CROMER bea hae oe Oth ot OW 8 23 36
OLDE See eee LY RO ily OES Bee And lea ee Ae COG oe Be ane eee a 5 153 31
EO 2 ha AMMAN S ep Gene OUR ENGI i ye La ig 5 ke a TRE 8 4 | 38 | 32
PRET N Ee SEY SRE D2 RAO, Bee No Ne ee eee eee Oe NSS ee ch eee 6 | 1 32
Reh 2 Sa im ato. ca Nee ae a RE INS OMT B vet Sytira 32

The above citation of a few of the 400 tagged and weighed skins
which are all given in extenso by the agents of the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, August 31, 1913,
shows that Mr. Lembkey deliberately deceived the department, Sep-
tember 7, 1904, when he declared that he ‘‘determined the weight of
a yearling sealskin”’ to be ‘‘34 pounds.” .

116 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

That these measurements are reliable when made ‘‘in the salt,”
Mr. Lembkey testifies at length to the House Committee on Expen-
ditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor; Hearing No. 10;
pages 399-340, as follows:

Mr. Lempxey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is im-
possible to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may
curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened
by salt.

ee McGiiuicuppy. Then it will not stretch?
Mr. LemBxkey. Certainly not.
Mr. McGiuuicuppy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff?
Mr. Lemspxey. Certainly.
Mr. McGituicuppy. You can not then stretch or shrink it?
Mr. LemeBxey. No, sir.
Mr. McGriticuppy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin, would it not
determine the age?
Mr. Lempxey. I fancy, yes.
Mr. McGrxuicuppy. Is there any doubt about it?
Mr. Lempxey. I donot thinkso. I say, fancy, because I never attempted to judge
of age by the measurements.
Mr. McGitiicuppy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive,
because you say they could not stretch it?

Mr. Lempxey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days,
because the skin then is not very pliable.

Mr. McGruuicuppy. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a certain
number of days?

Mr. Lempxery. Yes, after it has been in salt, but when the skin is green it would
not be a reliable test.

Those measurements of Mr. Lembkey’s yearling skins (31-364-inch
skins). as taken and weighed by himself, July 7, 1913, were made in
the salt-house kench of St. Paul Island, in the presence of Messrs.
Hatton, Clark, Whitney, and Lembkey, of the Bureau of Fisheries,
and Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher for the House Committee on Expen-
ditures in the Department of Commerce; they were all agreed upon
as correct when taken and recorded, July ZO NOMS. Divi the gentlemen
above named.

AN EXHIBIT OF THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LES-
SEES OF THE SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA AND CERTAIN OFFICIALS
OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND BUREAU OF FISHERIES, 1890 -1905,
IN PROMOTING A FRAUDULENT CLAIM AT THE HAGUE, JUNE, 1902.

THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST EXISTING BETWEEN THE SEAL LESSEE. LIEBES, AND THIRD
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, H. H. D. PEIRCE, UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT, IN
THE BUSINESS OF PIRATICAI, PELAGIC SEALING, AS COVERED BY THEIR ASSOCIATION
WITH ALEXANDER M’LEAN, AND HIS EMPLOYMENT BY LIEBES, CULMINATING IN 1905.

The sworn record of that association of McLean with Liebes begins
in 1890, as follows. He was, during seasons of—

1890. In command of the J. Hamilton Lewis; H. Liebes, owner; raids Copper Island
and gets off, August 1, with two men badly hurt.

1891. In command of the J. Hamilton Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding Copper
Island with the crew of the #. #. Webster, owned by H. Liebes and commanded by his
brother; vessel confiscated and he is imprisoned at Vladivostok a few weeks.

1892. In command of the Rosa Sparks, sealing schooner of San Francisco; no raids
this year.

1893. In command of the steam sealer Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is
caught by the U. 8. S. Mohican raiding Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July, but
escapes in the fog because the war vessel’s engines were disabled.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. a ly

The Alexander was owned by Isaac and Herman Liebes up to
December 21, 1893. In November, 1893, Liebes’s attorneys, Jeffries
and Tingle, filed claims against Russia for damages in re seizure of the
James Hamilton Lewis; those claims were put up to the United
States State Department in the name of a “‘dummy” owner (‘‘ Max
Waizman’’) and Alexander McLean, as an ‘“ American citizen law-
fully engaged,’ ete. McLean’s record since 1893, follows. He was
during—

1894 to 1902. In command of varicus pelagic vessels, but under restraint from the
lessees, since the claim of the J. Hamilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed, up to
its successful end November 29, 1902. at The Hague.

1896. He appears as a ‘‘true American”’ before the claims award commission, which
sits at Victoria, in settlement of damage suits against the United States Government
for seized sealers and vessels in 1866-1889; he testifies, ‘‘at the peril of his life,’’ for the
American commissioners as to the value of the British boats seized. (See Rept. 2128,
Senate bill 3410, 58th Cong., 2d sess.) He is in truth working for the highest figures
obtainable from the United States Treasury, instead of the lowest.

1903. He can not be paced with certainty this year.

1904. He raids Copper Island August 2, in the ‘‘Mexican” schooner Cervencita; one
of his men seriously shot.

1905. He attempts araid on St. Paul Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off, he is
sailing in the Acapulco, and defies arrest by United States agents, for he is a British
subject; at Victoria British Columbia, in October, 1905.

Why did McLean defy arrest? Why was he undisturbed at
Victoria? V hy, when he had been indicted, August 19, 1905, in the
United States District Court of California, San Francisco, charged
with conspiracy to defraud the United States Government, under
section 5440, Revised Statutes ?

It was because the United States State Department, when asked
(Sept. 16 and Oct 16, 1905) by the United States consul at Victoria,
Abraham E. Smith, to authorize and instruct him (Smith) to demand
the arrest and extradition of Alexander McLean, agreeably to the
terms of that above-cited indictment of August 19, 1905, refused
to so “‘instruct’’? Consul Smith. The United States district attorney
(Devlin), of the California District Court, had also asked (Sept. 7, 1905)
Consul Smith to demand the arrest and extradition of McLean; but
Smith replied that unless the State Department ordered this action
on his part, he would not move in the matter—that he could not.

But Smith, nevertheless, did address a request in September (16th)
to H. H. D. Peirce, (as Acting Secretary or) Assistant Secretary of
State, for authority to make this demand on the British authorities
at Victoria for McLean’s arrest and extradition. Peirce made no
answer. On October 16, 1905, Smith again called Peirce’s attention
to this fact, that McLean was still in Victoria, under indictment at
San Francisco, but ‘‘unless specially instructed by the department
to demand extradition,”’ he, Smith, will not move in the premises
(despite the urgent ae ay that he do so, as made by United States
District Attorney Devlin, of California), and that up to date (Oct.
16, 1905) ‘‘no such instruction has been received, and, therefore, the
whole affair appears to be closed.”’

Now, why did Peirce, as Acting Secretary of State, when the
United States consul, Smith, first asked him to authorize this demand
for McLean’s extradition (September, 1905), decline to do so and
then so influence the Attorney General’s office in Washington as to
have the hint given Devlin in San Francisco that McLean could not
be extradited, ‘‘according to the State Department,” for this offense,

118 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

etc.; that he (McLean) ‘‘must be arrested by a British officer of the
patrol fleet,” etc. ?

The reason is found in the report of the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, No. 1425,
Sixty-second Congress, third session, page 4, to wit:

In 1893 proceedings were commenced in the State Department, claiming damages
on the part of owners, master, and crew of the James Hamilton Lewis. “H. H. D.
Peirce and Charles H. Townsend, ‘sealing experts,’’ of the United States Bureau of
Fisheries, prepared the cases for the parties interested and presented the claim on
the part of the United States against the Russian Government at The Hague in 1902,
which resulted in an award of approximately $50,000 in favor of the United States
Government for the use of the parties interested, including Alexander McLean and
Max Weisman, November 29, 1902. The said H. H. D. Peirce and Charles H. Town-
send presented the claim of Max Weisman as the owner of the vessel James Hamilton
Lewis before the tribunal at The Hague, when in truth and in fact the owner of said
schooner at the time of its seizure was Herman Liebes, of San Francisco. The said
Hi. H. D. Peirce and Charles H. Townsend represented to the tribunal in the trial of
said case that Alexander McLean, the captain of said vessel, was an American citizen,
when in truth and fact he was a British subject and notoriously known as a pirate.
(See pp. 754, 755, Hearing No. 12.)

In Hearing No. 13, page 831, June 20, 1912, House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, is the
following:
STATEMENT OF ISAAC LIEBES.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

The CHairMAN. What is your full name?

Mr. Lizpes. Isaac Liebes.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you live?

Mr. Lizsss. In San Francisco.

The CuatrmMan. And what is your business?

Mr. Lizses. I am a merchant.

The CHatrmMAN. What kind of business as a merchant do you conduct?

Mr. Lieses. Fur business, and I am also connected with the salmon business. I
am vice president of the Northern Navigation Co., Northern Commercial Co., director
in the North American Commercial Co., and I am connected with 9 or 10 other cor-
porations in San Francisco.

The men indicted August 19, 1905, in re ‘‘ Acapulco” in the United
States District Court of San Francisco, were Alexander McLean, R.
J. Tyson, S. E. R. de Saint, W. J. Wood, and W. J. Woodside,
charged with conspiracy under section 5440, Revised Statutes.

In Hearing No. 4, page 184, July 11, 1911, House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, is the
following sworn record of—

THE PROGRESSION OF CAPT. ALEXANDER M’LEAN AS AN “AMERICAN CITIZEN.”

1890. In command of the J. Hamilton Lewis; H. Liebes, owner; raids Copper
Island and gets off, August 1, with two men badly hurt.

1891. In command of the J. Hamilton Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding
Copper Island with the crew of the £. EH. Webster, owned by H. Liebes and com-
manded by his brother; vessel confiscated and he is imprisoned at Vladivostok a
few weeks.

1892. In command of the Rosa Sparks, sealing schooner of San Francisco; no raids
this year.

1893. In command of the steam sealer Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is

caught by the U. 8. 8. Mohican raiding Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July,
but « escapes in the fog because the war vessel’s engines were disabled.

1894 to 1902. In command of various pelagic vessels, but under restraint from the
lessees, since the claim of the J. Hamilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed, ie
to its successful end November 29, 1902, at The Hague.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 119

1896. He appears as a “true American” before the claims award commission,
which sits at Victoria, in settlement of damage suits against the United States Gov-
ernment for seized sealers and vessels in 1866-1889; he testifies, “at the peril of his
life,’ for the American commissioners as to the value of the British boats seized.
(See Rept. 2128, Senate bill 3410, 58th Cong.. 2d sess.) He is in truth working for
the highest figures obtainable from the United States Treasury, instead of the lowest.

1903. He can not be placed with certainty this year.

1904. He raids Copper Island August 2, in the ‘‘Mexican” schooner Cervencita;
one of his men seriously shot.

1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off;
he is sailing in the Acapulco, and defies arrest by United States agents, for he is a
British subject; at Victoria, British Columbia, in October, 1905.

1906. He raids St. Paul Island July 16-17, with a Japanese outfit; five Japs killed,
and 12 prisoners taken; there is a fleet engaged in this raid, which attacked five
rookeries at once and on the same days; they ' got ar ey from all of them, except North-
east Point, with seals and no casualties.

The Alexander was owned by Herman Liebes up to December 30,
1891; then transferred to ‘‘H. Liebes & Co.,”’ and owned until Decem-
ber 27, 1893; then transferred to Pacific Trading Co., in which Liebes
was a director.

The E. E. Webster, owned by Herman Liebes up to October 21,
1893; then transferred as ‘‘owned” by dummy ‘‘Max Waizman”’ to
the Pacific Trading Co.

The Acapulco was outfitted in San Francisco, March 5, 1904, and
her captain, McLean, was indicted for conspiracy there, ‘August L9,
1905; he was charged with “equipping and furnishing supplies” for
the Acapulco in San Francisco Bay, in May, 1905.

During the trial of McLean’s associates in the southern district Cali-
fornia court, Capt. Alexander Woodside, president of the ‘‘ Pacific
Trading Co.,”’ was unable to give to the court the names of the directors
of his company. “Ten barrels of beef’ ’ had been supphed to the
Acapulco by the ‘‘ Pacific Trading Co.,”’ and the court wanted to find
out who were the responsible men in its organization.

In re Herman and Isaac Liebes, as lessees, buying pelagic sealskins:
1890-1911.

Who was the Victorian agent of the Liebes, after Moss ‘‘ died” in
1893 ?

In 1892, Morris Moss, of Victoria, B. C., made oath that he was the
resident agent of H. Liebes & Co. (of San Francisco) and that he
“bought from ten to twenty thousand pelagic fur sealskins annually”
for Licbes.

On June 20, 1912, Isaac Liebes, under oath, made the following eva-
sive and shitty, if not Ww holly false, answers to the questions as st ‘cada
below (Hearing No: 18; p: 881, June 20, 1912, House Commitee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor)

The CHatrRMAN. Do you know Morris Moss?

Mr. Lieses. I did know him; yes.

The CHatrMAN. Was he connected with your firm at any time?

Mr. Liepes. He used to be a buyer in Victoria at one time for H. Liebes & Co.—l
think about 25 years ago. I think he has been dead twenty-odd years.

The CHarrMAN. Who succeeded him for you?

Mr. Lizpes. He never had a successor there.

The CHarrMAn. Where was he from?

Mr. Lieses. He was a resident of Victoria; I do not know where from.

The CHatrMANn. Then he bought skins for you at Victoria?

Mr. Liepes. He bought all kinds of skins for H. Liebes & Co., mostly land furs,
.beaver, mink, otter, and those things.

The CHarrMAN. And sealskins, too?

Mr. Lizses. He might have done so; [donot remember any sealskins, but possibly
in those early days he might have bought some.

120 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

If Liebes tells the truth, Moss must have died almost immediately
after this sworn deposition in 1892 was made by him as above cited
and quoted in volume 5, Proceedings Tribunal Arbitration, 1893,
pages 670, 671.

Liebes swears that Moss, who ‘“‘died”’ in 1893, had no successor for
his place as the ‘‘resident agent of H. Liebes & Co.” He asks the
committee to believe that a business of ‘‘ buying from ten to twenty
thousand pelagic fur sealskins annually” from the hunters at Vic-
toria, B. C., was abandoned by the Liebes when Moss died. (Vol.
2, Proceedings Tribunal Arbitration, 1893, p. 341; see Morris Mess’s
deposition.)

That Liebes had not only had an agent in Victoria busy in buying
pelagic sealskins, but also, like Moss, a member of the Victoria Seal-
ers’ Association, immediately after Moss’s death up to the day that
the Hay-Elhot treaty went into effect, December 15, 1911, will be
found a matter of business record in Victoria when a competent
search for it 1s made.

H. H. D. Peirce under oath admits that he knew that the Liebes
were the owners of the James Hamilton Lewis. (Hearing No. 13,

p. 779-782, May 29, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the
Denamibent of Commerce and Labor.) This admission is made by
him, to wit:

THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

House or REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, May 29, 1912.

The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
STATEMENT OF MR. H. H. D. PEIRCE.

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

The CuarrMAN. What is your full name?

Mr. Peirce. Herbert Henry Davis Peirce.

The CHatrMan. What is your profession?

Mr. Perrce. I am a diplomat.

The CHarrMAN. Well, you are a lawyer by profession?

Mr. Perrcre. An international lawyer; I am not a member of the bar.

The CHatrMan. What is your present occupation?

Mr. Perrce. I am one of the counsel for the Government in the American-British
Claims Arbitration.

The CHatrMAN. What was your position with the Government some years ago?

Mr. Perrce. I was first secretary of legation at St. Petersburg, and after it became
an embassy, secretary of embassy. I was the Third Assistant Secretary of State.

The CHArrMANn. You may tell the committee what the real issue was before the tri-
bunal as to the James Hamilton Lewis case.

Mr. Peirce. The Russian Government had seized the James Hamilton Lewis for
poaching, as they call it, seals on the Copper Island. The James Hamilton Lewis was
arrested outside of the 3-mile mit. She was on ker way; the captain alleged that
the weather was thick, and that he had proceeded to Copper Island in order to get his
bearing—whether that is true or not I do not know, but it was a thing disputed—and
there was lying off around the southern extremity of Copper Island a Russian cruiser
which the master of the James Hamilton Lewis could not see, and as he came up toward
the island he must have been pretty well within the 3-mile limit, for if he saw the
vessel he certainly could have seen tke island; t! e cruiser came around the point, and
then McLean, who was the master of the James Hamilton Lewis, turned tail and sailed
away.

The cruiser pursued her and pursued her beyond the 3-mile limit and there seized
her. I claimed for the owners and officers and crew that ber presence in Russian
waters was innocent, that there was no corpus delicti, that she had gone there for a
perfectly reasonable purpose, and was merely exercising the rights that any vessel
had, and that ker pursuit and capture beyond the 3-mile limit was a violation of her
right to sail upon any sea.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 121

Tie CHarrMaANn. It was decided, then, that she was not in Russian waters?

Mr. Peirce. T” e arbitrator accepted absolutely my argument.

The CuarrMANn. In order to sustain your argument, it was necessary to prove that
the master was an American citizen and that the vessel was owned by American
citizens?

Mr. Perrce. Yes.

Tie CHAIRMAN. Wlo was tle master?

Mr. Perrce. One Alexander McLean.

The CHarrRMAN. Can you tell from memory whether tle Russians found some seal-
skins when s’ e was captured?

Mr. Peirce. My recollection is they did, and that damages were awarded for the
seizure of those sealskins.

The CHarrRMAN. As well as for the property?

Mr. Perrce. As well as for the property and the loss of the probable catch.

The CHarrMaAn. If Iam not mistaken, I think they had 424 skins.

Mr. Perrce. That is my recollection. I am somewhat vague.

Tle CHATRMAN. You also proved to tke satisfaction of the tribunal that the vessel
was owned by American citizens?

Mr. Peirce. I filed such documents as I could obtain, which appeared to establish
tl e owners ip of t’ e vessel.

The CHarrMaNn. Who were the owners?

Mr. Perrce. H. Liebes & Co., I believe.

The CHarrman. Who were they?

Mr. Perrce. I can only answer from hearsay.

The CHAIRMAN. Just in a general way.

Mr. Perrce. I think they were dealers in sealskins or promotors of pelagic sealing,
or something of that sort; I do not know.

The CHatrMAN. You finally settled. You may tell the committee what your com-
pensation was, if you will?

Mr. Perrcer. Certainly. My compensation in the case of the C. H. White, and I
think also the Kate and Anna—I am not sure of that—no; my compensation in the
case of the C. H. White, for which I recovered an award of $52,000, was $5,000, less
my counsel fees, which amounted to $1,000. I received $4,000.

The CuHatrmMan. Did anybody else receive any compensation?

Mr. Perrce. I do not know. I presume James Embry got a large compensation,
but I do not know.

The CHarrMAN. Who went with you to The Hague tribunal?

Mr. Perrce. Mr. Townsend. I forget his initials.

The CHarrman. Charles Townsend.

Mr. Perrce. He had been employed, I think, by the Treasury Department when
the care of the seal herd was under the Treasury Department.

The CHarrMan. He was sent with you as an expert?

Mr. Perrce. As an expert.

The CHarrman. To assist you in presenting the case?

Mr. Perrcer. Yes, sir; as a witness.

The CHarrman. Did he receive any compensation?

Mr. Perrce. That I do not know. He received, if my recollection serves me
aright, his traveling expenses, which I think I paid to him, to be refunded out of
the award.

The Cuarrman. Did you.pay him any money out of your fee?

Mr. Perrce. No, sir. (Townsend, Bureau of Fisheries ‘‘Expert,’’ aids Peirce,
p. 784.)

ISAAC LIEBES FALSIFIES IN RE OWNERSHIP, AND INTEREST IN THE
BUSINESS OF PELAGIC SEALING AND ITS PRACTICAL PROMOTION,
AS A LESSEE OF THE SEAL ISLANDS. 1890-1908.

Mr. FautKner. Mr. Liebes, will you state to the committee whether you were
interested in the J. Hamilton Lewis?
Mr. Lreses. No, not tomy knowledge. (P. 833, Hearing No. 13, June 18, 1912.)

INVESTIGATION OF FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.

The CaarrMan. You were the owner at one time of the J. Hamilton Lewis?
Mr. Liepes. J was not.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not transferred to you by Herman Liebes?

Mr. Ligpes. Never, that I know.

F232 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The CHAIRMAN. I simply wish to call your attention to the fact that there is a
certificate from the custom officers to the effect that it was recorded in the records of
the Government in San Francisco that you were the owner at a certain date.

Mr. FauLKner. | have never seen it.

Mr. Lisses. If you will let me see it I will be glad.

Mr. FauLtKNner. [ have never been able to see that, but that Herman Liebes trans-
ferred it to H. Liebes & Co. The certificate appears on page 120.

The CHarrman. Herman Liebes and H. Liebes & Co. (Inc.)—is that correct?

Mr. Fautkner. Yes. There is a declaration on page 204 showing that Herman
Liebes is the owner, and on page 120 there is a certificate showing that he,transferred
it to H. Liebes & Co. on the 17th day of September, 1890.

The CuarrmMan. Yes; that is right.

Mr. FauLKNER. And subsequentiy, on the 29th day of July, 1891, transferred it to
Max Waizman. (P. 856, Hearing No. 13, June 20. 1912.)

PROOF, SELF-CONFESSED, BY LIEBES, THAT HE HAS FALSIFIED, AS
ABOVE.

The CHAarrMAN. Here 1s a document purporting to he sigznead hy Max Waizman on
the 22d day of December, 1902, which reads as follows: (P. 860, Hearing No. 13,
June 20, 1912.)

‘‘Know all men by these presents that J, Max Waizman, fcr value received. have
sold and by these presents do grant, assign, and convey to unto Isaac Liebes all my
right, title, and interest in and to my claim against the Russian Government for the
seisure of the schooner James Hamilton Lewis by the Russian man-of-war Aleut, on
August 2, 1891, whilst 20 miles off Copper Islands, en route to San Francisco, together
with her apparel, equipment, boats, guns, steres, provisions, and 426 sealskins, and
for breaking wp the season’s cruise, the same unto the said Isaac Liebes, hereby
constituting and appointing said Isaac Liebes, my true and lawful attorney, irrevoca-
ble in my name, place, and stead, for the purpose aforesaid, to ask, demand, sue for,
attach, levy, recover, and receive all such sum and sums of money which now are or
may hereafter become due, owing and payabie for or on account of all or any of the
accounts, dues, debts, and demands above assigned; giving and granting unto the
said attorney full power and necessary, as fully, to all mtents and purposes, as I
might or could do, if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation,
hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said attorney or his substitute shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

‘Tn witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand and seal the 22d day of Decem-
ber, 1902.

““Max WAIZMAN.

“Witness
“Ben. A. GOLDSMITH.”’

This was an assignment to you of all his right, title, and interest in the claim which
he had against the Russian Government.

Mr. Fautkner. I do not understand it in that way. J understand that is an assign-
ment to H. Liebes & Co., with power of attorney to Isaac Liebes to collect this money.

The CHarrMan. No; tt says:

Have sold and by these presents do qrant, assign, and convey unto Isaac Liebes all my
right, title, and interest in and to my claim against the Russian Government for the
seizure of the schooner James Hamilton Lewis.

Mr. Fautxner. Oh, I understood it to be to H. Liebes & Co.

Mr. Lizses. I thought your question was whether he did not transfer the vessel
to me.

The CHarrMan. Is this a correct statement of what took place?

Mr. Lieses. I have no recollection of the document, but if any signature is on
there it must be so.

PEIRCE SWEARS THAT TINGLE TOLD HIM THAT LIEBES WAS THE
OWNER, AND PRODUCES THE PROOF OF IT.

The CuatrmMan. Did you haveall the affidavits and papers on me which were nec-
essary to make out a case? I mean copies of the papers.

Mr. Perrce. To make out the case against the Russian Government, certainly.
They are all published in Appendix 1 of Foreign Relations for 1902. They are all
published in English. The original preparation of the case was in French. It is
quite a volume and required a good deal of French writing.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 123

The CHarrMAN. The Liebes were interested in all the vessels—were they not?

Mr. Perrce. I have no knowledge of that, except by hearsay. After the proceedings
at The Haque, Geo. R. Tingle told me that they were, as I remember it, that they prac-
tically owned most of the pelagic sealing vessels. That is the impression I got from
him in some way. I cannot be sure, however.

The CuarrMAN. In other words, they practically controlled the pelagic sealing and
they were members of the North American Commercial Co.?

Mr. Perrce. I did not know any of that of my own knowledge. I simply heard it
after the argument at The Hague from Tingle. I have this morning seen a letter
which I wrote to my counsel, and in which I said that Tingle had informed me that the
sale of the James Hamilton Lewis to Waizman was a mere cloak and that it was not bona
Jide sale. Whether that is true or not, I can not say.

The CHarrRMAN. You certainly thought it was true or you would ‘not have written
it? (P. 784, Hearing No. 12, June 4, 1912.)

Mr. Perrce. I certainly thought it was true at the time,and I think it probably was.
I simply quoted Mr. Tingle as having suggested that; I did not vouch for it. (P. 785,
Hearing No. 12, June 4, 1912.)

The CuarrMan. I understand that there is an affidavit on file, a copy of which is
before me, an affidavit which it was necessary for you to use in order to substantiate
the claim of the United States before The Hague tribunal. I will read the affidavit
and will let you make stich statement in connection thereto as you may desire.

. 785.)

Mr. Pertrce. No; I have never seen that affidavit, so far as I can remember, or
heard of it. I am very sure that it was not used in that proceeding. I speak, of
course, from memory. There were a great many documents filed in the arbitration,
but I have no recollection of that and I do not think it was filed. You will be pleased
to observe, sir, that that is Isaac Liebes. The owners were Herman Liebes & Co.

The CHatrMAN. But it was transferred by a bill of sale and Isaac Liebes is the man
who turned up to get all the money so that there would not be any left for you.

Mr. Peirce. I brought an injunction against Patton and Embry. Now that you
speak of it, I believe Liebes did turn up in connection with the James Hamilton Lewis,
but I brought no injunction against him, I think. I think we settled it by agreement
because Tingle had filed an agreement with Liebes to pay him 25 per cent of the award and,
as I remember, the department paid him that 25 per cent, he paying me the 10 per cent.

The CuarrMAN. He even had a power of attorney from Max Waizman?

Mr. Perrce. Yes, sir; and I presume Patton in that connection said to me some-
thing about the sale of the James Hamilton Lewis to Max Waizman. (P. 786.)

ISAAC LIEBES IDENTIFIES TINGLE AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE LESSEES
FROM MARCH 12, 1890, TILL HIS DEATH IN 1906.

The CHarrMAN. Who was George R. Tingle?

Mr. Lieses. He was employed by the North American Commercial Co.

The CuatrMANn. Is he living or dead?

Mr. Lireses. I believe he is dead.!

The CuHarrmMan. When did he enter the employ of the North American Commer-
cial Co.?

Mr. Lieses. Shortly after the lease.”

The CHarrMAN. And he became what? What did he do for the company?

Mr. Lieses. I believe he was the company’s representative on the seal islands.

The CHArRMAN. Was he the general superintendent, or what was his title?

Mr. LieBes. I really do not remember what his title was.

The CHarrmMan. Did he continue during the whole period of the lease, or not?

Mr. Lieses. No, sir; he died some time afterwards.

The CHarRMAN. How long afterwards?

Mr. Lizses. | really-could not tell you.

The CHarrMan. Was he living in 1902, or not?

Mr. LizBes. I can not tell you. (P. 846, Hearing No. 13, June 20, 1912.)

The CHarrMAN. Mr. Liebes, it appeared that he filed some papers as attorney in
the J. Hamilton Lewis matter.

Mr. Lizses. Well, if you will let me see those papers, I will refresh my memory.

The CHarrMAN. Do you not remember that George R. Tingle did file some papers
in the James Hamilton Lewis case and signed them as attorney for the claimants?

Mr. Lresess. I saw it in the record as I read it.

The CHarrMAN. Yes, sir; that is in the record.

Mr. Lies. [| have read it in the record.

1 Tingle died in 1906. 2 Lease given him Mar. 12, 1890.

124 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The CuairmMAN. Mr. Elliott, do you know on what date those papers were filed?

Mr. Exxtrotr. They were first filed in 1893.

The Cuatrman. I understand that the Tingle papers were filed in 1893. At that
time Tingle was in the employ of the North American Commercial Co., was he not?
(Tingle employed 1890 to 1906. For 16 years.)

Mr. Lizpes. Yes, sir; I believe so. | am not certain about that, but that is my impres-
sion.

PEIRCE IDENTIFIES TINGLE AS LIEBES’S AGENT, PAYING HIM, ETC.

The CHatrmMan. What did you receive from the James Hamilton Lewis case?

Mr. Petron. To the best of my recollection, I received the same amount, or a little
less, from the James Hamilton Lewis case. I think I received 10 per cent. ‘Mr. Tingle
told me that he was entitled to 25 per cent, and that if he paid me 10 per cent, then he would
co somebody 5 per cent or 24 per cent, and that would equalize it. (P. 785, Hearing No.
12

a.

LIEBES TRIES TO DENY THAT ORDER OF PAYMENT BY INDIRECTION,

The CuarrmMan. Mr. Peirce stated to the committee that he was employed by
George R. Tingle, who was the attorney who filed the papers.

Mr. FAULKNER. Attorney in fact.

The CuartrmMaNn. In any capacity that you may choose to call it. Was George R.
Tingle attorney in fact?

Mr. Ligsus. I could not tell you, sir.

The CHatrMAN. He was then still in the employ of the North American Commer-
cial.Co., was he not?

Mr. Lirspes. What year do you mean?

The CHarrman. When these papers were filed; I think it was in 1893.

Mr. Liznses. I believe he was employed in 1893; Tam not positive, but I think so.
(P. 858, Hearing No. 12.)

THE RECORD DECLARES THE FACT THAT LIEBES WAS THE “‘OWNER,”’
1890-1902; AND PAID TINGLE, PEIRCE, AND TOWNSEND FOR SERV-
ICES, MARCH, 1903, AFTER THEY SECURED THE MONEY—NOVEM-
BER 29, 1902.

The CHarrMAN. You filed a bond and drew the money after paying Peirce, Town-
send, and Tingle, and there is a statement at which you may look.

Mr. Lizpes. Yes, sir; I see that.

The CHartrMAN. In this connection I think we might as well let this memorandum
become a part of the record. (P. 861, Hearing No. 13. )

Said memorandum follows:

RUSSIAN SEALING CLAIMS.

Claim of the owner and crew of the schooner James Hamilton Lewis against Russia.
Amount received from Russia in settlement of the award made by the arbi-

HMO. MNGKEIP (Colm wermnKonn On ANC, AG. NON) os ooo obese eb eesasease- $47, 684. 78
Deducted by Department of State as reimbursement of the pro rata share

Omexpensesineurred tnvarbrtrahion Ge See ey ACN: LRRR RN EN ese ane alps 1, 001. 56
Available HOM GSA OUNOIN. io) CANTONS 2 6b Coe oe cece seeds ese soces 46, 683. 22

Distribution made as follows:
Herbert H. H. D. Peirce and George R. Tingle, for attor-
neys’ fees, by direction of the schooner and attorney for
CHEW ie eikonal ach st as CaM ead MAE GS NL $13, 949. 00
Tsaac Liebes, assignee of the owner, and assignee and attor-
ney formembers of crew, under bond filed with the de-
qi ry BUD SUNG TMU AT BESS ES EUCLA AL MUP SR tase e 32, 547. 69

“services as a Aba iny expert in Pane expert pee before
DT OUROLOT! SN SE) eel VL WA C151 VA A Pa Ree soe 186. 57

46, 683. 22

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 125

The above amounts were paid to parties named by certificate of the Secretary of
State on the Secretary of the Treasury, as per form herewith, in accordance with the
provisions of the act of February 26, 1896.

Bureau of Accounts, May 28, 1912. W. AP.

LIEBES KNOWINGLY VIOLATES HIS CONTRACT IN RE OWNERSHIP OF
SAID ‘‘ JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS.”

The CuHarrMAN. Is it nota fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds fur
its faithful observance, March 12, 1890, a pelagic hunting schooner, owned by your
fellow lessee, Herman Liebes, was then at work hunting for seals at sea?

Mr. Lreses. I had no know ledge of it.

The CaHarRMAN. You say you have no knowledge of it?

Mr. Liepes. I say if such was the case, [ had no knowledge of it..

The CHarrMAN. Is it not a fact that the James Hamilton Lewis, the ownership of
which was vested in Herman Liebes, had cleared, on or before March, 1890, from San
Francisco, hound for hunting fur sea’s at sea?

Mr. Liepes. J have no recollection of that at all, sir.

The CHarrMan. Is it ngt a fact that at the close of the season of 1890 the aforesaid
James Hamilton Lewis had taken some 1,471 fur-seal skins at sea, or more of them?

Mr. Lrepes. [have no knowledge of it.

The CHarrmMan. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes, that they did or did not, or that
you don’t know anything about it?

Mr. LiesBes. J don’t know anything about it.

The CHairMAN. [sit nota fact that on cr about August 1, 1890, the James Hamilton
Lewis raided the fur-seal rookeries on Copper Is and (Commander or Russian Is'ands),
was fired on, two men badly wounded, but managed to escape capture? (P. 887.)

Mr. Lreses. J have no knowledge of that.

The CHarrMan. Is it nota fact that on September 17, 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi-<
dent of the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Hamil-
ton Lewis?

Mr. Lreses. J don’t know anything about it. (P. 8&6, Hearvng No. 13.)

The CHarrMAN. Did you know when you read the Windom lease that he had bound
you in its terms not to engage in pelagic sealing, on the pain of penalties and the for-
feiture of your lease and bonds if you did?

Mr. Lreses. [have never seen such a lease that I know of.

The CHarrMANn. Did Secretary Windom modity or change his draft of the new lease

of May 1, 1890-May 1, 1910, inthe least when you accepted and signed it March 12,
1890?

Mr. Lizses. That is a matter that Ido not know anything about. (P. 887, Hearing
No. 18, June 20, 1912.)

The CHarrMaN. Is it nota fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds for its
faithiul observance, March 12, 1890, a pelagic hunting schooner, owned by your fellow
lessee, Herman Liebes, was then at work hunting for seals at sea?

Mr. Linses. I had no knowledge of it.

The CHarrMANn. You say you hive no knowledge of it?

Mr. Lreses. I say if such was the case, I had no knowledge of it.

The CHarrMan. Is it not a fact that the James Hamilton Lewis, the ownership of
which was vested in Herman Liebes, had cleared, on or before March, 1890, from San
Francisco, bound for hunting fur seals at sea?

Mr. Lirses. I have no recollection of that at all, sir.

The CuarrMan. Is it not a fact that at the close of the season of 1890 the aforesaid
James Hamilton Lewis had taken some 1,471 fur-seal skins at sea, or more of them?

Mr. Lizses. I have no knowledge of it.

The CHatrmMan. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes, that they did or did not, or that
you don’t know anything about it?

Mr. Lizsss. I don’t know anything about it. (P. 887, Hearing No. 13, June 20,
1912.)

The CHarrMAN. Isit not a fact that on or about August 1, 1890, the James Hamilton
Lewis raided the fur-seal rookeries on Copper Island (C Sommander or Russian Islands),
was fired on, two men badly wounded, but managed to escape capture?

Mr. Lizsezs. I have no knowledge of that.

The CrarrmaNn. Is it nota fact that on September 17, 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi-
dent of the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Ham-
ilton Lewis?

Mr. Lrzses. I don’t know anything about it.

126 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The CuarrMAN. Is it not true that Isaac and Herman Liebes held this ownership of
the said James Hamilton Lewis between them until July 29, 1891?

Mr. Lrespes. | have no personal knowledge of that.

Mr. FauuKner. Mr. Chairman, I think he ought to be allowed to say, too, that the
records show here that it was assigned in September, 1900.

The CHatRMAN. Yes; | think he hassaid that. Wil! you repeat what the considera-
tion was when Max Waisman transferred the interests that he had in the James Ham-
ilton Lewis to you? I asked you that this morning, | believe.

Mr. Lirses. Whatever the document calls for.

The CuatrmaNn. Mr. Liebes filed an affidavit with the Secretary at the time of the
execution of the lease that he was not knowingly engaged in——

Mr. Ex.iorr (interposing). Pelagic sealing of any kind whatever; that was the dis-
tinct impression he gave to Mr. Windom.

The CHatRMAN. Do you know how many pelagic sealskins were taken by the
James Hamilton Lewis 1n 1890?

Mr. Exuiorr. I only know from the sworn depositions of one of her hunters, George
Wester, filed with the tribunal, 2,625 skins. (See 8. Doc. 177, pt. 8, pp. 712-714, 53d
Cong., 2d sess.)

The CuarrmANn. I have a letter which I received in behalf of the committee stating
that the James Hamilton Lewis ended a trip September 11, 1890, and had 1,464 sealskins,
and the collector of the port of San Francisco questions the 2,625 skins as I had sug-
gested in my letter to him. Can you explain the difference between those two sets of
figures?

“Mr. Exuiorr. The deponent, Wester, who swears that those skins were taken, ex-
plains it in his affidavit. He says they were taken in the spring catch; before they
went over to the Russian side they had eleven hundred and odd skins, which makes
the 2,625 skins. The fourteen hundred and odd skins that came down to San Fran-
cisco September 11, 1890. came direct from the Russian islands.

The CHarrmMan. And in 1890 the Liebes were the owners of the James Hamilton
Lewis.

Mr. Exrrorr. Yes; and so certified to The Hague by Peirce and Townsend, who did
not deny it there. (P. 962, Hearing No. 14, July 30, 1912.)

WasHineton, D., C., February 16, 1901.
Hon. Herpert H. D. Perrces,
St. Petersburg.

My Dear Mr. Peirce: Yours of 18th January came duly to hand. I can well
imagine how you feel toward my clients in the James Hamilton Lewis case; indeed,
I had quite a spat with them in San Francisco on the question of advancing you $500
on account of valuable services rendered, and made it clear to them they could not
escape payment to you in the event of the arbitrators awards being unfavorable. I wish
you render me a bill for money paid out in their behalf, that I may have it in
hand as the opportunity may be presented for me to meet them before the conclusion
of the case; if so, I will make another effort to secure a payment to you.

I feel myself it is a long dry spell. Surely the end is near at hand when we will
get our pay with heavy interest to make up for the very shabby treatment you have
received. Whatever award is made and paid will come through the State Depart-
ment and by them paid to me as attorney of record, thus giving me the control of its
distribution at this end of the line, which insures your fee and my own.

I thank you for the two copies of your presentation of the case, which by an oversight
of the department were sent to Ed at Philadelphia. In a letter from him received
to-day he informed me he had them and after reading would send to me. He said
your work stands out very prominently in the able brief you submitted. He, with
myself, feels quite indignant at my client’s refusal of my request; rely on my squaring
the goods satisfactorily when I get the check in my own hands. JI thank you for
your kind expressions to me personally, and hope to wind up this long drawn-out case
2 our mutual interests, the sooner the better, that we may have the benefit of our
share.

As soon as you can give me an idea of the probable date of a decision, for my own
information only, I would be glad to have it. . Wishing you the greatest success.

T am, sincerely yours,
Gro. R. TInGzeE.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 127

Wasuineton, D. C., July 25, 1901.

My Dear Mr. Perrce: Your esteemed favor of 6th instant was duly received, inclos-
ing copy of your rejoinder, which leaves nothing to add; itis complete. I at once
called at the department. Judge Pennfield agreed to order the printing done, so that,
as you say, closes our case.

I do hope no delay without the very best reasons will prevent the early considera-
tion of the case by the arbitrator, so that his conclusion may be reached within
the time. '

The weather here is extremely oppressive; heat intense.

I congratulate you on the practical conclusion of your great labors in the Russian
cases and hope for a substantial award as the result.

Yours, truly, GeO. R. TINGLE.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Orrice or Tarrp ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
Washington, February 27, 1903.

My Dear Jupce Cote: I inclose herewith copies of papers authorizing me to act
as counsel for the owners, officers, and crew of the James Hamilton Lewis and the Cape
Horn Pigeon. My empléyment in the case of the C. H. White was similarly author-
ized, verbally. I also inclose dispatch to United States Ambassador at St. Peters-
burg, informing him that I had been appointed counsel for the Government, without
compensation from the Government for my services.

I also send a copy of a letter received to-day by Mr. Tingle in answer to his letter
to Herman Ganss, which I had supposed to be in reply to his letter to him asking for
copies of papers which he was to file here, in the James Hamilton Lewis case. He has
not sent the copies. I have advised Mr. Tingle to file his papers making claim for
25 per cent. I forgot toask you whether you had looked up the question, to see whether
you could find a citation giving a precedent for the Secretary of State to hold up 25
per cent on the basis of Mr. Tingle’s contract with these people.

Yours, very truly,

HersBert H. D. Perrce.
Judge CHARLES ©, CoLe,
Century Building, Washington, D. C.

The genesis of Senate bill 3410, which was introduced to legalize
and take to the United States Court of Claims the demands of 57
pelagic sealing vessels, owners, masters, and crews thereof, for dam-
ages. This bill was promoted chiefly by the Liebes’s interests in
Washington, D. C., with Don M. Dickinson as ‘‘chief attorney for
claimants.’’ Behind him were ex-Senator C. J. Faulkner and H. H. D.
Peirce et al.

THE BRIEFED CHRONOLOGY OF THIS BUSINESS, BEGINNING WITH THE
AWARD OF THE BERING SEA TRIBUNAL, AUGUST 16, 1893, AND
ENDING WITH THE DEFEAT OF SENATE BILL 3410, JANUARY 20,
1905.

August 16, 1893—Award of Bering Sea Tribunal, Article VIIT,
provides for settlement of claims of British sealing vessels seized by
the United States in the ‘‘open waters of Bering Sea,’’ seasons of
1886-87-89, inclusive, ete.

February 8, 1896.—Convention agreed upon between Great Britain
and the United States to settle said claims as designated in Article
VIII of the award of the Bering Sea Tribunal. Victoria, B. C., is the
appointed place for assembling the commission, and July, 1896, the
time of meeting. There are 11 British vessels named as legal claim-
ey Don M. Dickinson is appointed senior counsel for the United

tates.

128 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

December 17, 1897.—An award is made by the Victoria arbitrators
of $414,000 damages for the British claimants.

February 26, 1902.—A convention (stimulated by Liebes and
Elkins) is agreed upon between Russia and the United States to settle
the claims of Liebes’s vessel, James Hamilton Lewis, and three other
American vessels seized by the Russian Government in the Okhotsk
and Bering Seas during 1889-91. The Hague is named as place of
convention meeting, and June 14, 1902, as date of said meeting.
H. H. D. Peirce and C. H. Townsend are appointed as delegates of
the Lnited States to present and prosecute the claims of Liebes et al.
before the arbitrator.

November 29, 1902.—An award of $28,588 is given to the claim-
ants in re James Hamilton Lewis, with ‘interest on that sum at 6 per
cent per annum from Ist January, 1892, until the day of full payment.”
To the Kate and Anna, $1,488 in United States money, with “‘interest
on that sum at 6 per cent per annum until the day of full payment.”
To the C. H. White, the sum of $32,444 in United States money
with “interest on that sum of 6 per cent per annum, from Ist of
January, 1893, to the time of fall payment.” To the Cape Horn Pigeon
(whaling bark) the ‘“‘sum of $38,750 in United States money with
interest on that sum at 6 per cent per annum from the 9th of Sep-
tember, 1892, until the day of payment in full.”

March 22, 1903.—Liebes, Tingle, Peirce, and Townsend divide
that James Hamilton Lewis award as made, on this day, total sum
of $46,682, between them.

December 19, 1904.—The success of these claimants at The Hague
stimulated Liebes and his associates in the pelagic sealmg industry
to prepare and have introduced Senate bill 3410; they secured a
favorable and unanimous approval by the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee of a report (No. 2128) on April 13,1904 (written by their attor-
neys, Don M. Dickinson et al.). This bill carries the names of 57:
sealing vessels, in which the entire list of Liebes’s fleet appears, in
cluding that of the James Hamilton Lewvs.

January 6-20, 1905.—Senate bill 3410 is defeated after a series of
heated debates running through four daily sessions of the Senate,
viz, January 6, 10, 19, and 20. Senators Platt (Connecticut) and
Dolliver fight it. Senators Foraker, Fulton, Lodge, in chief, defend
it, but can not secure its passage.

Note.—The sealing schooners which have been traced into the
full, and part ownership of Herman and Isaac Liebes, are found m
this bill as the Mary Ellen, the San Diego, the Alexander, the Otter,
the EL. E. Webster, the James Hamilton Lewis, and the La Ninfa.

ROOT’S LETTER ‘‘EXONERATING PEIRCE’? AND THE FRAUD AT THE
HAGUE CAN NOT BE FOUND.

Before the Ways and Means Committee January 25, 1907, ex-
Senator Faulkner, of West Virginia, hired attorney of the seal con-
tractors, had the following to say about a letter written by Secretary
of State Ehhu Root in 1906, which completely ‘“‘exonerated”’
H.H.D. Peirce from any blame in The Hague fraud of 1902. Hesays
on pages 44, 45, manuscript notes of hearing:

This subject came up when Mr. Peirce was appointed minister to Sweden, and the

whole question was canvassed and examined thoroughly by the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate. It was at this time that Secretary Root wrote a letter exon-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 129

erating and explanatory of the whole matter to the President. I tried to secure a copy
of that letter to be embraced in this record, but unfortunately Mr. Root had gone to
Canada, and I could not get it.

And Mr. Root returned the next day, January 26, 1907,.and Mr.
Faulkner lost all interest in that letter, because it did not even hint
at these frauds at The Hague, or refer to that matter of the James
Hamilton Lewis. ‘

THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CHARLES H. TOWNSEND FOR THE
FRAUD PRACTICED AT THE HAGUE, JUNE 27—JULY 4, 1902, AND THE
RECORD OF HIS WORK UP TO THAT DATE FROM 1883, AS AN AGENT
AND PELAGIC SEALING EXPERT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION
OF FISH AND FISHERIES, WHICH GAVE HIM FULL AND COMPLETE
ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS BOGUS PRACTICE AFORESAID.

Dr. C. H. Townsend, under oath, made the following statement to
the committee, May 24, 1912, to wit (pp. 734-735, hearmg No. 12):

Dr. TownseEnpD. I have dictated some matter here and looked it over.

My acquaintance with matters pertaining to the fur seal may be stated briefly as
follows:

Nine visits to the Pribilof Islands, covering the breeding seasons of nine different
years, the first in 1885, the last in 1900. The average length of time spent on the
Pribilof Islands figures up 35 days a year, including July and the earlier part of August.
I have been there as early as June landas late as October 10. These visits were made
under the auspices of the Fish Commission, the Treasury Department, or the Depart-
ment of State, and the work generally consisted in the preparation of charts showing
the annual distribution of seals on the different rookeries and the making of photo-
graphs to demonstrate the correctness of the charts. During all of the later visits I
participated in the annual census of the seal herd and frequently made cruises on
Government vessels in the vicinity of the isiands for the purpose of collecting infor-
mation relative to pelagic sealing. The photographs and charts are now in the files
of the Bureau of Fisheries and some of them have been published along with my reports
on the condition of the seal rookeries and on pelagic sealing.

In July, 1895, I visited the Commander Islands—those are the Russian seal islands—
and made photographs.

During the latter part of May, 1892, I visited Guadalupe Island, off the west coast
of Mexico, for the purpose of making inquiries relative to the fur seal of Lower Cali-
fornia. This work was done under the direction of the Secretary of State.

In 1902 I was sent by the Department of State to The Hague as sealing expert in the
arbitration of sealing claims against Russia. In 1888, as naturalist of the fisheries
steamship Albatross, I visited a rookery of the Antarctic fur seals in Tierra del Fuego
and obtained specimens for the National Museum.

While connected with the fur-seal investigations of 1896-97 I collected the log books
of 123 vessels engaged in pelagic sealing and prepared a large chart showing the distri-
bution and migration of the American and Asiatic fur-seal herds.

I have just simply thrown that together to show that I have a certain familiarity with
the subject.

This statement, carefully prepared and read from a typewritten
sheet by Mr. Townsend, makes his relation to the fur. sealing business
of the United States Government, as an ‘‘agent’’ and “assistant”’
and a “sealing expert” of the United States Bureau of Fisheries,
the United States Treasury Department, and the United States
Department of State, perfectly clear and definite.

It shows that before Dr. C. H. Townsend was sent to The Hague
in 1900 that he had had nine years’ experience personally with the
fur-seal herd of Alaska and of study into the business of pelagic
sealing, and his own record of the above experience is supplemented
by the statement made by himself, in ‘‘Who’s Who” for 1912, that
he was 43 years of age when he went to The Hague, possessed of all

21588—13——9

130 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

that experience above cited with regard to the seals and their
hunters in the sea.

A review carefully made by the committee of Dr. Townsend’s
record, as above given by him, from the official documents and
records of the Treasury and State Departments and United States
Fish Commission, in no respect differs from the relation of it as he
has given it to the committee.

During the progress of Dr. Townsend’s examination, on page 750,
hearing No. 12, he further defines his experience as a ‘‘sealing
expert” in the employ of the United States Fish Commission,
to wit:

When I was detached from the work at the seal islands by this commission, in 1896,
J went around among the sealers in revenue cutters and collected data to make a
chart of seal migrations. I collected the log books of 123 vessels engaged in pelagic
sealing at various times from 1883 to 1897, with an aggregate catch of 304,713 seals. I
platted the known position of every one of these vessels on every day when a seal
was killed in any part of the Pacific Ocean, throughout each month’s sealing, in a
different color, so that this chart, based as it is on the records of the sealing fleet from
1883 to 1897, shows where the seals actually were.

As Dr. Townsend first entered the service of the Government at
Baird, Cal., in 1883, as an ‘“‘assistant’”’ of the United States Com-
mission of Fish and Fisheries, this statement declares that he had
had 14 years’ experience with the whole business of land killing and
sea killing of our fur-seal herd up to 1897. So, when he went to The
Hague as the ‘“‘seal expert”’ of the United States Bureau of Fisheries
and the United States Department of State, he went there with all
the authority which such a commission commanded, as based upon
sure an extended experience (p. 406-407, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong.,
2d sess.). :

It will be observed that he says he had been busy making an
exhaustive examination into the records of ‘123 vessels’’ engaged in
pelagic sealing, at various times from 1883 to 1897.

As the James Hamilton Lewis, during the seasons of 1890-91, was
one of the largest and most notorious of all the vessels in that fleet,
it is not to be supposed for a moment that Dr. Townsend, familiar
since 1885 with the whole story annually of land and sea killing,
and especially ee with the duty of looking into all the details
of pelagic sealing from 1883 to 1897, could have overlooked or
shut his eyes to the prominent appearance of the James Hamilton
Lewis in 1890 and her spectacular disappearance in 1891. How
could he, when the daily papers of the Pacific coast recited at great
length the strange and exciting details of this vessel’s career in 1890
and finish in 1891? Columns of the newspapers of San Francisco
were filled with the story of the remarkable catch—the ‘‘high-line’’
catch of the James Hamilton Lewis in 1890. See, for instance, the
San Francisco Chronicle’s issue of September 14, 1890, and in 1891
columns of the same city papers, all of them, again were given up,
October 4, 1891, to the story of how she had been captured off
Copper Island, August 2, while her crew was ashore kuling seals as
aera (See San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, issues of Oct.
4, 1891.

’ Therefore, when Dr. Townsend made the following answer to the
committee, he told the truth (p. 754, hearing No. 12).

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 131

The CHarrMAN. I will ask you some questions now. I call your attention to the
matter appearing at pages 178 and 179 of these hearings. You will find there what
purports to be an article which appeared in the Cleveland Leader, on Saturday, August
11, 1906. Do you know Capt. Alexander McLean?

Dr. TowNsEND. Yes, sir; I knew one of the McLeans, and I think it was Alex-
ander—no, sir; it was not Alexander; it. was Daniel McLean, his brother, whom I
knew.

The CHarrMaANn. Do you know who Alexander McLean was?

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.

The CHarrMaNn. Who was he?

Dr. TowNsEND. He was a man who led a great many raids on the seal islands; I
think on the Commander Islands as well as the Pribilof Islands.

The CHarrMAN. What was the name of his ship?

Dr. TowNnsEND. I can not say. He was at it a good many years and must have had
a good many ships. I can not remember the names of them.

The CHarrMAN. Did he own the J. Hamilton Lewis?

Dr. TownsEnD. I might be able to answer that question if I had the proceedings
of The Hague Tribunal beforeme. The J. Hamilton Lewis was one of the vessels in
question there.

The CHarrMAN. He was in the employ of Mr. Herman Liebes, was he not?

Dr. TownsEND. I do not know whose employ he was in. I can not say at the
present moment.

The Cuarrman. The information I gather from this statement is that he was in the
employment of Herman Liebes, who was one of the lessees in the North American
Commercial Co.

Dr. TowNnsEND. I think it is stated somewhere in the The Hague Tribunal hear-
ings that Liebes unquestionably owned sealing vessels while he was also an investor
or shareholder, probably, in the Fur Seal Co. That is my recollection.

The CHarrMan. And one of the vessels was the J. Hamilton Lewis?

Dr. TowNnsEND. I think the J. Hamilton Lewis was Liebes’s vessel.

Mr. McDermorr. Was that a vessel engaged in pelagic sealing?

Dr. TownsEND. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGituicuppy. When you say ‘“‘sealing,’’ do you mean pelagic sealing?

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.

Mr. McDermott. They are pirates, are they not?

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.

As the ‘‘sealing expert” of the Bureau of Fisheries, he had in his
own mind, by 1897, this direct personal knowledge of the character
of that pelagic sealing which was known as ‘‘piracy,’’ and familiarly
called ‘‘raiding”’ by the sealers themselves. Only a few of those
pelagic sealers as ‘‘captains,” or ‘‘masters”’ of the fleet of ‘‘123 ves-
sels’ which Townsend was acquainted with (as he deposes on p.
750), were guilty of this raiding. These captains who, like Alexander
McLean and his brother Dan McLean, were well known among all
sealers and often unsparingly denounced by the law-abiding sealing-
vessel owners and masters. Had Dr. Townsend been deaf, blind, and
dumb during that period from 1885 to 1897, in which he told the com-
mittee he was ‘‘busy studying the records of these sealers,”’ he then
could not have escaped some knowledge of Alexander McLean as a
British subject and ‘‘pirate”’ up to 1889 and then as a bogus
“American citizen” in the James Hamilton Lewis during 1890 and
1891.

But he tells the committee that he did know McLean as a
“raider” and a ‘pirate,’ on page 754, and Dr. Townsend also tells
the committee that he knew that Liebes, lessee of the seal islands,
owned the James Hamilton Lewis when he was promoting the claim
of ‘‘Max Waizman”’ (the ‘‘dummy” owner) and the British pirate,
Alexander McLean, as the ‘‘American owner and master”’ of the James
Hamilton Lewis at The Hague, June 27—-July 4, 1902. (See pp.
407-441, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.)

132 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Now, what were those influences which caused this sworn official,
Dr. Townsend, to present and urge upon the Court of Arbitration at
The Hague this claim as a just and valid one, which he knew at
at heart and in truth was a fraudulent one?

H. H. D. Peirce, Townsend’s associate, as Third Assistant Secre--
tary of State, says that he, Peirce, was in the game for the fees; for
all the money he could get out of the award as such—he makes no
bones about it; and so he sued Liebes and Tingle, April 7, 1903, for
$11,333.33 fees in re, this award for the owners and the master of the
James Hamilton Lewis, viz, $47,684.78. (See equity suit No. 23886;
filed Apr. 7, 1903; United States Supreme Court, D. C.; H. H. D.
Peirce v. Liebes and Tingle.)

But Townsend denies receiving any compensation, or having any
personal interest in the matter, except to represent to the court that
this James Hamilton Lewis was a vessel ‘‘lawfully cleared” and ‘‘law-
fully engaged” in pelagic sealing. He describes his activities to the
committee (p. 758, Hearing No. 12), to wit:

The CHatrMan. I do not want him to make a statement that he can not substan-
tiate, but I would like to know now, Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you were at
The Hague Tribunal in this matter?

Dr. TownsEnD. In the progress of the work before The Hague Tribunal it became
necessary for the Secretary to produce information on various sealing matters, such
as the movements of sealing vessels. I carried along with me a trunk full of log
books of sealing vessels. We would have before us the charges made by the Russian
representative during the day, and we would work all night preparing something to
refute the charges. I carried the log books that had been taken from the vessels.

So when the Russians charge this vessel, the James Hamilton
Lewis, and her owners and master, with being illegally owned by the
lessees, and as such, unlawfully engaged, together with the record
of piracy, Townsend says that he ‘‘would work all night preparing
something to refute the charges’’!

Did Charles H. Townsend properly and truthfully refute the
charges? Did he not deceive the court? Did any other ‘‘expert”’
at that time appear, who carried the indorsement of 10 years’ experi-
ence as a ‘‘sealing expert’’ by his Government, before the court? No.

So, on the strength of Townsend’s sworn statements made to the
arbitrator, Dr. Asser, he awarded November 29, 1902, $28,588 with
interest at 6 per cent to the Lewis claimants (pp. 457-458, H. Doc.
No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.).

Indeed, the arbitrator had no other course; there was no one pres-
ent to appear against Townsend who could show any “scientific”
knowledge, or acquaintance whatever, with the business of pelagic
sealing; and, that no doubt should remain in the minds of the in-
terested parties as to whom he was indebted for that information
which led him to make this award, Dr. Asser, (we are informed on
p. 440, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.), states as follows, to wit:

SESSION OF FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 4, 1902.

The session opened at 10a. m.

