D2 0 D> ST HH OT CVT SAM DH AA AHA AAAAIARDAAAWIAWIWMWP OMANI IMWAWIRWOHD Np
On
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 129
There are 134 skins thus listed above, every one of which is not
to exceed 344 inches in length. 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 exceed 43 pounds. Yet,
we find that they all have been so loaded with blubber, when fresh
skinned, that with exception of 18 skins they are weighing as much
and even more than properly skinned 2-year-old seal’s pelts do, and
many of them weigh into the 3-year-old class.
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
ounds 4? ounces, and No. 4244 is also only 32 inches long, yet, not
lubbered, weighs but 4 pounds 3% ounces.
These two yearling skins show beyond dispute that no classifica-
tion of these skins by weight can be sensibly or honestly made.
The following letter shows the use made of these ‘‘loaded”’ skin .
weights to deceive. Here they are quoted by the Secretary of Com-
merce and Labor as proof conclusive that no small seals or yearlings
have been taken by his agents:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Washington, February 28, 1911.
* Hon. Westey L. Jonzs,
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.
* * * * * *
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 ship-
ment. 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; thisimmaterial underweight was due to the excessive
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
peecent were taken for food purposes by the natives after the close of the regular
ling season. :
When the possibilities 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
ene 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.
Contrast the foregoing weight of 139 skins, 30-344 inches long,
with the following exhibit made to the House Committee, June 28,
1911, and the folly and error of this attempt of the United States
Commissioner of Fisheries to deceive the committee will be at once
apparent.
The Bureau of Fisheries improperly classifies the skins by weight,
and the following sworn statement proves it—that a yearling skin
58490—14——_9
1380 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
(30-34 inches long) weighs 443 pounds, properly skinned is used as
the basis of this classification:
Mr. Townsenp. I will examine you nowas to the killing of sealsafter 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 44-pound skin is a 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
44 pounds.
C. M. Lampson & Co., London, November 19, 1910.
Assortment of Alaska salted fur sealskins for account of United States Government Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.
[New York, Ck. 1/228.]
Lbs. Ozs
7G Sag eae te Oe ee Nec Re eee «SL ie tn ee BES era io Gls)
(AS Large pups esos: ASI S252 ESSE A Se eee 7-2
3,032 middling pups... - 2222 .--2 sc. ek - «2 CASE Se Se. eee 6K
4,899 small pups... oesc cei fe settee a. Sees be eee Cee eee 5 12
1,266) exismallitpmpsris see th ee 2. Ie os)
Litextvextrsmaiallii ups eels fo. eect athsc Se obs amore SM aa eee 4 10
Be smalls, Mow si 222k anes ses sc oe weld ays Lis SESE See ORE eee (uamaall
135 large pups, low. ---2'-2- + 2o= ae ce ho Fe SO es Gn
498 middlineipups, dows o...< da. dacacer apeieelose asin (Ett aa ee eee Gael:
O01 small: pups lowes -seeihe~=lh sores be eat cee ad nese he eee a
$8 ex.smalllpups, dow: aiab 4a.auigsacass-cdtecb-p hee eee ee eee By (0)
LO small 5 Cult. oo2 to cg 285.2 apie ceerenteiquiate ? che bie aon ae ee eee eee Lice
Vilarge PUPS, CUtbasstocws oe cede aeeieme dasa Na ceseiciee aoe ee eee 6 13
238 middling pups, (Cubs - a. -mdasd- ani eae - doetce -bee= Seclesane le eee Gi 2
47) small pips; Cut. 2. 2. ce oire e doen '
‘
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 207
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
> you?
a ee 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. Exuiorr. 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 Dy. 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:
In 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 smal] 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
908 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
escaped Dr. Jordan’s notice unless he was physically blind. He was
ce at 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 hauling grounds. For the 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 Wlegal
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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 209
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, 1t 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
ets from the measurements of 30 specimens. (See Elhott’s Mono.
eal Islands, p. 46, 1873-74.)
On the other hand, Dr. Lucas’s associate on this Jordan 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 “‘lone”’ 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.
Elliott 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 ‘‘lone” or large 3-year-old, and he makes it 54 inches long.
Elliott, 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.
Elhott 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 smallerseals * * *
(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.)
53490—14
14
210 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 fot 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-
tmued in open defiance of that order by the lessees up to August 10,
1891, when they had secured 3,856 skins above the lawful limit on
St. Paul and 961 skins above their lawful limit on St. George
tsland. 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
guilty 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 killing was done in 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.’’)
UNITED States TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
Washington, D. C., May 2, 1892.
Maj. W. H. Witu1aMs,
United 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 irom 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
rules of conduct concerning the rookeries as are required of citizens of the United
States.
ae CHARLES Foster, Secretary.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 211
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 Renee it. So he
asked Foster to transfer him to another post. Hewas 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 killg 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 killmg was continued 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
killing 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
212 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 killing, 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 killmg records are published on page 203 of the (Report ~
of Fur Seal Investigations, part 1, 1898) Treasury Document 2017,
ublished by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, June, 1898.
The record of the posting of the President’s order restricting all kull-
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 legally taken skins brought them an average of
$60 per skin, or $272,400, which was net gain to them. They took
nothing 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 120,000 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
auc uSuS kiling 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
haying 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 agentsin bringing the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Co. within the power of the Sugar Trust,
which kept the: efinery 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, udge 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.
213
914 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
These ‘‘Hitchcock 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
54-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. TownsenpD. 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 their lease from May 1, 1890, to
May 1, 1910.
One hundred and twenty thousand of these one hundred 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 Pribilof
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. 138, 1912.
-Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 215
INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, July 11, 1911.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
The CHarrmaAn. 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 jlleeal killing in the last 20 vears of the lease. I told him to make the estimate
year bytyear, and to submit it to the committee, and he has this statement here. J
will ask you, Prof. Elhott, to take it wp and discuss it with the committee, and I do
this upon the theory that if the lessees were euilty of any illegal killing of seals, or
were cuilty 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. Extiotrr. 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, duriny period of lease held by
the N. A. C. Co. aforesaid.
|
Total r Total
skins My skins Tee
taken. is taken. 8S-
La Te ae ed 2 eee 20,310 | BASIS LOO Tey eertere: Rep See Melba Oat 22,672 13, 000
Ll > See eee eee 13, 473 | DEL ZOO NP LOO 2s eas eee acer eons eS 22,304 14, 500
LDS en ee 7,504 (4) LOD SES ears set a Se ayes Be 19,374 15, 600
Teds 2 ee ee ee ee eee 7, 492 | () High O04 el op ee ee ent 13,128 6,500
fist ae Se Se ae 16, 030 AAO [iL SOBs: eee ag Nes ye 14, 368 6, 918
RSE os aS Sao tak oe 15,002 D200 MALOU GSS eee ee eA ee ne see ae oe 14, 478 6, 837
ESS ne see Sawer eee Sat 30, 004 tS ae 14,350 7,000
hd ses fe See See SOR 16, 804 3,500 | a
LOT ee Ro Se ae a eee 22,473 9,500 | AO PASSAIC ee te ee a eae 354, 413 128, 478
\
1 Modus vivendi. 2 Standard lowered this year for first time to ‘‘5-pound skins,” or ‘‘yearlings.”
Henry W. Exurorr.
Jury 10, 1911.
Mr. Case. May I ask one question?
The CHarrMan. Certainly.
Mr. Case. 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. Casxe. Then, is it your contention that this list you have read is based on
seals that are killed under | year of age?
Mr. Extiorr. 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. Capiz. I am not a seal expert.
Mr. Exsiorr. You nor no other man could determine that.
916 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Casxe. Do you claim that this list you have read is based upon seals that are
under 1 year old?
_Mr. Exniorr. Under 2 years old.
Mr. Caste. Is there anything illegal in killing tle year-old seals?
Mr. Exxiorr. Not if you know it is a year old.
Mr. Capie. What do you call a yearling seal?
Mr. Exziorr. A yearling seal is a yearling until it is 2 years old.
The CHarrMaNn. Wat is a yearling seal?
Mr. Exzrorr. A yearling seal is one not under 1 year of age nor over 2 years of age.
Tkat isa yearling. You can not get away from that definition. A yearling is a year-
ling until it is 2 years old.
Mr. McGrmuuicuppy. What is your understanding as to the law on the subject?
Mr. Extiorr. The law does not allow the killing of a seal under 12 months of age.
Mr. TownsEnp. Under 2 years of age, according to that ruling of 1904?
Mr. Extrotr. Yes, sir; I put that in the department rules in 1904 to stop those
butchers.
Mr. McGrrurcuppy. Then, it is agreed on all sides that it is legal to kill anything
over 12 months old?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes, sir; I admit that, but you must prove it.
That this killmg of seals under 2 years of age was in violation
of law and the regulations is admitted under oath by the Bureau of
Fisheries agent, W. I. Lembkey, who has killed all the seals under
the instructions of the Treasury, 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. McGruticuppy. What do you call a yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that
is 12 montis old and no more?
“Mr. Lempxery. A yearling seal, in the island nomenclature, is a seal which has
returned to tl.e islands from its first migration.
“Mr. McGituicuppy. It may be more than 12 months old then?
‘“‘Mr. LeMBKEY. It may be more; it may be a trifle less
“Mr. McGiuuicuppy. 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. MappeEn. Ii 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.
“Jt 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 is a regulation of tle Secretary of. Commerce and Labor?
“Mr. Lempxey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir.”’
He testified as follows, on page 442, Hearing No. 9:
‘Mr. Exurorr. 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. Extrorr. You never measured one?
“Mr. LemBKEY. Oh, yes; I have measured one.
“Mr. Exuiorr. Have you no record of it?
“Mr. Lempxey. I have a record of it here.
“Mr. Exrurorr. 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. Exurorr. Yes.
‘Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three.”
* * * * * * *
Also on page 443:
“Mr. Excxiorr. 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?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 217
“Mr. Exmiorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain
amount is left on.
“Mr. Lempxey. I stated about 3 inches.
“Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Extiorr. 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. 18, 1912.)
The CHarrman. What is the question to this witness?
Mr. Ettiorr. I asked if he does not know that the sizes are established by meas-
urements?
The CHarrMaNn. Just answer that question. Do you know it?
Mr. Lempxey. I have been so informed.
Mr. Exzrotr. Do you doubt it?
Mr. LEMBKEY. Oh, no.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 441, Apr. 13, 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, Lakewoop, Onto,
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 EH. W. Sims, who made
an investigation into the status of this herd last summer.
The Secretary repeats 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 Secretary 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
oi business; but this wise, sensible, and merciful action of the House was defeated
in the Senate by sworn agents of the Government, who denied this danger and injury
incident to pelagic sealing, claiming that the rules of the Bering Sea tribunal were
sufficient to avert it. 4
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
é
218 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
breeding life on the Pribilof Islands would be extinct. (See Rept. Ways and Means
Com., 2303; 57th Cong., 1st 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 March,
1903; hence the House bill was not necessary. ued
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, 8. Doc. No. 98, 59th
Cong., Ist sess.)
On page 33 of Secretary Metcalt’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
pepemph 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 S. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., Ist sess.)
II. 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
lain errors of statement and conclusion which appear in it. I do not do so because
e 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 219
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 error over everything that he brings into conclusion
and recommends in his report of August 31, 1906.
Very sincerely, your friend and servant,
Henry W. Exuiorr,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 2, 1907,
Mr. H. W. Exxiorr,
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.
Respectiully,
Lawrence O. Murray,
Assistant Secretury,
No. 17 Gracr Avenusr, Lakewoop, Onto,
May 18, 1908,
Hon. Oscar Straus,
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 truth, 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 “btanding’’
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 thissheared 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 ig
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. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 2d sess.), I 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 ig
publicly presented to me, I will be most happy to acknowledge it; but I desire to
say that I do not believe it can ke questioned seriously by any authority. I challenge
the correction confidently.
9920 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 growth 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—officially recorded it in 1872-90, inclusive.
T 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 any man, it must be clear to you that the lessees can not be permitted by
you to safely kill a 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. Ettiorr.
The back-room officials managed to keep Mr. Straus very quiet—so
quiet that Elhott jogged him up a few months later, thus:
1232 FouRTEENTH STREET, NW.,
Washington, D. C., December 7, 1908.
Hon. Oscar STRAvs,
Secretary Commerce and Labor.
Dear Str: 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.) f :
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 in 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 get 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. ; é
Even if we were to admit for sake of argument on this score that Special Agent
Lembkey’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. Exvtiorr,
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
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-
: Moen e : : ites Eee 14
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the
ead of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the
general management supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 22}
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. Straus, Secretary.
This relieved Oscar Straus from answering Elhott directly, and
threw it upen his successor, Charles Nagel, who appears on the scene
March 4, 1909.
In the meantime Mr. Bowers, finding that the scent was growing
pretty strong out of this fraud in killing seals, persuaded Secretary
Straus 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 appomted “Dr. David Starr Jordan (chairman), Dr. Leonhard
Stejneger, Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Mr. Frederic
A. Lueas, and Mr. Charles H. Townsend” as “the advisory board,
fue-seal service.’ All the men named promptly accepted this appoint-
ment, and the board was formally commissioned February 6, 1909,
(See Appendix A, pp. 811-813, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept...
Ornette)”
Mr. Elhott 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, Ont10, April 26, 1909.
Hon.-Cuas. R. NAGEL,
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 sa
292 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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.
I am, very respectfully, your friend and servant,
Henry W. Exuiort.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, April 29, 1909.
Mr. Henry W. E.uiort,
Lakewood, Ohio.
Str: 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, Geo. 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 Elliott’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 killable and 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 143 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 Elliott’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 in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
There is nothing ambiguous or indefinite in Mr. Elliott’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,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 223
that he had not been specific enough, and to put Mr. Nagel beyond
doubt as to his meaning, Elliott again addressed Nagel as follows:
LAKEwoop, 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.
IJ. 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
tules of your department.
III. The full and complete proof of this legal killing as specified above exists on
the islands and in the records of 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 IT.
Very truly, yours, Henry W. Extiorr.
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. NaGeEt,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.
Dear Str: 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 received 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 courteous letter May 18, 1907, to him, in which I renewed
those charges and request for retorm. To this letter I have never received even that
periunctory acknowledgment which was the entire return for my first one.
Of couise 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 receiveananswer? No. Why? Because that euilty 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
as a your seal-island subordinates. Will continued silence on your part vindicate
them?
Very truly, yours, Henry W. Exuiorr,
224 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Taking full notice of the fact that the Hon. Nagel did not intend to
recognize the facts in the premises, Mr. Elliott 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. ) i
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. Elbott, July 12, 1909.
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT IN RE FUR-SEAL FRAUDS.
The evidence which has been 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 oi 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 lrancisco. 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-
clate 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, as above stated. This oath having been duly made and recorded, Mr. Windom
then, on March 12, 1899, formally executed the lease and awarded it to the North
American Commercial Co. aforesaid. (See pp. 142-143, 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 225
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-
eress by John Hay. This Appendix I is also published as House Document No. 1,
Fiity-seventh Congress, second session.
On page 203 of this House Document No. 1 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. Evuorr.
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. Enxiorr.
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.
Str: 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
recelye proper consideration.
Respectfully, Ormssy McHare,
Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Henry W. ELLiorr,
17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.
Did Secretary Nagel ever make any “‘examination’’ into these
ae charges and official proof cited of the truth of them? Not a
ine 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. * * *
. ILL. 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-
man. * “e
IV. He used to be an authority 20 years ago, * * * but he is now getting
somewhat confused. * * * i
The officials of the Bureau of Fisheries have a most intense dislike for this
man * * *—(Cincinnati Times-Star, Aug. 30, 1909.)
53490—14—__15,
926 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 followmg
letter to Hon. Wesley L. Jones, chairman Senate Committee on
Fisheries. Mr. Nagel deliberately uses a series of ‘‘loaded”’ skin
weights to deceive Senator Jones, thus:
FEBRUARY 23, 1911.
Hon. Westey L. JoNngEs,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Str: 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 gs in his official report to the President of the United States for that year (p.
22) said:
Litho 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 February 1911, * * *
is the following official classification of the sale made December 16 last of the fur-
seal skins taken as above cited, to wit:
(8: samalls."? or 3-y¥ear-0lds.. = ch sabe Sar hoe eA ep 74 to 8 lb. skins
793 large pups, or ‘‘short” 3-year-olds and ‘‘long” 2-year-olds. .... 64 to 7 lb. skins
3,775 ‘‘middling pups” or ‘‘short” 2-year-olds and “‘long” yearlings. 54 to 6 lb. skins
6195yvamallipups’ on yearlinogs=s) ees soe yee hte nee Rea 44 to 5 lb. skins
A809 ex: em pups or ishorte? yearlinos’; Sook. ee ene 34 to 4 1b. 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 eae 6 pounds, while the term “‘large pups” is applied to skins that weigh over 64
ounds. an
. 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. Thesmallest weightsreported 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 227
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
per cent were taken for food purposes by the natives after the close of the regular
killing season.
When the possibilities 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.
Respectiully, 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
““sovernor’’ 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—X XVIII.)
And furthermore, and in proof of the fact 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:—
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. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
Washington, D. C.
Sir: 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 1s 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.
228 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
While I am on this subject I desire to respectfully call your attention to the fact
that at least a majority ot 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 respectfully 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,
Chawrman, 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.
Str: 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. Hornapay,
Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation,
The Camp Fire Club of America.
cw
a
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 229
This threat of Mr. Nagel ‘‘to molest”? Dr. Hornaday if the latter
did not drop this business of looking 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:
EXHIBIT 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 Str: 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 enero dons
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 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 bea 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
ue road for 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
oe a, Bead thing to hold it as a club over the heads of the pelagic sealers,’’ or words to
that effect.
230 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 moreserious. The records are
all accessible for publication, if necessary. I had hoped that through President Taft’s
wise, prompt, and very statesmanlike initiativea new 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:
Exuisir 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
reservation of the seal herds would be furthered by a closed season upon the islands
or 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 231
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. rf
P. S.—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.
Cuartes NaGEt, Secretary.
To this letter asking for specific charges, Dr. Hornaday at once sent
the following direct, pomted specifications, to wit:
EXHIBIT Hi.
LETTER FROM COMMITTEE TO SECRETARY NAGEL CLOSING CORRESPONDENCE.
[The italics are ours.]
BEDFORD PARK, I/ay 27, 1910.
Hon. CHARLES NAGEL,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: Your letter of May 23 is really discouraging, because it shows that
your resolution regarding the killing of fur seals forthwith remains unchanged.
IT have decided that in fairness I ought to write you once more on this subject,
because there are powerful influences endeavoring to lead you into an unten-
able position, and the fur-seal scandal is rather new to you. But this will be
my last letter to you of warning or entreaty.
My objection to Mr. Lembkey in the ranks of your expert advisers regarding
the fate of the few remaining fur seals is due to a belief that by reason of
his well-known personal interests in seal killing he is incompetent to act as
either a judge or a juror in the case. Throughout the civiized world, it is a
tule of law that any man whose personal interests are involved in a case is.
thereby rendered ineligible to act on that case, either as a judge or a juror.
In view of the indisputable fact that Mr. Lembkey has much at stake in the
seal-killing business, it seems to me that his eligibility as one of your advisers:
is not a debatable question.
Since you invite me to give you any information that I have which bears on:
the matter before you, I will briefly mention two things.
I will call your attention to the known fact that on the Pribilof Islands paid:
representatives of the United States Government have permitted female and
young seals to be killed, skinned, and sold in defiance of law. For example, the
unlawful slaughter of females was observed, and has been officially recorded by
a committee of United States Senators. Beyond a doubt, Commissioner Bowers
can immediately refer you to the published record, and name the Government
men who were on duty at the time. Just how many female seals and very
young seals have been killed from year to year on our islands since 1903 re-
mains to be demonstrated later on.
It will be an easy matter for you to ascertain who were the men in charge
of the islands who were so careless as to permit illegal killing during the visit
of the Senate committee and consider what shall be done with them, provided
the guilty men are still in Government employ.
I respectiully 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 no outsiders were visiting the islands. to observe
2382 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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. Ellott, ‘‘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 powerful 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 lost 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
paid the natives therefor the entire support of the natives must be provided by
Congress.
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: r
“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. ,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 233
“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 recommended 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 blundering
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 who no longer would draw wages from seal
butchery. They even gave you, 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. Iam 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 ‘‘fur-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 Club of America,
‘Approved and signed hy—
Junius H. Seymour,
Counsel.
A. 8. Hovexron.
CHARLES D. CLEVELAND
MANHALL McLuan.
Groner WM. BURLEIGH.
Wriitam B. GREELEY.
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 and 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.
Q Pon 435, 436-442, 443, Apr. 13, 1913; H. Com. Exp. Dept.
; .)
934 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 StTaTES 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. Drxon.
Dr. W. T. HorBapay,
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.
Dr. 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.
““Hfon. 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
period.’”’ 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. TowNSEND. You are quoting Mr. Lembkey now?
Dr. Hornapay. Yes, sir. On being agked 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 235
Mr. TownsEND. That is the 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 the $50,000 was appropriated?
Dr. Hornapay. The $50,000 was appropriated, and Secretary Nagel sat there and
accepted it.
Mr. S—ymour. For the express purpose of taking care of the Indians during the
closed season?
Dr. Hornapay. Precisely, and for no other purpose.
cas Seymour. And Secretary Nagel heard it and understood it and agreed to it,
id he?
Dr. Hornapay. He did, and he has the money now, undoubtedly.
Mr. TownsenpD. 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 granted, you took from the Congressional Record?
Dr. Hornapay. Certainly, and from no other source. I clipped pages from the
Record itself. I did not quote 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 cous 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,
(Gov. 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. Hrrcxcock. 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. Wriu1AMs of Mississippi. You propose to forbid the killing of seals under
2 years old?
Mr. Hircucock. Yes.
Mr. Wriitams. 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-
tinguisiing 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
pee raked the following to-day, for which I have the complete warrant and proof in
nd.
Henry W. E:.iortt,
17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.
June 26, 1909.
936 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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.
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.
potion into complete control of the officialism which succeeded John Hay in the
epartment 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
to do 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 oflicers 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
1t 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 237
RECAPITULATION OF THE PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF CHARLES
NAGEL IN RE KILLING YEARLING SEALS IN VIOLATION OF LAW
AND THE REGULATIONS.
[See Exhibit ITI 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 sezson of 1909 and in past seasons.
October 8, Nagel receives this report, and on October 9 he turns it over
to Lembkey. It 1s suppressed. (See pp. 850, 851, Appendix A,
June 24, 1911.)
May 9, 1910.—With this proof of the truth of Elhott’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 nn1910. 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, Hearmg 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 74 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
288 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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.
e ve TOWNSEND. 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 Soha on the islands and the weights i 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. TowNsEND. That is your answer to that; is it?
Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. Here are the weights on the basis, you understand, that
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
44 pounds. (Hearing No. 3, pp. 129, 130.)
C. M. Lampson & 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
PSISMAUS) obec eis oes eae cee gb eye oes a eras oe u 15
flslarcevpups ise. 2252 Sct. el Se, ee zf 12
B03 2middling’ pupsi.522- 22. CoN. 85 SS SS. See 6 7
4899 small pups:.-2-cg/ie oc 3- shed 2bR 122 eh Ag ste = eee i) 12
L266:ex; smallspups. a2. ioe acclak’s sina s -Sile ned meet Soaas cea 1 eee eee 5 5
Vex, ex: small pups. 2222 5 5. aha bee soak oy eke eee ee 4 10
so-amalils,; low ra2.20-280 Jie eo Re Ae eee Zi 11
135darge pups, low. s2:2.-...262. S505 SE eae. eee ee eee 6 9
498 midgdline’ pups; low 3-<+.¢.¢s24.-0 Se ee ee eee 6 1
o0emall pups low. .-05.- =. 5 pes a. .ooh ere ee Wee ea eee eee 5 9
88'ex.. small pups, low:.2 225-7 S240 i. Soba scat as ee ae 5 0
LOtsmall: ‘oui. se 4220 8 Sees ae BB Se a ee ee ee 7 2
Uderve pups euty 255.22 8 Jee eae Lee See foe 6 13
Zasaniddling pups; cutiz) «4.1 -ct leds. sheet eee. eee ee 6 2
AZ Wemall pups, CUbs2eecelosiottte pens ohn ee ot eects ace kee ee eae 5 6
Sex. small pups; Cube 2c- ne. oe a ac ee bale eel ol se po 4 15
Email oribbedio 2+. 48S. 2H ab Pe) ee SAS Se 2 ae eee 7 0
55 large pups, rubbed.......-.--.-. Saree ssh... SAS. Sao ee 6 14
195 middling pups, rubbed..>:..--.-.- -).-,5+-50 46 - eee ape eee eee 6 6
290. small pups: mubhed a. fonc.5.56 oct
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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 279
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. Eyermann. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them?
Mr. Exxiorr. 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, 394 inches in one instance and 394 inches
in another——
““Mr. Exxiott. Yes.
‘‘Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another. I measured only three.
“Mr. Exxtiott. 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 39} 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. Extrott. 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 of 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.
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, im a carefully prepared report, as quoted
aboye, that it is ‘‘only 3% pounds.”
Ts 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
pare
a skins (taken
Tagged No. of skin. Green weight | and weighed
R Z by Lembkey),
made July 29,
1913, by Elliott
and Gallagher.
Lbs. Ozs. * Inches.
LE i ies ie a: ee SSS NS ete BL ean eN Ma DeCu AR ate TS 5 113
ZCI BIN ORG Se Oath TEI Min RL TIE TRA Am oe sant s Want nrg EN 7 114 34
BLS ee pa c re kee Ie Seo ee SOTO Stee EE eae ae ee eine ee eee eae 6 10 34
AAG AGG Leo Bee Ae Ee Spare is sa Eee a OR Cie He cet ee ol 6 11 34
LS Se Bee a a a Pee ere eae I a ger stele bh ea VanPAL SEN DEE PS See Rae 8 23 36
(GEG, GEOR ea ee ee Shae Vase Phew en) WIC MOU URN SG Ey ai yeK e uUane 5 15% 31
EGE lla Sp as Sa gate aoe i YON ANWAR haan GA ae leg IN a 4 3h 32
LNG 5S CRON OI a ee Ta PM Ah Uy | aR ea A e tegle ge ae a 6 1 32
DIT po eet i ieee BAS oA AEE SA ES 5 Ae eS SITE ERS SETS ER nes 8 74 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.”
280 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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
oe up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened
salt
Me McGuttiicuppy. Then it will not stretch?
Mr. Lempxkey. Certainly not.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly. :
Mr. McGituicuppy. You can not then stretch or shrink it?
Mr. LemBxey. No, sir.
Mr. McGituicuppy. With an honest measurement of that kind of cen would it not
determine the age?
Mr, Lempxey. I fancy, yes.
Mr. McGuuicuppy. I8 there any doubt about it?
Mr. Lempxkey. I donot thinkso. I say, fancy, because I never attempted to judge
of age by the measurements.
Mr. McGiuu1cuppy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive,
because you say they could not stretch it?
Mr. Lempxkey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days,
because the skin then is not very pliable.
Mr. MceGiy ICUDDY. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a certain
number of days?
Mr. Lempxey. 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 i im
the salt-house kench of St. Paul Island, in the presence of Messrs.
Hatton, Clark, Whitney, and Lembkey, of the Bureau of Visheries,
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 29, 1913, by 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 PIRATICAL 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
Tsland with the crew of the £. E. 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 281
The Alexander was owned by Isaac and Herman Liecbes 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 clatms 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,” etc. McLean’s record since 1893, follows. He was
during—
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, 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 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.
Why did Mclean defy arrest? Why was he undisturbed at
Victoria? Why, 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 request 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 Vashington as to
have the hint given Devlin in San Francisco that McLean could not
be extradited, ‘‘according to the State Department,”’ for this offense,
282 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY. 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 CuarrMANn. What is your full name?
Mr. Lieses. Isaac Liebes.
The CHatrMAN. Where do you live?
Mr. Lreses. In San Francisco.
The CuarrMANn. And what is your business?
Mr. Lirses. I am a merchant.
The CHarrMANn. What kind of business as a merchant do you conduct?
Mr. Lirses. 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 B. E. 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. S. S. 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, up
to its successful end November 29, 1902, at The Hague.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL .«NDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 283
d
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 away 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 EH. E. Webster, owned by Herman Liebes up to October 21,
1893; then transferred as “‘owned” by dummy “Max ean 1G
the Pacific Trading Co.
The Acapulco was outfitted in San Francisco, March 5, 1904, and
her captain, McLean, was indicted for conspir acy there, August 1),
1905; he was char eed 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 CaJi-
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 supplied 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 Liebes.
On June 20, 1912, Isaac Liebes, under oath, made the following eva-
sive and shifty, if not w holly false, answers to the questions as stated
below (Hearing Mor 1374p. 385k, ‘June 20, 1912, House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor):
The Cuarrman. Do you know Morris Moss?
Mr. Lizpes. I did know him; yes.
The CHatrMAN. Was he connected with your firm at any time?
Mr. Lieses. He used to be a buyer in Victoria at one time for H. Liebes & Co.—I
think about 25 years ago. I think he has been dead twenty-odd years.
The CuarrMan. Who succeeded him for you?
Mr. Liezses. He never had a successor there.
The CuHatrman. Where was he from?
Mr. Lizzes. He was a resident of Victoria; I do not know where from.
The Cuatrman. Then he bought skins for you at Victoria?
Mr. Lizzges. He bought all kinds of skins for H. Liebes & Co., mostly land furs,
beaver, mink, otter, and those things.
The Cuarrman. And sealskins, too?
Mr. Liezes. He might have done so; I donot remember any sealskins, but possibly
in those early days he might have bought some,
284 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 Moss’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-Elliot treaty went into effect, December 15, 1911, will be
found a matter of business record in Victoria when a competent
search for it is made.
H. H. D. Peirce under oath admits that he knew that the Iiebes were
the owners of the James Hamilton Lewis. (Hearing No. 13, pp. 779-
782, May 29, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.) This admission is made by him, to
wit:
THE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House oF 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. Prerrce. Herbert Henry Davis Peirce.
The CuarrMAN. What is your profession?
Mr. Perrce. I am a diplomat.
The CHarRMAN. Well, you are a lawyer by profession?
Mr. Perrce. An international lawyer; I am not a member of the bar.
The CHarrMaNn. What is your present occupation?
Mr. Perrce. I am one of the counsel for the Government in the American-British
Claims Arbitration.
The CHarrMAan. 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 CHarrMAN. You may tell the committee what the real issue was before the tri-
bunal as to the James Hamilton Lewis case.
Mr. Perrce. 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 limit. She was on her 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 the island; the 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
er. I claimed for the owners and officers and crew that her presence in Russian
waters was innocent, that there was no corpus delicti, that she had gone there for a
erfectly reasonable purpose, and was merely exercising the rights that any vessel
ad, and that her pursuit and capture beyond the 3-mile limit was a violation of her
right to sail upon any sea.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 285
The CHatRMAN. It was decided, then, that she was not in Russian waters?
Mr. Prerrce. The arbitrator accepted absolutely my argument.
The CHarrMAN. 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.
The CHatRMAN. Who was the master?
Mr. Perrce. One Alexander McLean.
The CHATRMAN. Can you tell from memory whether the Russians found some seal-
skins when she was captured?
Mr. Prerrce. My recollection is they did, and that damages were awarded for the
seizure of those sealskins.
The CHATRMAN. As well as for the property?
Mr. Perrce. As well as for the property and the loss of the probable catch.
The CuarrMANn. If I am not mistaken, I think they had 424 skins.
Mr. Perrcs. That is my recollection. Jam somewhat vague.
The CHarrMAN. You also proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the vessel
was owned by American citizens?
Mr. Petree. I filed such documents as I could obtain, which appeared to establish
the owners’ ip of t! e vessel.
The CHarrMAN. Who were the owners?
Mr. Petrce. H. Liebes & Co., I believe.
The CHarrmMan. Who were they?
Mr. Perrce. I can only answer from hearsay.
The CHarrMAN. 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 CHarrMAN. You finally settled. You may tell the committee what your come
pensation was, if you will?
Mr. Perrce. 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 CHarrmMAn. 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 CuarrMan. Who went with you to The Hague tribunal?
Mr. Petrcse. Mr. Townsend. I forget his initials.
The CHarrMaAn. 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 CHarrMaANn. He was sent with you as an expert?
Mr. Perrce. As an expert.
The CHaregMan. To assist you in presenting the case?
Mr. Perrce. Yes, sir; as a witness.
The CuarrmMan. Did he receive any compensation?
Mr. Petrce. 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. 1890-1903.
Mr. Fautxner. Mr. Liebes, will you state to the committee whether you were
interested in the J. Hamilton Lewis?
Mr. Lizpes. No; not tomy knowledge. (P. 833, Hearing No. 13, June 18, 1912.)
The CHarrMAN. You were the owner at one time of the J. Hamilton Lewis?
Mr. Lizves. I was not.
The CHarrMan. Was it not transferred to you by Herman Liebes?
Mr. Lizves. Never, that I know.
286 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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. FauLKneER. I have never seen it.
Mr. Lizses. If you will let me see it I will be glad.
Mr. FauLKNER. I 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. FaAuLKNER. 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 CHAIRMAN. Yes; that is right.
Mr. FauLKNnER. And subsequently, 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 CHarrMAN. Here is a document purporting to be signed by 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 I, Max Waizman, for 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 Alcut, on
August 2, 1891, whilst 20 miles off Copper Islands, en route to San Francisco, together
with her apparel, equipment, boats, guns, stores, provisions, and 426 sealskins, and
for breaking up 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 payable 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 intents 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
lawiully 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—
““Bren. 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. I understand that is an assign-
ment to H. Liebes & Co., with power of attorney to Isaac Liebes to collect this money.
The CHatrRMAN. No; it says:
Have sold and by these presents do grant, 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. FautkKNner. Oh, I understood it to be to H. Liebes & Co.
Mr. Lirses. I thought your question was whether he did not transfer the vessel
to me.
The CuarmMan. 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 CHarrMan. 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. Petrce. 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 287
The CuatrMAN. 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 CHarrMAN. 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
aiter 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 CHAIRMAN. 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 ttme,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 such statement in connection thereto as you may desire.
P. 785.
‘ Mr. Ls 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 CuarrMan. 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. Perrce. 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 Cuarrman. Who was George R. Tingle?
Mr. Lizzes. He was employed by the North American Commercial Co.
The CHatrMan. Is he living or dead?
Mr. Lizses. I believe he is dead.!
a ELT When did he enter the employ of the North American Commer-
el1al Co.?
Mr. Lizses. Shortly after the lease.”
The CuarrMan. And he became what? What did he do for the company?
Mr. Lizses. I believe he was the company’s representative on the seal islands.
The CHarrMaNn. Was he the general superintendent, or what was his title?
Mr. Liezes. I really do not remember what his title was.
The Cuartrman. Did he continue during the whole period of the lease, or not?
Mr. Lirzpzs. No, sir; he died some time afterwards.
The CHarrMAn. How long afterwards?
Mr. Liepes. I really could not tell you.
The CHarrmMan. Was he living in 1902, or not?
Mr. Liepes. I can not tell you. (P. 846, Hearing No. 13, June 20, 1912.)
The Cuatrman. Mr. Liebes, it appeared that he filed some papers as attorney in
the J. Hamilton Lewis matter.
Mr. Lieges. Well, if you will let me see those papers, I will refresh my memory.
The CHatrmMan. 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. Lizzes. I saw it in he record as I read it.
The CHairnMAN. Yes, sir; that is in the record.
Mr. Lizzezs. I have read it in the record.
1 Tingle died in 1906. 2 Lease given him Mar, 12, 1890,
988 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrMAN. Mr. Elliott, do you know on what date those papers were filed?
Mr. Exuiorr. They were first fled in 1893.
The CuarrMan. 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. Liepes. Yes, sir; I believe so. I am not certain about that, but that is my impres-
sion.
PEIRCE IDENTIFIES TINGLE AS LIEBES’S AGENT, PAYING HIM, ETC.
The CHatrMAN. What did you receive from the James Hamilton Lewis case?
Mr. Petree. To the best of my recollection, I received the same amount, or a little
less, from the James Hamilton Lewis case. I think J received 10 per cent. ‘Ur. Tingle
told me that he was entitled to 25 per cent, and that if he paid me 10 per cent, then he would
ye somebody 5 per cent or 24 per cent, and that would equalize it. (P. 785, Hearing No.
12.
LIEBES TRIES TO DENY THAT ORDER OF PAYMENT BY INDIRECTION.
The CHarrMAN. 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 CHatrMAN. In any capacity that you may choose to call it. Was George R.
Tingle attorney in fact?
Mr. Lieses. I could not tell you, sir.
The CHarRMAN. He was then still in the employ of the North American Commer-
cial Co., was he not?
Mr. LirBes. What year do you mean?
The CuarrMan. When these papers were filed; I think it was in 1893.
Mr. Lirses. 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. Lirses. Yes, sir; I see that.
The CHarrMAN. 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-
trator, under convention.of Auc: 26; 1900:. 2.524222; ee eee $47, 684. 78
Deducted by Department of State as reimbursement of the pro rata share
of expenses incurred in arbitration ’:_2..< 225+ s.26= 222: See eee 1, 001. 56
Available for distribution to claimants. . .--5-22-25-5224-555-6-eee eee 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
GRO ae ok ee aS Ree he tS oe ee $13, 949. 00
Isaac Liebes, assignee of the owner, and assignee and attor-
ney for members of crew, under bond filed with the de-
natimientst:. 2. k.c- aes sus: ode cele ee Ae ee 32, 547. 65
C. H. Townsend, pro rata share of $410 paid to him for
services as a sealiny expert in giving expert testimony before
arbitrators. ee 2 ee eee eee 186. 57
46, 683. 22
=
ere:
,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 289
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 Ae OWNERSHIP OF
SAID ‘‘ JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS.’
The CHarkMAN. Is it not a fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds for
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. Lizpes. J had no kno ledge of tt.
The CHarrMAN. You say you have no knowledge of it?
Mr. Liezes. I say if such was the case, I had no knowledge of tt..
The Cuarrman. Is it not a fact that the James Hamilton Lewis, the ownership of
which was vested in Herman Liebes, had cleared, on or beiore March, 1890, from San
Francisco, bound for hunting fur seals at sea?
Mr. Linges. 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. Lisses. I have no knowledge of tt.
The Cuarrman. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes, that they did or did not, or that
you don’t know anything about it?
Mr. Lreses. J don’t knou anything about ab
The Cuarrman. Isit nota fact that on or about August 1, 1890, the James Hamilton
Lewis raided the fur-seal rookeries on Copper Island (Commander or Russian Islands),
was fired on, two men badly wounded, but managed to escape capture? (P. 887.)
Mr. Lizses. I have-no knowledge of that.
The Cuarrman. Isit nota fact that on September 17, 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi-
dent oi the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Hamil-
ton Lewis?
Mr. Lizses. I don’t know anything about it. (P. 886, Hearing No. 18.)
The Cuarrman. Did you know when you read the W indom 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. Liezes. [have never seen such a lease that Iknow of.
The CuarrMan. Did Secretary Windom modify or change his draft of the new lease.
of May 1, 1890-May 1, 1910, in the least when you accepted and signed it March 12,
1890?
Mr. Lizses. That 1s a matter that I do not know anything about. (P. 887, Hearing
No. 15, June 20, 1912.)
The Cuairman. Is it nota fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds for 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. Lizzes. I had no knowledge of it.
The CHAarrMAN. You say you have no knowledge of it?
Mr. Lrepes. I say if such was the case, I had no knowledge of it.
The CuareMan. 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. Lizzses. IJ 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. Lieses. I have no knowledge of it.
The Cuarrman. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes, that they did or did not, or that
you don’t know any thing about it?
Mr. Lispes. I don’t know anything about it. (P. 887, Hearing No. 18, June 20,
1912.)
The CuairnMAN. Isit not afact that on or about August 1, 1890, the James Hamilton
Lewis raided the fur-seal rookeries on Copper Island ( Commander or Russian Islands),
was fired on, two men badly wounded, but managed to escape capture?
Mr. Liezes. I have no knowledge of that.
The Cuatrman. Isit not a fact that on September 17, 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi-
dent of the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Har:
ilton Lewis?
Mr. Lizzzs. I don’t know anything about it.
53490—_14——_19
290 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarrMAN. 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. Lizses. I have no personal knowledge of that.
Mr. FautKner. Mr. Chairman, | think he ought to be allowed to say, too, that the
records show here that it was assigned in September, 1900.
The CuairmMAN. 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. Lireses. Whatever the document calls for.
The CHarRMAN. 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.rortt (interposing). Pelagic sealing of any kind whatever; that was the dis-
tinct impression he gave to Mr. Windom.
The CuatrmMan. Do you know how many pelagic sealskins were taken by the
James Hamilton Lewis in 1890?
Mr. Extiorr. 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 CoarrmaN. 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 1,464sealskins,
and the collector of the port of San Francisco questions the 2,625 skins as I had sug-
costed in my letter to him. Can you explain the difference between those two sets of
gures?
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.
aoe CHAIRMAN. And in 1890 the Liebes were the owners of the James Hamilton
ewis.
Mr. Extiotr. 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.)
WasHINGTON, D., C., February 16, 1901.
Hon. Hersert H. D. Perrce,
St. Petersburg.
My Dear Mr. Perrce: 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 centrol 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. I thank you for
your kind expressions to me personally, and hope to wind up this long drawn-out case
to our mutual interests, the sooner the better, that we may have the benefit of our
share. se
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.
incerely yours
ie sath ie Gero. R. TincLe.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 291
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; itiscomplete. I at once
ealled 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-
fen of the case by the arbitrator, so that his conclusion may be reached within
e 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 THIRD AssISTANT SECRETARY,
Washington, February 27, 1908.
My Dear JupGeE 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 employment in the case of the C. H. White was similarly author-
ized, verbally. 1 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,
HERBERT H. D. PEIRceE.
Judge CHARLES ©. Cots,
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 VIII,
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 &, 1896.—Convention agreed upon between Great Britain
and the United States to settle said claims as designated in Article
VIIE 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-
Saat Don M. Dickinson is appointed senior counsel for the United
ates.
992 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 United 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 inre 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 “imterest
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 1st of
January, 1893, to the time of full payment.’ To the Cape Horn Prgeon
(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.—\iebes, 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 Lewis.
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.
Norr.—The sealing schooners which have been traced. into the
full, and part ownership of Herman and Isaac Liebes, are found in
this bill as the Mary Ellen, the San Diego, the Alexander, the Otter,
the FL. FE. 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 Elihu Root in 1906, which completely ‘‘exonerated”’
H.H.D. Peirce from any blame in The Hague fraud of 1902. He says
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-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 293
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
Hamulton 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, hearing No. 12):
Dr. TowNsEND. I have dictated some matter here and looked it over.
ny 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 islands 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.
T 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
994 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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,
I 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 1s 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
such 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 charged 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 killing seals as
pirates. (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).
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 295
The Cuarrman, 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-
meee ue sir; it was ‘not "Alexander: it was Daniel McLean, his brother, whom I
new
The Cxarrman. Do you know who Alexander McLean was?
Dr. TowNsEND. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Who was he?
Dr. TowNnsEND. 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. TowNnsEND. 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 CuarrMan. 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 CHarrMANn. 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. TownsEND. 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 Cuarrman. And one of the vessels was the J. Hamilton Lewis?
Dr. TowNsEND. 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. McGriiiicuppy. 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 det 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 Hamilion 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.)
996 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 ‘‘lawtfully cleared”’ and ‘‘law-
fully engaged” in pelagic sealmg. He describes his activities to the
committee (p. 758, Hearing No. 12), to wit:
The CHairMAN. 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. Doe.
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. Doe. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.), states as follows, to wit:
SESSION OF FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 4, 1902.
The session opened at 10 a. 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,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 297
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 Hague, makes it perfectly clear that he personally
knew of the fact that Liebes owned the James Hamilton Lewis,
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
aA 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. McGitticuppy. 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. McGruricuppy. What was your compensation?
Dr. TowNsEND. 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 es ‘‘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. his 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. (Hquity 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.)
Wasuineton, 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 Hagu2 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.
298 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 he, 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)
he said:
The CuoarrmMan. 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. Lreses. I settled with the parties that had any claims, but aH they were
I do not know. It was settled through my attorneys in San Francisco.
The CHarrRMAN. This is a question by Mr. Elhott. 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. Lieses. 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 said 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, Hearmg 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.)
-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 299
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, -
Houser 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 CHarrMan. What is your full name?
Dr. TOWNSEND. Charles Haskins Townsend.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND
‘Where do you live?
Dr. TowNSEND. I live in New York.
from Pennsylvania, where my family is living.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
I have lived there for some time. I am
What is your business?
I have charge of the aquarium in New York; I 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 wag
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.
Was the James Hamilton Lewts one of them?
That was one of the vessels seized, I am pretty sure.
Who 1epresented the Gov ernment 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.
The CHarrman. Did you know at the time that they were the owners of these
vessels in which this pirate turned up?
Dr. TowNnsEND. No; I never knew anything about that until those things were
brought out at The Hague.
The CuarrMAn. It was developed at The Hague that the Liebes were the owners
of this vessel?
Dr. TOWNSEND.
The CHAIRMAN.
Dr. TOWNSEND.
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 ae matter was brought up a year or so later on, perhaps by Mr. Elliott. But
it is all published.
Mr. Exsiotr. When this was brought out at The Hague, what did you advise Mr,
Peirce to do, as his ‘‘expert pelagic sealing adviser’’?
Dr. TownsEeND. 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. Exxiotr. Did you produce any documents that refuted Liebes’s claim?
eth pone I have no recollection in regard to it. Whatever was done is in
the book.
300 ‘INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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
rown, 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. Extiorr. 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
Pails 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, 8S. 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 2, 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. I 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
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 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?
oh 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 80]
The followimg histery of 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 contmued to lull 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 of the British commissioners; the prohibition of the
President, 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, m 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 luilling 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. Willams, the agent who was put suddenly, April 5, 1891, in
Goff’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 also accompanied by Joseph
Beey Brow), who went as Charles Foster’s ‘own man”’ to get the
acts.
It will be noted in the foregoing statement that when Williams
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.
302 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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. Chicester and Mr. Armstrong.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 303
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. Exuorr. 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:”’
Exuisit 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 moyement 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 advocat-d 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
‘“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
‘““HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
“Friday, June 9, 1911.
Pegee committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.
‘“PESTIMONY 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. TownsenvD. You will be questioned about that later. After the first sugges-
ye oy this bill you know of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legis-
ation:
; “Mr. Bowers. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legis-
ation.
“Mr. Townsenpv. 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
pcciey of Alaska, p. 73.) (Hearing No. 3, p. 157, July 6, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
. and L.)
304 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 lull.
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. Elbott, 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
vwendi be established with Great Britain for seven years whereby no
Jalling 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 killing 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.]
ForeEIGN OrricE, 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 28, 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:
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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 305
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 kiliing 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 BurLpine,
New York, April 2, 1891,
Hon. CHaries Foster,
Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sie: 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 agents 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.
53490—14—_20
306 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 wiil 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
the 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. Jf 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. Elliott’s report
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 is 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-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 307
sonably construed and does not mean that the lessee shall be entirely deprived of
taking seals.
Tt 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) Norra AMERICAN COMMERCIAL Co.,
By Oapren Mitts.
Every paragraph in that letter «f Ogden Mulls ts 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, Senatcr from West Virginia). The alsolute untruth
and fraud of its ¢ »nception is fully bared by the sworn testimeny in
Hearing Nc. 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 thrcugh every paragraph in this
venal letter, to wit:
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,
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 Cgden 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,
808 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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, J] 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: ‘‘Thisisa matter
which I can not discuss with you. I know it is 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”
ou 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 30Y
April 13, 1891. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury, admits, when personal}
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 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.
Henry W. EL.iorr.
WasuineTon, 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 subcrnation, and proof cf it, Mr.
E liott, on January 25, 1907, gave to the Ways and Means Committee
ef the House cf Representatives the following criginal letters cf
Charles Foster which admit that he issued that secret order te
kili 60,000 seals on April 11, 1891, and which permit, after its ex-
pesure April 22 by Elhott, was ‘‘cfficially”’ dated ‘‘May 27,” and
then canceled ‘‘cfficially’ 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.
li 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 Str: 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
310 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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
yY. 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 ofl 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. Evuiorr.
Mr. CHarLes Foster,
Fostoria, Ohio.
ToLepo, Oxn10, January 28, 1895.
Mr. Henry W. Exxiorr,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: 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. P
Yours, respectfully,
CHARLES Foster.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Washington, D. C., January 26, 1895.
Dear Sire: Yours of the 23d instant was duly received yesterday, and I am elad
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 hy Blaine to Her Majesty’s Government, April
7, 1891. * * * you issued tke 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. Error.
CHARLES Foster,
Fostoria, Ohio.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 311}
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. Exprotr: How was that secret permit of April 11 found out and soon made pub-
lic? Bytherarestofaccident. It was thus:
On or about April 8, Sir Juiian Pauncefote was a guest 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 setcling the vexed fur-seal question, and that Mr. Blaine and he had just
agreed that no further s!aughter on the isiands 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 Apri! 11, foliowing, this lady was at another social entertainment,
and there overheard the attorney for the North American Commercial Co. congratu-
late an unknown person who stocd 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 toid me of what she had heard, alk
as above stated.
Astonished and mortified, I at once set to work to find ont 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
inguiry 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 McKintey did so. On Monday morning—l 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 wath 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.)
li 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
point in California). This was published in the New York Herald May 4, 1891.
(Hearing No. 10, p. 664, Apr. 24, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
~
312 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 Cuarrman. Allright then. I suppose it is the sense of the committee that the
statement shall go in?
Mr. Patron. IJ have no objection.
The CHarrMAN. Then it is so ordered.
5 Wasuineton, May 12, 1908.
Dear Cou. 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.
a (Given to me by Mr. Hay, in Department of State, June 20, 1903, 11.40 a. m.—
. W. E.)
Laxkewoop, Onto, May 10, 1908.
My Dear Mr. Kasson: In packing away a lot of papers to-day I came upon those
minutes 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 im 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 tl e bitter opposition of tl e Canadians.
With every regard for you,
T am, faithfully, your friend, Henry W. Exxiorr.
Hon. Jonn A. Kasson, Washington, D. C.
{Inclosure.[
WASHINGTON, 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
during the life of the British ambassador, the other party, James G. Blaine, being
dead.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 313
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 aiter. ~
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 on 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 iur 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 Julian’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 the 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. ELiorr.
"Tak 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 antes, page 14.
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
314 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 Wiliam 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,
1911).
- III. 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 imjurious killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands,
June 20, 1890, and having recommended that all killng by said
lessees be suspended entirely for an indefiinite term of years for the
public good.
Said lessees had one W. H. Williams appointed in Gofl’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, cn July 8,
1892, he ordered that the entire supervision and contrcl of the
Government over the lessees on the killing grounds be given to the
lessees; thus, as the following certified copy of the cfficial crders
reads on the cfficial journal cf the United States Treasury agent,
St. Pauls Island (p. 2).
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 315
Fripay, JuLy 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
in charge, and Assistant Agent Murray was ordered to count the seals.'
VY. Having thus given the entire control of the Government agents
over the killmg 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. CRow ey, x
Special Agent in Charge of the Seal Islands,
care of North American Commercial Co.,
San Francisco, Cal.
Sm: 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. 8. Hamu, 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,
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
OpeHIne 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 reommendations
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
inflasnce vith such members 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 bureau.
The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated.
BARTON W. EVERMANN.
316 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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” skims 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 any 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 J uly, 1910.
On December 16, 1910, the skins of those seals fe slaughtered and
taken by the or der 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
pups” 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 bil 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, killing 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 of
Alaska, and for other purposes.’’
The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period
oi five years from and after the 1st day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your
317
818 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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 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 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 aH 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 thecontrary,
I 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 respectful y 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. JosepnH 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. CasLe. 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 319
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 seal and 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, asa 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 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.®
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:
ie
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.
% 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 $2 days, or “about so 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. °
320 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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
Gonservation 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 LaABor,
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 Ist
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. I am 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.
* * * *
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 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. JosrepH M. Dixon,
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 Cuairman. 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 CyarrMANn. 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 CHatRMAN. Are you a member of
the board now?
Dr. MeRRIAM. Yes.
* ¥* *
Mr. Exiiorr. 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 mat-
ter was up.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Exxiorr. 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. Exuiorr. What was that date—
about what time?
Dr. Merriam. On the morning of July
28.
Mr. Exziotr. When did you leave?
Dr. Merriam. I left on August 10.
(Hearing No. 11, May 16, 1912, p. 695.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 321
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-SEAL 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 MusEUM
or Natura History,
New York, February 24, 1912.
Dear Sire: 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. In ad-
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
53490—14——21
Dr. Merriam denies having any
knowledge of what Bowers has
been doing—he would “not
kill 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 be 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
lnlling of yearlings under any circum-
stauces, 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. McGurtre. 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. Extiorr. 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. Exxriotr. Doctor, while you were
on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?
Dr. Merriam. I did not.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Do you know anything
about the length and the weight of a year-
ling sealskin?
Dr. Merriam. Nothing.
Mr. Exitorr. 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. Exsiotr. 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.
322 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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. 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 hayven’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,
E912.)
Just before his cross-examina-
tion, he saw seal bulls fighting
fiercely on rookery.
Dr. Merriam. I donot knowthe relative
importance of the three natural causes
ot destruction of young pups. The three
eauses 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
eaused 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
eauses kill a large number of pups each
year—pups of the season.
Mr. Ettrott. 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. 11, p. 699, May 16, 1912.)
But, after his cross-examina-
tion, he never saw bulls fight-
ing—just effects of it.
Mr. Exutotr, Did you see any fighting
of the bulls?
Dr. Merriam. I saw no general fighting
of the old bulls on the breeding rookeries.
Mr. Exutotr. That is right.
Dr. Merriam. But I saw much evi-
dence of the fighting by lacerated bulls.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Exrrotr. That is right.
Dr. Merriam. But is not entirely fin-
ished before the females arrive.
Mr. Exxtiotr. But you never saw the
finish, did you?
I ee ae
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 323
Mr. McGuire. You are not prepared to
testify as to the relative destructiveness
oi these three agents?
Dr. Merriam. No; I do not know; it
would be only a guess.
Mr. McGuire. 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 causes.
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. McGurre, 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. Exuiorr. 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-
Dr. Merriam. I am not clear enough
about that to be willing to make a positive
statement.
Mr. Exxrotr. Did you see any ‘‘tram-
pling of pups?”
Dr. Merrtam. I 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 mostly over
before the time of my visit.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Exurorr. 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. S. Com. Fish and Fish-
eries, 1882.)
The CHarrman. The witness may not
know what you wrote.
Mr. Exxiorr. 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. Exxiotr. You read it when you
went up there, all right.
Dr. Merriam. I probably read it imme-
diately on my return.
Mr. Exuiotr. 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 CuHarrRMAN. You make your state-
ment to the committee, and we can get
along better in that way.
Mr. Extiorr. 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 saye it; no living man can.
The CHAairMAN. You give us your state-
ment.
Mr. Exstiorr. I will. When they go
out to drive up seals they drive up what
they find on a given hauling ground. Say
824 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
¢
breeding seals present on that hauling
ground at that time.
Mr. Exuorr. 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. Exuiot7. 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
“95 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. Exvurorr. 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.)
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, isitnot? Then the 5 that are saved
go back to the sea, and they go back to the
hauling grounds, perhaps, the same day,
er 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 oi 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. Exurotr. Why is it not true?
Dr. EvermMAnN. They have never
killed up to 95 per cent.
Mr. Extiotr. Howdo you know?
Dr. EverMANN. I do not know it, but
I simply have the information from the
agents’ reports.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Bowers. * * * The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the follow-
ines) * x. *
Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States
5 . . . .
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.
islands is the most critical and thoughtful that has been written.
No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.)
His report on the Russian seal
t * Oe ( Beams
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 325
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
Stejneger swears that pups are
trampled to death (1912):
INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY
or ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
Lasor, Housr oF 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. STEJNEGER. 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. STEJNEGER. 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
onthat. This [handing book to the chair-
man] 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 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 stay upon seal islands?
Dr. STEINEGER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And upon your actual
observation?
Dr. STEINEGER. Surveys of the rook-
erles.
Mr. McGuire. You have personally
observed those conditions, have you?
Dr. STEINEGER. Yes, sir.
NOTE.
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.
Ii 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. STEINEGER. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups. (Hearing No. 11, p. 702, May 4, 1912,
H. Com. Exp. Dept: C. and L.)
396 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Stejneger denies the quotation:
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
Lasor, Housz 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. Exxiorr. Drive all classes—bulls,
cows, and pups up together?
Dr. SrrJNEGER. 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. Ex.iotr. 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. SteyJNEGER. I am certainly mis-
quoted.
Dr. EverMANN. There is no such quo-
tation.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have it here published.
Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elliott to
produce it. Now is the time to pro-
duce it.
The CuarrMan. Do you have it with
you?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes; it is here, and I will
put the whole thing in right now. I have
got it right here. I will put it right in,
and have it printed.
Dr. EvVERMANN. I insist it be put in
now. We want it now.
Mr. Exuiorr. It will go right in.
I have got it right here.
The CHarrMAN. 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. Ii he has it, the thing
to do is to show it.
Mr. Extiorr. 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 bet-
ter, but are silent in the shadow of Jordan.
Even Stejneger, with his fairy tale of two
Now,
ButStejnegeris correctly quoted. —
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 was, moreover, 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, by Leonhard Stejneger. )
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 827
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.”’
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 ON
Mr. Extiorr. 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 oi 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. STEINEGER. I am certainly mis-
quoted.
Dr. EvERMANN. There is no such
quotation.
Mr. Exuiorr. I have it here published.
Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elliott to
produce it. Now is the time to produce
it
The Carman. Do you have it with
you?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; it is here, and I will
put the whole thing in rightnow. 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. Exxuiorr. It will go right in.
I have got it right here.
The CuarrMaNn. 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. Exziorr. Here it is. [Exhibiting
pave to the committee.] Now, right
ere, in the Seattle Sunday Times, issue
Now,
STEJNEGER AND EVERMANN.
Astounding as it appears, there cantbe
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. Evermann. 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.)
828 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 189 ood 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. STEJNEGER. Yes, sir.
The CHAarrMAN. Yousay you have been
together once or twice. When was that?
Dr. STEINEGER. 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. STEJNEGER. 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 CHarrMAN. 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 CHatrRMAN. And not
islands any longer?
Dr. STEINEGER. And not lease the is-
lands any longer to any company.
The CaarrmMan. And you say that you
met at the suggestion of the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor?
Dr. SteINEGER. That is my recollec-
lection. We were appointed or we got a
letter from the Secretary of Commerce
and T.abor asking us to serve in an advi-
sory capacity to him. We determined
lease the
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:
Exursir No. 3.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BuREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 15, 1909.
Mr. Commissioner: 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 drait will enable
‘the Secretary to arrive at the exact form
desired.
Respectiully,
Barton W. EVERMANN.
Assistant in charge Scientifie 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 329
nothing; we just recommended. We
gave our opinion on certain points and
recommended it; that is all.
The CHarrmMan. Did you put that in
writing and send it to the Secretary?
Dr. StesJNEGER. I think there was un-
doubtedly a letter at that time.
The CHarrmMan. Was it your opinion
that the further leasing of the islands
would not be for the best interests of the
Government?
Dr. SresNEGER. Most decidedly.
(Hearing No. 11, pp. 675, 676, May 4,
1912.)
Stejneger says Hitchcock
agreed with him in opposition to
the “ Hitchcock rules”’ issue:
Mr. Evztiorr. 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
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 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. 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. (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
330 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
recommended the slaughter of just now
[to Mr. Bowsrs], did he consult with you
about this matter?
Dr. Srzsnecer. He did.
Mr. Ex.iorr.. And you advised him to
do just what you said now?
Dr. Sresnecer. I did.
Mr. Extrorr. What did he say to you?
Do you remember?
Dr. StesyneGeER. 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. Evxiorr. Did he agree with you?
Dr. Stemnecer. He did. (Hearing No.
11, p. 682, May 4. 1912.)
All killing 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. The Com-
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 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 of 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. Preceding here. You will
find it on this page.
* * * * *
Mr. Extiorr. Therefore, Mr. Hitchcock
did not agree with you, did he?
Dr. STEJNEGER. I did not say he did
not agree with me.
Mr. Exxiorr. I thought you said he
agreed with you?
Dr. Sresnecer. 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. Exmiorr. 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. Stesnecer. 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. Extrorr. 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. StesNEGER. I could not tell you.
Mr. Extiorr. Have you ever measured
one of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. StesneGeER. No.
Mr. Exxtiotr. You do not know any-
thing about the length of a skin of a year-
ling seal as taken from the body?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 33]
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 serv ice, 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 knowl-
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. McGurre. 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. StesNecerR. 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. StesnecerR. 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. McGuire. The fighting of
males and trampling of the pups?
Dr. Stesnecer. Fighting of the males
and trampling of the pups.
Mr. McGutre. Then, where they were
left untouched until they had accumu-
lated large numbers of males, would
there have been trampling under those
conditions?
Dr. Stesnecer. 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-
the
tain in general way, but as well upon.
two years’ actual stay upon seal islands?
Dr. StesNEGER. Yes, sir.
Dr. STEJNEGER. Of a yearling seal? [
do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.
fy. Exuiorr. Were you in consulation
with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands
in 1910?
Dr. SteEJNEGER. Do you mean in pers
som! special consultation with Mr. Bow-
ers?
Mr. Exuiorr. Did Mr. Bowers——
Dr. STEINEGER. Not outside of what J
have said in the board.
Mr. Exuurorr. No, no. I asked you,
did Mr. Bowers advise with you?
Dr. SteyneGER. Personally?
Mr. Extiorr. Not when he issued his
order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910?
Dr. StesnecER. I do not quite under-
stand whether it was with me personally
or as a member of the board.
Mr. Extiotr. Well, as a member of the
board, do you remember any consultation
with him about i issuing those orders?
Dr. StesnecEeR. No; I do not remems
ber. (Hearing No. 11, pp, 679, 681, May 4,
1911.)
Lucas swears that pups are not
trampled to death by the bulls:
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Exniorr. That is not my question,
sir.
Dr. Lucas. I will have to figure it up
if you want the exact number of days.
Mr. Exirorr. Then you don’t know?
Dr. Lucas. Ican find that out. Ihave
it on record here.
The CHatrman. About how many
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. Exxiorr. In 1897 how any, 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. Extiorr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?
Dr. Lucas. No.
719, May 16, 1912.)
(Hearing No. 12, p,
332 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual
observation?
Dr. StesyNEGER. 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 CuatrMANn. 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. STEJNEGER. I do not know, because
T have not been on the island since 1897—
since 1896.
If 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 l-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.)
Merriam would not kill year-
lings ‘‘under any circumstances.”
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.
Mr. McGuire. Have you made any
personal investigation as to whether the
Government has killed excessively?
Dr. Merriam. I know nothing about
that from personal knowledge. (Hearing
No. 11, pp. 694, 695, May 4, 1912.)
LT
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 in
violation of the law and regulations, to wit:
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. If the gentlemen will permit,
I wish to say that these regulations are in conformity to recommendations made by
this advisory board.
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:
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 Berin
Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 333
THE DEADLY
He stretches; before his cross-
examination he spent “sixmonths
on our seal islands studying,” ete.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CoM-
MERCE AND LABOR, HoUss
or REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, Saturday, April 20, 1912.
Hon. John H. Rothermel (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. EVERMANN. 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 erounds, and migrations,’
The Cuarrman. You take most of this
information you get from records and
documents, do you not, Doctor?
Dr. EvERMANN. I have been in the
islands myseli.
The CuarrmMan. Or from actual per-
sonal observations?
Dr. EvERMANN. I have been in the
seal islands myself once.
The CHarrMANn. 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. (Hearing
No. 10, p. 518.)
PARALLEL.
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. Exuiorr. Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?
Dr. Eyermann. In the spring of 1892.
Mr. Ex.iorr. When did you land there?
Dr. HVERMANN. 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.
Mr. Exurorr. Was that your first land-
ing?
Dr. EverMANN. Yes.
Mr. Exxrorr. Which island did
land on?
Dr: EvVeRMANN. I first landed on St,
Paul and later I went to St. George.
Mr. Exxrorr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?
Dr. EvVERMANN. Some time in July or
August.
Mr. Exurorr. How long did you stay
there?
Dr. EVERMANN. Only a few days.
Mr. Exz1orr. What do you mean by a
“‘few days”?
Dr. EveRMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.
Mr. Extiorr. 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-
lands continuously from July 19 to
July 31.)
Mr. Exxiorr. You stayed on St. Paul
Island all that time?
Dr. EverMann. I was on both islands,
Mr. Exiiorr. You went over to St,
George?
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.
Mr. Exxrorr. How long were you on the
islands?
Dr. EvERMANN. Only a very few days,
Mr. Exuiorr. That is what I thought,
(Hearing No. 10, p. 621.)
you
034 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Evermann compelled to admit
that he has had only a few days’
experience on the seal islands.
Mr. Exuiorr. Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?
Dr. EveErMANN. 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. Exuiorr. Do you know the month?
Dr. EvERMANN. It was either July or
August.
: Mr. Extiotr. Was that your first land-
ng?
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.
Mr. Extiotr. Which island did you
land on?
Dr. Evermann. I first landed on St.
Paul and later I went to St. George.
Mr. Exuiorr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?
Dr. EverMANN. Some time in July or
August.
Mr. Exuiotr. How long did you stay
there?
Dr. EvERMANN. Only a few days.
Mr. Extiorr. What do you mean by a
‘*few days’’?
Dr. EverRMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. 24, 1912.)
The ‘‘Carlisle rules,’ of Me
14, 1896, which prohibit the kill
ing of yearling male seals, and
which have never been amended
or revised until 1904, when a 53-
pound hmit was made in lieu of
the 6-pound limit.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896.
Mr. J. B. Crow Ley,
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
permit said company to take on the
islands during the season of 1896 all kill-
_ And while there learned noth-
ing about the size and weight of
sealskins—-he knows nothing.
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Exuiorr. No,
islands.
Dr. EvErMANN. 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. Exutrorr. 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. EverRMANN. I didn’t say that.
Mr. Exztiorr. You didn’t weigh or
measure a seal on the islands, did you?
Dr. EvermMann. My recollection is that
I did not.
Mr. Exuiorr. If you had, you would
have made notes of it, wouldn’t you?
Dr. EvermMann. I presume I would.
(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 1909, 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, asisshown
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
no; I mean these
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 3385
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 earings and seals
whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds is
prohibited.
Respectfully, yout
(Signed) . 8S. Hamiin,
ee 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:
“Thesday, June 17, 1896.’’)
Evermann swears that there
are no regulations by Nagel which
prohibit the killing of yearlings.
Dr. EvERMANN. Page 8, Mr. Elliott
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 lnlling
of male seals under two years of age; nor
has any regulation issued by Secretary
Nagel. (Hearing No. 10, p. 585, Apr. 24,
1912.)
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 1-year-old male seals, and
although the regulations, with the excep-
tion of the few years mentioned, have
never said that 1-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,
P 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. EveRMANN. Does the law say so?
Mr. Exsiorr. The “law and regula-
tions” say so; yes.
Dr. EveRMANN. Does the law say so?
Mr. Exuiotr. 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. Mapvpen. It would not be allowed
under the regulations?
Mr. LempKey. 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. Mappgen. You say that the regula-
tions do not allow it?
Mr. Lempxety. No.
Mr. Mappen. And the regulations have
the effect of law?
Mr. McGiniicuppy. Yes.
Mr. Mappen. 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
836 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
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.)
than 2 years old, or those seals which have
returned to the islands from their second
migration.
Mr. TownsenpD. 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
‘*8t-pound”’ maximum food skin
feds 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.
Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
Mr. Exutiotrr. In 1904?
Mr. Lempxery. Yes.
Mr. Exxrorr. Did you do it in 1905?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.
Mr. Exxrorr. 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.
Mr. Exrrorr. How could you preserve
any skins without having them marked?
Mr. Lempxey. We would avoid the
killing of them: and thereby preserve
them. If you do not kill a seal you allow
it to live, do you not?
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Lempxey. | beg your pardon?
Mr. Extiorr. Every seal that passed
from its third year, that passed from 1904,
became a 4-year-old in 1905, did it not?
Mr. Lempxkey. Yes. (Hearing No. 9,
Pp 458, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp,
ept. Com. and Labor.)
[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]
Dr. EVERMANN:
“Sec. 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 337
Dr. Evermann says he did not
wish to renew the lease—not he;
nor did any of his official asso-
ciates; oh, no—
Dr. EvermMann. Now, as to re-leasing
the islands, I do not understand the pur-
pose of Mr. Elliott and certain followers oi
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 to 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 C. 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-
eared before the Senate Committee on
onservation 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.
iy No. 14, pp. 981, 982, July 29,
1912.
D2490—14
99
mt tk
But his record shows that he
was hard at the very job, with
those associates in full cry with
him, too.
Mr. Exrrorr. And I want Mr. Bowers to
pay some. attention to this because this
1s Important, at least some good lawyers
have told me that 1t 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.)
““Tecember 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 Campfire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign
to save the fur-seai 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 reconimendations 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 the adoption of the measures
advocated by this bureau.
The attached letter is prepared, having
in view the object stated.
Barton W. EvERMANN.
338 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The self-confessed sham of
‘accurate count,” or ‘‘census,’’
of the fur-seal herd.
Mr. Exxiorr. I call your attention to
the census tables that you have just been
talking about, and on page 606 this
appears: i
‘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 CHAIRMAN. What do you mean
by ‘‘loss”?
Mr. Exuiotr. 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 CuHarrMAN. 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
“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
‘“shost dance” seals at sea always
supply the loss on land:—Stej-
neger, ‘‘authority.”’
The CHarrMAN. If that is the case,
let Dr. Evermann explain it.
Dr. EvERMANN. The pelagic sealers
do the deducting
Mr. Extrott (interposing). You do not;
you keep right on.
Dr. EVERMANN (continuing). And we
count only what are left.
The CHarrMAN. 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. Exrrorr. 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
islandsallthetime. Now, those numbers,
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 Im 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 3839
“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, etc.
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. Extrotr. 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
year that have not yet left. When a 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 it is the pup born in the preced-
ing summer or one born 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 1-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
1911— 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. Exuiotr. He tells you, and he told
them, that he did not know a 3-year-old
from a l-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 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
25, 1912.)
He classifies them as ‘green
forms,’ ‘‘red forms,” ete., and
then counts these ‘‘forms” of
various color!
Dr. Evermann. May I say just a word?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Dr. Evermann. 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 year 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-
tify 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
340 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 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. 980, 931,
July 25, 1912.)
_ Evermann swears that the skins
are getting better every year un-
der ‘‘scientific’’? management.
Mr. Extiorr. 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 Alfred Fraser to George
other case we do not know the seal is a
38-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 CHatrMAN. 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. Exxiorr. 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-
lings
Mr. Exxiorr (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. Exirorr. You do not know it, but
I do.
Dr. EvERMANN. I 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.
GEORGE 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. average per
skin. The latter I presume are food
skins.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 841
M. Bowers, dated November 25, 1910, in
which this language appears:
“Dear Str: 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. EverMANN. To what year does
that refer?
Mr. Extiorr. That refers to the catch
of the year 1910 being better than the
year 1909.
Dr. EvyERMANN. My references are to
the years 1910 and 1911.
Mr. Exitorr (interposing). You go
back to the year 1909.
Dr. EvERMANN. No.
Mr. Exziorr. 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. EvermMann. 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. Exxrorr. 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.)
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
Per ct. | Per et.
Prime skins. -22 25.225: 9,999 | 78.53 83. 28
owaskanSeesenweneeeeee 1, 255 9. 86 5. 82
Cuiiskins sea 821 8.21 6. 45
Rubbed skins.......... 621 4.88 3.53
Raulty skins 2225-2 ece- 36 28 -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. Bowzmrs.
NoveMBER 26, 1910.
(Appendix A, p. 1007, June 24, 1911.)
But the word from London is
published up to January 17, 1918,
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 quality or
appearance, in spite of which, however,
prices remained very firm. (Fur Trade
Review, New York, February, 1913,
p. 66.)
342 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Evermann quotes Townsend
and Lucas to prove that the
seals just mela élly 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.
“TI 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 beén 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
getting the support of men of good stand-
ing who happen to be ignorant of the real
facts involved.
C. H. TownsEnD,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.
(Hearing No. 10: pp. 597-598, Apr. 25,
1912.)
But Evermann did not know
that Lucas would soon be obliged
to deny that trampled-pup fiction.
The CHarrmMan. 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. Exxiorr. 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. Extiotr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?
Dr. Lucas. No.
Mr. Exziorr. 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 re-
port on the causes of mortality. (Hearing
No. 12, pp. 719, 720, May 16, 1912.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 843
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 J are good friends, and
have been such for many years. I fully
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 exnvert 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 i 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 todo. 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 adores 22 men in
support of a self-confessed bio-
logical untruth.
Dr. EverMann. 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
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. Evitotr. Dr. Evermann, when did
you first go to the seal islands?
Dr. EvVERMANN. In the spring of 1892.
Mr. Extrorr. When did you land there?
Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the
exact date when I landed on either of the
islands.
Mr. Exurorr. Do you know the month?
Dr. EvERMANN. It was eitner July or
August.
Mr. Extrotr. Was that your first land-
ing?
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes.
Mr. Enuiorr. Which island did you
land on?
Dr. EverMANN. I first landed on St.
Paul, and later I went to St. George.
Mr. Etrrorr. About what time did you
land on St. Paul?
Dr. EverMANN. Some time in July or
August.
Mr. Exuiotr. How long did you stay
there?
Dr. EVERMANN. Only a few days.
Mr. Etiiotr. What do you mean by a
“‘few days’’?
Dr. EveRMANN. The exact number of
days I can not recall.
Mr. Exxrotr. Was it two days?
Dr. EveErRMANN. 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 CuarrmMan. Just make a note that
the statement will be found in hearing
No. 3 at page so-and-so.
Mr. Exiiorr. Hearing No. 3, page 155.
It isin 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
844 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
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 fichting 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. McGurre. 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
skin shrinks 6
green length.
salted seal-
inches from its
Mr. McGuire. I would like 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. McGuire. Those are the official
measurements made by the agents of the
Government?
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. The skin now, not when
it was taken from the seal, but now, ina
salted condition, measures 344 inches.
Am I right about that?
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. 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 it was a yearling?
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 CHarrMan. Who says this?
Mr. Erniorr. The Bureau of Fisheries,
the advisory board, and the whole scien-
tific ageregation—‘‘ 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. Itis 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,
that before.
Mr. Exriorr. 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.)
we have had
But in asworn deposition nine
native sealers say that properly
salted sealskins do not shrink un-
der the green lengths.
St. Paun [snanp, ALASKA,
Town. Hall, July 24, 1913.
Question. Did you drive and lull 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 345
Dr. EVERMANN. Yes, sir. (Hearing
No. 10; p. 531; Apr. 24, 1912.)
Mr. Extiorr. Then when you remove
this skin you leave how much on it?
Mr. LemsBxey. I suppose about 3 to 34
inches.
Mr. Exxrotr. No more?
Mr. Lemspxey. We take off as much
skin as wecan. Itis 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.)
Evermann swears that salting
a sealskin decreases its weight;
he submits ‘‘proof”’ of it:
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:
“Theaverage loss oi 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 joss, and if the London
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. McGiuicuppy. Then it will not
stretch?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly not.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. That is the proper
time to measure it, after it has become
rigid and stiff?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly.
Mr. McGititicuppy. You can not then
stretch or shrink it?
Mr. Lemspxey. No, sir. (Hearing No.
9, pp. 899, 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:
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 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 545 pounds, or one-half pound
per skin. (Report Agents H. Com. Exp.
Dep. Com., Aug. 31, 11913, p. 112.)
346 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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. Exxiorr. Then, with this testimony
in his hands, Mr. W. it 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 Noe
40, 41, hearings on H. R. 16571, Jan.
1912):
“The CHAIRMAN. 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 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, the herd
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 CHAarrMAN. That applies to both
the males and females?
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. Exuiorr. 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 EER Leoale Now, gentle-
men, Tam 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: you a
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 F ebruary 1, 1912, or from and after
the passage 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 847
“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.)
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.”’
r Breeding : Pups Pups
Year. cows. Nubiles. (males). |(females),
NOTE 50,000 | 10,000} 25,000 25, 000
TOTO ME 54,000} 10,000} 27,000 27, 000
1913 eee 57, 600 15, 750 28, 800 28, 800
1914 See 66, 870 24,300 33, 435 33, 438
1915S ss56 74,358 26, 000 37,179 37,179
TOLGRS 88, 793 30, 092 44,396 44,396
LO eee 103, 314 33, 462 56, 657 56, 657
LOTS eee 120, 066 42,163 65, 033 65, 033
LOIO Rs ee 145, 997 46, 496 77, 998 77,998
1920 Se See 192, 000 57, 100 96, 000 96, 000
Me pass Sao 225, 000 58, 000 112, 000 112, 000
1922 eee 260, 000 61,000 | 130,000 130, 000
1923 eee 321, 000 74,000 165, 000 165, 000
19DLa 395,000 | 100,000} 197,000 | 197,000
1925 522 450,000 | 162,000 | 275,000 225,000 ~
1926ee ee 612,000 | 200,000 | 306,000 306, 000
1927, 8s 800,000 | 200,000 | 400,000 | 400, 000
=
u earings 2-year- | 3-year- | 4-yeare
Year. ( ral olds olds olds
females). (males). | (males). | (males),
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 1004, 1005, July 29,
1913.)
348 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Evermann and his associates
attempt a ‘“‘correction” of Hl-
hott’s table.
Dr. EveRMANN. 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 0a
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND LABOR, BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, January 18, 1912.
Hon. W. 8. 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
a 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. e
Tf the 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. Saurrs,
Acting Commissioner.
But Elliott again exposes the
nonsense of that ‘‘correct”’ table
of Evermann’s.
WASHINGTON, D. C.,
January 18, 1912—6 p.m.
Hon. Wm. Suuzer,
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 J; anuary 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,”’ ‘‘elaring,” etc., and in-
closes ‘‘a scientific” ‘‘correction” of it—
‘Montes parieunter, ridiculus mus.”’
Mr. Smith and his “scientific” asso-
ciates 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 increase 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 3, 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. Euiorr.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 349
Table showing prospective increase in Pribi-
lof seal herd from 1911 to 1927, submitted
by Henry W. Elliott, with correct compu-
tations in parallel colums.
Breeding cows.
|
| Elliott.
Year.
Correct.
50, 000 50, 000
54, 000 54, 000
57, 600 57, 600
66,870 | > 66, 015
74,358 74, 723
88, 793 83, 580
103,314 93, 938
120, 066 105, 728
145, 997 118, 852
192, 000 133, 598
225, 000 150, 213
260, 000 168, 887
321, 000 189, 874
395, 000 213,473
450, 000 240, 005
612, 000 269, 834
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
NTA ae bee sep cisnista ates = 100, 000 | 53,199
117 SSS ce ea eee aes 162,000 | 59, 810
Lip ie Ee eee 200,000 | 67, 244
1 oe BOC OEEE EE | 75, 601
200, 000 |
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
1775) SES oye LE ge ae ane 225,000 120, 002
WO re srt a siainceisi 306, 000 134,917
NOD Pee Soe aaa cee 400, 000 151, 685
ansy No. 10, pp. 590, 591, Apr. 24,
Tue Rices NationaL
Bank or WASHINGTON,
Washington, D. C., January 31, 1912.
Mr. Henry W. Exuiort,
Room 423, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: In the absence of Mr. Glover,
who has been confined to his home by ills
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. FLatuer,
Cashier.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 591, 592, Apr. 24,
1912.)
350 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Evermann misquotes authen-
tic testimony to support idle and
baseless statements in re loss of
life to seal herd:
Dr. EvERMANN. It is admitted by
Beeealy. everyone that not more than
in 5 of those fatally wounded is
gecured by the pelagic sealers. Mr.
Hjliott 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 of 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. Elliott’s ratio of number lost to num-
ber secured, the number killed was
6,357,390, of which 3,085,912 were
females.
Mr. Extiorr. Mr. Elliott said nobody
could fix a ratio; it is ridiculous.
Dr. EvERMANN. * * * Mr. Elliott
says that not more than 1 in 10 is secured.
(P. 141, Committee Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, hearing, June 8, 1888.)
Mr. Extiorr. I do not say anything of
the kind. It is an absurd, ridiculous
assertion repeatedly repeated here.
The CHAIRMAN. One minute.
Mr. Exxiorr. I won’t let a man sit
there as a scientist and utter falsehoods
here.
Dr. EvERMANN. The remark
Mr. Extrorr (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
Evermann is compelled to read
the testimony which he had
misquoted:
The CHarRMAN: 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. Extiorr. Is it there where you say
I say 10, and only 1 recovered?
Dr. EvERMANN. I read the testimony.
Mr. Extiorr. But you know I do not
say that.
Dr. EvERMANN. The committee will
pass upon that.
Mr. Exxriorr. 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. Extriorr. In the first place, all
those affidavits he has cited must have
been made after 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
sigened 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 so little!)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 85]
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. Extiorr. 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.)
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
3852 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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. Elbott 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. McGurre. 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 vour 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
removed them or would have dared to do
so, as 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 ©. 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. Extiotr. 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. Exuiorr. And he is bound by
them?
Mr. Bowers. He is.
Mec. Exsiorr. 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: i
“The CHaiRMAN. 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 com-
mittee?
Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey’s
statement.
Mr. Extrotr. 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. Extiorr. Then you ceitify 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 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 353
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.)
“‘Seientists’’ Bowers and Ever-
mann deny the good results of
the modus vivendi of 1891-1893:
Mr. Extrorr. Now, on page 137, right
under this, following right there, Mr.
McGillicuddy asks Mr. Bowers this ques-
tion:.
“Mr. McGrtnuicuppy. Do you think it
would be well to have 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. Exrrotr. Haven’t you made a simi-
lar declaration?
Dr. Evermann. I have made a state-
ment regarding the modus vivendi.
Mr. Ettiott. 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.)
53490—14——_23
Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the
Hitchcock rules were first published, I
believe. Have they been changed since
then?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; they have.
Mr. Exxiorr. 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. Exztiotr. Is Mr. Charles H. Town-
‘send a reliable witness as to the modus
vivendi?
Dr. EVERMANN. Mr.
very reliable man; yes.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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, tha,
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 all the Bureau’ 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. Exxiorr. And you do not have any
thing to take back? You are willing to
stand by your denunciation?
Dr. EyERMANN. Undoubtedly.
Mr. Exuriorr. Mr. Townsend was up
there and knew what he was talking
about, didn’t he?
Dr. EvermMAnn. I am not offering any
apology for Mr. Townsend’s testimony.
Mr. Exxrorr. He had personal knowl-
edge, and you had not, didn’t he?
Townsend is a
354 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Evermann tells the committee
of his qualification by experience
and study on the seal islands:
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 natu-
ralists who have visited the seal islands
and who are without question the mea
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-
erles, hauling grounds, and migrations.”’
The CHAIRMAN. You take most of this
information you get from records and
documents, do you not, Doctor? :
Dr. EvERMANN. I have been in the
islands myself.
The CHarrMAN. Or from actual per-
sonal observations?
Dr. EvermMann. I have been in the
seal islands myself once.
The CHarrMan. When was that?
Dr. EverMANN. In 1892.
Mr. Exxiorr. How long were you there?
Dr. EvVERMANN. | spent six months on
a fur-seal investigation in 1892.
Mr. Extiorr. How long were you on
the islands?
Dr. EVERMANN. Only a very few days.
Mr. Extrorr. That is what I thought.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 518-519, Apr. 20,
1912.)
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 lion
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
iound that they were sea lion pups, and
that Prof. Evermann was mistaken, and
that the native watchman was right in
every particular.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 355
Evermann, Bowers, and Smith
put out this story showing their
opposition to the Hay-Elliott
treaty:
[Boston Transcript, Oct. 30, 1909.]
Tue “Seat Monopoty’”—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 oi Gov-
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
Evermann then attempts to
deny this record as published by
him in the Boston Transcript,
October 30, 1909:
The CHarrMaNn. You thought it was a
good thing to bring about this treaty, did
you not?
Dr. EvrermMann. 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 CHatrMANn. 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 condi-
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 fairl
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
856 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
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-
eressor, but she and every other country
in the world would still enjoy the right
tv 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-
ticipate in them. It is 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
Vo. 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. 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 natu-
alists who have visited the seal islands
and who are without question the men
most familiar with the fur-seal herd and
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 Japan 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 357
the many problems connected with its
management and effective conservation.
Within the last 25 years nearly a score
ot the most distinguished naturalists, not
only of this country, but of Great Britain,
Canada, and Japan, have visited our seal
islends 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 is!ands
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
oi the habits of the seals but very valva-
ble study of the economic questions
involved.’’
Eyermann attempts to misstate
the Russian record of killing:
Dr. EvermMann. 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 tollow that to-day.
Dr. Evermann. 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 closely—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. Extiorr. Certainly I do.
Dr. EvermMANN. Do you not know that
up to at least 1835 female seals were reg-
ularly killed by the Russians?
_ Mr. Exniorr. 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-
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 American
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. Exniorr. 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 b
white men then was dreamed of, muc
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 1898,
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 in
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
858 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
penditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor.)
blindly and stupidly deny it. They at-
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 dives 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.
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.)
IV.
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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 359
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. I 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 transferred
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 co 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. Patron. 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 CuatRMAN. What can you tell us
aboué the killing of seals?
Dr. TownseEenp. I hardly know what
the methods are at the present time. |
have not been there since 1900. I could
only discuss that subject now in a general
way, if that would be satisfactory.
The CuatrMan. You have not been
there since 1900? ;
Dr. TownsEnpD. 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. MeGitticuppy. 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. TowNsEND. Oh, yes; I think a per-
son handling a considerable number of
then would be able to throw out the differ-
ent ages.
Mr. McGruicuppy. There seem to have
been two ways of determining the age of a.
seal, oneisby 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. TowNnseENnD. I have no practical in-
formation on tbat 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. McGitiicuppy. 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. Icannotsay. I have
not gone into that subject. (Hearing No.
12, pp. 736, 737, May 24, 1912.)
360 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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:]
“Tt is recommended that, for the pres-
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than
8% 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.)
But Townsend swears he does
not know anything of the job, and
does not know what he said to
Nagel.
The CHatrMAN. 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. TowNsSEND. I am noi 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 CHarrmMan. 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 CHarrmMan. 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. TownsEenp. I have frequently
called on Secretary Nagel when I have
been in Washington, 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 CHarrMANn. What did you discuss
with him?
Dr. TowNSEND. 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. Idonotremember. 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 Cuarrman. Well, you did discuss
it with him, didn’t you?
Dr. TowNnsEND. I have discussed fur
seals with him. (Hearing No. 13, p. 801,
June 8, 1912.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 361
Townsend swears that he never
believed in renewing the seal lease.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 CHatrMaNn. 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. TowNseEND, I have forgotten the
letter. I have not seen it since then.
The CHarrman. The letter is dated
Janaury 31, 1910.
Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. 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. TownsEND. I was at such a meet-
ing; yes, sir.
The Cuatrman. 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. TowNSEND. I 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. TowNnsEeNnpb. 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.)
But Townsend ‘‘as a member
of the advisory board” urges a
renewal of the seal lease.
The ‘‘advisory board” gets busy—must
renew the Elkins lease.
New York AQUARIUM,
Batiery Park, New York, January 31,1910.
Hon. GEorGE M. BOWERS,
Commissioner United States Bureau of
Fisheries, Washington, D. C.
Dear Str: Asa 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 cf 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 Gov-
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 for a 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.)
862 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Townsend does not remember
that he did anything to try and
defeat the antileasing bill.
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Extiotr. 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. Extiotr. You do not? Let me
see if you do not. On page 157, of hear-
ing No. 3, is a letter dated ‘‘ Department
of Commerce 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. EvERMANN.
But Lucas remembers—Town-
send started him.
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Extiotr. 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.
Mr. Exxiorr. Did he cite any authority
for calling on you?
Dr. Lucas. He did not.
Mr. Extiotr. 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 CHarrMaAn. 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 363
Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes.
Mr. Extrorr. Is that letter under your
eye so I do not need to read it?
Dr. TowNsEND. Yes; I have read this
letter here, sir. What do you wish to
ask me in connection with it?
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Townsend. 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 ScrENcE: 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 themformany 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-
ations 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.
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. 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 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-
bunalin 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 wp
with Russia the matter of the case of the
864 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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
arasite-infected sand areas. In fact,
Ir. 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-
tion as scon as the breeding grounds
begin to expand. As to shooting some of
the big males when they get too numer-
ous, it 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 it
as well as another; this time it is the kill-
ing of surplus males. It is a pity that
year after year it should succeed in getting
the support of men of good standing who
happen to be ignorant of the real facts
involved.
C. H. TowsEenp,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 597, 598, Apr. 20,
1912.)
Townsend, in 1895, declared
that the land killing was injuri-
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. 8S. Hamlin, Asst. Secy.
Treasury, Mar. 1, 1895, p. 452: ‘‘Seal and
Salmon Fisheries.’’ Vol. I, 1898.)
‘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.
JoHN H. RoTHERMEL.
Jas. T. McDErRMotTT.
JAMES YOUNG.
D. J. McGruticuppy.
(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. McGuire. 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. TownseEnp. 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 365
Townsend swears that he pro-
duced documents at The Hague
which refuted charges of piracy
In re the James Hamilton Lewis
claim.
The CHarrmMaANn. Did you know at the
time that they were the owners of these
vessels in which this pirate turned up?
Dr. TownsEND. No; I. never knew
anything 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. TownseNnD. That is my recollec-
tion.
The CHatrMAN. And I suppose that is
in the public records?
Dr. TowNnsEND. 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”?
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. Exuiorr. Did you produce any
documents that refuted Liebes’s claim?
Dr. TowNsEND. I have no recoilection
in regard to it. Whatever was done is in
the book.
Mr. McGmurcuppy. 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. McGruicuppy. Weli, 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. TowNsEND. No; I only knew from
hearing it discussed, or knowing about the
raids as I saw it discussed in the news-
papers.
Mr. McGriiicunpy. If your attention
was called to it in that way, did you make
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. E.uiort.
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 E. E.
Webster, owned by H. Liebes and com-
manded by hisbrother; 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. 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. Ham-
ilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed,
up to its successful end November 29,
1902, at The Hague.
1896. He appearsasa ‘“‘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 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 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
fieet engaged in this raid, which attacked
366 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
any effort to ascertain what the evidence
was that was on file in the department?
Dr. TownsEnpD. No. (Hearing No. 12,
p. 774, May 25, 1912; Hearing No. 13, p.
818, June 8, 1912).
Townsend swears that 1t was no
concern of his when he learned
that the Lewts’s claim was fraud-
ulent—he was a “youngster” at
the time he vouched for it.
The CuairmMan. Don’t you know that
the Liebes received that money?
Dr. TownseEenpb. 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 CuHarrRMAN. Don’t you know that
the Liebes received it?
Dr. TowNSEND. I donot know. Isup-
pose they did. Ipresumethey did. The
case was decided in favor of the United
States, and I have no doubt they were
pris, but from personal knowledge of it,
can not say.
The CHarrMAN. Do you swear that they
did not receive it?
Dr. TowNSEND. No, sir.
The CHarrMAN. Will you swear that
they did not own the vessel?
Dr. Townsenp. No, sir; I certainly
could not do that.
The CHAIRMAN.
they did own it?
Dr, TownsENnD. 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 CHarrMANn. Do you know whether
it was important that the Government offi-
cials or the Secretary of the Treasury
should have found out that the Liebes
were the owners of this vessel in order that
they could take proper 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 atall. (Hearing
No. 13, p. 805, June 8, 1912.)
Don’t you know that
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, Aquarium, New York. (Who’s
Who in America, 1912-13, p. 2113.)
(Note.—tThis 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-July, 1902.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 367
The bogus log of the pirate ship
sent to the State Department by
lessee Liebes December 8, 1899.
Mr. Exttiorr. 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. Hamilton 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. Exziorr. Dr. Townsend, when did
you first meet Isaac and Herman Liebes?
Dr. TownsEND. I have no recollection
of ever meeting either of them.
Mr. Exxrorr. You do not know them?
Dr. TownsEnpD. I am pretty sure that
I have never met either of them.
Mr. Exziorr. Have you never seen
them?
Dr.
them.
Mr. Evtiotr. You never have conferred
with them?
Dr. TownseEnp. I Lave no recollection
of it.
Mr. Exziotr. Have you ever been in
their place of business?
Dr. TowNsEeNpD. They used to have a
big store in San Francisco; it is possible
I may have been init. I have no recol-
TOWNSEND. I have never seen
Townsend, as an “expert,”
)
vouches for this pirate’s log being
genuine and legally in form, at
The Hague July, 1902.
Mr. McGitiicuppy. 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. McGriuicuppy. And that was done
through our State Department?
Dr. TOWNSEND. That is about my rec-
ollection.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. You were there as
an expert, were you not?
Dr. TOWNSEND. Yes, sir.
The CuHarrman. 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. TownseEnD. 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 CuarrMAN. Who compose the Vic-
toria Sealers’ Association?
Dr. Townsenp. I do not know who the
officers are.
The CHarRMAN. What is their business?
Dr. TowNseEND. I suppose it 1s a com-
pany for the carrying on of pelagic sealing.
They are the owners of vessels, and must
be located in Victoria.
The CHarirMAN. Is that their place of
business?
Dr. Townsenp. Very likely. I can
hardly imagine that 1t would be anywhere
else.
The CuarrmMan. How long have they
been in business t! ere?
Dr. TownsEenpD. I do not know, but
probably for a good many years.
The CHarRMAN. Do you know a man
by the name of Morris Moss?
868 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
lection of ever going there to see those
men.
Mr. Exuiiorr. 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. Ettiotr. 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 Epiror oF SCIENCE:
If 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 1t 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.
C. H. TowNsEND,
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 597-598, Apr. 20,
1912.)
Dr. TownseENp. 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. TowNnsEND. No, sir; I have no in-
formation on the subject.
The CHarrmMan. Do you know of any
business relation between Liebes & Co.
and the Victoria Sealers’ Association?
Dr. TownsenpD. No, sir.
The CHarrMAN. You never did dis-
cover that as long as you were connected
with the Bureau of Fisheries?
Dr. TownsEND. I was probably not in-
terested in it at all. As furriers, they
were probably were interested in every
thing of that kind.
The CHarrmMan. Lampson & Co. have
an agent with the Victoria Sealers’ Asso-
ciation, have they not?
Dr. Townsenp. 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. TowNsEND. No, sir; but that is 4
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. Exurorr. Yes. Dr. Townsend, I
have in my 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. S. Goodwin, Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, Washi mn,
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-
seated by him, have been grossly mis-
e bs
I ask if you inspired that letter?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 369
Pato Atto, 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.
Davin 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 CHatrMan. Do you know any-
thing oe it?
Dr. Lucas. Only aiter it was written.
The CHarrMan. Were you in consulta-
tion about it with anyone?
Dr. Lucas. No; my advice
asked.
Mr. Extiorr. Do you agree with Mr.
Osborn in this statement:
was not
New Yor«K ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
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
53490—14——_24
Dr. TOWNSEND. Mr. Chairman, do I un-
derstand that this question comes from
you?
Mr. Extrorr. It comes from me.
Dr. TowNnsEND. Must I submit to the
cross-examination by Mr. Elliott?
The CHarRMAN. 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,
1912.)
17 Grace Ave., LAKEWooD, OurIo,
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. ELuiorr.
(Hearing No. 12, pp. 763, 764, May 25,
1912.)
But Osborn says they advised
how to write.
Mr.
THe AmeriIcAN MUSEUM
or NATURAL Hisrory,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
New York, January 22, 1912.
DEAR Sm: As president uf the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, I have
been securing the advice of the expert
zoologists of this institution, especially
of Dr. rederic A. Lucas, who isa trained
authority on the fur- seal question, f
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 seascn 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
Exxrorr (reading):
370 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
amendment for
male seals.
This amendment is a vicious one,
which will certa Ely lead to the complete
extermination oi the seals. I understand
it was proposed by Mr. Elliott, who has
no standing in this country asa "zoologist,
and I believe is supported b y my friend
Dr. Hornaday, who, I regret to say, has
come under the influence of Mr. Elliott
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 expevis
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 1s an unnatural excess
of males on the islands, due to the fact
that pelagic sealing has cesiroyed 85
females out of the 100 in the herd; thus
the balance of nature has been destroyed.
a 15-year ciosed season on
When there are not enough females io go
around, the bulls will fight for them, and
in doing so will kill both the iemale gs and
the pups. Under natural conditions of
breeding there would be an ea 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 has
instituted for all time between the sexes
is the only one which will preserve this
great herd.
I 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. JI am
ene 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
which have been brought about on the
islands through prolonged and fateful
pelagic sealing.
Iam, very respectfully,
HENRY FAIRFIELD Osporn,
President.
Hon. Witntam SuLzeEr,
Chairman Committee on Foreagn
Affairs, House of Representatives,
Washington, D> Ce
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. Exxtiorr. How did he get that im-
pression, if not from you?
Dr. Lucas. I do not now. 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. McGmuicuppy. 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 iatter that uniess 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
iew years? Did you inspire that letter?
Dr. TowNsenD. That is not sucha let-
ter as I would write.
Mr. McGriurcuppy. Do you think he
stated it sensibly or correctly?
Dr. TowNnsEND. No; I do not think he
stated it correctly.
Mr. McGriiuicuppy. Have you ever
made any statement about it or protested
against his statement of it?
Dr. TowNsEND. Only as I have written
about it sce then; I have not ventured
to criticise him, but I have stated the case
with regard to the seals very plainly a
number of times. I have not attempted
ie criticise him. (Hearing No. 12, pp.
22,723, May 16, 1912 (Lucas? 8 testimony);
Hoe No. 13, pp. 824, 825, June 8,
1912 (Townsend’s testimony).)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF AI.ASKA. 371
M. Smith, of the United States Fisheries
Bureau, one of the finest at and most
unprejudiced and unbiased men of
science im the country, in the last number
of the National Geographical Magazine
exactly expresses the truth on this
subject.
With your permission, I should like to
publish this letter, but will not do so
without your permission.
With best wishes for the prosecution of
the many giave and important questions
which are before your committee, and
with continued personal regard, I am,
Siacecely, yours,
Henry FarrrreLD OSBORN,
President.
Hon. WimLiaAmM SULZER,
Chairman House Commiitee on For-
eign Affairs, House of Repre-
seniatives, Washington, D. C.
Dr. Lucas. i do not agree with thai,
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. McGuire. Do you approve the
present policy, then, that the Govern-
ment continue the killing?
Dr. TowNsEND. I approve that.
Mr. McGuire. And, in yeur judgment,
will the seals increase under the present
regulations and the present methed of
killing by the Government, in case
pelagic sealing is stopped?
Dr. TownsEenpD. Ch, 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. The animals are
polygamous, and the males fight so much
among themselves that they destroy a
part of the crop of infant seals by their
fighting.
Mr. McGurre. Then, in yourjudgment,
there is nothing to be gained by the cessa-
tion of the killing of the seals, providing
the regulations are proper?
Dr. TowNnsenD. 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.)
Liebes, seal contractor, has
carefully studied the question and
has the same improvement over
natural law in mind.
The CHatrMAN. Do you think it would
be better to kill males not less than 3 years
ort tee to kill males less than 2 years
old?
Mr. Lizses. 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 CuairMaANn. But I have always had
the impression, without knowing any-
thing about the subject, except whatI
have heard at these hearings, that it was
killing too closely that would injure the
herd—I mean, killing them too young.
Mr. Lirpes. 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 Cuatrman. Is there any politics in
the killing up there?
Mr. Lrepes. 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. M
Lord, it would be ruinous; that would kill
off the herd; they would destroy them-
selves. (Hearing No. 13, p. 878, June 20,
1912.)
8372 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Townsend don’t like Elliott.
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 yeais 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 CHarrMAN. 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.
Elliott falsified or has overstepped the
truth, so far as the chair is concerned
you are entirely at liberty to submit the
statement.
Mr. Exztrorr. He should be compelled
to.
The CHarrMAN. One moment. I sim-
ply make that statement on account of
the allegations in the statement which
the witness has just read.
Dr. TOWNSEND. It would take a good
deal of your time, Mr. Chairman, to go
through and point these out.
Mr. Exxtiotrr. 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.)
One of a hundred reasons why.
The CHarrMAN. Dr. Townsend, do you
know the extent to which Liebes dealt in
sealskins?
Dr. TownseEnD. I could not say that
I know the extent; I simply know they
were furriers interested in all kinds of
furs, especially seals.
The CuatrMan. Did you know at the
time that they were the owners of these
vessels in which this pirate turned up?
Dr. TownsEeNpD. No; I never knew ary-
thing about that until those things were
brought out at The Hague.
The CHarrRMAN. It was developed at
The Hague that the Liebes were the
owners of this vessel?
Dr. TownsEND. 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. Ellictt. 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:
Mr. BowERs. * * *
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.)
(Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 373
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. Extiorr. 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):
*“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 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. Exzrorr. Since when was that put
out?
Dr. Lucas. Last December.
Mr. Extrotr. That is a notation put on
by somebody else.
Dr. Lucas. This is a copy of the list.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is not the catalogue
of sales in London.
Dr. Lucas. This is a catalogue of the
sales.
(Mr. Elliott takes paper.) -
Mr. Exuiotr. I’ve got it here.
Dr. Lucas. Absolutely; hand
, aper back here.
Mr. Ex.iotr. 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
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.
ae Lucas. Then they don’t mean any-
thing.
Mr. Exutiotr. They do ‘‘mean any-
thing.’”’ How do you suppose these skins
are classified?