The arbitrator, Mr. Asser, expressed his thanks to the two powers who have been
pleased to have done him the honor to confer upon him the office of arbitrator. He
complimented the two delegates upon the preparation of the memorandum and the
rejoinders, and assured them of his appreciation of the supplementary information.
He thanked the experts also. The task of the Russian experts, who were obliged to
express themselves in another language, was particularly dificult. They, nevertheless,

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 133

made clear more than one point. He particularly thanked Mr. Charles Townsend,
who, by his works and his scientific knowledge, greatly facilitated the task of the
arbitrator. He thanked the secretaries also.

The session adjourned at 11 o’clock.

This evidence supplied to the committee by Dr. Townsend himself,
of his work at The rts makes it perfectly clear that he personally
knew of the fact that Liebes owned the James Hamilton Lewvs,
and that as such she was illegally operating, with Liebes holding the
lease of the Seal Islands. He also admits knowledge as early as
1897, at the latest, of ‘‘123 sealing vessels” and their masters. He
could not have failed to know of the James Hamilton Lewis and the
lessees’ ownership of her, or of the fact that Alexander McLean was
her master, and a British pirate; all of this must have been well
known to him by 1897, for he says so, to the committee, on page
754, No. 12.

What was the interest, after all, which drew Dr. Townsend into
making this false showing for the James Hamilton Lewis at The Hague ?
He denies receiving any money from Liebes thus (p. 819, Hearing 13):

Mr. McGriuuicuppy. How large was your compensation from Isaac Liebes for your
services as an expert at The Hague, June and July, 1902, in getting this award of
$50,000 for the owners, master, and crew of the James H. Lewis?

Dr. TOWNSEND. I was paid by the Fish Commission.

Mr. McGriiuicuppy. What was your compensation?

Dr. TownsENnD. I was not paid by Liebes at all.

At this point the committee finds that Dr. Townsend has been paid
by Liebes one sum of $186.57 for ‘‘services as a sealing expert,’’ etc.
(See p. 861, Hearing No. 13.) This sum he declares was not received
from Liebes ‘“‘at all.’ But the official record of its payment denies
him. Was that all he received? Note the following:

On May 20th, 1902, and before Dr. Townsend started for The
Hague with Third Assistant Secretary of State Pierce from Wash-
ington, D. C., Liebes’s agent, George R. Tingle, who had secured the
detail by George M. Bowers, United States Fish Commissioner, of
Townsend for service in re James Hamilton Lewis claim, addressed a
letter to the Secretary of State, in which he asked that Townsend be
permitted to receive his ‘‘expenses and fees” for services as ‘‘sealing
expert,” out of any award that he, Townsend, should secure for the
Lewis claimants at The Hague. Tingle makes the same request in
this letter for the services of H. H. D. Pierce as ‘‘counsel” for the
Lewis claimants. That this letter should have been written without
the knowledge or consent of Dr. Townsend or Mr. Pierce is simply an
idle assumption. This is the letter which declares the interest that
both Townsend and Pierce had in this claim, as being for ‘‘expenses
and fees”? in return for the services to Liebes. (Equity Suit No.
23,886: H. H. D. Pierce v. Liebes, Tingle, et al., April 7th, 1903;
docket of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.)

WaAsuHINGTON, D. C., May 20, 1902,

Mr. Secretary: In view of the request of the arbitrator that experts in whaling
and sealing be sent to give expert opinions in the arbitration at The Hague and the
importance of having the Hon. H. H. D. Peirce, counsel for the Government, present
at the hearing, I have the honor to request on behalf of the claimants for the seizure
of the James Hamilton Lewis that all expenses of such experts, and of Mr. Peirce as
counsel, in making the journey to The Hague and return, be paid and charged pro
rata to the claimants, such expenses to be deducted from the award allowed by the
arbitrator and paid by the Russian Government.

134 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

As there are two classes of claims, one for sealing and one for whaling, I have the
honor to request that the expenses and fees of the sealing expert be charged to the
claimants in the sealing case.

I have further the honor to request that $1,000 be paid to the Hon. Hertt H. H. D.
Peirce for his unusual expenses up to date, and during his journey as an advance
upon the contingent fee which will be due him from the award, and that the same
be deducted from the award of the James Hamilton Lewis when paid.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, yours,
(Signed) Gro. R. TINGLE,
Attorney for the owners, officers, and crew
of the James Hamilton Lewis.
To the Hon. Joun Hay, Secretary of State.

The committee can find no exact record of the full compensation _
which Dr. Townsend received for his “expenses and fees” as paid
to him by Liebes, agreeably to the above understanding.

. When Liebes was interrogated (see pp. 894-895, Hearing No. 13)
e said:

The CHarrMAN. Now, here is something that I did not ask Mr. Liebes. In the
case of the damages of the James Hamilton Lewis, did you settle with Tingle and
Peirce individually? And how with C. H. Townsend?

Mr. Lizsezs. I settled with the parties that had any claims, but who they were
I do not know. It was settled through my attorneys in San Francisco.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a question by Mr. Elliott. Mr. Peirce said, on page 785,
that Tingle paid him 10 per cent, that to ‘somebody else 5 per cent,” or ‘‘ 24 per cent,”
that that was the equalization of the attorneys’ fee which was deducted from the
award made for the James Hamilton Lewis, which you received in the James Hamilton
Lewis case? How was that?

Mr. Lizsezs. I can not recall the circumstances.

The CHarrmMan. Now, here is a question that Mr. Elliott does not ask. Do you
know that the attorneys received 25 per cent?

Mr. Lieses. I don’t know that.

The Cuarrman. I mean Tingle and Peirce and somebody else. Now, Peirce says
he received 10 per cent and that Tingle told him that he would have to pay 5 per
cent or 24 per cent to somebody else, and that would even it up finally between him
and Peirce. Do you know anything about that?

Mr. Lizzes. No, sir.

The testimony declares that no other parties except Tingle, Peirce,
and Townsend appear as attorneys or “experts”? in making up and
presenting this fraudulent claim of the James Hamilton Lewis at
The Hague, June 27—July 4, 1902; and no hint, even, of any other
party, or parties, is recorded, save Liebes, who as Tingle’s “‘client”’
and the ‘‘owner”’ of the sa?d vessel and “‘claim”’ is held responsible
for the division of this award of $50,000, which he makes as such, on
April 24, 1903, between Tingle, Townsend, Peirce, and himself.
(See p. 861, Hearing No. 13; and p. 785, Hearing No. 12.)

This sum of the award was paid to Tingle and Liebes by the Sec-
retary of the Treasury; and the State Department ‘‘memorandum”
of the payments shows that Tingle divided $13,049 between Peirce,
Townsend, and himself as ‘‘fees.’”’ Peirce affirms that division by
Tingle, on page 785, Hearing No. 12. Townsend denies it. The
official record shows that Tingle did make that division, as Peirce
swears. (See p. 861, Hearing No. 13; p. 785, Hearing No. 12.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 135

Townsend admits his hand in the fraud (Hearing No. 12, pp. 734,
755, May 24, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.):

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House or REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, May 24, 1912.

The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, OF NEW YORK,

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.

What is your full name?
Charles Haskins Townsend.
Where do you live?

I live in New York.

I have lived there for some time. I am

from Pennsylvania, where my family is living.

The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.

What is your business?

I have charge of the aquarium in New York; IJ am the director.
How long have you held that position?

Since 1902.

Are you a member of the advisory board on the fur seals?

I believe I have that privilege.

What was the dispute which was settled by The Hague tribunal?
The matter pending there was whether the United States was

entitled to damages for sealing vessels seized by Russia.

The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.

Was the James Hamilton Lewis one of them?

That was one of the vessels seized, I am pretty sure.
Who represented the Government before this tribunal?
The Assistant Secretary of State.

Who was he?

Mr. Peirce.

Were you there also?

Yes, sir.

In what capacity were you there?

Mr. Peirce took me along as a sealing expert.

To assist him in what he was doing?

Yes, sir; to assist in handling the case over there.

Did you know at the time that they were the owners of these

vessels in which this pirate turned up?
Dr. TownseEenp. No; I never knew anything about that until those things were
brought out at The Hague.

The CHAIRMAN.
of this vessel?

Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.

It was developed at The Hague that the Liebes were the owners

That is my recollection.
And I suppose that is in the public records?
Everything, sir, that is connected with the matter must be between

the covers of that book and be between the covers of some other public document
in which the matter was brought up a year or so later on, perhaps by Mr. Elliott. But
it is all published.

Mr. Exxtiorr. When this was brought out at The Hague, what did you advise Mr.
Peirce to do, as his “expert pelagic sealing adviser’’?

Dr. Townsenp. I do not know that Mr. Peirce ever asked me for advice over there.
He instructed me to produce certain documents that would help him refute claims,
etc. I was a statistician.

Mr. Exuiorr. Did you produce any documents that refuted Liebes’s claim? -

ties A amie I have no recollection in regard to it. Whatever was done is in
the book.

136 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

°

The lessees demand the rejection of the recommendations of the
sworn agents of the Government, and secure the removal of Charles J.
Goff, chief special agent in charge, with their own men, Williams and
Brown, as successors, April 5, 1891:

CONCERNING THE ‘‘OGDEN MILLS LETTER’’ TO SECRETARY CHARLES FOSTER, APRIL 2,
1891, AND ITS INCLOSURES.

[See pp. 311, 312, Hearing No. 7.]

Mr. Ex.tiotr. On Saturday, August 5, 1911, Mr. Bowers read into the record of this
committee, for the purpose of discrediting me, a copy of a letter which I have searched
in vain for during the last 16 years; it was the ‘‘Ogden Mills letter’’ of April 2, 1891;
it asked Secretary Charles Foster, Treasury Department, to immediately overrule all
the sworn official reports of his own special agents on the seal islands, and issue to the
North American Commercial Co. (the lessees) a permit to kill 60,000 seals on the
lard) Islands during the season just ahead—the summer of 1891 (‘‘if they can be,
ound’’).

These agents of the Treasury on the seal islands, four of them—Chief Special Agent
Charles J. Goff, and assistants, Joseph Murray, S. W. Nettleton, and A. W. Lavender,
had all united August 1-14, 1890, in specific reports which urged that the Secretary of
the Treasury permit no killing of seals in 1891 by the lessees, and for an indefinite
future; those reports were supplemented by mine, dated November 19, 1890.

, The tragic, sudden death of William Windom, January 29, 1891, brought a successor
to the Treasury whom the lessees seemed to have completely in their control, for so
complete was that control that the following astonishing record is made in the premises,
started April 25, 1891, by issuing that killing order April 11, following and the full
sequence of the ‘‘Ogden Mills” letter, above cited, to wit:

The sole warrant which this letter gave to Secretary Foster for asking him to set
aside the verdict of those sworn officials above cited was ‘‘the inclosure of a series of
five affidavits” and a letter ‘‘signed by Capt. Healey, U. S. R. M.,”’ all of whom
declared in their ‘‘affidavits”’ and statements that after that date on which the lessees’
work was stopped, July 20, 1890, the seals ‘‘hauled out’’ in large numbers, suddenly,
and there were plenty of fine killable seals to be had, and would have been secured by
the lessees if Elliott and Goff had not unjustly and perfidiously used their official
authority to so order that stoppage.

This letter, though signed by Ogden Mills, was really written by George R. Tingle,
who was the general manager of the lessees on the seal islands. Mr. Mills never could
have written such a false and detailed letter of his own knowledge, and had he known
the truth of what he was writing about, I firmly believe that he would have refused
to sign it. J can not think otherwise, because it was such a letter.

In the first place, all those affidavits he has cited must have been made after the
Mth of August, 1890. They were made by the employees of the North American
Commercial Co. under pressure from George R. Tingle, who also signed one of them;
they were supplemented by a letter to Secretary Charles Foster, from Capt. Michael
Healey, United States Revenue Marine, who touched at the islands in October, 1890,
and who wrote to Foster about the “seals being as numerous then as they had ever
appeared to him in all previous years.”? (Think of such a statement from such a man
who knew so little!) ;

Those , “ affidavits’? were simply bogus—they were false ab initio. They were
received by Mr. Foster on April 3, 1891, in this Mills letter aforesaid, and then what
happened? ;

On or about the 5th of April Mr. Charles J. Goff was called into Secretary Charles
Foster’s office and told that he need not concern himself with the seal-island business
any further; that ‘the department had other business for him to transact at Montreal,”’
Canada (i. e., looking after immigration cases). Goff was directed to proceed there
forthwith (and he did). No complaint against him was uttered by Foster—just called
him in and sent him to Montreal in the “regular order of official business’? which
governs all the special agents. Goff was astonished; he was speechless, but obeyed.

Then what happened? On or about April 9 a man named W. H. Williams was
appointed ‘Chief special agent of the seal islands, vice Goff, transferred;’’ and, on
April 11, this man started for San Francisco from Washington with a secret permit
from Secretary Charles Foster, dated April 11, to the North American Commercial Co.,
giving them authority, as lessees, to kill 60,000 seals on the Pribilof Islands during
the season just ahead, ‘‘if they can be found,”’ etc.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 137

The following history cf what the lessees demanded and secured
on the seal islands June-August, 1891, shows the same greed which
was exhibited by the Russian lessees in 1819-20, when an honest
demand was made of them to stop their ruinous work. Like our
Mills and Elkins, they prevailed; the herd was ruined and well-nigh
exterminated by 1834. (Hearing No. 10, pp. 662-663, Apr. 24, 1912,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)

There is a written record officially made, of the fact that the lessees
actually continued to kill seals illegally, 4,782 of them—large, choice
seals, after they had been ordered not to do so by the Treasury
Department. (See Exhibit H., Rept. Agents H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com., 1913.)

And still more, if it had not been for that protest which the British
commissioners made July 29, as stated by said exhibit in that “ pri-
vate” meeting, those lawless lessees and their official confederates
would have continued to kill “food” seals during the rest of the year.

This exhibit declares that nothing stood between the lessees and
their uninterrupted seal killing during the modus vivendi, but that
quick action off the British commissioners; the prohibition of the

resident, the specific “orders” of the Treasury Department, and
their repeated reiteration by Chief Special Agent Williams, that
nothing to exceed 7,500 “‘food” seal skins should be taken, was, to
them, a mere use of words to conceal their illegal work, not to stop it,
a fulgur brutum, in short.

They took 10,782 skins on St. Paul, when ordered, May 27, 1891,
not to exceed 6,000 during the entire season.

They took 3,218 seal skins on St. George, when ordered not to
exceed 1,500 during the entire season.

And they did all that up to and by August 11, 1891, with the
official orders prohibiting that killing posted June 13, 1891, on the
islands.

Mr. J. Stanley-Brown who shares this malfeasance with Williams
(W. H.) in 1891, came up again June 9, 1892, as the United States
chief special agent, and on Friday, July 8 (1892), following turned
the entire control of the killing over to the lessees, and for that service
he was made the ‘“‘superintendent”’ of the lessees’ business on the
islands in June, 1894. (See Exhibit B, Rept. Agents H. Com. Exp.,
Dept. Com., Aug. 30, 1913.)

W. H. Williams, the agent who was put suddenly, April 5, 1891, in
Gofl’s place by Charles Foster, and who was so selected because Foster
had complete control over him, went up to St. Paul’s Island, and
landed there June 10, 1891. He was ai accompanied by Joseph
sey TOWN, who went as Charles Foster’s ‘‘own man”’ to get the
acts.

It will be noted in the foregoing statement that when Willams
after cooperating with Brown in this illegal killing of some 14,000
seals during the season of 1891, in violation of the international law
which fixed it at 7,500 for that year, it will be noted that he leaves
the islands on August 11, 1891, and returns to Washington.

Does he ever return to the islands? No. Mr. Joseph Stanley-
Brown takes his place, and on Thursday, June 9, 1892, arrives on
St. Paul’s Island as the chief special agent in charge.

138 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

What had Williams done? Why was he quietly put over, and
‘‘transferred’’ to London, as Goff before him had been transferred to
Montreal ?

He was ‘‘transferred’’ because he spoke plainly, after his unpleasant.
experience on the islands during the summer of 1891, as a tool of the
lessees. He told his friends at home and in Washington that this
work on the islands must stop and the lessees put out; he saw the
greedy hand that prevented any settlement with Great Britain, and
was ashamed of his part in the business of illegally killing those seals,
under the whip of the lessees, and, among other plain truths, he said:

In my opinion the only way to save the Pribilof herd is by an entire cessation of
sealing for a considerably period. I have heard diverse views on this subject, and
about closed seasons of 1 to 10 years as being the only way to restore the herd to its
best form. I believe in 10 years.

Whatever period is adopted it should involve the entire cessation of seal killing on
the islands. Of course, I am speaking unofficially, as I have no part in the present
deliberation of the commission.—(Fur Trade Review, Oct. 1, 1898, p. 446, New York.)

And this is the same “scientist” and “keen business man’’ who was
introduced to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor, April 20, 1912, in the following
““modest’’ terms by the United States Bureau of Fisheries, to wit:

Dr. EvERMANN. One of the interesting phases of this question that has attracted
my attention is the attitude which some persons have assumed toward the large
numbers of able and distinguished naturalists who have visited the seal islands and
who are without question the men most familiar with the fur-seal herd and the many
problems connected with its management and effective conservation.

Within the last 25 years nearly a score of the most distinguished naturalists not only
of this country, but of Great Britain, Canada, and Japan have visited our seal islands
for the specific purpose of studying the habits of the fur seals and the problems con-
nected with the proper management of the herd. Among these gentlemen I may
mention the following:

Dr. EVERMANN (reading):

‘‘Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, in charge of the Alaska fisheries service, who, as
special fur-seal commissioner in 1892, spent six months on our seal islands in the
North Pacific and on the Russian seal islands, studying the fur-seal rookeries, hauling
grounds, and migrations.

‘“Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown, of New York, spent the seasons of 1891, 1892, 1894,
1895, 1896, 1897, and 1899 on the seal islands, where, as naturalist and keen business
man, he made very thorough study and investigations not only of the habits of the
seals, but very valuable study of the economic questions involved.’’ (Hearing No.
10, pp. 518-519; H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

The “value” of Joseph Stanley-Brown’s “studies” to the lessees
can be at once grasped by the most casual observer, but the value
thereof, to the public interests which he was sworn to guard, and paid
to do so, no man living or dead can find the least evidence of.

That the greedy lessees found him “ valuable,”’ however, goes with-
out question, for we find this entry made on page 222 of the St. Paul

Journal, to wit:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1894.
Steamer Lakme, of the North American Commercial Co., arrived having on board,
J. B. Crowley and wife, as chief agent, and Mr. Judge and wife; also Mr. Brown, super-
intendent of North American Commercial Co., Mr. Chicest2r and Mr. Armstrong.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 139

THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES INVOKES THE SERVICES OF JOSEPH STANLEY-
BROWN TO RENEW THE SEAL LEASE, AND DEFEAT PENDING LEGIS-
LATION WHICH PREVENTS THAT RENEWAL.

Mr. Exuiorr. And I want Mr. Bowers to pay some attention to this because this is
important, at least some good lawyers have told me that it is very important to him—

“Being an official letter covering a ‘memorandum’ addressed to Mr. George M.
Bowers, commissioner, urging him to take steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon
fur-seal resolutions introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Joseph
M. Dixon. (S. Res. 90, 91, 92.)

“December 7, 1909. This letter from the ‘bureau,’ dated December 16, -1909, and
signed by Barton W. Evermann, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to
‘educate’ the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the ‘bureau’s idea of
renewing the lease,’ as follows:”’

Exuisir No. 6.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BuREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 16, 1909.
The COMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Camp Fire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through lecislation
designed to prevent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on
the islands for 10 years except for’ natives’ food, and to secure the opening of negotia-
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members
of the Camp Fire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object of correctly
informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing
its cooperation to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau.!

The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated.

BARTON W. EvERMANN.

“Exhibit No. 7. Being the official letter of ‘George M. Bowers, commissioner,’ to
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease and giving the reasons of the writers for

1““COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
““T)EPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
“HousrE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
“Friday, June 9, 1911.

aoe committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding

‘‘TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE M. BOWERS, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES,

“Mr. Bowers. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under govern-
mental supervision.

“Mr. TOWNSEND. You will be questioned about that later. After the first sugges-
ee oS this bill you know of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legis-
ation?

: “Mr. Bowsrs. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legis-
ation.

“Mr. Townsenp. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it
would surprise you?

‘Mr. Bowers. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned
it would the Bureau of Fisheries and the department. ” (Investigation of Fur-Seal
Tgustey s Alaska, p. 73.) (Hearing No. 3, p. 157, July 6, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept.

and

140 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, president N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for ‘fur-seal advisory board,’ dated January 31, 1910;
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as follows:

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE FRAUDULENT SECRET PERMIT GIVEN
BY CHARLES FOSTER TO MILLS, ELKINS AND LIEBES TO KILL SEALS—
60,000 SEALS—ON APRIL 11, 1891, AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS OPPO-
SITION OF THE AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE SEAL ISLANDS
OF ALASKA.

1890. July 20.—Chief Special Agent Charles J. Goff and his assist-
ants on the Seal Islands oF Alaska stop the lessees from killing seals
to-day, thereon, because they find that female seals ‘in milk” are
being slaughtered, and that the surplus male life does not exist
which is proper to kill.

1890. August 1.—Chief Special Agent Goff and his assistants,
Murray, Nettleton, and Lavender, all unite in separate reports to
the Secretary of the Treasury in asking that the work of the lessees
be suspended at once on the islands and indefinitely.

1890. November 19.—Henry W. Elhott, special commissioner, under
authority of act approved April 5, 1890, reports urging that the work
of the lessees be suspended at once and indefinitely, and that a modus
vend be established with Great Britain for seven years whereby no
Jallng in the sea or on the land will be done by subjects and citizens
of the high contracting parties.

1891. April 7.—Secretary James G. Blaine agrees with Sir Julian
Pauncefote, the British ambassador, to a modus vivendi of at leats
one year whereby there shall be no kilhng on the islands or in the
sea of fur seals. (See British Blue Book: Further correspondence
respecting the Bering Sea seal fisheries.)

No.1.—The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

[Telegraphic. ]
ForEIGN OFrice, April 17, 1891.

Bering Sea.—Mr. Blaine’s suggestion, which you mention in your private letter of
the 7th April, that pending the ‘award of the arbitration on the Bering Sea question
all seal fishery should be stopped, both by sea and land, seems worthy of consideration.

If we approve of it, would Mr. Blaine prefer that the proposal should come from us?
(British Blue Book entitled ‘‘U.S., No. 2, 1891: Correspondence respecting the Ber-
ing Sea fisheries,’’ presented to both houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty,
June, 1891. Printed for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office by Harrison & Sons, St.
Martin’s Lane, printers in ordinary to Her Majesty, etc.)

No. 3.—Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury.

[Telegraphic—Received Apr. 23.]
WasHINGTON, April 23, 1891.

I have the honor to report that the Secretary of State returned to Washington and
invited me to call on him. ‘ ‘

He expressed himself as gratified at the favorable consideration given by Her Maj-
esty’s Government to his alternative suggestion, and in response to your lordship’s
inquiry he said that he would prefer that the proposal, which seemed to him very fair,
should come from Her Majesty’s Government, etc.

At this point I can recapitulate, and then carry the story of Mr.
Blaine’s duplicity and malfeasance in the premises down as follows,
seriatim, to wit: 1

March 15, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote urges Mr. Blaine to agree upon a modus

vivendi for the coming season in Bering Sea, whereby no killing of fur seals shall be
done on the Seal Islands of Alaska by American citizens and no killing at sea shall

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 141

be permitted for British subjects; in the meantime both high contracting parties shall
ome study the question and then agree upon a plan of proper resumption of seal
illing, etc.

Mr. Blaine demurred and suggested a 25-mile zone of pelagic prohibition around
the Seal Islands instead; to this Sir Julian objected, saying that it was impracticable
and would not be easily enforced, etc.

April 7, 1891. Sir Julian again urges Mr. Blaine to unite with his Government in
a total suspension of all killing of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in the sea of
Bering, during the coming season of 1891. Mr. Blaine agrees to do so if the British
Government will notify him of its desire and willingness to do so.

Sir Julian Pauncefote then mails to Lord Salisbury this proposal of Mr. Blaine to
stop all killing on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1891, if the British Govern-
ment will Nae bk its subjects from all killing of fur seals at sea (in Bering Sea), during
this period aforesaid. This letter sent to New York and mailed by ‘ ‘special post’’
on this day and date, April 7, 1891, to London.

April 11, 1891. Secretary Blaine, without informing Sir Julian, violates this agree-
ment of April 7, 1891, as above cited; he gives to the lessees of the Seal Islands (D. O.
Mills, Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, and S. B. Elkins) a secret permit to
kill 60,000 seals on these islands, ‘‘if they can be found,’’ during the season of 1891.

April 13, 1891. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury, admits, when personally
interrogated by Hon.Wm. McKinley and Henry W. Elliott, that he has given this:
order of permission to kill 60,000 seals, ‘‘ because Blaine authorizes it, and has told
me that Salisbury is ugly and will not stop his people from killing.”’

April 22, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote denies that his Government ‘‘is ugly,’’ and
asserts that it is willing to stop the seal slaughter.

April 24, 1891. Henry W Elliott, in a half-column letter to the New York Evening
Post of to-day’s issue, under caption of ‘‘Some seal history,’’ tells this story of Mr.
Blaine’s duplicity and venality, as above cited; it is telegraphed all over the country,
briefly, and on—

May 3, 1891. President Harrison vetoes or orders the cancellation of this secret and
infamous permit; he then orders steps to be taken in the State Department which
result, June 14, 1891, in the modus vivendi being officially published, as originally
suggested by Henry W. Elliott November 19, 1890, and Sir Julian on April 7, 1891,
as stated above.

With this clearly and indisputably recorded as above, it is now in
order to produce the cause of this malfeasance of both Secretary James
G. Blaine and Secretary Charles Foster—what was the pressure upon
those high officials which led them to dishonor the trust which they
were sworn to observe and obey for the public good.

We now observe in the following letter of April 2, 1891, the studied
letter of the lessees—the deliberate and studied foundation of
fraud and deceit upon which Charles Foster was compelled to stand
suddenly in full public view, May 3, 1891, and—fall.

OFFICE OF THE NorTH AMERICAN COMMERCIAL Co.,
Mitts Bummpine,
New York, April 2, 1891.
Hon. CHartes Foster,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: The North American Commercial Co. begs to submit for your considera-
tion the following:

There is a marked difference of opinion between Mr. Elliott, special agent, and the
Treasury agenis on the seal islands and the North American Commercial Co., lessee
of those islands, as will appear by the reports of the Treasury agents and statements of
the agents of the North American Commercial Co. and others, on file in your depart-
ment.

The contest to obtain the new lease caused some irritation and feeling. In begin-
ning operations under the new lease it was natural that the Treasury agents should
sympathize with the old company. The Alaska Commercial Co., the old lessee, made
a spirited contest to have the new lease awarded to it. Mr. Elliott, at the time of the
bidding and for 15 years before, had been an employee of the Alaska Commercial Co.
He did all he could to secure the new lease for his company. He urged the Secretary
of the Treasury in person to award the lease to the Alaska Commercial Co., although its
bid was lower.

142 _ FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Under these circumstances it was unfortunate that Mr. Elliott should have been
appointed an agent to report on the condition of seals, etc., under a special act of
Congress which he drafted and caused to be passed and under instructions which he
wrote.

It was also unfortunate that extending the time for taking seals on the islands should
have been left to the discretion of Mr. Goff, Treasury agent, because by not exercising
this dicretion wisely and extending the time beyond July 20 the United States lost
in taxes nearly $400,000 and the lessee one-half as much.

Your attention is called to the fact that in the advertisement for bids to lease the
islands the Secretary of the Treasury expressly stated that for the year 1890 the lessee
should take 60,000 seals. It-is also provided in the lease that the new company should
take this number, yet the Treasury agent saw fit, in the discretion given him, to arbi-
trarily forbid the new company from taking more than 20,995 seals, which was not
only a great loss to both the Government and lessee, but in violation of the statements
contained in the advertisement and the terms of the lease. The record will show that
on the 20th day of July, the last day of the killing, 2,000 seals were taken, and the proof
is at hand both positive and abundant that if the time had been extended until the
10th of August the full quota of 60,000 killable seals could have been taken. The
company states as a reason why the full quota was not taken by the 20th of July was
because the salmon, which largely constitute the food of the seals, were two or three
weeks later going north last season, which will account for the seals appearing two or
three weeks later on the islands than in former years.

Secretary Windom regarded the failure to take 60,000 seals as a mistake, and one
he wished he could repair. Considering this, and for other reasons, he said to the
attorney of the N. A. C. Co., early in February, that it was his purpose to allow the
company to take 60,000 this year, and 100,000 in the discretion of the Treasury agent,
if the seals appeared on the islands.

It is claimed by the company that granting a positive and definite order to take
60,000 killable seals this year of the kind named in the laws and regulations can not
work harm to the Government nor deplete the herd. If the killable seals do not
come upon the islands they can not be taken; and if they do, the company should be
allowed to take them.

Mr. Elliott was on the islands in 1874, and did not return until 1890, a period of 15
years. Mr. Tingle, whose report and protest against Treasury Agent Goff’s arbitrary
action is on file, was Treasury agent on the islands for 4 years—from 1885 to 1889—
during which time he spent 18 months continuously on the islands. His opportunities
for observing the seals and seal life and understanding their habits, of recent years,
has been much more extended than that of Mr. Elliott. As against Mr. Elhott’s ceport
and those of the Treasury agents, which it is believed Mr. Elliott inspired, stands the
testimony of Mr. Tingle; the sworn statements now on file in your department of
Antoine Melovidoff, brother-in-law of Mr. Elliott, a native of the islands and governor
of St. Paul; that of Daniel Webster, the oldest sealer on the island; the letter of Dr.
W. H. McIntyre, now World’s Fair Commissioner from Vermont, who spent 17 years
on the islands; as also statements of J. C. Redpath, C. A. Fowler, Capt. * * *
Healey, and Dr. L. A. Noyes—all except Mr. Tingle disinterested parties.

It is submitted that this mass of testimony and sworn statements 1s entitled to due
weight and consideration, and if not sufficient to overcome the reports of Mr. Elliott
and the Treasury agents, they are at least strong enough to raise a doubt, the benefit
of which should be given to the Government and lessee and be settled only by impartial
testimony and by persons who had no connection with the old company and no preju-
dices against the new.

It is said that parties interested in the old company declared, on their failure to
obtain the new lease, that they would break up the new company in two years. It is
submitted that after the company has spent many hundred thousand dollars in pre-
paring to comply with the obligations under the new lease, and the losing of 40,000
skins out of 60,000 the first year, and the proposition of Mr. Elliott to take none this
year, would nearly reach the point of breaking up the company.

It is claimed by the present lessee that the taking of killable seals under the rules
and regulations of the department does not deplete the seal herd. By the terms of
the lease it can not be terminated except for cause. If the Government can suspend
taking seals for one year, it may for any number of years, which would, in effect,
abrogate the lease. The Government is bound by the terms of the lease as well as
the lessee. It has for a valuable consideration leased the exclusive right to the North
American Commercial Co. for 20 years to take seals on the islands of St. Paul and
St. George. It may be said that the Secretary has the power under the law to limit
or designate the number of seals to be taken; the company claims this is to be-rea-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 143

sonably construed and does not mean that the lessee shall be entirely deprived of
taking seals.

It has been suggested that pending arbitration if England should stop the Canadian
poachers from taking seals in the Bering Sea that the United States should agree to
suspend the taking of seals on land, It is not clear what right England has to make
any demand upon the United States to stop taking animals on its own soil. But it
is submitted on behalf of the company that the United States has leased the exclu-
sive right to take seals on the Pribilof group of islands, and the controversy between
the two countries presents itself with the lease in existence and the obligations of
the United States to the lessee in full force. The lease stands as part of the condition
of affairs that can not be changed, and while the United States can not terminate the
lease except for cause, it should not be asked that it be done pending arbitration or
as a preliminary to a fair settlement.

The interests of the Government and lessee are the same and not in any sense
antagonistic and should not be made so. The lessee is as much interested in pre-
serving seal life as the Government, and whenever it is shown to be in the interest
of preserving seal life it will willingly consent to a reasonable suspension of killing
seals on the islands. But the company feels that with the present light on the sub-
ject it would be unfair both to the Government and to it to suspend taking seals for
this year. The company, in obedience to the terms of the lease and by way of prep-
aration for this year’s Work, has already incurred and is still incurring heavy expenses.

Respectfully,
(Signed) NortH AMERICAN COMMERCIAL Co.,
By OgpEN Miz1s.

Every paragraph in that letter of Ogden Mills is false; he signs it
for the lessees, D. O. Mills, Lloyd Tevis, Herman and Isaac Liebes,
and S. B. Elkins (soon to be Harrison’s Secretary of War, and then
after, in 1894, Senator from West Virginia). The absolute untruth
and fraud of its conception is fully bared by the sworn testimony in
Hearing No. 10, pages 662-668, April 24, 1912. (H. Com. Exp.
Dept. C. and L.).

Think of the strange stupidity of the following brazen untruth—
of that untruth which bristles all through every paragraph in this
venal letter, to wit:

Secretary Windom regarded the failure to take 60,000 seals as a mistake, and one
le wished he could repair. Considering this, and for other reasons, he said to the
attorney of the N. A. C. Co., early in February, that it was his purpose to allow the
company to take 60,000 this year, and 100,000 in the discretion of the Treasury agent,
if the seals appeared on the islands,

William Windom dropped dead into his chair, on the evening of
January 29, 1891, at the banquet of the New York Chamber of
Commerce, in that city.

Yet this falsifier who pens the above tells us that ‘‘early in Feb-
ruary”’ following, Windom intended to reverse his own sworn agents
and let these public enemies have full swing at the public property
then in dire jeopardy on the Seal Islands of Alaska.

William Windom in the presence of Henry W. Elliott, at the resi-
dence of James G. Blaine, in Washington, January 6, 1891, agreed with
Mr. Blaine to a total suspension of the lessees work for five years
from date, if the British Government would compel the probibition
of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea and the North Pacific for the same
length of time from date.

This letter of Ogden Mills urging Foster to set aside the unanimous
testimony of his own sworn agents, and let the lessees have full
sweep at the public preserves on the Seal Islands of Alaska was
carefully planned and prepared with the full knowledge of D. O.
Mills, of Lloyd Tevis, of S. B. Elkins, of Isaac and Herman Liebes,

144 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

all stockholders in the North American Commercial Co., or the agent
of theirs as lessees of the Seal Islands of Alaska.

Upon this fraudulent and lying lessees’ letters authority, and all
of those bogus worthless perjured affidavits signed by their own hired
men and tools, Charles Foster actually, three days after he had
received this rascally letter, reversed the ruling of his own agents
(the agents of Wm. Windom) and gave Elkins and Liebes a secret
permit to kill 60,000 seals on April 11 following.

Can a better exhibition of turgid self-confessed, wicked, malfea-
sance in high official position be found ?

In order that no question shall be raised or can be raised sensibly
as to the fact that Charles Foster did give that secret permit of
April 11, 1891, as above stated, I submit the letters of Mr. Foster,
who admits that malfeasance to me, after I had put the question
squarely up to him and while witnesses to the truth of it were then
living, and who stood ready to prove it, if Foster presumed to deny it.

THE SUBORNATION OF THE STATE AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS BY
THE SEAL LESSEES.

On the 2d of May, 1912, the following sworn statement was given
to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, which exhibits the improper influence possessed
-and used by the lessees, to wit:

NOTE FOR HON. JOHN H. ROTHERMEL.

When John Hay asked me on June 20, 1903, to take this letter of mine, as written
to Hon. John A. Kasson, of May 10, 1903, with its recitation of the amazing revelation
of Mr. Blaine’s malfeasance as made by Sir Julian Pauncefote, and inclosed to Mr. Hay
by Mr. Kasson, for this purpose, as stated by the latter, Mr. Hay said: ‘‘Thisis a matter
which I can not discuss with you. I know itis true, and that makes any use of it at
this time and in this department impossible. It is best returned to you, and my
desire is that nothing be said in the premises at the present time and while this busi-
ness is pending between Canada and ourselves.”

Just think of this terrible revelation made by Sir Julian of Mr. Blaine’s duplicity,
and worse, as Secretary of State, thus made to me, April 22, 1891—think of it in the
light of the following facts, to wit:

March 15, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote urges Mr. Blaine to agree upon a modus
vivendi for the coming season in Bering Sea, whereby no killing of fur seals shall be
done on the Seal Islands of Alaska by American citizens and no killing at sea shall
be permitted for British subjects; in the meantime both high contracting parties shall
carefully study the question and then agree upon a plan of proper resumption of seal
killing, etc.

Mr. Blaine demurred and suggested a 25-mile zone of pelagic prohibition around
the Seal Islands instead; to this Sir Julian objected, saying that it was impracticable
and would not be easily enforced, etc.

April 7, 1891. Sir Julian again urges Mr. Blaine to unite with his Government in
a total suspension of all killing of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in the sea of
Bering during the coming season of 1891. Mr. Blaine agrees to do so if the British
Government will notify him of its desire and willingness to do so.

Sir Julian Pauncefote then mails to Lord Salisbury this proposal of Mr. Blaine to:
stop all killing on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1891 if the British Govern-
ment will prohibit its subjects from all killing of fur seals at sea (in Bering Sea) during
this period aforesaid. This letter sent to New York and mailed by ‘‘special post’’
on this day and date, April 7, 1891, to London. ;

April 11, 1891. Secretary Blaine without informing Sir Julian violates this agree-
ment of April 7, 1891, as above cited; he gives to the lessees of the Seal Islands (D. O.
Mills, Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, and 8. B. Elkins) a secret permit to
kill 60,000 seals on these islands, ‘‘if they can be found,’’ during the season of 1891.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 145

April 13, 1891. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury, admits, when personally
interrogated by Hon. William McKinley and Henry W. Elliott, that he has given this
order of permission to kill 60,000 seals ‘‘because Blaine authorizes it, and has told
me that Salisbury is ugly and will not stop his people from killing.’’

April 22, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote denies that his Government ‘‘is ugly,’’ and
asserts that it is willing to stop the seal slaughter.

April 24, 1891. Henry W. Elliott in a half-column letter te the New York Evening
Post of to-day’s issue, under caption of ‘“‘Some seal history,’’ tells this story of Mr.
Blaine’s duplicity and venality, as above cited; it is telegraphed all over the country,
briefly, and on—

May 3, 1891. President Harrison vetoes or orders the cancellation of this secret and
infamous permit; he then orders steps to be taken in the State Department which
result, June 14, 1891, in the modus vivendi being officially published, as originally
suggested by Henry W. Elliott, November 19, 1890, and Sir Julian, on April 7, 1891,
as stated above.

Henry W. Enuiorr,
WasuHineTon, D. C., May 2, 1912. :

(Hearing No. 10, p. 672, May 2, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

In further illustration of this subornation, and proof of it, Mr.
Elliott, on January 25, 1907, gave to the Ways and Means Committee
of the House of Representatives the following criginal letters of
Charles Foster which admit that he issued that secret order to
kill 60,000 seals on April 11, 1891, and which permit, after its ex-
posure April 22 by Elhott, was ‘‘officially” dated ‘‘May 27,” and
then canceled ‘‘officially’’ May 27, 1891, by telegraph to Williams,
at San Francisco, Cal.

CHARLES FOSTER’S ADMISSION TO ELLIOTT THAT HE HAD ISSUED A SECRET PERMIT TO
KILL 60,000 SEALS, APRIL 11, 1891.

[Copies of the original letters made by Ways and Means Committee, H, R., Jan. 25,1907: Hearing on Fur
. Seals. MS. notes of same, pp. 92 et seq.]

Fostoria, Onto, January 11, 1895.
Mr. Henry W. Ex.iorr.

My Dear Sir: The temper of your note of the 9th indicates that you propose to
assail the late administration for its conduct of the fur-seal question.

In the discharge of my duty in the relation to this question I felt that it was best
your services be dispensed with. I knew that this act would result in your hostility
to me, and in due time I would be assailed by you. Now, as to your question as to
the whereabouts of letters of Capt. Healey, I do not recall any conversation with you
in which Capt. Healey’s name was used.

If we had such a conversation as you suggest, whatever statement I made was truth-
ful. I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the letters of Capt. Healey.

My order of the 11th of April authorizing the taking of seals limited the catch to the
‘‘killable seals, not to exceed 60,000.’’ My orders to Capt. Williams were not to allow
the company to take any seal that was not in size, age, and sex allowed by the contract.

Yours, truly, etc.,
CHARLES Foster.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Washington, D. C., January 19, 1895.

Dear Sir: Your reply of the 11th instant has only reached me this morning, not
reaching Washington until yesterday afternoon, so that I can not be held responsible
for my seeming delay in reply. You speak of the ‘‘tone” of my letter of the 9th
instant. I wrote you a business letter, as you are a business man, and there is no
other tone to it.

You assume that my purpose is to ‘‘assail the late administration” for its conduct
of the fur-seal question. That action on my part was taken some time ago, and effec-
tively, when I, like tens of thousands of other Republicans in Ohio, in November, 1892,
cheerfully helped to hurl that administration from its brief and unpleasant prominence.
I don’t purpose now, as a live man, to get up and kick a dead antagonist, and you are

21588—13——10

146 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

not fair in making so mean a suggestion to me. You certainly are not going to be
assailed by me, for you are in no shape to be assailed.

Why should you allude to the canceling of my commission? I never alluded to it
to you or to anybody else except with satisfaction. Why, indeed, should 1? You did
not appoint me; you had nothing whatever to do with it; and when the accident of
death brought you into a little spell of brief authority you exercised it; I never objected
and I never cared, for this is a mere personal matter that does not interest anybody
but ourselves.

But the seal question is and was a public trust, and your record on that score is a
proper subject for investigation and fair record.

Now to business: I am not responsible for this digression. You say that you ‘‘don’t
remember that Healey letter”; that settles it as far as this inquiry 1s concerned; but
you are silent as to my inquiry as to where are those statements of the employees of the
N. A. Com. Co. Who had the right to withdraw those papers from the files of the
department—these papers which you told the reporter of the New York Tribune,
May 8, 1891, were in the department on file, distinctly contradicting my statement as
to decrease in seal life? These papers were, I suppose, your justification for that per-
mit to kill 60,000 seals, over the sworn testimony of every Treasury agent of the Gov-
ernment on the seal islands against it at the time you gave it out. I repeat, for your
own credit, that these papers be produced,

Your order to Maj. Williams put no restrictions on the killing of 60,000 male seals
over the age of l year. Had that order not been canceled, asit was by my direct effort,
it would have permitted and directed the most shameful killing on the seal islands of
all the shameful seal slaughter yet done on the islands or in the waters around them.

Very truly, yours,
Henry W. Exiott.
Mr. CHARLES FostTER,
Fostoria, Ohio.

To.xepo, Ouro, January 23, 1895.
Mr. Henry W. EL iort,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Str: Your favor of the 19th instant reached me at this place this morning, I
have been troubled with an inflamed eye and have been over here for treatment sev-
eral days. I wrote as I did because it seemed to me that your letter assumed an air of
arrogance and suspicion, and, I might add, innuendo. If I did you an injustice I beg
your pardon. I have no knowledge whatever of the letters and papers to which you
refer. No paper was removed from the files by my order or with my knowledge. If
they are not now on the files they have been removed clandestinely or by order of some
one else. My record in relation to my official conduct is open to the world; I did
nothing that I would not do over again to-day with the present lights I have on the
subject.

Yours, respectfully,
CHARLES FOSTER.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Washington, D. C., Janunry 26, 1895.

Dear Sir: Yours of the 23d instant was duly received yesterday, and I am glad
that you admit that my position of ‘‘assailing” you was an assumption on your part.
It certainly was, and I can call on your own men, Stanley Brown and Maj. Williams, to
bear witness to the truth of my statement that I repeatedly said to them that I was well
satisfied to be out of the association that they belonged to in this fur-seal business.

You know the act which sent me to the seal islands in 1890 was passed expressly
for that purpose, and as stated in both Houses of Congress when the subject was up
before them, it could not have been passed had it not been as stated, and Mr. Windom
freely told me so before the bill was ever introduced.

I knew, as everybody admits here to-day, that I was right on this seal business;
and that you and Mr. Blaine were wrong in giving that scandalous order to Elkins in
distinct violation of that offer made by Blaine to Her Majesty’s Government, April
7, 1891. * * * you issued the order violating the faith of the department on the
11th of April, 1891. I exposed that fact on April 22, 1891, and you ‘‘dispensed with
my services” on the 25th of April, 1891. Of course we parted. We had to part.

Very truly, etc.,
Henry W. EL.iorr.

CHARLES FostTER,

Fostoria, Ohio.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 147

The steps taken by Elliott to uncover the deceit and malfeasance
of Blaine and Foster are given by him to the committee, April 24,
1912, as follows:

Mr. Exxiorr: How was that secret permit of April 11 found out and soon made pub-
lic? By the rarestofaccident. It was thus:

On or about Apri! 8, Sir Julian Pauncefote was a cuest at a certain private or social
dinner given to him. His hostess sat beside him; during the progress of this enter-
tainment, Sir Julian remarked to her that he believed that he had been instrumental at

- last in setiling the vexed fur-seal question, and that Mr. Blaine and he had just
agreed that no further slaugltter on the is!ands or in the Bering Sea was to take place
for at least six or seven years, or that until both Governments had thoroughly inves-
tigated the conditions, no killing was to be resumed, at least.

On the evening of April 11, following, this lady was at another social entertainment,
and there overheard the attorney for the North American Commercial Co. congratu-
late an unknown person who stood beside him in the reception line over their success
during the day in getting Charles Foster to give them a permit to kill seals; that
“nobody in Washington knew anything about it,”’ and ‘‘nobody was to know any-

about it” either, etc.

In a moment it flashed on the mind of this lady that Sir Julian had been duped
or those mer were in error; second thought told her that the lessees’ attorney (Gen.
N. L. Jeffries) was one who knew his business, and it must be true. She had heard
me tell how Mr. Blaine was pledged to a close season; so, on the following day, she
called on me at the Smithsonian Institution and told me of what she had heard, all
as above stated.

Astonished and mortified, I at once set to work to find out the truth. I knew that if
this was a secret permit that if | went up to either Mr. Blaine or to Secretary Foster,
they would not admit it; it must be secret, or it would be published and I would, too,
have been called in and notified of such an order, and the reasons why it was given over
the denial of it by myself and all of the official reports of the department’s seal agents,
As Congress had adjourned March 4, 1891, there was no way of getting a resolution of
inquiry and the like introduced and passed, I therefore asked Congressman William
McKinley, jr., who was still in the city, to call on Secretary Charles Foster and put
this inquiry sharply and squarely up to him.

Major McKinley did so. On Monday morning—lI think on or about April 14, 1891-—
he called on Foster at the Treasury Department. Later, same day, he reported to
me that Foster first shirked the answer; then admitted that he had given this secret
order on April 11, and had given it after a full understanding with Mr. Blaine, who
on that day had informed him that there was no hope of getting any modus vivendt
from Great Britain; that ‘‘the British were ugly,”’ etc.

This report of Maj. McKinley aroused my suspicions as to the status in so far as
Great Britain’s part in the business was concerned. I knew all the time that the
Canadians opposed my plan; but I had taken two letters over to Secretary Blaine in
January and February, 1891, written to me from London, and by a gentleman who
was very close to Lord Salisbury. These letters assured me that Salisbury was in
favor of my modus vivendi. (I gave those letters to Mr. Blaine and he kept them.)

If anything was to be done to stop this infamous killing permit thus started under
cover, it must be done at once and before the lessees’ vessel was loaded in San Francisco
and cleared for the islands. I knew that such a permit would be flashed instantly
over to them there, and that this work of getting ready for the season’s killing was
surely under way.

On the 22d of April, 1891, I learned directly and positively that the British premier
was not ‘“‘ugly,’’ was not aware of the fact that he was secretly misrepresented here
by our own high officialism in charge of this fur seal question. Knowing this, then,
I took the only step I could take as a good citizen to stop this infamous game as played
between the lessees and Secretary Charles Foster, using Secretary Blaine as their
shield. I wrote a brief, terse story of it, and signed my name; then addressed it to
the New York Evening Post on the evening of this day, April 22. That letter was
published in that paper Friday, April 24, 1891. It stirred official Washington from
top to bottom in the State and Treasury Departments. This exposure of that secret
killing order went all over the United States instantly in the press dispatches, and it
caught the eye of President Harrison, who at this time was on a railroad-touring circuit
of the Pacific Coast and somewhere in California. He vetoed this infamous killing
order by wire, either from Los Angeles or San Francisco, on May 3, 1891 (or from some

oint in California). This was published in the New York Herald May 4, 1891,
eee No. 10, p. 664, Apr. 24, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

148 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The manner in which he finally reached Sir Julian and so learned
of the deceit of Blaine and was thus enabled to expose the jobbers
and stop the slaughter that season of 1891, as the secret permit of
April 11 ordered, is set forth by Elliott in terrible words of truth to
the rotten officials of the Bureau of Fisheries, thus:

The Cuartrman. Allright then. I suppose it is the sense of the committee that the
statement shall go in?
Mr. Patron. I have no objection.
The CuarrMan. Then it is so ordered.
WasHiInetTon, May 12, 1903.

Dear Cox. Hay: I do not know why the inclosed is sent to me, except for my
sympathy with Elliott in the matter of the Alaskan seals. Nor do I know what to
do with it except to place it at your disposition to decide if there is wisdom in his
suggestion.

Very faithfully yours, Kasson,

(Given to me by Mr. Hay, in Department of State, June 20, 1903, 11.40 a. m.—
Wier)

LakEwoop, Ouro, May 10, 1908.

My Dear Mr. Kasson: In packing away a lot of papers to-day I came upon those
nainutes of the interview which took place between Sir Julian and myself in April,
1891. You suggested that I put them into writing after I had recited them to you
in your residence, December 10, 1901. I inclose a copy of them.

Reading them over, the thought occurs to me that the desperate condition of affairs
on the seal islands to-day warrants Sir Michael in doing exactly what Sir Julian did
in 1891. He can override the Canadians and agree upon a modus vivendi for 1904,
just as Sir Julian did for 1891.

Sir Julian took this action solely on the strength of his belief in the truth of my
representation and report of 1890. Sir Michael can have not only all of this ground,
but the important additional data which I have placed in Mr. Hay’s hands.

I had to go as a stranger, personally, to Sir Julian in 1891, on account of Mr. Blaine’s
“infirmity” of purpose. Mr. Hay can go to Sir Michael with vastly greater effect
and tact than I went to Sir Julian. He can take these authentic records, illustrations,
facts, and figures which I have given him recently and lay them with great emphasis
before the British ambassador.

Something must be done this summer and before Congress meets. Otherwise, if
naught comes from the State Department, the pending seal bill, now lying in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be passed in short order, as a measure
absolutely necessary to save the fur seal species of Alaska from complete extinction.

It would be a great feather in Mr. Hay’s cap, and also for that of Sir Michael, if such
a modus for 1904 was agreed upon as was that of 1891.

I have never said a word to Mr. Hay about this particular matter and the securing
in 1891 of that modus vivendi which I urged in my report of 1890. I do not know
whether I ought to. If you think it proper and will serve as a useful side light, I
venture to ask that you see Mr. Hay and talk it over with him, for, really, the more I
think of it the more I am inclined to believe that Sir Michael can easily do again
what his distinguished predecessor did in the premises, and for which action he was
highly rewarded by his Government, in spite of the bitter opposition of the Canadians.

With every regard for you,

J am, faithfully, your friend, Henry W. ELLiort.

Hon. Jonn A. Kasson, Washington, D. C.

[Inclosure.[

Wasuineton, D. C., December 10, 1901.

During a call made upon Mr. John A. Kasson this morning and for the purpose of
understanding fully what the High Joint Commission did about the fur seal question
before it was strangled by the boundary dispute February 22, 1899, Mr. Kasson said
to me that I ought to reduce to writing that account which I had given him of the
adoption of my modus vivendi of 1891-1893; this account to be sealed and not broken
as the life of the British ambassador, the other party, James G. Blaine, being
dead.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 149

I therefore make the following statement, which will constitute a complete sequel
to my diary notes of what took place between Mr. Blaine and myself prior to my
interview with Sir Julian.

Wednesday, April 22, 1891: After due reflection and in spite of the fact that I had
never met the British minister, I resolved this morning to call upon him and put
the question directly to him whether or no he had refused to entertain any proposi-
tion for a modus vivendi in Bering Sea for the protection of the fur seals, as he was
charged with doing by Charles Foster on the 13th instant (see preceding memoranda).

I took the Connecticut Avenue street car on F, corner Tenth NW., and entered
the British Legation door at half past 10 o’clock in the morning; the servant took my
card, left me standing in the hall, returned in a few minutes saying that Sir Julian
was dressing and would see me when he came down. I was ushered into the office,
which opens directly from the hall, opposite the drawing-room. I had penciled on
my card the words ‘‘concerning the fur seals of Alaska,”’ so that he might know what
I was after.

I was not alone more than 10 or 15 minutes before Sir Julian came into the room,
and he greeted me with the greatest courtesy, saying that he had heard a great deal
about me and that he had asked Secretary Blaine to introduce me several times.

I replied, saying that I too had often asked Mr. Blaine to present me, but that he
had not done so.

‘“‘T have called orf you, Sir Julian, this morning on my own responsibility. I do
not come from Mr. Blaine. I have come to make an inquiry which may be improper;
if it is, pardon me and give no answer, but I want to inform you that an order to kill
60,000 fur seals was given to the lessees of the seal islands on the 11th instant; that
this order to kill was based upon the refusal of your Government to unite with mine
in a modus vivendi whereby all killing on land and in the sea is to be suspended
during the coming season in Bering Sea. If this refusal of your Government to act
with mine is authentic, then I want to say to you from my full knowledge and under-
standing of the question that killing 60,000 young male seals on the Pribilof Islands -
this summer means the absolute extermination of that life up there, and the shame
of this doing is upon your Government.”’

Sir Juhan’s manner instantly changed as I spoke; his expression became one of
intense surprise; he answered in language substantially as follows, walking up and
down the end of the room where we were standing, alternately facing and partly
turning from me:

“Tt is not true; my Government has been trying to get Mr. Blaine to agree upon
some such plan ever since the opening of March, and it was not until the 7th day of
this month that he agreed to it, and I am expecting to hear by return post of the
acceptance by my Government of the modus vivendi. I posted the offer of Mr. Blaine
on the same day and immediately after he made it tome. Really, my dear sir, you
surprise me. I do not believe that Mr. Blaine knows what he does want. I have
been having quite a time trying to find out.”

We then talked a few minutes about the condition of the seals, the attitude of the
Canadians, and of our lessees. He said that it was a case in which the testimony was
exceedingly conflicting, and that under thé circumstances the only humane and wise
thing to do was to stop the killing for a season at least and look into the matter during
the meantime. He said that as far as he was concerned his sympathy was for the
seals and he would give them the benefit of every doubt.

I then took my departure, having been with him about half an hour.

Henry W. E.wiorr.

THE LESSEES, D. O. MILLS, UNITED STATES SENATOR ELKINS, AND
ISAAC LIEBES, PARTICIPATE IN THE PROFITS OF THIS ILLEGAL
KILLING OF SEALS AND HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WORK.

The interest which these lessees had in getting those 343,365 seal
skins is clearly established by an exhibit of their profit in the business,
as given ante, page ——.

The question at once arises, Since these men have made a net gain
for themselves of $5,000,000, have they made that gain honestly ?

The answer, based upon the following facts of record, is that they
have not; they have violated the law and regulations of the Govern-
ment, in order to get those seals; and, in so doing they have wrought

150 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

great injury to the fur-seal herd to the end of practically destroying
its value, for the next 10 years. To gain that end of violating these
rules and regulations of the Government, these men, Liebes, Tevis,
Mills, and Elkins, have successfully combined with certain agents
of the Government in charge of the seal islands, as will appear by
the following:

II. Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, D. O. Mills (lessees),
on the 12th day of March, 1890, combined with Stephen B. Elkins
and George R. Tingle to deceive William Windom, Secretary of the
Treasury, in order to gain from him the lease of the seal islands of
Alaska, said lease running from May 1, 1890, to May, 1910 (20 years).

They were successful, and so secured the lease (full details of which
were given to the Ways and Means Committee, January 14, 1907, by
Henry W. Elliott, and renewed by him to the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, May 15,
OHI)

TIT. On the 5th day of April, 1891, Charles J. Goff, United States
special agent in charge of the seal islands, was removed therefrom,
through the combined efforts of said lessees and Charles Foster,
Secretary of the Treasurer, said Goff having stopped said lessees in
their illegal and injurious killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands,
June 20, 1890, and having recommended that all killing by said
lessees be suspended entirely for an indefiinite term of years tor the
public good.

Said lessees had one W. H. Wiliams appointed in Goff’s place
April 5, 1891, and with Charles Foster’s own selection also, Joseph
Stanley Brown was appointed April 23, 1891, to visit the islands as
his own personal representative ‘‘to get the facts,” etc.

These men reached the island June 10, 1891; the international
modus vivendi of June 15, 1891, was anticipated by them, in their
instructions of May 27, 1891, which were not to permit the lessees
to take more than 7,500 seals. These orders were duly entered in
the official journal on the islands, June 13, 1891. In spite of this
specific order not to permit the killing of more than 7,500 seals on
both islands during the entire season of 1891, yet these lessees so
influenced these agents, Williams and Brown, as to actually kill and
secure the skins of 13,695 seals by August 11 following, and have
the same regularly endorsed by them.

IV. On June 9, 1892, said Joseph Stanley Brown, returned to the
seal islands as the ‘‘chief special agent in charge”; and, on July 8,
1892, he ordered that the entire supervision and control of the
Government over the lessees on the killing grounds be given to the
lessees; thus, as the fcllowimg certified ecpy of the cfficial orders
reads on the cfficial journal of the United States Treasury agent,
St. Pauls Island (p. 2).