Dr. Lucas. By weight.
Mr. Exurotrr. 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. Evzrorr. No; because Mr. Fraser
says, on pages 30 to 33 of hearing No. 1,
that they are classified by measurement.
The CuarrmMan. I do not suppose that
the people who deal in skins care so much
about the weightasthesize. Itisthesize
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 bea 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. Exriorr. They neverhave. I have
the whole series oi 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. Exirotr. | 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, 1911.
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,”’ ete.
The CHarrmMan. There seems to be a
variation in these statements. Is the
original document here?
Mr. Exxiotr. Here it is. I will put it
right in if you like [handing paper to
chairman]. (Hearing No. 12, p. 727, May
16, 1912.)
374 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The ‘‘doped” sales sheet of London broker,
which Lucas presented as genuine.
The CHarrMAN. 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. Extrortt. I do not dispute the nota-
tions; but, Fraser did not attend the sale;
he has made them outside.
The CuHairman. 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.]
The genuine sales sheet of the London
broker, given to committee.
The CuarrMaANn. Where does this list
that you have come from?
Mr. Exuiorr. From Lampson’s agent in
New York.
The CuHarrmMan. 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
“TY, A” on the right cheek.]
Number and kind. | Weight.
lings. |
|
|f1 middling and small..
)\98 smalls... 255... -
| 80 large pups..........
peers G0. oe eee
69 large pups..........
90 middling pups.....-
105 middling pups.....
eal PUPHOe = 2
ee ar) ae ee
* * * * *
(Hearing No. 12, pp. 728, 729, May 16,
1912.)
Lot No. Shillings.| Number and kind.
‘ middling and
224 |4 small.
98 small.
202 | 80 large pups.
206 Do.
206 Do.
206 Do.
206 | 69 large pups.
174 | 90 middling pups.
174 Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
172 | Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
172 Do.
170 | Do.
170 Do.
70 Do.
170 Do.
168 Do.
168 | 105 middling pups.
130 | 100 small pups.
128 Do.
* * #
ee No. 12, pp. 731, 732. May 15,
1912.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 875
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. And if these seal-
skins follow the rule cf 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.
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 CHarrMan. If you will kindly send
us a catalogue I will look it over and sub-
mit it to the committee. Prof. Elliott,
do ycu want to ask any question?
Mr. Extiorr. 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. J, pp. 29, 33,
June 2, 1911.)
Mr. Exxiorr. 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
T
The London authority declares
that the salted skins are heaviest,
and the island records confirm it.
Mr. Evrrorr. [I will go further, and sub-
mit as Exhibit J this paper. Iwon’t read
all of this in regard to the British authority
on Alaskan fur-sea! 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
876 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lueas weighed and measured
no sealskins, because this work
had been done:
Mr. Exxrorr. 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 irom my per-
sonal knowledge of the men.’ (F. a
Lucas to Hon. E. H. Townsend, Feb.
1912. Hearing No. 14, p. 948.)
Mr. Exziorr. 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. Exurorr. They do ‘‘mean any-
thing.’’ How do you suppose these skins
are classified?
Dr. Lucas. By weight.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Exxiotr. 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.)
24,
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. Exxiorr. How do you know that
the weight determines the size?
Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.
Mr. Exuiorr. Does it?
Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.
Mr. Extrorr. Are you sure of that?
Dr. Lucas. Naturally, to a great extent
it does.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. (Hearing
No. 12, p. 726, May 16, 1912.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 377
Lucas says that the weights
show that no yearling skins are
taken:
AmeERICAN Museum
or Natura History,
New York, February 18, 1912.
Dear Str: Noticing your remark on
age 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.
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.
I base the above statements on my own
observations, on the reports cf 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 femaies 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 pkotographs. The young-
est seals in the harems are 3-year-olds.
Iam, faithfully yours,
F. A. Lucas.
Hon. Epwarp W. TownseEnp,
Committee on Foreign A frairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
Lucas swears that the weight
of the skin determines its size:
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes: * * * Now, Dr.
Lucas, when you take the skin off of that
yearling seal, and salt it down, how long
1s it?
Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have
never measured a skin after salting.
Mr. Extiotr. You never measured it
before salting, did you?
Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin
before salting.
Mr. Exuiotr. Neither before or after.
Then how do you know that in the kill-
ae BD there they are not killing yearling
seals
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. Exztrorr. Nowhere in your table is
there a record of a ‘‘green” skin weight?
Dr. Lucas. Notin my table. No.
Mr. Extrorr. And your record stands,
of course.
Dr. Lucas. This record as printed
stands.
Mr. Exurorr. Yes; | 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 1t?
Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have
never measured a skin after salting.
Mr. Evziorr. You never measured it
before salting, did you?
Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin
before salting.
Mr. Exurorr. 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. Exztrorr. How do you know that
the weight determines the size?
Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.
Mr. Exizorr. 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 34%
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
many of them weigh into the 3 year-old
class.
378 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the
skins.
Mr. Exxiotr. How do you know that
the weight determines the size?
Dr. Lucas. The size determines the
weight.
Mr. Extiotr. 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:
‘“)HE FUR SEAL HERD.
“To the Epiror oF THE NEW YorRK
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.
“It 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 irom the seals, as
they are weighed at the islands.
TRAY UCAS;
‘* 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
Natural History,
New York, February 24, 1912.
Dear Sir: 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 othe srs who did not
see the actual killing, be based on the
published statement of ae 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 w eight given by El-
liott in 1875 was (see postscript) 53 pounds,
but this was based on an average of only
10 skins. There is a bare possibility that
As an instance of that falsification in
those weights above listed, No. 4612 is
32 inches long and is so plubbered that
it weighs 8 pounds 4? ounces, and No.
4244 is also only 32 inches long—same
size—yet, not blubbered, weighs but 4
pounds 3+ 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. Exvuiorr. Doctor, while you were
on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?
Dr. Merriam. I did not.
Mr. Exvuiort. Do you know anything
about the length and the weight of a year-
ling sealskin?
Dr. Merriam. Nothing.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Extiorr. 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. Evuiotr. Have you published any
record of it.
Dr. Merriam. I think not.
INVESTIGATION
these might be short 3-year-olds, but I
will let the matter stand as stated. Ac-
cordire 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.
Pardon me for troubling you with a
number of explanatory details, but I wish
above all things to make if clear that | am
not speaking by hearsay, or making state-
merts without foundation, but that I am
writing of matters with which I have di-
rect acquaintance.
Faithfully, yours,
BY A’ Lucas.
Hon. Epwarp WW. TowNSEND,
Committee on the Library,
House of Representatives.
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 25
1942")
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 thatisa
good average. I might say that I have
not weighed any sealskins myself. (Hear-
ing No. 12, p. 708, May 16, 1912.)
Lueas records the appearance
of 2-year-old cows, or nubiles, on
the breeding grounds at the height
of the breeding season July 14-20,
1397
JuLty 14, 1897.
I made a count of Ardiguen ‘this morn-
ing with Mr. Macoun. * *
Three or four bulls with pyeaeatd cows
were seen on Zapadine this afternoon.
(F. A. Lucas.)
Juty 20, 1897.
_ There is nothing in the condition of the
arems to warrant the supposition that the
3-vear-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
OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
579
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Exisotrr. I have never been able to
find it. Therefore, you have no record of
the leneth and weight of a yearling seal?
Dr. Merriam. | think J have none. I
think I have weights and meesurements
of pups, but et of yearling 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. 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. [F.cading:]
‘It 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 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 rounds at the time
of breeding 3 and 4 year olds are
there. They are not there at the
breeding season, in July:
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
Natura. History,
New York, February 18, 1912.
Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on
page 2168 of the C Jongres ssional Record for
February 14, I take the liberty of saying
that as to the question of 2-year-old fe-
males not occurcing 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.
380 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
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.
(F. A. Lucas AnD Geo. 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.
AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
Natura History,
New York, February 18, 1912.
Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on
age 2168 of the Congressional Record for
ebruary 14, I take the liberty of saying
that the weights of the sealskins (catches
1909 and 1910), as published by the Gov-
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
‘““9-vyear-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-
eraphs. The youngest seals in the
harems are 3-year-olds.
J am, faithfully yours,
F. A. Lucas.
Hon. Epwarp W. TowNnseEnpD,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
{[Norte.—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 inves-
tigator. No breeding of any kind takes
place after that date or beiore, viz, July
4-25 annually, to any noteworthy extent;
none whatever after August 1.—
H. W. E.]
But! Jordan finds them there
just as Elliott found and described
them in 1872-1874. ;
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENT’S OFFICE.
Sr. Paun Isnanp, ALASKA,
Friday, July 81, 1896.
Dr. Jordan found two 2-year-old virgin
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.”
1Dr. 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. esides 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 to the fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897 and
special investigator on the Sea] 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.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 881
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.
I 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. Elhott
with some hesitancy, because, as I wrote
the honorable Mr. Sulzer, he does not
know the difference betweten 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.’? Tywo-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 aiter the rookery system has been
broken up, as is well shown in photo-
graphs. ‘The youngest seals in the harems
are 3-year-olds.
Iam, faithfully, yours,
F. A. Lucas.
Hon. Epwarp W. TowNSEND,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
[Note.—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.)
St. Pau Istanp,
July 14, 1912.
GORBATCH:
There are six little virgin cows in the
two large harems under Rock 12.
oBh.y S. typed notes of Geo. A. Clark, p.
382 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lucas says that the 2-year-old
cows do not come out on the
rookeries:
AmeERIcAN Museum
or Natura Htstory,
New York, February 24, 1912.
Dear Sr: 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 tlfat 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 ovr 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 thé rookeries;
that the majority of them appear on the
islands after the lst 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 w ould 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 todoso. 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 I am
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.)
But Jordan jinds them there just
where Elliott said they were in
1872-1890:
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENT’S OFFICE.
St. Pauts Istanp, 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 Jt 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 883
Lucas 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 Epiror or THE NEW YorK
TIMES:
“Since my name appears 1m 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 net 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.’ ’’
(Hearing No. 10, p. 600, Apr. 20, 1912.)
The ‘‘science”’ of Dr. Lucas:
Mr. McGruicuppy. What is your esti-
taate as to the required nurcber 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
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. Lempxey. 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. WituraMs (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. | have no doubt they
would. (Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and
Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; p. 66,
notes; M.S. typed.)
Mr. LemBxey. * 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. Exxiorr. 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 thatmonth,
from July 10-to 20, annually.
834 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
working proportion. So long as_ the
harems do not on the average exceed this
there is no reason to suppose that the
number of bullsistoosmall. 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
nt hold them, and a good many got away.
S me 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 of
femalestomales. (Hearing No. 12, p. 709,
May 16, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C.
and L.)
Lucas swears that he did not
ac vise Osborn to write a foolish
le‘ ter:
Mr. Exxiorr. 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 CHarrmMan. 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
asked.
was not
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. cf Commerce Bldg.)
But Osborn says Lucas gave
him the advice upon which the
foolish letter rests:
Mr. Exxiort (reading):
“Tue AMERICAN MUSEUM OF
‘*NatTurAL History,
“OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
“New York, January 22. 1912.
“Dear Sir: 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. Witt1AM SULZER,
“Chairman House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, House of Rep-
resentatives, Washington, D. C.
“Tam strongly in favor of the bill itself.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 385
Lueas claims that he first dis-
covered the hookworm cause of
pup’s death.
Mr. Exniorr. Isn’t it true, Doctor, that
it was through C. W. Stiles that the hook-
worm was discovered?
Dr. Lucas. No.
Mr. Exnictr. 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.)
53490—14——25
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. Exxiorr. How did he get that im-
pression, if not from you?
Dr. Lucas. I de not know. You will
find all my publications entirely different
from that.
Mr. Exriorr. So you will not be re-
sponsible for what Dr. Osborn says?
Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly
not.
But, pmned down, he admits
that Stiles had told him first.
Drencksh ik. Se Mr Chairman
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, [ 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 le 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 ihem carefully and submitted
them to Dr. Stiles. in 1897, hefore I went
up on the islands, Dr. Stiles hrought these
to me and said that they were Uncinaria,
a very dangerous parasite, and under suit-
able conditions it might be the sovrce of
a great death rate among the young seals.
Acting on the advice of Dr. Stiles I looked
very carefully for this werm and found it.
I have a record of the first pup actually
feurnd to kave died from Uncimaria.
Mr. Fuuictr. So Dr. Stiles really did
advise you of the direct cause of death -
oi these seals?
Dr. Lucas. No; he said it was possible.
Mr. Exnniorr. And then you found it
to Le true?
Dr, Lucas...Yes.
Mr. Enuictr. So Dr. Stiles deserves the
credit for having found it?
Dir. Lucas. He deserves the credit for
iziving made a prediction that came true.
({:caring No. 12, p. 721, May 16, 1912.)
886 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 kiiled by the males.
That is one cause?
‘Dr. Lucas. Yes.
711, May 16, 1912.)
(Hearing No. 12, p.
Lucas tries to deny his ‘‘dis-
covery”’ of the “‘fact”’ that the
fur seal naturally tramples its own
young to death.
The CHarrMAN. About
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. Exuiorr. 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. Exxrorr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you
see up there a pup trampled to death by
a bull?
Dr. Lucas. No.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Extiotr. Did you not address the
society on January 4, 1897, on the subject
of trampled pups?
Dr. Lucas. I did not.
Mr. Euunorr. Didn’t
series of pups in alcohol?
Dr. Lucas. I did not.
Mr. Exxrorr. Didn’t you call attention
to the state of these 11,000 pups, which
you stated on the platform during the
how many
you exhibit a
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. Exxiorr. What did you talk about?
Dr. Lucas. Causes of mortality among
seal pups.
Mr. Exxtiorr. Didn’t you say it was due
to trampling?
Dr. Lucas. No.
Mr. Exutorr. The record of your report
of 1896 denies it.
Dr. Lucas. Find it.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Exxrorr. 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.
Mir Exurorr. 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. Extrorr. The association and quo-
tation by Dr. Jordan of you?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL ENDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 3887
course of your remarks had been trampled
to death?
Dr. Lucas. I did not.
Mr. Exxtiorr. After you had read your
aper on this subject of trampled pups,
idn’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. Exutotr. 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. Extiorr. 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. Extrorr. 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. McGuire. 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, 1 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 wouid 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, 713,
May 16, 1912.)
(Hearing No. 12,
Dr. Lucas. I didn’t know that he
quoted me. I haven’t that document by
me. Have you the document?
Mr. Exutorr. I don’t need it.
don’t deny its existence, do you?
Dr. Lucas. I know there is such @
report.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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. Exurorr. 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.)
You
Liebes, lessee, would not stop
killme, ‘“‘for the good of the
herd.”
The CHarrMan. Have you any idea or
general knowledge of about how many
seals there are in the herd now?
Mr. Lizsss. No, sir; I have no knowl-
edge.
The CuarrmMan. The business is almost
destroyed, is it not, Mr. Liebes?
Mr. Lizges. Well, not necessarily so.
Ti 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 isiands 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.
388 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lucas says that he did not ad-
vise a renewal of the lease.
The CHarrMANn. 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 CHairRMAN. I wis) that resolution
‘could be produced.
Dr. Lucas. It is in the record.
Mr. Patron. 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. Exnuiotr. The Government has
always had perfect control over the killing
on those islands since 1870.
Mr. Parron. The Government does the
killing itself, where it was done by leasing
companies before.
Mr. Extiotr. This
don’t want it done.
Mr. McGurre. I don’t so understand
it, but the letter is t!e best evidence.
The CHatrMAN. The letter will speak
for itself. (Hearing No. 12, p. 725, May
16, 1912.)
letter says they
The CHarrmMan. Do you think male
seals should be killed that are less than 2
years old?
Mr. Liezses. I do not think there is any
rule about it at all; it is a question of run-
ning it right. (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. Extiort.-On page 157, tearing No.
3, July 6, 1911, isa letter from the Bureau
of Fis _eries 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 t! e lease of tle
seal islands and preventing any cessation
of the killing t! ereon. Now, in this let-
ter, which I will put into t] e hearing to-
day as Exhibit No. 6, appears t! e follow-
ing statement:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LasBor,
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, te 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 ti} e ad-
visory fur-seal board, notably in the plan
to prevent killing and t’ e 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 t!e 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. )
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 389
Lucas 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
he acess Mr Edwin -W.. Sims! “Dr?
Charles H. Townsend), the fur-seal board
(Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, chairman;
Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, and Mr. Millard
C. 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.)
But Elliott shows the com-
mittee that such a lease adds to
gain of lessees at public cost and
loss.
Mr. Extiotr. 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. EvermMANN. That is not correct.
The CHatrmMan. The lease will speak
for itself.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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? I exercised that power in 1890,
and no man dare dispute it and does not
dispute it to this day.
The CHatrman. Why can it not be
disputed?
Mr. Exziorr. 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.)
390 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Wale:
’
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
onservation of National Resources, January 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. 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-
séal 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 iur 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 EXPENDITURES
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 WALTERI. LEMBKEY, AGENT
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF
FISHERIES, 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 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-
ing expert, 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
usval 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 piain 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 left 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 8391
Lembkey swears that he does
not kill yearling seals.
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
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) pre-
siding.
TESTIMONY OF WALTERI,. LEMBKEY, AGENT
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND LABOR,
Mr. LemBxey. 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.)
animals were released. Most of these are
probably included in the killing to-day.
Gerbatch 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 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 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.)
392 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lembkey swears that every
step is taken to guard the female
seals from kulling.
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, I 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 he. 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.)
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. Lempxey. Yes, sir; at once. Oh,
I 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
distinguish 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; Inever examined askin to find out.
The CuarirmMaNn. 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. Lemsxey. 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, Feb. 4, 1911.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 393
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 th:
1. They have allowed the killing of
thousands of yearling seals.
Mr. Exrrotr. 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
yearling 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: —
“Mz, Exziorr, 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. Exziiotr. You never measured
one?
“Mr. Lempxrey. Oh, yes; I have meas-
ured one.
“Mr. Evitiorr. Have you no record of
it?
“Mr.
here.
“Myr. Evztrorr. What is its length?
“Mr. Lempxey. 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 393 in another
instance——
‘‘Mr. Extiott. Yes.
“Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another in-
stance. I measured only three.”
Also on page 443:
“Mr, Evuiotr. How much can you say
is leit on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off?
‘“The CHatrMan. How much skin is
left after you have taken it off?
“Mr. Extiott. Yes, sir; after they re-
move it for commercial purposes a certain
amount 13 left on.
“Mr. LemBxey. Istated about 3 ches
“Mr. Extrotr. Then that would leave a
yearling skin to be 35 inches long.
“Mr. Lempxey, No; if it was 392 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.”
LemBxeEy. I have a record of it
Lembkey then admits that an
accurate measurement of the
12,920 ne he took in 1910, de-
clare the fact that 7,733 of them
are only 34 inches lone.
Mr. Exuiorr. 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, Exurorr. I am eetting 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.
“Mr. Hiurorr. 7,700?
‘“Mr. LEMBKEY. 7,733 were small and
extra small pups
“My, Exriorr. Mr. Fraser tells us that
those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.
“Mr. Lempkry. The committee can
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. I*raser
states that small pups measured 33}
inches in length.”
The Cuarrman. What would that indi-
cate as to age?
Mr. Exurorr. I am coming to that—
“Mr, Exiiorr. From there [indicating]
to there [indicating] on that diagram:
“Mr. LEMBKEY. 332 inches in length,
and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in length.
“Mr. Exuiorr, Then you have some
extra small pups there which makes it
8,000?
“Mr, Lempkey. Only 11 of those.
“Mr. Exiiotrr. It does not amount to
anything.
“Mr. LemBxery. It just makes your
8,000 about 300 more than the actual
number.
“Mr. Exsiorr. That is the reason I
used those round numbers. It does not
amount to anything one way or the other.
“Mr. Lemexety. 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.)
394 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 CuHatrmMan. How many did you
kill last year?
Mr. Lempxery. 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
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 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 lall
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. )
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. Evuiorr. 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. Lempxery. 7,700.
“Mr. Extiorr. 7,700?
‘‘Mr. LEMBKEY. 7,733 were small and
extra small pups.
“Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Fraser tells us that
those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.
‘‘Mr. Lempxkey. The committee can
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser
states that small pups measured 33}
inches in length.”
The CuarrMan. What would that indi-
cate as to age?
Mr. Extiorr. I am coming to that—
“Mr. Exxiorr.From there [indicating]
to there [indicating] on that diagram
“Mr. Lempxey. 333 inches in length,
and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in length.
‘“Mr. Exuiorr. Then you have some
extra small pups there which makes it
8,000?
‘“Mr. LempBxey. Only 11 of those.
“Mr. Exxiorr. It does not amount to
anything.
“Mr. LemBxkey. 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. Lemspxey. 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 395
Lembkey swears that he had
“reliable data’’ upon which the
regulations were low ered to ‘5
pounds”’
minimum skin weight
from a 53-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-
ing the skins. We have v ery 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 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. Extrotr. 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. Exziotr. Have you? I am asking
you.
The CuHatrman. He has said he does
not remember.
Mr. Lempxey. I perhaps have in one
of my reports.
Mr. Extiotr. When?
Mr. Lemsxey. I do not remember the
exact date. Iam not evading the point.
Isimply can not remember the exact date.
Perhaps you have that data.
The CHatrMan. Did you publish a re-
port?
Mr. Lempxey. I think in one of my re-
ports—I think it was in 1907, I am 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 ofthe animals. | think it was in
1907. That is what you had in your mind,
is it not?
_ Mr. Exmorr. That is not a table show-
ing——
Mr. Lempxey. That is the only table.
Mr. Extiotr. Therefore you have never
published any table?
Mr. Lempxey. If you wish to draw that
conclusion——
Mr. Extiotr. You have been up there
all these years, and now, to-day, you can
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, 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 “opinion.”
Mr. Lempxey. 1906 is when we re-
duced the weight from 54 pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.
Mr. Eturorr. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.
Mr. Exuiotr. Have you any table of
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?
Mr. Lempxkey. 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. Extiotr. No; I say you say “‘from
5 to 64 pounds.”
Mr. Lemspxey. Yes; but you have got
to give us——
Mr. Exztrorr. That is what I stated—6
to 6} pounds.
The CHatrmMan. That is the answer to
your question. That is fair. You ought
not to assume to know more about it than
he does.
Mr. Exutiotr. No; I can not find his
statement about it before. I wanted to
get it into the record.
The CuatrMan. Is his answer to your
question?
Mr. Exuiotr. 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 38-year-old
skin. I made the statement in my re-
ports to the effect
Mr. Exuiotr. You said it was an ap-
proximation.
Mr. Lemsxey. 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
896 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
not tell from any official records of yours
what the weight of a 2-year-old skin is?
Mr. Lempxey. What?
Mr. Exsiorr. 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
pounds. Where is the official record?
(Hearing No. 9, p. 486, Apr. 18, 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 showing 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 impossible 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 fiexible, and bya 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.)
5 to 64 pounds. (Hearing No. 9, p. 487,
Apr. 13, 1912.)
Mr. Lemsxey. 1906 is when we re-
duced the weight from 5% pounds to 5
pounds. Please get that correct.
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Lemprery. Thad 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.
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.,
Ist 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 after having as-
sisted in weighing thousands of skins:
Weight. | Age.
Lbs. Oz.| Years
TOTP GWEC Ceca a eee ee Bi segue | | ee eee
Spgs llhwiasesete Sys ee se 23S SOM cee:
Midd@linosne see seas 14 6 6
Middlings and smalls. TABS 2) 5
Sma lise cea oe 9 8 4
Taree pups eat ese eee 8 2 \ 3
Middlineipupsii- sae sos e eee 6 12
SMa UW BupS: hoses seas 5) 10 \ 2
Extra small pups. -..-2> eccr 2 iv Ht
Extra extra small pups.-........ Soa 1
GrayrDupse2 ise. dsGy. yee Lae 3) 10 (+)
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 A, p. 498, June 11, 1911, H.
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
(Rept. of W. I. Lembkey, Sept. 9, 1907,
to Sec. Com. and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 397
Lembkey swears it is impossi-
ble to measure a ‘‘green”’ sealskin.
Mr. Mappren. Would not a stretched
skim 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. McGriziicuppy. You say measure-
ment would not be reliable because it
might bestretched. Suppose you did not
stretch it, suppose you take it honestly,
then would it be, if honestly taken, woutd
it be a test?
Mr. Lempxey. I tned to make that
clear to the committee.
The CHarrMan. That is a direct ques-
tion. Why do you not answer it?
Mr. Lempkey. [amattemptingto. It
is impossible; of course, all our actions up
there are honestly ——
Mr. Mavpen (interposing). Answer the
question right straight. Do not try to ex-
plain it.
Mr. Lempxery. 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. McGruicuppy. Then it will not
stretch?
Mr. LemBxkry. Certainly not.
Mr. McGriicuppy. That is the proper
time to measure it, after it has become
rigid and stiff?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly.
No. 9, p. 399, Mar. 1, 1932.)
(Hearing
But when under cross-examina-
tion he denies the statement.
Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you stated
to the committee that it was impossible to
measure a yearling skin, and therefore
you have never done it.
Mr. Lempxey. I donot remember that.
Mr. Extrorr. 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. Exviorr. I have not seen your tes-
timony. Of course, I can not take you
up on it.
Mr. Lemsxey. 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 mind about
that. Ask the question.
Mr. Exurorr. I have not read your tes-
timony; I only remember what you said.
(Hearing No. 9, 4+. 489, Apr. 13, 1912.)
&
898 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lembkey swears that he saved
the 3-year-olds from killing as
food seals by a 63-pound maxt-
mum skin weight ee but—
Mr. Lempxry. 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 8} 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 lilling of those males
marked for breeding purposes after the
new hair has grown in and obliterated the
mark which is placed upon their hiaes at
the beginning of the season.
Mr. Mappen. Right there, let me ask a
question.
Mr. LemBxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. I do not think it will in-
terfere. You said that seals 2 or 3 years
of age were killed?
Mr. LemMBKEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. And that no skin weighed
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds?
Mr. LemBkeEy. More than 84 pounds.
Mr. Mappen. Except during a certain
period of the season when the higher
weight was reduced to 64 pounds?
Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. What becomes
seals more than 3 years of age?
Mr. I_EmBxeEy. ‘i hey are allowed to ma-
ture as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p. 363;
Feb. 29, 1912.)
of the
But, it seems that that 64-
pound max'mum was actually in-
creased to 8} pounds. So these
“saved” 3-year-olds in June and
July were all killed in the October-
Be following as “food
seals
Mr. Lempxey. 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.
‘hat was the controversy.
Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lemb-
key. did you prohibit their killing them?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
Mr. Ex.iorr. In 1904?
Mr. Lempxkny. Yes.
Mr. Extrorr. Did you do it in 1905?
Mr. LemBxey. Yes.
Mr. Exviiorr. How did you do it? You
had no brand on them.
Mr. Lemsxey. By fixing a limit of
8% pounds on the skins to be taken.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 458; Apr. 13, 1912.)
Dr. EverMann. I wish to call particu-
lar attention to these paragraphs of the in-
structions regarding reservations to be
made:
{Instruction issued Mar. 9, 1996.}
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 84 pounds shall
not be shipped from the islands, but shall
be held there subject to such instructions
as may be furnished you hereafter hy the
department. Skins weiching 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 jr dgment.
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 excced 1,700 on the island of St.
Paul and 500 on the island of St. George,
See 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 399
The lessees suborn Lembkey and Bureau of Fisheries and then
secure all of the ‘‘reserved”’ or
““spared”’ seals, in violation of the
sworn statements made by the latter.
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
Lembkey declares that it is
necessary to put a 63-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 cormamittee, of the
illegal killing of those yearlirg scals in
1910 (and that e ‘idence Gi this guile ap-
plies to every seasop’s work on the Pribi-
lof islands ever since 1890 down to May
1, 1916), 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 twabor, those rules have
been systematiculy and flagrantly vio-
lated by the agents of this department
who were speci lly 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, om page
14 (hearings on Senate bill $$59, February
4, 1911, Committee on Conservation of
National Resources):
“Dr. Hornapay. How many ‘short
2-vear-olds’ were killed last year?
“Mr. Lempxey. 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. Lempxey. Two-year-olds rarely,
uiany. 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 opin-
ions, and if can never be reconciled on
the question of che weights of skins of
2-year-olds.
“Prof. Exziotr. I will present my in-
formation in a moment.
“Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight
is what?
“Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds. Dur-
ing food drives made by the natives,
“which the Bureau
But siructlons
of Fisheries
order, declare that that limit of
64 pounds has been raised to 8}
pounds, and so all of the “re-
served” 3-year-olds in June and
July annually, are killed in Ccto-
ber and November, following.
Dr. EVERMANN * * *
the official ins
‘‘TInstructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]
“Sec. 8. Sizes of kiliable seals.—No seals
shall be lidled having skins weighing
less than 5 pounds nor more than 84
pounds. Skins weighing more than 8&4
pounds shall neot-be shipped from the
islands, but shall be held there subject
to such instructions as may be furnished
you herealter by the department. Skins
weighing lcss than 5 pounds shall not be
shipped from the islands unless, in your
judgement, the number thereof is so small
as to justify the belief that they have been
taken only throvgh unavoidable accident,
niustake, er «rror in judement.
“Sec. 10. Seals ) The number
of seals to be killed by the natives fur
food for the fiscal year beginning July i,
1906, shall not exebed 1,760 on the island
of St. Paul and 590 on the island of &t.
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 brand d
seais 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.]
“Seo. 10. Seals. for food.—Identical
with structions 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.
400 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
when the seals killed are limited to 63
pornds, in order to exclude all these 3-
vear-olas branded during the summer,
you understand the natives do kill down
a little more closely than our reguiations
allow, for the reason that they need the
meat, and since they have to exclude all
these fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they
zo for the little fellows a little more
closely.
~ “Tne CHairMAN. How many szals were
killed last year for food by the natives?
“Mr. LemBxey. The limit 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 carefully interrogated these two gepitle-
men who had charge of this killin ae 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.’”’ (Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July
25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 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. Lemspxkey. 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 alate
begin. The killing is confined only
the 2 and 3 year old immature males a
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.
“Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.]
“Tdentical with instructions of 1910.’’
Mr. Lempxry. 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-vear-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
64 to 84 pounds. Upon that basis we
have established our ser. (ear-
ing No. 9, p. 398; Hearing No. 10, pp.
483-486, Apr. 19, 1932, H. Com, Exp.
Dept. C. & L.)
But Clark reports that these
reserved seals in June are 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-
tinewishing 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 apvarently 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 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.
Ii 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
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 401
362, 368, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)
Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight
is what?
Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds. During
food drives made by the natives, when
the seals killed are hmited 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. S. 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 CHarRMAN. IJ 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. Lieses. 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 CHarirMaNn. 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; ‘howev er, am trying to get
your real opinion of ‘the thing in the
record.
Mr. Lizpes. As you stated, there might
be some danger in leaving it to the officers
on the islands, but I do not think the dan-
ger would be as great as instructions given
from Washington in the best of fa ith,
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 i in charge.
Mr. Lizses. Well, not necessarily so.
lf 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 2 stock range; it has got to be left to
people who understand the business, and
in the fiscre stion of the officers in charge,
men of ability, if you have confidence in
them, and from what I have seen of the
Dn490—14——26
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 IsLtanp, ALASKA.
[Journal of the chief special rats in charge of Seal
Tsl lands.
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 (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 ‘lessees 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, ian seutlee A, June 24, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
402 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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. 13, pp. 877-
879, June 20, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Labor.)
~ Hitchcock, learning that the
lessees and Lembkey were trying
to get a modification of his 54-
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. 1. LemBKeEy,
Agent in Charge of Seal Islands, De-
partment of Convmerce and Labor,
St. Paul Island, Pribilof Group,
Alaska,
Str: 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 precatition is exercised to prevent
the killing of seals that yield skins under
the weight mentioned.
Respectfully,
V. H. Mercatr,
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
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.
Srr: 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.
Respectiully,
W. I. Lemexey,
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. Extiotr. When Mr. Hitchcock left
the department who succeeded him?
Mr. Lempxey. Aschief clerk? I think
Mr. Bowen did.
Mr. Exutotr. Mr. Bowen. Did you
again renew your recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. 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. LemsBxey. In 1906.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 403
stated. During the interval which must
elapse before that time a steady decrease
in bulls will be encountered. The closest
knlling 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. ft. 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 o
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 now conducted.
2S * id *
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.
Mr. Exuiotr. 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. Exuiot7. But in 1904 you made
that recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.
Mr. Exuiorr. Have you any table
weight measurement of your own makin
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?
Mr. Lempxery. [had not. I expressed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp.
449-450, Apr. 18, 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. Exziotr. 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. Lemsxey. I do not remember just
what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Exxrorr. 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. Exuiorr. Was he not impressed
with the fact that you were taking year-
ling 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. Exxiorr. That was very correct on
his part, was it not?
* * * *
Mr. Exuiorr. When Mr. Hitchcock left
the department who succeeded him?
404 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
(Appendix A, p.
DECEMBER, 1908.
H. Com. Exp. Dept.
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. I. Lembkey, May 28, 1904. Appendix
A, p. 47, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)
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. LemsBxey. 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 1 and 2 year old seals.
The young males between 5 and 53 pounds
undoubtedly are 2-year-olds, and the 54-
pound prohibition resulted in arbitrarily
turning away from the killng fields sey-
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-
ng on land. (Rept., Dec. 14, 1906, to
Secretary Com. and Labor, W. I. Lemb-
Mr. Lemspxey. Aschief clerk? I think
Mr. Bowen did.
Mr. Exuiotr. Mr. Bowen. Did you
again renew your recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember that
I recommended that the weight be re-
duced to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Extiorr. That order of reduction
was made in 1906?
Mr. Lempxey. In 1906.
Mr. Extrotr. Who was the chief clerk
then?
Mr. Lempxey. I presume Mr. Bowen
was.
Mr. Exvurorr. 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. Lempxey. J had not. I experssed
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp.
449, 450, Apr. 18, 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. Lempxey. In 1906.
Mr. Exutrorr. Who was the chief clerk
then?
Mr. Lemspxey. I presume Mr. Bowen
was.
Mr. Exvtiorr. 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. Extrorr. 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 53 pounds? Had you any rec-
ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. Hitcheock?
Mr. Lempxey. What year are you
speaking of, and what records are you
speaking of?
Mr. Evtiorr. You must have had some-
thing to present to Mr. Hitchcock and to
Mr. Bowen as your reason for reducing
that weight from 53 pounds to 5 pounds.
What was it?
Mr. LeMBKEY. You must remember,
now, that my statement was that that
change occurred in 1906.
Mr. Exurotr. 1904, you said?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 405
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. Lemspxey. 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 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.)
Mr. LemBxey. 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. LemBxey. To Mr. Hitchcock.
Mr. Ettrorr. Have you any table of
weight measurement of your own making
which warranted you in making that rec-
ommendation?
Mr. LemBxey. 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.)
Lucas, 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 heen 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 isa
good average. (Hearing No. 12, p. 708,
May 16, 1912.)
Mr. Exnrorr. 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 Sir
Curtis Lampson’s sons to the British com-
missioners Sir George Baden-Powell and
Dr. George M. Dawson. Sir Curtis Lamp-
gon says:
“We are unable to answer your inquiry
as to in what class in the sales catalogue
would be placed a skm classified on the
islands as, say, a2 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
406 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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. Exnrorr. 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.)
to Mr. Nagel’s books as a skin ‘‘not under
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. McGitiicuppy. Professor, these
classifications here are before they are
salted?
Mr. Extiorr. 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. LemBxey. 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. Younec. Does that relate to the
question of age?
Mr. Lempxkey. Five pounds and eight
and one-half pounds.
Mr. Youna. Passing from the weight,
in London what is the determining pur-
pose In measuring?
Mr. Lempxery. They measure them I
fancy
Mr. Youne. Are they trying to arrive
at the question of age, too?
Mr. Lempxkey. 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 407
Lembkey asserts that the Lon-
don classification of the sealskins
is an accurate one—he does not
tell how it is based.
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
theisland. As thisfactor, 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 malfeasance
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. Lempxey. Lampson & Co. is a
general broker, and I believe the only
one in London.
Mr. Exxrotr. They take anything from
anybody in the United States.
Mr. Lempxey. 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 fur
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
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. Lemsxey. But states nothing
whatever as to the number of skins in any
catch.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is all covered in
other testimony.
Mr. Lempxey. Is it?
The Cuarrman. What is the question
to this witness?
Mr. Exurorr. I asked if he does not
know that the sizes are established by
measurements?
The CarrMAn. Just answer that ques-
tion. Do you know it?
Mr. LemBxey. I have beenso informed.
Mr. Extrotr. Do you doubt it?
Mr. Lempxey. Oh, no.
Mr. Extrorr. Nor do I.
9, p. 441, Apr. 13, 1912.)
(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. LemBxey. 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. Younae. Does that relate to the
question of age?
Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds and 8%
pounds.
Mr. Youna. Passing from the weight,
in London what is the determining pur-
pose in measuring?
408 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
the charge of malfeasance can not lie
upon the practice of taking skins as it
has been carried on during the years
mentioned. (Hearing No. 9, p. 376,
Mar. §, 1912.)
Lembkey swears that 100 skins
in 1904 were lighter after salting.
Mr. LemBxkery. Asa matter of fact, con-
trary to general belief, sealskins before
salting weigh slightly more than after-
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 643} pounds, representing a
net loss of 1 pound in the ageregate
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. Exuiotr. Mr. Lembkey, you say
you never have 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. (Hearing No. 9, p. 446, Apr. 13, 1912;
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
Mr. Lempxey. They measure them,
I fancy——
Mr. Young. 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. Youne. 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 tha
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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 409
Lembkey says the holluschickie
are never driven from shelter on
the breeding rookeries.
Chief Special Agent Lempxey: 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. Thisisan
additional safeguard against their killing,
and of itself would disprove any allegation
that these marked seals are subsequently
lnlled. (Report, Dec. 14, 1906, p. 13;
Sen. Doc. 376, 60th Cong., Ist sess.)
Lembkey swears that the offi-
cial publication of Elhiott’s 1874
report never reached the files of
his office on the seal islands.
San Francisco, November 15, 1911.
Mr. W. I. LemBxKeEy.
Dear Sire: 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
Ineasurements of sealskins, which he
claims was introduced by himself and the
yate Dr. McIntyre, I have never heard of
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 JupGE. Scals.—
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., 1st
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
the Government agents. (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
TrEeASURY DEPARTMENT,
Sr. Paut Istanp, 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-
=
410 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. -
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. Lempxey. 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 Veniaminoy and mis-
quotes Elliott, to deceive.
Mr. Lempxey. The cause of this great
decline of seal life during the Russian
régime was due to the reckless killing on
land 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 mono graph, 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. 167 1, Feb. 3, 1912, p. 114,
H. Com. Foreign Affairs).
ment has been made, as far as the records
of this office show.
* %*
Gero. R. TINGLE,
Treasury Agent in Charge.
To THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D. C.
(H. Doc. 175, pp. 204, 205, 54th Cong.,
1st sess.)
Elliott’s answer proves this at-
tempt to deceive.
Mr. Extrorr. 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 Veniaminov’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 commi tee, a suppression of the truth
by Mr. Lembkey himself, and he, not I,
is guilty of that offense.’”’ (Hearing on
H. R. 1671, Feb. 4, 1912, pp. 146, 147,
H. Com. Foreign Affairs.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 41]
Want
The statements in phe 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, pr resident 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 dis-
tinguished and best known naturalist in the world. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9,
1911.)
THE DEADLY PARALLEL,
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.
27 RST
In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the
Imperial Gov ernment, 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: ‘‘If 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.)
. Jordan declares that the
me ssians ruined the Pribilof fur-
seal herd by an indiscriminate
killimg of female and male seals,
1809-1834.
They (the Russian-American Co.) still
* continued to kill males and females alike.
The injury to the herd naturally con-
tinued. * * * (#ur-Seal Investiga-
ion 3, pt. 1, p. 25, 1898.)
-elors”’
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-
in Yanovsky’s statement,
and thus falsifies it.
In his report No. 41 of February 25,
1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an account
of his inspection of the operations on the
islands of St. Paul and St. George, ob-
serves that “‘every year the young’’
bachelor seals are killed, and that only
_the cows, siekatchie, and halt 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-
noy, 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 siekatchie 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
a5 Sor pe
killed with a club. ‘
412 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Dr. Jordan denies the appear-
ance on the hauling grounds of
the yearlings, and in the killing
drives before ‘‘the middle of
July.”
= >on tact ithe: records\ior 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
killing 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 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 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
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 year-
Of those 1 year old, the males are
separated from the females and killed
while the laiter are driven carefully back
to the beach. (Fur-Seal Investigations,
pt. 3, 1898, p. 222; transiatiop of Bishop
Veniaminov 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 Tolstci and Middle Hill; killed
274. Turned away 19 half grown bulls:
as many yearlings as choice seals, killed
G. e., 274), 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. (Chas. J. Goff,
U. S. Chief Sp’] Agent in charge Seal
Islands.)
Monday, June 23, 1890.—(p. 231.)
The N. A. C. Co. made a drive trom Tol-
stoi and Middle Hill, killing 521 seals.
Seventy-five percent of the sealsdriven 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, 1899.—(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. Exxtotrr. 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 as 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. Wewillleave that open. But the
killing has hurt them; they admit that
now officially. Let me read, on page 170:
“Monday, June 23, 1890) -* 7
Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up;
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 418
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
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.
STOO) CAS MUO i ay OC SS Ne Ge Bl saat IL
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 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 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 its hauling grounds.
* * * ‘Thence over to Tolstoi sand
dunes, where I saw about 600 or 700 year-
lings, conspicuous by their white bellies.
* * % x
“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,
414 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
these methods it happened in 18389 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
SO ea ar
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.
1, p. 193.)
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.)
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 1s even greater. (Fur 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
males. % Vr GRept. Wwe ay 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. 8. Agent, St. Pauls Island,
entered on p. 53, and copied, July 24,
1913, by A. F. Gallagher.)
1 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 415
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 founda,
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.)
Lembkey, with 13 years’ expe-
rience, swears that the male and
female yearlings do haul out to-
gether.
Mr. Lemspxey. 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. Lempxey. 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. 1,9 1912: HL.
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.
George 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
416 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Jordan’s own associate will not
vouch for his truthfulness.
Dr. Evermann. 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. Extiorr. Are you quoting Dr. Jor-
dan?
Dr. Evermann. I am quoting some
things that Dr. Jordan has said.
Mr. Exuiotr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of
truth?
The CHatRMAN. You are quoting from
Dr. Jordan?
Mr. Exxiorr. I want to find if Dr. Jor-
dan is a man of truth.
The CHarrMAN. That is not for the wit-
ness to determine.
Mr. Exttotr. He is assailing me in that
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.
The CHarrMaNn. The witness can not
say whether he is telling the truth or
whether he is not.
Mr. Exttotr. 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.)
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
SO yearling bachelors * * * (p.
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
Olds wll a at ere (pce
July 15.—Lukannon Rookery, St. Pauls
Island: On Lukannon was seen a little
cow, apparently a 2-year-old, with fea-
tures of a 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,
Oy 24)
: Lukannon, 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,
pte 22)
: Zapadni, July 20, 1897.—It is evident
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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 417
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. LemBxey. All the killable 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 8. 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.)
53490—14——_—_27
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 bea 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.)
418 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Jordan denies the appearance
of any bulls under 8 years old on
the breeding grounds:
LELAND STANFORD
JuNIoR UNIVERSITY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Stanford University, Cal.,
January 16, 1906.
Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
The White House, Washington, D. C.
Dear Srr: 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 orover. * * *
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. Extiorr. Are you quoting Dr. Jor-
dan?
Dr. EvermMann. I am quoting some
things that Dr. Jordan has said.
Mr. Exxiorr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of
truth? |
The CHAIRMAN. You are quoting from
Dr. Jordan?
Mr. Extrorr. I want to find if Dr. Jor-
dan is a man of truth.
The CHarRMAN. That is not for the wit-
ness to determine.
Mr. Extrorr. He is assailing me in that
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.
The CHAIRMAN. 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. 9, p. 580, Apr. 20,
et H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and La-
or.
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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 419
Jordan hopes that Elbott will
approve ‘‘an effort’? which will
enable the pelagic sealers “‘to
realize” on their “‘rights”’:
LELAND STANFORD
JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CAL.,
November 6, 1909.
Mr. Henry Woop EL.iortt,
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 for 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.
Elliott denies the ‘rights’ of
the pelagic sealers, and hopes that
they will never get a penny for
them:
17 Grace AVENUE,
Lakewood, Ohio, November 8, 1909.
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. Exuiotr.
Dr.
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, 1912; de-
bate on H. R. 1671:
Hon. Wa. Suizer,
Pato Auto, Cat., February 5, 1912.
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 yews 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. Jore
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
distance * *
When brought Z the killing grounds the
seals are rested for an hour or more, ac-
cording to circumstances, and then killed
with a club.
490 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 forc1-
bly shown by the present confusion and
doubt as to present conditions of the rook-
eries’’ is w2ll shown by refereuce 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 ‘‘scareity’’ of bulls. The
bulls are said to be ‘‘amiable”’ because
“fovertaxed.’’ On certain rookeries they
have “‘lost|controlof the breeding grounds,”’
with the result that the bachelors are
“hauling among the cows.’’ He states
that.he is sure ‘‘all the caws were served,”’
but he finds that the bulls ‘“‘are not pres-
ent in sufficient numbers to maintain a
first-class rookery service.”’
Tf 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 ‘‘det2rmi-
nation of the proportion of mal 2s necessary
to attend to the needs of the female breed-
ing herd.’’ Attention was called to the
face that this was a question that could
not be ‘‘determined in a single season,
nor in two, possibly not in five.” It
i8 a question that can only be settled
by a trained naturalist and investigator.
All that Mr. Lembkey has contributed to
this are certain superficial factsand 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. Ellioct in 1890. Mr.
Lembkey’s report settles nothing and
leaves only “confusion and doubt.”
(D. S. Jordan to President Roosevelt,
Jan. 16, 1906, Appendix A., pp. 328-332,
June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp., Dept. Com.
and Labor.)
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
scientists 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALasKa. 421
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 embartas the
Secretary with suggestions as to the de-
tails of administration of the bureau under
his charge. This would not be pertinent.
lf 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 1i 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 ‘ite
seals were suggestions of earlier investiga-
tors which the commission of 1896-97
merely tested asa part ofitsduty. 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. S. Jordan to President
Roosevelt: Jan. 16, 1906, Appendix A;
pp. 328-332: June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor.)
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
importance 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
approved and directed this work
of folly and injury.
Mr. Lempxey. 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 uhe Ist of Au-
gust drives were to be made, 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
422 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
that the fur seal is a creature wholly of
instinct, and is not able to adjust itself
to any new conditions which prevent it
from following the course crystallized into
habit by generations 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-
erles 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 not 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 IJ..)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 423
Dr. Jordan denies his responsi-
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 ofitsduty. 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.)
But the official record declares
that these twin follies were or-
dered by him.
St. 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. Extiorr. The sandworm, Uncina-
ria, ‘‘scourge” discovered by Jordan in
1897 is like the “trampled pups” of his
‘‘discovery”’ 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
N
424 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY 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. _
“‘In regard to Uncinaria, Mr. Marsh, al-
though on the rookeries daily from June 6
until July 28, found notasingle 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. 1178,
Appendix A):
‘‘Harly 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 | 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
suffering 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 genius Halarchne.’’ (Hearing No.
14, p. 945, July 27, 1912, H. Com. Exp.
Dept. C. and L.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 425
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.S. Jordan to
President Roosevelt, Jan. 16, 1906, Ap-
pendix A, pp. 328-334, June 24, 1911.
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
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 seating
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 1903, 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 value 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 affected 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 y 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.)
426 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Srepuens. On June 20, 1913, as a part of the above report,
Mr. Elliott also filed the following tabulated statement:
jd on the E
ee $480, §
een sold for $114, :
ould and would h:
‘old on the ]
‘it:
3, 502
1, 336, showing a 1
9, 760
2, 810, showing a |
8, 260
7, 680, showing a |
1, 826, thus showi:
9, 291, thus showir
Or a total -
ild and would hay
a the Basis «
ae $66, 806.
Bae $89, 208, s!
Ee $37, 952.
eyes $49, 812, s
Bees $45, 292.
te $50, 260, s
I for.. $189, 280, t
a3 sustained.
ned, would have
If the 12,920 Fur-seal Skins Taken on the Pribilof Islands were Properly Skinned when Taken June-July, 1910, and Sold on the Basis of Weight per Skin, then the Following Record is Made by
Their Sale, in London, Dec. 16, 1910, to wit:
CATCH OF 1910. (See pp. 131, 135, Hearing No. 3.)
3,032 fur-seal skins, each weighing 6 pounds 7 ounces, were sold...............---------+---+---+-+-- December 16, 1910, for. . $41. 00 per skin, or. - - -$125, 312 ’ : } ‘
But those 3,032 fur-seal skins, each weighing 6 pounds 7 ounces, should and would have sold, tf properly skinned, December 16, 1910, for. . $54. 40 per skin, or- - $164, 940, showing a loss of...... $39, 628 on this grade of skins, or 2-year-old skins, or ‘‘large pups.’’
4,899 fur-seal skins, each weighing 5 pounds 12 ounces, were sold............---.-------+--++-+---++-- December 16, 1910, for. - $31. 00 per skin, or. - $151, 868 “tg rerenn a ER nae
But those 4,899 fur-seal skins, each weighing 5 pounds 12 ounces, should and would have sold, if properly skinned, December 16, 1910, for. . $41.00 per skin, or... $68, 990 rae a feelin mapa RAS ELSI EA ort
1,266 fur-seal skins, each weighing 5 pounds 5 ounces, were sold.............-.--------.+-+-++-+----- December 16, 1910, for. . $28. 50 per skin, or... an pa a Se eer Rec
But those 1,266 fur-seal skins, each weighing 5 pounds 5 ounces, should and would have sold, if properly skinned, December 16, 1910, for. . $41. 00 per skin, or. $15, 825 fares a “aheelieoy aug VERMEEE Emel “Eines
713 fur-seal skins, each weighing 7 pounds 2 ounces, were sold................-.-.-.-.-..---------- December 16, 1910, for... $54. 40 per skin, or. - $37, 787 ‘ : (
But those 713 fur-seal skins, each weighing 7 pounds 2 ounces, should have sold, if properly skinned.........--- December 16, 1910, for. . $60. 00 per skin, or.... $42, 780, showing a loss of...... $4, 993 on this grade of skins, or ‘‘2-year-olds, ” or ‘smalls.’
This gives us a total of 9,910 skins which are clearly certified as to weights (p. 131, Hearing No. 3), which sold for..........-.------------ $350, 847. 00, and should have sold for......-..-. $480, 293, thus showing a loss of $129, 446 in this sale to the Government.
Then there are left 3,010 skins which are not 80 clearly certified as to weights (p. 131, Hearing No. 3), which sold for $86, 263. 00, and which should have been sold for $114, 584, thus showing a loss of $28,321 in this sale to the Government.
Or a total loss of-..... $157, 767 in this sale to the Government.
Or, to recapitulate: 12,920 skins sold for $437,110, which, if weighing as recorded and properly skinned, should and would have sold for $594,877.
If the 12,002 Fur-seal Skins Taken on the Pribilof Islands were Properly Skinned when Taken June-July, 1911, and Sold on the Basis of Weight per Skin, then the Following Record is Made by
Their Sale, in London, on Dec. 15, 1911, to wit:
CATCH OF 1911. (See pp. 729, 730, Hearing No. 12.)
4,131 fur-seal skins each weighing 6 pounds 8 ounces were sold.............-..---.+-----+---------- December 15, 1911, for-. $42. 00 per skin, or....-....--. $173, 502
But those 4, 131 fur-seal skins each weighing 6 pounds 8 ounces should and would have sold, if properly skinned, December 15, 1911, for. . 56. 00 per skin, or... .-. 231, 336, showing a loss of... .. $57, 834 on this grade of skins, or 2-year-old skins, or ‘‘large pups.”
5,305 fur-seal skins each weighing 5 pounds 13 ounces were sold .................-----..------------ December 15, 1911, for- - 32.00 per skin, or..........-- 169, 760 = , ,
But those 5,305 fur-seal skins each weighing 5 pounds 13 ounces should and would have sold, if properly skinned, December 15, 1911, for-. 42, 00 per skin, or....---..---- 222, 810, showing a lossof..... 53, o50{°" ce iting ee or “long” yearlings, and “short” 2-year-olds, or
942 fur-seal skins each weighing 5 pounds 8 ounces weresold ...........-...------+--+--2+-----+-- December 15, 1911, for... 30. 00 per skin, or.......-.-.. 28, 260 i ? 2 :
But those 942 fur-seal skins each weighing 5 pounds 8 ounces should and would have sold, if properly skinned, December 15, 1911, for. . 40. 00 per skin, or.....--.-.--. 37, 680, showing a loss of. - . .- 9, a20{" tah ia or “long” yearlings and ‘“‘short” 2-year-olds, or “mid-
This gives us a total of 10,378 skins which are clearly certified as to weights (pp. 729, 780, Hearing No. 12) which sold for. ... .--371, 552. 00 and should have sold for 491, 826, thus showingalossof 120, 304 in this sale to the Government.
Then there are left 1,624 skins which are not so clearly classified as to weights (pp. 729, 780, Hearing No. 12) which sold for..........--- 51, 968. 00 and should have sold for 69, 291, thus showing a lossof 17,323 on this sale to the Government.
: x ae < Or a total loss of... -. 137, 627 on this sale to the Government.
Or, to recapitulate: 12,002 skins sold for $423,523, which, if weighing as recorded and properly:skinned, should and would have sold for $561,150.
If the 3,773 Fur-seal Skins Taken on the Pribilof Islands were Properly Skinned When Taken June-July, 1913, and Sold on the Basis of Weight per Skin, then the Following Record is Made by Their
Sale in London, Jan. 17, 1913, to wit:
CATCH OF 1912. (See Catalogue London Sales, Jan. 17, 1913.)
1, 593 fur-seal skins, each weighing 6 pounds 7 ounces, were sold.................-.--202-e2ee-eeeeeee---s-eee January 17, 1913, for. . $42 per skin, or
-January 17, 1913, for. . $56 per skin, or.
-January 17, 1913, for. . $32 per skin, or..
$66, 806.
a ane showing a loss of... . .$22, 402 on this grade of skins, or ‘‘2-year-olds,”’ or “large pups.”
952,
Sdaogont January 17, 1913, for... $42 per skin, or..........-. 5 $49, 812, showing a loss of... ..$11, 860 on this grade of skins, or “Jong” yearlings and ‘‘short’’ 2-year-olds,
J 17, 1913, f $52 per ski $45, 292 OEE Des
- : anuary 17, 1913, for. . $52 per skin, or......-.......-. b 5
But those 871 fur-seal skins, each weighing 7 pounds 2 ounces, should and would have sold, if properly skinned. ....... January 17, 1913, for. . $60 per skin, or..........-.... $50, 260, showing a loss of...... $4, 968 on this grade of skins, or 3-year-olds, or “‘smalls.”’
.---January 17, 1913, for.. $150,050, and should have sold for.. $189, 280, thus showing a loss of $39, 230 on this sale to the Government.
es Siar keene eames emiee $8, 383. 60 upon which no loss was sustained.
$158,433, which, if weighing as recorded, and properly skinned, would have sold for $197,663.
Or to recapitulate, 3,773 skins sol
53490—14. (To face page 426.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 427
Mr. SterHEens. Now, Mr. Chairman, with reference to this matter,
I move to receive and adopt the report of Messrs. Elliott and Gal-
lagher, the supplemental report of Henry W. Elliott and the tabulated
statement, aie that they be made and printed as a part of the hear-
ings of this committee, and that the chairman be authorized to fur-
nish all parties mentioned in the said report with copies thereof.
ae motion was seconded by Mr. Watkins and unanimously
adopted.)
Mr. STEPHENS. I move that the committee do now adjourn, subject
to the call of the chairman, for the purpose of investigating matters
of expense of the agents of the committee already mentioned.
(The motion was seconded and adopted, and the committee
thereupon adjourned subject to the call of the chairman).
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Hovust or REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Friday, February 20, 1914.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rother-
mel, of Pennsylvania (chairman), presiding.
Present: Mr. Rothermel, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Walsh,
Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Patton.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE A. CLARK, SECRETARY OF STAN-
FORD UNIVERSITY.
(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)
The CuarrMan. What is your full name?
Mr. Crarx. My name is George A. Clark.
The CHarrmMan. What is your business or occupation ?
Mr. Ciarx. University secretary at Stanford University.
The CuarrMan. How long have you been secretary of that uni-
versity ?
Mr. Crark. About 15 years.
The Coarrman. Who is president of the university ?
Mr. Crark. Dr. John Casper Branner.
The CoarrMAN. Are you in any way connected now with the
Government ?
Mr. Ciarx. No; I am not.
The Cuarrman. Were you connected with the Fur Seal Comins:
sion; if so, when ?
Mr. Ciarx. I was the secretary of the Bering Sea Fur Seal Com-
mission of 1896 and 1897.
The CHatrMANn. Have you had any other connection with either
the Bureau of Fisheries or the Department of Commerce and Labor ?
Mr. Ciark. I was sent to Bering Sea in 1909 to review the work
of 1896 and 1897 for the Bureau of Fisheries.
The CuarrMan. That was in 1896 and 1897 ?
Mr. CrarK. Well, I went in 1909, I say, for the Bureau of Fisheries
to review the conditions of 1896 and 1897 in the light of the con-
ditions at that time.
The CuarrMan. In what capacity did you go up there ?
Mr. Ciark. As a special assistant.
The Cuairman. Of what?
Mr. Crark. Of the Bureau of Fisheries.
The Cuarrman. Of the Department of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; that is, my appointment was by the Commis-
sioner of Fisheries, approved by the Secretary of Commerce and
abor.
The Cuarrman. And you were a special assistant, you say ?
429
430 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. —
- Mr. Citarx. Yes.
The CuHatrMan. Were you sworn then as a special assistant of the
Department of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. Crarx. Well, I do not quite understand that. I was simply
appointed, issued a formal appointment with instructions, and
ordered to go north; that is all. I did not appear in Washington
to swear to anything, or anything of that kind.
The CHarRMAN. Then you were not sworn at all?
Mr. CLark. Well, not that I remember of. I wassworn in 1896 and
1897, but I do not recall an event of that kind in 1909.
The CuarrMAN. Are you quite sure about it? There may be a
record of it. I think you ought to tax you memory sufficiently to be
sure about it.
Mr. CuarKk. I would have to say that I have no recollection what-
ever of it. I was simply appointed as a special assistant in order to
go up there for this purpose.
The CHoatrrMan. Where were you when you were appointed ?
Mr. CrarK. At Stanford University.
The CuarrmMan. How did you happen to be appointed while you
were there ?
Mr. CirarKk. Well, having been secretary of the commission in 1896
and 1897, when the advisory board of the fur seal service was arranged
for, Dr. Jordan then president of Stanford, being the chairman of
the advisory board, suggested or recommended that the work of 1896
and 1897 be reviewed and the condition of the herd in 1909 compared
carefully with its condition in 1896 and 1897, to form a basis for
any action which the advisory board might take, and as I was con-
nected intimately with all the work in 1896 and 1897 done by that
commission, he recommended that I be sent up there.
The CHArRMAN. Then it was on Jordan’s recommendation that you
were sent up there ?
Mr. CrarKk. I believe that all the members of the advisory board
were communicated with regarding the matter.
The CoarrMAN. Yes; but I think you have just said you were recom-
mended by Dr. Jordan. ;
Mr. CLark. Yes; he considered it would be best I should do that
work.
The CHarrMan. How and by whom were you notified that you
were appointed special assistant ?
Mr. CLrark. By the Commissioner of Fisheries.
The CHarrman. Who was the Commissioner of Fisheries ?
Mr. CLark. Hon. George M. Bowers.
The CuarrMan. Did you receive a letter from him or a telegram ?
Mr. CriarKk. I received a telegram and a letter also. The letter,
of course, contained the instructions.
Mr. RoTHERMEL. Have you the letter with you?
Mr. CrarKk. I do not believe I have; no. I think, though, it is
already published in appendix A of the hearings.
The Cuarrman. I think it is made a matter of public record in the
bureau, is it not?
Mr. Crark. Yes.
The Cuarrman. I mean, whatever communications you had ?
tees Crark. I should expect so. Of course, I know nothing about
that.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 43]
The CuarrmMan. When did you go to the islands ?
Mr. Cuark. I left Stanford University about the 21st of June, but
was delayed in Seattle because several steamers had been taken off
and it was necessary to go to Nome and then come down from Nome
to the Pribiloff Islands, so that I arrived on the Pribiloff Islands on
or about the 12th of July.
The CHarrMAN. You went up there for the purpose of examining
the condition of the herd and comparing it with what you discovered
in 1896 and 1897?
Mr. CrarK. Yes; specifically to make a census of the herd on
exactly the same ‘basis that the Canadian commissioner, James
Macoun, and myself made the census of 1896 and 1897.
The Carrman. You made a report ?
Mr. Crark. I made a report; yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. That was on the 30th of September, 1909 ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. Where did you send that report ?
Mr. CrarKk. I sent it to the Commissioner of Fisheries.
The CuarrMan. While you were on the islands you noticed the
killing day after day, did you not, and reported that to the depart-
ment ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir; I reported on the killings.
The Cuarrman. You saw the killing on the part of the lessee and
the agents of the Government ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Whom did you see on the part of the company on
the islands ?
Mr. Crarx. In what way? You mean who were present ?
The CHarrMAN. Yes; on the islands while you were there.
Mr. Crarx. Mr. J. C. Redpath was the representative of the com-
pany in charge.
The CuarrMan. I mean in 1909.
Mr. Crark. I mean in 1909.
The CuarrMan. He was in charge of the company’s interests ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. Who else was there on the part of the company ?
i ee CARE Well, Dr. H. C. Mills was the physician on St. Paul
slan
The CuHarrmMan. Was he interested in the company ?
Mr. Crarx. He was the physician employed by the Co aa to
take care of the natives.
The Cuarrman. Where does he live?
Mr. Ciark. He lives in Berkeley, Cal., at the present time.
The Cuarrman. How did the company happen to employ a phy-
sician there ?
Mr. Cirarx. The lease required them to employ a physician and also
a school-teacher.
The Cuarrman. Who else was there on the part of the company, if
anybody ?
Mr. Crarx. I do not recall the names of the different subordinate
officers. There was a physician on each island. The one on St.
George, I believe, was Dr. Pond.
The Cuarrman. Do you know his initials ?
432 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Crarx. I think it is Charles Gardner, but I did not pay much
attention to them. Those men had little to do with ourwork. I did
not need their services as a physician and did not get very well
acquainted with them.
The Caarrman. Who did the actual killing on the islands while you
were theie ?
Mr. CrarKk. It was done by the lessees under the direction of the
agents of the department.
‘The CuatrmMan. Who were the agents of the department ?
Mr. Crark. Mr. Walter I. Lembkey was the chief agent, Mr. James
Judge was an assistant agent, and Mr. Harry Chichester was the third
agent.
The CHatrMan. Anybody else ?
Mr. Crark. I do not recall whether Maj. Ezra W. Clark was present
there or not, but I believe he was the fourth agent.
The CHAIRMAN. You made notes of your observations as you went
along day after day, did you not?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you your original notes with you ?
Mr. Crark. No; I have not my original notes.
The CHarrMan. Have you carbon copies of them ?
Mr. CrarK. No, I have not; that is, I am relymg upon the pub-
lished report. Of course, I sent my papers to the department and
did not have a carbon copy left when I was through.
The CHarrMANn. But your original notes, are they not in existence ?
Mr. CLARK. They are in the department. They were filed with
the original report.
The CrarrMAN. I mean what you would call field notes or what-
ever observations you made as you went along.
Mr. CLark. They are published in full m my report in Appendix A,
for example.
The CHatrMAN. But do you have them in your possession ?
Mr. Ciarx. I submitted them to the Department of Commerce or
to the Bureau of Fisheries with my report.
The CHarrMAN. I know; but did you leave them there?
Mr. Crark. With the Commissioner of Fisheries ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Crarxk. Certainly, yes.
The CHATRMAN. Then they are on file in the bureau, are they ?
Mr. Crark. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I mean your original notes.
Mr. CLark. Just what do you mean ?
The CHarrMANn. Your notes as you made them day after day.
Mr. CiarKx. I ran them off on a typewriter in the office up there
and made the necessary copies and filed them right as they stood.
The CHarrMAN. Well, where are your original notes?
Mr. CLark. They are with my report in the Bureau of Fisheries.
The CHarRMAN. You mean the originals, now ?
Mr. Crark. Yes; that is, I made them on the islands with the
typewriter there at hand. When I came in in the evening I wrote
out my notes from the brief jottings taken in shorthand on the rook-
eries as I went along day after day.
The CHarrMANn. But they are not embodied in your report that
you filed ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 433
Mr. Ciarxk. Oh, yes, they are.
The CHarrMan. The appendix is attached to your report?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. Are those your notes as you made them on the
islands ?
Mr. Cuarxk. Yes sir; day after day.
The CuarnMAN. Now Il understand you. The report you made was
directed to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, was it not 4
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
The CoHarrMan. And you made it out just exactly as you discovered
conditions on the islands ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. On page 866 of Appendix A you will notice in
your report the following:
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.
That is correct, is it?
Mr. Cxrark. Yes, sir.
The CuarrmMan. And that is what you stated ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes. Shall I have an opportunity to explain?
The CoarrmMan. Oh, yes. You have answered the question directly
and now you can explain,
Mr. CrarK. The killing of 1909 was close. That is, as compared
with the killing of 1896-97, it was very different and very close, and
it is literally true that there were practically no small seals present
on the hauling grounds when the killing season was over. Now at
that time I was——
The CHarRMAN (interposing). Mr. Clark, just let me suggest to
you that I will ask you other questions about that when we come to
small seals, so we will not get mixed up about it.
Mr. Ciarx. But I want to be sure not to leave that point in that
way.
The Cuarrman. If I forget it you can explain it then.
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
The CHarrMANn. Now then, on page 867 of Appendix A the follow-
ing appears:
li not in name, in fact at least, the leasing company has been in supreme authority
on the islands during the past season.
Is that correct ?
Mr. CrarK. I considered it so.
The CHarrman. You considered it so ?
Mr. Crarx. What
The CHarrMANn (nterposing). Now this is in your report.
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
The CHarrman. As you made it to the Department of Commerce
and Labor.
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
The Cuarrman. Now, have you an explanation to make as to that ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir. The conditions of the lease required the
lessees to provide a physician, a school-teacher and a storekeeper,
and naturally they would have superintendents on the Islands, this
gave them five representatives against the Government’s two. The
52490—_14——_28
434 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
company had five efficient, intelligent, and experienced representa-
tives in charge of their interests while the Government had two
representatives; and I do not wish this statement at all to reflect
upon the Government’s representatives. But they were not in the
majority, and therefore I considered that the control of the leasing
company was supreme to that extent—that they could outvote and
outnumber the Government’s representatives, and it was on that
ground that I objected to the releasing of the islands and to the con-
tinuation of the dual control of the lessees and the Government in
charge of the herd.
The Cuarrman. Then did you consider this was a case of majority
in numbers or of physical force, or what is your idea about that ?
Mr. CLarK. It was not a matter of physical force because the
relations were amicable enough. The company was obeying the
conditions of its lease and there was no real ground for trouble, and
the real point of my criticism in that case was with reference to the
future. As I point out here in my report, with a declining herd this
situation did not cut any figure. The desire of the lessees was to get
every skin they could, with a declining catch and a rising price; but
the herd needing fewer males every year, this was a matter of no
particular moment. If, however, pelagic sealing should stop and
the herd begin to go up, the same forces would be at work and would
occasion a result detrimental to the interests of the herd.
The CHarrmMan. Will you turn to page 888 of Appendix A, which
is pari of your printed report, and on that page the following appears:
As the end of the killing season approaches it is plain that no seal is really too small
to be killed.
and on page 866 of Appendix A you say:
In the eagerness to see that no possible bachelor escapes, the edges of the rookeries
are encroached upon-and cows included in the drives.
Mr. CLrarK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all true, is 1t ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir; subject to the explanation which I want
to be sure to make.
The CHarrMaAn. Yes; you say that is true. What explanation
will you make as to that ?
Mr. Crark. In the first place, with regard to the taking of cows
in the drives, after the 25th of July the breeding season breaks up,
the older bulls withdraw, and the young bulls push their way into
the breeding grounds. There is a period of breaking up which
causes a certain amount of mingling of the seals; that is, the bachelors
are not held off by the barrier of adult bulls, and they come closer
to the breeding ground. Later on, the bachelors mix in with the
cows in those drives, occasionally cows are brought in. This remark
was based on the fact that there were about 8 or 10, or perhaps as
many as 20, cows in this drive.
The CHarrMANn. Were they killed ?
Mr. CLark. They were not killed and they were carefully excluded.
I want to bear testimony to the skill of those natives in distinguishing
those animals, because they were not killed except in accidental cases.
T do not know of any, but there might have been accidental cases.
The Cuargrman. Yes. I did not see that in your report. Now,
is that your explanation of that matter ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 4385
Mr. Crark. Yes. Now, as to the young seals
The CHarrMaAn. All right; you can explain that now.
Mr. Crarx. When I say that all of the seals that appeared on the
hauling grounds were killed, | mean merely that all of the two-year-
old animals were included in the quota of 1909, or practically all of
them. Of course, I do not say all of them reached the islands, but
such as were taken. I do not mean that yearlings were killed dis-
tinctly. At that time I was not absolutely sure of my position in
that matter. You will note I have stated here in my 1909 report, at
the bottom of page 853:
For the season of 1909 there is every indication that the lessees have taken every
available bachelor above the age of 1 year, with the exception of the marked reserve.
That is my statement and decision after consideration of all the
factors entering into the problem. Now the question has been raised
on the basis of a remark made on page 851, that I declare there that
yearlings were killed in 1909. The critical point in that statement
is this:
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 CuarrMan. Then why did you say a little while ago that no
yearlings were killed ?
Mr. Crarx. I did not mean to say that out and out.
The Cuarrman. Is it not a fact that yearlings were killed? Is not
that your statement now ?
Mr. Crark. I wish to explain that.
The Coarrman. Answer first yes or no and then explain it.
Mr. Crarx. A few yearlings were killed, yes. Now I would lke
to call your attention to page 875, which is the basis for that remark.
The CHarrMan. Now just go on and explain it, but I think I will
cover that pretty well as we go along. On page 893 of Appendix
A
Mr. Ciarx (interposing). Could we look at 875 so as not to miss the
connection ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Crarx. At the bottom of page 875 is a table which gives the
weights of skins for the seasons of 1904, 1905, 1907, 1908, and 1909.
You will note there was one skin weighing 3? pounds in 1907. There
were 5 skins in 1904, 17 in 1905, 3 in 1907, and 5 in 1908, that weighed
4 pounds. There were 6 skins in 1904, 33 in 1905, 2 in 1907, 17 in
1908, 1 in 1909, that weighed 44 pounds.
Mr. Parron. That was 44 pounds, was it not?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes; 44. Thirty-two in 1904, 106 in 1905, 15.in 1907,
13 in 1908, and 2 in 1909 weighed 44 pounds; 72 in 1904, 139. in 1905,
2 in 1907, 3 in 1908 and 13 in 1909 weighed 4%. Now those were
yearlings. I admit that, and there is the number, about 500 in 5
years.
The Cuairman. Now, Mr. Clark, you say you give the weights in
your table ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. Those were taken from the island records.
The CuarrmMan. They were taken from the record as made by the
Government agents and the sealing company ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
436 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CoHarrmMan. You took it from that and from nothing else?
Mr. Cuiarxk. Well, I considered that official, of course.
The CHatrMAN. Well, I mean you did not examine them and you
did not weigh the skins, did you ?
Mr. Cuark. I was present at the weighing of the skins of 1909.
The CuartrMan. Did you then take the report of the agents?
Mr. CLarK. Yes.
_The CuHatrMan. And that is where you get this table?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir; but what I want to make clear at this point
is this: We will admit that about 500 skins in the five years were below
the weight of 5 pounds, which was the legal weight. It was the
ntent of the regulations that the killing should not be below 5 pounds.
Now, might I explain further what I consider the reasons for the
killing of those animals ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; you can explain anything you like.
Mr. Crark. The law does not prohibit th2 killing of yearlings. It
says, ‘‘Animals under one year,’”’ but the regulations have fixed a
minimum limit at various times. In 1896-97 the limit was 6 pounds,
in 1904 it was 54 pounds, and since 1906 it has been 5 pounds. The
reason for fixing 5 pounds as a limit of 2-year-old skins, or the limit
below which yearlings would be taken, was that Mr. Henry W. Elliott
in 1872-1874 established 44 pounds as the average weight of a yearling
sealskin. Four and one-half has been considered as the average of
skins ranging from 4 pounds to 5 pounds; in other words, 5 pounds
is the maximum weight, or 4 pounds and 15 ounces, of a yearling
skin. That is why 5 pounds has been fixed as the minimum limit of
killing, because that limit is supposed to protect the yearlings fully.
This statement of weights of skins, which nobody has questioned——
The CHArRMAN (interposing). Why not leave the standard at 6
pounds? That would be better protection, would it not?
Mr. CLrarx. No; that would merely mean that the 2-year-olds
were protected as well as the yearlings.
The Cuarrman. Then why not leave it at 6 pounds? Why reduce
it to 5 pounds ?
Mr. CrarKk. Because there is no reason why 2-year-olds should not
be killed.
The Cuarrman. Why should it not stay at 54 pounds, then?
Mr. Crarx. Well, I do not know.
The CHarrMan. But you ought to know. You gave us your ex-
planation as to why this reduction was made. Why not leave it at
54 pounds ?
Mr. Crark. I suppose the intention was to get all the 2-year-olds.
The CuarrMan. And no yearlings ?
Mr. Crark. No yearlings, because no yearlings would be taken
until you got below 5 pounds.
The CHarrMaAn. How about blubber? If you put blubber on it
would make it easier for them to weigh 53 pounds.
Mr. Crark. Of course; that matter of blubber, I do not agree to
that.
The CuarrMan. But if the skins were blubbered, that would make
the skin of a small seal weigh 53 pounds.
Mr. Crarx. No; the blubber on the skin of a large seal, would be in
proportion. It would not make a particle of difference in the amount
of blubber or the ability to put blubber on or take it off.
6
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 437
The CoarRMAN. But it would make a difference in the weights,
would it not?
Mr. Crarx. It would make a difference in proportion. If you put
additional blubber on a big skin, it would be just that much heavier,
and if you put blubber on a little skin it would be that much heavier.
The CuarrmMan. Did you know that Carlisle had issued regulations
that were in force on the islands in 1896 prohibiting the killing of
yearling seals ?
Mr. CrarK. No; I was not aware in 1896-97 of that fact.
The CuHatrMan. Do you know now about those reculations on the
islands ?
Mr. Crarxk. I know it from the last hearing only.
The CHarrmMan. And that also provided that no seal weighing less
than six pounds should be killed.
Mr. Cirark. That was for the year 1896 alone. That is specifically
stated to be for the year 1896 alone, as will be seen by the document
itself.
The CHarrmMan. Then you know that was limited to 1896 ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes; I know it was also enforced. Although we knew
nothing of the Carlisle rules, we were definitely informed that no
kallng under 6 pounds was allowed, and as we knew that the average
skin of a yearling was 44 pounds, we knew that protected not only
the yearlings, but-a large part of the 2-year-olds.
The CHarrMan. Is it not your judgment, Mr. Clark, that a 6-pound
limit would be a better protection than a 5-pound limit?
Mr. Ciark. No, itis not. It would offer no protection to anything
except the 2-year-old animals. Of course if you want to except the
2-year-old animals from killing 6 pounds would be your limit.
The CHarrMANn. Then it was later reduced to 54 pounds?
Mr. Crark. It was reduced to 54 pounds in 1904.
The CearrMan. That was after the Hitchcock rules were in force ?
Mr. Crark. That was the Hitchcock ruie.
The CuarrmMan. Did that prohibit the killing of any seals weighing
less than 5 pounds or 6 pounds or 54 pounds?
Mr. Ciarx. Five and one-half pounds. It prohibited the killing of
any animal that had a skin of less than 54 pounds.
The CuarrMan. Is it not your judgment that that standard should
prevail as a matter of safety ?
Mr. Crarx. Not necessarily at all.
The CHarrman. Would it not be an easier matter to put a little
more blubber to a skin and make it weigh 54 pounds, if it was the skin
of a yearling ?
ue CiarKk. Of course, as a physical fact it would be easier to do
that.
The CHarrMan. Is it not your opinion as an expert that that is so?
Mr. Crarx. Well, I will admit that, but I want to finish my ex-
planation about the yearlings first.
The CuarrmMan. I know you are explaining that and f am asking
you these questions as you go along.
Mr. CrarK. Yes.
The Coatrman. Now, when was the weight reduced or by whom
was it reduced to 5 pounds?
Mr. Crarx. It was reduced by the regulations issued by the depart-
ment in 1906.
438 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHartrMANn. Do the Hitchcock rules prohibit the killing of
yearling seals ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
The CuatirMan. And no other regulations subsequent thereto has
prohibited the killing of yearling seals ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir; the regulations in 1896 prohibited the killing
of yearlings, and so did those of 1906.
The CHairMAN. | said subsequent to the Hitchcock rules. There
were no regulations prohibiting the killing of yearlings subsequent
to the Hitchcock rules. They called them the Hitchcock rules.
I mean the regulations that were issued in 1904-05.
Mr. Crark. In 1906 the weight of skin was reduced to 5 pounds.
The CHarrMAn. Yes, but the rules for 1904 and 1905 prohibited
the killing of yearling seals.
Mr. Cuarx. Oh, yes.
The CHarrman. After that the killing of yearlings was left out of
the regulations and the weight limit was fixed merely.
Mr. Clark. No; there has always been a weight limit.
The CuHarrman. I know, but the killing of yearlings was left out
subsequently.
Mr. Crark. I am not aware of that. I understood it had always
stood in the regulations.
Mr. Patron. You understood that instead of yearlings it said any-
thing under 5 pounds ?
Mr. Crarx. I would like to explain about that.
The CuarrMan. We will clear this up. I only want to find out
what you know about it. After the Hitchcock rules distinctly pro-
hibited the killing of yearlings and provided that no seal should be
lalled except at certain weights, the regulations merely provided that
no seal should be killed weighing so much and left the word ‘‘year-
lings” out ?
Mr. CLarx. I do not understand it so at all. Of course, I do not
carry all those regulations in my head. I have read them over. I
understood the yearlings were protected by specific reference right
straight through in the regulations.
The CuarrMan. Do you consider that the killing of yearlings was
prohibited in 1909 ?
Mr. Criarx. Certainly.
The CHarRMAN. Yearling seals ?
Mr. CrarKk. Yes, sir; prohibited by the fact that we were not
allowed to take skins of less than 5 pounds. Now, I want to explain
that nobody can tell a yearling. We are talking about yearlings and
everybody had been talking about yearlings on the islands, but you
can not tell a yearling fur seal from a 2-year-old any more than you
can go out on the street and distinguish between a 3 and 4 year old
child that you see.
ae CHAIRMAN. Can you not distinguish a yearling from a 2-year-
old?
Mr. CLark. You can by size; that is, you can say that the smallest
animal you see is a yearling, but if on the next day you see a smaller
animal you must revise your judgment.
The CuarrMan. Now, is it not a fact that an expert can easily tell
a yearling as distinguished from a 2-year-old ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 439)
Mr. CLark. No, sir. I have looked at thousands and thousands cf
them, and I can not do it.
The CuarrMan. Do you say under oath that that is a fact ?
Mr. Crarx. I do, if you will put it in this way——
The CHarrMan (interposing). You can see that they are smaller,
can you not?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; but if a smaller animal appears the next day after
I have fixed my judgment on the first small animal, the next smaller
animal that comes along is the yearling, and my judgment is thrown
into confusion.
The CoarrmMan. How much larger is a 2-year-old than a yearling?
Mr. CruarK. Mr. Elliott has fixed
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Not what he has fixed, but what is
your judgment ?
Mr. CrarKk. I have not had great opportunity of dealing with
yearlings.
The CHarrMAN. But you wrote me a letter and stated you had
remarkable knowledge as a sealing expert, and it seems to me the com-
mittee would like to know what your judgment is about that.
Mr. Crark. All right; I will give you my definite judgment on the
basis of the experiment in branding which I was permitted to carry
outin 1912. Asaresult of that we snared a branded animal on Reef
rookery during this past summer, I think about the 26th of July, and
measured it, and it measured 364 inches in length, I would have meas-
ured others of them, but as they are very much like wild cats to handle,
and as I got very nearly bitten in the face by one through the native let-
ting go of it, [ceased getting the tests in that way. We did get one
branded yearling, however, and that is the only yearling anybody
could swear to who has ever had any connection with the fur-seal
islands.
The CHarrMan. Then you do not know a thing about it?
Mr. CrarK. I know that.
The CuarrMaN. That is a particular instance; but as an expert
can you tell the difference between a seal 2 years old and aseal 1 year
old if you saw the two of them ?
Mr. Ciarx. No; I could not.
The CuarrMan. Then that ends it.
Mr. Criarx. Let me say this. I could ask you, Mr. Rothermel,
whether you could distinguish between two children you met on the
eee
The CHarRMAN (interposing). That is no comparison at all, and
besides I am not under examination. Do not talk about makin
comparisons like that when you tell the committee you can not tell
the difference between yearling and 2-year-old seals.
Mr. Crark. In my own ease, I could not go out on the street and
distinguish between two children of those ages.
Mr. McGuire. Can anybody else ?
Mr. CrarK. I should say that nobody else could.
Mr. Watsu. What is the maximum age or life of a seal?
Mr. Crarx. Well, we have very definite knowledge that the average
adult life of a seal is 13 or 14 years.
Mr. Watsu. Would not that make quite a distinction between the
age of a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old seal as compared with a 2-year-old
440 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
and a 1-year-old child, when the age of man is from 1 to 100, and the
age of a seal from 1 to 132
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. Watsu. The growth per year is much greater ?
Mr. Crarxk. There is very little distinction in a seal between the
age of 1 and 3 years. It is in the fourth year that the male be =
to shoot up into the tremendous frame which the adult bull
For the first three years the difference is very slight indeed. It =
recognized by the standard fixed that the average skin of a yearling
weighs 44 pounds and the average skin of a 2-year-old is only 54
ounds, and the average skin of a 3-year-old is 7 pounds. So Hae
1S very ‘little difference in the size of those animals until they are 3
years old.
Mr. Patron. Professor, your assertion then is on the strength of
the fact that there is very little variance between a 1 and 2 year old
seal, and therefore it is hard to distinguish them ?
Mr. CLarx. Yes. [would not want to swear to it myself and I do
not believe anyone could conscientiously swear to it. That would be
my judgment. I want to say that the Government, although the
law and the department’s regulations have mentioned yearlings, has
never depended on anybody’s distinguishing yearlings and 2-year-
olds. It has supplemented the regulations by stating that no skin
under the weight of 54 pounds, or “under the weight of 6 pounds, or
under the w eight of 5 pounds, or above the weight of 83 pounds,
shall be taken, and those weights have been the governing factors in
dealing with the killing. They recognize the fact that nobody can
distinguish a yearling seal, and so the yearling seal is protected by
requiring the agents to not take skins under 5 pounds.
‘he Cuarrman. Now, Mr. Clark, if you can not tell by looking at
the seals what is a yearling and what is not a yearling why did you put
this table in your report ?
Mr. CLark. You mean-—
The CHarRMAN (contin): Telling us how many yearlings were
taken and how many seals of different ages were killed ?
Mr. CrarK. If I may-
The CHAIRMAN Golercesne No; just tell us why you state that.
You say you can not tell the difference between a seal 2 years old and
a seal I year old and yet you endeavor here to give us in minute detail
aie many seals were killed 1 year old, 2 years old, and of different
ages and at different times ?
"Mr. Crank. This table, at page 875, is simply a record of the
weights of skins as taken in the efforts of the agents to conform to the
Heilations by which they were governed, and in these instances I
have pointed out they have failed to meet the regulations; that is all.
The Cuarrman. But this is the question: If as you said a moment
ago, no man can tell the difference why i is it you make out a table here
to the Government stating how many yearlings were killed under your
observation ?
Mr. Crarx. I do not recall that I stated that these were yearlings
at all.
The CHArRMAN. You submitted a table ?
Mr. CLark. I have simply recorded what the agents reported to the
Government. These are not matters I had anything to do with.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 441
The CHarrMANn. Now, just answer my question. Did you not say
a while ago and tell us how many yearlings were in this table that you
reported to the Government? Didn’t you do that? é
Mr. Crarx. I pointed out the number of skins which I am willing
to admit were skins from yearling animals.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, if no man can tell the difference, why did
you make such a report ?
Mr. Cuark. Because these skins are under the maximum weight of
yearling skins.
The CHarRMAN. You depended on the weight entirely, did you not ?
Mr. CLrark. Yes; everybody has to depend on the weight. That
is the only thing you can depend on.
The CuarrMan. Now, turn to page 893.
Mr. CrarKk. I want to add here by way of further explanation how
I consider these yearlings came to be killed. In the first place, the
regulations distinguish between food killings and coEaier cial killings;
and in the case of the food killmgs even pups could be killed—that 1s,
animals of any age could be killed in food killing, and the natives like
the smaller animals. They are plumper, they are fatter, and the
meat is juicier and better. Now, when you have a food killing on
hand it is almost impossible to keep the natives from killing little
seals. That accounts for a certain number of them. These skins
are from food killings as well as from commercial killings. . Now,
another factor enters into that. In the work of killing the clubber
has to distinguish the age of the animal by the weight of the skin
that the living animal carries. ;
The CHarRMAN. So, if he kills a small seal and finds out afterwards
he has killed a yearlmg——
Mr. CLarx (interposing). It is an accident. Suppose he is hitting
at a big seal and strikes a small one on the head, he can not recall his
act, and thatis an accident. But he may also make an error of judg-
ment. He may see the head of an animal that looks big enough for
a 2-year-old and hit it and then it may develop to be a yearling. I
want to call attention to the fact that in this table are given only
about 500 seals out of a considerable total of animals. They are not
figured out here, but on page 504 of hearing No. 10, you will find a
table which gives the individual weights of the sealskins taken for the
years 1904 to 1911, 93,323, and of that number exactly 711 are
under the weight of 5 pounds. We will admit then that 711 of those
animals might have been yearlings, but no more; and if you can find
a cattle range where the cowboys in rounding up and taking care of
93,000 cattle, make as few mistakes through killing of small animals
or accidental killing, I confess I would be surprised. The point is,
very few accidents have occurred. The errors of judgment are a
negligible quantity and the whole thing is an admirable recommen-
dation to the vigilance of the agents in controlling the natives in their
work of clubbing the seals because they are forced to meet a limit
that is fixed by the weight of a skin on a living animal.
The CHarrman. Mr. Clark, if the London catalogues should state
there were about 7,000 small pups and extra small pups killed in
1909, would you still adhere to your opinion ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. What is the size of a small pup and an extra small
pup as noted in the London catalogues ?
‘
442 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
‘Mr. Cuark. The size of a small pup, which is a 2-year-old animal,
is given in the list of animals in the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration
The CuarrMAn. One moment. Answer my question first and then
you can make your comment. If the London catalogues state that
there were about 7,000 small pups and extra small pups lilled, were
they yearling seals, or not? P
Mr. Cuark. They were not.
The CHarRMAN. They were not yearling seals ?
‘Mr. Crarx. Not in my judgment.
The CHarrMAan. Do not those catalogues classify them according
to sizes ?
Mr. Crarx. Well, they do, yes; and also
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). One moment. If the skins in those
catalogues were recorded here by the agents on the seal islands as
weighing the same and afterwards it was discovered they were
smaller skins in London, that would argue that you were mistaken in
saying there were no yearling seals killed. Just answer that ques-
tion. Would not that show you were mistaken ?
Mr. Cuark. [ want to get clear what the question is.
The CHarrMAN. My recollection is that the London catalogues for
the catch of 1909 state that about 7,000 small pups and extra small
pups were taken in 1909; and if they were recorded as weighing as
much in the Bureau of Fisheries as the larger skins then you must
be mistaken about the killing of yearlings, because you depended on
the weights here, did you not ?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. Then if there were smaller skins, you were mis-
taken about the statement you made a moment ago, were you not?
Mr. Crarx. I do not believe there were smaller skins.
The CaarrMANn. But if the catalogues state that ?
Mr. Crark. The London catalogue does not give any measure-
ments that I have ever seen.
The CHarrMan. I say now to you that if the London catalogues
provide for that, then ts it not a fact that you are mistaken ?
» Mr. Crark. I do-not see it that way, Mr. Rothermel. I can not
understand why the statement that I have made, that only animals
under 5 pounds can be considered as yearlings, interferes with the
catalogue of the London sales.
The Cuarrman. I repeat my question. My information is that of
the catch of 1909 about 7,000 are noted in the London catalogues as
small pups and extra small pups, but that the weights were recorded
the same in the Bureau of Fisheries, as weighing as much as 2-year-
olds and over. Now, if those facts are true, then you must be mis-
taken; is not that so?
Mr. Crank. I can not admit those facts.
The CoarrMan. But if those facts are true—you are an expert.
Mr. CrarKk. That is a hypothetical question and I want to deal
with facts. Ido not want to talk here about hypothetical conditions.
I have never been to London.
The Cuarrman. I am asking you a question about the catch of
1909. You were sent up as an expert to make the examination.
Now, it is for you to explain that difference.
Mr. CiarK. Well, may I do it with the material I have at hand
here ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 443
The CHarrMan. No; I want you to answer the question and you
ean explain afterwards.
Mr. Crarxk. Well, I confess that I do not understand. That is a
suppositious case, and it doesn’t seem to me possible for me to make
a direct answer to it.
The CHarrMAN. You know the London classifications, do you not ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes; I do.
The CHarrMan. And you know that some are large pups and some
are small pups and some are extra small pups, do you not ?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes.
The CuarrMANn. And it depends on the different sizes of the skins,
does it not?
Mr. Cuark. Yes.
The CuarrMANn. They do it according to the sizes ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. But that depends upon the different sizes of the
skins, does it not?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarRMAN. They do it according to the sizes.
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. Now, if the extra small pups and the small pups
were recorded as being 2 or 3 years old in the Bureau of Fisheries,
then there is an inconsistency in that, is there not?
Mr. Cuarx. They are not, to my knowledge——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). But if they are?
Mr. Ciarxk. Of course, we will admit that if they are, then there is
some mistake.
The CHarrMan. And you depended only on the weights of the
skins ?
Mr. CrarKk. Oh, I have before me both the London and the island
weights, and they do not disagree.
The CuHarrMAN. Is that for 1909?
Mr. CyarKk. For 1910.
The CHairman. How about 1909?
Mr. CrarK. I do not know.
Mr. Watkins. As I understand the witness, he says both weights.
Mr. CiarK. I said the London and the island weights agree for the
catch of 1910.
The CuarrmMan. No, but you said a while ago that they do it by
size and not by weight, and here you say you do it by weight.
Mr. Crarx. Yes, but the London people have to supply us with
weights to interpret their sizes. That is the point that is controlling
me. All that I know of the London size is obtained from the report
which the London firms made at the time of the Paris Tribunal of
Arbitration, containing the trade designations. Might I have the
opportunity to develop this question from my report where I dis-
cussed the matter ?
The CHairnMaAn. I think you have answered the question, but what
do you want to say further?
Mr. Crarx. The London standard of weights is given at page 917
of volume 8 of the Proceedings of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration.
You know the London designations are trade designations for small
ups
: The CuHarrMAN (interposing). Is that 1910?
444 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. CuiarxK. No; it is 1893.
The CHarRMAN. Oh, we have just gone over 1909, and I will tell
you the reason, and the committee also: If the sealing company took
about 7,000 seals in violation of the regulations, in 1909, they simply
took about $250,000 worth of Government property that belonged to
the United States in the fcllowing year, so that it is very important
that you tell the exact truth, because you were the agent sent up there
by the Government. It is very apparent to everybody that in 1910
the sealing company had no longer any right to take seals. If they
had cleaned up the young seals in 1909, which they had no right to do,
it would be only right for them to pay back to the Government the
amount of damage they did. Now I say this because you were the
agent for the Government to go there to make this examination, and
if they took the Government property in 1910 we ought to know it.
Mr. Crarx. Might I state that I do not believe they did? I think
they cleaned up the hauling ground but I do not say that they took
property that ought to have been left for the next year, because in
the next year they got a quota practically the same as the year before.
The CuarrMan. That is only because they had a similar quota the
next year ?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes.
The Cuarrman. And that is your only explanation ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, turn to page 893
Mr. CLark (interposng). Can we return to the London weights, so
that I can discuss the weights of 1910?
The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are on 1909.
Mr. CLtark. We have no London weights or measurements for the
1909 skins.
The CHarRMAN. Very well, then, we will pass that. I prefer to go
on with this point because of the reasons I have stated.
Mr. Macurre. I know; but it will be with the understanding that
he may return to that subject later.
The CuarrMan. Yes. Suppose you turn to page 866 of your report
in Appendix A. I call your attention to the following:
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.
Is that correct ?
Mr. CLiarx. Yes, sir.
The CHAarRMAN. Then, on page 892, I find the following:
The drive from Zapadni this morning gives 585 skins. It is the largest drive from
this rookery for this season. Those killed constitute 79 per cent of all the animals
driven. Only 39, too small, are turned back. The closeness of the driving is evident
from the fact that 10 cows are recognized; 2 are accidentally killed.
That is correct ?
Mr. Ciark. I recall the killing of those two cows, and I suppose
that is
The CHArRMAN (interposing). Well, that is in your report.
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir; it is.
The CHarrMAN. You were on the islands in 1896 and 1897 ?
Mr. CLtark. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. With the Fur Seal Commission ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 445
The CuarrMan. And you say you did not discover the Carlisle
regulations while you were up there?
Ir. CLARK. We were informed merely that the limit of killing was 6
pounds. That is all. JI never heard of the Carlisle regulations until
after the publication of this last hearing. We understood that
Assistant Secretary Hamlin had issued directions that no skin under
the weight of 6 pounds should be taken, and we were well enough
satisfied that that condition was met.
The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the record of Special Agent Lemp-
key’s sworn testimony before this committee February 19 and April
13, 1912, m Hearing No. 92
Mr. CrarK. I do not recall the specific reference.
The Cuarrman. Have you ever measured the skin of a yearling
seal ?
Mr. CLarxk. No; I have not.
a CHAIRMAN. Have you ever measured the skin of a 2-year-old
seal?
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
The CHarrman. How long are they ?
Mr. Crark. Well, they vary very greatly. For instance, here
are 205 of them. The average length of a green 2-year-old is 32.1
inches; the average girth is 22.4 inches. After being in salt for 10
days the average length of a skin was 36.1 inches, and the average
girth was 24.1 inches.
The CHarrMAN. Now, that is your judgment about the size of the
skin of a yearling seal?
Mr. Ciarxk. That is the actual record.
Mr. McGurre. Of the yearling seal ?
Mr. CuarK. No; of the 2-year-old. I said we have not had the
privilege of seeing yearlings killed or having measured them. I went
to call attention to the fact that this record of 2-year-old skins, which
is 32 inches, is below the record which Mr. Elliott has fixed for the
yearling, which is 30 to 34 inches.
Mr. McGuire. Then you say that that is the size of a 2-year-old
seal ?
Mr. CrarK. That is the size of the 2-year-old seal.
Mr. McGutre. Thirty-two inches ?
Mr. CiarK. Thirty-two inches; length of green skin, I mean.
Mi. McGuire. Yes.
Mr. CLarxk. We took 205 of these animals, knocked them down
and measured them as animals. We have here the length from nose
to root of tail and girth behind the shoulders, the individual animal
weight, the green-skin length, the green-skin breadth, and the green-
skin weight. Then we have the salted weight and measurement,
length and breadth. That is all outlined in my report of 1912.
Mr. McGuire. Who assisted you in this?
Mr. CuarK. Mr. M. C. Marsh and Mr. Walter I. Lembkey.
Mr. McGuire. How do you know they were 2-year-old seals ?
Mr. CLark. Because we obeyed the regulations, which say
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Well, but how do you know it? A
while ago you said you could not tell it.
Mr. Crarx. I said I could not distinguish between a 2-year-old
and a yearling ?
The CaatrMAn. Yes.
446 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. But it is well recognized that the weight of a 2-year-old
is 54 pounds. That is the standard.
The CmarrmMan. What is the standard weight of the yearling seal ?
Mr. Ctark. Four and one-half pounds. The average weight of
these skins was 5.9 pounds, and therefore they were above the 2-year-
old average weight. These 205 skins weighed 5 pounds and about
14 ounces on the average.
The CoHarrman. How much blubber was on the skins?
_ Mr. CLrarxg. A normal amount. They were skinned in the normal
way, under our inspection.
Mr. Warxtins. The witness has made a statement there about
the difference of 1 pound in the seals. I would like to have him
state whether it is dry, green, salted, or unsalted ?
Mr. Crark. That is the weight of a green skin.
Mr. Warxrys. What is the difference between a green skin, a dry
skin, salted, or unsalted ?
Mr. CrarKk. The salted skin weighs slightly less. This demon-
stration was intended to settle the effect of salting on the weight of
askin. We weighed the skins and then put them in salt, and after
they had been in salt for 10 days we again weighed them individually
and we found they averaged 5.4, that is, they averaged a difference
of 0.4 of a pound, which would be 6.4 ounces, so that the average
depreciation in each of these 205 skins was 6.4 ounces.
The Coarrman. Now, is that all?
Mr. WATKINS. Yes, sir.
The CHarrman. Now, will you turn to page 888, Appendix “A”’,
your report of 1909 ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
The CHarrMan. The following appears:
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
ounds. These latter are plainly animals which escaped the killing of last year
ecause their heads were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem clear how they did
escape.
Is that correct ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes.
The CuarrMANn. That you saw on the island ?
Mr. CLark. Yes; of course
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Now, then, return to page 890, Ap-
pendix ‘‘A,’”’ your report, and under date of July 26, I think, while
you were on the islands, the following appears:
There are no bachelors on Tolstoi and there have been none since the 20th. It looks
as if the supply was exhausted.
And on page 891 of the same report appears the following:
The drive at Northeast Point this morning yielded 187 skins. Only three animals
too small to be killed were turned back. Polovina Rookery gave only 16 skins, and
no animals too small to be killed were turned back.
Is that correct ?
Mr. CLarKk. Those are facts.
The CHarrMAN. Then you noticed the difference in the size of the
animals, did you not? This was your report and you made it on the
26th of July !
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 447
Mr. Crark. Yes; the distinction between small and large ani-
mals
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You say you made these daily re-
ports, and you must have made them from observations.
Mr. Crarx. Well, when there are no small animals left, that is a
different thing from saying that there are no yearlings left.
The CHarRMAN. On page 892, under date of July 28, the following
appears:
In making the drive from the reef and Gorbatch this morning the drivers must have
pressed the breeding grounds closely as a considerable number of cows, 14 at least,
were included. These were for the most part recognized and exempted by the club-
bers, but two adult cows in milk were killed by accident. Most of the cows were
young animals—2-year-olds.
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
The CHarrMaAn. On page 892 under date of July 30, in the same
_ report, the following appears:
The drive from Zapadni this morning gives 585 skins. It is the largest drive from
this rookery for this season. Those killed constitute 79 per cent of all the animals
driven. Only 39, too small, are turned back. The closeness of the driving is evident
from the fact that 10 cows are recognized; two are accidentally killed. One bachelor
with a St. George identification mark (three clipped spots on the shoulders as well as
the head shaved) is seen.
nat is also correct ?
Mr. CiarkK. Yes; sir.
The CHarrMan. Now, why did you say that these cows were acci-
dentally killed ?
Mr. CLarx. Because every effort possible was being made to avoid
the killing of any cow that might be in the drive, and I might say that
the natives felt about as they would over the killing of one of their
own people if a cow was killed. They were very much affected and
felt very bad about it. I considered their killing was accidental.
The CHarrMan. Did you not also state that the lessees were
without restraint so far as this driving was concerned ?
Mr. CxLarK. I do not think f did.
The CuarrMan. You may look into that and let the committee
know.
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMANn. On page 868, Appendix “‘A,” your report, you
make this statement: ,
It is wasteful to take skins of 44 and 5 pounds which if left a season will gain 1 to 2
pounds in weight and will be more serviceable.
That is also correct, is it not ?
Mr. Crarxk. Well, may I explain in regard to that, briefly ¢
The CuarrMan. Certainly.
Mr. CLarK. The skin, of course, is larger at the age of 3 and will
bring a bigger price. So far as the Government was concerned it
made absolutely no difference because the Government got its tax
of $10 on every skin whether it was from a yearling or a 2-year-old
or a 4-year-old, and that is all it could get.
The CHarrMAN. Would you apply that to 19092
Mr. CxyarK. Well, that is a different matter, that was 1909, the
last year of the North American Commercial Co.’s lease and each
skin brought $10, the regular royalty tax fixed by the lease.
448 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrMAN. But according to the regulations, any seal taken
under 2 years of age was really the property of the Government
and the lessees had nothing to do with it.
Mr. CtarKk. Every seal under 2 years old ?
The CuairMan. I mean the yearling seal.
Mr. CLrarK. There were very few
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Iam asking you that; uf the company
took any yearling seals in 1909 they were clearly the property of the
United States Government because they were not ae the regula-
tions.
Mr. Crarxk. That would require a legal interpretation.
The CHarrMAN. But do you not know that the regulations prohibit
the killing of any seal under 2 years old?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; and I know that no yearling seals were killed
except by accident or unintentionally.