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. “E51

Fripay, Juxy 8, 1892.
The entire control and management of the killing grounds and killing of the seals
were given to Mr. Fowler, of the N. A. C. Co., by order of Mr. J. Stanley Brown, agent
n charge, and Assistant Agent Murray was ordered to count the seals.!

V. Having thus given the entire control of the Government agents
over the killing of seals by the lessees to said lessees themselves on
the 6th day of June, 1894, Mr. J. Stanley-Brown came back to these

seal islands as the paid superintendent of the lessees and took charge

of their interests on the killing grounds. The following official entry
declares Mr. Brown’s association with the lessees (p. 222, official
journal of the United States Treasury agent in charge of St. Paul
Island):

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1894.

Steamer Lakme of the North American Commercial Co. arrived, having on board
J. B. Crowley and wife, as chief agent, and Mr. Judge and wife, also Mr. Brown,
superintendent of North American Commercial Co., Mr. Chichester, and Mr. Arm-
strong.

‘ :

VI. On May 14, 1896, Secretary of the Treasury John G. Carlisle
issued an order to the agents in charge of the seal islands of Alaska,
which specifically directed them to prohibit the lessees from ‘killing
yearlings or seals having skins weighing less than six pounds,” thus:
[P. 14) Official record or journal of the chief special agent in charge of the seal islands, St. Paul Island.

This letter is entered by J. B. Crowley (p. 14) in the journal of his office Tuesday, June 17, 1896, and

before the killing was begun.]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896.
Mr. J. B. CRowLEY,
Special Agent in Charge of the Seal Islands,
care of North American Commercial Co.,
San Francisco, Cal.

Str: I inclose herewith for your information copy of a letter, dated the 13th instant,
addressed by me to the Secretary of the Treasury and approved by him, in relation to
the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and determining the quota of such seals
to be allowed the North American Commercial Co. during the season of 1896. You
are instructed to permit said company to take on the islands during the season of 1896
all killable male seals over and above the number which in your opinion is sufficient
to fertilize the female seals, the number taken not to exceed in any event 30,000
seals. The killing of yearlings and seals whose skins weigh less than six pounds is
prohibited.

Respectfully, yours,
C. S. Hamutn, Acting Secretary.
True copy. ° :
Attest:
A. F. GALLAGHER.

1Mr. J. Stanley Brown appears in 1894, on the seal islands, as the “‘superintendent of the N. A.C.Co.’
He is still useful in this conspiracy as late as 1909, in the attempt then made by the Bureau of Fisheries to
renew the Elkins lease, as the following official letter attests:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
f Washington, December 16, 1909.
The COMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Campfire Club, of New York, had inaugu-
rated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation designed to prevent the re-leasing of the
sealing right, the cessation of all killing on the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food and to secure the
opening of negotiations with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon, of Montana, one
of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two calling for the publication of fur-seal
correspondence and reports since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and of the reeommer dations
of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent killing and the renewal of the seal-island
lease, the advisability is suggested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley Brown use their
inl131¢e vith sich m2mnbers of the Campfire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object to
correctly informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing its cooperation
to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this burean.

The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated.

BARTON W. EVERMANN.

152 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

In spite of this distinct prohibition of the killing of “‘yearlings”
by the Secretary, yet the records of the London sales show that the
lessees took some 8,000 “‘yearling” or “‘eyeplaster” skins in open,
flagrant violation of these specific rules of the department in getting
this quota of 30,000 seals allowed them subject to those orders.

The part which Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown took in loading those small
yearling skins, 8,000 of them, in order to weigh them in as ‘‘not
under six pounds, and as 2-year-old male seals” after Secretary
Carlisle's orders were posted, may be easily understood. It needs no
description.

Dr. Jordan, in his final report, declares that he is under great obliga-
tions to Mr. Brown for the valuable aid given him (Jordan) while
studying the seal herd.

EXHIBIT IV. THE EXPERTS QUOTED BY SECRETARY NAGEL
AS HIS ADVISERS IN KILLING FUR SEALS IN VIOLATION
OF LAW, ALL DENY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, AND ALL
DENY ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER THAT
KILLING WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, AS DONE BY NAGEL.

On April 26, 1909, Secretary Charles Nagel wa notified in specific
detail that his agents, under his directions, were killing seals on the
Pribilof Islands in open, flagrant violation of the law and regulations.
On May 18, 1910, the executive committee of the Camp Fire Club of
America addressed a stirring letter of protest to the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor against any further killing of seals on the
Pribilof Islands for commercial purposes, and the Secretary was
warned that if amy seals were killed by him it would be a breach of
the faith reposed in him by the Senate Committee on Conservation of
National Resources. This being ignored, on May 27, 1910, the
executive committee of this Camp Fire Club addressed a second letter
recording its final protest, and warning the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor not to make a false step in the matter. This warning was
unheeded, and under orders from the Secretary of Commerce and
Labor, dated May 9, 1910, 12,920 fur seals were slaughtered on the
Pribilof Islands in June and July, 1910.

On December 16, 1910, the skins of those seals thus slaughtered and
taken by the order of Secretary Charles Nagel, as above stated, were
sold in the London fur market, and the official records of the sale
revealed the fact that 7,733 of those skins were classified as ‘small

ups’’ and ‘‘extra small pups.”’ The London measurements which
declare this classification show that these skins were taken in violation
of the law and regulations.

On January 9, 1911, Senator Knute Nelson introduced Senate bill
No. 9959, entitled “An act to protect the seal fisheries of Alaska, and
for other purposes.”’ This bill was introduced at the request of the
Camp Fire Club of America for the purpose of preventing by manda-
tory law the killing of any fur seals on the Pribilof Islands for com-
mercial purposes during the next five years.

On January 10 the chairman of the Senate committee submitted
a copy of this bill thus introduced by Senator Nelson, to Secretary
Charles Nagel, and asked him to express his opinion officially to the
committee upon its merits, alluding also to the protests against his
killing in 1910 and thereto recorded, and made directly against the
action of his agents, killmg seals under his direction, in violation
of the law and regulations. On January 14, 1911, Secretary Charles
Nagel addressed the following letter to Chairman Dixon:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 14, 1911.
My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing
Senate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled ‘‘An act to protect the seal fisheries ot
Alaska, and for other purposes.”’
The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period
of five years from and after the Ist day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your

153

154 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

committee last year I have had some occasion to consider this question with the
result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened.

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in whieh it is
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number
of female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male
seals killed by the Government. If that be true, one and perhaps the chief argument
which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation.

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso-
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per-
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion.

I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal killing,
namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign countries as proof of
our disinterestedness and that such a course would serve to promote the consumma-
tion of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of course, advo-
cate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Department that
such a course on our part would have the slightest bearing upon pending negotiations.
I can not undertake to speak upon this phase of the question, but no doubt that
information can be readily obtained from the State Department.

I am glad to say that the results of the first year’s experience under the law enacted
last year are now at hand. Compared with the amounts received under the contract
system the showing is, I think, a very satisfactory one. At the same time I would not
be understood as saying that a gain in the receipt of a few hundred thousand dollars
ought to be conclusive in determining the Government’s policy. On the contrary,
J am of the opinion that the primary consideration to have in mind is one of con-
servation, namely, the preservation of the herds. If I could believe that the policy
which the Government now pursues in any sense endangers the herds, I should advo-
cate a change. My recommendation with respect to the bill now pending is based
upon the opinion that the Government is now killing only such male seals as may be
regarded as surplus, and that the preservation of the herds is not in any degree affected
by this policy.

If it is proposed to have a hearing upon this bill, I respectfully ask that as much
notice as possible be given, so that I may make sure to have present those representa-
tives of the bureau and such members of the boards and commissions as are more
especially conversant with the question.

Very sincerely, yours,
(Signed) CHARLES NAGEL.

Hon. Joserx M. Drxon, :

United States Senate.

In this letter above cited, Secretary Nagel says that he himself
possesses no knowledge as to the work being done on the islands, but
that he issued his orders and relied upon the judgment of experts duly
qualified and appointed, who gave him their advice. On June 9,
1911, Fish Commissioner Bowers, representing the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor, appeared before the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, and pre-
sented to the Committee the names of those experts upon whom the
department relied as its authority for killing small seals in violation of
law and regulations.

Mr. Bowers testified as follows (June 9, 1911, Hearing No. 2, p. 109):

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. I ought to have another statement here that I would like
to have offered, but I am not able to find it at present. Ifthe gentleman will permit,
I wish to say that these regulations are in conformity to recommendations made by this
advisory board.

Mr. Casue. Give the names of the members of the advisory board.

Mr. Bowers. The members of the Fur-Seal Board and of the Advisory Board,
Fur-Seal Service, are as follows: ’

‘“‘In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following:

““Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the Fur-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 155

Seal Commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and Bering
Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal.!

“The Advisory Board, Fur-Seal Service, consists of the following:

“Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of the
International Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance of the
treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the most
comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published on all
matters pertaining to the fur sealand the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most distin-
guished and best-known naturalist in the world.

“Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum,
for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the Fur-Seal Commissions
of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied all the fur-seal rookeries
of Alaska, Russia,and Japan. His report on the Russian seal islands is the most critical

and thoughtful that has been written.”
* “Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently Chief of the Biological Survey, member of the
Fur-Seal Commission of 1890, and the greatest living authority on mammals.*

“Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, director of the American Museum of Natural History,
member of the Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most
discerning and best-known naturalists.*

“Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years
naturalist on the fishéries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur-Seal Commissions of
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Townsend
made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic sealing.®

These experts thus certified to the committee as the authority upon
whom the department relied for this killing, above stated, in violation
of law and regulations, were Messrs. Merriam, Stejneger, Lucas,
Townsend, Evermann, and Lembkey.

Thereupon the committee summoned those experts to appear and
testify as to their knowledge of this killing as above stated. The fol-
lowing analysis of their testimony declares the fact that not one of
those experts was above quoted by Secretary Nagel, January 14,
1911, and June 9, 1911, except Lembkey had any knowledge what-
ever of this killing as ordered by Secretary Nagel. They also declared
complete ignorance of the work as it has been done under orders of
Secretary Nagel; and still further they all declared, except Lembkey,
that they, of their own personal knowledge, can not pass any opinion
upon this work as to whether it was legally or illegally done. This
testimony follows, being taken from the sworn statements of those
gentlemen and paralleled with that of their own writings and the
depositions of their associates in the Bureau of Fisheries, ‘‘ Advisory
board fur-seal service,”’ to wit: .

L

The sworn statements of Dr. C. Hart Merriam, who is one of the experts cited to the
United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 1911,
and to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor,
June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals in violation of
the law and the regulations, to wit:

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal
service, are as follows:

Dr. C. Hart Merriam, for many years chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey,
and perhaps the ablest living mammalogist of the world.

Dr. Merriam was one of the two special commissioners sent to the seal islands in
1891 by the United States Government to study, in conjunction with commissioners
from Great Britain and Canada, the island life of the seals. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109,
June 9, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)

1 Evermann testified that his ‘‘experience”’ on the islands was just nine days in 1895.

2 Stejneger has testified that his ‘‘experience’’ on the islands was just 10 days, in 1896.

3 Merriam has testified that his ““experience”’ on the islands was just 10 days, in 1891.

4 Lucas has testified that his ‘““experience”’ on the islands was just 92 days, or ‘“‘aboutso long,”’ in two years.

5 Townsend has testified that his “‘experience’’ on the islands was just 212 days, or ‘about so long,” in 10
years.

156

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

Secretary Nagel don’t know
anything himself—he relies wholly
upon the advice of experts duly
appointed.

The letter of Secretary Charles Nagel in
answer to inquiry by Committee on
Conservation of National Resources as
to his ‘authority ” for his work of killing
fur seals on the Pribilof Islands in vio-
lation of law and rules, and who puts
this killing as done squarely upon Jor-
dan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al.

[Copy.]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 14, 1911.

My Dear Senator: I have your com-
munication of the 12th instant inclosing
Senate bill No. 9959 to amend an act en-
titled ‘‘ An act to protect the seal fisheries
of Alaska, and for other purposes.”’

The essential purpose of this bill I take
to be a suspension of seal killing for a
period of five years from and after the 1st
of May, 1911. Since the hearing before
your committee last year I have had some
occasion to consider this question with
the result that the impressions then ex-
pressed have, if anything, been strength-
ened.

Of course my personal judgment is with-
out value. Iam relying upon the advice
of experts who have been.appointed to in-
quire and report and who have given the
department the benefit of their opinion.

* * x *

Tf it is proposed to have a hearing upon
this bill, I respectfully ask that as much
notice as possible be given, so that I may
make sure to have present those represent-
atives of the bureau and such members of
the boards and commissions as are more
especially conversant with the question.

Very sincerely, yours,
(Signed) CHARLES NAGEL.

Hon. Joseru M. Drxon,

United States Senate.

The fur-seal ‘‘experts” alluded to by
Secretary Nagel in the above letter are all
“officially” and modestly presented,
June 9, 1911, to the House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, as follows (see p. 109,
Hearing No. 2) (Hearing No. 14, pp. 914—
918, July 25, 1912.):

But Merriam swears that he
has not advised Secretary Nagel,
and does not know anything
about it, either.

The CuarrMan. Well, how long have
you been on the advisory board?

Dr. Merriam. Since the beginning. I
do not remember the date; but I have
been absent from the city during a num-
ber of the sittings of that committee, as I
am engaged in field work in the West at’
least half of every year, and therefore have
not been in Washington at the time most
of these meetings were held.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you at the meet- _
ing of the advisory board that the previous
witness referred to in his testimony?

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember any
such meeting.

The CHAarRMAN. Are you a member of
the board now?

Dr. Merriam. Yes.

* * *%

Mr. Exuiorr. One question more. I
understood you to say that you had not
been in consultation with Mr. Bowers
when he issued his orders for killing 13,000
seals in 1910? :

Dr. Merrtam. I do not think I was
present at any conference when that mat-
ter was up.

Mr. Enmiorr. I have no further ques-
tions to ask at this time.

The CuarrMan. Is there anything else
that you wish to state, Doctor?

Dr. Merriam. No. (Hearing No. 11,
May 16, 1912, pp. 692, 699.)

Mr. Exuiorr. I wish to ask Dr. Merriam
some questions. Dr. Merriam, when did
you arrive on the seal islands for the first
time in your life?

Dr. Merriam. In the summer of 1891.

Mr. Extiorr. What was that date—
about what time?

Dr. Merriam. On the morning of July
28. 5

Mr. Exxiorr. When did you leave?

Dr. Merriam. I left on August 10.
(Hearing No. 11, May 16, 1912, p. 695.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

United States Fish Commis-
sioner Bowers declares that Dr.
Merriam is one of his authorities
who approves the. killing on the
islands—

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-
seal board and of the advisory board,
fur-seal service, are as follows:

Fur-SEeaLt Boarp,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

In the Bureau of Fisheries, general
matters regarding the fur seals are con-
sidered by a fur-seal board, consisting of
the following:

Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently
chief of the Biological Survey, member
of the Fur Seal Commission of 1890, and
the greatest living authority on mammals.

* * *

Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting
the best talent I could; I expected

probable criticism. .
Mr. Townsenp. I am not criticizing
you now.

Mr. Bowers. I endeavored to get the
best: talent it was possible to get and to
act upon their advice in this fur-seal
matter. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9,
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)

Lucas says that ‘Merriam and
himself,”? have “observed,” and
“have exact knowledge,” etc.

AMERICAN MusEuUM
or Natura History,
New York, February 24, 1912.

Dear Srr: Absence from the city has
delayed my replying to your favor of Feb-
ruary 21, which I am very glad to receive.

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl-
edge in regard to the killing of seals under
2 years of age during the years 1909 and
1910 must, like that of others who did not
see the actual killing, be based on the pub-
lished statement of their weights. Inad-
dition, however, I have my own experi-
ence to aid in translating these weights.
The advisory board recommended that no
sealskins under 5 pounds in weight be
taken, this being the average weight of a 2-
year-old skin. The weight given by Elli-
ott in 1875 was (see postscript) 54 pounds,
but this was based on an average of only
10 skins. There is a bare possibility that

157

Dr. Merriam denies having any
knowledge of what Bowers has
been doing—he would “not
kall yearlings under any circum-
stances.”

Mr. McGuire. Then, in case anyone in
the House of Representatives has used
your name as a person who would he op-
posed to the killing on the islands they
were wrong about your position?

Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I
have never taken any such position. I
have always held the contrary. I have
always stated, since the first time I went
there, that conservative killing on the
islands was a benefit to the herd and not
an injury, but I should not allow the
killing of yearlings under any circum-
stances, and I should not kill more than
75 per cent of the young on land at any
one time. I would be sure to leave more
than enough for possible contingencies.

Mr. McGurre. Have you made any
personal investigation as to whether the
Government has killed excessively?

Dr. Merriam. I know nothing about
that from personal knowledge.

* * *

Mr. Exuiorr. One question more. I
understood you to say that you had not
been in consultation with Mr. Bowers
when he issued his orders for killing
13,000 seals in 1910? ‘

Dr. Merriam. I do not think I was
present at any conference when that
matter was up. (Hearing No. 11, pp.
694, 695, 699, May 4, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. & Labor.)

Dr. Merriam swears that he has
no exact knowledge, and has not,
“observed”’ with Lucas.

Mr. Exrrorr. Doctor, while you were
on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?

Dr. Merriam. I did not.

Mr. Extiotr. Do you know anything
about the length and the weight of a year-
ling sealskin?

Dr. Merriam. Nothing.

Mr. Ev:iorr. Did you make any meas-
urements up there?

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember off-
hand. I examined a great many pup
seals for sex.

Mr. Exxiorr. You did not measure the
yearlings, Doctor?

Dr. Merriam. I measured or at. least
weighed some of the seals, but I do not
remember offhand.

Mr. Extiotr. Have you published any
record of it?

Dr. Merriam. I think not.

158

these might be short 3-year-olds, but I
will let the matter stand as stated. Ac-
cording to the observations of Dr. Merriam
and myself there is about 20 per cent vari-
ation from the average either way, so that
some 2-year-old sealskins would weigh but
4 poundsand others would weigh 6 pounds.
The island weights of the skins in 1909
show that a few were taken under 5
pounds, these being smal] 2-year-olds; and
it is, of course, impossible to judge within
a half a pound of the weight of a skin while
it is on a seal. The accuracy of these
weights is corroborated by the London
weights given. Please bear in mind that
the terms ‘“‘large pups,”’ ‘‘middling pups,”’
etc., given in the London sales table, re-
_fer to weights and not to ages. Conse-
quently I haven’t the slightest hesitancy
in taking my affidavit that undersized
skins have not been systematically taken.

The yearling seals are very readily dis-
tinguished from all others, as I hope I
may have the pleasure of pointing out to
you some day either here or in Brooklyn,
and their skins would weigh from 34 to 44
pounds.

* * * *

Pardon me for troubling you with a
number of explanatory details, but I wish
above all things to make it clear that Iam
not speaking by hearsay, or making state-
ments without foundation, but that I am
writing of matters with which I have a
direct acquaintance.

Faithfully, yours,
F. A. Lucas.

Hon. Epwarp W. TOWNSEND,
Committee on the Library,
House of Representatives.

. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 27,
912.)

Just before his cross-examina-
tion, he saw seal bulls fighting
fiercely on rookery.

_ Dr. Merriam. I donot knowtherelative
importance of the three natural causes
of destruction of young pups. The three
causes that seem to be the most potent,
after doing away, of course, with pelagic
sealing, are (1) the destruction of pups by
the killer whale in the fall, when the killer
whales circle around the islands close to
shore and eat large numbers of pups; (2)
the destruction by trampling on the rook-
eries, especially during the battles be-
tween the bulls; and (3) the destruction
caused by an intestinal worm, which I
think of much less consequence than at
first. supposed, though a number do die
from the hookworm disease. These three
causes kill a large number of pups each
year—pups of the season.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. Exxiorr. No, and therefore you
made no record that we could get hold of
to-day? ;

Dr. Merriam. I doubt if I measured
any of the 2-year-old seals.

Mr. Extrott. I have never been able to
find it.

(Hearing No.1], p.699, May 16, 1912.)

But, after his cross-examina-
tion, he never saw bulls fight-
ing—just effects of it.

Mr. Exxiorr. Did you see any fighting
of the bulls?

Dr. Merriam. I saw no general fighting
of the old bulls on the breeding rookeries.

Mr. Exuiorr. That is right.

Dr. Merriam. But I saw much evi-
dence of the fighting by lacerated bulls.

Mr. Exuiorr. And do you not know it is
a matter of official record that this fighting
takes place many weeks before the fe-
males arrive?

Dr. Merriam. It mainly takes place
early in the season.

Mr. Exurtorr. That is right.

Dr. Merriam. But is not entirely fin-
ished before the females arrive.

Mr. Exuiorr. But you never saw the
finish, did you?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. McGuire. You are not prepared to
testify as to the relative destructiveness
of these three agents?

Dr. Merriam. No; I do not know; it
would be only a guess.

Mr. McGutre. What would be your
guess, if you have any guess.

Dr. Merriam. My guess would be that
the number killed by killer whales and by
trampling on the rookeries, assuming the
rookeries are pretty full—I do not mean at
the present time, when the rookeries are
so empty—would be about even.

Mr. McGuire. I see.

Dr. Merriam. The killing by trampling
and the killing by the killer whales
would be about even, and the deaths
produced by internal parasites would be
very much fewer than half of those from
either of the other cayises.

Mr. McGurre. Well, what steps would
you take to reduce the killing by tram-
pling? Suppose you were right in charge
of that herd, what would you do?

Dr. Merriam. The only recommenda-
tion that has occurred to me is to lessen
the number of superfluous males; in other
words, to decrease the fighting.

Mr. McGurre. You would do that by
diminishing——

Dr. Merriam. By thinning out the
superfluous males by killing many of
them before they are old enough to go on
the rookeries, so that the fighting would
not be so severe, thus lessening the num-
ber of young killed by trampling. The
battles are very fierce, as everyone knows
who witnesses them,

Mr. McGurre. In proportion, then
down to a certain number of males, as the
number of males are diminished, the
losses from trampling are less?

Dr. Merriam. That seems rational.

Mr. McGurire. Yes; thatseemsrational.
What number of females would you leave
for each male? What do you think would
be a fair estimate? (Hearing No. 11, pp.
694, 696; May 4, 1912.)

Merriam tells the committee
how he would manage so as to
kill 75 per cent of the seals only.

Mr. Exvxiorr. I do not wish to have you
do it, either, Doctor. Doctor, you said
you could ‘‘kill down to 75 per cent.’’
How do you know when you are ‘‘killing
down to 75 per cent”—will you tell the
committee how you arrive at that con-
clusion?

Dr. Merriam. I suppose if there are a
hundred nonbreeding male seals on the
hauling grounds, and 75 per cent of those
are driven off, leaving 25, and the 75 are
killed, we would have reason to suspect
that we had killed 75 per cent of the non-

159

Dr. Merriam. I am not clear enough
about that to be willing to make a positive
statement.

Mr. Extiotr. Did you see any ‘‘tram-
pling of pups?”

Dr. Merriam. | saw trampling of pups,
and I saw a male seal on a belated harem
seize a female seal from another harem,
and the bull of the harem to whom the fe-
male belonged attacked the first one very
savagely; that I saw, but it was like the
case of the young seal, it was a belated
case. Those incidents were mosily over
before the time of my visit.

Mr. Extrorr. That is exactly as I
understand it. You got there too late to
see the breeding. Dr. Merriam, did you
see any “cows killed and torn to pieces”
by these bulls?

Dr. Merriam. I saw a cow torn, as I
have just stated, but not killed. Whether
she died afterwards or not I do not know.

Mr. Exxiorr. I published that in full
detail in 1874. Did I not publish the fact
at the same time that all this ‘‘fighting”’
takes place from six to two weeks before
the general, full arrival of the cows, ex-
cept in sporadic cases? (See p. 42, Spl.
Bulletin 176, U. 8. Com. Fish and Fish-
erles, 1882.)

The CuyarrMAN. The witness may not
know what you wrote.

Mr. Extrorr. He isa student of natural
history and a specialist on seals, and he
certainly read that monograph of mine
over and over again. You will admit that,
will you not, Doctor?

Dr. Merriam. I certainly have not
read it for more than 20 years.

Mr. Exvuiorr. You read it when you
went up there, all right.

Dr. Merriam. I probably read it imme-
diately on my return.

Mr. Extrotr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?

Dr. Lucas. No.

Elhott tells the committee
that no man can kill down to 75
per cent or 95 per cent, and know
when he has done so.

The CHarrmMANn. You make your state-
ment to the committee, and we can get
along better in that way.

Mr. Exurorr. They can not and do not
know how to save that ‘‘5 per cent”; I
will show you exactly how they do not
save that ‘‘5 per cent” and can not pos-
sibly save it; no living man can.

The CHAIRMAN. You give us your state-
ment.

Mr. Exuiorr. I will. When they go
out to drive up seals they drive up what
they find on a given hauling ground. Say

160

breeding seals present on that hauling
eround at that time.

Mr. Euuiotr. Yes. Then, the next
day—right there, that is all right to begin
with; that is the first day of the driving.
The next day you go out and you find
another hundred.

Dr. Merriam. Yes; we might find
twice as many as on the first day, or only
half as many, as these nonbreeding seals
go back and forth in the ocean, which the
old male seals do not.

Mr. Eirorr. You count your second
drive of 100 seals, Doctor, and you take
another ‘‘75 per cent”; how near are you
to the fact that you have not killed the
seals that you saved the first day? How
do you know that you have spared that
‘(25 per cent’ when you killed them again
the next day you drove and then again
took ‘‘75 per cent” of them?

Dr. Merriam. I would not do all the
driving from one rookery. There are a
large number of rookeries on the island,
which could be driven in succession.

Mr. Exsiorr. Of course, you can not do
it from one ‘‘rookery.’’ I did not say you
did, but you drive from each and every
hauling ground over and over again dur-
ing the season—from six to ten or more
times, (Hearing No. 11, p. 697, May 4,
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

there are 100 on that given hauling ground
they kill 95 of them and allow 5 to go, and
that is 5 per cent saved. That point is
clear, isit not? Then the 5 that are saved
go back to the sea, and they go back to the
hauling grounds, perhaps, the same day,
or even within a half hour they may return
to the hauling grounds from whence they
were driven. Then in two or three days
the native “‘drivers” go out there again,
and these men drive up another 100, and
they kill them right down to 5 again,
without knowing how many of that 5 were
driven over the second time; so they have
counted up as saving ‘‘10” when they
have not saved ‘5.’ They go back again
to that hauling ground six or seven times
before the killing season is over and drive
up 100 each time in the same way, and
before they get through they do not faintly
know how many of that original ‘‘5” have
been saved. While they theoretically
have saved *‘30,’’ yet they may not have
even saved *‘5” and no living man knows.

Dr. Evermann. The only answer to -
that is that it is‘not true.

Mr. Extrorr. Why is it not true?

Dr. EvrermMANN. They have never
killed up to 95 per cent.

Mr. Extiorr. How do you know?

Dr. Evermann. I do not know it, but
I simply have the information from the
agents’ reports.

Mr. Exuiotr. The agents’ reports show
it is pretty close killing, and that they,
too, do not know. I have followed and
studied hundreds of seal drives, and I do
know what a man can do in fact and what
he can not do in the premises. (Hearing
No. 14, p. 934, July 25, 1912.)

The sworn statements of Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, who is one of the experts cited to the United
States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 1911,
and House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and Labor, June 9,
1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for killing seals in violation of the

laws and regulations, to wit:

Mr BoOweRS tase 2k
Ibe eg i a8

The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the follow-
Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States

National Museum, for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the
Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied
all the fur-seal rookeries of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal
islands is the most critical and thoughtful that has been written. * * * (Hearing
No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

THE

Stejneger swears that pups are
trampled to death (1912):

INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY
oF ALASKA.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
Lasor, House or REPRESENTA-
TIVES,

Saturday, May 4, 1912.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m.,

Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)

presiding.

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy,
and McGuire.

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.

LEONHARD STEJNEGER, having been
duly sworn, was examined, and testified
as follows:

Dr. Stesnecer. In that case, I should
say I first came to the Commander Islands
in 1882 and stayed until the fall of 1883,
remaining the winter.

Mr. McGuire. Continuously?

Dr. StesynecerR. Yes. I saw the whole
business from beginning to end during
two seasons. I mapped the rookeries,
and I have made a very elaborate report
on that. This [handing book to the chair-
man] gives all the data.

In 1896 I was appointed a member oi
the Fur Seal Investigation Commission,
of which Dr. Jordan was the chairman.
We went up early in the season and I
stayed on the Pribilof Islands for 10 days
with the other members of the commis-
sion and went all over the rookeries at
that time, and did part of the counting of
the rookeries on the American islands,
and then went over to the Commander
Islands again and inspected the rookeries
there, mapped the distribution of the
seals on the rookeries then as compared
to what they were in 1882, 1883, and 1895.

Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony
with respect to the killing of the pups by
the fighting of battles by the males is
based upon not only your general informa-
tion, that you have been able to obtain in
general way, but as well upon two years’
actual $tay upon seal islands?

Dr. SteEJNEGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGurre. And upon your actual
observation?

Dr. StssneGceR. Surveys of the rook-
erles.

Mr. McGuire. You have personally
observed those conditions, have you?

Dr. SteyneceR. Yes, sir.

1 NOTE.

161

DEADLY PARALLEL.

Stejneger denies that pups are
trampled to death (1898):

It is certainly very significant that on
Bering Island over a thousand pups are
yearly driven to the killing ground,
there to be released without any visible
harm coming to them worth mentioning,
If these newly-born seals can stand to be
driven three-fourths of a mile from
Kishotchnoye and to be _ repeatedly
trampled upon by the larger ones piling
up four high, or more, on top of them,
it stands to reason that the vigorous
holustioki, or even the females, as a
whole can suffer but little injury from the
same cause. (Fur-Seal Investigations,
Part IV, 1898, p. 101, by Leonhard
Stejneger.')

Dr. STEJNEGER. I should think that if they were left and had been left for some time by themselves it

would be the fighting of the males.

Mr. McGuire. The fighting of the males and trampling of the pups?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups.

H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)
21588--13——_11

(Hearing No. 11, p. 702, May 4, 1912,

162

Stejneger denies the quotation:

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
Lasor, Houst or REPRESENTA-
TIVES,

Saturday, May 4, 1912.

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m.,
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy,
and McGuire.

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.

LEONHARD STEJNEGER, having been
duly sworn, was examined, and testified
as follows:

Mr. Exuiorr. Drive all classes—bulls,
cows, and pups up together?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Gathering in every
seal that they could lay their hands on in
the Russian Islands, so as not to let pelagic
sealers get hold of them.

Mr. Exxiorr. Since you have suggested
that remarkable order of work on the Rus-
sian Islands, you are quoted by one of
your associates recently, before another
committee, as saying that one bull seal
was sufficient to serve 250 or 500 females.
Are you really properly quoted there?

Dr. STEINEGER. I am certainly mis-
quoted.

Dr. EvermMann. There is no such quo-
tation.

Mr. Extiott. I have it here published.

Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elliott to
produce it. Now is the time to pro-
duce it.

The CHatruMan. Do you have it with
you?

Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes; it is here, and I will
put the whole thing in right now. Ihave
got it right here. I will put it right in,
and have it printed.

Dr. Evermann. I insist it be put in
now. We want it now.

Mr. Exniorr. It will go right in.
I have got it right here.

The Coairnman. Take your time and do
it. Dr. Evermann wants it produced,
and I think it ought to be placed in the
record if it can be found.

Dr. Evermann. If he has it, the thing
to do is to show it.

Now,

My. Exiorr. Here it is. [Exhibiting
paper to the committee.] Now, right
ere, in the Seattle Sunday Times, issue

of October 11, 1908, I state to Mr. Frank
H. Hitchcock, who has quoted from Dr.
Jordan’s letter to him, dated January 12,
1904 (Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania),
[reading]:

“Now, most all of these men know het-
ter, but are silent in the shadow of Jordan.
Even Stejneger, with his fairy tale of two

FUR-SHAL HERD OF ALASKA,

ButStejneger is correctly quoted.

Astounding as iteappears, there can be
but little doubt that the single old bull
had served the 526 females on this rookery
(Poludinnoye) and was, moreover, in fit
condition to keep the younge: bull at a
respectiul distance as late in the season as
July 30. (Fur Seal Investigations, Pt.
IV, 1898, p. 168, by Leonhard Stejneger.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

bulls being enough to serve 500 cows
(which Jordan so gravely quotes here to
you with all of the pompous gravity and
true coarseness of ignorance)—even he can
not find a trace to-day of either those ‘two
bulls’ or ‘500 cows’ which he so specifi-
cally{describes on Copper Island in 1896—
good reason—they are extinct. That
ghost dance has ended forever over there.
But Jordan does not even know it at this
late hour.’’

163

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,

House or REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, May 4, 1912.

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)

presiding.

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire.

¢ STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.

LEONHARD STEJNEGER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as

follows:
THE DEADLY PARALLEL

Mr. Exuiorr. Drive all classes—bulls,
cows, and pups up together?

Dr. SteJNEGER. Gathering in every
seal that they could lay their hands on in
the Russian Islands, so as not to let
pelagic sealers get hold of them.

Mr. Exuiorr. Since you have sug-
gested that remarkable order of work on
the Russian Islands, you are quoted by
one of your associates recently, before an-
other committee, as saying that one bull
seal was sufficient to serve 250 or 500 fe-

males. Are you really properly quoted
there?

Dr. SteyNEGER. I am certainly mis-
quoted.

Dr. EveRMANN. There is no such
quotation.

Mr. Exuiorr. I have it here published.

Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elhott to
produce it. Now is the time to produce
it.

The CHarrMAN. Do you have it with
you? :

Mr. Exurorr. Yes; it is here, and I will
put the whole thing in right now. I have
got it right here. I will put it night in,
and have it printed.

Dr. EVERMANN. I insist it be put in
now. We want it now.

Mr. Exxurorr. It will go right in.
I have got it right here.

The CHaiRMAN. Take your time and
doit. Dr. Evermann wants it produced,
and I think it ought to be placed in the
record if it can be found.

Dr. EverMANN. If he has it, the thing
to do is to show it.

Mr. Extiotr. Here it is. [Exhibiting
paper to the committee.] Now, right
here, in the Seattle Sunday Times, issue

Now,

ON STEJNEGER AND EVERMANN.

Astounding as it appears, there can be
but little doubt that the single old bull
had served the 526 females on this rookery
(Poludinnoye), and moreover, was in fit
condition to keep the younger bull at a
respectful distance as late in the season
as July 30. (Fur Seal Investigations,
Pt. IV, 1898, p. 168, Leonhard Stejneger. )

Dr. EvermMann. But permit me_ to
quote the words of several distinguished
zoologists who have studied the fur seal
on the land and in the sea. * * *

First. I want to quote from Dr. David
Starr Jordan, president of Stanford Uni-
versity. * * * Therefore only 1 bull
in 30 is absolutely necessary under pres-
ent conditions. That this limit could be
materially lowered without positive dan-
ger to the herd is conclusively shown by
the * * * observations of the past
three years, as detailed by Dr. Stejneger,
show that a male fur seal is capable of
attending to the wants of between 100 and
200 cows. * * * (Hearings on H. R.
16571, Jan. 4, 1912, pp. 129, 130, H. Com.
Foreign Affairs.)

164

of October 11, 1908, I state to Mr. Frank
H. Hitchcock, who has quoted from Dr.
Jordan’s letter to him, dated January 12,
1904 (Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania),
[reading]:

“‘Now, most all of these men know
better, but are silent in the shadow of
Jordan. Even Stejneger, with his fairy
tale of 2 bulls being enough to serve 500
cows (which Jordan so gravely quotes here
to you with all of the pompous gravity and
true coarseness of ignorance)—even he
can not find a trace to-day of either those
‘two bulls’ or ‘500 cows’ which he so
specifically describes on Copper Island
in 1896—good reason—they are extinct.
That ghost dance has ended forever over
there. But Jordan does not even know
it at this late hour.”’

Stejneger swears he did not rec-
ommend renewal of the lease:

The CHarrman. Are you a member of
the advisory board on fur seals?

Dr. STEINEGER. Yes, sir.

The CoarrmMan. You say you have been
together once or twice. When was that?

Dr. Streynecer. The first time, I think,
was just before the expiration of the old
lease, and when the board recommended
that the Government take over the sealing
business and not let the islands to any
company to exploit.

The CHarrMan. You say that was done
for the purpose of discussing whether there
should be another lease or not?

Dr. SteEINEGER. Yes. We were asked
our opinion whether that would be the
better procedure for the Government, to
undertake the sealing itself or to lease it
to a company. That is my recollection.
I want you to understand that so far as my
understanding goes, these were the meet-
ings in which I have taken part. There
may have been others, for all I know.

The CuarrmMan. At this meeting, when
it was discussed as to whether there should
be a re-leasing of the islands, what was
your decision in the matter?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Our recommendation
was that the Government take over the
whole business.

The CHarrMan. And not lease the
islands any longer?

Dr. StesyneEcER. And not lease the is-
lands any longer to any company.

The CHairmMANn. And you say that you
met at the suggestion of the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor?

Dr. StesneceR. That is my recollec-
lection. We were appointed or we got a
letter from the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor asking us to serve in an advi-
sory capacity to him. We determined

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Sworn proof submitted that he
did recommend renewal of lease:

Exhibit No. 3, being a ‘‘draft of new
lease for seal islands” handed to George
M. Bowers, December 15, 1909, by Barton
W. Evermann and said draft ‘‘is prepared
by the Bureau of Fisheries” and ‘‘by its
advisory board on fur-seal service, in com-
pliance with your request” (i. e., George
M. Bowers), as follows:

Exuipit No. 3.

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABoR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 15, 1909.

Mr. CommissionEeR: There is handed
you herewith for your consideration a
draft of lease of the sealislands. This has
been prepared by Mr. Lembkey and my-
self in compliance with your request. We
have endeavored to make the form of the
lease agree with the recommendations re-
cently made by the advisory board, fur-
seal service, in conference with the fur-
seal board. For your convenience a num-
ber of references and citations have been
indicated. It is believed that an exam-
ination of this tentative draft will enable
the Secretary to arrive at the exact form
desired.

Respectfully,
Barton W. EVERMANN.
Assistant in charge Scientific Inquiry.

The lease should be renewed. It is
foolish to abolish killing on land while
seals are being killed in the water. Ces-
sation of killing on land means encourage-
ment to pelagic sealing. Should pelagic
or sea killing be abolished, it might be
well to have a closed season on land as
well, to allow the herd to recuperate.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

nothing; we just recommended. We
gave our opinion on certain points and
recommended it; that is all.

The CHatrrMan. Did you put that in
writing and send it to the Secretary?

Dr. SteyneGceER. I think there was un-
doubtedly a letter at that time.

The CHairMAn. Was it -your opinion
that the further leasing of the islands
would not be for the best interests of the
Government?

Dr. Srrsnecer. Most decidedly.
(Hearing No. 11, pp. 675, 676, May 4,
1912.)

Stejneger says Hitchcock
agreed with him im opposition to
the “ Hitchcock rules” issue:

Mr. Exxiorr. One more question: When
Chief Clerk Hitchcock, of the Department
of Commerce and Labor, was preparing
the “‘Hitchcock rules,’’ putting a check
on this killing of all those seals which you

165

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BuREAU or FISHERIES,
Washington, December 16, 1909.

The COMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10
last announced that the Campfire Club,
of New York, had inaugurated a cam-
paign to save the fur-seal herd through
legislation designed to prevent the re-
leasing of the sealing right, the cessation
of all killing on the islands for 10 years
except for natives’ food, and to secure
the opening of negotiations with Great
Britain to revise the regulations of the
Paris tribunal. As the result of this
movement. on December 7 three resolu-
tions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the
provisions before mentioned, the other
two calling for the publication of fur-seal
correspondence and reports since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at
variance with the program of this bureau
and of the recommendations of the ad-
visory fur-seal board, notably in the plan
to prevent killing and the renewal of the
seal island lease, the advisability is sug-
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lu-
cas, and Stanley-Brown use their influ-
ence with such members of the Campfire
Club as they may be acquainted with
with the object of correctly informing the
club as to the exact present status of the
seal question and of securing its coopera-
tion to effect the adoption of the measures
advocated by this bureau.

The attached letter is prepared, having
in view the object stated.

BarTon W. EVERMANN.

Exhibit No. 7, being the official letter
of ““George M. Bowers, commissioner,’’
to Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated
February 8. 1910, inclosing copies of three
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease
and giving the reasons of the writers for
such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor,
president N. A. ©. Co. (lessees). dated
January 27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for
“fur-seal advisory board.’’ dated January
31, 1910; Alfred Fraser, London agent for
the N. A. ©. Co. (lessees), January 28,
1910, as follows. (Hearing No. 3, pp.
152-157, July 6, 1911.)

Sworn proof submitted that
Hitchcock issued the rules in op-
position to Stejneger’s wish:

Mr. Exuiorr. He did? Right there I
want to ask you about this: On page 53 of
‘“‘Hearing on Fur Seals,’’ March 10, 1904,

Ways and Means Committee, House of
Representatives, Mr. Hitchcock, under

166

recommended the slaughter of just now
[to Mr. Bowers], did he consult with you
about this matter?

Dr. Stesnecer. He did.

Mr. Exxiorr. And you advised him to
do just what you said now?

Dr. StesneGcer. I did.

Mr. Exiiorr. What did he say to you?
Do you remember?

Dr. StresneGcerR. He said that that was
not in his hands. He said it was up to
Congress. He said he consulted me, not
as to What he should do, but as to what he
should answer to the committee that was
then handling the question in Congress.

Mr. Extiorr. Did he agree with you?

Dr. Strsnecer. Hedid. (Hearing No.
11, p. 682, May 4, 1912.)

All killmg of fur seals on
Pribilof Islands is ordered under
“recommendation of advisory
board,” of which Stejneger is a
member:

Mr. Bowers. I have referred, in my
report of June 30, 1909, to the Alaskan
fur-seal service as follows:

“On the establishment of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor, in 1903, the
Alaskan fur-seal service was transferred
thereto from the Department of the Treas-
ury, to which it had been attached for
many years. In the Department of Com-
merce and Labor this service formed a
distinct branch and was administered
through the Secretary’s office until De-
cember 28, 1908, when it was transferred
to the Bureau of Fisheries.
missioner of Fisheries has appointed a
special board, composed of five members
of the bureau’s staff who have personal
knowledge of the Alaskan fur seals, and to
this board will be assigned for considera-
tion and recommendation all matters per-
taining to the seal life on the Pribilof

The Com-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

the caption of an additional statement,
Says:

““T want to say to the committee that
the restrictions I proposed this morning
would be considered extreme by these
gentlemen. There is not one of these
scientists who has suggested measures
that are nearly as radical as those I have
proposed. I have purposely made the
regulations somewhat extreme, in the
view oi these gentlemen, with the idea of
being on the safe side, particularly during
the first year of the department’s admin-.
istration of the seal service.”’

And he is alluding to yourself and your
associates?

Dr. SteJNEGER. Where is that allusion?

Mr. Exuiorr. Precedinghere. You will
find it on this page.

* E * * * *

Mr. Extiotr. Therefore, Mr. Hitchcock
did not agree with you, did he?

Dr. StesnEGER. I did not say he did
not agree with me.

Mr. Euutorr. I thought you said he
agreed with you?

Dr. StesneGER. That he could do it.
That does not mean necessarily that the
rules should be framed accordingly.
That is altogether different.

Mr. Exuiorr: In other words, Mr.
Hitchcock did not take your advice when
he proposed those rules?

Dr. Stesnecer. He certainly did not.

Mr. Exzrorr. That is what I want; that
is it, Doctor. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 682-
684, May 4, 1912.)

Stejneger swears that he does
not know whether the killing has
been in violation of law or not:

The CHarrman. Do you know whether,
of your own personal knowledge, seals
have been killed that were too small or
too young, under the act of Congress?

Dr. Stesynecer. I do not know, be-
cause I have not been on the island since
1897—since 1896.

* * * * *

The CHarrMan. Mr. Elliott, do you
want to ask him any questions?

Mr. Exurorr. I have only a few ques-
tions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is
the length of a yearling fur seal of the
Alaskan herd?

Dr. SteEJNEGER. I could not tell you.

Mr. Exuiorr. Have you ever measured
one of the Alaskan herd?

Dr. StesneGER. No.

Mr. Exxtiorr. You do not know any-
thing about the length of a skin of a year-
ling seal as taken from the body?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Islands, the blue foxes, and other animal
resources on the islands, and the Govern-
_ ment’s relations to the natives and the
lessees. On January 13, 1909, the Secre-
tary, on the recommendation of the com-
missioner, appointed an advisory board
for the fur-seal service, consisting of Dr.
David Starr Jordan, Dr. Leonard Stej-
neger, Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Mr. Frederic
A. Lucas, Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Hon.
Frank H. Hitchcock, and Mr. Charles H.
Townsend. The Government is thus
enabled to avail itself of the expert know!l-
edge possessed by these naturalists and
officials, who, through visits to the seal
islands ‘and through previous duty on
fur-seal commissions or in the adminis-
tration of the fur-seal service, are familiar
with the problems involved in the man-
agement of the seal herd and the seal
islands. (Hearing No. 2, p. 78, June 9,
1911.)

Stejneger swears that pups are
naturally trampled to death by
the bulls, but—

Mr. McGuire. According to your ob-
servation, now, Doctor, if those herds
were left alone untouched by man, what
would you regard as the principal agencies
of destruction of that animal life?

Dr. StesneGcER. The principal destruc-
tion would probably be the killing or the
death of the old by natural causes.

Mr. McGuire. Would you regard that
as about the second most destructive
agency?

Dr. StesNEGER. I should think that if
they were left and had been left for some
time by themselves it would be the fight-
ing of the males.

Mr. McGutre. The fighting of
males and trampling of the pups?

Dr. SteEJNEGER. Fighting of the males
and trampling of the pups.

Mr. McGuire. Then, where they were
left untouched until they had accumu-
lated large numbers:of males, would
there have been trampling under those
conditions?

Dr. SteEJNEGER. That is the greatest
danger to the herd.

Mr. McGurre. Now, your testimony
with respect to the killing of the pups by
the fighting of battles by the males is
based upon not only your general infor-
mation, that you have been able to ob-
tain in general way, but as well upon
two years’ actual stay upon seal islands?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Yes, sir.

the

167

Dr. STEJNEGER. Of a yearling seal? I
do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.

Mr. Exiiorr. Were you in consulation
with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands
in 1910?

Dr. StesNEGER. Do you mean in per-
sonal special consultation with Mr. Bow-
ers?

Mr. Exxiorr. Did Mr. Bowers——

Dr. SteJNEGER. Not outside of what I
have said in the board.

Mr. Exuiotr. No, no. I asked you,
did Mr. Bowers advise with you?

Dr. STEJNEGER. Personally?

Mr. Exxrorr. Not when he issued his
order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910?

Dr. StesNEGER. I do not quite under-
stand whether it was with me personally
or as a member of the board.

Mr. Exziorr. Well, as a member of the
board, do you remember any consultation
with him about issuing those orders?

Dr. StesgnecER. No; I do not remem-
ber. eee No.11, pp, 679, 681, May 4,
LOU.

Lucas swears that pups are not
trampled to death by the bulls:

Mr. Exuiorr. How many days were you
on the islands in 1896? I want that
answered.

Dr. Lucas. On the islands and at sea
on the Rush, going to and from St. Paul
and St. George——

Mr. Extiorr. That is not my question,
sir.

Dr. Lucas. I will have to figure it up
if you want the exact number of days.

Mr. Exxiorr. Then you don’t know?

Dr. Lucas. I can find that out. I have
it on record here.

The CHAIRMAN.
days?

Dr. Lucas. About 50 days in 1896,
allowing about 9 days’ time spent at sea
going to and from one island to another.

Mr. Extrorr. In 1897 how many days
were you on the islands?

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days.

Mr. Extiorr. On the islands?

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number,
I have the exact data right here.

Mr. Exuiotr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?

Dr. Lucas. No.
719, May 16, 1912.)

About how many

(Hearing No. 12, p,

168

Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual
observation?

Dr. SteJNEGER. Surveys of the rook-

eries.
Mr. McGuire. You have _ personally
observed those conditions, have you?
Dr. SteJNEGER. Yes, sir. (Hearing No.
11, pp. 701, 702, 703, May 11, 1912.)

Stejneger would kill yearlings
if the law did not prevent, but—

The CuatrmMAn. Do you know whether
of your own personal knowledge seals
have been killed that were too small or too
young, under the act of Congress?

Dr. StesneGcER. I do not know, because
T have not been on the island since 1897—-
since 1896.

Tf I may be allowed to make a state-
ment, since you ask whether I had any
statement to make, the law is the law, and.
has to be lived up to; but whether seal is
killed as 1-year-old or when older could not
affect the seal herd to any extent and could
not hurt it at all; you might just as well
kill 1-year-olds or 2-year-olds or 3-year-olds.
As a matter of fact, you could not kill as
large a percentage of l-year-olds as of 2 or
3 year olds. The 1-year-olds would be
2-year-olds the next year, and then you
would kill them anyhow. The Govern-
ment would realize a little less money for
the smaller skins. That would be the
whole result. (Hearing No. 11, p. 679,
May 4, 1912.)

that from personal knowledge.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Merriam would not kill year-
lings ‘‘under any circumstances.”

Mr. McGurre. Then, in case anyone in
the House of Representatives has used your
name as a person who would be opposed to
the killing on the islands they were wrong
about your position?

Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I
have never taken any such position. I
have always held the contrary. 1 have
always stated, since the first time I went
there, that conservative killing on the
islands was a benefit to the herd and not an
injury, but I should not allow the killing
of yearlings under any circumstances, and
I should not kill more than 75 per cent of
the young on land at any one time. I
would be sure to leave more than enough
for possible contingencies.

Mr. McGuire. Have you made any
personal investigation as to whether the
Government has killed excessively?

Dr. Merriam. I know nothing about
(Hearing
No. 11, pp: 694, 695, May 4, 1912.)

Ill.

The sworn statements of Dr. Barton W. Evermann, who is one of the experts cited to the
United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14,
1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals m

violation of the law and regulations, to wit:

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir.

to have offered, but I am not able to find it at present.

I ought to have another statement here that I would like

If the gentlemen will permit,

I wish to say that these regulations are in conformity to recommendations made by

this advisory board.

Mr. CasiE. Give the names of the members of the advisory board.
Mr. Bowrrs. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-

seal service, are as follows:

Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska fisheries

service and who has been in Alaska a number of times.

He was a member of the fur-

seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and Bering
Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

169

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

He stretches; before his cross-
examination he spent “six months
on our seal islands studying,” ete.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COM-

MERCE AND LABoR, HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, Saturdiy, April 20, 1912.

Hon. John H. Rotherme! (chairman),
presiding.

Present: Hon. James Young, Daniel J.
McGillicuddy, Bird S. McGuire, and
Charles E. Patton.

TESTIMONY OF BARTON W. EVERMANN.

The witness was sworn by the chairman.

Dr. EvermMann. Within the last 25
years nearly a score of the most distin-
guished naturalists not only of this coun-
try, but of Great Britain, Canada, and
Japan. have visited our seal islands for the
specific purpose of studying the habits of
the fur seals and the problems connected
with the proper management of the herd
Among these gentlemen I may mention
the following. (Reading:)

“Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, in
charge of the Alaska fisheries service,
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in
1892. spent six months on our seal islands
in the North Pacific and on the Russian
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook-
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations.”’

The Coatrman. You take most, of this
information you get from records and
documents, do you not, Doctor?

Dr. EverMANN. I have been in
islands myself.

The CHariRMAN. Or
sonal observations?

Dr. EvermMann. I have
seal islands myself once.

The CHAIRMAN. When was that?

Dr. EverMANN. In 1892.

Mr. Evsrotr. How long were you there?

Dr. EverMANN. I spent six months on
a fur-seal investigation in 1892. (Hearing
No. 10. p. 518.)

the

from actual per-

been in the

He shrinks; after his cross-ex-
amination he “spent only 10
days on our seal islands study-
ing,’’ ete.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COM-
MERCE AND LABOR, House
OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, April 25, 1912.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock
a. m., pursuant to recess taken, Hon. John
H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN,
CHIEF, ALASKA FISHERIES SERVICE,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

Mr. Exxtiorr, Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?

Dr. EverMANN. In the spring of 1892.

Mr. Exuiorr. When did you land there?

Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the
exact date when I landed on either of the
islands.

Mr. Exuiorr. Do you know the month?

Dr. EvERMANN. It was either July or
August.

Mr. Extrorr. Was that your first land-
ing?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.

Mr. Exxiotr. Which
land on?

Dr. EveERMANN. I first landed on St.
Paul and later I went to St. George.

Mr. Exrrotr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?

Dr. EveERMANN. Some time in July or
August.

Mc. Extrotr. How long did you stay
there?

De. EVERMANN. Only a few days.

Mr. Extiorr. What do you mean by a
“few days’?

Dr. EvERMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.

Mr. Exttorr. Was it two days?

Dr. EverMANN. It was about a week or
10 days. (I have since consulted the
record; I find I was on the Pribilof Is-
Jands continuously from July 19 to
LUeuyeoe Ne vey

Mr. Exxiorr. You stayed on St. Paul
Island all that time?

Dr. EverMANN. | was on both islands.

Mr. Exvuiotr. You went over to St.
George?

Dr. EvERMANN. Yes.

Mr. Ex.iorr. How long were you on the
islands?

Dr. EvERMANN. Only a very few days.

Mr. Exurorr. That is what I thought.
(Hearing No. 10, p. 621.)

island did you

170

Evermann compelled to admit
that he has had only a few days’
experience on the seal islands.

Mr. Exiiorr. Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?

Dr. Evermann. In the spring of 1892.

Mr. Extiorr. When did you land there?

Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the
exact date when I landed on either of the
islands.

Mr. Extrorr. Do you know the month?

Dr. EveRMANN. It was either July or
August. y

Mr. Exurotr. Was that your first land-
ing?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.

Mr. Exuiorr. Which island did you
land on?

Dr. EverMANN. I first landed on St.
Paul and later I went to St. George.

Mr. Exziotr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?

Dr. EvERMANN. Some time in July or
August.

Mr. Exxiotr. How long did you stay
there?

Dr. EvERMANN. Only a few days.

Mr. Exxiorr. What do you mean by a
‘“few days’’?

Dr. EverMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.
~ Mr. Exiiorr. Was it two days?

Dr. EverMANN. It was about a week
or 10 days. (I have since consulted the
record; | find I was on the Pribilof Islands
continuously from July 19 to July 31.)
(Hearing No. 10, p. 621, Apr. 24, 1912.)

The ‘‘Carlisle rules,’ of May
14, 1896, which prohibit the kaill-
ing of yearlmg male seals, and
which have never been amended
or revised until 1904, when a 54-
pound lniit was made in heu of
the 6-pound limit.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896.

Mr. J. B. CRow1ey,
Special Agent in Charge of the Seal
Islands, care North American Com-
mercial Co., San Francisco, Cal.

Sir: I inclose herewith for your infor-
mation copy of a letter dated 13th in-
stant, addressed to me by the Secretary
of the Treasury and approved by him, in
relation to the taking of fur seals on the
Priblof Islands and determining the
quota of such seals to be allowed the
North American Commercial Co. during
the season of 1896. You are instructed to

ermit said company to take on the
islands during the season of 1896 al] kill-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

And while there learned noth-
ing about the size and weight of
sealskins—he knows nothing..

Mr. Exxiotr. Did you make any rec-
ords of lengths and measurements, weights
and growth of seals while you were there?

Dr. Evermann. I did of some seals
which I assisted in taking on the Com-
mander Islands.

Mr. Extiorr. No,
islands.

Dr. EvermMANN. I made _ notes of
weights and measurements so far as I
recall at this time. I did not weigh or
measure any seals on St. Paul or St.
George.

Mr. Extiorr. You say your observa-
tion on the islands does not cover that
point at all?

Dr. Evermann. My statement regard-
ing the measurements and weights of fur
seals is the one to which I called attention
yesterday.

Mr. Extrorr. I know; I have not dis-
puted that, but I want to find what you
did on the island. You didn’t do any-
thing, you say.

Dr. EvermMann. I didn’t say that.

Mr. Extrotr. You didn’t weigh or
measure a seal on the islands, did you?

Dr. EverMANN. My recollection is that
I did not.

-Mr. Extiotr. If you had, you would
have made notes of it, wouldn’t you?

Dr. EvermMAnn. I presume I would.

no; I mean these

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 621-622, Apr. 24,

1912.)

Dr. Evermann, under oath,
swears that no regulations were
ever issued by the Government
forbidding the killing of yearling
seals, except in 1904 and 1905.
A falsehood, and studied to de-
ceive the committee.

Dr. EVERMANN.

2. The second charge is that at least
128,478 yearling male seals were killed by
the lessee from 1890 to 1809, both inclu-
sive, contrary to law and the regulations.

In answer to this charge it should be
sufficient to say that the law has never
made it illegal to kill yearling male seals:
nor has it ever been contrary to the regu-
lations to kill yearling male seals, except
in the seasons of 1904 and 1905; as is shown
by the regulations for the various years to
which I have called your attention.
Therefore, even if 128,478 yearling male
seals have been killed since 1890 (which
is not admitted), they could not have
been killed illegally, because there was
no law against killing yearling male seals,
and there has been no regulation against

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

able male seals over and above the num-
ber which, in your opinion, is sufficient to
fertilize the female seals, the number
taken not to exceed in any event 30,000
seals. The killing of yearlings and seals
whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds is

prohibited.
Respectfully, yours, .
(Signed ) C. 8. Hamtin,

Acting Secretary.

(Official entry of the above on p. 14 of
the journal of the chief special agent in
charge of the seal islands, St. Paul
Island, under date of entry as follows:
“Tuesday, June 17, 1896.’’)

Evermann swears that there
are no regulations by Nagel which
prohibit the killing of yearlings.

Dr. EvERMANN. Page 8, Mr. Elhott
says:

“The law and the regulations of Mr.
Nagel forbid the killing of any seal ‘under
two years of age.’”’

The law has never forbidden the killing
of male seals under two years of age; nor
has any regulation issued by Secretary
Nagel. (Hearing No. 10, p. 585, Apr. 24,
1912.)

1.

killing yearling male seals, except in 1904
to 1909.

But I shall not rest with that answer.
Although it has always been perfectly
legal to kill l-year-old male seals, and
although the regulations, with the excep-
tion of the few years mentioned, have
never said that l-year-old male seals
should not be killed, nevertheless the
agents’ reports state and show that it has
never been the practice during these
twenty-odd years to kill any seals under
2 years old. This has been explicitly
stated again and again by the agents, and
the department has no reason to doubt the
truth of their reports. (Hearing No. 10,

. 493, Apr. 24, 1912, Ho: Com. Exp.

ept. Com. and Labor.)

But Lembkey swears, February
29, 1912, that there are such regu-
lations, and which have the force
of law.

Dr. EVERMANN. On page 8, line 8 from
the bottom, you say:

“The law and regulations of Mr. Nagel
forbids the killing of any seal ‘under two
years of age.’”

Is that true.

Mr. Exuiorr. That is true.

Dr. EvermMAnn. Does the law say so?

Mr. Exuniorr. The ‘law and regula-
tions” say so; yes.

Dr. EverMANN. Does the law say so?

Mr. Exniotr. Yes; the regulations have
the force of law. (Hearing No. 10, p.
613, Apr. 24, 1912.)

Mr. Lempxey. It may be useful to bear
in mind, however, that small seals and
female seals may be taken at any time for
natives’ food without violation of existing
law.

Mr. MappeENn. It would not be allowed
under the regulations?

Mr. Lempxery. Under the regulations
it would not be, but it would not be an
illegal act to kill those if the regulations
would allow such practice. I am just
bringing out that point.

Mr. Mappen. You say that the regula-
tions do not allow it?

Mr. Lempxey. No.

Mr. Mappen. And the regulations have
the effect of law?

Mr. McGituicuppy. Yes.

Mr. Manppen. If they were killed it
would be a violation of law.

Mr. Lempxey. It would; if the regula-
tions permitted it, however, it would be
in accordance with existing law.

It should be remembered also that the
law does not prohibit the killing of any
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age,
although regulations of the department
do prohibit the killing of anything less

172

Assistant Agent Judge, in order
to save the ‘‘spared’”’ 3-year-olds
from being all killed as ‘‘food
seals,”’ urges a 7-pound maximum
skin limit for such seals.

Presuming that branding of bachelors
is to continue, a rule fixing a maximum
weight of 7 pounds for food skins taken in
the fall would save the 3-year-olds, which
I take to be the all-important object.
(Appendix, A, p. 180: Report of Asst.
Agent Jas. Judge, St. George Island, June
5, 1905, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor, June 24, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

than 2 years old, or those seals which have
returned to the islands from their second
migration. ‘

Mr. Townsenp. That is a regulation of
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?

Mr. Lempxey. Of Commerce and
Labor; yes, sir. (Hearing No. 9, p. 372,
Mar. 1, 1912.)

But Lembkey, with the Bureau
of Fisheries ‘‘science,’’ orders an
‘*83-pound’’ maximum food skin
limit, so as to get those ‘‘re-
served’? seals of June and July
in October and November follow-
ing.

Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lemb-
key, did you prohibit their killing them?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.

. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.

. Exiiorr. In 1904?

Mr. Lempxey. Yes.

. Exiiorr. Did you do it in 1905?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.

Mr. Exsiorr. How did you do it? You
had no brand on them.

Mr. Lempxery. By fixing a limit of
84 pounds on the skins to be taken.

Mr. Exxiorr. How could you preserve
any skins without having them marked?

Mr. Lempxey. We would avoid the
killing of them and thereby preserve
them. Ji you do not kill a seal you allow
it to live, do you not?

Mr. Exsiorr. My dear sir, how do you
know what you see hereafter? Every seal
after it passes its third year without a
mark on it, you kill it.

Mr. Lempkey. | beg your pardon?

Mr. Exniorr. Every seal that passed
from its third year, that passed from 1904,
became a 4-year-old in 1905, did it not?

Mr. Lempxeny. Yes. (Hearing No. 9,
p. 458, Apr. 13,1912) HB. Com. aap.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]

Dr. EVERMANN:

“Src. 8. Sizes of killable seals —No
seals shall be killed having skin weighing
less than 5 pounds nor more than 8}
pounds.

“Src. 10. Seals for food.—The number
of seals to be killed by the natives for food
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906,
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of St.
Paul and 500 on the island of St. George,
subject to the same limitations and re-
strictions as apply to the killing of seals by
the company for the quota.’’ (Hearing
No. 10, pp. 483, 484; Apr. 20, 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Dr. Evermann says he did not
wish to renew the lease—not he;
nor did any of his official asso-
ciates; oh, no—

Dr. EverMANN. Now, as to re-leasing
the islands, 1 do not understand the pur-
pose of Mr. Elliott and certain followers of
his in seeking to show that the advisory
board, the Bureau of Fisheries, and their
individual members favored re-leasing the
islands.

Your attention is called also to the
recommendations of the advisory board
dated November 23, 1909. Recommen-
dation No. 3 says:

“Tt is recommended that there be
adopted a system of regulations similar to
those in force on the Commander Islands,
the Government tq assume entire control
in all essential matters pertaining to the
fur seals, blue foxes, natives, and the
islands in general, and the lessee to be
restricted to the receiving, curing, and
shipping of the skins taken.’’

This recommendation was unanimously
agreed to by the advisory board, fur-seal
service (Dr. David Starr Jordan, chair-
man; Dr. Leonard Stejneger, Dr. Fred-
eric A. Lucas, Mr. Edwin W. Sims, Dr.
Charles H. Townsend), the fur-seal board
(Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, chair-
man; Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, and Mr.
Millard ©. Marsh), the Commissioner of
Fisheries (Hon. George M. Bowers), the
Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries (Dr.
Hugh M. Smith), assistant fur-seal agent
(H. D. Chichester), and special scientific
expert (Mr. George A. Clark). (See p.
814, Appendix A.)

I desire the committee to note also that
the elimination of the lessee was thus
recommended long before Dr. Hornaday,
representing the Camp Fire Club, ap-
peared before the Senate Committee on
Conservation and properly opposed the
leasing system, which he did at the hear-
ings of February 26 and March 22, 1910.
This was more than a year after Dr. Jor-
dan had expressed the “hope that the
Government will not under any circum-
stances lease the products of the islands,
at least in such form as has been in vogue
for the past 40 years.’’ And it was more
than three months after the Commissioner
of Fisheries and six other members of the
Bureau of Fisheries united with the ad-
visory board in a recommendation that
the leasing system be discontinued.
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 981, 982, July 29,
1912.)

173

But his record shows that he
was hard at the very job, with
those associates in full cry with
him, too.

Mr. Exuiorr. And I want Mr. Bowers to
pay some attention to this because this
is impoitant, at least some good lawyers
have told me that it is very important to
him—

‘‘Being an official letter covering a
‘memorandum’ addressed to George M.
Bowers, commissioner, urging him to take
steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon
fur-seal resolutions introduced in the
United States Senate by Senator Joseph
M. Dixon. (S. Res. 90, 91, 92.)

‘‘December 7, 1909. This letter from
the ‘bureau,’ dated December 16, 1909,
and signed by Barton W. Evermann,
urges Bowers to send agents to New York,
there to ‘educate’ the Camp Fire Club
and induce them to agree to the ‘bureau’s
idea of renewing the lease,’ as follows:

Exuipit No. 6.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND LABOR,
BuREAU. OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 16, 1909.

The CoMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10
last announced that the Campfire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla-
tion designed to prevent the re-leasing of
the sealing right, the cessation of all kill-
ing on the islands for 10 years except for
natives’ food, and to secure the opening
of negotiations with Great Britain to re-
vise the regulations of the. Paris tribunal.
As the result of this movement, on Decem-
ber 7 three resolutions were introduced by
Senator Dixon, of Montana, one of which
embodies the provisions before mentioned,
the other two calling for the publication
of fur-seal correspondence and reports
since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at
variance with the program of this bureau
and of the recommendations of the advis-
ory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to
prevent killing and the renewal of the
seal-island lease, the advisability is sug-
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lucas,
and Stanley-Brown use their influence
with such members of the Campfire Club
as they may be acquainted with, with the
object of correctly informing the club as
to the exact present status of the seal
question and of securing its cooperation
to effect tle adoption of the measures
advocated by this bureau.

The attached letter is prepared, having
in view the object stated.

Barton W. EveRMANN.

174

- The self-confessed sham _ of
“accurate count,’ or ‘‘census,’’
of the fur-seal herd.

_ Mr. Exttorr. I call your attention to
the census tables that you have just been
talking about, and on page 606 this
appears:

‘Official reports of Department of
Commerce and Labor to Congress from
1904, annually, made to close of season
of 1909, declare that in 1904, 243,103 seals
of all classes alive August 1, 1904; 1905,
223,000 seals. of all classes alive August
1, 1905; 1906, 185,000 seals of all classes
alive August 1, 1906.”

And. so on. You bring this down to
August 1, 1910, and in 1911 you an-
nounced to the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs that there were about
133,000 seals of all classes alive. Now,
in 1904, according to this statement,
there were 243,103 seals of all classes alive
August 1, 1904. Now, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to have Dr. Evermann explain
to your committee why in these long
series of census tables—from 1904 to
1911—he has made no subtraction for
loss by pelagic sealing, the most ‘‘terrible
destruction” which he claims was at
work on that herd; and why in making up
these census tables and emitting these
official alarm calls to Congress about this
‘terrible destruction” he neglects to
subtract that loss from these tables.

The CHarrman. What do you mean
by ‘‘loss”?

Mr. Exuorr. The loss entailed by
pelagic sealing. There is not a seal
subtracted from these tables for that;
not a single seal that the pelagic hunter
has destroyed since 1904.

The CHatrMaANn. What is the object of
your statement in this connection?

Mr. Exuiotr. To show that these
census tables are of no value; they mean
nothing; they do not show the number of
seals that are there. He admits it here
tonight; that these seals are out at sea
and wandering about in the nebulous
North Pacific, and they have them all

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

“Exhibit No. 7. Being the official letter
of ‘George M. Bowers, commissioner,’ to
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated
February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease
and giving the reasons of the writers for
such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, presi-
dent N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for ‘fur-seal
advisory board,’ dated January 31, 1910,
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A.
C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as fol-

lows.’’? (Hearing No. 3, p. 157,{June 9,
1911.)
Evermann swears that the

“ghost dance”’ seals at sea always
supply the loss on land:—Stej-
neger, ‘‘authority.”’

The CHairMAN. If that is the case,
let Dr. Evermann explain it.

Dr. Evermann. The pelagic sealers
do the deducting

Mr. Exuiorr (interposing). You do not;
you keep right on.

Dr. EVERMANN (continuing). And we
count only what are left.

The CuartrmMan. It seems to me from
what he read and the way Mr. Elliott
puts the question to the witness, that he
is under the impression that if you take
the census, say, of 1909, in August, and
there are found 100,000 seals, that next
year when those seals return you should
deduct the number that were killed by
pelagic sealers in calculating the next
census. Is that correct?

Mr. Exsiorr. That is it; and they have
got to do it; if not done, then the census
is erroneous.

Dr. Evermann. Of course, that is
perfectly easily understood. You will
recall that in Dr. Stejneger’s testimony
he made the statement that his observa-
tion and study of the question lead him
to believe that a relatively small per-
centage of the yearling seals are ever
present on the islands at any one time,
and that a large percentage of the 2-year-
olds are not on the islands, and that even
a percentage of the older seals—the 3,
4, and 5 year old seals—are not upon the
islandsallthe time. Now, thosenumbers,
it seems to me, that are not upon the
islands at any time will enter into the
catch by the pelagic sealers. But
whether they do or not, that would not
justify you in reporting a fewernumber
of seals upon the islands than is actually
there. Suppose the census of 1910
showed on the islands 100,000 seals at the
end of the killing season and the statistics
of the pelagic catch showed a killing
of exactly 100,000 seals between the
time of taking that census and the time
that you would take the next census in

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

“‘counted in their minds.’’ (Hearing
No. 14, pp. 935-937, July 25, 1912.)

Evermann swears that no man
has ever been able to truly tell the
seal’s age, as a yearling, 2-year-
old, ete.

Dr. Evermann. No one knows and no
one ever has known the age of any seal
on the seal islands, barring, of course, the
pups of the year that have not yet left.
When a pup is born on the islands, so
long as it stays there you know its age,
but when it leaves in the fall and comes
back again the neXt season, you do not
know absolutely whether it is the pup
born in the preceding summer or one born
two or three summers preceding.

(In the hearing on H. R. 16571, House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, January 3,
1912, page 48.) (Hearing No. 14, p. 930,
July 25, 1912.)

Evermann does not know the
age of one seal on the islands, yet
he is able to count them all by
ages!

Mr. Extrorr. Again, in the hearing on
H. R. 16571, House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, January 3, 1912, page 48, he says:

“No one knows and no one ever has
known the age of any seal on the seal is-
lands, barring, of course, the pups of the
vear that have not vet left. Whena pup
is born on the island, so long as it stays
there you know its age, but when it leaves
in the fall and comes back again the next
season, you do not know absolutely
whether 1t is the pup born in the preced-
ing summer or one bern two or three sum-
mers preceding.”’

He tells you, and he told them, that he
did not know a 3-year-old from a 1-year-
old or a l-year-old from a 2-year-old, and
“that no man knows.’’ Now. what does
he do? The next day before that com-
mittee, January 4, 1912, page 129, Dr.
Evermann says:

“At the end of the killing season of
1910; that is, after the 12,922 surplus male
seals were killed, this was the census of

175

191i1—then, if that were true, and if Mr.
Elliott’s contention were true, there
should not be a single seal on the islands
in 1911, should there? But we look and
see, and if we find any there we count
them. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 935, 936,
July 25, 1912.)

But, the next day he returns,
and is able to tell the ages of
each and every seal in the herd!

Mr. iiiorr. He tells you, and he told
them, that he did not know a 3-year-old
from a l-year-old or a 1-vear-old from a
2-year-old, and ‘‘that no man knows,’’
Now, what does he do? The next day
before that committee, January 4, 1912,
page 129, Dr. Evermann says:

“At the end of the killing season of
1910, that is, after the 12,922 surplus male
seals were killed, this was the census of
the herd: Bulls, active with harem, 1,381;
bulls, idle and quitters, 303 (those are
surplus bulls); half bulls, 2,336; 3-year-
old bachelors, 1.200; 2-year-old bachelors,
4,500; yearling bachelors, 11,441.”’

Oh, he can count them now!

‘‘Male pups, 21,725.”

Oh, he counts them down to 5!

‘Yearling bachelors, 11.441; male pups,
21,725; breeding cows, 43,450; 2-year-old
cows, 12,124; yearling females, 11,441;
female pups, 21,725, making a total of
131,626.’ (Hearing No. 14, p. 930, July
2H AGIA.)

He classifies them as “green
forms,’ ‘‘red forms,” etc., and
then counts these ‘‘forms” of
various color!

Dr. EverMANN. May I say just a word?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. EvprMann. My statement on page
48 is absolutely correct, and anyone can
see that it is correct when you consider it
fora moment. We know the ages of the
pups that are born, say, this yeac on the
island; we know their ages as long as they
stay under observation, but when they
leave in the fall and we see nothing more
of them until the next spring it is perfectly
evident that it is impossible for anybody
to pick out any seal next spring and iden-
tifv it with any particular seal which was
on the island the year before unless it has
a distinguishing mark upon it, and these
pups have no distinguishing mark, of
course. You could say that all of the
books in this room of that color [indicat-
ing] were black and that all of some other
color were red, and so on. That would
answer our purposes for classification;
yet in this case we know it is not true, be-
cause this book is not black. And in the

176

the herd: Bulls, active with harem, 1,38];
bulls, idle and quitters, 303 (those are
surplus bulls); half bulls, 2,336; 3-year-
old bachelors, 1,200; 2-year-old bache-
lors, 4,500; yearling bachelors, 11,441.”

Oh, he can count them now!

“*Male pups, 21,725.1””

Oh, he counts them down to 5!

“Yearling bachelors, 11,441; male pups,
21,725; breeding cows, 43,450; 2-year-old
cows, 12,124; yearling females, 11,441;
female pups, 21,725, making a total of
131,626.’ (Hearing No. 14, pp. 930, 931,
July 25, 1912.)

Evermann swears that the skins
are getting better every year un-
der ‘‘scientific’? management.

Mr. Exxiorr. Now, there is some-
thing, and since Dr. Evermann is here I
am going to introduce it. Before the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jan-
uary 4, 1912, Dr. Evermann, in the
course of his address, said (see p. 128):

““The skins which go to them this year
are better than those which they received
last year [that is, 1910], and those last
year were better than those received the

year before [that is, 1909], and so on.”

On page 1007 of Appendix A to hearings
before this Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and La-
bor is a letter from Alired Fraser,to George

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

other case we do not know the seal is a
3-year-old seal or a 2-year-old seal; but
the probabilities are that those seals which
we call 3-year-old seals are 3-year-old
seals, and the probabilities are that those
we call 2-year-old seals are 2-year-old
seals; but it is not a matter of knowledge;

The Cuairman. You think you are
dealing with probabilities and not mathe-
matical exactness?

Dr. EvErMANN. We are simply hand-
ling a series of objects which are before
us, which can, by their sizes and appear-
ances, be put into different classes. We
put them into different classes, and we
give them designated terms. We say that
these possessing this size and this general
appearance we will call 3-year-olds; those
that have certain differences from the
3-year-olds we call 2-year-olds. But we
do not know it, and Mr. Elliott does not
know it.

Mr. Exurotr. I never assumed I did
anything like it and never made the stu-
pid assumption.

Dr. EvERMANN. Mr. Elliott says that
because certain skins weigh certain
weights they must have been year-
hngs

Mr. Ex.iorr (interposing.) I know it.

Dr. Evermann. But he does not know
anything about it, any more than the rest
of us; he assumes they are yearling seals.
It is assumed that skins which weigh less
than 5 pounds are yearlings, and that as-
sumption is probably correct.

Mr. Ex.iorr. You do not know ii, but
I do.

Dr. EverMANN. IJ think that is all I
care to say. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 931,
932, July 25, 1912.)

But, the London sales expert
regrets to find that the skins are
getting poorer year after year.

New York, November 25, 1910.

GeEorGcE M. Bowers, Esq.,
Commissioner Bureau of Fisheries,
Department of Commerce and
Labor, Washington, D. C.

Dear Srr: Inclosed I beg to hand you
particulars of assortment of the Alaska fur
seal received this day from C. M. Lampson
& Co., whose valuation of the skins based
upon the prices realized for last year’s
catch is 12,732 skins at 144s. average per
skin and 188 skins at 120s. ave.age per
skin. The latter I presume are food
skins.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

M. Bowers, dated November 25, 1910, in
which this language appears:

_ ‘Dear Stir: Inclosed I beg to hand you
particulars of assortment of the Alaska fur
seal received this day from C. M. Lamp-
son & Co., whose valuation of the skins,
based upon the prices realized for last
year’s catch, is 12,732 skins at 144s. aver-
age per skin, and 188 skins at 120s. aver-
age per skin. The latter I presume are
food skins.

‘“‘T regret to find that the assortment is
not quite up to that of last year’s catch.”

Now, how do you reconcile your state-
ment to the House Committee on For-
eign Affairs with this official notification
that you are not telling the truth?

Dr. EvermMann. To what year does
that refer?

Mr. Exuiorr. That refers to the catch
of the year 1910‘being better than the
year 1909.

Dr. EvERMANN. My references are to
the years 1910 and 1911.

Mr. Euiorr (interposing). You go
back to the year 1909.

Dr. EvERMANN. No.

Mr. Exxrorr. You do.

He was speaking on January 4, 1912,
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
the House, and speaking of the catch
of 1911. He could not speak of the catch
of 1912, for he did not know and no one
could know about the catch at that
time; and if he did not know how it was
taken, how could he say they were better
than the catch of 1911? I want him to
answer that question.

Dr. EverMANN. We know what our
policy is as to possible improvement of
the catch from year to year. (Hearing
No. 14, p. 929, July 29, 1912.)

Evermann swears that there is
no word from London that the
skins are getting inferior.

Dr. Evermann. And Dr. Hornaday,
while admitting that some males are still
left, claims that they are not virile. Both
Mr, Elliott and Dr. Hornaday claim that
virile male life has been inadequate for
many years.

If such has been the case, the herd
should show evidences of physical deteri-
oration. But those who have seen the
herd in recent years say there is no evi-
dence of physical deterioration; the
individual seals are just as large and fine
and fit at any given age as they ever were.

Mr. Extiotr. How do they know it?
How do those natives know it?

Dr. EverMANN. There has been no
complaint from London that the skins
were notasfineastheyeverwere. (Hear-
ing No. 10, p. 605, Apr. 20, 1912.)

21588—13——12

ir

I regret to find that the assortment is
not quite up to that of last year’s catch.

The percentages of the several grades of
skins as compared with last year’s collec-
tion are as follows:

Condition. Number.| 1910 1909
J Per ct. | Per.ct.
Prime siins. 22-22 ..25 9,999 | 78.53 83.28
Thowrskans eso ee enesnes 1,255 9. 86 5. 82
Cutiskins*)-295).. teo525 821 8.21 6.45
Rubbed skins.......... 621 4.88 3.53
Faulty: skins ys 225) s.<- 36 128 -28
12,732 | 100 100

The skins count up two short of the
number invoiced, but they will be re-
counted on delivery.

I regret to state that the fur trade so far
this season is dull, owing in a great meas-
ure to the very high cost of all articles,
but business will no doubt improve
should cold weather set in.

I have reason to believe that the num-
ber of pelagic seal taken this year will be
about equal to that of last year.

Yours, very truly,
ALFRED FRASER.

Mr. Secretary: Not as satisfactory as
I should like to have seen this statement.
Am home and can not leave to-day.
Gro. M. Bowers.

NOVEMBER 26, 1910.
(Appendix A, p. 1007, June 24, 1911.)

But the word from London is
published up to January 17, 1913,
that the skins are inferior from
year to year, growing more so!

London sales: January 17, 1913.
Philips Politzer & Co., report.

Alaskas 3,773 skins (December, 1911,
12,492). The quantity offered was about
a quarter of the last sale (December, 1911
and with the exception of some so-calle
‘food skins” no more are expected for
five years. The present collection was
not up to the usual standard in phasor or
appearance, in spite of which, however,
prices remained very firm. (Fur Trade
Review, New York, February, 1913,

p. 66.)

178

Evermann quotes Townsend
and Lucas to prove that the
seals just naturally trample their
young to death.

Dr. Evermann. I desire to incorporate
in my statement the following from Dr.
Charles H. Townsend, Mr. George A.
Clark, and Dr. F. A. Lucas, three of the
best informed men in this or any other
country on the fur-seal question, all of
whom were members of the Fur-Seal
Commissions of 1896 and 1897:

[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.]
THE PRIBILOF FUR-SEAL HERD.

In Science of February 2, 1912, Mr.
McLean, of the Campfire Club’s commit-
tee on game protection, says, among other
things, about the diminishing fur-seal
herd, that ‘“‘the best remedy is to let it
absolutely alone.”

Nature’s methods are wasteful.

Last November I had some correspond
ence with a Member of the House of
Representatives, who was taking the agi-
tation of the Campfire Club against the
killing of surplus male seals very seriously.
I quote the following from a letter I wrote
to him at that time:

‘“‘In order to prevent annual loss of
new-born young, we must prevent the
flooding of the breeding grounds by big
males. The logical way to do this is to
market a large proportion of the 3-year
olds, as we always have done, and thus
prevent them from growing up into value-
less but dangerous and destructive super-
numeraries.

‘“‘I take exception to the line in your
letter ‘unless the herd is further depleted
by the Bureau of Fisheries.’ The herd
is not to be ‘depleted,’ as the females are
already saved for 15 years by the cessation
of pelagic sealing, but the polygamous
male part of the herd must be depleted
(to quote your word again) if you propose
to mature all your annual crop of infant
seals. Nature will do the depleting if
you don’t, and half the loss will be female
pups.

The fact is that the innocent Camp Fire
Club is being used by the unscrupulous
lobby which has always been kept at
work by the pelagic sealers. One excuse
suits it as well as another; this time it is
the killing of surplus males. It is a pity
that year after year it should succeed in

etting the support of men of good stand-
ing who happen to be ignorant of the real
facts involved.
C. H. TownseEnp,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.

eye No. 10: pp. 597-598, Apr. 25,

FUR-SHEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But Evermann did not know
that Lucas would soon be obliged
to deny that trampled-pup fiction.

The Coarrman. About how many days?

Dr. Lucas. About 50 days in 1896, al-
lowing about 9 days’ time spent at sea,
going to and from one island to another.

Mr. Exuiotr. In 1897 how many days
were you on the islands?

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days.

Mr. Exyrotr. On the islands?

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number.
I have the exact data right here.

Mr. Exxiorr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?

Dr. Lucas. No.

Mr. Exxuiorr. You know there is a re-
port of some 46 pages with your name
associated with Dr. Jordan as one of the
distinguished scientists who had made this
close study of the seals that. summer.
Now, in 1897, you discovered those pups
were not trampled to death, didn’t you?

Dr. Lucas. The greater part of them.
Yes; we revised our causes of the previous
year.

Mr. Exxiorr. Who revised them?

Dr. Lucas. I.did most of it, because I
was the one on whom devolved this re-
port on the causes of mortality. (Hearing
No. 12, pp. 719, 720, May 16) 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Evermann takes Hornaday to
task for expression of opinion; for
lack of experience unfits him—

DR. HORNADAY’S STATEMENTS REGARD-
ING THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE FUR
SEAL.

Dr. EVERMANN: It is with extreme re-
luctance that I venture to call attention
to what I believe to be fundamental mis-
takes in Dr. Hornaday’s testimony before
this committee and the Senate Committee
on Conservation of National Resources.
Dr. Hornaday and I are good friends, and
have been such for many years.
appreciate the splendid work he has done
as director of the New York Zoological
Park and his interesting contributions to
popular natural ,history literature. I
realize, however, that in this fur-seal
matter he has relied chiefly upon Mr.
Elliott for his data. Dr. Hornaday ad-
mitted before this committee that he had
never been on the seal islands; that he
had never seen a fur-seal herd; that he
had never seen a live fur seal except the
two now at the Bureau of Fisheries and
the one in the New York Aquarium fur-
nished it by the United States Bureau of
Fisheries; and, moreover, that he does not
claim to be an expert on the life history
of the fur seal. He even admits that he
does ‘‘not pose as having expert informa-
tion of that kind” and that his ‘‘interest
in that phase of the subject is largely
academic.’’ Those statements are en-
tirely frank and fair. One who has never
been on the seal islands or who has not
seen considerable numbers of fur seals
can not possess any knowledge of the sub-
ject. Knowledge is acquired only through
personal experience; this Dr. Hornaday
hasnothad. The life history of an animal
can be studied only by observing the
animals themselves; this Dr. Hornaday
has had no opportunity to do. The most
that he can have is information, and that
will be reliable and of value only if ob-
tained from trustworthy sources. (Hear-
ing No. 10, pp. 601, 602, Apr. 25, 1902.)

Evermann quotes 22 men in
support of a self-confessed bio-
logical untruth.

Dr. EverMaAnn. Here we have a list of
more than a dozen naturalists, practically
all of whom are men of international repu-
tation and all of whom are known as men
of education, intelligence, and unim-
peachable character. Then there is an
equal number of careful business men of
unquestioned honesty and ability.

These 22 men are all men of ability and
integrity. Each and every one of them

I fully.

big

But, it soon develops that
Evermann himself lacks experi-
ence in the same premises.

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVER-
MANN, CHIEF, ALASKA FISHERIES SERV-
ICE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

Mr. Extiotr. Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?

Dr. EverMANN. In the spring of 1892.

Mr. Exuiorr. When did you land there?

Dr. EverMANN. I do not recall the
exact date when I landed on either of the
islands.

Mr. Exzrorr. Do you know the month?

Dr. EVERMANN. It was either July or
August.

Mr. Evtrorr. Was that your first land-
ing?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.

Mr. Exxiorr. Which island did you
land on?

Dr. EveRMANN. I first landed on St.
Paul, and later I went to St. George.

Mr. Extiorr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?

Dr. EVERMANN. Some time in July or
August.

Mr. Extiorr. How long did you stay
there?

Dr. EveRMANN. Only a few days.

Mr. Exxiorr. What do you mean by a
‘“‘few days’’?

Dr. EverMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.

Mr. Exxiorr. Was it two days?

Dr. Evermann. It was about a week
or 10 days. (I have since consulted the
record; I find I was on the Pribilof
Islands continuously from July 19 to
July 31.) (Hearing No. 10, p. 621, Apr.
25, 1912.)

Elliott exposes the deceit prac-
tised by Evermann in asserting
that untruth.

The CHAIRMAN. Just make a note that
the statement will be found in hearing
No. 3 at page so-and-so.

Mr. Extiotr. Hearing No. 3, page 155.
It is in connection with a ‘‘comparison of
the proposed lease of the seal islands with
the present lease,’’ and under section 4
these words occur:

“The lease should be renewed. It is
foolish to abolish killing on land while

180

has seen the fur-seal herd, has made a
study of the various problems involved in
its proper management, and they are
unanimously agreed on the following
propositions:

5. The surplus males should be killed
before they reach the age of 5 years, be-
cause when they have attained that age
their skins become relatively of little
value.

6. If the surplus males are not killed
they not only become valueless for their
skins, but they grow up into bulls not
needed for breeding purposes, but which
nevertheless pass on to the rookeries,
where they do great damage to the breed-
ing herd by fighting among themselves
for possession of the cows, often tearing
the cows to pieces, so injuring them that
many of their pups are still-born, tramp-
ling the helpless pups to death, exhaust-
ing their own vitality and virility, and
rendering themselves less potent than
they would be without such useless
struggle—in short, causing infinite trouble
and injury to the rookeries without a
single compensating advantage.

Mr. McGutrre. Does that involve the
conclusion of anyone else? Are those
conclusions of your own based——

Dr. EVERMANN (interposing). No; those
are the conclusions of these twenty-odd
people, whose names I have read. Now,
on the other side, against those 22, we will
place Mr. Elliott, and Mr. Elliott alone.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 520, 521, Apr. 24,
1912.)

Evermann swears a salted seal-
skin shrinks 6 inches from its
green length.

Mr. McGuire. I would lke a little
more light with reference to this first skin.
The seal, as I understand it, measured 434
inches.

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.

Mr. McGuire. Those are your figures?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGurre. Those are the official
measurements made by the agents of the
Government?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire. The skin now, not when
it was taken from the seal, but now, in a
salted condition, measures 344 inches.
Am I right about that?

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuirr. Now, you asked Mr.
Elliott to state from those measurements
the age of that seal.

Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire. And he, as he stated,

taking Lampson & Co.’s figures as a basis,

stated that 1t was a yearling?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

seals are being killed in the water. Cessa-
tion of killing on land means encourage-
ment to pelagic sealing. Should pelagic
or sea killing be abolished, it might be
well to have a closed season on land as
well as to allow the herd to recuperate.’’

The Cuarrman. Who says this?

Mr. Extiorr. The Bureau of Fisheries,
the advisory board, and the whole scien-
tific aggregation—‘‘a closed season to
allow the herd to recuperate,’’ whereas
they now claim there will be “‘trampled
pups” and “‘torn females” if they are
allowed ‘‘to recuperate” during ‘‘a closed
season.’’? These men have conjured up
that story, and it is faked. It is not
published in any official document; no
man, from Dr. Jordan down to the smallest
one of his associates, has published such
a statement in all of their official reports
up to 1909. It is only recently, in a com-
munication from the Bureau of Fisheries
to the Senate, that they now say, as
“‘scientists,’’ if these animals are allowed
to grow up there in a closed season they
will go onto the rookeries and ‘‘fight and
tear the females to pieces and trample the
young to death.”’

The CHarrman. Well, we have had
that before.

Mr. Exuiorr. You have never had this
unwitting self-confession of utter insin-
cerity before; this is the first you have
had it, so confessed by them, brought to
your attention. (Hearing No. 14, pp.
970, 971, July 29, 1912.)

But in a sworn deposition nine
native sealers say that properly
salted sealskins do not shrink un-
der the green lengths.

St. Pau Isnanp, ALASKA,
Town Hall, July 24, 1918.

Question. Did you drive and kill seals
last summer?

Answer. Yes.

Question. How large were they?

Answer. We killed them by ages as we
killed them before. Mr. Lembkey was
the Government agent and Mr. G. A.
Clark was counting the seals. When we
were salting skins last year, Mr. Clark did
not allow us to stretch the skins as we
always have done and do when spreading
them in the trench as we salt them. We
stretch them out about 2 or 3 inches as we
spread them, then put salt on them, and
then they shrink back into their natural
shape. (Native sealers’ deposition to
Agents.H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor, July 24, 1913, pp. 93-95; Rep’t
said agents, Aug. 31, 1913.)

Mr. Lempxey. I have attempted to
state that in measuring a green skin it is*

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Dr. EvERMANN. Yes, sir.
No. 10; p. 531; Apr. 24, 1912.)

Mr. Evtiorr. Then when you remove
this skin you leave how much on it?

Mr. LemsBxey. I suppose about 3 to 33
inches.

Mr. Extiotr. No more?

Mr. Lempxey. We take off as much
skin as we can. It is my impression that
we do not leave more than 3 inches. I
have stated that repeatedly to the com-
mittee. (Hearing No. 9, p. 448, Apr. 18,
1912.)

(Hearing

Evermann swears that salting
a sealskin decreases its weight;
he submits “proof or Uh

Dr. EvERMANN. Last year, when Mr. M.
C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went
to the Pribilof Islands, he was instructed
to make certain investigations, one of
which was to determine by actual experi-
ment the effect that salting has upon the
weight of fur-seal skins. He made a very
careful investigation of the matter, and
his report has just been received. It is
so interesting and valuable that I wish to
put it in the record. His investigation
settles the question conclusively and for
all time. It shows that salting causes
fur-seal skins to lose weight. The report
‘is as follows:

“The average loss of weight for the whole
60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces. This
is an understatement of the average loss of
weight, which, I believe, is at least an
ounce greater. The reason is that it is
practically impossible to mechanically re-
move all the salt from the skins before
reweighing. They were shaken, swept,
and brushed, but a few grains and crystals
of salt were always left adhering to each
side of the skin. Obviously it would not
do to wash them off. By more carefully
cleaning a few of the reweighed skins and
then again weighing them, I estimate this
residual salt to average an ounce or some-
thing more.

“The careful identification of every skin
and the care given to every detail of the
weighing make it quite certain that the
salting of sealskins as practiced on St.
Paul Island subtracts materially from its
original weight when freshly skinned.
Presumably, though not necessarily, the
London weights reported are less than the
actual weights of the skins at the island
killings. If any change takes place dur-
ing transportation to London, it is likely
to be a further loss, and if the London

181

impossible to find out its exact length
when you lay it on the ground, because it
may curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can
only be measured after it has become har-
dened by salt.

Mr. McGruuicuppy. Then it will not
stretch?

Mr. Lempxey. Certainly not.

Mr. McGruicuppy. That is the proper
time to measure it, after it has become
rigid and stiff?

Mr. LemBxkey. Certainly.

Mr. McGruuicuppy. You can not then
stretch or shrink it?

Mr. LemBxey. No, sir. (Hearing No.
9, pp. 399, 400, Mar. 1, 1912.)

Chief Special Agent Lembkey
makes an official record of fact
which exposes the trick of Ever-
mann:

Chief Special Agent Lembkey makes
the following entry on page 149 of the jour-
nal of the Government agent on St. Paul
Island, to wit:

Saturpay, July 23, 1904.

On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi
were weighed and salted. To-day they
were hauled out of the trench and re-
weighed. At the time of killing they
weighed 705 pounds, and on being taken
out they weighed 7594 pounds, a gain in
salting of 544 pounds, or one-half pound
per skin. (Report Agents H. Com. Exp.
Dep. Com., Aug. 31, 1913, p. 112.)

182

weights deal with the skin in the condi-
tion in which it arrives, freed of most of
the salt about which it is wrapped, a loss,
compared with the fresh weight, almost
without exception, will appear.’’ (Hear-
ing No. 14, pp. 974, 975, July 29, 1912.)

Evermann and his ‘‘scientific”’
associates declare that the fur-
seal breeding nuclus of 50,000
cows will require eight years in
which to double itself:

Mr. Extiorr. Then, with this testimony
in his hands, Mr. W. I. Lembkey and his
associates in the Bureau of Fisheries went
before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, January 3, 1912, and the following
statement was then made that day to this
committee by Mr. Lembkey, to wit (pp.
40, 41, hearings on H. R. 16571, Jan. 3, 4
1912):

“The CHairnMAN. Assuming, Mr. Lemb-
key, that there was a closed season on the
Pribilof herd for a period of 10 years, what,
in your opinion, would be the number i in
the herd at the expiration of that time?

‘‘Mr. Lempxey. I regret to state that
the increase would not be as phenomenal
as has been held out before this and other
committees. As nearly as I can approxi-
mate it, the increase in seal life which
would result from an absolute cessation of
pelagic sealing would equal 100 per cent
every nine years. That is to say, theherd
would double itself every nine years. I
am willing to say eight years. We will
say the herd will double itself every eight
years. Now, if we should start in 1911
with approximately 50,000 breeding fe-
males, in 1919 we would have 100,000
breeding females, representing an increase
of 100 per cent within a period of eight
years. During the next eight years, how-
ever, the 100,000 breeding females would
increase to 200,000, representing a net in-
crease in the period of 16 years of 150,000
breeding females, and, of course, the next
eight years would see 400,000 breeding
females in the herd. While they would
increase at the same ratio, the numerical
increase would be much greater as the
herd became larger.

“The CHAIRMAN. That applies to both
the males and females?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Elhott follows with table of in-
crease, which declares that 50,000
breeding nucleus will double itself
in five years, and that total,
100,000, will double itself in the
next four years, and so on:

Mr. Extiotr. As Mr. Lembkey did not
finish his statement in general, and was
followed immediately by Dr. Evermann,
I did not get in my answer to it until the
next day’ssession. In due time I reached
it, and took this particular question up as
follows; see pages 98 to 101, inclusive,
hearings on H. R. 16571. Now, gentle-
men, I am going to read this to you and
ask that you interrupt me, and where you
think I am not clear, for here is the crux
of the business:

“‘T will now show you a table, Exhibit
F, which will surprise you. Yesterday
the representative of the Bureau of Fish-
eries, and the scientists behind them, told
you it will take eight years to double the
50,000 females now surviving. You heard
that statement that it would take eight
years, and then another eight years would
ensue before we had 200,000 cows. Why,
the assumption was so_ transparently
foolish that even the chairman, who had
never given it a thought, at once began to
pick it to pieces. Let me submit to youa
statement of annual increase from a
nucleus of 50,000 breeding female seals on
the Pribilof rookeries, which will follow a
complete cessation of killing male seals
thereon, provided that that rest dates
from February 1, 1912, or from and after
the pee of this act, and is not broken
until the Ist of February, 1928, being a
close time of 15 years. This suspension of
all such killing as above cited will enable
the only power to operate, which is the
natural law governing this life, and which
alone can effect that restoration, and full
restoration, toa safe annual rate of increase
which will permit an annual killing indefi-
nitely into the future of from 60,000 to
80,000 choice surplus male seals on and

FUR-SEAI HERD OF ALASKA.

“Mr. LemBKEY. Yes,sir. The increase
will be in the nature of about 100 per cent
every eight years.”

You see, they could see through this
crude, almost stupid, proposition that this
herd would not double itself except once
every eight years. (Hearing No. 14, p.
1002, July 29, 1912.)

183

after the opening of the season of 1928;
and this killing then done without the
slightest injury to its annual birth rate
thereafter on the breeding grounds.”’

7 Breeding . Pups Pups
Year cows. Nubiles. Giisies), (ieninteny:
1978 sae 50,000 | 10,000} 25,000 25, 000
1912-0509 54,000 | 10,000] 27,000 27, 000
TIS Ae 57,600 | 15,750} 28,800 28, 800
1915.22. 747358 | 26/000| 37179) 372179
Sen EE ? ’ ’ 7,1
IGG Ee 88, 793 30, 092 44,396 44,396
TOW ee 103,314 33, 462 56, 657 56, 657
1918s es 120,066 | 42,163 | 65,033 65, 033
1920.2...) 192000 | 577100 | 967000 | 96,000
1921... ... 2257000 | 58,000} 112/000 | 112/000
1922..._- 260,000 | 61,000 | 130,000} 130,000
| Ss | gg | ES) ee
= ’ ’ fy ’
1925 aye! 450,000 | 162,000 | 275,000 | 225, 000
1926.3 612,000 | 200,000 | 306,000} 306,000
1927... 00,000 | 200,000 | 400,000 | 400, 000
Yearlings 2
-year- | 3-year- 4-year-
Year. a olds eids nas
females). (males). | (males). | (males)
SHUOOOTS. cM ee OER LENS Sette
37, 800 UGE UA Seater ced Gaseaeence
40, 320 24,300 14 TRO ess eee ae
46,808 | 26,000} 21,870 12, 762
52,052 | 30,002} 23,600 19, 683
62,156 | 33,462] 27,000 21, 240
72,983 | 42,163 | 30,000 25, 000
92,830 | 46,496 | 38,000 28, 000
104,000 | 50,100 | 40,000 35, 000
135,000 | 58,000 | 46,000 36, 000
165,000 | 61,000 | 52,000 40, 000
200,000 | 74,000} 57,000 45, 000
231,000 | 100,000 | 68,000 50, 000
350,000 | 162,000 , 900 57, 000
400,000 | 200,000 | 140,000 65, 000
450,000 | 200,000 | 165,000 80, 000

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 1004, 1005, July 29,

1913.)

184

Evermann and his associates
attempt a ‘“‘correction” of El-
liott’s table.

Dr. EvermMann. I would state that this
has been brought in by Mr. Elliott to show
some point which he wished to make, and
I wish to show how very cautious any com-
mittee must be in accepting facts, alleged
facts, or figures submitted to it by Mr.
Elliott. Where he got 800,000 cows in
1927, that method of computation will
give only 303,371.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

AND LABOR, BUREAU OF FISHERIES,

Washington, January 18, 1912.
Hon. W.S. Goopwin,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

Sir: Referring to the table submitted
by Henry W. Elliott to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs at the hearing on January
4, 1912, and printed on page 99 of the hear-
ings, showing the prospective increase in
the seal herd of the Pribilof Islands, I have
the honor to advise that a critical exami-
nation of this table shows such serious er-
rors in computation and such: glaring dis-
crepancies as to render the table unreli-
able and wholly misleading. The bureau
transmits herewith a copy of Elliott’s fig-
ures for breeding cows, nubiles, and fe-
male pups, with the correct computations
in parallel columns, so that the nature of
the discrepancies can be seen at a glance.
The corrected figures have been arrived at
throughout by using Elliott’s own basis of
computation. Some of the errors are so
palpable as to be readily apparent to the
committee. The prospective number of
breeding cows in the herd in 1927 is shown
to be 303,371, whereas Elliott claims that
there will then exist 800,000 breeding
cows.

Ifthe committee consider it worth while
to have a hearing on this matter, the bu-
reau will be pleased to show in detail the
numerous inaccuracies in Elliott’s table.

By direction of the commissioner.

Very respectfully,
H. M. Sirsa,
Acting Commissioner.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But Elliott again exposes the
nonsense of that ‘‘correct’’ table
of Evermann’s.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,
January 18, 1912—6 p.m.
Hon. Wm. Suizer,
Chairman Committee on Foreign A fairs.

Dear Sir: I have before me a letter ad-
dressed to a member of your committee
from Acting Fish Commissioner H. M.
Smith, dated January 18, 1912. He in-
forms Mr. Sharp that he has been in labor
during the last two weeks over my table of
increase to the small nucleus of our fur-
seal herd, which I gave to your committee
in his presence January 4 last. He says
that he now finds this table of mine full of
‘serious errors,”’ ‘‘glaring,” etc., and in-
closes ‘‘a scientific” “‘correction” of it—
‘‘Montes parieunter, ridiculus mus.”’

Mr. Smith and his ‘‘scientific” asso-
clates belong to that class of men who can
see a fly on a barn door, but who can not
see the door. Let me, therefore, present
that problem of increase for that herd to
you in another form, as I would have done
January 4 last had Mr. Smith then at-
tempted the least denial of my table given
you then. It can be done very briefly
and clearly, to wit:

We start in July, this year, with 50,000
breeding ‘‘cow” seals; during this July
coming they will add 25,000 pup ‘‘cow-
seals” to their breeding strength, or 50 per
cent imcrease of it. But, we subtract
from that 50 per cent of increase a loss of 30
per cent due to natural causes during the
interval of its birth in 1912 and its reap-
pearance on the islands in 1913, as ‘‘year-
ling” cow seals. Then, the loss of this
‘‘vearling ” cow-seal life during the season
of 1913, and its reappearance as a breeding
or ‘‘nubile” life, is not to exceed 2 per
cent, and that adds 18 per cent net in-
crease of breeding strength by the opening
of the season of 1914. This net annual
increase of 18 per cent over all natural loss
will hold good for the next 15 years, be-
cause this is a newborn increase from
1912—all young cows, the oldest of them
in 1927 not over 15 years.

What is the sum of $50,000 at 18 per cent
annual interest compounded for 15 years?
Therefore, you observe, I have not misled
you.

I am, very respectfully, your obe-
dient servant,
Henry H. Evworr.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Table showing prospective increase in Pribi-
lof seal herd from 1911 to 1927, submitted
by Henry W. Elliott, with correct compu-
tations in parallel columns.

Breeding cows.

Year.
Elliott.~ Correct.
TACT [Thy eae ae a ae S| 50, 000 50, 000
LUGS ce ie ee be eee: 54, 000 54, 000
CTT EET Sane beets ene ay 57, 600 57, 600
LL eR Oe ga ee Sexes 66, 870 66, 015
TT TR A ae As 74,358 74, 723
oe a a te Be Ce 2 aa 88, 793 83, 580
BGS tae et, S48 Shas tcod 103,314 93, 938
eee ttt ote ee Bh saa 120, 066 105, 728
ThE Ss ye lee eeeiea eae RCE ea 145, 997 118, 852
GAS sae she SSeS. 32 192, 000 133, 598
UGE eg Oe eee Oe eee o 225, 000 150, 213
Pomme nee Shoe ee, 260, 000 168, 887
UAE Se Wt be ea Od i Ee i a 321, 000 189, 874
ROAR tees be ey tet 395, 000 213,473
TESTS eS eaten Ca means See 450, 000 240, 005
Se ae es ees i ya 612, 000 269, 834
POS Roe ee eet 2 SP MT 800, 000 303,371
Nubiles.
Year.
Elliott. Correct.

10, 000 10, 000

10, 000 10, 000

15, 750 15, 750

24, 300 17,010

26, 000 18, 144

30, 092 20, 795

33, 462 23,538

42,163 26, 328

46, 496 29, 590

57, 100 33, 304

58, 000 37, 439

61, 000 42,084

74, 000 47,317

100, 000 53, 199

162, 000 59, 810

200, 000 67, 244

200, 000 75, 601

Female pups.

Year.

Elliott. Correct.
25, 000 25, 000
27,000 27,000
28, 800 28, 800
33,435 33, 008
37,179 37, 362
44,396 41, 790
56, 657 46, 969
65, 033 52, 864
77,998 59, 426
96, 000 66, 799

112, 000 75, 106
130, 000 84, 443
165, 000 94, 937
197, 000 106, 736
225, 000 120, 002
306, 000 134, 917
400, 000 151, 685

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 590, 591, Apr. 24,
1912.) :

185

THE Rices NationaL
Bank OF WASHINGTON,

Washington, D. C., January 31, 1912.
Mr. Henry W. E.wiort,

Room 423, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: In the absence of Mr. Glover,
who has been confined to his home by ill-
ness for several days, I am taking the lib-
erty of replying to your letter of the 29th
instant, addressed tohim. We have made
the calculation indicated on the inclosed
slip, by the use of five space logarithm ta-
bles, and the result is $598,642.857.

Very truly, yours,
Henry H- FLatTHer,
Cashier.

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 591, 592, Apr. 24,
1912.)

186

Evermann misquotes authen-
tic testimony to support idle and
baseless statements in re loss of
life to seal herd:

Dr. EvprMANN. It is admitted by
practically everyone that not more than
1 in 5 of those fatally wounded is
secured by the pelagic sealers. Mr.
Elhott himself has stated that, in his
judgment, not more than 1 in 10 is
recovered. But let us use the more con-
servative estimate. The number secured
by the pelagic sealers in the eight years
from 1890 to 1897 was 635,739. Accept-
ing 1 to 5 as the proper ratio cf seals
secured to seals killed by the pelagic
sealers, the number mortally wounded
and not recovered was 2,542,956: and the
total number killed was 3,178,695 seals.

And at least 80 per cent of these, or
2,542,956, were females. Or, if we accept
Mr. Ellott’s ratio of number lost to num-

ber secured, the number killed was
6,357,390, of which 3,085,912 were
females.

Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Elliott said nobody
could fix a ratio; 1t 1s ridiculous.

Dr. EvermMann. * * * Mr. Elhott
says that not more than 11in 10 ts secured.
(P. 141, Committee Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, hearing, June 8, 1888.)

Mr. Exxiorr. I do not say anything of
the kind. It is an absurd, ridiculous
assertion repeatedly 1epeated here.

The CHAIRMAN. One minute.

Mr. Exntorr. I won’t let a man sit
there asa scientist and utter falsehoods
here.

Dr. EvermMANN. The remark

Mr. Etiiorr (interposing). You can
not find it. I said this: The idea of esti-
mating loss at sea was a pipe dream; no
man knew what was lost. (Hearing No.
10, pp.523-525, Apr. 20, 1912.)

Evermann attempts to justify
fraud on the seal islands to the
committee:

Dr. Evermann. An examination of
Mr. Elliott’s report on his work on the
Pribilof Islands in 1890, published in
June, 1896, shows that he kept a diary or
journal in which he recorded his daily
observations and field notes. This record
appears to have been very carefully kept.
On pages 181 and 182 I find his entry for
July 7, 1890. You should examine this
entry. I have read it carefully, and I
fail to find in it any mention whatever of
the killing of female seals. If Mr. Elliott
discovered on that date that the agents
were permitting the lessees to. kill female
seals, and if he had with the lessees’ agent
and the Government agent the heated

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Evermann is compelled to read
the testimony which he had
misquoted:

The CuainMan. Where was the testi-
mony adduced?

Dr. Evermann. June 8, 1888, Commit-
tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
page 140. (Reading):

‘‘Shooting fur seals in the open waters
of the sea or ocean with the peculiar shot
and bullet cartridges used involves an
immense waste of seal life. Every seal
that is merely wounded, and even if
mortally wounded, at the moment of shoot-
ing dives and swims away instantly, to
perish at some point far distant and to be
never again seen by its human enemies;
it is ultimately destroyed, but it is lost,
in so far as the hunters are concerned. If
the seal is shot dead instantly, killed in-
stantly, then it can be picked up in most
every case; but not 1 seal in 10 fired at
by the most skillful marine hunters is so
shot, and nearly every seal in this 10 will
have been wounded, many of them
fatally. The irregular tumbling of the
water around the seal and the irregular
heaving of the hunter’s boat, both acting
at the same moment entirely independent
of each other, make the difficulty of tak-
ing an accurate aim exceedingly great and
the result of clean killing very slender.”
(Pp. 140-141.)

Mr. Exxiorr. Is it there where you say
I say 10, and only 1 recovered?

Dr. EverMaANN. I read the testimony.

Mr. Exxiorr. But you know I do not
say that.

Dr. EvermMann. The committee will
pass upon that.

Mr. Exssorr. Very well; I am satisfied.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 527-529, Apr. 20,
1912.)

But, the fraud is at once ex-
posed to the committee:

Mr. Exsiott. In the first place, all
those affidavits he has cited must have
been made aiter the 14th of August, 1890.
They were made by the employees of the
North American Commercial Co. under
pressure from George R. Tingle, who also
signed one of them; they were supple-
mented by a letter to Secretary Charles
Foster, from Capt. Michael Healey, United
States “Revenue -Marine Service, who
touched at the islands in October, 1890,
and who wrote to Foster about the ‘ ‘seals
being as numerous then as they had ever
appeared to him in all previous years.’’
(Think of such a statement from such a
man, who knew s0 little!)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

controversy to which he refers in his letter
to Mr. Windom, does it not look strange
that he makes no mention whatever of the
matter in his diary? It seems almost in-
conceivable that so important a matter as
the unlawful killing of female seals should
not have been recorded at the time.

Mr. Exuiorr. It is recorded in the
Treasury Department.

Dr. EverMann. Not until two months
later does he put the matter on record.
He has explained why he did not embody
this information in his final report to Mr.
Windom, but that does not explain why
it is not even hinted at in his ‘‘ Daily field
notes,’’ which, he states, are given in
extenso in Section VIII of his 1890 report.

In his letter to Secretary Windom he
claims that he discovered that three fe-
males had been killed and straightway
ordered all killing stopped. Because
three seals had been killed illegally he
stopped all killing. Is that what an
an efficient and fair-minded agent would
have done? No; notatall. On the con-
trary, an intelligent agent, competent to
cope with the situation, would have
stopped the killing of females, if such
were being killed, but would have con-
tinued the proper killing of males, just
the same. No one except Mr. Elliott has
claimed there was not an abundance of
killable males. Indeed, Daniel Webster,
who was in immediate charge of the kill-
ings on the islands for more than 20 years,
and the chief, Anton Melovidov, have
both stated under oath that 60,000 good
merchantable skins could have been taken
in 1890 without any injury to the herd.
These respective statements follow.

Here is a copy of the sworn statement
made by Daniel Webster. It touches
upon several matters. They are all more
or less pertinent, but I will not read them
all. (Hearing No. 10, p. 489, Apr. 19,
1912.)

187

Those ‘‘affidavits’’ were simply bogus—
they were false ab initio. They were re-
ceived by Mr. Foster on April 3, 1891, in
this Mills letter aforesaid, and then what
happened?

On or about the 5th of April Mr. Charles
J. Goff was called into Secretary Charles
Foster’s office and told that he need not
concern himself with the seal-island busi-
ness any further; that ‘‘the department
had other business for him to transact at
Montreal,’’ Canada (i. e., looking after
immigration cases). Goff was directed to
proceed there forthwith (and he did).
No complaint againt him was uttered by
Foster—just called him in, and sent him
to Montreal in the ‘‘regular order of
official business’’ which governs all the
special agents. Goff was astonished; he
was speechless, but obeyed.

Now, gentlemen, what happened? We
come right back to this letter of Ogden
Mills. A newadministration took charge
March 4, 1895. I determined to get
copies of those ‘ ‘affidavits’’ which Charles
Foster published a mention of in the New
York Tribune, May (9?), 1891, as his
authority for that suppression of my re-
port of 1890, and those of my official asso-
ciates, Messrs. Goff, Murray, Nettleton,
and Lavender.

I called on Secretary John G. Carlisle
of the Treasury. He evinced the live-
liest interest in this question and asked
Assistant Secretary Charles 8. Hamlin to
go with me to the chief supervising special
agent’s office and furnish me with copies
of those affidavits, Capt. Healey’s letter,
etc.

Did we find those affidavits or the
Healey letter? No. We traced them out
from the Ogden Mills letter receipt in

. April, 1891, to one division after another,
only to find that they had been received,
had been noted, and had disappeared
from the files when Charles Foster left the
Secretary’s office, March 4, 1895.

Why were those ‘‘affidavits’’ and that
letter of Healey removed and taken from
the official files when Charles Foster pub-
lished notes of them as his official warrant
for suppressing the sworn official reports
of Charles J. Goff and his three assistants
in charge of the seal islands for 1890, and
my special report of 1890 to Mr. Windom,
ordered by act approved April 5, 1890?

Why? Because their authors had per-
jured themselves, and if those ‘ ‘affidavits”’
had been in the hands of John G. Carlisle
the lessees would have been obliged, in
my opinion, by Mr. Carlisle to surrender
their lease. That is why they were ab-
stracted by or with the full knowledge
and consent of Charles Foster, Secretary
of the Treasury, on or some time before
March 4, 1895. Nobody else could have

188

Evermann prompting Bowers
to deny the regulation prohibit-
ing the killing of yearlings:

Mr. McGuire. The only point of dif-
ference, apparently, between yourself
and Dr, Elhott is on the question of the
age of the seals at the killing. I believe
you said your instructions to your agents
are that under no circumstances are seals
to be killed under 2 years of age?

Mr. Bowers. There is no instruction
to that effect this year; there was none
last year to that effect; and I am not
aware that it has been modified in any
way; but there is an understanding, and
there is a statement from the agent to the
effect that no seals were taken under 2
years of age. Of course, you understand
we are operating under this law which was
passed a year ago, and there is no pro-
vision in that giving instructions to the
agents on the islands.

Mr. McGuire. I understand that the
regulations of 1904, with respect to the
ages, have not been modified by this law;
am I right or not?

Mr. Bowers. Well, I am not suffici-
ently versed in the regulations of 1904,
and I can not recall from memory.

Mr. McGuire. Well, as read a few mo-

ments ago, the statement was that none
were to be killed under 2 years of age, and
then you subsequently stated none had
been killed to your knowledge under 2
years of age.

Mr. Bowers. As understood from the
reports submitted to us by agents on the
islands, and we adjudged that, to some
extent. too, by the weight of the skins.