The CHarRMAN. You say that now, in spite of what you say in.
your report to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor under the
authority of the United States Government.
: ae Ciark. My report states that for 1909, 16 yearling seals were
illed.
Mr. Warxins. What do you mean by yearling seals ?
Mr. CrarK. A seal that has come back—that was born one year
and has come back to the islands the second season.
Mr. Warxins. You mean anything under 2 years old?
Mr. CrarK. Yes; that would be a yearling, but for the season of
1909 only 16 animals are recorded as under the regulation weight.
The CHarRMAN. Gentlemen, it is nearly 12 o’clock and I suppose
Mr. Clark would like to get away as soon as possible. Shall we
take a recess until to-morrow morning at half past 10?
By unanimous consent the committee agreed to continue hearing
Mr. Clark at 2 o’clock p. m.
2 O'CLOCK P. M.
The committee met pursuant to recess at 2 o’clock, p. m.
The CuarrMan. Mr. Clark, you said this morning that you were
made special assistant by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You were paid by the Government ?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; I was paid by the Bureau of Fisheries.
The CHarrMAN. How much compensation did you receive ?
Mr. CLrarKx. The same compensation that I received at the univer-
versity.
The CaarrMan. Well, how much is that ?
Mr. Cuark. Two hundred and fifty dollars a month. I claimed
that simply because I had to supply my place.
The CHarRMAN. Yes; I wanted to ask you that this morning but
I overlooked it.
Mr. Crark. I was not clear about my instructions this morning
and I did not make myself clear. I would like to state that they
will be found at page 829 in the beginning of my report. I incorpo-
rate them in the beginning paragraph of my report, and I should lke
to read them.
The CHarmMan. What is to be found there ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 449
Mr. Cuark. The instructions under which, | worked in 1909. The
quotation is this, page 829 of Appendix A:
* * * Tt is important that certain observations and investigations made by the
fur-seal commission of 1896-97 be repeated: in order that a, comparative estimate. be
made of the condition of the herd at the present time as related to the condition
obtaining in 1896-97. The main elements of the comparative investigation would:
include the following: A census of the breeding herd; a count of live pups on certain
areas; a count of idle bulls, half bulls, etc.; a count or estimate of the virgin females;
a count of dead pups, etc. Your acquaintance with the problems. involved, gained.
through your active participation in all the work of 1896-97, will enable you to deter-
mine the scope and details of the observations to be made this year, and these are left
to your judgment. You are authorized to confer with the chairman of the advisory
board. and to conduct the investigations in a manner which, will result in the securing
of the desired data, always bearing in mind, however, that no unnecessary disturbance
of the rookeries must be permitted. * * * Upon your return from the islands
you will prepare a detailed report embodying the results of your observations and
your recommendations based thereon.
The CHarRMAN. Those were your instructions ?
Mr. CrarKx. Those were my instructions. Mr. Chairman, you
asked me about the question of whether the killing of 1909 was with-
out restraint or not. I would like to make the statement regarding
that now. I inferred you wished me to refresh my memory and. to
make the statement. I should like to make it now. On page S68
of Appendix A is this statement:
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 practi-
cally all of the bachelors appearing on the hauling grounds.
On page 867 I said:
Ti not in name, in fact at least the leasing company has been in supreme authority
on the Islands during the past season.
In the next paragraph I state:
This authority, actual or assumed, has a practical bearing of importance. The
levees had the right to take 15,000 skins. They failed to get this number by 632
8 Ss.
Then I refer to certain incidents that might have affected the com-
pleting of that quota, and then conclude:
These acts together with my investigations of the rookeries might easily be made
the basis of a claim for damages resulting from the failure to obtain the full quota.
Now, the purpose of those statements was to express my opinion
as an expert that it was not wise that the Government should have
this dual authority of lessees and its own agents on the islands. In
other words, it should not have to consider whether the rights and
privileges of lessees were interfered with if it wanted to take action in
regard to the protection of the herd at any point. That was the sole
purpose of raising those points. With five men to two a crisis might
arise in which the Government’s interests might have to succumb to
the superior force of the lessees’ representatives. Now, I did not
imply in any way that such a situation existed—that is, that the
authority of the Government was not completely maintained. In
the season of 1909 the killing was conducted in accordance with the
regulations and the legal quota authorized by the department was
not exceeded.
I point out on page 867 again:
These matters are pointed out merely to show the anomalous situation induced by
the present division of authority between the Government representatives and those
of the company on the islands and in dealing with the herd.
53490—_14_29 ‘
450 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Now, in the last paragraph on page 867 I said:
The present lease has expired. In the ordinary course of events a new one should
be negotiated in time for next season.
The law was mandatory. We had to concede that a lease would
be required. I said:
With pelagic sealing still in operation, and no immediate prospect of its suspension,
there being doubt also as to what quota, if any, may be obtainable for next year, it is
not clear how any company or individual can intelligently bid on a 20-year lease
or a lease covering any considerable period. A bid on such a lease would be purely a
speculation.
The CHatrMAN. Then you were in favor of re-leasing the islands?
Mr. Crark. I was not. This is all intended to stop the re-leasing
of the islands.
The Cuarrman. Did you not read there to the effect that it ought
to be done ?
Mr. CrarKk. I say that ‘‘in the ordinary course of events a new
lease should be negotiated in time for next season.’”’ It was man-
datory upon the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to re-lease the
islands.
The CHatrMANn. The law uses the word ‘‘may”’ and not “‘shall.”’
Mr. CiarK. Mr. Nagel considered it so.
The CHarrman. But the word ‘‘may”’ was used and not the word
“ shall. )
Mr. Crank. What I want to make clear here is that I was arguing
against the lease on the basis of my knowledge as an expert and of the
needs of the herds.
The CHarrman. It seems to me that you suggest there that there
ought to be a re-lease.
Mr. CirarK. Well, perhaps the word ‘“‘should” is unfortunate. If
there is any fault it hes in the use of the word ‘‘should.”
The CaarrMan. Now if there was trouble by reason of a majority
or a superior number, why did you not report that to the Secretary ?
Mr. Cxiark. I tried to state that in my report in these passages I
have read.
The CHarrmMan. Where do you state it in your report?
Mr. Crarx. In these pages I have just read.
The CHarrMan. That the trouble was in the fact that there were
five men up there for the company and only two for the Government ?
Mr. CLarKk. Well, perhaps that is not specifically stated. I called
attention to the dual authority on the islands. That is the point.
The Cuarrman. But you think that the company had supreme
authority because thay had five men up there and the Government
only had two?
Mr. CrarKk. That is the way I would consider it if I were the Goy-
ernment agent.
The CHarrMaNn. In what way would they get supreme control?
Mr. CLark. The agents were forced to live, for example, board at
the table with the representatives of the leasing company.
The CHarrMAN. Do you think those five men overawed them? I
really can not understand that.
Mr. Crark. Not al all; but if a situation arose in which it was nec-
ace y for the company ‘to overawe them there were five men there
to do it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 451
The CHatRMAN. How soon did you discover this after you got up
to the islands ?
Mr. CrarKk. We discovered it in 1896 and 1897.
The CHatrMANn. No; I mean in 1909.
Mr. Crarx. There was nothing peculiar about the situation in 1909.
The CHarrMaNn. You discovered there were five men there repre
senting the company toc two representing the Government.
Mr. CiarKk. We knew that thoroughly in 1896 and 1897.
The CHatrMAN. Did you not know it in 1909?
Mr. CLarK. Certainly.
The CHatrman. Why did you not report it to the department after
you found it out?
Mr. Crark. I thought that went without saying. I did not think
that was a matter of any importance.
The CHarRMAN. You now claim that that was the difficulty and
you must base it upon your observations made when you were on
the islands, do you not?
Mr. CiarKk. Well, it does not make any difference
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No; but do you not base it upon
what you saw on the islands when you were there ?
Mr. Crarkx. Not any more in 1909 than in 1896 and 1897.
The CuarrMan. I do not care about 1896 and 1897. Tell me
about 1909.
Mr. Ciarx. It was not from any violation of law or any overawing
of the agents in 1909 at all.
The CHarrMan. Then why do you say it was five to two up there ?
Mr. Crark. Well. because that was the fact.
The CHarrMAn. Why did you not report it to the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor? The wireless stations were opened to you,
were they not ?
Mr. Crark. I had no occasion to interfere with the killing of 1909.
It was done with perfect satisfaction to me.
The CHarrmMan. What were you sent up there for—to find out
what was going on, were you not? The scope of your authority
included that, did it not?
Mr. Crarxk. If there was nothing wrong going on, why should I.
report anything ?
The CHarrMAN. But you say the trouble arose because there
were 5 men up there for the company and they had supreme authority
over the killing.
Mr. Ciarx. That is a fact, is it not?
The CHarrman. Do not ask me questions; just answer mine, and
then we will get along better. Where did this supreme authority
come from that you spoke of ?
Mr. Crarx. It came from the fact they had superior numbers.
The CuHarrMANn. Did the agents quietly submit ?
Mr. Crarx. Of course, I have tried to make clear that there was
no violation of law.
The CHatrman. Did they submit? I am asking you that. Do
not sidestep it.
Mr. Crarx. They did not submit.
The CuarrmMan. What did they do—get out their clubs or what do
you mean by superior numbers ?
452 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Crark. There was no. conflict of authority. The lessees
obeyed the letter of the law. They were required to take no skins
less than 5 pounds, and they obeyed that regulation. They were
required first, before they could kill a single seal, to set aside 2,000
of them by marking them on the head or branding them as a “ breeding
reserve,” and when that was done they could take all the seals left
without doing the herd any harm. [ would like to read this paras
graph also in this connection, on page 866:
‘With a declining herd this close killing has not been so important as it would be in
the case of an increasing herd. Fewer and fewer bulls have constantly been needed
on the breeding grounds. Of the 5,000 bulls occupying harems in 1896, only 1,387
were needed in 1909. 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 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.
The CuarrMan. In your report did you call it whirlwind sealing on
the part of the company ?
Mr. Crarx. [| did.
The CuarrMAN. Is that true in your report ?
Mr. CLark. Yes; it is true.
The CHarrMan. It is true?
Mr. CrarK. I should call it whirlwind sealing.
The CuarrmMan. In other words, you meant the sealing company
had cleaned up everything they could get ? .
Mr. Crark. Yes.
The CuHarrman. And you made that report ?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes.
The CHatrMan. And you want to say now that is true ?
Mr. Cuark. It is true and I want to explain what I mean by it.
They cleaned up all of the 2-year-old animals. They killed abso-
lutely no yearlings out of the herd because the yearlings do not
appear on the hauling grounds in the killing season; that is all.
The CHarrMAN. Did you say that in your report ?
Mr. Criark. I did not know it.
The CuarrmMan. Or do you just want to get it in another shape now ?
Mr. Criarx. I did not know it at the time. This matter comes to
my knowledge as the result of the branding of 1912. We branded
6,000 pups with a red-hot iron on the head, and we searched for those
animals the next year, and if yearlings come to the hauling grounds
those animals would have come, and they did not come except two
or three animals which we saw. We searched the rookeries for them
and did not find them.
The CHarrMan. You said this morning that no man could tell a
yearling seal from a 2-year-old, did you not?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir; but when I got a branded mark on the head
of a seal I knew it was a yearling, and that was the first time I saw
a yearling, except one in Golden Gate Park, which I watched for a
whole year.
The CHarrMan. Now, it is your opinion as an expert that a man
can not detect a yearling seal on the islands from a 2-year-old. That
is what you said this morning.
Mr. CrarK. Yes; I will stand by that.
The CHarrMan. Do you mean to say that is a fact ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 453
Mr. CLarKk. Yes; it is a fact.
The CuarrmMan. Do you believe that when Dr. Evermann makes a
sworn statement it is true?
Mr. Crarx. I should think it would be; yes.
The CHarRMAN. This is what Dr. Evermann said before this com-
mittee under oath and in writing, April 20, 1912:
As a matter of fact, and as Mr. Elliott has again and again asserted the yearling
seals, or those which are always regarded as yearlings, are the easiest to distinguish
oi any of the classes of seals. Mr. Elliott is, in this instance, entirely right; anybody
who has any acquaintance with seals can tell a seal of this class as soon as he sees it.
Therefore if yearling seals have been killed they have been killed knowingly and
intentionally.
Ts that true?
Mr. Crark. Yes; I should say that is true.
The CuarrMan. Then you ought to know the difference.
Mr. Crark. Let me tell you what that means.
The CuarrMan. But I ask you the question.
Mr. Ciarx. What that means is this
The CHarrMAN. Answer my question. Should you not know it?
If you now say that is true, why did you make the other statement
this morning ?
Mr. Crark. I can make the same statement, that the easiest
animal to distinguish of all the animals on the island is the yearling,
the smallest animal you can find is a yearling. That is all.
The CHarRMAN. Is that what you said this morning ?
Mr. Crarx. | said this morning that you could not, and no man
could, distinguish a yearling from a 2-year-old, and that is a vastly
different thing. I am perfectly willing to admit that.
The Cuarrman. If you can tell a yearling so readily why can you
not distinguish it from a 2-year-old ?
Mr. Crarx. Because they run together. An animal may be born
on the 12th of June in one year and another animal may be born on
the 25th of July. Those two animals are far apart in size. Now,
the 2-year-old animal born on the 25th of July may be no bigger than
the yearling animal born on the 12th of June of the preceding year,
and that is the reason you can not distinguish the yearling from a
2-year-old; but as to distinguishing yearlings——
The CuarrMan. You must do it by sight.
Mr. Crarx. It is absolutely true, as Dr. Evermann has said, ‘that
the yearling is the easiest one to distinguish, because it is the smallest
animal.
The CuarrMan. Then why would not people know they were killing
a yearling when Dr. Evermann says it is the easiest one to distinguish ?
Mr. Crarx. But they have not killed the yearlings.
The CuarrmMan. Why can not a man tell if yearling-seals are killed
if you can distinguish them so readily? Why do you not know that
yearling seals were killed ?
Mr. CiarK. I do not knew that yearling seals were killed. I know
they were not killed.
The CHarrMan. You reported in your report to the Department
of Commerce and Labor that yearling seals were killed. Now was
that true?
Mr. Ciarx. Sixteen of them.
The CHarRMAN. One moment; was that true ?
454 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Cuarx. Yes; that was true.
The CHarrMaAn. That no seals were too small to be killed 2
Mr. Ciarxk. Yes. The yearlings were not there to be killed.
The CHAIRMAN. And that was from observation you made when
you were on the islands ?
Mr. Ciarx. The yearlings were not there to be killed and they
killed all the 2-year-olds. :
The CHAIRMAN. But youstated that from actual observation on the
islands. Now was that true or did you mean to make a false report
to the Government ?
Mr. Ciarxk. That report was true.
The Cuarrman. You did not mean to make a false report to the
Government, did you?
Mr. CuarK. No; I did not.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Chairman, I may not be entirely clear about it,
but I understood Mr. Clark to state that the yearlings were not there.
I would like to know further about that, why the yearlings were not
there and how they told the yearlings were not there.
Mr. Crarx. In the first place, the yearlings appeared the next year
and were killed as 2-year-olds, 12,000 of them. That is positive proof
that the yearlings did not come to the hauling grounds in 1909, other-
wise they would have been killed.
The CHarrMan. But you just said a moment ago that the yearlings
and 2-year-olds were together, and that was the reason you could
not tell them apart.
Mr. Crark. I never said anything of the kind.
The CHarrMan. Let the stenographer refer to his notes and read
what you said.
(The stenographer read as follows:)
The CuarrMan. If you tell a yearling so readily, why can you not distinguish it
from a 2-year-old?
Mr. Crark. Because they run together. re
Mr, Ciarx. That does not mean that 2-year-olds and 1-year-olds
were found together.
The CHarrmMan. Were they separated ?
Mr. CLrarkx. What I mean by running together is that a big year-
ling and a small 2-year-old approximated one another in size and
could not be distinguished, and I cleared it up by saying that in one
year a yearling might be born on the 12th of June and a 2-year-old
might be born on the 25th of July the next year, and those two
animals might grade together, not that they herded together. That
is not the point at all. When I speak of not being able to distinguish
a yearling from a 2-year-old, I have in mind that I was left on those
islands until the 21st day of October in 1896 with a view to deter-
mining those things, and I spent hours and hours and even weeks,
for that matter, studying the yearlings and the 2-year-olds as they
appeared together on the breeding grounds, not on the hauling
grounds. I studied those animals and I found the very greatest
difficulty in distinguishing them. One day I would find a very small
animal and decide it was a yearling and the next day I would find a
smaller one and that would be the yearling. When I say a man can
not distinguish a yearling from a 2-year-old I base it on that knowl-
edge and that experience in 1896, when I studied them on the breeding,
ne
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 455
not on the hauling, grounds. I contend that the yearlings do not go
to the hauling grounds.
The Caarrman. Dr. Evermann says it can be easily discovered.
Mr. Crark. What is that?
The CHarrMan. A yearling.
Mr. CrarK. Oh, yes. I will admit that it is exactly true what he
said, that the yearling is the easiest distinguishable animal, because
it is the smallest one. The point at issue was whether you could dis-
tinguish a 2-year-old from a yearling.
The CuarrMan. Why could you not say it was not a 2-year-old if
a yearling is so easily distinguished ?
Mr. Crarx. That is the point. But here we have an arbitrary
standard, and any skin below 5 pounds is a yearling and any skin
above it 1s a 2-year-old.
The Cuarrman. If they are so easily distinguished, why can you
not tell that a 2-year-old seal is not a yearling ?
Mr. Crarxk. Because a 2-year-old seal is just a shade bigger, and
that is a vastly different proposition from distinguishing the smallest
animal.
The CHarrMaNn. Is there any difference in color ?
Mr. CrarK. There is no difference in color.
The CuarrMan. But you say it is larger. Could you not go on the
grounds and pick out every yearling you would see ¢
Mr. Crarx. No. I could go to the grounds and pick out the
oe et animals that I could see and conjecture that they were year-
ings.
The CuarrMan. Is that the way you would reach such a conclusion ?
Mr. Crark. That is all I could do.
The CHarrMAN. You saw them killed when you made your daily
reports and reported that to the Department of Commerce and Labor,
did you not? That is where you got your information from ?
Mr. CrarKx. There were only 16 of them killed. They were not
killed in my presence at all. They were killed in food killings.
The CuarrmMan. How do you know they were not 2-year-old seals ?
Mr. Crarx. The ones under 5 pounds?
The Cuarrman. No; I mean those you reported. How did you
know they were not 2-year-olds? :
Mr. CrarK. Because they had skins less than 5 pounds in weight.
The CHarrmMan. Is that the only reason ?
Mr. Cuarx. That is the only reason.
The CuarrmMan. Under the act of Congress passed some time, I
think, in 1896 you helped to prepare Part 1 of the Report of Fur Seal
Investigations, 1896-97; is that correct ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir.
The CuarrmMan. The title-page of Part 1 of Report of Fur Seal In-
vestigations reads as follows:
The fur seals and fur-seal islands of the North Pacific Ocean, by David Starr Jordan,
president of Leland Stanford Junior University, commissioner in charge of fur-seal
investigations of 1896-97, with the following official associates: Leonhard Stejneger
and Frederic A. Lucas, of the United States National Museum; Jefferson F. Moser,
lieutenant commander, United States Navy, in command of the United States Fish
Commission steamer Albatross; Charles H. Townsend, of the United States Fish
Commission; George A. Clark, secretary and stenographer; Joseph Murray, special
agent; with special papers by other contributors.
You were the secretary and stenographer of this commission ?
456 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
=
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir, I was. \
The CHarrman. And you were authorized by Congress to make
this ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir; the commission was authorized.
The CHariRMAN. That is what I mean. The commission was
authorized. On page 124 of the same volume appears the following:
It is not the intention here to justify the methods of killing employed in the closing’
_ years of the lease of the Alaska Commercial Company. Such killing ought never to
have been allowed. It would not have occurred had not the termination of the lease
been approaching, as it would have been wholly against the interest of the lessees.
But it is not conceivable that such killing could ever affect the life of the herd, as it
would necessarily bring to ruin the business of taking sealskins on Jand long before it
could produce any effect on the breeding herds.
That is part of the report of that commission ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Of which you were secretary ?
Mr. Crark. May I
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I just want to connect this up with
eee else and then you can answer and explain. Turn to page
2, footnote:
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. In
like manner the quota of 1889 and the preceding year had largely absorbed the legiti-
mate quota of 1890. It is probable that had the quota been reduced in proportion to
the decreasing birth rate, and been confined to the regular ages of animals, the normal
quota of 1889 ‘and 1890 would have been between 50, 000 and 60,000.
What I want to ask you is this: How did you arrive at the con-
clusion that the quota of 1889 was largely made up by yearlings ?
Mr. Crark. The point is that in 1896 and 1897, the commission,
both commissions, quite generally assumed that the yearlings came
in large numbers in the close of the killing season on the hauling
erounds. That is the way it appeared to us in 1896 and 1897. Now
when the Alaska Commercial Co. was killing in the closmg years ‘of
its lease, first it came against a dearth of 4-year-old seals, than 1t came
against a dearth of 3-year-old seals, and then against a dearth of
2-year-olds, and then if the yearlings were there, it made up on the
small seals, the yearlings. It took probably all the animals on the
hauling grounds just as was done in 1909.
The CuarrMAN. You had the information that they took yearling
seals, did you not, or else it would not be m your report to the Gov-
ernment ¢ 4
Mr. Crark. To our knowledge at that time. You remember this
report was published in 1896 and 1897.
The CHarrman. Now how did you find out that this company had
taken these yearling seals? That is the question I want you to
answer ?
Mr. Crarx. The assumption was that they must have killed those
animals because they were not there to take the next year. 20,000
was all that could be taken in 1830.
The CuarrMAN. How did you know they were there in 1889 ?
Mr. Crark. Because they had a quota of 100,000 skins.
The CHarrmMan. There might have been 125,000 skims the year
before or in 1889. Where did you get your information that they
took 25,000 yearling seals?
INVESTIGATION ‘OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 457
Mr. Crank. We assumed that they cleaned up the hauling grounds
in those years and that was why so few could be taken in 1890.
The CHairmMan. That statement would not prove any such con-
clusion because how do you know how many there were there in 1889 ?
Mr. Crark. Well, there were 100,000 of them killed.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, there might have been 125,000 of them there.
Mr. Crarx. Why would they not be there to be taken in 1890?
With all the efforts that could be taken they could only take 20,000
seals in 1890, and the natural inference was ——
The Carre AN (interposing). Was it only an inference or did you
get it from some other source ¢
Mr. Crark. Naturally, we had to rely upon Mr. Henry W. Elliott’s
report.
The CHArRMAN. Did you rely on the London reports to get that?
Mr. Crark. I have never seen any London reports regarding those
killings.
The CuarRMAN. Did you not look into that while you were having
this commission at work? Is not that the place you got it from?
Mr. Crarx. No, sir.
The Cuarrman. I mean the information as to how many yearlings
were killed in 1889.
Mr. CrarK. No, sir. We had no information from the London
sales. We ga ained_our information from the fields, from the fact
they could take 100,000 seals in 1889 and only 20,000 in 1890, meant
they had killed the ‘small seals in 1889, and if yearlings were on the
hauling grounds they were killed. And now it turns out they were
not on the hauling grounds and that they did not kill yearlings.
The Cuarrman. Did you not say in your report of 1909 that the
killing of seals in 1909 was similar to that of 1889 when both com-
panies cleaned up everything they could get?
Mr. CrarK. Exactly « similar ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. CL ARK. The North American Commercial Co. took every seal
on the hauling grounds and probably the Alaska Commercial Co.
did exactly the same thing. Beyond that, the information came to
me in 1913 through the branding of the animals, that I was mistaken
in 1909 in assuming that yearlings came to the hauling grounds, and
that we were all mistaken in 1896 and 1897 in assuming r that yearlings
came to the hauling grounds, because they do not come there.
The CHarrmMAn. You were there and looked on and made your
report to the Government and say now that you were mistaken and
did not know anything about it; is that it?
Mr. Ciarx. I do not say that at all. I say that we corrected our
information in the light of better knowledge that has come to us in
the continued study of the matter
The Cuarrman. Then you rudd a mistake when you reported to
' the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, did you not?
Mr. Crark. I did not report anything to the Secretary of Com-
merce and Labor but that the quota of 1909 took every animal
above one year.
The Cuarrman. Did you say that in your report?
Mr. Crarx. I said that in my report.
The Cuatrman. Did you not say that they took every seal that
was not too small to be killed ?
458 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. That is exactly the same thing.
The CuarrMan. I mean that ‘‘no seal was too small to be killed’’ ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir. The yearlings were not there.
The CHarrMan. Is that false or true?
Mr. CrarK. It was true.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it false or true when you reported that to
the Government ?
Mr. CiarK. It was true.
- The Cuarrman. It is true that “no seal was too small’”’ to be taken 2
Mr. Crark. No seal on the hauling grounds was too small to be
killed. Now, I would like to read again my statement at the bottom
of page 853 of Appendix A.
The CHarrMan. Did you read that this morning? If so, it is not
necessary to read it again.
Mr. Crark. Very well. I do not want it to be forgotten.
The CHArRMAN. You called it an effective clean-up, did you not?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir; but not a clean-up of yearlings.
The CuarrmMan. Did you not write a letter to Dr. Hornaday in
which you stated they took yearlings ?
Mr. Crarx. I may have said exactly the same thing I have said
here, that a few yearlings—that is, animals under 5 pounds—had been
killed, and may be admitted to be yearlings.
The CHarrmMan. Did you not write a letter to Dr. Hornaday and
state that the company took yearling seals and defended it on the
ground that it was good policy because they might have been caught
by the Japanese sealers in the high seas ?
Mr. Crark. I defended the policy of cleaning up the hauling
grounds.
The CHarrmMan. Did you say that?
Mr. CiarK. I do not recall that I did.
The CHarrMAN. Did you send me a copy of that letter ?
Mr. CrarxK. I do not know whether I did or not.
The CuarrMan. If you said it, it was true, was it not?
Mr. CrarKk. It is true with an explanation.
The CHarrMan. Do you want to explain that also ?
Mr. Crark. It is all subject to explanation. J said that yearlings
were killed in 1909 to the extent of seals below the weight of 5 pounds,
and everything I have said about yearlmgs is dependent upon that.
The Caarrman. Upon the weight ?
Mr. CriarK. Yes; that is the standard. That is what the regula-
tions were fixed by.
The CHarrMAN. Did you write a letter to Dr. Hornaday of Feb-
ruary 18, 1914?
Mr. Ciark. I do not recall the date. I have written to Mr. Horna-
day. Mr. Hornaday said I lied to the Secretary about my figures in
1909, and I had some correspondence with him regarding the matter.
The CHarrMAN. When did you see Mr. Hornaday last ?
Mr. Crark. I never saw Mr. Hornaday in my life.
The CHarrmMan. Did you write to him before this date ?
Mr. Crarxk. I do not recall. I have written to him ever since I
found out he made that charge against me, and J have never gotten
any satisfaction from him.
The CHarrMAN. You wrote to him, though, did you not?
Mr. CrarKk. Yes; I wrote to him.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 459
The CuarrmMan. Did you ever say to him, “I will make you smart
for having meddled in the fur-seal matter”’ ?
Mr. CLiarxk. I might probably have said that to him.
The CHarrMan. Did you say it?
Mr. Crark. Probably; and he also said to me, “If you say another
word about fur seals I will take it out of Dr. Jordan,” or something to
that effect.
The CHAIRMAN. So you wanted him to be punished, did you?
Mr. CiarK. That was
The CHAIRMAN (interposing): What did you mean by saying, “I
will make you smart?”
Mr. CiarK. That was a case where aman was mad. He called me
a liar and said I had deceived the Secretary, and I said things I would
not otherwise have said if I had stopped to think about it.
The CHAIRMAN. Why did you say he had meddled? What. did
he do?
Mr. Crark. Because Dr. Hornaday has no right to be heard on the
fur-seal matter. He has never been on the islands, and therefore has
no first-hand knowledge to offer.
The CHarrMAN. But why did you say he meddled? Would he not
have a right to talk about it if he thought something was wrong?
Mr. Crarx. I would consider I was meddling if I had never been on
the islands and had never seen a seal and then spoke with authority
regarding them.
The CuarrMan. You were a Government official then and were
paid by the Government. Do you not think he had a right to call
attention to things he thought were wrong ?
Mr. CiarKk. He had, if he had information to base his statements on.
The CuarrMan. What did you mean by “‘making him smart?”
Mr. Crarx. Well, I thought I would lke to call attention to the fact
that he had made a mistake when he said there were only 30,000 seals
in the herd and that I licd when I said there were 158,000.
The CuairmMan. Did you mean to try to get him discharged, or what
was the idea?
Mr. Crarx. I do not know. I will admit that that was a statement
that was not worth making.
The CHarrMAN. But you had made a report to the Government
about the killing of these yearling seals and that there was “ whirlwind
sealing” going on, and that “no seal was too small” for the company
to kill while you were on the ground; now why should Dr. Hornaday
because he wanted to talk about what you said officially to the Gov-
ernment——
ae CLARK (interposing). I did not say that yearling seals were
ed.
The CHarrmMan. One minute. Why should he suffer when he called
attention to the report you made ¢
Mr. Cirark. He had no occasion
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Is it because you are peculiarly inter-
ested in it, or why?
Mr. Crarx. Well, I will tell you. Iwas particularly vexed because
he told me that I had manipulated and arranged my figures to deceive
the Secretary. Now, everything can be explained on that. That is
a hard charge to make against a man who has done scientific work and
460 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
has given a report that has a daily record of every bit of work he did
on the islands.
The CHarrman. Do you think it would be wrong for Dr. Hornaday
or any other citizen to come and protest to you when he finds that
you have made a report such as has been described and you have
admitted you made to the Government for which you were paid—
that no man has a right to call attention to it when you change your
base, as it were ?
Mr. Clark. Ihave not changed my base. Isaid there were 158,000
seals in the herd, and the reports of your experts for this year vindi-
cate that because it is stated there are now 190,000.
The CHarrMan. Were you in New York lately ?
Mr. CrarKk. I have not been in New York lately; no.
The CHarrMAN. When were you over there last ?
Mr. CiarKk. I was there in 1909.
The Cuarrman. In 1909?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarrMan. Were you there since ?
Mr. CrarK. I do not recall.
The CoarrMan. Do you know Madison Grant ?
Mr. CrarKx. No; I do not know Madison Grant.
The CHarrMAN. Do you know who he is?
Mr. CrarKk. I have seen letters from him and I think I have seen
references to him.
The Cuarrman. Did you receive any letters from him ?
Mr. Crark. Dr. Jordan did.
The CHarrMAN. Did you ?
Mr. Crarxk. Well, I may have received a letter from him, but the
correspondence was really with Dr. Jordan.
The CHarrmMan. Well, what were you corresponding about ?
Mr. Crarxk. Mr. Madison Grant sent to Dr. Jordan a franked
envelope in which had been received a public document on which
was inscribed in red ink scurrilous remarks against Dr. Jordan,
and he sent those things to Dr. Jordan.
The CoatRMAN. What other correspondence was there ?
Mr. CrarKk. I do not recall the correspondence beyond that.
The CHArRMAN. Do you not know there was other correspondence ?
Mr. Crarx. There probably was, yes; because Mr. Madison Grant
was ——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Well, what were they corresponding
about? Let us find out about that.
Mr. Crark. He wanted to find out why it was that something
could not be done to stop the misuse of the franking privilege in
sending out documents of that kind.
The CHarrMAN. Yes, that is one thing; but it is also a good thing
to find out about some other abuses, do, you not think so ?
Mr. Crarx. Well, that was the point of the correspondence.
The CHarrMan. Will you send that correspondence to the com-
mittee ?
Mr. Crark. I do not know whether I can find it or not.
The CHarrMAN. Well, you are the secretary. You know what is
going on. Will you send it to the committee ?
Mr. Crark. I will see if I can find it; yes.
—
~~
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 461
The CHAIRMAN. You wrote a letter to me after the former com-
mittee had filed a report, did you not?
Mr. Crark. I have written various letters.
The CHarRMAN. Have you a copy of it here?
Mr. Crank. No, I have not.
The CuarrMaNn. Did you not intend it as an insult to the majority
of the committee ?
Mr. Crarx. I do not think I intended it as an insult at all.
The CHarRMAN. You said it was a relief to turn to the minority
report, and that we did not do the right thing. That is what you
wrote to me after the last Congress had adjourned. Now what was
that for ?
Mr. Crarx. The fur-seal legislation had been going wrong from my
point of view as an expert. I was not able to see any reason for all
these investigations, and I was very anxious that the law should be
repealed.
The CuarrMan. What law?
Mr. Cirark. The law suspending land sealing.
The CHarrMAN. So you think that was a mistake, do you?
Mr. Crarx. | think it is a mistake, a very serious mistake.
The CuatrMan. Why did you write to the committee because you
thought the law was wrong?
Mr. CiarKk. Well, your report did not meet the issue.
The CHatrMAN. Well, that might be a difference of opinion.
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CoarrmMan. And we have heard you now before the committee,
which is the proper thing to do, and it is entirely improper to write
letters to committees and practically insult them; do you not think so ?
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, where is that letter? J think, as a
citizen, he has a perfect right to express himself about the committee
or about anything else, unless it is something unusual. It would be
very strange if I should kick on everybody who writes even insulting
letters tome. This is a scientific matter about which he expresses an
opinion.
The Cuatrman. Thatis true enough; butitis not ascientific matter
to insult the committee.
Mr. McGutre. | differ very materially about some things that are
said in that report, and I think there are some things in it that I can
show are not facts, but that is a matter between you andme. Asa
private citizen and as a scientific man, and as a man in my judgment
who knows more about this than anybody who has ever been before
the committee, he has a perfect right to criticise me or criticise
anything.
‘The CHarrMANn. He has that right, and so has anybedy else, but the
witness is now under oath, and he has made statements inconsistent
with his official report to a department of the Government.
Mr. McGuire. ! do not agree with the Chair as to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Just one moment, please. And that is the way to
bring matters to the attention of the committee. I want now to show
the bias and feeling of this witness, if there is any.
Mr. McGuire. Then [ misunderstocd the Chair.
Mr. Patron. The witness has just been condemned because he
expressed his opinion of a public servant.
‘The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
462 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Patron. Yes. In the Dr. Hornaday matter that is just what
you condemned him for, and now you turn around and do not give
him the same privilege. ;
The CuatrMan. I did not condemn the witness at all. I examined
him to show his bias, if he has any, and that is the reason for my
questions.
Mr. McGurre. I misunderstood the Chair. I thought the Chair
was criticizing the witness because he called attention to discrepancies
in the majority report.
The CHarrMan. No; it was just to show that he is biased when
under oath.
Mr. Patron. That is proper, but I think the witness should be
treated courteously and given a fair show.
The CHarrMAN. Of course.
The Cuarrman. Now, Mr. Clark, you filed your report on Septem-
ber 30, 1909, and sent it to the Department?
Mr. CrarKx. Yes.
The CHatrMan. When did you see it next?
Mr. Crarx. When it appeared in Appendix A.
The CaoarrMan. Were you at the meeting of the advisory board
when your report was considered with Mr. Lembkey’s report ?
Mr. CrarKk. I was present at the meeting of the advisory board.
The CHarrMAN. Well, where was your report then ?
Mr. CiarK. I suppose it was in the hands of the bureau. I believe
that each member of the advisory board had a copy of it.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you said a moment ago that you did not see
it until it was printed.
Mr. Crark. I did not see it at the meeting of the advisory board.
The CoarrMan. Were you there when they considered it?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. Each one of them had had a copy of the
report and apparently had read it, and then the discussion was on
what should be the advice of the board.
The CuarrMan. Then they substituted Mr. Lembkey’s report for
your report, did they not, or some parts of it ?
Mr. Crarx. I was not aware of that.
The CHAIRMAN. You say on page 888 of your original report, that
is, the Appendix, this:
Fifteen animals—young bulls—too large for killing and nine 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 five pounds
weight are taken and also skins of eight and nine 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.
Did you say they killed seals that had their heads shaved ?
Mr. CrarKk. No, sir.
The CHarrMAn. Then is this statement in your report false?
Mr. Crarx. No, sir; we clipped the heads of 2,000 animals ‘
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, one moment. You say,
These latter are plainly animals which escaped the killing of last year because
heir heads were shaved.
Now, did you see that?
Mr. Ciarx. There was no shaved marks on the heads of those
animals that were killed.
The CHarrMan. Well, why did you say that here ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 463
Mi. CLrark. Because the mark put upon the seals for breeding
reserve was temporarily made with sheep shears. The fur was
chpped off leaving a white spot on the tip of the head, which pro-
tected the animal for the season and by the next spring it had dis-
appeared, and the animal had no mark on him.
The CHarrMAN. Then why did you say this if you could not s2e
any of them?
Mr. CLark. How could they have survived ?
- The CHarrmMan. Not how could they have survived, but how
could you say it if you did not find it?
Mr. Ciark. Because i believed it to be a fact. If those animals
had not had the clipping on them the year before they would have
been killed then. They were clipped the year before and protected
threughout the season, but the next year the mark was obliterated.
The CHarrMAN. This morning you said that you made the notes
of what you saw on the island day by day.
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
The CHariRMAN. Do you mean to say that you did not see this
and yet you say it in your report?
Mr. Crarx. Well, { admit that—I do not see any difficulty about it,
Mr. Rothermel.
Mr, Patron. Nor I..."
Mr. Ciarx. I say that these animals were killed in 1909, but
if they had not been marked the year before they would have been
killed the year before. Now, I want to say right here to the members
of this committee that I am being caught up on field notes. Field
notes are made from day to day in the report as you see it, but they
are not the final judgment. They are a truthful record of my impres-
sions. {[ might record something to-day that might appear to be
night, but the next day it might be wrong.
The CHairnmMan. Did you not take this from your field notes ?
Mr. Criarx. It is in my field notes, but not in my report.
The CoarrMAN. But it is made a part of your report.
Mr. CLarx. Very true, because I was asked to put down my
observations, but my judgment is what ought to be depended upon
and not my rough field notes.
Mr. Patron. You say that the ones that had been marked were
lalled? Do you mean that the hair had grown out and they could not
be distinguished and they were killed?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes, sir.
Mr. Patron. That is clear then. That is only a catch question
in the matter. He says, Mr. Chairman, that if they had not been
shaved they would have been killed the season before.
The CoarrMan. But hesays: .
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-pound 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.
Mr. Patron. You could not discover the marking on their heads.
The CuairnMAN. But it was just as much against the law whether
that was done or not.
Mr. CrarK. Well, I was criticising that method of making a breed-
ing reserve and I asked that a red-hot iron brand be substituted for
the sheep shears.
464 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The CHarrMan. But you had gathered the information that this
was going on and that is the reason you put it In your appendix.
Mr. CiarK. Well, I also put it in my report that the methods were
faulty—not that they were unsuccessful, but that they were faulty.
The CHarrMAN. Now, this is one of the parts of your report, or the
appendix attached to the report, that was not taken out, but for
which there was a substitute made on the part of Mr. Lembkey and:
the.advisory board—-—
Mr. WaTEINS (interposing). Before we leave this point, Mr. Chair-
man, may I ask a question ¢
The CHarrMANn. Certainly.
Mr. Warxins. What was the object of either branding or shearing
the seals at the time they were branded or sheared ?
Mr. CiarK. Well, as the killing was growing close with the declining
herd an effort was made to make a positive breeding reserve.
Mr. Warxins. Well, it was a reserve. That is the point.
Mr. Criark. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. It was to distinguish the reserve ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Warxins. Then if those were reserved in one season, what
reason was there why those who were included in the reserve the
previous season could not be disposed of in ¢ subsequent season? In
other words, was that a permanent reservation of individuals or could
they all be taken together next year?
Mr. Crarx. Well, that was the danger of the temporary mark.
Mr. Warxrns. Now, what reason would there be for making a
permanent reservation of any particular individuals ?
Mr. Crarx. There has to be an increment of males added to the
herd each year.
Mr. Watkins. So that it was a permanent addition ?
Mr. CrarxK. It ought to have been a permanent addition, but some
of those that were killed in 1909, the 4-year-olds, must have escaped
the killing of the year preceding, if they came through, because of
this mark.
Mr. Watkins. So that if they had been marked for reservation in
1909 it would not have been permanent under the regulations and
they could be killed in 1910?
Mr. Crarx. We marked 2,000 of them in 1909 and they were pro-
tected all through. We watched them all through and not a single
one of them—with the exception perhaps of a few that might have
been accidentally struck in striking others, a negligible number, were
killed; all the rest were saved.
Mr. Warxrns. Then you recommended branding instead of shear-
ing because it would be permanent ?
Mr. Crarxk. Yes; if there was a red-hot iron mark on the head or
some other part of the body, the animal would be protected until it
got clear out of the killing range. I will say here that the breeding
reserve that was set aside was composed of 2,000 animals and the
breeding stock did not number over 1,300. So that it was four times
as great as it ought to have been, and the killing of some of those was
practically an economy, because the breeding reserve was too large.
The CuarrMAn. Now, another question in connection with Judge
Watkins’ question. It is just as unlawful to kill a seal under the law
and regulations that has been reserved as it is to kill a small seal?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 465
Mr. Warxrns. You mean if they are to be identified ?
The CHaiRMAN. Well, they can be identified enough. In other
words, those that are reserved for breeding purposes can not be killed
under the law and regulations.
Mr. CLrarxk. Of course, in order to make it a violation of the law
in the killing of those it would be necessary to prove
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Not what it is necessary to prove,
but is it not against the regulations and the law to do it? That is a
plain, simple question.
Mr. CiarK. The regulation provides that they shall not be killed
at least in the year they are branded, and of course it ought to be
permanent.
The CHAIRMAN. Are you going to impress the committee, now,
with the fact that that is the case, or that it is absolutely true that
when they are reserved for breeding purposes they shall not be
molested or touched ?
Mr. Ciarx. Well, that ought to be so. In my report I called
attention to the fact that there was danger of killing in the following
year an animal that had been given a temporary mark in the year
under consideration, and I wanted to have substituted for that tem-
porary sheep-shearing mark a permanent brand. In 1912 we
demonstrated that a permanent brand with a red hot iron could be
made, and I wanted that substituted for the sheep-shearing brand.
The CHArRMAN. Then you are not clear whether that is true in the
regulations as you have stated it. Is it not a fact that according to
the regulations, no seal can be taken after he is reserved? Dr.
Evermann, what is your recollection about that?
Dr. EverMANN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the regulations have
covered that point. The regulations assume that when you set aside
ascertain number of seals as a breeding reserve, they will be protected
as a reserve, and we have all recognized* that with this temporary
brand they can not be distinguished the next year. If they were
3-year-olds and branded with a sheep-shearing brand, when they
came back the next year they would be 4 years old and the weight
limits would exempt them largely, not because of the instructions
but because of their weight of more than 83 pounds.
The Cuarrman. My recollection was, and I want to be right about
it, that the condition is not in the regulations, but that after they are
once exempted they continue to be exempted, and it is contrary to
the regulations to take them.
Dr. EverMANN. The regulations have never said that you can not
kill a seal because he is branded.
The CHarrMAN. But they fix a pound limit the same as they do
with smaller seals ?
Dr. EvERMANN. Yes; 84 pounds.
Mr. Macurre. They are exempted by limitation after a certain
time; after a certain time they do not want them.
Dr. EverMANN. But if a yearling or small seal were branded when
it came back next year, that seal might be killed legally, provided his
skin did not weigh as much as 84 pounds.
The CuarrMAN. In other words, there is a maximum fixed by the
regulations, and a minimum, and if they go beyond either it is unlaw-
ful to take them ?
53490—14——_30
466 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Dr. EveERMANN. Yes; but it is no more unlawful to kill a branded
acal whose skin does not weigh 84 pounds than it is to kill a seal who
is not branded whose skin weighs 83 pounds.
The CHarrMANn. It is merely a question of identification.
Dr. EvERMANN. Yes.
The Cuarrman. Did you not say in your report, Mr. Clark, on
page 891, I think, that the sealing company took every seal that
they drove except a few small runts and a few half bulls?
Mr. CLrarx. At what point on the page?
The CuHarrMAN. I am not sure about the page.
Mr. CiarK. Well, page 891 is in my field notes and I want to call
attention to the fact that these observations are records of truthful
recollections of things that appeared from day to day on the ground.
The CHarrmMan. But did you not see them ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, and when I said that they took all of the young
small seals except the very runts or the small ones, I meant, in the
light of my experience with the branding, that they took every
2-year-old, because now I know that the yearlings did not come to
the hauling ground.
The CuarrMaAn. Then you drove some runts with the 2-year-olds, if
that statement is correct ?
Mr. CrarK. Well, a runt means a very small animal.
The CHarrMan. Well, not what it means, but do they drive some
of the runts with the 2-year-olds?
Mr. CLrarx. There were some very small animals in the drive, but
they were exempted from the killing.
The CHarrMAN. On page 903 Appendix “‘A,” special agent Lemb-
key states that you are not warranted in criticising the close killing
of 1909. I may be mistaken about the inference there, but I will
read what he did say:
To sum up, we find that Mr. Clark’s statement that all 2-year-olds were killed in
1909 is negatived by his own statement in another portion of his report that probably
6,000 of these animals survived; that it is shown that practically 6,000 young males
survived the season in question, when only 280 of these are required to mature as
breeders to preserve the herd of males at its present numbers, and that with the
enforcement of existing regulations, it was impossible to kill as closely in 1909 as it
was in 1889, however close the killing in that year actually might have been.
How does your clear statement on page 861 and 866 meet with that
statement ?
Mr. CrarKk. Of course, I think you ought to ask Mr. Lembkey about
that. I have not given attention to that, and I can not answer for
his criticism of my report.
The CHarrMAN. Were you present when the advisory board held
its session ?
Mr. Cuarxk. Yes, I was.
The CuarrMan. Who was there?
Mr. CLark. Dr. David Starr Jordan, of Stanford University, Dr.
L. Stejneger, of the Smithsonian, Dr. F. A. Lucas, now of the Ameri-
can Museum of Natural History, Dr. Charles H. Townsend of the
National Aquarian, myself, Mr. W. T. Lembkey, Dr. Evermann, and
Commissioner Bowers. That is my recollection, but I think that is
a matter of record, is it not? It ought to be somewhere here.
The CHarrMAN. Was your report published ?
Mr. Ciarx. In Appendix “A.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 467
The Cuarrman. Not until then?
Mr. Crarx. No.
The CHarrMan. Where was it in the meantime, do you know?
Mr. Crarx. [ do not know; probably in the archives of the Bureau
of Fisheries.
The Cuarrman. Was Lembkey’s report published ?
Mr. CiarK. I think it was.
The CuarRMAN. Was your report, or the substitution of it, ever
sent to a Senate committee ?
Mr. Crarx. I do not know as to that.
The CHarrMAN. Do you know whether Lembkey’s report was sent
up to the Senate committee or substituted ?
Mr. Crarx. No; I do not know anything about that.
The CHAariRMAN. But the advisory board substituted certain parts
of his report for yours.
Mr. Crark. I was not aware of that.
The CHarrMANn. Then that was not discussed in the meeting, was it?
Mr. Ciark. Not to my knowledge.
The CHarrRMAN. Are hee any questions ?
Mr. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions prepared here
which might cover the same ground as yours; I think you had better
put them yourself.
The CuHarrmMan. You can put them yourself if you want to.
Mr. Warxins. I think some of them are covered by your questions.
You might look over them.
The CHarrMAN. Mr. Clark, I am asked to ask you this question:
Were you told by any officials of the department—Secretary, Com-
missioner, or anyone—that Mr. Lembkey’s explanation had been taken
for official publication in lieu of your report ?
Mr. CrarKx. No, sir.
The CHarrMan. You do not know anything about it, do you?
Mr. Ciarx. No, sir.
The CHarRMAN. The other questions I have already asked.
Mr. Watkins. They cover the same ground.
The CHarRMAN. You received a letter from George M. Bowers, com-
missioner, on November 1, 1909, in which he requested you to come
to Washington ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir.
The CuarrmMan. Did you come here pursuant to that letter ?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes.
The CuarrMAn. And you then came to the Bureau of Fisheries, and
you were there with the advisory board ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
The CHarrRMAN. That was the time, was it not?
Mr. CLarx. Yes, sir.
The Cuareman. I think that is all I can find, Judge, that I had not
asked. Is there anything else?
Mr. Parron. Do you mean to finish up with the witness now ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Warxrns. Mr McGuire can not be here to-morrow.
Mr. Patron. Are you going into anything about the herd up there?
Mr. Ciarx. I have submitted two subsequent reports, and they are
more important than anything that has preceded them.
468 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The CuainMAan. You have a report that you submitted to the
Bureau of Fisheries ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. One for 1912 and one for 1913. I wish to
be of service to the committee. I have prepared a statement of the
resent conditions, and I should like to present it to you. I think
it is more important to deal with that than to deal with these various
questions that are not really so important, and I had hoped for an
opportunity to present that statement before the committee in an
orderly manner.
Mr. Parton. I think it would be a good thing, in view of the
report we had last year in regard to the number of the herd up there.
Now, the number has changed so wonderfully, I would be glad to
have you submit something giving further light on it.
The CuarrMan. I did not know that he had made a report last year,
but the department informed me that he was up there last summer.
Have you those reports with you?
Mr. Ciarxk. Yes, sir; but I think the committee should properly
call for them from the Secretary. However, I will be willing to
submit them. I have a statement here.
ue CHAIRMAN. Have you a statement that you wish to submit
also ?
Mr. CLrarKx. Well, I have not prepared it so that I can submit it.
T should like to read it. It is not in condition to submit to the com-
mittee but I should like to read it as I go along.
The Cuarrman. Very well.
Mr. Crarx. Now, the condition of the herd in 1913 is a very im-
portant question. A careful estimate of the fur seal herd for 1913
shows it to number 268,000 animals. The estimate for 1912, made
under similar conditions shows 215,000. The gain between the two
seasons has therefore been approximately 25 per cent, chiefly in
bachelors, on account of suspension of killing.
The Cuarrman. Mr. Clark, at that point, have you a tabulated
statement of how many cows, yearlings, and two-year-olds there are ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir.
The CoarrMan. You have that in your report somewhere, Isuppose ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes. I wish to discuss the following points:
First, the condition of the herd. The breeding female stock, the
important element in the above estimate, numbered 92,269 in 1913,
ascertained by an actual count of the pups on all the rookeries. A
similar estimate of the females for 1912 gave 81,984, also ascertained
by a count of all the pups. Of course, for every pup there must have
been a mother. In the stock of breeding females and their young
there was a gain of 124 per cent between the two seasons—the first
two seasons of exemption from pelagic sealing.
The stock of breeding males, the second important element, num-
bered 1,403 in 1913, as against 1,358 in 1912, a gain of 3 per cent and
something over. This was by actual count in the height of the
breeding season. The stock of harem masters has been practically
stationary for some years, that is, in 1911, 1,373; 1910, 1,381; 1909,
1,387; 1908, 1,365; 1907, 1,383; 1906, 1,471; 1897, 4,418.
The stock of reserve males was 364 in 1913. It was 312 in 1912;
317 in 1911; 397 in 1910; 513 in 1909; in 1897, 5,000. These figures
are found by actual count at the height of the breeding season.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 469
The special breeding reserve of 4-year-olds. In 1912, 2,000 3-year-
old males were specially marked and set aside as breeders. None of
these were killed in 1913. This, therefore, gives the number of 4-year-
olds in the herd for 1913, 2,000.
The number of 3-year-old males, ascertained by a combination of
counts and estimates, was 10,000. These were killable seals and
had the law not prevented they would have been taken.
The number of 2-year-old females, 15,000; males, 15,000. These
figures are obtained by a combination of counts and estimates,
deducible from the known birth rate of 1912, allowance being made
for losses in second migration.
The number of yearlings—20,000 each, males and females, esti-
mated from the known birth rate of 1912, 81,984 pups.
The CHarirMAN. How do you distinguish the sex in the yearling ?
Mr. CrarKk. I do not distinguish it, but we know from numerous
experiments that they are born equally. In other words, you will
find on any rookery that they run about so many females to the same
number of males.
The CuarrMan. The sex can not be told in yearlings ?
Mr. CLark. Not except by an examination, and the fact is that
the yearling females keep away from the males.
The CHairMAN. Well, clubbers could not tell by seeing them on
the ground ?
Mr. CiarK. No, but we do not have to depend on their judgment
because the bulls keep them away.
Mr. McGuire. You say you do not have to depend on the judg-
ment of the killers with respect to the yearling females. Do you
mean to say that they are not there?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. McGuirrz. Why?
Mr. Ciark. No yearling female could live on the hauling ground.
The older bachelors would simply make life unendurable for her.
The CHarrman. Were they all mixed up when you were there in
1913% They go everywhere, do they not, the yearlings and the
2-year-olds ?
Mr. Ciark. I say this is only estimated from the fact that there
were 81,984 pups born in 1912, and the best light we have on the
losses sustained by the pups in the first winter is about 50 per cent.
That is the highest loss that has been put on the pups during the
first migration. I am assuming they met that loss, which leaves
about 40,000 yearlings, and half of them will be females and half of
them males. Of course, I did not see any of the animals but those
figures are deducible from the known birth rate of 1912. :
The CuHarrMan. When you say that the yearling does not come on
the hauling ground, why did you say in your report that the company
did kill yearlings. They must have killed them away from the
hauling ground.
Mr. Cyrark. Mr. Rothermel, you are pressing my observation
rather too far, because I say there were only 16 of them killed.
The CuarrMan. Then they must have been killed off the hauling
ground.
Mr. Crarx. No; my report shows that there were 16 animals killed
in the quota of 1909 below 5 pounds, and they were yearlings.
The Cuarrman. How did you ascertain the weight ?
470 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. |
Mr. Crark. By the weighing of the skins at the salt house.
Mr. Parron. That included what may have been killed for food ?
Mr. Ciark. They might have been killed in food killings. But in
the report there are 16 skins that could properly be called yearlings.
Now, second, the results of the suspension of pelagic sealing: "hn
1912 there was an immediate gain of 15,000 breeding females, with
their pups—animals which would have been killed had pelagic sealing
been in operation in the spring and summer of 1912.
In 1913 there was a normal increase of 10,000 pups, indicating a
like gain in young 3-year-old females, a gain in breeding stock of 124
per cent as noted above.
This gain is not strictly normal, because the birth rate of 1911 from
which these young cows came was affected by pelagic sealing, that is,
diminished through the death of pups, unborn, with their mothers,
or as dependent pups, by starvation.
A count of pups for 1914 should show the normal increment of gain
annually, the birth rate of 1912 being unaffected by pelagic sealing.
The normal increment of breeding gain may be computed theo-
retically as follows: Breeding life of female 10 years; 10 per cent of
the adult female stock die annually. The quotas of 3-year-old males
in recent years show a survival of approximately 25 per cent of the
birth rate to the age of 3 years. That refers to the number of animals
killed by the leasing company, presumed to be 3 years of age.
The CHatrmMan. Now, what percentage, if you know, were killed
at sea by the pelagic sealers ?
Mr. Crark. The joint commission of 1896 and 1897, that is, the
British-American commission, united and accepted and agreed upon
the figures which Mr. A. B. Alexander brought from the Bering Sea,
that 55 per cent of the pelagic catch was females. They also accepted
the report of Andrew Halkett, the Canadian commissioner, who found
a percentage of 84 females in 100 of the pelagic catch. Those two
figures were agreed upon as the proportion of females in the pelagic
catch by the joint commission of 1897.
Males and females are equal at birth and subject to like losses.
The gross gain in young females is 25 per cent. The loss in adult
breeders is 10 per cent. The net annual gain is 15 per cent. We
have a gain for this year of 124 per cent.
Mr. Warkins. You speak so certainly of the exact numbers.
What is there to prevent you from counting the same seal twice ?
Mr. CrarKk. Well, the rookeries are divided by natural landmarks.
There are about 14 of them and they are divided in such a way that
there is no interchange, because we count them before the pups take
to the water, and if we start to count the Reef peninsula, for instance,
we finish that in the same day we start.
Mr. Watkins. So that there is no chance for the same ones to
intermingle with the others and get counted in a subsequent count ?
Mr. CrarK. No, sir; it could not occur.
Now, third, the results of suspension of land sealing: To date it
has had no effect on the breeding life of the herd and can not have
until 6 to 8 years hence. The young males exempted from killing in
1912 must attain breeding age, 6 years at a minimum before they can
obtain harems, and the offspring of their begetting must attain the
age of 3 years before they can appear as young breeding cows or as
lullable males. That is, these animals allowed to escape in 1912 and
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 471
1913 must add 3 years to their age before they can breed and then
there must follow 3 years before their offspring can appear as breeders
or killable seals. We can not therefore look for any results from the
suspension of land sealing for 6 to 8 years from now.
The only tangible result of the suspension of land sealing is that
10,000 young 3-year-old males were allowed in the season of 1913
to pass into the category of breeding bulls. The result of this action
is not apparent at this time. It will appear 8 to 10 years hence when
these animals, having attained full adult strength, take up the the
contest with the active bulls for possession of the females. The
present stock of breeding bulls is 1,403, or, if we include the reserve
stock, approximately 1,800. An accession of 10,000 animals in a
single year is wholly unwarranted. The law provides for a repetition
of this unwarranted increment of breeding males through four seasons
more, and then for 9 years move there is to be an added loss of 4,000
seals annually through an excessive breeding reserve requiring 5,000.
Fourth, the adequacy of the present stock of males: The stock of
breeding bulls was adequate in 1913 because there were 105 adult
bulls held in idleness by their more fortunate neighbors. Had there
been any dearth of breeding bulls, these animals would have obtained
harems. In addition there were 259 young bulls held out of harem
duty in the same way. These young animals were of full breeding
age and capacity, but simply did not have the strength to meet the
adult bulls in contest.
The stock of breeding bulls was virile and potent. In 1912 there
were 1,358 bulls in active harem duty. The 92,269 pups found on
the breeding grounds in 1913 were due to their ministrations in 1912,
No other proof of their potency need be urged. The same may be
said for the 1,373 bulls doing harem duty in 1911, which were
responsible for the 81,984 pups counted in 1912.
The average harem for 1911 yielded 60 pups in 1912; the average
harem for 1912 yielded 65 pups in 1913. It may be asserted that
these averages are not too high because the bulls voluntarily assume
responsibility for as many as 150 cows, if they can obtain control of
them. The present conditions are not abnormal. Steller, who saw
the animals in 1741 in a state of nature, reports the families—8, 15, 50,
and 120 “‘wives”’ to asingle bull. That will be found on page 203 of
the report of the commission of 1896-97, volume 3. Veniaminof, the
Russian bishop, speaks of ‘‘olden times’’ when bulls had from 500 to
700 females. That will be found in Zon’s translation of Veniaminof’s
zapiska paper, a copy of which I can supply to the committee. The
general run of harems differs little from conditions in 1896-97, when
the number of idle bulls equaled the number of active bulls and there
was constant struggie. There were more single-cow harems in
1896-97 as a result of captures by idle bulls, but even then there were
many harems of 100 and over. Close observations in 1909, in 1912,
and again in 1913 show no material change. There always have been
small harems and large harems. It is a question largely of location.
The question at issue is one of capacity on the part of the bull.
Veniaminof tells us (Zon’s translation, manuscript, p. 17) that a bull
in 24 hours can handle 25 females.
Mr. Watkins. Do you give that full allowance as correct ?
Mr. CirarKk. No; lamsimply stating the previous facts. Iwillcome
down to my own statement in a moment. In 1912 two services by;
472 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
_an individual bull with only a 15-minute intermission were observed.
That is detailed in the field notes of my 1912 report, July 23. Serv-
ice of 3 cows in 12 hours by the same bull was observed in 1912.
That is found in field notes of July 1. We sat on the rookery and
Mr. Marsh and myself held under observation two large harems with
a view to trying to determine the capacity of the pulls and in three
periods of 4 hours waiting each this bull served 3 cows. There
remained 8 hours of the day when we did not observe him. Many
observations of two services within an hour have been made. The
breeding season covers the period between June 12 and August 12.
There would seem to be AORRIAE inherently difficult in the service of
60 to 90 cows by one of these animals. The disparity between the
sexes—400 to 500 pounds for the bull; 75 to 85 pounds for the cow—
pe dicates unusual sexual capacity. It may be said that where a
ull has charge of 100 or more cows he is practically always under
necessity of sbeting his task with the neighboring idle bulls. When
the cows come in heat too rapidly for his attention, the idle and young
bulls push into his harem, or the cows wander out to other neigh-
boring harems.
Fifth, the increment of breeding males. The male is sexually
mature at 3 years and under a minimized stock of breeding males
would enter upon the office of reproduction certainly at the age of
6 years. A large stock of idle bulls simply shuts these animals out of
the breeding grounds until they attain full adult strength at 7 to 9
years. There is no advantage in forcing an animal to wait two years
after he has attained full breeding capacity.
The life of the male is about 14 years. His breeding life is from 6 to
8 years. The theoretical increment of breeding males should be one-
eighth to one-sixth of the active stock, for this proportion of the active
stock of males perish each winter at sea through natural termination
of life. To leave a margin of safety, and to provide against emer-
gency conditions, this theoretical increment should be considerably
increased—to, say, one-half of the active stock in any season. Thus,
for the present stock of 1,400 bulls, there should be an annual reserva-
tion of 700 young males, or to provide for the increase in the herd,
say, 1,000. No larger increment can be justified under any condition.
The law of 1912 has caused an increment of 10,000 to be made in
1913, with a shghtly increased number for each succeeding season till
1917; after that for 9 years there is to be an annual reservation of
5,000. Thus the law will create a stock of approximately 95,000
breeding bulls for a herd of females which in that period—1913 to
1926—can nct possibly use more than 10,000 bulls. This would pro-
vide for a complete replacement within the 13 years of a stock of 5,000
bulls. It is doubtful whether the stock of breeding males needed in
1926 will exceed 5,000, and the increase from 1,400 to this figure will
be slow and gradual.
The recommendation of the advisory board of the fur-seal service
in 1909, and the Dixon law of 1910, sought to fix a proper breedin
reserve by providing that no more than 95 per cent of the 3-year-ol
males should be killed in any given year. At that time the survivals
to the age of 3 years were known from the quota to be approximately
15,000.
But the Dixon law does not provide for a breeding reserve as was
intended. There are other defects in the Dixon law which I might
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 473
point out. The Dixon law says that in the case of young seals the
other conditions may be waived and the natives may kill young seals
for food and old seals for boat coverings, and it also says that females
will not be killed, nor animals of one year of age, ‘‘except as above
noted,” which, if you take it literally, means that for food purposes
you might kill yearlings and also females.
Five per cent of the 15,000 surviving 3-year-olds I mentioned would
have been 750 animals annually, a reasonable increment of gain, equal
to one-half of the active stcck and subject to natural increase with
the growth of the herd, which would bring in an enhanced number of
3-year-olds.
This provision of the Dixon law was, however, nullified by the fail-
ure to limit the killing to 3-year-olds. So long as 2-year-olds could
be killed, and 4-year-olds also, the 95 per cent rule had no force. For
example, suppose all the 2-year-olds were killed in any given season.
There would be no 3-year-olds the next season. Or, suppcse 5 per
cent of the 3-year-olds were saved one year, and these were killed as
4-year-olds the next year. The Dixon law is faultily drawn and
should be amended.
Sixth, the effect of the overstock of males: This will not manifest
itself for 6 to 8 years. It will reach its height in 1926, and continue
till 1934. That is, the 95,000 bulls I spoke of will exist as an over-
stock. From 1920 to 1930 will be a period of intense struggle
among them on the breeding grounds.
The Cuarrman. Mr. Clark, I want to ask you this: Are you a
lawyer ?
Mr. Crark. No; I am not.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it just occurred to me that you might
bealawyer. That is all.
Mr. Cxiark. There will be, between 1920 and 1930, 9 adult bulls
for every one actually needed. It is not necessary to detail what
will happen. Those who saw the rookerics in 1896-7, when a similar
but much less aggravated case of overstocking existed, can faintly
appreciate the injurious results to the herd.
In 1897 we counted 42 dead cows on Reef Rookery; this rookery
had 25 dead cows in 1896—most of them in each year dead from
rough treatment by fighting bulls. They were bitten through the
back and bitten through the neck; the canine holes were there to
show for it. The full toll of dead cows in 1896 was 131. There were
11,000 dead pups, most of them dead as a result of trampling due
to the excessive fighting. In 1912, when fighting was at its lowest
ebb, 1,060 dead pups and 27 dead cows were found; in 1913, 1,465
dead pups and 30 dead cows were found, the death of the pups being
due to trampling and to overlying of mothers or neighboring cows,
all these deaths being due to natural, unavoidable confusion present
on the rookeries in a normal state.
Mr. McGuire. Is there anything done with the dead ones found?
That is, are their skins taken if they are not in a state of decay?
Mr. CiarK. No; we took every cow that we found that was in
suitable condition for specimens, and, according to instructions of the
department, I had them skinned and put away in salt in the salting
house, subject to orders.
Mr. McGuire. They were not put on the market ?
474 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. No. Now, if these losses occur with a perfectly
normal stock of bulls, the result of the heavy overstock of bulls
now being provided for will be an enormous increase of loss. For
illustrations of the evil effect of fighting bulls see field notes, volume 2
of the report of the commission of 1896-97. I thought of reading
these notes to the committee. Is it desirable to do that?
The CuarrMan. Well, you can give the reference to them.
Mr. Crarx. Pages 535, 536, 549, 550, etc. Now, I would .like
to hand this photograph of a skin of a cow bitten to death by her bull
to the members of the committee in order that they may see what has
been done to the cows under my observation.
The CHarrmMan. What year is this?
Mr. CxarxK. 1897. In 1897
The CHarrmMan (interposng). Now, just one moment. Are you
ue that some of them were not speared in the ocean and came on
and ?
Mr. CLark. Well, that one was not.
The CHarrMAN. Was that your observation ?
Mr. Crarx. No; we found one cow with a spear head in her on
the rookery. That is the only one.
The CHarrMan. Were some of them shot?
‘ sap Ciark. Yes; we took shot out of many of them on the killing
elds.
Now, seventh, the struggle among the bulls is not necessary:
Rational methods of breeding do not call for this struggle. It is
not allowed among domestic animals. Man’s selection in the case
of the fur seals is not one
The CHairMAN (interposing). Is it natural for the male to want
to tear the female to pieces?
Mr. CLrarx. No; it is not natural, except that when the animals
are coming in heat the idle bulls try to capture them. Now, the cow
is a 75-pound animal and the bull weighs 500 pounds, and he treats
her just as a dog would a rat. He picks her up in his teeth and carries
her away 25 or 50 or 75 feet and another bull attacks him and they
may tear her to pieces in their struggle.
Now, I want to pass around these pictures at this point for two rea-
sons. At the bottom of the page I want to call attention to the size
of this big bull [indicating].
Mr. Warxrns. What is the location?
Mr. CLark. Down at the lower left hand corner. That is an adult
bull seal.
The CHarrMAN. When were these taken?
Mr. CtarKk. These were taken at various times. I took this cow
and pup picture in 1909. This little pup was anchored by its placenta
a mile back from the rookery, for some unknown reason, and I had
to battle with the mother before I could cut the umbilical cord free.
Now look at the picture above these two and you will see the con-
dition that appeared in 1897 when the idle bulls were set behind the
breeding masters in rows three or four deep. It happened that on
the day when the picture was taken the weather was clear and warm
and the animals were asleep, but the normal condition of that breeding
ground in 1897 was one of continual fighting, and when you get your
95,000 young bulls distributed over the Pribilof Islands 12 years hence
the number of pups trampled to death will be enormous.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 475
Mr. Exxiorr. It did not amount to one-half of 1 per cent when I
was up there.
The CuarrMan. Is it a fact that these different bulls place. them-
ite in a certain position and then the females come to a certain
ocality:
Mr. sees Oh, yes; they take up their locations on the shore a
month before the females arrive.
The CHAIRMAN. They come on the islands and locate themselves,
and the natural order of things is that so many females come into each
territory or harem, if I may call it that.
Mr. CLarKk. Yes; that is correct.
The CHarrMAN. The bulls station themselves before the females
come along?
Mr. Crark. Yes; a month before.
The CHatrMAN. They occupy their respective places ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHatrMAN. They keep their places until they depart again,
do they not ?
Mr. CLarKk. Until the breeding season is over.
The Cuarrman. Until they depart ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Do they interfere with each other ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes; the idle bulls. When a bull has a hundred cows
and three or four idle bulls are around the territory these idle bulls
rush in and grab cows, carrying they off. Hf a bull holds the cap-
tured cow other cows may come to join her. I remember a bull that
I saw in 1912. We watched him for more than a week. There were
a hundred cows in the harem when we first saw it, and there were 10
idle bulls around this bull. The idle bulls were perfectly content at
first, but in the course of a week, when the cows began to come in heat
more rapidly than he could serve them, we saw the phenomenon of
13 harems established there, all from 1 harem, by capture and by
voluntary removal.
The CHarrMAN. Were there any idle bulls in 1913 when you were
up there ?
Mr. CuarK. There were 105.
The:CHarRMAN. These are observations as to what you observed
on the islands ?
Mr. CLark. These are what I can contribute after a stay of 9 months
and 18 days on the islands.
The CHarrMan. But these are your observations of 1913, are they
not?
Mr. Ciarx. Of course; but relating back to 1912, 1909, and 1896-97.
The CHarrMAN. A report like this is on file in the department, ig
it not?
Mr. Ciark. Yes; elaborated. This is a condensation.
Thereupon, at 4 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-
morrow morning at 10.30 o’clock.
A476 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
HovusE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
February 21, 1914. .
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rother-
mel (chairman) presiding.
There were also present: Mr. Stephens of Texas, Mr. McGuire,
and Mr. Patton of Pennsylvania.
The CHatrrMan. Mr. Clark, you may resume.
STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE A. CLARK—Continued.
Mr. CrarKx. AsMr. Stephens was not here yesterday afternoon, may
he look at these photographs? I passed them around because they
show the contrast in the animals and show the typical harems and
so On.
I had come to the consideration of topic 8—Special considerations
affecting the first seal herd: Special considerations connected with
the breeding life of the fur seals make an overstock of bulls particu-
larly harmful to these animals. Among ordinary animals that live
in the open there is a distinct period following the birth of the youn
before the mother comes in heat or becomes the object of sexua
attention on the part of the male. In this period the young attains
some age and strength and is able to care for itself. In the case of
the fur seal mother, she comes in heat almost immediately—within
48 hours in some cases, and always within a few days. As a matter
of fact she is not allowed to leave the harem between the birth of her
pup and reimpregnation. Harem life is crowded at best. I have
shown you that mass of seals in the photograph of Tolstoi in 1897 as
Busevatouce of that fact. The bull is an animal of 400 to 500 pounds
welght——
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Did you tell us yesterday when these
photographs were taken ?
Mr. Crark. This photograph here of Hutchinson Hill seals was
taken in 1912.
The bull is an animal of 400 to 500 pounds weight; the mother
seal weighs 75 to 80 pounds; the pup about 12 pounds at birth. The
moment of birth is a critical one. The mother gives no thought to
preparation for labor. The pup may be voided under the nose of a
neighbor cow, which, in sheer vexation will take it by the back of the
neckand throwit overherhead. Ihaveseen that doneon the rookeries,
It may be sent sliding down a rocky incline, and the mother is laz
and slow about following it up. It may be two hours before she will
get to that ae The pup will keep calling to her, but she will not
go to it until she gets good and ready.
Many pups smother because the mother does not quickly enough
remove the impeding membrane from about the nose. That is a
critical matter, because we discovered a number of deaths due to
suffocation by the membrane on the nose. The animal had never
breathed. These observations are outlined in my report.
If an idle bull makes an attack upon a harem at is always when the
harem bull is on the farther side. The harem master in counter
attack makes a direct line through the harem, overturning cows,
stepping on them and upon the pups, causing confusion throughout
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 477
the whole group. Births are suspended; cows and newly-born pups
are widely separated. This experience may be repeated for a large
harem a hundred times a day, when there are idle bulls in close
roximity. The act of copulation, a clumsy process, may proceed
Reade a case of parturition and may disturb it with fatal results. It
is unnecessary to go into greater detail. The period of greatest
births; that is, of greatest helplessness among the pups and mothers,
and the period of heat, which occasions the fighting among the bulls,
are practically simultaneous. Anything which tends to augment the
fighting and confusion on the breeding grounds—as the overstock of
bulls does—is simply criminal. Every effort should be made to
reduce the fighting to a minimum. To this end the superfluous
males should be removed.
Ninth, the waste involved: In addition to the loss—I mean the
biological loss—resulting from the destruction of mother seals and
young, already referred to, the failure to take the 10,000 killable
seals in 1913,involved a heavy financial loss. Sealskins sold recently,
according to the Associated Press dispatches which came to us in
California, at St. Louis at $52 apiece. The Government had not over
2,500 sealskins to sell. It should have had 10,000 in addition to
what it had. The return to the Government should have been
$520,000 more than it got. That is, assuming that the price stated
is correct, which I have taken from the papers. The loss involved
will increase and grow greater with each season of the close period.
Tenth, the arbitrary curtailment of the food killing: The law of
1912 provides for a food killing for the natives residing on the Pribilof
Islands, without specifying the number of animals to be killed. Such
a food killing should provide fresh meat for the summer and salted
meat for winter use. There are 300 people resident upon the islands.
In common with the people of the north, they are heavy meat eaters.
The bachelor seal dresses about 25 pounds. Five thousand animals
would give the native population a ration of a little over 1 pound of
meat a day through the year, a ridiculously small allowance.
The CuarrmMan. They do not eat the fat. They only eat the meat.
Mr. Ciarx. I presume that is true. They cut the shoulders out
and the loin and such parts as are choice and leave the blubber.
This ration of 1 pound of meat a day would be too small. In 1891-
1893, when there was a similar limitation of killing, Great Britain
agreed with us that 7,500 seals was a normal annual food killing for
the same population. The population is practically identical to-day
with what it was at the other time.
The CuarrmMan. What year was that ?
Mr. CrarK. 1891-1893. There was a modus vivendi which limited
the killing on land, and the British Government agreed with us that
we could kill 7,500 seals for food for the natives.
The CuarrmMan. How many did they kill?
Mr. Crark. Just that number. They were limited to that.
With this knowledge in hand the department arbitrarily fixed the
food killing for 1913 at 3,000 animals, 2,000 animals below the
minimum need and 4,500 below the normal need. The loss resulting
from this action can be computed at the rate of $52 per skin, if the
press dispatches are right, a minimum of $104,000 and a maximum of
$234,000. In the meantime the Government is feeding these people
478 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
on canned and salted meats at greater expense and to the detriment
of the health of the natives.
Eleventh, a secondary or contributing loss resulting from the land
suspension: The Pribilof Islands is the home of a valuable herd of
fur-bearing animals—the blue foxes. At the recent sale of furs in
St. Louis the skins of these animals, according to the press dispatches
also, brought as high as $158 apiece, which is three times as much as
the sealskins themselves brought. The catch for St. Paul Island for
1912 averaged $95 each, and the total catch for the islands in that
yea brought in $20, 000 to the Treasury. During the period of the
two leases the total blue-fox catch numbered 40, 000 pelts, about 1,000
annually. The Government ignored the foxes in its leases and there-
fore derived no income from them, the whole income going to the
companies.
The extent of the blue-fox industry depends solely upon the food
supply. The islands would support an indefinite number of foxes if
only there was food for them. The birds in summer afford a con-
siderable supply of food, but in the winter the chief dependence of the
foxes has been upon the refuse meat of the killing fields. The law
cuts this off. The animals have cannibalistic tendencies. When
food is scarce the old eat the young, the strong the weak; they are
bound by island conditions; they can not go to other places for food.
At $95, and especially at $158 per skin, the Government could afford
to feed these foxes on beef. The plains of the islands in summer
would fatten an indefinite number of cattle and sheep. Fox farming
has become an important industry at points in Canada; and from
our fox warrens in Alaska, not from the Pribilof Islands, come the
pairs of foxes that stock these Canadian fox farms. The Govern-
ment possesses the best natural plant in the world for developing a
fox industry. The seal meat from its killing fields, properly eared for,
under a system of cold storage or even by hanging it up carefully in
screened buildings and properly distributed, w ould: support five times
the number of foxes that are present on the islands. But the law
stops the killing of seals and leaves the foxes to starve. If the close
season is carried through, the fox herd will be so depleted that it will
require years of careful nursing to bring it back even to its present
low and undeveloped state. It is hard, for me at least, to understand
why this important industry should be sacrificed to ‘pring about a
wholly fictitious advantage to the fur-seal herd.
In this connection I wish to mention briefly the relation of this
suspension of land sealing to the treaty of 1911. This treaty which
suspends pelagic sealing for 15 years has in it a definite bargain that
in leu of the suspension of pelagic sealing the United States Govern-
ment shall give to Great Britain and Japan 15 per cent each of its
land kilings. It seems to me that this obligates the United States
to take a land killing and give 15 per cent of it to each of those nations.
The law stops us from doing that.
Twelfth, the question of land killing of seals: This killing is con-
fined to the superfluous males. That is definite. The fur seal is
polygamous. The original law protected the females absolutely and
forbade the killing of animals under 1 year. Departmental regula-
tions have at times specifically protected other classes of animals—
as the 4-year-olds, and animals under 2 years of age; but no one could
determine definit ely the ages of these animals. A judgment can be
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 479
formed from the size of the animals, but this is only conjecture. To
carry out the law and to define the relations of the agents under it,
regulations were fixed on the basis of weights of skins. Thus, to save
the 4-year-olds a maximum of 8} pounds was maintained at times.
To protect the yearlings a minimum weight of 5 pounds has been in
force. These standards weights were fixed Mr. Henry W. Elliott in
1872-1874. They will be found on page 192 of this last document
that was published.
Mr. Exvtiotr. You can not find a 5-pound weight in any of my
publications. That is a mistake.
Mr. Crark. Four and one-half pounds is given as the average
weight of a yearling sealskin.
The CHarrMAN. Refer to that page.
Mr. Extiorr. There is no use misquoting me. You have my pub-
lication with you; 53 pounds is my statement for a 2-year-old, and
you know it.
Mr. CLark. On page 192 it is stated that the skin of a yearling seal
has a weight of ‘44 pounds, a mean of six examples, males and
females, alike in size, July 14, 1873”; 44 as an average must be a
mean of skins weighing from 4 pounds to 5 pounds. I take it that is
a reasonable interpretation.
The CHarRMAN. That is your explanation of that ?
Mr. CLark. Yes; the law says that no skins shall be taken under
5 pounds, and that was a concession to the fact that a skin averaging
44 pounds was the skin of a yearling.
The CuHarrMAN. Well, is that your judgment ?
Mr. CrarK. That is my judgment; yes.
The CHarrMan. 44 pounds.
Mr. Crark. The actions of the lessees and agents have conformed
to these standard weights. Since 1904 individual skin weights have
been recorded for every skin taken. The list of weights from this date
to 1911 are given at page 504 of Hearing No. 10. In the total
of 93,323 skins there recorded 711 only have been under the weight
of 5 pounds.
Now, I want to take up the killing of yearlings, and it may be con-
ceded that some yearlings have been killed. I will concede that these
711 skins that have been mentioned are skins of animals which fell
below the weight prescribed by the regulations.
Mr. SrerHENS. What do you mean by the word ‘“‘some”? You
stated that you would ccncede “‘scme” yearlings have been killed ?
Mr. Ciark. J said 711 definitely. Ido not want to say that all of
these 711 seals are yearlings, but certainly no other animals than those
711 can be charged to be yearlings.
There are two explanations for these yearlings, and the first is acci-
dents. The native clubber must gauge the weight of the skin on the
living animal, and then club it down. Of course, when he makes a
mistake there is no way to recall it or remedy it. As a matter of fact,
the clubber may strike down a small animal when he intended to
stiike down a large animal. At times a blow intended for an animal
of proper age and size reaches a smaller animal for which it was not
intended. The head of a seal may seem large enough to correspond
to that of a 2 or 3 year old seal, while the body may not conform, but
of course, if it has been struck down that is an end of the matter, and,
of course, these mistakes of judgment can not be rectified. These are
480 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
accidents pure and simple, and no blame can reasonably be attached
to anyone. The foreman of a range wno in rounding up 93,000 steers
of mixed ages and slaughtering them found himself with 711 2-year-old
animals killed, if the meat had been cared for, would hardly be cen-
sured for the accidental kuling of these animals. The percentage of
accidents is small, and I think it is a standing vindication of the vigi-
lance and care of the agents that no more have occurred.
Mr. Watkins. What becomes of the bodies after the removal of
the skins ?
Mr. Cuark. The natives use as much of the meat as they can, and
the rest of the carcasses is left on the ground and remains there until
the foxes dig them out of the snow in winter and feed upon them.
Mr. SrepHENS. What number of seals were killed at the time these
711 were killed by accident ?
Mr. CLark. 93,323 for the period from 1904 to 1911.
Now, another explanation of the killing of these yearlings or small
seals lies in the fact that there are food killings of the seals as well as
commercial killings of seals. The commercial killings were under the
control of the leasmg company, but killings were made in the fall and
early spring purely for meat. From the beginning the law made an
exception in the case of food killings, and even pups were killed.
Those killings were made under the direction of the agents solely, but
the skins were accepted or rejected by the leasing company, as the
case may have been, and those accepted eventually became a part of
the leasing company’s quota or catch. The natives greatly prefer the
flesh of the younger animals. It is difficult to prevent them from
killing them when food killings are made in the fall. No pups have
been killed for many years, but the tradition of small, plump young
animals in the food killing still clings in the Aleut’s mind. J have wit-
nessed the efforts of the agents.to try to get the natives to club down
lean seals with splendid skins on them in the food killings, but the
natives made the most brilliant blunders imaginable to miss them,
but if there was any opportunity to strike down a plump young seal
they never missed it.
Mr. McGurre. You say that the natives prefer the pups for food
purposes. Please state what you mean by the word ‘pups ?”’
Mr. Crark. I mean those born in that particular year—milk-fed
seals.
Mr. McGuire. Do you mean those that have never gone to sea?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You distinguish the word “pup” there, as to age
and size, from the word “‘pup”’ as it may be applied to the skin of a
seal according to the classifications; that is, the skin of a small pup,
extra small pup, etc. ?
Mr. Crarx. The London classification of “large,’”’ ‘‘small,”’ “mid-
dling,” ‘extra small,’ pups, etc., has nothing to do with the word
“‘pups”’ in the connection we are speaking of here, because all of those
animals had reached one year of age or above. Those are purely
trade designations. After they got down to ‘‘small”’ pups, and
finding still another size, they put in the classification the term
‘extra small’? pups, and you will find in the 1910 London classifi-
cation that they have added another classification called ‘‘ extra extra
small’ pups, but that does not refer to this category of pups at all.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 481
The pups we are talking about have passed a winter at sea and all
of them have returned to the island in the second season.
Mr. STEPHENS. Commercial killing, as I understand it, is the killing ~
of seals for their skins.
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. The commercial killing was done, of course,
under the direction of the lessees, and was done with the definite
intent of giving them the quota of skins that the law allowed. Those
lullings occur in June and July.
Mr. STEPHENS. To what size was that killing confined ?
Mr. CrarKk. According to some regulations, they were not to fall
below the limit of 5 pounds and not to exceed the fie of 84 pounds.
Of course, that weight has varied sometimes. Sometimes 6 pounds
was the minimum; sometimes it was 54 pounds, and sometimes 5
pounds.
Mr. STEPHENS. But it was confined to sizes between those two
extremes ?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes, sir.
The CHatrMAN. In this connection, I want to ask you why it is
that the ‘‘extra small” pup skin or the ‘‘small’’ pup skin brings less
money in London than does the “large” pup skin ?
Mr. Crark. Naturally, as you go down to the bottom of this cate-
gory, you are getting to smaller animals all the time.
The CHarrmMan. Does net the price indicate that they are smaller
animals, or the skins of smaller animals ?
Mr. Crark. The designation “extra small pups”’ indicates the same
thing.
The CuHarrRMAN. Do the designations ‘‘small pups” and ‘extra
small pups”’ indicate the same thing ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir; and the designation ‘‘extra extra small
pups,” also.
The CHarrMAN. What I meant to ask you is this: Is there any dif-
ference in the prices of skins mentioned as “‘large pups,” ‘‘ middling
pups,” “‘small pups,” “extra small pups,” and ‘extra extra small
ups 2”
Z Mr. Crark. Naturally there would be, because there would be a
smaller skin on the smaller animal.
The CuarrMAN. Would you say that that classification does not
mean anything? Why do they call them that ?
Mr. CiarK. I do not question that.
The CHarrMan. You said that it did not mean anything.
Mr. Crark. No, sir; I meant that it does not mean pups. I am
talking of pups here that are born on the island; they are pups until
Hey. leave, and when they come back the next year they are year-
ngs.
The CuarrMan. Those trade-marks you spoke of must indicate the
sizes of the skins more or less; is that true ?
Mr. Crark. Naturally they do; yes, sir.
The CHatrMAN. Because they bring less money. If the sale of |
1910, for instance, had been such as you have described, if I do not
misunderstand you, we should have had more money for the skins if
the skins were all alike. Some brought, as I understand it, $28.50—
that is, the skins of small pups—while the skins of large pups brought
as much as $54 in London. Those are matters of public record.
53490—_14—_31
4892 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. I wanted to discuss that question at some length with
you yesterday, but I was prevented from doing so at the time by the
cross-examination. J want to take up the discussion of it and go
into it thoroughly.
The CHarrMan. When you make a statement of that kind, I want
to call your attention to it. I do not want to cross-examine you.
Mr. Crark. Of course, there have always been different grades of
skins, and the different grades and sizes are not peculiar to the catch
of 1910. You will find in the London classification which was sup-
plied to the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration those categories all listed
showing the catch of the Alaska Commercial Co. There have always
been skins of varying sizes. That is why the weights were put
there—that is, the weights limiting the catch to 5 pounds minimum
and 84 pounds maximum. Therefore, the skins ranged in size
between those two figures.
The CHarrMan. If the skins were those of large pups, then the
Government in its last three years received about $250,000 or $300,000
less than it should have received.
Mr. Ciark. In the same way the company received less for the
small skins than they did for the large skins.
The CHarrMAN. Then the small skins were taken from ‘‘small”’
pups ¢
ue Crark. Yes, sir. The “‘small’’ pup, according to the London
catalogue, is a 2-year-old. The ‘‘small”’ pup of the London cata-
logue is a 2-year-old seal, and the ‘extra small pup”’ is a yearling.
The CHatRMAN. In the London catalogue ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. Then, if the London catalogue shows that there
were more extra small pups than you have stated—you stated that
711 were killed—you are mistaken, are you not?
Mr. Crarx. Yes, sir; if the interpretation is properly made. I
want to discuss this matter fully later on, because it 1s hard to bring
it to a focus here.
Mr. Warkxins. I want to ask you this, whether it is a fact that all
the sales that are made of these sealskins, and referred to as sales
made under London classifications, are made in London—that is,
whether all the sales that are made anywhere go through that market ?
Mr. CrarKk. I believe they have in the past.
Mr. Warxins. That is the first proposition, and the next is whether
the sealskins which they buy there and sell there necessarily come
from the territory which we are discussing now ?
Mr. CrarKk. Not necessarily. There are skins which come from
the Uruguayan Government’s seal islands at the mouth of the River
Plata, and there are skins from Cape Horn.
Mr. Watkins. Then, what designation is there, if any, by which
you determine from the catalogue where the seals came from ? ¢
Mr. CrarKk. There is nothing that I know of. There are also
sealskins taken from the Commander Islands which belong to Russia.
The London catalogue may distinguish them or may not. I do not
see how they could. Does that cover your question ?
Mr. WATKINS. That answers the question, but I do not know about
the accuracy of it, because there is a diversity of opinion about that.
Mr. Crark. That is a matter of record, however. There always
has been a seal catch off Cape Horn and a small catch upon the Uru-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 483
guayan preserves. Thereis also a catchof furseals on the Commander
Islands, which belong to Russia. They are all marketed in very
much the same way as ours. That was the basis of my reply, of
course. x
Now, therefore, discussing the effect of the killing of yearlings:
There would have been nothing deadly about the killing of these
animals if it had taken place. It makes no difference whether the
superfluous male is killed at the age of 3 or of 2 or of 1 or of 4 years,
so far as the breeding life of the herd is concerned. ‘There are two
legitimate grounds of criticism of the killing of yearlings and 2-year-
olds, if it should occur. I mean that if the killing of yearlings
should occur, there are legitimate grounds of complaint against it.
In the first place, it is economically wasteful to kill an animal below
the age at which it gives the best skin, namely, 3 years. In the second
place, in the past those mistaken killings of yearling seals and the
killing of 2-vear-olds have obscured a scientific fact of which the
commission in 1896 and 1897 was very anxious to have a solution of,
namely, the actual increment of annual gain in the breeding stock
of the herd. That was quite a vital question—how fast does the herd
increase in its normal state. If the killing had been limited to 3-year-
olds or 2-year-olds, that is to say, to animals of one age, then the
quota of skins taken by the leasing company would have been the
exact measure of the number of 3-year-old cows which came to the
breeding grounds each year to deliver their first pups. That is to
say, the sexes are born in equal numbers; they suffer like vicissi-
tudes when out at sea in the first two migrations, and the number of
-females that would return would be equal to the number of males that
would return during each of the three years. Now, if the killings
were limited to 3-year-old seals, the number taken would be a definite
measure of the increase of the herd. That was formerly an important
question, and that is one reason why I criticized the killing of 1909.
From the point of view of an investigator, it obscured the question of
the natural increase of the herd. That is no longer important now,
because | counted every pup that was born in 1912; counted them
again in 1913, and the difference between those two counts is a better
measure of the increment of gain than would have been obtained
by the other method. Therefore, my opinion now is that it would
be economically satisfactory to take not only the 3-year-olds but
the 2-year-olds, because the trade can use 2-year-old skins for
demands for which a 3-year-old skin would be too large.
The CHarrmMan. In a former hearing before this committee,
Mr. Lembkey was questioned about the catch in 1910, and I call
your attention to his statement on page 904 of Hearing No. 14. This
is what Mr. Lembkey said at page 904 about the catch of 1910:
A summary of the classification of the 12,920 salted fur-seal skins of the catch of
1919, sold by Lampson & Co., is as follows: Smalls, 132; large pups, 995; middling
pups, 4,011; small pups, 6,205; extra small pups, 1,528; extra small pups, 11; faulty, 38.
Now, according to this statement 1,528 yearlings must have been
killed in 1910.
Mr. CiarK. I would ask you to call upon Mr. Lembkey to explain
that, because I know nothing about tliat.
The Cuarrman. If extra small pups are yearlings, then, according
to this statement, 1,528 yearlings were killed.
484 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Cuark. I have stated of that year
The CuarrRMAN (interposing). Is it not a fact that you stated that
extra small pups were yearling seals ?
Mr. Cxuarx. I would like to state the rest of it. They exceed the
average of extra small pups; they exceed the average established by
Mr. Elliott for a yearling seal, because the London classification says
that an extra small pup’s skin is 4 pounds and 15 ounces, and Mr.
Elhiott’s classification says a yearling seal’s skin is 44 pounds.
Mr. Watkins. That would be 5 pounds, would it not ?
Mr. CrarKk. The London classification, as I have stated, comes
under 5 pounds. I would not want to question that, because it is
pretty close to 5 pounds, and, as we know, the salted weights are
lower. Salting decreases the weight of the skin, and we know that
the London classification of 4 pounds and 15 ounces ought to have
an addition made to it to get back to the weight of the green skins.
Mr. Watkins. I understood you to say 4 pounds and 16 ounces.
Mr. Crarxk. I said 4 pounds and 15 ounces, which is below 5
pounds. As we now know, salting decreases the weight. It was 6.4
ounces a skin on 205 skins experimented with and therefore, we
would have to add something to that 4 pounds and 15 ounces, and
that would bring the extra small pups up into the category of 2-year-
olds.
The CuarrmMan. We do not want to get away from the question I
put to you regarding the killing of yearlings. You stated that only
711 yearling seals were taken between 1904 and 1911, did you not?
Mr. CLarx. Won’t you allow me to make a complete statement
about it ?
The CuarrMaNn. Didn’t you make that statement ?
Mr. CrarKk. I would like to see the statement, or have it read, to
see whether | actually stated it or not.
The CHarrMAN. I will leave it to the committee.
Mr. Crark. The point I want to get at is this
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I want a direct answer first to my
question: Did you say a whue ago that not more than 711 yearling
seals were taken since 1904 out of a total of 93,323 ?
Mr. Crark. If I stated that, I meant to state that there were 711
skins in those 93,323 skins that were below the standard which was
developed and fixed as the boundary line between yearlings and
2-year-old seals.
The CHarrMan. Do you mean to inform the committee that not
more than 711 seals of that class were taken out of that total of 93,323 ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. Then you stated further that “‘extra small” pups
were yearling seals. You did say that.
Mr. CLrarkx. Under the London classification, if you take them
below 5 pounds; yes, sir.
The CHarrman. If Mr. Lembkey stated that 1,528 extra small
pups were taken in the catch of 1910, then you must be mistaken ?
Mr. CLtarx. But I do not know anything about this category that
you are putting up to me.
The CHarrman. If Mr. Lembkey swore that 1,528 extra small pups
were taken in the catch of 1910, do you mean to say that he did not
tell the truth ?
Mr. CLark. Can not that be ascertained from Mr. Lembkey ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 485
The CHarrmMan. If Mr. Lembkey told the truth, you are mistaken,
are you not?
Mr. CiarK. I can not see it, quite.
The CuarrMan. Is that all you want to say about that?
Mr. Patron. Your estimate was made on skins weighed on the
island, was it not?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes, sir.
Mr. Patron. And the estimate Mr. Lembkey gave was from the
weights or measurements of skins, or the record of them, given in
London ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
Mr. Patron. And there is a difference between the weight of the
green skins and the weight of a salted skin. The weight of the salted
skin would be less than the weight on the island, would it not?
Mr. CLiarKk. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. This witness seems to have a prepared statement,
and I would lke to inquire how would this arrangement do—that
whenever a member of the committee desires to ask the witness any
question, to make a note of it, and make it a rule not to break the
continuity of the witness’s statement any more than possible. Of
course, we are discussing matters that are matters in controversy, but’
it occurs to me that it would be better to allow him to make a con-
nected statement, and then after he has completed his statement, we
can take exception to such portions of it as we like, or question him
with a view to obtaining further information on the subject. I
merely make that asa suggestion. I think the record would be better
if that rule were observed. |
The Cuarrman. I think it would be better to conduct the hearing
as we have been doing. Of course, if the committee wants to test the
other method, they can do so.
T am not quite through with this particular point here: On page
905 of these hearings, No. 14, Mr. Lembkey stated that of the 1910
catch 7,733 out of 12,920 skins were the skins of small pups and
extra small pups.
Mr. CLtarx. This was made before we determined that salted skins
depreciated in weight, so Mr. Lembkey might change his statement
now.
The Cuareman. Is this a correct statement by Mr. Lembkey, which
was made under oath ?
Mr. Ciarx. How can I tell?
The CuarrmMan. Do you still mean to say that only 711 small pups
or extra small pups, or yearlings, were taken out of that total of
93,323 seals since 1904?
Mr. Ciarx. I say that 711 animals, which under the regulation
weights may be assumed to be yearlings, were killed in that manner.
The Cuarrman. Then you do not want to say that 1,528 extra
ae pups were taken in the catch of 1910 out of a total of 12,920
seals ?
Mr. CLarx. You are bringing up a situation with which I am not
at allfamiliar. i have not tested these figures as given here.
The CHarrmMan. You stated a moment ago under oath that the
agents of the Government performed their duties faithfully. Now,
when Mr. Lembkey comes before this committee and under oath
tells us that 1,528 extra small pups were taken in the catch of 1910,
486 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
and you call extra small pups yearlings, you do not want to say that
that statement was not correct ?
Mr. Ciark. I have asked on three or four occasions for the privi-
lege of presenting this matter in such a way that I can protect my
statements. You ask me questions which take up the matter by
piecemeal——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Pardon me, but it is not my pur-
pose to bring it up by piecemeal. You brought this particular piece
into the hearing by stating that so many extra small pups had been
taken since 1904, and I want to brmg out your reasons for making
that statement.
Mr. Ciark. I can take that up. I was prevented from taking it
up at the time we started that discussion yesterday.
The CHAIRMAN. Nobody prevented you from doing so, and nobody
will prevent you from doing so, but we want you to tell the truth to
the committee.,
Mr. Cuark. I am trying to tell the truth, and if [am guarded in my
statements it is because I want to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth.
The CHarRMAN. Well, we will let it pass at that.
Mr. CrarKk. Now, fourteenth, as to the alleged killing of females:
The odiom supposed to lie in the killing of yearlings has rested in the
claim that the yearlings mingled male and female on the hauling
grounds. This is not the fact. The yearlings, as a class, do not
come to the hauling grounds. A few of the older animals, that is to
say, the earlier born animals, approximating two years old in develop-
ment, appear on the hauling grounds late in the killmg season. These
ave on numerous tests been found to be males. The number is not
reat. A careful scrutiny of from 1,200 to 1,500 bachelors from Reef
auling ground in 1913, handled with this end in view, disclosed that
erhaps one in fifteen, or, perhaps, only one in twenty, were vearlings.
hese few animals were males, and it would not be possible in any
event for the yearling females to exist on the hauling grounds. That
is true, because the older bachelors would worry them to death. The
bachelor seal has full sexual development, and to have female yearlings
mixing in there would mean constant worriment to them, and they
do not go there. The same thing is true of the two-year-old cows.
Both classes of young females find their place and companionships
among the pups and older females.
The CuarrMan. Let me ask you right there: Can a man easily dis-
tinguish a male from a female when they are 1-year old?
Mr. Crark. You can find out very readily by snaring them and
turning them over on their backs and examining them.
The CuarrMan. But you can not do it by looking at them on the
ground ?
Mr. CuarK. No, sir; and we did not depend on that.
The CHarrMAN. Is there any difference in size ?
Mr. CrarK. No, sir; not that I know of. We snared them with
ropes and drew them out to examine them, and did not depend on any
judgment as to sizes.
Mr. Watkins. What do you mean by bachelors?
Mr. CLarKE. A young male seal under 4 years old. Anything con-
sidered killable would be a bachelor seal, and the quota would be
made up from the bachelors. We refer to bachelor seals as distin-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 487
guished from virgin females. The yearlings as a class come to the
islands in numbers only when the pups have reached an age when
they spend most of their time in the water. The branding of pups
in the fall of 1912 settled this question of the movements of the year-
lings. I want to emphasize the point that our knowledge on this
subject has been one of constant growth, and it was not until 1912
that these facts affecting our judgment concerning yearlings were
finally established. Consequently, when I cali attention to what L
stated in 1896 and 1909 it must be taken with this understanding,
that our knowledge has been growing all along, and I know more
about the subject now than I did then. If I made mistakes before,
T want to correct them now, because added light brings an added
willingness to remedy any defects which may be brought to light.
As J said, the branding of pups in the fall of 1912 settled this question
of the movements of the yearlings. Six thousand of these animals
were marked with hot irons, chiefly from Reef Rookery. Only one
of these branded animals was seen on the hauling grounds of Reef
Rookery, and three all told, in the killmeg season of 1913, and that
hauling ground was studied carefully to find oat whether they were
there or not. We had them divided into pods and turned them off
one by one, so that we could make an exact enumeration of every
single pod.
The Cuarrman. Did you try to separate them in groups of two or
three ?
Mr. CiarKk. No, sir; we would take a bunch of 15 or 20 seals and
watch them very closely to see all the different kinds of seals among
them. We did not look at them in a mass.
Mr. SterHEeNS. At what ages did you brand them ?
Mr. CrarKk. They were pups 2 to 3 months old.
Mr. SterHens. Of what sex ?
Mr. Crarxk. Of bothsexes. AsIsaid, we did not findthem. Their
absence prior to August 8 showed clearly enough that few of the
yearlings reach the hauling ground. The estimate of one in fifteen
would mean that about 1,000 yearlings for all the hauling grounds of
the Pribilof Islands in 1913, the last week in July, which is a mere
fraction out of the nearly 40,000 yearlings all told which must have
belonged to the herd in that season. That is the number of year-
lings that might be expected to appear on the hauling grounds and
that would be involved in any killing that might be undertaken. The
greatest number of yearlings alleged to have been killed in 128,000,
only half of which are claimed to be females, or 64,000.
The Cuargman. During what pericd ?
Mr. Cxtarx. The period from 1904, I suppose, down to 1911, or
maybe from 1896 to 1911.
The CuarrmMan. I think that is from 1890 to 1909.
Mr. CiarK. Well, whatever it is.
Mr. StepHens. What is the number ?
Mr. Cxuark. It is stated in the hearings. The number is stated in |
the hearings as 128,000, and it is otherwise stated as 120,000.
Mr. Exxiotrr. That is my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Since 1896 ?
Mr. Exxiotr. It was 128,000: since 1890.
Mr. Crarx. I criticized the killing of 1909 because it left prac-
tically no small animals. The percentage of animals killed, when
488 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
the branded reserve was eliminated, rose to 90. Having in mind the
conditions of 1896 and 1897, when the younger animals were turned
back by the thousands in the later drives, and when the total killed
was 18,000 and the total number of small seals rejected was 23,000,
the close killing of 1909 alarmed me. Eighteen thousand was the total
of animals killed under our observation in 1897, and we turned back
by actual count 23,000 young seals or small seal. Having in mind,
as_I said, those conditions, the killing in 1909 alarmed me. -We had
supposed in 1896 and 1897 that the bulk of the animals turned back
as small seals were yearlings, or small 2-year-olds. If this had been
the case, then the killing of 1909 must have included yearlings. It
seemed to me in 1909 that either yearlings were killed or else that
they did not come to the hauling grounds. The fact is that as a class
they were not present in 1909, nor were they present in 1896 and 1897
as a class. It was the 2-year-old animals that were so conspicuously
turned back in 1896-97, and it was the 2-year-old animals that made
up the bulk of the catch in 1909. The yearlings were at sea or on the
rookery fronts, and did not come in until later in the fall. As no
considerable body of yearlings have ever been present on the hauling
erounds, and the few actually there being males, the injury alleged
to have been done by the killing of female yearlings has not occurred.
Now, fifteenth, I wish to discuss the effect of pelagic sealing: The
killing of yearlings of which so much has been said included not more
than 128,000 of these animals. At most only one-half of these could
have been yearling females, or 64,000: Against this 64,000 I wish
to cite the results of pelagic sealing as stated by Mr. Alfred Fraser
in hearing No. 1 of this committee, page 32. On that page Mr. Fraser
shows that the pelagic catch from the Pribilof herd for the period
1872-1910 numbered 1,095,000 skins. In the Sims report for 1906,
page 35, a total of 877,000 skins is given for the period from 1868 to
1906. In the report of the Foreign Relations Committee, No. 295,
page 7, another summary gives 962,000 for the period from 1870 to
1911. I do not pretend to say which of these estimates is right, but
they are in practical agreement that practically 1,000,000 seals
were lost to the Pribilof Island herd during the period of pelagic
sealing.
The CuarrMan. I think there is a table in hearing No. 1 showing
the number of seals lost by pelagic sealing.
Mr. Crark. I want to call attention to the fact that these other
authorities give a number slightly less than Mr. Fraser. It may be
that Mr. Fraser included the Commander Island seals, but he is in
substantial agreement with the others that the loss to the Pribilof
herd was about 1,000,000 seals.
Mr. SrePHENS. What do you attribute that to?
Mr. Crark. I think I can develop that right now, if you will per-
mit me. I want to call attention to the fact that that was the mini-
mum loss because many animals were shot by the pelagic sealers
that were not recovered. Pelagic sealing was indiscriminate. Mr.
'A. B. Alexander found a percentage of 63 females in the pelagic
eatch in 1895, and Mr. A. Halkett, a Canadian, found a percentage
of 84 in the catch of 1896.
Mr. McGurre. That was one year later ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir, and those figures were agreed to by the joint
conference in 1897.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 489
The Caarrman. There is no doubt in my mind but that the table
by Mr. Fraser is correct.
Mr. Crarx. I want to refer you to page 243 of volume 1 of the
Report of the Fur Seal Investigation of 1896-97. This statement is
made:
In 1895 Mr. A. B. Alexander, on behalf of the Government of the United States,
found 63.3 per cent of females in the catch of the Dora Siewerd in Bering Sea. Late
in 1896 Mr. Andrew Halkett, on behalf of the Canadian Government, found 84.2 per
cent in the catch of the same schooner in the same sea.
There figures were accepted as correct by the experts.
Mr. Warxins. Was that because of the fact that we were pre-
serving an excess or a larger number of females on the island, and,
therefore, that there would be a larger number of females in pro-
portion to the males when they were out at sea?
Mr. Crark. There should be a greater number of females. The
ereatest number of males needed to impregnate the herd would be
very small, or one in about 29. There would necessarily be an excess
of females.
Now, we did not take this on faith, but in 1896 we sent Mr. Lucas,
a member of the commission, on a revenue cutter out to sea. He
cathered up the bodies of the animals taken by the pelagic sealers
and had them brought on board the ship, where he made an examina-
tion of them. I want to refer to some of his notes at page 406 of
volume 2 of the Report of the Commission for 1896-97. Out of 48
bodies brought on the deck of the revenue cutter, 2 were bodies of
young males, and “the remaining 46 were females over 2 years old,
some bemg very old. The 46 females were carefully examined
by Mr. Townsend and myself with the following results: 43 were
breeding females with nursing young,” and ‘‘42 of the females, in-
cluding 3 two-year-olds, had been recently impregnated,” showing
that the mother seal was not merely nursing her young but was
pregnant when taken in Bering Sea. That meant that the dependent
offspring starved to death and that an unborn life died with the
mother in her death. I would like to cite you to page 460 of this
same report. It is not necessary to read it.
Mr. Macoun and I were especially assigned to this part of the
work and required to remain on the islands until the 21st of October,
after the completion of the pelagic sealing, to study the question
of the starvation of the pups. As a result of our investigation and
count we agreed that 16,000 pups had died of starvation in 1896 as
_ the result of the killing of their mothers at sea. I simply want to
emphasize these facts, because the relation of pelagic sealing to the
decline of the herd has been obscured and not given its full value.
When I set up against this 750,000 females taken in pelagic seal-
ing, because we have a right to say that three-fourths of these
1,000,000 seals were females, the 128,000 yearlings alleged to have
been killed on land, 64,000 of which are claimed to be females, we
have a relation that is absurd. The fact that the herd has made
an immediate gain of 12.5 per cent in its stock of breeding females
in the second season of exemption from pelagic sealing proves pelagic
sealing to have been the cause of the herd’s decline, and that the
removal of pelagic sealing has in like manner been an adequate
remedy for ‘his decline.
The Cuarrman. I wish it had been stopped long ago.
490 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. CiarKx. We have fought for it since 1896.
The CHarrMaAn. An attempt was made to bring about a treaty at
the time when Mr. Hay was the Secretary of State, but somehow
it was sidetracked, and nothing was done at all until Secretary Knox
and Secretary Nagel took it up with the other Governments. I
can see no reason why it should not have been done long ago.
Mr. Ciarxk. I am sure that in 1896-97 that was one of the things
we demonstrated. We demonstrated, first, that land killing was
not responsible for the destruction of the herd, and, second, that
the indiscriminate killing of females involved in pelagic sealing was
responsible for it.
(Thereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the committee agreed unanimously
to a recess until 2 o’clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 2 o’clock p. m.
The CuarrMan. Mr. Clark, you may proceed with your statement.
Mr. CLrarx. I was discussing topic 18, some criticisms of the
Government’s policy in handling fur-seal matters. At critical
times the herd has been subjected to investigation and then allowed
to lapse into obscurity again, to be reinvestigated at some new time
of crisis. Thus the condition of the herd was looked into by Mr.
Elliott in 1872-1874, and then it was neglected until 1890, a period of
16 years in which the herd had suffered a loss of about four-fifths
of its breeding stock without a word of warning from land till 1889.
Then followed the feverish and expensive activity of the Paris
Tribunal of Arbitration, which cost $1,000,000 in expense and
damages and gave us a worthless set of regulations. That is, a set
of regulations which prohibited sealing for three months in the
summer and established a protected zone of 60 miles radius around
the British islands.
The CoarrMan. When was this?
Mr. Cuark. In 1893. These regulations were the direct result
of our lack of adequate knowledge of the life habits of the seals.
It was not possible for our people to establish the fact that the
mother seal carries her young practically 12 months and that she
did not feed within 60 miles of the islands. Therefore it made no
difference that she was protected from slaughter for three months
while she was reaching the islands when she was liable to slaughter
in the two months immediately following her going to sea to feed,
and as she does not feed within 60 miles of the islands a 60-mile
protected zone did not protect her.
In 1896-97 the herd was again investigated and the futility of
the Paris Tribunal regulations disclosed, the cause of the herd’s
decline ascertained, and the remedy suggested. That was the
object of the commission of 1896-97, a joint British and American
commission, a determination of the effect of the Paris Tribunal
regulations. In the first year of their establishment the largest
catch of the pelagic sealing industry was taken. Therefore it was
suspected that something was wrong, and this commission was to
find out what the trouble was. It determined that pelagic sealing
was the sole cause of the herd’s decline, and it also determined that
it was useless to revise or remodel the regulations; that the only
thing that would protect the herd was the abolition of pelagic sealing.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 491]
The CHatrrMAN. That was in 1896-97 ? :
Mr. CiarK. It was in 1896-97 that that was determined, and I
want to refer you to page 248 of the first volume of the report of the
commission of that year to find this jomt British and American
agreement.
The CHarrMan. Then with all of these recommendations coming
from the commission it was allowed to go on for about 14 years
more without enacting a treaty ?
Mr. Crark. That is what I want to call attention to here. It
took 12 years and cost the herd 200,000 breeding females and the
Government approximately $4,500,000 worth of sealskins. That is
what the pelagic sealers got for them.
The CHarrMan. How much damage did it do by reason of destroy-
ing the equilibrium of the herd, if I may put it in that way ?
Mr. Crarx. This loss was of breeding stock, of breeding females
with their young. Each of these animals brought $15 in London as
a sealskin, but the animals were worth five times that much as
breeders, because each breeding female would produce that many
ups.
The American commission of 1896-97 made one strong recommen-
dation—that a superintendent naturalist be put in charge of the herd
to make its problems his life study. The recommendation was
ignored until 1909, when provision was made for a naturalist. Acci-
dents prevented filling this place permanently until last summer,
when Mr. F. M. Chamberlain was sent up with me, it being the
expectation that he would continue the future study and care of the
herd. But the press dispatches recently announced, and J find it
confirmed in the most recent publication of this committee, that for
economy’s sake and because of wrong mental attitude the office of
naturalist has been abolished by the Department of Commerce and
with it the chief of the Alaskan Fisheries Division. That is equiva-
lent to knocking the brains out of the personnel of the fur-seal service.
I do not know what the salaries are, but I suppose the salaries of
these two men can not exceed $10,000. Two hundred of the seal-
skins allowed to go to waste last summer would have supplied this
item of cost, and the minimum of 5,000 skins, which is a reasonable
interpretation of a food killing, would have yielded sufficient funds
to meet the expense of the entire Alaskan division, including the fur-
seal islands. After all the loss and waste that has been endured in
the past through lack of trustworthy knowledge we are now to go
back to the old policy of letting the herd care for itself and turning
its interests over to new and untried men. The Sixty-second Congress,
in connection with one of the appropriation bills, had already dis-
charged the full force of experienced and trained agents, and the
islands are now in the hands of inexperienced caretakers and not in
the hands of trained men.
Nineteenth important work that should be done: In order that the
progress of the herd toward rehabilitation may be noted and meas-
ured, it is important that certain work of investigation begun in 1912
be carried forward.
The breeding families on all the rookeries have in the season of
1912 and 1913 been accurately counted and plotted on the Coast and
Geodetic Survey map of 1897. I would like to pass this atlas around
=
492 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
to show the way in which a foundation has been laid for the future
measurement and investigation of the fur-seal herd. This atlas,
together with the photographs it contains and which are a part of my
1912 report, a second one being provided in connection with my 1913
report, locates each breeding family with reference to the marked
rocks of the 1897 Coast and Geodetic Survey. It can be continued
by future observers, tracing the growth of the herd. This work can
all be done easily now because the herd is very small, but it will
immediately begin to expand and preparation must be made for the
future. In order that these methods of estimating the future of the
herd may be feasible, observation lanes and towers and photographic
stations must be established on the rookeries, places to which the
observer can get without endangering his life and without disturbing
the herds too much. .
The pups on all the rookeries have been counted in the two past
seasons. They should be recounted in 1914, as I have already
pointed out, because the increase of the herd next season should be
normal; that is, the increment of gain should be normal, because it
comes from a birth rate which was unaffected by pelagic sealing.
The birth rate of 1911, which gave us the increment of 1913, was
affected by pelagic sealing.
The breeding grounds are full of cracks and chasms through which
pups and cows drop and become imprisoned. They should be filled
up and made safe. There are areas back of the rookeries which are
crumbling cliffs and produce landsldes and endanger cows and pups.
Mr. Marsh and I found one of these landslides with 7 pups pro-
jecting out fromit dead. We did not dig it out to find out how many
more were under it. But it fell on a harem and covered those pups,
and there is a mile or more of that sort of cliff which needs to be
looked after every summer.
There are certain sandy areas which in the past have been infected
with the dangerous hookworm pest. This hookworm lodges in the
filth that accumulates in the sand. The eggs are probably carried
over there and taken up on the fur of the mother and are nursed in by
the pup, or they may be absorbed through the pores of the body.
They develop in the small intestine and cause the pup to die of
anemia or to be so weak that it is stepped upon and crushed by the
first bull that makes a dash over it. The areas are now practically
immune from this worm, because they have not been used or occupied
for several seasons by the diminishing herd; but in the season of 1913
the herd pushed back to a large extent upon these areas, and in due
time will reenter them, and they will thus again become a menace to
the herd. At this time it ought to be the duty of the department
to see that these areas are paved or set in with rock and fixed in such
way that with a pump anda hose a gang of natives can go and clean off
the infection and dirt and render them safe. This hookworm is not a
myth. It killed thousands of pups in 1896-97 to our knowledge, and
in the past history of the herd it killed hundreds of thousands.
The present suspension of land killing is a clumsy and wasteful way
of accomplishing a certain end which is commendable; that is, the
establishment of a breeding reserve of males that shall not be lacking
in efficiency. This is a very important problem, and should be han-
dled in a sane way. To overstock the ee at one time, and then,
perhaps, to let it go indefinitely without attention is not the proper
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 493
way to deal with it. A definite plan of maintaining an annual
increment of breeding males, which, as I have already shown, should
be about one-half of the active breeding stock of the preceding year,
should be wrought out and put in operation with a scheme for perma-
nently marking the animals by branding them. This work alone
deserves the attention of the naturalist or some one who is making
the needs of the herd his chief work. A new man can not be expected
to carry it out successfully.
Roads and trails are needed on the islands to make the various
rookeries and hauling grounds accessible. The seals are now made to
carry their skins to the salt house and their meat to the villages,
whereas they should be killed nearer to their hauling grounds and the
skins and meat brought in by mule team or by reindeer, as the rein-
deer is now established on the islands.
To make the new killing grounds safe, there should be developed a
water system. At the present time drives must be made to the
vicinity of lakes or ponds, into which the animals can be turned to
cool off when heated by driving or by changes in the weather. A
system of water tanks should be available in connection with the
drives and the killing fields, so that a drive of seals can be wetted
down when they are overheated or the weather turns hot. With
water thus available, killing fields could be established wherever
needed. The new killing fields are needed in connection with the
feeding of the foxes. They would effect a natural distribution of
the surplus meat. Fox colonies exist in conjunction with all the
rookeries, but the greater part. of the killing is brought to the vicinity
of the villages, concentrating the meat at points often not accessible
to the foxes.
The fox herds need development. There should be five times as
many foxes on the islands. Foxes should be brought under control
for breeding purposes. New breeders should be introduced trom
other islands to add new blood to the stock; that is, from St. George
to St. Paul, from St. Paul to St. George, from the Commander Islands
to the Pribilof Islands, and vice versa. Experiments in the rearing of
small animals and birds suitable for fox food should be tried out on a
workable scale. Hardy cattle, such as those on Kodiak, should be
tried out on the islands. Certainly animals should be brought in in
the spring to be fattened and killed in the fall for fox food. Reindeer
are well established on both islands. The herds need intelligent care,
and they should be developed both in the direction of the needs of the
natives for food and for possible food for the foxes.
These are merely outline suggestions of things which intelligent
oversight and care would make the duty of a properly organized and
directed island force. The Government has on St. Paul and St. George
a tremendously valuable fur-producing plant and stock. It needs an
intelligent and experienced force for its maintenance, and this force
should be augmented and strengthened, not reduced, at this critical
time. When the law of 1912 has run its course, the problem of
handling the greatly enhanced product in 1918 will be a difficult one.
It will not do in the meantime to have let the native force of sealers
run wild and to lose its skill and discipline. They should be held
under control and in a state of the highest efficiency. Food killings
of 3,000 skins are a poor substitute, and preparation for capacity to
handle an annual quota of 25,000 skins, which the resumption of
494 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
regular sealing in 1918 will require. Not merely must the natives be
held in discipline and contrel, but the men who direct them must have
experience and know what they are abou if they are to handle the
problem properly.from their side.
I say to your committee, then, in conclusion, let us give to the fur-
seal herd and to the other resources of the Pribiloff Islands something
of that intelligent care and oversight which the owner of a stock farm
would devote to his interests. The problems and needs are the same
in one case as in the other.
I offer this statement to you on the basis of long study of this fur-
seal problem as an expert, not interested in establishing this or that
theory about the seals, but looking at them from the point of view of
a man who, for example, might be considering his own stock farm. I
do not speak as an eminent scientist, nor as a scientific man. I am
speaking because as a boy I was brought up on a farm, and know all
about the breeding of domestic animals, and particularly the breeding
of sheep. It was my knowledge of the breeding of sheep that enabled
me to understand the fur-seal problem.
This is my formal statement. J wish now to take up certain mat-
ters less formally that grow out of the publications of the committee.
First, I want to discuss a little more fully the matter of the killing of
yearlings, because that is really the crucial thing before the committee.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I want to ask,
and I believe if the witness is through with his formal statement I
might just as well commence now, unless the chairman or Mr. Patton
has some questions.
The CHarrMAN. I have some questions to ask, but I prefer that you
should go ahead now.
Mr. McGuire. When did you last make a count of the herd?
Mr. Crarx. I made it in the past summer, 1913.
Mr. McGuire. How many seals did you find there were on the
islands in 1913 ?
Mr. Cuark. I estimated the herd at 268,000.
Mr. McGuire. What process did you use for that estimate ?
Mr. CurarK. In the height of the breeding season when the harems are
all established—that is, between the 12th and 18th or 20th of July—
I counted all of the bulls in charge of harems, 1,403 of them; those we
call the active bulls. At the same time, I counted all of the bulls of
adult size that were not in charge of harems, animals that we call
idle bulls, 105 in all. In addition, I counted all the animals of full
breeding size connected with the rookeries, but without harems.
They are the young bulls and numbered 259. These animals are
large, 500-pound animals, and therefore they are very conspicuous.
It is as easy to count them as it would be to count the lamp-posts on
a city block.
Then in going over the rookeries to get this count of bulls I esti-
mated the animals on the hauling grounds, the bachelors, and found
12,000 animals as the total of any one day’s inspection. But of
course they come and go so that that was merely an estimate and
did not give the full number.
Then after the breeding season was over and before the pups had
begun to take to the water, we went on the rookeries, drove off the
pe males and the adult females and we counted the live pups one
y one.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 495
Mr. McGurre. Those were the pups born in 1913 ?
Mr. Ciarx. In 19138, yes.
Mr. McGuire. And they had never been to sea ?
Mr. Crarx. They had never been to sea. The fur-seal pup is,
of course, timid of the water for the first six weeks of its life and does
not go into the water. We counted them before they could swim
and therefore they did not get away from us into the water.
Mr. McGurre. How many of those pups did you count in 19132
Mr. CrarKx. We counted 92,269 of them. May I pass these photo-
eraphs around ?
Mr. McGurre. We have seen those photographs, have we not?
Mr. CrarK. Not these. As you are speaking of pup counting,
I wish to pass some along. ‘They are three photographs designed to
show the process of pup counting.
Mr. McGuire. Has there been any contention as to whether you
can get an accurate count of the pups, that you know of?
Mr. Crarx. I think so. In this hearing | efore the committee Mr.
Elliott takes oceasion to doubt the success of the count at page 26.
Mr. Exxrorr. | quote the official records of your own assistants
= ho doubted it.
Mr. McGuire. Now explain fully just how you counted the pups,
and whether you can make an accu-ate count of pups, and any state-
ment you may desie to make with respect to any contention there
may have been either with Mv. Eiliott or with anybody else.
Mr. Exziiorr. None by me, Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. I say with you ov anybody else.
Mr. Crarx. The fur seals he along about 8 miles of shore of the two
islands. They are broken up into sections, about 14 breeding areas
that we designate by special names. They have names like Zapadni,
Polovina, Northeast Point, Reef and Noith Rookery, and so on.
These are separate and distinct, sometimes separated by miles of
coast line, so there is no interchange of the animals. The method of
procedure was to go upon one of these rookeries with a guard of na-
tives who would drive off the adult animals, leaving only the pups for
us to handle; one of us would go between the animals and the sea and
another on the land side. When we got the pups to running back
from main body, in a narrow band, we closed in on them, taking 25 or
50 or 100 of the pups. We would make that band of pups run down the
beach a couple of hundred feet, and as the pups were older some than
others they had different capacities of strength and speed. They
lined out according to their strength, and when they were in that
lined out condition we counted them 2 by 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc., as
they passed some convenient rock. If they got to running too fast,
we would step in and cut them off until we got the count straight and
then start them up again.
Mr. McGuire. Just as you would count cattle running through a
narrow passage ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir; or just as you would count sheep.
Mr. McGuire. Could you count them as accurately as you could
cattle or sheep ?
Mr. CLark. Just as accurately. I want to call attention to my
reports for 1912 and 1913, where I have given this in great detail.
Here is the counting of one rookery, and the pods of pups ran 58, 44,
14, 30, 32, 10, 9, 13, and so on down through the list. The point is
496 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
that we divided up the lazge groups so as to insure accuracy, and if
we got confused about it we could always recover the small group
and start it over again and make a recount.
Mr. McGuire. Who assisted you in that count aside from the
natives, who I take it cut these small groups out for you?
Mr. Crark. Mr. A. G. Whitney, the school-teacher on St. Paul
Island, was with me in all the pup counting from beginning to end.
Mr. McGuire. Where is he? :
Mr. CrarK. He is located on St. Paul Island now.
Mr. McGuire. Any one else?
Mr. Crarx. Mr. A. H. Proctor counted with us on St. George
Island, because he is located there as caretaker. Mr. Philip Hatton,
Dr. H. O. Mills, and Mr. Hanna, school-teacher on St.George, assisted —
us on St. Paul. I may say about these counts that I have them all
certified to in my report for 1913 by the men who made the counts
with me. The certification is like this:
We the undersigned participated in the above counts for St. Georges Island as
indicated in the notes. The counts were made jointly by Clark and Hatton or by
Clark and Proctor, and in the case of the harem counts for July 18 to 20 by Hatton
and Proctor jointly. We believe the counts to be reasonably accurate, giving a close
approximation of the actual numberof animals. The marginof error is slight, and in
the nature of an under rather than an over estimate.
That is signed by F. M. Chamberlain, naturalist; A. H. Proctor,
agent; Caretaker P. R. HE. Hatton, agent; Caretaker G. A. Clark,
special assistant; A.G. Whitney, school-teacher, and refers primarily to
St. George. Other papers certify to the counts on St. Paul.
Mr. McGurre. In what way, if any, or to what extent do the
results of that count differ from the count taken by Mr. Elhott and
Mr. Gallagher last summer of the pups ?
Mr. Extiorr. Only a few thousand.
Mr. Crark. On page 27 of hearing 1, which we have before us, is the
census of Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher. In the first item he gives
1,400 old bulls. He does not say whether they are harem bulls
The CHarRMAN (interposing). But how do they differ in number ?
That is what the Congressman wants to know.
Mr. McGuire. Let us see what the difference is generally. I asked
as to the pups, but I would like to have it as to all of them.
Mr. CrarKk. Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher give 1,400 old bulls and
150 young bulls for what I have indicated as 1,403 harem bulls and
364 idle or young bulls, so that there is not a very great difference
between us there. But, by the way, I want to call attention right
here to the fact that Mr. Elhott at the top of page 27 has given us
1,550 bulls and at the bottom of this same page he says there are
1,450 bulls.
Mr. Exxiotr. That is a typographical error.
Mr. CrarKk. Very well. Then near the top of page 48, he says there
are 1,731 bulls combining the two estimates for St. Paul and St.
George, while at the bottom of the same page he says there are 1,500
bulls.
Mr. Exxiotr. That is another typgraphical error which was correct-
ed in my statement.
The CHarRMAN. Which is the correct figure ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The final statement. I never saw the proof. I
noticed those errors, but I knew they would appear in the final state-
ment, and in the final statement you would get them all right.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 497
Mr. CrarKk. This is the final hearing I am using. At page 171
you say further that there are from 750 to 800 bulls.
Mr. Exxiotr. In active service.
Mr. CxiarKx. In active service ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; the others were practically null and void.
They were not doing much.
Mr. Crarx. Then on page 66, where Mr. Elliott has given a daily
record of his count, they foot up 1,860. Now, gentlemen,. you
can take your choice.
Mr. McGuire. One thousand eight hundred and sixty what?
Mr. CrarK. Bulls.
Mr. Exziorr. Of all classes.
Mr. CuarK. In this census we have all those figures. I do not
want to lay any stress upon these things, but I want you to understand
that this census is not like the census which I have prepared for you.
Mr. McGurre. You state that the final figures and footings made
by Mr. Elliott amount to eighteen hundred and some bulls ?
Mr. Ciark. The census estimate he gives on page 27 is 1,550 bulls,
but if you will go to the field notes at the end of each day’s work and
foot up his bulls they will number 1,860.
Mr. McGuire. So that the discrepancy is where ?
Mr. CLarK. Between 1,550 and 1,860 in his own figures.
Mr. McGuire. That is, his field notes show eighteen hundred and
something and his totals there show fourteen hundred and something.
Mr. Cxiarx. Yes; and I have called attention to various other
estimates in this report.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you now wherein there is any difference
in your computations and Mr. Elliott’s or anybody else’s. Do you
find any other differences in the count, in your count and Mr. Elhott’s
and Mr. Gallagher’s count ?
Mr. Crarx. In the item of cows 80,000 is the figure given by Mr.
Elliott. Three weeks later we counted 92,269 pups. Therefore
there must have been 92,269 cows, and that is a difference of 12,269
in the matter of cows.
Mr. McGume. Between your figures and Mr. Elhott’s ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. For the purpose of this examination, as to these
different parties I will simply desigante you as one count and Mr.
Elhott as the other, with the understanding that Mr. Gallagher was
with Mr. Ejlott, and you had other parties with you. Now, then, in
your judgment which is the easier to count, the cows or the pups ?
Mr. CrarKk. The cows can not becounted. At the time Mr. Elhott’s
estimate was made not half of the cows were present on land and
not half of the pups were born, so that at that time neither of the
animats could be counted. j
Mr. McGuire. Then which is the more accurate way of getting a
correct count, by counting the cows or by counting the pups ?
Mr. Crark. The count of pups is the only accurate way of enumer-
ating the cows. .
Mr. McGuire. There must be one cow for each pup ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. You mean to say the cows are coming and going
continuously 4
Mr. Crarx. Yes.
53490—14 32
498 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. But the pups remain there after birth for a certain
time ?
Mr. Cuark. Until they overcome their fear of the water.
Mr. McGuire. So you get all the pups at one time on the rookeries,
but you never get all the cows at one time on the rookeries ?
Mr. CiarK. No.
Mr. McGuire. Are there any other differences or discrepancies
between your count and Mr. Elhott’s?
Mr. CuarK. Mr. Elliott has assigned 70,000 pups. As I have
said, we counted 92,269. Therefore there is a difference of 22,269
ups.
i Mr. McGuire. Were you there when he made a count of the pups?
Mr. CuarK. I was during part of it, on one-fifth of all the rookeries.
Mr. McGutre. Did he count all the rookeries ?
Mr. Crarx. All the rookeries, or was supposed to. At least, he
gives an estimate for all the rookeries.
Mr. McGuire. When did he make his count of the pups with
respect to the time you made yours?
Mr. CrarKx. He made them between the 12th and 18th of July or
the 12th and 20th.
Mr. Ex.tiorr. Between the 10th and 20th.
Mr. McGuire. Of July?
Mr. Cuarx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. When did you make yours?
Mr. Crark. Between the 31st day of July and the 8th day of
August.
Mir. McGurre. When are the last pups born ?
Mr. CLarK. We saw pups born—there were perhaps a dozen
freshly born pups on the rookery at the time we made the live pup
counts, so there were some births as late as the first week in August;
but at the time of Mr. Elliott’s counts not half of the pups were born
and only one-half of the cows were present. That is the point I want
to make about that.
The CHAIRMAN. That causes all the difference in the statements, I
pay pose!
Mr. Ciark. But of course this should be a census of the entire
herd and not of the herd at a particular time.
Mr. McGutre. Now, do you notice any other differences ?
Mr. Crark. Well, I notice that the number of yearlings, for
example, is stated at 30,000 males and females. I know that 81,984
pups were born in 1912 by actual count. Therefore to assume that
only 30,000 of them survived is a large underestimate. We have never
admitted that more than half of the pups were lost in the first migra-
tion, and that would leave 40,000 yearlings.
Mr. McGurre. Is that your estimate ?
Mr. Ciark. That is my estimate.
Mr. McGuire. And what is his?
Mr. CrarKk. 30,000.
Mr. McGuire. 10,000 difference there ?
Mr. Ciarkx. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Now, is there any other difference of method or
opinion between yourself and Mr. Elliott as to the counting ?
Mr. Crarx. I differ from him on all these counts of ‘ictal
He offers an estimate of 6,000 bachelors of the age of 2 years.
INVESTIGATICN OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 499
The birth rate of 1911 must have been practically the same as 1912
or 80,000 to 82,000; but he only admits that 6,000 of them survived
to the age of 2 years, and allowing the same number of females that
would be 12,000 out of 80,000, which is out of the question. There
were certainly 15,000 of the 2-year-old females and 15,000 of the
2-year-old males in 1913. Now, in the case of the 3-year-olds he
offers only 3,000. That is getting clear down and out, because the
birth rate of 1910 must have been very nearly what it was in 1911,
and therefore the reduction is too great. We know also that only
2,000 2-year-old animals were killed in 1912. Therefore these
animals must be somewhere, and I have estimated that there were
10,000 of them in 1913.
Mr. McGuire. And he gives 3,000 ?
Mr. Crark. Yes. Mr. Elliott says there are 400 4-year-olds. Mr.
Marsh and myself saw the heads of 2,000 3-year-olds clipped last
year. They were not killed last year and were not killed this year.
They must have been there somewhere.
Mr. McGuire. What is your judgment about that ?
Mr. Crarx. I say there were at least 2,000 4-year-olds.
Mr. McGuire. From your observations could you form any esti-
mate of the number there?
Mr. Crarx. Those animals come and go so it is very difficult to do
that, but I know we clipped 2,000 of them and there is practically no
loss in the third migration.
Mr. McGurre. Is there anything else in respect of the counting you
want to speak of?
Mr. Crarx. I want to call attention to the fact that I was desirous
of settling these points with Mr. Elhott on the island.
Mr. McGuire. What were your instructions? Did you have any
written instructions from the department ?
Mr. Ciark. I had written instructions, but I got supplementary
instructions by wireless when it was known that Mr. Elhott was to
be up there.
Mr. McGuire. What were those instructions? Have you them with
you, or are they to be had in the department ?
Mr. Crarx. | have a copy of my instructions. I would say——
Mr. McGuire (nterposing): Will you read them into the record ?
Mr. Crark. I would like to read this letter, if I may.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; you can read that.
Mr. Crarx. The point is I asked Mr. Elhott to cooperate with me;
personally invited him to go with me and help me count these rook-
eries and do my work with me in order that we might reach a basis
of agreement. Hehad time to do it, because I arrived two days late;
and the first two days [ devoted to the work Mr. Elliott stayed in
doors and so did Mr. Gallagher. They could have gone with me and
T invited them to do so. ‘They would not do it—refused.
Mr. Exxiorr. You were at perfect liberty to go with us?
Mr. CLarx. | wish to read this letter.
The CaarrmMan. I understand the matter perfectly. Mr. Elliott
and Mr. Gallagher were sent up by this committee and you were
selected to go up there on Behalf of the department, and I did not
know that fact. When I learned you were up there I said they should
make an examination independent and alone for the committee. I
am responsible for that.
500 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. That is all right so far as the chairman is concerned.
This is all news to me and I want to know about it.
Mr. Exxiorr. I invited him to join us and come in on everything
we were doing and he did so.
Mr. CrarKk. As I say, I first invited Mr. Elliott informally and in
in the presence of Mr. Chamberlain, and when he did not accept,
then I wrote him this official letter, because I deemed that my in-
structions made it mandatory upon me to reach some kind of cooper-
ation. This is dated St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 13, 1918:
Mr. Henry W. Exsiort, .
St. Paul Island.
My Dear Sir:
Instructions received by me from the Commissioner of Fisheries contain these pro-
visions:
“During the visit of Henry W. Elliott and assistant to the seal islands next month,
facilitate their inquiries in every possible way and extend every courtesy, and with
at least one other department representative accompany them in their visits to all
parts of the islands and make a simultaneous observations and records, these to be
duly certified and forwarded so that the department may be fully advised of con-
ditions this season.”’
In accordance with these instructions I invited you this morning to duplicate with
Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Whitney, and myself the height of the season counts of harems,
idle bulls, and young bulls. Notwithstanding your declination to do this at the time
I formally tender the invitation again, hoping that you may reconsider the matter
and accompany us to Zapadni, Tolstoi, and Lagoon to-morrow. We will cheerfully
go over Gorbatch, Reef, Kitovi, and Lukanin—the rookeries covered to-day—if you
will join in the work. You will note that we were prevented from joining you in this
work by reason of delay in reaching the islands. There is, furthermore, time at least
to go over Zapadni and Tolstoi before your work at Northeast Point and Polovina,
which is set for the 15th.
In the meantime we shall be prepared to join with you in the work at Northeast
Point and Polovina in accordance with your kind offer, the work to begin on the
morning of the 15th.
I shall be glad to have you join us in the counting of the fur seal pups and the study
of pup mortality, and any other work we may undertake, and if there is any way in
which I can assist you or facilitate your work, through my experience in 1902 and 1912,
it will be a pleasure to me to do so. My field notes for the latter season I have placed
at your disposal.
I should appreciate a written reply to this letter.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE A. CLARK, Special Assistant.
I may say that I did not receive a reply to that letter.
I am offering this letter as an expression, in a measure, of my dis-
appointment that we were not able to get together and do this work
together, and I want to show it was not my fault that we did not
do that.
Mr. McGuire. You say after you wrote Mr. Elhott and presented
him a copy of the letter you have just read you did some counting;
that is, you did your counting after that time ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Did he do any counting after that time?
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. At what time in the day did you give him that
letter ?
Mr. Ctark. Well, the ship landed us about 7 o’clock in the morning
and we were one day late, so I wanted to get immediately on the
rookery. I went personally to Mr. Elliott and asked him to accom-
pany us and then we went on because we had a heavy day’s work
efore us.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 501
Mr. McGuire. Was that the day you wrote the letter to him ?
Mr. Crarxe. At night I wrote that letter. The letter states the
fact that I was confirming a verbal offer made in the morning and
was offering to recount the work we had done that day if he would
join us at another time.
ae McGurre. And when he did not reply to the letter what did
ou do?
Mr. CiarK. I went on with my work independently and then
went and accompanied him in his work of counting on Northeast
Point and Polovina, which of course was my next work also, and
we worked together on that, but not in cooperation at all, each en-
tirely independent. He did not give me the results of his count
at the end of the day. So we did not cooperate.
Mr. McGuire. Did each make his own figures with respect to the
count ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And did you have any conversation at all ?
Mr. Crark. Yes; we had some conversation.
Mr. McGuire. What about ?
Mr. Crark. Well, there has been a point of difference between Mr.
Elliott and myself about his surveys of 1872-1874. I hunted the
fur-seal rookeries from top to bottom trymg to find monuments
which he mentions in his monograph as having been fixed for future
observers to measure the herd by. J could not find them. He had a
copy of his 1890 report and a map, and was referring to it at certain
points as ‘‘at station A.’”’ I asked him where station A was; as to
what rocks or what designations determined station A. He in-
formed em, and it came to me like a shock out of a clear sky, that
his monuments were fixed on his maps so they could not be covered
over by the sand or overgrown by weeds, or anything like that. In
other words, he took his map and when he came to a point of the
ground which seemed to him to fit station A, that was station A.
Mr. McGutre. But there were no monuments indicated there ?
Mr. Crark. No; no monuments.
Mr. McGuire. Did you have any other conversation with respect
to the counting ?
Mr. Crark. Well, at the first bunch of seals we came to Mr.
Elliott asked Mr. Gallagher to make a count of it. Of course, Mr.
Whitney made a count and I made a count and Mr. Elhott was
making his own count. Then he began to dictate a note to Mr.
Gallagher in which he said ‘‘40 bulls, 750 to 800 cows.’”’ Mr. Gallagher
was counting and did not pay any attention to him. He repeated it
two or three times. When Mr. Gallagher gave attention the word
‘‘forty’’ seemed to cause him to pause, and I asked Mr. Gallagher
how many he had counted. He said 18. That was what I counted
and that is what Mr. Whitney counted. Then I protested and
asked for a recount. He redictated his note ‘‘30 to 40 bulls, 750 to
800 cows,” adding: ‘‘Throw in a few for good measure. Don’t give
the seals a black eye. They have been treated badly enough.”
Mr. Exziorr. ‘‘Don’t underestimate them all the time.’”’ Didn’t I
say that ?
Mr. McGuire. So you, Gallagher, and the other man agreed there
were 18 bulls, but Mr. Elliott had a different figure ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes; and I find he has noted in the end as 38.
502 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Gallagher has put it down 38.
The CHairMAn. What was your count ? y
Mr. Crarx. Eighteen.
The Cuarrman. And it is 38 in the report ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Do you find any other differences or are you through
with the question of counting ?
Mr. Crark. I would like to mention one other conspicuous instance,
speaking of an underestimate. On the top of Hutchinson Hill—I —
have shown you a photograph of a big crowd of seals there. As we
stood there on top of the hill Mr. Elliott said, ‘‘There are 6,500 cows
in that bunch.” I told him we had counted 7,500 pups there the
year before and that there were plainly more cows, but that was
waived aside, and we did not agree on it. About three weeks later
when I counted the pups there we found exactly 11,371. Now that
is underestimating. On the other hand, two hours later, when we
were finishing Polovina rookery, Mr. Elliott said there were 8,005
cows on it, and when I counted Polovina rookery three weeks later
there was just 5,000 pups, so you can take your choice of estimates.
Mr. McGutre. How many did he say there were ?
Mr. CrarK. Eight thousand and five.
The CuarrMan. In the meantime those animals change, do they
not? They go from place to place, do they not?
Mr. CrarK. No; they do not.
The CuarrMan. They are not always on the same spot, are they?
Mr. CLarK. The animals of every rookery belong on that rookery.
They do not go to other rookeries.
The CHarrMAan. But whatever may have been there when you
got there, if he was there two weeks before, the same seals may not
have been there.
Mr. Crark. The point is I got all of them by waiting until the pups
were all born and then counting all the pups. I did not care about
the cows, because they would come and go.
The CHarrMan. I simply want to find out about that, because I
think we are really getting into inconsequentials as to differences of
opinion, and it will take a lot of time and be a matter of much expense.
Mr. McGuire. What I was after is this: Here is a scientific, you
might say, witness who is skilful in his method of handling the seal
and has probably been there more than any other person and has
had a great deal of experience, and I want to find out the points of
difference between Mr. Elliott and this witness in detail. Of course,
it is going to take a lot of time; but the witness is here, and I think it
is the duty of the committee to find out what he knows.
The CHarRMAN. It was only on that account that I suggested it,
because I think there is substantial agreement as to the whole number
of seals up there.
Mr. McGuire. Oh, no; there is a difference of about 80,000.
Mr. Exvriorr. What does that amount to ? .
Mr. CLark: I do not like to have it stated that it is a difference of
opinion. What I meant to say was that his is not an accurate account
of those pup seals. °
Mr. Extrorr. His own official assistants deny his count and say it
is impossible.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 503
Mr. McGutre. I was going to call the attention of the witness to
what his assistants had to say.
Mr. Crark. Now, on page 138, and following, of this document
marked Hearing No. 1, are notes from the island logs, which Mr. Elhott
has submitted as proof that I did not make these counts accurately.
Mr. McGurre. On what page is that ?
Mr. Ciark. It is-on page 138 of Hearing No. 1, on which are re-
corded the views of the agents regarding a previous pup count, but not
regarding this count at all. The agents and natives have not found
pup counting an easy task, and have not enjoyed it, or the prospect
of its being taken up as a regular annual work, and they have recorded
in that log their views regarding their own efforts in this direction,
that is all. No reference whatever is made here to the count which I
made. What other people may think I did is one thing, what I did is
another. Mr. Elhott had an opportunity to stay and count these
pups with me. I invited him to do that, in the letter which I read to
you to-day. He left the island the day before the work began, and
by hurrying my work, I gave him two days start on his homeward
journey, hoping he could spend those two days in counting the pups
on St. George Island, but he evaded the issue.
The CuarrMan. I had given him instructions to do so. I told him
that because I had known of your past in regard to this matter, when
I heard you were going up, I said that they should make it independ-
ently, for the committee. I did it.
Mr. Crark. You understand I am not complaining about your
action, Mr. Chairman.
The CuarrMan. No; but it ought to be sufficient that you can not
attach any blame to him and Gallagher, when I told them not to let
anybody make a count with them, because they were sent by the com-
mittee. I did not know you were sent by the department at the time
I did it.
Mr. CrarKx. Why does he attack my figures ¢
Mr. McGuire. My idea in calling this out is simply this: The
figures of the witness have been attacked in Mr. Elliott’s report.
Witness, I take it, did not know anything about Mr. Elhott’s instruc-
tions from you, Mr. Chairman. I did not know anything about them.
It is all news to me. This is the first time I have heard of it. I did
not know there was any difference between the department and the
committee, if there is any.
The CuarrMANn. There is not any difference between us. [ did not
know that Mr. Redfield had sent him. up.
Mr. McGuire. If I had known anything about Mr. Elhott being
sent by the committee—that is, if it had been done by committee
action, I might not have been here—I would have insisted that the
two go together.
The CuarrMan. They telegraphed me during the summer and I
wired back that they were sent by the committee, and they should
make an independent count.
Mr. McGutre. IJ think the witness ought to be permitted to give
his statement, not with any idea of reflecting on Mr. Elhott at all,
but I think the record ought to be clear as to that.
The CuarrMAN. If that is true, and your figures are disputed, Mr.
Clark, it is entirely proper that you should go ahead and explain them.
504 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crark. I wish to read from page 26 a footnote at the bottom
of page 26 of this Hearing No. 1, which footnote was presumably writ-
ten by Mr. Elliott, which footnote says:
We gave the subject of the ‘‘counting” of “‘live pups,”’ with a view to getting a fair
idea of its extent and accuracy in determining the numbers of breeding seals on these
Pribilof rookeries, very close attention.
A careful study of the work as it has been done on St. George and St. Paul Islands,
beginning in 1901 and ending in 1912, warrants our statement that it is not an accurate
census when said to be so made. It is an estimate only, and one that is arrived at by
making a highly injurious disturbance on the breeding grounds; it should be prohib-
ited as idle and positively detrimental.
Mr. McGuire. Your conclusion from your experience and your
actual counting is that there is not or ought not to be any question
as to your ability to count accurately; that it can be done, and that
you have done that ?
Mr. Crark. I have done that.
Mr. McGuire. You did that in 1913 ?
Mr. Crark. I did that in 1913. Ihave the word of the other gen-
tlemen to the same effect.
Mr. McGuire. Has anybody anywhere, with the exception of Mr,
Elliott’s statement there, denied your count in 1913?
Mr. Ciark. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Was there any contention by your assistants there
that you could not make an accurate count of the pups in 1913?
Mr. Crark. No; they signed the count with me, in entire corrobera-
tion, and most of the counting was done by one of them, in addition
to myself.
Mr. McGuire. And the signatures and the certificates you have
placed in the record to-day are the willing signatures and the willing
certificates of the persons who did assist you ?
Mr. Crark. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. And you all agreed ?
Mr. CiarKk. Yes, and those signed statements are in the hands of
the Commissioner of Fisheries.
Mr. McGuire. Did you make a full report to the Commissioner of
Fisheries ?
Mr. CiarK. I did. ;
Mr. McGuire. Do you know, from Mr. Elliott’s report, what num-
ber of seals he figured were on the islands in 1913 ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes. sir.
Mr. McGuire. How many?
Mr. Crark. 190.950.
Mr. McGuire. Do you agree with that ?
Mr. Criark. I do not.
Mr. McGuire. What is the number you made it ?
Mr. Cuark. 268,305.
Mr. McGutre. A difference of about 77,000. How many were
there there in 1912?
Mr. Crark. In 1912 the number was 215,738. The census of that
year was made in exactly the same way.
Mr. MoGurre. Did you make the census that year ?
Mr. Crark. I made the census that year.
Mr. McGurre. And did you count the pups in the same way ?
Mr. Ciark. I counted the pups in the same way.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 505
Mr. McGurre. Did you get as accurate a count in 1912 as you did
in 1913—I mean the count of the pups ?
Mr. Crark. Quite as accurate.
Mr. McGutre. And the counting of the pups is the best way to
determine the number of bearing females ?
Mr. Crark. It is the only way to determine that accurately.
Mr. McGurre. Of the females ?
Mr. Cirark. Yes. In 1897 I counted for the commission of 1896-97
a mile of rookery ground during the season, from the arrival of the
first cow on the 12th day of June until the 31st day of July, and I
would like to call your attention to volume 1 of the proceedings, on
age 212, volume 1 of the Report of the Commission of 1896 and 1897.
he rookery was at Lakunen. It isnot necessary to give the details,
but there was one cow on June 12, and the number gradually increases
to 1840 on July 15. It then showed diminution day by day. Up
to that time the arrivals had been in excess of the departures, but
after that time the departures were in excess of the arrivals. When
we counted those pups, which we did later, there were approximately
3,600 of them, twice as many pups as cows at the time of maximum
number of cows as counted.
The commission of 1896 accepted those figures as settling the fact
that at the time in the breeding season when the largest number of
cows were present, no more than half of them were present.
Mr. McGutre. There is absolutely no doubt of your ability to
count accurately 3,000 pups on one rookery, and so you assume that
count was correct ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. It showed that there were about twice as many
pups born that season as you had been able to observe there were
cows present on any one day of that season ?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. To what do you attribute the fact of the dearth of
cows on any one day? Do you think they have gone to get feed or
anything like that ?
Mr. CLark. Yes. The cow arrives shortly before the birth of her
Pup, sometimes a few hours and sometimes a day or two. The pup
is born, and she rests, and after about a week she is re-served by the
bull, and then goes out to sea to feed. She goes out 100 to 200 miles
from shore. She remains anywhere from three days to a week, feeding
heavily and sleeping on the water. Then she returns to the island.
The pup goes without food in the meantime, and when she comes
home gorges itself for the three or four days she rests on shore. The
mother seal then goes off to feed again. As the pup grows older the
mother seal stays away longer, and toward the end of the season she
will be gone from ten days to two weeks at a time.
Mr. McGurre. You say it is due to that fact that you can not get
an accurate count of the mothers of the pups?
Mr. Crark. That is why I say that when Mr. Elhott made his esti-
mate between the 10th and 15th of July, in 1913, he made it at a time
when not half the cows were present, and not half of the pups were
nee because the bulk of the pups are born after the 15th of
uly.
Mr. Exxiotr. I made it with a full knowledge of that fact.
506 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Cuarxk. Mr. Chairman, I want to state there that I waited until
I could be safe in saying that the number of pups which might be
born after | completed my count was an absolutely negligible quantity.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean to say you have made a correct count
from the 31st of July in about 10 days?
Mr. McGurre. Did you make a count in 1910 or 1911?
Mr. Crark. I did not.
‘Mr. McGuire. Did you make a count in 1909?
Mr. CuarKk. I did; yes.
Mr. McGuire. Were you not there in 1910 and 1911 ?
Mr. CrarKk. No.
_ Mr. McGuire. How many seals were there in 1909?
Mr. CrarK. In 1909?
Mr. McGuire. Yes.
Mr. CrarK. In 1909 the estimate is 158,000, made up differently,
however, from the census of 1912 and 19138.
Mr. MoGurre. How differently? Do you think it was made up
as accurately ?
Mr. Cuark. Less so, I think. In 1896 and 1897, when the Jordan-
Thompson Commission undertook to make an estimate, they found
the question in great confusion. For instance, it had not been under-
stood until these counts that I speak of here were made, that there
was not a time in the height of the breeding season when practically
all the cows were present. It had been assumed that at the time
when the harems are compact and the greatest possible number of
cows were present that all of them were there. It was assumed that
an estimate at that time would give a complete census of the cows, or
at least so complete that the number omitted was a negligible quan-
tity. When we found there were twice as many pups as visible cows,
it threw the whole past history of that matter in confusion.
That was why the commission went back a second year, because
the estimate made in 1895 by Messrs. True and Townsend had
assumed that all the cows were present at the time they made the
estimate and took the census. About 75,000 cows were estimated,
and we were forced to make nearly double that number. The basis
of the previous censuses had been acreage measurements or square-
foot measurements; that is, the area of the rookeries was computed
from maps and a certain space assigned to an individual seal. A
division was made, and that was the population.
Partly because of the discovery that the cows were not all there
at that time, and for other reasons, we decided that we would estab-
lish a new basis. Dr. Jordan wanted a move accurate basis, and we
discovered that we could count all the breeding females. Then he
assigned to Mr. Mccoun and myself the business of making a count
of the cows on a certain portion of the rookeries, and we covered
one-fourth of the rookery space in 1896, with a view to getting an
average harem, which we could apply to the total number of harems
and in that way we could get a more accurate estimate of the animals.
In 1897 we recounted the pups on this same area, and the com-
missions agreed that the difference between the birth rate of 1896
and that of 1897, 13} per cent, was accepted as a measure of decline
in the herd for the two seasons. We took that basis of the average
harem and applied it to the herd as a whole, and we made up the
estimate. In 1909 I duplicated that method exactly. We counted
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 507
the same areas for the pups that we counted in 1896 and 1897, and
having got the average harem, applied it to the remaining harems
and made up the census on that basis.
The CHarrRMAN. How many cows did you find there in 1909?
Mr. CrarKx. Breeding cows, 50,626.
Mr. McGurre. Did you reach that conclusion by counting the
ups ?
Mr. Crark. We counted them on one-fourth of the area of the
breeding grounds, and then applied the average harem obtained from
that to the total number of harems.
The CHarRNAM. What number of breeding cows were there there
in 1911 and 1912?
Mr. Ciarxk. I am not aware of the number in 1911, because I was
not on the islands that year.
The CuHarrMan. Do you know anything about 1912?
_ Mr. Crarx. The number of breeding cows in 1912 was 81,984.
The CHarrMaAn. That is the figure I have here.
Mr. Crarxk. That is made from the full count of the pups.
The CHartrMAN. I have been asked to ask you how they increased ¢
Mr. Crarx. Increased in what way ?
The CHarrMan. From 1909 to 1912 there was an increase of 31,000.
Mr. CrarK. I have just explained in answering Mr. McGuire’s
question that in 1909 1 counted pups in only one-fourth of all the
harems. These were necessarily the more scattered rookeries, and
the average harem there was less than on the larger rookeries, which
we could not count either in 1909 or in 1896 and 1897. Therefore,
the figures of 1909 are an underestimate and should be corrected.
In 1909 I was charged with the task of duplicating the work of 1896
and 1897, and therefore I was forced to take the same basis in order
to get the same comparative results.
While pelagic sealing was in force, the herd was declining, and it
made no difference about its exact condition at any one time. The
important thing was the measure of decrease year by year. That
is why the 1909 estimate is an underestimate as compared with 1912.
A change of basis was made in 1912 because the herd had been
freed from pelagic sealing and was no longer declining, was in fact
at its lowest pomt. Therefore the count of all the pups was under-
taken. And we repeated the count of 1912 in 1913 in order to de-
termine how much the herd had increased between the two seasons.
Mr. McGutre. In the absence of pelagic sealing it is possible to
get an almost accurate count of the present number of seals there,
is it not?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. There has been, Mr. Clark, in the past an expression
of opinion sonewhat varying as to the size of a normal harem.
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. What would you regard as the size of a normal
harem ?
Mr. CLarx. From my experience in 1912 and 1913, I should say that
anywhere from 50 to 70 cows would be a normal harem.
The CuHarrMan. You say from 15 to 17?
Mr. Crarx. No, I say from 50 to 70 cows would be a normal
harem. The 92,269 pups of 1913 were chargeable to 1,358 harems
508 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
in 1912. That, of course, is an exact measure of the number of cows
to each bull in that particular season, 65, and as the pups of 1912
were perfect specimens, I feel that there is no reason to assume that
that number of cows was too great for any bull. The bulls accepted
the responsibility voluntarily. I should consider that a normal
harem.
Mr. McGurre. When was the first branding of seals on those
islands for the purpose of keeping tab on them?
Mr. Ciark. Well, in 1896 and 1897 we did some branding
for the sake of determining whether it would depreciate the value
of the female skins, thus discouraging the pelagic sealers. But that
work was not continued. In 1899, 1901, and 1902 a certain number
of animals were branded, which I found served a very useful pur-
pose, Inasmuch as we detected them in considerable numbers on
the breeding grounds in 1909, and, knowing when they were branded,
we obtained a line on their age. I found them again in 1912, and
again in 1913. I found one branded bull, for example, located in
the same spot at the end of the East rookery on St. George Island
in 1912 and again in 1913. One found in 1909 on North rookery was
in the same place in 1912. These records help us to fix the mature
age of the bulls and cows. That branding was discontinued in 1903.
In 1904 they began to mark them by what has been designated
loosely as branding, but really by means of sheep shears, clipping the
head,. and setting aside
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Yes, but I did not mean clipping
them; I meant when did you first brand them with a hot iron?
Mr. CLrark. That was in 1896 and 1897.
Mr. McGuire. And when did you last brand them that way ?
Mr. CiarK. In 1912.
Mr. McGuire. What class of seals did you brand ?
Mr. Clark. We branded the pups born that season, animals of
about 2 months old.
Mr. McGuire. Where on the body did you brand them ?
Mr. CLarx. On the crown of the head, right on the top of the head,
putting a T mark down between the eyes on the forehead and then
across and back of the head, making a rough T, so that the two wounds
would not unite and form a break.
Mr. McGuire. How many did you brand ?
Mr. CLark. Personally, I superintended the branding of 1,741.
Mr. McGuire. How many were branded that year, to your knowl-
edge ?
Mr. Crark. I think between five and six thousand were branded
on both islands.
Mr. McGurre. They were all pups ?
Mr. Crarxk. They were all pups; yes.
Mr. McGurre. Pups that had never been to sea?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
Mr. McGume. That year ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. You returned in 1913?
Mr. CLarKk. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And the year before you had branded in the neigh-
borhood of 5,000 pups?
Mr. CrarK. Yes.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 509
Mr. McGuire. What can you say from your observations as to
those pups being on the island when you went there the following
year, in 1913; I mean the pups which you had branded in the pre-
vious year ?
Mr. Crark. I did not find them.
Mr. McGuire. Did you look for them ?
Mr. CrarK. I looked with very great eagerness for them. I had
these bachelors on the reef hauling ground driven up, because the -
largest number of pups were branded on Reef Rookery. I searched
for them many times; on one occasion we drove up all the animals
and had them paid off, so that we could examine them more minutely.
We found one with a perfect brand, and we snared it and measured its
length and its girth and photographed it. Unfortunately, I have not
a copy of that photograph here, but it is in connection with the atlas
in my 1913 report to the Bureau of Fisheries. That gives an actual
picture of the yearling seal
Mr. McGuire. You know that was a yearling seal?
Mr. CrarK. Yes; that is the only yearling seal that anybody up
to that time had any right to swear to. I had previously studied
a yearling seal in Golden Gate Park in 1910, an animal was brought
down there and put in a tank in Golden Gate Park. I went to see it
as often as I could, and in August, 1911, when Mr. Marsh, the nat-
uralist, was going up to the islands he and I inspected that animal
and measured it. We got its length. It was then 1 year and
1 month old.
Mr. McGurre. That was the one?
Mr. Ciark. That was one the age of which I was sure about, be-
cause it had always been in the same place the whole year.
Mr. McGuire. Do you remember its measurements ?
Mr. Cirarx. It was 36 inches in length. This one I caught in 1913,
this branded animal, of which we are absolutely certain, its length
was 364 inches. Those are the only animals I have seen to the
measurements of which I could swear as being yearlings, because I
knew the history of the animals.
Mr. McGuire. Then the only difference between the length of the
one which had been in captivity all the time and the one which you
had branded the previous year was a quarter of an inch in favor of the
one which had not been in captivity ?
Mr. CrarKx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. One was 36 and the other was 364 inches in length ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. You say 36 inches was the measurement of the one
in captivity. What does that measurement include ?
Mr. Crark. It was taken from the tip of the nose to the root of the
tail, which would be the usual method of measuring the length of
the animal.
Mr. McGuire. How much of that would be taken off for a skin?
Mr. Crarxk. In 1912, in case 205 skins, which we measured, the
residue left there was about 4 inches average.
Mr. McGuire. Now, at what time in 1912 did you do this brand-
ing? What dates? If you have not the exact dates immediately
available, can you give them approximately ?
Mr. Ciarx. It was the first week in September. I have recorded
here on the 6th of September a reference to the branding; that the
510 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
natives helped us to brand on the 3d of September. It occurred
prior to the 9th of September, because we had to leave the island on
that date. Mr. Lempkey finished the work later in the season.
Mr. McGuire. And you branded them practically from the 5th
to the 10th of September ?
Mr. CLarx. That was really too early, and it was done then only
because I had to get away. The real time for branding would be a
month later. The animals are larger at that time.
Mr. McGurre. Then, in 1913, you say, you made a search for the
branded animals, and they were not there?
Mr. CLrark. Except as to this one animal which I found in this
bunch on the reef, and we snared it, but I saw, in addition to that one,
three other animals, two of them on St. George Island.
Mr. McGuire. The search you made for them was made during
the killng season, was it ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, the later period of the killing season. Of course,
there was no killing in 1913, and so the hauling grounds were undis-
turbed. But I could go at any time and look over the bunch of
animals as they lay in the hauling ground, and determine if possible
whether there were any branded animals among them.
Mr. McGuire. What truth has the branding of those animals
developed ?
Mr. CuarKk. It settled the question of the yearling seal. If those
animals came in any considerable numbers to the hauling grounds,
a large number of the 6,000 branded pups would have appeared on
the hauling grounds. So few of them il appear there that we have
a right to say that the yearlings do not come to the hauling grounds
in the killing season.
Mr. McGuire. In your report to which attention has been called,
I have forgotten the page, you stated that the hauling grounds were
practically killed clean. What light has this branding thrown upon
your report of 1909, if any? s
Mr. CLark. It has cleared up my doubts at that time. I saw a
condition in 1909 where practically every small animal was killed,
and the question was whether the yearlings came to the hauling
grounds or not.
Mr. McGurre. That had been the question prior to that time ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. If they came then the situation of 1909 was a
serious one, with respect to that. If the yearlings came to the
grounds, they must have been killed, because there was no con-
siderable number left not killed. The effect of the branding demon-
strated that the yearlings did not come to the hauling grounds and
therefore they were necessarily not killed in 1909, and the animals
that were killed were the 2-year-olds, or above that age.
Mr. Cirarx. That was connected back also to our experience in
1897. In 1897 we saw 18,000 animals killed, and for the 18,000
animals killed there was turned back 23,000 of the small animals.
Many of the small animals were driven several times. In 1897 the
limit of killing was 6 pounds, and that exempted the 2-year-olds.
A large part of the animals turned back in 1897 were 2-year-olds.
But the minimum of killing in 1909 was 5 pounds, and this permitted
the taking of 2-year-olds into the quota in 1909.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 511
Mr. McGuire. Are you willing to stand on your statement that the
yearlings do not return in any great numbers as being a definite
truth discovered with respect to the yearlings ?
Mr. Crark. I do.
Mr. McGurre. Then what would you say as to the branding in the
future with a hot iron?
Mr. CLarxk. The real purpose of this test was not to determine the
presence or absence of the yearling on the hauling grounds. That
was one thing learned by the branding not expected. The test was
to determine the standard size of the different animals.
I wanted to kill one or two dozen of the yearlmgs, and I had
instructions which would have enabled me to kill the animals had
I been able to find them. J wanted to measure the length of the
avimals, their girth—to take all the measurements that would go to
a scientific determination of the animal. I would then take the
length and width of the skin green and then in salt, and with the
corresponding weights this would have settled the standard size of
yearling; but I was disappointed in not finding the animals to kill
and to use as a determining factor.
Mr. McGuire. Then you came away ?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. What time did you come away, what date?
Mr. Cxiark. | had to leave on the 8th of August.
Mr. McGuire. What time do the seals leave the islands?
Mr. Ciarx. They leave in November.
Mr. McGuire. Then in your judgment, the pups of one year—that
is, the pup born one year does not appear on the islands, at least in
any considerable number until after the killing season of next year?
Mr. Crarx. That is right.
Mr. MoGurre. Where are they, in your judgment ?
Mr. CuarK. They are at sea. The mother separates from the pup
on leaving the islands and the pup is weaned. The pups spend the
winter in Bering Sea in efforts to Bare to feed. They have to make
the shift from a milk diet to a fish diet. They probably go away
with the yearling bachelors and females, and learn to fish associating
with them. They hang around in the vicinity of the Aleutian
Islands in the latter part of the fall. The mother seals go down as
far as Santa Barbara and return slowly. It is supposed that the
yearling seals go no lower down that Cape Flattery, that they meet
the returning Tord there, and return part way with the older seals,
but reach the islands later, about a month or two months behind the
other seals. They reach the islands late and get to the rookeries
only when the pups have begun to swim. That is in the months of
August and September.
Mr. McGure. The pups of that year?
Mr. CrarK. Yes. By the time of this return the pup is now a
yearling, and the little animals with which he has been associating,
the 2-year-olds, come to the hauling grounds, or breeding grounds.
The yearlings themselves do not come there because they are timid
and not anxious to get in among the older bachelors, which are
rougher in their play. They hover around the edge of the rookeries,
waiting until the pups have attained sufficient skill in swimming to be
companionable.
512 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. So that there is not any sexual development the
first year, either on the part of the male or the female?
Mr. CuarKk. No, I should not say so.
Mr. McGuire. Is that your experience, that the females do not
go to the breeding grounds until they are 2 years old?
Mr. CxarKk. That is right.
Mr McGuire. That has been settled ?
_Mr. Crarx. Yes; that has been settled.
Mr. McGuire. So there are no yearling females which go to the
breeding grounds ?
Mr. Crark. If they go, they go like the pups. They are immature
and the bulls pay no attention to them, and the cows only snap at
them and drive them away.
Mr. McGuire. Hf you are accurate in your conclusion that the
pups do not return, there are very few of either the females or the
males that return until late in the season ?
Mr. Crarxk. That is what I mean when I speak about their being
among the pups and females after the killing season.
Mr. McGuire. And after the breeding season ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, and after the breeding season. The mothers and
pups remain on the rookeries, without harem organization, all
through the fall. The rookeries retain a semblance of their char-
acter.
Mr. McGuire. Have the bulls gone?
Mr. Crark. The bulls have gone except for a few who come back
and loiter around from force of habit.
Mr. McGuire. Those are the inactive bulls?
Mr. CLrark. Yes; some of the bulls are always on the rookeries,
but the majority of them are resting in the sand hills. There is no
fight left in them, and there is no trouble with them at all, and they
have a good time for the rest of the season.
The CuarrMan. I believe the bulls stay there without eating or
drinking for a long time ?
Mr. CLrark. Yes; they do not eat or drink from the first arrival in
May until their departure about the Ist of August.
IT would say that nature makes a definite provision for that, because
the bull is lined up with fat, ches deep under his skin, and he lives
on that fat. When the bull leaves the rookery the Ist of August
he is thin and lean as a rail. His skin is loose and he is hungry and
lean.
Mr. McGuire. Now, I understood from your written statement to
this Committee that you, as an expert, do not agree with the action
of Congress in closing the season ?
Mr. Crarx. I most emphatically disagree with that; yes.
Mr. McGuire. Have you any figures which represent your con-
clusions with respect to the loss to the Government, we will say,
from the time we began the closed season up to 1915, up to and
including 1915 ?
Mr. Crarx. I have estimated that there were 10,000 3-year old
seals on the hauling grounds this year, that under a commercial
killing would have been killed for their skins. That is a positive
loss. I am unable to state definitely what would have been the
quota in 1912 if it had been allowed. No quota was killed in 1912,
but I think that because 2-year olds were killed in 1911, possibly not.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 513
very many 3-year-olds could have been kilied in 1912 beyond what
were taken for food, but in 1913 there was a full quota, and to that
quota of 3-year-olds
Mr. McGuire. Over and above the necessary males for breeding
purposes ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, or at least 10,000 more than were taken.
Mr. McGuire. Jn other words, the Government could have taken
10,000 3-year-olds in 1913 without in any way interfering with the
breeding and also to the benefit of the herd for the present and future,
because of the natural loss resulting from fighting of increased num-
bers of breeding males which can not be active on account of the
large number. I do not know that that question is as clear as it
might be, but you probably understand what I want.
Mr. CrarK. The point is that these 10,000 animals go into the
category of breeding bulls. They can not be killed next year nor
the next. Between the age of 4 and 5 years they develop a tremen-
dous growth of frame, and by the sixth year have a coarse mane,
which renders the skin commercially, of no value. The 10,000
animals turned into the category of bulls will produce a dangerous
overstock of breeding males.
Mr. McGurrer. Do you think there was a loss of 10,000 3-year-olds
last year that should have been killed ?
Mr. Crarx. That is my opinion, that they should have been killed
to the benefit of the herd and to the benefit of the Treasury as well.
Mr. McGuire. What would a 3-year-old hide be worth this year?
Mr. Cryarx. I have had a number of clippings from the sale at St.
Louis which mention a price of $52 per skin. Whether they average
that throughout I do not know. The choice skins—and the 3-year-
olds would have been prime skins—brought $52 per skin.
Mr. McGuire. It is safe to say they would have been worth $50?
Mr. Crark. I think so.
Mr. McGuire. What would have been the loss to the Government
then, this year?
Mr. Crarx. I should say it was $500,000.
Mr. McGutre. Do you state now the loss would be greater next
year, under similar procedure?
Mr. Crarkx. J think, by the natural increase of the herd, which
would be about 15 per cent
Mr. McGuire. And continue to be an increased loss until the pol-
icy is changed ?
Mr. Crarkx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. How many seals were killed on the islands last year ?
Mr. Ciarx. None were killed under my observation in 1913, and
I have not seen the complete list of food killings. I only know that
about 2,400 skins were brought down with us in the ship.
The CuarrmMan. But you do know that there were 400 skins taken
there, do you not?
Mr. Ciarx. I do know that.
The CHAarRMAN. You saw those ?
Mr. Cuarx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. In addition to the 2,400?
The CHarrman. They were taken in 1912, were they not?
Mr. Cuarx. No; in 1913.
D3490—_14——_33
514 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarRMAN. My impression was that 1,800 were taken in the
fall of 1912 and 400 skins were taken in 1913, when you were up there.
Mr. Cuark. I have stated here that I did not see them killed. The
400 skins you refer to I believe were taken at a killing on July 7,
before I landed on the islands.
The CHairMAN. That is the way the proposition stands. One
thousand eight hundred were taken in the fall before, and the other
400 were taken before you went to the island last summer ?
Mr. Cuarx. I do not know as to that. I think more of them were
ae early in June. I think that other killings were made before
uly 7.
Mr. McGuire. Were 400 skins all that were taken in 1913?
Mr. Exxtiorr. No; they were taken before we left.
Mr. Ciark. They could not take any after we left.
Mr. McGurre. You do not know how many were taken for commer-
cial purposes and for food purposes in 1913 ?
Mr. CiarK. I know it was stated that there were 2,400 skins on
board the ship coming down, and they were necessarily food skins;
they were all food skins last year, and they were necessarily taken in
the fall of 1912 or spring of 1913.
Mr. McGurre. In your judgment, that was 10,000 short of what it
ought to have been ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. What, in your judgment, would be an economical
and proper killing of the Government on the islands for food purposes
alone to feed 300 natives ?
Mr. Crarx. A fur seal dresses about 25 pounds of meat. There
are 300 people on the islands, and 5,000 fur-seal carcasses would allow
a little over 1 pound of meat a day to each of the natives. The
natives in that country are, of course, heavy meat eaters, and there-
fore 1 pound of meat a day would be nothing but a taste for them. I
fixed, in my recommendation to the department, 5,000 as the min-
imum that could be taken as an interpretation of a food kiling. Then
I called attention to the modus vivendi provision in which Great
Britain agreed that 7,500 was a normal killing for food for the same
population. I believe that 7,500 seals should have been taken for
the food of the natives.
Mr. McGutre. Assume that 10,000 seals should have been taken
last year that were not taken. If that had been done, could the na-
tives have utilized the meat as food ?
Mr. CLark. I think they could.
Mr. McGurre. And you say we are now buying canned meats and
sending them up there?
Mr. CrarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. That is an expense which would have been saved
had we killed the 10,000 ?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. I understood you to say that the foxes were dimin-
ishing because they were starving. If we had killed the 10,000 seals,
could that meat have been utilized to feed the foxes and sustain a
greater number of foxes than what we have now ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, at 4 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet
at 10.30 o’clock a. m. Monday, Feb. 23, 1914.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 515
Housb OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON HXPENDITURES
IN THE DrPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Monday, February 23, 1914.
The committee met at 10.45 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel
(chairman) presiding.
The CuatrMaNn. Mr. McGuire, you may proceed with your exam-
ination.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE A. CLARK—Continued.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Clark, what do you mean by the London weights
and charts ?
Mr. Crark. Well, in 1896 and 1897 when the two commissions were
at work on the Pribilof Islands, we were under the necessity of getting
all the ight we could about the sizes and ages of the animals and we
found that in volume 8 of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration, I believe
it is, at page 917, there is a classification of animals by weight and also
by measurement, interpretating in weights and measurements the
trade designations used in London. We found that a “small pup,’
for example, was given a skin weight of 6 pounds and 2 ounces, and
an ‘‘extra small pup” was given a skin weight of 4 pounds 15 ounces.
That was in the British case, and therefore it was a British piece of
information. We agreed, however, in a rough way, that those two
categories, the ‘“‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups,’ represented
animals of 2 years and 1 year of age. That is, the 6 pounds and 2
ounces was not very greatly above Mr. Elliott’s average weight for
the 2-year-olds of 54 pounds, and the London weight of 4 pounds 15
ounces was not very much above the average weight given by Mr.
Elhott for the yearling skin of 44 pounds. In other words, we
accepted his rough designation of the small pups and extra small pups.
Mr. McGuire. When was that?
Mr. Crarxk. In 1896, when that matter came to my attention, and
at that time I got it rather firmly in my mind that a London small
pup was, roughly speaking, a 2-year-old and an extra small pup,
roughly speaking, was a yearling.
Mr. McGuire. Do you retain that same opinion still?
Mr. Ciarx. No; I do not.
Mr. McGuirz. Why?
Mr. CrarK. Because of the added light which has come in the
course of years of study since then. For example, in 1910 the
London dealers supplied to the Department of Commerce a classifi-
cation of the catch of 1910. That was published in one of the earher
hearings before this committee and came to my attention perhaps
in the year 1911. I -studied it and found, for example, that in it
were listed small pups, 4,899 of them, with a skin weight of 5 pounds
12 ounces.
Mr. McGuire. When was that?
Mr. CrarK. That was in
Mr. McGurre (interposing). 1911 ?
Mr. Ciark. 1911, when I first saw this list. Now, there were 501.
animals also listed as small pups, with a skin weight of 5 pouncs
9 ounces. Then there were 421 small pups with a skin weight of
5 pounds and 6 ounces; 290 with a skin weight of 5 pounds 11 ounces.
516 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Those were all ‘‘small pups,” and those weights are all below the
weight of the small pups in 1893. That was the first thing that
struck me in this designation. If you average these weights the
average is 5 pounds 94 ounces, so that in this 1910 interpretation of
the London trade designations the average weight of skin was given
as 5 pounds 94 ounces, whereas in the previous one it had been
6 pounds 2 ounces. Now, in that same 1910 list there were ‘extra
small pups” designated; 1,266 of them were given a weight of
5 pounds 5 ounces and
The CHAarRMAN (interposing). Where was this weight given ?
Mr. Cuark. It is given in the early hearings. It 1s republished at
page 130 of this book, for example [indicating hearmgs No. 1, 63d
Cong. ].
The CHAIRMAN. I know, but were these weights recorded any-
where ?
Mr. CLtark. They were recorded in the hearings and, I believe,
published over and over again.
Mr. Exxiott. A large per cent of them.
The CHarrMAN. Wait a minute. I am going to ask him where
those recorded weights come from simply to clear it up. Were they
taken from the records of the Bureau of Fisheries ?
Mr. CrarK. My only information is from the hearing, which says
that this category is ‘“‘Assortment of Alaska salted fur-seal skins for
account of United States Government, Department of Commerce
and Labor.” It is headed ‘“‘C. M. Lampson & Co., London, Novem-
ber 19, 1910.’ But 1,266 of these were extra small pups, and they
weighed 5 pounds 5 ounces; 88 of them weighed 5 pounds even, and
75 weighed 5 pounds 3 ounces. Then a lot of 81 which were noted
as extra-extra small pups were given a skin weight of 4 pounds 15
ounces—no, I beg your pardon. These 81 animals were extra small
pups, just the same, and were given a weight of 4 pounds 15 ounces.
Now, if you average those four categories of the extra small pups
you get 5 pounds 1? ounces as against 4 pounds 15 ounces of the 1893
schedule. Then there was left in the category of the 1910 skins 11
skins at a weight of 4 pounds 10 ounces. That, of course, threw my
views regarding the London weights into some confusion, but follow-
ing that there came the investigation of 1912, in which we studied
the effect of salting on sealskins, and in that year we found that
sealskins decreased in salt. For 205 skins which we treated, they
decreased 6.4 ounces per skin. Now, that, of course, jarred my
knowledge of the ee entirely, because it forced me to add to
the London weights an appreciable amount which would brmg them
all above the minimum fixed in the regulations of 5 pounds. But,
of course, I am not able to measure exactly what that correction
would be back in past times. It meant this to me: If you take the
London weights at all you must add to them a considerable weight
for depreciation in skins through salting. Therefore the London
weights are normally less than what we would expect the London
weights to be.
Mr. StepHens. Are you well acquainted with the green weights
and salted weights ?
Mr. CLark. To the extent that I have seen a great many taken
and salted, and then I studied 205 skins that were taken, measured
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 517
and treated, in common with Mr. Marsh and Mr. Lembkey, to deter-
mine the action of salt on the skin.
Mr. StePHENS. Now, can you give us the percentage basis of
decrease between a green hide and a salted dry hide ?
Mr. CiarK. Exactly ?
Mr. SrppHens. Yes; if we get that I presume we can arrive at
the same relative difference between the small hide and the large
hide.
Mr. Crark. We took the 205 green skins and averaged them, and
that average was 5 pounds 9 ounces. That is, the 205 skins aver-
aged 5 pounds 9 ounces in a green state, and after they had been
salted from 7 days to 15 days we weighed them again and they aver-
aged 5 pounds 5 ounces.
In my cross-examination, at the beginning there, I did not make
myself clear, and perhaps did not state myself correctly, because,
you see, there are several factors entering into my knowledge. I am
glad to have this opportunity of making this explanation of the Lon-
don weights, and I wish my statements to be based upon it rather than
upon answers to questions which I was under the necessity of answer-
ing hastily and categorically at the beginning of the examiation.
The CyarrMAN. You testified on Saturday that only 711 yearlings
were taken since 1904, did you not?
Mr. CrarK. I testified that there were 711 skins out of 93,323
which were below the regulation weight of 5 pounds, and which
migh possibly be interpreted as yearlings.
The CoarrMan. Then I asked you whether extra small pups were
yearlings, and you said yes.
Mr. Crarx. I want to-
The CHArRMAN (interposing). Now, did you say that in the notes?
Mr. CLark. Could I see what I said there? Is it possible for me
to see what I said there ?
The CuHarrMan. Did you not say that extra small pups were
yearlings ?
Mr. Crark. I said that in 1896 and 1897 I thought they were
yearlings.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I think he said, Mr. Chairman.
The CHarrMan. Now, do you mean to say that you did not answer
this affirmatively when I asked you and you said extra small pups
must be yearlings ?
Mr. CiarK. Well, for 12 years I thought they were.
The CoarirMANn. Did you think so.on Saturday when I asked you?
Mr. Crarx. No; as a matter of fact, I did not.
The CHarRMAN. Do you remember that I told you that according
to these extra small pups the Government did not collect money
enough if they were 2-year-olds, because for the 2-year-olds they
collected $54 for a skin and for the extra small pups they collected
$28, and that the Government must have made a mistake if theskins
are of the same size? That is the question I put to you on Saturday,
and then you said the extra small pups were yearling seals. Do you
remember that now ?
Mr. Crarx. Well, I said here——
The CHarrRMAN (interposing). Do you mean to say
Mr. Ciarx (continuing). That for 12 years or more I was under the
impression that an extra small pup was a yearling, and I did not get
518 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
time to explain, and you will remember that I asked for permission to
take up this question and develop it, as I did this morning. If you
give me an opportunity to show that I had changed my impression
Mr. McGutreE (interposing). You will remember, Mr. Chairman,
that you told him he could return to that.
The CHAIRMEN. Yes; and then I told you that Lembkey, under
oath, stated that in 1910, 1,528 small pups were taken, and he had
admitted that they were yearlings. Did [ not ask you that?
Mr. Crark. I also protested
The CHarrRMAN (interposing). Now, did I ask you that?
Mr. Ciark. I could not say positively whether that is the wording
of the question you asked me.
The CHarrRMAN. Is it not a fact that since 1904 over 10,000 extra
small pups have been taken by this sealing company while they were
under the supervision of the Government agents ?
Mr. Crark. I do not know about that at all.
The CoarrMan. Now, let us get back to this proposition. Here the
extra small pups, according to the London sales in 1910, brought
$28.50 a skin, and the others $54 a skin. Why did not the Govern-
ment collect $54 for all of the skins if they were of one size ?
Mr. Crark. That should be asked of the Bureau of Fisheries. I am
not an expert on the London sales. I had nothing to do with them.
The CuarrMAn. But this being the case and that being the record,
do you still want to say that the small pups and extra small pups were
2-year-olds ?
Mr. CrarK. I want to say now positively that as a result of the
experiments in salting the skins I believe that not one of the animals
in the category of extra small pups, as brought out in the London
schedule of 1893 and of 1910, were yearlings, and I want to add one
point right here, that in the year 1913 it was demonstrated to me for
the first time that yearlings did not come on the hauling grounds, and
therefore it does not make any difference about the London weights;
they could not have been killed in the numbers you mention.
The CuarrMan. If hearing No. 10 is there I wish you would take it
and turn to page 553.
Mr. CrarKx. What paragraph is that ?
The CHarrMAn. Dr. Evermann was on the stand and was discussing
and exhibiting certain sealskins which he had brought before the com-
mittee. You will find it in Nos. 7, 8, and 9.
Mr. CrarK. Nos. 7, 8, and 9% What does that refer to?
The CHarrMANn. The numbers are on the page.
Mr. CLarKk. I have page 553.
Mr. Exriorrt [indicating]. It commences right there.
The Cuarrman. Now, let me read a few paragraphs. This is by
Dr. Evermann while the skins were before the committee. (Reading:)
No. 7. The sealskin measures 354 inches long. The seal itself was 41 inches long.
The skin weighed 4 pounds 94 ounces. That was called a yearling.
No. 8. The seal itself measured 394inches. The skin measures 33 inches and weighs
4 pounds 34 ounces. That seal was found dead and was regarded by agents and natives
as a runt yearling.
No. 9. The skin is 34 incheslong. The seal measured 39}inches. The skin weighs
3 pounds 15 ounces. That also was regarded as a yearling.
Do you dispute this statement ?
Mr. Cuarxk. This is not my statement, you know.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 519
The CuarrMAN. Well, is this correct in the light of the testimony
you have just submitted ?
Mr. CiarK. I do not see anything wrong with it, that is, skins
below 5 pounds I have been willing to admit were the skins of year-
lings. I would say that this is correct according to that view.
The CHarRrMAN. Thenif these skins were taken and submitted under
a sworn statement as yearlings, this is a proper standard, is it not?
Mr. Crark. I do not know anything about the standard. You
will remember that I did not see the skins and the person giving this
testimony is the one who should explain it.
The CHarrMAN. I am asking you to say whether you would adhere
to it as he submitted it now in the light of this sworn statement on
the part of Dr. Evermann.
Mr. Crark. I do not see any conflict, when I said I was willing to
admit that a skin that was below 5 pounds might be that of a year-
ling. I do not see why that does not cover this case, because these
animals were all below 5 pounds, and I would be willing to accept
Dr. Evermann on that.
The CHarrMAN. That these are the sizes and weights of yearlings ¢
Mr. CrarK. No; but I admit that animals below 5 pounds may be
yearlings. I want to show you in a moment that you can not depend
on the sizes of skins. I have a whole batch of skin measurements
that will show you that there is just as much difference between fur
seals of different ages as there is between children and men and other
animals.
The CuarrMan. If you want to submit that as a comparison, we
will take it for what it is worth, but now my recollection is that Mr.
Lembkey verifies these conclusions as submitted by Dr. Evermann
in the hearings.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. CruarK. Then I ask that Mr. Lembkey and Dr. Evermann
elucidate these points to the committee rather than myself.
The CuarrMan. But if they say this is a correct statement, will
you then change your opinion ?
Mr. Crarx. I do not think I will.
The CuarrMAN. Are you sure about that? You are an expert?
You ought to know. Experts have a right to answer hypothetical
questions.
Mr. Ciark. Is the hypothetical question this: That if the state-
ment here is that these animals whose skins are under the weight of
5 pounds are yearlings, do I agree to that or disagree from it? Is
that the question ?
The CuarrMan. If these méasurements and weights are correct,
with the sworn statement of the special agent on the islands, and
Dr. Evermann bringing it before the committee, then do you still
adhere to the opinion just expressed about yearlings and small pups
and extra small pups?
Mr. CuarkK. I do not see any disagreement between them.
The CuarirMAN. You do not?
Mr. Crarx. No.
The CuarrMan. Will you take this table of figures and examine it ?
Here is one more, Mr. Patton.
Mr. Parron. Is this the same as the other ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; that is the same.
520 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The CHainman. That is the same as what he has. There is a gen-
eral table, but we will get along with this.
My. Evtiotr. That is the segregation table.
The CHArRMAN. You were on the islands last summer ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir; I was. ‘
The CHarRMAN. You were there when 400 of the small skins were
examined and measured and weighed ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. They were measured and weighed by Gallagher
and Elliott in your presence ?
Mr. CrarK. Mr. Elliott took the measurements and Mr. Hatton
weighed them.
Mr. Exztiotr. Hatton took the measurements.
The CHarrMAN. Well, that does not matter.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, I want to get it straight.
Mr. Crarkx. And Mr. Gallagher and myself made the record and
took the notes.
The CuarrmMan. Now, you have a tabulated statement before you
which has numbers accompanying the lengths and weights. For
instance, the first one there is No. 4623, length 32 inches, weight 5
pounds 113 ounces. Was that a 2-year-old ?
Mr. CLARK. In order to answer that question I must have the
breadth measurement of that skin. I do not find it in this list.
Mr. Exviiorr. You have the weight.
The CHarrMAN. One moment, now. Do you have the breadth
measurement ? .
Mr. Crarx. I do not.
The CHarrMan. Did you take it?
Mr. CuarKk. No, sir.
The CuarrMan. Why didn’t you ?
Mr. Crark. Because I was prevented from doing it by Mr. Henry
W. Elliott.
Mr. Exxiorr. Not at all.
The CHARMAN. One moment, Mr. Elliott. Will you just wait until
I get through with him? You take No. 4275. There is a 32-inch
skin weighing 8 pounds 7} ounces. What caused this discrepancy
and difference in the weight? It is nearly 3 pounds.
Mr. Cxiark. It is due exactly to the fact that there is left out the
breadth measurement of that skin. You can not determine the size
of askin from the length. But if you had the breadth measurement
you would find that one 32-inch skin was short and broad and the
other was narrow. |
The Cuarrman. Now, Mr. Clark, if the skins should be measured
afterwards and it is found that the girth is the same, then what would
your answer be?
Mr. CriarKk. It is possible ——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The skins have been set aside and
they will be measured if necessary so as to verify your conclusions.
Now, what caused this difference of nearly 3 pounds?
Mr. Crark. On the face of it I would say that it is simply due to
the absence of breadth measurement of this skin, which fails to dis-
close the size of the skin. In other words, the area of these two skins
might be exactly the same. This one of 8 pounds and 7 ounces might
be 4 inches broader, for example, than the one which has a weight
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 521
of 5 pounds 11 ounces, and in that case the skin would be of a greater
area and therefore would have a right to weigh a greater amount.
The CHarrMan. Now, Mr. Clark, I am going to caution you in your
testimony. You are sworn before this committee, and the girths of
those animals will be taken. If you are so positive that that is the
fact, is it not a fact that these skins were blubbered and that caused
the difference in the weights ?
Mr. Cxiark. I closely inspected these skins as they passed before me
and I was not aware that they were heavily blubbered or unusually
blubbered at all. I did not know what the object of that experiment
was, and J did not make a specific diagnosis of that particular phase
of it, but these particular skins passed before us and nothing unusual
was found by Mr. Whitney, Mr. Hatton, and myself.
The CuHarrmMan. Do you want to swear now that the blubber did
not cause this condition ?
Mr. CrarKk. I can not swear to that unless you show me the girth
measurement of this skin.
The CHarrMan. You had the skins before -you ?
Mr. Cxuark. I was not permitted to measure them.
The CHarrMAN. Did you not have the skins before you?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes; lying on the table.
The CHarrMAN. And each one of them was before you and you were
asked to look at them and verify them?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. You were asked to verify the statements of Gal-
lagher and Elliott?
Mr. CLarK. Yes; but I was not permitted to get the breadth; I
was not permitted to take the breadth measurement. .
Mr. Ex.iotr. That is not in the record. That is false.
Mr. Parron. i do not think one witness ought to be permitted to
sit back here and tell another witness this testimony is false.
Mr. Exuiotr. Well, he has drawn me into it.
The CuHarrMaNn. One moment, Mr. Elliott, until you are permitted
to speak.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, all right.
The CuarrMAN. Now, take skin No. 6, No. 4246, that measured 31
inches, and weighed 5 pounds 15? ounces; then you take No. 7 skin,
No. 4242, another skin measuring 31 inches weighing 4 pounds 5}
ounces. ‘This is all due to the blubber that was on these skins andis
on them now, is it not ?
Mr Crarx. I do not know anything of the kind, Mr. Rothermel.
The CHarrMANn. Now, Mr. Clark, you saw the skins and they were
passed to you for inspection, were they not ?
Mr. Cruarx. No, sir; I was told that I must not interfere with this
experiment.
The CHAIRMAN. Were they passed to you for inspection ?
Mr. Crarx. I was permitted to look at them.
Mr. Ex1iotr. The same as I was.
The CHAIRMAN. One moment, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. SrepHens. I think we had better separate these witnesses.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I will be good, but my name must not be quoted.
Mr. Ciarx. Of course, I presume that these figures here were made
by Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher.
Mr. Exsiorr. Elliott and yourself.
522 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarrMAN. I find No. 4658, a 314-inch skin, weights 8 pounds
4 ounces. How do you reconcile that with No. 4244, 32-inch skin
that weighs 4 pounds 3} ounces ?
Mr. Crark. For instance, No. 4658 might be found to have a
breadth measurement of 30 inches whereas the other had 22 inches,
and that would make all the difference that is necessary. And from
my point of view the difference between these skins is one that is due
to the larger size of the skin that weighed more heavily, but that fact
is obscured by the absence of the breadth measurement of the skin.
The CHarrmMan. Why did you not take the breadth measurement
of the skin ?
Mr. Crarx. I have told you that I was not allowed to do so.
I asked the privilege of doing it after asking Mr. Elliott failed to do so.
The Cuarrman. Well, you had the privilege of examining them
and measurement belonged to the examination of them.
Mr. Crarx. I was told that if I did that, if I insisted upon it—
it would mean interference with an experiment that was exclusively
his and not mine. I was made to understand that I was there to
look on and I had to keep still.
The CoarrMAN. So you did not get the breadth measurements at all ?
Mr. CrarKk. No; you will find that statement made in Mr. Elliott’s
manifesto.
Mr. SrepHens. I would lke to ask who was present at that time.
The CHarrMAN. All right.
Mr. STEPHENS. Give the names of the men.
Mr. Crark. They are all given in the record. There was Mr. Philip
Hatton, the agent and caretaker on St. Paul, and Mr. Whitney,
the school teacher on St. Paul, and Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher.
The CHarrMaNn. This is reported at page 101 of the report of
Gallagher and Elliott, being page 123 of hearing No. 1 of this session:
Order of procedure in salt house, village of St. Paul, July 29, 1913, which will be
followed on the occasion of taking the measurements and salt-cured weights of a
series of 400 fur-seal skins, secured July 7, 1913, on St. Paul Island.
Said measurements and weights are to be taken by special agents of House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, Messrs. Henry W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher, publicly, in the salt house of the Government July 29, 1913.
First. An interpreter will ask the native sealers to elect four or five of their number
to salt and bundle these skins for shipment, as being the men most experienced,
and besv workers in salting and bundling sealskins, in the community.
Is that correct ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir; the men chosen were competent.
The CHATRMAN (reading):
Second. These men are to “‘spread” these skins aforesaid (and which are duly
tagged and numbered with their ‘“‘green” weights, as taken July 7 last) upon a salter’s
bench for measurement, one by one, as they are asked to do so by the agents above
named.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Crark. That is correct. Note that it is the agents “above
named”’ that were to do it.
The CHarrMan. Yes. (Reading):
Third. When those agents have measured them for length, one by one, then those
native salters shall proceed to salt and ‘‘bundle” these skins (in bundles of 2 skins
each) precisely as they have done that work in 1889, under the direction of the agents
of the A. C. Co., and since that date under the direction of the agents of the N. A. C.
Co. up to 1909. This work of salting and bundling to be done by those native salters
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 523
aforesaid, without any suggestion or interference from or by anyone during the progress
of their work to its finish.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Crarx. That is correct, and I want to call attention to that last
statement, ‘‘Without any suggestion or interference from or by any-
one during the progress of their work to its finish.”
The CHarrMAN. Yes; either Elliott, Gallagher, you or the rest.
Mr. Crarx. But it was applied to me.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes.-
The CuarrMan. No; it was not to interfere with the natives.
Mr. Crarx. Well, it was interpreted the other way.
The CHarrMANn. Well, that is plain enough for anybody to under-
stand. (Reading):
Fourth. When each bundle of two tagged salt skins is duly made by those salters,
it will then be weighed and numbered, with that weight duly recorded and publicly
announced by said agents at the time of such record and entry.
Was announcement made like that ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN (reading):
A copy of the above order of procedure having been duly given to the agents of
Bureau of Fisheries in charge of St. Paul Island, Monday evening, July 28, 1913,
on Tuesday morning at 9 o’clock following the salt house was opened and the work
as above ordered was carried out to the letter; it was finished at 6 p. m.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Crarxk. That is correct.
The CHarrMAN (reading):
The following results were obtained, the measurements and weights being all
simultaneously made by Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher for the committee, and Messrs.
Hatton and Clark and Whitney for the Bureau of Fisheries; every figure of weight
and measurement being called out at the time it was recorded and made, and agreed
to then and there by all parties engaged. Mr. Hatton, for the Bureau of Fisheries,
verified every measurement with Mr. Elliott, and agreed upon the same as they were
recorded; Mr. Clark and Mr. Whitney, for Fisheries Bureau, verified every weight
with Mr. Gallagher, and agreed upon the same as they were recorded. The following
table of recorded salt weights and measurements has been therefore made in complete
agreement with the officials in charge of the island, they having a copy of it as it was
made on the salter’s bench.
Did they give you a copy ?
Mr. Crark. I made my own copy.
The Cuatrman. But did they give you a copy ?
Mr. Crark. No.
Mr. Exxiorr. He made it right with us.
The CHarrman. Oh, you made your copy while this was going on?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; it was simultaneous. We made ours at the
same time.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):
The natives selected nine of their best men, who took turns in salting and bundling
the skins. No one spoke to them as they did this work, or made a suggestion even as
to how they should prepare these skins for shipment in salt.
Each skin has a leather tag strung to it by one of the other of its flipper holes; on
this tag is the number stamped indelibly and so identifies it in the bundles as recorded.
Now, that is all correct, is it not ?
Mr. Crarx. All correct.
524 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarrman. Then why did you try to impress the committee
with the fact that you were not given the chance to make this exami-
nation ?
Mr. Crark. I want to say right here that I have no fault with
these figures as they stand, but there are two vital points left out.
One of them is the breadth of skin
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Now, Mr. Clark, we can verify your
conclusions because these skins are snugly tied away.
Mr. CLark. Have they been undisturbed since they were taken
away from the islands ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir; they are in the custody of the Govern-
ment.
Mr. CuarK. How were those skins recognized ?
The CHAIRMAN. They were recognized by tags that were put on
and the Government has separated them from the rest, and they are
intact as they came from the islands. Now, I want to caution you
right here that when it comes to your expressing an opinion to this
committee to impress us with the truth of the taking of these skins
that they are in such a position that your conclusions can be verified
and will be verified, and I do this as a matter of precaution to you.
Mr. Crarx. And I wish to make this statement: When these bun-
dles were made up I called Mr. Elliott’s attention to the fact that in
the bundling the leather tags were wrapped in. I said, ‘‘Wouid it
not be well for us to tag these bundles with a number, 1, 2, 3, and 4?”
He said, ‘‘No; the leather tags will be sufficient;’’ and they were
wrapped in so that they would not be broken off. In order to find
those leather numbers you would have to open every single bundle.
The CuarrMan. They have been opened and examined and placed
back exactly where they belong, and the Bureau of Fisheries was rep-
resented. |
Mr. CrarK. You could not make me believe that the skins could
be opened and rebundled by amateurs or by anybody but the man
who bundled them on the island.
The CHArRMAN. It is not a question of whether they can bundle
them. I am telling you that the skins are intact and can be identi-
fied. I do it as a matter of precaution, when you want to tell this
committee that it is a case of girth between these skins that I have
pointed out to you, when there is a difference of half an inch in size and
anes in weight, that that is not due to the blubber that is on
them.
Mr. Cuarx. I want to say that when you say ‘‘size’”? you mean
‘Jength.” But length does not mean size. That is what I protest
against here and what I protested against there, that you must have
the breadth in order to get the size, and the length does not give the
size.
The CuarrMan. I understand you perfectly. I have heard from
other sources that you would come before this committee and claim
that to be the fact.
Mr. Crark. Yes; I told Mr. Elliott so.
Mr. Exvxiorr. You did not tell me so on the islands.
The CHarrMan. And I wish to make this statement here and now:
That there is complaint in all of the committees here in Congress that
you can not get witnesses to come and be straightforward and frank.
‘
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 525
Mr. McGutrz. Don’t
The CHATRMAN (continuing). And I do this to caution the witness.
One day — .
Mr. Patron (interposing). Mr. Chairman ——
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). One day they come—and it is my
experience and the experience of other Members of the House—and
make one statement and the next day they come back and change it.
There are remedies here for that ——
Mr. Patron (interposing). Mr. Chairman
The CHArRMAN (continuing). And I want to make this statement
as a matter of precaution. Here is a witness who distinctly and abso-
lutely stated on Saturday that extra small pups were yearlings.
When he is confronted with the facts and finds that in one year there
were 1,528 taken instead of 711 since 1904, he comes with what was
agreed upon before some tribunal or some commission and says that
he was mistaken.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, you understand that is a statement
of the Chair. I do not agree with the Chair at all as to what the wit-
ness has testified with respect to that matter, and it is just as plain in
my memory as the letters of the alphabet that when the Chair was
somewhat persistent with the witness and wanted a direct answer,
that the witness said he would like to explain fully, and the Chair
told him that he would have that opportunity later. This morning
it was my purpose in my interrogations to give the witness an oppor-
tunity to explain fully as a scientific man. J suppose the witness is
willing to take all responsibilities for this testimony. JI have seen
nothing in his testimony so far to which exception ought to be teken.
The CHArRMAN. It must not be overlooked that the question of
killing yearling seals on the part of the sealing company and on the
part of the special agents of the Government goes to the very marrow
of the matters which are involved here, and are material. It is not
merely a question of damages which the Government ought to collect
if these violations of the law were committed; not only should there
be damages collected, but men ought to be punished if they were
guilty parties to any such transaction.
Mr. Patron. Mr. Chairman, J think that that is a matter for argu-
ment before the House of Representatives. I doubt the advisability
or the propriety of lecturing any witness.
The CHarrMAN. I am calling attention to this fact because these
men are before this committee, and I doit toimpress them that it can
not be said afterwards: ‘‘Oh, well, I overlooked that; it was but an
error of judgment.”
Mr. McGuire. Well, I do not agree with the chairman at all.
Mr. Patron. You make a statement that you have heard certain
things about witnesses coming before committees and not giving cor-
rect testimony. Do you mean to insinuate that witnesses come here
and deliberately tell untruths to other committees ?
ae CHAIRMAN. I mean that there is a general complaint of that
nd.
Mr. Parton. That may be, but where it is hard to get evidence I
do not think it is right to insinuate that a witness comes here and.
ives incorrect testimony. I know if I were a witness I would not
e a witness before this committee under the present way of con-
ducting it, with a man coming in and breaking in on the testimony.
526 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrmMan. Well, nobody is breaking in. ;
Mr. Parton. I know you do not but Elliott does right along, and
J would not stand for it and I know you would not either.
The CHarrMaNn. There is no harm done by that. I am merely
cautioning the witness.
Mr. Patron. Well, you have a perfect right to caution the witness.
The CHarrMAn. Mr. Clark, I have been asked to submit this to
you as an expert:
Dr. Jordan’s men record the presence of yearlings on the hauling grounds when they
first land, July 11, and every day during the season, thereafter, and so officially report
to wit:
Sr. Pauts Isuanp, 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.)
July 11.—Zapadnie Rookery, St. George Island: The yearling bachelors are to be
seen in little pods of a half a dozen orso. * * * Where the bachelor yearlings are
at a distance from interference, they play among themselves like littledogs. * * *
Similar comparisons might be made for the 2-year-olds, which are bigger than the
yearlings, nearly as large as the cows. (Fur Seal Investigations, 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 18.—Ardignen Rookery, St. Pauls Island: On Ardignen, one unlucky yearling
male is seen to invade a harem, and get routed out by the hoarse and furious old
pills aren e302)!
July 15.—Lukannon Rookery, St. Pauls Island: On Lukannon was seen a little cow,
apparently a 2-year-old, with features of a yearling, and slender * * * (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 Island: These are apparently virgin 2-year-
olds * * * small side of the big bull (p. 319).
Do you know anything about that? Is that a correct statement ?
Mr. CuarK. I would like to reply to that by referring this committee
to page 180 of this document. Will you please follow me in that?
It is stated on page 180 of the last hearings: ‘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:
Sr. Pauts Istanp, Saturday, August 1, 1896.
Dr. Jordan, assisted by the natives * * * drove up pod 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.)
Now, the author of that isnot givenhere. This is not Dr. Jordan’s
record, but on page 364 of volume 2 of Dr. Jordan’s report of 1896
and 1897 I want to read this record, which is Dr. Jordan’s record.
The CHARMAN. That is in this connection ?
Mr. Criarx. Yes, sir. He says:
Appollon, the chief, and his men rounded up a pod of holostiaki from the hauling
ground of Reef Rookery. There are some half-bulls among the lot but the majority
are apparently yearlings. One by one they are noosed and drawn out of the lot.
While two Aleuts with their clubs control the head of the seal, another seizes it by the
hind flipper and turns it upon its back, thus permitting perfect indentification as to
BOXe. one) ae
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 527
* * * One after another the little fellows are draw off until 23 have been exam-
ined. They are all plainly holostiaki—yearlings.
That is, yearling bachelors.
A few yet remain but their size and the presence of the wig sufficiently indicate
their sex and they are released.
Now, this is what I want you to note:
= may safely be inferred that no virgin females are among the bachelors on the
Reef.
That is the official record made by Dr. Jordan. Those statements
are absolute contradictions. Here you have a man who was not
resent at the experiment recording something in his log, with which
fre had no connection; and here you have the record of the man
himself making the test which is diametrically opposite.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know who made that record ?
Mr. CrarKx. No; I do not, but I know that Joseph B. Crowley was
in charge.
The Cuarrman. How about the recording of yearlings ?
Mr. Crark. This is August
The CHarRMAN (interposing). That is the point about it.
Mr. Ciark. It is not the point. In one case it is alleged that it is
conceded that females are on the hauling grounds and in the other
case it is inferred that females are not on the hauling grounds. It
is not the killing season in August; the killing season is over.
The CuarrMAn. Now, yearlings do not come in until August.
That is your statement is it not?
Mr. CrarKk. They begin to come in about that time, but only in
small numbers then.
The CuarrMANn. What would you say of the 11th of August ?
Mr. Ciarx. No; I would say any time after the 1st of August, and
and we found here about 23 animals out of a considerable pod of
them; I do not know how many.
The CuarrMan. Here is a statement from the Official Journal:
[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 hali-grown bulls; as many yearlings as choice seals; killed (i. e., 274),
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 thisseason. (Chas. J. Goff, U.S. chief special agent in
charge seal islands.)
So that they were there already in large numbers on June 18, if this
is correct. This is taken from the Official Journal.
Mr. CiarK. It is the statement of Mr. Goff; not my statement or
that of Dr. Jordan.
The Cuarrman. Would you question the truth of it?
Mr. Ciarx. I have no reason to question the truth of it.
The CuarrMaAn. Then you must be mistaken if they do not come
until August. How about that?
Mr. Ciark. Perhaps I ought to have qualified that and said that
they did not, so far as we kaew. I am speaking from my own obser-
vation, of course. I want that understood.
The CHAIRMAN (reading):
Monday, June 23, 1890.—(p. 231.) 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
528 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
village were turned back into the sea, 10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds, balance
yearlings. (C. J. Goff.)