Mr. McGuire. Do you know now, of
your own knowledge, whether the regu-
lations of 1904, with respect to the ages
of the seals at the time of killing, have
been modified?

Mr. Bowers. Well, I am not familiar
with those regulations.

Dr. Evermann. New regulations are
issued every year.

Mr. Bowers. I can not recall the regu-
lations of 1904, because I can not recall
having read the. They were not under

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

removed them or would have dared to do
so, a8 I was told by the Treasury officials.

Those men whose names were signed
to these bogus ‘‘affidavits’’ as inclosed in
that ‘ ‘Ogden Mills’’ letter above cited are
all dead save one. That survivor of this
job is one James C. Redpath. He has
been the general overseer and assistant
general manager of the lessees ever since
May 21, 1890, up to the hour that their
lease expired, May 1, 1910. (Hearing
No. 10, pp. 663, 665, Apr. 24, 1912.)

Secretary Nagel brings Lemb-
key and Evermann to swear
February 4, 1911, that no seals
were killed under 2 years of age:

Mr. Exuiorr. We want that distinctly
understood. We want to find out where
he comes in, and where to put the respon-
sibility. Is not Mr. Lembkey responsible
for anything? Did he not get his orders
from you?

Mr. Bowers. He gets his orders from
me as approved by the Secretary.

Mr. Exurotr. And he is bound by
them?

Mr. Bowers. He is.

Mc. Exxiorr. Then, Mr. Chairman, I
want Mr. Bowers to explain right here
why Mr. Lembkey, introduced by Secre-
tary Nagel, said on February 4 last, at a
hearing of the conservation committee
of the United States, on page 10, in answer
to this question:

“The CHAIRMAN. How many did you
kill last year?

“Mr. Lempxey. We killed 12,920.

“@. What was the youngest seal you
killed; what age?

“A. Two years old.”’

There we have the official statement of
the Department of Commerce and Labor,
without doubt or equivocation, without _
any question of law or anything, given to
the Senate committee, that they had
killed none of those seals, 12,920, under
2 years of age. Are you ready to certify
to that statement here before this com-
mittee?

Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey’s
statement.

Mr. Exsiorr. No; but, my dear sir, he
is your agent. I want you to certify to it.

Mr. Bowers. I am not evading any-
thing; I want that distinctly understood.

Mr. Exuiorr. Then you ceitify to that
statement? i

Mr. Bowers. I do not have to certify
to any statement made by another man.
That is his statement. That is the state-
ment as it comes to the Bureau of Fish-
eries from the officials. That is an official
record as it comes tome. (Hearings No. 2,
p. 117, June 9, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

my supervision in those days. The regu-
lations of 1910 do not make a restriction
of that character. (Hearing No. 2, p. 106,
June 9, 1911.)

‘Scientists’? Bowers and Ever-
mann deny the good results of
the modus vivendi of 1891-1893:

Mr. Exxtiotr. Now, on page 137, right
under this, following right there, Mr.
McGillicuddy asks Mr. Bowers this ques-
tion:

“Mr. McGitticuppy. Do you think it
would be well to havé a closed time?

‘‘Mr. Bowers. Not on land. There
was a closed time from 1891, I believe,
until 1894. The modus vivendi was put
in operation then. That modus vivendi
did more to exterminate the seals than:any
previous order issued or given for the five
years prior to 1890.”’

Did you inspire or aid him in making
that declaration, Dr. Evermann?

Dr. Evermann. No, sir.

Mr. Exuiotr. Haven’t you made a simi-
lar declaration?

Dr. Evermann. I have made a state-
ment regarding the modus vivendi.

Mr. Exuiorr. As being the most destruc-
tive thing possible, didn’t you?

Dr. Evermann. In the essential fea-
tures of that statement I agree fully with
Commissioner Bowers, and as to the evil
results of the modus vivendi, yes. (Hear-
ing No. 10, pp. 633, 634, Apr. 20, 1912.)

189

Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the
Hitchcock rules were first published, I
believe. Have they been changed since
then?

Mr. LemMBKEY. Yes; they have.

Mr. Exuiorr. As to killing any seal un-
der 2 years of age?

Mr. Lempxey. Not so far as to killing
any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906
they were changed'so as to make the mini-
mum weight 5 instead of 54 pounds.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 449, Apr. 13, 1912.)

But their associate Townsend,
“sealing expert,” does not deny
those good results.”

Mr. Extiorr. Is Mr. Charles H. Town-
send a reliable witness as to the modus
vivendi?

Dr. EVERMANN. Mr.
very reliable man; yes.

Mr. Exxiorr. Allow me to read what
Mr. Charles H. Townsend says of this mo-
dus vivendi in his report to United States
Fish Commissioner MacDonald, Febru-
ary 26, 1894:

‘‘Tt is undoubtedly true, however, that
the closing of Bering Sea to sealing vessels
during the period of the modus vivendi
has had a most salutary effect, and that
the rookeries of the Pribilof Islands in
their present condition are so nearly sta-
tionary as regards the number of seals
since this regulation came into effect is
distinctly traceable to the protection so
afforded.”’

That is found on page 7, Senate Docu-
ment 137, Fifty-fourth Congress, first ses-
sion.

Mr. McGuire. Is this the honorable
Charles H. Townsend?

Mr. Exxiorr. No; he is an associate of
Dr. Evermann in the Fur Seal Bureau.
He is one of those scientists brought in as
an authority for al! the Bureau 0% Fisheries.
is doing. Now I want to ask Dr. Ever-
mann how he reconciles his sweeping de-
nunciation of the modus vivendi of 1891—
1893 with this statement of Mr. Town-.
send?

Dr. EvERMANN. When the committee
calls Dr. Townsend, as I believe the com-
mittee has arranged to do, Dr. Townsend
can give his own explanation of his own
reports and statements.

Mr. Exuiorr. And you do not have any
thing to take back? You are willing to
stand by your denunciation?

Dr. EvERMANN. Undoubtedly.

Mr. Exvuiorr. Mr. Townsend was up
there and knew what he was talking
about, didn’t he?

Dr. EverMANN. I am not offering any
apology for Mr. Townsend’s testimony.

Mr. Exxriorr. He had personal knowl-
edge, and you had not, didn’t he?

Townsend is 3

190

Evermann tells the committee
of his qualification by experience
and study on the seal islands:

Dr. EveERMANN. One of the interesting
phases of this question that has attracted
my attention is the attitude which some
persons have assumed toward the large
numbers of able and distinguished natu-
ralists who have visited the seal islands
and who are without question the me.
most familiar with the fur-seal herd and
the many problems connected with its
management and effective conservation.

Within the last 25 years nearly a score
of the most distinguished naturalists, not
only of this country but of Great Britain,
Canada, and Japan, have visited our seal
islands for the specific purpose of study-
ing the habits of the fur seals and the
problems connected with the proper man-
agement of the herd. Among these gen-
tlemen I may mention the following:

Dr. EVERMANN (reading):

‘Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, in
charge of the Alaska fisheries service,
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in
1892, spent six months on our seal islands
in the north Pacific and on the Russian
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook-
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations.”’

The Cuarrman. You take most of this
information you get from records and
documents, do you not, Doctor?

Dr. EvermMann. I have been in the
islands myself.

The CHarrMAN. Or from actual per-
sonal observations?

Dr. Evermann. I have been in the
seal islands myself once.

The CuarrmMan. When was that?

Dr. Evermann. In 1892.

Mr. Extiorr. How long were you there?

Dr. Evermann. I spent six months on
a fur-seal investigation in 1892.

Mr. Ex.tiotr. How long were you on
the islands?

Dr. EvERMANN. Only a very few days.

Mr. Exuiotr. That is what I thought.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 518-519, Apr. 20,
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Dr. Evermann. He had knowledge of
conditions on the islands in that year
which I did not possess, because I was
not on the islands in that year. (Hearing
No. 10, p. 634, Apr. 20, 1912.)

Proof found of the ‘‘ value” of
his experience and study while
‘“six months on our seal islands”’
(“studying”):

JOURNAL OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY AGENT IN CHARGE OF
ST. PAUL’S ISLAND, ALASKA.

Friday, July 22, 1892.

Messrs. Evermann and Miller visited
Northeast Point. Prof. Evermann re-
ports the finding of four cow seals dead at
Northeast Point.’

Monday, July 25, 1892.

The watchman at Northeast Point,
Martin Nedaragoff, reports that the cow
seals reported dead by Prof. Evermann
were not fur seals at all, but four sea hon
pups.

Agent Brown and Dr. Voss and Messrs.
Macoun and Maynard will go to Northeast
Point and make a thorough investigation
of the matter.

Messrs. Brown and Chichester, accom-
panied by Dr. Voss, went to Northeast
Point and made a thorough investigation
of the dead seal cow question, and they
found that they were sea lion pups, and
that Prof. Evermann was mistaken, and
that the native watchman was right in
every particular.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Evermann, Bowers, and Smith
put out this story showing their
opposition to the Hay-Elliott
treaty:

[Boston Transcript, Oct. 30, 1909.]

Tue ‘Seat Monororty”—A CoMPLETE
EXPLANATION OF THE ARRANGEMENT.

Exclusive rights on the Pribilof Islands
again to be granted to the North Ameri-
can Commercial Co.—The monopoly is
only American; it does not cover the
entire business—There is, however,
much criticism, and many charges of
abuses are made; but the Government
is satisfied with the system—Some pro-
visions of the contract—The Hay-

Elliott plan for a remedy of conditions.

PROF. ELLIOTT’S REMEDY.

WASHINGTON, October 28.

Newspaper offices have been invaded
more or less of late by communications
from Prof. Henry W. Elliott, of Ohio, for-
merly a well-known figure in Washington,
sharply criticizing the apparent inaction
of the United States Government in reach-
ing an international agreement for the pro-
tection of the sealindustry. Prof. Elliott
is fond of harking back to an agreement
which he, in cooperation with Secretary
of State John Hay, was about to conclude
with Sir Mortimer Durand, the British
ambassador, when the negotiations were
terminated by the retirement of Mr. Hay,
whose death followed soon after. The
Hay-Elliott agreement, as it has been
styled, would have settled the whole fur-
seal question, in the opinion of Prof. El-
liott; but according to the view of Goy-
ernment officials who are supposed to
know most about the sealing question, it
would still have left the main question
not only unsettled, but in a worse situa-
tion than before. This agreement, which
bears date of March 7, 1905, provided:

(1) That all killing of fur seals on the
Pribilof Islands and in the waters of Be-
ring Sea and the North Pacific should be
entirely suspended and prohibited to
American citizens and British subjects
for a period of 12 or more years from its
date.

(2) That when, after this period of rest
has lapsed, killing may be resumed on
these islands only, and only of a safe num-
ber of surplus male seals annually found
there, no killing at sea of any kind what-
ever to be resumed; this killing to be done
by the American resident agents on the
islands, jointly under the supervision of
Canadian resident agents.

(3) That for this complete suspension
of the rights of British subjects to kill

191

Evermann then attempts to
deny this record as published by
him in the Boston Transcript,
October 30, 1909:

The CHatRMAN. You thought it was a
good thing to bring about this treaty, did
you not?

Dr. EvermMann. Undoubtedly, Mr.
Chairman. And I may say that the other
members of the Bureau of Fisheries and
myself contributed everything within
our power to bring about the signing of the
treaty.

The CHartrMAN. Do you not think it
would have been a good thing if this treaty
had been entered into when Hay was Sec-
retary of State?

Dr. Evermann. A treaty of this kind
ought to have been negotiated in the
eighties, undoubtedly; the earlier the
better; but even late is better than never
at all. But it seemed to have never been
handled effectively until last year.
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 991, 992, July 29,
1912.)

A CURIOUS ‘“‘EXPLANATION ”’

Stung into some semblance of activity
by recent exposures of lamentable cond1-
tions in the seal fisheries of the Bering
Sea, the Department of Commerce and
Labor at Washington has at last been
moved to offer a detailed defense of its
attitude of neglect. The Washington cor-
respondent of the Boston Transcript, in a
two-column review of sealing conditions
as they appear to Secretary Nagel’s de-
partment, performs a public service by
uncovering the official mind upon this im-
portant question.

The Transcript man, claiming to ad-
vance no opinions of his own, gives a fairly
complete picture of the governmental atti-
tude upon the seal-fisheries question. He
reflects the department’s ‘‘reasons’”’ for
opposing a settlement of the long contro-
versy in accordance with the Hay-Elliott
plan, which was in favor both at Washing-
ton and Ottawa when Mr. Hay was Secre-
tary of State, and is still favored at the
Canadian capital. This plan of agree-
ment contemplated a treaty between the
United States and Great Britain (Canada)
first and then a similarly binding agree-
ment with Russia and Japan, the nations
next in interest. The Government’s ex-
cuse for not pressing a settlement upon
this plan, as it could have been done at
any time since the death of John Hay, is
thus told through the Transcript corre-
spondent:

‘“‘Even though Japan and willing Russia
join with Great Britain and the United
States in an international agreement,
nothing would exist to hinder France or

192

seals on the high seas, Canada will bear
one-fourth of the expense of maintenance
of the natives of the seal islands, annually,
and cost of care and conservation of the
fur-seal herd; and Canada will receive
one-fourth of the gross proceeds of the sale
of skins annually taken on these islands.

Prof. Elliott appends his opinion that
when the Alaska fur-seal herd is fully re-
stored, from 75,000 to 80,000 young male
seals can safely be taken every season
without injury to the regular birth rate
of the herd.

However much impression the Hay-
Elliott agreement may have made upon
the authorities at the time, it has failed
to command the esteem of the officials of
the State Department and the Bureau of
Fisheries since. They point out that its
great inherent weakness is that appar-
ently it comprehends only Canada and
the United States as necessary factors
in an international sealing agreement,
whereas not only is Japan the chief ag-
gressor, but she and every other country
in the world would still enjoy the right
to kill seals in the open sea, without the
competition which the United States now
supplies on the Pribilof Islands. Even
should Japan and willing Russia join with
Great Britain and the United States in an
international agreement, nothing would
exist to hinder France or any other
country from pelagic sealing, hence the
only effect of such an agreement might be
to turn the fur-seal fisheries of the world
over to countries which now do not par-
ticipatein them. Itis obvious, therefore,
that to be effective an international agree-
ment must include pretty much all the
civilized nations of the earth. In view of
this apparently self-evident truth, the
Elliott solution of the problem is _ re-
garded in Washington as a very ineffec-
tive affair. The point can be made also,
that the Senate probably would be slow
to ratify any treaty that contemplated the
payment of a royalty to a foreign Govern-
ment upon products which are clearly the

roperty of the United States. (Hearing
No: 3, pp. 151, 152, July 6, 1911.)

Evermann introduces the agent
of the seal lessees to the com-
mittee as another person.

NATURALISTS WHO HAVE STUDIED THE
FUR SEAL FAVOR KILLING OF SURPLUS
MALES.

Dr. EveERMANN. One of the interesting
phases of this question that has attracted
my attention is the attitude which some
persons have assumed toward the large
numbers of able and distinguished natu-
ralists who have. visited the seal islands

and who are without question the men

most familiar with the fur-seal herd and

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

any other country from pelagic sealing;
hence the only effect of such an agree-
ment might be to turn the fur-seal fisher-
ies of the world over to countries which
now do not participate in them. It is

‘obvious, therefore, that to be effective an

international agreement must include
pretty much all the civilized nations of
the earth.”’

The explanation is weak and prepos-
terous. Take France, for instance, as a
possible pelagic sealer. What ports could
she, engaged in contraband trade, use as
bases of supplies? Where would she land
her skins? The nearest French port is
perhaps 10,000 miles away as ships must
sail. Her furs would spoil, her sailors and
fishermen starve, her vessels, tossed and
wrecked in that stormy sea, could not be
repaired. And as with France, so with ©
any other nation outside the circle of the
proposed agreement.

The United States, Great Britain, Rus-
sia, and ee control the situation by
geographical conditions. There is every
reason to believe that the three would
join with the Government at Washington
to stop the wanton destruction of a great
natural resource if the State Department
would but take the initiative.

Meanwhile the old question remains
unanswered: Why does the United States
refuse to act? This ‘‘explanation” of the
Transcript correspondent is notable for its
utter failure to explain. (Plain Dealer, |
Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 8, 1909.)

The reason why Jos. Stanley-
Brown is so highly regarded by
the Bureau of Fisheries.

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AGENT IN

CHARGE OF ST. PAULS ISLAND, ALASKA.

Thursday, June 9, 1892.

Mr. J. Stanley-Brown arrived and took
the place of Maj. Williams as United
States agent in charge of the seal islands.

_ Friday, July 8,.1892.

The entire control and management of
the killing grounds and the killing of the
seals were given to Mr.: Fowler, of the

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

the many problems connected with its
management and effective conservation.

Within the last 25 years nearly a score
oi the most distinguished naturalists, not
only of this country, but of Great Britain,
Canada, and Japan, have visited our seal
islands for the specific purpose of study-
ing the habits of the fur seals and the
problems connected with the proper
management of the herd. Among these
gentlemen I may mention the following
(reading):

“Dr. Barton Warren. Evermann, in
charge of the Alaska fisheries service,
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in
1892, spent six months on our seal islands
in the North Pacific and on the Russian
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook-
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations.

“Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown, of New
York, spent the seasons of 1891, 1892,
1894, 1895. 1896, 1897, and 1899 on the
seal islands. where, as naturalist and
keen business man, he made very thor-
ough study and investigations not only
of the habits of the seals but very valua-
ble study of the economic questions
involved.”’

Evermann attempts to misstate
the Russian record of killing:

Dr. EvrermMann. They took a great
number of these seals during the closed
season from 1835 to 1846?

Mr. Extiotr. Yes; “gray pups,’ all
males, in November, annually, and it
didn’t destroy them either. It would be
a good thing to follow that to-day.

Dr. EvermMann. On page 65, line 1, you

say:

“Way back as far as 1826 the Russians
themselves recognized the fact that they
were culling the herds too closel y—that
they were ruining the business by the
land killing of all the choice males; they
knew that they alone on the islands were
to blame, because no such thing as hunt-
ing fur seals in the water by white men
then was dreamed of, much less done.”’

Do you seriously claim that it was the
killing of males that reduced the herd?

Mr. Extiorr. I claim that the Russian
agents so reported.

Dr. EverMANN. Do you claim it did?

Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly I do.

Dr. EverMANN. Do you not know that
up to at least 1835 female seals were reg-
ularly killed by the Russians?

_ Mr. Ettiorr. No, I know you injected
it into a report of another committee of
this House, and the chairman of the com-
mittee apologized for the misinformation
he got from you. I’m glad you asked me
that question. (Hearing No. 10, p. 616,
April 24,1912. House Committee on Ex-

21588—13——13

193

North American Commercial Co., by
order of Mr. J. Stanley-Brown, and Assist-
ant Agent Murray was ordered to count
the seals.
Wednesday, June 6, 1894.

Steamer Lakme, of the North America
Commercial Co. arrived, having on
board * * * Mr. Brown, superin-
tendent of the North American Commer-
cial Co.

Elliott submits to the commit-
tee the facts in re method of Rus-
sian killing:

Mr. Extiotrr. Way back as far as 1826
the Russians themselves recognized the
fact that they were culling the herds too
closely—that they were ruining the busi-
by the land killing of all the choice males;
they knew that they alone on the
islands were to blame, because no such
thing as hunting fur seals in the water by
white men then was dreamed of, much
less done.

In December, 1820, Gen. Tanovsky,
the imperial Russian agent, sent over to
Sitka from St. Petersburg in 1818, to exam
ine into the question of that decline of the
fur-seal catch, then wrote to his Govern-
ment that ‘‘so severe is this practice of”’
culling the best males for slaughter, “that
if any of the young breeders are not killed
by autumn, they were sure to be killed
by the following spring,’’ and urged the’
reformation of this work then on the’
islands.

Here is this evil of overdriving and cull~
ing the herd presented and defined 50’
years before I saw it, and nearly 70 years’
before Jordan denies its existence in 898.
Think of it—we have sent two investigat-
ing commissions since 1890 up to our
ruined fur-seal preserves on the Pribilof
Islands, one in 1891 and the other ir
1896-7, and yet, in spite of this plain Rus-”
sian record and my detailed and unan-
swerable indictment of that particular
abuse in 1890, these commissioners’

194 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

penditures in the Department of Com- blindly and stupidly deny it. They at-

merce and Labor.) tempt to set aside the Russian record by
saying that the Russians then killed fe-
males as well as males and drove them up
to the shambles in equal numbers.

The Russians did nothing of the sort.
They began the season early in June by
driving from the hauling grounds pre-
cisely as we do to-day and continued so to
drive all through the rest of the season:
they never went upon the rookeries and
drove off the females; they never have
done so since 1799. How, then, did the
females get into their drives?

The females fell into these drives of the
Russians because that work was pro-
tracted through the whole season—from
June 1 to December 1. In this way the
drivers picked up many cows after
August 1 to 10, to the end of November
following, since some of these animals
during that period leave their places on
the breeding grounds and scatter out over
large sections of the adjacent hauling
grounds, so as to get mixed in here and
there with the young males. Thus the
Russians in driving across the flanks of the
breeding grounds, going from the hauling
grounds, during every August, Septem-
ber, October, and November, would
sweep up into their drives a certain
proportion of female seals which are then
scattered out from the rookery organiza-
tion and are ranging at will over those
sections of the hauling grounds driven
from. What that proportion of this fe-
male life so driven was, in Russian time,
no man to-day can precisely determine.

i From the best analysis I can make of it
I should say that the Russian female
catch in their drives never exceeded 30
per cent of the total number driven at any
time, and such times were rare, and that
it ranged as low as 5 per cent of female life
up to the end of August annually. (Hear-
ing No. 2, p. 65, June 8, 1911, House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.)

TV

The sworn statements of Dr. Charles H. Townsend, who is one of the experts cited to the
United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14,
1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for killing seals in
violation of the law and regulations.

Mr, Bowers. The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following:
* * * * * * *

Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur Seal Commissions of
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Town-
send made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic
sealing. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

195

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

All killing of fur seals on Pribi-
lof Islands is ordered under rec-
ommendation of advisory board,
of which Townsend is a member:

Mr. Bowers. | have referred, in my re-
port of June 30, 1909, to the Alaskan fur-
seal service as follows:

‘On the establishment of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor, in 1903, the
Alaskan fur-seal service was transferred
thereto from the Department of the Treas-
ury, to which it had been attached for
many years. In the Department of Com-
merce and Labor this service formed a
distinct branch and was administered
through the Secretary’s office until De-
cember 28, 1908, when it was transferfed
to the Bureau of Fisheries. The Commis-
sioner of Fisheries has appointed a special
board, composed of five members of the
bureau’s staff who have personal knowl-
edge of the Alaskan fur seals, and to this
board will be assigned for corsideration
and recommendation all matters pertain-
ing io the seal life on the Pribilof Islands,
the blue foxes, and other animal resources
on the islands, and the Government’s rela-
tions to the natives and the lessees. On
January 13, 1909, the Secretary, on the
recommendation of the commissioner, ap-
pointed an advisory board for th 2 fur-seal
service, consisting of Dr. David Starr
Jordan, Dr. Leonard Stejneger, Dr. C.
Hart. Merriam, Mr. Frederic A. Lucas,
Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Hon. Frank H.
Hitchcock, and Mr. Charles H. Townsend.
The Government is thus enabled to avail
itself of the expert knowledge possessed
by these naturalists and officials, who,
through visits to the seal islands and
through previous duty on fur-seal com-
missions or in the administration of the
fur-seal service, are familiar with the
problems involved in the management of
the seal herd and the seal islands.’’

Mr. Patron. These recommendations
were made to your bureau?

Mr. Bowers. Yes.

Mr. Parron. And were not made by
you at all?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir.

Mr. Parron. But were made by this
advisory board?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:]

“Tt is recommended that, for the pres-
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 84
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be
taken, and thac not more than 95 per cent
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in
any one year.’’ (Hearing No. 2, p. 111,
June 9, 1911.)

Townsend swears that he does
not know how the killing has been
done on the islands; does not
know what a yearling seal skin is.

The CHatrmMan. What can you tell us
abouc the killing of seals?

Dr. TownsenpD. I hardly know what
the methods are at the present time. I
have not been there since 1900. I could
only discuss that subject now in a general
way, if that would be satisfactory.

The CHatrMAN. You -have not been
there since 1900?

Dr. TownsEND. Not since 1900.

Mr. MeGitticuppy. Are you familiar
with the means and modes ot skinning
seals as they do up there on the islands?

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes.

Mr. McGitiicuppy. Is there any way to
determine the age of a seal from an exami-
nation of the skin after it is taken off the
body?

Dr. TowNnseEND. Oh, yes; I think a per-
son handling a considerable number of
then would be able to throw out the differ-
ent ages.

Mr. McGitiicuppy. There zeem to have
been two ways of determining the age of a
seal, one isby the measurementof theskin
and the other by the weight. You are
familiar, I suppose, with both methods?

Dr. TowNsEND. Only from hearsay. I
do not know that I ever measured one or
ever weighed one.

Mr. McGitiicuppy. You have no prac-
tical information on that subject?

Dr. TownsEND. I have no practical in-
formation om that subject. I do not re-
member that that matter was ever in my
ipstruccions at any time. I do not re-
member that I ever went into it.

Mr. McGituicuppy. So far as your in-
formatior goes, which do you regard as
the more reliable way of determining the
age of aseal, by measurement or by weight?

Dr. TowNSEND. I can not say. I have
not gone into that subject. (Hearing No.
12, pp. 736, 737, May 24, 1912.)

196

Bowers swears that Townsend
advised him as a member of the
fur-seal advisory board.

Mr. Patron. These recommendations
were made to your bureau?

Mr. Bowers. Yes.

Mr. Parron. And were not made by
you at all?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir.

Mr. Patron. But were made by this
advisory board?

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:]

‘It is recommended that, for the pres-
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than

3 pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be

taken, and that not more than 95 per cent
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in
any one year.’’ (Hearing No. 2, p. 111,
June 9, 1911.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But Townsend swears he does
not know anything of the job, and
does not know what he said to
Nagel.

The CHarrMan. What do you know of
the composition of the catch of 12,920 fur-
seal skins taken by orders of Hon. Charles
Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
and Mr. George M. Bowers, United States
Fish Commissioner, during the season of
1910 on the Pribilof Islands?

Dr. TownsEenD. I am not posted on the
composition of that catch. The catch
made on the islands is supposed to be
made from seals that are over 1 year old,
from the 2-year-olds and from some of the
small 3-year-olds. Perhaps I should say
the 3-year-olds with some of the smaller
4-year-olds and the larger 2-year-olds. I
do not remember exactly what they were
killing, but they were skins of sizes which
were highly marketable, and that the fur
trade could use to the best advantage.
It does not make a great deal of difference
what size skins you take so long as you do
not take too many of the males.

The CHAarrMAN. How many of these
12,920 skins are skins not taken from seals
under 2 years of age?

Dr. TownsEND. I have not examined
the records of their ages or the records of
their sizes, and can not answer the ques-
tion without consulting the records.

The CHarrMAN. Did you have a talk
with Secretary Nagel after he received,
on May 10, 1910, the printed protest of
the Camp Fire Club of America against
the issue of the orders to kill 13,000 seals
during the season of 1910?

Dr. Townsenp. I have frequently
called on Secretary Nagel when I have
been in Washineton, and I have discussed
seal matters with him, but what I have
said to him I can not say. I do not re-
member discussing that point with him.

The CHarrman. What did you discuss
with him?

Dr. TowNnsEND. Matters pertaining to
the seal islands in general.

The Cuarrman. Did Secretary Nagel
consult with you before sending his reply
of May 15, 1910, to this protest of the
Camp Fire Club?

Dr. TownseND. I donotremember. I
do not remember that I ever talked over
the matter with Mr. Nagel until after the
Camp Fire Club had been agitating the
matter for some time.

The CuHarrMan. Well, you did discuss
it with him, didn’t you?

Dr. TownsEnD. I have discussed fur
seals with him. (Hearing No. 138, p. 801,
June 8, 1912.) é

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Townsend swears that he never
believed in renewing the seal lease.

The CHatrMAN. Dr. Townsend, you
were asked at a former hearing whether
you wrote a letter advising the releasing
of the islands for another term of years.

Dr. Townsenp. I believe there was
such a question.

The CHarrMANn. And there was such a
letter produced in the hearing, or a copy
of a letter for the hearing. That letter
was dated, I think; January, 1910, was it
not?

Dr. TownseEnp, | have forgotten the
letter. I have not seen it since then.

The CuHarrMAN. The letter is dated
Janaury 31, 1910.

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir. ‘

The CHarrMan, On November 17,
1909, the advisory board had a meeting in
which you participated and pursuant to
which you made some recommendations
to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
Do you remember that there was such a
meeting?

Dr. TownsEnpD. | was at such a meet-
ing; yes, sir.

he CHarkMAN. And the printed docu-
ments here show that it was on November
23,1909. Was there any discussion of the
releasing of the islands at this meeting of
the advisory board?

Dr. TownseEnp. [| have no distinct rec-
ollection of just what we did at these meet-
ings. I do not remember that that point
was discussed with any fullness, at least.

The CHarrMan. If you were of the
opinion that the islands should not be re-
leased, why did you not make such a
recommendation to the Secretary, to-
gether with the other members of the
board?

Dr. Townsenp. I was never of the
opinion that the islands should be re-
leased. J simply supposed that it would
be impossible for the Government to take
them over, and that they would be-re-
leased no matter what anybody could say,
because they had always been leased.
While I lived on the islands, there was
always more or less friction between the
lessees and the Government’s authorities,
and I always felt that the Government
had as well have the profits of the seal
islands rather than divide them with the
lessees. (Hearing No. 13, p. 797, June 8,
1912.)

197

But Townsend ‘tas a member
of the advisory board” urges a
renewal of the seal lease.

The ‘‘advisory board”
renew the Elkins lease.

gets busy—must

New York Aquarium,
Battery Park, New York, January 31,1910.

Hon. GrEorGE M. Bowers,
Commissioner United States Bureau of
Fisheries, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: As a member of the fur-seal
advisory board of your department and
one always interested in matters pertain-
ing to the fur-seal industry, I wish to call
your attention to an important letter re-
ceived from Mr. Alfred Fraser, which is
inclosed herewith.

I have known Mr. Fraser for many years
and have every confidence in his knowl-
edge of this subject, as well as his entire
sincerity. During the many years that
the subject of the fur-seal fishery has been
before our Government authorities he has
supplied freely important statistics of the
fur-seal trade. He has been the principal
American buyer of sealskins in this coun-
try, and has been in the business for a
lifetime.

There can be no doubt that a reduction
in the number of sealskins now coming
from the Pribilofs would be of most inju- »
rious to the sealskin trade.

It is to be hoped that the Pribilof Is-
lands will be released this year, and that
a small supply of skins will be kept avail-
able to the fur trade. The reasons for this
are strongly set forth in Mr. Fraser’s letter.

It is also important that the Treasury
Department be requested to reconsider
the matter of duty on sealskins.

The margin of profit left to the trade
after the payment of duties on skins whose
value is already enhanced by the Goy-
ernment tax on the Pribilof catch, makes
them enormously expensive. In fact,
their cost is almost prohibitive.

I feel that with fur-seal service trans-
ferred to your bureau and the presence in
your office of a number of men well in-
formed on this subject, you are in a posi-
tion to make a good presentation of Mr.
Fraser’s letter to the proper authorities,
and I earnestly hope that you will under-
take to have this important matter prop-
erly presented.

I would suggest also that a copy of this
letter be sent to Senator Dixon, who has
introduced a resolution calling fora cessa-
tion of seal killing on the Pribilofs, which
would undoubtedly result in more harm
than good at the present time.

Very respectfully, yours,

C. H. TOWNSEND.

_ (Hearing No. 3, July 6, 1911, pp. 159,
160.)

198

Townsend does not remember
that he did anything to try and
defeat the re-leasing bill.

Mr. Exuiorr. Did you, at the time
Mr. Bowers asked you to take up with
the Campfire Club of America: the sub-
ject of renewing the fur-seal lease

Dr. TownsEND. What is the question?

Mr. Exxtrorr. Did you, at the time
Mr. Bowers asked you to take up with
the Campfire Club of America the sub-
ject of renewing the fur-seal lease, in
which Ogden Mills is interested, have
any

Dr. TOWNSEND (interposing). I have
no recollection of Mr. Bowers asking me
to take up the matter of the Campfire
Club.

Mr. Euuzorr. You do not? Let me
see if you do not. On page 157, of hear-
ing No. 3, is a letter dated ‘‘ Department
of Commetce and Labor, Bureau of
Fisheries, Washington, D. C., December
16, 1909,’ signed by ‘‘Barton W. Ever-
mann’ (p. 157)—Have you got it?

DEPARTMENT OF Com. AND LaBor,
BuREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 16, 1909.

The CoMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10
last announced that the Campfire Club,
of New York, had inaugurated a campaign
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla-
tion designed to prevent the re-leasing
of the sealing right, the cessation of all
killing on the islands for 10 years except
for natives’ food, and to secure the open-
ing of negotiations with Great Britain
to revise the regulations of the Paris
tribunal. As the result of this move-
ment, on December 7 three resolutions
were introduced by Senator Dixon, of
Montana, one of which embodies the pro-
visions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal
correspondence and reports since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at
variance with the program of this bureau
and of the recommendations of the
advisory fur-seal board, notably in the
plan to prevent killing and the renewal
of the seal island lease, the advisability
is suggested of having Messrs. Townsend,
Lucas, and Stanley Brown use their
influence with such members of the
Campfire Club as they may be acquainted
with with the object of correctly inform-
ing the club as to the exact present status
of the seal question and of securing its
cooperation to effect the adoption of the
measures advocated by this bureau.?

The attached letter is prepared, hav-
ing in view the object stated.

Barton W. EveERMANN.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But Lucas remembers—Town-
send started him.

Mr. Exxiorr. Yes. Now, I would like
to ask you, Dr. Lucas, with this letter
before you, who called on you, and asked
you to go to work and stop this legisla-
tion in Congress?

Dr. Lucas. At the immediate moment
I do not recall that anyone called upon
me and asked me to stop this legislation
in Congress.

Mr. Exuiorr. This resolution of Senator
Dixon’s presented December 7, 1909;
you don’t remember anyone at all calling
on you in regard to that?

Dr. Lucas. If anyone it was Dr. Town-
send.

M:. Exniorr. Did he cite any authority
for calling on you?

Dr. Lucas. He did not.

Mr. Exniorr. Just his own individual
idea?

Dr. Lucas. To the best of my knowl-
edge he said this resolution was up—I
wish this to be taken down as mere hear-
say, Mr. Chairman; he called me up over
the phone and said this resolution was
up, and asked me to write a protest
against it, which I did.

The CuatrMan. A protest against the
enactment of the law?

Dr. Lucas. Against the enactment of
the proposed law making a closed season.
(Hearing No. 12, pp. 724, 725, May 16
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD

Dr. TowNSEND. Yes.

Mr. Exxriorr. Is that letter under your
eye so I do not need to read it?

Dr. Townsenpb. Yes; I have read this
letter here, sir. What do you wish to
ask me in connection with it?

Mr. Exxrorr. Who called on you, who
used their influence with you, before
you went to Mr. Lucas, and asked him to
write letters to Members of Congress
opposing the Dixon resolution, which
prevented the renewal of: the lease?
Who asked you to go to Mr. Lucas?

Dr. Townsenpd. I do not remember
that anybody asked me to go to Mr.
Lucas. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 775, 776,
May 26, 1912.)

Townsend is engaged in the
business _ of “preventing well-
meaning Congressmen from being
deceived, ” ete.

[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.]

To THE Eprror oF Science: In Science
for February 2 Mr. Marshall McLean,
member of the Camp Fire Club, enters
the list of those who would by indirection
ruin the fur-seal herd. He would have
“natural conditions” rule upon the fur-
seal islands and ‘‘all killing of selected
males for commercial purposes * *
cease until the tide of increase in the fur-
seal herd has once more set toward the
flood.’? He lays down as reason for this
the principle ‘‘that when any species of
wild animal has become so depleted as to
be in danger of extinction, the best rem-
edy is to let it absolutely alone.”’

“This is not the first time I have en-
deavored to prevent. well-meaning Con-
gressmen from being deceived by the mis-
representations which have been poured
upon them for many years. The mischief-
maker referred to has bobbed up every
other year for the past 18 years and has
been discredited every time. I hope you
will look up his record as just published
in House Document No. 93, Sixty-second
Congress, first session, pages 1153-1162.”

The Member of the House to whom I
sent this letter has at last presented an
amendment to the State Department bill
in which he proposes to limit the killing
of male seals to 5,000 a year for five years,
7,500 a year for the following five years,
and 10,000 annually for five years after
that. At the end of 15 years new regu-
lations to be adopted.

Now that is better. The gentleman has
evidently been thinking it over. We
shouldn’t probably kill “much closer. if
allowed to have our own way. Perhaps
by the time the treaty bill reaches the
Senate Congress will decide that the
Bureau of Fisheries is able to handle the
seal fishery safely for the seal herd and
for the Government.

OF ALASKA. 199

The well-meaning Congressmen
take notice of Townsend’s efforts;
they are not deceived.

In 1893 proceedings were commenced
in the State Department, claiming dam-
ages on the part of owners, master, and
crew of the James Hamilton Lewis.
H.H. D. Peirceand Charles H. Townsend,
‘‘sealing experts,’’ of the United States
Bureau of Fisheries, prepared the cases
for the parties interested and presented
the claim on the part of the United States
against the Russian Government at The
Hague in 1902, which resulted in an award
of approximately $50,000 in favor of the
United States Government for the use of
the parties interested, including Alexan-
der McLean and Max Weisman, Novem-
ber 29, 1902. The said H. H. D. Peirce
and Charles H. Townsend presented the
claim of Max Weisman as the owner of the
vessel James Hamilton Lewis before the
tribunal at The Hague, when in truth and
in fact the owner of said schooner at the time
of its seizure was Herman Liebes, of San
Francisco. Thesaid H. H. D. Peirce and
Charles H. Townsend represented to the tri-
bunal in the trial of said case that Alexander
McLean, the captain of said vessel, was an
American citizen, when in truth and fact he
was a British subject and notoriously
known as a pirate. (See pp. 754, 755.
Hearing No. 12.

The committee therefore recommends:

(1) That the Attorney General be re-
quested to take such steps as may be
necessary to collect the bond of $500,000
from the said North American Commer-
cial Co. and the sureties thereon.

(2) That the Attorney General be re-
quested to institute civil proceedings
against Isaac Liebes personally to recover
such damages as he and his confederates
did to the seal herd of Alaska from 1890
to 1910.

(3) That the State Department take up
with Russia the matter of the case of the

200

As to the criticism of my general state-
ment about the Uncinaria parasite, I can
only reply that our diminished rookeries
are not at present overspreading into the
parasite-intected sand areas. In fact,
Mr. Heath states, as quoted by Mr.
McLean, ‘‘these areas have been aban-
doned.’’ They must of course be fenced
to protect the younger seals from infec-
{ion as soon as the breeding grounds
begin to expand. As to shooting some of
the big males when they get too numer-
ous, 1t would puzzle the experts, as well
as Mr. McLean, to say which were the
fittest to survive. They all look alike.
Old ocean attends to the matter of selec-
tion in the case of the fur seal, weaklings
do not survive the seven months’ migra-
tion swim among the killer whales of the
Pacific. If Mr. Mclean will bring his
committee to my office where there is a
fairly complete set of rookery photo-
graphs and charts, he will get a clearer
understanding of the Pribilof breeding
grounds than he has at present. The fact
is that the innocent Camp Fire Club is
being used by the unscrupulous lobby
which has always been kept at work by
the pelagic sealers. One excuse suits if
as well as another; this time it is the kill-
ing of surplus males. It is a pity that
year after year 1t should succeed in getting
the support of men of good standing who
happen to be ignorant of the real facts
involved.

C. H. TowsEnp,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.

(Hearing No: 10, pp. 597, 598, Apr. 20,
1912.)

Townsend, in 1895, declared
that the land kiling was mjuri-
ous.

In the investigation made by said com-
mission the methods of land killing as well
as pelagic sealing should be studied. It
may be remembered that Mr. Henry W.
Elhott, formerly United States special
agent, in his report of 1890, claimed that
the methods of driving and killing the
seals on the land were injurious to the
herd. In this conclusion he is corrobo-
rated by Mr. Townsend, of the Fish Com-
mission, whose report is also annexed.
(Report of Chas. S. Hamlin, Asst. Secy.
Treasury, Mar. 1, 1895, p. 452: ‘‘Seal and
Salmon Fisheries.’”’ Vol. I, 1898.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

James Hamilton Lewis’? for the purpose

of rectifying the wrong done by said Liebes,
C. H. Townsend, and H. H. D, Peirce,
against the Government of Russia, a friendly
power.

(4) That with a view to carrying this
recommendation into effect the Clerk of
the House be directed to forward to the
Secretary of State a certified copy of this
report, together with a complete set of
the official hearings before this com-
mittee on this subject.

Joon H. RorHEeRMEL.
Jas. T. McDermott.
JAMES YOUNG.

D. J. McGiniicuppy.

(H. Rept. No. 1425, Jan. 31, 1913, 62d
Cong., 3d sess., pp. 4, 5.)

But he fell down in the shadow
of Jordan and found that the
lessees do no harm.

Mr. McGurre. Have you made any
investigations recently as to what the
Government is doing, and as to whether,
in your judgment, the killing is being
carried on just as it should be done, result-
ing in a reduction of the number of the
surplus males?

Dr. TownsEND. I am of the opinion
that the matter is being very carefully
handled by men who understand it; that
they are harvesting such of the crop as
should be harvested, and that they are
saving a sufficient number of breeding
males. Now that the convention with
Russia, Japan, and Great Britain looking
to the cessation of pelagic sealing has been
held, I think that the treaty should be
ratified and pelagic sealing put an end to.
I do not think that the males should be
killed too closely, and I am not of the
opinion that they have been killed too
closely. (Hearing No. 13, p. 810; June
8, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Townsend swears that he pro-
duced documents at The Hague
which refuted charges of piracy
In re the James Hamilton Lewis
claim.

The CHarrMaANn. Did you know at the
time that they were the owners of these
vessels in which this pirate turned up?

Dr. TOowNSEND. No; never knew
anything about that until those things
were brought out at The Hague.

The CHarrMan. It was developed at
The Hague that the Liebes were the
owners of this vessel?

Dr. TownsEND. That is my recollec-
tion.

The CuatrmMan. And I suppose that is
in the public records?

Dr. TownsEND. Everything, sir,» that
is connected with the matter must be
between the covers of that book and be
between the covers of some other public
document in which the matter was
brought up a year or so later on, perhaps
by Mr. Elliott. But it is all published.

“Mr. Exuiorr. When this was brought
out at The Hague, what did you advise
Mr. Pierce to do, as his ‘‘expert pelagic
sealing adviser 9

Dr. TownsEnD. I do not know that Mr.
Pierce ever asked me for advice over
there. He instructed me to produce
certain documents that would help him
refute claims, etc. I was a statistician.

Mr. Exuorr. Did you produce any
documents that refuted Liebes’s claim?

Dr. TownseEnpD. I have no recollection
in regard to it. Whatever was done is in
the book.

Mr. McGinurcuppy. Why did you
ignore the abundant sworn testimony on
file in the Department of State since 1893
that the James Hamilton Lewis was a seal-
ing ‘‘pirate,’’ or raider, of seal rookeries
on the Commander Islands in 1890 and
1891?

Dr. Townsenp. I had no information
about the ownership of vessels that were
said to be raiding rookeries until the time
that I was sent to The Hague.

Mr. McGruurcuppy. Well, did you
know that there was sworn testimony on
file in the Department of State in 1893
that the James Hamilton Lewis was a seal-
ing ‘‘pirate,’’ or raider, of seal rookeries
on the Commander Islands in 1890 and
1891?

Dr. Townsenv. No; I only knew from
hearing it discussed, or knowing about the
raids as I saw it discussed in the news-
papers.

Mr. McGituicuppy. If your attention
was called to it in that way, did you make

201

But the facts of sworn’ record
prove that the Lewis claim (her
owner and master’s) was a fraudu-
lent one, and known widely as
such.

Mr. Evxiortr.

OF CAPT. ALEXANDER
AMERICAN CITIZEN.”’

THE PROGRESSION
M’LEAN AS AN ‘‘

1890. In command of the J. Hamilton
Lewis; H. Liebes, owner; raids Copper
Island and gets off, August 1, with two
men badly hurt.

1891. In command of the J. Hamilton
Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding
Copper Island with the crew of the E. E.
Webster, owned by H. Liebes and com-
manded by his brother; vessel confiscated
and he is imprisoned at Vladivostock a
few weeks.

1892. In command of the Rosa Sparks,
sealing schooner, of San Francisco; no
raids this year.

1893. In command of the steam sealer
Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is
caught by the U. S. 8S. Mohican ‘raiding
Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July,
but escapes in the fog because the war
vessel’s engines were disabled.

1894 to 1902. In command of various
pelagic vessels, but under restraint from
the lessees, since the claim of the J. Ham-
ilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed,
up to its successful end November 29,
1902, at The Hague.

1896. He appears asa “‘true American
before the claims award commission,
which sits at Victoria, in settlement of
damage suits against the United States
Government for seized sealers and vessels
in 1866-1889; he testifies, ‘‘at the peril of
his life,’’ for the American commissioners
as to the value of the British boats seized.
(See Rept. 2128, Senate bill 3410, 58th
Cong., 2d sess.) He is in truth working
for the highest figures obtainable from the
United States Treasury, instead of the
lowest.

1903. He can not be placed with cer-
tainty this year.

1904. He raids Copper Island eee 2;
in the ‘Mexican’ schooner Cervencita;
one of his men seriously shot.

1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul
Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off;
he is sailing in the Acapulco, and defies
arrest by the United States agents, for he
is a British subject; at Victoria, British
Columbia, in October, 1905.

1906. He raids St. Paul Island July
16-17, with a Japanese outfit; five Japs
killed, and 12 prisoners taken; there is a
fleet engaged in this raid, which attacked

”

202

any effort to ascertain what the evidence
was that was on file in the department?

Dr. TowNSEND. No. (Hearing No. 12,
p. 774, May 25, 1912; Hearing No. NG, 9).
818, June 8, 1912).

Townsend swears that it was no
concern of his when he learned
that the Laas 8 claim was fr aud-
ulent—he was a “youngster” at
the time he eee for it.

The CHarrMAN. Don’t you know that
the Liebes received that money?

Dr. TownsEenp. I know that damages
were awarded in favor of the United States
for these vessels, but how much was al-
lowed to the owners of this vessel I do not
know.

The CuHarrmMAn. Don’t you know that
the Liebes received it?

Dr. Townsend. I donot know. I sup-
pose they did. Ipresumethey did. The
case was decided in favor of the United
States, and I have no doubt they were
paid; but from personal knowledge of it,
I can not say.

The CHarrmMan. Do you swear that they
dia not receive it?

Dr. TOWNSEND. No, sir.

The CHarrmMan. Will you swear that
they did not own the vessel?

Dr. TownsenpD. No, sir; I certainly
could not do that.

The CHarRMAN. Don’t you know that
they did own it?

Dr. TownseEnp. I think they owned it;
yes, sir; and they probably were paid. I
am simply avoiding the making of a state-
ment about a thing of which I am not ab-
solutely positive.

The CHarrMAN. Do you know whether
it wasimportant that the Government offi-
cials or the Secretary of the Treasury
should have found out that the Liebes
were the ownets of this vessel in order that
they could take propei action, so far as the
lease was concerned, or upon the bond that

“was given by the company to the Govern-
ment?

Dr. TowNsEND. No, sir; I was a good
deal of a youngster, and I did not meddle
with those matters of the Government
that did not concern me at all.
No. 13, p. 805, June 8, 1912.)

(Hearing

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

five rookeries at once and on the same
days; they got away from all of them,
except Northeast Point, with seals and
no casualties. (Hearing No. 4, p. 184,
July 11, 1911.)

But Townsend was 43 years
old—an old “youngster’’ to plead
the baby act He was born in
1859. He vouched for this job in
1902.

TowNSEND, Charles Haskins: Zoologist,
b. Parnassus, Pa., September 29, 1859.
* * * fisheries expert Russo-American
Arbitration at The Hague, 1902 * * *,
Address, Aquaruum, New York. (Who’s
Who in America, 1912-13, p. 2113.)

(Nore.—This is Townsend’s own de-
scription of his age and standing when he
vouched for the pirate McLean and lessee
Liebes’s claim as being “‘just and valid”
at The Hague, June—J uly; 1902.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The bogus log of the pirate ship
sent to the State Department by
lessee Liebes December 8, 1899.

Mr. Exxiorr. The claim dragged, be-
cause the log book of the Lewis was in the
hands of its captors. It was necessary
that a log book be produced which would
show that at the time of the seizure the
Lewis was on the high seas. The log book
taken by the Russians does not show
where the vessel was at the time or what
she had been doing. This difficulty is
met by Liebes, who, through an agent,
George R. Tingle, the general manager of
the lessees of the seal islands, who, on
December 8, sends, with a letter, the
“original log” of the J. Hamilton Lewis.
McLean swears to it and Tingle_vouches
for it to Secretary of State Olney. Tingle
says that this long delay (six years) in
producing the log was due to his absence
from the city, when, in truth, he was in
Washington nine months of each year ever
since 1899 up to the date of the letter.
But this log, which owners and masters
have offered as the original log of the
J. Hamilion Lewis, is soberly and sol-
emnly received at the State Department
as a bona fide exhibit for presentation at
The Hague. (Hearing No. 4, p. 181,
July 11, 1911.)

Townsend don’t know Liebes
he does not know much about
San Francisco _ pelagic-sealing
facts—he got the great bulk of
that data in Victoria, British Co-
lumbia.

Mr. Exxiorr. Dr. Townsend, when did
you first meet Isaac and Herman Liebes?

Dr. TownsEnpD. I have no recollection
of ever meeting either of them.

Mr. Exxrorr. You do not know them?

Dr. TownseEnp. I am pretty sure that
I have never met either of them.

Mr. Extrorr. Have you never seen
them?

Dr. TowNnsenp. I have never seen
them.

Mr. Exxiorr. You never have conferred
with them?

Dr. TownsEND. I have no recollection
of it.

Mr. Exxiorr. Have you ever been in
their place of business?

Dr. TowNnsEND. They used to have a
big store in San Francisco; it is possible
I may have been in it. I have no recol-

203

Townsend, as an “expert,”
vouches for this pirate’s log being
genuine and legally in form, at
The Hague July, 1902.

Mr. McGituicuppy. Do you mean to
say that our Government claimed dam-
ages for the seizure of a vessel by. the
Russian Government when such vessel
was engaged in pelagic sealing?

Dr. TowNSEND. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGiuicuppy. And that was done
through our State Department?

Dr. TowNsEND. That is about my rec-
ollection.

Mr. McGuuicuppy. You were there as
an expert, were you not?

Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. I do not want him to
make a statement that he can not sub-
stantiate, but I would like to know now,
Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you
were at The Hague Tribunal in this
matter?

Dr. TowNnseEND. In' the progress of the
work before The Hague Tribunal it be-
came necessary for the Secretary to pro-
duce information on various sealing
matters, such as the movements of sealing
vessels. I carried along with me a trunk
full of log books of sealing vessels. We
would have before us the charges made
by the Russian representative during the
day, and we would work all night pre-
paring something to refute the charges.
I carried the log books that had been
taken from the vessels. (Hearing No. 12,
pp. 756, 758, May 24, 1912.)

But when Victoria is reached,
Townsend has no data whatever
as to pelagic-sealing business duly
claimed by him May 25, last.

The CHarrMAN. Who compose the Vic-
toria Sealers’ Association?

Dr. TownseEnpD. I do not know who the
officers are.

The CHAIRMAN. What is their business?

Dr. TowNnsEND. I suppose it is a com-
pany for the carrying on of pelagic sealing.
They are the owners of vessels, and must
be located in Victoria.

The Cuairman. Is that their place of
business?

Dr. TownseEnpv. Very likely. I can
hardly imagine that it would be anywhere
else.

The CuarrMAN. How long have they
been in business there?

Dr. TownseEnp. I do not know, but
probably for a good many years.

The CHarrMAN. Do you know a man
by the name of Morris Moss?

204

lection of ever going there to see those
men.

Mr. Extiorr. You were engaged as an
employee of the Bureau of Fisheries,
looking into this matter of pelagic sealing
for a number of years, were you not?
And, in your reports, you had occasion
to see the ‘‘owners’’ and look into “the
books of the owners’’ of pelagic-sealing
vessels, did you not?

Dr. TownsEND. I got most of my log
books directly from captains of vessels.

Mr. Exutiorr. Do you not know from
your investigation that Liebes was the
largest dealer in pelagic sealskins on the
Pacific coast?

Dr. TownsEND. The great bulk of my
data was obtained, not in San Francisco,
but in Victoria.

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 773, 774, May 25,
1912.)

Townsend repeats the falsehood
of Jordan in re a fictitious pelagic-
sealer’s lobby—the former takes
his cue from the latter’s telegram
to Congress.

[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.]

To THE EpiIToR OF SCIENCE: _

li Mr. McLean will bring his committee
to my office where there is a fairly com-
plete set of rookery photographs and
charts, he will get a clearer understand-
ing of the Pribilof breeding grounds than
he has at present. The fact is that the
innocent Camp Fire Club is being used
by the unscrupulous lobby which has
always been kept at work by the pelagic
sealers. One excuse suits it as well as
another, this time it is the killing of sur-
plus males. It is a pity that year after
year it should succeed in getting the
support of men of good standing who hap-
pen to be ignorant of the real facts in-
volved.

4 C. H. TowNnsEND,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 597-598, Apr. 20,
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Dr. TowNnseEND. I do not remember any
such person.

The CHarrman. Do you know that he is
connected with the Sealers’ Association, or
the Victoria Sealers’ Association.

Dr. TownseEnD. No, sir; I have no in-
formation on the subject.

The CHatrMan. Do you know of any
business relation between Liebes & Co.
and the Victoria Sealers’ Association?

Dr. TownseEnp. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You never did dis-
cover that as long as you were connected
with the Bureau of Fisheries?

Dr. TownsenpD. I was probably not in-
terested in it at all. As furriers, they
were probably were interested in every
thing of that kind.

The Cuairman. Lampson & Co. have
an agent with the Victoria Sealers’ Asso-
ciation, have they not?

Dr. TownsENpD. I can not say; I do
not know.

The CuarrMan. Do you know the num-
ber of skins that were consigned by the
Victoria Sealers’ Association in 1895 and
1896?

Dr. Townsenp. No, sir; but that is a
matter of record, no doubt.

(Hearing No. 13, pp. 807, 808, June 8,
1912.)

Townsend attempts a denial of
the responsibility of the deroga-
tory Osborn-Grant letter, while
Elhott proves that in 1909 he re-
fused to admit any “rights” for
pelagic sealers.

Mr. Extiotr. Yes. Dr. Townsend, I
have inmy hand a letter signed by Henry
Fairfield Osborn and Madison Grant,
president and chairman of the New York
Zoological Society, general office, No. 11
Wall Street, dated February 8, 1912, ad-
dressed to the Hon. W. 8S. Goodwin, Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, Washington,
D.C. In this letter appears the follow-
ing paragraph:

“Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who holds
views opposite to the foregoing, is and
has been for many years a man entirely
discredited in the scientific world and
is not taken seriously by anyone who has
followed his record in connection with
this subject during the past 18 years. .
We believe that those who have sup-
ported him in this unnecessary and sense-
less agitation, which has been solely in-
stigated by him, have been grossly mis-
led.”’

I ask if you inspired that letter?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Pato ALTo, CAL.,
February 5, 1912.
Hon. Wm. SULZER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.:

To incorporate a clause establishing in
fur-seal bill a close season prohibiting
killing of superfluous males would do no
good to herd, but would kill treaty. No
one knows this better than the pelagic-
sealers’ lobby, which for 20 years has
been led by Henry W. Elliott.

Davip STARR JORDAN.

(Hearing No. 12, p. 771, May 25, 1912.)

- Townsend and Lucas deny Os-
born’s letter.

Mr. Exutotr. Did -you inspire the
letter which Henry Fairfield Osborn,
president of the American Museum of
Natural History, wrote to Chairman
William Sulzer?

Dr. Lucas. I did not. Kindly note,
Mr. Elliott asked if I inspired that letter.

The CHarrMan. Do you know any-
thing about it?

Dr. Lucas. Only after it was written.

The CHarrMAN. Were you in consulta-
tion about it with anyone?

_ Dr. Lucas. No; my advice was not
asked.

Mr. Exuiotr. Do you agree with Mr.
Osborn in this statement:

New York Zoouocicat Soctety,
New York, January 22, 1912.
My Dear Mr. Suuzer: I understand
there is a proposal to add to the fur-seal
bill drafted by the State Department an

205

Dr. TowNnsEnD. Mr. Chairman, do I un-
derstand that this question comes from
you?

Mr. Extiorr. It comes from me.

Dr. TownsEND. Must I submit to the
cross-examination by Mr. Elliott?

The CuHarrmMAN. You will just answer
the question.

Dr. TownsEnD. I am _ not responsible
for the writings of Mr. Grant or Mr. Os-
born. I have nothing to do with their
statements.

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 768, 769, May 25,
912.)

17 Grace Ave., LAKEWOOD, OHIO,
November 3, 1909.

Dr. Davip Starr JoRDAN,
Stanford University, Cal.

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 6th in-
stant has been duly received. With re-
gard to that appearance of my track chart
in your report of 1896, you seem to be not
quite clear in your mind as to how it got
in there as it did. Perhaps the following
statement of fact may help you to know
its publication there without that credit
given to me as its author which is indis-
putably mine:

With regard for the ‘‘rights” of those
Victorian sea wolves, I hope that they
will never get a penny for their rotting
vessels or their ‘‘good will.’”’ They have
had far, far too much already at the ex-
pense of humanity and decency. Let
their vessels rot, and let their owners rot
with them.