Do you think that is a correct statement ?
Mr. Cuarx. I have no means of knowing whether-it is correct or
not. I was not there in 1890.
The CuarrMan. Do these seals come earlier and later in various
seasons in different years ?
Mr. CuarKk. We did not find it so.
The CuHarrMAN (reading):
Tuesday, June 24, 1890.—(p. 231.) N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Reef and Tol-
stoi, and killed 426 seals; about 65 per cent wet this drive was turned back into the sea;
about all of these were yearlings. (C. J.
Mr. Crarx. Mr. Rothermel, you ne bring up this man and let
him show how he kaew they were yearlings. I say no one could
swear to a yearling until he saw the br anded animal. I could not.
I want to say this with reference to the animals we saw in 1896 and
1897: That we carried out the ideas of the people on the island who
looked upon the very smallest seals they saw as yearlings, and that
is what we meant in the reports in those early days.
Mr. Parron. What was the weight at which a seal was considered
a yearling at that time; 6 pounds?
Mr. Ciark. No; they were not allowed to take seals under 6 pounds
in 1896, and, of course, that protected also the 2-year-olds.
Mr. Parron. Those were the ones that were turned back?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir.
Mr. ee HE Under 6 pounds ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir.
The Ce. The mere purpose of that question of mine was to
show that the witness must be mistaken when he says that these
yearlings did not come until August.
Mr. Parron. Is that not merely a difference of opinion between
two experts ?
The CHarrMan. But these are the official records of the island.
Mr. Parron. Well, that is only the official record of the expert
who was there.
Mr. Crarx. Have I not shown you ae the official record is in
error and contradicts the testimony of five or six men who were en-
gaged in an experiment? The Official Journal says:
“Tt is now conceded that yearling females do not haul out on the
rookeries, but among the holluschikie.”
Dr. Jordan’s own record states: ‘‘It may safely be inferred that no
virgin females are among the bachelors on the Reef.”’ That is what
he says.
The CHArRMAN. But Mr. Goff was a sworn officer of the Govern-
ment, was he not?
Mr. Cuiark. I do not know anything about it more than that Mr.
Goff was the Government agent on the islands.
The CHarrMAN. Now, I want to ask the witness a few more ques-
tins, Mr. McGuire, before you proceed.
Mr. McGurre. All right.
The Cuarrman. Did I understand you to say on Satara that
you and some assistant up there branded 6,000 young seals one year ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 529
Mr. Ciarx. Yes, sir; that is, I stated that I helped to brand 1,741
and that after my departure from the islands the agent raised that
number to between 5,000 or 6,000.
The Cuarrman. In what year was that?
Mr. Ciark. In 1912.
The CuHarrmMan. How old were these seals that were branded ?
Mr. Ciarx. Between 2 and 3 months old.
The CHarrMaNn. I think you said how they were branded, but I do
not remember it; I do not have the notes. Could you repeat that?
Mr. Cuarx. We drove up the pups in little pods, and then the
natives caught the little animals and held them by the sides of the
neck or under the ears, and Mr. Marsh and I took red-hot irons and
burned a little impression, and imperfect T, on their heads—that is,
we drew a line down the forehead between the eyes and another across
the top of the head in such a way as not to connect. We heated the
irons on a gasoline furnace.
The CHarRMAN. One mark between the eyes and another on top
of the head?
Mr. Ciarx. It was intended to make a rough T.
The CHarrMan. It was between the eyes?
Mr. Crarx. Well, the eyes were far apart, but it came down in the
direction of the nose between the eyes.
The Coarrman. And the next year they did not turn up, I believe
you said ?
Mr. CLark. We got a few of them on the Reef, but later on in the
fall they came in in larger numbers.
The CHArRMAN. You say that the one that came back you meas-
ured ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes, sir; we caught this one that was branded and we.
measured it.
The CuarrmMan. What did you say was the length of it?
Mr. Cxiark. 364 inches.
The CuarrMan. For the entire seal?
Mr. Ciarx. From tip of the nose to the root of the tail.
The CuarrMan. Then the skin would be how long?
Mr. Cuarx. It would be shorter by as much as the sealer might
leave on the nose in skinning. Jn drawing the knife across the nose
there is a patch left there, and on the larger seals it averaged 4 inches
ele when we measured and were dealing with the 205 salted
skins.
The CaarrMan. That was a yearling then?
Mr. CiarK. Which one?
The CoatrMan. The branded one.
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir; most assuredly, because it had a mark on it
and that was an absolute identification.
The Cuarrman. Now, Mr. McGuire, you may proceed.
Mr. McGuire. Did you get through a while ago with your state-
ment with respect to the London measurements, do you remember ?
Mr. Crarx. I think so.
Mr. McGurre. | think you answered all my interrogatories.
Mr. Crark. I think I did, unless it might be that as a result of the
experiment with the salted skins in 1912—and I want to emphasize
this fact—we had to readjust our whole knowledge and assume that
52490—14—— 34
530 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SHAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
an addition must be made to the London weights to get back to the
green-skin weights, because of depreciation of skins in salting.
Mr. McGuire. I think you went over that. Now, then, with
respect to the measurements and weights taken on the islands, I will
ask you if you have any examples where you took both the length and
breadth of skin measurements and, if so, what did you find with
respect to the relative lengths and relative breadths of seals presum-
ably of the same age?
Mr. CiarK. In 1912 I was charged in my instructions with the
determination of the question of the action of salting on weight of
sealskins because that was a question before this committee. Mr. M.
C. Marsh, the naturalist on St. Paul, Mr. Lembkey and myself, made a
killing of 205 animals—they were well-grown two-year olds—with a
view to laying a basis for this experiment. ‘The full record is in my
1912 report. We had the animal struck down, stunned, and before it
was bled we had it weighed. We took the animal’s weight, and then
we measured the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail
and we took its girth behind the fore flippers. We took the green-
skin weight, and then put it into salt in the kench, where we took its
length and breadth. Then after 7 to 10 days, or whatever the period
of salting is, we took these skins out and shook them to get.rid of the
extra salt and weighed them again. We again took their length and
breadth. We have that all recorded here for the 205 skins.
I should not have complained about the Elhott-Gallagher report
here if those full dimensions had been given, but you see, the breadth
measurements were not taken for these 400 salted skins, therefore the
information is defective.
We have the area of these 205 skins so that their size can be easily
determined. I have been interested since this discussion came up in
looking over these figures for 1912, and I have drawn out some ex-
aiples to assist us in getting at an understanding of the matter.
Mr. McGuire. Give the examples you have there.
Mr. Crark. I find in this manuscript of 1912 that skin No. 38—I
may say that these skins are tagged just as Mr. Elhott’s are tagged.
This skin No. 38 came from an cranial weighing 52? pounds. That is
a little less than the weight of an average 2 year old as fixed by Mr.
Elhott, which is 58 pounds. Skin No. 38 was 40 inches in length and
244 inches in girth. The green skin weighed 5 pounds 124 ounces.
No. 50 had a weight of 58$ pounds as an animal. That corresponds
exactly to Mr. Elhott’s estimate of 58 pounds. Its dimensions
(salted) are 403 by 25 inches and had a weight of 5 pounds 154 ounces.
Now, No. 58 of this same list is of an animal weighing 49 pounds. I
have chosen here animals of varying weights, so that we will see that
these animals do vary and you can not fix on any one measurement
as characteristic of them all. This salted skin had a length of 414
inches and a girth of 21} inches. Its weight 5 pounds and 74 ounces.
Note that we have here three skins; the lengths are 40 inches, 404
inches, and 414 inches. The girth measurements are 244, 25, and 21}.
The weights are 5 pounds 123 ounces, 5 pounds 54 ounces, and 5
pounds 74 ounces. You see there is not a very great variation in
weights, although there is variety in the size and weight of the
animals and some variation in width.
The CuarrMan. There is no difference of 3 pounds, is there ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 53]
Mr. Ciarx. No; but the skins are practically the same length.
Skin No. 86 in this 1912 list is from an animal of 704 pounds. That
animal is considerably above the average, but it has a salted skin
length of 43 inches and a girth of 24 inches, and its weight is 5 pounds
122 ounces. Now, the next skin is 126 No. It has an animal weight
of 105 pounds. That is an unusual animal, almost twice the weight
that is assigned to a normal 2 year old. Its skin is 424 inches long
and 254 inches wide. It weighs 6 pounds 12} ounces. This was a
solid, hard animal, nothing flabby about it at all. Its weight was
very heavy foritssize. Its skin did not vary very much from that of
the other animals in size, but in weight it was slightly greater than
the others. These other animals of less weight were leaner, reduced
in flesh, and hence of less weight as animals. They probably did not
get such good feed, but the skin on them was not very different.
They were lean, skinney animals. This animal, however, weighed
105 pounds and was in good condition.
The CHarrMAN. Where were these skins taken from ?
Mr. Ciark. At a killing on St. Paul Island in the season of 1912.
The CHAIRMAN. The records are made of them in 1912?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir; it is in my record for 1912.
The CHarrRMAN. You have taken the weights from those skins as
they were recorded ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir. The serial number of the skin is given and
it is recorded.
The CuarrMan. So that if there was an unusual amount of blubber
on some of them, that has something to do with the weights as much
as the-girth ?
Mr. CrarKx. Now, I can swear to these skins, because they were
skinned under my eyes and we watched every step that the natives
made, and they were not excessively blubbered.
The CuatrMANn. Now, I wish you would look up the London records
and see if you can identify them.
Mr. CrarK. That would be impossible to identify these 205 skins.
I would like to mention another skin, skin No. 151. It is from an
animal weighing 694 pounds. Its length is 32; inches—now, that is
getting down to Mr. Elliott’s yearling class skin length, is it not?
Its breadth is 29 inches. In other words, it is a short broad skin.
The weight of the skin is 7 pounds and 2} ounces. Would you say
that was blubbered heavily ?
Mr. McGuire. From that experiment——
Mr. Ciarx (interposing). Now, here is another skin, No. 152, from
an 803-pound animal. ‘The skin is 37 inches long and 264 inches
wide, and weighs 7 pounds 114 ounces. Skin No. 153 is from an
animal weighing 85 pounds, the skin measuring 41 inches long, 24
inches wide, and weighing 6 pounds 74 ounces. Here we have a skin
41 inches long and 24 inches wide. What is gained in length is lost
in width. Another is 37 inches long and 26 inches wide. What it |
lacks in length it gains in breadth. Here is one 32} inches long and
29 inches in breadth, a larger loss in length and a larger gain in
breadth. When you take those areas and the sizes of the skins by
means of two dimensions you find that they equalize one another and
they have a right to weigh nearly the same. But if you should pick
out that 321-inch skin without knowing its breadth, you might have
one of your blubber skins
532 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The Cuarrman. These are 2-year-olds ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes. These 205 animals averaged 64 pounds apiece. |
The CuarrmMan. You mean the average of the entire animal?
Mr. Crark. Yes. Mr. Elliott fixed 58 pounds as the standard
weight for 2-year-olds, on page 46 of his monograph.
The CHarrMAN. This is the weight of the entire seal ?
Mr. CuarKk. Yes, sir; and it was in our Case, too.
The CHarrMAN. What has that to do with the blubbering of the
skin ?
Mr. Cuarx. You asked me if these were 2-year-old animals and I
wanted to show you the basis on which I said they were 2-year-olds.
Mr. Elliott fixed the standard weight of a 2-year-old at 58 pounds.
The Coatrman. What does a yearling seal weigh ?
Mr. Ciarx. Well, I would have to refer to Mr. Hlhott.
The CoarrMan. I know; but did you not weigh some yearlings
yourself ?
Mr. Ciarx. No; I did not, Mr. Rothermel.
The CHarrman. Did you not know the difference in the weights
between the two, the yearling and the 2-year-old? :
Mr. Cuarx. Mr. Elliott bas fixed the standard
The CHarRMAN (interposing). One moment; I am asking you now.
Mr. CuarKk. No; I do not know.
The Cuarrman. Would you be willing to take Mr. Elliott’s judg-
ment in this instance ?
Mr. CLarKk. J am willing to take Mr. Elhott’s judgment in this
instance; he has a table that has not been disputed.
The CuHarRMAN. How much does he say a yearling seal weighs ?
Mr. Ciark. 39 pounds.
The CoarrMan. How much does a 2-year-old weigh ?
Mr. CuarKk. 58 pounds.
The CuarrMAN. That is the difference in size ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
The CoarrMAN. Do you still say you can not distinguish the
difference between a yearling and a 2-year-old when you have seen
them ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir; I still say that you can not distinguish them
with any degree of certainty so that you could swear to it.
The CuarrMAN. So that it is not with any degree of certainty, but
an expert could do it?
Mr. CrarKk. Well, not an expert of my type. I could distinguish
this 105-pound animal from a 39-pound animal, but not a 49-pound
animal from a 39-pound animal.
The CuHarrMAN. But you just named the figures of Mr. Elhott
as to the entire animal.
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir; 39 for the yearling and 58 for the 2-year-old;
but I want to say this with regard to Mr. Elhott’s classification
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Well, one moment. Let us bring
that out to the end before you commence to explain. It is 58 pounds
for the 2-year-old ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes; and 39 for the yearling.
The CuarrmMan. Can you tell offhand about what percentage
that would be in size?
Mr. CrarK. Well, I would have to figure that out
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 533
ae CuarRMAN. About 40 per cent larger than the yearling, would
it be?
Mr. Ctark. Yes, sir. But I want to state this in regard to the
- 39-pound limit. I should like to verify that, because Mr. Elhott
says that it is a mean of only six animals.
The CHatRMAN. Now, you just said that you did not know any-
thing about it except that you took Mr. Elliott’s data. If you have
never neeiebed any yearling seals, why do you question this propo-
sition ?
Mr. Ciark. I did not question it, you will remember. I just
called attention to the fact that it is based on 6 animals, and I
based my 2-year-old figures on 205 animals. If I was to say what
a yearling would weigh I would want to kill 200 of them and get an
average in that way.
Mr. McGuire. Now, we were touch with your examples of the
measurements and weights which you took of seals; that is, your
comparisons ?
Mr. CLarxk. Well, yes.
Mr. McGutre. Ni ow, then, in view of your experiments, would it
be possible to tell the size or weight of a skin by only taking the
length and paying no attention to the width?
Mr. CiarK. No, sir. I think you could not tell anything about
the skin on that basis, and I think these figures will show that.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know whether Mr. Elliott was in possession
of the facts which you have just testified to as to the different lengths
and widths at the time that he refused to take the measurement of
the widths of the skins in 1913? I say, do you know whether or
not he was in possession of those facts ?
Mr. CiarK. No; I do not.
Mr. McGuire. Were you in possession of those facts at that time?
Mr. Cruarx. I was.
Mr. McGuire. Was that the reason that you wanted to take the
width measurements ?
Mr. Ciarxk. Most assuredly it was.
Mr. McGuire. From your knowledge of seals, were you satisfied
at that time that no accurate information could be had merely by
taking the length measurement of the skin?
Mr. CLarKk. No; I was definitely of the opinion that it was impos-
sible to do that, and this experiment as it progressed was not giving a
just measurement of the size of the skins.
Mr. McGuire. And do you say now to the committee that no
reliability could be attached to the taking of only the length of the
skins?
Mr. Exxiorr. And the weights ?
Mr. McGuire. Without the breadth.
Mr. Crark. That, in my opinion, gives no idea of the size of the
animal, and the dependence on length measurement alone is simply
untrustworthy.
Mr. McGuire. You state that the seals are like other animals, that
the yearlings may differ in size. That is, seals of the same age may
differ in size and form like other animals. Is that a fact?
Mr. Crarx. That is a fact.
Mr. McGurre. Is that a conclusion that you reached by taking the
weights, the length, and breadth measurements of those 205 seals ?
534 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crark. In part, it does. My information on that subject
grows out of that, but I also base my views on the fact that pups are
born as early as the 12th of June and as late as the last week of July
or the first week of August. The pups born early have a heavy
advantage over the pups born late. That is, a pup born in June has
the advantage of his mother’s milk for four months. The pup born
in the latter part of July may have it for two or three months only.
One goes away from the islands fat and strong and the other goes
away from the island rather weak. In the sea those two animals will
just about keep that same distance. If the late-born pup comes
back at all he will be less developed than his brother. In the course
of three years that difference will probably be obliterated. That
holds good for the yearlings, and also for the 2-year-olds.
Thereupon, at 12 o’clock m., by unanimous consent, the committee
took a recess until 1.30 p. m.
AFTER RECESS.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ARCHIBALD CLARK—Continued.
Mr. McGutire. Mr. Clark, you were speaking about the impossibil-
ity of getting accurate measurements by taking only the length and
not the width, and J refer particularly to those measurements and
weights which were taken of 400 skins or more in 1913. How were
those skins weighed there? Tell all you know about it.
Mr. CLarKk. Of course, the ostensible purpose of this experiment,
as it was undertaken by us in the salt house on St. Paul, was to
determine whether skins increase or diminish in weight in salt. The
skins were taken out of the salt. They had been in salt for 8 or 10
days. They were shaken out and laid out on the measuring table and
measured, as we have already discussed. In order to determine the
action of salting, they should have been weighed individually at that
point. They were taken out of the salt, shaken, and if each skin had
(eon individually weighed then, this experiment would have laid the
basis for settling the question of the action of salt on the skins. But
the measurements were taken and the skins were thrown into the
kench
Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by the “kench” ?
Mr. Crarx. The kench is the bin where the skin is thrown with the
fur side down and the flesh side up, and then a shovel full of rock salt
is put on it and the bundler spreads that carefully over the flesh side
of the skin. Then he takes a slightly smaller skin and puts that flesh
side down upon the layer of salt. Then he curls up the edges all
around, and brings the tail end down and the head end back to the
middle, wrapping the skins in a bundle and tying it up with 10 feet
of baling twine.
Mr. McGuire. Two skins together ?
Mr. CLark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. With that rock salt in there ?
Mr. Ctarx. With the rock salt in there, yes, and 10 feet of baling
twine to tie the bundle. At the time this process of bundling was
begun, of course, I protested that there was the time to get the indi-
vidual weights, and I wanted Mr. Elliott to have the individual
weights of these skins taken before they were put into that bundle;
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 585
that would have given a basis of comparison with the green skin
weights which we were recording against these skins. Mr. Elhott
would not do that, and I then asked the privilege of doing it. He
refused me the privilege on the ground that I was interfering with
his experiment.
Mr. McGuire. Did he show you instructions that he was to be
unmolested in what he was doing and it was a matter entirely of his
own ?
Mr. Crark. He showed me no instructions to that effect, but he
read to us this manifesto which the chairman read this morning, and
the impression I gathered from that was that we were not to interfere.
Mr. McGuire. Did he object to your interfering ?
Mr. CrarK. He did, most strenuously.
The CHarrMan. Did Gallagher hear that?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarrMANn. He was sitting right beside you ?
Mr. CrarK. He was standing, taking down the record, yes.
Mr. McGuire. When you protested against the weighing of this
salt and this twine and the two seal skins at a time, what did he do?
Mr. CLarx. Ordered the proceedings to go on, and the bundling
went on. As soon as the bundle was tied up securely it was turned
over to Mr. Hatton to take the weight of it as a bundle, and then we
bracketed, as you will see in the figures here, those two skins, with
the salt in between them, and the binding twine around them,
against the measurement and the weights of the individual green
skins. Then it was asserted by Mr. Elliott that the bundle exceeaing
in weight the individual skins in the green state, the point that salting
increased the weight of the skins had been demonstrated.
Mr. McGuire. He made that assertion ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Had you taken the same two skins in each case
that were weighed together with the rock salt and the twine, and
weighed them together as they were green? Did you take the green
weight of the skins?
Mr. CrarK. No; they were taken by the agents at the time of th
killing, practically 20 days before.
Mr. McGurre. And then salted ?
Mr. CtarKk. Yes; they were taken by Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Elhott
accepted Mr. Lembkey’s green skin weights as recorded.
Mr. McGuire. You weighed them by twos after the rock salt and
twine were added to them ? i
Mr. Crarx. Yes.
Mr. McGutre. Do you know whether they were weighed by twos
and the same two skins in each case when they were green ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes; individually.
Mr. McGutre. The same two skins?
Mr. Ciarx.°* Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Did you find that with the rock salt and the twine, _
about which you spoke, weighed in each case with the two skins,
they ran heavier or lighter than the green skins ?
Mr. Ciarx. Considerable heavier.
Mr. McGurre. With your knowledge of that test, as it was taken
there, state whether it could have been and whether it was an accu-
rate test.
\
5386 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. I have no complaint of the accuracy of the test made.
The weighing was carefully done and everything was in order, so
far as that is concerned. The only thing was the omission of the
vital weights of individual skins before the rock salt and twine had
been added.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I am asking you. Could that have
been an accurate test if they weighed the rock salt and twine with
the skins ?
Mr. CrarK. I could not possibly give you any information as to
what effect salting had on the skins.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I am asking.
Mr. CLarK. No; because we would have admitted before we
started that rock salt and baling twine had weight. In fact, I pro-
tested against the using of this method, because we would have ad-
mitted that fact at the outset, and that all that was necessary was to
weigh the amount of salt and the amount of twine that went into one
bundle, and we would grant it for all the rest of them.
Mr. McGutirer. That would have been an accurate test, would it not,
to weigh the salt and the twine ?
Mr. Crark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Then, with those 400 skins that have been men-
tioned here, it is utterly impossible, in view of what has been done,
to determine what would have been the actual difference between
the green skin and the salted skin.
Mr. CLarKk. It is impossible now, I should say.
The CuarrMan. Would it have been possible then ?
Mr. CrarK. It would have been possible to weigh the individual
skins as they were put in the bundle. That is what I wanted to do
and that is what would have determined the matter.
The CuarrMan. Did you request it ?
Mr. Crarx. I did request it; yes.
The CHarrmMan. And it was refused ?
Mr. CLarK. It was refused; yes.
The CHarRMAN. You and Mr. Gallagher were sitting side by side?
Mr. Ctarxk. We were taking the record; yes.
The CHarrMAN. And comparing notes? Did you and he agree on
any of these facts ?
Mr. CrarKx. We agreed as to the numbers, yes; as we took them
down.
The CHarrMaNn. And the sizes?
Mr. CLark. We took all the numbers down and we checked them.
The CHarrMAN. Did you have any difficulty in determining about
the sizes ?
Mr. CiarKk. That was determined by Mr. Elliott. All we could do
was to record the numbers that he called to us.
The CuarRMAN. Who was sitting next to Mr. Elliott, Gallagher or
ou? ;
: Mr. CyarKk. Mr. Gallagher and J stood together at one point. Mr.
Whitney stood by us to give us the green skin weights, and Mr. Elliott
and Mr. Hatton stood at the salter’s table where these skins were be-
ing treated.
The CHatRMAN. Did you suggest that the weights ought to be taken
as you have suggested ?
Mr. Crark. I certainly did.
~
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 537
The CHarrmMan. And they refused ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurrz. On page 209 of Mr. Elliott’s report there is some-
thing said as to the inadequacy of the yearling data.
Mr. Crarx. At page 209 Mr. Elliott says:
Lucas and Clark fail in their work of getting results 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.
Mr McGurre. Is that Elliott’s report where he says he made no
such blunder ?
Mr. Crark. That is the text of this document; yes.
Mr. McGuire. Who is the author of that statement, ‘“ Elliott
made no such blunder?’’ Can you tell from that decument ?
Mr. Cxark. It is the second of these documents, and I do not
think Mr. Gallagher’s name is attached to it.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed.
Mr. Crark. I want to state here that the charge of dereliction on
my part is due to the fact that I made a measurement of one animal
only. We weve not allowed to kill yearlings. I could not go in the
field at any time and get 30 or 40 yearling seals. They were not
being killed in 1896 or 1897 and we had no opportunity to get those
specimens. WhatIdid was to takeareliable native whose experienced
judgment I could trust and have him single out from groups of ani-
mals an animal which he considered typical of a yearling, and I killed
that animal only and measured it. it aid not wish to sacrifice any
more seals than was necessary. I want to say that my estimate of
the animal was in a sense an average of a good many animals, because
it was picked out for me by some one who was, through past experi-
ence, expert in picking out these animals, and we relied on that
judgment. I want to protest that I could not, in 1896 and 1897, nor
could any member of our commission, go out any day and find 30 to
40 2-year-olds or yearlings and measure them, because they were not
being killed.
Mr. McGurre. At page 416 of the same document there is an appar-
ent discrepancy between Dr. Lucas and yourself. What have you to
say about it?
Mr. CLarKx. At page 416 there is given a note attributed to D. S.
Jordan, under date of July 25, 1897, Fur Seal Investigations, part 2,
page 341, 1898. The gist of it is:
But all were not in, and no yearlings or 2-year-olds appeared. I have never seen
one, and I am not sure that I have seen a 2-year-old.
In the opposite column is a statement, under date of July 3, 1897,
by Mr. Lucas, and another of July 5 by myself, and a third by
Mr. Lucas of July 10, and a fourth by myself on July 20, in which
we contradict this statement and show that small animals, which we
describe as 2-year-olds, were present. These dates ascribed to
Mr. Lucas and myself are also from the year 1897. The only thing
about that is that Dr. Jordan’s date should be 1896, and Dr. Jordan’s
statement was made 10 days or two weeks after we arrived on the
islands. Hyery member of the commission of 1896 and 1897 would
have made the same statement, because we had not been able to
distinguish these little animals and we were hunting for them. One
9
538 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
year later, after I had spent two months in the autumn of 1896 hunt-
ing for these animals and seeing them by the thousands, and when
Lucas and myself were looking for them in 1897, with the experience
we had in 1896, we found them very readily. We are, however, made
to contradict Dr. Jordan by a change of date.
The CHarrmMAn. Do you mean that means July 25, 1897?
Mr. CuarKk. I mean that it should be July 25, 1896.
The CHarrMAN. That is a mistake in the ficures there ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes.
The CHatrMAN. That is your explanation of that?
Mr. Ciark. Yes. It is a serious matter to make a mistake like
that when you are charging persons with 2 contradiction.
Mr. McGuire. Who made that mistake
Mr. Crarx. It must have been made = the person who repeal
this manuscript for the printer.
Mr. McGuire. Who prepared that?
Mr. CiarK. Mr. Henry W. Elliott.
Mr. Exxiotr. I quote the page right there; there is no mistake in
that.
The CHarrMAN. Let us clear that up right here now.
Mr. Cuarx. This reference is to page 341 of volume 2 of the record
of field notes of the commission of 1896-97. It is the second para-
graph from the bottom of the page. The full text is as follows:
At the time of our first enumeration on Kitovi, Tolstoi, and the Lagoon the rookeries
were at their height, with more cows present than at any time since. But all were
not in, and no y earlings nor 2-year-olds had appeared. Nor am I sure that any have
appeared since, unless yearling cows are among the bachelors. I have never seen one,
and am not sure that I have seen a 2-year-old.
That is dated July 25, 1896.
Mr. McGuire. Who made that statement ?
Mr. Crark. That is Dr. Jordan’s note at page 341. The observa-
tions of 1897 began on page 517 of this volume, and the page reference
here, as given by Mr. Elliott, is correctly given. The numbers 544
to 566 are the pages given for the Lucas-Clark notes, but they are
only in part. This is the document right here [indicating] to show it.
The CuarrMan. Where did you get the 1897 ?
Mr. Exniorr. I quote that right from the journal here.
Mr. MoGuireE. You came within a year of it.
The CHarrMAN. What he means is that this was in the year 1896
instead of 1897.
Mr. McGuire. That statement is all right except that there is a
mistake of one year.
Mr. Exriorr. But that is corrected in the next year by his own
eople.
Mr. McGurre. But you said you were right about this.
Mr. Extrorr. That is your own witness that makes that statement.
I proved the yearlings were there, and he denied it.
Mr. Ciarx. The thing I want to protest against on my own part
and Dr. Jordan’s part is that we are made to contradict each other
by a mistake or a change of the date.
The CuarrMan. The committee will determine that.
Mr. Extiorr. That is correctly quoted, and it has not been changed
for any purpose.
Mr. McGurre. I suggest Mr. Elliott testify when the time comes.
I think the dignity of the committee would require the examination
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 539
of one witness at a time, and an idle bystander or witness should not
be allowed to jump in here and make a part of this record in this
way. I donot thinkit is in keeping with the dignity of the committee.
The CuarrMan. I really meant that for the information of the com-
mittee.
Mr. McGuire. Then I think Dr. Elhott should be brought to the
- witness stand later so we can examine him.
The CHAIRMAN. J want him as a witness, too.
Mr. McGuire. But I think he should await his proper time. If he
wants to ask any questions, [ think he should advise the chairman or
some other member of the committee; and, above all, if we are to have
a logical inquiry here that will be understandable I do not think the
statements of a witness sitting somewhere in the room and not the
witness at the time under examination should be shoved into this
record, particularly while somebody else is testifying.
The Cuarrman. The object of my inquiry was simply to clear it
up once and for all. That is the reason I asked for ie date, to let
the committee see it.
Mr. McGurre. But here is a witness testifying, and he shows con-
clusively there is a discrepancy of one year in these dates. That is
established; there is no doubt about that, in spite of the fact that
Mr. Elliott breaks in here with a statement that was just taken on
the record, that he quoted it correctly, which is not the fact. That
is the reason I say it is unfair to this witness to interfere; and it is
unfair to the chairman and other members of the committee to have
that ae of thing slipped into the record, because it is not an honest
recor
The CHarrMan. I am willing to have it stricken out.
Mr. McGurre. I know the chairman is fair about it.
The CuatrMan. I thought if there was a document here from which
this is taken, it ought to be looked up and cleared up right now.
Mr. McGume. It was clear all right: but the part that is not clear
as interruption of Mr. Elhott. That is what I am complaining
about,
The Cuarrman. I think we understand that. Let us go on to the
next proposition.
Mr. McGuire. We had better decide here whether Mr. Elhott is to
sit here and make idle remarks on the side and have them go into”
the record.
The Coarrman. Mr. Elliott will have to wait until his time comes.
Mr. Exxiotr. I will keep still.
Mr. Brucxner. | think no remark should go into the record estos
those of the witness, because he is the man that is being cross-exam-
ined and is under oath. I believe everybody else will have an oppor-
tunity to be heard. If they do not, they should ask for it. Let us
conclude with one witness at a time. After we get through with
Mr. Clark then Mr. Elliott can make his statement. It will look
much better in the record, and everybody will be satisfied. I believe
in giving everybody a square deal.
Mr. McGuire. Shall we proceed ?
The CoatrMAN. Yes; proceed.
Mr. McGurre. The official record of Dr. Jordan, at page 180 of
Elliott’s report,-has been challenged.
540 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Cuark. ‘I covered that this morning, I think, by quoting the
correct statement from our log.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; I remember that now.
_ There was something said by you in answer to some interrogatories
by the chairman with respect to re-leasing. What was your attitude
in regard to re-leasing, and what was your recommendation, if any,
that the Government take over the work of obtaining sealskins and
dispense with the lessees ?
Mr. Crarx. I was of the opinion that the dual authority existing
‘on the islands was not to the best interests of the fur-seal herd, and in
my 1909 report I tried to make that clear. I think it best that I
should simply state what was my recommendation in this matter to
the Bureau of Fisheries. It will be found at page 872 of my report
for 1909, Appendix A, as follows:
(4) That an interregnum of three to six years be declared, in which the Government
representatives shall administer the affairs of the natives and of the herd without being
hampered by consideration of the rights and privileges of lessees, such products of the
hauling grounds only being taken as may seem wise to those in charge of the herd,
these skins to be cared for in the usual way under the direction of the agents and
offered for sale upon the market to the highest bidder.
(5) That is re-leasing the fur-seal industry for any term of years the present dual
control be abandoned, the authority of the lessees being limited to such oversight of
the operations of taking and caring for the skins as will insure their proper curing.
That was my attitude regarding the re-leasing of the islands. At
the time that was made, I was aware that the law was mandatory—
at least I so understood; but the chairman called my attention to
the fact that the word ‘““may’’ was used. At any rate, it was under-
stood the Secretary of Commerce must, in due course of things, let the
islands on a new lease, and I made this recommendation as my
advice to the Bureau of Fisheries in the matter.
Mr. McGuire. Were you or were you not in favor of re-leasing ?
Mr. CLarx. I was not in favor of re-leasing.
Mr. McGuire. Were you or wers you not infavorof the Government
doing the work ?
Mr. Crarx. I was in favor of the Government itself taking over
and dealing with the skins.
The CHATRMAN. You say that the present dual control should be
abandoned. What were your reasons for saying that?
Mr. CLiarK. Simply because I felt that the interests of the lessees
were in the getting of their full quota and all the skins which the
herd could give them under that. The interests of the Government
were in the herd itself, and if the herd could not stand the quota that
might be by accident assigned to it, the Government should be able
to withdraw that and to take any action it wanted to in the interest
of the herd without being liable to suit for damages because it had
prevented a leasing company from taking what was its right under
a contract that was entered into.
The CoarrmMan. Was it your judgment that the leasmg company
could take seals in violation of the regulations because, we will say,
a quota was fixed at 10,000 and if they could not find enough seals
there to come within the regulations, they would have authority to
go and take those which did not come within the regulations ?
Mr. CLarK. No, sir.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 54]
The CHarrMAN. You spoke something in your report somewhere
about fixing an arbitrary standard of so many seals as the quota for a
jeasing company to take.
Mr. CrarK. That was exactly the situation on the fur-seal islands
in 1909. The company had a perfect right to take 15,000 skins.
That was the number which the bureau fixed. They did not take
that number by something over 600; that is, they failed to get them.
The point I had to make was this, that with an arbitrary quota fixed
in Washington, and a declining herd, the tendency on the part of the
leasing company was to get every skin it could get.
The CuarrMan. Irrespective of the regulations ?
Mr. CrarK. Of course the regulations would be enforced, and were
enforced, because they did not get the skins. They could have
easily gotten the other 600 skins if the agents had allowed them to
take all the small seals.
The CHarrMAN. You said there was trouble going on between the
agents and representatives of tbe leasing company.
Mr. CrarKk. I did not say that.
The CHarrMAN. What was the trouble about ?
Mr. CuarKx. I did not say any trouble existed, but I did point out
the fact to this committee that there were five keen, capable com-
pany representatives on the islands, and there were but two Govern-
ment agents. I did not say there was any quarrel between them.
The CHAIRMAN. I may have misunderstood you; but you said that
on account of having five there, they were in supreme authority.
Is not that what you said in your report ?
Mr. CiarKx. They had a majority, yes.
The CHarrMan. Did they have disputes among themselves? [
would like to have that cleared up further.
Mc. CiarxK. No; no disputes that I know of at all.
The CuarrmMan. Why did you say an exercise of authority on one
side to subdue the other side, if I may use that expression ?
Mr. CuarKk. I have not said that I saw any such, and I have said
very positively that there was no conflict between them. I was
picturing a condition which existed at a time when there was a
declining herd, and when its existence did not do any harm to the
herd; but I was also having in mind a condition which would change
and be the exact reverse when the herd would need an increasing
number of males and not a decreasing number, which, with this same |
eagerness on the part of the leasing company to get as large a quota
as possible, would be a danger and menace to the herd.
The CuarrMan. But you say the leasing company was in supreme
authority, in your report of 1909, do you not?
Mr. CiarK. I stated that the breeding reserve having been set
aside—that is, the number of animals necessary to give an increment
of males for the herd—the work of hauling and killing the seals was
left to the leasing company.
The CHarrmMan. I do not know that we are clearing this up any
further than it was cleared up a day or two ago. Was it your idea
the leasing company had taken advantage of the agents of the
Government ?
Mr. CrarK. No, sir; but my idea was——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The agents of the Government had
no authority over them at all, had they ?
542 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. CrarK. They had control. If the leasmg company had under-
taken to violate the regulations or rules or do something wrong, I
imagine the Government agents would have prevented it.
The CuarrMan. It seems to me, when you said they were in
supreme authority, that they controlled the situation.
fr. CLARK. Does not the majority control? That is my idea, you
know.
The CHArRMAN. Did they take votes on this?
Mr. Ciarx. Of course, the difference between us is simply this:
You want to discover, if possible, a conflict between the agents
The CHAIRMAN. (interposing). I do not want to discover anything;
J want to clear it up.
Mr. CiarK. I can do that, because there was no conflict between
them. The leasing company lived up to its contract, but there was
a declining herd and to get every skin they could was not doing the
herd any harm when a less and less number of males was needed
each year for the declining female herd; but if this was turned about
and the females began to increase and more males were necessary,
there was a danger then, and a majority might be used to carry
through plans which a leasmg company might want to carry through,
and a majority in any case would be dangerous to the Government.
The CuarrMan. Did you call attention of the special agent of the
Government to the fact that the others had supreme authority and
control of this situation ?
Mr. CLrark. That was an obvious fact, it seemed to me. I did not
do anything because there was nothing for me to do in that regard.
J made my report to the department and not to the agents.
The CuarrMan. Did you report that to the department by wire or
otherwise when you discovered that the lessee company’s agents were
in supreme authority, or did you wait until you filed your written
report ?
Mr. Crarx. I did not discover that in 1909. It was just as plain
to us in 1896 and 1897.
The CHarrMANn. That they were in supreme control ?
Mr. Cuarxk. That they were in the majority.
Mr. McGuire. I never heard him say ther were in supreme control.
The CHarrMan. That they had supreme authority.
Mr. McGuire. No. Here is what he said, that after they had
eliminated the number of males necessary for the following year,
then it was turned over to them.
The CuarRMAN. You said it was apparent that the leasmg com-
pany was in supreme control in your report of 1909.
Mr. CLarx. I stated it in just this way, that the breeding reserve,
which the department wanted to guarantee to its herd, having been
set aside—and it was four times too great, four times greater than
was necessary—then the company had the right, under this lease, to
take what skins it could up to 15,000. That is what I meant by bein
in supreme authority. And I had in mind a future condition. Wit
the company haying a school-teacher and a storekeeper and a doctor
and a foreman on the islands, there was a condition of majority on
their part which would be likely to endanger the herd if it became
desirable or if the leasing company should desire to do something
which conflicted with the interests of the herd.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 543
The CHarRMAN. You also describe the killing on the breeding
reserve, do you not, in your report ¢
Mr. Cuark. I criticize the method by which the breeding reserve
was maintained. Let me read what I said in that regard.
The CHarrMAN. I will be very glad to hear it; I am not very sure
about it myself.
Mr. Cuarxk. At page 866, I said:
Opposed to this struggle of the lessees has been the counter-strugyle of the Gov-
ernment’s representatives to rescue a breeding reserve. Fortunately it has been
successful.
That is what I said.
The CHAIRMAN. Then the company must have made an effort to
get the breeding reserve ?
Mr. CrarK. I do not know. They did not get it, at any rate. I
do not know anything about that.
The CHarrMAN. In hearing No. 1, page 11:
A new lot of 2,000 are clipped for the next season, and these are carefully exempted,
but except in so far as animals of the previous season’s marking are reclipped, they
have no protection the second season, and without doubt are killed.
Mr. CrarK. That is my criticism of the breeding reserve. It was
made with sheep shears, with a temporary mark, and what I wanted
was to substitute for that a red-hot iron brand, which would leave
that animal immune for the rest of his life. That was a criticism of
the method of making a breeding reserve, which I said, despite its
limitations, was successful.
Mr. McGuire. That was the reason you recommended the Govern-
ment take over the operations ?
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Have you the pages there with regard to charges of
improper killing in 1896 and 1897 ?
Mr. Crark. There is a charge of killing made against Dr. Jordan -
at page 98.
Mr. McGurre. That is right; and at pages 101 and 103. What
have you to say about that ?
Mr. CrarK. At page 98, at the bottom of the page, cccurs this
statement:
Dr. D. 8S. Jordan, with the full cooperation of the Treasury Department, in 1896-97,
and Commerce and Labor up until 1912, is responsible for the killing of female seals
for their skins by the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska.
Mr. McGuire. What are the facts with reference to this charge?
Mr. Ciarxk. That is not true. Dr. Jordan had no authority over
the killing.
The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to interrupt you; but it says here
that Dr. Jordan was up there. Is that correct ?
Mr. Crarx. He was up there in 1896 and 1897.
At page 18, Volume I, of the report of Dr. Jordan’s commission are
printed in full the instructions under which he acted in 1896-97. JI
do not need to quote all. They can be read by this committee, if
necessary. But in the second paragraph cf the fine print is this
statement:
The principal object of this investigation is to determine by precise and detailed
observations, first, the present condition of the American fur-seal herd; second, the
nature and imminence of the causes, if any, which appear to threaten its extermina-
tion; third, what, if any, benefits have been secured to the herd through the operation
544 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
of the act of Congress and the act of Parliament based upon the award by the Paris
Tribunal of Arbitration; fourth, what, if any, additional protective measures on land
or at sea, or changes in the present system of regulations as to the closed season, pro-
hibited zone, prohibition of arms, etc., are required to insure the preservation of the
fur-seal herd.
Then, omitting something, the third item under this general state-
ment is:
(3) Whether killing on land or sea has interfered with the regular habits and occu-
pation of the islands by the herd, or has operated to reduce the strength of the seal race
as a whole by natural selection.
(4) The propriety of existing methods of driving seals from the hauling grounds to
the killing grounds, culling and other practices connected therewith.
I need not detail the rest; but in the third and fourth items must
rest the responsibility of Dr. Jordan for land killing, if he had any
responsibility. We were there to examine and to report upon the
conditions of land sealing, as well as pelagic sealing.
The Cuarrman. I am seeking to ask you this—it is noted on page
261 (97 of Elliott statement) of Hearing No. 1, at Paragraph VIII,
which reads as follows, this being the statement of Mr. Elliott:
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 pre-
liminary 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, 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 the lessees to take
the full product of the hauling grounds.”’
Dr. Jordan has said in his report that the killing was left to their
discretion, including Jiimself.
Mr. Exxiorr. fis discretion.
The CHarrMAN. No; their discretion, including himself.
Mr. CLark. I am glad to have an opportunity to answer that
matter.
The CHarrMan. I will be glad to have you clear it up, if there is an
answer to it.
Mr. Crarx. The reason why the fur-seal herd was culled and driven
more closely than in 1896 was this: We had with us in 1896 and 1897
a keen British commission, who were pledged by the acts of their pre-
decessors to the theory that land sealing was injurious to the herd.
These men were very keen about these matters, but it was agreed
between Dr. Jordan and Professor Thempson that
Mr. McGurre (interposing). Dr. Thompson was the British
representative ¢
fr. CLARK. He was at the head of the British commission (Con-
tinuing) that if the hauling grounds on the Pribilof Islands in
1897 should show less seals or give a less quota than was given in 1896,
it would be taken by the two commissions as a measure of decline in
the herd.
The CHAarRMAN. I do not know that that quite touches the point, so
I will repeat the question. It seems to me that you objected when
you first started in with your statement on this point, that Dr. Jordan
did not have control of the seals ?
Mr. CLark. I was speaking, of course, of 1896.
The CHAIRMAN. Then, in 1897 he did have control, did he ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 545
Mr. CLark. He had this control, if I may be permitted to develop
it consecutively: the Department of the Treasury tied Dr. Jordan’s
hands up by its voluntary fixing of the quota of 1897 at 15,000
seals
The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, there. Is not this plain and
clear—you have said this is a correct quotation—that it was left to
their discretion, and he was at the head of the commission, was he
not ?
Mr. Cuarx. J did not find the reference to which you called
attention.
The CHarRMAN. J made a mistake in the identification. It is not
in Hearing No. 1.
Mr. Extiotr. But Hearing No. 1 carries it.
The CHarrMAn. Butit is at a different page. I made a mistake in
describing that as at page 97 in Hearing No.1. Itisin the statement
submitted by Elhott at that page.
Mr. CrarK. The statement is that “The quota to be left to our
discretion, and every opportunity was given the lessees to take the
full product of the hauling grounds.”
In 1896 a quota of 30,000 was granted to the North American
Commercial Co., and they took it in that year. We had no control
whatever and had nothing to do with that killing. I spoke of an
agreement between Dr. Jordan and Prof. Thompson, which was
that a diminished quota in 1897 would be a measure of decline. We
had agreed upon two points, first, that a recount of pups would be a
measure of decline in the breeding herd. The quota of 1897 was to
be the second measure of decline, decline in the bachelor herd; but
the Treasury Department fixed the quota for 1897 at 15,000 seals.
That begged the question. It assumed there would be only half as
many taken on the Pribilof Islands in 1897 as in 1896. That was
immediately noted by Canada, and Mr. James Macoun, the Canadian
representative, was ordered north on the company’s steamer on the
22d of May. Iwas ordered to accompany him. It was to be there
at the first killing.
The CaarrMan. On what page is that ?
Mr. CiarK. Page 97 of this Elliott statement. Mr. Macoun and I
went to the Pribilof Islands to watch that killing, and immediately it
became evident to us, that the 15,000 limit would be reached long
before the haulmg grounds were exhausted. If we had to stop the
killing arbitrarily at any point in the season, and there were left 100
killable seals, the British commission would say we arbitrarily
limited the quota, and therefore it did not indicate a measure of
decline in the herd. He began at once to object to the killing because
with the limited quota less of the larger animals were taken. It was
evident that we were going to get into trouble with it, and I wrote
immediately to Dr. Jordan, and he asked the Treasury Department
to 1aise the limit of the quota, making it indefinite, and letting him
allow the lessees to duplicate their killing of 1896. We kept them
driving and killing until it was past the season in which they closed
the killing in 1896, and we did it in order that the British commis-
sioners might not say we had arbitrarily diminished the quota. We
took 20,000 seals, and then the British commission agreed with us
that the difference between 20,000 and 30,000 was a measure of
decline in the herd. If we had been stopped at the 15,000 quota in
53490—14—_35
546 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
1897, we could not have obtained that concession from the British
commission. That is all that is meant by driving more strenuously
and longer in 1897. We kept the company at it, because it was our
only hope of being able to get from the British commission an agree-
ment that there was a diminution of bachelor seals.
The CHarrMAN. Then Dr. Jordan was at the head of it?
Mr. CuarK. These instructions were sent to the agents.
The CuarrMaANn. Was he not at the head of that, when he was up
there ?
Mr. CLarKk. Certainly, of the investigation. But he had no control
over the killing. I had to read those instructions to Agent Joseph
Crowley in order to get permission to go on the rookeries without his
consent. We were not given unlimited authority except to observe
and to do the work of investigation which we were called upon to do.
The CHarrMAN. If I am not mistaken, I think that Crowley says
that the lessees had entire contiol of it. I think I saw that somewhere
in Hearing No. 1.
Mr. CirarK. I do not know anything about that.
The CHarrMan. I can not point it out now, but I think that is
suggested as having come from Crowley, that he said the lessees had
entire control.
Mr. McGuire. [| fail to get the pot, Mr. Clark, of why the repre-
sentative of the British commission protested against the Govern-
ment of the United States diminishing the number to be taken in
1897. Why did they want the number increased ?
Mr. Crark. Perhaps I stated that rather loosely. I do not mean
that Canada protested to our Government, but they did to Dr. Jordan.
The CuarrMANn. What was their purpose ?
Mr. CrarK. Because we had an agreement that a diminished
quota in 1897 would mean a diminished product to the hauling
grounds. The fact that the Government had said there was to be
taken only 15,000 seals in 1897 might cause Dr. Jordan to have
trouble with that agreement. It was begging the question to go up
there with a fixed quota for the second season.
Mr. McGuire. Was it the contention of the British Government
that the number was not diminishing? —
Mr. Cuarx. They did not wish t> have it understood that the herd
was diminishing. They wanted to make it clear that pelagic sealing
was not injuring the herd.
Mr. McGuire. That was their contention ?
Mr. Crarx. The representation of the pelagic sealers was that the
seals were unlimited, and that any diminution of their quota was due
to storms and other reasons.
The CHarrMANn. On page 100 of Hearing No. 1, under the note, it
is said:
In his official report dated St. Paul Island, November 1, 1896, Chief Special Agent
I.« 10) | o20 3.4
53 GNP 1Ol5E || MSS 5.5 5 108 TAY) 6 6.5 1199.5 8.4
54 5 15. 25 | 5 8.5 | 6.75 | 7 109 | 7 15 7 5 3.5 2.7
55 5 14. 75 | 5} 8.5 6. 25 6.5 || 110 | 6 2.5 6 2u20 ae) 2
56 | 5 3 + 13.5 Sale 6.6 | 111 |} 5 7D 4 15 2.75 3.3
57 5 13.5 Dt 7 758) 5.7a 6.1 |} 112 7 6.5 6 14.5 8 6.7
58 5 7.5 5 |, 03.25 , 3.75 | 4.2 1135 6 14. 75 6 9 5. 75 5.1
59 6 deo Hye ei ks 1} 8.5 | §. 2 114 | 6 14.5 6 6. 75.) ‘7. fo 7
60| 5] 0 4] 1.5 1/45 | &6|) 115] 6] 2.75] 5] 11.95] 715 7.5
61 | 5 8.75 Se N25) ae 8.4 116 5 10. 25 5 6.25 | 4 4.4
62 | 5 7.5 Dal pice onlso | 5.7 |} 117 7 20 6 Tao 8.75 Tat
63 5 15. 25 SRP es) 9.4 118 7 0 6 15. 75 . 25 2
64 | 6 1st 6 3.29 | 7.75 | ar 119 7 4.5 7 3 if 8
Ob). ke Pome s75 6; 3 | 8.75 | 8.1 |] 120 6 15.75 6 8.25 | 7.5 6.7
66 6 (63) 6 1.75 | 5.75 5.5 121 6 BEY A) 5 15 4.75 4,7
67 5 15, 25 5 9.25 | 6 | 6.2 || 122 7 8 7 1.75.1 6.25 5,2
68 | 4 14, 25 | 4) 10.5 | 3.75 4.6 || 123 5 15 5 10.75 | 4.25 4.4
69 5 6. 25 | 5 | Par fe as | 6.3 || 124 7 0 6 8.5 (3) 6.6
70 Osi Qe tor Te ee we aS ey eee | a 125 7 14.5 | 7 4.5 |10 7.9
71 | 6 6 5 12 10 9.8 126 6 12. 25 | 6 8 4,25 3.9
72 ove 5 15.25 | 2.75 | 2.8 127 5 15.75 | 5 L220 oad 3.6
73 Sort mee TASBAGGS a: ol 7.5 128 5 5.75 5 S250 eso5 2.6
74 4) 2.25 3 15 seas 4.9 |) 129 4 8. 75 4 5. 20h oso 4.8
75 5] 12 5 DD 6.5 7 130 5 8 5 5.5 2.5 2.8
76 SN e/a 5 3 4.75 | 5.4 131 5 5 4 3.5! W725 20.5
77 5 9 5 5. 25) 1°3:/75 4,2 132 5 leo 5 5.25 | 2,25 2.5
78 5 15.5 5 12 Roya | 3.6 || 13: Bln SD 4 12°75) (Gap 7.8
79 | 4) 14.75 4 9.25 | 5.5 6.9 || 134 4 7.75 | 4 TAR 2. 25 3.1
80 4 14 a ll 3 3.8 135 5 4.75 | 15.5 5. 25 6.1
j |
605
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Comparison of green and salt weights of sealskins taken on St. Paul Island in July, 1912—
Continued.
IN SALT JULY 16 TO 21, INCLUSIVE.
(Bureau of Fisheries Document, No. 780, pp. 84 to 93, both inclusive.)
Decrease,
Per ci.
fe Tele Mop) eive eset e:. i Bettie ve lienve) at ete ete Je Ne se oe epee: ne en Wey entie ie/O eae epek se, MWe he eine Mle ntie levy ohmic nleftteai ere oneal
7. 75
Green weight.) Salt weight.
Oz.
1D 1 8D 19 1D 1 1 LD ws oRteRts) i=) i=) ws
De Oo RO Sees a ONO OR ID Oa ey aie en I) nO = eee atyck ry Sly Dect
15.25 |10. 25
Bt)
5
25
5
75
Lbs.
02.
SSH DH HDD DSH DD DD SH AD CD SHLD SHH AD SHAD HE 1D COSHH DD 6 UD CO HHH 1D 019 BD SSH SH SHH OD SH OD SSH SH OD SH SH 00 19 6 1 SH SHLD SH eH
ASANO SNMG IIS SAMOCSCSMAGASHAOSCSAAN GG OOM
ree are re ri re ree
1919 19
eG ee ea ice eaneee =
ree ne
Lbs.
AED UD SH ED SHO AD OOO 1D 1D OD 1D SH AD COLD UD LD SH DD LD AD © O>_OO—UD. SDD) BD BD SH SH YD OD EDD UD LED SH DD SHED SSS SHS AD LD SH 6 19 19 19 191
Serial
Decrease.
Per ct.
eae, oLiep Ne hele Meet ote ce) Jel veya 5 rev cepee.-/e\el els elival: ce) ef Relef_lelwslile Viemeerie Late aie) vellle Sane «Murua tiie tout o we Seale ees re May are lival eal. ve Miramar Oe) egie ate i amnuee
LD IQ ID 19D AD AD 1 AD LDAg 1D rg am ws ie) LD AD LO Nels)
I~N AIO CAR Aininint Gink oink nA mea a ig Bin Aor awa Bio Win ind AD 19 1 I= i AN ROS Eotn) is)
LD 1019 Nels) wid ite) AD AD A AD LD AD AD AM Aq ag
19 AIS Ione 2h eae deo seonae css AS ar
ore ape: (eh a ea Oe PRET Ne bre aly «IEP Me ely piig: 6) ali.e. wy else dettelnce ne Rte) ele ciN MO ebm wre HEED whe) rene pei emen eb lee Marre tice Mtn ieliveis(ertts
nee ne rere nee
Lbs.
BED LCD SH AD HD AD SH LD AD AD COD AD COB AD CO 60 6 CO HAD DD CO BD CO CO HS ADD DD AD SDS AD HD ODD DD AD BD 6 9 1 CO SH CO SH HH aD MH SH COA
Green weight.) Salt weight. |
Oz.
ro) a ania Qin lin Atte Ais 119K iis WA AIDA Ais Minion ww Ais ea 1A Lio 19.1919
Lbs.
DIGI DIAN ISIA Fin lb IN MINIs NOOR DOL INS HN DONDMOS SS NN ab ROSES Ons Sinn MnO Sw eeaeininig SIS
Serial
No.
606 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, |
Mr. McGuire. Were you through with your narration with respect
_to the weighing of these skins ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not quite.
Mr. McGutre. Proceed.
Mr. Lempxey. This list which I have submitted shows that of the
200 odd skins under examination, each one of which was weighed green
and again weighed after being in salt some days, not one of them
increased in weight as a result of salting, but on the contrary all lost
weight from having been in salt. This can be taken as conclusive
evidence of the fact that these skins do not gain weight in salt, and
that the agents could not have killed seals having less weight than
the regulations permitted and then, by salting, so increased the
weights as to bring the skins within the regulations which prescribe
a minimum weight of five pounds.
Mr. McGutre. What was Mr. Elliott’s statement with respect to
the weight of the skins before and after salting that occasioned these
remarks which you have just made regarding the weighing and salt-
ing of skins ?
. LeMBKEY. His statements were to the effect that skins gained
weight as a result of having been salted, and the statement was made
in an effort to prove or substantiate another statement made by him
to the effect that skins much smaller than the regulations permitted
had been taken on the islands by the Government agents.
Mr. McGuire. Have you his statement before you ?
Mr. Lempxry. I am not able at this moment to turn to it. It is
in the previous hearings of the committee, however, and I shall be .
glad to furnish a memorandum of where it may be found.
Mr. McGurre. All right; you may proceed.
Mr. Lempxey. In this connection I wish to furnish the committee
also with the record of an interesting experiment performed to deter-
mine the difference between the weights of green skins and of the
same skins salted, performed not by myself, but by Mr. M. C. Marsh,
a naturalist in the employ of the Fish Commission detailed to act
as naturalist on the islands. In connection with this question I
understand the instructions of Mr. Marsh to have been that he was
to make experiments for the purpose of determining this question
of gain or loss in weight of skins through salting, and in pursuance of
those instructions he performed this experiment on 60 skins. Each
of those skins was provided with a copper tag bearing serial numbers
from 1 to 60. These skins appear to have been taken on October 19,
1911, and at that time were weighed in their green state. They were
allowed to remain in salt until the 23d of May, 1912, a matter of seven
months or thereabouts,when they were again weighed,as I understand
by Mr. Marsh.
According to Mr. Marsh’s instructions, as I understand it, the ques-
tion to be determined was the abstract one as to whether skins gain or
lose weight in salt, and in order to determine that question it was
necessary for him, after these skins came out of salt, to divest them,
as much as he could, of such salt as might still adhere to the skins as
a result of their having been in contact with it for many months. So
Mr. March, as I understand, brushed as much of the salt off of those
skins as he could before weighing them in their salted state.
He finds, as a result of that experiment, that the average loss in
weight from salting of those 60 skins was 0.45 of 1 pound each, or 6.8
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 607
er cent. After Mr. Marsh had finished this experiment on the 23d
ay of May, the skins were again placed in salt and kept there until
the 17th of October, 1912, when they were taken out of salt at the
time when all the skins on the island were taken out of salt for the
purpose of bundling and shipping them to London. At the time they
were taken out for the purpose of bundling they were again weighed,
as were all skins shipped that year. When they were weighed out of
salt the second time, no attention whatever was paid to cleansing
them from the salt which adhered to the skins, and they were weighed
with such salt as might adhere to them, just as were all skins. The
result of this second weighing in salt shows that the skins increased
slightly in weight over the weight found at the first salt weighing, be-
cause of the salt which adhered to them on the second weighing,
which was brushed off of them on the first weighing. However, the
weights of these skins, as shown by their second salt weighing, still
were in each case considerably under the green weight of the same
skin.
Mr. McGurre. Even after they had been salted the second time?
Mr. Lempxey. Even after they had been salted the second time,
yes; and taken out of the salt and weighed with such salt as might
adhere to them.
I desire to have inserted in the record this list of the individual
weights of those skins and made a part of my statement at this point.
The CHarrMAN. Whose list is that, Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Lempxey. This list was furnished to me by Mr. Marsh himself,
and the title is as follows:
Weights of 50 fur seal skins tagged with copper tags bearing consecutive numbers,
before and after salting. Food killing, October 19, 1911, St. Paul Island, Alaska.
Skinned as usual at food killing and with a moderate or average amount or moisture.
Weights include metal tag with wire, averaging 0.21 ounces each.
I might state further to identify the table, that these three sheets
were given to me by Mr. Marsh on the islands.
Mr. Watkins. That is twenty-one hundredths of 1 ounce?
Mr: LemBxKey. Yes.
Mr. Warxrns. The result, then, of that investigation, as I under-
stand it, is that the salting of green hides lessen the weight of the skin,
and salting the dry skins increases the wieght of the skins.
ae LemBxey. No, sir. No mention was made whatever of dry
skins.
Mr. Watkins. You said they were salted and the weight was less
than that or decreased ?
Mr. LempBxey. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. And after that they were resalted, and the weight
was slightly increased ?
Mr. Lempxey. Perhaps I did not make myself plain. The skins
were salted green and allowed to remain in salt for a period of about
seven months. They were then taken out of the salt, and all the
salt brushed off of them and the skins cleansed of salt as much as
en and weighed. The result of that weighing showed they
ad decreased in weight the number of ounces stated by Mr. Marsh—
0.45 of a pound, or 6.8 per cent. Then the skins were put in the
salt again.
Mr. Warxrtns. I infer they were dry at that stage?
608 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxey. Not necessarily. They are not completely dry.
Mr. Watkins. Whether they were or not, go ahead.
Mr. Lempxry. They were put into salt again, and allowed to
remain there for several more months, and then were taken out and
weighed. But in this second weighing the salt was not brushed off
of the skins as it was in the first salt weighing, and the weights taken
of the second salt weighing showed that in many instances they had
inereased slightly in weight or that they weighed a trifle more than
they did in the first salt weighing, when all the salt was brushed off.
The increase in weight, however, is very slight, perhaps an ounce or
2 ounces in some instances, and perhaps only a fraction of an ounce in
others. The increase in weight, in my opinion, could be taken to
represent the amount of salt adhered to the skin at the time of the
second salt weighing.
Mr. Parron. They weighed less than they did when they were
reen ¢
; Mr. LempBxey. Oh, yes; they did.
Have I identified this table sufficiently, Mr. Chairman ?
The CuarrMaAn. Yes. What is the pleasure of the committee?
Shall it be printed in the hearing ?
Mr. Patron. I move that it be printed, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. StePpHENS. Was this taken by some Government officer
authorized to use these skins, or was it done by the lessees ?
Mr. Lempxey. Oh, no; there were no lessees at that time. I
stated it was done by Mr. Marsh.
Mr. StrepHENS. Who is Mr. Marsh ?
Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Marsh was the naturalist on the islands in the
employ of the United States Bureau of Fisheries.
Mr. StEPHENS. Drawing a salary from the Government at that
time? °
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; as I understand.
Mr. STEPHENS. Go ahead; I have no objection.
The CHarrMAN. Let it be printed.
Mr. SreEPHENS. Wait. Has this ever been printed before ?
Mr. Lemsxey. I do not know whether Mr. Marsh’s report was
printed during that year. I was on the islands that year, and I do
not know, as a matter of fact. For that reason I have not referred
to the publication in which this might appear, if it has been printed.
Mr. Marsh gave me this statement on the islands when I was there,
and so far as I know it is an independent and only record of the
experiment made.
he CHarrMAN. Was it printed in the former hearing ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not to my knowledge.
The CuarrMAN (after examination). It seems to have been printed
in last year’s hearings.
Mr. Lempxey. The weight of those skins subsequently were taken
by me, and that is additional to the report which you have there.
Mr. McGurre. This is additional testimony, and he put it all im a
concise form.
Mr. Lempxey. The new matter represents, so far as I know, the
weight of the salt which adheres on the skin itself.
Mr. StepHENS. How long is the additional statement in addition
to the one we have already printed ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 609
Mr. Lempxey. It amounts to a statement of the weight for each
skin. Iam certain this statement contains matter that is not printed
there, because I have inserted opposite each skin the weight of that
skin as taken on the second salt weighing. I should say that it is
the same as the one you have heretofore printed, with the exception
that the table already printed does not contain this additional
column of weights taken at the second salt weighing.
Mr. STEPHENS. I suggest we just have printed what has been added
to the table. We will be stultifying ourselves by reproducing so
many of the same things.
Mr. Watkins. It seems to me for the sake of this witness’s testi-
mony, it should go in in its entirety.
Mr. Patron. This is a comparison of two different weighings that
he wants to put in the record.
Mr. Lempxey. The comparison is the more valuable part of the
matter.
The CuarrmMan. And this is the only thing you ask to have printed
about that report, is it?
Mr. Lempxey. That is all.
The CuarrMan. I think we ought to let it goin. It will be printed
in the hearings at this point.
(The table referred to is as follows:)
Weights of 50 fur-seal skins tagged with copper tags bearing consecutive numbers, before
and after salting.
[Food killing October 19, 1911, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Skinned as usual at food killings and with a
ee or average amount of moisture. Weights include metal tag with wire, averaging 0.21 ounces
each.
-_, | Weight | Weight Weight -_, | Weight | Weight Weight
Copper Sic green, | salt, Loss.| _, Sat, Copper oneal green, | salt, | 7 oc5,| salt,
tag No. No Oct.19,| May 23, ‘| Aug. 17,|| tag No. No Oct. 19, | May 23, *| Aug. 17,
S 1911. | 1912. 1912, i 1911. 1912. 1912.
|
Lbs. ozs. Lbs.ozs.| Ozs. | Lbs. ozs. Lbs. ozs.|Lbs.ozs.| Ozs. | Lbs. ozs,
(i sse.ke 2806} 6 1 5 8 Shr iV5) 6525826 o2-ee - 2 2831/5 9 | 4 1385) 114) 4 15.25
Wee oan s 2807|;6 0|5 7 8% | 5. 7.5 DEES 28382°|% 3 16 8 11 6 10.5
Bae ee 2808 | 6 44/5 124 SF aot M2aoueSee eee 2883/5 54/4 11 10% | 4 11.5
A Se ZOD hone con) On ITER Ste oe2onl Zoe eceoe 28384 | 5 138415 44 9 | 5 6.25
Pe ats | 2810} 4 114| 4 64 55) 4 8.5 BO Ee eee 2835 | 4 1441) 4 94 5 | 4 11.75
G2. Seb E26 2811};6 5 {6 1 APA Si 2e7 5) |ol scary 2886|6 15 |6 44| 108|6 5.5
We cts 3s 2812}6 15 {[6 5 LO es MG ogos bea tozoeeeee ee 2837|6 9 |5 1383] 114|5 14.75
: Dn eee 2813 | 5 14|4 15 2R A 15525 || 838-.- 2520 28388; 9 44/8 14] 19 | 8 4.75
ae ees 2814 | 8 103|7 11 154 | 7 13.5 28389|6 8 |5 Il 13 | 5 11.5
10 2815 | 5 144|5 55 ef Be Es 2840/6 94/5 114] 14 | 5 14.75
1) eee 2816|7 5 |6 74] 1383/6 9 2841!'8 8 |7 64) 18%] 7 6.25
122 ee 2817! 6 8%] 5 12 124 | 5 11.75 2842 | 7 13 eomal Ia fade BOL)
je ee ae 2818 | 7 10 | 6 114} 144/6 14 2843 |6 7%|6 O04 “| 62-1575
i, ee 2819/6 94/16 0O 9% |6 1.75 284418 O.f 7% 2 144/17 4
De sees 727A) eA) |) GB) TAN) | omgoso 2845| 7 4 16 Il 9 |6 9.75
AGS es 2821|;6 12 |6 5 Gas D 2846 | 4 134) 4 7 64) 4 8.5
eee 2822|6 8%|5 14 104 | 5 13.75 2847| 7 34/6 8 114|}6 4.5
1) ee 2823 |5 10 | 5 04 94/5 2 284817 8 |6 8 16 |6 8.75
19. -225--5 DS2A Gia sO On aed: 9 |5 9.5 2849|7 0OF}6 384] 18 |6 5.8
72 | pica 2825' 5 144/5 4 10% ome O on Poe eee 2850/5 54)4 114] 10 | 4 12
7A ise Ree 2826/7 7 |7 Of 64 | 6 15.25 || 46........ 2851 | 6 64!5 10 124 | 5 10.76
pA ee PETES = tj) Be, ae as 3 EPS. G/e oe eis 2852 | 6 11 S15 12 |5 15 4
V5 Ee ee 2828 | 6 14/5 11 By GaZonl Rasen ences 2853 | 6 124|6 4 8 |/6 1.5
7, ee ZED Nahc wh. | Cvs 2 203|6 4.5 AQ ne ean. 2854|6 14/5 8% De ome deide
7 5 a es 2830|6 3%4|5 12 Chi APBD Wier eee 2855| 6 5%) 5 11 103 | 5 12.25
Pounds.
AV CLALO WEILMNEOCE: LO AISIL ee eth ade gant e eae cls awed Het Sa ate Se a SSE ee ee esas 6. 54
EES OG CUT MEL: Dy LOL Dee echo cay Sees Sao cialalse al tala eee aie oie Sale eee ale are aaa wa sta is oye seasons eleeinatiets 5. 87
Averace loss; 10:Ziper Cents) 2205-25226 cceeceeee oo) Vi Sibi | siaejaie me mcicimiete alee owas wisi amine eters 0. 67
53490—_14—_39
610 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Weights of 10 fur-seal skins tagged with copper tags bearing consecutive numbers, before
and after salting.
[Food killing November 4, 1911, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Skinned as usual at food killings, and entirely
without other than natural moisture. Weights include copper tag with wire, averaging 0.21 ounces.]
-_, | Weight | Weight Weight -., | Weight | Weight Weight
Copp vail green, | salt, | oc¢.| _ Salt, Copper oie green, | salt, | ocg,| , Salt,
tag No. No Nov. 4, |May 23, ‘| Aug.17, || tag No. No Nov. 4, |May 23, *| Aug. 17,
z 1911. 1912. 1912. e 1911. 1912. 1912
Lbs. 0zs.| Lbs. ozs.| Ozs. | Lbs. ozs Lbs. ozs.| Lbs. ozs.) Ozs. | Lbs. ozs.
(5 Daraee era 2856 | 4 1414 6% TES BCE Weeeesooee 2861;9 0O|8 4 12/}8 5
(aes 2857 | 6 Ald 125 te \yo dasa Odeeeesces 2862 | 6 144/6 9 54/6 8.75
GR eS eaeses 2858 1/15) 15) ib) 7d 7%: | 5) W125 |ed8- oes 2863 | 7 8/6 104] 14 | 6 13.5
Wefelsis sicls PA aye ee Ta ae) Aw by LOS25i| |LoOseste seer 2864/7 1 6 64] 108}6 6
(iy Pa ee ee 2860 | 4 14/4 103 3% | 4 11.5 GOsEs eee 2865| 7 3 |6 54] 183)6 8
Pounds.
Average weight: Nov. /4, 1911. 2c 3.5 b ke ee cco ctetie Seen nc debe Sete eins oe woe Eee 6. 54
Average:.weight May 23, 1912! . ma SS8 55 «feces oe nen oleae seine nelciel Sean o coisa eae a eee ee 6. 09
Total,6:8 per'cent..25--. 2.2.22 cossce was decease os a canie aes gees oce seceseceee eee te aeeeeeee 0.45
Mr. Lempxey. When Mr. Elliott was on the island last summer,
repeated requests were made to him to verify these tests made as
already stated. To ascertain the action of salt on the weight of
skins, it was proposed to him that certain seals be killed and skinned
in his presence, the skins weighed by him and the weight recorded.
Those skins, it was proposed, should be salted in his presence, and
after remaining in salt for at least five days should be taken out of
salt and weighed again, the green and the salt weights of the same
skins then to be recorded, and the difference noted, whatever that
difference might be. Although this proposition was repeated several
times, Mr. Elliott refused to engage in it, claiming that he had no
interest whatever in the green and salt weights of skins. Although
it was specially desired to have Mr. Elliott make these tests, and
notwithstanding repeated offers to do so, it was impossible to have
him take any part in them, Mr. Elhott declaring that he was inter-
ested only in the weight of the skins after they had been bundled for
shipment because, as he stated, that was the way in which they were
weighed in London.
Mr. StepHens. To whom did Mr. Elliott make these statements ?
Mr. Lempxey. To myself. It was pointed out to him that this
could not in any sense be considered a fair test of loss of weight in
salting, because these bundles, consisting of two skins each, the
flesh sides touching, were rolled together with a lot of loose salt
deliberately thrown on to the flesh side to preserve the skins during
transit to London. By weighing the bundles not only the weight of
the skin, but of this loose salt as well, and of the heavy twine with
which the bundle is tied, would also figure in the weights, and neces-
sarily make such a test useless in determining whether a skin does
gain or loose weight through salting.
Notwithstanding this explanation, Mr. Elliott stated he would
weigh some skins after they had been bundled, and would make no
other test on this question. Subsequently he did have 400 skins
made into bundles of two each, each bundle containing some handfuls
of salt thrown upon them by the native workmen, and tied with
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 611
heavy twine, and he then, with others, weighed the bundles and
recorded their weights.
In his report, Mr. Elhott contrasts the green weights of the two
skins of each bundle, before being touched by salt, with the weight
of the bundle itself containmg, in addition to the skins themselves,
all this loose salt and the heavy twine wrapped around it. He has
had this comparison printed at length in his report at pages 122 to 125
of this new hearing, No. 1, to contradict the fact demonstrated by
the most careful test of weights of the individual skins only, that
sealskins in the salting lose a certain proportion of their weight.
I have cited these tests, and they will appear in the record.
As a fact, when these skins are weighed in London, they are not |
weighed in the bundles, but are weighed after the bundles are opened,
and the weights as taken there are the weights of individual skins.
When the bundles are opened, the loose salt which each bundle
contains falls out and is not weighed. The London weights of the
individual skins, therefore, will not include the weight of the loose
salt and the twine which figured in the Elliott weights of the bundles
made on the islands, and consequently will be less than the weights
taken and announced by Mr. Elhott.
I should like, if the committee will allow me, to introduce, for
insertion in the record at this point, a letter written by me, dated
January 28, 1914, to Mr. Alfred Fraser, the representative in this
country of Lampson & Co., and of his reply to that letter, dated
January 29, 1914, as to the manner in which sealskins are weighed
in London.
The CHarrMAN. It is as you have described it just a moment ago ?
Mr. Lempxey. It is, and my statement was based upon this letter.
Mr. McGurre. I would like to hear the witness read the letter
before it goes into the record.
The CHarrMAN. I wondered why he wanted to put it in at all
after stating the substance of it.
Mr. McGurree. It is corroborative of his testimony.
Mr. Lempxey. J thought perhaps the authority on which I made
that statement would be of interest to you.
Mr. STEPHENS. It is unusual for a witness to corroborate himself.
Mr. McGuire. He is not corroborating himself. This is the
Lampson authority, in the form of a letter written to him corroborat-
ing what he says, and is the basis of his statement.
Mr. SterpHeNsS. Who is Lampson? You have taken him as an
authority here.
The Cuarrman. Lampson & Co. are the furriers in London to
whom we sell the skins.
Mr. Lempxey. Auctioneers of these skins in London for many
ears.
‘4 Mr. SrepHens. Have we their statement anywhere else in the
record ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. SrepHens. Then I have no objection to that going in the
record.
The CuarrMAN. The witness may read the letters, and they will be
printed in the hearings at this point.
612 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. LemBKeEy (reading):
JANUARY 28, 1914.
Mr. ALFRED FRASER,
No. 20 Exchange Place, New York, N. Y.
Dear Sir: I will be grateful if you will inform me whether, when bundled sealskins
arrive in London, they are weighed in the bundle or whether the bundle is broken and
the skins weighed separately.
Very truly, yours,
W. 1. LemBxey.
OFFICE OF ALFRED FRASER, No. 20 ExcHaAncE PLACE,
New York, January 29, 1914.
Watter J. Lempxey, Esq.,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 28th instant, I beg to state that Messrs.
C. M. Lampson & Co., do not weigh the sealskins until after same have been sorted,
consequently, the bundles are opened without any record being kept as to their weight.
You will, of course, understand that during the process of sorting, sizing, etc., almost
all of the salt is shaken from the skins, so that very little of same adheres to the skins
when they are weighed.
The weight of each skin is not taken separately, but the different sizes are weighed
in lots of 50 and averaged.
Yours, truly,
ALFRED FRASER.
Mr. McGuire. Are you through with the salting?
Mr. Lempxey. With that branch of it; yes.
Mr. McGurre. I want to ask whether there is any contention be-
tween yourself and other Government representatives, and Mr.
Elliott, as to how these skins were weighed in London? Did Mr.
Elliott make any statement as to how they were weighed in London ?
Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Elhott made a statement to me on the islands
that the skins were weighed in London in bundles, and that was the
reason he was weighing these bundles on the islands.
Mr. McGutre. By twos ?
Mr. Lempxey. By twos; yes.
Mr. MoGurre. You say that Mr. Elhott was requested to experi-
ment by salting and then removing the salt and weighing them ? ho
made that request ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
Mr. McGurre. Any one else that you know of?
Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Clark was present, and perhaps Mr. Clark made
the same offer or request.
Mr. McGuire. Was anyone else present that you know of ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Clark and I were there.
The CHAIRMAN. Just in that connection, I want to ask the witness
whether my memory serves me right. Did I understand you to say
a while ago that you were there when these skins were weighed ?
Mr. Lempxkey. I was on the island, yes, sir, when these 400 skins
of Mr. Elliott’s were weighed.
The CHarRMAN. Were you present at the weighing ?
Mr. Lempxey. I was not present in the sense of assisting at the
weighing. While the skins were being weighed, in the salt house,
I went into the salt house for a minute or two, but did not assist in
the weighing.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 613
The CHarrMAN. I simply wanted to ask you, because I was not
certain whether you made that statement. I will ask you more about
the skins later on.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed with your narration.
Mr. Lemsxey. In my report for the year 1904, as agent seal fish-
erles, to the Department of Commerce and Labor, which will be found
on page 79 of Appendix A to these hearings, I stated the following,
under the subcaption ‘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. Theiraggregate 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 in 107 skins, or one-half pound askin. As the salt
was thoroughly shaken off these skins, the accretion of water from dripping them in
the lagoon may be represented by the gain in weight.
Mr. Ellott, in hearing No. 1, dated October 13,1913, and January 7,
1914, at page 134, rests upon this experiment, made as stated July
17, 1904, to prove his contention that sealskins gain weight in salt,
in addition algo to his test of weighing skins in bundles in which there
was wrapped up a lot of loose salt to preserve the skin while in
transit.
It is easy to see, however, that the test made on July 17, 1904, is
not a proper test of loss in weight of skins in salting, as a general
proposition, any more than the one performed by Mr. Elhott of
weighing the skins in bundles. In the experiment of July 17, 1904,
as detailed in the extract which I have just read, the skins were re-
moved from the animals in a practically dry state. They were then
weighed on the field while still in this dry condition. Then they were
carried down to Salt Lagoon, only a few steps from the killing field,
and thrown into the shallow water until they became thoroughly
soaked. This was done, of course, to prevent their putrefaction
during the transportation in small boats from the killing field to the
salt house. They were then, in this supersaturated condition, loaded
into row boats and taken to the salt house where, soaking wet, they
were salted. In six days thereafter they were taken out of the salt,
still wet, and found to weigh on an average of one-half a pound more
than they did before they were so saturated with water. It is noth-
ing more than reasonable to suppose that skins, after being wet to the
point of saturation, would weigh more than the same skins when
weighed dry, and that is all this experiment shows, and all it could
show. Mr. Elliott calls this experiment a trick, but I do not believe
the committee will conclude it was anything of that character.
I wish now to make a brief statement on the topic of the measure-
ment of sealskins.
There has also been a great deal of discussion before the committee
on the question of the measurements of salted sealskins, an effort
haying been made in these hearings by means of such measurements
to determine the ages of seals from which the catches of the last few
years were obtained, in an attempt to question the reliability of the
evidence of the agents as to the age of seals as based upon the weights
614 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
of the skins, and to prove that the agents of the Government had
taken seals of different ages than those which they actually certified
to the department, and to show that they had, knowingly or other-
wise, killed seals different from those allowed by the regulations to
be killed. In other words, it was contended as a general proposition
that tests by weight were not reliable, because as claimed, the weights
could be manipulated at will; that the only correct test of the age was
by means of measuring the salted skin, because, as claimed, those
measurements could not be manipulated.
Mr. STEPHENS. That is your statement?
Mr. Lempxery. I am now making my own statement; yes.
In using a salted sealskin as a means of determining the age of the
animal from which it was taken, the important point upon which the
whole question would hinge is whether or not the sealskin, after
being salted, would retain the same size as when on the animal; in
other words, does or does not a sealskin change shape as the result of
being removed from the carcass, and being salted; and if it shrinks,
does it do so evenly or unevenly? To determine this question, the
following data must be anteedl namely: First, the entire length of
the animal before skinning. Second, the length of the amount of
fur left upon the carcass after the pelt has been removed from the
animal in the ordinary manner.
Mr. McGuire. That would be on the head ?
Mr. Lempxery. As stated in the previous hearings, a small portion
of the fur of the animal, in the process of skinning, was allowed to
adhere to the head of the animal around the jaws and to a point
immediately back of the eyes. All the remainder of the fur, however,
was removed.
Only by obtaining all these data and by their correlation can the
question at issue be decided definitely.
No actual experiments in measuring the same sealskins before
and after salting had been made at the time of the previous hearings,
either by the department or by Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elhott, however,
years ago had taken measurements of the carcasses of the seals of
various ages, consisting of the length and girth of the animal. In
addition, a list of measurements of salted sealskins had been made
some years ago by Lampson & Co., the auctioneers in London, and
an estimate made by Lampsons of the ages of animals producing
skins which, when salted, were of a certain size. By endeavoring to
correlate these measurements of seals’ bodies made by himself and
those of salted skins made by Lampson, Mr. Elhott attempted to
classify the skins which had come from the islands recently, and to
prove by this correlation that many, if not all of such skins were not
the skins of animals at least 2 years old, but were in fact animals only
1 year old or less, the killing of which was prohibited by the depart-
ment. For example, Mr. Elliott claims that. the total length of a
yearling seal body from tip of nose to root of tail was 38 inches, and
its girth 25 inches; of a 2-year-old, length 45 inches, and girth 30
inches. He assumed that in skinning, about 34 inches of skin was
left on the carcass at the jaws. From this he reached the conclusion
that the salted skin should equal in length the total length of the body
of the animal less the amount of skin which was allowed to remain
on the carcass after skinning. If, then, a salted skin was found
with a length of 35 inches, for example, it must, so he claims, have
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 615
come from an animal about 39 inches long, which was a yearling;
if the salted skin was 40 or 41 inches long, it must have come from an
animal about 45 inches long, which was a 2-year-old, and so on.
In order to arrive at this conclusion, Mr. Elliott had to assume, and
ask the committee to accept the assumption as a fact, that the skin,
when taken off the animal, was exactly the same size as it was when
on the animal, and that no change in the dimensions of the skin had
occurred through the operations of skinning and of salting. As
stated before, no actual experiments previously have ever been made
by Mr. Elliott or by the department or any one, so far as I know, to
determine whether a sealskin after being taken off the animal pre-
served the same dimensions as when on the animal, or whether the
operation of removing or of salting the skin created any change in its
dimensions when it was still on the animal.
In the previous hearings, therefore, because of this lack of evi-
dence, this question, which is one of fact solely, was treated only by
means of argument and hypothetical deductions, which necessarily
left the matter unsettled.
To make accurate and definite experiments in this matter, as a
means of determining whether the dimensions of a sealskin before
and after its removal from the body were or were not the same, was
one of the odjects of the Bureau of Fisheries during the summer of
1912, after this question had been discussed considerably before this
committee.
In those experiments Messrs. Marsh and Clark and myself, with
the whole native and white population of St. Paul, participated, and
each step in the experiments was slowly and carefully made, so there
would be no error and no question as to the accuracy of the result.
In making them, over 200 animals were clubbed, then carefully
weighed and measured and numbered. Afterwards the animals were
skinned, and the green skin given the same number as the body. The
green skin was then measured as carefully as it was possible to
measure a green skin. The amount of fur remaining on the carcass
was then measured. The skin was then salted, and after it had been
in salt for some days, was taken out of salt and measured again.
The result of these experiments was to show that the size of the
skin changed greatly after it had been taken off the carcass and
changed again after it had been in salt for sometime. The whole
experiment demonstrated that it would be impracticable, so far as
my judgment would go, to make any accurate test of the age of a
seal by a measurement of the salted skin of that seal, because this
experiment showed that the size of the salted skin depended entirely
on how much it was stretched, or whether it was stretched at all at the
time of salting.
It was found by these experiments that the skin on the body is in
a state of tension, varying with the condition whether the animal is
fat or lean. If the animal is fat, the tension is greater; if lean, the
tension is less; at least, that would be my judgment. When the skin
is removed from the body, the tension persists for a time and acts
upon the skin, which immediately retracts or curls up as a result.
The skin is so elastic and pliable that with scarcely any pressure it
can be stretched to much more than its normal size. If not stretched
at all when salted, the skin is much less than its normal size. It can
not be measured in its green state, because in its green state it can
616 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
not be ascertained how far the skin should be stretched out to measure
it. After being salted, however, it assumes a stable size, but the size
of the salted skin depends entirely upon how much or how far it was
stretched out by the native who laid it in the kench and salted it.
In putting all skins in salt, it is endeavored to stretch each one of
them in order that it may be as long as possible when sold; but there
is and can be no uniform method used of stretching them, unless the
present practice of skinning and salting a seal skin should be entirely
changed. The native handling the skin to be salted spreads it out in
the kench and holds it in that position until several shovelsfull of
salt are thrown upon it, when he catches hold of the head and tail
ends, and gives them a smart pull and stretches the skin, depending
upon the weight of the salt already on it to hold it in this stretched
condition. As he has to release this hold in order to spread the salt
with his hands, and as the operation is done hurriedly and by many
men, it follows that some skins would be stretched more than others,
and some not stretched at all. So that when the salted skins are
taken out of the kench, the result is that nearly all show a shrinkage
from the size which they had upon the animal, but this shrinkage, as
determined by these experiments, is so irregular and depends upon so
many contingencies as to make any test of age by means of measure-
ments of salted skins wholly unreliable.
I shall ask permission to put in the record here—but shall not read
it, unless the committee desires me to do so—a statement of the vari-
ous measurements of these skins made at the time stated, so that the
committee may examine the same if it wishes.
Mr. STEPHENS. You desire to make that a part of your evidence?
Mr. Lempxey. I desire to make it a part of my statement; yes.
The CHarrmMAN. It may be printed in the hearing at this point.
(The measurement table referred to is as follows:)
Measurements of seals and of green and salt sealskins taken on St. Paul Islandin July,
1912.
: l |
F Animal. Green skin.| Saltskin. | Animal. | Green skin.| Salt skin.
oO |
fa - l aire 5 ef e | | ;
S << | <4 = =f | = SS) 4g 24 Va < g ;
elelsilalnl|s/e|]s | a lei/3 /4)e)/8 | els
aja |S |e) e)/e2 }e] 8 Bel Bees || Bs Vg A A ais
pS) = Palees erey oP ass ra = R ee a |r = A 5
}
In. In. | In. | In: In. | In. In In In. |} In In "in In
26| 41 33 | 4 293 | 333 | 22 49} 453} 29 63 | 321] 221) 374] 224
77 all ANG Y da (ee) i ee Fe 34h | 292 50 | 45 28 64 | 344] 214] 404] 25
28) 45 28.) 381! 32% 383] 233 51 | 454 | 274 5 344 | 214 | 36 234
29} 40 | 313 4 33 39 224 52| 47 28 43 | 313 | 248] 382] 244%
30| 454] 26 | 434] 28 35 233 53] 42 283 | 4 313 | 234 | 354 234
1} 433} 293 4, | 34 38% | 263 54 | 45 31 43 | 321 | 203] 37% 224
32} 424 | 28 42 | 314 36 23 55| 45 263 | 32] 342] 20 | 354 23%
33 | 46 29 5 32 354 | 25 56 | 423 | 263 44 | 284 | 233 | 36%] 254
34: 412 | 28 44! 20% 34 24 57! 464 | 30 5h} 312] 233] 353) 26%
35] 414] 28 5 32 353 213 58 | 41 284. | 33] 314] 22 414 214
36| 384 | 27 42 | 293 31} 224 59 | 464 | 29 4 | 35 | 234] 38 264
37 | 42h | 27 4% | 332 363 | 234 60 | 414 | 274] 32] 304] 234} 388 223
38 | 424] 28% 43 | 342 40 24} 61| 43 30 34 | 32 19 | 373] 22%
39 | 414 | 29 5 28 34 23 62| 46 | 30 33 | 303 | 232| 37 244
40 | 50 28 53 | 323 37 223 63 | 47 304 44 | 29 234 | 354 224
41} 443] 30 44| 353 43 23 64 | 49 30 Shr 28:7 23 ess 27
42 |. 45 293 53] 32 354 | 243 65 | 44 30 44 | 334] 242] 39 244
43 | 43 304 53 | 294 34} 274 66 | 48 284 5+} 34 | 23 | 34% 24
44] 43 244 4 323 364 | 22 67| 45 | 31 | . 34 | 312] 234 | 384 244
45 | 47 27 4 35 39 | 26 68 | 444 | 28 | 32] 294) 234) 343 23
46) 43 234} 44 | 34 | 41 234 69 | 454 | 284 54 | 293 | 214] 362]. QI
47 | 393 | 263 33 | 283 343 22 70 | 43 28h 34 | 314] 22 | 35% 23
48 | 404 | 293| 33] 333 393 | 234 71| 453 | 283] 43) 354] 24 | 36 25
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 617
Measurements of seals and of green and salt sealskins taken on St. Paul Island in July,
1912—Continued.
Animal. Green skin.| Salt skin. Animal. Green skin.| Salt skin.
S
s S
3 : a 2 | i | ;
eee eseg ley ey Se ae VS ee te, |) Searls
eee Se eee eee | Sees fo = Stile ead neew al etadlouetn dy
Saeiece se Wok al ee el = a EH lates Rl] eel peyote fastest ae
In In In In In In In. In. In In. | In In In In In.
72 | 47 30 43 | 33 204 | 40% 22 146 | 46 334 3] 334 | 24 404 25
78| 46 | 30 5 | 352] 223% | 39 23 152| 503 | 324] 52] 348] 24 | 37 264
79| 48 | 303] 4%| 30 | 23 | 35 22 153 | 51 | 33 4i| 35 | 25 | 41 24
80] 48 | 30 44 | 313] 234 | 403] 243 || 154] 493| 333] 5 | 29 | 26 | 33 26
81| 434 | 30h| 54] 30 | 233 | 343} 24 155] 46 | 313 314 | 234] 362 | 26%
S61 47s 81k lena) | 352], 227) 148 24 160 | 484 | 28 Some sodun | sami non
87 | 444 | 31 43| 343| 21 | 40 244 || 161| 47 | 28 Save Ose) OLA mode
38 | 43 | 30 33 | 293] 36 24 162 | 48 | 30 6 | 34 | 232} 398| 24
89} 452 | 272| 32| 344] 243] 38 24 163 | 44 | 282] 43] 31 | 21 | 378] 218
90| 44 | 29 4 | 332] 221 | 374] 232 || 164] 484| 303| 5 | 35 | 242 | 3681 27%
91| 43 | 29 4 | 33] 214 | 37 224 || 165| 473 | 29 Bara a2e onmllhas 25
92| 45 | 28 5t | 33 | 233 | 372] 25 166 | 484 | 30 Bh le aanlt 22k) 34d oRe
93| 47 | 273 | 44 | 322] 254 | 373] 262 || 467] 44 | 31 ay ||) 31a |peoont| wetael sees
94} 48 | 303} 44] 33 | 212] 393] 233 1 468| 43 | 927 43 | 294 | 21 | 933) 22
95 | 473 | 303 Z| 352] 223 | 402] 252] 169| 428 | 298| 43] 31 | 23 | 37k | 25
96 | 443 | 27 44 | 30 | 23 | 36 223 || 170| 393 | 27%| 43] 29 | 214] 334] 23
97| 47 | 323] 44] 38 | 244] 38%] 253 |/ 171] 49 | 292| 4%] 38 | 234] 38 26
5
5
q 4o
101 | 433] 31 Ben Sle |) 22a) Hee aoos Nia eh az aianite cs «0431 wih -OSnalNaG 248
102} 48 | 29 44} 343] 22 | 38 23 176 | 432 | 29 5 | 333] 19 | 34 23
103 | 463| 32%| 34| 362| 21 | 42 234 || 177| 413 | 28 PSM Gees te GB all By 25
bt | 35 | 24 | 35 244
110 | 44 29 4 324 221 37 26 184 | 463 | 303 At) 324 | 232 | 36 25%
111 | 42 29% Ars) 322)|)" 21 384 22 185 | 46 30 44 | 303 | 224) 36 242
112} 443 | 293 44) 3 23% | 373 243 186 | 46 293 32 | 33 23 383 243
|
AIANOAS SIF 4g) 3920102938 | 372) | Batoga 188 | 44 | 27 41) 35 | 213] 35 26
115 | 463| 30 AZ| 344 | 244 | 354] 274 189 | 49 | 33 5 | 282] 283 | 34 28
116 | 453 | 29 5 | 31 223 | 344 224 190 | 462 | 292 4 334 | 23 37 243
117 | 442 | 32 5} 33 |.22>) 352 |e 242 191 | 434 | 26 42 | 33 | 21 | 394] 22
118 | 47 | 30 2/ 34 | 242] 384] 26 192 | 45 29 bel Bil 23% | 32 254
119 | 423 | 29 54 | 314 | 22 | 362) 224 193 | 474 | 304 | 32] 34 | 232) 382] 263
120} 44 | 29 34 | 353 | 214) 37 25 194 | 483 | 30 2] 29 | 20: | 334] 233
121; 44 | 32 34 | 32 | 224 | 38 24 195 | 49 | 32%) 42) 34 | 292) 381] 252
122} 48 | 30 4 | 333] 244 36 27 196 | 41 | 293) 4 | 312] 208) 352 | 223
123} 46 | 27%| 44| 332) 204] 404] 23 197 | 47%] 314] 32] 31 | 214) 32 213
124} 47 | 27 41} 322; 21 | 36 254 198 | 424) O74 |. 4. | 202) 20) |. 324 | O03
125| 49 | 29 | 5%| 36 | 244) 42 274 199 | 42 | 314) 32] 292] 25 | 352] 232
126] 51 | 323} 5 | 354| 23 | 42% | 952 200 | 40 | 28 ENE Sul all 1 910) Bil 21
tO TAP 533 ee Aes Bk Cas aaa CP 9 Wa 2 91 as 201) 41. | 288) 32.) 20 1) 20 | 353 h 23
OE ee 2 Ede [SON a Free (fae aera 202 | 463 | 31 44 | 332 | 25 | 354 | 25
POOL eR. Sat MARE ae AY SAL Me | Pea 203 | 47 | 264 | 34./° 81 | 292 | 312 | 238
1ST | Ee SEEN SES Fee sane ee Pen On (eae ae Pere ose [eae 204 | 40 | 28 34 | 30% | 224 | 374 | 28
TA cei 2) eee Os cade | eeeE a Peale aly 205 | 432 | 27 Bee Ghee |) ORS lle (ay 25
B52 LOE. EE Bi Oe se ae Re 206 | 442 | 30 33 | 304 | 214 | 35 214
ABS eae Vink seit |e Eeedes |e ee E SAO 207 | 47 | 30%] 34) 342 | 232) 38 27
167M ieee ere reine} [eosdd oot cel cones oon 208 | 4441 304] 4 | 298] 21 | 344] 234
LEG ie ee | |EPee ee eevee ty Re ele he Me ete ae 209 | 472 | 304) 4 |. 362] 21 | 38 24
136 | 433) 284 | 43 292 | 22 | 314] 28 210 | 444% | 282 | 421. 31-| 24 | 34 244
STA Ades 7 53 | 282 | 214 | 312 | 24 Oi 44n 28a) 30" sie oo iiss 26
138 | 423 | 28 ZI Bye Gale i Bal 233 212| 46 |- 28h | 4 | 312 | 23 | 34 234
139} 473 | 29 44) 35 | 224 | 35 254 213.| 444 | 28 33 | 36 | 242 | 38 27
140| 473 | 324 | 44| 314] 244 | 344 | 253 214) 392] 27h | 44] 29 | 212 | 35 234
141} 48 | 293) 4 | 29% | 91%) 302 | 234 || 215 | 433 | 27 a 33h. 29% 36 23
142} 433] 293 | 44) 324] 22 | 34 294 || 216 | 434] 314 | 341 304 | 232] 354) 2448
143} 44 | 3 5 | 272| 23 | 292] 24% || 217] 454) 29 GEL OSBy AN SBA SS 25
144} 444| 29 4 | 314| 22 | 354) 254 || 218 | 443) 30 32 | 322 | 222 | 362] 234
145} 464 | 283] 32| 30 | 24 | 344] 244 219 | 46 | 264] 4 | 304 | 234] 324] 26
618 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Measurements of seals and of green and salt sealskins taken on St. Paul Island in July,
1912—Continued.
Animal. Green skin.| Salt skin. Animal. Green skin.| Salt skin.
a ral : 3 a Ss 4 3 | 3 c| r= q
= » ~~ ~ =i ~~ ~~ >
ply hob Webel a= [ |p (ein ry = cree (Os alalessalpuecteieest = eh
In In In In In In In In. In In In In In In In
DOO Asti 30%) |) wat ors o1n7l) ay 25 230 | 46% | 29 33 | 32h | 251 | 33 263
221 32h | 42 352 | 232 || 231 293 4 | 354 | 223 | 302 43
DODMAGE NE 27a7| 18 | 82 |) 20k 1h 82t rope 232 | 47 | 30 33 | 334 | 232] 38 25
223 | 422 | 284] 33] 292 | 22 | 38 224 233 | 432 | 30 4 | 308 | 22 | 362] 29%
224 444 30: 4 324 22k 34 224 234 424 27 4 33 204 | 3 23
225 | 394 | 274 32 | 29 21 381 23 235 452 | 27 3h | 34 23 384 26
226 46 31 4 33 24 36 222 236 | 45 28 32) 314 | 25 38 26
227 | 432 | 30 A \is3uulh) 21351 (38 23 237) 43 | 293 291 | 291 | 342] 26
DORN dam lis ora |) 33) |) 130) |eisul son emro3 238 | 38: | 304 | 32] 312] 21 | 3721 234
229 43 26 32 | 314 21 36 222 239 | 463 | 28% 4 32 24 33 25
(Bureau of Fisheries Doc. No. 780, pp. 93-95, both inclusive.)
Mr. Lempxey. When Mr. Elliott was on the islands last summer
he did not verify any of these experiments, or in fact, make any
independent experiments of his own to determine just what would
happen to the size of a seal skin after it had been removed from the
body and salted. He therefore has no evidence to rely upon to show
whether a skin does or does not shrink after removal from the body.
The only effort he made in this direction while on the islands last
summer was to measure the length only of about 400 salted skins
which were in the salt house at the time of his arrival on the islands,
The animals from which these skins were taken were not measured
by him, nor by anyone, as it was not known at the time they were
killed that any tests based on those skins were to be made. As the
animals from which these skins were taken were not measured, it
was impossible to tell, from the measurements of the salted skins,
what the ages of the animals from which these skins came reall
were, because the length of the animals then could not be ascertained.
Mr. Elliott, therefore, would be forced to resort to assumption to
determine what the ages of the animals were.
After he had measured the length of these 400 skins, he selected
such of them as had heavy green weights and small salt dimensions.
He seems to have found nine of these, according to his report, dated
December 15, 1913, in hearing No. 1, page 279, with weights over
5 pounds, and lengths varying from 31 to 36 inches. Then,
assuming that 36 inches is the maximum limit of length of a salted
yearling skin, and that a yearling skin should weigh green only
about 42 pounds, he argues from this that whenever a skin is found
36 inches or less in length weighing more than 5 pounds, it is a
yearling skin and has been loaded with blubber by the skinners for
the purpose of delusion and fraud.
The CHarRMAN. You are discussing page 279 of hearing No. 1, are
ou?
: Mr. Lempxey. Yes. In this, as in other charges before the com-
mittee, Mr. Elliott had no substantiating data. He did not measure
the animals from which these 400 skins were taken, nor did anyone;
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 619
and he therefore has no means of determining from his own experi-
ments whether these 400 skins had shrunk since their removal from
the body, or whether any other change in their size had occurred.
. The CHarrRMANn. It is now 12 o’clock. The committee will take a
recess until 2 o’clock this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the committee took a recess until
2 o'clock p. m.)
AFTER RECESS.
The committee at the expiration of the recess, Hon. John H.
Rothermel, chairman, presiding.
_Mr. McGurre. You may proceed, Mr. Lembkey, with your narra-
tion.
Mr. Lempxey. I had stated that Mr. Elliott was not in a position
to claim that any of these salted skins of a certain size came from an
animal which must be of a certain size, because he does not know and
could not ascertain, with regard to these skins, the size of the animals
from which the skins were taken. He can not claim that any 35-inch
skin among them must have come from an animal 39 inches long,
because he does not know and never made an effort to ascertain what
the length of the animal was as a matter of fact. He did not and
could not gather any evidence of the length of the animals from
which these 400 skins were taken, because the animals had been killed
and the skins salted before his arrival on the island, and the carcasses
had been consumed by the natives for food. For this reason he
could not measure the animals which produced these skins; and
since he did not and could not measure the animals, he had no means
of arriving at their actual size. He therefore had to assume and did
assume what the length of the animals should be and upon that
assumption he bases his charge and his argument that these seals
were of a size demonstrating them to be yearlings. If he had cared
to, he could have measured other animals and afterwards meas-
ured the skins that would have been taken from those animals and
then he would have found, I will assert, that in many instances skins
from seals 45 inches long or over, when salted in the ordinary manner,
do not measure more than 35 inches, and sometimes less. As a
matter of fact there were no yearling skins among those measured by
Mr. Elliott, because there are no yearling skins in the drives made at
the time when these 400 skins were taken, unless, perhaps, a solitary
instance or two. The yearlings do not appear in the drives until
about two weeks later than when these 400 skins were taken. Evi-
dence to support this statement has been repeatedly furnished the
committee.
Mr. McGuire. Have you produced evidence yourself to support
that statement? That is, have you in mind the production of testi-
mony or the idea of making this statement whereby to show the
branding that was done on the islands of seals for the purpose of
determining when they returned ?
Mr. Lempxey. I was just about to make a statement of that
experiment which was mentioned in the testimony of Mr. Clark.
620 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, —
- Mr. McGurre. You may proceed.
Mr. Lempxey. In the drives from which these 400 skins were taken
the clubbers had instructions to kill nothing but 2-year-olds, as it
was desired at the time that those seals were killed to preserve all
of the 3-year-olds and allow them to mature as breeders. The killing
of yearlings is never permitted, as the committee has been informed.
In 1912, in order to ascertain exactly just when yearling seals did
arrive on the islands, over 5,000 of the pups of that year were branded
on the head with hot irons, making a permanent mark. When these
seals so branded would return to the islands the following year, 1913,
they would be yearlings, and the presence of the mark on the head
made the year previous would prove the fact that they were yearlings
beyond all doubt. In 1913, when those branded seals were to arrive
as yearlings, a careful watch was kept for their presence to fix the
first date on which they would be observed. By the most careful
search, by myself and others, the presence of none of those yearling
seals was discovered in the drives previous to Mr. Ellott’s arrival
and none in the drive from which these 400 skins were taken which
were measured by Mr. Elhott, and none until some time after Mr.
Hlliott had arrived there. While there he was requested by Mr.