Very truly, yours,

Henry W. ELLiotr.

Citas No. 12, pp. 763, 764, May 25,
1912.)

But Osborn says they advised
how to write.

Mr. Exuiorr (reading):

THe AMERICAN MusEUM
or NaturAL History,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
New York, January 22, 1912.

Dear Sir: As president of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, I have
been securing the advice of the expert
zoologists of this institution, especially
of Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, who is a trained
authority on the fur- seal question. [
desire to protest against the proposed
amendment to the fur-seal bill (drafted
by the State Department), which amend-
ment provides a 15-year closed season on
male seals. This amendment, should it
become law, would exterminate the great
seal herd of the United States, and is
founded upon ignorance of the first
principles of breeding under natural con-
ditions, and of the artifical conditions

206

amendment for a 15-year closed season on
male seals.

This amendment is a vicious one,
which will certainly lead to the complete
extermination of the seals. I understand
it was proposed by Mr. Elhott, who has
no standing in this country as a "zoologist,
and I believe is supported by my friend
Dr. Hornaday, who, I regret to say, has
come under the influence of Mr. Ellott.
Dr. Hornaday’s position in the matter is
entirely personal, and does not in any
way represent the judgment of the New
York Zoological Society. All the zoolo-
gists of note in this country, all the scien-
tific experts whose opinions are worthy
of consideration, all the trained experts
who have made a special study of the fur-
seal problem, all naturalists who under-
stand that an excess of males is fatal to
both the females and the young, and
finally all those who desire through in-
telligent study of the question from
motives of humanity as well as from mo-
tives to protect the economic interests of
the United States, are opposed to the
15-year closed season.

The reason is a very simple one, which
you can yourself readily understand,
namely, that there is an unnatural excess
of males on the islands, due to the fact
that pelagic sealing has destroyed 85
females out of the 100 in the herd; thus
the balance of nature has been destroyed.
When there are not enough females to go
around, the bulls will fight for them, and
in doing so will kill both the females and
the pups. Under natural conditions of
breeding there would be an equal number
of females and males; nature takes care of
these things, but the pelagic sealers have
produced a set of new and entirely arti-
ficial conditions; consequently the pro-
posal of the United States Fish Commis-
sion experts to keep down the resulting
excess of males, and thus to restore
gradually the balance which nature hag
instituted for all time between the sexes
is the only one which will preserve this
great herd.

T have given this matter very prolonged,

study and have read all the documents,
and I regret to say that your committee
has been given a great amount of misin-
formation under the guise of sentiment
for the protection of these animals. [Iam
one of the most ardent advocates of pro-
tection of the wild animal life of this
country and in this spirit and in the
interests of my country I can not express
myself too emphatically. My opinion is
identical (with the exception of my
friend Dr. Hornaday) with that of all
the leading zoologists and mammalogists
of rank in the United States, and if you
desire I can have prepared for your com-
mittee at short notice a document signed
by all these men. The article by Hugh

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

which have been brought about on the
islands through prolonged and fateful
pelagic sealing.
Iam, very respectfully,
Slawee FAIRFIELD OSBORN,
President.
Hon. WiLL1AM SULZER,
Chairman Committee on Foreign
Affairs, House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

I am strongly in favor of the bill itself.

Now, how did he get the idea that they
would be exterminated after he had con-
ferred with your scientific acumen?

Dr. Lucas. Men may confer, you
know, and do something entirely different.

Mr. Ex.iorr. How did he get that im-
pression, if not from you?

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. You will
find all my publications entirely differ-
ent from-that.

Mr. Exutotr. So you will not be re-
sponsible for what Dr. Osborn says?

Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly
not.

Mr. McGiuuicuppy. Did you have any
part in causing Dr. Henry Fairfield Os-
born to write to Hon. William Sulzer a
letter dated January 22, 1912, in which
the former tells the latter that unless the
surplus young males are all killed by man
these animals will, if left alone by man,
grow up and exterminate the species in a
few years? Did you inspire that letter?

Dr. TownsenD. That is not such a let-
ter as I would write.

Mr. McGituicuppy. Do you think he
stated it sensibly or correctly?

Dr. TownsenpD. No; I do not think he
stated it correctly.

Mr. McGmuicuppy. Have you ever
made any statement about it or protested
against his statement of it?

“Dr. TowNsEND. Only as I have written
about it since then; I have not ventured
to criticise him, put I have stated the case
with regard to the seals very plainly a
number of times. I have not attempted
to criticise him. (Hearing No. 12, pp.
722, 723, May 16, 1912 (Lucas’s testimony) ;
Hearing No. 13, pp. 824, 825, June 8
1912 (Townsend’s testimony).)

’

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

M. Smith, of the United States Fisheries
Bureau, one of the finest at and most
unprejudiced and unbiased men _ of
science in the country, in the last number
of the National Geographical Magazine
exactly expresses the truth on this
subject.

With your permission, | should like to
publish this letter, but ‘will not do so
without your permission.

With best wishes for the prosecution of
the many grave and important questions
which are before your committee, and
with continued personal regard, I am,

Sincerely, yours,
Henry Fartrrie_tp OsBporn,
President.

Hon. WILLIAM SULZER,
Chairman House Committee on For-
eign Affairs, House of Rey re-
sentatives, Washington, :

Dr. Lucas. I do not agree with that,
which shows very plainly I did not in-
spire the letter.

Townsend, naturalist, does not
believe the natural law which
governs wild life is the best; he
knows better.

Mr. McGutre. Do you approve the
present policy, then, that the Govern-
ment continue the killing?

Dr. TownsEND. I approve that.

Mr. McGuire. And, in your judgment,
will the seals increase under the present
regulations and the present method of

killing by the Government, in case
pelagic sealing is stopped?
Dr. TownsENnD. Oh, yes; they are

bound to increase. The stock of breeders
will increase, and when the pelagic sealers
stop killing the females at sea there will
be more pups born.
polygamous, and the males fight so much
among themselves that they destroy a
part of the crop of infant seals by their
fighting.

Mr. McGuire. Then, in your judgment,
there is nothing to be gained by the cessa-
tion of the killing of the seals, providing
the regulations are proper?

Dr. TownseEnp. There is nothing to be
gained. The male seals are on shore;
they do not go away to sea as the females
do when they are nursing their young, and
they can be managed; they can be farmed,
and the surplus stock of males disposed of
just the same as you dispose of the surplus
stock of any domestic animals, your sur-
plus male stock. It is a clear- cut propo-
sition, and very well understood by those
who have been up there. (Hearing No.
13, p. 812, June 8, 1912.)

The animals are .

207

Liebes, seal contractor, has
carefully studied the question and
has the same improvement over
natural law in mind.

The CuHarrMAN. Do you think it would
be better to kill males not less than 3 years
ot than to kill males less than 2 years
old?

Mr. Lieses. Well, naturally, they are
more valuable; but if there is no pelagic
sealing at all, then, naturally, it makes no
difference what you kill, except the
natural enemies they have in the water.

The CuarrMAN. But I have always had
the impression, without knowing any-
thing about the subject, except what I
have heard at these hearings, that it was
killing too closely that would injure the
herd—I mean, killing them too young.

Mr. Lieses. Oh, no. As I say, there
are too many ‘‘P’s,” too many professors,
too much politics, and too much pelagic
sealing; that is what is killing the herd

more than anything else.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any politic sin
the killing up there?

Mr. Lizspes. No; not up there, but in
Washington. You can not run a stock
farm from Washington and tell them what
is going to happen next year. Youshould
have men there in whom you have con-
fidence, and let them run the thing. A
business man, running a stock farm,
would not sit down in Washington and
write a letter up north telling them to let
the stock run wild for 5 or 10 years. My
Lord, it would be ruinous; that would kill
off the herd; they would destroy them-
selves. (Hearing No. 13, p. 878, June 20,
1912.)

208
Townsend don’t like Elhott.

Dr. TOWNSEND. To go back to the sub-
ject of the hearings: I have nothing to add
to what has been said by the hard-work-
ing and efficient officials of the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor whom
Elliott has placed-under fire. What I
have written in the past year in Science
has already been reprinted in the hearings,
and my views are there available.

I am unwilling, after 20 years of ac-
quaintance with the ways of Elliott, to
appear before any committee in which
he may be an inquisitor, or where he may
even be present.

The CHatRMAN. I want to be entirely
fair to the witness, and would suggest
that if there is any place you can dis-
cover in any of the hearings where Mr.
Elhott falsified or has overstepped the
truth, so far as the chair is concerned
you are entirely at liberty to submit the
statement.

Mr. Ex1rorr. He should be compelled
to.
The CHarrMaNn. One moment. I sim-
ply make that statement on account of
the allegations in the statement which
the witness has just read.

‘Dr. TowNnsEND: It would take a good
deal of your time, Mr. Chairman, to go
through and point these out.

Mr. Extiorr. You will have to before
you leave the city; I will tell you that.
You will answer a good many other ques-
tions to-day. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 739,
740, May 24, 1912.)

FUR-SHEAL- HERD OF ALASKA.

One of a hundred reasons why.

The Cuarrman. Dr. Townsend, do you
know the extent to which Liebes dealt in
sealskins?

Dr. TownsEeNnD. I could not say that
I know the extent; I simply know they
were furriers interested in all kinds of
furs, especially seals.

The CHatrMaANn. Did you know at the
time that they were the owners of these
vessels in which this pirate turned up?

Dr. TownsEeND. No; I never knew any-
thing about that until those things were
brought out at The Hague.

The CHAIRMAN. It was developed at
The Hague that the Liebes were the
owners of this vessel?

Dr. TownsEeNnD. That is my recollec-
tion.

The Cuarrman. And I suppose that is
in the public records?

Dr. Townsend. Everything, sir, that
is connected with the matter must be
between the covers of that book and be
between the covers of some other public
document in which the matter was
brought up a year or so later on, perhaps
by Mr. Elliott. But it is all published.

Mr. Extiorr. When this was brought
out at The Hague, what did you advise
Mr. Pierce to do, as his ‘‘expert pelagic
sealing adviser”?

Dr. TownsEND. I do not know that Mr.
Pierce ever asked me for advice over
there. He instructed me to produce
certain documents that would help him
refute claims, etc. I was a statistician.

Mr. Extiorr. Did you produce any
documents that refuted Liebes’s claim?

Dr. TownsEND. I have no recollection
in regard to it. Whatever was done is in
the book. (Hearing No. 12, p. 774, May
24, 1912.)

The sworn statements of Dr. Frederic Augustus Lucas, who is one of the experts cited to
the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January
14, 1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for killing seals in

violation of the law and regulations, to wit:

Minn OWE RS. ii ics ars

FuR-SEAL Boarp,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered by
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following;

*& * &

& * *

Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum of Natural History,
member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most

discerning, and best-known naturalists.
1911.)

* 4 (Hearne: No: 2. pe l09, Jmmenoe

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

209

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

Lucas attempts to pass a
“‘doped”’ sales sheet on the com-
mittee as a genuine sheet.

Dr. Lucas. May I make a statement?
In all these sales of skins the skins are ad-
vertised by weight and not by size.

Mr. Exuiorr. Are they advertised by
weight? Find an advertisement by
weight in the Lampson catalogues and
you will find something I have never
been able to find. :

Dr. Lucas (reading):

“©. M. Lampson & Co. exposed to sale
by auction at the College Hill public sale
room on Friday, December 15, 1911, at
2 o’clock precisely, the following goods,
viz, 12,002 skins, salted fur seal, Alaska.”’

Here follows the table: =

‘‘Lot 1, 1 middling and small, 10
pounds, no ounces; 98 smalls, 8 pounds,
4 ounces.”’

Mr. Exuiorr. Since when was that put
out?

Dr. Lucas. Last December.

Mr. Exuiorr. That is a notation put on
by somebody else.

Dr. Lucas. This is a copy of the list.

Mr. Exuiotr. That is not the catalogue
of sales in London.

Dr. Lucas. This is a catalogue of the
sales.

(Mr. Elliott takes paper.)

Mr. Exuiorr. I’ve got it here.

Dr. Lucas. Absolutely; hand
paper back here.

Mr. Exuiorr. Certainly. Those figures
ought not to have been written on there.
They have never been put on in the origi-
nal statement, and time of sales of those
skins. (Hearing No. 12, p. 726, May 16,
1912.)

that

21588—13-—_14

But he is exposed and pre-
vented by the presentation of a
genuine sheet.

Dr. Lucas. Show me one where they
are not in.

Mr. Exutorr. I’ve got it right here.
You can look over the London sales cata-
logues of the Lampsons like this one for
20 years, and you can find neither weight
nor Measurement.

Dr. Lucas. Then they don’t mean any-
thing.

Mr. Exuiotr. They do ‘‘mean any-
thing.’’ How do you suppose these skins
are classified?

Dr. Lucas. By weight.

Mr. Exuiotr. No, sir. How could they
classify them by weight—get the size by
weight?

Dr. Lucas. Aren’t you willing to say
that they are classified by weight?

Mr. Evxtrotr. No; because Mr. Fraser
says, on pages 30 to 33 of hearing No. 1,
that they are classified by measurement.

The CHarrMan. I do not suppose that
the people who deal in skins care so much
about the weight asthe size. Itis the size
which is needed to cover a person’s back,
isn’t it?

Mr. McGuire. I do not know how they
classify them. There seems to be a differ-
ence in these copies. If this is genuine
that the doctor has, it seems to me that
they sometimes do put in the figures of
of weights and sometimes they do not put
them in.

Mr. Exuiotr. They never have. I have
the whole series of catalogues for 20 years.
That is a notation made by somebody-else,
exactly as I might make a notation on it
now and here.

Dr. Lucas. I would like to ask one
question, which is if these skins are sold
by measurement why is it that they are
always alluded to in the sales and on the
lists of seals taken as weighing so much?

Mr. Extrorr. I have never known of
them being alluded to in that»way in the
sales. Here is the sales catalogue of the
Lampsons’ last sale, December 29, 1914,
There is not the slightest allusion to
measurement or weight there. They are
all classified by measurements, which
govern the sizes of ‘‘small pups,” ‘‘mid-
dling pups,”’ etc.

The CuarrMAN. There seems to bea
variation in these statements. Is the
original document here?

; ¥ RBS ek i fis reat Lg will put at
right. in ou like [handing paper ‘to
chairman]. teats No. 12, p. 727, May:
16, 1912.)

210

The ‘‘doped” sales sheet of London broker,
which Lucas presented as genuine.

The CuarrMan. Is that correct?

Dr. Lucas. No; I have the same thing
of that very sale, which came from Mr.
Fraser, Lampson & Co.’s agent in New
York.

Mr. Exxiotr. I do not dispute the nota-
tions; but, Fraser did not attend the sale;
he has made them outside.

The CHarrmMan. I would suggest that
we print both statements in the record
and compare them afterwards. These
two statements may be marked *‘ Exhibit
A,’’ submitted by Dr. Lucas, and ‘‘Ex-
hibit B,’’ offered by Mr. Elliott.

The documents referred to are as fol-
lows:

‘‘Exuipit A.

*“C. M. Lampson & Co. exposed to sale by
auction at the College Hill public sales-
room on Friday, December 15, 1911, at
2 o’clock precisely, the following goods,
viz, 12,002 salted fur-seal skins, Alaska.
Prompt, December 29, 1911.

‘‘The purchasers are particularly re-
quested to have some one in attendance
to superintend the counting, as no
claim for deficiencies can be allowed
after the goods have been counted and
delivered from the warehouse.’’

* * * # &

12,002 SKINS, SALTED FUR SEAL, ALASKA.

[In cold storage at New Hibernia Wharf. Samples
at C. M. Lampson & Co.’s warehouse, 64 Queen
Street, E. C. At per skin, to advance ls. Buy-
ers are requested to note that all skins are stamped
““T, A” on the right cheek.]

Lot No ie Number and kind. | Weight.
paeene

Lbs. 02.

294 {5 middling and small.. 10 0

OSismalll sae an eae 8 4

se:

Seid eed

ling pup:
100 ee pups...

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 728, 729, May 16,
1912.)

FUR-SHEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

The genuine sales sheet of the London
broker, given to committee.

The CuarrMan. Where does this list
that you have come from?

Mr. Exxiotr. From Lampson’s agent in
New York.

The CHairmMANn. I would suggest that
we print both statements in the record
and compare them afterwards. These
two statements may be marked ‘‘ Exhibit
A,”’ submitted by Dr. Lucas, and ‘‘Ex-
hibit B,’’ offered by Mr. Elliott.

The documents referred to are as fol-
lows:
“EXHIBIT B.

‘“C, M. Lampson & Co. Exposed to sale
by auction at the College Hill public
sale room on Friday, December 15, 1911,
at 2 o’clock precisely, the following
goods, viz, 12,002 salted fur-seal skins,
Alaska. Prompt, December 29, 1911.

‘‘The purchasers are particularly re-
quested to have some one in attendance
to superintend the counting, as no claim
for deficiencies can be allowed after the
goods have been counted and delivered
from the warehouse.”’

* * * * *

12,002 SKINS, SALTED FUR SEAL, ALASKA.

[In cold storage at New Hibernia Wharf. Samples
at C. M. Lampson & Co.’s warehouse, 64 Queen
Street, E. C. At per skin, to advance ls. Buy-
ers are requested to note that all skins are stamped
‘<7, A”’ on the right cheek.]

Lot No. Shillings.) Number and kind.
1 middling and
TB (al Leas 8 as Cie 224 small.
wits ae 98 sie
OU 2a ss ee hae eae 02 | 80 large pups.
Loto se eee eas 206 Dot si
DEO ne aa ee 206 Do.
Ot Dey Oe REE a a 206 Do.
WotiGswe in sale 206 | 69 large pups.
BPO aneane Acneenae 174 | 90 middling pups.
LOWS ee see eee 174 Do.
TOL OE eee ea 172 Do
Total ORY Ries 7 an 172 Do
ALD To) Gea aa Re Ae 172 Do
ZO Gol 2 Es eee ee 172 Do
Wot laos nae 172 Do
sO ta, eels 172 Do
Oty een ee a aes 172 Do
Ot ee eee 172 Do
MEO GL TNE Wes eee 172 Do
Tote ewe sor egy 170 Do
Lot 19... 170 Do
Lot 20... 170 Do
IWpoyr PAL. 170 Do.
Lot 22... 168 Do.
Lot 23... 168 | 105 middling pups.
oti2sys toe ee 130 | 100 small pups.
Bot25 ae eee 128 Do.
x * * % *

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 731, 732, May 16,
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lucas declares that the size of
the skin has nothing to do with its
classification.

Dr. Lucas. You are also doubtless fa-
miliar with the fact that the classification
of the seals in the sales has absolutely
nothing to do with actual ages and sizes.
(Hearing No. 12, p. 708, Mar. 16, 1912.)

Lucas swears that the green
skins weigh more than when
salted.

Dr. Lucas. For example, you will find
large pups here whose skins weighed 7
pounds 4 ounces, the size of either an aver-
age 2-year-old or a small 3-year-old seal;
middling pups weighing 6 pounds 4 ounces,
the size of a 3-year old. oral if these seal-
skins follow the rule of other skins—and I
have handled a great many hundreds of
skins—they will weigh less at the London
sales after being salted than they will
weigh fresh on the islands, because when a
skin is salted the salt takes the moisture
out of it and it comes to the sale in a semi-
dry condition. (Hearing No. 12, p. 708,
May 16, 1912.

211

But the London sales agent
says that its size does determine
it, by measurement so classed.

TESTIMONY OF MR. ALFRED FRASER,

(The witness was duly sworn by the
chairman.)

Mr. Fraser. Yes. I was in the fur
business, being a member of the firm of
C. M. Lampson & Co.

The CHarRMAN. For how many years
did you say you were connected with that
company?

Mr, Fraser. I was connected with
them since 1865.

The CHarrmMan. What was your busi-
ness as their representative?

Mr. Fraser. I took care of their busi-
ness in New York.

The CuarrMaNn. If you will kindly send
us a catalogue I will look it over and sub-
mit it to the committee. Prof. Elliott,
do you want to ask any question?

Mr. Extrorr. Just one question, not to
criticise Mr. Fraser, because he has told
the exact truth [reading]:

‘“The London classification of skins is
based upon the length of the skin, and
then weight (p. 916, vol. 8, Proceedings of
the Bering Sea Tribunal).”’

Mr. Fraser. That is so; I do not dis-
pute that. (Hearing No. 1, pp. 29, 33,
June 2, 1911.)

Mr. Extrorr. The London people knew
nothing,{and still know nothing, about the
age of seals, and they cared nothing, about
it. They were interested in the size and
the quality. They ascertained and
formed their idea of the skin’s value pri-
marily by its measurement, and, secondly,
by its weight. The weight would vary.
Sometimes more salt and blubber are used
and sometimes less. But the measure-
ments were reasonably steady and con-
stant. They measure their sealskins.
We weighed ours on the islands. (Hearing
No. 1, p. 12, May 31, 1911.)

The London authority declares
that the salted skins are heaviest,
and the island records confirm it,

Mr. Euuiorr. I will go further, and sub-
mit as Exhibit J this paper. I won’t read
all of this in regard to the British authority
on Alaskan fur-seal classification and what
he says, as compared with our tables; but
I will read one word from a chief British
authority in an official letter written De-
cember 21, 1892, by Sir Curtis Lampson’s
sons to the British commissioners, Sir
George Baden-Powell and Dr. George M.
Dawson. Sir Curtis Lampson says:

“We are unable to answer your inquiry.
as to in what class in the sales catalogue
would be placed a skin classified on the
islands as, say, a 7-pound skin, as we do not

212

Lucas weighed and measured
no sealskins, because this work
had been done:

Mr. Exxrott. Nowhere in your table is
there a record of a ‘‘green” skin weight?

Dr. Lucas. Not in my table. No; ex-
cept the one I think of, one skin only.
The weight had been very carefully taken
by Government agents and others, and it
was a part of the work we did not deem it
necessary to take.

‘“‘There is a large amount of evidence
bearing on these facts collected by Messrs.
Judge and Lembkey, and I have perfect
faith in their observations from my Peri
sonal knowledge of the men.’’ (F. A
Lucas to Hon. E. H. Townsend, Feb. 24,
1912. Hearing No. 14, p. 948. )

Mr. Exuiott. I’ve oot it right here.
You can look over the London sales cata-
logues of the Lampsons like this one for 20
years, and you can find neither weight
nor Measurement.

Dr. Lucas. Then, they don’t mean any-
thing.

Mr. Exurotr. They do ‘‘mean any-
thing.’’ How do you suppose these skins
are classified?

Dr. Lucas. By weight.

Mr. Exutiorr. No, sir. How could they
classify them by weight—get the size by
weight?

Dr. Lucas. Aren’t you willing to say
that they are classified by weight?

Mr. Exxrotr. No; because Mr. Fraser
says, on pages 30 to 33 of hearing No. 1,
that they are classified by measurement.
(Hearing No. 12, pp. 726, 727, May 16,
1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

know whether the classification you men-
tion refers to the skins as taken from the
animals or after they have been cured and
salted ready for shipment. The process of
curing and salting must of necessity add
to the weight. (See p. 916, Proceedings of
the Tribunal of Arbitration, vol. 8, Paris,
1893.)’’ (Hearing No. 1, p. 14, May 31,
1912.)

The London authority is con-
firmed on the Seal Islands.

[Official Journal, Government Agent in Charge Seal
Islands, St. Pauls Island, Alaska.]

Saturpay, July 23, 1904.

On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi
were weighed and salted. To-day they
were hauled out of the bench and re-
weighed. At the time of killing they
weighed 705 pounds, and on being taken
out they weighed 7594 pounds, a gain in
salting of 544 pounds, or one-half pound
per skin. (Entry made on p. 149 by
W. I. Lembkey, Chief Special Agent in
Charge Seal Islands. )

But he has never seen the table
of one of his associates which de-:
nies his claim that the skins are
classified by weight:

Mr. Exutiorr. How do you know that

the weight determines the size?
Dr. Lucas. The size determines the

weight.

Mr. Exurort. Does it?

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.

Mr. Exziorr. Are you sure of that?

Dr. Lucas. Naturally, to a great extent
it does.

Mr. Exxiorr. Are you acquainted with
the tables of salted weights published by
one of your associates, of 275 skins, which
give a complete denial to your statement?

Dr. Lucas. I am not.

Mr. Extiorr. You have never seen the
table of Mr. Judge?

Dr. Lucas. I presume I have seen the
table, but I never noticed it. (Hearing
No. 12, p. 726, May 16, 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lucas says that the weights
show that no yearling skins are
taken:

AMERICAN MuseuM
or Natura History,
New York, February 18, 1912.

Dear Stir: Noticing your remark on
page 2168 of the Congressional Record
or February 14, I take the liberty of say-
ing that the weights of the sealskins
(catches 1909 and 1910), as published by
the Government agents and in the
report of the London fur sales, show
conclusively that there has been no sys-
tematic killing of undersize fur seals—
that probably none is under 2 years of
age.

aM you doubtless are aware, the largest
seals of any given year may be, and fre-
quently are, larger than seals born the
year previous, so that there is an overlap-
ping of sizes and weights.

I base the above statements on my own
observations, on the reports of Mr.
Judge and Mr. Lembkey, and on the state-
ments published by Mr. Elliott in his
report of 1873. I confess that I quote
Mr. Elliott with some hesitancy, because,
as I wrote the Hon. Mr. Sulzer, he
does not know the difference between a
2-year-old and a 3-year-old seal. My
reason for this statement is that subse-
quent to 1890 Mr. Elliott published a
“field diagram,’’ in which he includes
certain seals marked ‘‘2-year-olds,’”’ or
“nubiles.’’ Two-year-old females do not
occur on the rookeries and very few are
on the islands in June. The bulk of
them arrive in July and August after the
rookery system has been broken up, as is
well shown in photographs. The young-
est seals in the harems are 3-year-olds.

I am, faithfully yours,

F. A. Lucas.

Hon. Epwarp W. TowNsENnD,
Committee on Foreign A frairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

Lucas swears that the weight
of the skin determines its size:

Moy Biiionr, svess so Naw. Dr.
Lucas, when you take the skin off of that
yearling seal, and salt it down, how long
Is it?

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have
never measured a skin after salting.

Mr. Extrorr. You never measured it
before salting, did you?

Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin
before salting.

Mr. Exuiorr. Neither before or after.
Then how do you know that in the kill-
rae there they are not killing yearling
seals?

213

But cross-examination makes
him admit that he does not know
what the weights are:

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 948, 949, July 25,
1912.)

Mr. Extrorr. Never mind the female.
Did you measure the skin and weigh it?

Dr. Lucas. I did not.

Mr. Extiorr. Nowhere in your table is
there a record of a ‘‘green” skin weight?

Dr. Lucas. Not in my table. No.

Mr. Exurorr. And your record stands,
of course.

Dr. Lucas. This record as printed
stands.

Mr. Evutiotrr. Yes; I find no fault with
that record, either. It is exactly as I
published it nearly 40 years before. Now,
Dr. Lucas, when you take the skin off of
that yearling seal, and salt it down, how
long is it?

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have
never measured a skin after salting.

Mr. Extiorr. You never measured it
before salting, did you?

Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin
before salting.

Mr. Exuiorr. Neither before or after.
Then how do you know that in the killing
up there they are not killing yearling
seals?

Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the skins.

Mr. Exuurorr. How do you know that
the weight determines the size?

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.

Mr. Exutorr. Does it?

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 725, 726,
May 16, 1912.)

Proof instantly produced that
it does not:

There are 134 skins thus listed above,
every one of which is not to exceed 344
inches long. If those small skins had all
been properly skinned, no one of them
would weigh more than 5 pounds green
and three-fourths of them would not ex-
ceed 44 pounds. Yet we find that they
all have been so loaded with blubber,
when fresh skinned, that with the ex-
ception of 18 skins, they are weighing as
as much and even more than properly
skinned 2-year old seal pelts do, and
a, of them weigh into the 3 year-old
class.

214
Dr.
skins.
Mr. Exziorr. How do you know that
the weight determines the size?

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.

Mr. Ex.iorr. Does it?

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 725, 726,
May 16, 1912.)

The following was contributed by Dr.
Lucas to the New York Times of Febru-
ary 23, 1912:

Lucas. By the weight of the

“THE FUR SEAL HERD.

‘‘To the Epiror or THE NEw YorxK

TIMES:

‘‘Since my name appears in your edi-
torial article on the fur seal question,
may I have space to state my opinions?

‘‘Finally, the published figures of the
London sales show conclusively that
there has been no systematic killing of
anything below the two-year olds, and
not so very many of those. All reports to
the contrary are absolutely false.

“Tt should also be stated that the
terms ‘pups,’ ‘small pups,’ and ‘extra
small pups’ are dealers’ terms and have
nothing whatever to do with the actual
ages of the seals. Also, that sealskins
weighed in London, after being salted
and half-way dried, weigh less than they
do when freshly taken from the seals, as
they are weighed at the islands.

“RA. Lucas,
‘“ Member of the Fur Seal Commis-
sion of 1896 and 1897;
‘“ Member of the Advisory Board,
Fur Seal Service.”’

Lucas says that Merriam and
himself have some ‘exact knowl-
edge’:

AMERICAN MusEUM OF
Natura History,
New York, February 24, 1912.

Dear Stir: Absence from the city has
delayed my replying to your favor of Feb-
ruary 21, which I am very glad to receive.

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl-
edge in regard to the killing of seals under
2 years of age during the years 1909 and
1910 must, like that of others who did not
see the actual killing, be based on the
published statement of their weights. In
addition, however, I have my own expe-
rience to aid in translating these weights.
The advisory board recommended that no
sealskins under 5 pounds in weight be
taken, this being the average weight of a
2-year-old skin. The weight given by El-
liott in 1875 was (see postscript) 54 pounds,
but this was based on an average of only
10 skins. There is a bare possibility that

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

As an instance of that falsification in
those weights above listed, No. 4612 is
32 inches long and is so blubbered that
it weighs 8 pounds 43 ounces, and No.
4244 is also only 32 inches long—same
size—yet, not blubbered, weighs but 4
pounds 34 ounces.

These two small yearling skins show
beyond dispute that no classification of
these skins by weight can be sensibly or
honestly made. - (Report Agents H. Com.
on Exp. Dept. Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913,
p. 107.)

But Merriam swears that he has
no knowledge whatever:

Mr. Extiorr. Doctor, while you were
on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?

Dr. Merriam. I did not.

Mr. Exxtiorr. Do you know anything
about the length and the weight of a year-
ling sealskin?

Dr. Merriam. Nothing.

Mr. Exxiorr. Did you make any meas-
urements up there?

Dr. Merriam. J do not remember off-
hand. I examined a great many pup
seals for sex.

Mr. Exxiorr. You did not measure the
yearlings, Doctor.

Dr. Merriam. I measured or at least
weighed some of the seals, but I do not
remember offhand.

Mr. Extiotr. Have you published any
record of it.

Dr. Merriam. I think not.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

these might be short 3-year-olds, but I
will let the matter stand as stated, Ac-
cording to the observations of Dr. Mer-
riam and myself, there is about 20 per
cent variation from the average either
way, so that some 2-year-old sealskins
would weigh but 4 pounds and others
would weigh 6 pounds. J

Pardon me for troubling you with a
number of explanatory details, but I wish
above all things to make it clear that I am
not speaking by hearsay, or making state-
ments without foundation, but that I am
writing of matters with which I have di-
rect acquaintance.

Faithfully, yours,
F, A. Lucas.
Hon. Epwarp W. TowNsEND,
Committee on the Library,
House of Representatives.

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 25,

1912.)

Lucas swears that he believes
54 pounds is the “good average”’
of a 2-year-old skin.

Dr. Lucas. In regard to the sizes and
ages of killable seals, Dr. Evermann has
pointed out in his admirable résumé that
there is no law against the killing of male
seals of any age. There have been regu-
lations against it, but all I can say is that
no yearlings have been systematically
killed. I took Mr. Elliott’s figures of
1873 as a good average. He cites the
weight of 2-year-old skins as 54 pounds.
I agree with him there. I think that is a
good average. I might say that I have
not weighed any sealskins myself. (Hear-
ing No. 12, p. 708, May 16, 1912.)

Lucas records the appearance
of 2-year-old cows, or nubiles, on
the breeding grounds at the height
of the breeding season July 14-29,
1897:

Juty 14, 1897.
I made a count of Ardiguen this morn-
ing with Mr. Macoun. * * *
Three or four bulls with 2-year-old cows
were seen on Zapadine this afternoon.
(F. A. Lucas.)

JuLy 20, 1897.
There is nothing in the condition of the
harems to warrant the supposition that the
3-year-old cows are the cause of the height
of the season on the rookeries. It is evi-
dent also that the 2-year-olds are already

215

Mr. Exuiorr. No, and therefore you
made no record that we could get hold of
to-day?

Dr. Merriam. I doubt if I measured
any of the 2-year-old seals.

Mr. Exuiotr. I have never been able to
find it. Therefore, you have no record of
the length and weight of a yearling seal?

Dr. Merriam. I think I have none. I
think I have weights and measurements
of py ps, but not of vearling seals. (Hear-
ing No. 11, p. 699, May 4, 1912.)

But Lucas recommends, No-
vember 23, 1909, a lower weight, 5
pounds, for a 2-year-old skin.

Mr. Parron. These recommendations
were made to your bureau?
Mr. Bowers. Yes.
Mr. Patron. And were not made by
you at all?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir.
Mr. Parron. But were made by this
advisory board?
Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:]
‘‘Tt is recommended that, for the pres-
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than
3 pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be
taken, and that not more than 95 per cent
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in
any one year.’’ (Hearing No. 2, p. 111,
June 9, 1911.)

Lucas denies the appearance of
2-year-old cows, or nubiles, on
the breeding grounds at the time
of breeding 3 and 4 year olds are
there. They are not there at the
breeding season, in July:

AMERICAN MusSEUM OF
Natura. History,
New York, February 18, 1912.

Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on
page 2168 of the Congressional Record for
February 14, I take the liberty of saying
that as to the question of 2-year-old fe-
males not occurring on the rookeries, I
may say that the yearlings and the 2-year-
olds come to the islands late. Pardon me
for saying that this statement of mine is
borne out by the observations of all nat-
uralists who have been on the Pribilof
Islands.

216

present in considerable numbers. It
seems more likely that the advent of these
classes of seals depends upon their ages,
the earlier coming into heat earlier as
2-year olds, and bearing their pups earlier
as 3-year-olds. é

(F. A. Lucas anp Guo. A. CLARK.)

(Fur Seal Investigations, part 2, 1898,
pp. 557, 566.)

Lucas‘ says that the virgin or
2-year-old cows do not come on
the breeding rookeries.

t

AMERICAN MusruM oF
NaruraL History,
New York, February 18, 1912.

. Dear Srr: Noticing your remark on
page 2168 of the Congressional Record for
February 14, I take the liberty of saying
that the weights of the sealskins (catches
1909 and 1910), as published by the Gov-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

I confess that I quote Mr. Elliott with
some hesitancy, because, as I wrote the
honorable Mr. Sulzer, he does not know
the difference between a 2-year-old and
a 3-year-old seal. My reason for this
statement is that subsequent to 1890 Mr.
Elhott published a ‘‘field diagram,’’ in
which he includes certain seals marked
‘‘2-year-olds,’’ or ‘‘nubiles.’’ Two-year-
old females do not occur on the rookeries
and very few are on the islands in June.
The bulk of them arrive in July and
August after the rookery system has been
broken up, as is well shown in photo-
graphs. The youngest seals in the
harems are 3-year-olds.

I am, faithfully yours,

F. A. Lucas.

Hon. Epwarp W. TowNSsEND,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
\ House of Representatives,
x Washington, D. C.

[Notr.—This letter confessing the
strange ‘‘scientific” ignorance of the
writer of the fact that those nubiles do
appear on the breeding rookeries when
the breeding season is not broken up, and
only appear then, is a sad revelation of
nonsense on the part of Lucas as an in ves-
tigator. No breeding of any kind takes
place after that date or before, viz, July
4-25 annually, to any noteworthy extent;
none whatever after August 1—
H. W. E.]}

But! Jordan finds them there

just as Elhott found and described
them in 1872-1874.

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENT’S OFFICE.

St. Paun Isnanp, ALaskKa,
Friday, July 31, 1896.
Dr. Jordan found two 2-year-old yirgin
seal cows on the Reef Rookery, which he
killed for scientific research.

1Dr. Evermann. Dr. David Starr Jordan. His
associate, whose name I am now reading: ‘Dr. F.
A. Lucas, director of the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, member of the
fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897, when he spent
about four months on the Seal Islands, devoting the
entire time to a study of the rookeries and hauling
grounds. Dr. Lucas is one of the keenest and most
conservative of American zoologists.”’

1 Dr, Evermann (reading): “Dr. David Starr
Jordan, president of Stanford University, chairman
of the fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897, and
who, in company with his associates, spent the
seasons of those two years on our Seal Islands and
on the Russian islands, visiting every rookery and
every hauling ground and studying the fur seal from
every important point of view. Besides spending
several months actually on the islands, he spent
many more months in collating and studying the
data resulting from his own observations and those
of his associates and in a study of the literature of the
subject.

“Mr. George A. Clark, of Stanford University, sec-
retary tothe fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897 and
special investigator on the Seal Islands during the
entire season of 1909. Mr. Clark has had a wider
experience in enumerating the seal herd than any
other man and is one of the most careful observers
who has ever visited the Seal Sslands.”’

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

ernment agents and in the report of the
London fur sales, show conclusively that
there has been no systematic killing of
undersize fur seals—that probably none
is under 2 years of age.

As you doubtless are aware, the largest
seals of any given year may be, and fre-
quently are, larger than seals born the
year previous, so that there is an overlap-
ping of sizes and weights.

T base the above statements on my own
observations, on the reports of Mr. Judge
and Mr. Lembkey, and on the statements
published by Mr. Elliott in his report of
1873. I confess that I quote Mr. Elliott
with some hesitancy, because, as I wrote
the honorable Mr. Sulzer, he does not
know the difference between a 2-year-old
and a 3-year-old seal. My reason for this
statement is that subsequent to 1890
Mr. Elliott published a ‘‘field diagram,”’
in which he includes certain seals marked
‘*2-year-olds,’’ or “‘nubiles.’’ Two-year-
old females do not occur on the rookeries
and very few are on the islands in June.
The bulk of them arrive in July and
August after the rookery system has been
broken up, as is well shown in photo-
graphs. The youngest seals in the harems
are 3-year-olds.

Tam, faithfully, yours,
F. A. Lucas.

Hon. Epwarp W. TownseEnp,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.

[Norre.—This letter confessing the
strange ‘‘scientific’” ignorance of the
writer of the fact that those nubiles do
appear on the breeding rookeries when
the breeding season is not broken up,
and only appear then, is a sad revelation
of nonsense on the part of Lucas as an
investigator. No breeding of any kind
takes place after that date or before, viz,
July 4-25 annually, to any noteworthy
extent; none whatever after August 1.—
H. W. E.]

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 948, 949, July 25,
1912.)

217

St. Paut Isuanp,
July 14, 1912.

GORBATCH:

There are six little virgin cows in the

two large harems under Rock 12.

2

(U. S. typed notes of Geo. A. Clark, p.
56.)

218

Lucas says that the 2-year-old
cows do not come out on the
rookeries:

AMERICAN MusEum
or Natura. History,
New York, February 24, 1912.

Dear Sir: Absence from the city has
delayed my replying to your favor of
February 21, which I am very glad to
receive.

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl-
edge in regard to the killing of seals under
2 years of age during the years 1909 and
1910 must, like that of others who did not
see the actual killing, be based on the
published statement of their weights.

As to the question of 2-year-old females -

not occurring on the rookeries, I may say
that the yearlings and the 2-year-olds
come to the islands late. Pardon me for
saying that this statement of mine is borne
out by the observations of all naturalists
“who have been on the Pribilof Islands.
My report on the Breeding Habits of the
Pribilof Fur Seal was based on the obser-
vations of our entire party during the two
seasons there, and are supported by the
English naturalists D’ Arcy W. Thompson
and G. E. H. Barrett Hamilton. We
found, as I have stated, that the 2-year-
old female seals are not in the rookeries;
that the majority of them appear on the
islands after the 1st of August, and that
very few are there before the middle of
July. This was one of the distinct addi-
tions that we were able to make to the
natural history of the fur seal, and it
helped out in a matter of which Mr.
Elliott, as stated in his 1873 report, was
confessedly ignorant.

If you would be good enough to read the
little items on pages 44, 47, and 53 of my
report on the Breeding Habits of the
Pribilof Fur Seals, I will be much obliged,
and I trust that you will kindly take the
necessary time todo so. Isent Mr. Flood
my last available copy of this report, but
it is included in part 3, Report of the Fur
Seal Investigations for 1896 and 1897,
which it will be easy for you to have
brought to you. My other copies are
packed away in boxes, but if I can un-
earth one I shall be most happy to do so.

Pardon me for troubling you with a
number of explanatory details, but I wish
above all things to make it clear that Iam
not speaking by hearsay, or making state-
ments without foundation, but that I am
writing of matters with which I havea
direct acquaintance.

Faithfully, yours,
F. A. Lucas.

Hon. Epwarp W. TowNSEND,

Committee on the Library,
House of Representatives.

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 25,

1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

But Jordan finds them there just
where Elliott said they were in
1872-18903

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENT’S OFFICE.
St. Pauts Is,anp, ALASKA,
Saturday, August 1, 1896.

Dr. Jordan assisted by the natives drove
up three small harems from Garbotch
Rookery, and upon investigation found
that there were a number of 2-year-old
virgin cows among them.

1[t must be borne in mind that perhaps ten or
twelve per cent of the entire number of breeding
females were yearlings last season, and come up onto
these breeding grounds now as virgins, for the first
time during this season—as two-year-old cows.
They, of course, bear no young. (Monograph of the
Seal Islands, 1872-82; Elliott, p. 50. Spl. Bulletin,
176: U. S. Fish Commission, 1882.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lueas says that if the seals are
not killed down as young males
they will grow up to ‘“‘ destroy the
mothers and pups.”’

The following was contributed by Dr.
Lucas to the New York Times of Febru-
ary 23, 1912:

‘““THE FUR SEAL HERD.

“To the Eprror or THE New Yor«K

TIMES:

‘‘Since my name appears in your editor-
ial article on the fur seal question, may I
have space to state my opinions? My
attitude in regard to the ‘trampled pup’
question and the damage done by unnec-
essary males has been conservative, as
you will see by the following quotations
from my report of 1898 on the ‘Causes of
Mortality Among Seals,’ based on obser-
vations of 1896 and 1897:

““*Rough handling by the males may be
set down as the most evident known cause
of death among the females, and the
greater the proportion of bulls the greater
the number of deaths, so that in a state
of nature the superabundance of bulls
must probably be an important factor,
if not the chief factor, in checking the
increase of the fur seals. As the propor-
tion of the sexes at birth is equal, and as
at least 30 males are born where one is
needed, there must in olden times have
been a prodigious amount of fighting and
a mighty turmoil on the breeding grounds,
with a consequent destruction of mothers
and pups. There were 42 dead cows on
Reef rookery in 1897, and if there was
such a visible loss with only a moderate
surplus of males what must have taken
place before any males were killed by
man? Itis evident that if many cows are
killed outright, many more must be badly
injured and eventually die, an inference
made in discussing the mortality among
the pups, where it was suggested that the
loss of these injured females at sea prob-
ably accounted for much of the early
starvation of the young.’’’ (P. 91.)

(Hearing No. 10, p. 600, Apr. 20, 1912.)

The ‘‘science’’ of Dr. Lucas:

Mr. McGuurcuppy. What is your esti-
mate as to the required number of males
to a specified number of females?

Dr. Lucas. May I refer to my report?
I went into the matter very carefully in
this. We found that the average number
of seals in a harem in 1896 and 1897 was
about 35. That was at a time when the
number of surplus bulls was very large.
There was a very large number of useless
bulls who could get no cows, who had been
crowded out. Thirty-five was the mini-
mum average for a harem, and 50 or 60
would be what might be called a good

219

But his associate, Lembkey, in
whom he has “‘ perfect faith,” de-
clares that if not so killed, they
‘‘will increase again to between
four and five millions.”’

Mr. LemBxey. In 1890 conservative
estimates placed the number on the Prib-
ilof Islands between fourand five millions.
To-day there are probably not over
180,000 in the entire herd.

Mr. Witu1aMs (of Mississippi). At the
end of 18 or 19 years, if no killing at all,
you think they would go back to between
four and five millions?

Mr. Lempxey. I have no doubt they
would. (Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and
Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; p. 66,
notes; M.S. typed.)

Mr. (laMBpknye A “och So.) that
shows that in 15 years this (Robbens Reef)
herd had rehabilitated itself, and I sup-
pose that if the Pribilof herd were left
alone, immune from land killing as well
as sea killing, it would do the same thing.
(Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and Means
Committee, Jan. 25, 1907, House of Rep-
resentatives; p. 62, notes M.S. typed.)

Its error exposed:

Mr. Exvuiorr. Thisassumption byJordan,
Lucas, and the rest of that ‘‘science” crowd
in the Bureau of Fisheries that the breed-
ing of that seal life is precisely as so many
cattle, sheep, or horses—that only a very
small per cent of the male life is needed,
is simply baseless—the difference is wide,
and those ‘‘scientists” lack common sense
in not observing it.

Cattle, sheep, and horses breed durin
every month of the year; fur seals bree
during only 1 month of the year, and
mostly in only 10 or 15 days of that month,
from July 10 to 20, annually.

220

working proportion. So long as the
harems do not on the average exceed this
there is no reason to suppose that the
number of bulls is too small. One bull to
50 or 60 cows is not too high an average,
but in 1896 and 1897 there was 1 bull on
the average to every 35 cows. There was
in one case over 100, but the bull could
not hold them, and a good many got away.
Some of the harems also were very small.
I checked that off a little by getting the
opinion of breeders as to what might be
the relative number under control of the
animals. One estimate is that 1 ram is
sufficient for 50 ewes and that 1 bull is
sufficient for 25 cattle. When running at
large 1 stallion is sufficient for 20 to 40
mares, but when under control the num-
ber may be much larger, well on toward
100. And that is in a state of domestica-
tion where polygamy is artificial. Here
we have polygamy brought about by nat-
ural conditions and where there is no
danger of overestimating the number oi
femalestomales. (Hearing No. 12, p. 709,
May 16, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C.
and L.)

Lucas swears that he did not
advise Osborn to write a foolish
letter:

Mr. Exsiorr. That isright? The other
gentleman, Mr. Townsend, does. Did
you inspire the letter which Henry Fair-
field Osborn, president of the American
Museum of Natural History, wrote to
Chairman William Sulzer?

Dr. Lucas. I did not. Kindly note,
Mr. Elliott asked if I inspired that letter.

The CHarrMan. Do you know any-
thing about it?

Dr. Lucas. Only after it was written.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you in consulta-
tion about it with anyone?

Dr. Lucas. No; my advice was not
asked.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

How long would a herd of cattle hold its
numbers if all the breeding was put into
only 10 days of every year—from July 10
to 20—and only 1 bull living to serve 100
cows? What would 1 ram do with 100
ewes? What would a.stallion do with 100
mares? What, if only half that number to
serve?

Why that service would fail; and at the
best, would be feeble to impotent after
a short day or two of demand. (H. W.
Elliott to Secretary Redfield, May 4,
1913, Dept. of Commerce Bldg.) |

But Osborn says Lucas gave
him the advice upon which the
foolish letter rests:

Mr. Exiiorr (reading):

“Tin AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
““NaTuRAL History,
“OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
“New York, January 22. 1912.

‘‘Dear Str: As president of the Amer-
ican Museum of Natural History, I have
been securing the advice of the expert
zoologists of this institution, especially of
Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, who is a trained
authority on the fur-seal question. I de-
sire to protest against the proposed amend-
ment to the fur-seal bill (drafted by the
State Department), which amendment
provides a 15-year closed season on male
seals. This amendment, should it be-
come law, would exterminate the great
seal herd of the United States, and is
founded upon ignorance of the first prin-
ciples of breeding under natural condi-
tions and of the artificial conditions
which have been brought about on the
islands through prolonged and fateful
pelagic sealing.

“‘T am, very respectfully,
“HENRY FAIRFIELD OSBORN,
— “ President.

““Hon. WILLIAM SULZER,

“Chairman House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, House of Rep-
resentatives, Washington, D. C.

‘“‘Tam strongly in favor of the billitself.”’

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lucas claims that he first dis-
covered the hookworm cause of
pup’s death.

Mr. Exxiorr. Isn’t it true, Doctor, that
it was through C. W. Stiles that the hook-
worm was discovered?

Dr. Lucas. No.

Mr. Exuitorr. Didn’t he first call your
attention to that?

Dr. Lucas. No; I called his attention
to it. (Hearing No. 12, p. 720, May 16,
1912.)

221

Now, how did he get the idea that they
would be exterminated after he had con-
ferred with your scientific acumen?

Dr. Lucas. Men may confer, you know,
and do something entirely different.

Exxtiorr. How did he get that im-
pression, if not from you?

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. You will
find all my publications entirely different
from that.

Mr. Exxiorr. So you will not be re-
sponsible for what Dr. Osborn says?

Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly
not.

But, pinned down, he admits
that Stiles had told him first.

Drlucssy hes aMray Chainmany

may I makea statement right here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Dr. Lucas. This will be the best an-
swer I can possibly make. In 1896, as you
may remember, I stated we penned up a
pup and allowed it to die; to starve to
death. I took it with me to St. George
Island and let it lie out there overnight
and dissected it, noting carefully the con-
dition of the organs, so that we could say
what were the conditions of the organs
after starvation. In examining this pup
I found two or three small worms in the
intestines. Now, to find worms in the
intestines of a young animal struck me
as a very curious circumstance, so I pre-
served them carefully and submitted
them to Dr. Stiles. In 1897, before I went
up on the islands, Dr. Stiles brought those:
to me and said that they were Uncinaria,
a very dangerous parasite, and under suit-
able conditions it might be the source of
a great death rate among the young seals.
Acting on the advice of Dr. Stiles I looked
very carefully for this worm and found it.
I have a record of the first pup actually
found to have died from Uncinaria.

Mr. Exuiorr. So Dr. Stiles really did
advise you of the direct cause of death
of these seals?

Dr. Lucas. No; he said it was possible.

Mr. Exuiorr. And then you found it
to be true?

Dr. Lucas. Yes.

Mr. Extiorr. So Dr. Stiles deserves the
credit for having found it?

Dr. Lucas. He deserves the credit for
having made a prediction that came true.
(Hearing No. 12, p. 721, May 16, 1912.)

222

Lucas swears pups starve be-
cause bulls kill their mothers.

Mr. McGuire. Now, Doctor, you speak
of a certain mortality on account of the
starving of the young. This starvation
may be caused by the loss of the mother
cow having been killed by the males.
That is one cause?

Dr. Lucas. Yes.

(Hearing No. 12, p.
711, May 16, 1912.)

Lucas tries to deny his ‘“dis-
covery’ of the ‘fact’? that the
fur seal naturally tramples its own
young to death.

The CHatirMAN. About how many
days?

Dr. Lucas: About 50 days in 1896, al-
lowing about 9 days’ time spent at sea
going to and from one island to another.

Mr. Exziotr. In 1897 how many days
were you on the islands?

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days.

Mr. Exuiorr. On the Islands?

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number.
I have the exact data right here.

Mr. Extiotr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?

Dr. Lucas. No.

Mr. Exuiorr. Did you, in 1897, exhibit
a series of trampled pups to the biological
society here in Washington and say that
11,000 had been trampled to death by
bulls?

Dr. Lucas. I did not.

Mr. Extiott. Did you not address the
society on January 4, 1897, on the subject
of trémpled pups?

Dr. Lucas. I did not.

Mr. Exuiott. Didn’t you exhibit a
series of pups in alcohol?

Dr. Lucas. I did not.

Mr. Exuiotr. Didn’t you call attention
to the state of these 11,000 pups, which
you stated on the platform during the

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Elliott swears that Lucas never
saw a bull kill a cow, that Lucas
fakes the statement.

Mr. Exxiotr. Right on that point, Mr.
Chairman, not one of these scientists—
Dr. Jordan, George A. Clark, Merriam,
Stejneger, Lucas, or Townsend—have
published a line in their reports upon that
life in which they describe the ‘‘fighting
of bulls so as to tear the cows to pieces and
trample their pups to death.” Now,
their sole argument to-day, that they
brought over to the Senate, is that if we
let these young seals grow up in a closed
season they will go to fighting and will
‘‘tear the cows to pieces and trample the
pups to death.’ It isa fake story; it is

- contrary to the natural law that governs

them; and I am not going to quietly sit
here and let it even be hinted at that I
am an ‘‘enemy” of the fur seals because I
believe in the natural laws of their wild
life governing them being freed from the
checks put upon them by half-baked
naturalists. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 954,
955, July 30, 1912.)

But his memory is refreshed,
and he does recall it.

Mr. Exiiotr. What did you talk about?

Dr. Lucas. Causes of mortality among
seal pups.

Mr. Extiott. Didn’t you say it was due
to trampling?

Dr. Lucas. No.

Mr. Exziorr. The record of your report
of 1896 denies it.

Dr. Lucas. Find it.

Mr. Extiotr. The preliminary report
of 1896—‘‘Cause of destruction of pups is
chiefly due to trampling by males.”
You signed that with Dr. Jordan, didn’t
you?

Dr. Lucas. I think I did not sign that
report. That report was made by Dr.
Jordan.

Mr. Extrotr. Would there be a report
by Dr. Jordan or any other member of
the board that is not sent to you to sign?

Dr. Lucas. Yes. Dr. Jordan, as head
of the commission, took the combined
reports of the various members of the
commission and drew up the preliminary
report.

Mr. Extiorr. You are associated with
him in that preliminary report of 1896,
aren’t you? You don’t deny it, do you?

Dr. Lucas Deny what?

Mr. Exuiorr. The association and quo-
tation by Dr. Jordan of you?

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

course of your remarks had been trampled
to death?

Dr. Lucas. I did not.

Mr. Exuiorr. After you had read your

aper on this subject of trampled pups,
vidn’t Dr. Merriam rise and say he
agreed with you?

Dr. Lucas. I do not recall. I do not
have the minutes of that meeting.

Mr. Extiorr. Then didn’t Mr. C. H.
Townsend rise and say that some of the
things he had missed, but he agreed with
you?

Dr. Lucas. I recall the meeting.

Mr. Extiorr. It is coming back to you
now. Didn’t Mr. True—this was Janu-
ary 4, 1897, at Cosmos Hall—didn’t Mr.
True arise and say that he had failed to
notice these trampled pups?

Dr. Lucas. I do not know.

Mr. Exxiorr. Didn’t Dr. Stejneger also
rise and say that he was considerably
embarrassed but that he had no reason
to doubt your discovery of trampled pups?

Dr. Lucas. Dr. Stejneger remarked
that he doubted it.

Mr. Exutotrr. Now, it is coming back to
you that you did address them on the
subject of trampled pups?

Dr. Lucas. No; causes of mortality
among seal pups.

Mr. Extiorr. Is that in answer to my
question?

Dr. Lucas. It is.
p. 719, May 16, 1912.)

Lucas, ‘‘scientist,’’ would not
stop killing, ‘‘for the good of the
herd.”

Mr. McGurre. Assuming that pelagic
sealing has been stopped, would you sus-
pend killing on the islands?

Dr. Lucas. No, sir.

Mr. McGuire. What would you do?

Dr. Lucas. I should recommend, as I
think I have done elsewhere, that the
first year a less number of seals be taken
than has been taken, in order to provide
sufficient males for the females spared by
pelagic sealing. If we killed 12,000 seals
last year, I would say, do not kill but
10,000 this year, to make sure of having a
sufficient amount. I believe in taking
no chances and leaving no loophole for
criticism. That would be of course a pre-
cautionary measure.

The cessation of killing on land would
release an undue number of males that
would do no good, that would simply dis-
turb the rookeries and be a dead loss com-
mercially. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 712, 718,
May 16, 1912.)

(Hearing No. 12,

223

Dr. Lucas. I didn’t know that he
quoted me. [ haven’t that document by
me. Have you the document?

Mr. Exuiotr. I don’t need it. You
don’t deny its existence, do you?

Dr. Lucas: I know there is such a
report.

Mr. Extrorr. You know there is a re-
port of some 46 pages with your name
associated with Dr. Jordan as one of the
distinguished scientists who had made
this close study of the seals that summer.
Now, in 1897, you discovered those pups
were not trampled to death, didn’t you?

Dr. Lucas. The greater part of them.
Yes; we revised our causes of the previous
year.

Mr. Extiorr. Who revised them?

Dr. Lucas. I did most of it, because I
was the one on whom devolved this
report on the causes of mortality. (Hear- .
ing No. 12, p. 720, May 16, 1912.)

Liebes, lessee, would not stop
killing, ‘‘for the good of the
herd.”

The CuarrMANn. Have you any idea or
general knowledge of about how many
seals there are in the herd now?

Mr. Lizsess. No, sir; I have no knowl-
edge.

The CuatrrMan. The business is almost
destroyed, is it not, Mr. Liebes?

Mr. Lirpes. Well, not necessarily so.
If they are allowed to recuperate, they
will be all right. They will be able to
take seals each year, and I certainly think
that is the only way to do. This idea of
shutting down for a number of years is un-
necessary and absolute rot. You have
got to run your seal herd like you would
run a stock range; it has got to be left to
people who understand the business, and
in the discretion of the officers in charge,
men of ability, if you have confidence in
them, and from what I have seen of the
Department of Fisheries they certainly
have the ability, and the people around
the islands certainly understand their
business. They are good, conscientious
people. If such people run the thing
and take the surplus males each year, it
will be all right. It is absolutely essen-
tial that it should be run like a stock farm
is run.

A

224

Lucas says that he did not ad-
vise a renewal of the lease.