Clark and myself to visit the hauling grounds, in company with our-
selves and the natives, where the seals could be carefully examined
for the presence of these little marked seals, but he declined to make
such a search or to visit the hauling grounds of the seals to ascertain
whether any of those unmistakably marked yearling seals were
resent.
Mr. Elliott asks the committee to believe that any salted skins
measuring from 30 to 35 inches in length, of which he alleges in his
report (Hearing No. 1, p. 132) 139 were found and falsely certified in
the 400 skins measured by him, were yearling skins. To do this he
asks you to assume that any salted skin 35 inches in length or less
must have been taken from a seal 40 inches in length or less and that
no shrinkage in the skin occurred after it was taken from the body.
Such a claim can not be supported, because the experiments I have
mentioned to-day in the measurements of the skins before and after
salting show that a decided shrinkage occurs in the skin in salting,
depending upon how much the skin was stretched when salted
although the shrinkage is uneven. In the list of measurements of
skins which I have submitted already many skins would be found of
a length of 35 inches taken from a seal measuring approximately 45
inches in length.
I desire to refer to a list of some of these, extracted from page 93 of
Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 780, an extract from which I have
already furnished the committee. While I do not wish to read this
list of skins which I have made, I will point out to the committee
that there are many of them here which show a 35-inch salted skin,
having been taken from an animal measuring 45 inches in length or
over. For the purpose of brevity I will ask that this be inserted at
this place as a part of my testimony and I will not read it.
(The paper referred to is as follows:)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 692]
List of fur seals of a length of 45 inches, approximately, furnishing salted skins of a length
of 85 inches, approximately.
[Extracted from Bulletin of the Fish Commission No. 780, p. 93.]
. Length of | Length of ; Length of | Length
No. of tag. animal. salt skin. No. of tag. animal. salt skin.
Inches Inches. Inches Inches
SUIS eee ae: Sy ae 4 35 TIS (eye elas brie Mara
Bpiee nee ee Sa 46 353 TBO Sia ks Sey: 473 35
COLNE Sie ae 50 37 TAQE ON Reno Nc 472 344
4M Sa 45 354 PAAR TAS IS (5A 8 48 303
Abe yes. cued 43 43 344 DAS. okt dices 434 34
ie eee Peers 454 36 PASS ciation geeener 44 294
GES Aiton 48 Se Be. 45 353 DAs toe ara Re 444 354
iy Ris ae OE 463 Shipp elf, ee eoeasouceun see 464 343
662. enc esuke 48 Bag? |ttagus kOe ye 44 334
6882 es aagen? a=: 444 343 EOS RiAITR cr ae 443 34k
Bilge Raat aratit 454 363 TURN A ck 47k 324
PISAR EELS EE eT 454 36 SDA ES Ce OL Ke 3 Ore 504 37
ih} see = aN 45 35 1 eS Be ae 48h 33
(Minds Bessa REE ae 48 Be olf} de cotcosdodacous 484 334
OIG Spe. et Eee 434 ory rally JOMeeooecossesesce 484 363
Gee Sea 464 BOF) ae lOa acecaceeaccee 474 33
BIGL tae ee 454 BER Sr PAL GGU NSIS a eS Nee 484 343
OT Set 443 BUS sles Gy ees so porCaee 44 314
ODE ee acioe ce 48 36 | 173s REA Ae 45 85
Upy arse foe Bava ae 47 36 ah ly f: Rees ta ea 464 343
TEs enema 434 314 |
From this list of about 200 examples of which these tests were
made many more instances can be found of a decided shrinkage of
the skin after salting, but for purposes of brevity I did not extract
more.
While Mr. Elliott admits that a live seal 45 inches long is a 2-year
old he denies that a 35-inch salted skin is or can be the skin of a
2-year-old, but claims that it is the skin of a yearling. I have just
ee the committee with a list of over 40 examples—and could
ave given more—of seals 45 inches in length or larger furnishing
salted skins 35 inches in length or less, picked at random from a list
of 200 measurements. The production of this list successfully meets
Mr. Elliott’s assertion that salted skins 35 inches in length or smaller
necessarily are the skins of yearling seals.
Mr. McGurre. Were you through, now, with the measurements of
skins and the effects of the saltings ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Do you state that an animal 45 inches long may
produce a skin 35 inches in length or less?
Mr. Lempxey. I do.
Mr. McGurrz. Is that your experience, where a seal is skinned in
the usual way and with the usual amount of skin left on the fore-
head and nose?
Mr. Lempxey. It is.
Mr. McGurre. The shrinkage after salting depends on what?
‘I want to modify that question. You say a seal 45 inches in length
may, after being skinned in the ordinary way, with the usual amount
of skin left on the head, produce a skin only 35 inches in length or
less. When in your judgment does the greatest shrinkage occur—
immediately after the skin is taken from the seal, or is the size affected
by the salting, do you know?
622 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxery. From the experiments that we made in this matter
I reached the conclusion that the greatest shrinkage occurs through
the removal of the skin from the body, and this shrinkage is caused
by the tension which obtains on the skin while on the body, and
which persists, in my opinion, for some time after the skin has been
removed from the body.
Mr. McGuire. You epees this morning about the practice, by the
parties skinning the seal and caring for the skin, of applying salt, and
at the time of the application of the salt stretching the skins. I wish
ou would state to the committee whether there is any definite plan
by which all skins may be stretched equally—that is, under equal
pressure—or whether this is done by different persons—persons of
different strength and persons of different determinations as to the
time of the stretching. That is, I take it, that one person may be
stronger than another, and one might desire to do his full duty more
than another. What is the practice with regard to those things?
Mr. Lempxey. There is or has been no definite plan either applied
or devised
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Just what do you do?
Mr. Lempxey (continuing). To my knowledge whereby the skin
may be stretched equally and with equal pressure. The practice
in, salting skins is to turn from 6 to 8 natives into a kench or bin
in which those skins are to be salted. Surrounding this bin on all
sides are perhaps 15 or 20 more natives, some prepared to shovel .
salt into the kench, some prepared to throw skins into the kench to
these men who are there to do the salting, and others standing around
for various other purposes. A man in the kench receives a skin to be
salted. He lays it down upon the floor of the kench, and the men out-
side of the kench, armed with shovels, throw onto the skin as a general
rule three shovelsfull of salt. If there is a small killing and only a
few skins are to go into the kench, we will throw three shovelsfull
on each skin. If there is a large killing, and consequently a lack of
room, we throw but two shovelsfull on each skin. As soon as the
man in the kench receives these shovelsfull of salt onto his skin he
gives the skin a stretch by grasping it at the head and tail ends and
pulling. After stretching it in this manner he usually lets go one
end of it and spreads salt which has been thrown onto the skin with
one of his hands, or perhaps both, endeavoring, however, at the same
time to keep the skin at as great a length as it is possible to keep it,
depending upon the weight of the salt thrown upon it to keep it
stretched. Of course, having to let go of the skin after he has given
it this smart pull would, as a general rule, allow the skin to retract
to a certain extent, or the skin perhaps might be so covered up with
salt that is bemg thrown in by either the man throwing salt to him
or to some of the others, that he might not apply as much tension to it
as he should, or he might not stretch it at all, as it is then out of
sight. Sometimes, perhaps—although we try to avoid it—a man
might catch hold of the broad side of the skin instead of the length
of it, and stretch it in a lateral direction instead of longitudinally.
Mr. MoGurre. I see. In any event the stretching of the skin
depends entirely upon the strength and disposition of the man who
is doing the work?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 623
Mr. Lempxey. Exactly. There may be long-armed men and short-
armed men both working at the same time on the same-sized skins.
The CHarrMAN. They do it as I illustrate with the two ends of this
lead pencil, do they not?
Mr. Lempxey. Just that way. The skin is thrown down in front
of the man and the salt is thrown onto the skin, and he then grasps
either end in this manner [indicating], after which he spreads the salt
over the skin with his hands, to be assured, more than anything else,
of the fact that none of the edges of the skin have curled back on to
itself. If that were to happen, the skin would putrify under the curl,
notwithstanding the immense amount of salt that is thrown into the
kench. That is one reason why we remove all skins from the salt five
days after their first salting.
Mr. Bruckner. It has got to be flat.
Mr. Lempxey. It must be flat, otherwise there will be imperfec-
tions in the salting that I have mentioned, particularly through the
curling over of the skin. In five days an imperfection of this charac-
ter shows on the skin by the area so overlapped becoming slightly
inkish. That shows that incipient putrifaction has set in, but it
as not gone to the stage where it injures in any way the value of the
skin. That is at once cured then by the second salting, which we call
the book.
Mr. McGuire. Any skin after being taken from the animal first has
a tendency to shrink and roll at the edges?
Mr. Lempxey. It does.
Mr. McGurre. Very well. You may proceed.
The Cuarrman. What is the object of stretching the skin. I did
not hear that.
Mr. Lempxey. The object of stretching the skin is to have it as long
as possible in its salted state. That is, as I understand, the object.
It is generally understood that the length of the skin contains the
greatest value and not the breadth of it.
The Cuarrman. Are they stretched so that they will bring more
money ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is the idea; yes. The reason for that is this:
That the fur on the back of any animal is more valuable than the fur
on the belly, and the more back you show on the skin the more value
you show; the more belly it shows the less value it has.
The Cuarrman. If you stretched a skin at the sides, you would con-
tract the length of the skin?
Mr. Lempxey. I should say it would; yes. It must necessarily.
That would be the result.
The CHarrman. It is stretched at the ends to give it more value?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. You may go on with your statement.
Mr. Lempxny. Mr. Elliott has submitted to the committee a long
tabular statement appearing to assert that if the sealskins composing
the catches of 1910, 1911, and 1912 on the Pribilof Islands had been
properly skinned the Government would have received a much greater
sum of money in return for these skins than it actually did receive.
Just what is meant by this statement it is impossible for me to dis-
cover, but it seems to contain a charge of impropriety of some char-
acter in the taking of the sealskins for the years mentioned. It is
624 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
inferred that this new charge has some connection with the less recent
charge made by Mr. Elliott, that the weights of skins were manipulated
on the islands by the attachment of more blubber to some than others,
and that the Government and the public at large thereby were induced
to believe that many skins were taken from older seals than they
really were. As the skins for those years have been sold and gone
into consumption, there is no exact method of determining whether
they were or not properly taken off the animal; the best evidence on
that point that can be obtained, in my opinion, is that of the auction-
eers in London who sold the skins and of the principal dresser of these
skins, both of whom have handled and carefully examined all of the
skins composing the catches named. The auctioneers, as the com-
mittee knows, were Lampson & Co.; the dressers were George Rice
(Ltd.), both of London. I, of course, know that these skins were
removed from the animals in the same manner that they had always
been removed, and that no change occurred in the practice of skinning
between the years in question and that of prior years, and that no
attempt whatever was made to have the skins taken in these years or
in any year weigh more than ordinarily they should. However, as
the committee may desire further evidence than my own statement on
the subject, and for the purpose of providing the committee with the
best evidence as to how the skins of the years mentioned compared
with the catches of former years, I addressed a letter to Mr. Alfred
Fraser, of New York, the representative of Lampson & Co., on the
subject. I ask permission to read that letter and to introduce it.
Mr. McGuire. You may read it.
Mr. Lempxey. I have several copies of that letter.
Mr. McGuire. Just go ahead and read it.
Mr. Lempxey. My letter to Mr. Fraser was as follows:
1101 Woopwarp BuiLpine,
Washington, D. C., January 21, 1914.
Mr. ALFRED FRASER,
No. 20 Exchange Place, New York, N. Y.
Dear Sir: Statements have been made recently before committees of Congress to
the effect that the Alaska fur-seal skins of the catches of 1910, 1911, and 1912 were
“improperly skinned,’’ and that, by reason of such improper skinning, the Govern-
ment suffered a great money loss.
I have respectfully to request that you favor me with an expression of your opinion
as an expert, and, if not too inconvenient, with a similar expression from Lampson &
Co., based upon their experience in handling these and other skins, whether or not
the Alaska sealskins of the years mentioned were improperly skinned, and whether or
not they were skinned in any manner dissimilar to those of former catches.
I will state that any reply hereto may, unless you object, be used as evidence before
a committee of Congress considering the matter referred to above.
Respectfully,
W. I. Lempxey.
To that letter I received the following reply:
64 QUEEN STREET, E. C.
London, $d February, 1914.
W. I. Lempxey, Esq.,
1101 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Str: We have received a copy of your letter of 21st January, addressed to Mr.
Alfred Fraser in New York.
In reply, we take pleasure in stating that the Alaska fur sealskins of the 1910, 1911,
and 1912 catches, received by us from the United States Government were, in our
opinion, well handled, and in no respect differed from those received by us from the
islands in previous years.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 625
_ As you are aware, we have handled these sealskins for many years, and, had those
of the 1910, 1911, and 1912 catches differed in any way from usual, we could not have
failed to have noticed it.
The weight of the various sizes of the skins taken in 1910, 1911, and 1912, as you
may have seen from the catalogues, further go to show that they were flayed in exactly
the same manner as usual.
You are at liberty to use this letter for any purpose you may wish.
Yours, truly,
C. M. Lampson & Co.
I also addressed the following letter to Messrs. George Rice & Co.
Mr. McGurre. These letters will be inserted at this point, Mr.
Chairman, in connection with his testimony ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. I addressed also the following letter to Messrs.
George Rice & Co., 40 Great Prescot Street, London, England:
1101 Woopwarp BuILpIne,
Washington, D. C., January 22, 1914.
Messrs. GreorcE Rice & Co.,
No. 40, Great Prescot Street, London, England.
GENTLEMEN: Statements have been made recently before committees of Congress
to the effect that for 15 years last passed fur seals killed for their skins on the Pribilof
Islands, Alaska, were so skinned that an unusual and unnecessary amount of blubber
was allowed to remain on the pelt for the purpose of increasing the normal weight of
the skin and thereby creating the impression that such skins were taken from animals
much older than those actually killed.
Assuming that your firm has handled the greater proportion of such skins sold in
London during the period mentioned, as well as during periods prior thereto, and that,
by reason of the experience thus obtained you are in a position to judge of the truth or
falsity of such statements, I have respectfully to request that you do me the favor of
furnishing me with a signed statement in answer hereto, stating whether or not in your
judgment Alaska sealskins taken since 1899 carried more blubber than formerly,
whether they or any of them carried excessive amounts of blubber, and whether in
short, in your opinion any attempt at delusion and fraud was practiced in the killing
and skinning of fur seals during the period mentioned.
I may use your reply to this letter as evidence before a committee of Congress,
unless you request me to refrain from so doing.
Respectfully,
W. I. LemBxey.
To that letter I received the following reply:
65 QUEEN STREET,
London, E. C., February 3, 1914.
Mr. W. I. LempBxey,
1101 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C., U.S. A.
Dear Sie: In reply to your letter of 22d January, in our opinion, based upon an
experience of over 30 years handling of Alaska and other fur sealskins, we have not
found an excessive amount of blubber on the sealskins from the Pribilof Islands during
the last 15 years, nor have we found that Alaska sealskins carry more blubber than
skins taken prior to the year 1899.
We might mention that we examine all raw fur sealskins shipped to London for
public sale and we issue our detailed reports to the fur trade, and we have no hesita-
tion in saying that a good coating of blubber in conjunction with plenty of salt is the
best and safest condition in which to pack raw sealskins for shipment.
We certainly have no knowledge or belief that any attempt at delusion or fraud
has ever been practiced either before or since the year 1899 in connection with the
Alaska sealskins shipped to London each year for sale, and as we are in such close
touch with all London firms interested in sealskins, we can go further and state that
no one over here entertains any opinion to the contrary.
You have our permission to use this letter as evidence before any committee of
Congress if you desire to do so.
Any information you can give us with reference to the future developments with
regard to the seals on the Pribilof Islands will be of great interest to us.
We are, yours, faithfully,
GeorGceE Rice, (Ltd.),
F, Auison, Secretary.
53490—14——40
626 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuHairman. Why did you not ask him about the different
sizes in their classifications? You remember that was the real source
of the trouble, do you not?
Mr. Lempxey. 1 did not desire to get any information on that
point. I supposed that was settled by the catalogues and by the
statements already published.
The CHarrmMan. Do you not think it would have thrown some
light on this if you had just asked what their classifications meant
as to sizes ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not know that it would have thrown any
Turther light than that already given the committee, Mr. Chairman.
The catalogues of this firm have been published from year to year.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, but it has been stated to this committee that
that has a reference to the different sizes, and others say it does
not have, so that it would be very interesting to the committee if
you had asked Lampson & Co. to explain that classification as far
as sizes are concerned.
Mr. LempBxey. I shall be very glad to address a letter to Lampson
& Co. attempting to obtain that information.
The CHarrMan. I think you had better do that.
Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Elliott has introduced in his report, hearing
No. 1, page 97, and reported in full a letter of instructions dated
May 14, 1896, from C. S. Hamlin, Acting Secretary of the Treasury,
to J. B. Crowley, special agent in charge of the Seal Islands, which
prohibits during the year 1896 the killing of yearlings and seals
whose skins weigh less than six pounds. By this letter he seeks to
prove that the taking in subsequent years of skins weighing less than
6 pounds was a violation of regulations. It is proper to call the atten-
tion of the committee to the fact that this order in terms refers to
the year 1896 only and can not have any application to killing during
any subsequent year, unless evidence is brought to show that the
instructions by subsequent action of the department was made
applicable to succeeding years.
Mr. Elliott has not produced any evidence to show the continuous
application of this regulation beyond the year to which it is intended
to apply, and as a matter of fact there is no such evidence anywhere
to my knowledge, even though it were not produced by Mr. Elhott.
His claim, therefore, that the taking of skins weighing less than 6
pounds in years subsequent to the year 1896 was a violation of this
regulation which, according to its own terms, was applicable only
to that year and to that year alone, is not a valid claim. As a matter
of fact instructions issued by the several departments to govern the
taking of seals on the islands were annual instructions and intended
to apply to the year only in which they were issued or until super-
seded by subsequent instructions, which were always issued yearly.
This may be seen by reference to the instructions for 1905 and follow-
ing, on pages 150, 240, 477, 581, 702, 955, and 1191, of Appendix
A to these hearings. In the annual instructions for each MP these
years this paragraph, which is repeated in each of the pages cited,
may be found:
The instructions embodied in this letter are to remain in force until they are super-
seded by later ones, and in the event of your failure to receive revised instructions for
a subsequent season the directions here given are to be followed for such season so
far as they are applicable.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 627
The instructions for the years preceding 1905 are not at my com-
mand, but it is confidently asserted that if they were to be exam-
ined an instruction similar to the above would be found to be embodied
therein, which would clearly demonstrate that they were intended for
euidance during the period only for which they were issued and were
not to be taken as applying to the subsequent years unless in the
failure of receipt of instructions for that later year, which contin-
gency never occurred.
It is iallacious for Mr. Elliott to contend that because instructions
were issued specifically applying to the year 1896 only, forbidding
in that year the killing of seals having skins weighing less than 6
pounds, the taking of skins of less weight in any year subsequent
to 1896 was a violation of existing regulations.
I should like before closing to recapitulate briefly the charges
which Mr. Elliott has made betore this committee and to call the
committee’s attention to the question whether or not the result
of the investigation of them which the committee has been making
for the last three years shows them to have been proved.
Disregarding as immaterial and irrelevant the personal charges
which Mr. Elliott has indulged in, three main charges are found to have
been made by him and. to have formed the basis of most of this pro-
longed investigation. These main charges are—
(1) That large numbers of female seals were killed by the lessee of
the sealing right contrary to law and regulations, with the connivance
of the Government officers, both on the island and at the department
in Washington.
(2) That !arge numbers of yearling seals and seals less than 1 year
old were killed both by the lessee and by the Government officers
after the leasing period contrary to law and regulations.
(3) That the killing of male seals has been so close that a sufficient
number of males for breeding purposes has not been reserved, thereby
causing great injury to the herd of seals in general and decreasing
the birth rate.
Tt might be of advantage to discover from the testimony adduced,
both in the previous hearings and in the reports recently submitted,
whether any of these charges have been proved or, at least, how these
charges now stand with regard to the evidence submitted with re-
spect of them. In regard to the first charge, that thousands of
female seals have been surreptitiously killed in contravention of law,
the only evidence adduced to support it was the relation of a visit
of a senatorial committee to the islands 11 years ago.
The Cuarrman. No, just one moment, there. Did he not speak
oi the killing of yearling female seals?
Mr. Lempxery. He speaks of them, yes. I was speaking of the
evidence which was produced to support the charge.
The CHarrMAN. That is at least my recollection of it. That is what
he charged, that thousands of yearling females were killed.
Mr. Lempxey. I know that that was included in Mr. Ellott’s
charge, but I am speaking now of the evidence which had been
produced to support the charge.
Mr. McGurre. I understood you, Mr. Lembkey, to state that the
charge was that large numbers of females had been killed, without
designating the ages. Would it not be proper to let Mr. Elliott speak
628 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
now whether his charge was intended to cover the killing of anything
except yearling females?
Mr. Exxiorr. I understand it to cover yearling females.
The CHAIRMAN. I have a decided impression about that.
Mr. McGuire. It isstraight now. I did not understand him to say
here that they were yearlings, but I just wanted to satisfy myself as
to whether they were yearlings.
Mr. Lempxey. The only evidence, as I state, to support this charge
was the relation in previous testimony of a visit of a senatorial com-
mittee to the islands 11 years ago on which occasion a small killing
of seals was made out of season as a demonstration for the committee’s
information. During this killing a female seal was struck acci-
dentally by the clubbers and killed. It was shown by the evidence
that this killing was made after the regular killing season had closed,
and at a time when the families on the breeding rookeries had broken
up and the sexes mingled together on the bachelors’ hauling grounds,
and when it was impossible to gather up a band of young seals for
killing without having among them a number of females having the
same size and general appearance as the males.
The fact is also put in evidence that the native clubbers had
stringent orders to avoid, by every possible means in their power, the
killing of these females; that the killing of this one was an accident
and one which occurred probably several times during every season. ~
Outside of this one instance which, though regrettable, was acci-
dental, no evidence of any character was brought to substantiate the
charge that many thousands of these female seals were killed annu-
ally, either purposely or accidentally, and that the skins of these
females formed a large percentage of the catch. It might have been
thought that although this charge was true Mr. Elhott had not been
able to visit the islands since 1890 and. had not, for that reason, an
opportunity to examine the catches or to view the killings of the
lessee, and was not, therefore, able to produce evidence of this killing
of females which he might have obtained had he been present on the
islands.
I desire to recall the fact that Mr. Elliott visited these islands last
summer without previous notice to those there, inspected and exam-
ined the sealskins at will, and questioned privately the native work-
men in regard to this and other charges. Had the practice of killing
females been general as alleged, it would have been known by all of
these native men and the fact could not have been suppressed, for it is
not to the interests of these native people to have females destroyed
as they well know that by destroying the females the future increase
of the herd itself is destroyed from which they obtain their living and
in which they feel a proprietary interest. However, in extended
examinations of these people last summer through interpreters by Mr.
Elliott, without exception they all testified that never at any time
had it been the practice to kill female seals; that they had received
explicit instructions from the agents not to kill them; that when a
female occasionally appeared in the drives she was allowed to escape;
that if one was clubbed by accident the fact was reported to the
Government agents who gave orders for renewed caution, and that
these agents carefully inspected the killings by themselves examining
the carcases to ascertain whether cows had been killed but not
reported to them. This testimony appears in the Elhott-Gallagher
report to the committee, pages 116, 117, and 120 of hearing No. 1.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 629
In addition to taking the testimony of the natives Mr. Elliott had
an opportunity to inspect a couple of thousand of sealskins which were
taken before his arrival and without knowledge of his coming. He
did, as a matter of fact, examine hundreds of them. After a female
skin has been taken from the animal it can still be detected by the
present of mamme on the pelt. If Mr. Elhott found any female skins
in the catch as a result of his examination of the skins in the salt
house when he was there last summer his report is entirely silent as to
that important fact. It is reasonable to conclude that if he had found
any of these female skins he would not have suppressed the fact and
that since he did not report that he had found any he must have found
none.
Thus the charge of killing female seals which was given such wide
publicity by Mr. Elliott is found after a searching examination to have
had no basis in fact.
The second charge was that yearling seals or seals of less than 1
year of age had been killed. This charge was based wholly upon a
series of inductions leading up to the hypothetical conclusion that
what was charged was true. In support of it Mr. Elliott assumed
from certain measurements made by him many years ago that the
length of a yearling seal’s body was about 39 inches; that the skin
when removed from the body, on which several inches of hide is
always allowed to remain at the head after skinning would be about
35 inches long and that this skin did not shrink or otherwise change
shape after having been taken from the body. Upon these hypotheses
he assumed that any salted skin 35 inches in length or less was that of a
yearling.
According to a classification of sealskins published in about 1890
by Lampson & Co., salted skins of about 33 inches in length are
called small pups and salted skins 30 inches in leneth extra small pups,
Mr. Elliott quoted from the sales catalogues publishing the catches of
sealskins for 15 years back to show that many of these skins called by
the trade ‘‘small pups”’ and “‘extra small pups’’ were in the catches
of these years. He therefore claimed before the committee that all
small pups and extra small pups were yearling skins, because all of
such skins were less than 35 inches in length, the average length he
claimed a yearling skin should have.
The trouble with this argument was that th e facts disclosed by
an investigation of it did not support it. The whole argument hinged
upon the question whether er not a seal skin after being salted
was the same size as when the skin was still on the bedy. If the
salted skin retained the same length as before it was removed from
the animal then Mr. Elliott was justified 1 in reaching the conclusion
that a 39-inch animal only would produce a salted skin 35 inches in
leagth or less. On the other hand if the salted skin was much smaller
than when on the animal. or if the size of the skin was changed irreg-
ularly by salting or skinving then Mr. Eliott’s argument failed,
because then he could not determine by the size of the salted skin
what was the size of the animal from wiich if was removed. -It was
found from the evidence that in support of his contention Mr. Elliott
had never made any experiments as to what change in the length
of a skin occurred after removal or through salting and he was unable
to produce the record of experiments on this point made by others,
$9 that Mr. Elliott really had no material evidence to produce on this
point. He had to depend entirely upon the bare unsupported assump-
630 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
tion that the size of these skins did not change in salting after removal
from the animal.
I have already referred to careful tests of this matter made by
the Bureau cf Fisheries last summer, which I have furnished to the
committee and which show that actually a remarkable change in the
size of the skin occurred after it was removed from the body; that
this change though irregular, almost invariably was a lessening of
the dimensions of the skin when on the body and that in fact the
skin of a seal confessedly a 2-year-old became so small after salting
as to bring it within the size claimed by Mr. Elliott to be that of a
vearling seal only. It thus appears that Mr. Elliott’s charge that year-
lings had been killed was not substantiated by the result of careful
actual tests.
There were additional facts developed in Mr. Elliott’s investiga-
tions on the islands last summer, which also demonstrated the fallacy
of his argument. The testimony of the natives in answer to ques-
tions by Mr. Elliott is that the skins, after removal shrunk inches
from their natural size.
Mr. McGuire. Is that in his report ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is to be found in the report of Elliott and
Gallagher, Hearing No. 1, page 117.
Mr. McGuire. That reference will be sufficient.
Mr. Lempxrey. There is important corroborative evidence on this
point appearing in the previous hearings, which controverts Mr.
Ellictt’s claim that a 33-inch salted skin, called by the Lampson
classification a small pup skin, is that of a yearling. Mr. Elliott has
published repeat ay in his reports and stated in these hearings that
the average wight of the skin of a 2-year-old is 54 pounds. In the
same list of Lampson & Co. cited by Mr. Elhott containing the state-
ment that a salted skin 33 inches long is called by the trade a small
pup skin, which may be found in the original hearing No. 1, page 30,
it is stated that the weight of such a small pup skin is 6 pounds and
2 ounces, or much in excess of the average weight of 54 pounds which
Mr. Elliott lays down as the weight of 2-year-old skins. So that
while Mr. Elhott has relied mainly on Lampson’s statement that a
small pup ee measures 33 inches in length to show that such a
skin is the skin of a yearling, he is met by ‘the fact that in the same
statement Lar SUEDE S wholly controvert this conclusion by stating
that this 33-inch supposedly ye earling skin weighs over a half pound
more than the 54 pound weight which Mr. Elliott claims is that of a
2-vear-old skin.
Mr. Elhott endeavors to escape this predicament by claiming that
Lampson’s list referred to salted skins and that Elliott referred to
green or unsalted skins and claims that skins gain in weight by
salting. Exhaustive experiments by the Bureau of Fisheries, however,
a record of wi ici: I have furnished you, show that skins, instead of
gaining weiglt by salting, actually lose weight thereby and that
salted skins 1 ally weigh less than before salting.
The committee can thus see from the evidence that Mr. Elliott’s
charge that yearlings have been killed and falsely certified is based
plies an hypothesis which the facts not only do not support but
which they actually overthrow.
The third main charge made by Mr. Elliott against those engaged
in taking seal skins is that the killing of young and immature male
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 631
seals has been so close that enough of those animals were not allowed
to escape from killing to provide a sufficient number of male breed-
ers. In respect of this charge Mr. Elhott did not allege any especial
loss to the Government as that, for instance, because of the lack of
male breeders female seals were not impregnated that otherwise
would have been and consequently pups were not brough forth that
would Lave been born if the alleged conditions complained of had not
existed. He merely claims that by reason of alleged close killing of
these males natural selection of males was interfered with and the
str ngest males were not, in all cases, allowed to breed. He claims
that this would result in a deterioration of species by allowing the
weaker males to become sires of pups.
As in the case of other charges before cited, Mr. Elliott produced no:
evidence to support this latter charge, but supported it with argu-
ment merely, based upon hypotheses which were open to serious
question. He could not show that the killing for skins of immature
males, which were too young by several years to breed had as: a.
matter of fact interfered with the birthrate. His argument that the
survival of the fittest was interfered with by killing of maies, if it
had any weight at all, would imply that killing should be forever
stopped; because, if the killing of any males at all was injurious at
the time mentioned by Mr. Elliott it must be at all times, and there-
fore should never be permitted.
To refute this charge the facts adduced, as shown by the evidence
are:
(1) That an ample reservation of young males to survive as
breeders was made each year since 1904, inclusive, before any killing
at all for skins was allowed.
Mr. Bruckner. Might I ask how that was done, Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Lempxey. That was done by selecting annually 1,000 of the
3-year-olds and 1,000 of the 2-year-olds and marking them on the head
in such manner as to allow them to be readily distinguishable there-
after. They were marked in 1904 by the use of hot irons exclusively.
In 1905 they were marked partially by hot irons and partially by the
use of sheep shears. After 1905 they were marked exclusively by the
use of sheep shears.
The CHainMANn. How old were they ?:
Mr. Lempxety. Two and three years.
(2) That the condition has never beei known on the islands of
breeding females being without pups, thereby demonstrating that
breeding males are at present in sufficient numbers.
It can be seen from the foregoing that of the three charges offered
by Mr. Elhott against the methods of killing seals not only has a
single one not been proven, but no evidence even has been produced
showing that there was ground for bringing these charges. In the
light of this lack of evidence I feel that the committee safely can con-
clude that these charges are groundless and should be dismissed.
Mr. McGutrre. Did you hear Mr. Clark’s statement that more than
5,000 pups born in 1912 were branded on the head in 1912?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
Mr. McGuire. You may state if you were there at that time.
Mr. Lempxey. I was.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know who took part in that branding, of the
agents of the Government ?
632 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxey. I was present myself on two occaosions on which
I saw Mr. Marsh and Mr. Clark domg the branding. After their de-
parture from the islands I contimued the work of branding, which
was done not only by myself but by Dr. McGovern, who was resident
physician on the island, and, so far as I can remember now, the entire
native population of St. Paul Island was also present.
Mr. McGuire. You enumerated those branded, did you, so you
could tell about how many there were?
Mr. Lempxey. A careful count was made of them.
Mr. McGuire. A careful count was made of them? And how many
were there branded ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember just how many.
Mr. McGuire. Were there 5,000 or more ?
Mr. Lempxery. There were. Taking Mr. Clark’s statement and
adding thereto what were branded by myself and what were branded
on St. George by Agent Proctor, there were over 5,000, as I recollect.
Mr. McGuirze. Were males and females alike branded ?
Mr. LemMpxey. Yes, si.
Mr. McGuire. And were they all of the pups born of that year ?
Mr. LEMBKEY. No, sir. You mean to say, did we brand all of the
pups of that year?
Mr. McGuire. Ch, no; I mean to say were all that were branded
pups born that year ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir; they were ail pups born that year.
Mr. McGuire. Were you there in 1913?
Mr. LemBxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Give the committee, briefly, your observation in
respect of whether those pups returned with the balance of the herd
and whether they were there on the hauling grounds in 1913. And if
not, did they come with the others. If they came, when did they come?
Mr. Lempxery. In 1913 a careful search was made in the drives of
all seals made for killimg purposes to determine the presence among
those seals of any of those marked in 1912 by being branded on the
head. None of these seals appeared in any of the drives made
by me in 1913 for killing purposes. After Mr. Clark’s arrival on the
island, which occurred sometime in July, 1913—I do not remember
the exact date —Mr. Clark and I, with a large gang of natives, on about
July 25, proceeded to the hauling grounds of Reef rookery for the
purpose of driving up the bachelors found there and making a careful
search for the presence of these branded yearlings. Previous to our
going to the rookery Mr. Elhott was notified of our project and
invited to accompany us. We went, under the circumstances stated,
to those hauling grounds.
Mr. McGurre. Did Mr. Elliott go with you?
Mr. Lempxey. He did not.
Mr. McGuire. Did he refuse to go?
Mr. Lempxey. He did. We went to this hauling ground as stated
and there found more than 1,000 seals, bachelors. Probably there
were nearer 2,000 than 1,000, but at any rate there were much over
1,000 seals. These seals were driven to one side, and from the whole
mass small pods, as they are called, or bands of 30 to 50 were detached
and driven ee and carefully scrutinized to determine whether any of
those branded seals were among the number. We found in this entire
mass, as I can recollect now, but one having a perfectly distinct head
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 633
brand. Mr. Clark has already mentioned that in his testimony. We
found several others having slighter marks on their heads which we
took to be also those that were branded the preceding year.
Mr. McGuire. What time of the year was that?
Mr. Lempxey. That was in the latter part of July; I do not remem-
ber the exact date.
Mr. McGuire. Was that during the killing season ?
Mr. Lempxey. It was at about the end of the regular killing
season.
Mr. McGuire. What is the regular killing season ?
Mr. Lempxey. It closes July 31 in each year. It begins as soon
as the seals arrive.
Mr. McGuire. Along about May, the first of May?
Mr. Lempxey. If the seals are present in May they would begin to
kal] at that time, but the usual practice is, in later years, to begin the
lnling season not until some time after the first of July, as seals did
not arrive in sufficient numbers before that time to justify driving
them.
I understand that after my departure from the islands the hauling
grounds were searched by those left in charge of the islands and that
numbers of these branded yearlings were found among the seals on
the hauling grounds.
Mr. McGutre. Was that after the killing season? ~
Mr. Lempxey. After the killing season was over; yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. From your experience as an expert and after having
been on the islands several times and from the results of your obser-
vations and experimentations what would you say as to the year-
ling seal returning or being found on the hauling grounds during the
killing season ?
Mr. Lempxry. My observation has been that these seals do not
apnea on the hauling grounds in any numbers whatever until toward
the close of the killing season, that is to say, around the period of
July 25 of each year. The greatest number appears after the first
of August and in the month of September thousands of these little
yearlings may be seen among the pups of the year on the breeding
grounds themselves.
Mr. McGurre. Among the pups of that year, the same year ?
Mr. Lempxey. Among the pups of that year.
The CuairMan. Will you just repeat that statement.
Mr. Lempxey. I said that in the month of September many thos-
sands of these little yearlings might be found on the breeding grounds
among the pups of the year. As a matter of fact it was rather diffi-
cult at a glance to distinguish between the pups of the year and those
little yearlings because their sizes were almost similar. Of course
anyone could who understood the matter distinguish them.
The Cuarrman. Between an early pup of that year and a late pup
of the previous year?
Mr. Lempxey. They were almost similar in size; yes, sir.
Mr. Bruckner What is the breeding season ?
Mr. Lempxey. It begins on the 15th of June usually, and extends
to about the close of July. The height of the season is along about
the 13th of July.
Mr. Bruckner. I am speaking about the breeding season, not the
killing season.
634 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Lempxery. That is what I am speaking about. The cows
arrive on the islands about the 15th of June each year—that is, the
first cow arrives then. One might arrive several days before that,
but that is the day that usually marks the arrival of the first female.
Mr. McGuire. How many different seasons have you been on the
islands ?
Mr. Lempxey. Every season since 1899.
Mr. McGuire. All right. And have you taken part in the killing
each season ? .
Mr. Lempxey. i took active part in each killing since and including
1900. I was present at each killing in 1899 but did not participate
actively.
Mr. McGuire. Have there been any female yearlings killed in large
numbers at any time since you have been representing the Govern-
ment there during the killing season ?
Mr. Lempxey. No.
Mr. McGuire. Have there been yearling males killed in large
numbers since you have been there representing the Government?
Mr. Lempxey. There have not.
Mr. McGuire. Has there at any time since you have been repre-
senting the Government there been an unusual or unnecessary amount
of blubber taken for the purpose of increasing the weight of the skin
for any purpose ?
Mr. Lempxey. Never to my knowledge.
Mr. McGuire. Could it have been done to any considerable extent
without you or the persons under you having observed it.
Mr. Lempxey. It could not, for the reason that these skins were
each weighed by myself or another Government officer after removal
from the body and any excessive amount of blubber would have been
discovered.
Mr. McGuire. You agree then, do you, with the statements
in the letters of Messrs. Lampson & Co. and—what were those other
parties ?
Mr. LemBkey. George Rice (Ltd.).
Mr. McGurre. And George Rice (Ltd.), that those sealskins were
taken from the seal in the usual way and with the usual and proper
amount of blubber ?
Mr. Lempxey. I agree with those; yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. Whatever slight variation there might be depended
upon the greater or less skill possessed by the person taking the skin ?
Mr. Lemspxey. That is a fact; yes.
Mr. McGuire. State whether there is or might be a shght difference
by reason of that fact.
Mr. Lempxey. There is considerable difference in the manner
in which the skin is taken off the animal in every killing we have had.
I do know, from intimate knowledge of the ability of each skinner,
that there is not a single man on the island who skins seals like
another man. There might be two or three on St. Paul, but outside
of these who skin practically alike, there is considerable difference
between the skinning work of every skinner. For example, we have on
St. Paul a left-handed man or, rather, a man who skins seals with
his left hand. He has the peculiar habit of holding his knife whereby
the blubber is taken off by the point of the knife clear down to the
skin while more blubber is left toward the hilt of the knife, so that
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 635
instead of the blubber being laid over the skin in a uniform layer
there are stretches where, for example, there would be no blubber
at all left, while on others there might be the thickness of a quarter
of an inch, or thereabouts. In other words, the blubber is left on
there in layers unevenly.
Then again we found that the younger men make a practice of leav-
ing a little more blubber on the skin than the older men do because
of the relative inexperience of skinning of the younger fellows and
the greater liability of cutting the skin which is more or less of a
crime on the islands or an admission of inefliciency. ‘io be sure that
the pelt will not be injured as the result of their skinning, some of
these young fellows or, in fact, all of the young men, when they
begin the practice of skinning leave more blubber on the skin then
the older ones would. The oider men, on the other hand, endeavor
to, and do as a matter of fact, leave a uniform and thin layer of blub-
ber on the skin, which blubber is necessary, I might state, for the
proper curing of the skin.
Mr. McGurre. You may state to the committee, if you will, just
how your skimners are arranged and describe the skinning of an
animal just as it was done under your or others’ instruction.
Mr. Lempxey. The sealing gang, as we call the native workmen on
the islands, is divided into various classes—clubbers, stickers, a gang
we call rippers and flipperers, and another gang we call the skinners.
Mr. McGurre. Teil us just what each does.
Mr. Lempxey. The clubbers, of course, separate the seals from
the main drive in pods of about 50, bring them up to the place where it
is desired to kill them——
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Are those clubbers experts as to
wh it seals should be killed ?
Mr. Lempxey. They are.
Mr. MoGurre. And selected because they are experts ?
Mr. Lempxery. They are selected, from men who have had expe-
rience. That is a job which involves more or less hard work. Most
of them prefer to do the skinning. As a general rule the clubbing
falls upon the strongest men.
Mr. MoGutre. To do the clubbing ?
Mr. Lempxey. All the men have had considerable practice at
clubbing.
These clubbers knock down such seals 2s are desired to be killed
and dismiss those that are ineligible for killing, and after their dis-
missal lay out the carcasses knocked down in some regular form so °
that the men behind them who must take off the skin can handle
them in an expeditious manner.
Mr. Bruckner. Do the seals fight back, Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Lempxey. They are quite active in that regard; yes. During
the clubbing it is necessary for a man to be more or less agile in get-
ting eround.
As soon as these seals are hauled back or laid out, as we call it, by
the clubbing gang, they are taken charge of by the stickers.
Mr. McGuire. What do they do?
Mr. Lempxey. They are the youngest men in the gang, men 16
and 17 years of age, performing their apprenticeship, in the art of
sealing. They bleed the seal to death, thereby insuring that he is
636 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, -
dead before the carcass is taken in hand by either the rippers or the
skinners. Neither of these latter gangs touches a seal until it is_
unmistakably dead. ‘The rippers and flipperers, as they are called,
make certain incisions on the body for the purpose of expediting the
work of taking the skin off the carcass, which is done by the skinners
themselves. ‘Chey come last of all.
Mr. McGuire. Who come last of all?
Mr. Lempxey. The skinners come last of all, after the rippers have
made those incisions around the head and tail, along the belly and
around the two fore flippers so that nothing is left for the skinnezs to
do except merely to
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Rip the skin off.
Mr. Lempxey (continuing). To take the skin off, and they advance
down the field from carcass to carcass, skinning them and spreading
out the skin to cool.
Mr. McGutre. Was there any killable seal left up there last year
that should have been killed as a matter of economy and good judg-
ment by the Government of the United States ?
Mr. Lempxey. There were, in my judgment, many seals that
should have been killed.
Mr. McGuire. How many ?
Mr. Lempxey. I should say that 10,000 could have been killed
without any detriment to the herd.
Mr. McGurre. If they could have been killed without a detriment
to the herd would it not have been an advantage to the herd to have
killed them—that is, in the future ?
Mr. Lempxey. I[ should sav yes.
Mr. Bruckner. Why, Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Lempxey. Because the allowing of those animals to escape at
the present time in such large numbers will insure their coming up on
the breeding grounds four or five years hence in similarly large num-
bers and in a number much greater than can be provided with female
consorts.
Mr. Bruckner. I understand.
Mr. Lempxey. There will, therefore, be many of those bulls idle.
These idle bulls will form a fringe around the entire outskirts of the
rookery, eager and anxious to break into the breeding area and take
the cows.
Mr. BrucknEeR. Yes. Have you any idea of the proportion of
males and females? Is there any way that can be calculated ?
Mr. Lempxey. It has been demonstrated that they are born in
equal numbers.
Mr. Bruckner. In equal numbers ?
Mr. LemsBxey. Yes. As a matter of fact—I might as well put
this on the record—in 1899 the effect of the suppression of killing of
large numbers of males of previous years was very apparent. During
the time of the Paris tribunal of arbitration, that is to say, from 1891
to 1893, both inclusive, the killing on the islands was stopped except
to the extent of 7,500 a year. That allowed many thousands of
males to escape and to grow up to adult size; and when I went there
first in 1899 these thousands of adult but idle bulls were still present.
There were thousands of them that had been born, that grew up to
the adult estate and died that, in my opinion, never had a female
consort.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 637
Mr. Bruckner. Do you maintain, Mr. Lembkey, that if the bulls
were killed off every year—or bachelors, or whatever you choose to
calls them—the herds would prosper, would be better? The law
never allowed the killing of females, did it?
Mr. LemBxey. Never.
Mr. Bruckner. Then what has become of the vast number of
females? Where are they?
Mr. Lempxey. The females have been killed at sea.
Mr. Bruckner. At sea?
Mr. Lempxey. At sea; yes, sir.
Mr. Bruckner. Was that lawful?
Mr. Lempxey. It was not contrary to international law.
Mr. McGuire. Is there any further statement, Mr. Lembkey, or
are you through ?
Mr. Lempxey. I am through; yes.
The CHarrMAN. I just want to ask a few questions now, and then
I think we ought to adjourn, as it is nearly 4 o’clock.
Mr. Lembkey, at page 383 of hearing No. 1, second column, you are
quoted as having made the following statement to the Ways and
Means Committee January 25, 1907, page 66, notes MS., typed.
Mr. LemBxey. It is page 62. ©
The CHarrMAN. Page 66. This is the statement. I will read it to
you and then see what explanation, if any, you have to make:
Mr. Lempxey. In 1890 conservative estimates placed the number of the Pribilof
Islands between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000. To-day there are probably not over 180,000
in the entire herd.
Did you make that statement to the committee?
Mr. Lempxey. I appeared before the committee, as near as I can
recollect, on that date, and I am willing to admit that those were my
statements.
The CuarrMan. | should say that my attention has been called to
the fact 1890” ought to have been “1870.”
Mr. Wri1iaMs (of Mississippi). At the end of 18 or 19 years, if no killing at all, you
think they would go back to between 4,000,000 and 5,000,000?
Mr. Lempxey. I have no doubt they would. (Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and
Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; p. 66, notes; MS. typed.)
Mr. Lempxey. * * * so, that shows that in 15 years this (Robbens Reef) herd
had rehabilitated itseli, and I suppose that if the Pribilof herd were left alone, immune
from land killing as well as sea killing, it would do the same thing. (Same hearings
before the Ways and Means Committee.)
That was your sworn statement to the committee, was it not?
Mr. Lempxey. That was my statement to the committee. I do
not know whether I was sworn or not, but I was willing to swear to
it, of course. That was my off-hand belief at that time, yes.
The CHarrMAN. Then if the herd has been reduced from 4,000,000
to 180,000 there must have been damage done to the Government of
many millions of dollars. Is that not a fact?
Mr. Lempxey. Undoubtedly the Government lost the difference.
The CHarrman. Will you make a general statement of what you
think that would amount to?
_Mr. Lempxey. The difference between 4,000,000 and 180,000 would
be 3,820,000.
Mr. McGuire. Of skins?
Mr. Lempxey. Of skins. We might assume that they were worth
$25 apiece. They were worth $95,000,000 in round numbers, accord-
638 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
AG to that. $95,500,000 at $25 apiece would be the value of the
skins.
The CuarrMAN. That is all I care to ask.
Mr. McGuire. Who got those ?
Mr. Lempxey. The decrease was caused, in my opinion, by the
killing of mother seals at sea by the pelagic hunters.
Mr. McGuire. Then it is your judgment that the decrease 1 mm the
number of seals probably was due to pelagic sealing ?
Mr. Lempxey. It was, of course.
Mr. McGuire. And not due to the officers of the Government4
Mr. Lempxery. Not in the least.
Mr. McGuire. In no way?
Mr. Lempxey. In no way whatever.
Mr. McGuire. When you said if they were left alone and no killing
was permitted on land or at sea, you said they would multiply ?
Mr. Lempxrey. I did.
Mr. McGuire. You still say that, do you not?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly.
Mr. McGuire. But you do not undertake to say that would be the
best means of handling them, rather than killing those that were
proper to be killed ?
Mr. Lempxey. No.
Mr. McGuire. Is it the economic way ?
Mr. Lempxery. The economic way, in my opinion, is to kill off a
certain number of surplus males, but, of course, leaving a sufficient
number to survive as sort
Mr. McGuire. It would be just the same as turning loose a herd of
cattle; they would probably increase, but that would not be an
economic way of handling them ?
Mr. Lemexery. I must state, without any attempt to substantiate
any theory or anything like that, that my experience in 1899, which
showed the presence of these thousands and thousands of idle bulls,
vicious and eager, endeavoring at all times to get cows that they
never could obtain, leads me to believe that the releasing of all males
now would be a serious disadvantage to the increase of the herd, as
well as a positive loss econom ic ally of the value of their skins.
The CuarrMan. But your idea was that if all the killing on sea and
on land was stopped in about 18 or 19 years there would be about
4,700,000 seals on the island ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is a general statement. I am willing to
adhere to what I said. I do not wish in any way to mitigate it, but I
will say that that statement was made in connection with the relating
of the increase of the seals on Robben Reef, when they were left
absolutely undisturbed for a period of 15 or 16 years, and increased
during that time to probably their original numbers, which were
never large.
The CHarrMan. How many seals do you think there would be
there if there were no killing on land or sea in five years from now ?
Mr. Lempxey. Our estimates lead us to believe that they would
increase at the rate of about 15 per cent a year—from 12 to 15 per
cent. I wish to state that at the time I made this statement I had
never made any endeavor to compute exactly the number of seals that
might be present in future. It was arough guess. Since then I have
endeavored as closely as possible to forecast the increase in seal life
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 639
that might occur as the result of the stoppage of pelagic sealing as
well as the stoppage of land sealing and can speak now with more
knowledge and more exactness.
The Cuarrman. I simply wanted you to verify this statement
which I have read.
Mr. Patron. What number of seals do you think were there last
year ?
Mr. Lempxey. On the Pribilof Islands ?
Mr. Patron. Of all kinds.
Mr. Lempxey. I would not hke to make any estimate because I
did not attempt to enumerate them. My service was exclusively
taken up with the direction of the material affairs of the islands and
the work of enumeration was done by Mr. Clark on the part of the
Department of Commerce and by Mr. Elhott and Mr. Gallagher on
the part of the committee. JI am willing to accept Mr. Clark’s
enumeration, however, as correct.
Mr. Bruckner. How do the seals mate? Do they mate the same
way every year? In Drees I mean. In other words is there but
one female ?
Mr. Lempxey. Do the same bull and the same female come back
to the same spot each year?
Mr. Bruckner. Yes.
Mr. Lemsxey. We believe that they do, but we have not been able
to observe enough of those marked in such a manner as to have them
recognized from. year to year as to state that as a doctrine conclu-
sively, but we have found many bulls, for example, having some
peculiar mark or characteristic by which they could be recognized,
that returned to the same spot from year to year.
Mr. Bruckner. Do they associate with more than one female?
Mr. Lempiry. Yes, they have large families. They are highly
polygamous.
Mr. Patron. There were about 65 to the male last year.
The CH4rrMANn. By unanimous consent you will take a recess now
to meet to-morrow at 2 o’clock, p. m.
(At 3.45 o’clock p. m. the committee took a recess to 2 2 p.m Thurs-
day, Feb. 26, 1914.)
HovusrE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Wednesday, March 4, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. WALTER I. LEMBKEY—Continued.
The CHarrmMan. Mr. Lembkey, it seems to me that at the close of
your testimony at the last hearing you stated that a herd of 4,500,000
would be worth about $90,000,000 to the Government, at $25 a skin.
Mr. Lempxey. I made some such computation, yes.
The Cuarrman. How much do you think it would be worth to the
Government annually, in the way of earning capacity, if it were
properly handled ?
640 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Lempxey. A herd of 4,000,000 ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. Well, I should say that a herd of that size would
allow the killing each year of 75,000 or 100,000 seals without any ~
detriment to its future.
The CHArRMAN. That is, if it was properly handled ?
Mr. LempBxey. Yes, sir.
-The CHarrmMan. Like a farmer would take care of his cattle and
cull them out ?
Mr. LemBxey. Practically so; yes, sir.
Tne CHarrMAN. How much would you consider a skin would be
woith cf the 75,000 or 100,000 ?
Mr. Lempxey. Well, of course, I could only make a conjecture on
that point, but I should say thay would be worth, perhaps, $25 apiece.
However, with a large number of skins such as that thrown on the
market each year it is possible that the selling price of those skins
might be lowered somewhat and that they would not bring quite as
much money as skins bring to-day when the supply is small. But I
should say that $25 would be a fair estimate of what they might
bring with an annual yield of 100,000.
Tne CHarrMAN. I heard you say something about making drives
at nigut. Do you kill them at night or in the daytime ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember having touched upon that topic.
But the killmg is done in the daytime. The drives, however, are
started usually at daybreak. The natives go to the hauling grounds
before daybreak and aim to start the drive as soon as it is light enough
to do so. In the summer time, of course, on those islands there is
very little night at all during the killing season.
The CHatrMAN. Mr. Lembkey, you may take up hearing No. 9,
and at page 434, about the middle of the page, you gave a summary
to the committee as follows:
A summary of the classification of the 12,920 salted fur-seal skins of the catch of
1910, sold by Lampson & Co., is as follows: Smalls, 132; large pups, 995; middling
pups, 4,011; small pups, 6,205; extra small pups, 1,528; extra small pups, 11; faulty,
That is correct, is 1t not ?
Mr. Lempxey. That was a correct summary of the catalogue by
Lampson & Co., of Alaska salted sealskins for that year, 1910.
The CHarrMan. Can you tell how much money per skin the 1,528
extra small pups brought ?
Mr. Lempxey. I could not tell that without referring to the sale
sheet for that year. I do not know at present.
Tne CHarrMAN. Is your answer the same as to the 6,205 ?
Mr. Lempxey. I have not any remembrance of the selling price of
the skins in that year. This is 1910, and if I remember they averaged
ab yut $32. That is merely an effort to remember the price they
rought.
The CHarrMaNn. The smalls are 132, and how much did they
average ?
Mr. Lemsxey. I really do not remember what they brought. If
I had a catalogue I could tell.
‘he CaarrMan. Smalls are large 2-year-olds, are they not?
Mr. Lempxey. No; smalls, I should say, are probably 4-year-olds.
The Cuarrman. And the large pups, in what class are they ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 641
Mr. Lempxey. I suppose they would be large 3-year-olds. That
is merely a guess on my part, because I do not know anything
about the classification of those skins.
The CHarrMAN. What accounts for the difference in the sale price
of these skins ?
Mr. Lempxey. So far as I] know—and I know nothing of it—the
price is predicated upon the size of the skin itself. Of course, there
are other factors that lessen the price, as, for example, cuts and other
imperfections in the skin, and the fact that the skin may be some-
what stagy, the fur be poor.
Mr. Bruckner. The same as any other hide?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir; they run from high to low grade.
The CHarrMan. All other things being equal, the price is deter-
mined entirely by the size ?
Mr. Lempxey. As I understand it, yes. ~
The CHarrMan. Was Mr. Clark correct when he stated that extra
small pups were yearlings ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not in my opinion; no, sir. In my opinion, extra
small pups are small Otteae alae
The CHarrMANn. What are small pups?
Mr. Lempxey. Small pups are rather large 2-year-olds. They
weigh 6 pounds. A small oa skin in London, according to the
Lampson classification, weighs over 6 pounds. So that would bring
them well inside of the 2-year-old minimum limit of weight, in fact
bring them well inside of the average limit of weight of a 2-year-old
skin, which is 54 pounds.
The Cuarrman. Do you remember what Fraser said about the
length of these skins ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember exactly. His statement, how-
ever, is in Hearing No. 1, if [am not mistaken. He made astatement
to the committee in Hearing No. 1, page 30, the fourth or fifth para-
graph from the bottom of the page, and in that statement he says
that the weight of a small pup skin is 6 pounds 2 ounces; length,
332 inches; breadth, 234 ciel Extra small pups—I am not quot-
ing the language exactly—weight, 4 pounds 15 ounces; length, 30
inches; breadth, 212 inches.
‘The Cuarrman. Do you remember that Commissioner Bowers
stated that the skin of a yearling seal weighed 44 pounds?
Mr. Lempxey. I was not here when Mr. Bowers made his state-
ment.
‘Lhe Cuarrman. If he did, do you think that is a correct statement ?
Mr. Lempxey. What was it? Four and one-half?
‘The CHarrMANn. Yes.
-Mr. Lempxey. Yes; I should say that the average weight of a
earling skin was in the neighborhood of 44 pounds. However, I
ave weighed very few of them.
The Cuarrman. And its length would be as Fraser stated there;
is that you judgment?
Mr. Lempxey. No; I would not state that the length of a salted
skin would be as Mr. Fraser states here. The length of the seal itself
would be in the neighborhood of 39 inches from the tip of the nose
to the end of the tail; the length of the salted skin, however, would
be pretty small.
53490—_14—_41
642 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The CHarrMAn. You remember that Dr. Evermann had the skins
of three yearling seals before this committee ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
The CHarrman. And they were numbered 7, 8, and 92
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.
The CHarrMan. It seems to me you said before the committee that
you picked these skins out.
_ Mr. Lempxey. I did.
’ The CuarrMan. As yearling seals ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. And in the hearing they appear as follows:
No. 7. The sealskin measures 353 inches long. The seal itself was 41 inches long.
The skin weighed. 4 pounds 93 ounces. That was called a yearling.
Is that a correct statement ?
Mr. LemBxey. I should say it was; yes, sir. I do not remember
the figures. May I ask the place from which you are taking that
quotation ?
The CHarrRMAN. Yes; it is at page 553, I think, Hearing No. 10.
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; I see that.
The Coarrman. N ow, No. 8 is as follows:
The seal itself measured 393 inches. The skin measures 33 inches and weighs 4
pounds 33 ounces. That seal was found dead and was regarded by agents and natives
as a runt yearling.
That is a correct statement, is it not?
Mr. Lempxey. So far as the age of the seal is concerned, I think
itis. I picked it out.
The CHarrMAn. Now, No. 9:
The skin is 34 inches long. The seal measured 394 inches. The skin weighs 3
pounds 15 ounces. That also was regarded as a ieee
These are skins that you had pivks ked out and Dr. Evermann
brought them before the committee ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. They were salted when they were before the
committee ?
Mr. Lempxey. They were. I was not here when they were pro-
duced, but I saw them salted in the Fish Commission and also saw
them salted on the islands.
The CuarrMan. You told the committee that you assisted in
branding probably 4,000 small pups or more.
Mr. LemsBxey. I assisted in branding those pups that were branded
in 1912. The total of all branded was over 5,000.
The CHarrmMan. Who ordered you to brand these pups ?
Mr. Lempxey. So far as I can remember the instruction to brand
these pups was contained in the instructions of Mr. Clark, from the
Bureau of Fisheries. I have no distinct recollection now as to
whether—yes, I am certain that the instructions to brand these pups
were contained in those given to Mr. Clark by the Bureau of Fisheries.
The CHarRMAN. Who gave him orders to go on the islands ?
Mr. Lempxey. As I understand, his instructions were signed by
the Commissioner of Fisheries and probably were viséed or indorsed
by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, although I do not remember
having seen them.
The Cuarrman. Have you seen the instructions to him ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 643
Mr. Lempxey. I have not seen his original instructions, so far as I
can remember.
The CHarrMan. If I am not mistaken, you stated in the former
hearings that branding was prohibited by an order issued in 1903.
Mr. Lempxey. I do not believe I made a statement of that charac-
ter. If I did, I must have been mistaken, because as near as I can
remember now there were a few seals branded in the fall of 1903.
Branding was stopped in the year 1904—that is to say, no branding
was done in the latter year—but it was not stopped as the result of
any explicit direction to the officer in charge of the islands. The
usual instructions to brand these seals or seal pups were omitted from
the instructions of that year.
Mr. Bruckner. Why did they brand them?
Mr. Lempxey. They branded the female seals in order
Mr. Bruckner (interposing). To distinguish the sexes ?
Mr. Lemspxey. To destroy as much as possible the value of the
pelt in case that pelt got into the hands of the pelagic sealers. That
was the idea.
The CuarrMan. My recollection is that you had your statement in
writing and submitted it to the committee, and on page 425, near the
middle of the page, I find this:
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
1903, when stopped by order of the department.
Mr. Lempxey. Well, so near as I can remember the last branding
occurred in 1903, but whether there was a direct order to stop brand-
ing or whether branding was stopped merely by the omission of an
order to brand in the general instructions to the agent I can not now
remember.
The CHarrMAN. Why was it stopped, whether it was by order or
otherwise ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not know just exactly why it was stopped.
I do not believe it met with the approval of the officers who were then
in charge of the Department of Commerce and Labor, and was
omitted for that reason.
The Cuarrman. Then you do not know whether there is an order
about it? I thought you knew.
Mr. Lempxey. So far as I can remember there was no direct order
to stop the branding.
The Cuarrman. Was it your judgment that it was a bad thing to
do, that is, to brand these pups ?
Mr. Lempxey. Well, no; it was not my judgment that it was a
bad thing particularly, but it was my judgment that no particularly
good result accrued from the branding, so near as I could gather
information on the subject.
The Cuarrman. In other words, no good would come from it ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is the idea, exactly.
The CuarrmMan. Now then, in 1912 you and Mr. Clark, and some
others, branded small pups ?
Mr. Lempxery. We did.
The CuarrmMan. You branded them on the head ?
Mr. Lempxkey. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. Those were the seals that had just been born that
season 4
644 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxey. The pups of the year; yes, sir.
The CuarrMaAn. How did you brand them ?
Mr. Lempxey. They were branded by the application of a hot iro
on the head of the seal.
The CHarrMAn. What kind of an iron?
Mr. Lemsxey. It was an iron handle about 15 inches long and a
piece of iron at right angles to the handle, perhaps 24 inches long
and a half inch wide. That piece of iron was heated in a gasoline
forge and as soon as it become red hot it was applied to the head of
the seals, as they were being held down by the natives.
The CuarrMan. Does the young seal or the voung seal pup struggle
when you do this ?
: Mr. Lempxey. Considerably. All seals strugcle when they are held
own.
The CHarrMAN. Yes; thatis only natural. Mr. Lembkey, the skull
of a young seal is very thin, is it not?
Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. As thin as paper, is it not ?
Mr. Lempxey. As thin as thick paper; yes.
The CuarrMan. Did you ever see the skull of a young seal pup?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir; many times.
The CuarrMan. It is almost transparent, is it not?
Mr. Lempxey. It is when it is thoroughly cleaned up.
The Coarrman. And held up to the light ?
Mr. Lempxkey. Yes; it is semitransparent.
The CHarrMan. I asked Mr. Clark about the difference in weight
between a seal a year old and a 2-year-old seal. What is your judg-
ment about that ?
Mr. Lempxry. I have not weighed many of those animals. For
information on that point I should like to refer to the weights taken
of those animals and presented by Dr. Evermann in his statement in
hearing No. 10. I find that the weight of the entire animal of yearling
age ranges from 33 to 383 pounds; the weight of the 2-year-ol
2 imal ranges from 47} to 574 pounds.
The CuarrMan. Then there must be considerable difference in size ?
Mr. Lempxey. There is difference in size; yes. There is difference
in size of animals of the same age, as demonstrated by those weights.
The CuarrMan. I mean between yearlings and 2-year-olds.
Mr. LemsBxkey. Oh, yes; there is.
The CuarrMan. It can readily be seen, can it not ?
Mr. LemsBxey. As a general rule, yes; it can be readily seen. Of
course, there are some very small 2-year-olds, and if they were placed
alongside of very large yearlings it might be a little difficult for some-
body to pick them out, but as a general thing there is little or no diffi-
culty in picking them out.
The CHarrMan. Did you look over the London catalogues to see
how many small pups and extra small pups were taken since 1890 ?
Mr. Lempxey. I have never looked over them for the purpose of
casting up the exact number in all those catalogues; no.
The CHarRMAN. From what you know, do you think that the
number at 128,000 is correct ?
Mr. Lempxey. Of small pups and extra small pups ?
The CrarrMANn. Yes.
Mr. LeMBKEY. Since 1890 ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 645
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. That would give, on an average, perhaps 5,000 a
year. Yes; J should say that was probably correct, in general terms.
The CHarrMAN. Now, Mr. Clark stated that in 1909, when he was
on the islands and made his report subsequent thereto, that you and
the other Government agent or agents were overruled by the repre-
sentatives of the company.
Mr. LemBxey. Overruled ?
Mr. McGurre. Do you mean that was Mr. Clark’s testimony ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; something to that effect.
Mr. McGurre. I did not so understand it.
Mr. Lempxey. I do not think he made such a statement.
The CHarrRMAN. I may be mistaken, but I think he said there were
five there and only two of you. I asked him how it happened that
he stated they were in supreme control and he made that statement
in that way.
Mr. Lempxey. He explained it by stating that they were in the
majority of five to two.
The Cuarrman. I asked him why he made the statement in his
report that the company’s agents were in supreme control.
Mr. ETS eseal remember him making that statement, but
he did not make any statement to the effect that I or any other Gov-
ernment officer was overruled by any company officer in respect to
any matter of authority up there. He could not have made such a
statement.
The CHarrMan. But do you not think he meant to create that
impression among the members of the committee ?
Mr. Lempxey. I have not any idea what his meaning was but I
am certain that no such condition of affairs could have prevailed at
that time or at any other time during my presence there.
The CHarrMAN. He told the committee that it was a case of five
to two; that you men did your duty but that you were overruled by
the superior numbers.
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember his making the statement that
We were overruled.
The CuarrmMan. If I am mistaken about that it will be corrected,
but I am asking you what your recollection is of that?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember his b. aving made the statement
that the Government officers were overruled up there.
The CuarrMAn. You were there when he made this examination ?
Mr. Lempxey. I was; I was in charge.
The CHarrmMAn. Did you know he was going to make such a report ?
Mr. Lempxey. No, indeed.
The CHarrMAn. Did you know that he was going to report that no
seal was too small to be killed ?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir; I had no idea what his report would be.
The CuarrmMan. And that he would state it was whirlwind sealing ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did not know what he intended to place in his
report.
The’ CaairMAN. Were you asked afterward to correct this report?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir.
The Cuarrman. Did not Mr. Bowers write you a line and state that
no doubt you kad examined the Clark report now and were familiar
with it?
646 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxey. He did.
The CHAIRMAN. You made a report and submitted it?
Mr. Lempxey. He asked me to give my views on such points in Mr.
Clark’s report as did not. coincide with my views. However, I did
not correct his report. -
The CHarrMAN. Well, then, you think his report was all right, do ~
ou ?
y Mr. Lempxey. I made certain comments upon his report which
appear in Appendix A to these hearings.
Tre CHarrMan. Do you mean to say now that his report was all
right ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did not make such a statement at all.
The CHarRMAN. Do you want to make it now?
Mr. Lempxey. I donot. I wish to state that the comments which
I made on Mr. Clark’s report of that year were according to my opinion,
and J still continue to have the same opinion.
The CuarrMan. Did you have his report in your possession ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did.
The CHarrMan. Where did you get it?
Mr. Lempxey. It was sent to me in the ordinary course of business.
The CHatrMANn. Well, what was the ordinary course of business ?
Mr. Lempxey. It was sent to me by a messenger in the Bureau of
Fisheries who brought it up to my desk and laid it down there.
The CHarrMAn. Did you get it from Mr. Bowers?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir.
The CHarrMANn. Well, did you get it from his bureau ?
Mr. Lempxery. His bureau? Why, yes; he was in charge of the
entire bureau.
The Cuarrman. Did you get it from the Secretary’s office ?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir.
The CHarrMAN. Are you sure about that ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; I did not get it from the Secretary’s office at
all. The report was merely sent up to me, as all reports concerning
seal fisheries would be sent up to me, to read before filing.
The CHarrMAN. Was it marked and interlined when you got it?
Mr. Lempxey. Not to my recollection. I do not believe the origi-
nal is interlined to-day.
The CuHarrMAn. Was it marked, I mean, and your attention called
to certain things ?
Mr. Lempxey. Not in any manner.
The CHarrMaAn. Will you just look at this and see whether it is Mr.
Clark’s report ?
Mr. Lempxey. That seems to be it, from looking at the first page.
The CHarrMan. At page 46 of his typewritten field notes this clause
appears:
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 Sand 9 pounds. These latter are plainly the animals
which escaped the killing of last year because their heads were shaved. Otherwise it
does not seem clear how they did escape.
This is all inclosed in lead pencil and there is a question mark at
the side. Then here is a slip which contains these words:
Department of Commerce and Labor, office of the Secretary. This is the particular
statement. R.M. P. J.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 647
I will ask you whether you saw this [indicating] ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is the handwriting and the initials of Mr.
Pindell, so near as I ean tell.
The CHarrmMan. Who was he?
Mr. Lempxey. He was the chief clerk of the department.
The CuarrMan. Did you have this before you when you examined
this report ?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember that at all; I have not the
faintest recollection of it.
The CHarRMAN. You saw the question mark there, did you not?
Mr. Lempxey. I see it now; yes.
The CuarrMAN. Do you still say you got it from the bureau or got
it from the department ?
Mr. Lempxey. I got it from the bureau; yes, sir. I have no recol-
lection whatever that those marks were upon it, and to my recollec-
tion I never saw that note.
The CuarrMAN. This was sent up to the committee just as it is
there. You have no idea that it is not correct, have you ?
Mr. Lempxey. I have not any idea that it is not correct; no, sir.
The CHartrMAN. Did Bowers call your attention to this?
Mr. Lemsxery. I am certain he did not; I do not remember it at
ali.
The CHarrMAN. Your answer was that that was not a correct state-
ment, because the weights of the skins would show as they were re-
ported here in the bureau.
Mr. Lempxey. I should have to read that particular statement
carefully before I would make a further statement with my answer.
The CuarrMAN. Let the committee know what your answer was
to the bureau in response to this paragraph.
Mr. Lempxey. I do not believe I reported on that particular para-
graph, so far as I can remember.
The CHarrMan. Let me refresh your recollection. I can not just
lay my hands on it——
Mr. Lempxey (interposing). I am trying to get Mr. Clark’s report
so I can read it.
The CHarrMAN. But my recollection is that you stated the weights
of the skins disproved this.
Mr. Lempxery. Disproved ?
The CuarrMan. Yes; Clark’s statement.
Mr. Lempxey. The statement that you referred to, Mr. Chairman,
if I remember correctly, refers to a killing at Halfway Point. Is that
the case?
The CHarrMan. I can not teil you.
Mr. Lempxey. I have forgotten now the text of that which you
read a moment ago.
Mr. McGuire. That is what it says; at Halfway Point.
Mr. Lempxey. It stated that a few seals were killed, a few were
turned away, but that no small seals were dismissed. Was not that
the gist of the statement he made?
The CHarrMan. You know what I read to you.
Mr. Lempxery. I can not remember the text. I should like
The CHarrMAN (interposing). This is the original report.
Mr. Lempxey. May I ask the date of that?
The Cuairman. This was filed September 30.
648 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Lempxey. The date of the field note to which you referred ?
The CHairMAN. July 23; at least 24 is the next.
Mr. LempBxey. Is this the sentence to which you had reference,
“‘As the end of the killing season approaches it is plain that no seal
is really too small to be killed’’?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. I could not agree with Mr. Clark on that point.
“‘Skins of less than 5 pounds weight are taken and also skins of
8 and 9 pounds.” That is literally correct. We occasionally got
skins weighing slightly less than 5 pounds and we also occasionally
got a skin which weighed more than 84 pounds.
The CHarrman. Let me see what you answer in your report is
to this paragraph ?
Mr. Lempxey. I have it here. I am reading now from page 903
of Appendix A to these hearings, from the criticism which I made
of this report of Mr. Clark’s for 1909. In that I stated as follows:
When Mr. Clark states on page 50 that the killing ranged from 4-pound skins to
144-pound skins, he is literally correct, but conveys an entirely wrong impression
by his statement. There was one 4-pound skin taken and one 14-pound skin taken.
These were taken by accident by the natives in food drives.
The CHarrMan. Please adhere to the answer you made to this
paragraph.
Mr. LemsBxey. I do not remember that I answered that paragraph
in particular, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe I made any answer to
that in particular.
‘The CuarrMAN. That is all so far as the chair is concerned.
Dr. Evermann. When the Elhott-Gallagher report appeared and
[ looked it over it seemed to me that I would like to come before
the committee and make a reply to some of the statements made in
that report, but after listening to the testimony given by Mr. Clark
and Mr. Lembkey I find they have covered practically all of the
important points that I had in mind, and in view of that fact I
do not think it necessary for me to say anything.
Thereupon a recess was taken until 2 o’clock p. m.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
HovusrE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Tuesday, March 10, 1914.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Mr. Stephens, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Bruckner, Mr. Walsh, and
Mr. McGuire,
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW F. GALLAGHER.
(The witness was duly sworn by the Chairman).
The CHarrmMan. What is your full name?
Mr. Gattacuer. Andrew F. Gallagher.
The Cuarrman. Where do you live?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Washington, D. C.
The CuarrmMan. What is your occupation ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Court reporter.
The Cuarrman. Do you sometimes report for committees ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The Cuairman. And you are a stenographer ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CoarRMAN. State whether you accompanied Mr. Henry W.
Elliott to the seal islands last summer.
Mr. Gatiacuer. I did.
The Cuarrman. That was pursuant to a resolution passed by the
committee ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. You went along as an expert stenographer ?
Mr. GaLLacHeER. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMAN. You may first tell, in a general way, about your
trip to the islands, and then I will ask some questions in detail.
Mr. Gattacuer. I left here on June 22 and left Seattle on the Ist
of July, arriving at Onimak Pass at about 2 o’clock on the morning
of the 7th of July.
Mr. Bruckner. What year?
Mr.GaLLaGHER. 1913. We were there taken on board the revenue
cutter Tahoma and arrived off St. Paul Island on the afternoon of
July 8. On the morning of July 9, after breakfast, we landed on St.
Paul Island. We spent that day in preliminary matters, getting our
outfits together, and going around the island, without doing any
actual work on that day. On the 10th of July we started out on our
count or estimate of the seals on the rookeries. We spent the 10th,
11th, and 12th on the rookeries nearest to the village on St. Paul
Island and on the afternoon of the 14th we were taken on board the
649
650 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
revenue cutter Tahoma and taken around to Northeast Point, which
is the farthest rookery from the village. On the 15th we made an
estimate of the seals on Northeast Point and Polavina rookeries.
That completed the rookery work on St. Paul Island. We then went
to St. George Island and made an estimate of the seals on the rookeries
on St. George Island and also went over the daily logs that were kept
by the agent on the island and made notes from them. We then
returned to St. Paul Island and we made an examination of the houses
of the natives, and we spent a great deal of time going over the daily
logs kept there by the agents. We had several meetings of the natives
whereby we took their statements as to the method by which the
work had been done on the island.
The CHatrMAN. You took their statements and you attested them,
T think ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. Thatis, attested to the notes ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; we had a transcript made of their
testimony—that is, the testimony given by the natives—which trans-
cript was afterwards read by the assistant priest, who acted as inter-
preter for us, to the natives, and they then signed these statements.
The Cuatrrman. How were these statements elicited from the
natives? Were there leading questions asked or just questions put
to them in a general way ?
Mr. GaLttacHer. Mr. Elliott had prepared in advance certain
questions to be asked of the natives, and
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Are they noted in your report ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. Then they will speak for themselves ?
Mr. GaLLaGHer. Yes. They were interpreted to the natives by
George Kochergin. He is the interpreter to whom I referred.
Mr. Bruckner. He interpreted every question that you asked ?
Mr. GatLtacuer. He seemed to be about the brightest man on the
island among the natives.
Mr. Bruckner. Was he a native?
Mr. GatLtaGHer. Yes; and he had spent some time in San Fran-
cisco, and he acts now as assistant priest on the island.
The CuarrMan. Is he the one who did the interpreting ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SterHEeNsS. He was interpreter and priest ?
Mr. GaLLaGHeER. He is the assistant to the priest; he acts as a
sort of deacon.
Mr. SterpHENsS. Where is he now?
Mr. GALLAGHER. He is still on the island, I believe. He was when
we left there.
The Cuarrman. Who was there on the islands?
Mr. GALLAGHER. You mean the Americans, I suppose ?
The CuarrMan. Yes.
Mr. GattaGHer. Mr. Lembkey, his wife and daughter; Mr.
Tongue; Dr. McGovern; Mr. Whitney, and his wife, -the school
teacher. They were the only white people on the island when we
arrived there.
The CuarrmMan. Mr. Clark was there ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Clark and Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Clark’s
son Donald. and Mrs. Chamberlin, arrived later, after we had been
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 651
on the island. They arrived on the 14th of July and we arrived on
the island on the 9th; we actually landed on the 9th.
The CHainman. Were you there when the 400 seals that are spoken
of in the testimony were killed ?
Mr. Gattacuer. No, sir; but understand they were killed on the
7th: two days before we arrived.
The CHarrMaNn. Did you see the skins ?
Mr. GaLLAGHER. | saw the skins; yes; sir.
The CHairMAN. Where did you see them ?
Mr. Gatiacuer. In the salt house.
The CHarrman. And when?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. On the 29th day of July, when we went down to
measure them and weigh them.
The CHatrman. When did you say they were killed ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. They were killed on the 7th, I am told; the 7th
of July.
The CuarrMan. What shape were they in when you saw them first ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. They were buried in the salt when we went into
the kench house, and they were extracted from the salt by the natives,
and in pursuance to the form of procedure which Mr. Elliott had
prepared, and which he had the same interpreter read to the natives,
they were taken from the salt by the natives and bundled.
Mr. StepHens. What day of the month was it that you took them
out and examined them ?
Mr. GartacHerR. That was the 29th of July, I believe. The report
shows it definitely.
The CHarrMan. You say they were in salt. How were they in salt;
were they in a box?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. No; buried in loose salt.
The Cuarrman. And the natives would pull them out and shake
the salt off ?
Mr. GarLtacHer. Yes; and put them on a table before us. And
Mr. Elliott and Mr. Hatton measured them, and Mr. Hatton would
then put them on the scales and he would weigh them, and I would
verify his weights, and we would call off the weights. I would take
the weights down.
Mr. McGurre. Who is Mr. Hatton ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. He is now——
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Who was he then ?
Mr. GaLLacuer. He was then the agent on the island, the agent
who came to take Mr. Lembkey’s place. He had theretofore been
located on St. George Island.
The CHarrMAn. Now, Mr. Gallagher, just describe more in detail
how you were located there and who was there participating in the
weighing and measuring of the skins.
Mr. GaLtLaGHER. There were five of us who really took part in
that work, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Clark, Mr. Hatton, Mr. Elliott, and
myself.
The CuHarrMan. Just describe how it was done and how you were
located—whether you were at a table, or how.
Mr. GartiacHer. There was a table there, a long, rough board
table. The natives extracted these sealskins from the loose salt
and they would put a long skin on the table and Mr. Elliott and Mr.
Hatton would measure that skin, calling off the number of the skin,
652 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
which was indicated by a leather tag, which tag was attached to the
skin. Mr. Whitney
Mr. STEPHENS (interposing). Were these tags numbered ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. Mr. Whitney had a record of Mr. Lemb-
key’s weights which were taken green, that is, before they were put in
the salt. And Mr. Whitney would then call off Mr. Lembkey’s green
weights, Mr. Clark would take a note of that, and so would Il. Then
the-natives would take a somewhat smaller skin and place it on top
of this skin which had been weighed, and they would put this smaller
skin, flesh to flesh, on top of the bigger skin, and then bundle it. Mr.
Hatton would then put the bundle of skins on the scales and weigh
it, and I verified those weights, and either he or I would call off the
weights, and Mr. Clark would note down those weights, and so would I.
The CuHarrMANn. Did they take the larger skin and smaller skin and
bundle them together ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; and that is when the weights were taken.
Mr. Bruckner. They were weighed in pairs ?
Mr. GaLtaGcueR. They were bundled and then weighed; yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. At that time Mr. Elliott, Mr. Whitney, Mr. Clark,
you, and somebody else, were all together ?
Mr. GattacHer. And Mr. Hatton; yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. And the weights and sizes were called out?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. ;
The CuarrMan. Did you compare notes at the time as to correct-
ness ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, I verified Mr. Hatton’s weights, and if at
any time there was any doubt as to the measurement as called off by
Mr. Hatton, sometimes Mr. Clark would ask me what it was, and
sometimes I would ask bim, and we checked notes in that way and
made them agree.
The CHarrMAn. Did you have any disagreement about anything at
any time with Mr. Clark ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. In the salt house ?
The CHarrMan. Yes.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Only at the very beginning of the proceedings
that day. Mr. Clark took exception to the scales on which we were
to weigh the skins, claiming that they were not fine enough.
The CuarrMan. What was done then ?
Mr. GatiacHer. Mr. Elliott wanted a larger pair of scales, and it
seemed, from Mr. Elliott’s statement, that the matter of fractions of
ounces did not mak» any difference. So we got the larger scales and
weighed them on the larger scales.
Mr. Bruckner. Who owned the scales ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. They were taken from the storehouse on the
island.
Mr. Bruckner. Who owned them? Whose property were they ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. The Government’s property, as far as I know.
The CHarRMAN. State whether you noted any blubber on some of
the skins.
Mr. GALLAGHER. I did; yes, sir.
The CHarrMAN. I wish you would describe that in your own way
without having me ask you any questions in detail.
Mr. GALLAGHER. When I went to the salt house that morning with
Mr. Elliott, I went there with the expectation that we were to take
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 653
these weights in order to determine whether or not the addition of
salt added to the weight of the sealskin, and I had nothing in regard
to the blubbering of the skins in mind at the time, but as we went
along I made a mental note of the fact that there were discrepancies;
that is, because a skin was of a larger length did not seem to indicate
that it would weigh more than a skin of shorter length. My atten-
tion was not called to this condition, but I could not help noticing
that some of the skins were thicker in blubber than others, and to
me it seemed that that was the cause of the difference.
The Cuairman. Which skins were thicker in blubber, the short
ones or the long ones ?
Mr. GattaGuHER. The short ones.
The CuarrMAN. Did you notice that ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. Yes, sir; I noticed that.
The CHarRMAN. How was your attention attracted to this? Did
Mr. Elliott call your attention to it or anybody else ?
Mr. GaLiaGuHER. No, sir; he did not call my attention to it, ner did
anyone else call my attention to it. As I say, I noticed, as we went
along, that the fact that a skin was longer was no assurance that it
was going to weigh more than a shorter skin. Then I[ began to notice
the fact that some of the skins were cleaner than others.
Mr. SteruHens. Which were the cleaner ones—the larger ones or
the smaller ones ?
Mr. Gatiacuer. The larger ones were cleaned off pretty well.
Mr. Bruckner. How thick was the blubber on some of them ?
Mr. GaLLacHER. I would not like to put it in dimensions.
Mr. Bruckner. But there was
Mr. GALLAGHER (interposing). There was blubber as thick as my
finger on some of them.
The CuarrMan. There was something said before the committee
about Mr. Clark insisting on measuring the girth—is that correct or
not?
Mr. GaLLaGcuHeER. I never heard Mr. Clark mention the girth meas-
urement, and I am particularly positive of that, because when I had
an opportunity to read Mr. Clark's report on this season’s work on
the islands, I saw that he made reference to the fact that we did not
take the girth measurement, and that seemed to me to be a pretty
good point on the surface, so I mentioned that fact to both the
Chairman and Mr. Elliott. But that was called to my mind for the
first time on reading his report. That was the first time I had ever
heard of it.
Mr. Bruckner. You are positive of that ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CuairMAN. One more question about this matter of weights.
Did you notice the difference, so far as percentage is concerned, in
some of the sizes of the skins that were taken and noted in your
report ?
Mr. GatiacHeER. Yes, sir. I was looking over this report last
night, and I noted two in particular. Skin No. 4275, which is 32
inches long, weighed 8 pounds 74 ounces, and skin No. 4225, which
is also 32 inches long, weighed 4 pounds 14 ounces. There are two
skins of the same length, and there is a difference of slightly over
100 per cent in the weights. Now it seems to me that even if there
was a difference in the girth measurements no such possible difference
654 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SHAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
could make up for 100 per cent of difference in the weight of the
entire skins.
The Cuatrman. How do you account for that ?
Mr. Gattacuer. It must be due to the blubber on the skin.
The CHairnman. It seems to me that Mr. Clark stated that at one
place where he saw 18 bulls that you said there were 38. Can you
explain that ?
Mr. GaLitacueEr. I| read that statement in Mr. Clark’s testimony,
and I have no doubt that Mr. Clark and I agreed that there were 18
bulls when he said we did. We had many conversations that day,
although I do not remember that particular one. But my method
of procedure was to go over these places, as designated on Mr. Elli-
ott’s chart, and count them or estimate them. I actually counted
them whenever possible. Mr. Clark said that he asked me whether
at a certain place there were 18 bulls and that I rephed there were,
but that my report shows 38 bulls. I think Mr. Clark did not know
my method of procedure. I would go along and take these desig-
nated places on Mr. Elliott’s chart, and if i counted 18 bulls there,
and I saw several more harems down there, | would walk along and
count 6 there, which would- make 24 in my mind, and I would walk
down a little farther, and if I saw 6 there that would make 30 in my
mind, and if, when I got down to the end of that particularly desig-
nated place on the chart, I saw 8 more, that made 38, and at that
time I made the note. I think that will explain Mr. Clark’s mistake
in regard to that particular thing.
The CHarrMan. In other words, you think it was a difference of
locality and space on which these different animals were found ?
That while he counted them on one spot you had more spots added
to your count ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. I do not know whether the committee will want him
to change his statement or not, but it assumes that Mr. Clark made
a mistake.
The CHarrMaANn. No.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; he said, ‘that will explain Mr. Clark’s mis-
take.”
The CuarrMANn. I do not think he means that.
Mr. McGuire. I do not think he does, either.
The CuarrMaNn. It is a difference of opmion between the two as
to
Mr. GALLAGHER (interposing). That is what I meant to imply,
that he did not understand the method by which I was working.
I do not doubt that Mr. Clark’s statement is entirely correct, that
at that particular place there were 18 bulls and that I agreed with
him that there were 18 bulls. But I just do not think he knew
my method of carrying them in my mind until I finished a certain
spot there.
The CHArRMAN. Did you see the Carlisle rules ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. You and Mr. Elliott examined a number of docu-
ments there and you attested them as correct ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Are they all correct as you have noted them in
your report ? :
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 655
Mr. GattacuEr. They are, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The CoarrMAN. J notice that you have a certificate as to the correct-
ness of the documents as you saw them ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.
The CuarrMan. While the counting was going on, you merely
took the notes and——
Mr. GALLAGHER (interposing). Mr. Elliott and I estimated the
number of seals at the places designated on his chart, and as he finished
each place Mr. Elliott dictated a sort of description of that particular
lace.
E The CHarrman. And you took the notes in doing this?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; and in that particular description we
used the figures as shown at that particular rookery.
The CHarrmMaAn. You did not go there as an expert on seals and
their history, but simply as an expert stenographer ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. That is correct.
The CHarrMan. That is what the record shows, that he is not an
expert on the herds of seals, and so on.
Mr. StepHens. In weighing the skins you say the smaller one
was put on the larger one? .
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHeNs. That twine was added to them and they were tied
up together ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHens. Was the flesh of those skins put together ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHens. And the fur left on the outside?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHENS. Were these bundles untied or was the salt left
between the skins?
Mr. GarLtacHerR. The salt was left between the skins as they were
bundled.
Mr. StepHens. Then when did you discover that blubber was on
the sealskins ?
Mr. Gattacuer. The skins were loose in the first place.
Mr. StepHens. They were loose in the first place when they were
weighed ?
Mr. GatLtacuer. They were not weighed separately. They were
loose in the first place, and were extracted from the loose salt by the
natives.
Mr. StepHENS. Was the salt shaken off of them then?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; and afterwards there were several handfuls
of salt thrown on the skins; that is, before they were bundled.
Mr. StepHens. What I was trying to get at particularly was the
way you handled them. As I understand it, they were all packed
together; and you would take out a small skin and shake the salt from
that skin, and then take a large skin and shake the salt from it, and
put the flesh sides together.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SterHens. Then tie twine around them, and those two skins
would be weighed together ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. Yes, sir; and before they were tied together there
were several handfuls of salt thrown on the different skins by the
natives.
656 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. STEPHENS. Between the two?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHEens. Did that add to the weight materially ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; it did add to the weight.
Mr. STEPHENS. The amount of salt that was placed between the
two skins ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENS. How much would be placed there—could you tell?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No; it was a very indefinite amount; the natives
would take a handful or two and throw it on.
Mr. StepHens. What would be the weight, if any, of the string or
twine ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. That question was raised by Mr. Clark. I did not
see it, but Mr. Elhott told me that he and Mr. Hatton later put the
stricg on the scales and that it did not affect the scales at all; it did
not move them. The string, I believe, was 10 feet long. I did not
measure it, but I was told that.
Mr. STEPHENS. Do you know what size twine it was, and the mate-
rial of it—was it cotton ?
Mr. GaLitacuer. It was about as thick as this [indicating]; that is
about the same kind of string.
Mr. STEPHENS. Soft jute ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. It may have been a little harder than
that, but not much.
Mr. STEPHENS. You did not see it weighed, though ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. STEPHENS. You say that you investigated to some extent the
difference between the weight of the green hides and the weight of the
salted hides, as you have just described ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. In this way: Mr. Whitney, who had Mr. Lemb-
key’s green weights, would call those off, and he had to call two of
those off to make a bundle, and when the bundle was weighed it
showed a greater weight than the two individual weights of Mr.
Lembkey’s green skins.
Mr. STEPHENS. Does the salted skin weigh more than the green
skin ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENS. About how much ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. That varied. We have the figures here in the
report.
Te STEPHENS. Did you estimate the percentage from the pounds
or the percentage from the ounces ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir; I did not do that.
Mr. STEPHENS. But you know they weighed more ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Gallagher, you were not in the classified service
when you went up there ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. NO, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Who selected you ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The chairman of the committee.
Mr. McGurre. You stated, I believe, you went only as an expert
stenographer ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. You had never been on the islands before ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 657
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Had you ever had any experience with seals or
sealskins before ?
Mr. GaLtaGcHER. Not at all.
Mr. McGutrr. Your position, then, was simply to do whatever
was necessary to be done in the way of taking notes as an expert
stenographer ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And whatever else there might be in connection
with your work as the assistant of Mr. Elhott?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Now, what date did you say you landed on the
islands ?
Mr. GatLtaGHER. We actually landed on St. Paul Island on the
morning of July 9, 1913.
Mr. McGuire. Who went with you or with whom did you go to
the islands? Were you and Mr. Elhott in each other’s company ?
Mr. GattacuEr. Yes, sir; Mr. Elhott and I went with several
officers from the revenue cutter Tahoma. We landed at the same
time.
Mr. McGuire. Did you leave Washington together ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. No.
Mr. McGurre. Where did you meet Mr. Elliott ?
Mr. GaLLacHER. In Seattle ?
Mr. McGuire. Did you have any scientific works on seals and
seal fishing which you studied prior to the time that you went there ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You gave it no attention whatever ?
Mr. GattacueEr. No, sir. I had Mr. Elhott’s monograph on the
Seal Islands. I also had a complete set of the hearings which had
theretofore been held by this committee, and in addition I myself
reported stenographically at least two sessions of this committee.
Mr. McGuire. Whatever information you had, then, was received
from Mr. Elliott on your way to the islands and before you reached
the islands ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; largely.
Mr. McGuire. Novy, the first thing you did was to proceed to count
the seals. Is that right?
Mr. GALLAGHER. To estimate them; yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. What did you do the first day in that particular ?
Mr. GaLttacuer. The first day we started at about 5 o’clock in the
morning and went to the nearest rookery to the village.
Mr. McGuire. Where did you start from ?
Mr. Gattacuer. From the Government house in the village.
Mr. McGurre. You stayed at the Government house while there?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Slept there?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Ate there?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. How far was this rookery of which you have spoken
from the Government house ?
Mr. Gattacuer. IJ should think the nearest portion of the rookery
was between half a mile and three-quarters of a mile.
53490—_14——_ 42
658 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. And you went to the nearest portion ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; we started for the nearest portion, yes,
sir; and then we worked all around the rookery.
Mr. McGutre. Now, let us see. You started at the nearest point
to estimate the number of seals. Is that right ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Who was with you?
Mr. Gatitacuer. Mr. Elliott.
Mr. McGuire. Just yourself and Mr. Elhott ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Were there other Government agents on the island
at that time ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And natives ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Persons skilled in counting seals and the treatment
of seals in general ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I suppose they were; yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. But no one went with you?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Do you remember how many you counted the first
day ?
The CuarrMan. I believe it is in the record.
Mr. McGuire. I suppose it is.
Mr. GALLAGHER. I can not recall it.
Mr. McGuire. Well, if you can not turn to it readily, that is all
right. You do not recall approximately how many you counted the
first day ?
Mr. GatLtacuer. | do not think I could do that, Mr. McGuire.
Mr. MoGuire. Did you count the second day ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And the third day?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. On the same island ?
Mr. GALLaGHer. On the same island, but different rookeries.
Mr. McGurre. I understand. And how many days did it take
you to finish one island; that is, finish the counting, I mean ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. We finished the rookery work on St. Paul Island
in four days of actual work on the rookeries.
Mr. McGuire. Was there other counting besides the rookery work ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Then you mean to say you finished counting on
St. Paul Island in four days ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Did you have any assistants, besides yourself and
Mr. Elhott, durmg the four days in the counting ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Not on three of the days, but on the fourth day
Mr. Clark and Mr. Whitney and Mr. Clark’s son, Donald, were present.
They made a count of their own at that time.
Mr. McGuire. You were not counting at that time jointly, but
individually; that is, you and Mr. Elliott were in one group, and the
other parties whom you have mentioned were in another group ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 659
Mr. McGurre. In other words, your work was entirely independent;
you and Mr. Elliott were counting independently of them and they
of you?
Mr. GatLacHer. Yes, sir; although Mr. Clark and I had many
conversations, as I stated before, as to the different number of seals
here and there.
Mr. McGuire. Do you remember how many seals you estimated
on St. Paul Island in the four days?
Mr. GaLttacueEr. I can find that from the report.
Mr. McGutre. Well, the report will show?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The report will show those figures; yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. Did you count the pups ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. I mean the pups born in 19138.
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Did you make any effort to count them ?
Mr. GaLLacHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Was anything said to you about counting the pups
by Mr. Elhott or anyone else ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; he spoke of the futility of counting pups.
Mr. McGurre. Just what did he say to you about it?
Mr. GaLtLaGHER. Well, he seemed to think it was an impossible
proposition. to count them.
Mr. McGuire. Did he state to you that he believed it impossible to
count the pups?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And you got that impression from Mr. Elliott ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Of your own knowledge you were not sufficiently
skilled in that work to know whether that work could be done or not?
Mr. GatiacuEr. No, sir; except that from some of the cliffs and
some of the places in which I saw the seals there, I would not think it
would be possible.
Mr. McGuire. Then you did not think it possible to count the
pups; is that right?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. Hs
Mr. McGuire. From your experience there ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; not on those rookeries, no, sir.
hint McGuire. You do not know whether they were counted by
others ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I do not; but I have heard that Mr. Clark counted
them.
Mr. McGuire. Well, do you think you made a reasonably accurate
count of the seals on that island—St. Paul Island ?
Mr. Gatiacuer. I think we made a good, common-sense estimate
of the number of seals on the island.
Mr. McGuire. You regard it only as an estimate ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. That is, if there were half the older seals at sea
' when you made the estimate you were unable to reach them except
by an estimate; is that right ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You, of course, had no conception of how many
were at sea ?
660 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. GartacuHeEr. No, sir; I had not.
_ Mr. McGuire. NCEE after you finished the count on St. Paul Is-
land, what did you do?
Mr. Gattacuer. We then took the revenue cutter Tahoma and
wept to St. George Island,
Mr. McGuire. Who went with you? Whom do you mean by
we te 1)
Mr. GaLLtaGcHerR. Mr. Elhott and myself.
Mr. McGurrs. Anybody else?
Mr. GatiacuEr. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Any of the natives ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Any of the Government employees?
Mr. GattacuER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. What did you do after you reached St. George
Island ?
Mr. GaLLacHer. After we got to St. George Island—we arrived in
the ee toward noon, and after lunch Mr. Elhott and I went over
the d aily log as kept by the agents on that island, taking extracts
therefrom. We also inspected the houses of the ‘natives on that
afternoon.
Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by “‘extracts?’’? Do you mean
to say you did not take complete notes ?
Mr. GatitacuEr. We did not take everything that was in the books;
no, sir. But Mr. Elhott dictated notes from different pages as noted
in those books.
Mr. McGuire. Did you examine everything in the books?
Mr. GattaGuer. Mr. Elliott had the books and he dictated to me.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether he examined everything in
the books ¢
Mr. GaLtutaGHER. I do not know; no, sir.
Mr. McGuire. But he dictated to you such notes as you took at
that time ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. But you did not make a complete notation of the
entire log? -
Mr. GALLAGHER. Oh, no; no, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did you do, after taking those notations
from the logs ?
Mr. Gattaguer. We spent the afternoon in doing that and inspect
ing the natives’ houses, and the next day we started out about 5 o’clock
in the morning, between half past 4 and 5 o’clock, and——
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Who was with you ?
Mr. Gatitacuer. Mr. Elliott and I, accompanied by Mr. Proctor
and Mr. Hatton, Mr. Hatton being on St. George Island at that par-
ticular time.
Mr. McGuire. Who was Mr. Proctor?
Mr. GaLtutacHerR. Mr. Proctor is the Government agent in charge
of St. George Island now.
Mr. McGuire. And Mr. Hatton was the successor of Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; he is his successor, I believe.
Mr. McGuire. Now you may go ahead.
Mr. Gattacner. We then started on the rookery work of St. George
Island and completed the rookery work on that island about 7.30 in
the evening of that day.
(as
R
WS? ue
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 661
Mr. McGuire. Do you know how many seals you estimated to be
on that island ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Those figures are also in our report; I could not
give them offhand.
Mr. McGuire. Did you make the estimate in one day ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Did you make any effort there to count the pups?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You made your estimate in very much the same
way that you made it on St. Paul Island ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutrre. And finished in one day ?
Mr. GaLttacuer. Yes, sir. That was a long day, however, from
about half past 4 in the morning until 7.30 in the evening.
Mr. McGurre. The days were long at that season of the year there,
were they not?
Mr. GaLLaGHEeR. Yes; very long.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did you do, after having made your
estimate there? In other words, how long did you remain on that
island ?
Mr. GaLtacuEerR. We finished that and boarded the revenue cutter
again. That was on Friday evening and the revenue cutter got us
back to St. Paul Island late Saturday evening.
Mr. McGurre. Then what did you do?
Mr. Gatitacuer. I] believe I spent all day Sunday going over the
notes I had taken up to that time, and on the following days we spent
the time in going over the logs of St. Paul Island.
Mr. McGurre. What did you do with the logs ?
Mr. GariacHerR. We did the same thing on St. Paul Island as we
did on St. George Island, that is, Mr. Elhott went through the logs
and dictated notes here and there from them.
Mr. McGurre. You took such notes from the logs of each island as
Mr. Elliott dictated ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. After you had finished that work what did you do?
Mr. GartacHer. We examined the natives’ houses; spent one day
on that.
Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by examining the natives’
houses—to determine the condition of repair, and so farth ?
Mr. GariacuHEer. Yes,sir. We went in and interrogated the natives
as to the condition of the houses and if they were satisfied.
Mr. McGuire. How many days did you spend on that?
Mr. GALLAGHER. One day.
Mr. McGurre. Just what did you do?
Mr. GattacHer. Then we also had these meetings of the natives
in which we took their statements.
Mr. McGuirr. Who was present at those meetings ?
Mr. Gattacuer. Mr. Elliott and I were the only Americans.
Mr. McGutre. Did you invite the other Americans there ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGutre. In addition to Mr. Elliott and yourself, you had an
interpreter ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Was it necessary to talk through an interpreter to
the natives ?
662 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Gatiacuer. I believe it was in a matter of that kind, yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Why in a matter of that kind any more than in
any other matter ?
Mr. Garracuer. Well, I do not think they could understand
English well enough to understand these questions. I think you could
go on the street corner and make yourself understood to them, but
when it came to putting certain questions to them and requiring cer-
tam answers, I believe it would be better to have an interpreter to
interpret those questions to them.
Mr. McGuire. Your idea from your experience, then, was that
they had not a sufficient understanding of the English language—that
they might not get a correct understanding of the interrogatories—
is that your idea ?
Mr. Garxtacuer. I think some of them, at least, would have been
unable to understand them.
Mr. McGuire. Do you think there were those who could have
safely interpreted the English language ?
Mr. GaLtaGcHeER. I do not think I got to know the natives well
enough to be qualified to answer that.
Mr. McGuire. But you did not undertake to interrogate them at
any time, or any of them, without the interpreter ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Is that true?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And during your entire examination—that is, the
examination made by Mr. Elhott, of which you took notes—you used
the interpreter regardless of whether they could or could not talk
English; is that true?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Were you there when they had a meeting, made a
statement, and requested Mr. Elliott to take that statement ?
Mr. GaLttacuer. When who requested ?
Mr. McGuire. Were you there when the natives had a meeting,
made a statement, and offered that statement to Mr. Elliott?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I do not recall that. We had three meetings, and
those are the only statements that I know of.
Mr. McGurre. You do not know whether they did get together,—
that is, the natives—and agree upon the facts elicited by Mr. Elhott’s
uestions, and that they offered that statement to Mr. Elliott while
there? Do you know whether that was done ?
Mr. GattacHer. Oh, I think I understand what you are after.
The interpreter would read these questions to the natives, then
instead of one native immediately responding to that question, they
would get their heads together and talk in Aleut, and then after they
had finally come to some understanding among themselves they would
give their answer to the interpreter, who would interpret it, and I
would put it down.
Mr. McGuire. Did you and Mr. Elliott take all the statements and
every statement tendered you by the natives with respect to the
matters about which they had been interrogated ?
Mr. GaLtaGHer. We took down everything which purported to be
an answer to the question that was directed to them.
Mr. McGurre. There were answers that you did not take down—
is that right ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 663
Mr. GALLAGHER. They would
Mr. McGuire (interposing). I will put that a little differently.
Were there statements made to you that you did not take down ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. There would be a statement to this effect
Mr. McGuire (interposing). I mean any statements made to.you
that you did not take, and then you may explain.
Mr. GatitacHeR. No; I would not say that there were.
Mr. McGurre. Would you say there were not?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; and I would like to explain that
Mr. McGuire. Certainly. Go ahead.
Mr. GaLLacuer. The interpreter would take these questions and _
sometimes he would not understand every word in the question, and
that was explained to him.
Mr. McGuirr. He would not understand Mr. Elliott’s question ¢
Mr. GaLtLaGHEerR. Every particular word, you know. He would
have a general idea, but some particular word would seem to contuse
him a little, or, at least, he would not understand, and he would ask
for information about that. Of course that was not taken down.
Sometimes, after he had put the question to the natives and the
natives, cenferrmg among themselves, one of them might make a
statement partly in English and partly in Aleut to the interpreter,
but I did not take that down. I waited until they had finally arrived
at an understanding amongst themselves before I did take it down.
Mr. McGuire. Once they had arrived at an understanding and
presented their answer based upon that understanding, either in their
own language or in English to you and Mr Elliott, you then took it
down—is that right ?
Mr. Gatiacuer. I took it down as the interpreter interpreted it
to me.
Mr. McGuire. At no time during your examination of those people
did you refuse to take any statement with respect to which the
natives had all agreed ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Lae McGurre. Or upon which any considerable part of them had
agreed ?
Mr. GatLtacuer. No, sir. I did not take anything down, Mr. Mc-
Guire, until the interpreter told me that this was their answer.
Mr. McGuire. I understand. Did the natives all agree, so far as
op ive, to the replies that were made to the interrogatories of Mr.
ott ¢
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. After they had reached this common
understanding there was no dissension. They argued it out amongst
themselves and then made a statement to the interpreter and the
interpreter made it to me in English and I put it down.
The CHatrmMan. Did you take it all down after they had agreed ?
Mr. Gattacuer. J took down what the interpreter told me they
had agreed upon.
Mr. McGuire. What did you do after you had examined the
natives? I am trying to get it systematically.
Mr. GaLLaGcHer. I am trying to recall just the sequence of it. I
hink we spent more time on the books of St. Paul Island.
Mr. McGuire. You were then on St. Paul?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
664 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. What was the next outdoor work that you did?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I do not think we did any further outdoor work.
Mr. McGuire. What I am trying to get at is this, when did you
weigh these skins ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. When?
Mr. McGuire. Yes.
Mr. GALLacHER. Well, we weighed those skins on the 29th of July.
That was indoors; that was in the salt house.
Mr. McGuire. I see. |
The CHarRMAN. Just one moment. I want to call your atten-
tion, simply to facilitate matters, to hearing No. 1, on page 26, where
this is recorded day by day as they went along. Perhaps it will be
a guide to you in asking questions.
r. McGuire. [ would rather ask him about these things, because
this is testimony and that is not testimony.
The CuarrMAN. You have been asking him what he did, and it
might be well for him to take his report and see.
Mr. McGuire. I would be glad to have him do so.
Mr. GaLyaGuerR. I think we are down to the final day.
Mr. McGuire. The weighing of the skins?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed in your own way and tell just
what was done with respect to the weighing, the manner in whien it
was done, and so forth, and the conversations that were had prior to
and during the weighing of the skins.
Mr. GaLLacHer. That will practically be a repetition of what I
said before. Mr. Elliott had prepared a form of procedure, and that
morning after breakfast, on the 29th of July, Mr. Elhott, Mr. Clark,
Mr. Hatton, Mr. Whitney, and myself, together with Mr. Lembkey,
and Mr. Clark’s son, Donald, who, however, were only there a very
few minutes, went to the salt house and Mr. Elliott had the same
interpreter read this form to the natives, this form of procedure which
is copied in the report.
Mr. McGuire. You found the skins in salt ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And you received information, in a general way,
that they were killed, I think, on the 7th of July ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Elliott directed the natives to extract the skins
from the salt ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No; Mr. Elliott had this form of procedure read
to them by the interpreter and they proceeded to do the work as
directed in the form of procedure.
Mr. McGuire. They took the skins from the salt in the salt house ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. About how many of them were at work ?
Mr. GaLLaGuER. I should think 10 men were there engaged in that.
Mr. McGutre. When they took them out you say they shook the
salt from the skins. What was the purpose of that—do you know?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No. I did not mean to say that it was delib-
erately shaken off, but the skins were taken out and whatever salt
there was on them dropped off. I do not recall, however, that they
shook the salt off.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 665
Mr. McGuire. You do not know whether they did or not—is that
right ?
“Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did they do after that ?
Mr. Gattacuer. They took one skin and put it on the table before
us, and Mr. Elliott and Mr. Hatton took the measurement of that
skin.
Mr. McGuire. What measurement did they take of that skin?
Mr. GatLtacuHER. They took it from one extreme to the other.
Mr. McGurre. Length or width?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Length.
Mr. McGuire. Did they take any other measurements besides the
length ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether it was their idea that the
skins were of uniform width and for that reason they did not measure
the width as well as the length ?
Mr. GaLitaGuHER. I do not know anything about that.
Mr. McGuire. You just simply took their procedure whether it
was one way or the other?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Well, have you any opinion now as to whether
they were of uniform width, that is, after your experience there ?
Mr. GaLtaGuER. No; I have not. The girth never entered my
mind at all, but I saw mention of it made in Mr. Clark’s report.
Mr. McGuire. How long were you there?
Mr. GALLAGHER. During this particular day ?
Mr. McGuire. Yes, sir.
Mr. GaLLaGHER. I was there from the beginning until the end,
from about 9 o’clock in the morning until 6 o’clock in the evening.
Mr. McGuire. Pardon me; what I mean is, how long were you on
the islands ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. We were actually on the islands from the 9th of
July until the 30th. We left on the 30th.
Mr. McGuire. And you were working with them more or less all
the time ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And yet it never occurred to you as to whether
meat of uniform width until you noticed the testimony of Mr.
ark %
Mr. GaLLacuer. But in all that timeI do not believe I saw a seal-
skin off an animal until that day.
Mr. McGuire. Well, you saw the seals ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Hundreds and thousands of them ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And it never occurred to you as to whether they
were of uniform girth ?
Mr. Gattacuer. No; I never gave it any thought; but I would
naturally infer it would be like people; that some are stouter and
some are thinner.
Mr. McGuire. Did they take the measurements of the length only ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Of those 400 skins ?
666 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. GaLLAGuER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. But you did notice the blubber ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You noticed that it was not of uniform thickness
on all of them ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You stated, I believe, that when they extracted
them from the salt they spread them out on a table before you? ~
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Fur down ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
My. McGuire. And biubber up ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And when did they throw on additional salt at that
time ?
Mr. GaLuacuer. After that skin was measured, that skin was put
back in a kench of the salt house and salt thrown on it.
Mr. MoGuire. Who threw this salt on the skins?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The natives.
Mr. MoGurre. Did they have a cup or scoop?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir; just their hands.
Mr. McGuire. Nothing of uniform size ?
Mr, GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. MoGuire. Bui used their hands in throwing the salt on?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Was it coarse salt ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. What is called rock salt ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sit.
Mr. McGuire. When they threw this salt on the skin on the floor,
What was then done ?
Mr. GaLLaGuHER. They took this first skin after it was measured,
and put it on the salt in the kench back of the table; then they put the
second skin on the table, both skins being placed flesh to flesh, and
that second skin was then measured by Mr. Elhott and Mr. Hatton.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did they do ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Then they put those two skins back in the kench,
and salt was thrown on them.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did they do ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Then they put those two skins back in the kench,
and they tied them up with twine.
Mr. McGuire. Then what did they do?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Then the bundle was placed on the scale by Mr.
Hatton and weighed, and I verified his weights. Those weights were
called off, and Mr. Clark took a notation of the weight of each particu-
lar bundle, and so did I.
Mr. McGuire. What did you do with the skins then—that is, after
they were weighed and a notation taken of the weights ?
Mr. GaLttaGHEer. The skins were put aside there; laid aside.
Mr. McGuire. In the salt house ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Resalted ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. There was no further resalting that I saw.
Mr. McGutre. That was sufficient salt, so far as you know?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 667
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You say they were weighed on heavy scales. Were
the scales tested to see whether they were accurate as to ounces ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. They were not tested in my presence.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know of any way in which they were tested—
by any sort of means ?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You never heard anything said about that ?
Mr. GatiacuHErR. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. But you did hear some conversation as to the
character of the scales to be used ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr McGuire. Did Mr. Clark object to the scales used ?
Mr. Gatiacuer. Mr. Clark claimed that the scales were not the
particular scales on which the green weights of the skins had been
previously taken by Mr. Lembkey.
Mr. McGurre. And he wanted to use the previous scales ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. Mr. Elliott refused to do that?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. I think Mr. Elliott’s contention was
that these particular scales were not large enough to take the com-
bined weight of the two skins when put in a bundle.
Mr. McGuire. Whatever may have been his purpose, he refused
to use the scales on which they were weighed green, but took a
heavier pair of scales?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know the capacity of the scales on which he
weighed those hides ?
Mr. GattacuER. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. McGurre. You indicated to the committee in your testimony
that the twine lying over there on those records [indicating] is about
the size of the twine that was used, in wrapping up the skins ?
Mr. GaLttacHerR. I think that 's about the size of the twine,
although I think the twine used there was slightly harder.
Mr. McGuire. That would be natural, would it not, after it had
been in the salt ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; I should think so.
Mr. McGurre. How many feet of twine, did you say, were in each
double skin tied together ?
Mr. GaLiacuer. I did not measure that twine, but I have heard
there was 10 feet of twine used.
Mr. McGuire. You only know that in a general way ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; that is, from hearsay.
Mr. McGurre. Was or was not the twine with which they wrapped
the skins at that time, or just prior to their weighing them, the same
twine that had been around them before, or had there been any
twine around them ?
Mr. GattacuHeR. There had been no twine around them pre-
hae ; and, by the way, this was fresh twine; it was not soaked in
wet salt.
Mr. McGuire. It was not soaked twine, but they used fresh twine?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Gallagher, what did you weigh those skins for ?
Mr. GaLLaGHEeR. What did I weigh them for?
668 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGurre. What did Mr. Elhott have them weighed for ?
_ Mr. Gattacuer. I do not know that he told me specifically what
his purpose was, but I had an idea when I went down there it was
with the intention of taking those weights to see whether the salt
added to the weight of the green skin or not.
Mr. McGuire. And you think you made a thoroughly accurate
test, do you ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. ©
Mr. McGuire. You would not regard a few hands full of salt
thrown on the skins as a very materia! matter in the weights when
the skins were weighed together and on different scales? You
would not regard that as very material in determining the accurate
weight, would you ?
Mr. GatiaGHER. As | understood the purpose of that test, it was
to find out the difference between the weights of green skins and the
weights of the skins as bundled and ready to leave the islands, and
for that purpose, I think, that was a very fair test.
Mr. McGurre. Oh, I see. Your idea was, then, to find out the
difference between the weight of the green skins and the skins taken
from the salt, bundled and ready to leave the island ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Regardless of the quantity of salt upon the skins at
the last weighing ?
Mr. GattacHEeR. That is what was to be determined, as I under-
stood it.
Mr. McGuire. I see. But you did make a notation of the differ-
ence in the weights of the green skins and salted skins, as you weighed
them ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And you have that notation in Mr. Elhott’s report ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You had never seen any sealskins before ?
Mr. GaLLtaGHerR. Not that I know of; no, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You have no idea, as an expert, as to whether there
was a reasonable and proper amount of blubber on those skins ?
Mr. GattacHer. I have no expert knowledge in regard to skins
at all.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know how many skins were taken in 1913?
Mr. GaLLaGHER. Only in a most general way.
Mr. McGuire. Well, have you any judgment as to whether they
took all the skins that would have been available, coming within the
requirements as to size and weight ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no judgment at all in that matter.
Mr. McGuire. You do not know whether they should have taken
10,000 more or not?
Mr. GaLLtaGHER. No, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You do not know whether they were under the
necessity of taking smaller skins in 1913 by reason of the limited
number of what you might term killable seals 4
Mr. GaLLacuHER. I do not know a thing about that feature.
Mr. Warxrns. When Mr. McGuire asked you in reference to
counting the pups I think you said you could not count them accu-
‘ately under the conditions as they existed there. Was that your
statement ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 669
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; I believe that under some of the con-
ditions I saw there it is an impossible matter to make an accurate
count oi the pups.
Mr. Watkins. You qualified your answer by saying ‘“‘under those
conditions.”
Mr. GaLtLtaGHeErR. I meant the physical conditions of the islands.
Mr. Warxrtns. At that time?
Mr. Gattacuer. All the time.
Mr. Warxins. That is what I wanted to bring out, whether you
meant all the time or at that particular time.
Mr. GatLtaGHER. | meant all the time. The physical structure of
the islands would seem to make it impossible to get to them to make
a count.
Mr. StepHEens. Did you count all except the pups?
Mr. GattacueEr. We did not count them, Mr. Stephens; we esti-
mated them.
Mr. StepHens. Did you estimate all except the pups ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StePHENS. Could you see a distinct difference between what
you call pups and yearlings?
Mr. GaLLAGHER. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. StepHEens. In what respect; in weight or size ?
Mr. GaLLacHER. In size.
Mr. StepHens. What you call pups are those that have never left
the islands ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHens. And the yearlings were those that had come back
after having been born the year before and returned to the islands?
Mr. GattacHer. That is what I understand to be yearlings.
Mr. StrpHens. Was there a perceptible difference between those
that had never left the islands and yearlings.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; there was.
Mr. StrpHens. Could anyone not an expert see the difference.
Mr. Gatiacuer. I| think anybody could tell the difference between
a pup and a seal of any other age.
Mr. StepHens. If you had been on the killing grounds, would it be
possible or probable that a pup would be killed instead of a yearling ?
Mr. GatitacHeEr. No, sir; I do not think a pup could be killed by
mistake by anybody.
Mr. StepHeNS. You say you noticed that they put a small skin
and a large skin together, then tied them with twine and weighed
them ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. StepHens. Did you see a great many put together in that way ?
Mr. GatLacHEerR. Two hundred bundles, 400 skins.
Mr. SrepHens. Did you notice any difference in the width of the
smaller skins and the larger skins? Did you notice the same differ-
ence in the width as there was in the length ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; there was a difference. The Smaller
skin never covered the surface of the larger skin.
Mr. Srernens. The same difference existed in the length as there
did in the width ?
Mr. GariacueEr. I should think so; yes, sir.
Mr. SrerHens. Did you observe that ?
670 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Gatiacuer. I saw that.
Mr. StepHens. The difference was as plain between the width of
the larger skin and the smaller skin as the difference in the length
was? You did not notice any difference in that ?
Mr. GattacHeR. No. All I recall now is that the smaller skin
did not cover the surface of the larger skin. That is the only way I
noticed it, but I did notice it.
Mr. SrepHens. If they had been of the same width you would
have noticed it would you not?
Mr. GattacHER. I do not believe I would.
Mr. StrrpHENS. Then you would have made your estimate as to
the smaller skin and the larger skin from the length only ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENS. Because you had measured that way ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. I had no expert knowledge in regard
to it, and I was taking Mr. Elliott’s measurements.
Mr. StepHens. Did Mr. Clark or any other person, except your-
self and Mr. Elhott, have access to your notes then or did they demand
access to your notes after you had taken them and finished all your
work ?
Mr. GarLtacueER. No, sir. They would have served no purpose,
because they made their own notes, at the same time, and we agreed
as we went along.
Mr. SterHEeNsS. You had agreements as you went along as to what
should go down?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, Sir.
Mr. StePHENs. Did they have a stenographer also ?
Mr. GaLtLtaGHER. No; but Mr. Clark made notations.
Mr. StepHens. He kept up with you as you went along?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir. If I was uncertain about something
that was called out, | would ask Mr. Clark, and he would give it to
me; and if he was uncertain, he would ask me, and I would give it to
him.
Mr. StrpHeNns. Was it your object, or the object of Mr. Elliott, to
do any wrong to anyone on the islands with regard to the taking of
the measurements of these skins, or anything else? Did you go there
for any purpose of that kind?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir; we did not.
Mr. STEPHENS. Did you see any evidence of that kind manifested
by yourself or Mr. Elhott or by anyone acting on the part of the
Government ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Absolutely not.
Mr. StrEPHENS. Did you suppress in the statement that you have
furnished us any material information that you obtained on the
islands, or have you withheld any observations that you made that
would have been of benefit to either side to this controversy ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. No, sir.
Mr. StepHens. Did Mr. Clark, Mr. Lembkey, or anyone else, ob-
ject tothe manner of weighing these skins ?
Mr. Gattacuer. Mr. Clark objected to the scales, and he also sug-
ete that the skins should be weighed separately instead of in the
undles.
Mr. SterHens. Did he object to them not taking the measure-
ment of the width ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 671
Mr. GaLLtacHer. I never heard him make that objection.
Mr. StepHens. When did you first hear about this suggestion
relative to the width?
Mr. GaLtaGcHER. That was first brought to my attention when I
read Mr. Clark’s report.
Mr. StepHEeNS. When did you read that.?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I read that on the way to St. Louis.
Mr. StepHEeNs. After you had left the islands?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir; in November.
The CHAIRMAN. You went to St. Louis at the instance of the
Department of Commerce to set aside these 400 skins?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
The CHarRMAN. To separate them from the others ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sit.
By unanimous consent a recess was taken until 2 o’clock p. m.
AFTER RECESS.
The committee reconvened at 2 o’clock p. m. pursuant to the
taking of recess.
TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT.
The Cuarrman. Mr. Elliott, do you want to proceed further ?
Mr. Exziorr. I do. I have not been heard at all that I know of.
The CHairman. Is it your desire to answer certain statements
made by Mr. Clark ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; that is the chief object I have.
The CHArRMAN. You were sworn ?
Mr. Exriotr. I have been sworn. I was sworn on the 13th of
October, and I am still under oath.
The CHarrMan. If it be agreeable to the committee you may pro-
ceed with your statement, and confine it to the real issues.
Mr. Exxiorr. Nothing else. I will not waste a word, Mr. Chair-
man, outside of that.
Mr. George A. Clark admits that “the whole fur-seal difficulty at the
present time, turns” on a correct understanding of what the Russian
killing on the Pribilof Islands was, as to the slaughter of seals between
1800-1834, inclusive: he testified, Monday afternoon, February 23,
1914, to wit:
Mr. Crark. The whole fur-seal difficulty at the present time turns on that. If the
Russians killed only males, then you have a right to stop land killing, and to say that
land killing had something to do with the present state of our herd. If the Russians
killed females, then the crisis through which the herd passed in 1835 was due to killing
of females just as the crisis through which the herd has passed in 1911 has been due
to killing of the females by pelagic sealers on the high seas.
Mr. McGuire. This is one of the most material points that has been up.
This declaration by Mr. Clark, and affirmative by Mr. McGuire, is
absolutely true, and is the fact.
Now, what are those Russian records, and who has falsified them ?
Either Dr. Jordan has, or I have done so.
I will take up the Yahnovsky record first, and then this which is
the only official Russian record, indisputable and authentic, that we
have ever been able to find bearing on the question, will be under-
stood by this committee. Then:I will exhibit the vagaries of Ven-
672 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
iaminov, who has no official connection with this question, and
who never made a report to the Russian American Co., that I have
ever been able to find, or even hear of.
Those are the only Russian authorities, official and unofficial,
which either Dr. Jordan or I have considered and quoted; indeed
they are the only ones that can be found which are worthy of any
credit as authors of record in the premises.
Yahnovsky’s record is of peculiar authority and beyond any sensi-
ble dispute. He was sent to the seal islands of Alaska direct from
St. Petersburg in 1818 by the board of directors of the Russian Amer-
can Co. as their confidential agent, to find out the precise cause of
steady annual diminution of catches of sealskins taken on the
Prililof Islands. He did so; his report was sent back to the board
from Sitka February 25, 1820, and its clear summary as officially
made by the board and embodied in letter ‘No. 6”’ of the American
case before the Paris tribunal, tells us authoritatively what was the
sole cause of that ruin of the seal herd wrought by the Russians
between 1804-1834, and when no such industry as pelagic sealing
existed, or had even been hinted at.
On February 23, 1914, Mr. Clark read to the committee, from a
volume of the appendix to case of United States Fur Seai Arbitra-
tion, ‘‘letter No. 6, page 58, March 15, 1821,” the translation thereon
of the Russian record of Yahnovsky’s report upon the conduct of the
killing of fur seals by the Russian American Co.’s agents on the Pribi-
lof Islands (St. Paul and St. George), during the season of 1819.
Mr. Clark then swore that this was the copy of the translation
used by the Government of the United States when it prosecuted its
case against Great Britian at Paris, before the Bering Sea tribunal
(April-August, 1893).
Mr. Clark made this statement with the volume in his hands and
as printed in September, 1892, from which he read that translation
of copy of letter No. 6, in re report of Yahnovsky, either knowing
or not knowing that the Government of the United States had offi-
cially withdrawn this identical copy which he had read from the case,
on November 19, 1892, because it was a “false translation,” and
that our Government had substituted for it a “‘revised translation,”’
on November 19, 1892, which appears in Volume VIII, Appendix
I-II, Fur Seal Arbitration, page 323, and the citation order of its
withdrawal, and substitution of this ‘‘revised translation” aforesaid,
is made in Volume VII, countercase of the United States, pages 13, 14,
152, 153, and on page 305, of said Volume VIII, and immediately
preceding said copy of the ‘‘revised translation.”
Mr. Warxins. Did Mr. Clark have any reasonable opportunity
of knowing that that had been repudiated by the Government?
Mr. Exriorr. I am coming right to that and will show you that he
had. I will resume my statement right there.
This publication of that spurious and repudiated translation of
letter ‘“‘No. 6” aforesaid, is made on page 323, in a deadly parallel
column with the correct or “revised translation’’ of letter No. 6.
When Mr. Clark read to this committee the rejected and denounced
copy as the one which had been actually used by the United States
Government, and shut his eyes at the same moment to the proof
published as stated above (on the same page) that it was a ‘‘false
translation,’ and as such had been repudiated November 19, 1892,
a
yas
Rs Cd wt
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 673
and withdrawn from the case by the official agents of the United
States Government, he then and there and at this time, knowingly and
deliberately, sought to deceive the House committee as to the truth and
the facts in this case.
Mr. Warxins. Why do you say that ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Because it appears in the document. I am coming
to it. I am going to cover it all if you will allow me to finish, and
then ask me questions. I will show you the proof.
Bad as that showing is for Mr. Clark, it becomes in his case still
worse for him; because, on February 24, 1898, he, as Dr. Jordan’s
‘secretary of the Fur Seal Commission,’ which made a report on
Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-1897; Parts I-IV, 1898, has deliber-
ately used this same “‘false translation”’ of letter No. 6 aforesaid, as
the correct version; thus Dr. Jordan and his associates on the com-
mission have made it the sole foundation of that commission’s report
upon the conduct of the Russian sealing from 1800-1847, inclusive.
Mr. Watkins. Who decided that is false ?
Mr. Extiotr. I am coming to that. I will bring that right in here.
Observe the following, in further explanation to the committee,
that Dr. Jordan ‘‘deliberately”’ used this ‘‘false translation;’ Mr.
Clark testifies (Feb. 24, 1914), to wit:
Mr. Crark. * * * Now I have quoted from the book which Henry W. Elliott
gives as his authority, and it confirms Dr. Jordan absolutely.
‘ ee McGuire. The Elliott quotation is not an accurate quotation of Dr. Jordan,
1s 1t?
Mr. Crarx. Not at all.
Mr. McGurre. They are entirely different?
Mr. CrarK. Yes; I wish to say there is a second translation of this letter which
appears in the British counter case. Dr. Jordan was well aware of that translation at
the time; but he considered the American translation superior. The British trans-
lation uses the word ‘‘bachelors” instead of ‘‘young breeders.”’
Right here let mesay that there is no “‘ British translation,” and there
never was a “British translation.’’ Is that understood by the com-
mittee ?
Mr. Warxrns. I understand it.
Mr. Exxiotr. Then Mr. Clark goes on to say:
But the point I want to get at is that Dr. Jordan is charged with falsifying a record
and altering a quotation, while the reference used by him disproves the charge. This
charge of falsification against Dr. Jordan is not founded in fact, and is untrue.
The CHarrman. Then would you suppose there is one side of this which supports
Mr. Elliott’s theory, and another,side which supports the Jordan theory?
Mr. CrarK. There is nothing here to indicate that.
The Cuarrman. Now, I am informed by Mr. Elliott that he has the original letter
here, and that he can translate it himself, and knows just exactly what it contains.
Mr. Crarx. I had a Russian scholar by the name of M. Lippitt Larkin, an instructor
in Stanford University, transiate this letter from the facsimile.
The CuarrMAN. Mr. Clark, you see we get into interminable trouble by going along
the way we do.
Mr. McGuire. But here is the point. Mr. Elliott makes a direct accusation against
Dr. Jordan, and the most favorable construction that can be placed upon it, so far
as Mr. Elliott is concerned, is that it is simply a disputed question as to the proper
translation. Either that is true, or Mr. Elliott wilfully makes a misstatement.
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you will
observe by the above record that Mr. Clark has deliberately renewed
the falsification of that letter ‘‘ No. 6,”’ which has been self-confessed
as such by the man who first translated it (see p. 152, Vol. VII, Proc.
Trib. Arb., 1893), and self-confessed as a ‘‘false translation’? and
53490—14—_43
674 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
withdrawn by the agent of our Government November 19, 1892 (see
p. 152, 153, Vol. VII, Proc. Trib. Arb., 1893),-who at the same
ae of withdrawal substitutes a ‘‘revised translation” as the cor-
rect and official translation for the said ‘“‘No. 6,” or Yahnovsky
record; it is correctly quoted by me as such (pp. 186, 411, Hearing
No. 1, 1914), and which is falsified in turn by Jordan to the Secretary
of the Treasury, February 24, 1898, in his Report on Fur Seal Inves-
tigations, Part I, page 25. |
This testimony shows that Dr. Jordan was well aware of that
‘‘false translation”? at the time he made his report, February 24,
1898, and that he took it deliberately from the official United States
record of the proceedings of the Paris tribunal and quoted it as the
one which our Government used over there, when in truth and in
fact, the official record of its withdrawal November 19, 1892, as a
‘‘false translation,’ was staring him in the face, and the correct or
‘revised translation”’ of Letter ‘“‘ No. 6,”’ was there also, staring him in
the face, when he made that falsification of this indisputable record
of our own Government !
The CHarrMAN. Let me ask you there. Do you mean to say that
the American Government submitted a translation to this tribunal,
of which you speak, and was obliged to withdraw it because it was
incorrect ¢
Mr. Evxiotr. Yes, sir; and submitted a ‘‘revised’”’ and proper
translation.
The CHarRMAN. Such as you say there is now?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes; as I have correctly quoted in my statement.
(P. 411, Hearing No. 1, Jan. 17, 1914.)
The CuatrMANn. And you say that Mr. Clark come before this com-
mittee and insisted on the translation of that which the American
Government was obliged to withdraw—is that your idea ?
Mr. Exriotrr. Yes; and renews it as the “American translation.”
and calls the ‘‘revised”’ copy which our Government used the “‘ Brit-
ish translation.”
Mr. Warxkrns. On what authority or by whose authority was this
withdrawal made ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I wish to have this letter read. Here is the letter
of the agent of our Government, Mr. John W. Foster, to Sir C. H.
Tupper, British agent, dated ‘‘Washimgton, November 19, 1892,”
in which the withdrawal of this translation, which Dr. Jordan uses
as the correct translation, is made; he does so, because it is a ‘‘false
translation”’ and has been imposed upon him by a rascal, as he says.
Shall I read it, or just have it printed in the record ?
Mr. Warxins. You had better read it. Who is Mr. Foster?
Mr. Exvriorr. Mr. Tupper was the British representative.
Mr. Warxrns. And Mr. Foster was
Mr. Extrotr (interposing). The American representative. He was
in charge of our case before the Paris tribunal.
Mr. Warxrns. He is the person upon whose authority the with-
drawal was made?
Mr. Ex.uiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Warxrys. He was representing the American Government,
was he?
Mr. Errtrotr. Yes. He was in charge of our case before the Paris
tribunal.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 675
Mr. Warxins. John W. Foster?
Mr. Etiottr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Warxins. Read what he has to say.
Mr. Exxiorr. He published this translation which he thought, he
says, was an authentic translation, and printed it. Then word got
to him, before his case got into court, that it was a forgery, and he
prepared this letter, dated ‘‘Washington, November 19, 1892.”
Mr. Watkins. Do you mean a forgery or a false translation ?
Mr. Exuriorr. Either. I suppose those words are interchangeable.
If words are put in there that are not there it becomes a forgery,
does it not?
Mr. Warxrns. I do not know.
Mr. Exziotr. Well, he calls it a ‘‘false translation.”’
Mr. Warxins. Well, that is what I want to understand.
The Caarrman. That is the term you speak about ?
Mr. Extiorr. I am gomg to use his statement.
WasuHineTon, November 19, 1892.
Str: Under date of the 2d instant I advised you that I had discovered that a number
oi documents belonging to the archives of Alaska and referred to in the Case of the
United States before the Tribunal of Arbitration were incorrectly translated from
the Russian language; and I promised to give you at the earliest practicable date a
detailed statement of the erroneous translations and to indiacte the pages in the Case
of the United States where they are quoted or referred to.
Before complying with that promise I deem it due to my Government and to
myseli to state the circumstances under which these translations were introduced
into the Case of the United States. When I entered upon the work of preparing the
same I learned that there existed in the archives of the State Department a large
collection of documents entirely in the Russian language, which had been turned
over by the Russian authorities in the Territory of Alaska at the time of the transfer
of that Territory to the United States, in accordance with the treaty of cession of 1867.
These documents I found to be unclassified and without indices. Desiring to ascer-
tain whether they contained any information relevant to the work I had in hand,
I made inquiry for a competent person to undertake the needed research. After
considerable investigation my choice fell upon Ivan Petroff. I learned that he
was a native Russian, educated in St. Petersburg, that he had several times visited
Alaska as an agent of the United States Government and had been in the employ
of this Government for several years in responsible positions. He was represented
to me as an accomplished linguist and the best-informed person obtainable in the
Russian language and history, and I was also told that he had performed a large part
of the labor in the compilation of H. H. Bancroft’s History of Alaska. Having entire
confidence in his capacity and integrity, I intrusted to him the examination of the
Alaskan archives, with the result shown in the use made of them in the Case of the
United States and Volume 1 of its Appendix.
Only a few weeks ago my suspicion was for the first time aroused as to the correctness
of some of the passages translated by Petroff, and a careful examination has revealed
an astounding series of false translations. As soon as I was prepared to do so, I brought
Petroff into my presence and confronted him with the proofs of his infidelity and
false translations.
Mr. Warxins. Are you reading from the same statement that
Mr. Clark referred to before this committee as the authority which is
now repudiated ? :
Mr. Exziott. Yes. [Reading.]
The evidence of his dishonest conduct being overpowering, he acknowledged his
eililt in the presence of witnesses and signed a full confession, of which I inclose you
herewith a copy certified to by the witnesses. The only motive which he has alleged
for his conduct is that he supposed by making the false translations and interpolations
he would so ingratiate himself into favor and impress upon this Government the
importance and value of the Alaskan archives as to secure his employment to classify,
translate, and index that voluminous collection of documents. ;
In making this explanation I desire again to direct attention to the fact mentioned
in my note of the 2d instant that photolithographic reproductions of all the original
676 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
documents, of which translations were cited or made use of were introduced in
Volume 1 of the Appendix to the Case of the United States, following page 593, and
that the British Government and its representatives were thus furnished with the
means of testing the correctness of the translations.
I now desire to give notice as agent of the United States that I do hereby formally
withdraw from the Case of the United States in their entirety the original Russian
documents hereinafter designated. These documents are included in those referred
to in the footnote to page 41 of the Case oi the United States,of which translations
are given in Volume 1 oi the Appendix to said Case, at pages 49 to 90, and facsimilies
in the same volume following page 593.
Where cited in
Number of document withdrawn. case of the
United States.
4
Not cited.
44,45
Not cited.
62
103, 104
I inclose herewith revised translations of those of the Russian documents herein-
before referred to which are retained in the case of the United States, and beg to
direct attention to the following pages of this case, on which there appear falsified
translations of portions of these documents:
On page 61, of document No. 14.
On pages 54, 55, of document No. 14, inclosure.
On pages 62, 66, of document No. 16.
On page 67, of document No. 17.
On page 67, of document No. 20.
I have to advise you that I will send without delay to each member of the tribunal
of arbitration duplicate copies of my note to you of the 2d instant and of the present
note, and further that a proper correction of the errors inserted in the Case of the
United States will be made in the counter case and the correspondence relating
thereto included in its appendix.
I have the honor, with this opportunity, to renew to you the assurances of my
highest consideration.
Joun W. Foster,
Agent of the United States.
Mr. Watkins. Now, you stated that Mr. Clark had an opportunity
of knowing that that was a false translation. Where do you find
that authority ?
Mr. Exuiotrr. He had the same opportunity I have of reading it to
you; he had the opportunity of reading it to Dr. Jordan, a scientist,
whose sworn duty it was to look into this.
: Mr. Warxins. You say he had an opportunity. How do you know
ne had ?
Mr. Exxtrorr. Because he said he had this volume in his hands on
the islands.
Mr. Watxins. What opportunity did he have to know of the cor-
rect translation ?
Mr. Exxiorr. It is in this very volume, which he said he had in his
hands on the island. I am coming to that. He had this volume in
his hands on the island. /
Mr. Warxixs. Do you know whether during his entire statement
he called the translation to the attention of the committee ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 677
Mr. Extiotr. Not at all. He claimed that this spurious transla-
tion, which John W. Foster had repudiated, was the ‘American
version”’ and that I had used the ‘‘ British translation” as the Amer-
ican version.
Mr. Watkins. Now, in referring to the British translation did he
mean the correct translation ?
Mr. Erziotrr. I suppose he did, because there was no “ British trans-
lation,’ and there never has been a British translation. The correct
translation was the American translation, which was substituted for
the spurious translation first put in and referred to by Mr. Foster.
Mr. Watxrns. Now, you say there was no British translation ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes; there was none.
Mr. Warxins. Then he necessarily refers to the other translation,
which was also an American translation ?
Mr. Extiort. Yes, sir; that is what he is talking about.
Mr. Watkins. That is the one that Foster repudiated ?
Mr. Exxiotrr. Yes. And side by side is the correct translation,
which he ordered into the case. Now, gentlemen, you will see there
is no doubt as to the proper translation. Our Government settled
that before the case was opened at Paris, and I have put into my
statement the very translation which our counsel and our Govern-
ment ordered in, in lieu of the false translation which Dr. Jordan
uses here in his report.
Mr. Watkins. What is the material difference between those two
translations ?
Mr. Exziotr. I am coming to that.
Mr. Warxins. Well, all right.
Mr. Exxtiorr. All the difference in the world; the difference between
black and white. Upon this falsified official record of the conduct
of Russian sealing, the whole fabric of Dr. Jordan’s report of 1898
is based, and also so are the reports of his associates on the Fur Seal
Commission of 1896-1897.
Dr. Jordan’s final report was submitted to the Secretary of the
Treasury February 24, 1898, by him and by all of his itemized official
associates, who were duly sworn and paid agents of the United States
Government. Therefore this reproduction by him, on February 24,
1898, part 1, page 25, of his report (Fur Seal Investigations) of that
falsified record of Yahnovsky’s report, and which record the United
States Government had repudiated as a “false translation’? in
November, 1892, and before its case went to the Paris tribunal,
is now a distinct and indisputable exhibit of official deceit which was
practiced to unduly influence the Secretary of the Treasury in 1898,
with regard to any action which he might order in re killing seals on
the Pribilof Islands, and in turn is now used to deceive the House com-
mittee as to the facts in re Russian land killing which destroyed the herd
1800-1834! 2
When, therefore, in good faith the Secretary of the Treasury pub-
lished Dr. Jordan’s report aforesaid, then that publication became
a still more offensive power for deceit in the premises not only at
home but abroad, and has been so employed be the lessees of the
seal islands of Alaska ever since 1896-97, up to this hour of my ex-
posure of it.
It became necessary for the good of the public interests at stake
that I should expose this deceit of Dr. Jordan’s work to this com-
678 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
mittee: and, I have done so regardless of whether the truth told as
above, hurts or helps any man or men.
It won’t do for Mr. George Archibald Clark to say now in this
light of his exposure in the premises, that he had overlooked this
record made by his own Government in re Yahnovsky’s report, or
letter ‘‘No. 6”, of the American case certified to the British case on
November 19, 1892, as quoted above.
Tt won’t do, for he has testified here, February 24, 1914, that he
had this very volume 8, which carries all this proof of that “false
translation’? of Yahnovsky’s record in his own hands on the seal
islands in 1896 and 1897! He testifies:
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Clark what do you mean by the London weights and charts?
Mr. CuarK. Well, in 1896 and 1897 when the two commissions were at work on the
Pribilof Islands we were under the necessity of getting all the light we could about
the sizes and the ages of the animals, and we jound that in volume 8 of the Paris
Tribunal of Arbitration * * *.
Here he tells you that he and Dr. Jordan were busy in 1896 and
1897 with this volume 8 of the Proceedings of the Fur Seal Arbitra-
tion, which carries on page 323, the full text of the “false translation”’
placed in a deadly parallel with the correct and “revised translation”
which our Government ordered into the case, as a substitute for this
fraud, November 19, 1892!
Then when Dr. Jordan and he deliberately use it in their report of
1898, page 25, as the ‘‘American translation”’ and “superior’’ to the
“British translation’? (which never existed), they have “deliberately
falsified’’ the Russian (and the American) records in the case, just as
I charge them with doing to your committee (see pp. 185, 186, 255—
261, 411, hearing No. 1: Oct. 13, 1913-—Jan. 17, 1914; House Commit-
tee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce).
Now, we come to Vemiaminoy as an authority. Mr. Clark had a
good deal to say about Veniaminov and I will have something to say.
The manifest errors in Veniaminoy’s account of the fur seals which
caused Elhott to characterize it as being ‘full of errors’? and to omit
from it the most salient and obvious errors which Jordan and Clark
publish without objection or criticism (see Report Fur Seal Investi-
gations: 1896-1897: part 3: ‘“Veniaminov’s Account of the Sea Bear,”
translated by Leonhard Stejneger, pp. 219-222, 1898).
On February 24, 1914, duly sworn, Mr. George A. Clark testified
as follows to the House Committee on Expenditures m the Depart-
ment of Commerce, to wit:
Mr. CLarK. On page 185 of this first hearing, Mr. Elliott is quoting from page 222
of Dr. Jordan’s report, volume 3. This is a translation by Dr. Stejneger of an article
by Bishop Veniaminoy, originally published in St. Petersburg in 1839. The transla-
tion was made for Dr. Jordan to be placed in his report. Mr. Elliott quotes a para-
graph that begins ‘‘The taking of fur seals,’ etc., etc. * * *
This omitted sentence is very important and I want to read it. * * * He
omitted this sentence: ‘‘The quite young seals, that is to say, those only four months
of age, are killed without exception.’’
Mr. McGuire. You mean to say that is omitted from Elliott’s statement?
Mr. Cuark. It is omitted from this quotation by Mr. Elliott, and the quotation is
papesied three times in this document before you.
Mr. McGuire. Suppose you inserted that statement what effect would it have on
his statement?
Mr. Crarx. It absolutely disproves Mr. Elliott’s contention and proves that Dr.
Jordan was right when he said the Russians killed male and female fur seals alike.
Mr. McGurre. Could that have been omitted without having been willfully omitted?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 679
Mr. Crarx. I say not, because the stars are here. If there were no stars, I would
say that it might be unintentional.
Mr. Exxiorr. It is sensibly omitted, and for good reasons.
The fact that I had direct evidence from the sons of the men who
had killed those pups (4-months-old pups), between 1808-1847,
which evidence declared that they never faled the female pups—
always separated them from the males just as I saw them separate
over 9,000 of them in November, 1872, and that they also verified
the separation of the yearlings—the females from the males, as stated
by Veniaminoy, caused me to omit it in this statement heve, just as
I did from my own version of it, published in 1875.
These self-evident sahent, and fairly absurd eirors of Veniammov
are itemized in the following order, as they are all published by
Jordan and are duly cited as follows, to wit:
1. Page 219: Fur Seal Investigations: 1896, 1897, part 3: 1898:
Veniaminoy says:
_ Kotiki are the young males and females from four months to a year old, includin
those born in the spring and killed in the fall. It is the furry pelt of these whic
is the most highly valuable.
As no pups are “ born in the spring,” the nonsense of this is declared.
In fact the term “ Kotik,” or “ Kautig,’ is given to the little black
one born in June and July; then when latev, in early October, they
ave changed their natal coats to one of gray hair and light under
wool or fur, they are called “gray pups.” This is the class of pups
which the natives annually killed for food m October and Novem-
ber, always separating the females from the males; the latter only,
being slaughtered. The skins of these “gray pups,’ were either
tanned by the natives and sewed up into blankets, rugs, ete., or else
baled in “parchment,” they were never used in the outside trade
of the Russian-American Co., except as they were given to the
employees at the different stations in the territory for domestic use.
These skins were never shipped out of Alaska by the Russian-Ameri-
ean Co., as fur-seal skins for their trade, or used by it with British
or American traders who visited Sitka and Kodiak.
The fact that these little gray pup skins never have had any com-
mercial value, and never can have, on account of the fluffy under-
wool or fur, makes this error of Veniaminov’s account self evident,
as above quoted.
Veniaminov says: 2, page 220:
* * * Each harem is separated from all others by a space which is not ‘‘allowed
to be intruded upon by any outsider.’’
This is just the reverse of the normal condition when a very con-
siderable number of breeding seals are assembled on any rookery.
They are massed together without lines of division.
Veniaminov says (3, p. 220): .
Nor do they arrive all-at the same time, but gradually and singly, not all being
assembled by the middle of June, as there are instances of yearlings having arrived as
lateas July. When gathered in bands these young fur seals keep up a constant calling
day and night, particularly, as has been observed, before bad weather.
This idea of the “gradual” and “single” arrival of the seals is sim-
ply nonsense. They haul out after June 14 annually, in great waves
or large bands. Veniaminoy is right, however, in saying that the
have practically all assembled by the ‘‘middle of June,” or Ist to 4t
680 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
July of our calendar; and that the “yearlings” are there, too, at the
same time.
Veniaminov says (4, p. 221):
Sealers are doubtful about the age of the female when she bears her first young, and
also in regard to the age generally reached by the fur seals. The first probably takes
place in the fifth year, while the age hardly exceeds 25 years.
Ever since my publication of the fact, in 1874, that the female seal
bears her first pup in her third year, there has been no dispute of that
by anyonesince. Ithink the male seal lives from 15 to 18 years; the
female from 12 to 15 years. I only reason from analogy.
Veniaminoy says (5, p. 221):
The delivery of the female commences the 30th May (June 10, n. s.) and lasts
through the whole of June and even to the 10th July (July 21, n.s.). Usually only
one young is born annually, though instances are known, however, of a mother
giving birth to two pups, but always paying for it with her life.
This absurd mingling of truth and fiction needs no further comment.
Veniaminoy says (6, p. 221):
The siekatch is able to cover from 15 to 24 females in 24 hours.
This is an exhibition which no man ever witnessed, and which is
utterly absurd.
Veniaminov says (7, p. 221):
In spite of the disproportion of their bulk, it never happens that the male crushes
the female. But the female of the fur seal will sometimes get crushed when covered
by ayoungsealion. The result of such intercourse, if she survives, isa hybrid, having
the head, feet, and hair of a sea lion, together with the fur of a fur seal.
The grotesque untruth and nonsense of this description of that
crossing of the fur seal with the sea lionis hard to beat. Yet Stejneger
who translates this rigamarole, makes no footnote comment on its
absurdity as he does to others frequently, which are not so absurd.
Of course, Stejneger knows better.
Veniaminoy says (8, p. 221):
If one of the pups stays away longer than 24 hours, the mother will go in search of it.
Probably a misinterpretation of the action of cows fresh from sea and looking for
their young.—Ed.
Yes, it is a “misinterpretation,’’ but how about the scores and
scores of others in this “account”? Why has no such “editorial”
comment by Jordan and Stejneger followed them ?
Veniaminov says (9, p. 222):
The taking of fur seals commences in the latter days of September. A chilly disa-
greeable day is selected for the purpose when the wind is blowing against that quarter
where the animals are lying so that they may not discover the approaching sealers.
Such weatlfer setting in, the entire gang, old and young, men, women, and children,
proceed to the hauling ground of the animals.
There is not a single line of truth in that description. The positive
and absurd untruth of the whole relation—the nonsense of it, should
have drawn at least one little ‘‘editorial’’ footnote calling attention
to it, but it has not.
Think for a moment of these facts in the premises.
First. From the very day of the earliest arrivals of the holluschickie
and yearlings, too, in May and June, these natives in Russian times
went to work by driving, and killing them, and preparing the skins.
Second. The Russians never.stopped that work as we do in August
and September annually because of “‘stagy” skins when the seals are
shedding the hair of their coats then.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 681
Third. This suggestion that the men were helped by the ‘women
and children ”’ is simply stupid. The latter only came out to get the
choice cuts of seal meat, livers, simews, paunches, and intestines, etc.,
when the men had finished driving and skinning the seals.
Veniaminov says (10, p. 222):
All without exception (men, women, and children) are armed with clubs. The
intent of such an attack is to cut off from the sea as rapidly as possible all animals on
shore and to drive them from the beach to the interior of the island. Halting a short
distance from the shore, the old males are separated from the females and young, the
former being driven back and liberated. The sickatchie and old females having been
removed, the others, divided into small squads, are carefully driven to the place where
they are to be killed, sometimes more than 10 versts distant. * * * When brought
_ oe killing grounds, the seals are rested for an hour or more and then killed with a
ciub.
The quite young seals—that is to say only 4 months of age—are killed without excene
tion. Of those 1 year old the males are separated from the females and killed while
the latter are driven cautiously back to the beach.
Because I omitted that sentence which describes the killing of ‘the
quite young seals; that is to say, only 4 months of age,” “‘ without
exception”’—
Clark swears to the committee that I have ‘‘willfully omitted it,”
and that this erroneous and self-confessed as such account of that
killing of those ‘‘4-months” old pups ‘‘without exception,” proves
Jordan’s claim that the Russians killed males and females alike on the
breeding grounds or as driven from them.
The reasons, good and proper, for my omitting that sentence are
based upon the following facts of positive established record in the
premises which declare the statement as to killing seals 4 months old
to have been an idle and untruthful one.
First. This driving, as described, is not from the breeding grounds;
it is from the hauling grounds and from the sea margins of them,
just as I described it in 1890; and Clark has done so in 1909.
Second. Those ‘‘young seals,’”’ or pups ‘‘4 months old,” when taken
up in these drives as Veniaminoy describes them driven, were always
all of them released when the yearlings were separated and returned
to the beaches with the yearling cows in all such drives up to the
10th—20th of November annually.
Third. After the 10th—20th of November, annually, between four
and five thousand male ‘‘4 months old” pups, or ‘‘gray pups,”’ were
taken in these drives, separated from the females, or else all driven
by themselves, up to the villages for food, and there separated from
the females, to last the natives during the winter. In that annual
killing of these ‘‘gray pups” ‘‘4 months old” for food, from 1808
up to 1872, as done by the natives on the Pribilov Islands, the same
separation of the males from the females was made by them, when
the killing was done, that I witnessed in 1872, when some 9,000 of
them were driven up to the village on St. Paul, and nearly 5,000
males were taken out of the 9,780 driven. ©
No man of common sense can read Veniaminov’s account and
not be impressed with its strange mixture of romance and fact,
and the utter worthlessness of it as an evidence of what really was
done; here you observe that he states in the same breath, they have
killed all of the pups born this year—as, ‘‘seals 4 months old,” ete.—
and yet, have saved all of the yearling females.
682 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Then, if that were true, how could he find any yearlings of either —
sex to kill next year, and thereafter, and then ‘‘separate males from
the females” ?
Think a moment of Dr. Jordan, a scientist, taking this self-confessed
nonsense and untruth as part of the basis of his report of 1898.
(At least his associate Clark swears that he (Jordan) did.)
Think for a moment—if the Russians killed all these young gray
pup seals year after year, as Veniaminov is made to say they did,
there would not have been a seal on those islands years and years before
Veniaminov stepped on them for the first time, and his brief summer
visit of June-July, 1825.
Mr. McGutre. Whose statement is this ?
Mr. Extiotr. Veniaminov’s statement; and then I am commenting
onit. I have it here.
Mr. McGuire. Go ahead; but I wish you would indicate when
you are quoting.
Mr. Exxiotr. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I had good sensible reasons
for omitting that self-evident nonsense which is carried in Venia-
minoy’s story of killing all of the ‘‘4 months old” pups annually on
the Seal Islands from 1800 to 1834. The natives on the Seal Islands,
who were the sons of those men who killed seals when Veniaminov
was on the ground in 1825, all denied to me this legend as given to
you by Jordan and Clark, and that is the reason why I omit the
untruthful and self-confessed nonsense of its relation. .
Now, in turn, I have never believed that the Russian killing spared
all the yearling females. I know that Veniaminov says they did.
But I know something of that sealing human nature and the enyiron-
ment of that driving and separating the sexes on the killing grounds,
as he describes it. But, on the other hand, I do know that the
‘“‘laasbuschie,’’ or breeding grounds, of the Pribilov Islands were
never stepped upon from 1804 to date of Russian cession in 1867,
by the natives of those islands from the very day of first arrival of
the bulls and cows in May and July until their departure from them
in November following.
The CuarrMAN. You spoke about a report that was made in which
you claimed they used a false translation. By whom were they
authorized to make a report ?
Mr. Exuiorr. They were authorized by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
The CuHarrMan. I mean Clark and Jordan.
Mr. Exxiorr. This was their report of the Fur Seal Investigations
Commission of 1896 and 1897; February 24, 1898.
The CuHarrMan. They were in the employ of the Government ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Oh, yes. This fact, as stated above by me, was not
the word of one native to me; it was the universal statement. It
was emphatically confirmed by Bishop Shaishnikov to me, September,
1874. No one was better qualified to assert it than he, for he was
the son of the man who had the charge of all the R. A. Co.’s work on
the island of St. Paul from 1808 to 1854.
Mr. Clark in his report of 1912 has this to say of his opinion of
Veniaminov as an ‘‘authority.”’ He says on page 29 (MS. report,
1912):
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 683
THE RUSSIAN LITERATURE.
Our knowledge of the fur seal herd in the very early period of Russian control we
owe almost exclusively to the writings of Bishop I. Veniaminov * * * published
at St. Petersburg in 1840 * * * Heretofore a partial translation by Mr. Henry W.
Elliott has only been available. Itappearsas an appendix to his monograph beginning
at p. 140. The importance of this paper has seemed to justify its translation as a
whole. This has been done by Prof. Raphael Zon, of the Forestry Service, and it is
published as an appendix to thisreport. To it are attached annotations to correct obvious
errors and to explain the statements of the Russian bishop in the light of our present knowl-
edge. (Italics mine H. W. E.).
Here you have Mr. Clark gravely telling you that his “authority’”
is not one in fact—that he feels obliged to “‘attach annotations” to
correct ‘obvious errors’ of said authority!
Very well, then, why did he adopt the “errors”? of Veniaminov
in re “killing all the four months old pups for the trade”’ “without
discrimination as to sex’? annually, and that stupid nonsense of
driving all the bulls, cows, and new-born pups up from the rookeries
to slaughter by the help of the ‘‘women and children”’ ?
I made no such use of Veniaminov as an ‘‘authority’’ because he
was not one; and moreover, everything could be proved for, or against
the indiscriminate killing of seals by his writings.
Following that quotation in re killing gray pups, is made by Venia-
minoy—Prof. Zon’s translation and cited above. Mr. Clark says:
= page 19 of Zon’s MS., which is page 360 of the Zapieskie article, occur these
words:
“Some years in September young pups form large pods and congregate in special
places, and lie so carelessly that they all can be driven off without leaving a single:
one behind. Such pods are very advantageous for the trade, but are most ruinous
for the increase of the herd.”’
_ That extract is correctly quoted; but Veniaminov had in mind
the yearlings, or pups of last year, which he finds this year hauled
out on the hauling grounds, just as I saw them by the tens and tens:
of thousands, hauled out in 1872.
Following the subject, Mr. Clark says:
At page 26 of Zon’s MS., which is page 364 of the Zapieskie article, occurs the
following:
“As soon as they are rested, the killing is begun with clubs. Small pups which were
born the same summer, are killed without discrimination, both males and females.’’
This extract as just quoted above, and correctly, proves that
Veniaminov has the yearlings of the current season, and the pups
born in it, all driven up together and killed “ without discrimination,
both males and females! ”’
That he was writing in a fog of his own making, and not correctly,
as above cited, and not telling the truth, Veniaminov himself admits.
in the following quotation of his own writing, and which Dr. Jordan
oe eg in the final report of Fur Seal Investigations, to wit: I
ave this to say in my statement (p. 185; Hearing No. 1, Oct. 13,
1913, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce):
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 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. * * *”
684 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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, appears the following translation of Bishop Venia-
minov’s account of this killing, which was originally published in St. Petersburg,
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 10 versts distant. * *
‘‘When brought to the killing grounds they are rested for an hour or more, according
to circumstances, and then killed with a club. * * * Of those one 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
Pueans 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.
I do know that. I have it from hundreds of authorities on the
islands.
Do you wonder now, Mr. Chairman, why Bishop Shaishnikov
begged me to omit the salient untruths which were bound up with
truths in Veniaminov’s s chapter ?
Please take note of the following fairly grotesque fiction put up in
this connection, and soberly brought in to you as an “official report”’
by Mr. Clark.- He testifies, February 24, 1914, to wit:
Mr. Crank. * * * As to disturbances of the females I wish to cite this descrip-
tion of the Russian methods of sealing, Zon’s MS., 23 (363): ‘
““After having chosen favorable w ‘eather, and wind, irrespective of the time of
day, all inhabitants, men, women, and children arm themselves with small clubs,
with which they can kill seals, and walk in a line along the shore on which the seals
are lying. Having cut off their retreat to the sea, they drive all the seals, without
discrimination inland. , After having driven them some distance, they stop them and
begin to separate mother seals and siekatchie, the latter very seldom present. The
old mother seals, which have already been driven in this way, as soon as they notice
a passage to the sea go by themselves, but the young mother seals can not be driven
from the herd at all, where are found their young. Such of necessity are driven to the
very killing ground. When the killing of the seals begins, some of these mother
seals defend their children, and lie for a long time over the killed ones, so that it is
necessary to use force to drive them to the sea.’
The CHAarrmMan. They had the same habits then that they have now?
Mr. CLark. Yes. And all these animals, young and old, are driven up in this
heterogeneous mass, and then culled over, and I wish I could draw a picture of injury
to mothers and young that must have been done on the killing field.’
Here you have, Mr. Chairman, the very limit of self-confessed non-
sense and untruth in redriving seals as above cite ‘d to you from Venia-
minov. Here you have Mr. Clark, with all his “expert”? knowledge,
putting this absurd relation up to this committee as a fact of his own
belief !
Why, only think of it! Here is a picture of ‘‘all the women and
children” with the ‘“‘men,” actually driving the bulls, cows, and pups
up from a rookery over to the killing erounds; i. e., he wants you to
believe that men would have “women and children” to help them do
such a job. Why, the very absurdity of the idea ought to come to
Clark’s mind instantly, if he was sane. If such a job was being done,
no “women or children” could or would be in that line between those
breeding seals and the sea.
But Veniaminov in truth and in fact was not describing the driving
from a rookery or breeding ground; he was describing the manner in
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 685
which the natives “‘men, women, and children,” easily run along
between the surf wash, and the bachelor seals on the sea margins of
the hauling grounds, and without the shghtest use of clubs or force,
turn the timid hollus chickie, the older and vagrant bulls, and the
“pups” or “small seals” or yearlmgs, up and away from going pell-
mell into the water.
I deseribe this very driving as it was done early in the season on St.
Paul, at length, nm my Monograph of the Seal Islands, 1882, page 71,
and tell you that—
During May and June large bodies of the young bachelor seals do not haul up on land
very iar from the water—a few rods at the most—and when these first arrivals are
sought after the natives, in capturing them, are obliged to approach slyly and run
quickly between the dozing seals and the suri, before they can take alarm and bolt
into the sea, etc.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it was these self-confessed misstatements
of the work which Veniaminoy was describing which caused me to
omit the worst of them, while, as for most of the lesser errors, 1 put
them im; as for instance, on page 143, (Mono. Seal Islands, 1882)
Veniaminov says:
Females in the twelve or eighteen years next after their birth must become less in
numbers from natural causes and by the twenty-second year of their lives they must
become quite useless for breeding.
and on page 141:
It is without doubt that female seals do not begin to bear young before their fifth
year, i. e., the next four years after the one of their birth, and not in the third or fourth
year. This, however, is not the rule, but the exception.
To make it more apparent that females can not bear young in their third year,
consider 2-year-old females and compare them with siekatchie (adult bulls) and cowa
(adult females) and it will be evident to all that this is impossible.
Yet this queer, rambling nonsense is gravely cited to you by
Jordan and Clark as reliable Russian “‘authority,”’ which I do not
admit. Do you wonder that I washed my hands of any indorsement
of it, on page 143? If you still have any doubt of the wisdom of my
action, i will add the following, and then I am sure, you will under-
stand the good reason.
On page 141 of my Monograph of the Seal Islands, I quote Venia-
minov:
: ee females bear young every year, and how often in their lives do they bring
ort
To settle this question is very difficult for it is impossible to make any observations
upon their movements; but I think that the females in their younger years (or prime)
bring forth every year, and as they get older, every other year; thus according to
people accustomed to them, they may each bring forth in their whole lives from ten to
fifteen young and even more, etc.
Now, Mr. Chairman, do you wonder why I made the followmg
review of this particular chapter of Veniaminov, on page 143, Mono-
graph of the Seal Islands, to wit:
I translate this chapter of Veniaminov’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 on to the ground who, by first making
himself acquainted with the habits of the seals, etc.
One word further with regard to this ‘‘killmg of males and females
alike” on the breeding grounds which Mr. Clark wants you to believe
Veniaminoy is “the authority for.’ I desire to draw your attention
to the following quotation which I have translated in my Monograph
686 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
from his Zapieskie ob Ooonalashkenskaho Otdayla; St. Petersburg;
1842, to wit: =
On page 147, Monograph of the Seal Islands, is the following clear and positive state-
ments that the Russians did not kil] males and females alike, as Clark asserts Venia-
minov is the ‘‘authority’’ for such statement. Veniaminoy says:
“There were eyewitnesses to the reason for this diminution of the seals, and it is only
wonderful besides that they are still existing, as they have been treated almost without
mercy so many years. The cows produce only one pup each every year. They have
known deadly enemies and also are exposed to many foes unknown. From this killing
of the seals they steadily grew less. * * * On one occasion a drive was made of
15,000 male and female seals, but the night was dark and it was not practicable to
geparate the cows from the males, and they were therefore allowed to stand over until
daylight should come. The men put in charge of the herding of the drove were care-
less, and the seals took advantage of this ‘negligence,’ etc., and ‘escaped,’ etc.”’
If Veniaminov is ‘‘authority,” then take him as such when he tells
you that this drive of ‘15,000 male and female seals’? was to be
separated ‘‘cows from males” before killing. That this was a drive
of “yearlings” or ‘‘small pup” seals goes withoutsaymg. It was not
a “heterogeneous mass of cows, bulls, and pups” driven up from a
“breeding rookery,” as Clark has untruthfully declared Veniaminov’s
meaning to be; they were yearlings from the hauling ground, just as
they were driven under Clark’s eyes in 1909, and which he has so
well described in his 1909 report!
There was no separation of those yearling seals under his eyes, or
under any other man’s eyes. That was what Veniaminoy was crying
out against here; that is the ‘‘cruel and wicked treatment”’ that these
seals were receiving from the Russians in 1804-1834, as Veniaminov
asserts, just as our seals received it from the lessees under Mr. Clark’s
eyes in 1909; that is what the old Bishop was talking about.
Since the truth should be known now to your committee, as to what
that early Russian record of killing was on the islands, I will insert
here as part of my sworn testimony the following record of it given to
me at Oonalashka, in 1874, by Kazaen Shaishnikov’s son, Bishop
Innokenty:
Shaishnikoy is the man who had charge of all this Russian killing
on St. Paul Island from 1808 to the year of his death thereon, in 1854.
This record given to me, as quoted below, I desired to incorporate in
my Mono. Seal Islands, 10th Census U. S. A., 1881, but the censor of
that publication limited me to 175 pages. I could not get it im, and
so it was omitted, together with much more data which I wished to
pace, { submitted the following copy to the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, January 4, 1912, and it comes in now at this pomt
exactly right to make the record clear as to what Veniaminovy really
did see and meant to publish.
Mr. Warxrns. Where did Veniaminoy get his information—from
personal knowledge or from what he learned from other people?
Mr. Exvtirorr. Well, he had gotten it from all round. He was on
the islands a few weeks in 1825. He came there in June, consecrated
a church, and went away on the R. A. Co.’s sailing vessel that left
early in September. This is a mixture of truth and romance which
he rolls up in a chapter of his Oonaleshkenskabo Otdayla, St. Peters-
burg, 1842.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to insert right here, the statement that I
made before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, January 4,
1912, by incorporating my original notes as published in this hearing.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 687
I will not read it because I have given you an outline, unless you
desire me to do so. It is not necessary, because I have given you a
sketch of it.
House or REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.,
HovusE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
January 4, 1912.
AFTER RECESS.
The committee met, pursuant to the taking of a recess, at 1.30 o’clock p. m.
STATEMENT OF PROF. HENRY W. ELLIOTT, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO—
Resumed.
Mr. Exniorr. At the close of the season of 1818 the Russian agent in charge of the
Pribilof Islands—Kazean Shaishnikov—sent an earnest report to the governor of the
Russian-American Co., at Sitka, telling him that, in spite of the utmost effort on his
part, it was impos ssible for him to secure the number of choice male skins which he
had been ordered to take. He urged a rest from that killing for a term of years,
saving that he feared if it Was not so ordered that the seal herds would be destroyed—
would ‘‘sofftsem ooshall,’’ or depart entirely.
Mr. Chairman, I want to submit here an inside light on that Russian work,. taken
from the letters of this man, exhibited to me in the house of his son, at Unalaska,
September 2, 1874. I will not read all these excerpts which I made. Task that this
be put in the record, because they are the first exhibits of this inside work on those
islands that have ever been made, and they throw a flood of light on the subject. I
was on the Reliance, United States revenue marine, which was under my orders,
Capt. Baker commanding, that summer. I submit ‘this as Exhibit G, because it
bears out entirely what I am saying here to-day. These are my original transcripts,
and they are not copied, but submitted exactly as I made them, as stated, nearly
38 years ago:
EXxurBir G.
The Russian methods of killing and shipping—Fur-seal islands, 1786-1867.
FATHER SHAISHNIKOV’S HousE,
Unalaska, September 2, 1874.
** Yes, Mr. Elliott, I can tell you much, because my father wasa bidarshik on St. Paul
Island from 1804 until he died there in 1856. I was born there on St. Paul island at
Zapadnie in 1808, and I was educated at Sitka for the priesthood, leaving the Island
when IJ was 15 years old.
“My father, Kazean Shaishnikov, was born at Kodiak in 1786; he was instructed
there in the church school so well that when he was 20 years old he was sent up to
St. Paul Island by the governor of the company to serve as a “‘bidarshik” (foreman)
and as a subpriest or lay deacon in the new church just established there. He remained
there serving in this capacity until his death in 1856; he was so highly thought of by
the company that they always paid all of the expenses of his visits to Sitka and Una-
laska and all my school charges and costs. It was my father’s protest in 1834 that
stopped the killing on St. Paul Island. If it had not been for him and the respect
which they had for him at Sitka, I truly aver that not one fur seal would have been
left alive on those islands—y es—I will tell you, be patient—I can not talk any Eng-
lish, and you can not understand me unless J am slow and careful in speech. Yes,
you may set it all down; it is my word and of which I know, and of which, also, i
have the writings.
“Tt is true that Pribilov discovered the islands, sailing out from this harbor in 1786,
but he was only a ship’s mate, in the employ of the merchant, Simeon Laybedev;
he never did any work on the islands; he was a navigator, and died at Sitka in 1826
on his ship, the Three Saints. At least twelve or thirteen different companies began
to work on the islands in 1787-88. They took up to the islands nearly every Aleutian
sea-otter hunter that was alive there on this island, and many from the other islands
around us. They lived in skin tents or shelter during the sealing season, and then
most of them came back in November to their homes ‘for the winter, leaving only a
few men, women, and children on the seal islands to await their return in the following
spring. ‘In this ‘fashion, you understand, a large number of Aleuts lived on the
islands every sealing season then, and yet built few houses. That accounts for the
absence of ruined habitations which you have asked me about. I should say that
688 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
on an average there were at least 400 engaged on these islands every season from the
beginning of this work in 1787 with the old company, and Baranov put them off in
1799-1800.
““Then the company resolved to colonize the islands and have the workmen’s families
live up there with them, so as to avoid this constant uncertainty of the shipment of
hunters to the islands every year. So in 1800 the first permanent habitations were
made by the natives for homes and by the company for agents’ dwellings, and the
first churches were consecrated on both islands. Most of these early people were on ~
St. Paul Island just as you see them now.
‘“Takine sealskins in those days was very different work from what you have been
watching. Every hunter had to daily stretch and air-dry all the skins he took.
This process made the work very slow then compared to what it isnow. No one
used salt, and no one could have used salt even had they known how in those days,
since the Chinese market was the only one then open for sealskins, and then buyers
wanted the parchment skins, which they tanned and wore without plucking.
‘¢ When all of these men rushed into the work after Pribilov’s discovery, they quickly
saw and as quickly agreed among themselves that they must not and would not
destroy the breeding seals. They saw that they could get vast numbers of hollus-
chickie and many young females without disturbing the rookeries. This satisfied
them and they kept the agreement among themselves faithfully. It was the only
thing that they did agree upon, for a more quarrelsome, greedy set of managers never
got together.
ue Every energy was put out in getting the skins, and immense numbers were taken.
There is no count or record made of what the number was annually taken by them.
They did not tell one another, and each trader’s only concern was to’ get his season’s
catch safely off from the islands, and as safely laid down at Petropavlovsk, when the
skins met the Siberian buyers for the Chinese market at Kiachta. I have heard my
father say that it is a good day’s work for a man to prepare 30 parchment sealskins,
for the stretching and placing of the frames involve much time and frequently strip-
ping. You can get some idea of what 400 men might do on this basis. They could
make between 1,000 and 1,200 skins a day. Take June, July, August, September,
and October, into about 20th November, you will have about 120 to 130 working days
at the most, and that would give a result of some 130,000 to 150,000 skins for their
season’s work. I am inclined to believe that this is all that they could handle or did
get at best, and very likely they did not get so many, or if they did, many hundreds
if not thousands of skins were spoiled in preparation. In spite of this immense annual
catch of seals, no legend comes down to me of any scarcity of the supply while these
hunters worked the islands from 1787 up to 1799, which was the last season they had
this opportunity. Baranoy lost no time in getting rid of them as soon as the imperial
authority from St. Petersburg came to him as governor of the Russia-America Co.
‘As to the manner of driving seals for the killing on these islands, I assure you that
the breeding seals were never disturbed seriously on any of the rookeries and never
have been in the slightest degree worked by the old company. They all drove in
the past as you have seen them drive on the islands this summer, but with this marked
difference: Now 100,000 skins can be at once cured within a week or 10 days from
the knife. Then it required the labor of 400 men to cure such a catch in ‘‘parchment”
or “‘laftak” shape, all through June, July, August, September, and October annually.
Now it is all done between the 14th of June and the Ist of August in the salt kenches.
‘*Phis necessity of getting only a fewskins daily in the past, so as to properly cure
them, made it imperative to continue the daily work all through the season of four
or five months. In this manner a great many cows would be swept into the drives
every August, September, and October, since the breeding season on the rookeries
ends by the middle of August, and then the cows often stray over into the path of
the drivers. Of course a good many cows were taken in this way, but you will clearly
erceive that it was unavoidable, and that the breeding grounds were never disturbed.
rou call it ‘‘enlightened selfishness”? Well, I hardly understand it that way. It
was fear of one another that caused them to live up to this agreement of theirs not
to disturb the breeding grounds in their time, and it was fairly forced upon the old
company by the ev idence of swift diminution of this life as early as 1804, 1805, or
soon after it took sole charge.
**As to the number of seals in the past and earliest working of the islands, have you
asked the old natives on St. Paul about it?’’? (I then read my notes of the conferences
of July, 1872, to him.)
‘“You have done direct what I was going to tell you todo. Those menare the only
ones now living who know anything at all about the subject. No one survives here.
‘When my father first went up there in 1804 he wasassured by the natives that the seals
were becoming less and less every season, and that there were not then near so many
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 689
asatsome time previous. Heat first was not much aroused by the complaint, because
he saw a vast concourse of seals, and it was not until 1808 that he became himself
fully aware of the significance of the lament of the natives. He saw a great falling off
from 1804 to 1808, and made it the subject of a long letter to the church at Sitka and
united with the agent on the islands to stop the killing for awhile. It was held up
on St. Paul two years and resumed in 1810, but no great “good came of the ‘‘zapooska,”?
or rest. By 1818 the loss of life was so apparent that a still more urgent letter of
remonstrance was sent down to Sitka from my father. The governor at Sitka sent it
to the directors of the company at St. Petersburg, and in the spring of 1819 Capt.
Yanoysky came up from Sitka charged by the directors to make a full examination
into my father’s complaint. He passed the entire summer on St. Paul Island, and
when he went down with his report in November he left my father a letter telling him
that in every respect was he in full accord with the remonstrance and that he was
going to ask that my father’s wish to suspend all killing on the island for a few years
be met by the board. Yanovsky did so report, but the directors were not willing to
let up even for one season, even though they did not question the truth of Yanovsky’ 8
report and the sense of his recommendations.
‘* Well, you know the result. In 1834 my father again was compelled to make a
third protest. He showed them at Sitka that there were only a few thousands of
seals left alive, and that if the order to kill was not suspended at once and indefinitely
their complete extinction was close at hand. He had in this third attempt the power-
ful friendship of Bishop Veniaminov, who was then at Sitka, and he succeeded in
getting the killing stopped. It was just in time.
*“T have here copies of all the letters which my father wrote, both to the head office
at Sitka and to the bishop, which tell the whole story of this business from 1808 down
to the death of father in 1856. There are also some letters of Veniaminov, in reply
and in question, to my father in that box.
*T can not let you take them to Washington—no; something might happen; for not
only the seals are written about, but church affairs are also discussed in confidence
between them. You may read them all through here and copy the fur-seal matters.
You know I am head priest of this Unalaskan district, and it might hurt me were
these letters to be published. There are very jealous and envious men in our church,
and I do not want to give them any cause to complain of me.
**T am sorry that I am unable to part with these letters; yet I can tell you all that
they contain about the seals, because I have read them many times, and what they
show is well known to me; ask—ask me; what I know I am glad to tell.
**Oh, they did not care much about the seals then, when the company first came in,
It was all sea otter. ‘‘Get otters, get otters,” was the order of Baronoy, and nothing
was said about seals then. Why? Because a sea-otter skin was worth 50 to 100
roubles, and a fur seal not over 6 or 7 roubles. There were a great many sea otters
then; thousands of them then where we have none to-day. So you see there was
little attention given by the company to the numbers or the condition of the fur seals
on the islands; indeed, Baronov was so indifferent to them that he never went up to
the islands, although he was politely urged to go by my father in 1808, when he saw
that the seals were growing less and less. Baronov was the best governor the company
ever had, and only on account of his age and high temper was he removed in 1814.
“No; it is not known how many seals, at any time, there were on these islands; you
have given the first figures I have ever known. The Russians did not even estimate
their numbers; they just said ‘‘extraordinary number—plenty, plenty.” That’s all
I have ever heard when there were all that they wanted for their requisition, and
“‘very few—very, very little” when they order a ‘‘zapooska”’ (rest). If it had been
sea-otter life, they would have known; yes, indeed; they would have known it all.
Why, the sea-lion and walrus skins and guts and throats were as important—even
more important—to the old company then as were the seals—more so, I verily believe,
because we could not go sea-otter hunting without sea-lion or walrus “‘Taftak” to
make the bidarkas with, and Baranov had every Aleut driven into that work ’way
down to Sitka by 1810.
“Tn 1800, when the company began, the requisition never was greater than 40,000
to 50,000 skins on St. Paul and 20,000 on St. George, so the Stareeks say—not half so
many as carried away every season. There was no trouble about getting this quota
every year until 1807; then, instead of ‘‘making this quota,” only about half that
number was gathered. My father was alarmed, and he, as I told you, wrote a long
letter to the church at Kodiak and to the governor, Baranov, at Sitka, and told them
that such “‘hard toiling had had at last its effect; the seals must have a rest (zapooska).”’
Baranoy ordered the killing on St. Paul to stop in 1808, and he let more than half of
the Aleuts go down to visit their relatives in Unalaska—just kept up the sea-lion
and walrus work of that year and the next (1809). Then, in 1810, the killing was
53490—_14——_44
690 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
resumed, but the seals of the old time were missing. I have told you before how my
father complained again, and how, in 1819, Capt. Yahnovsky came up to the islands.
He was the guest of my father, who gave his house up to him and his servants. He
was deeply moved by what he saw. He was up there from June until late in October,
watching the work. I told you that he saw things just as my father said they were,
and he tried hard in his report to get the directors to agree with him for a zapooska,
for, he said, if they continued to drive all of the choice young male seals to slaughter,
as they had been doing there, that the species would become extinct.
. “Why washisadvice ignored? Ah, Mr. Elliott, Capt. Yahnovsky was high in the
court circles of St. Petersburg. He did not have so much influence, however, as
others who were there, too. The times were getting hard for the company; it was
failing to make money by reason of the failure of the sea-otter chase; it needed money
badly to meet the demands of the investors in its stock who were also members of the
Imperial Government. That is the cause of Yahnovsky’s failure to have his way.
Baranov was getting old and worried over the loss of money to the company, so he
was removed. His successors were also worried about money; so instead of resting
.these seals, in 1820, they resumed the killing, and continued to get everything that
they could secure up to the close of 1821. ;
‘‘Then my father saw that the natives would not have anything to do or live upon
in 1822, as the sealing and walrus work was gone, too, if the company determined to
continue the killing. He resolved even at the risk of the displeasure of the authorities
to tell the truth and insist upon a zapooska for the small number of seals that were
left. He also wrote to Bishop Veniaminov at the same time, telling him the sad
condition of the rookeries, and urged him to see the governor (Moorayvev) and give
orders to have a zapooska made at once, and to let about half of the natives return
to Unalaska, where they could live easier, since there was always an abundance of
fish there, and that food supply is very uncertain to get in the Seal Islands all through
the year.
‘‘Moorayvev was a merciful and enlightened man, and in spite of the fact that the
treasury of the company was empty, he gave the order to stop all killing in St. Paul
Island above 10,000 and on St. George above 600 until the directors should be finally
heard from. ‘This relief for the seals, the first real relief that had been given them
since a short zapooska of 1808-1810, was due entirely to the prayers of the good bishop
and my father’s letter.
‘*Capt. Yahnovsky and Bishop Veniaminov are the only high officials who ever
visited the Seal Islands. Gen. Resanoy was there in 1804 for a few hours only. He
came ashore at Bay Zapadnie and looked at the seals, and the natives told him then
that the seals were surely getting fewer and fewer every year. He was our minister
to Japan and charged with the examination into the affairs of the company by the
Imperial Government. Baranoy was making a great many jealous at court by his
energy and zeal, and Russia was to see if their charges were well placed. Among other
charges was the one that Baranov was regulating the Seal Islands and not getting as
many seals as he ought, thus losing money for the stockholders of the company. Gen.
Resanoy promptly acquitted Baranov of that charge and nearly everything else of
that sort. Resanov reported that too many seals were being killed, and urged a
diminution of the killing.
‘‘Tt was a great event in the lives of those natives, that visit of Gen. Resanov in a
warship. He was a fine-looking man, and the old natives used to tell my father that
the smell of the carcasses on the killing ground made him sick soon after he stood
there, and that made his visit a short one, to their exceeding regret. My father
never saw him, for the general came in July and father came up in the November
following.
‘From that time until Capt. Yahnovsky came to the islands nothing was done in
the way of sending a commissioner to the islands. Resanov did manage by great
effort at St. Petersburg to get a rest for the seals in St. Paul in 1808-1810—two years—
too short a time, but the directors again demanded skins, and Baranov did not care,
so the killing was resumed, but they never could get as many as he wanted, and
he had to so report. Then the directors at St. Petersburg resolved to send some one
up there whom they could all trust in the court. As Capt. Yahnovsky was chosen,
he arrived at Sitka the autumn of 1818, and presented his letter to the governor.
Moorayvev was glad he came, because he knew that my father was telling him the
truth about the seals, and that his (Moorayvev) word was doubted in St. Petersburg.
‘*“Capt. Yahnovsky came up to St. Paul in the May month, 1819. He was a very
quiet man, and asked questions all the time. He was on the seal grounds every
working day, and made notes, notes, notes, which my father says he wrote down
every day. He spent the whole season in St. Paul, only going over to St. George
once, and not remaining there long. He said that the business over there was just
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 691
the same as at St. Paul, only not so many seals, and—no, my father did not go over
there with him. Why? Because the St. George work was always kept by itseli—
had its own books without any connection with the business on St. Paul. This was
so ordered at the start by the old company and never departed from until your people
took the islands. Why? Because Baranov thought it best to stimulate rivalry
between the work on the islands by making each one strive to do better every year
than the other. It may have been good business management, if such rivalry did
not hurt the seals, but 1t did hurt them—it destroyed them.
“When Capt. Yahnovsky finished and left the islands in November he gave my
father a handsome letter, assuring him of his regard and praising him for the truthful
and intelligent information which he had secured from him. At Sitka, in February,
Yahnoysky prepared his report and sent it to the directors. He did not go home
with it, unfortunately for the seals, because he had other investigations of the com-
pany’s work to make.
“Well, the directors did not comply with Yahnovsky’s recommendation that the
killing be stopped altogether—they complimented him, but made no change in
their requisitions. Then Moorayvey, who was very much stirred up at Sitka by the
condition of affairs on the island because he himself went up in 1820, after Yahnovsky’s
Wish was made known to him, and there saw for himself the truth; he decided to rest
the seals in 1823, and ordered that no attempt to get more than 10,000 be made then
(1823), and for the next year’s catch the result of the sealing in 1823 would determine;
in spite of all they hoped for the seals grew fewer, and the small catch of 8,000 or
10,000 was again ordered for 1824, 1825, and 1826; then an attempt in 1827 was made
to get ey and though all possible effort was made, not quite 28,000 seals were
secured.
“The same close killing was made in 1828, and continued to the close of 1834, when
barely 12,000 small seals could be secured. My father saw that the end of this work
was close at hand unless the seals had a chance to live and naturally increase. So,
when he sent his report down to the chief manager at Sitka, together with the season’s
eatch, November 12, he said that in spite of his utmost efforts he had been able to get
only 12,000 skins instead of the 32,000 asked for. He closed this letter by saying that,
in his best judgment, it was not safe to kill any more seals for several years to come,
since the male life was on the near approach to complete extinction; he had to do thig
in humble and respectful language; you know that the management was—what you
callit? Irresponsible? No, ‘‘autocratic’’?? Yes; thatisit. It wasalways obedience
to orders and no questions about them; that was the style of the management, and my
father was trained to it.
“‘No copy of Yahnovsky’s report was ever filed in Sitka, or with the papers of that
office; it was a special report and for the directors at St. Petersburg. No, you will
not find anything about it in Techmainov’s big book which I have here, and all that
appears relative to that work of Yahnovsky is a short letter of the directors [showing
it], dated St. Petersburg, March 15, 1821, which denies Capt. Yahnovsky’s recom-
mendation, and is addressed to Gen. Moorayvey at Sitka. No, it is not strange that
Yahnoysky’s report was not filed with other papers at Sitka. It was a secret report
for the information of the board, and which the board had secretly ordered. Your
report that you are making isa public report, and it can not be hidden or suppressed.
You see, the old company was in difficulty for money, and the Imperial Government
was being pressed by the stockholders for money which was due and not paid for
years back. Yahnoysky’s report, which showed the danger ahead to the value of
that industry, was not the sort of a paper to make public under the circumstances,
because it was none of the public’s business and would only have made more trouble
for the board.
“For this same reason my father’s letters, always telling of loss and danger to the
seals, were not allowed to be published by the secretary of the company, and you will
not find one of them in this big history of the company (Techmainoy’s). Yes, Tech-
mainoy is the only man who had access to the company’s papers, and the only one
who has written anything about the company based upon facts.
“Yes, Veniaminoy got his facts and figurés all from my father. You know my father
had a dual office; he was the ‘‘bidarshik” and also the deacon or lay priest on St. Paul;
every year or other year sometimes, a full ordained priest would visit the islands and
marry the people and perform other functions which the deacon could not do. But
asa lay priest my father had to make an annual report to the bishop at Kodiak or Sitka,
and in that way he became well known to the church authorities. The condition of
the church on St. Paul depended for good or bad upon the condition of the sealing
business; if plenty of seals, then the church was self-supporting; if seals were scarce,
then the church needed help. So my father’s letters always told about the seals, and
Bishop Veniaminoy got deeply interested’in them and encouraged mv father to cone
692 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
tinue his notes and observations. This good man became so interested in the seals
that he came up to St. Paul one June (1825) and stayed there until September, all the
time engrossed with watching the seals. And since then up to the day of my father’s
death, in 1856, every year a letter about the island affairs and the seals was sent to
the bishop by ‘him. The work of Veniaminoy closed in 1837, and was published at
St. Petersburg in 1842. Bishop Veniaminovy is now the Metropolitan at Moscow (i. e.,
the primate of the Greek Catholic Church in all Russia).
‘‘That counting of the seals was done. I know that it seems positively incredible
to-day, and does ‘hot appear right, but I have heard the story so often, and I myself
saw the well-nigh destroyed. ““laasbustchie ” (rookeries) in 1837, two seasons after the
zapooska began. I could have counted them all then, one by. one, myself. Yes, it
is a true story as published by Veniaminov.
I then told him about the-1ce story and asked him how he reconciled this account
of the natives with Veniaminov’s silence on that score and his figures of the killing for
1835, et seq.
“Did they tell you that? Are you sure you understood or they understood you?
It is laughable. I never heard it that way before—my father never said so. No;
there is some mistake. We have had sev eral seasons when the summers were late
and ice floes hung around the islands to July, but this never interfered with the bulls
acoming; only delay ed the early landing of the holluschickie; and as to Veniaminoy’s
figures of killing, I don’t know—I can not say. I do know that no skins were taken
on these islands in 1835, for none came down to Sitka. I was there then and I know
it well. My father’s letters also said so. They took several thousand pups (male
pups) for food in November, 1835—that’s all. Their skins are not salable. It was
this way for eight or nine years.
‘Tt is a great pity, and it makes me unhappy when I think of it, that my father’s
daily journal was destroyed by my brother. 1t was a distressing affair to me then and
it distresses me now. ‘To have such a loss inflicted in such a manner was horrible.
It was this way: Paul was very drunk and he did not realize the sin and the shame
of what he was doing. * * * That isa good reason, certainly, for my willingness
to let these papers which I possess go out of my hands, alone, to say naught of the
reasons Which | have given to you. But I have heard so much of this zapooska on the
seal islands, and know myself so much, that you need not doubt the fact. The killing
of the holluschickie upon St. Paul was entirely stopped in 1835—none were killed.
“Little by little the killing was increased from 1835 until, in 1845, 9,000 holluschickie
were taken, and in 1855 35,000 were safely taken, gradually increased, and carefully
watching the rookeries as it was done. By 1857 45,000 were easily secured on St.
Paul and 15,000 or 20,000 on St. George—all the company wanted—and since then
there has been taken annually up to the coming of your people in 1868, about 70,000
or 75,000 holluschickie. The rookeries have since 1857 been just so large and no
larger than you see them now, and the old natives say there never were any more
seals on these islands than there are now.
“The old company has never taken 100,000 skins in any one year of its operations;
it was satisfied in getting 60,000 to 75,000 skins a year at the most; in 1867 the church
records on both islands show that 40,000 were taken on St. Paul and 20,000 on St.
George; of these 10,000 or 15,000 of the smaller ones were used in the colony (1. e.,
Alaska); the “colonial skins” were all made into parchment and used for clothing and
bedding in the settlements. The salted skins were for London and New York. The
Chinese fur-seal trade since 1846 has been supplied from the Kommander Islands and
the Kuril. I don’t think I know anything worth talking on about those islands.
‘(As to the manner in which the natives drive now and skin seals, I do not see
any difference between it and the methods of the old time, only this: Now you get all
of these skins at once—in a few weeks; then we could not, as I have explained why;
during the last part of the old company’s time, i. e., from 1846 to 1867, most of the
catch was then taken and cured in salt, just as you do now, and it was all done in
June and July, with a few thousand always left over to make in October, so that the
natives could have the carcasses for winter food. It was then just about the same
in every respect of management of the work in 1846 as it is now (1872), only you are
taking more skins than the old company took. You pay the natives more and more,
and they are better housed; they are much better off than ever before. Yes, in every
respect the natives are better off. But as for the seals, the change is no better for
them. Is it worse? Time, and time alone, can tell; we ‘shall see.
“The old company in making parchment skins was never able to ship all of its catch
in any one season from the islan s, as the catch is shipped now.’ It found that waiting
in a ship around the islands after October was dangerous, and severe loss had attended
the practice. So in this way there were always: many thousands of skins “made”’
and making on the islands, stored in the serais. _ Yes; I know that Techmainoy, in
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 693
his history of the company, says that between 1801 and 1804 the old company had
accumulated 800,000, many of which were spoiled, cut, and thrown into the sea,
and all that. But my father has said that no skins were ever wasted in this way.
He had repeatedly heard the full story of the work done by the employees prior to
his arrival on the island in 1804; the most that they could take with the men they
had was not to exceed 40,000 parchment skins on St. Paul; four such seasons would
only show 160,000 skins, even if they were all allowed to lay in the serais at Kodiak,
That is a mistake—a big one—and I do not understand where he gets the facts; he
does not print them. In all the time of their occupation (about 14 years), with 400
workmen between them against the 45 or 50 which the company retained, even then
the employees never could get more than 120,000 to 150,000 skins made up in any
one season, and they never left anything behind them.
“There were usually 25,000 to 30,000 skins holding over on the islands in the serais
there and perhaps as many more in the serais at Kodiak or Sitka. It was not possible
to have any more in stock at any one time on account of the bulk of such a number
of bales for safe stowage, to guard against injury. But 800,000 skins accumulated at
Sitka or Kodiak! Why, it would take six or eight big warehouses. No; its an. error—
a great one—and it is a strange one to get in such a book, but Techmainov was only
hired man. He wrote the book for the company’s use to help them to renew their
charter at St. Petersburg; it is full of mistakes.”’
13.
“Oh, yes; I know that Veniaminoy has first said this, but see he also says that
‘up to 1817 I have no knowledge to rely upon’ ’’ (showing the page in the Zapieskie).
I myself think that this statemnt, qualified as it is here by Veniaminoy, must have
been one of those legends of the wanton waste and excessive slaughter which had
been more or less impressed by repetition as the truth, and so used by the bishop.
Techmainoy unquestionably took it from the Zapieskie, for he never found any such
evidence in the company’s lists or books.
“Baron Nikolai Resanov, the Emperor Paul’s great friend, and ambassador to Japan.
He married Shelikov’s daughter in 1793, and always took a deep interest in the busi-
ness of the company after that, naturally. Shelikov died in 1796. Resanov died
young, on his way back overland from the colony at Krasnoyarsk, Siberia, in August,
1806. He was the man who got the charter for the Russian American Co. from the
Government; nobody else could have done it.’’
“Lieut. Vassilie Yahnovsky, imperial navy; a young man about 28 or 30 years old.
When in the colony, the directors and Hagemeister and Moorayviev thought very
highly of him. He acted as governor from 1818 until 1820 by appointment of Hage-
meister, pending the action of the directors, who sent Capt. Michael Nicolai Mooray-
viey, of the imperial navy, over in 1820 to be chief manager. This man was very
intelligent and in his desire to save the seals and other business of the company he
oiten disobeyed the directors’ instructions. For that reason the directors removed
him in 1828, and sent Capt. Chestyahkoy out to take the place.”’
“Father loann Veniaminoy, “a priest here at Oonalashka,’’ just as Iam now, ‘‘ from
1814 until 1839, when he was made the bishop of all Russian America, including the
Ochostk and Kamchatka districts. In 1842 he was called by the Holy Synod to the
head of our church, where he now is. He was born in 1792 near Kief, and so you
observe that he is an old man now. He was beloved by everyone—the natives, the
company men, and the high officers all revered him. He was a large, fine-looking
man, with a smooth, sweet voice like the low notes of an organ. He was the wisest
and the best man in all these colonies, and he stood between the seals and the com-
pany so firmly that the zapooskai of 1835-1845 was made. It never would have been
made or continued but for him. I have his picture here, which he sent to my father
from Sitka. See, and these our letters.”’
(Note, September 2, 1874.)
U.S. RevENvE Marine Currer “ RELIANCE,”’
Oonalashka Harbor.
“T have passed all of this day with Father Innokenti Shaishnikov, who was courtesy
and willingness personified in his desire to aid me in getting full information as to the
past condition of the fur-seal herd on the Pribilof Islands. With his permission and
in his presence, at his house, I have made the inclosed longhand notes of his answers
to my questions.
“T want to record here the fact that the package or bundle of letters which he refers
to are written in Russian script, and very clearly and legibly, so that, indifferent as
694 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
my ability is to read written Russian, I had no difficulty in perusing them, but to go
all through them and select.only that which touches on the fur-seal business would.
certainly take two or three weeks of my time, and I have only one day from date to
spend in this place. There must be at least 100 of these letters; some of them are
14 and 15 pages of neatly and closely written script. Shaishnikov’s letters, as far
as I looked into them, are devoted, first, in chief to the church business and the per-
sonal details of the natives’ association with it; second, to the sealing work, coming
and going of the vessels, losses of cargoes, spoiling of skins (in parchment); and, third,
least though most important, he gives in some of these letters accounts of the seal life
and its ebb and flow.
‘These letters prior to 1825 inspired Bishop Veniaminovy to spend one whole summer
on St. Pauls Island as the guest of Shaishnikov, and undoubtedly. caused the bishop
to use his great office in helping stop all killing by the Russian Co. in 1835 for a period
of nearly or quite 10 years upon Shaishnikov’s urgent recommendation sent down
from St. Paul in November, 1834.
“HENRY W. ELiotr.”
‘“‘Zapooska, 1835’’—(Shaishnikov’s letter.)
[Addressed to ‘“‘His Excellency Gov. Wrangell.” (Baron Ferdinand P. Wrangell.) ‘‘Novo Arkengelsk””
(R. A.), (or ‘‘Sitka’’). (Chief manager R. A. Co.).]
“TsLAND OF St. Pauz, November 2, 1834.”
(Announces the arrival of the Ycalena with the supplies on the 20th October and
acknowledges receipt of the same in detail.)
““T am very sorry to say that with all possible exertion I have been able to secure
only 12,000 skins, as against the 32,000 required of me. The people have been dili-
gent and faithful, and they have taken everyone as it landed this season, with the
exception of 8,000 “ molodets,’’ which I have spared for seed on the breeding grounds,
I have made this saving because I know by actual counting that only 7,000 cows and
bulls are now leit alive on the ‘laasbuschie’; such is the unhappy condition of this
business at the end of this season. In view of this great extremity of the seals, I
most humbly and obediently advise that your excellency prohibit the killing of
seals on this island next season, because I assure you that it is not safe to kill any more
young male seals for several seasons to come; and also, another good reason for this
rest from killing is that even if you do order the work, I can not get more than 5,000
or perhaps 7,000 small seals in 1835, and getting them will, I am sure, result in com-
plete ruin and destruction of the rookeries; nothing will be left to propagate the species.
“The people are in great distress of mind over the disappearance of the seals, which
they say is due to the excessive killing, and in which opinion I am agreed. But this
order must prevail next season, no matter whether your excellency orders us to kill
seals or not—we must have the same supplies of food and clothing; but it is better
yet that most of the people go to Unalaska, where they can get plenty of fish and
engage in the chase of the sea otter while resting the seals from slaughter, because
with a zapooska we do not need many workmen in this settlement, for there are only
a few walrus and sea lions left, and they afford but little work.”
(He then recites the requisition of supplies which will be needed for 1835, to come
up in the spring of 1835, chiefly cloth, tea, sugar, pickles, flour, hard bread, and “salt
butter,’’ a package of red paint for the church, and “2 accadems,”’ ‘120 gallons vodka,’’
“10 poods tobacco’’ (no salt meat or anything of the sort asked for, but ‘‘20 poods
‘eukali’ ’’—dried salmon).)
KazeaANn SHAISHNIKOV.”
Nore.—This letter is a copy in Shaishnikov’s manuscript that I have seen to-day
and made these extracts. H. W. EB.
Unataska, September 2, 1874.
In conclusion I desire to give additional evidence of the deliberate
attempt made by Mr. Clark to deceive Senators and Members of the
Sixty-third Congress in this vital question of the truth in the premises
as to how the Russians killed seals between 1804-1834, when they
ruined the herd by land slaughter.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 695
Under date of January 3, 1914, he addressed letters to Senators
and to Members of Congress, a copy of one of which I submit to the
committee, as follows:
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Stanford University, Cal., January 3, 1914.
Hon. W. 8. Goopwin,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Str: In February, 1912, you made a speech in connection with the fur-
seal bill in which you asserted very strongly that the Russians never killed female
fur seals: that in fact they held the females and the breeding grounds in a sort of
reverential awe. Your views were undoubtedly drawn irom a statement of Russiam
conditions which Mr. Henry W. Elliott has many times placed on record. Ina recent,
report on his investigations last summer Mr. Elliott has reasserted the claim that the
Russians never killed anything but males. See Proposition I, page 36, of his 1913
report. He has still more recently sent to the president’s office here a further reitera-.
tion of this claim, charging Dr. Jordan with falsification of records when he in 1896.
attributed the failure of the herd in 1834 to killing of females. In Dr. Jordan’s absence;
I have answered Mr. Elliott’s charge, and thinking that it may be of interest to you k
am sending herewith a copy of Mr. Hliott’s charge and my answez.
Very truly, yours,
; “798 GEORGE A, CuarK, Secretary,
Inclosures.
I will not read it, but Mr. Clark makes a typewritten copy, commenc-
ing on page 185 of hearing No. 1, January 17, 1914, and carries that
typewritten copy over to the base of page 186. I will not read that
because it is just copied exactly as I have got it here, to wit:
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 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 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 manage-
ment 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 slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruc-
tion. * * * 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 author-
ity 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
Veniaminoy’s account of this killing, which was originally published in St. Peters-
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit:
“The taking of fur seals commenced in the latterdays 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 10 versts distant. * * * :
“When brought to the killing grounds, they are rested for an hour or more, accord-
ing to circumstances, and then kilied witha club. * * * Of those 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 Veniaminov, who, writing in 1825,
after a season spent on St. Pauls Island, denies Dr. Jordan’s assertion that the Rus-
sane killed male and female seals alike, and that that killing of females destroyed
the herd.
696 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted was made by Lenhard Stej-
neger, 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 transiated, 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 killing of female
seals by the Russians; on page 25 Jordan’s own statement is, ‘‘In 1820 Yanowsky,
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 correctly. He has de-
liberately 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, seecatchie,
and half seecatch 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.”’ (Appendiz to
case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration. Letter No. 6, p. 58, Mar. 5, 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 de-
cline of the herd between 1800-1834? Why, indeed, when the truth isso easily brought
up to confound him?
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 ‘‘ FurSeal
Investigations, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898.
The substitution of the word ‘‘breeders’’ by Jordan for the word ‘‘ bachelors’’ of
Yanovsky, is a guilty attempt by the former, to conceal the truth told by the latter,
who declares that no females; only young males were killed by the Russians.
“Young breeders ” must be males and females, but “young bachelors” can be only
males; therefore, Jordan’s falsification of Yanovsky was deliberate and studied to
deceive as to the Russian record.
Henry W. ELiorr.
December 6, 1913.
Now, here is his ‘‘reply,’”’ and I want to read it to you, because it is
an amazing exhibition.
Reply to Henry W. Elliott’s statement entitled ‘‘Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies
the Russian record in re not killing female seals.’’ Copy attached.
The statement referred to was mailed to ‘‘the president of Stanford University,”’ in
the official envelope of the ‘‘Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce, House of Representatives, U. S., Washington, D. C.’’ Hence this answer is
mailed to each member of that committee.
The writer was secretary of the Bering Sea Commission of 1896-7, and joint author
with Dr. Jordan of the part of the report to which Mr. Elliott takes exception.
Mr. Elliott says ‘“‘Dr. Jordan had full knowledge that the Russian killing of seals
* * * never permitted the killing of female seals.’? He characterizes as ‘“‘un-
truthful” the statement in the report of 1896-7 that even under the Russian-American
Company the Russians “‘still continued to kill males and females alike.’’ The state-
ment mentioned applied to the period of Russian control prior to 1835. Mr. Elliott
asserts that it is ‘‘in distinct denial of the only authority he (Dr. Jordan) used,’’ mean-
ing Bishop Veniaminoi.
The commission of 1896-7 (for this is not a matter which concerns Dr. Jordan alone)
had two sources of information regarding Veniaminoi’s writings on the seals. The
first of these was a partial translation of the Zapiska article of 1842, published at page
140 ff. of Mr. Elliott’s Monograph on the Seal Islands. Mr. Elliott gives what purports
to be a translation of the Russian bishop’s words. This translation was accepted in
PAS Ed |
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 697
good faith by Dr. Jordan and his colleagues in 1896-7. In paragraph 4, from the bot-
tom of page 140 of this translation occurs this sentence: ‘‘Cows were taken in the drives
and killed, and were also driven from the rookeries to places where they were slaugh-
tered.’? This seems to be a very positive record of the killing of females. In the
second paragraph from the end of the same page is this statement: ‘‘When it was most
plainly seen that the seals were, on account of this wicked killing, steadily growing less
and less in number, the directions were observed for greater caution in killing grown
seals and young females, which came in the droves of killing seals * * *,”’ Thisis
an equally specific charge of the killing of female seals. Ii greater caution was neces-
sary against killing of young females, they must previously have been killed.
That Mr. Elliott understood the tenor of the complaint of Veniaminof, which he was
translating, to be directed against disturbance of the breeding seals and killing of fe-
males is shown by his comments that follow in the text of the Monograph. At the bot-
tom of page 143, na footnote which he has initialed, are these words: ““ * * butit
was not until 1845 that the great importance of not disturbing the breeding seals was
recognized.’’ In page 167 (the Tenth Census version of the Monograph is used) is this
more extended reierence—
‘Ts it not exceedingly strange that he (Veniaminof) never thought, during all his
cogitations over this problem, of the real vital principle, of letting the females entirely
alone—oi sparing them strictly? I think that the worthy bishop would have done so
had he passed more time on the rookeries himself. I can not find, however, who the
Russian was that had the good judgment, first of all men, to inaugurate a perpetual
*zapooska’ of the females on the Pribalov islands; it was done in 1847 for the first time,
and has since been rigidly followed, giving the full expansion in 1857 to that ex-~
traordinary increase and beneficial result which we observe thereon today.”’
The cause of the “extraordinary increase” witnessed by Mr. Elliott in 1872-74 is
plainly ascribed to the fact that the Russians somewhere about 1845 to 1847 discovered
the vital principle that it was necessary to spare the females. This alleged discovery
would presuppose the conclusion that they had not done so before. When they ceased
to kill the iemales the herd prospered.
Going one step further, on page 136 of Mr. Elliott’s 1890 report these words are found:
‘Tn 1835, for the first time in the history of the industry on these islands, was the
vital principle of not killing female seals recognized * * * The sealing in those
days was carried onallsummer * * * This protracted driving caused them to take
up at first hundreds, and thousands later on, of the females * * * but they never
spared those cows then, when they appeared in the droves on the killing ground, prior
to this date, above quoted, 1835.”’
These are Henry W. Elliott’s own words in his official reports which have been pub-.
lished over and over again by the Government. This translation and these comments
by Mr. Ellictt were the only ‘‘record” available to Dr. Jordan’s commission at the
beginning vi its work. They warranted the statement that prior to 1835 the Russians
killed ‘‘males and females alike.’’
In the light of these several statements and comments attention is called to the as-
sertion on page 36 of Mr. Ellictt’s report for 1913:
‘1. 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 Islands from start to finish
of their possession of them.’’ 7‘
This assertion and the foregoing translation and comment are by the same person—
Henry W. Elliott. They are contradictions, and it is Mr. Elliott who charges Dr.
Jordan with falsification of the record. Comment is not necessary.
But Mr. Henry W. Elliott was not the only source of information regarding Bishop
Veniaminof’s views available to the commission of 1896-7, and Mr. Elliott, while
ignoring his own work, has taken occasion to mention this second source and to quote
from it. It is the translation, by Dr. Stejneger, of the von Baer article, printed at
pages 219-222 of volume 3 of the commission’s report. The quotation made by Mr.
Elliott is significant in that it recounts how the Russians drove up the breeding seals,
old and young, and subjected them to a most destructive process of sorting to eliminate
the animals not desired. Mr. Elliott is careful to emphasize in this quotation the
alleged iact of separation of the male and female yearlings, and the driving of the
latter back to the beach.