The CHArRMAN. Would you have con-
sidered it would be better to lease the
islands for another 20-year term?

Dr. Lucas. No, I would not, Mr. Chair-
man. The part in regard to re-leasing it
I should deem objectionable, as you will
see by the resolution adopted by the ad-
visory board at its meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish that resolution
could be produced.

Dr. Lucas. It is in the record.

Mr. Parron. In the doctor’s evidence
before he said that he believed it would
be better for the Government to have con-
trol, and control the killing there under
the present system.

Mr. Extrorr. The Government has
always had perfect control over the killing
on those islands since 1870.

Mr. Patron. The Government does the
killing itself, where it was done by leasing
companies before.

Mr. Exxiorr. This
don’t want it done.

Mr. McGuire. I don’t so understand
it, but the letter is the best evidence.

The CHarrMAN. The letter will speak
for itself. (Hearing No. 12, p. 725, May
16, 1912.)

letter says they

ning it right.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

The CHarrMAN. Do. you think male
seals should be killed that are less than 2
years old?

Mr. Lizses. I do not think there isany
rule about it at all; it is a question of run-
(Hearing No. 13, pp. 877,
878, June 20, 1912.)

But the Bureau of Fisheries
officially quotes him as recom-
mending a renewal of the lease.

Mr. Exxtiorr. On page 157, hearing No.
3, July 6, 1911, is a letter from the Bureau
of Fisheries dated December 16, 1909,
signed by Barton W. Evermann. It
urges Fish Commissioner Bowers to send
agents to New York and educate certain
people and induce them to agree to the
bureau’s idea of renewing the lease of the
seal islands and preventing any cessation
of the killing thereon. Now, in this let-
ter, which I will put into the hearing to-
day as Exhibit No. 6, appears the follow-
ing statement:

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BuREAU OF FISHERTHS,
Washington, December 16, 1909.

The COMMISSIONER:

The Washington Star of December 10
last announced that the Campfire Club of
New York had inaugurated a campaign
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla-
tion designed to prevent the re- “leasing of
the sealing right, the cessation of killing
on the islands for 10 years except for na-
tives’ food, and to secure the opening of
negotiations with Great Britain to revise
the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As
the result of this movement, on Decem-
ber 7 three resolutions were introduced by
Senator Dixon, of Montana, one of which
embodies the provisions before mentioned,
the other two calling for publications of
the fur-seal correspondence and reports
since 1904.

As the object of this movement is at
variance with the program of this bureau
and of the recommendations of the ad-
visory fur-seal board, notably in the plan
to prevent killing and tre renewal of the
seal island lease, tle advisability is sug-
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lucas,
and Stanley-Brown use their influence
with such members of the Campfire Club
as they may be acquainted with, with the
object of correctly informing: tke club as
to the exact present status of the seal
question and of securing its cooperation to
effect the adoption of the measures advo-
cated by this bureau.

The attached letter is prepared, having
in view the object stated.

Barton W. EvERMANN.
(Hearing No. 12, p. 724, May 16, 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 925

Lueas admits that he did want
anew lease made on the Russian
plan.

Dr. Lucas. The cessation of killing on
land would release an undue number of
males that would do no good, that would
simply disturb the rookeries and be a
dead loss commercially. Government
control has always seemed to us the best
method, as it has proven on the Russian
islands, where the Government has the
absolute power to fix the number and
make a closed season at any time it wishes.

This recommendation was unanimously
agreed to by the advisory board, fur-seal
service (Dr. David Starr Jordan, chair-
man; Dr. Leonard Stejneger, Dr. Frederic
A. Lucas, Mr. Edwin W. Sims, Dr.
Charles H. Townsend), the fur-seal board
. (Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, chairman;
Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, and Mr. Millard
©. Marsh), the Commissioner of Fisheries
(Hon. George M. Bowers), the Deputy
Commissioner of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M.
Smith), assistant fur-seal agent (H. D.
Chichester), and special scientific expert
(Mr. George A. Clark). (Hearing No. 12,
p. 713, May 16, 1912.)

21588—13——15

But Elliott shows the com-
mittee that such a lease adds to
gain of lessees at public cost and
loss.

Mr. Exuiorr. That will not be neces-
sary; I will just pass on. The terms of
this lease, which he proposed, increased
the profits of the lessee and added to the
cost of the.Government.

The lessees are relieved of the present
cost to them of a great many things—
schools, doctors—their entire plant is
purchased; they pay no more taxes; all
costs are taken from them; and yet they
are to get all of the skins taken for the
same cost that they did in the old lease.

Dr. EvermMaAnn. That is not correct.

The Cuairman. The lease will speak
for itself.

Mr. Extiorr. The lease speaks to that
effect, because there has: never been an
hour since the islands have been leased
that the Government has not had absolute
control over the lessees and the killing.
All this twaddle about the ‘“‘Government
getting control of the killing” is mere
dust and verbiage; there has never been
an hour since the first lease was made in
1870 when an officer of the Government
up there has not had the power to stop the
killing down to a single seal, and hold it
there—what more power could you have
under any ‘‘new lease,’’ or any such con-
dition? J exercised that power in 1890,
and no man dare dispute it and does not
dispute it to this day.

The CHatrrRMaAN. Why can it not be
disputed?

Mr. Extiotr. Because no man has set
aside my findings of fact that summer;
they were stopped; and nobody since has
attempted to interfere with it, and no
Secretary of the Treasury has ever said I
did wrong. Over at Paris, in 1893, our
agents said to the tribunal that my action
in 1890 was a good thing, and they pa-
raded there with great satisfaction the
fact that our Government had stopped
this slaughter on the islands to save that
life, and they wanted Great Britain to

intervene to stop it in the sea on their side.

(Hearing No. 14, p. 993, July 29, 1912.)

226 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Ate

The sworn statements of W. I. Lembkey, chief special agent, in charge of the seal islands
of Alaska, who is one of the experts cited to the United States Senate Committee on
Conservation of National Resources, Janwary 14, 1911, and to the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, July 9, 1911, by Secretary

Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals in violation of law and regulations,

to wit:

Mr. Casue. Give the names of the members of the advisory board.
Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-

seal service, are as follows:

Fur-SeaL Boarp,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES.

In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered by

a fur-seal board, consisting of the following:

Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries

Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times.

He was a member of the

fur-seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and Ber-
ing Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal.
Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, who has been in immediate charge of the seal islands for

many years; appointed March 22, 1899.

(Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.)

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

Lembkey swears that he does
not kill yearling seals.

CoMMITTEE ON HXPENDITURES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABoR,
House or REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, Thursday, February 29, 1912.
The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m.,
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.

TESTIMONY OF WALTER I. LEMBKEY, AGENT
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND LABOR,

Mr. Lempxery. Our killing is confined
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively.
The seals which they desire to kill are
dispatched at once by means of a blow
on the top of the head with a heavy club,
and the seal struck is rendered uncon-
cious immediately, if not killed out-
right. (Hearing No. 9, p. 360, Feb. 29,
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor.)

But Clark, special investigat-
lng Sea reports that yearlings
are killed—‘‘no seal too small”
for killing.

July 23.—Attended the killing at
Northeast Point and looked over the
rookeries again after the drive. There
are 5 harems to-day on the west side of
Sea Lion Neck, where only 3 were found
on the 14th.

A killing was made at Halfway Point as
usual on the return trip. It yielded 32
skins. Fifteen animals—young bulls—
too large for killing and 9 shaved heads
were exempted, but no small seals what-
ever. As the end of the killing season
approaches it is plain that no seal is
really too small to be killed. Skins of less
than 5 pounds weight are taken and also
skins of 8 and 9 pounds. These latter
are plainly animals which escaped the
killing of last year because their heads
were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem
clear how they did escape.

July 81.—This is the last day of sealing,
and preparations are being made to drive
every rookery. The killing from Reef
and Gorbatch yields 660 skins. This
represents 76 per cent of the animals
driven. One hundred and ten seals are
obtained from Lukanin and Kitovi. No
small seals are rejected in this drive; 21
small ones are leit from the Reef drive.
Nineteen skins are obtained at Halfway
Point. The drive at Northeast Point
gives 330 skins; 15 small ones only are
exempted. Zapadni, redriven to-day,
gives 41 additional skins taken. Three
small ones are released. At the drive
yesterday from this rookery 39 small

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Lembkey swears that he does
not kill yearling seals.

COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Houser or REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, Thursday, February 29, 1912,

The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m.,
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.

TESTIMONY OF WALTERI, LEMBKEY, AGENT
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND LABOR.

Mr. LempBxey. Our killing is confined
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively.
The seals which they desire to kill are dis-
patched at once by means of a blow on the
top of the head with a heavy club, and the
seal struck is rendered unconscious im-
mediately, if not killed outright. (Hear-
ing No. 9, p. 360, Feb. 29, 1912.)

227

animals were released. Most of these are
robably included in the killing to-day.
orbatch is driven a second time to-day
and 62 skins taken.

This is certainly whirlwind sealing and
an effective clean-up of the hauling
grounds. If the Alaska Commercial Co.
cleaned up the hauling grounds without
reference to the new lessees in the season
of 1889, the North American Commercial
Co. has in like manner cleaned up the
hauling grounds without reference to the
lessees of next year.

The total of to-day’s killing on St. Paul
is 1,222 skins. (Report G. A. Clark to
Secretary Nagel, Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 887,
888, 892, 893; Appendix A, June 24, 1911.
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But Special Agent Clark reports
that Lembkey has killed and kills
yearling seals.

The yearlings of both sexes for the sea-
son must number about 12,000 each.

This question of the proportion of the
sexes surviving to killable and breeding
age is a fundamertil one. It could be
settled in a very few seasons by such regu-
lation of killing for the quota as would
limit it to animals of 3 years of age and
over, leaving the 2-year-olds untouched.
The quota would then fall where it be-
longs, on the 3-year-olds, and give a close
approximation of the survivals among the
young males, which in turn could be ap-
plied to the young females, This was the
method used in 1896-97, when a mini-
mum of 6 pounds in weight of skins pre-
vailed. During the present season and
for some seasons past a minimum of 5
pounds has been in force, the skins taken
ranging in weight all the way from 4 to 144
pounds, bringing all classes of animals
from yearlings to 4-year-olds into the
quota,

The result of this manner of killing is
that we have no clear idea from the quota
of the number of younger animals belong-
ing to the herd. From the irregularity of
the movements of the yearlings of both
sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can
not be counted or otherwise accurately
estimated on the rookeries.

GEORGE ARCHIBALD CLARK,
Assistant in Charge of
Fur-Seal Investigation.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY,
September 30, 1909.

(Appendix A, pp. 850, 851, June 24,
1911.)

228

Lembkey swears that every
step is taken to guard the female
seals from killing.

Mr. Lempxey. Females on land are
protected by every effort of human inge-
nuity that can be devised compatible
with the taking of the skins of the surplus
young males, and the committee can be
assured first that the number killed in
the past is negligible and that none ever
have been or will be killed deliberately.

In treating of the subject of the killing
of females, 1 have suppressed no fact that,
would aid the committee in forming its
conclusions regarding the number of these
animals killed. After hearing this evi-
dence I am sure that the committee will
conclude that, in regard to the accidental
killing of an occasional female, in spite
of the greatest care exercised, no charge
of malfeasance will lie. When we con-
sider the fact; also, that thousands of these
females were killed annually by pelagic
sealers in the sea, it can be seen that the
accidental and unavoidable killing on
land of a half dozen females annually
could have, to say the least, no bearing
upon the future of the herd. (Hearing
No. 9, p. 381, Mar. 1, 1912, H. Com. Ex.
Dept. Com. and L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lembkey compelled to admit
that he does not know whether
female skins are taken, or not; no
penalty for killing them inflicted.

Mr. McLean. After the skins are re-
moved, can you distinguish between a
male and female 2-year-old?

Mr. Lempkey. Yes, sir; at once.
1 beg pardon—2-year-olds?

Q. After the skin is removed from the
animal?—A. If you would look at the
carcass of a 2-year old you could not dis-
tinguish it readily, but the man skinning
the seal recognizes it the moment he takes
it into his hand to skin it. Of course he
examines the organs and matters of that
kind.

Q. But the animal is then dead?—A.
The animal is then dead.

Q. What I asked you was this—after
the skin is removed from the animal, by
the inspection of the skin itself could’ you
GS pansies between a male or a female
2-year old.—A. You could by looking at
the teats of the animal.

Q. And are they developed on a 2-year-
old female?—A. I don’t know that they
are. You could find them there possibly.
I don’t know whether they are developed
ornot; [never examined askin to find out.

The CHairman. How positive can you
be, then, Mr. Lembkey, that no females
are killed?

Mr. Lempxey. The reason upon which
I base that positive statement that no
females are killed is this: Stringent orders
are given to all the skinners to report at
once any female knocked down in the
drives. They are ordered to report it to
the agent in charge of the killing and in
charge of the men.

Mr. McLean. Is there a penalty then
inflicted upon the killer for killing the
female and when he reports it?

Mr. Lempxeny. No; because the killing
gang consists of six persons, we will say,
and it is impossible to tell which one of
those six knocked down the seal; but if a
female should be knocked down by acci-
dent an admonition is given to the club-
bers.

Q. So that it is quite possible?—A.
They are jacked up.

Q. It is quite possible if a female was
killed through inadvertence that the
native might not report it?—-A. No; be-
cause the man who reports the presence
of the female would not in the least be
culpable, because he is a skinner, having
nothing to do with the killing.

Q. He is probably a relative?—A. I
should not say that. There is no great
penalty attached to the killing of a female,
such as to lead the men to suppress the
fact of its presence. (Dixon Hearing,
U.S. Senate Com. Cons. Nat. Resources,
pp. 15, 16, Féb. 4, 1911.)

Oh,

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Under cross - examination,
Lembkey admits that a yearling
sealskin of his own identification
and measurement is 364 inches
long.

Mr. Lempxey. Briefly, Mr. Elliott has
accused those charged with the manage-
ment of the seal fisheries with malfeasance
in office in that

1. They have allowed the killing of
thousands of yearling seals.

Mr. Extiorr. I am coming to that. I
want to get it distinctly in the record that
this man knew exactly what he was doing
all along.

It became necessary, then, for the com-
mittee to get from Mr. Lembkey his own
identification and measurement of a

earling seal and its skin. To this end
he was examined, and he testified as fol-
lows—you will see the point, because he
has testified that he did not kill anything
““under 2 years old,’’ because the regula-
tiors forbid it. He testified as follows, on
page 442, Hearing No. 9:

‘Mr. Exxrorr. Mr. Lembkey, do you
know the length of a yearling seal from its
nose to the tip of its tail?

“Mr. Lempxey. No, sir; not offhand.

“Mr. Exxiiorr. You never measured
one?

‘“Mr. Lempxery. Oh, yes; I have meas-
ured one.

P — Exuiotr. Have you no record of
it?

““Mr. Lempxey. I have a record of it
here.

“Mr. Exxiorr. What is its length?

“Mr. LemBKEY. The length of a year-
ling seal on the animal would be from the
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 394
inches in one instance and 394 in another
instance——

“Mr. Exuiorr. Yes.

“Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another in-
stance. J measured only three.’’

* * * +

Also on page 443:

“Mr. Exxiorr. How much can you say
is left on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off?

“The CHAIRMAN. How much skin is
left after you have taken it off?

“Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; after they re-
move it for commercial purposes a certain
amount is left on.

“Mr. Lempxey. Istated about 3 inches,

“Mr. Exiiorr. Then that would leave a
yearling skin to be 35 inches long.

“Mr. LemBxKEY. No;ifit was 394 inches
long, it would leave it 364 inches. That
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose
to the root of the tail would be 394 inches
long. Three inches off that would leave
364 inches.”’

229

Lembkey then admits that an
accurate measurement of the
12,920 skins he took in 1910, de-
clare the fact that 7,733 of them
are only 34 inches long

Mr. Exuiotr. Mr. Lembkey having
thus identified ‘‘7,733” of his 12,920 skins
as ‘‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups,”’
the committee then examined him as to
the lengths of those ‘‘small pup” and
‘‘extra small pup” skins; he then testified
as follows, page 441, Hearing No. 9:

“Mr. Exuiorr. I am getting at the
analysis of your catch which you have
given here already. You have given in
a statement here that 8,000 of them were
‘“‘small” and ‘‘extra small.”

“‘Mr. Lempxey. 7,700.

“Mr. Exuiottr. 7,700?

“Mr. LEMBKEY. 7,733 were small and
extra small pups.

‘Mr. Exxriorr. Mr. Fraser tells us that
those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.

‘‘Mr. Lempxey. The committee can
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser
states that small pups measured 33?
inches in length.”

The CHarRMAN, What would that indi-
cate as to age?

Mr. Extiorr. I am coming to that—

“Mr. Exziorr. From there [indicating]
to there [indicating] on that diagram——

‘“‘Mr. Lempxey. 332 inches in length,
and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in length.

“Mr. Extiorr. Then you have some
extra small pups there which makes it
8,000?

‘“Mr. Lempxey. Only 11 of those.

“Mr. Exziorr. It does not amount to
anything.

“Mr. Lempxery. It just makes your
8,000 about 300 more than the actual
number.

‘Mr. Exuiorr. That is the reason I
used those round numbers. It does not
amount to anything one way or the other.

‘Mr. Lempxey. The actual number is
300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott.’’

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own
summary and official record of the meas-
urements of ‘‘7,733 fur sealskins,’’ which
he took during the season of 1910 on the
Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that no
one of them exceeds in length 34 inches.
That fact determines them—all of them—
to have been the skins taken from yearling
seals. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 903, 904, 905,
July 25, 1912.)

230

In this distinct affirmation and state-
ment, Mr. Lembkey tells the committee
that a ‘‘yearling” fur-seal skin of his own
identification and measurement is 364
inches long. It then became, in order to
understand what the lengths of those
12,920 fur-seal skins were, which he took
during the season of 1910 on the Pribilof
Islands, and then certified them into the
record of his-work as being—all of them—
‘*taken from male seals not under 2 years
of age.’’ (See testimony Apr. 13, 1912,
pp. 428, 429, Hearing No. 9.)

Lembkey declares that he can
not distinguish the sex of year-
ling seals; that he does not kill
them.

The Cuairman. How many did you
kill last year?

Mr. Lempxny. We killed 12,920.

Q. How many had the old fur company
killed the year before?—A.They killed
14,000 and something.

Q. What was the youngest seal you
killed; what age?—A. Two years old.

Q. The statement has been made that it
is hardly possible to distinguish the male
sas the female at that age?—A. At 2 years
old?

Q. Yes; what is your opinion?—A.
There is considerable difficulty im distin-
guishing the young males and females.
There is considerable difficulty in distin-
guishing the male and the female year-
ling. ‘They are both of the same size and
general formation. It is almost impossi-
ble for anybody not an expert to pick
them out and distinguish between them,
and it is rather difficult, even for an ex-
pert; but of the 2-year-olds the females are
not on the hauling grounds; they are on
the breeding rookeries for their initial
impregnation. The 2-year-old males, on
the other hand, are on the hauling out
grounds.

Q. In the killing last year, did you kill
any female seals?—A. Not to my knowl-
edge, sir. I had general supervision, as I
say, over the work on both islands, but,
being back and forth from day to day, I
was not present at every killing and could
not, of course, be; but I carefully inter-
rogated this morning Mr. Judge, who had
charge of the killing on St. Paul, and Maj.
Clark, who had charge on St. George, as to
whether any female seals had been killed
during the past season, to their knowl-
edge, and they stated that none had been
killed. (Dixon hearing, Feb. 4, 1911, p.
10, U. S. Senate Com. on Conservation
Nat. Resources. )

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But Lembkey is compelled to
admit that he took 7,733 yearling
skins in 1910.

Mr. Lembkey having thus identified
“7.733”? of his 12,920 skins as ‘‘small
pups” and ‘‘extra small pups,”’ the com-
mittee then examined him as to the
lengths of those ‘“‘small pup” and ‘‘extra
small pup” skins; he then testified as
follows, page 441, Hearing No. 9:

‘Mr. Exuiorr. I am getting at the
analysis of your catch which you have
given here already. You have given ina
statement here that 8,000 of them were
‘small’ and ‘extra small.’

“Mr. LemMBKkey. 7,700.

“Mr. Eviiorr. 7,700?

“Mr. Lempkey. 7,733 were small and
extra small pups.

‘Mr. Extiorr- Mr. Fraser tells us that
those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.

‘‘Mr. Lempkey. The committee can
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser
states that small pups measured 332
inches in length.”

~The Cuatrman. What would that indi-
cate as to age?

Mr. Exuiorr. I am coming to that—

“Mr. Exurorr.From there [indicating]
to there [indicating] on that diagram—

‘Mr. LemBxey. 333 inches in length,
and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in length.

“Mr. Extiorr. Then you have some
extra small pups there which makes it
8,000?

“Mr. LemBkey. Only 11 of those.

“Mr. Exrrorr. It does not amount to
anything.

“Mr. Lempxkey. It just makes your
8,000 about 300 more than the actual
number.

“Mr. Exniotr. That is the reason I
used those round numbers. It does not
amount to anything one way or the other.

‘‘My, Lempkey. The actual number is
300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott.”’

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own
summary and official record of the meas-
urements of ‘‘7,733 fur sealskins,’’ which
he took during the season of 1910 on the

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lembkey swears that he had
“reliable data’? upon which the
regulations were panne to {5
pounds’? minimum skin weight
from a 54-pound limit.

Mr. Lempxey. We have found on the
islands that the most reliable way of gaug-
ing sealskins so as to classify them into
different ages is that of weight, of weigh-
ingtheskins. We have very reliable data
showing that 2-year-olds seldom if ever
weich less than 5 pounds, and we also have
data which give us the information that
the skins of 3-year-olds weighfrom 64 to
84 pounds. Upon that basis we have es-
tablished our regulations. (Hearing No.
9, p. 398, Mar. 1, 1912; H.Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Labor.)

Lembkey says that “perhaps”’
he has published a table of skin
weights.

Mr. Extrorr. As much official as your

work. Have you published any table of
weights or measurements?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not know, Mr.
Elliott. Have I?

Mr. Exriorr. Have you? I am asking »
you.

The CHatrMaANn. He has said he does
not remember.

Mr. Lempxey. I perhaps have in one
of my reports.

Mr. Extiotr. When?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember the
exact date. I am not evading the point.
Isimply can not remember the exact date.
Perhaps you have that data.

The CHarrMan. Did you publish a re-
port? ;

Mr. Lempxey. | think in one of my re-
ports—I think it was in 1907, Iam not cer-
tain which year—appeared a statement of
the classification of the skins in London
for that year, with an approximation of
the ages of the animals. I think it was in
1907. That is what you had in your mind,
is it not?

_ Mr. Extiorr. That is not a-table show-
ing——

Mr. Lempxey. That is the only table.

Mr. Extiorr. Therefore you have never
published any table?

Mr. Lemsxey. If you wish to draw that
conclusion——

Mr. Extiotr. You have been up there

all these years, and now, to-day, you can.

231

Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that no
one oi them exceeds in length 34 inches.
That fact determines them—all of them—
to have been the skins taken from yearling
seals (Hearing No. 14, p. 905, July
25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor. )

But, under cross-examination,
Lembkey admits he had no “reli-
able data’’ as warrant for chang-
ing the 54 limit to 5 pounds—only
his “opimion.”’

Mr. LemBxkey. 1906 is when we re-
duced the weight from 54 pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.

Mr. Extiorr. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.

Mr. Exuiorr. Have you any table of
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. I had not. I expressed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, p.
450, Apr. 13, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Labor.)

But, on examination, he ad-
mits that he never has prepared
such a table.

Mr. Lempxey. What do you mean,
that the weight of a 2-year-old is 5
pounds?

Mr. Exxtrorr. No; I say you say ‘‘from
5 to 64 pounds.”’

Mr. LemBxeEy. Yes; but you have got
to give us

Mr. Exuiorr. That is what I stated—5
to 64 pounds.

The CHatrMANn. That is the answer to
your question. That is fair. You ought
not to assume to know more about it than
he does.

Mr. Extiotrr. No; I can not find his
statement about it before. I wanted to
get it into the record.

The CHatrMan. Is his answer to your
question?

Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; that is there. You
have no official record of the weights of a
3-year-old skin, have you? You have
never published any?

Mr. Lempxey. Yes; I published the
weights of a 2-year-old and 3-year-old
skin. I made the statement in my re-
ports to the effect

*Mr. Extrotr. You said it was an ap-
proximation.

Mr. LemBxey. I have made a state-
ment in my reports giving an approxima-
tion of the weights of skins from seals of
different ages. Now that I recollect, it
was not in the form of a table. I have
stated repeatedly in the text of my re-
ports that a 2-year-old would weigh from

232

not tell from any official records of yours
what the weight of a 2-year-old skin is?

Mr. LemBxey. What?

Mr. Exxiorr. You can not tell from any
official records of yours what the weight of
a 2-year-old skin is. You say it is 5

ounds. Where is the official record?
Hearing No. 9, p. 486, Apr. 13, 1912.)

Lembkey swears that the data
upon which he orders and directs
the killing is ‘‘very reliable.”’

Mr. Lempxey. We have found on the
islands that. the most reliable way of
gauging sealskins so as to classify them
into different ages is that of weight, of
weighing the skins. We have very re-
liable data showi ing that 2-year-olds sel-
dom if ever weigh less than 5 pounds, and
we also have data which give us the in-
formation that the skins of 3-year-olds
weigh from 64 to 84 pounds. Upon that
basis we have established our regulations.
Now it is absolutely impos ssible for us to
proceed to any classification with regard
to age by means of measurements on the
islands for the reason that the green skin
is very pliable and flexible, and by a little
pressure could be made a foot or a foot
and a half longer than it really is, or wider,
in whichever direction you wish to apply
the pressure, so that on the islands the
only standard we can fix is the standard

of weight. (Hearing No. 9, p. 398, Mar. 1,
1912, H.Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor. )

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

5 to 64 pounds.
Apr. 13, 1912.)
Mr. LemBxey. 1906 is when we re-
duced the weight from 54 pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.

Mr. Extiorr. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.

Mr. Extiorr. Have you any table of
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. [had not. I expressed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, p.
450, Apr. 13, 1912.)

But he officially reports in 1907
that he has nothing but an ‘‘ap-
proximate”’ idea of the size and
weights of the skins.

(Hearing No. 9, p. 487,

Mr. Lempxery. The average weight of
these sizes has been determined by Lamp-
son & Co., as well as by the agents on the
islands. (See 8. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong.,
lst sess., p. 88; also proceedings Fur-Seal
Arbitration, vol. 8, pp. 916 et seq.) As
certain of the sizes of skins do not occur
at all in the islands catch, the weights as
given by Lampson & Co. are here used,
although they do not correspond in every
respect with our idea of the average
weights of seals of a given age. Opposite
these weights I have placed the age of the
animals from which they were taken,
based on my judgment atter having as-
sisted in weighing thousands of skins:

Weight Age.

Lbs. Oz.| Years
ear cenwilesew aak= vse chai Seer S34 ROU Dees
RSTIT EU AW iL 2S eee emery cm aa em ee Dai, ail Oil ose eee
Malian CSF ese ey eee ee 14 6 6
Middlings and smalls_....--.--. 1s 5
Small Syne seats Pee eae eee ee eee 9 8 4
DUH reK OH OTN Sen Sa ee 82 \ 3
Maiden exp win Seri eee ee G= 12 ;
SIMaspUpS eae ee eee 5 10 \ 2
Extra small ipses see es Aves ill
Extra extra small pups.-..-...-.- ey als} 1
GralyapUps at eee eee ene ee So) ()

1 Four to five months.

The ages of seals of a given weight
marked in the above table are based on
an average and are necessarily only ap-
proximate. They are stated here solely
for the purpose in hand and not as an
effort on my part to fix the correct weight
of the skins of seals of a certain age. "As
it is, however, it is close enough to con-
struct an estimate such as we desire.
(Appendix Ay p. (498) diime 1) LO ae
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
(Rept. of W. I. Lembkey, Sept. 9, 1907,
to Sec. Com. and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lembkey swears it is impossi-
ble to measure a “green” sealskin.

Mr. Mappen. Would not a stretched
skin show that it had been stretched?

Mr. Lempxey. No; the green skin, asa
matter of fact, is as pliable as a piece of
india rubber, and in throwing it down on
the ground it may curl up or stretch
lengthwise; it is so elusive in form it is
impossible for us to measure it; that is
the truth of the matter.

Mr. McGitiicuppy. You say measure-
ment would not be reliable because it
might be stretched. Suppose you did not
stretch it, suppose you take it honestly,
then would it be, if honestly taken, would
it be a test?

Mr. Lempxey. | tried to make that
clear to the committee.

The CHairmMAN. That is a direct ques-
tion. Why do you not answer it?

Mr. Lempxey. Iamattemptingto. It
is impossible; of course, all our actions up
there are honestly

Mr. MappeENn (interposing).. Answer the
question right straight. Do not try to ex-
plain it.

Mr. Lempxey. I have attempted to
state that in measuring a green skin it is
impossible to find out its exact length
when you lay it on the ground, because it
may curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can
only be measured after it has become
hardened by salt.

Mr. McGruuicuppy. Then it will not

stretch?

’ Mr. Lemspxey. Certainly not.

Mr. McGruutcuppy. That is the proper
time to measure it, after it has become
rigid and stiff?

Mr. Lempxey. Certainly.
No. 9, p. 399, Mar. 1, 1912.)

(Hearing

233

But when under cross-examina-
tion he denies the statement.

Mr. Extiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you stated
to the committee that it was impossible to
measure a yearling skin, and therefore
you have never done it.

Mr. Lemsxey. I do not remember that.

Mr. Extiorr. Did you not say that?

Mr. Lempxey. I stated that it was not
impossible to measure a green skin. I
said that I have never done it.

Mr. Exrrorr. I have not seen your tes-
timony. Of course, I can not take you
up on it.

Mr. Lempxey. You know you have
seen my testimony, because I have seen
your notations in the report of the com-
mittee’s hearings.

The CHarrMAN. Never
that. Ask the question.

Mr. Exrrorr. I have not read your tes-
timony; I only remember what you said.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 439, Apr. 13, 1912.)

mind about

234

Lembkey swears that he saved
the 3-year-olds from killing as
food seals by a 64-pound maxt-
mum skin weight limit, but—

Mr. Lemspxey. Notwithstanding re-
peated allegations to the contrary, the
regulations of the department fully pro-
tect the breeding herd, and these regula-
tions are carefully and thoroughly ob-
served. They require that no female or
marked male should be killed, and no
male seal having a pelt weighing less than
5 or more than 83 pounds. During the
food killing season of the fall and spring
seals having skins weighing over 64
pounds or under 5 pounds may not be
taken,this extra limitation being enforced
to prevent the killing of those males
marked for breeding purposes after the
new hair has grown in and obliterated the
mark which is placed upon their hides at
the beginning of the season.

Mr. Mappven. Right there, let me ask a
question.

Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mavpen. I do not think it will in-
terfere. You said that seals 2 or 3 years
of age were killed?

Mr. LempBxey. Yes, sir.

Mr. Mappewn. And that no skin weighed
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds?

Mr. Lempxey. More than 84 pounds.

Mr. Mappen. Except during a certain
period of the season when the higher
weight was reduced to 64 pounds?

Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.

Mr. MappEN. What becomes of the
seals more than 3 years of age?

Mr. Lempxey. They are allowed to ma-
ture as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p. 363;
Feb. 29, 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

But, it seems that that 64-
pound max'mum was actually in-
creased to 84 pounds. So these
“saved” 3-year-olds in June and
July were all killed in the October-
November following as ‘food
seals.”

Mr. Lemspxey. Let me interrupt you a
moment. The instructions for 1904,
known as the Hitchcock rules, used this
language: ‘‘No seal shall be taken that is
over 4 years of age.’’ That, of course,
was intended to mean that no 4-year-olds
were to be killed, but the company took it
to mean that a seal was not over 4 years
until it was at least 5 years of age, and
that they could at least kill 4-year-olds.
That was the controversy.

Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lemb-
key, did you prohibit their killing them?

Mr. Lempxey. I did.

. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?

. Lempxey. I did.

. Exxstorr. In 1904?

. Lempxey. Yes.

. Exurotr. Did you do it in 1905?

. LpeMBKEY. Yes.

. Evuiorr. How did you do it? You
had no brand on them.

Mr. Lempxey. By fixing a limit of
84 pounds on the skins to be taken,
(Hearing No. 9, p. 458; Apr. 13, 1912.)

Dr. EvermMann. I wish to call particu-
lar attention to these paragraphs of the in-
structions regarding reservations to be
made:

{Instruction issued Mar. 9, 1906.)

Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals.—No seals
shall be killed having skins weighing less
than 5 pounds nor more than-83 pounds.
Skins weighing more than 84 pounds shall
not be shipped from the islands, but shall
be held there subject to such instructions
as may be furnished you hereafter by the.
department. Skins weighing less than 5
pounds shall not be shipped from the
islands unless, in your judgment, the
number thereof is so small as to justify the
belief that they have been taken only
through unavoidable accident, mistake,
or error in judgment.

Sec. 10. Seals for food.—The number of
seals to be killed by the natives for food
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906,
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of St.
Paul and 500 on the island of St. George,
subject to the same limitations and re-
strictions as apply to the killing of seals
by the company for the quota. Care
should be taken that no branded seals be
killed in the drives for food. (Hearing
No. 10, pp. 483, 484; Apr. 19, 1912.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

235

The lessees suborn Lembkey and Bureau of Fisheries and then

secure all of the ‘“‘reserved”’ or

ce

spared”’ seals, in violation of the

sworn statements made by the latter.

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

Lembkey declares that it is
necessary to put a 6$-pound
limit on food skins to save the
“reserved” 3-year-olds from kill-
ing, and tells the Senate Com-
mittee that it is done.

Mr. Exxiorr. Now, Mr. Chairman, in
the matter of the nullification of the
Hitchcock rules, with this evidence duly
considered by your committee, of the
illegal killing of those yearfirg seals in
1910 (and that evidence of this guilé ap-
plies to every seasop’s work on the Pribi-
lof Islands ever since 1890 down to May
1, 1910), I desire to present the following
testimony, which declares that ever since
May 1, 1904, when the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules’”’
were first ordered by the Department of
Commerce and Labor, those rules have
been systematically and flagrantly vio-
lated by the agents of this department
who were specially sworn to obey and
enforce them.

On February 4, 1911, Chief Special
Agent Lembkey was introduced by Sec-
retary Charles Nagel to the United States
Senate Committee on Conservation of
National Resources, and during his ex-
amination by that committee he made
the following statement, to wit, on page
14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, February
4, 1911, Committee on Conservation of
National Resources):

“Dr. Hornapay. How many
2-year-olds’ were killed last year?

“Mr. LemBxey. I do not understand
your term. No seals under 2 years old, to
my knowleage, were killed.

“Dr. Hornapay. What would be the
age of the smallest yearlings taken?

“Mr. LemBxey. Two-year-olds rarely,
ifany. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday,
that a great ditference of opinion exists
between Mr. Elliott and the remaining
people who understand this situation.
There is a great gulf between their opin-
ions, and it can never be reconciled on
the question of the weights of skins of
2-year-olds.

“Prof. Exiiotr. I will present my in-
formation in a moment.

“Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight
is what?

“Mr. LemBkgEy. Five pounds. Dur-
ing food drives made by the natives,

‘short

But the official instructions
which the Bureau of Fisheries
order, declare that that limit of
4 pounds has been raised to 84
pounds, and ‘so all of the “re-

served”’ 3-year-olds in June and

July annually, are killed in Octo-
ber and November, following.

Dr. EvERMANN * * *
“(Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]

“Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals.—No seals
shall be killed having skins weighing
less than 5 pounds nor more than 84
pounds. Skins weighing more than 8}
pounds shall not be shipped from the
islands, but shall be held there subject
to such instructions as may be furnished
you hereafter by the department. Skins
weighing less than 5 pounds shall not be
shipped from the islands unless, in your
judgment, the number thereof is so smal]
as to justify the belief that they have been
taken only through unavoidable accident,
mistake, or error in judgment.

“Sec. 10. Seals for food.—The number
of seals to be killed by the natives for
food for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
1906, shall not exceed 1,700 on the island
of St. Paul and 500 on the island of St.
George, subject to the same limitations
and restrictions as apply to the killing of
seals by the company for the quota.
Care should be taken that no branded
seals be killed in the drives for food.

‘{Instructions issued Apr, 15, 1907.]
““Tdentical with instructions of 1906,
‘(Instruction issued Apr. 1, 1908.]
‘““Tdentical with instructions of 1907.
“Instructions issued Mar. 27, 1909.]

“Sec. 10. Seals for food.—Identical
with instructions for 1906, 1907, and 1908,
except in addition is added ‘The maxi-
mum weight for food skins shall not ex-
ceed 7 pounds.

“(Instructions issued May 9, 1910.]

“Src. 11. Seals for food.—No female
seal or seal having a skin weighing under
5 pounds or more than 7 pounds shall be
killed during the so-called food-killing
season.

236

when the seals killed are limited to 64
pounds, in order to ex¢lude all these 3-
year-olas branded during the summer,
you understand the natives do kill down
a little more closely than our regulations
allow, for the reason that they need the
meat, and since they have to exclude all
these fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they
eo for the little fellows a little more
closely.

“The CHarrMan. How many seals were
killed last year for food by the natives?

“Mr. Lempxkery. The Jimit was 2,500.
Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300
were killed.

““Q. Were any females killed?—A. No,
sir; not tomy knowledge, and, as I stated,
I careiully interrogated these two gen tle-
men who had charge ef this killing, and
they stated that to their knowledge no
female was killed.

““Q. What class of males were killed by

the natives for food?—A. Under 6}
pounds.’’? (Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July

25, 1912, H..Com::-Hxp. Dept..C. & L.)

Lembkey swears that he re-
serves from slaughter 1,000
3-year-old seals every year, be-
fore any killing begins for the
season in June.

Mr. Lempxery. Before any killing was
done this summer, as has been the prac-
tice for some years past following the
bureau’s instructions, 1,000 of the
choicest 3-year-olds appearing in the first
drives of the season were reserved for
future breeders and marked by shearing
their heads, so as to render their subse-
quent recognition during the season an
easy matter. These seals, thus marked,
were immune from clubbing and were not
killed. These 3-year-old seals the follow-
ing year became 4-year-olds, the killing
of which class in general is prohibited.
Only after the 1,000 3-year-olds, known
as the breeding reserve, is secured and
marked does the killing of seals for skins
begin. The killing is “confined only to
the 2 and 3 year old immature males not
required for purposes of reproduction.
To obtain these, the breeding rookeries
are not disturbed, but the bachelors’
hauling grounds on either island were
driven every fifth or sixth day if seals
were found thereon in sufficient numbers
to justify driving. The killing season
begins on July 1 and ends July 31, but
one drive is always made subsequently
on August 10 to furnish the natives with
fresh meat during a portion of the so-
called ‘‘stagey” season (when the seals
shed their hair), which begins August 10
and ends October 20, and during which
no killing is done. (Hearing No. 9, pp.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

“(Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.]

“Tdentical with instructions of 1910.’’

Mr. Lempxery. We have found on the
island that the most reliable way of gaug-
ing seal skins so as to classify them into
different ages is that of weight—of weigh-
ing the skins. We have very reliable
data showing that 2-year-olds seldom if
ever weigh less than 5 pounds, and we also
have data which give us the information
that the skins of 3-year-olds weigh from
63 to 84 pounds. Upon that basis we
have established our regulations. (Hear-
ing No. 9, p. 398; Hearing No. 10, pp.
483-486, Apr. 19, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. C. & 1S)

But Clark reports that these
reserved seals in June areé all sub-
sequently killed, and tells how
they are so taken.

3. The reserve of bachelors.—Beginning
with the season of 1904, there has been set
aside each spring a special breeding re-
serve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years
ofage. These animals have been marked
by clipping the head with sharp shears,
giving them a whitish mark readily dis-
tinguishing them to the clubbers. They
are carefully exempted on the killing
field and released.

This method of creating a breeding
reserve seems open_to considerable criti-
cism, and has apparently been only
moderately. successful. The mark put
upon the animalisa temporary one. The
fur is replaced during the fall and winter,
and the following spring the marked seals
can not be recognized. The animals
being 2 and 3 years sof age are still killable
the next season, the 9-year-olds in fact
the second season. <A new lot of 2,000 is
clipped the next season, and these are
carefully exempted, but, except in so far
as animals of the previous season’s mark-
ing are reclipped, they have no protection
the second season, and without doubt are
killed.

Tf such is not the case, it is difficult to
understand what becomes of them. The
annual reservation from 1904 to 1907, both
seasons included, would aggregate 8,000
animals. These animals would be of ages
ranging from 8 to 5 years this season. The
only animals present in 1909 which could

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

362, 363, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

Dr. Hornapvay. The minimum weight
is what?

Mr. Lemspxey. Five pounds. During
food drives made by the natives, when
the seals killed are limited to 64 pounds,
in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds
branded during the summer, you under-
stand the natives do kill down a little
more closely than our regulations allow,
for the reason that they need the meat,
and since they have to exclude all these
fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they go for
the little fellows a little more closely.
(Dixon Hearing, U. 8. Sen. Com. Cons.
Nat. Res., Feb. 4, 1911, pp. 14, 15.

The seal contractor swears that
the “good conscientious’’ Bureau
of Fisheries’ agents should have
full swing and control’on the is-
lands.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, in the present
depleted condition of the herd, if there
should be a short closed season, so that
the seals can multiply and then do what
you say. Would that be good policy, in
your judgment?

Mr. Liepes. Well, I said, leave it to the
people on the islands; if they find they
can not take any, let them not take any;
there should be no compulsion to take
any; but if the people on the islands may
take any, then take the surplus.

The CHarrMAN. But you see you as-
sume that the people on the islands will
do the right thing, and I do not mean to
insinuate they would do anything but
what is right; however, I am trying to get
your real opinion of the thing in the
record.

Mr. Lizses. As you stated, there might
be some danger in leaving it to the officers
on the islands, but I do not think the dan-

er would be as great as instructions given
om Washington in the best of faith,
because they might meet other conditions
when they arrive there. I think the
lesser evil, if there are any evils, is to
allow the officer in charge to determine.

The CuarrMAN. A great deal, of course,
must be intrusted to the people in charge.

Mr. Lieses. Well, not necessarily so.
If they are allowed to recuperate, they
will be all right. They will be able to
take seals each year, and I certainly think
that is the only way to do. This idea of
shutting down for a number of years is
unnecessary and absolute rot. You have
got to run your seal herd like you would
run a stock range; it has got to be left to
people who understand the business, and
in the discretion of the officers in charge,
men of ability, if you have confidence in
them, and from what I have seen of the

237

have resulted from this reservation were
the 513 idle and half bulls. Even if we
assume that they have in the meantime
replaced the entire stock of breeding bulls
this would account for only 1,900 of them,
and the active bulls were for the most
part of a distinctly older class. (Rept.
G. A. Clark to Sec. Nagel, Sept. 30,
1909, p. 847, Appendix A, June 24, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But when they get up there,
Liebes asks that they give him
full swing, and they do.

St. Pauts Ishanp, ALASKA.

{Journal of the chief s pial agent in charge of Seal
slands.

Thursday, June 9, 1892.—Mr. J. Stanleys
Brown arrived and took the place of Maj,
Williams as United States agent in
charge of the Seal Islands (p. 2).

Friday, July 8, 1892.—The entire con-
trol and management of the killing
grounds and killing of the seals were given
to Mr. Fowler, of the N. A. C. Co., by
order of Mr. J. Stanley-Brown, agent in
charge, and Assistant Agent Murray was
ordered to count the seals.

The killing is entirely directed by the
agent of the Yessees who directs the grade
of seal to be taken. (Report of Chief Spl.
Agt. J. B. Crowley, Nov. 1, 1896.)

This season (1909) they (the drives)
have been entirely in the hands of the
lessees * * * the lessees have been
free to take what they could get. (Re-
port of G. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, to Sec.
Nagel, Dept. Com. and Labor, pp.
829-866, Appendix A, June 24, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

238

Department of Fisheries they certainly
have the ability, and the people around
the islands certainly understand their
business. They are good conscientious
people. Ifsuch people run the thing and
take the surplus males each year, it will
be all right. (Hearing No. 18, pp. 877-
879, June 20, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Oom. and Labor.)

Hitchcock, learning that the
lessees and Lembkey were trying
to get a modification of his 53-
pound minimum limit to 5 pounds,
had the following peremptory in-
struction added to the orders of
May 1, 1905:

DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE AND LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 1, 1905.
Mr. W. I. LEMBKEY, ;

Agent in Charge of Seal Islands, De-
partment of Commerce and Labor,
St. Paul Island, Pribilof Group,
Alaska.

Sir: With reference to the provision in
your instructions prohibiting the lessees
from killing any seals during the coming
season that are under 2 years of age, you
are directed in the enforcement of this
requirement to fix upon the same mini-
mum limit of weight for the skins to be
taken as that prescribed for the season of
1904, namely, 54 pounds.

It will be your duty to see that every
possible precaution is exercised to prevent
the killing of seals that yield skins under
the weight mentioned.

Respectfully,
V. H. Mercater,
Secretary.

(Appendix A, p. 153, June 24, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

Lembkey officially declares, in
1905, that no change should be
made in the Hitchcock rules—it
“would be wholly unwise.”

PRESENT REGULATIONS SHOULD BE CON-
TINUED.

Since it appears that a scarcity of bulls
is threatened on the islands, and, in fact,
has occurred actually on several of the
rookery spaces on St. Paul, any change in
the present regulations looking to a lessen-
ing of the restrictions placed on killing on
the islands would be wholly unwise.

The result of these regulations can not
be felt before 1907, as has in effect been

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lembkey acknowledges this
peremptory mandate, but he does
not enter it on his official journal
of the Government house, St.
Paul Island.

OrricE or AGENT IN
CHARGE SEAL ISLANDS,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, June 17, 1905.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR.

Str: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of the department’s letter of
the Ist ultimo, prescribing, for the season
of 1905, a minimum weight of sealskins to
be taken of 54 pounds, and to say that the
necessary measures will be taken to have
the regulations properly observed on the
islands.

A copy of the letter referred to has been
forwarded to the assistant agent in charge
of St. George Island, for his guidance.

Respectfully,
W. 1. Lempxey,
Agent in Charge Seal Islands.

(Appendix A, p. 153, June 24, 1911, H.
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But when Hitchcock is out of
the department, then Lembkey, ~
without warrant, does unite with
the lessees and secures a change
for the worse in them.

Mr. Exitorr. When Mr. Hitchcock left
the department who succeeded him?

Mr. Lempxrey. Aschiefclerk? I think
Mr. Bowen did.

Mr. Exutorr. Mr. Bowen. Did you
again renew your recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember that
IT recommended that the weight be re-
duced to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Ex.triorr. That order of reduction
was made in 1906?

Mr. LemBpxey. In 1906.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

stated. During the interval which must
elapse before that time a steady decrease
in bulls will be encountered. The closest
killing on land occurred during the sea-
sons of 1902 and 1903. In the latter sea-

son the lessees released from the drives on —

St. Paul only 983 small seals. This prac-
tical annihilation of bachelors for this year
will be felt on the rookeries four years
thereafter, or in 1907.

Since we are obliged to face in 1906 and
1907 this extra heavy decrease occurring
from the closer killing in 1902 and 1903,
no reduction in the number of bachelors
now saved on the islands should be made
until the rookeries themselves show an
influx of male life sufficient to more than
offset the yearly mortality. (Report
W. I. Lembkey, Oct. 26, 1905, to Sec’y
Com. and Labor; Appendix A, p. 175, H.
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June

24, 1911.) ,

Lembkey’s assistant, Judge, de-
clares that the seal question was
completely mastered and under-
stood by Hitchcock when those
“regulations”? were prepared.

[The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, retrans-
fer of the Alaskan seal service to the Bureau of
Fisheries, by James Judge, assistant agent, Seal
Islands. ] .

* * * *

It is to be observed that Hon. Frank
H. Hitchcock, when connected with the
Department of Commerce and Labor, had
charge under the Secretary of the sealing
business; that he made an exhaustive
examination of all the questions affecting
the seal life; that, as before stated herein,
he prepared the regulations under which
the business is new conducted.

* * a *

Mr. Hitchcock’s knowledge of the seal
life was so perfect and his mastery of the
seal question was so complete that the
President remitted the subject to his
supervision and control even after he
became First Assistant Postmaster Gen-
eral. It is earnestly recommended that
if the reasons assigned in the foregoing
statements are not deemed sufficient that
Mr. Hitchcock’s knowledge of the subject
be availed of.

Respectfully submitted.

239

Mr. Exxtrorr. Who was the chief clerk
then?

Mr. Lempxey. I presume Mr. Bowen
was.

Mr. Exuiorr. And you again made the
recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no.
The recommendation was made, I think,
to the Secretary, but it was made through
Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department,
who then had charge of the seal business.

Mr. Exurorr. Oh, he took charge of it?
Had you in 1904 any table of length,
weight, and measurement of fur seals to
contradict the official tables that declared
a fur seal 2 years of age, the skin of which
weighed 54 pounds? Had you any rec-
ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. Hitch-
cock?

Mr. Lempxey. 1906 is when we re-
duced the weight from 54 pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.

Mr. Exxiorr. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.

Mr. Exiiorr. Have you any table
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. I had not. I expressed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp.
449-450, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But Lembkey just changed
them as best in his “ opinion””—
with no warrant for that opinion
either. [The seal contractor’s
“opinion,” too.]

Mr. Extuiorr. Mr. Lembkey, when you
made that statement in 1901, you went to
Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5-
pound limit. What did he tell you in
1904?

Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember just
what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Extiorr. Did he not tell you that
you were taking yearling skins?

Mr. Lempxey. No, sir; he told me that
you had made the charge that we were
taking yearling skins.

Mr. Extrorr. Was he not impressed
with the fact that you were taking year-
Jing skins?

Mr. Lempxey. No; he was not.

Mr. Exuiorr. Yet he fixed the limit
54 pounds?

Mr. Lempxey. He did it solely as I
have stated—to place the limit so high
that you norany other man could make any
objection to the policy of the department.

Mr. Exuiorr. That was very correct on
his part, was it not?

* * * *

Mr. Exuiorr, When Mr. Hitchcock left
the department who succeeded him?

240

DEecEMBER, 1908.
666, June 24, 1911.
Com. and Labor.)

The company’s protest regarding the
department’s decision to fix the minimum
weight of skins at 54 pounds was brought
to our attention here at Washington before
the sailing of the steamer and was filed for
future reference.~ (F. H. Hitchcock to
W.1I. Lembkey, May 28, 1904. Appendix
A, p. 47, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

(Appendix A, p.
H. Com. Exp. Dept.

Lembkey says in his official
report, 1906, that he made that
change in the Hitchcock Rules
because ‘‘the department found,”
etc., ‘‘of the fact,’’ etc.

Mr. Lempxey. The reduction in 1906
of the limit of weight on small skins from
54 to 5 pounds was made by the depart-
ment because of the fact that the latter
weight more nearly represented the divid-
ing line between | and 2 year old seals.
The young males between 5 and 54 pounds
undoubtedly are 2-year-olds, and the 53-
pound prohibition resulted in arbitrarily
turning away from the killng fields sev-
eral thousands of small 2-year-olds that
otherwise would be killed for quota.

This reduction of the limit in weight
resulted in the dismissal in 1906 of 3,980
small seals, as against 5,548 in 1905.
These 3,980 dismissals in 1906 are shown
elsewhere to represent approximately
3,300 animals.

In my opinion, this closer killing among
the smaller 2-year-olds is advisable.
Present safeguards against too close killing
are ample. With their strict enforce-
ment, it is the part of wisdom to allow the
lessee to take all remaining young males
not covered by prohibitory regulation,
as in so doing it reduces to a minimum a
class of seals upon which the pelagic
sealers prey during the summer, and
which, if saved, would offer no further
benefit to the herd than that now assured
under the regulations governing the kill-
ing on land. (Rept., Dec. 14, 1906, to
Secretary Com. and Labor, W. I. Lemb-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Mr. Lempxey. As chief clerk? I think
Mr. Bowen did.

Mr. Exurorr. Mr. Bowen. Did you
again renew your recommendation?

Mr. Lemsxey. I do not remember that
I recommended that the weight be re-
duced to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott.

Mr. Exuiorr. That order of reduction
was made in 1906?

Mr. Lempxey. In 1906.

Mr. Exxiorr. Who was the chief clerk
then?

Mr. Lempxey. I presume Mr. Bowen
was.

Mr. Exuiorr. You must have had some-
thing to present to Mr. Hitchcock and to
Mr. Bowen as your reason for reducing
that weight from 54 pounds to 5 pounds.
What was it?

Mr. Lemsxey. I had not. I experssed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp.
449, 450, Apr. 13, 1912. H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But Lembkey, under cross-
examination, admits that the
change was made on his recom-
mendation, and that he himself,
had no warrant for making it—
only his ‘‘opinion.’’

Mr. Exuiorr. That order of reduction
was made in 1906?

Mr. LemBxey. In 1906.

Mr. Exxiorr. Who was the chief clerk
then?

Mr. Lempxkey. I presume Mr. Bowen
was.

Mr. Exuiorr. And you again made the
recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no.
The recommendation was made, I think,
to the Secretary, but it was made through
Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department,
who then had charge of the seal business.

Mr. Exuiorr. Oh, he took charge of it? |

Had you in 1904 any table of length,

weight, and measurement of fur seals to |

contradict the official tables that declared
a fur seal 2 years of age, the skin of which
weighed 5% pounds?

Mr. Lempxry. What year
speaking of, and what records are you
speaking of?

Mr. Exxtiorr. You must have had some-
thing to present to Mr. Hitchcock and to
My.
that weight from 54 pounds to 5 pounds.
What was it?

Mr. Lempxey. You must remember,

now, that my statement was that that |

c hange occurred in 1906.
Mr. Exziorr. 1904, you said?

“Bowen as your reason for reducing |

Had you any rec- ||
ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. Hitchcock? |
are you

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

key, pp. 264, 265, Appendix A, June
24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor.)

The lessees with help of Lemb-
key in 1906, “established” a
“5-pound”’? minimum, so as to
easier “load” the 44-pound year-

ling skins.

Mr. Lempxey. We have found en the
islands that the most reliable way of
gauging sealskins so as to classify them
into different ages is that of weight, of
weighing the skins. We have very re-
liable data showing that 2-year-olds sel-
dom if ever weigh less than 5 pounds,
and we also have data which give us the
information that the skins of 3-year-olds
weigh from 64 to 84 pounds. Upon that
basis we have established our regulations.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 398, Mar. 1, 1912.)

21588—13——16

241

Mr. LemBKey. 1906 is when we re
duced the weight from 54 pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.

Mr. Exuiotr. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.

Mr. Extiotr. Have you any table of
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?

Mr. Lempxey. I had not. 1 expressed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp.
449,450, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

Lueas, under oath, and facing’
cross-examination, tells the truth
and denies Lembkey.

Dr. Lucas. In regard to the sizes and
ages of killable seals, Dr. Evermann has
pointed out in his admirable résumé that
there is no law against the killing of male
seals of any age. There have been regu-
lations against it, but all I can say is that
no yearlings have been systematically
kolled. I took Mr. Elliott’s figures of
1873 as a good aveiage. He cites the
weight of 2-year-old skins as 54 pounds.
l agree with him there. I think that isa
good average. (Hearing No. 12, p. 708,
May 16, 1912.)

Mr. Exuiorr. I will go further and
submit as Exhibit J this paper. I won’t
read all of this in regard to the British
authority on Alaskan fur-seal classifica-
tion and what he says, as compared with
our tables; but I will read one word from
a chief British authority in an official
letter written December 21, 1892, by Si
Curtis Lampson’s sons to the British com~
missioners Sir George Baden-Powell and
Dr. George M. Dawson. Sir Curtis Lamp-
son says:

‘““We are unable to answer your inquiry
as to in what class in the sales catalogue
would be placed a skin classified on the
islands as, say, a 7-pound skin, as we do
not know whether the classification you
mention refers to the skins as taken from
the animals or after they have been:
cured and salted ready for shipment.
The process of curing and salting must of:
necessity add to the weight.’’ (Seep. 916,
Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration,
vol. 8, Paris, 1893.) ;

Now, let me tell you that the salt added
in curing a 44-pound ‘‘green” yearling’
skin will increase its weight to 5 pounds,
or even to 54 pounds, according to the’
amount of salt used.

Now, you will understand why a ‘5-
pound” skin can not be taken on the’
islands and honestly, truthfully certified

242

Bowers swears that the skins
are classified by weight as sent
from the islands.

Mr. Bowers. Do you have a report to
that effect? Have you seen a report to
that effect?

Dr. Hornapay.. Yes; and it has been
published several times.

Mr. Bowers. I have never seen it;
neither have you. I think that is a mat-
ter of record. That is mentioned in the
report manufactured by Mr. Elliott, based
upon nothing.

Mr. Parron. You mean it is a report
that is sworn to by the people who do the
selling in London?

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classifi-
cation of the London merchants who sell
the skins for the United States Govern-
ment.

Mr. Parron. And they pay on that
weight?

Mr. Bowers. They sell on _ those
weights. Their classification is made on
those weights.

Mr. Exriorr. Right there I want to
interpose the statement that they do not
weigh those skins to classify them. They
measure them. (Hearing No. 6, p. 291;
July 27, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.
and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

2 years of age,’’ becasue a 2-year-old skin
weighs, with the same treatment that this
skin has received, a minimum of 6 pounds.
A small ‘‘runt” 2 years old may weigh 54
pounds. Ihave seen ‘‘runts” that would
not weigh 5 pounds, but we are not
dealing with exceptions. We are dealing
with broad, square averages. I am will-
ing to admit that a few exceptions can be
found. Jam willing to admit that a man
might knock down a ‘‘long”’ yearling here
and there; but when he deliberately says
to Mr. Nagel that a 5-pound skin is a
2-year-old seal I will take him to the seals
themselves and they will confound him;
and you gentlemen can easily go with me.
I would like to submit this as an exhibit.

Mr. MoGiuuicuppy. Professor, these
classifications here are before they are
salted?

Mr. Exiorr. Yes, sir; they are “‘green”’
skins. (Hearing No. 1, p. 14, May 31,
1911.)

Lembkey, who takes the skins
on the islands, denies his chief,
Bowers.

Mr. Youne. Let me, before you pass
from that, ask this: You weigh these green
skins on the islands, and then measure
them in the markets in London. What
is your purpose in weighing, and what is
their purpose in measuring?

Mr. Lempkey. Our purpose in weighing
the skins on the island is to get them
within the weights prescribed by the
regulations. Our regulations prescribe
maximum and minimum weights. Those
weights are 5 pounds

Mr. Youne. Does that relate to the
question of age?

Mr. Lempkey. Five pounds and eight
and one-half pounds.

Mr. YounG. Passing from the weight,
in London what is the determining pur-
pose in measuring?

Mr. Lempxey. They measure them I
fancy:

Mr. Youna. Are they trying to arrive
at the question of age, too?

Mr. Lempxery. They are trying to get
the size of the skin or the amount of fur on
the animal. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448,449,
Apr. 13, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.
and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Lembkey asserts that the Lon-

don classification of the sealskins’

is an accurate one—he does not
tell how it is based.

Mr. Lemspxey. These skins which were
sent to London during the years 1909 and
1910 were weighed by the factors after
their arrival in London and the weights
found to correspond with those taken on
theisland. As this factor, Lampson & Co.,
is essentially a disinterested person, being
concerned not the least with the question
of weights or regulations, but wholly with
the sale of the skins and the payments
therefor, their verification of these weights
may be taken as conclusive of their accu-
racy.

So far, therefore, as concerns compli-
ance with the regulations and the law in
the killing of male seals, no nfalfeasance
can be proven, because not only the rec-
ords of the department but the weights of
the same skins in London, taken ‘by an
independent and responsible body of
experts, prove that the limits of weight
laid down by the instructions of the de-
partment have been complied with as
closely as it is possible for human agency
to do so. The weights of skins taken on
the islands show this, and furthermore
these weights have been verified in Lon-
don by an independent and responsible
body of men. (Hearing No. 9, p. 375,
Mar. 1, 1912.)

Lembkey swears that Lamp-
son’s London classification of the
sealskins taken on the seal islands
is an accurate one, and by
weight.

Mr. LemBKeEy. Lampson & Co. is a
general broker, and I believe the only
one in London.

Mr. Exxiotr. They take anything from
anybody in the United States.

Mr. Lempxkey. Undoubtedly. Now,
their reputation for veracity is unim-
peachable, and has been _ jealously
guarded by them since they first engaged
in business many years ago. The tur
trade has explicit confidence in. their
statements. The weights of skins which
they have promulgated are as accurate
as their classification of the skins which
they publish to the trade. The fact
that the island weights and the Lampson
weights coincide is conclusive that the
island weights were correctly taken.
Surely the committee can conclude that

243

Then, under cross- -examination,
he admits that the London classi-
fication is on measurements, not
weights, and based on the sizes of
the skins.

Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Fraser, if I may in-
form the committee, makes a statement of
the weight, breadth, and length of the
skins

Mr. Extiorr. Yes.

Mr. Lempxkey. But states nothing
whatever as to the number of skins in any
catch.

Mr. Exniorr. That
other testimony.

Mr. LemBxey. Is it?

The CHarrMAN. What is the question
to this witness?

Mr. Erurotr. I asked if he does not
know that the sizes are established by
measurements?

The CHAIRMAN. Just answer that ques-
tion. Do you know it?

Mr. Lempxey. | have beenso informed.

Mr. Exxrorr. Do you doubt it?

Mr. LemeBxey. Oh, no.

Mr. Exuiorr. Nor do I.
9, p. 441, Apr. 13, 1912.)

is all covered in

(Hearing No.

Lembkey tells the committee
that they classify sealskins by
measurement of size, and not
weight, in Lampson’s sales.

Mr. Youna. Let me before you pass
from that ask this: You weigh these
green skins on the islands, and then
measure them in the markets in London.
What is your purpose in weighing, and
what is their purpose in measuring?

Mr. LEMBKEY. Our purpose in weigh-
ing the skins on the island is to get them
within the weights prescribed by the
regulations. Our regulations prescribe
maximum and minimum weights. Those
weights are 5 pounds

Mr. Yous. Does
question of age?

Mr. LemBKey. Five
pounds.

Mr. Youna. Passing from the weight,
in London what is the determining pur-
pose in measuring?

that relate to the

pounds and &$

244

the charge of malfeasance can not lie
upon the practice of taking skins as it
has been carried on during the years
mentioned. (ITearing No. 9, p. 376,
Mar. 1. 1912.)

Lembkey swears that 100 skins
in 1904 were lighter after salting.

Mr. Lempkey. Asa matter of fact, con-
trary to general belief, sealskins before
salting weigh slightly more than aiter-
wards. This is well known to practical
taxidermists. The effect of salt on skins
is to extract the animal juices in large
measure and to deter the propagation of
bacteria which would eventually destroy
the skin. That the natural juices in the
green pelt are extracted through the
action of the salt is shown by the stiffer
and harder texture of the skin after it has
been in contact with the salt for a suffi-
cient period. The loss of weight in a
pelt due to salting is perhaps small, but
nevertheless definite and appreciable.

In order to test this very matter, on
July 26, 1904, 100 green sealskins nearly
dry were weighed by me on St. Paul and
then placed in salt. Their combined
green weight was 6444 pounds. Five
days thereafter they were taken out of
salt and reweighed, when their combined
weight was 6434 pounds, representing a
net loss of 1 pound in the aggregate
weight of 100 skins. (H. Doc. No. 93,
62d Cong., Ist sess., p. 79.) (Hearing
No. 9, p. 416, Mar. 11, 1912.)

But Lembkey forgets it one
month later.

Mr. Extiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you say
you never have weighed these skins after
you have salted them? You have never
weighed them?

Mr. Lemsxey. I have never weighed
them after the salting on the islands; no,
sir. (Hearing No.9, p. 446, Apr. 13, 1912;
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) |

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Mr. Lempxey. They measure them,
I fancy:

Mr. Youna. Are they trying to arrive
at the question of age, too? -

Mr. Lempxey. They are trying to get
the size of the skin or the amount of fur
on the animal.

Mr. Younea. They care nothing about
the question of age there?

Mr. Lempxey. Nothing at all.

Mr. Young. That is all I care to ask.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 448, Apr. 18, 1912.) ~

But Lembkey’s official record
on the island, of 1904, shows that
these skins were heavier.

[Official journal of the Government agent in charge
of Seal Islands: St. Paul’s Island, Alaska:

Saturday, July 23, 1904.—On July 18,
107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed
and salted. To-day they were hauled
out of the trench and reweighed. At the
time of killing they weighed 705 pounds,
and on being taken out they weighed 7594
pounds, a gain in salting of 544 pounds,
or one-half pound per skin (p. 149). (This
entry was made by Lembkey himself, as
above quoted, and copied July 22, 1913,
by the agents H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com-
merce.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Lembkey says the holluschickie
are never driven from shelter on
the breeding rookeries.

Chief Special Agent LEmBxey: Further-
more, the 3-year-olds, having passed the
age of puberty, are not found on the
hauling grounds during the fall, but are
hauled among the cows on the rookeries
when they can not be driven. This is an
additional safeguard against their killing,
and of itself would disprove any allegation
that these marked seals are subsequently
killed. (Report, Dec. 14, 1906, p. 13;
Sen. Doc. 376, 60th Cong., Ist sess.)

Lembkey swears that the offi-
cial publication of Elliott’s 1874
report never reached the files of
his office on the seal islands.

San Franoisco, November 15, 1911.
Mr. W. I. LemMBKeEy.

DeAR Sir: In compliance with your
request, I have looked over the published
account of the fur-seal investigation, and
I can truthfully state that I consider the
testimony of H. W. Elliott to be design-
edly false and misleading, especially that
part referring to the season of 1890.

Referring to the scale of weights and
measurements of sealskins, which he
claims was introduced by himself and the
late Dr. McIntyre, I have never heard of

‘the Government agents.

245

But his assistant says they are
so driven—are “pulled out from
among the cows.” The St. Paul
native sealers confirm Judge in a
signed statement, July 23, 1913:

Assistant Agent JAMES JuDGE. Seals.—
Four hundred and fifty-eight seals of the
quota of 500 allowed the natives of this
island for food were obtained. The first
drive was made on October 19, from
Staraya Artel, and 220 seals were killed;
209 small, sixty-five 3-year-olds, five
4-year-olds, six 5-year-olds, two 6-year-
olds, and 4 branded were turned away.
Three other drives were made as follows:
October 31, Staraya Artel rookery, 148
seals were killed, twelve 3-year-olds re-
leased; November 9, Staraya Artel and
north, 44 seals killed; November 16,
North rookery, 25 seals killed; October 20
to November 10, Zapadni Guards, 21
seals killed.

The last three drives were made up
entirely of seals pulled out from among the
cows by the natives, and as very careful
selection had taken place on the rookery
very few were turned away from the
killing field. (Report, June 3, 1907,
Sen. Doc. 376, p. 105, 60th Cong., Ist
sess. )

Question. Did you ever use whistles
when you drove those young seals out
from the shelter of the rookeries?

Answer. No. They used to use them,
but do not use them now. They just run
in and yell and clap their hands.

Question. Did you ever report that
work to the Government agents?

Answer. Yes; it was always reported to
(Statements of
the native sealers, St. Paul’s Island,
July 23, 1913; made to agents, H. Com.
Exp., Dept. Commerce, p. 98, rept. Aug.
31, 1913.)

But it was on the official files,
for in 1886 the chief special
agent so reports to the Secre-
tary of the United States Treas-
ury.

OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Pau Isnanp, ALASKA,

July 31, 1886.
Srr: I herewith transmit my report of
the operations of the seal islands for the
past year, and up to the close of this seal-
ing season.

* * ¥*
Mr. Elliott embraced in his report of
1874 a measurement by him of the breed-
ing rookeries on this island, made July
10-18, 1872, since which time no measure-

246

its existence, nor have I ever heard men-
tion of it, during my long residence on
the seal islands, where for many years
I was immediately connected with the
taking and curing of sealskins, dating
from the spring of 1875 to the expiration
of the Alaska Commercial Co.’s lease, in
1890.
Yours, respectfully,
J. C. REDPATH.

Mr. Lempxkey. Mr. Redpath landed on
the islands first in 1875, one year after the
alleged promulgation of the Elliott table
of weights and measurements.

I regret that Mr. Redpath is in San
Francisco, and therefore is not able to
attend these hearings. Upon my return
from Alaska this fall, I obtained and for-
warded to Mr. Redpath a series of hearings
of this committee held last summer, with
the request that, after reading, he inform
me whether the list of weights and meas-
urements which Mr. Elliott claims was
promulgated in 1872-1874 on the islands
was, in ‘truth, so published. His reply
bears out my belief that Mr. Elliott simply
has attempted to foist upon this commit-
tee a piece of manufactured evidence
bearing a date so far back in the history
of the islands that no one living would be
able to testify as to its truth or falsity.
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 404, 426, Apr. 13,
1912.)

Lembkey (and Bureau of Fish-
eries) quotes Veniaminov and mis-
quotes Elhott, to deceive.

Mr. Lempxey. The cause of this great
decline of seal life during the Russian
régime was due to the reckless killing on
jand not only of bachelor seals, such as are
killed to-day, but to the killing of female
seals wherever they could be found. And,
strange to say, the very evidence of this
wanton slaughter of females can be found
in Mr. Elliott’s reports, although he is
very careful to keep such facts in abey-
ance when furnishing his deadly parallel
of the destruction caused by land killing
then and now. * * * Let us now
make a few quotations from Elliott to
show just what was the cause of the Rus-
sian scarcity of seals. * * * Let us
quote Mr. Elliott:

A translation of Veniaminov. whom I
have mentioned already, * * * occurs
in Mr. Elliott’s monograph, his first report
on the seal islands. * * *

In that translation we find the following
quotation from the Russian writer:

‘“From the time of the discovery of the
Pribilof Islands until 1805 the taking of
furseals progressed. * * * Cowswere
taken in the drives and killed, and were
also driven from the rookeries, where
they were slaughtered * * *.” (Hear-
ing on H. R. 1671, Feb. 3, 1912, p. 114,
H. Com. Foreign Affairs.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

ment has been made, as far as the records
of this office show.
* * * *
GEO. R. TINGLE,
Treasury Agent in Charge.

To THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D. C.
(H. Doc. 175, pp. 204, 205, 54th Cong.,

Ist sess.)

Elliott’s answer proves his at-
tempt to deceive.

Mr. Extiorr. On page 143 of my mono-
graph, from which those extracts were
read (by Lembkey), I made this signifi-
cant and fair statement of what I thought
of the same, to wit:

‘‘T translate this chapter of Veniaminoy’s
without abridgment, although it is full
of errors, to show that while the Russians
gave this matter evidently much thought
at headquarters, yet they failed to send
some one onto the ground who, by first
making himself acquainted with the hab-
its of the seals, etc.

‘Why did Mr. Lembkey fail to read the
above? The idea of making me responsi-
ble for a series of loose statements that I
literally credit to another man, and ex-
pressly define them as such, is, I submit to
the committee, a suppression of the truth
by Mr. Lembkey himself, and he, not I,
is guilty of that offense.’’ (Hearing 02
H.-R. 1671, Feb. 4, 1912, pp. 146, 147,
H. Com. Foreign Affairs.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, Q47

WIE.

The statements in the official reports of Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Advisory
Board on Fur Seal Service, United States Bureau of Fisheries, who is one of the
experts cited to the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National
Resources, January 14, 1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority
for killing seals in violation of law and regulations:

Mr. Bowers. The advisory board, fur -seal service, consists of the following:

Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of the
International Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance of the
treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the most
comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published on all

matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr.
tinguished and best known naturalist in the world.

1911.)

THE DEADLY

Dr. Jordan falsifies Yanovsky’s
official report to the Secretary, of
the Treasury to justify the un-
truth stated in re ‘‘ Russian killing
of male and female seals alike.”’

At once on assuming control of the
islands the Russian-American Co. put
a stop * * *. They still continued
to kill males and females alike. The
injury to the herd naturally continued.

*

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the
Imperial Government, after an inspection
of the fur-seal rookeries, called attention
to the practice of killing the young ani-
mals, leaving only the adults as breeders.
He writes: TE any of the young breeders
are not killed by the autumn they are
sure to be killed in the following spring.”’
From this course of action he concludes
that the industry decreases every year in
volume, and may in the course of time
be extinguished entirely. (Fur Seal In-
vestigations, pt. 1, p. 25, 1898.)

Dr. Jordan declares that the
Russians ruined the Pribilof fur-
seal herd by an indiscriminate
kiling of female and male seals,
1800-1834.

They (the Russian-American Co.) still
continued to kill males and females alike.
The injury to the herd naturally con-
tinued. * * * (Fur-Seal Investiga-
tions, pt. 1, p. 25, 1898.)

Jordan is the most dis-

(Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9,

PARALLEL.

The text of Yanovsky’s report,
1820, which denies the statement
of Dr. Jordan in re Russian killing
of female seals. Jordan has used
the word ‘‘breeders’’ for ‘‘bach-
elors’’ in Yanovsky’s statement,
and thus falsifies it.

In his report No. 41 of February 25,
1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an ac count
of his inspection of the ‘operations on the
islands of St. Paul and St. George, ob-
serves that “‘every year the young”’
bachelor zine are killed, and that only
the cows, siekatchie, and half siekatchie
are left to propagate the species. It fol-
lows that only the old seals are left, while
if any of the bachelors are left alive in
the autumn they are sure to be killed the
next spring. The consequence is the
number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the
species will in time become extinct.”’
(Appendix to Case of the United States,
Fur Seal Arbitration (Letter No. 6, p. 58,
Mar. 5, 1821), 1893.)

But Dr. Jordan published a
translation of Bishop Veniami-
nov, who explicitly denies that
killing by the Russians, 1800—
1834, when the seal herd was de-
stroyed.

The taking of fur seals commences in
the latter days of September * * *,
The s‘ekatchie and the old females hav-
ing been removed, the others divided in-
to small squads, are carefully driven to
the place where they are to be killed,
sometimes more than 10 versts distant,

When brought to the killing grounds
the seals are rested for an hour, or more,
according to circumstances, and then
killed withaclub. * * * ;

248

Dr. Jordan denies the appear-
ance on the hauling grounds of
the yearlings, and in the killing

drives before ‘‘the middle of
July.”
* * * Tn fact the records of the

drives show that it is only after the mid-
dle of July that the yearlings begin to
arrive in numbers, and by the time the
killine season is over. * * * (Fur-
Seal Investigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 99.)

Jordan asserts and denies the
fact that the yearling seals haul
out, as a class, on the islands be-
fore the middle of July annually,
and therefore are not killed.

From the killing durimg the present
season (1896) 15,000 animals too small to
kill were turned back. As in the case of
the young bulls, some of these, perhaps
many, were driven and redriven, several
drives being made from each hauling
ground during the season. The actual
number represented by this total of re-
jected animals can not be exactly deter-
mined. From this it would seem neces-
sary to suppose that by no means all the
younger seals appear on the hauling
erounds during the killing season. In
iact, the records of the drives show that it
is only after the middle of July that the
yearlings begin to arrive in numbers, and
by the time the killing season is over the
ereat majority of the killable seals are
secured, leaving the population of the
hauling grounds almost exclusively year-

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

Of those 1 year old, the males are
separated trom the females and killed
while the latter are driven carefully back
to ie beach. (I*ur-Seal Investigations,
pt. 3, 1898, p. 222; transiation of Bishop
V caine by Leonhard Stejneger.)

But Chief Special Agent Goff
asserts in an official entry that
yearlings are in the drives as
early as June 18.

[P. 229: Official Journal, Government Agent, St.
Paul Island, 1890.]

Wednesday, June 18, 1890.—Made a
drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill; killed
274. Turned away 19 half grown bulls:
as many yearlings as choice seals, killed
(i. e., 274), and half as many 2-yvyear-
olds as yearlings were allowed to return to
the sea, This is a fair average of the
work so far this season. (Chas. J. Goff,
U. S. Chief Sp’l Agent in charge Seal
Islands.)

Monday, June 23, 1890.—(p. 231.)
The N. A. C. Co. made a drive trom Tol-
stoi and Middle Hau, killing 521 seals.
Seventy-five per cent of the seals driven to
the village were turned back into the sea,
10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds,
balance yearlings. (C.J. Goff.)

Tuesday, June 24, 1890.—(p. 231.)
N. A. C, Co., made a drive from Reef and
Tolstoi, and killed 426 seals; about 65
per cent of this drive was turned back
into the sea, about all of these were

yearlings.
(C. J. Goff.)

But sworn proof is below that
the yearlings do haul out as a
class, and in the earliest June
drives, and are never absent from
them thereafter during the sea-
son.

Mr. Exxtiotr. Now as to yearlings on the
islands. Here is an official report de-
tailed day after day during the killing
season of 1890, put on the files of the
Treasury Department, and printed, and
until the Ist of December, 1907, not a line
had been issued from the Government
officialism in charge of this business—not
a line that says a single record of this
work ag to the killing on those islands in
1890 is improperly stated here. The only
objection they make to it was that I offi-
cially assumed that driving these young
and old seals hurt them. They claimed
it did not hurt them, but that it did them
good. We will leave that open. But the
killing has hurt them; they admit that
now officially. Let me read, on page 170:

“Monday, “June 23, “1890: “ipa
Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up;

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

lings and 2-year-olds. (Fur Seal Inves-
tigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 99. Dr. D. S.
Jordan, Rept. Feb. 24, 1898.)

Jordan condemns the killing of
yearlings by the old lessees in
1889:

For a time these more rigorous methods
had the desired effect, but the scarcity of
bachelors as a result of the decreasing
birth rates made it necessary: finally to
lower the age for killable seals, so as to in-
clude, first, the 2-year-olds, and in the end
many of the larger yearlings, in order to
secure the requisite 100,000 skins. By

249

110 of them killed or one-fifth taken, or 80
per cent turned away. All under 7-
pound skins, with the exception of a few
wigged 4-year-olds and a dozen or two old
bulls. This gives a fair average of the
whole drive to-day, some 2,500 animals,
since 518 only were taken.

“* * * Those turned away (nearly
2,000) were 95 per cent at least ‘long’ and
‘short’ yearlings.’’

That. has never been disputed to this
hour.

“June’21; 1890; * $% °* . At’7ia: im. I
went down to the killing grounds and fol-
lowed the podding and clubbing of the
entire drive brought up from the Reef
crest and Zoltoi bluffs this morning. The
Zoltoi ped arrived on the ground long be-
fore the Reef pod—two hours sooner. It
was made up largely of polseecatchie and
yearlings.

“* * * Seventy-five per cent of this
drive was rejected. Every 3 and smooth
4-year-old taken and every long 2-year-
old. Nothing under or over that grade.

“The seals released this morning were
exclusively vearlings, ‘short’ 2-year-olds,
and the 5 and 6 year old half bulls or
polseecatchie. No ‘long’ 2-year-old
escaped, and so, therefore, many 54 and
6 pound skins will appear in this catch.

“Tn the afternoon I took a survey of
Lukannon Bay and its hauling grounds.
* * * Thence over to Tolstoi sand
dunes, where I saw about 600 or 700 year-
lings, conspicuous by their white bellies.

* * * *

“June 26, 1890 (on p. 174). I walked
over to the Zapadnie killing grounds this
morning, arriving there about 9 o’clock.
The drivers had collected a squad of about
340 holluschickie, which were clubbed
thus—total 344 number driven, and num-
ber taken, 97, or about 72 per cent unfit to
take, being made up chiefly of yearlings,
‘short’ 2-year-olds, and *‘wigged’ 4-year-
olds, and 5-year up to 7-year old bulls.”’

I knew what I was talking about, and so
did the lessees. They rejected the year-
lings and the short 2-year-olds. (Hearing
No. 2, pp. 40, 41, June 8, 1911, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. C. and L.)

But he approves the killing of
yearlings by the new lessees, 1896,
in violation of the rules ordered
May 14, 1896 (prohibiting that
killing).

Last year (1896) the hauling grounds of
the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killa-
ble seals. During the present season a
quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To
get these it was necessary to drive more
frequently and cull the animals more
closely than has been done since 1889.
The killing season was closed on July 27,

250

these methods it happened in 1889 that
practically the whole bachelor herd of
four years and under down to the year-
lings was wiped out. The result was the
abnormal drop to 21,000 in the quota of
LEO nF et

It is not the intention here to justify the
methods of killing employed in the clos-
ing years of the Alaska Commercial Co.
Such killing ought never to have been
allowed. * * * (Fur Seal investiga-
tions, pt. 1, p. 124, 1898.)

For another part of the time this quota
was too great, and this led to waste of an-
other sort by involving the premature
killing of the yearling and 2-year-old
bachelors. (Fur Seal Investigations, pt.
ype 93s)

Dr. Jordan denies the appear-
ance of female yearlings in the
drives with male yearlings.

There remains to be recorded the ar-
rival of the 1 and 2 year old females.
Their brothers are found to arrive at the
islands about the middle of July and
spend their time on the hauling grounds.
Whether the young females come with
them to the vicinity of the islands or are
associated with them on the migrations is
not known. But they do not associate
with them to any great extent on the
islands. (Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 1,
1898, p. 66.)

Jordan makes denial of knowl-
edge that the male and female
yearling seals haul out together,
or come together on the islands.

There remains to be recorded the arrival
of the 1 and 2 year old females. Their
brothers, we found, arrive at the islands
about the middle of July and spend their
time on the hauling grounds. Whether
the young females come with them to the
vicinity of the islands, or are associated
with them on the migrations is not known.
But they do not associate with them to
any great extent on the islands. (Fur
Seal Investigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 66.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.

1896. This year it was extended on St.
Paul to the 7th of August, and on St.
George to August 11. The quota to be
taken was left to our discretion and every
opportunity was given the lessees to take
the full product ‘of the hauling grounds.
Notwithstanding all their efforts, the
quota of 1897 shows a decrease of 30 per
cent in the class of killable seals, and
when we take into account the increased
number of drives and the extension of the
times of driving, the difference between
the two seasons is even greater. (ur Seal
Investigations: Preliminary report of
1897: Treasury Doc. No. 1994, p. 18, Nov.
1, 1897.)

But Lembkey, with 13 years’
experience, reports that the fe-
males do come out as yearlings
with male yearlings

On July 1 there were three yearling
seals in the drives at North East Point.
One of them, a typical specimen, was
knocked down at my direction, to ascer-
tain the weight of the skin. It was found
to be a female.

Special attention was paid by me to the
presence of yearlings in the drives. The
first seen was on June 28 in a drive from
Zapadnie. It was so small that it was
killed to determine its weight. It was a
male ie = A Rept. We si Lembkey,
Sept. 1, 1904, p. 77, App. A, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24,
1911.)

But Dr. Jordan’s men take a
male and a female yearling seal
out of a drive from the hauling
grounds, and send them as speci-
mens to Stanford University.

Sunday, September 27, 1896.—(P. 12.)
A barren cow shot on reef; skin taken for
Stanford University. (P.13.) The skin
of a yearling bull smothered in the food
drive from Lukannow ! taken for Stanford
University. (P. 14.) A yearling cow
shot for purposes of dissection out of the
drive from Lukannon. Skin taken for
Stanford University. (Official Journal
of the U. §. Agent, St. Pauls Island,
entered on is 53, and copied, July 24,
1913, by A. F. Gallagher.)

That drive ‘from Lukannon” was made on July 27, 1896, from which those yearling male} and
W.E.

female seals were secured, as above entered.—H.

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Jordan makes denial of the
male and female yearlings hauling
out together.

There remains yet to be recorded the
arrival of the young 1 and 2 year old
females. Their brothers, we found,
arrive at the islands about the middle of
July, and spend their time on the hauling
grounds. Whether the young females
come with them to the vicinity of the
islands or are associated with them on the
migrations is not known. But they do
not associate with them to any great
extent on the islands. (Fur Seal Inves-
tigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 66.)

Jordan denies seeing any year-
ling seals on the hauling grounds
up to July 25, 1896.

July 25, 1906.—At the time of our first
enumeration, on Ketavie, Tolstoi, and the
Lagoon * * * no yearlings nor 2-year-
olds had appeared. Nor am I sure that
any have appeared since, unless yearling
cows are among the bachelors. I have not
seen one, and I am not sure that I have
seen a 2-year-old (cow). (Fur Seal Inves-
tigations, pt. 2, 1898, p. 341.)

251

Lembkey, with 13 years’ expe-
rience, swears that the male and
female yearlings do haul out to-
gether.

Mr. LemBxey. This habit of annually
migrating from the place of its birth to
southerly waters can be explained in a
few words. Probably 90 per cent of all
female breeders give birth to their pups
within a period of three weeks, from June
25 to July 15 of each year. These pups
remain on the islands until about Novem-
ber 1 to 15 of each year, and then depart
southward. These pups return to the
islands the following year practically in a
mass about the 25th of July, and then are
known as yearlings. While a few indi-
viduals might arrive among the first
bachelors of the season, the bulk of the
yearlings arrive in a mass about the 25th
of July, as stated. .

If these yearling seals do not arrive until
after nearly the whole catch of the skins
is obtained, how is it possible to compose
the bulk of that catch of the skins of these
young animals, as alleged by Mr. Elliott?
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 412, 413, 415, Mar.
1, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com, and
Labor.)

Lembkey swears that he can
not tell them apart by looking at
them only.

Mr. Lempkey. But the younger
females, and especially the 2-year-olds,
are almost exactly similar in appearance
to the males of the same age, and it
requires an expert to distinguish between
them. I can state that with 13 years of
experience, I can not by any means
always determine the sex of these animals
while they are alive and when they
appear on the killing field. (Hearing
No. 9, pp. 377, 378, Mar. 1, 1912: H.
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But ever since he landed, July 8,
first on the islands, he has seen
yearling seals on the hauling
grounds, and notes that sight, as
quoted below.

July 11.—Zapadnie Rookery, St.
Geofge Island: The yearling bachelors
are to be seen in little pods of half a dozen
or so. * * * Where the _ bachelor
yearlings are at a distance from interfer-
ence, they play among themselves like
littledogs. * * * Similar comparisons
might be made for the 2-year-olds, which
are bigger than the yearlings, nearly as

252

Jordan’s own associate will not
vouch for his truthfulness.

Dr. EvermMann. 4. The assumption
that the rookeries are fullest between July
10 and 20 “‘every year, not a day earlier,
not many days later, ” is not a safe assump-
tion; in fact, it is not true.

Mr. Exitiorr. Are you quoting Dr. Jor-
dan?

Dr. EverMANN. I am quoting some
things that Dr. Jordan has said.

Mr. Extsorr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of
truth?

The CHAIRMAN. You are quoting from
Dr. Jordan?

Mr. Ex.iorr. I want to find if Dr. Jor-
dan is a man of truth.

The CuarrMAN. That is not for the wit-
ness to determine.

Mr. Exuiorr. He is assailing me in that
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.

The CHarrMAN. The witness can not
say whether he is telling the truth or
whether he is not.

Mr. Extiorr. I would like to have it go
in the record whether he considers Dr.
Jordan a man of truth.

The CHarRMAN. The witness will pro-
ceed. (Hearing No. 10, p. 580, Apr. 20,
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)

Jordan declares that up to July
25 he has not seen a virgin cow or
nubile on the rookeries:

At the time of our first enumeration, on
Keetavie, Tolstoi, and the Lagoon, the
rookeries were at their height, with more
cows present than at any one time since.
But all were not in, and no yearlings nor
2-year-olds had appeared. * * * I
have neverseen one, and I am not sure
that I have seen a 2-year-old. (D.S. Jor-
dan, July 25, 1897.) (Fur Seal Investi-
gations, pt. 2, pt. 341, 1898.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

large as the cows. (Fur Seal Investiga-
tions, pt. 2, 1898, p. 300.)

July 13.—Ketavie Rookery, St. Pauls
Island: The cows are almost as cowardly
as the yearling bachelors * * * (p.
302).

July 13.—Ardignen Rookery, St. Pauls
Island: On Ardignen, one unlucky year-
ling male is seen to invade a harem, and
get routed out by the hoarse and furious
old bull 28 *!iGp. B02):

July 15.—Lukannon Rookery, St. Pauls
Island: On Lukannon was seen a little
cow, apparently a 2-year-old, with fea-
tures ofa yearling, andslender * * *
(p. 314).

July 16.—Northeast Point Rookery,
St. Pauls Island: It appeared to be a large
yearling, just getting its permanent
teeth (p. 316).

July 16.—Reef Rookery, St. Pauls Is-
land: These are apparently virgin 2-year-
olds * * * small side of the big bull
(p. 319).

But his associates, Clark and
Lucas, have seen virgin cows or
nubiles ever since July 3 on the
rookeries:

Lukannon, July 3, 1897.—A small ani-
mal already noted * * * a small 2-
year-old is in a harem of 16 cows under the
cliff. (F. A. Lucas, p. 544, pt. 2.)
Keetavie, July 5, 1897.—A little animal,
probably a 2-year-old cow, is in a harem
under the cliff. (G. A. Clark, p. 547,
Oia) 2.
: Fhe July 10, 1897.—Under the
cliffs at Lukannon are five little animals.
* * * They look exactly like 2-year-
old virgin cows. (F. A. Lucas, p. 551,

t{i2!
e ee July 20, 1897.—It is eviden
that the 2-year-olds are present in con-
siderable numbers. (G. A. Clark, p. 566,
pt. 2.) (Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 2,
pp. 544-566, 1898.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Jordan declares that the year-
lings can not be told apart as to
sex. Two seasons’ experience:

Near by were two small seals in charge
of a young half bull. The smaller one
was shot and proved to be a yearling bull.
It had all the appearances of a female, and
Jacob said it was. The sacrifice of this
yearling was valuable in showing how
easy it is to be deceived * * * there
- does not seem to be any characteristic
which will surely determine the sex of the
young animals other than those of the
sexual organs themselves. (Fur Seal In-
vestigation, pt. 2, p. 356, 1898.)

Lembkey says they can not be
distinguished apart as to sex, 13
seasons’ experience teaches him.

Mr. Lempxey. All the killabfe seals of
those driven.

Q. But they were all yearlings?—A.
They were all yearlings; no full-grown
bulls. Those driven were immature seals.

Q. The statement has been made that
it is hardly possible to distinguish the
male and the female at that age?—A. At
2 years old?

Q. Yes; what is your opinion?—A.
There is considerable difficulty in distin-
guishing the young males and females.
There is considerable difficulty in distin-
guishing the male and the female yearling.
They are both of the same size and general
formation. It is almost impossible for
anybody not an expert to pick them out
and distinguish between them, and it is
rather difficult, even for an expert; but
of the 2-year-olds the females are not on
the hauling grounds; they are on the
breeding rookeries for their initial im-
pregnation. The.2-year-old males, on the
other hand, are on thehauling-out grounds,
(Hearing on §. 9959, Feb. 4, 1911, Com-
mittee on Cons. National Resources,
U. S. Senate, p. 10 (‘‘Dixon hearing’’),
Rothermel reprint, May 20, 1911, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

253

But Jordan says the female
yearlings do not haul out with the
males (yearlings). He knows be-
cause he examines them.

One by one the little yearlings had been
drawn off until 17 had been examined.
All were bachelors. * * * Therefore
there is nothing so far to show that the
yearling females associate with the males
on the hauling grounds, at least at this
season. (Lukannon rookery, Aug. 1,
1896, p. 365.)

While Lembkey says they do
haul out together. He knows be-
cause he kills and examines them.

On July 1 (1904), there were three year-
ling seals in the drive at Northeast Point.
One of them, a typical specimen, was
knocked down at my direction to ascer-
tain the weight of the skin. It was found
to be a female. (Rept. Sept. 7, 1904, to
Sec. Com. and Labor, Lembkey, p. 77,
Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.
and Labor, June 24, 1911.)

204

Jordan denies the appearance
of any bulls under 8 years old on
the breeding grounds:

LELAND STANFORD
JuNIok UNIVERSITY,
OrricE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Stanford University, Cal.,
January 16, 1906.

Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
The White House, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge
the receipt of three documents, sent by
Mr. Loeb, bearing on the fur-seal ques-
tion, viz: (1) A memorandum to the
President from Secretary Metcalf, (2) the
printed report of the Secretary of the De-
partment of Commerce and Labor, and
(3) a letter addressed to Mr. Loeb by Mr.
Henry W. Elliott.

I notice the notation of Mr. Elliott on
the opening page of the report. He avers
that the reduction of 58 per cent of male
life on the breeding grounds is due alone
to close killing on land since 1904. This
is simply absurd. There could be no
male life on the breeding grounds that
was not 8 years old or over. * * *

Davip STARR JORDAN.

(Appendix A, p. 332; June 24, 1911.
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

Jordan asserts that Elhott’s
date for the “‘height of the sea-
son’’ is not true.

4. The assumption that the rookeries
are fullest between July 10 and 20 ‘‘every
year, not a day earlier, not many days
later,’”’ is not a safe assumption; in fact,
it is not true.

Mr. Exxrotr. Are you quoting Dr. Jor-
dan?

Dr. EveRMANN. I am quoting some
things that Dr. Jordan has said.

Mr. Exxrorr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of
truth?

The CuarrMANn. You are quoting from
Dr. Jordan?

Mr. Extrorr. I want to find if Dr. Jor-
dan is a man of truth.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not for the wit-
ness to determine.

Mr. Exuiorr. He is assailing me in that
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.

The CHarrMAN. The witness can not
say whether he is telling the truth or
whether he is not.

Mr. Exuiorr. I would like to have it go
in the record whether he considers Dr.
Jordan a man of truth.

The CHairmMAN. The witness will pro-
ceed. (Hearing No. 9, p. 580, Apr. 20,
1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and La-
bor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

But his own men and trained
naturalist finds many of them
busy as breeding bulls.

July 17.—I walked to Zapadni rookery
and made a count of harems with Mr. Chi-
chester. The part of this rookery which
in 1896-97 extended along the beach
toward the watchhouse has entirely dis-
appeared. The portion under the cliff
has also shrunk.

Contrary to our usual experience with
the young bull, a gray one not over 6.
years old not only held a harem of three
cows in a territory backed by idle bulls,
but refused to yield ground to us in our
efforts to reach a favorable observation
point. In addition to his youth, the bull
was handicapped by a stiff foreflipper.

Many young gray bulls are noted in the
rookery and about it, and particularly in
the larger harems are many of the 2-year-
old cows. (Rept. Geo. A. Clark, Sept.
30, 1909, to Secretary Nagel; Appendix
A, pp. 883, 892, June 24, 1911; H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

But Jordan’s own ‘‘trained’’
expert says that Elhott’s dates are
correct, and he quotes them as
such.

The breeding season, beginning about
June 10 and extending to about August
10, reaches a climax, known as the
‘“‘height of the season,’’ about the 12th
to the 18th of July. At this time the
greatest number of cows are present, the
harem discipline is rigid, and each family
is definitely marked out. After this pe-
riod the cows and pups scatter out and
intermingle, the mother seals spend
longer time at sea, the pups learn to swim,
and the harem system breaks up.

Harem counts.—The counts of harems
or breeding families were all made within
the period of rookery life known as the
‘‘height of the season,’’ between the dates
of July 12 and 18, these dates correspond-
ing in general to those on which the simi-
lar counts for 1897 were made. (Rept.
Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, to Secretary
Nagel; Appendix A, pp. 835, 838, June
24, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor.)

FUR-SEAL

Jordan hopes that Elbott will
approve “fan effort”? which will
enable the pelagic sealers ‘‘ to
realize’? on their ‘‘rights”’:

LELAND STANFORD
JuntIor UNIVERSITY,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CAL.,
November 6, 1909.

Mr. Henry Woop Exwiort,
Cleveland, Ohio.

Dear Sir: I have received from the
Bureau of Fisheries a letter from you to
Secretary Nagel, concerning the author-
ship of a chart which was inserted in my
preliminary report on’ the fur seals in
1896.

* * * *

I take this opportunity to express the
hope that you may approve of the effort to
establish a modus vivendi fet a time,
without killing on land or sea, until the
matter of pelagic sealing can be finally
settled. To lease the islands again as
things are would be a farce. I see some
hope that an energetic discussion with
Japan would be successful, and the Vic-
toria people are anxious to realize on their
rights.

Very truly, yours,
Davin Starr JORDAN.

HERD OF ALASKA.

255

Elhott denies the ‘‘rights”’ of
the pelagic sealers, and hopes that
they will never get a penny for
them:

17 GRACE AVENUE,
Lakewood, Ohio, November 3, 1909.
Dr. Davip Starr JORDAN,
Stanford University, Cal.

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 6th instant
has been duly received. With regard to
that appearance of my track chart in your
report of 1896, you seem to be not quite
clear in your mind as to how it got in there
as it did. Perhaps the following state-
ment of fact may help you to know its
publication there without that credit
given to me as its author which is indis-
putably mine.

* * * *

With regard for the ‘“‘rights”’ of those
Victorian sea wolves, I hope that they
will never get a penny for their rotting
vessels or their “good will.’”’ They have
had far, far too much already at the ex-
pense of humanity and decency. Let
their vessels rot, and let their owners rot
with them.

Very truly, yours,
Henry W. Exuiorr.

”

To deceive Congress and influence pending legislation, Dr. Jordan
sends the following false and defamatory telegram, which was used

on the floor of the House of Representatives February 7,

bate on H. R. 1671:

Hon. Wm. SuuzeEr,

1912; de-

Pato Aro, Cau., February 5, 1917.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
To incorporate a clause establishing in fur-seal bill a close season prohibiting killing
of superfluous males would do no good to herd, but would kill treaty. No one knows
this better than the pelagic sealers’ lobby, which for 20 years has been led by Henry

W. Elliott.

THE DEADLY

Jordan reports that the Rus-
sians killed males and females
alike—no discrimination:

Russian management.— * * * Un-

der the earlier years of its régime (Russian
American Co.), however, the seals were
indiscriminately slaughtered, females as
well as males, * * *. (Fur Seal In-
vestigations, Part 1, 1898, p. 102.)

Davip STARR JORDAN.

PARALLEL.

But Bishop Veniaminov, who
spent the season of 1825 on St.
Paul Island, denies Jordan’s re-
port.

[Translated by Dr. Leonhard Stejneger of Dr. Jor-
dan’s party.]

The taking of fur seals commences in
the latter days of September. * * *,
The sikatchie and the females having
been removed, the others are carefully
driven to the place where they are to be
killed, sometimes more than 10 versts
distiace =. 7 *,

When brought to the killing grounds the
seals are rested for an hour or more, ac-
cording to circumstances, and then killed
with a club.

206

Jordan declares that Lembkey
is not able to see things correctly
and report:

What I meant by the statement that
‘“‘the ne :d of trained supervision is forci-
bly shown by the present confusion and
doubt as to present conditions of the rook-
erles’”’ is well shown by reference to Mr.
Lembkey’s report for the past year. The
one important subject brought out by
this report is the fact of a remarkable
diminution of adult male life. He finds
the reserve of idle bulls small. He de-
duces from thisa ‘‘scarcity’’ of bulls. The
bulls are said to be ‘‘amiable”’ because
“overtax2d.’’ On certain rookeries they
have “‘lostcontrolofthebreeding grounds,”’
with the result that the bachelors are
“hauling among the cows.’’ He states
that he is sure ‘‘all the cows were served,”’
but he finds that the bulls ‘‘are not pres-
ent in sufficient numbers to maintain a
first-class rookery service.’’

li this is true, it is a serious matter and
needs careful looking after. In our rec-
ommendations of 1896-97 we classed as first
and most important among the subjects to
be determined by the naturalist to be
placed in charge of the herd a ‘‘determi-
pation of the proportion of males necessary
to attend to the needs of the female breed-
ing herd.’”’ Attention was called to the
facc that this was a question that could
not be ‘‘determined in a single season,
nor in two, possibly not in five.” It
iS a question that can only be settled
by a trained naturalist and investigator.
All that Mr. Lembkey has contributed to
this are certain superficial facts and certain
deductiors which may or may not be of
value. They areasa matter of fact merely
a reecho of very similar deductions made
by Mr. Henry W. Elliott in 1890. Mr.
Lembkey’s report settles nothing and
leaves only ‘‘confusion and doubt.”
(D. 8. Jordan to President Roosevelt,
Jan. 16, 1906, Appendix A., pp. 328-332,
June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp., Dept. Com.
and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Of those 1 year old, the males are sepa-
rated from the females and killed, while
the latter are driven carefully back to the
beach. (Veniaminov, Russian killing on
St. Paul Island, 1825-1834; Fur Seal In-
vestigations, Part 3, p. 222, 1898.)

Lembkey cites a long list of
Jardan’s errors of observation,
and declares Jordan a failure:

Scientific supervision a failure.—In the
light of tnese statements of the efforts of
sclentists to prevent the decrease of seals
by the application of methods on land
which have been demonstrated unmis-
takably faulty, Dr. Jordan’s dictum that
the present need of these rookeries is the
‘‘trained supervision ’”’ which these scien-
tists afford is open to contradiction. Asa
matter of fact, every suggestion made by
scientists who have visited the island,
outside the scope of scientific research,
and designed to change existing methods
on the islands, has resulted in failure.
(W. I. Lembkey to Secretary Commerce
and Labor, Feb.8, 1906, Appendix A., pp-
334-344, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Jordan again emphasizes the
“need” of a trained naturalist to
ascertain the real facts—

I wish to emphasize again that in recom-
mending the transfer of the fur-seal mat-
ter to the Bureau of Fisheries I had in
mind the fact that this bureau could pro-
vide the scientific inspection and control
necessary. I do not wish to embarras the
Secretary with suggestions as to the de-
tails of administration of the bureau under
his charge. This would not be pertinent.
Ii expert knowledge and _ supervision
could be brought to bear on the control
of the herd through any other method of
administration than the one proposed the
essential point would be met. It will be
noted that in my memorandum only two
of the four agents need be naturalists or
have any connection with the Bureau of
Fisheries. The addition of a naturalist
to the present staff would answer the pur-
pose if he had power to carry out his plans.
(Appendix A: Jordan to President Roose-
velt, Jan. 16, 1906, pp. 328-332; H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24,
1911.)

Jordan declares that the folly
and injury of the ‘“‘seal corral”
were not his idea, or of his order.

The plans of fencing and branding the
seals were suggestions of earlier investiga-
tors which the commission of 1896-97
merely tested asa part of itsduty. They
were expected to assist only in the dis-
couraging of pelagic sealing should other
means of prohibiting it fail. It is true
that many suggestions have been barren
of practical results, but others arising
from scientific sources, as the control of the
parasitic worm, might be made fruitful
under competent direction. Other ways
of improving conditions on the rookeries
would suggest themselves to a trained in-
vestigator. (D. 8. Jordan to President
Roosevelt: Jan. 16, 1906, Appendix A;
pp. 328-332: June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

21588—13——17

257

But Lembkey puts a ‘‘ trained”
naturalist’s finding of ‘‘fact”” up
against Jordan.

On one occasion a celebrated naturalist,
walking on the rookeries at Northeast
Point, discovered what he supposed to
be a number of dead seal cows and re-
ported it to the Treasury agent in charge
of St. Paul Island. The Treasury agent
telephoned to the watchman at Northeast
Point and ordered an investigation, and
was shortly after amused by a report from
the watchman that the dead animals sup-
posed to be seal cows were in fact sea-lion
pups and not fur seals at all. The story
is repeated here not with the intention of
ridiculing anyone, but for the purpose of
showing that in matters pertaining to seal
life practical experience is often of greater
a cs than abstract biological knowl-
edge.

The foregoing facts are not adduced for
the purpose of attaching discredit to any-
one. Their citation here is excusable
only in showing that, instead of the seal
herds suffering from any lack of practical
direction by biologists, every possible sug-
gestion that could be made by as eminent
a body of scientists as can be gathered in
this country was adopted, fairly tried,
and resulted in each case in the abandon-
ment of the idea as impractical, if not
positively dangerous. In the light of
these facts the position assumed by Dr.
Jordan that the need of such trained
supervision of the herd is clearly shown
is plainly untenable. (Appendix A:
Lembkey to Secretary Commerce and
Labor, Feb. 8, 1906, p. 339; H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.)

But Lembkey says that Jordan
apeeo yee and directed this work
of folly and injury.

Mr. Lempxkey. 2. A method was sought
by the commission for the prevention on
land of the killing of seals at sea and the
redriving of ineligibles. The plan adopt-
ed was the erection by the natives, under
direction of the agents, of about 4 miles of
wire fencing around a salt lagoon and a
fresh-water lake on St. Paul. Into these
all bachelors rejected from the killing field
were to be driven. After the Ist of Au-
gust drives were to be mace, also from
the hauling grounds, and the animals ob-
tained to be incarcerated in the inclosures |
without food for as long a period as pos-
sible, thereby reducing by thousands the
available number of animals from which
the pelagic sealers made their catches.

In evolving this theory, no account
was taken by the scientists of the fact

258

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

that the fur seal is a creature wholly of
lnstinct, and is not able to adjust itself
to any new conditions which prevent it
from following the course crystallized into
habit by genevations of reiterated action.
The theory of herding these seals involved
the necessity of confining them in places
which, under normal conditions, they
would never frequent, and for this reason
could not be put into successful practice.
The result of the inclosure of seals was
disastrous. The animals were impounded
by thousands. Once inside of the in-
closure, finding their return to the rook-
eries impeded, the animals began follow-
ing the inside line of fence, searching for
egress. A path 20 feet wide inside the
entire length of lagoon fence was worn
bare of vegetation by these traveling seals.
This movement was continued until many
died of exhaustion. Over 20 carcasses
were picked up in one day. They also
fell into holes, from which they could not
extricate themselves, and perished.

That greater numbers of these impris-
oned animals did not die was due solely
to the fact that they could riot be confined
in these inclosures over a day or two.
Some climbed over the fence, displaying
considerable agility in so doing; others,
by main strength, tore holes in the stout
wire netting and so escaped; others took
advantage of depressions in the ground
and forced their way out under the fence.
I saw one great bull insert his nose among
the wire meshes and ‘by a magnificent dis-
play of the wonderful power of his neck
muscles tear the wire as though it were
rotten yarn. Emerging through the
opening thus made, and catching sight
of his comrades on the inside of the fence,
he as readily tore another hole through
the netting and stupidly rejoined his
fellows on the inside. Had the wire net-
ting been a tight board fence, the efforts
of the imprisoned seals to escape would
have resulted in the death, through ex-
haustion, of all confined.

These attempts at Incarceration were
carried on through several years, resulting
in every case in the death cf some animals
imprisoned and the early escape of the
remainder by their own efforts.

These facts outlined above have been
reported to the department heretofore
only by word of mouth, owing to a reluc-
tance on the part of the agents to furnish
any documentary evidence which could
be used by Great Britain in any future
arbitration proceedings that the death of
seals was due in any way to methods prac-
ticed on land outside of the regular killing
of bachelors. (Hearing No. 14 pp. 945,
946, July 27, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
C. and L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Dr. Jordan denies his responst-
bility for the fencing and branding
fiasco.

LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
Stanford University, Cal.,
January 16, 1906.
Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
The White House, Washington, D. C.
The plans of fencing and branding the
seals were suggestions of earlier investiga-
tors which the commission of 1896-97
merely tested asa part ofits duty. They
were expected to assist only in the dis-
couraging of pelagic sealing should other
means of prohibiting it fail.
Very respectfully, yours,
Davip STARR JORDAN.

Jordan declares that his
‘scourge’ of the fur seal has been
overlooked by incompetent men.

That the herd should be put in charge of
a competent naturalist was the sole impor-
tant recommendation of the commission of
1896-97, as will be seen by reference to
Chapter XIX, pages 191-193, of the first
volume of the commission’s final report.

It may be that I have underestimated
the completeness of the reports of the local
agents. As I look over those of Mr. Lemb-
key for 1904 and 1905 I find that they are
filled with important data. He has evi-
dently done his work well. The figures
he gives regarding the condition of the
breeding herd as shown by the compara-
tive counts of the rookeries are instructive
and show the continued decline of the
herd under pelagic sealing. As I look
through the reports, however, I see no
mention whatever of the effects of the
parasitic worm Uncinaria, which we found
in 1896-97 to be responsible for the death
of upward 12,000 pups, or practically 10
per cent of the birth rate of that year.
This was one of the most important discov-
eries made by our commission. It is a
destructive agency which should be
fought. (D.S. Jordan to President Roose-
velt, Jan. 16, 1906. Appendix A, pp.
328-332, June 24, 1911. H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)

259

But the official record declares

that these twin follies were or-
dered by him.

Sr. Pauts Istanp, ALASKA.

Monday, August 2, 1897.—Dr. Jordan
sent five of his men, under Mr. Murray’s
charge, to lay out and dig post holes for
the fence around the lagoon.

Wednesday, August 4, 1897.—Mr. Mur-
ray’s men who were digging post holes for
the lagoon fence have almost completed
the job. * * * From present indica-
tions Dr. Jordan and his able assistants
will leave very little to be looked for in
that direction in the future.

Wednesday, August 18, 1897.—Messrs.
Warren and Farmer busy all day endeav-
oring to put the electrical branding ma-
chine inorder. * * * Messrs. Farmer
and Warren are hopeful of making it a
grand success. (Official entries in the
Journal of the Government Agent in
charge of the seal islands, St. Pauls
Village.)

But Lembkey has furnished
abundant competent evidence
that Jordan’s ‘‘scourge’”’ is a
myth to-day.

Mr. Exurorr. The sandworm, Uncina-
ria, ‘“‘scourge’”’ discovered by Jordan in
1897 is like the ‘‘trampled pups” of his
‘“‘discevery” in 1896, a sporadic trouble,
which has never been noted on the islands
prior to 1891 or seen there since 1898.
This I declared to be the case in 1872-
1874, and again in 1890.

The Bureau of Fisheries in 1906 tried to
find it, as follows (p. 663, Appendix A):

‘In order, however, to ascertain the
latest developments in seal life, Mr. H. C.
Marsh, an expert in the diseases of fishes
in the Bureau of Fisheries, was sent by
Secretary Metcalf to the islands in the
summer of 1906. Mr. Marsh arrived on
the islands early in June of that year and
remained there until the middle of the
following August. He was rendered
every assistance by the resident agents in
his investigation.

“Dr. Jordan, in commenting on the re-
port of Mr.W.I.Lembkey, agent in charge
of seal fisheries (S. Doc. No. 98, 59th
Cong., Ist sess.), contended that the num-
ber of bulls reported did not comprise all
the bulls present, and in his memoran-
dum he referred to the fact that deaths
among seal pups due to Uncinaria, an in-
testinal parasite, were not reported.

‘Mr. Marsh had instructions to investi-
gate these two points particularly.

“Tn the matter of bulls, Mr. Marsh car-
ried maps of the rookeries, and on these he

260

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

depicted the positions of the bulls found,
with the exact number present when the
respective counts were made. The num-
ber found was fewer than reported the pre-
ceding year, and verified the counts of the
agent at that time.

“Tn regard to Uncinaria, Mr. Marsh, al-
though on the rookeries daily from June 6
until July 28, found not a single case. At
the latter date the further disturbance of
the rookeries was prohibited, by order of
Mr. Sims, on account of the activity dis-
played by the Japanese sealers in the vi-
cinity of the islands. No naturalist has
since visited the Pribilofs.’’

The last search for this ‘‘scourge” of
Jordan’s invention was made by Assistant
Agent James Judge, who, in his report for
1909, dated March 8, 1910, says (p. 1173,
Appendix A):

‘‘Early in October, assisted by the na-
tives, I made the regular enumeration of
dead pups, a detailed account of which
was forwarded Mr. Lembkey October 8,
1909. Dr. Mills and I autopsied a number
of the dead from each rookery, the total
ageregating 23. In making these post-
mortems, the stomachs, livers, hearts, and
lungs were cut into, and about 1 foot of the
large and from 3 to 5 feet of the small in-
testine carefully examined. The autop-
sies showed that death resulted in 20 cases
from starvation, in 1 from pneumonia, and
in 1 from some cause unknown. One of
pups autopsied was killed because found
sutfering and nearly blind from a disease
of the eyes. The only parasites discov-
ered were small threadlike worms found
in the trachea of a pup from the reef.
These parasites, together with the diseased
eyes above noted, were sent to Mr. Chi-
chester for further investigation. Dr.
Stiles, to whom the worms were forwarded
determined that they were a new species
of the genus Halarchne.”’ (Hearing No.
14, p. 945, July 27, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. C. and L.)

FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA,

Jordan asserts that the benefits
of his work in 1896-97 ‘“‘as a
trained naturalist’? have been
lost by Lembkey.

The essential point is the expert study
and inspection. After our exhaustive
investigations of 1896-97, I made what I
considered the one important recom-
mendation—that the herd be placed in
charge of a competent naturalist. Now,
- after eight years, during which much of
the value of our work has been lost
through failure to follow it up properly, I
again make the earnest recommendation
that the fur-seal herd be placed in charge
of a trained naturalist. (D. 8. Jordan to
President Roosevelt, Jan. 16, 1906, Ap-
ape A, pp. 328-334, June 24, 1911.

. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)

a

261

_ But Lembkey proves that noth-
ing was lost, except for the gain
of the public interests at stake.

3. The branding: of female pups: As
the catch of the pelagic sealers consists
mainly of females, especially in Bering
Sea, it was thought by the Jordan com-
mission that any means adopted whereby
the value of the skins so taken could be
impaired would serve to deal the sealing
industry a heavy blow.

From this idea the practice of branding
female pups was evolved.

It consisted in herding the newborn
pups on the several rookeries, segregating
all females therein, and so searing their
hides with red-hot irons that the hair
follicles under the brand would be
destroyed and the branded area be
denuded of fur. During the year 1896
branding operations were carried on with
vigor. Thousands of nurslings were
branded with at least one brand, and a
large number with two and sometimes
three brands. They continued, but with
less rigor, until 1908, when stopped by
order of the department.

The main reason why branding fe-
males was not a success was that if the
animal were seared so thoroughly as to
destroy the commercial vaiue of the pelt,
the animal would die from the effects of
the branding; if not branded in this
wholesale manner, the value of the skin
was not atfected materially. In either
case no appreciable injury to the pelagic
catch resulted.

How many pups were permanently in-
jured through branding, and thereby lost
their lives in the water through inability
to withstand the hardships of their first
migration can never be known. The In-
dians along the Aleutian chain reported
numbers of pups as being so injured by
branding as to render their capture by
bidarki hunters an easy matter. These
reports, while creating a deep impression
among outsiders that great injury to the
herd through branding was being wrought,
were not susceptible of confirmation.
Complete statistics of the number of
branded skins contained in the catches
of the pelagic schooners are not obtain-
able. The number of such skins in the
whole catches for 1899 and 1900 did not
approximate over 75 skins each year. It
was reported that the brands on these
skins did not injure the value of the pelt
over the amount of $1. (W.J. Lembkey
to Secretary Com. and Labor, Feb. 8,
1906, Appendix A, pp. 338, 339, June 24,
1911. H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor. )

Seyi
isc ial tn

x

ae hh
see

“B9

aioigent one

ee AGS

a ee
pe i. em a

3 ‘pecan

=i me -

~ aan.

. et, one a ad
NaF AN i iis pT SENG =

vse oe
all ie is. 2

: / |
Deacidified using the Bookkeeper Process.
Neutralizing

agent: Magnesium Oxide
Treatment Date: Nov. 2008

recog echnologe

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATI
111 Thomson Park Drive |

ry Township, PA 16086 |
(724) 779-2114

>

en

mt tT

fre io a

wet
rast