This alleged discrimination by the Russians is interesting, especially so since Mr.
Elliott’s charge of the killing of yearlings made against the Department of Commerce
and Labor in 1911-12, before the House Committee on Expenditures, rested on his
positive assertion that the sexes of the yearlings could not be distinguished, and hence
that the killing of yearlings involved the killing of females. No less authority than
Dr. Hornaday, director of the New York Zoological Gardens, testified that ‘‘in very
young seals the sexes can not be identified without a surgical examination of each
one.” This testimony will be found at page 272 of hearing 6. Apparently Mr.
698 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Elliott would now have us believe that the Russians made this surgical examination.
Such an assumption is not warranted as those who have tried sorting seals know well
that the handling of the yearling fur seal is about as easy and safe as the handling of a
full-grown wild cat.
The significant point of this quotation does not, however, le in what the Russians
did with the yearlings. Mr. Elliott is accusing Dr. Jordan of falsifying records. In
this quotation Mr. Elliott has omitted the sentence just preceding the reference to the
separation of the yearlings. The sentence is very significant. It reads:
‘““The quite young seals, that is to say, those only 4 months old, are killed without
exception.”’
Mr. Elliott indicates the omission by periods, but the omission of this sentence
under the circumstances is inexcusable. It fastens upon Mr. Elliott himself the very
charge he is seeking to fasten upon Dr. Jordan.
We have now a third source of information regarding Veniaminof’s views. This is
a complete translation of the Zapiska article (partly translated by Mr. Elliott) of
Veniaminof, made by Prof. Raphael Zon. The details cited in the von Baer article
are repeated, and this sentence has a stronger wording: ‘‘Small pups which were born
the same summer are killed without discrimination, both male and female.”’
This translation by Prof. Zon states further:
‘‘Under the name of Kotiki, or gray pups, are classed the 4-months-old males and
females, which were born in the spring, and which form the largest and almost the
entire quantity of seals used in the trade.”’
We have from these three sources the complete record of Russian sealing so far as
Veniaminof gives it, and it is unanimous at every point in its assertion that females
were killed—‘‘cows,’’ ‘‘young females,”’ ‘‘female pups.”
This is what Dr. Jordan affirmed. It is Mr. Elliott who denies and misstates the
record.
There is still another authority on Russian conditions, and Mr. Elliott refers to it,
again finding ground for a charge of falsification against Dr. Jordan. This is the
Russian special agent, Yanovsky, who investigated the herd in 1821. Mr. Elliott
cites the translation of letter 6, containing the Yanovsky reference, at page 58 of vol-
ume 1, of the Proc. of the Paris Tribunal, and finds Dr. Jordan’s translation in dis-
agreement with it. Mr. Elliott should know, as Dr. Jordan did, that there is a sec-
ond translation of this letter on page 323 of volume 8 of the same proceedings. It is
a much better translation, hence its use by Dr. Jordan. Ic is the translation used in
the British case, and the difference between it and the translation in the American
case, used by Mr. Elliott, is not a thing for which Dr. Jordan is responsible. To
charge Dr. Jordan with falsification of records because of this difference is without
warrant; it is in itself a species of falsification.
As to what Yanovsky said: We may note that letter 6 does not give Yanovsky’s
report and apparently the report is not in existence. What it gives is the substance
of the report condensed into a brief paragraph. Yanovsky is criticising the Russian
method of killing. He aflirms that ‘‘only cows, seecatchie (bulls), and half seecatchie
are left to propagate the species.’’ Calling attention to the fact that ‘‘only the ol
seals are leit,’’ he adds, ‘‘if any of the young breeders (bachelors) are not killed by the
autumn, they are sure to be killed the following spring.”’ The British translation
uses ‘‘young breeders;’’? the American “‘bachelors.’? Any one who reads the passage
(quoted in full at the top of page 2 of the Elliott charge) can readily decide which is
the more reasonable version, ‘‘young breeders” or ‘‘bachelors.’’ As a matter of fact,
the word ‘‘bachelors” renders the passage meaningless.
But the real decision in the matter comes back to Mr. Elliott, and is found in his
Monograph, already referred to. Yanovsky’s report was made in 1821. In the third
paragraph from the end of page 140 (Elliott’s Monograph and translation of Venaminof)
are these words: ‘‘In 1822, C. Moorayvev, governor, ordered that young seals should
be spared each year for breeding.’’ This action may be assumed to be the direct
result of Yanovsky’s representation. If Yanovsky reported that bachelors were too
closely killed, autumn and spring, it is strange that the governor did not order
bachelors to be spared. Mr. Elliott translated the passage in 1872-74. Ii he meant
‘bachelors’ he should not have said ‘young seals.’ Young seals mean animals of both
sexes, and that is plainly what Yanovsky intended to say. The British translator
makes it ‘young breeders,’ meaning animals of both sexes.”’
The second Russian authority, therefore, like the first, affirms the killing of females.
It was only when this method of killing brought the herd several times to the verge
of ruin, especially in 1834, that the Russians changed their method to one in which
only the superfluous young males were killed. From the inauguration of this policy
by the Russians after 1835 the herd grew and prospered.
It is respectfully submitted that Mr. Elliott has not substantiated his charge of
falsification of records against Dr. Jordan; and that he has not proved his assertion
i
" *
Pe 7
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 699
that the ‘‘Russians never killed or disturbed the female seals * * * from start to
finish of their possession of them.”’
Tt need not be pointed out what was the apparent object of the mailing of this
attack against Chancellor Jordan to his successor in the presidency at Stanford
University.
(Signed) GEORGE ARCHIBALD CLARK,
: Secretary of Bering Sea Commission of 1896-7.
PRESIDENT’S OFFICE,
STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CAL.,
December 15, 19183.
Here he tells you that there is a ‘‘ British translation’? which uses
the word “‘ breeders” and an “‘ American translation’’ which uses the
word ‘“‘bachelors.”’ He takes the British translation because it is
superior, and here, in that monograph he uses the word “‘breeders’’ !
Comment is unnecessary. Now, one word more.
The CHarrMAN. What is the real difference about using the word
‘‘breeders”’ or ‘‘ bachelors’? What is the real significance ?
Mr. Exiiotr. The real significance is that if you use the word
“breeders” they have got to be males and females; and if you use
the word ‘‘bachelor,”’ it means nothing but young males. That is the
whole crux of the situation. Dr. Jordan employs that word
“breeders” as the correct translation when his own government has
denied it to him.
Mr. Wartxins. That is the question I asked you awhile ago. What
is the material difference between the two translations ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Mr. Clark admits it at the start, and then insists that
the word ‘‘breeders”’ was used by our Government and that the
British used the word ‘‘breeders,”’ when in fact the British had no
translation whatever! ‘The only translation used, is the one I charge
up to Dr. Jordan with having falsified, and falsified here; and that 1s
the translation which was made by our Government, and vouched for
by our Government November 19, 1892, and which is the correct
translation to-day. So much for the falsification of the records.
Now, I am going on to the question of skins.
The CHarrMaAn. You say that Clark made the same statement to this
committee when he was before it. Why do you think that was done
before the present committee ? .
Mr. Exxiorr. Vo shield the effect of land killing, that same killang wn
1909, which Yanovsky condemns in 1819—that is, the constant an-
nual killing of every young bachelor in the fall, if they can get them;
and if they do not get them, then they are sure to get them in the
following spring and summer—that means a loss of needed breeding
bulls and an annual increase of harems of breeding cows, until there would
be from 500 to 1,000 cows to a bull, and that is the end of the species.
That was what was ruining the herd; the constant killing of these young
bachelors every year; and ‘‘if they did not get them in the fall, they
got them in the spring,’ as Yahnovsky reports. ‘‘ The consequence is.
that if it is not stopped the species will be extinct,” he said.
The CHarrMAN. It would have the tendency to create the impres-
sion upon this committee that pelagic sealing did the damage, and not
land killing.
Mr. Exitiotr. That is what he admits. He says, “If Jordan’s
translation is correct, then I am wrong; if his translation is incorrect,
then lamright.”” Theland killing did ruin the herd in 1804-1834, just
as Yanovsky reported. J am right, I have used the only transla-
700 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
tion that any Russian in God’s world can make of his own language.
There is no word “‘ breeders” in that letter. You can not find it in the
Russian dictionary, for that matter. They use the word “ proplodt,”’
“to multiply,” “to propagate,” and “to fructify,”’ but they never use
the word ‘“‘breeders.”’ I have never seen it anywhere i in Russian. Itis
our own language. They use the words “‘ Holluschickie,” or “bache-
lors,” and “ Holluschikovie” 4 in this letter, which are “bachelors” and
“nothing but bachelors.” You can not make anything else out of it.
We ourselves called them ‘‘bachelors”’ up there,in 1872, and it is the
common slang word and established there to- -day.
Mr. Warkins. Is it possible that in making that translation the
word “breeders” was used as meaning male breeders ?
Mr. Exziorr. It could not be used in that way, because Mr. Clark
in his testimony explained to the committee that ‘‘ breeders” means
males and females.
Mr. Warxrns. What called my attention to that was the word you
used a while ago which you said meant to fructify. A female would
not be considered an animal to fructify.
Mr. Evxiorr. Well, I was speaking of the extreme range of the dic-
tionary, that I never found the word “breeders” in it. I am not a
Russian scholar, and I will not say it is not in the dictionary; but, I
have never heard it, and I have never read it. The word they use in
this letter is “‘ proplodt,’’ which means ‘‘to propagate,’’ or “tomultiply,”’
and it is correctly translated in the American case, because we have
got the correct translation of it here. Let me just read it to you.
Our Government cleared itself of that fraud, all right; and then Dr.
Jordan steps in, and mires himself down again. The “false trans-
lation”? which Foster withdrew in the name of our Government,
because he said he had been imposed upon, reads this way:
Every year a greater number of young bachelor seals is being killed, while for propa-
gation there remained ouly the females, sekotch, and half sekotch. Consequently,
only the old breeding animals remain, and if any of the young breeders are not killed
by the autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring, etc.
Now, you see the inference, the plain, absolute transposition of the
meaning of the Russian text. Yanoyvsky distinctly tells you that
“only the young bachelors”’ are killed; in this falsified text you have
got to kill males and females to get ‘ ‘young breeders,’ and the self-
evident impropriety of that thing was so clear that Foster immedi-
ately apologized to the British counsel, withdr ewit, and published this
spurious translation alongside of the “revised tr: anslation”” which he
ordered in lieu of of it, and which I have correctly charged up to Dr.
Jordan.
Mr. Watkins. That is 175 in parallel cclumns?
Mr. Evurorr. Yes; it is “‘letter No. 6.” I do not like John W.
Foster; but I think in this matter he was imposed upon, and he had
only one thing to do—to withdraw the ‘‘false translation” and
apologize for it, and he did it. The mystery of the thing is that Dr.
Jordan deliberately renews that imposition and deceit, and embodies
it in his own official report to the Secretary of the Treasury, February
24, 1898, or four years later.
Mr. Watxrins. My understanding is that Foster is not living.
Mr. Exxiotr. Oh, yes; he is in town } 10w, I think; John W. Foster
alive, to-day.
Mr. Watkins. I was under the impression he died several years ago.
hte
”D
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 701
Mr. Exxiotr. No; I think not; it must be Charles Foster, his
associate in the business, and who was Secretary of the Treasury at
that time.
Mr. Watkins. I may be wrong about it, and it may be possible to
have him before the committee, if he is accessible.
Mr. Exriorr. Well, here is his official record, and I do not know
what else he could do before the committee. It is all a matter that is
certified to and closed.
Mr. Warxins. So much hinges on that word “‘breeders.”’
Mr. Extiotr. Well, that is perfectly clear. ‘‘Breeders’’ is a false
interpretation of the Russian text. The word ‘‘breeders” gives a
false impression in this report, because ‘‘breeders’’ leads you to
understand the killmg of males as well as females.
Mr. Warxins. That is the very question, whether they intended
by that language to mean females and males, whether the word
‘““breeders”’
Mr. Extiorr (interposing). Why use the word ‘“‘breeders’’ when
it is not in the language of the Yanovsky letter? His letter says
distinctly bachelors, ‘‘ Holluschickov”’ and ‘‘Holluschickovie.” You
can not get away from the clean-cut translation of the Russian record
which stands now in the American case, since November 19, 1892.
Let me tell you something about Yanovsky. He was no common
man. This man was sent out from the board of Russian directors
in the summer of 1818 as one of their own set, interested in their
dividends, and sent to find out what the trouble was on the islands.
The catches of seal skins were getting smaller every year; he went
there, made that investigation, kept his mouth shut, and sent his
report back to them containing the facts that should govern them,
not for publication, but to let them know just what they had to do.
And he described, after spending four months on the islands, the exact
effect of this killing; reviewed it away back, and brought it down to
date of February 25, 1820. And it was due, entirely, as he says, to
the fact that if any ‘‘young bachelor got away from the clubbers in
the autumn, he was sure to be killed in the following spring.”” Not
“young breeders,” but ‘‘young bachelors’—young males. They
were not killing the females; they were separating them. However,
I have never believed the Russians separated and saved those year-
lings any more than our people saved them in the last 20 years. Not
a bit. Let me show you what I say on page 58, hearing No. 1, Janu-
ary 17, 1914:
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 Islands from start to finish of
their possession of them.
It isa fact of undisputable record that from 1786-87 up to 1800, the Russians annually
took from 120,000 to 60,000 young males, and yearling seals from these hauling grounds
and during 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,
The took the yearlings just exactly as our people have been taking
them; but they had the right to doit. They were not violating any
law; but our people, own, ever since 1896, were deliberately violat-
ing the law and regulations to enrich a few very rich men at the public
cost, and credit, by killing these yearlings.
Now, if there are any questions to ask on this branch I am ready to
answer them; but, if not, I will go on to the question of the skins.
702 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarrman. Do you mean to simply submit an answer to what
Mr. Clark has said ?
Mr. Exriiorr. That is what I am doing.
The CuairMAN. And statements that are not in your report ?
Mr. Exxiotr. I have not brought this into my statement; this is all
new matter. I am not recanting anything I have said in my state-
ment. What I say now will be in answer to Mr. Clark and indirectly
in answer to Mr. Lembkey. I want to show you how the yearling
seal skins were taken. .
IN RE TAKING YEARLING SEALSKINS IN VIOLATION OF LAW AND
REGULATIONS BY THE LESSEES OF THE SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA
1896-1909, INCLUSIVE.
The committee has given much time to taking testimony on this
point of whether or no the law and regulations governing the taking
of seals by the lessees have not been violated, as charged
The whole question has resolved itself into the correct understand-
ing by this committee, of what a yearling seal was as to size. Then,
the size being determined, to ascertain the size of its skin when .re-
moved from its body, and as sold by the brokers in London, after it
has been cured for that sale, on the islands.
I think [ am perfectly right in making that deduction.
As Secretary Nagel in an official letter declares that he, himself,
knows nothing whatever about it; and, that ‘‘I am relying upon the
advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report.’
(See p. 915, hearmg No. 14, 1912.) These ‘‘experts”’ upon whom he
relied were duly sworn and examined by the committee. Their
testimony is summarized on pages 914-920, hearmg No. 14, 1912,
and it declares the fact that each and every one of them knew, and
knows nothing about the size of a yearling seal, or of its skin as re-
moved and cured on the islands.
This unanimous confession of total ignorance on the part of those
‘‘scientists,’’ who as Secretary Nagel’s ‘‘advisory board’”’ on fur
seal service, and who were named to this committee by the depart-
ment, as such was surprising to say the least. (See Summary of
testimony on pp. 914-920, hearing No. 14, 1912.)
The committee then examined the man who as ‘‘chief special agent”
in charge of the seal islands, had done all the killing ordered by the
Government since 1900 to date on the islands.
The testimony of this man, most unwillingly and reluctantly
given, discloses the fact that thousands and tens of thousands of
yearling seals have been killed on the seal islands of Alaska. (See
pp. 740-776, for the law and regulations; hearmg No. 2,1911; and pp.
360-372, 428-429, 434, 442-443, 446-447, hearing No. 9, 1912.)
This man, and sworn official, W. I. Lembkey, out of his full 13
years’ experience in directing and supervising personally all the
killing of seals on the islands, testifies that the skin of a yearling seal
of his own identification as such, measures 364 inches in length.
Then he identified 7,733 ‘‘small pups”’ skins sold in London, Decem-
ber 16, 1910, as the skins which he had himself taken on the islands
in July, 1910. (See pp. 434, 441, 442, 443, hearing No. 9, 1912.)
Each and every one of these 7,733 ‘‘small pup’s” skins measured
less than 34 inches in length: and Mr. Lembkey admitted that this
it
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 703
London measurement of his skins, as above stated, was entirely
correct. (See p. 441, Hearing No. 9, 1912.)
On April 13, 1912, Chief Special Agent Lembkey admitted under
oath that 7,733 seal skins which he took in 1910, and salted were none
of them larger than the typical specimens of yearling seal skins
which he took August 18, 1911, and which were duly exhibited as
yearling’s seal skins beyond doubt or question.. Mr. Lembkey’s
sworn admission is as follows, to wit (pp. 434, 441, Hearing No. 9,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor, April 13, 1912):
The CHAIRMAN. You will produce the information. ;
Mr. Lempxey. A summary of the classification of the 12,920 salted fur-seal skins
of the catch of 1910, sold by Lampson & Co., is as follows: Smalls, 132; large pups,
995; middling pups, 4,011; small pups, 6,205; extra small pups, 1,528; extra small
pups, 11; faulty, 38.
Mr. Extiorr. Now you are prepared to state that 8,004 of them were ‘‘small pups”
and ‘‘extra small pups,’’ are you not?
Mr. LemsBxey. 7,733 of them, according to this summary, are the skins of small
pups and extra small pups.
Mr. Exttotr. 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
“fextra small.’”’
Mr. LemBxey. 7,700.
Mr. Exuiotr. 7,700?
Mr. LemBKEY. 7,733 were small and extra small pups.
Mr. Exuiotr. Mr. Fraser tell us that those seals, none of them measured more than
34 inches nor less than 30 inches.
Mr. Lemspxery, The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states
that small pups measured 333 inches in length.
Mr. Extiorr. From there [indicating] to there [indicating] on that diagram
: Mr. Lempxey. 333 inches in length, and extra small pups measured 30 inches in
ength.
Mr. Extiotr. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8,000?
Mr. Lempxey. Only 11 of those.
Mr. Extiorr. It does not amount to anything.
Mr. Lewsxey. It just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number.
Mr. Extiorr. 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.
Lembkey admits that the measurements, not weights of the skins,
determine their real size (see pp. 446, 447, Hearing No. 9, 1912), to
wit:
Me. Extiorr. Is it not true that a native can skin a 44-pound skin off and add
blubber to it so as to make it weigh 5 pounds?
Mr. LemBxey. It certainly is.
Mr. Exziotr. Would it destroy the value of that skin if he did?
Mr. Lempxey. Not in the least, except that it would require longer to salt.
Mr. Exzriorr. And it would absorb more salt, would it not?
Mr. Lempxeny. I think so, yes.
Mr. Extrotr. And that would add very much to the weight of the 44-pound skin?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; the blubber would.
Mr. Exziotr. All that can be done, can it not?
Mr. Lemexey. I might state here, while you are on that point, that it would not
alter except in perhaps a very slight degree, the classification of that skin when it was
received in London by the factors.
Mr. Exziottr. Certainly.
Mr. Lempxey. You might make a yearling skin weigh 9 pounds by the adding of
blubber, yet when it got to London it would he only so long and so wide.
Mr. Exiiorr. That is it.
Mr. Lemexery. And of course it would develop in the classification when the skins
would be exposed for sale.
Three standard salted yearling fur-seal skins were exhibited April
24, 1912, to House Committee on Expenditures of the Department of
704 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Commerce and Labor, as fully identified and certified as such by the
United States Bureau of Fisheries. Said skins were taken on St. Paul
Island by Chief Special Agent Lembkey August 18, 1911, and sent
by him as types of yearling skins for the information and use as such
by the Bureau of Fisheries, and so presented as complete evidence.
The Bureau offers them in evidence, to wit:
ine CHAIRMAN. How will we determine the ages of the seals from which the skins
come?
iy: EvERMANN. Yes; how will you? Will you take the statements of the agents
who have brought down these skins from the islands or will you take Mr. Ellott’s
statement?
Mr. Extrotr. Take Mr. Lampson’s statement; that is what I stand on; he is your
own agent. (Hearing No. 10, p. 546, April 24, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce
and Labor.)
Messrs. Patton and McGuire accept them without question.
* * * * * * *
Mr. Patron. The difficulty is whose authority are you going to take?
The CHarrMan. That remains to be shown also. :
Mr. McGurre. I wassimply suggesting the most convenient way to get the testimony
from the doctor, the witness representing the department. Of course, so far as I am
concerned, I am perfectly willing to take his figures (p. 548, Hearing No. 10).
The salted yearling skins—duly exhibited.
Dr. EvermAnN. No. 7. The seal skin measures 353 inches long. The seal itself
was 44 inches long. The skin weighed 4 pounds 94 ounces. That was called a
yearling.
A salted skin measuring 354 inches long is brought here and laid
down on this committee table and certified to you as a yearling skin
pooper y salted and cured for shipment to London, as all the others
1ad been—a typical exhibit to you of such a skin.
The CHarrMan. If those are specimens of yearling seals, testing it
by that standard, then how many yearling seals would have been
taken by the North American Commercial Co. from 1890 to the end
of the killmg season of 1909?
Mr. Exxiorr. Over 128,000, according to the actual records of the
) ) =)
London sales.
Mr. Watkins. They are worth about how much on an average?
Mr. Exxtiorr. Well, they average about $30 apiece.
No. 8. The seal itself measured 394 inches. The skin measures 33 inches and
weighs 4 pounds 34 ounces. That seal was found dead and was regarded by agents
and natives as a runt yearling.
No. 9. The skin is 34 inches long. The seal measured 394 inches. The skin weighs
3 pounds 15 ounces. That also was regarded asa yearling (p. 553, Hearing No. 10).
Mr. Elhott confirms them, by the Lampson standard.
Dr. EVERMANN. It seems to me proper to state, Mr. Chairman, that the agents in
taking these skins as representative skins of seals of certain ages did not know what
I or you or Mr. Elliott might say that the ages of the seals from which the skins came
were. They have no knowledge of that. Mr. Elliott does not know what are the ages
of the seals from which these skins were taken.
Mr. Extriorr. I know perfectly well, and I published the fact 40 years ago.
Dr. EvERMANN. I wanted to say that you did not know what age the agent says
this seal was.
Mr. Exuiorr. I know what Lampson says it was. Put his measurement on it and
I will tell you. Now you are coming down to business. Put your measurement on
that skin and I’ll tell you just what Lampson calls it.
Dr. EveERMANN. Apparently, if I get the correct figures here, this skin is 354 inches
ong.
Mr. Evuiorr. According to Mr. Lembkey that is a yearling. His sworn testimony
makes it a yearling. (See p. 443, Hearing No. 9.) ;
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 705
Dr. EvERMANN. What do you say it is?
Mr. Exxiorr. I say it is a yearling, and that’s right.
Dr. EverMANN. Here is another skin which is 33 inches long.
Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Lembkey says that is a yearling.
Dr. EvermMann. And you say?
Mr. Extiotr. He’s right; it is a yearling (p. 548, Hearing No. 10).
These exhibits of typical salted yearling seals, identified and meas-
ured as to size by Chief Special Agent Lembkey, the native sealers
of St. Paul, and the United States Bureau of Fisheries, declare the fact
that every salted fur seal skin taken and sold in London since 1890
which was less than 34 inches long has been the skin of a yearling seal.
No one of Special Agent Lembkey’s associates as Government
agents, or members of the advisory boards, have disputed his testi-
mony as given to the committee. No one of his associates dispute the
measurements of these skins as they are annually made in London,
by the brokers, who have sold them after they were taken by the
lessees agents, and by Mr. Lembkey on the islands, since 1890, up to
1910.
No one of Secretary Nagel’s agents dispute the accuracy of the London
records of these measurements of the skins of those fur seals, as annually
taken on the Pribilof Islands, since 1890, to date.
No one, I think, does. No man dare do it, and stand one minute
before the fur trade of the world, in successful denial of the London
records. That fact being demonstrated to the committee beyond
dispute from any authority, a sensible conclusion must be promptly
reached, and that conclusion is, that yearling male and female seals
have been killed on the Pribilof Islands, annually, since 1890, in vio-
lation of the law and regulations of the departments, of the Treasury,
and Commerce and Labor.
Mr. Warxins. Why do you insert females there?
Mr. Exxiotr. There are male and female yearlings, but you can not
tell them apart. There are males and females.
Mr. Watkins. You can by examination ?
Mr. Exxriorr. But nobody examines them. I am bringing that in
here. They have been killed without any examination by anybody.
Mr. Lembkey who has killed them all since 1899, has sworn he never
examined them to see whether they were females or not; he never
looked at them to see whether they were females. I am going to
bring his own testimony to that effect in here.
The law distinctly and specifically prohibits the killing of any
female seal, by American citizens, at any time, or in any place, whether
on land, or in the sea, and the regulations since May 14, 1896, pro-
hibited the killing of yearling seals.
The testimony of all the witnesses examined by the committee,
who had any knowledge of the subject, and also who, as officials,
were subordinates of Secretary Nagel’s office and who were asked by
him to testify to the committee—this testimony was unanimous
in agreement upon the fact that it is impossible for man to distinguish
the males from the females in a drive of yearling seals when on the
killing grounds, unless a physical examination was made of each
yearling before killing.
Mr. Warxins. You take it for granted that in the previous exami-
nations we all know what you have said, but we do not.
Mr. Exxiorr. I am trying not to repeat anything.
Mr. Warxins. That has been a good long time ago.
a4 90—14——_45
706 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exuiorr. Well, it is in there now, and its vital points are
here to-day.
That such a physical examination never was made by any one of
these subordinate agents of Secretary Nagel or his predecessors, at
any time since 1890, was also admitted by them, under cross-exami-
nation, Feb. 4, 1911. Mr. Lembkey was compelled to admit that
he did not know whether female skins were taken, or not; no penalty
for killing them was inflicted.
Mr. McLean. After the skins are removed, can you distinguish between a male and
female 2-year-old?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir; at once. Oh, I 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 distinguish it readily, but the man skinning the seal
recoentzes 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 ane by the
inspection of the skin itself could you distinguish 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 or
not; I never examined a skin to find out.
The CHarrMAN. How positive can you be, then, Mr. Lembkey, that no females are
killed?
Mr. Lempkey. 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. Lempxey. 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 accident an admonition is given to the clubbers.
Q. So that it is quite possible? 2—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; because 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. (Dizon hearing, U. S. Senate Com. Cons. Nat. Resources, pp. 15, 16, Feb.
4, 1911.)
The CHarrMan. Who is Mr. McLean ?
Mr. Exvtiotrr. This was at the ‘‘ Dixon hearing,’ February 4, 1911,
the Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources hearing.
I have it all set out here. Mr. McLean was counsel for the Camp
Fire Club, of America. He was down here when we were “jacking
them up,” in Secretary Nagel’s department and when they were
attempting, you know, to run this thing over us.
Therefore, when the returns annually are made to us from London
by the brokers, who have measured each and every sealskin taken
by these lessees, and the Government agents aforesaid, since 1890
up to date of 1912, they declare the fact that more than 128,000
“small pups”’ and “extra small pups” skins have been taken from
the herd since 1890, or as so many “‘ yearlings.”
The CuHarrMan. Let me ask you right there this question: Are
those figures, 128,000, until the end of the season of 1912?
Mr. Exuiorr. No; of the lessees’ season; 20 years of the lessees.
I have not followed it into the other years.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. %07
The CHairMAN. I had an impression that the 128,000 included the
years from 1910.
Mr. Extiotr. I specifically declare it covers the time of the lessees.
Of course we can follow it along down.
That shows to your committee the indisputable proof of the fact,
that half of those “‘small pups”’ were females, and so taken and killed
in open violation of the law.
All of those subordinates and scientists above cited have united in
agreement of testimony that the yearlings are equally divided as to
sex in number, when they haul out, and are driven up to the killing
grounds. So that if 7,733 ‘small pups” and ‘extra small pups”
were killed in 1910, as Mr. Lembkey testifies (p. 441, hearing No. 9,
1912), then half of that killing was 3,866 seals, which were all of them
female seals, and all the 7,733 “small pups” and ‘extra small pups”’
were kiiled by his orders in violation of the law.
That the lessees, in 1890, began to openly engage in this killing of
female seals, and yearlings, is a fact of indisputable record, since they
were held up and stopped July 20, 1890, in the midst of this illegal
work, by the United States agents in charge. Those agents not only
did that, but they also urged the Government to suspend all future
killing by the lessees for an indefinite number of years (pp. 5-23,
hearing No. 1, 1911; pp. 36-40, hearing No. 2, 1911; pp. 662-667,
hearing No. 10, 1912; pp. 925-939-940, hearing No. 14, 1912).
The CuatrMANn. Do you know, according to the statements made
in regard to those three specimens of skins, how may yearlings were
taken in 1909 by the lessees?
Mr. Extiorr. Of course, you can look right there in the report of
Mr. Lembkey’s; he has got it there for 1909. There were seven
thousand and odd, 7,300, I think.
The CHarrMan. Are yousure about that ?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir; I have pointed that out, many times.
The CHarrMAN. The reason I am asking that is this: That was the
last year that the lessees had the right to kill, and if they were year-
lings they were distinctly the property of the Government.
Mr. Exziorr. They have always been the property of the Govern-
ment.
Mr. WatsuH. What is askin of a yearling worth?
Mr. Extiorr. About $30.
Mr. Wats. Retail?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; wholesale, over in London, undressed.
The lessees then attempted to suborn this officialism in charge of
the seal islands: They secured the removal of Mr. Goff, chief special
agent, soon thereafter, April 5, 1891, and that is also a matter of
indisputable official record: (pp. 662-667, hearing No. 10; pp. 939-
944, hearing No. 14: 1912).
That the lessees had so gained complete control of the United States
agents by 1894, and after the modus vivendi of 1891-1893 expired, so
as torenew the illegal killing of yearlings and females, and continue
that illegal killing, is completely exhibited as a fact, by the testimony
on pp. 950-951, hearing No. 14, 1912, and the unbroken record of
the London sales annually, from 1894 up to 1909. - ;
At the request of the chairman of this committee, the following
statement was submitted to it, by myself (see p. 220, hearing No.
4, 1911) to wit:
708 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CHarrmMan. * * * JT want the witness to state as an expert how many such
killings of seals there may have been, and what he considers has been the injury
done to the Government during the last 20 years.
Mr. Exvuiorr. 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 r Total
skins ree skins eee
taken. 8S. || taken. 8s
20, 310 13, 000
13, 473 14, 500
7,554 15,600
7,492 6, 500
16, 030 6,918
15, 002 6, 837
30, 004 7,000
20, 762 6,500
18,032 7,000
16, 804 | ——_———_——
22,473 | 128, 478
1 Modus vivendi. 2 Standard lowered this year for first time to ‘‘5 pound skins,”’ or ‘‘yearlings.”’
Henry W. ELuiorr.
Juxy 10, 1911.
My figures as given in this statement are presented by me as the
‘‘minimum”’ of yearlings so taken by the lessees during the period of
their lease, between 1890-1909. In this statement I include noth-
ing as ‘‘yearlings”’ except ‘‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups,’ or
salted skins less than 34 inches in length, and as so returned by the
sales sheets of the London brokers, Lampson & Sons. I told the
committee, on pp. 905-906, hearing No. 14, 1912, that I had not in-
cluded any of ae ‘‘long”’ yearlings or ‘‘middling pups” in this state-
ment, or 35-364-inch skins, since they were invariably male seals,
and no killing of females occurred, when they were taken.
I have specified the reason why yearlings can not be killed unless
in violation of law as follows, to the committee (see pp. 902, 905-906)
to wit:
Mr. Exxiorr. My objection to the killing of yearlings is not becasue they are 1 year
old, but because you can not tell whether you are killing males or females when you
slaughter them.
Mr. Mappen. The 1-year-old? 3
Mr. Exurorr. Yes, sir; that is the reason I draw the line at no killing under 2 years.
If anything is intended to conserve that life we must save the female life, and you
can not do that when you kill the yearlings.
Mr. Mappen. I think the testimony shows that.
* * * * * * *
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 393 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?
_ Mr. Exxiorr. 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. Mappen. All seals are not of the same size?
Mr. Extiorr. No; but there is the general average, and you can very easily keep
within the limit.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. [709
Mr. Mappen. As a matter of fact, you might possibly find a seal that was returned
a year old, and after it had come back from its trip to the ocean on the 25th of July
it would be a year or a few days over, and it might not be over 30 inches in length.
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. And it might be 394 inches?
Mr. Exuiorr. Thirty-six inches. Mr. Lembkey, when he measured what he called
a ‘‘yearling,”’ selected a remarkably well-grown one. I allowed him to take those as
‘middling pups,’’ and I have not charged any malfeasance in having those so taken
by him. Those “long” yearlings are ‘invariably males, and no real tisk of killing
females, when he does, is incurred by him.
Mr. Mappen. I would like to inquire whether the fact that seals were killed that
measured not over 30 inches is prima facie evidence of the fact that they are less
than a year old?
Mr. Extiortt. I could hardly say, positively, that they were all less than a year old,
but can say positively that they were all under 2 years of age. That is the point I
am making.
Mr. Watkins. That denominates a yearling technically ?
Mr. Extiott. Yes, sir; that is the term.
Mr. Mappen. I rather got the impression from what you said that you wanted to
impress the committee—I do not want to be understood as indicating that you did—
that the fact that a number of seals killed in the year indicated were less than 394
inches, 36} inches and down to 30 inches, made it certain that they were less than a
year old.
Mr. Exxiorr. Less than ‘‘2 years old”; because it is impossible for any man to
draw that line, but it is possible to draw the line ‘under 2 years old.’’ That is the
oint.
That fact determines them, all of them, to have been the skins taken from yearling
seals, since Mr. Lembkey testifies that the length of a ‘‘yearling” sealskin is 364
inches. (See testimony, pp. 442, 443, hearing No. 9, Apr. 13, 1912.)
Mr. Watkins. Why do you continue to refer to a year-old seal
when the law is that they must not kill yearlings and when year-
lings may be 2 years old.
Mr. Extrotr. May be ‘‘under 2 years old.’ A “yearling”? must
be “‘under 2 years old.”
Mr. Warxins. But I now understand you to refer to 2-year olds
as not yearlings ?
Mr. Exuiorr. A “year- old seal.’ You can not swear to it. You
can swear to it as a “yearling,” as a pup born last year, and that has
returned the next year after its first migration.
Mr. Warxins. I do not think you quite get my question. I
understood you to say that the technical definition of a yearling is a
seal which is anything under 2 years old.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Warxrns. But you have several times repeated the statement
that these seals are a year old
Mr. Exxtiorr (interposing). They must be a year old or they
would not be back there. They have got to get back, and if they get
back at all they are a year old. They leave when they are five
months old, and if they appear next summer they are a year old.
Mr. Warkrns. You seem to lay some stress on the fact that there
have been year-old seals killed. Is there any legal regulation in
regard to that?
Mr. Exxtiotr. There was in the act of July 1, 1870, without the
regulations. The regulations of Secretary Carlisle, first made in
1896, made it improper to kill anything under 2 years, while the law
until then allowed them to kill anything over a year old.
Mr. Warkrys. That explains your reference in some instances to
seals a year old and in other instances to seals under 2 years old.
"10 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; because the law is one thing
Mr. WaTKINS (interposing). And the regulations another thing.
Mr. Exxuiorr. Yes; but fe regulations have the force of and are
the law.
Mr. Watkins. I know, but I am talking about the statute in
reference
Mr. Exuiorr (interposing). I see; you are constantly separating
the two points and I am grouping them together into one.
The CuarrmMan. Let me ask a question there. When they return
the first time, after they go out to sea on their first migration and
come back they are presumably a year old?
Mr. Exuiott. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. But those seals remain yearlings until they get
to be 2-year olds?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; until they come back from the second
migration.
Mr. Warxins. I understand that; but he kept using the expres-
sion “‘a year old” so often that I did not know whether he was
making a distinction between those that were a year old and
Mr. Extiorr (interposing). Because Mr. Madden was bringing it
up to me, and I was answering him from the legal as well as the
biological standpoint.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call your attention to the fact
that the fur trade in 1869 put the iar pup” salted seal skins of
London classification down at the bottom of the list in value, only
one grade over the little ‘‘ black pups’’ which were absolutely worth-
less. In proof of this low rating of yearling skins which was preva-
lent then and has never changed in London up to date I submit to
the committee the following statement made by Taylor & Bendel,
fur merchants, San Francisco, Cal., October 20, 1869, as to the
ruling ‘‘Prices and Trades of Classification of Fur-Seal Skins,” 1869:
Our house sold seal skins in this city for $4 (gold) apiece, but other parties who
sent them to London at the same time received account sales, the prices obtained
averaging from 26 to 30 shillings, which is equal to about $6.50 to $7.50 there, less
freight insurance, commissions, etc. In this market they are generally sold at an
average price, but in London they are classified as follows: First, small, bringing
the highest price; second, middlings, bringing the second price; third, large pups,
bringing the third price; fourth, small wigs, bringing the fourth price; fifth, middling
pups, bringing the fifth price; sixth, large wigs, bringing the sixth price; seventh,
small pups, bringing the seventh price; black pups, cut and damaged.
Tos. TAYLOR.
(Seal and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska, Vol. I, p. 8, 1898.)
Observe, please, how well it was known back there in 1869, and on
record in the Treasury Department, as it is known to-day, that the
“small pups”’ are right down_at the bottom, the very dregs of the
catch on the islands.
This declares that the fur-seal skin trade understood in 1869, as
well as it does to-day, 1914, that the ‘small pups” of the London
sales were the smallest skins taken above, the “black pups” and
‘‘oray pups’’ or those from 2 and 3 months to 5 months old
The ‘‘small pups’”’ above quoted are the same grade to-day, and
the very same yearlings which Carlisle prohibited the killing of in
1896, and which prohibition was never authoritatively repealed.
I now reach a serious item concerning George A. Clark’s sense and
credit; I shall briefly sketch it out, as follows:
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 71}1
In an effort to break the force of that deadly exhibit of authentic
and typical salted yearling sealskins which the Bureau of Fisheries
made to this committee, April 24, 1912, Mr. George A. Clark was dis-
patched to the seal islands, under instructions from George M. Bowers
and approved by Charles Nagel, dated April 30, 1912.
During his sojourn on the islands among other “discoveries” which
he made and laid the foundation for, in succeeding years, 1913
notably, he got busy July 9 and 16 with a killing of ‘205 2-year-old
seals.’’ He prepared a table of the weights and measurements of
these skins which is unique in this respect—nothing like it has ever
been done on the islands before, and it is perfectly safe for me to say
that nothing like it will ever be repeated on the killing grounds, or in
the salt houses of the islands; on the 21st of February, 1914, under oath
to this committee, he made the following presentation, or
Clark’s exhibit of ‘‘2-year-old skins,’’ all improperly salted, July, 1912, and so done by his
personal order and supervision, to wit.
oN Length of) Length of Length of|/Length of
No. of tag. oa salt skin. No. of tag. animal. | salt skin,
Inches. Inches. Inches. Inches.
30) Gone Se EHDe CEE SCAB REE ISEe 454 35 DASE esi caes pene ust oe Sa 47 36
SOT tS ee a ee oo 46 SOFA LS OMe apace ere ae cee 43% 314
La 8 ES eee 50 37 WB y/Ssee Gao Senne Ae AOC ROEHEe 44 314
“Sy as Gade SORE ee 45 Bode PLS eee oe eee eee 47h 35
BS eee oka SE Soe Stet 43 SERA VAT se aye ee be ge 474 344
GT is 2 ee ee ee a ae 453 36 VAG ate ee ae ae ae 48 304
Boe oo eRe ae See ene eee 45 Owl (LAD Re ae ae oN MU tare nee ann tard 434 34
Si Sed one Seer BC Cen eE ee 464 Bods lL Oe rene oe mec A a a 44 294
7h eS 1 ee eee res eee eae eee 48 yee) Ved (7 2 BRR Sree i irae nwt 444 354
HES Se ee oe ee ei Sena eee Ree 442 3 Tg Efe) A et ae ve es ean ers ata oe 464 344
Gee be pe Be Sa Ree eee 454 LSE BH Hi 7: 0) Sa Se eae UE 44 334
Pee ts fie eer et ee 454 36 1 AES Aaa e Ce BAe LUO Cease 444 344
Tih ee ee a eee ee 45 35 TUG ee Ete Re SN eS tee OT 474 324
Toh 2 ISOS RS 0 eee ees ee oe ee 48 35 SUS PAS OS Ss eae cate Un ce baes SW Rete 504 37
Uc. Se Fee ae Stge eae anaes 433 SOR MOA. ciaveench ce sion aa aes 484 33
LUD. a3 Bab See Ses eae 464 BDFall PLOO Mare ect el oiseroee oe er eee 484 334
EGE ae eee tae ee ee ee oe 45% BAF PLGA SS Re ee ele Sy ee 484 364
L7G ae oe ee eee ee } 444 Owl PL GBS ap ayei oie Sper tee Chea Sy ate 484 344
DTS) Dee ie so ieee ee 474 33 VIS FR STAI POPE AD AN 45 5
G7) San SES RE IOS eee ee 44 ae a Ly ae eae Aare, Slee Oe 464 344”?
LPP ee et A pas ee ey 48 36
“List of fur seals of a length of 45 inches approximately furnishing
salted skins of a length of 35 inches approximately, extracted from
Bulletin of the Fish Commission No. 780, page 93.”
This exhibit, as above, was submitted to the House Committe on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce by Mr. Clark, under
oath, February 21, 1914. On this basis of those improperly salted
skins he swore that all salted sealskins, between 35 and 31 inches in
length were 2-year-old skins and were ‘small pup” skins in the
London sales classification.
That Mr. Clark knowingly and deliberately ordered this improper
salting of those skins, above cited, in July, 1912, the following depo-
sition of the men who did that improper work in obedience to his
direction, and personal supervision, fully attests, to wit:
Q. Did you drive and kill seals last summer?—A. Yes.
Q. How large were they?—-A. We killed them by ages as we had killed them before.
Mr. Lembkey was the Government agent and Mr. George 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 kench as we salt
712 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
_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.
Q. Do those ‘‘green” skins ever shrink 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 inches during those four or
five days that they harden in salt while in the kenches?—A. Yes; they shrink. When
we salt the skins we stretch the skins, and while in the salt they shrink again, about
2 or 3 or 4 inches.
Q. After they come out of the kench to be bundled and while bundling, do they
shrink any more?—A. Some of them shrink after they are taken out of the kench and
booked, if they are put in theair. Otherwise they donot. Only where the salt does
not catch the skin do they shrink. If they salt all right the skin does not shrink.
Natives’ Town Hatt,
St. Paul Village, Friday, 5.30 p.m., July 25, 1918.
These questions have all been read to us, by George Korchugin, in Aleut, and our
answers to them in turn, in Aleut, from this paper, which we sign below, as being our
own voice and correct in every particular, to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Karp BUTERIN, ALEX. GALAKTIONOF,
Eary STEPETIN, PerEer TETOFF,
Porriro PANKOFF, Feposay (his x mark) SEDICcK,
Nicuorarl Koz.orr, NEon TETOFF.
PETER ONSTIGOF,
St. Paut Istanp, ALASKA,
Village of St. Paul, Town Hall, Friday, July 25, 1913.
The signatures, as above, were all affixed to this paper by the signers, in our presence,
after the foregoing questions and answers had been read to these men in Aleut by
George Kocherin, from this original typed copy.
Attest: Henry W. Ewiorr.
A. F. GALLAGHER.
(Hearing No. 1; pp. 115-117; Jan. 17, 1914, House Committee on Expenditures in
the Department of Commerce.)
By that improper salting, those ‘‘2-year-old skins” which should
have an average length when salted of 44 to 5 inches less length than
the body lengths above quoted, are all improperly shrunken from
44 to 7 inches below their proper lengths, which those native sealers
and expert salters would have given them!
This trick ordered so as to bring them (those 2-year-old and 3-year- ~
oldskins) down into thesalted lengths of ‘small pups” and extra “‘small
pups,” London sales. The natives salters exposed the trick to the
agents of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce, as above duly presented.
Mr. Warxins. What was the object of that salting, if it reduced the
size of the skins ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That would bring them within the class of ‘‘small
pups” in London sales. In other words, they would be able to say
that this was a correct experiment, and it declared the fact that salted
34-inch sealskins were 2-year-old skins.
Mr. Warxins. Oh, I see; that would be an average for the small
skins ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir. But, fortunately, by the patriotic energy,
and zeal and honesty of those officials of the Bureau of Fisheries, and
savants of the advisory board, in bringing down three typical salted
skins of yearling seals, by official orders of the bureau August 18, 1911,
and submitting them here, they exposed and prevented that trick
of Mr. Clark (in 1912), from being put over here, to-day, or hereafter.
Please take note of the following sequence:
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 713
George A. Clark, duly sworn, testifies that he measured 205 ‘‘green”’
skins taken from fur-seal carcasses July, 1912.
Mr. CrarKk. The total length of the 205 green skins is 6,582.50 inches, which is an
average oi 32.1 inches perskin inagreenstate. * * * Now, as to the measurement of
those salted skins which is the question in dispute between Mr. Elliott and myself,
let me give you these figures: The length of those 205 salted skins was 7,404 inches,
and that made an average of each skin of 36.1 inches. * * * The skins, you see,
in the salting process had expanded. * * *
Mr. STEPHENS. You think it would be very hard to distinguish between a yearling
and a 2-year-old—that’s your idea?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes; that is my idea.
(Testimony: Tuesday, Feb. 24, 1914; House Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce.)
Now, gentlemen, that is the first time in all my 40 years’ experience
that I ever heard that salting a sealskin ‘‘expanded”’ its length 4
or 5 inches. Is not that an amazing stultification, since the con-
tention of these scientists has been that they shrink 4 or 5 inches?
Yet this man measures 205 of them and he says the green lengths are
‘“expanded”’ “‘from 32 inches to 33, on up to 36 inches’! the very
reverse of the truth.
W. I. Lembkey, duly sworn, testifies that it is impossible to measure
a “‘green”’ skin of the fur seal after it is removed from the body; can
only be measured properly after salting.
Mr. Mappen. Would not a stretched skin show that it had been stretched?
Mr. Lemsxey. No; the green skin, as a 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 length-
wise; it is so elusive in form it is impossible for us to measure it; that is the truth of the
matter.
Mr. McGrmuicuppy. 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. If tried to make that clear to the committee.
The CHarrMAN. That isa direct question. Why do you not answer it?
Mr. Lempxkey. I am attempting to. It is impossible; of course, all our actions up
there are honestly
Mr. MappeN (interposing). Answer the question right straight. Do not try to
explain it.
Mr. Lempxey. | 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. McGruicuppy. Then it will not stretch?
Mr. LemBxey. Certainly not.
Mr. McGruicuppy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly.
(Hearing No. 9, p. 399, Mar. 1, 1912.)
That is from a man who does understand skins: who does under-
stand the salting of them. I say that without any hestitation. No
man understands it better than Lembkey. He understands it as well
asIdo. He has told the truth, and Mr. Clark has told an untruth here,
about the management of those skins.
The CHarrMan. Are you through ?
Mr. Exxuiorr. I am through with the skins.
Thereupon, by unanimous consent, a recess was taken until 10.30
o’clock a. m. Wednesday, March 11, 1914.
714 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Hovusr oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, March 11, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
<
TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT—Continued.
The Cuarrman. Mr. Elhott, you may proceed.
Mr. Exxiorr. I closed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, with an analysis
of the skins. [{ now want to take up an analysis of the appearance
of the yearlings on the islands which Mr. George A. Clark denied
under oath, as having been established by him through an ‘‘experi-
ment” which he made in 1912 and 1913.
George A. Clark, February 20-24, 1914, under oath, duly testified to
the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce, that the yearling seals did not haul out on the haulings ground
of the Pribilof Island during the months of June and July, annually:
and therefore, not being there, could not have been killed for their
skins by the lessees between 1890 and 1910, inclusive.
The official reports of the United States Treasury agents in charge
of the Seal Islands of Alaska from 1869 up to 1906, all uniformly
deny Mr. Clark’s statement. Eleven sworn reports made by these
government agents all deny Mr. Clark’s sworn testimony, as above
cited, to wit:
In re “Yearlings.’”’ 1869-1891. The official reports annually
made by the United States chief special, and assistant agents in
charge of the Seal Islands of Alaska, who all report specifically, and
who declare that the yearling fur seals haul out annually as early as
June, to appear on the hauling grounds, and in the drives for killing,
from that time on to the end of the legal sealing season, July 31, viz:
Reports dated:
1870, December 30. S. N. Buynitzley, see page 19, Seal and Salmon Fisheries,
Alaska, Volume I, 1896-1898.
1872, September 5. Charles Bryant, see page 36, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume II] 1896-1898.
1873, September 30. Charles Bryant, see page 40, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
1874, August 1. Samuel Falconer, see page 57, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
1875, October 11. Charles Bryant, see page 65, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898. ! :
1876, September 26. Charles Bryant, see page 92, Seal and Salmon Fisheries,
Alaska, Volume I, 1896-1898.
1877, July 28. J. H. Moulton, see page 97, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898. 2
1878, May 15. John Morton, see pages 104-105, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898. : /
1879, September 25. H. G. Otis, see page 117, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
He is now the editor of the Los Angeles, Cal., Times.
Mr. STtepHEns. Is that Gen. Otis?
Mr. Evtiorr. Yes. Here are four sworn reports from him which
I am going to quote.
1880, July 30. H. G. Otis, see page 132, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska, Volume
I, 1896-1898.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 715
1881, July 30. H. G. Otis, see page 141, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska, Volume
I, 1896-1898.
1882, July 30. H. G. Otis, see page 152, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska, Volume
T, 1896-1898.
1884, July 31. H. G. Glidden, see page 167, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
1887, July 31. Geo. R. Tingle, see page 202, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
1888, July 31. Geo. R. Tingle, see page 207, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898.
1890, July 31. C. J. Goff, see pages 2282-233, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume J, 1896-1898.
The brother of Senator Goff, of West Virginia.
1890, July 31. Joseph Murray. See page 238, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, Alaska,
Volume I, 1896-1898. ;
1897, August 11. Joseph Murray. See page 337, Report Fur Seal Investigation
part 3, 1898.
1905, October 26. W.I. Lembkey. See page 24, Senate Document No. 98, Fifty-
ninth Congress, first session.
1907, September1. W.I.Lembkey. See page 414, Hearing No.1, House Commit-
tee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, 1914.
Mr. Murray was associated with Dr. Jordan in the preparation of
this report in 1898. No one class of the seals is better known to-day
or has been better known in the past than is the class of “yearling”
seals.
They are the most numerous of any one class in sight on the hauling
erounds after June 10-14 annually, until the departure of all classes
including themselves, late in November, annually. They are also the
most conspicuous, not only by reason of their numbers and smallest
size, but on account of their greater activity and restlessness or play-
fulness on the hauling grounds.
Mr. Bruckner. Are they easily distinguishable ?
Mr. Exriotr. The yearlings are; they are most conspicuous and
are the easiest understood by anybody looking at them for the first
time. You can not make a mistake.
Mr. SrepHens. It is like a yearling colt?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; it is different. These seals are born at high noon
every year, and they have 12 months of distinct growth. It is not
like a colt, which may be born in any month, and then the farmer
has difficulty in attempting to range it as a ‘“‘yearling.”” You can
not do that. These seals are born at high noon of every year, i. e.,
nine-tenths of them are annually born between the 4th of July and
the 20th of July—nine-tenths of them.
Mr. Bruckner. In the month of July ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir. And, when they all grow for the next 12
months, they come back uniform in size.
Mr. SrepHens. What do you mean by being born at high noon ?
Do you mean on the longest day of the year?
Mr. Exztiotr. No; I mean once a year at high noon, in July,
between the 4th and the 20th.
F ae Bruckner. They are all practically born in the month of
uly ?
Mr. Evxiotr. Yes, sir; nine-tenths of them are born between the
4th and the 20th of July. Nine-tenths of the fur seals are born then,
and then conceived again for-another year. Therefore, when they
come back there is not that irregularity that you see in colts, calves,
dogs, and in other kinds of domestic animals.
716 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
6 b)
The Russians and seal island natives called them “molodets,” or
the ‘‘small seals,’ and also termed them ‘‘little bachelors.” The
usual Russian name was “molodets,” or ‘young ones,’’ literally and
of both sexes when hauled out, so that ‘‘little bachelors”’ or ‘‘ malinkie
halluschickie”’ was not quite as fitting as was the natives’ designation
of “ molodets.”’ +
Mr. Bruckner. Can one distinguish the female from the male?
- Mr. Exxiotr. Yearlings ?
Mr. Bruckner. Yes.
Mr. Extiort. No, sir; not unless he picks it up and examines it.
No living man can do it.
Mr. STEPHENS. Do they come out uniformly, right together ?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir; they do not separate. But as to the 2-year-
olds, when they return as such, the females go to the breeding grounds
and never come out again on the hauling grounds.
Mr. STEPHENS. Is it a fact that in killing a yearling they are liable
to kill a female?
Mr. Extiotr. Precisely. And it is in the sworn testimony that
they can not tell them apart and that they are liable to do it.
Every Government agent stationed on those islands has in some
one or all of his reports to the Government since 1869, made specific
reference to the presence of the ‘‘ yearlmgs”’ as distinct from the older
classes on the hauling grounds.
It is interesting to follow the citation of these ‘‘ yearlings” on the
hauling grounds annually, since 1869, by those different sworn public
officials in charge of the seal islands
1870. Speaking of a drive and killing of the holluschickie on the
island of St. Paul in July, 1870, which he observed, S. N. Buynitzky,
special agent of the Treasury Department, under date of December
30, 1870, makes an official report to Secretary of the Treasury George
S. Boutwell, to wit:
* * * When the herd has been driven to a certain distance from the shore, a halt
is made, and a sorting of the game as to age, sex, and condition of the fur is effected.
This operation requires the exercise of a lifelong experience and is of the utmost impor-
tance, as the killing of females, which are easily mistaken for young males even by the
natives, would endanger the propagation of the species, and the slaughtering of males
under 2 years or over 4 years would be a useless extermination, their furs having little
value for trade.
(Seal and Salmon Fisheries of Alaska, Vol. I, p. 10, 1898.)
Therefore, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you
observe that as early as December 30, 1870, the sense and propriety
of prohibiting the killing of yearlings or all male seals under 2 years
of age was fully understood on the islands and by the officials in
charge.
Mr. Srepuens. The reason for that is that it is impossible to
aes them when they land there the first time ?
Mr. Ex.iorr. To separate the sexes.
Mr. StepHens. As [ understand, the agreement that was made
for the killing of those seals—or lease, as you call it—prohibited the
killing of females at all?
Mr. Evtiorr. Yes, sir. And then the regulations ordered the
killing of no yearlings.
Mr. STEPHENS. No yearlings or females ?
Mr. Extiorr. That is right.
Mr. Bruckner. How do they separate after two years ?
-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 717
Mr. Exxtiotr. That is the natural law. When the female returns
from her second migration.as a 2-year-old, she goes to the breeding
grounds, being in heat for the first time; and from that time she
never consorts with the bachelors on the hauling grounds. But
the 2-year-old male never goes on the breeding grounds until he is
6 years old, because he is not strong enough.
Mr. Patton. What was the weight limit in 1870 for killing?
Mr. Extrotr. They had no official regulations at all until 1896.
IT am coming to that. Nobody wanted the yearlings in those days;
there was not the slightest inducement to kill them. They were
not worth taking in 1870; nobody wanted them.
Mr. STEPHENS. When did they first begin to take yearling skins?
Mr. Exxrorr. Eighteen hundred and ninety-six. That is when
they began to kill them for the first time, in violation of the law and
regulations.
Mr. Patron. Why did they commence taking them if they were
of no use?
Mr. Exxiorr. Because the value rose.
Mr. Patron. They were taken then ?
Mr. Exiiotr. Yes. When the bigger seals disappeared, and they
could not get them; and, the catch fell, from 100,000 in 1889, te
20,000 in 1890, then they went to the dregs or ‘‘small-pup” skins, for
the demand put up the price.
The CoarrMAn. Then it was they commenced to take the young
seals, because there was money enough in them ?
Mr. Exiiotr. Yes. It did not pay when I was there in 1872;
they rotted on the ground; they were of no value.
1872. In 1872, under date of St. Paul Island, September 5, 1872,
Chief Special Agent Charles Bryant has the following official report
to make in re the appearance of the yearlings there on the haulin
grounds during the killing seasons of June and July (see p. 36, Sea
and Salmon Fisheries, vol. 1):
It is also observable that a larger number of yearlings or last year’s pups than
usual have returned to the island the present season.
1873. In 1873, under date of September 30, Special Agent Charles
Bryant in an extended official report to the Secretary of the Treas-
ury has this to say, particularly of the yearlings (see p. 40, Seal
and Salmon Fisheries, vol. 1):
It was also observable that a much larger number of l-year-old seals arrived on
the island during July and August, as if the season had been more favorable for ther
while absent during the winter and the destruction of them less than usual.
1874. In 1874 Assistant Agent Samuel Falconer, and in charge
of St. George Island since 1871, makes to the Secretary of the
Treasury an elaborate report upon the seal herd and its condition,
dated August 1, 1874. On page 57, Seal and Salmon Fisheries,
he has this to say about the yearlings, showing his full understand-
ing of the fact that they hauled out males and females alike to-
gether on the hauling grounds during June and July, 1. e., ‘‘during
the breeding season,” to wit: :
The female arrives at puberty at 2 years, and produces her first pup at the age of
3 years. This I very readily determined from the fact that when 1 year old both sexes
haul up on the backgrounds and are not allowed by the bulls to approach the breeding
rookeries during the breeding season.
718 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Stepuens. Whose report is that?
Mr. Exuiorr. Falconer, 1874; a shrewd, hard-headed, thorough-
going Scotchmen, who loooked into everything closely. He was
the most valuable assistant I had there in preparing my tables of
weights and measures. I am glad to do him credit.
Mr. StepHEens. Where is he now?
Mr. Exuiotr. He is living. He is an old man, 82 years old, and
lives at Wilton, N. Dak.
Falconer also, on this same page 57, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, vol-
ume 1, presents:
The following table will show the weights of a number of male seals, taken in the
month of July, 1873, from 1 year old up to 6:
Age. Weight. Age. Weight.
Pounds. Pounds.
NY GAIL eee anes ick eocees cece 33':60)46)||"4 Wears -o-.c2- - ci cace Saee eee ee EEE Eee 90 to 111
DE OATS its oe mia shot sctne so maws cinisieoieieis 53: t0'68:)||\-b Vearss 7. o..acce acd cose eee eee eee eee 120 to 146
BV CALS © sei octh oe cra sisices Gees see oabeeiaa | 76: toy89)}| M6. Wearseas sess s-2s accessed seer eee eee 175 to 200
You see, there he states the weight of a 1-year-old seal July 10,
1873, as from “33 to 46” pounds. The mean of it is pretty nearly
my table. He makes it 39} pounds and I make it 39 pounds, I
believe.
Mr. Bruckner. Is there any difference in the quality of the skin
of a male and of a female? — .
Mr. Exxiorr. Not at all, sir, except the female skin, I think, is
more even; that is, up until they are three years old. From that time
on they never change, although the males get worse after their
fourth year until they get absolutely worthless; that is, in their
sixth year.
1875. Under date of October 11, 1875, Chief Special Agent Bryant,
in his annual report for 1875, has this to say of the yearlings as he
observed them that season, to wit:
The young male seals return to the islands the first year at the same time of the
females, in July, and for every additional year of their age, 10 or 15 days earlier (p. 65,
Seal and Salmon Fisheries).
Again he says, on page 66, following the above, with regard to the sea margins of the
hauling grounds:
These beaches occupied by the intermediate ages from 1 to 6 years old, together
with the few superanuated ones whose age unfits them to cope with the beach masters
are called to distinguish them from the breeding places, the hauling grounds. It is
from this class or these hauling grounds that the seals are taken for their skins.
There he puts the yearlings on the hauling grounds.
1876. Again in his annual report for 1876, dated ‘St. Paul’s
Island, September 26, 1876” (p. 92, following), Chief Special Agent
Bryant has this to say:
Of the holluschickie or young males between the ages of 2 and 5 years, there is
quite a visible increase shown by their proportions when seals are driven in to kill
for food since the quota was full. The number of yearlings or last year’s pups that
have returned to the island is greater than any year since 1872.
Bear in mind that all these agents had the constant advice and
suggestions of the natives. It is in sworn testimony here, that the
natives know the age of a seal instantly by sight. That is sworn to
by Mr. Lembkey. They never make a mistake. He says they are
experts, and they never make a mistake.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. %19
Mr. BrucKNER. You mean it is easy for them to tell the difference ?
Mr. Exvziorr. Yes; they know a yearling or a 2-year-old at sight.
Mr. Bruckner. And a 3-year-old and a 4-year-old ?
Mr. Exriotr. Yes. Mr. Lembkey has testified that thay have a
high degree of expertness. It is in his direct testimony.
The CoarrMan. It seems to me that any man can tell the difference
in height between two men when one is 6 feet tall and another one is
5 feet 11 inches.
Mr. Exxiort. Yes, sir; they stand like so many steps on a stairway,
when you look at them filing over the field. There is not a man at
this table who could not have gone with me on those hauling grounds
last July, and determined that, just as did my friend Gallagher,
who saw them for the first time, and in an hour got accustomed
to their sizes: he began to realize the difference in their ages in an
hour or two.
Mr. STEPHENS. There is no way except the size?
Mr. Exxiottr. That is all.
Mr. STEPHENS. Take horses and cattle. You know
Mr. Eriiotr (interposing). But they range differently. They
are not born all at the same time annually as these seals are.
Mr. Wats. But there is some exception even about them ?
Mr. Exziorr. Yes; there are exceptions to all rules. There are a
few pups born early in June, the 16th of June; and a few born as
late as the 5th of August; but they are not one-hundredth of the
whole number. They are so few that they do not make the slightest
impression on you when looking at the different seals.
Mr. Watsu. I mean, is there not an exception among those that
are born at the same time?
Mr. Extiorr. They are practically born
Mr. Watsu (interposing). The same as in the human being.
Mr. Exztiotr. You were not here earlier—I can see by your ques-
tion—when I stated to the committee that nine-tenths of these fur
seals are actually born between the 4th and 20th of July. So they
grow evenly into yearlings, and are evenly grown when you see them
the next year.
Mr. Patron. What Mr. Walsh means is this: Is there not an excep-
tion even in the growth of the ones born at the same time ?
Mr. Exriotr. Yes, there is, but not enough to mark that grade
between the ages. Of course, there are smaller yearlings and bigger
ee: there are yearlings 41 inches long and yearlings 33 inches
ong.
1877. In 1877, Assistant Treasury Agent J. H. Moulton, in charge
of St. George Island, reports under date of July 28, 1877, that:
All the rookeries are in excellent shape. The rookeries and hauling grounds show
an increase of.at least 334 per cent over last year. This increase is seen in all classes
of seals (p. 97, Seal and Salmon Fisheries). :
In 1878 Chief Special Agent Morton, the son of Senator Morton,
of Indiana, reports under date of May 15, 1878, to the Secretary of
the Treasury, from St. Paul Island (pp. 104-105; Seal and Salmon
Fisheries, etc.) :
From a comparison of my observations of the breeding rookeries on this island during
the past season, with Treasury Agent Elliott’s survey of their boundaries in 1872-73—
You see he had my official report upon his shelf there, just as I have
told you it was there—
720 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
I find in most of them a very appreciable expansion, and in none any noteworthy
conten, * * * that avery material increase in all classes of seals has taken
place.
1879. In 1879 Chief Special Agent Harrison G. Otis reports under
date of September 25 (p. 117, Salmon and Seal Fisheries, etc.) :
The numbers of seals of all kinds—bulls, cows, bachelors, and pups—were, it is be-
lieved, fully up to the best standard of preceding years; but no correct estimate of the
ageregate can safely be given. It amounts to millions.
1880. In 1880 Chief Special Agent Otis, under date of St. Paul
Island, July 30, 1880, in his annual report to Secretary of Treasury
John Sherman has this to say of the ‘countless numbers”’ of yearlings
that have hauled out, etc. (p. 1382, Seal and Salmon Fisheries, etc.) :
I am glad to be able to report the seal life of these islands as stillabundant and in
satisfactory and promising condition. Seals of all classes and ages and of both sexes
have appeared upon the hauling grounds and the breeding rookeries during the present
season in countless numbers.
The CHarrman. What was the date of that ?
The Exxuiorr. 1880.
The Coatrman. What month, I mean?
Mr. Exxiotr. July 30 is the date of his report, and he is reporting
on the season beginning June 1. These reports cover the season right
up to July 30; they are all dated July 30, as that is the end of the
season. ‘These reports go back over the work of the season and the
condition of the rookeries at the height of the season, between the
4th and 20th of July, and then on the hauling grounds where these
yearlings are.
1881. In 1881 Chief Special Agent Otis makes the same report
in re seals, dated July 30 (p. 141, et seq., Seal and Salmon Fisheries).
1882. In 1882 Chief Special Agent Otis makes the same report in
re seals of “all classes,’’ etc. (p. 152, Seal and Salmon Fisheries).
1884. In 1884 Chief Special Agent Glidden makes same report
in re ‘‘seals of all classes,’”’ dated St. Paul Island, July 31, 1884. (See
p. 167, Seal and Salmon Fisheries.)
1887. In 1887 Chief Special Agent George R. Tingle reports, under
date of July 31, St. Paul Island (p. 202, Seal and Salmon Fish-
eries, etc.) :
_ Fully one-half of the pups which go to sea in the fall return as yearlings in the follow-
ing spring.
In 1888 Chief Special Agent Tingle, under date of St. Paul Island,
July 31, reports (p. 207, Seal and Salmon Fisheries)
The CuarrMaNn. Is that the Tingle who afterwards acted as attor-
ney ?
Mr. Exvtiotr. Yes. He has been the attorney of the lessees for
years.
Statement B shows the killing on St. George and St. Paul, consolidated each month.
The extremely small number of skins rejected, viz, 273, attests the care which is
exercised in killing the quota of 100,000. This insignificant loss is the more remarkable
when it is considered that in the drives many large bulls and yearling seals are driven
up to the killing grounds which have to be separated in the pods when clubbing.
That killing usually began in my time about the 16th or 17th of
July.
Mr. STEPHENS. Whose statment is that ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Chief Special Agent Tingle. I will give you my
statement very soon and answer the question very fully. I am not
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 72]
defending these men; I had nothing to do with these men; indeed,
some of them are very far from my knowledge or understanding.
These are their sworn reports which I am citing to you.
1890. In 1890 Chief Special Agent Goff reports to Secretary of
Treasury under date of St. Paul Island, July 31 (pp. 232, 233, Seal
and Salmon Fisheries) :
Third. The jarge young seals whose skins are merchantable commence coming about
the middle of May, gradually increasing in numbers as the cows appear, and with these
large young seals comes a portion of the pups born the summer beiore; but the greatest
majority of the yearlings put in their appearance in the month of July. Now, in open-
ing the season it is customary to secure all the 2-year-olds and upward possible before
the yearlings begin to fill up the hauling grounds and mix with the killable seals.
By so doing it is much easier to do the work, and the yearlings are not tortured by being
driven and redriven to the killing grounds.
The man who made that report never heard of me and never knew
of me until he landed on the islands in 1889. That is the truth,
however, just as he describes it.
Mr. StrerHENS. Who made that report ?
Mr. Exrrorr. Charles J. Goff, brother of Senator Goff, of West
Virginia.
1889-90. Report of Assistant Agent Joseph Murray, dated St.
George Island, July 31,1890. (See p. 238, Seal and Salmon Fisheries.)
Here is a man who was busy in preparing that report with Dr.
Jordan. wu
Mr. StepHEns. What is his name?
Mr. Exxtiotr. Joseph Murray.
In 1889 the full quoto of 15,000 skins was obtained here, but I know now (what I
did not understand then) that in order to fill the quoto they lowered the standard
toward the close of the season and killed hundreds of yearling seals and took a greater
number of small skins than ever before.
Mr. StepHens. What is the date of that?
Mr. Exxiotr. July 31, 1890.
The CHarrMAN. Let me ask you for an incidental bit of information.
It seems you say Murray assisted Dr. Jordan is making these fur-seal
investigations ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrmMan. And made a report to the Government ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes, sir. Here it is stated on this title page [indicat-
ing].
The CuHatRMAN. Then he was there with Mr. Clark also ?
Mr. Exziotr. Yes; they were right together.
Mr. Patron. When was he with Mr. Clark there ?
Mr. Exxriotr. 1896 and 1897.
Mr. Patron. But this is 1890 that you are giving ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; this was preceding.
The CHairman. But Murray was with them in 1896 and 1897 ?
Mr. Eriiotr. Yes. J am coming down to it. Iam going through
this chronologically, so there will no mistake in understanding what
these men have been doing.
1897: Under date of August 11, 1897, Dr. Jordan’s assistant,
Joseph Murray, reported the abe cueure of yearlings on the hauling
grounds in July which he had branded in September, 1896, as the 2
or 3-months-old female seal pups of that year, to wit:
The pups branded last year (1896) were also seen hale and hearty in numbers on the
hauling grounds and rookeries. * * * This appearance of the branded cows (of
1896), as well of the yearlings (female pups of 1896), shows clearly, etc.
523490—14——46
722 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
(See Report Fur-Seal Investigations: Part 3, p. 337, Feb. 24, 1898.)
1905: Now we will take a jump over all the testimony given by-
Chief Special Agent Goff’s successors, who have reported in turn
just as he has so faithfully stated as to the appearance of the yearlings
on the hauling grounds during June and July, annually, to the associate
and confederate of Mr. George A. Clark in 1912-13, Chief Special
Agent W. I. Lembkey, who under date of October 26, 1905, officially
reports to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, to wit:
Special attention was paid by me to the presence of yearlings in the drives. The
first seen was on June 28. * * On July 1 there were three yearlings seals.
* * * On July 5 there were yearling seals. * * * Only July 25 several year-
lings. * * * On the last drive made on August 9 a larger number.
(See S. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., Ist sess., p. 24.)
And in another place Chief Special Agent Lembkey says the year-
lings ‘‘returned in a mass” between the 20th and 25th of July. So
if he saw several yearlings on July 25, he told the truth, but how
many more he did not say. But they were there all right, June 28.
Mr. STEPHENS. You mean they were on the hauling grounds?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; where he was driving seals from to kill.
1904: Also, Chief Special Agent Lembkey, in 1904, makes certain
that female yearlings are in these lalling drives which he is making in
July, 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 be a female.
Special attention was paid by me to the presence of yearlings in the drives. The
first seen was on June 28 ina drive from Zapadnie. It was sosmall that it was killed to
determine its weight. Itwasamale. * * * (Rept. W. I. Lembkey, Sept. 1, 1904,
p. 77, App. A, H. Com, Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.)
There you are. Males and females together; no mistake about it;
no doubt about it. He killed them; he examined them and he reported
their presence.
Mr. Parron. But he did not report any great numbers of them ?
Mr. Exuiorr. No. But the London returns fixed the numbers.
If the gentleman from Pennsylvania had been here yesterday he
would understand the point I am making, and he will, when he reads
the testimony that was put in here.
Mr. Parron. I will read the evidence and see whether I do under-
stand.
Mr. Exvtiorr. And the evidence yesterday, would have stopped that
question in a moment.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will take up another point which is in
order at this juncture. Mr. Clark has made a “discovery,” July 24,
1913, and learned for the first time then, that yearlings do not
annually return to the islands during June and July in any note-
worthy numbers. He brands pups in September, 1912, with red-hot
irons on the tops of their heads, and then he can not find them on
the hauling grounds in 1913, when he searches for them in July.
He gives us the following report of his work thus, beginning
September 7, 1912, to wit:
Clark burns with red-hot irons, the tender tops of the heads of
two-months-old seal pups, September 7, 1912.
The process of branding is very simple. The older natives held the small grou
of pups after it had been surrounded in a loose fashion, merely to prevent the animals
getting away. A dozen young men in two groups catch the pups, carrying them
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 723
by the hind flippers, holding their heads flat on the ground by a grip on the skin of
the neck at each side while the brand is being burnt in, and then carrying them out -
of reach. The mark consists of a T, the stem reaching down between the eyes, the
cross piece between the ears. A space of half an inch or more is left free between
the two burns. The red-hot iron burns through the fur readily leaving a clear surface,
a slight additional pressure insuring the destruction of the roots of the fur. Five
seconds are sufficient for each of the two marks and both can be made with a single
iron. A plumber’s gasoline forge will keep three irons in condition and one operator
could theoretically brand three animals a minute. In practice about one a minute
is quick work. There is always delay in getting the pups ready. Moreover the
work is heavy, not merely for the person doing the branding but for the native holding
the animal. The 489 pups branded this afternoon represent a maximum half day’s
work for two men—or approximately 1,000 pups a day. (Rept. G. A. Clark, MS.
1912, p. 293.)
September 9, 1912 (page 295),
I went very carefully over the rookeries of Reef Peninsula on which the principal
brandings have been made, making a thorough search for dead animals. Mr. Proctor
on the trip of the launch yesterday, reported seeing some dead pups in the water,
whether branded or not he could not determine. * * * The observation, how-
ever, raises the suggestion of death from branding. * * * If these pups die it
will be from starvation rather than branding. In a word if dead branded pups are
found it must be clearly demonstrated that they did not die of other causes before
the verdict of death from branding is accepted. * * *
Went on board the Homer at 5 p. m. (sailed for San Francisco).
There were no pelagic sealers out there during the entire season
of 1912, killing the mothers! We never heard of ‘the starvation of
pups” until the pelagic sealers got there in 1891—1896—97; and the
pups never starved in my time, 1872-1890. What does he mean by
saying, after receiving Mr. Proctor’s report, that these pups had
not died from branding but “died from starvation ?”’
Mr. StepHENS. What was the age and size of the seals?
Mr. Exxiotr. About two months old.
Mr. StepHeNS. About what did they weigh ?
Mr. Exxiorr. When they were branded ?
Mr. STEPHENS. Yes.
Mr. Exxiorr. I suppose 14, 15, or 20 pounds.
Mr. StePHENS. What would have been the thickness of the skull
of the animals ?
Mr. Exziott. I am coming to that. I just want to let you know
how that death warning was given to him.
Mr. STEPHENS. By whom ?
Mr. Extiotrr. By his own assistant, Mr. Proctor, that “‘the pups
were dead in the water”? around there.
Mr. STEPHENS. Is that in evidence ?
Mr. Exziorr. It has never been in evidence until this hour; Mr.
Clark’s report is not printed.
Mr. Patron. How many dead pups did he see ?
Mr. Exxiorr. He did not say.
Mr. Patron. Well
Mr. Exsiorr (interposing). But no matter, he reported ‘ pups dead
in the water.”
The Clark of 1914 vs. the Clark of 1896-97. The sworn statements
of Geo. A. Clark, February 21-24, 1914, as to results in re branding
pup seals, 1912, and the explicit denial of them made officially,
November 7, 1896, and February 24, 1898, by Dr. David Starr Jor-
dan, Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, Dr. F. A. Lucas, Capt. Jefferson F.
Moser, Dr. Chas. H. Townsend, Geo. A. Clark, and Joseph Murray,
724
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
in their joint official report to the Secretary of the Treasury, entitled
“Report of Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, Parts I-IV, 1898.”
(Pp. 336-337, pt. 3.)
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
George A. Clark swears that his
branding of pups in September,
1912, to ‘identify them as yearlings
in 1913, was the only and first ex-
periment to that end ever made,
and it proves that no yearlings
are on the hauling grounds in
June and July.
Mr. CrarKk. The branding of pups in
the fall of 1912 settled this question of the
movements of the yearlings. * * * If
I made mistakes before, | want to correct
them now, because an added light brings
an added willingness to remedy any de-
fects which may be brought to light. As
I said the branding of pups in the fall of
1912 settled this question of the move-
ments of the yearlings. *
We had supposed in 1896 ee 1897
that the bulk of the small seals turned
back were yearlings or small 2-year-olds.
% A Le
The point is that in 1896 and 1897 the
commission, both commissions quite gen-
erally assumed that the yearlings came in
large numbers in the close of the season
on the hauling grounds. That is the way
it appeared to us in 1896 and 1897.
Testimcny, duly sworn, of G. A. Clark.
Feb. 20-21, 1914, to H. Com. Exp. Dep.
Commerce.
But Dr. D. S. Jordan, mm an
official report to the Secretary of
the Treasury, dated November 7,
1896, declares that pups were
branded September 1-10, 1896, to
serve as exhibits in 1897, of the
effect of branding when they re-
turned as yearlings to the islands.
XXI. Branding—Branding pups.
The recent experiment in branding fe-
male pups on the two islands will help
future observers to record the movements
of the cows. During the present season,
124 pups and 2 cows on Lukanin
rookery were marked on the back with
the following brand -+-; on Ketaive, 191
pups were branded across the shoulders
with this mark —; and on North Rookery
of St. George, 62 pups received this
brand =, and 9 cows this = (p. 62,
Treasury Doc. 1913, 1896).
Return of these pups in 1897,
officially recorded:
The pups branded last year (1896) were
also seen hale and hearty, in numbers on
the hauling grounds and_ rookeries.
* * * his appearance of the branded
cows (of 1896) as well as of the yearlings
(female pups of 1896) shows clearly, etc.
(Rept. Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 3,
p. 337, 1898.)
Vere they branded in the same manner as Mr. Clark
Mr. Patton.
branded them before 2?
Mr. Extiotr. No; they were not killed.
Mr. Patron.
Mr. Exxiiotr. Yes;
Were they branded with hot irons?
it is described in detail
They were branded
with hot irons in 1896 and Clark branded with hot irons in 1912.
They were branded on the backs and over the shoulders in safe places
im 1896; but they were branded on the head, to kill, in 1912, and I am
coming to that.
George A. Clark, under oath, swears that no yearling females went
out with the yearling males and 2 2-year-old males. (Feb. 21, 1914,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.)
Mr. CtarK. * * * These few animals were males and it would not be possible in
any event for the yearling females to exist on the hauling grounds. That is true be-
cause the older bachelcrs “would worry them to death. +e *
The branding of pups in the fall of 1912 settled this question of the movements of the
yearlings. Only one of these branded seals was seen on the hauling grounds of Reef
rookery, and three all told in the killing season of 1913.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
725
Jordan makes denial of knowledge 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.
oi the islands, or are associated with them on the migrations is not known.
do not nssociate with them to any great extent on the islands.
tions, pt. 1, 1898, p. 66.)
Whether the young females come with them to the vicinity
But they
(Fur Seal Investiga-
But the Biological Museum of Stanford University holds the proof
that Clark has not truthfully testified, and that the female pups
branded in 1896 duly returned to hauling grounds as yearlings, in
1897, as reported by Murray and Clark, February 24, 1898.
Dr. Jordan’s men take a male and a female yearling seal out of a
drive from the hauling grounds, and send them as specimens to
Stanford University.
Sunday, September 27, 1896.—(P. 12.) A barren cow shot on reef; skin taken for
Stanford University.
University.
(P. 13.) The skin of a yearling bull smothered in the food
drive from Lukannon ! taken for Stanford University.
for purposes of dissection out of the drive from Lukannon.
(Official journal of the United States Agent, St. Pauls Island, entered on
(P.14.) /2-- SS See. ee ee | 55 38
(pO eee SEO ee Se eae 30.5 | DAS With 20 i=,.aa> seme cee ee 56 41
SoA Tei arte ae Sola ge 3 36 25 <|| "Ate. 0: se | 63 41.5
UT hav oe ee, eee eee ee EYES pee R175: I Gept.20..-2) 255. coe seeeeeeee | 62 41.5
PA DO en wane coma woes ae ee 41.25 30.25)|| Oct. 20:2. --$-5- 8552... Seeeee 63.5 41.5
Bap eo esc 6 Bees 4H 32 1 Now.\20: «22 263. eee 64 43
Qabe Diaaic. 12 ears a Spt 46.5 34.5 Dee: 20 sec =p cescace eee ee 62 43
LNG Oe | IEE RES Sa 44.5 34
YBUSA setae oe wan coe tones 49.5 34.786 1912
Tan. 20. 2.)2) eae eee 63 37.5
1911. Keb: 20.3. Acs case cea 61.25 40.75
a ON eee Be en ee ees | 50 ] 34.5 Mar. 20 oo. occins oon eee seen 62 38.5
IBD 320s eee eect cone 44.5 30.5 Ar. (20. 5 onccams case 60.5 37
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
127
Dr. EvERMANN. These tables are weights of live seals which we have down at the
bureau.
Mr. McGruuicuppy. They are not skins?
Dr. EvERMANN. Not skins; no, sir.
(Hearing No. 10, pages 5138-514, April 24, 1912, House Committee
on Expenditures wn the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
THE DEADLY PARALLEL ON BRANDING.
Geo. A. Clark, February 20,
1914, under oath, declares that
he made the first branding of pup
seals to determine when they
returned as yearlings in the fol-
lowing year. This was done by
him September, 1912, on the Reef
rookery, St. Paul Island.
These pups, all males and
females, had not returned up to
July 25—notone. (Good reason;
they were injured in their brains,
ii not all killed.)
Geo. A. Clark, February 20, 1914, under
oath testified, to wit:
Mr. Ciarxk. It is true, and I want to
explain whatI meanbyit. They cleaned
up all of the 2-year-old animals. They
killed absolutely no yearlings out ot the
herd, because the yearlings do not appear
on the hauling grounds during the killing
season. * * *
Mr. CuarK. I did not know it at the
time. This matter comes to my knowl-
edge as the result of the branding of 1912.
We branded 6,000 pups with a red-hot iron
on the head, and we searched for those
animals the next year, and if yearlings
came to the hauling grounds, those ani-
mals would have come, and they did not
come, except two or three animals which
weisaws ~.% *
The CHarrmMan. What I want to ask
you is this: How did you arrive at the
conclusion that the quota of 1889 was
largely made up of yearlings?
Mr. Ciark. The point is in 1896-97,
both commissions quite generally
assumed that the yearlings came in large
numbers in the close of the season on the
hauling grounds. That is the way it
appeared to us in 1896-97. * * *
The Coairman. You had the informa-
tion that they took yearling seals, did you
not, or else it would not be in your report
to the Government.
Mr. Crarx. To our knowledge at that
time. You remember, this report was
published in 1896-97.
So they “assumed” nothing.
Dr. David Starr Jordan, Novem-
ber 7, 1896, officially reports to
the Secretary of the Treasury,
that Jos. Murray, assistant, Fur
Seal Commission, on September
1-10, 1896, has branded 315 pups
and 2 cows, at Lukannon and
Keelavio rookeries, St. Paul
Island: ‘‘All female pups.” (See
p. 62, Treasury Doc. No. 1913:
1896.) : ae
They all return in 1897, ‘‘on
the hauling grounds,” and as
‘‘female yearlings.”
(They were not burned with hot
trons on the top of their heads, but
properly and safely branded on
their backs.)
Joseph Murray officially reports
and records the return of these
pups in 1897 (which he had
branded in 1896), as “yearlings”
and ‘‘on the hauling grounds,”
to wit:
The pups branded last year were also
seen hale and hearty in numbers on the
hauling grounds and rookeries. * 4
This appearance of the branded cows, as
well as that of the yearlings, shows clearly,
etc.
Fur Seal Investigations, part 3,
page 337, 1898.
The drive from Lukannon showed a
marked excess of yearlings. In the
earlier drives these yearlings do not
appear, and in the later drives Lukannon
sends in an overwhelming majority of
them.
Geo. A. Clark, July 25, 1896,
page 340, Fur Seal Investigations,
part 2, 1898.
They knew in 1896 and 1897, that the
pups that they branded in 1896, were back there on the hauling grounds
728 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
as yearlings, and they reported it. They ‘‘assumed’’ nothing, as Mr.
Clark says here under oath; they knew it, just as I knew it 30 years
before them!
Clark swears that he branded pup seals, less than 2 months old, with
a red-hot iron on the top of their heads, 3d—6th September, 1912, and
then adds:
Mr. McGuire. Now, what time in 1912 did you do this branding—what dates?
Mr. Crark. It was the first week in September * * * on the 3d of September.
Mr. McGuire. And you branded them practically from the 5th to 10th of September?
Mr. CrarK. That was really too early, and it was done then because I had to get
away.
Mr. McGurre. Then in 1913, you say you made a search for the branded animals
and they were not there?
Mr. CiarK. Except as to this one animal, which I found in this bunch on the Reef;
but I saw in addition to that one, three other animals, two of them on St. George Island.
Sworn statement, February 21, 1914. House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the Department of Commerce.
Mr. StepHens. Where will we find that statement ?
Mr. Exiiotrr. I am coming to it. I am going to bring it all in.
W. I. Lembkey, before the House Committee on Ways and Means,
January 25, 1907, pleading the excuse that he ‘“‘shaved”’ or “‘sheared”’
the heads of ‘‘reserved”’ 3-year-old seals instead of branding them on
“the napes and backs, as I had demanded he should do, pleading as his
excuse for ‘‘shaving”’ that he ‘‘could not put red-hot irons on the tops
of the heads of 3-year-old seals without injuring their brains.” Now,
I will read his testimony.
The CuarrmMan. Lembkey assisted in branding, according to Mr.
Clark’s statement ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes. But I am going back to the time when he
appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means, January 25, 1907,
and when I had made my charge then, that he had failed to obey the
Hitchcock rules, and had put a vanishing mark on the “reserved”
seals instead of a permanent one. Then he made the excuse that he
would not dare do it on the tops of their heads because it would injure
their brains. He was right; but I told him to put the marks on the
napes of the seals where it would not injure their brains, and where
they would not sensibly feel it.
Please observe how Lembkey swears that he can not brand 3-year-
old seals on the top of their heads without injury to their brains—so
he ‘‘shears”’ them. (How did the transparent skulls of pups less than
2 months old, shield their brains from injury at the hands of Clark and
his red-hot irons?)
Mr. CHamp CLarK. What is the reason you can not brand a seal so that the brand
does not come off?
Mr. Lempxey. That was discussed in full in 1904, at the time this action was put
in force. * * * The skull of the seal is very thin, and the question was seriously
discussed then whether a severe brand placed on top of the head of this animal would
not have a tendency to injure its brain, and also subject the Government to the
criticism of insisting on a practice which might readily be considered inhuman and
barbarous.
Mr. Ettrorr. On that Mr. Hitchcock and I agreed in the main. You do not need to
brand the skull top—put it on the nape of the seal and it is perfectly harmless
Mr. LEmMBKEY. For that reason the department decided that, while they would
mark these seals with a hot iron yet the mark was to be made of such a character that
under no circumstances should it burn into the skin of the animal.
(Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; pp. 58, 59 M. 8S.
typed notes. )
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 729
The untruth in re pup branding uttered to the committee Friday,
February 20, 1914, by George A. Clark (pp. 9-10, notes):
The CHatrMan. In your report did you call it whirlwind sealing?
Mr. CuarK. I did.
The Cuarrman. In other words you meant that the sealing company had cleaned
up everything they could get?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHatrMAN. And you made that report?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarRMAN. And you want to say now that it is true?
Mr. Cuark. It is true, and I want to explain what I mean by it. They cleaned up
all of the 2-year-old animals. They killed absolutely no yearlings out of the herd
poe the yearlings do not appear on the hauling grounds in the killing season; that
is all.
The CHarRMAN. Did you say that in your report?
Mr. CruarKk. I did not know it.
The CuatrMaANn. Or do you just want to get it in another shape now?
Mr. CrarK. I did not know it at the time. This matter comes to my knowledge as
the result of the branding of 1912. We branded 6,000 pups with a red-hot iron on the
head, and we searched for those animals the next year, and if yearlings come to the
hauling grounds those animals would have come, and they did not come except two or
three animals which we saw. We searched the rookeries for them and did not find
them.
*
* * * * * *
Mr. SrepHens. These were pups that they branded?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes.
Mr. SreprHens. But the yearlings that should have appeared next
year did not appear?
Mr. Exxiotr. Every one of those 6,000 pups that he and Mr.
Lembkey, and their associates, marked with red-hot trons, with an
“ enduring and permanent mark,” as they say, had their brains affected.
The skull of a fur seal pup is fairly as thin as that writing paper
(indicating), and it is translucent. You can hold it up and put a
candle in it and it looks like one of those lighted globes above [indi-
ee IT can take my thumb and push it through the skull of a
pup if I want to. Yet, these men say that they held them down, and
while they were struggling, they took these hot irons and burned “an
enduring mark” right down through the skin.
Mr. Patron. Did they say they branded through the skin? Did
they not say they branded enough to kill the roots of the hair?
Mr. Ex.riotr. But how do you know where you stop? You can not
tell where you stop.
Mr. Patron. Their report was they burned enough to kill the roots
of the hair.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; I am coming to that report. I will show the
way they branded. When they used the hot irons on their heads and
burned down enough to kill the roots of the hair, can you say where
they stopped? And what is between that thin skin and that translu-
cent bone that covers the cerebellum? Nothing. Even if that hot
iron did not get clear through the skin it might and would easily reach
some vital spot and affect the brain. You put a hot iron on the skull
of a new-born babe of our species, which is four-times as thick as the
skull of a seal pup, and J will tell you, Mr. Patton, and there is not a
man in this land but what would tell you that that babe is a dead one.
The Cuarrman. Do you mean it would die instantaneously ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; the clots might form slowly, and do, undoubt-
edly; because they struggle, some of them may live by reason of
730 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
being imperfectly branded, and would thus get back alive to the
islands next year; but every one, I understand, was ‘‘perfectly
marked;’’ therefore he did not see any of those!
Mr. Parron. Did you ever see one that was marked ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Parron. Did you ever see one that was dead that was marked ?
Mr. Exuiorr. No; they were properly branded over the shoulders or
on the back.
Mr. Patron. How do you know how it affected them ?
Mr. Exziorr. Well, I will leave that to you, gentlemen.
Mr. Patron. I do not know.
Mr. Exxiorr. I leave it to you; I am not going to argue that
question.
Mr. Parron. But you are arguing the question.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I am leaving it to you. J am making a state-
ment of the way they did the work. But you, nor any other man,
could hardly stand over a pup while it was being held down, was
struggling, quivering, and ete itself, and put that red-hot iron on
and say where—to what depth of that thin skin—you were burning.
You do not know how deep you are burning. You do not know.
And if you are making an “enduring mark”’ you are going through
that skin. Now, why did they not brand these seals in a safe place,
where they could not injure them seriously? Why did they transfer
this safe branding of 1896, which they all recognized as such, then,
and put it on the gelatinous plates of the cerebellum of these new-
born pups ?
Mr. StepHens. If they did that, what is your idea of the reason
for it?
Mr. Exxriorr. My idea—well, you can draw your own inference,
whether they did that to kill them, or not, or whether it was ignorance.
Draw your own inference. There is no report of their coming back in
their evidence.
Mr. McGutre. It is in Clark’s evidence.
Mr. Exxiorr. J did not find it in the testimony.
Mr. McGuire. And the report is that they came back since that
time. You heard that testimony.
The CHairmMan. Mr. Proctor’s testimony was that they were dead.
Mr. Parron. But he only saw one or two dead.
The Cuarrman. Let me ask you a question. When did Clark say
he came away from the islands in 1912?
Mr. Exxiotr. On the 8th of August.
The CuarrmMan. Then he made the statement that they were not
there, but they must have come later—was that not the way ?
Mr. Exiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. No. Here is his statement in substance, that they
had heard from the islands later and the reports from the islands,
from the natives, was that later they had returned in large numbers.
That is his statement and I will read it later.
Mr. Exrrorr. If you can find it in the notes, I can not. That is all
I have to say.
The CHarrman. Mr. Lembkey said that in 1903 the department
made an order prohibiting the branding of seals. Now, what I have
doubts about is why this branding was necessary in 1912 for the good
of the Government. And, if Mr. Elliott, or anybody else, can en-
lighten me I would like to hear about it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 731
Mr. Exxiorr. Did you want my opinion on it?
The CHarrMAan. Why should it be necessary for the good of the
Government? Was not this a closed season, as established by Con-
ress ?
- Mr. Extiorr. Yes.
The CHarRMAN. Then what good could come to the Government
by doing such a thing?
Mr. Exxtiorr. Not a particle of good.
Mr. McGuire. That is a matter of conjecture, a matter where
there might be a difference of opmion. Mr. Clark’s testimony is that
it was done for experimental purposes. His testimony shows clearly
that perhaps no man is better informed or has been there more
than he, and he stated that he wanted to determine definitely, for
all time, as to just what the pups did do, whether they did return
during the hauling season, and that it was done of that purpose.
Mr. Exxriorr. But his report in 1898 was that they do return, and
why does he want to do it over again.
Mr. McGuire. You have had hundreds of reports of different
kinds, some right and some wrong, just as you say, and you quote
those that you agree with——
Mr. Exriorr (interposing). No; J quote them all.
Mr. Patron. You can not take exception to a man changing his
opinion.
Mr. Extiotr. But he has not changed his opinion.
Mr. Patron. You have had to change your opinion ?
Mr. Exxiotr. I would like to whenever I make a mistake.
Mr. Patron. Because you made an assertion before the committee
in regard to the number of seals, and the report shows there were more.
Mr. Exxiorr. You have got that entirely wrong.
Mr. Parton. What did you say about the number up there ?
Mr. Exxiorr. [ said from their figures that if their census figures
were correct in 1904, there could not be a seal left alive in 1907 or
1908 (see Hearing No. 10, pp. 605-606, Apr. 24, 1912). However,
I am coming to that census; I] am going to take that up. I am
coming to that pup count, and I am glad you raised that point.
(Thereupon, by unanimous consent, a recess was taken until 10
o'clock, Thursday, March 12, 1914.)
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Hovusr oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, March 12, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT—Continued.
The CuarrMan. Mr. Elliott, you may proceed.
Mr. Exxiotr. Mr. Chairman, when we closed yesterday I had
reached that point where I described to you the method by which Mr.
Clark had fixed 6,000 pups in 1912 so that they could not get back to
the islands by June and July in 1913.
It seems, however, from the sworn testimony given to this commit-
- tee that Mr. Clark is not the first ‘‘expert”’ or ‘“‘man of long experi-
132 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
ence”’ to make that “‘discovery”’ that the pups do not return as year-
lings to the islands in June and July.
_ It seems that a man who has had more than twice the official experi-
ence enjoyed by Mr. Clark on the hauling grounds of the seal islands
became suddenly aware of the fact that he had been strangely ob-
peed ever since 1899, up to the season of 1907, about these yearling
seals.
‘As in ‘‘the added light”’ of all this experience (which Mr. Clark so
feelingly described in his case) Mr. W. I. Lembkey “‘discovers”’ that
the ‘‘slow-moving yearlings”’ can not keep up with the gravid cows,
theavy laden with their unborn young, when the return to the islands
is made by the latter by June 16 to July 25, annually. He therefore
solves the question without putting any hot irons on the gelatinous
skull plates of the newborn pups of 1906, by reporting their return in
1907, in his official capacity, as follows:
It is seen thus that yearlings really represent such an inconsiderable portion of the
catch of the sealing schooners that no deduction for the effects of sea killing need be
made in an estimate of their number.
This is readily explainable. They can not be taken in the sea during the summer
of their birth for the very plain reason that they are on land at that time, or have not
yet learned to swim beyond the borders of the rookeries on which they are born.
When afterwards in the late fall they do take to the sea for their first migration, pelagic
sealing has ceased for the year. They do not encounter it again until the following
spring.
Min ‘the spring, however, the fleet follows the main body of the herd, composed of
adult seals, which are accomplished swimmers and which for this reason have left
the slow-moving yearlings far behind. This is indicated plainly by the fact of the
arrival of the yearlings at the rookeries six weeks later than the main body of the herd.
(Report W. I. Lembkey, Sept. 9, 1907, Appendix A, p. 498.)
Mr. StrrHens. What time would that put the main body of the
herd there ?
Mr. Exxriorr. I am coming right toit. The main body of the herd
is there between the 4th and 25th of July.
But in 1912 the ‘‘slow-moving yearlings” do better—they all arrive
with the cows ‘“‘in a mass” by July 25.
But Lembkey, under oath, gets uneasy about his “discovery” of
1907—he faces cross-examination; he had not fixed any pups of the
year previous so that they could not return in June and July; he tells
the truth, finally, as below, to wit:
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 November | to 15 of each year, and then
depart southward.
Mr. STEPHENS. That js your contention ?
Mr. Exriotr. That is his statement denying his statement of 1907.
Mr. StrepHEens. What is the fact? Do they return with the herd ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; that is the truth, which he has told under
oath.
Mr. STEPHENS. That statement is correct ?
Mr. Evtiorr. Yes; they do. It was published 40 years ago.
Mr. StePHENS. That is borne out by the old evidence ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes. Then Mr. Lembkey says:
“These pups return to the islands’’
Mr. Patron (interposing). About what time ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 733
Mr. Exxiort. ‘In a mass about the 25th of July.” No scattering
ones, no ‘‘fragments.’”’ ‘These pups return to the islands the follow-
ing year ‘practically in a mass about the 25th of July,” and then are
known as yearlings.”
He comes right here, and under oath, he tells the truth; but, he
romances to the Secretary in 1907, about ‘‘the slow-moving year-
lings. Why, gentlemen, the yearlings are the most alert, smewy, lean
and muscular examples of the class. They can swim all around the
cows; jump over their backs, and dive under them, and they can and
do beat them to the islands. And they are the quickest, most active,
and alert on land. They lead all classes when a drive is made; they
show the least fatigue whether you go 1 mile, or 10 miles; and, in
the water they are the incarnation of active, restless movement,
climbing on the rocks, diving, and going like swallows on the wind
under the water. “Slow-moving yearlings.”’ He dropped that, when
he got here under oath, and he now tells the truth, to wit:
While a few individuals 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. bay
(Hearing No. 9, p. 413, March 11, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.)
Therefore, you observe, Mr. Chairman, that those pups of this year
have a habit of naturally getting back next year as yearlings, in.
company with their mothers, if they have not been prevented from
so doing by the pressure of red-hot irons on their soft heads, when they
were only 6 weeks or 2 months old.
The natives pick out yearlings on the hauling grounds during July
3 to 16, 1912; majority there are yearlings.
The presence of yearlings declared on the hauling grounds of St.
Paul (sland between July 3 to 16, 1912, by the selection of them as
“1 and 2 year olds’”’ made by the natives who know the classes as
well as they know the seals themselves.
Clark, to avoid this clear-cut proof of the fact that the yearlings
are not only present on the hauling grounds in July, from July 3 to
July 16, but are there in greater numbers than any other class,
jumbles the figures up with that given for the 2-year-olds and counts
yearlings and 2-year-olds in one sum total; he separates the 2-
year-olds from the 3-year-olds, however, which is a more difficult
task by far than that of separating the 2-year-olds from the yearlings,
if there is any difficulty at all, for an expert like those natives.
In 1912, 2,000 3-year-old seals were selected from the hauling
grounds on St. Pauls Island, and ‘“‘sheared”’ or “branded,” just as
they have been annually since the Hitchcock Rules of 1904 were
published.
Mr. Geo. W. Clark, in his report for 1912, has made a record of the
work of selecting these animals day after day as it was done, and
reported on the grounds. He has had occasion several times to say-
in regard to the knowledge possessed by the natives of the ages of
the seals, very much as Mr. Lembkey has testified, to wit:
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. Lempxey. I 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.
734 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
““Mr. GRosvENoR. That is all I wanted to know.
' “Mr. Lempxey. 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 from a 3-year-old, can they?
“Mr. LemBrey. By looking at him.
‘Mr. CrarK. By looking at him?
‘Mr. LemBKeEyY. Yes.
‘“Mr. CLtark. They are pretty expert.
‘Mr. NEEDHAM. Are these killers ‘natives’ ?
‘‘Mr. LemBKEY. Yes; they are natives. I can state positively that they arrive at
that degree of experience.”’
Upon their “expert knowledge” the following separation of the
young bachelor seals was made July 3-16, 1912: it shows an over-
whelming majority of ‘‘1 and 2-year-old”’ seals, and strangely enough
Clark, while he keeps the 3-year-olds, the 4-year-olds, and the 5-year-
olds apart in this list, he runs the “1 and 2 year olds” together—why ?
Why, when the 1-year-olds are the easiest to distinguish apart of any
one class! Note the following, on page 235 of his manuscript
report of 1912, to wit:
JULY 3.
Reef.—A drive was made this morning from reef to begin the marking of the breeding
reserve of 2,000 males, with the following result:
Animals chipped 222. s-22e2 S26 oi: .e dots S ads a St See ee 353
Rejections:
mala and:2 year). onset cin et se cette ratte ray ence os loka, tee eee 906
A-VOaT-OldS- 5s ee ncnemcsecgsceee see eet sag eee er sep ese ave eee 51
B-VOar-Old8s....-5.- 00 a sioeds oh senseless ce one stad steeaw ige ae eteleiers aera ea 33
G-year-olds. 22: s2gs25e. tease. ed oe SE ae eee 8
T-VO@ar=OlGB: ..wie sec e ened ecow esees Soci mine ee ooo Oe ee ee Oe eee 7
Motaldriven.<2 oo% oc. csc cc aie saws oe ase os tee ciara cee iat oe eee 1, 358
[Page 237.)
JULY 4.
A drive for marking seals was made this morning from Tolstoi and handled at the
head of the lagoon. Following are the results:
Glapped-3-vear-Olds..- tsecmae- Snes 2Bincing to oa =clom